Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-22
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.

Banach-Stone weighted composition isometries

Example

Assume the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice). On C([0,1],C) with the supremum norm define

(Tf)(t):=eit f(1−t).

Then T is a surjective linear isometry of the weighted-composition form Tf=u⋅(f∘h) with h(t)=1−t and u(t)=eit (Banach-Stone), and T is neither unital nor multiplicative: it is not the identity in disguise. Over the real scalars, Tf(t):=−f(1−t) is a surjective linear isometry with weight u≡−1, also neither unital nor multiplicative.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, the homeomorphism h:[0,1]→[0,1], h(t)=1−t, and the continuous unimodular weight u(t)=eit.

[L1]

For nonempty compact Hausdorff spaces K,L, a homeomorphism h:L→K and continuous u:L→K, where K=R or C, with ∣u∣=1, the map Tf:=u⋅(f∘h) is a surjective linear isometry C(K)→C(L), and every surjective linear isometry arises this way (Banach-Stone, The Axiom of Choice).

[L2]

For real t, eit=cos⁡t+isin⁡t and ∣eit∣=1 (exp⁡(x+iy)=ex(cos⁡y+isin⁡y), ∣exp⁡(x+iy)∣=ex, and eiπ+1=0); the exponential is entire and hence continuous (The complex exponential is entire and its complex derivative is itself).

[L3]

For 0<t≤2, sin⁡t≥t−t3/6>0 (Sine is positive and cosine is strictly decreasing on (0,2), with cos 2 at most -1/3).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1L2algebra

h is a homeomorphism with h−1=h, since h(h(t))=t, and u is continuous with ∣u(t)∣=1 by [L2]; hence by [L1] the map Tf(t)=u(t)f(h(t)) is a surjective linear isometry.

1.21.1L2L3algebra

T is not unital: T1=u, and u(t)=eit is not the constant function 1 because at the endpoint t=1, [L2] and [L3] give Im⁡u(1)=sin⁡1≥5/6>0.

2.11.11.2algebra

T is not multiplicative: (T1)(T1)=u2 while T(1⋅1)=u, and u2≠u because u(t)=eit≠0 and u(t)≠1 for some t; at t=1, equality u(1)2=u(1) would, by division by the nonzero u(1), force u(1)=1, contradicting [step 1.2].

3.1L1algebra∎

In the real case u≡−1 has ∣u∣=1 and h=h−1; directly, ∥Tf∥∞=sup⁡t∈[0,1]∣f(1−t)∣=∥f∥∞ and T2=I, so T is a surjective real-linear isometry. Moreover, T1=−1≠1 and T(1⋅1)=−1≠(−1)(−1)=1, so T is neither unital nor multiplicative.

Remarks

  • The weight is the obstruction. By Banach-Stone the weight is forced to be u=T1; an isometry of this form is unital exactly when u≡1, and multiplicative exactly when u≡1 (or, in the real case, u≡1).
  • No star-property is claimed. These maps are isometries of Banach algebras, not ∗-homomorphisms of C*-algebras; the commutative Gelfand–Naimark theorem concerns the latter.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

30 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