Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

This paper proves that any finite-energy self-similar 3D Euler blow-up must have similarity exponent γ ≥ 2/5, and that smooth global profiles satisfying natural structural hypotheses obey γ ≥ 1/2.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:12 UTC pith:QQKZKT4B

load-bearing objection Solid, honest paper on Euler self-similarity; main theorem is slightly over-advertised in the abstract—Theorem 3.10 needs real analyticity at nodal points, not just C^2/smooth. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.17570 v3 pith:QQKZKT4B submitted 2026-02-19 math.AP

On putative self-similarity for incompressible 3D Euler

Peter Constantin , Mihaela Ignatova , Vlad Vicol This is my paper
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3135B4435C0676B03
keywords self-similar blow-up3D Euler equationssimilarity exponentvorticity stretchingfinite kinetic energyaxisymmetric swirloutgoing propertycirculation theorem
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper studies hypothetical finite-time singularities of the 3D incompressible Euler equations that are self-similar: vorticity scales like 1/(T*−t) while space compresses like (T*−t)^γ. It proves that the zoom exponent γ cannot be too small. For finite-energy solutions blowing up in a local self-similar manner, it shows γ ≥ 2/5 by combining the vorticity-stretching equation with an optimized split between small and large scales. For globally self-similar smooth profiles, it proves γ ≥ 1/2 under an outgoing flow condition and real-analyticity at stagnation points, and also for axisymmetric profiles under weaker assumptions; an axisymmetric fixed point with nonzero swirl forces γ = 1/2 exactly. The takeaway is that exponent 1/2, familiar from Navier–Stokes scaling, is natural for Euler too because Kelvin circulation is invariant, which closes off a route to constructing Navier–Stokes blow-up via Euler solutions with γ < 1/2.

Core claim

Any hypothetical self-similar 3D Euler singularity has a constrained zoom exponent γ. For finite kinetic energy and a local gradient bound, γ≥2/5; optimizing a length scale in the Biot–Savart stretching rate shows that γ<2/5 would make the stretching rate integrable, preventing blow-up. For globally self-similar profiles, after a scaling-invariant lower bound on the profile, the paper proves γ≥1/2 under several hypotheses: a zero of V=γy+U with nonzero vorticity plus a local outgoing property; a finite nodal set with real-analytic vorticity at zeros; or an axisymmetric profile with all fixed points on the axis. A swirl-carrying axisymmetric fixed point forces γ=1/2 exactly via the self-simil

What carries the argument

The load-bearing structures are the transport velocity V(y)=γy+U(y), whose zeros are stagnation points of the self-similar flow, and the self-similar circulation theorem: e^{(1−2γ)τ} times the circulation of U around an advected loop is constant, so a persistent loop forces γ=1/2. The proofs also use the vortex-stretching factor A(y) (pointwise bounded via Biot–Savart), the Bernoulli function H, which strictly decreases along non-stationary trajectories when γ<1/2, and the strain matrix at stagnation points, whose eigenvalue constraints yield the γ≥1/2 bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a globally self-similar profile satisfying the stated bounds actually exists; for the Theorem 3.10 version, the real-analyticity of vorticity at stagnation points is the most fragile condition, since an only-C^∞ flat profile would break the contradiction argument that forces γ≥1/2.

What would settle it

A numerical search that produces a self-similar 3D Euler profile with γ<1/2, smooth, with sublinear growth and real-analytic vorticity at its stagnation points, would falsify the paper's central bound; if found for γ<2/5 with smooth finite-energy data, it would also refute the local theorem.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A finite-energy smooth blow-up of 3D Euler satisfying the stated local gradient bound must have similarity exponent at least 2/5, so any numerical candidate with γ<2/5 violates the bound or the conservation of kinetic energy.
  • Globally self-similar smooth profiles with an outgoing or locally outgoing flow and real-analytic vorticity at stagnation points cannot exist with γ<1/2.
  • Axisymmetric self-similar profiles with isolated stagnation points on the symmetry axis are confined to γ≥1/2 without needing the outgoing condition or analyticity.
  • If an axisymmetric profile has a fixed point of the meridional flow with nonzero swirl, the similarity exponent is exactly 1/2, since circulation around the invariant loop is conserved.
  • The common strategy of building 3D Navier–Stokes singularities by perturbing 3D Euler self-similar solutions with γ<1/2 is ruled out within these profile classes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The real-analyticity assumption at zeros of V is the most fragile point in the Theorem 3.10 result; a C^∞ but flat vorticity profile at those zeros would break the contradiction argument, so the γ≥1/2 bound might be an artifact of analyticity rather than a universal Euler fact.
  • The 2/5 bound in Theorem 2.1 is purely local and does not see the far field; a truly universal lower bound may interpolate between 2/5 for local blow-ups and 1/2 for global ones, depending on how far the self-similar region extends.
  • The circulation argument that pinpoints γ=1/2 at swirl-carrying fixed points suggests a practical numerical diagnostic: compute circulation around candidate invariant loops in self-similar coordinates; any drift indicates a violation of Euler structure.
  • If future numerical searches find a smooth profile with γ<1/2, the paper's theorems identify exactly which hypothesis must fail—far-field bound, finite nodal set, or analyticity—giving a roadmap for locating loopholes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives lower bounds on the self-similar scaling exponent γ for hypothetical finite-time blowup of 3D incompressible Euler. Theorem 2.1 shows that under a pointwise vorticity-gradient bound (2.1) and finite kinetic energy, γ ≥ 2/5 is necessary for blowup. For globally self-similar profiles, Section 3 proves a scaling-invariant lower bound on the vorticity profile (Theorem 3.4), and then, under a local outgoing property, establishes γ ≥ 1/2 when either the vorticity is nonzero at a stagnation point (Theorem 3.8) or the profile is real-analytic at all stagnation points (Theorem 3.10). Section 4 treats axisymmetric profiles: a fixed point with nonzero swirl forces γ = 1/2 (Theorem 4.4), and a C² axisymmetric profile with all meridional fixed points isolated on the axis also forces γ ≥ 1/2 (Theorem 4.6).

