Alphabeta Math

Partitions of Unity and Paracompactness: Examples and Counterexamples

About this page
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.

✓ 3 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. The 1 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.
1 · Prerequisites
2 · Logical flowchart

3 · Items

Example

A locally finite hat-function partition of unity on ℝ subordinate to overlapping intervals

Example

Under choice and dependent choice, a finite subordinate partition of unity for a two-set cover of a compact interval

Example

Point-finite need not mean locally finite: intervals accumulating at the origin

Counterexample

Without local finiteness, a pointwise finite sum of continuous functions can be discontinuous

Example

Assuming choice, ω₁ is countably compact, noncompact, and not paracompact

Counterexample

Assuming choice, paracompactness is not open-hereditary: ω₁ inside ω₁+1

Counterexample

Assuming choice, two paracompact lower-limit lines can have a nonparacompact product

Sources