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.

Bounded mesh ratio gives an h^{-2s} exact condition-number bound

Statement

Assume Countable Choice. Fix Matérn parameters d≥1, ν>0, a>0, s=ν+d/2, an admitted bounded domain Ω, and a mesh-ratio bound ρ0>0. There is C=C(Ω,d,ν,a,ρ0) such that every finite nonempty distinct site set X⊂Ω with N≥2, 0<qX≤1, 0<hX≤1, and ρX=hX/qX≤ρ0 satisfies κ2(KX)≤ChX−2s. The one-site case has condition number 1. This is an exact-arithmetic condition-number estimate for the Gram matrix; it does not bound the error of a floating-point solver.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, fixed parameters, a bounded domain, a finite distinct site set with hX≤1, and the stated mesh-ratio bound.

[F1]

For N≥2 and separation radius 0<qX≤1, κ2(KX)≤C0NqX−2ν; for N=1 the condition number is 1. (Separated Matérn sites have a positive Gram lower bound)

[F3]

The mesh ratio and separation radius satisfy ρX=hX/qX, and the condition number is finite for each invertible Gram matrix. (Radial kernels, polynomial augmentation, and site geometry, The condition number kappa_p(A) = ||A||_p ||A^{-1}||_p of a nonsingular linear system)

[A1]

Countable Choice is inherited from the Matérn separation estimate [F1] and the Lebesgue measure and ball-packing suppliers used in [F2]. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω))

Proof technique: packing followed by the separation estimate.

Proof

technique · packing followed by the separation estimate

Given: The hypotheses above.

1.1F2A1givenalgebra

Suppose N≥2 and write q=qX≤1. Choose z0 and R>0 with Ω⊂B(z0,R). The site balls B(xi,q) are pairwise disjoint and lie in B(z0,R+1). Their measures are qdλ(B(0,1)) by [F2], so finite additivity and the positive finite unit-ball measure give Nqdλ(B(0,1))≤(R+1)dλ(B(0,1)), and therefore N≤CΩq−d.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra

Since q≤1, combine [F1] with step 1.1 to get κ2(KX)≤C1q−(d+2ν)=C1q−2s.

3.1F1F3step 2.1algebra∎

The mesh-ratio bound implies q=hX/ρX≥hX/ρ0, so q−2s≤ρ02shX−2s. Step 2.1 gives the desired estimate.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

78 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