Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28
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.

With f(x)=x3 and g(x)=x2 on [−1,1] the quotient form f(b)−f(a)g(b)−g(a)=f′(c)g′(c) is meaningless because g(b)=g(a), while the product form of Cauchy's theorem still holds

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: let a,b∈R with a<b and let f,g:[a,b]→R be continuous on [a,b] (Continuity of f:A→R at a point of A and on A: the ε-δ condition, its agreement with lim⁡x→cf(x)=f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point) and differentiable at every point of (a,b) (The derivative f′(c)=lim⁡x→cf(x)−f(c)x−c of f:A→R at a point c∈A that is a limit point of A, and differentiability on a set). Then there is c∈(a,b) with

f(b)−f(a)g(b)−g(a)  =  f′(c)g′(c).

This is the shape in which Cauchy's mean value theorem is usually remembered, and it is not what Cauchy's mean value theorem: for f,g continuous on [a,b] with a<b and differentiable on (a,b) there is c∈(a,b) with (f(b)−f(a))g′(c)=(g(b)−g(a))f′(c); no hypothesis on g′ is needed in this product form says. It is false as stated, because under the hypotheses given neither quotient need be a real number at all. The witness below makes both denominators vanish.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The reals a:=−1 and b:=1 and the functions f,g:[−1,1]→R with f(x):=x3 and g(x):=x2 (Integer powers am, Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length); numerals denote canonical naturals (The canonical natural ι(n)=n⋅1F of a field).

[L3]

Cauchy's mean value theorem (Cauchy's mean value theorem: for f,g continuous on [a,b] with a<b and differentiable on (a,b) there is c∈(a,b) with (f(b)−f(a))g′(c)=(g(b)−g(a))f′(c); no hypothesis on g′ is needed in this product form), in its product form: under the hypotheses above there is c∈(a,b) with (f(b)−f(a))g′(c)=(g(b)−g(a))f′(c).

[L4]

Rolle's theorem (Rolle's theorem: if a<b, f is continuous on [a,b], differentiable at every point of (a,b), and f(a)=f(b), then f′(c)=0 for some c∈(a,b)): a function continuous on [a,b], differentiable at every point of (a,b) and taking equal values at the endpoints has a vanishing derivative somewhere in (a,b).

[L5]

Signs and powers (Integer powers am, Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication, Monotonicity of x↦xn and of n↦an): the recursion an+1=ana with a0=1 gives (−1)2=(−1)(−1)=1, the product of two negatives being positive (Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication), and (−1)3=(−1)2(−1)=−1; that 1n=1 for every natural n is claim 4 of Monotonicity of x↦xn and of n↦an and is not read off Integer powers am.

[L6]

Canonical naturals (The canonical natural ι(n)=n⋅1F of a field, Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing): ι(1)=1, ι(m+n)=ι(m)+ι(n) and ι(mn)=ι(m)ι(n) for m,n≥1; in particular ι(2)ι(2)=ι(4)>0, so ι(4)≠0.

[L7]

Division by 0 is not defined: 0 has no multiplicative inverse in a field (Field).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

By [L2] both f and g are continuous on [−1,1], and by [L1] both are differentiable at every c∈[−1,1], with f′(c)=ι(3)c2 and g′(c)=ι(2)c1=ι(2)c, using [L5] for c1=c. So the pair (f,g) satisfies every hypothesis of the refuted claim, and of [L3], with a=−1 and b=1.

L1L2L5
1.2

By [L5], f(1)=1, f(−1)=−1, g(1)=1 and g(−1)=1. Hence f(b)−f(a)=1−(−1)=ι(2) and g(b)−g(a)=1−1=0.

L5L6
2.1

The left-hand side of the refuted claim names no real number: its denominator g(b)−g(a) is 0 by step 1.2, and 0 has no inverse by [L7]. So there is no c for which the asserted equation holds, since the equation cannot even be formed; the claim fails on this pair.

step 1.2L7
2.2

The right-hand side fails as well at one point of the interval: g′(0)=ι(2)⋅0=0 by step 1.1, so the quotient f′(c)/g′(c) is undefined at c=0, again by [L7].

step 1.1L7
2.3

The product form is untouched. By [L3] there is c∈(−1,1) with (f(b)−f(a))g′(c)=(g(b)−g(a))f′(c), which by steps 1.1 and 1.2 reads ι(2) ι(2)c=0⋅ι(3)c2, that is ι(4)c=0; since ι(4)≠0 by [L6], this forces c=0. And c=0 does lie in (−1,1) and does satisfy the identity, both sides being 0. So [L3] holds on this pair, with c=0 its only admissible point.

step 1.1step 1.2L3L6
3.1

The vanishing of g(b)−g(a) is not an accident of the choice. By step 1.2 one has g(−1)=g(1), so [L4] already forces g′ to vanish at some point of (−1,1), and by step 2.3 that point is c=0, the same point the product form produces. So on this pair every quotient the refuted claim writes down is undefined, while [L3] is satisfied; the quotient form needs hypotheses the product form does not, and as stated it is false.

step 2.1step 2.2step 2.3L4∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

54 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