Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Blow-up and uniqueness of Leray-Hopf solutions to forced Navier-Stokes equations

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 Forced Navier-Stokes can blow up in finite time while the solution stays unique.

desk verdict Explicit forced Navier-Stokes solutions with L^3 and enstrophy blow-up, unique and energy-conserving; the main gap is an asserted pressure estimate that is standard and fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.15189 v3 pith:C2WEGCMK submitted 2026-06-13 math.AP

Giovanni Paolo Galdi , Filippo Gazzola This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3076D03
keywords Navier-StokesequationsLeray-Hopfsolutionsfinite-timeblow-upforcedflowsuniquenessenergyequalityLane-EmdenequationTalentibubbles
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

This paper builds explicit divergence-free velocity fields whose shape is borrowed from the critical Lane-Emden problem — concentrated 'bubbles' that shrink to a point at a chosen time T. It then defines the pressure and the forcing term so that these fields solve the forced 3D Navier-Stokes equations. The resulting solutions are shown to be Leray-Hopf, global in time, satisfy the energy equality exactly, and be unique, while the L3 norm of velocity and the enstrophy diverge as t approaches T. The same construction yields countably many blow-up instants, blow-up in Leray's original sense of unbounded second derivatives, and analogous finite-time blow-up for the forced Euler equations. In short, the paper proves that finite-time blow-up and uniqueness of Leray-Hopf solutions are independent phenomena when a suitable external force is present.

What carries the argument

The engine of the construction is a divergence-free velocity field shaped like a Talenti bubble with two concentration parameters: V(t) = (T−t)^{2δ}(2yz,−xz,−xy)/[(T−t)^{2γ}+|ξ|2]^{5/2}. The key algebraic identity is a 'magic cancellation': because the template (2yz,−xz,−xy) is divergence-free, the convective term (V·∇)V has denominator power ℓ rather than the expected ℓ+1, so the nonlinearity is no more singular than the linear terms. Balancing the time exponents δ, γ inside the triangles A and B makes the velocity satisfy simultaneously the Leray-Hopf class, the Serrin uniqueness condition, the Lions energy-equality condition, and the blow-up conditions δ < γ or 4δ < 5γ; the pressure is th

What would settle it

Compute the exact asymptotics of ∇P(0,t) as t → T using formula (3.40) for (δ,γ) in triangle A; the advertised force class holds iff this quantity is in L2(0,T) (or L5/4(0,T) for triangle B). If the integral diverges faster than (T−t)^{−1/2} in the L6/5 norm, the force f = Vt − ΔV + (V·∇)V + ∇P is not in the stated space and Theorem 4.1 collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for any T > 0 and any pair (δ, γ) in a specific open triangle A (or B), there are smooth solenoidal initial data V0 and a force f in L2_loc(R+; L6/5) (respectively L5/4_loc(R+; L2)) such that the Cauchy problem has exactly one global Leray-Hopf solution, this solution satisfies the energy equality, and both the L3 norm of V and the L2 norm of ∇V tend to infinity as t → T; away from the single point (0, T), the solution is smooth. The construction is explicit: the velocity is a time-shrinking bubble (T−t)^{2δ}(2yz,−xz,−xy)/[(T−t)^{2γ}+|ξ|2]^{5/2}, the pressure is obtained by solving −ΔP = ∇·((V·∇)V), and the force is then read off as Vt − ΔV + (V·∇)V + ∇P.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that solving −ΔP = ∇·((V·∇)V) and adding ∇P to the force does not push f out of the class L2(0,T;L6/5) or L5/4(0,T;L2); the paper states this after (3.40) but does not display the estimate, so the advertised force regularity depends on an unshown projection bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Blow-up and uniqueness coexist: since these examples are unique Leray-Hopf solutions that blow up, finite-time blow-up is not a symptom of non-uniqueness — and, combined with known non-uniqueness examples for zero data and nonzero force, the two phenomena are independent.
  • For every T > 0 the construction yields a continuum of examples parametrised by the triangle A, so the blow-up time can be prescribed in advance and the data can be made smooth.
  • The enstrophy-only version shows that the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg partial regularity statement is sharp: singular points can be countable and can cluster in time while still having zero one-dimensional Hausdorff measure.
  • The same machinery produces blow-up in Leray's original sense of unbounded second derivatives and, for the inviscid problem, verifies the Beale-Kato-Majda criterion for the forced 3D Euler equations.
  • The results extend to infinitely many blow-up instants and points, with the solution smooth outside a countable set of spacetime singularities.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The construction hinges on a single unproved estimate in the paper after (3.40): that the Helmholtz-Weyl projection of (V·∇)V, namely ∇P, belongs to the same L2(0,T;L6/5) or L5/4(0,T;L2) class without any loss from the singular kernel 1/|ζ−ξ|; a direct estimate of the integral in (3.40) near the blow-up point would settle whether the advertised force class is correct.
  • Since the magic cancellation is purely algebraic (it only needs a divergence-free template satisfying a+b+1=0), the same ansatz could be adapted to other template fields — for instance rotating or shear flows — to test whether prescribed blow-up survives under more general geometries.
  • A natural testable extension is to replace the denominator [(T−t)^{2γ}+|ξ|2] with other concentration profiles; the paper's Lemma 3.1 suggests that the time exponents, not the exact profile shape, control which norms blow up, so the phenomenon is robust to profile changes.
  • The construction reverses the usual logic: it prescribes the solution and reads off the force. This suggests a general strategy for manufacturing forced blow-up in other fluid models where an explicit divergence-free ansatz with a cancellative convective term can be found.
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 constructs explicit global Leray-Hopf solutions of the forced 3D Navier-Stokes equations that develop finite-time blow-up of the L^3 norm and enstrophy while remaining unique and satisfying the energy equality. The construction starts from a divergence-free bubble-type velocity field V depending on parameters (δ,γ), defines the pressure P by solving −ΔP=div((V·∇)V), and then defines the force as the residual f=V_t−ΔV+(V·∇)V+∇P. Inside two nonempty parameter triangles A and B, the authors verify that V has the L^4(0,T;L^4) and Serrin-class integrability needed for the energy equality and uniqueness, that the blow-up conditions hold, and that f lies in L^2(0,T;L^{6/5}) or L^{5/4}(0,T;L^2), respectively. The construction is then extended to countably many blow-up times and points, to forces with stronger integrability but enstrophy-only blow-up, to blow-up of second derivatives in the spirit of Leray, and to forced Euler equations.

Significance. If the proof gaps are filled, the paper is significant: it provides a large, explicit family of forced Navier-Stokes solutions showing that finite-time blow-up is compatible with global uniqueness and the energy equality, and that blow-up can occur even when the force is as integrable as L^2 in space or L^{5/4} in time. The method is novel in exploiting Lane-Emden bubbles and a 'magic cancellation' in the convection term, and the algebraic integrability checks are explicit and reproducible. The extension to countably many singular points and the comparison with the Caffarelli-Kohn-Nirenberg partial regularity theory are valuable, as are the implications for forced Euler equations.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.40)] The statement immediately after (3.40) that ∇P and H=(V·∇)V+∇P lie in L^2(0,T;L^{6/5}) is not proved. This is load-bearing because f is defined as g+∇P, so the advertised force class fails if ∇P has worse integrability. Smoothness of the integrand is not enough because of the singular kernel (ζ−ξ)/|ζ−ξ|^3. The fix is standard: invoke the boundedness of the Helmholtz-Weyl projection on L^p(R^3), 1<p<∞, whose constants are independent of t, or prove a direct Riesz-transform estimate for (3.40). Please add this estimate explicitly.
  2. [§4.2, proof of Theorem 4.9 (and Theorem 4.10)] Uniqueness and the energy equality for the infinite sum W require W∈L^{2q/(q−3)}(0,T;L^q) for some q>3 and W∈L^4(0,T;L^4), by Proposition 2.7. The displayed estimates (4.7) only give W∈L^6(0,T;L^3) and ∇W∈L^3(0,T;L^2), which are not the appropriate Serrin pair. Each summand V_m individually has the needed integrability, but no uniform-in-m bound is shown. Without such a bound, the uniqueness and energy equality assertions in Theorems 4.9 and 4.10 are not established.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (4.8)–(4.12) and Figures 3–4] The sharpness claim that the construction cannot be extended to f∈L^2_loc(0,T;L^2), and the 'if and only if' assertion about intersection of the polygons, are justified by inspection of figures rather than by an analytic argument. This matters for the proof of Theorem 4.11 and for the claimed sharpness in Remarks 4.12–4.14. Please replace the geometric explanation with a short but complete inequality verification.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.3, Theorem 2.11] Theorem 2.11 is stated as a result but its proof is omitted. Since it is not used in the main theorems, either provide a proof, state it as a corollary with a more detailed proof sketch, or remove it from the numbered results.
  2. [Theorems 4.5 and 4.10] Both statements say 'let B be as in (3.37)', but B is defined in (3.38); A is defined in (3.37). Please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Remark 4.4] The text refers to 'Proposition 2.7(iii)', but Proposition 2.7 has only items (i) and (ii). The intended reference is probably condition (3.22) or a separate result; please correct.
  4. [§4.2, proof of Theorem 4.9] The phrase 'by extending each V_m over (T_m,T]' is slightly ambiguous: the bounds asserted for ∥V∥_{L∞(0,T;L2)} etc. should be stated for the original bubble V_T rather than for the infinite sum. Clarify the notation so the triangle inequalities are transparent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity — explicit V-based construction with f as residual; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is an explicit construction rather than a prediction. It fixes a divergence-free velocity V(ξ,t) in (3.14) whose norms visibly blow up at t=T (Lemma 3.7), then defines P by the Poisson equation (3.39) and finally sets f = g+∇P with g=V_t−ΔV+(V·∇)V. Thus the blow-up is built into the ansatz; but the theorem's real content is that the residual force f lies in the stated L^2_t L^{6/5}_x / L^{5/4}_t L^2_x spaces and that V is a unique Leray-Hopf solution satisfying the energy equality. Those verifications are independent estimates (Lemmas 3.4, 3.6, 3.8) using explicit (T−t) exponents and standard Serrin/Lions criteria, not consequences of the blow-up condition. The self-citations (Galdi [27,28,29], Gazzola et al. [3]) are used for standard lemmas or historical motivation; none is the sole justification of a central claim. The paper itself flags the omitted proof of Theorem 2.11, which is a side result, not load-bearing for the main theorems. The only terse step is the assertion after (3.40) that the Helmholtz-Weyl projection preserves the L^p classes; this is a standard Calderón–Zygmund-type estimate and is not a circular equivalence. Hence no step reduces by definition to its input.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The construction has two hand-chosen exponents (δ,γ) and a free time T; these are not fitted to data but are selected from nonempty open triangles. The key mathematical background is standard PDE existence/regularity theory plus a partially unproved Lane-Emden classification. No physical entities are invented; the external force is a mathematical input derived from the chosen solution.

free parameters (4)
  • δ = any in triangle A or B; e.g., 9/25
    Exponent controlling time decay/concentration in ansatz (3.14); must lie in nonempty open triangles (3.37)/(3.38) to make the residual force integrable and the blow-up occur. Selected by hand, not fitted to data.
  • γ = e.g., 2/5
    Exponent controlling spatial squeeze; chosen with δ in A or B.
  • T = arbitrary >0
    Blow-up time; can be shifted; affects size of initial data.
  • ℓ = 5
    Fixed to simplify the Laplacian term; Remark 3.2 says any ℓ>7/2 works, so not load-bearing.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Leray-Hopf existence and energy inequality (Definition 2.5)
    Assumed background from Leray/Hopf; used to state the problem.
  • standard math Serrin uniqueness criterion (Proposition 2.7(ii))
    Used to prove uniqueness of the constructed Leray-Hopf solution; cited to [48,50].
  • standard math Lions energy-equality criterion V∈L^4(0,T;L^4)
    Used to conclude energy equality from (3.17); cited to [43].
  • domain assumption Boundedness of Helmholtz projection/Riesz transforms on L^p and preservation of L^r(0,T;L^q)-classes for the pressure
    Invoked after (3.40) to assert ∇P inherits the force class; standard elliptic result but not explicitly verified for the time singularities.
  • domain assumption Lane-Emden classification Proposition 2.1 (including partially unproved asymptotics (2.6))
    Used to motivate the ansatz and thresholds; central construction does not rely on the unproved part.
  • standard math Giga-Sohr L^p regularity for linear Stokes (Prop 2.10)
    Used for the side theorem on forced Stokes; not load-bearing for main N-S theorem.
invented entities (1)
  • Designed external force f = V_t − ΔV + (V·∇)V + ∇P
    purpose: To turn the prescribed velocity profile (3.14) into an exact solution; the force's singular part at (0,T) is what drives the norm blow-up.
    The force is reverse-engineered from the ansatz; it is not predicted or measurable independently, so it provides no falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blow-up and uniqueness of Leray-Hopf solutions to forced Navier-Stokes equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C2WEGCMK

