Alphabeta Math
Session-authored (Fable 5 assisted)
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.

10 results · all verified · 9 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.

Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The distance ψ(x)=d(x,Z)\psi(x) = d(x, \mathbb{Z}) from a real number to the integers is 11-Lipschitz, hence uniformly continuous, takes values in [0,1/2][0,1/2], and vanishes exactly on Z\mathbb{Z}

Example

Take R\mathbb{R} with its usual metric d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded), identify Z\mathbb{Z} with its canonical copy inside R\mathbb{R} (The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals, The naturals embed in the integers, The integers embed in the rationals, The rationals embed densely in the reals), and let

ψ(x)  :=  d(x,Z)  =  inf{xn : nZ}\psi(x) \;:=\; d(x, \mathbb{Z}) \;=\; \inf\{\, |x - n| \ : \ n \in \mathbb{Z} \,\}

be the distance from xx to the nonempty set Z\mathbb{Z} (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space). Then:

  1. ψ\psi is 11-Lipschitz on R\mathbb{R}: ψ(x)ψ(y)xy|\psi(x) - \psi(y)| \le |x-y| for all real x,yx, y. Consequently ψ\psi is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R} (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA) and continuous on R\mathbb{R} (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point).
  2. The infimum is attained, and computed. Writing m:=xm := \lfloor x \rfloor for the integer part of xx (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1) and t:=xmt := x - m, so that 0t<10 \le t < 1, ψ(x)  =  min{t, 1t}  =  min{xm, x(m+1)},\psi(x) \;=\; \min\{\, t,\ 1-t \,\} \;=\; \min\bigl\{\, |x-m|,\ |x-(m+1)| \,\bigr\} , so ψ(x)=xn\psi(x) = |x - n| for n=mn = m or n=m+1n = m+1.
  3. Range. 0ψ(x)1/20 \le \psi(x) \le 1/2 for every real xx (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).
  4. Zero set. ψ(x)=0\psi(x) = 0 if and only if xZx \in \mathbb{Z}.

Why this example is here. It is the standard uniformly continuous function of this track that is not defined by a formula in the field operations, and it is obtained from the metric machinery rather than rebuilt: claim 1 is d(x,A)d(y,A)d(x,y)|d(x,A) - d(y,A)| \le d(x,y), so the distance to a fixed nonempty set is 11-Lipschitz applied to A:=ZA := \mathbb{Z} in the metric space R\mathbb{R}, transported to a statement about a real function by Dictionary: for ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} with the metric d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y|, continuity and uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} agree with the metric-space notions, the Lipschitz and Hölder conditions are the metric ones instantiated, and a subset of R\mathbb{R} is compact in the open-cover sense of R\mathbb{R} exactly when it is a compact metric subspace, clause 3. Only claims 2 to 4, which compute the value, need an argument of their own.

The same function is computed elsewhere, and nothing here depends on that. The trigonometry-free oscillator ψ(x)=infnZxn\psi(x) = \inf_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} |x - n| is well defined and attained at a nearest integer, takes values in [0,1/2][0, 1/2], vanishes exactly on Z\mathbb{Z}, equals 1/21/2 at half-integers, and is 11-periodic introduces ψ\psi on the companion page of The ε\varepsilon-δ\delta limit limxcf(x)=L\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a limit point cc of AA and proves the same computation together with 11-periodicity and the value at half-integers. That item lives on an examples page, which is a leaf of the dependency graph, so no item may rest on it; the verification below is therefore self-contained, and the duplication is deliberate rather than an oversight.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: R\mathbb{R} with the metric d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y|; the canonical copy of Z\mathbb{Z} inside R\mathbb{R}; a real xx, the integer m:=xm := \lfloor x \rfloor and the real t:=xmt := x - m; and ψ(x):=d(x,Z)\psi(x) := d(x,\mathbb{Z}).

[L1]

Distance to a nonempty set: for nonempty AXA \subseteq X in a metric space, d(x,A):=inf{d(x,a):aA}d(x,A) := \inf\{\, d(x,a) : a \in A \,\}, the infimum existing because the set of distances is nonempty and bounded below by 00 (Bounded subset, diameter, distance from a point to a set, and distance between two sets in a metric space, Greatest lower bound (infimum), Metric space: d(x,y)=0d(x,y) = 0 iff x=yx = y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric).

[L2]

d(x,A)d(y,A)d(x,y)|d(x,A) - d(y,A)| \le d(x,y): the distance to a fixed nonempty set is 11-Lipschitz as a map of metric spaces (d(x,A)d(y,A)d(x,y)|d(x,A) - d(y,A)| \le d(x,y), so the distance to a fixed nonempty set is 11-Lipschitz).

[L4]

R\mathbb{R} with d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric space (The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded), and Z\mathbb{Z} sits inside R\mathbb{R} as a totally ordered subring containing 00 and 11 and closed under nn±1n \mapsto n \pm 1, with no integer strictly between nn and n+1n+1 (The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals, The naturals embed in the integers, The integers embed in the rationals, The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[L5]

Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m+1 (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1).

[L6]

Infimum and minimum: a lower bound of a set that belongs to the set is its infimum and its minimum (Greatest lower bound (infimum), Maximum and minimum of a set); and the minimum of a two-element set of reals exists and is one of the two (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum).

[L7]

Absolute value and order: u0|u| \ge 0; u=0|u| = 0 exactly when u=0u = 0; u=u|u| = u for u0u \ge 0 and u=u|u| = -u for u0u \le 0; the order is total; 1/2>01/2 > 0 and 11/2=1/21 - 1/2 = 1/2 (Basic properties of the absolute value, Ordered field, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Z\mathbb{Z} is a nonempty subset of the metric space R\mathbb{R}, since 0Z0 \in \mathbb{Z}, so ψ(x)=d(x,Z)\psi(x) = d(x,\mathbb{Z}) is defined for every real xx by [L1], and ψ(x)0\psi(x) \ge 0.

L1L4L7
1.2

By [L5] the integer m=xm = \lfloor x \rfloor satisfies mx<m+1m \le x < m+1, so t=xmt = x - m satisfies 0t<10 \le t < 1, and (m+1)x=1t(m+1) - x = 1 - t satisfies 0<1t10 < 1 - t \le 1.

L5L7
2.1

Claim 1. By [L2], ψ(x)ψ(y)=d(x,Z)d(y,Z)d(x,y)=xy|\psi(x) - \psi(y)| = |d(x,\mathbb{Z}) - d(y,\mathbb{Z})| \le d(x,y) = |x-y| for all real x,yx,y; by [L3] this says exactly that ψ\psi is Lipschitz with constant 11 as a real function on R\mathbb{R}, hence uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R} and continuous on R\mathbb{R}.

step 1.1L2L3
2.2

Every distance from xx to an integer is at least min{t,1t}\min\{t, 1-t\}. Let nZn \in \mathbb{Z}. By [L4] and totality either nmn \le m or m<nm < n, and in the second case m+1nm+1 \le n. If nmn \le m then xnxm=t0x - n \ge x - m = t \ge 0, so xn=xnt|x-n| = x-n \ge t. If m+1nm+1 \le n then nx(m+1)x=1t>0n - x \ge (m+1) - x = 1-t > 0, so xn=nx1t|x-n| = n-x \ge 1-t. Either way xnmin{t,1t}|x-n| \ge \min\{t, 1-t\}.

step 1.2L4L6L7
2.3

Both candidate values occur. Since t0t \ge 0 we have t=xmt = |x-m|, and since 1t>01-t > 0 we have 1t=x(m+1)1-t = |x-(m+1)|, with mm and m+1m+1 in Z\mathbb{Z}.

step 1.2L4L7
3.1

Claim 2. By steps 2.2 and 2.3 the real min{t,1t}\min\{t,1-t\} is a lower bound of {xn:nZ}\{\, |x-n| : n \in \mathbb{Z} \,\} belonging to that set, so by [L6] it is the infimum and the minimum: ψ(x)=min{t,1t}=min{xm,x(m+1)}\psi(x) = \min\{t,1-t\} = \min\{|x-m|, |x-(m+1)|\}, attained at n=mn = m or n=m+1n = m+1.

step 2.2step 2.3L1L6
4.1

Claim 3. ψ(x)0\psi(x) \ge 0 since t0t \ge 0 and 1t>01-t > 0. And ψ(x)1/2\psi(x) \le 1/2: if t1/2t \le 1/2 then ψ(x)t1/2\psi(x) \le t \le 1/2, while if t>1/2t > 1/2 then 1t<11/2=1/21-t < 1-1/2 = 1/2 and ψ(x)1t<1/2\psi(x) \le 1-t < 1/2. So 0ψ(x)1/20 \le \psi(x) \le 1/2.

step 1.2step 3.1L7
4.2

Claim 4. If ψ(x)=0\psi(x) = 0 then min{t,1t}=0\min\{t,1-t\} = 0 by step 3.1; since 1t>01-t > 0 this forces t=0t = 0, that is x=mZx = m \in \mathbb{Z}. Conversely if xZx \in \mathbb{Z} then xx=0|x-x| = 0 is a member of the set of distances and 00 is a lower bound of it by step 1.1, so ψ(x)=0\psi(x) = 0 by [L6].

step 1.1step 1.2step 3.1L6L7
5.1

Claims 1 to 4 are verified: ψ\psi is 11-Lipschitz and therefore uniformly continuous and continuous on R\mathbb{R}, its value at xx is min{t,1t}\min\{t, 1-t\} and is attained at a nearest integer, its values lie in [0,1/2][0,1/2], and it vanishes exactly on Z\mathbb{Z}.

step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1step 4.2

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: every function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at at least one point (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point).

The witness is the Dirichlet function, the indicator of the rationals: writing Q\mathbb{Q} for the canonical copy of the rationals inside R\mathbb{R} (The rationals embed densely in the reals),

1Q:RR,1Q(x):={1if xQ,0if xQ.\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, \qquad \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) := \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if } x \in \mathbb{Q},\\ 0 & \text{if } x \notin \mathbb{Q}. \end{cases}

It is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}. The mechanism is that both Q\mathbb{Q} and its complement are dense (Both Q\mathbb{Q} and RQ\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} are dense in R\mathbb{R}, and every nonempty open subset of R\mathbb{R} is uncountable), so every neighbourhood of every real contains a point of each, and the two values differ by 11.

The argument is choice free. Density is used in the form "every neighbourhood of every point meets the set", which is The closure equals the set together with its limit points, equals the set of points every neighbourhood of which meets it, and is the smallest closed superset; a set is closed iff it contains its limit points applied to a closure equal to R\mathbb{R}; no sequence is built, so neither A point lies in the closure of ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} iff some sequence in AA converges to it, so a subset of R\mathbb{R} is closed iff it is sequentially closed nor ff is continuous at cAc \in A if and only if f(xk)f(c)f(x_k) \to f(c) for every sequence in AA converging to cc, the converse direction costing countable choice is invoked, and the countable choice those two spend is not spent here.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The canonical copy QR\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} of the rationals, its complement X:=RQX := \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}, and the function 1Q:RR\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} taking the value 11 on Q\mathbb{Q} and 00 on XX.

[L1]

Continuity at cc: for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with 1Q(x)1Q(c)<ε|\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c)| < \varepsilon for every real xx with xc<δ|x - c| < \delta. So continuity at cc fails as soon as some real ε0>0\varepsilon_0 > 0 admits, for every real δ>0\delta > 0, a real xx with xc<δ|x - c| < \delta and 1Q(x)1Q(c)ε0|\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c)| \ge \varepsilon_0 (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point, The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

[L4]

1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} is a well-defined function: XX is by definition the complement RQ\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}, so every real either lies in Q\mathbb{Q} or does not, exclusively; and 10=01=1|1 - 0| = |0 - 1| = 1, with 1/2>01/2 > 0 and 1/2<11/2 < 1 (Basic properties of the absolute value, Ordered field).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} is a well-defined function on R\mathbb{R} taking only the values 00 and 11, and R\mathbb{R} is the disjoint union of Q\mathbb{Q} and XX.

L4
1.2

Let cRc \in \mathbb{R} be arbitrary, put ε0:=1/2>0\varepsilon_0 := 1/2 > 0, and let a real δ>0\delta > 0 be given.

L4
2.1

By [L2] and [L3] the neighbourhood Nδ(c)N_{\delta}(c) meets Q\mathbb{Q} and it meets XX: there are reals pNδ(c)Qp \in N_{\delta}(c) \cap \mathbb{Q} and zNδ(c)Xz \in N_{\delta}(c) \cap X, so pc<δ|p - c| < \delta and zc<δ|z - c| < \delta, with 1Q(p)=1\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(p) = 1 and 1Q(z)=0\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(z) = 0.

step 1.2L2L3choose
3.1

If cQc \in \mathbb{Q} then 1Q(c)=1\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c) = 1 and the point x:=zx := z satisfies xc<δ|x - c| < \delta and 1Q(x)1Q(c)=01=1ε0|\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c)| = |0 - 1| = 1 \ge \varepsilon_0. If cQc \notin \mathbb{Q} then 1Q(c)=0\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c) = 0 and the point x:=px := p satisfies xc<δ|x - c| < \delta and 1Q(x)1Q(c)=10=1ε0|\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c)| = |1 - 0| = 1 \ge \varepsilon_0. By [L4] these two possibilities are exhaustive and exclusive.

step 1.1step 2.1L4
4.1

So for the fixed ε0=1/2\varepsilon_0 = 1/2 no real δ>0\delta > 0 serves at cc, and by [L1] the function 1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} is not continuous at cc. As cc was an arbitrary real, it is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}, and the refuted claim is false.

step 1.2step 3.1L1

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

x1Q(x)x \cdot 1_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) is continuous at 00 and at no other point

Example

Let 1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} be the indicator of the rationals (The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}) and put

h:RR,h(x):=x1Q(x),h : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, \qquad h(x) := x \cdot \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x),

so h(x)=xh(x) = x for rational xx and h(x)=0h(x) = 0 for irrational xx. Then:

  1. hh is continuous at 00 (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point);
  2. hh is not continuous at any c0c \ne 0.

So the set of points of continuity of a real function can be a single point. Together with The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}, where that set is empty, this shows how little the set of continuity points is constrained by the mere existence of the function.

The point of the example. Continuity at cc compares h(x)h(x) with h(c)h(c), and the two branches of hh agree only where x=0x = 0. Multiplying the indicator by xx damps the jump: near 00 both branches are small, so the discrepancy is at most x|x|; away from 00 the discrepancy is at least c/2|c|/2 on every neighbourhood, because each branch is realised arbitrarily close to cc.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The canonical copy QR\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} of the rationals with complement X:=RQX := \mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}, and h:RRh : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} with h(x)=xh(x) = x for xQx \in \mathbb{Q} and h(x)=0h(x) = 0 for xXx \in X.

[L1]

Continuity at cc, in the form of Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point: for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with h(x)h(c)<ε|h(x) - h(c)| < \varepsilon whenever xc<δ|x - c| < \delta; and it fails at cc as soon as some real ε0>0\varepsilon_0 > 0 admits, for every real δ>0\delta > 0, a real xx with xc<δ|x-c| < \delta and h(x)h(c)ε0|h(x) - h(c)| \ge \varepsilon_0 (The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

[L3]

XX is by definition the complement RQ\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}, so every real lies in exactly one of Q\mathbb{Q} and XX; hence hh is a well-defined function, and h(x)x|h(x)| \le |x| for every real xx (Basic properties of the absolute value, The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}).

