Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-10-15 (gpt-6-luna, gpt-6.1-sol, and delegated Codex review/repair agents; see completed run evidence)
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.

Positive-einbein variation and massive/null sector equations

Statement

Let a<b, let x:[a,b]→M be a C2 curve with parameter s and T=dx/ds, fix c>0, let e(s)>0 be smooth, and let m≥0 be constant. Take independent C2 fixed-endpoint variations of x and smooth interior variations of e. For the action

Se[x,e]=12∫ab ⁣(e−1g(T,T)−em2c2)ds,

independent fixed-endpoint variations in x and interior variations in e give

g(T,T)+e2m2c2=0,Ds(T/e)=0.

On the future timelike massive branch m>0, this constraint uniquely gives e=ℓ/(mc), T/e=mU, and the action reduces to −mc∫ℓds; in proper-time gauge s=τ, e=1/m. On the nonzero future null branch m=0, P:=T/e is nonzero future null and DsP=0; if dλ=e ds, then dx/dλ=P and DλP=0. There is no null proper-time gauge, and the scale of P remains initial data. For finite intervals [a′,b′] and [a,b], an orientation-preserving C∞ diffeomorphism s=ϕ(r):[a′,b′]→[a,b] with ϕ′(r)>0 gives Tr(r)=ϕ′(r)T(ϕ(r)) and er(r)=ϕ′(r)e(ϕ(r)); the einbein action is invariant, and this transformation preserves the stated C2 curve and smooth-einbein configuration class.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A smooth metric-compatible torsion-free connection, e>0, m≥0, and the fixed-endpoint variation class in the Statement.

[F2]

For a future timelike tangent, ℓ=−g(T,T)>0 and U=cT/ℓ (Proper-time parameter and normalized tangent).

[F4]

Integration by parts gives ∫uv′=[uv]ab−∫u′v under its stated differentiability and integrability hypotheses (If u,v are differentiable on [a,b] with u′,v′ integrable, then ∫abuv′=u(b)v(b)−u(a)v(a)−∫abu′v).

[F5]

A smooth bump can be chosen nonnegative, equal to 1 near an interior point and supported in a prescribed interval (A smooth bump between concentric Euclidean balls).

[F6]

A continuous function bounded below by δ>0 on a subinterval [u,v] with u<v has integral at least δ(v−u)>0 (If f≤g on [a,b] and both are integrable then ∫abf≤∫abg; and m(b−a)≤∫abf≤M(b−a)).

[F7]

For the reduced massive action −mc∫ℓds, stationarity is equivalent to Ds(T/ℓ)=0 (Timelike length action: arbitrary-parameter first variation).

[F8]

Under a monotone C1 bijective reparametrization, a Riemann integral transforms by its derivative (Monotone change of variable for Riemann-integrable functions).

[F9]

For a C2 two-parameter map, mixed partial derivatives commute (Clairaut--Schwarz theorem for continuous second partial derivatives).

[F10]

In a chart, torsion-freeness is equivalent to Γabc=Γacb (Torsion freedom and metric compatibility in chart components).

[F11]

Along a smooth curve the covariant derivative is the pullback connection DsV=(x∗∇)∂sV (Covariant derivative along a curve). For a C1 field V along a C1 curve x, use (DsV)a=(Va)′+Γabc(x)(xb)′Vc, with one-sided endpoint derivatives. Its coordinate independence and metric-pairing rule at this regularity are proved in Timelike length action: arbitrary-parameter first variation, Proof 1.1, by matching values and first derivatives with smooth data and applying the component compatibility identity.

Proof

1.1givenF3F5F6algebra

Differentiating the integrand with respect to e gives C(s)=−12e−2g(T,T)−12m2c2. If C were nonzero at an interior point, continuity would keep its sign and magnitude at least δ>0 on a smaller interval. A nonnegative bump φ from [F5], supported there and equal to 1 on a subinterval, then gives ∣∫Cφ∣≥δ(v−u)>0 by [F6]. The variation e+ϵφ remains positive for small ∣ϵ∣, contradicting stationarity. Thus C=0 throughout the interior and by continuity at the endpoints; multiplying by −2e2 yields the constraint.

1.2givenF1F4F5F6F9F10F11algebra

Since the C2 variation has C1 tangent fields, the finite-regularity derivative of [F11] applies. For a fixed-endpoint variation field J, in a chart [F11] gives the difference components as Γabc(JbTc−TbJc)=0 by [F10] and [F9], so metric compatibility gives δxSe=∫abe−1g(DsJ,T)ds. Apply [F4] to g(J,T/e); its boundary term vanishes because J(a)=J(b)=0, yielding δxSe=−∫abg(J,Ds(T/e))ds. If Ds(T/e) were nonzero at an interior point, nondegeneracy supplies a coordinate direction with nonzero pairing there; choose its sign and multiply by the nonnegative bump [F5], then realize it by xϵ=χ−1(χ(x)+ϵJcoord) on that support in a chart χ, and keep xϵ=x off the support. On a subinterval where the bump is 1, [F6] makes the pairing integral strictly positive, so the first variation is nonzero and stationarity forces Ds(T/e)=0; conversely this equation makes the variation vanish.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2F2F7algebra

If m>0 and T is future timelike, the constraint gives e=−g(T,T)/(mc)=ℓ/(mc) because e,m,c are positive. By [F2], T/e=mU. Substitution in the action gives −∫em2c2ds=−mc∫ℓds, and when s=τ, ℓ=c so e=1/m. The Euler equation becomes Ds(T/e)=mcDs(T/ℓ), so [F7] identifies it exactly with the reduced action equation.

2.2step 1.1step 1.2givenalgebra

If m=0, the constraint is g(T,T)=0; on the stipulated nonzero future branch P=T/e is nonzero future null. The equation in step 1.2 is DsP=0. Define increasing λ by dλ=e ds; then dx/dλ=T/e=P and DλP=e−1DsP=0. Since g(T,T)=0, the positive timelike density required by the proper-time construction is absent; the null scale is therefore not fixed by a massive normalization.

3.1givenF8algebra∎

Under s=ϕ(r) with ϕ′>0, Tr=ϕ′T and er=ϕ′e. Substitution gives 12(er−1g(Tr,Tr)−erm2c2)=ϕ′12(e−1g(T,T)−em2c2). By [F8] its integral in r equals the original integral in s, proving the stated invariance for every m≥0.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources