Destination-aligned text for extracted cross-references

Research-attempt provenance

Definitions and mathematical statement

Shared notation.

Standard number systems are $\mathbb N,\mathbb Z,\mathbb Q,\mathbb R,\mathbb C$. Specialized notation and index ranges follow the cited source and the definitions below.

A cross-reference identifies another document item. Its target can be a stable identifier while its displayed text is a name, number, or combination of both. A bibliography entry identifies an external work and is distinct from an internal item reference.

Record scope and qualifications.

The catalogue title is retained as metadata. Named certificates, contracts, bounds or frameworks in that title are not asserted as results of the original source extract. The reconstructed sentence does not identify whether it concerns internal cross-references, bibliography references, or both.

Catalogue screening limitation: PreTeXt software design, documentation, or publication feature request; no mathematical problem is specified by the supplied passage.

The source snapshot labels this record partially solved; this is catalogue metadata rather than independent verification of a mathematical result or the current completion of a project. The source text below is rendered literally where necessary; damaged formulas and composite extracts are not silently repaired into a new mathematical claim. The supplied catalogue marks this formulation as an unverified reconstruction; missing assumptions are not certified by the source link.

Statement recorded in the supplied source.

What should the reference look like? Name or number? [S2]

Source status.

The supplied catalogue labels this source record partially solved; that metadata was checked against the supplied snapshot on 2026-10-11. The label is preserved for provenance and is not an independent verification of present open status or mathematical correctness.

Short English statement

Choose how references should be displayed in extracted or published documents.

Sources

• S1 Ulam AI and the UnsolvedMath Contributors, UnsolvedMath: A Curated Collection of Open Mathematics Problems, record 20002162 (AIM-INFRASTRUCTURE-0062). Catalogue curation and metadata: CC BY 4.0. The source extract is retained; definitions, English summaries and qualifications are editorial additions. https://huggingface.co/datasets/ulamai/UnsolvedMath.
• S2 AIM Workshop Problem Lists, source linked by catalogue record AIM-INFRASTRUCTURE-0062. https://github.com/PreTeXtBook/community/wiki/Moderated-Problem-Session.

Preparation and review.

The original source and UnsolvedMath contributors retain attribution for the source extract. Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) assisted with definitions, English summaries, scope notes and formatting. No new human mathematical authorship or independently verified solution is asserted. Permanent source ID 20002162 and code AIM-INFRASTRUCTURE-0062 checked against the complete supplied registry and current repository. Distinct upstream records, including repeated questions and broad or damaged extracts, are retained for complete coverage of the source CS category. A repeated record is not a new independent conjecture. Complete mathematical-equivalence and current-literature review has not been performed. Preparation and final review follow contribution prompts C and D, with source gaps disclosed. Structural and rendering checks do not establish a new theorem or open status.

Literature and context check

The primary community-session entry was read. It is an implementation or documentation agenda, and its editorial catalogue title supplies no theorem specification. The following explicitly chosen model tests one route; no actual PreTeXt conversion, documentation release, or user study is claimed.

Research attempt: Reference text can disagree with a correct destination

Suppose a figure $q$ is Figure 3 in the full publication and Figure 1 in an extraction. An external link correctly targeting the full publication's $q$ can still have text "Figure 1". The link identity is right, while its number describes a different rendition. Thus correct destination resolution does not by itself determine correct visible reference text.

Model a reference as $(v,q,\ell)$, where $v$ is the destination rendition, $q$ its semantic target, and $\ell$ the visible label. A number-style consistency condition is $\ell=N_v(q)$, using that rendition's display map. A title-style condition can instead be $\ell=T_v(q)$. These are separate policies, not interchangeable constraints. For a fixed policy and a complete map, constructing the label by lookup proves consistency immediately; a subsequent renumbering requires updating the map and every derived label together.

Titles do not generally give unique identity. Let two theorems in the same rendition both be titled "Existence". Title-style labels can be equal while their targets differ. This is not necessarily a broken link, but the text alone cannot distinguish the targets. If the requirement is uniqueness of visible references, a discriminator such as the display number or chapter context must be included. The impossibility follows from the two distinct objects sharing one title: no decoder taking only that title can reconstruct both identities.

These calculations separate three checks: target identity, rendition-relative label correctness, and uniqueness of the displayed text. A reference can pass either of the first two and fail the third, or have a valid destination with a stale label. No source-specified aesthetic rule selects one universal label policy.

Verification and adversarial audit

The finite examples and implications are checked directly in the argument. No production PreTeXt build or conformance test was run. The proof applies only to the declared model, with its input and identity assumptions.

Audit corrections.

A destination-correct URL does not certify destination-aligned text. Equal titles are allowed, and their ambiguity is not falsely described as a missing target.

External computation.

None; symbolic arguments and boundary checks only.

Scope and remaining gaps

The result is an auxiliary route analysis, not completion of the original software or documentation agenda. Real versions, supported syntax, transformations, and usability requirements need concrete implementation and testing. No mathematical novelty or current feature-completion claim is made.

Integration review.

Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) reviewed the written arguments and expanded layout and source-reference wrappers. Repository metadata and the production web renderer were checked using Python 3.13 and JavaScript with MathJax 3.2.2. This model-assisted review is not independent human proof verification; no PDF compilation or formal proof checking is asserted.

Completion Estimate

COMPLETION: 0% The calculations below the preserved source statement investigate a concrete route, but establish no substantiated new progress toward the entire original target. Known special cases and failed sufficient conditions are not credited as a solution.

References

The original source references and catalogue attribution are preserved in the Sources section above. The following URLs were actually consulted for this attempt; retention of an additional original reference does not claim fresh consultation of it.

• https://github.com/PreTeXtBook/community/wiki/Moderated-Problem-Session (consulted 2026-10-11).

Model and contributor disclosure

OpenAI gpt-6-astra, requested reasoning configuration ultra, generated this research attempt on 2026-10-11. The exact serving revision is not exposed. Codex GPT-6 performed orchestration and repository-format review; its exact serving revision is also not exposed. The mathematical route, boundary checks and final adversarial self-audit followed contribution prompts A then B in docs/contribution_prompts.md, after reading CONTRIBUTING.md. Python 3.14.2 assembled the standalone documents; any mathematical computation is specified in Verification. No theorem prover was used. No human mathematical authorship, substantial human proof correction, or independent human proof checking is asserted. Model-assisted review, source retrieval, and structural checks do not establish correctness or novelty. Full private reasoning transcripts are unavailable as reproducibility artifacts; the complete arguments, inputs and outcomes actually used are stated here or in the companion batch audit.

Final status

Unresolved as a new research contribution. This is a concrete route investigation, not a claim of new complete resolution or a current-status certification. A known answer reproduced for context does not become a new contribution. The catalogue's source-status label is preserved; this attempt status does not assert that a source-labelled solved question is open.