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.
External enhanced quotient criterion and localizing nonconnective K
PDF p. 7: Zariski locality; PDF p. 15: Localization diagram
Statement
Consider an actual sequence of exact functors between small stable infinity-categories, with zero composite and fully faithful first arrow. It is exact precisely when the induced functor is an equivalence after idempotent completion. Equivalently the actual enhanced quotient becomes an equivalence after idempotent completion. Here idempotent completion adjoins all retracts, and retains objects and homotopy classes of maps.
The BGT nonconnective functor used in the supplied K interface carries any such exact sequence to a cofiber, hence fiber, sequence of spectra. These sequences are functorial for diagrams of the given exact functors and their nullhomotopies.
Source contract
Given: Small stable categories and actual exact functors, with fixed universes; take in BGT.
Goal: Specify the model-independent enhanced localization criterion and nonconnective localizing property.
[F1] BGT Propositions 5.13–5.15 compare actual enhanced quotients and triangulated quotients. Finite-colimit preservation is exactly the hypothesis.
[F2] BGT Theorem 8.7 makes localizing, while Theorem 9.8 identifies naturally with .
External input
Import [F1] and [F2] with the recorded limits. Mapping spectra in a stable category preserve finite limits, and cofiber sequences are fiber sequences; therefore the displayed description in [F2] implies the localizing property. This is the nonconnective of BGT already chosen by Nonconnective K theory of perfect complexes. This input applies to an actual exact functor and never upgrades an unimplemented equivalence of triangulated categories to an infinity-functor.
Depends on
- Nonconnective K theory of perfect complexes
- Stable spectra and exact triangles
- The Axiom of Choice
- Andrew J. Blumberg, David Gepner and Gonçalo Tabuada, A universal characterization of higher algebraic K-theory · Definition 5.12, Proposition 5.13 and Proposition 5.14 pp. 35–36; Proposition 5.15 p. 36; Theorem 8.7 p. 55; Definition 9.6 and Theorem 9.8 p. 58; localizing invariant convention p. 4.
Dependency tree · 3 levels
Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to three dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.
External dependencies
For an actual sequence of exact functors between small stable infinity-categories, exactness is detected by the associated triangulated sequence: zero composite, full first inclusion and Verdier quotient equivalence after idempotent completion. Nonconnective K is naturally Map(U_loc(Sp^omega),U_loc(−)); U_loc sends exact sequences to cofiber sequences.
Hypotheses: Take kappa=omega: stable categories have finite colimits and exact functors preserve them. Categories are small relative to fixed universes (or essentially small via equivalent small models); quotient equivalence is only claimed after idempotent completion.
Reading limits: Read pp. 4, 33–37, 55 and 58, including Proposition 5.15 and its full proof and Theorem 8.7/9.8 statements. The proof of 9.8 and the construction of motives and quotient comparisons are imported, not reconstructed. The supplied nonconnective functor is the same BGT IK; connective K is not substituted.
Sources
- Andrew J. Blumberg, David Gepner and Gonçalo Tabuada, A universal characterization of higher algebraic K-theory · Definition 5.12, Proposition 5.13 and Proposition 5.14 pp. 35–36; Proposition 5.15 p. 36; Theorem 8.7 p. 55; Definition 9.6 and Theorem 9.8 p. 58; localizing invariant convention p. 4.