Self-similar vorticity around the boundary and non-uniqueness of solutions to the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in the half space

Motofumi Aoki; Yasunori Maekawa

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Self-similar vorticity around the boundary and non-uniqueness of solutions to the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in the half space

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A forced half-space flow has two solutions from one zero initial state

desk verdict A serious, carefully built extension of the ABC non-uniqueness program to the half-space with the singular vortex pinned at the boundary; the load-bearing boundary-layer estimate looks right after checking the pressure term, but the nonlinear half is still deferred. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02338 v1 pith:YNVBMOWO submitted 2025-07-03 math.AP

Motofumi Aoki , Yasunori Maekawa This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 35A0235B3035Q3035Q3576D05

keywords non-uniquenessNavier-Stokesequationshalf-spacemildsolutionsself-similarvorticityno-slipboundaryconditionlayerlinearinstability

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

The paper proves that the two-dimensional forced Navier-Stokes equations in a half-space with the no-slip boundary condition (the fluid velocity is zero at the wall) and zero initial data can have more than one mild solution, a velocity that satisfies the integrated form of the equations and tends weakly to zero at the initial time. The force is chosen as a large multiple $\alpha$ of the linearized Euler flow, large enough to sit above the scale-critical uniqueness threshold. One solution is the explicit self-similar flow $\alpha u_E$; the other is built from an unstable eigenmode of the linearized operator around $\alpha u_E$, a mode that grows in self-similar time while the whole velocity still tends weakly to zero at $t=0$. The new difficulty is that the self-similar vorticity shrinks toward the boundary as $t\to 0$, so restoring the no-slip condition requires a boundary-layer correction, and the central technical step is to show that this correction is small when $\alpha$ is large. If the proof is right, non-uniqueness survives in the flat half-space with the boundary at the center of the singularity, rather than only for vortex locations kept at finite distance from the wall.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the resolvent problem for the linearized operator $L_\alpha$ in self-similar variables, together with a boundary-layer corrector that reconciles the slip-type linearized Euler flow with the no-slip condition. The perfect-slip part is $v_{\mathrm{slip}}=K[(\lambda I-M_\alpha)^{-1}g]$, built from the linearized vorticity operator $M_\alpha$ with $\omega|_{\xi_2=0}=0$. The no-slip part is $v_{\mathrm{bc}}$ obtained from the explicit boundary-layer ansatz (62), and its size is controlled by the key estimate (58), $\|v_{\mathrm{bc}}[g;\lambda,\alpha]\|_{L^2}\le C\alpha^{-1/4}\|g\|_{L^2}$. Because this corrector vanishes as $\alpha\to\infty$, the resolvent $(\lambda I-L_\alpha)^{-1}K[g]$ converges to the Euler resolvent $K[(\lambda I-\Lambda_E)^{-1}g]$; a spectral-projection contradiction then forces the viscous operator to inherit the unstable eigenvalue.

What would settle it

A numerical check would settle the spectral transfer: for a concrete truncated unstable profile $U_E$, compare the exact resolvent solution $(\lambda I-L_\alpha)^{-1}K[g]$ with the slip solution plus the boundary-layer formula (62), and compute the eigenvalues of a discretized $L_\alpha$ for growing $\alpha$; if $\|v_{\mathrm{bc}}\|$ does not decay like $\alpha^{-1/4}$ or no eigenvalue converges to a positive-real-part point, the mechanism fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.2: take a compactly supported stationary Euler flow $U_E$ in the half-space whose linearized vorticity operator $\Lambda_E$ has an isolated eigenvalue $\lambda_E$ with $\Re(\lambda_E)>0$, set $u_E(t,x)=t^{-1/2}U_E(x/t^{1/2})$, and force the system with $F_\alpha=\alpha(\partial_t u_E-\Delta u_E)$. Then there is $\alpha_E\ge 1$ such that every $\alpha\ge\alpha_E$ yields at least two distinct mild solutions. The explicit one is $\alpha u_E$ itself. The second is produced in self-similar variables as a perturbation along the unstable mode $e^{\alpha\lambda_\alpha\tau}V_{\mathrm{unst}}$, with a remainder $w$ found by a contraction map on a weighted space. The proof rests on Theorem 1.3, which transfers the Euler instability to the viscous problem: the linearized no-slip operator $L_\alpha$ has an isolated eigenvalue $\lambda_\alpha$ arbitrarily close to $\lambda_E$ once $\alpha$ is large.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the boundary-layer correction restores the no-slip condition with an $L^2$ norm no larger than a constant times $\alpha^{-1/4}$, and the derivation of this rate uses the profile's support staying a positive distance away from the wall; if the wall correction decays more slowly, the Euler instability may not transfer to the viscous operator.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every $\alpha\ge\alpha_E$, the half-space problem with $F=F_\alpha$ and zero initial data has at least two distinct mild solutions, so the small-data uniqueness theorem is false for large forces in this geometry.
The second solution is not an artifact of the boundary condition: it is driven by an unstable mode of the linearized operator around $\alpha u_E$, and it differs from $\alpha u_E$ at every later time while sharing the same weak zero limit at $t=0$.
The transfer of instability works even though the vortex's distance to the wall is $O(\sqrt{t})$ at time $t$, because the boundary-layer part of the resolvent decays as $\alpha^{-1/4}$.
Theorem 1.1 provides concrete profiles satisfying Assumption 1.1, so the main theorem is realized by an explicit family of unstable flows rather than a conditional statement.
For small $\alpha$, the scale-critical norms are small and the solution is unique, so the threshold $\alpha_E$ is a genuine point where uniqueness is lost as the force amplitude grows.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same resolvent-plus-boundary-layer strategy suggests the non-uniqueness should be stable under small perturbations of the flat boundary, at least as long as the profile's scaled distance to the wall vanishes in a controlled way.
A natural testable extension is to probe whether the $\alpha^{-1/4}$ rate is sharp; improving the boundary-layer ansatz might transfer instability under weaker separation between vortex and wall, while a slower rate would mark the limit of this construction.
The paper leaves open whether a similar mechanism can produce non-uniqueness without an external force, since the force here is what plants the unstable self-similar profile; showing the same boundary-layer instability can be triggered internally would be a genuinely different result.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is solid and worth engaging with. What is actually new is the half-space geometry with no-slip boundary and a self-similar flow whose support collapses onto the wall at t=0. That forces a genuine boundary-layer analysis, which is the technical core here: the explicit corrector (62), the alpha^{-1/4} decay estimate in Proposition 4.1, and the resolvent-convergence contradiction in Theorem 1.3. This is a real step beyond the earlier ABC constructions, where the unstable vortex stayed away from the boundary and the wall was a spectator.

The paper is also honest about what it borrows. The force is chosen exactly to make the self-similar flow an explicit solution, and the instability input comes from Vishik/ABC; the authors say so. The construction of the unstable Euler profile in Section 6 is detailed and self-contained enough to check, including the odd reflection and the convergence of the remainder operator U_R.

I looked specifically at the stress-test worry about the Helmholtz projection in inequality (66). That concern does not land. For the ansatz (62), J is divergence-free, J_2 vanishes at the wall, and a direct computation gives ∂_2^2 J_2 = -α^{1/2} F''(Ξ)∂_1 h with F''(0)=0; so ΔJ_2 also vanishes at the wall. Since ΔJ is divergence-free and has zero normal trace, P_σ ΔJ = ΔJ with no harmonic pressure correction. The estimate (66) then follows from the pointwise boundary-layer bounds in (64). The alpha^{-1/4} rate is doing real work, but the pressure term is not hiding an extra alpha.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. Theorem 1.2 is not proved in the paper: the nonlinear construction is dismissed as "almost parallel" to ABC Section 4. That is probably true, but given the audience and the importance of the claim, the authors should either write out the fixed-point argument in the self-similar variables or relegate a complete version to an appendix. There are also scattered typos and a few estimates in Appendix B that are sketched rather than fully expanded. Minor stuff.

I would send this to a serious referee. The main theorem is significant if true, the linear analysis is checkable, and the one place I was suspicious turned out to be fine. The referee should focus on the deferred nonlinear argument and on the uniformity in lambda in Proposition 4.1, not on the boundary-layer pressure term.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves non-uniqueness of mild solutions to the forced two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in the half space with no-slip boundary condition, following the Albritton–Brué–Colombo program. The force is chosen as F_alpha = alpha (∂_t u_E - Δ u_E), where u_E is the self-similar scaling of a compactly supported, linearly unstable stationary Euler flow U_E located away from the boundary. One solution is the explicit self-similar flow alpha u_E; the other is constructed from an unstable eigenmode of the linearized operator L_alpha around alpha U_E. The key analytical step is Theorem 1.3, which shows that L_alpha inherits an unstable eigenvalue from the Euler linearization as alpha → ∞. This is obtained by a resolvent comparison: the no-slip linearized Navier-Stokes resolvent is shown to converge to the linearized Euler resolvent, with the discrepancy corrected by a boundary layer whose L2 norm is O(alpha^{-1/4}). A concrete example of an unstable U_E is constructed in Section 6 by reflecting a Vishik-type unstable vortex across the boundary. The paper is clearly written, follows a well-established strategy, and makes a serious attempt to handle the genuinely new difficulty caused by the boundary.

Significance. If the proof is completed, the result would be a meaningful extension of the non-uniqueness program to a setting where the self-similar profile concentrates at the boundary at the initial time, forcing genuine boundary-layer effects. The paper contains several strong elements: an explicit boundary-layer ansatz, resolvent estimates with uniform-in-alpha constants, and a clean Riesz-projection contradiction argument. The borrowing of the unstable Euler flow from Vishik and ABC is honest and clearly attributed. The main unresolved issue is a missing verification in the boundary-layer estimate; it appears fixable and does not undermine the overall strategy. The result is significant for the theory of non-uniqueness of the forced Navier-Stokes equations in domains with boundary.

major comments (3)

[§4, Prop. 4.1, Eq. (66)] The estimate (66) is the only justification for the boundary-layer bound (58), but it is not derived in the text: applying Lemma 2.2 to f = -λ J[h] + α^{-1}(P_σ Δ + ξ/2·∇ + 1/2)J[h] requires an estimate for P_σ Δ J[h], and the displayed use of (64) controls only Δ J[h] and its derivatives. Since J[h] is divergence-free, P_σ Δ J[h] = Δ J[h] - ∇p, where p is the harmonic function with ∂_2 p = (Δ J[h])_2|_{ξ_2=0}. For the ansatz (62) this boundary datum is of size 2 α^{1/2} ∂_1 h, so a direct computation gives ∥∇p∥_{L^2} ≲ α^{1/2} ∥h∥_Z. Thus α^{-1}∥P_σ Δ J[h]∥_{L^2} is indeed O(α^{-1/4}), but this verification is absent and does not follow from (64) as written. Because (58) is the load-bearing input for the convergence in (75) and the contradiction in Theorem 1.3, the proof must supply this pressure estimate explicitly.
[§4, proof of Theorem 1.3, Eq. (74)] The sentence 'Since possible spectrum of L_{α_n} in B_{ε_0}(λ_E) consists only of isolated eigenvalues' is asserted before any spectral analysis of L_α is available in the paper. The essential-spectrum and compactness argument that would justify it appears only later, in Proposition 4.2, where e^{τ α L_α} is shown to be a compact perturbation of e^{τ H}. The proof of Theorem 1.3 should be reordered so that this discreteness statement is established before the Riesz-projection argument, or a short lemma should be added before Eq. (74).
[§6, Props. 6.2 and 6.3] The construction of the unstable Euler profile in the half space is not quite complete. Proposition 6.2 asserts without proof that λ_∞ remains isolated in L^2(B_{R_0}(0)), and Proposition 6.3 only proves that the spectral projection P_R^r is nonzero. A nonzero spectral projection implies that there is spectrum inside the contour, but not that it is an isolated eigenvalue; Assumption 1.1 requires an isolated eigenvalue of Λ_E. The authors should either show directly that the spectral subspace is finite-dimensional (for example by a Fredholm or meromorphic resolvent argument using the smallness of U_R) or construct the eigenfunction by a perturbation argument around the known eigenfunction of Λ̃.

