Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-10-02
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.

Mollifying a zero extension leaks across the boundary

Statement refuted

Smoothing a zero extension does not preserve zero boundary values. Let u≡1 on (0,1), let χ(0,1) be its extension by zero, and let ρ∈Cc∞(R) be nonnegative, even, of unit mass, and supported in [−1,1]. For 0<ε<1/2 set ρε(x)=ε−1ρ(x/ε) and vε:=(ρε∗χ(0,1))∣(0,1). Then vε is smooth on (0,1) with bounded derivatives, but it has the one-sided endpoint limits vε(0+)=vε(1−)=12, and consequently vε∉W01,p(0,1) for every 1≤p≤∞. Thus mollification after zero extension produces a function with nonzero boundary values. The zero extension itself has jumps at the two endpoints; convolution smooths those jumps but does not impose zero Sobolev boundary values on the restriction.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: the Axiom of Choice; the constant u≡1 on (0,1); its zero extension χ(0,1); a nonnegative even unit-mass ρ∈Cc∞(R) supported in [−1,1]; a scale 0<ε<1/2 and its rescaling ρε; the restriction vε=(ρε∗χ(0,1))∣(0,1); and 1≤p≤∞.

[F1]

Under Countable Choice (implied by the assumed Axiom of Choice), W01,p(0,1) is the closure of Cc∞(0,1) in the W1,p(0,1) norm: w∈W01,p(0,1) if and only if for every δ>0 there is a test function on (0,1) within δ of w (Zero-boundary Sobolev space as a norm closure).

[F2]

Under the assumed Axiom of Choice, every w∈W1,p(I) on a nonempty open interval has exactly one continuous representative w∗, which is locally absolutely continuous; if I=(a,b) has finite endpoints then w′∈L1(a,b), w∗ extends uniquely to an absolutely continuous function on [a,b], and w∗(x)=w∗(a)+∫axw′ for x∈[a,b] (One-dimensional W1,p functions have unique absolutely continuous representatives).

[F3]

Mean-value and endpoint estimate: for the representative of [F2] on I=(0,1) there is a∈(1/4,3/4) with ∣w∗(a)∣≤2∫01∣w∣, and likewise at the endpoint 1, hence ∣w∗(0)∣≤2∫01∣w∣+∫01∣w′∣; by Hölder on the finite interval this is at most Cp∥w∥W1,p(0,1) with a constant Cp depending only on p (Holder's inequality for integrals, including the endpoint cases, [F2]).

[F4]

If φ∈Cc∞(0,1), then the continuous representative of [F2] is φ itself and φ(0)=φ(1)=0 by compact support in the open interval. [F2, given]

[F5]

For χ(0,1)∈L1(R), the convolution ρε∗χ(0,1) is smooth on R and equals ∫Rχ(0,1)(y)ρε(x−y) dy; it is the classical convolution of Convolution with a mollifier is smooth, and derivatives pass under the integral sign. By the support hypothesis on ρ and its rescaling in The mollifier family generated by a unit-mass smooth bump, ρε is supported in [−ε,ε].

[F6]

The zero extension χ(0,1) does not belong to W1,p(R) for any 1≤p≤∞ (A nonzero boundary value creates a zero-extension jump).

Choice use. The Axiom of Choice licenses the representative interface [F2], including its fundamental-theorem prerequisites. Countable Choice is inherited by the closure and convolution interfaces [F1] and [F5] and selects the sequence of test approximants in step 2.1.

Counterexample

1.1F5given

The function vε is the restriction to (0,1) of the smooth function ρε∗χ(0,1) of [F5]; hence vε is smooth on (0,1) with bounded derivatives, so vε∈W1,p(0,1) for every 1≤p≤∞.

1.2F5algebragiven

Endpoint values. Since ρε is even, has mass one and is supported in [−ε,ε] with ε<1/2, vε(0+)=(ρε∗χ(0,1))(0)=∫01ρε(−y) dy=∫01ρε(y) dy=12, and likewise vε(1−)=∫01ρε(1−y) dy=∫01ρε(z) dz=12.

1.3F2F3

The endpoint functional is continuous in the Sobolev norm: every w∈W1,p(0,1) has a representative w∗ with ∣w∗(0)∣≤Cp∥w∥W1,p(0,1) as in [F3], so ∣w∗(0)∣≤Cp∥w∥W1,p and w↦w∗(0) is a continuous linear functional on W1,p(0,1).

2.1F1F4step 1.3

Every element of W01,p(0,1) has zero endpoint value: if w∈W01,p(0,1) and φj∈Cc∞(0,1) are test functions with ∥φj−w∥W1,p→0 as in [F1], then by step 1.3 and [F4] w∗(0)=lim⁡jφj(0)=0,w∗(1)=lim⁡jφj(1)=0.

3.1F2step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1

Suppose vε∈W01,p(0,1) for some 1≤p≤∞. By step 2.1 its continuous representative satisfies vε∗(0)=0; but by step 1.1 the function vε itself is continuous on (0,1) with the endpoint limit of step 1.2, so its unique continuous representative from [F2] has vε∗(0)=12, a contradiction. Hence vε∉W01,p(0,1) for every 1≤p≤∞.

4.1F6step 3.1given∎

Context. The zero extension used here is itself outside W1,p(R) by [F6]; the present example isolates the additional failure of boundary values after mollification, namely that ρε∗χ(0,1) approaches 12 at both endpoints although the original jump function has no values assigned at the endpoints.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

53 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