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 multiplicative identity is positive
Statement
In any ordered field with positive cone , the multiplicative identity satisfies ; that is, .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An ordered field with positive cone and multiplicative identity (Field).
In any field (Field).
For every the square satisfies (Squares of nonzero elements are positive).
The identity axiom gives (Field).
Proof
By the field axioms , and .
Since , applying the square lemma with gives .
Because , it follows that , i.e. .
Depends on
Used by
- Every nondegenerate interval of ℝ is uncountable Corollary
- [0,1) is neither open nor closed in ℝ Counterexample
- {0} ∪ [1,2] is closed, has an isolated point, and is not perfect Counterexample
- ⋂ₖ (-1/k, 1/k) = {0} is not open Counterexample
- 1/4 lies in the Cantor set and is the endpoint of no removed interval, so the endpoints do not exhaust it Counterexample
- A sequence with limsup = +∞: the greatest subsequential limit exists only in overlineℝ Counterexample
- f(x) = x on [0,1) with f(1) = 0 is differentiable at every point of (0,1) with f' ≡ 1, yet no c satisfies f(1) - f(0) = f'(c), so continuity on the closed interval cannot be dropped from the mean value theorem Counterexample
- In {0} ∪ [1,2] with the metric of ℝ, the closure of B(0,1) = {0} is {0} while the closed ball is {0,1} Counterexample
- In the cocountable topology on ℝ the sequential closure of [0,1] is [0,1] while its closure is all of ℝ 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 ℝ the metrics |x-y| and min(|x-y|,1) are uniformly but not Lipschitz equivalent Counterexample
- On the domain {0} ∪ [1,2] every real is vacuously a limit at 0 Counterexample
- ℚ ∩ [0,2] is bounded and disconnected, so being an interval of ℚ is not enough 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 is the union of a meager set and a set of measure zero, so smallness of category and smallness of measure are independent notions Counterexample
- The cover {(1/k, 1)} of (0,1) has no finite subcover, so (0,1) is not compact Counterexample
- The empty set is bounded and has no supremum Counterexample
- The function equal to 0 off the origin and to 1 at the origin has limit 0 ≠ 1 there Counterexample
- The identity from the cocountable topology on ℝ to the usual topology is sequentially continuous and not continuous Counterexample
- The identity on [0,1] attains its maximum at 1 and its minimum at 0 with derivative 1 at both, so Fermat's theorem genuinely needs the extremum to be at an interior point Counterexample
- The indicator of ℚ has a limit at no point of ℝ Counterexample
- With g ≡ 0 and f equal to 0 off the origin and 1 at it, lim g = 0 and lim_y → 0 f = 0 while f ∘ g ≡ 1 Counterexample
- x ↦ |x| is continuous everywhere and not differentiable at 0: the difference quotient equals 1 on the right and -1 on the left, so the two one-sided limits differ Counterexample
- xₖ = (-1)ᵏ, yₖ = (-1)ᵏ⁺¹ give limsup(xₖ + yₖ) = 0 < 2 = limsup xₖ + limsup yₖ Counterexample
- xₖ = 1 + (-1)ᵏ, yₖ = 1 + (-1)ᵏ⁺¹ give limsup(xₖ yₖ) = 0 < 4 Counterexample
- xₖ₊₁ = xₖ + 1/xₖ from x₁ = 1 has strictly decreasing consecutive gaps and diverges, so no uniform c < 1 exists Counterexample
- ℤ and {n + 1/n : n ≥ 2} are disjoint closed subsets of ℝ at distance 0, so the set-to-set distance is not a metric Counterexample
- ℤ is closed and not compact, and (0,1) is bounded and not compact: neither hypothesis of Heine-Borel can be dropped Counterexample
- ψ(1/x) has no limit at 0: two sequences tending to 0 give values constantly 0 and constantly 1/2 Counterexample
- Limits at +∞ and -∞, and infinite limits at a point Definition
- The Cantor function on [0,1], defined on the Cantor set through ternary digits and extended constantly across each removed interval Definition
- The Cantor middle-thirds set as the intersection of the sets Cₙ obtained by removing open middle thirds Definition
- The Smith-Volterra-Cantor set: the same construction removing, at stage n ≥ 1, an open middle interval of length 4⁻ⁿ from each of the 2ⁿ⁻¹ remaining intervals Definition
- (-1)ᵏ has liminf = -1 and limsup = 1, so it does not converge Example
- (0,1) + (2,3) = (2,4), with supremum 4 = sup(0,1) + sup(2,3) Example
- (3x² - 1)/(x² + x) → 3 as x → +∞ Example
- A positive sequence making all three inequalities of the ratio-to-root chain strict Example
- aₖ = 2^-k + (-1)ᵏ has liminf aₖ₊₁/aₖ = 1/8, limsup aₖ₊₁/aₖ = 2 and lim aₖ^1/k = 1/2 Example
- Baire category gives a third proof that ℝ is uncountable Example
…and 88 more results.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 5 results over 4 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 (standard reference, not scraped)
- M. Spivak, Calculus, 4th ed., Ch. 1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Elias Zakon, Mathematical Analysis: Axioms and Basic Definitions (standard reference, not scraped)