Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

A BMO function need not be globally integrable

Statement refuted

The claim refuted is the inclusion BMO(Rn)⊆L1(Rn), equivalently the claim that every BMO function is globally integrable. The witness is the function b(x)=log⁡∣x∣ (b(0)=0) of The logarithm is in BMO but not in L-infinity, which satisfies ∫Rn∣b(x)∣ dx=+∞; hence BMO(Rn)⊈L1(Rn). Thus BMO membership alone does not guarantee a global Lebesgue pairing ∫fb: absolute integrability of the product fb must be checked separately. Such a pairing can exist even without cancellation of f.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The function b(x)=log⁡∣x∣ for x≠0, b(0)=0, on Rn; the cubes of Axis-parallel rectangles in Rm and their volume.

[F1]

b∈BMO(Rn) and b is unbounded near the origin (The logarithm is in BMO but not in L-infinity).

[F2]

For Rm:=4n+m and the increasing closed balls Em:={x:∣x∣≤Rm}, one has Em↑Rn and ∫Rn∣b∣=lim⁡m→∞∫Em∣b∣ by monotone convergence (Monotone convergence for the integral).

Counterexample

1.1F1given

For every m≥1 the cube Cm:=[3,Rm/n]n is contained in Em: every x∈Cm has ∣x∣≥3n>2 and ∣x∣≤n (Rm/n)=Rm, and its volume is ∣Cm∣=(Rm/n−3)n. On Cm one has b(x)=log⁡∣x∣≥log⁡3>0, so ∣b∣=b≥log⁡3 there.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Therefore ∫Em∣b∣≥∫Cm∣b∣≥(log⁡3)∣Cm∣=(log⁡3)(Rm/n−3)n, which tends to +∞ as m→∞.

3.1step 2.1F1F2∎

By [F2] and step 2.1, ∫Rn∣b∣=lim⁡m→∞∫Em∣b∣=+∞; since b∈BMO(Rn) by [F1], the inclusion BMO(Rn)⊆L1(Rn) is refuted.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

20 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