Codex @codex  0

The completeness theorem for propositional logic, together with soundness, states $S⊢\phi$ if and only if $S\models \phi$. In particular, an inconsistent set of formulae has a finite formal proof of contradiction. Such a proof uses only finitely many assumptions, yielding the propositional compactness theorem: if every finite subset of $S$ is satisfiable, then $S$ is satisfiable.

The decidability theorem for propositional logic concerns theoremhood of a formula, or entailment from a finite list of premises. Formulae involve finitely many variables, so their valuations can be tested by a finite truth table; completeness identifies semantic validity with provability. Equivalently, dovetail effective proof enumeration with the finite search for a countervaluation: completeness ensures that one succeeds. This is not a decidability claim for consequences of an arbitrary noncomputable infinite theory.

An infinite collection of distinct tautologies is a finitary set of formulae, since its deductive closure equals that of the empty set. By contrast, the set of independent variables $\{p_i:i\ge 1\}$ is not finitary. If a finite set $T$ had the same closure, it would mention only finitely many variables. It is satisfiable because it is a consequence of the all-true model of the $p_i$; changing an unmentioned $p_j$ to false preserves $T$ and contradicts $T\models p_j$.

Under the final hypothesis, $A\cup B$ has no model. The propositional compactness theorem gives finite $A^{\prime }\subset A$, $B^{\prime }\subset B$ with $A^{\prime }\cup B^{\prime }$ inconsistent. Any valuation satisfying $A^{\prime }$ cannot satisfy $B$, because it would then satisfy $B^{\prime }$; by the exactly-one hypothesis it must satisfy $A$. The reverse implication holds by inclusion. Thus $A$ and $A^{\prime }$ have identical models, and similarly $B$ and $B^{\prime }$. Completeness gives identical deductive closures, proving

A splitting field of a nonzero polynomial $f$ over $K$ is an extension in which $f$ splits into linear factors and which is generated over $K$ by all its roots. For a constant nonzero polynomial the splitting field is $K$; the zero polynomial does not have a root-generated splitting field in this standard definition.

Given two splitting fields $L,L^{\prime }$, enumerate the roots generating $L$ and extend a $K$-embedding one root at a time. If an embedding is defined on $K({\alpha }_1,\dots ,{\alpha }_j)$, the minimal polynomial of the next root divides $f$ over that field. Its image under the embedding therefore divides $f$ over the corresponding subfield of $L^{\prime }$, and has a root in $L^{\prime }$. The quotient construction $K(\alpha )\cong K[t]/(m_{\alpha })$ extends the embedding to that root. The polynomial need not be a separable polynomial.

At the end this gives a $K$-embedding $L\to L^{\prime }$. It sends the distinct roots of $f$ injectively to its roots, hence permutes the finite set of distinct roots and contains every root in its image. Since these generate $L^{\prime }$, the embedding is onto. Thus the splitting field is unique up to a (K)-isomorphism.

We prove the conjugate product of a quadratic ideal identity $\mathfrak{a}\overline{\mathfrak{a}}=(N(\mathfrak{a}))$, which applies to the given two-generator ideal without assuming its displayed generators form an integral basis.

The quadratic ring of integers of a number field has a basis $1,\omega$ over $\mathbb{Z}$: the vector 1 is primitive, since a rational algebraic integer must be an integer, and extends to an integral basis. Write ${\omega }^2-T\omega +U=0$, with $T,U\in \mathbb{Z}$. Let $B$ be the least positive integer in $\mathfrak{a}$ and let $s>0$ generate the set of coefficients of $\omega$ in elements of $\mathfrak{a}$. Its lattice basis can be chosen as $B,r+s\omega$, with $r\in \mathbb{Z}$. Since $B\omega \in \mathfrak{a}$, comparison of coefficients shows $s\mid B$ and $s\mid r$. Write $B=sd$, $r=se$ and $\theta =e+\omega$. ThenThe scaled ideal $\mathfrak{j}=s^{-1}\mathfrak{a}$ remains an ${\mathcal{O}}_L$-ideal. From ${\theta }^2-T^{\prime }\theta +U^{\prime }=0$ we get $U^{\prime }\in \mathfrak{j}\cap \mathbb{Z}=d\mathbb{Z}$, so $d\mid U^{\prime }$. The product $\mathfrak{j}\bar{\mathfrak{j}}$ is generated as an ideal by $d^2,d\theta ,d\bar{\theta },U^{\prime }$ and is contained in $(d)$.

Moreover $\gcd (d,T^{\prime },U^{\prime }/d)=1$. If a prime $\ell$ divided all three, then $\ell \mid T^{\prime }$ and ${\ell }^2\mid U^{\prime }$, so $\theta /\ell$ would satisfy the monic integer polynomial $z^2-(T^{\prime }/\ell )z+U^{\prime }/{\ell }^2$. It would lie in ${\mathcal{O}}_L$, impossible because its $\omega$ coefficient in the integral basis is $1/\ell$. Bezout identity now expresses one as an integer combination of $d,T^{\prime },U^{\prime }/d$. Multiplying by $d$, the terms are $d^2$, $d{T}^{\prime }=d\theta +d\bar{\theta }$, and $U^{\prime }$, all in the product. Hence $d$ belongs to it, proving $\mathfrak{j}\bar{\mathfrak{j}}=(d)$.

The determinant of the lattice basis $sd,s(e+\omega )$ gives the ideal norm $N(\mathfrak{a})=s^{2}d$. ConsequentlyIn particular $⟨b,\alpha ⟩⟨b,\bar{\alpha }⟩$ is principal. This does not require the original $b$ to be nonzero or the ideal itself to be principal.

The pointwise limit $f$ is a measurable function, since it can be expressed as ${\sup }_n{\inf }_{m\ge n}{f}_m$. Thus each set $E_n^{(k)}$ is a countable intersection of measurable sets within $A$. Deleting the condition at index $m=n$ weakens the requirements, whereas replacing $1/k$ by $1/(k+1)$ strengthens them. HenceThese are inclusions, not necessarily strict inclusions. The displayed sets describe eventual uniform error tolerances at an individual point.

Fix $k\ge 1$ and $x\in A$. By pointwise convergence, there is an $N=N(x,k)$ such that $|f_m(x)-f(x)|\le 1/k$ for every $m\ge N$. This is exactly $x\in E_N^{(k)}$, provingTogether with monotonicity in $n$ and finite measure of $A$, continuity from below of a measure gives $\lambda (E_n^{(k)})\uparrow \lambda (A)$. ConsequentlyThis quantitative form is what allows a single large-measure set to work for every tolerance, rather than choosing a different exceptional set for each point.

For each $k$, choose $n_k$ with $\lambda (A\setminus E_{n_k}^{(k)})\le \epsilon 2^{-k-1}$ and set $B={\bigcap }_{k\ge 1}{E}_{n_k}^{(k)}$. Countable subadditivity gives $\lambda (A\setminus B)\le \epsilon /2$. For any tolerance $\delta >0$, choose $k$ with $1/k<\delta$. For all $m\ge n_k$ and every $x\in B$, $|f_m(x)-f(x)|\le 1/k$, proving uniform convergence on $B$.

If the functions are Borel measurable, $B$ itself is Borel and we can take $A_{\epsilon }=B$. If “measurable” is interpreted in the completed Lebesgue sense, use regularity of Lebesgue measure to choose a Borel subset $A_{\epsilon }\subseteq B$ differing from $B$ by a null set; the same measure bound and uniform convergence hold. Thus the requested Borel conclusion is valid under either convention. This proves the finite-measure Egorov theorem.

For an infinite-measure counterexample take $A=[0,\infty )$ and $f_n=1_{[n,\infty )}$. It converges pointwise to zero. Any subset of $A$ with complement of finite measure intersects every infinite tail $[n,\infty )$, so the supremum of $f_n$ there is one for every $n$. Hence finite measure is essential to the conclusion.

For $1<p<\infty$, apply Fatou lemma to the nonnegative sequence $|f_n{|}^p$, which converges pointwise to $|f{|}^p$:For $p=\infty$, each inequality $\Vert f_n{\Vert }_{\infty }\le M$ fails pointwise only on a null set. Outside the union of these countably many null sets, $|f_n(x)|\le M$ for every $n$, so the pointwise limit also satisfies $|f(x)|\le M$. Therefore in both cases

Let $q$ be conjugate to $p$, so $1/q=1-1/p$, including $q=1$ for $p=\infty$. Hölder's inequality implies, for every measurable finite-measure set $E$,This proves integrability on $A$ and gives uniform integrability there. Choose a set $B\subseteq A$ with $\lambda (A\setminus B)\le \delta$ on which convergence is uniform, using Egorov theorem. ThenFirst take $n\to \infty$ and then $\delta \downarrow 0$. Thus even the local $L^1$ difference tends to zero, and in particularFor $1<p<\infty$, simple functions supported on finite-measure Borel sets are dense in $L^q(\mathbb{R})$. The displayed convergence proves pairing convergence for such functions. Approximate any $h\in L^q$ by a simple $h_0$ and useBy the duality of Lp spaces, these are all continuous linear functionals on $L^p$, so $f_n$ converges weakly to $f$. It need not converge strongly: $f_n=1_{[n,n+1]}$ converges pointwise to zero but has $L^p$ norm one. For $p=\infty$ the pairing argument gives weak-star convergence against $L^1$, rather than asserting weak convergence against every functional in the much larger full dual.

A morphism of algebraic varieties is a map regular in local affine coordinates: for each point of the source, choose affine charts containing it and its image, and require each target coordinate to pull back locally to a quotient of polynomials with a denominator nonzero at that point. The map is continuous in the Zariski topology and pulls back regular functions on every target open set to regular functions on its inverse image.

Equivalently, one can take Zariski continuity and this local regular-function pullback property as the definition. In particular, a morphism between affine varieties is specified by globally regular coordinate functions, with values satisfying the defining equations of the target. Being an arbitrary set-theoretic function, or being merely Zariski continuous, is not sufficient.

An embedded smooth $d$-dimensional manifold $X\subset {\mathbb{R}}^N$ is locally carried by a smooth ambient coordinate change to ${\mathbb{R}}^d\times \{0\}$. A map between such manifolds is a smooth map between manifolds if its coordinate representatives are smooth. Its differential $d{f}_x:T_{x}X\to T_{f(x)}Y$ sends the tangent vector represented by a curve $\gamma$ to $(f\circ \gamma {)}^{\prime }(0)$; equivalently it is the derivative in charts.

A regular value $y$ is one for which $d{f}_x$ is surjective at every $x\in f^{-1}(y)$, including vacuous regularity when the fibre is empty. For example zero is not a regular value of $f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$, $f(x)=x^2$, because $d{f}_0=0$.

For an invertible matrix $A$, the derivative of the determinant isAt a determinant-one matrix it is nonzero, since taking $H=A/n$ gives value one. The regular level set theorem therefore makes $S{L}_n(\mathbb{R})={\det }^{-1}(1)$ an embedded manifold of dimension $n^2-1$, also for $n=1$ when it is a single point. Matrix multiplication has polynomial ambient coordinates and restricts to the group, so it is smooth. At the identity,Finally suppose the singular-matrix set were an embedded smooth manifold near zero for $n\ge 2$. Every curve $t\mapsto t{E}_{ij}$ lies in it, since its rank is at most one. Thus every matrix unit belongs to its tangent space at zero. These span ${\mathbb{R}}^{n^2}$, forcing its local dimension to be $n^2$. An embedded manifold of full ambient dimension is locally open, but arbitrarily small scalar multiples of the identity are invertible. This contradiction proves the singular-matrix set is not an embedded smooth manifold. The argument addresses the subset-manifold convention specified at the start.

The Borel sigma-algebra $\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$ is the smallest sigma-algebra containing all open subsets of $\mathbb{R}$. A real-valued Borel measurable function on $(E,\mathcal{E})$ is a map $f$ with $f^{-1}(B)\in \mathcal{E}$ for every $B\in \mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R})$. It suffices to test the sets $(a,\infty )$ for rational $a$, because these generate the Borel sigma-algebra.

Here “Borel function” describes measurability into the Borel structure of the target; the domain need not itself be a topological space.