Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 47 references

Stability of Riemann Shocks for isothermal Euler by Inviscid limits of global-in-time large Navier-Stokes flows

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Small-amplitude Riemann shocks of the one-dimensional isothermal Euler equations are stable and unique within the class of vanishing viscosity limits from large Navier–Stokes perturbations.

desk verdict Strong contraction machinery for isothermal viscous shocks, but the advertised Euler stability theorem rests on a well-prepared-data construction that looks impossible for the degenerate-viscosity range. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15078 v1 pith:MJF2BGW3 submitted 2025-05-21 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Saehoon Eo , Namhyun Eun , Moon-Jin Kang , HyeonSeop Oh This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35Q3076N1035B35
keywords IsothermalEulerNavier-Stokesvanishingviscositylimitrelativeentropyshockstabilityuniquenessdegeneratelargeperturbations
topics Navier-Stokes Regularity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes that small-amplitude shock waves of the one-dimensional isothermal Euler equations are stable and unique, provided solutions are understood as vanishing-viscosity limits of the associated isothermal Navier–Stokes system. The perturbations around the shock may be arbitrarily large in amplitude, as long as their initial relative entropy is finite. To reach this conclusion, the paper first proves global-in-time existence of strong solutions to the Navier–Stokes system with degenerate, density-dependent viscosity coefficients and possibly different far-field states, then proves a contraction property for large perturbations of viscous shocks that is uniform in the viscosity parameter. If the main theorem is correct, it supplies a physically natural class of Euler shock solutions in which stability and uniqueness hold without the usual small-BV or strong-trace assumptions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the BD-type relative entropy $$E((v_1,u_1)|(v_2,u_2))=\Phi(v_1/v_2)+\frac12\left(u_1-\frac{(v_1)_x}{$v_1^{{\alpha+1}}$}-u_2+\frac{(v_2)_x}{$v_2^{{\alpha+1}}$}\right)^2,$$ with $\Phi(z)=z-1-\log z$; it measures distance to a viscous shock using the effective velocity $h=u-v_x/v^{\alpha+1}$. The contraction theorem shows that a weighted version of this functional, with monotone weight $a(\xi)=1-\frac{\lambda}{\varepsilon}(p(\tilde v(\xi))-p(v_-))$ and a shift $X(t)$, decays up to dissipative bulk terms. The shift is chosen by an ODE driven by the functional $Y$, and the decisive estimate is a nonlinear Poincaré inequality applied after rescaling the shock profile by $y=(p(v_-)-p(\tilde v))/\varepsilon$, which converts the dangerous quadratic terms into controllable ones.

What would settle it

The central claim would be falsified by finding a finite-relative-entropy initial datum for which no sequence of smooth data satisfying (1.15) exists, since Theorem 1.3(i) would then have an empty domain. It would also be falsified by producing $W$ in the setting of Proposition 4.2 with $\int_0^1 W^2\,dy\le C_1$ and $\sqrt{y(1-y)}\,\partial_y W\in L^2(0,1)$ but $R_\delta(W)>0$ for arbitrarily small $\delta$, because that nonlinear Poincaré inequality is the step that closes the contraction estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result, Theorem 1.3, states that for any small shock amplitude $\varepsilon=|p(v_+)-p(v_-)|$ and any initial datum with finite relative entropy $E_0=\int_{\mathbb R}\eta((v_0,u_0)|(\bar v,\bar u))dx$, the Navier–Stokes solutions converge, up to subsequence and a time-dependent shift $X_\infty$, to an inviscid limit $(v_\infty,u_\infty)$ satisfying $$\int_{\mathbb R} d\Phi(v_\infty/\bar v(\cdot-X_\infty(t)))+\int_{\mathbb R}\frac{|u_\infty-\bar u(\cdot-X_\infty(t))|^2}{2}\,dx \le C E_0$$ and $|X_\infty(t)-\sigma t|\le C(T)|v_--v_+|^{-1}(\sqrt{E_0}+E_0)$. When $E_0=0$, the bound forces $v_\infty=\bar v$ and $u_\infty=\bar u$ almost everywhere, which gives uniqueness of the Riemann shock in this class. The smallness of the shock amplitude is needed for the contraction theorem, not for the inviscid-limit passage itself.

