Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Poisson's equation with L2 data gains two interior derivatives

Example

Assume the Axiom of Choice where the existence of the weak solution is invoked; the regularity conclusion itself uses only Countable Choice. Let Ω⊂Rn be a bounded open set, let f∈L2(Ω), and let u∈H01(Ω) be a weak solution of the Dirichlet problem −Δu=f, that is, a(u,v)=∫Ωfv‾ dx for every v∈H01(Ω) with a(u,v)=∫Ω∇u⋅∇v‾ dx (Weak Dirichlet solutions for a divergence-form operator). Assuming the Axiom of Choice, existence and uniqueness of such a u are supplied by Existence and uniqueness for the weak Dirichlet Poisson problem when Ω is nonempty; if Ω=∅, the zero class is the unique weak solution directly. The verification below uses only that u is a weak solution. Then u∈Hloc2(Ω), and for every open Ω′⋐Ω there is C=C(n,Ω′,Ω) with ∥u∥H2(Ω′)≤C(∥f∥L2(Ω)+∥u∥L2(Ω)): L2 data gain two interior derivatives for the constant-coefficient Laplacian, and no boundary regularity of Ω enters the interior conclusion.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice (for the existence statement only); a bounded open set Ω⊂Rn; f∈L2(Ω); and a weak solution u∈H01(Ω) of −Δu=f in the sense of Weak Dirichlet solutions for a divergence-form operator.

[F1]

For f∈L2(Ω) with Ω bounded, the weak Dirichlet formulation reads a(u,v)=∫Ωfv‾ dx for every v∈H01(Ω); every such u is a local weak solution of −Δu=f on Ω, because Cc∞(Ω)⊆H01(Ω) and the local definition tests the smaller class. (Weak Dirichlet solutions for a divergence-form operator, Local weak solutions of a divergence-form operator)

[F2]

The Laplacian L=−Δ is the divergence-form operator with aij=δij, bi=0, c=0: the coefficients are constant, hence in W1,∞(Ω) with ∥Daij∥∞=0 and M1=0, uniformly elliptic with θ=1, and Ma=1, Mb=Mc=0. (Uniformly elliptic divergence-form operators and their sesquilinear forms)

[F3]

Assume Countable Choice. Let Ω⊆Rn be open and let L,a be as in Uniformly elliptic divergence-form operators and their sesquilinear forms with aij∈W1,∞(Ω), ∥Daij∥∞≤M1, and f∈Lloc2(Ω). If u∈H1(Ω) is a local weak solution of Lu=f on Ω, then u∈Hloc2(Ω) and for every pair of open sets Ω′⋐Ω′′⋐Ω the theorem gives the interior estimate of Interior H2 regularity for divergence-form equations. When f∈L2(Ω), the estimate on Ω′ is bounded by the global-norm estimate displayed in the statement because Ω′′⊆Ω; its constant may be written C(n,θ,Ma,Mb,Mc,M1,Ω′,Ω) after fixing such an intermediate Ω′′ from Ω′ and Ω.

[F4]

Assume the Axiom of Choice. If Ω is nonempty, every F∈H−1(Ω) has exactly one weak solution of the Dirichlet problem −Δu=F with zero boundary values; for F(v)=∫Ωfv‾ dx with f∈L2(Ω) this supplies existence and uniqueness in the example. If Ω=∅, then H−1(Ω)={0} and the zero class is the unique weak solution directly. (Existence and uniqueness for the weak Dirichlet Poisson problem)

Verification

1.1F1F2given

Hypothesis check for [F3]. By [F2] the Laplacian has constant coefficients and ∥Daij∥∞=0, so it is admissible with M1=0, θ=1, Ma=1 and Mb=Mc=0; since Ω is bounded and f∈L2(Ω), also f∈Lloc2(Ω); and by [F1] the weak solution u is a local weak solution of −Δu=f on Ω.

2.1F3F4step 1.1algebra∎

Fix any open Ω′⋐Ω and choose an open Ω′′ with Ω′⋐Ω′′⋐Ω. By step 1.1 the solution satisfies the hypotheses of [F3], so the theorem gives u∈H2(Ω′) and ∥u∥H2(Ω′)≤C(n,θ,Ma,Mb,Mc,M1,Ω′,Ω′′)(∥f∥L2(Ω′′)+∥u∥L2(Ω′′)). Since Ω′′⊆Ω, both local norms are bounded by the global norms in the statement. Fixing the intermediate set as a function of Ω′ and Ω therefore gives C=C(n,θ,Ma,Mb,Mc,M1,Ω′,Ω); for the Laplacian all coefficient parameters are absolute and M1=0, so C=C(n,Ω′,Ω). Boundary regularity of Ω is not part of the hypotheses of [F3], so it is not used; existence of u is the only place the Axiom of Choice enters, through [F4] (with the empty-domain case handled directly). This proves the claimed two-derivative interior gain.

Source notes

Hunter's motivating computation for the Laplacian and Theorem 4.27 (printed pp. 110-114, read in full) state the interior estimate with ∥f∥L2(Ω) and no boundary hypothesis; Laugesen's Theorem 5.6 (printed p. 108) is the same interior H2 statement. The example isolates the constant-coefficient case: the coefficient constants in the estimate are absolute, so the constant depends only on n,Ω′,Ω, and the estimate does not improve when Ω is smoother.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

42 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