Alphabeta Math
CounterexampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-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.

Matching patch geometry does not repair a field trace jump

Statement

Let D=(0,2)×(0,1) and take the two adjacent identity NURBS rectangles DL=(0,1)×(0,1) and DR=(1,2)×(0,1). They partition D up to the null interface Γ={1}×(0,1), so D=DL∪Γ∪DR. Define v=0 on DL∪Γ and v=1 on DR; any other value on Γ gives the same almost-everywhere class. Then v∈L2(D) but v∉H1(D), although the patch geometries match exactly. Thus matching physical geometry does not replace the matching-field-trace condition in Conforming isogeometric Galerkin spaces and h/p/k refinement.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The adjacent rectangles and piecewise constant function in the Statement.

[F1]

Conforming isogeometric Galerkin spaces and h/p/k refinement requires equal field traces on every shared full face for a conforming multipatch field.

[F2]

Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms and Weak derivative of a locally integrable function: an H1 function has an L2 weak derivative satisfying the distributional test identity.

[F3]

Under Countable Choice, Matching NURBS patch traces give global H1 conformity gives sufficiency when traces match; the counterexample below uses the direct weak-derivative test [F2]. The example below verifies that a trace mismatch can fail the necessary weak-derivative condition.

Proof

1.1givenF2construct

The two constants are square integrable on their bounded rectangles, hence v∈L2(D). Choose η∈Cc∞((0,1)) with ∫01η(y) dy≠0, and choose ψ∈Cc∞((−1,1)) with ψ(0)=1. For 0<ε<1, set ϕε(x,y)=ψ((x−1)/ε)η(y)∈Cc∞(D).

2.1F1F2F3step 1.1algebra∎

Since v vanishes for x<1 and equals one for x>1, a change of variable t=(x−1)/ε gives ∫Dv ∂xϕε dxdy=(∫01η)∫12ε−1ψ′((x−1)/ε)dx=−ψ(0)∫01η, which is a fixed nonzero number. If an L2 weak derivative g=∂xv existed, [F2] and Cauchy--Schwarz would make the absolute value at most ∥g∥2∥ϕε∥2. But ∥ϕε∥2=ε∥ψ∥2∥η∥2→0, contradiction. Therefore v∉H1(D). Its two constant traces across x=1 are 0 and 1, violating [F1] even though the geometry is matching; the sufficient condition of [F3] does not apply.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

21 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