Load-bearing premise

The proof of Theorem 1.3(i) assumes that any initial datum with finite relative entropy can be approximated by smooth well-prepared data satisfying (1.15), including convergence of the modified relative entropy; the construction is not carried out here and is deferred to a reference.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A well-posedness class for small isothermal Riemann shocks emerges: perturbations may be arbitrarily large, with stability controlled solely by $E_0$, the initial relative entropy.
  • The shift bound $|X_\infty(t)-\sigma t|\le C(T)|v_--v_+|^{-1}(\sqrt{E_0}+E_0)$ gives quantitative control of the shock location; in particular $E_0=0$ forces $X_\infty(t)=\sigma t$ and recovers the shock exactly.
  • The global existence theorems supply uniform-in-$\nu$ large strong solutions for $\mu(\rho)=\rho^\alpha$, $\alpha\in[0,1]$, with degenerate viscosity near vacuum and different far-field states, giving the solutions whose vanishing-viscosity limits Theorem 1.3 controls.
  • Stability and uniqueness hold without imposing BV or strong-trace conditions on the perturbation, because the relative-entropy framework is nonlinear and the shift absorbs the shock location uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the a-contraction machinery could plausibly be adapted to multidimensional planar shocks or to other pressure laws with logarithmic entropy, but the one-dimensional nonlinear Poincaré inequality would need to be re-derived for each new geometry.
  • Editorial inference: the $|v_--v_+|^{-1}$ factor suggests that very weak shocks may have slowly converging shift; the paper does not address whether this scaling is sharp.
  • Editorial inference: uniqueness in the paper is relative to the constructed vanishing-viscosity class, so other entropy solutions not obtained as such limits could in principle coexist; this is a limitation of the solution class, not a claim about all weak solutions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the one-dimensional isothermal Navier-Stokes system (1.1) with viscosity coefficient μ(v)=b v^{-α}, α∈[0,1]. It claims (i) global existence of large strong solutions for smooth initial data with positive density lower bound (Theorems 1.1 and 1.2), (ii) a contraction property for large perturbations of viscous shocks (Theorem 1.4), and (iii) stability and uniqueness of small-amplitude Riemann shocks of the isothermal Euler system in the class of vanishing viscosity limits (Theorem 1.3). The contraction proof in Sections 3–4 uses a relative entropy with a BD-type modified velocity, a carefully designed weight function, and a shift ODE. The final inviscid-limit argument in Section 5 is mostly deferred to the isentropic paper [34], with only the shift bound (1.18) proved in detail.

Significance. If the main theorem holds, it would provide the first stability-and-uniqueness result for Riemann shocks of the isothermal Euler system in a class of physical vanishing-viscosity limits, covering large perturbations with finite relative entropy. The a-contraction estimate of Theorem 1.4 is a substantial technical contribution, adapting the method of [33,34] to the isothermal BD functional. However, the paper contains several load-bearing gaps: the well-prepared initial data construction, the inviscid limit passage, and the global existence theorem for α∈[1/2,1] are not proved in the text and are only deferred to references. A concrete obstruction to the well-prepared construction for α≥1/2 is described below. The significance is therefore conditional on these gaps being closed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Theorem 1.3(i), Eq. (1.15), with the condition (1.9)] The well-prepared initial data asserted in Theorem 1.3(i) are not constructed in the paper; the proof is deferred to [34], which treats the isentropic system. This is not a routine translation, because for α∈[1/2,1] the only existence theorem available (Theorem 1.2) requires the one-sided derivative bound (1.9). Consider an admissible initial datum U0 with v0=M on a set of positive measure and u0 containing an upward jump of order one in that region. Finite relative entropy allows such U0 for arbitrarily large M. The convergence in (1.15) forces vν0→M, hence ρν0≈1/M, so (1.9) gives ∂x uν0 ≤ M^{-(1-α)}. Approximating a unit jump with derivative bounded by this value in L2 requires a transition layer of length at least M^{1-α}, and the minimal L2 error is at least c M^{1-α}, which grows without bound as M increases. Thus no sequence satisfying (1.15) and (1.9) can exist for this datum. The paper neither proves nor cites an isothermal version of the well-prepared construction, and the cited barotropic construction in [34] does not address (1.9). This is load-bearing, since (1.15) is the bridge from arbitrary finite-relative-entropy data to the contraction estimate of Theorem 1.4.
  2. [Section 5, proof of Theorem 1.3] The proof of Theorem 1.3 is not self-contained. After deriving the shift bound (1.18), the paper states that the existence of inviscid limits (1.16) and the stability estimate (1.17) follow 'essentially the same' as in [34], and gives no details. Because the present system is isothermal with a different BD-modified velocity (1.20), the weak convergence of (vν,uν) to a measure-valued limit and the lower-semicontinuity arguments for the extended relative entropy dΦ(v∞/v̄) require verification. The compactness results in [34] are adapted to the isentropic functional and may not carry over verbatim, especially in the presence of the singular part dvs. Since (1.16)–(1.17) form the main conclusion of the paper, this is a major gap.
  3. [Section 2, Theorem 1.2] The global existence theorem for α∈[1/2,1] is not proved; the final paragraph of Section 2 states that the argument follows the barotropic case [32] via the active potential and then says 'Thus, we omit the proof.' Similarly, parts of Theorem 1.1 (the BD entropy estimate and the standard parabolic compactness) are deferred to [40]. While these techniques are standard, the isothermal case has a distinct density-bound argument (Proposition 2.1 uses logr instead of the barotropic ρ^{(γ-1)/2}), and the derivative condition (1.9) is a new structural restriction. Since the class X_T is the ambient space in which the contraction Theorem 1.4 is applied, an incomplete existence proof weakens the foundation of the paper.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Theorem 1.3, Eq. (1.17)] The notation ∫_R dΦ(v∞/v̄(x−X∞(·))) is ambiguous: the measure dΦ depends on the decomposition of v∞ into absolutely continuous and singular parts with respect to the shifted reference, and this dependence should be made explicit.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (5.3)] The passage to the limit ε→0 in the test-function argument is terse; the text asserts continuity of ∫ ψ vν dx but does not verify all hypotheses of the dominated convergence theorem for the term involving hν and the viscous flux.
  3. [Theorem 1.3, statement] The phrase 'unique in the class of inviscid limits' is not formalized; the paper should define the class of inviscid limits (e.g., subsequential limits for which (1.16) holds) and state the uniqueness assertion as a precise theorem.
  4. [Sections 3–4, citations to [33] and [20]] Several key lemmas (Lemma 3.3, Lemma 3.4, Proposition 4.2) are quoted from [33] and [20] without proof; the paper should explicitly indicate which statements are new and which are directly taken from these references, and it should be noted that [20] is an arXiv preprint by overlapping authors.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular reduction found; the contraction estimate is proven in the paper and the inviscid-limit argument is a uniform-estimate consequence. The deferred well-prepared initial data proof (1.15) is a serious omitted proof and a possible correctness gap, but it is not a circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is not circular. Theorem 1.4 gives a ν-independent contraction property, and its proof is largely carried out in the present paper: Proposition 3.1 is proved in Section 4 using expansions in the shock amplitude and a nonlinear Poincaré inequality (Proposition 4.2) that is an independent one-dimensional estimate cited from prior work, not a restatement of the target theorem. The stability estimate (1.17) and shift bound (1.18) follow from the uniform estimate (5.1) and from the shift ODE; E0 is an input, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main caveat is Theorem 1.3(i), whose proof is explicitly deferred: "The proof of Theorem 1.3 is largely similar to that in [34] ... for the existence of well-prepared initial data (1.15), the existence of inviscid limits (1.16) and the stability estimate (1.17), the proofs are essentially the same. So, we present the proof of (1.18) only." The cited [34] treats the isentropic system, whereas the isothermal BD relative entropy is new here, and the approximating data must satisfy the one-sided Eulerian condition (1.9) for α∈[1/2,1]. This is a genuine omitted proof and a possible correctness gap, not a circularity: the assertion is not equivalent by construction to the stability conclusion, and no equation is shown to reduce to its own input. Heavy self-citation occurs, but the cited lemmas are established technical results rather than a covert assumption of the theorem being proved. Hence the circularity score is low, reflecting the absence of a fit-to-prediction or definitional reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All additional assumptions are standard analytic hypotheses from the cited literature. No physical entities are invented. The main free parameters are smallness and scaling constants in the proof, none fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • epsilon (shock strength)
    Assumed small (ε < ε0); used throughout as the expansion parameter in Section 4.1.
  • lambda (total variation of weight a)
    Chosen in the interval (δ0^-1 ε, δ0) to make the weight function balance the contraction inequality.
  • delta3 (truncation threshold)
    Chosen small in Proposition 4.1 to control large deviations |p(v)-p(Ũ)| in Section 4.2.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Isothermal equation of state p(v) = 1/v and viscosity law µ(v) = v^{-α}
    Defines the physical system (1.1)-(1.2); not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Rankine-Hugoniot and Lax shock conditions (1.11)
    Characterize the viscous shock end states; standard shock conditions.
  • standard math Exponential decay of viscous shock profiles (Lemma 3.3)
    Quoted from [33, Lemma 2.1] without proof; used to control bad terms.
  • standard math Nonlinear Poincare inequality (Proposition 4.2)
    Quoted from [33, Proposition 3.3] and [20, Proposition 5.1]; essential for the sharp estimate in Proposition 4.1.
  • standard math Relative entropy identity (Lemma 3.5) and decomposition (Lemma 3.6)
    Referenced to [34, Lemmas 4.2 and 4.3] and not proven in the paper.
  • domain assumption Existence of well-prepared initial data satisfying (1.15)
    Asserted in Theorem 1.3(i) with proof deferred to [34]; crucial for the inviscid limit.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stability of Riemann Shocks for isothermal Euler by Inviscid limits of global-in-time large Navier-Stokes flows." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MJF2BGW3

@misc{pith2026250515078,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stability of Riemann Shocks for isothermal Euler by Inviscid limits of global-in-time large Navier-Stokes flows},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MJF2BGW3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15078}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the isothermal gas dynamics. We first establish the global existence of strong solutions to the one-dimensional isothermal Navier-Stokes system for smooth initial data without any smallness conditions, assuming that the initial density has strictly positive lower bound. The existence result allows for possibly degenerate viscosity coefficients and admits different asymptotic states at the far fields. We then prove a contraction property for the strong solutions perturbed from viscous shocks, yielding uniform estimates with respect to the viscosity coefficients. This covers any large perturbations, and consequently, we establish the inviscid limits and their stability estimate. In other words, we demonstrate the stability of Riemann shocks to the one-dimensional isothermal Euler system in the class of vanishing viscosity limits of the associated Navier-Stokes system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Kang and A

    M.-J. Kang and A. F. Vasseur. Global smooth solutions fo r 1D barotropic Navier-Stokes equations with a large class of degenerate viscosities. J. Nonlinear Sci. , 30(4):1703–1721, 2020

    work page 2020

  2. [34]

    Kang and A

    M.-J. Kang and A. F. Vasseur. Uniqueness and stability o f entropy shocks to the isentropic Euler system in a class of inviscid limits from a large family of Navier-St okes systems. Invent. Math. , 224(1):55–146, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [20]

    S. Eo, N. Eun, and M.-J. Kang. Stability of a riemann shoc k in a physical class: From brenner-navier- stokes-fourier to euler. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.03613 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [40]

    Mellet and A

    A. Mellet and A. F. Vasseur. Existence and uniqueness of global strong solutions for one-dimensional compressible Navier-Stokes equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 39(4):1344–1365, 2007/08

    work page 2007

  5. [1]

    Ambrosio, N

    L. Ambrosio, N. Fusco, and D. Pallara. Functions of bounded variation and free discontinuity prob lems. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon Press, Oxfo rd University Press, New York, 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [2]

    Bianchini and A

    S. Bianchini and A. Bressan. Vanishing viscosity soluti ons of nonlinear hyperbolic systems. Ann. of Math. (2) , 161(1):223–342, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [3]

    Bresch and B

    D. Bresch and B. Desjardins. Sur un mod` ele de Saint-Vena nt visqueux et sa limite quasi-g´ eostrophique. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris , 335(12):1079–1084, 2002

    work page 2002

  8. [4]

    Bresch and B

    D. Bresch and B. Desjardins. Existence of global weak sol utions for a 2D viscous shallow water equations and convergence to the quasi-geostrophic model. Comm. Math. Phys. , 238(1-2):211–223, 2003

    work page 2003

Show all 47 references
  1. [5]

    Bresch and B

    D. Bresch and B. Desjardins. On the construction of appro ximate solutions for the 2D viscous shallow water model and for compressible Navier-Stokes models. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) , 86(4):362–368, 2006

    2006

  2. [6]

    Bresch, B

    D. Bresch, B. Desjardins, and C.-K. Lin. On some compress ible fluid models: Korteweg, lubrication, and shallow water systems. Comm. Partial Differential Equations , 28(3-4):843–868, 2003

    2003

  3. [7]

    Chapman and T

    S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling. The mathematical theory of nonuniform gases . Cambridge Mathemat- ical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, thir d edition, 1990. An account of the kinetic theory of viscosity, thermal conduction and diffusion in gas es, in co-operation ...

    1990

  4. [8]

    Chen, M.-J

    G. Chen, M.-J. Kang, and A. F. Vasseur. From navier-stoke s to bv solutions of the barotropic euler equations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.09305 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [9]

    G. Chen, S. G. Krupa, and A. F. Vasseur. Uniqueness and wea k-BV stability for 2 × 2 conservation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 246(1):299–332, 2022

    2022

  6. [10]

    G.-Q. Chen, H. Frid, and Y. Li. Uniqueness and stability of Riemann solutions with large oscillation in gas dynamics. Comm. Math. Phys. , 228(2):201–217, 2002

    2002

  7. [11]

    Chen and M

    G.-Q. Chen and M. Perepelitsa. Vanishing viscosity lim it of the Navier-Stokes equations to the Euler equations for compressible fluid flow. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. , 63(11):1469–1504, 2010

    2010

  8. [12]

    J. Cheng. Uniqueness & weak-bv stability in the large fo r isothermal gas dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16244, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [13]

    Choi, M.-J

    K. Choi, M.-J. Kang, Y.-S. Kwon, and A. F. Vasseur. Contr action for large perturbations of traveling waves in a hyperbolic-parabolic system arising from a chemo taxis model. Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci., 30(2):387–437, 2020

    2020

  10. [14]

    Constantin, T

    P. Constantin, T. D. Drivas, H. Q. Nguyen, and F. Pasqual otto. Compressible fluids and active poten- tials. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire, 37(1):145–180, 2020

    2020

  11. [15]

    C. M. Dafermos. The second law of thermodynamics and sta bility. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 70(2):167–179, 1979

    1979

  12. [16]

    C. M. Dafermos. Entropy and the stability of classical s olutions of hyperbolic systems of conserva- tion laws. In Recent mathematical methods in nonlinear wave propagation (Montecatini Terme, 1994) , volume 1640 of Lecture Notes in Math. , pages 48–69. Springer, Berlin, 1996

    1994

  13. [17]

    R. J. DiPerna. Uniqueness of solutions to hyperbolic co nservation laws. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 28(1):137–188, 1979

    1979

  14. [18]

    R. J. DiPerna. Convergence of approximate solutions to conservation laws. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 82(1):27–70, 1983

    1983

  15. [19]

    R. J. DiPerna. Convergence of the viscosity method for i sentropic gas dynamics. Comm. Math. Phys. , 91(1):1–30, 1983

    1983

  16. [21]

    Feireisl

    E. Feireisl. On the motion of a viscous, compressible, a nd heat conducting fluid. Indiana Univ. Math. J., 53(6):1705–1738, 2004

    2004

  17. [22]

    J. Glimm. Solutions in the large for nonlinear hyperbol ic systems of equations. Comm. Pure Appl. Math., 18:697–715, 1965

    1965

  18. [23]

    W. M. Golding, S. G. Krupa, and A. F. Vasseur. Sharp a-contraction estimates for small extremal shocks. J. Hyperbolic Differ. Equ. , 20(3):541–602, 2023

    2023

  19. [24]

    Goodman and Z

    J. Goodman and Z. Xin. Viscous limits for piecewise smoo th solutions to systems of conservation laws. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal. , 121(3):235–265, 1992

    1992

  20. [25]

    B. Haspot. Existence of global strong solution for the c ompressible Navier-Stokes equations with de- generate viscosity coefficients in 1D,. Mathematische Nachrichten , 291:2188–2203, 2018. 40 EO, EUN, KANG, AND OH

    2018

  21. [26]

    D. Hoff. Global solutions of the Navier-Stokes equation s for multidimensional compressible flow with discontinuous initial data. J. Differential Equations , 120(1):215–254, 1995

    1995

  22. [27]

    D. Hoff. Global solutions of the equations of one-dimens ional, compressible flow with large data and forces, and with differing end states. Z. Angew. Math. Phys. , 49(5):774–785, 1998

    1998

  23. [28]

    Hoff and T.-P

    D. Hoff and T.-P. Liu. The inviscid limit for the Navier-S tokes equations of compressible, isentropic flow with shock data. Indiana Univ. Math. J. , 38(4):861–915, 1989

    1989

  24. [29]

    Huang, W

    F. Huang, W. Wang, Y. Wang, and Y. Wang. Uniqueness of com posite wave of shock and rarefaction in the inviscid limit of Navier-Stokes equations. SIAM J. Math. Anal. , 56(3):3924–3967, 2024

    2024

  25. [30]

    Huang and Z

    F. Huang and Z. Wang. Convergence of viscosity solution s for isothermal gas dynamics. SIAM J. Math. Anal., 34(3):595–610, 2002

    2002

  26. [31]

    Kang and A

    M.-J. Kang and A. F. Vasseur. Criteria on contractions f or entropic discontinuities of systems of con- servation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 222(1):343–391, 2016

    2016

  27. [33]

    Kang and A

    M.-J. Kang and A. F. Vasseur. Contraction property for l arge perturbations of shocks of the barotropic Navier-Stokes system. J. Eur. Math. Soc. , 23(2):585–638, 2021

    2021

  28. [35]

    Kang and A

    M.-J. Kang and A. F. Vasseur. Well-posedness of the Riem ann problem with two shocks for the isentropic Euler system in a class of vanishing physical viscosity limi ts. J. Differential Equations , 338:128–226, 2022

    2022

  29. [36]

    A. V. Kazhikhov and V. V. Shelukhin. Unique global solut ion with respect to time of initial-boundary value problems for one-dimensional equations of a viscous g as. Prikladnaia Matematika i Mekhanika , 41:282–291, 1977

    1977

  30. [37]

    T.-P. Liu, Z. Xin, and T. Yang. Vacuum states for compres sible flow. Discrete Contin. Dynam. Systems , 4(1):1–32, 1998

    1998

  31. [38]

    Matsumura and T

    A. Matsumura and T. Nishida. The initial value problem f or the equations of motion of compressible viscous and heat-conductive fluids. Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. , 55(9):337–342, 1979

    1979

  32. [39]

    Matsumura and Y

    A. Matsumura and Y. Wang. Asymptotic stability of visco us shock wave for a one-dimensional isentropic model of viscous gas with density dependent viscosity. Methods Appl. Anal. , 17(3):279–290, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    T. Nishida. Global solution for an initial boundary val ue problem of a quasilinear hyperbolic system. Proc. Japan Acad., 44:642–646, 1968

    1968

  34. [42]

    M. R. I. Schrecker and S. Schulz. Inviscid limit of the co mpressible Navier-Stokes equations for asymp- totically isothermal gases. J. Differential Equations , 269(10):8640–8685, 2020

    2020

  35. [43]

    D. Serre. Solutions faibles globales des ´ equations de Navier-Stokes pour un fluide compressible. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math., 303(13):639–642, 1986

    1986

  36. [44]

    A. H. Shapiro. The dynamics and thermodynamics of compr essible fluid flow. New York: Ronald Press , 1953

    1953

  37. [45]

    G. G. Stokes. On a difficulty in the theory of sound. In Classic Papers in Shock Compression Science , pages 71–81. Springer, 1998

    1998

  38. [46]

    A. F. Vasseur. Relative entropy and contraction for ext remal shocks of conservation laws up to a shift. In Recent advances in partial differential equations and applic ations, volume 666 of Contemp. Math. , pages 385–404. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2016

    2016

  39. [47]

    S.-H. Yu. Zero-dissipation limit of solutions with sho cks for systems of hyperbolic conservation laws. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. , 146(4):275–370, 1999. 41 (Saehoon Eo) Department of Mathematics, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Email address : eosehoon@stanford.edu (Namhyu...

    1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.