Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-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.

Elliptic residual and boundary stability from a maximum principle

Statement

Let U⊂Rd be bounded and open, and let L[u]=∑i,j=1daijDiDju+∑j=1db~jDju+c~ u on U, where a(x) is symmetric, ξTa(x)ξ≥λ0∣ξ∣2 for all x∈U and ξ∈Rd with λ0>0, the coefficients are continuous and bounded, and c~≤0. There is a constant CL<∞, depending only on U, λ0, and the coefficient bounds, such that every w∈C2(U)∩C0(Uˉ) with L[w]∈C0(U) satisfies ∥w∥C0(U)≤CL(∥L[w]∥C0(U)+∥w∥C0(∂U)). In particular, for any two functions u∗,h∈C2(U)∩C0(Uˉ), ∥u∗−h∥C0(U)≤CL(∥L[u∗]−L[h]∥C0(U)+∥u∗−h∥C0(∂U)).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The bounded domain, uniformly elliptic coefficient matrix, bounded lower-order coefficients with c~≤0, and w∈C2(U)∩C0(Uˉ).

[F1]

The operator expands with the positive principal part and zero-order coefficient shown in Shin's positive divergence-form operator.

[F2]

A continuous function on the compact set Uˉ attains its maximum; a C2 function at an interior maximum has zero gradient and negative-semidefinite Hessian.

Proof

Proof strategy: construct a strict positive barrier and apply the weak maximum principle by perturbation.

1.1givenF1algebrachoose

Since U is bounded, choose real numbers a1<b1 with a1≤x1≤b1 on Uˉ. Let B=∥b~1∥C0(U) and C0=∥c~∥C0(U). Choose κ>0 large enough that κ2λ0−κB−C0≥1. For ψ(x)=eκx1, [F1] gives L[ψ](x)=eκx1(κ2a11(x)+κb~1(x)+c~(x))≥eκa1>0. Choose M>eκb1 and set Φ=M−ψ. Then Φ>0 on Uˉ and L[Φ]=Mc~−L[ψ]≤−eκa1.

2.1givenstep 1.1algebra

Put R=∥L[w]∥C0(U), Q=∥w∥C0(∂U), and η=eκa1. For z=w−Q−(R/η)Φ, the boundary values satisfy z≤0. In U, L[z]=L[w]−Qc~−(R/η)L[Φ]≥−R+R=0, because −Qc~≥0.

3.1step 2.1F2algebra∎

Suppose z(x0)>0 at some x0∈U. Since z≤0 on ∂U and z is continuous on Uˉ, its positive maximum is attained at an interior point. For sufficiently small δ>0, z+δψ has an interior positive maximum as well: its value at x0 is at least z(x0)>0, while its boundary values are at most δeκb1<z(x0). At that interior maximum [F2] and c~≤0 give L[z+δψ]≤0, contradicting L[z+δψ]>0. Hence z≤0 on U, and therefore w≤Q+(R/η)∥Φ∥C0(Uˉ). Applying the same argument to −w yields the corresponding lower bound. Taking CL=max⁡{1,∥Φ∥C0(Uˉ)/η} proves the first estimate; applying it to u∗−h proves the second.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

2 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