Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-10
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 closed angular form on the punctured plane is not exact

Statement refuted

Every closed smooth one-form on the punctured plane is exact.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The witness α=(ydx+xdy)/(x2+y2) on R2{0}.

[F1]

Closed and exact differential forms: For the complex def-de-rham-cochain-complex, put Zk(M)=ker(d:Ωk(M)Ωk+1(M)) and Bk(M)=im(d:Ωk1(M)Ωk(M)). A form is closed if it belongs to Zk and exact if it belongs to Bk. If ω=dη, then dω=d2η=0 by thm-the-exterior-derivative-squares-to-zero, so BkZk. In particular B0=0, since Ω1=0. The zero form is both closed and exact in every degree.

[F2]

The local coordinate formula for the exterior derivative: Let (U,x1,,xn) be a smooth chart on a smooth manifold and ω a smooth k-form on U, with k0. Summing over increasing k-tuples I, and writing dxI=dxi1dxik, if ω=IωIdxI, then dω=IdωIdxI.

[F4]

Newton–Leibniz needs only continuity on [a,b], differentiability on (a,b), and a Riemann-integrable extension of the interior derivative: Let a<b. Suppose G:[a,b]R is continuous on [a,b] and differentiable on (a,b). If f:[a,b]R is Riemann integrable and f(x)=G(x)(a<x<b), then abf=G(b)G(a). No derivative of G at either endpoint is assumed, and the two endpoint values assigned to the integrable extension f do not enter the conclusion.

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The denominator is positive. Writing its coefficients as a=y/(x2+y2) and b=x/(x2+y2) gives xb=ya=(y2x2)/(x2+y2)2. Hence dα=(xbya)dxdy=0.

F1F2given
2.1

On γ(t)=(cost,sint), γα=dt and its integral is 2π. If α=df, then the chain rule and the fundamental theorem would make this integral f(γ(2π))f(γ(0))=0. Thus the closed witness is not exact.

F4step 1.1

Source locator

Lee, angular form (17.1), p.441; the zero derivative and nonzero loop period are calculated above by Newton–Leibniz.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

17 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