Next: Construction of the Fluid
 Up: A counterexample to the
 Previous: Outline of the Proof
We will not prove the smoothness of solution to (1.7);
it can be done in a very standard way, using the estimates to parabolic
equations given for example in [5]. 
Let us only summarize the main result
here.  This will show that the function 
 described in 
Lemma 2.2 is continuous on any compact subset of
.
Lemma  3.1   
Let 
 for some 
. Then,
in the class of functions 
, 
, there 
exists exactly one solution to (1.7).
Moreover, this solution
is smooth, that is, in 
, 
and 
 for any 
.  Furthermore the solution depends smoothly upon
the choice of 
. 
Remark  3.1   Note that if 

 belongs to 
 
 

 (the usual information about a weak solution to the 
Navier-Stokes equations), 
then only 

 and 

. The proof is essentially the same as the proof of Lemma 
3.1 using [
5] and is left as an exercise. 
 
Lemma  3.2   
There exists an interval 
 such that for 
 and 
 smooth as in 
Lemma 3.1, 
 is a smooth solution to (1.8). 
Proof: The existence of the solution can be shown using the Galerkin
method combined with standard a priori estimates. We leave the details
of the proof to the reader as an exercise. 
width7pt height7pt depth0pt
Now, on the time interval from Lemma 3.2 we see that
obeys the equation (see [2])
  | 
(3.1) | 
 
in 
 with the initial condition 
. Since,
for 
 and 
 bounded, there exists the unique solution to   
(3.1), we have 
 and thus 
 pointwise.
Also, we are now in a position to prove Lemma 2.1.  Since
(1.7)
are uniquely solvable, it follows that 
the solution is axisymmetric and hence we can apply the following result.
Proof: 
Denote 
 and 
. Then we get
Since 
 exists, necessarily 
Thus 
. Next
and also 
. Analogously we get that
 and 
.
The lemma is proved. width7pt height7pt depth0pt
 
 
   
 Next: Construction of the Fluid
 Up: A counterexample to the
 Previous: Outline of the Proof
Stephen Montgomery-Smith
2002-10-25