Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generated
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.

Gap closing invalidates a uniform adiabatic bound

Statement

The C2 path H(s)=(s−1/2)Z has a closing gap and its exact evolution from the initial ground state ends orthogonal to the final ground state. Thus C2 regularity alone does not imply ground-state following or satisfy the uniform-gap hypothesis of the finite JRS theorem.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite path and the uniform positive-gap hypothesis of Finite adiabatic path model and Finite JRS adiabatic projector bound.

Proof

1.1givenF1algebra

The path is linear in s, hence twice continuously differentiable. Since Z=diag⁡(1,−1), its eigenvalues are s−1/2 and −(s−1/2); the gap is g(s)=2∣s−1/2∣, which vanishes at s=1/2. Therefore no positive uniform full gap exists.

1.2givenF1algebra

At s=0, H(0)=−Z/2 has unique ground vector ∣0⟩; at s=1, H(1)=Z/2 has unique ground vector ∣1⟩. The Hamiltonians commute for all times and are diagonal, so the solution of i∂sUT=TH(s)UT maps ∣0⟩ to a scalar phase times ∣0⟩. Its final overlap with the final ground vector is zero, and its transition probability out of the final ground space is exactly 1 for every T>0.

2.1givenstep 1.1step 1.2∎

The path satisfies the smoothness assumption but violates the strictly positive uniform-gap hypothesis in Finite JRS adiabatic projector bound. Step 1.2 shows directly that the desired ground-state-following conclusion can fail completely when that hypothesis is removed.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

29 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources