Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

✓ 3 results · all verified · 0 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 3 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Chaining and Uniform Limits — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The finite-subset counterexample separates pointwise strong laws from a uniform law by choosing the realized finite sample as the witnessing set. Under Countable Choice, deterministic interval brackets show that the Uniform[0,1] threshold class is strongly Glivenko–Cantelli. Under AC, the same brackets have integrable square-root entropy and give a functional empirical-CDF limit; direct covariance calculation identifies its tight Gaussian bridge as the standard Brownian bridge.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

Pointwise strong laws need not give a uniform law

Statement refuted

The assertion that pointwise strong laws for every member of a class imply a uniform law of large numbers is false without a class-separability or entropy hypothesis.

Witness

Let Xi be iid Uniform[0,1] and let A be the class of all finite subsets of [0,1], with indicator class F={1A:A∈A}. For every fixed A∈A, Pn(A)→P(A)=0 almost surely, but for every n and every realized sample, sup⁡A∈A∣Pn(A)−P(A)∣=1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The iid Uniform[0,1] sequence and the class of all finite subsets of [0,1].

[F1]

Identical distribution and IID families: iid observations are independent and each Xi has the same law P.

[A1]

Uniform[0,1] law convention: every interval I⊆[0,1] is Borel and P(I) equals its interval length.

[F3]

Empirical, centered, and Rademacher processes: Pn(A)=n−1∑i=1n1A(Xi). Its current carrier and batch-15 manifest entry agree, and its current owner Step 1 record marks it construction-ready; that status is not independent mathematical approval.

[F2]

Basic identities for a probability measure: finite and countable subadditivity give the finite-union and countable-union probability bounds.

[F4]

Glivenko–Cantelli classes: a class is P-Glivenko–Cantelli if sup⁡f∈F∣Pnf−Pf∣→0 in probability.

Refutation

1.1A1F1F2F3givenalgebra

Fix a finite set A⊆[0,1]. If A=∅, then P(A)=0. Otherwise write m=∣A∣≥1. Given ϵ>0, for each x∈A let Ix={y∈[0,1]:∣y−x∣<ϵ/(2m)}. These m intervals cover A, and each has length at most ϵ/m. By [A1] and finite subadditivity [F2], 0≤P(A)≤∑x∈AP(Ix)≤ϵ. Since this holds for every ϵ>0, P(A)=0. By [F1], each event {Xi∈A} has probability zero; countable subadditivity [F2] gives P(∃i≥1:Xi∈A)=0. Hence with probability one Pn(A)=0=P(A) for every n. This proves the pointwise strong law for this fixed A, without asserting one common event for all finite sets.

2.1F2F3F4step 1.1givenalgebra∎

For any realized finite sample x1,…,xn, the set An={x1,…,xn} is finite, so An∈A, Pn(An)=1, and P(An)=0. Every indicator deviation is at most one, so the supremum over A equals one for every sample. This supremum is the constant measurable function one; by [F4] it does not converge to zero in probability.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

The uniform threshold class is Glivenko–Cantelli

Example

Assume Countable Choice. Let P be uniform probability on [0,1], let X1,X2,… be iid with law P, and let F={ft:t∈[0,1]},ft(x)=1[0,t](x). Then F is strongly P-Glivenko–Cantelli: sup⁡0≤t≤1∣Pnft−Pft∣⟶0almost surely.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, the iid Uniform[0,1] experiment, the threshold class F, and the bracketing Glivenko–Cantelli theorem.

[A1]

P([0,t])=t for t∈[0,1], and the envelope F(x)=1 is integrable.

[A2]

Countable Choice supplies the theorem's strong-law branch and, for each fixed t<1, a sequence of rational approximants chosen from the intervals (t,min⁡(1,t+1/k)) (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

[F1]

Glivenko–Cantelli classes: uniform convergence of Pnf to Pf over the class defines the Glivenko–Cantelli property.

[F2]

Covering, packing, bracketing numbers, and metric entropy: an L1(P) bracket has measurable endpoints, contains functions lying between them P-almost everywhere, and has width P(u−l).

[F3]

Empirical, centered, and Rademacher processes: for iid observations, Pnft=n−1∑i=1nft(Xi) and Pft=∫ft dP.

[F4]

Glivenko–Cantelli theorem by bracketing entropy: a pointwise-measurable class with an integrable envelope and finite L1(P) bracketing number at every positive scale is strongly P-Glivenko–Cantelli when Countable Choice is assumed.

[F5]

Q is countably infinite: Q is countable.

[F6]

Every subset of an at most countable set is at most countable: every subset of an at most countable set is at most countable.

[F7]

The rationals embed densely in the reals: between any two distinct real numbers there is a rational.

