Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pending
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.

A mixed-background counterterm shifts the local representative

Physical scope

A local counterterm calculation on trivial flat-space SU(3) and U(1) backgrounds with compact support. It records one infinitesimal U(1) variation and does not claim that the full combined anomaly class vanishes or that a global counterterm exists on nontrivial bundles.

Example

Let A be a smooth compactly supported anti-Hermitian su(3) connection one-form on trivial R1,3, with curvature FA=dA+A∧A, and let B be a smooth real U(1)V background one-form with compactly supported gauge parameter α. In natural units, write A=Aμdxμ, B=Bμdxμ, and FA=12(FA)μνdxμ∧dxν, summing repeated indices from 0 to 3. The components satisfy [Aμ]=[Bμ]=mass and [(FA)μν]=mass2; since [dxμ]=mass−1, the forms A,B,FA are dimensionless, as are α, K3(A), and C4 below. Define the local three-form

K3(A):=tr⁡(A∧dA+23A∧A∧A)

and add the four-dimensional local counterterm C4=λB∧K3(A) to the effective action, with dimensionless coefficient λ. Under the U(1)V background transformation B↦B+dα with A fixed, its local variation is

δαC4=λ d(αK3(A))−λ αtr⁡(FA∧FA).

The first term integrates to a boundary term and vanishes for compactly supported α. Thus this counterterm shifts the U(1)V component of the local anomaly representative by −λαtr⁡(FA∧FA) while the full relative class is unchanged modulo the admitted counterterm space. This calculation does not assert that the full SU(3)×U(1)V anomaly vanishes or that the SU(3) component of the representative is unchanged.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The trivial flat-space background fields, the compact-support boundary condition, the selected local counterterm space, and the displayed counterterm.

[F1]

Flat-space chiral anomaly-matching data and regulator convention: A and B are nondynamical background connections with compactly supported variations; the selected counterterm space is local and the boundary convention discards compact-support total derivatives.

[F2]

Local perturbative ’t Hooft anomaly modulo counterterms: the local anomaly is defined modulo the admitted local counterterms and total derivatives in the relative BRST complex.

[F3]

A local counterterm changes only the representative of a local anomaly class: an allowed local counterterm changes the anomaly representative by a relative coboundary and leaves its class unchanged.

Verification

1.1F1algebra

Differentiate K3(A). The graded Leibniz rule gives dK3=tr⁡(dA∧dA+2dA∧A∧A). In the trace, tr⁡(A∧A∧dA)=tr⁡(dA∧A∧A), while tr⁡(A∧A∧A∧A)=0 because cyclically moving its first one-form past the other three contributes a minus sign. Expanding FA∧FA therefore gives dK3(A)=tr⁡(FA∧FA).

2.1givenF1step 1.1algebra

Since only B varies, δαC4=λdα∧K3(A)=λd(αK3(A))−λα dK3(A). Substitute step 1.1. Compact support makes the integral of the exact first term vanish, so the stated U(1)V representative shifts by −λαtr⁡(FA∧FA).

3.1F2F3step 2.1∎

The shift is the variation of an allowed local counterterm, so [F2] and [F3] imply that it changes the representative but not the relative local anomaly class. The computation concerns only the displayed U(1)V component; it does not set the combined class or the SU(3) variation to zero.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources