N Seem Il Finished
N Seem Il Finished
N Seem Il Finished
Chapter 1. Introduction 4
1.1. Physical Derivation (Sketch) 4
1.2. Elementary Mathematical Properties 5
1.3. Related Models 7
Bibliography 44
3
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The Navier-Stokes equations are
u Ω 0, T Rd ;
the unknown pressure eld
p Ω 0, T R;
and the given constant viscosity ν A 0. It can be written in components, for i 1, . . . , d:
d d
∂t ui Q uj ∂j ui ∂i p ν Q ∂x2 ui
j
j 1 j 1
d
Q ∂j uj 0.
j 1
The Navier-Stokes Equations (NSE) describe the time evolution of the velocity and
pressure of a viscous incompressible uid (e.g. water) without external forces.
where nx is the outer unit normal of the surface ∂ Ω̃ at the point x. For regular enough
boundary ∂ Ω̃ and u by the Gauss-Green theorem, the surface integral is equal to
div ux, t dx,
Ω̃
and since this should equal zero for every Ω̃, we conclude div u 0 everywhere in Ω.
Conservation of momentum/Newton's 2nd law: Consider a uid particle initially lo-
cated at x > Ω and denote its location at time t by X x, t (Lagrangian description).
Newton's 2nd law for this particle (point) reads F ma, and by assuming constant
density ( m 1) we obtain
Ẍ x, t F X x, t, t.
The particle trajectory map is determined by the ODE
4
1.2. ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICAL PROPERTIES 5
because the particle moves according to the ow of u. Therefore, by the chain rule,
d
Q ux hej , t 2ux, t ux hej , t
h2
j 1
1
where is the appropriate scaling; indeed, then this expression is precisely the discrete
h2
Laplacian, which converges, as h 0, to ∆ux, t.
In total, we obtain
1.2.1. Energy balance. If u is smooth we can multiply the (NSE) by u and integrate
over (space) Ω to obtain
∂t u u dx u © u u dx © p u dx ν ∆u u dx. (1.1)
Ω Ω Ω Ω
The rst term of (1.1) becomes
1d 2 1d 2
SuS dx Yu , tYL2 Ω .
2 dt Ω 2 dt
Further, we note, by integrating by parts, that
u © u u dx Q uiuj ∂j ui dx Q ∂j uiuj ui dx Q ui∂j uj ui dx.
Ω Ω i,j Ω i,j Ω i,j
Thanks to incompressibility (div u 0 or Pi ∂iui 0) we see that the last term vanishes,
whereas the remaining one is precisely the negative of the left hand side, hence
u © u u dx 0.
Ω
6 1. INTRODUCTION
For the term involving the pressure in (1.1) we can also integrate by parts to obtain
© p u dx p div u dx 0
Ω Ω
again by incompressibility. For the last term on the RHS of (1.1) we integrate by parts
and see that
2
ν ∆u u dx ν S©uS dx.
Ω Ω
were we wrote u a uij ui uj and the divergence of a matrix eld is taken row-wise: Let
A Ω 0, T Rd d
then div A is a vector eld given by div Ai Pj ∂j Aij .
Hence the NSE can be written in divergence form as
∂t u divu a u ©p ν∆u,
div u 0.
Take the divergence of the NSE and we obtain
1
p ∆ div divu a u
and hence
1
∂t u divu a u ∆ div divu a u ν∆u.
1
The operator ∆
is given as a singular integral operator: E.g. in R3 we have
f y
∆ 1f
C dy.
R3 Sx y S
∂t u divu a u ©p 0
div u 0.
Here without the parabolic term from the Laplacian, the mathematical theory is very
dierent.
1.3.2. Compressible uids. We can study compressible uids (like air) where we
have an extra non-negative scalar eld ρ modelling the density:
and we recover the standard NSE for p 2. (To be precise, one usually uses only the
symmetric part of ©u.)
The NSE are widely used by physicists, engineers, geo-scientists etc. for atmospheric
and ocean dynamics, weather forecasting, turbulence theory, etc.
CHAPTER 2
We only work with real-valued functions u, which implies that ûk û k , for k > Z3 .
By Plancherel's Theorem, for u > L T3 we have that
2
SuxS
2
dx 2π
3
Q Sûk S2,
T3 k>Z3
Q Sûk S 2
@ ª.
k>Z3
< =
3@ A
2
YuYH s T3
2
YuYL2 T3 Q Y∂ αuY2L 2 T3 2π @
@
@k>Z3
Q
Sûk S
2
Q Q S∂Å
α u S2 A ,
k A
A
SαSBs > SαSBs k >Z3 ?
where we used Plancherel's Theorem in the last equality. Note that the derivatives are
taken in the weak (distributional) sense.
Further, we can integrate by parts to see that
Å
1 ik x 1 ik x
∂ u
j k e ∂j ux dx ikj e ux dx ikj ûk
2π 3 T3 2π 3 T3
and hence
Å
S∂ αu S 2
Sk S
2SαS
Sûk S
2
k
and thus
2
YuYH s T3 2π
3
Q Q SûS2SkS2 α . S S
k>Z3 SαSBs
8
2.2. HELMHOLTZ DECOMPOSITION 9
YuYH s
2
2π
3
Q 1 Sk S
2s
Sûk S
2
@ ª.
k>Z3
When s > N, this denition coincides with the denition by weak derivatives. It will be
useful to consider homogeneous Sobolev spaces, where the zero-th Fourier mode is zero.
Definition 2.2. (1) The homogeneous space L̇2 T3 consists of all u > L2 T3
such that
uxdx 0 i.e. û0 0 .
T3
(2) The homogeneous Sobolev space Ḣ s T3 is dened as H s T3 9 L̇2 T3 , with the
norm
YuY
2
Ḣ s
2π
3
Q Sk S
2s
Sûk S
2
.
k>Z3 0
with
2
Yv YH s T3 Q SkS 2sSv̂k S2 @
ª .
kx0
Indeed, as the dual pairing is given by
k x0 k x0
using Cauchy-Schwarz we obtain
1~2 1~2
Sv, uS B Q Sv̂k SSû k S Q SSkv̂kSsS Sû k SSkSs B Q SkS 2sSv̂k S2
Q SkS2sSûk S2 @ ª.
kx0 k x0 kx0 kx0
(Note that now ûk > C3 .) This motivates the following denition of solenoidal (i.e.
divergence free or incompressible) vector elds.
u > L̇ T ; R2 3 3
k uk 0 ¦ k x 0 .
Note that H may contain vector elds that are not in H 1 and hence div is not well
2
dened simply by taking derivatives. H is equipped with the L norm.
10 2. FUNCTION SPACES AND WEAK SOLUTIONS
Lemma 2.4. Every u > H T3 is weakly divergence free in the sense that
ux © φx dx 0
T3
for all φ > Ḣ 1 T3 .
Proof. We can write
u as a Fourier series as ux Pjx0 ûj eij x, then using orthogo-
nality in the form eij x e ik x
dx δjk , we obtain
ux © e
ik x
dx Q ûj e ij x
ik e
ik x
dx ik ûk dx 0
T3 T3 j x0 T3
G g > L̇ T ; R
2 3 3
g © φ for some φ > Ḣ 1 T3 .
Hence Lemma 2.4 says that G and H are orthogonal subspaces of L̇2 .
Theorem 2.6 (Helmholtz decomposition). L̇2 G`H, i.e. for all u > L̇2 T3 ; R3 there
exist unique g > G and h > H such that
u gh and g h dx 0.
T3
Moreover, if u > Ḣ s T3 then g © φ for φ > Ḣ s 1
T3 and h > Ḣ s T3 .
Proof. We can write u as a Fourier series and see that ûk k>Z3 > l2 . We can then
write each ûk as a linear combination of k and a vector wk perpendicular to k . Thus for
all k x 0, let ûk αk k wk with k wk 0 and αk > C. Note that by orthogonality
2 2 2 2
Sûk S Sαk S Sk S Swk S (2.1)
and hence
ux Q ûk eik x Q αk k wk eik x Q iαk ©eik x Q wk eik x © φx hx,
kx0 kx0 k x0 k x0
where
Yφ Y
2
Ḣ 1 Q Sαk S2SkS2 and YhYL̇2 Q Swk S2
k x0 k x0
and so, as
hence φ > Ḣ 1 and h > L̇2 and thus g > G and h > H .
Further, suppose that u > Ḣ s T3 and multiply (2.1) by Sk S2s to conclude that φ > Ḣ s 1
and h > Ḣ s .
Finally, we must show uniqueness. Suppose that u h1 ©φ1 h2 ©φ2 for h1 , h2 > H
and © φ1 , ©φ2 > G, then
Definition 2.7. The orthogonal projection from L̇2 T3 onto H is called the Leray
projection : If u hg with h>H and g > G, then Pu h.
In Fourier series (exercise!)
Pux Q ûk
ûk k
Sk S2
k eik x .
k x0
Note that the following useful lemma only holds true when the spatial domain has no
physical boundaries.
Ä
∂
Å Ä j uk k ûk k ûk k
P∂j uk ∂ j uk k ikj ûk ikj k ikj ûk k ∂Å
j Puk
Sk S2 Sk S2 Sk S2
That is, V consists of weakly divergence-free vector elds with extra regularity H 1.
Definition 2.10 (Stokes operator). The Stokes operator is dened as P∆, in the
domain V 9 H 2 T3 ; R3 .
We notice that from Lemma 2.8 that if u>V 9 H 2, then
P∆u ∆Pu ∆u
since u > H. Hence the Stokes operator is simply ∆. However, on bounded domains this
is no longer true in general we cannot necessarily commute derivatives with the Leray
projector. (On a bounded domain one includes information on the boundary condition in
the denition of the space H; this amounts to a weak formulation of the slip condition
u n 0 on ∂Ω.)
Theorem 2.11. There exists a family wk k>N of smooth vector elds on T3 such that
(1) wk is an orthonormal basis of H ,
(2) wk are eigenfunctions of the Stokes operator with eigenvalues 0 @ λ1 B λ2 B B
λj , ª
Proof. For each k > Z3 0 choose vectors mk , m k > R3 such that
Y Ù
mk k , m k k , mk m k ,
Ù Ù
2
so we can dene Sk S λk , and similar for sink x, whence 2 is proved after re-labelling
3
indices from Z 0 to N. To show that these functions form a Hilbert basis of H , let
u>H and write
kx0 k x0 kx0
1
2 kx0
Qûk û k cosk x
1
2 kx0
iûk û Q k sink x,
∂t u u © u ν∆u © p > G.
The requirement of v>G is equivalent, by the Helmholtz decomposition, to
v φ dx 0
T3
for all φ > H. It will be convenient to choose φ from the smooth class of functions
that for φ > Dσ and u > L H 9 L2 V , (2.2) is well-dened. Thus, we have the following:
ª
Definition 2.13 (Weak Leary-Hopf solution of the NSE). A vector eld u>L ª
0, ª; H 9
2
L 0, ª; V is called a weak (Leray-Hopf ) solution of the NSE if (2.2) holds for all φ > Dσ .
It will be convenient to check that this denition can actually be tested on a smaller
class of test functions than Dσ . Therefore, set
N
D̃σ φ Q dk twk x dk > Cc ª
0, ª¡ ,
k 1
where wk is the eigenbasis of the Stokes operator from Theorem 2.11. Clearly we have
that D̃σ ` Dσ .
Lemma 2.14. If u > L 0, ; H L2 0, ; V satises
ª
ª 9 ª (2.2) for all φ > D̃σ , then it
even satises (2.2) for all φ > Dσ , i.e. it is a weak solution.
Proof. Let φ > Dσ , then for every t C 0, φt > H , and we can write
Q dk twk x
ª
φx, t
k 1
since wk form a Hilbert basis of H. Set
N
φN Q dk twk x > D̃σ .
k 1
Then φN φ in C 0, ª; V . Indeed,
Q Q
ª ª
Q
ª
1
sup ∆wk xdk t, ∆wk xdk tL2
λN t k N 1
by orthogonality. We then see that we can bound this above by
1 1
sup Y ∆φYL2 T3 B sup YφtYH 2 T3 0
λN t λN t
as N ª, since supt YφtYH 2 T3 is independent of N .
Furthermore, ∂t φN ∂t φ in L2 0, T ; L2 T3 because
Q
ª ª ª
2
Y∂t φ ∂t φN YL2 T3 dt Y dk twk xY2L2 T3 dt
0 0 k N 1
Q
ª ª
2
dk t dt 0
0 k N 1
as N ª, where the latter convergence follows from
and hence
Q dk t2
ª
sup
sup Y∂t φY2L2 T3 @ ª.
t k 1 t
It follows that
ª
ª
∂t φN u dx dt ∂t φ u dx dt,
0 0
ª
ª
© φN © u dx dt © φ ©u dx dt,
0 ª
0
ª
0
φN 0 u x©u dx dt φ0 u0 x dx dt.
