Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck passaudited 2026-08-16
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.

Complex Stone–Weierstrass dichotomy for separating self-adjoint algebras; the unital case is dense

Statement

Let X be a compact Hausdorff space and let AC(X,C) be a point-separating self-adjoint complex function algebra, not necessarily unital. Exactly one of the following descriptions applies when X is nonempty:

  1. A has no common zero, and its uniform closure is C(X,C);
  2. there is a unique x0X at which every member of A vanishes, and the uniform closure of A is exactly Ix0C:={fC(X,C):f(x0)=0}.

If X=, the first conclusion holds. In particular, every unital point-separating self-adjoint complex function algebra is uniformly dense in C(X,C).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A compact Hausdorff space X and a point-separating self-adjoint complex function algebra AC(X,C).

[L1]

The real-valued part AR of A is a point-separating real function algebra with exactly the same common-zero set as A, and it is unital when A is unital (The real-valued part of a point-separating self-adjoint complex function algebra is separating and has the same common zeros).

[L2]

A point-separating real function algebra has either full uniform closure or a unique common zero x0 and closure equal to the real functions vanishing at x0; the empty space has full closure (A separating real function algebra is dense or its closure consists exactly of the functions vanishing at one point).

[L3]

The complex numbers form a field containing R, and every complex number has a unique form a+bi (C=R[x]/(x2+1) is a field, every element is uniquely a+bi, and every nonzero element has inverse (abi)/(a2+b2)).

[L4]

For every z,wC, z+wz+w and zw=zw (Conjugation is an involutive real-field automorphism, zz=z2, and modulus is definite, multiplicative, and subadditive).

[L5]

The metric on C is dC(z,w)=zw, and continuity on subsets of C uses this metric (The Euclidean metric, convergence, Cauchy sequences, and continuity on the complex plane).

[L6]

For z=a+bi, Rez=a, Imz=b, and z=a2+b2 (Real and imaginary parts, complex conjugation, and modulus).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

If X=, then C(X,C) has only the empty function, which is the zero element of A, so the full-closure conclusion holds.

L1L2
1.2

Assume X. By [L1] and [L2], the real-valued part AR either is dense in C(X,R) or has a unique common zero x0 and closure equal to the real functions vanishing there.

L1L2
2.1

In the dense alternative, let FC(X,C) and ε>0; the coordinate functions ReF and ImF are continuous by [L5] and [L6], so choose u,vAR within ε/2 of them and put h:=u+ivA.

step 1.2L1L3L5L6choose
2.2

In the common-zero alternative, [L1] says that the same unique x0 is the common zero of A. Every uniform limit of members of A vanishes at x0, so AIx0C.

step 1.2L1L5
3.1

For every xX, [L4] gives F(x)h(x)ReF(x)u(x)+ImF(x)v(x)<ε, so A is dense in C(X,C).

step 2.1L4L6
4.1

Conversely, let FIx0C and let ε>0. Both ReF and ImF vanish at x0; by the real alternative in step 1.2 they can be approximated within ε/2 by u,vAR, and the argument of step 3.1 puts u+ivA within ε of F. As ε was arbitrary, Ix0CA.

step 1.2step 3.1L1L3L6
5.1

Steps 2.2, 3.1, and 4.1 transfer both real alternatives to A. If A is unital, it contains the constant-one function and therefore has no common zero, so only the dense alternative is possible.

step 3.1step 2.2step 4.1L1

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · next 3 levels

Direct dependencies and their dependencies through the next three levels: 93 results over 15 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