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