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.

✓ 7 results · all verified · 3 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 4 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Mittag-Leffler and Runge's Theorem — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The examples isolate the two obstructions that the A page has to name honestly. Polynomial approximation fails as soon as a compact set carries a hole, and the naive sum of principal parts usually diverges unless the Mittag-Leffler correction terms are built in.

The positive examples stay close to the source route: an explicit three-disc pole push, a direct summation from the cotangent expansion, and a concrete Mittag-Leffler construction with double poles at the integers.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

1/z is not uniformly approximable by polynomials on the unit circle

Example

Let γ(t)=eit for 0≤t≤2π. The function z↦1/z on the unit circle is not the uniform limit there of any sequence of polynomials.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The unit-circle contour γ(t)=eit and the function 1/z on γ∗.

[L1]

Every polynomial has a global primitive, so its integral around a closed contour is 0 (The line integral of a continuous function admitting a primitive is that primitive's endpoint increment along every rectifiable path).

Verification

technique · contradiction
1.1givenassume-contra

Suppose polynomials pn converge uniformly to 1/z on γ∗. Then contour integration along the fixed rectifiable contour γ preserves the limit, so ∫γpn(z) dz→∫γdz/z.

2.1L1L2step 1.1discharge-contradiction∎

By [L1], every ∫γpn(z) dz is 0. But [L2] gives ∫γdz/z=∫02πi dt=2πi. This contradiction shows that no such polynomial sequence exists.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

Pole pushing along an explicit chain of three discs

Example

Take K={z:∣z∣≤1} and the three discs D1=D(2,3/4), D2=D(5/2,3/4), D3=D(3,3/4). Then one may push the pole of (z−2)−1 successively to 5/2, to 3, to 7/2, and then to ∞, while keeping the approximation uniform on K.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The compact set K and the three discs displayed in the Example.

[L1]

Runge's pole-pushing lemma moves a simple pole along any finite disc chain disjoint from the compact set (Runge's pole-pushing lemma).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

Each closed disc D‾j is disjoint from K, and the pairs (2,5/2), (5/2,3), and (3,7/2) lie in D1, D2, and D3 respectively. Thus the displayed data form a pole-pushing chain from 2 to 7/2.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra∎

Apply clause 1 of [L1] to that chain to obtain, for any prescribed ε>0, a rational function with only pole 7/2 that approximates (z−2)−1 uniformly on K. For the polynomial conclusion, every z∈K satisfies ∣z∣<3/2<7/2, so clause 2 of [L1], with R=3/2, gives a polynomial approximating (z−2)−1 uniformly on K to within ε.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The cotangent expansion computes ∑n∈Z1/(n2+a2)

Example

If a∈C and a∉iZ, then

∑n∈Z1n2+a2=πacoth⁡(πa).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A complex number a∉iZ.

[L1]

For z∉Z, πcot⁡(πz)=∑n∈Z1/(z−n) in the symmetric Mittag-Leffler sense (The Mittag-Leffler expansion of pi cotangent).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1givenalgebra

Substitute z=ia into [L1]. Since 1ia−n=−ia−nn2+a2, the terms for n and −n combine to −2ia/(n2+a2), while the n=0 term is 1/(ia).

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

Thus πcot⁡(πia)=1ia−2ia∑n≥11n2+a2=−ia∑n∈Z1n2+a2. Using cot⁡(iw)=−icoth⁡(w) and dividing by −ia gives the displayed closed form.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

A Mittag-Leffler function with double poles at the integers

Example

There exists a meromorphic function on C whose poles are exactly the integers and whose principal part at each integer n is (z−n)−2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The discrete set Z and the prescribed principal parts pn(z)=(z−n)−2.

[L1]

Mittag-Leffler on the plane realizes every discrete family of prescribed principal parts (Mittag-Leffler on the complex plane).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

The set Z is discrete in C, and each pn(z)=(z−n)−2 is a finite negative Laurent polynomial at n.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra∎

Applying [L1] to this data yields a meromorphic function f whose principal part at every integer is exactly (z−n)−2. Because that principal part is nonzero and contains only the degree −2 term, each pole has exact order 2.

False statementConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30Open item page →

FALSE: Runge's theorem gives polynomial approximation on every compact set

Statement

False claim: Every compact set in C admits uniform polynomial approximation for every function holomorphic on a neighbourhood of that set.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The unit circle and the function 1/z on it.

[L1]

The function 1/z on the unit circle is not uniformly approximable there by polynomials (1/z is not uniformly approximable by polynomials on the unit circle).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1given

The unit circle is compact, and 1/z is holomorphic on a neighbourhood of it.

2.1step 1.1L1∎

If the displayed claim were true, then 1/z would be uniformly approximable on that compact set by polynomials. This contradicts [L1].

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

The annulus shows Runge approximation needs a pole in each bounded complementary component

Statement refuted

A single pole placed only in the unbounded complementary component always suffices for Runge approximation on a compact annulus.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The compact annulus K={z:1≤∣z∣≤2} and the function 1/z on a neighbourhood of K.

[L1]

A rational function with all poles outside the unit disc is holomorphic on ∣z∣<1, so its integral around ∣z∣=1 is 0 (The line integral of a continuous function admitting a primitive is that primitive's endpoint increment along every rectifiable path).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1givenL1

Let r be any rational function whose poles all lie in the unbounded complementary component of K. Then r is holomorphic on the closed unit disc, so [L1] gives ∫∣z∣=1r(z) dz=0.

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

But ∫∣z∣=1dz/z=2πi. Therefore no such rational function can approximate 1/z uniformly on K, because the contour integral on the inner circle would preserve the limit. So the inner complementary component also needs a pole representative.

False statementConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-30Open item page →

FALSE: a meromorphic function always equals the naive sum of its principal parts

Statement

False claim: A meromorphic function is always the pointwise sum of its principal parts, with no convergence-forcing corrections.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The principal parts pn(z)=−n/(z−n) at the positive integers.

[L1]

Mittag-Leffler on the plane needs correction terms to force convergence (Mittag-Leffler on the complex plane).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1givenalgebra

Fix any noninteger positive real x. Then pn(x)=−n/(x−n)=1+x/(n−x)→1 as n→∞.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra∎

Therefore the naive series ∑n≥1pn(x) has terms that do not tend to 0, so it diverges. This is exactly why the correction terms from [L1] are not optional in Mittag-Leffler's theorem.

Sources