Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck 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 xx2x\mapsto x^2 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 2x2x never vanishes anywhere on UU, but g(x)=g(x)g(-x)=g(x), so every point of (1,4)(1,4) has one preimage in each component of KK.

L2given
2.1

The image integral is its length, 141dy=3\int_{1}^{4}1\,dy=3, while the proposed source integral is K2xdx=21(2x)dx+122xdx=3+3=6.\int_K|2x|\,dx=\int_{-2}^{-1}(-2x)\,dx+\int_1^2 2x\,dx=3+3=6.

L2step 1.1
3.1

The mismatch 636\ne3 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 · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 145 results over 25 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.