Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 31 references

Yudovich theory under geometric regularity for density-dependent incompressible fluids

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Controlling one directional derivative recovers Yudovich stability and uniqueness for density-dependent incompressible Euler in two dimensions.

desk verdict Conditional stability and uniqueness are clean and honestly presented, but the geometric assumption has no known nontrivial instances and the uniqueness class collapses to Lipschitz wherever |grad rho| is bounded below, so the 'Yudovich theory' framing overreaches. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23365 v1 pith:6RFZ3XW4 submitted 2025-06-29 math.AP

Francesco Fanelli This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3135R0576B0335A02
keywords incompressibleEulerequationsdensityvariationsYudovichtheorygeometricregularitydirectionalderivativestabilityandconvergenceuniquenesstwo-dimensional
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's aim is to bring Yudovich's weak-solution theory for the two-dimensional incompressible Euler equations to the variable-density case, where the velocity need not be Lipschitz. It proves two conditional statements. The first is a stability result: if a sequence of smooth approximate solutions obeys a uniform bound on the time-integrated $L^\infty$ norm of the single directional derivative $\partial_X u$ of velocity along the vector field $X := \nabla^\perp\rho$ tangent to density level sets, then a subsequence converges to a weak solution of the density-dependent Euler system with bounded density gradient, velocity in $L^2 \cap L^\infty$, vorticity in $L^{p_0}$, and pressure gradient in $L^2$. The second is a uniqueness result: among such weak solutions, at most one also has a finite time-integrated $L^\infty$ norm of $\partial_X u$. The point is that one geometric direction can stand in for the full Lipschitz control that the classical Yudovich argument uses; the paper notes explicitly that no non-Lipschitz initial data are known to satisfy the required geometric control.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the directional derivative $\partial_X u := (X\cdot\nabla)u$ with $X := \nabla^\perp\rho$, treated as an indivisible geometric quantity rather than bounded through $X$ times $\nabla u$. It appears as the source in the transport equations for $X$ and for the momentum vorticity $\eta := \operatorname{curl}(\rho u)$: $\partial_t X+u\cdot\nabla X=\partial_X u$ and $\partial_t\eta+u\cdot\nabla\eta=\partial_X u\cdot u$. Since $\partial_X\rho=0$ and $\operatorname{div} X=0$, this term can be manipulated and estimated without a Lipschitz bound on $u$. The pressure gradient is recovered from the elliptic equation $-\operatorname{div}(\rho^{-1}\nabla\Pi)=\operatorname{div}((u\cdot\nabla)u)$, and uniqueness is closed by Yudovich's $L^2$ stability estimate with the $p\to\infty$ differential-inequality argument.

What would settle it

Compute $\sup_n \int_0^T\|\partial_{X_n}u_n\|_{L^\infty}dt$ for the standard mollified regularisation of a non-Lipschitz initial vorticity $\omega_0\in L^{p_0}\cap L^\infty$; if the quantity diverges for some datum, Theorem 2.3 has no conclusion for that datum. Alternatively, exhibit two weak solutions with the same initial data, both satisfying (16), that differ on a set of positive measure; that would disprove Theorem 2.9.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Yudovich theory survives in the non-homogeneous setting once a specific geometric quantity is controlled. With initial density in $W^{1,\infty}$ bounded away from zero, initial velocity in $L^2$ divergence-free, and initial vorticity in $L^{p_0}$ for some $p_0\in(2,4]$, Theorem 2.3 says that under assumption (15), namely $\sup_n \int_0^T \|\partial_{X_n} u_n\|_{L^\infty}\,dt<\infty$ for smooth approximations, a subsequence of approximations converges to a weak solution of (2) satisfying the bounds stated in items (i)-(iv). Theorem 2.8 adds that if $\omega_0\in L^\infty$, the limit velocity is Zygmund continuous, hence log-Lipschitz, and the pressure gradient is bounded. Theorem 2.9 states that at most one Yudovich-type solution additionally satisfies (16), namely $\int_0^T\|\partial_X u\|_{L^\infty}\,dt<\infty$. This uniqueness requires less smoothness than earlier uniqueness results for regular solutions.

Load-bearing premise

The theorems collapse if the a priori bound on $\int_0^T\|\partial_{X_n}u_n\|_{L^\infty}dt$ (and its limit analogue $\int_0^T\|\partial_X u\|_{L^\infty}dt$) is never achievable for genuinely non-Lipschitz data, since the paper states in Remark 2.7 that no construction of such data or solutions is known; a separate structural restriction is the $W^{1,\infty}$ regularity of the density, which excludes discontinuous densities such as vortex patches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If assumption (15) holds up to time $T$, Theorem 2.3 yields a Yudovich-type weak solution of the density-dependent Euler system up to $T$; if the control holds for $T=+\infty$, the construction gives a global-in-time solution.
  • Under the stronger initial condition $\omega_0\in L^\infty$, Theorem 2.8 upgrades the limit velocity to the Zygmund class, and therefore to log-Lipschitz regularity, so the velocity admits a unique flow.
  • Theorem 2.9 confines the class of Yudovich-type solutions: at most one solution can carry a finite $\int_0^T\|\partial_X u\|_{L^\infty}dt$, and this uniqueness holds without the $L^1_T(L^\infty)$ gradient control that earlier results required.
  • Replacing (15) by the stronger assumption (17), with $\partial_{X_n}u_n$ bounded in $L^{p^*}_T(L^\infty)$ for some $p^*>1$, makes the limit quantity $\partial_X u$ itself lie in $L^1_T(L^\infty)$, closing the gap between the stability and uniqueness hypotheses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the theorems carry no nontrivial instance until someone produces non-Lipschitz initial data satisfying (15); the most direct next step is to look for such data in a striated-regularity class, where the directional derivative is controlled by geometry rather than by pointwise differentiability.
  • Editorial extension: because the density is assumed $W^{1,\infty}$, discontinuous densities such as vortex patches lie outside the theory; whether a weak interpretation of $\partial_X u$ across a jump interface can still enforce uniqueness is an open problem the paper does not address.
  • Editorial extension: the condition $p_0\le 4$ is used only in the pressure estimate of Proposition 5.5, so a different pressure argument should remove it; this is a testable extension rather than a claim of the paper.
  • Editorial extension: the stronger integrability assumption (17) is the only hypothesis in the paper that transfers the geometric control to the limit solution, which suggests monitoring $\int_0^T\|\partial_{X_n}u_n\|_{L^\infty}^{p^*}\,dt$ as a concrete criterion for regularisation schemes.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 2D density-dependent incompressible Euler system with non-vacuum, W^{1,\infty} density and L^2 velocity data. Its central object is the geometric quantity \partial_X u, where X=\nabla^\perp\rho. The main results are conditional: Theorem 2.3 shows that if a sequence of smooth approximate solutions satisfies the a priori bound (15), sup_n\int_0^T \|\partial_{X_n}u_n\|_{L^\infty}dt<\infty, then a subsequence converges to a weak solution with u\in L^\infty_T(L^2\cap L^\infty), \nabla\rho\in L^\infty, \omega\in L^\infty_T(L^{p_0}) and \nabla\Pi\in L^\infty_T(L^2). Under the stronger assumption \omega_0\in L^\infty, Theorem 2.8 upgrades the construction to Zygmund velocity and bounded pressure gradient. Theorem 2.9 proves uniqueness among such solutions that additionally satisfy (16), \int_0^T\|\partial_X u\|_{L^\infty}dt<\infty. The paper is explicit in Remark 2.7 that no construction of data or solutions verifying (15) is known, and Remarks 2.10 and 3.1 acknowledge that (16) is not obtained from (15) by weak compactness.

Significance. If the geometric control (15)/(16) is ever satisfied by genuinely non-Lipschitz solutions, the conditional stability and uniqueness results would be a meaningful step toward a Yudovich-type theory for non-homogeneous Euler. The proofs are detailed, follow standard Yudovich, transport and elliptic arguments, and make clever use of the cancellation div X=0 for X=\nabla^\perp\rho; the paper also honestly isolates the quantities it cannot control. The main limitation is that the central theorem is conditional on an a priori bound that the paper admits it cannot derive or even instantiate, and the uniqueness class may reduce to Lipschitz regularity on sets where the density gradient is non-degenerate. These issues affect the advertised interpretation more than the internal correctness of the conditional proofs.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 2.3] Theorem 2.3 defines X_n:= \nabla\rho_n, but every other statement and every proof, including equation (22) and Lemma 4.2, uses X_n:=\nabla^\perp\rho_n. As printed, assumption (15) is not the quantity that appears in the vorticity equation, the transport equation for X_n, or the geometric regularity discussion. The statement must be corrected to X_n:=\nabla^\perp\rho_n, or the proofs must be reconciled with the stated definition.
  2. [Remark 2.7 and Lemma 4.2] The manuscript is fully transparent that no construction of initial data or approximate solutions satisfying (15) is known, and Lemma 4.2 yields only \partial_X u\in M([0,T];L^\infty), not the L^1_TL^\infty condition (16) needed for the uniqueness class. Consequently Theorem 2.3 does not produce any solution in the uniqueness class of Theorem 2.9, and the existence of nontrivial, genuinely non-Lipschitz instances of the theory remains open. This is an admitted, load-bearing gap for the advertised 'Yudovich theory' claim, and it should be either filled by an explicit example or family of examples, or stated prominently as an open condition in the abstract and introduction.
  3. [Section 5.2, Theorem 2.9] Under (16) and \omega\in L^\infty, on any open set where |\nabla\rho|\ge c>0 the symmetric traceless part S of \nabla u satisfies S X = \partial_X u - \tfrac12 \omega X^\perp. Since the right-hand side is bounded by assumption (16) and bounded vorticity, S is bounded with norm comparable to C/|\nabla\rho| on that set; hence \nabla u is bounded and u is Lipschitz there. Thus the uniqueness class of Theorem 2.9 can be non-Lipschitz only on the critical set \{\nabla\rho=0\}. This does not invalidate the conditional proof, but it substantially weakens the interpretation of (16) as a genuine Yudovich-type sub-Lipschitz mechanism. The paper should discuss this structure and, ideally, provide an example or a discussion of whether non-Lipschitz solutions in this class can actually exist.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Proposition 5.3] In the statement of Proposition 5.3, the vorticity is written as \omega=\partial_1u_1-\partial_2u_1; it should be \partial_1u_2-\partial_2u_1, as in equation (5).
  2. [Lemma 4.2] The notation M([0,T];L^\infty) for Radon measures in time is used without being defined; a one-line definition would improve readability.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states that uniqueness 'improves previous uniqueness results for regular solutions', but the role of the a priori geometric condition (16) is not mentioned there. Adding one sentence about the conditional nature of the results would align the abstract with the body of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the geometric bounds (15)/(16) are openly a priori assumptions, and the self-citation [21] is not load-bearing for the main proofs.

full rationale

The paper's main results are explicitly conditional: Theorems 2.3 and 2.8 assume the a priori uniform bound (15) on ∂_{X_n}u_n, and Theorem 2.9 assumes the additional condition (16) on the limit triplet. The paper never claims to derive these controls from the equations; rather, it states in Section 1.2: 'we need to impose a priori working assumptions directly on ∂X u, because (as explained above) we are not able to estimate this term from the equations.' Remark 2.7 also concedes 'the explicit construction of families of smooth solutions ... satisfying (15) ... has revealed to be, so far, elusive.' A conditional compactness and uniqueness statement with an openly assumed hypothesis is not a circular derivation. Sections 3-4 genuinely prove uniform bounds from (19), obtain weak and strong compactness, and pass to the limit in the mass, momentum and vorticity equations with no step substituting the conclusion for the hypothesis. Section 5 proves uniqueness by a Yudovich-type L2 stability estimate whose constants depend on M0 := ∫_0^T ||∂_X u||_{L∞} dt, i.e. on the assumed condition (16); this is again an honest conditional derivation. The self-citation [21] introduces the geometric quantity ∂_X u and motivates a blow-up/continuation remark in Section 2.2, but [21] is not used to close any estimate in the proofs of Theorems 2.3, 2.8 or 2.9, so it is not load-bearing. The paper also flags its own main limitations: Lemma 4.2 only yields ∂_X u ∈ M([0,T]; L∞) ∩ L∞(L^{p0}), not L^1_T(L∞), so the unique class of Theorem 2.9 is not populated by the construction of Theorem 2.3 (see Remarks 2.10 and 3.1). This is a scope/completeness gap, not circularity. Separately, (16) together with ω ∈ L∞ may force Lipschitz regularity on regions where |∇ρ| ≥ c > 0 through the identity ∂_X u = S X + (1/2)ω X^⊥, which would weaken the sub-Lipschitz content of the uniqueness class; this is a substantive mathematical concern, not a reduction-by-construction. Verdict: no significant circularity; one minor, non-load-bearing self-citation justifies a score of 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on assumption (15)/(16), an a priori bound on the directional derivative ∂_X u that the paper cannot derive from the equations and for which it provides no example. The remaining assumptions are standard domain conditions (finite energy, no vacuum, bounded initial vorticity) and standard external theorems used for local well-posedness, transport estimates, and elliptic regularity.

assumptions (9)
  • domain assumption Assumption (A1): 0 < ρ_* ≤ ρ_0 ≤ ρ* and ∇ρ_0 ∈ L∞
    Excludes vacuum and requires the density to start Lipschitz; the paper does not treat discontinuous densities.
  • domain assumption Assumption (A2): u_0 ∈ L^2(R^2), div u_0 = 0
    Finite-energy divergence-free initial velocity; provides the L^2 energy bound (21).
  • domain assumption Assumptions (AE3)/(AU3): ω_0 ∈ L^{p0} with p0 ∈ (2,4], and L∞ for uniqueness
    Vorticity regularity used in interpolation and to control pressure; p0 ≤ 4 is technical, used only in Proposition 5.5.
  • ad hoc to paper Geometric control (15): sup_n ∫_0^T ||∂_{X_n} u_n||_{L∞} dt < +∞ and common lifespan inf_n T_n ≥ T
    This is the central a priori condition; the paper states it can be imposed but not verified from the equations, and no example is known (Remark 2.7, Section 1.3).
  • ad hoc to paper Geometric control (16): ∫_0^T ||∂_X u||_{L∞} dt < +∞ for the target solution
    Required for uniqueness; not implied by (15) via weak compactness (Remark 2.10), so imposed directly on the solution class.
  • standard math Existence of smooth local solutions for each regularized datum (Danchin, references [17,18] and Proposition 4.1 of [6])
    Used to generate the approximate sequence; the paper relies on external local well-posedness results.
  • standard math Regularisation properties in Definition 2.2 (mollification or frequency truncation)
    Standard smoothing yields the uniform bounds and strong convergences stated there.
  • standard math Log-Lipschitz flow, Osgood uniqueness theory, and transport estimates (references [24], [3])
    Used for the flow of log-Lipschitz velocity fields and for L^p transport estimates.
  • standard math Elliptic estimates for the pressure (Lemma 2 of [17]) and for divergence-form operators
    Used to control ∇Π and ∆Π.
invented entities (1)
  • Geometric quantity ∂_X u with X = ∇^⊥ ρ, considered as a whole and assumed bounded in L1_T(L∞)
    purpose: To close the a priori estimates and to prove compactness and uniqueness without Lipschitz bounds on u
    The paper introduces this as the key working quantity (Sections 1.2 and 2.2). No falsifiable prediction or independent evidence is given that the bound holds for any non-Lipschitz data; the paper admits no example is known (Remark 2.7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Yudovich theory under geometric regularity for density-dependent incompressible fluids." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6RFZ3XW4

@misc{pith2026250623365,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Yudovich theory under geometric regularity for density-dependent incompressible fluids},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6RFZ3XW4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23365}
}
abstract

This paper focuses on the study of the density-dependent incompressible Euler equations in space dimension $d=2$, for low regularity (\textsl{i.e.} non-Lipschitz) initial data satisfying assumptions in spirit of the celebrated Yudovich theory for the classical homogeneous Euler equations. We show that, under an \textsl{a priori} control of a non-linear geometric quantity, namely the directional derivative $\partial_Xu$ of the fluid velocity $u$ along the vector field $X:=\nabla^\perp\rho$, where $\rho$ is the fluid density, low regularity solutions \textsl{\`a la Yudovich} can be constructed also in the non-homogeneous setting. More precisely, we prove the following facts: (i) \emph{stability}: given a sequence of smooth approximate solutions enjoying a uniform control on the above mentioned geometric quantity, then (up to an extraction) that sequence converges to a Yudovich-type solution of the density-dependent incompressible Euler system; \\ (ii) \emph{uniqueness}: there exists at most one Yudovich-type solution of the density-dependent incompressible Euler equations such that $\partial_Xu$ remains finite; besides, this statement improves previous uniqueness results for regular solutions, inasmuch as it requires less smoothness on the initial data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Instability and non-uniqueness for the 2D Euler equations, after M. Vishik

    D. Albritton, E. Brué, M. Colombo, C. De Lellis, V. Giri, M. Janisch, H. Kwon:“Instability and non-uniqueness for the 2D Euler equations, after M. Vishik”. Ann. of Math. Stud.,219 , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Square root problem for divergence operators and related topics

    P. Auscher, P. Tchamitchian: “Square root problem for divergence operators and related topics”. Astériques, 249, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [3]

    Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equa- tions

    H. Bahouri, J.-Y. Chemin, R. Danchin: “Fourier analysis and nonlinear partial differential equa- tions”. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], 343. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Bernicot, S

    F. Bernicot, S. Keraani:On the global well-posedness of the 2D Euler equations for a large class of Yudovich type data. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4),47 (2014), n. 3, 559-576

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Bernicot, T

    F. Bernicot, T. Hmidi: On the global well-posedness for Euler equations with unbounded vorticity. Dyn. Partial Differ. Equ.,12 (2015), n. 2, 127-155

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Bravin, F

    M. Bravin, F. Fanelli:Global existence for non-homogeneous incompressible inviscid fluids in pres- ence of Ekman pumping. Commun. Contemp. Math., accepted for publication (2025). 32

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Chae: Weak solutions of 2-D Euler equations with initial vorticity inL(log L)

    D. Chae: Weak solutions of 2-D Euler equations with initial vorticity inL(log L). J. Differential Equations, 103 (1993), n. 2, 323-337

    work page 1993

  8. [8]

    Chemin: Sur le mouvement des particules d’un fluide parfait incompressible bidimensionel

    J.-Y. Chemin: Sur le mouvement des particules d’un fluide parfait incompressible bidimensionel. Invent. Math.,103 (1991), n. 3, 599-629

    work page 1991

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Chemin: Persistance des structures géométriques liées aux poches de tourbillon

    J.-Y. Chemin: Persistance des structures géométriques liées aux poches de tourbillon. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér.,26 (1993), n. 4, 1-26

    1993

  2. [10]

    Fluides parfaits incompressibles

    J.-Y. Chemin: “Fluides parfaits incompressibles”. Astérisque,230, 1995

    1995

  3. [11]

    Q. Chen, C. Miao, X. Zheng:The two-dimensional Euler equations in Yudovich and bmo-type spaces. Rev. Mat. Iberoam.,35 (2019), n. 1, 195-240

    2019

  4. [12]

    Constantin, T

    P. Constantin, T. Drivas, T. M. Elgindi:Inviscid limit of vorticity distributions in the Yudovich class. Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,75 (2022), n. 1, 60-82

    2022

  5. [13]

    Constantin, J

    P. Constantin, J. Wu:Inviscid limit for vortex patches. Nonlinearity,8 (1995), n. 5, 735-742

    1995

  6. [14]

    Constantin, J

    P. Constantin, J. Wu:The inviscid limit for non-smooth vorticity. Indiana Univ. Math. J.,45(1996), n. 1, 67-81

    1996

  7. [15]