Significance. If correct, these results give rigorous quantitative guardrails for numerical and analytical searches for self-similar Euler singularities, and they identify γ = 1/2 as a distinguished exponent via circulation. The proofs are explicit and largely self-contained, with no fitted parameters or auxiliary assumptions beyond the stated hypotheses. Theorem 2.1 is a clean optimization of inner/outer vortex-stretching estimates; Theorem 4.6 is an elegant combination of Bernoulli-function monotonicity and the Poincaré–Bendixson theorem. The main caveat is that the advertised headline results are broader than what the theorems actually prove: the non-axisymmetric γ ≥ 1/2 statement requires real analyticity at nodal points, and the axisymmetric statement in the abstract omits the condition on fixed points. These are scope limitations rather than internal inconsistencies, but they need to be corrected in a revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction; Theorem 3.10] The advertised claim that any smooth outgoing globally self-similar profile has γ ≥ 1/2 is not what is proven. Theorem 3.10 assumes Ω is real-analytic at all y* ∈ N_V (footnote 7). The proof uses this to pass from the infinite-order vanishing of Proposition 3.9 to Ω ≡ 0 on a fixed neighborhood of each node, and then propagates the vanishing via the Cauchy formula (3.22). For a merely C^∞ profile that is flat at all nodes, no such neighborhood exists and the argument collapses. Theorem 3.8 covers only the case Ω(y*) ≠ 0 at some node. Thus the union of the two theorems leaves open the possibility of a C^∞ flat non-axisymmetric profile with γ < 1/2. The abstract and introduction state the result without this caveat. Please amend the abstract/introduction and the statements of Theorems 3.10 and 4.3(ii) to make the real-analyticity hypothesis explicit, and add a remark identifying the flat ca
  2. [Abstract vs. Theorem 4.6] The abstract's phrase 'under the sole assumption that the velocity profile is C^2 smooth' for the axisymmetric bound is inaccurate. Theorem 4.6 requires, in addition to C² regularity, the structural assumptions (3.5), (3.8), and—crucially—that all fixed points of the meridional Lagrangian flow (4.4) are isolated and lie on the axis of symmetry {r=0}. The introduction (p. 2) correctly lists these conditions. Please align the abstract with the theorem statement.
  3. [Introduction, p. 2] The sentence 'if an outgoing globally self-similar smooth solution ... exists, then we must have γ ≥ 1/2; see Theorem 3.8, Theorem 3.10, and Theorem 4.3' is misleading. Theorem 3.10 and Theorem 4.3(ii) both carry the real-analyticity assumption, while Theorem 3.8 requires Ω ≠ 0 at a nodal point. The phrase 'smooth' suggests a single class of profiles for which the dichotomy is exhaustive, which is not the case. Please rephrase to distinguish the analytic case from the general C^∞ case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Proposition 3.9, p. 12] The multi-index notation (∂^{α−e_k+e_j}Ω)_i should be clarified for the case α_k = 0; as written it suggests a negative multi-index. The intended meaning is that the sum is restricted to k with α_k > 0.
  2. [Equation (3.16), p. 7] The constant C_p is stated without derivation of the factors from (3.14) and (3.15). A short sentence explaining how the constants combine would help the reader verify the optimization.
  3. [Section 3.1, p. 5] The derivation of the general ansatz leading to A(t) = (T−t)^{−1} is compressed into a footnote with an 'internal clock' remark. Since this is a foundational step, a slightly more detailed derivation (or a reference to a standard treatment) would improve accessibility.
  4. [Throughout] There are a few minor typographical issues: footnote 4 should read 'see [36] for the use', and in the proof of Theorem 4.6 the phrase 'the superlevel set S_c is bounded for every c' should specify that this uses γ < 1/2 and (3.34). These are cosmetic.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the main theorems are derived from the stated PDE hypotheses, with only background self-citations and one explicit analyticity assumption that narrows scope rather than begging the question.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained under its stated hypotheses. Theorem 2.1 derives the bound γ≥2/5 directly from the assumed gradient-growth bound (2.1), an explicit decomposition of the stretching factor α=α_in+α_out into local and nonlocal contributions, and the Beale–Kato–Majda criterion; the citation to [18] supplies a standard prior version of the scaling argument and the vorticity-stretching identity, but the proof does not assume the conclusion γ≥2/5. Theorem 3.8 is a direct eigenvalue contradiction at a zero y* of V(y)=γy+U(y): the vorticity equation forces the strain matrix to have eigenvalue 1, while the local outgoing condition forces the largest eigenvalue to be at most 2(γ−c*), giving γ≥1/2+c*. Proposition 3.9 and Theorem 3.10 inductively propagate vanishing of Ω to infinite order at nodes and then use real analyticity to obtain zero neighborhoods; the real-analyticity requirement is explicitly stated in the theorem and footnote, so it is an honest scope limitation rather than an unacknowledged input equal to the target result. The axisymmetric results (Theorems 4.3, 4.4, 4.6) use circulation conservation, the self-similar Weber formula, the meridional transport equations, and Poincaré–Bendixson; none of these steps fits a parameter to the predicted quantity. There are no fitted parameters dressed as predictions, no uniqueness theorem imported from the same authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via self-citation. The self-citations to [18,19,21] are background or disclosed antecedents and are not load-bearing; the abstract's phrase 'smooth globally self-similar blowup profile' does overstate Theorem 3.10, which needs real analyticity at nodal points unless some node has Ω≠0, but this is a scope/correctness concern, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

Free parameters: none; constants in estimates are explicit and do not affect the final bounds. Invented entities: none; the similarity profiles are hypothetical objects under study, not newly postulated mechanisms. The main burden sits on the stated structural hypotheses (existence, smoothness, outgoing/real-analyticity, axisymmetry), which are openly declared; the derivation itself is self-contained once those hypotheses are granted.

axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Existence of a globally self-similar profile (3.2) with U(0)=0, sublinear growth (3.5), and far-field bounds (3.8).
    All Section 3/4 results are conditional on a hypothetical C^2 profile; the paper does not prove existence. Cited in §3.1.
  • domain assumption Local outgoing property (Definition 3.7): finite nodal set N_V and V(y)·(y−y*)≥c*|y−y*|² near each node.
    Assumed in Theorems 3.8 and 3.10; adapted from Elgindi's Hypothesis 6.7 in [25] and weakened to allow c*=0.
  • domain assumption Real analyticity of Ω at every nodal point (Theorem 3.10).
    Needed to convert the infinite-order vanishing of Proposition 3.9 into Ω≡0 on a neighborhood; the paper calls this 'reasonable to expect' but offers no proof.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetric ansatz and nodal assumptions of Theorem 4.6: fixed points of (4.4) isolated and on the axis; U,Ω C² and satisfy (3.5)–(3.8).
    Restricts the class of axisymmetric profiles; used to apply Poincaré-Bendixson and Lemma 4.7 in §4.4.
  • standard math Beale-Kato-Majda criterion and the vorticity-stretching representation (2.3)–(2.4).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 2.1 to convert integrability of sup_x |α(x,t)| into absence of blowup; standard background from [2,18,21].
  • standard math Kelvin/Weber circulation conservation and energy conservation for smooth Euler solutions.
    Used in Theorem 2.1 (L² a priori bound), Theorem 4.4 (Γss invariance), and the self-similar Cauchy/Weber formulas (3.22)–(3.24).
  • standard math Poincaré-Bendixson theorem for the 2D meridional flow and Reynolds transport identity in Lemma 4.7.
    Used in Theorem 4.6 to identify the α-limit set of a bounded backward trajectory as an axis fixed point.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21726 in / 26675 out tokens · 267185 ms · 2026-08-02T22:12:41.162158+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We consider hypothetical solutions of 3D Euler which blow up in finite time in a self-similar fashion. We prove that if the initial data has finite kinetic energy, then the similarity exponent $\gamma$ which governs the rate of zooming in must be at least $2/5$. If a smooth globally self-similar blowup profile exists, and this profile satisfies an outgoing property, we prove that $\gamma \geq 1/2$. For axisymmetric solutions, we establish the bound $\gamma\geq 1/2$ under the sole assumption that the velocity profile is $C^2$ smooth.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Self-Similar Solutions of the Two-Dimensional Incompressible Euler Equation from Large Initial Data

    math.AP 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    For every C^1 divergence-free (−a)-homogeneous velocity on R^2, a self-similar 2D Euler weak solution with that initial profile exists for each a in (1/3,1).

  2. Incompressible Euler Blowup at the $C^{1,\frac{1}{3}}$ Threshold

    math.AP 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Finite-time Type-I blowup is proven for 3D incompressible Euler equations with initial data in C^{1,α} (α < 1/3) in the axisymmetric no-swirl class, using a Lagrangian clock-and-strain framework that yields explicit b...

  3. Incompressible Euler Blowup at the $C^{1,\frac{1}{3}}$ Threshold

    math.AP 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Finite-time Type-I blowup is proved for 3D axisymmetric no-swirl Euler with C^{1,α} finite-energy data for every α < 1/3 via a Lagrangian clock-and-driver mechanism.

  4. A conditional Lagrangian clock barrier at the $C^{1,\frac{1}{3}}$ threshold for axisymmetric Euler without swirl

    math.AP 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces a matrix-clock criterion and reduces it to a scalar clock inequality that rules out finite-time collapse of the deformation gradient for conditional C^{1,α} axisymmetric Euler solutions when α ≥ 1/3.

  5. On the blowup rate of vorticity for the Euler equations in a bounded domain

    math.AP 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    For first-time blowup solutions of the 3D incompressible Euler equations in a bounded domain, the L^infty norms of vorticity derivatives satisfy explicit pointwise-in-time lower bounds, and the associated Gronwall ine...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Barenblatt

    G.I. Barenblatt. Scaling, self-similarity, and intermediate asymptotics: dimensional analysis and intermediate asymptotics. No. 14. Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  2. [2]

    Beale, T

    J.T. Beale, T. Kato, A. Majda. Remarks on the breakdown of smooth solutions for the 3-D Euler equations. Communications in Mathematical Physics94(1):61–66, 1984

    1984

  3. [3]

    Buckmaster, G

    T. Buckmaster, G. Cao-Labora, J. G´ omez-Serrano. Smooth imploding solutions for 3d compressible fluids.Forum of Mathematics, Pi, 13:e6, 2025

    2025

  4. [4]

    Buckmaster, S

    T. Buckmaster, S. Shkoller, V. Vicol. Formation of shocks for 2D isentropic compressible Euler.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.75(9):2069–2120, 2022

    2069

  5. [5]

    Buckmaster, S

    T. Buckmaster, S. Shkoller, V. Vicol. Formation of point shocks for 3D compressible Euler.Comm. Pure Appl. Math.76(9):2073–2191, 2023

    2073

  6. [6]

    Caffarelli, R

    L. Caffarelli, R. Kohn, L. Nirenberg. Partial regularity of suitable weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics35(6):771–831, 1982

    1982

  7. [7]

    D. Chae. Nonexistence of self-similar singularities for the 3D incompressible Euler equations.Communications in Mathematical Physics273(1):203–215, 2007

