Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

✓ 2 results · all verified · 2 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; all 2 also cleared it.

Discrete test supermartingales and Ville — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

Two examples separate time-uniform validity from repeated fixed-look testing. Independent uniform p-values tested repeatedly at an unadjusted level have global-null rejection probability 1−(1−α)K, which exceeds α when K≥2. A second construction shows that the supremum of a valid nonnegative test supermartingale can equal the threshold even when no finite time reaches it; Ville's probability bound remains valid although the supremum event and first-crossing event need not have equal probabilities.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

Repeated unadjusted tests inflate global-null error

Example

Let K≥2 be an integer, let α∈(0,1), and under a global-null law P0 let P1,…,PK be mutually independent random variables with P0(Pi≤u)=u(0≤u≤1). At each of the K looks, reject the global null if the current value is at most α, without adjusting the threshold. The probability of at least one rejection is P0 ⁣(⋃i=1K{Pi≤α})=1−(1−α)K>α. The first rejection time is a stopping time for the filtration Fk=σ(P1,…,Pmin⁡(k,K)) for k≥0, with F0 trivial; thus the filtration stays constant after look K.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Assume AC for the comparison with the A-page theorem. Under a global null law P0, K≥2 independent uniform [0,1] random variables P1,…,PK are observed successively. Here uniform means exactly P0(Pi≤u)=u for every u∈[0,1].

[F1]

Independent random elements: random variables are independent when the sigma-algebras they generate are independent.

[F2]

Independent random elements have product joint law: the joint law of finitely many independent random elements is the product of their marginal laws.

[F3]

Discrete stopping time: σ is a stopping time when {σ≤k}∈Fk for every k.

[F4]

Discrete Ville inequality and anytime threshold validity: under each null law, a nonnegative test supermartingale with initial expectation at most one has all-time threshold-crossing probability at most the threshold level.

[A1]

AC is required only for applying [F4]; the exact product probability calculation below uses no choice principle (The Axiom of Choice).

Verification

1.1given

For each i, the uniform-law assumption gives P0(Pi>α)=1−α.

1.2F3givenconstruct

Define σ=inf⁡{1≤i≤K:Pi≤α}, with inf⁡∅=∞. For every k≥0, {σ≤k}=⋃i=1min⁡(k,K){Pi≤α}∈Fk, where the union is empty for k=0. Thus [F3] makes σ a stopping time, and the rejection event by look K is {σ≤K}.

2.1F1F2step 1.1

By [F1]–[F2], the probability that every look misses is the product of the marginal probabilities, so P0(⋂i=1K{Pi>α})=(1−α)K.

3.1step 2.1algebra

The event of at least one rejection is the complement of the event in step 2.1. Therefore its probability is 1−(1−α)K.

4.1givenstep 3.1algebra

Since 0<1−α<1 and K≥2, (1−α)K<1−α, so step 3.1 is strictly greater than α.

5.1F4A1step 1.2step 4.1∎

[F4] controls arbitrary threshold stopping only when its nonnegative test-supermartingale hypotheses hold. The calculation above concerns repeated fixed-look uniform p-values and does not assume such a process, so the excess rejection probability is not a violation of Ville's inequality.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)Open item page →

A supermartingale supremum threshold need not be attained

Statement refuted

Assume AC. For every null family P0, every nonnegative test supermartingale M for P0, every P∈P0, and every α∈(0,1), the identity P ⁣(sup⁡t≥0Mt≥1/α)=P(τα<∞),τα=inf⁡{t≥0:Mt≥1/α}, holds.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Assume AC as in the library's test-supermartingale and supermartingale definitions. We construct one probability law and a discrete nonnegative martingale M with EM0≤1 for which the two events have different probabilities at α=1/2.

[F1]

Probability measures and probability spaces: a probability measure is a countably additive measure of total mass one.

[F2]

Conditional expectation given a sigma algebra: a conditional-expectation version is measurable with respect to the conditioning sigma-algebra and has the same integral as the original variable over every event in that sigma-algebra.

[F3]

Conditional expectation as an ae class: conditional expectations are unique almost-sure classes, so equalities of conditional expectations mean almost-sure equality.

[F4]

Expectation of a nonnegative or integrable random variable: expectation is the integral against the probability measure; a bounded nonnegative measurable random variable has finite expectation.

[F5]

Monotonicity and nonnegative homogeneity of the nonnegative integral: the nonnegative integral is monotone and is homogeneous for positive scalars.

[F6]

Martingale submartingale and supermartingale: an integrable adapted process is a martingale when E[Mn+1∣Fn]=Mn almost surely for every n.

[F7]

Nonnegative test supermartingales: under each null law, an adapted integrable nonnegative supermartingale with initial expectation at most one is a nonnegative test supermartingale; the definition assumes AC.

[F8]

Discrete Ville inequality and anytime threshold validity: under AC, a nonnegative test supermartingale satisfies both the supremum-event and first-crossing probability bounds by α.

[A1]

AC is inherited from the conditional-expectation class, martingale and test-supermartingale definitions, and the Ville theorem ([F3], [F6]–[F8]); the probability space, filtration, conditional means, and process below are explicit (The Axiom of Choice).

Counterexample

1.1F1givenconstructalgebra

Set p=1/4, c=2, and Ω={a}∪{bk:k≥1} with F=2Ω, P({a})=p, and P({bk})=(1−p)2−k. The geometric series makes P a probability measure. For n≥0, let Tn={a}∪{bk:k>n}, let Fn be generated by the partition {{b1},…,{bn},Tn} (at n=0 this is the trivial partition), and put mn=P(Tn)=p+(1−p)2−n. These partitions refine as n increases, so (Fn) is a filtration.

2.1givenF1F4F5step 1.1algebra

Define Mn=0 on each singleton {bj} with j≤n, and set Mn=cp/mn on Tn. This is Fn-measurable and satisfies 0≤Mn<c. By [F1], [F4], and [F5], EPMn≤cP(Ω)=c<∞, so it is integrable.

3.1F2F3F6A1step 1.1step 2.1algebra

On every revealed singleton {bj}, j≤n, both Mn and Mn+1 are zero. The remaining atom Tn splits into {bn+1}, of mass (1−p)2−(n+1), and Tn+1, of mass mn+1. The conditional mean of Mn+1 on Tn is mn+1(cp/mn+1)+(1−p)2−(n+1)⋅0mn=cpmn=Mn, since the two parts' masses sum to mn. These equalities on the finitely many atoms of Fn give a conditional-expectation version by [F2]; [F3] gives its almost-sure class, and [F6] makes M a martingale.

4.1F1F4F7A1step 2.1step 3.1

M0=cp=1/2, so EPM0=cpP(Ω)=1/2≤1. With step 2.1 and step 3.1, [F7] shows that M is a nonnegative test supermartingale for the singleton null family {P}.

5.1givenF8A1step 2.1step 4.1algebra∎

Step 2.1 shows Mn<c=2 at every finite time, so τ1/2=∞ everywhere. On a, Mn=cp/[p+(1−p)2−n]→c, so sup⁡nMn=c; on each bk, Mn=0 for n≥k and the finitely many earlier values are all below c. Hence {sup⁡nMn≥2}={a}, with probability 1/4, whereas P(τ1/2<∞)=0. Both are at most α=1/2, as [F8] requires, but they are not equal.