Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10
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.

Boundedness of first moments alone does not give uniform integrability

Statement refuted

There are nonnegative variables (Xn)n1 on one probability space with P(Xn=n)=1/n, P(Xn=0)=11/n. They have EXn=1 and tight laws converging weakly to δ0, but are not uniformly integrable.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

A uniformly integrable family: Let (X,A,μ) be a measure space. A family FL1(μ) of integrable real-valued functions is uniformly integrable when supfF{f>M}fdμ0as M.

Equivalently, for every ε>0 there is M>0 such that fF{f>M}fdμ<ε.

This page adopts the tail-integral definition. On finite measure spaces it is equivalent to L1-boundedness plus uniform absolute continuity, proved later on this page.

[F2]

Weak convergence of borel probability measures: For Borel probability measures μn,μ on a metric space S, write μnμ if fdμnfdμ for every bounded continuous real function f on S. Continuity is def-metric-continuity. Such f is Borel measurable (inverse images of open sets are open) and fdμfμ(S)<, so the integrals are finite in def-integrable-real-and-complex-functions-and-their-integrals. No completeness or coupling is required.

[F3]

Markov's inequality for random variables: If X:Ω[0,+] is a nonnegative random variable on a probability space and a>0, then P(Xa)E[X]a.

[F4]

Heine-Borel in Rn: with the Euclidean metric a subset of Rn is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line: Let nN with n1, let Rn be the set of functions nR and let d2 be the Euclidean metric on it (lem-metrics-on-rn). Then:

  1. Closed boxes are compact. For reals akbk (k<n) the box Q={xRn:akxkbk for every k<n} is a compact subset of (Rn,d2) (def-metric-compactness).
  2. Heine-Borel. A subset KRn is a compact subset of (Rn,d2) if and only if K is closed in Rn (def-metric-topology) and bounded (def-metric-bounded-diameter).
  3. The real line. A subset KR is a compact subset of (R,dR), the usual metric dR(x,y)=xy (lem-real-line-is-a-metric-space), if and only if K is closed in R and bounded.

No choice principle is used. The bisection below halves one coordinate at a time and takes the left half whenever the left half still fails to be finitely covered, the right half otherwise: a rule with two outcomes, decided by a property of the box, not a selection. That is the whole reason the theorem is available in ZF, while the general "complete and totally bounded implies compact" (thm-complete-and-totally-bounded-implies-compact) is not.

The hypothesis n1 is inherited from lem-metrics-on-rn, which defines Rn and its metrics only there; the last remark below records what happens at n=0.

Counterexample

Given: The objects, hypotheses and definitions in the statement. Its conclusions are to be established below.

1.1

Use the countable space of positive integers, with P({k})=1/(k(k+1))=1/k1/(k+1). Its masses sum to one by telescoping. Define P(E) as the sum over k in E; for disjoint countable unions the nonnegative double sum can be interchanged by taking suprema of finite subsums, proving countable additivity. Set Xn(k)=n1{kn}. Telescoping gives P(kn)=1/n, proving the displayed law, including n=1.

givenalgebra
1.2

The finite-law calculation gives EXn=n/n=1. If n>K, then E[Xn1{Xn>K}]=1. Thus the supremum of these tail integrals is one for every K>0, and F1 fails.

F1
2.1

The interval [R,R] is compact by F4. For bounded continuous f the law integral is f(0)+(f(n)f(0))/n, whose difference from f(0) is at most 2f/n0. This is weak convergence by F2. F3 gives P(Xn>R)1/R uniformly; the compact interval [-R,R] with R>1/ε therefore verifies tightness. Step 1.2 nevertheless excludes uniform integrability.

F2F3F4

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

39 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