Alphabeta Math
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.

✓ 9 results · all verified · 8 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 1 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Presheaves Sheaves Stalks and Sheafification - Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples keep the page grounded in the first concrete phenomena that make sheaf theory necessary. Continuous and locally constant functions show gluing working as intended, while bounded functions, constant presheaves, and objectwise images show exactly where presheaf data can fail to glue globally.

The remaining examples make the local picture visible: skyscraper sheaves and empty-outside extensions isolate support conditions, and the germ examples show why one stalk need not determine a section in general while all stalks together often do.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Continuous real-valued functions form a sheaf

Example

For each open set U⊆X, let C0(U,R):={f:U→R continuous}. With the usual restriction of functions, this is a sheaf of sets on X.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An open cover U=⋃i∈IUi of an open set U.

[L1]

A sheaf is exactly a presheaf with locality and unique gluing on every open cover (A sheaf on a topological space).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

Restriction of a continuous function is continuous, so U↦C0(U,R) is a presheaf. If two continuous functions on U agree on every Ui, then they agree pointwise on all of U because the Ui cover U.

2.1L1givenconstruct∎

Let fi∈C0(Ui,R) be compatible on overlaps. Define f:U→R by f(x)=fi(x) for any i with x∈Ui. Compatibility makes this well defined, and continuity is local on the open cover because f∣Ui=fi is continuous for each i. Thus [L1] holds.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Locally constant functions form a sheaf and have constant stalks

Example

Fix a set A. For each open set U⊆X, let A‾loc(U):={f:U→A locally constant}. With the usual restriction maps, this is a sheaf of sets on X. For every x∈X, evaluation at x induces a canonical bijection A‾loc,x≅A.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A set A, an open set U⊆X, and a point x∈X.

[L1]

The sheaf condition is locality and unique gluing on open covers (A sheaf on a topological space).

[F1]

The stalk at x is the colimit of sections on neighbourhoods of x (The stalk of a presheaf at a point).

[F2]

The germ of a section is its class in that stalk (Germs of sections).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1givenconstruct

Restriction preserves local constancy. If two locally constant functions on U agree on an open cover, then they agree pointwise on U. If locally constant functions fi:Ui→A are compatible on an open cover of U, the pointwise glued function f is well defined and locally constant because near any point it agrees with one of the local functions fi. Hence [L1] holds and A‾loc is a sheaf.

2.1F1F2given∎

Define ϵx:A‾loc,x→A by ϵx([U,f])=f(x). This is well defined because equal germs agree on some neighbourhood of x, hence have the same value at x. Every a∈A is the value at x of the constant function a on any neighbourhood of x, so ϵx is surjective. If ϵx([U,f])=ϵx([V,g]), then f(x)=g(x). Since both functions are locally constant, there is a neighbourhood W of x on which f and g are both constantly this common value, so [U,f]=[V,g]. Therefore ϵx is bijective.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Bounded continuous functions need not form a sheaf

Statement refuted

The assignment U⟼Cb0(U,R):={f:U→R continuous and bounded} with the usual restriction maps is a sheaf on R.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The presheaf Cb0(−,R) on R.

[F1]

Restriction of a bounded continuous function is again bounded and continuous, so this is a presheaf (A presheaf on a topological space).

[L1]

A sheaf must glue every compatible local family to a global section (A sheaf on a topological space).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1givenconstruct

For each integer n≥1, let Un:=(−n,n) and let sn:Un→R be the identity function sn(x)=x. Each sn lies in Cb0(Un,R) because Un is bounded.

2.1step 1.1given

If m≤n, then sn∣Um=sm, so the family (sn) is compatible on the open cover R=⋃n≥1Un.

3.1L1step 2.1∎

Any glued section on R would have to equal the identity function x↦x, because it agrees with each sn on Un. But x↦x is not bounded on R, so it does not lie in Cb0(R,R). This violates the gluing requirement in [L1]. Therefore the stated presheaf is not a sheaf.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The constant presheaf need not be a sheaf on a disconnected open set

Statement refuted

Fix a set A with distinct elements a≠b. The constant presheaf A‾pre on a space X, defined by A‾pre(U)={A,U≠∅,{∗},U=∅. with identity restrictions between nonempty opens and the unique restriction to the empty open, is always a sheaf.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A space X containing a disconnected open set U=U1⊔U2 with U1,U2≠∅, and a set A with a≠b.

[F1]

Identity restriction maps define a presheaf on X (A presheaf on a topological space).

[F2]

The sheafification aF of a presheaf is defined by the double plus construction (Sheafification of a presheaf).

[F3]

The plus construction identifies germ-compatible local presentations when their germs agree at every point (The plus construction for a presheaf).

[L1]

Locally constant A-valued functions form a sheaf (Locally constant functions form a sheaf and have constant stalks).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1givenconstruct

By [F1], A‾pre is a presheaf. On the disjoint cover U=U1∪U2, choose the local sections s1:=a∈A‾pre(U1) and s2:=b∈A‾pre(U2). Both restrict to the unique element of A‾pre(∅), so the pair is compatible on U1∩U2=∅.

2.1step 1.1given

A glued section over U would have to be an element s∈A whose restrictions to the two nonempty opens are a and b. Those restriction maps are identities, so this would force s=a=b, contradicting the choice a≠b. Therefore A‾pre is not a sheaf.

3.1F3givenstep 2.1construct

Write P=A‾pre. At any point x, two constant sections on neighbourhoods of x have equal germs exactly when their values in A agree: restriction to a smaller neighbourhood is the identity. Thus a germ-compatible presentation for P+(V) assigns a constant value on each nonempty chart, with equal values wherever two charts meet. These values define a locally constant function on V. Equivalent presentations define the same function, and presentations defining the same function are equivalent pointwise. Every locally constant function has such a presentation by constant neighbourhoods. For V=∅, all presentations are equivalent and correspond to the unique empty function. These bijections commute with restriction, so P+≅A‾loc.

4.1F2F3L1step 3.1∎

For any sheaf G, germ-compatible local sections agree on each overlap: equality of germs gives equality on a neighbourhood of each point, and sheaf locality gives equality on the whole overlap. They therefore glue uniquely to a section of G(V). This gluing identifies G+(V) with G(V), including the empty open, naturally in V. Apply this to the sheaf G=A‾loc from [L1]. Step 3.1 then gives aP=P++≅(A‾loc)+≅A‾loc; the single-chart unit sends a constant section to its constant function.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A set-valued skyscraper sheaf and its stalks

Example

Fix a point x0∈X and a set A. Define a presheaf Sx0,A by Sx0,A(U)={A,x0∈U,{∗},x0∉U, with identity restrictions between opens containing x0 and the unique map to {∗} when the target does not contain x0. Then Sx0,A is a sheaf. Its stalk at x0 is canonically A, and its stalk at any y∈X with an open neighbourhood V satisfying x0∉V is the singleton {∗}. In particular, this holds for every y≠x0 in a T1 space.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A point x0∈X, a set A, and a point y∈X. For the second stalk computation, also assume y has an open neighbourhood V with x0∉V.

[L1]

The sheaf condition is locality and unique gluing on open covers (A sheaf on a topological space).

[F1]

Stalks are colimits over neighbourhoods, and germs are represented by local sections (The stalk of a presheaf at a point, Germs of sections).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

If an open set U does not contain x0, then every section of Sx0,A(U) is the unique element ∗, so locality and gluing are trivial. If x0∈U and U=⋃iUi, then at least one Ui contains x0. Compatibility forces all sections on such Ui to be the same element of A, and every Uj not containing x0 contributes only the unique section ∗. Thus there is a unique glued section on U. Therefore [L1] holds and Sx0,A is a sheaf.

1.2F1given

For the stalk at x0, every neighbourhood of x0 has section set A and every transition map is the identity on A. Hence the colimit in [F1] is canonically A.

2.1F1given∎

If y has an open neighbourhood V with x0∉V, then every smaller neighbourhood of y inside V also has section set {∗}. Hence the stalk diagram is eventually constant at {∗}, so [F1] gives (Sx0,A)y≅{∗}.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Sections on an open subset extended by the empty set outside it

Example

Fix an open subset W⊆X. Define a presheaf EW on X by EW(V)={{∗},V⊆W,∅,V⊈W. Then EW is a sheaf of sets on X. It is the simplest example of data carried on an open subset and extended by no sections outside that subset.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An open subset W⊆X and an open cover V=⋃i∈IVi.

