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 with and , there is a pseudometric on such that
for every . In particular, each set is an entourage, so 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 of symmetric entourages on .
The given sequence satisfies , is decreasing, and has .
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).
A pseudometric satisfies symmetry, the triangle inequality, and (Metric space: iff , symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric).
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)).
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).
The dyadic weights are positive, satisfy the rational power laws, strictly decrease with , and tend to (Laws of rational exponents, claims 1 and 2, Monotonicity of and of , claim 1, and For the sequence is null, and for the sequence diverges to , claim 1).
Strong induction may assume a claim for every smaller natural number (Strong (complete) induction).
Proof
For , let be the set of sums over all finite chains with . This set is nonempty because the one-edge chain has weight . Every dyadic term is positive by [L4], so every such finite sum is nonnegative by [L3]; hence is a lower bound. By [L2], the infimum exists; define .
We prove by strong induction on the number of edges, simultaneously for every , that a -edge chain of total weight less than has -related endpoints. For the endpoints coincide and hence are -related by [A2]. Now let and assume the claim for every shorter chain. Its total weight is positive by [L3] and [L4]. Take the first edge for which the cumulative weight through that edge exceeds . The subchain before it has weight at most , and the subchain after it has weight less than ; because , both are less than . They have fewer than edges, so the induction hypothesis makes both endpoint pairs -related. The middle edge has weight ; strict decrease of the dyadic weights gives , and decreasingness of puts that edge in . Thus the endpoints lie in . Strong induction proves the claim for every finite chain.
The empty chain has weight , while all weights are nonnegative, so . Reversing a chain preserves its weight because each is symmetric, so . For the triangle inequality, suppose instead that and put . By [L2], choose an -to- chain of weight and a -to- chain of weight . Their concatenation has weight by [L3], contradicting that is a lower bound of . Thus the triangle inequality holds, and is a pseudometric by [L1].
A one-edge -chain has weight , so .
If with , then [L4] gives . Apply the epsilon property in [L2] with to obtain a chain of weight less than . Step 1.2 gives . Thus .
Given , choose with by [L4]. Then , so the latter set is an entourage by upward closure. By A gauge of pseudometrics and, on a nonempty set, the uniformity it generates, is uniformly continuous for the original uniformity.
Depends on
- Metric space: $d(x,y) = 0$ iff $x = y$, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric
- Rational powers $a^r$ of a positive base
- Integer powers $a^m$
- Greatest lower bound (infimum)
- Finite sums and finite products, by recursion
- A gauge of pseudometrics and, on a nonempty set, the uniformity it generates
- For $|r| < 1$ the sequence $r^k$ is null, and for $|r| > 1$ the sequence $|r|^k$ diverges to $+\infty$
- Every nonempty set bounded below has an infimum
- Epsilon characterisation of the infimum
- Laws of finite sums and finite products
- Laws of rational exponents
- Monotonicity of $r \mapsto a^{r}$ and of $a \mapsto a^{r}$
- Uniform space in the entourage formulation
- Filter on a set
- Strong (complete) induction
Used by
- Assuming dependent choice, a totally bounded uniformity equals its Samuel uniformity Lemma
- Assuming dependent choice, every uniformizable space is completely regular Lemma
- Assuming dependent choice, the Samuel uniformity induces the original topology Lemma
- Assuming dependent choice, every entourage uniformity is generated by a gauge of uniformly continuous pseudometrics Theorem
- Every countably based uniformity is generated by one pseudometric, which is a metric exactly when the uniformity is separated Theorem
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
- J. Wodzicki, Uniform Structure (standard reference, not scraped)
- M. Kunzinger, General Topology (standard reference, not scraped)