How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Inverse image is left adjoint to direct image on sheaves
Statement
Let be a continuous map, let be a sheaf on , and let be a sheaf on . Then there is a natural bijection
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A continuous map , a sheaf on , and a sheaf on .
The direct image satisfies (Direct image of a sheaf along a continuous map).
The inverse image is the sheafification of the neighbourhood-colimit presheaf (Inverse image presheaf and inverse image sheaf).
A morphism from a presheaf to a sheaf factors uniquely through the sheafification (Sheafification is left adjoint to the inclusion of sheaves into presheaves).
Proof
Let be a sheaf morphism. By [F2] and [L1], corresponds uniquely to a presheaf morphism .
Conversely, let be a sheaf morphism. For an open , represent an element of by a pair with and , and define where the restriction is taken from to . If and represent the same colimit class, then on some smaller open neighbourhood of one has , so . Thus is well defined and natural in .
For an open set and a section , let denote its class in , and define If , naturality of shows , so the define a morphism .
By [F2] and [L1], the presheaf morphism factors uniquely through a sheaf morphism .
The constructions of steps 2.1 and 2.2 are inverse, because both are recovered from the same formula on representative classes . Therefore naturally in both sheaves.