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.
For every in a complete ordered field there is a natural with
Statement
Let be a complete ordered field (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)) and let with . Then there is a natural number such that
where is the canonical natural of (Every complete ordered field is Archimedean) and is its multiplicative inverse (Field). As is standard we abbreviate to and write the conclusion .
This is the reciprocal form of the Archimedean property. Every complete ordered field is Archimedean on its own delivers only the assertion that the canonical naturals are cofinal, ; the form actually used in analysis, that the reciprocals of the naturals get below every positive bound, is the statement above, and it is recorded separately so that no proof has to reconstruct the inversion step in passing.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A complete ordered field and an element with .
Archimedean property: for every there is a natural number with (Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).
Inverses and order: if then , and if then (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order, Ordered field).
Field arithmetic: an element with is nonzero by trichotomy, hence has a multiplicative inverse , and (Field, Ordered field).
Proof
Since , trichotomy gives , so exists, and .
Apply [L1] to : fix a natural number with .
Chaining the two displayed inequalities gives ; in particular , so and is defined.
Apply the second claim of [L2] with and : .
By [L3], , so the natural number fixed in step 2.1 satisfies , which is the assertion.
Remarks
-
Monotonicity gives the eventual form for free. If then , because is strictly increasing on the naturals (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing), and so by Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order again. So the corollary yields not merely one index but a threshold: every satisfies . That one extra line is what a convergence proof needs, and it is left to the caller rather than folded into the statement, because the caller usually has a threshold of its own to combine it with.
-
Completeness is used only through Every complete ordered field is Archimedean. Nothing here needs the least-upper-bound property directly. The corollary therefore holds verbatim in any Archimedean ordered field, in particular in , and it fails in a non-Archimedean ordered field, where an infinitesimal is below every by construction.
-
The equivalence is exact: the reciprocal form implies the cofinal form back again, since given one applies it to . The two are the same property written on the two sides of the inversion, and only the direction proved above is used in this library.
Depends on
Used by
- Every local minimum of a convex function on an interval is a global minimum Corollary
- The Cesaro matrix satisfies the Silverman-Toeplitz conditions, giving a second proof of the Cesaro mean theorem Corollary
- ∏_j ≥ 0 (1 + (-1)ʲ/√j+2) has partial products tending to 0 although ∑_j ≥ 0 (-1)ʲ/√j+2 converges Counterexample
- ⋂ₖ (-1/k, 1/k) = {0} is not open Counterexample
- A function differentiable on [0,1] whose derivative is unbounded, hence not Riemann integrable Counterexample
- A summability matrix failing exactly one Silverman-Toeplitz condition and transforming a convergent sequence to a divergent one Counterexample
- aₖ = (-1)ᵏ, bₖ = k have aₖ/bₖ → 0 while the difference quotient oscillates, so Stolz-Cesaro has no converse Counterexample
- An upper semicontinuous function on [0,1] that is bounded below and attains no minimum, so the semicontinuous extreme value theorem is genuinely one-sided Counterexample
- Continuous fₙ → 0 pointwise on [0,1] with ∫₀¹ fₙ = 1 for every n Counterexample
- Continuous triangular spikes on [0,1] converge pointwise to zero but not uniformly when monotonicity is absent Counterexample
- Dini's theorem fails for discontinuous approximants: shrinking interval indicators decrease pointwise to zero but not uniformly Counterexample
- Dini's theorem fails on [0,∞): x/(ι(k+1)+x) decreases pointwise to zero but not uniformly Counterexample
- For the Dirichlet function every uniform partition with rational tags gives Riemann sum 1, so the sums converge along that sequence of tagged partitions although the function is not integrable: the mesh condition of the Riemann definition quantifies over all tagged partitions and cannot be weakened to one sequence Counterexample
- g(x,y) = xy/(x²+y²), extended by g(0,0)=0, is continuous in each variable separately and not continuous at the origin Counterexample
- In the subspace of ℝ² made of the vertical unit segments over 1/(n+1) together with the two points (0,0) and (0,1), the component of (0,0) is a singleton while its quasicomponent is {(0,0), (0,1)} Counterexample
- Null times divergent has no rule: xₖ = 1/k with yₖ = ck gives product limit c, and with yₖ = k² gives divergence Counterexample
- On (0,∞) the metrics |x-y| and |1/x - 1/y| have the same topology and are not uniformly equivalent Counterexample
- On (0,∞) the metrics |x-y| and |1/x - 1/y| share their topology and not their Cauchy sequences Counterexample
- On (0,1) the identity is bounded with no greatest value and x ↦ 1/x is continuous and unbounded, so the extreme value theorem needs compactness and not merely boundedness of the domain Counterexample
- On A = ([0,∞) × ℝ) ∪ (ℝ × {0}) the first projection is a quotient map, by the section x ↦ (x,0), and is neither open nor closed Counterexample
- On ℕ with d(m,n) = 1 + 1/(m+n) for m ≠ n the sets {n, n+1, …} are nested, closed, bounded and complete with empty intersection Counterexample
- On the positive integers the metrics |m-n| and |1/m - 1/n| both induce the discrete topology, and only the first is complete Counterexample
- 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 Counterexample
- ℝ^ℕ in the box topology is disconnected, the bounded and the unbounded sequences forming a separation, although every factor is connected and the product topology is connected Counterexample
- Refuted: a pointwise bounded family of continuous functions is equicontinuous. The spikes are bounded by 1 everywhere and are not equicontinuous at 0 Counterexample
- Refuted: C(X,Y) is closed in the topology of pointwise convergence. The ramps on [0,1] converge pointwise to a discontinuous limit Counterexample
- Refuted: convergence uniformly on every compact subset of ℝ implies uniform convergence. The maps x ↦ x/(n+1) separate the two Counterexample
- Shrinking rectangles converge pointwise to zero while every integral equals one Counterexample
- sin(1/x) has no limit as x tends to zero Counterexample
- The comb space is path-connected and fails to be locally connected at every point of the limit tooth strictly above the base, so path-connectedness does not imply local connectedness Counterexample
- The cover {(1/k, 1)} of (0,1) has no finite subcover, so (0,1) is not compact Counterexample
- The cover of (0,1) by the intervals (1/(k+2), 1) has no Lebesgue number, so the Lebesgue number lemma needs compactness Counterexample
- The diagonal x ↦ (x,x,…) from ℝ into ℝ^ℕ is continuous for the product topology and not for the box topology Counterexample
- The double sequence (m+1)/(m+n+2) has unequal iterated limits Counterexample
- The exponential is not uniformly continuous on ℝ Counterexample
- The identity from the discrete topology on ℝ to the usual topology is a continuous bijection that is not a homeomorphism Counterexample
- The logarithm is not uniformly continuous on the positive half-line Counterexample
- The nested open intervals (0, 1/k) have empty intersection Counterexample
- The open interval (0,1) is totally bounded and not compact, the cover by the intervals (1/(k+2), 1) having no finite subcover Counterexample
- The reciprocal on (0,1] is continuous and extends to no continuous function on ℝ, so closedness of the subspace is not decoration in the ℝ-valued Tietze extension Counterexample
…and 140 more results.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 12 results over 7 levels. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, and this result sits at the bottom with a heavier outline. Click the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed., Ch. 1 (Thm 1.20(a) and its corollaries) (standard reference, not scraped)
- T. Tao, Analysis I, 3rd ed., §5.4 (Prop. 5.4.12, the Archimedean property) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Archimedean property (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- UTSA Mathematics: The Archimedean property (standard reference, not scraped)