Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

Geometric Hahn Banach and Convex Separation Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples compute gauges, show why balancedness and compactness hypotheses matter, and give both a dual distance formula and the classical closed, uncomplemented inclusion c0⊆ℓ∞.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

An uncountable almost-disjoint family of subsets of the naturals

Statement

There is an uncountable family A of infinite subsets of N such that A∩B is finite whenever A,B∈A are distinct.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A fixed enumeration (qn)n∈N of Q and the set I of irrational real numbers.

[F1]

Every nonempty subset of N has a least element (The well-ordering principle).

[F2]

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1F2givenconstruct

For x∈I, recursively let nk(x) be the least unused index n with qn∈(x−1/k,x+1/k), and put Ax={nk(x):k≥1}. Such an index exists by [F2] because every interval contains infinitely many rationals; [F1] makes the choice deterministic.

2.1step 1.1given

Each Ax is infinite since its indices are chosen unused. If x≠y, then for sufficiently large k,ℓ the intervals (x−1/k,x+1/k) and (y−1/ℓ,y+1/ℓ) are disjoint; any common selected index must therefore arise among finitely many early choices. Thus Ax∩Ay is finite.

3.1step 2.1F2∎

The map x↦Ax is injective by the finite-intersection conclusion, so {Ax:x∈I} is uncountable by [F2] and has the required property.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

The quotient ell-infinity/c_0 has no countable separating family

Statement

Assume ACω. The dual of ℓ∞/c0 has no countable family that separates its points.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Q=ℓ∞/c0 and an uncountable almost-disjoint family A of infinite subsets of N.

[F1]

c0 is closed in ℓ∞, so the quotient seminorm on Q is a norm (c_0 is a closed subspace of ell-infinity, The quotient seminorm is a norm exactly when the subspace is closed).

[F2]

There is an uncountable almost-disjoint family of infinite subsets of N (An uncountable almost-disjoint family of subsets of the naturals).

[F3]

Assuming ACω, a countable union of countable sets is countable (Countable unions of at most countable sets, assuming ACω).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1F2given

For A∈A, let uA be its indicator sequence. Then [uA]≠0 in Q, and for distinct A1,…,Am the quotient norm of ∑cj[uAj] is max⁡j∣cj∣, since the supports are disjoint after deleting finitely many coordinates.

2.1step 1.1F1algebra

For g∈Q∗ and r>0, the set {A:∣g([uA])∣≥r} is finite: choose scalar phases on any finite subfamily and apply ∣g(∑cj[uAj])∣≤∥g∥. Thus {A:g([uA])≠0} is countable as a union over positive reciprocal integers.

3.1step 2.1F2F3choose∎

Given a countable family (gn) in Q∗, [F3] makes ⋃n{A:gn([uA])≠0} countable. By [F2] choose A outside it; then nonzero [uA] is annihilated by every gn.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

c_0 is not complemented in ell-infinity

Statement

Assuming ACω, the closed subspace c0 is not complemented in ℓ∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The quotient map π:ℓ∞→ℓ∞/c0.

[F1]

Under ACω, (ℓ∞/c0)∗ has no countable separating family (The quotient ell-infinity/c_0 has no countable separating family).

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1assume-contragivenconstruct

Suppose a bounded projection P:ℓ∞→c0 exists. For each coordinate n, define φn(πx)=xn−(Px)n. This is well defined because Pz=z for z∈c0, and it is a bounded functional on the quotient.

2.1step 1.1given

If φn(πx)=0 for every n, then (I−P)x=0 coordinatewise, so x=Px∈c0 and πx=0. Thus (φn) is a countable separating family.

3.1step 2.1F1discharge-contradiction∎

This contradicts [F1]. Hence no such projection exists, and c0 is not complemented.

RemarkRemark: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableverified 2026-09-23 (gpt-6-sol)Open item page →

Two results called Mazur's lemma

Remark

Under the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice), this page proves the result usually called Mazur's theorem: norm and weak closures of a convex set coincide (Mazur theorem: weak and norm closure agree for convex sets). Another result often called Mazur's lemma says that suitable convex combinations of a weakly convergent sequence converge in norm. That sequence-level result is not proved or used here.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

Gauges of norm balls and finite-dimensional ellipsoids

Example

For B(0,r)={x:∥x∥<r}, pB(x)=∥x∥/r. For a positive-definite real quadratic form q on Rn and E={x:q(x)<1}, pE(x)=q(x). Both are norms: the first is a positive scalar multiple of the given norm, and the second is the norm induced by the inner product associated with the positive-definite quadratic form q.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A radius r>0 and a positive-definite quadratic form q.

[F1]

The gauge of an absorbing set is the infimum of its admissible positive dilates (Minkowski functional of an absorbing set).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1givenalgebra

x∈tB(0,r) exactly when ∥x∥<tr, whose infimum over t>0 is ∥x∥/r.

2.1F1givenalgebra∎

Likewise x∈tE exactly when q(x)<t2, so the infimum is q(x). Positive definiteness gives zero only at x=0, and the displayed formulas give norm homogeneity and triangle inequality.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

A gauge of a nonbalanced set need not be a seminorm

Statement refuted

An absorbing convex set need not have a seminorm as its gauge.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The convex absorbing set C=(−1,2)⊆R.

[F1]

The gauge is the infimum of positive t for which x∈tC (Minkowski functional of an absorbing set).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1givenalgebra

From x∈t(−1,2)⟺−t<x<2t, [F1] gives pC(x)=x/2 for x≥0 and pC(x)=−x for x<0.

2.1step 1.1∎

Hence pC(1)=1/2 while pC(−1)=1, contradicting the required equality pC(−1)=∣−1∣pC(1). The missing hypothesis is balancedness.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedaudited 2026-09-06Open item page →

Two closed convex sets can have no strong separator

Statement refuted

Two disjoint closed convex sets in a normed space always admit a strong separator.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A=R×{0} and B={(s,t):t≥e−s} in R2.

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1givenF1

A is closed convex. By [F1], B is the closed epigraph of a convex function, hence closed and convex; it is disjoint from A because e−s>0.

2.1step 1.1algebra∎

The points (n,0)∈A and (n,e−n)∈B have distance e−n→0. A strong gap β−α>0 for f would imply ∥a−b∥≥(β−α)/∥f∥ for all a∈A,b∈B, impossible.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedverified 2026-09-26 (gpt-6-sol)Open item page →

Distance to a subspace via annihilating functionals

Example

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let X be a real or complex normed space. For a subspace M⊆X and x∈X,

dist⁡(x,M‾)=sup⁡{∣f(x)∣:f∈M⊥, ∥f∥≤1}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice), a real or complex normed space X, a subspace M⊆X, and x∈X.

[F1]

Under AC, a real linear functional dominated by a sublinear functional extends with the same domination (Hahn-Banach dominated extension theorem for real vector spaces).

[F2]

M⊥ consists of the continuous linear functionals vanishing on M (Continuous annihilator of a linear subspace).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1givenalgebra

For f∈M⊥ with ∥f∥≤1, continuity gives f∣M‾=0. Hence, for every m∈M‾, ∣f(x)∣=∣f(x−m)∣≤∥x−m∥. Taking infima gives the ≤ direction.

2.1F1givenconstructalgebra∎

Put δ=dist⁡(x,M‾). If δ>0, define g:M‾+Kx→K by g(m+λx)=λδ. This is well defined, and ∣g(m+λx)∣=∣λ∣δ≤∥m+λx∥, so ∥g∥≤1. In the real case apply [F1] with p(y)=∥y∥; domination at y and −y gives an extension f with ∥f∥≤1. In the complex case apply [F1] to Re⁡g on the underlying real subspace, obtaining a real linear U with ∣U(y)∣≤∥y∥. Then f(y)=U(y)−iU(iy) is complex linear and extends g. For each y, choose a scalar a of modulus one with af(y)=∣f(y)∣; thus ∣f(y)∣=U(ay)≤∥y∥. This is the exact use of AC in both scalar cases; this extension lies in M⊥ and satisfies ∣f(x)∣=δ. If δ=0, then x∈M‾, so continuity makes every annihilator vanish at x. Thus equality holds in both cases.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-06Open item page →

A closed uncomplemented subspace

Example

Assuming ACω, the inclusion c0⊆ℓ∞ is a concrete closed subspace that is not complemented.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The standard inclusion c0⊆ℓ∞.

[F1]

c0 is closed in ℓ∞ (c_0 is a closed subspace of ell-infinity).

[F2]

c0 is not complemented in ℓ∞ under ACω (c_0 is not complemented in ell-infinity).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1given

The inclusion in the statement is a closed-subspace inclusion by [F1].

2.1F2given∎

It is uncomplemented by [F2], so it has both advertised properties.

Sources