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.
Conditional instrument-record diffusion coefficient
Conditional finite-model prediction for the specified ideal energy-resolved monitoring instrument, Gibbs initial law, and assigned pointer velocities. Physical applicability is limited to the postulate's finite interval [0,t_res]; the T->infinity coefficient is mathematical for the continued finite-rate model. It is not a measured spatial diffusion coefficient or a generic quantum hydrodynamic limit.
Statement
Assume full AC, Specified effective GKSL bath and instrument assumption, and the finite connected Gibbs-jump model with its selected energy-resolved instrument. Prepare the system with diagonal Gibbs law . Assign a real pointer velocity in metres per second to each recorded energy label, with , and define the model record displacement . The postulate's physical applicability is limited to . For formulas at arbitrary and their limit, continue the same finite-rate chain as an idealized mathematical model; this gives no physical-applicability claim for . Thus the displayed formula is a conditional physical-model prediction for and a mathematical model identity for all in the continuation:
where . The limit
exists and has units square metres per second. This long-time limit is a derived coefficient of the idealized mathematical continuation. It is not a measurement of a system's position, a calibrated material coefficient, or evidence that the microscopic bath obeys the effective model.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Full AC, the effective-bath and monitoring postulate, the finite Gibbs rate model, the stationary initial law , and the specified pointer velocity .
The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; the exact formal use is the joint path construction inherited from Stationary monitored-chain transport variance coefficient.
Specified effective GKSL bath and instrument assumption: the selected finite GKSL dynamics and energy-resolved instrument are physically adopted only on ; their continuation for all is mathematical and has no physical-applicability claim beyond . No apparatus calibration or measured rate is supplied.
Stationary monitored-chain transport variance coefficient: under full AC and the connected Gibbs-rate hypotheses, the stationary selected record has the stated finite-time variance formula and limit.
Proof
The assumptions [A1]–[A2] identify the selected, ideal energy-resolved instrument and its Gibbs initial law; the velocity labels are stipulated model observables. They introduce no empirical premise.
Applying [F1] with these exact rates, initial law, and centered velocities yields the displayed finite-time variance, resolvent formula, nonnegativity, and limit for the mathematical continuation. Only its finite-time predictions with have the postulate's physical applicability.
Remarks
The stochastic record is the selected instrument output. It is not a continuous position trajectory and does not follow uniquely from the one-time GKSL channel family.