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 · 9 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; all 9 also cleared it.

Sheaf Operations Exactness Ringed Spaces and Module Pullback - Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples isolate the first places where the new operations genuinely matter. Open immersions separate j! from j∗, skyscraper sheaves make stalkwise exactness visible, and the circle quotient example shows why sheafified cokernels are necessary.

The later examples keep the ringed-space block concrete. Continuous functions provide a locally ringed model, pullback is checked on free modules, and transition functions glue the basic line-bundle prototype.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

Direct image along an open immersion is restriction-compatible intersection

Example

Let j:U↪X be an open immersion, and let F be a sheaf on U. Then for every open set V⊆X one has

(j∗F)(V)=F(V∩U).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An open inclusion j:U↪X, a sheaf F on U, and an open set V⊆X.

[F1]

Direct image is computed by preimage opens: (j∗F)(V)=F(j−1(V)) (Direct image of a sheaf along a continuous map).

[F2]

Restriction to an open subspace is inverse image along the inclusion (Restriction of a sheaf to an open subspace).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

Because j is the inclusion of U into X, one has j−1(V)=V∩U.

2.1F1F2step 1.1∎

Substituting step 1.1 into [F1] gives (j∗F)(V)=F(V∩U). This is exactly the announced formula, and it is compatible with the restriction interpretation in [F2].

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

Extension by zero can be strictly smaller than direct image on a punctured interval

Statement refuted

For every open immersion j:U↪X and every sheaf of abelian groups F on U, one has j!F=j∗F.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The open immersion j:U=(−1,0)∪(0,1)↪X=(−1,1) and the constant sheaf Z‾ on U.

[F1]

For an open immersion, direct image is computed by intersection: (j∗Z‾)(V)=Z‾(V∩U) (Direct image along an open immersion is restriction-compatible intersection).

[F2]

Extension by zero consists of sections whose support is closed in the test open (Extension by zero for abelian sheaves on an open subspace).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1givenchoose

By [F1], the global section set of j∗Z‾ is (j∗Z‾)(X)=Z‾(U)≅Z×Z, because U has two connected components. Let s be the section that is 1 on both components.

2.1F2step 1.1

The germ of s is nonzero at every point of U, so its support is all of U. But U=(−1,0)∪(0,1) is not closed in X=(−1,1), since its closure contains 0. Therefore [F2] shows that s∉(j!Z‾)(X).

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Thus s lies in j∗Z‾ but not in j!Z‾, so the two sheaves are not equal. This refutes the statement.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

A short exact sequence of abelian groups gives a short exact sequence of skyscraper sheaves

Example

Let

0→A′→A→A′′→0

be a short exact sequence of abelian groups, and let x∈X. Then applying the skyscraper construction at x gives a short exact sequence of sheaves

0→ix,∗A′→ix,∗A→ix,∗A′′→0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A short exact sequence of abelian groups 0→A′→A→A′′→0 and a point x∈X.

[F1]

A stalk is the colimit of sections over neighbourhoods of the point, and for the skyscraper sheaf those section groups are A on neighbourhoods containing x and 0 on neighbourhoods omitting x (The stalk of a presheaf at a point, A skyscraper sheaf of abelian groups at a point).

[L1]

Exactness of a sequence of abelian sheaves is equivalent to exactness on every stalk (A sequence of abelian sheaves is exact exactly when it is exact on every stalk).

[L2]

Short exactness of the displayed sheaf sequence is exactness in the sense of sheaves (Exact sequences of sheaves).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1given

Fix a point y∈X. If every neighbourhood of y contains x, then [F1] shows that each stalk in the displayed skyscraper sequence is the original group at y, so the stalk sequence is exactly 0→A′→A→A′′→0. If some neighbourhood of y omits x, then every smaller neighbourhood also omits x, so [F1] makes all three stalks equal to 0 and the stalk sequence is 0→0→0→0. In either case the stalk sequence is exact.

2.1L1L2step 1.1∎

The stalk sequence is therefore exact at every point, so [L1] implies that the skyscraper sequence is exact as a sequence of sheaves. By [L2], this is exactly the claimed short exact sequence of skyscraper sheaves.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

Global sections need not preserve surjections

Statement refuted

If φ:F→G is an epimorphism of sheaves of abelian groups on a space X, then the induced map on global sections

Γ(X,F)→Γ(X,G)

is always surjective.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The circle X=S1.

[F1]

Global sections need not preserve epimorphisms in general (Global sections are left exact but need not preserve epimorphisms).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1construct

Let C be the sheaf of continuous real-valued functions on S1, and let Z‾ be the subsheaf of locally constant integer-valued functions. Let Q be the sheafification of the presheaf quotient V↦C(V)/Z‾(V). Every germ of Q is represented locally by a continuous function, so the canonical map C→Q is locally surjective and hence an epimorphism of sheaves.

1.2constructcontradiction

Cover the circle by the two arcs U0=S1∖{(−1,0)} and U1=S1∖{(1,0)}. Choose continuous angle functions θ0:U0→(−1/2,1/2) and θ1:U1→(0,1) with e2πiθi(z)=z. Their quotient classes agree on U0∩U1, because the difference θ1−θ0 is locally constant integer-valued there. Thus they glue to a section q∈Γ(S1,Q). If q came from a global continuous real function g, then g−θi would be an integer-valued continuous function on the connected set Ui, hence constant. On the two connected components of U0∩U1 this would force the same constant difference to be both 0 and 1, which is impossible. So Γ(S1,C)→Γ(S1,Q) is not surjective.

2.1F1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Therefore an epimorphism of sheaves can fail to become surjective on global sections. This is exactly the phenomenon asserted in [F1], so the statement is refuted.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

Continuous real-valued functions make a space into a locally ringed space

Example

For every topological space X, the sheaf CX0 of continuous real-valued functions makes (X,CX0) into a locally ringed space.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A topological space X.

[F1]

A ringed space is a space equipped with a sheaf of rings (A ringed space).

[F2]

Stalks are germs of neighbourhood sections (The stalk of a presheaf at a point).

[L1]

A locally ringed space is a ringed space whose stalks are local rings (A locally ringed space, A local ring is a nonzero commutative ring with a unique maximal ideal).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1given

The usual restriction of continuous functions makes U↦CX0(U) a sheaf of commutative rings on X, so [F1] gives a ringed space (X,CX0).

2.1F2L1given∎

Fix x∈X. By [F2], the stalk CX,x0 consists of germs of continuous real-valued functions near x. The germs vanishing at x form an ideal mx. If a germ is not in mx, it has a representative g with g(x)≠0, so continuity makes g nonzero on a smaller neighbourhood of x; hence 1/g is continuous there and defines an inverse germ. Therefore the nonunits are exactly the germs in mx, so mx is the unique maximal ideal. Thus CX,x0 is a local ring, and [L1] shows that (X,CX0) is locally ringed.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

A morphism of ringed spaces need not be a morphism of locally ringed spaces

Statement refuted

Every morphism of ringed spaces between locally ringed spaces is automatically a morphism of locally ringed spaces.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field k, the local ring A=k[y](y), and the field K=k(x).

[F1]

A morphism of ringed spaces between one-point spaces is exactly a ring map between their stalk rings (Morphisms of ringed spaces).

[F2]

A morphism of locally ringed spaces must induce local maps on stalks (Morphisms of locally ringed spaces).

[L1]

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1givenconstruct

Regard ({∗},A) and ({∗},K) as one-point ringed spaces. The assignment y↦x defines a ring homomorphism A→K, so by [F1] it defines a morphism of ringed spaces ({∗},K)⟶({∗},A).

2.1F2L1step 1.1

The unique maximal ideal of A is (y) by [L1], while the unique maximal ideal of the field K is 0. Under the stalk map A→K, the element y goes to the nonzero element x, hence to a unit of K. Therefore the image of (y) is not contained in 0, so the stalk map is not local. By [F2], the morphism is not a morphism of locally ringed spaces.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

This gives a morphism of ringed spaces between locally ringed spaces that is not locally ringed. The statement is false.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

Pullback carries a free module to the corresponding free module

Example

Let

(f,f♯):(X,OX)⟶(Y,OY)

be a morphism of ringed spaces. For every integer n≥0, one has a canonical isomorphism

f∗(OY n)≅OX n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A morphism of ringed spaces (f,f♯):(X,OX)→(Y,OY) and an integer n≥0.

[F1]

Pullback is defined by f∗G=OX⊗f−1OYf−1G (Pullback of a module along a morphism of ringed spaces).

[L1]

Pullback is a left adjoint and therefore preserves finite coproducts (Pullback of modules is left adjoint to pushforward).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The sheaf OY n is the finite direct sum of n copies of OY, with the case n=0 giving the zero sheaf. Since [L1] makes f∗ a left adjoint, it preserves these finite direct sums. Thus f∗(OY n)≅(f∗OY)n.

2.1F1step 1.1∎

Applying [F1] to G=OY gives f∗OY=OX⊗f−1OYf−1OY≅OX, because tensoring a module over a ring with the ring itself leaves the module unchanged. Substituting this into step 1.1 yields f∗(OY n)≅OX n.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

Units satisfying the cocycle law glue local rank-one free modules into a line bundle

Example

Let (X,OX) be a ringed space with an open cover X=⋃iUi. Suppose that for each pair (i,j) there is a unit

gij∈OX(Ui∩Uj)×

satisfying gii=1,gij=gji−1,gjkgij=gik on triple overlaps. Then the free rank-one modules OX∣Ui glue to a line bundle on X.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A ringed space (X,OX), an open cover X=⋃iUi, and units gij satisfying the displayed cocycle rules.

[F1]

An OX-module is a sheaf with compatible module structures on every open set (Modules on a ringed space).

[F2]

A gluing datum is given by overlap isomorphisms satisfying identity and cocycle conditions (A gluing datum for sheaves on an open cover).

[L1]

Compatible local sheaves glue uniquely up to unique isomorphism (Compatible local sheaves glue uniquely up to unique isomorphism).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1F2given

On Ui∩Uj, define φij:OX∣Ui∩Uj⟶OX∣Ui∩Uj,s⟼gijs. Because gij is a unit, φij is an isomorphism of OX-modules, and the rules for the gij are exactly the identity and cocycle conditions of [F2].

2.1L1step 1.1∎

By [L1], the local free rank-one modules OX∣Ui glue to an OX-module L on X with L∣Ui≅OX∣Ui for every i. Therefore L is locally free of rank one, i.e. a line bundle.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-05Open item page →

The objectwise cokernel presheaf can fail to be a sheaf

Statement refuted

For a morphism of sheaves of abelian groups, the objectwise cokernel presheaf is automatically a sheaf.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The circle X=S1, the sheaf C of continuous real-valued functions, and the subsheaf Z‾ of locally constant integer-valued functions.

[F1]

Cokernel sheaves are obtained by sheafifying the objectwise cokernel presheaf (Kernel sheaves are objectwise, while cokernels and images are sheafified).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1givenconstruct

Let P be the presheaf cokernel of the inclusion Z‾↪C, so P(V)=C(V)/Z‾(V) for each open V⊆S1. Cover S1 by the arcs U0=S1∖{(−1,0)} and U1=S1∖{(1,0)}, and choose continuous angle functions θ0:U0→(−1/2,1/2) and θ1:U1→(0,1) with e2πiθi(z)=z. On U0∩U1, the difference θ1−θ0 is locally constant integer-valued, so the classes [θ0]∈P(U0) and [θ1]∈P(U1) agree on the overlap.

2.1step 1.1contradiction

If these local classes came from a global class [g]∈P(S1), then on each arc Ui the difference g−θi would be integer-valued and continuous, hence constant because Ui is connected. On the two connected components of U0∩U1, this would force the same constant difference to be both 0 and 1, which is impossible. Therefore the compatible local classes of step 1.1 do not glue in the presheaf P.

3.1F1step 2.1∎

So the objectwise cokernel presheaf is not a sheaf. By [F1], this is exactly why one sheafifies it to obtain the true cokernel sheaf. The statement is false.

Sources