Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27
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.

FALSE: the Cantor set is countable because only countably many intervals were removed

Statement

False claim: the Cantor set C (The Cantor middle-thirds set as the intersection of the sets Cn obtained by removing open middle thirds) is at most countable (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable), because it is obtained from [0,1] by removing at most countably many intervals, and what survives such a removal is the at most countable set of their endpoints.

The claim rests on two inferences and both fail. The count of removed intervals itself is correct, and it is irrelevant: removing an at most countable family of intervals from [0,1] says nothing about the cardinality of the remainder. And the endpoints do not exhaust C: the point 1/4 belongs to C and is the endpoint of no removed interval, as the remarks below record.

Facts & Assumptions

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

C is uncountable by [L1], which is the direct negation of [A1].

A1L1L4
1.2

A second and independent refutation, which does not go through perfect sets: the map b↦{ k∈N:bk=1 } is a bijection from {0,1}N onto P(N), its inverse sending a set to its indicator sequence, so composing with [L2] gives a bijection from C onto P(N). If C were at most countable it would be nonempty and admit a surjection N→C by [L4], and composing with that bijection would give a surjection N→P(N), contradicting [L3].

L2L3L4
2.1

So the claim [A1] is false. The premise about the removed intervals is not what fails; it is the inference from it, and step 1.2 shows why no counting of removed intervals could have settled the question: the surviving set is in bijection with the power set of N.

step 1.1step 1.2A1∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

53 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