Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-08-10 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)
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: in every normed space a closed bounded set is compact

Statement

False claim: in every normed space (W,N) (A norm on a real vector space, the induced metric, and the dictionary with the metric axioms) a subset that is closed in the induced metric (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) and bounded (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space) is compact (Open cover, subcover, compact metric space, and compact subset of a metric space).

What is true is the same statement for Rn with the Euclidean norm and n a natural number, which is Heine-Borel in Rn: with the Euclidean metric a subset of Rn is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded, and the proof by bisection uses no choice principle; the same holds on the real line clause 2. The published FALSE: a closed and bounded subset of a metric space is compact already refutes the corresponding claim for arbitrary metric spaces; the point of the present item is that adding a linear structure and a norm does not repair it, which a reader who has just met For n≥1 all norms on Rn are equivalent may well expect it to.

The witness is the space V of finitely supported real sequences with the norm N∞, both as in FALSE: all norms on a real vector space are equivalent, and the closed unit ball

K  :=  { v∈V:N∞(v)≤1 }.

K is closed in (V,dN∞) and bounded, and it is not compact: the vectors ek all lie in it and satisfy N∞(ej−ek)=1 for j≠k.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The vector space V of finitely supported sequences and the norm N∞ on it, with induced metric d(v,w):=N∞(v−w); the set K above; and the vectors ek∈V with ek(k)=1 and ek(j)=0 for j≠k.

[A1]

The refuted claim, at (V,N∞) and K: K is compact.

[L6]

Pigeonhole: there is no injection from σ(p) into p, hence none from N into any natural number (The pigeonhole principle on N claims 1 and 4, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1L1L7

Each ek lies in V, with K=k+1 admissible, and N∞(ek)=1; so ek∈K for every k.

1.2L1L2L7

For j≠k the vector ej−ek has coordinates 1 at j, −1 at k and 0 elsewhere, so N∞(ej−ek)=1, that is d(ej,ek)=1.

1.3L1L2L3

K is bounded, since K⊆B(0,2): v∈K gives d(v,0)=N∞(v)≤1<2.

1.4L2L3

K is closed in (V,d). Let v∉K, so N∞(v)>1, and put r:=N∞(v)−1>0; if d(w,v)<r then N∞(w)≥N∞(v)−N∞(v−w)>N∞(v)−r=1, so w∉K. Hence the complement of K is open.

2.1step 1.2L5

No subsequence of (ek) is Cauchy in (V,d): if l↦enl were, with n strictly increasing and hence injective, then taking the tolerance 1/2 would give indices l≠l′ with d(enl,enl′)<1/2, while nl≠nl′ and step 1.2 make that distance 1.

3.1step 2.1L4L5

Hence no subsequence of (ek) converges in the metric subspace (K,dK), a convergent sequence being Cauchy and dK being the restriction of d; so (K,dK) is not sequentially compact.

4.1step 1.3step 1.4step 3.1A1L4

If K were compact then (K,dK) would be a compact metric space and hence sequentially compact, contradicting step 3.1. So [A1] is false, and with steps 1.3 and 1.4 the set K is closed and bounded and not compact.

5.1step 1.2L6L8∎

The same family shows that (K,dK) is not totally bounded, which is the property the general characterisation identifies as missing. Suppose {y0,…,yp}⊆K were a finite 1/2-net. Assigning to each k∈N the least i≤p with d(ek,yi)<1/2 gives a map N→σ(p), which cannot be injective by pigeonhole; so there are j≠k and one i with d(ej,yi)<1/2 and d(ek,yi)<1/2, whence d(ej,ek)≤d(ej,yi)+d(yi,ek)<1, contradicting step 1.2.

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

125 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