Analysis of a free boundary problem on stratified Lie group

Sabri Bensid

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Analysis of a free boundary problem on stratified Lie group

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 that, under mild growth assumptions on the nonlinearity, a class of elliptic free boundary problems on stratified Lie groups admits a positive solution for small λ, with the free boundary condition holding in the…

desk verdict The theorem claims existence for small λ, but the proof's mountain-pass endpoint only works for large λ, and a radial example shows the small-λ statement is false. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18710 v1 pith:V4Z2YJKD submitted 2024-11-27 math.AP

Sabri Bensid This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 34R3535J2535J2035B38

keywords Sub-LaplacianstratifiedLiegroupfreeboundaryproblemmountainpassviscositysolutionHeisenbergsubcriticalnonlinearityhorizontalgradient

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

The paper proves that a class of elliptic free boundary problems—where the unknown solves a sub-Laplacian equation away from the set where it crosses the level u = 1, with a jump condition on the horizontal gradient across that set—has a positive solution on any bounded domain in a stratified Lie group. The nonlinearity g is only assumed to grow sublinearly, g(x, s) ≤ α + β $s^{{m−1}}$ with 1 < m < 2, and to be positive. The proof constructs solutions as limits of mountain pass critical points of smooth approximating functionals, with the free boundary condition obtained in the viscosity sense. If correct, this extends existence results previously known for the Euclidean Laplacian and for the special power nonlinearity to general subcritical nonlinearities in non-Euclidean settings such as the Heisenberg group.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structure is the approximating family of $C^{1}$ functionals E_ε(u) = ∫_Ω [½|∇_G u|^2 + B((u−1)/ε) − λ G_ε(x, (u−1)_+)] dx, where B is a smooth step function replacing the characteristic function χ_{u>1} and G_ε is the truncated primitive of g. Mountain pass critical points u_ε of E_ε solve the regularized equation (6), and convergence to a solution of (1) is driven by the monotonicity lemma (Lemma 3.1, quoted from the literature) which gives uniform horizontal gradient bounds for functions satisfying the distributional inequalities ±Lu ≤ (λ/ε)χ_{|u−1|<ε} F(|∇_G u|) + A. These bounds make the family equi-Lipschitz on compact sets, so Ascoli–Arzelà yields a uniform limit u, and a localized integration-by-parts argument forces the viscosity free boundary condition.

What would settle it

Construct, on the unit ball of a stratified Lie group, a sequence u_j of Lipschitz functions satisfying the distributional inequalities of Lemma 3.1 with ε_j → 0 but with |∇_G u_j| unbounded; such an example would invalidate the monotonicity estimate that the proof uses. Alternatively, exhibit a bounded domain and a nonlinearity g obeying (g1)–(g2) for which the mountain pass critical points of E_ε are not uniformly bounded in L^∞ as ε → 0.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: under assumptions (g1) and (g2), there is a λ* > 0 such that for every 0 < λ < λ*, the free boundary problem (1) admits a positive solution u ∈ $W^{{1,2}}$_0(Ω) ∩ $C^{2}$(Ω \ F(u)) that satisfies −Lu = λ χ_{u>1} g(x, (u−1)_+) classically away from the free boundary F(u) = ∂{u > 1}, the free boundary condition |∇_G u_+|^2 − |∇_G u_−|^2 = 2 in the viscosity sense, and u = 0 on ∂Ω. The solution is obtained as the limit of critical points u_j of smooth $C^{1}$ approximations E_{ε_j} of the non-smooth energy E, and the convergence is strong enough to pass to the limit in both the PDE and the free boundary condition.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on the quoted monotonicity lemma giving uniform horizontal gradient estimates, and on the standing assumption that the approximating mountain pass points u_j are bounded in $W^{{1,2}}$_0(Ω) ∩ L^∞(Ω); if either premise fails, the compactness that produces the limit solution is no longer available.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every subcritical nonlinearity growing like s^{m−1} with 1 < m < 2, the free boundary problem (1) has a positive solution for all sufficiently small λ, not just for the power case previously treated.
The solution is Lipschitz on compact subsets and classical away from the free boundary, and the free boundary condition holds in the viscosity sense, matching the regularity obtained in Euclidean settings.
The convergence of approximating critical points is strong in W^{1,2}_0, so the energy of the limit is controlled up to the measure of the level set {u = 1}.
The result applies to every stratified Lie group, in particular the Heisenberg group, so the existence theory is non-Euclidean in a genuinely sub-Riemannian sense.

Reading between the lines

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

The same variational approximation should yield multiple solutions by higher critical point theory, mirroring the Euclidean result, since the mountain pass level c_ε is bounded above by a level associated with the unregularized energy.
One could test numerically whether the viscosity free boundary condition is actually strong, for example by solving the regularized problems on the Heisenberg group and measuring convergence of the level sets {u_ε = 1} to a C^2 surface.
If the monotonicity lemma can be sharpened to give a rate, the method might extend to degenerate or nonlinear sub-Laplacians, such as p-sub-Laplacian analogues, where uniform gradient bounds are harder to obtain.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the existence theorem as stated is not proved and looks false. The proof in §4 creates a negative-energy point by noting E(u)→−∞ as λ→∞, which gives a mountain-pass path for large λ. But Theorem 1.1 claims 0<λ<λ*. For small λ, the approximating energy is nonnegative on all of W^{1,2}_0, so the path class Γ_ε is empty. The stress-test's radial example is the right way to see this: for g≡1, Ω=B_R, a radial solution with {u>1} a ball of radius a must satisfy λ²a²/N² − (u_−'(a))² = 2, hence λa > N√2, so no solution for λ < N√2/R. So the small-λ statement cannot be right.

What the paper does well: the idea of approximating the non-smooth χ_{u>1} by a smooth B((u−1)/ε) and passing to the limit via a monotonicity lemma is the natural approach, and the setting (general subcritical g on stratified Lie groups) is a legitimate extension of Perera [24] and Choudhuri–Repovš [10]. The convergence lemma attempts the right program: uniform convergence, local C^1, strong W^{1,2}, and an energy inequality.

The soft spots beyond the λ-regime are real. The Palais–Smale proof in Lemma 4.1 is not valid as written: it drops the positive (1/ε)β term and asserts a 'standard argument' without controlling it. Lemma 3.2 assumes the sequence is bounded in L∞ and that the approximating critical points are bounded in C^{2,α}; neither bound is established before the lemma is applied. The monotonicity lemma of [10] is quoted without proof, and the application writes the RHS as (2/ε)χ_{|u−1|<ε} without the F(|∇u|) factor, so a reader must take the lemma's exact hypotheses on faith. There are also many typos and passages that read as drafts.

Net: the paper has a plausible skeleton but the main theorem contradicts its own proof, and in simple cases the theorem is false. A revised version that claims existence for large λ might be worth a look, but this manuscript would need substantial reworking of the PS proof and the convergence argument, plus a corrected statement.

Recommendation: I'd still send it to a referee rather than desk-reject — the connection to Perera and to stratified Lie groups is real, and a referee can quickly confirm the λ-regime problem — but I'd expect the recommendation to be reject and resubmit, not accept.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a variational framework for a Bernoulli-type free boundary problem on stratified Lie groups. The nonsmooth energy E(u)=∫(|∇_G u|²/2 + χ_{u>1} − λ G(x,(u−1)_+)) is approximated by C¹ functionals E_ε, and the author claims that mountain-pass critical points of E_ε converge to a positive solution satisfying the equation in Ω\F(u), the free-boundary condition in the viscosity sense, and u=0 on ∂Ω. The main theorem states that such a solution exists for all 0<λ<λ*, assuming the subcritical growth condition (g1) and positivity (g2). The proof relies on a quoted monotonicity lemma of Choudhuri–Repovš to obtain uniform Lipschitz estimates and on a Palais–Smale condition for E_ε.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct, it would provide a meaningful extension of Perera's Euclidean result [24] and of the power-nonlinearity result of Choudhuri–Repovš [10] to general subcritical nonlinearities on stratified Lie groups. The variational approximation idea is natural, and the paper correctly identifies the monotonicity lemma as the key external tool. However, the central existence proof has serious gaps, and the claimed small-λ range is contradicted by an explicit admissible example, so the contribution as it stands is not established.

major comments (4)

[§4, proof of Theorem 1.1] The mountain-pass geometry is established in the wrong λ-regime. The proof notes that E(u)→−∞ as λ→∞ and then asserts the existence of u0 with E_ε(u0)<0; this only supplies a negative endpoint for large λ, whereas Theorem 1.1 claims existence for 0<λ<λ*. For small λ, E_ε is bounded below and, under (g1), can be nonnegative for all u once λ is below a threshold depending on the Sobolev constants, so the path class Γ_ε may be empty. This is not merely a missing argument: in the Euclidean radial case g≡1, Ω=B_R, the free-boundary condition forces (λa/N)² − |∇u_-|² = 2 with a<R, hence λ > N√2/R, so no solution exists for small λ. Thus the stated small-λ theorem is contradicted by an admissible example.
[§3, Lemma 3.2] The convergence lemma assumes only boundedness of (u_j) in W^{1,2}_0(Ω)∩L∞(Ω), but the proof later asserts that the sequence is bounded in C^{2,α}-norm and uses C² convergence near ∂Ω. No such estimate is proved or follows from the assumed bounds, since the right-hand side of (7) contains ε_j^{-1}β((u_j−1)/ε_j). The uniform Lipschitz estimate obtained from Lemma 3.1 is also not justified: the hypotheses of Lemma 3.1, including the structural condition F(t)=o(t²), are not verified for the sequence u_j uniformly in j, and the term (2/ε_j)χ_{|u_j−1|<ε_j} cannot be handled by the lemma as stated. Without these estimates, the uniform convergence, the local C¹ convergence, and the free-boundary convergence in (i)–(iv) are unsupported.
[§4, Lemma 4.1] The proof of the Palais–Smale condition is invalid as written. The displayed inequality <E'_ε(u_n),u_n> ≤ ||u_n||² − λ∫g(x,(u_n−1)_+)dx + (2/ε)|Ω| omits the nonnegative term (1/ε)∫β((u_n−1)/ε)u_n dx coming from the derivative of the penalization, so it cannot be used to control ||u_n||. The subsequent transition from E'_ε(u_n)→0 to strong convergence uses the very boundedness that was to be proved; the sentence 'A standard argument implies that (u_n) is bounded' is not substantiated, and the positive zeroth-order term in the approximating equation works against coercivity. Therefore Lemma 4.1 is not established.
[§3, free-boundary derivation] The passage from equations (14)–(18) to the conclusion that u satisfies the free-boundary condition in the viscosity sense is not rigorous. The integrals in (18) are over level sets {u=1±ε±}, while the claimed limit involves an identity on F(u), and the formula for the normal vector n=±∇u/|∇u| is asserted without regularity of the level set {u=1}. Moreover, the signs in (18) are inconsistent: the positive-level integral contains (1−1/2|∇u|²) while the negative-level integral contains −(1/2|∇u|²), so the displayed cancellation is unclear. Since Theorem 1.1 explicitly includes the free-boundary condition, this step is load-bearing.

minor comments (5)

[§2] In Definition 2.2, N1 is used for the dimension of the first stratum, but later the text says 'we let N1=N' for the number of generators; this conflicting notation should be clarified.
[Abstract and keywords] The keyword 'startiﬁed Lie group' is a typo for 'stratified Lie group'; the abstract also contains several typographical errors such as 'exits' for 'exists' and 'founded' for 'found'.
[§3] The proof of Lemma 3.2 is headed 'Proof of Lemma 3.1'; the lemma labels should be corrected.
[§4] In the proof of Lemma 4.1, the growth condition (g1) is stated with exponent 1<m<2, but the displayed energy estimate uses an undefined exponent p and writes a1/p; p should presumably be m.
[§3, equation (11)] The boundary integral in (11) contains <X_i, dn> with an index i that is not defined, and the notation dn for the surface measure should be made explicit.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is not self-referential; reliance on an external monotonicity lemma and a λ-regime gap are concerns of correctness/self-containedness, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs. The main external input is Lemma 3.1, the monotonicity lemma of Choudhuri and Repovs [10], quoted without proof. This is prior work by other authors, not by the present author, so invoking it is not circular; unproved or under-verified external support is a self-containedness/correctness issue, not a circularity. The convergence Lemma 3.2 assumes boundedness in W^{1,2}_0 ∩ L^∞, and the proof asserts a C^{2,α}-bound without evident justification; again this is a gap, not a reduction of a conclusion to an input. The main existence proof has a serious λ-regime mismatch: it constructs the negative-energy endpoint from E(u) → −∞ as λ → ∞, whereas Theorem 1.1 claims 0 < λ < λ*, and it is not shown that Γ_ε is nonempty for small λ. This is a substantive mathematical objection, but it is not circularity because the conclusion is not defined in terms of the hypothesis nor obtained by renaming a fitted parameter. There are no self-citations, no fitted inputs called predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work, and no ansatz smuggled in by self-citation. The approximation of χ by smooth B((u−1)/ε) is a standard penalty method, and the free-boundary condition is derived from the equation rather than imposed by construction. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The proof rests on two lemmas quoted from the earlier paper [10] (monotonicity lemma and measure support lemma) and on standard sub-elliptic regularity theory. No free parameters are fitted, and no new objects are introduced. The main unproved input is the monotonicity lemma, which is essential for uniform estimates.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Lemma 3.1 (monotonicity lemma) from [10] holds on stratified Lie groups in the stated form.
Quoted without proof; used to obtain uniform C^1 bounds for the approximating sequence u_j.
domain assumption Lemma 2.1 from [10]: the Radon measure Lu is nonnegative and supported on Omega intersect {u<1}.
Used to identify regularity of the limit on {u<1}.
standard math Standard sub-Laplacian regularity, maximum principle, Sobolev embeddings, and the divergence theorem on stratified Lie groups.
Background results from [12,13,21,25] used throughout without proof.
ad hoc to paper Mountain pass geometry for E_epsilon: existence of u0 with E_epsilon(u0)<0 and 0 as a strict local minimum.
The paper asserts this without detailed proof; it is not a standard theorem but a property that must be verified for the specific functional.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of a free boundary problem on stratified Lie group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4Z2YJKD

@misc{pith2026241118710,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of a free boundary problem on stratified Lie group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4Z2YJKD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18710}
}

read the original abstract

We present a variational framework for studying the existence of solutions of a class of elliptic free boundary problems on stratified Lie groups. Using the important monotonicity result in a Non-Euclidean setup, we prove that our solution is the limit of mountain pass points of a sequence of C1-functionals approximating the energy

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[24]

Perera, On a class of elliptic free boundary problems with multip le solutions, Nonlinear Diﬀer

K. Perera, On a class of elliptic free boundary problems with multip le solutions, Nonlinear Diﬀer. Equ. Appl, 28, (2021), 36

2021
[10]

Choudhuria, D.D

D. Choudhuria, D.D. Repovˇ s, On semilinear equations with free b oundary condi- tions on stratiﬁed Lie groups, J. Math.Anal.Appl, 518, (2023), 126677

work page 2023
[1]

Alt, L.A

H.W. Alt, L.A. Caﬀarelli, Existence and regularity for a minimum proble m with free boundary, J. Reine Angew. Math, 325, (1981), 105–144

1981
[2]

Alt, L.A

H.W. Alt, L.A. Caﬀarelli, A. Friedman, Variational problems with two p hases and their free boundaries, Trans. Am. Math. Soc , 282(2), (1984), 431–461

1984
[3]

Batchelor, On steady laminar ﬂow with closed streamlines at lar ge Reynolds number, J

G.K. Batchelor, On steady laminar ﬂow with closed streamlines at lar ge Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech, 1, (1956), 177–190

1956
[4]

Batchelor, A proposal concerning laminar wakes behind bluﬀ b odies at large Reynolds number, J

G.K. Batchelor, A proposal concerning laminar wakes behind bluﬀ b odies at large Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech, 1, (1956), 388–398

1956
[5]

E. Binz, S. Pods, The Geometry of Heisenberg Groups: With Applic ations in Signal Theory, Optics, Quantization, and Field Quantization, with an appendix by Serge Preston, Math. Surveys Monogr., vol. 151, American Mathe matical Society, Providence, RI, 2008, xvi+299 pp

2008
[6]

L. A. Caﬀarelli, A. Friedman, Asymptotic estimates for the plasma problem, Duke Math. J, 47(3), 705–742, (1980)

1980

Show all 30 references

[7]

Caﬀarelli, D

L.A. Caﬀarelli, D. Jerison, C.E. Kenig, Some new monotonicity theor ems with applications to free boundary problems, Ann. Math, 155(2), (2002), 369–404. 16 S. Bensid

2002
[8]

Caﬀarelli, S

L. Caﬀarelli, S. Salsa. A geometric approach to free boundary pr ob- lems, vol- ume 68 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005

2005
[9]

R. E. Caﬂisch, Mathematical analysis of vortex dynamics. In: Ma thematical As- pects of Vortex Dynamics (Leesburg, V A, 1988), pp. 1–24. SIAM , Philadelphia, PA (1989)

1989
[11]

Choudhuri, L

D. Choudhuri, L. S. Tavares and J. A. L´ opez, A study of a crit ical hypoelliptic problem in a stratiﬁed Lie group, Complex Variables and Elliptic Equations, DOI: 10.1080/17476933.2024.2310217

2024
[12]

Danielli, A compact embedding theoremfor a class of degenera te Sobolev spaces,Rend Sem Mat Univ Poi Torino, 49(3), 1991, 399–420

D. Danielli, A compact embedding theoremfor a class of degenera te Sobolev spaces,Rend Sem Mat Univ Poi Torino, 49(3), 1991, 399–420

1991
[13]

Danielli, Regularity at the boundary for solutions of nonlinear s ubel- liptic equations, Indiana Univ Math J, , 44(1), 1995, 269–286

D. Danielli, Regularity at the boundary for solutions of nonlinear s ubel- liptic equations, Indiana Univ Math J, , 44(1), 1995, 269–286. Doi: 10.1512/iumj.1995.44.1988

1995 doi
[14]

Danielli, N

D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, A. Petrosyan, The sub-elliptic obstacle p roblem: C1,a regularity of the free boundary in Carnot groups of step two, Adv. Math, 211, no. 2, (2007), 485–516

2007
[15]

Danielli, N

D. Danielli, N. Garofalo, S. Salsa, Variational inequalities with lack o f ellipticity. I. Optimal interior regularity and non-degeneracy of the free bou ndary, Indiana Univ. Math. J, 52, no. 2, (2003), 361–398

2003
[16]

Elcrat, K

A.R. Elcrat, K. G. Miller, Variational formulas on Lipschitz domains , Trans. Am. Math. Soc, 347(7), 2669–2678, (1995)

1995
[17]

Ferrari, N

F. Ferrari, N. Forcillo, A new glance to the Alt-Caﬀarelli-Friedman mono- tonicity formula, Mathematics in Engineering, 2(4), 2020, 657-679. Doi: 10.3934/mine.2020030

2020 doi
[18]

Ferrari, E

F. Ferrari, E. Valdinoci, Density estimates for a ﬂuid jet model in the Heisenberg group, J. Math. Anal. Appl, 382(1) (2011) 448–468

2011
[19]

Friedman

A. Friedman. Variational principles and free-boundary problem s. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Inc., Malabar, FL, second edition, 1988

1988
[20]

Friedman, Y

A. Friedman, Y. Liu, A free boundary problem arising inmagnetoh ydrodynamic system, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci, (4) 22(3), 375–448, (1995). A Free boundary problem 17

1995
[21]

Gilbarg, N.S

D. Gilbarg, N.S. Trudinger, Elliptic Partial Diﬀerential Equations o f Second Order, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2001

2001
[22]

Jerison, K

D. Jerison, K. Perera, Higher critical points in an elliptic free bou ndary problem, J. Geom. Anal, 28(2) (2018) 1258–1294

2018
[23]

Kinderlehrer, L

D. Kinderlehrer, L. Nirenberg, Regularity in free boundary pro blems, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci, (4), 4(2):373–391, 1977

1977
[25]

Ruzhansky, D

M. Ruzhansky, D. Suragan, Layer potentials, Kac’s problem, a nd reﬁned Hardy inequality on homogeneous Carnot groups, Adv. Math, 308, (2017), 483–528

2017
[26]

Temam, A non-linear eigenvalue problem: the shape at equilibriu m of a conﬁned plasma,Arch

R. Temam, A non-linear eigenvalue problem: the shape at equilibriu m of a conﬁned plasma,Arch. Rational Mech. Anal, 60(1), 51–73, (1975/76)

1975
[27]

Temam, Remarks on a free boundary value problem arising in pla sma physics,Commun

R. Temam, Remarks on a free boundary value problem arising in pla sma physics,Commun. Partial Diﬀer. Equ; 2(6), 563–585, (1977)

1977
[28]

Weiss, Partial regularity for weak solutions of an elliptic free boundary prob- lem, Commun

G.S. Weiss, Partial regularity for weak solutions of an elliptic free boundary prob- lem, Commun. Partial Diﬀer. Equ, n 23(3–4), (1998), 439–455

1998
[29]

Weiss, Partial regularity for a minimum problem with free boun dary, J

G.S. Weiss, Partial regularity for a minimum problem with free boun dary, J. Geom. Anal, 9(2), (1999), 317–326

1999
[30]

Y. Yang, K. Perera, Existence and nondegeneracy of ground states in critical free boundary problems, Nonlinear Anal, 180, (2019), 75–93

2019

Pith tools

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

[1] [24]

Perera, On a class of elliptic free boundary problems with multip le solutions, Nonlinear Diﬀer

K. Perera, On a class of elliptic free boundary problems with multip le solutions, Nonlinear Diﬀer. Equ. Appl, 28, (2021), 36

2021

[2] [10]

Choudhuria, D.D

D. Choudhuria, D.D. Repovˇ s, On semilinear equations with free b oundary condi- tions on stratiﬁed Lie groups, J. Math.Anal.Appl, 518, (2023), 126677

work page 2023

[3] [1]

Alt, L.A

H.W. Alt, L.A. Caﬀarelli, Existence and regularity for a minimum proble m with free boundary, J. Reine Angew. Math, 325, (1981), 105–144

1981

[4] [2]

Alt, L.A

H.W. Alt, L.A. Caﬀarelli, A. Friedman, Variational problems with two p hases and their free boundaries, Trans. Am. Math. Soc , 282(2), (1984), 431–461

1984

[5] [3]

Batchelor, On steady laminar ﬂow with closed streamlines at lar ge Reynolds number, J

G.K. Batchelor, On steady laminar ﬂow with closed streamlines at lar ge Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech, 1, (1956), 177–190

1956

[6] [4]

Batchelor, A proposal concerning laminar wakes behind bluﬀ b odies at large Reynolds number, J

G.K. Batchelor, A proposal concerning laminar wakes behind bluﬀ b odies at large Reynolds number, J. Fluid Mech, 1, (1956), 388–398

1956

[7] [5]

E. Binz, S. Pods, The Geometry of Heisenberg Groups: With Applic ations in Signal Theory, Optics, Quantization, and Field Quantization, with an appendix by Serge Preston, Math. Surveys Monogr., vol. 151, American Mathe matical Society, Providence, RI, 2008, xvi+299 pp

2008

[8] [6]

L. A. Caﬀarelli, A. Friedman, Asymptotic estimates for the plasma problem, Duke Math. J, 47(3), 705–742, (1980)

1980