Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedverified 2026-09-23 (gpt-6-sol)
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.

A nonzero period obstructs exactness and bounding

Statement

Assume ACω for the compact-support manifold integrals and general Stokes theorem. Let S↪M be an oriented compact boundaryless embedded k-submanifold, k≥1, and let ω be a closed smooth k-form on M. If ∫Sω≠0, then ω is not exact on M, and S cannot be the induced oriented boundary of a compact embedded (k+1)-submanifold of M.

Facts & Assumptions

[A1]

ACω is countable choice; it is used through the general Stokes consequence [F2].

[F1]

A compactly supported primitive has zero total derivative integral: If Mn is oriented and boundaryless, n≥1, and η∈Ωcn−1(M), then ∫Mdη=0. In particular, on a compact such manifold every exact smooth top form has zero integral. The compact-support assumption is on the primitive η, not merely on dη.

[F2]

Closed forms have zero boundary integral: For oriented Mn with boundary, n≥1, if η∈Ωcn−1(M) is closed, then ∫∂Mj∗η=0. When M is compact, no separate support assumption on the smooth closed form is needed.

[F3]

Integration on an oriented embedded submanifold: Let j:S↪M be an oriented embedded smooth k-submanifold, with boundary allowed. For a smooth k-form ω on M such that j∗ω has compact support on S, define ∫Sω:=∫Sj∗ω. If F:T→S is an orientation-preserving diffeomorphism, this equals ∫T(jF)∗ω. Compact support is required on S itself.

[F4]

Form calculus extends locally across a manifold boundary: On smooth manifolds with boundary, the coordinate exterior derivative, pullback naturality, graded Leibniz rule, support containment, and Cartan identity hold for smooth forms: d(F∗α)=F∗(dα),d(α∧β)=dα∧β+(−1)deg⁡αα∧dβ, supp⁡dα⊆supp⁡α,LXα=d(ιXα)+ιXdα. For arbitrary smooth vector fields at boundary points, LX is defined by local Euclidean extensions; a two-sided flow inside the manifold is not required.

Proof

Given: ACω and the objects and hypotheses in the statement above.

1.1F1F3F4

If ω=dα on M, pullback to S gives j∗ω=d(j∗α). The primitive is compactly supported because S is compact. Exact-integral vanishing on boundaryless S gives ∫Sω=0, contrary to the specified nonzero value.

2.1A1F2F3F4given∎

If S=∂T with the induced orientation for a compact oriented embedded T, the restriction of ω to T is closed by pullback naturality. Under [A1], the closed-boundary integral result gives ∫Sω=0, again inconsistent with the hypothesis. Empty S or zero ω has zero integral and cannot meet that hypothesis; k=1 uses precisely the same two applications.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

22 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