Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-11
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.

Dropping injectivity double-counts under x↦x2 on two disjoint intervals

Statement refuted

False claim. The injectivity hypothesis may be removed from compact-Jordan change of variables when the derivative is nonzero everywhere on the domain.

Facts & Assumptions

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The derivative 2x never vanishes anywhere on U, but g(−x)=g(x), so every point of (1,4) has one preimage in each component of K.

L2given
2.1

The image integral is its length, ∫141 dy=3, while the proposed source integral is ∫K∣2x∣ dx=∫−2−1(−2x) dx+∫122x dx=3+3=6.

L2step 1.1
3.1

The mismatch 6≠3 is exact double counting. Thus nonvanishing derivative does not replace injectivity, and [L1]'s hypothesis is essential.

L1step 2.1∎

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

38 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.