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.

On (0,∞) the metrics ∣x−y∣ and ∣1/x−1/y∣ share their topology and not their Cauchy sequences

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: topologically equivalent metrics have the same Cauchy sequences (FALSE: two metrics inducing the same topology have the same Cauchy sequences, Topologically, uniformly and Lipschitz equivalent metrics on a set, Cauchy sequence in a metric space).

Let X:=(0,∞)⊆R (Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and put

d(x,y):=∣x−y∣,d′(x,y):=∣1x−1y∣(x,y∈X).

Both are metrics on X and Td=Td′. The sequence xk:=1/(k+2) is d-Cauchy and not d′-Cauchy; the sequence yk:=k+2 is d′-Cauchy and not d-Cauchy. So neither metric's Cauchy sequences are contained in the other's, and topological equivalence controls neither direction.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The set X=(0,∞) with the metrics d and d′ above; the sequences xk=1/(k+2) and yk=k+2; a point a∈X; reals r,s,ε>0.

[L2]

For x,a>0: 1/x−1/a=(a−x)/(xa), so ∣x−a∣=∣1/x−1/a∣⋅xa and ∣1/x−1/a∣=∣x−a∣/(xa); reciprocation is strictly decreasing on the positives, hence injective there (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order, Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication).

[L6]

Cauchyness may be tested with real ε>0 (Cauchy sequence in a metric space, The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[L7]

Uniform equivalence says both identity maps are uniformly continuous, and a uniformly continuous map sends Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences (Topologically, uniformly and Lipschitz equivalent metrics on a set, Uniform continuity of a map of metric spaces: one δ serving every point, A uniformly continuous map sends Cauchy sequences to Cauchy sequences).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

d is a metric on X, being the restriction of the usual metric of R; and d′ is a metric on X, being the pullback of that metric along the injective map x↦1/x.

L1L2
2.1

Given a∈X and a real r>0, put s:=min⁡{1/(2a), r/(4a2)}>0. If d′(x,a)<s then ∣1/x−1/a∣<1/(2a), so 1/x>1/(2a) and hence x<2a; therefore ∣x−a∣=∣1/x−1/a∣⋅xa<s⋅2a2≤r/2<r. So Bd′(a,s)⊆Bd(a,r).

step 1.1L2L3L5
2.2

Given a∈X and a real s>0, put r:=min⁡{a/2, sa2/4}>0. If d(x,a)<r then ∣x−a∣<a/2, so x>a/2 and hence ∣1/x−1/a∣=∣x−a∣/(xa)<r/((a/2)a)=2r/a2≤s/2<s. So Bd(a,r)⊆Bd′(a,s).

step 1.1L2L3L5
2.3

The sequence xk=1/(k+2) lies in X; it is d-Cauchy, since for a real ε>0 and N≥1 with 1/N<ε/2 every k,l≥N gives d(xk,xl)≤1/(k+2)+1/(l+2)<2/N<ε.

step 1.1L4L6
3.1

Hence Td=Td′: a d-open U is d′-open by step 2.1 applied at each of its points, and conversely by step 2.2.

step 2.1step 2.2L3
3.2

It is not d′-Cauchy: d′(xk,xl)=∣(k+2)−(l+2)∣=∣k−l∣, so d′(xK,xK+1)=1 for every K and the Cauchy condition fails at ε=1.

step 2.3L1L2L6
3.3

The sequence yk=k+2 lies in X; it is d′-Cauchy, since d′(yk,yl)=∣1/(k+2)−1/(l+2)∣≤1/(k+2)+1/(l+2), which is below ε for k,l≥N by the computation of step 2.3.

step 2.3L1L2L4L6
4.1

It is not d-Cauchy: d(yK,yK+1)=1 for every K, so the Cauchy condition fails at ε=1.

step 3.3L1L6
5.1

So d and d′ are topologically equivalent metrics on X whose classes of Cauchy sequences are incomparable, which refutes the claim above.

step 3.1step 2.3step 3.2step 3.3step 4.1
6.1

In particular d and d′ are not uniformly equivalent, since uniform equivalence would make both identity maps uniformly continuous and hence would preserve Cauchy sequences in both directions.

step 5.1L7∎

Remarks

  • The map x↦1/x is what is being tested. It is a bijection of (0,∞) onto itself and a homeomorphism, by steps 2.1 and 2.2, and d′ is the metric it pulls back from d. Homeomorphisms preserve open sets and convergence; they do not preserve Cauchyness, and this is that failure written out.
  • Both failures come from a missing endpoint, at opposite ends. The sequence (xk) heads for 0, which (0,∞) does not contain, so it is d-Cauchy without converging; its image under x↦1/x runs off to the right and is not Cauchy at all. Reading the same picture through d′ exchanges the two ends, which is why the failure is symmetric.
  • Indexing. The terms are 1/(k+2) and k+2 rather than 1/k and k because N contains 0 in this library; 1/0 does not exist and 0∉(0,∞), so both sequences are shifted to start safely inside the space.
  • The completeness version of the same phenomenon is On the positive integers the metrics ∣m−n∣ and ∣1/m−1/n∣ both induce the discrete topology, and only the first is complete, and the general statement being refuted there is FALSE: completeness of a metric space is determined by its topology.

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