Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-06 (claude-opus-5)
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.

(a,b)=(c,d) if and only if a=c and b=d

Statement

For all sets a, b, c, d: (a,b)=(c,d) if and only if a=c and b=d.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: sets a, b, c, d.

[L1]
[L2]

{x,y} is the set whose elements are exactly x and y, and {x}:={x,x} (The unordered pair {x,y} and the singleton {x}={x,x}).

[L3]

{a,b}={c,d} ↔ ((a=c∧b=d)∨(a=d∧b=c)) ({a,b}={c,d} if and only if (a=c and b=d) or (a=d and b=c); in particular {a}={c,d} if and only if a=c=d).

Proof

technique · cases
1.1L1L2

Right to left: if a=c and b=d then {a}={c} and {a,b}={c,d}, so {{a},{a,b}} and {{c},{c,d}} are the same set, that is (a,b)=(c,d).

1.2L1L3

Left to right, setting up: assume {{a},{a,b}}={{c},{c,d}}. Applying the equality criterion for unordered pairs to these two sets, either {a}={c} and {a,b}={c,d}, or {a}={c,d} and {a,b}={c}.

2.1assume-case firststep 1.2L2L3

In the first alternative, {a}={c} reads {a,a}={c,c} and gives a=c. Then {a,b}={c,d} gives a=c and b=d, or a=d and b=c; in the second of these b=c=a=d, so b=d holds as well. Either way a=c and b=d.

2.2assume-case secondstep 1.2L2L3

In the second alternative, {a,b}={c} reads {a,b}={c,c} and gives a=c and b=c, while {a}={c,d} reads {a,a}={c,d} and gives a=c and a=d. Hence a=c and b=c=a=d.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2cases-exhaustive

The two alternatives supplied by step 1.2 are exhaustive, so the left-to-right implication holds.

4.1step 1.1step 3.1∎

Both implications hold, which is the statement.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources