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.
Mittag-Leffler and Runge's Theorem — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Analyticity of Holomorphic Functions; Liouville and Morera
- Arc Length and Rectifiable Curves
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Bounded Variation and the Riemann–Stieltjes Integral
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Complex Differentiability and the Cauchy–Riemann Equations
- Complex Power Series and Analytic Functions
- Connectedness
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Contour Integration
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Fubini and Change of Variables
- Function Space Topologies and the Exponential Law
- Fundamental Trigonometric Identities
- Goursat's Theorem and Cauchy's Theorem in a Convex Domain
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Isolated Singularities and Laurent Series
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Line Integrals and the Gradient Theorem
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Metric Spaces
- Mittag-Leffler and Runge's Theorem
- Mixed Partials, Taylor Formulae, and Extrema
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Partitions of Unity and Paracompactness
- pi: the Equivalent Characterizations
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Sine, Cosine, and the Definition of Pi
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The Complex Exponential and Euler's Formula
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Fundamental Theorems of Calculus
- The Identity Theorem, the Maximum Principle and the Open Mapping Theorem
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Residue Theorem and the Evaluation of Real Integrals
- The Riemann Integral in Rᵐ and Jordan Content
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The Winding Number and the Global Cauchy Theorem
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
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
is not uniformly approximable by polynomials on the unit circle
Example
Let for . The function on the unit circle is not the uniform limit there of any sequence of polynomials.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The unit-circle contour and the function on .
Every polynomial has a global primitive, so its integral around a closed contour is (The line integral of a continuous function admitting a primitive is that primitive's endpoint increment along every rectifiable path).
The exponential parametrizes the unit circle (Complex sine, cosine, hyperbolic sine, and hyperbolic cosine from the complex exponential).
Verification
Suppose polynomials converge uniformly to on . Then contour integration along the fixed rectifiable contour preserves the limit, so .
By [L1], every is . But [L2] gives . This contradiction shows that no such polynomial sequence exists.
Pole pushing along an explicit chain of three discs
Example
Take and the three discs , , . Then one may push the pole of successively to , to , to , and then to , while keeping the approximation uniform on .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The compact set and the three discs displayed in the Example.
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
Each closed disc is disjoint from , and the pairs , , and lie in , , and respectively. Thus the displayed data form a pole-pushing chain from to .
Apply clause 1 of [L1] to that chain to obtain, for any prescribed , a rational function with only pole that approximates uniformly on . For the polynomial conclusion, every satisfies , so clause 2 of [L1], with , gives a polynomial approximating uniformly on to within .
The cotangent expansion computes
Example
If and , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A complex number .
For , in the symmetric Mittag-Leffler sense (The Mittag-Leffler expansion of pi cotangent).
Verification
Substitute into [L1]. Since the terms for and combine to , while the term is .
Thus Using and dividing by gives the displayed closed form.
A Mittag-Leffler function with double poles at the integers
Example
There exists a meromorphic function on whose poles are exactly the integers and whose principal part at each integer is .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The discrete set and the prescribed principal parts .
Mittag-Leffler on the plane realizes every discrete family of prescribed principal parts (Mittag-Leffler on the complex plane).
Verification
The set is discrete in , and each is a finite negative Laurent polynomial at .
Applying [L1] to this data yields a meromorphic function whose principal part at every integer is exactly . Because that principal part is nonzero and contains only the degree term, each pole has exact order .
FALSE: Runge's theorem gives polynomial approximation on every compact set
Statement
False claim: Every compact set in admits uniform polynomial approximation for every function holomorphic on a neighbourhood of that set.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The unit circle and the function on it.
The function on the unit circle is not uniformly approximable there by polynomials ( is not uniformly approximable by polynomials on the unit circle).
Refutation
The unit circle is compact, and is holomorphic on a neighbourhood of it.
If the displayed claim were true, then would be uniformly approximable on that compact set by polynomials. This contradicts [L1].
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 and the function on a neighbourhood of .
A rational function with all poles outside the unit disc is holomorphic on , so its integral around is (The line integral of a continuous function admitting a primitive is that primitive's endpoint increment along every rectifiable path).
Counterexample
Let be any rational function whose poles all lie in the unbounded complementary component of . Then is holomorphic on the closed unit disc, so [L1] gives .
But . Therefore no such rational function can approximate uniformly on , because the contour integral on the inner circle would preserve the limit. So the inner complementary component also needs a pole representative.
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 at the positive integers.
Mittag-Leffler on the plane needs correction terms to force convergence (Mittag-Leffler on the complex plane).
Refutation
Fix any noninteger positive real . Then as .
Therefore the naive series has terms that do not tend to , so it diverges. This is exactly why the correction terms from [L1] are not optional in Mittag-Leffler's theorem.
Sources
- J. Lebl, Guide to Cultivating Complex Analysis, Exercise 9.1.2
- J. Lebl, Guide to Cultivating Complex Analysis, Lemma 9.2.2 discussion
- M. Weber, Complex Analysis, Lemma 4.4.4
- M. Weber, Complex Analysis, Example 3.3.1
- J. Lebl, Guide to Cultivating Complex Analysis, §9.4
- J. Lebl, Guide to Cultivating Complex Analysis, §9.1 and §9.2
- J. Lebl, Guide to Cultivating Complex Analysis, §9.1
- J. Lebl, Guide to Cultivating Complex Analysis, Example 9.4.3