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.

✓ 11 results · all verified · 10 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 1 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples isolate the standard probability-space behaviors that the A page proves abstractly: explicit laws and CDFs, tail-integral expectation formulas, pushforward computations, Jensen instances, and sharpness examples for the basic inequalities.

The counterexamples keep the scope honest. Expectations can diverge, atoms can prevent the existence of a density, and almost-sure equality is weaker than pointwise equality. Bertrand's paradox closes the pair by showing that a probability question is not determined until the sample space and law have been specified.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A countable probability space with geometric weights

Example

Let Ω=N and define P(A):=∑n∈A2−(n+1)(A⊆N). Let X:Ω→R be the coordinate map X(n)=n. Then X is a random variable, its law is PX({n})=2−(n+1), and E[X]=1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The weights 2−(n+1) on N and the coordinate map X(n)=n.

[L1]

A probability measure has total mass 1, the law of a random element is its pushforward measure, and change of variables computes expectation from the law (Probability measures and probability spaces, Law or distribution of a random element, Change of variables for expectation).

[L2]

A real random variable is a measurable map into R (Random elements and real random variables).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1L2algebra

The geometric series gives P(N)=∑n=0∞2−(n+1)=1, so the displayed weights define a probability measure as in [L1]. Since every subset of N is measurable, the coordinate map X is a real random variable by [L2].

1.2L1

For each n∈N, the fibre of {n} is the singleton {n}, so the law definition gives PX({n})=P({n})=2−(n+1).

2.1step 1.2L1algebra

Applying change of variables from [L1] to the identity function on N⊆R gives E[X]=∑n=0∞n 2−(n+1)=1.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 verify the measure, the law, and the expectation.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The uniform random variable on [0,1]

Example

Let Ω=[0,1] with its Borel sets and uniform probability measure, and let X(ω)=ω. Then FX(x)={0,x<0,x,0≤x≤1,1,x≥1, and E[X]=12,E[X2]=13,∫0∞P(X>t) dt=12.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The identity random variable X(ω)=ω on [0,1] with uniform probability.

[L1]

The cumulative distribution function is FX(x)=P(X≤x) (Cumulative distribution function of a real random variable).

[L2]

Expectation is integration against the probability measure, and for a nonnegative random variable the layer-cake formula computes it from the tail probabilities (Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable, Layer-cake formulas for random variables).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

By direct interval computation, P(X≤x)=0(x<0),P(X≤x)=x(0≤x≤1),P(X≤x)=1(x≥1), which is exactly the displayed FX.

1.2L2algebra

Direct integration gives E[X]=∫01x dx=12,E[X2]=∫01x2 dx=13.

2.1step 1.2L2algebra

The tail is P(X>t)=1−t for 0≤t≤1 and 0 for t>1, so ∫0∞P(X>t) dt=∫01(1−t) dt=12=E[X], in agreement with [L2].

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 verify the CDF, moments, and tail integral.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Recovering an exponential law from its tail

Example

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Fix λ>0 and suppose a nonnegative random variable X satisfies P(X>t)=e−λt(t≥0). Then FX(x)={0,x<0,1−e−λx,x≥0, its law on R is the exponential law with parameter λ, and E[X]=1λ.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Countable Choice and a nonnegative random variable X with P(X>t)=e−λt for all t≥0.

[L1]

The cumulative distribution function is FX(x)=P(X≤x) (Cumulative distribution function of a real random variable).

[L2]

Assuming the Axiom of Countable Choice, distribution functions determine probability laws (Probability laws correspond to distribution functions).

[L3]

For nonnegative random variables, E[X]=∫0∞P(X>t) dt (Layer-cake formulas for random variables).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

Because X≥0, one has FX(x)=0 for x<0. For x≥0, FX(x)=1−P(X>x)=1−e−λx. So the displayed formula is the CDF of X.

1.2L3algebra

The tail integral from [L3] gives E[X]=∫0∞e−λt dt=1λ.

2.1step 1.1L2

By [L2], that distribution function determines the law uniquely, and its interval increments are those of the exponential distribution with parameter λ.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 recover the law and its expectation from the tail.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Discrete, continuous, and mixed distribution functions

Example

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Three standard distribution functions illustrate three different atom patterns:

Fd(x)={0,x<0,1/2,0≤x<1,1,x≥1,

Fc(x)={0,x<0,x,0≤x≤1,1,x≥1,

Fm(x)={0,x<0,12+x2,0≤x<1,1,x≥1.

The first law is purely atomic, the second has no atoms on R, and the third is mixed: it has an atom at 0 and a continuous part on (0,1).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Countable Choice and the three displayed functions.

[L1]

Assuming the Axiom of Countable Choice, distribution functions determine probability laws (Probability laws correspond to distribution functions).

[L2]

Atoms are positive point masses of the law, while continuity points are points where the distribution function is continuous (Atoms and continuity points of a law).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1given

Each displayed function is nondecreasing, right-continuous, tends to 0 at −∞, and tends to 1 at +∞. Therefore [L1] gives a probability law for each of them.

2.1L1L2step 1.1

The jumps identify the atoms. For Fd, the jumps are 1/2 at 0 and 1/2 at 1, so the law is purely discrete. For Fc there are no jumps, hence no atoms. For Fm there is a jump of size 1/2 at 0 and no jump on (0,1], so the law is mixed.

3.1step 2.1∎

Thus the three distribution functions realize discrete, continuous, and mixed behavior without any implication that a density must exist in general.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Expectation under a measurable transformation

Example

Let X take the values −1, 0, and 2 with probabilities 1/4, 1/2, and 1/4, and let g(x)=x2+1. Then E[g(X)]=∫R(x2+1) dPX(x)=94.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The law PX with masses PX({−1})=1/4, PX({0})=1/2, and PX({2})=1/4, and the measurable map g(x)=x2+1.

[L1]

Change of variables for expectation allows computation against the law instead of the original sample space (Change of variables for expectation).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1algebra

By [L1], E[g(X)]=∫Rg dPX. Because the law is supported on {−1,0,2}, this is the weighted sum g(−1)14+g(0)12+g(2)14=24+12+54=94.

2.1step 1.1∎

The nonlinear expectation is therefore computed entirely from the law on the target space.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Jensen for logarithm and exponential

Example

Let X be a positive integrable random variable such that log⁡X is integrable.

  1. Applying Jensen to the concave function log⁡ yields E[log⁡X]≤log⁡E[X], equivalently exp⁡(E[log⁡X])≤E[X].
  2. If Y is any integrable real random variable with E[eY]<∞, then Jensen applied to the convex function et gives eE[Y]≤E[eY].

For a two-point law with P(X=a)=p and P(X=b)=1−p, a,b>0, the first inequality is the weighted arithmetic-geometric mean inequality apb1−p≤pa+(1−p)b.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A positive integrable random variable X such that log⁡X is integrable, and an integrable real random variable Y with finite exponential moment.

[L1]

Jensen's inequality holds for expectation under the stated integrability hypotheses (Jensen's inequality for expectation).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1

Apply [L1] to the convex function t↦et and to Y. This gives eE[Y]≤E[eY].

1.2L1algebra

Applying the same theorem to Z=log⁡X and the convex function t↦et gives eE[log⁡X]≤E[elog⁡X]=E[X], which is equivalent to E[log⁡X]≤log⁡E[X].

2.1step 1.2algebra

For the two-point law, step 1.2 becomes eplog⁡a+(1−p)log⁡b≤pa+(1−p)b, that is, apb1−p≤pa+(1−p)b.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 give the exponential-moment and weighted AM-GM forms of Jensen.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Markov and Chebyshev sharpness

Example

Both Markov's and Chebyshev's inequalities can be sharp.

  1. If X=a1A with a>0, then P(X≥a)=E[X]a=P(A).
  2. If Y takes the values ±a with probability 1/2 each, then P(∣Y−E[Y]∣≥a)=1=Var⁡(Y)a2.

These equality examples do not mean the bounds are always informative: when a distribution has much lighter tails, the same inequalities may be very far from equality.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two-point random variables described above.

[L1]

Markov's and Chebyshev's inequalities are the probability-space bounds already proved on the A page (Markov's inequality for random variables, Chebyshev's inequality for random variables).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1algebra

For X=a1A, one has E[X]=aP(A) and {X≥a}=A, so P(X≥a)=P(A)=E[X]a.

1.2L1algebra

For Y=±a with equal probabilities, E[Y]=0 and Var⁡(Y)=a2, while ∣Y−E[Y]∣=a always. Hence P(∣Y−E[Y]∣≥a)=1=Var⁡(Y)a2.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Thus both inequalities admit equality, even though other laws can make the bounds much weaker.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A random variable need not have a finite expectation

Statement refuted

Every real random variable has a finite expectation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The set Ω=N≥1 with its power-set sigma-algebra, the weights pn=1/(n(n+1)), and the coordinate map X(n)=n.

[L1]

Expectation of a nonnegative random variable is allowed to take the value +∞ (Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable).

