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.
Polyakov Equations and Virasoro Constraints
Classical local field and metric equations of the free tensile flat-target Polyakov model in a Lorentzian conformal-gauge patch; no quantum Weyl-invariance claim.
Statement
For the postulated free flat Polyakov model on a local conformal-gauge patch with , write , , , and . Define , where . Variation of gives . The metric equation gives , equivalently and ; these constraints remain imposed after choosing conformal gauge and setting .
Statement references
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A flat-target configuration , the adopted Polyakov action, and a local Lorentzian conformal-gauge patch with and .
Flat Bosonic String Model: maps a two-dimensional Lorentzian worldsheet into with target metric .
Bosonic Polyakov Model: , and is varied as an auxiliary metric.
Conformal Gauge and Residual Symmetry: in the selected patch , , and ; in two dimensions , so the conformal factor drops out of the classical -equation.
Proof
Varying in [A1] and integrating by parts against compactly supported variations gives . By [F2], this is , equivalent to the stated wave equation.
Varying the inverse metric in [A1] gives the coefficient , where ; this is as defined in the Statement. Thus the metric equation is ; gauge fixing changes its coordinate representation but does not remove this Euler–Lagrange equation.
In the flat conformal representative , direct substitution into [F1]'s induced-metric expression gives , , and . Hence is equivalent to and .
With the light-cone convention in [F2], , and . Their vanishing is equivalent to the two equations in step 2.1 by adding and subtracting.