Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: 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.

Sobolev threshold for Lagrange point evaluations on a reference simplex

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let d≥2, let N∈N0, choose x1,…,xN∈S^d‾, and let ℓ≥1 be an integer. If 1≤p<∞ and ℓ>d/p, then each point evaluation has a unique continuous-representative value and ∣u(xj)∣≤C∥u∥Wℓ,p(S^d). If p=∞, the same conclusion holds for every ℓ≥1. Consequently any finite set of Lagrange nodal evaluations is bounded on the stated Sobolev space and defines a well-defined degree-of-freedom functional there. No boundedness at ℓ=d/p is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, d≥2, integer ℓ≥1, the reference simplex, and the exponent in the appropriate branch.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice states that every family of nonempty sets has a choice function. (The Axiom of Choice)

[F1]

The reference simplex is a bounded extension domain for every integer Sobolev order and exponent. (A reference simplex is an integer-order Sobolev extension domain)

[F2]

On a bounded extension domain, if kp>d, higher-order Sobolev embedding gives a continuous representative and a norm bound; its proof assumes the Axiom of Choice. (Higher-order Sobolev embedding)

[F3]

For finite p, the Sobolev norm is the ℓp norm of the finite vector of derivative Lp norms; for p=∞ it is their maximum. (Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms)

[F4]

Holder's inequality on the finite-measure simplex sends each bounded L∞ derivative into every finite Lq space with the expected measure factor. (Holder's inequality for integrals, including the endpoint cases)

[F5]

The reference finite-element convention requires a unisolvent list of linear functionals on its finite-dimensional space and chosen bounded extensions to the interpolation domain. Thus, for nodal degrees of freedom of such an element, the Sobolev evaluation maps must extend the polynomial evaluations; unisolvence is a separate hypothesis. (Reference finite elements and unisolvent degrees of freedom)

Proof

1.1A1F1F2given

Suppose p<∞ and ℓ>d/p. Then ℓp>d, so apply [F2] with k=ℓ, n=d, and extension domain [F1]. It gives a continuous representative on the closed simplex and a bound for its supremum by C∥u∥Wℓ,p. Two continuous representatives of the same almost-everywhere class agree everywhere: if their difference were nonzero at a point of the closed simplex, continuity on the closure and the fact that the simplex is the closure of its interior would give a nonempty interior ball on which the difference stays nonzero, contradicting almost-everywhere equality. Thus every u(xj) is uniquely defined and obeys the displayed bound.

2.1A1F1F2F3F4F5algebra∎

If p=∞, choose any finite q>d. Since the simplex has finite volume, [F4] gives ∥Dαu∥Lq≤∣S^d∣1/q∥Dαu∥L∞ for ∣α∣≤1, so Wℓ,∞⊂W1,q continuously. The same simplex extension result [F1] and embedding [F2], now with k=1 and q>d, give a unique continuous representative and the required bound by ∥u∥Wℓ,∞. In either branch, evaluation is linear because a linear combination of continuous representatives is the unique continuous representative of the corresponding Sobolev class. On a polynomial it is the ordinary nodal value, so these bounded maps extend any prescribed nodal degrees of freedom as required by [F5], without asserting unisolvence of an arbitrary node list; for N≥1, the nodes have a common bound by taking the maximum of their constants, while for N=0 the assertion is vacuous and any finite constant, such as C=1, suffices.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

46 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