Global regularity and incompressible limit of 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations with large bulk viscosity

Jianwen Zhang; Shengquan Liu

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Global regularity and incompressible limit of 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations with large bulk viscosity

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 The paper proves global regularity and an explicit incompressible-limit rate for 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations with large bulk viscosity, even when the density contains vacuum.

desk verdict A genuine correction of a published t-weighted estimate, with a new vacuum convergence rate; refereeable, but the black-box import from the corrected paper needs verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22235 v2 pith:BZTXAHL2 submitted 2025-06-27 math.AP

Shengquan Liu , Jianwen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35Q3576N1035B65

keywords compressibleNavier-Stokesequationsgloballargesolutionsvacuumbulkviscosityincompressiblelimitconvergenceratet-weightedestimates

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 studies 2D barotropic compressible Navier-Stokes equations on the torus with large bulk viscosity $\nu$, allowing the fluid density to vanish. Its central claim is that a certain $\nu$-independent weighted estimate holds, provided one tracks the material derivative of the divergence, $\dot V=\partial_t(\operatorname{div}u)+u\cdot\nabla\operatorname{div}u$, rather than the divergence of the material derivative. This repairs an error in the corresponding estimate of [10, Proposition 3.3] and yields the regularity information $(\nabla Pu,\operatorname{div}u)\in L^r(0,T;L^\infty)$. As a by-product, the paper proves a convergence rate of order $\nu^{-1/2}$ for the incompressible limit as $\nu\to\infty$, a case that earlier rate results excluded because they required the density to stay away from vacuum.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective viscous flux $F=\nu\operatorname{div}u-(P(\rho)-\overline P)$, used in place of $\nu\operatorname{div}u$ because $\nabla F$ is controlled in $L^2$ independently of $\nu$, while $\nu^{1/4}\|\nabla u\|_{L^4}$ is not. The proof also pivots on estimating $\dot V=\partial_t(\operatorname{div}u)+u\cdot\nabla\operatorname{div}u$ rather than $\operatorname{div}\dot u$, which converts the problematic term $\nu\langle t\dot u,\nabla(\operatorname{tr}(\nabla u\cdot\nabla u))\rangle$ into pieces that can be absorbed by the flux $F$. A third mechanism is the identity $\partial_i u\cdot\nabla u_i=(\operatorname{div}u)^2+2\nabla^\perp u_2\cdot\nabla u_1$: the first term is handled through $F$, and the Hardy-space/BMO duality estimate $\|F\nabla^\perp u_2\cdot\nabla u_1\|_{H^1}\le \|\nabla F\|_{L^2}\|\nabla u\|_{L^2}^2$ controls the second.

What would settle it

A concrete verification: take a smooth solution family indexed by $\nu$ with fixed initial data satisfying (1.9) and $\operatorname{div}u_0$ small, and numerically monitor $\int_0^T t(\mu\|\nabla^\perp\cdot\dot u\|_{L^2}^2+\nu\|\dot V\|_{L^2}^2)\,dt$. The central claim is that this quantity stays bounded as $\nu\to\infty$; a sequence for which it grows would falsify Proposition 1.2 and with it the rate theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the right quantity to control in the two-dimensional vacuum problem is $\dot V=\partial_t(\operatorname{div}u)+u\cdot\nabla\operatorname{div}u$. With the effective viscous flux $F:=\nu\operatorname{div}u-(P(\rho)-\overline P)$ and the solenoidal projector $P$, the paper proves that for $\nu$ sufficiently large and any $T>0$, $\sup_{0\le t\le T} t\int\rho|\dot u|^2\,dx+\int_0^T t\int(\mu|\nabla^\perp\cdot\dot u|^2+\nu|\dot V|^2)\,dx\,dt\le C(T)$, with $C(T)$ independent of $\nu$. From this it derives $(\nabla Pu,\operatorname{div}u)\in L^r(0,T;L^\infty)$ for some $1<r<\infty$, which supports global existence and uniqueness of vacuum solutions. For the incompressible limit, the paper compares the divergence-free part of the compressible velocity with the inhomogeneous incompressible velocity $v$, decomposes the density difference into two transports, and obtains $\sup_t(\|\sqrt\eta(Pu-v)\|_{L^2}^2+\|\rho-\eta\|_{L^2}^2)+\int_0^T(\|Pu-v\|_{L^2}^2+\|\nabla(Pu-v)\|_{L^2}^2)\,dt\le C(T)\nu^{-1/2}$, together with the faster decay $\sup_t\|\nabla Qu\|_{L^2}^2+\nu\int_0^T\|\nabla Qu\|_{H^1}^2\,dt\le C(T)\nu^{-1}$ for the potential part.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is Lemma 3.1, which imports from [10] the global H1 estimate for the velocity and the uniform upper bound on the density; all new t-weighted estimates and the convergence rate rest on that black box.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The corrected $\nu$-independent estimate restores the intended content of [10, Proposition 3.3], so the global regularity framework for ripped-density data remains intact.
The resulting $(\nabla Pu,\operatorname{div}u)\in L^r(0,T;L^\infty)$ regularity yields uniqueness for the isothermal case $P(\rho)=A\rho$ even when vacuum is present.
The incompressible limit from the compressible system to inhomogeneous incompressible Navier-Stokes holds with explicit rate $\nu^{-1/2}$ in the sense of (1.15), extending earlier rate results to vacuum.
The potential part of the velocity decays to zero at the faster rate $\nu^{-1}$ in the norms of (1.16), so the limit velocity is exactly the solenoidal part.
For fixed large $\nu$, the global existence and uniqueness statements of [10] remain valid; the new estimates are what make the rate proof possible.

Reading between the lines

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

The authors leave implicit that the rate $\nu^{-1/2}$ is an upper bound; sharpness is not addressed, and constructing initial data that saturates it would test optimality.
Because the proof of Lemma 3.1 quotes [10, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2] as a black box, a reader extending the argument should first verify that those propositions are truly independent of the flawed [10, Proposition 3.3].
The Hardy-space treatment of $\nabla^\perp u_2\cdot\nabla u_1$ is specifically bidimensional; moving this strategy to three dimensions would require a different way to control the corresponding quadratic term in $\nabla u$.
A direct open extension is to relax the rate theorem's extra assumptions $\operatorname{div}u_0=0$ and $\nabla\rho_0\in L^q$ to the weaker smallness condition already used in the global existence theorem.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Two things to know. First, this paper fixes a real, concrete error in Danchin-Mucha's 2023 Compressible Navier-Stokes proof: the identity (1.7) misidentifies tr(\nabla u \cdot \nabla Qu) with tr(\nabla u \cdot \nabla u), and their t-weighted estimate (1.5) does not follow. The authors show the discrepancy, and they replace the failed estimate with a genuinely different one: (1.11), where the material derivative of div u replaces div of the material derivative. That is a substantive change, and the proof in Lemma 3.2 is detailed and mostly convincing. The high point is the treatment of N6, where the effective viscous flux and the Hardy-BMO duality are used to avoid the \nu^{1/4}\|\nabla Pu\| bound that the old argument needed. I believe the correction is real.

Second, the paper's new convergence-rate theorem (1.15)-(1.16) for the incompressible limit in the presence of vacuum is a true advance: to my knowledge no rate was known there, and the \nu^{-1/2} rate is plausible given the machinery. The decomposition \rho-\eta = \phi+\tilde{\phi}, the t-growth and singular t-weighted estimates, and the splitting of M8 are all reasonable.

The largest soft spot is structural. Lemma 3.1 is taken verbatim from [10, Props 3.1-3.2] and is not reproved. Since the entire corrected estimate builds on it, the independence of those propositions from the flawed Prop 3.3 is load-bearing. The authors seem to believe it (Remark 1.1), and it may well be true, but they do not show it, and a referee will need that checked. The same goes for Theorem 1.1, which is deferred to [10, Sections 4-5], and for the compactness part of the incompressible limit, which is stated as 'standard arguments' and omitted.

There are also smaller issues. Equation (3.17) drops the shear viscosity \mu when writing \Delta(\nabla^\perp \cdot u) = \nabla^\perp \cdot (\rho \dot u); since \mu is a fixed constant this does not affect the \nu-independence, but it is wrong as displayed. Some estimates cite (3.2)-(3.3) before Proposition 1.2 is stated, which is harmless but confusing. All minor.

