Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge 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.

Finite-action continuity equations generate AC2 Wasserstein curves

Statement

Assume AC. Let T>0 and let (μt,vt) be a narrowly continuous finite-action solution of the continuity equation on [0,T]×Rd. Then t↦μt belongs to AC2([0,T];P2(Rd)) and, for almost every t, ∣μ˙t∣≤(∫∣vt(x)∣2dμt(x))1/2.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: AC and the narrowly continuous finite-action solution (μt,vt).

[F1]

There is a probability law η on C([0,T];Rd) whose time marginals are μt, whose almost every path is absolutely continuous with γ˙(t)=vt(γ(t)) almost everywhere, and whose expected path action equals the Eulerian action. Superposition for finite-action Euclidean continuity equations

[F2]

Minkowski's integral inequality bounds the L2 norm of a time integral by the time integral of the L2 norms. Minkowski's integral inequality

[F3]

The metric derivative theorem identifies the least L2 upper control of a Wasserstein curve with its metric derivative. Metric derivatives of AC2 Wasserstein curves

[F4]

If η is a Borel probability law on a Polish space and F is Borel into a Polish space, define F#η(B)=η(F−1(B)); countable additivity and total mass one follow from preimages and the measure axioms, coordinate marginals compose with coordinate maps, and ∫h d(F#η)=∫h(F) dη for nonnegative Borel h by change of variables for expectation. Borel probability law on a polish space Measures on sigma-algebras Change of variables for expectation

Proof

1.1givenF1F2F4

For 0≤s<t≤T, the evaluation map Es,t:C([0,T];Rd)→R2d, Es,t(γ)=(γ(s),γ(t)), is continuous. Define πs,t(B)=η(Es,t−1(B)) for Borel B⊆R2d; by [F4] this is a Borel probability. Its coordinate marginals are (es)#η=μs and (et)#η=μt, so πs,t is a coupling. Its quadratic cost satisfies ∫∣x−y∣2dπs,t(x,y)=∫∣γ(t)−γ(s)∣2dη(γ) by [F4]. For η-almost every path, absolute continuity gives ∣γ(t)−γ(s)∣≤∫st∣γ˙(r)∣dr. Minkowski [F2], applied with the path probability space and Lebesgue measure on [s,t], yields W2(μs,μt)≤(∫(∫st∣γ˙(r)∣dr)2dη)1/2≤∫st(∫∣γ˙(r)∣2dη)1/2dr. The marginal identity and the pathwise velocity identity in [F1] identify the inner integral for almost every r as ∫∣vr(x)∣2dμr(x). Put g(r)=(∫∣vr∣2dμr)1/2. Finite action gives g∈L2(0,T), and the displayed bound for every interval implies W2-continuity and the defining AC2 upper-control inequality.

2.1F3step 1.1∎

By [F3], the metric derivative exists almost everywhere and is no larger than any nonnegative L2 upper control. Applying it to g from step 1.1 gives ∣μ˙t∣≤g(t) almost everywhere, as claimed.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

61 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