Alphabeta Math
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 2026-07-31Open item page →

Under choice, for the usual real line, w=d=χ=L=c=ℵ0 under the raw convention

Example

Specializing Qn is a countable dense subset of Rn, and rational open boxes form a countable basis to n=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) and χ(R),L(R)≤w(R) then give countable upper bounds for all five functions (Under choice, c(X)≤d(X)≤w(X) and χ(X),L(X)≤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 ℵ0.

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

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

Example

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

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

For the lower-limit line, χ=d=L=c=ℵ0 and w=2ℵ0 under choice

Example

Assume Choice and let S be the lower-limit line. At x, the intervals [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>x, whereas [x,y) cannot contain any member of a finite local base contained in that intersection. Hence χ(S)=ℵ0.

The rationals are countable and meet every nonempty half-open interval, so d(S)≤ℵ0; 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):n≥1} has no finite subcover, so d(S)=L(S)=ℵ0. Density bounds cellularity above, and the disjoint family {[n,n+1):n∈Z} bounds it below, giving c(S)=ℵ0.

All half-open intervals form a basis of cardinality at most ∣R∣2=∣R∣. Conversely, well order any basis and assign to each x its first member Bx with x∈Bx⊆[x,x+1); if x<y, then By cannot contain x, so Bx≠By. Thus w(S)=∣R∣=2ℵ0.

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

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

Example

Let S be the lower-limit line. Under Choice, the countable-product theorem makes S2 first countable, and the rational grid is a countable dense subset; hence S2 is separable and therefore ccc. The antidiagonal A={(x,−x):x∈R} is an uncountable closed discrete subspace, as proved in Refuted: separability is hereditary and Assuming countable choice, refuted: Lindelöfness is productive. If S2 were second countable, hereditary second countability would make the discrete space A 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 S2 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=R the discrete topology and form D∗=D∪{∞}. The one-point compactification theorem makes D∗ compact, hence Lindelöf, and every point of D remains isolated.

A neighbourhood of ∞ has finite complement in D, since compact subsets of a discrete space are finite. If (Nn) were a countable local base at ∞, put Fn=D∖Nn. For every x∈D, the neighbourhood D∗∖{x} would contain some Nn, so D=⋃nFn. Each finite subset of R has a canonical increasing enumeration; these enumerations and countability of N×N make the displayed union countable, contradicting uncountability of R. Thus D∗ is not first countable. Finally every dense subset must meet the open singleton {x} for every x∈D, so it contains all of D and cannot be countable; hence D∗ is not separable.

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

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

Example

Assume countable choice. Successor ordinals and 0 are isolated. If α<ω1 is a nonzero limit, enumerate the at most countable ordinal α and take the successive finite suprema of that enumeration; the result is a countable cofinal sequence, and the corresponding final intervals (βn,α] form a local base at α. Thus ω1 is first countable. The published ordinal theorem makes it countably compact.

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

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

Under choice, a concrete ccc nonseparable Cantor cube indexed above 2ℵ0

Example

Let I=P(P(N)). Cantor's theorem gives ∣I∣>2ℵ0. Under choice, Under choice, every Cantor cube 2I satisfies ccc makes 2I ccc and Under choice, if ∣I∣>2ℵ0, then the Cantor cube 2I is not separable makes it nonseparable.

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31Open item page →

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 P and its antidiagonal A={(x,−x):x∈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 P is separable.

L1
1.2

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

L1
2.1

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

step 1.1step 1.2L2∎
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (z-ai/glm-5.2)audited 2026-07-31Open item page →

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 S and its square S2.

[L1]

The lower-limit line has Lindelöf degree ℵ0, hence is Lindelöf (For the lower-limit line, χ=d=L=c=ℵ0 and w=2ℵ0 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 S is Lindelöf by [L1].

L1
1.2

Its square S2 is not Lindelöf by [L2].

L2
2.1

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

step 1.1step 1.2L3∎

Sources