Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedprecheck pending
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 limit of Galerkin solutions is a Sobolev and then a classical solution of the symmetric hyperbolic system

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Countable Choice ACω (The Axiom of Countable Choice (ACω)). Let s≥5 be an integer, let Aμ,B be a periodic symmetric hyperbolic coefficient family on the open set O⊆Rm, let K⊆K1⊆O be compact, let R≥0, and let u0∈Hs(T2π3;Rm) take values in K with ∥u0∥Hs≤R. Let T>0 with [−T,T] contained in the coefficient time domain, let Nj→∞ be strictly increasing, and let uNj:(−T,T)→XNj be Galerkin solutions with uNj(0)=PNju0, values in K1 and ∥uNj(t)∥Hs≤R1 for all t, such that uNj→u uniformly on every compact subinterval of (−T,T) in Hs−1 (as provided by Compactness of H^r-bounded families in H^{r-1} and locally uniform H^{s-1} subsequences of Galerkin solutions clauses (b) and (c)). Then:

(a) u(t)∈Hs for every t and ∥u(t)∥Hs≤CR1 with CR1 independent of t; u takes values in K1; and u∈C0((−T,T);Hs−1)∩L∞((−T,T);Hs);

(b) the distributional time derivative ∂tu is represented by a function in L∞((−T,T);Hs−1) and ∥∂tu∥L∞Hs−1≤C(CR1);

(c) u satisfies the system (⋆) of Periodic first-order symmetric hyperbolic systems: coefficients, admissible values, data classes and solutions in the sense of Sobolev solutions, and in fact u∈C1((−T,T)×T2π3) and solves (⋆) classically with u(0)=u0.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: Countable Choice, integer s≥5, the coefficient family on O, the compact sets K⊆K1⊆O, the bounds R,R1,T, and the Galerkin sequence uNj→u converging uniformly on compact subintervals in Hs−1.

[L1]

Uniform convergence in Hs−1 on compact subintervals controls coefficients and values: Hs−1⊆Cs−3 and s−2≥3>3/2, so on every compact subinterval J′⊆(−T,T) the sequences uNj→u and ∂iuNj→∂iu converge uniformly on J′×T2π3, and the evaluation maps are continuous; since K1 is closed, the limit takes values in K1; moreover u∈C0((−T,T);Hs−1), being a locally uniform limit of the continuous curves uNj (Periodic Sobolev embedding: H^s on the three-torus controls C^m when s minus m exceeds three halves, The 2 pi-periodic three-torus, its normalized measure, test functions and the Sobolev spaces H^s).

[L2]

The Galerkin equations hold: PNj[A0(t,⋅,uNj)∂tuNj+Ai(t,⋅,uNj)∂iuNj+B(t,⋅,uNj)]=0 in L2 for every t, with uNj(0)=PNju0 (The Galerkin system is a smooth finite-dimensional ODE: local existence, smooth dependence and the continuation criterion), and PNψ→ψ in L2 for every ψ∈L2 (The Galerkin projection is self-adjoint, commutes with derivatives, is a contraction in every H^r, converges to the identity and has the sharp Fourier-tail bound clause (d)).

[L3]

Coercivity and inverse bounds: A0(t,x,u)−1 is defined and smoothly dependent on (t,x,u), with operator norm at most a−1 on [−T,T]×T2π3×K1 for some a>0; moreover ∥F(t,⋅,uNj)w∥Hj≤CR1∥w∥Hj for the matrix coefficient maps F=A0,Ai,(A0)−1 (Uniform quadratic-form bounds for positive definite symmetric matrices and smoothness of the inverse, Smooth composition, difference, coefficient product and commutator estimates on bounded H^s data clauses (a),(d)).

[L4]

For gj=∂tuNj there are uniform bounds ∥gj(t)∥Hs−1≤CR1 and ∥gj(t)−gj(t′)∥Hs−2≤CR1∣t−t′∣ on the compact time slab and compact value set K1 (Uniform time-derivative bounds for Galerkin solutions in every H^j, j at most s minus one, Uniform H^{s-2} Lipschitz bound for the time derivative of a Galerkin solution). No convex hull condition is used.

[L5]

Compactness and extraction: the compact-embedding clause of Compactness of H^r-bounded families in H^{r-1} and locally uniform H^{s-1} subsequences of Galerkin solutions with r=s−1 gives, for every bounded sequence in Hs−1, a subsequence convergent in Hs−2; Hs−2 is complete (Completeness of the periodic Sobolev spaces H^s(T^3_{2 pi}; R^N)); hence Locally uniform extraction for X_1-bounded, X_0-Lipschitz families with compact X_1-bounded subsequences with X1:=Hs−1, X0:=Hs−2 extracts from (gj), which is bounded in Hs−1 and Lipschitz in Hs−2 by [L4], a further strictly increasing subsequence converging uniformly on every compact subinterval of (−T,T) in Hs−2 to a continuous limit.

[L6]

The fundamental theorem of calculus for continuous normed-space-valued curves: for the C1 curve uNj:(−T,T)→XNj⊆Hs−2, ∫t′t∂tuNj(s) ds=uNj(t)−uNj(t′) in Hs−2 (Fundamental theorem of calculus for Banach-valued continuous curves).

[L7]

Fourier control at each integer order r≥0 (in particular r=s and r=s−1): for f∈Hr one has ∣f^(k)∣≤∥f∥2 and crNr(f)2≤∥f∥Hr2≤CrNr(f)2 with Nr(f)2=∑k(1+∣k∣2)r∣f^(k)∣2; conversely every class f∈L2 with Nr(f)<∞ lies in Hr. Convergence in Hs−2 or Hs−1 implies convergence of Fourier coefficients. For f∈Hr, PMf→f in Hr by the tails of its convergent weighted Fourier sum (Periodic Fourier differentiation identity and equivalence of the derivative and Fourier-weight Sobolev norms, The Galerkin projection is self-adjoint, commutes with derivatives, is a contraction in every H^r, converges to the identity and has the sharp Fourier-tail bound, The 2 pi-periodic three-torus, its normalized measure, test functions and the Sobolev spaces H^s).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L7algebra

(The limit is in Hs with the uniform bound (a).) Fix t. For every finite F⊆Z3, [L7] gives ∑k∈F(1+∣k∣2)s∣u^(t)(k)∣2=lim⁡j∑k∈F(1+∣k∣2)s∣uNj(t)^(k)∣2≤4sR12; taking the supremum over finite F gives Ns(u(t))2≤4sR12, so u(t)∈Hs and ∥u(t)∥Hs≤CsR1 by the norm equivalence, the bound being uniform in t. Values in K1 and continuity into Hs−1 follow from [L1]. To establish strong measurability into Hs, for each M the finite Fourier sum t↦PMu(t) is continuous into Hs, since its finitely many coefficients are continuous by the Hs−1 continuity. Moreover PMu(t)→u(t) in Hs for every t, by the now finite weighted Fourier sum. Explicitly choose compact intervals JM increasing to (−T,T). On each JM, uniform continuity of PMu permits a finite partition into Borel intervals and a finite-valued simple function hM whose values are sampled from PMu and whose Hs error is at most 1/M; put hM=0 off JM. For every fixed t, eventually t∈JM and ∥hM(t)−u(t)∥Hs≤1/M+∥PMu(t)−u(t)∥Hs→0. Thus u is a pointwise limit of measurable simple functions into Hs, hence strongly measurable, and its uniform norm bound gives the claimed L∞Hs membership. This is (a).

1.2L4L5

(A convergent subsequence of the time derivatives.) Put gj:=∂tuNj. By [L4] the family is bounded in Hs−1 and Lipschitz in Hs−2; by [L5] there is a strictly increasing jn with gjn→g uniformly on every compact subinterval of (−T,T) in Hs−2, for some g∈C0((−T,T);Hs−2). Discarding the complementary terms, rename the subsequence by Nj: still uNj→u on compact subintervals in Hs−1 and now gj→g on compact subintervals in Hs−2.

2.1step 1.1step 1.2L4L6L7algebra

(The time derivative (b).) (i) Let ψ∈Cc∞((−T,T)) and v∈Hs−2; put J′:=supp⁡ψ. By [L6], ∫J′ψ′(t)⟨uNj(t),v⟩dt=−∫J′ψ(t)⟨gj(t),v⟩dt for every j; by step 1.2 the limits ∫J′ψ′⟨u,v⟩dt and ∫J′ψ⟨g,v⟩dt are attained uniformly on J′, so ∫ψ′⟨u,v⟩dt=−∫ψ⟨g,v⟩dt. Hence the Hs−2-valued distributional derivative ∂tu equals the class of g. (ii) Fix t; by step 1.2, gj(t)^(k)→g^(t)(k) for every k [L7], so for every finite K⊆Z3 the finite sums ∑k∈K(1+∣k∣2)s−1∣gj(t)^(k)∣2 are at most cs−1−1∥gj(t)∥Hs−12≤cs−1−1CR12 by [L4]; passing to the limit and taking the supremum over finite K gives Ns−1(g(t))2≤cs−1−1CR12, so g(t)∈Hs−1 with ∥g(t)∥Hs−1≤Cs−11/2cs−1−1/2CR1 by [L7]. For each M, t↦PMg(t) is continuous into Hs−1 because g∈C0Hs−2 and the projection has finite rank, and PMg(t)→g(t) in Hs−1 for each t. Applying the compact-interval simple-function construction of step 1.1 at order s−1 proves strong measurability of g into Hs−1. Thus ∂tu is represented by the function g∈L∞((−T,T);Hs−1), uniformly bounded as asserted. This is (b).

3.1step 1.2step 2.1L1L2L3L4algebra

(The limit solves the equation distributionally (c), first part.) Let ψ∈C∞((−T,T)×T2π3;Rm) have compact support in t. Testing the Galerkin equation [L2] with ψ and using self-adjointness of PNj gives ∫ ⁣ ⁣∫ψT[A0(uNj)∂tuNj+Ai(uNj)∂iuNj+B(uNj)]=∫ ⁣ ⁣∫(ψ−PNjψ)T[⋯ ], and the right-hand side tends to 0 because ψ−PNjψ→0 in L2 [L2] while the bracket is bounded in L∞L2 by [L3] and [L4]. On the left, all factors converge on the compact t-support of ψ: A0(uNj)→A0(u), Ai(uNj)→Ai(u) and B(uNj)→B(u) uniformly by [L1]; ∂iuNj→∂iu uniformly by [L1]; and ∂tuNj=gj→g=∂tu uniformly in Hs−2⊆L2 by step 1.2 and step 2.1; hence the limit is ∫ ⁣ ⁣∫ψT[A0(u)∂tu+Ai(u)∂iu+B(u)]=0 for every test ψ, which is the distributional form of (⋆).

4.1step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1L1L3∎

(Classical regularity and initial value.) From the distributional equation of step 3.1, ∂tu=−(A0(t,⋅,u))−1[Ai(t,⋅,u)∂iu+B(t,⋅,u)] as Hs−2-valued distributions; the right-hand side agrees with the continuous function g=∂tu∈C0((−T,T);Hs−2) as a distribution, so the classical identity ∂tu(t)=−(A0(t,⋅,u(t)))−1[Ai(t,⋅,u(t))∂iu(t)+B(t,⋅,u(t))] holds for every t, both sides being continuous in t. The right-hand side is continuous in (t,x): indeed u∈C0Hs−1 gives ∂iu∈C0Hs−2⊆C0 with s−2>3/2; the inverse coefficient is continuous by [L3]; hence ∂tu has a continuous representative in (t,x). Passing to the limit in uNj(t)−uNj(t′)=∫t′tgj(τ) dτ using the uniform Hs−2 convergence on the segment gives u(t)−u(t′)=∫t′tg(τ) dτ; the continuous-curve fundamental theorem [L6] therefore makes t↦u(t) C1 into Hs−2 with continuous derivative and the first spatial derivatives are continuous, so u∈C1((−T,T)×T2π3) and (⋆) holds pointwise. Finally uNj(0)=PNju0→u0 in Hs−1 and uNj(0)→u(0) by the convergence of step 1.2, so u(0)=u0.

Remarks

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources