Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Asymmetric Self-similar Spiral Solutions of 2-D Incomressible Euler Equations

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For every $\mu>1$, the 2-D Euler equations admit nonradial self-similar algebraic spiral solutions with no rotational symmetry imposed on the angular data, under a weighted smallness condition on its Fourier modes.

desk verdict A serious, well-built construction that removes rotational symmetry from algebraic spiral solutions for 2D Euler, but the injectivity of the linearized operator at |n|=1 hangs on a cited hypergeometric asymptotic that the paper never verifies. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05059 v4 pith:MRLG5QQU submitted 2025-07-07 math.AP

Hyungjun Choi This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3135C06
keywords 2-DincompressibleEulerequationsself-similarsolutionsalgebraicspiralsasymmetricvorticitydataweaklinearizedoperatorisomorphismgeneralizedhypergeometricfunctionsWiener-typefunctionspaces
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 two-dimensional incompressible Euler equations admit self-similar, algebraic spiral solutions whose angular data are not required to have any rotational symmetry. Earlier constructions [23, 24, 41] needed the data to be $m$-fold symmetric with $m\geq 2$; this work removes that condition entirely, at the cost of restricting the homogeneity exponent to $\mu>1$. The result matters because fully asymmetric spirals are the shapes seen in numerical simulations [10] and are candidate singular structures at the boundary of the classical well-posedness theory. The proof shows that the linearized operator around the radial profile is an isomorphism in specially weighted Wiener-type spaces, with the decisive step being injectivity at angular modes $|n|=1$ via a hypergeometric asymptotic.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the adapted-coordinate reformulation of the self-similar Euler equation. The change of variables $(r,\theta)\to(\beta,\phi)$, with $\phi$ constant on characteristics, converts the profile equation into the nonlinear PDE $F(\Gamma,f)=0$, whose linearization is $L(f)=(D_\rho+2\mu-1)^2g+(\mu\partial_\phi)^2g+(2\mu-1)\beta\partial_\phi f$, where $g=(D_\beta+1)f$. Fourier-transforming in $\phi$ yields a family of ODEs $L_n$, and the function spaces $X,Y,Z$ are Wiener-type algebras built so that $L_+L_-$ is an isometry from $\widetilde Y$ to $Z$ and $L:Y\to Z$ is an isomorphism. The load-bearing identity inside the injectivity proof is the Frobenius solution $v^{(1)}=\beta^{|n|\mu+2\mu-1}\, {}_2F_2(\cdots;-in\beta)$, whose quoted asymptotic $v^{(1)}\sim\beta^{\sqrt{n^2\mu^2-2\mu+1}+2\mu-2}$ for $|n|\geq 2$ and $v^{(1)}\sim\beta^{3\mu-3}$ for $|n|=1$, together with the exact complementary solution $v^{(2)}=\beta^{\mu-1}$, forces any bounded solution of the homogeneous equation to vanish when $\mu>1$.

What would settle it

Compute the exact large-$\beta$ behavior of the ${}_2F_2$ hypergeometric solution $v^{(1)}$ for $|n|=1$, either by direct numerical integration of the ODE (4.2) or by rigorous asymptotic expansion of its Mellin–Barnes integral, and check whether $v^{(1)}/\beta^{3\mu-3}$ stays bounded away from $0$ and $\infty$ for all $\mu>1$; a deviation from this exponent, or a logarithmic mixture with $v^{(2)}=\beta^{\mu-1}$, would produce a bounded nonzero solution and invalidate Theorem 4.1 and the Main Theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the Main Theorem: for every $\mu>1$ there is an $\varepsilon>0$ such that any angular data $\tilde\omega\in L^1(\mathbb{T})$ whose nonzero Fourier coefficients satisfy $\sum_{n\neq 0}|n|^{-1/2}|\widehat{\tilde\omega}_n| \leq \varepsilon|\widehat{\tilde\omega}_0|$ produces a global weak solution of the 2-D Euler equations in self-similar form $\omega(t,x)=t^{-1}\Omega(t^{-\mu}x)$, with initial vorticity $\omega_0(r,\theta)=r^{-1/\mu}\tilde\omega(\theta)$ and no rotational symmetry. In adapted coordinates the problem reduces to the nonlinear equation $F(\Gamma,f)=0$ near the radial profile $(\Gamma_0,f_0)=(2-1/\mu,\ 1/(2\mu-1))$. The paper's main analytical step shows that the linearized operator at this profile is an isomorphism between two weighted Wiener-type spaces (Theorem 4.1); the uniqueness part of the isomorphism, equivalently injectivity of the linearized operator, is proved by a Frobenius analysis of the homogeneous ODE for each angular Fourier mode, with the delicate case $|n|=1$ settled by the large-$\beta$ asymptotic of a generalized hypergeometric solution. A contraction mapping argument then yields the profile, and a coordinate reconstruction turns it into a weak solution with the announced convergence to the initial data.

Load-bearing premise

The proof depends on a quoted asymptotic for a generalized hypergeometric function: at angular mode $|n|=1$ the solution $v^{(1)}$ grows like $\beta^{3\mu-3}$ at infinity, which is what forces bounded solutions to vanish when $\mu>1$; if the true exponent were smaller or had logarithmic corrections, nonzero bounded modes would survive and the central isomorphism theorem would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $\mu>1$, asymmetric algebraic spirals exist for an open family of singular $(-1/\mu)$-homogeneous initial data, with the spiral absent at $t=0$ and appearing immediately (instantaneous roll-up).
  • When the angular data is $N$-fold symmetric, the theorem recovers the result of [41] with a different smallness condition and with $\varepsilon$ independent of $N$; taking $N$ large then serves as a substitute for smallness, consistent with [24].
  • The construction covers angular data in $L^1$, and if $\tilde\omega\in L^p$ the vorticity lies in $C([0,\infty); L^q_{\mathrm{loc}})$ with $q=\min\{p,2\mu\}$; for $p\geq 2$ the solution is a renormalized solution in the standard transport-theory sense, and the data assumption can be relaxed to bounded measures via mollification.
  • The single-wing spiral matches the numerical scenario of [10], lending analytical support to the plausibility of transport-respecting non-uniqueness mechanisms for vorticity in $L^p$, $p\geq 2$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Not addressed in the paper: the nontrivial kernel at $|n|=1$ for $1/2<\mu<1$ (which the paper itself records) raises the question of whether a genuine bifurcation branch of asymmetric spirals emerges off the radial profile in that lower-$\mu$ regime.
  • Because the proof isolates the only obstruction to modes $|n|=1$, a similar Wiener-algebra construction may reach the Euler limit $\gamma\to 0$ of the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations if a comparable hypergeometric estimate for that family can be proved; the paper notes that the existing SQG construction excludes $\gamma=0$.
  • A numerical check of the predicted single-wing spiral for data satisfying the weighted smallness condition (1.5), including the $|n|^{-1/2}$ growth of allowed Fourier modes, would directly connect the theorem to the simulations of [10].
  • The uniform invertibility of $I+K_n$ on $C_0^\delta$ is quantitative; tracking how the bound behaves as $\mu\to 1^+$ would reveal whether $\mu>1$ is a genuine threshold for asymmetry or an artifact of the contraction argument.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs nonradial, self-similar algebraic spiral weak solutions of the 2-D incompressible Euler equations without imposing m-fold rotational symmetry. For every mu > 1 and for initial vorticities omega0(x) = r^{-1/mu} omega-tilde(theta) whose nonzero Fourier modes are sufficiently small in the weighted Wiener norm of condition (1.5), the author proves existence of a global weak solution in self-similar form (1.3). The argument proceeds in adapted (beta, phi) coordinates: an exact radial profile (Gamma0, f0) is identified, the nonlinear equation F(Gamma, f) = 0 is linearized at that profile, the linearized operator L is shown to be an isomorphism (Theorem 4.1) via Fourier decomposition, injectivity of the |n| = 1 modes through hypergeometric-function asymptotics, and a Fredholm argument, and finally a contraction mapping in suitable Wiener-type spaces yields Theorem 2.1. Theorem 2.2 then recovers the original coordinates and proves the weak formulations of the Euler and vorticity equations, including convergence to the prescribed initial data as t -> 0+.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a substantial advance over Elling and Shao-Wei-Zhang, since it removes the m-fold symmetry assumption and covers the parameter range mu > 1. The proof is largely self-contained and constructive: the linearized operator is computed explicitly, the function spaces are chosen so that the nonlinear terms are algebraically well behaved, and the fixed-point argument rests on explicit Fourier-norm smallness rather than on data fitting or hidden parameters. The connection to the Bressan-Shen numerical observations is also clearly motivated. The main technical risk is concentrated in one step: the injectivity of the linearized operator on the Fourier modes |n| = 1 in Proposition 4.2, Case 3, which relies on a quoted hypergeometric asymptotic whose leading coefficient and sector behavior are not verified in the manuscript. Since that injectivity is used to prove the isomorphism L: Y -> Z in Theorem 4.1 and hence the contraction argument in Theorem 2.1, a rigorous verification of that asymptotic is necessary before the main theorem can be regarded as fully established.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 4.1, Proposition 4.2, Case 3, and the Remark on generalized hypergeometric functions] The proof of injectivity of L on the |n| = 1 Fourier modes is load-bearing: it is the only place where mu > 1 is needed, and it is what permits the Fredholm argument in Section 4.3 to conclude that L: Y -> Z is an isomorphism in Theorem 4.1. The argument depends on the assertion v(1) ~ beta^{3mu-3} as beta -> infinity for the solution represented in (4.5), while the complementary solution is v(2) = beta^{mu-1}. Since mu > 1, this comparison forces C1 = C2 = 0 for a bounded solution. However, the manuscript does not verify the leading coefficient of the asymptotic for the specific parameters in (4.5). The displayed summary "qFq(-iR) ~ R^{max{...}}" is not by itself sufficient: the maximum may in principle be attained by a term whose coefficient vanishes, and the exponential branch of the 2F2 asymptotic contributes an oscillatory term that must be compared. For the parameters arising in Case 3, the relevant function reduces to 2F2(2, 2mu; 3mu+1, 2mu+1; -i beta), and the claimed exponent beta^{3mu-3} follows from the algebraic term of order beta^{-2}; the coefficient of that term is expected to be nonzero for mu > 1, but this is not shown. I ask the author to supply a direct verification, or a precise reference with the theorem, parameter restrictions, and leading-coefficient formulas applied to this specific case, and to state clearly which sector of z = -i beta is used. Without this, the uniqueness of bounded solutions at |n| = 1, and therefore Theorem 4.1, Theorem 2.1, and the Main Theorem, are not fully established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2, Lemma 3.6, case (iv)] In the displayed formula for L^{-1}_{n,-}f(beta) for |n| >= 2 and beta >= 2, the prefactor should be beta^{-(m+1)}, not beta^{m+1}; the subsequent estimates implicitly use the negative exponent. As written, the displayed equality is inconsistent with beta^{2mu-1}/W_n(beta) ~ C_n^{-1} beta^{-(m+1)}.
  2. [Section 4.1, Proposition 4.2, Case 3] The labelling of Frobenius solutions is inconsistent with Lemma 4.3. In Lemma 4.3, v(2) has exponent lambda_2 = -1 and v(3) has exponent lambda_3 = mu - 1 for |n| = 1, but Case 3 calls beta^{mu-1} the solution v(2) and says "we again have C3 = 0". Please relabel the coefficients or the solutions so that the reader can see which coefficient is killed at beta = 0 and which two are killed at beta = infinity.
  3. [Section 3] In the paragraph after equation (3.4), "a0 ≡ |n|µ" appears to be a typo; it should state the behavior of a_n(beta) for nonzero n at beta <= 1, for example a_n(beta) = |n|mu there. The current wording is not meaningful as written.
  4. [Theorem 2.2, proof] The proof begins "This follows from parts (a) and (b)", but no parts (a) and (b) are labelled in the statements of Theorem 2.2 or Lemma 5.6. Please label the intermediate assertions or refer to them by lemma number.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction is a self-contained contraction-mapping argument around an explicit radial profile, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained: an explicit radial profile (Γ0, f0) is computed in §2.1; the nonlinear operator F(Γ, f) is derived in adapted coordinates; Theorem 2.1 is obtained by a contraction argument once the linearized operator L: Y → Z is shown to be an isomorphism (Theorem 4.1); Theorem 4.1 is proved by a Fredholm argument whose injectivity input is Proposition 4.2; and the return to physical coordinates in §5.2 uses only norm bounds from f ∈ Y plus a Liouville argument. No parameter is fitted to data, and no conclusion is assumed as a hypothesis. The smallness condition (1.5) is an input condition on the initial Fourier coefficients, not a disguised version of the conclusion: Γ is related to ω by the explicit rescaling ω = μ^{-1/(2μ)}Γ, and the scaling λ = μ^{1/(2μ)} bω_0 merely normalizes the zeroth mode to the radial profile. The delicate |n| = 1 injectivity step in Proposition 4.2 rests on the large-β asymptotic of a 2F2 hypergeometric function cited from NIST [3] and Luke [34]; this is an external analytic fact, not a self-citation, not a fitted value, and not an input equivalent to the target theorem. If that asymptotic were incorrect the proof would fail, but that is a correctness risk rather than circularity. The paper also candidly flags the regime 1/2 < μ < 1 as having a nontrivial kernel, which is an honest limitation rather than a post-hoc exclusion. There is no load-bearing self-citation, no renaming of a known result, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, forces, mediators, or conserved quantities are introduced. The function spaces X, Y, Z, the operators L_+ and L_-, the cutoffs chi_n, and the inverse kernels are mathematical constructions internal to the proof, not independent postulates with falsifiable handles.

free parameters (2)
  • epsilon (smallness threshold) = exists, unquantified
    Theorems 2.1, 2.2 and the Main Theorem assert the existence of epsilon > 0 without an explicit value; standard for implicit-function arguments, but the admissible size of the perturbation cannot be computed from the data alone.
  • delta (weight exponent in C^delta spaces) = any value in (0, min(sqrt(4mu^2-2mu+1) - 2mu + 1, 1))
    A technical parameter of the function spaces; all proof constants depend on it, but any allowed value works, so it is a benign choice rather than a fitted constant.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Large-beta asymptotic of generalized hypergeometric functions (2F2(-iR) ~ R^max(...) from [3,34])
    Invoked in Proposition 4.2 Case 3 (|n| = 1) and the Remark in section 4.1; its exponent -2 for the n = 1 parameters forces C1 = C2 = 0 via boundedness. I reproduced the exponent by direct computation but could not verify the full asymptotic independently.
  • standard math Fredholm alternative for compact perturbations of the identity
    Used in section 4.3 to invert id + K_n mode-by-mode; the compactness of K_n is proved via Arzela-Ascoli (Lemma 4.8), while the alternative itself is cited standard theory.
  • standard math Frobenius theory for regular singular ODEs at beta = 0, including log-term cases (Lemma 4.3)
    The lemma is proved self-containedly (formal power series plus lambda-differentiation), with only the reduction to a first-order system cited; the classification of exponents underlies the injectivity proof.
  • domain assumption Adapted-coordinate foliation ansatz (Section 2: 'Assume that there is a change of coordinates...')
    The derivation of F(Gamma, f) = 0 presumes global coordinates (beta, phi) with r(beta, theta-beta) decreasing in beta; the paper notes this can fail for general solutions, and it is verified only a posteriori for small constructed solutions (Proposition 5.4), so it is an assumption on the solution class sought, not a general fact.
  • domain assumption Nonzero zeroth Fourier mode: condition (1.5) requires |b-tilde-omega_0| > 0
    The theorem only covers data whose angular mean is nonzero, since the right-hand side of (1.5) uses |b-tilde-omega_0| as the comparison scale; zero-mean data is outside the statement. This is explicit in (1.5), but it is a real scope restriction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Asymmetric Self-similar Spiral Solutions of 2-D Incomressible Euler Equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MRLG5QQU

@misc{pith2026250705059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Asymmetric Self-similar Spiral Solutions of 2-D Incomressible Euler Equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MRLG5QQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05059}
}
read the original abstract

We construct nonradial, self-similar solutions to the two-dimensional incompressible Euler equations without assuming rotational symmetry. These solutions extend the study of self-similar algebraic spiral flows, initiated by Elling and further developed by Shao-Wei-Zhang [41], where m-fold symmetry with m>=2 was assumed. Moreover, they bear resemblance to the numerical simulations of Bressan-Shen [10], in connection with the ongoing investigation into non-uniqueness of solutions.

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. Self-Similar Solutions of the Two-Dimensional Incompressible Euler Equation from Large Initial Data

    math.AP 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For every C^1 divergence-free (−a)-homogeneous velocity on R^2, a self-similar 2D Euler weak solution with that initial profile exists for each a in (1/3,1).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Dallas Albritton, Elia Bru´ e, and Maria Colombo, Non-uniqueness of Leray solutions of the forced Navier-Stokes equations. Ann. of Math. (2) 196 (2022), no. 1, 415–455. doi:10.4007/annals.2022.196.1.3

    doi:10.4007/annals.2022.196.1.3 2022

  2. [2]

    Albritton, E

    D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo, C. De Lellis, V. Giri, M. Janisch, and H. Kwon. Instability and non-uniqueness for the 2D Euler equations, after M. Vishik , Ann. of Math. Stud., 219, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2024. ix+136 pp. ISBN:978-0-691-25753-2

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    R. A. Askey and A. B. Olde Daalhuis, Generalized hypergeometric functions and Meijer G-function. NIST handbook of mathematical functions , 403–418. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Washington, DC, 2010. ISBN:978-0-521-14063-8

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Luis Barreira and Claudia Valls, Ordinary differential equations: Qualitative theory , Grad. Stud. Math. 137, AMS, Providence, RI, 2012. xii+248 pp. ISBN:978-0-8218-8749-3

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Benedetto, C

    D. Benedetto, C. Marchioro, and M. Pulvirenti, On the Euler flow in R 2. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 123 (1993), no. 4, 377–386. doi:10.1007/BF00375585 32

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00375585 1993

  6. [6]

    Fr´ ed´ eric Bernicot and Taoufik Hmidi, On the global well-posedness for Euler equations with unbounded vorticity. Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ. 12 (2015), no. 2, 127–155. doi:10.4310/DPDE.2015.v12.n2.a3

    work page doi:10.4310/dpde.2015.v12.n2.a3 2015

  7. [7]

    Fr´ ed´ eric Bernicot and Sahbi Keraani, On the global well-posedness of the 2D Euler equations for a large class of Yudovich type data. Ann. Sci. ´Ec. Norm. Sup´ er. (4)47 (2014), no. 3, 559–576. doi:10.24033/asens.2222

    work page doi:10.24033/asens.2222 2014

  8. [8]

    Jean Bourgain and Dong Li, Strong illposedness of the incompressible Euler equation in integer C m spaces. Geom. Funct. Anal. 25 (2015), no. 1, 1-86

    work page 2015

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Alberto Bressan and Ryan Murray, On self-similar solutions to the incompressible Euler equations. J. Differential Equations 269 (2020), no. 6, 5142-5203. doi:10.1016/j.jde.2020.04.005

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Discrete Contin

    Alberto Bressan and Wen Shen, A posteriori error estimates for self-similar solutions to the Euler equations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 41 (2021), no. 1, 113-130. doi:10.3934/dcds.2020168

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Elia Bru´ e and Maria Colombo, Nonuniqueness of Solutions to the Euler Equations with Vorticity in a Lorentz Space. Comm. Math. Phys. 403 (2023), 1171-1192. doi:10.1007/s00220-023-04816-4

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    arXiv:2408.07934

    Elia Bru´ e, Maria Colombo, and Anuj Kumar, Flexibility of Two-Dimensional Euler Flows with Integrable Vorticity. arXiv:2408.07934

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    arXiv:2404.15995

    ´Angel Castro, Daniel Faraco, Francisco Mengual, and Marcos Solera, A proof of Vishik’s nonuniqueness Theorem for the forced 2D Euler equation. arXiv:2404.15995

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cheskidov, M

    A. Cheskidov, M. C. Lopes Filho, H. J. Nussenzveig Lopes, and R. Shvydkoy, Energy conservation in two-dimensional incompressible ideal fluids. Comm. Math. Phys. 348 (2016), no. 1, 129–143. doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2730-8

    2016 doi

  7. [15]

    Coddington and Norman Levinson, Theory of ordinary differential equations

    Earl A. Coddington and Norman Levinson, Theory of ordinary differential equations . McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York-Toronto-London, 1955. xii+429 pp

    1955

  8. [16]

    Camillo De Lellis and L´ aszl´ o Sz´ ekelyhidi Jr., The Euler equations as a differential inclusion.Ann. of Math. (2) 170 (2009), no. 3, 1417–1436. doi:annals.2009.170.1417

    2009

  9. [17]

    (French) [Existence of vortex sheets in dimension two]

    Jean-Marc Delort, Existence de nappes de tourbillon en dimension deux. (French) [Existence of vortex sheets in dimension two]. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 4 (1991), no. 3, 553–586. doi:10.1090/S0894-0347-1991-1102579-6

    1991 doi

  10. [18]

    DiPerna and P.-L

    Ronald J. DiPerna and P.-L. Lions, Ordinary differential equations, transport theory and Sobolev spaces. Invent Math 98 (1989), 511–547. doi:10.1007/BF01393835

    1989 doi

  11. [19]

    DiPerna and Andrew J

    Ronald J. DiPerna and Andrew J. Majda, Concentrations in regularizations for 2-D incompressible flow. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 40 (1987), no. 3, 301-345. doi:10.1002/cpa.3160400304

    1987 doi

  12. [20]

    arXiv:2411.18452

    Michele Dolce and Giulia Mescolini, Self-similar instability and forced nonuniqueness: an application to the 2D Euler equations. arXiv:2411.18452

    arXiv

  13. [21]

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

    Tarek M. Elgindi and In-Jee Jeong, Symmetries and critical phenomena in fluids. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 73 (2020), no. 2, 257–316. doi:10.1002/cpa.21829

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Elgindi and Nader Masmoudi, L ∞ ill-posedness for a class of equations arising in hydrodynamics

    Tarek M. Elgindi and Nader Masmoudi, L ∞ ill-posedness for a class of equations arising in hydrodynamics. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 235 (2020), no. 3, 1979–2025. 33

    2020

  15. [23]

    Volker Elling, Algebraic spiral solutions of 2d incompressible Euler. J. Differ. Equ. 255 (2013), 3749–3787. doi:10.1016/j.jde.2013.07.021

    2013 doi

  16. [24]

    Volker Elling, Self-Similar 2d Euler Solutions with Mixed-Sign Vorticity. Comm. Math. Phys. 348 (2016), 27–68. doi:10.1007/s00220-016-2755-z

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    Claudia Garc ´ ıa and Javier G´ omez-Serrano, Self-similar spirals for the generalized surface quasi-geostrophic equations. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (2024). doi:10.4171/JEMS/1549

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    Vikram Giri and R˘ azvan-Octavian Radu, The Onsager conjecture in 2D: a Newton-Nash iteration. Invent. Math. 238 (2024), no. 2, 691–768. doi:10.1007/s00222-024-01291-z

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Julien Guillod and Vladim ´ ırˇSver´ ak, Numerical Investigations of Non-uniqueness for the Navier–Stokes Initial Value Problem in Borderline Spaces. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 25 (2023), no. 3, Paper No. 46, 25 pp. doi:10.1007/s00021-023-00789-5

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    Philip Isett, A proof of Onsager’s conjecture. Ann. of Math. (2) 188 (2018), no. 3, 871–963. doi:10.4007/annals.2018.188.3.4

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    arXiv:2311.16736

    Woohyu Jeon, A solution of 2D incompressible Euler equation with algebraic spiral roll-up in the presence of Wiener type perturbation. arXiv:2311.16736

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Said, Logarithmic spirals in 2D perfect fluids

    In-Jee Jeong, Ayman R. Said, Logarithmic spirals in 2D perfect fluids. J. ´Ec. polytech. Math. 11 (2024), 655–682. doi:10.5802/jep.262

    2024 doi

  23. [31]

    Hao Jia and Vladim ´ ırˇSver´ ak, Local-in-space estimates near initial time for weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations and forward self-similar solutions. Invent. Math. 196 (2014), no. 1, 233–265. doi:10.1007/s00222-013-0468-x

    2014 doi

  24. [32]

    Hao Jia and Vladim ´ ırˇSver´ ak, Are the incompressible 3d Navier-Stokes equations locally ill-posed in the natural energy space? J. Funct. Anal. 268 (2015), no. 12, 3734–3766. doi:10.1016/j.jfa.2015.04.006

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Lopes-Filho, John Lowengrub, Helena J

    Milton C. Lopes-Filho, John Lowengrub, Helena J. Nussenzveig Lopes, and Yuxi Zheng, Numerical evidence of nonuniqueness in the evolution of vortex sheets. M2AN Math. Model. Numer. Anal. 40 (2006), no. 2, 225–237. doi:10.1051/m2an:2006012

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    Luke, The special functions and their approximations , Vol

    Yudell L. Luke, The special functions and their approximations , Vol. I. Math. Sci. Eng. 53, Academic Press, New York-London, 1969. xx+349 pp

    1969

  27. [35]

    D. W. Moore, A numerical study of the roll-up of a finite vortex sheet, J. Fluid Mech. 63 (1974), no. 2, 225-235. doi:10.1017/S002211207400111X

    1974 doi

  28. [36]

    D. W. Moore, Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A 345 (1975), no. 1642, 417–430. doi:10.1098/rspa.1975.0147

    1975

  29. [37]

    Pullin, The large-scale structure of unsteady self-similar rolled-up vortex sheets

    Dale I. Pullin, The large-scale structure of unsteady self-similar rolled-up vortex sheets. J. Fluid Mech. 88 (1978), no. 3, 401–430 doi:10.1017/S0022112078002189

    1978 doi

  30. [38]

    Pullin, On similarity flows containing two-branched vortex sheets

    Dale I. Pullin, On similarity flows containing two-branched vortex sheets. In: Mathematical Aspects of Vortex Dynamics Mathematical aspects of vortex dynamics (Leesburg, V A, 1988) , 97–106. SIAM, Philadelphia (1989) ISBN:0-89871-235-1 34

    1989

  31. [39]

    Vladimir Scheffer, An inviscid flow with compact support in space-time. J. Geom. Anal. 3 (1993), no. 4, 343–401. doi:10.1007/BF02921318

    1993 doi

  32. [40]

    (French) [Solutions C∞ in time and n-log Lipschitz bounded in space, and the Euler equation] C

    Philippe Serfati, Solutions C ∞ en temps, n-log Lipschitz born´ ees en espace et ´ equation d’Euler. (French) [Solutions C∞ in time and n-log Lipschitz bounded in space, and the Euler equation] C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math.320 (1995), no. 5, 555–558

    1995

  33. [41]

    Feng Shao, Dongyi Wei, and Zhifei Zhang, Self-Similar Algebraic Spiral Solution of 2-D Incompressible Euler Equations. Ann. PDE 11 (2025). doi:10.1007/s40818-025-00203-5

    2025 doi

  34. [42]

    arXiv:2505.03309

    Feng Shao, Dongyi Wei, and Zhifei Zhang, Self-similar algebraic spiral vortex sheets of 2-D incompressible Euler equations. arXiv:2505.03309

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Wen Shen at PSU (2023, Oct

    Wen Shen, A posteriori error estimates for self-similar solutions to the Euler equations, simulation source code. Wen Shen at PSU (2023, Oct. 9). https://sites.psu.edu/wxs27/2023/10/09/a- posteriori-error-estimates-for-self-similar-solutions-to-the-euler-equations-simulation-s...

    2023

  36. [44]

    Alexander Shnirelman, On the nonuniqueness of weak solution of the Euler equation. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 50 (1997), no. 12, 1261–1286. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0312(199712)50:12¡1261::aid-cpa3¿3.0.co;2-6

    1997 doi

  37. [45]

    Spreiter, Alvin H

    John R. Spreiter, Alvin H. Sacks, The rolling up of the trailing vortex sheet and its effect on the downwash behind wings. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 18 (1951), 21–32, 72. doi:10.2514/8.1830

    1951 doi

  38. [46]

    Yasushi Taniuchi, Uniformly Local L p Estimate for 2-D Vorticity Equation and Its Application to Euler Equations with Initial Vorticity in bmo. Comm. Math. Phys. 248 (2004), 169–186. doi:10.1007/s00220-004-1095-6

    2004 doi

  39. [47]

    Misha Vishik, Instability and non-uniqueness in the cauchy problem for the euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid. part i. arXiv:1805.09426

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Misha Vishik, Instability and non-uniqueness in the cauchy problem for the euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid. part ii. arXiv:1805.09440

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Reprint of the 1976 edition, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1987

    Wolfgang Wasow, Asymptotic Expansions for Solutions of Ordinary Differential Equations . Reprint of the 1976 edition, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1987. x+374 pp. ISBN:0-486-65456-7

    1976

  42. [50]

    Yudovich, Non-stationary flow of an ideal incompressible liquid

    Victor I. Yudovich, Non-stationary flow of an ideal incompressible liquid. (Russian) USSR Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 3 (1963), no. 6, 1407-1456. doi:10.1016/0041-5553(63)90247-7

    1963 doi

  43. [51]

    Yudovich, Uniqueness theorem for the basic nonstationary problem in the dynamics of an ideal incompressible fluid

    Victor I. Yudovich, Uniqueness theorem for the basic nonstationary problem in the dynamics of an ideal incompressible fluid. Math. Res. Lett. 2 (1995), no. 1, 27–38. doi:10.4310/MRL.1995.v2.n1.a4 35

    1995 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.