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
1.1

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

L1L7
1.2

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.

L1L2L7
1.3

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

L1L2L3
1.4

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.

L2L3
2.1

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.

step 1.2L5
3.1

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.

step 2.1L4L5
4.1

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.

step 1.3step 1.4step 3.1A1L4
5.1

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.

step 1.2L6L8∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

127 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