Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-generatedProof: AI-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.

Scope of smooth field equations at an exterior horizon boundary

Statement

Work in ZFC. Let M be an oriented smooth Hausdorff second-countable four-manifold without boundary, let E,O⊂M be open, and put U=E∪O. Let gq be smooth time-oriented Lorentzian metrics of signature (−,+,+,+) on U, with specified smooth timelike time-orientation fields Nq, and let Fq be smooth real two-forms on U. Use the restricted orientation of M for every Hodge star, and take E‾ in M. If for fixed q the source-free geometric electrovacuum equations hold on E, their tensor residuals vanish at every point of O∩E‾. Smooth extension alone does not imply those equations on O∖E‾.

Facts & Assumptions

[F1]

Smooth Lorentzian metrics, their connections and Ricci tensors use Stationary Lorentzian data and tensor conventions. Only those tensor conventions are needed; no stationary symmetry is required.

[F2]

The source-free geometric electrovacuum equations, their oriented Hodge star and stress tensor are those of Geometric electrovacuum equations and charge convention. The orientation and the time-orientation fields specified in the Statement supply that interface's geometric data. Its choice convention is included in ZFC; the equations are mathematical conditions, not adopted physical laws here.

[F3]

The closure E‾ is the intersection of the closed subsets of M containing E, hence is contained in each such closed set. Its complement is open. Interior, closure, boundary, exterior, derived set and isolated point in a topological space

[F4]

The standard flat function is β(s)=exp⁡(−1/s) for s>0 and β(s)=0 for s≤0. It is smooth on R, positive for s>0, and all its derivatives vanish at zero. The standard flat function The standard flat function is smooth and flat at zero

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in the Statement and the tensor conventions in [F1] and [F2].

Goal: Prove vanishing on O∩E‾ and establish the stated non-implication on its open complement.

1.1givenF1F2

Fix q. The residuals are dFq, d(⋆gqFq), and the covariant two-tensor with components Rab=Ric⁡(gq)ab−2((Fq)ac(Fq)bc−14(gq)ab(Fq)cd(Fq)cd). Their components are continuous in every smooth chart in U. Indeed the inverse of the smooth nondegenerate matrix gq is smooth, its oriented volume density and Hodge map are smooth, and the Christoffel and Ricci formulas use at most two derivatives of gq. All contractions and exterior derivatives therefore produce smooth tensor components.

1.2F1F2F4

To establish non-implication, use M=R4 with coordinates (t,x,y,z) and orientation dt∧dx∧dy∧dz, take E={x<0} and O=M, and choose the constant family gq=−dt⊗dt+dx⊗dx+dy⊗dy+dz⊗dz, Nq=∂t, Fq=β(x) dx∧dy. By [F4] the two-forms are smooth across x=0, and the metrics are smooth, nondegenerate and Lorentzian everywhere. Their coefficients are constant, so their Christoffel symbols and Ricci tensors vanish. On E, Fq=0 and all the electrovacuum equations hold.

2.1givenF3step 1.1

Let p∈O∩E‾. If a residual were nonzero at p, some component r in a chart in U containing p would satisfy r(p)≠0. Continuity gives an open neighborhood W of p in that chart with ∣r∣>∣r(p)∣/2. Since U is open in M, W is open in M. The equations on E imply W∩E=∅, so the closed set M∖W contains E. By [F3] it contains E‾, contradicting p∈W∩E‾. Thus every residual vanishes at p. This proof uses the defining closed-set property of closure directly.

3.1F1F2F3F4step 1.2∎

In this example E‾={x≤0}: this closed set contains E, and every neighborhood of a point with x=0 intersects E, since its coordinate image is open. At a point with x>0 put b=β(x)>0. The only independent nonzero field component is (Fq)xy=b, and raising spatial indices leaves it unchanged. Hence (Fq)cd(Fq)cd=2b2 and (Fq)tc=0, so the prescribed right-hand side of the tt Ricci equation is 2(0−14(−1)2b2)=b2>0, whereas Ric⁡(gq)tt=0. Thus the Einstein equation fails throughout the nonempty open complement O∖E‾={x>0} despite smooth extension across the boundary and validity on E. This supplies the asserted non-implication without weakening the boundary conclusion.

Source notes

The cited independent source supplies construction context only: Proposition 3.1 states exterior equations, and Appendix A.2 treats null stationary-field points. Neither passage is used to prove the general boundary statement or the counterexample above; both arguments here are locally authored.

Depends on

Used by · 1

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.

External dependencies

Alexandru F. Radu, Rigidity of stationary black holes with small ADM angular momentum · Proposition 3.1; Appendix A.2, opening paragraph and the paragraph immediately after (A.18).

The construction is smooth on the exterior and a horizon neighborhood; Proposition 3.1 states its field equations on the exterior. Appendix A.2 handles null stationary-field points within that construction.

Hypotheses: Radu's GR, SBS and original maximal-hypersurface assumptions; the Appendix calculation uses the constructed stationary data.

Reading limits: Consulted these HTML v1 passages for context and scope only. They are not premises for this general lemma or its counterexample. The numbered proof is locally authored; no reconstruction or acceptance of the Harrison construction is claimed.

Sources