0 0
For the remaining term u ©u φN dx dt, we will use the Sobolev embedding H 1 T3 `
L6 T3 , so it follows that
solution to the NSE (2.2) with φN used as a test function, then we see that every term
will converge to the corresponding one with φ > Dσ and so (2.2) follows for φ > Dσ .
For later reference, we prove another lemma which allows us to test a weak solution
with functions of the form χ t1 ,t2 φ for φ > Dσ , for almost every t1 @ t2 , where χ denotes the
indicator function of a set. This is a consequence of the Lebesgue dierentiation theorem,
which we recall without proof:
A point x for which the statement of the dierentiation theorem is true is called a
Lebesgue point of f; the theorem thus says that, given a locally integrable function on a
domain, almost every point in that domain is a Lebesgue point.
Proof. We prove only the case t1 0 in detail. So let t2 A 0 and consider a smooth
(cut-o ) function ζR R such that
Y ζ C 0,
2.4. WEAK SOLUTIONS 15
ζ is monotone decreasing.
Y
t t2
ζ t ζ .
Thus, ζ (restricted to t C 0) is a smooth approximation of the indicator function χ 0;t2 .
If φ > Dσ , then the product ζφ is still in Dσ , so using it as a test function in the weak
formulation of NSE gives
ª
ª
u ∂t ζ φ dx dt u © u ζ φ dx dt
0 T3 0 T3
ª
ν © u ©ζ φ dx dt u0 φ0 dx
0 T3 T3
(for the term involving u0 , ζ 0
). The two integrals
note that 1 for suciently small
including space derivatives are easily seen to converge as ζ converges almost 0: Indeed,
everywhere to χ 0,t2 , and the integrand u ©u ζ φ is bounded pointwise by Su ©uSSφS,
uniformly in , which is of course integrable. Hence, by the dominated convergence theorem,
ª
ª
t2
u ©u ζ φ dx dt u ©u χ 0,t2 φ dx dt u ©u φ dx dt
0 T3 0 T3 0 T3
as 0, and likewise
ª
t2
© u ©ζ φ dx dt © u ©φ dx dt
0 T3 0 T3
(of course the space derivative does not hit ζ , which depends only on time).
The rst integral, which contains the time derivative, is a bit more delicate. We
compute
ª
ª
ª
u ∂t ζ φ dx dt u ζ φ dx dt u ζ ∂t φ dx dt,
0 T3 0 T3 0 T3
and the latter integral is seen, as before, to converge to
t2
u ∂t φ dx dt.
0 T3
For the integral involving ζ , observe that by denition,
1
t t2
ζ t ζ ,
ª
which also implies, by the fundamental theorem of calculus, that
0 ζ t dt
1 for every
A 0. Note also that ζ
is supported in B t2 . Therefore,
ª
V u ζ φ dx dt ut2 φt2 dxV
0 T3 T3
t2
B
Sζ tS V ut φt ut2 φt2 dxV dt
t2 T3
t2
1
B Yζ Y C 1 V ut φt ut2 φt2 dxV dt 0
t2 T3
as 0, provided t2 is a Lebesgue point of the map
t ( ut φt dx.
T3
Since, by Lebesgue's theorem, this is the case for almost every t2 A 0, by collecting all
terms we nally arrive at (2.3) in the case t1 0.
16 2. FUNCTION SPACES AND WEAK SOLUTIONS
In the general case, we would use the test function ζ tξ tφx, t, where ζ is as
before and
t1 t
ξ t ζ .
The passage to the limit 0 can then be achieved in exactly the same way as above.
CHAPTER 3
∂t u ∆u on T3 ,
(3.1)
ut 0 u0 .
Let wk k>N be an eigenbasis of ∆ and project the problem to the nite dimensional
subspace PN H spanw1 , . . . , wN : If ut is in this space for every t, then so is ∂t ut,
and thanks to the eigenfunction property also ∆ut > PN H . Therefore, the projected
version of the heat equation simply reads
∂t uN ∆uN on T3 ,
(3.2)
uN t 0 PN u0 .
This equation is known as the Galerkin heat equation of order N, and we want to solve
it in PN H . To this end, take the ansatz uN x, t P N N
l 1 dl twl x, insert it into (3.2),
multiply by wk (k 1, . . . N ), and integrate in space:
N N
dk t λk dk t 0,
dN
k 0 u
0
, w k L 2 ,
where we used orthonormality and the eigenfunction property of the wl . This is a system
(actually a decoupled one in this simple case) of linear ordinary dierential equations,
which has a global smooth solution by standard ODE theory.
We wish to let N ª and hope to obtain a solution to the original problem in the
limit. To this end, observe that multiplication of (3.2) with its solution uN and integration
in space yields (in analogy to NSE) the energy equality
t
1 2 2
SuN x, tS dx S©uN x, sS dx ds
2 T3 T3
0
1 1
0
SPN u xS dx B 0
Su xS dx,
2 T3 2 T3
ª
ª
uN ∆φ dx dt u∆φ dx dt,
0 T3 0 T3
17
18 3. EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
and nally
0
PN u φ t 0dx u0 φt 0dx,
T3 T3
because PN u0 u0 in L2 . It thus follows that u is a weak solution of (3.1). Note that we
2 1
did not make any use of the L H -bound.
3.1.2. Galerkin for NSE. Recall the basis of eigenfunctions of ∆ (now viewed as
the Stokes Operator) from Theorem 2.11. Let PN H spanw1 , . . . , wN and consider the
projection operator PN L̇2 PN H given by
N
PN u Q u, wj wj
j 1
using the L2 inner product. Clearly, for all u > H we have PN u u in H , as an orthonormal
basis of H (i.e. in the L2 -norm). Indeed,
Q Q
ª ª
2 2 2
YPN u uYL2 Y u, wj wj Y Su, wj S 0
j N 1 j N 1
as N ª.
Definition 3.1. The N -th order Galerkin approximation of the NSE with initial data
u0 > H is the solution of the equation
uN 0 PN u0 .
Note we have not yet proved that such uN exists! Again we have projected away the
pressure. Like for the heat equation, we want to take N ª.
uN @ u, © uN @ © u
2
weakly in L .
So far, the general strategy seems similar as for the heat equation. However, for NSE,
there are two main issues to solve:
First, the Galerkin approximation (3.3) and thus the resulting system of ODEs now
feature a quadratic term, so that the ODE solution is prima facie only obtained up to
a possibly nite blow-up time; indeed, the simplest quadratic ODE, ẋ x2 , does exhibit
nite-time blow-up. Even worse, the existence interval 0, TN might depend on N and
could therefore, in the worst case, converge to zero as N ª, so that in the limit, we
would be left with nothing. It turns out, luckily, that such blow-up scenarios can rather
easily be ruled out by virtue of the nite dimensional energy equality (3.4).
Once we have globally existing Galerkin approximants uN N >N which satisfy the uni-
form bound (3.4), we need to establish that the weak limit u is a weak solution. For the
heat equation (and more generally for linear equations), this was trivial. However, for the
NSE, in the weak formulation we have the nonlinear term
ª
uN © uN φ dx dt
0 T3
and it is not clear whether
uNj j >N such that uNj u strongly in Lq 0, T ; H , for some u > Lq 0, T ; H .
Proof. Consider for k > N the map t ( uN t, wk L 2. It is not dicult to see
(exercise!) that this map is weakly dierentiable with weak derivative ∂t uN t, wk , which
is a well-dened Lp function since ∂t uN > Lpt V
and wk > V , and so (cf. exercise) s (
uN s, wk is (absolutely) continuous and
s
uN s, wk uN s , wk ∂t uN , wk dt
s
T
1
uN s , wk uN , wk dt.
T 0
Hence,
s
sup SuN s, wk S B SuN s , wk S V
∂t uN , wk dtV
0BsBT s
T T
1
B YuN YL2 T3 Ywk YL2 T3 dt Y∂t uN YV Ywk YV dt.
T 0 0
We can now use Hölder's inequality combined with the facts that Ywk YL2 T3 1 and
º
Y wk Y V λk to obtain the bound
1 1 1 » »
1 p1
B T
qY uN YLq 0,T ;H T Y∂t uN YLp 0,T ;V λ k B C1 λ k C2
T
where we have used that Y∂t uN YLp 0,T ;V is uniformly bounded and by Poincaré's inequality
we have YuYH B C YuYV , which gives a uniform bound on YuN YLq 0,T ;H . It follows that
Pk uN P k
j 1 uN , wj wj is in C 0, T ; H and
k » »
sup YPk uN sYH B Q C1 C2 λj B kC1 C2 λk
s>0,T j 1
as λj is increasing.
Claim 1: For every k , Pk uN N >N has a subsequence converging in C 0, T ; H . For
this, we will use the Arzelà-Ascoli Theorem. As Pk H is nite-dimensional, it suces to
check that the sequence is uniformly bounded and equicontinuous. From the previous
estimate we already have uniform boundedness, so all we need to check is equicontinuity.
20 3. EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
where we used Hölder's inequality and that Y∂t Pk uN YLp t1 ,t2 ;V is uniformly bounded in
N. Thus we may apply the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem, which proves the claim.
Claim 2: uN has a subsequence that is Cauchy in Lq 0, T ; H . Clearly Claim 2
implies the theorem. By a diagonal argument (exercise), we can select a subsequence (still
denoted uN ) so that Pk uN is convergent in Lq 0, T ; H for all k>N (see Claim 1).
q
We will show this sequence is Cauchy in L 0, T ; H .
Claim 2a: For every δ A 0 there exists k > N such that
T
YPk uN s uN sYH
q
ds @ δ
0
for all N C k . Indeed, we know that C C YuN YLq 0,T ;V and as ©wj , ©wk ∆wj , wk
λj wj , wk λj δjk , then
T T ª
q
2
CC Y©uN sY
q
L2
ds Q
j 1
λj SuN s, wj L2 S2
ds
0 0
T
q
2
Q
ª
T
q
2 T
2
Q
q ª q
C λk 2
1 SuN s, wj L2 S ds 2
λk 1 YPk uN s uN sY
q
L2
ds,
j k1
0 0
Only one ingredient is missing before we can embark on the existence proof for weak
solutions:
3.2. THE EXISTENCE PROOF 21
Lemma 3.3 (L
p
Let Ω be a measure space and u > Lp Ω Lq Ω for
interpolation). 9
some 1 B p B q B ª . Then u > L Ω for all p B r B q, and YuYLr B YuYαLp YuY1Lqα , where
r
q .
1 α 1 α
r p
p q
Proof. Using Hölder's inequality with
αr , 1αr we see that
αr 1αr
p p
SuS
r
dx SuS
αr 1αr
SuS dx B SuS
p
dx
q
SuS dx
Ω Ω Ω Ω
α 1α r
YuYLp YuYLq
lution of the NSE with initial data u0 . Moreover, this solution satises ∂t u > L4loc~3 0, T ; V .
N N
∂t Q dN
j twj xwk x dx PN Q dNj tdNl twj x © wl x wk x dx
T3 j 1 T3 j,l 1
N
ν Q dN
j t∆wj x wk x dx.
j 1 T3
N
N
dk t νλk dj t
N
Q dNj tdNl tBkjl 0,
j,l 1
with k 1, . . . , N and
Bkjl wj x © wl x wk x dx.
T3
Indeed, PN v, wk L2 v, wk L2 for all v > L2 by a simple linear algebra argument.
N
This is a system of N ODEs for the N unknown functions dk (k 1, . . . , N ), with
initial condition
dN
k 0 u0 xwk x dx.
T3
(The latter is obtained by multiplying
N
uN x, 0 Q dNj 0wj x
j 1
Step 2: Show TN ª for all N , via energy estimates. Let s > 0, TN . Multiply the
Galerkin equation at time s with uN s and integrate in x to get
∂t uN s uN s dx PN uN s © uN s uN s dx
T3 T3
ν ∆uN s uN s dx.
T3
Observe each integral in order: for the rst we see that
1 d 2
∂t uN s uN s dx SuN sS dx,
T3 2 dt T3
for the second,
PN uN s © uN s uN s dx uN s © uN s uN s dx
T3 T3
3
Q ujN s∂xj ulN sulN s dx
j,l 1 T3
3
Q ∂xj ujN sulN s2 dx
j,l 1 T3
3
Q ∂xj ujN sulN s∂xj ulN s dx 0
j,l 1 T3
1 d 2 2
YuN sYL2 T3 ν Y©uN sYL2 T3 0.
2 dt
We note that this equality implies (after integration in s) that
ª
1 1 1 0 2
YuN tYL2 B Yu0 YL2 ds B
2 2 2
sup and Y©uN sYL2 Yu YL2 ,
t 2 2 0 2ν
thus uN are uniformly bounded in Lª
0, ª; H 9 L2 0, ª; V .
In particular, since uN x, s P N N
k 1 dk swk x and since wk is an ONB in L2 ,
d
YuN sYL2
2
Q SdNk sS2
k 1
N
and this is bounded in s. It follows that dk sk 1,...,N is uniformly bounded in s and
hence TN ª.
where for the last equality we used the self-adjointness of the projection PN . For the rst
term
using interpolation (Lemma 3.3). Now we can use the Sobolev embedding Yv YL6 B C Yv YḢ 1
C Y v YV C Y©v YL2 and the projection property YPN φYV B Yφ YV to obtain
1 3
SuN © uN , PN φS B C YuN YL2 Y©uN YL2 YφYV .
2 2
Using Hölder's inequality in time on both terms (rst L3 (on 1), L3~2 second L ª
, L1 ) we
obtain
4
< T =
1 3
1 @ 2A 2
B CνT 3 @
@ Y©uN sY
2
ds A
A C YuN YL3 ª 0,T ;H YuN sY2L2 0,T ;V
@ 0 A
> ?
which becomes
1 4 2
B CνT 3 YuN sYL3 2 0,T ;V C YuN YL3 ª 0,T ;H YuN sY2L2 0,T ;V
which is bounded uniformly in N (for xed ν and T !) owing to the energy estimates from
Step 2.
Step 4: Extract a convergent subsequence.
By Banach-Alaoglu, there is a subsequence uNj j such that
uNj @u
weak- in Lª
0, ª; H , and another subsequence uNj,l l such that
∂t uN @ ∂tu
in L4~3 0, T ; V
.
∂t uN @ ∂tu
in
4~3
Lloc 0, ª; V
.
Choosing yet another subsequence and applying again a diagonal argument, we obtain
by Lemma 3.2 (Aubin-Lions)
uN u
strongly in L2loc 0, ª; H .
Step 5: Show the limit is a solution of NSE.
By Lemma 2.14, it suces to choose a test function of the form
m
φx, t Q dk twk x > D̃σ .
k 1
24 3. EXISTENCE OF WEAK SOLUTIONS
©uN © φ dx dt © u ©φ dx dt.
0 T3 0 T3
Only the non-linear term needs some more attention, we see that
satises the statement of Lemma 2.16 even for all (and not just almost all) 0 B t1 @ t2 .
4~3
Proof. This will be proved in the exercises, based on the property ∂t u > Lloc 0, ª; V
.
In fact, one can show that this proposition is true for every Leray-Hopf solution, not
just the (possibly particular) one constructed in Theorem 3.4. Of course, if Leray-Hopf
solutions are unique, this distinction is unnecessary, but uniqueness is still unknown in
three dimensions.
CHAPTER 4
Strong Solutions
4.1. Some More on Bochner Spaces
For this entire chapter, let 0 @ T @ ª be arbitrary but xed. We collect a few technical
results to be used later.
Proposition 4.1. Let X be a Banach space and suppose u, w > L1 0, T ; X . Then the
following are equivalent:
(1) ∂t u w in the weak sense;
(2) There exists ξ > X such that, for a.e. t > 0, T ,
t
ut ξ ws ds;
0
(3) For every v > X , in the weak sense it holds that
d
u, v w, v .
dt
Moreover, if one (and thus all) of these conditions holds, then u can be altered on a nullset
of times so that it belongs to C 0, T ; X .
Proof. Exercise.
Proposition 4.2. Let u > L2 0, T ; Ḣ 1 T3 and ∂t u > L2 0, T ; H 1
T3 . Then,
(1) u > C 0, T ; L̇2 T3 ;
(2) the map t ( 21 YutY2L̇2 is weakly dierentiable with
d1 2
YutY 2
L̇
ut, ∂t ut for a.e. t > 0, T ;
dt 2
(3)
Proof. Let η > Cc R be a standard mollier (in the time variable), that is, η C 0,
ª
R η θ dθ 1, supp η ` B1 0, and η η SθS. Set η t 1 t and, for any f > L1loc R,
f f η , i.e.
f t f t τ η τ dτ.
Consider now u as given in the statement and extend it to t > R by zero, so that its
mollication is well-dened on all of 0, T . For , δ A 0, uδ and u are smooth in time, and
we may thus use the standard Leibniz rule to compute
d 2
Yu t uδ tYL2 2 u t uδ t ∂t u t ∂t uδ t dx. (4.1)
dt T3
Observe that for a.e. s > 0, T , u s us in H 1 T3 and ∂t u s @ ∂tus
in H 1
T3
(exercise). Pick such an s and integrate (4.1) from s to t to obtain
t
Yu t uδ tYL2
2
B Yu s uδ sY2L2 2 Su τ uδ τ , ∂t u τ ∂t uδ τ S dτ
0
25
26 4. STRONG SOLUTIONS
By choice of s, the rst expression on the right hand side converges, as , δ 0, to zero,
and so does the dual pairing under the integral, for almost every τ. But then the integral
itself converges by dominated convergence (exercise).
It follows that u A0 is Cauchy in C 0, T ; L2 T3 , and since this space is Banach,
it follows u u > C 0, T ; L T 2 3
, whence (1) is established.
For (2), again by the classical Leibniz rule,
d 2
Yu tYL2 2 u t ∂t u t dx
dt T3
and hence, after integration from s to t,
t
2 2
Yu tYL2 Yu sYL2 2 u τ ∂t u τ dτ dx, (4.2)
s T3
and the same equality follows for u instead of u by similar convergence arguments as
before. Application of Proposition 4.1 (2) then gives the desired characterisation of the
weak time derivative.
Finally, for (3), integrate (4.2) in s over 0, T to arrive at
T
T Yu tY2L2 B Yu sYL2
2
ds T YuY2L2 Ḣ 1 Y∂t uY2L2 H 1 ,
0
and thus (3) follows because t is arbitrary and the right hand side is independent of t.
Corollary 4.3. Let u, v > L2 0, T ; Ḣ 1 T3 and ∂t u, ∂t v > L2 0, T ; H 1
T3 . Then
the map t ( u, v is absolutely continuous with weak derivative
d
u, v ∂t u, v u, ∂t v .
dt
Proof. This follows from the polarisation identity
1 2 2 2
u, v Yu v Y YuY Yv Y
2
and the preceding proposition.
The following can be seen as an extension of Proposition 4.2 to higher order Sobolev
spaces:
Proof. We indicate only the formal argument and remark that the rigorous proof
proceeds exactly as in Proposition 4.2 by time mollication.
So assume u is smooth and take for simplicity n 0, then we compute
d 2 d 2
YutY 1 Y©utYL2
dt Ḣ dt
2 © u ∂t ©u dx
T3
2 ∆u ∂t u dx B YutY2H 2 Y∂t utY2L2 ,
T3
and the estimate
u>L ª 1 3 2
0, T ; H T 9 L 0, T ; H T .
2 3
Strong solutions have very nice properties, like energy conservation, uniqueness, and
smoothness; however, given initial data u0 > V , a strong solution is known to exist only on
a possibly nite time interval (whether or not the existence time can actually be nite is
precisely the Navier-Stokes Millennium Problem).
Lemma 4.6. Let u be a strong solution, then ∂t u, u © u, ∆u > L2 0, T ; L2 T3 .
Proof. From the assumption u > L2 0, T ; H 2 it follows immediately that ∆u >
2 2 2
L 0, T ; L . For the nonlinear term, note that H embeds continuously into L , so
ª
that
T T
2
SuS S©uS
2
dx dt B 2
YutYLª S©ux, tS
2
dx dt B C YuY2Lª H 1 YuY2L2 H 2 .
0 T3 0 T3
It remains to estimate the time derivative. In view of Lemma 2.16 and the remark after
Proposition 3.5, for every smooth divergence-free vector eld φ>C ª
T3 (note, no time
dependence here) and every t > 0, T we have
t
0
ut φ dx u φ dx ν ©u ©φ u © u φ dx ds
T3 T3 0 T3
t
0
u φ dx ν∆u φ u © u φ dx ds,
T3 0 T3
as u has weak second space derivatives. Proposition 4.1 allows us to take the time derivative
of this equality to obtain, for every t > 0, T ,
∂t u φ dx ν∆u φ u © u φ dx.
T3 T3
and since ψ was arbitrary, it follows that ∂t u P∆u u © u. By the previous estimates,
this is indeed in L2 0, T, L2 .
Lemma 4.7. Let u be a strong solution. Then, for any w > L2 0, T ; H ,
T
∂ t u u © u ν∆u w dx dt 0.
0 T3
Proof. By similar arguments as in the proof of Lemma 2.14, the space D̃σ is dense in
2
L 0, T ; H , and therefore it suces to consider w > D̃σ . Using such w as a test function
28 4. STRONG SOLUTIONS
Lemma 4.10. Let u be a weak solution of NSE and U > L2 0, T ; H 2 V a vector eld 9
with ∂t U > L 0, T ; L2 . Then U is a valid test function in the denition of weak solution
2
meaning that UN is Cauchy, and thus convergent, in C 0, T ; H 1 . The proof now
proceeds as in Proposition 4.4.
(1) The weak formulation for u, tested with U, as justied by Lemma 4.10:
ut U t dx u0 U 0 dx
T3 T3
t
u ∂t U ν ©u ©U u ©u U dx ds;
0 T3
t
1 1
SutS
2
dx ν S©ux, τ S
2
dτ B SusS
2
ds
2 T3 s T3 2 T3
Bν S©U ©
2
uS dx ds C ν 2
YU sYLª SU
2
uS dx ds,
0 T3 0 T3
a2 2
where we used the weighted Young's inequality ab B 2δ 2
δ 2 b2 for suitable δ, depending on
ν.
In total, using (4.5) in (4.4), we obtain
t
Erel t B 2
YU sYLª Erel s ds,
0
4.3. LOCAL EXISTENCE OF STRONG SOLUTIONS 31
Q ûk eik x
Sk SSk S
1
Q ûk eik x Sk S2 Sk S 2
S k S BM S k S AM
1~2 1~2
1 1
B YuYḢ 1
SkSBM
Q Sk S2
YuYḢ 2 Q
SkSAM Sk S4
.
1~2 1~2
1
Q
SkSBM Sk S2
BC
1
SxS2
dx
BM 0B1 0
M 1~2
r2
C dr B CM 1~2 ,
1 r2
and similarly
1~2 1~2
1
Q
SkSAM Sk S4
BC
1
SxS4
dx
R3 BM 0
1~2
ª
r2
C dr B CM 1~2
,
M r4
so that in total
YuYḢ 2
The choice M YuYḢ 1
now yields the result.
Theorem 4.14 (Existence of strong solutions). Let u0 > V . There exists a constant
C A 0, depending only on the viscosity ν , such that there exists a strong solution at least
on the interval 0, T , where T C Y u0 YL42 . ©
32 4. STRONG SOLUTIONS
d
Y©uN YL2 ν Y∆uN YL2 B C ν Y©uN YL2 .
2 2 6
(4.7)
dt
Setting aside the Laplacian term for the moment, we see that Y Y©uN Y2L2 satises the
ordinary dierential inequality
Y t B CY t3 ,
Y 0 YPN ©u YL2
0 2
and hence Y t B X t for the solution of the corresponding equation X
CX 3 , X 0
Y©u0 Y2L2 C Y 0. It is not dicult to compute X t explicitly as
Y©u0 Y2L2
X t ¼ .
1 2CtY©u0 Y4L2
3
If we set T 8C Y©u0 Y4 2
, we obtain X T 2Y©u0 Y2L2 and therefore Y t is uniformly
L
bounded in 0, T , which in turn means that the uN are bounded in L ª
0, T ; V , uniformly
in N.
2
Coming back to (4.7) and integrating from 0 to T, we observe (recalling that Y©uN Y 2
L
0 2
is bounded, on 0, T , by 2Y©u Y 2 )
L
T T
ν 2
Y∆uN YL2 dt B 0 2
Y©PN u YL2
2
Y©uN T Y 2
L C Y©uN YL2
6
dt
0 0
T
B 0 2
Y©u YL2 C Y©uN YL2
6
dt
0
B Y©u0 Y2L2 2CT Y©u0 Y6L2
7 0 2
Y©u YL2
4
4.4. REGULARITY OF STRONG SOLUTIONS 33
by choice of T . It follows that the uN are also bounded, uniformly in N, in the space
L2 0, T ; H 2 T3 .
We know already that a subsequence of uN N >N converges to a weak solution of
NSE. Selecting from this sequence another subsequence that converges additionally in
L ª
0, T ; V 9L2 0, T ; H 2 T3 (this exists by the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, and the bounds
just derived), we see that the weak solution is in fact in L ª
0, T ; V 9 L2 0, T ; H 2 T3 ,
and is thus a strong solution up to time T.
uxv x Q ûk eik x Q v̂j eij x Q Q ûk l v̂l eik x, (4.8)
kx0 j x0 k > Z3 l>Z3
Ã
so that u vk Pl>Z 3 ûk l v̂l
(the Fourier transform of the product becomes a convolution).
As another ingredient we recall the inequality Sk S
s
B C Sk lSs SlSs , where C depends
only on s A 0.
We can now estimate
Yuv YH s
2
Q 1
2s
Sk S SÃ
uv k S 2
kx0
RR RR2
2s RRR R
Q 1 Sk S RR Q û v̂ RRR
RR 3 kl l RRR
k>Z3 RRl>Z RR
RR RR2
RR RR
BC Q Q RR
RR 1 s s
Sk l S 1 Sl S ûk l v̂l R
R
RR
k>Z3 RRRl>Z3 RR
R
RR RR2 RR RR2
RR R R RR
B C Q Q R
RRR
s RR
1 Sk lS ûkl v̂l RR C
RR
RR
RR
R
Q Q
1 SlS ûkl v̂l RRR .
s
RR
k>Z3 RRRl>Z3 RR k>Z3 RRRl>Z3 RR
34 4. STRONG SOLUTIONS
Q 1 s
Sk lS ûkl v̂l
s
1 S©S uv k
,
and Q 1
s
SlS ûkl v̂l u1 S©Ss v k ,
,
l > Z3 l > Z3
Yuv YH s
2
BC QS s
1 S©S uv k S
, 2
C Q S u1 ©
s
S S v k S
, 2
kx0 kx0
s 2 s 2
C Y1 S©S uv Y 2 Yu1 S©S v Y 2
L̇ L̇
BC 2 2
Ḣ
2 2
Yv YLª YuY s YuYLª Yv Y s
Ḣ
BC 2 2
Yv Y s YuY s ,
Ḣ Ḣ
where in the nal step we used the embedding
s ª
H `L .
Theorem 4.16 (Higher regularity). Let m C 2 and u0 > V H m T3 . Then the strong 9
Proof. Let uN denote the smooth Galerkin approximations, as usual. The existence
proof for strong solutions yielded uniform (in N) bounds for
By induction, we will deduce such an estimate for m instead of 1. So let us assume the
induction hypothesis
Taking the Hm inner product of the Galerkin equation with uN and then using Theo-
rem 4.15, we obtain
1 d 2 2
YuN YH m ν Y©uN YH m uN © uN , uN H m
2 dt
B YuN ©uN YH m YuN YH m
B YuN YH m Y©uN YH m YuN YH m
1
B ν Y©uN Y2H m C ν YuN Y4H m .
2
Note that in the last step, we made use of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with (ab B
a2 C b2 ).
This results in
d
YuN YH m ν Y©uN YH m B C ν YuN YH m YuN YH m
2 2 2 2
g tYuN Y2H m , (4.9)
dt
where g C ν YuN Y2H m > L1 0, T uniformly in N, by virtue of the induction hypothesis.
Grönwall's inequality therefore yields
t
2
YuN tYH m B 0 2
Yu YH m exp g s ds .
0
Since the right hand side is nite and independent of N, we obtain the bound
Going back to estimate (4.9) and integrating in time, we get (using the bound just derived)
T
2
YuN T YH m
0 2
Yu Y
Hm ν Y©uN Y
2
Hm B g t dt T YuN YLª H m ,
0
which entails
T
1
Y©uN YH m
2
B 0 2
Yu YH m g t dt T YuN YLª H m .
ν 0
As the right hand side is nite and independent of N, we obtain the desired bound
2 m1
in L H . It follows that u is contained in these spaces, as claimed.
Theorem 4.17 (Space regularity). Let u be a strong solution of NSE on 0, T . Then,
for every 0 @ @ T and every m > N, u > C 0, T ; H m T3 .
Proof. By denition, u > L2 0, T ; H 2 , and therefore for almost every s1 > 0, ,
us1 > H 2 . Choosing such s1 and using us1 as initial data, and keeping in mind the
uniqueness of strong solutions, we obtain from Theorem 4.16 u > L s1 , T ; H , and so
2 3
we may choose an s2 > s1 , such that us2 > H . In this way we obtain a sequence
3
u > C , T ; H m
and so we are done.
Theorem 4.18 (Time regularity). Let u be a strong solution, A 0, and j, k > N. Then
∂tj u > L ª
, T ; H k T3 .
Similarly as in the previous proof, we bound YPu © uYH k at each time by YuYH k YuYH k1 ,
and Y∆uYH k B YuYH k2 . But both these are bounded, uniformly in t, in the respective
Sobolev norms by virtue of Theorem 4.17.
For the induction step, dierentiate (4.10) j1 times with respect to t to obtain
j 1
∂tj u Q j i 1P∂tiu
© ∂ t
j 1i
u ν∆∂tj 1 u.
i 0
But by induction hypothesis, the rst j 1 time derivatives are in L ª
0, T ; H m for every
m, and so we can apply similar arguments as in the induction base to conclude.
Recalling that a function which is contained in Sobolev spaces of arbitrary order is in
fact smooth, we obtain:
4.5.1. Vorticity. Let u be a strong solution on 0, T , then it is smooth (in space) for
any t > 0, T . Dene the curl operator, which acts on smooth vectorelds u > C T3 ; R3 ª
The right hand side is called the vortex stretching term ; in 2D it is not present, and the
1
vorticity equation is simply a linear transport-diusion equation that satises a maximum
p ª
principle in any L norm (including L ). This is another, very important way, to see why
the 2D NSE are so much better behaved than the 3D NSE.
A few remarks are in order. First, it is possible that no blowup occurs and hence no
(nite) blowup time exists this is trivially so e.g. for the zero solution. Secondly, if there
is a blowup, then the blowup time is uniquely determined by u0 : Indeed, as long as the
strong solution exists, it is unique in the class of Leray-Hopf solutions (Theorem 4.11).
1
Of course to solve this equation, the nonlocal coupling between u and ω needs to be taken into
account. The coupling law is known by the name of Biot-Savart and is a Fourier multiplier operator of
order 1.
4.5. BLOWUP AND THE BEALE-KATO-MAJDA CRITERION 37
5.1.1. Dissipative Solutions of the Euler Equations. We consider now the Euler
equations,
∂ t u u © u © p 0
div u 0,
1
2
whose energy
2 T3 SuS dx is formally conserved by a similar computation as for NSE.
Therefore the function space L ª
0, T ; H appears suitable for the study of solutions.
