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.
Local finiteness of the interior relative arrangement
PDF p. 2: Proposition 3.6; PDF p. 9: Proposition 3.6
Statement
Let be finite, its Coxeter group, , and use the relative space , Tits cone intersection , and set of distinct relative hyperplanes from Tits cone intersections, relative roots and arrangements. The interior is taken in . Every has an open ball in meeting only finitely many hyperplanes of . In particular is locally finite, with the hyperplane set restricted to the members meeting .
Facts & Assumptions
For every , Finite pair separation yields a finite relative ball supplies such that the relative Euclidean ball is contained in and meets only finitely many distinct members of .
The full Tits cone is convex by clause (4) of The finite-negativity criterion, the reduction step, and convexity of the Tits cone. The relative cone is its intersection with the linear subspace , and is its interior in the relative Euclidean topology (Tits cone intersections, relative roots and arrangements).
An arrangement is locally finite when each point of its underlying set has an open neighbourhood meeting only finitely many of its distinct hyperplanes. Restriction to a convex subset retains precisely the hyperplanes meeting that subset (Linear hyperplane arrangements and local finiteness).
Proof
Given: The finite-rank Coxeter system, subset , relative space, cone intersection and relative hyperplanes in the Statement.
Goal: Prove the finite-ball assertion and local finiteness of the restricted interior arrangement.
Proof technique: direct.
Let . By [F1], there is such that and this ball meets only finitely many members of . Since it is open in and contained in , it is an open ball in the subspace . This proves the first assertion.
The intersection of the convex full Tits cone with the linear subspace is convex, so is convex. If , choose positive radii with . For , every vector of norm less than can be written as with and , by taking to be that vector divided by and multiplied by the respective radius. Convexity therefore gives a ball about contained in ; the endpoints are already interior. Thus is convex.
For each , the ball in step 1.1 is open in and contained in , hence is contained in . It is consequently an open neighbourhood of in and meets only finitely many hyperplanes in the restricted set . By [F3], the restricted arrangement is locally finite.
Source notes
The article is cited for attribution of the retained proposition. The finite-ball lemma proves the needed relative statement using finite separation of Tits-cone points; this proof does not use the proposition itself or assume local finiteness of the relative arrangement.
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 pp. 2 and 9; Proposition 3.6