Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: 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.

Reduction of the P1 residual estimator after marked refinement

Statement

Assume Countable Choice, as in the residual and inverse-estimate suppliers.

Suppose the refinement call completes with a matching descendant T∗≥T and every cell in the Dörfler estimator set ME receives three generations of refinement, with exact Galerkin solutions U,U∗. For every ε>0, ηT∗(U∗)2≤(1+ε)ηT(U)2−12ηT(U,ME)2+Cε(1+∣b∣2hmax⁡2)∥∇(U∗−U)∥22. The constant depends only on ε and the uniform shape bound.

Facts & Assumptions

[A1]

Countable Choice is assumed in the cited Sobolev and reference-simplex suppliers (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Given: Countable Choice, the P1 residual estimator with A=I,c=0, the exact Galerkin solutions, a conforming three-generation refinement of the bulk set, and ε>0.

[F1]

Cell and edge residuals are RK(U)=f−b⋅∇U and the outward flux jumps; their estimator weights are hK2 and hE (Residual indicators and data oscillation for P1 AFEM).

[F2]

A marked parent is subdivided with child diameters at most half its diameter, and matching closure preserves the mesh family (Shape regularity and local reduction under 2D newest-vertex bisection, Termination and cumulative complexity of NVB conformity closure).

[F3]

Shape-regular affine P1 meshes satisfy a uniform inverse discrete-trace bound for jumps of piecewise gradients (Polynomial inverse and discrete trace inequalities, Shape regularity controls affine simplex geometry).

Proof

1.1A1F1F2givenalgebra

Write d=U∗−U. On a fine child K′⊂K, RK′(U∗)=RK(U)−b⋅∇d. Young's inequality gives hK′2∥RK′(U∗)∥22≤(1+ε)hK′2∥RK(U)∥22+(1+ε−1)∣b∣2hK′2∥∇d∥L2(K′)2. Unmarked cells retain the same old volume weight. On marked parents, [F2] makes the old residual part at most one quarter its old value. Summing, and charging closure-refined cells to their old parent, bounds the volume contribution by (1+ε) times the old volume sum minus 34 of its marked volume sum, plus Cε∣b∣2hmax⁡2∥∇d∥22.

2.1A1F1F2F3step 1.1algebra∎

On every split old edge, each subedge length is at most half the parent length and the sum of their lengths is the parent length; hence the sum of squared subedge lengths is at most one half the squared parent length. The old jump is constant along each parent edge, so its inherited contribution is reduced by at least one half whenever its marked cell is refined. On new interior edges within one old parent the old affine gradient has zero jump. The new jump is the old jump plus the jump of ∇d; Young's inequality and [F3] give a remainder at most Cε∥∇d∥22. Assign each old edge half to each incident cell as in the definition. Combining this with step 1.1, the marked cell and edge reductions are at least one half of ηT(U,ME)2; absorb the remaining nonnegative reduction into the left inequality to obtain the displayed bound.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

23 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