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.
Segment intersections and the inversion bound
PDF p. 8: Lemma 3.5, proof paragraphs 2–7
Statement
Let be a finite-rank Coxeter system with its real reflection representation on , roots , positive roots , dual space , contragredient action, closed fundamental chamber , Tits cone , and set of distinct root hyperplanes, where . Write for Coxeter word length. For put and . A hyperplane separates and when the values of a defining linear functional at them have opposite strict signs.
A hyperplane separates and if and only if consists of one point and does not contain . If , and , then . For arbitrary , the set is finite.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
The roots have exactly one of the signs and , and for every . Root-sign and inversion-length facts
Every positive root is a nonnegative linear combination of simple roots. The closed chamber consists of functionals nonnegative on all simple roots, and is the union of its -translates. Reflecting hyperplanes, fundamental chamber and Tits cone Root-sign and inversion-length facts
The dual action satisfies ; the roots are stable under the -action. Real Coxeter representation and contragredient notation
Separation means opposite strict signs for a nonzero linear functional defining the hyperplane. Separation by a hyperplane
The Tits cone is convex. Basic Tits-cone properties
Proof
Given: The finite-rank Coxeter system, representation, chamber, hyperplanes, endpoints and segment notation of the Statement.
Proof technique: direct.
Goal: Prove the separation equivalence, the length bound and finiteness of the specified intersection points.
Segment criterion. If , the open segment is empty and no hyperplane separates the two points, so the equivalence holds. Otherwise, for a defining nonzero linear functional of , its value along the segment is . This affine function has a zero at exactly one precisely when its endpoint values have opposite strict signs: if it is nonconstant, the zero is , and this lies strictly between and exactly under that sign condition; if it is constant, it has either no zeros or all points as zeros. Thus the stated intersection condition is equivalent to separation. Convexity also ensures .
Count all crossings between two specified chamber translates. Suppose and . For a separating hyperplane choose a positive root defining it, possible by [F1]. By [F2], , so the strict opposite-sign condition gives and . Write with . By [F3], . If were positive, [F2] would make this value nonnegative. The root-sign dichotomy therefore makes negative. Hence every separating hyperplane has a representative in the inversion set . The map from that finite root set to its hyperplanes need not be invoked as injective: the number of separating hyperplanes is at most the number of roots in the set, namely .
Fixed point and arbitrary endpoints. If and , then cannot contain , since and the open segment contains more than one point. By 1.1 it separates the endpoints, so 2.1 gives the stated bound. For arbitrary endpoints choose with and , and put , , and . Then and . The invertible linear map carries segments to segments and permutes : by [F3], , and roots are stable under . Consequently 2.1 gives only finitely many separating hyperplanes for . Every point in the final displayed set arises from such a hyperplane by 1.1, and each such hyperplane contributes one point; hence that set is finite. This proves all assertions.
Source notes
The article is cited for attribution of the claims. The local proof counts all separating hyperplanes directly using inversions; it does not rely on the article proof's converse sign implication at boundary points or its induction on chamber length.
Depends on
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.
Sources
- Normalisers of parabolic subgroups of Artin–Tits groups and Tits cone intersections · PDF p. 8, Lemma 3.5 and its proof