Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedaudited 2026-09-22 rests on later material (inherited)
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.

The minimal derivative has deficiency indices (1,1) and many self-adjoint extensions

Statement refuted

Assume the Axiom of Choice (and hence Countable Choice and Dependent Choice). Let T be the minimal operator of A symmetric closed operator that is not self-adjoint, that is T=id/dx on D(T)={fAC[0,1]:fL2(0,1), f(0)=f(1)=0} in H=L2(0,1). Then T is a closed symmetric operator with d+(T)=d(T)=1: K+=ker(Ti)=Cex and K=ker(T+i)=Cex. Consequently T is not self-adjoint but has infinitely many self-adjoint extensions, and these are exactly the operators Tμf=if,D(Tμ)={fAC[0,1]:fL2(0,1), f(1)=μf(0)},μ=1.

Facts & Assumptions

[A1]

The minimal operator T is densely defined, closed and symmetric but not self-adjoint, and D(T)={gAC[0,1]:gL2(0,1)} with Tg=ig (A symmetric closed operator that is not self-adjoint).

[A2]

Self-adjoint extensions of a closed symmetric operator correspond bijectively to unitary operators K+K, with domain D(T){u+Vu:uK+} and action TV(x+u+Vu)=Tx+iuiVu (Von Neumann parameterization of self-adjoint extensions, Deficiency subspaces and deficiency indices).

[A3]

A closed symmetric operator has a self-adjoint extension if and only if its deficiency indices agree; its extensions are indexed by the unitaries between the deficiency subspaces (Existence of self-adjoint extensions is equality of deficiency indices).

Counterexample

technique · direct

Given: The minimal operator T on H=L2(0,1).

1.1

By A symmetric closed operator that is not self-adjoint, T is densely defined, closed, symmetric and not self-adjoint, and D(T)={gAC[0,1]:gL2(0,1)} with Tg=ig.

A1
1.2

ker(Ti)=Cex and ker(T+i)=Cex: the equations Tg=ig and Tg=ig read g=g and g=g.

A1
2.1

Hence d+=d=1 and K+K={0}; by the von Neumann parameterization the self-adjoint extensions of T correspond bijectively to the unitaries V:CexCex, that is, to the numbers λ with V(ex)=λex and λ=ex/ex=1/e.

A2step 1.2
2.2

Domains: by the parameterization, D(TV)=D(T){u+Vu:uK+}. For u=cex the element is xT+c(ex+λex) with xT(0)=xT(1)=0, so its endpoint values are c(1+λ) at 0 and c(e1+λe) at 1; hence D(TV) consists exactly of the absolutely continuous f with fL2 and f(1)=μf(0), where μ=(e1+λe)/(1+λ).

A2step 1.2
3.1

In particular there are infinitely many self-adjoint extensions, so T is not self-adjoint; the case of λ equal to a suitable value reproduces the periodic operator of Periodic derivative and its unitary translation group.

A2A3step 2.1
3.2

The map λμ is a bijection from {λ:λ=1/e} onto the unit circle: for λ=1/e one computes μ=1, and for μ=1 the formula λ=(μe1)/(eμ) inverts it and satisfies λ=1/e.

step 2.2
4.1

Therefore the self-adjoint extensions of T are exactly the operators Tμ of the statement, one for each μ on the unit circle; T itself is not among them because it is not self-adjoint.

A2step 3.1step 3.2

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

64 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