Alphabeta Math
Physics theoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedverified 2026-10-15 (gpt-6-luna, gpt-6.1-sol, and delegated Codex review/repair agents; see completed run evidence)
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-bath refrigerator coefficient-of-performance bound

Physical scope

Conditional cooling coefficient-of-performance bound for an admitted closed refrigerator cycle between positive-temperature ideal baths inside an isolated compound with an ideal work store; finite reservoirs, unlisted transfers, and empirical appliance performance are excluded.

Statement

Let an admitted refrigerator cycle in the sense of Ideal-reservoir thermodynamic cycles operate between fixed ideal-bath temperatures 0<Tc<Th, extract Qc>0 from the cold bath, reject Qh>0 to the hot bath, and consume Win>0. Define its cooling coefficient of performance by COPR=Qc/Win. Then COPR≤TcTh−Tc. Equality holds exactly when the total entropy change of the isolated compound is zero. A reversible cycle in the stated boundary model saturates the bound; no converse about reversibility is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A cyclic working system with 0<Tc<Th, Qc>0, Qh>0, Win>0, no unlisted transfers, and the full working system, baths, and work store inside the declared isolated compound.

[F1]

Ideal-reservoir thermodynamic cycles: In refrigerator mode Q[P]=Qc−Qh, Won[P]=Win, the cold and hot bath energy changes are −Qc and +Qh, their endpoint entropy changes are −Qc/Tc and +Qh/Th, and the work store supplies this work with ΔEw=−Win and zero entropy change. The admitted total-compound endpoint tuples contain those same working-system endpoints and bath/store energy coordinates, lie in one feasible set for the second-law postulate, and use the declared additive entropy split.

[F2]

First-law energy balance for closed process records: For an admitted closed fixed-constitution process with zero endpoint changes in separately tracked center-of-mass kinetic and external-potential energies, ΔU=Q[P]+Won[P].

[F3]

Macroscopic second law for isolated compounds: For an admitted isolated compound process with equilibrium endpoints and the declared additive total entropy, ΔStot≥0; an admitted reversible operation has ΔStot=0.

Proof

Given: The fixed-bath cycle hypotheses in the Statement and the heat/work signs in [F1].

1.1givenF1F2algebra

The working system returns to its initial state, so ΔU=0. Applying [F2] with [F1] gives 0=Qc−Qh+Win, hence Qh=Qc+Win.

1.2givenF1F3algebra

The cold bath loses Qc, the hot bath gains Qh, and their entropy slopes are constant. Thus their entropy changes are −Qc/Tc and Qh/Th. The working system and work store have zero entropy change, so [F3] gives −QcTc+QhTh=ΔStot≥0.

2.1givenstep 1.1step 1.2algebra

Since Tc,Th>0, step 1.2 gives Qh≥QcTh/Tc. Substituting Qh=Qc+Win from step 1.1 yields Win≥QcTh−TcTc.

3.1givenF3step 2.1algebra∎

Divide by Win>0 and use Th−Tc>0 to obtain COPR≤Tc/(Th−Tc). Equality is equivalent to ΔStot=0; a reversible cycle has this property by [F3].

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources