Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27
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.

On N\mathbb{N} with d(m,n)=1+1/(m+n)d(m,n) = 1 + 1/(m+n) for mnm \ne n the sets {n,n+1,}\{n, n+1, \dots\} are nested, closed, bounded and complete with empty intersection

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: in Cantor's intersection theorem (In a complete metric space nested nonempty closed sets whose diameters tend to 00 meet in exactly one point, and this property characterises completeness) the hypothesis diam(Fk)0\operatorname{diam}(F_k) \to 0 may be dropped; in a complete metric space a nested sequence of nonempty closed bounded sets has nonempty intersection.

Let X:=NX := \mathbb{N} (The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann)) and define

d(m,n):={0if m=n,1+1m+nif mn,d(m,n) := \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } m = n, \\[2pt] 1 + \dfrac{1}{m+n} & \text{if } m \ne n, \end{cases}

where m+n1m+n \ge 1 whenever mnm \ne n, so the reciprocal is defined. Put Fn:={kN:kn}F_n := \{\, k \in \mathbb{N} : k \ge n \,\}. Then dd is a metric, (X,d)(X,d) is complete, every FnF_n is nonempty, closed, bounded and itself complete, the FnF_n are nested, and

nNFn=.\bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} F_n = \emptyset .

What fails is only the diameter condition: diam(Fn)=1+1/(2n+1)1\operatorname{diam}(F_n) = 1 + 1/(2n+1) \ge 1 for every nn.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: X=NX = \mathbb{N} with the function dd above; the sets Fn={kN:kn}F_n = \{k \in \mathbb{N} : k \ge n\}; naturals m,n,pm,n,p; a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0.

[L1]

N\mathbb{N} contains 00, and for distinct naturals mnm \ne n one has m+n1m + n \ge 1, so 1/(m+n)1/(m+n) is a positive real, at most 11 (The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann), Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L4]

Bounded subset and diameter: AA is bounded when it lies in a ball, and diam(A)=sup{d(a,b):a,bA}\operatorname{diam}(A) = \sup\{d(a,b) : a,b \in A\} for nonempty bounded AA; the supremum is the least upper bound (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Maximum and minimum of a set).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

dd is well defined and symmetric, and d(m,n)=0d(m,n) = 0 exactly when m=nm = n, since for mnm \ne n the value 1+1/(m+n)1 + 1/(m+n) is at least 11. In fact 1<d(m,n)21 < d(m,n) \le 2 for all mnm \ne n, because 0<1/(m+n)10 < 1/(m+n) \le 1.

L1L2
2.1

dd satisfies the triangle inequality d(m,p)d(m,n)+d(n,p)d(m,p) \le d(m,n) + d(n,p). If m=pm = p the left side is 00; if n=mn = m or n=pn = p one side of the right-hand sum is 00 and the other equals the left side; and if mm, nn, pp are pairwise distinct then d(m,n)+d(n,p)>1+1=2d(m,p)d(m,n) + d(n,p) > 1 + 1 = 2 \ge d(m,p). So dd is a metric on N\mathbb{N}.

step 1.1L1L2
2.2

Every subset of N\mathbb{N} is open, hence also closed: for mNm \in \mathbb{N} the ball B(m,1)B(m,1) is {m}\{m\}, since d(m,n)>1d(m,n) > 1 for nmn \ne m, so every subset is a union of open balls; complements of subsets are subsets.

step 1.1L3
2.3

(X,d)(X,d) is complete: a Cauchy sequence (xk)(x_k) tested at ε=1\varepsilon = 1 has an index KK with d(xk,xl)<1d(x_k,x_l) < 1 for all k,lKk,l \ge K, which by step 1.1 forces xk=xlx_k = x_l; so the sequence is constant from KK on and converges to xKNx_K \in \mathbb{N}.

step 1.1L3
2.4

Each FnF_n is bounded: d(0,k)2<3d(0,k) \le 2 < 3 for every kk, so FnX=B(0,3)F_n \subseteq X = B(0,3).

step 1.1L3L4
3.1

Each FnF_n is nonempty (it contains nn), closed by step 2.2, and complete by [L6]; and Fn+1FnF_{n+1} \subseteq F_n, so the family is nested.

step 2.2step 2.3L6
3.2

diam(Fn)=1+1/(2n+1)\operatorname{diam}(F_n) = 1 + 1/(2n+1). Indeed the distances realised inside FnF_n are 00 and the values 1+1/(j+k)1 + 1/(j+k) for distinct j,knj,k \ge n; among such pairs j+kj+k is least when {j,k}={n,n+1}\{j,k\} = \{n, n+1\}, giving j+k=2n+1j+k = 2n+1, and 1/(j+k)1/(j+k) is largest there. So 1+1/(2n+1)1 + 1/(2n+1) is an upper bound of those distances and is itself one of them, hence it is the least upper bound.

step 1.1step 2.4L4L5
4.1

In particular diam(Fn)>1\operatorname{diam}(F_n) > 1 for every nn, so the sequence (diam(Fn))\big(\operatorname{diam}(F_n)\big) does not converge to 00: at ε=1\varepsilon = 1 no index makes the diameters smaller than 11.

step 3.2L3L5
4.2

The intersection is empty: for every kNk \in \mathbb{N} we have kFk+1k \notin F_{k+1}, since k<k+1k < k+1; so no natural lies in all the FnF_n.

step 3.1L1
5.1

So in the complete metric space (X,d)(X,d) the sets FnF_n are nonempty, closed, bounded, complete and nested, and their intersection is empty; the only hypothesis of In a complete metric space nested nonempty closed sets whose diameters tend to 00 meet in exactly one point, and this property characterises completeness that they fail is diam(Fn)0\operatorname{diam}(F_n) \to 0, so that hypothesis cannot be dropped.

step 2.3step 3.1step 2.4step 4.1step 4.2

Remarks

  • Indexing. N\mathbb{N} contains 00 here, so dd is written with m+nm+n and not with mnmn or 1/m1/m: at m=0m = 0 those would be undefined or degenerate. The clause mnm \ne n is what guarantees m+n1m+n \ge 1, and it is the reason the formula is stated by cases rather than as a single expression.
  • The metric is a small perturbation of the discrete metric, taking values in {0}(1,2]\{0\} \cup (1,2], and its topology is discrete. Every subset is closed, so closedness is free and carries no information; what the example exploits is that a set can be closed, bounded and complete while its points stay a definite distance apart, so a nested family can drain away to nothing.
  • Contrast with the real line. On R\mathbb{R} the same sets [n,)[n,\infty) are nested, nonempty and closed with empty intersection, but they are not bounded, so they are not a Cantor chain either. The present example is sharper: it keeps boundedness and loses only the vanishing of the diameters.
  • Both conclusions of the theorem fail here, not just one. There is neither a common point nor a unique one, which is what one expects: the uniqueness half of In a complete metric space nested nonempty closed sets whose diameters tend to 00 meet in exactly one point, and this property characterises completeness is exactly what the vanishing diameters buy.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 110 results over 31 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.

Sources