Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 31 references

Strong ill-posedness for the MHD system in the supercritical regime: inviscid and viscous

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The 3D ideal MHD system is strongly ill-posed in H^s × H^s for every 0 < s < 5/2: arbitrarily small divergence-free data can develop, before time ε, a magnetic field with H^s norm ≥ 1/ε while the velocity stays bounded by ε.

desk verdict Ideal-case norm inflation for supercritical MHD looks real and cleanly constructed; the dissipative half of the paper is a promise, not a proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02330 v1 pith:OXBIVH6X submitted 2026-08-03 math.AP

Zhenyu Wan , Weikui Ye , Zhaoyang Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3535B4435R25
keywords MHDequationsstrongill-posednessnorminflationsupercriticalSobolevspacesMagnetic-soloansatzidealdissipativetransport-stretching
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 proves that the 3D incompressible ideal MHD equations are strongly ill-posed in H^s × H^s for every 0 < s < 5/2: for any ε>0 there exist smooth divergence-free data of H^s size at most ε whose solution develops, in time t_* ≤ ε, a magnetic field with H^s norm at least 1/ε, while the velocity field remains bounded by ε throughout. The same strong ill-posedness is established for the three dissipative variants (non-resistive, non-viscous, viscous and resistive) in their respective supercritical Sobolev regimes. The proof constructs an explicit approximate solution, the 'Magnetic-solo ansatz', in which a stationary poloidal velocity field merely transports and stretches a toroidal magnetic field, so that norm inflation occurs exclusively in the magnetic field. If the argument is correct, the classical H^{5/2} threshold is sharp for strong well-posedness, and the magnetic field alone can drive the breakdown of the system.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Magnetic-solo ansatz: an approximate solution (ū, b̄) with ū a stationary poloidal, swirl-free velocity field and b̄ a purely toroidal magnetic field transported by ū according to ∂_t b̄_θ + (u_{0,r}∂_r + u_{0,z}∂_z) b̄_θ = 0. On the support of the data this transport reduces to a rotation in the shifted polar angle, b̄_θ = A g_b(μρ) sin(φ − t A ρ^{-1}), so at the critical time t_* the derivative ∂_ρ b̄_θ gains a factor t_* A ρ^{-2} ≈ ε^{-N} μ, which drives the H^s norm of b̄ from size ε^2 to at least ε^{-2}. The perturbation analysis then shows, via a bootstrap in H^s with commutator estimates and asymmetric L^2–L^∞ pairings that place the highest derivatives on th

What would settle it

Compute the H^s norm of the approximate magnetic field b̄ at t_* for the data defined in (3.2)–(3.3): if the amplification factor t_* A ρ^{-2} is not at least c ε^{-N} μ on the support, or if ∥b̄(t_*)∥_{H^s} fails to be ≥ ε^{-2}, the claimed norm inflation collapses. Alternatively, check the bootstrap closure: if ∥w∥_{H^s} + ∥β∥_{H^s} at t_* is not at most C μ^{-γ/2}, the perturbation is no longer small relative to the magnetic amplification and the bound ∥b(t_*)∥_{H^s} ≥ 1/ε is not justified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the ideal MHD system (1.2) is strongly ill-posed in H^s × H^s for 0 < s < 5/2 in the norm-inflation sense: arbitrarily small smooth divergence-free initial data can produce, before time ε, a smooth solution whose magnetic field has H^s norm ≥ 1/ε while the velocity field remains ≤ ε in L^∞([0,t_*];H^s). The construction uses the Magnetic-solo ansatz: an approximate solution with a time-independent poloidal, swirl-free velocity field and a toroidal magnetic field that satisfies a linear transport equation; the steady velocity shear rotates the magnetic field phase, amplifying its high-frequency Sobolev norm at the critical time t_* = ε^{-N-2} μ^{-2+s} ν^{-1/2}. A

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the exact solution tracks the approximate Magnetic-solo solution on [0,t_*] with H^s error at most C μ^{-γ/2}, which in turn requires the explicit error bounds, the fractional Sobolev energy estimates, the commutator handling, and the strict closure margin −γ/2 + δ + γα < 0 to hold uniformly; a structurally distinct instance of the same premise is that the dissipative terms in the three variants act as negligible perturbative errors on [0,t_*]

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The classical H^{5/2} local well-posedness threshold for ideal MHD is sharp for strong well-posedness: below it, norm inflation occurs for every s in (0, 5/2).
  • For the non-resistive, non-viscous, and viscous-resistive systems, strong ill-posedness holds in the listed supercritical Sobolev spaces, so no local well-posedness improvement past the known thresholds is possible.
  • In ideal, non-resistive, and viscous-resistive MHD, norm inflation is exclusively in the magnetic field while the velocity remains uniformly small, demonstrating a magnetic-field-driven instability distinct from the velocity-driven mechanisms seen in Euler and Navier–Stokes equations.
  • For the non-viscous variant, the Magnetic-solo ansatz fails to amplify the magnetic field because the transport terms are too small at the chosen amplitudes, so the norm inflation switches to the velocity field instead.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: because the critical time t_* is O(ε) and the dissipative corrections are arranged to be sub-leading, the construction suggests that adding small viscosity or resistivity does not prevent the magnetic inflation — a diffusive regularisation alone is unlikely to restore well-posedness in these supercritical regimes.
  • Editorial: the mechanism relies on data concentrated in a thin solid torus, so one can test whether the same transport-stretching amplification appears for other geometric configurations (e.g., vortex rings with swirl) or whether the H^{5/2} borderline exactly marks where this mechanism can be suppressed.
  • Editorial: the asymmetric inflation indicates that any attempt to prove well-posedness below H^{5/2} cannot rely on controlling only the velocity gradient; a successful theory would have to constrain how the magnetic field interacts with steady shears.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies strong ill-posedness by norm inflation for the 3D incompressible MHD system (1.1) in four regimes: ideal, non-resistive, non-viscous, and viscous-resistive. The main ideal result (Theorem 1.1) asserts that for every 0<s<5/2 and every epsilon>0 there exist smooth divergence-free data of H^s-size epsilon whose smooth solution remains H^s-bounded in the velocity u up to t_*<=epsilon while ||b(t_*)||_{H^s}>=1/epsilon. The construction uses a stationary poloidal velocity vortex ring transporting a toroidal magnetic field whose phase develops mu-amplified gradients; a bootstrap in H^k keeps the perturbation (w,beta) small up to t_*. Theorem 1.2 claims analogous norm inflation for (1.3)-(1.5) in their respective supercritical H^{s_u} x H^{s_b} spaces, with the same ansatz adapted to each dissipative case. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is detailed; the dissipative cases are only sketched, with several key lemmas stated without proof.

Significance. If the ideal part is correct, it resolves an open problem below the Chen-Miao-Zhang threshold s=5/2 and, unlike Bourgain-Li/Luo for Euler, locates the inflation solely in the magnetic field; that asymmetry is conceptually novel and likely to influence subsequent work. The ideal-case construction is explicit and checkable, and the parameter choices are transparent rather than fitted. The dissipative extensions, especially the velocity-inflation mechanism for non-viscous MHD, would considerably broaden the result. At present, however, the advertised four-system theorem is not supported by written proofs; the significance is therefore conditional on completing Section 6.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1, Lemmas 6.1–6.2] These lemmas are stated without proof. Lemma 6.1 is the H^{s+1} norm-inflation lower bound for the approximate magnetic field, and Lemma 6.2 supplies the weighted L^2/H^k perturbation estimates used in Proposition 6.1. The text says 'similar to' Section 4, but the weighted functional Y_m and the bootstrap (6.6) involve an extra mu-weight, and the magnetic amplitude is changed by mu^{-1}; the lower-bound and closure arguments therefore need to be redone, not merely quoted. Without them the non-resistive case of Theorem 1.2 is unsupported.
  2. [§6.2, Lemmas 6.3–6.4 and (6.14)–(6.15)] The non-viscous case is asserted rather than proved. In particular, the approximate toroidal velocity bar{u}_theta is defined only as the solution of a transport equation whose coefficient f'_u(mu rho) is not constant on the support of f_u; no explicit formula or derivative-amplification estimate such as (6.15) is supplied. Lemmas 6.3 and 6.4, which give the H^s lower bound for bar{u} and the energy estimates for (w,beta), are stated without proof. This is the mechanism that produces velocity inflation and cannot be transplanted verbatim from the ideal case.
  3. [§6.2, inequality after (6.23)] The displayed chain bounding ||beta||_{L^1 H^{s+1}} contains the exponent 2s-5/4, which is positive for 1<s<5/2, and the stated identity 2s-5/4 = -50 gamma is false. The algebra gives (2s-5)/4 = s/2 - 5/4 = -50 gamma. If the intended exponent is (2s-5)/4, the preceding interpolation estimate must be corrected accordingly. As printed, the proof that the magnetic field remains O(epsilon^2) fails at this line.
  4. [§6.3] For the fully dissipative system (1.5), no perturbation analysis is given. The paragraph asserts that 'the same calculation as in Section 4' applies and that dissipation remains negligible, but it writes no energy inequality, no analogue of Proposition 4.1, and no closure estimate; there is not even a statement of the bootstrap assumption. Since the viscous-resistive case is one of the four systems claimed in Theorem 1.2 and in the abstract, this is a load-bearing omission.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.2] After (3.9), the passage from integer k to fractional s via 'with interpolation for fractional s' is terse. Since Lemma 3.1 is proved for integer k, the H^s bound should either invoke the standard interpolation explicitly or state the resulting constant.
  2. [§3.3, proof of Proposition 3.1] The statement that differentiating the error fields yields an additional factor mu^k 'up to a constant depending on epsilon and k' is not quantified. Since t_* carries epsilon^{-N} factors, the epsilon-dependence may be large; it is harmless because epsilon is fixed, but it should be made explicit.
  3. [§6.1, (6.4)] The W^{k,p} estimate for bar{b} is written without derivation. A short explanation of how the reduced magnetic amplitude interacts with the phase-amplification factor would help the reader verify the claimed H^{s+1} lower bound in Lemma 6.1.
  4. [§6.2, Remark 6.2] The assertion that ||bar u · nabla bar b|| + ||bar b · nabla bar u|| is bounded by C epsilon mu^{-1} is not derived. Since this remark explains why the magnetic-solo mechanism fails in the non-viscous case, a one-line estimate would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity in the derivation chain; the main norm-inflation estimate is an explicit computation, and the dissipative-case gaps are omissions, not circular reductions.

full rationale

The central construction is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The norm inflation is obtained from the explicit approximate magnetic field formula (3.13): ¯bθ(t)=ε²µ^{1−s}ν^{1/2} g_b(µρ) sin(φ − t ε²µ^{1−s}ν^{1/2}/ρ), with the critical time t∗ defined in (3.14). The lower bound in Lemma 3.2 is computed directly from the derivative formula (3.22)–(3.24), not assumed. The parameters γ, N, M are construction choices stated explicitly, not fitted to the conclusion. The perturbation analysis in Proposition 4.1 is a genuine bootstrap: the approximate solution enters through error estimates (3.17), the energy estimates in Lemma 4.1 are derived from the evolution equations (4.1), and the closure depends on the exponent inequality −γ/2 + δ + γα < 0. The final inequality ∥b(t∗)∥H^s ≥ ε^{−1} follows by triangle inequality from the approximate lower bound and the small perturbation bound; it is not an input. The dissipative cases in Theorem 1.2 are not circular, but they are incomplete: Lemmas 6.1–6.4 are stated without proof, and §6.3 asserts that ‘the dissipation remains negligible before the norm inflation develops’ without displaying the required semigroup or energy estimates. That is a proof gap affecting correctness, not a circular reduction, because the claimed conclusion is not defined into the assumptions and no fitted data are used. The self-citations [9], [17], [18] are background well-posedness and ill-posedness results by co-authors; they are not load-bearing ingredients in the present construction or bootstrap. Overall, the derivation chain for Theorem 1.1 is independent and internally coherent, so no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All parameters are constructive choices stated in the paper; none are fitted to data and none are introduced to absorb unexplained effects. The axioms are standard PDE tools plus one domain-level blow-up criterion. No new physical entities are postulated; the Magnetic-solo ansatz is a mathematical construction, not an invented entity.

free parameters (4)
  • γ = (5/2 − s)/100 (eventually (1/2 − s)/100 in §6.1, §6.3) = (5/2 − s)/100
    Smallness exponent defining ν = μ^{1−γ}; chosen by hand to make the bootstrap closure margin −γ/2+δ+γα negative. Not fitted: part of the construction, stated in (3.1).
  • N = max{10/s, 100} = max{10/s, 100}
    Inflation-strength exponent in t_* = ε^{−N−2}μ^{−2+s}ν^{−1/2} and in the H^s lower bound ε^{2−Ns}; chosen so that 2−Ns ≤ −8, forcing ε^{−2} growth. Construction choice, not fitted.
  • M ≥ 10 (non-viscous case only) = ≥ 10
    Suppression exponent for the magnetic amplitude (b_0 ∼ ε²μ^{−M}ν^{1/2}); chosen large so the magnetic field stays bounded while the velocity inflates (§6.2).
  • Profiles f_u, g_b with g_b ≢ 0, f'_u = 1 on [1,3/2] = smooth cutoffs
    Smooth compactly-supported test profiles underlying the initial data (3.4); the specific shape does not enter the estimates beyond the stated support and normalization conditions.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Kato–Ponce commutator and product estimates (Lemmas 2.1, 2.2), cited [16].
    Used throughout §4 to control convective and coupling terms in the H^k energy estimates; the first and second terms of (4.7) rely on these.
  • standard math Sobolev embedding H^{5/2+δ}(R^3) ↪ W^{1,∞}(R^3) and real interpolation inequalities for Sobolev norms.
    Needed in the bootstrap closure (Step 2 of §4) to convert H^k bounds into L^∞-type gradient control, and in Lemma 3.2 / §6 interpolation for the lower bounds.
  • domain assumption BKM-type blow-up criterion for ideal MHD: smooth solution with ∫_0^T(∥∇u∥_{L∞}+∥∇b∥_{L∞})dt < ∞ cannot blow up at T.
    Invoked in Step 3 of §4 to exclude blow-up before t_*; the criterion with the gradient (rather than vorticity/current) is standard but is asserted, not proven.
  • domain assumption A priori Sobolev energy estimate (Proposition 2.1) for ideal MHD under ∥∇u∥+∥∇b∥ ≤ M; local well-posedness for smooth data.
    Standard input for the continuation/bootstrap argument; the proof of Proposition 2.1 is not written out in the paper.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of smooth solutions to the linear transport equation (3.12) for ¯b_θ with smooth divergence-free velocity.
    Justifies the explicit formula (3.13) for the transported magnetic field.
  • standard math The poloidal velocity solves the 2D stationary Euler equations with the pressure given by (3.6); the divergence corrector u_c makes the 3D field divergence-free.
    Verified by direct computation in §3.1 (pressure gradient matches the rotational flow; the corrector cancels the u_{0,r}/r term in div u).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Strong ill-posedness for the MHD system in the supercritical regime: inviscid and viscous." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXBIVH6X

@misc{pith2026260802330,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Strong ill-posedness for the MHD system in the supercritical regime: inviscid and viscous},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXBIVH6X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02330}
}
abstract

This paper is concerned with the Cauchy problem for the 3D incompressible magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) equations in supercritical Sobolev spaces. It is well known that the system is locally well-posed in subcritical Sobolev spaces, whereas the supercritical regime remains largely open. In this work, we establish norm inflation for the incompressible MHD equations, both with and without Laplacian dissipation, in supercritical Sobolev spaces, thereby revealing strong ill-posedness of the system at this regularity level. A distinctive feature of our approach is the introduction of a novel geometric construction, termed the ``Magnetic-solo ansatz'', through which, for the ideal MHD system, norm inflation occurs exclusively in the magnetic field $b$ in $H^s$ with $0<s<\frac{5}{2}$, while the $H^s$-norm of the velocity field $u$ remains uniformly bounded. This asymmetric behavior shows that supercritical ill-posedness can be driven exclusively by the magnetic field, highlighting its essential role in the breakdown of well-posedness. Our findings fill a significant gap in the supercritical regularity theory for incompressible MHD and shed light on the distinct mechanisms governing the fluid and magnetic dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02330 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 3D schematic of the initial data construction. The velocity field ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    On the global solution of a 3-D MHD system with initial data near equilibrium.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 70(8):1509–1561, 2017

    Hammadi Abidi and Ping Zhang. On the global solution of a 3-D MHD system with initial data near equilibrium.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 70(8):1509–1561, 2017

    2017

  2. [2]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

    Dieter Biskamp.Nonlinear Magnetohydrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993

    1993

  3. [3]

    Strong ill-posedness of the incompressible Euler equation in bor- derline Sobolev spaces.Inventiones Mathematicae, 201(1):97–157, 2015

    Jean Bourgain and Dong Li. Strong ill-posedness of the incompressible Euler equation in bor- derline Sobolev spaces.Inventiones Mathematicae, 201(1):97–157, 2015

    2015

  4. [4]

    Ill-posedness of the Navier–Stokes equations in a critical space in 3D.Journal of Functional Analysis, 255(9):2233–2247, 2008

    Jean Bourgain and Nataˇ sa Pavlovi´ c. Ill-posedness of the Navier–Stokes equations in a critical space in 3D.Journal of Functional Analysis, 255(9):2233–2247, 2008

    2008

  5. [5]

    Global well-posedness of the incompressible magnetohydrodynamics

    Yuan Cai and Zhen Lei. Global well-posedness of the incompressible magnetohydrodynamics. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 228(3):969–993, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    A losing estimate for the ideal MHD equations with application to blow-up criterion.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 38(6):1847–1859, 2007

    Marco Cannone, Qionglei Chen, and Changxing Miao. A losing estimate for the ideal MHD equations with application to blow-up criterion.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 38(6):1847–1859, 2007

    2007

  7. [7]

    The Beale–Kato–Majda criterion for the 3D magneto-hydrodynamics equations.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 275(3):861–872, 2007

    Qionglei Chen, Changxing Miao, and Zhifei Zhang. The Beale–Kato–Majda criterion for the 3D magneto-hydrodynamics equations.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 275(3):861–872, 2007

    2007

  8. [8]

    On the well-posedness of the ideal MHD equations in the Triebel–Lizorkin spaces.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analy- sis, 195(2):561–578, 2010

    Qionglei Chen, Changxing Miao, and Zhifei Zhang. On the well-posedness of the ideal MHD equations in the Triebel–Lizorkin spaces.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analy- sis, 195(2):561–578, 2010

    2010

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    Sharp ill-posedness for the non-resistive MHD equations in Sobolev spaces.Journal of Functional Analysis, 286(6):110302, 2024

    Qionglei Chen, Yao Nie, and Weikui Ye. Sharp ill-posedness for the non-resistive MHD equations in Sobolev spaces.Journal of Functional Analysis, 286(6):110302, 2024

    2024

  2. [10]

    Norm inflation for inviscid and fully dissipative Boussinesq systems in supercritical spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.13694, 2026

    Qionglei Chen and Yaowei Xie. Norm inflation for inviscid and fully dissipative Boussinesq systems in supercritical spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.13694, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  3. [11]

    In´ equations en thermo´ elasticit´ e et magn´ etohydrodynamique.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 46(4):241–279, 1972

    Georges Duvaut and Jacques-Louis Lions. In´ equations en thermo´ elasticit´ e et magn´ etohydrodynamique.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 46(4):241–279, 1972

    1972

  4. [12]

    Fefferman, David S

    Charles L. Fefferman, David S. McCormick, James C. Robinson, and Jose L. Rodrigo. Higher order commutator estimates and local existence for the non-resistive MHD equations and related models.Journal of Functional Analysis, 267(4):1035–1056, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Fefferman, David S

    Charles L. Fefferman, David S. McCormick, James C. Robinson, and Jose L. Rodrigo. Local existence for the non-resistive MHD equations in nearly optimal Sobolev spaces.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 223(2):677–691, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    On the global well-posedness of the 3D axisymmetric resistive MHD equations

    Zineb Hassainia. On the global well-posedness of the 3D axisymmetric resistive MHD equations. Annales Henri Poincar´ e, 23(8):2877–2917, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    On global dynamics of three dimensional magnetohydrody- namics: nonlinear stability of Alfv´ en waves.Annals of PDE, 4(1):5, 2018

    Ling-Bing He, Li Xu, and Pin Yu. On global dynamics of three dimensional magnetohydrody- namics: nonlinear stability of Alfv´ en waves.Annals of PDE, 4(1):5, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Commutator estimates and the Euler and Navier–Stokes equa- tions.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 41(7):891–907, 1988

    Tosio Kato and Gustavo Ponce. Commutator estimates and the Euler and Navier–Stokes equa- tions.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 41(7):891–907, 1988. 27

    1988

  9. [17]

    Local existence and uniqueness for the non-resistive MHD equations in homogeneous Besov spaces.Advances in Mathematics, 317:786–798, 2017

    Jinlu Li, Wenke Tan, and Zhaoyang Yin. Local existence and uniqueness for the non-resistive MHD equations in homogeneous Besov spaces.Advances in Mathematics, 317:786–798, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Non-uniform continuous dependence and continuous dependence for the non-resistive MHD equations.Advances in Mathematics, 426:109112, 2023

    Jinlu Li, Zhaoyang Yin, and Weipeng Zhu. Non-uniform continuous dependence and continuous dependence for the non-resistive MHD equations.Advances in Mathematics, 426:109112, 2023

    2023

  11. [19]

    Non-uniqueness of weak solutions to 3D magnetohy- drodynamic equations.Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 165:232–285, 2022

    Yachun Li, Zirong Zeng, and Deng Zhang. Non-uniqueness of weak solutions to 3D magnetohy- drodynamic equations.Journal de Math´ ematiques Pures et Appliqu´ ees, 165:232–285, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Sharp non-uniqueness of weak solutions to 3D magnetohydrodynamic equations: beyond the Lions exponent.Journal of Functional Analysis, 287(7):110528, 2024

    Yachun Li, Zirong Zeng, and Deng Zhang. Sharp non-uniqueness of weak solutions to 3D magnetohydrodynamic equations: beyond the Lions exponent.Journal of Functional Analysis, 287(7):110528, 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Illposedness of incompressible fluids in supercritical Sobolev spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07813, 2024

    Xiaoyutao Luo. Illposedness of incompressible fluids in supercritical Sobolev spaces.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07813, 2024. Accepted for publication inDuke Mathematical Journal

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Sharp norm inflation for 3D Navier–Stokes equations in supercritical spaces

    Xiaoyutao Luo. Sharp norm inflation for 3D Navier–Stokes equations in supercritical spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08288, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Applied Mathematical Sciences, volume 53

    Andrew Majda.Compressible fluid flow and systems of conservation laws in several space vari- ables. Applied Mathematical Sciences, volume 53. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1984

    1984

  16. [24]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    Eric Priest and Terry Forbes.Magnetic reconnection: MHD theory and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  17. [25]

    Some mathematical questions related to the MHD equa- tions.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 36(5):635–664, 1983

    Michel Sermange and Roger Temam. Some mathematical questions related to the MHD equa- tions.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 36(5):635–664, 1983

    1983

  18. [26]

    Global well-posedness of the MHD equations in a homogeneous magnetic field.Analysis & PDE, 10(6):1361–1406, 2017

    Dongyi Wei and Zhifei Zhang. Global well-posedness of the MHD equations in a homogeneous magnetic field.Analysis & PDE, 10(6):1361–1406, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Global well-posedness of the MHD equations via the comparison principle.Science China Mathematics, 61(11):2111–2120, 2018

    Dongyi Wei and Zhifei Zhang. Global well-posedness of the MHD equations via the comparison principle.Science China Mathematics, 61(11):2111–2120, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Global well-posedness for the 2-D MHD equations with magnetic diffusion.Communications in Mathematical Research, 36(4):377–389, 2020

    Dongyi Wei and Zhifei Zhang. Global well-posedness for the 2-D MHD equations with magnetic diffusion.Communications in Mathematical Research, 36(4):377–389, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Generalized MHD equations.Journal of Differential Equations, 195(2):284–312, 2003

    Jiahong Wu. Generalized MHD equations.Journal of Differential Equations, 195(2):284–312, 2003

    2003

  22. [30]

    Mild ill-posedness inL ∞ for 2D resistive MHD equations near a background magnetic field.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023(6):4839–4868, 2023

    Jiahong Wu and Jiefeng Zhao. Mild ill-posedness inL ∞ for 2D resistive MHD equations near a background magnetic field.International Mathematics Research Notices, 2023(6):4839–4868, 2023

    2023

  23. [31]

    Global small solutions to three-dimensional incompressible magnetohy- drodynamical system.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 47(1):26–65, 2015

    Li Xu and Ping Zhang. Global small solutions to three-dimensional incompressible magnetohy- drodynamical system.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 47(1):26–65, 2015. 28

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.