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.

R covered by its closed singletons: every restriction of the indicator of {0} is continuous and the map is not, so the closed pasting lemma needs finiteness

Statement refuted

Refuted: that continuity may be checked on an arbitrary closed cover. Claim 3 of Continuity may be checked on any open cover, and on any finite closed cover; composites of continuous maps are continuous allows only finitely many closed pieces, and the restriction is not removable.

Witness. Give R its usual topology (Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not, 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) and let

F:={ {t}:t∈R }

be the family of its singletons, a cover of R by closed sets. Let f:R→R be the indicator of {0}, that is f(0)=1 and f(t)=0 for t≠0. Then every restriction f∣{t} is continuous for the subspace topology (Subspace topology: the traces of the open sets, its closed sets and its bases, the continuity of the inclusion, and the characteristic property of a map into a subspace), and f is not continuous (Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R with its usual topology, the cover F by singletons, and the function f above.

[L3]

0<1 and hence 1<1+1 (The multiplicative identity is positive, Order is preserved by adding a constant and by adding inequalities); consequently 1∈(0, 1+1) and 0∉(0, 1+1).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

F covers R, each t∈R lying in {t}, and each member is closed by [L4].

givenL4
1.2

For every t∈R the subspace {t} carries only the two subsets ∅ and {t}, both of which are open in it by [A2]; hence every function out of {t} has open preimages and is continuous, and in particular f∣{t} is.

A2A1
1.3

V:=B(1,1)=(0, 1+1) is a ball, hence open in R by [L1], and f−1[V]={0}: indeed f(0)=1∈V by [L3], while f(t)=0∉V for t≠0, again by [L3].

L1L3
1.4

{0} is not open in the usual topology: for any r>0 the ball (−r,r) contains the point 1/n for a natural n≥1 with 1/n<r given by [L2], and 1/n>0, so 1/n∈(−r,r)∖{0}; hence no ball around 0 lies inside {0}.

L1L2
2.1

By step 1.3 and step 1.4 the preimage under f of the open set V is not open, so f is not continuous by [A1]; by steps 1.1 and 1.2 the family F is a closed cover of R every restriction to which is continuous. So claim 3 of Continuity may be checked on any open cover, and on any finite closed cover; composites of continuous maps are continuous fails without the hypothesis that the cover be finite.

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3step 1.4A1∎

Remarks

  • Why an infinite closed cover is useless and an infinite open cover is not. The proof of claim 3 of Continuity may be checked on any open cover, and on any finite closed cover; composites of continuous maps are continuous writes f−1[F] as a union of sets closed in R and concludes that it is closed; only finite unions of closed sets are closed (Topology on a set, open and closed sets, clopen sets, the closed-set axiomatisation, and the coarser/finer comparison), and here f−1[R∖V] is the union of the uncountably many closed sets {t}, t≠0, which is R∖{0}, not closed. The open-cover version has no such restriction because arbitrary unions of open sets are open.

  • The singleton cover trivialises every function. For any spaces X and Y and any f:X→Y, the restriction of f to a one-point subspace is continuous, so the singleton cover certifies nothing whatever. The witness is therefore the sharpest form of the failure rather than a delicate example, and the map f could be replaced by any discontinuous function.

  • A two-piece closed cover of R would have detected the discontinuity. For instance (−∞,0] and [0,∞) are closed and cover R, and f restricted to (−∞,0] is already discontinuous at 0 by the argument of step 1.4 carried out inside that subspace.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

52 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