[L4]

Absolute value and order: u0|u| \ge 0 and u>0|u| > 0 exactly when u0u \ne 0 (Basic properties of the absolute value); the reverse triangle inequality uvuv\bigl||u| - |v|\bigr| \le |u - v|, hence uvuv|u - v| \ge |u| - |v| (The reverse triangle inequality); and the minimum of a two-element set of reals exists and is one of the two (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set, Ordered field).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

hh is well defined and satisfies h(x)x|h(x)| \le |x| for every real xx: on Q\mathbb{Q} one has h(x)=x|h(x)| = |x| and on XX one has h(x)=0x|h(x)| = 0 \le |x|. Also 0Q0 \in \mathbb{Q}, so h(0)=0h(0) = 0.

L3L4
1.2

Claim 2, the setup. Let c0c \ne 0 be real, put ε0:=c/2>0\varepsilon_0 := |c|/2 > 0 by [L4], and let a real δ>0\delta > 0 be given. Put δ:=min{δ, c/2}>0\delta' := \min\{\delta,\ |c|/2\} > 0 by [L4].

L4choose
2.1

Claim 1. Let a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be given and take δ:=ε\delta := \varepsilon. Every real xx with x0<δ|x - 0| < \delta satisfies h(x)h(0)=h(x)x<ε|h(x) - h(0)| = |h(x)| \le |x| < \varepsilon by step 1.1. So hh is continuous at 00.

step 1.1L1L4
2.2

By [L2] the neighbourhood Nδ(c)N_{\delta'}(c) meets Q\mathbb{Q} and meets XX: fix pNδ(c)Qp \in N_{\delta'}(c) \cap \mathbb{Q} and zNδ(c)Xz \in N_{\delta'}(c) \cap X, so pc<δδ|p - c| < \delta' \le \delta and zc<δδ|z - c| < \delta' \le \delta, with h(p)=ph(p) = p and h(z)=0h(z) = 0.

step 1.2L2choose
3.1

The rational case. Suppose cQc \in \mathbb{Q}, so h(c)=ch(c) = c. Take x:=zx := z: then xc<δ|x - c| < \delta and h(x)h(c)=0c=cc/2=ε0|h(x) - h(c)| = |0 - c| = |c| \ge |c|/2 = \varepsilon_0.

step 1.2step 2.2L3L4
3.2

The irrational case. Suppose cXc \in X, so h(c)=0h(c) = 0. Take x:=px := p: then xc<δ|x - c| < \delta, and pcpc>cc/2=c/2|p| \ge |c| - |p - c| > |c| - |c|/2 = |c|/2 by [L4] and step 2.2, so h(x)h(c)=p>c/2=ε0|h(x) - h(c)| = |p| > |c|/2 = \varepsilon_0.

step 1.2step 2.2L3L4
4.1

By [L3] the two cases of steps 3.1 and 3.2 are exhaustive, so for every real δ>0\delta > 0 some xx with xc<δ|x-c| < \delta has h(x)h(c)ε0|h(x) - h(c)| \ge \varepsilon_0; by [L1] the function hh is not continuous at cc. Since c0c \ne 0 was arbitrary, claim 2 holds, and with step 2.1 the set of points of continuity of hh is exactly {0}\{0\}.

step 2.1step 3.1step 3.2L1L3

Remarks

  • Where the damping factor does its work. The estimate h(x)x|h(x)| \le |x| of step 1.1 is the whole of claim 1, and it is available only because the two branches of hh agree at 00. Replacing xx by any function vanishing at 00 and continuous there gives the same conclusion at 00; replacing it by a nonzero constant gives The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R} back.

  • The choice of δ=min{δ,c/2}\delta' = \min\{\delta, |c|/2\} is what makes the irrational case work. Without shrinking to c/2|c|/2 the rational point pp near cc could be close to 00, and then h(p)h(c)=p|h(p) - h(c)| = |p| would be small; the shrinking keeps pp away from 00 by at least c/2|c|/2.

  • This example is choice free, for the same reason as The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}: density is used only in the form "every neighbourhood meets the set", never to build a sequence.

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

x1/xx \mapsto 1/x is continuous on (0,1)(0,1) and not uniformly continuous there, the pairs 1/(k+2)1/(k+2) and 1/(k+3)1/(k+3) defeating every δ\delta

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: the function f:(0,1)Rf : (0,1) \to \mathbb{R}, f(x):=1/xf(x) := 1/x, is uniformly continuous on (0,1)(0,1) (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

ff is continuous on (0,1)(0,1) (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point) and its domain is bounded, so this is the sharpest simple instance of FALSE: every continuous real function is uniformly continuous on its domain: neither continuity nor boundedness of the domain implies uniform continuity, and what Heine-Cantor in R\mathbb{R}: a continuous real function on a compact subset of R\mathbb{R} is uniformly continuous, proved R\mathbb{R}-natively from sequential compactness actually needs is compactness, which (0,1)(0,1) does not have because it is not closed (A subset of R\mathbb{R} is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded).

The refutation exhibits, for every δ>0\delta > 0, a pair of points of (0,1)(0,1) closer than δ\delta whose ff-values differ by exactly 11. The pairs are

xk:=1k+2,yk:=1k+3(kN),x_k := \frac{1}{k+2}, \qquad y_k := \frac{1}{k+3} \qquad (k \in \mathbb{N}),

and the shift by 22 and 33 is not cosmetic: N\mathbb{N} contains 00 here (Sequences of reals: bounded, eventually, frequently, tails, subsequences is 00-indexed), so 1/k1/k is undefined at k=0k = 0 and 1/(k+1)1/(k+1) leaves (0,1)(0,1) at k=0k = 0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The interval A:=(0,1)A := (0,1) and the function f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}, f(x):=1/xf(x) := 1/x. Naturals are identified with their canonical images in R\mathbb{R}.

[L1]

Uniform continuity on AA fails as soon as some real ε0>0\varepsilon_0 > 0 admits, for every real δ>0\delta > 0, a pair x,xAx, x' \in A with xx<δ|x - x'| < \delta and f(x)f(x)ε0|f(x) - f(x')| \ge \varepsilon_0 (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA, Ordered field).

[L3]

Archimedean property in reciprocal form: for every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<η1/m < \eta; and 0<s<t0 < s < t implies 0<1/t<1/s0 < 1/t < 1/s (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L4]

Ordered-field arithmetic: for kNk \in \mathbb{N} one has k+3>k+22>1>0k + 3 > k + 2 \ge 2 > 1 > 0, so 0<1/(k+3)<1/(k+2)<10 < 1/(k+3) < 1/(k+2) < 1 and both lie in (0,1)(0,1); and (k+2)(k+3)k+2>0(k+2)(k+3) \ge k+2 > 0 (Ordered field, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, Basic properties of the absolute value).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

ff is continuous on A=(0,1)A = (0,1): the identity is continuous there by [L2] and satisfies x>00x > 0 \ne 0 for every xAx \in A, so its reciprocal is continuous on AA by [L2].

L2L4
1.2

For kNk \in \mathbb{N} put xk:=1/(k+2)x_k := 1/(k+2) and yk:=1/(k+3)y_k := 1/(k+3). By [L4] both lie in AA, and f(xk)=k+2f(x_k) = k+2, f(yk)=k+3f(y_k) = k+3. At the first index, k=0k = 0, this reads x0=1/2x_0 = 1/2 and y0=1/3y_0 = 1/3, both in (0,1)(0,1).

