Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 76 references

Shock formation in 1D conservation laws I: Inviscid structure

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Shock formation is stable near shocking simple waves in 1D genuinely nonlinear systems, and the first singularity has a universal inverse-cubic cusp.

desk verdict A genuinely new and careful paper on shock formation for large data, but the advertised higher-regularity bootstrap is omitted, so the strongest theorems are conditional pending that proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17148 v1 pith:SM2PYFLM submitted 2025-06-20 math.AP

John Anderson , Sanchit Chaturvedi , Cole Graham This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35L6535L6735B44
keywords shockformationconservationlawssimplewaveseikonalfunctioninversefoliationdensitymaximalgloballyhyperbolicdevelopmenthomogeneousexpansionnondegeneratesingularity
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

One-dimensional conservation laws with a genuinely nonlinear wave family—meaning the relevant wave speed genuinely changes as the wave compresses—often turn smooth data into shocks. This paper proves that near any background simple wave that shocks, every sufficiently small $C^1$ perturbation shocks too, at a time differing by $O(\varepsilon)$, and remains smooth in specially adapted coordinates up to that time. The background may have arbitrarily large amplitude, so the result goes beyond the classical small-data regime; the only extra assumption is a mild confinement condition when the shocking wave has intermediate speed. The paper also describes the boundary of the maximal classical development near the first singularity and, under a generic nondegeneracy, expands the solution into homogeneous functions whose leading term is a universal inverse-cubic cusp in the shocking component. This description is the input used in the companion analysis of the vanishing viscosity limit.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the eikonal description of the characteristic family. One defines $u$ to be constant along the genuinely nonlinear $I_0$-characteristics and sets $\mu=(\partial_x u)^{-1}$, the inverse foliation density; shock formation is exactly the vanishing $\mu\to 0$. Changing to $(\tau,u)$ coordinates sends $\partial_\tau$ to $L=\partial_t+\lambda\partial_x$ and $\partial_u$ to $\mu\partial_x$, so the dangerous spatial derivative is tamed by $\mu$. The fundamental unknowns $\mathcal{P}$ satisfy equations in which the quadratic self-interaction term that drives ordinary blowup cancels, leaving $\Phi=\mu(\partial_x\psi)^{I_0}$ bounded in $(\tau,u)$. For a simple wave, $\mu$ decreases linearly to zero along the shocking characteristic, and the perturbative analysis shows the second $\tau$-derivative of $\mu$ stays small, forcing $\mu$ to hit zero at time $1+O(\varepsilon)$. For intermediate-speed shocks, Condition 4.1 confines the background's near-degeneracy to a short interval because otherwise the linearized transverse system has no preferred integration direction.

What would settle it

Compute the spectrum of the linearized transverse operator in the idealized case $\mu=1-\tau$: if any eigenvalue $\gamma$ is negative, perturbation amplitudes scale like $(1-\tau)^\gamma$ and diverge at the shock time. A system satisfying the structural hypotheses with an intermediate-speed simple wave that violates Condition 4.1 and exhibits such a negative eigenvalue would refute unconditional stability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that shock formation is stable near shocking simple waves: fixing a background simple wave $\Theta$ that first shocks at time $1$ and satisfies the structural hypotheses, any initial datum $\psi(0,\cdot)=\Theta(0,\cdot)+v$ with $v$ small in $C^1$ produces a solution whose first blowup is a shock at time $t_*=1+O(\varepsilon)$. In the eikonal coordinates $(\tau,u)$ adapted to the shocking characteristic, the fundamental unknowns $\mathcal{P}$—including $\psi$, the renormalized derivative $\Phi=\mu(\partial_x\psi)^{I_0}$, the transverse derivatives, and the inverse foliation density $\mu=(\partial_x u)^{-1}$—are as smooth as the data, so the physical gradient blowup is entirely a degeneracy of the coordinate map. With a stronger generic nondegeneracy, the solution admits a homogeneous expansion whose leading singular term is $p_1=-a_0\,\partial_{I_0}\lambda(0)^{-1}\,\mathfrak{u}\,r_{I_0}(0)$, where $\mathfrak{u}$ solves $x=-a_0 t\,\mathfrak{u}+b_0\mathfrak{u}^3$. The same estimates characterize the maximal globally hyperbolic development in a spacetime box: its future boundary is uniformly Lipschitz and splits into preshock, Cauchy horizon, singular, and extensible sets, with the singular set empty for intermediate-speed shocks.

Load-bearing premise

For intermediate-speed shocks, the proof assumes the background wave's flattening region is confined to a short interval; without this confinement, small perturbations can diverge at the shock time and stability is not known.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every $C^1$-small perturbation of a shocking simple wave forms a shock at time $1+O(\varepsilon)$, so the set of shocking initial data is open around large-amplitude simple-wave data.
  • In eikonal coordinates the solution is as regular as its data up to the shock, so the singularity is carried entirely by the coordinate change rather than by the renormalized solution variables.
  • The boundary of the maximal development in a spacetime box is uniformly Lipschitz, and generically it is a crease of two curves with a point mass of curvature; the Lipschitz bound is sharp, since smooth data can produce boundary curvature that is not a Radon measure.
  • Under the generic nondegeneracy condition, the leading singularity is universal: after a shear-and-shift change of frame, the shocking component behaves like the inverse-cubic profile $\mathfrak{u}$ with coefficients set by the eigenvalue geometry.
  • For intermediate-speed shocks, the singular set on the boundary of the maximal development is empty; the boundary consists of a preshock together with a Cauchy horizon.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If, as the paper suggests, typical first singularities are isolated nondegenerate shocks, then shortly before blowup any such solution approximates a simple wave, and this perturbative theorem would cover generic large-data shock formation rather than only an open neighborhood of simple waves.
  • The universal inverse-cubic cusp indicates that the strong-norm vanishing viscosity profile should be the same for all such systems, not just for scalar conservation laws; the companion paper is the natural test of this transfer.
  • The linearized divergence described in Section 5.2 suggests the mild nondegeneracy condition is not cosmetic: constructing an explicit intermediate-speed system that violates Condition 4.1 with a negative linearized eigenvalue would show unconditional stability really fails outside the theorem's hypotheses.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 1D hyperbolic system (3.1) under strict hyperbolicity and genuine nonlinearity of one characteristic family. It proves that any sufficiently C^1-small perturbation of a shocking simple wave (with a mild nondegeneracy condition for intermediate speeds, Condition 4.1) forms a shock at time t* = 1 + O(ε), that the solution is C^k regular in the eikonal coordinates (τ,u) up to the boundary of a 'boxed' maximal globally hyperbolic development, and that that boundary is Lipschitz and decomposes into preshock, Cauchy horizon, singular, and extensible sets (Theorem 4.2). Under a stronger nondegeneracy condition (Condition 8.1) it gives a homogeneous expansion of ψ about the preshock with a universal leading inverse-cubic cusp p1 = −a0 ∂_{I0}λ(0)^{-1}𝔲 r_{I0}(0) (Theorem 8.10). The proof is based on renormalized unknowns P, eikonal coordinates, the structural cancellation in (5.3), and hyperbolic estimates in Sections 6–7.

Significance. If the results hold, this is a substantial contribution: it extends perturbative shock formation from small data to a large class of simple waves, handles intermediate characteristics under a mild hypothesis, and gives one of the few detailed descriptions of the MGHD boundary in a 1D system. The paper is transparent about its hypotheses, and the renormalization/cancellation in (5.3) is clean. The homogeneous expansion and its universal leading term are well motivated and ready for use in the companion vanishing-viscosity paper. Condition 4.1 is a genuine structural assumption on the background rather than an ad hoc fit, and the parameter dependencies are, for the most part, explicitly tracked.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7.5, Corollary 7.9] The advertised conclusion Theorem 4.2(iii) asserts ||P||_{C^k_{τ,u}(M_{t*+δ})} ≤ M ||ψ(0,·)||_{C^{k+1}_x} from an initial perturbation that is only C^1-small. The proof given in Sections 7.2–7.3 is a bootstrap that assumes the C^k norm is already small (e.g. by ζ^{3/4} in (7.6)) and improves that assumption; it does not show that C^k smallness is propagated from C^{k+1}-bounded data. Corollary 7.9 is exactly the missing step, but its proof is omitted with the sentence 'The propagation of higher regularity estimates after closing a nonlinear problem has been carried through in several contexts, so we omit the details.' This is load-bearing: Theorem 8.10 and Proposition 8.2 use Theorem 4.2(iii) to Taylor-expand μ and ψ in (τ,u), so without a complete induction the homogeneous expansion is not justified at the stated level of regularity. Please supply the full induction or state Theorem 4.2(iii) under an explicit C^k-smallness assumption.
  2. [Section 7.4] The proof of the actual zero-crossing of μ is only sketched. The text says 'This argument has appeared several times in the literature (see, for example, [55]), so we only sketch it.' The sketch asserts ∂τ μ = −1 + O(ε) near the Θ-shocking characteristic and integrates to μ ↘ 0 at t* = 1 + O(ε). To justify Theorem 4.2(i) and the construction of the MGHD one must prove that the relevant characteristic remains in the domain D*_0 where the C^k bounds have been established, that the O(ε) term is uniform as μ → 0, and that inf |(∂_u ψ)^{I0}| is bounded below on the zero set; the current sketch does not track these constants or the size of the neighborhood. Since the formation of a shock is the central assertion, this zero-crossing should be proved in full rather than referenced.
  3. [Section 7.6] The characterization of the boundary B_{1+δ} as eΣ*_0 and the decomposition into B^{pre}, B^{Cau}, B^{sing}, B^{ext} is asserted after a relatively short argument. In particular, the proof that B^{sing} is empty for intermediate characteristics uses (7.11) and states that following an integral curve of μL^{(N)} from q lowers μ to zero 'within time ≍ r'; this quantitative claim is not derived, and the choice of r and the uniform positivity of μL^{(N)}μ need to be established. Since the Lipschitz regularity of B_{t*+δ} and the component classification are part of Theorem 4.2(ii), this section should be expanded into a complete proof.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5 heading] The heading 'Renormalized eqations' should read 'Renormalized equations'.
  2. [Section 6, after Proposition 6.2] The sentence 'We therefore satisfy the required L1 smallness (α < 1)' should refer to the quantity κ from Proposition 6.2, not α.
  3. [Section 7.4] The expression '|τ − 1_e| ≤ δ' appears to contain a typo and should probably read '|τ − 1| ≤ δ'.
  4. [Propositions 8.9 and 8.10] The error exponent in Proposition 8.9 is stated as O(𝔡^{h−2k−3n+1}), whereas Theorem 8.10 has O(𝔡^{h−2m−3n+1}); if this is not a typo, the dependence on m and n should be clarified, since the two statements otherwise look parallel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shock-formation theorem and the homogeneous expansion are derived from stated hypotheses; prior-work citations are auxiliary.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 4.2 is proved by a bootstrap in eikonal coordinates (Sections 7.2–7.3) starting from the renormalized equations of Section 5 and the hyperbolic estimates of Section 6; no constant is fitted to the predicted shock time or profile, and no equation defines the target result in terms of itself. The homogeneous expansion (Theorem 8.10) is derived from Taylor expansions of μ and x in (τ,u) (Proposition 8.2), an explicit comparison u = 𝔲 + O(𝔡²) (Proposition 8.8), and iterative solution of the relation (8.19); the leading coefficient p₁ is extracted from the eikonal equation (3.7), not assumed. The one substantive self-citation is Lemma 8.5, recalled from the authors' prior work [25]; these are parameter-free estimates of the auxiliary cubic-cusp functions 𝔲, 𝔪, 𝔡 and do not include the target result, so they constitute independent support and do not raise the circularity score. The recurring reference to 'the strategy of [25]' is methodological rather than a smuggled ansatz. The caveat worth flagging explicitly is Section 7.5 / Corollary 7.9, whose proof is omitted ('The propagation of higher regularity estimates after closing a nonlinear problem has been carried through in several contexts, so we omit the details.'); Theorem 4.2(iii) and the C^k regularity input to Section 8 depend on this corollary. This is a completeness or correctness risk, not a circular reduction, and accordingly does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on the standard local theory of hyperbolic systems, on the structural hypotheses (H1)-(H4), and on three conditions placed on the background simple wave (Conditions 4.1, 4.2, 8.1). No parameters are fitted to empirical data; the smallness constants η, δ1, δ2 are existence parameters of the theorem, not fitted values. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • η (Condition 4.1 interval length bound) = sufficiently small; existence asserted
    The theorem asserts existence of η>0; the proof of Proposition 7.8 requires η small enough that the L1 coefficient κ in Proposition 6.2 is less than 1. It is an assumption on the background simple wave, not fitted to data.
  • δ1 (Condition 4.1 time margin) = small; chosen in proof
    Appears in Condition 4.1 and in the trapezoid (7.1); smallness of δ1 controls the width W in Lemma 7.7 and is needed for the near-shock bootstrap.
  • δ2 (Condition 4.1 lower bound on μ) = in (0, 1/10]
    Lower bound on μ outside the degeneracy interval; used in Proposition 7.2 to keep equations nonsingular away from the shock. It is an existence parameter of Condition 4.1.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Local existence and uniqueness for the quasilinear system (1.1) and for the linear system (6.1) on globally hyperbolic domains
    Invoked in Section 6 and Appendix A; standard PDE theory, not proved in the paper.
  • domain assumption (H1)-(H3): A is smooth, strictly hyperbolic with N distinct eigenvalues, and the I0 wave is genuinely nonlinear
    The framework of the paper, stated in Section 1.2 and Condition 3.1.
  • domain assumption (H4): the background simple wave Θ is initially smooth and forms a shock in finite time
    The object around which perturbations are taken, Section 1.2 and Proposition 4.1.
  • domain assumption Condition 4.1: for intermediate I0, degeneracy of Θ is confined to a small interval of length at most 2η, with μ ≥ δ2 outside and ∂τ μ ≤ −3/4 inf ∂τ μ nearby
    Needed to control the intermediate-wave linear system (5.4); without it Section 5.2 shows instabilities are possible.
  • domain assumption Condition 4.2: there exists a smooth vector field ∂t + FΘ ∂x with λ(1) < FΘ < λ(N) (graphical condition)
    Ensures the MGHD construction in Section 7.6 yields a unique output; prevents double-sheeted examples discussed with reference [39].
  • domain assumption Condition 8.1: strong nondegeneracy of Θ, unique nondegenerate minimum of ∂u λ with ∂u^3 λ > 0
    Assumed only for the homogeneous expansion in Theorem 8.10 and Section 8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Shock formation in 1D conservation laws I: Inviscid structure." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SM2PYFLM

@misc{pith2026250617148,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Shock formation in 1D conservation laws I: Inviscid structure},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SM2PYFLM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17148}
}
read the original abstract

We study the stability and structure of shock formation in 1D hyperbolic conservation laws. We show that shock formation is stable near shocking simple waves: perturbations form a shock nearby in spacetime. We also characterize the boundary of the classical development in a spacetime neighborhood of the first time singularity. Finally, we describe the precise nature of nondegenerate shock formation through an expansion in homogeneous functions of fractional degree. We use these results in a companion paper to study the vanishing viscosity limit near shock formation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17148 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Profile of eΣ0 in eikonal coordinates. Finally, our analysis involves various nonlinear function of 𝜓 such as 𝜆 and 𝜉. We work within a compact region of state space, so these functions are uniformly Lipschitz. Hence we can control their perturbations in terms of the perturbation 𝜓 of 𝜓 itself. We record this in the following lemma. Lemma 7.1. Suppose ℎ = 𝑓 ◦𝜓 − 𝑓 ◦ Θ for some smooth 𝑓 . Then |ℎ| ≤ 𝐶(𝐴, Pˆ)|𝜓 |. Giv… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The contour eΣ ∗ 0 contains a portion of the future boundary of the MGHD (the irregular middle section above). We aim to show smoothness in (𝜏, 𝑢) in the region D∗ 0 between eΣ1−𝛿 and eΣ ∗ 0 . that 𝜇 → 0 somewhere along this boundary, so it does include a singularity. To understand eΣ ∗ 0 , we study eΣ ∗ 𝑠 as 𝑠 ↘ 0. We now begin the bootstrap argument. Using Proposition 7.2, we are free to assume that ∥P∥ C 𝑘 𝜏,𝑢 (e… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

  1. [55]

    The stability of simple plane-symmetric shock formation for three-dimensional compressible Euler flow with vorticity and entropy

    Jonathan Luk, Jared Speck. The stability of simple plane-symmetric shock formation for three-dimensional compressible Euler flow with vorticity and entropy. Anal. PDE 17 (2024) 831–941

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    The emergence of the singular boundary from the crease in 3𝐷 compressible Euler flow

    Leo Abbrescia, Jared Speck. The emergence of the singular boundary from the crease in 3𝐷 compressible Euler flow. arXiv e-prints (2022) 2207.07107

    arXiv 2022

  3. [2]

    The relativistic Euler equations: ESI notes on their geo- analytic structures and implications for shocks in1𝐷 and multi-dimensions

    Leonardo Abbrescia, Jared Speck. The relativistic Euler equations: ESI notes on their geo- analytic structures and implications for shocks in1𝐷 and multi-dimensions. Classical Quantum Gravity 40 (2023) Paper No. 243001, 79

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Occurrence and non-appearance of shocks in fractal Burgers equations

    Nathaël Alibaud, Jérôme Droniou, Julien Vovelle. Occurrence and non-appearance of shocks in fractal Burgers equations. J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. 4 (2007) 479–499

    work page 2007

  5. [4]

    Équations aux Dérivées Partielles

    Serge Alinhac. A minicourse on global existence and blowup of classical solutions to multidi- mensional quasilinear wave equations. Journées “Équations aux Dérivées Partielles” (Forges- les-Eaux, 2002). Univ. Nantes, Nantes 2002 Exp. No. I, 33

    work page 2002

  6. [5]

    Blowup of small data solutions for a class of quasilinear wave equations in two space dimensions

    Serge Alinhac. Blowup of small data solutions for a class of quasilinear wave equations in two space dimensions. II. Acta Math. 182 (1999) 1–23. 42 REFERENCES

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Blowup of small data solutions for a quasilinear wave equation in two space dimensions

    Serge Alinhac. Blowup of small data solutions for a quasilinear wave equation in two space dimensions. Ann. of Math. (2) 149 (1999) 97–127

    work page 1999

  8. [7]

    Modelling and optimisation of flows on networks

    Luigi Ambrosio, Alberto Bressan, Dirk Helbing, Axel Klar, Enrique Zuazua. Modelling and optimisation of flows on networks . Ed. by Benedetto Piccoli, Michel Rascle. Vol. 2062. Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Lectures from the Centro Internazionale Matematico Estivo (C.I.M.E.) Summer School held in Cetraro, June 15–19, 2009, Fondazione CIME/CIME Foundation S...

    work page 2013

Show all 76 references
  1. [8]

    Xinliang An, Haoyang Chen, Silu Yin.𝐻 11 4(ℝ2) ill-posedness for 2D Elastic Wave system . 2022

    2022

  2. [9]

    Low regularity ill-posedness and shock formation for 3D ideal compressible MHD

    Xinliang An, Haoyang Chen, Silu Yin. Low regularity ill-posedness and shock formation for 3D ideal compressible MHD. 2021

    2021

  3. [10]

    Low regularity ill-posedness for elastic waves driven by shock formation

    Xinliang An, Haoyang Chen, Silu Yin. Low regularity ill-posedness for elastic waves driven by shock formation. Amer. J. Math. 145 (2023) 1111–1181

    2023

  4. [11]

    Low regularity ill-posedness for non-strictly hyperbolic systems in three dimensions

    Xinliang An, Haoyang Chen, Silu Yin. Low regularity ill-posedness for non-strictly hyperbolic systems in three dimensions. J. Math. Phys. 63 (2022) Paper No. 051503, 16

    2022

  5. [12]

    Shock formation in 1D conservation laws II: Vanishing viscosity

    John Anderson, Sanchit Chaturvedi, Cole Graham. Shock formation in 1D conservation laws II: Vanishing viscosity. In preparation. 2025

    2025

  6. [13]

    On the front-tracking algorithm

    Paolo Baiti, Helge Kristian Jenssen. On the front-tracking algorithm. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 217 (1998) 395–404

    1998

  7. [14]

    Global solutions of systems of conservation laws by wave-front tracking

    Alberto Bressan. Global solutions of systems of conservation laws by wave-front tracking. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 170 (1992) 414–432

    1992

  8. [15]

    Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws

    Alberto Bressan. Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws . Vol. 20. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and its Applications. The one-dimensional Cauchy problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000) xii+250

    2000

  9. [16]

    The unique limit of the Glimm scheme

    Alberto Bressan. The unique limit of the Glimm scheme. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 130 (1995) 205–230

    1995

  10. [17]

    Uniqueness of weak solutions to systems of conservation laws

    Alberto Bressan, Philippe LeFloch. Uniqueness of weak solutions to systems of conservation laws. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 140 (1997) 301–317

    1997

  11. [18]

    Smooth self-similar implod- ing profiles to 3D compressible Euler

    Tristan Buckmaster, Gonzalo Cao-Labora, Javier Gómez-Serrano. Smooth self-similar implod- ing profiles to 3D compressible Euler. Quart. Appl. Math. 81 (2023) 517–532

    2023

  12. [19]

    Drivas, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol

    Tristan Buckmaster, Theodore D. Drivas, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. Simultaneous develop- ment of shocks and cusps for 2D Euler with azimuthal symmetry from smooth data. Ann. PDE 8 (2022) Paper No. 26, 199

    2022

  13. [20]

    Formation of unstable shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler

    Tristan Buckmaster, Sameer Iyer. Formation of unstable shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler. Comm. Math. Phys. 389 (2022) 197–271

    2022

  14. [21]

    Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler

    Tristan Buckmaster, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 76 (2023) 2073–2191

    2023

  15. [22]

    Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic com- pressible Euler

    Tristan Buckmaster, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic com- pressible Euler. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 75 (2022) 2069–2120

    2022

  16. [23]

    Shock formation and vorticity creation for 3D Euler

    Tristan Buckmaster, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. Shock formation and vorticity creation for 3D Euler. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 76 (2023) 1965–2072

    2023

  17. [24]

    Non-radial implosion for compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes in T3 and R3

    Gonzalo Cao-Labora, Javier Gómez-Serrano, Jia Shi, Gigliola Staffilani. Non-radial implosion for compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes in T3 and R3. arXiv e-prints (2023) 2310.05325

    2023 arXiv

  18. [25]

    The inviscid limit of viscous Burgers at nondegenerate shock formation

    Sanchit Chaturvedi, Cole Graham. The inviscid limit of viscous Burgers at nondegenerate shock formation. Ann. PDE 9 (2023) Paper No. 1, 80

    2023

  19. [26]

    Vorticity blowup in compressible Euler equations in ℝ𝑑,𝑑 ≥ 3

    Jiajie Chen. Vorticity blowup in compressible Euler equations in ℝ𝑑,𝑑 ≥ 3. arXiv e-prints (2024) 2408.04319

    2024 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Vorticity blowup in 2D compressible Euler equations

    Jiajie Chen, Giorgio Cialdea, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. Vorticity blowup in 2D compressible Euler equations. arXiv e-prints (2024) 2407.06455

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Chickering, Ryan C

    Kyle R. Chickering, Ryan C. Moreno-Vasquez, Gavin Pandya. Asymptotically self-similar shock formation for 1D fractal Burgers’ equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 55 (2023) 7328–7360

    2023

  22. [29]

    The formation of shocks in 3-dimensional fluids

    Demetrios Christodoulou. The formation of shocks in 3-dimensional fluids . Vol. 2. European Mathematical Society (2007) REFERENCES 43

    2007

  23. [30]

    The shock development problem

    Demetrios Christodoulou. The shock development problem . EMS Monographs in Mathematics. European Mathematical Society, Zürich (2019) ix+920

    2019

  24. [31]

    Shock development in spherical symmetry

    Demetrios Christodoulou, André Lisibach. Shock development in spherical symmetry. Ann. PDE 2 (2016) Art. 3

    2016

  25. [32]

    Compressible flow and Euler’s equations

    Demetrios Christodoulou, Shuang Miao. Compressible flow and Euler’s equations . Vol. 9. Surveys of Modern Mathematics. International Press, Somerville, MA; Higher Education Press, Beijing (2014) x+iv+583

    2014

  26. [33]

    On the formation of shocks of electromagnetic plane waves in non-linear crystals

    Demetrios Christodoulou, Daniel Raoul Perez. On the formation of shocks of electromagnetic plane waves in non-linear crystals. J. Math. Phys. 57 (2016) 081506, 56

    2016

  27. [34]

    Courant, K

    R. Courant, K. O. Friedrichs. Supersonic Flow and Shock Waves . Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York (1948) xvi+464

    1948

  28. [35]

    Courant, D

    R. Courant, D. Hilbert. Methods of mathematical physics. Vol. II . Wiley Classics Library. Partial differential equations, Reprint of the 1962 original, A Wiley-Interscience Publication. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York (1989) xxii+830

    1989

  29. [36]

    Dafermos

    Constantine M. Dafermos. Hyperbolic conservation laws in continuum physics . Fourth ed. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences] 325. Springer-Verlag, Berlin (2016) xxxviii+826

    2016

  30. [37]

    Ronald J. DiPerna. Global existence of solutions to nonlinear hyperbolic systems of conserva- tion laws. J. Differential Equations 20 (1976) 187–212

    1976

  31. [38]

    Finite time singularities and global well-posedness for fractal Burgers equations

    Hongjie Dong, Dapeng Du, Dong Li. Finite time singularities and global well-posedness for fractal Burgers equations. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 58 (2009) 807–821

    2009

  32. [39]

    Eperon, Harvey S

    Felicity C. Eperon, Harvey S. Reall, Jan J. Sbierski. Predictability of subluminal and superlu- minal wave equations. Comm. Math. Phys. 368 (2019) 585–626

    2019

  33. [40]

    The stability of irrotational shocks and the Landau law of decay

    Daniel Ginsberg, Igor Rodnianski. The stability of irrotational shocks and the Landau law of decay. arXiv e-prints (2024) 2403.13568

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations

    James Glimm. Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbolic systems of equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 18 (1965) 697–715

    1965

  35. [42]

    Asymptotically Stable Ill-Posedness of Geometric Quasilinear Wave Equa- tions

    Ross Granowski. Asymptotically Stable Ill-Posedness of Geometric Quasilinear Wave Equa- tions. PhD thesis. Princeton University, 2018

    2018

  36. [43]

    Formation and construction of a multidimensional shock wave for the first-order hyperbolic conservation law with smooth initial data

    Yin Huicheng, Zhu Lu. Formation and construction of a multidimensional shock wave for the first-order hyperbolic conservation law with smooth initial data. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 54 (2022) 2587–2610

    2022

  37. [44]

    Blow-up for quasilinear wave equations in three space dimensions

    Fritz John. Blow-up for quasilinear wave equations in three space dimensions. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 34 (1981) 29–51

    1981

  38. [45]

    Formation of singularities in one-dimensional nonlinear wave propagation.Comm

    Fritz John. Formation of singularities in one-dimensional nonlinear wave propagation.Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 27 (1974) 377–405

    1974

  39. [46]

    Nonlinear wave equations, formation of singularities

    Fritz John. Nonlinear wave equations, formation of singularities. Vol. 2. University Lecture Series. Seventh Annual Pitcher Lectures delivered at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, April 1989. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (1990) viii+64

    1990

  40. [47]

    Large-time behaviour of solutions to hyperbolic-parabolic systems of conservation laws and applications

    Shuichi Kawashima. Large-time behaviour of solutions to hyperbolic-parabolic systems of conservation laws and applications. Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 106 (1987) 169–194

    1987

  41. [48]

    Keller, Lu Ting

    Joseph B. Keller, Lu Ting. Periodic vibrations of systems governed by nonlinear partial differential equations. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 19 (1966) 371–420

    1966

  42. [49]

    Blow up and regularity for fractal Burgers equation

    Alexander Kiselev, Fedor Nazarov, Roman Shterenberg. Blow up and regularity for fractal Burgers equation. Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ. 5 (2008) 211–240

    2008

  43. [50]

    Peter D. Lax. Development of singularities of solutions of nonlinear hyperbolic partial differ- ential equations. J. Mathematical Phys. 5 (1964) 611–613

    1964

  44. [51]

    M.-P. Lebaud. Description de la formation d’un choc dans le𝑝-système. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 73 (1994) 523–565

    1994

  45. [52]

    Development of singularities in the nonlinear waves for quasilinear hyperbolic partial differential equations

    Tai Ping Liu. Development of singularities in the nonlinear waves for quasilinear hyperbolic partial differential equations. J. Differential Equations 33 (1979) 92–111

    1979

  46. [53]

    Shock waves

    Tai-Ping Liu. Shock waves. Graduate Studies in Mathematics 215. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2021) 437. 44 REFERENCES

    2021

  47. [54]

    Shock formation in solutions to the 2D compressible Euler equa- tions in the presence of non-zero vorticity

    Jonathan Luk, Jared Speck. Shock formation in solutions to the 2D compressible Euler equa- tions in the presence of non-zero vorticity. Invent. Math. 214 (2018) 1–169

    2018

  48. [56]

    Mellet, A

    A. Mellet, A. Vasseur. Existence and uniqueness of global strong solutions for one-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 39 (2008) 1344–1365

    2008

  49. [57]

    On blow up for the energy super critical defocusing nonlinear Schrödinger equations

    Frank Merle, Pierre Raphaël, Igor Rodnianski, Jeremie Szeftel. On blow up for the energy super critical defocusing nonlinear Schrödinger equations. Invent. Math. 227 (2022) 247–413

    2022

  50. [58]

    On the implosion of a com- pressible fluid I: Smooth self-similar inviscid profiles

    Frank Merle, Pierre Raphaël, Igor Rodnianski, Jeremie Szeftel. On the implosion of a com- pressible fluid I: Smooth self-similar inviscid profiles. Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022) 567–778

    2022

  51. [59]

    On the implosion of a com- pressible fluid II: Singularity formation

    Frank Merle, Pierre Raphaël, Igor Rodnianski, Jeremie Szeftel. On the implosion of a com- pressible fluid II: Singularity formation. Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022) 779–889

    2022

  52. [60]

    On the formation of shocks for quasilinear wave equations

    Shuang Miao, Pin Yu. On the formation of shocks for quasilinear wave equations. Invent. Math. 207 (2017) 697–831

    2017

  53. [61]

    A new type of stable shock formation in gas dynamics

    Isaac Neal, Calum Rickard, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. A new type of stable shock formation in gas dynamics. 2023

    2023

  54. [62]

    A characteristics approach to shock formation in 2D Euler with azimuthal symmetry and entropy

    Isaac Neal, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. A characteristics approach to shock formation in 2D Euler with azimuthal symmetry and entropy. Commun. Anal. Mech. 17 (2025) 188–236

    2025

  55. [63]

    Isaac Neal, Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol.Gradient catastrophes and an infinite hierarchy of Hölder cusp-singularities for 1D Euler . 2025

    2025

  56. [64]

    Gradient blow-up for dispersive and dissipative perturba- tions of the Burgers equation

    Sung-Jin Oh, Federico Pasqualotto. Gradient blow-up for dispersive and dissipative perturba- tions of the Burgers equation. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 248 (2024) Paper No. 54, 61

    2024

  57. [65]

    BV estimates fail for most quasilinear hyperbolic systems in dimensions greater than one

    Jeffrey Rauch. BV estimates fail for most quasilinear hyperbolic systems in dimensions greater than one. Comm. Math. Phys. 106 (1986) 481–484

    1986

  58. [66]

    Hyperbolic partial differential equations and geometric optics

    Jeffrey Rauch. Hyperbolic partial differential equations and geometric optics . Vol. 133. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2012) xx+363

    2012

  59. [67]

    Gesammelte mathematische Werke, wissenschaftlicher Nachlass und Nach- träge

    Bernhard Riemann. Gesammelte mathematische Werke, wissenschaftlicher Nachlass und Nach- träge. the. Vol. Suppl. 1. Teubner-Archiv zur Mathematik [Teubner Archive on Mathematics]. Edited and with a preface by Raghavan Narasimhan. BSB B. G. Teubner Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig; ...

    1990

  60. [68]

    The Cauchy problem in general relativity

    Hans Ringström. The Cauchy problem in general relativity. Acta Phys. Polon. B 44 (2013) 2621–2641

    2013

  61. [69]

    A front-tracking alternative to the random choice method

    Nils Henrik Risebro. A front-tracking alternative to the random choice method. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 117 (1993) 1125–1139

    1993

  62. [70]

    The geometry of maximal development and shock formation for the Euler equations in multiple space dimensions

    Steve Shkoller, Vlad Vicol. The geometry of maximal development and shock formation for the Euler equations in multiple space dimensions. Invent. Math. 237 (2024) 871–1252

    2024

  63. [71]

    Thomas C. Sideris. Formation of singularities in three-dimensional compressible fluids.Comm. Math. Phys. 101 (1985) 475–485

    1985

  64. [72]

    Shock formation in small-data solutions to 3D quasilinear wave equations

    Jared Speck. Shock formation in small-data solutions to 3D quasilinear wave equations . Vol. 214. Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2016) xxiii+515

    2016

  65. [73]

    Stable shock formation for nearly simple outgoing plane symmetric waves

    Jared Speck, Gustav Holzegel, Jonathan Luk, Willie Wong. Stable shock formation for nearly simple outgoing plane symmetric waves. Ann. PDE 2 (2016) Art. 10, 198

    2016

  66. [74]

    Shock formation of the Burgers-Hilbert equation

    Ruoxuan Yang. Shock formation of the Burgers-Hilbert equation. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 53 (2021) 5756–5802

    2021

  67. [75]

    Unstable shock formation of the Burgers–Hilbert equation

    Ruoxuan Yang. Unstable shock formation of the Burgers–Hilbert equation. arXiv e-prints (2022) 2201.04208

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Formation and construction of a shock wave for 3-D compressible Euler equations with the spherical initial data

    Huicheng Yin. Formation and construction of a shock wave for 3-D compressible Euler equations with the spherical initial data. Nagoya Math. J. 175 (2004) 125–164. REFERENCES 45 JA: Department of Mathematics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794, USA Email address: jrl...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.