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.
Vanishing at all positive exponents forces countability
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice. The assertion “if for every finite , then is countable” is false.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The objects, conventions, and hypotheses in the statement above.
Under the standing Countable Choice hypothesis, the square-position binary digit set is uncountable and has for every finite . An uncountable compact set can have dimension zero
Refutation
Take the square-position binary digit set . The cited result gives simultaneously for every finite , as required by the antecedent.
That result also establishes that is uncountable, refuting the conclusion. The quantifier excludes exponent zero, so there is no assertion that its counting measure vanishes.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
3 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
- Bishop–Peres Example 1.4.2, square-position specialisation (standard reference, not scraped)