@misc{pith2026260615189,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blow-up and uniqueness of Leray-Hopf solutions to forced Navier-Stokes equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C2WEGCMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.15189}
}
read the original abstract

We prove the existence of forces and smooth initial data such that the associated Leray-Hopf solution of the 3D Navier-Stokes equations is unique, global-in-time, satisfies the energy equality, and has infinitely many (countable) blow-up instants. Different classes of forces and blow-up strengths are considered. All of them are sharp compared to the boundedness statements in literature. Our method also enables us to construct examples of blow-up for the forced 3D Euler equations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.15189 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The survived triangles A and B for (δ, γ) satisfying (3.26) or (3.27). We now introduce the pressure P in (1.1), possibly without adding further constraints on (δ, γ). Let us begin with some preliminary remarks. Since we do not yet have an explicit f, we cannot proceed by solving (2.16). Taking advantage of the facts that Vt and ∆V are solenoidal in R 3 × R+, we solve instead −∆P = ∇ · (V · ∇)V  in distributional f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The triangle in (3.25) (black) and the inflated triangle D in (4.9) (black+grey). We now extend Lemma 3.8. Let V be as in (3.14) and g be as in (3.8). We are interested in two particular cases of (3.10): when g is square-integrable either with respect to space or with respect to time. Precisely, ∀r ≥ 1 g ∈ L r (0, T;L 2 (R 3 )) ⇐⇒ γ < min 2 7 (2δ + 1 r ), 2 11 (4δ + 1 r ), 2 3 (2δ − r−1 r ) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The triangle in (4.9) and graphs of the functions Φ8/5 (left), Φ9/5 (middle), Φ2 (right). Similarly, by maintaining r = 2 and letting q ∈ (1, 2] vary, we obtain the pictures in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The triangle in (4.9) and graphs of the functions Ψ3/2 (left), Ψ5/3 (middle), Ψ2 (right). polygon in (4.12)2 when q = 5/3 intersects the triangle in (4.9) (grey region). On the left, the polygon in (4.12)2 when q = 2 no longer intersects the triangle in (4.9). Therefor…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The point M( 5 4 , 1 2 ), the region in (4.16) (left), the triangle in (4.18) (right). while ∆V ̸∈ L∞(R 3 × (0, T)). However, for any q, r < ∞, if (δ, γ) is sufficiently close to the vertex M( 5 4 , 1 2 ), we obtain ∆V ∈ L r (0, T;L q (R 3 )). Let P be as in (3.39) so …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Albritton, E

    D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo,Non-uniqueness of Leray solutions of the forced Navier-Stokes equations, Ann. of Math. 196, 415-455, 2022

    2022

  2. [2]

    Andreucci, M.A

    D. Andreucci, M.A. Herrero, J.J.L. Vel´ azquez,Liouville theorems and blow up behaviour in semilinear reaction diffusion systems, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e Anal. Non Lin´ eaire 14, 1–53, 1997

    1997

  3. [3]

    Arioli, A

    G. Arioli, A. Falocchi, F. Gazzola,On the epochs of irregularity of Leray-Hopf solutions to Navier-Stokes equa- tions, J. Diff. Equ. 453, 113887, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    Aubin,Probl` emes isop´ erim´ etriques et espaces de Sobolev, J

    T. Aubin,Probl` emes isop´ erim´ etriques et espaces de Sobolev, J. Differ. Geom. 11, 573–598, 1976

    1976

  5. [5]

    Beale, T

    J.T. Beale, T. Kato, A. Majda,Remarks on the breakdown of smooth solutions for the3-D Euler equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 94, 61-66, 1984

    1984

  6. [6]

    Beir˜ ao da Veiga, J

    H. Beir˜ ao da Veiga, J. Yang,A note on the development of singularities on solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations under super critical forcing terms, arXiv:2411.10823v1 [math.AP]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Bliss,An integral inequality, J

    G.A. Bliss,An integral inequality, J. London Math. Soc. 5, 40-46, 1930

    1930

  8. [8]

    Berestycki, P.L

    H. Berestycki, P.L. Lions, L.A. Peletier,An ODE approach to the existence of positive solutions for semilinear problems inR N , Indiana Univ. Math. J. 30, 141-157, 1981

    1981

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Caffarelli, R

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

    1982

  2. [10]

    Caristi, E

    G. Caristi, E. Mitidieri,Existence and nonexistence of global solutions of higher-order parabolic problems with slow decay initial data, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 279, 710-722, 2003

    2003

  3. [11]

    C´ ordoba, L

    D. C´ ordoba, L. Mart ´ ınez-Zoroa,Blow-up for the incompressible 3D-Euler equations with uniformC 1, 1 2 −ϵ ∩L 2 force, arXiv:2309.08495v1 [math.AP]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ding,On a conformally invariant elliptic equation onR n, Comm

    W.Y. Ding,On a conformally invariant elliptic equation onR n, Comm. Math. Phys. 107, 331-335, 1986

    1986

  5. [13]

    Egorov, V.A

    Y.V. Egorov, V.A. Galaktionov, V.A. Kondratiev, S.I. Pohoˇ zaev,Global solutions of higher-order semilinear parabolic equations in the supercritical range, Adv. Diff. Eq. 9, 1009-1038, 2004

    2004

  6. [14]

    Emden,Gaskugeln: Anwendungen der Mechanischen W¨ armetheorie auf Kosmologische und Meteorologische Probleme, Teubner, Berlin, 1907

    R. Emden,Gaskugeln: Anwendungen der Mechanischen W¨ armetheorie auf Kosmologische und Meteorologische Probleme, Teubner, Berlin, 1907. Reprinted by Forgotten Books, 2018

    1907

  7. [15]

    Escauriaza, G.A

    L. Escauriaza, G.A. Ser¨ egin, V. Shverak,L 3,∞-solutions of Navier-Stokes equations and backward uniqueness, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 58, 3-44, 2003

    2003

  8. [16]

    Farwig,From Jean Leray to the millennium problem: the Navier-Stokes equations, J

    R. Farwig,From Jean Leray to the millennium problem: the Navier-Stokes equations, J. Evol. Equ. 21, 3243-3263, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Farwig, H

    R. Farwig, H. Kozono, H. Sohr,AnL q-approach to Stokes and Navier-Stokes equations in general domains, Acta Math. 195, 21-53, 2005

    2005

  10. [18]

    Fefferman,Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation, The millennium prize problems, Clay Math

    C.L. Fefferman,Existence and smoothness of the Navier-Stokes equation, The millennium prize problems, Clay Math. Inst., Cambridge, MA, 57-67, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Ferrero, F

    A. Ferrero, F. Gazzola, H.C. Grunau,Decay and eventual local positivity for biharmonic parabolic equations, Disc. Cont. Dynam. Syst. A 21, 1129-1157, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    Fowler,The solution of Emden ’s and similar differential equations, Monthly Notices Roy

    R. Fowler,The solution of Emden ’s and similar differential equations, Monthly Notices Roy. Astronom. Soc. 91, 63-91, 1930

    1930

  13. [21]

    Fowler,Further studies of Emden ’s and similar differential equations, Quarterly J

    R. Fowler,Further studies of Emden ’s and similar differential equations, Quarterly J. Math. Oxford Ser. 2, 259-288, 1931

    1931

  14. [22]

    Fujita,On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem foru t = ∆u+u 1+α, J

    H. Fujita,On the blowing up of solutions of the Cauchy problem foru t = ∆u+u 1+α, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. I, 13, 109-124, 1966

    1966

  15. [23]

    Fujiwara, H

    D. Fujiwara, H. Morimoto,AnL r-theorem of the Helmholtz decomposition of vector fields, J. Fac. Sci. Univ. Tokyo Sect. IA Math. 24, 685-700, 1977 27

    1977

  16. [24]

    Fursikov,On some control problems and results concerning the unique solvability of a mixed boundary value problem for the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes and Euler systems, Dokl

    A.V. Fursikov,On some control problems and results concerning the unique solvability of a mixed boundary value problem for the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes and Euler systems, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 252:5, 1066–1070, 1980

    1980

  17. [25]

    Fursikov,Control problems and theorems concerning the unique solvability of a mixed boundary value problem for the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes and Euler equations, Math

    A.V. Fursikov,Control problems and theorems concerning the unique solvability of a mixed boundary value problem for the three-dimensional Navier–Stokes and Euler equations, Math. USSR Sbornik 43, 251–273, 1982

    1982

  18. [26]

    Galaktionov, S.I

    V.A. Galaktionov, S.I. Pohoˇ zaev,Existence and blow-up for higher-order semilinear parabolic equations: ma- jorizing order-preserving operators, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 51, 1321-1338, 2002

    2002

  19. [27]

    Galdi,An Introduction to the Navier-Stokes Initial-Boundary Value Problem, In: G.P

    G.P. Galdi,An Introduction to the Navier-Stokes Initial-Boundary Value Problem, In: G.P. Galdi, J.G. Heywood, R. Rannacher (eds), Fundamental Directions in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. Advances in Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 1-70, 2000

    2000

  20. [28]

    Galdi,On the energy equality for distributional solutions to Navier-Stokes equations, Proc

    G.P. Galdi,On the energy equality for distributional solutions to Navier-Stokes equations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 147, 785-792, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Galdi,On Local regularity of distributional solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations, arXiv:2603.06349 [math.AP]

    G.P. Galdi,On Local regularity of distributional solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations, arXiv:2603.06349 [math.AP]

  22. [30]

    Gazzola, H.C

    F. Gazzola, H.C. Grunau,Radial entire solutions for supercritical biharmonic equations, Math. Ann. 334, 905- 936, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Gazzola, H.C

    F. Gazzola, H.C. Grunau,Global solutions for superlinear parabolic equations involving the biharmonic operator for initial data with optimal slow decay, Calc. Var. Part. Diff. Eq. 30, 389-415, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Gazzola, H.C

    F. Gazzola, H.C. Grunau,Eventual local positivity for a biharmonic heat equation inR n, Disc. Cont. Dynam. Syst. S 1, 83-87, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Gazzola, H.C

    F. Gazzola, H.C. Grunau,Some new properties of biharmonic heat kernels, Nonlin. Anal. TMA 70, 2965-2973, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    Gidas, J

    B. Gidas, J. Spruck,Global and local behavior of positive solutions of nonlinear elliptic equations, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 34, 525-598, 1981

    1981

  27. [35]

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

    1991

  28. [36]

    Hopf, ¨Uber die anfangswertaufgabe f¨ ur die hydrodynamischen grundgleichungen, Math

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

    1951

  29. [37]

    Joseph, T.S

    D.D. Joseph, T.S. Lundgren,Quasilinear Dirichlet problems driven by positive sources, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. 49, 241-269, 1972/73

    1972

  30. [38]

    Kozono, H

    H. Kozono, H. Sohr,Remark on uniqueness of weak solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations, Analysis 16, 3, 255-271, 1996

    1996

  31. [39]

    Ladyzhenskaya,The Mathematical Theory of Viscous Incompressible Flow, Gordon and Breach New York, 1969

    O.A. Ladyzhenskaya,The Mathematical Theory of Viscous Incompressible Flow, Gordon and Breach New York, 1969

    1969

  32. [40]

    Ladyzhenskaya,The sixth millennium problem: Navier-Stokes equations, existence and smoothness, Us- pekhi Mat

    O.A. Ladyzhenskaya,The sixth millennium problem: Navier-Stokes equations, existence and smoothness, Us- pekhi Mat. Nauk. 58, 45-78, 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    J.H. Lane,On the theoretical temperature of the Sun, under the hypothesis of a gaseous mass maintaining its volume by its internal heat, and depending on the laws of gases as known to terrestrial experiment, American Journal of Science 50 (148), 57–74, 1870

  34. [42]

    Leray,Sur le mouvement d’un liquide visqueux emplissant l’espace, Acta Mathematica 63, 193-248, 1934

    J. Leray,Sur le mouvement d’un liquide visqueux emplissant l’espace, Acta Mathematica 63, 193-248, 1934

    1934

  35. [43]

    Lions,Sur la r´ egularit´ e et l’unicit´ e des solutions turbulentes des ´ equations de Navier Stokes, Rend

    J.L. Lions,Sur la r´ egularit´ e et l’unicit´ e des solutions turbulentes des ´ equations de Navier Stokes, Rend. Sem. Mat. Univ. Padova 30, 16-23, 1960

    1960

  36. [44]

    Miyakawa,On nonstationary solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations in an exterior domain, Hiroshima Math

    T. Miyakawa,On nonstationary solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations in an exterior domain, Hiroshima Math. J. 12, 115-140, 1982

    1982

  37. [45]

    Navier,M´ emoire sur les lois du mouvement des fluides, Mem

    C.L.M.H. Navier,M´ emoire sur les lois du mouvement des fluides, Mem. Acad. Sci. Inst. Fr. 2, 389-440, 1823 28

  38. [46]

    W.M. Ni, J. Serrin,Existence and nonexistence theorems for ground states for quasilinear partial differential equations. The anomalous case, Accad. Naz. Lincei, Atti dei Convegni 77, 231-257, 1986

    1986

  39. [47]

    Seregin,A certain necessary condition of potential blow up for Navier-Stokes equations, Comm

    G. Seregin,A certain necessary condition of potential blow up for Navier-Stokes equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 312, 833-845, 2012

    2012

  40. [48]

    Serrin,The initial value problem for the Navier-Stokes equations, In: Nonlinear Problems (Proc

    J. Serrin,The initial value problem for the Navier-Stokes equations, In: Nonlinear Problems (Proc. Sympos., Madison, 1962), Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, 69–98, 1963

    1962

  41. [49]

    Simader, H

    C. Simader, H. Sohr,A new approach to the Helmholtz decomposition and the Neumann problem inL q-spaces for bounded and exterior domains, In: Mathematical problems relating to the Navier-Stokes equation, Ser. Adv. Math. Appl. Sci. 11, 1-35, World Sci. Publ., River Edge, NJ, 1992

    1992

  42. [50]

    Sohr,The Navier-Stokes equations - An elementary functional analytic approach, Birkh¨ auser Advanced Texts: Basel Textbooks, 2001

    H. Sohr,The Navier-Stokes equations - An elementary functional analytic approach, Birkh¨ auser Advanced Texts: Basel Textbooks, 2001

    2001

  43. [51]

    Stokes,Mathematical and physical papers, by George Gabriel Stokes

    G.G. Stokes,Mathematical and physical papers, by George Gabriel Stokes. Reprinted from the original journals and transactions, with additional notes by the author, Cambridge University Press, 1880-1905

    1905

  44. [52]

    Talenti,Best constant in Sobolev inequality, Ann

    G. Talenti,Best constant in Sobolev inequality, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 110, 353-372, 1976

    1976

  45. [53]

    Wang,On the Cauchy problem for reaction-diffusion equations, Trans

    X. Wang,On the Cauchy problem for reaction-diffusion equations, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 337, 549-590, 1993

    1993

  46. [54]

    X. Wang, J. Wang,Global existence and stability analysis for the parabolic Lane–Emden system with initial data, Nonlinearity 39, 4, 045008, 2026

    2026

  47. [55]

    Zhang,A blow up solution of the Navier-Stokes equations with a super critical forcing term, J

    Q.S. Zhang,A blow up solution of the Navier-Stokes equations with a super critical forcing term, J. Math. Study 58, 4, 429-438, 2025 29

    2025

Pith tools

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