Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-29
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: AB=A+B\lvert A \cup B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert for all finite AA and BB

Statement

FALSE. The statement

AB=A+B\lvert A \cup B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert

for all finite sets AA and BB.

This is The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with AB=A+B\lvert A \cup B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert and iIAi=iIAi\lvert\bigcup_{i \in I} A_i\rvert = \sum_{i \in I}\lvert A_i\rvert, and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition clause 1 with the hypothesis AB=A \cap B = \varnothing deleted. It is the single most common way a count goes wrong, and the smallest witness is as small as a witness can be.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The sets {0}\{0\}, {0,1}\{0,1\} and {1,2}\{1,2\}, with 00, 11, 22 the von Neumann naturals (The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann)).

[L1]

n=n\lvert n\rvert = n for a natural nn, and a bijection transports cardinality (The cardinality A\lvert A\rvert of a finite set, Injection, surjection, bijection).

[L3]

Distinct naturals are distinct, so 121 \ne 2 and 343 \ne 4 (Trichotomy of the order on N\mathbb{N}).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

The smallest witness. Take A=B={0}A = B = \{0\}. Then AB={0}A \cup B = \{0\}, which is 11 as a von Neumann natural, so AB=1\lvert A \cup B\rvert = 1 by [L1]; while A+B=1+1=2\lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert = 1 + 1 = 2. Since 121 \ne 2 by [L3], the displayed statement fails.

givenL1L3
2.1

A witness with partial overlap, to show that the failure is not an artefact of taking AA and BB equal. Take A={0,1}=2A = \{0,1\} = 2 and B={1,2}B = \{1,2\}. Then A=2\lvert A\rvert = 2 by [L1], and B=2\lvert B\rvert = 2 because 010 \mapsto 1, 121 \mapsto 2 is a bijection of 22 onto BB. But AB={0,1,2}=3A \cup B = \{0,1,2\} = 3, so AB=3\lvert A\cup B\rvert = 3, whereas A+B=4\lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert = 4. Again the two differ.

step 1.1L1L3
3.1

The missing hypothesis is disjointness. [L2] proves the identity whenever AB=A \cap B = \varnothing, and in step 1.1 the intersection is {0}\{0\} while in step 2.1 it is {1}\{1\}; in each case the excess of the right-hand side over the left is the cardinality of that intersection.

step 1.1step 2.1L2

Remarks

  • What the general correction is. Adding the counts and then subtracting the count of the overlap is the two-set case of inclusion and exclusion. That principle is the next page of this track and is not available here, so no formula for the general case is stated: what is established above is only that the identity as displayed is false, and where its hypothesis went.

  • The same failure at the level of a family is exhibited concretely in A count that overcounts because the blocks are not disjoint, and exactly where the sum rule's hypothesis is spent, where twelve subsets are counted as sixteen.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 68 results over 24 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