Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Calderón–Zygmund operators need not map L∞ to L∞

Statement refuted

Assume Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

The bounded function f=1(0,1] has compatible Hilbert transform q(x)=π−1log⁡∣x/(x−1)∣, which is essentially unbounded near 0 and near 1: q(x)→−∞ as x→0 and q(x)→+∞ as x→1. Therefore no bounded L∞→L∞ extension agrees with the L2 Hilbert transform on L∞∩L2, and L∞ need not be mapped to L∞ by a Calderón–Zygmund operator. No BMO-valued endpoint estimate is refuted or asserted here.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The indicator f=1(0,1], its transform q(x)=1πlog⁡∣x∣∣x−1∣ on R∖{0,1}, and the truncations Hε of Truncated Hilbert transform and principal value.

[F1]

f∈L1∩L2, the symmetric principal value satisfies lim⁡ε↓0Hεf(x)=q(x) for every x∉{0,1}, and Hf=q almost everywhere as an L2 class (Strong type (1,1) fails for the Hilbert transform, Truncated Hilbert transform and principal value).

Counterexample

technique · direct
1.1F1givenalgebra

The function q is unbounded above and below on every punctured neighbourhood of the endpoints: for 0<x<1, ∣x∣∣x−1∣=x1−x, which tends to 0 as x→0+ and to +∞ as x→1−; since log⁡ is continuous, strictly increasing, with lim⁡u↓0log⁡u=−∞ and lim⁡u→∞log⁡u=+∞, one has q(x)→−∞ as x→0+ and q(x)→+∞ as x→1−. Hence for every M>0 the sets {q>M} and {q<−M} contain nondegenerate intervals, so both have positive Lebesgue measure and q is not essentially bounded.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra∎

Suppose T:L∞(R;C)→L∞(R;C) were bounded and agreed with the L2 Hilbert transform on L∞∩L2. Since f∈L∞∩L2 by [F1], the class Tf would equal the class Hf=q; but q is not essentially bounded by step 1.1, whereas every class in L∞ is essentially bounded. This contradiction shows that no bounded L∞→L∞ extension compatible on L∞∩L2 exists, which is the asserted failure; nothing here concerns a BMO-valued estimate.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

17 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