For the following formal computation, suppose u is a smooth solution with data u0 ,
and let U >C ª
T 3
0, T ; R 3
be any divergence-free eld. Denote
E U ∂t U PU © U ,
∂ t u © u U u U © U © π E U
for some scalar eld π. Next, multiply this by uU and integrate to obtain
1 d 2
Su U S dx u © u U u U dx
2 dt T3 3
T
u U © sym U u U dx E U u U dx,
T3 T3
1 t
where © sym 2 © © denotes the symmetric gradient. Note that the second integral
vanishes by the usual integration by parts argument, so we can estimate
1 d
Su U S
2
dx B Y©sym U YLª Su U S
2
dx E U u U dx.
2 dt T3 T3 T3
38
5.1. THE PERIODIC CASE 39
Recall from the exercises that C 0, T ; L2w is the space of functions in L 0, T ; L2
ª
that are weakly continuous in the sense that, for every t > 0, T , us @ ut weakly in
L2 , as s t.
Our formal computation motivates the following denition:
u0 u . Then u is a dissipative solution of Euler if (5.1) holds for every U > C 0, T ; H
0
Remark 5.2. (1) The function spaces in this denition are chosen precisely such
that each term in (5.1) is well-dened.
(2) Choosing U 0, we obtain simply
1 1
SutS
2
dx B Su S
02
dx ¦t C 0, (5.2)
2 2
meaning that energy is not produced (but preserved or dissipated). This explains
the terminology.
(3) It can be shown that every solution in the sense of distributions that satises the
weak energy inequality (5.2) is also a dissipative solution in the sense of the given
denition. Conversely, there exist dissipative solutions that are not solutions in
the sense of distributions. As we shall see, however, dissipative solutions are
useful regardless of any ontological debates as to whether dissipative solutions are
really solutions of the Euler equations.
solution of Euler if (5.1) holds for every smooth divergence-free U > C T3 0, T . ª
Proof. Let U be as in Denition 5.1. First we observe that then ∂t U > L1 0, T ; L2 .
Indeed,
∂t U PU © U E U .
1 2
U © U 2©sym U U ©SU S ,
2
so that
PU © U 2P©sym U U .
But since the latter is the product of a matrix eld in L1 L ª
and a vector eld in L L2 ,
ª
1
Next, let η a standard mollier in x and set, as usual, η x 3
η x , so that U
E U ∂t U PU © U
∂t U PU © U PU © U PU © U
(5.3)
E U 2P©sym U U 2P©sym U U
E U 2P ©sym U U ©sym U U .
1 2
so the second expression in the last line of (5.3) converges to zero in L L . Hence, E U
1 2
converges to E U in L L .
Therefore, all the integrals in (5.1) converge appropriately as 0, so that (5.1) is
valid for U if it was valid for each U .
Time regularity can be guaranteed by regularising also in t, which poses little problem
since there is no nonlinearity of ∂t U .
solution of Euler in the sense that E U 0 almost everywhere. Let uν ν A0 be a family
of Leray-Hopf solutions, satisfying the weak energy inequality, with uν 0 U 0 for every
ν A 0. Then,
lim uν U strongly in L ª
0, T ; H .
ν 0
Proof. First we will show that a subsequence of uν converges weakly to a dissipative
solution of Euler. It suces to use smooth test elds, as shown in Lemma 5.4. So let
v > C c T
ª 3
0, T ; R 3
be divergence-free. Then, using v as a test eld in the denition
of weak solution of NSE, for every t > 0, T we have
t t
uν ∂t v dx ds uν © uν v dx ds
0 T3 0 T3
t
ν uν
© © v dx ds U 0 v 0 dx uν t v t dx.
0 T3 T3 T3
By denition of E v and the divergence-free property of both elds (see Lemma 4.8), we
thence get
t t
uν E v dx ds uν v © v uν v dx ds
0 T3 0 T3
t
ν uν
© © v dx ds U 0 v 0 dx uν t v t dx.
0 T3 T3 T3
Definition 5.6. Let Ω ` R3 be a smooth bounded domain, then u > C 0, T ; L2w Ω 9
2 1
L 0, T ; H0 Ω is said to be a weak solution of the NSE if it is weakly divergence-free and
satises
ª
ª
u ∂t φ dx dt u © u φ dx dt
0 Ω
ª
0 Ω
0
ν © u ©φ dx dt u φ0 dx uT φT dx
0 Ω Ω Ω
T
2
lim ν S©uν S dx dt 0, (5.4)
ν 0 0 Ων
vν curl ην φ ,
then vν is divergence-free, is zero on the boundary, and agrees with u except on Ων .
Moreover one can show various estimates such as
Using vν as a test function and following a computation similar to the proof of Theo-
rem 4.11, we arrive at
t
2
Yuν t utYL2 B o 1 C Yuν uY2 Rν s ds,
0
where
Rν t uν © uν vν uν ν ©uν © vν dx.
Ω
t
It remains to show
0 Rν ds 0.
We consider only the second term, using (5.6):
V ν ©uν vν dxV B ν Y©uν YL2 Y©uYL2 ν Y©uν YL2 Ων Y©u ©vν YL2 Ων
©
Ω
B Cν Y©uν YL2 Cνν 1~2
Y©uν YL2 Ων .
The time integral of the second term goes to zero by assumption, and so does the integral
of the rst term by virtue of the energy inequality:
t t 1~2
ν Y©uν YL2 ds B CT ν 1~2
ν
2
Y©uν YL2 ds B CT v 1~2 0.
0 0
Bibliography
[1] P. Constantin and C. Foias. Navier-Stokes equations. University of Chicago Press, 1988.
[2] T. Kato. Remarks on zero viscosity limit for nonstationary Navier-Stokes ows with boundary. Seminar
on nonlinear partial dierential equations. Springer, New York, NY, 1984.
[3] P.-L. Lions. Mathematical topics in uid mechanics. Vol. 1. Incompressible models. Oxford Lecture
Series in Mathematics and its Applications, 3. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.
[4] J. C. Robinson, J. L. Rodrigo, and W. Sadowski. The Three-Dimensional NavierStokes equations:
Classical theory. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 157. Cambridge University Press,
2016.
[5] R. Temam. Navier-Stokes equations. Theory and numerical analysis. Revised edition. Studies in Math-
ematics and its Applications, 2. North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-New York, 1979.
44