Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
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.

An index-two DAE can have zero algebraic residual and an arbitrary algebraic variable

Example

Consider the scalar semi-explicit system

x′=z,0=g(x,z):=x.

Its algebraic Jacobian is gz=0, so it is not regular index one. In the convention of Differentiation index for a regular local semi-explicit DAE, differentiating x=0 once gives z=0, and differentiating again gives z′=0; the system has differentiation index two. The algebraic residual is g(x,z)=x: at every candidate (0,M), it is zero for any M, although the algebraic variable of a solution must be z=0. Thus no residual-to-z-error bound holds near (0,0). The initial pair (0,1) satisfies the algebraic equation but is not consistent with a solution, while (1,0) violates the algebraic equation and cannot be an initial value.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The displayed DAE on R2.

[F1]

Semi-explicit index-one DAEs and consistent initial data: a semi-explicit DAE has differential equation x′=f(t,x,z) and algebraic equation g(t,x,z)=0; algebraic consistency means g=0.

[F2]

Differentiation index for a regular local semi-explicit DAE: differentiate the algebraic constraint along the differential equation; the index is the least positive differentiation count at which the regular prolonged equation determines the algebraic variables and their first derivatives.

[A1]

For the index calculation, x∈C2 and z∈C1 on a nondegenerate interval, and the constraint holds at every time in that interval.

Verification

1.1givenF1algebra

Here f(t,x,z)=z and g(t,x,z)=x, so gz=0 at every point. The regular index-one hypothesis gz invertible therefore fails.

2.1A1F2step 1.1algebra

Along any solution, differentiating g(x(t),z(t))=x(t)=0 and substituting x′=z gives z=0. Differentiating this relation gives z′=0. The original constraint does not involve z; the first differentiated relation determines z, and the second determines its first derivative. By [F2] the differentiation index is two.

3.1step 2.1algebra

For every real M, the candidate (x,z)=(0,M) has algebraic residual g(0,M)=0, while step 2.1 shows that a solution has z=0. Taking arbitrarily small M≠0 rules out any finite constant C for which ∣z∣≤C∣g(x,z)∣ throughout a neighborhood of (0,0).

3.2F1A1step 2.1algebra

The pair (0,1) satisfies g(0,1)=0, but a solution would require z(0)=0 by step 2.1, so it is not a consistent initial pair for a solution. The pair (1,0) has g(1,0)=1≠0, so it fails even algebraic consistency.

4.1givenstep 2.1algebra∎

The constant functions x(t)=0,z(t)=0 satisfy both equations, so the system has a solution with the consistent initial pair (0,0). The three boundary calculations above concern only this fixed index-two system and imply no index-one numerical guarantee.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

3 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