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.

No bounded operators satisfy the canonical commutation relation with a nonzero commutator

Statement refuted

Let H≠{0} be a complex Hilbert space and let ℏ>0. Then there exist bounded linear operators A,B∈B(H) with AB−BA=iℏI.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nonzero complex Hilbert space H; ℏ>0; a hypothetical pair A,B∈B(H) of bounded linear operators with AB−BA=iℏI.

[F1]

Operator-norm estimates. For bounded operators S,T on H, ∥ST∥≤∥S∥ ∥T∥: for every ∥x∥≤1, ∥STx∥≤∥S∥ ∥Tx∥≤∥S∥ ∥T∥, and taking the supremum gives the claim (The operator norm as the least bound and as the unit-sphere or unit-ball supremum). Consequently ∥Tn∥≤∥T∥n for every integer n≥1. Since H≠{0}, ∥I∥=1.

[F2]

Norm identities. The operator norm is a norm on B(H), so it is homogeneous and satisfies the triangle and reverse-triangle inequalities (The operator norm as the least bound and as the unit-sphere or unit-ball supremum, The operator norm is a norm on the space of bounded linear operators).

Counterexample

technique · direct; iterate the bounded commutator identity to obtain a factorial lower bound for $\|B^{n}\|$, then contradict the geometric upper bound for powers of a bounded operator

Given: The data of the refuted statement and [F1]-[F2].

1.1F1givenalgebra

[The hypothetical operators are nonzero] Suppose A,B∈B(H) satisfy AB−BA=iℏI. Since H≠{0}, I≠0 and ∥I∥=1 by [F1]. Because ℏ>0, the commutator is nonzero; hence neither A nor B is zero.

2.1step 1.1algebra

[Commutators with powers] For every integer n≥1, [step 1.1, algebra] [A,Bn]=niℏBn−1. The case n=1 is the assumed relation. If it holds for n, then [A,Bn+1]=[A,Bn]B+Bn[A,B]=(n+1)iℏBn, proving it by induction. No power Bn can be zero: if one were zero, this identity would force Bn−1=0, and iteration would give I=B0=0, contradicting [F1].

3.1step 1.1step 2.1F1F2algebra

[Factorial lower bound] By step 2.1 and [F1]-[F2], for every n≥1, [step 1.1, step 2.1, F1, F2, algebra] nℏ∥Bn−1∥=∥[A,Bn]∥≤∥ABn∥+∥BnA∥≤2∥A∥ ∥Bn∥. Put c:=ℏ/(2∥A∥)>0. Iterating the resulting inequalities ∥Bn∥≥nc∥Bn−1∥ from ∥B0∥=∥I∥=1 gives ∥Bn∥≥cnn! for every n≥1.

4.1step 3.1F1algebra∎

[Contradiction] By [F1], ∥Bn∥≤∥B∥n. Let K:=∥B∥/c and choose an integer M>K. For n≥M, n!≥M!Mn−M, so [step 3.1, F1, algebra] cnn!∥B∥n≥M!MM(MK)n, which tends to +∞ because M/K>1. This contradicts the simultaneous lower and upper bounds on ∥Bn∥. Thus no bounded pair A,B satisfies the commutator relation, and the displayed existential claim is refuted.

Remarks

  • Unboundedness is not a technicality. The refutation shows that a canonical commutation relation with ℏ>0 cannot hold as an identity of bounded operators; at least one of the two operators must be unbounded (or the relation must be stated on a core, as for the model's componentwise operators, or replaced by the unitary Weyl form). This is why the model defines position and momentum on dense domains rather than on all of the Hilbert space.
  • What is not refuted. A core relation such as the canonical commutation relations on the Schwartz classes, and the associated one-parameter unitary groups, are unaffected: the operators there are unbounded. This item makes no statement about the Weyl form, about semiboundedness, or about any physical system.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources