Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-generated
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.

Finite quartic graph and superficial scaling conventions — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The example counts a connected two-vertex, four-point, one-loop quartic graph and obtains logarithmic superficial degree. It separately records a Euclidean distribution-extension scale identity, conditional on the current QFT-IR04 statement and its Axiom-of-Choice hypothesis. The two calculations are not identified with a renormalized graph amplitude, and neither establishes convergence or divergence of an actual loop integral.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedverified 2026-10-15 (gpt-6-luna, gpt-6.1-sol, and delegated Codex review/repair agents; see completed run evidence)Open item page →

A four-point quartic one-loop graph has logarithmic superficial degree

Example

In Euclidean momentum dimension D=4, take the connected graph with two quartic vertices joined by two internal edges and with two external half-edges at each vertex. Its counts are V=2, I=2, E=4, and L=1. Its superficial degree is therefore zero, so it has logarithmic superficial degree under the stated power-counting convention.

Separately, on punctured Euclidean R4 let C0(x)=1/(4π2∣x∣2) and u=C02=1/(16π4∣x∣4). For any χ∈D(R4) equal to one near 0, and every μ>0, define Tμ(φ)=∫R4∖{0}[φ(x)−χ(μx)φ(0)]/(16π4∣x∣4) d4x for φ∈D(R4). Conditional on the current QFT-IR04 proposition Exact four-dimensional Euclidean logarithmic scale anomaly with its explicit Axiom-of-Choice hypothesis, this family has the exact logarithmic scale-change identity stated below and no same-degree homogeneous extension. This is a separate Euclidean distribution-extension calculation; it is not identified with the integrated amplitude of the graph. The graph count alone does not establish convergence or divergence of an actual loop integral.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The graph described above, the Euclidean dimension D=4, and the Axiom of Choice for the separate distribution-extension calculation.

[F1]

Quartic graph superficial degree from exact counting: for a finite connected quartic graph, ωD=D+(D−4)V−(D−2)E/2; in D=4 this is 4−E, and zero is logarithmic superficial degree only.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: every family of nonempty sets has a choice function; assume AC as required by the separate scale-anomaly supplier.

[L1]

Exact four-dimensional Euclidean logarithmic scale anomaly: under AC, for u(x)=1/(16π4∣x∣4)=C0(x)2 on punctured Euclidean R4 and any smooth compactly supported χ=1 near 0, the displayed Tμ extends u, has scaling degree 4, and Tμ−Tν=(8π2)−1log⁡(μ/ν)δ0; no same-degree extension is exactly homogeneous. The current supplier carrier is draft and has not received independent acceptance, so this result is used conditionally at its actual statement and proof status.

Verification

Given: [F1], the Axiom of Choice [A1], and the exact conditional supplier statement [L1].

1.1givenalgebra

Each of the two vertices has two incidences from the internal edges and two external half-edges, so it has four slots. Thus the graph is in the finite connected quartic class, with V=2, I=2, and E=4. Its loop count is L=I−V+1=1.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra

Apply [F1]: ω4=4−E=4−4=0, equivalently 4L−2I=4−4=0. By the stated convention this is logarithmic superficial degree; it supplies no conclusion about convergence or divergence of a graph integral.

3.1A1L1given∎

The kernel and cutoff in the separate calculation are exactly those in [L1], and [A1] supplies its stated AC hypothesis. Instantiating [L1] gives Tμ−Tν=(8π2)−1log⁡(μ/ν)δ0 for all μ,ν>0 and excludes a same-degree homogeneous extension, conditional on that draft supplier. At the boundary μ=ν, both sides of the scale-change identity are zero. No step identifies this distributional extension with the graph's amplitude.

Sources