Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-generatedProof: AI-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.

Every standard expression counts the same parallel classes

Statement

Every article morphism w has a standard expression. If a standard expression for w has m factors, then m=∣C(w)∣, using the reversed root-action arrow with the same label.

Facts & Assumptions

[F2]

For a group generated by a set S, word length in S∪S−1 satisfies ∣xy∣S≤∣x∣S+∣y∣S (Word length is defined on every element and satisfies the subadditivity, inversion and vanishing laws, Proof, step 2.1). The Coxeter simple generators generate W and are involutions, so this word length equals the Coxeter length ℓ of Standard expressions and their lengths, even when S is infinite.

Proof

Given: The stated Coxeter and groupoid data and the declared mathematical prerequisites.

Goal: Establish existence of standard expressions and the factor-count assertion.

1.1F1

Reverse the factorization supplied by Independent arbitrary-rank factorization and simple-class inputs using Transfer to the root-action Brink–Howlett groupoid. The latter identifies its generators with article elementary labels and preserves the label product. Thus the reversed sequence is composable in the article convention and remains Coxeter-length additive. It is a standard expression by Standard expressions and their lengths, proving existence.

1.2F1F2

Let w=v1⋯vm be any standard expression with m>0, and put p0=1 and pk=v1⋯vk for 1≤k≤m. Repeated subadditivity from [F2] gives ℓ(w)≤ℓ(pk)+∑i=k+1mℓ(vi)≤∑i=1mℓ(vi)=ℓ(w). Both inequalities are therefore equalities, so ℓ(pk)=∑i=1kℓ(vi). This also holds for k=0, since the empty word has length zero. Consequently ℓ(pk−1vk)=ℓ(pk−1)+ℓ(vk) for every 1≤k≤m.

2.1F1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Reverse these arrows into B, preserving their label products by Transfer to the root-action Brink–Howlett groupoid. Apply Compressed inversion count is additive for Coxeter-reduced composites to each composable pair with labels pk−1,vk, whose lengths add by step 1.2. Since N(1)=∅ by the positive and negative root convention, C(p0)=∅; induction gives ∣C(w)∣=∑i=1m∣C(vi)∣. Each vi is a Brink–Howlett generator by the opposite identification, and Independent arbitrary-rank factorization and simple-class inputs gives ∣C(vi)∣=1. Hence ∣C(w)∣=m. If m=0, the standard expression is the identity and both counts are zero. The count therefore depends only on the labelled morphism, with no rank assumption.

Depends on

Used by · 7

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Each result is drawn at its shortest distance from this item. Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them; this item has a heavier outline. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to two dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.