Documentation

LeanPool.Superdiffusion.Algsuperdiff.Section4.Provider.Regularity.StepSevenCaccMatching

StepSevenCaccMatching #

Ported from scottnarmstrong/Superdiffusion at 7f20476385d4af418f110303085ad0740c9eba46. Module imports, support namespace and local option directives adapted for Lean Pool.

t.regularity Step 7c: matching l.coarse.grained.Caccioppoli.RHS to the Β§4.4 data #

The target, and the gap this module closes #

Step 7c says only

Since n' is a good scale, we may apply the coarse-grained Caccioppoli inequality and the oscillation bound e.oscillation.Holder.bound at scale n' to obtain a gradient bound.

The exponent pin (the one real choice, and it is forced) #

The Caccioppoli's forcing slot is 𝐠 ∈ H^{2t}. So the §4.4 datum determines t completely:

      2 t  =  s_{§4.4}  =  1/4       ⟹      t = 1/8 = stepSevenCaccT

and the Caccioppoli's own first exponent is taken to be s_{Β§4.4} = 1/4 as well, giving

      Οƒ  =  1 - 1/4 - 1/8  =  5/8  >  0 .

Nothing else is available: any other t would measure the forcing at an exponent Β§4.4 never produces.

The binder-by-binder match #

Each binder of l.coarse.grained.Caccioppoli.RHS, against the Β§4.4 datum that discharges it.

The two residues, stated exactly #

(R1) the βˆ‡h leg is not formalized anywhere. CoarseGraining proves l.coarse.grained.Caccioppoli.RHS only at zero localized boundary data: its datum BoundaryForcedCaccioppoliDatum carries LocalizedZeroTraceFunctionOn, and its right-hand side boundaryCaccioppoliWithRHSRHS has exactly two summands (the parent LΒ² mass and the 𝐠-Besov mass). The printed third summand t^{-3} Ξ›_t(β–‘_0;𝐚) β€–βˆ‡hβ€–Β²_{H^{2t}(β–‘_0)} comes from move 3 of the printed proof, which is not formalized here (it needs the mean-zero-boundary fractional Sobolev embedding e.fractional.Sobolev.embedding.zero.bndr applied to h itself). The boundary cubes of Theorem C consume the estimate with the h-term switched on but never need it in the β€–βˆ‡hβ€–-only normal form, so the boundary-data defect is carried as data β€” it vanishes identically on interior cubes. The Step-7c display therefore carries the βˆ‡h leg as an opaque scalar (dataH, guarded by the indicator 1_{z βˆ‰ β–‘_{m-1}}), and this module makes no claim about it.

(R2) the truncated window is not a cube. Every proved form of the lemma lives on a triadic cube (caccioppoliCoreSet Q x βŠ† openCubeSet Q), while Β§4.4's window is the truncation U_j = (z + β–‘_j) ∩ β–‘_m.

References #

1. The exponent pin #

The Caccioppoli's first exponent at the Β§4.4 pin. It is Β§4.4's own s = 1/4 (e.parameter.choices.regularity).

Equations
Instances For

    The Caccioppoli's second exponent at the §4.4 pin. Determined by the forcing slot: l.coarse.grained.Caccioppoli.RHS measures 𝐠 in H^{2t}, and §4.4 measures it in H^{1/4}, so 2t = 1/4.

    Equations
    Instances For

      The pin, in the form that states WHY it is forced: twice the Caccioppoli's second exponent is Β§4.4's own exponent, so the forcing slot H^{2t} IS the H^{1/4} slot of Steps 4--7.

      2. The prefactor and the forcing factor at the pin #

      3. The coarse-grained Caccioppoli, at the Β§4.4 pin #

      l.coarse.grained.Caccioppoli.RHS, instantiated at the Β§4.4 exponent pin.

      For every triadic cube Q, every coefficient family a, every forced HΒΉ(Q) solution u whose Dirichlet patch x + β–‘_{Q.scale-1} sits inside Q, and every real c,

        ⨍_{β–‘_Q ∩ (x+β–‘_{Q.scale-2})} βˆ‡u Β· 𝐚 βˆ‡u
            ≀  prefactor(C,Q,a,1/4,1/8) Β·
               ( Ξ»_{1/8,1} Β· 3^{-2Β·scale} Β· β€–u - cβ€–Β²_{LΒ²(Q)}
                 + 8^8·(4/3) · λ_{1/8,1}^{-1} · [𝐠]²_{B^{1/4}(Q)} ) ,
      

      with the forcing seminorm displayed at Β§4.4's own exponent stepOneS = 1/4 (this is the pin 2t = s_{Β§4.4}, two_mul_stepSevenCaccT).

      Unconditional in d; the surviving hypotheses are exactly the pinned lemma's own equation, patch and forcing-regularity binders. The βˆ‡h leg of the printed display is absent β€” see residue (R1) of the module docstring.