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.

23 results · all verified · 20 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 3 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Objective. A function of a real variable can fail to be continuous in only so many ways, and this page measures the failure. It asks three questions and answers each of them completely. Which sets are the discontinuity sets of a monotone function? Which sets are the continuity sets of an arbitrary function? And which functions satisfying Cauchy's equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) are the obvious ones? The answers are: exactly the at most countable sets; exactly the GδG_\delta sets; and exactly those with any one of six very weak regularity properties.

Monotone functions. Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences fixes the vocabulary — nondecreasing, increasing, nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone, strictly monotone — in the same convention Nondecreasing, increasing, nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone, and eventually monotone sequences uses for sequences, and records the dictionary between the two. The first theorem, One-sided limits of a monotone function always exist: for ff nondecreasing on an interval II and cIc \in I, limxcf(x)=sup{f(x):xI, x<c}\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \sup\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x < c\} whenever II has points below cc, limxc+f(x)=inf{f(x):xI, x>c}\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x > c\} whenever it has points above cc, and these satisfy limxcf(x)f(c)limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \le f(c) \le \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x), is the one everything else on this half of the page rests on: a monotone function on an interval has every well-posed one-sided limit. For a nondecreasing function the left limit is a supremum and the right limit an infimum; for a nonincreasing function the roles reverse. Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind then sorts discontinuities into removable, jump and essential, equivalently Rudin's first and second kind, and A monotone function on an interval has no discontinuity of the second kind: at every point both relevant one-sided limits exist, and an interior point cc is a discontinuity exactly when limxcf(x)<limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) < \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) shows that a monotone function has none of the second kind: at an interior point it is discontinuous exactly when the two one-sided limits differ, and then it jumps.

Froda's theorem and its converse. Froda's theorem: the set of discontinuities of a monotone function on an interval is at most countable, the injection into N\mathbb{N} being built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals by least index, so no choice principle is used counts those jumps: the discontinuity set of a monotone function on an interval is at most countable, because the open intervals it opens between its one-sided limits are pairwise disjoint and each swallows a rational. The proof uses one fixed enumeration of Q\mathbb{Q} and least indices, so it spends no choice principle. Converse to Froda: for every at most countable ERE \subseteq \mathbb{R} there is a bounded nondecreasing f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} whose set of discontinuities is exactly EE, every one of them a jump is the exact converse: for every at most countable ERE \subseteq \mathbb{R} there is a bounded nondecreasing function on R\mathbb{R} discontinuous exactly on EE, with every discontinuity a jump. Together the two settle the first question with no gap.

Continuous injections and inverses. A continuous injective function on an interval is strictly monotone proves that a continuous injection on an interval cannot fold: the middle of any three points carries the middle value, and strict monotonicity follows. Continuous inverse theorem: a continuous injective ff on an interval II is a bijection onto the order-convex set f[I]f[I], and the inverse g:f[I]Ig : f[I] \to I is continuous and strictly monotone in the same sense as ff then delivers the continuous inverse theorem — the inverse of a continuous injection on an interval is continuous and monotone in the same sense — with no epsilon-delta argument, by reading it off A function on an interval satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y, whose image is order-convex, is continuous. The same lemma gives The Cantor function is continuous on [0,1][0,1], which supplies the continuity that The Cantor function is well defined, satisfies c(x)c(y)c(x) \le c(y) whenever xyx \le y, is surjective onto [0,1][0,1], and is constant on every interval removed from the Cantor set deliberately left unclaimed, and The Cantor function is continuous and nondecreasing, climbs from 00 to 11, and is constant on every interval removed in the construction of the Cantor set, so all of its increase happens on a set of measure zero records what that continuity sits alongside: the function climbs from 00 to 11 while being locally constant off a set of measure zero.

Oscillation, and the continuity set. The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals introduces ωf\omega_f, valued in the extended reals so that no boundedness hypothesis is needed, and f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at cAc \in A if and only if ωf(c)=0\omega_f(c) = 0 converts continuity at a point into the vanishing of a single number there. That is what makes the continuity set accessible: For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set {xA:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} is the intersection with AA of a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}; in particular it is closed in R\mathbb{R} when A=RA = \mathbb{R} shows each set {ωfε}\{\omega_f \ge \varepsilon\} is relatively closed, and For f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} the set of points of AA at which ff is discontinuous is the intersection with AA of an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R}, and the set of points at which ff is continuous is the intersection with AA of a GδG_\delta subset; for A=RA = \mathbb{R} the two sets are FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta outright assembles them, first into the pointwise exhaustion of the discontinuity set by the superlevel sets at the thresholds 1,1/2,1/3,1, 1/2, 1/3, \dots, and then into the statement that the discontinuity set is FσF_\sigma and the continuity set GδG_\delta. Both halves are cited downstream, and the exhaustion is stated as a claim in its own right for that reason. Every GδG_\delta subset of R\mathbb{R} is the set of continuity points of some f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, so the GδG_\delta sets are exactly the continuity sets proves the converse, so the continuity sets are exactly the GδG_\delta sets, and No function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational, because Q\mathbb{Q} is not GδG_\delta spends that on the sharpest consequence: no function is continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational, because Q\mathbb{Q} is not GδG_\delta (Q\mathbb{Q} is FσF_\sigma, meager and not GδG_\delta, while the irrationals are GδG_\delta, residual and not FσF_\sigma).

Dirichlet and Thomae. The Dirichlet function 1Q1_{\mathbb{Q}}, and Thomae's function tt with t(x)=1/qt(x) = 1/q at a rational x=p/qx = p/q in lowest terms with q1q \ge 1 and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 at every irrational xx defines the indicator of the rationals and Thomae's function, the latter through the least denominator, which is a least element of a set of naturals and therefore canonical. The Dirichlet function is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}, and Thomae's function is continuous at every irrational and at no rational, so its set of continuity points is exactly the set of irrationals and its oscillation at cc equals t(c)t(c) proves that the first is continuous nowhere, that the second is continuous exactly at the irrationals, and that its oscillation at a point equals its value there. Thomae's function is the witness that the arrangement forbidden by No function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational, because Q\mathbb{Q} is not GδG_\delta is possible the other way round. Both functions are defined here rather than on the companion page because later pages need them, and an examples page is a leaf of this library; the Dirichlet clause deliberately restates, across that boundary, what The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R} already proves.

The intermediate value property. The intermediate value property (Darboux property) of a function on an interval: the image of every subinterval is order-convex names the Darboux property and proves the equivalence of its two usual forms. Every continuous function on an interval has it; the converse is false, and FALSE: a function with the intermediate value property on an interval is continuous refutes it with a witness built by hand from the distance to the nearest integer.

Semicontinuity. Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA splits continuity into its two halves, ff is upper semicontinuous on AA if and only if {xA:f(x)<α}\{x \in A : f(x) < \alpha\} is relatively open in AA for every real α\alpha, lower semicontinuous if and only if {xA:f(x)>α}\{x \in A : f(x) > \alpha\} is, and continuous if and only if it is both identifies each half by its level sets, and Semicontinuous extreme value theorem: an upper semicontinuous function on a nonempty compact KRK \subseteq \mathbb{R} is bounded above and attains a maximum, and a lower semicontinuous one is bounded below and attains a minimum proves the semicontinuous extreme value theorem: an upper semicontinuous function on a nonempty compact set attains a maximum. The theorem is genuinely one-sided, and the companion page says why.

Baire class one. Baire category inside a closed bounded interval: if [a,b][a,b] with a<ba < b is covered by a sequence of closed sets, then one of them contains a nondegenerate closed subinterval of [a,b][a,b]; no choice principle is used localises Baire category in R\mathbb{R}, by nested intervals with canonically chosen rational endpoints: a countable intersection of dense open sets is dense, so R\mathbb{R} is not a countable union of nowhere dense sets to a closed bounded interval, which is the form the next theorem needs. Pointwise convergence of a sequence of real functions, and the Baire class one functions as the pointwise limits of sequences of continuous functions defines pointwise convergence and the pointwise limits of continuous functions, and Baire's theorem: a Baire class one function on a closed bounded interval [a,b][a,b] is continuous at the points of a dense subset of [a,b][a,b] that is the trace of a GδG_\delta set, so its set of discontinuities is meager proves Baire's theorem: such a function on [a,b][a,b] has a meager discontinuity set and is continuous on a dense subset. The argument is the refinement claim — on every subinterval there is a smaller one where the oscillation is small — repeated through category.

Cauchy's functional equation. Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} states the equation, An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0, f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x) and f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = q\,f(x) for every rational qq and every real xx; in particular f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q\,f(1) at every rational qq proves that an additive function is Q\mathbb{Q}-homogeneous and hence determined on Q\mathbb{Q} by its value at 11, and If an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is bounded above on some nondegenerate interval, then f(x)=f(1)xf(x) = f(1)\,x for every real xx is the engine: one upper bound on one nondegenerate interval already forces f(x)=f(1)xf(x) = f(1)x everywhere. Six regularity conditions each force an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} to be xf(1)xx \mapsto f(1)x: continuity at a single point, monotonicity on a nondegenerate interval, boundedness above on one, boundedness below on one, constancy of sign on one, and a graph that is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2} collects six conditions that each imply linearity — continuity at a single point, monotonicity on an interval, boundedness above or below on one, constancy of sign on one, and a graph that is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^2 — five of them by reduction to that lemma. Two further classical clauses, boundedness on a set of positive measure and Lebesgue measurability, are absent: both need a measure, which is not available at this point in the reading order, and each is an independent sufficient condition, so nothing else changes when they are restored.

And what happens without any of them. Assuming the Axiom of Choice, R\mathbb{R} has a Hamel basis over Q\mathbb{Q}: there is BRB \subseteq \mathbb{R} such that every real is a finite Q\mathbb{Q}-linear combination of elements of BB in exactly one way, and each basis vector carries a well-defined Q\mathbb{Q}-linear coefficient map produces, from the Axiom of Choice through Every vector space has a basis and Zorn's lemma, a basis of R\mathbb{R} over Q\mathbb{Q} together with the coefficient map of a single basis vector; that map is additive and takes only rational values, which refutes FALSE: every additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is of the form xcxx \mapsto cx for a single real cc outright. The hypothesis of choice is carried explicitly in the statement of every item that uses it. The lemma is stated here rather than quoted from R\mathbb{R} as a vector space over Q\mathbb{Q} has a basis, and every such basis is infinite; the existence proof exhibits none because that item lives on an examples page, which is a leaf; the two statements are not the same, and the lemma says exactly how they differ.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences

Definition

Throughout, R\mathbb{R} is the complete ordered field (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Ordered field) with its order (Order on the reals). Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}. Then ff is:

  • nondecreasing when f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) for all x,yAx, y \in A with xyx \le y;
  • increasing, or strictly increasing, when f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y) for all x,yAx, y \in A with x<yx < y;
  • nonincreasing when f(x)f(y)f(x) \ge f(y) for all x,yAx, y \in A with xyx \le y;
  • decreasing, or strictly decreasing, when f(x)>f(y)f(x) > f(y) for all x,yAx, y \in A with x<yx < y;
  • monotone when it is nondecreasing or nonincreasing;
  • strictly monotone when it is increasing or decreasing.

The naming follows the convention of Nondecreasing, increasing, nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone, and eventually monotone sequences, which is the convention of this library throughout: increasing is the strict notion and nondecreasing the weak one.

An increasing function is nondecreasing, and a decreasing function is nonincreasing. For xyx \le y either x<yx < y, and then f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y), hence f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y); or x=yx = y, and then f(x)=f(y)f(x) = f(y). The same argument with the inequalities reversed gives the second claim. So strictly monotone implies monotone.

A strictly monotone function is injective (Injection, surjection, bijection). Let ff be increasing and let x,yAx, y \in A with xyx \ne y. By trichotomy either x<yx < y, and then f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y), or y<xy < x, and then f(y)<f(x)f(y) < f(x); in both cases f(x)f(y)f(x) \ne f(y). The decreasing case is the same argument. The converse fails, and the failure is not exotic: a continuous injection on an interval is strictly monotone (A continuous injective function on an interval is strictly monotone), but on a domain that is not an interval it need not be.

Negation exchanges the two directions. For g:=fg := -f, that is g(x):=f(x)g(x) := -f(x), the four conditions above are exchanged in pairs: ff is nondecreasing exactly when gg is nonincreasing, and ff is increasing exactly when gg is decreasing, because uvu \le v holds exactly when vu-v \le -u (Ordered field). Several proofs below use this to reduce a nonincreasing case to a nondecreasing one.

Monotone on a set, not at a point. All six conditions are conditions on the whole of AA; unlike continuity (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) there is no pointwise version, and none is used in this library. The domain AA is an arbitrary subset of R\mathbb{R}; where a result needs AA to be an interval (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) it says so, and the hypothesis is never decoration.

The dictionary to monotone sequences

A sequence of reals is a function x:NRx : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R} (Sequences of reals: bounded, eventually, frequently, tails, subsequences), and Nondecreasing, increasing, nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone, and eventually monotone sequences calls it nondecreasing when xjxkx_j \le x_k for all jkj \le k, increasing when xj<xkx_j < x_k for all j<kj < k, and so on. Those are the same four conditions as above, read with the ordered set N\mathbb{N} in place of the ordered subset ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and with the comparison of indices in place of the comparison of arguments. So nothing new is introduced here for sequences, and the two vocabularies may be used interchangeably: the words nondecreasing, increasing, nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone mean the corresponding condition on the domain at hand.

One consequence is used repeatedly, and it has to be stated carefully because composition does not simply preserve the four words. Let (xk)(x_k) be a nondecreasing sequence with xkAx_k \in A for every kk, so that jkj \le k gives xjxkx_j \le x_k. Then:

  • if ff is nondecreasing, (f(xk))(f(x_k)) is nondecreasing, since f(xj)f(xk)f(x_j) \le f(x_k);
  • if ff is nonincreasing, (f(xk))(f(x_k)) is nonincreasing, since f(xj)f(xk)f(x_j) \ge f(x_k).

So along a nondecreasing sequence the composite inherits the direction of ff; and with (xk)(x_k) increasing and ff increasing, (f(xk))(f(x_k)) is increasing, while with (xk)(x_k) increasing and ff decreasing, (f(xk))(f(x_k)) is decreasing.

Along a nonincreasing sequence the direction is reversed, not inherited. If (xk)(x_k) is nonincreasing and ff is nonincreasing, then jkj \le k gives xjxkx_j \ge x_k and hence f(xj)f(xk)f(x_j) \le f(x_k): the composite is nondecreasing. The witness is f(x)=xf(x) = -x on A=RA = \mathbb{R} with xk=kx_k = -k, where both ff and (xk)(x_k) are decreasing and f(xk)=kf(x_k) = k is increasing. Two order-reversing maps compose to an order-preserving one, exactly as for the four words applied to functions.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

One-sided limits of a monotone function always exist: for ff nondecreasing on an interval II and cIc \in I, limxcf(x)=sup{f(x):xI, x<c}\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \sup\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x < c\} whenever II has points below cc, limxc+f(x)=inf{f(x):xI, x>c}\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x > c\} whenever it has points above cc, and these satisfy limxcf(x)f(c)limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \le f(c) \le \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)

Statement

Let IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} be order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length), let f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R} be nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences) and let cIc \in I. Write

I:=I(,c),I+:=I(c,)I^{-} := I \cap (-\infty, c), \qquad I^{+} := I \cap (c, \infty)

(The left and right limits of ff at cc, as limits of the restrictions of ff to A(,c)A \cap (-\infty, c) and A(c,)A \cap (c, \infty)).

  1. Left. If II^{-} \ne \varnothing then cc is a limit point of II^{-} (Limit point, isolated point, adherent point, derived set, and dense subset of R\mathbb{R}), the set {f(x):xI}\{\, f(x) : x \in I^{-} \,\} is nonempty and bounded above by f(c)f(c), and limxcf(x)  =  sup{f(x):xI, x<c}    f(c).\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \;=\; \sup\{\, f(x) : x \in I,\ x < c \,\} \;\le\; f(c) .
  2. Right. If I+I^{+} \ne \varnothing then cc is a limit point of I+I^{+}, the set {f(x):xI+}\{\, f(x) : x \in I^{+} \,\} is nonempty and bounded below by f(c)f(c), and limxc+f(x)  =  inf{f(x):xI, x>c}    f(c).\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) \;=\; \inf\{\, f(x) : x \in I,\ x > c \,\} \;\ge\; f(c) .
  3. Together. If both II^{-} and I+I^{+} are nonempty then limxcf(x)    f(c)    limxc+f(x).\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \;\le\; f(c) \;\le\; \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) .

In particular a nondecreasing function on an interval has, at every point of that interval, every one-sided limit that is well posed at all: no hypothesis of continuity, of boundedness, or of any other kind is needed.

The nonincreasing case is not a separate theorem. If g:IRg : I \to \mathbb{R} is nonincreasing then g-g is nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences), and a real LL is the left limit of g-g at cc exactly when L-L is the left limit of gg at cc, since (g)(x)L=g(x)(L)|(-g)(x) - L| = |g(x) - (-L)|; so claims 1 to 3 hold for gg with the suprema and infima exchanged and the inequalities reversed.

Order-convexity of II is what makes the limits well posed. Without it the symbol limxcf(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) need not be defined even though II^{-} is nonempty: for I={0}[1,2]I = \{0\} \cup [1,2] and c=1c = 1 the set I={0}I^{-} = \{0\} is nonempty but 11 is not a limit point of it, and The left and right limits of ff at cc, as limits of the restrictions of ff to A(,c)A \cap (-\infty, c) and A(c,)A \cap (c, \infty) leaves the symbol undefined there for exactly that reason.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An order-convex IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R}, a nondecreasing f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R}, and cIc \in I.

[A2]

II is order-convex: x,yIx, y \in I and xzyx \le z \le y imply zIz \in I (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L1]

Every nonempty subset of R\mathbb{R} that is bounded above has a least upper bound, and every nonempty subset bounded below has a greatest lower bound (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set, Greatest lower bound (infimum), Every nonempty set bounded below has an infimum).

[L2]

For SS nonempty and bounded above with upper bound uu: u=supSu = \sup S if and only if for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is sSs \in S with uε<su - \varepsilon < s (Epsilon characterisation of the supremum). Dually, for SS nonempty and bounded below with lower bound \ell: =infS\ell = \inf S if and only if for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is sSs \in S with s<+εs < \ell + \varepsilon (Epsilon characterisation of the infimum).

[L3]

limxcf(x)=L\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = L means: cc is a limit point of II^{-}, and for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)L<ε|f(x) - L| < \varepsilon for every xIx \in I with cδ<x<cc - \delta < x < c; dually on the right (The left and right limits of ff at cc, as limits of the restrictions of ff to A(,c)A \cap (-\infty, c) and A(c,)A \cap (c, \infty), 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, The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

[L4]

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Suppose II^{-} \ne \varnothing and fix aIa \in I with a<ca < c; then [a,c]I[a,c] \subseteq I, since any zz with azca \le z \le c lies in II.

A2
1.2

Claim 2 is the same argument on the other side, and is written out here rather than deduced. Suppose I+I^{+} \ne \varnothing and fix bIb \in I with c<bc < b; then [c,b]I[c,b] \subseteq I, and for real δ>0\delta > 0 the point min{b,c+δ/2}\min\{b, c + \delta/2\} lies in I+I^{+} within δ\delta of cc, so cc is a limit point of I+I^{+}.

A2L4
2.1

Every real δ>0\delta > 0 gives a point of II^{-} within δ\delta of cc and different from cc: put z:=max{a,cδ/2}z := \max\{a, c - \delta/2\}, so that az<ca \le z < c and czδ/2<δc - z \le \delta/2 < \delta, and zIz \in I by step 1.1. Hence cc is a limit point of II^{-} and the symbol on the left of claim 1 is well posed.

step 1.1L4
2.2

The set S:={f(x):xI, x<c}S^{-} := \{\, f(x) : x \in I,\ x < c \,\} is nonempty, since f(a)Sf(a) \in S^{-}, and f(c)f(c) is an upper bound of it, since x<cx < c gives f(x)f(c)f(x) \le f(c). So L:=supSL := \sup S^{-} exists and Lf(c)L \le f(c), the latter because f(c)f(c) is an upper bound and LL is the least one.

step 1.1A1L1
2.3

The set S+:={f(x):xI, x>c}S^{+} := \{\, f(x) : x \in I,\ x > c \,\} is nonempty and bounded below by f(c)f(c), so M:=infS+M := \inf S^{+} exists and Mf(c)M \ge f(c).

step 1.2A1L1
3.1

Let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real. By the epsilon characterisation of the supremum there is x0Ix_0 \in I with x0<cx_0 < c and Lε<f(x0)L - \varepsilon < f(x_0).

step 2.2L2
3.2

Given real ε>0\varepsilon > 0, the epsilon characterisation of the infimum gives x1Ix_1 \in I with x1>cx_1 > c and f(x1)<M+εf(x_1) < M + \varepsilon; put δ:=x1c>0\delta := x_1 - c > 0. For xIx \in I with c<x<c+δc < x < c + \delta we have c<x<x1c < x < x_1, so Mf(x)f(x1)<M+εM \le f(x) \le f(x_1) < M + \varepsilon and hence f(x)M<ε|f(x) - M| < \varepsilon.

step 2.3A1L2
4.1

Put δ:=cx0>0\delta := c - x_0 > 0 and let xIx \in I satisfy cδ<x<cc - \delta < x < c. Then x0<x<cx_0 < x < c, so f(x0)f(x)f(x_0) \le f(x) by monotonicity and f(x)Lf(x) \le L because f(x)Sf(x) \in S^{-} and LL is an upper bound of SS^{-}; hence Lε<f(x0)f(x)LL - \varepsilon < f(x_0) \le f(x) \le L and therefore f(x)L<ε|f(x) - L| < \varepsilon.

step 2.2step 3.1A1
4.2

Claim 2 is proved: limxc+f(x)=M=infS+f(c)\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = M = \inf S^{+} \ge f(c).

step 1.2step 2.3step 3.2L3L4
5.1

Claim 1 is proved: ε>0\varepsilon > 0 was arbitrary in step 3.1, so limxcf(x)=L=supSf(c)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = L = \sup S^{-} \le f(c), and this value is the only one the symbol can denote.

step 2.1step 2.2step 4.1L3L4
6.1

Claim 3 follows by combining the two inequalities of claims 1 and 2, both of which are then available.

step 5.1step 4.2

Remarks

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind

Definition

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}, let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} and let cAc \in A. Then ff is discontinuous at cc, and cc is a discontinuity of ff, when ff is not continuous at cc (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). As in The left and right limits of ff at cc, as limits of the restrictions of ff to A(,c)A \cap (-\infty, c) and A(c,)A \cap (c, \infty) write

A:=A(,c),A+:=A(c,)A^{-} := A \cap (-\infty, c), \qquad A^{+} := A \cap (c, \infty)

(Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length), and recall that limxcf(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) is defined only when cc is a limit point of AA^{-}, and limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) only when cc is a limit point of A+A^{+} (Limit point, isolated point, adherent point, derived set, and dense subset of R\mathbb{R}).

At an isolated point there is nothing to classify. If cc is an isolated point of AA (Limit point, isolated point, adherent point, derived set, and dense subset of R\mathbb{R}), so that ANρ(c)={c}A \cap N_{\rho}(c) = \{c\} for some real ρ>0\rho > 0, then ff is continuous at cc: the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition 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 is satisfied by δ:=ρ\delta := \rho, since the only xAx \in A with xc<ρ|x - c| < \rho is cc itself and f(c)f(c)=0|f(c) - f(c)| = 0. So every discontinuity is a limit point of AA, and the classification below covers every case that occurs.

Two-sided points

Suppose cc is a limit point of both AA^{-} and A+A^{+}, so that both one-sided limits are well posed. Say that cc is a discontinuity

  • of the first kind when both one-sided limits exist;
  • of the second kind, also called essential, when at least one of the two one-sided limits fails to exist.

A discontinuity of the first kind is further

The three cases removable, jump, essential are mutually exclusive and exhaust the two-sided discontinuities of ff: either both one-sided limits exist, and then they are equal or not, or one of them does not exist.

Removable is a name for what can be repaired. If cc is a removable discontinuity with common one-sided value LL, then the function agreeing with ff off cc and taking the value LL at cc is continuous at cc, again by If cc is a limit point of the domain from both sides, the limit exists iff both one-sided limits exist and agree and 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: changing the single value f(c)f(c) removes the discontinuity. No such repair is available at a jump or at an essential discontinuity, since there the two-sided limit does not exist at all and no choice of value at cc can create it.

One-sided points

If cc is a limit point of exactly one of AA^{-} and A+A^{+}, only that side is defined and only that side is used: cc is a discontinuity of the first kind when the one-sided limit on the side in question exists, and of the second kind otherwise. When it exists it is different from f(c)f(c), since on such a point the one-sided condition and the continuity condition are the same condition; and there is no jump case, there being nothing to compare the value with. The endpoints of an interval are the typical instance.

On the two vocabularies. First kind and second kind are Rudin's terms and are recorded because the literature uses them; removable, jump and essential are the names used in the rest of this library. They name the same three cases and no third classification is introduced.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

A monotone function on an interval has no discontinuity of the second kind: at every point both relevant one-sided limits exist, and an interior point cc is a discontinuity exactly when limxcf(x)<limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) < \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)

Statement

Let IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} be order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and let f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R} be nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences). Write I=I(,c)I^{-} = I \cap (-\infty,c) and I+=I(c,)I^{+} = I \cap (c,\infty) for cIc \in I.

  1. At every cIc \in I, each of the two one-sided limits that is well posed exists (The left and right limits of ff at cc, as limits of the restrictions of ff to A(,c)A \cap (-\infty, c) and A(c,)A \cap (c, \infty)). Consequently ff has no discontinuity of the second kind (Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind): every discontinuity of ff is of the first kind.
  2. Call cIc \in I an interior point of II when both II^{-} and I+I^{+} are nonempty. At such a point limxcf(x)    f(c)    limxc+f(x),\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \;\le\; f(c) \;\le\; \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x), and ff is continuous at cc (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) if and only if limxcf(x)=limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x).
  3. Hence an interior point cc is a discontinuity of ff exactly when limxcf(x)  <  limxc+f(x),\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \;<\; \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x), and every such discontinuity is a jump, of jump limxc+f(x)limxcf(x)>0\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) - \lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) > 0.

The same three claims hold for a nonincreasing ff, with the two one-sided limits exchanged and all inequalities reversed, by applying the above to f-f, which is nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences) and has exactly the same points of continuity, since (f)(x)(f)(c)=f(x)f(c)|(-f)(x) - (-f)(c)| = |f(x) - f(c)|.

A point of II that is not interior is an endpoint, and there are at most two. I=I^{-} = \varnothing says that cc is a least element of II and I+=I^{+} = \varnothing that it is a greatest one, and a set has at most one of each. Those two points are excluded from claims 2 and 3 only because a comparison of two one-sided limits is not available there; claim 1 covers them.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An order-convex IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R}, a nondecreasing f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R}, and cIc \in I.

[L1]

If II^{-} \ne \varnothing then cc is a limit point of II^{-} and limxcf(x)=sup{f(x):xI,x<c}f(c)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \sup\{f(x) : x \in I, x < c\} \le f(c); if I+I^{+} \ne \varnothing then cc is a limit point of I+I^{+} and limxc+f(x)=inf{f(x):xI,x>c}f(c)\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I, x > c\} \ge f(c) (One-sided limits of a monotone function always exist: for ff nondecreasing on an interval II and cIc \in I, limxcf(x)=sup{f(x):xI, x<c}\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \sup\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x < c\} whenever II has points below cc, limxc+f(x)=inf{f(x):xI, x>c}\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x > c\} whenever it has points above cc, and these satisfy limxcf(x)f(c)limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \le f(c) \le \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)).

[L2]

If cc is a limit point of both II^{-} and I+I^{+}, then limxcf(x)=L\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = L holds if and only if both one-sided limits at cc exist and equal LL; in particular the two-sided limit exists exactly when the two one-sided limits exist and agree (If cc is a limit point of the domain from both sides, the limit exists iff both one-sided limits exist and agree).

[L4]

A discontinuity at a two-sided point is of the second kind when at least one one-sided limit fails to exist, of the first kind otherwise, and is a jump when the two one-sided limits exist and differ; at a one-sided point it is of the first kind when the one available one-sided limit exists (Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Let cIc \in I. If II^{-} \ne \varnothing then limxcf(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) exists, and if I+I^{+} \ne \varnothing then limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) exists; if one of the two sets is empty the corresponding symbol is not defined and there is nothing to prove for it.

L1
2.1

Claim 1 follows: at every point of II every well-posed one-sided limit of ff exists, so no discontinuity of ff can be of the second kind, and every discontinuity is therefore of the first kind.

step 1.1L4
2.2

Now let cc be an interior point of II, and write L:=limxcf(x)L^{-} := \lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) and L+:=limxc+f(x)L^{+} := \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x), both of which exist by step 1.1. Then Lf(c)L+L^{-} \le f(c) \le L^{+}, which is the displayed inequality of claim 2.

step 1.1L1
3.1

Suppose L=L+L^{-} = L^{+}. Then Lf(c)L+=LL^{-} \le f(c) \le L^{+} = L^{-} forces L=f(c)=L+L^{-} = f(c) = L^{+}, so both one-sided limits equal f(c)f(c); hence limxcf(x)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) exists and equals f(c)f(c), and ff is continuous at cc.

step 2.2L2L3
3.2

Suppose conversely that ff is continuous at cc. Since cc is a limit point of II^{-} and hence of II, continuity gives limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c} f(x) = f(c), and then both one-sided limits exist and equal f(c)f(c); in particular L=L+L^{-} = L^{+}.

step 2.2L1L2L3
4.1

Claim 2 is proved by steps 3.1 and 3.2 together with step 2.2.

step 2.2step 3.1step 3.2
5.1

Claim 3: at an interior point cc, ff is discontinuous exactly when LL+L^{-} \ne L^{+}, and since Lf(c)L+L^{-} \le f(c) \le L^{+} the only way for them to differ is L<L+L^{-} < L^{+}. Both one-sided limits exist and differ, so the discontinuity is a jump, of jump L+L>0L^{+} - L^{-} > 0.

step 2.2step 4.1L4

Remarks

  • Nothing here counts the discontinuities. Claim 3 says only what a discontinuity of a monotone function looks like at an interior point. That the set of them is at most countable is a further theorem, Froda's theorem: the set of discontinuities of a monotone function on an interval is at most countable, the injection into N\mathbb{N} being built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals by least index, so no choice principle is used, and its proof is exactly the observation that the open intervals (limxcf(x),limxc+f(x))(\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x), \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)) attached to distinct discontinuities are disjoint.

  • Why no interior discontinuity of a monotone function is removable. Claim 2 rules them out at interior points: there L=L+L^{-} = L^{+} already forces continuity, because the inequality Lf(c)L+L^{-} \le f(c) \le L^{+} pins f(c)f(c) between the two one-sided values. That inequality is special to monotone functions, and it is what makes jump the only kind of interior discontinuity available. At a point of II that is not interior the inequality is one-sided too and the argument does not apply, so a monotone function may fail to be continuous at an endpoint of II while having its one one-sided limit; that failure is a discontinuity of the first kind and it is not a jump, there being only one side to compare.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Froda's theorem: the set of discontinuities of a monotone function on an interval is at most countable, the injection into N\mathbb{N} being built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals by least index, so no choice principle is used

Statement

Let IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} be order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and let f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R} be monotone (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences). Then the set

D  :=  {cI:f is discontinuous at c}D \;:=\; \{\, c \in I : f \text{ is discontinuous at } c \,\}

(Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind) is at most countable (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

More precisely, the proof exhibits an injection J:DNJ : D \to \mathbb{N} (Injection, surjection, bijection) built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals: at a discontinuity cc interior to II the value J(c)J(c) is read off the least index of a rational lying in the gap (limxcf(x), limxc+f(x))\bigl(\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x),\ \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)\bigr), which is a nonempty open interval by A monotone function on an interval has no discontinuity of the second kind: at every point both relevant one-sided limits exist, and an interior point cc is a discontinuity exactly when limxcf(x)<limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) < \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x). The map JJ is therefore determined by ff and by the fixed enumeration, and no choice principle is used: least indices are canonical by The well-ordering principle, and nothing anywhere in the proof is selected without being determined.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An order-convex IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} and a monotone f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R}; and Q\mathbb{Q} denotes the canonical copy of the rationals inside R\mathbb{R}.

[A1]

II is order-convex: x,yIx, y \in I and xzyx \le z \le y imply zIz \in I (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L1]

A nondecreasing ff on an order-convex II has, at every cIc \in I, each well-posed one-sided limit; and if both I=I(,c)I^{-} = I \cap (-\infty,c) and I+=I(c,)I^{+} = I \cap (c,\infty) are nonempty then limxcf(x)=sup{f(x):xI,x<c}\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \sup\{f(x) : x \in I, x < c\} and limxc+f(x)=inf{f(x):xI,x>c}\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I, x > c\} (One-sided limits of a monotone function always exist: for ff nondecreasing on an interval II and cIc \in I, limxcf(x)=sup{f(x):xI, x<c}\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = \sup\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x < c\} whenever II has points below cc, limxc+f(x)=inf{f(x):xI, x>c}\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I,\ x > c\} whenever it has points above cc, and these satisfy limxcf(x)f(c)limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) \le f(c) \le \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)).

[L2]

For a nondecreasing ff on an order-convex II and a point cc with both II^{-} and I+I^{+} nonempty, ff is discontinuous at cc if and only if limxcf(x)<limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) < \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) (A monotone function on an interval has no discontinuity of the second kind: at every point both relevant one-sided limits exist, and an interior point cc is a discontinuity exactly when limxcf(x)<limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) < \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x)).

[L3]

QN\mathbb{Q} \approx \mathbb{N} (Q\mathbb{Q} is countably infinite) and the map qq^q \mapsto \hat q embeds Q\mathbb{Q} in R\mathbb{R} injectively (The rationals embed densely in the reals), so composing a bijection NQ\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{Q} with that embedding gives a bijection e:NQRe : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}} onto the canonical copy of the rationals inside R\mathbb{R}; and strictly between any two distinct reals there lies a point of QR\mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}} (The rationals embed densely in the reals, Equinumerous sets, ABA \approx B and ABA \preceq B, Injection, surjection, bijection).

[L4]

Every nonempty subset of N\mathbb{N} has a least element (The well-ordering principle).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

It is enough to treat a nondecreasing ff: if ff is nonincreasing then f-f is nondecreasing and has the same discontinuity set, so the conclusion for f-f is the conclusion for ff. Assume from here on that ff is nondecreasing.

L6
1.2

Fix once and for all a bijection e:NQRe : \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}}; everything below is defined in terms of ff, II and this one function.

L3choose
1.3

Call cIc \in I interior when both II^{-} and I+I^{+} are nonempty, and write D0D_{0} for the set of interior points of II at which ff is discontinuous. A point of II that is not interior has I=I^{-} = \varnothing, and is then a least element of II, or I+=I^{+} = \varnothing, and is then a greatest element of II; a subset of R\mathbb{R} has at most one least and at most one greatest element, so DD0D \setminus D_{0} has at most two elements.

A1
2.1

For cD0c \in D_{0} put L(c):=limxcf(x)L^{-}(c) := \lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) and L+(c):=limxc+f(x)L^{+}(c) := \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x), both of which exist, and note L(c)<L+(c)L^{-}(c) < L^{+}(c).

step 1.3L1L2
2.2

Let c,cD0c, c' \in D_{0} with c<cc < c'. Take t:=e(k)t := e(k) for the least kk with c<e(k)<cc < e(k) < c', which exists because a point of QR\mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}} lies strictly between cc and cc'; then tIt \in I, since c,cIc, c' \in I and II is order-convex.

step 1.3A1L3L4
3.1

For cD0c \in D_{0} the set K(c):={kN:L(c)<e(k)<L+(c)}K(c) := \{\, k \in \mathbb{N} : L^{-}(c) < e(k) < L^{+}(c) \,\} is nonempty, since a point of QR\mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}} lies strictly between the two distinct reals L(c)L^{-}(c) and L+(c)L^{+}(c) and ee is onto QR\mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}}; so j(c):=minK(c)j(c) := \min K(c) is a well-defined natural number, determined by cc, ff and ee alone.

step 2.1L3L4
3.2

With c<t<cc < t < c' as in step 2.2: L+(c)=inf{f(x):xI,x>c}f(t)L^{+}(c) = \inf\{f(x) : x \in I, x > c\} \le f(t) because tt is one of the points in that set, and f(t)sup{f(x):xI,x<c}=L(c)f(t) \le \sup\{f(x) : x \in I, x < c'\} = L^{-}(c') for the same reason on the other side. Hence L+(c)L(c)L^{+}(c) \le L^{-}(c').

step 2.2L1
4.1

The two open intervals (L(c),L+(c))(L^{-}(c), L^{+}(c)) and (L(c),L+(c))(L^{-}(c'), L^{+}(c')) are therefore disjoint, so no point of QR\mathbb{Q}_{\mathbb{R}} lies in both, so e(j(c))e(j(c))e(j(c)) \ne e(j(c')) and hence j(c)j(c)j(c) \ne j(c'). Since c<cc < c' was an arbitrary pair of distinct elements of D0D_{0}, the map j:D0Nj : D_{0} \to \mathbb{N} is injective.

step 3.1step 3.2
5.1

Define J:DNJ : D \to \mathbb{N} by J(c):=2j(c)+1J(c) := 2\,j(c) + 1 for cD0c \in D_{0}; J(c):=0J(c) := 0 if cDD0c \in D \setminus D_{0} is a least element of II; and J(c):=2J(c) := 2 if cDD0c \in D \setminus D_{0} is a greatest element of II and not a least one. Then JJ is injective: it is injective on D0D_{0} by step 4.1, it separates the at most two points of DD0D \setminus D_{0} from each other, and its values on D0D_{0} are odd while its values off D0D_{0} are even.

step 1.3step 4.1construct
6.1

Consequently JJ is a bijection from DD onto the subset J[D]NJ[D] \subseteq \mathbb{N}, which is at most countable; countability transfers along that bijection, so DD is at most countable.

step 5.1L5

Remarks

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Converse to Froda: for every at most countable ERE \subseteq \mathbb{R} there is a bounded nondecreasing f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} whose set of discontinuities is exactly EE, every one of them a jump

Statement

Let ERE \subseteq \mathbb{R} be at most countable (Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable). Then there is a function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} such that

  1. ff is nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences) and 0f(x)10 \le f(x) \le 1 for every real xx, so ff is bounded (Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set);
  2. ff is continuous at every xEx \notin E and discontinuous at every xEx \in E (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), so the discontinuity set of ff is exactly EE;
  3. every discontinuity of ff is a jump (Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind), with limxcf(x)=f(c)<limxc+f(x)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = f(c) < \lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) at every cEc \in E.

Together with Froda's theorem: the set of discontinuities of a monotone function on an interval is at most countable, the injection into N\mathbb{N} being built from one fixed enumeration of the rationals by least index, so no choice principle is used this settles the question completely: the sets that occur as discontinuity sets of monotone functions on R\mathbb{R} are exactly the at most countable ones.

The construction. For E=E = \varnothing take f:=0f := 0. Otherwise fix a surjection s:NEs : \mathbb{N} \to E (A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of N\mathbb{N}) and set

f(x)  :=  k=0ak(x),ak(x):={1/2k+1if s(k)<x,0otherwise,f(x) \;:=\; \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} a_{k}(x), \qquad a_{k}(x) := \begin{cases} 1/2^{\,k+1} & \text{if } s(k) < x,\\ 0 & \text{otherwise,}\end{cases}

(Series, partial sums, convergence and the sum, divergence, and the tail series, Integer powers ama^m): the mass 1/2k+11/2^{\,k+1} is placed at the point s(k)s(k) and is collected by ff strictly to the right of it. Repetitions in the enumeration are harmless; they only make the jump at a point larger.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An at most countable ERE \subseteq \mathbb{R}.

[L1]

A nonempty at most countable set is the image of a surjection s:NEs : \mathbb{N} \to E (A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of N\mathbb{N}, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

[L2]

A series of nonnegative terms converges if and only if its partial sums are bounded above, and its sum is then the supremum of its partial sums; in particular every partial sum is at most the sum (A series of nonnegative terms converges iff its partial sums are bounded, and then the sum is their supremum, Series, partial sums, convergence and the sum, divergence, and the tail series, Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set).

[L3]

Finite sums: k<n\sum_{k<n} is monotone in the terms, splits as k<n=k<m+k=mn1\sum_{k<n} = \sum_{k<m} + \sum_{k=m}^{n-1} for mnm \le n, scales, and telescopes as k<n(ck+1ck)=cnc0\sum_{k<n}(c_{k+1} - c_{k}) = c_{n} - c_{0} (Laws of finite sums and finite products, Finite sums and finite products, by recursion).

[L4]

k0rk\sum_{k \ge 0} r^{k} converges to 1/(1r)1/(1-r) for r<1|r| < 1, the first term being r0=1r^{0} = 1 (For r<1|r| < 1, k0rk=1/(1r)\sum_{k \ge 0} r^k = 1/(1-r), and for r1|r| \ge 1 the series diverges, Integer powers ama^m); a series converges if and only if each of its tails does, and k0uk=k<Nuk+kNuk\sum_{k \ge 0} u_{k} = \sum_{k<N} u_{k} + \sum_{k \ge N} u_{k} (A series converges iff each of its tail series converges, and the sum splits as sNs_N plus the NN-th tail); a convergent sequence of reals comes within every positive ε\varepsilon of its limit from some index on (Limits and Cauchy sequences of reals).

[L5]

A nonempty finite set of reals, presented as {c0,,cm}\{c_{0}, \dots, c_{m}\}, has a maximum and a minimum (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set); and strictly between any two distinct reals there lies a real (The rationals embed densely in the reals).

Proof

technique · constructive
1.1

If E=E = \varnothing, the constant function 00 is nondecreasing, takes values in [0,1][0,1], is continuous at every real, and has empty discontinuity set; all three claims hold vacuously for claim 3. Assume from here on that EE \ne \varnothing and fix a surjection s:NEs : \mathbb{N} \to E.

L1construct
1.2

For every nNn \in \mathbb{N}, k<n1/2k+1=11/2n\sum_{k<n} 1/2^{\,k+1} = 1 - 1/2^{\,n}: each term is 1/2k+1=1/2k1/2k+11/2^{\,k+1} = 1/2^{\,k} - 1/2^{\,k+1}, so the sum telescopes to 1/201/2n=11/2n1/2^{\,0} - 1/2^{\,n} = 1 - 1/2^{\,n}.

L3
2.1

Define ak(x):=1/2k+1a_{k}(x) := 1/2^{\,k+1} when s(k)<xs(k) < x and ak(x):=0a_{k}(x) := 0 otherwise, and note 0ak(x)1/2k+10 \le a_{k}(x) \le 1/2^{\,k+1} for every kk and every real xx.

step 1.1construct
2.2

For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is nNn \in \mathbb{N} with 1/2n<ε1/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon: the partial sums tn:=k<n1/2kt_{n} := \sum_{k<n} 1/2^{\,k} converge to 22, and tn=22/2nt_{n} = 2 - 2/2^{\,n} by the same telescoping as in step 1.2, so tn2=2/2n<ε|t_{n} - 2| = 2/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon for all large nn, whence 1/2n<ε/2<ε1/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon/2 < \varepsilon for those nn. Consequently the partial sums 11/2n1 - 1/2^{\,n} of k1/2k+1\sum_{k} 1/2^{\,k+1} have supremum 11, so that series converges with sum 11.

step 1.2L2L3L4
3.1

For every real xx the series kak(x)\sum_{k} a_{k}(x) converges and 0f(x)10 \le f(x) \le 1: its terms are nonnegative and its partial sums satisfy k<nak(x)k<n1/2k+1=11/2n1\sum_{k<n} a_{k}(x) \le \sum_{k<n} 1/2^{\,k+1} = 1 - 1/2^{\,n} \le 1, so they are bounded above by 11 and the sum, being their supremum, lies in [0,1][0,1].

step 2.1step 1.2L2L3
3.2

Left continuity holds at every real cc: given real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 take nn with 1/2n<ε1/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon; let F:={k<n:s(k)<c}F := \{\, k < n : s(k) < c \,\}; if F=F = \varnothing put x0:=c1x_{0} := c - 1, and otherwise put x0x_{0} to be a real with max{s(k):kF}<x0<c\max\{s(k) : k \in F\} < x_{0} < c, which exists because the maximum of the nonempty finite set {s(k):kF}\{s(k) : k \in F\} is a real strictly below cc.

step 2.2L5
3.3

Right continuity holds at every cEc \notin E: given real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 take nn with 1/2n<ε1/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon; since cEc \notin E and ss has image EE, no kk has s(k)=cs(k) = c, so every k<nk < n has s(k)<cs(k) < c or s(k)>cs(k) > c. Let G:={k<n:s(k)>c}G := \{\, k < n : s(k) > c \,\}; if G=G = \varnothing put y0:=c+1y_{0} := c + 1, and otherwise put y0y_{0} to be a real with c<y0<min{s(k):kG}c < y_{0} < \min\{s(k) : k \in G\}.

step 1.1step 2.2L5
4.1

ff is nondecreasing: if xyx \le y then s(k)<xs(k) < x implies s(k)<ys(k) < y, so ak(x)ak(y)a_{k}(x) \le a_{k}(y) for every kk, hence k<nak(x)k<nak(y)\sum_{k<n} a_{k}(x) \le \sum_{k<n} a_{k}(y) for every nn, and taking suprema gives f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y).

step 2.1step 3.1L2L3
4.2

For all reals xyx \le y and every nNn \in \mathbb{N} with ak(x)=ak(y)a_{k}(x) = a_{k}(y) for every k<nk < n, one has f(y)f(x)1/2nf(y) - f(x) \le 1/2^{\,n}: for NnN \ge n the splitting k<Nak(y)=k<nak(y)+k=nN1ak(y)k<nak(x)+k=nN11/2k+1\sum_{k<N} a_{k}(y) = \sum_{k<n} a_{k}(y) + \sum_{k=n}^{N-1} a_{k}(y) \le \sum_{k<n} a_{k}(x) + \sum_{k=n}^{N-1} 1/2^{\,k+1} holds, the last sum being at most kn1/2k+1=1(11/2n)=1/2n\sum_{k \ge n} 1/2^{\,k+1} = 1 - (1 - 1/2^{\,n}) = 1/2^{\,n}; so every partial sum of kak(y)\sum_{k} a_{k}(y) is at most f(x)+1/2nf(x) + 1/2^{\,n}, and so is their supremum f(y)f(y).

step 2.1step 1.2step 3.1L2L3L4
4.3

Let cEc \in E and fix k0k_{0} with s(k0)=cs(k_{0}) = c. For every y>cy > c and every N>k0N > k_{0} the finite sum k<Nak(y)\sum_{k<N} a_{k}(y) exceeds k<Nak(c)\sum_{k<N} a_{k}(c) by at least 1/2k0+11/2^{\,k_{0}+1}, because the list kak(y)ak(c)k \mapsto a_{k}(y) - a_{k}(c) has nonnegative entries, so the finite sum of its first NN entries is at least its entry at the index k0k_{0}, which is ak0(y)ak0(c)=1/2k0+10a_{k_{0}}(y) - a_{k_{0}}(c) = 1/2^{\,k_{0}+1} - 0. Hence f(y)1/2k0+1k<Nak(c)f(y) - 1/2^{\,k_{0}+1} \ge \sum_{k<N} a_{k}(c) for every NN, the case Nk0N \le k_{0} holding because the partial sums of a nonnegative series are nondecreasing; so f(y)1/2k0+1f(y) - 1/2^{\,k_{0}+1} is an upper bound of those partial sums and therefore at least their supremum f(c)f(c).

step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1L2L3
5.1

With x0x_{0} as in step 3.2 and any xx with x0<xcx_{0} < x \le c: for k<nk < n with s(k)<cs(k) < c we have s(k)max{s(j):jF}<x0<xs(k) \le \max\{s(j) : j \in F\} < x_{0} < x, so ak(x)=1/2k+1=ak(c)a_{k}(x) = 1/2^{\,k+1} = a_{k}(c); and for k<nk < n with s(k)cxs(k) \ge c \ge x we have ak(x)=0=ak(c)a_{k}(x) = 0 = a_{k}(c). So ak(x)=ak(c)a_{k}(x) = a_{k}(c) for every k<nk < n, and step 4.2 applied to the pair xcx \le c gives 0f(c)f(x)1/2n<ε0 \le f(c) - f(x) \le 1/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon.

step 2.1step 4.1step 4.2step 3.2
5.2

With y0y_{0} as in step 3.3 and any yy with cy<y0c \le y < y_{0}: for k<nk < n with s(k)<cys(k) < c \le y we get ak(y)=1/2k+1=ak(c)a_{k}(y) = 1/2^{\,k+1} = a_{k}(c), and for k<nk < n with s(k)>cs(k) > c we have s(k)min{s(j):jG}>y0>ys(k) \ge \min\{s(j) : j \in G\} > y_{0} > y, so ak(y)=0=ak(c)a_{k}(y) = 0 = a_{k}(c). So ak(y)=ak(c)a_{k}(y) = a_{k}(c) for every k<nk < n, and step 4.2 applied to the pair cyc \le y gives 0f(y)f(c)1/2n<ε0 \le f(y) - f(c) \le 1/2^{\,n} < \varepsilon.

step 2.1step 4.1step 4.2step 3.3
5.3

So ff is discontinuous at cc: for ε:=1/2k0+1>0\varepsilon := 1/2^{\,k_{0}+1} > 0 and any real δ>0\delta > 0 the point y:=c+δ/2y := c + \delta/2 satisfies yc<δ|y - c| < \delta and f(y)f(c)ε|f(y) - f(c)| \ge \varepsilon, so no δ\delta witnesses the continuity condition at cc.

step 4.3
6.1

Hence ff is continuous at every cEc \notin E: fix a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0, take x0x_{0} as in step 3.2 and y0y_{0} as in step 3.3 for that same ε\varepsilon, and put δ:=min{cx0,y0c}>0\delta := \min\{c - x_{0}, y_{0} - c\} > 0; then every real xx with xc<δ|x - c| < \delta satisfies x0<x<y0x_{0} < x < y_{0} and therefore f(x)f(c)<ε|f(x) - f(c)| < \varepsilon, by step 5.1 when xcx \le c and by step 5.2 when xcx \ge c.

step 5.1step 5.2L5
6.2

Every point of EE is an interior point of the order-convex set R\mathbb{R}, so both one-sided limits of ff exist there; step 5.1 gives limxcf(x)=f(c)\lim_{x \to c^{-}} f(x) = f(c) and step 4.3 gives limxc+f(x)f(c)+1/2k0+1>f(c)\lim_{x \to c^{+}} f(x) \ge f(c) + 1/2^{\,k_{0}+1} > f(c). The two one-sided limits therefore differ, and the discontinuity at cc is a jump.

step 5.1step 4.3step 5.3L6
7.1

Claims 1, 2 and 3 hold for the function ff constructed in steps 1.1 and 2.1: claim 1 by steps 3.1 and 4.1, claim 2 by steps 6.1 and 5.3, and claim 3 by step 6.2.

step 3.1step 4.1step 6.1step 5.3step 6.2discharge-construct

Remarks

  • Why the mass is collected strictly to the right. The definition uses s(k)<xs(k) < x rather than s(k)xs(k) \le x, and that is what makes ff left continuous everywhere, as steps 3.2 and 5.1 show without any hypothesis on cc. The value f(c)f(c) at a point of EE is therefore the left limit, and the whole jump sits on the right. Using s(k)xs(k) \le x would produce a right continuous function with the same discontinuity set; nothing else would change.

  • Repetitions in the enumeration are harmless. If ss takes the value cc at several indices, the jump at cc is the total mass {1/2k+1:s(k)=c}\sum \{1/2^{\,k+1} : s(k) = c\} rather than a single term. Step 4.3 uses only one index k0k_{0} and so needs no such sum; it establishes a lower bound for the jump, which is all that discontinuity requires.

  • Boundedness is free, and it is worth recording. The total mass available is k01/2k+1=1\sum_{k \ge 0} 1/2^{\,k+1} = 1, so ff maps R\mathbb{R} into [0,1][0,1] however large EE is. A bounded nondecreasing function on R\mathbb{R} can therefore have a dense set of discontinuities; the companion page takes E=QE = \mathbb{Q} and gets exactly that.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

A continuous injective function on an interval is strictly monotone

Statement

Let IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} be order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and let f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R} be continuous on II (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 injective (Injection, surjection, bijection). Then ff is strictly monotone (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences): either f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y) whenever x<yx < y in II, or f(x)>f(y)f(x) > f(y) whenever x<yx < y in II.

Both hypotheses are needed and neither can be weakened to the other. Continuity alone does not give injectivity, and injectivity alone does not give monotonicity: the companion page exhibits a continuous injection on [0,1][2,3][0,1] \cup [2,3], a set that is not order-convex, that is not monotone. So it is order-convexity of the domain, and not merely continuity, that forces the conclusion.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An order-convex IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} and a continuous injective f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R}.

[A1]

II is order-convex: x,yIx, y \in I and xzyx \le z \le y imply zIz \in I (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[A2]

ff is injective: f(u)=f(v)f(u) = f(v) implies u=vu = v (Injection, surjection, bijection).

[A3]

ff is continuous at every point of II; the restriction of ff to a subset SIS \subseteq I is continuous at every point of SS, since the ε\varepsilon-δ\delta condition 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 quantifies over fewer points when the domain shrinks.

[L1]

Intermediate value theorem: if uvu \le v, g:[u,v]Rg : [u,v] \to \mathbb{R} is continuous and yy lies between g(u)g(u) and g(v)g(v) in either order, then g(p)=yg(p) = y for some p[u,v]p \in [u,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)).

[L2]

Strictly between any two distinct reals there lies a real (The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[L3]

ff is increasing when f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y) for all x<yx < y in II, decreasing when f(x)>f(y)f(x) > f(y) for all x<yx < y in II, and strictly monotone when it is one or the other (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences).

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1

Suppose, for contradiction, that ff is not strictly monotone: ff is not increasing and ff is not decreasing.

assume-contra
1.2

Three-point claim. For all u<v<wu < v < w in II, either f(u)<f(v)<f(w)f(u) < f(v) < f(w) or f(u)>f(v)>f(w)f(u) > f(v) > f(w). Suppose not. By injectivity the three values are pairwise distinct, so the failure means that f(v)f(v) is not between f(u)f(u) and f(w)f(w); hence either f(v)>f(u)f(v) > f(u) and f(v)>f(w)f(v) > f(w), or f(v)<f(u)f(v) < f(u) and f(v)<f(w)f(v) < f(w).

A2
2.1

Being decreasing means f(x)>f(y)f(x) > f(y) for all x<yx < y in II, so its failure gives a,bIa, b \in I with a<ba < b and not f(a)>f(b)f(a) > f(b), that is f(a)f(b)f(a) \le f(b); injectivity together with aba \ne b gives f(a)f(b)f(a) \ne f(b), so f(a)<f(b)f(a) < f(b).

step 1.1A2L3
2.2

In the first case of step 1.2 pick a real yy with max{f(u),f(w)}<y<f(v)\max\{f(u), f(w)\} < y < f(v); in the second pick yy with f(v)<y<min{f(u),f(w)}f(v) < y < \min\{f(u), f(w)\}. Such a yy exists because the two bounds are distinct reals.

step 1.2L2
3.1

With yy as in step 2.2, [u,v]I[u,v] \subseteq I and [v,w]I[v,w] \subseteq I by order-convexity, and ff restricted to each is continuous; yy lies strictly between f(u)f(u) and f(v)f(v), and strictly between f(v)f(v) and f(w)f(w). So there are p[u,v]p \in [u,v] and q[v,w]q \in [v,w] with f(p)=y=f(q)f(p) = y = f(q).

step 2.2A1A3L1
4.1

Since f(p)=yf(v)f(p) = y \ne f(v) and f(q)=yf(v)f(q) = y \ne f(v) we have pvqp \ne v \ne q, so up<v<qwu \le p < v < q \le w and in particular pqp \ne q; but f(p)=f(q)f(p) = f(q) contradicts injectivity. The three-point claim of step 1.2 is therefore established.

step 1.2step 3.1A2
5.1

Let xIx \in I with x<ax < a. Applying the three-point claim to x<a<bx < a < b gives f(x)<f(a)<f(b)f(x) < f(a) < f(b) or f(x)>f(a)>f(b)f(x) > f(a) > f(b); the second is impossible because f(a)<f(b)f(a) < f(b). So f(x)<f(a)f(x) < f(a).

step 2.1step 4.1
6.1

Let xIx \in I with x>ax > a. If x<bx < b, the three-point claim applied to a<x<ba < x < b gives f(a)<f(x)<f(b)f(a) < f(x) < f(b), the alternative being impossible as in step 5.1; if x=bx = b then f(a)<f(x)f(a) < f(x) by step 2.1; and if x>bx > b, the claim applied to a<b<xa < b < x gives f(a)<f(b)<f(x)f(a) < f(b) < f(x). In every case f(x)>f(a)f(x) > f(a).

step 2.1step 4.1
6.2

Let c,dIc, d \in I with c<dac < d \le a; we show f(c)<f(d)f(c) < f(d). If d=ad = a then c<ac < a and step 5.1 gives f(c)<f(a)=f(d)f(c) < f(a) = f(d). If d<ad < a then the three-point claim applied to c<d<ac < d < a gives f(c)<f(d)<f(a)f(c) < f(d) < f(a) or f(c)>f(d)>f(a)f(c) > f(d) > f(a), and the second contradicts f(d)<f(a)f(d) < f(a) from step 5.1; so f(c)<f(d)f(c) < f(d).

step 4.1step 5.1
7.1

Let c,dIc, d \in I with ac<da \le c < d; we show f(c)<f(d)f(c) < f(d). If c=ac = a then d>ad > a and step 6.1 gives f(d)>f(a)=f(c)f(d) > f(a) = f(c). If a<ca < c then the three-point claim applied to a<c<da < c < d gives f(a)<f(c)<f(d)f(a) < f(c) < f(d) or f(a)>f(c)>f(d)f(a) > f(c) > f(d), and the second contradicts f(c)>f(a)f(c) > f(a) from step 6.1; so f(c)<f(d)f(c) < f(d).

step 4.1step 6.1
7.2

The only remaining case is c<a<dc < a < d, where steps 5.1 and 6.1 give f(c)<f(a)<f(d)f(c) < f(a) < f(d) directly.

step 5.1step 6.1
8.1

Steps 7.1, 6.2 and 7.2 cover every pair c<dc < d in II: either aca \le c, which is step 7.1, or c<ac < a, and then dad \le a, which is step 6.2, or a<da < d, which is step 7.2. So f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y) whenever x<yx < y in II, that is, ff is increasing. This contradicts step 1.1, which assumed that ff is not increasing; the assumption of step 1.1 is therefore false and ff is strictly monotone.

step 1.1step 7.1step 6.2step 7.2L3discharge-contradiction

Remarks

  • The three-point claim is the whole content. Steps 1.2, 2.2, 3.1 and 4.1 say that a continuous injection on an interval cannot fold: the middle of three points always has the middle value. Everything after that is bookkeeping, comparing an arbitrary pair with one fixed pair a<ba < b on which the direction is known.

  • Where the intermediate value theorem enters. Once only, in step 3.1, and it is what makes order-convexity of II indispensable: the segments [u,v][u,v] and [v,w][v,w] must lie inside the domain for the theorem to apply. That is exactly the hypothesis the companion page's counterexample removes.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Continuous inverse theorem: a continuous injective ff on an interval II is a bijection onto the order-convex set f[I]f[I], and the inverse g:f[I]Ig : f[I] \to I is continuous and strictly monotone in the same sense as ff

Statement

Let IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} be order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and let f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R} be continuous on II (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 injective (Injection, surjection, bijection). Then:

  1. ff is strictly monotone (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences);
  2. f[I]f[I] is order-convex;
  3. the map f:If[I]f : I \to f[I] is a bijection, so there is exactly one g:f[I]Ig : f[I] \to I with g(f(x))=xg(f(x)) = x for every xIx \in I and f(g(u))=uf(g(u)) = u for every uf[I]u \in f[I];
  4. gg is strictly monotone in the same sense as ff: increasing if ff is increasing, decreasing if ff is decreasing;
  5. gg is continuous on f[I]f[I].

"Interval" means "order-convex" here, as throughout this library (A subset of R\mathbb{R} is connected if and only if it is order-convex, that is, an interval is what licenses the word and Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length records that the classification of order-convex sets into the nine written forms is not proved here). No compactness and no boundedness is assumed: II may be open, half-open, unbounded, or a single point.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An order-convex IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} and a continuous injective f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R}.

[L1]

A continuous injective function on an order-convex subset of R\mathbb{R} is strictly monotone (A continuous injective function on an interval is strictly monotone).

[L2]
[L3]

If JRJ \subseteq \mathbb{R} is order-convex, h:JRh : J \to \mathbb{R} satisfies h(u)h(v)h(u) \le h(v) whenever u,vJu, v \in J and uvu \le v, and h[J]h[J] is order-convex, then hh is continuous on JJ (A function on an interval satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y, whose image is order-convex, is continuous).

[L4]

Sums, scalar multiples and composites of continuous functions are continuous; in particular uuu \mapsto -u is continuous on every subset of R\mathbb{R}, being the scalar multiple (1)id(-1)\,\mathrm{id} of the identity (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, A composite of continuous functions is continuous, with no side hypothesis of the kind the composition of limits needs).

[L5]

ff is injective, so f:If[I]f : I \to f[I] is a bijection and has a unique two-sided inverse (Injection, surjection, bijection).

[L6]

ff increasing means f(x)<f(y)f(x) < f(y) whenever x<yx < y in II; f-f is decreasing exactly when ff is increasing, and S-S is order-convex exactly when SS is (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Claim 1 is immediate: ff is continuous and injective on the order-convex set II, hence strictly monotone.

L1
1.2

Claim 2 is immediate: II is order-convex and ff is continuous on II, so f[I]f[I] is order-convex.

L2
1.3

Claim 3 is immediate: ff is injective and f:If[I]f : I \to f[I] is onto its image by definition of the image, so it is a bijection and has a unique two-sided inverse g:f[I]Ig : f[I] \to I.

L5
2.1

Suppose ff is increasing, and let u,vf[I]u, v \in f[I] with u<vu < v. Write u=f(p)u = f(p) and v=f(q)v = f(q) with p=g(u)p = g(u) and q=g(v)q = g(v) in II. If qpq \le p then f(q)f(p)f(q) \le f(p), since q=pq = p gives equality and q<pq < p gives f(q)<f(p)f(q) < f(p); that is vuv \le u, contradicting u<vu < v. Hence p<qp < q, that is g(u)<g(v)g(u) < g(v), and gg is increasing.

step 1.1step 1.3L6
2.2

Suppose instead that ff is decreasing, and put F:=fF := -f, that is F(x):=f(x)F(x) := -f(x). Then FF is continuous on II, it is injective because ff is, and it is increasing.

step 1.1L4L6
3.1

Still with ff increasing: gg satisfies g(u)g(v)g(u) \le g(v) whenever uvu \le v in f[I]f[I], by step 2.1 when u<vu < v and trivially when u=vu = v; the domain f[I]f[I] is order-convex by step 1.2; and the image g[f[I]]g[f[I]] is II, which is order-convex, because gg is onto II. So the monotone-with-interval-image criterion applies and gg is continuous on f[I]f[I].

step 1.2step 1.3step 2.1L3
4.1

By steps 2.1 and 3.1 applied to FF, the inverse G:F[I]IG : F[I] \to I of FF is increasing and continuous, and F[I]=f[I]F[I] = -f[I] is order-convex.

step 2.1step 3.1step 2.2
5.1

For uf[I]u \in f[I] one has uF[I]-u \in F[I] and G(u)=g(u)G(-u) = g(u), since F(g(u))=f(g(u))=uF(g(u)) = -f(g(u)) = -u and GG is the inverse of FF. So gg is the composite of the continuous map uuu \mapsto -u from f[I]f[I] into F[I]F[I] with the continuous GG, hence continuous on f[I]f[I].

step 1.3step 4.1L4
6.1

In that case gg is decreasing: for u<vu < v in f[I]f[I] one has v<u-v < -u in F[I]F[I], so G(v)<G(u)G(-v) < G(-u) because GG is increasing, that is g(v)<g(u)g(v) < g(u).

step 4.1step 5.1
7.1

Claims 4 and 5 are now proved in both cases: for ff increasing by steps 2.1 and 3.1, and for ff decreasing by steps 5.1 and 6.1; and by step 1.1 there is no other case.

step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1step 5.1step 6.1

Remarks

  • No epsilon-delta argument appears anywhere. Continuity of the inverse is obtained entirely from A function on an interval satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y, whose image is order-convex, is continuous, whose hypotheses are exactly the two facts the theorem has already established: the inverse is monotone, and its image is the order-convex set II. The decreasing case is reduced to the increasing one by composing with uuu \mapsto -u rather than repeating the argument.

  • What the theorem is used for. It is the tool that turns a strictly monotone continuous bijection into a continuous one in the other direction, and the standard elementary functions are built with it: the companion page derives the continuity of xx1/nx \mapsto x^{1/n} this way.

CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

The Cantor function is continuous on [0,1][0,1]

Statement

The Cantor function c:[0,1]Rc : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} (The Cantor function on [0,1][0,1], defined on the Cantor set through ternary digits and extended constantly across each removed interval) 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). It is moreover nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences), with c(0)=0c(0) = 0 and c(1)=1c(1) = 1.

No intermediate value theorem is used. The Cantor function is surjective onto [0,1][0,1] by construction (The Cantor function is well defined, satisfies c(x)c(y)c(x) \le c(y) whenever xyx \le y, is surjective onto [0,1][0,1], and is constant on every interval removed from the Cantor set, claim 3), so its image is order-convex without any appeal to continuity, and continuity is then read off the monotone-with-interval-image criterion (A function on an interval satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y, whose image is order-convex, is continuous). The implication runs in the direction opposite to the usual one: here surjectivity is known first and continuity is deduced.

Facts & Assumptions

[L3]

If JRJ \subseteq \mathbb{R} is order-convex, h:JRh : J \to \mathbb{R} satisfies h(u)h(v)h(u) \le h(v) whenever u,vJu, v \in J and uvu \le v, and h[J]h[J] is order-convex, then hh is continuous on JJ (A function on an interval satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y, whose image is order-convex, is continuous).

[L4]

Every interval of the nine written forms, and in particular [0,1][0,1], is order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L5]

A function h:ARh : A \to \mathbb{R} with h(x)h(y)h(x) \le h(y) whenever xyx \le y in AA is nondecreasing (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

The domain [0,1][0,1] is order-convex.

L4
1.2

cc satisfies c(x)c(y)c(x) \le c(y) whenever x,y[0,1]x, y \in [0,1] and xyx \le y.

L1
1.3

The image c[[0,1]]c[\,[0,1]\,] is exactly [0,1][0,1], since cc is surjective onto [0,1][0,1], and [0,1][0,1] is order-convex.

L2L4
2.1

The three hypotheses of the monotone-with-interval-image criterion hold for cc on [0,1][0,1], so cc is continuous on [0,1][0,1].

step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3L3
3.1

cc is nondecreasing, which is what the inequality of step 1.2 says, and c(0)=0c(0) = 0 and c(1)=1c(1) = 1.

step 1.2L2L5

Remarks

RemarkRemark: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

The Cantor function is continuous and nondecreasing, climbs from 00 to 11, and is constant on every interval removed in the construction of the Cantor set, so all of its increase happens on a set of measure zero

Remark

Collect what is now known about the Cantor function c:[0,1]Rc : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} (The Cantor function on [0,1][0,1], defined on the Cantor set through ternary digits and extended constantly across each removed interval) and the Cantor set CC (The Cantor middle-thirds set as the intersection of the sets CnC_n obtained by removing open middle thirds).

All of the increase happens on CC, in the following exact sense. Let x<yx < y in [0,1][0,1] with c(x)<c(y)c(x) < c(y). Then (x,y)C(x,y) \cap C \ne \varnothing. Indeed, suppose (x,y)C=(x,y) \cap C = \varnothing and pick any tt with x<t<yx < t < y. Then tCt \notin C, so tt lies in the open interval (u,v)(u,v) of a pair u<vu < v of points of CC with (u,v)C=(u,v) \cap C = \varnothing, and cc is constant on [u,v][u,v]. Now u<t<yu < t < y, and uCu \in C, so u(x,y)u \notin (x,y) and therefore uxu \le x; symmetrically x<t<vx < t < v and vCv \in C give vyv \ge y. Hence [x,y][u,v][x,y] \subseteq [u,v] and c(x)=c(y)c(x) = c(y), contrary to assumption. So a nondegenerate interval on which cc actually rises must meet CC, a set of measure zero, while on the complement of CC the function is locally constant.

What is not claimed here. Nothing above says that cc is differentiable anywhere, that its derivative vanishes anywhere, or that cc is singular: no notion of derivative is available at this point in the reading order, and no notion of Lebesgue measure is developed in the library as it stands. Measure zero here is exactly Measure zero (a countable cover by intervals of total length below every ε\varepsilon) and content zero (a finite such cover), a condition on covers by intervals, and every statement above is a statement about cc, about CC, and about that covering condition, and about nothing else.

Why this is worth recording at all. A continuous nondecreasing function that climbs from 00 to 11 might be expected to do its climbing on a set that is large in some sense; cc does all of it on a set that is null and, being nowhere dense (The Cantor set is compact, perfect, uncountable, nowhere dense and of measure zero, and it contains no interval of positive length, so its only nonempty connected subsets are single points, claim 5), small in category as well. The companion page pushes the same observation one step further: cc maps the null set CC onto the whole of [0,1][0,1].

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableverified 2026-08-09 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)Open item page →

The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals

Definition

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}. All suprema and infima below are taken in the extended real line R=R{,+}\overline{\mathbb{R}} = \mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty, +\infty\} (The extended real line R=R{,+}\overline{\mathbb{R}} = \mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty, +\infty\}, its order, and the arithmetic that is left undefined), where every subset has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound (Every subset of R\overline{\mathbb{R}} has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in R\mathbb{R}); no boundedness hypothesis on ff is therefore needed anywhere, and none is imposed.

Oscillation on a set. For SAS \subseteq A put

ωf(S)  :=  sup{f(x)f(y)  :  x,yS}    R.\omega_f(S) \;:=\; \sup\{\, |f(x) - f(y)| \;:\; x, y \in S \,\} \;\in\; \overline{\mathbb{R}} .

Oscillation at a point. For cAc \in A put

ωf(c)  :=  inf{ωf(ANδ(c))  :  δR, δ>0}    R,\omega_f(c) \;:=\; \inf\{\, \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) \;:\; \delta \in \mathbb{R},\ \delta > 0 \,\} \;\in\; \overline{\mathbb{R}},

where Nδ(c)=(cδ,c+δ)N_\delta(c) = (c - \delta, c + \delta) is the δ\delta-neighbourhood of cc (The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

The two uses of the symbol ωf\omega_f are distinguished by their argument: a subset of AA in the first, a point of AA in the second. Where confusion is possible the first is written ωf(S)\omega_f(S) with SS named as a set.

Both values are well posed; point oscillation and nonempty-set oscillation are nonnegative

The set in the first display is nonempty whenever SS is, since x=ySx = y \in S gives the value f(x)f(x)=0|f(x) - f(x)| = 0; so ωf(S)0\omega_f(S) \ge 0 for nonempty SS, and ωf(S)=sup=\omega_f(S) = \sup \varnothing = -\infty for S=S = \varnothing (Every subset of R\overline{\mathbb{R}} has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in R\mathbb{R}). Only nonempty SS occurs below.

The set in the second display is nonempty, since some real δ>0\delta > 0 exists, and each of its members is 0\ge 0: for cAc \in A the set ANδ(c)A \cap N_\delta(c) contains cc itself, because cc=0<δ|c - c| = 0 < \delta, so it is nonempty and ωf(ANδ(c))0\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) \ge 0 (Basic properties of the absolute value). Hence 00 is a lower bound of that set and

0    ωf(c)    ωf(ANδ(c))for every real δ>0,0 \;\le\; \omega_f(c) \;\le\; \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) \qquad \text{for every real } \delta > 0,

the second inequality because ωf(c)\omega_f(c) is a lower bound of the set of which ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) is a member. In particular ωf(c)\omega_f(c) is never -\infty.

Monotonicity, and the case of a bounded ff

ωf\omega_f is monotone under inclusion. If STAS \subseteq T \subseteq A then every value f(x)f(y)|f(x) - f(y)| with x,ySx, y \in S is also a value with x,yTx, y \in T, so the first set of values is contained in the second and ωf(S)ωf(T)\omega_f(S) \le \omega_f(T): a supremum of a subset is at most the supremum of the set. Consequently δωf(ANδ(c))\delta \mapsto \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) is nondecreasing in δ\delta, since δδ\delta \le \delta' gives Nδ(c)Nδ(c)N_\delta(c) \subseteq N_{\delta'}(c) (The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

When ff is bounded, nonempty-set and point oscillations are real. Suppose there is a real MM with f(x)M|f(x)| \le M for every xAx \in A (Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set). Then for x,yAx, y \in A,

f(x)f(y)    f(x)+f(y)    2M|f(x) - f(y)| \;\le\; |f(x)| + |f(y)| \;\le\; 2M

(The triangle inequality, Basic properties of the absolute value), so ωf(S)2M\omega_f(S) \le 2M for every SAS \subseteq A. If SS is nonempty, ωf(S)\omega_f(S) is a real number in [0,2M][0,2M], and every point oscillation is also a real number in [0,2M][0,2M]: the supremum of a nonempty subset of R\mathbb{R} that is bounded above in R\mathbb{R} is the real supremum (Every subset of R\overline{\mathbb{R}} has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in R\mathbb{R}, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Greatest lower bound (infimum)). The convention ωf()=\omega_f(\varnothing)=-\infty remains the single empty-set exception. Apart from that exception, an infinite extended value can occur only when ff is unbounded.

The notation. The letter is ω\omega throughout this library, never "osc\operatorname{osc}", and the function is always in the subscript.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at cAc \in A if and only if ωf(c)=0\omega_f(c) = 0

Statement

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}, let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} and let cAc \in A. Then

f is continuous at cωf(c)=0f \text{ is continuous at } c \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \omega_f(c) = 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 oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals).

Since ωf(c)0\omega_f(c) \ge 0 always (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals), the equivalent form of the right-hand side is: for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with ωf(ANδ(c))<ε\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) < \varepsilon.

This is the tool that converts a pointwise condition into a set condition. Continuity at cc is a statement about ff near cc with a quantifier over ε\varepsilon; ωf(c)=0\omega_f(c) = 0 is the vanishing of a single extended real attached to the point. The change of form is what makes the discontinuity set accessible: the sets {x:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} are closed (For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set {xA:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} is the intersection with AA of a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}; in particular it is closed in R\mathbb{R} when A=RA = \mathbb{R}) and their union over ε=1,1/2,1/3,\varepsilon = 1, 1/2, 1/3, \dots is the discontinuity set (For f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} the set of points of AA at which ff is discontinuous is the intersection with AA of an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R}, and the set of points at which ff is continuous is the intersection with AA of a GδG_\delta subset; for A=RA = \mathbb{R} the two sets are FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta outright).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}, a function f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}, and a point cAc \in A.

