Some remarks on structured Keyfitz-Kranzer systems

Katarzyna Saxton; Ralph Saxton

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Some remarks on structured Keyfitz-Kranzer systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that all reduced Keyfitz–Kranzer systems fall into exactly three constitutive classes, with finite-time amplitude blow-up confined to the two angular ones.

desk verdict The advertised trichotomy for reduced Keyfitz–Kranzer systems is false — a simple homogeneous quadratic breaks it — but the paper contains a useful determinant identity and several careful special-case delta-shock calculations. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28860 v1 pith:BOOZYFUI submitted 2026-07-30 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Ralph Saxton , Katarzyna Saxton This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35L6535L67

keywords Keyfitz-KranzersystemconservationlawsdeltashocksRiemannproblemeigenvaluedegeneracyfinite-timeblow-upconstitutiveclassificationpressurelessgasdynamics

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 aims to classify n-dimensional Keyfitz–Kranzer conservation laws whose constitutive function φ is 'reduced', meaning the largest eigenvalue μ stays constant along its own characteristics for every smooth initial datum. It argues that such φ must be one of three forms: purely radial φ(r), a product-form φ(rK(Θ)) with K a function on the sphere, or purely angular φ(Θ). From this trichotomy it derives a complete picture of singular behaviour: classical Riemann solutions in the radial case, and delta-shock or vacuum states once K has zeros or φ depends only on the direction. It also locates finite-time amplitude blow-up precisely in the K-zero and φ(Θ) cases, tying breakdown to a right-eigenvector deficiency. A reader should care because the classification turns a zoo of applications — chromatography, pressureless and relativistic gases, geometric optics — into a small set of normal forms with known wave structure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the reduced condition D_μ μ=0 expressed through the determinant identity (2.15): for smooth solutions, D_μ μ equals r times a 2×2 determinant whose columns are the r- and ϑ-derivatives of λ and μ contracted with ϑ_x. Vanishing of this determinant for arbitrary data yields the gradient equation (2.20)–(2.22), from which the scalar field z=rK(Θ) is read off via integration along level curves. The eigen-degeneracy sets Σ={rφ_r=0} and Υ (where μ is linearly degenerate) then organize the breakdown analysis: on Σ the system loses a right eigenvector, and the paper ties amplitude blow-up to exactly those subcases in which ∇_u φ does not vanish on Σ.

What would settle it

For n=2, take φ(u)=u_1^2-u_2^2=r^2 cos 2θ. Then μ=3φ, so D_μ μ=3D_μ λ=0 identically and the system is reduced, but (2.21) gives v(θ)=-tan 2θ, which is not a smooth global vector field on S^1. Computing the Riemann solution for this φ and checking whether it fits the paper's three-case classification would settle the lemma; a match would be a counterexample.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that imposing D_μ μ=0 as a structural condition forces the constitutive function φ to depend on u only through one of three quantities: r, z=rK(Θ), or Θ alone, where Θ=u/|u|. Lemma 2.19 derives this from the identity (2.15), which expresses D_μ μ as an r-scaled determinant built from the r- and ϑ-derivatives of λ and μ. When that determinant vanishes for all smooth data, the angular gradient of φ must be proportional to the r-derivative of rφ_r, leading to the z-form with an arbitrary scalar K(Θ); the other two forms are the degenerate limits. The paper then shows that the set where eigenvalues coincide, Σ, splits into classical and singular cases, and that finite-time u

Load-bearing premise

The trichotomy rests on the assumption that the vector field v(ϑ) obtained from any reduced φ is the gradient of a single smooth function K on the entire sphere S^{n-1}, which fails globally on the circle and wherever K crosses zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the trichotomy is correct, every reduced Keyfitz–Kranzer system inherits the known Riemann-solution catalogue: classical waves (contact, shock, rarefaction) in the radial case; delta-shocks with singular mass concentrated on a curve when K changes sign across a hypersurface; and cavitation/vacuum or delta-shock solutions in the φ(Θ) case.
The representation formula (5.22) and generalized Rankine–Hugoniot relation (5.17) give an explicit weight for the delta shock, fixed by the left and right states and the speed s=[φ(z)z]/[z], so singular solutions are not just existence statements but computable profiles.
Finite-time blow-up of the amplitude r is confined to the two cases where the system has a right-eigenvector deficiency: K(Θ)=0 with ∇K≠0, and φ=φ(Θ) with ∇φ·Θ'<0; in the radial case μ_x blows up but r and |ϑ_x| stay bounded.
The pressureless gas examples (relativistic and nonrelativistic) are recovered as special cases of the φ(Θ)-type delta-shock construction, with explicit shock speeds and singular mass given by averages of the velocities weighted by square roots of densities.
The paper's entropy-flux pair (y, φ(z)y) for any smooth J(Θ) provides a family of conserved quantities that may single out admissible delta-shock solutions.

Reading between the lines

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

The global-gradient step in Lemma 2.19 is the fragile point: on S^1 a closed 1-form need not be exact, and the example φ = u_1^2 - u_2^2 satisfies D_μ μ=0 (since μ=3φ) yet does not fit the three normal forms, suggesting the true classification may require local charts or multivalued K.
If the trichotomy survives only locally, then the 'arbitrary scalar field K(Θ)' is better read as a collection of charts with compatibility conditions across zeros of K, which would change the Riemann-problem analysis near those hypersurfaces.
The φ(Θ) case is structurally a singular limit: since the flux depends only on the direction, radial scaling is a symmetry, the characteristic fields are completely linearly degenerate, and the sphere geometry replaces the entropy-shock mechanism; one could test whether vanishing-pressure limits of other systems approach this case.
A numerical test on φ = r^2 cos 2θ with smooth data would directly check whether amplitude blow-up and Riemann structure follow the radial-case predictions or require a fourth normal form.

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

Dear colleague,

You should know before reading this paper that its advertised classification of 'reduced' Keyfitz–Kranzer systems does not hold. The proof of Lemma 2.19 invokes the Poincaré lemma to write a closed 1-form on S^{n-1} as a gradient. That step fails globally: for n=2, H^1(S^1) is nonzero, and even when the form is locally exact, zeros or sign changes of the would-be K obstruct a single smooth primitive. This is not a technicality. Take n=2 and φ(u)=u_1^2-u_2^2 = r^2 cos 2θ. Then rφ_r = 2φ, so μ = 3φ, and since D_μφ = 0 by the system's own identity (2.5)–(2.6), the system is reduced. Yet φ is not of the forms φ(r), φ(Θ), or f(rK(Θ)): any K that could produce r^2 cos2θ would have to vanish where cos2θ<0 while still carrying the r-dependence, which is impossible. So the abstract claim that reduced systems split into φ(r), φ(rK(Θ)), and φ(Θ) is false, and the finite-time blow-up / Riemann-solution dichotomy built on it collapses.

What is actually good: Lemma 2.14's determinant identity for D_μμ is clean and, as far as I know, new. The special-case analyses in Sections 4 and 5 — the z=rK(Θ) case with K=a·Θ, the φ(Θ) fixed-point argument for delta-shocks, and the pressureless gas formulas — are carried out carefully and may well be correct on their own, but they cover only the special families the classification was supposed to generalize. The paper also engages the existing literature seriously and does not fit parameters or lean on self-citations.

The soft spot is the one above: the central theorem is unsupported, and the paper does not flag its reliance on global exactness. This is a substantial flaw, but the counterexample is simple enough that a referee would catch it quickly, and the remaining special-case results could be reorganized into a smaller paper without the classification claim.

Who should read this: anyone working on delta-shock constructions in Keyfitz–Kranzer systems, as a source of explicit formulas, not as a framework. I would not cite the classification, but I might cite Lemma 2.14 if I needed that identity.

Recommendation: if this were submitted to me, I would send it to peer review rather than desk-reject — the identity and the special cases deserve referee time — and the review would come back reject with a request to narrow the claims substantially.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies n-dimensional Keyfitz–Kranzer systems with flux coefficient φ(r,Θ). It introduces a “reduced” constitutive hypothesis, D_μ μ = 0, and claims in Lemma 2.19 that this forces φ into one of three forms: φ(r), φ(r K(Θ)), or φ(Θ). On this basis it analyzes finite-time blow-up of smooth solutions, classical Riemann solutions, and delta-shock/vacuum solutions, with applications to chromatography, pressureless gas dynamics, and related models. The central advertised contribution is the classification of reduced systems and the resulting dichotomy between classical and singular Riemann solutions.

Significance. If the classification were correct, it would provide a useful unifying framework for many known examples of Keyfitz–Kranzer systems and would give a systematic justification for the appearance of delta-shocks and vacuum states. The paper also collects a wide range of applications and derives explicit delta-shock formulas for pressureless gas dynamics. However, the classification is false as stated: there is an elementary reduced system that is not of any of the three forms. Since the later sections depend structurally on Lemma 2.19, the advertised scope of the results is not established. The specific examples and conditional statements may remain valuable, but the paper's central claim fails.

major comments (2)

[§2, Lemma 2.19 and Eqs. (2.20)–(2.24)] The proof that the reduced condition forces φ = φ(r), φ(rK(Θ)), or φ(Θ) uses Poincaré’s lemma to conclude that the closed 1-form v(ϑ) = ∇_ϑ φ/(r φ_r) is a global gradient. This is false for n = 2 because H^1(S^1) ≠ 0. A concrete counterexample is φ(u) = u_1^2 - u_2^2 = r^2 cos 2ϑ. Then μ = φ + r φ_r = 3φ, so D_μ μ = 3 D_μ φ = 0 by Eq. (2.5); the system is reduced. But the resulting v(ϑ) = -tan 2ϑ has no smooth global primitive on S^1 (the local primitive is 1/2 log|cos 2ϑ|, which is singular and multivalued). Moreover φ is not of the form φ(r), φ(ϑ), or f(rK(ϑ)) with a single global K: on regions where cos 2ϑ changes sign, no real f can encode φ = r^2 cos 2ϑ as a function of rK alone. Thus Lemma 2.19 is false, and the classification framework of the abstract collapses.
[§3–§5 (Prop. 3.3, §4.2, Thm. 5.32)] The finite-time blow-up results, the classical Riemann classification, and the delta-shock representation theorem are all derived under the assumption that a reduced system belongs to one of the three normal forms. Since Lemma 2.19 is false, these results are conditional rather than the advertised classification. In particular, Theorem 5.32 and the discussion around Eqs. (4.25)–(4.30) and (5.25)–(5.28) describe delta-shock behavior only for systems already assumed to be of the form φ = φ(z) or φ = φ(Θ). The paper's abstract overstates the scope by claiming a classification of reduced systems, whereas the actual results presuppose the ansatz that the counterexample disproves.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] Typo: “those with are classical” should be “those which are classical.”
[§2, proof of Lemma 2.19] The Poincaré lemma step is too terse; even for n ≥ 3, where H^1(S^{n-1}) = 0, the construction K = e^h gives a positive K, whereas the later applications require K to change sign and vanish. The proof should specify the regularity and global hypotheses needed to pass from local exactness to a global K.
[§5, Eq. (5.18) and surrounding text] The notation ˘δ_σ and the product δ_σ ˘δ_σ is confusing; the remark in footnote 4 is not a definition. A precise statement of the measure product would improve readability.
[References] Reference [25] has a typo: “chromotography” should be “chromatography.” Also, the arXiv identifier 2607.28860 appears to be outside the current arXiv numbering convention.
[§4.3] The paragraph beginning “The absence of shocks is a structural feature...” is more of an interpretive remark than a proof. If it is intended as a rigorous statement, it should be formulated as a lemma with a proof; otherwise it reads as editorializing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the classification is derived from an explicit structural assumption by direct computation, with no fitted inputs and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central object is Definition 2.12, an explicit structural axiom: a constitutive hypothesis is called 'reduced' if it makes D_mu mu = 0 for arbitrary smooth data. Lemma 2.14 computes D_mu mu as r times the determinant appearing in (2.15), so the ansatz in Lemma 2.19 is exactly the reducedness condition itself, not a hidden conclusion. The three-form classification is then obtained by direct algebra: case 1 and case 3 are checked by substitution into (2.15), while case 2 follows from (2.20)-(2.24) by manipulating the gradient identity and integrating along curves of constant z = rK(Theta). This is a derivation from the stated assumption, not a restatement of it. The later sections on blow-up, Riemann solutions, and delta-shocks are separate calculations conditional on the three normal forms; they use free initial data and independent Rankine-Hugoniot / transport-equation arguments. No parameters are fitted and no quantity is 'predicted' from data to which it was already fit. The references are external (Keyfitz-Kranzer, Yang-Zhang, Shelkovich, Shen, etc.) and are used mainly to catalog examples and prior models; none of the load-bearing steps is justified by a self-citation chain, and the authors do not cite themselves. The possible mathematical gap in Lemma 2.19 - the global use of the Poincare lemma to represent v as a gradient on S^{n-1}, which need not exist when H^1(S^1) != 0 - is a correctness concern about the completeness of the classification, not a circularity: the claimed conclusion does not reduce to its input by construction; it may simply be overbroad. The manuscript contains no passage admitting or relying on a circular step. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. Its central load-bearing commitments are the reduced hypothesis, the polar decomposition, the global-exactness step in Lemma 2.19, and the delta-shock ansatz. The global-exactness step is the one that breaks the central claim.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Reduced hypothesis: D_μ μ = 0 for arbitrary smooth initial data (Definition 2.12).
The entire classification is conditional on this constitutive assumption; it is not derived from the conservation law itself.
domain assumption Smooth polar decomposition u=rΘ, r>0, Θ∈S^{n-1}, yielding (2.3)-(2.4).
Used throughout to separate radial and angular evolution; requires r>0 and smoothness of Θ.
ad hoc to paper Global exactness of v(ϑ) / global smooth K(ϑ) in Lemma 2.19 via Poincaré's lemma.
Fails for n=2 because H^1(S^1)≠0, and fails across zeros where K changes sign. This is the step that excludes reduced homogeneous fluxes such as u_1^2-u_2^2.
ad hoc to paper Delta-shock representation ansatz (5.22) with ˘δ and K(Θ_σ)=0.
Assumed form of singular solutions; used to derive the generalized Rankine-Hugoniot formulas without proving existence or uniqueness from the balance law alone.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Some remarks on structured Keyfitz-Kranzer systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BOOZYFUI

@misc{pith2026260728860,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Some remarks on structured Keyfitz-Kranzer systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BOOZYFUI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28860}
}

abstract

Several applications for systems of conservation laws of the form $U_t + (\Phi (U) U)_x =0$, $U: R_t\times R_x\rightarrow R^n$ , $n\geq 2$, with $\Phi (U) = \phi (r, \Theta): R^n\rightarrow R$, $r = |U|$, and $\Theta = U/|U|\in S^{n-1}$, are obtained by imposing structural conditions to provide a classification framework for solutions dependent on the form of $\phi(U)$. By prescribing the evolution of a particular eigenvalue, we can categorize classes of such functions, $\phi$, for which this evolution is met, into depending on either a scalar field $z=rK(\Theta)$, where $K: S^{n-1}\rightarrow R$, or on the vector field $\Theta$, and find for which the amplitude of solutions may blow up in finite time. As a consequence, solutions to the corresponding Riemann problems can be divided into those with are classical and those which involve delta-shocks and/or vacuum states.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references

[1]

and Spinolo, L

Ambrosio, L., Crippa, G., Figalli, A. and Spinolo, L. V.Some new well- posedness results for continuity and transport equations, and applications to the chromatography system, SIAM J. Appl. Math, 41 (5), 1890-1920, 2009

1920
[2]

Partial Diff

Chen, G.-Q.Hyperbolic conservation laws with symmetry, Comm. Partial Diff. Equations, 16 (8-9), 1461-1487, 1991

1991
[3]

and Liu, H.Formation ofδ-shocks and vacuum states in the vanishing pressure limit of solutions to the euler equations for isentropic fluids, SIAM J

Chen, G.-Q. and Liu, H.Formation ofδ-shocks and vacuum states in the vanishing pressure limit of solutions to the euler equations for isentropic fluids, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 34, 925-938, 2003

2003
[4]

and Yang, H.Delta shock waves in chromatography equations, J

Cheng, H. and Yang, H.Delta shock waves in chromatography equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 380, 475-485, 2011

2011
[5]

M.Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics, 4th Ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 325, Springer, 2016

Dafermos, C. M.Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics, 4th Ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 325, Springer, 2016