L4
2.1

The separation of the arguments is xkyk=1k+21k+3=1(k+2)(k+3)1k+2|x_k - y_k| = \dfrac{1}{k+2} - \dfrac{1}{k+3} = \dfrac{1}{(k+2)(k+3)} \le \dfrac{1}{k+2}, using (k+2)(k+3)k+2>0(k+2)(k+3) \ge k+2 > 0 and [L3]; the separation of the values is f(xk)f(yk)=(k+2)(k+3)=1|f(x_k) - f(y_k)| = |(k+2) - (k+3)| = 1.

step 1.2L3L4
3.1

Put ε0:=1>0\varepsilon_0 := 1 > 0 and let a real δ>0\delta > 0 be given. By [L3] fix a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<δ1/m < \delta, and take k:=mk := m. Then k+2>m>0k + 2 > m > 0, so 1/(k+2)<1/m<δ1/(k+2) < 1/m < \delta by [L3], and step 2.1 gives xkyk1/(k+2)<δ|x_k - y_k| \le 1/(k+2) < \delta while f(xk)f(yk)=1ε0|f(x_k) - f(y_k)| = 1 \ge \varepsilon_0.

step 2.1L3choose
4.1

So no real δ>0\delta > 0 serves ε0=1\varepsilon_0 = 1, and by [L1] the function ff is not uniformly continuous on (0,1)(0,1), although by step 1.1 it is continuous there: the refuted claim is false.

step 1.1step 3.1L1L5

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

xx2x \mapsto x^2 is continuous on R\mathbb{R} and not uniformly continuous, the pairs k+1k+1 and k+1+1/(k+1)k+1+1/(k+1) defeating every δ\delta

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: the function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, f(x):=x2f(x) := x^{2} (Integer powers ama^m), is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R} (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA).

ff is continuous on R\mathbb{R} (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point) and R\mathbb{R} is a closed subset of itself, so this is the complement of x1/xx \mapsto 1/x is continuous on (0,1)(0,1) and not uniformly continuous there, the pairs 1/(k+2)1/(k+2) and 1/(k+3)1/(k+3) defeating every δ\delta: there the domain was bounded and not closed, here it is closed and not bounded, and uniform continuity fails in both cases. Neither half of compactness suffices on its own, and Heine-Cantor in R\mathbb{R}: a continuous real function on a compact subset of R\mathbb{R} is uniformly continuous, proved R\mathbb{R}-natively from sequential compactness needs both (A subset of R\mathbb{R} is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded).

The refutation exhibits, for every δ>0\delta > 0, a pair of reals closer than δ\delta whose squares differ by more than 22. The pairs are

ak:=k+1,bk:=k+1+1k+1(kN),a_k := k+1, \qquad b_k := k + 1 + \frac{1}{k+1} \qquad (k \in \mathbb{N}),

and the shift by 11 is not cosmetic: N\mathbb{N} contains 00 here (Sequences of reals: bounded, eventually, frequently, tails, subsequences is 00-indexed), so the reciprocal 1/k1/k would be undefined at the first index.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, f(x):=x2f(x) := x^{2}. Naturals are identified with their canonical images in R\mathbb{R}.

[L1]

Uniform continuity on R\mathbb{R} fails as soon as some real ε0>0\varepsilon_0 > 0 admits, for every real δ>0\delta > 0, a pair x,xRx, x' \in \mathbb{R} with xx<δ|x - x'| < \delta and f(x)f(x)ε0|f(x) - f(x')| \ge \varepsilon_0 (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA, Ordered field).

[L3]

Archimedean property in reciprocal form: for every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<η1/m < \eta; and 0<s<t0 < s < t implies 0<1/t<1/s0 < 1/t < 1/s (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L4]

Ordered-field arithmetic: for kNk \in \mathbb{N} one has k+11>0k + 1 \ge 1 > 0, so 1/(k+1)1/(k+1) is defined and positive; the identity v2u2=(vu)(v+u)v^{2} - u^{2} = (v-u)(v+u); and u0|u| \ge 0 with u=u|u| = u for u0u \ge 0 (Ordered field, Basic properties of the absolute value, Integer powers ama^m).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

ff is continuous on R\mathbb{R}, being a polynomial function.

L2
1.2

For kNk \in \mathbb{N} put ak:=k+1a_k := k+1 and bk:=(k+1)+1/(k+1)b_k := (k+1) + 1/(k+1), both defined because k+11>0k + 1 \ge 1 > 0 by [L4]. At the first index, k=0k = 0, this reads a0=1a_0 = 1 and b0=2b_0 = 2.

L4
2.1

The separation of the arguments is akbk=1/(k+1)|a_k - b_k| = 1/(k+1). The separation of the values is, by [L4], f(bk)f(ak)=bkak(bk+ak)=1k+1(2(k+1)+1k+1)=2+1(k+1)2>2.|f(b_k) - f(a_k)| = |b_k - a_k|\,(b_k + a_k) = \frac{1}{k+1}\Bigl(2(k+1) + \frac{1}{k+1}\Bigr) = 2 + \frac{1}{(k+1)^{2}} > 2 .

step 1.2L4
3.1

Put ε0:=2>0\varepsilon_0 := 2 > 0 and let a real δ>0\delta > 0 be given. By [L3] fix a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/m<δ1/m < \delta and take k:=mk := m; then k+1>m>0k + 1 > m > 0, so akbk=1/(k+1)<1/m<δ|a_k - b_k| = 1/(k+1) < 1/m < \delta by [L3], while step 2.1 gives f(ak)f(bk)>2=ε0|f(a_k) - f(b_k)| > 2 = \varepsilon_0.

step 2.1L3choose
4.1

So no real δ>0\delta > 0 serves ε0=2\varepsilon_0 = 2, and by [L1] the function ff is not uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R}, although by step 1.1 it is continuous there: the refuted claim is false.

step 1.1step 3.1L1L5

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27 rests on later materialOpen item page →

On [0,1][0,1] the function xβx^{\beta} is β\beta-Hölder and is α\alpha-Hölder for no rational α>β\alpha > \beta, so the Hölder classes are strictly nested

Example

Let βQ\beta \in \mathbb{Q} with 0<β10 < \beta \le 1 (Order on the rationals) and let

fβ:[0,1]R,fβ(x):=xβf_{\beta} : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}, \qquad f_{\beta}(x) := x^{\beta}

be the rational power of a nonnegative base (Rational powers ara^r of a positive base, with the convention 0β=00^{\beta} = 0), on the closed bounded interval [0,1][0,1] (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Hölder conditions for a real function on [0,1][0,1] are the metric ones instantiated, by Dictionary: for ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} with the metric d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y|, continuity and uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} agree with the metric-space notions, the Lipschitz and Hölder conditions are the metric ones instantiated, and a subset of R\mathbb{R} is compact in the open-cover sense of R\mathbb{R} exactly when it is a compact metric subspace, clause 4: gg is γ\gamma-Hölder with constant CC when g(x)g(y)Cxyγ|g(x) - g(y)| \le C\,|x-y|^{\gamma} for all x,y[0,1]x, y \in [0,1] (Lipschitz map, α\alpha-Hölder map for rational 0<α10 < \alpha \le 1, and contraction). Then:

  1. fβf_{\beta} is β\beta-Hölder with constant 11: xβyβ    xyβfor all x,y[0,1].\bigl|x^{\beta} - y^{\beta}\bigr| \;\le\; |x-y|^{\beta} \qquad \text{for all } x, y \in [0,1].
  2. fβf_{\beta} is α\alpha-Hölder for no rational α\alpha with β<α1\beta < \alpha \le 1: for such an α\alpha there is no real C0C \ge 0 with xβyβCxyα|x^{\beta} - y^{\beta}| \le C|x-y|^{\alpha} throughout [0,1][0,1].
  3. The classes are nested: if 0<β<α10 < \beta < \alpha \le 1 are rational and g:[0,1]Rg : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} is α\alpha-Hölder with constant CC, then gg is β\beta-Hölder with the same constant CC.
  4. Hence the nesting is strict, at every pair of rational exponents 0<β<α10 < \beta < \alpha \le 1: the α\alpha-Hölder functions on [0,1][0,1] form a proper subclass of the β\beta-Hölder ones, fβf_{\beta} lying in the second and not the first. Taking α=1\alpha = 1: for rational 0<β<10 < \beta < 1 the function fβf_{\beta} is uniformly continuous on [0,1][0,1] (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA) and is not Lipschitz.

