Alphabeta Math
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.

12 results · all verified · 1 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 11 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Density Separability and Convolution in Lp — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

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 L2L2 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

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

1[0,1]1[0,1] is the tent function

Example

Let f:=1[0,1] on R. Then

(ff)(x)=R1[0,1](xy)1[0,1](y)dy

is the tent function

(ff)(x)={0,x0,x,0x1,2x,1x2,0,x2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The indicator f=1[0,1].

[L2]

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

technique · direct
1.1

For fixed x, the integrand is 1 exactly when [L1, given, algebra] y[0,1][x1,x]. Therefore (ff)(x) is the length of that overlap interval.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

If 0x1, the overlap is [0,x], so (ff)(x)=x. If [step 1.1, algebra] 1x2, the overlap is [x1,1], so (ff)(x)=2x. For x0 or x2, there is no overlap, so (ff)(x)=0.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

Since supp(f)=[0,1], [L2] predicts support inside [L2, step 2.1] [0,1]+[0,1]=[0,2], exactly as the explicit computation shows.

L2step 2.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

Mollifying 1[0,1] at two scales

Example

Let φCc(R) satisfy φ=1 and supp(φ)[1,1]. For f:=1[0,1] and ε>0,

(fφε)(x)=01φε(xy)dy=(x1)/εx/εφ(u)du.

For ε=1/4 and ε=1/8, the graph is 0 outside [ε,1+ε], equals 1 on [ε,1ε], and has only the two rounded boundary layers of width ε.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A compactly supported unit-mass bump φ and f=1[0,1].

[L1]

Mollifier families are approximate identities (A unit-mass smooth bump generates an L1 approximate identity).

[L3]

Approximate identities converge uniformly on compacta for bounded continuous functions; on the interior plateau here the integral is exactly one by direct support control (L1 approximate identities converge uniformly on compacta for bounded continuous functions).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The change of variables u=(xy)/ε gives the displayed formula. [L1, given, algebra] Because supp(φε)[ε,ε], the convolution vanishes unless the interval [0,1] meets [xε,x+ε], namely unless x[ε,1+ε].

L1givenalgebra
2.1

If x[ε,1ε], then the whole support of [L1, step 1.1, algebra] φε(x) lies inside [0,1], so (fφε)(x)=φε=1. Near x=0 and x=1, only part of the kernel fits inside [0,1], producing the two smooth transition layers.

L1step 1.1algebra
3.1

By [L2], every fφε is smooth; the cases [L2, L3, step 2.1] ε=1/4 and ε=1/8 differ only in the width of the two boundary layers, with the smaller ε giving the sharper transition.

L2L3step 2.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

A concrete countable dense family in L2[0,1]

Example

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice.

Inside L2([0,1]), the finite rational linear combinations of indicators of rational half-open intervals (a,b][0,1] form a countable dense family.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Countable Choice and the space L2([0,1]).

[L1]

Rational box-step functions form a countable dense subset of Lp(Rn) for every finite p (Rational box-step functions form a countable dense subset of Lp(Rn) for 1p<).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Specialize [L1] to n=1 and p=2. The rational boxes in one dimension are [L1, given] the rational half-open intervals (a,b], and restricting to those contained in [0,1] still leaves a countable family.

L1given
2.1

Extend a function on [0,1] by 0 outside [0,1]. Then approximation in [step 1.1, algebra] L2(R) by rational interval step functions supported in [0,1] restricts back to approximation in L2([0,1]).

step 1.1algebra
3.1

Therefore the stated family is an explicit countable dense subset of [step 2.1] L2([0,1]).

step 2.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

The family {1[0,t]:t[0,1]} is 1-separated in L[0,1]

Example

The family

{1[0,t]:t[0,1]}

is 1-separated in L([0,1]).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Two parameters s,t[0,1] with st.

[L1]

L([0,1]) is not separable, and the proof runs through this explicit family (L[0,1] is not separable).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Assume s<t. Then [L1, given, algebra] 1[0,t]1[0,s] equals 1 on (s,t], a set of positive measure.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

Hence [step 1.1, algebra]

1[0,t]1[0,s]=1.

The same conclusion holds when t<s by symmetry.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

So any two distinct members of the family are distance 1 apart, which is [L1, step 2.1] exactly the one-separated property used in [L1].

L1step 2.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

Young's inequality on an L1L2 pair

Example

Let f=g=1[0,1] on R. Then fL1(R), gL2(R), and Young's inequality gives

fg2f1g2=1.

In fact fg2=(01x2dx+12(2x)2dx)1/2=23.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The indicator f=g=1[0,1].

[L1]

Young's inequality holds (Young's convolution inequality).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The previous tent-function computation gives [L1, given, algebra] (fg)(x)={x,0x1,2x,1x2,0,otherwise.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

Therefore [step 1.1, algebra] fg22=01x2dx+12(2x)2dx=13+13=23.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

Since f1=1 and g2=1, this gives [L1, step 2.1] fg2=2/31=f1g2, exactly as [L1] predicts.

L1step 2.1
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

The Gaussian family is an L1 approximate identity

Example

For ε>0, define the normalized Gaussian on Rn by

Gε(x):=(2πε2)n/2ex2/(2ε2).

Then (Gε)ε>0 is an L1 approximate identity.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Gaussian family (Gε).