2016
[6]

and Runborg, O.Multi-phase computations in geometrical optics, J

Engquist, B. and Runborg, O.Multi-phase computations in geometrical optics, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 74, 175-192, 1996

1996
[7]

Font, J.A.Numerical Hydrodynamics and Magnetohydrodynam- ics in General Relativity, Living Rev. Relativ. 11, 7, 2008. (At https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2008-7)

doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-7 2008
[8]

Keyfitz, B. L. and Kranzer, H. C.Systems of non-strictly hyperbolic conser- vation laws arising in elasticity theory, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 72, 219-241, 1980. 7This can also be seen substituting (A.3) into (5.64) atγ σ, from whichτ σ follows via (A.3). Obtaining uniqueness of Θ σ ∈sp{Θ −,Θ +}is equivalent to that of finding uniqueness for its projection...

1980

Show all 31 references

[9]

Keyfitz, B. L. and Kranzer, H. C.Non-strictly hyperbolic conservation laws: formation of singularities, Contemporary Math., 17, 77-90, 1983

1983
[10]

J.Solution of a2×2system of conservation laws possessing no classical weak solutions, Ph.D

Korchinski, D. J.Solution of a2×2system of conservation laws possessing no classical weak solutions, Ph.D. thesis, Adelphi Univ. Garden City, New York, 1977

1977
[11]

N.Discontinuity surfaces in a medium without self-pressure

Kraiko, A. N.Discontinuity surfaces in a medium without self-pressure. Prikladnaia Matematika i Mekhanika, 43, 539–549, 1979

1979
[12]

Philadelphia: Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1973

Lax, P.D.Hyperbolic systems of conservation laws and mathematics theory of shocks wavesSIAM Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Philadelphia: Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1973

1973
[13]

J.The dynamics of pressureless dust clouds and delta waves, J

LeVeque, R. J.The dynamics of pressureless dust clouds and delta waves, J. Hyperbolic Differential Equations, 1(02), 315–327, 2004

2004
[14]

Lin, X., Sun, M. and Zhang, Y.Solutions with concentration and cavitation to the Riemann problem for the isentropic relativistic Euler system for the extended Chaplygin gas, Open Mathematics, 17, 220–241, 2019

2019
[15]

and Yang, H.Delta-shocks and vacuums as limits of flux approx- imation for the pressureless type system, Turk

Liu, J. and Yang, H.Delta-shocks and vacuums as limits of flux approx- imation for the pressureless type system, Turk. J. Math., 42, 2735–2751, 2018

2018
[16]

and Wang, C-H.On a nonstrictly hyperbolic system of conserva- tion laws, J

Liu, T-P. and Wang, C-H.On a nonstrictly hyperbolic system of conserva- tion laws, J. Differential Equations, 57, 1-14, 1985

1985
[17]

Nilsson and V

B. Nilsson and V. M. Shelkovich,Mass, momentum and energy conserva- tion laws in zero-pressure gas dynamics andδ-shocks, Applicable Analysis, 90, 11, 1677-1689, 2011

2011
[18]

Nilsson, O

B. Nilsson, O. S. Rozanova, and V. M. Shelkovich,Mass, momentum and energy conservation laws in zero-pressure gas dynamics andδ-shocks. II, Applicable Analysis, 90, 5, 831-842, 2011

2011
[19]

Saccomandi and R

G. Saccomandi and R. Vitolo,On the mathematical and geometrical struc- ture of the determining equations for shear waves in nonlinear isotropic incompressible elastodynamics, J. Mathematical Physics, 55, 083503, 2014

2014
[20]

Differential Equations, 180, 1, 238–271, 2002

Sever, M.A class of nonlinear, nonhyperbolic systems of conservation laws with well-posed initial value problems, J. Differential Equations, 180, 1, 238–271, 2002

2002
[21]

American Math

Sever, M.Distribution solutions of nonlinear systems of conservation laws, Mem. American Math. Society, 889, 889, 2007

2007
[22]

M.Concept of delta-shock type solutions to systems of con- servation laws and the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, Operator Theory: Ad- vances and Applications, 2013

Shelkovich, V. M.Concept of delta-shock type solutions to systems of con- servation laws and the Rankine-Hugoniot conditions, Operator Theory: Ad- vances and Applications, 2013. 35

2013
[23]

Math Lett., 77, 35-43, 2018

Shen, C.Delta shock wave solution for a symmetric Keyfitz-Kranzer system, Appl. Math Lett., 77, 35-43, 2018

2018
[24]

and Tong, Z.The Riemann problem for the transportation equa- tions in gas dynamics, Mem

Sheng, W. and Tong, Z.The Riemann problem for the transportation equa- tions in gas dynamics, Mem. American Math. Society, 137, 654, 1999

1999
[25]

Sun, M.Delta shock waves for the chromotography equations as self-similar viscosity limits, Q. App. Math, LXIX, 425-443, 2011

2011
[26]

Temple, B.Systems of conservation laws with invariant submanifolds, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 280, 2, 781-795, 1983

1983
[27]

and Hu, M.The delta-shock wave for the two variables of a class of Temple system, Adv

Wang, G., Liu, J.-B., Zhao, L. and Hu, M.The delta-shock wave for the two variables of a class of Temple system, Adv. Difference. Eqn., 1, 1-15, 2018

2018
[28]

and Sun, M.Riemann problem and wave interaction for a Tem- ple class hyperbolic system of conservation laws, Bull

Wei, Z. and Sun, M.Riemann problem and wave interaction for a Tem- ple class hyperbolic system of conservation laws, Bull. Malays. Math. Soc., 44(6), 2021

2021
[29]

Yang, H.Riemann problems for a class of coupled hyperbolic systems of conservation laws, J. Diff. Eqn., 159, 447-484, 1999

1999
[30]

and Zhang, Y.New developments of delta shock waves and its applications in systems of conservation lawsJ

Yang, H. and Zhang, Y.New developments of delta shock waves and its applications in systems of conservation lawsJ. Diff. Eqn., 252, 5951-5993, 2012

2012
[31]

and Zhang, Y.Delta shock waves with Dirac delta function in both components for systems of conservation laws, J

Yang, H. and Zhang, Y.Delta shock waves with Dirac delta function in both components for systems of conservation laws, J. Diff. Eqn., 257, 4369-4402, 2014. 36

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

and Spinolo, L

Ambrosio, L., Crippa, G., Figalli, A. and Spinolo, L. V.Some new well- posedness results for continuity and transport equations, and applications to the chromatography system, SIAM J. Appl. Math, 41 (5), 1890-1920, 2009

1920

[2] [2]

Partial Diff

Chen, G.-Q.Hyperbolic conservation laws with symmetry, Comm. Partial Diff. Equations, 16 (8-9), 1461-1487, 1991

1991

[3] [3]

and Liu, H.Formation ofδ-shocks and vacuum states in the vanishing pressure limit of solutions to the euler equations for isentropic fluids, SIAM J

Chen, G.-Q. and Liu, H.Formation ofδ-shocks and vacuum states in the vanishing pressure limit of solutions to the euler equations for isentropic fluids, SIAM J. Math. Anal., 34, 925-938, 2003

2003

[4] [4]

and Yang, H.Delta shock waves in chromatography equations, J

Cheng, H. and Yang, H.Delta shock waves in chromatography equations, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 380, 475-485, 2011

2011

[5] [5]

M.Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics, 4th Ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 325, Springer, 2016

Dafermos, C. M.Hyperbolic Conservation Laws in Continuum Physics, 4th Ed., Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, 325, Springer, 2016

2016

[6] [6]

and Runborg, O.Multi-phase computations in geometrical optics, J

Engquist, B. and Runborg, O.Multi-phase computations in geometrical optics, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 74, 175-192, 1996

1996

[7] [7]

Font, J.A.Numerical Hydrodynamics and Magnetohydrodynam- ics in General Relativity, Living Rev. Relativ. 11, 7, 2008. (At https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2008-7)

doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-7 2008

[8] [8]

Keyfitz, B. L. and Kranzer, H. C.Systems of non-strictly hyperbolic conser- vation laws arising in elasticity theory, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal., 72, 219-241, 1980. 7This can also be seen substituting (A.3) into (5.64) atγ σ, from whichτ σ follows via (A.3). Obtaining uniqueness of Θ σ ∈sp{Θ −,Θ +}is equivalent to that of finding uniqueness for its projection...

1980