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.
Point-extension counterterms form a finite delta-jet space
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let , let have finite real scaling degree , and let be the set of its extensions in having scaling degree exactly . This set is nonempty by Every finite-scaling-degree punctured distribution has an exact-degree extension. If , then has exactly one member. If , let be the unique nonnegative integer with (the floor of ). Then, for any ,
Here a point-local counterterm means a distribution whose support, as defined in Support of a distribution, is contained in . Thus the same-degree freedom is finite dimensional, with precisely the displayed delta derivatives as its basis; at the threshold , only a multiple of is allowed.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: , with finite real scaling degree , and the Axiom of Choice.
Scaling degree and local extension space: the distribution dilation is , and scaling degree is defined by convergence of .
Every finite-scaling-degree punctured distribution has an exact-degree extension: under AC, every punctured distribution with finite real scaling degree has at least one extension of exactly that degree.
Distributions supported at one point: a distribution supported in is a unique finite sum .
Test function cutoffs and euclidean localization: a smooth compact cutoff equal to one near exists in .
Support of a distribution: the support is the complement of the largest open set where the distribution vanishes; agreement on tests away from makes the difference supported at .
The Axiom of Choice is assumed, as required by [F2].
Proof
Given: The hypotheses in the statement.
By [F2], choose . For any the difference vanishes on every test supported away from , so by [F6]. By [F3], for some finite .
For , let be the largest order with a nonzero coefficient, and choose of order with . Choose equal to one near by [F5], and test with . The product rule gives for all except , where it equals . Consequently For every test , [F4] likewise gives . The finite sum tends to zero after multiplication by for every , while the chosen test prevents convergence to zero for . Hence .
Since and both have degree , for every both and tend to zero. Thus . Step 2.1 implies that every nonzero coefficient in has order at most ; if , no nonzero is possible.
Conversely, let be any finite sum of with when . Step 2.1 gives , and still restricts to . Hence . Restriction to tests supported in gives , so equality holds. Uniqueness of the coefficients in [F3] identifies the displayed finite-dimensional affine space. For , , giving only .
Depends on
Dependency tree · 2 levels
Sources
- R. Brunetti and K. Fredenhagen, Microlocal Analysis and Interacting Quantum Field Theories: Renormalization on Physical Backgrounds, Theorems 5.2–5.3
- Klaus Fredenhagen and Katarzyna Rejzner, “Perturbative Algebraic Quantum Field Theory,” in Mathematical Aspects of Quantum Field Theories, ed. Damien Calaque and Thomas Strobl, Springer (2015), Section 7
- K. J. Keller, Dimensional Regularization in Position Space and a Forest Formula for Regularized Epstein-Glaser Renormalization, dissertation, Theorem I.6