Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedPipeline-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.

Integrating the John-Nirenberg tail recovers the Lq oscillation bound

Example

Assume Countable Choice (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Let b∈BMO(Rn), 1≤q<∞ and let Q be a cube. Using the layer-cake formula and the John-Nirenberg exponential bound, ∣Q∣−1∫Q∣b−bQ∣q=q∫0∞λq−1∣Q∣−1∣{x∈Q:∣b(x)−bQ∣>λ}∣ dλ≤Cn,q∥b∥BMOq, with the zero-seminorm case giving 0; this is the mechanism behind the equivalence of the Lq oscillation seminorms.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, b∈BMO(Rn), 1≤q<∞ and a cube Q, with the mean and seminorm of BMO seminorm and the quotient by constants.

[L1]

The layer-cake formula applies to the measurable function ∣b−bQ∣ on the finite-measure cube Q: for 0<q<∞, ∫Q∣b−bQ∣q=q∫0∞λq−1∣{x∈Q:∣b−bQ∣>λ}∣ dλ (For 0 < p < infinity, the layer-cake formula computes the integral of |f|^p from the distribution function).

[L2]

There are cn,Cn∈(0,∞) with ∣{x∈Q:∣b−bQ∣>λ}∣≤Cn∣Q∣e−cnλ/∥b∥BMO for every λ>0; if ∥b∥BMO=0 then b is constant almost everywhere and the set is null for every λ>0 (John-Nirenberg exponential inequality, BMO seminorm and the quotient by constants).

[L3]

The resulting bound is the same one that establishes the equivalence of ∥b∥BMO,q:=sup⁡Q(∣Q∣−1∫Q∣b−bQ∣q)1/q with ∥b∥BMO (BMO oscillation norms in Lq are equivalent).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1algebra

Writing A(λ):=∣Q∣−1∣{x∈Q:∣b−bQ∣>λ}∣, [L1] divided by ∣Q∣ gives the identity ∣Q∣−1∫Q∣b−bQ∣q=q∫0∞λq−1A(λ) dλ.

2.1step 1.1L2algebra

If ∥b∥BMO>0, [L2] bounds A(λ)≤Cne−cnλ/∥b∥BMO for every λ>0, so the integral of step 1.1 is at most qCn∫0∞λq−1e−cnλ/∥b∥BMOdλ=qCn∥b∥BMOq∫0∞μq−1e−cnμdμ after the substitution λ=μ∥b∥BMO; the last integral is finite, so with Cn,q:=qCn∫0∞μq−1e−cnμdμ the asserted bound follows.

3.1step 1.1L2

If ∥b∥BMO=0, then b is constant almost everywhere by [L2], so A(λ)=0 for every λ>0 and the integral of step 1.1 vanishes; in particular the bound of step 2.1 holds with both sides 0 for any finite Cn,q.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1L3∎

Steps 2.1 and 3.1 give ∣Q∣−1∫Q∣b−bQ∣q≤Cn,q∥b∥BMOq for every cube, which is exactly the per-cube upper bound used in [L3]: taking q-th roots and the supremum over Q yields the equivalence of the Lq oscillation seminorms with the BMO seminorm.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

24 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