Instantaneous continuous loss of Sobolev regularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equation

In-Jee Jeong; Luis Mart\'inez-Zoroa; Wojciech S. O\.za\'nski

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Instantaneous continuous loss of Sobolev regularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs 3D Euler vorticity that is arbitrarily small in $H^s$ yet loses Sobolev regularity continuously from time zero, with regularity exactly $H^{(s-ct)/(1+ct)}$ at time $t$.

desk verdict If the sketched estimates close, this is a major result: the first sharp continuous loss curve for 3D Euler. But the missing H^β closure for the perturbation error is load-bearing, so the paper is conditional, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06333 v1 pith:ZEQNHP4D submitted 2025-08-08 math.AP

In-Jee Jeong , Luis Martínez-Zoroa , Wojciech S. Ożański This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q35

keywords 3DEulerequationSobolevregularityill-posednessnorminflationinstantaneouslossofcontinuousvorticitypseudosolution

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 supercritical Sobolev regularity is lost, not just inflated, for the 3D incompressible Euler equations. For every $s\in(0,3/2)$ and every $\varepsilon>0$, it produces a divergence-free initial vorticity $\omega_0$ with $\|\omega_0\|_{H^s}\le\varepsilon$ whose unique classical solution satisfies $\omega(\cdot,t)\in H^{(s-ct)/(1+ct)}$ and $\omega(\cdot,t)\notin H^{\beta'}$ for every $\beta'>(s-ct)/(1+ct)$ at each time $t\in[0,T_0]$. The construction builds each solution from a near-steady background vorticity and a much smaller, rapidly oscillating perturbation; a hyperbolic stagnation point stretches the perturbation so that its $H^\beta$ norm grows like $N^{t(1+\beta)/2}$. Summing infinitely many such building blocks at separated scales makes the total $H^\beta$ norm finite exactly when $\beta\le(s-ct)/(1+ct)$, which is the stated threshold. This settles the supercritical range below the $H^{3/2}$ borderline where earlier critical ill-posedness results stopped.

What carries the argument

The engine is a pseudosolution pair $(\varphi,\psi)$: $\varphi$ is a near-steady, highly oscillatory background vorticity, and $\psi$ is a much smaller, even more oscillatory perturbation. The background's Biot-Savart velocity $v[\varphi]$ is, up to an error $N^{-1}$ smaller, the hyperbolic stagnation flow $\nabla v[\varphi]\approx\operatorname{diag}(0,\log N,-\log N)$ in the $x_2$-$x_3$ plane. $\psi$ is defined as the solution of the linear transport-stretching equation $\partial_t\psi+v[\varphi]\cdot\nabla\psi=\psi\cdot\nabla v[\varphi]$, so the Cauchy formula $\psi(x,t)=\nabla\eta(y,t)\psi(y,0)$ applies. The flow squeezes in $x_3$ and stretches in $x_2$ at rate $N^{t/2}$: advection of the

What would settle it

Perform the $H^2$ error estimate for the background error $\Phi$ in Proposition 5 term by term, especially $D^2v[\Phi]\cdot\nabla\Phi$; if its $L^2$ bound exceeds $N^{-1+\varepsilon+ct}(\lambda N)^{\beta'-s}(\log N)^2$ by any power of $\lambda N$, the bootstrap interval cannot reach $T$ and the norm-inflation growth $N^{t(1+\beta)/2}$ fails. This is a direct calculation a reader can carry out on the skipped terms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a construction of smooth, compactly supported 'building blocks' in which a background vorticity $\varphi$ is an almost-steady, highly oscillatory state near the origin, and a perturbation $\psi$ solves the linear transport-stretching equation $\partial_t\psi+v[\varphi]\cdot\nabla\psi=\psi\cdot\nabla v[\varphi]$. Because the Biot-Savart velocity $v[\varphi]$ is, up to a small error, the hyperbolic stagnation flow $\operatorname{diag}(0,\log N,-\log N)$ in the $x_2$-$x_3$ plane, the Cauchy formula $\psi(x,t)=\nabla\eta(y,t)\psi(y,0)$ shows that $\psi$ gains a factor $N^{t/2}$ from vortex stretching and a further factor $N^{\beta t/2}$ from adv

Load-bearing premise

The proof stands only if every error estimate left to 'similar lines' or 'bootstrapping' is no larger than the displayed $N^{-1}$- and $\lambda^{-c_*}$-small bounds; a single skipped term with one extra power of the frequency parameters would close the control window before the time at which the growth is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $s\in(0,3/2)$, the loss is instantaneous: no matter how small $t>0$ is, the solution misses every Sobolev space above $H^{(s-ct)/(1+ct)}$.
The regularity threshold decreases continuously in time, with rate governed by the same constants that control norm growth, so the construction ties the rate of loss to the Lyapunov exponent of the background hyperbolic flow.
Uniqueness holds in a natural class of classical solutions, so the loss is a property of the Euler evolution itself rather than a selection effect of weak solutions.
The gluing argument shows that finite-time norm inflation for a single smooth block can be promoted to continuous-in-time loss whenever infinitely many summable blocks can be placed at separated scales.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors leave implicit that the threshold formula may be read as an ODE for the maximal regularity exponent $\beta(t)=(s-ct)/(1+ct)$, whose derivative $d\beta/dt=-c(1+\beta)$ combines stretching and transport rates; analogous 'regularity ODEs' might hold for other hyperbolic-point constructions.
One testable extension is numerical: simulating a single block with the parameter relation $\lambda^{3/2-s}N^{-s}=K\log N$ and measuring $\|\psi(t)\|_{H^\beta}$ directly would check whether the predicted exponent $t(1+\beta)/2$ is robust to small perturbations of the exact construction.
Because the background vorticity sits near a steady Euler solution, the same short-time stretching mechanism could plausibly survive for the Navier-Stokes equations with small viscosity before dissipation dominates; the present proof provides a no-dissipation baseline for such an extension.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The new thing is Theorem 3: for every s in (0,3/2) you get a divergence-free H^s vorticity, arbitrarily small, whose unique classical solution lies in H^{(s-ct)/(1+ct)} at each time and in no higher space. That is genuinely stronger than Luo's norm inflation and Bourgain–Li's endpoint result, and it caps the program from the 2D and SQG papers. The mechanism is coherent: an oscillatory background creates a hyperbolic stretching, the perturbation is tuned to align with the stretching and its frequency beats any power of the background, and the loss exponent comes from balancing exponents, not from fitting parameters. I checked the bookkeeping; the threshold formula is internally consistent.

The soft spot is real. Prop. 13, Step 4 estimates W in L^2 and H^1, then says higher integer norms are analogous and interpolates to H^β for β up to s. But Ψ=curl W, so the claimed H^β bound on Ψ for β near 3/2 requires W in H^{5/2-}, which means controlling ∥D^3 W∥_{L^2}. That is precisely where the small factors from the Riemann-Lebesgue cancellations have to survive three derivatives of the nonlinear terms in (3.80). The stress-test note names the dangerous terms—D^3(v[ψ]·∇v[ψ]), D^3(W·∇v[ψ]), and the pressure—and by dimensional counting they look like they could carry extra powers of λ or N. No calculation is given to show they don't. Same pattern in Prop. 5's H^β' bound. I could not verify or refute this in the time I gave it; it is a checkable technical premise, not a conceptual objection.

There are also a few display errors: (3.90) asserts a false inclusion, Lemma 11 has an exponent typo, and (3.65) contains '1<0'. The uniqueness class in the abstract differs slightly from the one in Section 4. All repairable, but they tell you the manuscript is not final.

The citation pattern is fine. The SQG adaptation is legitimate; the 3D problem has genuinely new difficulties (stretching, divergence constraint, non-scalar transport). The parameters a, B, γ, α, c* are chosen to satisfy constraints, not to hit the target exponent.

Who gets value: anyone working on Euler ill-posedness. I would send this to a serious referee, with the instruction that the referee must actually verify the missing estimates in Prop. 13 Steps 3–4 and Prop. 5's H^β' claim. If they close, this is a major result. If they don't, the paper needs a real fix and cannot be published as is. My honest verdict: conditional, leaning positive, with the burden on the authors to supply the missing computation.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs divergence-free initial vorticities in 3D incompressible Euler with arbitrarily small H^s norm, for any s<3/2, whose unique classical solution loses Sobolev regularity continuously in time: at time t it lies in H^{(s-ct)/(1+ct)} and in no higher H^β. The proof has two ingredients. First, a norm-inflation building block (Theorem 1) decomposes the solution into a near-steady, oscillatory background φ and a perturbation ψ; a hyperbolic flow generated by the background stretches ψ so that ∥ψ∥_{H^β} grows like N^{t(1+β)/2}(eλ eN)^{β-s}. Error estimates (Propositions 5 and 13) show that the exact solution remains close to this pseudosolution on a fixed time interval. Second, an infinite disjoint sum of such blocks with rapidly increasing λ_j and suitable K_j yields the continuous loss curve, while a gluing and H^2 uniqueness argument selects the unique classical solution.

Significance. If the technical estimates close, this is a landmark result: it gives instantaneous and continuous-in-time loss of supercritical Sobolev regularity for the 3D Euler equations, with uniqueness in a natural classical class. The construction is highly nontrivial: the stable oscillatory background, the hyperbolic stretching mechanism, the Riemann-Lebesgue-type gains of N^{-1} and λ^{-c_*}, and the final threshold derivation from exponent bookkeeping are original and plausible. The paper also provides a clear conceptual explanation of the two mechanisms (transport and stretching) that produce the numerator and denominator in (s-ct)/(1+ct). The main weakness is that several load-bearing error estimates are only sketched, especially the high-order Sobolev estimates needed to reach β close to 3/2. Those gaps are technical in nature, but they are essential for the proof as written.

major comments (4)

[§3.2.2, Proposition 13, Step 4 (Eq. (3.68))] The H^β bound on Ψ is not proved for the full range β∈[0,s]. The proof estimates only ∥W∥_{L^2} and ∥∇W∥_{L^2}, and then says that higher integer order L^2 Sobolev norms are 'analogous' and that interpolation gives general H^β. Since Ψ=curl W, ∥Ψ∥_{H^β}≤C∥W∥_{H^{β+1}}; for β close to 3/2 this requires control of ∥D^3W∥_{L^2}. From (3.57), ∥ψ∥_{C^3} ~ eλ^{9/2-s}eN^{3-s}N^{ct}, which is a positive power of eλ (for s=1, eλ^{7/2}eN^2), and D^3(v[ψ]·∇v[ψ]) in (3.80) is not obviously small. No explicit induction is given to show that after three derivatives every term is controlled by the claimed right-hand side of (3.68). This gap is load-bearing because (3.68) is used to obtain the ψ-growth in Theorem 1 and hence the threshold in (4.18).
[§3.1, Proposition 5 (Eq. (3.25))] The H^{β'} estimate for the background error Φ is only sketched. After an L^2 estimate, the text says the H^1 and H^2 estimates follow by differentiating and 'repeat similar estimates', with a brief comment about the difficult term D^2v[Φ]·∇Φ and a Gagliardo-Nirenberg bound. The other terms arising from two derivatives of (3.15) are not listed; in particular the terms involving D^2v[φ]·∇Φ and D^2(v[φ]-v[φ])·∇Φ need a careful comparison with the claimed factor (λN)^{β'-s}N^{-1+ε}. Since ∥Φ∥_{H^{β'}} enters directly into the background bound ∥φ∥_{H^β}∼K^{-1}λ^{c_2(β-s)} in Theorem 1, an unchecked positive power of λN here would invalidate the background estimate. The proof must be supplied in full, not just indicated.
[Theorem 1, Eq. (1.4) vs. §3.2, (3.42), (3.58)] The displayed K-scaling in the ψ-H^β estimate is inconsistent with the construction. Eq. (1.4) states ∥ψ(·,t)∥_{H^β}∼K^{-t(1+β)/s}λ^{...}, which at t=0 and β=s gives an O(1) quantity independent of K. However the initial data (3.42) carry an explicit factor K^{-1}, and (3.58) (written for K=1) together with (3.3) implies ∥ψ(0)∥_{H^s}∼K^{-1}. The same omission appears in Eq. (4.18). The missing factor K^{-1} does not change the λ-based convergence criterion, but it is part of the statement of Theorem 1 and is needed for the displayed initial-smallness mechanism in Theorem 3. The formula should read (up to logs) K^{-1-t(1+β)/s} or an equivalent corrected expression.
[§3.2.3, Eq. (3.88)] The bound ∥ω∥_{C^k}≲λ^{ck} is asserted to follow from an induction 'similar' to Lemma 9, with the claim that it is simpler. This estimate is used to obtain the H^5 bound in Theorem 1 and in the gluing bootstrap (4.13). Since ω=φ+ψ and the flow is nonlinear, the induction requires controlling composition with the full particle map of v[ω], not just v[φ]. No details are provided. Please give the induction and state explicitly which constants are independent of λ and K.

minor comments (4)

[§3.2, Lemma 12, proof] In the proof, 'det ∇η = 0, due to incompressibility' should be 'det ∇η = 1'. The subsequent formula uses the change of variables, so this is a typo.
[Eq. (3.65)] The condition '(2+a)γ<1 <0' contains a typo; presumably it should be '(2+a)γ<1'.
[§4, after Eq. (4.2)] The definition of K_j is ambiguous in the text 'Kj := 2j ε'. Please write K_j=2^{-j}ε or K_j=2^j ε explicitly, and check consistency with the requirement that ∥ω0∥_{H^s}≤ε.
[Theorem 15 vs. Eq. (1.4)] The log factors are displayed inconsistently: Theorem 15 uses (log N)^{-t(1+β)/s}, while (1.4) and (4.18) use (log λ)^{-t(1+β)/s}. Since N and λ are related by (3.3), the precise relation should be stated once and used consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the loss-of-regularity exponent is derived from an exponent balance, not fitted; self-citations are methodological and not load-bearing.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The norm-inflation estimate (1.4) is obtained by explicitly computing the H^β norm of the Cauchy-formula pseudosolution ψ in Lemma 11, ∥ψ∥_{H^β} ∼ N^{t(1+β)/2}(eλ eN)^{β−s}, and then proving in Propositions 5 and 13 that the exact perturbation error Ψ is smaller by factors λ^{−c*} and N^{−1}-type errors. The loss curve (s−ct)/(1+ct) is not imposed; it is the unique threshold at which the block sum (4.18) switches from convergence to divergence, via the equivalence c3(β−s)+t(1+β)c4 ≤ 0. The parameters a, B, γ, c* are chosen to satisfy inequalities (3.64)–(3.67) and (3.89), not to fit a target Sobolev exponent. Citations to the authors' prior works [5] and [6] are methodological (same hyperbolic-point mechanism) and no theorem from them is used as a black box; existence, uniqueness, and the gluing argument are proved in Section 4. Flagged as a technical-completeness concern, not circularity: Proposition 13 Step 4 says 'Estimating higher integer order L2 Sobolev norms are analogous' and Proposition 5 says the H^{β'} estimate 'can be done along similar lines'; these are omitted proof details that could affect the closure of the error estimates, but they do not make the conclusion equivalent to an input. No equation is assumed into the conclusion, and the claimed regularity threshold is genuinely derived.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on classical PDE machinery (standard), a construction ansatz specific to this paper (ad hoc but fully stated), and a uniqueness-class convention. The many tunable parameters (B, a, alpha, gamma, c*, and the sequences K_j, lambda_j, D_j) are chosen by constraint satisfaction, not fitted to data, and the loss rate c emerges from the exponent balance rather than being imposed.

free parameters (6)

B (e-lambda = lambda^B concentration exponent) = sufficiently large, fixed at (3.89)
Chosen by hand so that (3.67), (3.89) and Proposition 13 hold; all adverse powers of lambda are absorbed into 'B large'. The loss rate c = c4/c3 is of order 1/(B(1+a)), so c is arbitrarily small and construction-dependent.
a (e-N = e-lambda^a frequency exponent) = any a > (3-2s)/s, see (3.64)
Chosen so that the perturbation amplitude e-lambda^{3/2-s}e-N^{-s} tends to 0 and (3.65) holds.
gamma (Holder exponent in perturbation error analysis) = small, satisfying (3.65)
Chosen so that ||psi||_{C^gamma} decays and the C^gamma closing in Proposition 13 works.
alpha (Holder exponent in background error analysis) = alpha in (0, 1/2 - s/3), see (3.24)
Chosen so that lambda^alpha N^{alpha-1/2}(log N)^4 decreases with lambda, making the Proposition 5 bootstrap close.
c* (decay exponent in (3.67)) = positive, exists once B is large
Measures how small the interaction terms are; Proposition 13's error estimates carry lambda^{-c*}.
sequences {K_j}, {lambda_j}, {D_j} = K_j about 2^j/epsilon; lambda_j >= exp(K_j) with (4.4); D_j recursive and large (Section 4 Steps 1 and 4)
Hand-chosen in the gluing to make ||omega_0||_{H^s} <= epsilon, to make L^4 errors summable, and to let the H^2 uniqueness estimate close.

assumptions (4)

standard math Classical local well-posedness for smooth Euler data and standard Biot-Savart and Calderon-Zygmund estimates, including log-type L-infinity bounds (2.9)-(2.13)
Invoked throughout (Propositions 5 and 13, gluing section) to run error equations, pressure estimates, and particle-flow estimates; quoted without proof.
standard math Sobolev-Slobodeckij characterization of H^s, (2.5), and the separated-support norm identity (2.6)
(2.5) is cited to [7]; (2.6) is proved in Section 2.4 and used in the gluing to convert sums of blob norms into the H^s norm of the glued solution.
domain assumption Definition 2 (classical solution): omega in C_t L^p_x for some p > 3 and omega in C^1([0,T0]; C^2(K)) for each compact K, as the uniqueness class
The uniqueness statement of Theorem 3 holds exactly within this class; a different solution notion (for example merely integrable weak solutions) is not covered.
ad hoc to paper The ansatz: cutoff g even in each coordinate and satisfying (3.1); oscillatory backgrounds (3.2) and (3.42) with the frequency-amplitude balance (3.3) and e-lambda, e-N scalings (3.43)
The entire error analysis (symmetry (3.14), cancellations in G, the x3-oscillation gain (3.72), divergence-free structure) is keyed to these explicit choices; they are the paper's construction rather than background results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Instantaneous continuous loss of Sobolev regularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZEQNHP4D

@misc{pith2026250806333,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Instantaneous continuous loss of Sobolev regularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZEQNHP4D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06333}
}

abstract

We prove instantaneous and continuous-in-time loss of supercritical Sobolev regularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equations in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$. Namely, for any $s\in (0,3/2)$ and $\varepsilon >0$, we construct a divergence-free initial vorticity $\omega_0$ defined in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ satisfying $\| \omega_0 \|_{H^s}\leq \varepsilon$, as well as $T>0$, $c>0$ and a corresponding local-in-time solution $\omega$ such that, for each $t\in [0,T]$, $\omega (\cdot ,t ) \in {H^{\frac{s-ct}{1+ct}}}$ and $ \omega (\cdot ,t ) \not \in {H^\beta }$ for any $\beta > \frac{s-ct}{1+ct} $. Moreover, $\omega$ is unique among all solutions with initial condition $\omega_0$ which are locally $C^2$ and belong to $C([0,T];L^p )$ for any $p>3 $.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.06333 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** A sketch of the background vorticity ϕ and the perturbation vorticity ψ. Here the colors and directions of the colored arrows indicate the amplitude and direction of the vorticity vector, with the red color corresponding to positive amplitude, and the blue color corresponding to negative amplitude. The black arrows indicate the particle trajectories of the hyperbolic flow in the x2 −x3 plane generated by v[ϕ]. We n… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Low regularity Sobolev well-posedness for Vlasov--Poisson
math.AP 2025-10 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Local well-posedness for Vlasov–Poisson in H^s for s > n/2 − 1/4, n≥3, with compact velocity support, allowing unbounded initial data.
Global well-posedness for the incompressible Euler equations in an endpoint Sobolev space
math.AP 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The 2D Euler vorticity equation is shown to be globally well-posed in the endpoint Sobolev space W^{2,1}, and the 3D axisymmetric no-swirl case in W^{3,1}, closing the p=1 endpoint of the critical Sobolev scale.
Norm Inflation For The Critical SQG Equation
math.AP 2025-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Critical SQG has H1 norm inflation from large smooth data and small-data norm inflation in supercritical W^{β,p} spaces.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[1]

Bardos and E

C. Bardos and E. S. Titi , Loss of smoothness and energy conserving rough weak solutions for the3d Euler equations, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S, 3 (2010), pp. 185–197

work page 2010
[2]

Bardos and E

K. Bardos and E. S. Titi , Euler equations for an ideal incompressible fluid, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 62 (2007), pp. 5–46

work page 2007
[3]

Bourgain and D

J. Bourgain and D. Li , Strong ill-posedness of the incompressible Euler equation in borderline Sobolev spaces, Invent. Math., 201 (2015), pp. 97–157

work page 2015
[4]

Bourgain and D

J. Bourgain and D. Li , Strong ill-posedness of the 3D incompressible Euler equation in borderline spaces, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (2021), pp. 12155–12264

work page 2021
[5]

Córdoba, L

D. Córdoba, L. Martínez-Zoroa, and W. S. Ożański , Instantaneous continuous loss of Sobolev regularity for the SQG equation, (2024). arXiv:2409.18900

work page arXiv 2024
[6]

J., 173 (2024), pp

, Instantaneous gap loss of Sobolev regularity for the 2D incompressible Euler equations, Duke Math. J., 173 (2024), pp. 1931–1971

work page 2024
[7]

Di Nezza, G

E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. V aldinoci , Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math., 136 (2012), pp. 521–573

work page 2012
[8]

T. M. Elgindi and I.-J. Jeong , Ill-posedness for the incompressible Euler equations in critical Sobolev spaces, Ann. PDE, 3 (2017), pp. Paper No. 7, 19

work page 2017

Show all 16 references

[9]

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

2020
[10]

Jeong, Loss of regularity for the 2d euler equations, Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 23 (2021), pp

I.-J. Jeong, Loss of regularity for the 2d euler equations, Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 23 (2021), pp. 1–11

2021
[11]

Jeong and T

I.-J. Jeong and T. Yoneda , Vortex stretching and enhanced dissipation for the incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes equations, Math. Ann., 380 (2021), pp. 2041–2072

2021
[12]

, Quasi-streamwise vortices and enhanced dissipation for incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes equations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 150 (2022), pp. 1279–1286

2022
[13]

Kato, Nonstationary flows of viscous and ideal fluids inR3, J

T. Kato, Nonstationary flows of viscous and ideal fluids inR3, J. Functional Analysis, 9 (1972), pp. 296–305

1972
[14]

Kato and G

T. Kato and G. Ponce , Commutator estimates and the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 41 (1988), pp. 891–907

1988
[15]

Kim and I.-J

J. Kim and I.-J. Jeong , A simple ill-posedness proof for incompressible Euler equations in critical Sobolev spaces, J. Funct. Anal., 283 (2022), pp. Paper No. 109673, 34

2022
[16]

Luo, Illposedness of incompressible fluids in supercritical sobolev spaces, (2024)

X. Luo, Illposedness of incompressible fluids in supercritical sobolev spaces, (2024). arXiv:2404.07813

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Bardos and E

C. Bardos and E. S. Titi , Loss of smoothness and energy conserving rough weak solutions for the3d Euler equations, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. S, 3 (2010), pp. 185–197

work page 2010

[2] [2]

Bardos and E

K. Bardos and E. S. Titi , Euler equations for an ideal incompressible fluid, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 62 (2007), pp. 5–46

work page 2007

[3] [3]

Bourgain and D

J. Bourgain and D. Li , Strong ill-posedness of the incompressible Euler equation in borderline Sobolev spaces, Invent. Math., 201 (2015), pp. 97–157

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Bourgain and D

J. Bourgain and D. Li , Strong ill-posedness of the 3D incompressible Euler equation in borderline spaces, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (2021), pp. 12155–12264

work page 2021

[5] [5]

Córdoba, L

D. Córdoba, L. Martínez-Zoroa, and W. S. Ożański , Instantaneous continuous loss of Sobolev regularity for the SQG equation, (2024). arXiv:2409.18900

work page arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

J., 173 (2024), pp

, Instantaneous gap loss of Sobolev regularity for the 2D incompressible Euler equations, Duke Math. J., 173 (2024), pp. 1931–1971

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Di Nezza, G

E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. V aldinoci , Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math., 136 (2012), pp. 521–573

work page 2012

[8] [8]

T. M. Elgindi and I.-J. Jeong , Ill-posedness for the incompressible Euler equations in critical Sobolev spaces, Ann. PDE, 3 (2017), pp. Paper No. 7, 19

work page 2017