Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-26
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 unrestricted nested interval property fails in R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1}))

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: the unrestricted nested interval property holds in K=R((t1))K = \mathbb{R}((t^{-1})), that is, every nested sequence I0I1I_0 \supseteq I_1 \supseteq \cdots of closed intervals In=[an,bn]KI_n = [a_n,b_n]_K of KK (Sequences, convergence, Cauchyness, monotonicity, boundedness and closed intervals in an arbitrary ordered field) has nIn\bigcap_n I_n \ne \varnothing.

The witness is

an:=ι(n)t1,bn:=ι ⁣(1n+1)(nN),a_n := \iota(n)\, t^{-1}, \qquad b_n := \iota\!\left(\tfrac{1}{n+1}\right) \qquad (n \in \mathbb{N}),

where ι(c)\iota(c) is the constant series with value cc at index 00 and ι(n)\iota(n) abbreviates ι(n1R)\iota(n \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}}) (The formal Laurent series R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})): support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient). The intervals [an,bn]K[a_n,b_n]_K are nested and their intersection is empty: a common point would have to be an infinitesimal of valuation 1\ge 1, because it lies below every positive real constant, and simultaneously not such an element, because it lies above every multiple ι(n)t1\iota(n)t^{-1} of t1t^{-1}.

This refutes only the unrestricted form. The shrinking form, with the additional hypothesis that the lengths tend to 00 in KK, is true (R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) has the nested interval property for lengths tending to 00), and the lengths here do not tend to 00.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: K=R((t1))K = \mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) with its valuation vv, leading coefficient lc\operatorname{lc}, monomials tat^{-a} and constants ι(c)\iota(c); and the elements an=ι(n)t1a_n = \iota(n)t^{-1}, bn=ι(1/(n+1))b_n = \iota(1/(n+1)) for nNn \in \mathbb{N}.

[L1]

For nonzero hKh \in K: h(k)=0h(k) = 0 for k<v(h)k < v(h) and h(v(h))=lc(h)0h(v(h)) = \operatorname{lc}(h) \ne 0; tat^{-a} is nonzero with v(ta)=av(t^{-a}) = a and lc(ta)=1\operatorname{lc}(t^{-a}) = 1; and ι(c)\iota(c) for c0c \ne 0 is nonzero with v(ι(c))=0v(\iota(c)) = 0 and lc(ι(c))=c\operatorname{lc}(\iota(c)) = c (The formal Laurent series R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})): support bounded below, valuation, leading coefficient, R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) is an ordered field, ordered by the sign of the leading coefficient).

[L2]

KK is an ordered field in which f<gf < g holds exactly when gf0Kg - f \ne 0_K and lc(gf)>0\operatorname{lc}(g-f) > 0; exactly one of f<gf < g, f=gf = g, g<fg < f holds; ι\iota is a ring homomorphism, so ι(c)+ι(d)=ι(c+d)\iota(c) + \iota(d) = \iota(c+d) and ι(c)ι(d)=ι(cd)\iota(c)\iota(d) = \iota(cd) (R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) is an ordered field, ordered by the sign of the leading coefficient, Ordered field).

[L3]

For nonzero f,gKf,g \in K: fg0Kfg \ne 0_K with v(fg)=v(f)+v(g)v(fg) = v(f)+v(g) and lc(fg)=lc(f)lc(g)\operatorname{lc}(fg) = \operatorname{lc}(f)\operatorname{lc}(g); f0K-f \ne 0_K with v(f)=v(f)v(-f) = v(f) and lc(f)=lc(f)\operatorname{lc}(-f) = -\operatorname{lc}(f); if v(f)<v(g)v(f) < v(g) then f+g0Kf+g \ne 0_K with lc(f+g)=lc(f)\operatorname{lc}(f+g) = \operatorname{lc}(f); and if v(f)=v(g)v(f) = v(g) with lc(f)+lc(g)0\operatorname{lc}(f)+\operatorname{lc}(g) \ne 0 then f+g0Kf+g \ne 0_K with v(f+g)=v(f)v(f+g) = v(f) and lc(f+g)=lc(f)+lc(g)\operatorname{lc}(f+g) = \operatorname{lc}(f)+\operatorname{lc}(g) (Valuation and leading coefficient in R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})): v(fg)=v(f)+v(g)v(fg) = v(f) + v(g), and the behaviour of vv under sums, R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) is a commutative ring: the product is a finite sum and both operations preserve support bounded below).