Verification

Given: The objects and facts above.

1.1A2F5F6F7construct

The class is pointwise measurable. Since 1∈Q, the rational thresholds together with 1 are indexed by Q∩[0,1], a countable set by [F5]–[F6]. For each fixed t<1, Countable Choice [A2] selects qk∈Q∩(t,min⁡(1,t+1/k)), which exist by [F7]. Then qk→t from above, so 1[0,qk](x)→1[0,t](x) for every x∈[0,1].

1.2A1F2choosealgebra

For each integer m≥1, the m brackets [fj/m,f(j+1)/m], 0≤j<m, cover F and have L1(P) width (j+1)/m−j/m=1/m. Thus for every ϵ>0, taking an integer m>1/ϵ gives N[](ϵ,F,L1(P))≤m<∞. The envelope condition is [A1].

2.1A2F1F3F4step 1.1step 1.2∎

By [F4] under [A2], the hypotheses verified in steps 1.1 and 1.2 imply sup⁡t∈[0,1]∣Pnft−Pft∣→0 almost surely, which is the claimed strong Glivenko–Cantelli property by [F1].

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

The uniform empirical CDF converges to a Brownian bridge

Example

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let Xi be iid Uniform[0,1], Fn(t)=Pn([0,t]), and F(t)=t. The empirical process Gn(t)=n(Fn(t)−F(t)), 0≤t≤1, converges weakly in outer expectation in ℓ∞([0,1]) to the standard Brownian bridge: the tight centered Gaussian process B with covariance E[B(s)B(t)]=min⁡(s,t)−st.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Iid Uniform[0,1] observations and the fixed-P bracketing functional CLT.

[A1]

For 0≤t≤1, P([0,t])=t and the envelope of ft=1[0,t] is H≡1, so PH2=1.

[A2]

AC is the premise of the functional CLT [F4] and permits choosing one rational approximant from each of the countably many nonempty intervals used in step 1.1 (The Axiom of Choice).

[F1]

Empirical, centered, and Rademacher processes: Fn(t)=Pnft and Gn(ft)=n(Pnft−Pft).

[F2]

Donsker classes and asymptotic equicontinuity: a P-Donsker limit is a tight centered Gaussian bridge with covariance P[(f−Pf)(g−Pg)].

[F3]

Covering, packing, bracketing numbers, and metric entropy: bracket width in L2(P) is the L2(P) norm of the nonnegative endpoint difference.

[F4]

Functional central limit theorem by bracketing entropy: under pointwise measurability, a square-integrable envelope, and a finite fixed-P normalized L2(P) bracketing entropy integral, the process converges in outer expectation to a tight Gaussian bridge.

[F5]

Q is countably infinite: Q is countable.

[F6]

Every subset of an at most countable set is at most countable: every subset of an at most countable set is at most countable.

[F7]

The rationals embed densely in the reals: between any two distinct real numbers there is a rational.

Verification

Given: The objects and facts above.

1.1A2F1F5F6F7construct

The class F={ft:t∈[0,1]} is pointwise measurable. Since 1∈Q, the rational thresholds together with 1 are indexed by Q∩[0,1], which is countable by [F5]–[F6]. For each fixed t<1, [A2] and [F7] give rationals qk∈Q∩(t,min⁡(1,t+1/(k+1))) for every integer k≥0, so qk→t from above and fqk(x)→ft(x) for every x∈[0,1]. For t=1, use the constant sequence qk=1. The envelope H≡1 is measurable and square-integrable.

1.2A1F3choosealgebra

For an integer m≥1, the m brackets [fj/m,f(j+1)/m] have L2(P) width 1/m, since their endpoint difference is the indicator of an interval of length 1/m. Thus for 0<ϵ≤1, choosing m=⌈ϵ−2⌉ gives N[](ϵ,F,L2(P))≤m.

2.1A1F1F3F4step 1.1step 1.2algebra

Consequently log⁡N[](ϵ,F,L2(P))≤log⁡(1+ϵ−2)≤log⁡2+2log⁡(1/ϵ) for 0<ϵ≤1. Since log⁡(1/ϵ)≤1/ϵ, the square-root entropy is bounded by log⁡2+2ϵ−1/2, an integrable function on (0,1]. All hypotheses of [F4] hold.

3.1A1A2F2F4step 2.1∎

Applying [F4] gives a tight centered Gaussian limit. For s,t∈[0,1], P(fsft)=P([0,min⁡(s,t)])=min⁡(s,t) and PfsPft=st, so [F2] gives covariance min⁡(s,t)−st. This is precisely the defining covariance of the standard Brownian bridge stated in the example, proving the claimed limit. AC is carried from [F4].

Sources