Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 21461: A Whole Declared Periodic Sequence Has an Exact Absolute Bound

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 108

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

R0041-21461 · q-20261014-advance-20261109-r02-bolzano-weierstrass-theorem-real-0011

Original question and givens

Use the whole infinite real periodic sequence with nonempty period_values=[11, -12, 13/2], starting at index0 and repeating that full block forever. This is a declared infinite law, not an observed finite prefix. Give (period_values, absolute_bound, whole_sequence_bounded, certificate).

  • G001 — Use the whole infinite real periodic sequence with nonempty period_values=[11, -12, 13/2], starting at index0 and repeating that full block forever. This is a declared infinite law, not an observed finite prefix. Give (period_values, absolute_bound, whole_sequence_bounded, certificate).

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

source operation=bw-periodic-boundedness;original snapshot and mathematics retained

After

explicit ordered source output fields=[period_values, absolute_bound, whole_sequence_bounded, certificate]

Conditions: none

Retain the historical interface marker while listing ordered output fields without JavaScript.Fields and tags are not extra mathematical evidence;fixed No markers retain their claim scope.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: source_ordered_interface_explicit_without_javascript · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

ORIGINAL period index=0;value=11;absolute value=11

After

prefix absolute maximum after this original entry=11

Conditions: none

Scan absolute values over the full period rather than the maximum signed value.A negative entry may determine the bound;retain original positions and duplicates.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: bw_every_period_entry_absolute_bound · Uses: G001, S001

S003 · implies

Before

ORIGINAL period index=1;value=-12;absolute value=12

After

prefix absolute maximum after this original entry=12

Conditions: none

Scan absolute values over the full period rather than the maximum signed value.A negative entry may determine the bound;retain original positions and duplicates.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: bw_every_period_entry_absolute_bound · Uses: G001, S002

S004 · implies

Before

ORIGINAL period index=2;value=13/2;absolute value=13/2

After

prefix absolute maximum after this original entry=12

Conditions: none

Scan absolute values over the full period rather than the maximum signed value.A negative entry may determine the bound;retain original positions and duplicates.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: bw_every_period_entry_absolute_bound · Uses: G001, S003

S005 · implies

Before

ORIGINAL NONEMPTY full period=[11, -12, 13/2];period length=3

After

for EVERY n>=0,unique n=3q+r with0<=r<3 gives a_n=period_values[r];therefore |a_n|<=12

Conditions: none

Whole-sequence boundedness follows from the declared infinite periodic law and division with remainder,not observed future behavior.This proves the stated model,not the general Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem from finite samples.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: bw_periodic_law_for_all_n_not_finite_observation · Uses: G001, S004

Reverse checks

  • S005 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S004 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S003 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.

Result

([11, -12, 13/2], 12, Yes, whole_infinite_periodic_sequence_bounded)

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: 7ea0bee74107c484412dd12b3169c7639bbadf4a287738928c49e1e2cc4d11df
  • candidate record SHA-256: 1109ffd5cfb0e1ecf9f6d1e8de4c720d08bb47d86b964a01aafd05f1caede107
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: 8f134403487694af4c70d2e00ec84bab542043ef4b3c54517c04f3c409c0262a
  • question-first witness SHA-256: ad772845088ed8e99f87f90d4264b05ea97be35775305a02011af5ee35f0f4ce
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON