A Negative Answer to Harrach's Question on the Potential Map in the Unified Eddy-Current Formulation
Manuscript 30 September 2026 · Online 30 September 2026
Abstract
In the unified variational formulation of the parabolic-elliptic eddy-current equations due to Arnold and Harrach, the electric field is written as E = A + ∇φ_A, where A is divergence free and φ_A solves div(σ∇φ_A) = −div(σA). To solve this equation, Arnold and Harrach assume a conductivity σ that is bounded below on its support, and a support made of finitely many Lipschitz domains with disjoint closures. Harrach asked whether the map A ↦ φ_A can be defined for general nonnegative σ ∈ L^∞(ℝ³). We show that it cannot. Let σ be the indicator function of a cyclic necklace of n ≥ 3 closed balls in which consecutive balls touch at one point, or a smooth function that is positive exactly on the open balls. Then there is a smooth, compactly supported, divergence-free field A* for which no φ ∈ H¹_loc(ℝ³) solves div(σ(A* + ∇φ)) = 0. A solid torus whose conductivity is positive almost everywhere but vanishes at least linearly across one cross-section (σ ≤ C|sin(θ/2)|, with θ the azimuth) gives the same conclusion. So neither hypothesis can simply be dropped, although we do not claim that either is necessary. In both examples the eddy-current equation with zero initial data and a smooth divergence-free source that vanishes near the conductor has no solution in L²(0,T;W(curl)). On the positive side, the product σ(A + ∇φ_A), which is what the unified formulation uses, can be defined for every σ ≥ 0 by a weighted orthogonal projection. With this definition the unified formulation stays uniquely solvable and uniformly coercive, and it controls every solution of the eddy-current equation. The eddy-current equation is solvable exactly when, for almost every t, the potential equation for the solution A(t) of the unified formulation has a solution φ(t) ∈ H¹_loc(ℝ³), with ∇φ(·) ∈ L²(0,T;L²_ρ). The ingredients are classical: points have zero capacity, and the energy between touching balls diverges logarithmically. This is an unrefereed note.
Record
- Affiliation
- Mercury Software GmbH
- Contact
- [email protected] · GitHub
- Result
- Complete counterexample
- Categories
- math.AP · math.FA
- Manuscript
- 30 September 2026
- Online release
- 30 September 2026
- Version
- 1.1
- License
- Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Files and verification
The PDF is the canonical reading copy. The source archive contains the LaTeX manuscript, bibliography, reproducibility material, and audit documents without build artefacts.
Citation
Alper Ferudun, “A Negative Answer to Harrach's Question on the Potential Map in the Unified Eddy-Current Formulation,” EulerSolve Research Papers, OWR-11578-001, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23049958.
BibTeX
@misc{Ferudun2026OWR11578001,
author = {Ferudun, Alper},
title = {A Negative Answer to Harrach's Question on the Potential Map in the Unified Eddy-Current Formulation},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {EulerSolve Research Papers},
url = {https://eulersolve.org/papers/owr-11578-001/},
doi = {10.5281/zenodo.23049958},
note = {OWR-11578-001; unrefereed preprint}
}