Vortex-sheet desingularization for three-dimensional ideal fluids

Alberto Enciso; Antonio J. Fern\'andez; David Meyer

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 25 references

Vortex-sheet desingularization for three-dimensional ideal fluids

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that every analytic solution of the three-dimensional Birkhoff–Rott vortex-sheet system can be approximated by exact solutions of the 3D Euler equations whose vorticity is concentrated in a layer of width proportional to ε

desk verdict Important, credible framework for 3D vortex-sheet desingularization, but the proof as written has a sign inconsistency in the near-field kernel that breaks the main theorem until corrected. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.19233 v1 pith:RJBXZEXO submitted 2026-07-21 math.AP

Alberto Enciso , Antonio J. Fernández , David Meyer This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q3176B0376B47

keywords vortexsheets3DEulerequationsBirkhoff–RottsystemdesingularizationlayeredvorticityCauchy–KovalevskayatheoremBiot–Savartanalyticwell-posedness

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

Analytic vortex sheets in three-dimensional ideal fluids have resisted a rigorous link to genuine Euler flows: naive smooth approximations have lifespans that shrink to zero as the layer thickness vanishes. This paper proves that the obstruction is not intrinsic. Starting from any analytic solution of the Birkhoff–Rott sheet equations, it constructs exact Euler vorticities supported in a layer of width O(ε), living on a time interval independent of ε, and converging distributionally to the sheet as ε tends to zero. The construction stacks the vorticity as a one-parameter family of nearly parallel vortex sheets and shows that the resulting effective evolution is well posed in analytic function spaces. If correct, every analytic 3D vortex-sheet motion is a vanishing-thickness limit of genuine Euler flows over a fixed time window.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the layered vorticity ansatz: the initial vorticity is written as an integral over leaves x3 = νε,l(x′,t) with densities ̟ε,l tangent to the leaves, so that it is a divergence-free field supported in an O(ε) tube. The proof converts Euler's equations into an effective system for the leaf variables νε,l, θε,l = ε⁻¹∂lνε,l − 1, and ̟ε,l, and solves it in analytic function spaces by an abstract Cauchy–Kovalevskaya-type local existence theorem for scales of Banach spaces. The crucial estimates split the velocity into a near-field piece from nearby leaves and a far-field piece, whose analytic bounds are uniform in ε; the tangency of the vorticity is propagated in time an

What would settle it

Compute the distributional limit of the concrete initial data displayed in Remark 2.1 exactly as written: ν0ε,l(z) = ν0(z) + εl and ω̃0ε,l(z) = η(l)ω̃0(z). Because the support has width O(ε) while the pointwise field strength is O(1), the integrated initial vorticities tend to zero rather than to the prescribed sheet density; this direct calculation settles whether the theorem's illustrative construction produces the claimed nonzero limit, or whether an O(ε⁻¹) amplitude factor must be inserted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is Theorem 2.3: given an analytic solution (h,̟) of the 3D Birkhoff–Rott system on a time interval, for every sufficiently small ε one can find leaf height functions νε,l and leaf densities ̟ε,l, labeled by l ∈ [−1,1], such that ωε(x,t) = ∫̟ε,l(x′,t)δ(x3−νε,l(x′,t)) dl is an exact, smooth solution of the 3D incompressible Euler equations on the same ε-independent interval, is supported within O(ε) of the sheet graph, and converges distributionally to the singular sheet vorticity as ε → 0. The vorticity is therefore a continuous stack of almost-parallel vortex sheets; the proof shows this layered structure is preserved by Euler evolution and that th

Load-bearing premise

The entire construction rests on the layered initial-data ansatz: the initial vorticity must be a stack of nearly parallel leaves with spacing ∂lν0ε,l = ε(1+θ0ε,l), with θ0 small in complex strips and with small imaginary parts, and with pointwise leaf amplitudes of order ε⁻¹ so that the integrated density has a nonzero limit; if the leaf ordering ceases to be close to ε-spacing or the amplitude scaling is absent, the kernel lower bounds and the ε-uniform lifespan collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Analytic 3D Birkhoff–Rott sheet motions are realizable as distributional limits of exact 3D Euler flows with lifespan independent of ε.
The constructed Euler solutions have large norms as ε → 0, providing a class of long-lifespan 3D Euler flows with a very particular layered structure.
The convergence to the sheet is not merely subsequential: the analytic a priori bounds plus uniqueness of the limit force convergence of the whole family.
An analogue holds for vortex sheets that are normal graphs over an arbitrary real-analytic closed surface in R3, with only topological adjustments for tangential densities on surfaces of nonzero genus.

Reading between the lines

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

If the analyticity assumption is relaxed to Sobolev regularity, the Cauchy–Kovalevskaya step fails; the result therefore suggests that the desingularization is tied to analytic well-posedness of the sheet equations, consistent with known ill-posedness below analytic regularity.
The layered-stack representation can be read as a rigorous smoothing of the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability: the cancellation of the ε⁻¹ stretching term is the mechanism that lets the sheet persist, and numerical vortex-sheet methods could look for the same cancellation in layer-resolved simulations.
The same construction on arbitrary analytic closed surfaces indicates a geometric corollary: any analytic surface motion governed by the intrinsic Birkhoff–Rott equation can be realized as the vanishing-thickness limit of exact Euler vorticities forming a normal-graph sandwich around the surface.

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

Punchline: this is the first real attack on unsteady 3D vortex-sheet desingularization, and the layered-leaf ansatz is a genuinely new idea. But I do not think the main theorem is proved as printed. The sign in the near-field chord (4.5)/(5.18) is opposite to the one forced by the leaf-ordering identity (2.16). The chord between leaf l and leaf ℓ should be γ_{ε,l}(s) − γ_{ε,ℓ}(s−ς), with vertical part w1[ℓ,s]−w1[ℓ,ς] + ε∫_ℓ^l w4[µ,s]dµ. The paper defines it with a minus on the integral. That means the operator K^c solved by Nishida in §4 is not the restriction of Biot–Savart to the layered vorticity, so Lemma 3.4 cannot be invoked. The estimates in §5 may still hold for the corrected kernel (they are essentially absolute-value estimates), but that is not established. This looks like a fixable typo, not a fatal conceptual flaw, but it is load-bearing.

What is genuinely good: the foliation ansatz (integrating over almost-parallel leaves with ∂_l ν ≈ ε) is clever and seems to be the right way to bypass the vanishing-lifespan problem in 3D. The reduction to a Nishida-type effective system is clearly explained, and the flat periodic case contains serious, detailed kernel estimates—the C-Z arguments in Section 5 are substantial. The target Birkhoff–Rott solution is an independent input; no fitting. The paper is also honest that [3] explicitly said 3D was out of reach.

Other soft spots, in proportion. Remark 2.1's concrete example converges to zero vorticity because ̟0_ε,l = ε η(l)˜ω0; to get a nonzero sheet you need a factor ε^{-1} in ˜ω0. Minor and repairable, but it should be corrected. Theorem 7.2 (general closed surface) is only sketched; Section 7.4 says 'the same strategy' but gives no actual manifold kernel estimates. I would not accept the 3D general result on the basis of that sketch; it is really a claim for future work. The flat periodic theorem might be enough for the paper's core.

Who is this for: people working on Euler desingularization, analytic vortex sheets, and large-norm lifespan constructions. They should read it, but with a red pen on the sign. Would I cite it? Only after the sign is fixed. Worth a serious referee: yes—send it to referees, but the report should require a corrected kernel definition and the corresponding estimates (or at least a clear statement that the sign is a typo and the true BS restriction is used).

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims a desingularization theorem for analytic vortex sheets in three-dimensional ideal fluids. Starting from an analytic solution of the 3D Birkhoff–Rott system on T^2×R, the authors construct, for each sufficiently small ε, an exact Euler vorticity supported in an O(ε) neighborhood of the sheet, on a time interval independent of ε, and converging distributionally to the prescribed sheet as ε→0. The construction is based on a layered ansatz: a continuum of almost parallel graph leaves with tangential vorticity densities. The proof derives an effective system for the leaf variables, solves it by Nishida's abstract Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem using extensive complex-analytic kernel estimates, and then returns to Euler via a reconstruction lemma. A general closed-surface version is stated and sketched in Section 7.

Significance. If the central flat-periodic theorem were fully correct, this would be a major advance: it would give the first rigorous desingularization of unsteady 3D vortex sheets by exact Euler flows with ε-independent lifespan. The flat-case proof contains a substantial body of kernel estimates and does not appear to be reverse-engineered; the target Birkhoff–Rott solution is an independent input, and the limit identification uses uniqueness in the analytic class. However, as written, the proof has a load-bearing sign error in the definition of the effective velocity kernel, the illustrative initial-data construction in Remark 2.1 converges to the zero sheet rather than a prescribed nonzero sheet, and the closed-surface theorem is only sketched. These issues are local in character and may be repairable, but the manuscript is not acceptable in its present form.

major comments (4)

