Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27
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 cover of (0,1) by the intervals (1/(k+2),1) has no Lebesgue number, so the Lebesgue number lemma needs compactness

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: every open cover of a metric space has a Lebesgue number, that is a real δ>0 such that every nonempty subset of diameter less than δ lies inside a single member of the cover.

The true statement carries a compactness hypothesis (Every open cover of a compact metric space has a Lebesgue number: a δ>0 such that every nonempty subset of diameter less than δ lies inside a single member of the cover). The witness is the interval (0,1) (Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) as a metric subspace of R (The absolute value makes R a metric space: d(x,y)=∣x−y∣ is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (x−r,x+r), and it is unbounded), which is not compact (The open interval (0,1) is totally bounded and not compact, the cover by the intervals (1/(k+2),1) having no finite subcover), covered by

Uk  :=  (1k+2, 1),k∈N.

For every real δ>0 the interval A:=(0, t) with t:=min⁡{δ/2, 1/2} is a nonempty subset of (0,1) of diameter at most t<δ (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space) that lies inside no Uk.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The interval (0,1) with the metric ∣x−y∣ restricted to it, and the sets Uk=(1/(k+2),1) for k∈N.

[A1]

The refuted claim: every open cover of a metric space has a Lebesgue number.

[L2]

diam⁡(A)=sup⁡{∣u−v∣:u,v∈A} for nonempty bounded A, so any upper bound of the distances bounds the diameter (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space).

[L3]

A Lebesgue number for a cover is a real δ>0 such that every nonempty subset of diameter less than δ lies inside a single member of the cover; a compact metric space has one for every open cover (Every open cover of a compact metric space has a Lebesgue number: a δ>0 such that every nonempty subset of diameter less than δ lies inside a single member of the cover).

[L4]

For every real η>0 there is a natural m≥1 with 1/m<η, and reciprocals of positives are positive and reverse the order (For every ε>0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n≥1 with 1/n<ε, Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The family (Uk)k∈N is an open cover of (0,1): each Uk is the trace on (0,1) of an open subset of R and is contained in (0,1), and any x∈(0,1) admits a natural m≥1 with 1/m<x, whence 1/(m+2)<1/m<x<1 and x∈Um.

L1L4
2.1

Let δ>0 be real, put t:=min⁡{δ/2, 1/2} and A:=(0,t); then t>0, A is a nonempty subset of (0,1), and every u,v∈A satisfy ∣u−v∣<t, so diam⁡(A)≤t≤δ/2<δ.

L2step 1.1
3.1

A is contained in no Uk: for a given k the real x:=min⁡{t, 1/(k+2)}/2 satisfies 0<x≤t/2<t, so x∈A, and it satisfies x≤(1/(k+2))/2<1/(k+2), so x∉Uk.

L4step 2.1
4.1

So no real δ>0 is a Lebesgue number for this cover, and the claim [A1] is refuted; since (0,1) is not compact, the compactness hypothesis of the Lebesgue number lemma is not removable.

A1L1L3step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Remarks

What goes wrong. The members of the cover grow towards (0,1) but none of them reaches down to 0, so a set clinging to 0 of any positive diameter is never captured whole. On a compact space the finitely many members of a subcover put a uniform floor under this, and that floor is the Lebesgue number (Every open cover of a compact metric space has a Lebesgue number: a δ>0 such that every nonempty subset of diameter less than δ lies inside a single member of the cover).

The same cover shows non-compactness directly, having no finite subcover (The open interval (0,1) is totally bounded and not compact, the cover by the intervals (1/(k+2),1) having no finite subcover), and the failure of uniform continuity of 1/x on (0,1) is the analytic face of the same phenomenon (x↦1/x is continuous on (0,1) and not uniformly continuous, so Heine-Cantor needs compactness of the domain).

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

47 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