Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-05
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.

The Vitali covering theorem for fine covers on the real line

Statement

Assume dependent choice (The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain).

Let E⊆R with λ∗(E)<∞, and let V be a fine cover of E by closed nondegenerate intervals (Vitali covers and fine covers on the real line by closed intervals, Lebesgue outer measure on Rn). Then there is a countable pairwise disjoint subfamily (In)n≥1 of V such that

λ∗ ⁣(E∖⋃n≥1In)=0.

Moreover, for every ε>0 there is a finite pairwise disjoint subfamily I1,…,IN from V such that

λ∗ ⁣(E∖⋃n=1NIn)<ε.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Dependent choice, the set E⊆R with λ∗(E)<∞, and a fine interval cover V of E.

[A1]

The symbols are those of the statement.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenchoose

Choose an open set U⊇E with finite length and λ(U)<λ∗(E)+1. Because V is fine, every x∈E lies in arbitrarily short intervals of V, so after shrinking we may restrict to the subfamily VU:={I∈V:I⊆U}, which is still a fine cover of E. Using dependent choice, choose a sequence (In)n≥1 in VU∪{∅} as follows: as long as there exists an interval of VU disjoint from the previously chosen nonempty intervals, choose In disjoint from those earlier nonempty intervals and with length at least half the supremum of the lengths of all such candidates; once no disjoint candidate remains, set In=∅ and all later terms equal to ∅.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Let M:={n≥1:In≠∅}. The nonempty intervals (In)n∈M are pairwise disjoint and lie in the finite-open set U, so ∑n∈M∣In∣≤λ(U)<∞. If M is finite, write M={1,…,N} and let R:=E∖⋃n=1NIn. If x∈R, then the finite union ⋃n=1NIn is closed and does not contain x, so d:=dist⁡(x,⋃n=1NIn)>0. Because VU is a fine cover of E, choose J∈VU with x∈J and ∣J∣<d. Then J is disjoint from I1,…,IN, contradicting the terminal clause in step 1.1. Therefore R=∅. In this finite-termination case the theorem already holds with the finite family I1,…,IN, and the finite ε-version is immediate as well.

2.2step 1.1algebra

It remains to treat the case where M is infinite. Then no In is empty, because empties persist forever after the first one, so ∑n≥1∣In∣<∞ and therefore ∣In∣→0. Let R:=E∖⋃n≥1In. Fix x∈R and m≥1. Since x does not lie in the finite union I1∪⋯∪Im−1, the distance dm:=dist⁡ ⁣(x,⋃n=1m−1In) is positive. Also sm:=sup⁡n≥m∣In∣>0, because there are infinitely many nonempty intervals in the tail. Choose J∈VU with x∈J,∣J∣<min⁡(dm,sm). Then J is disjoint from I1,…,Im−1. If J were disjoint from every In with n≥m, then J would remain a candidate at every later stage. The half-maximal choice would then give ∣J∣≤2∣In∣ for every n≥m, contradicting ∣In∣→0. So J meets some In with n≥m; let n be the least such index. Then J is disjoint from I1,…,In−1, so it is an admissible candidate at stage n, and the half-maximal choice gives ∣J∣≤2∣In∣. Intersecting intervals with comparable lengths satisfy J⊆5In. Therefore x∈⋃n≥m5In. Since m was arbitrary, R⊆⋂m≥1⋃n≥m5In.

3.1step 2.2algebra

By countable subadditivity of outer measure and the interval formula for Lebesgue outer measure, λ∗(R)≤inf⁡m≥1λ∗ ⁣(⋃n≥m5In)≤inf⁡m≥15∑n≥m∣In∣=0. This proves the countable disjoint conclusion in the infinite case. For the finite version, choose N so large that 5∑n>N∣In∣<ε and repeat the same estimate with RN:=E∖⋃n=1NIn.

4.1step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2step 3.1∎

Steps 1.1 through 4.1 prove both forms of the theorem.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

43 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