Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

Quiver Full Flag Projective Semisimplicity Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Objective. This companion page records the two boundary phenomena of the incidence construction of quiver-full-flag-projective-semisimplicity. The first example takes the loopless quiver with one vertex and no arrows and dim⁡V=n≥2: the representation space is a point, the incidence is the full flag variety of dimension n(n−1)/2, and the defect 2dim⁡(fiber)+dim⁡(image)−dim⁡Xν of the proper incidence map equals n(n−1)/2, so the map is not semismall; for n=0,1 the flag space is a point and the defect vanishes, exhibiting the exact boundary. The second example fixes two vertices with h≥0 parallel arrows between them and one-dimensional vertex spaces: the stable incidence is the point x=0 for the word (i,j) and all of Ch for the word (j,i), and the two line-projective compactifications are the point [0:1] inside Ph and the identity of Ph, so the whole multiplicity range including h=0 is visible in one computation.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

One-color quiver full flags need not be semismall

Example

Assume the Axiom of Choice as inherited from the cited geometry suppliers. Take the loopless quiver with a single vertex and no arrows, dim⁡V=n≥2, and its unique word. Then EV=0 and Xν=Flag⁡(V). The proper incidence map to the point need not be semismall: in this example its defect 2dim⁡(fiber)+dim⁡(image)−dim⁡Xν is positive.

Verification

Given: the loopless one-vertex quiver with no arrows, the space V of dimension n≥2, the unique word ν of content n, and the choice assumption of the Example.

1.1givenalgebra

There are no arrows, so EV=0, and the stability conditions of the incidence lemma Quiver full-flag incidence has a smooth projective compactification are vacuous; the lemma gives Xν=Flag⁡(V) as the total space of the rank-zero subbundle, of dimension n(n−1)/2, and the map πν is the constant map to the point EV=0, which is proper since it is projective.

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

The semismall inequality on a target stratum T with fibre dimension d is 2d+dim⁡T≤dim⁡Xν; here there is just the point stratum. The image of πν is the single point, and its single fiber is all of Xν, so the defect 2dim⁡(fiber)+dim⁡(image)−dim⁡Xν equals 2⋅n(n−1)/2+0−n(n−1)/2=n(n−1)/2, which is positive for n≥2; hence this proper incidence map is not semismall. For n=0 or n=1 the flag space is a point and the defect is zero, so the non-semismall boundary is exactly n≥2, and a general quiver-flag decomposition proof must allow this case.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Multiple-arrow incidence compactifications in dimension one at each vertex

Example

Assume the Axiom of Choice as inherited from the cited geometry suppliers. Take two vertices i,j, h≥0 arrows i→j, no other arrows, and βi=βj=1. Then EV=Ch. For the increasing word (i,j) the stable incidence is the point x=0; for the word (j,i) it is all of Ch.

Verification

Given: the two-vertex loopless quiver with h≥0 arrows i→j and βi=βj=1, the two words (i,j) and (j,i), and the choice assumption of the Example.

1.1givenalgebra

In either word the graded flag base is a single point, since the unique flag for (i,j) is 0⊂Vi⊂V and the unique flag for (j,i) is 0⊂Vj⊂V. There are no arrows other than i→j, and Hom⁡(Vi,Vj)=C, so EV=Ch, with coordinates the h arrow entries. For the word (i,j) the first line is Vi, and stability at r=1 forces xh(Vi)⊆Fj1=0, so every arrow coordinate vanishes and the subbundle rank is zero; for the word (j,i) the first line is Vj, stability at r=1 reads xh(Fi1)=xh(0)=0⊆Vj and at r=2 reads xh(Vi)⊆Vj, both automatic, so every arrow coordinate is free and the rank is h. These are the rank counts ∑h:i→j#{(p,q):νp=i,νq=j,q<p} of the incidence lemma Quiver full-flag incidence has a smooth projective compactification, namely 0 for (i,j) and h for (j,i).

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

The lemma's compactification adjoins a trivial line to the incidence subbundle, so the line-projective sources are Plines(0⊕O), a point over the flag point, and Plines(Ch⊕O), and the corresponding maps to Plines(Ch⊕C)=Ph are the point [0:1] and the identity Ph→Ph respectively. The inverse image of the affine chart t≠0 is, exactly as in the lemma, the total space of the subbundle over the flag point: the point x=0 in the first case and all of Ch in the second. For h=0 both words give the two point maps, so arbitrary multiplicity including the zero case is covered.

Sources