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.

Weak fields, boundary power and dissipative uniqueness

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, postulates, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Finite-energy PEC and impedance boundary formulation

Physical scope

A conditional, local, linear, nondispersive Maxwell curl-evolution boundary model in one SI inertial laboratory frame. It includes static measurable uniformly positive coefficient fields, the constant-coefficient branch of the material-closure postulate, a closure-defined PEC boundary condition, and an impedance branch only for fields carrying L2 weak tangential traces identified by testing each bulk field against every smooth ambient test field and satisfying the additional energy-pair Green identity. The evolution class does not impose the Gauss constraints; a full Maxwell application must separately supply charge data and impose those constraints. It asserts no existence theorem, no general L2 trace theorem, no validity for any actual material, and no empirical claim.

Definition

Let I⊆R be a nonempty open interval and let Ω⊆R3 be a nonempty bounded Lipschitz polyhedron in the laboratory frame. Its boundary Γ=∂Ω has the outward unit normal n on the relative interior of each planar face; edge and vertex values will be irrelevant under the face-area convention below. Use the SI conventions of this framework. In particular E has units V m−1, H has units A m−1, D has units C m−2, B has units T, and a volume current density J has units A m−2.

For the boundary integrals, let F be the finite family of relative interiors of the planar two-dimensional faces of Γ. Write λ2 for Lebesgue measure on R2, defined as the restriction of Lebesgue outer measure to its Carath'eodory-measurable sets; under the assumed ACω, this is a complete measure. For each face F∈F, let PF be its supporting plane and fix a Euclidean isometry ιF:R2→PF. For every Borel set A⊆Γ (a set in the sigma-algebra generated by the open subsets of Γ), define dSF(A):=λ2(ιF−1(A∩F)). Any two choices of ιF differ by an affine Euclidean isometry of R2 with absolute Jacobian determinant 1, so the Borel change-of-variables formula makes dSF independent of that choice. Each face is bounded and lies in a finite rectangle in its plane, so dSF(F)<∞. Set dS:=∑F∈FdSF on Γ. The edges and vertices have dS-measure zero and are omitted, so n is the outward face normal dS-almost everywhere; its values on edges and vertices do not affect any boundary expression. Since dS is finite and Lebesgue measure restricted to I is sigma-finite, dS⊗dλ1∣I is the unique sigma-finite product measure on Γ×I, with rectangle values dS(A)λ1(J) for Borel A⊆Γ and Lebesgue-measurable J⊆I. All boundary Lp(Γ) and Lp(Γ×I) spaces and almost-everywhere statements use these measures.

Every cross product in the boundary formulas is the right-handed Euclidean cross product in the positively oriented orthonormal frame basis: for u=(u1,u2,u3) and v=(v1,v2,v3), u×v=(u2v3−u3v2, u3v1−u1v3, u1v2−u2v1), as in the cross-product definition of this library.

For a real vector field u∈L2(Ω;R3), its distributional curl is the distribution defined by

⟨curl⁡u,φ⟩=∫Ωu⋅curl⁡φ dλ3,φ∈Cc∞(Ω;R3).

As in the real graph space definition of the imported mathematical library, H(curl⁡;Ω) consists of the L2 vector fields whose distributional curl is represented by an L2 vector field, with norm

∥u∥H(curl⁡;Ω)2=∥u∥L2(Ω)2+∥curl⁡u∥L2(Ω)2.

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice ACω as carried by that imported weak-derivative convention. Let ε,μ:Ω→R3×3 be measurable, essentially bounded, real symmetric coefficient fields, independent of time. Require constants 0<aε≤bε<∞ and 0<aμ≤bμ<∞ such that, for almost every x∈Ω and every v∈R3,

aε∣v∣2≤v⋅ε(x)v≤bε∣v∣2,aμ∣v∣2≤v⋅μ(x)v≤bμ∣v∣2.

The coefficient units are F m−1 and H m−1, respectively. They define bounded symmetric multiplication operators on L2. Define D(t)=εE(t) and B(t)=μH(t). The spatially varying coefficient fields are explicit local model data; they are not inferred from the homogeneous material-closure postulate. Its constant symmetric branch is a special case.

A field E:I→L2(Ω;R3) is in C1(I;L2) when it has a derivative in the L2 norm at every t∈I and that derivative is norm-continuous. C(I;H(curl⁡;Ω)) means norm-continuity into the graph space. A finite-energy model solution is a pair

E,H∈C1(I;L2(Ω;R3))∩C(I;H(curl⁡;Ω)),

with J∈C(I;L2(Ω;R3)), satisfying the adopted evolution equations as L2 identities for each t∈I,

ε ∂tE=curl⁡H−J,μ ∂tH=−curl⁡E.

This class specifies the Maxwell curl-evolution subsystem independently of charge data. In the volume-charge case, a full Maxwell application additionally supplies a charge density ρ(⋅,t)∈Lloc1(Ω) for every t∈I, in C m−3, and imposes the Gauss constraints: for every t∈I and every scalar test ψ∈Cc∞(Ω),

∫ΩB(t)⋅∇ψ dλ3=0,−∫ΩD(t)⋅∇ψ dλ3=∫Ωρ(⋅,t)ψ dλ3.

These additional constraints are not part of the evolution class defined here and are not inferred from its two curl equations. Energy identities for this class also apply to its Gauss-constrained subclass; they do not establish the constraints or the physical applicability of either class.

Its stored field energy is the finite real number

W(t):=12∫Ω(E(x,t)⋅ε(x)E(x,t)+H(x,t)⋅μ(x)H(x,t)) dλ3(x).

There are two alternative boundary models.

PEC. Perfect electric conductor means E(t)∈H0(curl⁡;Ω) for every t, where H0(curl⁡;Ω) is exactly the closure of Cc∞(Ω;R3) in the displayed graph norm. This closure definition is used; it is not replaced by an unproved identification with every possible trace kernel.

Impedance. For u∈H(curl⁡;Ω), an L2 weak tangential trace is a field uτ∈L2(Γ;R3) with n⋅uτ=0 almost everywhere such that

∫Ω(curl⁡u⋅φ−u⋅curl⁡φ) dλ3=∫Γ(n×uτ)⋅φ∣Γ dSfor every φ∈Cc∞(R3;R3).

Here a test field φ is a smooth map on all of R3 with compact support, and φ∣Γ is its ordinary restriction. In particular, tests may be nonzero on the boundary. This identity identifies the boundary field through independently chosen tests; the single energy-pair identity below does not replace it.

A Green-compatible tangential boundary pair for E,H consists of measurable fields Eτ,Hτ∈L2(Γ×I;R3) such that, outside a single set of times of Lebesgue measure zero, Eτ(⋅,t) and Hτ(⋅,t) are weak tangential traces of E(t) and H(t), respectively, in the displayed sense, and additionally

∫Ω(curl⁡H⋅E−H⋅curl⁡E) dλ3=−∫Γn⋅(Eτ×Hτ) dS.

The energy-pair Green identity is retained as an explicit admissibility requirement; no extension from smooth tests to the rough fields themselves is assumed without it. Membership in H(curl⁡) alone does not assert that such an L2 trace pair exists. Let Y∈L∞(Γ) be a time-independent scalar surface admittance, in siemens, with Y≥0 almost everywhere. The impedance law is

Hτ=Y(n×Eτ)almost everywhere on Γ×I.

Then Y∣Eτ∣2∈L1(Γ×I) and is the nonnegative outward boundary-power density in W m−2. No pointwise boundary value or existence of an L2 weak tangential trace for an arbitrary H(curl⁡) field is asserted.

Definition references

DefinitionDefinition: AI-adaptedProof: Not applicableverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Weak surface divergence of a tangential field

Definition

Assume the surface-measure convention with ACω of the mathematical definition of the stationary surface distribution. Let S⊂R3 be a compact embedded C2 hypersurface without manifold boundary, with a chosen continuous unit normal n and its finite surface measure dS. At x∈S, define the tangent plane

TxS:={v∈R3:v⋅n(x)=0}.

For ϕ∈C1(S), meaning that its composition with each local C2 surface chart is C1, its surface gradient ∇Sϕ(x)∈TxS is the unique vector satisfying

v⋅∇Sϕ(x)=dϕx(v)for every v∈TxS,

where dϕx is the derivative of ϕ in tangent directions. For a measurable tangential field K:S→R3 with ∫S∣K∣ dS<∞, define its weak surface divergence Div⁡SK as the linear functional on C1(S)

⟨Div⁡SK,ϕ⟩:=−∫SK⋅∇Sϕ dS.

This functional is well-defined because S is compact, ∇Sϕ is continuous and bounded, and K is integrable. If it has a continuous density g:S→R, meaning

⟨Div⁡SK,ϕ⟩=∫Sgϕ dSfor every ϕ∈C1(S),

then g is called a continuous representative of the weak surface divergence. The definition itself does not assert that such a representative exists or is unique; a result using pointwise div⁡SK must establish both.

Physics theoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Energy balance and zero-data forward uniqueness for admissible weak Maxwell fields

Physical scope

An a-priori energy identity and homogeneous zero-data forward uniqueness for the explicitly defined finite-energy Maxwell curl-evolution model with bounded static symmetric uniformly positive coefficients. The identity applies to the closure-defined PEC branch or to the impedance branch only when its Green-compatible L2 tangential boundary pair exists. Two-solution uniqueness follows in the PEC branch, or in the impedance branch when the difference has a Green-compatible boundary pair. No Gauss constraint is inferred. It establishes no existence theorem, no general trace regularity, no conservation without the stated work and boundary terms, and no empirical claim.

Statement

Use the finite-energy boundary model defined earlier on the nonempty open time interval I and bounded Lipschitz polyhedron Ω. Thus ε,μ are time-independent real symmetric essentially bounded coefficient fields with uniform positive lower bounds, E,H∈C1(I;L2(Ω;R3))∩C(I;H(curl⁡;Ω)), J∈C(I;L2(Ω;R3)), and

ε∂tE=curl⁡H−J,μ∂tH=−curl⁡E

hold as L2 identities for every t∈I. Define

W(t):=12∫Ω(E⋅εE+H⋅μH) dλ3.

For every s<t in I, the closure-defined PEC branch satisfies

W(t)−W(s)=−∫st∫ΩE⋅J dλ3 dr.

For the Green-compatible impedance branch, where Hτ=Y(n×Eτ), it satisfies

W(t)−W(s)=−∫st∫ΩE⋅J dλ3 dr−∫st∫∂ΩY∣Eτ∣2 dS dr.

Here Eτ,Hτ and the Green identity are exactly the L2 boundary data and admissibility condition in the model definition; no trace is inferred from H(curl) membership alone. The work density E⋅J has SI units W m−3; the boundary term has units W m−2 per unit area and is nonnegative in the impedance branch. If J=0 and E(t0)=H(t0)=0 in L2, the only admissible solution is zero for t≥t0. For two solutions with the same coefficients, current and initial data, forward equality follows in the PEC branch. In the impedance branch it follows if the difference fields, with the difference boundary pair and the same Y, also satisfy the model's Green compatibility identity. This difference-pair identity is an explicit hypothesis here; no inference from the two separate energy-pair identities alone is used. These conclusions concern the curl-evolution class and infer no Gauss constraint. Uniqueness is forward from the specified initial time; no backward uniqueness is asserted for a dissipative boundary.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ACω, the coefficient fields and their uniform positive bounds, the time regularity of E,H,J, the two L2 evolution identities, and either the PEC closure condition or the impedance trace pair and Green identity of the Statement.

[A1]

The finite-energy boundary model defines the real H(curl) fields, the closure-defined PEC space, the bounded static coefficient maps, the L2 time regularity, the impedance boundary pair, its Green compatibility identity, and the PDEs used here. The variable-coefficient branch is explicit model data; the earlier homogeneous material postulate supplies only its constant-coefficient special case. Finite-energy PEC and impedance boundary formulation

[F1]

H(curl⁡;Ω) consists of real L2 vector fields whose distributional curl is represented by an L2 vector field, with the graph norm ∥u∥22+∥curl⁡u∥22. The real H(curl) graph space on a polyhedron

[F2]

H0(curl⁡;Ω) is the graph-norm closure of Cc∞(Ω;R3); the closure definition does not assert equality with the kernel of an arbitrary boundary trace map. Zero tangential trace H(curl) space

[F3]

The real vector-valued L2 pairing is (f,g)L2:=∑i=13∫Ωfigi dλ3 and ∥f∥22=∑i=13∥fi∥22, as in the graph-space convention. For each component, the scalar supplier gives ∣∫Ωfigi dλ3∣≤∥fi∥2∥gi∥2. Put ai=∥fi∥2 and bi=∥gi∥2. If ∑ibi2=0, then ∑iaibi=0; otherwise, nonnegativity of ∑i(ai−λbi)2 for λ=(∑iaibi)/(∑ibi2) gives (∑iaibi)2≤(∑iai2)(∑ibi2). Therefore ∣(f,g)L2∣≤∑iaibi≤∥f∥2∥g∥2. The real H(curl) graph space on a polyhedron Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for L2

[F4]

The boundary cross product uses the right-handed coordinate formula in [A1]. If n=(n1,n2,n3) and e=(e1,e2,e3), substituting that formula twice gives e×(n×e)=(n1(e22+e32)−e1(n2e2+n3e3), n2(e32+e12)−e2(n3e3+n1e1), n3(e12+e22)−e3(n1e1+n2e2))=n∣e∣2−e(e⋅n).

[A2]

Countable Choice permits selection of one smooth compactly supported graph-norm approximant at each accuracy 1/n; only this countable family is selected in the PEC argument. The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)

Proof

technique · differentiate the bounded symmetric quadratic form in the $L^2$ norm, substitute the evolution equations, then use either the closure definition or the model's explicit Green-compatible impedance identity
1.1givenA1algebra

The coefficient fields define bounded symmetric multiplication operators on L2, so W(t) is finite. For a real Hilbert-space vector u∈C1(I;L2) and a bounded symmetric operator M, expand u(t+h)=u(t)+hu′(t)+o(h) in the L2 norm in Q(t)=12(u(t),Mu(t)). Bilinearity and symmetry give Q(t+h)−Q(t)h=12(u(t+h)−u(t)h,Mu(t+h))+12(Mu(t),u(t+h)−u(t)h)⟶(u′(t),Mu(t)). Applying this calculation to E,ε and H,μ yields W′(t)=(∂tE,εE)L2+(∂tH,μH)L2.

2.1step 1.1A1F1F3algebra

Substitute the two L2 evolution identities from [A1] into the derivative of step 1.1 and use symmetry of the real L2 pairing: W′(t)=(curl⁡H,E)L2−(J,E)L2−(curl⁡E,H)L2. All three pairings are finite by the H(curl) and L2 hypotheses and [F3].

3.1step 2.1A2F1F2F3algebra

In the PEC branch, [F2] and [A2] provide En∈Cc∞(Ω;R3) with En→E(t) and curl⁡En→curl⁡E(t) in L2. For every n, the distributional-curl definition in [F1], tested against En, gives (curl⁡H,En)L2=(H,curl⁡En)L2. By [F3], the left side converges to (curl⁡H,E)L2 and the right side to (H,curl⁡E)L2. Hence the first and third terms in step 2.1 cancel, and W′(t)=−(J,E)L2.

3.2step 2.1A1F4algebra

In the impedance branch, the Green compatibility identity in [A1] gives (curl⁡H,E)L2−(H,curl⁡E)L2=−∫∂Ωn⋅(Eτ×Hτ) dS. The boundary law and n⋅Eτ=0 imply n⋅(Eτ×Hτ)=Y n⋅(Eτ×(n×Eτ))=Y∣Eτ∣2≥0, since [F4] gives Eτ×(n×Eτ)=n∣Eτ∣2−Eτ(Eτ⋅n) and ∣n∣=1. Substitution in step 2.1 gives W′(t)=−(J,E)L2−∫∂ΩY∣Eτ∣2 dS for almost every t; the boundary integrand is time-integrable by the L2 trace and bounded-Y assumptions.

4.1step 3.1step 3.2A1algebra

In either branch, W is continuously differentiable by step 1.1, the volume work is integrable, and the impedance power is integrable when present. Integrating the derivative identities of steps 3.1 or 3.2 on [s,t]⊂I gives exactly the two energy balances in the Statement.

5.1step 4.1A1algebra∎

Consider a single admissible solution with J=0 and E(t0)=H(t0)=0. The coefficient lower bounds give W(t)≥12min⁡(aε,aμ)(∥E(t)∥22+∥H(t)∥22)≥0. By step 4.1, W(t)=0 for PEC and W(t)≤0 for impedance whenever t≥t0; thus W(t)=0, and the lower bound gives E(t)=H(t)=0 in L2 for every such t. This proves the homogeneous zero-data conclusion. For two solutions with the same current and initial data, their difference has the required time regularity and homogeneous evolution by linearity. The PEC closure is a vector space, so their difference is PEC-admissible. In the impedance case the difference tangential pair is L2, tangential and satisfies the same linear boundary law. Subtracting the respective smooth-test identities shows that its two fields are weak tangential traces of the difference bulk fields outside the union of the two null sets of times. Its energy-pair Green identity is additionally assumed here, as in the Statement. Under that assumption step 4.1 applies to the difference and proves equality forward in time. No existence is asserted.

LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Continuous density of the weak surface divergence for a C1 tangent field

Statement

Assume ACω. Let S⊂R3 be a compact embedded C2 hypersurface without manifold boundary, with surface measure dS and a chosen unit normal. Let K be a C1 tangential vector field on S, meaning that its two coordinate components in every C2 surface chart are C1. Then the weak surface divergence Div⁡SK defined earlier has a unique continuous density g:S→R such that

⟨Div⁡SK,ϕ⟩=∫Sgϕ dSfor every ϕ∈C1(S).

In a chart X:V⊆R2→S, write K=K1∂1X+K2∂2X and let JX=det⁡(∂aX⋅∂bX)a,b=12 be its surface-area density. The representative satisfies

g(X(u))=JX(u)−1∑a=12∂a(JX(u)Ka(u)).

This unique continuous representative is denoted div⁡SK.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: ACω, the surface S, its surface measure, the tangential C1 field K, and the definition of Div⁡SK.

[F1]

A compact embedded C2 hypersurface has finitely many regular C2 charts covering it, the surface measure is finite and independent of the chosen charts, and each chart area density JX is positive and C1. Surface distributions and interfacial jumps Surface integration on compact C1 hypersurfaces Chart and partition independence of surface measure

[F2]

The tangent plane has the Euclidean inner product; the coordinate tangent vectors ∂1X,∂2X are linearly independent. The Euclidean inner product ⟨x,y⟩=∑k<nxkyk on Rn Surface distributions and interfacial jumps

[F3]

Compactly supported C1 functions in a coordinate chart satisfy ordinary integration by parts on a rectangle containing their support, with iterated integrals justified by Fubini. If u,v are differentiable on [a,b] with u′,v′ integrable, then ∫abuv′=u(b)v(b)−u(a)v(a)−∫abu′v Fubini's theorem for L^1 functions on a sigma-finite product

[F4]

If a compact set lies in an open set of Euclidean space, there is a smooth compactly supported cutoff in that open set, with values in [0,1], equal to one on a neighborhood of the compact set. Test function cutoffs and euclidean localization

[F5]

A continuous density on S whose pairing with every ambient smooth compactly supported test vanishes is zero pointwise. Surface densities with vanishing test pairings vanish

Proof

technique · compute the weak divergence in one chart, patch the local continuous densities with a finite partition of unity, and use surface-density localization for uniqueness
1.1F1F2givenalgebra

Fix a chart X:V→S. Its coordinate tangent vectors are independent by [F2], so there are unique functions Ka with K=Ka∂aX; their C1 regularity is part of the stated tangent-field convention. The chart area density JX is positive and C1 by [F1]. Therefore gX(X(u)):=JX(u)−1∑a=12∂a(JXKa)(u) is continuous on the chart.

2.1step 1.1F1F3givenalgebra

Let ϕ∈C1(S) have compact support in this chart. By the definition of the surface gradient, K⋅∇Sϕ=Ka∂a(ϕ∘X). The surface-area formula and [F3] give −∫SK⋅∇Sϕ dS=−∫VJXKa∂a(ϕ∘X) du=∫V∂a(JXKa)(ϕ∘X) du=∫SgXϕ dS. Here the repeated a is summed over 1,2; compact support lets each product JXKa(ϕ∘X) extend by zero as a C1 function, and integration by parts on a rectangle containing the support has no boundary term. Thus gX from step 1.1 represents Div⁡SK on this chart.

3.1F1F4step 2.1givenalgebra

If S is empty, the unique empty function is the asserted density and every chart assertion is vacuous; hence assume S is nonempty. Write the finite chart cover in [F1] as S∩Oj, with Oj⊂R3 open and S∩Oj the corresponding chart image. All balls B(x,r) with x∈S and B‾(x,2r)⊂Oj for some j cover S. Take a finite subcover, assign a chart to each of its finitely many balls, and apply [F4] to each closed inner ball in its assigned Oj. This gives finitely many nonnegative ambient cutoffs; group their sums as bj by chart and put b=∑jbj. Then b>0 on a neighborhood of S, and χj=bj/b there restricts to a C1(S) function, with support compactly contained in its chart, such that ∑jχj=1. Each χjgj extends continuously by zero off its chart, so g:=∑jχjgj is continuous on S. For every ϕ∈C1(S), applying step 2.1 to χjϕ and summing gives ∫Sgϕ dS=−∑j∫SK⋅∇S(χjϕ) dS=−∫SK⋅∇Sϕ dS, because ∑j∇Sχj=0. Thus g represents Div⁡SK. The construction makes only finitely many choices.

4.1F4F5step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1algebra

Fix any chart image U=S∩O and x∈U. By [F4], choose η∈Cc∞(O) equal to one near x. The function h=η(gX−g) on U, extended by zero to S∖U, is continuous on S, since its support is compactly contained in U. For every ambient test ψ∈Cc∞(R3), the restriction of ηψ has compact support in U. Steps 2.1 and 3.1 therefore give ∫Shψ dS=∫U(gX−g)ηψ dS=0. By [F5], h=0 on S, and η(x)=1 gives gX(x)=g(x). Since the chart and point were arbitrary, the global density has the stated formula in every chart.

5.1F5step 3.1step 4.1givenalgebra∎

If g1,g2 are continuous representatives, then ∫S(g1−g2)ϕ dS=0 for every ϕ∈C1(S), hence for every restriction of an ambient test in Cc∞(R3). Applying [F5] to g1−g2 gives pointwise equality. Together with step 4.1 this proves uniqueness and chart independence of the asserted continuous representative.

Physics theoremStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-10-22 (gpt-6.1-sol)Open item page →

Stationary sheets and charge conservation

Physical scope

A conditional stationary-interface result for the distributional macroscopic Maxwell equations with locally integrable volume sources and a C1 free surface-charge/tangential-current sheet. It supplies the four jump laws and the compatible surface charge balance, and identifies the adopted vacuum stationary-sheet model as a special case. The interface is fixed and has no edge; no moving sheets, point-source collisions with the interface, existence theorem, constitutive inference or empirical claim is included.

Statement

Assume ACω. Let U=I×Ω be a laboratory region, where I⊆R is a nonempty open interval and Ω⊆R3 is open. Use the field and SI conventions of The electric and magnetic fields as fixed-time spatial vector fields, Polarization, magnetization, bound and free sources, and the fields D and H, and Framework-local SI units, the vacuum constants and the exact/measured status of their values: E is measured in V m−1, B in tesla, D in C m−2, and H in A m−1. Let S⊂Ω be a fixed compact two-sided embedded C2 hypersurface without manifold boundary, with unit normal n pointing from the minus side Ω− to the plus side Ω+; write [F]=F+−F−. Let E,B,D,H be locally integrable fields with the joint one-sided spacetime C1 extensions on the two sides used in the stationary-interface theorem. Let the volume charge ρv and volume current Jv be locally integrable and C1 on each side with joint one-sided C1 extensions to S×I. Let σ:S×I→R and K:S×I→R3 be C1, with K⋅n=0. Their SI units are C m−3 for ρv, A m−2 for Jv, C m−2 for σ, and A m−1 for K.

Assume the distributional macroscopic equations with the stationary sheet source pair ρf=ρv+σδS, Jf=Jv+KδS:

div⁡D=ρf,div⁡B=0,curl⁡E=−∂tB,curl⁡H=Jf+∂tD

on U. This is the thin-interface solution assumption of the adopted macroscopic model; it is not inferred from the smooth equations.

Then pointwise on S×I,

n⋅[D]=σ,n⋅[B]=0,n×[E]=0,n×[H]=K,

and

∂tσ+div⁡SK+n⋅[Jv]=0.

Here Div⁡SK is the weak surface divergence of Weak surface divergence of a tangential field. The proof uses Continuous density of the weak surface divergence for a C1 tangent field to identify its unique continuous density for the stated C1 current; div⁡SK denotes that density. The sign of n⋅[Jv] uses [Jv]=Jv,+−Jv,− for the chosen normal. In the stationary-sheet vacuum model, if there is no point-source component in the interface neighbourhood and D=ε0E, H=B/μ0, the adopted distributional vacuum Maxwell equations supply the displayed macroscopic equations, so this theorem applies there as well.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The interface, fields, sources, regularity, units, ACω, and the distributional macroscopic equations of the Statement.

[A1]

The four displayed distributional macroscopic equations with volume sources ρv,Jv and the sheet pair σδS,KδS are the thin-interface solution hypothesis adopted here; they are assumed, not derived from the smooth equations. The published Statement of Stationary macroscopic interface jump conditions for D, B, E and H uses the same equation forms but requires its sheet densities to be stationary in t. Its Statement is therefore not invoked verbatim for the time-dependent C1 densities of this item; the proof-level extension used for the four spatial jumps is justified in step 2.1.

[A2]

For the vacuum specialization only, the adopted distributional vacuum postulate requires div⁡E=ρ/ε0, div⁡B=0, curl⁡E=−∂tB, and curl⁡B=μ0J+c−2∂tE in D′(U) for the declared stationary-sheet source model. Distributional vacuum Maxwell equations for the declared point and stationary-sheet sources

[F1]

The stationary sheet pairings are ρS(ψ)=∫I∫Sσψ dS dt and JS(ψ)=∫I∫SKψ dS dt, with S fixed, n directed from minus to plus, and K⋅n=0. Distributional Maxwell equations with point and stationary-sheet sources

[F2]

The surface distribution is δS(ψ)=∫Sψ dS, and the jump convention is [F]=F+−F− for the same normal orientation. Surface distributions and interfacial jumps

[F3]

For a piecewise C1 volume current with the stated one-sided traces, its distributional divergence is {div⁡Jv}+n⋅[Jv]δS. Distributional divergence and curl across a stationary interface

[F4]

The weak surface divergence is defined by ⟨Div⁡SK,ϕ⟩=−∫SK⋅∇Sϕ dS for C1 scalar tests on S; it is a continuous-density divergence only after that representation is proved. Weak surface divergence of a tangential field

[F11]

For every C1 tangential field on the compact C2 surface, the weak surface divergence has a unique continuous density, represented in a chart by JX−1∂a(JXKa). Continuous density of the weak surface divergence for a C1 tangent field

[F5]

If a continuous density on a compact embedded C2 hypersurface pairs to zero against every ambient smooth compactly supported test, then the density is pointwise zero; this statement assumes ACω. Surface densities with vanishing test pairings vanish

[F6]

Distributional derivatives are linear and commute, and ⟨∂μT,ψ⟩=−⟨T,∂μψ⟩ for compactly supported smooth tests. Distribution Distributional derivative Distributional differentiation is continuous and commutes

[F7]

The SI constants satisfy ε0=(μ0c2)−1, with μ0>0. Framework-local SI units, the vacuum constants and the exact/measured status of their values

[F8]

A locally integrable function whose regular distribution vanishes is zero almost everywhere; the compact embedded C2 hypersurface S is null for three-dimensional Lebesgue measure because it is the image of a two-dimensional C1 manifold in R3. Locally integrable functions embed in distributions The image of a lower-dimensional C1 manifold is null

[F10]

A jointly continuous function on a compact surface times a compact time interval is uniformly bounded there, so dominated convergence makes its surface integral against a fixed continuous test continuous in time. Dominated convergence

[F12]

The notation dS dt on S×I means the product of the finite Borel surface measure of the compact embedded hypersurface and Lebesgue measure on I. For compactly supported continuous integrands, the surface-time integral is finite and agrees with the iterated integral by Fubini. Surface distributions and interfacial jumps Fubini's theorem for L^1 functions on a sigma-finite product

Proof

technique · take the distributional divergence of the macroscopic Ampere equation, expand the volume and sheet divergences with the fixed-interface convention, and identify the continuous surface coefficient. For the four spatial jumps, use the stationary-interface supplier's proof argument with its narrower published Statement distinguished explicitly
1.1A1F6givenalgebra

By [A1], curl⁡H=Jv+KδS+∂tD and div⁡D=ρv+σδS hold in distributions. For any vector distribution H, the coordinate expression for div⁡curl⁡H is ∂1∂2H3−∂1∂3H2+∂2∂3H1−∂2∂1H3+∂3∂1H2−∂3∂2H1=0, because distributional partial derivatives commute by [F6], so the terms cancel in pairs. Taking the divergence of the first equation and substituting the second gives the distributional source-compatibility identity ∂tρv+∂t(σδS)+div⁡Jv+div⁡(KδS)=0.

1.2F1F2F6F9F12givenalgebra

Let ψ∈Cc∞(U) and choose a compact interval J⊂I containing its time support in its interior. The function Φ(x,t):=σ(x,t)ψ(x,t) is C1 on the compact set S×J. Its time difference quotients converge uniformly in x on compact subintervals to ∂tΦ, by uniform continuity of ∂tΦ; since S has finite surface measure, G(t):=∫SΦ(x,t) dS(x) is C1 and G′(t)=∫S((∂tσ)ψ+σ∂tψ) dS. Also G vanishes near the endpoints of J. Using the surface-sheet pairing and one-dimensional integration by parts [F9], ⟨∂t(σδS),ψ⟩=−∫J∫Sσ ∂tψ dS dt=∫J∫S(∂tσ)ψ dS dt. Hence ∂t(σδS)=(∂tσ)δS, with no transport term because S is fixed.

1.3F8F9F12givenalgebra

For any locally integrable scalar or vector field f that is C1 on the two fixed sides of S and has the stated joint one-sided C1 extensions, its distributional time derivative is the regular distribution of its sidewise classical derivative. Indeed, on a compact spacetime cylinder, f=1Ω−f−+1Ω+f+ almost everywhere because S is three-dimensionally null by [F8]. Pairing with a compactly supported test ψ, Fubini gives −∑±∫Ω±∫Jf±(x,t)∂tψ(x,t) dt dλ3(x). For almost every fixed x∈Ω±, one-dimensional integration by parts in t has no endpoint term because ψ is compactly supported in I; the joint one-sided extensions make the sidewise derivatives locally bounded near S, and ordinary C1 regularity gives local integrability away from S. Fubini therefore gives ∫U{∂tf}ψ dλ3dt. For complex-valued tests the same calculation is applied to real and imaginary parts. The indicators of the two sides are independent of time, so no spatial-interface delta occurs. This applies componentwise to D,B, and ρv.

2.1A1F12step 1.3givenalgebra

The four spatial jumps follow from the proof argument of [A1], not by identifying its narrower published Statement with the present hypotheses. That supplier's proof applies the spatial divergence/curl jump formulas at each time, compares the volume and surface coefficients, and then localizes the continuous surface coefficients. These steps use that S is fixed, that D,B,E,H have the stated joint one-sided C1 extensions, and that the sheet densities are continuous; they do not differentiate σ or K in time. Here σ,K are jointly C1, hence continuous and locally integrable on S×I; step 1.3 supplies the same regular time-derivative premise for D,B. Fubini on compactly supported spacetime tests is justified by [F12]. Thus the proof-level jump argument applies to this time-dependent data, giving n⋅[D]=σ, n⋅[B]=0, n×[E]=0, and n×[H]=K as surface-distribution identities. Their coefficients are continuous on S×I, so the supplier's coefficient localization gives the stated pointwise identities. This is the broader consequence of its proof, not its published Statement.

2.2step 1.1step 1.2F1F2F3F4F6F12algebra

The volume-current jump formula [F3] gives div⁡Jv={div⁡Jv}+n⋅[Jv]δS. For the sheet current, pair its distributional divergence with a test ψ: by the distributional derivative definition and K⋅n=0, ⟨div⁡(KδS),ψ⟩=−∫I∫SK⋅∇ψ dS dt=∫I⟨Div⁡SK,ψ∣S⟩ dt. The surface divergence here is the functional of [F4]; the identity uses only that K is tangential and the interface has no edge. Substitution into step 1.1 yields {∂tρv+div⁡Jv}+(∂tσ+n⋅[Jv])δS+Div⁡SK=0.

3.1step 1.3step 2.2F2F8given

By step 1.3, ∂tρv is the regular distribution of a locally integrable sidewise derivative and has no δS term; the other volume coefficient {div⁡Jv} is locally integrable by the one-sided C1 hypotheses. In every open subset disjoint from S, the last two terms of step 2.2 vanish, so ∂tρv+{div⁡Jv} pairs to zero against every compactly supported test there. By [F8] it vanishes almost everywhere on U∖S; because [F8] also gives that S is three-dimensionally null, the coefficient vanishes almost everywhere on all of U. Removing its regular distribution from step 2.2 leaves (∂tσ+n⋅[Jv])δS+Div⁡SK=0 as a surface distribution.

4.1F4F11givenalgebra

For each t∈I, the field K(⋅,t) is a C1 tangential field on the compact C2 surface, so [F11] supplies its unique continuous weak-divergence density. In each chart this density is JX−1∂a(JXKa); since K is jointly C1 and JX is positive and C1, the chart formula is jointly continuous in (x,t). Uniqueness makes these local formulas agree on overlaps. Write this joint continuous function as g(x,t)=div⁡SK(x,t). The definition [F4], integrated against temporal tests, then identifies the surface functional in step 3.1 with the spacetime distribution gδS.

5.1step 3.1step 4.1F5F10givenalgebra

Put q=∂tσ+n⋅[Jv]+g, which is continuous on S×I by the stated joint C1 regularity and step 4.1. The surface-distribution identity in step 3.1 says that for every real ambient spatial test η∈Cc∞(Ω;R) and real temporal test θ∈Cc∞(I;R), ∫Iθ(t)(∫Sq(x,t)η(x) dS(x))dt=0. For fixed η, the real inner pairing p(t):=∫Sq(x,t)η(x) dS(x) is continuous in t by [F10]. If p(t∗)≠0, continuity gives r>0 with [t∗−r,t∗+r]⊂I on which p has the same strict sign as p(t∗). Define θ(t)=exp⁡ ⁣(−1/(1−((t−t∗)/r)2)) for ∣t−t∗∣<r and θ(t)=0 otherwise. This is a nonnegative smooth compactly supported temporal test, positive on that interval, so ∫Iθ(t)p(t) dt has the same strict sign as p(t∗), contradicting the displayed identity. Thus p(t)=0 for every t. Fixing any t and applying [F5] to the continuous density q(⋅,t) shows q(x,t)=0 at every x∈S.

6.1A2F7step 1.1step 2.1algebra∎

For the vacuum specialization, put D=ε0E and H=B/μ0. By [A2], div⁡D=ε0div⁡E=ρ, div⁡B=0, and curl⁡E=−∂tB; also curl⁡H=μ0−1curl⁡B=J+(μ0c2)−1∂tE=J+∂tD in distributions by [F7]. Thus the adopted vacuum stationary-sheet model supplies the thin-interface solution hypothesis [A1] with ρf=ρ and Jf=J in the interface neighbourhood, so the preceding steps apply. This is a model specialization, not a derivation of the vacuum postulate.

5 · Examples, experiments and counterexamples

None yet.

Sources