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

Nonsymmetric Nitsche L2 estimate with its boundary consistency defect

Statement

Assume Countable Choice and the nonsymmetric Nitsche setup of Symmetric and nonsymmetric Nitsche boundary forms and Nitsche consistency and energy quasi-optimality with penalty above its coercivity threshold. Put e:=u−uh0∈L2(Ω), and let ζe∈H01(Ω) solve ∫Ω∇v⋅∇ζe=∫Ωve for all v∈H01(Ω). Let s∈(1/2,1] and assume the genuine dual regularity hypothesis [A1]. The proved comparison interpolation theorem supplies zh:=Ih,0ζe∈Yh with ∥ζe−zh∥#,h≤CDhsℓΩ1−s∥ζe∥H1+s, and the proved weighted flux trace theorem supplies (∑F∈Fh∂hF∥∂nζe∥L2(F)2)1/2≤CTh1/2ℓΩ1/2∥ζe∥H1+s(Ω),0<h≤ℓΩ:=diam⁡(Ω). Then ∥e∥2≤(M0CDCRhsℓΩ1−s+CTCRh1/2ℓΩ1/2)∥e∥#,h, where M0:=2+γ0≥1 and CD,CT are mesh-uniform for the fixed domain. Since s>1/2 and h≤ℓΩ, the right side is O(h1/2ℓΩ1/2)∥e∥#,h after absorbing the fixed constants. The surviving boundary term prevents claiming the symmetric hs factor from dual regularity alone.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice; the nonsymmetric method and its energy orthogonality; e=u−uh0; the zero-trace adjoint solution; and [A1], its stated dual regularity.

[F1]

The energy theorem gives ah0(e,wh)=0 for every wh∈Vh; its weighted Cauchy bound at θ=0 has constant 2+γ0, denoted M0 here (Nitsche consistency and energy quasi-optimality).

[F2]

H01(Ω) is formed from W1,2(Ω) using the zero-trace closure convention (Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms, Zero-boundary Sobolev space as a norm closure), and with its usual norm is a Hilbert space (The Sobolev space H1 is a Hilbert space). The adjoint Poisson form is coercive in that norm by the Poincare inequality, and the adjoint variational problem is well-posed under Countable Choice (The Poincare inequality for zero-boundary Sobolev closures on domains bounded in one direction, Well-posedness of the adjoint variational problem).

[F3]

Hs(K) is the restriction of Hs(Rd) with the quotient Bessel-potential norm, and the weighted Fourier norm maps H1+s(Rd) continuously into Hs(Rd) under each first derivative (Restriction Bessel-potential spaces on polyhedral domains, Real-order Bessel-potential completion H^s, Real-order H^s as weighted Fourier distributions).

[F4]

For s>1/2, a function in Hs(K) has a unique bounded L2 trace on each affine simplex facet (Fractional Bessel-potential traces on simplex facets).

[F5]

Every real function in H01(Ω) has zero L2 trace on each boundary facet (Zero facet traces of functions in H1_0 on an affine mesh).

[F6]

If v∈H1+s(Ω), −Δv=g∈L2(Ω) distributionally, and the cellwise normal derivatives have the stated fractional traces, the weak Green supplier gives the global Green identity with interior flux cancellation (Fractional weak Green identity and interior flux cancellation).

[F7]

The zero-boundary fractional comparison interpolation theorem supplies zh=Ih,0ζe and the full comparison-norm bound in the Statement (Zero-boundary fractional interpolation in the Nitsche comparison norm).

[F8]

The fixed-domain weighted boundary flux trace theorem gives the stated estimate for every ζe∈H1+s(Ω) (Mesh-uniform fractional boundary flux trace).

[A1]

The adjoint solution satisfies ∥ζe∥H1+s(Ω)≤CR∥e∥2 for some fixed CR and s∈(1/2,1]. This dual elliptic regularity is an explicit PDE hypothesis, not a consequence of the variational adjoint equation.

Proof

technique · nonsymmetric adjoint duality with an explicit consistency residual

Given: The data and estimates in the Statement, [F1]–[F8], and [A1].

1.1F2F3F4F6given

The adjoint equation is bounded and coercive on the Hilbert space H01(Ω): Cauchy–Schwarz bounds the gradient form, and [F2] plus Poincaré makes it coercive in the usual H1 norm. Its load v↦∫Ωve is bounded by ∥v∥H1∥e∥2, so [F2] gives a unique weak solution; its stated higher regularity remains an assumption. Testing the equation with ϕ∈Cc∞(Ω)⊂H01(Ω) gives ∫∇ϕ⋅∇ζe=∫ϕe, hence −Δζe=e distributionally and [F6] applies. By [F3] the gradient has an Hs(K) restriction on each cell, and [F4] gives its individual facet traces, which [F6] identifies as weak conormal traces.

1.2F1F5F6givenalgebra

Green's identity [F6] for ζe with test e gives ∥e∥22=∫Ω∇e⋅∇ζe−∑F∫Fe ∂nζe. For zh∈Yh, [F5] gives zero boundary trace, so ah0(e,zh)=∫Ω∇e⋅∇zh; the nonsymmetric flux term and penalty term vanish. Orthogonality [F1] therefore gives ∫Ω∇e⋅∇zh=0, and ∥e∥22=∫Ω∇e⋅∇(ζe−zh)−∑F∫Fe ∂nζe.

2.1A1F7F8givenstep 1.2algebra∎

Cauchy–Schwarz and [F7] bound the volume term by CDhsℓΩ1−s∥e∥#,h∥ζe∥H1+s. Weighted Cauchy–Schwarz and [F8] bound the boundary term by (∑FhF−1∥e∥F2)1/2(∑FhF∥∂nζe∥F2)1/2≤CTh1/2ℓΩ1/2∥e∥#,h∥ζe∥H1+s. Use [A1] and M0≥1 to obtain ∥e∥22≤(M0CDCRhsℓΩ1−s+CTCRh1/2ℓΩ1/2)∥e∥#,h∥e∥2. If ∥e∥2=0 the conclusion is immediate; otherwise divide by it. Since (h/ℓΩ)s≤(h/ℓΩ)1/2 for s>1/2, the displayed half-order consequence follows.

Source notes

This is the nonsymmetric branch of Guermond's Theorem 37.7 with its actual adjoint-consistency defect retained. The fractional weak Green identity, zero-boundary comparison interpolation, and weighted global flux trace are proved on the A page and discharge the former interfaces. The dual elliptic regularity estimate remains an explicit PDE hypothesis, and the half-order boundary defect remains in the conclusion.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

90 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