Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

BV Sobolev–Poincaré inequality for Neumann TV

Statement

Assume Countable Choice. For every nonempty bounded connected Lipschitz domain Ω⊆R2, there is a finite constant CΩ>0 such that every u∈BV(Ω) satisfies ∥u−uΩ∥L2(Ω)≤CΩTV(u;Ω),uΩ:=∣Ω∣−1∫Ωu dx.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, a nonempty bounded connected Lipschitz domain Ω⊆R2, and the Neumann total-variation convention.

[A1]

Countable Choice is used to choose a sequence contradicting the proposed L1 Poincaré bound. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω))

[F1]

Compactness and lower semicontinuity for bounded-domain BV: a BV sequence bounded in L1 and TV has an L1-convergent subsequence, and TV is lower semicontinuous.

[F2]

A zero distributional gradient is constant on a connected domain: a locally integrable function with zero distributional gradient on a connected open set is a.e. constant.

[F3]

BV extension and translation bounds: zero extension satisfies ∥v~∥1+TV(v~;R2)≤Cext(∥v∥1+TV(v;Ω)).

[F4]

BV Sobolev inequality in full space: ∥g∥L2(R2)≤TV(g;R2) for g∈BV(R2).

[F5]

Full-space, Dirichlet, and Neumann TV conventions: adding a constant leaves Neumann TV unchanged.

Proof

1.1A1F1F2givenchoosecontradiction

First there is C1<∞ such that every zero-mean v∈BV(Ω) satisfies ∥v∥1≤C1TV(v;Ω). If no such constant existed, [A1] would select vk with ∫Ωvk=0, ∥vk∥1=1, and TV(vk;Ω)<1/k. Their BV norms are bounded, so [F1] gives a subsequence converging in L1 to v. The limit has mean zero and ∥v∥1=1, while lower semicontinuity gives TV(v;Ω)=0. Hence every distributional derivative of v is zero; [F2] makes v constant a.e., and its mean forces v=0, contradicting ∥v∥1=1.

2.1F3F4F5step 1.1algebra∎

For any u∈BV(Ω) set v=u−uΩ. Then v has mean zero, TV(v;Ω)=TV(u;Ω) by [F5], and step 1.1 gives ∥v∥1≤C1TV(u;Ω). By [F3], v~∈BV(R2) and TV(v~;R2)≤Cext(∥v∥1+TV(v;Ω))≤Cext(C1+1)TV(u;Ω). Applying [F4] and using ∥v~∥L2(R2)=∥v∥L2(Ω) proves the Statement with CΩ=Cext(C1+1). The same argument also shows every BV function on this bounded domain belongs to L2(Ω).

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

38 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