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.

Poincare semidirect group, dual pairing and moment components — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

These examples verify the charge-algebra obstruction for one specific instantaneous pair potential, show a nonclosing two-shell constraint pair at explicit joint-shell data, locate the first caustic of smooth free relativistic Hamilton-Jacobi data, and check a massive or nonzero-null free complete integral. Each conclusion is a conditional mathematical calculation; none is an experiment or a universal no-interaction result.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

CounterexampleConstruction: 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 →

Free boost plus instantaneous relativistic pair potential violates the charge algebra

Statement refuted

Let P=(T∗R)2≅R4 have coordinates (q1,p1,q2,p2), symplectic form ω=∑a=12dqa∧dpa, and canonical bracket {F,G}=∑a=12(FqaGpa−FpaGqa). Let qa be one-dimensional positions in metres, pa momenta in kg m/s, t an external equal-time parameter in seconds, ma>0 in kg, and c>0 in m/s. For k>0 in kg/s2 define Ea(pa)=ma2c4+c2pa2, V(r)=kr2/2 with r=q1−q2, H=E1+E2+V(r), P=p1+p2, and K=(q1E1+q2E2)/c2−tP. The proposed assertion that this Hamiltonian and unchanged free boost satisfy {K,P}=H/c2 at every configuration is false.

Example

Assume ACω for the cited Poincare algebra input. Use the phase space, bracket, masses, and functions defined in the Statement, with k having units kg/s2, so V has energy units. The retained free total boost is

K=q1E1+q2E2c2−t(p1+p2),P=p1+p2.

With canonical brackets, {K,P}=(E1+E2)/c2, while the Poincaré charge algebra requires {K,P}=H/c2. They disagree at every configuration with q1≠q2. The construction is therefore a counterexample to combining this instantaneous potential with the unchanged free boost. It is not a universal no-interaction theorem.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Independent canonical pairs (qa,pa), masses ma>0, c>0, k>0, and the functions specified above.

[A1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): assume countable choice ACω only; no full axiom of choice is used.

[L1]

Poincare cotangent moment map and full generator algebra: the current assigned A draft states the Poincare generator algebra; setting K=-J^{01}/c and P=P^1 in its bracket gives the required free identity {K,P}=P^0/c=H/c^2. The carrier exists as a batch-26 draft, but its proof remains conditional on H0/H8 and has no independent approval.

[F1]

Poincare semidirect group, dual pairing and moment components: J01=x0P1−x1P0 and P0=E/c on the positive-energy inertial shell, fixing the free boost sign.

Counterexample

technique · direct canonical bracket and counterexample

Given: The free shell energies, translation-invariant potential, unchanged free boost, and [L1] target identity.

1.1F1L1A1algebra

By the canonical product bracket, {qaEa,p1+p2}=Ea for each a, since Ea is independent of position; also {t(p1+p2),p1+p2}=0. Hence {K,P}=(E1+E2)/c2.

2.1L1step 1.1algebra∎

The Hamiltonian is H=E1+E2+kr2/2, so H/c2−{K,P}=kr2/(2c2)>0 whenever r=q1−q2≠0. The required algebra relation in [L1] fails there. Since k has units kg/s2, kr2/2 is energy and the compared charges have matching units. This refutes this proposed free-boost construction only.

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 linear two-shell potential fails first-class closure

Example

Assume ACω for the cotangent/constraint supplier. Use the product cotangent domain P=T∗(R4×R4) with coordinates (xia,pia) for i=1,2, Minkowski metric η=diag⁡(−1,1,1,1), canonical form ω=∑i=12∑a=03dxia∧dpia, and induced bracket {F,G}=∑i=12∑a=03(FxiaGpia−FpiaGxia). Take xia in metres, pia in kg m/s, Pia:=ηabpib, pi2:=ηabpiapib, ra:=x1a−x2a, and r2:=ηabrarb. Use constraints

C1=12(p12+m12c2)+V(r2),C2=12(p22+m22c2)+V(r2).

Here mi>0 in kg, c>0 in m/s, and V:R→R is smooth with units of momentum squared. Their canonical bracket is

{C1,C2}=−2V′(r2) r⋅(P1+P2).

For V(z)=λz, with λ>0 in momentum squared per square metre, this bracket is nonzero at explicit points on the joint surface C1=C2=0 where dC1,dC2 are independent. Thus, by First-class closure for a regular constraint family, the pair fails first-class closure on the local regular surface around each such point, and arbitrary independent multipliers need not preserve both constraints there. Additional consistency conditions are required; no universal obstruction for all interacting relativistic models is claimed.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Two canonical spacetime cotangent factors, the stated constraints, smooth V, and the canonical bracket convention.

[A1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): assume countable choice ACω only for the referenced cotangent/constraint supplier; no full axiom of choice is used.

[F1]

First-class closure for a regular constraint family: on a regular common zero surface, “first-class” means every pairwise Poisson bracket vanishes at every point of that surface. This is the exact local definition used by the conclusion.

[F2]

Canonical Poisson brackets and local Hamiltonian flow: in induced cotangent coordinates, {F,G}=FqiGpi−FpiGqi and ιXHω=dH. The H25 Step 1 record is ready/hash-current, but the carrier remains draft/unbound and its ai-altered proof is not independently approved.

[L1]

Constraint consistency for a regular first-order model: the current H2 draft assumes an open parameter interval, a symplectic manifold, smooth moving constraints with independent differentials on each Nλ, a smooth ambient Hc, paths in a Darboux chart on a compact subinterval, and smooth multipliers. It states ∂λχa+{χa,Hc(λ,⋅)}+ub(λ){χa,χb}=0 on Nλ as the tangency condition; for autonomous constraints the first term vanishes. Its H25 Step 1 record is ready/hash-current, but the carrier remains draft/unbound with ai-altered proof provenance and no independent proof approval. The autonomous Hc=0 specialization used here matches its current Statement.

Verification

technique · direct differentiation and an on-surface witness

Given: Canonical coordinates, C1,C2, the bracket convention [F2], the local first-class definition [F1], and the autonomous tangency condition [L1].

1.1F2A1algebra

The potential derivatives are ∂x1aV=2V′(r2)ra and ∂x2aV=−2V′(r2)ra. The kinetic terms have ∂piaCi=Pia. In {C1,C2}, the first particle contributes −P1a(2V′ra) and the second contributes (−2V′ra)P2a; all other cross terms vanish. Their sum is the displayed bracket.

2.1F1L1A1step 1.1algebra∎

Choose r=(0,R,0,0) with R>0, V(z)=λz, and λ>0. Let Pi1=ui>0, other spatial components zero, and Pi0=mi2c2+2λR2+ui2. Then pi2=−(Pi0)2+ui2=−mi2c2−2λR2, so both Ci=0, while r⋅(P1+P2)=R(u1+u2)>0. Each constraint differential has nonzero momentum component Pi in its own cotangent factor, so dC1,dC2 are independent at this witness. Independence persists on a sufficiently small neighborhood, making the local joint level regular. The bracket is {C1,C2}=−2λR(u1+u2)≠0 there, so [F1] says the pair is not first-class on that local regular surface. With autonomous constraints and Hc=0, [L1] gives C˙1=u2{C1,C2} and C˙2=u1{C2,C1}; hence preserving both constraints at this point forces u1=u2=0. Thus arbitrary independent nonzero multipliers need not preserve the joint surface.

CounterexampleConstruction: 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 →

One smooth free relativistic Hamilton-Jacobi datum loses graph regularity in finite time

Statement refuted

Let P=T∗R have position coordinate q∈R in metres, momentum coordinate p∈R in kg m/s, and symplectic form ω=dq∧dp. For fixed mass m>0 in kg and speed c>0 in m/s, take the free Hamiltonian H(p)=E(p)=m2c4+c2p2, in joules, on P; time t is measured in seconds. The proposed assertion that every smooth initial action S0:R→R produces a characteristic family extending as a smooth single-valued graph p=Sq(t,q) with finite Sqq through every finite future time t≥0 is false.

Example

Assume ACω for the cotangent-shell supplier. With the phase space and Hamiltonian from the Statement, let a∈R be the initial position in metres and t seconds. Choose the smooth initial action S0(a)=−κa2/2, κ>0 in kg/s. Its characteristics have p(a)=−κa and

q(t,a)=a+tc2p(a)E(p(a)).

For this characteristic family, call (t,a) a caustic point when the projection (t,a)↦(t,q(t,a)) is not locally invertible there.

The projection derivative is ∂aq=1−tκm2c6/E(p)3. It stays positive for 0≤t<m/κ and first vanishes at (t,a)=(m/κ,0), where ∂ap=−κ≠0. Therefore this characteristic family cannot extend there as a smooth single-valued graph p=Sq(t,q) with finite Sqq. The initial data and Hamiltonian are smooth; the failure is the projection singularity, not an initial-data defect.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: m,c,κ>0, the free Hamiltonian E(p) and the stated smooth initial graph.

[A1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): assume countable choice ACω only for the cotangent-shell supplier; no full axiom of choice is used.

