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.
Constraint preservation does not imply bounded leapfrog evolution
Statement refuted
The statement refuted is: for every finite cochain datum of the type defined in the item named “Finite cochain Maxwell phase space,” every positive rational step size in the item named “Finite compatible leapfrog evolution,” and every initial state satisfying and , repeated application of its one-step map has a bounded orbit. Here “bounded orbit” means that the Euclidean norm of the coordinate vector has finite supremum over all integers .
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite real cochain complex, its positive-definite mass maps, and the one-step update in Finite compatible leapfrog evolution.
Finite cochain Maxwell phase space: the constraints are and , with .
Finite compatible leapfrog evolution: one step is followed by .
Exact discrete constraints and semidiscrete and staggered energy: the real one-step map preserves both constraints for every , and on the algorithm's rational input domain it is the exact rational update; when , its is the Euclidean operator norm of .
Define , , , and , with the displayed standard bases. Take the one-step size , initial data and , and matrices
Counterexample
The matrices in [A1] are the signed boundary-incidence maps of one oriented tetrahedron, with edges ordered , faces ordered , and cell orientation . Matrix multiplication gives and . Also and , so the initial state satisfies both constraints.
Put , so . Direct multiplication gives . For every , this gives . For real coordinate vectors , direct expansion gives , hence . Applying this with and gives . For , applying the same identity with and gives for unit ; if equality is attained at , while if both sides are zero. Thus and for every . Since , is unit and ; consequently is unit and . Thus the operator norm of is exactly , attained at . Here , so the defined in [F3] is . For a state , , the update in [F2] with gives and , hence the invariant two-dimensional subspace has matrix . The initial state has modal coordinates .
The matrix in step 2.1 has trace , determinant , and eigenvalues and , found by solving . Since , and . Direct substitution gives eigenvectors and ; their determinant is , so write the initial modal vector as . The coefficient is nonzero, since otherwise would be a multiple of , whose second coordinate is nonzero. The first modal coordinate after steps is therefore . If were bounded, then would be bounded because , so their difference would be bounded, contradicting and . Since , the state orbit is unbounded.
By [F3], each update preserves both constraints, and step 1.1 sets them to zero initially. Explicitly, and , so induction gives zero constraints at every iterate. Thus exact constraint preservation holds at every step although this rational finite-complex algorithm has an unbounded orbit for . This refutes the stated bounded-orbit claim.