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.

Pseudo arclength crosses the fold x2−λ=0

Example

For F(x,λ)=x2−λ, the solution curve is (x,λ)=(s,s2). At its fold (0,0), the natural parameter λ turns around, while an x-normal pseudo-arclength step can pass from the negative-x branch through the fold to the positive-x branch.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The equation F(x,λ)=x2−λ on R2, the fold point (0,0), and 0<α<1/32 for the certified local realization.

[F1]

A simple fold has a unique local Lyapunov–Schmidt chart and nonzero parameter curvature: for a simple fold, λ′′(0)=−wTFxx[v,v]/(wTFλ) and the solution curve has tangent (v,0) in the normalized fold parameter.

[F2]

A transverse pseudo-arclength section has a locally quadratic Newton corrector: at a regular solution point, a transverse augmented section has an invertible bordered derivative and its exact Newton corrections are locally quadratic.

[F3]

A bounded residual and derivative error give a local root certificate: if the strict contraction inequalities hold for an augmented residual on a closed ball, that ball contains exactly one zero and the theorem gives its center error bound.

[F4]

Finite-budget pseudo-arclength continuation with a certified local corrector: a finite continuation step is accepted only after its section-root certificate passes; a finite trace claims no global branch completeness.

Verification

technique · direct
1.1F1givenalgebra

At (0,0), Fx=0, Fλ=−1, and Fxx=2. With v=w=1, a=−1 and b=2, so [F1] gives λ′′(0)=2. The full derivative is DF(x,λ)=[2x,−1], which has rank 1 everywhere, and at the fold its unit kernel tangent is t=(1,0).

1.2F1F3F4givenchoosealgebra

Choose 0<α<1/32 and use the seed center zˉ0=(−α,α2), radius R0=α/4, previous orientation τ−1=(1,0), and seed section point zp,−1=(−α,0), so G−1(x,λ)=(x2−λ,x+α). At the seed center the residual is zero and the inverse of the bordered Jacobian is [01−1−2α], whose operator norm is less than 2. The Jacobian is 2-Lipschitz, so the exact-data certificate with β^=2, g^=0, zero error bounds, and radius R0 has q=4R0=α<1 and certifies the seed ball. The ball lies in V={(x,λ):∣x∣<1/4}, where every zero lies on the regular graph (x,x2) and DF=[2x,−1] has rank 1. Parametrize that graph from x=−α by arclength s(x)=∫−αx1+4u2 du. Its positive unit tangent is (1,2x)/1+4x2, so the previous normal has dot product at least κ=2/5 throughout ∣x∣≤1/4. The forward chart length to x=1/4 is at least 1/4+α.

2.1F2F4step 1.1step 1.2givenalgebra

At the seed root, the exact unit tangent oriented toward increasing x is t=(1,−2α)/1+4α2. The tangent callback may return t^=(1,0) with certified error e=∥t^−t∥2=2−21+4α2. With the previous normal τ=(1,0), the angle tests are τTt=1/1+4α2≥2/5 and a=τTt^=1. Set the algorithm's step length to H=2α+α2. Then the predictor is zp=zˉ0+Ht^=(α+α2,α2). Its section is GH(x,λ)=(x2−λ,x−(α+α2)), with unique zero z∗=(x∗,x∗2), where x∗:=α+α2. The forward-offset tests hold because H>R0 and H+R0=94α+α2<18<125≤κrch+. The section is transverse throughout the chart. At its selected root, set σ∗:=1+4x∗2, t∗=(1,2x∗)/σ∗, and A:=DF(x∗,x∗2). The unit vector e∗=(−2x∗,1)/σ∗ spans t∗⊥, and [2x∗,−1]e∗=−σ∗, so A∣t∗⊥ has inverse norm 1/σ∗≤1. Since τTt∗=1/σ∗>0, [F2] gives a local quadratic Newton corrector; the bordered Jacobian has determinant 1.

3.1F2step 2.1algebra

At the predictor, the augmented residual is (2α3+α4,0) and its Jacobian is [2(α+α2)−110]. The Newton equation forces Δx=0 and Δλ=2α3+α4, so one exact correction reaches the section root (α+α2,(α+α2)2).

4.1F3F4step 1.2step 2.1step 3.1givenchoosealgebra

At the corrected center z∗=(x∗,x∗2), where x∗:=α+α2<1/4, the inverse bordered Jacobian is [01−12x∗]. Its operator norm is at most its Frobenius norm 2+4x∗2<2. Choose corrected-ball radius R1=α/4. The ball lies in V since x∗+R1<1/4. With exact data, β^=2, zero residual and derivative errors, and Jacobian Lipschitz constant 2, the certificate has q=4R1=α<1 and βρ=0. It therefore certifies the next section root and, because the whole ball lies in V, identifies it with the unique forward branch point. With Nreq=Ns=Nc=1, residual tolerance ϵ=0, and exact callbacks, steps 2.1 and 3.1 produce this accepted ball in one attempt and one Newton update.

5.1F4step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1step 4.1∎

The certified trace therefore starts at x=−α and accepts a next section root at x=α+α2>0, with the fold x=0 lying between them on the supplied chart. It is a finite local continuation step through the fold even though λ′(0)=0; it asserts nothing about other components.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

29 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.