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.
Convergents are best rational approximations of the first kind
Statement
Let be an irrational real number with convergents , and let . If with and then Consequently, no rational number with denominator at most approximates more closely than .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An irrational real number , an index , its convergents , and integers with .
Since , the corollary Convergents are reduced fractions applied at the index shows that the vectors form a -basis of .
The complete-quotient algorithm produces a unique integer with and every later complete quotient satisfies (Complete quotients in the continued-fraction algorithm).
If is the next complete quotient, then (Complete-quotient tail formula).
The convergent denominators satisfy (Convergents of a regular continued fraction)
The convergent errors satisfy (Convergent error bound).
Proof
From [F3] and [F5] one obtains. [F3, F5, algebra] So the consecutive errors have opposite signs and satisfy
By the basis statement in [F1], there are unique integers with. [F1, step 1.1, algebra] Subtracting from gives by step 1.1.
Assume . Step 2.1 gives. [step 2.1, F2, algebra] If , then as well, because otherwise ; but then , impossible. If , then , so and again , impossible. Therefore . Since is an integer and [F2] gives , the inequality above implies hence .
Now. [step 3.1, F4, algebra] which is the first claim. Because , fact [F2] gives , and [F4] then gives For the consequence, suppose and Then contradicting the first claim because . Thus no denominator at most gives a closer rational approximation.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
18 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
- Peter Hackman, Elementary Number Theory (standard reference, not scraped)
- Bruce Ikenaga, Approximation by Rational Numbers (standard reference, not scraped)