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.
Square roots exist: a unique with ; the positives are
Statement
Let be a complete ordered field (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)). Then every with has a unique with and ; we write . Consequently the positive elements of are exactly the nonzero squares: if and only if for some .
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A complete ordered field (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)), that is, an ordered field (Ordered field) with the least-upper-bound property, and an element with .
Every nonempty subset of that is bounded above has a least upper bound in (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).
Sign and scaling rules: a product of positives is positive, and for one has (Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication).
Squaring is strictly monotone on the nonnegatives: if then ; in particular squaring is injective on (Squaring is monotone on the nonnegatives).
A nonzero square is positive: if then (Squares of nonzero elements are positive).
Multiplying inequalities of positives: if and then (Multiplying inequalities of positives).
Inverses of positive elements are positive, and implies (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).
Proof
If , then satisfies and , so existence holds; assume henceforth .
Uniqueness holds once a root exists: if satisfy , then strict monotonicity of squaring on nonnegatives [L3] rules out both and , forcing ; so at most one has .
Define ; then because and , so .
The element is an upper bound of : since we have , so any has and , whence , giving .
By completeness [L1], exists in ; and since we have .
Assume, for contradiction, that ; by trichotomy either or .
(Case .) Since and , [L6] and [L2] give . Let if , and if . Since , [L6] gives ; together with the ordered-field sign and scaling rules [L2], this gives and in either branch; then and , so , whence with , contradicting that is an upper bound of .
(Case .) Here since ; since and , [L6] and [L2] give . Let if , and if . Again [L6] gives , and the ordered-field sign and scaling rules [L2] give and , so and , hence every has with and , so by [L3]; thus is an upper bound of with , contradicting that is the least upper bound.
Both cases of the disjunction in step 3.1 give a contradiction, so the assumption fails and : a unique (by step 1.2) with exists, and applying this to any writes with while conversely any nonzero square is positive by [L4], so the positive elements of are exactly the nonzero squares.
Depends on
- Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)
- Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication
- Squaring is monotone on the nonnegatives
- Squares of nonzero elements are positive
- Multiplying inequalities of positives
- Ordered field
- Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order
Used by
- Bias-corrected Adam update Algorithm
- Bias-corrected AMSGrad update Algorithm
- Certified complex-polynomial root isolation in exact algebraic arithmetic Algorithm
- Diagonal AdaGrad for online convex losses Algorithm
- Exact success amplification by attenuating the good branch Algorithm
- Finite sign enumeration for real phase retrieval Algorithm
- Finite-budget Levenberg-Marquardt with a trust-ratio safeguard Algorithm
- Finite-candidate Gaussian-process acquisition search with explicit statuses Algorithm
- Gram-matrix AdaGrad with full or singular diagonal metrics Algorithm
- Known-amplitude amplification with integer rounding Algorithm
- Known-count Grover search by exact integer maximization Algorithm
- Known-count search by randomized Grover iteration Algorithm
- One minimum-norm IRLS step Algorithm
- Real bounded-polynomial QSP phase synthesis Algorithm
- RMSProp with an exponential second-moment estimate Algorithm
- Uncorrected Adam for online convex losses Algorithm
- Uncorrected AMSGrad with a coordinatewise historical maximum Algorithm
- Variance-aware quantum Monte Carlo Algorithm
- Every a cos x+b sin x has the amplitude-phase form R cos(x-φ) Corollary
- For n ≥ 1 every bounded sequence in ℝⁿ has a convergent subsequence Corollary
- If f is continuous on [a,b], differentiable on (a,b), and f' extends continuously to [a,b], then the graph of f has length ∫ₐᵇ√1+f'(t)² dt Corollary
- The central binomial coefficient is asymptotic to 4ⁿ divided by the square root of pi n Corollary
- {q ∈ ℚ : q ≥ 0, q² < 2} is closed and bounded in ℚ and is not compact Counterexample
- ‖·‖₁ on ℝ² violates the parallelogram law, so no symmetric bilinear form induces it Counterexample
- ∏_j ≥ 0 (1 + (-1)ʲ/√j+2) has partial products tending to 0 although ∑_j ≥ 0 (-1)ʲ/√j+2 converges Counterexample
- A conjugate point at which there are many geodesics Counterexample
- A curve for which the mean value inequality is an equality, showing the constant cannot be improved Counterexample
- A field homomorphism of ordered fields need not preserve order Counterexample
- A full-rank local Hessian does not capture both posterior modes Counterexample
- A real-valued optimum is not a fractional Grover iteration Counterexample
- Adam diverges on a periodic bounded-gradient loss sequence Counterexample
- AM-GM fails for negative entries: (-1,-4) has geometric mean 2 and arithmetic mean -5/2 Counterexample
- An annihilating polynomial need not be minimal: √2 is a root of both x²-2 and x⁴-4 Counterexample
- f(t) = (t², t³) on [0,1]: no ξ satisfies f(1)-f(0) = f'(ξ) Counterexample
- g(x,y) = xy/(x²+y²), extended by g(0,0)=0, is continuous in each variable separately and not continuous at the origin Counterexample
- On a closed interval of ℚ there is a continuous unbounded function, a bounded one with no maximum, and one without the intermediate value property Counterexample
- Over ℚ there is a nonconstant differentiable function with identically zero derivative, so Rolle and the mean value theorem both fail Counterexample
- ℚ ∩ [0,2] is bounded and disconnected, so being an interval of ℚ is not enough Counterexample
- The Cauchy product of ∑_k ≥ 0 (-1)ᵏ/√k+1 with itself has |cₙ| ≥ 1 for every n, so it diverges Counterexample
- The Koch curve is a uniform limit of polygonal paths of lengths (4/3)ⁿ but is not rectifiable Counterexample
…and 216 more results.
Dependency tree · two levels
12 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
- W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed., Ch. 1 (Thm 1.21) (standard reference, not scraped)
- M. Spivak, Calculus, 4th ed., Ch. 8 (standard reference, not scraped)
- University of Colorado analysis notes: The real numbers (standard reference, not scraped)