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: for all finite and
Statement
FALSE. The statement
for all finite sets and .
This is The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with and , and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition clause 1 with the hypothesis 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 , and , with , , the von Neumann naturals (The natural numbers (von Neumann)).
for a natural , and a bijection transports cardinality (The cardinality of a finite set, Injection, surjection, bijection).
Distinct naturals are distinct, so and (Trichotomy of the order on ).
Refutation
The smallest witness. Take . Then , which is as a von Neumann natural, so by [L1]; while . Since by [L3], the displayed statement fails.
A witness with partial overlap, to show that the failure is not an artefact of taking and equal. Take and . Then by [L1], and because , is a bijection of onto . But , so , whereas . Again the two differ.
The missing hypothesis is disjointness. [L2] proves the identity whenever , and in step 1.1 the intersection is while in step 2.1 it is ; in each case the excess of the right-hand side over the left is the cardinality of that intersection.
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
- The sum rule: a finite disjoint union is finite with $\lvert A \cup B\rvert = \lvert A\rvert + \lvert B\rvert$ and $\lvert\bigcup_{i \in I} A_i\rvert = \sum_{i \in I}\lvert A_i\rvert$, and a sum over a finite index set splits along a partition
- The cardinality $\lvert A\rvert$ of a finite set
- Injection, surjection, bijection
- The natural numbers $\mathbb{N}$ (von Neumann)
- Trichotomy of the order on $\mathbb{N}$
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
- Rule of sum (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Inclusion-exclusion principle (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- Cardinality (Wikipedia) (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. Sylvestre, Elementary Foundations 12.02, Properties of finite sets and their cardinality (LibreTexts) (standard reference, not scraped)