Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 46 references

Couette Flow with Robin Boundary Condition (I): the viscosity-independent friction

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any fixed finite friction at the wall, Couette flow remains stable for initial perturbations of size ν^{1/3}, with the same inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation as in the free-slip and boundaryless cases.

desk verdict Finite Robin friction joins the β=1/3 family; the proof is structurally sound, with only minor self-containedness gaps. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17468 v1 pith:WYTULFNK submitted 2026-07-20 math.AP math-phmath.MP

Siming He , Binqian Niu , Weiren Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.APmath-phmath.MP MSC 35Q3076E0535B35
keywords CouetteflowRobinboundaryconditiontransitionthresholdinvisciddampingenhanceddissipationlayerNavier-Stokesstabilitycriticalexponent
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 studies the stability of plane Couette flow in a periodic channel when the horizontal velocity obeys a Robin boundary condition with a fixed, finite friction factor α. The authors prove that for every α>0 and sufficiently small viscosity ν, any H^6 perturbation of size at most ε ν^{1/3} stays close to Couette for all time, decays exponentially in the non-zero modes, and exhibits inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation. This establishes that the critical threshold exponent β=1/3, previously known for free-slip and boundaryless domains, also holds for Robin walls with viscosity-independent friction. The result matters because it is the first rigorous, fully nonlinear treatment of the transition threshold for Couette flow under this intermediate boundary condition, bridging the free-slip and no-slip regimes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a boundary-correction operator C that, on each frozen-time slab, corrects the Robin boundary defect by solving a homogeneous Orr-Sommerfeld equation; its estimates rely on a nonvanishing Evans function D(λ,k)=A0(Z+)A0(Z−)(E+E−−R+R−) in the spectral half-plane k Im λ ≥ −δν^{1/3}|k|^{2/3}, established through Airy-function asymptotics. On the physical side, three singular integral operators — J_k for inviscid damping, J_k^(e) for enhanced dissipation, and a new cascade operator J̃_0 for zero-mode resonant growth — supply the coercive terms that close the nonlinear bootstrap.

What would settle it

Compute D(λ,k) numerically over the region k Im λ ≥ −δν^{1/3}|k|^{2/3}, |k|≥1, for a fixed α (for instance α=1) and ν=10^{-6}; a zero would disprove the boundary-corrector bounds. Equally decisive: simulate the linearized Navier-Stokes equations with Robin boundary conditions at ν=10^{-6}, initialize with a ν^{1/3}-sized H^6 perturbation, and check whether the maximum vorticity growth over t∈[0,ν^{-1/3}] exceeds the predicted e^{cν^{1/3}t} bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.1: for any fixed friction factor α=(1−κ)/κ>0 there exist ε, ε0∈(0,1/4) and a ν-threshold ν0 such that for all 0<ν≤ν0 and all H^6 initial data satisfying the Robin consistency conditions and ∥v_in∥_{H^6}≤ε ν^{1/3}, the perturbation remains in an O(ν^{1/3}) neighborhood of Couette, the non-zero modes decay like e^{−ε0ν^{1/3}t}, and both inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation hold. In particular, the critical stability exponent is β=1/3 for every fixed finite friction coefficient, exactly as in the free-slip and boundaryless settings, rather than the β=1/2 of the non-slip case.

Load-bearing premise

The entire ν^{1/3} threshold rests on the spectral premise that the boundary-layer Evans function D(λ,k) has no zeros in the half-plane k Im λ ≥ −δν^{1/3}|k|^{2/3} uniformly for |k|≥1; if a zero appeared in that region, boundary correctors could grow faster than e^{cν^{1/3}t} and the threshold would drop below 1/3.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every fixed α>0, the stability threshold exponent in H^6 is β=1/3, matching the free-slip and boundaryless cases rather than the non-slip value 1/2.
  • Boundary layers generated by Robin friction do not alter the ν^{1/3} enhanced-dissipation time scale; the boundary correctors decay with the same exponential rate as the interior solution.
  • The proof supplies uniform-in-time control of the zero mode and of weighted vorticity near the walls, which is the ingredient that closes the nonlinear bootstrap.
  • The results set a firm baseline for the announced follow-up: when α is allowed to scale with ν as α=O(ν^b), the threshold exponent can be studied as a continuous interpolation between the 1/3 endpoint and the non-slip 1/2 endpoint.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Evans-function nonvanishing persists as α shrinks with ν, the threshold exponent should interpolate between 1/3 and 1/2, giving a quantitative description of the free-slip to no-slip transition.
  • Physically, the result suggests that for fixed slip length the wall is asymptotically transparent at high Reynolds number: the dominant destabilizing mechanism is the interior echo chain, not the boundary, so boundary-driven instability requires perturbations larger than ν^{1/3}.
  • A testable extension would be a numerical study of the linearized Navier-Stokes equations with Robin boundary conditions at small ν, measuring the boundary-layer width and decay rate; the theory predicts a ν^{1/3} decay independent of α for fixed α, in contrast to the faster-growing boundary layers seen in the non-slip case.
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. The paper studies the stability of Couette flow in a finite channel with Robin (partial-slip) boundary conditions, parameterized by a friction factor α=(1−κ)/κ>0. The main result (Theorem 1.1) asserts that for each fixed α>0 there is a viscosity threshold ν0(α) such that H^6 perturbations of size ≤ε ν^{1/3} are globally stable, and the solution exhibits inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation with rate ε0ν^{1/3}. The proof is organized as a bootstrap over a hierarchical amplitude decomposition: a first-level interior approximation ω^{(a)} and a boundary corrector ω^{(b)}, then a second-level remainder split into resonant, error, boundary, and zero-mode components. The boundary corrector estimates are derived from a frozen-shear resolvent analysis and an Evans-function nonvanishing bound in Appendix B. The paper also introduces a new physical-side singular integral operator eJ0 to track zero-mode cascade growth.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it is a substantial contribution: it extends threshold stability results for Couette flow from the free-slip and no-slip endpoints to the entire Robin family, showing that for every fixed finite α the critical exponent remains β=1/3. The paper is structurally transparent: the decomposition and bootstrap propositions are stated precisely, the estimates are organized into checkable families, and there is no parameter fitting — the decay rates are consequences of the derived bounds. The introduction of the Robin-adapted cascade operator eJ0 is a useful technical innovation. However, several load-bearing estimates are quoted from prior works or stated with proofs omitted, so the central claim is not fully self-contained as submitted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Corollary 2.6] Corollary 2.6 is stated with “the proof is similar to the proof of Corollary 2.5 and we omit it.” This corollary is used directly in Proposition 2.13 and in the bootstrap estimates (2.31d), so it is load-bearing. The input ω^{(*,i)} differs from ω^{(a)} in boundary regularity and time behavior; verifying the hypotheses of Proposition 2.3 for this input is not a purely cosmetic repetition. Please provide the proof or a precise reduction to Corollary 2.5.
  2. [Appendix B, Lemmas B.1 and B.2] Lemmas B.1 and B.2 are quoted from [15]/[16] with proofs omitted. These lemmas give the sharp bounds for the approximate Airy boundary-layer profiles W_{±;a} and the resolvent estimate for the corrector W_{±;e}. They feed directly into Lemma B.4 and Lemma B.7, and ultimately into the Evans-function lower bound (B.35) that is the spectral basis for Proposition 2.3. Since the Robin boundary conditions change the trace operators and the normalization of the correctors, the paper should either reproduce these arguments or state precisely the hypotheses and verify that the Robin setting satisfies them.
  3. [Appendix A, Lemmas A.1–A.2] The Airy-function facts in Lemma A.1 are imported from [14], and Lemma A.2 refers to [14,16] for part of the proof. The lower bound Re(A0'/A0) ≤ −C0(1+|z|^{1/2}) and the zero-free region are essential for the decay estimate (A.5) for α(z,x), which in turn is used in Lemma B.6 to control m_± and n_±. This is a spectral premise of the whole boundary-corrector theory. Given that the theorem’s threshold depends on these bounds, the paper should either provide self-contained proofs or state the exact theorem from [14] and explain why its hypotheses hold for the Robin problem.
  4. [§6.3.1, Lemma 6.1] The estimate for the resonant component ω^{(re)}_{≠} is quoted from [45] with no proof. This lemma is used to prove Proposition 2.11, which is one of the central long-time bounds. The equation (2.13) for ω^{(re)}_{≠} contains the Robin-specific boundary correctors through u−u^{(a)}, so the adaptation of [45, Prop. 2.5] is not completely immediate. Please include the statement of the needed result from [45], verify its hypotheses in this setting, or give the proof.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract / Theorem 1.1] The abstract states the condition as ∥ω_in∥ ≤ ε ν^{1/3}, while Theorem 1.1 uses ∥v_in∥_{H^6} ≤ ε ν^{1/3}. Since ω=curl v, these are related but not identical; please align the statements.
  2. [§2.7, notation] The notation ∥f_k∥_{H^M_{k,y}} is defined, but later some norms use l^p_k L^q_y without explicitly repeating the domain; a short summary of the l^p_k convention in the notation section would help.
  3. [Appendix B, Corollary B.11] The assumption “1−κ ≥ c” is stated with c independent of ν and k. For fixed α>0 this holds with c depending on α, but the dependence is not quantified. Please state explicitly that the constants in Corollary B.11 may depend on α, and that this is acceptable for Theorem 1.1.
  4. [§4, Step 1 of Proposition 2.3] In equation (4.3) and the subsequent display, the notation L^2_t(J[j]∪I[j]) is used before the sets J[j] and I[j] are clearly defined in (2.17)–(2.18). Consider defining these intervals earlier in Section 4 or adding a cross-reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ν^{1/3} threshold is derived from bootstrap and resolvent estimates, not fitted or imported from a self-citation.

full rationale

Theorem 1.1 is proved by an amplitude decomposition and bootstrap: ε, ε0, ν0 are chosen small via spectral lemmas and universal constants, and the decay rates are conclusions of coercive estimates (Prop. 5.1, Lemma D.8), not inputs. The boundary corrector C[g] is defined by the Robin-defect equation T±[ω(a)+C[ω(a)]]=0 (2.8), and Proposition 2.3 bounds C[g] in terms of the defect trace data ∥g∥; this is a genuine output bound, not the defect renamed as a prediction. Corollaries 2.5/2.6 then propagate those bounds to the specific inputs ω(a) and ω(*,i). The one omitted proof (Cor. 2.6: 'The proof is similar to the proof of Corollary 2.5 and we omit it') and the imported Airy/Evans lemmas (A.1 from [14], B.1/B.2 from [15]/[16], Lemma 6.1 from [45]) are external, published results by authors other than He/Niu/Zhao; they are verification gaps, not circular reductions, and none is a self-citation that smuggles the target theorem. Works co-authored by He or Zhao ([11,26,27,25]) appear only in the literature review or as motivation for SIOs, not as load-bearing premises. Hence the central claim is not equivalent, by construction, to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on standard PDE well-posedness, spectral boundary-layer estimates, and smallness/bootstrap constants. No free parameters are fitted to data and no new physical entities are postulated; the boundary corrector and SIOs are proof devices whose estimates are derived, not external inputs.

free parameters (4)
  • ε (smallness constant) = ∈(0,1/4), chosen small
    The theorem asserts existence; the proof fixes ε small enough to close the bootstrap (e.g., Proposition 2.9). Not fitted to data.
  • ν0(α) = α-dependent threshold in (0,1/4)
    Threshold below which all ν-power estimates are valid; chosen small in Proposition B.8 and Corollary B.11.
  • ε0 = δ/2 = δ/2 where δ is the spectral resolvent margin
    Defines the exponential weight e^{ε0ν^{1/3}t}; depends on the Airy lemma constant δ.
  • c_α, c_β, c0 (SIO energy weights) = small, independent of ν and k
    Chosen so that the SIO-modified energies are coercive in Sections 5 and 6.4.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Local well-posedness and continuation of 2D Navier–Stokes with Robin BC in H^6 up to the bootstrap time T*.
    Invoked implicitly throughout Sections 2 and 6; needed to justify the bootstrap closedness argument.
  • domain assumption The Evans function D(λ,k) for the linearized Robin problem is nonvanishing in k Im λ ≥ -δν^{1/3}|k|^{2/3}, with lower bound (B.35).
    Proved in Appendix B under Airy asymptotics, but relies on quoted Airy lemmas (A.1, B.1, B.2) from [14,16]; this is the key spectral premise for the boundary corrector estimates.
  • domain assumption The shear U(t,y)=y+eU(t,y) stays C^3-close to Couette and satisfies |∂_y U|≥1/2 via Lemma C.1.
    Used in the SIO commutator estimates (Lemma D.1) and in the frozen-time error bound (4.10); it is a consequence of the small H^6 initial data.
  • domain assumption The friction coefficient α=(1-κ)/κ is fixed and positive as ν→0 (ν≪α); the paper does not treat α=O(ν^b), b>0.
    This is the explicit regime of Theorem 1.1; Remark 1.2 defers the coupled case to a follow-up paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Couette Flow with Robin Boundary Condition (I): the viscosity-independent friction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WYTULFNK

@misc{pith2026260717468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Couette Flow with Robin Boundary Condition (I): the viscosity-independent friction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WYTULFNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17468}
}
abstract

This article is the first paper in the series. In this series of articles, we will examine the influence of the friction factor $\alpha$ at the solid--fluid boundary on the stability of Couette flow. Specifically, we consider the stability of Couette flow in a bounded periodic channel $\mathbb{T} \times [-1,1]$ under Robin-type boundary conditions ($u^2|_{y=\pm 1} = 0$, $[\alpha \partial_n u^1 + u^1]|_{y=\pm1} = f $), where $\alpha$ is the friction factor and $n$ is the unit outer normal vector. In this article, we prove that for a given friction factor $\alpha$, as long as the fluid viscosity coefficient $\nu\ll \alpha$ is sufficiently small, the system is asymptotically stable if the initial perturbation satisfies $\|\omega_{\rm in}\| \leq \epsilon \nu^{1/3}$. Moreover, inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation hold.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [45]

    Wei and Z

    D. Wei and Z. Zhang,Asymptotic stability threshold of the 2D Couette flow in a finite channel, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire43(2026), no. 3, 501–540. MR5050084

    2026

  2. [15]

    Q. Chen, D. Wei, and Z. Zhang,Linear inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation for monotone shear flows, Comm. Math. Phys.400(2023), no. 1, 215–276. MR4581474

    2023

  3. [16]

    Q. Chen, D. Wei, and Z. Zhang,Transition threshold for the 3D Couette flow in a finite channel, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.296(2024), no. 1478, v+178. MR4744797

    2024

  4. [14]

    Q. Chen, T. Li, D. Wei, and Z. Zhang,Transition threshold for the 2-D Couette flow in a finite channel, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal.238(2020), no. 1, 125–183. MR4121130

    2020

  5. [1]

    Alberti, G

    G. Alberti, G. Crippa, and A. L. Mazzucato,Exponential self-similar mixing and loss of regularity for conti- nuity equations, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris352(2014), no. 11, 901–906. MR3268760

    2014

  6. [2]

    K. Aoki, T. Inamuro, and Y. Onishi,Slightly rarefied gas flow over a body with small accommodation coeffi- cient, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan47(1979), no. 2, 663–671

    1979

  7. [3]

    Bardos, F

    C. Bardos, F. Golse, and L. Paillard,The incompressible euler limit of the boltzmann equation with accom- modation boundary condition, Communications in Mathematical Sciences10(2012), no. 1, 159–190

    2012

  8. [4]

    Bedrossian and N

    J. Bedrossian and N. Masmoudi,Inviscid damping and the asymptotic stability of planar shear flows in the 2D Euler equations, Publications math´ ematiques de l’IH´ES (2013), 1–106

    2013

Show all 46 references
  1. [5]

    Bedrossian, N

    J. Bedrossian, N. Masmoudi, and V. Vicol,Enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping in the inviscid limit of the Navier-Stokes equations near the 2D Couette flow, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal.216(2016), no. 3, 1087–1159

    2016

  2. [6]

    Bedrossian, P

    J. Bedrossian, P. Germain, and N. Masmoudi,On the stability threshold for the 3D Couette flow in Sobolev regularity, Annals of Mathematics185(2017), no. 2, 541–608

    2017

  3. [7]

    Bedrossian, P

    J. Bedrossian, P. Germain, and N. Masmoudi,Dynamics near the subcritical transition of the 3D Couette flow I: Below threshold case, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.266(2020), no. 1294, v+158

    2020

  4. [8]

    Bedrossian, P

    J. Bedrossian, P. Germain, and N. Masmoudi,Dynamics near the subcritical transition of the 3d couette flow ii: Above threshold case, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. (2022)

    2022

  5. [9]

    Bedrossian and S

    J. Bedrossian and S. He,Inviscid damping and enhanced dissipation of the boundary layer for 2d Navier-Stokes linearized around couette flow in a channel, arXiv:1909.07230

    1909 arXiv

  6. [10]

    Bedrossian, S

    J. Bedrossian, S. He, S. Iyer, and F. Wang,Uniform inviscid damping and inviscid limit of the 2d navier-stokes equation with navier boundary conditions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19249 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [11]

    Bedrossian, S

    J. Bedrossian, S. He, S. Iyer, and F. Wang,Stability threshold of nearly-couette shear flows with navier boundary conditions in 2d, Communications in Mathematical Physics406(2025), no. 2, 28

    2025

  8. [12]

    Bedrossian, V

    J. Bedrossian, V. Vicol, and F. Wang,The Sobolev Stability Threshold for 2D Shear Flows Near Couette, Journal of NonLinear Science28(Dec. 2018), no. 6, 2051–2075, available at1604.01831

    2018 arXiv

  9. [13]

    D. Bian, E. Grenier, N. Masmoudi, and W. Zhao,Boundary driven instabilities of couette flows, Communi- cations in Mathematical Physics406(2025), no. 9, 221

    2025

  10. [17]

    Q. Chen, Z. Li, and C. Miao,The optimal transition threshold for the 2d couette flow in the infinite channel, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.18365 (2025)

    2025

  11. [18]

    Q. Chen, Z. Li, and C. Miao,Quantitative stability for the 2d couette flow on the infinite channel with non-slip boundary condition, Journal of the London Mathematical Society113(2026), no. 1, e70440

    2026

  12. [19]

    Clopeau, A

    T. Clopeau, A. Mikeli´ c, and R. Robert,On the vanishing viscosity limit for the2Dincompressible Navier- Stokes equations with the friction type boundary conditions, Nonlinearity11(1998), no. 6, 1625–1636. MR1660366

    1998

  13. [20]

    M. C. L. Filho, H. J. N. Lopes, and G. Planas,On the inviscid limit for two-dimensional incompressible flow with navier friction condition, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis36(2005), no. 4, 1130–1141, available athttps://doi.org/10.1137/S0036141003432341

    2005 doi

  14. [21]

    Iftimie and G

    D. Iftimie and G. Planas,Inviscid limits for the navier–stokes equations with navier friction boundary con- ditions, Nonlinearity19(2006mar), no. 4, 899

  15. [22]

    J. P. Kelliher,Navier–Stokes equations with Navier boundary conditions for a bounded domain in the plane, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis38(2006), no. 1, 210–232, available athttps://doi.org/10.1137/ 040612336

    2006

  16. [23]

    Kelvin,Stability of fluid motion-rectilinear motion of viscous fluid between two parallel plates, Phil

    L. Kelvin,Stability of fluid motion-rectilinear motion of viscous fluid between two parallel plates, Phil. Mag. 24(1887), 188

  17. [24]

    H. Li, N. Liu, and W. Zhao,Stability threshold of the two-dimensional couette flow in the whole plane, Journal of Functional Analysis (2025), 111271

    2025

  18. [25]

    H. Li, N. Masmoudi, and W. Zhao,A dynamical approach to the study of instability near Couette flow, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.77(2024), no. 6, 2863–2946. MR4733669

    2024

  19. [26]

    H. Li, N. Masmoudi, and W. Zhao,Asymptotic stability of two-dimensional Couette flow in a viscous fluid, Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis249(2025), no. 5, 56. WHEN COUETTE MEETS ROBIN 61

    2025

  20. [27]

    Li and W

    H. Li and W. Zhao,Asymptotic stability in the critical space of 2d monotone shear flow in the viscous fluid, Communications in Mathematical Physics405(2024), no. 11, 267

    2024

  21. [28]

    J-L Lions,” quelques m´ ethodes de r´ esolution des probl` emes aux limites non-lin´ eaires,”Dunod (1969)

    1969

  22. [29]

    Lions,Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics: volume 2: compressible models, Vol

    P.-L. Lions,Mathematical topics in fluid mechanics: volume 2: compressible models, Vol. 2, oxford university press, 1996

    1996

  23. [30]

    Masmoudi and F

    N. Masmoudi and F. Rousset,Uniform regularity for the navier–stokes equation with navier boundary con- dition, Arch Rational Mech Anal203(2012), 529–575

    2012

  24. [31]

    Masmoudi and L

    N. Masmoudi and L. Saint-Raymond,From the boltzmann equation to the stokes-fourier system in a bounded domain, Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics: A Journal Issued by the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences56(2003), no. 9, 1263–1293

    2003

  25. [32]

    Masmoudi and W

    N. Masmoudi and W. Zhao,Enhanced dissipation for the 2D Couette flow in critical space, Comm. Partial Differential Equations45(2020), no. 12, 1682–1701. MR4176913

    2020

  26. [33]

    Masmoudi and W

    N. Masmoudi and W. Zhao,Stability threshold of two-dimensional Couette flow in Sobolev spaces, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire39(2022), no. 2, 245–325. MR4412070

    2022

  27. [34]

    Mouhot and C

    C. Mouhot and C. Villani,On Landau damping, Acta Math.207(2011), 29–201

    2011

  28. [35]

    Orr,The stability or instability of steady motions of a perfect liquid and of a viscous liquid, Part I: a perfect liquid, Proc

    W. Orr,The stability or instability of steady motions of a perfect liquid and of a viscous liquid, Part I: a perfect liquid, Proc. Royal Irish Acad. Sec. A: Math. Phys. Sci.27(1907), 9–68

    1907

  29. [36]

    Rayleigh,On the Stability, or Instability, of certain Fluid Motions, Proc

    L. Rayleigh,On the Stability, or Instability, of certain Fluid Motions, Proc. London Math. Soc.S1-11(1880), no. 1, 57. MR1575266

  30. [37]

    Romanov,Stability of plane-parallel couette flow, Funct

    V. Romanov,Stability of plane-parallel couette flow, Funct. anal. and appl.7(1973), no. 2, 137–146

    1973

  31. [38]

    A Sommerfeld,Ein beitrag zur hydrodynamischen erkl¨ arung der turbulenten fl¨ ussigkeitsbewegung, Atti del IV Congresso internazionale dei matematici (1908), 116–124

    1908

  32. [39]

    T. Tao, W. Wang, and Z. Zhang,Zero-viscosity limit of the navier–stokes equations with the navier friction boundary condition, SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis52(2020), no. 2, 1040–1095, available athttps: //doi.org/10.1137/19M1255331

    2020 doi

  33. [40]

    N Trefethen, A

    L. N Trefethen, A. E Trefethen, S. C Reddy, and T. A Driscoll,Hydrodynamic stability without eigenvalues, Science261(1993), no. 5121, 578–584

    1993

  34. [41]

    Wang and W

    G. Wang and W. Wang,Transition threshold for the 2-d couette flow in whole space via green ’s function, Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications550(2025), no. 1, 129585

    2025

  35. [42]

    Wasow,On small disturbances of plane Couette flow, J

    W. Wasow,On small disturbances of plane Couette flow, J. Research Nat. Bur. Standards51(1953), 195–202. MR59706

    1953

  36. [43]

    Wei and Z

    D. Wei and Z. Zhang,Transition threshold for the 3D Couette flow in Sobolev space, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.74(2021), no. 11, 2398–2479. MR4373161

    2021

  37. [44]

    Wei and Z

    D. Wei and Z. Zhang,Nonlinear enhanced dissipation and inviscid damping for the 2d couette flow, Tunisian Journal of Mathematics5(2023), no. 3, 573–592

    2023

  38. [46]

    Yao and A

    Y. Yao and A. Zlatos,Mixing and un-mixing by incompressible flows, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS)19(2017), no. 7, 1911–1948. (S. He)Department of Mathematics, University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA Email address:siming@mailbox.sc.edu (B. Niu)School of Mathematics and Statistic...

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.