Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck 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: completeness of a metric space is determined by its topology

Statement

The following statement is FALSE.

Let dd and dd' be metrics on the same set XX that are topologically equivalent, that is Td=Td\mathcal{T}_d = \mathcal{T}_{d'} (Topologically, uniformly and Lipschitz equivalent metrics on a set, The metric topology: a set is open when every one of its points has a ball around it inside the set; closed means open complement). Then (X,d)(X,d) is complete if and only if (X,d)(X,d') is complete (Complete metric space: every Cauchy sequence converges in the space).

Equivalently, and this is the form in which the error is usually made: completeness is a topological property of a metrisable space, so that it makes sense to call a topological space "complete".

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The set P:={nN:n1}P := \{\, n \in \mathbb{N} : n \ge 1 \,\} of positive naturals, regarded inside R\mathbb{R} through the canonical embedding; the functions d(m,n):=mnd(m,n) := |m - n| and d(m,n):=1/m1/nd'(m,n) := |1/m - 1/n| on P×PP \times P; a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0.

[A1]

The false claim: topologically equivalent metrics on one set are either both complete or both incomplete.

[L2]

Reciprocation is strictly decreasing on the positive reals, so 0<a<b0 < a < b gives 0<1/b<1/a0 < 1/b < 1/a; in particular m1/mm \mapsto 1/m is injective on PP (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L3]

Positive naturals sit in R\mathbb{R} in their own order, and for naturals mnm \ne n one has mn1|m - n| \ge 1, since one of them is at least the successor of the other (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing, The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann), The unique embedding of ℚ into an ordered field).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

dd is a metric on PP, being the restriction to P×PP \times P of the usual metric of R\mathbb{R}.

L1
1.2

dd' is a metric on PP: symmetry and the triangle inequality are inherited from the absolute value applied to the reals 1/m1/m, and d(m,n)=0d'(m,n) = 0 forces 1/m=1/n1/m = 1/n and hence m=nm = n, because m1/mm \mapsto 1/m is injective on PP.

L1L2
2.1

Every subset of PP is open for dd: for mPm \in P the ball Bd(m,1/2)B_d(m,1/2) is {m}\{m\}, since d(m,n)=mn1>1/2d(m,n) = |m-n| \ge 1 > 1/2 for nmn \ne m; so every subset is a union of open balls.

step 1.1L3L5
2.2

Every subset of PP is open for dd': fix mPm \in P and put r:=1/m1/(m+1)r := 1/m - 1/(m+1), a positive real. If n>mn > m then 1/n1/(m+1)1/n \le 1/(m+1), so d(m,n)=1/m1/nrd'(m,n) = 1/m - 1/n \ge r; and if n<mn < m then m2m \ge 2 and 1/n1/(m1)1/n \ge 1/(m-1), so d(m,n)=1/n1/m1/(m1)1/m>1/m1/(m+1)=rd'(m,n) = 1/n - 1/m \ge 1/(m-1) - 1/m > 1/m - 1/(m+1) = r. Hence Bd(m,r)={m}B_{d'}(m,r) = \{m\} and every subset is a union of open balls.

step 1.2L2L4L5
2.3

(P,d)(P,d) is complete: let (xk)(x_k) be dd-Cauchy and apply the definition with ε=1\varepsilon = 1 to get KK with xmxn<1|x_m - x_n| < 1 for all m,nKm,n \ge K; by [L3] this forces xm=xnx_m = x_n for m,nKm,n \ge K, so the sequence is constant from KK on and converges to xKPx_K \in P.

step 1.1L3L5
2.4

(P,d)(P,d') is not complete. Put ak:=k+1a_k := k+1, a sequence in PP. Given a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0, [L4] gives N1N \ge 1 with 1/N<ε/21/N < \varepsilon/2; for k,lNk,l \ge N we have k+1>Nk+1 > N and l+1>Nl+1 > N, hence 1/(k+1)<1/N1/(k+1) < 1/N and 1/(l+1)<1/N1/(l+1) < 1/N, so d(ak,al)=1/(k+1)1/(l+1)1/(k+1)+1/(l+1)<2/N<εd'(a_k,a_l) = |1/(k+1) - 1/(l+1)| \le 1/(k+1) + 1/(l+1) < 2/N < \varepsilon. Hence (ak)(a_k) is dd'-Cauchy.

step 1.2L2L4L5
3.1

Therefore Td=Td\mathcal{T}_d = \mathcal{T}_{d'}: both are the collection of all subsets of PP, so dd and dd' are topologically equivalent.

step 2.1step 2.2L5
3.2

Suppose akpa_k \to p in (P,d)(P,d') for some pPp \in P. Since 1/p>01/p > 0, [L4] gives N1N \ge 1 with 1/N<1/(2p)1/N < 1/(2p), and then for every kNk \ge N we have 1/(k+1)1/N<1/(2p)1/(k+1) \le 1/N < 1/(2p), so d(ak,p)=1/(k+1)1/p1/p1/(k+1)>1/p1/(2p)=1/(2p)>0d'(a_k,p) = |1/(k+1) - 1/p| \ge 1/p - 1/(k+1) > 1/p - 1/(2p) = 1/(2p) > 0. So d(ak,p)d'(a_k,p) never drops below 1/(2p)1/(2p) from any index on, contradicting convergence to pp; as pPp \in P was arbitrary, (ak)(a_k) has no limit in (P,d)(P,d').

step 2.4L2L4L5
4.1

So dd and dd' are topologically equivalent metrics on PP with (P,d)(P,d) complete and (P,d)(P,d') not, which refutes [A1]. The displayed statement is false.

step 3.1step 2.3step 2.4step 3.2A1

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 90 results over 30 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