Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedverified 2026-10-15 (gpt-6-luna, gpt-6.1-sol, and delegated Codex review/repair agents; see completed run evidence)
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.

Degenerate thermometers can fail product comparison

Physical scope

An abstract positive-energy thermometer model showing failure of T4 and the comparison hypothesis for products; it is not a measured thermometer or a claim about ordinary thermodynamic bodies.

Statement refuted

Let E be an internal-energy value measured in joules, and use the dimensionless numerical coordinate U:=E/(1 J)∈(0,∞), so E=U(1 J), as in SI quantities and unit conventions. The one-system order relation U≤U′ on the degenerate thermometer state space Γ=(0,∞), together with the thermal equilibration operation described below, need not satisfy T4 or the comparison hypothesis on products. Consequently, a monotone entropy on the single-system space need not represent product accessibility.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A state is a positive dimensionless energy coordinate U as defined in the Statement. For one copy, accessibility is U≤U′. Thermal equilibrium of scaled copies λ1U1,λ2U2 holds exactly when their normalized coordinates U1=U2. For two unit copies starting at (U1,U2), put Uˉ=(U1+U2)/2, let

A={(U1′,U2′):U1′≥U1, U2′≥U2},B={(U1′,U2′):U1′≥Uˉ, U2′≥Uˉ},

and define the product forward sector as conv⁡(A∪B), where conv⁡(C) is the set of all finite convex combinations ∑k=1mtkzk with zk∈C, tk≥0, and ∑ktk=1. A describes componentwise energy increase and B thermal equilibration followed by energy increase, as in Lieb–Yngvason §IV.C. To respect the permutation identification in [F1], a two-copy state here is the class [u] of u=(U1,U2) under swapping its coordinates. Define [u]≺[v] exactly when some representative of [v] belongs to conv⁡(Au∪Bu), where Au,Bu are the displayed sets for the initial representative u. This explicitly declares the permutation-compatible version of the source construction; its independence of the initial representative is checked below.

To realize these relations by formal process records, use X=Γ for one copy and X=Γ2 for two ordered copies. In the latter case admit endpoint pairs a,b exactly when [a]≺[b] under the displayed sector relation; in the former admit exactly a≤b. For either domain, put Z−=Z+=Z=X, take identity endpoint maps, a singleton control set, transfer-record set X×X, and a fixed outer boundary. For each admitted pair use exactly the one-second record Pa,b=([0,1],a,b,za,b,∗,(a,b)), where za,b(t)=a for 0≤t<1 and za,b(1)=b. Its transfer record supplies HPa,bin(t)=HPa,bout(t)=0 for every t∈[0,1], with numerical values in joules, so Q[Pa,b]=0. Define E(U)=U(1 J) for one copy and E(U1,U2)=(U1+U2)(1 J) for two, and assign Won[Pa,b]=E(b)−E(a). The same one-copy construction applies to a scaled copy using its actual energy coordinate λU. Permuting initial and final representatives transports their endpoint labels and the corresponding path labels; the inverse permutations give record bijections preserving boundary, thermal histories, total energies and admission by the representative invariance checked in step 1.1 below. Quotienting therefore gives exactly the stated class relation while retaining both factors up to permutation. These are formal records without auxiliaries, path regularity, core-class membership or material realization asserted; their zero histories are explicit data, not an inference from zero net heat.

[F1]

Tagged scaled systems and separated products: product states are tagged scaled copies and product comparison is the declared relation, not coordinate addition.

[F2]

Thermal-contact axioms T1–T4: T4 requires a thermal-equilibrium class crossing strictly below and above every state.

[F3]

Order, continuity, range, and the product, quotient, and reciprocal laws for the natural logarithm: the real natural logarithm is strictly increasing on positive reals, has log⁡1=0, and satisfies log⁡(ab)=log⁡a+log⁡b.

[F4]

SI quantities and unit conventions: energy is measured in joules, and numerical energy coordinates are divided by their displayed units before they are used as Euclidean coordinates.

Counterexample

Given: [F1]–[F4] and the product sector specified above.

1.1givenF1algebra

Let π(U1,U2)=(U2,U1). Then Aπu=πAu and Bπu=πBu, since the mean is unchanged; linearity of π also gives conv⁡(Aπu∪Bπu)=πconv⁡(Au∪Bu). Thus the declared relation is independent of the representative of [u]; target representatives are already quantified over, and reflexivity follows from u∈Au. Consider the distinct classes [(1,4)] and [(2,2)]. From u=(1,4), every point of Au has coordinate sum at least 5, and every point of Bu has both coordinates at least Uˉ=5/2, hence sum at least 5. Finite convex combinations preserve this sum bound. Every representative of [(2,2)] has sum 4, so [(1,4)]⊀[(2,2)].

1.2givenF2algebra

In the one-system space, strict accessibility is exactly strict increase of U, while thermal equilibrium is equality of normalized energies. If U0≺≺U≺≺U1, then U0<U<U1, so U0≠U1 and the two cannot be thermally equivalent. Thus T4 fails.

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra

From u=(2,2), both Au and Bu consist of points whose two coordinates are at least 2; finite convex combinations preserve both inequalities. Every representative of [(1,4)] has a coordinate equal to 1. Therefore [(2,2)]⊀[(1,4)]. Together with step 1.1, this proves incomparability of distinct product states and failure of the comparison hypothesis.

3.1F1F2F3F4step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

By [F4], U is dimensionless, so the single-system function S(U)=log⁡U is well-defined; it is strictly increasing and represents U≤U′. If its additive sum represented product accessibility, the states [(1,4)] and [(2,2)] would have equal summed entropy log⁡1+log⁡4=2log⁡2=log⁡4, forcing accessibility both ways. Step 1.1 and step 2.1 show neither direction holds. Therefore this single-system entropy does not represent the product relation. Since the example fails T4 by step 1.2, it does not satisfy the hypotheses of a product-comparison result that includes T4.

Remarks

The example concerns the formal order model and shows why a product theorem must retain T4 or provide another adequate thermal partner. Lieb–Yngvason’s subsequent Theorem 4.9 treats entropy construction without T4 only when the degenerate type is joined to a system satisfying the appropriate contact conditions.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources