Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: 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-Poincare on bounded connected extension domains

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice (and hence Countable Choice and Dependent Choice). Let n≥2, 1<p<n, p∗=npn−p, let K∈{R,C}, and let Ω⊂Rn be a nonempty bounded connected W1,p-extension domain. There is C=C(n,p,Ω,K) such that every u∈W1,p(Ω;K) satisfies ∥u−uΩ∥Lp∗(Ω)≤C∥Du∥Lp(Ω),uΩ=∣Ω∣−1∫Ωu. The domain constant is not uniform over arbitrary extension domains.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Choice, hence Countable Choice and Dependent Choice; n≥2; 1<p<n; a nonempty bounded connected W1,p-extension domain Ω (Sobolev extension domains and extension operators); a field K; and a class u∈W1,p(Ω;K).

[F1]

The local mean-zero estimate on bounded connected extension domains: there is CP=CP(n,p,Ω,K) with ∥w−wΩ∥Lp(Ω)≤CP∥Dw∥Lp(Ω) for every w∈W1,p(Ω;K) (Mean-zero Poincare estimate on bounded connected extension domains below the dimension).

[F2]

Constants have zero weak derivative and weak derivatives are linear, so D(w−c)=Dw (Linearity, locality, and commutation of weak derivatives); W1,p consists of Lp classes with weak gradient in Lp (Integer-order Sobolev spaces and their norms, The space Lp(μ) as the quotient by null functions).

[F3]

The extension-domain embedding: for 1≤p<n and p≤q≤p∗, ∥w∥Lq(Ω)≤CE(n,p,q,Ω)∥w∥W1,p(Ω) (Sobolev embedding on bounded extension domains for p<n, The Sobolev conjugate exponent and the scaling identity).

[F4]

On the finite measure set Ω, Holder's inequality gives w∈L1(Ω) for every w∈Lp(Ω) with ∥w∥1≤∣Ω∣1−1/p∥w∥p, so the mean uΩ is defined (Holder's inequality for integrals, including the endpoint cases).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1F2F4givenalgebra

Centering and the local estimate. By [F4] the mean uΩ is a well-defined scalar; put v:=u−uΩ. By [F2], v∈W1,p(Ω;K) with Dv=Du and vΩ=0, and by [F1] applied to v, ∥v∥Lp(Ω)≤CP∥Du∥Lp(Ω).

2.1F3step 1.1givenalgebra∎

The critical exponent. Apply the extension-domain embedding [F3] to v with q=p∗: ∥v∥Lp∗(Ω)≤CE∥v∥W1,p(Ω); since ∥v∥W1,p(Ω) is, up to a dimension-only factor, ∥v∥Lp(Ω)+∥Dv∥Lp(Ω)≤(1+CP)∥Du∥Lp(Ω) by step 1.1, renaming the product constant gives ∥u−uΩ∥Lp∗(Ω)≤C(n,p,Ω,K)∥Du∥Lp(Ω), which is the asserted inequality.

Source notes

Kinnunen's Theorem 3.47 is the mean-zero Lp∗ estimate, whose proof first establishes the mean-zero Lp estimate on bounded connected extension domains, proved there by Rellich compactness; the local item cited as [F1] supplies it directly with the extension-cutoff-mollification and Arzela-Ascoli argument on this page. The step from the Lp mean-zero estimate to the critical exponent is the extension-domain embedding, exactly as Kinnunen combines Theorem 3.47 with the Sobolev embedding. The constant depends on the extension operator through CE; no uniformity over all extension domains is claimed, matching the statement.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

63 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