Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Mass-conserving weak solutions to the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation in the presence of mass transfer

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves existence of mass-conserving weak solutions to the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation with mass transfer for power-law collision kernels, with a global/finite-time dichotomy and finite superlinear moments at all…

desk verdict Solid homogeneous-kernel extension with a real σ2=0 gap in Theorem 2.7 and a uniqueness proof that is cited rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15561 v2 pith:B5ISJAHJ submitted 2024-11-23 math.AP

Ram Gopal Jaiswal , Ankik Kumar Giri This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 45K0535F2035R09
keywords nonlinearfragmentationcollision-inducedbreakagemasstransferweaksolutionsconservationuniquenesssuperlinearmomentscoagulation-fragmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation with mass transfer—a model for collisions that break particles into fragments, some of which can be larger than either parent—has mass-conserving weak solutions for collision kernels of the form $\Phi(x,y)=\kappa(x^{\sigma_1}y^{\sigma_2}+y^{\sigma_1}x^{\sigma_2})$ with $0\le \sigma_1\le \sigma_2\le 1$, $\sigma_1\neq 1$, and integrable daughter distributions. The solution exists for all time when the kernel has at least linear growth ($\sigma=\sigma_1+\sigma_2\in[1,2)$ or $\gamma=2$), and only up to an explicit finite time when the kernel grows sublinearly ($\sigma\in[0,1)$ with $\gamma>2$). In both regimes, every superlinear moment $\mu_m(u(t))$ is finite for each $t>0$ even if the initial datum has infinite superlinear moments, and the solution conserves mass exactly. If the initial datum has finite moment of order $1+\sigma_2$, the weak solution is unique. This matters because the model is used for raindrop and particle-size evolution in cloud physics and astrophysics, and it extends earlier existence results that were limited to kernels bounded by a constant multiple of $x+y$.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a differential inequality for superlinear moments. From assumption (1.16) and the kernel (1.13), the time derivative of $\mu_m$ is bounded above by positive products of lower moments minus $\kappa\kappa_m\mu_{m+\sigma_2}\mu_{\sigma_1}$ (inequality (3.22)); a lower bound on $\mu_{\sigma_1}$—obtained either from assumption (2.7) in Theorem 2.5 or from the negative-moment bound (2.13) in Theorem 2.7—makes the negative term dominate, yielding the superlinear moment estimate (3.20) after a comparison-principle argument. A convex test function $\psi$ with controlled growth, supplied by results in [26], converts those estimates into uniform integrability, and the weak $L^1$ compactness technique from [31] plus time equicontinuity (Lemma 3.7) produce the convergent subsequence; mass conservation is recovered from the truncated mass identity (3.9). Uniqueness is inherited from the corresponding argument in [18, Proposition 1.6].

What would settle it

Run a high-resolution numerical solution of (1.1) with a kernel of the form (1.13) with $\sigma\in[1,2)$ and a breakage kernel satisfying (1.3), (1.5), (1.14), (1.15), (1.16), starting from $u_{\mathrm{in}}\in\Xi_0\cap\Xi_1$; the theorem predicts $\mu_1(u(t))$ stays constant and $\mu_m(u(t))$ follows (2.11) at all positive times, so a resolved simulation showing mass loss or superlinear-moment blow-up before $T_{\gamma,\sigma}$ would refute the claimed existence and conservation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper proves two existence theorems (Theorems 2.5 and 2.7) for the weak formulation of (1.1)-(1.2). Under the uniform high-moment assumption (1.16) and the integrability and regularity conditions (1.3), (1.5), (1.14), (1.15), there is at least one non-negative mass-conserving weak solution on the interval $[0,T_{\gamma,\sigma})$, where $T_{\gamma,\sigma}=\infty$ for $\sigma\in[1,2)$ or $\gamma=2$, and $T_{\gamma,\sigma}=T_\star(u_{\mathrm{in}})=\mu_0(u_{\mathrm{in}})^{\sigma-1}/(\kappa(1-\sigma)(\gamma-2)\rho^\sigma)$ for $\sigma\in[0,1)$ with $\gamma>2$. The constructed solution satisfies $\mu_m(u(t))\le C(m,T)(1+t^{-1})^{(m-1)/\sigma_2}$ for every $m>1$ and $t\in(0,T)$, with a uniform bound $\max\{\mu_m(u_{\mathrm{in}}), C_2(m,T)\}$ when $u_{\mathrm{in}}\in\Xi_m$; Theorem 2.10 then gives uniqueness whenever $\mu_{1+\sigma_2}(u_{\mathrm{in}})<\infty$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the uniform high-moment control (1.16): for every $m>1$, the $m$-th moment of the fragment distribution must stay below $(1-\kappa_m)(x^m+y^m)+\varsigma_m(xy^{m-1}+yx^{m-1})$ with a strictly positive margin $\kappa_m$; if that margin fails, the negative term in the superlinear-moment inequality disappears and the compactness argument loses its control.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For kernels with $\sigma\in[1,2)$ or $\gamma=2$, the solution is global, so no finite-time blow-up occurs within this class.
  • For sublinear kernels with $\gamma>2$, existence is only guaranteed up to the explicit time $T_\star$, after which the model may develop a singularity in the number density.
  • Every constructed solution conserves mass exactly: $\mu_1(u(t))=\mu_1(u_{\mathrm{in}})$ for all $t$ in the existence interval.
  • Superlinear moments become finite instantly: for every $t>0$ and every $m>1$, $\mu_m(u(t))\le C(m,T)(1+t^{-1})^{(m-1)/\sigma_2}$, even when the initial datum has infinite superlinear moments.
  • If $u_{\mathrm{in}}\in\Xi_{1+\sigma_2}$, the mass-conserving weak solution is unique on the whole existence interval.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable corollary of the proof is that the same a priori estimates should hold for finite sums of kernels with the same homogeneity $\sigma$, as the paper notes in Remark 1.1; this would cover gravitational kernels such as $\Phi(x,y)=(xy)^{1/2}(x+y)^{1/2}(x^{1/3}+y^{1/3})$ used in astrophysical settings.
  • The $t^{-(m-1)/\sigma_2}$ singularity at $t=0$ suggests an instantaneous-regularization mechanism: arbitrarily heavy tails in the initial data are smoothed immediately, and numerical experiments could check whether this rate is sharp.
  • The finite-time boundary $T_\star$ for sublinear kernels with $\gamma>2$ predicts a threshold where the number of particles diverges while mass is conserved; this is a natural place to look for a shattering-like transition in the presence of mass transfer.
  • The excluded case $\sigma_1=1$, which includes the multiplicative kernel $xy$, remains open for this mass-transfer model, as the paper itself notes in Remark 2.9; the methods here do not resolve whether mass-conserving weak solutions exist there.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation with mass transfer, equation (1.1)-(1.2), for collision kernels of the form Φ(x,y) = κ(x^{σ1} y^{σ2} + y^{σ1} x^{σ2}) with 0 ≤ σ1 ≤ σ2 ≤ 1, σ1 ≠ 1, and integrable daughter distribution functions satisfying (1.3), (1.5), (1.14)-(1.16). The main results are Theorem 2.5 and Theorem 2.7, which assert existence of mass-conserving weak solutions on [0,T_{γ,σ}), with T_{γ,σ} = ∞ for σ ∈ [1,2) or γ = 2 and finite T_* for σ ∈ [0,1), γ > 2. Both theorems also assert that, for every m > 1 and every t > 0, the superlinear moment μ_m(u(t)) is finite even if the initial superlinear moments are infinite, with explicit bounds of the form C(1+t^{-1})^{(m-1)/σ2}. Theorem 2.10 claims uniqueness under u_in ∈ Ξ_{1+σ2}, citing previous work. The proof strategy is a weak L1-compactness approach: truncation, uniform moment estimates, a de la Vallée Poussin type weight, uniform integrability, time equicontinuity, and passage to the limit.

Significance. If correct for the stated range, the paper would extend the existence theory of Giri and Laurençot from linear-growth kernels to a class of power-like kernels with sublinear growth, and it would provide a non-trivial regularization statement for superlinear moments. The argument is largely self-contained and uses standard compactness tools; the moment differential inequality and the ψ-estimate are clearly central. However, the advertised range includes σ2 = 0, and the proof of the superlinear moment estimates divides by σ2. Since the constant kernel (σ1 = σ2 = 0) is explicitly within the theorem statements and abstract, the scope of the main claim needs correction: for σ2 = 0 the claimed regularization of infinite superlinear moments is not only unproved but is false for a natural example. The existence part may be salvageable by restricting σ2 > 0, but as written the main results overstate what is established.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3.1, Lemma 3.4 and Theorems 2.5(a), 2.7(a)] The estimate (3.20) and the supersolution below (3.27) are not defined when σ2 = 0, because X(t) = (R1 + R2 t^{-1})^{(m-1)/σ2} and R2 = m/(σ2 Π7(m)) involve division by σ2. The theorems, however, explicitly include σ2 = 0 (for instance σ1 = σ2 = 0, the constant collision kernel). When σ2 = 0, the differential inequality (3.27) reduces to the linear inequality d/dt μ_m + Π7 μ_m ≤ Π6, so the t^{-(m-1)/σ2} regularization mechanism, which is the only device converting infinite initial superlinear moments into finite ones at positive times, is no longer available. This is not merely a technical gap: the asserted conclusion is false in this case. Take Φ ≡ 2κ (σ1 = σ2 = 0) and β(z,x,y) = 2/(x+y) 1_{(0,x+y)}(z), i.e. the power-law kernel (1.17) with ν = 0, so γ = 2 and T_{γ,σ} = ∞. Choose u_in(x) = 1_{x>1} x^{-3}. Then u_in ∈ Ξ_0 ∩ Ξ_1, μ_{-α}(u_in) < ∞ for α ∈ (0,1), and μ_2(u_in) = ∞. For the truncated solutions, the second moment satisfies the linear equation d/dt μ_2 = -(2κ/3) μ_0 μ_2 + (4κ/3) ρ^2 with μ_0 conserved and bounded below by a positive constant, so μ_2(u_n(t)) → ∞ as n → ∞ for every t > 0. Hence no mass-conserving weak solution obtained by this compactness argument can satisfy (2.15) with m = 2, contradicting Theorem 2.7(a). The same obstruction affects Theorem 2.5(a) whenever σ2 = 0, even if σ1 > 0. The theorems must either be restricted to σ2 > 0 or be accompanied by a genuinely different argument for σ2 = 0, and the abstract's stated range 0 ≤ σ2 ≤ 1 must be amended accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title page] The affiliation contains the typo "Roor kee" instead of "Roorkee".
  2. [§3.1, statement of Lemma 3.4] The estimate (3.20) is written for all t ∈ [0,T], but the right-hand side contains t^{-1} and the supersolution X(t) blows up at t = 0; the statement should be made for t ∈ (0,T].
  3. [§3.2, proof of Lemma 3.8(c)] In the sentence below (3.54), the proof says "using Lemma 3.8(a) and (c)" but the intended references are parts (a) and (b), since part (b) gives the bound on μ_{-α}.
  4. [Remark 1.1] The notation Φ_n is used both for the finite sum of collision kernels in the remark and for the truncated kernel in (3.3); these are unrelated objects and should be denoted differently to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Existence proof is self-contained; the only self-citation is the uniqueness proof, which cites [18, Proposition 1.6].

  1. uniqueness imported from authors [Section 2, Theorem 2.10]
    "Proof. Refer to [18, Proposition 1.6]. □"

    The uniqueness assertion of Theorem 2.10 is not derived in the paper; its proof consists entirely of the sentence 'Refer to [18, Proposition 1.6]. □'. That proposition is from prior work by one of the present authors (Giri), so the derivational load for this stated main result is carried by a self-citation. It is not a reduction-by-construction in the sense of Eq. X = Eq. Y, and the existence/moment compactness argument in Section 3 does not depend on it; the citation is to a separate published proposition with its own hypotheses. I therefore weigh it as a minor self-citation rather than as a circular derivation.

full rationale

The existence part of the paper (Theorems 2.5 and 2.7) is self-contained against the stated hypotheses. The proof chain is: truncate to Φ_n, obtain strong solutions via a standard fixed-point argument (external results [6,35]), derive uniform estimates on μ_0, μ_m, μ_ψ, uniform integrability and time equicontinuity (Lemmas 3.2–3.8), then pass to the limit using the Dunford–Pettis and Arzelà–Ascoli compactness tools. No fitted constants appear, no empirical claim is made, and assumption (1.16) is an explicit hypothesis rather than a consequence of the conclusion. The only self-citation with derivational weight is the uniqueness theorem, whose proof is literally a reference to [18, Proposition 1.6]; since that cited proposition is a published external theorem and the existence argument does not rely on it, this is a minor self-citation rather than a circular reduction. The possible σ2 = 0 division issue is a correctness concern, not a circularity issue. Overall, the circularity burden is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim has no fitted constants and introduces no new entities. All listed items are explicit model hypotheses or standard theorems. The restrictive high-moment condition (1.16) and the lower σ1-moment bound (2.7) are the assumptions a user must verify for a specific breakage kernel.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Daughter distribution satisfies local mass conservation (1.3): ∫_0^{x+y} z β(z,x,y) dz = x+y and β(z,x,y)=0 for z>x+y.
    Used throughout Definition 2.1 and Lemma 3.5 to identify mass conservation; it defines mass transfer as redistributing the total mass x+y.
  • domain assumption Daughter number is bounded and bounded below: 2 ≤ N(x,y) := ∫_0^{x+y} β(z,x,y) dz ≤ γ with γ≥2 (1.5).
    Needed for well-posedness of the weak form, Lemma 3.2's μ0 bound, and Lemma 3.7's time equicontinuity estimate.
  • domain assumption Uniform small-set decay (1.15) with η(δ)→0 as δ→0 and α∈(0,1).
    Used in Lemma 3.6 to obtain the uniform integrability estimate P_n(t,δ), a key step before applying Dunford-Pettis.
  • domain assumption High-moment growth bound (1.16) for every m>1, with κ_m∈(0,1).
    This is the most fragile hypothesis: it supplies the negative term in Lemma 3.4 that drives the superlinear moment estimate, and it is not derived from (1.3) or (1.5).
  • domain assumption Either the lower σ1-moment bound (2.7) in Theorem 2.5, or the negative-moment bound (2.13) together with finite μ_{−α}(u_in) in Theorem 2.7.
    Lemma 3.3 and Lemma 3.8 need one of these to control μ_{σ1} from below; without such control the differential inequality for superlinear moments would not yield boundedness.
  • domain assumption Initial data u_in ∈ Ξ_0,+ ∩ Ξ_1 with μ_1(u_in)>0, plus μ_{−α}(u_in)<∞ for Theorem 2.7 and μ_{1+σ2}(u_in)<∞ for Theorem 2.10.
    Finite initial mass and number are required for the weak compactness framework and for the explicit time T_*; the extra moments are needed for the superlinear estimates and uniqueness.
  • standard math Background compactness and fixed-point theorems: Dunford-Pettis, Arzelà-Ascoli (Vrabie), de la Vallée Poussin, and Banach fixed point for the truncated problem.
    Invoked in Section 3 to extract weakly converging subsequences, construct the convex function ψ, and solve the truncated ODE system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mass-conserving weak solutions to the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation in the presence of mass transfer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5ISJAHJ

@misc{pith2026241115561,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mass-conserving weak solutions to the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation in the presence of mass transfer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5ISJAHJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15561}
}
abstract

A mathematical model for the continuous nonlinear fragmentation equation is considered in the presence of mass transfer. In this paper, we demonstrate the existence of mass-conserving weak solutions to the nonlinear fragmentation equation with mass transfer for collision kernels of the form $\Phi(x,y) = \kappa(x^{{\sigma_1}} y^{{\sigma_2}} + y^{{\sigma_1}} x^{{\sigma_2}})$, $\kappa>0$, $0 \leq {\sigma_1} \leq {\sigma_2} \leq 1$, and ${\sigma_1} \neq 1$ for $(x, y) \in \mathbb{R}_+^2$, with integrable daughter distribution functions, thereby extending previous results obtained by Giri \& Lauren\c cot (2021). In particular, the existence of at least one global weak solution is shown when the collision kernel exhibits at least linear growth, and one local weak solution when the collision kernel exhibits sublinear growth. In both cases, finite superlinear moment bounds are obtained for positive times without requiring the finiteness of initial superlinear moments. Additionally, the uniqueness of solutions is confirmed in both cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Ali, A. K. Giri, and P. Lauren¸ cot. The discrete collision-induced breakage equation with mass transfer: well-posedness and stationary solutions. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 56(3):2915–2937, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Banasiak

    J. Banasiak. On a non-uniqueness in fragmentation models. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences, 25(7):541–556, 2002

    work page 2002

  3. [3]

    Banasiak

    J. Banasiak. Conservative and shattering solutions for some cla sses of fragmentation models. Math- ematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences , 14(04):483–501, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Banasiak

    J. Banasiak. Shattering and non-uniqueness in fragmentation m odels—an analytic approach. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 222(1-2):63–72, 2006

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    Banasiak, W

    J. Banasiak, W. Lamb, and Ph. Lauren¸ cot. Analytic methods for coagulation-fragmentation models . CRC Press, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    P. K. Barik and A. K. Giri. Weak solutions to the continuous coagula tion model with collisional breakage. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems , 40(11):6115–6133, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    J. Bertoin. Self-similar fragmentations. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e, Probab. Stat. , 38(3):319–340, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    J. Bertoin. Random fragmentation and coagulation processes, volume 102 of Camb. Stud. Adv. Math. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006

    work page 2006

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Biedrzycka and M

    W. Biedrzycka and M. Tyran-Kaminska. Self-similar solutions of fr agmentation equations revisited. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems-Series B , 23(1):13–27, 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    Cheng and S

    Z. Cheng and S. Redner. Scaling theory of fragmentation. Physical Review Letters, 60(24):2450–2453, 1988

    1988

  3. [11]

    Cheng and S

    Z. Cheng and S. Redner. Kinetics of fragmentation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 23(7):1233–1258, 1990

    1990

  4. [12]

    M. H. Ernst and I. Pagonabarraga. The nonlinear fragmentat ion equation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(17):F331–F337, 2007

    2007

  5. [13]

    Escobedo, S

    M. Escobedo, S. Mischler, and M. Rodriguez Ricard. On self-simila rity and stationary problem for fragmentation and coagulation models. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincar´ e Analyse non Lin´ eaire, 22(1):99–125, 2005

    2005

  6. [14]

    Feingold, S

    G. Feingold, S. Tzivion, and Z. Leviv. Evolution of raindrop spect ra. part i: Solution to the stochastic collection/breakup equation using the method of moments. Journal of the atmospheric sciences , 45(22):3387–3399, 1988

    1988

  7. [15]

    Filippov

    A. Filippov. On the distribution of the sizes of particles which unde rgo splitting. Theory of Probability & Its Applications , 6(3):275–294, 1961

    1961

  8. [16]

    Fonseca and G

    I. Fonseca and G. Leoni. Modern methods in the calculus of variations: Lp spaces. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  9. [17]

    A. K. Giri, R. G. Jaiswal, and Ph. Lauren¸ cot. The continuous co llision-induced nonlinear fragmenta- tion equation with non-integrable fragment daughter distributions . Journal of Differential Equations , 403:235–271, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. K. Giri and Ph. Lauren¸ cot. Existence and nonexistence for the collision-induced breakage equation. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis , 53(4):4605–4636, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    A. K. Giri and Ph. Lauren¸ cot. Weak solutions to the collision-ind uced breakage equation with dom- inating coagulation. Journal of Differential Equations , 280:690–729, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    B. Haas. Loss of mass in deterministic and random fragmentatio ns. Stochastic Processes Appl. , 106(2):245–277, 2003

    2003

  13. [21]

    R. G. Jaiswal and A. K. Giri. Mass-conserving self-similar solution s to collision-induced breakage equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06757 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    P. Kapur. Self-preserving size spectra of comminuted particle s. Chemical Engineering Science , 27(2):425–431, 1972

    1972

  15. [23]

    Kostoglou and A

    M. Kostoglou and A. Karabelas. A study of the nonlinear breaka ge equation: analytical and asymp- totic solutions. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 33(6):1221–1232, 2000. 24

    2000

  16. [24]

    Kostoglou and A

    M. Kostoglou and A. Karabelas. A study of the collisional fragme ntation problem using the Gamma distribution approximation. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science , 303(2):419–429, 2006

    2006

  17. [25]

    Krapivsky and E

    P. Krapivsky and E. Ben-Naim. Shattering transitions in collision- induced fragmentation. Physical Review E , 68(2):021102, 2003

    2003

  18. [26]

    Lauren¸ cot

    Ph. Lauren¸ cot. Weak compactness techniques and coagulat ion equations. In Evolutionary equations with applications in natural sciences , pages 199–253. Springer, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    List and J

    R. List and J. Gillespie. Evolution of raindrop spectra with collision- induced breakup. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 33(10):2007–2013, 1976

    2007

  20. [28]

    Lombart, C.-E

    M. Lombart, C.-E. Br´ ehier, M. Hutchison, and Y.-N. Lee. Gene ral non-linear fragmentation with discontinuous galerkin methods. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 533(4):4410– 4434, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Shattering

    E. D. McGrady and R. M. Ziff. “Shattering”transition in fragmen tation. Physical Review Letters , 58(9):892–895, 1987

    1987

  22. [30]

    V. S. Safronov. Evolution of the protoplanetary cloud and for mation of the earth and the planets. 1972

    1972

  23. [31]

    I. Stewart. A global existence theorem for the general coag ulation–fragmentation equation with unbounded kernels. Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences , 11(5):627–648, 1989

    1989

  24. [32]

    Van Dongen

    P. Van Dongen. On the possible occurrence of instantaneous g elation in smoluchowski’s coagulation equation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General , 20(7):1889, 1987

    1987

  25. [33]

    R. D. Vigil, I. Vermeersch, and R. O. Fox. Destructive aggrega tion: Aggregation with collision- induced breakage. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science , 302(1):149–158, 2006

    2006

  26. [34]

    I. I. Vrabie. Compactness methods for nonlinear evolutions , volume 75. CRC Press, 1995

    1995

  27. [35]

    C. Walker. Coalescence and breakage processes. Mathematical methods in the applied sciences , 25(9):729–748, 2002

    2002

  28. [36]

    R. M. Ziff. Kinetics of polymerization. Journal of Statistical Physics , 23(2):241–263, 1980

    1980

  29. [37]

    R. M. Ziff. New solutions to the fragmentation equation. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 24(12):2821–2828, 1991

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.