[L4]

0K<t(k+1)<tk0_K < t^{-(k+1)} < t^{-k} for every kZk \in \mathbb{Z}; and if h<tk|h| < t^{-k} then h(j)=0h(j) = 0 for every j<kj < k (R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) is non-Archimedean, and the monomials tkt^{-k} are cofinal below its positive elements).

[L5]

[a,b]K={xK:axb}[a,b]_K = \{x \in K : a \le x \le b\} for aba \le b; a sequence of closed intervals is nested when In+1InI_{n+1} \subseteq I_n for every nn; and its lengths tend to 00 in KK when for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in KK they are eventually <ε< \varepsilon (Sequences, convergence, Cauchyness, monotonicity, boundedness and closed intervals in an arbitrary ordered field).

[L6]

R\mathbb{R} is a complete ordered field, hence Archimedean: for every real cc there is a natural nn with c<n1Rc < n \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}}, and for every real c>0c > 0 there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<c1/n < c (The reals form a totally ordered field, The Cauchy-sequence reals have the least-upper-bound property, Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

For n1n \ge 1 the element an=ι(n)t1a_n = \iota(n)t^{-1} is nonzero with v(an)=0+1=1v(a_n) = 0 + 1 = 1 and lc(an)=n1=n>0\operatorname{lc}(a_n) = n \cdot 1 = n > 0, while a0=ι(0)t1=0Ka_0 = \iota(0)t^{-1} = 0_K; and for every nn the element bn=ι(1/(n+1))b_n = \iota(1/(n+1)) is nonzero with v(bn)=0v(b_n) = 0 and lc(bn)=1/(n+1)>0\operatorname{lc}(b_n) = 1/(n+1) > 0. Also a1=ι(1)t1=t1a_1 = \iota(1)t^{-1} = t^{-1}.

givenL1L2L3
2.1

anbna_n \le b_n for every nn: for n=0n = 0 this is 0K<ι(1)=1K0_K < \iota(1) = 1_K, which holds since lc(1K)=1>0\operatorname{lc}(1_K) = 1 > 0; and for n1n \ge 1 we have v(bn)=0<1=v(an)v(b_n) = 0 < 1 = v(-a_n) by [step 1.1] and [L3], so bnanb_n - a_n is nonzero with leading coefficient 1/(n+1)>01/(n+1) > 0, that is an<bna_n < b_n. So each [an,bn]K[a_n,b_n]_K is a closed interval.

step 1.1L1L2L3L5
2.2

The sequence is nested: an+1an=(ι(n+1)ι(n))t1=ι(1)t1=t1>0Ka_{n+1} - a_n = \bigl(\iota(n+1) - \iota(n)\bigr)t^{-1} = \iota(1)t^{-1} = t^{-1} > 0_K by [L2] and [L4], so an<an+1a_n < a_{n+1}; and bnbn+1=ι(1n+11n+2)=ι(1(n+1)(n+2))b_n - b_{n+1} = \iota\bigl(\tfrac{1}{n+1} - \tfrac{1}{n+2}\bigr) = \iota\bigl(\tfrac{1}{(n+1)(n+2)}\bigr), which is nonzero with positive leading coefficient, so bn+1<bnb_{n+1} < b_n. Hence anan+1a_n \le a_{n+1} and bn+1bnb_{n+1} \le b_n, and every xx with an+1xbn+1a_{n+1} \le x \le b_{n+1} satisfies anxbna_n \le x \le b_n, that is In+1InI_{n+1} \subseteq I_n.

step 1.1L1L2L3L4L5
3.1

Suppose xnInx \in \bigcap_{n} I_n. Then a1xa_1 \le x, and a1=t1>0Ka_1 = t^{-1} > 0_K by [step 1.1] and [L4], so x>0Kx > 0_K; hence x0Kx \ne 0_K and lc(x)>0\operatorname{lc}(x) > 0 by [L2]. Write q:=v(x)q := v(x) and c:=lc(x)>0c := \operatorname{lc}(x) > 0.

step 1.1step 2.1L1L2L4L5
4.1

q1q \ge 1. If q<0q < 0 then v(x)<0=v(b0)v(x) < 0 = v(-b_0) by [step 1.1] and [L3], so xb0x - b_0 is nonzero with leading coefficient c>0c > 0 and x>b0x > b_0, contradicting xb0x \le b_0. If q=0q = 0, use [L6] to fix a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<c1/n < c and set n:=n1n' := n - 1, so that 1/(n+1)<c1/(n'+1) < c; then xx and bn-b_{n'} both have valuation 00 with leading coefficients summing to c1/(n+1)0c - 1/(n'+1) \ne 0, so by [L3] xbnx - b_{n'} is nonzero with leading coefficient c1/(n+1)>0c - 1/(n'+1) > 0, giving x>bnx > b_{n'} and contradicting xbnx \le b_{n'}. By trichotomy on Z\mathbb{Z} the remaining case is q1q \ge 1.

step 3.1L1L2L3L5L6
4.2

q<1q < 1. If q>1q > 1 then v(a1)=1<qv(-a_1) = 1 < q by [step 1.1] and [L3], so xa1x - a_1 is nonzero with leading coefficient lc(a1)=1<0\operatorname{lc}(-a_1) = -1 < 0, giving x<a1x < a_1 and contradicting a1xa_1 \le x. If q=1q = 1, use [L6] to fix a natural nn with c<n1Rc < n \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}}, so n1n \ge 1; then xx and an-a_n both have valuation 11 with leading coefficients summing to cn0c - n \ne 0, so by [L3] xanx - a_n is nonzero with leading coefficient cn<0c - n < 0, giving x<anx < a_n and contradicting anxa_n \le x. Hence q1q \ne 1 and q1q \not> 1.

step 3.1L1L2L3L5L6
5.1

Steps 4.1 and 4.2 are incompatible, so no xx lies in every InI_n: the nested sequence (In)(I_n) of [step 2.1] and [step 2.2] has nIn=\bigcap_n I_n = \varnothing, which refutes the unrestricted nested interval property for KK.

step 2.1step 2.2step 4.1step 4.2L5
6.1

Consistency with R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) has the nested interval property for lengths tending to 00: the lengths here do not tend to 00 in KK. Indeed (bnan)(0)=1/(n+1)0(b_n - a_n)(0) = 1/(n+1) \ne 0 by [step 1.1], so by [L4] the inequality bnan<t1|b_n - a_n| < t^{-1} fails for every nn; taking ε=t1\varepsilon = t^{-1} shows the shrinking hypothesis of [L5] is not satisfied.

step 1.1step 2.1L4L5

Remarks

  • What the counterexample really exhibits. It is a gap in KK. Each of the two requirements is satisfiable on its own — ι(1)\iota(1) lies above every ι(n)t1\iota(n)t^{-1}, and 0K0_K lies below every ι(1/(n+1))\iota(1/(n+1)) — yet steps 4.1 and 4.2 show that nothing in KK satisfies both at once. Both sides of the gap are approached along countable sequences, which is why intervals indexed by N\mathbb{N} can straddle it, and the lengths cannot shrink across it: they stay of valuation 00 while the left endpoints stay of valuation 11.

  • Why this does not contradict Cauchy completeness. (an)(a_n) is not Cauchy in KK: consecutive terms differ by exactly t1t^{-1}, so the Cauchy condition fails at ε=t1\varepsilon = t^{-1}. Cauchy completeness (Every Cauchy sequence in R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) converges: KK is sequentially Cauchy complete) constrains sequences whose terms crowd together in the order of KK, and neither endpoint sequence here does.

  • Consequence for the equivalence of completeness properties. Since KK is Cauchy complete but has neither the least-upper-bound property (R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) does not have the least-upper-bound property; its canonical naturals have no supremum) nor the unrestricted nested interval property, any statement of the form "nested intervals imply least upper bounds" has to say which nested interval property it means. The form that KK does satisfy is the shrinking one, and that is the form for which KK is a counterexample to the implication.

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: 87 results over 30 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