[§4, Eqs. (4.5)–(4.8) and (5.18)–(5.20)] The leaf-separation term in the near-field kernel has the wrong sign. By (2.16), the vertical component of γ_{ε,l}(s)-γ_{ε,ℓ}(s-ς) is ν_{ε,ℓ}(s)-ν_{ε,ℓ}(s-ς) + ε∫_ℓ^l(1+θ_{ε,µ})dµ. The kernel defined in (4.5) and used in (5.18) contains the same expression with a minus sign in front of the ε-integral. Consequently U_ε(w) in (4.8) is not the Biot–Savart velocity of the layered vorticity evaluated on leaf l, and condition (3.13) of Lemma 3.4 fails for solutions of the effective system (4.9). Since Lemma 3.4 is the only bridge from the effective system back to Euler, Theorem 2.3(i) is not proved as written. The estimates in Section 5 are largely sign-insensitive because they are absolute-value estimates, so a sign correction may be straightforward, but it must be carried out explicitly.
[Remark 2.1] The displayed example ν_{ε,l}=ν_0+εl, ˜ω_{ε,l}=η(l)˜ω_0 does not satisfy the convergence hypothesis of Theorem 2.3(iii) for a nonzero sheet. Indeed ∫̟_{ε,l} dl = ε∫η(l)dl ˜ω_0 = O(ε), so the limiting measure is zero. To desingularize a prescribed nonzero sheet, the pointwise leaf amplitude must be O(ε^{-1}), not O(1). As printed, the remark does not establish the existence of admissible initial data with the required limit; this needs to be corrected, for instance by rescaling η appropriately and checking the uniform bounds in C_0.
[§7, Theorem 7.2 and §7.4] Theorem 7.2 is stated as a theorem for general closed analytic vortex sheets, but its proof is only a list of comments: the evolution system is written down, the singular kernel is asserted to reduce to the flat case, and the function spaces are asserted to satisfy the same estimates. No analogues of Propositions 4.2–4.4 are proved, no detailed chart computation is given, and the application of Nishida's theorem is not verified. If the closed-surface result is part of the paper's claims, this is a major gap. Alternatively, the paper could be revised to restrict the main theorem to the flat periodic case and present Section 7 as a heuristic extension.
[§5.2, restriction to l≠ℓ] In the proof of (4.16), the statement 'l≠ℓ... {l−ℓ} is a zero set' is not by itself sufficient. The operator K^c is a convolution in ς, and the diagonal ℓ=l contributes the singular self-interaction term in the integral over ℓ. The estimates for l≠ℓ are uniform in ε|l−ℓ|, but the passage to ℓ=l requires either a principal-value definition of K^c at ℓ=l or an explicit limiting argument using the estimates of Section 5.1. This should be clarified and justified.

minor comments (4)

[§5.1, Eq. (5.1)] The notation |z|_C is introduced as a complex square root, but later expressions such as 'min Re |p|_C' and 'max |p|' mix the complex and Euclidean moduli. A short glossary or more consistent notation would improve readability.
[§4.1, proof of Theorem 2.3(iii)] The convergence proof is compressed: the passage from uniform analytic bounds to a weak Euler solution supported on a graph, and then to the Birkhoff–Rott solution, is described as 'one can check' and 'by interpolation'. For a theorem of this importance, the limiting arguments should be written out in detail.
[Eq. (4.4)] The cut-off φ is defined on balls in the square [-1/2,1/2]^2 and then used as a periodic function on T^2. The periodic extension should be stated explicitly, including its smoothness near the boundary of the fundamental domain.
[Eq. (4.7)] There is a typographical sign in the integration domain '-[−1/2,1/2]^2' before the first term of K^f; presumably this should just be [−1/2,1/2]^2.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the construction is a self-contained derivation from an independent Birkhoff–Rott input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim starts from an independent, externally given analytic solution (h,̟) of the Birkhoff–Rott system and constructs layered Euler vorticities whose integrated sheet densities converge to that prescribed sheet. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction; the initial layered data are assumed to satisfy structural bounds (2.3)-(2.5) and convergence hypotheses, not derived from the target so as to force the target. The effective system in Section 3 is obtained by direct differentiation of the Euler evolution and the geometric leaf relations, and Lemma 3.4 explicitly requires the nontrivial consistency condition (3.13) that Uε equals the Biot–Savart velocity of the layered vorticity; this is not a definitional identity. The lifespan-independent existence uses Nishida's theorem, an external analytic tool, and convergence is identified with the given BR solution through the external uniqueness theorem of Sulem–Sulem–Bardos–Frisch [25]. The only self-citation, [10], is used for motivational context about the 2D case and is not load-bearing. Concerns raised in the review context—such as the illustrative example in Remark 2.1 possibly needing an O(ε^{-1}) amplitude, and a possible sign discrepancy in the near-field kernel—are correctness or verification issues, not instances of the paper's result reducing by definition to its own inputs. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The proof is self-contained in the sense of using standard analytic PDE tools, but it depends crucially on analytic regularity of the sheet and on the layered initial-data ansatz. No experimentally fitted parameters appear. The leaf variables are proof devices, not new physical objects.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Analytic local well-posedness and uniqueness of the Birkhoff–Rott system (Sulem–Sulem–Bardos–Frisch).
Used to define the target vortex sheet and to identify the limit in Theorem 2.3(iii); cited as [25].
domain assumption Local well-posedness of the 3D Euler equations for C^r initial data with r>1.
Invoked in Section 2 to start from the layered initial vorticity and to know the velocity is log-Lipschitz.
standard math Nishida's abstract Cauchy–Kovalevskaya theorem for scales of Banach spaces.
The core existence mechanism for the effective system; stated as Theorem 4.1 and cited as [21].
standard math DiPerna–Lions uniqueness for transport equations with log-Lipschitz velocity, and weak-strong uniqueness for Euler.
Used in Lemma 3.4 to propagate div ωε=0 and to conclude the constructed distribution is the strong Euler solution; cited as [9] and [1].
standard math The complex-strip function spaces Xρ satisfy the needed Cauchy estimates and compact embeddings.
The analyticity framework of Section 2 and Appendix A; used throughout for uniform-in-ε estimates.

invented entities (1)

Layered leaf foliation γε,l(s,t) = (s, νε,l(s,t)) with densities ̟ε,l(s,t)
purpose: Represents the concentrated Euler vorticity as a superposition of many almost-parallel vortex sheets, enabling the effective system and uniform-in-ε control.
This is an internal ansatz/coordinate system, not a physically postulated entity. It carries no falsifiable prediction outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Vortex-sheet desingularization for three-dimensional ideal fluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RJBXZEXO

@misc{pith2026260719233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Vortex-sheet desingularization for three-dimensional ideal fluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RJBXZEXO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19233}
}

abstract

We prove a desingularization theorem for analytic vortex sheets of the 3D incompressible Euler equations. Starting from an analytic solution of the corresponding Birkhoff-Rott system, we construct, for every sufficiently small thickness parameter $\varepsilon>0 $, an exact Euler vorticity supported on a tubular neighborhood of width $ O(\varepsilon) $ around the sheet, and defined on a time interval that does not shrink to 0 as $\varepsilon \to 0$. We show that, as $\varepsilon \to 0$, these vorticities converge, in the sense of distributions, to the prescribed vortex sheet. In particular, we conclude that analytic 3D vortex sheet motions arise as limits of exact Euler flows with lifespan bounded from below independently of $ \varepsilon $. The proof hinges on the study of vorticities defined in terms of a time-dependent foliation by almost parallel surfaces and of divergence-free vector fields tangent to these surfaces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19233 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[3]

R. E. Caﬂisch, M. C. Lombardo, M. Sammartino, Vortex layer s of small thickness, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 73 (2020) 2104–2179

2020
[1]

Bahouri, J.-Y

H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, R. Danchin, Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Equatio ns, Springer, Berlin, 2011

2011
[2]

Benedetto, M

D. Benedetto, M. Pulvirenti, From vortex layers to vortex sheets, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 52 (1992) 1041–1056

1992
[4]

R. E. Caﬂisch, O. F. Orellana, Singular solutions and ill- posedness for the evolution of vortex sheets, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 20 (1989) 293–307

1989
[5]

Danchin, Axisymmetric incompressible ﬂows with bound ed vorticity, Russ

R. Danchin, Axisymmetric incompressible ﬂows with bound ed vorticity, Russ. Math. Surv. 62 (3) (2007) 475–496

2007
[6]

Danchin, Remarks on the lifespan of the solutions to som e models of incompressible ﬂuid mechanics

R. Danchin, Remarks on the lifespan of the solutions to som e models of incompressible ﬂuid mechanics. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 141 (2012) 1979–1993

2012
[7]

D´ avila, M

J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, J. Wei, Gluing methods fo r vortex dynamics in Euler ﬂows, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 235 (2020) 1467–1530

2020
[8]

D´ avila, M

J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, S. Parmeshwar, Global in time vortex conﬁgurations for the 2D Euler equations, to appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc

Show all 25 references

[9]

R. J. DiPerna, P.-L. Lions, Ordinary diﬀerential equatio ns, transport theory and Sobolev spaces, Invent. Math. 98 (1989) 511–547

1989
[10]

Enciso, A

A. Enciso, A. J. Fern´ andez, D. Meyer, Desingularizatio n of vortex sheets for the 2D Euler equations, arXiv:2505.18655

arXiv
[11]

Enciso, D

A. Enciso, D. Peralta-Salas, F. Torres de Lizaur, Quasi- periodic solutions to the incompressible Euler equations i n dimensions two and higher, J. Diﬀerential Equations 354 (20 23) 170–182
[12]

Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis , Springer, New York, 2014

L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier Analysis , Springer, New York, 2014

2014
[13]

Grafakos, Modern Fourier Analysis , Springer, New York, 2014

L. Grafakos, Modern Fourier Analysis , Springer, New York, 2014

2014
[14]

D. Guo, L. Zhao, Global well-posedness of weak solutions to the incompressible Euler equations with helical sym- metry in R3, J. Diﬀerential Equations 416 (2025) 806–868

2025
[15]

Y. Guo, C. Huang, B. Pausader, K. Widmayer, On the stabili zing eﬀect of rotation in the 3d Euler equations, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 76 (2023) 3553–3641

2023
[16]

Y. Guo, B. Pausader, K. Widmayer, Global axisymmetric Eu ler ﬂows with rotation, Invent. Math. 231 (2023) 169–262

2023
[17]

Helmholtz, ¨Uber discontinuierliche Fl¨ ussigkeits-Bewegungen, Mona tsberichte der K¨ oniglichen Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 23 (1868) 215–228

H. Helmholtz, ¨Uber discontinuierliche Fl¨ ussigkeits-Bewegungen, Mona tsberichte der K¨ oniglichen Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 23 (1868) 215–228
[18]

Kelvin, Hydrokinetic solutions and observations, Ph il

L. Kelvin, Hydrokinetic solutions and observations, Ph il. Mag. 42 (1871) 362–377
[19]

Z. Li, T. Zhou, On the lifespan of axisymmetric incompres sible Euler equations with a small initial swirl. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. 75 (2024) paper no. 219

2024
[20]

A. J. Majda, A. L. Bertozzi, Vorticity and incompressible ﬂow , Cambridge university press, Cambridge, 2002

2002
[21]

Nishida, A note on a theorem of Nirenberg, J

T. Nishida, A note on a theorem of Nirenberg, J. Diﬀerenti al Geom. 12 (1977) 629–633

1977
[22]

R. M. Range, Holomorphic Functions and Integral Representations in Sev eral Complex Variables , Springer, 1986

1986
[23]

X. Ren, G. Tian, Global solutions to the Euler-Coriolis s ystem, arXiv:2405.18390

arXiv
[24]

P. G. Saﬀman, Vortex dynamics, Cambridge university press, New York, 1995

1995
[25]

Sulem, P.-L

C. Sulem, P.-L. Sulem, C. Bardos, U. Frisch, Finite time a nalyticity for the two- and three-dimensional Kelvin- Helmholtz instability, Comm. Math. Phys. 80 (1981) 485–516 . Alberto Enciso Instituto de Ciencias Matem ´aticas, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient ´ıficas, ...

1981

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

R. E. Caﬂisch, M. C. Lombardo, M. Sammartino, Vortex layer s of small thickness, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 73 (2020) 2104–2179

2020

[2] [1]

Bahouri, J.-Y

H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, R. Danchin, Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Diﬀerential Equatio ns, Springer, Berlin, 2011

2011

[3] [2]

Benedetto, M

D. Benedetto, M. Pulvirenti, From vortex layers to vortex sheets, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 52 (1992) 1041–1056

1992

[4] [4]

R. E. Caﬂisch, O. F. Orellana, Singular solutions and ill- posedness for the evolution of vortex sheets, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 20 (1989) 293–307

1989

[5] [5]

Danchin, Axisymmetric incompressible ﬂows with bound ed vorticity, Russ

R. Danchin, Axisymmetric incompressible ﬂows with bound ed vorticity, Russ. Math. Surv. 62 (3) (2007) 475–496

2007

[6] [6]

Danchin, Remarks on the lifespan of the solutions to som e models of incompressible ﬂuid mechanics

R. Danchin, Remarks on the lifespan of the solutions to som e models of incompressible ﬂuid mechanics. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 141 (2012) 1979–1993

2012

[7] [7]

D´ avila, M

J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, J. Wei, Gluing methods fo r vortex dynamics in Euler ﬂows, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 235 (2020) 1467–1530

2020

[8] [8]

D´ avila, M

J. D´ avila, M. del Pino, M. Musso, S. Parmeshwar, Global in time vortex conﬁgurations for the 2D Euler equations, to appear in J. Eur. Math. Soc