Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-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.

Divergence-free stress-energy with a nonconserved slice integral

Statement refuted

If a C1 symmetric type-(2,0) field T is locally conserved, ∂aTab=0, on a chart domain, then every finite axis-parallel slice integral Qb(s)=∫KT0b(s,x) d3x of it is independent of the slice parameter s; no separate side-flux hypothesis is needed.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An inertial chart x on all of affine Minkowski space with constant metric η=diag⁡(−1,1,1,1) (Oriented time-oriented affine Minkowski space (the spacetime primitives), Lorentz forms of inertia (3,1,0) on a 4-dimensional real vector space, Inertial frames and inertial charts of the affine Minkowski model) and coordinate partial derivatives ∂a (Directional derivatives and partial derivatives of a map U⊆Rm→Rn). A field is balanced when its force density fb=∂aTab vanishes (Stress-energy tensor, force density and local balance on flat spacetime).

[F1]

Slice balance: for C1 T, c0≤s1<s2≤d0 and a finite axis-parallel box [s1,s2]×K, Qb(s2)−Qb(s1)=∫[s1,s2]×Kfb d4x−∑i=13(∫[s1,s2]×Ki+Tib d3x−∫[s1,s2]×Ki−Tib d3x), with fb=∂aTab and Ki± the faces xi=di, xi=ci of K. (Finite-box stress balance and the flux form of conservation,(b))

[F2]

Coordinate partial derivatives of the coordinate functions: ∂0x0=1, ∂1x1=1, ∂0x1=∂1x0=0, as one-variable derivatives of the coordinate restrictions. (Directional derivatives and partial derivatives of a map U⊆Rm→Rn)

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F2given

The field. Define the smooth symmetric field by T00=x0, T01=T10=−x1, T11=x0, all other components zero. By [F2] its force density has components f0=∂0x0+∂1(−x1)=1−1=0, f1=∂0(−x1)+∂1x0=0 and f2=f3=0; hence ∂aTab=0 on all of affine Minkowski space and T is locally conserved.

2.1F1step 1.1given

The slice integral is not conserved. Let L>0, c2<d2, c3<d3, put A=(d2−c2)(d3−c3)>0 and K=[0,L]×[c2,d2]×[c3,d3], and let Q0(s)=∫KT00(s,x) d3x=A∫0Lx0(s) dx1=ALs. For s1<s2, [F1] applied to the sub-box with f=0 gives Q0(s2)−Q0(s1)=−(∫[s1,s2]×K1+T10−∫[s1,s2]×K1−T10)−0, and T10=−x1 takes the constant values −L on K1+={x1=L} and 0 on K1−={x1=0}, so the side-flux difference equals −A(s2−s1)⋅(L−0)=−AL(s2−s1) and Q0(s2)−Q0(s1)=AL(s2−s1)≠0 whenever s1<s2; the transverse fluxes vanish because T2b=T3b=0. For example A=6, L=2 and s2−s1=3 give the value 36.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Thus zero local divergence alone does not conserve a finite slice integral: this field has f=0 everywhere yet its slice integral Q0 varies linearly with the slice parameter, so the side-flux (isolation) hypothesis in the finite-flux conservation statement cannot be dropped. The prescribed tensor is not claimed to arise from any matter model of this page and no choice principle is used.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels