Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck 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.

The three-dimensional free Schrödinger operator as the weak Laplacian on its Sobolev domain

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice and the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The Axiom of Choice). Let m,ℏ>0, put c:=2π2ℏ2/m, and let H0 be the free operator of Real multiplication operators and free plus bounded-potential Schrödinger operators clause (b) with d=3, this c and b=0: H0:=F2∗Mc∣ξ∣2F2,D(H0):={f∈L2(R3;C):∣ξ∣2F2f∈L2(R3;C)}, where F2 is the unitary Plancherel transform of that theorem. Let Dj2 denote the second weak partial derivative in the j-th coordinate, defined componentwise on the locally integrable classes of R3 (Weak derivative of a locally integrable function), write Δw:=D12+D22+D32 for the weak Laplacian (defined on the classes whose three second weak partial derivatives lie in L2), and let W2,2(R3;C) be the Sobolev space (Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms). Then:

(a) D(H0)=W2,2(R3;C) as sets and H0f=−ℏ22m Δwffor every f∈D(H0); equivalently, F2(H0f)(ξ)=c∣ξ∣2F2f(ξ) and F2(−ℏ22mΔwf)(ξ)=c∣ξ∣2F2f(ξ) for almost every ξ, and the two L2 classes agree.

(b) For every real bounded measurable V:R3→R, the operator H0+MV of clause (c) of the cited theorem, with domain D(H0), coincides with the operator f↦−ℏ22mΔwf+Vf on the same domain; in particular, for E∈R and ψ∈W2,2(R3;C) the eigenvalue equation (H0+MV)ψ=Eψ is equivalent to the weak equation −ℏ22mΔwψ+Vψ=Eψ elementwise in L2(R3;C).

The statement identifies operators on the same domain; it asserts neither smoothness of the classes in W2,2 nor any physical interpretation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: m,ℏ>0; c=2π2ℏ2/m; the operator H0 of the cited theorem with d=3, this c and b=0; the weak partial derivatives Dj, the second weak partial derivatives Dj2 and the weak Laplacian Δw; the Sobolev space W2,2(R3;C); a real bounded measurable V.

[F1]

Fourier multipliers of weak derivatives. If f,g∈L2(Rn) with Dαf=g for a multi-index ∣α∣≤2, then F2g(ξ)=(2πiξ)αF2f(ξ) for almost every ξ; in n=3 the second derivative in the j-th coordinate has multiplier −4π2ξj2, so Dj2f is the L2 class with F2(Dj2f)(ξ)=−4π2ξj2F2f(ξ), and, when all three second weak partials lie in L2, F2(Δwf)(ξ)=−4π2∣ξ∣2F2f(ξ) for almost every ξ (Distributional derivatives are polynomial Fourier multipliers). The weak partial derivatives are the corresponding distributional derivatives of the regular distributions of these classes (Weak derivative of a locally integrable function).

[F2]

The free operator. H0 is self-adjoint, D(H0) coincides with W2,2(R3;C) as a set with equivalent norms, F2(H0f)=c∣ξ∣2F2f for every f∈D(H0), and H0≥0 in the quadratic-form sense (Real multiplication operators and free plus bounded-potential Schrödinger operators clauses (b), (c)).

[F3]

Sobolev weight characterisation. For f∈L2(R3) one has f∈W2,2 if and only if (1+4π2∣ξ∣2)F2f∈L2, equivalently if and only if F2f∈L2 and ∣ξ∣2F2f∈L2; the bracket-weighted norm is equivalent to the weak-derivative norm (Integer-order W^{k,2} and H^k agree with equivalent norms clause 2, Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms).

[F4]

Plancherel is injective. The Plancherel transform F2 is a surjective linear isometry of L2(R3;C); in particular F2g=0 implies g=0 (Plancherel theorem).

[F5]

Bounded perturbation. For V real, bounded and measurable, MV is the bounded multiplication operator of clause (a) of the cited theorem and H0+MV is self-adjoint on D(H0)=D(MV)∩D(H0) (Real multiplication operators and free plus bounded-potential Schrödinger operators clauses (a), (c)).

Proof

technique · direct; compare the Plancherel multipliers of $H_{0}$ and of the weak Laplacian, using the Fourier characterisation of the Sobolev space, and then add the bounded multiplication operator on the common domain

Given: The data of the statement and [F1]-[F5].

1.1F1F2F3

[Domain and regularity] By [F2] the sets D(H0) and W2,2(R3;C) coincide. For f∈D(H0), [F3] gives F2f∈L2 and ∣ξ∣2F2f∈L2, so each ξj2F2f lies in L2 and, by [F1], each second weak partial derivative Dj2f lies in L2 with that transform; hence Δwf∈L2 is defined and its Plancherel transform is the sum ∑j=13(−4π2ξj2F2f)=−4π2∣ξ∣2F2f almost everywhere. This proves the domain identity of (a) and defines the left-hand side of the multiplier comparison.

2.1step 1.1F1F2F4algebra

[Multiplier comparison] Fix f∈D(H0). By [F2], F2(H0f)(ξ)=c∣ξ∣2F2f(ξ) for almost every ξ. Let g:=−ℏ22mΔwf; by step 1.1 and [F1], F2g(ξ)=−ℏ22m(−4π2∣ξ∣2)F2f(ξ)=2π2ℏ2m∣ξ∣2F2f(ξ)=c∣ξ∣2F2f(ξ) for almost every ξ. Hence F2(H0f−g)=0 in L2 and [F4] gives H0f=g. This proves (a).

3.1step 1.1step 2.1F1F5algebra∎

[Bounded perturbations] Let V be real, bounded and measurable and let f∈D(H0). By step 1.1, f∈W2,2, so Δwf∈L2, and Vf∈L2 because V is bounded; moreover, by [F5] and step 2.1, (H0+MV)f=H0f+Vf=−ℏ22mΔwf+Vf on the common domain D(H0) of clause (c) of the cited theorem. Since the two operators have the same domain and the same values, they coincide; in particular the eigenvalue equation and the weak equation are the same elementwise identity in L2(R3;C). This proves (b).

Remarks

  • Why the factor c. With the Plancherel convention f^(ξ)=∫f(x)e−2πix⋅ξ dx the weak Laplacian has multiplier −4π2∣ξ∣2, so −ℏ22mΔw has multiplier 2π2ℏ2m∣ξ∣2: the constant c of the cited theorem is fixed by this convention and is not a convention-free physical statement.
  • Scope. The lemma compares two mathematical operators on L2(R3;C). It asserts no smoothness of W2,2 classes, no boundary values, no self-adjointness beyond that of the cited theorem, and no identification of H0 with any measured Hamiltonian.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources