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.

Ideal linear Penning mode-frequency invariant

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page proves the ideal linear Penning mode-frequency invariant as a conditional trace identity for the stated uniform-field, harmonic-quadrupole matrix model. It also supplies a deterministic finite-error estimate for a positive-denominator frequency ratio. The first result uses the matching draft QFT-MX01 mass-energy definition; the definition is not independently accepted in this run. Neither result claims an experimental measurement or a nonlinear, relativistic, or cavity-corrected model.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: 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 →

Ideal linear Penning mode-frequency invariant

Statement

Let q≠0 be a signed charge in coulombs, M>0 a rest-mass energy in joules, c>0 the speed of light in metres per second, and B∈R3∖{0} a constant magnetic-field vector in teslas. Set m:=M/c2>0. Let K∈R3×3 be a real symmetric matrix with tr⁡K=0, with units volts per square metre, and define the quadratic scalar potential Φ(r):=12rTKr for r∈R3 in metres. Thus ∂i∂jΦ=Kij and ∑i=13∂i2Φ=tr⁡K=0. Put α:=qc2/M=q/m, D:=−αK, and define C:R3→R3 by Cw:=α w×B. The ideal linear model is the real linear map A:R3×R3→R3×R3, A(r,v):=(v,Dr+Cv), equivalently A=(0I3DC). Equivalently, its equations are r˙=v and v˙=−(qc2/M)Kr+(qc2/M)v×B. The entries of r,v are their real numerical coordinates in the fixed SI units. A state solution on an open time interval I⊆R is a C1 map y=(r,v):I→R3×R3 satisfying the displayed equations for every t∈I. Here v has units metres per second, D has units inverse seconds squared, and C has units inverse seconds.

Define a linear mode to be a complex eigenvector of the complexified state matrix A; its eigenvalue +iω or −iω gives the time factor e±iωt, with angular frequency ω>0 in radians per second. Assume the complexification of A is diagonalizable with eigenvalues +iω1,−iω1,+iω2,−iω2,+iω3,−iω3, where each ωj is counted with its eigenvalue multiplicity. Define the free cyclotron angular frequency ωc:=∣q∣c2∣B∣/M. Then

ωc2=ω12+ω22+ω32.

Consequently, if νc:=ωc/(2π) and νj:=ωj/(2π) are the corresponding ordinary frequencies in hertz, then νc2=ν12+ν22+ν32. The claim is conditional on the stated uniform-field, harmonic-quadrupole, and complete stable-mode hypotheses; it is an identity for this linear model.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Use the exact planned QFT-MX01 mass-energy convention below, together with the real linear model and spectral hypothesis stated in this item.

[L1]

QFT example units, metric, gauge, and pairing conventions (QFT-MX01): the current draft Definition at items/def-qft-example-data.md says, “Write M=mc2 for rest energy in joules,” with c>0 in metres per second. Its dependency list is empty. Its proof checks the listed unit conventions, but the draft has no independent acceptance stamp. The actual statement matches the use m=M/c2 here; the theorem does not rely on the supplier for any dynamics or spectral result.

[A1]

Model data: q≠0, M>0, c>0, B≠0, K=KT, and tr⁡K=0; m=M/c2, α=qc2/M, D=−αK, Cw=α w×B, and A=(0I3DC).

[A2]

Spectral hypothesis: A is diagonalizable over C with eigenvalues ±iωj, j=1,2,3, where every ωj>0; repeated frequencies are allowed and counted with multiplicity.

Proof

1.1L1A1algebra

By [L1], the inertial-mass coefficient in the SI equation is q/m=qc2/M=α. Block multiplication gives A2=(DCCDD+C2), so tr⁡(A2)=2tr⁡D+tr⁡(C2).

1.2A2algebra

By [A2], write the complexification as A=PΛP−1, where Λ is diagonal with the six stated eigenvalues. Then A2=PΛ2P−1; the finite-sum identity tr⁡(XY)=∑k,ℓXkℓYℓk=tr⁡(YX) gives tr⁡(A2)=tr⁡(Λ2)=∑j=13((iωj)2+(−iωj)2)=−2∑j=13ωj2.

2.1A1step 1.1algebra

Since D=−αK and tr⁡K=0, tr⁡D=0. In the fixed right-handed Cartesian coordinates, C has matrix α(0B3−B2−B30B1B2−B10), so the diagonal entries of C2 are −α2(B22+B32), −α2(B12+B32), and −α2(B12+B22). Therefore tr⁡(C2)=−2α2∣B∣2=−2ωc2 and tr⁡D=0 gives tr⁡(A2)=−2ωc2 by step 1.1.

3.1step 2.1step 1.2algebra

Equating the trace calculations in steps 2.1 and 1.2 and dividing by −2 gives ωc2=ω12+ω22+ω32.

4.1step 3.1algebra∎

Dividing the angular-frequency identity in step 3.1 by (2π)2 gives the same sum-of-squares identity for νc,ν1,ν2,ν3.

Remarks

This is a mathematical deduction about the displayed first-order matrix. It does not prove that an actual trap realizes the model or spectral hypothesis. The statement excludes higher spatial multipoles, magnetic-field inhomogeneity, relativistic shifts, radiation or cavity shifts, and nonlinear motion. The Brown–Gabrielse derivation treats the broader quadratic model with field misalignment and ellipticity; the trace proof above supplies the local argument under the stated matrix hypotheses.

The current draft Definition QFT example units, metric, gauge, and pairing conventions has been inspected and its mass-energy interface matches this use. This conditional matrix deduction does not certify the supplier or any physical trap.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: 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 →

Deterministic ratio error and Taylor remainder

Statement

Define R:R×(0,∞)→R by R(a,c):=1+a/c. Here c is only the positive denominator variable in this lemma, not the speed of light. For real δa,δc and nonnegative bounds ϵa,ϵc satisfying ∣δa∣≤ϵa and ∣δc∣≤ϵc<c, both denominators are positive and

∣R(a+δa,c+δc)−R(a,c)∣≤cϵa+∣a∣ϵcc(c−ϵc).

For the first-order statement, write x=(a,c), h=(u,v), and ∥h∥2:=u2+v2. Suppose the segment {x+th:0≤t≤1} lies in the closed rectangle Q=[A−,A+]×[c−,c+], where A−≤A+ and 0<c−≤c+. Define A∗:=max⁡(∣A−∣,∣A+∣), KQ:=(A∗+c+/2)/c−3, and the real-linear map Lx(u,v):=u/c−av/c2. The total derivative of R at x means a real-linear map L such that lim⁡h→0∣R(x+h)−R(x)−L(h)∣/∥h∥2=0. Then Lx is the total derivative, and

∣R(x+h)−R(x)−Lx(h)∣≤KQ∥h∥22.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Let c>0, ϵa,ϵc≥0, and x,h,Q satisfy the conditions in the statement. All variables are real; the inequalities are deterministic interval conditions, with no probability space or sampling assumption.

[A1]

R(a,c)=1+a/c, c>0, ∣δa∣≤ϵa, ∣δc∣≤ϵc<c, and ϵa,ϵc≥0.

[A2]

For the derivative bound, x=(a,c), h=(u,v), ∥h∥22=u2+v2, the segment x+th lies in Q=[A−,A+]×[c−,c+], A−≤A+, and 0<c−≤c+. Put A∗=max⁡(∣A−∣,∣A+∣) and KQ=(A∗+c+/2)/c−3.

Proof

1.1A1algebra

From [A1], c+δc≥c−ϵc>0. Thus both ratio values are defined, and subtracting their fractions gives R(a+δa,c+δc)−R(a,c)=cδa−aδcc(c+δc).

1.2A2algebra

For η→0 with c+η>0, the coordinate difference quotients are R(a+η,c)−R(a,c)η=1c and R(a,c+η)−R(a,c)η=−ac(c+η). Their limits give the candidate linear map Lx(u,v)=u/c−av/c2; the total-derivative conclusion follows from the full remainder estimate below.

1.3A2algebra

Direct subtraction gives R(x+h)−R(x)−Lx(h)=av2−cuvc2(c+v).

2.1A1step 1.1algebra

The triangle inequality gives ∣cδa−aδc∣≤cϵa+∣a∣ϵc, while [A1] gives c(c+δc)≥c(c−ϵc)>0. Dividing these positive-denominator bounds proves the displayed deterministic ratio-error inequality.

2.2A2step 1.3algebra

Since the segment lies in Q, c,c+v≥c−, c≤c+, and ∣a∣≤A∗. Also 2∣uv∣≤u2+v2, because (∣u∣−∣v∣)2≥0. Therefore ∣av2−cuv∣≤A∗v2+c+∣uv∣≤(A∗+c+/2)(u2+v2), and c2(c+v)≥c−3. Combining these estimates with the exact remainder in step 1.3 gives ∣R(x+h)−R(x)−Lx(h)∣≤KQ∥h∥22.

3.1A2step 2.2algebra∎

For fixed x=(a,c) with c>0, choose Q=[a−1,a+1]×[c/2,3c/2], so x is interior and its lower second-coordinate bound is positive. For every sufficiently small h, both endpoints lie in Q, and convexity places the segment there. Step 2.2 then gives ∣R(x+h)−R(x)−Lx(h)∣∥h∥2≤KQ∥h∥2→0. By the stated definition, DR(x)=Lx.

Remarks

The two local bounds are deterministic consequences of positive denominators and algebra. The proof uses no statistical uncertainty model, independence assumption, Taylor theorem, chain rule, compactness theorem, or probability supplier. Penning-trap frequency ratios motivate the application; the exact finite-error and quadratic-remainder bounds are proved here and are not attributed to an external source.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

None yet.

Sources