[L1]

An L1 approximate identity is defined in An L1 approximate identity on Rn.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

The change of variables u=x/ε gives [L1, given, algebra] RnGε(x)dx=Rn(2π)n/2eu2/2du=1, so every kernel has mass one and Gε1=1.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

For every δ>0, [step 1.1, algebra] x>δGε(x)dx=u>δ/ε(2π)n/2eu2/2du0 as ε0+, because the integration region escapes to infinity against an integrable Gaussian tail.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

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 L1 approximate identity even though it is not compactly supported.

L1step 1.1step 2.1
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

FALSE: Cc(Rn) is dense in L(Rn)

Statement

False claim. Cc(Rn) is dense in L(Rn).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The L-closure theorem for Cc(Rn).

[L1]

The closure of Cc(Rn) in L is exactly C0(Rn) (The L-closure of Cc(Rn) is C0(Rn), not all of L(Rn)).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

The constant function 1 belongs to L(Rn) but not to [L1] C0(Rn), because it does not vanish at infinity.

L1
2.1

By [L1], every L-limit of compactly supported continuous functions [L1, step 1.1] lies in C0(Rn). Therefore 1 cannot lie in the closure of Cc(Rn), and the claim is false.

L1step 1.1
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-01Open item page →

FALSE: Lp(μ) is separable for every measure μ and every 1p<

Statement

False claim. For every measure space (X,A,μ) and every 1p<, the space Lp(μ) is separable.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An uncountable set X with counting measure.

[L1]

The general separability theorem requires the Axiom of Countable Choice, sigma-finiteness, and a countably generated sigma-algebra (If μ is sigma-finite and A is countably generated, then Lp(μ) is separable for 1p<).

[L2]

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

technique · direct
1.1

For each xX, let ex:=1{x}. Since [L2, given, algebra] μ({x})=1, each ex lies in Lp(μ). If xy, then exeypp=1p+1p=2, so exeyp=21/p.

L2givenalgebra
2.1

Thus the uncountable family {ex:xX} is pairwise [L1, L2, step 1.1, algebra] 21/p-separated. No countable set can be dense in a metric space containing uncountably many disjoint balls of radius 21/p/3. So this Lp(μ) is not separable, contradicting the claim.

L1L2step 1.1algebra
3.1

Therefore the unrestricted statement is false; [L1] records the correct [L1, step 2.1] hypothesis ledger.

L1step 2.1
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

FALSE: translation is continuous in L

Statement

False claim. Translation is continuous in L(Rn).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The indicator of the unit interval in one dimension.

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

Let f:=1[0,1] on R. For every h0, the [L1, given, algebra] functions f and τhf differ by 1 on a set of positive measure: for 0<h<1, for instance, on (1,1+h] one has τhf=1 and f=0.

L1givenalgebra
2.1

Therefore [step 1.1, algebra]

τhff=1

for every h0, so the norm does not tend to 0 as h0.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

Hence translation is not continuous in L, which is exactly why [L1, step 2.1] [L1] stops at p<.

L1step 2.1
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

FALSE: if f,gL1(Rn), then fg(x) is defined for every x

Statement

False claim. If f,gL1(Rn), then (fg)(x) is defined for every xRn.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The one-dimensional functions f(x)=g(x):={1x(log(e/x))2,0<x<1/2,0,otherwise.

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

The function x1/(x(log(e/x))2) is integrable near 0, so [L1, given, algebra] f,gL1(R).

L1givenalgebra
2.1

At x=0 one has [step 1.1, algebra] Rf(y)g(y)dy=1/21/2dyy2(log(e/y))4. The single point y=0 is irrelevant to Lebesgue integrability, so it is enough to inspect the punctured interval (0,1/2). There the substitution u=log(e/y) gives y=e1u and dy=e1udu, hence 01/2dyy2(log(e/y))4=log(2e)eu1u4du=. Thus (fg)(0) is not defined as an absolutely convergent Lebesgue integral.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

Therefore the convolution of two L1 functions need not be defined at [L1, step 2.1] every point; [L1] correctly states only almost-everywhere existence.

L1step 2.1
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

Two L2 functions can have convolution outside L2

Statement refuted

Every convolution of two L2(R) functions again belongs to L2(R).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The one-dimensional function f(x)=g(x):=(1+x)3/4.

[L1]

Young's inequality controls only the exponents satisfying 1/r=1/p+1/q1 (Young's convolution inequality).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

Since [L1, given, algebra] R(1+x)3/2dx<, the functions f and g lie in L2(R).

L1givenalgebra
2.1

For x>2, [step 1.1, algebra] (fg)(x)=R(1+xy)3/4(1+y)3/4dy1x1x3/4x3/4dy=x2x3/2. So for large x, (fg)(x)cx1/2 for some c>0.

step 1.1algebra
3.1

But [L1, step 2.1] 2x1dx=, so the lower bound from step 2.1 shows fgL2(R). Hence the statement refuted above is false.

L1step 2.1
False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-01Open item page →

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.

[L1]

The convolution page deliberately fixes Borel representatives before forming the product-space integrand (Borel representatives make the convolution integrand Borel measurable, Convolution on L1(Rn) is independent of the chosen Borel representatives).

[L2]

Continuous precomposition need not preserve Lebesgue measurability (FALSE: composing a Lebesgue measurable function with a continuous map preserves measurability).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

Fact [L2] gives a continuous map T and a Lebesgue measurable function [L2] u such that uT is not Lebesgue measurable. So the slogan "Lebesgue measurability survives every continuous change of variables" is false.

L2
2.1

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.

L1step 1.1
3.1

Therefore the displayed claim is false.

step 2.1

Sources