Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31
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.

A normal sequence of entourages yields a uniformly continuous pseudometric with controlled dyadic balls

Statement

Given a decreasing symmetric sequence (En)(E_n) with E0=X×XE_0=X\times X and En+13EnE_{n+1}^{\circ3}\subseteq E_n, there is a pseudometric pp on XX such that

En{p2n}En1E_n\subseteq\{p\le2^{-n}\}\subseteq E_{n-1}

for every n1n\ge1. In particular, each set {p<ε}\{p<\varepsilon\} is an entourage, so pp is uniformly continuous for the original uniformity in the sense of A gauge of pseudometrics and, on a nonempty set, the uniformity it generates.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A normal sequence (En)(E_n) of symmetric entourages on XX.

[A1]

The given sequence satisfies E0=X×XE_0=X\times X, is decreasing, and has En+13EnE_{n+1}^{\circ3}\subseteq E_n.

[A2]

Every entourage contains the diagonal, and every superset of an entourage is again an entourage because a uniformity is an upward-closed filter (Uniform space in the entourage formulation, Filter on a set).

[L1]

A pseudometric satisfies symmetry, the triangle inequality, and p(x,x)=0p(x,x)=0 (Metric space: d(x,y)=0d(x,y) = 0 iff x=yx = y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric).

[L2]

Every nonempty set of reals bounded below has an infimum, which is a lower bound and is approached from above within every positive epsilon (Every nonempty set bounded below has an infimum, Epsilon characterisation of the infimum, Greatest lower bound (infimum)).

[L3]

Finite sums split under concatenation and are nonnegative when their terms are nonnegative; a nonempty finite sum of positive terms is positive (Finite sums and finite products, by recursion, Laws of finite sums and finite products, claims 3 and 4).

[L4]

The dyadic weights 2n=(1/2)n2^{-n}=(1/2)^n are positive, satisfy the rational power laws, strictly decrease with nn, and tend to 00 (Laws of rational exponents, claims 1 and 2, Monotonicity of rarr \mapsto a^{r} and of aara \mapsto a^{r}, claim 1, and For r<1|r| < 1 the sequence rkr^k is null, and for r>1|r| > 1 the sequence rk|r|^k diverges to ++\infty, claim 1).

[L5]

Strong induction may assume a claim for every smaller natural number (Strong (complete) induction).

Proof

technique · constructive
1.1

For x,yXx,y\in X, let W(x,y)W(x,y) be the set of sums i<k2ni\sum_{i<k}2^{-n_i} over all finite chains x=x0,,xk=yx=x_0,\ldots,x_k=y with (xi1,xi)Eni(x_{i-1},x_i)\in E_{n_i}. This set is nonempty because the one-edge E0=X×XE_0=X\times X chain has weight 11. Every dyadic term is positive by [L4], so every such finite sum is nonnegative by [L3]; hence 00 is a lower bound. By [L2], the infimum exists; define p(x,y):=infW(x,y)p(x,y):=\inf W(x,y).

A1L2L3L4construct
1.2

We prove by strong induction on the number kk of edges, simultaneously for every nn, that a kk-edge chain of total weight less than 2n2^{-n} has EnE_n-related endpoints. For k=0k=0 the endpoints coincide and hence are EnE_n-related by [A2]. Now let k1k\ge1 and assume the claim for every shorter chain. Its total weight ww is positive by [L3] and [L4]. Take the first edge for which the cumulative weight through that edge exceeds w/2w/2. The subchain before it has weight at most w/2w/2, and the subchain after it has weight less than w/2w/2; because w<2nw<2^{-n}, both are less than 2(n+1)2^{-(n+1)}. They have fewer than kk edges, so the induction hypothesis makes both endpoint pairs En+1E_{n+1}-related. The middle edge has weight 2mw<2n2^{-m}\le w<2^{-n}; strict decrease of the dyadic weights gives mn+1m\ge n+1, and decreasingness of (Ej)(E_j) puts that edge in En+1E_{n+1}. Thus the endpoints lie in En+13EnE_{n+1}^{\circ3}\subseteq E_n. Strong induction proves the claim for every finite chain.

A1A2L3L4L5
2.1

The empty chain has weight 00, while all weights are nonnegative, so p(x,x)=0p(x,x)=0. Reversing a chain preserves its weight because each EnE_n is symmetric, so p(x,y)=p(y,x)p(x,y)=p(y,x). For the triangle inequality, suppose instead that p(x,z)>p(x,y)+p(y,z)p(x,z)>p(x,y)+p(y,z) and put δ=(p(x,z)p(x,y)p(y,z))/3>0\delta=(p(x,z)-p(x,y)-p(y,z))/3>0. By [L2], choose an xx-to-yy chain of weight a<p(x,y)+δa<p(x,y)+\delta and a yy-to-zz chain of weight b<p(y,z)+δb<p(y,z)+\delta. Their concatenation has weight a+b<p(x,y)+p(y,z)+2δ<p(x,z)a+b<p(x,y)+p(y,z)+2\delta<p(x,z) by [L3], contradicting that p(x,z)p(x,z) is a lower bound of W(x,z)W(x,z). Thus the triangle inequality holds, and pp is a pseudometric by [L1].

step 1.1L1L2L3
2.2

A one-edge EnE_n-chain has weight 2n2^{-n}, so En{p2n}E_n\subseteq\{p\le2^{-n}\}.

step 1.1
2.3

If p(x,y)2np(x,y)\le2^{-n} with n1n\ge1, then [L4] gives p(x,y)2n<2(n1)p(x,y)\le2^{-n}<2^{-(n-1)}. Apply the epsilon property in [L2] with ε=2(n1)p(x,y)>0\varepsilon=2^{-(n-1)}-p(x,y)>0 to obtain a chain of weight less than 2(n1)2^{-(n-1)}. Step 1.2 gives (x,y)En1(x,y)\in E_{n-1}. Thus {p2n}En1\{p\le2^{-n}\}\subseteq E_{n-1}.

step 1.1step 1.2L2L4
3.1

Given ε>0\varepsilon>0, choose nn with 2n<ε2^{-n}<\varepsilon by [L4]. Then En{p2n}{p<ε}E_n\subseteq\{p\le2^{-n}\}\subseteq\{p<\varepsilon\}, so the latter set is an entourage by upward closure. By A gauge of pseudometrics and, on a nonempty set, the uniformity it generates, pp is uniformly continuous for the original uniformity.

A2step 2.2L4discharge-construct

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 118 results over 29 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