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.
Density Separability and Convolution in — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Areas of Elementary Plane Figures
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions
- Density Separability and Convolution in Lᵖ
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Dual Spaces, Bilinear and Quadratic Forms, and Sylvester's Law of Inertia
- Filters and Ultrafilters
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Fubini and Change of Variables
- Gaussian Elimination, Elementary Matrices and Reduced Row Echelon Form
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Inner Product Spaces, Gram-Schmidt, Projections and Adjoints
- Lebesgue Measure on Euclidean Space
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Mixed Partials, Taylor Formulae, and Extrema
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Non Measurable Sets and the Cost of Choice
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Outer Measure and the Caratheodory Extension Theorem
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Rⁿ as a Normed Space; Vector-Valued Functions
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Separation Axioms: the Hierarchy
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Subspaces, Products, and Quotients
- Suprema and Infima
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- The Cantor Set, Baire Category, and Measure Zero in ℝ
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Riemann Integral in Rᵐ and Jordan Content
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The Topology of Euclidean Space
- The Total Derivative in ℝᵐ → ℝⁿ
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
The companion page collects the concrete models behind the main page: the tent-function convolution, explicit mollification pictures, concrete dense families and separated families, the Gaussian approximate identity, and the endpoint failures the A page warns about. The counterexample is written with a correct tail-decay witness rather than the invalid local-singularity sketch from the design prose.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
is the tent function
Example
Let on . Then
is the tent function
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The indicator .
convolution exists almost everywhere (If , then exists almost everywhere, belongs to , and ).
The support of a convolution lies in the closure of the support sumset (The support of a convolution lies in the closure of the support sumset).
Verification
For fixed , the integrand is exactly when [L1, given, algebra] . Therefore is the length of that overlap interval.
If , the overlap is , so . If [step 1.1, algebra] , the overlap is , so . For or , there is no overlap, so .
Since , [L2] predicts support inside [L2, step 2.1] , exactly as the explicit computation shows.
Mollifying at two scales
Example
Let satisfy and . For and ,
For and , the graph is outside , equals on , and has only the two rounded boundary layers of width .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A compactly supported unit-mass bump and .
Mollifier families are approximate identities (A unit-mass smooth bump generates an approximate identity).
Convolution with a mollifier is smooth (Convolution with a mollifier is smooth, and derivatives pass under the integral sign).
Approximate identities converge uniformly on compacta for bounded continuous functions; on the interior plateau here the integral is exactly one by direct support control ( approximate identities converge uniformly on compacta for bounded continuous functions).
Verification
The change of variables gives the displayed formula. [L1, given, algebra] Because , the convolution vanishes unless the interval meets , namely unless .
If , then the whole support of [L1, step 1.1, algebra] lies inside , so Near and , only part of the kernel fits inside , producing the two smooth transition layers.
By [L2], every is smooth; the cases [L2, L3, step 2.1] and differ only in the width of the two boundary layers, with the smaller giving the sharper transition.
A concrete countable dense family in
Example
Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice.
Inside , the finite rational linear combinations of indicators of rational half-open intervals form a countable dense family.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Countable Choice and the space .
Rational box-step functions form a countable dense subset of for every finite (Rational box-step functions form a countable dense subset of for ).
Verification
Specialize [L1] to and . The rational boxes in one dimension are [L1, given] the rational half-open intervals , and restricting to those contained in still leaves a countable family.
Extend a function on by outside . Then approximation in [step 1.1, algebra] by rational interval step functions supported in restricts back to approximation in .
Therefore the stated family is an explicit countable dense subset of [step 2.1] .
The family is -separated in
Example
The family
is -separated in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Two parameters with .
is not separable, and the proof runs through this explicit family ( is not separable).
Verification
Assume . Then [L1, given, algebra] equals on , a set of positive measure.
Hence [step 1.1, algebra]
The same conclusion holds when by symmetry.
So any two distinct members of the family are distance apart, which is [L1, step 2.1] exactly the one-separated property used in [L1].
Young's inequality on an pair
Example
Let on . Then , , and Young's inequality gives
In fact
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The indicator .
Young's inequality holds (Young's convolution inequality).
Verification
The previous tent-function computation gives [L1, given, algebra]
Therefore [step 1.1, algebra]
Since and , this gives [L1, step 2.1] , exactly as [L1] predicts.
The Gaussian family is an approximate identity
Example
For , define the normalized Gaussian on by
Then is an approximate identity.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Gaussian family .
An approximate identity is defined in An approximate identity on .
Verification
The change of variables gives [L1, given, algebra] so every kernel has mass one and .
For every , [step 1.1, algebra] as , because the integration region escapes to infinity against an integrable Gaussian tail.
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 verify the defining clauses of [L1], so the Gaussian [L1, step 1.1, step 2.1] family is an approximate identity even though it is not compactly supported.
FALSE: is dense in
Statement
False claim. is dense in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The -closure theorem for .
The closure of in is exactly (The -closure of is , not all of ).
Refutation
The constant function belongs to but not to [L1] , because it does not vanish at infinity.
By [L1], every -limit of compactly supported continuous functions [L1, step 1.1] lies in . Therefore cannot lie in the closure of , and the claim is false.
FALSE: is separable for every measure and every
Statement
False claim. For every measure space and every , the space is separable.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An uncountable set with counting measure.
The general separability theorem requires the Axiom of Countable Choice, sigma-finiteness, and a countably generated sigma-algebra (If is sigma-finite and is countably generated, then is separable for ).
Counting measure is a measure, and separability means having a countable dense subset (Counting measure on an arbitrary set, Counting measure is a measure, Separability: the existence of an at most countable dense subset).
Refutation
For each , let . Since [L2, given, algebra] , each lies in . If , then so .
Thus the uncountable family is pairwise [L1, L2, step 1.1, algebra] -separated. No countable set can be dense in a metric space containing uncountably many disjoint balls of radius . So this is not separable, contradicting the claim.
Therefore the unrestricted statement is false; [L1] records the correct [L1, step 2.1] hypothesis ledger.
FALSE: translation is continuous in
Statement
False claim. Translation is continuous in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The indicator of the unit interval in one dimension.
The finite- translation theorem excludes ( in as , for ).
Refutation
Let on . For every , the [L1, given, algebra] functions and differ by on a set of positive measure: for , for instance, on one has and .
Therefore [step 1.1, algebra]
for every , so the norm does not tend to as .
Hence translation is not continuous in , which is exactly why [L1, step 2.1] [L1] stops at .
FALSE: if , then is defined for every
Statement
False claim. If , then is defined for every .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The one-dimensional functions
The convolution theorem guarantees only almost-everywhere existence (If , then exists almost everywhere, belongs to , and ).
Refutation
The function is integrable near , so [L1, given, algebra] .
At one has [step 1.1, algebra] The single point is irrelevant to Lebesgue integrability, so it is enough to inspect the punctured interval . There the substitution gives and , hence Thus is not defined as an absolutely convergent Lebesgue integral.
Therefore the convolution of two functions need not be defined at [L1, step 2.1] every point; [L1] correctly states only almost-everywhere existence.
Two functions can have convolution outside
Statement refuted
Every convolution of two functions again belongs to .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The one-dimensional function
Young's inequality controls only the exponents satisfying (Young's convolution inequality).
Counterexample
Since [L1, given, algebra] the functions and lie in .
For , [step 1.1, algebra] So for large , for some .
But [L1, step 2.1] so the lower bound from step 2.1 shows . Hence the statement refuted above is false.
FALSE: the Borel-representative discipline in convolution is unnecessary because continuous precomposition always preserves Lebesgue measurability
Statement
False claim. The Borel-representative discipline in the convolution construction is unnecessary because Lebesgue measurability is preserved under every continuous precomposition.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The convolution measurability seam and the published continuous- precomposition counterexample.
The convolution page deliberately fixes Borel representatives before forming the product-space integrand (Borel representatives make the convolution integrand Borel measurable, Convolution on is independent of the chosen Borel representatives).
Continuous precomposition need not preserve Lebesgue measurability (FALSE: composing a Lebesgue measurable function with a continuous map preserves measurability).
Refutation
Fact [L2] gives a continuous map and a Lebesgue measurable function [L2] such that is not Lebesgue measurable. So the slogan "Lebesgue measurability survives every continuous change of variables" is false.
The displayed claim relies on exactly that false slogan. Even if some [L1, step 1.1] particular maps used in convolution behave better, the blanket justification for dropping the Borel-representative discipline recorded in [L1] fails.
Therefore the displayed claim is false.