Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck pass
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 torque-free motion of a symmetric rigid-material model with constant angular momentum and energy whose body angular velocity is not constant: the invariants do not force a uniform rotation

Physical scope

A refutation inside the torque-free branch of the rigid-material model of Adoption of the rigid-material model branch: reference mass distribution, rigid placements, orientation and scope: on the declared symmetric model with body inertia matrix diag(1,1,2) there is a torque-free motion whose angular momentum about the centre of mass and rotational kinetic energy are both constant while its body angular velocity varies with time. The item refutes only the displayed false statement; it asserts no measurement, no concrete body and no failure of the torque-free equations, of which the exhibited motion is an exact solution.

Statement refuted

Let a model of the rigid-material branch Adoption of the rigid-material model branch: reference mass distribution, rigid placements, orientation and scope be used in the torque-free branch of Adoption of the external-torque branch of the rigid-material model: declared torque data and the balance of angular momentum about the centre of mass clause (iv), and let x(t,ρ)=c(t)+R(t)ρ be a motion of the resulting model on a time window containing [0,∞). Suppose that along the motion the angular momentum about the centre of mass Lc and the rotational kinetic energy 12ωTIω are constant in time. Then the body angular velocity ω of the motion is constant in time.

Facts & Assumptions

Use the numerical SI convention of Two explicit free-rotation models checked: principal-axis spins, a non-uniform symmetric-top motion with its invariants, and the linearized frequencies of an asymmetric top: t=T/T∗ with T∗=1 s, inertia entries in M∗D∗2 with M∗=1 kg and D∗=1 m, ωphys(T)=ω(T/T∗)/T∗ and energy in M∗D∗2/T∗2. Thus t=π/2 means T=πT∗/2; constancy or nonconstancy is preserved by these fixed nonzero scales. Assume ACω (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)), carried from the supplier for its integral and quaternion constructions. No measured data enter this counterexample (Dimensions and SI unit conventions of the non-relativistic classical mechanics framework).

Given: The model S of Two explicit free-rotation models checked: principal-axis spins, a non-uniform symmetric-top motion with its invariants, and the linearized frequencies of an asymmetric top, namely the rigid-material model with body inertia matrix diag(1,1,2) in the declared basis, used torque-free, and the path ω(t)=(12cos⁡t,12sin⁡t,1).

[F2]

The path ω is the body angular velocity of a torque-free motion of model S; along that motion Lc is constant with C=∥Lc∥22=174 by Torque-free motion of the rigid-material model: conservation of the angular momentum about the centre of mass, the energy-momentum invariants, the principal-axis equations and global existence of the spin dynamics clause 1, and the rotational kinetic energy is the constant E=98; and ω satisfies the torque-free Euler equations l′=l×(I−1l) with l=Iω=(12cos⁡t,12sin⁡t,2) (Two explicit free-rotation models checked: principal-axis spins, a non-uniform symmetric-top motion with its invariants, and the linearized frequencies of an asymmetric top claim 2, Torque-free motion of the rigid-material model: conservation of the angular momentum about the centre of mass, the energy-momentum invariants, the principal-axis equations and global existence of the spin dynamics clauses 2-3).

[F3]

Values of the path: ω(0)=(12,0,1) and ω(π2)=(0,12,1), using cos⁡0=sin⁡π2=1 and sin⁡0=cos⁡π2=0 with the sine and cosine of Sine and cosine defined by their real power series, the definition of π in Pi as twice the smallest positive zero of cosine, and the exact quarter-turn values of Quarter-turn values and shifts by pi/2 and pi together with the zero values of The derivatives of sine and cosine are cosine and minus sine; the Euclidean norm of the difference is computed with The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn and Square roots exist: a unique a≥0 with (a)2=a; the positives are {x2:x≠0}.

Counterexample

technique · direct; instance the hypotheses of the refuted statement on the explicit model and motion of [Two explicit free-rotation models checked: principal-axis spins, a non-uniform symmetric-top motion with its invariants, and the linearized frequencies of an asymmetric top](/physics/item/ex-cm11-free-top-checks) and exhibit two times at which the body angular velocity differs
1.1givenF1F2

The motion of [F2] is a torque-free motion of model S on R, its angular momentum about the centre of mass is constant (with ∥Lc∥22=174), and its rotational kinetic energy is constantly 98; hence all hypotheses of the refuted statement are satisfied.

2.1step 1.1givenF3algebra

By [F3], ω(π2)−ω(0)=(−12,12,0), whose Euclidean norm is 22≠0; hence ω(π2)≠ω(0), so the body angular velocity of the motion is not constant in time.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1given∎

The hypotheses of the refuted statement hold along the motion by step 1.1, while its asserted conclusion fails by step 2.1; therefore the statement is false.

Remarks

  • What the counterexample shows and does not show. It shows that conservation of the angular momentum about the centre of mass and of the rotational kinetic energy does not force a constant body angular velocity, so no proof of uniform rotation may rely on those invariants alone. It does not show that the torque-free equations are inconsistent: the exhibited path is an exact solution of them, and the two invariants are precisely the reason the motion is bounded in l and ω.

  • Where uniform rotation does occur. Constant body angular velocity characterises the principal-axis spins, as proved in Principal-axis uniform rotations of the torque-free rigid-material model: existence, a fixed spatial direction, the invariants, and the converse classification clause 4; the present motion is not one of them because ω(t) is not parallel to a fixed principal direction.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources