Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Boundary W2,p regularity needs more than Lipschitz boundary

Statement refuted

A weak-solution regularity assertion that replaces the C1,1 boundary hypothesis by mere Lipschitz regularity is false; this does not refute the a priori estimate Global W2,p Dirichlet estimate on a C1,1 domain, whose hypothesis already requires u∈W2,p. The reentrant sector below is a bounded Lipschitz domain, but not a C1,1 domain at its vertex. Let Ωω={(r,θ):0<r<1, 0<θ<ω} with ω∈(π,2π), put γ=π/ω∈(1/2,1), and define U=rγsin⁡(γθ). Choose a smooth radial cutoff ζ supported in B1/2 and equal to 1 near 0, and let v=ζU. Choose r0>0 so that ζ=1 for r<r0. Then v∈H01(Ωω), f:=−Δv∈C∞(Ωω)∩L∞(Ωω)⊂Lp(Ωω) for every finite p, and −Δv=f weakly. However, ∣D2v∣≍rγ−2 near 0, so ∫0r0rp(γ−2)+1 dr=∞⟺p≥22−γ=2ω2ω−π. Hence this weak solution is not in W2,p for those exponents (in particular not in H2). The reentrant corner shows why weak boundary regularity requires more than a Lipschitz chart.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ACω, n=2, ω∈(π,2π), γ=π/ω, the sector Ωω={(r,θ):0<r<1, 0<θ<ω} (with x=rcos⁡θ, y=rsin⁡θ), the harmonic profile U(r,θ)=rγsin⁡(γθ), a radial cutoff ζ∈Cc∞(R2) with ζ=1 on Br0, 0≤ζ≤1 and supp⁡ζ⊆B1/2, and v=ζU.

[A1]

The only choice principle used is Countable Choice ACω; no full Axiom of Choice is used. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω))

[F1]

Weak solutions of −Δu=f with zero boundary values are the classes u∈H01(Ωω) with ∫Ωω∇u⋅∇φ=∫Ωωfφ for every φ∈H01(Ωω); by density it suffices to test against φ∈Cc∞(Ωω). (Weak Dirichlet solutions for a divergence-form operator, The Laplacian of a C2 function and of a C2 vector field)

[F2]

In polar coordinates on the open sector, Δw=wrr+1rwr+1r2wθθ for w∈C2; the Lebesgue integral of a radial function is ∫Br0∩Ωωg(r) dx=ω∫0r0g(r)r dr. (Polar coordinates decompose Lebesgue measure into r^{n-1} dr d sigma)

[F3]

For every 0<ρ<R there is a radial cutoff ζ∈Cc∞(R2) with ζ=1 on Bρ, 0≤ζ≤1 and supp⁡ζ⊆BR. (A smooth bump between concentric Euclidean balls)

[F4]

A class lies in W2,p precisely when it and all its weak derivatives through order two lie in Lp. In particular, failure of Lp integrability of a second weak derivative excludes W2,p membership; ∫0r0rs dr converges if and only if s>−1. (Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms)

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F2givenalgebraA1

The profile is harmonic and vanishes on the two sides. For U(r,θ)=rγsin⁡(γθ) one has, by [F2], ΔU=[γ(γ−1)rγ−2+γrγ−2−γ2rγ−2]sin⁡(γθ)=0, so U is harmonic on the sector (in particular U∈C∞(Ωω‾∖{0})). Moreover U(r,0)=0 and U(r,ω)=rγsin⁡(π)=0, so U vanishes on the two radial sides of Ωω; at the reentrant vertex the sector has interior angle ω∈(π,2π), so Ωω is a bounded Lipschitz domain that is not C1,1 there.

