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

Elliptic Fredholm solvability can fail at an eigenvalue

Statement refuted

For the Dirichlet problem for −Δ on a bounded domain and every real datum f∈L2, the equation −Δu−λu=f is uniquely solvable.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: the Axiom of Choice and Countable Choice; the interval Ω=(0,π); the Dirichlet Laplacian with form a(u,v)=∫0πu′v′; an integer k≥1 and the eigenvalue λk=k2; and f∈L2(0,π).

[F1]

The eigenfunction: uk(x)=sin⁡(kx) lies in H01(0,π) and satisfies a(uk,v)=k2(uk,v)L2 for every v∈H01(0,π) (Dirichlet Laplacian eigenpairs on an interval, Symmetric elliptic weak eigenpairs).

[F2]

One-dimensional representatives: every H1(0,π) class has an absolutely continuous representative w∗ on [0,π] satisfying w∗(x)−w∗(y)=∫yxw′ (One-dimensional W1,p functions have unique absolutely continuous representatives). Averaging w∗(x)=w∗(y)+∫yxw′ in y and applying Cauchy--Schwarz (Cauchy–Schwarz: ∣⟨x,y⟩∣≤∥x∥ ∥y∥, with equality exactly for dependent pairs) gives ∣w∗(x)∣≤π−1/2∥w∥2+π1/2∥w′∥2 uniformly on [0,π]. Thus H1 convergence implies uniform convergence of these representatives, and approximation by Cc∞ shows that every H01 representative has zero endpoints. For continuously differentiable representatives the second fundamental theorem is The second fundamental theorem: if G is differentiable on [a,b] with G′=f and f is integrable, then ∫abf=G(b)−G(a).

[F3]

Resonant form and Fredholm alternative: put qk(u,v):=a(u,v)−k2(u,v)L2=∫0π(u′v′−k2uv) dx. This is the symmetric uniformly elliptic form with principal coefficient 1, zero drift and bounded constant potential −k2, so the Fredholm alternative applies on (0,π). Define N:={u∈H01(0,π):qk(u,v)=0 ∀v∈H01(0,π)} and let N∗ be the homogeneous space for its adjoint form. Since qk∗=qk, one has N∗=N; the weak problem qk(u,v)=(f,v)L2 is solvable if and only if (f,v)L2=0 for every v∈N, and when N≠{0} uniqueness fails (The Fredholm alternative for weak elliptic Dirichlet problems, The formal adjoint and the adjoint weak Dirichlet problem, The L2 operator associated with a symmetric elliptic form).

Counterexample

1.1F1F2F3givenalgebra

The homogeneous space. By [F1] and the definition of qk in [F3], uk=sin⁡(kx) is a nonzero homogeneous solution. Conversely, if u∈H01 is a weak homogeneous solution, compactly supported tests give D(u′)=−k2u∈L2, so both u and u′ have absolutely continuous representatives by [F2]. Their integral identities imply that u is C1 with derivative that representative of u′, and that derivative is C1 with derivative −k2u, since the latter is continuous. Hence u is C2 and u′′=−k2u on [0,π], with u(0)=u(π)=0 by [F2]. Set z=u−(u′(0)/k)sin⁡(kx). It satisfies z(0)=z′(0)=0 and z′′=−k2z. The derivative of ∣z′∣2+k2∣z∣2 is zero, so [F2] makes that energy identically zero; thus z=0. This proves N=span⁡{sin⁡(kx)}, exactly one-dimensional.

2.1F1F3F4step 1.1givenalgebra

Solvability fails on a nonzero datum. Since qk is symmetric, [F3] gives N∗=N=span⁡{sin⁡(kx)}, so the weak problem −u′′−k2u=f with u∈H01(0,π) is solvable if and only if ∫0πf(x)sin⁡(kx) dx=0; for f=sin⁡(kx) this integral equals π/2≠0 by [F4], so this datum admits no weak solution. Uniqueness also fails whenever a solution exists, because adding any multiple of the nonzero homogeneous solution sin⁡(kx) produces another solution.

3.1F3step 1.1step 2.1given∎

Conclusion. On Ω=(0,π) with λ=k2 the equation −Δu−λu=f is neither uniquely solvable for every f∈L2 (uniqueness fails at the eigenvalue) nor solvable for the particular datum f=sin⁡(kx); hence the refuted statement fails, and the failure is exactly the one-dimensional orthogonality condition predicted by the Fredholm alternative.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

99 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