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.

Cook limits, massive wavepackets and scattering obligations — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

CounterexampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Abstract isometries can give a nonunitary comparison

Statement refuted

For every pair of isometries Ω±:C→C2, the comparison Ω+∗Ω− is unitary.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Has=C and H=C2 with their standard Hilbert norms, and the maps Ω−(z)=(z,0) and Ω+(z)=(0,z).

[F1]

Scattering isometries do not establish asymptotic completeness: for isometric maps from one asymptotic Hilbert space to a physical Hilbert space, the comparison is S=Ω+∗Ω− and its unitarity requires equal ranges.

Counterexample

1.1givenalgebra

For every z,w∈C, (Ω−(z),Ω−(w))=zw‾=(z,w) and (Ω+(z),Ω+(w))=zw‾=(z,w) in the standard first-variable-linear inner products, so both maps are isometries. Their ranges are C×{0} and {0}×C, respectively, and are distinct proper subspaces of C2.

2.1F1givenstep 1.1algebra∎

The Hilbert adjoint is Ω+∗(x,y)=y, since (Ω+z,(x,y))=(z,y) for all z,x,y. Hence Ω+∗Ω−(z)=Ω+∗(z,0)=0 for every z. The zero map is not unitary because it does not preserve the norm of 1∈C and is not surjective. This refutes the universal claim: isometry alone need not give equal ranges or a unitary comparison. This abstract Hilbert-space example does not construct a QFT model or establish non-completeness in any particular physical theory.

Sources