Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)verified 2026-07-29 (claude-fable-5)
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.

Two continuous maps into a Hausdorff space that agree on a dense subset are equal

Statement

Let ZZ be a topological space, let DZD \subseteq Z be dense (Dense, nowhere dense and codense subsets of a topological space, and the criterion by basic open sets), let YY be Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not) and let f,g:ZYf, g : Z \to Y be continuous (Continuity of a map of topological spaces at a point and globally) with

f(d)=g(d)for every dD.f(d) = g(d) \qquad \text{for every } d \in D .

Then f=gf = g.

So a continuous map into a Hausdorff space is determined by its restriction to any dense subset of its domain. Nothing is asserted about which functions on DD extend: the statement is about uniqueness of an extension, not existence.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A topological space ZZ, a dense subset DZD \subseteq Z, a Hausdorff space YY, and continuous maps f,g:ZYf, g : Z \to Y agreeing at every point of DD.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

E(f,g)E(f,g) is closed in ZZ.

L1
1.2

DE(f,g)D \subseteq E(f,g), since ff and gg agree at every point of DD.

given
2.1

Z=DE(f,g)Z = \overline{D} \subseteq E(f,g), the equality by [A1] and the inclusion because E(f,g)E(f,g) is a closed set containing DD.

step 1.1step 1.2A1L2
3.1

E(f,g)ZE(f,g) \subseteq Z holds by definition, so E(f,g)=ZE(f,g) = Z, that is f(z)=g(z)f(z) = g(z) for every zZz \in Z and f=gf = g.

step 2.1

Remarks

  • The Hausdorff hypothesis is spent exactly once, inside [L1], and the density hypothesis exactly once, at step 2.1. Neither is used anywhere else, and neither can be weakened to the other: a dense agreement set alone does not force equality without a separation hypothesis on the codomain, and a Hausdorff codomain alone plainly does not.

  • Density is a hypothesis about ZZ, not about YY. In particular the statement is about one domain and one dense subset of it; it says nothing about restrictions to subsets that are merely large in some other sense, and there is no cardinality condition anywhere in it.

  • The uniqueness/existence split matters. A continuous f:DYf : D \to Y need not extend continuously to ZZ at all. What this corollary rules out is two different extensions, and that is exactly what makes an extension, when it exists, worth naming.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 56 results over 14 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