Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-13
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.

Botsko's theorem: if F is continuous on [a,b], F′(x)=f(x) off a countable subset of (a,b), and f is Riemann integrable, then ∫abf=F(b)−F(a)

Statement

Let a<b, let E⊆(a,b) be at most countable, let F:[a,b]→R be continuous, and let f:[a,b]→R be Riemann integrable. If F is differentiable at every x∈(a,b)∖E and

F′(x)=f(x)(x∈(a,b)∖E),

then

∫abf=F(b)−F(a).

Neither derivatives at the endpoints nor derivatives at points of E are required.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The data in the statement.

[L1]

An at-most-countable set is empty or, when nonempty, is the range of a surjection e:N→E; repetitions are allowed and no choice is required (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable, A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of N).

[L2]

Continuity at c means that every prescribed positive error bounds ∣H(x)−H(c)∣ throughout some neighbourhood of c (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).

[L3]

Differentiability at x means that the difference quotients (H(y)−H(x))/(y−x) tend to H′(x) as y→x (The derivative f′(c)=lim⁡x→cf(x)−f(c)x−c of f:A→R at a point c∈A that is a limit point of A, and differentiability on a set).

[L4]

A nested sequence of nonempty closed bounded intervals whose lengths tend to 0 has a one-point intersection (A nested sequence of nonempty closed bounded intervals has nonempty intersection, and the intersection is a single point exactly when the lengths tend to 0).

Proof

technique · squeeze
1.1

It suffices first to prove the countable-exception monotonicity lemma: if H:[u,v]→R is continuous and H′(x)≤0 on (u,v)∖E, where E is at most countable, then H(v)≤H(u).

givensuffices
1.2

Suppose contrariwise that H(v)>H(u). By continuity choose u<p<q<v with H(q)>H(p), and put c=(H(q)−H(p))/(q−p)>0.

givenL2algebra
1.3

If E is nonempty, fix the surjection e:N→E from [L1]; if E is empty, put en=u for every n. Assign stage n the slope-loss budget δn=c2−n−2. The finite geometric-sum identity gives ∑j≤nδj<c/2 for every n.

L1algebra
1.4

Fix a partition P=(t0,…,tm) and let mi,Mi be the infimum and supremum of f on [ti,ti+1]. Off E, the functions F(x)−Mix and mix−F(x) have derivatives at most 0.

givenL6algebra
2.1

Construct nested closed intervals In=[pn,qn]⊆[p,q]. Start with I0=[p,q]. Given In, one of its two closed halves has secant slope at least the slope of In, because the latter is the length-weighted average of the two half-slopes. Call that half J. If en∉J, take In+1=J. If en∈J, split J at en; one nondegenerate side has slope at least the slope of J, and [L2] lets us move its endpoint en slightly into that side so that the resulting closed interval excludes en and loses less than δn in slope. Thus In+1⊆In, ∣In+1∣≤∣In∣/2, en∉In+1, and its secant slope is at least c−∑j≤nδj≥c/2.

step 1.2step 1.3L2algebra
3.1

By step 2.1 and [L5], the nested intervals have lengths tending to 0, so [L4] gives a unique x in their intersection. The initial interval lies in (u,v), and x≠en for every n; hence x∈(u,v)∖E.

step 2.1L1L4L5
4.1

Write In=[pn,qn]. Both endpoints tend to x. The secant slope on In is a convex combination of the two difference quotients based at x (omitting a zero-length side), so [L3] makes those slopes tend to H′(x). Step 2.1 keeps every slope at least c/2, whence H′(x)≥c/2>0, contradicting the hypothesis. Therefore H(v)≤H(u) and the monotonicity lemma is proved.

step 2.1step 3.1L3algebradischarge-contradiction
5.1

Apply the lemma from step 4.1 on [ti,ti+1] to obtain mi(ti+1−ti)≤F(ti+1)−F(ti)≤Mi(ti+1−ti).

step 4.1step 1.4
6.1

Summing step 5.1 and telescoping yields L(f,P)≤F(b)−F(a)≤U(f,P).

step 5.1L6
7.1

Since f is integrable, the supremum of all lower sums and the infimum of all upper sums are both ∫abf; step 6.1 therefore forces ∫abf=F(b)−F(a).

step 6.1L6∎

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

63 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