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.
Delta-square is outside the product contract
Statement refuted
The universal assertion that the wavefront product criterion defines is false. In , , the Dirac distribution has , so the criterion excludes its product with itself. Moreover, for any nonnegative unit-mass radial mollifier supported in , the ordinary smooth squares , where , have no distributional limit as without subtraction: for every test function equal to one near zero and all sufficiently small , This does not rule out a separately specified renormalized extension; it shows that neither the stated product criterion nor this unrenormalized mollifier limit supplies one.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , , and the product and mollifier conventions in the Statement.
Assume only Countable Choice for the Fourier convention (The Axiom of Countable Choice (), Product and pullback under wavefront transversality).
A nonzero covector is outside only if some localized Fourier transform decays rapidly in an open conic neighborhood (Wavefront and positive-frequency Hadamard data).
The wavefront product criterion requires that no common-base pair of opposite nonzero covectors lies in the two wavefront sets (Product and pullback under wavefront transversality).
A radial mollifier has , , , and (A radial mollifier family in Rn).
Counterexample
Given: [A1] and [F1]–[F4].
Choose a compactly supported smooth cutoff equal to one near . By [F1], and for every . This constant function is not rapidly decreasing in any open cone about a nonzero covector, so [F2] gives for every .
Since and by [F4], it is positive at some point. Continuity gives a ball on which is bounded below by a positive constant, so . Compact support and smoothness make bounded, and with gives .
For every , both and belong to by step 1.1. The hypothesis of the product criterion [F3] therefore fails for ; the theorem does not define .
Let equal one on a neighborhood of . Since , for all sufficiently small , on . Substitution in the Lebesgue integral of the smooth compactly supported square gives . By step 1.2 this tends to , whereas convergence in would make the pairing with the fixed test converge to a finite scalar. Thus these unrenormalized squares have no distributional limit.