1.2F1givenalgebraF3

The localized profile is in H01. Since ∣U∣≤rγ and ∣∇U∣=γrγ−1 (the gradient of the harmonic profile has absolute value γrγ−1 because the angular factor contributes a unit vector in polar coordinates), the integrals ∫r<1/2∣U∣2 dx and ∫r<1/2∣∇U∣2 dx converge; hence v=ζU∈H1(Ωω) with support in B1/2‾. To approximate v in H1 by Cc∞(Ωω) functions: first truncate radially, vε:=χ(r/ε)v with χ∈C∞ equal to 0 near 0 and to 1 for every t≥2. This transition need not be compactly supported: vε remains compactly supported because v is supported in B1/2‾. The estimate ∥v−vε∥H12=O(ε2γ) follows from ∣v∣2+∣∇v∣2≲r2γ−2 near the vertex. Next cut off in the angular variable with a smooth ηδ(θ) vanishing for θ<δ and for θ>ω−δ and equal to 1 for 2δ<θ<ω−2δ. For each fixed ε, the squared H1 error is O(δ), hence the H1 norm error is O(δ1/2): near either side U=O(rγdist⁡(θ,{0,ω})), the angular cutoff derivative is O(δ−1) on strips of angular width O(δ), and the resulting radial weight r2γ−1 is integrable. The resulting functions are supported in a compact subset of the open sector and can be mollified there, so v∈H01(Ωω) by definition of the closure.

2.1step 1.2F1givenalgebra

The forcing is smooth and bounded, and the weak equation holds. Since U is harmonic, Δv=Δ(ζU)=(Δζ)U+2∇ζ⋅∇U on the sector; the right-hand side is supported in the annulus {r0≤r≤1/2} where U and its gradient are smooth up to the two radial sides for r≥r0>0, so f:=−Δv∈C∞(Ωω)∩L∞(Ωω) and hence f∈Lp(Ωω) for every finite p. For φ∈Cc∞(Ωω) integration by parts on the compactly contained support gives ∫∇v⋅∇φ=∫(−Δv)φ=∫fφ; both sides are continuous in φ in the H1 norm, so the identity holds for every φ∈H01(Ωω) by [F1]: v is a weak solution of −Δv=f with zero boundary values.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1F2F4algebra

The second derivatives diverge exactly above the threshold. On {r<r0} one has v=U, a function homogeneous of degree γ; write U=Im⁡zγ on the sector branch. Direct differentiation gives U11=γ(γ−1)rγ−2sin⁡((γ−2)θ), U12=γ(γ−1)rγ−2cos⁡((γ−2)θ) and U22=−U11. Thus the Frobenius Hessian norm is 2γ(1−γ)rγ−2, so there are constants 0<c1≤c2<∞ with c1rγ−2≤∣D2v∣≤c2rγ−2 on Ωω∩{0<r<r0} (by the displayed nonvanishing norm, since 0<γ<1). By [F2], ∫Ωω∩Br0∣D2v∣p dx≍∫0r0rp(γ−2)+1 dr, which by [F4] diverges exactly when p(γ−2)+1≤−1, that is p≥22−γ. Using γ=π/ω gives 22−γ=2ω2ω−π, so the weak solution v is not in W2,p(Ωω) for those exponents; taking p=2 (which is allowed because γ<1) shows in particular that v∉H2(Ωω).

4.1step 2.1step 3.1step 1.1given∎

Conclusion. On the bounded Lipschitz reentrant domain Ωω there is a weak solution v∈H01(Ωω) of −Δv=f with f∈C∞∩L∞, which fails to lie in W2,p(Ωω) for every p≥2ω/(2ω−π). Thus smooth data and a Lipschitz boundary alone do not guarantee weak-solution W2,p regularity. This example is not a counterexample to the a priori estimate Global W2,p Dirichlet estimate on a C1,1 domain, whose domain already assumes u∈W2,p; it makes no claim that the estimate’s C1,1 boundary hypothesis is necessary.

Remarks

  • The mechanism is the corner exponent γ=π/ω: the harmonic profile grows like rγ, its first derivatives like rγ−1 (square-integrable already for γ>0, since the radial gradient integral is ∫r2γ−1dr; the zero-boundary closure was proved in step 1.2), and its second derivatives like rγ−2, which is not p-integrable for large p because the radial weight in two dimensions is rp(γ−2)+1 (equal to r2γ−3 when p=2).
  • The failure is purely at the vertex, not at the sides: the two radial sides are straight, and on each of them the localized solution is smooth for r≥r0. This isolates the reentrant corner as the obstruction, in contrast to convex corners, where γ>1 improves the integrability threshold, but the Hessian is still unbounded when 1<γ<2; it is bounded when γ≥2.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

55 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources