Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-08-08 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)
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.

Null times divergent has no rule: xk=1/k with yk=ck gives product limit c, and with yk=k2 gives divergence

Statement refuted

That the product 0⋅(+∞), left undefined by The extended real line R‾=R∪{−∞,+∞}, its order, and the arithmetic that is left undefined, could be given a value compatible with limits: that there is v∈R‾ such that for all sequences of reals with xk→0 (Limits and Cauchy sequences of reals) and yk→+∞ (Divergence to +∞ and to −∞) the products xkyk have the single limiting behaviour named by v.

Equivalently: that knowing a factor is null and the other diverges to +∞ determines anything at all about the product. It does not, and the two undefined entries in the arithmetic of R‾ are undefined for exactly this reason.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The canonical naturals ι(n)=n⋅1R; the sequence xk:=1/ι(k+1); for a real c>0 the sequence yk(c):=c ι(k+1); and the sequence zk:=ι(k+1) ι(k+1).

[L1]

Canonical naturals: ι(n)>0 and invertible for n≥1, ι is strictly increasing, and ι(n)≥1 for n≥1 (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing, Order on the natural numbers, ≤ is a linear order on N).

[L2]

Archimedean facts: for every real η>0 there is a natural p≥1 with 1/p<η, and for every real M there is a natural p≥1 with M<ι(p); and 0<u<v gives 0<1/v<1/u (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).

[L3]

Convergence to a real and divergence to +∞; to establish convergence it suffices to produce a threshold for every real ε>0; a constant sequence converges to its value (Limits and Cauchy sequences of reals, Sequences of reals: bounded, eventually, frequently, tails, subsequences, Divergence to +∞ and to −∞).

[L4]

A sequence diverging to +∞ is unbounded and therefore does not converge to any real (Divergence to +∞ and to −∞, Every convergent sequence is bounded); a limit, when it exists, is unique (A sequence has at most one limit).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The sequence xk=1/ι(k+1) is well defined, positive, and converges to 0: given a real ε>0, take a natural p≥1 with 1/p<ε; for k≥p we have ι(k+1)>ι(p)>0, hence 0<xk<1/p<ε.

givenL1L2L3
1.2

For every real c>0 the sequence yk(c)=c ι(k+1) diverges to +∞: given a real M, the quotient M/c is real, so there is a natural p≥1 with M/c<ι(p), and for k≥p we get ι(k+1)>ι(p)>M/c, hence yk(c)=c ι(k+1)>M after multiplying by c>0.

givenL1L2L3L5
1.3

The sequence zk=ι(k+1)ι(k+1) diverges to +∞: given a real M, take a natural p≥1 with M<ι(p); for k≥p we have ι(k+1)≥1 and ι(k+1)>ι(p)>M, so zk≥ι(k+1)>M.

givenL1L2L3L5
2.1

For every real c>0 the product sequence is constant: xkyk(c)=(1/ι(k+1)) c ι(k+1)=c for every k, so it converges to c.

step 1.1step 1.2L3L5
2.2

The product with (zk) is xkzk=(1/ι(k+1))ι(k+1)ι(k+1)=ι(k+1), which diverges to +∞ by the argument of step 1.3 with the single factor, and therefore converges to no real number.

step 1.1step 1.3L1L2L3L4L5
3.1

Now take the three pairs (x,y(1)), (x,y(2)) and (x,z). In each, the first sequence is null and the second diverges to +∞, so each pair satisfies the hypotheses of the refuted claim; but the three products converge to 1, converge to 2, and converge to +∞ in the extended sense. Since 1≠2 and limits are unique, no single v∈R‾ describes all three, and the claim is false.

step 2.1step 2.2L4L5L6∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

50 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