Alphabeta Math
Physics theoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Ideal independent loss preserves normalized factorial correlation

Physical scope

A selected mode with a finite positive ideal mean is sent through an explicitly assumed independent, constant-efficiency counting channel with no background or dark counts. The theorem does not model detector dead time, mode dependence, correlated loss, or actual measured data.

Statement

Assume the ideal wavepacket-counting postulate for a selected mode v∈HT with ∥v∥=1, and let ρ be the incoming density operator on Fs(HT) (a positive self-adjoint trace-class operator with trace one). By that postulate, Pn(v) are the mode-count projections and pn=tr⁡(ρPn(v)) are the count probabilities, so pn≥0 and ∑n=0∞pn=1. Define the incoming mean and second factorial moment by μ:=∑n=0∞npn,F2:=∑n=0∞n(n−1)pn, and assume 0<μ<∞ and F2<∞. Define gN(2)(0):=F2/μ2; for this input state ρ, the postulate denotes the same statistic by gv(2)(0).

Let 0<η≤1 be a dimensionless fixed efficiency and assume no background or dark counts. To specify independent recording, put bη(0)=1−η, bη(1)=η, and Ω:={(n,x):n∈N0, x=(x1,…,xn)∈{0,1}n},A:=P(Ω). This is countable under the explicit encoding (n,x)↦(n,∑j=1nxj2j−1). Give the space the point masses P({(n,x)}):=pn∏j=1nbη(xj), where the empty product for n=0 is 1. For each fixed n, the product factors define the conditional product law Qn on {0,1}n; hence its coordinates are independent Bernoulli variables with success probability η. Since ∑x∈{0,1}nQn({x})=(η+(1−η))n=1, these point masses sum to one and define a probability measure P on (Ω,A). Define N(n,x):=n and K(n,x):=∑j=1nxj. For every nonnegative random variable Y on this space, use the expectation EY:=∑(n,x)∈ΩY(n,x) P({(n,x)}). The marginal law of N is (pn), and the conditional count law of K given N=n is the binomial law induced by Qn. If EK>0, define gK(2)(0):=E[K(K−1)]/(EK)2. Then EK=ημ,E[K(K−1)]=η2F2. Consequently the normalized zero-delay factorial correlation is unchanged: gK(2)(0)=E[K(K−1)](EK)2=F2μ2=gN(2)(0)=gv(2)(0). This is a model deduction conditional on independent constant-efficiency thinning; it is not a universal property of real detectors.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The count distribution (pn) of the ideal mode model, its finite moments μ>0 and F2, a fixed efficiency 0<η≤1, and conditionally independent Bernoulli recording of each incoming photon.

[A1]

The conditional law on the nth fiber of Ω is Qn({x})=∏j=1nbη(xj), with bη(0)=1−η and bη(1)=η. For j≤n, the coordinate map Xn,j(x):=xj is therefore Bernoulli with success probability η, and the coordinate maps are mutually independent under Qn. The joint mass is P({(n,x)})=pnQn({x}). This is the explicitly assumed thinning channel, not an empirical detector law.

[F1]

For this incoming law, the ideal mode theorem uses the wavepacket postulate's input statistic gv(2)(0)=F2/μ2 when 0<μ<∞ and F2<∞. Thus the Statement's gN(2)(0) is exactly that postulate value for ρ. Ideal one-mode intensity correlations separate model states

[F2]

Nonnegative countable sums may be averaged and regrouped by Tonelli's theorem. Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product

Proof

1.1A1algebra

Fix n∈N0 and average on its finite fiber using Qn. For each j≤n, factorization gives ∑xQn({x})Xn,j(x)=η, and for distinct i,j≤n it gives ∑xQn({x})Xn,i(x)Xn,j(x)=η2. Since K(n,x)=∑j=1nXn,j(x) and K(n,x)(K(n,x)−1)=∑i≠jXn,i(x)Xn,j(x) for zero-one coordinates, it follows that ∑xQn({x})K(n,x)=nη and ∑xQn({x})K(n,x)(K(n,x)−1)=n(n−1)η2. For n=0 or n=1 the relevant sums are empty and the same formulas hold.

2.1A1F1F2step 1.1algebra∎

Using the Statement's encoding, identify Ω with a subset of N0×N0. For either Y=K or Y=K(K−1), extend fY(n,m):=pnQn({x})Y(n,x) by zero outside that subset. Counting measure on N0 is sigma-finite, so [F2] applied to the product of the two counting-measure spaces permits the nonnegative sum to be regrouped over the finite fibers. Using step 1.1 gives EK=∑npnnη=ημ and E[K(K−1)]=∑npnn(n−1)η2=η2F2. Both are finite by hypothesis. Since ημ>0, division gives gK(2)(0)=η2F2/(ημ)2=F2/μ2=gN(2)(0)=gv(2)(0) by [F1].

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources