Alphabeta Math
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-08-04 (gpt-5.6-sol-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: a quotient of a Hausdorff space is Hausdorff

Statement

False claim: if X is Hausdorff (Hausdorff space: distinct points have disjoint open neighbourhoods; every metrizable space is Hausdorff and the indiscrete topology on two points is not) and q:X→Y is a quotient map (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection), then Y is Hausdorff.

The refutation is the line with two origins. Let

S  :=  R⊔R  =  ⨆i<2R

be the disjoint union of two copies of R with its usual topology (The disjoint union (coproduct) ⨆iXi with the final topology of the canonical injections: a set is open exactly when each of its traces is, The absolute value makes R a metric space: d(x,y)=∣x−y∣ is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (x−r,x+r), and it is unbounded, Metrizable space: a topological space whose topology is induced by some metric; metrizability is topological, the metric is not), whose points are the pairs (x,i) with x∈R and i<2. Let ∼ be the equivalence relation on S whose classes are

{(x,0),(x,1)}  (x≠0),{(0,0)},{(0,1)},

and let L:=S/ ⁣∼ with the quotient topology and canonical projection q. Then S is Hausdorff and L is not: the two classes q(0,0) and q(0,1), the "two origins", cannot be separated by disjoint open sets.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The space S=⨆i<2R with the disjoint union topology, the relation ∼ above, the quotient L=S/ ⁣∼ with its canonical projection q, and the two points a:=q(0,0) and b:=q(0,1) of L.

[A1]

U⊆S is open exactly when both traces Ui={ x∈R:(x,i)∈U } are open in R; each set R×{i} is open in S; and κi[V]=V×{i} is open in S whenever V is open in R (The disjoint union (coproduct) ⨆iXi with the final topology of the canonical injections: a set is open exactly when each of its traces is, A map out of a disjoint union is continuous iff each of its restrictions is; the canonical injections are open and closed embeddings; and each summand is clopen in the union).

[A2]

The classes listed in the statement are pairwise disjoint and cover S, so ∼ is an equivalence relation; q is a surjection and V⊆L is open exactly when q−1[V] is open in S (The quotient topology of a surjection, quotient maps, saturated sets, and the quotient of a space by an equivalence relation with its canonical projection).

[L2]

The order of R is total, so a two-element set of reals has a minimum, which lies in the set and is a lower bound for it (Maximum and minimum of a set); ∣s∣≥0, and ∣s∣>0 when s≠0 (Basic properties of the absolute value); and ∣s−u∣≤∣s−t∣+∣t−u∣ (The triangle inequality).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

S is Hausdorff. Let (x,i)≠(y,j) in S. If i≠j then R×{i} and R×{j} are disjoint open sets containing them, by [A1]. If i=j then x≠y; put r:=∣x−y∣/2>0 by [L2], and take (x−r,x+r)×{i} and (y−r,y+r)×{i}, which are open by [A1] and [L1] and are disjoint, since a common point t would give ∣x−y∣≤∣x−t∣+∣t−y∣<2r=∣x−y∣.

A1A3L1L2
1.2

a≠b: the classes {(0,0)} and {(0,1)} are distinct members of the partition in [A2], and q sends (0,i) to the class of (0,i).

A2
1.3

For t≠0 one has q(t,0)=q(t,1), the two points lying in the common class {(t,0),(t,1)}.

A2
2.1

Suppose U,V⊆L are open with a∈U, b∈V and U∩V=∅. Then q−1[U] and q−1[V] are open in S by [A2], with (0,0)∈q−1[U] and (0,1)∈q−1[V].

step 1.2A2assume-hyp
3.1

By [A1] the trace of q−1[U] at index 0 is an open subset of R containing 0, so by [L1] there is ε>0 with (−ε,ε)×{0}⊆q−1[U]; likewise there is δ>0 with (−δ,δ)×{1}⊆q−1[V].

step 2.1A1L1
4.1

Put t:=min⁡{ε,δ}/2. Then 0<t<ε and t<δ by [L1] and [L2], so t≠0, (t,0)∈q−1[U] and (t,1)∈q−1[V].

step 3.1L1L2
5.1

By step 1.3 and step 4.1 the point q(t,0)=q(t,1) lies in U and in V, contradicting U∩V=∅. So no such U and V exist.

step 1.3step 2.1step 4.1
6.1

By step 1.1 the space S is Hausdorff, by [A2] the map q is a quotient map, and by steps 1.2 and 5.1 the two distinct points a and b of L have no disjoint open neighbourhoods, so L is not Hausdorff by [A3]. The claim is therefore false.

step 1.1step 1.2step 5.1A2A3∎

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

49 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