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.
Inclusion-exclusion for a nonempty finite family of finite-measure sets
Statement
Let be natural and let be measurable sets of finite measure. Then
The finite sum on the right uses the following recursive order. For a one-index family it lists . To pass from the order for the nonempty subsets of to the order for those of , retain the existing list, then append , and then append the sets for nonempty in that existing order. Thus the displayed formula for a family of size uses only subsets of . This convention fixes the sum without invoking an unproved permutation rule.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A nonempty finite list of measurable sets, each of finite measure.
For measurable , (The two-set measure identity ).
The measure of a finite union is at most the sum of the member measures (Finite and countable subadditivity of measures).
Finite sums start with the empty sum and satisfy additivity, splitting, and telescoping laws (Finite sums and finite products, by recursion, Laws of finite sums and finite products).
Natural powers satisfy and (Integer powers ).
A property true at and inherited by successors holds for every natural number (The principle of mathematical induction).
Proof
Let be the displayed inclusion-exclusion formula for a list of finite-measure measurable sets. It suffices to prove for every .
For , both sides of are , since the only nonempty subset of is and .
Fix and assume for every list of such sets.
Put . By [L2], , and [L1] applied to and gives in .
The induction hypothesis expands over the nonempty subsets of and expands over the same subsets; all intersections remain finite-measure.
In step 2.1, the terms from are indexed by nonempty subsets not containing , the term is indexed by , and the negated terms from step 2.2 are indexed in the stated recursive order by the sets and acquire the sign . Finite-sum splitting therefore gives .
By induction, holds for every , hence the stated formula holds for every nonempty finite family; the one-set boundary is step 1.2, and finiteness was used exactly in step 2.1 to permit subtraction.
Depends on
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
30 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
- T. Tao, An Introduction to Measure Theory, Exercise 1.4.35 (standard reference, not scraped)