[L1]

ff is continuous at cc exactly when for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)f(c)<ε|f(x) - f(c)| < \varepsilon for every xAx \in A with xc<δ|x - c| < \delta; equivalently for every xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c) (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}).

[L2]

ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\} and ωf(c)=inf{ωf(ANδ(c)):δ>0}\omega_f(c) = \inf\{\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) : \delta > 0\}, both in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}; 0ωf(c)ωf(ANδ(c))0 \le \omega_f(c) \le \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) for every real δ>0\delta > 0, and cANδ(c)c \in A \cap N_\delta(c) (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals, The extended real line R=R{,+}\overline{\mathbb{R}} = \mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty, +\infty\}, its order, and the arithmetic that is left undefined).

[L3]

In R\overline{\mathbb{R}} every subset has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound; a supremum is at most an extended real uu exactly when uu bounds every member of the set, and an infimum is at least an extended real \ell exactly when \ell bounds every member from below (Every subset of R\overline{\mathbb{R}} has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in R\mathbb{R}).

[L4]

uwuv+vw|u - w| \le |u - v| + |v - w| and u0|u| \ge 0 for reals u,v,wu, v, w (Basic properties of the absolute value).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Suppose ff is continuous at cc and let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real. Take δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)f(c)<ε/2|f(x) - f(c)| < \varepsilon/2 for every xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c).

L1
1.2

Conversely, suppose ωf(c)=0\omega_f(c) = 0 and let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real. Not every member of {ωf(ANδ(c)):δ>0}\{\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) : \delta > 0\} can be ε\ge \varepsilon, for then ε\varepsilon would be a lower bound of that set and the infimum ωf(c)=0\omega_f(c) = 0 would satisfy 0ε0 \ge \varepsilon. So there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with ωf(ANδ(c))<ε\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) < \varepsilon.

L2L3
2.1

For x,yANδ(c)x, y \in A \cap N_\delta(c) with δ\delta as in step 1.1, f(x)f(y)f(x)f(c)+f(c)f(y)<ε/2+ε/2=ε|f(x) - f(y)| \le |f(x) - f(c)| + |f(c) - f(y)| < \varepsilon/2 + \varepsilon/2 = \varepsilon; so ε\varepsilon is an upper bound of the set whose supremum is ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)), and therefore ωf(ANδ(c))ε\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) \le \varepsilon.

step 1.1L2L3L4
2.2

With δ\delta as in step 1.2 and any xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c): both xx and cc lie in ANδ(c)A \cap N_\delta(c), so f(x)f(c)|f(x) - f(c)| is one of the values whose supremum is ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) and therefore f(x)f(c)ωf(ANδ(c))<ε|f(x) - f(c)| \le \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) < \varepsilon.

step 1.2L2L3
3.1

Hence 0ωf(c)ε0 \le \omega_f(c) \le \varepsilon for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0. If ωf(c)\omega_f(c) were not 00 it would satisfy 0<ωf(c)10 < \omega_f(c) \le 1, hence be a positive real, and taking ε:=ωf(c)/2\varepsilon := \omega_f(c)/2 would give ωf(c)ωf(c)/2\omega_f(c) \le \omega_f(c)/2, which is false for a positive real. So ωf(c)=0\omega_f(c) = 0.

step 2.1L2L3
4.1

Since ε>0\varepsilon > 0 was arbitrary in step 1.2, the continuity condition holds at cc, and ff is continuous at cc. Together with step 3.1 this proves the equivalence.

step 3.1step 2.2L1

Remarks

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set {xA:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} is the intersection with AA of a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}; in particular it is closed in R\mathbb{R} when A=RA = \mathbb{R}

Statement

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}, let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} and let εR\varepsilon \in \mathbb{R} with ε>0\varepsilon > 0. Put

Eε  :=  {xA:ωf(x)ε}E_\varepsilon \;:=\; \{\, x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon \,\}

(The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals). Then there is a closed GRG \subseteq \mathbb{R} (Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen) with

Eε  =  AG.E_\varepsilon \;=\; A \cap G .

In particular, if A=RA = \mathbb{R} then EεE_\varepsilon is itself a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}.

The set GG is produced explicitly and does not depend on any choice: it is the complement of

U  :=  {yR:ωf(ANρ(y))<ε  for some real ρ>0},U \;:=\; \{\, y \in \mathbb{R} : \omega_f(A \cap N_\rho(y)) < \varepsilon \ \text{ for some real } \rho > 0 \,\},

which the proof shows to be open. Note that yy ranges over all of R\mathbb{R} here and not only over AA; the expression ωf(ANρ(y))\omega_f(A \cap N_\rho(y)) is the oscillation of ff on a subset of AA and makes sense for every real yy, taking the value sup=\sup \varnothing = -\infty when ANρ(y)=A \cap N_\rho(y) = \varnothing (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals, Every subset of R\overline{\mathbb{R}} has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in R\mathbb{R}).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}, a function f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}, and a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0.

[L1]

ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\} in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, and ωf(S)ωf(T)\omega_f(S) \le \omega_f(T) whenever STAS \subseteq T \subseteq A; for cAc \in A, ωf(c)=inf{ωf(ANδ(c)):δ>0}\omega_f(c) = \inf\{\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) : \delta > 0\} (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals, The extended real line R=R{,+}\overline{\mathbb{R}} = \mathbb{R} \cup \{-\infty, +\infty\}, its order, and the arithmetic that is left undefined).

[L2]

In R\overline{\mathbb{R}} every subset has a greatest lower bound; an infimum is \ge an extended real \ell exactly when \ell bounds the set from below, and the infimum is \le every member of the set (Every subset of R\overline{\mathbb{R}} has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound in R\overline{\mathbb{R}}, agreeing with the real supremum and infimum on nonempty sets bounded in R\mathbb{R}).

[L3]

Nδ(x)={y:yx<δ}N_\delta(x) = \{y : |y - x| < \delta\}; if yx<ρ/2|y - x| < \rho/2 then Nρ/2(y)Nρ(x)N_{\rho/2}(y) \subseteq N_\rho(x), since zy<ρ/2|z - y| < \rho/2 gives zxzy+yx<ρ|z - x| \le |z - y| + |y - x| < \rho (The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

[L4]

URU \subseteq \mathbb{R} is open when every point of UU has a neighbourhood contained in UU, and GRG \subseteq \mathbb{R} is closed exactly when RG\mathbb{R} \setminus G is open (Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Define U:={yR:ωf(ANρ(y))<εU := \{\, y \in \mathbb{R} : \omega_f(A \cap N_\rho(y)) < \varepsilon for some real ρ>0}\rho > 0 \,\} and G:=RUG := \mathbb{R} \setminus U.

construct
2.1

UU is open. Let yUy \in U with witness ρ>0\rho > 0, and let zNρ/2(y)z \in N_{\rho/2}(y). Then Nρ/2(z)Nρ(y)N_{\rho/2}(z) \subseteq N_\rho(y), hence ANρ/2(z)ANρ(y)A \cap N_{\rho/2}(z) \subseteq A \cap N_\rho(y), hence ωf(ANρ/2(z))ωf(ANρ(y))<ε\omega_f(A \cap N_{\rho/2}(z)) \le \omega_f(A \cap N_\rho(y)) < \varepsilon, so zUz \in U with witness ρ/2\rho/2. Thus Nρ/2(y)UN_{\rho/2}(y) \subseteq U.

step 1.1L1L3L4
2.2

Let xAx \in A with xUx \notin U. Then ωf(ANδ(x))ε\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(x)) \ge \varepsilon for every real δ>0\delta > 0, so ε\varepsilon is a lower bound of the set whose infimum is ωf(x)\omega_f(x), and therefore ωf(x)ε\omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon, that is xEεx \in E_\varepsilon.

step 1.1L1L2
2.3

Let xEεx \in E_\varepsilon, so xAx \in A and ωf(x)ε\omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon. For every real δ>0\delta > 0 the value ωf(ANδ(x))\omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(x)) is at least the infimum ωf(x)\omega_f(x), hence at least ε\varepsilon; so no ρ\rho witnesses membership of xx in UU, that is xUx \notin U.

step 1.1L1L2
3.1

GG is closed, being the complement of the open set UU.

step 1.1step 2.1L4
4.1

Steps 2.2 and 2.3 together say that for xAx \in A one has xEεx \in E_\varepsilon if and only if xGx \in G; hence Eε=AGE_\varepsilon = A \cap G with GG closed.

step 3.1step 2.2step 2.3
5.1

If A=RA = \mathbb{R} then Eε=RG=GE_\varepsilon = \mathbb{R} \cap G = G is closed in R\mathbb{R}.

step 4.1L4

Remarks

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

For f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} the set of points of AA at which ff is discontinuous is the intersection with AA of an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R}, and the set of points at which ff is continuous is the intersection with AA of a GδG_\delta subset; for A=RA = \mathbb{R} the two sets are FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta outright

Statement

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}. Write

D  :=  {xA:f is discontinuous at x},C  :=  ADD \;:=\; \{\, x \in A : f \text{ is discontinuous at } x \,\}, \qquad C \;:=\; A \setminus D

(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, Discontinuity of ff at a point of its domain, and its classification: removable discontinuity, jump discontinuity and essential discontinuity, equivalently Rudin's discontinuities of the first and of the second kind). Then:

  1. Pointwise exhaustion. D={xA:ωf(x)>0}D = \{\, x \in A : \omega_f(x) > 0 \,\} (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals), and DD is the union of the increasing sequence of superlevel sets D  =  nN{xA:ωf(x)1/ι(n+1)}D \;=\; \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \{\, x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge 1/\iota(n+1) \,\} (The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field), whose thresholds are 1,1/2,1/3,1, 1/2, 1/3, \dots.
  2. Descriptive form. There is an FσF_\sigma set FRF \subseteq \mathbb{R} and a GδG_\delta set VRV \subseteq \mathbb{R} (FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta subsets of R\mathbb{R}) with D  =  AF,C  =  AV,V=RF,D \;=\; A \cap F, \qquad C \;=\; A \cap V, \qquad V = \mathbb{R} \setminus F , and FF may be taken to be nNGn\bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} G_n with each GnG_n a closed subset of R\mathbb{R} cutting down on AA to the nn-th set of claim 1 (For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set {xA:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} is the intersection with AA of a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}; in particular it is closed in R\mathbb{R} when A=RA = \mathbb{R}).

In particular, when A=RA = \mathbb{R} the discontinuity set DD is an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R} and the continuity set CC is a GδG_\delta subset, and claim 1 reads D=n{xR:ωf(x)1/ι(n+1)}D = \bigcup_{n} \{\, x \in \mathbb{R} : \omega_f(x) \ge 1/\iota(n+1) \,\}.

Claim 1 is stated separately because it is what is cited downstream. The exhaustion of DD by the superlevel sets {ωf1/ι(n+1)}\{\omega_f \ge 1/\iota(n+1)\} is used directly wherever a property has to be established one threshold at a time — Baire's theorem: a Baire class one function on a closed bounded interval [a,b][a,b] is continuous at the points of a dense subset of [a,b][a,b] that is the trace of a GδG_\delta set, so its set of discontinuities is meager shows each superlevel set nowhere dense and concludes that DD is meager — and that use needs the identity itself, not only the descriptive conclusion of claim 2.

The statement is relative on purpose. For a general domain AA the sets DD and CC are subsets of AA, and neither is FσF_\sigma or GδG_\delta in R\mathbb{R} in general; what the proof produces are two subsets of R\mathbb{R} that cut down to them. The absolute form is stated only for A=RA = \mathbb{R}, which is the case Every GδG_\delta subset of R\mathbb{R} is the set of continuity points of some f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, so the GδG_\delta sets are exactly the continuity sets and No function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational, because Q\mathbb{Q} is not GδG_\delta use.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and a function f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}.

[L2]

For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a closed GRG \subseteq \mathbb{R} with {xA:ωf(x)ε}=AG\{x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\} = A \cap G (For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set {xA:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} is the intersection with AA of a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}; in particular it is closed in R\mathbb{R} when A=RA = \mathbb{R}).

[L3]

For every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/ι(m)<η1/\iota(m) < \eta, where ι(m)\iota(m) is the canonical natural of mm in R\mathbb{R}; and ι\iota is strictly increasing and positive on the naturals 1\ge 1 (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field, Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing).

[L4]

A subset of R\mathbb{R} is FσF_\sigma when it is the union of a sequence of closed sets and GδG_\delta when it is the intersection of a sequence of open sets; SS is FσF_\sigma if and only if RS\mathbb{R} \setminus S is GδG_\delta (FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta subsets of R\mathbb{R}, Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

For each nNn \in \mathbb{N} put εn:=1/ι(n+1)\varepsilon_n := 1/\iota(n+1), a positive real since n+11n + 1 \ge 1, and let GnRG_n \subseteq \mathbb{R} be closed with {xA:ωf(x)εn}=AGn\{x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon_n\} = A \cap G_n.

L2L3construct
1.2

D={xA:ωf(x)>0}D = \{\, x \in A : \omega_f(x) > 0 \,\}: a point xAx \in A is a discontinuity exactly when ωf(x)0\omega_f(x) \ne 0, and ωf(x)0\omega_f(x) \ge 0 always, so exactly when ωf(x)>0\omega_f(x) > 0.

L1
2.1

DnN(AGn)D \subseteq \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} (A \cap G_n). Let xDx \in D, so ωf(x)>0\omega_f(x) > 0. If ωf(x)ε0=1\omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon_0 = 1 then xAG0x \in A \cap G_0. Otherwise 0<ωf(x)<10 < \omega_f(x) < 1, so ωf(x)\omega_f(x) is a positive real, and there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/ι(m)<ωf(x)1/\iota(m) < \omega_f(x); writing m=n+1m = n + 1 with nNn \in \mathbb{N} gives ωf(x)>εn\omega_f(x) > \varepsilon_n, hence xAGnx \in A \cap G_n.

step 1.1step 1.2L3
2.2

Conversely nN(AGn)D\bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} (A \cap G_n) \subseteq D: if xAGnx \in A \cap G_n then ωf(x)εn>0\omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon_n > 0, so xDx \in D.

step 1.1step 1.2L3
3.1

Put F:=nNGnF := \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} G_n, an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R} since each GnG_n is closed and the family is indexed by N\mathbb{N}. Then AF=n(AGn)=DA \cap F = \bigcup_{n} (A \cap G_n) = D.

step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2L4
3.2

Claim 1 is proved: D={xA:ωf(x)>0}D = \{x \in A : \omega_f(x) > 0\} by step 1.2, and D=nN{xA:ωf(x)εn}D = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \{x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon_n\} by steps 2.1 and 2.2, since AGnA \cap G_n is by step 1.1 exactly the set {xA:ωf(x)εn}\{x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon_n\} with εn=1/ι(n+1)\varepsilon_n = 1/\iota(n+1). The union is increasing, since nmn \le m gives ι(n+1)ι(m+1)\iota(n+1) \le \iota(m+1) and hence εmεn\varepsilon_m \le \varepsilon_n.

step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1step 2.2L3
4.1

Put V:=RFV := \mathbb{R} \setminus F, a GδG_\delta subset of R\mathbb{R}. Then AV=A(AF)=AD=CA \cap V = A \setminus (A \cap F) = A \setminus D = C.

step 3.1L4
5.1

Claim 2 is proved by steps 3.1 and 4.1; and for A=RA = \mathbb{R} the two identities read D=FD = F and C=VC = V, so DD is FσF_\sigma and CC is GδG_\delta outright.

step 3.1step 3.2step 4.1

Remarks

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

The Dirichlet function 1Q1_{\mathbb{Q}}, and Thomae's function tt with t(x)=1/qt(x) = 1/q at a rational x=p/qx = p/q in lowest terms with q1q \ge 1 and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 at every irrational xx

Definition

Throughout, NZQR\mathbb{N} \subseteq \mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} denotes the chain of canonical embeddings (The naturals embed in the integers, The integers embed in the rationals, The rationals embed densely in the reals), and each set is identified with its image in R\mathbb{R}, as elsewhere in this library; for a natural qq the real ι(q)=q1R\iota(q) = q \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}} is the canonical natural (The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field), and ι(q)>0\iota(q) > 0 for q1q \ge 1 (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing). A real is rational when it lies in Q\mathbb{Q} and irrational otherwise; both sets are dense in R\mathbb{R} (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).

The Dirichlet function

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}

This is the indicator of the rationals. It is a function because every real either lies in Q\mathbb{Q} or does not, and the two clauses are exclusive.

The least denominator of a rational

Let xQx \in \mathbb{Q} and put

Q(x)  :=  {qN  :  q1  and  ι(q)xZ}.Q(x) \;:=\; \{\, q \in \mathbb{N} \;:\; q \ge 1 \ \text{ and } \ \iota(q)\,x \in \mathbb{Z} \,\}.

Q(x)Q(x) is nonempty. Every rational is a/ba/b with aZa \in \mathbb{Z} and bb a positive integer (The integers embed in the rationals), and a positive integer is ι(q)\iota(q) for a unique natural q1q \ge 1 (The naturals embed in the integers); then ι(q)x=aZ\iota(q)\,x = a \in \mathbb{Z}, so qQ(x)q \in Q(x).

By the well-ordering principle (The well-ordering principle) the nonempty subset Q(x)NQ(x) \subseteq \mathbb{N} has a least element. Write

q(x)  :=  minQ(x)    1,q(x) \;:=\; \min Q(x) \;\ge\; 1,

the least denominator of xx, and p(x):=ι(q(x))xZp(x) := \iota(q(x))\,x \in \mathbb{Z}, so that

x  =  p(x)ι(q(x)).x \;=\; \frac{p(x)}{\iota(q(x))} .

Nothing is selected here: q(x)q(x) is the least element of a set determined by xx, so it is a function of xx alone.

The least denominator is the denominator in lowest terms. The integers p(x)p(x) and q(x)q(x) are coprime (Coprime integers: gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1). Indeed put d:=gcd(p(x),q(x))d := \gcd(p(x), q(x)), which satisfies d1d \ge 1 because q(x)1q(x) \ge 1 makes the pair different from (0,0)(0,0) (gcd\gcd is symmetric and unchanged by signs: gcd(a,b)=gcd(b,a)=gcd(a,b)\gcd(a,b) = \gcd(b,a) = \gcd(|a|,|b|); moreover gcd(a,0)=a\gcd(a,0) = |a|, gcd(a,1)=1\gcd(a,1) = 1, gcd(a,a)=a\gcd(a,a) = |a|, and gcd(a,b)1\gcd(a,b) \ge 1 unless a=b=0a = b = 0, Common divisor, and the greatest common divisor gcd(a,b)\gcd(a,b), with the convention gcd(0,0):=0\gcd(0,0) := 0). Then dd divides q(x)q(x), so q(x)/dq(x)/d is a natural number 1\ge 1, and ι(q(x)/d)=ι(q(x))/d\iota(q(x)/d) = \iota(q(x))/d because ι\iota carries products of naturals to products (Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing); hence

ι(q(x)/d)x  =  ι(q(x))xd  =  p(x)d    Z,\iota(q(x)/d)\,x \;=\; \frac{\iota(q(x))\,x}{d} \;=\; \frac{p(x)}{d} \;\in\; \mathbb{Z},

so q(x)/dQ(x)q(x)/d \in Q(x) and therefore q(x)/dq(x)q(x)/d \ge q(x), which forces d=1d = 1. Conversely, a lowest-terms denominator is the least one, so the description is unambiguous. Suppose x=p/ι(q)x = p/\iota(q) with q1q \ge 1 a natural, pZp \in \mathbb{Z} and gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1. Then qQ(x)q \in Q(x), so q0:=q(x)qq_{0} := q(x) \le q; and from p/ι(q)=p(x)/ι(q0)p/\iota(q) = p(x)/\iota(q_{0}) we get q0p=qp(x)q_{0}p = q\,p(x) in Z\mathbb{Z}, so qq0pq \mid q_{0}p, and gcd(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q) = 1 gives qq0q \mid q_{0} (If gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1 and abca \mid bc then aca \mid c; and if aca \mid c, bcb \mid c and gcd(a,b)=1\gcd(a,b) = 1 then abcab \mid c, claim 1), hence qq0q \le q_{0}. So q=q(x)q = q(x): writing x=p/qx = p/q "in lowest terms with q1q \ge 1" and taking q=q(x)q = q(x) describe the same integer, and If d=gcd(a,b)d = \gcd(a,b) is nonzero then a/da/d and b/db/d are coprime is what produces such a representation from an arbitrary one.

Thomae's function

t:RR,t(x):={1/ι(q(x))if xQ,0if xQ.t : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, \qquad t(x) := \begin{cases} 1/\iota(q(x)) & \text{if } x \in \mathbb{Q},\\ 0 & \text{if } x \notin \mathbb{Q}.\end{cases}

It is also called the popcorn function or the ruler function. The value is well defined because q(x)q(x) is, and ι(q(x))1>0\iota(q(x)) \ge 1 > 0 is invertible.

Boundary values, stated rather than left to the reader.

  • t(0)=1t(0) = 1. Indeed ι(1)0=0Z\iota(1)\cdot 0 = 0 \in \mathbb{Z}, so 1Q(0)1 \in Q(0) and q(0)=1q(0) = 1; the representation is 0=0/10 = 0/1.
  • t(m)=1t(m) = 1 for every integer mm, by the same computation with 1Q(m)1 \in Q(m).
  • 0<t(x)10 < t(x) \le 1 for every rational xx, since ι(q(x))1\iota(q(x)) \ge 1; and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 exactly at the irrationals.

On the range. The values of tt are 00 and the reciprocals 1/ι(q)1/\iota(q) of the canonical naturals q1q \ge 1; every such value is attained, 1/ι(q)1/\iota(q) being the value at the rational 1/ι(q)1/\iota(q) itself, whose least denominator is qq because ι(k)/ι(q)Z\iota(k)/\iota(q) \in \mathbb{Z} with 1k<q1 \le k < q would give a positive integer smaller than 11.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

The Dirichlet function is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}, and Thomae's function is continuous at every irrational and at no rational, so its set of continuity points is exactly the set of irrationals and its oscillation at cc equals t(c)t(c)

Statement

Let 1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} and tt be the Dirichlet and Thomae functions (The Dirichlet function 1Q1_{\mathbb{Q}}, and Thomae's function tt with t(x)=1/qt(x) = 1/q at a rational x=p/qx = p/q in lowest terms with q1q \ge 1 and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 at every irrational xx), and write q(x)q(x) for the least denominator of a rational xx, so that t(x)=1/ι(q(x))t(x) = 1/\iota(q(x)) there and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 at every irrational xx. Then:

  1. 1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} is continuous at no point of 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. ωt(c)=t(c)\omega_{t}(c) = t(c) for every real cc (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals);
  3. tt is continuous at every irrational and discontinuous at every rational, so its set of continuity points is exactly RQ\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q}.

Claim 1 restates, on this page, what The indicator of Q\mathbb{Q} is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R} already proves. That item is homed on the examples page of Continuity, the intermediate and extreme value theorems, and uniform continuity, and an examples page is a leaf of this library: nothing outside it may depend on an item that lives there. The claim is needed here, and on later pages, as a citable statement, so it is proved again rather than quoted. The two statements are the same statement, and neither is stronger than the other; the proof below is the same argument, and no originality is claimed for it. This is the pattern 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} follows.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Dirichlet function 1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} and Thomae's function tt, and a real cc; NZQR\mathbb{N} \subseteq \mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} are the canonical copies and ι(q)=q1R\iota(q) = q \cdot 1_{\mathbb{R}}.

[A1]

1Q(x)=1\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(x) = 1 for xQx \in \mathbb{Q} and 00 otherwise; t(x)=1/ι(q(x))(0,1]t(x) = 1/\iota(q(x)) \in (0,1] for xQx \in \mathbb{Q} and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 otherwise, where q(x)=min{q1:ι(q)xZ}q(x) = \min\{q \ge 1 : \iota(q)x \in \mathbb{Z}\} (The Dirichlet function 1Q1_{\mathbb{Q}}, and Thomae's function tt with t(x)=1/qt(x) = 1/q at a rational x=p/qx = p/q in lowest terms with q1q \ge 1 and t(x)=0t(x) = 0 at every irrational xx).

[L2]

For every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m+1, written x\lfloor x \rfloor (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1); consequently no integer lies strictly between two consecutive integers.

[L3]

For every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural N1N \ge 1 with 1/ι(N)<η1/\iota(N) < \eta; and ι\iota is positive and strictly increasing on the naturals 1\ge 1, so 1qN1 \le q \le N gives ι(q)ι(N)\iota(q) \le \iota(N) and 1/ι(N)1/ι(q)1/\iota(N) \le 1/\iota(q) (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field, Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing).

[L4]

A nonempty finite set of reals presented as {a0,,an}\{a_{0}, \dots, a_{n}\} has a minimum (Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum, Maximum and minimum of a set).

[L6]

u0|u| \ge 0, uvu+v|u - v| \le |u| + |v|, and if 0uM0 \le u \le M and 0vM0 \le v \le M then uvM|u - v| \le M (Basic properties of the absolute value).

Proof

technique · cases
1.1

Claim 1. Let cc be real and let δ>0\delta > 0 be real. The neighbourhood Nδ(c)N_\delta(c) contains a rational uu and an irrational vv, and 1Q(u)1Q(v)=10=1\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(u) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(v) = 1 - 0 = 1; since 1Q(c)\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c) is 00 or 11, one of 1Q(u)1Q(c)|\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(u) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c)| and 1Q(v)1Q(c)|\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(v) - \mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}}(c)| equals 11. So the continuity condition at cc fails for ε=1\varepsilon = 1, no δ\delta witnessing it, and 1Q\mathbf{1}_{\mathbb{Q}} is continuous at no point.

A1L1
1.2

A separation estimate. For a real cc and a natural q1q \ge 1 put m:=ι(q)cm := \lfloor \iota(q)c \rfloor and define dq(c):=1/ι(q)d_{q}(c) := 1/\iota(q) if ι(q)c=m\iota(q)c = m, and dq(c):=min{ι(q)cm, m+1ι(q)c}/ι(q)d_{q}(c) := \min\{\iota(q)c - m,\ m + 1 - \iota(q)c\}/\iota(q) otherwise. In both cases dq(c)>0d_{q}(c) > 0.

L2L3construct
1.3

A lower bound. For every real δ>0\delta > 0 the neighbourhood Nδ(c)N_\delta(c) contains an irrational vv, and cNδ(c)c \in N_\delta(c), so ωt(Nδ(c))t(c)t(v)=t(c)\omega_{t}(N_\delta(c)) \ge |t(c) - t(v)| = t(c); taking the infimum over δ\delta gives ωt(c)t(c)\omega_{t}(c) \ge t(c).

A1L1L5
2.1

With dq(c)d_{q}(c) as in step 1.2: for every integer pp with p/ι(q)cp/\iota(q) \ne c one has cp/ι(q)dq(c)|c - p/\iota(q)| \ge d_{q}(c). If ι(q)c=m\iota(q)c = m then pmp \ne m, so ι(q)cp=mp1|\iota(q)c - p| = |m - p| \ge 1; otherwise m<ι(q)c<m+1m < \iota(q)c < m+1, and pmp \le m gives ι(q)cpι(q)cm\iota(q)c - p \ge \iota(q)c - m while pm+1p \ge m+1 gives pι(q)cm+1ι(q)cp - \iota(q)c \ge m+1-\iota(q)c. Dividing by ι(q)>0\iota(q) > 0 gives the claim.

step 1.2L2L3
2.2

For a real cc and a natural N1N \ge 1 put δN(c):=min{d1(c),,dN(c)}\delta_{N}(c) := \min\{d_{1}(c), \dots, d_{N}(c)\}, the minimum of a nonempty finite set of positive reals, so δN(c)>0\delta_{N}(c) > 0.

step 1.2L4construct
3.1

If xx is rational with 0<xc<δN(c)0 < |x - c| < \delta_{N}(c) then q(x)>Nq(x) > N and hence t(x)<1/ι(N)t(x) < 1/\iota(N). Indeed x=p/ι(q)x = p/\iota(q) with q:=q(x)q := q(x) and p:=ι(q)xp := \iota(q)x; if qNq \le N then p/ι(q)=xcp/\iota(q) = x \ne c, so step 2.1 gives cxdq(c)δN(c)|c - x| \ge d_{q}(c) \ge \delta_{N}(c), contrary to the hypothesis. So q(x)>Nq(x) > N, and t(x)=1/ι(q(x))<1/ι(N)t(x) = 1/\iota(q(x)) < 1/\iota(N) because ι\iota is strictly increasing.

step 2.1step 2.2A1L3
4.1

An upper bound for tt near cc. Let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real, take N1N \ge 1 with 1/ι(N)<ε1/\iota(N) < \varepsilon and put δ:=δN(c)\delta := \delta_{N}(c). Every xNδ(c)x \in N_\delta(c) satisfies 0t(x)M0 \le t(x) \le M where M:=max{t(c),ε}M := \max\{t(c), \varepsilon\}: for x=cx = c this is t(c)Mt(c) \le M; for xcx \ne c rational it is t(x)<1/ι(N)<εMt(x) < 1/\iota(N) < \varepsilon \le M by step 3.1; and for xx irrational it is t(x)=0t(x) = 0.

step 3.1A1L3L6
5.1

Hence ωt(Nδ(c))M\omega_{t}(N_\delta(c)) \le M with δ\delta and MM as in step 4.1, since t(x)t(y)M|t(x) - t(y)| \le M for all x,yNδ(c)x, y \in N_\delta(c), so MM is an upper bound of the set whose supremum ωt(Nδ(c))\omega_{t}(N_\delta(c)) is; and therefore ωt(c)M=max{t(c),ε}\omega_{t}(c) \le M = \max\{t(c), \varepsilon\}.

step 4.1L5L6
6.1

Claim 2 now follows in the two cases of the value t(c)t(c), which are exactly the two cases of the position of cc. If cc is rational then t(c)>0t(c) > 0, and applying step 5.1 with the admissible choice ε:=t(c)\varepsilon := t(c) gives ωt(c)max{t(c),t(c)}=t(c)\omega_{t}(c) \le \max\{t(c), t(c)\} = t(c); with step 1.3 this gives ωt(c)=t(c)\omega_{t}(c) = t(c).

step 5.1step 1.3A1assume-case rat
6.2

If cc is irrational then t(c)=0t(c) = 0, and step 5.1 gives ωt(c)max{0,ε}=ε\omega_{t}(c) \le \max\{0, \varepsilon\} = \varepsilon for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0; since also ωt(c)0\omega_{t}(c) \ge 0, an extended real that is ε\le \varepsilon for every positive real ε\varepsilon and 0\ge 0 must be 00, so ωt(c)=0=t(c)\omega_{t}(c) = 0 = t(c).

step 5.1step 1.3A1L5assume-case irr
7.1

Every real is rational or irrational and not both, so steps 6.1 and 6.2 establish claim 2 for every real cc.

step 6.1step 6.2cases-exhaustive
8.1

Claim 3 follows from claim 2: tt is continuous at cc exactly when ωt(c)=0\omega_{t}(c) = 0, that is exactly when t(c)=0t(c) = 0, that is exactly when cc is irrational. So the continuity set of tt is RQ\mathbb{R} \setminus \mathbb{Q} and its discontinuity set is Q\mathbb{Q}.

step 7.1A1L5

Remarks

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-08-09 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)Open item page →

Every GδG_\delta subset of R\mathbb{R} is the set of continuity points of some f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, so the GδG_\delta sets are exactly the continuity sets

Statement

Let GRG \subseteq \mathbb{R} be a GδG_\delta set (FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta subsets of R\mathbb{R}). Then there is a function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} whose set of continuity points (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) is exactly GG.

Together with For f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} the set of points of AA at which ff is discontinuous is the intersection with AA of an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R}, and the set of points at which ff is continuous is the intersection with AA of a GδG_\delta subset; for A=RA = \mathbb{R} the two sets are FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta outright, which says that the continuity set of every f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is a GδG_\delta set, this identifies the two classes:

{continuity sets of functions RR}  =  {Gδ subsets of R}.\{\, \text{continuity sets of functions } \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} \,\} \;=\; \{\, G_\delta \text{ subsets of } \mathbb{R} \,\} .

The construction. Write G=nNVnG = \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} V_n with each VnV_n open and put Wn:=V0VnW_n := V_0 \cap \dots \cap V_n, so that the WnW_n are open and decreasing with nWn=G\bigcap_n W_n = G. For xGx \notin G let n(x)n(x) be the least nn with xWnx \notin W_n, and set

f(x):=0  for xG,f(x):=1ι(n(x)+1)  for xG, xQ,f(x):=1ι(n(x)+1)  for xG, xQ.f(x) := 0 \ \text{ for } x \in G, \qquad f(x) := \frac{1}{\iota(n(x)+1)} \ \text{ for } x \notin G,\ x \in \mathbb{Q}, \qquad f(x) := -\frac{1}{\iota(n(x)+1)} \ \text{ for } x \notin G,\ x \notin \mathbb{Q}.

The sign carries the whole of the discontinuity: near a point outside GG there are points of the opposite rationality, where ff has the opposite sign or is 00, and the values cannot come close.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A GδG_\delta set G=nNVnRG = \bigcap_{n \in \mathbb{N}} V_n \subseteq \mathbb{R} with each VnV_n open.

[L2]

Every nonempty subset of N\mathbb{N} has a least element (The well-ordering principle).

[L4]

For every real η>0\eta > 0 there is a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/ι(m)<η1/\iota(m) < \eta, and ι\iota is positive and strictly increasing on the naturals 1\ge 1, so j<kj < k gives 1/ι(k+1)<1/ι(j+1)1/\iota(k+1) < 1/\iota(j+1) (For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field, Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing).

Proof

technique · constructive
1.1

Put Wn:=jnVjW_n := \bigcap_{j \le n} V_j for nNn \in \mathbb{N}. Each WnW_n is open, being a finite intersection of open sets; Wn+1WnW_{n+1} \subseteq W_n; and nWn=nVn=G\bigcap_{n} W_n = \bigcap_{n} V_n = G, since a point lies in every WnW_n exactly when it lies in every VjV_j.

L1construct
2.1

For xGx \notin G the set {nN:xWn}\{\, n \in \mathbb{N} : x \notin W_n \,\} is nonempty, so n(x):=min{n:xWn}n(x) := \min\{\, n : x \notin W_n \,\} is defined; and xWjx \in W_j for every j<n(x)j < n(x), by minimality.

step 1.1L2construct
2.2

ff is continuous at every xGx \in G. Let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real and take a natural m1m \ge 1 with 1/ι(m)<ε1/\iota(m) < \varepsilon. Since xGWmx \in G \subseteq W_{m} and WmW_{m} is open, there is a real ρ>0\rho > 0 with Nρ(x)WmN_\rho(x) \subseteq W_{m}.

step 1.1L1L4
3.1

Define f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} by f(x):=0f(x) := 0 for xGx \in G, f(x):=1/ι(n(x)+1)f(x) := 1/\iota(n(x)+1) for xGx \notin G with xx rational, and f(x):=1/ι(n(x)+1)f(x) := -1/\iota(n(x)+1) for xGx \notin G with xx irrational. Then f(x)=0f(x) = 0 exactly for xGx \in G, since 1/ι(n+1)>01/\iota(n+1) > 0 for every nNn \in \mathbb{N}; moreover f(x)>0f(x) > 0 at a rational outside GG and f(x)<0f(x) < 0 at an irrational outside GG.

step 2.1L4construct
4.1

With mm and ρ\rho as in step 2.2, let yNρ(x)y \in N_\rho(x). If yGy \in G then f(y)=0f(y) = 0. If yGy \notin G then yWmy \in W_{m}, so n(y)mn(y) \ne m and indeed n(y)>mn(y) > m, because yWmy \in W_{m} forces yWjy \in W_j for every jmj \le m; hence f(y)=1/ι(n(y)+1)<1/ι(m)<ε|f(y)| = 1/\iota(n(y)+1) < 1/\iota(m) < \varepsilon, using n(y)+1>mn(y) + 1 > m. In both cases f(y)f(x)=f(y)<ε|f(y) - f(x)| = |f(y)| < \varepsilon, since f(x)=0f(x) = 0.

step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1step 2.2L4
4.2

ff is discontinuous at every xGx \notin G. Put ε:=1/ι(n(x)+1)>0\varepsilon := 1/\iota(n(x)+1) > 0, so that f(x)=ε|f(x)| = \varepsilon, and let δ>0\delta > 0 be real. If xx is rational then f(x)=ε>0f(x) = \varepsilon > 0; the neighbourhood Nδ(x)N_\delta(x) contains an irrational yy, and f(y)0f(y) \le 0, whether yGy \in G or not. If xx is irrational then f(x)=ε<0f(x) = -\varepsilon < 0; the neighbourhood Nδ(x)N_\delta(x) contains a rational yy, and f(y)0f(y) \ge 0.

step 2.1step 3.1L3
5.1

In either case of step 4.2 the point yy satisfies f(y)f(x)ε|f(y) - f(x)| \ge \varepsilon, since f(x)f(x) and f(y)f(y) have opposite weak signs and f(x)=ε|f(x)| = \varepsilon. So no δ\delta witnesses the continuity condition at xx for this ε\varepsilon, and ff is discontinuous at xx.

step 4.2
6.1

By steps 4.1 and 5.1 the set of continuity points of the function ff constructed in step 3.1 is exactly GG, which proves the theorem. Combined with the fact that every continuity set is GδG_\delta, the two classes coincide.

step 3.1step 4.1step 5.1L5discharge-construct

Remarks

  • Why the VnV_n are replaced by the decreasing WnW_n. The index n(x)n(x) is useful only because yWmy \in W_m implies yWjy \in W_j for all jmj \le m, which is what makes n(y)>mn(y) > m in step 4.1. For an arbitrary sequence (Vn)(V_n) that implication fails, and n(x)n(x) would carry no information about how deep xx sits in the intersection. Passing to the finite intersections costs nothing, since they are still open and still intersect to GG.

  • Two extreme cases. For G=RG = \mathbb{R} the construction gives f=0f = 0, continuous everywhere. For G=G = \varnothing, obtained as the intersection of the sequence constantly \varnothing, every xx lies outside W0=W_0 = \varnothing, so n(x)=0n(x) = 0 and ff takes the value 11 at every rational and 1-1 at every irrational; it is nowhere continuous, as the Dirichlet function is (The Dirichlet function is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}, and Thomae's function is continuous at every irrational and at no rational, so its set of continuity points is exactly the set of irrationals and its oscillation at cc equals t(c)t(c)).

  • The construction does not guarantee monotonicity, and the theorem does not claim it. The function built above always takes values in [1,1][-1,1], so it is bounded; no further behaviour beyond its continuity set is asserted.

CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

No function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational, because Q\mathbb{Q} is not GδG_\delta

Statement

There is no function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} that is continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational (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 rationals embed densely in the reals).

Equivalently: Q\mathbb{Q} is not the continuity set of any function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}.

The contrast with Thomae's function is the point. There is a function continuous exactly at the irrationals, namely tt (The Dirichlet function is continuous at no point of R\mathbb{R}, and Thomae's function is continuous at every irrational and at no rational, so its set of continuity points is exactly the set of irrationals and its oscillation at cc equals t(c)t(c)), and one might expect the two arrangements to be symmetric. They are not, because the classes FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta are exchanged by complementation while Q\mathbb{Q} and the irrationals are, and only one of the two sets is GδG_\delta (Q\mathbb{Q} is FσF_\sigma, meager and not GδG_\delta, while the irrationals are GδG_\delta, residual and not FσF_\sigma).

Facts & Assumptions

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1

Suppose, for contradiction, that there is f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} continuous at every rational and discontinuous at every irrational.

assume-contra
2.1

Then the set of continuity points of ff is exactly Q\mathbb{Q}: it contains every rational by hypothesis, and it contains no irrational, again by hypothesis.

step 1.1
3.1

By the GδG_\delta theorem the set of continuity points of ff is a GδG_\delta subset of R\mathbb{R}, so Q\mathbb{Q} is GδG_\delta. This contradicts the fact that Q\mathbb{Q} is not GδG_\delta, so no such ff exists.

step 2.1L1L2discharge-contradiction

Remarks

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

The intermediate value property (Darboux property) of a function on an interval: the image of every subinterval is order-convex

Definition

Let IRI \subseteq \mathbb{R} be order-convex (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length) and let f:IRf : I \to \mathbb{R}. Then ff has the intermediate value property, also called the Darboux property, when

f[J] is order-convex for every order-convex JI.f[J] \ \text{is order-convex for every order-convex } J \subseteq I .

As everywhere in this library, "interval" is read as "order-convex" (A subset of R\mathbb{R} is connected if and only if it is order-convex, that is, an interval is what licenses the word; Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length records that the classification of the order-convex subsets of R\mathbb{R} into the nine written forms is not proved here).

The equivalent pointwise form

ff has the intermediate value property if and only if

for all a,bIa, b \in I with a<ba < b and every real yy with f(a)yf(b)f(a) \le y \le f(b) or f(b)yf(a)f(b) \le y \le f(a), there is c[a,b]c \in [a,b] with f(c)=yf(c) = y.

From the displayed condition to the pointwise one. Given a<ba < b in II, the set [a,b][a,b] is order-convex and contained in II by order-convexity of II, so f[[a,b]]f[\,[a,b]\,] is order-convex; it contains f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b), hence every yy between them, and such a yy is f(c)f(c) for some c[a,b]c \in [a,b].

From the pointwise condition to the displayed one. Let JIJ \subseteq I be order-convex, let u,vf[J]u, v \in f[J] and let uyvu \le y \le v. Write u=f(a)u = f(a) and v=f(b)v = f(b) with a,bJa, b \in J. If a=ba = b then u=v=yu = v = y and yf[J]y \in f[J]. If a<ba < b, the pointwise condition gives c[a,b]c \in [a,b] with f(c)=yf(c) = y, and cJc \in J because JJ is order-convex and a,bJa, b \in J; so yf[J]y \in f[J]. If b<ab < a the same argument applies with the roles of aa and bb exchanged, the pointwise condition being stated symmetrically in the two orders. Hence f[J]f[J] is order-convex.

Both forms are used below, and they are used interchangeably.

Every continuous function on an interval has the property

If ff is continuous on II (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) then f[J]f[J] is order-convex for every order-convex JIJ \subseteq I (The image of an interval under a continuous real function is order-convex, hence an interval, and the image of a closed bounded interval is a closed bounded interval, claim 1). So continuity implies the intermediate value property.

The converse is false, and that is the whole reason the property is given a name of its own: a function may take every intermediate value on every subinterval and be continuous nowhere. The failure is recorded as FALSE: a function with the intermediate value property on an interval is continuous.

A monotone function with the intermediate value property is continuous. This is not a further theorem but a reading of A function on an interval satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y, whose image is order-convex, is continuous: for a function satisfying f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) whenever xyx \le y on an order-convex II, order-convexity of the single image f[I]f[I] already forces continuity. So the pathologies live entirely among the non-monotone functions.

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA

Definition

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}, let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} and let cAc \in A, with neighbourhoods as in The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}.

  • ff is upper semicontinuous at cc when for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)  <  f(c)+εfor every xANδ(c).f(x) \;<\; f(c) + \varepsilon \qquad \text{for every } x \in A \cap N_\delta(c).
  • ff is lower semicontinuous at cc when for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)  >  f(c)εfor every xANδ(c).f(x) \;>\; f(c) - \varepsilon \qquad \text{for every } x \in A \cap N_\delta(c).
  • ff is upper semicontinuous on AA, respectively lower semicontinuous on AA, when it is so at every point of AA.

In words: an upper semicontinuous function cannot jump up in the limit, and a lower semicontinuous one cannot jump down. Both conditions are pointwise, both quantify over the same unpunctured neighbourhoods as 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 at x=cx = c each holds automatically, since f(c)<f(c)+εf(c) < f(c) + \varepsilon and f(c)>f(c)εf(c) > f(c) - \varepsilon.

Continuity is exactly the conjunction

ff is continuous at cc if and only if it is both upper and lower semicontinuous at cc.

If ff is continuous at cc, a δ\delta witnessing f(x)f(c)<ε|f(x) - f(c)| < \varepsilon on ANδ(c)A \cap N_\delta(c) witnesses both displayed conditions, since f(x)f(c)<ε|f(x) - f(c)| < \varepsilon gives ε<f(x)f(c)<ε-\varepsilon < f(x) - f(c) < \varepsilon (Basic properties of the absolute value).

Conversely, given ε>0\varepsilon > 0 take δ1\delta_1 for the upper condition and δ2\delta_2 for the lower one and put δ:=min{δ1,δ2}>0\delta := \min\{\delta_1, \delta_2\} > 0. For xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c) both f(x)<f(c)+εf(x) < f(c) + \varepsilon and f(x)>f(c)εf(x) > f(c) - \varepsilon hold, that is f(x)f(c)<ε|f(x) - f(c)| < \varepsilon (Basic properties of the absolute value). So ff is continuous at cc.

Consequently ff is continuous on AA exactly when it is both upper and lower semicontinuous on AA.

Negation exchanges the two

ff is upper semicontinuous at cc if and only if f-f is lower semicontinuous at cc, since f(x)<f(c)+εf(x) < f(c) + \varepsilon says the same thing as f(x)>f(c)ε-f(x) > -f(c) - \varepsilon (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)). Every statement about one notion below is therefore proved for one of them and transferred to the other by this substitution, never proved twice.

Neither notion implies the other, and neither implies continuity. The indicator of a closed set is upper semicontinuous and the indicator of an open set is lower semicontinuous, and neither is continuous unless the set is clopen; the companion page uses an upper semicontinuous function on [0,1][0,1] that attains no minimum.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

ff is upper semicontinuous on AA if and only if {xA:f(x)<α}\{x \in A : f(x) < \alpha\} is relatively open in AA for every real α\alpha, lower semicontinuous if and only if {xA:f(x)>α}\{x \in A : f(x) > \alpha\} is, and continuous if and only if it is both

Statement

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and let f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}. Call SAS \subseteq A relatively open in AA when S=UAS = U \cap A for some open URU \subseteq \mathbb{R} (Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen). Then:

  1. ff is upper semicontinuous on AA (Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA) if and only if {xA:f(x)<α}\{\, x \in A : f(x) < \alpha \,\} is relatively open in AA for every real α\alpha;
  2. ff is lower semicontinuous on AA if and only if {xA:f(x)>α}\{\, x \in A : f(x) > \alpha \,\} is relatively open in AA for every real α\alpha;
  3. ff is continuous on AA (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) if and only if both families of sets are relatively open.

The open set is produced canonically, not chosen. For each α\alpha the proof exhibits one specific open UαRU_\alpha \subseteq \mathbb{R} with UαA={f<α}U_\alpha \cap A = \{f < \alpha\}, namely the set of reals yy admitting a radius ρ\rho with ANρ(y){f<α}A \cap N_\rho(y) \subseteq \{f < \alpha\}. No choice of a radius per point is made, which matters because the level set may be uncountable.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R} and a function f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R}.

[L1]

ff is upper semicontinuous at cAc \in A when for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)<f(c)+εf(x) < f(c) + \varepsilon for every xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c); lower semicontinuity is the same with f(x)>f(c)εf(x) > f(c) - \varepsilon; and continuity at cc is the conjunction of the two (Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA, 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).

[L2]

URU \subseteq \mathbb{R} is open exactly when every yUy \in U has a real ρ>0\rho > 0 with Nρ(y)UN_\rho(y) \subseteq U; and if zy<ρ/2|z - y| < \rho/2 then Nρ/2(z)Nρ(y)N_{\rho/2}(z) \subseteq N_\rho(y) (Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen, The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}).

[L3]

f-f is lower semicontinuous at cc exactly when ff is upper semicontinuous at cc, and {xA:f(x)<α}={xA:f(x)>α}\{x \in A : -f(x) < \alpha\} = \{x \in A : f(x) > -\alpha\} (Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Fix a real α\alpha and put Sα:={xA:f(x)<α}S_\alpha := \{\, x \in A : f(x) < \alpha \,\} and Uα:={yR:ANρ(y)Sα for some real ρ>0}U_\alpha := \{\, y \in \mathbb{R} : A \cap N_\rho(y) \subseteq S_\alpha \ \text{for some real } \rho > 0 \,\}.

construct
1.2

Conversely suppose every SαS_\alpha is relatively open in AA, say Sα=UAS_\alpha = U \cap A with UU open, and let cAc \in A and ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real. Put α:=f(c)+ε\alpha := f(c) + \varepsilon; then f(c)<αf(c) < \alpha, so cSα=UAc \in S_\alpha = U \cap A, and there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with Nδ(c)UN_\delta(c) \subseteq U.

L2
2.1

UαU_\alpha is open: if yUαy \in U_\alpha with witness ρ\rho and zNρ/2(y)z \in N_{\rho/2}(y), then ANρ/2(z)ANρ(y)SαA \cap N_{\rho/2}(z) \subseteq A \cap N_\rho(y) \subseteq S_\alpha, so zUαz \in U_\alpha with witness ρ/2\rho/2; hence Nρ/2(y)UαN_{\rho/2}(y) \subseteq U_\alpha.

step 1.1L2
2.2

UαASαU_\alpha \cap A \subseteq S_\alpha: if yUαAy \in U_\alpha \cap A with witness ρ\rho then yANρ(y)Sαy \in A \cap N_\rho(y) \subseteq S_\alpha.

step 1.1
2.3

Suppose ff is upper semicontinuous on AA and let cSαc \in S_\alpha. Apply the definition at cc with ε:=αf(c)>0\varepsilon := \alpha - f(c) > 0: there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)<f(c)+ε=αf(x) < f(c) + \varepsilon = \alpha for every xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c), that is ANδ(c)SαA \cap N_\delta(c) \subseteq S_\alpha; so cUαc \in U_\alpha.

step 1.1L1
3.1

Hence SαUαAS_\alpha \subseteq U_\alpha \cap A, and with step 2.2 this gives Sα=UαAS_\alpha = U_\alpha \cap A, a relatively open subset of AA; since α\alpha was arbitrary, one direction of claim 1 holds.

step 2.2step 2.3
4.1

With δ\delta as in step 1.2, every xANδ(c)x \in A \cap N_\delta(c) lies in UA=SαU \cap A = S_\alpha, so f(x)<α=f(c)+εf(x) < \alpha = f(c) + \varepsilon. As cc and ε\varepsilon were arbitrary, ff is upper semicontinuous on AA, which completes claim 1.

step 3.1step 1.2L1
5.1

Claim 2 follows by applying claim 1 to f-f: ff is lower semicontinuous on AA exactly when f-f is upper semicontinuous on AA, exactly when {xA:f(x)<β}\{x \in A : -f(x) < \beta\} is relatively open for every real β\beta, and that set is {xA:f(x)>β}\{x \in A : f(x) > -\beta\}; as β\beta ranges over the reals so does β-\beta.

step 4.1L3
6.1

Claim 3 follows: ff is continuous on AA exactly when it is both upper and lower semicontinuous on AA, and by claims 1 and 2 that is exactly the conjunction of the two families of sets being relatively open.

step 4.1step 5.1L1

Remarks

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (deepseek-v4-pro + gpt-5.6-terra)verified 2026-08-09 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)Open item page →

Semicontinuous extreme value theorem: an upper semicontinuous function on a nonempty compact KRK \subseteq \mathbb{R} is bounded above and attains a maximum, and a lower semicontinuous one is bounded below and attains a minimum

Statement

Let KRK \subseteq \mathbb{R} be nonempty and compact (Open cover, subcover, compact subset of R\mathbb{R} (every open cover has a finite subcover), and sequentially compact subset).

  1. If f:KRf : K \to \mathbb{R} is upper semicontinuous on KK (Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA) then f[K]f[K] is bounded above (Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set) and ff attains a maximum: there is x0Kx_0 \in K with f(x)f(x0)f(x) \le f(x_0) for every xKx \in K (Maximum and minimum of a set).
  2. If f:KRf : K \to \mathbb{R} is lower semicontinuous on KK then f[K]f[K] is bounded below and ff attains a minimum.

The theorem is genuinely one-sided. An upper semicontinuous function on a compact set need not attain its infimum; the companion page gives such a function on [0,1][0,1]. Only the maximum is asserted in claim 1, and only the minimum in claim 2.

Taking ff continuous, which is upper and lower semicontinuous at once (Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA), recovers the classical extreme value theorem on a compact subset of R\mathbb{R}.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nonempty compact KRK \subseteq \mathbb{R} and an upper semicontinuous f:KRf : K \to \mathbb{R}.

[L1]

For every real α\alpha there is an open UαRU_\alpha \subseteq \mathbb{R} with UαK={xK:f(x)<α}U_\alpha \cap K = \{\, x \in K : f(x) < \alpha \,\}, namely Uα={yR:KNρ(y){f<α}U_\alpha = \{y \in \mathbb{R} : K \cap N_\rho(y) \subseteq \{f < \alpha\} for some real ρ>0}\rho > 0\} (ff is upper semicontinuous on AA if and only if {xA:f(x)<α}\{x \in A : f(x) < \alpha\} is relatively open in AA for every real α\alpha, lower semicontinuous if and only if {xA:f(x)>α}\{x \in A : f(x) > \alpha\} is, and continuous if and only if it is both, Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA, Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen).

[L2]

The set UαU_\alpha of [L1] is monotone in α\alpha: αβ\alpha \le \beta gives {f<α}{f<β}\{f < \alpha\} \subseteq \{f < \beta\} and hence UαUβU_\alpha \subseteq U_\beta, directly from the displayed description.

[L3]

KK compact means: every family of open subsets of R\mathbb{R} whose union contains KK has a finite subfamily whose union contains KK (Open cover, subcover, compact subset of R\mathbb{R} (every open cover has a finite subcover), and sequentially compact subset).

[L4]

For every real xx there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with x<ι(n)x < \iota(n), and for every real η>0\eta > 0 a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/ι(n)<η1/\iota(n) < \eta; ι\iota is positive and strictly increasing on the naturals 1\ge 1 (Every complete ordered field is Archimedean, For every ε>0\varepsilon > 0 in a complete ordered field there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/n<ε1/n < \varepsilon, The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field, Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing).

[L5]

A nonempty set of reals bounded above has a least upper bound, and for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 some member of the set exceeds supε\sup - \varepsilon (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Epsilon characterisation of the supremum, Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set).

[L7]

For any h:KRh : K \to \mathbb{R}, hh is upper semicontinuous if and only if h-h is lower semicontinuous; hence a lower semicontinuous ff makes f-f upper semicontinuous (Upper and lower semicontinuity of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} at a point of AA and on AA, section “Negation exchanges the two”).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

For each real α\alpha let UαU_\alpha be the open set of [L1], so that UαK={xK:f(x)<α}U_\alpha \cap K = \{x \in K : f(x) < \alpha\} and αβ\alpha \le \beta implies UαUβU_\alpha \subseteq U_\beta.

L1L2construct
2.1

The family {Uι(n):nN, n1}\{\, U_{\iota(n)} : n \in \mathbb{N},\ n \ge 1 \,\} covers KK: every xKx \in K has f(x)<ι(n)f(x) < \iota(n) for some natural n1n \ge 1, and then xUι(n)x \in U_{\iota(n)}.

step 1.1L4
3.1

By compactness finitely many members cover KK, say Uι(n0),,Uι(nj)U_{\iota(n_0)}, \dots, U_{\iota(n_j)} with each ni1n_i \ge 1; let NN be the greatest of ι(n0),,ι(nj)\iota(n_0), \dots, \iota(n_j), which exists as the maximum of a nonempty finite set of reals. Then each Uι(ni)UNU_{\iota(n_i)} \subseteq U_{N}, so KUNK \subseteq U_{N} and hence K=UNK={xK:f(x)<N}K = U_{N} \cap K = \{x \in K : f(x) < N\}. So f[K]f[K] is bounded above by NN.

step 1.1step 2.1L2L3L6
4.1

f[K]f[K] is nonempty, since KK is, and bounded above, so M:=supf[K]M := \sup f[K] exists.

step 3.1L5
5.1

For each natural n1n \ge 1 put αn:=M1/ι(n)\alpha_n := M - 1/\iota(n). The family {Uαn:n1}\{\, U_{\alpha_n} : n \ge 1 \,\} has no finite subfamily covering KK. Indeed, let Uαn0,,UαnjU_{\alpha_{n_0}}, \dots, U_{\alpha_{n_j}} be finitely many of them; if the list is empty its union is empty and does not contain the nonempty KK. Otherwise let nn^{*} be a natural among n0,,njn_0, \dots, n_j with αn\alpha_{n^{*}} greatest, so that every member of the list is contained in UαnU_{\alpha_{n^{*}}}. Since αn<M=supf[K]\alpha_{n^{*}} < M = \sup f[K], there is xKx \in K with f(x)>αnf(x) > \alpha_{n^{*}}, and such an xx lies in KK but not in UαnK={f<αn}U_{\alpha_{n^{*}}} \cap K = \{f < \alpha_{n^{*}}\}, hence in no member of the list.

step 1.1step 4.1L2L4L5L6
6.1

By compactness, a family of open sets with no finite subfamily covering KK cannot itself cover KK. So there is x0Kx_{0} \in K with x0Uαnx_{0} \notin U_{\alpha_n} for every natural n1n \ge 1, that is f(x0)αn=M1/ι(n)f(x_{0}) \ge \alpha_n = M - 1/\iota(n) for every such nn.

step 1.1step 5.1L3
7.1

Hence f(x0)=Mf(x_{0}) = M. If f(x0)<Mf(x_{0}) < M then Mf(x0)>0M - f(x_{0}) > 0 and there is a natural n1n \ge 1 with 1/ι(n)<Mf(x0)1/\iota(n) < M - f(x_{0}), that is f(x0)<M1/ι(n)f(x_{0}) < M - 1/\iota(n), contradicting step 6.1; and f(x0)Mf(x_{0}) \le M because MM is an upper bound of f[K]f[K].

step 4.1step 6.1L4L5
8.1

So ff is bounded above on KK and attains the value M=supf[K]M = \sup f[K] at x0Kx_{0} \in K, which is a maximum of f[K]f[K]: this is claim 1.

step 3.1step 4.1step 7.1L5
9.1

Claim 2 follows by applying claim 1 to f-f, which is upper semicontinuous on KK when ff is lower semicontinuous; then f-f is bounded above and attains a maximum at some x1Kx_{1} \in K, so ff is bounded below and f(x1)f(x)f(x_{1}) \le f(x) for every xKx \in K, a minimum.

step 8.1L7

Remarks

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Baire category inside a closed bounded interval: if [a,b][a,b] with a<ba < b is covered by a sequence of closed sets, then one of them contains a nondegenerate closed subinterval of [a,b][a,b]; no choice principle is used

Statement

Let a,bRa, b \in \mathbb{R} with a<ba < b and let (Fn)nN(F_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} be a sequence of closed subsets of R\mathbb{R} (Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen) with

[a,b]    nNFn[a,b] \;\subseteq\; \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} F_n

(Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length). Then there are nNn \in \mathbb{N} and reals u<vu < v with

[u,v]    Fn[a,b].[u,v] \;\subseteq\; F_n \cap [a,b].

No choice principle is used. The only category input is Baire category in R\mathbb{R}, by nested intervals with canonically chosen rational endpoints: a countable intersection of dense open sets is dense, so R\mathbb{R} is not a countable union of nowhere dense sets, whose own proof selects nothing: it fixes one enumeration of the rationals and takes least indices. Nothing further is chosen below, the argument being a direct application of that theorem to the complements of the FnF_n.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Reals a<ba < b and a sequence (Fn)nN(F_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}} of closed subsets of R\mathbb{R} with [a,b]nFn[a,b] \subseteq \bigcup_{n} F_n.

[L4]

[a,b][a,b] is closed: its complement {x:x<a}{x:x>b}\{x : x < a\} \cup \{x : x > b\} is open, since x<ax < a gives Nax(x){z:z<a}N_{a-x}(x) \subseteq \{z : z < a\} and x>bx > b gives Nxb(x){z:z>b}N_{x-b}(x) \subseteq \{z : z > b\} (Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen, The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L5]

Nε(y)=(yε,y+ε)N_\varepsilon(y) = (y - \varepsilon, y + \varepsilon), and for a<ba < b the midpoint y:=(a+b)/2y := (a+b)/2 and radius ε:=(ba)/2>0\varepsilon := (b-a)/2 > 0 give Nε(y)=(a,b)[a,b]N_\varepsilon(y) = (a,b) \subseteq [a,b] (The ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood and the punctured ε\varepsilon-neighbourhood of a point of R\mathbb{R}, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1

Put Gn:=Fn[a,b]G_n := F_n \cap [a,b] for nNn \in \mathbb{N}. Each GnG_n is closed, being an intersection of two closed sets, and [a,b]=nGn[a,b] = \bigcup_{n} G_n, since [a,b][a,b] is contained in the union of the FnF_n and each GnG_n is contained in [a,b][a,b].

L3L4
1.2

Suppose, for contradiction, that no GnG_n contains a nondegenerate closed interval, that is, that there are no nn and no reals u<vu < v with [u,v]Gn[u,v] \subseteq G_n.

assume-contra
2.1

Each Vn:=RGnV_n := \mathbb{R} \setminus G_n is open, and it is dense. Openness is the complement of a closed set. For density, let yy be real and ε>0\varepsilon > 0 real; if Nε(y)VnN_\varepsilon(y) \cap V_n were empty then Nε(y)GnN_\varepsilon(y) \subseteq G_n, and then [yε/2, y+ε/2][y - \varepsilon/2,\ y + \varepsilon/2] would be a nondegenerate closed interval inside GnG_n, contrary to step 1.2.

step 1.1step 1.2L2L3L5
3.1

By the Baire category theorem the intersection nVn\bigcap_{n} V_n is dense in R\mathbb{R}, so it meets the neighbourhood N(ba)/2((a+b)/2)=(a,b)N_{(b-a)/2}\bigl((a+b)/2\bigr) = (a,b): there is x(a,b)x \in (a,b) with xGnx \notin G_n for every nn.

step 2.1L1L2L5
4.1

But x(a,b)[a,b]=nGnx \in (a,b) \subseteq [a,b] = \bigcup_{n} G_n, so xGnx \in G_n for some nn, contradicting step 3.1. The assumption of step 1.2 is therefore false, and some Gn=Fn[a,b]G_n = F_n \cap [a,b] contains a nondegenerate closed interval [u,v][u,v].

step 1.1step 1.2step 3.1discharge-contradiction

Remarks

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Pointwise convergence of a sequence of real functions, and the Baire class one functions as the pointwise limits of sequences of continuous functions

Definition

Let ARA \subseteq \mathbb{R}. A sequence of functions on AA is a function assigning to each nNn \in \mathbb{N} a function fn:ARf_n : A \to \mathbb{R}; it is written (fn)nN(f_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}. As everywhere in this library N\mathbb{N} contains 00, so the first term is f0f_0 (Sequences of reals: bounded, eventually, frequently, tails, subsequences).

Pointwise convergence. (fn)(f_n) converges pointwise on AA to f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} when, for every xAx \in A, the sequence of reals (fn(x))nN(f_n(x))_{n \in \mathbb{N}} converges to f(x)f(x) (Limits and Cauchy sequences of reals); written out, for every xAx \in A and every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is NNN \in \mathbb{N} with fn(x)f(x)<ε|f_n(x) - f(x)| < \varepsilon for every nNn \ge N.

The limit function is unique. A sequence of reals has at most one limit (A sequence has at most one limit), so if (fn)(f_n) converges pointwise to ff and to gg then f(x)=g(x)f(x) = g(x) for every xAx \in A, hence f=gf = g. We may therefore speak of the pointwise limit and write f=limnfnf = \lim_n f_n pointwise.

The index NN is allowed to depend on xx, and that is the whole content of the word pointwise. No uniformity over AA is asserted anywhere below.

Baire class one

f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} is of Baire class one on AA when there is a sequence (fn)(f_n) of functions ARA \to \mathbb{R}, each continuous on AA (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), converging pointwise on AA to ff.

Every continuous function is of Baire class one, by the constant sequence fn:=ff_n := f, which converges pointwise to ff because a constant sequence of reals converges to its value.

The class is strictly larger than the continuous functions, and it is strictly smaller than the class of all functions. The first is visible already on A=[0,1]A = [0,1] (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length): the indicator of a single point is of Baire class one and is not continuous. The second is Baire's theorem: a Baire class one function on a closed bounded interval [a,b][a,b] is continuous at the points of a dense subset of [a,b][a,b] that is the trace of a GδG_\delta set, so its set of discontinuities is meager, which shows that a Baire class one function on a closed bounded interval has a dense set of continuity points, and the companion page uses it to exhibit a function that is not of Baire class one.

On the higher classes. The pointwise limits of sequences of Baire class one functions form what is classically called Baire class two, and the construction iterates. No definition of the higher classes is given here and none is used; where the phrase is needed below it is stated as "a pointwise limit of a sequence of Baire class one functions", which is a condition already expressible with the words above.

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-08-09 (gpt-5.6-terra-codex-subscription)Open item page →

Baire's theorem: a Baire class one function on a closed bounded interval [a,b][a,b] is continuous at the points of a dense subset of [a,b][a,b] that is the trace of a GδG_\delta set, so its set of discontinuities is meager

Statement

Let a,bRa, b \in \mathbb{R} with a<ba < b and let f:[a,b]Rf : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} be of Baire class one (Pointwise convergence of a sequence of real functions, and the Baire class one functions as the pointwise limits of sequences of continuous functions). Write

D  :=  {x[a,b]:f is discontinuous at x},C:=[a,b]DD \;:=\; \{\, x \in [a,b] : f \text{ is discontinuous at } x \,\}, \qquad C := [a,b] \setminus D

(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). Then:

  1. for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set Dε:={x[a,b]:ωf(x)ε}D_\varepsilon := \{\, x \in [a,b] : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon \,\} (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals) is a closed subset of R\mathbb{R} containing no nondegenerate closed interval, hence nowhere dense (Nowhere dense, meager (first category), residual, and second category subsets of R\mathbb{R});
  2. DD is meager, being the union of the sequence (D1/ι(n+1))nN(D_{1/\iota(n+1)})_{n \in \mathbb{N}} of nowhere dense sets;
  3. CC is dense in [a,b][a,b]: for every x[a,b]x \in [a,b] and every real ρ>0\rho > 0 the set [a,b]Nρ(x)[a,b] \cap N_\rho(x) contains a point of CC;
  4. C=[a,b]VC = [a,b] \cap V for a GδG_\delta subset VRV \subseteq \mathbb{R} (FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta subsets of R\mathbb{R}).

On the phrase "dense GδG_\delta". Claims 3 and 4 together are what the classical statement calls a dense GδG_\delta subset of [a,b][a,b]: the continuity set is dense in [a,b][a,b] and it is the trace on [a,b][a,b] of a GδG_\delta subset of R\mathbb{R}. It is not claimed that CC is GδG_\delta as a subset of R\mathbb{R}, nor that it is dense in R\mathbb{R}; neither is true in general, since C[a,b]C \subseteq [a,b].

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Reals a<ba < b, a function f:[a,b]Rf : [a,b] \to \mathbb{R} of Baire class one, and a sequence (fk)kN(f_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}} of continuous functions on [a,b][a,b] converging pointwise to ff.

[L2]

ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{|f(x)-f(y)| : x,y \in S\}; ωf(x)=inf{ωf([a,b]Nδ(x)):δ>0}\omega_f(x) = \inf\{\omega_f([a,b] \cap N_\delta(x)) : \delta > 0\}; ωf\omega_f is monotone under inclusion and ωf(x)0\omega_f(x) \ge 0 (The oscillation ωf(S)=sup{f(x)f(y):x,yS}\omega_f(S) = \sup\{\,|f(x) - f(y)| : x, y \in S\,\} of ff on a set and the oscillation ωf(c)=infδ>0ωf(ANδ(c))\omega_f(c) = \inf_{\delta > 0} \omega_f(A \cap N_\delta(c)) at a point, both taken in the extended reals).

[L4]

For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a closed GRG \subseteq \mathbb{R} with {x[a,b]:ωf(x)ε}=[a,b]G\{x \in [a,b] : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\} = [a,b] \cap G (For every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 the set {xA:ωf(x)ε}\{\,x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge \varepsilon\,\} is the intersection with AA of a closed subset of R\mathbb{R}; in particular it is closed in R\mathbb{R} when A=RA = \mathbb{R}).

[L5]

If a<ba < b, (Fn)(F_n) are closed and [a,b]nFn[a,b] \subseteq \bigcup_n F_n, then some Fn[a,b]F_n \cap [a,b] contains a nondegenerate closed interval (Baire category inside a closed bounded interval: if [a,b][a,b] with a<ba < b is covered by a sequence of closed sets, then one of them contains a nondegenerate closed subinterval of [a,b][a,b]; no choice principle is used).

[L6]

[a,b][a,b] and every [c,d][c,d] with cdc \le d are closed; an intersection of a nonempty family of closed sets is closed; a set is closed exactly when its complement is open (Arbitrary unions and finite intersections of open subsets of R\mathbb{R} are open, and dually for closed sets, claim 3, Open subset of R\mathbb{R} (every point has a neighbourhood inside it), closed subset (complement open), and clopen, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L7]

For a continuous hh on [a,b][a,b] and a closed FRF \subseteq \mathbb{R}, the preimage {x[a,b]:h(x)F}\{x \in [a,b] : h(x) \in F\} is G[a,b]G \cap [a,b] for some closed GG (f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} is continuous on AA if and only if the preimage of every open subset of R\mathbb{R} is the intersection with AA of an open subset of R\mathbb{R}, and dually for closed sets); differences and absolute values 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).

[L9]

The set of continuity points of f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} is AVA \cap V for a GδG_\delta set VRV \subseteq \mathbb{R}, and the discontinuity set is {xA:ωf(x)>0}=nN{xA:ωf(x)1/ι(n+1)}\{x \in A : \omega_f(x) > 0\} = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} \{x \in A : \omega_f(x) \ge 1/\iota(n+1)\} (For f:ARf : A \to \mathbb{R} the set of points of AA at which ff is discontinuous is the intersection with AA of an FσF_\sigma subset of R\mathbb{R}, and the set of points at which ff is continuous is the intersection with AA of a GδG_\delta subset; for A=RA = \mathbb{R} the two sets are FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta outright, claims 1 and 2, FσF_\sigma and GδG_\delta subsets of R\mathbb{R}).

[L11]

uwuv+vw|u - w| \le |u - v| + |v - w|, u0|u| \ge 0, and a real that is η\le \eta for every real η>0\eta > 0 and 0\ge 0 is 00 (Basic properties of the absolute value).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Refinement claim. Let [c,d][a,b][c,d] \subseteq [a,b] with c<dc < d and let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real. For NNN \in \mathbb{N} put EN:={x[c,d]:fn(x)fm(x)ε/4 for all n,mN}E_{N} := \{\, x \in [c,d] : |f_{n}(x) - f_{m}(x)| \le \varepsilon/4 \ \text{for all } n, m \ge N \,\}.

L1construct
1.2

Claim 1. Fix a real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 and let Dε:={x[a,b]:ωf(x)ε}D_{\varepsilon} := \{x \in [a,b] : \omega_{f}(x) \ge \varepsilon\}. It is closed in R\mathbb{R}, being [a,b]G[a,b] \cap G with GG closed and [a,b][a,b] closed.

L4L6
1.3

Claim 4. The set of continuity points of ff on the domain [a,b][a,b] is [a,b]V[a,b] \cap V for a GδG_\delta subset VRV \subseteq \mathbb{R}.

L9
1.4

Claim 3. Let x[a,b]x \in [a,b] and let ρ>0\rho > 0 be real. The set [a,b]Nρ(x)[a,b] \cap N_{\rho}(x) contains a nondegenerate closed interval [c,d][c,d] with c<dc < d, because a<ba < b: taking c:=max{a, xρ/2}c := \max\{a,\ x - \rho/2\} and d:=min{b, x+ρ/2}d := \min\{b,\ x + \rho/2\} gives [c,d][a,b]Nρ(x)[c,d] \subseteq [a,b] \cap N_{\rho}(x) and c<dc < d: if x=ax = a then c=ac = a and d=min{b,a+ρ/2}>ad = \min\{b, a + \rho/2\} > a; if x=bx = b then d=bd = b and c=max{a,bρ/2}<bc = \max\{a, b - \rho/2\} < b; and if a<x<ba < x < b then c<x<dc < x < d.

L12
2.1

Each ENE_{N} is closed: for fixed n,mn, m the set {x[c,d]:fn(x)fm(x)ε/4}\{x \in [c,d] : |f_{n}(x) - f_{m}(x)| \le \varepsilon/4\} is the preimage under the continuous function fnfm|f_{n} - f_{m}| of the closed set {y:yε/4}\{y : y \le \varepsilon/4\}, hence of the form G[c,d]G \cap [c,d] with GG closed, hence closed since [c,d][c,d] is; and ENE_{N} is the intersection of that nonempty family of closed sets over the pairs n,mNn, m \ge N.

step 1.1L6L7
2.2

[c,d]=NNEN[c,d] = \bigcup_{N \in \mathbb{N}} E_{N}: for x[c,d]x \in [c,d] the sequence (fk(x))(f_{k}(x)) converges to f(x)f(x), so there is NN with fk(x)f(x)<ε/8|f_{k}(x) - f(x)| < \varepsilon/8 for all kNk \ge N, and then fn(x)fm(x)fn(x)f(x)+f(x)fm(x)<ε/4|f_{n}(x) - f_{m}(x)| \le |f_{n}(x) - f(x)| + |f(x) - f_{m}(x)| < \varepsilon/4 for all n,mNn, m \ge N.

step 1.1L1L11
3.1

By the interval form of Baire category applied to [c,d][c,d] and the sequence (EN)(E_{N}), there are NNN \in \mathbb{N} and reals u<vu' < v' with [u,v]EN[c,d]=EN[u',v'] \subseteq E_{N} \cap [c,d] = E_{N}.

step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2L5
4.1

For every x[u,v]x \in [u',v'] one has fN(x)f(x)ε/4|f_{N}(x) - f(x)| \le \varepsilon/4. Indeed, let η>0\eta > 0 be real; since fm(x)f(x)f_{m}(x) \to f(x) there is mNm \ge N with fm(x)f(x)<η|f_{m}(x) - f(x)| < \eta, and then fN(x)f(x)fN(x)fm(x)+fm(x)f(x)<ε/4+η|f_{N}(x) - f(x)| \le |f_{N}(x) - f_{m}(x)| + |f_{m}(x) - f(x)| < \varepsilon/4 + \eta; as η>0\eta > 0 was arbitrary this gives fN(x)f(x)ε/4|f_{N}(x) - f(x)| \le \varepsilon/4.

step 1.1step 3.1L1L11
4.2

Put x0:=(u+v)/2x_{0} := (u'+v')/2, so u<x0<vu' < x_{0} < v'. Since fNf_{N} is continuous at x0x_{0} there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with fN(x)fN(x0)<ε/4|f_{N}(x) - f_{N}(x_{0})| < \varepsilon/4 for every x[a,b]x \in [a,b] with xx0<δ|x - x_{0}| < \delta. Put u:=max{u, x0δ/2}u := \max\{u',\ x_{0} - \delta/2\} and v:=min{v, x0+δ/2}v := \min\{v',\ x_{0} + \delta/2\}, so that u<x0<vu < x_{0} < v and [u,v][u,v][u,v] \subseteq [u',v'] with xx0<δ|x - x_{0}| < \delta for every x[u,v]x \in [u,v].

step 3.1L1L12
5.1

For x,y[u,v]x, y \in [u,v]: f(x)f(y)f(x)fN(x)+fN(x)fN(x0)+fN(x0)fN(y)+fN(y)f(y)ε/4+ε/4+ε/4+ε/4=ε|f(x) - f(y)| \le |f(x) - f_{N}(x)| + |f_{N}(x) - f_{N}(x_{0})| + |f_{N}(x_{0}) - f_{N}(y)| + |f_{N}(y) - f(y)| \le \varepsilon/4 + \varepsilon/4 + \varepsilon/4 + \varepsilon/4 = \varepsilon. Hence ωf([u,v])ε\omega_{f}([u,v]) \le \varepsilon, ε\varepsilon being an upper bound of the set whose supremum that is.

step 4.1step 4.2L2L11
6.1

The refinement claim is proved: for every [c,d][a,b][c,d] \subseteq [a,b] with c<dc < d and every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there are u<vu < v with [u,v][c,d][u,v] \subseteq [c,d] and ωf([u,v])ε\omega_{f}([u,v]) \le \varepsilon. Moreover every xx with u<x<vu < x < v satisfies ωf(x)ε\omega_{f}(x) \le \varepsilon, since [a,b]Nρ(x)[u,v][a,b] \cap N_{\rho}(x) \subseteq [u,v] for ρ:=min{xu, vx}>0\rho := \min\{x-u,\ v-x\} > 0 and ωf\omega_{f} is monotone under inclusion.

step 4.2step 5.1L2L12
7.1

DεD_{\varepsilon} contains no nondegenerate closed interval. Were [c,d]Dε[c,d] \subseteq D_{\varepsilon} with c<dc < d, the refinement claim applied to [c,d][c,d] and to the positive real ε/2\varepsilon/2 would give u<vu < v with [u,v][c,d][u,v] \subseteq [c,d] and ωf(x)ε/2<ε\omega_{f}(x) \le \varepsilon/2 < \varepsilon for every xx with u<x<vu < x < v; such an xx lies in [c,d]Dε[c,d] \subseteq D_{\varepsilon} and so satisfies ωf(x)ε\omega_{f}(x) \ge \varepsilon, which is impossible.

step 6.1step 1.2
8.1

Hence DεD_{\varepsilon} is nowhere dense: it is closed, so it equals its own closure, and its interior is empty, since an interior point would have a neighbourhood Nρ(x)DεN_{\rho}(x) \subseteq D_{\varepsilon} and then [xρ/2, x+ρ/2][x - \rho/2,\ x + \rho/2] would be a nondegenerate closed interval inside DεD_{\varepsilon}.

step 1.2step 7.1L8L12
9.1

Claim 2. D=nND1/ι(n+1)D = \bigcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} D_{1/\iota(n+1)}, and each D1/ι(n+1)D_{1/\iota(n+1)} is nowhere dense by step 8.1, so DD is a union of a sequence of nowhere dense sets, that is, meager.

step 8.1L8L9L10
10.1

Suppose [c,d]D[c,d] \subseteq D with c<dc < d as in step 1.4. Then [c,d][c,d] is covered by the sequence (D1/ι(n+1))(D_{1/\iota(n+1)}) of closed sets, so by the interval form of Baire category some D1/ι(n+1)[c,d]D_{1/\iota(n+1)} \cap [c,d] contains a nondegenerate closed interval, contradicting step 7.1. So [c,d]⊈D[c,d] \not\subseteq D, and any point of [c,d]D[c,d] \setminus D is a point of CC inside [a,b]Nρ(x)[a,b] \cap N_{\rho}(x).

step 7.1step 9.1step 1.4L5L6
11.1

Claims 1, 2, 3 and 4 are therefore proved: claim 1 by steps 1.2, 7.1 and 8.1, claim 2 by step 9.1, claim 3 by steps 1.4 and 10.1, and claim 4 by step 1.3.

step 8.1step 9.1step 1.3step 10.1

Remarks

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}

Definition

Let R\mathbb{R} be the complete ordered field (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Ordered field, Field). A function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is additive when it satisfies Cauchy's functional equation

f(x+y)  =  f(x)+f(y)for all x,yR.f(x + y) \;=\; f(x) + f(y) \qquad \text{for all } x, y \in \mathbb{R}.

Equivalently, ff is a homomorphism of the additive group of R\mathbb{R} into itself.

The linear maps are additive. For a fixed real cc the function xcxx \mapsto cx satisfies c(x+y)=cx+cyc(x+y) = cx + cy by distributivity, so it is additive. Cauchy's question is whether these are the only additive functions, and the answer is a genuine dichotomy: with any one of a short list of regularity conditions the answer is yes (Six regularity conditions each force an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} to be xf(1)xx \mapsto f(1)x: continuity at a single point, monotonicity on a nondegenerate interval, boundedness above on one, boundedness below on one, constancy of sign on one, and a graph that is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2}), and without any of them it is no (FALSE: every additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is of the form xcxx \mapsto cx for a single real cc).

No continuity, no monotonicity and no measurability is part of the definition. The equation is purely algebraic, and every regularity hypothesis below is stated explicitly where it is used.

A first consequence, recorded here because it is used immediately. An additive ff satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0: putting x=y=0x = y = 0 gives f(0)=f(0)+f(0)f(0) = f(0) + f(0), and subtracting f(0)f(0) gives f(0)=0f(0) = 0. The remaining elementary consequences, including f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x) and Q\mathbb{Q}-homogeneity, are collected in An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0, f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x) and f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = q\,f(x) for every rational qq and every real xx; in particular f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q\,f(1) at every rational qq.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0, f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x) and f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = q\,f(x) for every rational qq and every real xx; in particular f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q\,f(1) at every rational qq

Statement

Let f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} be additive (Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}), and identify NZQR\mathbb{N} \subseteq \mathbb{Z} \subseteq \mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} along the canonical embeddings (The naturals embed in the integers, The integers embed in the rationals, The rationals embed densely in the reals), writing ι(n)\iota(n) for the canonical natural of nn in R\mathbb{R} (The canonical natural ι(n)=n1F\iota(n) = n \cdot 1_F of a field). Then, for every real xx:

  1. f(0)=0f(0) = 0;
  2. f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x);
  3. f(ι(n)x)=ι(n)f(x)f(\iota(n)\,x) = \iota(n)\,f(x) for every nNn \in \mathbb{N};
  4. f(mx)=mf(x)f(m x) = m\,f(x) for every integer mm;
  5. f(qx)=qf(x)f(q x) = q\,f(x) for every rational qq.

In particular, taking x=1x = 1 in claim 5, f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q\,f(1) at every rational qq: an additive function is determined on Q\mathbb{Q} by its value at 11.

What this does not say. Claim 5 is Q\mathbb{Q}-homogeneity, not R\mathbb{R}-homogeneity: nothing here gives f(λx)=λf(x)f(\lambda x) = \lambda f(x) for irrational λ\lambda, and that is exactly the gap that FALSE: every additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is of the form xcxx \mapsto cx for a single real cc shows cannot be closed without a regularity hypothesis.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, so f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y) for all reals x,yx, y.

[L1]

Induction on N\mathbb{N} (The principle of mathematical induction).

[L3]

Every integer is ι(n)\iota(n) or ι(n)-\iota(n) for a natural nn, and every rational is m/ι(n)m/\iota(n) with mm an integer and nn a natural 1\ge 1; the embeddings preserve sums and products, and ι(n)0\iota(n) \ne 0 for n1n \ge 1 (The naturals embed in the integers, The integers embed in the rationals, The rationals embed densely in the reals, The integers as equivalence classes of pairs of naturals, Canonical naturals are positive and strictly increasing).

[L4]

R\mathbb{R} is a field, so cancellation, distributivity and inverses of nonzero elements are available (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).

Proof

technique · induction
1.1

Claim 1: taking x=y=0x = y = 0 in the functional equation gives f(0)=f(0)+f(0)f(0) = f(0) + f(0), and adding f(0)-f(0) to both sides gives f(0)=0f(0) = 0.

A1L4
1.2

Claim 3, inductive hypothesis: suppose f(ι(n)x)=ι(n)f(x)f(\iota(n)x) = \iota(n)f(x) for a given nNn \in \mathbb{N} and every real xx.

ih
2.1

Claim 2: taking y=xy = -x gives 0=f(0)=f(x)+f(x)0 = f(0) = f(x) + f(-x), so f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x).

step 1.1A1L4
2.2

Claim 3, base case n=0n = 0: ι(0)=0\iota(0) = 0, so f(ι(0)x)=f(0)=0=ι(0)f(x)f(\iota(0)x) = f(0) = 0 = \iota(0)f(x).

step 1.1L2base
2.3

Claim 3, inductive step: ι(n+1)x=ι(n)x+x\iota(n+1)x = \iota(n)x + x, so f(ι(n+1)x)=f(ι(n)x)+f(x)=ι(n)f(x)+f(x)=(ι(n)+1)f(x)=ι(n+1)f(x)f(\iota(n+1)x) = f(\iota(n)x) + f(x) = \iota(n)f(x) + f(x) = (\iota(n)+1)f(x) = \iota(n+1)f(x).

step 1.2A1L2L4
3.1

Claim 3 holds for every nNn \in \mathbb{N} and every real xx, by induction on nn from steps 2.2 and 2.3.

step 2.2step 2.3L1
4.1

Claim 4: an integer mm is ι(n)\iota(n) or ι(n)-\iota(n) for some natural nn. In the first case claim 3 applies directly. In the second, f(mx)=f((ι(n)x))=f(ι(n)x)=ι(n)f(x)=mf(x)f(mx) = f(-(\iota(n)x)) = -f(\iota(n)x) = -\iota(n)f(x) = m f(x).

step 2.1step 3.1L3
5.1

Claim 5: let qq be rational and write q=m/ι(n)q = m/\iota(n) with mm an integer and nn a natural 1\ge 1, so ι(n)0\iota(n) \ne 0. Applying claim 4 with the integer ι(n)\iota(n) to the real qxqx gives ι(n)f(qx)=f(ι(n)qx)=f(mx)=mf(x)\iota(n) f(qx) = f(\iota(n) q x) = f(mx) = m f(x), and dividing by ι(n)\iota(n) gives f(qx)=(m/ι(n))f(x)=qf(x)f(qx) = (m/\iota(n)) f(x) = q f(x).

step 4.1L3L4
6.1

Taking x=1x = 1 in claim 5 gives f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q f(1) for every rational qq, and all five claims are proved.

step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1step 5.1discharge-induction

Remarks

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

If an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is bounded above on some nondegenerate interval, then f(x)=f(1)xf(x) = f(1)\,x for every real xx

Statement

Let f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} be additive (Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}) and suppose there are reals p<rp < r and a real MM with f(z)Mf(z) \le M for every z[p,r]z \in [p,r]; that is, ff is bounded above on a nondegenerate interval (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set). Then

f(x)  =  f(1)xfor every real x.f(x) \;=\; f(1)\,x \qquad \text{for every real } x .

A nondegenerate interval is all that is needed, and its position is irrelevant. Any order-convex set with two distinct points contains a closed [p,r][p,r] with p<rp < r, and the hypothesis is used only through that closed interval; the argument then translates the interval along Q\mathbb{Q} to cover the whole line.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}, reals p<rp < r, and a real MM with f(z)Mf(z) \le M for every z[p,r]z \in [p,r].

[A2]

f(z)Mf(z) \le M for every zz with pzrp \le z \le r, where p<rp < r (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length, Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set).

[L1]

An additive ff satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0, f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x), f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = qf(x) for every rational qq and every real xx, and f(ι(n)x)=ι(n)f(x)f(\iota(n)x) = \iota(n)f(x) for every nNn \in \mathbb{N} (An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0, f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x) and f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = q\,f(x) for every rational qq and every real xx; in particular f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q\,f(1) at every rational qq).

[L2]

Strictly between any two distinct reals there lies a rational (The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[L4]

R\mathbb{R} is an ordered field: sums and products of positives are positive, and u>0u > 0 with vuv \ge u gives v>0v > 0 (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property), Basic properties of the absolute value).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Put c:=f(1)c := f(1) and define g:RRg : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} by g(x):=f(x)cxg(x) := f(x) - c\,x. Then gg is additive, since both ff and xcxx \mapsto cx are, and g(q)=f(q)cq=qf(1)cq=0g(q) = f(q) - cq = qf(1) - cq = 0 for every rational qq.

A1L1construct
2.1

gg is bounded above on [p,r][p,r]: for z[p,r]z \in [p,r] one has g(z)=f(z)czM+cKg(z) = f(z) - cz \le M + |c|\,K, where K:=max{p,r}K := \max\{|p|, |r|\}, because czczcK|cz| \le |c|\,|z| \le |c|\,K and hence czcK-cz \le |c|\,K. Write M:=M+cKM' := M + |c|\,K for this bound.

step 1.1A2L4
2.2

g(x+q)=g(x)g(x + q) = g(x) for every real xx and every rational qq: additivity gives g(x+q)=g(x)+g(q)g(x+q) = g(x) + g(q) and g(q)=0g(q) = 0.

step 1.1
2.3

gg is identically 00. Suppose g(x0)0g(x_{0}) \ne 0 for some real x0x_{0}. Replacing x0x_{0} by x0-x_{0} if necessary, which changes the sign of g(x0)g(x_{0}) since g(x)=g(x)g(-x) = -g(x), we may take g(x0)>0g(x_{0}) > 0.

step 1.1L1
3.1

gg is bounded above by MM' on the whole of R\mathbb{R}. Let xx be real. The two reals xrx - r and xpx - p satisfy xr<xpx - r < x - p, so there is a rational qq with xr<q<xpx - r < q < x - p; then p<xq<rp < x - q < r, so xq[p,r]x - q \in [p,r] and g(x)=g((xq)+q)=g(xq)Mg(x) = g((x-q) + q) = g(x-q) \le M'.

step 2.1step 2.2L2
4.1

With x0x_{0} as in step 2.3, take a natural n1n \ge 1 with M/g(x0)<ι(n)M'/g(x_{0}) < \iota(n); then ι(n)g(x0)>M\iota(n)\,g(x_{0}) > M'. But g(ι(n)x0)=ι(n)g(x0)>Mg(\iota(n)x_{0}) = \iota(n)\,g(x_{0}) > M', contradicting step 3.1. So no such x0x_{0} exists and gg vanishes identically.

step 1.1step 3.1step 2.3L1L3L4
5.1

Therefore f(x)=cx=f(1)xf(x) = c\,x = f(1)\,x for every real xx.

step 1.1step 4.1

Remarks

TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Six regularity conditions each force an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} to be xf(1)xx \mapsto f(1)x: continuity at a single point, monotonicity on a nondegenerate interval, boundedness above on one, boundedness below on one, constancy of sign on one, and a graph that is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2}

Statement

Let f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} be additive (Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}) and put c:=f(1)c := f(1). Write R2\mathbb{R}^{2} for the set of functions 2R2 \to \mathbb{R} with the metric d((a,b),(a,b))=max{aa, bb}d_\infty\bigl((a,b),(a',b')\bigr) = \max\{|a-a'|,\ |b-b'|\} (Rn\mathbb{R}^n as the set of functions nRn \to \mathbb{R}, and d1d_1, d2d_2, dd_\infty are metrics on it, Metric space: d(x,y)=0d(x,y) = 0 iff x=yx = y, symmetry, and the triangle inequality; pseudometric and ultrametric), and let

Γ  :=  {(x,f(x))  :  xR}    R2\Gamma \;:=\; \{\, (x, f(x)) \;:\; x \in \mathbb{R} \,\} \;\subseteq\; \mathbb{R}^{2}

be the graph of ff. If any one of the following six conditions holds, then f(x)=cxf(x) = c\,x for every real xx.

  1. ff is continuous at some single point of 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. ff is monotone on some nondegenerate interval (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences, Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).
  3. ff is bounded above on some nondegenerate interval (Lower bound, bounded below, bounded set).
  4. ff is bounded below on some nondegenerate interval.
  5. ff has constant sign on some nondegenerate interval II: either f(z)0f(z) \ge 0 for every zIz \in I, or f(z)0f(z) \le 0 for every zIz \in I.
  6. Γ\Gamma is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2} (Interior, closure, boundary, limit point, isolated point and dense subset of a metric space).

Conditions 3, 4 and 5 are not independent, and the proof does not pretend they are. Condition 5 is the special case of 3 or of 4 with the bound 00, and condition 4 is condition 3 applied to f-f; they are listed separately only because each is the form in which the hypothesis usually arises. Condition 1 and condition 2 are each reduced to condition 3 in one line. Condition 6 is the only one that is not, and it is proved in the contrapositive: if ff is not of the form xcxx \mapsto cx, then Γ\Gamma is dense.

Two classical clauses are absent. Boundedness on a set of positive measure and Lebesgue measurability also force linearity, and neither is stated here: both require a measure, and this library develops none as it stands. Each is an independent sufficient condition, so restoring them would change nothing else on this page.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} with c:=f(1)c := f(1), and its graph Γ={(x,f(x)):xR}\Gamma = \{(x,f(x)) : x \in \mathbb{R}\}.

[L2]

If an additive gg is bounded above on some [p,r][p,r] with p<rp < r, then g(x)=g(1)xg(x) = g(1)x for every real xx (If an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is bounded above on some nondegenerate interval, then f(x)=f(1)xf(x) = f(1)\,x for every real xx).

[L3]

A nondegenerate interval contains a closed [p,r][p,r] with p<rp < r, by order-convexity (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L4]

ff continuous at c0c_{0} means: for every real ε>0\varepsilon > 0 there is a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)f(c0)<ε|f(x) - f(c_{0})| < \varepsilon whenever xc0<δ|x - c_{0}| < \delta; and u<ε|u| < \varepsilon gives u<εu < \varepsilon (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}, Basic properties of the absolute value).

[L5]

ff nondecreasing on II means f(x)f(y)f(x) \le f(y) for xyx \le y in II, and nonincreasing means f(x)f(y)f(x) \ge f(y); monotone means one of the two (Nondecreasing, increasing (strictly increasing), nonincreasing, decreasing, monotone and strictly monotone real functions on a subset of R\mathbb{R}, with the dictionary to monotone sequences).

[L6]

dd_\infty is a metric on R2\mathbb{R}^{2} and its open ball of centre (a,b)(a,b) and radius ε\varepsilon is {(u,v):ua<ε and vb<ε}\{(u,v) : |u-a| < \varepsilon \text{ and } |v-b| < \varepsilon\}; a subset SS of a metric space is dense exactly when every open ball meets SS (Rn\mathbb{R}^n as the set of functions nRn \to \mathbb{R}, and d1d_1, d2d_2, dd_\infty are metrics on it, Open ball, closed ball and sphere in a metric space, Interior, closure, boundary, limit point, isolated point and dense subset of a metric space, The closure of a nonempty AA is {x:d(x,A)=0}\{x : d(x,A) = 0\}, equals AA together with its limit points, and is the smallest closed superset).

Proof

technique · cases
1.1

Assume at least one of the six conditions holds. The six steps below treat the six conditions in turn and are exhaustive for that assumption; in each the conclusion reached is f(x)=cxf(x) = cx for every real xx.

construct
2.1

Condition 3. If ff is bounded above on a nondegenerate interval, that interval contains a closed [p,r][p,r] with p<rp < r on which ff is bounded above, and the boundedness lemma gives f(x)=f(1)x=cxf(x) = f(1)x = cx for every real xx.

step 1.1L2L3assume-case above
2.2

Condition 6, in the contrapositive: if ff is not xcxx \mapsto cx then Γ\Gamma is dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2}. Suppose f(x2)cx2f(x_{2}) \ne c\,x_{2} for some real x2x_{2}. Then x20x_{2} \ne 0, since f(0)=0f(0) = 0. Put x1:=1x_{1} := 1, v1:=(x1,f(x1))=(1,c)v_{1} := (x_{1}, f(x_{1})) = (1, c) and v2:=(x2,f(x2))v_{2} := (x_{2}, f(x_{2})), and put Δ:=x1f(x2)x2f(x1)=f(x2)cx2\Delta := x_{1}f(x_{2}) - x_{2}f(x_{1}) = f(x_{2}) - c\,x_{2}, which is nonzero by assumption.

step 1.1L1assume-case graph
3.1

Condition 4. If ff is bounded below on a nondegenerate interval II, say f(z)mf(z) \ge m for zIz \in I, then f-f is additive and satisfies f(z)m-f(z) \le -m on II, so f-f is bounded above on II; by step 2.1 applied to f-f we get f(x)=(f)(1)x=cx-f(x) = (-f)(1)\,x = -cx, hence f(x)=cxf(x) = cx.

step 2.1A1assume-case below
3.2

Condition 2. Let ff be monotone on a nondegenerate interval, which contains [p,r][p,r] with p<rp < r. If ff is nondecreasing there then f(z)f(r)f(z) \le f(r) for every z[p,r]z \in [p,r], and if ff is nonincreasing there then f(z)f(p)f(z) \le f(p); either way ff is bounded above on [p,r][p,r] and step 2.1 applies.

step 2.1L3L5assume-case mono
3.3

Condition 1. Let ff be continuous at a point c0c_{0}. Taking ε:=1\varepsilon := 1 gives a real δ>0\delta > 0 with f(x)f(c0)<1|f(x) - f(c_{0})| < 1, hence f(x)<f(c0)+1f(x) < f(c_{0}) + 1, for every xx with xc0<δ|x - c_{0}| < \delta. The set of such xx is the nondegenerate interval (c0δ, c0+δ)(c_{0}-\delta,\ c_{0}+\delta), so ff is bounded above on a nondegenerate interval and step 2.1 applies.

step 2.1L3L4assume-case cont
3.4

Let (a,b)R2(a,b) \in \mathbb{R}^{2} and let ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be real. Put α:=(af(x2)bx2)/Δ\alpha := (a\,f(x_{2}) - b\,x_{2})/\Delta and β:=(bx1af(x1))/Δ\beta := (b\,x_{1} - a\,f(x_{1}))/\Delta. Then αx1+βx2=a\alpha x_{1} + \beta x_{2} = a and αf(x1)+βf(x2)=b\alpha f(x_{1}) + \beta f(x_{2}) = b, as multiplying out and cancelling Δ\Delta shows in each case.

step 2.2L7
4.1

Condition 5. If f(z)0f(z) \ge 0 for every zz in a nondegenerate interval II then ff is bounded below on II by 00 and step 3.1 applies; if f(z)0f(z) \le 0 for every zIz \in I then ff is bounded above on II by 00 and step 2.1 applies. So sign-constancy is a special case of the two preceding conditions and needs no separate argument.

step 2.1step 3.1assume-case sign
4.2

Choose rationals q1,q2q_{1}, q_{2} with q1α<η|q_{1} - \alpha| < \eta and q2β<η|q_{2} - \beta| < \eta, where η>0\eta > 0 is a real chosen with η(x1+x2)<ε\eta\,(|x_{1}| + |x_{2}|) < \varepsilon and η(f(x1)+f(x2))<ε\eta\,(|f(x_{1})| + |f(x_{2})|) < \varepsilon; such rationals exist because a rational lies strictly between any two distinct reals, and such an η\eta exists because for a real K0K \ge 0 the inequality ηK<ε\eta K < \varepsilon holds for all small enough η>0\eta > 0.

step 3.4L7
5.1

Put x:=q1x1+q2x2x := q_{1}x_{1} + q_{2}x_{2}. Then f(x)=q1f(x1)+q2f(x2)f(x) = q_{1}f(x_{1}) + q_{2}f(x_{2}) by additivity and rational homogeneity, so (x,f(x))Γ(x, f(x)) \in \Gamma. Moreover xa=(q1α)x1+(q2β)x2η(x1+x2)<ε|x - a| = |(q_{1}-\alpha)x_{1} + (q_{2}-\beta)x_{2}| \le \eta(|x_{1}| + |x_{2}|) < \varepsilon and likewise f(x)bη(f(x1)+f(x2))<ε|f(x) - b| \le \eta(|f(x_{1})| + |f(x_{2})|) < \varepsilon.

step 3.4step 4.2A1L1L7
6.1

So every open ball of R2\mathbb{R}^{2} meets Γ\Gamma, that is, Γ\Gamma is dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2}. Reading this contrapositively: if Γ\Gamma is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2} then f(x)=cxf(x) = cx for every real xx, which is condition 6.

step 2.2step 5.1L6
7.1

Each of the six conditions has now been shown to force f(x)=cxf(x) = cx for every real xx: condition 1 at step 3.3, condition 2 at step 3.2, condition 3 at step 2.1, condition 4 at step 3.1, condition 5 at step 4.1 and condition 6 at step 6.1.

step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1step 3.2step 3.3step 6.1cases-exhaustive

Remarks

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

Assuming the Axiom of Choice, R\mathbb{R} has a Hamel basis over Q\mathbb{Q}: there is BRB \subseteq \mathbb{R} such that every real is a finite Q\mathbb{Q}-linear combination of elements of BB in exactly one way, and each basis vector carries a well-defined Q\mathbb{Q}-linear coefficient map

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice). The hypothesis is genuinely used: it enters through Every vector space has a basis, whose own Statement begins "Assume the Axiom of Choice", and which rests on Zorn's lemma.

Write Q\mathbb{Q} for the canonical copy {q^:qQ}\{\hat q : q \in \mathbb{Q}\} of the rationals inside R\mathbb{R} (The rationals embed densely in the reals). Then Q\mathbb{Q} is a subfield of R\mathbb{R} (Subfield: a subring of a field closed under inverses of its nonzero elements, and therefore a field with the restricted operations) and R\mathbb{R} is a vector space over Q\mathbb{Q} by restriction of scalars (A field is a vector space over itself, and over any subfield KFK \subseteq F every FF-vector space is a KK-vector space by restricting the scalars, Vector space over a field); all spans, linear independence and bases below are taken in that structure. Then:

  1. Existence. R\mathbb{R} has a basis BB over Q\mathbb{Q} (Basis of a vector space: a linearly independent spanning subset; and ordered basis: an injective finite list whose image is a basis), called a Hamel basis.
  2. Representation. Every real xx is x=i<nλibix = \sum_{i<n}\lambda_i b_i for some nNn \in \mathbb{N}, some injective list b:nBb : n \to B (Injection, surjection, bijection) and some λ:nQ\lambda : n \to \mathbb{Q} (Linear combination of a finite list, and the span span(S)\operatorname{span}(S) as the smallest linear subspace containing SS).
  3. Uniqueness along a list. For a fixed nn and a fixed injective b:nBb : n \to B, if λ,μ:nQ\lambda, \mu : n \to \mathbb{Q} satisfy i<nλibi=i<nμibi\sum_{i<n}\lambda_i b_i = \sum_{i<n}\mu_i b_i, then λi=μi\lambda_i = \mu_i for every i<ni < n.
  4. The coefficient map of a basis vector. Fix bBb_{\star} \in B and put Wb:=span(B{b})W_{b_{\star}} := \operatorname{span}(B \setminus \{b_{\star}\}). Every real xx is x=λb+wx = \lambda\, b_{\star} + w with λQ\lambda \in \mathbb{Q} and wWbw \in W_{b_{\star}} in exactly one way. Writing Λb(x):=λ\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) := \lambda for that unique scalar, the map Λb:RQ\Lambda_{b_{\star}} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{Q} satisfies Λb(x+y)=Λb(x)+Λb(y),Λb(qx)=qΛb(x)  (qQ),Λb(b)=1,\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x+y) = \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) + \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(y), \qquad \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(qx) = q\,\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) \ \ (q \in \mathbb{Q}), \qquad \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(b_{\star}) = 1, its range is the whole of Q\mathbb{Q}, and {xR:Λb(x)=0}=Wb\{\, x \in \mathbb{R} : \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) = 0 \,\} = W_{b_{\star}}.
  5. The complement is not trivial. Wb{0}W_{b_{\star}} \ne \{0\} for every bBb_{\star} \in B.

Claim 2 together with claim 4 is the precise content of the phrase "in exactly one way" in the title: a real is a finite Q\mathbb{Q}-combination of basis vectors, and the coefficient attached to each single basis vector is determined by the real alone.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The field R\mathbb{R}, the canonical copy QR\mathbb{Q} \subseteq \mathbb{R} of the rationals, and the Axiom of Choice.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice, used only through [L4] (The Axiom of Choice, Zorn's lemma).

[L1]

The map qq^q \mapsto \hat q is an embedding of ordered fields of Q\mathbb{Q} into R\mathbb{R} (The rationals embed densely in the reals); a subfield is a subset containing 11, closed under aba - b and abab, and containing x1x^{-1} for each nonzero xx in it (Subfield: a subring of a field closed under inverses of its nonzero elements, and therefore a field with the restricted operations, Field, Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).

[L2]

A field is a vector space over itself, and an FF-vector space is a KK-vector space for every subfield KFK \subseteq F by restricting the scalars (A field is a vector space over itself, and over any subfield KFK \subseteq F every FF-vector space is a KK-vector space by restricting the scalars, Vector space over a field).

[L6]

A finite list v:nVv : n \to V is an ordered basis of VV if and only if every xVx \in V is i<nλivi\sum_{i<n}\lambda_i v_i for exactly one λ:nF\lambda : n \to F; an ordered basis is an injective list whose image is a basis; and for a linear subspace UVU \subseteq V and AUA \subseteq U the readings of "AA is linearly independent" and "AA is a basis" computed in UU and in VV agree (A finite list v:nVv : n \to V is an ordered basis if and only if every xVx \in V equals i<nλivi\sum_{i<n} \lambda_i v_i for exactly one λ:nF\lambda : n \to F; those scalars are the coordinates of xx in that ordered basis, Basis of a vector space: a linearly independent spanning subset; and ordered basis: an injective finite list whose image is a basis, The natural numbers N\mathbb{N} (von Neumann)).

[L8]

QN\mathbb{Q} \approx \mathbb{N} and R\mathbb{R} is uncountable; a nonempty at most countable set is the image of a surjection from N\mathbb{N}, and the image of a surjection from N\mathbb{N} is at most countable (Q\mathbb{Q} is countably infinite, R\mathbb{R} is uncountable (Cantor's nested intervals, 1874), A nonempty set is at most countable iff it is a surjective image of N\mathbb{N}, Finite, countably infinite, countable, uncountable).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Q={q^:qQ}\mathbb{Q} = \{\hat q : q \in \mathbb{Q}\} is a subfield of R\mathbb{R}: it contains 1^=1\hat 1 = 1; it is closed under differences and products, since p^q^=pq^\hat p - \hat q = \widehat{p-q} and p^q^=pq^\hat p\,\hat q = \widehat{pq}; and if q^0\hat q \ne 0 then q0q \ne 0 and q^1=q1^\hat q^{-1} = \widehat{q^{-1}} lies in it.

L1
2.1

R\mathbb{R} is a vector space over itself, so restricting the scalars to the subfield Q\mathbb{Q} makes R\mathbb{R} a vector space over Q\mathbb{Q}, with the field addition as vector addition and the field multiplication restricted to Q×R\mathbb{Q} \times \mathbb{R} as scalar multiplication.

step 1.1L2
3.1

Claim 1: assuming the Axiom of Choice, that vector space has a basis BB, a linearly independent subset of R\mathbb{R} with span(B)=R\operatorname{span}(B) = \mathbb{R}.

step 2.1A1L4
4.1

Claim 2: since span(B)=R\operatorname{span}(B) = \mathbb{R} and the span of a set is already the set of linear combinations of injective finite lists into it, every real xx is i<nλibi\sum_{i<n}\lambda_i b_i with b:nBb : n \to B injective and λ:nQ\lambda : n \to \mathbb{Q}.

step 3.1L5
4.2

Claim 3: let b:nBb : n \to B be injective and put U:=span(b[n])U := \operatorname{span}(b[n]), a linear subspace of R\mathbb{R}. The list bb is linearly independent, since BB is a linearly independent subset and bb is an injective finite list into BB; its image b[n]b[n] spans UU by construction, so b[n]b[n] is a basis of UU and bb is an ordered basis of UU, independence and spanning being the same conditions read in UU as in R\mathbb{R}.

step 3.1L3L6
4.3

Fix bBb_{\star} \in B and put U0:=span{b}={λb:λQ}U_{0} := \operatorname{span}\{b_{\star}\} = \{\, \lambda b_{\star} : \lambda \in \mathbb{Q} \,\} and U1:=Wb=span(B{b})U_{1} := W_{b_{\star}} = \operatorname{span}(B \setminus \{b_{\star}\}), both linear subspaces of R\mathbb{R}.

step 3.1L3construct
5.1

With bb and UU as in step 4.2, the coordinate theorem applied to the vector space UU says that every xUx \in U is i<nλibi\sum_{i<n}\lambda_i b_i for exactly one λ:nQ\lambda : n \to \mathbb{Q}; in particular i<nλibi=i<nμibi\sum_{i<n}\lambda_i b_i = \sum_{i<n}\mu_i b_i forces λ=μ\lambda = \mu, which is claim 3.

step 4.2L6
5.2

U0+U1=RU_{0} + U_{1} = \mathbb{R}. Indeed U0+U1=span(U0U1)U_{0} + U_{1} = \operatorname{span}(U_{0} \cup U_{1}); the set BB is contained in U0U1U_{0} \cup U_{1}, since bU0b_{\star} \in U_{0} and B{b}U1B \setminus \{b_{\star}\} \subseteq U_{1} by extensiveness of the span, so R=span(B)span(U0U1)\mathbb{R} = \operatorname{span}(B) \subseteq \operatorname{span}(U_{0} \cup U_{1}) by monotonicity; and U0U1span(B)U_{0} \cup U_{1} \subseteq \operatorname{span}(B), again by monotonicity, so span(U0U1)span(span(B))=span(B)=R\operatorname{span}(U_{0} \cup U_{1}) \subseteq \operatorname{span}(\operatorname{span}(B)) = \operatorname{span}(B) = \mathbb{R} by idempotence.

step 3.1step 4.3L3L7
5.3

b0b_{\star} \ne 0 and bU1b_{\star} \notin U_{1}. If bb_{\star} lay in span(B{b})\operatorname{span}(B \setminus \{b_{\star}\}) then BB would be linearly dependent, contrary to step 3.1; and 0B0 \in B would likewise make BB dependent, since 0span(B{0})0 \in \operatorname{span}(B \setminus \{0\}), every span containing the zero vector.

step 3.1step 4.3L5
6.1

U0U1={0}U_{0} \cap U_{1} = \{0\}. Let zU0U1z \in U_{0} \cap U_{1} and write z=λbz = \lambda b_{\star} with λQ\lambda \in \mathbb{Q}. If λ0\lambda \ne 0 then b=λ1zU1b_{\star} = \lambda^{-1}z \in U_{1}, because U1U_{1} is a linear subspace and λ1Q\lambda^{-1} \in \mathbb{Q}, contradicting step 5.3; so λ=0\lambda = 0 and z=0z = 0.

step 4.3step 5.3L3
7.1

Hence R=U0U1\mathbb{R} = U_{0} \oplus U_{1}: condition (D1) is step 5.2, and condition (D2) is step 6.1, since for the two-member family the sum of the other summands is U1U_{1} in the one case and U0U_{0} in the other. By the direct-sum criterion every real xx is u0+u1u_{0} + u_{1} with u0U0u_{0} \in U_{0} and u1U1u_{1} \in U_{1} in exactly one way.

step 5.2step 6.1L7
8.1

Writing u0=λbu_{0} = \lambda b_{\star}, the scalar λQ\lambda \in \mathbb{Q} is determined by u0u_{0}, since b0b_{\star} \ne 0; so Λb(x):=λ\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) := \lambda is a well-defined map RQ\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{Q}, and x=Λb(x)b+wx = \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x)\,b_{\star} + w with wWbw \in W_{b_{\star}} in exactly one way.

step 5.3step 7.1L3
9.1

Λb\Lambda_{b_{\star}} is additive and Q\mathbb{Q}-homogeneous: if x=λb+wx = \lambda b_{\star} + w and y=μb+wy = \mu b_{\star} + w' with w,wWbw, w' \in W_{b_{\star}}, then x+y=(λ+μ)b+(w+w)x + y = (\lambda + \mu)b_{\star} + (w + w') with w+wWbw + w' \in W_{b_{\star}}, and qx=(qλ)b+qwqx = (q\lambda)b_{\star} + qw with qwWbqw \in W_{b_{\star}} for qQq \in \mathbb{Q}, both because WbW_{b_{\star}} is a linear subspace; uniqueness in step 8.1 then identifies the coefficients.

step 8.1L3
10.1

Λb(b)=1\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(b_{\star}) = 1, from the representation b=1b+0b_{\star} = 1\cdot b_{\star} + 0; the range of Λb\Lambda_{b_{\star}} is all of Q\mathbb{Q}, since Λb(qb)=q\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(q b_{\star}) = q for every qQq \in \mathbb{Q}; and Λb(x)=0\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) = 0 holds exactly when x=0b+w=wWbx = 0\cdot b_{\star} + w = w \in W_{b_{\star}}. Claim 4 is proved.

step 8.1step 9.1
11.1

Claim 5: if Wb={0}W_{b_{\star}} = \{0\} then step 8.1 gives R={λb:λQ}\mathbb{R} = \{\lambda b_{\star} : \lambda \in \mathbb{Q}\}. That set is the image of Q\mathbb{Q} under λλb\lambda \mapsto \lambda b_{\star}, and Q\mathbb{Q} is the image of a surjection from N\mathbb{N}, so composing gives a surjection from N\mathbb{N} onto R\mathbb{R} and R\mathbb{R} would be at most countable, contradicting its uncountability. So Wb{0}W_{b_{\star}} \ne \{0\}.

step 8.1L8

Remarks

  • How this differs from R\mathbb{R} as a vector space over Q\mathbb{Q} has a basis, and every such basis is infinite; the existence proof exhibits none, exactly. That item, homed on the examples page of Linear independence, bases and dimension, proves three things: that R\mathbb{R} is a vector space over the canonical copy of Q\mathbb{Q}, that it has a basis there, and that every such basis is infinite, together with the observation that the existence proof exhibits none. The present lemma proves the first two and does not prove the third: nothing above says that a Hamel basis is infinite. What it adds instead is claims 2 to 5 — the representation by injective lists, uniqueness of the coefficients along a list, the coefficient map Λb\Lambda_{b_{\star}} of a single basis vector with its kernel, and the fact that Wb{0}W_{b_{\star}} \ne \{0\} — none of which appears there. So neither statement contains the other, and they are not the same statement.

The duplication of the two shared clauses is deliberate. An examples page is a leaf of this library and nothing outside it may depend on an item homed there, so a citable Hamel basis had to be built on a page that is not a leaf. The proofs of those clauses are the same proof, and no originality is claimed for them.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

False statementConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-28Open item page →

FALSE: a function with the intermediate value property on an interval is continuous

Statement

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The interval I:=[1,1]I := [-1,1] (Intervals of R\mathbb{R}: the nine order-convex forms, nondegeneracy, and length).

[L1]

For every real uu there is exactly one integer mm with mu<m+1m \le u < m+1, written u\lfloor u \rfloor (Integer part: for every real xx there is exactly one integer mm with mx<m+1m \le x < m + 1); in particular no integer lies strictly between mm and m+1m+1.

[L2]

min{a,b}\min\{a,b\} and max{a,b}\max\{a,b\} exist for reals a,ba, b, and a nonempty finite set of reals has a minimum and a maximum (Maximum and minimum of a set, Every nonempty finite set of reals has a maximum and a minimum).

[L3]

Sums, scalar multiples, absolute values, maxima, minima and quotients with nonvanishing denominator of continuous functions are continuous, as are constants and the identity; composites 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, A composite of continuous functions is continuous, with no side hypothesis of the kind the composition of limits needs).

[L4]

Intermediate value theorem: a continuous function on [a,b][a,b] takes every value between its values at the endpoints (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)).

[L6]

u0|u| \ge 0, u=0|u| = 0 only for u=0u = 0, and uwuv+vw|u - w| \le |u - v| + |v - w| (Basic properties of the absolute value).

[L7]

ff has the intermediate value property on an order-convex II exactly when for all a<ba < b in II and every yy between f(a)f(a) and f(b)f(b) in either order there is c[a,b]c \in [a,b] with f(c)=yf(c) = y (The intermediate value property (Darboux property) of a function on an interval: the image of every subinterval is order-convex).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

Define ψ:RR\psi : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} by ψ(u):=min{uu, u+1u}\psi(u) := \min\{\, u - \lfloor u \rfloor,\ \lfloor u \rfloor + 1 - u \,\}, the distance from uu to the nearest integer, and define g:[1,1]Rg : [-1,1] \to \mathbb{R} by g(x):=ψ(1/x)g(x) := \psi(1/x) for x0x \ne 0 and g(0):=0g(0) := 0.

L1L2construct
2.1

0ψ(u)1/20 \le \psi(u) \le 1/2 for every real uu: writing θ:=uu[0,1)\theta := u - \lfloor u \rfloor \in [0,1), the two entries are θ0\theta \ge 0 and 1θ>01 - \theta > 0, and their minimum is at most their average 1/21/2. Consequently 0g(x)1/20 \le g(x) \le 1/2 for every x[1,1]x \in [-1,1].

step 1.1L1L2
2.2

ψ(u)=min{um:mZ}\psi(u) = \min\{\, |u - m| : m \in \mathbb{Z} \,\} in the sense that umψ(u)|u - m| \ge \psi(u) for every integer mm, with equality for m=um = \lfloor u \rfloor or m=u+1m = \lfloor u \rfloor + 1. Indeed, with n:=un := \lfloor u \rfloor: for mnm \le n one has um=umun|u - m| = u - m \ge u - n, and for mn+1m \ge n+1 one has um=mun+1u|u - m| = m - u \ge n + 1 - u.

step 1.1L1
2.3

For every real η>0\eta > 0 and every y[0,1/2]y \in [0,1/2] there is xx with 0<x<η0 < x < \eta and g(x)=yg(x) = y: take a natural k1k \ge 1 with 1/ι(k)<η1/\iota(k) < \eta and put x:=1/(ι(k)+y)x := 1/(\iota(k) + y). Then 0<x1/ι(k)<η0 < x \le 1/\iota(k) < \eta and 1/x=ι(k)+y1/x = \iota(k) + y with 0y1/2<10 \le y \le 1/2 < 1, so 1/x=ι(k)\lfloor 1/x \rfloor = \iota(k) and ψ(1/x)=min{y,1y}=y\psi(1/x) = \min\{y, 1-y\} = y.

step 1.1L1L5
3.1

ψ\psi is continuous on R\mathbb{R}, because ψ(u)ψ(v)uv|\psi(u) - \psi(v)| \le |u - v| for all reals u,vu, v: choose an integer mm with um=ψ(u)|u - m| = \psi(u), which exists by step 2.2; then ψ(v)vmvu+um=uv+ψ(u)\psi(v) \le |v - m| \le |v - u| + |u - m| = |u - v| + \psi(u), and exchanging uu and vv gives the other inequality. So δ:=ε\delta := \varepsilon witnesses continuity at every point.

step 2.2L6
3.2

For every real η>0\eta > 0 and every y[0,1/2]y \in [0,1/2] there is xx with η<x<0-\eta < x < 0 and g(x)=yg(x) = y: with kk as in step 2.3 put x:=1/(ι(k)+y)x := -1/(\iota(k) + y), so η<x<0-\eta < x < 0 and 1/x=ι(k)y1/x = -\iota(k) - y. If y=0y = 0 then 1/x=ι(k)1/x = -\iota(k) is an integer and ψ(1/x)=0=y\psi(1/x) = 0 = y; if 0<y1/20 < y \le 1/2 then 1/x=ι(k)1\lfloor 1/x \rfloor = -\iota(k) - 1 and 1/x1/x=1y1/x - \lfloor 1/x \rfloor = 1 - y, so ψ(1/x)=min{1y,y}=y\psi(1/x) = \min\{1-y, y\} = y.

step 1.1step 2.3L1L5
3.3

gg is discontinuous at 00: g(0)=0g(0) = 0, and by step 2.3 every real δ>0\delta > 0 admits xx with 0<x<δ0 < x < \delta and g(x)=1/2g(x) = 1/2, so g(x)g(0)=1/2|g(x) - g(0)| = 1/2. Hence no δ\delta witnesses the continuity condition at 00 for ε:=1/2\varepsilon := 1/2.

step 1.1step 2.3L6
4.1

gg is continuous at every x[1,1]x \in [-1,1] with x0x \ne 0: on the set {x[1,1]:x0}\{x \in [-1,1] : x \ne 0\} the map x1/xx \mapsto 1/x is continuous, and gg is its composite with ψ\psi; continuity at a point of that set is continuity of gg there, since the set contains a whole neighbourhood of xx inside [1,1][-1,1] when x0x \ne 0.

step 1.1step 3.1L3
4.2

If 0[a,b]0 \in [a,b] then, since a<ba < b, either b>0b > 0 or a<0a < 0. In the first case step 2.3 with η:=b\eta := b gives cc with 0<c<b0 < c < b and g(c)=yg(c) = y, and c[a,b]c \in [a,b]; in the second case step 3.2 with η:=a\eta := -a gives cc with a<c<0a < c < 0 and g(c)=yg(c) = y. Either way yg[[a,b]]y \in g[\,[a,b]\,].

step 2.1step 2.3step 3.2L7
5.1

gg has the intermediate value property on [1,1][-1,1]. Let a<ba < b in [1,1][-1,1] and let yy lie between g(a)g(a) and g(b)g(b) in either order; in particular y[0,1/2]y \in [0,1/2] by step 2.1. If 0[a,b]0 \notin [a,b] then gg restricted to [a,b][a,b] is continuous by step 4.1, and the intermediate value theorem supplies c[a,b]c \in [a,b] with g(c)=yg(c) = y.

step 2.1step 4.1L4L7
6.1

So gg is a function on the interval [1,1][-1,1] with the intermediate value property that is not continuous on [1,1][-1,1], and the claim in the Statement is false.

step 3.3step 5.1step 4.2L7discharge-construct

Remarks

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

FALSE: every additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is of the form xcxx \mapsto cx for a single real cc

Statement

FALSE. Every additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} (Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}) is of the form xcxx \mapsto c\,x for a single real cc.

What is true is the Q\mathbb{Q}-linear part of it, f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = q f(x) for rational qq (An additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} satisfies f(0)=0f(0) = 0, f(x)=f(x)f(-x) = -f(x) and f(qx)=qf(x)f(qx) = q\,f(x) for every rational qq and every real xx; in particular f(q)=qf(1)f(q) = q\,f(1) at every rational qq), and the conditional statements of Six regularity conditions each force an additive f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} to be xf(1)xx \mapsto f(1)x: continuity at a single point, monotonicity on a nondegenerate interval, boundedness above on one, boundedness below on one, constancy of sign on one, and a graph that is not dense in R2\mathbb{R}^{2}, each of which adds a regularity hypothesis. The claim above asserts the conclusion with no hypothesis at all, and it is false.

The refutation assumes the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice), which it uses through Assuming the Axiom of Choice, R\mathbb{R} has a Hamel basis over Q\mathbb{Q}: there is BRB \subseteq \mathbb{R} such that every real is a finite Q\mathbb{Q}-linear combination of elements of BB in exactly one way, and each basis vector carries a well-defined Q\mathbb{Q}-linear coefficient map and hence through Zorn's lemma. The hypothesis is carried explicitly in the Facts below and in every step that needs it. It is an axiom already adopted in this library, so the refutation is a refutation and not a conditional one; what it does not settle is whether a counterexample exists without choice, and nothing here bears on that question.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, and Q\mathbb{Q} denoting the canonical copy of the rationals inside R\mathbb{R} (The rationals embed densely in the reals).

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice, Zorn's lemma).

[L1]

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Then there is BRB \subseteq \mathbb{R}, a basis of R\mathbb{R} as a vector space over Q\mathbb{Q} by restriction of scalars, and for each bBb_{\star} \in B a map Λb:RQ\Lambda_{b_{\star}} : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{Q} with Λb(x+y)=Λb(x)+Λb(y)\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x+y) = \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) + \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(y) for all reals x,yx, y, with Λb(b)=1\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(b_{\star}) = 1, and with range the whole of Q\mathbb{Q} (Assuming the Axiom of Choice, R\mathbb{R} has a Hamel basis over Q\mathbb{Q}: there is BRB \subseteq \mathbb{R} such that every real is a finite Q\mathbb{Q}-linear combination of elements of BB in exactly one way, and each basis vector carries a well-defined Q\mathbb{Q}-linear coefficient map, claims 1 and 4, A field is a vector space over itself, and over any subfield KFK \subseteq F every FF-vector space is a KK-vector space by restricting the scalars, Vector space over a field, Linear combination of a finite list, and the span span(S)\operatorname{span}(S) as the smallest linear subspace containing SS).

[L2]

A function f:RRf : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} is additive when f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x)+f(y) for all reals x,yx, y (Cauchy's functional equation f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y), and the additive functions RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}).

[L3]

There exists an irrational real, that is a real not lying in Q\mathbb{Q}: the irrationals are dense in R\mathbb{R} and in particular nonempty (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).

[L4]

R\mathbb{R} is a field, so a nonzero real is invertible (Complete ordered field (least-upper-bound property)).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1

Assume the Axiom of Choice and fix a Hamel basis BB of R\mathbb{R} over Q\mathbb{Q} together with an element bBb_{\star} \in B; such an element exists because BB spans R\mathbb{R}, which is not {0}\{0\}, so BB is nonempty. Put f:=Λbf := \Lambda_{b_{\star}}, regarded as a function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}.

A1L1construct
2.1

ff is additive: Λb(x+y)=Λb(x)+Λb(y)\Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x+y) = \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(x) + \Lambda_{b_{\star}}(y) for all reals x,yx, y is one of the properties of the coefficient map.

step 1.1L1L2
2.2

Every value of ff is rational, and f(b)=1f(b_{\star}) = 1.

step 1.1L1
3.1

Suppose there were a real cc with f(x)=cxf(x) = c\,x for every real xx. Then cb=f(b)=1c\,b_{\star} = f(b_{\star}) = 1, so c0c \ne 0 and cc is invertible.

step 1.1step 2.2L4
4.1

Take an irrational real θ\theta and put x0:=c1θx_{0} := c^{-1}\theta. Then f(x0)=cx0=θf(x_{0}) = c\,x_{0} = \theta, which is irrational; but every value of ff is rational by step 2.2. This is impossible, so no such cc exists.

step 2.2step 3.1L3L4
5.1

So ff is an additive function RR\mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} that is not of the form xcxx \mapsto c\,x for any real cc, and the claim in the Statement is false.

step 2.1step 4.1discharge-construct

Remarks

Sources