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.
Bounded-domain Stokes residual estimate — worked interpretation
Exact rigid-rotation comparison on a bounded ball with a rotating no-slip wall. It exhibits a nonzero centripetal residual absorbed by the pressure while the two velocity fields coincide; it is not an example of a nonzero velocity discrepancy or of an approximation-error estimate against the full momentum equation retaining material acceleration beyond the stated residual bounds. A zero-trace Poincare constant is an explicit input, not a derived claim.
Example
Assume . In SI units, let metres, kilograms per cubic metre, pascal-seconds, inverse seconds, and pascals. On the ball , let the spherical wall rotate rigidly about the -axis with angular velocity and impose no slip. Define
The two velocity fields are smooth and divergence-free, have the same wall velocity, and satisfy respectively the stationary constant-density incompressible Navier–Stokes equation and the restricted steady Stokes comparison equation with zero body acceleration. Let be an explicitly assumed constant such that for every zero-trace vector field; this example does not establish a value for it. Their velocity difference is zero, while the convective residual is . The residual estimates therefore hold for this supplied Poincare input. This exact example has nonzero pressure residual but zero velocity error; it does not demonstrate a nonzero velocity discrepancy.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Assume the SI conventions, the rotating wall and no-slip condition, the parameter values, and the fields stated in the Example.
Classical frames, primitive quantities and SI units: a spatial vector transforms in Euclidean space, velocity has units m s, pressure has units Pa, and have units Pa s and kg m.
Specified wall, thermal, periodic and initial data: for a moving solid wall with velocity , the no-slip condition is on the wall.
Bounded-domain Stokes residual estimate — conditional physical prediction: for already-existing smooth Navier–Stokes and restricted Stokes comparison fields with the same boundary velocity and a zero-trace Poincare constant , the velocity and gradient differences obey the two stated residual estimates.
The Axiom of Countable Choice (): means every sequence of nonempty sets has a choice function; the example carries this exact assumption from the bounded-domain theorem.
The displayed fields and pressures are exact model fields, not measured data; , , , and are selected inputs.
The stated constant satisfies the displayed zero-trace Poincare inequality; its value is assumed and not proved in this example.
Verification
Direct differentiation gives and . The material acceleration is , while and . Therefore and . The rotating spherical wall has velocity , equal to both fluid traces.
Set and . Then . The stated Poincare bound [A2] and all strong-solution hypotheses of [F3] hold. Applying [F3] with the carried assumption [F4] gives and .