[L2]

The integral of a nonnegative simple function is its weighted level-set sum, and monotone convergence passes increasing nonnegative limits through the integral (The integral of a nonnegative simple function, The nonnegative integral agrees with the simple integral on simple functions, Monotone convergence for the integral).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1givenconstructalgebra

Define P(A):=∑n∈Apn(A⊆Ω). The total mass is ∑n=1∞1n(n+1)=∑n=1∞(1n−1n+1)=1. If (Aj)j≥0 is pairwise disjoint, regrouping the nonnegative series gives P ⁣(⋃j≥0Aj)=∑j≥0∑n∈Ajpn=∑j≥0P(Aj). Thus P is a probability measure on the power set of Ω, and X(n)=n is a measurable real random variable.

2.1L1L2step 1.1algebra

Put XN:=X1{1,…,N}. The functions XN increase pointwise to X. By [L1], [L2], and monotone convergence, E[X]=lim⁡N→∞E[XN]=lim⁡N→∞∑n=1Nn1n(n+1)=∑n=1∞1n+1=+∞. Thus the expectation exists only as an extended value, not as a finite real number, exactly as [L1] allows.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1 and 2.1 refute the claim that every random variable has finite expectation.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A distribution function need not have a density

Statement refuted

A distribution function need not arise from a Lebesgue density.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A Bernoulli random variable X with P(X=1)=p and P(X=0)=1−p, where 0<p<1.

[L1]

The cumulative distribution function is FX(x)=P(X≤x) (Cumulative distribution function of a real random variable).

[L2]

Atoms of a law are positive point masses (Atoms and continuity points of a law).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1L2given

The CDF of X is FX(x)={0,x<0,1−p,0≤x<1,1,x≥1. So the law has atoms at 0 and 1 by [L2].

2.1step 1.1givenalgebra

If this law were given by a Lebesgue density f, then every singleton would have probability ∫{a}f(x) dx=0. In particular P(X=0)=0, contradicting P(X=0)=1−p>0.

3.1step 2.1∎

Therefore this distribution function has no Lebesgue density.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Equality almost surely is not pointwise equality

Statement refuted

If two random variables are equal almost surely, then they are pointwise equal.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The probability space ([0,1],B([0,1]),λ), the zero function X, and the indicator Y=1{0}.

[L1]

A property holds almost everywhere when its exceptional set is contained in a measurable null set (Measure-null sets and almost-everywhere statements relative to a measure).

[L2]

Integrable random variables with the same almost-sure class have the same expectation (Expectation depends only on the almost-everywhere class).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The functions X and Y differ only at the single point 0. That set is Lebesgue-null, so [L1] gives X=Y almost surely.

2.1step 1.1L2given

They are not pointwise equal, because X(0)=0 while Y(0)=1. They are both bounded and hence integrable, so [L2] also gives E[X]=E[Y]=0.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Therefore almost-sure equality is strictly weaker than pointwise equality.

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Bertrand's chord paradox is a model-specification problem

Example

Consider a circle of radius 1 and the event that a random chord is longer than the side of the inscribed equilateral triangle. Three natural models give three different probabilities.

  1. If the chord is determined by a random central angle Θ∼Unif[0,π], then the event is {Θ>2π/3} and has probability 1/3.
  2. If the chord is determined by choosing its midpoint uniformly on a fixed radius, then the event is that the midpoint lies within distance 1/2 of the center, and has probability 1/2.
  3. If the chord is determined by choosing its midpoint uniformly in the whole disk, then the same geometric condition gives probability 1/4.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The three sample-space models stated in the Example.

[L1]

A probability question is determined only after the sample space and its probability measure have been fixed (Probability measures and probability spaces).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1givenalgebra

A chord subtending central angle Θ has length 2sin⁡(Θ/2). It is longer than 3 exactly when sin⁡(Θ/2)>3/2, that is, when Θ>2π/3. Under the uniform-angle model this has probability (π−2π/3)/π=1/3.

2.1step 1.1L1algebra

A chord is longer than 3 exactly when its midpoint is within distance 1/2 of the center. Along a fixed radius, the favorable segment has length 1/2 inside the unit segment, so the midpoint-on-a-radius model gives probability 1/2. Over the whole disk, the favorable region is the disk of radius 1/2, so the midpoint-in-the-disk model gives area ratio (π(1/2)2)/π=1/4.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1L1∎

The three different answers 1/3, 1/2, and 1/4 come from three different probability models for the same geometric question, exactly as [L1] predicts.

Sources