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.
Discrete test supermartingales and Ville — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Absolute and Conditional Convergence; Rearrangement; Products
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Completeness, Completion, and Uniform Continuity
- Conditional Expectation
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Continuity, IVT, EVT, and Uniform Continuity
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Discrete test supermartingales and Ville
- Discrete Time Martingales
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Independence Borel Cantelli and Zero One Laws
- Limits of Real Functions
- limsup, liminf, and Subsequential Limits
- Measurable Functions and Simple Approximation
- Measures and Their Basic Properties
- Metric Spaces
- Monotone Functions, Discontinuities, and Continuity Sets
- Monotone Sequences, Bolzano-Weierstrass, and Cauchy Completeness
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Pointwise Extended-Real Function Products
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Power Series and Real-Analytic Functions
- Probability Spaces Random Variables and Expectation
- Product Measures and the Fubini Tonelli Theorems
- Properties of the Integral and the Working FTC
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Sequences and Series of Functions; Uniform Convergence
- Sequential Validity and Ville's Inequality
- Series: Convergence and the Nonnegative Tests
- Sigma Algebras and Borel Sets
- Signed and Complex Measures Hahn and Jordan
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Stopping Times and Optional Stopping
- Suprema and Infima
- The Derivative and the Mean Value Theorems
- The Exponential Function
- The Lebesgue Integral and the Convergence Theorems
- The Logarithm and General Powers
- The Lᵖ Spaces Holder Minkowski and Riesz Fischer
- The Radon Nikodym Theorem and Lebesgue Decomposition
- The Riemann Integral: Definition and Integrability
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Topological Spaces and Continuity
- Topology of ℝ
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
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 , which exceeds when . 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
Repeated unadjusted tests inflate global-null error
Example
Let be an integer, let , and under a global-null law let be mutually independent random variables with At each of the looks, reject the global null if the current value is at most , without adjusting the threshold. The probability of at least one rejection is The first rejection time is a stopping time for the filtration for , with trivial; thus the filtration stays constant after look .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Assume AC for the comparison with the A-page theorem. Under a global null law , independent uniform random variables are observed successively. Here uniform means exactly for every .
Independent random elements: random variables are independent when the sigma-algebras they generate are independent.
Independent random elements have product joint law: the joint law of finitely many independent random elements is the product of their marginal laws.
Discrete stopping time: is a stopping time when for every .
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.
AC is required only for applying [F4]; the exact product probability calculation below uses no choice principle (The Axiom of Choice).
Verification
For each , the uniform-law assumption gives .
Define , with . For every , , where the union is empty for . Thus [F3] makes a stopping time, and the rejection event by look is .
By [F1]–[F2], the probability that every look misses is the product of the marginal probabilities, so .
The event of at least one rejection is the complement of the event in step 2.1. Therefore its probability is .
Since and , , so step 3.1 is strictly greater than .
[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.
A supermartingale supremum threshold need not be attained
Statement refuted
Assume AC. For every null family , every nonnegative test supermartingale for , every , and every , the identity 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 with for which the two events have different probabilities at .
Probability measures and probability spaces: a probability measure is a countably additive measure of total mass one.
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.
Conditional expectation as an ae class: conditional expectations are unique almost-sure classes, so equalities of conditional expectations mean almost-sure equality.
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.
Monotonicity and nonnegative homogeneity of the nonnegative integral: the nonnegative integral is monotone and is homogeneous for positive scalars.
Martingale submartingale and supermartingale: an integrable adapted process is a martingale when almost surely for every .
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.
Discrete Ville inequality and anytime threshold validity: under AC, a nonnegative test supermartingale satisfies both the supremum-event and first-crossing probability bounds by .
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
Set , , and with , , and . The geometric series makes a probability measure. For , let , let be generated by the partition (at this is the trivial partition), and put . These partitions refine as increases, so is a filtration.
Define on each singleton with , and set on . This is -measurable and satisfies . By [F1], [F4], and [F5], , so it is integrable.
On every revealed singleton , , both and are zero. The remaining atom splits into , of mass , and , of mass . The conditional mean of on is since the two parts' masses sum to . These equalities on the finitely many atoms of give a conditional-expectation version by [F2]; [F3] gives its almost-sure class, and [F6] makes a martingale.
, so . With step 2.1 and step 3.1, [F7] shows that is a nonnegative test supermartingale for the singleton null family .
Step 2.1 shows at every finite time, so everywhere. On , , so ; on each , for and the finitely many earlier values are all below . Hence , with probability , whereas . Both are at most , as [F8] requires, but they are not equal.