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.

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.

Countability Axioms and Cardinal Functions: Examples and Counterexamples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Under choice, for the usual real line, w=d=χ=L=c=0w=d=\chi=L=c=\aleph_0 under the raw convention

Example

Specializing Qn\mathbb{Q}^n is a countable dense subset of Rn\mathbb{R}^n, and rational open boxes form a countable basis to n=1n=1, rational-endpoint intervals and the rational points give countable bases and dense sets for the usual real line. The inequalities c(R)d(R)w(R)c(\mathbb R)\le d(\mathbb R)\le w(\mathbb R) and χ(R),L(R)w(R)\chi(\mathbb R),L(\mathbb R)\le w(\mathbb R) then give countable upper bounds for all five functions (Under choice, c(X)d(X)w(X)c(X)\le d(X)\le w(X) and χ(X),L(X)w(X)\chi(X),L(X)\le w(X)). No finite family can be a basis or a local base, and finite covers or cellular families have arbitrarily large finite witnesses. Thus the five raw functions are all 0\aleph_0.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Under choice, for an infinite discrete space of cardinality κ\kappa, w=d=L=c=κw=d=L=c=\kappa while χ=1\chi=1

Example

For an infinite discrete XX of cardinality κ\kappa, singletons force every basis, dense set, singleton cover, and cellular family to have size κ\kappa. At a point, {{x}}\{\{x\}\} is a one-member local base. Hence w=d=L=c=κw=d=L=c=\kappa and χ=1\chi=1.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

For the lower-limit line, χ=d=L=c=0\chi=d=L=c=\aleph_0 and w=20w=2^{\aleph_0} under choice

Example

Assume Choice and let SS be the lower-limit line. At xx, the intervals [x,x+1/n)[x,x+1/n) form a countable local base. No finite family is a local base: the intersection of finitely many neighbourhoods is still a neighbourhood and contains some y>xy>x, whereas [x,y)[x,y) cannot contain any member of a finite local base contained in that intersection. Hence χ(S)=0\chi(S)=\aleph_0.

The rationals are countable and meet every nonempty half-open interval, so d(S)0d(S)\le\aleph_0; no finite set is dense, since a short half-open interval can avoid it. The published lower-limit-line lemma gives Lindelöfness, while the cover {[n,n):n1}\{[-n,n):n\ge1\} has no finite subcover, so d(S)=L(S)=0d(S)=L(S)=\aleph_0. Density bounds cellularity above, and the disjoint family {[n,n+1):nZ}\{[n,n+1):n\in\mathbb Z\} bounds it below, giving c(S)=0c(S)=\aleph_0.

All half-open intervals form a basis of cardinality at most R2=R|\mathbb R|^2=|\mathbb R|. Conversely, well order any basis and assign to each xx its first member BxB_x with xBx[x,x+1)x\in B_x\subseteq[x,x+1); if x<yx<y, then ByB_y cannot contain xx, so BxByB_x\ne B_y. Thus w(S)=R=20w(S)=|\mathbb R|=2^{\aleph_0}.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Assuming choice, the lower-limit plane is first countable, separable, and ccc, but not second countable or Lindelöf

Example

Let SS be the lower-limit line. Under Choice, the countable-product theorem makes S2S^2 first countable, and the rational grid is a countable dense subset; hence S2S^2 is separable and therefore ccc. The antidiagonal A={(x,x):xR}A=\{(x,-x):x\in\mathbb R\} is an uncountable closed discrete subspace, as proved in Refuted: separability is hereditary and Assuming countable choice, refuted: Lindelöfness is productive. If S2S^2 were second countable, hereditary second countability would make the discrete space AA second countable, which is impossible because every basis of a discrete space contains all its singletons. The explicit open cover in Assuming countable choice, refuted: Lindelöfness is productive shows directly that S2S^2 is not Lindelöf.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31Open item page →

The one-point compactification of the discrete real line is compact and Lindelöf but is neither first countable nor separable

Example

Give D=RD=\mathbb R the discrete topology and form D=D{}D^*=D\cup\{\infty\}. The one-point compactification theorem makes DD^* compact, hence Lindelöf, and every point of DD remains isolated.