minor comments (4)

[§4, Eqs. (62)-(63)] The boundary-layer ansatz is printed inconsistently: the first line uses e^{-Ξ_2} while the integral uses e^{-η^2}. As printed, the identity ∫_0^∞ (1-η^2)e^{-η^2} dη = 0 is false, and the stated divergence-free property of J[h] does not follow. Please state the profile consistently; the standard choice (1-η)e^{-η} works.
[Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'Lerey-Hopf' in the Introduction, 'unqiue' in Section 5, 'intorudce' in Proposition 4.1, 'formua' in the proof of Theorem 3.1, and 'complepte' in Appendix A.
[§5] The force F_α(t) behaves like α t^{-1} in L^2 near t=0, so it is not integrable up to t=0; the mild formulation in Definition 1.1 only uses the equation for 0 < s < t, so this is consistent, but the paper should state explicitly that the forcing is considered on (0,∞) and need not be integrable at t=0.
[§4, Prop. 4.2] The proof of Proposition 4.2 uses boundedness of the Helmholtz projection on the weighted space L^2(⟨ξ⟩^{1/4}), citing [9, Theorem 2.4]; please verify that the cited theorem covers the half-space with this weight and the full Stokes semigroup setting, since the domain is unbounded.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No material circularity: the claimed non-uniqueness is derived from an external instability input, an explicit boundary-layer construction, and resolvent convergence, not from a fitted parameter or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not equivalent to its inputs. The force F_alpha = alpha(∂t u_E − Δ u_E) is deliberately chosen so that alpha u_E is an explicit solution, but that choice is stated honestly and the content of Theorem 1.2 is the existence of a second mild solution built from the unstable mode of L_alpha (Section 5), not from the same construction. Theorem 1.3, which supplies the unstable mode, is proved by showing resolvent convergence of the linearized no-slip operator to the linearized Euler operator; the boundary-layer corrector v_bc in Proposition 4.1 is constructed explicitly from the ansatz (62) and estimated in (64)–(73), with the O(alpha^{-1/4}) bound (58) following from those estimates rather than being imposed as a fitted outcome. The instability of the underlying profile is imported from external sources: Assumption 1.1 is an input, and the example in Theorem 1.1 is traced to Albritton–Brué–Colombo [1, Proposition 2.2] and Vishik's unstable vortices, not to the conclusions of this paper. The nonlinear construction is a self-contained fixed-point argument using semigroup bounds (Proposition 4.2). The self-citations to [7] and [12] are methodological or motivational references in the introduction and are not invoked as premises in the proofs. The possible concern that the proof of (58) does not fully spell out the scaling of the Helmholtz-projection term in (66) is a rigor or correctness question, not circularity, since the estimate is derived rather than fitted; a proof gap would not convert an input into an output. Overall, no step in the derivation chain reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to the target result.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central construction rests on two external instability results (Vishik; ABC truncation) used as black boxes, plus standard semigroup and Stokes-operator theory. The new analytical ingredients, the odd-reflection profile and the boundary-layer corrector, are explicit and supported by estimates. No data fitting or hidden fitted constants appear; the free parameters alpha and R are existence thresholds in the theorem statements.

free parameters (2)

alpha (force amplitude) = not specified; requires alpha >= alpha_E >= 1
The external force is F = alpha * (∂t u_E - Δ u_E); the theorem requires alpha large enough for the unstable eigenvalue to dominate the dissipative term in the linearized operator L_alpha. This is a parameter of the problem, not a constant fitted to data.
R (translation distance of the vortex from the wall) = not specified; requires R >= R' from Proposition 6.3
The unstable profile U_E is obtained by translating Vishik's vortex to height R and then reflecting; R must be large enough so that the remainder operator U_R has norm bounded by C/(R-R0) < 1, which guarantees the reflected operator keeps the unstable eigenvalue. It is a proof parameter, not fitted.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Vishik's linear instability theorem for radially symmetric 2D Euler vortices (Vishik 2018, parts I and II)
Section 6 builds the half-space unstable flow from the unstable radial flow of [17,18]; the instability is used as a black box and is not reproved.
domain assumption Albritton-Brué-Colombo truncation result that compactly supported truncations of unstable vortices remain unstable (Proposition 6.1, [1])
Used in Section 6 to obtain the compactly supported profile with an isolated unstable eigenvalue; the proof is not reproduced.
standard math Standard semigroup spectral theory: isolated unstable spectrum for compact perturbations of dissipative generators, and equality of spectral bound and growth bound (Engel-Nagel [5, Corollary 2.11, Proposition 2.12])
Invoked in Remark 1.1, Theorem 3.1, and Proposition 4.2 to justify that the unstable eigenvalues are isolated and that the growth rate of the semigroup is controlled by the maximal eigenvalue.
standard math Lp-Lq estimates and weighted estimates for the Stokes semigroup in the half space (Ukai [16], Solonnikov [15], Kobayashi-Kubo [9])
Used in Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 4.2 for the semigroup bounds (26)-(27); these are cited as established results.

invented entities (1)

U_E: compactly supported, linearly unstable stationary Euler flow in the half space independent evidence
purpose: Serves as the seed profile for the explicit self-similar solution alpha * u_E and as the source of the unstable mode that generates the second solution
The profile is constructed explicitly in Section 6 by translating, truncating, and reflecting Vishik's unstable vortex; it satisfies the stationary Euler equations by construction and its instability is verified through the operators Lambda_E and L_alpha. It is a mathematical example, not a speculative physical entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-similar vorticity around the boundary and non-uniqueness of solutions to the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in the half space." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YNVBMOWO

@misc{pith2026250702338,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-similar vorticity around the boundary and non-uniqueness of solutions to the two-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations in the half space},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YNVBMOWO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02338}
}

abstract

In this paper we show the non-uniqueness of mild solutions to the two-dimensional forced Navier-Stokes equations in the half space under the noslip boundary condition, following the program established by Albritton, Bru{\'e}, and Colombo in 2022. Our construction of non-unique solutions is based on the instability of self-similar vorticity at high Reynolds numbers which concentrates around the boundary at the initial time. In our construction, therefore, a kind of boundary layer has to be taken into account in the analysis, contrasting to the known results where the unstable self-similar vorticity is located away from the boundary with $O(1)$ distance around the initial time.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Sharp non-uniqueness for the Navier-Stokes equations in scaling critical spaces
math.AP 2026-02 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Uniqueness of mild Navier–Stokes solutions in critical Besov spaces holds exactly for p<n (any q) or p=n (q≤2), and fails — even for zero initial data — for p=n, q>2 and for p>n.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Albritton, E

D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo. Non-uniqueness of Leray solutions of the forced Navier-Stokes equations. Ann. Math. 196(1), 415-455 (2022)

work page 2022
[2]

Albritton, E

D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo. Gluing Non-unique Navier-Stokes Solutions. Annals of PDE (2023) 9:17

work page 2023
[3]

Albritton, E

D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo, C. D. Lellis, V. Giri, M. Janisch, H. Kwon. Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2d Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2112.04943 (2021)

arXiv 2021
[4]

Albritton, M

D. Albritton, M. Colombo. Non-uniqueness of Leray Solutions to the Hy- podissipative Navier-Stokes Equations in Two Dimensions. Comm. Math. Phys. 402 (2023), no. 1, 429-446

work page 2023
[5]

Engel, R

K.-J. Engel, R. Nagel. One-Parameter Semigroups for Linear Evolution Equations. Grad. Texts in Math. 194, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000

work page 2000
[6]

Gallay, C

T. Gallay, C. E. Wayne. Global stability of vortex solutions of the two- dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. Comm. Math. Phys. 255 no.1 (2005), 97-129

work page 2005
[7]

G´ erard-Varet, Y

D. G´ erard-Varet, Y. Maekawa, N. Masmoudi. Optimal Prandtl expansion around a concave boundary layer. Anal. PDE 17 (2024), no. 9, 3125-3187. 34

work page 2024
[8]

H. Jia, V. ˇSver´ ak. Are the incompressible 3d Navier-Stokes equations locally ill-posed in the natural energy space ? J. Funct. Anal. 268(12), 3734-3766 (2015)

work page 2015

Show all 20 references

[9]

Kobayashi, T

T. Kobayashi, T. Kubo. Weighted Lp-Lq estimates of the Stokes semi- group in some unbounded domains. Tsukuba J. Math. Vol. 37 no. 2 (2013), 179-20

2013
[10]

P. G. Lemari´ e-Rieusset. Recent Developments in the Navier-Stokes Prob- lem. Chapman & Hall/CRC Research Notes in Math. 431, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2002

2002
[11]

Lions, N

P.-L. Lions, N. Masmoudi. Uniqueness of mild solutions of the Navier- Stokes system in LN . Commun. Partial Differ. Equ. 26, 2211-2226 (2001)

2001
[12]

Y. Maekawa. On the inviscid limit problem of the vorticity equations for viscous incompressible flows in the half-plane. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 67 (2014), no. 7, 1045-1128

2014
[13]

Okabe, Y

T. Okabe, Y. Tsutsui. Remark on the strong solvability of the Navier- Stokes equations in the weak Ln space. Mathematische Annalen, 1-38, 2021

2021
[14]

H. Sohr. The Navier-Stokes Equations. Modern Birkh¨ auser Classics. Birkh¨ auser/Springer Basel AG, Basel (2001)

2001
[15]

Solonnikov

V. Solonnikov. Estimates for solutions of nonstationary Navier-Stokes equations. J. Soviet. Math. 8 (1977), 467-529

1977
[16]

S. Ukai. A solution formula for the Stokes equation in Rn +. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. XL (1987), 611-621

1987
[17]

M. Vishik. Instability and non-uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for the Euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid. Part I. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09426 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[18]

M. Vishik. Instability and non-uniqueness in the Cauchy problem for the Euler equations of an ideal incompressible fluid. Part II. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.09440 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[19]

Yamazaki

M. Yamazaki. The Navier-Stokes equations in the weak- Ln space with time-dependent external force. Mathematische Annalen, 317(4):635-675, 2000

2000
[20]

Z. Zhan. Uniqueness of mild solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations in weak-type Ld space. Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. Vol. 27, article number 43, (2025). 35

2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Albritton, E

D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo. Non-uniqueness of Leray solutions of the forced Navier-Stokes equations. Ann. Math. 196(1), 415-455 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Albritton, E

D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo. Gluing Non-unique Navier-Stokes Solutions. Annals of PDE (2023) 9:17

work page 2023

[3] [3]

Albritton, E

D. Albritton, E. Bru´ e, M. Colombo, C. D. Lellis, V. Giri, M. Janisch, H. Kwon. Instability and nonuniqueness for the 2d Euler equations in vorticity form, after M. Vishik. arXiv preprint. arXiv:2112.04943 (2021)

arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Albritton, M

D. Albritton, M. Colombo. Non-uniqueness of Leray Solutions to the Hy- podissipative Navier-Stokes Equations in Two Dimensions. Comm. Math. Phys. 402 (2023), no. 1, 429-446

work page 2023

[5] [5]

Engel, R

K.-J. Engel, R. Nagel. One-Parameter Semigroups for Linear Evolution Equations. Grad. Texts in Math. 194, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000

work page 2000

[6] [6]

Gallay, C

T. Gallay, C. E. Wayne. Global stability of vortex solutions of the two- dimensional Navier-Stokes equation. Comm. Math. Phys. 255 no.1 (2005), 97-129

work page 2005

[7] [7]

G´ erard-Varet, Y

D. G´ erard-Varet, Y. Maekawa, N. Masmoudi. Optimal Prandtl expansion around a concave boundary layer. Anal. PDE 17 (2024), no. 9, 3125-3187. 34

work page 2024

[8] [8]

H. Jia, V. ˇSver´ ak. Are the incompressible 3d Navier-Stokes equations locally ill-posed in the natural energy space ? J. Funct. Anal. 268(12), 3734-3766 (2015)

work page 2015