Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-30
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.

Simple integrals are bounded by total variation

Statement

Let ν be a signed measure or a complex measure on (X,A), let F∈A, and let s=∑j=1mcj1Ej be the canonical disjoint representation of a complex simple function using only its nonzero level sets. Assume ∣ν∣(Ej∩F)<+∞ for every j. Then ∣∫Fs dν∣≤∫F∣s∣ d∣ν∣. In particular, if ∣s∣≤M on F and ∣ν∣(F)<+∞, then ∣∫Fs dν∣≤M ∣ν∣(F).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A signed measure or complex measure ν, a measurable set F, and the canonical nonzero-level-set representation s=∑j=1mcj1Ej of a complex simple function, with ∣ν∣(Ej∩F)<+∞ for every j.

[L1]

The simple integral against ν is computed from a disjoint measurable level-set representation. (The simple integral against a signed or complex measure)

[L2]

The integral of a nonnegative simple function against a positive measure is the weighted sum over a disjoint representation. (The integral of a nonnegative simple function)

[L3]

The total variation ∣ν∣ is a measure. (The total variation of a signed or complex measure is a positive measure)

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1

Write the canonical disjoint representation of s as [L1] s=∑j=1mcj1Ej. For each j, the one-piece partition of Ej∩F gives ∣ν(Ej∩F)∣≤∣ν∣(Ej∩F)<+∞, so [L1] makes ∫Fs dν well defined and gives ∫Fs dν=∑j=1mcjν(Ej∩F). By the triangle inequality, ∣∫Fs dν∣≤∑j=1m∣cj∣ ∣ν(Ej∩F)∣≤∑j=1m∣cj∣ ∣ν∣(Ej∩F).

2.1L2L3step 1.1

Because ∣ν∣ is a measure by [L3], the sets Ej∩F are disjoint [L2, L3, step 1.1] and measurable, and [L2] gives ∫F∣s∣ d∣ν∣=∑j=1m∣cj∣ ∣ν∣(Ej∩F). Substituting this into step 1.1 proves the first inequality. If ∣s∣≤M on F and ∣ν∣(F)<+∞, then [L3] gives ∣ν∣(Ej∩F)≤∣ν∣(F)<+∞ for every j, so the displayed finiteness hypothesis is automatic. Moreover ∣s∣1F≤M1F, so monotonicity of the simple integral with respect to the positive measure ∣ν∣ gives ∫F∣s∣ d∣ν∣≤M∣ν∣(F).

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

The displayed inequalities follow from steps 1.1 and 2.1.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

13 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