Alphabeta Math
Pipeline-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.

Em Wave Equation Prerequisites — Examples

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

The companion page records three explicit mathematical checks of the hypotheses of the wave Cauchy theorem The three-dimensional wave Cauchy problem: Kirchhoff representation, uniqueness, domain of dependence and compact support; it carries domain: mathematics, inherits the Axiom of Countable Choice ACω from that theorem and its suppliers, and makes no empirical claim.

Worked checks of the wave Cauchy formula: source non-compactness, support propagation and linear growth specialises the displayed solution formula in three directions. First, the spatially constant source h≡1 with zero data gives the solution u=c2t2/2, a nonzero spatial constant on every slice t>0: the fixed-compact-set hypothesis of the compact-support clause cannot be dropped, and the constant source is also outside the per-slice compact-support class of the published Duhamel principle Duhamel's principle for the wave equation. Second, a source supported in the closed unit ball propagates with the explicit bound ∣x∣>1+ct, exhibiting the theorem's support estimate directly from the sphere integrals. Third, the linear velocity datum b(x)=x1 produces the smooth solution u=(t−t0)x1, which is unbounded on every slice t>t0 and whose total energy in the sense of Wave energy density, energy flux and total energy is +∞; it therefore lies outside the finite-initial-energy hypothesis of the energy-uniqueness corollary Energy uniqueness for the wave Cauchy problem while the theorem's local C2 uniqueness still applies to it.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

None yet.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

ExampleConstruction: AI-generatedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Worked checks of the wave Cauchy formula: source non-compactness, support propagation and linear growth

Example

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω), inherited from The three-dimensional wave Cauchy problem: Kirchhoff representation, uniqueness, domain of dependence and compact support and its suppliers (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)). All three computations use the notation of that theorem: c>0, Hφ(x,s)=s Mcsφ(x) with the spherical mean M of The spherical mean identity behind the wave equation, W=c−2∂t2−Δ and u the solution displayed there.

(i) (The compact-support clause needs its hypothesis.) Take t0=0, a=b=0 and the spatially constant source h(x,t)=1 on R3×[0,T]. Then the theorem's solution is u(x,t)=c2t2/2, which is independent of x; it satisfies ∂t2u=c2=c2h and Δu=0, hence Wu=h, with u(⋅,0)=∂tu(⋅,0)=0. For every t>0 the function u(⋅,t)=c2t2/2 is a nonzero constant on R3, so it is not compactly supported: the hypothesis in clause (d) that h(⋅,v) vanish off one fixed compact set cannot be dropped, and the corresponding hypothesis of Duhamel's principle for the wave equation (source compactly supported in x for each fixed s) is genuinely used by that item.

(ii) (Support propagation made explicit.) Take a=b=0, t0=0 and h(x,t)=h0(x) with h0∈C∞(R3) vanishing off B‾1(0). Then u(x,t)=c2∫0t(t−v)Mc(t−v)h0(x) dv, and Mrh0(x)=0 for every r>0 with Sr(x)∩B‾1(0)=∅; hence u(x,t)=0 whenever ∣x∣>1+ct. This is clause (d) with Kh=B‾1(0) and ρ=1, exhibited from the explicit formula.

(iii) (The class contains non-decaying data with divergent total energy.) Take a=0, b(x)=x1 and h=0. Since the first moment of the unit-sphere measure vanishes, Mcsb(x)=x1 (Reflection invariance and vanishing first moment of the sphere measure, with the surface measure identified with the polar measure of Agreement with the existing polar sphere measure), so the theorem's solution is u(x,t)=(t−t0)x1: it satisfies ∂t2u=0=Δu, hence Wu=0, with u(⋅,t0)=0 and ∂tu(⋅,t0)=x1. The solution is unbounded on every time slice t>t0. Moreover its total energy at time t in the sense of Wave energy density, energy flux and total energy is +∞ whenever t≠t0: the energy density is 12(x12+c2(t−t0)2), and for every R>0 the box [−R,R]3 gives ∫R312(x12+c2(t−t0)2) dλ  ≥  12∫[−R,R]3x12 dλ  =  12(2R33)(4R2)  =  43R5⟶+∞ (Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product, A box in Rn with parameters ai≤bi is Lebesgue measurable of measure ∏i<n(bi−ai), whichever of its faces are included, Newton–Leibniz needs only continuity on [a,b], differentiability on (a,b), and a Riemann-integrable extension of the interior derivative, Monotonicity and nonnegative homogeneity of the nonnegative integral). Hence the finite-initial-energy hypothesis of Energy uniqueness for the wave Cauchy problem fails for this smooth datum while the theorem's local uniqueness (b) still applies; the theorem asserts no decay at spatial infinity and no finite-energy property, and needs none.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The Axiom of Countable Choice ACω; a speed c>0; the data of clause (i) t0=0, a=b=0, h≡1 on R3×[0,T]; of clause (ii) a=b=0, t0=0, h(x,t)=h0(x) with h0∈C∞(R3) vanishing off B‾1(0); and of clause (iii) a=0, b(x)=x1, h=0, with t0<T arbitrary.

[F1]

Wave Cauchy problem: for c>0, t0<T, a,b∈C∞(R3) and h of class C∞ on R3×[t0,T] in the extension sense, the function u(x,t)=∂sHa(x,s)+Hb(x,s)+c2∫t0tHh(⋅,v)(x,t−v) dv,s=t−t0, where Hφ(x,σ)=σMcσφ(x) and Mrφ(x)=14π∫S2φ(x+rn) dΩ(n), is of class C∞ on R3×[t0,T] in the extension sense and satisfies Wu=h, u(⋅,t0)=a and ∂tu(⋅,t0)=b with W=c−2∂t2−Δ; every C2 extension-sense solution with the same data equals it (clause (b)); and if a vanishes off a compact Ka, b off a compact Kb and every h(⋅,v) off one fixed compact Kh, with Ka∪Kb∪Kh⊆B‾ρ(0), then u(x,t)=0 whenever ∣x∣>ρ+c(t−t0) (clause (d)) (The three-dimensional wave Cauchy problem: Kirchhoff representation, uniqueness, domain of dependence and compact support).

[F2]

For f∈C∞(R3), r↦Mrf(x) is smooth for r≥0 with the normalisation of [F1] and no decay hypotheses; for each fixed f the function Hf(x,t)=tMctf(x) is the one used in [F1] (The spherical mean identity behind the wave equation).

[F3]

The reflection n↦−n preserves the surface measure dΩ, ∫S21 dΩ=4π, ∫S2n dΩ(n)=0, and the chart surface measure on S2 is the polar surface measure (Reflection invariance and vanishing first moment of the sphere measure, Agreement with the existing polar sphere measure, The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn). Consequently Mr1(x)=1 and Mr(x↦x1)(x)=x1 for every r≥0 and every x∈R3, since the sphere integral of the constant 1 is 4π and the sphere integral of n↦x1+rn1 is 4πx1.

[F4]

Energy: for a C2 function u the energy density is e=12(ut2+c2∣Du∣2) with ut=∂tu and Du the spatial gradient; for measurable Ω with ∫Ωe<∞ the total energy is EΩ(t)=∫Ωe(x,t) dx, and when the integral is infinite the total energy is +∞ (Wave energy density, energy flux and total energy).

[F5]

Energy uniqueness for the wave Cauchy problem: under ACω, if a classical solution of □cu=0 has Cauchy data (u0,u1) with differentiable u0 and the total energy has a finite initial value ER3(0)=12∫R3(u12+c2∣Du0∣2) and is conserved in the sharp form ER3(t)=ER3(0), then vanishing data force u≡0 (Energy uniqueness for the wave Cauchy problem).

[F6]

For nonnegative measurable f≤g one has ∫f≤∫g; Tonelli's theorem permits the iterated integral of a nonnegative measurable function on a product of σ-finite spaces to be computed in either order; the box [−R,R]3 has Lebesgue measure (2R)3 with ∫−RRx12 dx1=2R3/3 (Monotonicity and nonnegative homogeneity of the nonnegative integral, Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product, A box in Rn with parameters ai≤bi is Lebesgue measurable of measure ∏i<n(bi−ai), whichever of its faces are included, Newton–Leibniz needs only continuity on [a,b], differentiability on (a,b), and a Riemann-integrable extension of the interior derivative).

[F7]

The published Duhamel principle for the forced wave equation assumes a source continuous and compactly supported in x for each fixed s, with all spatial derivatives through order ⌊n/2⌋+1 jointly continuous; its launched-solution construction applies to the admissible slices of the source (Duhamel's principle for the wave equation).

[F9]

Every continuous function on a closed nondegenerate Euclidean rectangle is Riemann integrable (Every continuous function on a closed nondegenerate rectangle in Rm is Riemann integrable); under ACω, a bounded Borel Riemann integrand on such a rectangle has the same Lebesgue integral (Borel Darboux integrands in finite dimension). In particular these apply to the continuous polynomial x1↦x12 on [−R,R].

[F10]

Under ACω, λm×λn equals λm+n on Borel sets for m,n≥1 (On Borel subsets of R^{m+n}, the product lambda_m times lambda_n agrees with lambda_{m+n}). Applying this with (m,n)=(1,1) and (2,1) identifies the iterated product integral of the continuous nonnegative energy density on [−R,R]3 with its Euclidean Lebesgue integral. The factor measures are sigma-finite because the finite-measure intervals [−N,N] exhaust R by [F6].

[A1]

The Axiom of Countable Choice ACω (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1givenA1F1F2F3

Setting and clause (i). With a=b=0, t0=0 and h≡1, [F1] gives u(x,t)=c2∫0tH1(x,t−v) dv with H1(x,σ)=σMcσ1(x)=σ by [F3]; hence u(x,t)=c2∫0t(t−v) dv=c2t2/2 for 0≤t≤T. Then ∂t2u=c2, Δu=0 by [F1], so Wu=c−2c2−0=1=h, and u(⋅,0)=0, ∂tu(⋅,0)=0 by the same formula. For every t>0 the function u(⋅,t)=c2t2/2 is a nonzero constant on R3, so it does not vanish off any compact subset of R3: the hypothesis of clause (d) that the source vanish off one fixed compact set cannot be dropped.

2.1step 1.1F1F2F8

Clause (ii). With a=b=0, t0=0 and h(x,t)=h0(x), [F1] gives u(x,t)=c2∫0t(t−v)Mc(t−v)h0(x) dv. Fix t∈[0,T] and x with ∣x∣>1+ct; for every v∈[0,t] and every y with ∣y−x∣=c(t−v) one has ∣y∣≥∣x∣−∣y−x∣>1+ct−c(t−v)≥1 by the reverse triangle inequality [F8], so y∉B‾1(0) and the integrand h0(y) vanishes identically on the sphere Sc(t−v)(x); hence Mc(t−v)h0(x)=0 and u(x,t)=0. At the threshold ∣x∣=1+ct, the same inequalities give ∣y∣≥1, and h0 vanishes also on ∣y∣=1 by continuity from the exterior; hence the integral is zero there as well. This exhibits clause (d) with Kh=B‾1(0) and ρ=1 from the displayed formula of the theorem, including the closed support boundary.

2.2step 1.1F1F3F4F5F6F9F10

Clause (iii). With a=0, b(x)=x1 and h=0, [F1] gives u(x,t)=Hb(x,s)=sMcsb(x)=(t−t0)x1 by [F3]; then ∂t2u=0 and Δu=0, so Wu=0, while u(⋅,t0)=0 and ∂tu(⋅,t0)=x1=b. The solution is unbounded on every time slice t>t0. Its energy density is e(x,t)=12x12+12c2(t−t0)2 by [F4] and [F1]; for every R>0 the box integral is ∫[−R,R]3e dλ=12(2R33)(2R)2+12c2(t−t0)2(2R)3=43R5+4c2(t−t0)2R3≥43R5 by [F6], [F9] and [F10], which tends to +∞; monotonicity of the nonnegative integral over R3 therefore gives total energy +∞ for every t≠t0, and in particular the initial energy ER3(t0)=12∫R3x12 dλ=+∞. So the finite-initial-energy hypothesis of the energy-uniqueness corollary [F5] fails for this smooth datum, while clause (b) of [F1] still supplies uniqueness, since it assumes no finite-energy or decay hypothesis.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1step 2.2F7∎

The two hypothesis boundaries and the published Duhamel principle. Steps 1.1 and 2.1 show that in the wave Cauchy theorem the compact-support hypothesis of clause (d) is a genuine hypothesis and that it yields the propagation bound ∣x∣>1+ct for a source supported in B‾1(0); step 2.2 shows that smooth data of unbounded energy are admitted by the theorem's existence, uniqueness and representation clauses, although they are outside the energy-uniqueness corollary. The published Duhamel principle [F7] carries the per-slice compact-support hypothesis by which its own statement places each source slice in the admissible velocity-data class, so that hypothesis does real work in the item; the constant source of step 1.1 has no compact spatial support on any slice, so [F7] is not applicable to that witness, while the theorem of this pair is defined for it and yields the non-compactly-supported solution displayed in step 1.1.

Sources