Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generated
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.

RN curvature invariants and the C2 extension obstruction

Statement

On the dyonic RN datum with real length parameters M,qe,qm, let Q2=qe2+qm2 and r>0, f(r)≠0. Then the scalar curvature is S=0, while Ric⁡abRic⁡ab=4Q4r8,RabcdRabcd=48M2r6−96MQ2r7+56Q4r8. If Q≠0, the Ricci-square diverges as r↓0; if Q=0 and M≠0, the Kretschmann scalar diverges there. Consequently no C2 nondegenerate metric extension can add an approached r=0 point in either case. For M=Q=0 the metric is flat and these invariants give no obstruction. No distributional source at r=0 is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The RN datum on a positive-radius open set excluding the roots of f.

[F1]

Exact Reissner-Nordström Ricci and curvature identities: S=0, Ric⁡abRic⁡ab=4Q4/r8, and RabcdRabcd=48M2/r6−96MQ2/r7+56Q4/r8.

[F2]

Causal solutions, Killing horizons, escape and metric extensions clause (e): a C2 nondegenerate extension is an isometric smooth open embedding into a four-manifold with a C2 Lorentz metric of the same signature; an approached added point is a limit j(xn)→p∉j(U). An unbounded polynomial complete curvature contraction along that sequence obstructs the approach.

[F3]

Dyonic Reissner-Nordström metric and field domains defines f=1−2M/r+Q2/r2 and g=−f(dx0)2+f−1dr2+r2γS2, where γS2 is the metric induced by the Euclidean inclusion of the unit sphere.

[F4]

Tensoriality of the curvature, its coordinate formula and its point-normal metric formula gives Rabcd=∂cΓadb−∂dΓacb+∑e(ΓaceΓedb−ΓadeΓecb) and proves that these components define a tensor.

[A1]

r>0, M,qe,qm∈R. For the obstruction claim, take any sequence xn in the stated RN model domain with r(xn)↓0 and test whether an extension realizes that approach.

Proof

1.1F1A1algebra

The scalar curvature and both polynomial invariants are the exact identities in [F1]. If Q≠0, then 4Q4/r8→+∞ as r↓0; if Q=0 and M≠0, then 48M2/r6→+∞.

2.1F1F3F4A1step 1.1algebra

If M=Q=0, then qe=qm=0, f=1 and F=0 by [F3]. The map Φ(x0,r,p)=(x0,rp) is a smooth diffeomorphism onto R×{x∈R3:∣x∣∈J}, with inverse (x0,x)↦(x0,∣x∣,x/∣x∣) since r>0. As p⋅p=1 implies p⋅dp=0, the Euclidean metric pulls back to dr2+r2γS2. Thus g=Φ∗(−(dx0)2+∑i=13(dxi)2). In these Cartesian coordinates the zero connection is torsion-free and metric-compatible, hence is the metric-selected connection; [F4] gives zero curvature, which is the asserted flatness. The invariants vanish by [F1]. This covers the remaining parameter case without inferring flatness from vanishing scalar contractions.

3.1F2step 1.1A1algebra∎

Suppose, for contradiction, that a C2 nondegenerate extension (M~,g~,j) and an added point p∉j(U) realize the approach of a sequence from [A1], so j(xn)→p. This is exactly the setup in [F2]. By step 1.1 one of the two polynomial complete curvature contractions diverges along that sequence in the corresponding charge case, contradicting the obstruction criterion in [F2]. Hence no such extension realizes the approach. This does not create a point source or assert geodesic incompleteness.

Remarks

The domain excludes f=0. This proposition makes no claim about extensions across a coordinate root, maximality, horizons, or any physical realization.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources