Throughout, C 2 C^2 C 2 and C 1 C^1 C 1 refer to C^k Maps on a Euclidean Open Set ; by claim 1 of Shared-Clock Point Insertion into the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Exact Response Identity, Crude Bound, and Linearisation Defect , each ψ c \psi_c ψ c is of class C 2 C^2 C 2 on the open set U × V ⊆ R l + m U\times V\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{l+m} U × V ⊆ R l + m , its partial derivatives satisfy ∣ ∂ i ψ c ∣ ≤ B + K |\partial_i\psi_c|\le B+K ∣ ∂ i ψ c ∣ ≤ B + K and ∣ ∂ j ∂ i ψ c ∣ ≤ 3 K |\partial_j\partial_i\psi_c|\le3K ∣ ∂ j ∂ i ψ c ∣ ≤ 3 K at every point of Δ l × A \Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} Δ l × A , and ψ c ( Σ , α ) = Σ σ β ( σ , γ , Σ , α ) \psi_c(\Sigma,\alpha)=\Sigma^\sigma\beta(\sigma,\gamma,\Sigma,\alpha) ψ c ( Σ , α ) = Σ σ β ( σ , γ , Σ , α ) on Δ l × A \Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} Δ l × A for c = ( σ , γ ) c=(\sigma,\gamma) c = ( σ , γ ) . By clause 2 of C^k Maps on a Euclidean Open Set each ∂ i ψ c \partial_i\psi_c ∂ i ψ c is of class C 1 C^1 C 1 on U × V U\times V U × V , and ψ c \psi_c ψ c and its first partial derivatives are continuous at every point of U × V U\times V U × V by clause 1 (see also claim 3 of Euclidean Space is Open in Itself, and C k C^k C k Maps are Continuous ); such a function F F F is sequentially continuous at every x ∈ U × V x\in U\times V x ∈ U × V : given a sequence x n → x x_n\to x x n → x and ε > 0 \varepsilon>0 ε > 0 , continuity at x x x provides δ > 0 \delta>0 δ > 0 with ∣ F ( x ′ ) − F ( x ) ∣ ≤ ε |F(x')-F(x)|\le\varepsilon ∣ F ( x ′ ) − F ( x ) ∣ ≤ ε whenever d ( x ′ , x ) < δ d(x',x)<\delta d ( x ′ , x ) < δ , and d ( x n , x ) < δ d(x_n,x)<\delta d ( x n , x ) < δ for all large n n n . We use that ∣ v c ∣ = 2 |v_c|=\sqrt{2} ∣ v c ∣ = 2 (as v c = δ γ − δ σ v_c=\delta_\gamma-\delta_\sigma v c = δ γ − δ σ with σ ≠ γ \sigma\neq\gamma σ = γ has exactly two nonzero coordinates, equal to 1 1 1 and − 1 -1 − 1 ), that L \mathcal{L} L has l ( l − 1 ) l(l-1) l ( l − 1 ) elements, that ∣ Σ ∣ ≤ 1 |\Sigma|\le1 ∣Σ∣ ≤ 1 for Σ ∈ Δ l \Sigma\in\Delta^l Σ ∈ Δ l (since ∣ Σ ∣ 2 = ∑ σ ( Σ σ ) 2 ≤ ( ∑ σ Σ σ ) 2 = 1 |\Sigma|^{2}=\sum_\sigma(\Sigma^\sigma)^{2}\le(\sum_\sigma\Sigma^\sigma)^{2}=1 ∣Σ ∣ 2 = ∑ σ ( Σ σ ) 2 ≤ ( ∑ σ Σ σ ) 2 = 1 , the coordinates being nonnegative with sum 1 1 1 ), so that any two points of Δ l \Delta^l Δ l are at distance at most 2 2 2 , and that Δ l \Delta^l Δ l is convex: if Σ , Σ ′ ∈ Δ l \Sigma,\Sigma'\in\Delta^l Σ , Σ ′ ∈ Δ l and τ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] \tau\in[0,1] τ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] , the coordinates of Σ + τ ( Σ ′ − Σ ) = ( 1 − τ ) Σ + τ Σ ′ \Sigma+\tau(\Sigma'-\Sigma)=(1-\tau)\Sigma+\tau\Sigma' Σ + τ ( Σ ′ − Σ ) = ( 1 − τ ) Σ + τ Σ ′ are nonnegative and sum to ( 1 − τ ) + τ = 1 (1-\tau)+\tau=1 ( 1 − τ ) + τ = 1 , so the point lies in Δ l \Delta^l Δ l ; hence for Σ , Σ ′ ∈ Δ l \Sigma,\Sigma'\in\Delta^l Σ , Σ ′ ∈ Δ l and α ∈ A \alpha\in\mathcal{A} α ∈ A the segment between ( Σ , α ) (\Sigma,\alpha) ( Σ , α ) and ( Σ ′ , α ) (\Sigma',\alpha) ( Σ ′ , α ) lies in Δ l × A ⊆ U × V \Delta^l\times\mathcal{A}\subseteq U\times V Δ l × A ⊆ U × V .
Claim 1. For γ ∈ { 1 , … , l } \gamma\in\{1,\dots,l\} γ ∈ { 1 , … , l } the γ \gamma γ -th component of v c v_c v c is 1 1 1 if c = ( σ , γ ) c=(\sigma,\gamma) c = ( σ , γ ) for some σ ≠ γ \sigma\neq\gamma σ = γ , − 1 -1 − 1 if c = ( γ , γ ′ ) c=(\gamma,\gamma') c = ( γ , γ ′ ) for some γ ′ ≠ γ \gamma'\neq\gamma γ ′ = γ , and 0 0 0 otherwise; hence on Δ l × A \Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} Δ l × A
b γ ( Σ , α ) = ∑ σ : σ ≠ γ Σ σ β ( σ , γ , Σ , α ) − ∑ γ ′ : γ ′ ≠ γ Σ γ β ( γ , γ ′ , Σ , α ) , b^{\gamma}(\Sigma,\alpha)=\sum_{\sigma:\sigma\neq\gamma}\Sigma^\sigma\beta(\sigma,\gamma,\Sigma,\alpha)-\sum_{\gamma':\gamma'\neq\gamma}\Sigma^\gamma\beta(\gamma,\gamma',\Sigma,\alpha), b γ ( Σ , α ) = σ : σ = γ ∑ Σ σ β ( σ , γ , Σ , α ) − γ ′ : γ ′ = γ ∑ Σ γ β ( γ , γ ′ , Σ , α ) ,
which is the γ \gamma γ -th component of the aggregate state drift . The identity E ( Σ , α ) z = ∑ c v c ( g c ( Σ , α ) ⋅ z ) \mathcal{E}(\Sigma,\alpha)z=\sum_cv_c(g^{c}(\Sigma,\alpha)\cdot z) E ( Σ , α ) z = ∑ c v c ( g c ( Σ , α ) ⋅ z ) is recalled from the setting of Shared-Clock Point Insertion into the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Exact Response Identity, Crude Bound, and Linearisation Defect , where it follows from the entry formula E γ η = ∑ c v c γ ∂ η ψ c \mathcal{E}^{\gamma\eta}=\sum_cv_c^{\gamma}\partial_\eta\psi_c E γ η = ∑ c v c γ ∂ η ψ c . Since 0 ≤ ψ c ≤ B 0\le\psi_c\le B 0 ≤ ψ c ≤ B on Δ l × A \Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} Δ l × A (the coordinate Σ σ \Sigma^\sigma Σ σ lies in [ 0 , 1 ] [0,1] [ 0 , 1 ] and 0 ≤ β ≤ B 0\le\beta\le B 0 ≤ β ≤ B by clause 1 of Transition-Rate Family ), the triangle inequality gives ∣ b ∣ ≤ ∑ c ∣ v c ∣ ψ c ≤ 2 l ( l − 1 ) B |b|\le\sum_c|v_c|\psi_c\le\sqrt{2}\,l(l-1)B ∣ b ∣ ≤ ∑ c ∣ v c ∣ ψ c ≤ 2 l ( l − 1 ) B ; the bound ∣ g c ∣ ≤ l ( B + K ) |g^{c}|\le\sqrt{l}(B+K) ∣ g c ∣ ≤ l ( B + K ) follows from ∣ ∂ i ψ c ∣ ≤ B + K |\partial_i\psi_c|\le B+K ∣ ∂ i ψ c ∣ ≤ B + K for the l l l components; and ∣ E z ∣ ≤ ∑ c ∣ v c ∣ ∣ g c ⋅ z ∣ ≤ 2 l ( l − 1 ) l ( B + K ) ∣ z ∣ |\mathcal{E}z|\le\sum_c|v_c|\,|g^{c}\cdot z|\le\sqrt{2}\,l(l-1)\sqrt{l}(B+K)|z| ∣ E z ∣ ≤ ∑ c ∣ v c ∣ ∣ g c ⋅ z ∣ ≤ 2 l ( l − 1 ) l ( B + K ) ∣ z ∣ by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality . For measurable x ′ x' x ′ and a ′ a' a ′ the map u ↦ ( x u ′ , a u ′ ) ∈ R l + m u\mapsto(x'_u,a'_u)\in\mathbb{R}^{l+m} u ↦ ( x u ′ , a u ′ ) ∈ R l + m is measurable componentwise, and ψ c \psi_c ψ c , ∂ i ψ c \partial_i\psi_c ∂ i ψ c are continuous on the open set U × V U\times V U × V containing its values, so u ↦ ψ c ( x u ′ , a u ′ ) u\mapsto\psi_c(x'_u,a'_u) u ↦ ψ c ( x u ′ , a u ′ ) and u ↦ ∂ i ψ c ( x u ′ , a u ′ ) u\mapsto\partial_i\psi_c(x'_u,a'_u) u ↦ ∂ i ψ c ( x u ′ , a u ′ ) are measurable by Sequentially Continuous Functions of Measurable Euclidean Maps are Measurable (sequential continuity having been noted above); finite linear combinations of these are measurable by claim 2 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions , and the bounds just proved show boundedness. The absolute value of a measurable function is measurable (claim 4 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions ) and the Euclidean norm of a bounded measurable R l \mathbb{R}^l R l -valued map is bounded measurable (Norm Bound for a Vector-Valued Lebesgue Integral over a Compact Interval ), so u ↦ d u u\mapsto\mathsf{d}_u u ↦ d u is bounded measurable, with d u ≤ l ( l − 1 ) ⋅ 2 l ( B + K ) \mathsf{d}_u\le l(l-1)\cdot2\sqrt{l}(B+K) d u ≤ l ( l − 1 ) ⋅ 2 l ( B + K ) .
Claim 2. Measurability and boundedness of ρ \rho ρ follow from claim 1 and claims 2 and 3 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions (the entries of E ⋆ \mathcal{E}^{\star} E ⋆ are continuous, hence bounded measurable by claim 4 of Measurability of Countable Suprema, Bounded Pointwise Limits, Monotone Functions, and Continuous Functions and Continuous Real-Valued Functions on a Compact Interval are Bounded , and e e e is bounded measurable with ∣ e u ∣ ≤ 2 |e_u|\le2 ∣ e u ∣ ≤ 2 by the preliminary remarks). Fix u ∈ [ 0 , T ] u\in[0,T] u ∈ [ 0 , T ] and a label c c c . Apply part (ii) of Multivariate Taylor Expansion with Uniform Second-Order Remainder to f = ψ c f=\psi_c f = ψ c on W = U × V W=U\times V W = U × V with n = l + m n=l+m n = l + m , at the points ( y u , a u ) (y_u,a_u) ( y u , a u ) and ( x u , a u ) (x_u,a_u) ( x u , a u ) , whose segment lies in Δ l × A \Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} Δ l × A by convexity, with h = ( e u , 0 ) h=(e_u,0) h = ( e u , 0 ) , ∣ h ∣ = ∣ e u ∣ |h|=|e_u| ∣ h ∣ = ∣ e u ∣ and M 2 = 3 K M_2=3K M 2 = 3 K : since h i = 0 h_i=0 h i = 0 for i > l i>l i > l ,
∣ ψ c ( x u , a u ) − ψ c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( y u , a u ) ⋅ e u ∣ ≤ 1 2 ( l + m ) 3 K ∣ e u ∣ 2 = Λ 2 ∣ e u ∣ 2 . \bigl|\psi_c(x_u,a_u)-\psi_c(y_u,a_u)-g^{c}(y_u,a_u)\cdot e_u\bigr|\le\tfrac12(l+m)\,3K\,|e_u|^{2}=\Lambda_2|e_u|^{2}. ψ c ( x u , a u ) − ψ c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( y u , a u ) ⋅ e u ≤ 2 1 ( l + m ) 3 K ∣ e u ∣ 2 = Λ 2 ∣ e u ∣ 2 .
Next apply part (i) of the same lemma to f = ∂ i ψ c f=\partial_i\psi_c f = ∂ i ψ c (i ≤ l i\le l i ≤ l ), of class C 1 C^1 C 1 on W W W , at the points ( S u , a u ) (S_u,a_u) ( S u , a u ) and ( y u , a u ) (y_u,a_u) ( y u , a u ) with h = ( y u − S u , 0 ) h=(y_u-S_u,0) h = ( y u − S u , 0 ) and M 1 = 3 K M_1=3K M 1 = 3 K : ∣ ∂ i ψ c ( y u , a u ) − ∂ i ψ c ( S u , a u ) ∣ ≤ l + m 3 K ∣ y u − S u ∣ |\partial_i\psi_c(y_u,a_u)-\partial_i\psi_c(S_u,a_u)|\le\sqrt{l+m}\,3K\,|y_u-S_u| ∣ ∂ i ψ c ( y u , a u ) − ∂ i ψ c ( S u , a u ) ∣ ≤ l + m 3 K ∣ y u − S u ∣ , so that, summing the squares of the l l l components, ∣ g c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( S u , a u ) ∣ ≤ l l + m 3 K ∣ y u − S u ∣ = Λ 3 ∣ y u − S u ∣ |g^{c}(y_u,a_u)-g^{c}(S_u,a_u)|\le\sqrt{l}\sqrt{l+m}\,3K\,|y_u-S_u|=\Lambda_3|y_u-S_u| ∣ g c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( S u , a u ) ∣ ≤ l l + m 3 K ∣ y u − S u ∣ = Λ 3 ∣ y u − S u ∣ . Now, by claim 1,
ρ u = ∑ c v c ( ψ c ( x u , a u ) − ψ c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( y u , a u ) ⋅ e u ) + ∑ c v c ( ( g c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( S u , A u ) ) ⋅ e u ) , \rho_u=\sum_{c}v_c\Bigl(\psi_c(x_u,a_u)-\psi_c(y_u,a_u)-g^{c}(y_u,a_u)\cdot e_u\Bigr)+\sum_{c}v_c\Bigl(\bigl(g^{c}(y_u,a_u)-g^{c}(S_u,\mathsf{A}_u)\bigr)\cdot e_u\Bigr), ρ u = c ∑ v c ( ψ c ( x u , a u ) − ψ c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( y u , a u ) ⋅ e u ) + c ∑ v c ( ( g c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( S u , A u ) ) ⋅ e u ) ,
and ∣ ( g c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( S u , A u ) ) ⋅ e u ∣ ≤ ( Λ 3 ∣ y u − S u ∣ + ∣ g c ( S u , a u ) − g c ( S u , A u ) ∣ ) ∣ e u ∣ |(g^{c}(y_u,a_u)-g^{c}(S_u,\mathsf{A}_u))\cdot e_u|\le\bigl(\Lambda_3|y_u-S_u|+|g^{c}(S_u,a_u)-g^{c}(S_u,\mathsf{A}_u)|\bigr)|e_u| ∣ ( g c ( y u , a u ) − g c ( S u , A u )) ⋅ e u ∣ ≤ ( Λ 3 ∣ y u − S u ∣ + ∣ g c ( S u , a u ) − g c ( S u , A u ) ∣ ) ∣ e u ∣ by the triangle inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality . Taking norms, using ∣ v c ∣ = 2 |v_c|=\sqrt{2} ∣ v c ∣ = 2 and summing over the l ( l − 1 ) l(l-1) l ( l − 1 ) labels gives the stated bound.
Claim 3. Put z t = e t − m t z_t=e_t-\mathfrak{m}_t z t = e t − m t , a bounded measurable map. Subtracting the two integral equations of the statement and using linearity of the integral,
z t = e 0 + ∫ [ 0 , t ] ( b ( x u , a u ) − b ( y u , a u ) ) d u = e 0 + ∫ [ 0 , t ] ( E u ⋆ z u + g u ) d u , g u : = E u ⋆ m u + ρ u , z_t=e_0+\int_{[0,t]}\bigl(b(x_u,a_u)-b(y_u,a_u)\bigr)\,du=e_0+\int_{[0,t]}\bigl(\mathcal{E}^{\star}_u z_u+g_u\bigr)\,du,\qquad g_u:=\mathcal{E}^{\star}_u\mathfrak{m}_u+\rho_u, z t = e 0 + ∫ [ 0 , t ] ( b ( x u , a u ) − b ( y u , a u ) ) d u = e 0 + ∫ [ 0 , t ] ( E u ⋆ z u + g u ) d u , g u := E u ⋆ m u + ρ u ,
since b ( x u , a u ) − b ( y u , a u ) = E u ⋆ e u + ρ u = E u ⋆ z u + E u ⋆ m u + ρ u b(x_u,a_u)-b(y_u,a_u)=\mathcal{E}^{\star}_ue_u+\rho_u=\mathcal{E}^{\star}_uz_u+\mathcal{E}^{\star}_u\mathfrak{m}_u+\rho_u b ( x u , a u ) − b ( y u , a u ) = E u ⋆ e u + ρ u = E u ⋆ z u + E u ⋆ m u + ρ u by the definition of ρ \rho ρ and claim 1 of Linearity, Compatibility with the Matrix Product, and a Norm Bound for the Matrix-Vector Product . Here g g g is bounded measurable (claims 1 and 2). By claims 2 and 3 of Variation of Constants with Bounded Measurable Forcing and the Two-Parameter Fundamental Solution applied with k = l k=l k = l , A ( u ) = E u ⋆ A(u)=\mathcal{E}^{\star}_u A ( u ) = E u ⋆ , ξ = e 0 \xi=e_0 ξ = e 0 and this g g g , the bounded measurable solution z z z is given by z t = Φ ( t ) e 0 + ∫ [ 0 , t ] Φ E ( t , u ) g u d u z_t=\Phi(t)e_0+\int_{[0,t]}\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,u)g_u\,du z t = Φ ( t ) e 0 + ∫ [ 0 , t ] Φ E ( t , u ) g u d u , where Φ ( t ) = Φ E ( t , 0 ) \Phi(t)=\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,0) Φ ( t ) = Φ E ( t , 0 ) because Ψ ( 0 ) = I l \Psi(0)=I_l Ψ ( 0 ) = I l by claim 2 of Fundamental Solution and Variation of Constants for Linear Ordinary Differential Equations . Adding m t \mathfrak{m}_t m t and splitting the integral by linearity gives the identity of claim 3; the integrands u ↦ Φ E ( t , u ) E u ⋆ m u u\mapsto\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,u)\mathcal{E}^{\star}_u\mathfrak{m}_u u ↦ Φ E ( t , u ) E u ⋆ m u and u ↦ Φ E ( t , u ) ρ u u\mapsto\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,u)\rho_u u ↦ Φ E ( t , u ) ρ u are bounded measurable by claim 2 of Variation of Constants with Bounded Measurable Forcing and the Two-Parameter Fundamental Solution .
Claim 4. By claim 3, e t − Φ E ( t , 0 ) e 0 − L t ( m ) = ∫ [ 0 , t ] Φ E ( t , u ) ρ u d u e_t-\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,0)e_0-L_t(\mathfrak{m})=\int_{[0,t]}\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,u)\rho_u\,du e t − Φ E ( t , 0 ) e 0 − L t ( m ) = ∫ [ 0 , t ] Φ E ( t , u ) ρ u d u , whose norm is at most ∫ [ 0 , t ] ∣ Φ E ( t , u ) ρ u ∣ d u ≤ Φ ˉ 2 ∫ [ 0 , t ] ∣ ρ u ∣ d u \int_{[0,t]}|\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,u)\rho_u|\,du\le\bar{\Phi}^{2}\int_{[0,t]}|\rho_u|\,du ∫ [ 0 , t ] ∣ Φ E ( t , u ) ρ u ∣ d u ≤ Φ ˉ 2 ∫ [ 0 , t ] ∣ ρ u ∣ d u by Norm Bound for a Vector-Valued Lebesgue Integral over a Compact Interval , the bound ∣ Φ E ( t , u ) y ∣ ≤ Φ ˉ 2 ∣ y ∣ |\Phi^{\mathcal{E}}(t,u)y|\le\bar{\Phi}^{2}|y| ∣ Φ E ( t , u ) y ∣ ≤ Φ ˉ 2 ∣ y ∣ of the statement, and monotonicity of the integral .