Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

The Rankine--Hugoniot jump condition in space--time normal form

Statement

Let n≥1, T>0, f∈C1(R;Rn) (Scalar conservation laws, fluxes and Cauchy data), and let u be a piecewise C1 distributional weak solution (Distributional weak solutions of the Cauchy problem) with two-sided C1 interface Γ and traces as in Piecewise smooth shocks and one-sided traces. Orient the unit space--time normal ν=(νt,νx) from the minus side to the plus side. Then at every ζ∈Γ⊂U, [u](ζ)νt(ζ)+[f](ζ)⋅νx(ζ)=0, where [u]=u+−u− and [f]=f(u+)−f(u−).

In one space dimension, for a graph x=s(t) with minus side x<s(t) and plus side x>s(t), ν=(−s′(t),1)/1+s′(t)2, so the condition is s′(t)[u](t)=[f](t) at every graph point. If [u]≠0 in one dimension, then s′=[f]/[u]; if [u]=0, then [f]=0 and the relation is 0=0, with no speed constraint.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: n≥1, a piecewise C1 weak solution u with interface Γ⊂U and traces u±, a point ζ0∈Γ, and one-sided C1 local extensions u~± on a neighbourhood V⊂U of ζ0.

[F1]

The weak identity reads ∫ΠT(uφt+f(u)⋅∇xφ)=0 for every φ∈Cc∞(ΠT), i.e. div⁡t,xF(u)=0 in distributions, where F(u)=(u,f(u)) (Distributional weak solutions of the Cauchy problem, Scalar conservation laws, fluxes and Cauchy data).

[F2]

Locally about a point of a C1 hypersurface, after permuting coordinates, a patch is a graph zk=γ(z′) over the remaining n coordinates z′, with γ∈C1; the unnormalised normal N=ek−∑j≠k(∂jγ)ej points from the region below the graph to the region above it, and the unit normal of [F1]'s orientation is ν=σN/∣N∣ with σ=1 if the minus side lies below the graph and σ=−1 otherwise; also [F]=([u],[f]), and a continuous function vanishing against all nonnegative smooth bumps on an open set vanishes there (Piecewise smooth shocks and one-sided traces, Explicit compactly supported smooth cutoffs).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1F2

Side extensions solve the equation classically. On each side of Γ the function u agrees with a C1 extension u~±; testing away from t=0 and against bumps supported in a single side, the weak identity [F1] shows that div⁡t,xF(u~±) vanishes as a distribution on that side. Since F(u~±) is C1, its divergence is continuous, and by [F2] it vanishes pointwise; consequently, for smooth compactly supported φ supported in the side, div⁡t,x(F(u±)φ)=F(u±)⋅Dφ.

2.1F3step 1.1

Graph computation on one side. After a permutation of coordinates, write the graph locally as zk=γ(z′) and take φ supported in a box B′×(a,b) in which the graph stays in (a,b). With Gj=Fj(uL)φ on the lower side, [F3] gives ∫lowerF(uL)⋅Dφ=∫lowerdiv⁡(F(uL)φ)=∫B′GkL(z′,γ(z′)) dz′−∑j≠k∫B′GjL(z′,γ(z′))∂jγ(z′) dz′=∫B′GL(z′,γ(z′))⋅N(z′) dz′, because the k-derivative integrates to the trace at the graph and each tangential derivative of the moving-endpoint integral Aj(z′)=∫aγ(z′)Gj(z′,r) dr contributes −∂jγ Gj at the graph, the integral of ∂jAj vanishing by compact support.

3.1F2step 1.1step 2.1

Upper side and the interface term. The same computation on the upper side, with the graph as its lower boundary, gives ∫upperF(uR)⋅Dφ=−∫B′GR(z′,γ(z′))⋅N(z′) dz′; adding with step 2.1, and noting that F(u+)−F(u−)=([u],[f]) with u± the traces from the plus and minus sides, the weak identity becomes 0=∫ΠTF(u)⋅Dφ=−σ∫B′φ(z′,γ(z′)) [F](z′,γ(z′))⋅N(z′) dz′ for every φ supported in the box.

4.1F2step 3.1

Continuity and vanishing of the bracket. The function z′↦[F](z′,γ(z′))⋅N(z′) is continuous, being a composition of continuous data; if it were nonzero at the point corresponding to ζ0, it would keep one sign on a smaller patch, and a nonnegative smooth bump supported there and positive at ζ0 would make the integral of step 3.1 nonzero, a contradiction. Hence [F]⋅N=0 at ζ0.

5.1step 4.1F2∎

Normal form and the one-dimensional case. Since ν=σN/∣N∣ with σ=±1 by [F2], 0=[F]⋅N=[F]⋅ν σ∣N∣, and ∣N∣=∣ek−∑j≠k∂jγ ej∣>0, so [F]⋅ν=[u]νt+[f]⋅νx=0 at every point of Γ. For a one-dimensional graph x=s(t) with minus side x<s(t), the graph function is γ(t)=s(t), so N=(−s′(t),1) and ν=(−s′,1)/1+s′2; the condition becomes (−s′[u]+[f])/1+s′2=0, that is, s′[u]=[f]. If [u]≠0 this determines s′=[f]/[u], and if [u]=0 the relation reads 0=[f], so [f]=0 and no speed is constrained.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

43 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