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.
Classical derivatives agree with weak derivatives
Statement
Assume Countable Choice. Let be open, , let , and let have real and imaginary parts of class . For each multi-index with , the componentwise classical derivative is locally integrable and is the weak derivative . By the uniqueness lemma, it represents the unique locally integrable weak-derivative class. For , this says .
If , the assertion is vacuous: there is only the zero class and every displayed test identity is zero.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Countable Choice, an open set , , , and a multi-index with .
By the regular-distribution pairing and signed-transpose convention, the weak test identity is equivalent to as distributions (Weak derivative of a locally integrable function).
Under Countable Choice, classical derivatives of functions are compatible with distributional derivatives: Distributional differentiation is continuous and commutes.
Under Countable Choice, a locally integrable weak derivative is unique almost everywhere (Uniqueness of a weak derivative as an almost-everywhere class).
Proof
Apply [F2] to and . The regular distributions of and are defined, so in particular both functions are locally integrable, and The Countable Choice use is exactly the comparison of the compactly supported Riemann integrals with the corresponding Lebesgue integrals in [F2].
By [F1], this distributional equality is equivalent to the weak test identity. Explicitly, evaluation on any gives Multiplying by gives the defining weak identity for ; the sign is its own inverse. Since the test was arbitrary, is a weak derivative.
The weak derivative class is unique by [F3], so the locally integrable class represented by is the class denoted . When , the identity reduces to .
Sources
- Juha Kinnunen, Sobolev Spaces, Chapter 1 §1.1, printed pp. 2–3: compact-support integration by parts has no boundary term, successive integrations give the multi-index identity, and Remarks 1.3(1) state that classical derivatives through order are weak derivatives.
- John K. Hunter, Notes on Partial Differential Equations, Chapter 3 §3.1, printed pp. 47–48, for the weak-derivative integration-by-parts convention.
Depends on
Used by
- Positive, negative, and truncated Sobolev functions Corollary
- Weak differentiation has a closed graph on its natural domains Corollary
- Point evaluation is unbounded below the Sobolev continuity threshold Counterexample
- Subcritical W^1,p is not closed under multiplication Counterexample
- A clipped affine function keeps its zero region Example
- Absolute value has a Dirac second derivative Example
- Sharp Sobolev threshold for a radial power Example
Dependency tree · two levels
21 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
- Juha Kinnunen, Sobolev Spaces (2026), Chapter 1 §1.1 (standard reference, not scraped)
- John K. Hunter, Notes on Partial Differential Equations (2014), Chapter 3 §3.1 (standard reference, not scraped)