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.
Vanishing scalar density leaves velocity undetermined by momentum
Example
At a fixed point, let be mass density and let be velocity. In SI units, is measured in , in , and the momentum-density vector in . For the field interpretation, use the restricted Lebesgue spaces, measurable-map and almost-everywhere conventions of the conservative weak-form definition under Countable Choice; the pointwise map below is purely algebraic. To use momentum density as a field in a conservative weak form, let be open and , take measurable maps and , and require their product to be locally integrable, including near . The vector above is a pointwise value of such a product, not itself a field. At , distinct vectors both give , so the momentum density does not determine velocity. At , the relation has the unique inverse . This is a pointwise algebraic example and makes no claim that any chosen fields solve a differential equation.
Example references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A fixed point, a scalar , and a vector . The example tests whether the algebraic map is injective.
Locally integrable conservative weak and initial forms: a conserved field is a locally integrable vector-valued field whose conservative equation is formulated against compactly supported test functions; here is a pointwise vector, while is an admissible field only under the stated measurability and local-integrability requirements (with three components).
Verification
Choose and , where . They are distinct, but at their momentum densities satisfy . Thus the map is not injective when .
If and , division by the positive scalar gives the unique recovery . Hence the failure in step 1.1 is exactly the zero-density degeneracy, not a claim about positive density.