Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck 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.

The common divisors of (0,0)(0,0) are all of Z\mathbb{Z} and have no greatest element in the order of Z\mathbb{Z}, so gcd(0,0)\gcd(0,0) cannot be defined as a maximum and is fixed by convention

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: for every pair of integers (a,b)(a,b) the set

D(a,b)  =  {dZ  :  da  and  db}D(a,b) \;=\; \{\, d \in \mathbb{Z} \;:\; d \mid a \ \text{ and } \ d \mid b \,\}

of common divisors has a greatest element, so that gcd(a,b)\gcd(a,b) can be defined as that maximum at every pair (Divisibility in Z\mathbb{Z}: dad \mid a when a=dqa = dq for some integer qq, Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor gcd(a,b)\gcd(a,b), with the convention gcd(0,0):=0\gcd(0,0) := 0).

Witness: (a,b)=(0,0)(a,b) = (0,0). Every integer divides 00, so D(0,0)=ZD(0,0) = \mathbb{Z}; and Z\mathbb{Z} has no greatest element, since m<m+1m < m+1 for every mm. So there is no maximum to take, and gcd(0,0)\gcd(0,0) is fixed by the convention gcd(0,0):=0\gcd(0,0) := 0 of Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor gcd(a,b)\gcd(a,b), with the convention gcd(0,0):=0\gcd(0,0) := 0 rather than computed.

This does not contradict A nonempty set of integers bounded above has a greatest element, and a nonempty set of integers bounded below has a least element: that lemma requires the set to be bounded above, and Z\mathbb{Z} is not.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The set D(0,0)D(0,0) of common divisors of 00 and 00.

[L1]

Z\mathbb{Z} is a commutative ring: x0=0x \cdot 0 = 0, x+0=xx + 0 = x, x1=xx \cdot 1 = x, x(1)=xx \cdot (-1) = -x, and every xx has an additive inverse (The integers form a commutative ring, Arithmetic on the integers, The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals).

[L2]

The order on Z\mathbb{Z} is total, antisymmetric and transitive and is compatible with addition; positives are closed under multiplication; x<yx < y means xyx \le y together with xyx \ne y (The integers form a totally ordered ring, Order on the integers).

[L3]

dud \mid u means u=dqu = dq for some qq; in particular d0d \mid 0 for every dd, since 0=d00 = d \cdot 0 (Divisibility in Z\mathbb{Z}: dad \mid a when a=dqa = dq for some integer qq).

[L5]

ι:NZ\iota : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{Z} is injective with image the nonnegative integers, and ι(1)=1\iota(1) = 1, ι(0)=0\iota(0) = 0 (The naturals embed in the integers).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

D(0,0)=ZD(0,0) = \mathbb{Z}: every integer dd satisfies d0d \mid 0, so every integer is a common divisor of 00 and 00.

L3
1.2

0<10 < 1: 1=ι(1)1 = \iota(1) lies in the image of ι\iota, hence 010 \le 1; and 101 \ne 0 because ι\iota is injective and 101 \ne 0 in N\mathbb{N}.

L5
2.1

For every mZm \in \mathbb{Z}, m<m+1m < m+1: adding mm to 0<10 < 1 gives mm+1m \le m+1, and m=m+1m = m+1 would give 0=10 = 1 after adding m-m, contrary to step 1.2.

step 1.2L1L2
3.1

Z\mathbb{Z} has no greatest element: if mm were one, then m+1Zm + 1 \in \mathbb{Z} would give m+1mm+1 \le m, while m<m+1m < m+1 by step 2.1, contradicting antisymmetry.

step 2.1L2
3.2

[L4] is not contradicted, since its hypothesis fails: Z\mathbb{Z} is not bounded above, because for any candidate bound bb the integer b+1b+1 exceeds it by step 2.1.

step 2.1L4
4.1

By steps 1.1 and 3.1 the set D(0,0)D(0,0) has no greatest element, so the refuted claim fails at (0,0)(0,0) and no maximum defines gcd(0,0)\gcd(0,0).

step 1.1step 3.1
5.1

What survives at (0,0)(0,0) is the divisibility characterisation [L6]: 000 \ge 0, 000 \mid 0, and every common divisor of (0,0)(0,0) divides 00 by [L3], so 00 is the value that characterisation returns — which is exactly the convention adopted in Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor gcd(a,b)\gcd(a,b), with the convention gcd(0,0):=0\gcd(0,0) := 0.

step 4.1L3L6

Remarks

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: 54 results over 20 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