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.
Nambu Goto Polyakov Equivalence
Classical equivalence of the free tensile flat-target Polyakov and Nambu–Goto actions for a nondegenerate timelike embedded worldsheet on the positive proportionality branch, with matched variational boundary data; no quantum-measure equivalence.
Statement
Let be an oriented smooth Lorentzian two-manifold, possibly with smooth boundary, and let be a embedding whose differential has rank two and whose induced metric is nondegenerate Lorentzian. Let be a Lorentzian auxiliary metric and define . Use the positive branch , the adopted free Polyakov action , and . Define the Nambu–Goto action by , using the positive square root. For either action, stationarity requires vanishing first variation for all admissible compactly supported -variations that are up to the boundary. Polyakov stationarity additionally requires vanishing first variation for all compactly supported symmetric variations of the auxiliary metric; the Nambu–Goto action has no independent metric variable. On each boundary piece choose the same fixed target components in both actions, imposing there; the other components are free and their boundary flux coefficients must vanish (natural data). Variations vanish on any initial/final time slices. On noncompact worldsheets, use these local first variations even when total actions diverge. Write for the oriented coordinate boundary element characterized by for a compactly supported vector density ; this convention also applies at null boundaries. The auxiliary-metric Euler–Lagrange equation is , which gives . When this metric equation holds on the positive branch, the Polyakov and Nambu–Goto action densities agree pointwise, so their action integrals agree whenever defined; the -equations and their boundary fluxes agree when the same variations and fixed or natural boundary data are used in both formulations. Conversely, any stationary Nambu–Goto embedding with nondegenerate Lorentzian lifts to a Polyakov stationary pair by taking . This is a classical equivalence only.
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An oriented smooth two-dimensional Lorentzian worldsheet , a rank-two embedding into flat , its nondegenerate Lorentzian induced metric , a Lorentzian auxiliary metric , , and matched admissible boundary variations.
Flat Bosonic String Model defines general Polyakov maps and the additional nondegenerate Lorentzian immersion branch. The Given hypotheses select that branch and further require an embedding; and are Lorentzian and the target metric is .
Bosonic Polyakov Model: the action is , with no additional boundary term.
Proof
Vary the inverse metric in [A1]. The determinant identity gives . Since compactly supported symmetric variations are arbitrary and , stationarity implies pointwise.
By the definition of , rearranges to .
In two dimensions, multiplying each row of by the common scalar in step 2.1 gives ; since , . The inverse relation is . Contracting with gives . Substitution into [A1] therefore yields equality of the densities , which gives equality of the action integrals whenever they are defined.
Put . For , differentiating the induced metric gives . The determinant identity then gives . The product rule and Stokes' formula yield . Varying in [A1] gives precisely this expression with replaced by . Step 3.1 shows these densities agree on the metric-equation branch; hence their derivatives, bulk equations, and boundary fluxes agree. The same fixed components set the same to zero, and the same free components impose the same vanishing flux coefficients, so stationarity is equivalent for the stated boundary data.
Conversely, for any stationary of with nondegenerate Lorentzian , choose . Then , and , since . Step 3.1 and step 4.1 give the same -equation and boundary flux, so is a Polyakov stationary pair. The conclusion concerns only classical equations and actions, not quantum measures.