Approach to Equilibrium in Translation-Invariant Quantum Systems: Structural Results II

Let \nu\in{\mathcal S}_{\omega,\Phi}. Since E(\Psi_+)\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi), the definition of {\mathcal S}_{\omega,\Phi} and the fact that \omega_+\in\Sigma_+ give

By the Gibbs variational principle, s(\nu)-\nu(E(\Psi_+))\leq P(\Psi_+). On the other hand, since \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+), P(\Psi_+)=s(\omega_+)-\omega_+(E(\Psi_+)). Combining the last three relations yields s(\nu)\leq s(\omega_+). Since \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_{\omega,\Phi}, the maximum is attained at \omega_+. \Box

We shall use the following notation and properties, C denoting a subset of a Banach space B, and D a subset of its dual B^\ast. The annihilators of C and D are, respectively,

We note that C^\perp is a \mathrm{w}^\ast\!\!\mathrm{-closed} subspace of B^\ast and \leftindex^\perp D a norm-closed subspace of B. We recall also that \leftindex^\perp(C^\perp) is the norm closure of the linear span of C while (\leftindex^\perp D)^\perp is the \mathrm{w}^\ast\!\!\mathrm{-closure} of the linear span of D; see [Rudin1973, Theorem 4.7].

(i) \Rightarrow(ii) For any A\in{\mathfrak A} and a\in{\mathbbm Z}^d one has

and since m_\Lambda is a linear map such that \|m_\Lambda(A)\|\le\|A\|, the result follows from an \epsilon/3 argument.

(ii) \Rightarrow(iii) Immediately follows from the fact that \varphi(A)=\varphi(m_\Lambda(A)).

(iii) \Rightarrow(i) By assumption A\in\leftindex^\perp{\mathfrak A}_I^\ast. Observing that {\mathfrak I}_0^\perp\subset{\mathfrak A}_I^\ast, we conclude {\mathfrak I}=\leftindex^\perp({\mathfrak I}_0^\perp)\supset\leftindex^\perp{\mathfrak A}_I^\ast\ni A.

(iii) \Leftrightarrow (iv) Since {\mathfrak A}^\ast_I is the linear span of {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}, one has \leftindex^\perp{\mathcal S}_I=\leftindex^\perp{\mathfrak A}_I^\ast.\Box

Let A\in{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}. On the one hand,

where A_\Lambda\in{\mathfrak I}. It follows that \|m_\Lambda(A)\|=\|A+A_\Lambda\|\ge\|A\|_{{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}/{\mathfrak I}}, and hence

On the other hand, for any \epsilon>0 there exists B_\epsilon\in{\mathfrak I} such that \|A-B_\epsilon\|<\|A\|_{{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}/{\mathfrak I}}+\epsilon. We deduce that

and hence, by Proposition 2.3,

Letting \epsilon\downarrow0, the last estimate combined with (Proof) gives (2.4).

To prove (2.4) we derive from (Proof)

and hence

To obtain the opposite estimate, we note that for any \epsilon>0 there exists B_\epsilon\in{\mathfrak I} and b_\epsilon\in{\mathbbm R} such that \|A-B_\epsilon-b_\epsilon\mathbbm{1}\|<\|A\|_{{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}/({\mathfrak I}+{\mathbbm R})}+\epsilon. It follows that

and hence, invoking again Proposition 2.3,

Combining this estimate with (?) and letting \epsilon\downarrow0 yields (2.4). \Box

(i) Setting

for \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}, one has

where, in the last equality, we used the fact that Y has a unique translate centered at 0. This shows that R is a linear contraction from {\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b} to {\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}. Clearly R({\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f})\subset{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}\cap{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc}. Moreover, let A\in{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}\cap{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc} and choose a finite set Y\supset\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits(A) centered at 0. Define the translation-invariant finite-range interaction \Phi_A by

and \Phi_A(X)=0 for all other X\in{\mathcal F}. Since Y has a unique translate centered at 0, R(\Phi_A)=A. Moreover, exactly |Y| translates of Y contain the origin, and hence \|\Phi_A\|_\mathrm{b}=\|A\|. Thus, R({\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f})={\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}\cap{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc} and for any A\in{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}\cap{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc}, one has

Now, for any A\in{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}, there is a sequence (A_n)_{n\in{\mathbbm N}} in {\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}\cap{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc} such that \sum_n\|A_n\|<\infty, and A=\sum_nA_n. By the above construction, there is a sequence (\Phi_n)_{n\in{\mathbbm N}} in {\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f} such that R(\Phi_n)=A_n and \|\Phi_n\|_\mathrm{b}=\|A_n\| for all n\in{\mathbbm N}. It follows that \Phi=\sum_n\Phi_n\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b} and R(\Phi)=A.

(ii) Repeating the argument in (Proof), we derive \omega(R(\Phi))=\omega(E(\Phi)) for all \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}, and the claim follows from Proposition 2.3.

(iii) With {\mathcal K}=\mathop{\mathrm{Ker}}\nolimits(R), the quotient {\mathcal Q}={\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}/{\mathcal K} equipped with the quotient norm \|\,{\bm\cdot}\,\|_{\mathcal Q} is a Banach space. We denote by \pi the canonical surjection {\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}\to{\mathcal Q}. Since {\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}=\mathop{\mathrm{Ran}}\nolimits(R) is closed, the map \hat R:\pi(\Phi)\mapsto R(\Phi) is an isomorphism, i.e., a bounded linear bijection from {\mathcal Q} onto {\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa}, with a bounded inverse. For \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f}, (Proof) can be written as

and since \pi({\mathcal B}_f) is dense in {\mathcal Q}, this identity extends by continuity to \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}.\Box

(i)\Rightarrow(ii) This is a direct consequence of Propositions 2.3(i)\Rightarrow(ii) and 2.5(ii).

(ii)\Rightarrow(iii) We first establish the estimate

for every \Theta\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}. Suppose first that \Theta\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f} and that \Theta(X)=0 for \oslash(X)>r. For \Lambda\in{\mathcal F},

Hence, setting \Lambda_r=\{x\in\Lambda\mid\mathop{\mathrm{dist}}\nolimits(x,\Lambda^c)>r\},

and (Proof) follows along centered cubes. For general \Theta\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}, choose \Theta_n\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f} with \|\Theta_n-\Theta\|_\mathrm{b}\to0. Since, uniformly in \Lambda,

the finite-range estimate extends to \Theta.

Taking \Theta=\Phi-\Psi in (Proof), condition (ii) yields (iii).

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv) is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.7(i).

(iv)\Rightarrow(v) is a consequence of Definition (?).

(v)\Rightarrow(i) Invoking Propositions 2.5 (ii) and 2.3 (i) \Rightarrow (iv) gives that \omega(R(\Phi))-\omega(R(\Psi))=c for all \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}. The claim now follows from Proposition 2.3 (iv) \Rightarrow (i).

The last statement follows from Part (iv) and the Gibbs variational principle (?). \Box

By Proposition 2.9(iv), there is c\in{\mathbbm R} such that {\mathcal e}_\Psi(\omega)-{\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega)=c for all \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}. The last assertion of Proposition 2.9 gives P(\Psi)-P(\Phi)=-c. Hence, by the Gibbs variational principle,

\Box

(i)\Rightarrow(ii) Choose \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}((\Phi+\Psi)/2). By (i) and the linearity of the specific energy in the interaction,

The variational principle gives s(\omega)\leq{\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega)+P(\Phi) and s(\omega)\leq{\mathcal e}_\Psi(\omega)+P(\Psi). Hence both inequalities are equalities, and \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Phi)\cap{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi).

(ii)\Rightarrow(i) Let \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Phi)\cap{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). Then the relations

give that, for t\in[0,1],

This equality and the dual variational principle, Theorem 2.7 (iv), yield that

The opposite inequality follows from the convexity of the pressure and (i) follows. \Box

(i) For \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{s}, we have

(ii) Dividing the preceding estimate before its last inequality by |\Lambda| gives

For fixed X\ni0, the set in the numerator is contained in

Its relative cardinality therefore tends to zero along every van Hove net, while it is bounded by one. Since \sum_{X\ni0}\|\Phi(X)\|=\|\Phi\|_\mathrm{s}<\infty, dominated convergence yields Part (ii).

(iii) Part (ii) applies in particular along centered cubes, and the assertion follows from Corollary 2.10 and U_\Lambda(\Phi)=H_\Lambda(\Phi)+W_\Lambda(\Phi). \Box

(i)\Rightarrow(ii)\Rightarrow(iii) Follow from Propositions 2.12 and 2.13 respectively.

(iii)\Rightarrow(iv) By Theorem 2.20, there is a state in {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I} which is 1-KMS for \tau_\Phi and \tau_\Psi. Theorem 2.1 (iii) implies \tau_\Phi=\tau_\Psi.

(iv)\Rightarrow(v) Follows from Theorem 2.20.

(v)\Rightarrow(i) Clearly (v)\Rightarrow (iii) \Rightarrow (iv), so the claim reduces to (iv) \Rightarrow (i). Since \delta_\Phi=\delta_\Psi, invoking Theorem 2.19 it suffices to show that any \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd} such that

for all A\in{\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc} satisfies \Phi\in{\mathcal I}+{\mathcal R}. Now, for A\in{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda, we can rewrite (?) as \left[U_\Lambda(\Phi),A\right]=0. Taking the partial normalized trace over {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda^c} and using the triviality of the center of {\mathfrak A}_\Lambda, we obtain

for some c_\Lambda\in{\mathbbm R}. Hence, by Proposition 2.18(ii)–(iii), for any \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I},

and the claim follows from Proposition 2.9.\Box

The Gibbs variational principle and conservation of the specific entropy give

where in the last equality we used \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). Hence

for all T>0. The last assertion follows by weak-^\ast continuity of {\mathcal e}_\Psi. \Box

(i) This follows from [Bru2017, Theorem 4.8].

(ii) If d=1 and r\geq1, then

The one-dimensional uniqueness theorem of Araki [Araki1975], see also [Simon1993, Theorem IV.6.1], therefore yields that {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Phi) is a singleton.

(iii) See the companion paper [Jaksic2026b]. \Box

(i) The tracial state on {\mathfrak A} is the unique maximizer of the specific entropy s, [Simon1993, Theorem IV.2.4]. Thus setting e_0=\mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(E(\Phi)), we have {\mathcal s}(e_0)=\max\{s(\nu)\mid\nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}\}=\log\mathop{\mathrm{dim}}\nolimits{\mathcal H}. The function \beta_\ast={\mathcal s}' being monotone decreasing, we have \beta_\ast(e)\ge0 for e\in[e_\mathrm{min},e_0], and \beta_\ast(e)\le0 for e\in[e_0,e_\mathrm{max}].

(ii) Since \hat{\mathcal s} is convex, it is the Legendre–Fenchel transform of {\mathcal p}, which translates into Relation (?). A well known property of the Legendre–Fenchel transform [Rockafellar1970, Theorem 23.5],((\partial f)(x) denotes the subdifferential of f at x, i.e., the interval [(\partial^-f)(x),(\partial^+f)(x)].)

yields Relation (?). Finally, it follows from definition (?) that s(\nu)\le{\mathcal s}(e) for any \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I} such that {\mathcal e}_\Phi(\nu)=e, and Relation (?) yields that

iff \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\beta_\ast(e)\Phi). \Box

(i) Since {\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega)={\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega_\mathrm{eq}), the dual variational principle (?) gives

with equality iff \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi). If \beta_\mathrm{eq}\neq0, such a state is \tau_\Phi-invariant since it is invariant under \tau_{\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi}^t=\tau_\Phi^{\beta_\mathrm{eq} t}. If \beta_\mathrm{eq}=0, it is the tracial state and is again \tau_\Phi-invariant. Both cases contradict our standing assumption.

(ii) For all \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I} such that {\mathcal e}_\Phi(\nu)={\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega)\eqcolon e_\ast we have, by (?) and the variational definition of {\mathcal s},

with equality iff \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\omega,\Phi). By the second identity in (?), this applies to \nu=\omega_+. \Box

By Proposition 2.5(ii), E(\Psi)\equiv R(\Psi) (mod {\mathfrak I}). The assertion is therefore the restriction of the second isometric isomorphism of Theorem 2.6 to the subspaces singled out by the conservation law.-8pt\Box

Since

one has

for all A\in{\mathfrak A}, uniformly for s and t in compacts. Our assumption (4.5) yields that the right-hand side of the last identity is just \tau_\Psi^s(A). Since [H_{\Lambda^\prime\setminus\Lambda}(\Psi|\Phi,t),A]=0 whenever A\in{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda, the property further gives that, for such A and all t in a neighborhood of 0,

Hence, on the one hand

and on the other hand

which allows us to conclude that

Taking the partial normalized trace over {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda^c} yields

and so

for some C_\Lambda(t)\in{\mathbbm R}. Since \mathop{\mathrm{tr}}\nolimits(H_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t)-H_\Lambda(\Psi))=0, we deduce

Hence, by Proposition 2.18(ii) and the property,

Going back to (Proof) and using contractivity of the partial normalized trace, we obtain, for any \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I} and t in a neighborhood of 0,

In particular, the corresponding centered-cube limit vanishes. Combining this with Part (iii) of the property and Theorem 2.7(i) gives

Thus a neighborhood of 0 is contained in {\mathcal T}_\Phi(E(\Psi)) and it follows that {\mathcal T}_\Phi(E(\Psi))={\mathbbm R}. \Box

By the group property of the dynamics, it suffices to show that (4.5) holds for t and s in a neighborhood of 0. Since \Psi_t\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd} for small enough t, it follows from Theorem 2.7(i), the property and E(\Psi) being a constant of the motion for \tau_\Phi that, for small enough t and any \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I},

Proposition 2.9(v) thus gives E(\Psi_t)\approx E(\Psi). It then follows from Theorem 2.21 that \tau_{\Psi_t}=\tau_\Psi, and Relation (?) yields the statement. \Box

We first assume that (\Phi,\Psi) has the property. By the group property, it suffices to show that \alpha=\tau_\Psi for small enough t. Although it may happen that \Psi_t\not\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b}, the pressure and the specific energy associated with the local Hamiltonian family H(\Psi|\Phi,t) are well-defined. In the formulas below we denote these quantities, with a slight abuse of notation, by P(\Psi_t) and {\mathcal e}_{\Psi_t}. This is precisely the local-Hamiltonian formalism used in the companion paper [Jaksic2026b]. It is immediate from the definitions (?) and (?) that

while Part (iii) of the property and E(\Psi) being a constant of the motion for \tau_\Phi ensure that for any \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}

We now appeal to Araki–Moriya’s thermodynamic formalism. We shall use the terminology and notation of [Araki2003] and refer the reader to this article for more details. It follows from the property that \Psi_t is a translation covariant general potential, as defined in [Araki2003, Section 5.5 and 8.1]. More precisely, Conditions (\Phi-\mathrm{a}) and (\Phi-\mathrm{b}), i.e., \Psi_t(X)^\ast=\Psi_t(X)\in{\mathfrak A}_X for X\in{\mathcal F}, with \Psi_t(\emptyset)=0, are obviously satisfied. From the formula

one easily infers Condition (\Phi-\mathrm{f}), translation covariance. Condition (\Phi-\mathrm{c}), which expresses evenness in the fermionic setting, is omitted for quantum spin systems. Finally, since for \Lambda\subset\Lambda'\in{\mathcal F},

it follows from Part (i) of the property that

which yields Condition (\Phi-\mathrm{e}). Part (ii) of the property provides the surface-energy assumption of [Araki2003, Proposition 14.1]. Moreover, invariance of the trace under finite-volume unitary conjugation and finite-range approximation in {\mathcal B}_\mathrm{b} give

By Part (ii) of the property, the same trace limit is obtained with H_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t)+W_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t) in place of H_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t). Thus, [Araki2003, Proposition 14.1] applies: there exists a translation covariant standard potential, [Araki2003, Definition 5.10 and Section 8.1] \widetilde\Psi_t such that, for any \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I},

By [Araki2003, Section 11 and Proposition 14.1], Relations (Proof), (Proof) and (Proof) give that \widetilde\Psi_t, \Psi_t and \Psi share the same equilibrium states. The property ensures that for t in a neighborhood of 0 the C^\ast-dynamics \alpha=\tau_\Phi^{-t}\circ\tau_\Psi\circ\tau_\Phi^{t} satisfies properties (II), (III) and (IV) of [Araki2003, Section 1]. It then follows from [Araki2003, Theorems A and B] that \tau_\Psi and \alpha share the same KMS states. Hence, uniqueness of the modular group, Theorem 2.1 (iii), yields that \alpha=\tau_\Psi for small enough t.

Suppose now that \tau_\Phi preserves the specific entropy. Choose \eta\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). Conservation of the specific entropy and the assumption [\Psi]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi) give, for all t\in{\mathbbm R},

Thus \eta_t\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi), and Theorem 2.20 implies that \eta_t is a 1-KMS state for \tau_\Psi. By conjugation, \eta_t is also a 1-KMS state for \tau_\Phi^{-t}\circ\tau_\Psi\circ\tau_\Phi^t. It follows from Theorem 2.1 (iii) that

for all s,t\in{\mathbbm R}. \Box

We use a bilinear version of the argument in the proof of [Jaksic2023a, Theorem 2.8(2)].

We first note that

since \sum_{Y:\,Y\cap X\neq\emptyset}\|\Phi(Y)\| \leq |X|\|\Phi\|_{\mathrm s}. The finite partial sums of E(\Psi)=\sum_{X\ni0}\Psi(X)/|X| belong to {\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{loc} and converge in norm. The estimate shows that their images under \delta_\Phi also converge in norm. By closedness of \delta_\Phi, it follows that E(\Psi)\in\mathop{\mathrm{Dom}}\nolimits(\delta_\Phi) and that \delta_\Phi(E(\Psi)) is given by the corresponding absolutely convergent commutator series. Similarly, E(\Phi)\in\mathop{\mathrm{Dom}}\nolimits(\delta_\Psi).

Fix \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}. Absolute convergence and translation invariance give

For the second equality, set X'=X-y and Y'=Y-y. Then 0\in Y' and -y\in X'. For each fixed pair (X',Y'), there are exactly |X'| possible values of y, cancelling the factor 1/|X'|.

Suppose now that [\Psi]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi). Differentiating the conservation identity at t=0 gives \nu(\delta_\Phi(E(\Psi)))=0 for every \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}. The preceding identity therefore yields \nu(\delta_\Psi(E(\Phi)))=0 for every \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}. Since \nu\circ\tau_\Psi^t\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}, we obtain

Thus [\Phi]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Psi). The reverse implication follows by interchanging \Phi and \Psi. \Box

The pair (\rho,\Psi) being regular, one has s(\nu|\rho)=-s(\nu)+{\mathcal e}_\Psi(\nu)+P(\Psi) for all \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}. Since \tau_\Phi preserves the specific entropy, we further have

Thus, (i) holds iff E(\Psi)\approx\tau_\Phi^t(E(\Psi)) for all t\in{\mathbbm R}. By the definition of {\mathfrak C}(\Phi), this is precisely (ii). \Box

In Part (i), Theorem 2.24 (iv) gives \rho\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{wg}(\Psi), and hence (\rho,\Psi) is regular. The assertion is then Theorem 2.25. Part (ii) follows from Theorems 2.27 and 2.28. \Box

By Theorem 2.20 , \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{KMS}(\Psi_+). Since \omega_+ is \tau_\Phi-invariant, it is also, for any fixed s, a 1-KMS state for the C^\ast-dynamics \tau_\Phi^s\circ\tau_{\Psi_+}\circ\tau_\Phi^{-s}. It follows from Theorem 2.1 (iii) that

for all s,t\in{\mathbbm R}, and Theorem 4.5 yields the statement.\Box

Since \omega_+ is \tau_\Phi-invariant, Theorem 4.12 (i), applied with \rho=\omega_+, holds for all t\in{\mathbbm R}. Proposition 4.11 then implies that [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi). Part (ii) follows in the same way from Theorem 4.12 (ii), applied with \rho=\omega_+. \Box

For any [\Psi]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi), conservation of E(\Psi) and the Gibbs variational principle give

Taking the infimum over \Psi gives the first assertion. If \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+), the Gibbs variational principle is saturated at \Psi_+, and hence equality holds. Under this assumption, a \tau_\Phi-invariant interaction \Psi is a minimizer if and only if the Gibbs variational principle is saturated at \omega_+, i.e., if and only if \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). The last assertion follows from Theorem 2.21. \Box

Let [\Psi]\in{\mathfrak C}_\mathrm{req}(\Phi) and \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). The regularity of (\nu,\Psi) gives that

Since \Psi is \tau_\Phi-invariant, we further have {\mathcal e}_{\Psi}(\omega)={\mathcal e}_{\Psi}(\overline\omega_T) for all T>0. Taking a subsequence along which \overline\omega_T\to\omega_+ gives

For the fixed pair (\nu,\Psi), equality holds iff s(\omega_+|\nu)=0, equivalently iff \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). The remaining assertions follow immediately. \Box

For Part (i), choose a representative \Psi_+ of a class in {\mathfrak C}_\mathrm{req}(\Phi) such that \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). Proposition 4.16 gives s(\omega_+)=s(\omega_+'). Since [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi),

Using regularity of (\omega_+,\Psi_+) we therefore obtain

This proves Part (i).

