Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02
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.

Under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma, the Samuel compactification of the open unit interval is the closed unit interval

Example

Give (0,1) and [0,1] the subspace metric d(s,t)=∣s−t∣ from the usual real metric (The absolute value makes R a metric space: d(x,y)=∣x−y∣ is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (x−r,x+r), and it is unbounded, Isometry, isometric embedding, and the subspace metric on a subset) and the uniformities that it generates. With these metric uniformities, the inclusion i:(0,1)→[0,1] is a Hausdorff completion. Consequently, under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma, [0,1] is the Samuel compactification of (0,1).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A real ε>0 and the specified subspace metric uniformities on (0,1) and [0,1].

[L3]

A set is finite when it is equinumerous with a natural number, and total boundedness asks for a finite entourage-ball cover (The cardinality ∣A∣ of a finite set, Totally bounded uniform space).

[L5]

Under dependent choice, the Samuel completion of a separated totally bounded space is its ordinary uniform completion; under the ultrafilter lemma it is compact (Under dependent choice the Samuel completion of a separated totally bounded space is its uniform completion; under the ultrafilter lemma it is compact).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Choose n=m+1, where m is from [L2]; then n≥2 and 1/n<ε. The map j↦(j+1)/n is injective on the natural number m, so its image F={(j+1)/n:j∈m} is finite and lies in (0,1).

L2L3
2.1

For x∈(0,1), write k=⌊nx⌋. If k=0, then (0+1)/n∈F is within 1/n of x. Otherwise 1≤k<n=m+1, so k−1∈m, k/n∈F, and k/n≤x<(k+1)/n. Thus F is an ε-net.

L1L2step 1.1
3.1

Hence (0,1) is separated and totally bounded. The inclusion i pulls back every metric entourage of [0,1] to the same-radius metric entourage of (0,1), and its image is dense because every interval about 0, 1, or an interior point meets (0,1).

L1L3step 2.1
4.1

By [L4], [0,1] is complete, and by [L1] its metric uniformity is separated; so step 3.1 verifies the completion conditions of A Hausdorff completion of a uniform space and its canonical dense map.

L1L4step 3.1
5.1

The identification in [L5] now gives the Samuel compactification S((0,1))≅[0,1].

L5step 4.1∎

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

69 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