    2007

  8. [8]

    D. Chae, J. Wolf. Removing discretely self-similar singularities for the 3D Navier-Stokes equations.Comm. Partial Differential Equations42(9):1359–1374, 2017

    2017

  9. [9]

    J. Chen. Remarks on the smoothness of theC 1,α asymptotically self-similar singularity in the 3D Euler and 2D Boussinesq equations.Nonlinearity37, no. 6:065018, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    J. Chen, G. Cialdea, S. Shkoller, V. Vicol. Vorticity blowup in 2D compressible Euler equations.Duke Math. J., to appear.arXiv preprintarXiv:2407.06455, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Chen, T.Y

    J. Chen, T.Y. Hou. Finite time blowup of 2D Boussinesq and 3D Euler equations withC1,α velocity and boundary. Communications in Mathematical Physics383(3):1559–1667, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    Chen, T.Y

    J. Chen, T.Y. Hou. Stable nearly self-similar blowup of the 2D Boussinesq and 3D Euler equations with smooth data I: Analysis.arXiv preprintarXiv:2210.07191, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Chen, T.Y

    J. Chen, T.Y. Hou. Stable nearly self-similar blowup of the 2D Boussinesq and 3D Euler equations with smooth data II: Rigorous numerics.Multiscale Modeling & Simulation23(1):25–130, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Chen, T.Y

    J. Chen, T.Y. Hou. Singularity formation in 3D Euler equations with smooth initial data and boundary.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.122(27) e2500940122, 2025

    2025

  15. [15]

    Childress, G.R

    S. Childress, G.R. Ierley, E.A. Spiegel, W.R. Young. Blow-up of unsteady two-dimensional Euler and Navier- Stokes solutions having stagnation-point form.Journal of Fluid Mechanics203:1–22, 1989

    1989

  16. [16]

    Cordoba, L

    D. Cordoba, L. Martinez-Zoroa, F. Zheng. Finite Time Singularities to the 3D Incompressible Euler Equations for Solutions inC ∞(R3 \ {0})∩C1,α ∩L 2.Annals of PDE11(2), p.19, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Constantin

    P. Constantin. Navier-Stokes equations and area of interfaces.Communications in Mathematical Physics129 (2):241–266, 1990

    1990

  18. [18]

    Constantin

    P. Constantin. Geometric and Analytic Studies in Turbulence. In: Sirovich, L. (eds)Trends and Perspectives in Applied Mathematics. Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 100. Springer, New York, 1994

    1994

  19. [19]

    Constantin

    P. Constantin. Analysis of Hydrodynamic Models. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathe- matics90. SIAM, Philadelphia, 2017

    2017

  20. [20]

    Constantin

    P. Constantin. The Euler equations and nonlocal conservative Riccati equations.International Mathematics Research Notices9:455–465, 2000

    2000

  21. [21]

    Constantin, C

    P. Constantin, C. Fefferman. Direction of vorticity and the problem of global regularity for the Navier-Stokes equations.Indiana University Mathematics Journal42(3):775–789, 1993

    1993

  22. [22]

    Constantin, C

    P. Constantin, C. Foias. Navier-Stokes Equations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1988

    1988

  23. [23]

    Eggers, M.A

    J. Eggers, M.A. Fontelos. Singularities: formation, structure, and propagation. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015

    2015

  24. [24]

    T.M. Elgindi. Finite-time Singularity Formation forC 1,α Solutions to the Incompressible Euler Equations on R3.Annals of Mathematics194(3):647–727, 2021. ON SELF-SIMILARITY FOR INCOMPRESSIBLE 3D EULER 19

    2021

  25. [25]

    T.M. Elgindi. Dynamics of Ideal Fluid Flows.arXiv preprintarXiv:2511.16254, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Elgindi, T.-E

    T.M. Elgindi, T.-E. Ghoul, N. Masmoudi. On the stability of self-similar blow-up forC 1,α solutions to the incompressible Euler equations onR 3.Cambridge Journal of Mathematics9(4):1035–1075, 2022

    2022

  27. [27]

    Elgindi, F

    T.M. Elgindi, F. Pasqualotto. From instability to singularity formation in incompressible fluids.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.19780, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Gibbon, K

    J.D. Gibbon, K. Ohkitani. Numerical study of singularity formation in a class of Euler and Navier-Stokes flows. Phys. Fluids8:1744–1752, 1996

    1996

  29. [29]

    Guderley

    K.G. Guderley. Starke kugelige und zylindrische Verdichtungsst¨ osse in der N¨ ahe des Kugelmittelpunktes bzw. der Zylinderachse.Luftfahrtforschung19:302–312, 1942

    1942

  30. [30]

    T.Y. Hou, D. Huang. A potential two-scale traveling wave singularity for 3D incompressible Euler equations. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena435:133257, 2022

    2022

  31. [31]

    T.Y. Hou. Potential Singularity of the 3D Euler Equations in the Interior Domain.Foundations of Computational Mathematics23:2203–2249, 2023

    2023

  32. [32]

    C. Hunter. On the collapse of an empty cavity in water.J. Fluid Mech., 8(2):241–263, 1960

    1960

  33. [33]

    Luo, T.Y

    G. Luo, T.Y. Hou. Potentially singular solutions of the 3D axisymmetric Euler equations.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.111:12968–12973, 2014

    2014

  34. [34]

    Merle, P

    F. Merle, P. Rapha¨ el, I. Rodnianski, J. Szeftel. On the implosion of a compressible fluid I: Smooth self-similar inviscid profiles.Ann. of Math. (2), 196 (2):567–778, 2022

    2022

  35. [35]

    Merle, P

    F. Merle, P. Rapha¨ el, I. Rodnianski, J. Szeftel. On the implosion of a compressible fluid II: Singularity formation. Ann. of Math. (2), 196 (2):779–889, 2022

    2022

  36. [36]

    Neˇ cas, M

    J. Neˇ cas, M. R ˚ uˇ ziˇ cka, V.ˇSver´ ak. On Leray’s self-similar solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations.Acta Math.176:283–294, 1996

    1996

  37. [37]

    Pumir, E.D

    A. Pumir, E.D. Siggia. Development of singular solutions to the axisymmetric Euler equations.Phys. Fluids A4 (7):1472–1491, 1992

    1992

  38. [38]

    L.I. Sedov. Propagation of strong shock waves.Prikladnaya Matematika i Mekhanika, 10 (2):241–250, 1946

    1946

  39. [39]

    L.I. Sedov. Similarity and dimensional methods in mechanics. CRC press, 2018

    2018

  40. [40]

    G. Seregin. On smoothness ofL 3,∞-solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations up to boundary.Math. Ann.332 (1):219–238, 2005

    2005

  41. [41]

    F. Shao, D. Wei, S. Wang, Z. Zhang. Blow-up of the 3-D compressible Navier-Stokes equations for monatomic gases.arXiv preprintarXiv:2501.15701, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    J.T. Stuart. Singularities in three-dimensional compressible Euler flows with vorticity.Proc. Roy. Soc. London Ser. A417:91–108, 1988

    1988

  43. [43]

    G.I. Taylor. The formation of a blast wave by a very intense explosion. I. Theoretical discussion.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 201 (1065):159–174, 1950

    1950

  44. [44]

    T.-P. Tsai. On Leray’s self-similar solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations satisfying local energy estimates. Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.143(1):29–51, 1998

    1998

  45. [45]

    von Neumann

    J. von Neumann. The point source solution. In R. S. Brode, J. O. Hirschfelder, and S. R. Brinkley (eds).Shock Hydrodynamics and Blast Waves, pages 27–55. Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Report LA-2000, 1947

    2000

  46. [46]

    Wang, C.Y

    Y. Wang, C.Y. Lai, J. Gomez-Serrano, T. Buckmaster. Asymptotic self-similar blow-up profile for three- dimensional axisymmetric Euler equations using neural networks.Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 244002, 2023

    2023

  47. [47]

    Wang, et al

    Y. Wang, et al. Discovery of unstable singularities.arXiv preprintarXiv:2509.14185, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Y. Wang, T. Leger, C.Y. Lai, T. Buckmaster. Resolving Sharp Gradients of Unstable Singularities to Machine Precision via Neural Networks.arXiv preprintarXiv:2511.22819, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Y. Wang, Z. Liu, Z. Li, A. Anandkumar, T.Y. Hou. High precision PINNs in unbounded domains: application to singularity formulation in PDEs.arXiv preprintarXiv:2506.19243, 2025. Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540 Email address:const@math.princeton.edu Department of Mathematics, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122 Ema...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025