Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)verified 2026-07-29 (claude-fable-5)
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.

The comb space is path-connected and fails to be locally connected at every point of the limit tooth strictly above the base, so path-connectedness does not imply local connectedness

Statement refuted

Refuted: that a path-connected space is locally connected. Neither Every path-connected space is connected, and every path component lies inside a component nor any statement on the page it belongs to asserts this, and it is false.

Witness, the comb space. Writing ι for the canonical natural so that 1/(n+1) means 1/ι(n+1) with n∈N and N containing 0 (The canonical natural ι(n)=n⋅1F of a field), put

T  :=  {0}∪{1n+1:n∈N}⊆[0,1],C  :=  ([0,1]×{0})  ∪  (T×[0,1])

as a subspace of R2 with the product topology (For n≥1 the product topology on n copies of the usual topology of R is the metric topology of d∞ on Rn, and hence also of d1 and d2, so Rn as a product and Rn as a metric space are one space, Subspace topology: the traces of the open sets, its closed sets and its bases, the continuity of the inclusion, and the characteristic property of a map into a subspace). Then C is path-connected, hence connected, and C is not locally connected at any point (0,t) with t>0.

The base [0,1]×{0} is the spine of the comb, the sets {c}×[0,1] for c∈T are its teeth, and the failure occurs along the limit tooth {0}×[0,1] above the base.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R2 with the product topology and the comb C above, with π0 the first projection.

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Every point of C is joined by a path in C to the origin (0,0). For (x,0) on the base, t↦((1−t)x,0) is continuous by [A1] and stays in the base; for (c,u) on a tooth with c∈T, the map t↦(c,(1−t)u) is continuous by [A1], stays in {c}×[0,1]⊆C and joins (c,u) to (c,0), which lies on the base.

A1A2
1.2

For t>0 and η:=t/2>0 put Ut:=C∩(R×(t−η, t+η)), an open subset of C containing (0,t); every point of Ut has second coordinate >t−η=t/2>0, so Ut contains no point of the base and π0[Ut]⊆T.

A1
1.3

No subset of T with two distinct points is order-convex: for p<q in T there is a real strictly between them and outside T, namely the midpoint of 1/(k+2) and 1/(k+1) for a suitable k, since between consecutive members of T there is no member of T and every element of T other than 0 is some 1/(k+1).

A3A5
2.1

By step 1.1 and [A2] any two points of C are joined to each other through (0,0), so C is path-connected and hence connected.

step 1.1A2
2.2

Let t>0 and suppose V is open in C, connected, with (0,t)∈V⊆Ut. Then π0[V] is a connected subset of R by [A1] and [A3], hence order-convex, and π0[V]⊆T by step 1.2; so π0[V] has at most one point by step 1.3, and containing 0 it equals {0}. Hence V⊆{0}×[0,1].

step 1.2step 1.3A1A3
3.1

But V is open in C and contains (0,t), so by [A1] there is η′>0 with C∩((−η′,η′)×(t−η′,t+η′))⊆V; by [A5] there is k≥1 with 1/k<η′, and with n:=k−1∈N the point (1/(n+1),t) lies in that trace, hence in V, while its first coordinate is not 0. This contradicts step 2.2.

step 2.2A1A5A6
4.1

So no such V exists and C fails to be locally connected at (0,t) for every t>0, by [A4], while being path-connected and connected by step 2.1.

step 2.1step 3.1A4∎

Remarks

  • The comb and the zigzag closure fail in different ways, which is why both are on this page. The zigzag closure is connected and not path-connected; the comb is path-connected and still not locally connected. So local connectedness is not implied even by the strongest of the three global conditions, and the three properties are genuinely independent.

  • Where the hypothesis t>0 is used. At (0,0) the comb is locally connected: small neighbourhoods of the origin contain a piece of the base together with the bottoms of nearby teeth, and that set is path-connected by the argument of step 1.1. The failure needs the point to sit strictly above the base, so that the small neighbourhood Ut of step 1.2 misses the base entirely and the teeth become disconnected from one another.

  • Deleting the base is what makes it a counterexample and not a curiosity. Without the base the teeth are disjoint clopen segments and the space is disconnected; with the base they are welded at the bottom, so a path may always descend, travel and climb. Local connectedness fails precisely because that detour is not available inside a small neighbourhood high above the base.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

85 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