Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Remarks on smoothness and finite-time blowup solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that, by testing the 3D Navier-Stokes equation against carefully chosen differential operators, every sufficiently smooth solution obeys a Riccati inequality whose pole is an explicit finite blowup time—so smooth…

desk verdict The paper claims finite-time blowup for smooth Navier-Stokes solutions, but the proof only shows that an upper-bound majorant blows up; the central inference has the inequality reversed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10094 v1 pith:VOFWD7LN submitted 2025-07-14 math.AP

Kamal N. Soltanov This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35K5535K6135D3035Q3076D0376N10
keywords Navier-Stokesequationfinite-timeblowupstrongsolutionweakRiccatiinequalityaprioriestimatessmoothnessthree-dimensional
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
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 studies the three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes initial-value problem and tries to establish that, for each of four levels of smoothness of the data, a solution exists and remains smooth only on a finite time interval whose endpoint the proof computes explicitly. The mechanism is to rewrite the weak form of the equation, tested against a specially chosen operator, as a scalar differential inequality of Riccati type for the energy $\|u\|^2+\|\nabla u\|^2$; the comparison solution of that inequality has a finite pole, which is identified with a blowup time. If the argument is correct, the consequence is negative for the classical regularity question: smooth three-dimensional Navier-Stokes solutions would not be globally regular, and every sufficiently smooth global weak solution would become singular in finite time. The same reasoning is repeated with higher-order and time-derivative test operators to claim a hierarchy of smoothness in $x$ and in $t$, each with its own finite time.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Riccati comparison in Proposition 1: from $dy/dt\le ay^2+b$ with $a,b>0$, the substitution $z=(a/b)^{1/2}y$ gives $dz/dt\le (ab)^{1/2}(z^2+1)$, whose solution satisfies $$y(t)\le \frac{y_0+(a/b)^{-1/2}\tan((ab)^{1/2}t)}{1-(a/b)^{1/2}y_0\tan((ab)^{1/2}t)},$$ so the upper bound has a vertical asymptote at the first time the denominator reaches zero. The paper's work is to show that the Navier-Stokes weak form, tested against the chosen operators $-\Delta+I$, $I+\Delta^2$, or $D_tA(D_x)$, produces exactly such an inequality, with $y=\int(|u|^2+|\nabla u|^2)\,dx$ and with constants built from $\nu$, $\|u_0\|_{H^1}$, and $\|f\|$. The pole of the comparison solution is then read as the finite time up to which the corresponding Sobolev estimate holds, and the same construction is iterated for higher derivatives to obtain $T_2,T_3,T_4$.

What would settle it

For $f=0$, take the divergence-free $H^3$ family $u_0^A(x)=A e^{-|x|^2}(-x_2,x_1,0)$, compute the convection integral $I(A)=\int ((u_0^A\cdot\nabla)u_0^A)\cdot\Delta u_0^A\,dx$ and $J(A)=\int(|u_0^A|^2+|\nabla u_0^A|^2)^2\,dx$. If the ratio $|I(A)|/J(A)$ is unbounded as $A\to\infty$, then no constant independent of $u$ can turn (3.1) into (3.2), and the finite time computed by the Riccati inequality is not a property of the Navier-Stokes solution. If, on the other hand, the ratio is uniformly bounded and the pressure and boundary terms really vanish for these fields, the central inequality is consistent with the claimed conclusion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Navier-Stokes equation, tested against $A(D_x)u=(-\Delta+I)u$, yields after integration by parts $$\tfrac12\tfrac{d}{dt}(\|u\|^2+\|\nabla u\|^2)+\nu(\|\$\Delta$ u\|^2+\|\nabla u\|^2)\le \tfrac{1}{8\nu}\int(|u|^2+|\nabla u|^2)^2\,dx+\tfrac{C}{2\nu}\|f\|^2,$$ with the pressure terms and boundary integrals asserted to vanish. Dropping the positive dissipative terms gives the Riccati inequality (3.3), whose comparison solution is the fraction in Corollary 1; the denominator of that fraction vanishes at a finite time, so the estimate is meaningful only for $T<T_1$, and $T_1$ is defined by (3.8). Theorems 1–4 state the same conclusion at four smoothness levels: strong solutions for $H^3$ data, stronger spatial smoothness for $H^4$ data, and stronger temporal smoothness when the force has additional time derivatives. In each case the author concludes that the solution lives in the corresponding $L^\infty L^2$-type space on every subinterval ending before the computed time, and that the computed time is the blowup time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the equation's integrated form, paired with the test function $-\Delta u+u$, really reduces to the simple one-variable inequality used in the proof, with constants that do not depend on the solution $u$; if the convection term needs an estimate whose constant grows with the solution, or if the pressure and boundary terms do not vanish, the computed blowup time does not control the Navier-Stokes solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A direct corollary of Theorem 1 is that every global weak solution with $u_0\in H^3$ and $f\in L^2(\mathbb{R}_+;H^2)$ is a strong solution on every interval $(0,T)$ with $T<T_1$, and the strong solution cannot be continued past $T_1$.
  • Theorems 2–4 transfer the same finite-time obstruction to higher spatial and temporal regularity: smoother data give membership in $L^\infty(0,T;H^2)\cap L^2(0,T;H^3)$ or in the relevant $W^{1,\infty}$ and $W^{2,2}$ classes, but always only up to the corresponding computed time.
  • The paper's hierarchy statement says that by choosing increasingly smooth data and the associated test operator, one obtains increasingly smooth solutions on finite intervals, so the finite-time mechanism is not special to the lowest-order energy estimate.
  • If the conclusions hold, the three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes system has no smooth global-in-time solution in any of the four data classes, resolving the regularity problem in the negative for those classes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the same computation could be run on explicit smooth divergence-free data to test whether the universal constant in inequality (3.3) really is independent of the solution; if the required constant grows with amplitude, the blowup time would be an artifact of the estimate rather than a theorem about Navier-Stokes.
  • Editorial: the paper does not study the behavior of the computed times $T_i$ as the data approach spaces of lower regularity; a natural extension is to ask whether the blowup times stay positive or collapse as $u_0$ ranges over bounded sets of the critical spaces.
  • Editorial: the Riccati structure is the same one that appears in finite-dimensional Galerkin and shell models of fluid turbulence; comparing the constants here with those models could give a numerical test of the predicted singularity time, which the paper does not carry out.
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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims to show that for each of four smoothness settings, the three-dimensional incompressible Navier-Stokes Cauchy problem has a finite blowup time, while also establishing local strong or smoother solutions up to that time. The argument is based on deriving Riccati-type differential inequalities of the form dy/dt ≤ ay² + b for the pointwise quantity |u|² + |∇u|² (or variants), applying Proposition 1 to obtain a majorant M(t) that diverges at a finite time T_i, and then concluding that u blows up at T_i. Theorems 1-4 state the corresponding existence and blowup results for data in H³, H⁴, and with time-regularity assumptions. The proof relies on abstract solvability theorems from the author's previous papers and on a series of a priori estimates, several of which are asserted without proof or deferred.

Significance. If the claimed blowup result were correct, it would resolve the longstanding open problem of finite-time singularity formation for the 3D Navier-Stokes equations with smooth data, a result of the highest importance. However, the argument as presented is not valid: a differential inequality that gives an upper bound cannot force a singularity without additional lower-bound information. The paper also contains several unproved inequalities and explicitly deferred calculations in the proofs of Theorems 3 and 4. The manuscript therefore does not establish its central claim. On the positive side, the paper does identify a concrete a priori estimate strategy and a candidate majorant, and the finite-time regularity statements (if the estimates were valid) would be of some interest, but the blowup conclusion is not supported.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eq. (3.3)-(3.8); Theorems 1-4] The central claim that the solution blows up at a finite time is not supported by the argument. Proposition 1 proves that if dy/dt ≤ ay² + b, then y(t) ≤ M(t), where M(t) is the explicit majorant in (3.4). The majorant diverges when its denominator vanishes, but an upper bound that diverges is perfectly consistent with y(t) remaining finite and smooth. A finite-time singularity requires a lower-bound estimate such as dy/dt ≥ ay² + b, or a separate argument showing that the Sobolev norm must exceed every finite level before T_i. Consequently the times T_i defined in (3.8) are not demonstrated to be blowup times; they are, at best, times up to which certain a priori estimates are valid. This logical gap affects the abstract and all four theorems.
  2. [§3.0.1, Eq. (3.2) to (3.3)] The passage from the integral inequality (3.2) to the pointwise differential inequality (3.3) is unjustified. The left-hand side of (3.2) contains integrals over x of time derivatives and spatial derivatives, while (3.3) asserts a differential inequality for the pointwise integrand |u|² + |∇u|² at each (t,x). No argument is provided that a global inequality in L² norms implies a pointwise Riccati-type inequality, and the constants c, c1, c2, C are not tracked through the derivation. Since (3.3) is the load-bearing step for all subsequent estimates, the proof of the a priori bounds is not rigorous.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.3)] Inequality (4.3), ∫(∇(u·∇)u)² dx ≤ ∫(|u|² + |Δu|²)² dx, is asserted with the remark that 'it isn't difficult to see,' but no proof is given. The left-hand side contains the terms (∇u·∇)u and (u·∇)∇u, which involve products of first derivatives and second derivatives of u; the right-hand side depends only on |u| and |Δu|. Without an explicit derivation using Sobolev inequalities and integration by parts, this estimate cannot be accepted, especially because it is used to obtain the Riccati inequality (4.5) that underlies Theorem 2.
  4. [§5 and §6] The proofs of Theorems 3 and 4 are not actually carried out. In Section 5 the text states that 'by repetition of the discussions analogous to the above sections' the necessary estimates follow, and in Section 6 it says 'For brevity, we will not conduct these calculations.' Moreover, the differential inequality derived in (6.5) is linear with nonnegative coefficients, not of the Riccati type dy/dt ≤ ay² + b that could yield a finite-time divergence of a majorant. Thus the claimed blowup times T3 and T4 are not established, and the corresponding theorems are unsupported.
  5. [§3, application of Theorem 5] The existence of the strong solution in Theorem 1 relies on Theorem 5, but the hypotheses of Theorem 5 are never verified for the Navier-Stokes operator. After deriving the coercivity lower bound, the paper states that the a priori estimates 'show that' the existence of a smooth solution can be proved, yet it does not check conditions (2) and (3) of Theorem 5, namely the existence of the mapping g with the stated surjectivity property and the local injectivity/acute-angle condition. Without this verification, the existence part of the theorem is not rigorously established, independent of the blowup issue.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] The word 'dates' is used repeatedly where 'data' is intended (e.g., 'smoothness of the dates' in Section 3.0.1).
  2. [Eq. (3.5)] The inequality displayed in (3.5) appears to contain a typographical error: the expression '((C/8ν² ||f||²)^(-1/2) tan^(-1) (...) )^(-1) < t' is not dimensionally consistent and should be stated as a condition on t for the denominator of (3.4) to be positive.
  3. [Theorems 1-4] The definition of a strong solution implicitly includes the initial condition and the equation holding almost everywhere, but these are not stated in the theorem formulations; also the space L²(0,T;H²) appears twice in the statement of Theorem 3, which is likely a typo for L²(0,T;H³) or similar.
  4. [Section 3.0.1 and Eq. (3.2)] The notation ||·|| is introduced as the norm of (L²(Q)) ≡ H³ but then used in (3.2) and throughout as the L²(R³) norm; the spaces and norms should be defined consistently.
  5. [Section 6, initial conditions] The initial condition for ∇u_t(0) is written as u_1(x), which should presumably be ∇u_1(x) if u_t(0) = u_1.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed finite-time blowup time is, by construction, the pole of an upper-bound majorant for a Riccati inequality, not a demonstrated singularity; the existence part further leans on the author's own unproved Theorems 5-6.

  1. self definitional [Proposition 1; Corollary 1; Eqs. (3.4)-(3.8); Theorem 1]
    "Let the function y(t) is the solution to the following Cauchy problem dy/dt ≤ ay² + b, y(0)=y0 then y(t) satisfies the following inequality y(t) ≤ [tan formula]. Consequently, the obtained estimation has a sense only for a finite time, i.e., it must fulfill the following inequality t < (ab)^(-1/2) tan^(-1)((a/b)^(-1/2) y0^(-1))."

    The Riccati inequality is an upper bound: dy/dt ≤ ay²+b cannot force y to diverge. The time at which the tan-denominator vanishes is only the pole of the majorant M. Equation (3.8) defines T1 as exactly this pole, and Theorem 1 then calls T1 a "blowup time." Thus the predicted blowup is not a derived property of the Navier-Stokes solution; it is, by construction, the finite validity horizon of the a priori estimate.

  2. other [Section 3.0.1, transition from (3.2) to (3.3)]
    "Whence, follows that it is necessary to study the following Cauchy problem for the ordinary differential equation, as the first two terms on the left side are positive 1/2 d/dt (|u|²+|∇u|²) ≤ 1/(8ν)(|u|²+∇u²)² + C/ν² ||f||², u(0,x)=u0, ∇u(0,x)=∇u0 (3.3)"

    Inequality (3.2) is an integrated inequality for the L² quantities (||u||²+||∇u||²) and contains spatial integrals on both sides; dropping positive terms does not yield a pointwise ODE for the integrand |u|²+|∇u|². The pointwise Riccati problem is imposed rather than derived, so the pole in Corollary 1 is a property of the imposed model, not of the PDE solution.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, Theorems 5-6; Section 3, "To prove the existence theorem for the studied problem, we will use Theorem 5"]
    "We begin with the special case of two general solvability theorems, which were proved in articles [22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27] (see also the book [21]); therefore, we provide them without their proofs."

    The existence assertion in each theorem is completed by applying Theorem 5, an abstract solvability result whose proof is only cited from the author's own prior works and not reproduced or independently verified here. The proof that the Navier-Stokes problem has a strong solution for T<T1 therefore rests on this self-citation chain rather than on a derivation contained in the paper.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim is not circular in the sense of fitting data, but the "blowup time" is constructed as the pole of the upper bound for a Riccati inequality. Since dy/dt ≤ ay²+b only gives y(t) ≤ M(t), the divergence of M does not imply singularity of u; calling T1 a blowup time is a self-definitional renaming of the estimate's breakdown time. The passage from the integrated inequality (3.2) to the pointwise ODE (3.3) is an unjustified construction that builds the pole into the model. The existence part additionally relies on the author's own Theorems 5-6 quoted without proofs. These issues make the claimed finite-time blowup reduction by construction rather than a derived consequence, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on Sobolev embeddings, Leray-Hopf existence, the author's abstract solvability theorems [21-27], and a set of unproved pointwise or estimate inequalities. No new physical entities or fitted parameters appear, but the constants and the unproved estimates carry much of the argument.

free parameters (1)
  • Generic constants C, c1, c2, c3
    Introduced at will in estimates (3.2), (3.6), (4.4), (6.3)-(6.5) to absorb terms; the text does not track their dependence on the solution, which matters for the claimed bounds.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Leray-Hopf weak solutions exist globally and are unique under extra smoothness conditions.
    Invoked in the Introduction (references [9,10,13,20]) as the starting point for the regularity study.
  • domain assumption The abstract solvability Theorems 5 and 6 of the author's earlier papers are valid and applicable to the Navier-Stokes operator.
    Used in Section 3 to conclude the existence of the strong solution after obtaining a priori estimates; the theorems are quoted, not proved in this manuscript, and are self-citations [21-27].
  • standard math Sobolev embedding H^2(R^3) into L∞(R^3) and related interpolation bounds hold with universal constants.
    Used repeatedly in Sections 3-5 to place the nonlinear term (u·∇)u in L2 spaces.
  • domain assumption Boundary terms at infinity vanish in integration by parts, and pressure terms such as ⟨∇p, u+Δu⟩ vanish.
    Used in (3.1), (4.1), (5.1), (6.2) for R^3 data without a detailed decay justification.
  • ad hoc to paper The unproved inequality ∫(∇(u·∇)u)^2 dx ≤ ∫(|u|^2+|Δu|^2)^2 dx, labelled (4.3), is accepted.
    Stated as "it isn't difficult to see" in Section 4 and used to obtain the Riccati inequality (4.5).
  • ad hoc to paper The estimates analogous to Sections 3-4 that are omitted in Sections 5-6 hold.
    Section 5 says "by repetition of the discussions analogous to the above sections", and Section 6 says "we will not conduct these calculations"; Theorems 3 and 4 depend on these omitted estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Remarks on smoothness and finite-time blowup solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VOFWD7LN

@misc{pith2026250710094,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Remarks on smoothness and finite-time blowup solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VOFWD7LN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10094}
}
read the original abstract

This article examines the smoothness of the solution to the Navier-Stokes equation from a novel perspective. Here, the existence of the smoother solution relative to x and to the time t was shown only for a finite time. Moreover, for each considered case of the problem, a blowup time for its solutions can be demonstrated.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Pure Appl

    Caffarelli L., Kohn R., Nirenberg L., Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equation, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 35 (1982), 771-831

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Vasseur A., The De Giorgi method for nonlocal fluid dynamics, Nonlinear PDE Advanced Courses in Mathematics, CRM, Barcelona (2012), 1-38

    Caffarelli L., A. Vasseur A., The De Giorgi method for nonlocal fluid dynamics, Nonlinear PDE Advanced Courses in Mathematics, CRM, Barcelona (2012), 1-38

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Rational Mech

    Chamorro D., Lemari´e-Rieusset P-G., Mayoufi K., The Role of the Pressure in the Partial Regularity Theory for Weak Solutions of the Navier –Stokes Equations, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 228, 237–277 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Constantin P., Euler Equations, Navier –Stokes Equations and Turbulence, Departments of Mathematics, C.I.M.E.Lectures, 2/21/2004, Princeton

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Diestel, J., Geometry of Banach spaces, Lecture Notes in Math, 485, Springer - Verlag, 1975

    work page 1975

  6. [6]

    Du D., Partial r egularity of weak solutions of the Navier –Stokes equations in at the first blow -up time, Comm

    Dong H., D. Du D., Partial r egularity of weak solutions of the Navier –Stokes equations in at the first blow -up time, Comm. Math. Phys., 273 (3) (2007), 785 - 801

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    L., Existence and Smoothness of the Navier –Stokes Equation, Millennium Problems, Clay Math

    Fefferman Ch. L., Existence and Smoothness of the Navier –Stokes Equation, Millennium Problems, Clay Math. Inst., (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Galdi G., An Introduction to the Mathematical Theory of the Navier –Stokes Equations: Steady-State Problems, (second edition), Springer (2011)

    work page 2011

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Nachr., 4, 213-231(1951)

    Hopf E., ¨ Uber die anfangswertaufgabe f¨ur die hydrodynamischen grundgleichungen, Math. Nachr., 4, 213-231(1951)

    1951

  2. [10]

    Hopf E., On nonlinear partial differential equations, Lecture Series of the Symposium on Partial Differential Equations, Berkeley, 1955, Ed. Univ. Kansas, I- 29, (1957)

    1957

  3. [11]

    Discrete Contin.Dyn

    Kukavica I., On partial regularity for the Navier –Stokes equations. Discrete Contin.Dyn. Syst. 21, 717–728, (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    A., Seregin G., On partial regularity of suitable weak solutions to the threedimensional Navier–Stokes equations, J

    Ladyzenskaja O. A., Seregin G., On partial regularity of suitable weak solutions to the threedimensional Navier–Stokes equations, J. Math. Fluid Mech., 1 (4) (1999), 356-387 [13] Leray J., Sur le Mouvement d’un Liquide Visquex Em plissent l’Espace, Acta Mat h. J. 63, 193–248, (1934)

    1999

  5. [14]

    Pure Appl

    Lin F., A new proof of the Caffarelli–Kohn–Nirenberg Theorem, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 51 (1998), 241-257

    1998

  6. [15]

    Lindberg S., On the integrability properties of Leray-Hopf solutions of the Navier- Stokes equations on R3, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.13066, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [16]

    -L., Quelques methodes de resolution des problemes aux limites nonlineares, Dunod, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, (1969)

    Lions J. -L., Quelques methodes de resolution des problemes aux limites nonlineares, Dunod, Gauthier-Villars, Paris, (1969)

    1969

  8. [17]

    Math., 66 (2) (1976), 535-552

    Scheffer V., Partial regularity of solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations, Pacific J. Math., 66 (2) (1976), 535-552

    1976

  9. [18]

    Serrin J., On the interior regularity of weak solutions of the Navier –Stokes equations Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 9 (1962), 187-195

    1962

  10. [19]

    1, 193-237 ON SMOOTHNESS AND A FINITE-TIME ”BLOWUP” 15

    Seregin, G.A., Differentiability properties of weak solutions to te Navier -Stokes equations, Algebra and Analysis, 14(2002), No. 1, 193-237 ON SMOOTHNESS AND A FINITE-TIME ”BLOWUP” 15

    2002

  11. [20]

    N., Remarks on the uniqueness the weak solutions to the incompressible Navier – Stokes-equations, Russian Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31, 3,(2024)

    Soltanov K. N., Remarks on the uniqueness the weak solutions to the incompressible Navier – Stokes-equations, Russian Journal of Mathematical Physics, 31, 3,(2024)

    2024

  12. [21]

    N., Some applications of the nonlinear analysis to the differential equations, Baku, ELM, (in Russ.), (2002)

    Soltanov K. N., Some applications of the nonlinear analysis to the differential equations, Baku, ELM, (in Russ.), (2002)

    2002

  13. [22]

    Soltanov K. N., Nonlinear Operators, Fixed-Point Theorems, Nonlinear Equations, ”Current Trends in Analysis and Its Applications”, Confere nce on Trends in Mathematics 2013Krakow,(2015) DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-12577-0 41

    2015 doi

  14. [23]

    N., On semi -continuous mappings, equations and inclusions in a Banach space, Hacettepe Journal of Math and Statistics, V

    Soltanov K. N., On semi -continuous mappings, equations and inclusions in a Banach space, Hacettepe Journal of Math and Statistics, V. 37 (1) (2008)

    2008

  15. [24]

    N., Perturbation of the mapping and solvability theorems in Banach space, Nonlinear Analysis, (2010), doi:10.1016/j.na.2009.06.067

    Soltanov K. N., Perturbation of the mapping and solvability theorems in Banach space, Nonlinear Analysis, (2010), doi:10.1016/j.na.2009.06.067

    2010 doi

  16. [25]

    Soltanov K. N. , Sprekels J., Nonlinear equations in nonreflexive Banach spaces and fully nonlinear equations. Advances in Mathematical Scien ces and Applications, 1999, v.9, n 2, 939-972

    1999

  17. [26]

    N., Ahmadov M., Solvability of Equation of Prandtl -von Mises type, Theorems of Embedding

    Soltanov K. N., Ahmadov M., Solvability of Equation of Prandtl -von Mises type, Theorems of Embedding. Trans. NAS Azerb, ser. Phys. -Tech. & Math., 37, 1, (2017)

    2017

  18. [27]

    N., Some embedding theorems and nonl inear differential equations

    Soltanov K. N., Some embedding theorems and nonl inear differential equations. Trans. Ac. Sci. Azerb., ser. Math. & Phys.-Tech., 19, 5, 125 - 146, (1999)

    1999

  19. [28]

    Pure Appl

    Struwe M., Partial regularity results for the Navier –Stokes equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 41 (1988), 437-458

    1988

  20. [29]

    Tao T., Finite time blowup for an averaged three -dimensional Navier -Stokes equation, arXiv:1402.0290v3 [math.AP] 1 Apr 2015

    2015 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Comp., in English, 3rd rev

    Temam R., Navier –Stokes Equations Theory and Numerical Analysis, North - Holland Pub. Comp., in English, 3rd rev. edn, (1984)

    1984

  22. [31]

    Vasseur A., A new proof of partial regu larity of solutions to Navier –Stokes equations, Nonlinear Differential Equations Appl., 14 (2007), 753 -785

    2007

  23. [32]

    Wojciech S. Oz˙an´ski, Partial regularity of Leray –Hopf weak solutions to the incompressible Navier –Stokes equations with hyperdissipation, Analysis and Partial Differential Equations 16(3):747-783, (2023)

    2023

  24. [33]

    Yanqing Wang, Gang Wu, A unified proof on the partial regularity for suitable weak solutions of non -stationary and stationary Navier –Stokes equations, Journal of Differential Equations, 256, 3, (2014), 1224-1249 National Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Baku, AZERBAIJAN Em...

    2014

Pith tools

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