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.
A non-extendable solution leaves every compact subset of the domain near its finite endpoint; an autonomous solution trapped in a compact subset of its state domain cannot break down there
Statement
Let , let be open, and let be continuous and locally Lipschitz in the state variable in the sense of Local Lipschitz continuity in the state variable, locally uniform in time and parameters. Let be reals, let with , and let be a solution of the initial value problem , (First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals). Suppose admits no extension past : there do not exist and a solution of the same initial value problem with for every . Then:
- for every compact and every there is with ; that is, the graph of leaves every compact subset of that could contain it arbitrarily close to ;
- if for an open , is autonomous, with continuous and locally Lipschitz in the state variable, and there are a compact and with for all , then the no-extension hypothesis is false: does extend past .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The data of the statement and the no-extension hypothesis on .
Compact continuation: under the hypotheses of the statement without the no-extension hypothesis, if there are a compact and with for all , then extends past ; and the same holds for an autonomous field on when for a compact and all (Compact continuation for locally Lipschitz ODEs: a solution whose graph stays in a compact subset of the domain near a finite endpoint extends past it).
Proof
Clause 1 is the contrapositive of the compact continuation statement in [L1]: if for some compact and some every had , then [L1] would produce an extension of past , contradicting the no-extension hypothesis; hence for every compact and every such a exists.
Clause 2 likewise contradicts the no-extension hypothesis: the autonomy and trapping hypotheses are exactly those of the second part of [L1], which would give an extension of past ; therefore no such trapping compact set can exist under the no-extension hypothesis, and a fortiori every autonomous solution that is trapped in such a near does extend past .
Depends on
Compact continuation for locally Lipschitz ODEs: a solution whose graph stays in a compact subset of the domain near a finite endpoint extends past it
First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals
Local Lipschitz continuity in the state variable, locally uniform in time and parameters
Dependency tree · 2 levels
Sources
- Gerald Teschl, Ordinary Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems, §2.6, Corollary 2.16, printed p. 53: if the maximal right endpoint is finite the solution eventually leaves every compact set
- Julien Arino, MATH 8430 Fundamental Theory of Ordinary Differential Equations (University of Manitoba), §1.3, Theorem 1.3.3 and Corollary 1.3.4, printed pp. 25-26: failure of continuation forces the solution to approach the boundary of the domain