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.

10 results · all verified · 0 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 10 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Uniform Completeness, Completion, and the Samuel Compactification

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

A uniformity controls comparisons of pairs of points rather than just neighbourhoods of single points. The completion theorem for uniform spaces supplies a complete separated target with dense canonical image, while total boundedness and the ultrafilter lemma provide a route from completion to compactness. Compact Hausdorff spaces have a unique compatible uniformity, and dependent choice supplies the controlled pseudometrics that recover complete regularity from a uniform structure.

The Samuel uniformity is generated by bounded uniformly continuous real coordinates. It is proved totally bounded, and dependent choice shows that it has the original topology. Its Hausdorff completion is compact under the ultrafilter lemma; in the separated, choice-qualified setting, the stated completion theorem supplies a compactification. The compact-target extension theorem gives the Samuel universal property and uniqueness; a totally bounded original uniformity is shown to equal its Samuel uniformity, and the Stone--Cech compactification is mapped continuously onto the Samuel compactification.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

The Samuel uniformity generated by bounded uniformly continuous functions

Definition

Let (X,U)(X,\mathcal U) be a uniform space. Give [0,1][0,1] the subspace metric d[0,1](s,t):=std_{[0,1]}(s,t):=|s-t| obtained by restricting the usual real metric of The absolute value makes R\mathbb{R} a metric space: d(x,y)=xyd(x,y) = |x-y| is a metric, its open balls are the intervals (xr,x+r)(x-r, x+r), and it is unbounded, as licensed by Isometry, isometric embedding, and the subspace metric on a subset, and equip it with the uniformity generated by that metric (A metric on a nonempty set generates an entourage uniformity whose induced topology and uniformly continuous maps are the usual metric notions, and this uniformity is separated). Let FU\mathcal F_{\mathcal U} be the family of all uniformly continuous maps f:X[0,1]f:X\to[0,1] (Uniformly continuous map between uniform spaces). For fFUf\in\mathcal F_{\mathcal U} put

pf(x,y):=f(x)f(y).p_f(x,y):=|f(x)-f(y)|.

The Samuel uniformity US\mathcal U_S is the uniformity generated by the gauge (pf)fFU(p_f)_{f\in\mathcal F_{\mathcal U}} in the sense of A gauge of pseudometrics and, on a nonempty set, the uniformity it generates. Thus a base consists of the sets

E(F,ε)={(x,y):pf(x,y)<ε for every fF},E(F,\varepsilon)=\{(x,y):p_f(x,y)<\varepsilon\text{ for every }f\in F\},

where FFUF\subseteq\mathcal F_{\mathcal U} is finite and ε>0\varepsilon>0.

The well-definedness of this gauge and its relation to U\mathcal U are proved in Samuel function pseudometrics generate a uniformity coarser than the original one . The use of [0,1][0,1] rather than arbitrary bounded real-valued functions is equivalent by affine rescaling, also proved there.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Samuel function pseudometrics generate a uniformity coarser than the original one

Statement

For every fFUf\in\mathcal F_{\mathcal U}, the function pf(x,y)=f(x)f(y)p_f(x,y)=|f(x)-f(y)| of The Samuel uniformity generated by bounded uniformly continuous functions is a pseudometric. Every basic Samuel entourage is an entourage of U\mathcal U; hence USU\mathcal U_S\subseteq\mathcal U. Moreover the gauge obtained from all bounded real-valued uniformly continuous functions generates the same uniformity as US\mathcal U_S.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A uniform space (X,U)(X,\mathcal U), a uniformly continuous f:X[0,1]f:X\to[0,1], and positive reals ε\varepsilon and MM.

[L1]

For real numbers, u0|u|\ge0, u=0|u|=0 exactly when u=0u=0, and u=u|-u|=|u| (Basic properties of the absolute value).

[L2]

The real triangle inequality is u+vu+v|u+v|\le|u|+|v| (The triangle inequality).

[L3]

The sets {(s,t):st<ε}\{(s,t):|s-t|<\varepsilon\} generate the metric uniformity of [0,1][0,1], and metric uniform continuity is the corresponding epsilon-delta condition (A metric on a nonempty set generates an entourage uniformity whose induced topology and uniformly continuous maps are the usual metric notions, and this uniformity is separated).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

The diagonal and symmetry axioms for pfp_f follow from [L1], while pf(x,z)pf(x,y)+pf(y,z)p_f(x,z)\le p_f(x,y)+p_f(y,z) follows by applying [L2] to f(x)f(z)=(f(x)f(y))+(f(y)f(z))f(x)-f(z)=(f(x)-f(y))+(f(y)-f(z)); thus pfp_f is a pseudometric.

L1L2
1.2

For every ε>0\varepsilon>0, uniform continuity of ff and [L3] give an entourage UU of U\mathcal U with (x,y)U(x,y)\in U implying pf(x,y)<εp_f(x,y)<\varepsilon.

L3
1.3

If g:XRg:X\to\mathbb R is uniformly continuous with gM|g|\le M, then for M>0M>0 the map h=(g+M)/(2M)h=(g+M)/(2M) is [0,1][0,1]-valued and uniformly continuous: for a target tolerance δ>0\delta>0, use uniform continuity of gg with tolerance 2Mδ2M\delta. Moreover pg=2Mphp_g=2M p_h; if M=0M=0, gg is constant. Thus the two gauges have the same basic entourages.

construct
2.1

For a basic Samuel entourage, step 1.2 gives an original entourage inside each of its finitely many coordinate balls; their finite intersection is therefore an original entourage contained in the basic Samuel entourage. Hence every basic Samuel entourage belongs to U\mathcal U, and so does the generated filter.

step 1.2
3.1

Steps 1.1, 2.1, and 1.3 prove all assertions.

step 1.1step 2.1step 1.3
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

The Samuel uniformity is totally bounded

Statement

For every uniform space (X,U)(X,\mathcal U), its Samuel uniformity US\mathcal U_S is totally bounded.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A basic Samuel entourage E(F,ε)E(F,\varepsilon), where FF is finite and ε>0\varepsilon>0.

[L1]

A uniform space is totally bounded when every entourage has a finite set of centres whose entourage balls cover it (Totally bounded uniform space).

[L4]

The basic sets E(F,ε)E(F,\varepsilon) form a base for the Samuel uniformity (The Samuel uniformity generated by bounded uniformly continuous functions).

Proof

technique · constructive
1.1

For each fFf\in F, [L2] supplies a finite set Af[0,1]A_f\subseteq[0,1] such that every value of ff is within ε/3\varepsilon/3 of some member of AfA_f.

L2construct
1.2

The product A:=fFAfA:=\prod_{f\in F}A_f is finite, and for aAa\in A let CaC_a be the set of xXx\in X with f(x)af<ε/3|f(x)-a_f|<\varepsilon/3 for every fFf\in F.

L3
2.1

The index set A:={aA:Ca}A':=\{a\in A:C_a\ne\varnothing\} of nonempty cells is a finite subset of AA. Choose a natural nn and a bijection e:nAe:n\to A', form the explicitly nn-indexed family iCe(i)i\mapsto C_{e(i)}, and use [L3] to choose ce(i)Ce(i)c_{e(i)}\in C_{e(i)}; let CC be the set of chosen points.

L3step 1.2
3.1

If xXx\in X, choose aAa\in A with xCax\in C_a using step 1.1; then aAa\in A' and f(x)f(ca)<2ε/3<ε|f(x)-f(c_a)|<2\varepsilon/3<\varepsilon for every fFf\in F, so xE(F,ε)[ca]x\in E(F,\varepsilon)[c_a].

step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1
4.1

Thus CC is a finite net for each basic Samuel entourage. Every Samuel entourage contains one of these basic entourages, so the same finite centres cover it; when F=F=\varnothing, use the empty centre set if X=X=\varnothing and any singleton centre otherwise. Hence US\mathcal U_S is totally bounded.

L1L4step 3.1discharge-construct
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Assuming dependent choice, the Samuel uniformity induces the original topology

Statement

Assume dependent choice. The topology induced by US\mathcal U_S equals the topology induced by U\mathcal U.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Dependent choice, an original-open set OXO\subseteq X, and a point xOx\in O.

[L1]

The Samuel uniformity is coarser than the original uniformity (Samuel function pseudometrics generate a uniformity coarser than the original one).

[L2]

Entourage balls form a neighbourhood base for the induced topology (The sets containing an entourage ball about each of their points form a topology).

[L4]

A normal sequence gives a uniformly continuous pseudometric pp with {p22}E1\{p\le2^{-2}\}\subseteq E_1 (A normal sequence of entourages yields a uniformly continuous pseudometric with controlled dyadic balls).

[L5]

The ball of a Samuel coordinate is a Samuel entourage-ball (The Samuel uniformity generated by bounded uniformly continuous functions).

Proof

technique · constructive
1.1

Since USU\mathcal U_S\subseteq\mathcal U, every Samuel-open set is original-open.

L1L2
1.2

Choose UUU\in\mathcal U with U[x]OU[x]\subseteq O, take the sequence of [L3], and take the pseudometric pp of [L4]; then {y:p(x,y)1/4}O\{y:p(x,y)\le1/4\}\subseteq O.

L2L3L4
1.3

Put f(y)=min{1,4p(x,y)}f(y)=\min\{1,4p(x,y)\}. The reverse triangle inequality for a pseudometric and the uniform continuity of pp make ff uniformly continuous, so fFUf\in\mathcal F_{\mathcal U} and f(x)=0f(x)=0.

L4construct
2.1

The Samuel neighbourhood {y:f(y)f(x)<1}\{y:|f(y)-f(x)|<1\} lies in {y:p(x,y)<1/4}O\{y:p(x,y)<1/4\}\subseteq O, so every original-open set is Samuel-open.

L5step 1.2step 1.3
3.1

The two inclusions in steps 1.1 and 2.1 give equality of the topologies; for X=X=\varnothing both are the empty topology.

step 1.1step 2.1discharge-construct
DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

The Samuel completion and, when compactifying, the Samuel compactification

Definition

A Samuel completion of (X,U)(X,\mathcal U) is a Hausdorff completion

η:(X,US)S(X)\eta:(X,\mathcal U_S)\longrightarrow S(X)

of its Samuel uniformity in the sense of A Hausdorff completion of a uniform space and its canonical dense map. Such a completion exists by Every uniform space has a Hausdorff completion with dense canonical image, and the canonical map is a uniform embedding exactly when the original uniformity is separated, but its canonical map need not be injective.

Regard XX with its original induced topology. A Samuel completion η:(X,US)S(X)\eta:(X,\mathcal U_S)\to S(X) is a Samuel compactification if and only if the same map η:XS(X)\eta:X\to S(X) makes (S(X),η)(S(X),\eta) a compactification in the sense of A Hausdorff compactification as a dense embedding into a compact Hausdorff space. In particular, this requires S(X)S(X) to be compact Hausdorff and η\eta to be an embedding with dense image; it is not used merely for a Hausdorff completion of a nonseparated uniform space.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Total boundedness passes to a uniform space with a dense uniformly continuous image

Statement

Let i:XYi:X\to Y be uniformly continuous with dense image. If XX is totally bounded, then YY is totally bounded.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A target entourage EE of YY, a uniformly continuous map i:XYi:X\to Y with dense image, and a totally bounded source XX.

[L1]

The uniformity square-root axiom gives DD with DDED\circ D\subseteq E; a symmetric-entourage base then gives symmetric VDV\subseteq D, hence VVEV\circ V\subseteq E (Uniform space in the entourage formulation, Every uniformity has a base of symmetric entourages).

[L2]

Uniform continuity supplies a source entourage UU whose UU-related pairs have VV-related images (Uniformly continuous map between uniform spaces).

[L3]

Total boundedness supplies a finite FXF\subseteq X with X=aFU[a]X=\bigcup_{a\in F}U[a] (Totally bounded uniform space).

[L4]

Entourage balls are neighbourhoods, so density makes every nonempty target entourage ball meet i[X]i[X] (The sets containing an entourage ball about each of their points form a topology).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Choose VV and UU as in [L1] and [L2], and choose the finite UU-net FF from [L3].

L1L2L3
1.2

For yYy\in Y, density gives xXx\in X with i(x)V[y]i(x)\in V[y]; choose aFa\in F with xU[a]x\in U[a].

L3L4
2.1

Step 1.2 gives (i(a),i(x))V(i(a),i(x))\in V and, by symmetry, (i(x),y)V(i(x),y)\in V, hence (i(a),y)VVE(i(a),y)\in V\circ V\subseteq E.

step 1.1step 1.2
3.1

The finite set i[F]i[F] has EE-balls covering YY, proving total boundedness; if Y=Y=\varnothing, the empty set is the required finite net.

L3step 2.1
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Under the ultrafilter lemma the Samuel completion is compact, and under dependent choice plus the ultrafilter lemma it compactifies every separated uniform space

Statement

Assume the ultrafilter lemma. Every Samuel completion η:(X,US)S(X)\eta:(X,\mathcal U_S)\to S(X) is compact. If dependent choice is also assumed and (X,U)(X,\mathcal U) is separated, then the same map, read from XX with its original induced topology, makes S(X)S(X) a Samuel compactification.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A uniform space (X,U)(X,\mathcal U), a Samuel completion η:(X,US)S(X)\eta:(X,\mathcal U_S)\to S(X), the ultrafilter lemma, and, for the final assertion, dependent choice and separatedness of U\mathcal U.

[L1]

The Samuel uniformity is totally bounded (The Samuel uniformity is totally bounded).

[L3]

A dense uniformly continuous image of a totally bounded uniform space is totally bounded (Total boundedness passes to a uniform space with a dense uniformly continuous image).

[L4]

Under the ultrafilter lemma, every complete totally bounded uniform space is compact (Assuming the ultrafilter lemma, every complete and totally bounded uniform space is compact).

[L5]

Under dependent choice the Samuel and original induced topologies agree; separatedness is equivalent to Hausdorffness of the induced topology, and a separated uniformizable topology is Tychonoff (Assuming dependent choice, the Samuel uniformity induces the original topology, A uniformity is separated if and only if its induced topology is Hausdorff, Assuming dependent choice, a nonempty topological space is separated-uniformizable if and only if it is Tychonoff).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

The completion map has dense image and is uniformly continuous, so [L1] and [L3] make S(X)S(X) totally bounded.

L1L2L3
1.2

The space S(X)S(X) is complete by [L2], so [L4] makes it compact under the ultrafilter lemma.

L2L4
1.3

Under dependent choice, [L5] identifies the original and Samuel topologies; if U\mathcal U is separated, the Samuel uniformity is separated as well, so η\eta is a uniform embedding for US\mathcal U_S and a topological embedding for the original topology.

L2L5
2.1

The image is dense by [L2], the source topology is Tychonoff by [L5], and step 1.2 gives compact Hausdorff target; hence the pair is a compactification and therefore a Samuel compactification.

step 1.2step 1.3L2L5
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma, uniformly continuous maps to compact Hausdorff spaces extend uniquely over the Samuel compactification

Statement

Assume dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma. Let XX be a separated uniform space, let η:XS(X)\eta:X\to S(X) be a Samuel compactification, and let f:XKf:X\to K be uniformly continuous, where KK is compact Hausdorff with its unique compatible uniformity. Then there is a unique uniformly continuous fˉ:S(X)K\bar f:S(X)\to K such that fˉη=f\bar f\eta=f.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The stated choice principles, a separated uniform space XX, a uniformly continuous f:XKf:X\to K, and compact Hausdorff KK.

[L2]

The gauge qh(u,v)=h(u)h(v)q_h(u,v)=|h(u)-h(v)| over continuous h:K[0,1]h:K\to[0,1] induces the topology of a completely regular space (The topology of a nonempty completely regular space is induced by the gauge of its continuous [0,1][0,1]-valued pseudometrics).

[L3]

A compact uniform space is complete, and a uniformly continuous map from a uniform space to a complete separated uniform space extends uniquely over its Hausdorff completion (Every compact uniform space is complete, Every uniformly continuous map into a complete Hausdorff uniform space extends uniquely across the Hausdorff completion; consequently completions are unique up to a unique uniform isomorphism).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

By [L1] and [L2], the gauge of the continuous maps h:K[0,1]h:K\to[0,1] is a compatible uniformity on KK, hence it is the unique compatible uniformity of KK.

L1L2
2.1

For such hh, [L1] makes hh uniformly continuous, so hfh\circ f is a Samuel coordinate; therefore every finite basic entourage of the gauge in step 1.1 has Samuel-entourage preimage under ff.

L1step 1.1
3.1

Thus f:(X,US)Kf:(X,\mathcal U_S)\to K is uniformly continuous, while KK is complete and separated by [L1] and [L3].

L1L3step 2.1
4.1

Apply [L3] to the Samuel completion to obtain the unique uniformly continuous extension fˉ:S(X)K\bar f:S(X)\to K.

L3step 3.1
5.1

By [L4] this completion is the Samuel compactification claimed in the statement, and its dense canonical image also gives uniqueness among continuous extensions.

L4step 4.1
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Samuel compactifications are unique up to the unique isomorphism fixing the original space

Statement

Under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma, two Samuel compactifications of the same separated uniform space are related by exactly one uniform isomorphism commuting with their canonical maps.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Samuel compactifications ηi:XSi\eta_i:X\to S_i for i=1,2i=1,2 of one separated uniform space, under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma.

[L1]

A Samuel compactification map is uniformly continuous from the Samuel uniformity; since that uniformity is coarser than the original one, it is also uniformly continuous from the original uniformity. A uniformly continuous map into a compact Hausdorff target then extends uniquely over a Samuel compactification (The Samuel completion and, when compactifying, the Samuel compactification, Samuel function pseudometrics generate a uniformity coarser than the original one, Under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma, uniformly continuous maps to compact Hausdorff spaces extend uniquely over the Samuel compactification).

[L2]

Two continuous maps to a Hausdorff space that agree on a dense subset agree everywhere (Two continuous maps into a Hausdorff space that agree on a dense subset are equal).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

Apply [L1] to η2:XS2\eta_2:X\to S_2 and to η1:XS1\eta_1:X\to S_1, obtaining uniformly continuous maps F:S1S2F:S_1\to S_2 and G:S2S1G:S_2\to S_1 with Fη1=η2F\eta_1=\eta_2 and Gη2=η1G\eta_2=\eta_1.

L1
2.1

The maps GFGF and idS1\operatorname{id}_{S_1} agree on the dense set η1[X]\eta_1[X], while FGFG and idS2\operatorname{id}_{S_2} agree on η2[X]\eta_2[X], so [L2] makes both composites identities.

L2step 1.1
3.1

Therefore FF and GG are inverse uniform isomorphisms, and uniqueness of FF is the uniqueness clause in [L1].

L1step 2.1
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Assuming dependent choice, a totally bounded uniformity equals its Samuel uniformity

Statement

Assume dependent choice. If (X,U)(X,\mathcal U) is totally bounded, then U=US\mathcal U=\mathcal U_S.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A totally bounded uniform space (X,U)(X,\mathcal U), dependent choice, and an entourage UUU\in\mathcal U.

[L1]

The Samuel uniformity is coarser than U\mathcal U (Samuel function pseudometrics generate a uniformity coarser than the original one).

[L2]

Under dependent choice there is a normal symmetric sequence with E1UE_1\subseteq U, and its controlled pseudometric pp satisfies {p1/4}E1\{p\le1/4\}\subseteq E_1; every set {p<ε}\{p<\varepsilon\} is an original entourage, so pp is uniformly continuous (Assuming dependent choice, every entourage admits a normal symmetric sequence subordinate to it, A normal sequence of entourages yields a uniformly continuous pseudometric with controlled dyadic balls, The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N\mathbb{N}-indexed chain).

[L3]

Total boundedness supplies a finite set FXF\subseteq X whose {p<1/16}\{p<1/16\}-balls cover XX (Totally bounded uniform space).

Proof

technique · constructive
1.1

By [L1], it is enough to show that every original entourage contains a Samuel entourage.

L1
1.2

Take pp as in [L2] and a finite pp-net FF as in [L3]; for zFz\in F put fz(y)=min{1,p(z,y)}f_z(y)=\min\{1,p(z,y)\}.

L2L3construct
2.1

Each fzf_z is [0,1][0,1]-valued and uniformly continuous: the pseudometric triangle inequality gives p(z,x)p(z,y)p(x,y)|p(z,x)-p(z,y)|\le p(x,y), and truncation at 11 does not increase this difference. Thus every fzf_z is a Samuel coordinate.

L2step 1.2
3.1

If fz(x)fz(y)<1/8|f_z(x)-f_z(y)|<1/8 for every zFz\in F, choose zFz\in F with p(z,x)<1/16p(z,x)<1/16. Then fz(x)=p(z,x)<1/16f_z(x)=p(z,x)<1/16 and fz(y)<3/16<1f_z(y)<3/16<1, so p(z,y)=fz(y)p(z,y)=f_z(y); hence p(x,y)p(x,z)+fz(x)fz(y)+p(z,x)<1/16+1/8+1/16=1/4p(x,y)\le p(x,z)+|f_z(x)-f_z(y)|+p(z,x)<1/16+1/8+1/16=1/4.

L3step 1.2step 2.1
4.1

The finite-coordinate Samuel entourage in step 3.1 lies in {p<1/4}U\{p<1/4\}\subseteq U, so step 1.1 proves U=US\mathcal U=\mathcal U_S; the empty space is immediate.

L1L2step 3.1discharge-construct
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Under dependent choice the Samuel completion of a separated totally bounded space is its uniform completion; under the ultrafilter lemma it is compact

Statement

Assume dependent choice. For a separated totally bounded uniform space XX, every Samuel completion is, up to the unique uniform isomorphism fixing XX, a Hausdorff completion of the original uniformity. Assume also the ultrafilter lemma. This common completion is compact.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A separated totally bounded uniform space XX, dependent choice, and, for compactness, the ultrafilter lemma.

[L1]

For a totally bounded uniform space, dependent choice makes the original and Samuel uniformities equal (Assuming dependent choice, a totally bounded uniformity equals its Samuel uniformity).

[L3]

A Hausdorff completion has a dense uniformly continuous canonical map and complete target; a dense uniformly continuous image of a totally bounded space is totally bounded, and under the ultrafilter lemma a complete totally bounded uniform space is compact (A Hausdorff completion of a uniform space and its canonical dense map, Total boundedness passes to a uniform space with a dense uniformly continuous image, Assuming the ultrafilter lemma, every complete and totally bounded uniform space is compact).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

By [L1], a Samuel completion is a Hausdorff completion of the original uniformity.

L1
2.1

The uniqueness theorem [L2] identifies it with every other Hausdorff completion by the unique uniform isomorphism fixing XX.

L2step 1.1
2.2

Its dense canonical image and [L3] make it totally bounded, while a Hausdorff completion is complete; hence [L3] makes it compact under the ultrafilter lemma.

L3step 1.1
3.1

This proves the DC identification and the separately qualified compactness assertion.

step 2.1step 2.2
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-02Open item page →

Under dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma, the Stone-Cech compactification maps continuously onto the Samuel compactification

Statement

Assume dependent choice and the ultrafilter lemma. If XX is a separated uniform space, then its evaluation-closure Stone--Cech compactification j:XβXj:X\to\beta X admits a continuous surjection

q:βXS(X)q:\beta X\longrightarrow S(X)

such that qj=ηqj=\eta, where η:XS(X)\eta:X\to S(X) is the Samuel compactification map.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The stated choice principles and a separated uniform space XX.

[L1]

Under dependent choice, a separated uniformizable space is Tychonoff; under the two choice principles its evaluation closure is a Stone--Cech compactification (Assuming dependent choice, a nonempty topological space is separated-uniformizable if and only if it is Tychonoff, Under the ultrafilter lemma and dependent choice, the closure of the full evaluation image is the Stone–Čech compactification).

[L2]

Under the same principles, the Samuel completion is a compactification, hence S(X)S(X) is compact Hausdorff and η[X]\eta[X] is dense (Under the ultrafilter lemma the Samuel completion is compact, and under dependent choice plus the ultrafilter lemma it compactifies every separated uniform space).

[L3]

The Stone--Cech extension property extends a continuous map from XX to a compact Hausdorff target uniquely (The Stone–Čech compactification by its compact-Hausdorff extension property).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1

The map η:XS(X)\eta:X\to S(X) is continuous by [L2], so [L1] and [L3] give a continuous q:βXS(X)q:\beta X\to S(X) with qj=ηqj=\eta.

L1L2L3
2.1

By [L1], βX\beta X is compact. Thus the image q[βX]q[\beta X] is compact and therefore closed in the Hausdorff space S(X)S(X) by [L4].

L1L4step 1.1
3.1

Since q[βX]q[\beta X] contains qj[X]=η[X]qj[X]=\eta[X], it contains a dense subset of S(X)S(X); its closedness from step 2.1 gives q[βX]=S(X)q[\beta X]=S(X).

L2step 1.1step 2.1
4.1

Hence qq is the asserted continuous surjection.

step 3.1

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources