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 finite stationary response
Exact finite-time and spectral predictions for neutral bounded observables and controls in one actually constructed independent finite cell; no observation, infinite-time relaxation, dc transport coefficient, or response law for arbitrary interacting reduced states.
Statement
Fix one cell of the preparation in Actually constructed Gibbs/KMS preparation at its assigned event , with , , and . Let be its proper Hamiltonian in joules, its dimensionless number matrix, , and its constructed density. Put in joules and . Take Hermitian matrices with . Let be continuous for seconds, let be dimensionless, and require to have units of joules. Define the local and Killing-time dynamics by
Let be the cell's physical Killing-energy operator, where is the common charge in coulombs and is in volts as in the preparation. Let and be the unique solutions of They are unitary propagators. Define the model expectations by Because and commute with , the second expectation is unchanged if is replaced by ; that is the neutral-sector version of the Killing control. The exact finite-cell predictions are
and
where
Here is dimensionless and has units . For the equilibrium correlations and , let and be their Fourier measures in the distributional convention , where is in seconds. Set . Then
the detailed-balance factor is unchanged because , and any zero-frequency atom remains at zero and is kept separate from the formula. Finally, for the separately re-prepared finite Gibbs family , where has units of joules,
with and . It equals the ordinary variance when ; otherwise no such reduction is asserted. These are conditional model predictions, not reported observations or a theorem of relaxation.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: One selected finite-cell state, its proper and Killing grand generators, neutral Hermitian observables, a continuous finite-duration control, and the units stated above.
Actually constructed Gibbs/KMS preparation assigns to each cell and defines , , , and . Its finite density is , with and ; it is conditional on and is not an empirical premise.
Finite response and spectral clock redshift: for a finite independent cell with that Gibbs density, neutral Hermitian , continuous finite-time , and the stated physical/grand-generator relation, the grand-generator propagators solve and , both with identity initial data. For neutral , their trace expectations equal those under the physical controls above. This supplier proves the displayed finite-time commutator expansion and quadratic remainder, the spectral pushforward , retention of zero-frequency atoms, and the nonnegative Kubo–Mori derivative for the separately re-prepared family.
The Axiom of Countable Choice (): the finite-cell construction carries through its smooth charged-stationarity supplier; no stronger choice axiom is invoked.
Proof
The postulated preparation [F1] supplies a finite-dimensional cell density and . The Hamiltonian matrices in the two displayed control equations are continuous and Hermitian on their compact time intervals. For either equation write it as with continuous matrix and . The ordered-integral series converges uniformly, since its th term has norm at most , and solves the integral equation by termwise integration. If were two solutions, their difference would satisfy the homogeneous integral equation; iterating it bounds by for every , so . Differentiating and using Hermiticity of each controlled Hamiltonian gives ; the identity initial value therefore makes each solution unitary.
Define . Since , differentiating and using the chain rule gives , with . By uniqueness from step 1.1, . The factor commutes with , so the trace definition gives .
Retain the inherited smooth-geometry premise [F3] when using the charged-stationarity relation supplied by the prepared-cell data [F1]. Put and for the propagators of the grand-generator controls stated in [F2]. The identities and , where , imply and . These relations follow by differentiating each right-hand side and using . Since , the trace expectations under the physical and grand-generator propagators agree. Therefore [F2] applies to the explicitly defined expectations.
Apply [F2] to the same fixed initial density for the finite-time response, to its spectral statement for the equilibrium correlations, and to its separately re-prepared Gibbs family for the static derivative. The first preparation remains throughout the finite-time controls; is a distinct re-preparation, and none of these deductions is an observed measurement or an infinite-time limit.