Net: this deserves a serious referee. My own verdict would be 'revise and re-read carefully,' with the main condition being a verification that [10, Props 3.1-3.2] do not depend on the flawed estimate. The math is honest, the error is real, and the new estimate is the right kind of repair. Send it out.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the 2D barotropic compressible Navier–Stokes equations on the torus with large bulk viscosity ν = 2µ + λ and possibly vanishing density. It identifies an error in Danchin–Mucha [10, Proposition 3.3]: the identity (1.7) used there replaces ∇(tr(∇u·∇u)) by ∇(tr(∇u·∇Qu)), and the paper shows that the correct commutator identity (1.8) contains the genuinely different term ∇(tr(∇u·∇u)). The paper then proves a modified ν-independent weighted estimate, Proposition 1.2 / (1.11), in which the material derivative of the divergence, V̇ = D_t(divu), and the curl ∇⊥·˙u replace the quantities appearing in (1.5); the proof isolates the difficult quadratic term N₆ in (3.13) and controls it through the effective viscous flux F and Hardy-space duality. From (1.11) it derives (1.12): (∇⊥·u, divu) ∈ L^{2−ε}(0,T;L∞) for any ε ∈ (0,1). Theorem 1.1 states global existence and uniqueness, with the proof deferred to [10, Sections 4 and 5]. Theorem 1.2 gives the incompressible-limit rate (1.15)–(1.16): for vacuum-allowed solutions, sup(∥√η(Pu−v)∥² + ∥ρ−η∥²) + ∫(∥Pu−v∥² + ∥∇(Pu−v)∥²)dt ≤ Cν^{−1/2}, based on t-growth and singular t-weighted estimates for φ, ϕ and a weighted L² estimate for Pu−v.

Significance. If the main estimates hold, the paper provides a genuine repair of a published proof, supplies the ν-independent global bounds that the Danchin–Mucha framework needs, and proves the first convergence rate for the incompressible limit in the presence of vacuum, extending [7,9] where vacuum was excluded. The strength of the manuscript is its detailed, explicit energy analysis: Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3 are proved with displayed absorption constants, the cancellation in (3.33)–(3.35) using the effective viscous flux and the Coifman–Lions–Meyer–Semmes Hardy-space estimate is convincing, and the convergence-rate proof in Section 4 is internally consistent, with a correct Gronwall strategy and correctly tracked powers of ν. I verified the main differential identities (3.13), (4.16)–(4.18) and the absorption/Young steps, including the delicate factor ν^{−2/3} in (4.37)–(4.38). The reservations expressed below concern external support and deferred proofs rather than the internal algebra of the new estimates.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, Lemma 3.1] The paper's foundational input is a black box. Every new estimate in the paper relies on Lemma 3.1: Lemma 3.2 invokes (3.1)–(3.2) in nearly every displayed bound of Steps 2–4, Lemma 3.3 uses them in (3.39)–(3.40), and Theorem 1.2 rests on Lemmas 3.1–3.3. The proof of Lemma 3.1, however, is only the sentence 'combining [10, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2] with [10, (3.47)] proves (3.1) and (3.2),' and the content of [10, (3.47)] is not stated. Since the paper's purpose is to repair a flaw inside Section 3 of [10], the reader cannot verify from the manuscript that the imported ν-independent bounds of (3.2) — especially ∫(∥∇F∥²_{L²}+∥∇u∥⁴_{L⁴})dt ≤ C — do not use the erroneous identity (1.7). The paper's own narrative ('the largeness of ν was determined in [10, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2] and was used to derive' the t-weighted estimate) suggests those propositions precede [10, Proposition 3.3] and are probably unaffected, so the circularity concern from the stress-test note does not appear to be realized; nevertheless, the independence must be demonstrated in the manuscript, not inferred. The revision should state the imported propositions and [10, (3.47)] explicitly (or reproduce the proofs in an appendix) and indicate where each ingredient of (3.1)–(3.2) is proved, ruling out any use of the flawed identity.
[Section 3, proof of Theorem 1.1 and Remark 1.1] The existence half of the first main theorem is deferred. The proof reads 'we can prove the global existence theorem and the uniqueness result stated in Theorem 1.1 in the same manner as that in [10, Sections 4 and 5],' with no adaptation shown. Because [10, Sections 4 and 5] were built around the t-weighted estimate (1.5) whose proof this paper declares flawed, the authors should verify that the construction, compactness, and uniqueness arguments in those sections go through with the corrected estimates (1.11)–(1.12) in place of (1.5); in particular, (1.12) provides (divu, ∇⊥·u) ∈ L^{2−ε}(0,T;L∞), which yields ∇u ∈ L^{2−ε}(0,T;BMO) by the div-curl structure, and the paper should confirm that this is the property actually consumed by the uniqueness argument in [10]. Remark 1.1 likewise asserts, without proof, that the proof of [10, Proposition 3.3] yields a ν-dependent version of (1.5) so that the fixed-ν existence theorem remains valid; this claim needs a proof or a precise citation once the published proof of that proposition has been identified as flawed.

minor comments (5)

[Equation (3.17)] The displayed identity should read ∇⊥·(ρ˙u) = µ∆(∇⊥·u); a factor µ is missing, and the same factor is missing in the derived bounds (3.18) and (3.38). Since µ > 0 is fixed and the paper's constants are allowed to depend on µ, this does not affect the ν-uniformity of the claims, but the identities should be corrected.
[Equation (3.32)] The last term in (3.32) is written as ∥√ρ˙u∥⁴_{L⁴}; from (3.19)–(3.31) it should be ∥√ρ˙u∥⁴_{L²}, and the displayed norm as written is not what the preceding estimates produce.
[Lemma 3.3 vs Proposition 1.2] Lemma 3.3 is stated for 2 < q < ∞, while Proposition 1.2(1.12) claims 2 ≤ q < ∞; the endpoint q = 2 follows from (3.1)–(3.3) by Hölder interpolation, and a one-line justification would reconcile the two statements.
[Throughout] There are several typos that should be corrected: 'baratropic compressible Naveir-Stokes' in Section 1, 'Propsition' in the heading of Proposition 1.1, 'Riersz transform' in Section 2, and 'valur problem' in reference [28].
[Equations (3.6)–(3.7)] The tensor ∇⊥⊗u and the identity for I₁ are stated without derivation; a displayed verification or a reference would improve readability, since (3.6) is used to obtain the sign of the main energy dissipation term.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's core estimates are derived by direct PDE arguments, and its main external input is a citation to prior work by different authors, not a self-referential chain.

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is Proposition 1.2, which replaces the flawed t-weighted estimate of [10, Proposition 3.3] by the corrected estimate (1.11). The proof of Lemma 3.2 is carried out in detail within the paper: it starts from the momentum equation rewritten as (3.4), operates with the material derivative, and estimates the terms N1–N6 using elementary inequalities, the effective viscous flux, Poincaré-type inequalities, and the div-curl decomposition. There is no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, and there is no definitional identity that makes the target estimate true by construction. The paper does rely on Lemma 3.1, which imports [10, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2] and [10, (3.47)], but these are external results by Danchin and Mucha, not by the present authors. Under the stated review rules, an external citation is real evidence and does not by itself constitute circularity. The fact that the proof of Theorem 1.1 is deferred to '[10, Sections 4 and 5]' is an incompleteness or correctness risk, not circular reasoning, because Proposition 1.2 itself is not obtained from Theorem 1.1. Likewise, the convergence-rate theorem in Section 4 is derived from the uniform estimates obtained in Lemmas 3.1–3.3 and 4.1 together with direct energy estimates; the terms involving Qu and the density discrepancy are estimated explicitly and are not assumed equal to the final rate. There is no self-citation chain that forces the conclusion, and no 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors' own prior work is invoked as an unexplained black box. The relevant external input is a previously published result by different authors, and the paper's own contribution is a new, self-contained derivation of the t-weighted estimate from that input. For these reasons, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities and no fitted parameters. It relies on standard inequalities and on prior theorems from Danchin-Mucha and Danchin-Mucha for the existence and comparison solutions. The most significant external dependence is the set of [10, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2] restated as Lemma 3.1.

assumptions (4)

standard math Danchin-Mucha [10, Propositions 3.1 and 3.2]: global ν-independent H1 velocity estimate and uniform density upper bound
Invoked as Lemma 3.1; both the new t-weighted estimates and Theorem 1.2 rely on it.
standard math Coifman-Lions-Meyer-Semmes Hardy-space estimate (Lemma 2.5)
Used to bound ⟨F, ∇⊥u2·∇u1⟩ in (3.35), a critical step in Lemma 3.2.
standard math Existence and regularity of strong solutions to the inhomogeneous incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (Lemma 2.6, from [8])
Provides the comparison solution (η,v) used in Theorem 1.2.
domain assumption All weighted estimates are derived for smooth solutions on [0,T]; the global existence proof is recovered by compactness as in [10]
The text says Theorem 1.1 follows 'in the same manner as that in [10, Sections 4 and 5]', so the approximation and compactness scheme is assumed to carry over.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global regularity and incompressible limit of 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations with large bulk viscosity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BZTXAHL2

@misc{pith2026250622235,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global regularity and incompressible limit of 2D compressible Navier-Stokes equations with large bulk viscosity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BZTXAHL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22235}
}

abstract

In this paper, we study the global regularity of large solutions with vacuum to the two-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes equations on $\mathbb{T}^{2}=\mathbb{R}^{2}/\mathbb{Z}^{2}$, when the volume (bulk) viscosity coefficient $\nu$ is sufficiently large. It firstly fixes a flaw in \cite[Proposition 3.3]{Danchin2023}, which concerns the $\nu$-independent global $t$-weighted estimates of the solutions. Amending the proof requires non-trivially mathematical analysis. As a by-product, the incompressible limit with an explicit rate of convergence is shown, when the volume viscosity tends to infinity. In contrast to \cite[Theorem 1.3]{Danchin2019} and \cite[Corollary 1.1]{DM2017} where vacuum was excluded, the convergence rate of the incompressible limit is obtained for the global solutions with vacuum, based on some $t$-growth and singular $t$-weighted estimates.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[10]

Danchin, P

R. Danchin, P. B. Mucha, Compressible Navier-Stokes equations with ripped density, Com- mun. Pure Appl. Math. 76 (11) (2023) 3437-3492

work page 2023
[1]

Antontsev, A.V

S.A. Antontsev, A.V. Kazhikov, V.N. Monakhov, Boundary Value Problems in Mechanics of Nonhomogeneous Fluids, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990

work page 1990
[2]

Bourguignon, H

J.P. Bourguignon, H. Brezis, Remarks on the Euler equation, J. Funct. Anal. 15 (1974) 341-363. 24

work page 1974
[3]

Br´ ezis, S

H. Br´ ezis, S. Wainger, A note on limiting cases of Sobolev embeddings and convolution inequalities, Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 5 (7) (1980) 773-789

work page 1980
[4]

Coifman, P.L

R. Coifman, P.L. Lions, Y. Meyer, S. Semmes, Compensated compactness and Hardy spaces, J. Math. Pures Appl. 72 (1993) 247–286

work page 1993
[5]

Coifman, Y

R.R. Coifman, Y. Meyer, On commutators of singular integrals and bilinear singular integrals, Trans. Am. Math.Soc.212 (1975) 315-331

work page 1975
[6]

Danchin, F

R. Danchin, F. Fanelli, M. Paicu, A well-posedness result for viscous compressible fluids with only bounded density, Anal. PDEs 13(1) (2020), 275-316

work page 2020
[7]

Danchin, P

R. Danchin, P. B. Mucha, Compressible Navier-Stokes system: large solutions and incom- pressible limit, Adv. Math. 320 (2017), 904-925

work page 2017

Show all 28 references

[8]

Danchin and P

R. Danchin and P. B. Mucha, The incompressible Navier-Stokes equations in vacuum, Com- mun. Pure Appl. Math. 52 (2019), 1351-1385

2019
[9]

Danchin, P.B

R. Danchin, P.B. Mucha, From compressible to incompressible inhomogeneous flows in the case of large data, Tunisian J. Math. 1(1) (2019), 127-149

2019
[11]

Desjardins, Regularity of weak solutions of the compressible isentropic Navier-Stokes equa- tions, Commun

B. Desjardins, Regularity of weak solutions of the compressible isentropic Navier-Stokes equa- tions, Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 22 (1997), 977-1008

1997
[12]

Fan, J.X

X.Y. Fan, J.X. Li, J. Li, Global existence of strong and weak solutions to 2D compressible Navier-Stokes system in bounded domains with large data and vacuum, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 245 (2022) 239-278

2022
[13]

Feireisl, Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids, Oxford University Press, 2004

E. Feireisl, Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids, Oxford University Press, 2004

2004
[14]

Germain, Weak-strong uniqueness for the isentropic compressible Navier-Stokes System, J

P. Germain, Weak-strong uniqueness for the isentropic compressible Navier-Stokes System, J. Math. Fluid Mech. 13 (1) (2011), 137-146

2011
[15]

Hoff, Global solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for multidimensional compressible flow with discontinuous initial data, J

D. Hoff, Global solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for multidimensional compressible flow with discontinuous initial data, J. Differ. Equ. 120 (1) (1995) 215-254

1995
[16]

Hoff, Uniqueness of weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations of multidimensional, compressible flow, SIAM J

D. Hoff, Uniqueness of weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations of multidimensional, compressible flow, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 37(6) (2006), 1742-1760

2006
[17]

X. D. Huang, On local strong and classical solutions to the three-dimensional barotropic compressible Navier-Stokes equations with vacuum, Sci. China, Math., 64 (2021), 1771-1788

2021
[18]

Huang, J

X. Huang, J. Li, Z.P. Xin, Serrin-type criterion for the three-dimensional viscous compressible flows, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 43 (4) (2011) 1872-1886

2011
[19]

Huang, J

X. Huang, J. Li, Existence and blowup behavior of global strong solutions to the two- dimensional barotropic compressible Navier-Stokes system with vacuum and large initial data, J. Math. Pures Appl. 106 (2016) 123-154

2016
[20]

Huang, J

X. Huang, J. Li, Z.P. Xin, Global well-posedness of classical solutions with large oscilla- tions and vacuum to the three-dimensional isentropic compressible Navier-Stokes equations, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 65 (4) (2012) 549-585. 25

2012
[21]

Kato, Remarks on the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations inR 2, Proc

T. Kato, Remarks on the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations inR 2, Proc. Symp. Pure Math. 45 (1986) 1-7

1986
[22]

Lions, Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics: Volume 1: Incompressible Models

P.L. Lions, Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics: Volume 1: Incompressible Models. OxfordUniversity Press, New York, 1996

1996
[23]

Lions, Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics, vol

P.L. Lions, Mathematical Topics in Fluid Mechanics, vol. 2, Compressible Models, Oxford University Press, New York, 1998

1998
[24]

Matsumura, T

A. Matsumura, T. Nishida, The initial value problem for the equations of motion of viscous and heat-conductive gases, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 20 (1980), 67-104

1980
[25]

Nash, Le Probl` eme de Cauchy pour les ´ equations diff´ erentielles d’un fluide g´ en´ eral, Bull.Soc

J. Nash, Le Probl` eme de Cauchy pour les ´ equations diff´ erentielles d’un fluide g´ en´ eral, Bull.Soc. Math. France, 901962, 487-497
[26]

Nirenberg, On elliptic partial differential equations, Ann

L. Nirenberg, On elliptic partial differential equations, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa. 13 (3) (1959) 115-162

1959
[27]

V. A. Solonnikov, Solvability of the initial boundary valur problem for the equations of motion of a viscous compressible fluid, J. Sov. Math. 14 (1980), 1120-1132

1980
[28]

Vaigant, A.V

V.A. Vaigant, A.V. Kazhikhov, On existence of global solutions to the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations for a compressible viscous fluid,Sib. Math. J.36 (1995) 1108-1141. 26

1995

Pith tools

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

[1] [10]

Danchin, P

R. Danchin, P. B. Mucha, Compressible Navier-Stokes equations with ripped density, Com- mun. Pure Appl. Math. 76 (11) (2023) 3437-3492

work page 2023

[2] [1]

Antontsev, A.V

S.A. Antontsev, A.V. Kazhikov, V.N. Monakhov, Boundary Value Problems in Mechanics of Nonhomogeneous Fluids, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990

work page 1990

[3] [2]

Bourguignon, H

J.P. Bourguignon, H. Brezis, Remarks on the Euler equation, J. Funct. Anal. 15 (1974) 341-363. 24

work page 1974

[4] [3]

Br´ ezis, S

H. Br´ ezis, S. Wainger, A note on limiting cases of Sobolev embeddings and convolution inequalities, Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 5 (7) (1980) 773-789

work page 1980

[5] [4]

Coifman, P.L

R. Coifman, P.L. Lions, Y. Meyer, S. Semmes, Compensated compactness and Hardy spaces, J. Math. Pures Appl. 72 (1993) 247–286

work page 1993

[6] [5]

Coifman, Y

R.R. Coifman, Y. Meyer, On commutators of singular integrals and bilinear singular integrals, Trans. Am. Math.Soc.212 (1975) 315-331

work page 1975

[7] [6]

Danchin, F

R. Danchin, F. Fanelli, M. Paicu, A well-posedness result for viscous compressible fluids with only bounded density, Anal. PDEs 13(1) (2020), 275-316

work page 2020

[8] [7]

Danchin, P

R. Danchin, P. B. Mucha, Compressible Navier-Stokes system: large solutions and incom- pressible limit, Adv. Math. 320 (2017), 904-925

work page 2017