Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: 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.

The Hopf--Lax operator preserves a modulus of continuity

Statement

Let H:Rn→R be convex and superlinear with Legendre transform L, and let u0:Rn→R be bounded and uniformly continuous with a nondecreasing modulus of continuity ω satisfying ω(r)→0 as r↓0 and ∣u0(y)−u0(y′)∣≤ω(∣y−y′∣). Then for every t≥0 and all x,x′∈Rn, ∣Qtu0(x)−Qtu0(x′)∣≤ω(∣x−x′∣). Thus every Qtu0 has the same modulus of continuity and the family is spatially equicontinuous; this is the equicontinuity input of the initial-trace and vanishing-viscosity arguments. No choice principle is used.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A convex superlinear H, its Legendre transform L, a bounded uniformly continuous u0 with modulus ω as in the statement, the operators Qt of The Hopf--Lax operator and the Hopf--Lax formula, and points x,x′∈Rn with d:=x−x′.

[F1]

For t>0, Qtu0(x)=inf⁡y∈Rn{u0(y)+tL((x−y)/t)}, with the infimum in R∪{+∞}; Q0u0=u0 (The Hopf--Lax operator and the Hopf--Lax formula).

[F2]

Under the present hypotheses L is real-valued, the infima above are attained, and Qtu0(x)∈R for every x and every t≥0 (Finiteness, superlinearity of the Lagrangian and localisation of Hopf--Lax near-minimisers), so all infima compared below are real numbers.

[F3]

The given modulus is a nondecreasing function ω with ω(r)→0 as r↓0 and ∣u0(y)−u0(y′)∣≤ω(∣y−y′∣) for all y,y′. This is a hypothesis of the statement; it implies the epsilon--delta uniform continuity of Uniform continuity of a map of metric spaces: one δ serving every point by choosing δ>0 with ω(δ)<ε.

Proof

technique · translate a competitor in the infimum
1.1F1F2F3algebra

Translation of a competitor. Fix t>0 and let d:=x−x′. For every y′∈Rn put y:=y′+d. Then (x−y)/t=(x′−y′)/t and, by [F3], u0(y)≥u0(y′)−ω(∣d∣); hence u0(y)+tL((x−y)/t)≥u0(y′)+tL((x′−y′)/t)−ω(∣d∣). As y′ ranges over Rn so does y, so taking the infimum over y′ of the right-hand side and using [F1] and [F2] gives Qtu0(x)≥Qtu0(x′)−ω(∣x−x′∣). Exchanging x and x′ gives the reverse inequality Qtu0(x′)≥Qtu0(x)−ω(∣x−x′∣).

2.1step 1.1F1∎

Conclusion. For t>0 step 1.1 gives ∣Qtu0(x)−Qtu0(x′)∣≤ω(∣x−x′∣), and for t=0 the same inequality is the hypothesis ∣u0(x)−u0(x′)∣≤ω(∣x−x′∣) by [F1]. Hence every Qtu0 has modulus ω, uniformly in t, and the estimate is translation invariant because L does not depend on the space variable.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

14 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