Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck 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.

R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) has the nested interval property for lengths tending to 00

Statement

Let K=R((t1))K = \mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) and let (In)nN(I_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} with In=[an,bn]KI_n = [a_n, b_n]_K be a nested sequence of closed intervals in KK whose lengths tend to 00 in KK, that is, for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in KK there is NN with bnan<εb_n - a_n < \varepsilon for all nNn \ge N (Sequences, convergence, Cauchyness, monotonicity, boundedness and closed intervals in an arbitrary ordered field). Then

nNIn\bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} I_n

contains exactly one element of KK.

The hypothesis that the lengths tend to 00 may not be dropped: this is the nested interval property in its shrinking form only, and nothing on this page establishes the unrestricted form for KK. The remarks below record what happens without the hypothesis.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nested sequence (In)nN(I_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} of closed intervals In=[an,bn]KI_n = [a_n,b_n]_K in KK, so anbna_n \le b_n and In+1InI_{n+1} \subseteq I_n for every nn, whose lengths tend to 00 in KK.

[L1]

[a,b]K={xK:axb}[a,b]_K = \{x \in K : a \le x \le b\} for aba \le b; a sequence (xn)(x_n) in KK is Cauchy in KK when for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in KK there is NN with xnxm<ε|x_n - x_m| < \varepsilon for all n,mNn,m \ge N, and converges to LL when for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in KK there is NN with xnL<ε|x_n - L| < \varepsilon for all nNn \ge N; the lengths bnanb_n - a_n tend to 00 when for every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in KK they are eventually <ε< \varepsilon (Sequences, convergence, Cauchyness, monotonicity, boundedness and closed intervals in an arbitrary ordered field).

[L3]

KK is an ordered field (R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) is an ordered field, ordered by the sign of the leading coefficient, Ordered field), so its order is total and transitive and x<yx < y means 0<yx0 < y - x. Compatibility with addition is used below in its NONSTRICT form, xyx+zy+zx \le y \Rightarrow x + z \le y + z, whereas Order is preserved by adding a constant and by adding inequalities states the STRICT forms and only those (x<yx+z<y+zx < y \Rightarrow x + z < y + z, and x<yx < y with z<wz < w giving x+z<y+wx + z < y + w); the nonstrict form is the first strict form together with the case x=yx = y, where the two sides are equal, the order being total (Ordered field).

[L4]

z0|z| \ge 0, z=0|z| = 0 only for z=0z = 0, and z|z| equals zz or z-z; so z=z|z| = z when z0z \ge 0 (Basic properties of the absolute value, Absolute value in an ordered field).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

For each nn, the endpoints an+1a_{n+1} and bn+1b_{n+1} belong to In+1I_{n+1} because an+1bn+1a_{n+1} \le b_{n+1}, and In+1InI_{n+1} \subseteq I_n, so both belong to InI_n; by [L1] this says anan+1a_n \le a_{n+1} and bn+1bnb_{n+1} \le b_n. Hence anan+1bn+1bna_n \le a_{n+1} \le b_{n+1} \le b_n.

givenL1L3
1.2

The intersection contains at most one element. Suppose x,ynInx, y \in \bigcap_n I_n with xyx \ne y, so xy>0|x - y| > 0 by [L4]. For each nn both xx and yy lie in [an,bn]K[a_n,b_n]_K, so xybnanx - y \le b_n - a_n and yxbnany - x \le b_n - a_n by [L1] and [L3], and since xy|x-y| is one of xyx-y, yxy-x by [L4] we get xybnan|x - y| \le b_n - a_n for every nn. Applying the shrinking hypothesis with ε:=xy\varepsilon := |x-y| produces some nn with bnan<xyb_n - a_n < |x-y|, a contradiction.

givenL1L3L4
2.1

Whenever nmn \le m one has anambmbna_n \le a_m \le b_m \le b_n: this is [step 1.1] for m=n+1m = n+1, it is trivial for m=nm = n, and the general case follows by induction on mm using transitivity of the order.

step 1.1L3L5
3.1

(an)nN(a_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} is Cauchy in KK. Let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in KK and take NN with bnan<εb_n - a_n < \varepsilon for all nNn \ge N. Let n,mNn, m \ge N; by [L5] we may assume nmn \le m, the other case being the same with the roles exchanged. By [step 2.1], anambmbna_n \le a_m \le b_m \le b_n, so 0amanbnan<ε0 \le a_m - a_n \le b_n - a_n < \varepsilon, and aman=aman<ε|a_m - a_n| = a_m - a_n < \varepsilon by [L4].

step 2.1givenL1L3L4L5
4.1

By [L2] there is LKL \in K with anLa_n \to L in KK.

step 3.1L2
5.1

anLa_n \le L for every nn. Otherwise L<anL < a_n for some nn; put ε:=anL>0\varepsilon := a_n - L > 0 and use [step 4.1] to fix NN with amL<ε|a_m - L| < \varepsilon for all mNm \ge N. Pick mm with mNm \ge N and mnm \ge n ([L5]). By [step 2.1], anama_n \le a_m, so amLanL=ε>0a_m - L \ge a_n - L = \varepsilon > 0 and hence amL=amLε|a_m - L| = a_m - L \ge \varepsilon by [L4], contradicting amL<ε|a_m - L| < \varepsilon.

step 2.1step 4.1L1L3L4L5
5.2

LbnL \le b_n for every nn. Otherwise bn<Lb_n < L for some nn; put ε:=Lbn>0\varepsilon := L - b_n > 0 and fix NN with amL<ε|a_m - L| < \varepsilon for all mNm \ge N. Pick mm with mNm \ge N and mnm \ge n. By [step 2.1], ambmbna_m \le b_m \le b_n, so LamLbn=ε>0L - a_m \ge L - b_n = \varepsilon > 0 and hence amL=Lamε|a_m - L| = L - a_m \ge \varepsilon by [L4], again a contradiction.

step 2.1step 4.1L1L3L4L5
6.1

By [step 5.1] and [step 5.2], anLbna_n \le L \le b_n for every nn, so LnInL \in \bigcap_n I_n by [L1] and the intersection is nonempty; by [step 1.2] it has no second element. Hence nIn={L}\bigcap_n I_n = \{L\}.

step 5.1step 5.2step 1.2L1

Remarks

  • This is the shrinking form, and the restriction is real. The unrestricted nested interval property — every nested sequence of nonempty closed intervals meets — is false in KK, and The unrestricted nested interval property fails in R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) exhibits a nested sequence with empty intersection. So the hypothesis here is not a convenience of the proof, and no item on this page may be cited for the unrestricted form.

  • A trap in the hypothesis: "lengths 2/n2/n" does not mean shrinking. The condition is that the lengths tend to 00 in the order of KK, tested against every positive εK\varepsilon \in K, not merely against positive real constants. A nested sequence whose nn-th length is the constant series ι(2/(n+1))\iota(2/(n+1)) does not satisfy it: since ι(c)\iota(c) takes the nonzero value cc at index 00, clause 4 of R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) is non-Archimedean, and the monomials tkt^{-k} are cofinal below its positive elements forbids ι(c)<t1|\iota(c)| < t^{-1}, so no such length ever gets below ε=t1\varepsilon = t^{-1}. Real-indexed shrinking is strictly weaker than shrinking in KK, and a proof that assumed the former would be proving a different theorem.

  • Where completeness enters. Exactly once, at [step 4.1]. Everything before it is monotonicity bookkeeping valid in any ordered field, and everything after it uses only the order and the absolute value. That is why the corollary is a corollary of Every Cauchy sequence in R((t1))\mathbb{R}((t^{-1})) converges: KK is sequentially Cauchy complete and not an independent argument about series.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 79 results over 30 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