Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-09
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 complex L2 pairing is well-defined and satisfies Cauchy–Schwarz

Statement

On every measure space the pairing f,g=fg on complex L2 is representative-independent, linear in the first variable, conjugate-linear in the second, conjugate symmetric and positive definite, with f,f=f22. Moreover, f,gf2g2. If g0 as a class, equality holds iff f=cg a.e. for some cC. If g=0, equality holds for every f.

For each finite m0, the same conclusions hold on tuples F=(fj)j<m, with pairing B(F,G)=j<mfj,gj and F2=j<mfj22. For G0, equality means fj=cgj a.e. for every j, with one common scalar c.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A measure space and complex L2 classes; for the tuple assertion a fixed finite tuple length m0.

[F1]

The representative expression is fg (The complex L2 pairing on equivalence classes).

[F2]

Hölder gives integrability of L2 products; the quotient norm vanishes exactly on the zero class (Complex Holder, Minkowski, and the quotient norm).

[F3]

Complex integration is linear on integrable functions (The Lebesgue integral is linear on L1(μ)).

[F5]

A nonnegative integral is zero iff its integrand is zero a.e. (A nonnegative measurable function has integral 0 exactly when it vanishes almost everywhere).

[F7]

The complex integral is the integral of the real part plus i times the integral of the imaginary part (Integrable real and complex functions, and their integrals).

Proof

technique · Verify the form directly and expand the squared distance to a scalar multiple
1.1

F2 makes fg integrable. Replacing f,g by a.e.-equal representatives changes their product only on the union of the two measurable null disagreement sets. F4 therefore leaves the integral in F1 unchanged. This proves representative independence.

F1F2F4
1.2

For an integrable h=u+iv, F7 gives h=uiv=h. Hence F6 implies g,f=f,g. F3 applied to (af+bk)g gives af+bk,g=af,g+bk,g, and applied to fag+bk=afg+bfk gives conjugate-linearity in the second variable. All products are integrable by F2.

F1F2F3F6F7
1.3

F6 gives f,f=f2=f220. By F5 this number is zero iff f2=0 a.e., which is equivalent to f=0 as a class. Thus the form is positive definite and its norm is exactly the modulus L2 norm.

F1F2F5F6
2.1

For g0 put a=f,g, b=g22>0 and c=a/b. Sesquilinearity yields fcg22=f22caca+c2b=f22a2/b. Nonnegativity proves a2f22b, hence Cauchy–Schwarz. Equality implies fcg2=0, so f=cg a.e. Conversely, if f=dg a.e., then f,g=db and f2=dg2, giving equality. For g=0, both sides of the inequality are zero for every f.

F2step 1.2step 1.3
3.1

Finite summation preserves the linearity and symmetry identities. Also B(F,F)=j<mfj220, and a finite sum of nonnegative reals is zero iff every summand is zero; step 1.3 then gives definiteness. For G0, set c=B(F,G)/B(G,G). Expanding the finite sum using step 1.2 gives FcG2=F2B(F,G)2/G2. Nonnegativity gives B(F,G)FG. The expansion F+G2=F2+2ReB(F,G)+G2(F+G)2 gives the triangle inequality; scalar homogeneity follows by scaling each squared component norm. Thus this square root is indeed a norm. As above, equality in Cauchy–Schwarz is equivalent to each fjcgj having norm zero, with this same c for all j; conversely a common scalar multiple gives equality by homogeneity. For G=0 both sides are zero. If m=0, the tuple space has just its zero element and all sums are zero, so the same axioms and zero case apply.

F2step 1.2step 1.3step 2.1

Depends on

Used by

Cited to discharge well-definedness by The complex L² pairing on equivalence classes.

Dependency tree · two levels

26 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