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 spikes k chi_(0,1/k) converge almost everywhere and in measure to zero but not in L^1
Statement refuted
convergence in measure implies convergence in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Lebesgue measure on and the sequence defined by and for .
Almost-everywhere convergence means pointwise convergence off a measurable null set. (Convergence almost everywhere relative to a measure)
Convergence in measure means that for every real , . (Convergence in measure)
Convergence in means . (Convergence in L^1(mu))
Counterexample
Fix . If , then for all large , so eventually; and for every . Thus for every , hence almost everywhere by [L1].
Fix . For all one has , whose measure is . So in measure by [L2].
For every , [given, L3, algebra] So the errors from never tend to , and [L3] fails.
The sequence converges almost everywhere and in measure to , but not in .
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
6 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
- Gerald B. Folland, Real Analysis, 2nd ed., Section 2.4, Example (iii) (standard reference, not scraped)