A neighbourhood of \infty has finite complement in DD, since compact subsets of a discrete space are finite. If (Nn)(N_n) were a countable local base at \infty, put Fn=DNnF_n=D\setminus N_n. For every xDx\in D, the neighbourhood D{x}D^*\setminus\{x\} would contain some NnN_n, so D=nFnD=\bigcup_nF_n. Each finite subset of R\mathbb R has a canonical increasing enumeration; these enumerations and countability of N×N\mathbb N\times\mathbb N make the displayed union countable, contradicting uncountability of R\mathbb R. Thus DD^* is not first countable. Finally every dense subset must meet the open singleton {x}\{x\} for every xDx\in D, so it contains all of DD and cannot be countable; hence DD^* is not separable.

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedverified 2026-08-05 (claude-sonnet-5)Open item page →

Assuming countable choice, ω1\omega_1 is first countable and countably compact but is not separable or Lindelöf

Example

Assume countable choice. Successor ordinals and 00 are isolated. If α<ω1\alpha<\omega_1 is a nonzero limit, enumerate the at most countable ordinal α\alpha and take the successive finite suprema of that enumeration; the result is a countable cofinal sequence, and the corresponding final intervals (βn,α](\beta_n,\alpha] form a local base at α\alpha. Thus ω1\omega_1 is first countable. The published ordinal theorem makes it countably compact.

Every at most countable subset Dω1D\subseteq\omega_1 is bounded by some β<ω1\beta<\omega_1, so the nonempty open tail above β\beta misses DD; hence ω1\omega_1 is not separable. The open initial segments {[0,β]:β<ω1}\{\,[0,\beta] : \beta<\omega_1\,\} cover ω1\omega_1, but any at most countable subfamily has bounded union and therefore fails to cover. Thus ω1\omega_1 is not Lindelöf.

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Under choice, a concrete ccc nonseparable Cantor cube indexed above 202^{\aleph_0}

Example

Let I=P(P(N))I=\mathcal P(\mathcal P(\mathbb N)). Cantor's theorem gives I>20|I|>2^{\aleph_0}. Under choice, Under choice, every Cantor cube 2I2^I satisfies ccc makes 2I2^I ccc and Under choice, if I>20|I|>2^{\aleph_0}, then the Cantor cube 2I2^I is not separable makes it nonseparable.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Assuming choice, a separable space with a nonseparable subspace: the lower-limit plane and its antidiagonal

Statement refuted

Separability is hereditary.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The lower-limit plane PP and its antidiagonal A={(x,x):xR}A=\{(x,-x):x\in\mathbb R\}.

[L1]

The lower-limit plane is separable, and its antidiagonal is an uncountable discrete subspace (Assuming choice, the lower-limit plane is first countable, separable, and ccc, but not second countable or Lindelöf).

[L2]

The false statement being exhibited asserts that every subspace of a separable space is separable (Refuted: separability is hereditary).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

By [L1], the space PP is separable.

L1
1.2

By [L1], the subspace AA is uncountable and discrete, so it has no at most countable dense subset.

L1
2.1

Thus PP is a separable space with the nonseparable subspace AA, contradicting the assertion recalled in [L2].

step 1.1step 1.2L2
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31 rests on unproved material (inherited)Open item page →
Rests on 3 statements not proved in this library, by way of the results it cites. This item cites no such statement directly; it depends on results that do. The unproved premises it inherits are Cohen's first model: an infinite Dedekind-finite set of reals, Sierpiński 1947: the generalised continuum hypothesis implies the Axiom of Choice and The continuum hypothesis and its generalisation are independent of ZFC. Each is recorded with a citation to the literature and is not established here, because the track that would prove it has not yet been developed in this library. Everything else in this proof is proved here.

Assuming choice, a Lindelöf space whose square is not Lindelöf: the lower-limit line

Statement refuted

Assuming countable choice, Lindelöfness is productive.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The lower-limit line SS and its square S2S^2.

[L1]

The lower-limit line has Lindelöf degree 0\aleph_0, hence is Lindelöf (For the lower-limit line, χ=d=L=c=0\chi=d=L=c=\aleph_0 and w=20w=2^{\aleph_0} under choice).

[L3]

The false statement being exhibited asserts that products of Lindelöf spaces are Lindelöf (Assuming countable choice, refuted: Lindelöfness is productive).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1

The factor SS is Lindelöf by [L1].

L1
1.2

Its square S2S^2 is not Lindelöf by [L2].

L2
2.1

Hence the product S×SS\times S fails the conclusion while each displayed factor satisfies the hypothesis, refuting the assertion in [L3].

step 1.1step 1.2L3

Sources