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.
Contradiction threshold for amplification
PDF p. 23: Equation (4.2)
Statement
Assume countable choice. Let be a finite connected undirected graph, possibly with loops, with and symmetric binary adjacency matrix . Connected means that every two vertices are joined by a finite edge path. Let and , and suppose is an -expander: , where is the all-ones matrix and the norm is the Euclidean operator norm.
Let be a nonsynchronized stable state: the phases are not all equal modulo , and is a local minimum on the phase torus of . Choose representatives after a common rotation for which the first order parameter is real and nonnegative. For , put . Let be an integer and let and be real numbers with and for ; these are an amplification sequence.
For , define when and when . Then . Consequently the additional inequality is incompatible with these hypotheses.
Statement references
Adjacency, degrees, graph Laplacian, and spectral notation
Adjacency spectral expander — Definition 1.3
Equilibria, stable states, synchronized states, and spurious minima
Truncated sine-square function
Angle and mass sequences in the amplification argument
Phase tail sets for amplification
Finite phase tori, local lifts and the flat metric
Facts & Assumptions
For the connected expander and normalized stable state in the statement, the total mass satisfies (Uniform bound on average H mass — Corollary 2.6).
For the nonsynchronized stable state and amplification sequence in the statement, (Mass-angle lower bound — Lemma 4.1).
Proof
Given: The graph, parameters, normalized nonsynchronized stable state and amplification sequence in the statement, under countable choice.
Goal: Establish the threshold inequality and its contradiction consequence.
The graph is connected and nonempty, the expander condition and hold, and the stable state is normalized as required by [F1]. Hence its total mass is at most .
The same state is nonsynchronized and the displayed angles and bounds form the sequence required by [F2], so its total mass is at least . Combining this with step 1.1 gives . A strict reverse inequality would contradict this bound.
Source notes
Equation (4.2) on PDF page 23 of the cited article states the contradiction threshold. The article citation is attribution; the proof above uses the two declared mathematical results.
Depends on
- Uniform bound on average H mass — Corollary 2.6
- Mass-angle lower bound — Lemma 4.1
- Adjacency, degrees, graph Laplacian, and spectral notation
- Adjacency spectral expander — Definition 1.3
- Equilibria, stable states, synchronized states, and spurious minima
- Daido order parameters
- Truncated sine-square function
- Angle and mass sequences in the amplification argument
- Phase tail sets for amplification
- Finite phase tori, local lifts and the flat metric
- Phasors, trigonometric identities and periodic derivatives
- The Axiom of Countable Choice (AC_ω)
Dependency tree · 2 levels
Each result is drawn at its shortest distance from this item. Arrows run from prerequisites to the items that use them; this item has a heavier outline. External source nodes link directly to the cited text. The view shows up to two dependency steps; open a prerequisite to continue.
Sources
- Expander graphs are globally synchronizing · PDF p. 23, equation (4.2)