Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
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.

Continuity alone does not give uniqueness: x′=∣x∣ through the origin

Statement refuted

Let F:R→R be continuous. Then for every x0∈R the initial value problem x′=F(x), x(0)=x0 has at most one solution on every interval containing 0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The field F(x)=∣x∣ and the initial value problem x′=F(x), x(0)=0.

Counterexample

technique · direct; exhibit two distinct solutions through the same initial datum
1.1givenL2

The map F(x)=∣x∣ is continuous on R as the composition of u↦∣u∣ with the square root, by [L2], so the hypothesis of the refuted statement holds.

1.2givenL1

The zero function x0≡0 is a solution: it is differentiable with derivative 0=F(0) everywhere.

1.3givenL3algebra

Define x1:R→R by x1(t)=0 for t≤1 and x1(t)=(t−1)2/4 for t≥1. Then x1 is continuous, and it is differentiable at t=1 with derivative 0 from both sides: for h>0, (h2/4)/h=h/4→0, while the left difference quotient is 0. For t≠1 the derivative is 0 (for t<1) or (t−1)/2 (for t>1) by [L3]. Hence x1 is differentiable on R with x1(0)=0.

2.1step 1.2step 1.3L1L2algebra∎

For t>1, x1(t)=(t−1)2/4≥0 and (t−1)/2>0, so uniqueness of the nonnegative square root in [L2] gives ∣x1(t)∣=(t−1)/2=x1′(t); for t≤1, x1(t)=0 and x1′(t)=0=∣0∣. Hence x1 is a solution of x′=F(x) through (0,0) by [L1], and it differs from the zero solution on (1,∞): the initial value problem has two distinct solutions on every interval containing [0,2], refuting the statement.

Remarks

  • Why the Lipschitz hypothesis matters. The local uniqueness lemma Continuous and Lipschitz dependence on the initial condition on a Picard-Lindelof cylinder assumes a state-Lipschitz constant; here F fails that hypothesis at the equilibrium: ∣F(x)−F(0)∣/∣x∣=1/∣x∣→∞ as x→0. The counterexample shows that continuity alone cannot replace it, so the Lipschitz hypothesis in the oscillator existence and uniqueness results is not redundant.
  • No physical claim. This is a statement about an abstract scalar ODE; it makes no assertion about any mechanical model.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources