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.
Superquadratic cell coercivity from a divergent or hard core
Statement
Assume the potential of Superstable regular pair interactions and configurational ensemble notation is stable and regular. In addition, assume either (i) is finite-valued and nonincreasing, for , and ; or (ii) there is a hard-core radius such that whenever . Then there are a nonnegative nondecreasing with and , and a constant , such that The hard-core alternative permits above the finite packing capacity of a unit cell. This is stronger than ordinary superstability and is not inferred from stability or regularity alone.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Stability, regularity, the unit-cell partition, and one of the two positive-core alternatives.
Superstable regular pair interactions and configurational ensemble notation: if , applying stability to a two-point configuration gives for every nonzero separation; regularity supplies an integrable lower-tail envelope.
Diagonal gap for a decreasing integrable interaction tail: the integrable envelope gives a finite lattice sum outside any sufficiently large fixed gap.
Proof
Given: The hypotheses and suppliers in Facts & Assumptions.
Write . The negative part of each pair potential is bounded both by , where is the stability constant of , and, at large separation, by the lower-regular envelope. Set to a finite constant on the finitely many near-cell offsets and to the envelope evaluated at on the remaining offsets. The shell count and the cell-envelope conclusion of [F2] give . Since , the total negative pair contribution is at most for a finite .
In case (i), choose an integer with . Then and are both defined for every . Partition one unit cell into half-open cubes of side , put , and . If the cell contains points, the identity and nonnegativity of give at least same-subcube pairs at scale . A fixed pair counted at scale has separation , hence ; summing its nonnegative weights over all scales where it is counted is at most . Thus the positive core energy in the cell dominates the sum of these weighted pair counts. With , each satisfies , so the core energy is at least Summation by parts writes the coefficient as an initial constant plus ; and . The series diverges: on dyadic intervals , monotonicity bounds the integral above by , while the corresponding block contributes at least to that series. The divergent core integral therefore forces the displayed coefficient to tend to infinity.
In case (i), sum the cell core bound from step 1.2 and subtract the negative-pair bound from step 1.1. The resulting coefficient of tends to infinity with . Above a finite threshold it dominates ; below that threshold its possible negative remainder is bounded by a constant times . Taking to be half the positive cell lower bound above the threshold and zero below it gives a nondecreasing extended-valued function with and .
In case (ii), choose with and partition every unit cell into subcubes. A finite-energy configuration has at most one point in each subcube, so for every . Define for and for . If any cell exceeds this occupancy, the configuration has a forbidden pair and ; otherwise stability gives . This proves the hard-core alternative.