For Part (ii), let \omega_+'\in{\mathcal S}_{\mathrm{req},+}(\Phi). By Part (i), s(\omega_+'|\omega_+)=0. Since (\omega_+,\Psi_+) is regular, this is equivalent to \omega_+'\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). \Box

Since {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi)\subset{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{req}(\Phi), Proposition 4.16 gives

for \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi). Moreover, [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}_\mathrm{req}(\Phi), and hence the same proposition gives

Since \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi), this proves Part (i).

Let \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi) be a minimizer and choose \Psi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd}\cap{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{R} such that \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). Equality in Proposition 4.16 gives \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). Since also \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+), Theorem 2.21 yields \Psi\sim\Psi_+ and therefore \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). Conversely, every \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+) is a minimizer by Proposition 4.16. This proves Part (ii).

For Part (iii), let \omega_+'\in\Sigma_+(\omega,\Phi). By assumption it belongs to {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi), hence to {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{req}(\Phi). Proposition 4.17(ii) then gives \omega_+'\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+)=\{\omega_+\}. \Box

Under , \Psi_+\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{R}. Under , the pair (\Phi,\Psi_+) has the property and Theorem 4.13 gives [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi). This proves the first case.

If holds, then \Psi_+\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{R} and, since a DSS is \tau_\Phi-invariant, Relation (?) gives, for all \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I} and t\in{\mathbbm R},

Proposition 4.11 yields [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi). \Box

Suppose that s(\omega)=s(\omega_+) for some \omega_+\in\Sigma_+(\omega,\Phi)\cap{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi). Since \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+) with [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi), we have \omega(E(\Psi_+))=\omega_+(E(\Psi_+)), and the relation

gives

Hence \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). It follows that {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_0)\cap{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+)\neq\emptyset, and so {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_0)={\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+) by Theorem 2.21. Hence \omega=\omega_+ which contradicts our basic hypothesis that \omega should not be \tau_\Phi-invariant. \Box

Let \nu\in\Sigma_+(\omega,\Phi). By finite-range restoration of locality, \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_\nu) for some \Psi_\nu\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f}. By Theorem 4.9 (ii), the pair (\Phi,\Psi_\nu) has the property, and it follows from Theorem 4.13 that [\Psi_\nu]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi). By Theorem 2.27, {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_\nu) is a singleton and its unique element is weak Gibbs, hence regularity holds. Thus [\Psi_\nu]\in\mathfrak{C}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi) and \Sigma_+(\omega,\Phi)\subset{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi).

Fix \omega_+\in\Sigma_+(\omega,\Phi) and a corresponding \Psi_+\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f}. Theorem 2.27 gives {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+)=\{\omega_+\}, while Proposition 4.18 (iii) yields Part (i). Parts (ii) and (iii) follow from the preceding argument and Proposition 4.18. Finally, {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_0)=\{\omega\} by Theorem 2.27, and Part (iv) follows from Proposition 5.3. \Box

Let \omega_+\in\Sigma_+(\omega,\Phi) and choose \Psi_+\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f} such that \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). By Theorem 4.9 (ii) and Theorem 4.13, [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi). Hence [\Psi_+]=\lambda[\Phi] for some \lambda\in{\mathbbm R}. Since {\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega_+)={\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega), the definition of the equilibrium inverse temperature gives \lambda=\beta_\mathrm{eq}. Thus \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\omega,\Phi). \Box

Suppose first that \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\omega,\Phi). Then \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi). Since E(\Phi) is a constant of the motion and \beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd}\cap{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{R}, it follows that \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi).

Conversely, assuming that \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{phys}(\Phi), one can choose \Psi_+\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd}\cap{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{R} such that [\Psi_+]\in{\mathfrak C}(\Phi) and \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). By the assumption on \omega_\mathrm{eq} and conservation of E(\Psi_+),

Hence

Proposition 3.3 gives the reverse inequality, and therefore s(\omega_\mathrm{eq}|\omega_+)=0. Regularity of (\omega_+,\Psi_+) yields \omega_\mathrm{eq}\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi_+). Since also \omega_\mathrm{eq}\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi) and \Psi_+,\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd}, Theorem 2.21 gives \Psi_+\sim\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi. It follows that \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\beta_\mathrm{eq}\Phi). Finally, {\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega_+)={\mathcal e}_\Phi(\omega) by energy conservation, and hence \omega_+\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\omega,\Phi).-8pt \Box