Uniform Log-Sobolev Inequality and Mass Gap for Lattice Yang-Mills Theory: A Conditional Reduction
This replacement corrects the title and foregrounds the logical status already partly recorded in public version 3. The uniform log-Sobolev conclusion requires the cross-scale derivative hypothesis (H-XSD), whose purported companion-paper discharge is not re-verified here. The mass-gap conclusion additionally requires the Dobrushin-type hypothesis (H-DOB), or an independently valid alternative DLR-LSI/mixing route. Neither input is proved by this manuscript alone. No unconditional weak-coupling lattice mass gap, continuum construction, Osterwalder-Schrader reconstruction, or Clay-problem result is claimed. The preserved version 3 follows the correction page for provenance.
Verification record
- Frontier-model screening
- Not assessed
- Source integrity
- Pass
- Bibliographic integrity
- Not assessed
- Reproducibility
- Not assessed
- Lean 4
- Not assessed
Recorded under ARR-HISTORICAL-IMPORT-1.0. ARR verification and screening are not peer review.
Version history
The ARR identifier remains stable. Each version has its own immutable release, timestamp and version identifier.
- v1 · source snapshot available · viewing
Original ai.vixra version history
Dates below are the source submission timestamps. ai.vixra omits a timezone; ARR preserves the displayed values and uses the normalized offset only for deterministic ordering.
AI assistance statement
Historical import from ai.vixra, an AI-assisted e-print archive. ARR has not normalized or independently verified the original manuscript's model-use disclosure; the author remains responsible for its contents.
Frontier-model screening
Status: not_assessed. Any listed reports correspond to this exact version under ARR-SCREEN-1.0; no absent assessment is represented as a pass.
Independent model assessments
No eligible independent ARR-ASSESS-1.0 report is published for this exact version. Missing evidence is not scored as zero.
No model reports are published for this version.
A model assessment is not peer review or a correctness certificate. ARR preserves disagreement, exact-version provenance and later reassessments.
Editorial disclosure
Author-authorized historical import. ARR verified file retrieval and integrity only; it did not perform the current hostile frontier-model admission audit, peer review, novelty review, or correctness certification.