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.

✓ 3 results · all verified · 0 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 3 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Rate Distortion and Lossy Source Coding — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The examples compute a binary Hamming curve and a two-coordinate Gaussian waterline. The counterexample records a zero-rate Gaussian optimizer whose reconstruction is a point mass, with no Lebesgue density. They use the A-page conventions for standard-Borel mutual information, bits, and squared-error distortion.

Source trail

  • MIT OpenCourseWare 6.441, Chapters 23 and 25 (Chapter 23, Chapter 25), §§25.1.1 and 25.1.2: Bernoulli/Hamming and Gaussian squared-error formulas.
  • Thomas M. Cover and Joy A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, 2nd ed. (full text), §§10.3.1 and 10.3.3: binary Hamming and Gaussian vector water-filling.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck pendingOpen item page →

Binary Hamming rate-distortion curve at p equals one quarter

Statement

For a Bernoulli-1/4 source with Hamming distortion, the rates at D=0,1/8,1/4 are respectively h2(1/4), h2(1/4)−h2(1/8), and 0. At D=1/8, the backward test-channel reproduction mass is P(X^=1)=1/6; at D=1/4, a constant zero reproduction attains rate zero. The rate tends continuously to zero as D↑1/4.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A Bernoulli source with parameter p=1/4, binary Hamming distortion, and the rate function of the binary theorem.

[F1]

Binary Hamming rate-distortion function: for 0≤D≤min⁡(p,1−p), R(D)=h2(p)−h2(D); above that threshold the rate is zero.

Proof

1.1F1givenalgebra

Here p0=1/4. Substitution in [F1] gives R(0)=h2(1/4)−h2(0)=h2(1/4) and R(1/8)=h2(1/4)−h2(1/8). At D=1/4, the threshold branch gives zero; the constant reconstruction zero has distortion P(X=1)=1/4 and carries no information.

2.1step 1.1givenconstructalgebra

For D∈{0,1/8}, put q=(1/4−D)/(1−2D), which equals 1/4 or 1/6, respectively. Construct independent Y∼Bernoulli⁡(q) and E∼Bernoulli⁡(D) on their finite product space and set X=Y⊕E. Then P(X=1)=D+q(1−2D)=1/4 and P(X≠Y)=D. Given either value of Y, the two conditional source masses are D and 1−D in some order. Thus the finite joint-information sum is ∑x,yP(X=x,Y=y)log⁡2(P(X=x∣Y=y)/P(X=x))=h2(1/4)−h2(D), with zero terms omitted. These channels attain the rates in step 1.1; in particular the backward test channel at D=1/8 has reproduction mass P(Y=1)=1/6.

3.1F1step 1.1givenalgebra∎

The function h2 is continuous on [0,1] under 0log⁡20=0, so lim⁡D↑1/4[h2(1/4)−h2(D)]=0=R(1/4). This verifies the stated endpoint continuity.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck pendingOpen item page →

A Gaussian rate-distortion optimizer need not have a density

Statement

Let X∼N(0,σ2) with σ2>0, use squared-error distortion, and choose D≥σ2. The constant reconstruction Y=0 attains the Gaussian information rate-distortion value zero, but its law δ0 has no density with respect to Lebesgue measure.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC, a nondegenerate centered Gaussian source, squared-error distortion, and D≥σ2.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: the Gaussian rate-distortion supplier assumes AC.

[F1]

General single-letter information rate-distortion function: the information rate is the infimum of mutual information over joint laws meeting the expected-distortion constraint.

[F2]

Mutual information for standard-Borel random elements: mutual information is the joint-law KL from the product of the marginals.

[F3]

Gaussian squared-error rate-distortion function: for D≥σ2, the Gaussian squared-error information rate is zero.

[F4]

The measure with density f relative to μ: having a density with respect to Lebesgue measure requires absolute continuity with respect to that measure.

Proof

1.1A1F1F2F3givenconstruct

The constant choice Y=0 has expected distortion EX2=σ2≤D. Since Y is constant, PXY=PX⊗δ0=PX⊗PY, so [F2] gives mutual information zero. By [F3], zero is the minimum rate; hence this reconstruction is optimal.

2.1F4step 1.1givenalgebra∎

The singleton {0} has Lebesgue measure zero but δ0({0})=1. Thus δ0 is not absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure and, by [F4], cannot have a Lebesgue density.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck pendingOpen item page →

Finite Gaussian-vector distortion waterline

Statement

Assume AC. Let X1∼N(0,4) and X2∼N(0,1) be independent, and use total squared-error budget D=5/2. The water level is θ=3/2, the optimal coordinate distortions are (3/2,1), and the information rate is 12log⁡2(8/3) bits per vector. An attaining reconstruction is Y1=5/2U, Y2=0, where X1=5/2U+3/2V for standard normals U,V that are mutually independent and jointly independent of X2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Independent centered Gaussian coordinates of variances 4 and 1, squared-error budget 5/2, and AC.

[F1]

Finite Gaussian water-level allocation: the optimum allocates min⁡(λi,θ) with unique θ satisfying the total-distortion equation.

[F2]

Finite-dimensional Gaussian vector squared-error rate-distortion function: for independent Gaussian coordinates, the standard-Borel information rate in bits is the half-sum of positive log variance-to-water-level ratios.

[F3]

Mutual information for standard-Borel random elements and Kullback–Leibler divergence: mutual information in nats is joint-law KL from the product of the marginals, computed as the joint expectation of the log Radon–Nikodym density.

[F4]

Standard normal and normal laws and Orthogonal transformations preserve the standard normal product law: normal laws are scaled standard-normal laws, and orthogonal transforms preserve independent standard normals under AC.

[F5]

For sigma-finite factors, the product measure exists, has the rectangle formula, is sigma-finite, and is unique and Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product: finite independent product laws exist; independent variables with densities have the product density, as verified by integration on rectangles and uniqueness.

[F6]

A C^1 diffeomorphism satisfies the change-of-variables formula for nonnegative Lebesgue measurable functions: an invertible linear change of variables transforms densities by the absolute inverse determinant. Its Countable Choice hypothesis follows from AC by restricting a choice function to a countable family.

Proof

1.1F1F2givenalgebra

Since 1<θ<4, the water-level equation is min⁡(4,θ)+min⁡(1,θ)=θ+1=5/2, so θ=3/2. The allocated distortions are (min⁡(4,3/2),min⁡(1,3/2))=(3/2,1). By [F1]–[F2], R(5/2)=12(log⁡243/2+log⁡2+13/2)=12log⁡283.

1.2F4F5givenconstructalgebra

Put a=5/2 and b=3/2. Choose independent standard normals U,V,X2 by [F5], and set X1=aU+bV, Y1=aU, Y2=0. The matrix with rows (a,b)/2 and (b,−a)/2 is orthogonal, so [F4] gives X1∼N(0,4), independently of X2. The errors are bV and X2, with total mean square b2+1=5/2.

2.1F3F4F5F6step 1.1step 1.2algebra∎

Write fs(t)=(2πs)−1/2exp⁡(−t2/(2s)) for the N(0,s) density. By [F4]–[F6], (X1,Y1) has density fa2(y)fb2(x−y). Relative to Lebesgue measure in (x1,x2,y1) times the point mass at y2=0, the joint law and product of the marginals therefore have respective positive densities fa2(y1)fb2(x1−y1)f1(x2) and f4(x1)f1(x2)fa2(y1). Their log ratio is 12ln⁡4b2−(x1−y1)22b2+x128. It is integrable since both quadratic terms have finite expectations. By [F3] and step 1.2 its joint expectation is 12ln⁡(8/3)−12+12=12ln⁡(8/3) nats. Dividing by ln⁡2 yields the rate in step 1.1, proving attainment without assuming a Lebesgue density for the constant reconstruction coordinate.

Sources