Alphabeta Math
Physics theoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck 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.

Pauli exclusion in the declared finite-mode occupation readout, with the bosonic contrast

Physical scope

The conditional exclusion statement of the declared finite-mode occupation model: in the adopted antisymmetric sector of P6 the joint occupation law is supported on configurations of occupations at most one, so the probability of reading two particles in one declared mode is zero in every declared sector preparation, while in the symmetric sector every occupation configuration of total n occurs. The statement is conditional on the declared sector and the finite-mode idealization; it asserts no measured occupancy, no apparatus claim and no derivation of a species' statistics.

Statement

Adopt the observable and probability postulate P2 (Observable and probability postulate P2: self-adjoint observables, spectral probability and finite unsharp outcomes) and the identical-particle and spin postulate P6 (Identical-particle and spin assignments P6: permutation sectors and finite-spin representations) in the readings of Declared species sectors and their preparations: the framework's reading of P6 and The declared finite-mode model and its occupation readouts, and assume the Axiom of Countable Choice and the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), The Axiom of Choice). Declare a finite-mode model as in The declared finite-mode model and its occupation readouts with d declared modes f1,…,fd, n≥1 particles and statistics choice σ, with sector space Hnσ, occupation readouts N1σ,…,Ndσ, joint projections (Pλ)λ∈Λn and joint law μρN(λ)=tr⁡(ρPλ). Then for every declared sector preparation ρ:

(a) fermionic exclusion: if σ=−, then μρNj−([2,∞))=0(j=1,…,d),tr⁡(ρ Nj−(Nj−−I))=0, and the joint law is supported on the occupation configurations with entries in {0,1}: μρN({λ∈Λn:λj≥2 for some j})=0;

(b) no restriction in the symmetric sector: if σ=+, then for every λ∈W(n,d) the projection Pλ is nonzero, and for the pure declared sector preparation of the ray of mλ the joint law gives weight one to λ; in particular for n≥2 and any j the configuration with λj=n occurs;

(c) total occupation: in either sector ∑j=1dNjσ=n idHnσ, so the total occupation has the degenerate law δn and every outcome of the joint readout satisfies ∑jλj=n.

The exclusion in (a) is a conditional consequence of the adopted antisymmetric sector and of the declared finite-mode readout; the theorem asserts no measured occupancy, no detector behaviour and no derivation of the statistics of any species.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A declared finite-mode model with d modes, n≥1 particles, statistics choice σ, sector space, occupation readouts, joint projections and a declared sector preparation ρ.

[F1]

Sector readouts. K is d-dimensional with orthonormal basis (f1,…,fd); the operators Nj of the occupation theorem are bounded self-adjoint, commute pairwise, satisfy ∑jNj=nI and preserve both sector spaces, with NjfJ∧=1J(j)fJ∧ and Njmλ=λjmλ, and the joint eigenspaces inside ran⁡P−(n) are the lines CfJ∧ (indexed by n-element subsets J, eigenvalue vector 1J) and inside ran⁡P+(n) the lines Cmλ (indexed by λ∈W(n,d), eigenvalue vector λ) (Slater and symmetric occupation-number bases of the finite-dimensional permutation sectors clauses (b)-(d), The declared finite-mode model and its occupation readouts clauses (c)-(d)).

[F2]

Observable reading. An assigned sharp observable A has a unique spectral projection-valued measure EA and the outcome law μρA(B)=tr⁡(ρEA(B)); if a projection-valued measure F satisfies ∫λ dF(λ)=A, then F=EA (Assigned sharp observables and the outcome law of the framework clauses (a),(b), Observable and probability postulate P2: self-adjoint observables, spectral probability and finite unsharp outcomes).

[F3]

Joint projectors. In the declared finite-mode model, the finite family (Pλ)λ∈Λn consists of mutually orthogonal projections, sums to the identity of the sector, and satisfies Njσ=∑λ∈ΛnλjPλ (The declared finite-mode model and its occupation readouts clause (d)).

[F4]

Laws and traces. For a preparation ρ and projections Pλ with ∑λPλ=I the numbers tr⁡(ρPλ) are nonnegative and sum to one; a pure preparation of the unit ray of a vector x≠0 gives weight ∥Qx∥2/∥x∥2 to an orthogonal projection Q (Density operators and scalar spectral probability clauses (a),(b), The state space of the framework: preparations, pure rays and density operators).

[F5]

Configuration counts. No fermionic configuration has an entry ≥2; for n>d the antisymmetric sector is {0}; every λ∈W(n,d) is a bosonic configuration, including the configuration with λj=n for any j (Finite-mode occupation configurations: fermionic exclusion counts, bosonic counts and truncated dimensions clauses (a),(c)).

Proof

technique · direct; diagonalise the sector restrictions of the occupation operators in the sector bases, identify their finite spectral measures, and read the support of the joint law off the eigenvalue vectors

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

1.1F1algebra

[Sector restrictions are self-adjoint] By [F1] the operator Nj preserves Hnσ, and both the Slater family and the family (mλ) consist of eigenvectors of Nj with real eigenvalues and form a basis of the respective sector; a linear endomorphism of a finite-dimensional Hilbert space that is diagonal in an orthogonal basis with real eigenvalues is self-adjoint. Hence each Njσ=Nj∣Hnσ is a bounded self-adjoint endomorphism of Hnσ, which is the readout declared in clauses (c)-(d) of the model.

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1algebraconstruct

[Finite spectral measures and laws] Fix σ∈{−,+} and j∈{1,…,d}. By [F3], the finite family of projections Fj(B):=∑λ∈Λnλj∈BPλ(B⊆R Borel) is a projection-valued measure: Fj(∅)=0 and Fj(R)=I because the Pλ sum to I; each Fj(B) is an orthogonal projection; intersections satisfy Fj(B∩C)=Fj(B)Fj(C) because the Pλ are mutually orthogonal; and countable additivity is strong since only finitely many λ occur and the Borel sets in a disjoint sequence contain each eigenvalue λj at most once. Its scalar measures μx(B):=⟨Fj(B)x,x⟩ are finite and supported on the finite set Sj:={λj:λ∈Λn}, hence regular: for every Borel B, the compact set B∩Sj and an open set U with U∩Sj=B∩Sj give μx(B∩Sj)=μx(B)=μx(U). Its spectral integral is the finite sum ∫Rr dFj(r)=∑λ∈ΛnλjPλ=Njσ. Thus Fj is the spectral PVM of Njσ by uniqueness of the spectral PVM in [F2]. The outcome law in ρ is therefore μρNjσ(B)=tr⁡(ρFj(B)). In the fermionic sector [F1] restricts the joint eigenvalue vectors to 1J∈{0,1}d, so this spectral measure is supported on {0,1}; in the symmetric sector it groups the lines Cmλ by the value λj. This identifies the readout laws of clauses (c)-(d) of the model.

3.1F1step 1.1step 2.1algebra

[Exclusion] Assume σ=−. By step 2.1 the spectral measure of Nj− is supported on {0,1}, so ENj−([2,∞))=0 and μρNj−([2,∞))=tr⁡(0)=0; moreover Nj−(Nj−−I)=0 on the sector because the operator vanishes on the Slater basis by [F1], so its expectation tr⁡(ρNj−(Nj−−I)) is zero. For the joint law, [F1] shows that the joint eigenspaces with an entry ≥2 do not occur among the lines CfJ∧, so the sum of the corresponding projections Pλ is zero and μρN({λ:λj≥2 for some j})=0. This proves (a).

3.2F1F4F5step 2.1algebra

[Bosonic contrast] Assume σ=+. For every λ∈W(n,d) the vector mλ is nonzero and spans the joint eigenspace for λ by [F1], so Pλ≠0; for the pure preparation of the ray of mλ the weight is μρN(λ)=tr⁡(ρPλ)=∥Pλx∥2/∥x∥2=1 for any unit representative x of that ray by [F4]. By [F5] the configurations λ with λj=n lie in W(n,d), so they occur; this proves (b).

3.3F1step 2.1algebra

[Total occupation] By [F1] one has ∑jNj=nI on the whole tensor power, hence on the sector, and therefore ∑jNjσ=n idHnσ; since the total occupation is the constant operator nI, its outcome law assigns probability one to {n} in every preparation, and applying the joint law of [F1] gives ∑jλj=n for every configuration of the support; this is (c).

4.1step 3.1step 3.2step 3.3∎

[Assembly and scope] Step 3.1 proves (a), step 3.2 proves (b) and step 3.3 proves (c). The proof is conditional on the declared sector of P6, the declared finite-mode readout and the cited spectral mathematics; no measured occupancy, no apparatus behaviour and no derivation of a species' statistics is asserted.

Remarks

  • The precise content of "exclusion". The theorem states the vanishing of the probability of reading an occupation ≥2 in each declared mode and the vanishing of the expectation of the double-occupation operator Nj(Nj−1); it is a statement about the declared readout in every declared sector preparation, not a statement about particles avoiding each other in space.
  • Finite modes. The statement uses the finite-dimensional mode model of the definition; the counting facts for the index sets are those of the finite-mode count theorem. No infinite mode family and no continuum occupancy is treated.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources