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.
Canonical Phase Space Constraints
Classical canonical phase-space form and first-class metric constraints of the flat tensile Polyakov string after conformal gauge fixing; no quantization claim.
Statement
For the adopted flat Polyakov model in conformal gauge , the Lagrangian density is , the canonical momentum is , and the Hamiltonian density is . The metric equation is equivalent to the constraints and . On for a closed string or for the open-string interior, use the canonical phase-space bracket specified in the Facts & Assumptions below. For smooth smearings that are periodic on the circle or compactly supported in the open-string interior, the brackets of and are , , and . Their closure as linear combinations of the constraints is the meaning of first-class here.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A smooth equal-time string configuration , momentum density , the flat-target metric , the adopted Polyakov action, and conformal gauge .
Flat Bosonic String Model: takes values in with ; are dimensionless.
Conformal Gauge and Residual Symmetry: a local classical gauge choice permits , and Weyl gauge sets .
Polyakov Equations and Virasoro Constraints: the metric equation gives and .
Canonical Phase Space for the Flat String: the canonical bracket is , with periodic smearings on the circle and compactly supported smearings on the open-string interior.
Proof
For the flat target and its mostly-plus metric [F1], substituting into [A1] gives .
For smooth smearings of the boundary type in [F5], set and . Their variational derivatives are , , , and , by differentiating the integrands and integrating by parts with no boundary term.
Differentiating this density with respect to gives . Since , .
The Legendre transform is . Substituting step 2.1 yields .
Multiplying the two metric constraints in [F4] by and , respectively, and using step 2.1 gives and . Conversely, because , these canonical constraints imply both metric constraints.
Substituting the derivatives from step 1.2 into the bracket, the first constraint bracket is because the terms cancel. For the mixed bracket, expand the derivatives: Integration by parts on the total-derivative terms, with no endpoint term by [F5], makes their sum , hence . Finally, since the terms proportional to cancel. Thus all three brackets are smearings of the constraints, which is first-class closure by definition here.