Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-11-05 (gpt-6.1-sol)
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 two-dimensional matrix model for the p equals two endpoint conventions

Physical scope

Pure mathematics; no physical premises or physical claim.

Example

Let U=Ca⊕Cb. Define complex-linear endomorphisms by F(a)=0,F(b)=4a,E(a)=−8b,E(b)=0,H(a)=−4a,H(b)=4b. Put e=−E/8, f=F/4 and h=H/4, and use the commutator [A,B]=AB−BA. Then [e,f]=h,[h,e]=2e,[h,f]=−2f. More explicitly, let sl2(C) mean the trace-zero 2×2 complex matrices with commutator bracket, with basis e∗=(0100), f∗=(0010) and h∗=(100−1). The linear map sending this basis to e,f,h is a Lie algebra representation on U. It is irreducible: its only invariant subspaces are 0 and U. Every nonzero vector of U is cyclic under these operators, and also under E,F,H, where cyclic means that the span of all finite operator words applied to that vector equals U.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The two-dimensional vector space and the displayed linear maps. An invariant subspace is a complex-linear subspace preserved by every representing operator; irreducibility means that no nonzero proper invariant subspace exists. Finite operator words include the empty word, which acts as the identity.

[A1]

The vector space U, the six displayed basis actions, the commutator convention, and the definition of cyclicity in the Example are the complete assumptions.

Verification

1.1givenA1algebra

The normalized operators satisfy e(a)=b, e(b)=0, f(a)=0, f(b)=a, h(a)=−a, h(b)=b. Hence [e,f](a)=−a=h(a) and [e,f](b)=b=h(b). Also [h,e](a)=2b=2e(a) and [h,e](b)=0, while [h,f](a)=0 and [h,f](b)=−2a=−2f(b). Equality on the basis proves the three operator identities. Direct matrix multiplication gives the same three brackets for e∗,f∗,h∗. The bracket is bilinear and alternating, so checking all three distinct basis pairs proves that the stipulated linear map preserves every bracket. Thus it is a representation of the explicitly defined matrix Lie algebra.

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra

Let R⊂U be a nonzero invariant subspace and choose u=xa+yb∈R, u≠0. Since R is invariant under h and the identity, it contains (I−h)u/2=xa and (I+h)u/2=yb. At least one is nonzero. If a∈R, then b=e(a)∈R; if b∈R, then a=f(b)∈R. In either case R=U, proving irreducibility. This argument uses the two distinct diagonal eigenvalues and the explicitly nonzero connecting maps.

3.1givenstep 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

For any nonzero u∈U, let C(u) be the span of all finite words in e,f,h applied to u. It is a nonzero invariant subspace by prepending any of the three operators to each word. Step 2.1 gives C(u)=U. Since E=−8e, F=4f and H=4h, multiplication by these nonzero scalars in either direction shows that the finite-word spans for the two operator triples coincide. Every nonzero vector is therefore cyclic for both triples.

Remarks

The normalization is motivated by the p=2 specialization of the endpoint top matrices in the triplet construction: (3p−22p−1)=4. The example itself asserts only the finite-dimensional matrix representation proved above. These matrices alone supply no state fields, module Jacobi identity, all-grade lattice module, or identification with an actual triplet endpoint.

Dependency tree · 0 levels

Nothing. This result depends on no other item in the library.

Sources