If Ampere's law implies the Biot-Savart law, which implies Gauss's law for magnetism, does that mean Maxwell's equations are redundant? Studying electromagnetism, I came across the following fact:


*

*Maxwell's third equation (divergence of magnetic field is zero) can be derived from the Biot-Savart Law.

*The Biot-Savart Law can be derived from Maxwell-Ampère's Law


Hence, it seems that the four equations are redundant.
Unfortunately I've not found anything about this, so I ask: it is true?
EDIT:
For the sake of completeness, this is the proof of the 3rd equation (this is basically Griffith's proof):
\begin{eqnarray}
\vec{B}(r) &=& \iiint_K \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 \pi} \frac{\vec{j} \times \vec{r}}{r^3} d\tau'\\
&=& \iiint_K \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 \pi} \ \vec{j} \times \nabla\left(-\frac{1}{r}\right) d\tau'
\end{eqnarray}
Applying divergence to both terms we obtain:
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{div} \vec{B} &=& \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 \pi} \iiint_K \text{div} \left(\vec{j} \times \nabla\left(-\frac{1}{r}\right)\right) d\tau'\\
&=& \frac{\mu_0 i}{4 \pi} \iiint_K \nabla \times \vec{j} \cdot \nabla\left(-\frac{1}{r}\right) - \vec{j} \cdot \nabla \times \nabla\left(-\frac{1}{r}\right) d\tau' \\
&=& 0
\end{eqnarray}
The last term is zero since the curl of a gradient is always zero and the divergence of $\vec{j}$ is zero ($\vec{j}$ depends on primed coordinates only).
And this is the derivation of the Biot-Savart Law from the Maxwell-Ampère Law: Is Biot-Savart law obtained empirically or can it be derived?
 A: Curl and divergence of a vector field are independent quantities ( Helmholtz's theorem allows to reconstruct a vector field if both are known). So, it is impossible to deduce anything for each of these two quantities from the other.
A: Since there is no magnetic charge term in the Biot-Savart law, it is only correct if Gauss's law for magnetism ($\nabla \cdot \mathbf{B} = 0$) is true and there are no magnetic monopoles.  So it makes sense that Gauss's law can be derived from the Biot-Savart law.
However, the Biot-Savart law cannot be derived from the Maxwell-Ampère Law without implicitly assuming Gauss's law.  In general, we know this both because of the lack of a magnetic charge term and because as Giorgio pointed out, the curl and divergence of a vector field are independent quantities. 
 The specific problem with the proof you cited is that it assumes that a continuous vector potential $\mathbf{A}$ can be constructed such that $\nabla \times \mathbf{A} = \mathbf{B}$, which is not true if there are magnetic monopoles.
