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.

Elliptic PINN minimizers converge to the Dirichlet solution

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice and Countable Choice. Use the corrected small-scale sampling, trial-class, exact-zero-witness, and exact regularization hypotheses of the regularized PINN theorem, with residual and boundary operators L and boundary restriction. Require every admitted trial function in Hm to belong to C2(U)∩C(Uˉ). Let d≥2 and let U⊂Rd be bounded Lipschitz with an exterior sphere at every boundary point. For 0<α<1, let aij=aji∈C1,α(U) have minimum eigenvalue at least λ0>0, let bi∈C1,α(U) and ci,d∈C0,α(U), and put L[u]=∑i,jDi(aijDju)+∑iDi(biu)+∑iciDiu+du, b~j=∑iDiaij+bj+cj,c~=∑iDibi+d≤0. All indicated Hölder norms are finite global norms. Retain the source coefficient bounds ∑i,j∣aij∣2≤Λ and λ0−2(∣b∣2+∣c∣2)+λ0−1∣d∣≤v2. Let f∈C0,α(U) and g∈C0,α(∂U). There is exactly one u∗∈Cloc2,α(U)∩C0(Uˉ) with L[u∗]=f and u∗=g on ∂U.

Every sequence of global regularized empirical minimizers hm converges to u∗ in C0(U) almost surely as both sample counts tend to infinity. If mr=O(mbd/(d−1)), the occupancy-event squared uniform error is O(mr−α/d), with the probability and constants of the regularized-loss theorem. If each minimizer satisfies the boundary data exactly, the errors belong to H01(U) and converge to zero in H1(U) almost surely. If in addition U is C2,α and g has a C2,α lifting, the usual global C2,α(Uˉ) branch applies with its stated coefficient/data hypotheses. No global Hölder regularity is claimed from the exterior-sphere condition alone, and no optimizer convergence is asserted.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The stated coefficient, sampling, witness, global-minimizer, and choice hypotheses.

[F1]

The elliptic theorem gives unique local-Hölder classical existence with continuous boundary attainment, the smooth-boundary global branch under its extra hypotheses, and H01 membership of every zero-boundary classical solution whose forcing is globally Hölder (Exterior-sphere elliptic Dirichlet existence, energy and residual stability).

[F2]

The populated-cell proof gives both residual errors tending uniformly to zero almost surely, without weight comparability, and its quantitative occupancy-event bounds (Regularized PINN minimizers have vanishing residuals under sample refinement).

[F3]

The actual expanded coefficients satisfy the residual-stability estimate for any C2(U)∩C(Uˉ) error (Shin's positive divergence-form operator, Elliptic residual and boundary stability from a maximum principle).

[F4]

The source coefficient bound and H01 membership give the elliptic energy estimate (Elliptic H1 error estimate from the source coefficient bound).

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice and Countable Choice are inherited from the existence supplier; the zero-boundary closure/energy convention retains Countable Choice (The Axiom of Choice, The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Proof

1.1givenA1F1F2F3algebra

The finite global C1,α norms of a,b make b~,c~ globally bounded and Hölder, with c~≤0. Thus [F1] yields the unique solution in the stated local class. Apply [F3] to em=hm−u∗, whose boundary values are hm−g and whose forcing is L[hm]−f. It gives ∥em∥∞≤CL(∥L[hm]−f∥∞+∥hm−g∥∞;∂U). Both terms tend to zero almost surely by [F2]. Squaring this estimate transfers the occupancy-event rate and its event probability to the solution error. The constant may depend on the bounded expanded coefficients and thus their derivative bounds, not only Λ,v.

2.1givenF1F2F4step 1.1algebra

If the boundary data are exact, em∈C2(U)∩C(Uˉ) has zero boundary value and L[em]=L[hm]−f∈C0,α(U). The zero-boundary assertion in [F1] gives em∈H01(U); this is proved by zero extensions of the smooth approximants and weak convergence, not inferred from continuity alone. Since ∣U∣<∞, step 1.1 and [F2] imply ∥em∥L2(U)+∥L[em]∥L2(U)→0. Apply [F4] to obtain ∥em∥H1(U)→0. This statement is about the errors, and remains meaningful even if the individual nonzero-data solution is not in H1(U).

3.1F1step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

Under the extra smooth-boundary/data hypotheses, [F1] supplies the stated global regularity branch for this same unique solution. The native sector counterexample refutes extending that conclusion to every exterior-sphere Lipschitz domain. This completes all the stated convergence and regularity assertions.

Remarks

The source's stronger global C2,α(U) existence assertion for exterior-sphere domains is false for its own globally bounded Hölder convention; the native 2π/3 cutoff-sector counterexample is retained. The exact original carrier is archived in the proposal. The active divergence formula counts div⁡(bu) once, consistently with the expanded coefficients and energy calculation; the original repeated-index printed expression is recorded in the operator definition's source discrepancy. The minimizer conclusion uses the repaired populated-cell proof and the corrected small-scale sampling convention, with no hidden balance premise.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

42 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