Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-13
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.

Not every distribution is a locally integrable function

Statement refuted

Every distribution on Rn, n1, is represented by a locally integrable function. Under Countable Choice, δ0 is a counterexample.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Under Countable Choice the regular-distribution map is injective on almost-everywhere classes on every open domain (Locally integrable functions embed in distributions, The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

[F2]

Dirac is a distribution and δ0(φ)=φ(0) (Dirac delta and its derivatives).

[F3]

A test equal to one near zero exists (Test function cutoffs and euclidean localization).

[F4]

A point is Lebesgue null, as a subset of a coordinate hyperplane (A box with a degenerate side is Lebesgue null, and so is every coordinate hyperplane in Rn).

Proof

Given: Countable Choice and the witness δ0.

1.1

Suppose uf=δ0 with fLloc1(Rn). On the open domain U=Rn{0}, all tests evaluate to zero at the origin, so F2 gives ufU=0. F1 applied on this entire open domain, without selecting pointwise neighborhoods, gives f=0 almost everywhere on U. By F4 the omitted singleton is null, so f=0 almost everywhere on Rn.

givenF1F2F4
2.1

Consequently uf=0, but F3 supplies φ with φ(0)=1, and F2 gives δ0(φ)=1. This contradiction proves that the witness is not regular and refutes the proposed universal statement. The zero function does represent the zero distribution; the failure is the nonzero point mass, not a failure of the regular-distribution construction. Dimension zero is excluded, since its singleton has mass one in the library convention.

step 1.1F1F2F3

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

30 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