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

Piecewise-constant discrete Aubin–Lions compactness

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice.

Let V⋐H↪V∗ be a Banach evolution triple. For each k, let 0=t0k<⋯<tNkk=T be a partition with maximum step δk→0, let Ukn∈V, and define U‾k(t)=Ukn on Ink=(tn−1k,tnk] and Dk(t)=(Ukn−Ukn−1)/τnk there. Suppose, for some 1<p<∞ and 1<q≤∞, sup⁡k∥U‾k∥Lp(0,T;V)+sup⁡k∥Dk∥Lq(0,T;V∗)<∞. Then the time translates satisfy, on their common intervals, ∥U‾k(⋅+s)−U‾k∥Lq(V∗)≤(s+2δk)∥Dk∥Lq(V∗), and (U‾k) is relatively compact in Lp(0,T;H). If also sup⁡k,n∥Ukn∥H<∞, every convergent subsequence converges in every Lr(0,T;H) with 1≤r<∞.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, the compact and continuous embeddings, the partitions and node values, and the two uniform Bochner bounds in the statement.

[F1]

V⋐H means bounded subsets of V have compact closure in H; H↪V∗ is the canonical evolution embedding (Compactly embedded normed spaces, Banach evolution triples and weak time derivatives).

[F2]

Hölder and Minkowski inequalities give ∥∫abg∥≤∫ab∥g∥ and ∥g+h∥Lq≤∥g∥Lq+∥h∥Lq (Holder's inequality for integrals, including the endpoint cases, Minkowski's inequality for integrals, including p=∞).

[F3]

The Bochner space Lp(0,T;H) is complete (Bochner Lp is complete for a Banach value space).

Proof

1.1F1F2given

View each node in V∗ through the canonical embeddings V→H→V∗, and let U^k be their continuous affine interpolation. On Ink its derivative equals Dk. For 0≤s<T and 0<t<T−s, the fundamental theorem for the affine function gives U^k(t+s)−U^k(t)=∫tt+sDk(r) dr. Minkowski [F2] and translation invariance of the time integral yield ∥U^k(⋅+s)−U^k∥Lq(0,T−s;V∗)≤s∥Dk∥Lq(V∗).

2.1F2step 1.1algebra

If t∈Ink, write t=tn−1k+θτnk with 0<θ≤1. Then U‾k(t)−U^k(t)=(1−θ)(Ukn−Ukn−1). Consequently, for 1<q<∞, ∥U‾k−U^k∥Lq(V∗)q≤∑nτnk∥Ukn−Ukn−1∥V∗q≤δkq∥Dk∥Lq(V∗)q. For q=∞, the same pointwise identity gives ∥U‾k(t)−U^k(t)∥V∗≤δk∥Dk∥L∞(V∗) and hence ∥U‾k−U^k∥L∞(V∗)≤δk∥Dk∥L∞(V∗). Combining the corresponding estimate at t and t+s with step 1.1 proves the stated (s+2δk) translate bound in both cases.

3.1F1F2step 2.1choose

Fix ε>0. By [F1], the image in H of the V unit ball has compact closure. Choose finitely many centers from that image forming an ε-net, let E⊂i(V) be their span, and let PE be the H-orthogonal projection. Its best-approximation property gives ∥(I−PE)iv∥H≤ε∥v∥V for every v∈V. Choose an H-orthonormal basis ej=ivj of E. The scalar coefficients ak,jn=(Ukn,ej)H have weighted Lp bounds from the Lp(V) bound, and their total variation satisfies ∑n∣ak,jn−ak,jn−1∣≤∥vj∥V∑nτnk∥Dk∥V∗≤T1−1/q∥vj∥V∥Dk∥Lq(V∗). At least one node value is no larger than its weighted Lp average, so the total-variation bound gives a uniform bound for every nodal coefficient.

4.1F2step 3.1choose

The affine scalar interpolants of these finitely many coefficients are uniformly bounded; their derivatives are the pairings of Dk with vj, so their Lq norms are uniformly bounded. Hölder gives a common modulus C∣t−s∣1−1/q (or C∣t−s∣ for q=∞). Choose a finite time grid on which the modulus between adjacent points is at most ε, and finite ε-nets for the bounded coefficient vectors at each grid point. The piecewise-linear interpolants of the rounded grid values form a finite family within 2ε uniformly of every coefficient vector, so the projected affine family is totally bounded in C([0,T];E). The maximum nodal jump is at most δk1−1/q∥Dk∥Lq(V∗)∥vj∥V, so the projected piecewise-constant family differs from it uniformly by a quantity tending to zero. Thus {PEU‾k} is relatively compact in Lp(H).

5.1A1F1F3step 3.1step 4.1

The projection remainder satisfies ∥U‾k−PEU‾k∥Lp(H)≤ε∥U‾k∥Lp(V). Since ε is arbitrary, steps 3.1 and 4.1 show the full family is totally bounded in Lp(H); [A1] extracts a Cauchy subsequence, which converges by [F3]. This proves relative compactness.

6.1F2F3step 5.1algebra∎

If the nodal values are uniformly bounded by M in H, then ∥U‾k−U‾ℓ∥L∞(H)≤2M. For r<p, finite-measure Hölder upgrades the strong Lp(H) convergence to Lr(H). For r≥p, ∥U‾k−U‾ℓ∥Lr(H)r≤(2M)r−p∥U‾k−U‾ℓ∥Lp(H)p, so the same subsequence is Cauchy in every finite Lr(H) and converges there by [F3]. These limits equal the strong Lp(H) limit since both convergences imply convergence in measure, whose limit is unique up to almost-everywhere equality.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

52 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