Alphabeta Math
PropositionStatement: AI-adaptedProof: AI-generatedPipeline-generatedprecheck pendingverified 2026-10-23 (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Lipschitz observable bias under bounded law shift

Statement

Let (Z,Σ) be a measurable space and let μ be a probability measure on it, meaning a countably additive measure on Σ with μ(Z)=1. Let X be a real normed vector space and give it the norm-Borel σ-algebra generated by its norm-open sets. Let S,S~:Z→X be measurable maps. Let J:X→R be L-Lipschitz, meaning ∣J(x)−J(y)∣≤L∥x−y∥X for all x,y∈X, with L≥0. Suppose

∫Z(∥S∥X2+∥S~∥X2) dμ<∞,∫Z∥S−S~∥X2 dμ≤ε2

for some finite ε≥0. For a measurable scalar function h, write ∥h∥L2(μ)=(∫Z∣h∣2 dμ)1/2. Let g:Z→[0,∞) be measurable with ∫g dμ=1 and g≤C μ-almost everywhere for a finite C≥1, and define the target probability law by ν(E)=∫Eg dμ for E∈Σ, with target expectation Eν[H]=∫Hg dμ whenever the integral exists. Then the measurable scalar observables J∘S and J∘S~ are ν-integrable and

∣Eν[J(S)]−Eν[J(S~)]∣≤LC ε.

The estimate assumes a population mean-square error under μ and a bounded target density g; a finite test sample by itself establishes neither assumption. The state space may represent fluid fields when that measurable state model is supplied. For a physical application, both observables must use the same declared scalar unit; this mathematical proposition assigns no physical units.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The measurable space, normed state space, maps, Lipschitz observable, probability measure, population moment bounds, target density, and constant C stated above.

[A1]

S,S~ are measurable and have the finite second moments displayed in the Statement; J is L-Lipschitz.

[A2]

g≥0, ∫g dμ=1, and g≤C μ-almost everywhere; target expectations use the stated density integral.

[F1]

Random fluid observable and numerical approximation: a supplied measurable random state may take values in a specified measurable state or path space, and a real observable is its measurable scalar composition; physical outputs compared as a bias must use the same declared scalar unit. The Statement supplies a normed state space, measurable maps, Lipschitz J, and the needed moment assumptions, and assigns no units.

[F2]

Holder's inequality for integrals, including the endpoint cases: for measurable square-integrable real functions a,b, ∫∣ab∣ dμ≤∥a∥L2(μ)∥b∥L2(μ).

Proof

Given: The hypotheses in [A1]–[A2] and the supplier interfaces in [F1]–[F2].

1.1A1A2F1F2algebra

The Lipschitz map J is continuous, so the measurable state maps make J∘S and J∘S~ measurable scalar observables as in [F1]. By [A2], ∫g2dμ≤C∫gdμ=C, hence ∥g∥L2(μ)≤C. For every z∈Z, ∣J(S(z))∣≤∣J(0)∣+L∥S(z)∥X; [F2] and [A1] therefore give ∫∣J(S)∣g dμ≤∣J(0)∣+L∥∥S∥X∥L2(μ)∥g∥L2(μ)<∞. The same estimate with S~ proves both target expectations are finite.

2.1A1A2step 1.1algebra

The target-density definition and Lipschitz condition give ∣Eν[J(S)]−Eν[J(S~)]∣=∣∫(J(S)−J(S~))g dμ∣≤L∫∥S−S~∥Xg dμ. The integral is well-defined by step 1.1 and g≥0.

3.1A1A2F2step 1.1

Apply [F2] to ∥S−S~∥X and g, then use the mean-square bound in [A1] and ∥g∥2≤C from step 1.1. This bounds the last integral in step 2.1 by εC.

4.1A1step 2.1step 3.1algebra∎

Multiplying the step 3.1 bound by L in step 2.1 proves the claimed inequality.

Depends on

Dependency tree · 2 levels

Sources