Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (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.

Rank-one attractive perturbation has at most one negative eigenvalue

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice and Countable Choice. On L2(R3;C) let (H0f)(p)=∣p∣2f(p) with domain D(H0)={f∈L2:∣p∣2f(p)∈L2}, let g(p)=Ce−∣p∣2/2 for a constant C∈C∖{0}, and let λ<0. Define Pgf=⟨f,g⟩g, using the first-variable-linear L2 pairing. The self-adjoint rank-one perturbation Hλ=H0+λPg has a negative eigenvalue −κ2 exactly when 1+λ∫R3∣g(p)∣2∣p∣2+κ2 dp=0,κ>0. There is at most one such eigenvalue. More precisely, it exists exactly when 1+λI0<0, where I0=∫∣g(p)∣2∣p∣−2 dp∈(0,∞); equality is the threshold case and yields no negative eigenvalue.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Choice, C≠0, λ<0, the multiplication operator H0, and g as in the Statement.

[F1]

The rank-one resolvent theorem says E<inf⁡σ(H0) is an eigenvalue exactly when 1+λ⟨(H0−E)−1g,g⟩=0, with a one-dimensional eigenspace (Rank-one resolvent and bound-state equation).

[F2]

Multiplication by ∣p∣2 is self-adjoint on its maximal domain, has the real-multiplier self-adjointness interface (Real multiplication operators and free plus bounded-potential Schrödinger operators).

[F3]

For radial nonnegative functions on R3, Lebesgue integration reduces to 4π∫0∞r2(⋅) dr (Polar coordinates decompose Lebesgue measure into r^{n-1} dr d sigma).

[F4]

Monotone convergence and dominated convergence hold for the integrals used to analyze m(κ) (Monotone convergence for the integral, Dominated convergence).

[A1]

Choice is the hypothesis of the rank-one resolvent input (The Axiom of Choice).

[A2]

Countable Choice is assumed by the L2 and polar-coordinate interfaces (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Proof

Given: [A1], [A2], [F1]–[F4], C≠0, and λ<0.

1.1A1A2F2F3algebra

By [F2], H0 is self-adjoint. If E<0, multiplication by (∣p∣2−E)−1 is a bounded inverse of H0−EI: it is bounded by ∣E∣−1, and ∣p∣2/(∣p∣2−E)≤1 puts its range in D(H0). Therefore σ(H0)⊆[0,∞). For Bn={p:∣p∣<1/n}, [F3] gives 0<∣Bn∣<∞; the unit vectors fn=∣Bn∣−1/21Bn lie in D(H0) and satisfy ∥H0fn∥≤n−2. If 0∈ρ(H0), then 1=∥fn∥≤∥H0−1∥ ∥H0fn∥→0, a contradiction. Thus inf⁡σ(H0)=0.

2.1A1F1F3step 1.1algebra

By [F3], ∥g∥22=4π∣C∣2∫0∞r2e−r2 dr<∞. For E=−κ2<0, the rank-one scalar in [F1] is m(κ)=⟨(H0+κ2)−1g,g⟩=∫R3∣C∣2e−∣p∣2∣p∣2+κ2 dp. By [F1] and step 1.1, its zeros in 1+λm(κ) correspond exactly to negative eigenvalues, each with multiplicity one.

3.1F3F4step 2.1algebra

If 0<κ1<κ2, then (∣p∣2+κ12)−1>(∣p∣2+κ22)−1 everywhere; since ∣g(p)∣2>0, integration gives m(κ1)>m(κ2). On any compact interval [a,b]⊂(0,∞), the integrands are bounded by ∣g(p)∣2/a2∈L1, so dominated convergence [F4] gives continuity of m there. Also 0<m(κ)≤∥g∥22/κ2, hence m(κ)→0 as κ→∞.

4.1F3F4step 3.1algebra

The integrands for m(1/n) increase pointwise to ∣g(p)∣2/∣p∣2 as n→∞. Monotone convergence [F4] gives lim⁡nm(1/n)=I0. Since step 3.1 makes m strictly decreasing in κ, its limit as κ↓0 equals this supremum. By [F3], I0=4π∣C∣2∫0∞e−r2 dr∈(0,∞).

5.1A1F1F4F5step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1algebra∎

The function 1+λm(κ) is continuous and strictly increasing on (0,∞) by step 3.1, with endpoint limits 1+λI0 and 1 by steps 3.1 and 4.1. When 1+λI0<0, the endpoint limits give finite 0<a<b with 1+λm(a)<0<1+λm(b); [F5] on [a,b] gives a positive zero, unique by strict increase. If 1+λI0≥0, then m(κ)<I0 for every κ>0 by step 3.1 and the endpoint limit in step 4.1; because λ<0, this gives 1+λm(κ)>1+λI0≥0, so no positive zero exists. Therefore a positive zero exists exactly when 1+λI0<0. By step 2.1 and [F1], these zeros correspond exactly to negative eigenvalues.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources