format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

### 1.1 Abstract

This article concerns the equations of motion of perfect incompressible fluids in a smooth, bounded, simply connected domain of $`^3`$. So we study the Euler system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tv+vv=p,\hfill \\ \text{div}v=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
where $`v`$ is the velocity field and $`p`$ is the pressure, along with an initial datum,

$$v|_{t=0}=v_0,$$
(2)
and a condition at the boundary of the domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$vn=0,$$
(3)
meaning that the fluid particles cannot cross the boundary ($`n`$ denotes the unit outward normal). We suppose that the curl of $`v_0`$ is a vortex patch, which involves some conormal smoothness implying $`v_0\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ but not $`v_0_{ϵ>0}C^{1+ϵ}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and examine the classical problems of the existence of a solution, either locally or globally in time, and of the persistence of the initial regularity.

### 1.2 Brief history of the problem

Vortex patches are initially a two-dimensional problem. In 1963, V. I. Yudovich proved in  the existence and uniqueness of a weak, 2-D solution of the Euler equations when the curl of $`v_0`$ is a bounded function with compact support; his result is valid even if the vorticity is not continuous. For example, the initial vorticity may be the characteristic function of a bounded domain, or such a function multiplied by a constant (that is, a so-called *vortex patch*). The corresponding solution is not Lipschitzian, but quasi-Lipschitzian in the sense that, $`t`$,

$$|v(t,x)v(t,y)|C|xy|\mathrm{ln}(e+|xy|)$$

for a constant $`C`$ depending only on $`t`$. Also, $`v`$ has a flow $`\psi `$ which is, among other properties, bicontinuous. In the case of a vortex patch, this implies that the vorticity $`\omega `$ at time $`t`$ is the characteristic function of a domain which is homeomorphic to the initial domain, because one has, in the two-dimensional case, $`\omega (t,\psi (t,x))=\omega _0(x)`$, $`t`$, $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

A more intricate question is how the smoothness of the *boundary* of the patch evolves. In 1986, A. Majda first conjectured, in view of numerical evidences, that the boundary of some patches, initially regular, eventually produced singularities (see ). But in 1991, J.-Y. Chemin proved the opposite result. The proof, detailed in , makes use of the notion of tangential smoothness along a system of vector fields: if a vortex patch has a smooth boundary, say of class $`C^{1+r}`$, with $`0<r<1`$, one can construct vector fields of class $`C^r`$ which are tangent to the boundary of the patch; the derivatives of the vorticity along these vector fields, in the sense of distributions, have some regularity which is preserved by the Euler system up to an arbitrary time.

Using similar techniques further results have been obtained, so today we are not restricted any more to flows in the whole of $`^2`$. Most important to us have been the generalization to the dimension three by P. Gamblin and X. Saint-Raymond (see ) and the article of N. Depauw, , devoted to the problem of vortex patches in a bounded domain of $`^2`$. Numerous historical remarks and a comprehensive bibliography on the subject can be found in  or in its English translation, .

### 1.3 Notations

We write as in  that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{x^3;\delta (x)>0\},$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{x^3;\delta (x)=0\},$$

where $`\delta `$ is a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ function such that $`n=\delta `$.

We use the notations of  for paradifferential calculus: $`T`$ is the paraproduct, $`R`$ the remainder, $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$, $`h𝒮(^3)`$ have Fourier transforms $`\chi `$, $`\phi `$ whose support are contained, respectively, in a ball and an annulus centered at the origin, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n=\phi (2^nD)`$ for $`n0`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\chi (D)`$, etc.

Besov spaces on $`^3`$ are defined (see , section 2.3) by

$$B_{p,q}^s(^3)=\{f𝒮^{}(^3);f_{B_{p,q}^s(^3)}\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}\{2^{ns}\mathrm{\Delta }_nf_{L^p}\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_{l^q})<\mathrm{}\}$$

and $`B_{p,q}^s(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the set of restrictions to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of all elements of $`B_{p,q}^s(^3)`$, so there is no distinction between $`B_{p,q}^s(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`B_{p,q}^s(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. Actually, we will only use $`B_{1,2}^s`$, in section 2.5, and Hölder spaces $`C_{}^r`$ (or simply $`C^r`$ if $`r`$), which correspond to $`p=q=\mathrm{}`$.

Finally, we will note

$$L^{\mathrm{}}(X;C^r(\mathrm{\Omega }))=\{w\underset{r^{}<r}{}C(X;C^r^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }));B^+:w(t)_rB,tX\},$$

for any interval (of time) $`X`$, and, $`r]0,1[`$,

$$[f]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\begin{array}{c}x,y\mathrm{\Omega }\\ xy\end{array}}{sup}\frac{|f(x)f(y)|}{|xy|}.$$

By now $`r`$ will denote a fixed real number in $`]0,1[`$.

### 1.4 Results

First of all we need to define what we mean by a “vortex patch”.

###### Definition 1.

We call vortex patch (or more precisely $`C^r`$ vortex patch) any vector field of the form

$$\omega _0=(\omega _{0i}\mathrm{𝟏}_P+\omega _{0e}\mathrm{𝟏}_{\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{P}})|_\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`\omega _{0i}`$, $`\omega _{0e}C^r(^3)`$ and $`P^3`$ (the support of the patch) is an open set of class $`C^{1+r}`$.

The following definition will also prove to be convenient.

###### Definition 2.

Let $`P^3`$ be an open set of class $`C^{1+r}`$. A system of vector fields $`W=\{w^\nu ;\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$ is $`P`$-regular if and only if

1. for some $`s]0,r]`$, $`w^\nu C^s(^3;^3)`$, $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$,
2. each $`w^\nu `$ is tangent both to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`P`$, and
3. $`W`$ is admissible, in the sense that (see \[6, page 394\])

$$[W]^1\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\left\{\frac{2}{N^{}(N^{}1)}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}|w^\mu \times w^\nu |^2\right\}^{1/4},$$
(4)
is bounded on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Now we can state our main result.

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`v_0`$ be a divergence-free vector field, tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, whose curl is a $`C^r`$ vortex patch, of support $`P`$. Suppose there exists a $`P`$-regular system of $`C^s`$ vector fields, for some real $`s]0,r]`$. Then the Euler equations (1), (2), (3) have on $`[0,T]`$, for a time $`T>0`$, a (unique) solution $`vL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$. Moreover, $`\omega (t)\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}\text{rot}v(t)`$ remains a vortex patch, whose support $`\psi (t,P)`$ is of class $`C^{1+s}`$, $`t[0,T]`$, $`\psi `$ denoting the flow of $`v`$.

Remark that, when $`\overline{P}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, a $`P`$-regular system of $`C^r`$ vector fields can easily be constructed using proposition 3.2 in  (page 395) and cut-off functions. So our result is complete in that case. When $`P`$ is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, however, theorem 1 doesn’t always apply and, even if it does, there is a loss of regularity. In this respect, theorem 1 is by far not as satisfactory as Depauw’s result in the 2-D case (namely, local existence of vortex patches tangent to the boundary and preservation of full regularity, no matter how $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are tangent). But our method also yields the following global results.

###### Theorem 2.

In addition of the hypotheses of theorem 1, suppose that $`v_0`$ is two-dimensional or axisymmetric, and in the later case, that $`(\text{rot}v_0)/\delta L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, where $`\delta `$ is the distance to the axis of symmetry. Then the existence and regularity results are in fact global in time, i.e. $`T`$ in the conclusion of theorem 1 can be taken arbitrarily large.

In the 2-D case, this shows that when a $`P`$-regular system of $`C^s`$ vector fields exists, Depauw’s result of local existence for tangent patches can be completed by a global one (we still can’t rule out the possibility of a blow-up for $`C^{1+r}`$ norms, but the patch will remain of class $`C^{1+s}`$ for all time). The difference of results between the two methods, in the 2-D case, is mainly due to the estimate (32), which is better but less general than the corresponding one in  (indeed, it is the same estimate that one can get when there is no boundary).

### 1.5 Plan of the article

We split the proof of theorem 1 in two sections. The existence of the solution is shown first, in section 2. Essentially we adapt the methods of , using extension procedures described in section 2.2. The fact that $`\omega (t)`$ remains a $`C^s`$ vortex patch is proved in section 3. Finally, in section 4, we explain how to get the global results in the 2-D and axisymmetric cases.

## 2 Existence of the solution

### 2.1 Sketch of the proof

The first part of theorem 1 is a consequence of the following result about persistence of conormal smoothness.

###### Proposition 1.

Let $`v_0`$ be a divergence-free vector field, tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, with $`\omega _0\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}\text{rot}v_0L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Let also $`W_0=\{w_0^\nu ;\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$ be an admissible system of $`C^r`$ vector fields that, again, are tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Suppose that $`,w_0^\nu \omega _0C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\nu `$, and that $`\omega _0\stackrel{~}{n}C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for a field $`\stackrel{~}{n}C^r(^3)`$ equal on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the unit outward normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Then there exist a time $`T_0>0`$ and a constant $`C_0`$, both depending only on $`\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\omega _0\stackrel{~}{n}_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$, $`[W_0]^1_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`w_0^\nu _r`$ and $`,w_0^\nu \omega _0_{r1}`$, $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}`$, such that the Euler equations (1), (2), (3) have a (unique) solution $`vL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0];\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ and that $`v(t,)_{\mathrm{Lip}}C_0`$, $`t[0,T_0]`$.

Indeed, assume that proposition 1 is valid. Then let $`\omega _0`$ be a vortex patch of support $`P`$ and $`W_0`$ be a $`P`$-regular system of $`C^s`$ vector fields, as in theorem 1. The $`P`$-regularity of $`W_0`$ ensure the existence of a field $`\stackrel{~}{n}C^s(^3)`$ equal on $`P`$ to the unit outward normal to $`P`$ and equal on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the unit outward normal to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. As $`\omega _0`$ is divergence-free, $`\omega _0\stackrel{~}{n}`$ must be continuous (hence $`C^s`$) on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Finally, the proposition below expresses that $`\omega _0`$ has good derivatives in the directions that are tangent to the boundary of the patch.

###### Proposition 2.

With the above notations, let $`wC^s(^3)`$ be a vector field which is tangent to $`P`$. The field $`,w(\omega _{0i}\mathrm{𝟏}_P+\omega _{0e}\mathrm{𝟏}_{^3\overline{P}})`$ belongs to $`C^{s1}(^3)`$, and one has the estimate

$`,w(\omega _{0i}\mathrm{𝟏}_P+\omega _{0e}\mathrm{𝟏}_{^3\overline{P}})_{s1}`$
$``$ $`Cw_L^{\mathrm{}}(\omega _{0i}_s+\omega _{0e}_s)+C\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}w_s,`$
for a constant $`C`$ depending only on the norm of the multiplication by $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ in $`(C^{s1}(^3))`$ (see section 2.5).

###### Proof.

By regularization and application of the Gauss-Green formula, it is easily seen that $`\text{div}(w\mathrm{𝟏}_P)=\mathrm{𝟏}_P\text{div}w`$ — thanks to the fact that $`w`$ is tangent to $`P`$. Set $`a=w\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ and $`b=\omega _{0i}`$. We decompose again in paraproducts and remainders:

$`,w\omega _{0i}\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ $`=`$ $`,ab`$
$`=`$ $`_i[T_{a^i}b+T_ba^i+R(a^i,b)],`$
and write the usual inequalities (see , chapter 2),

$$T_{a^i}b+R(a^i,b)_sCa^i_L^{\mathrm{}}b_s,$$

and

$`_iT_ba^i_{s1}`$ $``$ $`T_{_ib}a^i_{s1}+T_b\text{div}a_{s1}`$
$``$ $`C_ib_{s1}a_0+Cb_L^{\mathrm{}}\text{div}a_{s1},`$
hence, by proposition 3 (in section 2.5, page 3),

$$,w\omega _{0i}\mathrm{𝟏}_P_{s1}Cw_L^{\mathrm{}}\omega _{0i}_s+C\omega _{0i}_L^{\mathrm{}}w_s.$$

Now it suffices to do the same calculation with $`b=\omega _{0e}`$, using that

$$\text{div}(w\mathrm{𝟏}_{^3\overline{P}})=\text{div}w\mathrm{𝟏}_P\text{div}w.$$

So the first part of theorem 1 is a consequence of proposition 1, with $`s`$ substituted to $`r`$.

Now let us prove proposition 1. Assume first that $`v_0C^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. Then there exists a smooth solution $`v`$ of the Euler equations defined on a time-interval $`[0,T]`$, with $`T>0`$; we just need to estimate $`v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}`$ on any interval $`[0,T]`$ of existence of the solution, independently of $`TT_0`$, with $`T_0`$ to be determined.

Since the curl of $`v`$ is a solution of the system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\omega +,v\omega =\omega v,\hfill \\ \omega |_{t=0}=\omega _0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
we have

$$\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}\omega _0(t)_L^{\mathrm{}}e^{_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s},$$

and of course, if we define $`w^\nu `$, $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}`$, as the solutions of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tw^\nu +,vw^\nu =w^\nu v,\hfill \\ w^\nu |_{t=0}=w_0^\nu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
a similar inequality is true for each $`w^\nu (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}`$. Set $`W(t)=\{w^\nu (t);\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$. The proof of corollary 4.3 in  shows that

$$[W(t)]^1_L^{\mathrm{}}C[W_0]^1_L^{\mathrm{}}e^{\frac{1}{2}_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s},$$

hence $`W(t)`$ is admissible. Moreover, the fields $`w^\nu (t)`$ are, $`t[0,T]`$, tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Indeed, it follows from the definition of the $`w^\nu `$’s, (6), that $`w(\delta \psi ^1)`$ is constant along the particle trajectories (see , proposition 2.1, page S201; $`\psi `$ is the flow of $`v`$), thus $`w^\nu (t)|_\mathrm{\Omega }n=0`$, $`t`$. So we may apply, $`t`$, lemma 4 (see section 2.3), which gives

$$v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}C(1+\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{ln}(e+X(t)),$$
(7)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}X(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}1+\omega (t)_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+[W(t)]^1_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}w^\nu (t)_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}},w^\nu (t)\omega (t)_{C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\omega (t)n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}.\end{array}$$

Remark that the terms in $`X(t)`$ are analogous to those found in : only $`\omega (t)n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ is a new one. Using (6) and (5), we show in section 2.4 the estimates

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w^\nu (t)_r& C_0e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s}+C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}(w^\nu (s)_r\hfill \\ & +\frac{,w^\nu (s)\omega (s)_{r1}}{\omega (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}})e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }ds,\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{,w^\nu (t)\omega (t)_{r1}}{\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}}C_0e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s}\hfill \\ \hfill +C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}(w^\nu (s)_r+\frac{,w^\nu (s)\omega (s)_{r1}}{\omega (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}}\\ \hfill +\frac{w^\nu (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}}{\omega (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}}\omega (s)n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })})e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }ds,\end{array}$$
(9)
and

$$\omega (t)n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}C_0(1+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}w^\nu (t)_r)e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s},$$
(10)
$`C_0`$ denoting, from now on, any constant which depends only on the quantities $`\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\omega _0n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$, $`[W_0]^1_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`w_0^\nu _r`$ and $`,w_0^\nu \omega _0_{r1}`$, $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}`$. Summing up, we get

$`X(t)`$ $`C_0e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}}ds`$
$`+C_0{\displaystyle _0^t}v(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}e^{C_0^sv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }X(s)e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s.`$
Dividing by $`e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}}ds`$ and applying Gronwall’s lemma gives

$$X(t)C_0e^{C_0_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}e^{C_0^sv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s,}t[0,T];$$
(11)
introducing this in (7), we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}& C(1+\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s})\hfill \\ & \mathrm{ln}(e+C_0e^{C_0_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}e^{C_0^sv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
so, as $`\mathrm{ln}(e+ae^b)b+\mathrm{ln}(e+a)`$, $`a,b^+`$,

$$v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}C_0e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s},$$

hence

$$v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}2C_0,t[0,\frac{1}{2CC_0}],$$

following classical arguments: see for example \[6, p. 407\] (corollary 4.4). This completes the proof of proposition 1 if $`v_0C^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$.

If $`v_0C^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, then we regularize $`\stackrel{~}{\omega _0}\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}\omega _{0i}\mathrm{𝟏}_P+\omega _{0e}\mathrm{𝟏}_{^3\overline{P}}`$ in the usual way and we restrict the regularized fields to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$:

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{0k}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\rho _{1/k}\stackrel{~}{\omega _0},\omega _{0k}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{0k}|_\mathrm{\Omega },k_0.$$

Let $`v_k`$, $`k_0`$, be the smooth solutions of the Euler system corresponding to the initial vorticities $`\omega _{0k}`$. It is clear that $`\omega _{0k}_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}},`$ the constant $`C`$ being independent of $`k`$. We also have, $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$,

$`,w_0^\nu \omega _{0k}_{C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
$``$ $`,w_0^\nu \stackrel{~}{\omega }_{0k}_{r1}`$
$``$ $`,w_0^\nu \stackrel{~}{\omega }_{0k}\rho _{1/k}(w_0^\nu \stackrel{~}{\omega _0})_{r1}+\rho _{1/k},w_0^\nu \stackrel{~}{\omega _0}_{r1}`$
$``$ $`Cw_0^\nu _r\stackrel{~}{\omega _0}_L^{\mathrm{}}+C,w_0^\nu \stackrel{~}{\omega _0}_{r1}`$
$``$ $`Cw_0^\nu _r\stackrel{~}{\omega _0}_L^{\mathrm{}}+Cw_0^\nu _L^{\mathrm{}}(\omega _{0i}_r+\omega _{0e}_r).`$
and similarly

$`\omega _{0k}n_{C^s(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{0k}\stackrel{~}{n}_s`$
$``$ $`C\stackrel{~}{n}_s\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}+C\stackrel{~}{\omega _0}\stackrel{~}{n}_s.`$
Since proposition 1 is already proved for regular initial data, these uniform estimates imply that the $`v_k`$’s are defined on a common interval $`[0,T_0]`$ for some time $`T_0>0`$, with the existence of a constant $`C_0`$ such that

$$v_k(t,)_{\mathrm{Lip}}C_0,t[0,T_0],k_0.$$
(13)
Using that the $`v_k`$’s are solutions of the Euler system, one can derive from (13) a uniform bound on $`_tv_k_L^{\mathrm{}}`$. So there exists a subsequence of $`(v_k)`$, $`(v_{k(l)})_l`$ converging in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0];C^\sigma (\mathrm{\Omega }))`$, $`\sigma ]0,1[`$, to a field $`vL^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0];\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$. Then, since $`v_k(0)v_0`$ in $`L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, it is easily seen that $`v`$ is the desired solution.

### 2.2 Extensions of divergence-free vector fields

Before we can prove the estimates (7), (8), (9) and (10), we must present some new extension lemma’s. The method which is normally used to extend divergence-free vector fields (see , for example) would not, unfortunately, be sufficient for our purpose.

These lemma’s rest upon the following elementary construction.

#### 2.2.1 Basic construction

At every point $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ could be any bounded, $`C^1`$ open subset of $`^3`$), we choose orthogonal vectors, $`e_1^x`$, $`e_2^x`$ and $`e_3^x`$, each of length one, which are not tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and are oriented towards the exterior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

It is not hard to check that, $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, there exist two neighbourhoods of $`x`$, $`W_x`$ and $`V_xW_x`$, and Lipschitzian projections $`y^{x,j}:V_xW_x`$ such that $`\xi \overline{V_x}`$, $`j\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\}`$, the line through $`\xi `$ and of direction $`e_j^x`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Omega }W_x`$ in exactly one point, $`y^{x,j}(\xi )`$.

The collection of all $`V_x`$ is an open cover of the compact set $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. So we can extract from it a finite subcover $`V_1,\mathrm{},V_N`$ (each $`V_i`$ corresponding to a point $`x_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$) and after that choose open sets $`V_0`$ and $`V`$ such that $`\overline{V_0}\mathrm{\Omega }_{i=0}^NV_iV`$. Finally we give ourselves $`N+1`$ functions $`\psi _iC_0^{\mathrm{}}(^3)`$ ($`i=0,\mathrm{},N`$), with values in $`[0,1]`$, such that $`\mathrm{supp}\psi _iV_i`$ and $`_{i=0}^N\psi _i=1`$ on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

#### 2.2.2 Extensions

In this section we denote by $`𝒰`$ the set of continuous divergence-free vector fields on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, and by $`𝒞`$ the set of all continuous vector fields on $`^3`$.

Our first extension operator, $`P`$, maps elements of $`𝒰`$ to fields of bounded divergence.

###### Lemma 1.

There exists an operator $`P:𝒰L^{\mathrm{}}(^3;^3)`$ such that, $`u𝒰`$, $`Pu`$ extends $`u|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{supp}PuV`$ and

$$Pu_{L^{\mathrm{}}(^3)}Cu_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(14a)
$$Pu_{C^r(^3\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Cun_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(14b)
$$\text{div}\stackrel{~}{u}_{L^{\mathrm{}}(^3)}Cu_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(14c)
$$\text{div}\stackrel{~}{u}_{C^r(^3\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Cun_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(14d)
where $`C`$ depends only on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

On every $`V_i`$ ($`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$), we define a new vector field $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{u}_i(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}u(x)\hfill & \text{if }xV_i\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ [u(x)n(x)]n(x)\hfill & \text{if }xV_i\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ _{j=1}^3[\stackrel{~}{u}_i(y^{i,j}(x))e_j^{x_i}]e_j^{x_i}\hfill & \text{if }xV_i\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }},\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
with $`y^{i,j}\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}y^{x_i,j}`$. Then we set

$$Pu=\psi _0u+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\psi _i\stackrel{~}{u}_i,$$
(16)
so the estimate (14a) is trivial. Let us prove (14b). We have $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i_{L^{\mathrm{}}(V_i\mathrm{\Omega })}un_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$ and if $`\xi ,\eta V_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then

$`|\stackrel{~}{u}_i(\xi )\stackrel{~}{u}_i(\eta )|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}|\stackrel{~}{u}_i(y^{i,j}(\xi ))\stackrel{~}{u}_i(y^{i,j}(\eta ))|`$
$`=`$ $`|[(un)(y^{i,j}(\xi ))]n(y^{i,j}(\xi ))[(un)(y^{i,j}(\eta ))]n(y^{i,j}(\eta ))|:`$
as $`n`$ is smooth, we only have to remember that the mappings $`y^{i,j}`$ are Lipschitzian. In order to prove (14c), remark that, $`i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, $`\text{div}\stackrel{~}{u}_i=0`$ on $`V_i`$, by construction. Thus

$$\text{div}\stackrel{~}{u}=u\psi _0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\stackrel{~}{u}_i\psi _i,$$

and (14c) holds with $`C=_{i=0}^N\psi _i_L^{\mathrm{}}`$. The proof of (14d) is analogous. ∎

Typically, we will apply lemma 1 to regular curls $`\omega (t)`$ of solutions corresponding to regularized data. Then, introducing a discontinuity on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (which may seem unnatural at first) will be a crucial trick, because $`\omega (t)n|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is easier to control than $`\omega (t)|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see section 2.4.3), and also vanish in the 2-D and axisymmetric cases.

Of course, we can also extend $`u`$ continuously through $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, but then the tangential component of $`u`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ appears in the estimates. Doing this will be helpful only if $`u\mathrm{Lip}`$.

###### Lemma 2.

There exists an operator $`P_c:𝒰𝒞`$ such that, $`u𝒰`$, $`P_cu`$ extends continuously $`u|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{supp}P_cuV`$, and

$$P_cu_{\mathrm{Lip}(^3)}+\text{div}P_cu_{\mathrm{Lip}(^3)}Cu_{\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$

where $`C`$ depends only on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Set, $`xV_i\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i(x)=u(x)`$ instead of $`[u(x)n(x)]n(x)`$ in the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{u}_i`$, (15), and define $`P_c`$ by the right member of (16). ∎

The third lemma can be used if one really wants the extended fields to be of free divergence. We note $`𝒰^{}=\{u𝒰;_Bun=0`$ for every connected component $`B`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\}`$.

###### Lemma 3.

There exists an operator $`P_{\text{div}}:𝒰^{}L^{\mathrm{}}(^3;^3)`$ such that, $`u𝒰^{}`$, $`P_{\text{div}}u`$ extends $`u|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{supp}P_{\text{div}}u\overline{V}`$, $`\text{div}P_{\text{div}}u=0`$ on $`^3`$, and

$$P_{\text{div}}u_{L^{\mathrm{}}(^3)}Cu_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(17a)
$$P_{\text{div}}u_{C^r(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}Cun_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$
(17b)
the constant $`C`$ depending only of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Let us set $`P_{\text{div}}u=Pu\mathrm{𝟏}_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\psi `$, where $`\psi `$ is a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =\text{div}Pu\text{ in }V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}\hfill \\ \frac{\psi }{n}=0\text{ on }V\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

As $`\psi _{C_{}^1(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}C\text{div}Pu_{L^{\mathrm{}}(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}`$, (17a) and (17b) are easy consequences of (14a) and (14b). The other properties of $`P_{\text{div}}`$ are obvious. ∎

### 2.3 Static estimates

Here we prove (7), together with the estimate (19), which will be needed in section 3.

###### Lemma 4.

Suppose that $`\omega =\text{rot}v`$, where $`v`$ is a smooth ($`C^{\mathrm{}}`$) divergence-free vector field such that $`vn=0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`W=\{w^\nu ;\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$, $`N^{}2`$ be an admissible family of $`C^r`$ vector fields which, as $`v`$, are tangent to the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then we have the estimate

$$v_{\mathrm{Lip}}C(1+\omega _L^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{ln}(e+X),$$
(18)
with

$$\begin{array}{c}X\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}1+\omega _{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+[W]^1_{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}w^\nu _{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}},w^\nu \omega _{C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\omega n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })},\end{array}$$

and there exists a constant $`C`$ such that, for any subset $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$,

$$[v]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}CX^{20}+[\omega ]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.$$
(19)
The proof of lemma 4 is spread over several subsections.

#### 2.3.1 Extensions

A priori, the fields $`\omega `$ and $`w^\nu `$, $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}`$, are only defined on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Careful extensions, however, bring most problems back to the case of fields defined on the whole of $`^3`$. We shall use the notations of section 2.2.

We simply extend $`\omega `$ to $`\overline{\omega }\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}P_{\text{div}}\omega `$ (see lemma 3). The extensions of the $`w^\nu `$’s is more complicated.

Actually, every vector field $`w^\nu `$ is extended $`N`$ times (see section 2.2.1). We define $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{\nu ,i}`$ ($`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$) on $`^3`$ in two steps: we first set $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{\nu ,i}=w^\nu `$ on $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{\nu ,i}=w^\nu y^{i,1}`$ (for example) on $`\overline{V_i}`$; next we extend this auxiliary field on $`^3`$, à la Whitney (see , chapter VI, section 2). As these $`\stackrel{~}{w}^{\nu ,i}`$’s have no reason to be tangent to $`V`$, one cuts them by a function $`\phi _{\text{int}}C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^3)`$ equal to 1 on $`_{i=0}^NV_i`$ and whose support is a subset of $`V`$. We note $`\overline{w}^{N(\nu 1)+i}=\phi _{\text{int}}\stackrel{~}{w}^{\nu ,i}`$, $`\nu ,i`$.

Of course, the system of the $`\overline{w}^\mu `$’s, $`\mu =1,\mathrm{},NN^{}`$, is not admissible away from $`_{i=0}^NV_i`$; therefore we must add to this system other vector fields. By proposition 3.2 in , page 395, there exists an admissible system of vector fields $`\{\stackrel{~}{w}^{NN^{}+j};j=1,\mathrm{},5\}`$, tangent to $`V`$ and of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$. These fields will not be tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$; so we set this time $`\overline{w}^{NN^{}+j}=\phi _{\text{ext}}\stackrel{~}{w}^{NN^{}+j}`$, $`j`$, where $`\phi _{\text{ext}}C^{\mathrm{}}(^3)`$ is equal to 1 outside $`_{i=0}^NV_i`$ and vanish on a neighbourhood of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. The $`\overline{w}^{NN^{}+j}`$’s depend only of $`V`$.

In that way we obtain vector fields $`\overline{w}^\mu `$ tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and to $`V`$, such that

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}\overline{w}^\mu _{C^r(^3)}C(1+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}w^\nu _{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}),$$
(20)
and which form an admissible system:

$$[\overline{W}^1]C(1+[W]^1),$$
(21)
because $`[\overline{W}]^1[W]^1`$ on $`_{i=0}^NV_i`$ and $`[\overline{W}]^1C<\mathrm{}`$ outside.

#### 2.3.2 Estimation of $`,\overline{w}^\mu \overline{\omega }`$ in $`C^{r1}(^3)`$

Let $`\phi 𝒮(^3)`$ be a test-function, and let $`\overline{w}_q^\mu =\chi (2^qD)\overline{w}^\mu `$, $`q`$, be a sequence of smooth fields obtained from $`\overline{w}^\mu `$ ($`\mu \{1,\mathrm{},NN^{}+5\}`$ is fixed) by regularization. We have, with summation on $`i`$,

$`,\overline{w}^\mu \overline{\omega },\phi `$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega }_i\phi \underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega }_i\phi `$
$`=`$ $`\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })\phi \underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{w}_q^\mu n\mathrm{tr}\overline{\omega }|_\mathrm{\Omega }\phi `$
$`+\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })\phi \underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}\overline{w}_q^\mu (n)\mathrm{tr}\overline{\omega }|_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\phi `$
$`\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _V}\overline{w}_q^\mu n\overline{\omega }\phi ,`$
$`n`$ denoting again the unit outward normal, either to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or to $`V`$. When $`q\mathrm{}`$, the integrals on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and on $`V`$ tend to 0, because $`\overline{w}_q^\mu n\overline{w}^\mu n`$ $`(=0)`$ uniformly, both on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and on $`V`$. Now let $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ be any continuous extension operator, $`s]2,2[`$, from $`C^s(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ into $`C^s(^3)`$ (see \[10, section 3.3.4\] for the existence of such operators). The distribution $`\phi _\mathrm{\Omega }_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })\phi `$ is equal to the usual product $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }]`$. As $`\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }]`$, when $`q\mathrm{}`$, in $`C^{r^{}1}(^3)`$, $`r^{}<r`$, the products $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ converge to $`\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }]`$ in the same spaces, by virtue of proposition 3. So we have

$$\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}_\mathrm{\Omega }_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })\phi =\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }],\phi .$$
(23)
In the same way, one shows that

$$\underset{q\mathrm{}}{lim}_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_i(\overline{w}_q^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })\phi =\mathrm{𝟏}_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_i[\stackrel{~}{P}(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}],\phi .$$
(24)
Putting (22), (23) and (24) together, we get

$$,\overline{w}^\mu \overline{\omega }=\mathrm{𝟏}_\mathrm{\Omega }\stackrel{~}{P}[_i(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }]+\mathrm{𝟏}_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}_i[\stackrel{~}{P}(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_{V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}}],$$

hence the estimate we wanted:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}},\overline{w}^\mu \overline{\omega }_{C^{r1}(^3)}`$
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}}_i(\overline{w}^{\mu i}\overline{\omega })|_\mathrm{\Omega }_{C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}[\overline{w}^{\mu i}_{C^r(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\overline{\omega }_{L^{\mathrm{}}(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}+\overline{w}^{\mu i}_{L^{\mathrm{}}(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}\overline{\omega }_{C^r(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}]`$
$``$ $`C^{}[{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}},w^\nu \omega _{C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$
$`+(1+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}}w^\nu _{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })})\omega _{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}+(1+{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}}w^\nu _{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })})\omega n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}],`$
thanks to (20), (17a), (17b) and proposition 3.

#### 2.3.3 Biot-Savart’s law

To $`\overline{\omega }`$ we associate the field $`\overline{v}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\overline{\omega }F`$, whose components are

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\overline{v}^1=\overline{\omega }^2_3F\overline{\omega }^3_2F,\hfill \\ \overline{v}^2=\overline{\omega }^3_1F\overline{\omega }^1_3F,\hfill \\ \overline{v}^3=\overline{\omega }^1_2F\overline{\omega }^2_1F,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`F(x)=1/4\pi |x|`$ is the 3-D Laplacian’s fundamental solution. We have identically $`\text{div}\overline{v}=0`$, and $`\text{rot}\overline{v}=\overline{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }F\text{div}\overline{\omega }F=\overline{\omega },`$ but in general $`\overline{v}n|_\mathrm{\Omega }0`$. So $`\overline{v}`$ is not an extension of $`v`$; as a matter of fact, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is simply connected, $`v=\overline{v}|_\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha `$, where $`\alpha `$ is a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0\text{in }\mathrm{\Omega },\hfill \\ \frac{\alpha }{n}=\overline{v}n\text{on }\mathrm{\Omega }.\hfill \end{array}$$

#### 2.3.4 Estimation of $`v`$ in $`\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

Let us first estimate $`\alpha _{\mathrm{Lip}}`$. We use the inequality

$$\alpha _{\mathrm{Lip}}C\alpha _{C_{}^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}\mathrm{ln}(e+\frac{\alpha _{1+r}}{\alpha _{C_{}^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}}).$$
(25)
We have directly

$$\alpha _{C_{}^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\overline{v}n_{C_{}^1(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\omega _{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })},$$

and

$$\alpha _{1+r}C\overline{v}n_{C^{1+r}(\mathrm{\Omega })}C\overline{v}_{C^{1+r}(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})},$$

by theorem 3.3.3 in  (trace theorem).

To get the needed estimates on $`\overline{v}`$, we follow the proof of proposition 3.3 in . One makes use of the Fourier multiplier $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda (D)`$, where $`\lambda (\xi )=[\chi (\xi )+|\xi |^2]^{1/2}`$ (the function $`\chi C_0^{\mathrm{}}(^3)`$ is positive and equal to 1 near 0). As $`\text{rot}\overline{v}=\overline{\omega }`$,

$`\overline{v}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(\chi (D)\mathrm{\Delta })\overline{v}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi (D)\overline{v}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\text{rot}\overline{\omega };`$
thus, $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\}`$,

$`_j\overline{v}^i`$ $`=`$ $`_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi (D)\overline{v}^i+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_j(\text{rot}\overline{\omega })^i`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi (D)\overline{v}^i+{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _{k,l}^i\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_j_k\overline{\omega }^l,`$
with $`\alpha _{k,l}^i\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$, $`i,k,l`$. The functions $`_j\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi (D)\overline{v}`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$) are highly regular: $`\chi (D)\overline{v}_sC_s\overline{v}_L^{\mathrm{}}C_s^{}\omega _{L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })}`$, $`s`$. The difficult terms $`_j_k\overline{\omega }^l`$ are treated as follows. By lemma’s 3.4 and 3.5 in , there exists $`C^r`$ functions $`a_{jk}`$ and $`b_{jk}^{l\nu }`$ such that

$$\xi _j\xi _ka_{jk}|\xi |^2=\underset{l,\nu }{}b_{jk}^{l\nu }\xi _l\overline{w}^\nu ,\xi ,(x,\xi )^3\times ^3,$$

with the estimates

$$a_{jk}_rC(1+\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}\overline{w}^\mu _L^{\mathrm{}})^7(\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}\overline{w}^\mu _r)(1+[\overline{W}]^1_L^{\mathrm{}})^4$$

and

$$b_{jk}^{l\nu }_rC(1+\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}\overline{w}^\mu _L^{\mathrm{}})^{18}(\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}\overline{w}^\mu _r)(1+[\overline{W}]^1_L^{\mathrm{}})^{20}.$$

The $`\xi `$-identity implies

$$_j_k\overline{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega })=\underset{l,m,\nu }{}_l_m(b_{jk}^{l\nu }\overline{w}_m^\nu \overline{\omega }),$$

hence (see corollary 3.6 in , pages 399 and 400)

$`_j_k\overline{\omega }\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega })_{r2}`$ (27)
$``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{l,m=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{NN^{}+5}{}}}(\overline{w}_m^\nu _L^{\mathrm{}}\overline{\omega }_L^{\mathrm{}}b_{jk}^{l\nu }_r+_m(\overline{w}_m^\nu \overline{\omega })_{r1}b_{jk}^{l\nu }_L^{\mathrm{}})`$
$``$ $`CX^{20}.`$
Writing

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2_j_k\overline{\omega }^l`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[_j_k\overline{\omega }^l\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)]+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[_j_k\overline{\omega }^l\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)]+\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi (D)(a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l,`$
it can be seen, firstly that

$$\alpha _{1+r}\overline{v}_{C^r(V\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})}CX^{20},$$

thus

$$_j\alpha _L^{\mathrm{}}C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}(e+\frac{X^{20}}{\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}}),$$

and secondly that

$`_j\overline{v}_L^{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`C\overline{\omega }_L^{\mathrm{}}+{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[_j_k\overline{\omega }^l\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)]_L^{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}+C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}(e+{\displaystyle \frac{X^{20}}{\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}}}),`$
which proves (18).

Now let us prove (19). As $`v=\overline{v}|_\mathrm{\Omega }\alpha `$ (see page 2.3.3), we have

$`[v]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $``$ $`\alpha _{1+r}+[\overline{v}]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$
$``$ $`CX^{20}+[\overline{v}]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.`$
Substituting (28) in (26), we get

$`_j\overline{v}^i`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\chi (D)(_j\overline{v}^i+{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _{k,l}^ia_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _{k,l}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2[_j_k\overline{\omega }^l\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l)]{\displaystyle \underset{k,l=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\alpha _{k,l}a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l.`$
This directly implies (19), because all terms but those in the last summation are bounded in $`C^r(^3)`$ by $`CX^{20}`$, and

$`[a_{jk}\overline{\omega }^l]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ $``$ $`a_{jk}_r\overline{\omega }_L^{\mathrm{}}+a_{jk}_L^{\mathrm{}}[\omega ^l]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$
$``$ $`CX^{20}+[\omega ]_r^\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.`$
### 2.4 Dynamic estimates

Now we prove (8), (9) and (10). Let’s recall that we want to control the evolution of $`w^\nu `$ in $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, of $`,w^\nu \omega `$ in $`C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and of $`\omega n`$ in $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

#### 2.4.1 Estimation of $`w^\nu `$ in $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

We need to estimate $`w^\nu v`$ in $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. As $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$ is fixed, we shall write, in this section, $`w`$ for $`w^\nu `$. The idea is to estimate $`wv_r`$ by the norms of $`\text{div}(wv)`$ and of $`\text{rot}(wv)`$ in $`C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and the norm of $`(wv)n`$ in $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

##### Divergence

We write

$`\text{div}(wv)`$ $`=`$ $`_i(w^j_jv^i)`$
$`=`$ $`_i(\overline{w}^j_j\overline{v}^i)|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`_i[R(\overline{w}^j,_j\overline{v}^i)+T_{\overline{w}^j}_j\overline{v}^i+T_{_j\overline{v}^i}\overline{w}^j]|_\mathrm{\Omega },`$
where $`\overline{v}`$ et $`\overline{w}`$ are extensions of $`v`$ and $`w`$ respectively, to be specified. The remainder and the paraproducts are treated as usual (see , chapter 2):

$$R(\overline{w}^j,_j\overline{v}^i)_rC\overline{w}^j_r_j\overline{v}^i_0,$$

$`_iT_{\overline{w}^j}_j\overline{v}^i_{r1}`$ $``$ $`T_{_i\overline{w}^j}_j\overline{v}^i_{r1}+T_{\overline{w}^j}_j\text{div}\overline{v}_{r1}`$
$``$ $`C_i\overline{w}^j_{r1}_j\overline{v}^i_0+C\overline{w}^j_L^{\mathrm{}}_j\text{div}\overline{v}_{r1},`$
and

$`_iT_{_j\overline{v}^i}\overline{w}^j_{r1}`$ $``$ $`T_{_j\text{div}\text{ }\overline{v}}\overline{w}^j_{r1}+T_{_j\overline{v}^i}_i\overline{w}^j_{r1}`$
$``$ $`C_j\text{div}\overline{v}_{r1}\overline{w}^j_0+C_j\overline{v}^i_L^{\mathrm{}}_i\overline{w}^j_{r1},`$
thus

$$\text{div}(wv)_{r1}C\overline{w}_r(\overline{v}_L^{\mathrm{}}+\text{div}\overline{v}_{r1}).$$

Choosing for $`w`$ any continuous extension from $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ into $`C^r(^3)`$, and setting $`\overline{v}=P_cv`$ (see lemma 2), one obtains

$$\text{div}(wv)_{r1}Cv_{\mathrm{Lip}}w_r.$$
(29)
##### Rotational

Let us consider the third component (for example) of the vorticity:

$`[\text{rot}(wv)]^3`$ $`=`$ $`_1(w^j_jv^2)_2(w^j_jv^1)`$
$`=`$ $`[_1(\overline{w}^j_j\overline{v}^2)_2(\overline{w}^j_j\overline{v}^1)]|_\mathrm{\Omega }.`$
Here continuous extensions $`wC^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to $`\overline{w}C^r(^3)`$ and $`v\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to $`\overline{v}\mathrm{Lip}(^3)`$ will be good enough. It is easily seen (making use of $`T`$ and $`R`$) that

$`_1(\overline{w}^j_j\overline{v}^2)`$ $`=`$ $`_1_j(\overline{w}^j\overline{v}^2)_1(\overline{v}^2\text{div}\overline{w})`$
$`=`$ $`_j(\overline{w}^j_1\overline{v}^2)+[_j(\overline{v}^2_1\overline{w}^j)_1(\overline{v}^2\text{div}\overline{w})].`$
Let us consider the difference that has been put between brackets. We estimate separately each remainder:

$$R(_1\overline{w}^j,\overline{v}^2)_rC_1\overline{w}^j_{r1}\overline{v}^2_1,$$

and

$$R(\overline{v}^2,\text{div}\overline{w})_rC\overline{v}^2_1\text{div}\overline{w}_{r1}.$$

When it comes to paraproducts, however, we need to exploit some simplifications:

$`_jT_{_1\overline{w}^j}\overline{v}^2+_jT_{\overline{v}^2}_1\overline{w}^j_1T_{\overline{v}^2}\text{div}\overline{w}_1T_{\text{div}\text{ }\overline{w}}\overline{v}^2`$
$`=`$ $`T_{_1\overline{w}^j}_j\overline{v}^2+T_{_j\overline{v}^2}_1\overline{w}^jT_{_1\overline{v}^2}\text{div}\overline{w}T_{\text{div}\text{ }\overline{w}}_1\overline{v}^2,`$
and

$$T_{_1\overline{w}^j}_j\overline{v}^2_{r1}C_1\overline{w}^j_{r1}_j\overline{v}^2_0,$$

$$T_{_j\overline{v}^2}_1\overline{w}^j_{r1}C_j\overline{v}^2_L^{\mathrm{}}_1\overline{w}^j_{r1},$$

$$T_{_1\overline{v}^2}\text{div}\overline{w}_{r1}C_1\overline{v}^2_L^{\mathrm{}}\text{div}\overline{w}_{r1},$$

$$T_{\text{div}\text{ }\overline{w}}_1\overline{v}^2_{r1}C\text{div}\overline{w}_{r1}_1\overline{v}^2_0.$$

We do the same thing on $`_2(\overline{w}^j_j\overline{v}^1)`$, which gives after subtraction

$$[\text{rot}(wv)]^3=,w\omega ^3+Y,$$

with $`Y_{r1}C\overline{v}_{\mathrm{Lip}}\overline{w}_r`$. So we get

$$\text{rot}(wv)_{r1}C(v_{\mathrm{Lip}}w_r+,w\omega _{r1}).$$
(30)
##### Normal component

Since $`v`$ and $`w`$ are both tangent to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see p. 2.1), one has $`(wv)n=w^j_jv^i_i\delta =w^jv^i_i_j\delta `$: as in , we borrow some smoothness from the boundary, which leads to

$$(wv)n_rC(w_rv_L^{\mathrm{}}+v_rw_L^{\mathrm{}}).$$
(31)
##### Consequence for the field

The inequalities (29), (30) and (31) imply

$$w^\nu v_rC(v_{\mathrm{Lip}}w^\nu _r+,w^\nu \omega _{r1});$$
(32)
the required estimate is proved in section 1.6 of . Combining (32) and (6), one gets (8).

#### 2.4.2 Estimation of $`,w^\nu \omega `$ in $`C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

Throughout this section $`\nu `$ is fixed, so we will again drop the $`\nu `$ in $`w^\nu `$. By multiplication of (5) and (6) (see , page 402), one has

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t(w\omega )+,v(w\omega )=(wv)\omega +w(\omega v),\hfill \\ (w\omega )|_{t=0}=w_0\omega _0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(33)
Applying $`,`$ to the equation of (33) one gets, $`i\{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}\}`$,

$$_t_j(w^j\omega ^i)+_j_k(v^kw^j\omega ^i)=_j(w^k\omega ^i_kv^j)+_j(w^j\omega ^k_kv^i),$$

i.e.

$$_t_j(w^j\omega ^i)+_k[v^k_j(w^j\omega ^i)]=_j(w^j\omega ^k_kv^i),$$

so (33) implies that $`u\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=},w\omega L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ satisfies the system

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tu+,vu=,w(\omega v),\hfill \\ ,w\omega |_{t=0}=u_0\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=},w_0\omega _0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(34)
We have to estimate $`f\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=},w(\omega v)`$ in $`C^{r1}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. We follow the proof of , page 404, changing here and there some details:

$`f^i`$ $`=`$ $`_j(w^j\omega ^k_kv^i)`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`_j_k(w^j\omega ^kv^i)_j[_k(\omega ^kw^j)v^i]`$
$`=`$ $`_k[_j(w^j\omega ^k)v^i_j(\omega ^jw^k)v^i]+_k(\omega ^kw^j_jv^i).`$
Let us start with the last term, $`_k(\omega ^kw^j_jv^i)`$. We set $`\overline{\omega }=P\omega `$, so that $`\overline{\omega }_L^{\mathrm{}}+\text{div}\overline{\omega }_L^{\mathrm{}}C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}`$, and we extend $`wv`$ continuously from $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ into $`C^r(^3)`$. Then we have

$`_k(\omega ^kw^j_jv^i)`$ $`=`$ $`_k(\overline{\omega }^k\overline{wv}^i)|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$
$`=`$ $`_k[R(\overline{\omega }^k,\overline{wv}^i)+T_{\overline{\omega }^k}\overline{wv}^i+T_{\overline{wv}^i}\overline{\omega }^k]|_\mathrm{\Omega },`$
with

$`R(\overline{\omega }^k,\overline{wv}^i)+T_{\overline{\omega }^k}\overline{wv}^i_r`$ $``$ $`C\overline{\omega }^k_L^{\mathrm{}}\overline{wv}^i_r`$ (36)
$``$ $`C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}wv_r,`$
and

$`_kT_{\overline{wv}^i}\overline{\omega }^k_{r1}`$ $``$ $`T_{\overline{wv}}\text{div}\overline{\omega }_{r1}+T_{_k\overline{wv}}\overline{\omega }^k_{r1}`$ (37)
$``$ $`C\overline{wv}_L^{\mathrm{}}\text{div}\overline{\omega }_{r1}+C\overline{wv}_{r1}\overline{\omega }_0`$
$``$ $`C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}wv_r.`$
Combining (36), (37) and (32), we find

$`_k(\omega ^kw^j_jv^i)_{r1}`$ (38)
$``$ $`Cv_{\mathrm{Lip}}\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}w_r+C\omega _L^{\mathrm{}},w\omega _{r1}.`$
Now consider the first term of (35). We extend continuously $`w`$ (to $`\overline{w}`$) from $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ into $`C^r(^3)`$, $`v`$ (to $`\overline{v}`$) from $`\mathrm{Lip}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ into $`\mathrm{Lip}(^3)`$, and we set $`\overline{\omega }=P\omega `$. Let $`\zeta =,\overline{w}\overline{\omega }\overline{\omega }\overline{w}`$. Using these notations, the first term of (35) is written $`,\zeta \overline{v}^i|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Remark that $`\text{div}\zeta =0`$, so $`,\zeta \overline{v}=_k[R(\zeta ^k,\overline{v})+T_{\zeta ^k}\overline{v}]+T_{_k\overline{v}}\zeta ^k,`$ and hence $`,\zeta \overline{v}_{r1}C\overline{v}_{\mathrm{Lip}}\zeta _{r1}.`$ As

$`\zeta _{r1}`$ $``$ $`,\overline{w}\overline{\omega }_{r1}+C\overline{\omega }_L^{\mathrm{}}\overline{w}_r+C\text{div}\overline{\omega }_{r1}\overline{w}_L^{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`C(,w\omega _{r1}+w_L^{\mathrm{}}\omega n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}+\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}w_r),`$
which can be shown by similar arguments to those of section 2.3.2, we finally have on $`f`$, taking (38) into account, the estimate

$`f_{r1}`$ (39)
$``$ $`Cv_{\mathrm{Lip}}(,w\omega _{r1}+\omega _L^{\mathrm{}}w_r`$
$`+w_L^{\mathrm{}}\omega n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })}).`$
We then extend continuously $`f`$ to $`\overline{f}L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];C^{r1}(^3))`$, $`u_0`$ to $`\overline{u_0}C^{r1}(^3)`$, $`v`$ to $`\overline{v}`$ such that $`\overline{v}_{\mathrm{Lip}}+\text{div}\overline{v}_{\mathrm{Lip}}Cv_{\mathrm{Lip}}`$ (setting $`\overline{v}=P_cv`$). Next we approach $`\overline{f}`$ and $`\overline{u_0}`$ by regularizations with fixed $`t`$ ($`f_k\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}\rho _{k^1}\overline{f}`$, $`u_{0,k}=\rho _{k^1}\overline{u_0}`$, $`k`$), and we define $`u_k`$, $`k`$, as the solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tu_k+,\overline{v}u_k=f_k,\hfill \\ u_k|_{t=0}=u_{0,k},\hfill \end{array}$$

in the space $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];\mathrm{Lip}(^3))`$. We apply to the $`u_k`$’s the following lemma, which is almost identical to lemma 4.1.1 in .

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`T>0`$ and $`r]0,1[`$. Suppose that $`g`$, $`h`$ and $`w`$, all three in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];\mathrm{Lip}(^3))`$, satisfy

$$_tg+,wg=h,$$

and that $`\text{div}w`$ also belongs to $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];\mathrm{Lip}(^3))`$. Then one has, with the notation $`W()=w()_{\mathrm{Lip}}+\text{div}w()_{\mathrm{Lip}}`$, the inequality

$$g(t)_{r1}g(0)_{r1}e^{C_0^tW(s)𝑑s}+_0^th(s)_{r1}e^{C_s^tW(\tau )𝑑\tau },$$

the constant $`C`$ depending only on $`r`$.

###### Proof.

$`q`$ integer $`1`$, one has

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\mathrm{\Delta }_qg+w\mathrm{\Delta }_qg=\mathrm{\Delta }_qh+w\mathrm{\Delta }_qg\mathrm{\Delta }_q(wg)\mathrm{\Delta }_q(g\text{div}w),\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_qg|_{t=0}=\mathrm{\Delta }_qg(0).\hfill \end{array}$$

The inequality

$$w\mathrm{\Delta }_qg\mathrm{\Delta }_q(wg)_L^{\mathrm{}}2^{q(r1)}Wg_{r1}$$

is obtained as in the proof of lemma 4.1.1 in , except that the commutators $`[\mathrm{\Delta }_q,R(\text{div}w,)]`$ (see page 69 in ) are estimated by taking advantage of the fact that $`\text{div}w\mathrm{Lip}(^3)`$:

$`R(\text{div}w,\mathrm{\Delta }_qg)\mathrm{\Delta }_qR(\text{div}w,g)_L^{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`R(\text{div}w,\mathrm{\Delta }_qg)_L^{\mathrm{}}+\mathrm{\Delta }_qR(\text{div}w,g)_L^{\mathrm{}}`$
$``$ $`C\text{div}w_{\mathrm{Lip}}\mathrm{\Delta }_qg_L^{\mathrm{}}+C2^{q(r1)}R(\text{div}w,g)_{r1}`$
$``$ $`C2^{q(r1)}\text{div}w_{\mathrm{Lip}}g_{r1}.`$
The additional term does not pose any problems:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_q(g\text{div}w)_L^{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`C2^{q(r1)}g\text{div}w_{r1}`$
$``$ $`C2^{q(r1)}\text{div}w_{\mathrm{Lip}}g_{r1}.`$
One concludes as in  ($`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ estimations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_qg`$, multiplication by $`2^{q(r1)}`$, supremum over $`q`$, Gronwall). ∎

So we have, $`k`$,

$$u_k(t)_{r1}u_{0,k}_{r1}e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s}+_0^tf_k(s)_{r1}e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s,$$

and by subtraction, $`k,l`$,

$`u_k(t)u_l(t)_{r^{}1}`$
$``$ $`u_{0,k}u_{0,l}_{r^{}1}e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t}f_k(s)f_l(s)_{r^{}1}e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s,`$
with any $`r^{}]0,r[`$. We deduce from this that the sequence $`(u_k)_k`$ converges in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];C^{r^{}1}(^3))`$ to a distribution $`\stackrel{~}{u}L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];C^{r1}(^3))`$ solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\stackrel{~}{u}+,\overline{v}\stackrel{~}{u}=\overline{f},\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{u}|_{t=0}=\overline{u}_0,\hfill \end{array}$$

with the estimate

$$\stackrel{~}{u}(t)_{r1}u_0_{r1}e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s}+_0^tf(s)_{r1}e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s.$$
(40)
As $`\stackrel{~}{u}|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a solution of the system (34) in $`L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T];C^{r1}(^3))`$, $`u=\stackrel{~}{u}|_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by uniqueness, so $`u(t)_{r1}`$ is not greater than (40), $`t[0,T]`$. The inequalities (39) and (40) allow us to conclude:

$`,w^\nu (t)\omega (t)_{r1}`$
$``$ $`,w_0^\nu \omega _0_{r1}e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑s}`$
$`+C{\displaystyle _0^t}v(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}(,w^\nu (s)\omega (s)_{r1}+\omega (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}w^\nu (s)_r`$
$`+w^\nu (s)_L^{\mathrm{}}\omega (s)n_{C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })})e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }ds,`$
thus, dividing by $`\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}`$, we obtain (9).

#### 2.4.3 Estimation of $`\omega n`$ in $`C^r(\mathrm{\Omega })`$

It is shown in , page 406, that $`\mu ,\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$,

$$_t(w^\mu \times w^\nu )+,v(w^\mu \times w^\nu )=^t(v)(w^\mu \times w^\nu ),$$
(41)
where $`[^t(v)X]^j\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}_{i=1}^3X^i_jv^i`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}`$. It follows from (41) and (5) that $`\mu ,\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$, the quantity $`(w^\mu \times w^\nu )\omega `$ is preserved along the flow lines:

$`(_t+,v)[(w^\mu \times w^\nu )\omega ]`$
$`=`$ $`[(w^\mu \times w^\nu )^i_jv^i]\omega ^j+(w^\mu \times w^\nu )^i\omega ^j_jv^i`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
In particular, $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`t[0,T]`$, one has

$$[(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,\psi (t,x))]\omega (t,\psi (t,x))=[w_0^\mu (x)\times w_0^\nu (x)]\omega _0(x).$$
(42)
As $`w^\mu (t,)|_\mathrm{\Omega }n=0`$, $`\mu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$, $`t[0,T]`$, the vector products $`w^\mu \times w^\nu `$ have the direction of $`n`$:

$$(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,\psi (t,x))=(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }(t,x)}|(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,\psi (t,x))|n(\psi (t,x)),$$

with $`\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }(t,x)=0\text{ or }1`$ following the orientation of $`w^\mu \times w^\nu `$ in comparison with $`n`$. Moreover, (41) implies that $`t[0,T]`$, $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`w_0^\mu (x)\times w_0^\nu (x)=0`$ $``$ $`(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,\psi (t,x))=0`$. Thus $`\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }`$ actually depends only on $`x`$, so (42) can be rewritten

$`(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }(x)}|(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,\psi (t,x))|(\omega n)(t,\psi (t,x))`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }(x)}|w_0^\mu (x)\times w_0^\nu (x)|(\omega _0n)(x),`$
which we obviously simplify by $`(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }(x)}`$. Then we use the fact that $`\{w^\nu ;\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$ is admissible, $`t[0,T]`$ (see , corollary 4.3, page 406 again): dividing by $`_{\mu <\nu }|w^\mu \times w^\nu |`$ gives on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`t[0,T]`$,

$$(\omega n)(t,\psi (t,))=\frac{_{\mu <\nu }|w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu |\omega _0n}{_{\mu <\nu }|(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,\psi (t,))|},$$

hence (10).

### 2.5 Characteristic functions as multipliers

The whole section is devoted to the proof of the following fact.

###### Proposition 3.

The pointwise multiplication by the characteristic function of a bounded Lipschitzian domain is a continuous mapping from $`C^{r1}(^3)`$ into $`C^{r1}(^3)`$, $`r]0,1[`$.

This property is proved in  (proposition 3.3.2, pages 197 and 198) only for $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ domains, but a slight modification of earlier arguments in the same book (section 2.8.5, pages 149 to 153), gives the result with more limited assumptions about the smoothness of the boundary. Such a refinement is needed in the proof of proposition 2 and in section 2.3.2, when we multiply vector fields by the characteristic function of the patch.

It is here sufficient to show that, $`s]0,1[`$, the mapping $`B_{1,2}^s(^3)B_{1,2}^s(^3)`$ : $`f\mathrm{𝟏}_Pf`$ (pointwise multiplication) is continuous. Indeed, it follows by duality that $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ is a multiplier in $`(B_{1,2}^s)^{}=B_{\mathrm{},2}^s`$, $`s]0,1[`$ (see \[10, p. 176–180\]); then one can conclude by real interpolation (see \[10, p. 64\]).

So let $`P`$ be a bounded Lipschitzian domain, and let $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ denote its characteristic function. Given any function $`fB_{1,2}^s`$, look at the decompostion $`\mathrm{𝟏}_Pf=R(\mathrm{𝟏}_P,f)+T_{\mathrm{𝟏}_P}f+T_f\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$.

As far as the first two terms are concerned, the regularity of $`P`$ is irrelevant:

$$T_{\mathrm{𝟏}_P}f_{B_{1,2}^s}+R(\mathrm{𝟏}_P,f)_{B_{1,2}^s}C\mathrm{𝟏}_P_L^{\mathrm{}}f_{B_{1,2}^s},$$

for a constant $`C`$ depending only on $`s`$.

But to estimate the second paraproduct, we need to decompose $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$ itself. Since $`P`$ is Lipschitzian, there exists a collection of $`C_0^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions, $`\{\phi _i;i=0,\mathrm{},N\}`$, $`N`$, with the following properties (see for example , chapter VI, section 3.2):

* $`i1`$, $`P\mathrm{supp}\phi _i`$ (or $`\overline{P}^c\mathrm{supp}\phi _i`$) is the set of all points lying below the surface of equation $`x_j=\psi _i(x^{})`$, where $`\psi _i`$ is Lipschitzian, $`j=j(i)=`$1, 2 or 3 and $`x^{}=(x_2,x_3)`$, $`(x_1,x_3)`$ or $`(x_1,x_2)`$ respectively
* $`_{i=0}^N\phi _i=1`$ on $`\overline{P}`$
* $`\mathrm{supp}\phi _0P`$
* $`i1`$, $`xP\mathrm{supp}\phi _i`$, $`\text{d}(x,P)C|\psi _i(x^{})x_j|`$, with $`C=(1+\psi _i_{\mathrm{Lip}}^2)^{1/2}`$.

As $`\mathrm{𝟏}_P=\phi _0+_{i=1}^N\phi _i\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$, we just have to estimate a typical term, $`T_f(\phi _i\mathrm{𝟏}_P)`$. Set $`g=\phi _i\mathrm{𝟏}_P`$. First we write

$`2^{qs}\mathrm{\Delta }_qT_fg_{L^1}`$ $``$ $`2^{qs}\mathrm{\Delta }_q(S_{q1}f\mathrm{\Delta }_qg)_{L^1}`$ (43)
$``$ $`C2^{qs}S_{q1}f\mathrm{\Delta }_qg_{L^1}`$
$``$ $`C2^{qs}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{q2}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_pf\mathrm{\Delta }_qg_{L^1},`$
then we look more closely at $`\mathrm{\Delta }_pf\mathrm{\Delta }_qg_{L^1}`$:

$`{\displaystyle _^3}|\mathrm{\Delta }_pf(x)||\mathrm{\Delta }_qg(x)|𝑑x`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _^2}𝑑x^{}{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑x_j|\mathrm{\Delta }_pf(x^{},x_j)||\mathrm{\Delta }_qg(x^{},x_j)|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _^2}𝑑x^{}\underset{x_j}{sup}|\mathrm{\Delta }_pf(x^{},x_j)|\underset{x^{}}{sup}{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑x_j|\mathrm{\Delta }_qg(x^{},x_j)|.`$
Taking into account that the support of the (one-dimensional, $`x^{}`$ being fixed) Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_pf(x^{},x_j)`$ is contained in an interval $`[C2^p,C2^p]`$, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle _^2}𝑑x^{}\underset{x_j}{sup}|\mathrm{\Delta }_pf(x^{},x_j)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _^2}𝑑x^{}C2^p{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑x_j|\mathrm{\Delta }_pf(x^{},x_j)|`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`C2^p\mathrm{\Delta }_pf_{L^1}.`$
On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_qg`$ is the convolution product of $`g`$ by $`2^{3q}h(2^q)`$, where $`h𝒮(^3)`$ has a zero integral. So we have, $`x^{}^2`$,

$`{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑x_j|\mathrm{\Delta }_qg(x^{},x_j)|`$ (46)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑x_j|{\displaystyle _^3}𝑑yh(y)[g(x^{}2^qy^{},x_j2^qy_j)g(x^{},x_j)]|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle _^3}𝑑y|h(y)|{\displaystyle _{}}𝑑x_j|g(x^{}2^qy^{},x_j2^qy_j)g(x^{},x_j)|.`$
Furthermore, when $`x^{}`$ and $`y=(y^{},y_j)`$ are fixed, it is easily seen that

$$_{}𝑑x_j|g(x^{}2^qy^{},x_j2^qy_j)g(x^{},x_j)|C2^q|y|.$$
(47)
Indeed, the fact that $`x`$ and $`x2^qy`$ belong or don’t belong to $`P`$ depends only on the value of $`x_j`$; set $`J_1=\{x_j;xP\}`$ and $`J_2=\{x_j;x2^qyP\}`$. The left member of (47) is the sum of the integrals of $`|g(x2^qy)g(x)|`$ on $`J_1^CJ_2`$, $`J_1J_2^C`$ and $`J_1J_2`$. Clearly, the integral on $`J_1J_2`$ is smaller than $`\phi _i_{\mathrm{Lip}}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^q|y|`$ multiplied by the diameter of the support of $`\phi _i`$. Moreover, if $`xJ_1J_2^C`$, $`|g(x2^qy)g(x)|=\phi _i(x)`$, so only points $`xJ_1J_2^C\mathrm{supp}\phi _i`$ contribute to the integral. And for these points, whose distance to $`P`$ is at most $`2^q|y|`$, we have the inequality

$$2^q|y|(1+\psi _i_{\mathrm{Lip}}^2)^{1/2}|\psi _i(x^{})x_j|;$$

therefore their $`j`$th components are inside an interval of length $`C2^q|y|`$. Arguing along the same lines about $`J_1^CJ_2`$ ends the proof of (47). Substituting successively (45), (46) and (47) in (44), we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_pf\mathrm{\Delta }_qg_{L^1}`$ $``$ $`C2^{pq}\mathrm{\Delta }_pf_{L^1}`$
$`=`$ $`C2^{p(1s)}2^q2^{ps}\mathrm{\Delta }_pf_{L^1},`$
hence

$`(\text{43})`$ $``$ $`C{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{q2}{}}}2^{ps}\mathrm{\Delta }_pf_{L^1}2^{(1s)(pq)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{(12^{s1})^{1/2}}}({\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{q2}{}}}2^{2ps}\mathrm{\Delta }_pf_{L^1}^22^{(1s)(pq)})^{1/2}.`$
So we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}2^{2qs}\mathrm{\Delta }_qT_fg_{L^1}^2`$
$``$ $`C_s{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}2^{2ps}\mathrm{\Delta }_pf_{L^1}^2{\displaystyle \underset{q=p+2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}2^{(1s)(pq)}`$
$`=`$ $`C_s^{}f_{B_{1,2}^s},`$
which concludes the proof.

## 3 Regularity results

First we show, on the assumptions of theorem 1, that $`\omega (t,)C^s(\psi (t,P))C^s(\psi (t,\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{P}))`$. After that we will prove that the open set $`\psi (t,P)`$ is of class $`C^s`$, $`t[0,T_0]`$.

### 3.1 Regularity of the curl

One must evaluate the differences $`|\omega (t,x^{})\omega (t,y^{})|`$ with $`x^{},y^{}\psi (t,P)`$ and with $`x^{},y^{}\psi (t,\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{P})`$.

Let $`Q`$ be any open set whose closure is a subset of $`P`$ and let $`x,yQ`$. Let us denote by $`\psi _k`$ the flow of $`v_k`$, $`k`$, where the $`v_k`$’s are the smooth solutions corresponding to regularized initial data, as in the end of section 2.1, page 2. Given (5), one can write

$`|\omega _k(t,\psi _k(t,x))\omega _k(t,\psi _k(t,y))|`$
$``$ $`|\omega _{0k}(t,x)\omega _{0k}(t,y)|`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t}|(\omega _kv_k)(\tau ,\psi _k(\tau ,x))(\omega _kv_k)(\tau ,\psi _k(\tau ,y))|𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`\omega _{0i}_s|xy|^s+{\displaystyle _0^t}[\omega _kv_k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}|\psi _k(\tau ,x)\psi _k(\tau ,y)|^s𝑑\tau ,`$
at least $`kK`$, $`K`$ depending on $`Q`$, and with the notation

$$[f(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}=[f(\tau )]_s^{\psi _k(\tau ,Q)}.$$

The uniform bound on $`v_k`$, (13), imply that $`\psi _k^{\pm 1}(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{Lip}}Ce^{_0^\tau v_k(\sigma )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\sigma }C`$, $`\tau [0,T_0]`$, where the last constant $`C`$ does not depend on $`\tau `$, $`k`$ or $`Q`$. So we have

$`[\omega _k(t)]_s^{Q,k}`$ $``$ $`C\omega _{0i}_s+C{\displaystyle _0^t}[\omega _kv_k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}𝑑\tau `$ (48)
$``$ $`C\omega _{0i}_s+C{\displaystyle _0^t}\omega _k(\tau )_L^{\mathrm{}}[v_k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}𝑑\tau `$
$`+C{\displaystyle _0^t}v_k(\tau )_L^{\mathrm{}}[\omega _k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}𝑑\tau `$
$``$ $`C\omega _{0i}_s+C{\displaystyle _0^t}([v_k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}+[\omega _k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k})𝑑\tau .`$
The estimate (19) gives $`[v_k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}CX_k^{20}+[\omega _k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}`$, hence

$$[v_k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k}C+[\omega _k(\tau )]_s^{Q,k},\tau [0,t],$$

thanks to (13) and (11). Using that in (48), we have

$$[\omega _k(t)]_s^{Q,k}Ce^{Ct},t[0,T_0],$$
(49)
by Gronwall’s lemma.

Now let $`U`$ be any open set whose closure is a subset of $`Q`$. We show that there exists a subsequence of $`(\omega _{k(l)})_l`$ which converges to $`\omega `$, uniformly on $`\mathrm{\Psi }(U)\stackrel{\mathrm{not}}{=}\{(t,\psi (t,U));t[0,T_0]\}`$. If $`k`$ is great enough and if $`t,t^{}[0,T_0]`$ are close enough, then $`\psi (t,U)\psi _k(t^{},Q)`$. Indeed, $`xU`$,

$`|\psi (t,x)\psi _k(t^{},x)|`$
$``$ $`|\psi (t,x)\psi _k(t,x)|+|\psi _k(t,x)\psi _k(t^{},x)|`$
$``$ $`({\displaystyle _0^t}v(\tau ,)v_k(\tau ,)_L^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau )e^{_0^tv(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }+|{\displaystyle _t^t^{}}v_k(\tau )_L^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau |`$
$``$ $`Cvv_k_{L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0];L^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega }))}+C|tt^{}|,`$
while the distance between $`\psi _k(,U)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _k(,Q)=\psi _k(,\mathrm{\Omega }Q)`$ is, on $`[0,T_0]`$, greater than a positive constant independent of $`k`$. Consider, $`y,y^{}U`$, the differences

$`|\omega _k(t,\psi (t,y))\omega _k(t^{},\psi (t^{},y^{}))|`$ (51)
$``$ $`|\omega _k(t,\psi (t,y))\omega _k(t^{},\psi (t,y))|`$
$`+|\omega _k(t^{},\psi (t,y))\omega _k(t^{},\psi (t^{},y^{}))|.`$
One may suppose that there exists a point $`xQ`$ such that $`\psi _k(t,x)=\psi (t,y)`$; then (51) is equal to

$`|\omega _k(t,\psi _k(t,x))\omega _k(t^{},\psi _k(t,x))|`$ (52)
$``$ $`|\omega _k(t,\psi _k(t,x))\omega _k(t^{},\psi _k(t^{},x))|+|\omega _k(t^{},\psi _k(t^{},x))\omega _k(t^{},\psi _k(t,x))|`$
$``$ $`|{\displaystyle _t^t^{}}\omega _k(\tau )_L^{\mathrm{}}v_k(\tau )_L^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau |+[\omega _k(t^{})]_s^{Q,k}|\psi _k(t^{},x)\psi _k(t,x)|`$
$``$ $`C|tt^{}|,`$
thanks to (49). Likewise, as soon as $`\psi (t,y),\psi (t^{},y^{})\psi _k(t^{},Q)`$, (49) gives

$`(\text{51})`$ $``$ $`C|\psi (t,y)\psi (t^{},y^{})|^s`$ (53)
$``$ $`C\psi _{\mathrm{Lip}}^s(|tt^{}|+|yy^{}|)^s.`$
One deduces from (52) and (53), by Ascoli-Arzela’s theorem, the existence of a subsequence of $`(\omega _{k(l)})_l`$ that converges to $`\omega `$, uniformly on $`\mathrm{\Psi }(U)`$; as $`UQ`$ and $`QP`$ are arbitrary, this implies that $`\omega C^s(\psi (t,P))`$, $`t[0,T_0]`$, because

$`|\omega (t,x)\omega (t,y)|`$
$``$ $`|\omega (t,x)\omega _k(t,x)|+|\omega _k(t,x)\omega _k(t,y)|+|\omega _k(t,y)\omega (t,y)|`$
$``$ $`3Ce^{CT_0}|xy|^s,x,y\psi (t,P),`$
for some suitable $`k=k(x,y)`$. One shows that $`\omega C^s(\psi (t,\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{P}))`$ in the very same way.

### 3.2 Regularity of the patch

We have, $`k=k(l)`$, $`l`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tw_k^\nu +,v_kw_k^\nu =w_k^\nu v_k,\hfill \\ w_k^\nu (0)=w_0^\nu ,\hfill \end{array}\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{},$$

with $`v_k(t,)_{\mathrm{Lip}}+w_k^\nu (t,)_s`$ uniformly bounded both on $`[0,T_0]`$ and with respect to $`k`$. Thus the $`w_k^\nu `$’s form, $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$ an equicontinuous sequence on $`[0,T_0]\times \mathrm{\Omega }`$: the equicontinuity with $`t`$ fixed is clear, and, $`k`$, $`x\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`t,t^{}[0,T_0]`$,

$`|w_k^\nu (t,\psi _k(t,x))w_k^\nu (t^{},\psi _k(t,x))|`$
$``$ $`|w_k^\nu (t,\psi _k(t,x))w_k^\nu (t^{},\psi _k(t^{},x))|+|w_k^\nu (t^{},\psi _k(t^{},x))w_k^\nu (t^{},\psi _k(t,x))|`$
$``$ $`w_k^\nu _L^{\mathrm{}}v_k_L^{\mathrm{}}|tt^{}|+w_k^\nu (t^{},)_sv_k_L^{\mathrm{}}^s|tt^{}|^s.`$
Extracting another subsequence, we get, $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$, a field $`w^\nu L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0];C^s(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_tw^\nu +,vw^\nu =w^\nu v,\hfill \\ w^\nu (0)=w_0^\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally we deduce the regularity of $`\psi (t,P)`$ as in , pages 417 and 418 (theorem 6.1): let $`fC^{1+r}(^3)`$ be a function such that $`f|_P=0`$ and $`f(x)0`$, $`xP`$; an equation of $`\psi (t,P)`$ is $`\phi (t,x)=0`$, where $`\phi L^{\mathrm{}}([0,T_0];\mathrm{Lip})`$ is a solution of

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\phi +,v\phi =0,\hfill \\ \phi |_{t=0}=f,\hfill \end{array}$$

and it is enough to prove that $`\phi (t,)C^s`$ in a neighbourhood of $`\psi (t,P)`$, $`t[0,T_0]`$. We have

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t\phi +,v\phi =^t(v)\phi ,\hfill \\ \phi |_{t=0}=f,\hfill \end{array}$$

and, $`\mu ,\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$,

$$\{\begin{array}{c}_t(w^\mu \times w^\nu )+,v(w^\mu \times w^\nu )=^t(v)(w^\mu \times w^\nu ),\hfill \\ (w^\mu \times w^\nu )|_{t=0}=w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$

Wherever $`f0`$, one can write

$$w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu =\frac{|w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu |}{|f|}(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }}f,$$

with $`\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }=0`$ or $`1`$, depending on the respective orientations of $`w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu `$ and $`f`$. So in a neighbourhood $`V(t)`$ of $`\psi (t,P)`$,

$$(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,)=\frac{|(w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu )(\psi ^1(t,))|}{|(f)(\psi ^1(t,))|}(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }}\phi ,$$

hence, by addition,

$$\phi (t,)=\frac{|(f)(\psi ^1(t,))|}{_{\mu <\nu }|(w_0^\mu \times w_0^\nu )(\psi ^1(t,))|}\underset{\mu <\nu }{}(1)^{\alpha _{\mu ,\nu }}(w^\mu \times w^\nu )(t,),$$

so $`\phi (t,)C^s(V(t))`$, because $`\{w_0^\nu ;\nu =1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$ is admissible and $`w^\nu (t,)`$ $``$ $`C^s(V(t))`$, $`\nu \{1,\mathrm{},N^{}\}`$.

## 4 Application to 2-D and axisymmetric flows

In 2-D and axisymmetric flows, the vorticity is always tangent to the boundary of the domain. Therefore, the sum of (8) and (9) gives

$`X(t)`$ $`C_0e^{C_0^tv(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}}ds`$
$`+C_0{\displaystyle _0^t}v(s)_{\mathrm{Lip}}X(s)e^{C_s^tv(\tau )_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }𝑑s.`$
so this time we have, instead of (12),

$$v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}C(1+\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{ln}(e+C_0e^{C_0_0^tv(\tau ,)_{\mathrm{Lip}}𝑑\tau }).$$
(54)
In the axisymmetric case, as $`\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\omega (t)}{\delta }_L^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{max}_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\delta (x)`$ $`=`$ $`C\frac{\omega _0}{\delta }_L^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`\mathrm{max}_{x\mathrm{\Omega }}\delta (x),`$ (54) leads to $`v(t)_{\mathrm{Lip}}C_0e^{C_0t}`$, $`t^+`$, so $`T_0`$ in proposition 1 is arbitrary.

Of course the 2-D case is even more simple, since $`\omega (t)_L^{\mathrm{}}=\omega _0_L^{\mathrm{}}`$.

REFERENCES


text:
# Alpha-particle condensation in nuclei

## Acknowledgements

We thank Y.Funaki and T.Yamada for fruitful discussions and contributions to this work.


text:
# CODED-MASK IMAGING IN GAMMA-RAY ASTRONOMY – Separating the Real and Imaginary parts of a Complex subject

## 1 Introduction

A coded mask telescope can be regarded as an imaging system in which the ‘image’ is so blurred that the point source response function (PSF) often extends over the whole of the detector plane. The ‘image’ referred to here, and the PSF which describes it ($`P_T`$), are simply a shadow of the mask, or of part of it. Image processing procedures can of course reduce or remove blurring and this is a what is done by the various image reconstruction algorithms which are used with coded mask telescopes. After processing by such an algorithm one has a more normal response function – pyramidal or Gaussian for example. It is this post-processing PSF ($`P_{PP}`$) which is normally quoted for a coded mask telescope. $`P_{PP}`$ is really the response of a pseudo-telescope which consists of a hardware component (often on a satellite) and a software component (usually on the ground).

Image processing techniques can de-blur an image, but even in conventional systems where the blurring is limited, they do so at the expense of a degradation in the noise level. In the Fourier domain, which provides a convenient way of removing the effects of a PSF which is spatially independent, the degradation results from the necessity of multiplying certain frequency components by large factors. For de-blurring algorithms based on matrix techniques, large terms in the inverse matrix play the same rôle.

We shall see below that, at least in principle, there are designs of coded mask systems which avoid any such selective amplification of Fourier terms and for which the inverse matrix has no exceptionally large elements. However, one still finds that each point in the image is subject to noise from most or all of the detector plane. This is an intrinsic problem of non-focussing instruments. In the absence of a mirror or lens to concentrate the flux, the signal must be collected from the whole of the detector and the background is harvested with the signal.

Despite having worked with coded masks telescopes for 25 years, it is the view of the author that, if at all possible, one should avoid their use! Systems which concentrate the flux will normally be preferable.

The fact remains though, that for certain X-ray and gamma-ray imaging applications coded mask telescopes offer the best available solution. The most important alternatives are grazing incidence optics, tracking detectors (Egret, Glast …) and Compton techniques. The first two are limited to low energies ($`<`$100 keV) and to high energies ($`>`$50 MeV) respectively. Compton techniques have a limited effective area (important when one is photon-limited - for burst studies, for example) and can never offer the very best energy resolution because the uncertainties in two or more detectors are involved. Even within the energy band for which narrow field instruments can use focussing optics, the wide field imaging capabilities of a coded mask system are often invaluable (e.g. the Beppo-Sax WFC).

## 2 Image reconstruction techniques

### 2.1 Correlation techniques

A method of image reconstruction widely used with coded mask telescopes is correlation of the recorded data pattern with some function $`F`$ which is a representation $`P_T`$ \- i.e. of a shadow of the mask pattern. It can be shown $`^\mathrm{?}`$ that if $`F`$ has an appropriate scaling and offset, and if the observation is dominated by Gaussian noise on a uniform background, then this yields a minimum error estimate of the intensity of a single point source.

For this reason, the correlation image offers the highest sensitivity to a single point source; but it is not necessarily the best method for imaging a complex field. If $`P_T`$ is position independent, the post-processing PSF, $`P_{PP}`$, obtained in this way is the autocorrelation function of the mask pattern (with an offset and scaling). This is guaranteed to have a maximum value at zero shift, corresponding to the true source position. It may, however, have side peaks and spurious responses elsewhere (‘side-lobes’, or ‘ghosts’).

In practice for any reasonable mask pattern (an even for some less reasonable ones! $`^\mathrm{?}`$) the correlation approach yields a robust, if imperfect, image.

Reconstruction by correlation is equivalent to multiplying a vector of observations (the intensities in detector pixels) by a reconstruction matrix $`R`$ in which the rows represent the different shifts of the mask pattern. But in cases where $`P_T`$ is position independent (and preferably cyclic), Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) techniques can be used to obtain the correlation image very efficiently. For certain mask designs, reconstruction by Hadamard or other transforms can be even faster than by FFT.

Working via the Fourier domain in principle allows compensation to be made for different coding efficiencies at different spatial frequencies. Wiener filtering $`^\mathrm{?}`$ does this with an optimum trade-off between errors due to residual side-lobes on the one hand and those due to noise-enhancement on the other.

### 2.2 Back Projection

A method of image reconstruction, useful when the number of events is small, is to project back from the detected position of each photon onto a map of the sky and to increment those pixels which are consistent with the origin of that photon. This is equivalent to forming an image by correlation with a 0/1 representation of the mask pattern.

### 2.3 Matrix Methods

If the autocorrelation of the coding pattern is not bi-valued with a single central peak and flat wings, then ghosts of bright sources will occur in correlation images. They can in principle be avoided by noting that at each of the $`N_D`$ points in the detector one measures a linear combination of the contributions from each point in the sky (plus background). Provided the problem is not under determined, the inverse of the matrix representing this coding can be used to obtain the sky distribution which led to the observed data.

This process is equivalent to solving a set of linear equations for the intensities in $`N_{Sky}`$ sky pixels plus some number $`N_{BG}`$ of parameter describing the detector background ($`N_{BG}=1`$ for a uniform but unknown background). Provided that among the $`N_D`$ measurements, there are at least $`N_D^{}`$ which are linearly independent of each other and if $`N_D^{}=N_{Sky}+N_{BG}`$, this is possible.

If $`N_D^{}<N_{Sky}+N_{BG}`$ more measurements are needed to obtain a unique solution. One approach is to make further observations with different mask patterns $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. Another, which is critically important for instruments like Integral-SPI with few detector elements, is to make, say, $`n`$ observations with different pointings in the same general direction - so-called ‘dithering’. One then has $`nN_d`$ observations. If the source fluxes and background parameters are assumed constant, the number of unknowns does not increase. Even if it is supposed that they vary according to some simple model, then one may still have gained.

If $`N_D^{}`$ (or $`nN_D^{}`$ with dithering) is greater than $`N_{Sky}+N_{BG}`$, then one must use the Moore-Penrose generalised inverse, which provides the best-fit solution to an over-determined set of equations.

As is well-known, inverse matrix methods tend to be unstable. Techniques are available $`^\mathrm{?}`$ which find a stabilised reconstruction matrix $`R`$ which is optimum according to the same Wiener criterion that is used in Fourier space. This stabilised matrix is a compromise between the $`R`$ matrix which corresponds to correlation imaging, which is best in the case of poor signal to noise ratio where side lobes are of secondary importance, and the inverse matrix with its perfect imaging but potentially disastrous noise amplification.

### 2.4 Non-linear techniques

All of the above techniques lead to an intensity estimate in each image pixel which is a linear combination of the data. When the number of detected events per pixel is small the statistics are not strictly Gaussian but Poissonian. Correlation involves combining many pixels, with both positive and negative multipliers and the differences tend to be small, but it can be argued that it is better to use non-linear methods which take the Poissonian nature of the noise into account.

There are other reasons for considering techniques which are not in the above sense linear. These reasons vary from the aesthetic to the pragmatic - from the appeal of the clearly defined assumptions of a Bayesian approach, via a preference for solutions without un-physical negative intensities, to the fact that certain techniques just ‘seem to work’. For lack of space, non-linear techniques will only be briefly mentioned here and not be reviewed in any detail.

The Poissonian nature of the statistics can be taken into account by using Maximum Likelihood (ML) techniques $`^\mathrm{?}`$. ML naturally leads to a constraint that the intensity estimates shall be positive, but a non-negativity constraint can be imposed while adopting other optimisation parameters $`^\mathrm{?}`$. Normally no assumption is made about the relative probability of different images, i.e. no prior probability function is used.

Maximum Entropy is a technique which seems to be well suited to coded mask image reconstruction, for which it has been widely discussed $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. It is an iterative Bayesian method, sililar to maximum likelihood, but with a prior probability function (the entropy) which favours flatter images. Other iterative techniques, such ‘direct deconvolution’ $`^\mathrm{?}`$, have been proposed.

Certain techniques try to find a model, consistent with the data and comprising a limited number of components. Either the Pixon method $`^\mathrm{?}`$ or Wavelet techniques $`^\mathrm{?}`$ could be used in this way. Often the simplest description of the field (and hence in a sense the Maximum Entropy solution) is just a list of point sources. Supposing pure point source model leads to IROS (§5).

## 3 Idealised (‘imaginary’) coded mask telescopes

Usually the mask pattern consists of pixels which are of equal size and which are either transparent or opaque, though the reconstruction methods discussed above are mostly not limited to such cases. In comparing alternative designs, one may use the concept of ‘coding power’ $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which is a measure of the background-limited point source sensitivity obtainable with correlation techniques.

The coding power is essentially the root-mean-square deviation of the transmission of the mask about its mean value. As the transmission is limited to the range $`0`$$`1`$ one can quickly deduce that the highest value of the coding power, and hence the best point-source sensitivity in the detector background dominated case is obtained (a) if only the extreme values $`0,1`$ occur and (b) if the mean transparency is 50%. If sky-related events such as cosmic diffuse background and source counts make a significant contribution to the noise, then (a) remains true, though the optimum transparency may change $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$.

To avoid side lobes in correlation images (and to minimise the interdependence of image pixels irrespective of the reconstruction method) one should choose a mask pattern whose autocorrelation function is flat away from the central peak. If the coding can be contrived to be cyclic, this is possible by using patterns related to cyclic difference sets $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$. As well as exhibiting no structure away from the central peak in the PSF in a correlation image, these patterns have $`0/1`$ transmission and can have very close to 50% transparency. So they have optimum sensitivity.

For such mask designs all of the above mentioned linear reconstruction methods are equivalent aaaHere terms which are of the order $`1/N`$, where there are $`N`$ elements in the mask, and hence usually very small, are ignored.. Thus in principle one has a way of designing a coded mask system which is as sensitive as possible and multiple ways of reconstructing the image, any one of which has imaging properties which are as good as possible.

## 4 Real systems

So much for the world of Dr. Pangloss bbb “Dans ce meilleur des mondes possibles … tout est au mieux.” Voltaire, Candide, 1759.. We can now proceed to strip off the various idealisations which lead to this fictional situation.

### 4.1 Detector sampling

Often in the literature it is implicitly assumed that the sources conveniently lie in directions such that the shadows of the mask elements are coincident with detector pixels which are equal either to the size of the mask elements or to a submultiple of that size. In general this will not be the case and a blurred form of the mask shadow will be recorded. Even if the detector readout is continuous, the recorded pattern will still generally be blurred, because the spatial resolution will not be infinitely good.

Provided that the detector response is independent of the position within the detector (except perhaps for binning associated with pixels which are some submultiple of the mask pixel size), then the same mask patterns continue to offer optimal properties. But in these circumstances it is the coding power of the blurred mask which matters and the sensitivity is reduced.

### 4.2 Cyclic coding

It is not always possible to ensure that the coding is cyclic; in fact it is not always desirable. In principle, cyclic coding can be achieved by having a mask which contains several repeats of a basic pattern and a detector which registers one cycle. But unless a fine-structured collimator covering the whole detector is used to reduce to zero the response outside a defined region, there will always be some source directions for which a partial shadow is recorded. Such collimators can be used but they attenuate the signal even within the ‘fully-coded’ region and the loss in sensitivity may be more important than the improvement in imaging properties. .

If the coding is not truly cyclic, the optimum patterns mentioned in §3 are still sometimes selected (e.g. TTM, Integral …) because they are well defined and are usually not worse than a random pattern. But when the recorded data does not correspond to a whole number of cycles of the the pattern shadow, they rapidly cease to be any better than a random pattern.

### 4.3 Other effects

Other respects in which real systems may differ from idealised ones are listed in Table 1. These effects lead to a raw PSF $`P_T`$ that differs greatly from the idealised response, which would just be a translation of a perfect mask pattern. What is worse, is that the differences tend to be a function of source position.

## 5 Real life data analysis

In principle a detailed knowledge of the instrument allows the coding matrix element for each detector pixel and each possible source direction to be determined. In theory, any of the more general of the methods outlined above (those which do not assume a position independent response function) can then deal with all of the effects in Table 1.

The matrices describing the response are of dimensions $`(N_{Sky}+N_{BG})\times nN_D^{}`$ and so could potentially have up to $`10^{12}`$ elements for images of the order of $`1000\times 1000`$ pixels. Techniques using detailed response matrices, including use of the stabilised pseudo-inverse matrix, are feasible for low resolution instruments with a limited number of detector pixels. The software for the SPI spectrometer of Integral, with 19 detector elements, depends heavily on this approach. But using such large matrices for the production of an image becomes impractical when the number of detector pixels and of resolvable sky pixels is large. For Integral, the ISGRI and PICSIT detectors of IBIS have 4096 and 16384 detector pixels respectively. With JEM-X the number rises to $`>`$50000.

Iterative Removal Of Sources (IROS) $`^\mathrm{?}`$ takes advantage of the fact that with systems with a large number of pixels the sensitivity to extended sources is poor. Consequently one is usually dealing with the problem of finding a limited number of point sources and determining their positions and intensities.

With IROS, the first stage is to obtain an image which is good enough to find the approximate position of the brightest source. The image does not need to be free of artifacts provided the most significant point corresponds to a real source. Typically approximations and short-cuts are taken by filling in missing data with local averages and by making simplified corrections for non-uniformities and deficiencies. Generally Fourier techniques have to be used and these assume a position-independent response function, even though this may not strictly be the case. For smaller numbers of pixels the position-dependent response may be taken into account, but a comparatively coarse image sampling may be used to reduce the problem size.

Having identified the strongest source in the field, the position and intensity of that source (and the values of any unknown background parameters) are optimised by fitting in the data space. At this stage all the known imperfections in the coding and in the instrument are taken into account. After subtracting the data predicted for the fitted source, an image reconstruction based on the residual data is used to search for further sources. If more sources are found they are in turn subtracted, but importantly the parameters of all of the sources are re-optimised each iteration.

## 6 Conclusions

The fact that the source intensity will be a function of energy and perhaps of time has not been considered here. The above principles can be applied to successive subsets of the data in energy channel or time. In the former case, off-diagonal terms in the energy response matrix describing the entire hardware plus software ‘instrument’ must be taken into account in interpreting the spectra obtained.

It has here been possible discuss only a few of the vast range of different coded mask image reconstruction and data analysis techniques that have been suggested, and those only in outline. The objective has been review some of the key issues ahead of the Integral mission which will place into orbit no fewer than four telescopes using the coded mask technique. Experience with data from Integral will no doubt lead to the development of even more sophisticated and effective analysis techniques.

## References