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.
Monotonicity of and of
Statement
Let with and let with (Order on the rationals), with rational powers as in Rational powers of a positive base.
- In the exponent. If then ; if then ; if then .
- In the base. If with and , then ; so is strictly increasing on .
- Comparison with . For rational : implies , and implies .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A real and rationals ; write , a rational with .
Positive rationals have positive representatives: can be written with naturals and , . Every rational has a representative with positive denominator (Every rational has a positive-denominator representative); on such a representative holds exactly when in (Order on the rationals, Order on the integers); and a positive integer is the image of a unique natural (The naturals embed in the integers), which is what turns both the numerator and the denominator into naturals . The last passage is a genuine step and is what Rational powers do not depend on the representative uses at its own [L5].
Rational power laws (Laws of rational exponents, Rational powers do not depend on the representative, Rational powers of a positive base): ; ; and for the representative .
Roots (Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with ): is the unique with , and it is when .
Integer power monotonicity (Monotonicity of and of ): for , is strictly increasing on (claim 2); for , implies (claim 3), while implies , which is claim 2 again with as the larger base and NOT claim 3, whose nonstrict would not suffice; and for every integer , by claim 4 for natural together with (Laws of integer exponents).
Order arithmetic: for , ; and trichotomy, exactly one of , , holds (Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication, Ordered field).
Proof
Write , so is rational with , and fix a representative with naturals ; then with , so the comparison of with is exactly the comparison of with .
Claim 2, which needs no case split: let be rational with representative , , and let ; then , since would give ; raising to the power preserves the strict inequality between nonnegatives, so .
Case : then , because would give ; hence , and multiplying by gives .
Case : then shows by uniqueness of the nonnegative -th root, so for every rational with representative ; in particular .
Case : then , because would give ; hence by strict monotonicity of on the nonnegatives, , and multiplying by gives .
The three cases , , exhaust the possibilities for by trichotomy, so claim 1 holds; claim 3 is the comparison of with established inside the first and third cases; and claim 2 is step 1.2.
Depends on
Rational powers of a positive base
Laws of rational exponents
Monotonicity of and of
Laws of integer exponents
Rational powers do not depend on the representative
Order on the rationals
Order on the integers
The naturals embed in the integers
Existence and uniqueness of -th roots: a unique with
Every rational has a positive-denominator representative
Sign rules for products and monotonicity of multiplication
Ordered field