Alphabeta Math
DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablePipeline-generated
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.

Linear coercive elliptic PDE control problem and reduced objective

Definition

Let Ω⊂Rd be a bounded Lipschitz domain, V=H01(Ω;R), and H=L2(Ω;R). Use the real integral pairing on H. Equip V with the standard full Sobolev inner product and norm (v,w)V=(v,w)H+∑i=1d(Div,Diw)H,∥v∥V2=∥v∥H2+∑i=1d∥Div∥H2. Here H01=W01,2 is the closure of Cc∞(Ω;R) in the W1,2 norm of Zero-boundary Sobolev space as a norm closure. Under Countable Choice, H and V are real Hilbert spaces; the local proof of completeness of V is included in Well-posedness of elliptic control state and adjoint equations ↗. The inclusion J:V→H is continuous with ∥J∥≤1.

Let E⊆Ω be bounded and measurable, U=L2(E;R) with its real integral inner product, and let Qad⊂U be the pointwise box of Closed pointwise box of L2 controls. Under Countable Choice, U is a real Hilbert space by L2 with the integral pairing is a Hilbert space. Let a:V×V→R be bilinear, bounded with constant M, and coercive with constant β>0 in the stated V norm; symmetry is not assumed. Let B:U→V∗ be bounded and linear, and fix f∈V∗, ud∈H, and α>0.

For every q∈U, the state u(q)∈V is required to satisfy

a(u(q),v)=⟨f+Bq,v⟩V∗,V(v∈V).

The reduced objective, defined on all of U and minimized over Qad, is

J^(q)=12∥Ju(q)−ud∥H2+α2∥q∥U2.

A spatially varying coefficient, boundary control, variational crimes, finite-element control discretization, and parabolic evolution are separate hypotheses or branches; none is implicit in this definition. The state well-definedness is supplied by Well-posedness of elliptic control state and adjoint equations ↗.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

41 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