Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28
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: differentiability at every point of (a,b)(a,b) alone yields a c(a,b)c \in (a,b) with f(b)f(a)=f(c)(ba)f(b) - f(a) = f'(c)(b-a)

Statement

False claim: let a,bRa, b \in \mathbb{R} with a<ba < b and let f:[a,b]Rf : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} be differentiable at every point of (a,b)(a,b) as a function on [a,b][a,b] (The derivative f(c)=limxcf(x)f(c)xcf'(c) = \lim_{x \to c} \frac{f(x) - f(c)}{x - c} of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point cAc \in A that is a limit point of AA, and differentiability on a set, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Then there is c(a,b)c \in (a,b) with

f(b)f(a)  =  f(c)(ba).f(b) - f(a) \;=\; f'(c)\,(b - a) .

This is The mean value theorem, as the case g(x)=xg(x) = x of Cauchy's: for ff continuous on [a,b][a,b] with a<ba < b and differentiable on (a,b)(a,b) there is c(a,b)c \in (a,b) with f(b)f(a)=f(c)(ba)f(b) - f(a) = f'(c)(b-a) with the hypothesis "ff is continuous on [a,b][a,b]" deleted, everything else left as it stands. It is false.

Why it is tempting. The conclusion mentions ff' only at interior points, and the hypothesis of continuity on the closed interval looks like a technical condition guaranteeing nothing the differentiability does not already give. It is not: the values f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b) appear on the left-hand side of the conclusion, and nothing in a hypothesis about (a,b)(a,b) alone connects them to the behaviour of ff inside. A single unrelated value at one endpoint breaks the identity outright.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The interval [0,1][0,1] and the function f:[0,1]Rf : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} defined by f(x):=xf(x) := x for x[0,1)x \in [0,1) and f(1):=0f(1) := 0 (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L1]

Derivative (The derivative f(c)=limxcf(x)f(c)xcf'(c) = \lim_{x \to c} \frac{f(x) - f(c)}{x - c} of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point cAc \in A that is a limit point of AA, and differentiability on a set): for c[0,1]c \in [0,1] a limit point of [0,1][0,1], the difference quotient q(x):=(f(x)f(c))/(xc)q(x) := (f(x)-f(c))/(x-c) is a function on [0,1]{c}[0,1] \setminus \{c\}, and ff is differentiable at cc with f(c)=Lf'(c) = L exactly when for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 such that every x[0,1]x \in [0,1] with 0<xc<δ0 < |x-c| < \delta satisfies q(x)L<ε|q(x) - L| < \varepsilon (The ε\varepsilon-δ\delta limit limxcf(x)=L\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a limit point cc of AA).

[L3]

Absolute value and order (Basic properties of the absolute value): u0|u| \ge 0; u=0|u| = 0 exactly when u=0u = 0; and for δ>0\delta > 0 the condition yc<δ|y - c| < \delta is cδ<y<c+δc - \delta < y < c + \delta.

[L4]

010 \ne 1 in R\mathbb{R}, since 0<10 < 1 (The multiplicative identity is positive).

[L5]

Continuity at a point (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point): ff is continuous at p[0,1]p \in [0,1] when for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 such that every x[0,1]x \in [0,1] with xp<δ|x - p| < \delta satisfies f(x)f(p)<ε|f(x) - f(p)| < \varepsilon.

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

ff is a well-defined function on [0,1][0,1]: every x[0,1]x \in [0,1] either equals 11 or does not, exclusively, so exactly one of the two clauses applies to it.

given
1.2

f(0)=0f(0) = 0, since 0[0,1)0 \in [0,1), and f(1)=0f(1) = 0 by the second clause. Hence f(1)f(0)=0f(1) - f(0) = 0, and also f(0)=f(1)f(0) = f(1).

given
2.1

The derivative inside. Let c(0,1)c \in (0,1) and put δ:=min{c, 1c}\delta := \min\{c,\ 1-c\}, a positive real. Every x[0,1]x \in [0,1] with 0<xc<δ0 < |x - c| < \delta satisfies x<c+δc+(1c)=1x < c + \delta \le c + (1-c) = 1 by [L3], so x[0,1)x \in [0,1) and f(x)=xf(x) = x; and c[0,1)c \in [0,1), so f(c)=cf(c) = c. Therefore q(x)=(xc)/(xc)=1q(x) = (x - c)/(x - c) = 1 for every such xx.

step 1.1L3
2.2

ff is not continuous at 11. Take ε:=1/2\varepsilon := 1/2 and let a real δ>0\delta > 0 be given. Put x:=max{1δ/2, 1/2}x := \max\{1 - \delta/2,\ 1/2\}; then 1/2x<11/2 \le x < 1, so x[0,1)x \in [0,1) and f(x)=xf(x) = x, while x1δ/2<δ|x - 1| \le \delta/2 < \delta. Yet f(x)f(1)=x0=x1/2=ε|f(x) - f(1)| = |x - 0| = x \ge 1/2 = \varepsilon. So no δ\delta witnesses the condition of [L5] at p=1p = 1 for this ε\varepsilon.

step 1.1L3L5
3.1

Let c(0,1)c \in (0,1) and let a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be given. The δ\delta of step 2.1 satisfies: every x[0,1]x \in [0,1] with 0<xc<δ0 < |x-c| < \delta has q(x)1=11=0<ε|q(x) - 1| = |1 - 1| = 0 < \varepsilon by [L3]. Since cc is a limit point of [0,1][0,1] by [L2], this is exactly the condition of [L1] with L:=1L := 1. So ff is differentiable at cc with f(c)=1f'(c) = 1.

step 2.1L1L2L3
4.1

The claim fails on this witness. By step 3.1 the function ff is differentiable at every point of (0,1)(0,1), so it satisfies the hypothesis of the false claim with a:=0a := 0 and b:=1b := 1. For every c(0,1)c \in (0,1) one has f(c)(ba)=1(10)=1f'(c)(b-a) = 1 \cdot (1 - 0) = 1, while f(b)f(a)=f(1)f(0)=0f(b) - f(a) = f(1) - f(0) = 0 by step 1.2. By [L4] these are different, so no c(0,1)c \in (0,1) satisfies the asserted identity, and the claim is false.

step 1.2step 3.1L4
5.1

The same witness refutes the corresponding weakening of Rolle's theorem: by step 1.2 one has f(0)=f(1)f(0) = f(1), and by step 3.1 one has f(c)=10f'(c) = 1 \ne 0 at every c(0,1)c \in (0,1), so no interior point carries a vanishing derivative. What is missing in both cases is exactly the hypothesis deleted, continuity on the closed interval, and step 2.2 shows it fails at the single point 11.

step 1.2step 2.2step 3.1step 4.1L6

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 62 results over 19 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