[L1]

A sheaf is a presheaf with locality and unique gluing on every open cover (A sheaf on a topological space).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

If V⊆W, then every Vi⊆W has the unique section ∗, and the only possible glued section on V is again ∗. If V⊈W, choose x∈V∖W. Some cover member Vi contains x, so Vi⊈W and EW(Vi)=∅. Hence there is no compatible family of local sections on this cover. In either case the gluing and uniqueness clauses in [L1] are satisfied.

2.1step 1.1construct∎

Restriction maps are forced: from {∗} to {∗} they are the identity, and into ∅ there is only the empty function from ∅. Thus EW is a presheaf, and step 1.1 shows it is a sheaf.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The objectwise image of a sheaf morphism need not be a sheaf

Statement refuted

For every morphism of sheaves of sets, the objectwise image presheaf is already a subsheaf of the target.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The sheaf morphism exp⁡:C0(−,R)⟶C0(−,S1),exp⁡U(f)(z)=e2πif(z), on the circle X=S1.

[F1]

A subsheaf must in particular be a sheaf (Subsheaves).

[L1]

The image sheaf is obtained by sheafifying the objectwise image presheaf (The image sheaf is the sheafification of the presheaf image).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1givenchooseconstruct

Let U1=S1∖{(−1,0)} and U2=S1∖{(1,0)}. These open arcs cover S1. On each Ui choose a continuous argument θi:Ui→R with e2πiθi(z)=z. Therefore the identity map id⁡S1 restricts to sections in the objectwise image presheaf on both U1 and U2.

2.1step 1.1given

On the overlap U1∩U2, both local sections are equal to the same target section id⁡S1∣U1∩U2, so they are compatible.

3.1step 2.1given

Suppose id⁡S1 lay in the global objectwise image. Then there would be a continuous f:S1→R with e2πif(z)=z for every z∈S1. Writing z=e2πit with t∈[0,1], the function g(t):=f(e2πit)−t is continuous and integer valued, hence constant. So f(e2πit)=t+n for some fixed integer n. Evaluating at t=0 and t=1 gives two values of f at the same point 1∈S1, namely n and n+1, a contradiction. Thus id⁡S1 is not in the global objectwise image.

4.1F1L1step 3.1∎

Steps 1.1 to 3.1 give compatible local sections in the image presheaf that do not glue globally, so the objectwise image is not a sheaf and hence not a subsheaf by [F1]. By [L1], its sheafification is the correct image sheaf.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Distinct continuous functions can share one germ, but equal germs everywhere force equality

Example

On the sheaf of continuous real-valued functions on R, the zero function and the function g(x)=max⁡(1−∣x−2∣,0) have the same germ at 0 but are not equal globally. On the other hand, if two continuous functions on an open set U have the same germ at every point of U, then they are equal.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Continuous functions f,g:U→R on an open set U.

[F1]

Two germ representatives are equal exactly when they agree on a smaller neighbourhood (Equality on a smaller neighbourhood defines the germ equivalence relation).

[L1]

Sheaf morphisms are determined by stalk maps (Morphisms of sheaves are determined by their maps on stalks).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1given

The function g vanishes on the neighbourhood (−1,1) of 0, so its germ at 0 equals the germ of the zero function by [F1]. But g(2)=1, so the two functions are not equal globally.

1.2F1given

If fx=gx for every x∈U, then [F1] gives for each x an open neighbourhood Vx⊆U on which f∣Vx=g∣Vx. The sets Vx cover U, so f and g agree at every point of U and hence are equal.

2.1L1step 1.1step 1.2∎

This pointwise-germ criterion is the section-level instance behind [L1]: one stalk does not determine a section, but all stalks together do.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The empty space has a unique sheaf section over the empty open set

Example

Let X=∅. Then the only open set is ∅, and every sheaf F on X has exactly one section over that open set.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A sheaf F on the empty space.

[F1]

A topology on the underlying set ∅ has only one open subset, namely ∅ (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison).

[L1]

A sheaf has a unique section over the empty open set (A set-valued sheaf has a unique section over the empty open set).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1given

By [F1], there is no open set to consider except ∅, so the whole presheaf data of F is just the set F(∅) together with its identity restriction map.

2.1L1step 1.1∎

By [L1], this set F(∅) is a singleton. Therefore every sheaf on the empty space has exactly one section over its only open set.

Sources