Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28
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 continuous injective function on an interval is strictly monotone

Statement

Let I⊆R be order-convex (Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and let f:I→R be continuous on I (Continuity of f:A→R at a point of A and on A: the ε-δ condition, its agreement with lim⁡x→cf(x)=f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point) and injective (Injection, surjection, bijection). Then f is strictly monotone (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R, with the dictionary to monotone sequences): either f(x)<f(y) whenever x<y in I, or f(x)>f(y) whenever x<y in I.

Both hypotheses are needed and neither can be weakened to the other. Continuity alone does not give injectivity, and injectivity alone does not give monotonicity: the companion page exhibits a continuous injection on [0,1]∪[2,3], a set that is not order-convex, that is not monotone. So it is order-convexity of the domain, and not merely continuity, that forces the conclusion.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An order-convex I⊆R and a continuous injective f:I→R.

[A1]

I is order-convex: x,y∈I and x≤z≤y imply z∈I (Intervals of R: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[A2]

f is injective: f(u)=f(v) implies u=v (Injection, surjection, bijection).

[A3]

f is continuous at every point of I; the restriction of f to a subset S⊆I is continuous at every point of S, since the ε-δ condition of Continuity of f:A→R at a point of A and on A: the ε-δ condition, its agreement with lim⁡x→cf(x)=f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point quantifies over fewer points when the domain shrinks.

[L1]

Intermediate value theorem: if u≤v, g:[u,v]→R is continuous and y lies between g(u) and g(v) in either order, then g(p)=y for some p∈[u,v] (Intermediate value theorem, by bisection with a canonical left-half rule: a continuous function on [a,b] takes every value between f(a) and f(b)).

[L2]

Strictly between any two distinct reals there lies a real (The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[L3]

f is increasing when f(x)<f(y) for all x<y in I, decreasing when f(x)>f(y) for all x<y in I, and strictly monotone when it is one or the other (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R, with the dictionary to monotone sequences).

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1

Suppose, for contradiction, that f is not strictly monotone: f is not increasing and f is not decreasing.

assume-contra
1.2

Three-point claim. For all u<v<w in I, either f(u)<f(v)<f(w) or f(u)>f(v)>f(w). Suppose not. By injectivity the three values are pairwise distinct, so the failure means that f(v) is not between f(u) and f(w); hence either f(v)>f(u) and f(v)>f(w), or f(v)<f(u) and f(v)<f(w).

A2
2.1

Being decreasing means f(x)>f(y) for all x<y in I, so its failure gives a,b∈I with a<b and not f(a)>f(b), that is f(a)≤f(b); injectivity together with a≠b gives f(a)≠f(b), so f(a)<f(b).

step 1.1A2L3
2.2

In the first case of step 1.2 pick a real y with max⁡{f(u),f(w)}<y<f(v); in the second pick y with f(v)<y<min⁡{f(u),f(w)}. Such a y exists because the two bounds are distinct reals.

step 1.2L2
3.1

With y as in step 2.2, [u,v]⊆I and [v,w]⊆I by order-convexity, and f restricted to each is continuous; y lies strictly between f(u) and f(v), and strictly between f(v) and f(w). So there are p∈[u,v] and q∈[v,w] with f(p)=y=f(q).

step 2.2A1A3L1
4.1

Since f(p)=y≠f(v) and f(q)=y≠f(v) we have p≠v≠q, so u≤p<v<q≤w and in particular p≠q; but f(p)=f(q) contradicts injectivity. The three-point claim of step 1.2 is therefore established.

step 1.2step 3.1A2
5.1

Let x∈I with x<a. Applying the three-point claim to x<a<b gives f(x)<f(a)<f(b) or f(x)>f(a)>f(b); the second is impossible because f(a)<f(b). So f(x)<f(a).

step 2.1step 4.1
6.1

Let x∈I with x>a. If x<b, the three-point claim applied to a<x<b gives f(a)<f(x)<f(b), the alternative being impossible as in step 5.1; if x=b then f(a)<f(x) by step 2.1; and if x>b, the claim applied to a<b<x gives f(a)<f(b)<f(x). In every case f(x)>f(a).

step 2.1step 4.1
6.2

Let c,d∈I with c<d≤a; we show f(c)<f(d). If d=a then c<a and step 5.1 gives f(c)<f(a)=f(d). If d<a then the three-point claim applied to c<d<a gives f(c)<f(d)<f(a) or f(c)>f(d)>f(a), and the second contradicts f(d)<f(a) from step 5.1; so f(c)<f(d).

step 4.1step 5.1
7.1

Let c,d∈I with a≤c<d; we show f(c)<f(d). If c=a then d>a and step 6.1 gives f(d)>f(a)=f(c). If a<c then the three-point claim applied to a<c<d gives f(a)<f(c)<f(d) or f(a)>f(c)>f(d), and the second contradicts f(c)>f(a) from step 6.1; so f(c)<f(d).

step 4.1step 6.1
7.2

The only remaining case is c<a<d, where steps 5.1 and 6.1 give f(c)<f(a)<f(d) directly.

step 5.1step 6.1
8.1

Steps 7.1, 6.2 and 7.2 cover every pair c<d in I: either a≤c, which is step 7.1, or c<a, and then d≤a, which is step 6.2, or a<d, which is step 7.2. So f(x)<f(y) whenever x<y in I, that is, f is increasing. This contradicts step 1.1, which assumed that f is not increasing; the assumption of step 1.1 is therefore false and f is strictly monotone.

step 1.1step 7.1step 6.2step 7.2L3discharge-contradiction∎

Remarks

  • The three-point claim is the whole content. Steps 1.2, 2.2, 3.1 and 4.1 say that a continuous injection on an interval cannot fold: the middle of three points always has the middle value. Everything after that is bookkeeping, comparing an arbitrary pair with one fixed pair a<b on which the direction is known.

  • Where the intermediate value theorem enters. Once only, in step 3.1, and it is what makes order-convexity of I indispensable: the segments [u,v] and [v,w] must lie inside the domain for the theorem to apply. That is exactly the hypothesis the companion page's counterexample removes.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

35 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