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.
ReLU lies outside the analytic activation assumptions
Example
Let be the ReLU activation. It is not differentiable at , so it is not analytic and does not satisfy the smooth-activation assumptions of the two finite-width convergence theorems.
Example references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The ReLU function and the activation hypotheses used for the stated finite-width theorems.
The theorems assume an analytic activation with a Lipschitz derivative. Fully connected and residual networks with the Du Gram kernel
Verification
Given: .
For , , so its left derivative at is ; for , , so its right derivative at is . The two one-sided derivatives differ, and the derivative at does not exist.
Every analytic real function is differentiable at every point of its domain. Since ReLU is not differentiable at , it is not analytic; it also fails the Lipschitz-derivative condition in [F1].
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
8 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Du et al., Condition 3.1 and Condition 3.2 (standard reference, not scraped)