Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: 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.

An exactly solvable adiabatic branch: K=I+εIcos⁡θ and comparison with the drift bound

Example

Take J=R, S=R, h(I,s)=I and k(I,θ,s)=Icos⁡θ in the datum of A one-frequency parameter-dependent action-angle branch, its transformed Hamiltonian and its drift generator, with ε=110, A=2, ω0=1, K=[6/5,19/10], S0=[0,2], s0=0 and initial datum I(0)=3/2, θ(0)=0. The branch system is

I′=εIsin⁡θ,θ′=1+εcos⁡θ,s′=ε,

so s(t)=εt stays in S0=[0,2] on [0,A/ε]=[0,20], and I(t) stays in K for all t≥0. The quantity J:=I(1+εcos⁡θ) is exactly invariant, the solution stays in K×S0 on [0,A/ε], and

∣I(t)−I(0)∣≤13(t≥0),

while the drift bound of Adiabatic action drift bound: order-ε change of the action on the O(1/ε) time scale evaluates in this instance to ∣I(t)−I(0)∣≤1950.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The datum h(I,s)=I, k(I,θ,s)=Icos⁡θ, ε=1/10, and the sets and data above.

[L1]

The branch vector field is I′=−ε∂θk, θ′=∂Ih+ε∂Ik, s′=ε; here ∂Ih=1, ∂θk=−Isin⁡θ and ∂Ik=cos⁡θ, so the field is as displayed (A one-frequency parameter-dependent action-angle branch, its transformed Hamiltonian and its drift generator). [given]

[L2]

The drift bound (Adiabatic action drift bound: order-ε change of the action on the O(1/ε) time scale): if ∣∂Ih∣≥ω0 and the branch solution stays in the compact sets K×S0, then ∣I(t)−I(0)∣≤ε[2sup⁡K×[0,2π]×S0∣g∣+Asup⁡K×[0,2π]×S0∣∂Ig ∂θk−∂θg ∂Ik−∂sg∣], where g=(k−⟨k⟩)/∂Ih and ⟨k⟩ is the θ-average of k. [given]

[L4]

∣sin⁡θ∣≤1 and ∣cos⁡θ∣≤1 for all real θ (Signs, monotonicity intervals, and ranges of sine and cosine); the mean value theorem then gives ∣sin⁡θ−sin⁡ϑ∣≤∣θ−ϑ∣ and ∣cos⁡θ−cos⁡ϑ∣≤∣θ−ϑ∣ (The mean value theorem, as the case g(x)=x of Cauchy's: for f continuous on [a,b] with a<b and differentiable on (a,b) there is c∈(a,b) with f(b)−f(a)=f′(c)(b−a)).

[L5]

Local Lipschitz continuity in the state variable is the neighborhood-uniform state-Lipschitz property of Local Lipschitz continuity in the state variable, locally uniform in time and parameters. For a continuous field with this property on an open ODE domain, there is a unique maximal solution through each datum, and a solution of an autonomous field whose state remains in a compact subset of its open state domain near a finite endpoint extends past that endpoint (First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals, Every Picard–Lindelöf initial value problem has one maximal solution on an open interval, Extensions, maximal solutions, maximal intervals, and global solutions, Compact continuation for locally Lipschitz ODEs: a solution whose graph stays in a compact subset of the domain near a finite endpoint extends past it).

[L6]

If a differentiable vector-valued curve on a compact interval has derivative norm at most C, then its endpoint difference has norm at most C times the interval length (If f:[a,b]→Rm is differentiable with integrable f′ then ∫abf′=f(b)−f(a); and a bounded derivative makes f Lipschitz).

[L7]

The zero-derivative constancy fact used below is A function continuous on an interval I whose derivative vanishes at every interior point of I is constant on I; consequently two such functions with the same derivative differ by a constant: a differentiable real function on an interval whose derivative vanishes is constant.

Verification

technique · direct; exhibit an exact invariant of the branch system, check the trapping, and evaluate the theorem's constant
1.1L1L4L5algebra

Write the branch field as V(I,θ,s)=(110Isin⁡θ,1+110cos⁡θ,110). On each cube CN=[−N,N]3 with N>0, [L4] gives, for p=(I,θ,s) and q=(I′,ϑ,s′), ∣Isin⁡θ−I′sin⁡ϑ∣≤∣I−I′∣+N∣θ−ϑ∣,∣cos⁡θ−cos⁡ϑ∣≤∣θ−ϑ∣. Hence ∥V(p)−V(q)∥2≤110(∣I−I′∣+(N+1)∣θ−ϑ∣)≤N+210∥p−q∥2. Thus V is continuous and locally Lipschitz on its open domain R3; by [L5] there is a unique maximal solution (I,θ,s):(α,β)→R3 through the stated datum.

2.1step 1.1L1L3L7algebra

Along the maximal solution of step 1.1, [L1] gives I′=110Isin⁡θ, θ′=1+110cos⁡θ, s′=110. Put J(t):=I(t)(1+110cos⁡θ(t)). By [L3], J′=110Isin⁡θ (1+110cos⁡θ)+I (−110sin⁡θ)(1+110cos⁡θ)=0, so [L7] makes J constant; with I(0)=3/2, θ(0)=0 we get J≡3320.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1L2L4L5L6algebra

Trapping and global forward existence: on [0,β), step 2.1 and [L4] give 9/10≤1+110cos⁡θ(t)≤11/10 and hence 32=3320⋅1011≤I(t)=33/201+110cos⁡θ(t)≤3320⋅109=116. Also ∣θ′(t)∣≤11/10 and ∣s′(t)∣=1/10, so [L6] gives ∣θ(t)∣≤11t/10 and s(t)=t/10. If β<+∞, the state curve near β stays in the compact subset [32,116]×[−11β10,11β10]×[0,β10] of R3; the autonomous compact-continuation clause of [L5] extends the maximal solution past β, a contradiction. Hence β=+∞. Since s(t)=t/10, on [0,20]=[0,A/ε] we have s(t)∈S0, and the bounds above place I(t) strictly inside K=[6/5,19/10]. Thus the solution stays in K×S0 on the required horizon, and [L2] applies.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1L2algebra∎

Evaluate the theorem's constant: ⟨k⟩(I,s)=12π∫02πIcos⁡θ dθ=0, so g=Icos⁡θ and sup⁡K×[0,2π]×S0∣g∣=1910. Moreover ∂Ig=cos⁡θ, ∂θg=−Isin⁡θ, ∂sg=0, and with ∂θk=−Isin⁡θ, ∂Ik=cos⁡θ one has ∂Ig ∂θk−∂θg ∂Ik−∂sg=−Icos⁡θsin⁡θ+Isin⁡θcos⁡θ=0. The theorem thus gives ∣I(t)−I(0)∣≤110⋅2⋅1910=1950, while the exact invariant gives ∣I(t)−I(0)∣=110⋅32 ∣cos⁡θ(0)−cos⁡θ(t)∣1+110cos⁡θ(t)≤110⋅32⋅29/10=13, consistent with the bound.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources