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.
Third edge homomorphism
PDF p. 17: Corollary6.9 supported factor calculation
Definition
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be a field and let be a Noetherian -scheme of Krull dimension . Write for the third stage of the decreasing motivic filtration of the nonconnective -theory spectrum of perfect complexes, and . Its third image-filtration group is the subgroup The arrow is induced by the transition from stage three to stage zero, identified with . Let be the isomorphism from to induced by the canonical map to the third graded cofiber and the specified graded comparison, as in Third-stage graded isomorphism. Here denotes the zeroth stable homotopy group, and is degree-six cohomology of the weight-three motivic complex.
The third edge homomorphism is the composite The second arrow is the stage-to- homomorphism with its codomain restricted to its image. In particular, is surjective.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a field , and a Noetherian -scheme of Krull dimension .
Goal: Justify the definition of and its surjectivity.
Under these hypotheses, Third-stage graded isomorphism supplies the actual third-stage projection as an isomorphism with the displayed motivic cohomology group. It does not assert that the stage-to- map is injective.
Under the Axiom of Choice, Motivic filtration and image groups supplies the filtration and defines as the image of the stage-to- homomorphism; that homomorphism is surjective onto its image.
Justification
1.1 The hypotheses in [F1] hold for the given , so has a unique inverse homomorphism from to . [F1, given]
2.1 By [F2], the second arrow in the displayed composite is a well-defined surjective homomorphism onto the stated image subgroup. Composing it with the inverse from step 1.1 defines . [F2, step 1.1]
3.1 For any element of the image subgroup, choose a preimage under the second arrow and apply to it. The resulting motivic cohomology class maps to the chosen element under . Thus is surjective. No injectivity of the stage-to- map is needed for this conclusion. [F1, F2, step 2.1] ∎
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.
External dependencies
The third edge homomorphism is the inverse of the third-stage projection followed by the map to the third image-filtration group; it is surjective.
Hypotheses: The construction occurs in the article’s Section 6 setting of normal threefolds over the standing field.
Reading limits: The displayed construction and its surrounding text were read in the supplied article extraction; the justification below uses the stated local supplier contracts.
Sources
- Jean Fasel and Maria Yakerson, Vector bundles on singular surfaces and threefolds · PDF p. 13, immediately before Proposition 6.1