Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck pass
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.

Integrability of the energy weak Navier–Stokes formulation

Statement

Assume Countable Choice. For the energy class and data in Energy weak solutions of incompressible Navier–Stokes, every term in its time-tested momentum identity is integrable, and the nonlinear map t↦c(u(t);u(t),⋅) belongs to L4/3(0,T;V∗).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, u∈L∞(0,T;Hσ)∩L2(0,T;Vσ), p∈L4/3(0,T;Q), f∈L2(0,T;L2), ν>0, and a test φ∈C1([0,T];V).

[F1]

The energy class and weak-form conventions are those in the definition, including the Hilbert evolution triple used for the time-dependent pairings. (Energy weak solutions of incompressible Navier–Stokes, Banach evolution triples and weak time derivatives)

[F2]

The convective form obeys ∥c(u;u,⋅)∥V∗≤C∥u∥21/2∥∇u∥23/2 in both dimensions, and the viscosity form is bounded on V×V. (Continuity, energy cancellation, and Sobolev bounds for skew convection, Stokes velocity and pressure spaces and weak forms)

[A1]

Countable Choice is inherited from the weak-solution and Stokes-space conventions; the Bochner integrability criterion itself applies to the strongly measurable functions stated here. (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), Energy weak solutions of incompressible Navier–Stokes, Bochner-integrable function, Bochner integrability criterion)

[F3]

Holder's inequality controls time and space pairings at conjugate exponents. (Holder's inequality for integrals, including the endpoint cases)

Proof

1.1A1F1F2algebra

The Bochner L2(0,T;V) hypothesis makes u strongly measurable in V. The continuous trilinear bound [F2] makes v↦c(v;v,⋅) a continuous map V→V∗, so applying it to simple-function approximants of u shows that t↦c(u(t);u(t),⋅) is strongly measurable. Since ∥u(t)∥2 is essentially bounded and ∇u∈L2(0,T;L2), [F2] gives ∫0T∥c(u;u,⋅)∥V∗4/3 dt≤C∥u∥L∞L22/3∫0T∥∇u∥22dt<∞.

1.2A1F1F3algebra

The time derivative term pairs u∈L∞(0,T;Hσ) with ∂tφ∈L∞(0,T;L2); the viscosity term is bounded by 2ν∥∇u∥L2L2∥∇φ∥L2L2. Since ∣div⁡φ∣≤d∣∇φ∣, the pressure term is finite by Holder from p∈L4/3L2 and φ∈L∞V. The forcing term is finite because f∈L2L2 and φ is bounded in L∞L2.

2.1A1step 1.1step 1.2∎

Each spatial pairing is therefore finite, and step 1.1 gives the stated Bochner integrability of the nonlinear functional; the time-tested weak formulation is well-defined.

Depends on

Used by

Cited to discharge well-definedness by Energy weak solutions of incompressible Navier–Stokes.

Dependency tree · two levels

36 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