Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Nearly parallel helical vortex filaments in the three dimensional Euler equations

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For any prescribed radius and pitch, the three-dimensional Euler equations admit smooth solutions whose vorticity concentrates along N helices rotating at the speed predicted by the Klein–Majda–Damodaran model.

desk verdict First rigorous Euler solutions at the KMD scale for the N-helix configurations; construction credible, but the speed-pinning step (6.31)-(6.32) is sketched too briefly for the main claim to be considered fully checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01470 v2 pith:YQ7AGGRJ submitted 2025-02-03 math.AP

Ignacio Guerra , Monica Musso This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3176B4735J61
keywords nearlyparallelvortexfilamentshelical3DEulerequationsKlein–Majda–Damodaranmodelgluingmethodellipticsingularperturbationfilamentconjecturecentralconfigurations
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 a well-known formal model for how nearly parallel vortex filaments interact is actually realized, in special symmetric configurations, by exact solutions of the three-dimensional incompressible Euler equations. The authors construct smooth Euler flows whose vorticity is concentrated, in a small-core limit, along N circular helices arranged as a rotating regular polygon, and they show the rotation speed of this configuration matches the speed predicted by the Klein–Majda–Damodaran filament model at leading order. A second theorem does the same for N helices surrounding a central straight filament. If correct, this turns the model's rotating central configurations from an asymptotic guess into a proven existence statement for the underlying PDE.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the screw-symmetry reduction: a helical Euler solution is encoded in a scalar planar stream function $\psi$ solving $\nabla\cdot(K\nabla\psi)+F(\psi-\frac{\alpha}{2}|\log\varepsilon||x|^2)=0$, where $K$ is the explicit $2\times 2$ matrix coming from the helical change of variables. Around each filament the operator $L=-\nabla\cdot(K\nabla)$ is a small perturbation of the Laplacian, and the approximate stream function is assembled from scaled copies of the Liouville-profile Green's function $\Gamma(y)=\log(8/(1+|y|^2)^2)$, centered at the polygon vertices $P_j$, with the parameter $\mu$ and the speed $\alpha$ chosen to cancel the $\log|\log\varepsilon|$ terms. The load-bearing identity is the projected inner equation: the obstruction $d_1$ computed against the kernel direction $Z_1=\partial_{y_1}\Gamma$ must vanish, and equations (6.31)-(6.32) pin $\alpha$ to the KMD value; the $y_2$-odd components cancel by dihedral symmetry, so only the radial direction matters. This projected-kernel mechanism is what converts a merely approximate solution into one with the model's exact leading-order rotation speed.

What would settle it

A direct computation of the projected integral $d_1=\gamma_1\int_{B_\rho}(H+B_\varepsilon\varphi+b_\varepsilon\varphi)Z_1$ for a small case such as $N=2$ or $N=3$, using the fixed-point $\varphi$ and $\phi$, would settle the speed-matching claim: if a contribution of order $\varepsilon\mu\sqrt{|\log\varepsilon|}$ survives beyond the leading term in (6.31), or if the $y_2$-odd sums in (3.28) fail to vanish at that order, then $\alpha_\varepsilon$ would acquire an undesired correction and the KMD matching in Theorem 1 would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Theorem 1 asserts that for any radius $r>0$ and pitch parameter $h\neq 0$ there is a rotation speed $\alpha_\varepsilon>0$ and a smooth Euler vorticity $\vec\omega_\varepsilon$ such that $\vec\omega_\varepsilon$ converges in distribution to $8\pi$ times the sum of Dirac masses along the tangent directions of the N helices $\gamma^\varepsilon_j(s,t)$ of radius $r/\sqrt{|\log\varepsilon|}$ and pitch $2\pi h$, with $\alpha_\varepsilon = 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2)+O(\log|\log\varepsilon|/|\log\varepsilon|)$. Theorem 2 gives the analogous $N+1$ configuration: N helices rotating around a straight central filament, with the adjusted speed $2(1/h^2 - (N+1)/r^2)$. The proof constructs the stream function as a superposition of regularized Green's functions for the helical-symmetry-reduced elliptic operator, then solves the resulting equation by an inner-outer gluing scheme; the predicted speed is selected by requiring the projected inner problem's obstruction $d_1$ to vanish. If the $\alpha_\varepsilon$ expansion holds, these are, to the authors' knowledge, the first rigorous Euler realizations of the KMD model's rotating polygon and centered configurations at the model's own scaling.

Load-bearing premise

The construction fixes the rotation speed to the model's value only if, in the projected inner equation, the dominant term is exactly the one displayed in (6.31) and every other contribution is genuinely smaller; if those cancellations or order estimates fail, a solution still exists but its rotation speed is not pinned to the Klein–Majda–Damodaran value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rotating regular-polygon and centered configurations of the Klein–Majda–Damodaran model are not merely formal: they are realized at leading order by genuine Euler solutions.
  • The stationary case $r^2=(N-1)h^2+O(\log|\log\varepsilon|/|\log\varepsilon|)$ yields stationary vorticity concentrations along N helices.
  • The deformation of each filament and the separation between filaments both scale as $1/\sqrt{|\log\varepsilon|}$, exactly the scaling regime assumed by the KMD model.
  • A general derivation of the KMD model from the Euler equations for arbitrary filament configurations remains open; the paper settles two symmetric configurations, not the full conjecture.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the same gluing strategy is likely to apply to other symmetric solutions of the KMD equation, such as nested regular polygons, whenever the projected inner problem has the same kind of symmetry cancellation.
  • Editorial: the explicit $O(\log|\log\varepsilon|/|\log\varepsilon|)$ correction to $\alpha_\varepsilon$ is a concrete prediction that numerical simulations of helical vortex lattices could, in principle, test at finite $\varepsilon$.
  • Editorial: the paper's construction gives no information about stability or about how generic initial data evolve; it proves existence of special solutions, leaving the dynamical vortex-filament conjecture untouched.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This article constructs exact smooth solutions of the 3D incompressible Euler equations whose vorticity is concentrated in thin tubular neighborhoods of N nearly parallel circular helices of radius r/sqrt(|log epsilon|) and pitch 2*pi*h, rotating rigidly with angular speed alpha_epsilon = 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2) + O(log|log epsilon|/|log epsilon|), exactly the speed predicted by the formal Klein-Majda-Damodaran (KMD) model for its N-helix central configuration. The proof reduces 3D Euler via helical symmetry to the 2D elliptic problem (1.8)-(1.11), assembles an approximate solution from epsilon-regularized Green functions of L = -div(K grad) (Sections 2-4), and produces an exact solution by an inner-outer gluing scheme (Sections 5-6). The speed is selected by the solvability condition d1[phi,phi,alpha] = 0, whose leading term is claimed in (6.31)-(6.32) to vanish exactly at the KMD value. Theorem 2 states an analogous result for N helices surrounding a central straight filament; its proof is omitted. The paper explicitly leaves the justification of the KMD model for general initial data open.

Significance. If fully demonstrated, the central claim is a significant step in the rigorous theory of vortex filaments: it constructs genuine Euler solutions realizing the KMD helical central configurations at the near-parallel scale 1/sqrt(|log epsilon|), going beyond the earlier fixed-distance helical constructions of [16,21]. Credit is due for the honest scope statement (the full KMD justification is explicitly left open), for the transparent use of the helical symmetry reduction, and for the fact that the KMD speed emerges from the solvability analysis as a computed quantity rather than an imposed one: the constant 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2) is traced back to the explicit interaction coefficients in (4.10)-(4.12) and (6.31), so the matching is not circular. The paper is nevertheless conditional in two respects: the pivotal verification (6.31)-(6.32) that pins alpha to the KMD value is currently asserted at the level of 'we claim' with one-line dismissals, and Theorem 2, advertised in the abstract as part of the rigorous justification, is not proved. Both points are, in my assessment, repairable within the scope of the manuscript.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6, Proof of Theorem 1, Eqs. (6.31)-(6.32)] The advertised KMD matching alpha_epsilon = 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2) + O(log|log epsilon|/|log epsilon|) rests entirely on the two assertions (6.31) and (6.32), and as written these are not proved. In the proof of (6.31) only the E_tilde = epsilon^2 mu^2 S(psi*) contribution is actually computed; the remaining contributions to I = integral_{B_rho} H Z_1 (the quadratic term epsilon^2 mu^2 N(sum eta_i Phi_i + phi) and the linearized coupling epsilon^2 mu^2 F'(psi* - alpha|log epsilon||x|^2/2) phi = (e^Gamma + b_epsilon) phi) are dismissed in one sentence. The displayed bound |epsilon^2 mu^2 F'(...) phi| <= C U(y)|phi| together with (6.9) (|phi| ~ epsilon^{1+sigma} in the inner region) yields only integral U|phi||Z_1| = O(epsilon^{1+sigma}), which is larger than the asserted remainder (epsilon mu)^{2-a}Y(alpha) for the allowed parameter ranges (a in (0,1/2) in (6.32), sigma < a); similarly, the quadratic term is controlled only at order (epsilon mu)^2|log epsilon|. These sizes are still o(epsilon mu sqrt(|log epsilon|)), so the conclusion of (6.31) is plausible, but the asserted order is not what the displayed estimates deliver. More consequential: the final 'by continuity' step requires the remainder in (6.31)-(6.32) to be uniform in alpha, and requires the root of d1[phi(alpha),phi(alpha),alpha] = 0 to be localizable with accuracy log|log epsilon|/|log epsilon|; the alpha-dependence of the fixed points phi_1(alpha) (from (6.19), Proposition 6.2) and phi(alpha) (from (6.7), Proposition 6.1) is never fed into the error budget, and the only Lipschitz-in-alpha estimate available, (6.11), is not used here. I checked the terms I initially suspected most - the boundary integral in (6.32) (order (epsilon mu sqrt(|log epsilon|))^m with m > 2) and the B_epsilon-hat[phi_1] contribution (order (epsilon mu)^2|log epsilon|) - and those do come out at the required higher orders provided (6.22) and (6.33) hold; the gap is in the statements above. Request: rewrite the proofs of (6.31)-(6.32) with explicit integrals for every term of H, explicit uniform-in-alpha remainder bounds, and a rigorous implicit-function/sign-change argument for the resulting equation in alpha; alternatively, soften the theorem to assert only existence of a rotation speed in a bounded range.
  2. [Section 1, Theorem 2, and abstract] Theorem 2 - one of the two configurations in the abstract's claim 'we rigorously justify this model for two configurations' - is stated and never proved; the text says the proof 'is a relatively straightforward adaptation of the proof of Theorem 1' and is omitted. This is not merely a presentation issue: the N+1 configuration requires structurally new ingredients. The central filament at x' = 0 sits at the center of the shrinking polygon, so the interaction sums in (3.21) and (3.22), the choice of mu, and the coefficient A(alpha) in (4.10) must be recomputed with the additional center contribution; that contribution is exactly what changes the rotation speed from -2(N-1)/r^2 to -2(N+1)/r^2. In addition, the dihedral-symmetry analysis of Section 3 and Appendix A must now handle a rotationally invariant contribution at the origin, and the regularity of the approximate stream function near the new singular point at 0 needs independent checking. A referee cannot verify the 'straightforward adaptation' from the manuscript. Please either (i) provide the full proof, (ii) provide a detailed outline identifying every lemma whose statement changes and how, or (iii) state the N+1 configuration only as a remark with the caveat that the proof is omitted, and align the abstract and introduction accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 1, statement of Theorem 1] The statement 'There exist alpha_epsilon > 0' is incompatible with the displayed asymptotics for parameters with 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2) < 0 (e.g., N = 3, r = 1, h = 10), and the claimed stationary case r^2 = (N-1)h^2 + o(1) forces alpha_epsilon -> 0, contradicting strict positivity. Either add the hypothesis 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2) > 0, or allow real-valued alpha_epsilon and state the stationary case in a limiting sense.
  2. [Section 6, proof of (6.31); Section 4, Proposition 4.1] The displayed integral 'integral_{B_rho} E_tilde(y) y_1 Z_1 dy' in the proof of (6.31) is not the quantity defined in I = integral_{B_rho} H Z_1; presumably the factor y_1 refers to the leading term of E_tilde, but the display is misleading and should be corrected. Also, the first-order term in the statement of (4.9) is printed as c_1 Gamma(y) + A(alpha), whereas the derivation in the proof of Proposition 4.1 obtains c_1 Gamma(y) + R_epsilon(3h^2+R_epsilon^2)/(2h(h^2+R_epsilon^2)^{3/2}) + A_1(alpha); the definitions of A(alpha) in (4.10) and A_1(alpha) in (4.11)-(4.12) should be aligned.
  3. [Section 4 (Proposition 4.1), Section 6 (Eq. (6.32) and Proposition 6.2)] The letter a is used for different objects with incompatible ranges: a in (3/4,1) in Proposition 4.1 and (4.8), a in (0,1/2) in (6.32), and the same letter enters the condition 2 < m < 2 + a in Proposition 6.2. Use distinct letters, since the order assertions in (6.32) and the condition on m depend on which 'a' is meant.
  4. [Section 6, proof of (6.32)] The estimate '|integral_{B_rho} B_epsilon[phi] Z_1 dy| <= C epsilon mu sqrt(|log epsilon|) [||phi_1||_* + |d_0|]' overshoots the natural bound by a factor |log epsilon|: with R_epsilon = r/sqrt(|log epsilon|), the coefficients displayed in (6.33) are of order epsilon mu / sqrt(|log epsilon|), which after using (6.22) gives order (epsilon mu)^2. The overestimate is harmless for the conclusion, but the displayed bound should be corrected.
  5. [Section 1, paragraph after Theorem 1] The sentence 'Our result encompasses stationary solutions ...' should specify in which sense the stationary case is obtained, given that Theorem 1 requires alpha_epsilon > 0 while the stationary condition r^2 = (N-1)h^2 + o(1) forces alpha_epsilon -> 0.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the rotation speed α_ε is fixed by the d1=0 reduction, and the KMD value emerges from the expansion rather than being inserted.

full rationale

The claimed prediction, the KMD rotation speed α = 2(1/h^2 − (N−1)/r^2), is not an input to the construction. The ansatz (3.4)–(3.18) builds approximate stream functions for arbitrary α in a bounded range, with μ fixed by (3.21); the expansion (4.9)–(4.12) then produces the combination r/h^2 − (N−1)/r − αr/2 as a coefficient of the error, and α is determined at the end by imposing the orthogonality condition d1[φ,ϕ,α] = 0 in (6.1), (5.17), and (6.31)–(6.32). This is a standard Lyapunov–Schmidt reduction: the target value emerges from the balance of self-induction and interaction terms rather than being inserted by construction. The self-citations to [21] and [16] (Lemma 6.1, Propositions 2.1/2.2, Lemma B.1) supply independent, parameter-free linear-theory estimates whose stated assumptions do not include the conclusions of Theorem 1 or 2; they are technical tools, not the target result. The proof of (6.31)–(6.32) is sketched rather than fully expanded, so the skeptical concern that a hidden term of order εμ√|logε| could survive is a legitimate correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: failure of those estimates would invalidate the pinning of α without making the theorem an identity. No equation reduces to another by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

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

The central claim rests on the helical reduction, the Liouville profile, the solvability of L imported from [21], and the symmetry cancellations. The construction parameters are alpha (selected by the solvability condition and benchmarked against the external KMD law), mu (fixed by the implicit balance (3.21)), and the small cutoff radii delta and delta1. No invented physical entities are introduced, and no data are fitted.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha_epsilon (vortex rotation speed) = 2(1/h^2 - (N-1)/r^2) + O(log|log epsilon|/|log epsilon|)
    Modulation parameter selected by the projected solvability condition d1 = 0 in the proof of Theorem 1. Its leading order is pinned by the external KMD model prediction, not fitted to data; the lower-order O(log|log epsilon|/|log epsilon|) term is construction-dependent.
  • mu (inner scaling parameter) = implicit equation (3.21): 2 log mu = sum_{j not i} Psi_{epsilon mu}(M_j^{-1}(Pi - Pj)) + H2_epsilon(Pi)…
    Chosen by hand to cancel the log|log epsilon| terms in the inner expansion (Proposition 3.3). Standard gauge freedom of the gluing construction.
  • delta, delta1 (cutoff radii) = small, fixed, independent of epsilon (delta < min{r0/4, 1/2})
    Hand-chosen small parameters in (4.1) and (5.4). Harmless in principle, but all estimate constants depend on them.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Helical symmetry reduction: vector fields of the form (1.8) solve the 3D Euler equations iff the scalar function w satisfies the transport system with the anisotropic matrix K of (1.9).
    The entire construction lives in this zero-swirl helical class; validity is cited to [16,17,18] and not re-proven here.
  • standard math The linearized Liouville operator (Delta + e^Gamma) in R^2 has exactly the three-dimensional kernel spanned by Z0, Z1, Z2 (Baraket-Pacard [3]), and the solvability theory of Lemma B.1 (Lemma 6.1 of [16]) holds.
    Used in Appendix B and Section 6 to invert the inner problem with the projection conditions (6.17)-(6.21).
  • domain assumption The anisotropic operator L = -div(K grad) admits the a-priori bound and solution operator T_o of Lemma 6.1, quoted from Proposition 6.1 of the authors' earlier paper [21].
    This solves the outer problem (6.7) on all of R^2; the proof is not reproduced in this manuscript.
  • standard math All solutions of the Liouville equation Delta u + e^u = 0 with finite mass 8*pi are the radially symmetric family (2.6), up to the scale epsilon*mu.
    Gives the inner vortex profile; standard classification result, used in (2.5)-(2.7).
  • domain assumption The dihedral and z2-reflection symmetries of the ansatz are preserved by the gluing scheme, so the y2-odd components of the projected error vanish, as in (3.28), (5.14), and (6.18).
    If these cancellations were incomplete, the projected problem would couple the Z2-direction and the speed-selection argument would change.
  • ad hoc to paper The nonlinearity F in (1.11) is arbitrary C^1; the paper chooses F(s) = epsilon^2 eta(s) e^s as in (4.3).
    A legitimate freedom of the ansatz, but the explicit exponential profile is chosen to make the gluing work and fixes the vortex strength 8*pi.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nearly parallel helical vortex filaments in the three dimensional Euler equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQ7AGGRJ

@misc{pith2026250201470,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nearly parallel helical vortex filaments in the three dimensional Euler equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQ7AGGRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01470}
}
abstract

Klein, Majda, and Damodaran have previously developed a formalized asymptotic motion law describing the evolution of nearly parallel vortex filaments within the framework of the three-dimensional Euler equations for incompressible fluids. In this study, we rigorously justify this model for two configurations: the central configuration consisting of regular polygons of $N$ helical-filaments rotating with constant speed, and the central configurations of $N+1$ vortex filaments, where an $N$-polygonal central configuration surrounds a central straight filament.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. Del Pino, M. Medina, and R. Rodiac, Intera cting helical traveling waves for the Gross–Pitaevskii equation. Annales de l’Institute H. Poincare, 39 (2022), no. 6, 1319—1367

    work page 2022

  2. [5]

    Benedetto, E

    D. Benedetto, E. Caglioti, and C. Marchioro, On the motio n of a vortex ring with a sharply concentrated vorticity. Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 23 (2000), no. 2, 147–168

    work page 2000

  3. [21]

    L. E. Fraenkel, On steady vortex rings of small cross-se ction in an ideal fluid. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 316 (1970), no. 1524, 29–62

    work page 1970

  4. [1]

    Banica, and E

    V. Banica, and E. Miot, Global existence and collisions f or symmetric configurations of nearly parallel vortex filaments. Ann. Inst. H. Poinca´ re C Anal. Non Lin´ eaire29 (2012), no. 5, 813—832

    work page 2012

  5. [2]

    Banica, E

    V. Banica, E. Faou and E. Miot, Collision of almost parall el vortex filaments. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 70 (2017), no. 2, 378—405

    work page 2017

  6. [3]

    Baraket, and F

    S. Baraket, and F. Pacard Construction of singular limit s for a semilinear elliptic equation in dimension

    work page

  7. [4]

    Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations, 6 (1) (1998), 1–38

    work page 1998

  8. [6]

    Donati, C

    M. Donati, C. Lacave, and E. Miot, Dynamics of helical vor tex filaments in non viscous incompressible flows. Arxiv (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [7]

    A. C. Bronzi, M. C. Lopes Filho and H. J. Nussenzveig Lopes , Global Existence of a Weak Solution of the Incompressible Euler Equations with Helical Symmetry and Lp Vorticity.Indiana University Mathematics Journal Vol. 64, no. 1 (2015), 309–341

    2015

  2. [8]

    Cao, and J

    D. Cao, and J. Wan, Helical vortices with small cross-sec tion for 3D incompressible Euler equation. J. Funct. Anal. 284 (2023), no. 7, Paper No. 109836, 48 pp

    2023

  3. [9]

    Cao, and S

    D. Cao, and S. Lai, Helical symmetry vortices for 3D incom pressible Euler equations. J. Differential Equations 360 (2023), 67–89. 42 I. GUERRA AND M. MUSSO

    2023

  4. [10]

    Chiron, Vortex helices for the Gross-Pitaevskii equa tion

    D. Chiron, Vortex helices for the Gross-Pitaevskii equa tion. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 84 (2005), no. 11, 1555–1647

    2005

  5. [11]

    Contreras and R

    A. Contreras and R. L. Jerrard, Nearly parallel vortex fi laments in the 3D Ginzburg-Landau equations. Geom. Funct. Anal. 27 (2017), no. 5, 1161–1230

    2017

  6. [12]

    Craig, C

    W. Craig, C. Garc ´ ıa-Azpeitia, and C. Yang, Standing wa ves in near-parallel vortex filaments. Comm. Math. Phys. 350 (2017), no. 1, 175—203

    2017

  7. [13]

    Craig, and C

    W. Craig, and C. Garc ´ ıa-Azpeitia, Standing waves of fix ed period for n+1 vortex filaments. J. Dynam. Differential Equations 32, (2020), no. 4, 1631—1640

    2020

  8. [14]

    L. S. Da Rios, Sul moto d’un liquido indefinito con un filet to vorticoso di forma qualunque. Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo (1884-1940) 22 (1906), no. 1, 117–135

    1906

  9. [15]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. Del Pino, M. Medina, and R. Rodiac, Intera cting helical vortex filaments in the 3- dimensional Ginzburg-Landau equation. J. Eur. Math. Soc. 24 (2022), no. 12, 4143–4199

    2022

  10. [17]

    D´ avila, M

    J. D´ avila, M. Del Pino, M. Musso, and J. Wei, Travelling helices and the vortex filament conjecture in the incompressible Euler equations. Calc. Var. 61 (2022), no. 119

    2022

  11. [18]

    Dutrifoy, Existence globale en temps de solutions h´ elico ¨ ıdales des ´ equations d’Euler.C

    A. Dutrifoy, Existence globale en temps de solutions h´ elico ¨ ıdales des ´ equations d’Euler.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math. 329 (1999), no. 7, 653–656

    1999

  12. [19]

    Ettinger and E

    B. Ettinger and E. S. Titi, Global existence and uniquen ess of weak solutions of three-dimensional Euler equations with helical symmetry in the absence of vorticity stretching. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 41 (2009), no. 1, 269–296

    2009

  13. [20]

    L. E. Fraenkel, and M. S. Berger, A global theory of stead y vortex rings in an ideal fluid. Acta Math. 132 (1974), 13–51

    1974

  14. [22]

    Guerra, and M

    I. Guerra, and M. Musso, Cluster of vortex helices in the incompressible three-dimensional Euler equa- tions. Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´ e C. Anal. Non Lin´ eaire (2024), DOI 10 .4171/AIHPC/119

    2024

  15. [23]

    Guo, and L

    D. Guo, and L. Zhao Global well-posedness of weak soluti ons to the incompressible Euler equations with helical symmetry in R3. ArXiv:2301.01399

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Guo, and L

    D. Guo, and L. Zhao Long time dynamics for helical vortex filament in Euler flows. Arxiv 2403.09071v1

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    R. L. Jerrard and C. Seis, On the vortex filament conjectu re for Euler flows. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 224 (2017), no. 1, 135–172

    2017

  18. [26]

    R. L. Jerrard and D. Smets, Dynamics of nearly parallel v ortex filaments for the gross-pitaevskii equation. 2020, Arxiv: 2006.03827

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    R. L. Jerrard and D. Smets, On the motion of a curve by its b inormal curvature. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 17 (2015), no. 6, 1487–1515

    2015

  20. [28]

    Q. Jiu, J. Li and D. Niu, Global existence of weak solutio ns to the three-dimensional Euler equations with helical symmetry. J. of Differential Equations 262 (2017) 5179–5205

    2017

  21. [29]

    Kenig, G

    C. Kenig, G. Ponce, and L. Vega, On the interaction of nea rly parallel vortex filaments. Comm. Math. Phys. 243 (2003), no. 3, 471—483

    2003

  22. [30]

    Klein, A

    R. Klein, A. J. Majda, and K. Damodaran, Simplified equat ions for the interaction of nearly parallel vortex filaments. J. Fluid Mech. 288 (1995), 201–248

    1995

  23. [31]

    Levi-Civita, Sull’attrazione esercitata da una lin ea materiale in punti prossimi alla linea stessa

    T. Levi-Civita, Sull’attrazione esercitata da una lin ea materiale in punti prossimi alla linea stessa. Rend. R. Acc. Lincei 17 (1908), 3–15

    1908

  24. [32]

    Lions, and A

    P.-L. Lions, and A. Majda, Equilibrium statistical the ory for nearly parallel vortex filaments. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 53 (2000), no. 1, 76—142

    2000

  25. [33]

    Majda, A

    A. Majda, A. Bertozzi, Vorticity and incompressible flow. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics, 27. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. xii+545 pp

    2002

  26. [34]

    Norbury, A steady vortex ring close to Hill’s spheric al vortex

    J. Norbury, A steady vortex ring close to Hill’s spheric al vortex. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 72 (1972), 253–284

    1972

  27. [35]

    R. L. Ricca, Rediscovery of da rios equations. Nature 352 (1991), no. 6336, 561–562

    1991

  28. [36]

    Velasco Fuentes, Motion of a helical vortex

    O. Velasco Fuentes, Motion of a helical vortex. J. Fluid Mech. 836 (2018), R1, 11

    2018

  29. [37]

    Wei and J

    J. Wei and J. Yang, Traveling vortex helices for Schr¨ od inger map equations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), no. 4, 2589–2622. NEARLY PARALLEL HELICAL FILAMENTS FOR 3D EULER 43 I.G.: Universidad de Santiago de Chile (USACH), F acultad de Ciencia, Departamento de Matem´at...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.