Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: 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.

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 n≥1, let D⊆R×Rn be open, and let F:D→Rn 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 t0<b be reals, let x0∈Rn with (t0,x0)∈D, and let x:[t0,b)→Rn be a solution of the initial value problem x′=F(t,x), x(t0)=x0 (First-order systems, initial value problems, and solutions on intervals). Suppose x admits no extension past b: there do not exist ε>0 and a solution x~:[t0,b+ε)→Rn of the same initial value problem with x~(t)=x(t) for every t∈[t0,b). Then:

  1. for every compact K⊆D and every η>0 there is t∈(b−η,b)∩[t0,b) with (t,x(t))∉K; that is, the graph of x leaves every compact subset of D that could contain it arbitrarily close to b;
  2. if D=R×U for an open U⊆Rn, F is autonomous, F(t,z)=G(z) with G:U→Rn continuous and locally Lipschitz in the state variable, and there are a compact K0⊆U and δ>0 with x(t)∈K0 for all t∈(b−δ,b)∩[t0,b), then the no-extension hypothesis is false: x does extend past b.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The data of the statement and the no-extension hypothesis on x.

[L1]

Compact continuation: under the hypotheses of the statement without the no-extension hypothesis, if there are a compact K⊆D and δ>0 with (t,x(t))∈K for all t∈(b−δ,b)∩[t0,b), then x extends past b; and the same holds for an autonomous field F(t,z)=G(z) on D=R×U when x(t)∈K0 for a compact K0⊆U and all t∈(b−δ,b)∩[t0,b) (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

technique · contrapositive
1.1givenL1

Clause 1 is the contrapositive of the compact continuation statement in [L1]: if for some compact K⊆D and some η>0 every t∈(b−η,b)∩[t0,b) had (t,x(t))∈K, then [L1] would produce an extension of x past b, contradicting the no-extension hypothesis; hence for every compact K⊆D and every η>0 such a t exists.

2.1step 1.1givenL1∎

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 x past b; therefore no such trapping compact set K0 can exist under the no-extension hypothesis, and a fortiori every autonomous solution that is trapped in such a K0 near b does extend past b.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources