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.

✓ 3 results · all verified · 2 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 1 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Primitive Recursive and Partial Computable Functions: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples unpack the page's two most concrete constructions. One decodes a single finite-sequence code far enough to read off its length and a chosen coordinate, and the other shows the equivalence with lambda-definability on the familiar factorial function. The counterexample page item keeps the main growth separation visible: Ackermann is total and computable, but still not primitive recursive.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-12Open item page →

Reading the length and third coordinate of a coded finite sequence

Example

Consider the sequence (2,5,1). Its binary-entry blocks are bin⁡(2)=10,bin⁡(5)=101,bin⁡(1)=1, so the code word from A natural-number coding of finite sequences is 1 1110 11010 1110101 101. Let s be the natural number with that binary numeral. Then the decoded header has length 3, and the third coordinate block decodes to 1. Hence len⁡(s)=3,entry⁡(s,2)=1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The coded sequence s described above.

[L1]

The sequence-length and coordinate-reading functions for this coding are primitive recursive, by The sequence-length and coordinate-reading functions are primitive recursive.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

The block 1110 immediately after the initial sentinel has three leading 1's before its first 0, so the decoded sequence length is 3.

1.2given

After the first two payload blocks 11010 and 1110101, the last block is 101, which is the self-delimiting block for the binary numeral 1. Therefore the third decoded coordinate is 1.

2.1L1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Steps 1.1 and 1.2 show exactly what the theorem [L1] predicts on this concrete input: the primitive-recursive decoders return len⁡(s)=3 and entry⁡(s,2)=1.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-12Open item page →

Factorial is both lambda-definable and partial recursive

Example

Let fact⁡(0)=1 and fact⁡(n+1)=(n+1)fact⁡(n). This is the standard primitive-recursive presentation of factorial. The lambda-definability theorem therefore supplies a closed lambda term F such that F n‾ beta-reduces to fact⁡(n)‾ for each n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The factorial function displayed above.

[L1]

A partial function is lambda-definable if and only if it is partial recursive, by A partial function is lambda-definable if and only if it is partial recursive.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1given

The displayed recursion for factorial uses the initial value 1 and the recursive update (n,u)↦(n+1)u, so factorial is a primitive-recursive total function.

2.1L1step 1.1

Every primitive-recursive function is partial recursive. Applying [L1] to step 1.1 therefore gives a closed lambda term F representing factorial on Church numerals.

3.1L1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Step 1.1 gives the partial-recursive side and step 2.1 gives the lambda-definable side, so factorial is a concrete example of the equivalence asserted in [L1].

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-12Open item page →

The Ackermann function refutes the claim that all total computable functions are primitive recursive

Statement refuted

The false statement claims that every total computable function is primitive recursive. The Ackermann function A(0,n)=n+1,A(m+1,0)=A(m,1),A(m+1,n+1)=A(m,A(m+1,n)) is a counterexample.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Ackermann function A.

[L1]

The Ackermann function is total computable but not primitive recursive, by The Ackermann function is total computable but not primitive recursive.

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1given

By [L1], the function A is total computable.

1.2L1given

The same proposition [L1] states that A is not primitive recursive.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Steps 1.1 and 1.2 exhibit one total computable function that fails to be primitive recursive, so A refutes the universal claim stated above.

Sources