Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-29
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.

Integrable φ and integrable f with φ∘f not integrable: the order of the hypotheses in the composition theorem cannot be reversed

Statement refuted

False claim: if f:[a,b]→[m,M] is Riemann integrable and φ:[m,M]→R is Riemann integrable, then φ∘f is Riemann integrable on [a,b].

That is If f is integrable on [a,b] with values in [m,M] and φ is continuous on [m,M], then φ∘f is integrable with "continuous" weakened to "integrable" on the outer function, and it is false. On [0,1] take f:=t, Thomae's function (The Dirichlet function 1Q, and Thomae's function t with t(x)=1/q at a rational x=p/q in lowest terms with q≥1 and t(x)=0 at every irrational x), whose values lie in [0,1], and

φ:[0,1]→R,φ(u)  :=  {0u=0,10<u≤1.

Both are Riemann integrable, t because its discontinuity set is at most countable and φ because it is nondecreasing. But

φ∘t  =  1Qon [0,1],

the Dirichlet function, which is not Riemann integrable.

Exactly one hypothesis of the composition theorem fails, and it is named: φ is not continuous, being discontinuous at 0. The theorem's hypothesis is continuous after integrable; here the outer function is merely integrable, and that is not enough.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Thomae's function t on [0,1], with t(x)=1/ι(q(x)) at a rational x of least denominator q(x)≥1 and t(x)=0 at an irrational x, and the function φ above.

[L3]

Q is countably infinite and every subset of an at most countable set is at most countable (Q is countably infinite, Every subset of an at most countable set is at most countable, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

t is bounded on [0,1] with values in [0,1], by [L1].

givenL1
1.2

The set of discontinuities of t in [0,1] is Q∩[0,1] by [L2], which is at most countable by [L3].

L2L3
1.3

φ is nondecreasing on [0,1]: for u≤v the only case not giving φ(u)=φ(v) is u=0<v, where φ(u)=0<1=φ(v). So φ is bounded and integrable on [0,1] by [L5].

givenL5L7
2.1

Hence t is Riemann integrable on [0,1] by [L4].

step 1.1step 1.2L4
2.2

For x∈[0,1]: if x is rational then t(x)>0 by [L1], so φ(t(x))=1; if x is irrational then t(x)=0, so φ(t(x))=0. Hence φ∘t agrees with 1Q at every point of [0,1].

step 1.1givenL1
3.1

1Q is bounded on [0,1] and continuous at no point of it by [L2], so its discontinuity set is [0,1], which does not have measure zero by [L6]; therefore φ∘t is not Riemann integrable on [0,1] by [L6].

step 2.2L2L6
4.1

So t and φ are integrable while φ∘t is not, and the claim is false. The hypothesis of If f is integrable on [a,b] with values in [m,M] and φ is continuous on [m,M], then φ∘f is integrable that fails here is the continuity of the outer function: φ is discontinuous at 0, since φ(0)=0 while φ(u)=1 for every u∈(0,1] and every neighbourhood of 0 in [0,1] contains such a u.

step 2.1step 1.3step 3.1L7∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

104 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources