Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

On the axisymmetric Navier-Stokes flow passing a cone with the total-slip boundary condition

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Small, mean-zero swirl guarantees global smooth flow past a cone under total-slip walls.

desk verdict A substantial and largely coherent extension of the NHL-cone result to the Navier total-slip case, with genuinely new tools — but the existence proof has a load-bearing gap at the m→∞ limit that the authors leave in three-line omissions. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.25137 v4 pith:UDFM3JNU submitted 2026-05-24 math.AP

Zijin Li , Xin Yang , Qi S. Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3576D05
keywords axiallysymmetricNavier-StokesNaviertotal-slipboundaryconedomainglobalstrongsolutionswirlsmallnessanisotropicHardyinequalityDeGiorgiiterationcontrolledregularity
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 proves a global regularity theorem for the axially symmetric Navier–Stokes equations in the exterior of a cone when the boundary obeys the Navier total-slip condition. It shows that if the initial swirl, measured by r v_{0,θ}, is bounded by an absolute constant and has vanishing weighted integral over the cone, then for any time T a unique strong solution exists, is bounded, has finite energy, and satisfies the natural energy inequality. The result holds without any smallness on the radial and axial components and without parity assumptions. The proof pivots on three new 'good unknowns' that absorb the boundary-induced singularities, a new anisotropic Hardy inequality for mean-zero functions, and a De Giorgi iteration that propagates the smallness of r v_θ for all times. As applications, the authors derive 'controlled regularity' — a forcing supported away from the symmetry axis can force any suitable initial data to produce global strong solutions — and show that any finite-time blow-up solution implies the existence of an unstable blow-up solution.

What carries the argument

The backbone is a triple (K,F,O) of second-order 'good unknowns' built from vorticity and velocity: K = sinφ/ρ² ∂φ(vθ/sinφ), F = −∂ρ(vθ/ρ), and O = Ω − 2v_φη/(ρ² sinφ), where Ω=ω_θ/(ρ sinφ) is Ladyzhenskaya's quantity. These are chosen so that K vanishes on the cone rays and O vanishes on the whole boundary, converting the bad boundary integrals of the total-slip condition into Robin-type or vanishing terms. The argument closes an energy estimate for (K,F,O) using: an elliptic Neumann problem for the pressure with boundary data that are quadratic in velocity; a De Giorgi iteration for Γ=rv_θ to propagate its smallness; and an anisotropic Hardy inequality with constant 2/19 (instead of the cl

What would settle it

Construct a natural C², divergence-free, total-slip initial field on the cone that satisfies sup r|v_{0,θ}| ≤ C_* and ∫ r v_{0,θ}=0 but cannot be approximated in C² by the truncated admissible fields A_m; if such a field exists, Theorem 1.3 would not cover it. Alternatively, exhibit a finite-time blow-up for data satisfying the theorem's smallness and mean-zero conditions, which would directly contradict the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.3: on a cone-like domain with aperture α≤π/6, under the Navier total-slip boundary condition, if sup r|v_{0,θ}| ≤ C_* and ∫ r v_{0,θ} = 0, then global bounded strong solutions exist for all T>0, with v in L∞_tx ∩ H1_t L2_x ∩ L2_t H2_x and P in L2_t H1_x; the weighted angular momentum ∫ r v_θ is conserved and the energy inequality holds. Uniqueness holds among strong solutions. The genuinely new content is that the total-slip (β=0) boundary is treated directly: unlike the NHL case, boundary terms from integration by parts have bad signs, and the proof absorbs them through the new unknowns K, F, O, a pressure estimate, a De Giorgi argument for L∞ control of Γ=rv_

Load-bearing premise

The theorem is proved only for initial data in the admissible class A — C² limits of fields on domains truncated away from the cone vertex — and the paper itself says it is unclear whether every C² field satisfying the total-slip boundary condition lies in A; if the approximation limit does not reinstate total-slip at the vertex strongly enough for the uniqueness argument, the result covers a strict subclass.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any initial velocity in the admissible class with small, mean-zero swirl, the cone-flow problem has a unique global bounded strong solution with finite energy, for every T>0.
  • The result removes the parity and symmetry assumptions used in earlier cone-flow work, extending to asymmetric cone-like domains with two different aperture angles.
  • Controlled regularity holds: for suitable initial data without any smallness, an external force supported away from the symmetry axis can be chosen so that the forced problem has a global strong solution; the same construction works in R³.
  • If the unforced problem ever possesses a strong solution that blows up in finite time, then it also possesses an unstable blow-up solution in the sense that arbitrarily small C² perturbations of its swirl component yield global solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The anisotropic Hardy inequality with constant 2/19 suggests a template for other wedge or sector geometries where a weighted mean-zero condition can replace symmetry assumptions; one can test it on apertures larger than π/6 or on non-conic corners.
  • The theorem's scope depends on the admissible class A: if it turns out that every natural C² total-slip field is in A, Theorem 1.3 is fully general; a density proof in that direction would remove the current artificial restriction.
  • The controlled-regularity construction implicitly raises a control-theoretic question: what is the minimal support or minimal norm of a forcing placed away from the axis that still guarantees global regularity, and can the construction be made quantitative in terms of the initial data alone?
  • The mean-zero condition on r v_{0,θ} is shown necessary for the energy inequality to hold; this suggests exploring near-zero, rather than exactly zero, angular momentum as a possible route to nearly-global bounds.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies axially symmetric Navier-Stokes equations in an exterior conic domain D with the Navier total-slip (NTS) boundary condition. The main result, Theorem 1.3, asserts that if the initial swirl has zero weighted mean, ∫_D r v_{0,θ}=0, and satisfies a smallness condition sup r|v_{0,θ}| ≤ C_*, then for every T>0 there is a unique global bounded strong solution, uniformly in time, with a quantitative energy inequality. The proof proceeds by approximating D by domains D_m with a mixed NTS/NHL condition on an artificial inner arc, introducing three modified good unknowns (K,F,O), deriving pressure estimates, a De Giorgi iteration for Γ=rv_θ, and anisotropic Hardy/Korn inequalities with constants independent of m. The paper also proves a controlled-regularity theorem with forcing supported away from the axis, and a corollary on existence of unstable blow-up solutions if any finite-time blow-up occurs.

Significance. If the proof is completed, this would be a substantial advance: it removes the parity assumption of the prior NHL-boundary work [25] and treats a more physical total-slip boundary, requiring only smallness of a mean-zero swirl component with no smallness on the radial/axial components. The paper has real strengths: the estimates are unusually concrete, with explicit constants in the Hardy/Korn inequalities (e.g. 2/19, 3/25, 8/3), an explicit energy identity (6.1), a De Giorgi recursion (7.26) with a computable constant (7.29), and a non-vacuous counterexample in Remark 1.5 showing the mean-zero condition is necessary. The controlled-regularity results, if valid, are also interesting. However, the core compactness passage from the approximating domains to D rests on two propositions stated without proof, and the theorem is formulated only for an admissible class that is not shown to contain all natural NTS data.

major comments (3)
  1. [§10.1, Propositions 10.1–10.2] The m→ ∞ limit in the proof of Theorem 1.3 Step 1 requires uniform-in-m bounds in L∞_{tx}, L²_t H²_x, and H¹_t L²_x. These are precisely Propositions 10.1 and 10.2, but both are asserted without proof: the text says the proof 'can be derived by adapting contents in Section 4.7 of [25]' and 'We omit the details here.' This is not a routine adaptation because the approximating problem uses the mixed condition (2.5) on A_{1,m}, and the whole point of the paper is that NTS boundary terms have bad signs. One must show that constants do not depend on m and that the limit solution satisfies the NTS condition on the original boundary. This is load-bearing for the existence claim.
  2. [Definition 2.2 and Theorem 1.3] Theorem 1.3 is stated for the admissible class A, defined as C²-limits of data on D_m satisfying the mixed boundary condition. The paper explicitly admits (after Definition 2.2) that 'it is not clear whether every function in C²(D) that satisfies the Navier total-slip boundary condition (1.5) belongs to A.' As a consequence, the advertised conclusion — that any natural C² NTS data with small mean-zero swirl yield a global strong solution — is not established. The limit passage also must verify that NTS holds on the limiting boundary; this is related to the unresolved density question. The theorem is internally consistent as stated for A, but the significance is reduced unless the admissible class is enlarged or shown to be the natural one.
  3. [§7, Lemma 7.1, Eq. (7.4)] There is a sign inconsistency in the boundary contribution on the inner arc. With the outward normal on ρ=1/m pointing in the −e_ρ direction, as explicitly noted in Remark 3.2, the inner-arc term ∂_nΓ equals −(2/ρ)Γ, so the contribution is negative, not the positive term displayed in (7.4). The subsequent text says this term 'carries a good sign' and drops it, which is consistent with a negative sign but not with the displayed formula. If this is a typo, it should be corrected; if not, Lemma 7.1, and hence the propagation of the Γ bound used in Proposition 9.1, needs repair.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, Proposition 2.4] The existence/uniqueness assertion on D_m is stated as 'standard' with reference to [3] and [25], but the precise compatibility of the mixed boundary condition (2.5) with strong H² solutions is not discussed. A short explanation or a precise theorem statement would help.
  2. [§10.2, Step 2] In the uniqueness proof, Lemma 6.1 is applied on D with η_m replaced by the constant function 1. Since D is only Lipschitz, the boundary integration by parts near the vertex and edges should be justified for the regularity class in Definition 1.2.
  3. [§11, Step 2] In the proof of Theorem 1.7, the claim that '(1−η_1)v^{(2)} is a bounded smooth vector field' for a Leray-Hopf solution requires justification; standard local regularity is available only away from the axis and boundary, and the support of (1−η_1) touches the outer boundary.
  4. [Throughout] The notation η for the cut-off in (1.21) and η_m for the family in (2.6) is easy to confuse, especially in Section 9 where both appear. Please clarify or rename.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the hypotheses are structural, the smallness constant is chosen to close energy estimates, and the derived bounds are not fitted to the conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not circular. The smallness condition sup r|v_{0,\theta}| ≤ C_* is an assumption; C_* is constructed in the proof of Proposition 9.1 from the constants of Lemmas 9.2, 9.3 and 9.5 so that a Gronwall inequality closes, which is the standard meaning of an absolute smallness theorem rather than a fitted prediction. The zero-mean condition ∫ r v_{0,\theta}=0 is used to prove a genuinely new anisotropic Hardy inequality (Lemma 4.4 and Corollary 5.1), and Remark 1.5 shows the condition is necessary, so it is not silently built into the desired conclusion. The good unknowns K,F,O are defined as linear differential expressions in the velocity and are then used in genuinely proved energy and Biot–Savart estimates (e.g., Lemma 8.4, Proposition 9.1); none of these estimates is equivalent to the conclusion by construction. The paper does rely on earlier work by the same authors, especially [25], for Poincaré inequalities and for the omitted proofs of Propositions 10.1 and 10.2; those are proof gaps and a limitation, not circularity, because the cited results are independent published results rather than restatements of the present theorem. The admitted uncertainty in Definition 2.2 whether every C^2 NTS datum lies in the admissible class A narrows the theorem's scope but does not make the derivation circular. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim’s load-bearing imports: (1) the existential threshold C_* determined by un-computed constants; (2) Poincaré constants inherited from [25] at α=π/6 whose smallness is essential; (3) existence on polyhedral D_m (Proposition 2.4, citing [3]); (4) the limit-passage assumption that the mixed NHL boundary on the shrinking inner arc does not pollute the limiting data class; (5) global smoothness of pure-swirl Leray–Hopf solutions asserted as standard in Theorem 1.7. No invented physical entities: (K,F,O), η, η_m are proof devices, not postulates about the world.

free parameters (1)
  • C_* (swirl smallness threshold) = 1/(2 C_Γ² max{40, 10C_K + C_F}) in (9.1), with C_Γ = 2^11 (430 max{1,C_sob})^{5/4} π; numerical value not computed
    The theorem’s hypothesis is sup r|v_{0,θ}| ≤ C_*; C_* is defined in Proposition 9.1 as the value that makes the (K,F,O) energy estimate (9.59) close. Its size is existential — it depends on un-computed constants C_K, C_F, and the Sobolev constant C_sob — so the “absolute smallness” is not quantitatively checkable, though the existence claim is meaningful.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of strong solutions on the polyhedral approximating domains D_m with mixed boundary condition (2.2) (Proposition 2.4)
    Invoked at the start of Section 2.2; cited to [3] (Benes) and [25, Section 3]; proof omitted in the paper.
  • standard math The classical Poincaré inequalities (Lemmas 4.1–4.2) with the stated sharp constants 2/19 and 3/25 at α=π/6
    Cited from [25, Corollaries 2.4 and 2.6]; the smallness of these constants is what makes the energy estimates close, so the theorem inherits correctness from [25]’s computation.
  • domain assumption Uniform-in-m Sobolev embedding constant C_sob for the family D_m (Remark 7.3)
    Needed in the De Giorgi iteration (7.22) and in the size of C_Γ; asserted because D_m → D, a bounded Lipschitz domain. No proof is given in the paper.
  • domain assumption The limit passage m→∞ transfers the uniform bounds and the boundary condition to a strong solution on D (Theorem 1.3, Step 1)
    The paper follows “[25, Section 6]” and Propositions 10.1–10.2 (whose proofs are omitted); the mixed NHL boundary on the shrinking inner arc A_{1,m} is assumed not to pollute the limit solution’s NTS boundary behavior on ∂D.
  • domain assumption Global smoothness of the Leray–Hopf solution for pure-swirl initial data supported away from the axis (Theorem 1.7, Step 2)
    “By standard theory” with no citation; a general 3D Leray–Hopf solution is not known smooth, so this relies on a special-structure result for swirl-only data that is not stated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the axisymmetric Navier-Stokes flow passing a cone with the total-slip boundary condition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UDFM3JNU

@misc{pith2026260525137,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the axisymmetric Navier-Stokes flow passing a cone with the total-slip boundary condition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UDFM3JNU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.25137}
}
abstract

(A) It is known that among the currently unresolved cases of the axially symmetric Navier-Stokes equations (ASNS), the most relatively tractable one is where the fluid passes the exterior of a cone. In this paper, we investigate this case with Navier total-slip boundary condition. We show that there exists an absolute constant $C_* > 0$ such that if \[ \sup_{x\in D}r|v_{0,\theta}|\leq C_* \quad\text{and}\quad \int_{D} r v_{0,\theta}(x) \mathrm{d} x = 0, \] then there exists a unique global bounded strong solution with finite energy. Note that, for the initial velocity, there is neither a size restriction on other components, nor a parity assumption. There are four key ingredients in the proof. (1) Three new good unknowns are introduced, and a self-closed energy estimate for them is derived. (2) An elliptic estimate for pressure is established to control boundary terms arising from the boundary condition. (3) A De Giorgi iteration scheme is applied to establish the boundedness of $rv_\theta$. (4) A new anisotropic Hardy's inequality is derived for weighted mean-zero functions to overcome the lack of parity of $\boldsymbol{v}$. (B) Based on (A), we introduce and prove the so-called controlled regularity for the above problem, i.e. for suitable initial data without any smallness assumption, there exists an external force supported away from the axis of symmetry such that the corresponding problem admits a global strong solution. This seems to add a little weight to the regularity scenario for ASNS, since the force is supported away from the axis which is the only place regularity may break down. We also prove that if there exists a solution that blows up in finite time, an unstable blow-up solution must exist.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25137 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Domain D in cylindrical coordinates Definition 1.1. Let α ∈ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Domain D in spherical coordinates The axially symmetric Navier-Stokes equations in the spherical coordinate system are as below (see [25, (2.7) and Appendix A.1] for computational details in spherical coordinates):     ∆ + 2 ρ ∂ρ + 2 ρ 2  vρ − b · ∇vρ + 1 ρ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Coral-type exterior domain where α2 ∈ (0, π 6 ]. Remark 1.5. We would like to emphasize that the assumption (i) in Theorem 1.3 is necessary for the solution v to decay and to satisfy the energy inequality (1.16). Here is an exact example: for any constant A > 0, the velocity field v := vθeθ, where vθ := Ar (1.18) is a solution to equation (1.12) on the domain D and the Navier total-slip boundary condition (1.6). Whe… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Domain Dm in spherical coordinates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Domain Dm in spherical coordinates The boundary condition associated with Dm is adopted as a combination of the NTS condition (1.5) and the NHL condition (1.4): v · n = 0 on ∂Dm, (2.3) on R1,m ∪ R2,m, (2.4) on A2,m, (2.5) on A1,m. (2.2) On R1,m ∪ R2,m, the NTS conditio…

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references

  1. [25]

    Z. Li, X. Pan, X. Yang, C. Zeng, Q. S. Zhang, and N. Zhao. Finite speed axially symmetric Navier–Stokes flows passing a cone.J. Funct. Anal., 286(10), No. 110393:116 pp., 2024

    2024

  2. [1]

    T. P. Acevedo, C. Amrouche, C. Conca and A. Ghosh. Stokes and Navier-Stokes equa- tions with Navier boundary conditionsJ. Differential Equations, 285:258–320, 2021

    2021

  3. [2]

    Albritton, E

    D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, and M. Colombo. Non-uniqueness of Leray solutions of the forced Navier-Stokes equations.Ann. of Math. (2), 196(1):415–455, 2022

    2022

  4. [3]

    M. Benes. Mixed initial-boundary value problem for the three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in polyhedral domains.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., Suppl 1: 135–144, 2011

    2011

  5. [4]

    Burke Loftus and Q

    J. Burke Loftus and Q. S. Zhang. A priori bounds for the vorticity of axially symmetric solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations.Adv. Differential Equations, 15(5-6):531–560, 2010

    2010

  6. [5]

    Caffarelli, R

    L. Caffarelli, R. Kohn, and L. Nirenberg. Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 35(6):771–831, 1982

    1982

  7. [6]

    Chemin, P

    J.-Y. Chemin, P. Zhang, and Z. Zhang. On the critical one component regularity for 3-D Navier-Stokes system: general case.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 224(3):871–905, 2017

    2017

  8. [7]

    C.-C. Chen, R. M. Strain, T.-P. Tsai, and H.-T. Yau. Lower bound on the blow-up rate of the axisymmetric Navier-Stokes equations.Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (9):Art. ID rnn016, 31, 2008

    2008

Show all 40 references
  1. [8]

    H. Chen, D. Fang, and T. Zhang. Regularity of 3D axisymmetric Navier-Stokes equa- tions.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 37(4):1923–1939, 2017

    1923

  2. [9]

    H. Chen, Z. Li, and P. Zhang. Global axisymmetric solution to the 3D incompressible anisotropic Navier-Stokes equationsJ. Math. Pures Appl. (9), 205, No. 103807, 37 pp., 2026

    2026

  3. [10]

    Chen and Z

    G.-Q. Chen and Z. Qian. A study of the Navier-Stokes equations with the kinematic and Navier boundary conditions.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 59(2):721–760, 2010

    2010

  4. [11]

    C.-C. Chen, R. M. Strain, T.-P. Tsai, and H.-T. Yau. Lower bounds on the blow-up rate of the axisymmetric Navier-Stokes equations. II.Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 34(1-3):203–232, 2009

    2009

  5. [12]

    Chen, T.-P

    H. Chen, T.-P. Tsai, and T. Zhang. Remarks on local regularity of axisymmetric solutions to the 3D Navier–Stokes equations.Communications in Partial Differential Equations, 47(8):1680–1699, 2022

    2022

  6. [13]

    T. M. Elgindi and I.-J. Jeong. Finite-time singularity formation for strong solutions to the axi-symmetric 3D Euler equations.Ann. PDE, 5(2):Paper No. 16, 51, 2019

    2019

  7. [14]

    Falocchi and F

    A. Falocchi and F. Gazzola, Remarks on the 3D Stokes eigenvalue problem under Navier boundary conditions.Annali di Matematica, 201:1481–1488, 2022

    2022

  8. [15]

    Giga and H

    Y. Giga and H. Sohr, AbstractL p estimates for the Cauchy problem with applications to the Navier-Stokes equations in exterior domains.J. Funct. Anal., 102(1), 72–94, 1991

    1991

  9. [16]

    T. Y. Hou, Z. Lei, and C. Li. Global regularity of the 3D axi-symmetric Navier-Stokes equations with anisotropic data.Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 33(7-9):1622– 1637, 2008

    2008

  10. [17]

    J. P. Kelliher. Navier-Stokes equations with Navier boundary conditions for a bounded domain in the plane.SIAM J. Math. Anal., 38(1):210–232, 2006

    2006

  11. [18]

    G. Koch, N. Nadirashvili, G. A. Seregin, and V. Sverak. Liouville theorems for the Navier-Stokes equations and applications.Acta Math., 203(1):83–105, 2009

    2009

  12. [19]

    O. A. Ladyzhenskaya. Unique global solvability of the three-dimensional Cauchy problem for the Navier-Stokes equations in the presence of axial symmetry.Zap. Naucn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI), 7:155–177, 1968. 86 Z. LI, X. YANG, AND Q. ZHANG

    1968

  13. [20]

    Lei and Q

    Z. Lei and Q. S. Zhang. Criticality of the axially symmetric Navier-Stokes equations. Pacific J. Math., 289(1):169–187, 2017

    2017

  14. [21]

    Leonardi, J

    S. Leonardi, J. Malek, J. Necas, and M. Pokorny. On axially symmetric flows inR 3.Z. Anal. Anwendungen, 18(3):639–649, 1999

    1999

  15. [22]

    J. Leray. Sur le mouvement d’un liquide visqueux emplissant l’espace.Acta Math., 63(1):193–248, 1934

    1934

  16. [23]

    Z. Li, N. Liu and T. Zhou. A refined uniqueness result of Leray’s problem in an infinite- long pipe with the Navier-slip boundary.J. Differential Equations, 461, No. 114108, 2026

    2026

  17. [24]

    Z. Li, X. Pan and J. Yang. On Leray’s problem in an infinitely long pipe with the Navier-slip boundary condition.Sci. China Math., 67(4):819–854, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    F. Lin. A new proof of the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg theorem.Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 51(3):241–257, 1998

    1998

  19. [27]

    Mahalov, E

    A. Mahalov, E. S. Titi, and S. Leibovich. Invariant helical subspaces for the Navier- Stokes equations.Arch. Rational Mech. Anal., 112(3):193–222, 1990

    1990

  20. [28]

    Masmoudi and F

    N. Masmoudi and F. Rousset. Uniform regularity for the Navier-Stokes equation with Navier boundary condition.Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal., 203(2):529–575, 2012

    2012

  21. [29]

    T. Miura. Navier-Stokes equations in a curved thin domain, Part I: Uniform estimates for the Stokes operator.J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo, 29(2): 149–256, 2022

    2022

  22. [30]

    P. Mucha. On Navier-Stokes equations with slip boundary conditions in an infinite pipe. Acta Appl. Math., 76:1–15, 2003

    2003

  23. [31]

    C. L. M. H. Navier. Sur les lois du mouvement des fuides.Mem. Acad. R. Sci. Inst. France, 6:389–440, 1823

  24. [32]

    X. Pan. Regularity of solutions to axisymmetric Navier-Stokes equations with a slightly supercritical condition.J. Differential Equations, 260(12):8485–8529, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    G. Seregin. A note on local regularity of axisymmetric solutions to the Navier–Stokes equations.J. Math. Fluid Mech., 24(1):Paper No. 27, 13, 2022

    2022

  26. [34]

    G. Seregin. A slightly supercritical condition of regularity of axisymmetric solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations.J. Math. Fluid Mech., 24(1):Paper No.18, 17, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Seregin and V

    G. Seregin and V. Sverak. On type I singularities of the local axi-symmetric solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations.Comm. Partial Differential Equations, 34(1-3):171–201, 2009

    2009

  28. [36]

    T. Tao. Quantitative bounds for critically bounded solutions to the Navier-Stokes equa- tions. InNine mathematical challenges—an elucidation, volume 104 ofProc. Sympos. Pure Math., pages 149–193. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    M. R. Ukhovskii and V. I. Yudovich. Axially symmetric flows of ideal and viscous fluids filling the whole space.J. Appl. Math. Mech., 32:52–61, 1968

    1968

  30. [38]

    Watanabe

    J. Watanabe. On incompressible viscous fluid flows with slip boundary conditions.J. Comput. Appl. Math., 159:161–172, 2003

    2003

  31. [39]

    D. Wei. Regularity criterion to the axially symmetric Navier-Stokes equations.J. Math. Anal. Appl., 435(1):402–413, 2016

    2016

  32. [40]

    Q. S. Zhang. Bounded solutions to the axially symmetric Navier Stokes equation in a cusp region.J. Differential Equations, 312:407–473, 2022. NS FLOWS WITH NA VIER TOTAL-SLIP BOUNDARY 87 (Z. Li)School of Mathematics and Statistics, Nanjing University of Information Science and...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.