Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Wellposedness of inviscid SQG in the half-plane

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Local wellposedness for inviscid SQG on the half-plane holds in $C^{2,\beta}$ and $W^{3,p}$ for all $0<\beta<1$, $1<p<\infty$, and fails in $W^{3,\infty}$ for generic smooth data because the boundary makes a velocity second derivative…

desk verdict Sharp SQG half-plane wellposedness beyond C^2, with a clean boundary-driven W^{3,∞} obstruction; the central Hölder estimate survives the stress-test concern. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06601 v1 pith:THEUDZJP submitted 2025-06-07 math.AP

In-Jee Jeong , Junha Kim , Hideyuki Miura This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 76B4735Q35
keywords surfacequasi-geostrophicequationhalf-planeDirichletboundaryconditionlocalwellposednessHölderregularitySobolevillposednesssingularity
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 the inviscid surface quasi-geostrophic equation on the upper half-plane, with the Dirichlet boundary condition, is locally well posed in the Hölder space $C^{2,\beta}_0$ for every $0<\beta<1$ and in the Sobolev space $W^{3,p}_0$ for every $1

What carries the argument

The machinery is a pair of boundary-kernel estimates. Lemma 2.4 isolates the only non-Hölder second derivative of the velocity as $\partial^2_2u_1(x)=4\partial^2_2\theta(x)\log(x_2)+r(x)$, where the residual $r$ is not quite $C^\beta$; the estimate works because the residual becomes $C^\beta$ after adding the compensation term $4(\partial^2_2\theta(x)-\partial^2_2\theta(x'))\log(2|x-x'|+\sqrt{4|x-x'|^2+x_2^2})$. Lemma 2.8 plays the same role in $W^{3,p}$: the dangerous third derivative $\partial^3_{222}u_1$ equals $2H[\theta]$ plus an $L^p$-controlled term, with $H[\theta](x)=\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{x_2}{|x-(y_1,0)|^3}\partial^2_2\theta(y_1,0)\,dy_1$, and the crucial bound $\|x_2H[\theta]\|_{L^{2p}}\leq C\|\theta\|_{W^{3,p}}$ holds. The extra factor $x_2$ is exactly what the nonlinearity supplies through Hardy's inequality, because $\partial_1\theta$ vanishes on the boundary. These estimates are what allow the proof to close above the $C^2$ threshold despite the unbounded velocity derivative.

What would settle it

Compute $\partial^2_2u_1$ explicitly for a smooth datum whose $\partial^2_2\theta$ is nonzero on the boundary and check the compensated difference in (2.6): if the residual grows like $|x-x'|^\beta\log(1/|x-x'|)$ rather than $C|x-x'|^\beta$, then the $C^{2,\beta}$ a priori estimate (3.7) that drives Theorem A collapses. Alternatively, a numerical simulation of the evolution for $\theta_0=x_1x_2+x_2^2$ that keeps $\sup_t\|\theta(t)\|_{W^{3,\infty}}$ finite would contradict Theorem B.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is Theorem A: for data $\theta_0\in C^{2,\beta}_0(\mathbb R^2_+)$ or $\theta_0\in W^{3,p}_0(\mathbb R^2_+)$, the inviscid SQG equation $\partial_t\theta+u\cdot\nabla\theta=0$ with $\theta(t,x_1,0)=0$ has a unique local solution in the same class. Theorem B complements this: there exist $C^\infty_0$ data, for instance $\theta_0(x)=A x_1x_2+B x_2^2$ near a boundary point with $A,B\neq 0$, whose unique solution is not in $L^\infty([0,\delta];W^{3,\infty}(\mathbb R^2_+))$ for any $\delta>0$. The reason is that $\partial^2_2u_1$ is logarithmically divergent at the boundary, so no matter how smooth the data are, third-order control of the solution fails immediately. This is the main half-plane wellposedness result beyond the $C^2$ threshold, and it identifies the boundary singularity as the mechanism that caps the attainable regularity.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the refined boundary-kernel estimate (2.6): after subtracting $4\partial^2_2\theta(x)\log(x_2)$, the leftover in $\partial^2_2u_1$ is not Hölder continuous, and the proof controls it only by adding a second logarithmic compensation term, so the $C^{2,\beta}$ a priori estimate (3.7), and with it the $C^{2,\beta}$ half of Theorem A, collapses if that exact cancellation fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any $C^\infty_0$ initial datum produces a unique solution in $C^{2,\beta}\cap W^{3,p}$ for all $\beta<1$ and $p<\infty$ on its lifespan, so high regularity is propagated rather than lost.
  • For generic smooth data with both $\partial_{12}\theta_0$ and $\partial_{22}\theta_0$ nonzero at some boundary point, the solution is immediately outside $W^{3,\infty}$ and $C^3$, so the half-plane boundary forces a loss of third-order boundedness that cannot occur from the data alone.
  • Without the Dirichlet boundary condition, no $C^1$ solution exists for smooth data, so the Dirichlet condition is a necessary condition for the wellposedness proved here, not merely a simplification.
  • The $C^{2,\beta}$/$W^{3,p}$ class is the natural high-regularity setting for half-plane SQG, and the authors propose it as the space in which to search for finite-time singularity formation, since the boundary already produces logarithmically growing derivatives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof's lower bound $\partial^2_2\theta(t,\Phi(t,x))-\partial^2_2\theta(t,\Phi(t,y))\gtrsim t\,x_2\log(1/x_2)$ shows that the boundary difference quotient of $\partial^2_2\theta$ diverges logarithmically in $1/x_2$; one can read this as a quantitative small-scale-creation mechanism, though it does not prove blowup of $\theta$ itself.
  • The same log-divergence pattern should scale with the kernel exponent for the generalized $\alpha$-SQG family, which may explain why existing half-plane blowup constructions stop at $\alpha\le 1/2$ and suggests that an estimate of the same compensation type is the missing ingredient for $\alpha=1$.
  • A direct numerical check with $\theta_0=x_1x_2+x_2^2$ near the boundary could test Theorem B: if the sup-in-time $\|\partial^3_2\theta\|_{L^\infty}$ fails to diverge as spatial resolution approaches the boundary, the predicted immediate unboundedness would be contradicted.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the inviscid surface quasi-geostrophic (SQG) equation on the half-plane with the Dirichlet boundary condition θ=0 on ∂R²₊. Theorem A asserts local wellposedness in the spaces C^{2,β}_0(R²₊) for every 0<β<1 and in W^{3,p}_0(R²₊) for every 1<p<∞, extending the earlier H¹₀∩W^{2,p} wellposedness of Constantin–Nguyen. Theorem B asserts a boundary-induced nonexistence result: for a C∞ compactly supported initial datum with ∂₁₂θ₀(x*) and ∂₂₂θ₀(x*) both nonzero at some boundary point x*, the unique local solution is not in L∞([0,δ];W^{3,∞}(R²₊)) for any δ>0. The key mechanism is that the second velocity derivative ∂²₂u₁ has a logarithmic boundary singularity 4∂²₂θ(x)log x₂, while the residual is 'almost C^β' in the sense of the compensated estimate (2.6). The W^{3,p} argument instead isolates the operator H[θ] in (2.16) and uses the HLS/trace estimate (2.17). Theorem B is proved by studying the evolution of the difference quotient of ∂²₂θ along two trajectories, one starting on the boundary and one infinitesimally above it, and showing a logarithmic lower bound that contradicts W^{3,∞} control.

Significance. If the claimed results are correct, they are a substantial step for SQG in domains with boundary: they identify C^{2,β}/W^{3,p} as natural sharp-regularity wellposedness classes beyond the classical C^{1,β} threshold, and Theorem B provides a genuinely boundary-driven obstruction to W^{3,∞} regularity even for C∞ data, in contrast to the boundaryless illposedness results of [12, 24]. The proof strategy is attractive and mostly direct: the decomposition in Lemma 2.8 is explicit, the HLS computation in (2.17) is internally consistent and parameter-free, and Theorem B gives a concrete, checkable sufficient condition on the initial data. The paper also clearly explains the distinction between its nonexistence result and the pure-illposedness results in domains without boundary. These strengths are significant; the remaining concerns are concentrated in the proof of the compensated Hölder estimate (2.6) and in the existence step of the C^{2,β} argument.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Lemma 2.4, estimate (2.10)] The proof of (2.10), and hence of (2.6), is the true linchpin of the C^{2,β} half of Theorem A, but the key step is asserted rather than demonstrated. After defining J₂, the manuscript says: 'Note from [the displayed kernel-difference inequality] that ... ≤ C∥θ∥_{C^β(R²₊)}|x−x′|^β.' This is not immediate from the displayed inequality alone. The Hölder increment |∂²₂θ(y₁,0)−∂²₂θ(x′)| carries the factor (|y₁−x′₁|²+x′₂²)^{β/2}; if one only uses the crude bound |K_x−K_{x′}| ≤ |x−x′|/(|x−y||x′−y|) and integrates over |x₁−y₁| ≥ 2|x−x′|, the contribution of the x′₂^β part is not controlled by |x−x′|^β without a further case split. One must distinguish x′₂ ≤ 2|x−x′| (where s ≥ 2|x−x′| dominates and the kernel difference is O(r/s²)) from x′₂ > 2|x−x′| (where |x−y| and |x′−y| are both comparable to x′₂, giving a kernel difference O(r/x′₂²) and a total contribution O(rL/x′₂^{2−β}) ≤ Cr^β). The manuscript does not provide this split, and because (3.7) closes only through the exact form of (2.6), the proof as written is incomplete at this load-bearing point. Please add the missing two-regime verification; I note that the estimate itself appears to be true, so this is a gap in exposition/proof rather than a detected counterexample.
  2. [§3.2.2, existence iteration for C^{2,β}] The assertion that each iterate θ^{(n+1)} belongs to C² up to the boundary is not proved. The text says: 'Rewriting ∂²₂u₁^{(n)}∂₁θ^{(n+1)} by x₂∂²₂u₁^{(n)} x₂^{-1}∂₁θ^{(n+1)} and proceeding as in the proof of the C² a priori estimate, we obtain that θ^{(n+1)} is C² up to the boundary.' This is circular as written: the C² a priori estimate is derived for a solution that is already assumed to be C², and the rewriting only helps if x₂^{-1}∂₁θ^{(n+1)} is already known to be bounded, which is part of the regularity being proved. Since u^{(n)} is not C² (its ∂²₂u₁ component has the logarithmic singularity), the standard transport regularity theorem does not apply directly. Please supply the missing bootstrap or a suitable approximation argument showing that the iterates indeed have bounded second derivatives and that the a priori estimate is legitimate for them.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, proof of Lemma 2.2] There are typographical errors in this proof: 'othr' should be 'other' and 'restults' should be 'results'.
  2. [§1.2, Remark 1.1] The sentence 'C∞ initial datum has the corresponding unique solution belonging to to C^{2,β} ∩ W^{3,p}' contains a duplicated 'to'.
  3. [§3.2.1, estimate following (2.6)] In the chain of inequalities controlling |x₂(∂²₂u₁(x)−∂²₂u₁(y))|/|x−y|^β, the bound |x₂ log(2|x−y| + (4|x−y|²+x₂²)^{1/2})| ≤ C is used implicitly. This is correct only after using that x₂ ≤ L (since both points lie in B(0;L)) and that s|log s| is bounded on (0,L]; please state this explicitly, together with the assumption x₂ ≤ y₂ in the final mean-value step.
  4. [§4, proof of Theorem B] The constants C* and the sign convention in the lower bounds for III and I would benefit from an explicit statement. In particular, the proof assumes that the product AB > 0 after possibly replacing θ₀ by −θ₀ or swapping A and B; saying this directly would help the reader follow why both I and III have the same logarithmic sign.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the key estimates are direct kernel computations, and the only self-citations are contextual or supporting, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is direct and self-contained in its analytic core. For Theorem A's C^{2,β} half, the closure estimate (3.7) uses Lemma 2.4; the compensating log term in (2.6) is manufactured by explicit integration in the proof's (2.10)-(2.12) of the actual kernel difference, not by assuming the target bound, so (2.6) is a proved input lemma rather than an equivalent restatement of (3.7). The W^{3,p} half rests on the H[θ] decomposition in Lemma 2.8 plus Hardy's inequality; no parameter is fitted and no output is fed back as an input. Theorem B is a contradiction argument: it assumes the contrary W^{3,∞} bound and extracts log(1/x₂) growth from the explicit leading term 4∂²₂θ log(x₂) with initial data θ₀ = Ax₁x₂ + Bx₂²; the nonexistence conclusion is not used in its own proof. Base wellposedness in C^{1,β}/W^{2,2p} comes from external Constantin–Nguyen [8]. The self-citations [23,24] appear only for context (DBC essentialness via [23]; no-boundary illposedness comparison via [24]) and in Remark 1.1 for the optional sharpened uniqueness statement, where the non-self R² proof of Azzam–Bedrossian [1] is also invoked; none carries the central existence/regularity argument. Some routine details are omitted ((2.9); the strictly easier third-derivative variants in Section 3.3.1), but these are analytic omissions, not input-output equivalences. The delicate J₂ estimate in Lemma 2.4 flagged by the skeptic is a possible correctness gap, not a circularity, so it does not raise the circularity score.

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

The central claim rests on standard harmonic-analysis and PDE facts (Riesz transform L^p bounds, HLS, Hardy's inequality, Sobolev embedding, ODE flow theory), all invoked with standard references or proofs; the only paper-specific inputs are the Dirichlet boundary condition and the assumption of compact support, which are assumptions on the data, not hidden parameters. Two prior-result assumptions are imported rather than proved: the lower-regularity wellposedness of Constantin–Nguyen adapted to the half-plane (Section 3.1), and the C¹ uniqueness adapted from Azzam–Bedrossian and Jeong–Kim (Remark 1.1). No free parameters are fitted and no entities are invented.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Riesz transform L^p boundedness on R² for 1<p<∞
    Invoked throughout Lemmas 2.4 and 2.8 (e.g., (2.18), (2.15)) to bound derivative components of u = R^⊥θ̄ in L^p and L^{2p}.
  • standard math Hardy's inequality on the half-space: ∥f/x₂∥_{L^q} ≤ C∥∂₂f∥_{L^q} when f vanishes on ∂R²₊
    Used in Sections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1 to control ∂₁θ/x₂; the boundary vanishing follows from the Dirichlet condition, which is why the estimates depend on (DBC).
  • standard math Hardy–Littlewood–Sobolev inequality for the 1D Riesz potential of order 1/(2p) mapping L^p(R) to L^{2p}(R)
    Underpins (2.17): the kernel |x₁−y₁|^{−1+1/(2p)} is the HLS kernel of order 1/(2p), and the trace inequality supplies the L^p input.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding W^{1,p}(R²₊) ↪ L^{2p}(R²₊) for 1<p<∞ on compactly supported functions
    Used in Section 3.3.1 to bound ∥∇θ∥_{L^{2p}} and ∥∂²₂θ∥_{L^{2p}} by ∥θ∥_{W^{3,p}}.
  • domain assumption Existence and uniqueness of strong solutions in C^{1,β} and W^{2,2p} on the half-plane, adapted from Constantin–Nguyen [8]/[9]
    Section 3.1 takes this lower-regularity wellposedness as the base for the iteration and for uniqueness; the paper asserts, without proof, that the bounded-domain proof adapts to the half-plane.
  • domain assumption Uniqueness of solutions in L^∞_t C¹_x on the half-plane, adapted from Azzam–Bedrossian [1] and Jeong–Kim [24]
    Remark 1.1 and Section 3.1 rely on this for the 'unique corresponding solution'; the adaptation is asserted, and [24] is self-cited.
  • standard math Wellposedness of the flow map ODE (3.1) for Lipschitz velocity fields
    Sections 3.2 and 4 use the flow map and the distortion bounds (3.6), (4.2)-(4.4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Wellposedness of inviscid SQG in the half-plane." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/THEUDZJP

@misc{pith2026250606601,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Wellposedness of inviscid SQG in the half-plane},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/THEUDZJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06601}
}
abstract

We consider the SQG equation without dissipation on the half-plane with Dirichlet boundary condition, and prove local wellposedness in the spaces $W^{3,p}$ and $C^{2,\beta}$ for any $1<p<\infty$ and $0<\beta<1$. We complement this wellposedness by showing that for generic $C^{\infty}_{0}$ initial data, the unique corresponding solution does not belong to $W^{3,\infty}$.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Global Existence, Hamiltonian Conservation and Vanishing Viscosity for the Surface Quasi-Geostrophic Equation

    math.AP 2025-09 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For any L^{4/3}_x initial datum there exists a global weak solution of SQG conserving the H^{-1/2}_x Hamiltonian, obtained via a vanishing-viscosity limit with no anomalous dissipation.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [9]

    D376/377(2018), 195–203

    ,Local and global strong solutions for SQG in bounded domains, Phys. D376/377(2018), 195–203. MR 3815216

    work page 2018

  2. [8]

    Pure Appl

    Peter Constantin and Huy Quang Nguyen,Global weak solutions for SQG in bounded domains, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 71(2018), no. 11, 2323–2333. MR 3862092

    work page 2018

  3. [1]

    Jonas Azzam and Jacob Bedrossian,Bounded mean oscillation and the uniqueness of active scalar equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.367(2015), no. 5, 3095–3118. MR 3314802

    work page 2015

  4. [2]

    225, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2022]©2022

    Jacob Bedrossian and Vlad Vicol,The mathematical analysis of the incompressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations—an introduction, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 225, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, [2022]©2022. MR 4475666

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    Angel Castro, Diego C´ ordoba, Javier G´ omez-Serrano, and Alberto Mart ´ ın Zamora,Remarks on geometric properties of SQG sharp fronts andα-patches, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst.34(2014), no. 12, 5045–5059. MR 3223861

    work page 2014

  6. [4]

    ´Angel Castro, Diego C´ ordoba, and Fan Zheng,The lifespan of classical solutions for the inviscid surface quasi-geostrophic equation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire38(2021), no. 5, 1583–1603. MR 4300933

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

    PDE2(2016), no

    Peter Constantin and Mihaela Ignatova,Critical SQG in bounded domains, Ann. PDE2(2016), no. 2, Art. 8, 42. MR 3595454

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    PDE6(2020), no

    ,Estimates near the boundary for critical SQG, Ann. PDE6(2020), no. 1, Paper No. 3, 30. MR 4093852

    work page 2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [7]

    Pure Appl

    Peter Constantin, Mihaela Ignatova, and Quoc-Hung Nguyen,Global regularity for critical SQG in bounded domains, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.78(2025), no. 1, 3–59. MR 4822906

    2025

  2. [10]

    Diego Cordoba,Nonexistence of simple hyperbolic blow-up for the quasi-geostrophic equation, Ann. of Math. (2)148 (1998), no. 3, 1135–1152. MR 1670077

    1998

  3. [11]

    Ionescu,Global solutions for the generalized SQG patch equation, Arch

    Diego C´ ordoba, Javier G´ omez-Serrano, and Alexandru D. Ionescu,Global solutions for the generalized SQG patch equation, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.233(2019), no. 3, 1211–1251. MR 3961297

    2019

  4. [12]

    Math.407(2022), Paper No

    Diego C´ ordoba and Luis Mart ´ ınez-Zoroa,Non existence and strong ill-posedness inCk and Sobolev spaces for SQG, Adv. Math.407(2022), Paper No. 108570, 74. MR 4452676

    2022

  5. [13]

    Drivas, Tarek M

    Theodore D. Drivas, Tarek M. Elgindi, and In-Jee Jeong,Twisting in Hamiltonian flows and perfect fluids, Invent. Math. 238(2024), no. 1, 331–370. MR 4794597

    2024

  6. [14]

    Elgindi and In-Jee Jeong,Symmetries and critical phenomena in fluids, Comm

    Tarek M. Elgindi and In-Jee Jeong,Symmetries and critical phenomena in fluids, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.73(2020), no. 2, 257–316. MR 4054357

    2020

  7. [15]

    PDE7(2021), no

    Francisco Gancedo and Neel Patel,On the local existence and blow-up for generalized SQG patches, Ann. PDE7(2021), no. 1, Paper No. 4, 63. MR 4235799

    2021

  8. [16]

    Zineb Hassainia and Taoufik Hmidi,On the V-states for the generalized quasi-geostrophic equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 337(2015), no. 1, 321–377. MR 3324164

    2015

  9. [17]

    J.170(2021), no

    Siming He and Alexander Kiselev,Small-scale creation for solutions of the SQG equation, Duke Math. J.170(2021), no. 5, 1027–1041. MR 4255049

    2021

  10. [18]

    Taoufik Hmidi and Joan Mateu,Existence of corotating and counter-rotating vortex pairs for active scalar equations, Comm. Math. Phys.350(2017), no. 2, 699–747. MR 3607460

    2017

  11. [19]

    Hunter, Jingyang Shu, and Qingtian Zhang,Global solutions of a surface quasigeostrophic front equation, Pure Appl

    John K. Hunter, Jingyang Shu, and Qingtian Zhang,Global solutions of a surface quasigeostrophic front equation, Pure Appl. Anal.3(2021), no. 3, 403–472. MR 4379142 18

    2021

  12. [20]

    Math.351(2019), 1000–1023

    Mihaela Ignatova,Construction of solutions of the critical SQG equation in bounded domains, Adv. Math.351(2019), 1000–1023. MR 3956764

    2019

  13. [21]

    Tsukasa Iwabuchi,Analyticity and large time behavior for the Burgers equation and the quasi-geostrophic equation, the both with the critical dissipation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire37(2020), no. 4, 855–876. MR 4104828

    2020

  14. [22]

    ,An application of spectral localization to the critical SQG on a ball, J. Evol. Equ.22(2022), no. 4, Paper No. 80,

    2022

  15. [23]

    In-Jee Jeong, Junha Kim, and Yao Yao,On well-posedness ofα-SQG equations in the half-plane, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 378(2025), 421–446

    2025

  16. [24]

    1, 133–170

    Junha Kim and In-Jee Jeong,Strong illposedness for SQG in critical Sobolev spaces, Analysis & PDE17(2024), no. 1, 133–170

    2024

  17. [25]

    7, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012, pp

    Alexander Kiselev and Fedor Nazarov,A simple energy pump for the surface quasi-geostrophic equation, Nonlinear partial differential equations, Abel Symp., vol. 7, Springer, Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 175–179. MR 3289364

    2012

  18. [26]

    Alexander Kiselev, Lenya Ryzhik, Yao Yao, and Andrej Zlatoˇ s,Finite time singularity for the modified SQG patch equation, Ann. of Math. (2)184(2016), no. 3, 909–948. MR 3549626

    2016

  19. [27]

    Pure Appl

    Alexander Kiselev, Yao Yao, and Andrej Zlatoˇ s,Local regularity for the modified SQG patch equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.70(2017), no. 7, 1253–1315. MR 3666567

    2017

  20. [28]

    Qianyun Miao, Changhui Tan, Liutang Xue, and Zhilong Xue,Local regularity and finite-time singularity for a class of generalized sqg patches on the half-plane, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Stokols and Alexis F

    Logan F. Stokols and Alexis F. Vasseur,H¨ older regularity up to the boundary for critical SQG on bounded domains, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.236(2020), no. 3, 1543–1591. MR 4076071

    2020

  22. [30]

    Department of Mathematical Sciences and RIM, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, South Korea

    Andrej Zlatoˇ s,Local regularity and finite time singularity for the generalized SQG equation on the half-plane, arXiv:2305.02427. Department of Mathematical Sciences and RIM, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 08826, South Korea. Email address:injee j@sn...

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.