8
$\begingroup$

I am looking for a (possibly time-dependent) vector field $v: [0,1] \times \mathbb R_x^d \to \mathbb R^d$ such that

  1. $\text{div}_x v = 0$ ;

  2. $v$ has more than one (measure-preserving) flow, i.e. there exist two different maps $X_1,X_2$ such that $$X_i(t,x) = x + \int_0^t v(s,X_i(s,x))\,ds$$ for every $x \in \mathbb R^d$ and $t \in [0,1]$, for $i=1,2$;

  3. $v$ is compactly supported (say in the unit ball) and bounded.

The paper by Aizenman, M. On Vector Fields as Generators of Flows: A Counterexample to Nelson's Conjecture (Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, 107, no. 2 (1978): 287-96. doi:10.2307/1971145) seems to address the points 1. & 2. but I have no idea if one can include also point 3. I believe that, given a vector field solving 1 & 2, it should be rather easy to cook up one satisfying 1,2 & 3 but I do not see how to handle it. There are also some related results in the periodic setting by Depauw.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It seems that Aizenman's article deals with a non-uniqueness result and not with the existence of two different flows. The Depauw paper provides an Eulerian perspective, i.e. replaces the ODE by a first-order PDE. On the other hand, to get 3 in your question, it is quite likely that Aizenman's vector field $X$ is three-dimensional and thus $X=\text{curl} V$. To get 3, it should be enough to take $\tilde X=\text{curl}(\phi V)$ where $\phi$ is a cutoff function. $\endgroup$ – Bazin May 21 '18 at 9:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bazin Thanks, this is indeed what I was looking for but I am not totally sure of how to do this. I agree that Aizenman's field is a curl and multiply times a test function seems a reasonable thing to do to have (3) satisfied. But how can we be sure that we have non-unique measure preserving flow? Do you see how to fix these details? I would be grateful if you could kindly expand your comment. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – user111164 May 21 '18 at 18:57
  • $\begingroup$ +1, nice question! I am interested into the Eulerian side and I know Depauw's example. Could one do something similar to what @Bazin suggests also in that case? $\endgroup$ – Romeo May 22 '18 at 13:42
  • $\begingroup$ @user111164 Well, I think that this requires some work: taking a close look at Depauw's example, you will see that his construction of a vector field $V$ so that $curl V$ does not have uniqueness is rather explicit (as well as Aizenman's). Then you have to check $curl(\phi V)$ where $\phi$ is a cutoff function and carefully follow what happens in the transition region where $0<\phi <1$. Some "good" choices of $\phi$ may simplify matters. $\endgroup$ – Bazin May 22 '18 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ @Bazin Mmm... what do you mean by "good"? I have read Depauw's example, I agree that the construction is rather explicit. The point is that I do not see how to "localize" (this is probably related also to what Uncle Sam was saying). Thanks for the comment. $\endgroup$ – user111164 May 22 '18 at 17:06
3
$\begingroup$

The problems seems far from easy. This very recent paper gives an example: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.05928.pdf .

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

On $\mathbb{R}^2$, what about : $$v(x,y)= \begin{cases} e_y & \text{ if } y\geq |x| \\ -e_y & \text{ if } -y\geq |x| \\ -e_x & \text{ if } x\geq |y| \\ e_x & \text{ if } -x\geq |y| \end{cases} \\ $$ ($e_x,e_y$: the canonical basis of $\mathbb{R}^2$)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why does this have more than one measure preserving flow? $\endgroup$ – Michael Renardy May 18 '18 at 9:38
  • $\begingroup$ This is valid only for $x=0$. Sorry because I missed the "all $x\in \mathbb{R}^d$": Maybe with $v(t,x,y)=v(x+P_t,y+P_t )$ with $v$ the function defined above and $P_t$ a Peano curne it could work. $\endgroup$ – RaphaelB4 May 18 '18 at 9:52
0
$\begingroup$

Another recent paper that deals with this question is this one:

http://cvgmt.sns.it/paper/3700/

The spirit is Eulerian and they use the convex integration technique (so unluckily no explicit vector field): they show that basically they can reach whatever smooth measure you want (besides the lebesgue measure), with a sobolev vector field.

However it is set on the torus and so you don't have the compact support hypotesis; but the same technique has been used also with the euler equation, and in that case they could also have a counterexample to uniqueness with compact support, so I would expect this is also the case.

Hope this helps!

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.