Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 1 cited by

Strong ill-posedness and non-existence in Sobolev spaces for generalized-SQG

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The generalized SQG equation admits solutions that leave the supercritical Sobolev space in zero time.

desk verdict This paper earns its keep: it extends the SQG strong-ill-posedness result to all gamma in (-1,1) with a constructive proof whose main estimates survive scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.06357 v2 pith:GARXAVGF submitted 2025-02-10 math.AP

Diego Córdoba , José Lucas-Manchón , Luis Martínez-Zoroa This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35B3035B6535Q3535R11
keywords generalizedsurfacequasi-geostrophicequationstrongill-posednessnorminflationnon-existenceofsolutionsSobolevspacespseudosolutionsfractionalLaplacianactivescalartransport
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 proves that the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic (gSQG) equation, a two-dimensional active scalar transport model that contains the surface quasi-geostrophic equation as a special case, is strongly ill-posed in the supercritical Sobolev range $H^\beta$ for $\beta \in [1,2+\gamma) \cap (3/2+\gamma,2+\gamma)$ and $\gamma \in (-1,1)$. For any small initial datum and any desired growth factor, there is a smooth solution whose $H^\beta$ norm grows past any multiple of the initial norm at an arbitrarily small time; a second theorem glues such examples into a solution whose $H^\beta$ norm is infinite for every positive time, although it remains the unique classical solution in a higher-regularity class. The engine is a family of explicit approximate solutions, called pseudosolutions, that the true solution provably tracks over the relevant time interval. The result matters because it identifies a precise supercritical range where well-posedness in the Sobolev scale fails completely for this model.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pseudosolution $\theta_{N,c,K}(r,\alpha,t)=f_1(r)+f_2(r)\,r_{c,K}^{\beta}\,N^{-\beta}\sin(N\alpha-Nt\, v^\gamma_\alpha(f_1)(r)/r)$, a radial background vortex plus a rapidly oscillating angular perturbation concentrated on a disjoint annulus. The radial derivative of the angular velocity of $f_1$, $\partial_r(v^\gamma_\alpha(f_1)/r)$, is engineered to be as large as $K/(2r)$ on the support of $f_2$; transport by this angular flow turns the $N$-frequency oscillation into $H^\beta$ growth of order $(Kt)^\beta$. The proof that the real solution follows the pseudosolution rests on the error estimate of Lemma 16, $\|\Theta_{N,c,K,\gamma}\|_{H^{\beta+\frac{1}{2}}}\le C X(\gamma)\,t\,N^{-(\beta-\frac{3}{2}-\gamma)}$, with $X(\gamma)=\ln(e+N)$ for $\gamma<0$ and $X(\gamma)=1$ otherwise, obtained from a bootstrap in the well-posedness regime $s>2+\gamma$ using fractional product and BMO estimates.

What would settle it

For a fixed $\gamma\ne 0$ in the range, solve the $\gamma$-gSQG equation numerically from the paper's explicit initial data and measure the $H^\beta$ norm at a sequence of times; Theorem 1 predicts it reaches any multiple $M$ of the initial norm in arbitrarily short time, so a computed norm that stays bounded for an extended interval would falsify the central claim. A more direct check is the error bound itself: evaluate $\sup_{t\in[0,T]} N^{\beta-\frac{3}{2}-\gamma}\|\Theta_N\|_{H^{\beta+\frac{1}{2}}}$ for larger and larger $N$ and look for the claimed decay to zero; any observed failure to decay breaks Lemma 16 and the argument built on it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the $\gamma$-gSQG equation is strongly ill-posed in $H^\beta$ for every $\gamma\in(-1,1)$ and every $\beta\in[1,2+\gamma)\cap(\frac{3}{2}+\gamma,2+\gamma)$: given any $T>0$, $0<c_0<1$, $M>1$, and any time $t_*>0$ as small as desired, there is an initial datum $\theta_0\in H^{\beta+\frac{1}{2}}$ with $\|\theta_0\|_{H^\beta}\le c_0$ whose unique $H^{\beta+\frac{1}{2}}$ solution satisfies $\|\theta(\cdot,t_*)\|_{H^\beta}\ge M c_0$. The proof then strengthens this by gluing countably many such compactly supported patches: there exist initial data in $H^\beta$ with arbitrarily small norm for which a classical solution exists for $t\in[0,t_0]$, remains the unique solution in $L^\infty_t H^{\frac{3}{2}+\gamma}\cap C_t C^2_x$ on compact sets, and yet has $\|\theta(\cdot,t)\|_{H^\beta}=\infty$ for every $t\in(0,t_0]$. Along the way the constructed solutions are $C^\infty_c$ and their supports propagate at a controlled speed.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on the tracking estimate that the true solution stays close to the constructed pseudosolution over the time interval; if that estimate fails for some parameter value, the instantaneous norm growth and the non-existence example both collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $\gamma\in(-1,1)$, the supercritical interval $[1,2+\gamma)\cap(\frac{3}{2}+\gamma,2+\gamma)$ is ruled out as a well-posedness class for gSQG: arbitrarily small smooth data can produce arbitrarily large $H^\beta$ norm in arbitrarily short time.
  • The non-existence statement is stronger than norm inflation: there are initial data in $H^\beta$ whose only classical solution in the high-regularity class $L^\infty_t H^{\frac{3}{2}+\gamma}\cap C_t C^2_x$ has infinite $H^\beta$ norm at every positive time.
  • The counterexamples are not edge pathologies: the solutions are smooth and compactly supported, exist on a long time interval, and are unique in the well-posedness class $H^{\beta+\frac{1}{2}}$ while their $H^\beta$ norm inflates.
  • The support of the solution stays inside the initial support expanded by a ball of radius proportional to $c_0T$, so the norm inflation is produced locally rather than by mass travelling to infinity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same pseudosolution pattern suggests that instantaneous norm inflation is a generic phenomenon for active scalar equations whose velocity law is slightly more singular than the scalar; testing a family of velocity kernels with different singularity strengths would show where the mechanism stops.
  • The critical endpoint $\beta=2+\gamma$ and the restriction $\beta\ge 1$ are left open; a natural extension, not addressed here, would test whether logarithmic corrections restore well-posedness at those boundary exponents.
  • The glued solution stays in $H^{\frac{3}{2}+\gamma}$ while leaving $H^\beta$, so the instantaneous loss is a fixed gap in the Sobolev ladder; interpolating between these two spaces may reveal a sharp threshold, a question the paper does not take up.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves strong ill-posedness in the supercritical Sobolev spaces H^beta for the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations with gamma in (-1,1), for beta in [1,2+gamma) intersect (3/2+gamma,2+gamma). The proof constructs explicit 'pseudosolutions' of the form f1(r) + f2(r) sin(N alpha - N t v^gamma_alpha(f1)/r)/N^beta and shows, through a long sequence of technical estimates, that the genuine solution stays close to the pseudosolution in H^{beta+1/2} over a time interval independent of N. This yields norm inflation with arbitrarily small initial data and a support-confinement property. A gluing argument with widely separated compactly supported pieces then produces a solution that leaves H^beta instantaneously, while remaining the unique solution in L^infty([0,t0],H^{3/2+gamma}) cap C([0,t0],C^2(K)). The case gamma=0 is delegated to the authors' earlier work [16]; the new material is the extension to the full range gamma in (-1,1), including the negative-gamma cases where fractional Leibniz rules are unavailable.

Significance. If the estimates are correct, this is a substantial result: it settles strong ill-posedness and non-existence in the stated supercritical Sobolev regime for the whole generalized SQG family, complementing known local well-posedness in H^s for s>2+gamma and the Hölder-space results of the same authors. The method is constructive and parameter-free in the sense that the pseudosolutions are explicit and the error bounds have no fitted constants; the only external inputs are cited fractional Leibniz/BMO inequalities of Li [36] and Sobolev embeddings of Di Nezza–Palatucci–Valdinoci [24]. The central bootstrap estimate of Lemma 16 is very dense but the N-exponent bookkeeping and the parameter ordering in Theorem 1 are internally consistent, and the support-separation machinery in the gluing argument is carefully set up. The main risk is verification burden rather than a demonstrated flaw; this is a paper for specialists.

minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1, Lemma 3] The displayed computation of the derivative contains a scaling ambiguity: the line preceding the choice of lambda_1 gives lambda_1^{3-beta+gamma} delta / lambda_2, while the following expression is written as lambda_1^{2-beta+gamma} * 1/(lambda_1 lambda_2) delta, which is not equal to the preceding quantity. The subsequent condition lambda_1^{2-beta+gamma} delta / lambda_2 > K is the correct one, so the displayed identity should be corrected to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 2.2, Remark 6] The sign in the sentence 'the H^s norm of F_N goes with a negative power of N if and only if 2 beta - 1 - s - gamma < 0' is reversed: formula (24) gives ||F_N||_{H^s} ~ N^{-(2 beta - 1 - s - gamma)}, so a negative power requires 2 beta - 1 - s - gamma > 0, which is also what is needed to obtain beta > 3/2 + gamma.
  3. [Section 3, proof of Theorem 2, point 4] The claimed bound ||theta_{j,gamma}||_{H^s} <= 2^{-j} for every s in [0,beta_0] is not justified by the displayed argument when s > beta: the proof bounds f_1 by its H^beta norm and lets the oscillatory part grow like N^{s-beta}, which is not controlled for s>beta. The later argument uses only s <= beta (specifically s = 3/2+gamma, s = 1, and s = floor(beta)), so the statement and proof can be repaired by restricting to s in [0,beta] or by adding the missing estimates; as written the claim overreaches.
  4. [Section 3, uniqueness proof] The differentiation of the truncated functions theta_i^j = 1_{B_{...}} theta_i uses sharp characteristic functions, and the proof does not explicitly justify the absence of boundary terms. The argument is legitimate if the separation D_j is chosen large enough so that theta_i vanishes on the boundary of the ball B_{t0 vmax + 2^{-j}}(-R_j,0); this should be stated explicitly, since the current text relies on an unstated support-separation condition.
  5. [End of Section 2.3] In the support-confinement estimate the exponent -beta - 3/2 - gamma appears where the context and the preceding line suggest -(beta - 3/2 - gamma); the displayed formula should be checked and corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the pseudosolution construction and error estimates are explicit; the only self-citation is the delegation of the gamma=0 case to the authors' prior paper, which is an external prior result and not part of the new derivation chain.

full rationale

The central derivation is constructive and does not assume the theorem. The proof of Theorem 1 explicitly chooses theta0 as the pseudosolution theta_{N,c,K}(.,0), bounds its initial H^beta norm by interpolation, obtains a lower bound for the H^beta norm at t* by direct computation, and then uses Lemma 16 to show the real solution remains close to the pseudosolution. No parameter is fitted to the desired norm inflation: the constants c, K, N are fixed in the order c, K, N, and the final comparison estimate (40) vanishes as N^{-(beta-3/2-gamma)}. Lemma 16 is a standard bootstrap: it assumes an upper bound on the H^{beta+1/2} norm on a maximal interval [0,T*], proves a strictly stronger bound with CT < log N, and then concludes T*=T by continuity. This is an a priori estimate, not a circular reduction. The velocity bounds (Lemmas 4-9), the source-term bounds (Lemmas 10-11), and Corollary 1 are all derived from the explicit oscillatory form of the pseudosolution; the cited fractional Leibniz and BMO inequalities (Li [36]) and Sobolev embeddings (Di Nezza, Palatucci, Valdinoci [24]) are external and do not include the target result. The only self-citation is the transparent statement that the gamma=0 case is already proved in the authors' prior paper [16] (Introduction: 'In fact the result for gamma = 0 is already done in [16] and we extend it to the rest of the interval'; Lemma 15: 'The proof for gamma = 0 is done in [16]'; Lemma 16: 'The case gamma = 0 is already done in [16]'). This delegates one boundary parameter value to a published prior theorem by overlapping authors, but it does not smuggle in an ansatz, does not forbid alternatives via a self-cited uniqueness theorem, and is not needed for the new cases gamma in (-1,1)\setminus{0}. No self-definitional step, no fitted-input-called-prediction step, and no renaming of a known result was found. The derivation is therefore essentially self-contained; the minor self-citation is not load-bearing for the main construction.

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

No data fitting appears in the paper. The proof is existential and the parameters N, K, c are chosen in a fixed order, c then K then N, so there are no free parameters fitted to the conclusion. The pseudosolution is an auxiliary mathematical ansatz, not a new physical entity, and it does not require independent evidence. The axioms are standard analytic inequalities and the cited local well-posedness theorem.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Local well-posedness of gamma-gSQG in H^s for s>2+gamma (Theorem 1.1 in Chae, Constantin, Córdoba, Gancedo, Wu [9]).
    Used to define the true solution theta_N and to bootstrap the error in Lemma 16; the supercritical window beta>3/2+gamma is exactly the condition beta+1/2>2+gamma.
  • standard math Fractional Leibniz / Kato-Ponce type inequality with BMO (Lemma 12, from Li [36]).
    Used repeatedly in Lemma 16 and Lemma 17 to control fractional derivatives of products.
  • standard math Fractional Leibniz inequality for 0<gamma<1 (Lemma 13, from Li [36]).
    Used in Lemma 15 and Lemma 16 to handle commutator terms v^gamma(Theta) times grad theta_N.
  • standard math Fractional Sobolev embedding and Riesz potential estimates (Di Nezza, Palatucci, Valdinoci [24]).
    Used in Lemma 16 for gamma<0 and in Theorem 2 to pass from local H^4 convergence to global H^beta statements.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong ill-posedness and non-existence in Sobolev spaces for generalized-SQG." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GARXAVGF

@misc{pith2026250206357,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong ill-posedness and non-existence in Sobolev spaces for generalized-SQG},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GARXAVGF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.06357}
}
abstract

The general surface quasi-geostrophic equation is the scalar transport equation defined by \begin{equation*} \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial t}+v^\gamma_1 \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x_1}+v^\gamma_2 \frac{\partial \theta}{\partial x_2} =0 , \end{equation*} where the velocity comes defined by \begin{equation*} v^\gamma=\nabla^{\perp} \psi_\gamma=\left(\partial_{2} \psi_\gamma,-\partial_{1} \psi_\gamma \right), \quad \psi_\gamma=-\Lambda^{-1+\gamma} \theta, \end{equation*} and $\theta(\cdot,0)=\theta_0(\cdot)$ is the initial condition. We consider the parameter $\gamma \in (-1,1)$ and the non-local operator $\Lambda^{\alpha}=(-\Delta)^{\frac{\alpha}{2}}$ is defined on the Fourier side by $\widehat{\Lambda^{\alpha} f}(\xi)=|\xi|^{\alpha} \widehat{f}(\xi)$. The PDE is well-posed in the Sobolev spaces $H^s$ with $s>2+\gamma$. In this paper we prove strong ill-posedness in the super-critical regime $H^\beta$ with $\beta\in [1,2+\gamma)\cap(\frac{3}{2}+\gamma,2+\gamma)$. To do this, we will derive an approximated PDE solvable by some family of functions that we will call pseudosolutions and that will allow us to control the norms of the real solutions. Using this result and a gluing argument we also prove non-existence of solutions in the same Sobolev spaces. Since the pseudosolution will control the real one, we can build a solution that will be initially in $H^{\beta}$ and will leave it instantaneously. Nevertheless, this solution exists for a long time and remains the only classical solution in a high regularity class.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Unstable vortices, sharp non-uniqueness with forcing, and global smooth solutions for the SQG equation

    math.AP 2025-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    Non-uniqueness with forcing for alpha-SQG is established across the full supercritical Sobolev range s < alpha + 2/p, using new smooth compactly supported unstable vortices.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [16]

    Non existence and strong ill-posedness inC k and Sobolev spaces for SQG

    Córdoba, D.; Martínez-Zoroa, L. Non existence and strong ill-posedness inC k and Sobolev spaces for SQG. Advances in Mathematics. Volume 407, 2022, 108570, ISSN 0001-8708

    work page 2022

  2. [36]

    On Kato–Ponce and fractional Leibniz.Rev

    Li, D. On Kato–Ponce and fractional Leibniz.Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 35 (2019), 23-100

    work page 2019

  3. [24]

    Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces.Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques, vol 136, number 5, pag 521-573, 2012

    Di Nezza, E; Palatucci, G; Valdinoci, E. Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces.Bulletin des Sciences Mathématiques, vol 136, number 5, pag 521-573, 2012

    work page 2012

  4. [1]

    Existence of solutions to fluid equations in Hölder and uniformly local Sobolev spaces.Journal of Differential Equations, volume 364, pages 107-151 (2023)

    Ambrose, D.M.; Cozzi, E.; Erikson, D.; Kelliher, J.P. Existence of solutions to fluid equations in Hölder and uniformly local Sobolev spaces.Journal of Differential Equations, volume 364, pages 107-151 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [2]

    Vorticity and incompressible flow.Cambridge texts in applied mathematics

    Bertozzi, A.L.; Majda, A.J. Vorticity and incompressible flow.Cambridge texts in applied mathematics. Cambridge University Press 2002

    work page 2002

  6. [3]

    Strong ill-posedness of the incompressible Euler equation in borderline Sobolev spaces

    Bourgain, J.; Li, D. Strong ill-posedness of the incompressible Euler equation in borderline Sobolev spaces. Inventiones Mathematicae, 201(1), 2014, 97-157

    work page 2014

  7. [4]

    Strong illposedness of the incompressible Euler equation in integerC m spaces

    Bourgain, J., Li, D. Strong illposedness of the incompressible Euler equation in integerC m spaces. Geom. Funct. Anal. 25, 1–86 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [5]

    Nonuniqueness of weak solutions to the SQG equation.Comm

    Buckmaster, T.; Shkoller, S.; Vicol, V. Nonuniqueness of weak solutions to the SQG equation.Comm. Pure Appl. Math. Volume 72, Issue 9 (2019) 1809-1874

    work page 2019

Show all 37 references
  1. [6]

    Non-uniqueness up to the Onsager threshold for the forced SQG equation

    Bulut, A.; Huynh Huynh, M.K.; Palasek, S. Non-uniqueness up to the Onsager threshold for the forced SQG equation. arXiv:2310.12947 (2023). 51

    2023 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Global smooth solutions for the inviscid SQG equation

    Castro, A.; Córdoba, D.; Gómez-Serrano, J. Global smooth solutions for the inviscid SQG equation. Memoirs of the AMS, 266(1292):89 pages, 2020

    2020

  3. [8]

    Uniformly rotating smooth solutions for the incompressible 2D Euler equations .Arch

    Castro, A.; Córdoba, D.; Gómez-Serrano, J. Uniformly rotating smooth solutions for the incompressible 2D Euler equations .Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 231(2):719–785, 2019

    2019

  4. [9]

    Generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations with singular velocities

    Chae, D.; Constantin, P.; Córdoba D.; Gancedo, F.; Wu, J. Generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations with singular velocities. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. LXV, 1037–1066 (2012)

    2012

  5. [10]

    Inviscid models generalizing the 2D Euler and the surface quasi- geostrophic equations

    Chae, D.; Constantin, P.; Wu, J. Inviscid models generalizing the 2D Euler and the surface quasi- geostrophic equations. .Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis volume 202, pages 35–62 (2011)

    2011

  6. [11]

    Illposedness via degenerate dispersion for generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations with singular velocities.Preprint: arXiv:2308.02120

    Chae, D.; Jeong, I.; Oh, S. Illposedness via degenerate dispersion for generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations with singular velocities.Preprint: arXiv:2308.02120

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    Logarithmically regularized inviscid models in borderline Sobolev spaces.J

    Chae, D.; Wu, J. Logarithmically regularized inviscid models in borderline Sobolev spaces.J. Math. Phys., 53(11):115601, 15, 2012

    2012

  8. [13]

    Non-uniqueness of steady-state weak solutions to the surface quasi- geostrophic equations

    Cheng, X.; Kwon, H.; Li, D. Non-uniqueness of steady-state weak solutions to the surface quasi- geostrophic equations. Comm. Math. Phys., 388(3):1281–1295, 2021

    2021

  9. [14]

    On well/ill-posedness for the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations in Hölder spaces.Preprint: arXiv:2405.01245

    Choi, Y-P; Jung, J; Kim, JK. On well/ill-posedness for the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations in Hölder spaces.Preprint: arXiv:2405.01245

    arXiv

  10. [15]

    Formation of strong fronts in the 2-D quasigeostrophic thermal active scalar

    Constantin, P.; Majda, A.J.; Tabak, E. Formation of strong fronts in the 2-D quasigeostrophic thermal active scalar. Nonlinearity 7, pages 1494-1533 (1495)

  11. [17]

    Non existence and strong ill-posedness inC k,β for the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equation.Commun

    Córdoba, D.; Martínez-Zoroa, L. Non existence and strong ill-posedness inC k,β for the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equation.Commun. Math. Phys. 405, 170 (2024)

    2024

  12. [18]

    Instantaneous continuous loss of regularity for the SQG equation

    Córdoba, D.; Martínez-Zoroa, L.; Ożański, W. Instantaneous continuous loss of regularity for the SQG equation. Preprint: arXiv:2409.18900

  13. [19]

    Instantaneous gap loss of Sobolev regularity for the 2D incompressible Euler equations.Duke Math

    Córdoba, D.; Martínez-Zoroa, L.; Ożański, W. Instantaneous gap loss of Sobolev regularity for the 2D incompressible Euler equations.Duke Math. J., 173(10):1931–1971, 2024

    1931

  14. [21]

    Non-unique stationary solutions of forced SQG.arXiv:2302.03283 (2023)

    Dai, M.; Peng, Q. Non-unique stationary solutions of forced SQG.arXiv:2302.03283 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Non-unique weak solutions of forced SQG.arXiv:2310.13537 (2023)

    Dai, M.; Peng, Q. Non-unique weak solutions of forced SQG.arXiv:2310.13537 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Dai, M., Vikram, G., Razvan-Octavian. R. An Onsager-type theorem for SQG. Preprint: arXiv:2407.02582

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    GlobalH 1 ∩ ˙H −1 solutions to a logarithmically regularized 2D Euler equation.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 17(1):1–7, 2015

    Dong, H.; Li, D. GlobalH 1 ∩ ˙H −1 solutions to a logarithmically regularized 2D Euler equation.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 17(1):1–7, 2015

    2015

  18. [26]

    Elgindi, T.M.; Masmoudi, N.L∞ ill-posedness for a class of equations arising in hydrodynamics.Arch. Ration. Mech. 235(3) 1979-2025, (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Smooth Travelling-Wave Solutions to the Inviscid Surface Quasi-Geostrophic Equation

    Gravejat, P.; Smets, D. Smooth Travelling-Wave Solutions to the Inviscid Surface Quasi-Geostrophic Equation. International Mathematics Research Notices, 2019(6):1744–1757, 2017. 52

    2019

  20. [28]

    Small scale creation for solutions of the SQG equation.Duke Math

    He, S.; Kiselev, A. Small scale creation for solutions of the SQG equation.Duke Math. J. 170(5): 1027-1041 (2021)

    2021

  21. [30]

    A direct approach to nonuniqueness and failure of compactness for the SQG equation

    Isset, P., Ma, A. A direct approach to nonuniqueness and failure of compactness for the SQG equation. Nonlinearity, 34(5): 3122–3162, 2021

    2021

  22. [31]

    On the conservation laws and the structure of the nonlinearity for SQG and its generalizations

    Isset, P.; Ma, A. On the conservation laws and the structure of the nonlinearity for SQG and its generalizations. arXiv:2407.02578 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Strong illposedness for SQG in critical Sobolev spaces.Analysis and PDE

    Jeong, I-J., Kim, J. Strong illposedness for SQG in critical Sobolev spaces.Analysis and PDE. Vol. 17 (2024), No. 1, pp. 133–170

    2024

  24. [33]

    On local well-posedness of logarithmic inviscid regularizations of generalized SQG equations in borderline Sobolev spaces.Communications on pure and applied analysis

    Jolly, M.S.; Kumar, A.; Martinez, V.R. . On local well-posedness of logarithmic inviscid regularizations of generalized SQG equations in borderline Sobolev spaces.Communications on pure and applied analysis. Volume 21, Number 1, January 2022

    2022

  25. [34]

    A simple energy pump for the periodic 2D surface quasi-geostrophic equation

    Kiselev, A.; Nazarov, V. A simple energy pump for the periodic 2D surface quasi-geostrophic equation. 175–179, Abel Symp., 7, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012

    2012

  26. [35]

    Strong ill-posedness of logarithmically regularized 2D Euler equations in the borderline Sobolev Space

    Kwon, H. Strong ill-posedness of logarithmically regularized 2D Euler equations in the borderline Sobolev Space. J. of Func. Anal., Volume 280, Issue 7, 1 April 2021, 108822

    2021

  27. [37]

    Dynamical problems in non-linear advective partial differential equations.PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Department of Mathematics, 1995

    Resnick, S.G. Dynamical problems in non-linear advective partial differential equations.PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Department of Mathematics, 1995

    1995

  28. [38]

    Travelling and rotating solutions to the generalized inviscid surface quasi-geostrophic equation

    Weiwei, Ao; Dávila, J.; Del Pino, M.; Musso, M.; Wei, J. Travelling and rotating solutions to the generalized inviscid surface quasi-geostrophic equation. .Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 374(9):6665–6689, 202

  29. [39]

    Solutions of the 2D quasi-geostrophic equation in Hölder spaces.Nonlinear Analysis 62 (2005) 579 – 594

    Wu, J. Solutions of the 2D quasi-geostrophic equation in Hölder spaces.Nonlinear Analysis 62 (2005) 579 – 594. 53

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.