Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

Preservation, Cohen Forcing, and the Continuum: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The examples calculate a nice name for one Cohen coordinate, the dense sets producing a Levy-collapse surjection, and the restriction/union isomorphism that makes two Cohen coordinates mutually generic.

The false statement separates the two main preservation mechanisms: Cohen forcing is ccc, but its descending sequence of longer finite strings has no common lower bound, so ccc does not imply countable closure.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14Open item page →

A nice name for one Cohen coordinate

Statement

For ξ<λ, the canonical Add⁡(ω,λ)-name whose n-th antichain consists of conditions assigning value 1 at (ξ,n) is a nice name and evaluates to the set of 1-bits of cξ.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.

[F2]

Cohen, collapse, and Lévy-collapse forcing orders defines the finite-function order.

[F3]

Cohen coordinates are distinct and mutually generic defines cξ from the generic union.

Proof

1.1F1F2

For n∈ω, let An be the conditions p with p(ξ,n)=1 and no other coordinates in their domains. In this displayed canonical version An is the singleton containing {((ξ,n),1)}, hence an antichain; equivalently one may use any maximal antichain deciding that bit and retain only its value-1 part. Thus c˙ξ={⟨nˇ,p⟩:n∈ω,p∈An} is nice.

2.1F2F3∎

By name evaluation, n∈(c˙ξ)G exactly when some p∈G sets (ξ,n) to 1. Directedness makes this equivalent to (⋃G)(ξ,n)=1, which is precisely n∈cξ.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14Open item page →

The Lévy collapse of a regular uncountable cardinal

Statement

For regular uncountable θ, Lv⁡(θ) makes every α<θ countable while preserving θ, so θ is exactly the new ℵ1; the example displays the dense sets making each coordinate map ω onto α.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.

[F1]

Cardinal effects of collapse and Lévy-collapse forcing proves the general effect and preservation statement.

Proof

1.1F1

Fix 0<α<θ. For n∈ω let Dn={p:(α,n)∈dom⁡p}, and for β<α let Eβ={p:∃n p(α,n)=β}. Extend a finite condition at the requested coordinate, choosing a fresh n for Eβ, so both families are dense. A generic meets them all, and gα(n)=(⋃G)(α,n) is a surjection ω↠α.

2.1F1step 1.1∎

F1 gives θ-cc, hence preserves the cardinal θ. Since every infinite ordinal below it is countable by step 1.1, θ is the least uncountable cardinal in the extension, namely ℵ1.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14Open item page →

Two Cohen reals as mutually generic coordinates

Statement

Let M be a transitive ZFC model and let G be M-generic for Add⁡(ω,2). Write ci(n)=(⋃G)(i,n) for i<2. The forcing Add⁡(ω,2) is isomorphic to Add⁡(ω,1)×Add⁡(ω,1). Its coordinate reals satisfy M[c0,c1]=M[c0][c1]=M[c1][c0], and each is Cohen-generic over the extension by the other.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.

Proof

1.1F1

Map p to (r0,r1), where ri(0,n)=p(i,n) whenever (i,n)∈dom⁡p. Each ri is a condition in Add⁡(ω,1); conversely recover p from (r0,r1) by p(i,n)=ri(0,n). These maps are inverse and preserve reverse inclusion and compatibility. F1 applied to the partition 2={0}∪˙{1} yields the three model equalities and mutual genericity.

2.1F1∎

For distinctness, below any pair of finite conditions choose a fresh n and extend the first with bit 0 and the second with bit 1. The resulting dense set is met, so the coordinate-union definition in F1 gives c0(n)≠c1(n).

False statementConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-14Open item page →

Every ccc forcing is countably closed

False statement

Every ccc forcing is countably closed (σ-closed).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The hypotheses, objects, and conventions in the Statement.

[F1]

Closure and chain conditions of Cohen forcing proves that Add⁡(ω,1) is ccc.

Counterexample

1.1F1

Let P=Add⁡(ω,1). It is countable, hence ccc, as also recorded in F1. Define pn={((0,k),0):k<n}. Then pn+1≤pn, but a common lower bound would contain ⋃npn, an infinite function, and so would not be a condition. Therefore P is not countably closed.

2.1F1step 1.1∎

The explicit descending chain already refutes the claim without appealing to a B-page example. Under F1's strict <κ convention, its assertion that this forcing is ω-closed concerns only finite descending sequences and is not the advertised countable closure.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources