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 canonical natural of a field
Definition
Let be a field (Field) with additive identity and multiplicative identity . Define by recursion on (The natural numbers (von Neumann), The recursion theorem):
is the canonical natural of in . It is also written , and for it is added to itself times.
Why the notation is needed at all. A natural number in this library is a von Neumann natural, that is a set (The natural numbers (von Neumann)), and a set is not an element of . So , and are not expressions of when is a natural: what they mean is , and . The map is what carries a counting number into the field, and writing it is the whole reason a reader meets where an informal text would write .
Remarks
-
Where the index shift comes from. contains (The natural numbers (von Neumann)) and , so is undefined at . A family of reciprocals indexed by is therefore written over , which is why the harmonic and telescoping families of this library run over rather than over . This is bookkeeping, not a restriction: the values are the usual ones.
-
This definition records notation; the arithmetic is proved elsewhere. That is strictly increasing and positive on , and that it carries sums to sums and products to products, is Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing, stated for an ordered field. That lemma introduces the same element by the equivalent recursion , , which agrees with the definition above because . Nothing here is new mathematics; the definition exists so that the notation has a home a reader can look up.
-
The symbol is used in this library for other canonical maps, and this definition does not govern them. It also denotes the canonical field embedding (The unique embedding of ℚ into an ordered field), the isometric embedding of a metric space into a completion (A completion of a metric space: a complete metric space together with an isometric embedding onto a dense subspace ↗), and an inclusion map of a subspace. Each of those is introduced where it is used and means something different from the map defined here. What the four share is only that each is the canonical map of its situation.
-
Fields, not just ordered fields. The recursion needs no order, so the definition is stated for a field; every use in this library is in an ordered field, and the order is what makes injective (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing). In a field of positive characteristic is not injective, which is one reason the injectivity is a lemma rather than part of the definition.
Depends on
Used by
- ∑_k<n+1binomnk = 2ⁿ, and ∑_k<n+1(-1)ᵏιbinomnk = 0 for n ≥ 1 Corollary
- A power-series sum is infinitely differentiable inside its radius and satisfies aₙ=f⁽ⁿ⁾(c)/ι(n!) at its centre Corollary
- A uniform derivative bound gives a uniform Taylor remainder bound Corollary
- If X is nonempty, some row fibre is at least the average size and some row fibre is at most the average size Corollary
- Integral test as an equivalence with an improper integral Corollary
- The Lagrange and Cauchy forms of Taylor's remainder Corollary
- ι(Dₙ) = ι(n) ι(Dₙ₋₁) + (-1)ⁿ for n ≥ 1, and Dₙ = (n-1)(Dₙ₋₁ + Dₙ₋₂) for n ≥ 2 Corollary
- ‖·‖₁ on ℝ² violates the parallelogram law, so no symmetric bilinear form induces it Counterexample
- A bounded truncation function need not have an improper limit Counterexample
- A curve for which the mean value inequality is an equality, showing the constant cannot be improved Counterexample
- A function differentiable on [0,1] whose derivative is unbounded, hence not Riemann integrable Counterexample
- A list of six distinct reals with no strictly increasing sublist of length four and no strictly decreasing sublist of length three Counterexample
- A relation whose row fibres all differ from the average size, so the averaging principle gives a bound that no fibre meets exactly Counterexample
- A three-set count that drops the triple intersection and returns the wrong answer Counterexample
- Collapsing the set of naturals inside ℝ to a point gives a quotient of ℝ that is not locally compact at the collapsed point Counterexample
- Continuous f and integrable sign-changing g with ∫ₐᵇ fg ≠ f(ξ)∫ₐᵇ g for every ξ 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
- f(t) = (t², t³) on [0,1]: no ξ satisfies f(1)-f(0) = f'(ξ) Counterexample
- fₖ(x)=xᵏ⁺¹ converges pointwise but not uniformly on [0,1] 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
- Integrable φ and integrable f with φ∘ f not integrable: the order of the hypotheses in the composition theorem cannot be reversed Counterexample
- ℕ with the discrete metric is bounded and is not totally bounded 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
- 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 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 series ∑_n≥0ι(n!)xⁿ converges only at x=0 and has radius zero Counterexample
- Thomae's function is nonnegative, Riemann integrable on [0,1] with integral 0, and nonzero at every rational, so a vanishing integral does not force a nonnegative integrand to vanish Counterexample
- With f(x) = x³ and g(x) = x² on [-1,1] the quotient form f(b)-f(a)/g(b)-g(a) = f'(c)/g'(c) is meaningless because g(b) = g(a), while the product form of Cauchy's theorem still holds Counterexample
- x ↦ √x on (0,1] is differentiable with unbounded derivative and is not Lipschitz there, so the boundedness hypothesis in the Lipschitz corollary cannot be dropped Counterexample
- x ↦ 1/x is continuous on (0,1) and not uniformly continuous, so Heine-Cantor needs compactness of the domain Counterexample
…and 151 more results.
Dependency tree · next 3 levels
Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 16 results over 8 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
- Characteristic (algebra) (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- T. Tao, Analysis I, 3rd ed. (standard reference, not scraped)
- Elias Zakon, Mathematical Analysis: Natural Numbers and Induction (standard reference, not scraped)