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.

Disjoint translates of invariant Salvetti cover members

Statement

For the invariant cover of Natural finite Salvetti good covers, assume the finite diagonal action on M is free. Every cover member satisfies U(F,C)∩gU(F,C)=∅ for g≠1.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

The finite arrangement, finite linear group G, complement M, and invariant cover {U(F,C)} are those of Natural finite Salvetti good covers. In particular gU(F,C)=U(gF,gC), and distinct cover members intersect only when their incident-pair indices form a chain.

[F2]

Incident pairs form the partial order P(A) of The incident facet and chamber poset, with its reflexivity, transitivity and antisymmetry.

[F3]

Under the present hypotheses, g(F,C)=(gF,gC) acts by order automorphisms on P(A), by Linear symmetries act on the Salvetti model, applied with I=E.

[F4]

Since the diagonal action on M is free, Free complement actions have trivial incident-pair stabilizers gives g(F,C)=(F,C)⟹g=1.

Proof

Given: The finite group action, invariant cover, incident-pair order and trivial pair stabilizers in [F1]–[F4]. Goal: Prove that distinct translates of each individual cover member are disjoint.

Proof technique: direct.

1.1F1F2

Suppose U(F,C)∩gU(F,C)≠∅ and put p=(F,C). Naturality identifies the second member as U(gF,gC). The chain criterion, or reflexivity if the indices coincide, implies that p and gp are comparable in P(A).

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1

Choose h=g if p≤gp. Otherwise gp≤p, so applying the order automorphism g−1 gives p≤g−1p; in this case choose h=g−1. Thus p≤hp. Because G is finite, two powers ha,hb with a<b agree, giving hb−a=1; put m=b−a≥1. Applying successive powers of the order automorphism h gives p≤hp≤⋯≤hmp=p. Transitivity and antisymmetry therefore give p=hp, including when m=1. Since h is g or g−1, it follows that gp=p.

3.1F4step 2.1∎

The trivial pair-stabilizer conclusion now gives g=1. Consequently a nonidentity g cannot satisfy U(F,C)∩gU(F,C)≠∅, which proves the assertion.

Depends on

Used by · 1

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.