    Crippa, G

    G. Crippa, G. Stefani:An elementary proof of existence and uniqueness for the Euler flow in localized Yudovich spaces. Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations,63 (2024), n. 7, Paper n. 168

    2024

  8. [16]

    Danchin: The inviscid limit for density-dependent incompressible fluids

    R. Danchin: The inviscid limit for density-dependent incompressible fluids. Ann. Fac. Sci. Toulouse Math. (6),15 (2006), n. 4, 637-688

    2006

  9. [17]

    Danchin: On the well-posedness of the incompressible density-dependent Euler equations in the Lp framework

    R. Danchin: On the well-posedness of the incompressible density-dependent Euler equations in the Lp framework. J. Differential Equations,248 (2010), n. 8, 2130-2170

    2010

  10. [18]

    Danchin, F

    R. Danchin, F. Fanelli:The well-posedness issue for the density-dependent Euler equations in end- point Besov spaces. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9),96 (2011), n. 3, 253-278

    2011

  11. [19]

    R. J. DiPerna, A. J. Majda:Concentrations in regularizations for 2-D incompressible flows. Comm. Pure Appl. Math.,40 (1987), n. 3, 301-345

    1987

  12. [20]

    Fanelli:Conservation of geometric structures for non-homogeneous inviscid incompressible fluids

    F. Fanelli:Conservation of geometric structures for non-homogeneous inviscid incompressible fluids. Comm. Partial Differential Equations,37 (2012), n. 9, 1553-1595

    2012

  13. [21]

    Fanelli: Geometric blow-up criteria for the non-homogeneous incompressible Euler equations in 2-D

    F. Fanelli: Geometric blow-up criteria for the non-homogeneous incompressible Euler equations in 2-D. Submitted (2025), arxiv preprint2502.10024

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Singular limits in thermodynamics of viscous fluids

    E. Feireisl, A. Novotný: “Singular limits in thermodynamics of viscous fluids”. Adv. Math. Fluid Mech., Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2009

    2009

  15. [23]

    Lacave, E

    C. Lacave, E. Miot, C. Wang:Uniqueness for the two-dimensional Euler equations on domains with corners. Indiana Univ. Math. J.,63 (2014), n. 6, 1725-1756

    2014

  16. [24]

    Vorticity and incompressible flow

    A. J. Majda, A. L. Bertozzi:“Vorticity and incompressible flow”. Cambridge Texts Appl. Math.,27. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    Mathematical theory of incompressible nonviscous fluids

    C. Marchioro, M. Pulvirenti:“Mathematical theory of incompressible nonviscous fluids”. Appl. Math. Sci., 96. Springer-Verlag, New-York, 1994

    1994

  18. [26]

    Taniuchi: Uniform local Lp estimate for 2-D vorticity equation and its application to Euler equations with initial vorticity inbmo

    Y. Taniuchi: Uniform local Lp estimate for 2-D vorticity equation and its application to Euler equations with initial vorticity inbmo. Comm. Math. Phys.,248 (2004), n. 1, 169-186

    2004

  19. [27]

    Vishik: Incompressible flows of an ideal fluid with vorticity in borderline spaces of Besov type

    M. Vishik: Incompressible flows of an ideal fluid with vorticity in borderline spaces of Besov type. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Supér. (4),32 (1999), n. 6, 769-812

    1999

  20. [28]

    Vishik: Instability and non-uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for the Euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid

    M. Vishik: Instability and non-uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for the Euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid. Part I. Submitted (2018), arxiv preprint1805.09426

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Vishik: Instability and non-uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for the Euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid

    M. Vishik: Instability and non-uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for the Euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid. Part II. Submitted (2018), arxiv preprint1805.09440

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    V. I. Yudovich:Non-stationary flows of an ideal incompressible fluid. Z ¸. Vyčisl. Mat i Mat. Fiz.,3 (1963), 1032-1066

    1963

  23. [31]

    V. I. Yudovich:Uniqueness theorem for the basic nonstationary problem in the dynamics of an ideal incompressible fluid. Math. Res. Lett.,2 (1995), n. 1, 27-38. 33

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.