Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-26
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.

Lipschitz equivalence implies uniform equivalence implies topological equivalence

Statement

Let d and d′ be metrics on the same set X (Metric space: d(x,y)=0 iff x=y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric), with the three equivalences as in Topologically, uniformly and Lipschitz equivalent metrics on a set. Then:

  1. If d and d′ are Lipschitz equivalent, they are uniformly equivalent.
  2. If d and d′ are uniformly equivalent, they are topologically equivalent.

Strictness is not claimed here. The theorem asserts the two implications and nothing more; that neither reverses is witnessed by explicit pairs of metrics on the companion page, and those witnesses are not prerequisites of this theorem. See the first remark below.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A set X and two metrics d,d′ on it; a real ε>0.

[A1]

Lipschitz equivalence: there are reals α,β>0 with α d(x,y)≤d′(x,y)≤β d(x,y) for all x,y∈X (Topologically, uniformly and Lipschitz equivalent metrics on a set).

[A2]

Uniform equivalence: for every real ε>0 there are δ,δ′>0 such that d(x,y)<δ implies d′(x,y)<ε and d′(x,y)<δ′ implies d(x,y)<ε, for all x,y∈X (Topologically, uniformly and Lipschitz equivalent metrics on a set).

[L1]

Inverses and products of positives: γ>0 gives γ−1>0 (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order), and a product of positives is positive; multiplying an inequality by a positive preserves it, in the strict form of Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication and, with the case of equality settled by totality, in the nonstrict form (Ordered field, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).

[L2]

Transitivity of the order, and addition of a constant to an inequality (Order is preserved by adding a constant and by adding inequalities, Ordered field).

[L3]

Continuity of a map at a point in the ε-δ form (Continuity of a map between metric spaces, at a point and globally, in the ε-δ form); a map continuous at every point has open preimages of open sets (Metric continuity characterisations, with countable choice for the sequential converse).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Claim 1: assume [A1] and let ε>0. Put δ:=εβ−1 and δ′:=αε, both positive since α,β,ε are. If d(x,y)<δ then d′(x,y)≤β d(x,y)<βδ=ε; and if d′(x,y)<δ′ then α d(x,y)≤d′(x,y)<αε, so d(x,y)<ε after multiplying by α−1>0. Hence d and d′ are uniformly equivalent.

A1L1L2
1.2

Assume [A2]. Then the identity map id:(X,d)→(X,d′) is continuous at every point a∈X: given ε>0, the δ of [A2] satisfies d(x,a)<δ⇒d′(x,a)<ε, which is the ε-δ condition at a; symmetrically id:(X,d′)→(X,d) is continuous at every point, using δ′.

A2L3
2.1

By [L3] applied to the two continuous identity maps of step 1.2: the preimage under id:(X,d)→(X,d′) of a d′-open set V is V itself and is d-open, so every d′-open set is d-open; and symmetrically every d-open set is d′-open. Hence Td=Td′, which is claim 2.

step 1.2L3L4
3.1

Claims 1 and 2 are established by steps 1.1 and 2.1, so Lipschitz equivalence implies uniform equivalence and uniform equivalence implies topological equivalence.

step 1.1step 2.1∎

Remarks

  • Neither implication reverses, and the witnesses are on the companion page. On (0,∞) the metrics ∣x−y∣ and ∣1/x−1/y∣ have the same topology and are not uniformly equivalent (On (0,∞) the metrics ∣x−y∣ and ∣1/x−1/y∣ have the same topology and are not uniformly equivalent ↗); on R the metrics ∣x−y∣ and min⁡{∣x−y∣,1} are uniformly equivalent and not Lipschitz equivalent (On R the metrics ∣x−y∣ and min⁡(∣x−y∣,1) are uniformly but not Lipschitz equivalent ↗). Those two items are read here as orientation only: this theorem does not depend on them, and its statement claims nothing about strictness.
  • Uniform equivalence is strictly more than "both identities are continuous". Continuity of both identity maps is exactly topological equivalence, by the argument of step 2.1 read in reverse; uniform equivalence additionally demands that one δ serve at every point at once, and that is the whole difference between the two conditions.
  • What each level preserves. Lipschitz equivalence preserves boundedness and changes diameters by at most a constant factor; uniform equivalence preserves Cauchy sequences and uniform continuity, notions taken up on a later page and not defined here; topological equivalence preserves the open sets and everything defined from them, and nothing else.

Depends on

Used by

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