Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck 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.

An achronal set that is not acausal: two null-related points

Statement refuted

Statement refuted: "every achronal subset of a time-oriented smooth Lorentzian four-manifold is acausal" (Spacelike hypersurfaces, acausal sets, Cauchy sets, domains of dependence and Cauchy horizons clause (b)).

Facts & Assumptions

Assume Countable Choice and Dependent Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The axiom of dependent choice: a relation in which every element is related to something admits an N-indexed chain) for the general absolutely continuous causal-curve conclusions used here.

Given: The flat model (A,η,N) of The flat model: Minkowski space R^4, its standard Lorentz form, inertial charts and cone sets, written A=R4, with its global inertial chart x=(t,z), and the two events p:=x−1(0,0,0,0), r:=x−1(1,1,0,0).

[L1]

For all events u,v in the flat model, u≤v exactly when v−u∈C+‾ and u≪v exactly when v−u∈C+, with C+={w:w0>∣ws∣e} and C+‾={w:w0≥∣ws∣e} in the global inertial chart. For u≠v the straight path realizes the relation when the displayed condition holds; for u=v, u≤u instead follows from the equality alternative, without a constant causal curve (The flat model is globally hyperbolic and its inertial level sets are Cauchy hypersurfaces clause (a), The causal cones of the flat model in inertial coordinates, and closure of the future cone under sums clauses (a), (b), Time orientation, future and past timelike/null/causal vectors, and the closed cones, Timelike, null, spacelike and causal vectors of a Lorentz vector space).

[L2]

For events u,v of the model: u≪v when there is a future timelike curve from u to v, and u≤v when u=v or there is a future causal curve from u to v; a set is achronal when no two distinct of its points are chronologically related and acausal when no two distinct of its points are causally related (Causal curves, chronological and causal reachability, and inextendibility clause (c), Spacelike hypersurfaces, acausal sets, Cauchy sets, domains of dependence and Cauchy horizons clause (b)).

Counterexample

1.1givenL1

(The two points.) The displacement r−p has coordinates (1,1,0,0), so η(r−p,r−p)=−1+1=0 and r−p≠0: it is a future null vector. By [L1], its closed-cone membership gives p≤r, while it is not in the open cone C+, so the full reachability equivalence gives p≪̸r.

2.1step 1.1L1L2

(Achronality.) Suppose p≪r; then by [L1] r−p∈C+, i.e. 1>∣(1,0,0)∣e=1, a contradiction. In the other direction, r≪p would require p−r∈C+, i.e. −1>∣(−1,0,0)∣e=1, also false. Hence the two distinct points p,r are not chronologically related in either direction and the set S:={p,r} is achronal by [L2].

3.1step 1.1step 2.1givenL2∎

(Conclusion.) By step 1.1 the distinct points p,r∈S satisfy p≤r, so S is not acausal by [L2]. By step 2.1 the set S is achronal. Hence an achronal set need not be acausal, which refutes the displayed statement.

Remarks

  • Why the two notions differ. Achronality excludes only timelike relations, acausality also excludes null ones; the lightlike separation of two events is the elementary witness. Both notions are defined for arbitrary subsets; the two-point set S is not a hypersurface, and no regularity is claimed for it.
  • Use. The example shows that the implication "acausal implies achronal" of Spacelike hypersurfaces, acausal sets, Cauchy sets, domains of dependence and Cauchy horizons clause (b) cannot be reversed, so a proof that only establishes achronality does not establish acausality.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources