Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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.

Padé matching can be singular or create a Froissart doublet

Example

This example exhibits a rank-deficient normalized moment system, an inconsistent full-order system, and a Padé pole-zero pair for an entire polynomial target. It shows why coefficient matching alone supplies no pole-location or analytic-continuation guarantee. A close pole-zero pair with small residue is called a Froissart doublet.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The exact Padé coefficient procedure, and the coefficient lists f(z)=1, g(z)=z2, and fε(z)=1+εz+z2 with 0<ε<1/2.

[F1]

Exact Padé coefficient matching with defect statuses: for type (m,n), the normalized denominator equations are ∑j=1nqjcm+ℓ−j=−cm+ℓ for 1≤ℓ≤n; the procedure reports inconsistent or consistent rank-deficient systems separately.

[F2]

A solvable Padé moment system gives the stated Taylor order: a solved normalized system gives f−p/q=O(zm+n+1) near 0.

Verification

1.1givenF1algebra

For f(z)=1 and type (1,1), the sole equation is q1c1=−c2, namely 0q1=0. It is consistent with rank zero, so [F1] returns defective-nonunique. If one arbitrarily selects q1=−1, the convolution formula gives p(z)=1−z and q(z)=1−z; after canceling their common factor the rational function is the constant 1, so the apparent zero of the unreduced denominator is not a pole.

1.2givenF1algebra

For g(z)=z2 and type (1,1), the sole equation is q1c1=−c2, namely 0q1=−1. Thus [F1] returns full-order-inconsistent: no normalized denominator attains the full matching order.

1.3givenF1algebra

For fε(z)=1+εz+z2 and type (1,1), the equation is εq1=−1, so its unique solution is q1=−1/ε. The numerator coefficients are p0=1 and p1=ε+q1=−(1−ε2)/ε. Thus r11(z)=1−(1−ε2)z/ε1−z/ε. Its denominator has a simple zero at z=ε while the numerator there equals ε2≠0, so this is a genuine pole. The numerator zero is z=ε/(1−ε2), and its distance from the pole is ε3/(1−ε2). The residue at the pole is ε2/(−1/ε)=−ε3. Hence the exact coefficient-matching rational function has a pole-zero pair with arbitrarily small separation and residue as ε↓0, although the target fε is a polynomial.

2.1F1F2step 1.1step 1.2step 1.3∎

For fε the system is solved, so [F2] gives only the stated local Taylor order at the origin. Step 1.3 shows that this does not prevent a nearby pole-zero pair, while step 1.1 shows that a singular system can leave denominator coefficients nonunique. Neither case supplies analytic continuation or a target pole-location guarantee.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · one level

2 results within one dependency step 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