Timeline for Why don't existence and uniqueness for the Boltzmann equation imply the same for Navier-Stokes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2023 at 13:14 | comment | added | Willie Wong | @TheAmplitwist :-( My bad. | |
| May 18, 2023 at 7:07 | comment | added | The Amplitwist |
I presume the broken link to sciencedirect.com in the post is supposed to point to the paper at doi:10.1016/S0764-4442(01)02136-X (Zbl 1056.35134), based on the quoted portion matching with the abstract of this paper.
|
|
| May 18, 2023 at 7:05 | comment | added | The Amplitwist |
@WillieWong Ironically, the link to springerlink.com in your comment is now broken, and I'm also unable to find any snapshot saved on the Wayback Machine. :)
|
|
| May 24, 2010 at 3:53 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 11:51 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | @Willie, Yes, I did mean that paper. I will leave the question unedited since your comment addresses it. Thanks for the DOI tip and also for your other comments and answer, which was really good. | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 11:41 | vote | accept | Steve Huntsman | ||
| Mar 18, 2010 at 10:57 | answer | added | Willie Wong | timeline score: 22 | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 10:29 | comment | added | Willie Wong | To replace an earlier comment of mine: rather then linking to ScienceDirect, it is better to just give us the DOI number. The third link, as it currently is, is tied to your (or your institute's) ScienceDirect subscription, and when I click on it says something about invalid username. I assume you mean the paper of Golse and Saint-Raymond in the third link? springerlink.com/content/9d6yk5556q55fymc | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 10:25 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Lastly, I am not sure Lions and DiPerna proved what you think they did. I don't think they have a uniqueness result stated in there. Also they, like those around the time, assumed an angular cutoff property. Only recently (as in the past year or so) have results appeared that removes that assumption (while restricting to less general classes of interaction kernels). (See, e.g. 0912.0888, 0912.1426 on arXiv.) But this is probably only tangential to your question. | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 10:04 | comment | added | Willie Wong | Isn't everything you want to know already included in what you quoted? the rescaling limits in weak L^1 to Leray. Existence of Leray solutions to Navier-Stokes is already well-known, the problem is that we don't have regularity or uniqueness. If you are limiting in weak L^1, you lose regularity. If you are only talking about limit points, you can lose uniqueness. | |
| Mar 18, 2010 at 2:09 | history | asked | Steve Huntsman | CC BY-SA 2.5 |