What this witnesses. Contraction implies Lipschitz implies uniformly continuous implies continuous; every Hölder map is uniformly continuous, and a Lipschitz map on a bounded space is Hölder for every exponent asserts Lipschitz \Rightarrow uniformly continuous \Rightarrow continuous and α\alpha-Hölder \Rightarrow uniformly continuous, and claims no converse; it says so explicitly. This item supplies the missing witnesses on the real line, and it is one of the two named in the remarks of Dictionary: for ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} with the metric d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y|, continuity and uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} agree with the metric-space notions, the Lipschitz and Hölder conditions are the metric ones instantiated, and a subset of R\mathbb{R} is compact in the open-cover sense of R\mathbb{R} exactly when it is a compact metric subspace. The other is x1/xx \mapsto 1/x is continuous on (0,1)(0,1) and not uniformly continuous there, the pairs 1/(k+2)1/(k+2) and 1/(k+3)1/(k+3) defeating every δ\delta, which separates continuity from uniform continuity.

Why the exponents are rational. Rational powers ara^r of a positive base is the exponent theory available at this page's position in the reading order, so the example is stated for rational exponents. The later Real powers for positive bases, with the zero-base positive-exponent convention supplies real exponents; the restriction here belongs to the local toolkit, not to the Hölder notion. Exponents above 11 are excluded there for a reason of substance: they force constancy (If f(x)f(y)Cxyα|f(x) - f(y)| \le C|x-y|^{\alpha} on an interval for some rational α>1\alpha > 1 then ff is constant).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A rational β\beta with 0<β10 < \beta \le 1, the interval [0,1][0,1], and fβ(x)=xβf_{\beta}(x) = x^{\beta}. Naturals are identified with their canonical images in R\mathbb{R}.

[L1]

Rational powers: ara^{r} is defined for a>0a > 0 and rQr \in \mathbb{Q}, with a1=aa^{1} = a and aq/1=aqa^{q/1} = a^{q} agreeing with the integer power; 0r=00^{r} = 0 for rational r>0r > 0; and 1r=11^{r} = 1 (Rational powers ara^r of a positive base, Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: a unique a1/n0a^{1/n} \ge 0 with (a1/n)n=a(a^{1/n})^n = a, Integer powers ama^m, Monotonicity of rarr \mapsto a^{r} and of aara \mapsto a^{r}).

[L2]

Laws of rational exponents for a,b>0a, b > 0 and r,sQr, s \in \mathbb{Q}: ar>0a^{r} > 0; ar+s=arasa^{r+s} = a^{r}a^{s}; (ab)r=arbr(ab)^{r} = a^{r}b^{r}; ar=1/ara^{-r} = 1/a^{r}; (ar)s=ars(a^{r})^{s} = a^{rs}. The product law persists for a,b0a, b \ge 0 when r>0r > 0 (Laws of rational exponents).

[L3]

Monotonicity: for 0<a<10 < a < 1 and rationals r<sr < s one has ar>asa^{r} > a^{s}; for a>1a > 1 and r<sr < s one has ar<asa^{r} < a^{s}; for a=1a = 1 all powers are 11; and for rational r>0r > 0 and 0<a<b0 < a < b one has ar<bra^{r} < b^{r} (Monotonicity of rarr \mapsto a^{r} and of aara \mapsto a^{r}).

[L5]

Archimedean property: for every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural q1q \ge 1 with 1/q<η1/q < \eta, and for every real tt a natural nn with t<nt < n; and 0<s<t0 < s < t implies 0<1/t<1/s0 < 1/t < 1/s (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order).

[L6]

Absolute value and order in R\mathbb{R}: u0|u| \ge 0; u=u|u| = u for u0u \ge 0; the order is total, so two points of [0,1][0,1] may be named so that one is \le the other; and [0,1]={x:0x1}[0,1] = \{\, x : 0 \le x \le 1 \,\} (Basic properties of the absolute value, Ordered field, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

For 0t10 \le t \le 1 one has tβtt^{\beta} \ge t. If t=0t = 0 then tβ=0=tt^{\beta} = 0 = t by [L1]; if t=1t = 1 then tβ=1=tt^{\beta} = 1 = t by [L1]. If 0<t<10 < t < 1 then, when β<1\beta < 1, [L3] with r:=β<s:=1r := \beta < s := 1 gives tβ>t1=tt^{\beta} > t^{1} = t, and when β=1\beta = 1 it is an equality.

L1L3L6
1.2

Claim 3. Let 0<β<α10 < \beta < \alpha \le 1 be rational and let gg satisfy g(x)g(y)Cxyα|g(x) - g(y)| \le C|x-y|^{\alpha} on [0,1][0,1]. For x,y[0,1]x, y \in [0,1] put a:=xya := |x-y|, so 0a10 \le a \le 1 by [L6]. If a=0a = 0 then aα=aβ=0a^{\alpha} = a^{\beta} = 0 by [L1]; if a=1a = 1 then both are 11 by [L1]; and if 0<a<10 < a < 1 then [L3] with r:=β<s:=αr := \beta < s := \alpha gives aα<aβa^{\alpha} < a^{\beta}. In every case aαaβa^{\alpha} \le a^{\beta}, so g(x)g(y)CaαCaβ|g(x) - g(y)| \le C a^{\alpha} \le C a^{\beta} and gg is β\beta-Hölder with the same constant.

L1L3L4L6
1.3

Claim 2, the setup. Let αQ\alpha \in \mathbb{Q} with β<α1\beta < \alpha \le 1 and suppose, for contradiction, that some real C0C \ge 0 satisfies xβyβCxyα|x^{\beta} - y^{\beta}| \le C|x-y|^{\alpha} for all x,y[0,1]x, y \in [0,1]. Taking x:=1x := 1 and y:=0y := 0 gives 1=10C1=C1 = |1 - 0| \le C \cdot 1 = C by [L1], so C1>0C \ge 1 > 0. Taking y:=0y := 0 and an arbitrary xx with 0<x10 < x \le 1 gives xβCxαx^{\beta} \le C x^{\alpha}.

L1L6
2.1

Subadditivity: (u+v)βuβ+vβ(u+v)^{\beta} \le u^{\beta} + v^{\beta} for all reals u,v0u, v \ge 0. If u+v=0u + v = 0 then u=v=0u = v = 0 and both sides are 00 by [L1]. Otherwise put s:=u+v>0s := u+v > 0, p:=u/sp := u/s and q:=v/sq := v/s, so p,q0p, q \ge 0 and p+q=1p + q = 1, whence 0p10 \le p \le 1 and 0q10 \le q \le 1. By step 1.1, pβpp^{\beta} \ge p and qβqq^{\beta} \ge q, so pβ+qβp+q=1p^{\beta} + q^{\beta} \ge p + q = 1. By the product law of [L2], valid for nonnegative bases since β>0\beta > 0, uβ=(ps)β=pβsβu^{\beta} = (p s)^{\beta} = p^{\beta}s^{\beta} and vβ=qβsβv^{\beta} = q^{\beta}s^{\beta}; hence uβ+vβ=(pβ+qβ)sβsβ=(u+v)βu^{\beta} + v^{\beta} = (p^{\beta} + q^{\beta})s^{\beta} \ge s^{\beta} = (u+v)^{\beta}, using sβ>0s^{\beta} > 0 from [L2].

step 1.1L1L2L6
2.2

Claim 2, the estimate. Put γ:=αβ\gamma := \alpha - \beta, a rational with γ>0\gamma > 0. For 0<x10 < x \le 1, dividing the inequality of step 1.3 by xα>0x^{\alpha} > 0 and using [L2] gives xβα=xβxαCx^{\beta - \alpha} = x^{\beta}x^{-\alpha} \le C, that is 1/xγC1/x^{\gamma} \le C and hence xγ1/C>0x^{\gamma} \ge 1/C > 0 by [L5]. Applying this at x:=1/nx := 1/n for a natural n1n \ge 1, and using (1/n)γ=1/nγ(1/n)^{\gamma} = 1/n^{\gamma} from [L2], gives nγCn^{\gamma} \le C for every natural n1n \ge 1.

step 1.3L2L5
3.1

Claim 1. Let x,y[0,1]x, y \in [0,1]; by [L6] name them so that yxy \le x. Put u:=y0u := y \ge 0 and v:=xy0v := x - y \ge 0, so x=u+vx = u + v. By step 2.1, xβyβ+(xy)βx^{\beta} \le y^{\beta} + (x-y)^{\beta}, that is xβyβ(xy)β=xyβx^{\beta} - y^{\beta} \le (x-y)^{\beta} = |x-y|^{\beta}. Also yβxβy^{\beta} \le x^{\beta}: for y=0y = 0 this reads 0xβ0 \le x^{\beta} by [L1] and [L2], and for 0<yx0 < y \le x it is [L3] with the exponent β>0\beta > 0, together with equality when y=xy = x. Hence xβyβ=xβyβxyβ|x^{\beta} - y^{\beta}| = x^{\beta} - y^{\beta} \le |x-y|^{\beta}, so fβf_{\beta} is β\beta-Hölder with constant 11.

step 2.1L1L2L3L4L6
3.2

Claim 2, the contradiction. By [L5] fix a natural q1q \ge 1 with 1/q<γ1/q < \gamma, and then a natural nn with Cq<nC^{q} < n; since Cq>0C^{q} > 0 we have n1n \ge 1, and since C1C \ge 1 we have Cq1C^{q} \ge 1 and so n>1n > 1. By [L3] with the exponent 1/q>01/q > 0 applied to the bases Cq<nC^{q} < n, and by (Cq)1/q=Cq(1/q)=C1=C(C^{q})^{1/q} = C^{q \cdot (1/q)} = C^{1} = C from [L1] and [L2], we get n1/q>Cn^{1/q} > C; and by [L3] with the base n>1n > 1 and the exponents 1/q<γ1/q < \gamma we get nγ>n1/q>Cn^{\gamma} > n^{1/q} > C. That contradicts step 2.2, so no such CC exists and claim 2 holds.

step 2.2L1L2L3L5
4.1

Claim 4. Let 0<β<α10 < \beta < \alpha \le 1 be rational. Every α\alpha-Hölder function on [0,1][0,1] is β\beta-Hölder by step 1.2, and fβf_{\beta} is β\beta-Hölder by step 3.1 and not α\alpha-Hölder by step 3.2; so the inclusion of classes is proper. With α:=1\alpha := 1 and 0<β<10 < \beta < 1: fβf_{\beta} is β\beta-Hölder, hence uniformly continuous on [0,1][0,1] by [L4], and it is not 11-Hölder, that is not Lipschitz.

step 3.1step 1.2step 3.2L4

Remarks

CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-09 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)Open item page →

The identity is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R} and its square is not, so uniform continuity is not preserved by products

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: if f,g:ARf, g : A \to \mathbb{R} are uniformly continuous on ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA) then so is their pointwise product fgfg.

The witness is the simplest possible one: A:=RA := \mathbb{R} and f=g=idf = g = \mathrm{id}, the identity. The identity is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R} — one may take δ:=ε\delta := \varepsilon — and its product with itself is xx2x \mapsto x^{2}, which is not uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R} (xx2x \mapsto x^2 is continuous on R\mathbb{R} and not uniformly continuous, the pairs k+1k+1 and k+1+1/(k+1)k+1+1/(k+1) defeating every δ\delta).

The contrast with continuity is the point. Products do preserve continuity, with no hypothesis at all (Sums, scalar multiples, products, absolute values, maxima, minima and quotients with nonvanishing denominator of continuous functions are continuous, as are constants, the identity and every polynomial function). The reason the proof there does not transfer is visible in the estimate: bounding f(x)g(x)f(x)g(x)|f(x)g(x) - f(x')g(x')| requires a bound on the values of ff and gg near the two points, and for continuity that bound is local, supplied afresh at each point, whereas uniform continuity would need one bound valid on the whole domain. On an unbounded domain no such bound need exist.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The domain A:=RA := \mathbb{R}, the identity id:RR\mathrm{id} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, id(x)=x\mathrm{id}(x) = x, and its square xx2x \mapsto x^{2} (Integer powers ama^m).

[L1]

Uniform continuity on AA: for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 such that all x,xAx, x' \in A with xx<δ|x - x'| < \delta satisfy h(x)h(x)<ε|h(x) - h(x')| < \varepsilon (Uniform continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}: one δ\delta serving every pair of points of AA).

[L3]

The pointwise product of id\mathrm{id} with itself is xxx=x2x \mapsto x \cdot x = x^{2}, and products of continuous functions are continuous (Sums, scalar multiples, products, absolute values, maxima, minima and quotients with nonvanishing denominator of continuous functions are continuous, as are constants, the identity and every polynomial function, Integer powers ama^m).

[L4]

Absolute value and order: u0|u| \ge 0 and u=0|u| = 0 exactly when u=0u = 0; the order is total (Basic properties of the absolute value, Ordered field).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The identity is uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R}: given a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0, take δ:=ε\delta := \varepsilon; then all x,xRx, x' \in \mathbb{R} with xx<δ|x - x'| < \delta satisfy id(x)id(x)=xx<ε|\mathrm{id}(x) - \mathrm{id}(x')| = |x - x'| < \varepsilon.

L1L4
1.2

The pointwise product of the identity with itself is the function xx2x \mapsto x^{2}.

L3
1.3

By [L2] the function xx2x \mapsto x^{2} is not uniformly continuous on R\mathbb{R}.

L2
2.1

So f:=idf := \mathrm{id} and g:=idg := \mathrm{id} are uniformly continuous on A=RA = \mathbb{R} while fgfg is not: the refuted claim is false.

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3L1

Remarks

  • Where the implication survives. On a bounded domain the product of two uniformly continuous functions is uniformly continuous, because each factor is then bounded: a uniformly continuous function on a bounded set is bounded, and the estimate fgfgfgg+gff|fg - f'g'| \le |f|\,|g - g'| + |g'|\,|f - f'| closes. Nothing on this page asserts that, and it is not used anywhere here; the witness above shows only that the unrestricted claim fails.

  • Sums and scalar multiples are safe. If ff and gg are uniformly continuous on AA then so are f+gf + g and αf\alpha f, by the same ε/2\varepsilon/2 and ε/α\varepsilon/|\alpha| arguments that work for continuity, with the δ\delta's inherited uniformly. It is only the product, and the quotient, that need a bound on values.

  • A second witness on a bounded domain. x1/xx \mapsto 1/x is not uniformly continuous on (0,1)(0,1) (x1/xx \mapsto 1/x is continuous on (0,1)(0,1) and not uniformly continuous there, the pairs 1/(k+2)1/(k+2) and 1/(k+3)1/(k+3) defeating every δ\delta) although the identity is; that failure is a quotient rather than a product, and it shows that boundedness of the domain does not rescue every algebraic operation.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The identity on (0,1)(0,1) is bounded with no greatest value, and on [0,)[0,\infty) it is continuous and unbounded

Statement refuted

Refuted claim: for the conclusions of the extreme value theorem it is enough that the domain be bounded, or that it be closed; that is, a continuous real function on a bounded domain attains a greatest value, and a continuous real function on a closed domain is bounded (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point, Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set, Maximum and minimum of a set).

Both halves are false, and one function refutes both:

  • on E1:=(0,1)E_1 := (0,1), which is bounded and not closed, the identity is continuous and bounded, sup\sup of its image exists and equals 11, and no point of E1E_1 attains it;
  • on E2:=[0,)E_2 := [0,\infty), which is closed and not bounded, the identity is continuous and unbounded.

Neither E1E_1 nor E2E_2 is compact (A subset of R\mathbb{R} is compact if and only if it is closed and bounded), so Extreme value theorem: a continuous real function on a nonempty compact subset of R\mathbb{R} attains a greatest and a least value does not apply to either, and both are instances of Rudin 4.20, the sharp converse: on a noncompact ERE \subseteq \mathbb{R} there is an unbounded continuous function and a bounded continuous function with no greatest value, and if EE is bounded there is a continuous function on EE that is not uniformly continuous: the first is its bounded-not-closed case, the second its unbounded case. Together they show that neither half of "closed and bounded" can be dropped.

This item is the worked witness for FALSE: a continuous real function on a bounded domain attains a greatest value, which refutes the first half alone.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The sets E1:=(0,1)E_1 := (0,1) and E2:=[0,)E_2 := [0,\infty) (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and the identity id(x)=x\mathrm{id}(x) = x on each of them.

[L2]

A greatest value of hh on EE is a point pEp \in E with h(x)h(p)h(x) \le h(p) for every xEx \in E; a set is bounded when it lies between two reals (Maximum and minimum of a set, Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set).

[L3]

Suprema: a nonempty set bounded above has a least upper bound, and for u=supSu = \sup S every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 admits sSs \in S with uε<su - \varepsilon < s (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Epsilon characterisation of the supremum).

[L4]

Archimedean property: for every real tt there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with t<nt < n (Every complete ordered field is Archimedean).

[L5]

Ordered-field arithmetic: for 0<x<10 < x < 1 one has x<(x+1)/2<1x < (x+1)/2 < 1; the maximum of a two-element set of reals exists and is one of them; and n1>0n \ge 1 > 0 for a natural n1n \ge 1 (Ordered field, Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The identity is continuous on E1E_1 and on E2E_2 by [L1], and E1E_1 is bounded while E2E_2 is closed, by [L6].

L1L6
1.2

On E1E_1 the identity is bounded. Every x(0,1)x \in (0,1) satisfies 0x10 \le x \le 1, so the image id[E1]=E1\mathrm{id}[E_1] = E_1 lies between 00 and 11 and is bounded by [L2].

L5L2
1.3

On E2E_2 the identity is unbounded. Let a real MM be given. By [L4] there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with M<nM < n, and n0n \ge 0 so n[0,)=E2n \in [0,\infty) = E_2 with id(n)=n>M\mathrm{id}(n) = n > M. So no real bounds id[E2]\mathrm{id}[E_2] above, and by [L2] the identity is unbounded on E2E_2.

L2L4L5
2.1

On E1E_1 there is no greatest value. Let pE1p \in E_1, so 0<p<10 < p < 1. By [L5] the point p:=(p+1)/2p' := (p+1)/2 satisfies p<p<1p < p' < 1 and p>0p' > 0, so pE1p' \in E_1 and id(p)=p>p=id(p)\mathrm{id}(p') = p' > p = \mathrm{id}(p). Hence no pE1p \in E_1 satisfies id(x)id(p)\mathrm{id}(x) \le \mathrm{id}(p) for every xE1x \in E_1, and by [L2] the identity attains no greatest value on E1E_1.

step 1.2L2L5
3.1

The supremum exists and equals 11. By step 1.2 and [L3] the nonempty set id[E1]=(0,1)\mathrm{id}[E_1] = (0,1) has a least upper bound uu, and u1u \le 1 since 11 bounds it above. For a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the point x:=max{1/2, 1ε/2}x := \max\{1/2,\ 1 - \varepsilon/2\} lies in (0,1)(0,1) by [L5] and satisfies x>1εx > 1 - \varepsilon, so no real below 11 bounds (0,1)(0,1) above; hence u=1u = 1. By step 2.1 no point of E1E_1 has value 11, so the supremum is not attained.

step 1.2step 2.1L3L5
4.1

So on the bounded set E1E_1 a continuous function attains no greatest value, and on the closed set E2E_2 a continuous function is unbounded: both halves of the refuted claim are false, and by [L6] neither domain is compact, so no conflict with Extreme value theorem: a continuous real function on a nonempty compact subset of R\mathbb{R} attains a greatest and a least value arises.

step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1step 1.3L6

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

The intermediate value theorem gives a second proof that every nonnegative real has an nn-th root, applied to xnx^n on a closed bounded interval

Example

Let aRa \in \mathbb{R} with a0a \ge 0 and let nNn \in \mathbb{N} with n1n \ge 1. Put M:=a+1M := a + 1 and consider

f:[0,M]R,f(x):=xnf : [0, M] \to \mathbb{R}, \qquad f(x) := x^{n}

(Integer powers ama^m, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Then ff is continuous on [0,M][0,M], f(0)=0aMn=f(M)f(0) = 0 \le a \le M^{n} = f(M), and the intermediate value theorem (Intermediate value theorem, by bisection with a canonical left-half rule: a continuous function on [a,b][a,b] takes every value between f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b)) supplies c[0,M]c \in [0,M] with

cn=a.c^{n} = a .

Moreover cc is the only nonnegative real with this property, so c=a1/nc = a^{1/n} in the notation of Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: a unique a1/n0a^{1/n} \ge 0 with (a1/n)n=a(a^{1/n})^n = a.

This is a second proof of an existing theorem, not a new one. Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: a unique a1/n0a^{1/n} \ge 0 with (a1/n)n=a(a^{1/n})^n = a already proves existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots, by an argument that runs directly from the least-upper-bound property and the factorisation of bnanb^{n} - a^{n}; it is the item the rest of the library cites, and no second identifier is minted for the same statement. What is recorded here is that the intermediate value theorem gives the existence half in three lines once continuity of xxnx \mapsto x^{n} is available, which is the standard modern route and the reason the theorem is usually met in this form.

No circularity. Intermediate value theorem, by bisection with a canonical left-half rule: a continuous function on [a,b][a,b] takes every value between f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b) rests on A nested sequence of nonempty closed bounded intervals has nonempty intersection, and the intersection is a single point exactly when the lengths tend to 00, on the algebra of continuous functions and on the sequential criterion, none of which uses nn-th roots; and the uniqueness half below is Monotonicity of xxnx \mapsto x^n and of nann \mapsto a^n, which is pure ordered-field arithmetic. So this argument could have been the library's definition of a1/na^{1/n}; it is not, only because the roots were needed at order 1616, long before continuity existed.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A real a0a \ge 0, a natural n1n \ge 1, and M:=a+1M := a + 1; the function f(x)=xnf(x) = x^{n} on [0,M][0,M].

[L2]

Intermediate value theorem: for uvu \le v, a function continuous on [u,v][u,v] takes every value between f(u)f(u) and f(v)f(v) (Intermediate value theorem, by bisection with a canonical left-half rule: a continuous function on [a,b][a,b] takes every value between f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b)).

[L3]

Powers and order: 0n=00^{n} = 0 for n1n \ge 1; if t1t \ge 1 and n1n \ge 1 then tntt^{n} \ge t; and xxnx \mapsto x^{n} is strictly increasing on the nonnegative reals for n1n \ge 1, hence injective there (Monotonicity of xxnx \mapsto x^n and of nann \mapsto a^n, Integer powers ama^m).

[L4]

Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: for a0a \ge 0 and n1n \ge 1 there is a unique s0s \ge 0 with sn=as^{n} = a, written a1/na^{1/n} (Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: a unique a1/n0a^{1/n} \ge 0 with (a1/n)n=a(a^{1/n})^n = a).

[L5]

Ordered-field arithmetic: a0a \ge 0 gives M=a+11>0M = a + 1 \ge 1 > 0 and M>aM > a; and 0M0 \le M (Ordered field, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

M=a+11>0M = a + 1 \ge 1 > 0 by [L5], so [0,M][0,M] is a nonempty closed bounded interval, and ff is continuous on it by [L1].

L1L5
1.2

f(0)=0n=0af(0) = 0^{n} = 0 \le a by [L3] and the hypothesis a0a \ge 0; and f(M)=MnM=a+1>af(M) = M^{n} \ge M = a + 1 > a by [L3] and [L5]. So f(0)af(M)f(0) \le a \le f(M).

L3L5
2.1

By [L2] applied on [0,M][0,M] with the value aa, there is c[0,M]c \in [0,M] with cn=ac^{n} = a; in particular c0c \ge 0.

step 1.1step 1.2L2choose
3.1

cc is the only nonnegative real with cn=ac^{n} = a: by [L3] the map ttnt \mapsto t^{n} is injective on the nonnegative reals, so two nonnegative solutions would coincide. Hence c=a1/nc = a^{1/n} in the notation of [L4], and the existence half of [L4] has been re-proved from the intermediate value theorem.

step 2.1L3L4

Remarks

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-27Open item page →

A worked fixed point on [1,2][1,2] for the map x(x+2/x)/2x \mapsto (x + 2/x)/2, from the one-dimensional fixed point theorem

Example

Let

φ:[1,2]R,φ(x):=12(x+2x)\varphi : [1,2] \to \mathbb{R}, \qquad \varphi(x) := \frac{1}{2}\Bigl(x + \frac{2}{x}\Bigr)

(Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Then:

  1. φ\varphi is continuous on [1,2][1,2] (Continuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition, its agreement with limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c) at a limit point, and continuity at an isolated point);
  2. φ(x)[1,2]\varphi(x) \in [1,2] for every x[1,2]x \in [1,2];
  3. by Every continuous map of a closed bounded interval into itself has a fixed point, φ\varphi has a fixed point in [1,2][1,2]; and
  4. that fixed point is unique and equals 2=21/2\sqrt{2} = 2^{1/2} (Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: a unique a1/n0a^{1/n} \ge 0 with (a1/n)n=a(a^{1/n})^n = a).

What the example is for. It is the smallest nontrivial instance of the one-dimensional fixed point theorem in which the fixed point can be named, and it shows that the theorem, which asserts existence only, may be combined with an algebraic identity to pin the point down. The identity is elementary: φ(c)=c\varphi(c) = c says c+2/c=2cc + 2/c = 2c, that is c2=2c^{2} = 2.

No derivative is used, and none is available at this point in the reading order. The usual argument that φ\varphi maps [1,2][1,2] into itself computes the minimum of φ\varphi by differentiation; the two-line order estimate of step 1.2 below replaces it. The same map is treated as a contraction of [1,2][1,2] in The map x(x+2/x)/2x \mapsto (x + 2/x)/2 is a contraction of [1,2][1,2] with fixed point 2\sqrt{2}, and the a priori bound gives the error after nn steps, where the Banach fixed point theorem gives the same point together with an error bound after nn iterations; that route needs completeness of the metric subspace, this one needs only the intermediate value theorem.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The interval [1,2][1,2] and the function φ(x)=12(x+2/x)\varphi(x) = \tfrac{1}{2}(x + 2/x) on it.

[L2]

One-dimensional fixed point theorem: a continuous φ:[a,b]R\varphi : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} with aba \le b and φ(x)[a,b]\varphi(x) \in [a,b] for all x[a,b]x \in [a,b] has a fixed point in [a,b][a,b] (Every continuous map of a closed bounded interval into itself has a fixed point, Intermediate value theorem, by bisection with a canonical left-half rule: a continuous function on [a,b][a,b] takes every value between f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b)).

[L3]

Reciprocals and order: for 1x21 \le x \le 2 one has 0<x0 < x, hence 1/21/x11/2 \le 1/x \le 1 and so 12/x21 \le 2/x \le 2 (Inverses of positives are positive, and reciprocation reverses order, Ordered field).

[L4]

Square roots: for a0a \ge 0 there is a unique s0s \ge 0 with s2=as^{2} = a, written a1/2=aa^{1/2} = \sqrt{a}; and tt2t \mapsto t^{2} is strictly increasing on the nonnegative reals (Existence and uniqueness of nn-th roots: a unique a1/n0a^{1/n} \ge 0 with (a1/n)n=a(a^{1/n})^n = a, Monotonicity of xxnx \mapsto x^n and of nann \mapsto a^n, Integer powers ama^m).

[L5]

Ordered-field arithmetic: 121 \le 2; halving preserves order; and 12=124=221^{2} = 1 \le 2 \le 4 = 2^{2} (Ordered field, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Integer powers ama^m).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1

Claim 1. On [1,2][1,2] the identity is continuous and does not vanish, since x1>0x \ge 1 > 0; so x2/xx \mapsto 2/x is continuous there by [L1], and φ=12(id+2/id)\varphi = \tfrac{1}{2}\bigl(\mathrm{id} + 2/\mathrm{id}\bigr) is continuous on [1,2][1,2] as a scalar multiple of a sum of continuous functions.

L1L3
1.2

Claim 2. Let x[1,2]x \in [1,2]. By [L3] we have 12/x21 \le 2/x \le 2, and by hypothesis 1x21 \le x \le 2; adding, 2x+2/x42 \le x + 2/x \le 4, and halving gives 1φ(x)21 \le \varphi(x) \le 2 by [L5]. So φ(x)[1,2]\varphi(x) \in [1,2].

L3L5
2.1

Claim 3. By [L2], applied with a:=1a := 1, b:=2b := 2 and the map φ\varphi, which is continuous by step 1.1 and maps [1,2][1,2] into itself by step 1.2, there is c[1,2]c \in [1,2] with φ(c)=c\varphi(c) = c.

step 1.1step 1.2L2choose
3.1

Every fixed point squares to 22. Let c[1,2]c \in [1,2] satisfy φ(c)=c\varphi(c) = c. Then c1>0c \ge 1 > 0, so multiplying 12(c+2/c)=c\tfrac{1}{2}(c + 2/c) = c by 2c2c gives c2+2=2c2c^{2} + 2 = 2c^{2}, that is c2=2c^{2} = 2.

step 2.1L3L5
4.1

Claim 4. By [L4] there is exactly one nonnegative real whose square is 22, namely 2\sqrt{2}; since every fixed point cc is 1>0\ge 1 > 0 and satisfies c2=2c^{2} = 2 by step 3.1, the fixed point is unique and equals 2\sqrt{2}. And 2\sqrt{2} does lie in [1,2][1,2]: from 12=124=221^{2} = 1 \le 2 \le 4 = 2^{2} and the strict monotonicity of tt2t \mapsto t^{2} on the nonnegative reals ([L4], [L5]) one gets 1221 \le \sqrt{2} \le 2.

step 3.1L4L5

Remarks

  • A sharper bound, from a square. For x>0x > 0 one has (x2/x)20\bigl(\sqrt{x} - \sqrt{2/x}\bigr)^{2} \ge 0, and expanding gives x+2/x22x + 2/x \ge 2\sqrt{2}, so φ(x)2\varphi(x) \ge \sqrt{2} for every x>0x > 0. That is the same identity The map x(x+2/x)/2x \mapsto (x + 2/x)/2 is a contraction of [1,2][1,2] with fixed point 2\sqrt{2}, and the a priori bound gives the error after nn steps uses, and it shows that φ\varphi maps (0,)(0,\infty) into [2,)[\sqrt{2}, \infty); the crude estimate of step 1.2 is all that claim 2 needs, and it avoids square roots entirely.

  • Existence and identification are separate steps. Every continuous map of a closed bounded interval into itself has a fixed point gives claim 3 with no information about where the point is; claim 4 is pure algebra and would be equally valid if no fixed point existed, since it only says which number a fixed point must be. It is the combination that names 2\sqrt{2}.

  • The interval matters. On [2,1][-2,-1] the same formula has the fixed point 2-\sqrt{2}, and on an interval straddling 00 the map is not even defined. Choosing [1,2][1,2] is what makes claim 2 true and isolates the positive root.

Sources