[L1]

Local Hamilton-Jacobi solution by invertible characteristics: its local existence result assumes the initial exact-graph point lies in the open Hamiltonian domain and proves existence only while the characteristic projection is invertible. Here H=E(p) is smooth on the full one-dimensional cotangent domain and the chosen initial graph lies there; the result makes no continuation claim beyond loss of projection invertibility. The canonical-flow supplier is a current draft, not an independently approved result.

[L2]

Free shell in inertial time has the square-root Hamiltonian: the current H8 draft states E=m2c4+c2p2, q˙=c2p/E, and p˙=0. The supplier is a mathematical deduction within its stated chart, positive-root and nonzero-null hypotheses; it introduces no physical action adoption.

Counterexample

technique · compute the characteristic projection and use the graph chain rule

Given: The free Hamiltonian and initial action above, plus [L1]–[L2].

1.1L2A1algebra

Hamilton's equations from [L2] give p˙=0, so p(t,a)=S0′(a)=−κa. Also q˙=Ep=c2p/E, hence integration with q(0,a)=a gives the displayed formula.

2.1L2A1step 1.1algebra

Differentiate: ∂aq=1−tκc2ddp(p/E). Since E2=m2c4+c2p2, ddp(p/E)=m2c4/E3. Thus ∂aq=1−tκm2c6/E3. Because E≥mc2, this is at least 1−tκ/m, positive for t<m/κ. At a=0, p=0 and E=mc2, so it equals zero at t=m/κ; this is the first singular point.

3.1L1step 2.1algebra∎

At that point ∂ap=−κ. If a smooth graph p=Sq(t,q(t,a)) extended through it, the chain rule would give ∂ap=Sqq∂aq=0, contradicting −κ≠0. Hence no such smooth single-valued graph extension exists through that projection singularity.

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 →

Explicit massive and nonzero-null free complete integral

Example

Assume ACω for the cotangent-shell supplier. Work with spatial position q∈R3 in metres and momentum parameter α∈R3 in kg m/s, with the Euclidean dot product and norm ∣α∣=α⋅α; at fixed time the spatial phase space has canonical form ω=∑i=13dqi∧dpi. Here t∈R is measured in seconds, m≥0 is in kg, and c>0 is in m/s. The parameter domain is all Rα3 when m>0, and Rα3∖{0} when m=0. For a free massive particle with m>0, or a nonzero massless particle with m=0 and α≠0, define

S(t,q,α)=q⋅α−tE(α),E(α)=m2c4+c2∣α∣2.

Then St+E(Sq)=0, Sqα=I, and its integration coordinates satisfy β=Sα=q−tc2α/E, equivalently q=β+tc2α/E. The mixed Hessian is everywhere nonsingular on the stated domain, so this is a complete integral there. [S]=J s, [α]=kg m/s, and [β]=m.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Flat inertial coordinates, m≥0, c>0, and for m=0 the open parameter domain α≠0.

[A1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω): assume countable choice ACω only for the cotangent-shell supplier; no full axiom of choice is used.

[L1]

Complete integrals and covariant versus time Hamilton-Jacobi: a smooth HJ family with invertible mixed Hessian defines a local canonical map with new position β=Sα, new momentum α, and ωnew=∑idβi∧dαi; β is constant along characteristics, and the construction is local to the nonsingular domain. For each fixed α here, the initial graph at t=0 lies in the full massive Hamiltonian domain when m>0 and in the open nonzero-momentum domain when m=0 and α≠0.

[L2]

Free shell in inertial time has the square-root Hamiltonian: the current H8 draft states the positive-energy Hamiltonian E=m2c4+c2∣p∣2 on the fixed inertial-time branch. The supplier is a mathematical deduction within its stated chart, positive-root and nonzero-null hypotheses; it introduces no physical action adoption.

Verification

technique · substitution and derivative verification

Given: The formulas and domain in the statement, together with [L1]–[L2].

1.1L1L2A1algebra

Differentiation gives Sq=α, St=−E(α), and hence St+E(Sq)=0. Also Sqiαj=δij, so its determinant is one. By [L1] this nonsingular family supplies local canonical integration coordinates on the stated domain.

1.2L1L2A1algebra

Differentiating E gives ∂αiE=c2αi/E wherever E>0. Thus β=Sα=q−tc2α/E and rearranging yields the stated trajectory formula. For m=0, E=c∣α∣>0 and differentiability requires α≠0, which is exactly the given domain.

2.1givenalgebra∎

The products q⋅α and tE have action units, while α is momentum and ∂αS is length. Hence the generating function and canonical coordinates have the claimed physical dimensions.

Sources