
==== Front
Calc Var Partial Differ Equ
Calc Var Partial Differ Equ
Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations
0944-2669
1432-0835
Springer Berlin Heidelberg Berlin/Heidelberg

38975570
2750
10.1007/s00526-024-02750-4
Article
An elementary proof of existence and uniqueness for the Euler flow in localized Yudovich spaces
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6825-4275
Crippa Gianluca gianluca.crippa@unibas.ch

1
Stefani Giorgio 2
1 https://ror.org/02s6k3f65 grid.6612.3 0000 0004 1937 0642 Departement Mathematik und Informatik, Universität Basel, Spiegelgasse 1, 4051 Basel, Switzerland
2 https://ror.org/004fze387 grid.5970.b 0000 0004 1762 9868 Scuola Internazionale Superiore di Studi Avanzati (SISSA), Via Bonomea 265, 34136 Trieste, TS Italy
Communicated by L. Szekelyhidi.

5 7 2024
5 7 2024
2024
63 7 16821 6 2023
23 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
We revisit Yudovich’s well-posedness result for the 2-dimensional Euler equations for an inviscid incompressible fluid on either a sufficiently regular (not necessarily bounded) open set Ω⊂R2 or on the torus Ω=T2. We construct global-in-time weak solutions with vorticity in L1∩Lulp and in L1∩YulΘ, where Lulp and YulΘ are suitable uniformly-localized versions of the Lebesgue space Lp and of the Yudovich space YΘ respectively, with no condition at infinity for the growth function Θ. We also provide an explicit modulus of continuity for the velocity depending on the growth function Θ. We prove uniqueness of weak solutions in L1∩YulΘ under the assumption that Θ grows moderately at infinity. In contrast to Yudovich’s energy method, we employ a Lagrangian strategy to show uniqueness. Our entire argument relies on elementary real-variable techniques, with no use of either Sobolev spaces, Calderón–Zygmund theory or Littlewood–Paley decomposition, and actually applies not only to the Biot–Savart law, but also to more general operators whose kernels obey some natural structural assumptions.

Mathematics Subject Classification

Primary 76B03
Secondary 35Q35
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000781 European Research Council ERC Starting Grant 676675 FLIRT Crippa Gianluca http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001711 Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung SNF Project 212573 FLUTURA Crippa Gianluca http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012740 Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012740 Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni U-UFMBAZ-2020-000798 15-04-2020 CUP_E55F22000270001 Stefani Giorgio http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012740 Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi Matematica, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni CUP_E53C22001930001 945655 Stefani Giorgio issue-copyright-statement© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Euler equations

The two-dimensional Euler equations for an incompressible inviscid fluid are given by1.1 ∂tv+(v·∇)v+∇p=0in(0,+∞)×Ω,divv=0in[0,+∞)×Ω,v·νΩ=0on[0,+∞)×∂Ω,v|t=0=v0onΩ,

on either a sufficiently smooth (possibly unbounded) simply connected open set Ω⊂R2 or on the 2-dimensional torus Ω=T2, where v:[0,+∞)×Ω→R2 is the velocity of the fluid, p:[0,+∞)×Ω→R is the (scalar) pressure and νΩ:∂Ω→R2 is the inner unit normal to ∂Ω. In the cases Ω=R2 and Ω=T2, no boundary condition is imposed.

The vorticity ω:[0,+∞)×Ω→R of the fluid is given by the relation ω=curlv and satisfies the Euler equations in vorticity form1.2 ∂tω+div(vω)=0in(0,+∞)×Ω,v=Kωin[0,+∞)×Ω,ω|t=0=ω0onΩ.

The relation appearing in the second line of (1.2) is the so-called Biot–Savart law and allows to recover the velocity v from the vorticity ω. In fact, since divv=0, there exists a stream function ψ:[0,+∞)×Ω→R (uniquely determined up to an additive time-dependent constant, if Ω is connected) such that1.3 v=-∂x2ψ∂x1ψ=∇⊥ψon[0,+∞)×Ω.

By applying the curl operator to both sides of (1.3), we get the Poisson equation1.4 Δψ=ωonΩ,

so thatv(t,x)=∫Ωk(x,y)ω(t,y)dy=Kω(t,x)

for x∈Ω and t∈[0,+∞), where k:Ω×Ω→R2 is an integral kernel obtained by composing the operator ∇⊥ with the Newtonian potential on Ω. Note that the relation v=Kω encodes both the incompressibility property of the fluid divv=0 and the no-flow boundary condition v·νΩ=0, since one imposes a Dirichlet condition at the boundary of Ω in order to solve the Poisson equation (1.4). Also note that, in the case of the 2-dimensional torus, (1.4) is only solvable under the compatibility condition that ω has zero average on T2. At least formally, such condition follows from the definition of ω as the curl of the velocity field. In case the set Ω is not simply connected, the Biot–Savart law needs to be modified taking into account the circulations of the velocity field around the “holes” of Ω, which requires the use of suitable harmonic vector fields, see [21] for instance.

If Ω=R2, then actually k(x,y)=k2(x-y) withk2(x)=12π1|x|2-x2x1=12πx⊥|x|2for allx∈R2,x≠0.

On a sufficiently regular open set Ω⊂R2 and on the torus Ω=T2, the kernel k does not have such an easy and explicit expression but, nevertheless, is known to satisfy some suitable a priori estimates (see [29, 30] and also inequalities (2.1) and (2.2) below).

For a detailed exposition of the theory of the Euler equations, we refer the reader to the monographs [4, 11, 28, 30] and to the survey [14].

Existence and uniqueness of weak solutions of (1.2) with bounded vorticity is due to Yudovich [41]. Existence of weak solutions was later achieved even for unbounded vorticities under weaker integrability assumptions, see [15–17, 27, 37] for the most relevant results.

Uniqueness of unbounded weak solutions of (1.2) is an extremely delicate problem. On the one side, in [42] Yudovich himself extended his previous uniqueness result [41] to the case of unbounded vorticities belonging to the now-called Yudovich space, see below for the precise definition. A different approach relying on Littlewood–Paley decomposition techniques was pursued by Vishik [38]. Further improvements were subsequently obtained by several authors [5, 6, 12, 20], additionally establishing some propagation of regularity of solutions under more restrictive assumptions on the initial data. Important results have been also achieved on open sets with rough boundary, see [19, 22–24]. On the other side, the uniqueness of weak solutions of (1.2) in Lp(R2) for p<+∞ is currently an open problem, see [7–9, 39, 40] for some recent advances.

Yudovich’s energy method

In this paper, we revisit Yudovich’s well-posedness result in [42]. Our approach is simpler and explicit, and is based on elementary real-variable techniques only. In fact, we make no use of either Fourier theory or Littlewood–Paley decomposition and even, somewhat surprisingly, we do not need to rely on either Sobolev spaces or Calderón–Zygmund operator theory.

Yudovich’s original approach [41, 42] to the uniqueness is essentially based on a clever energy argument (we refer the reader also to [11, Chapter 5], [28, Chapter 8] and [30, Chapter 2] for a more detailed exposition). The idea behind this method is to show that the squared L2 distance between the velocities of two solutions (also called the relative energy)E(t)=∫Ω|v(t,x)-v~(t,x)|2dx

starting from the same initial datum obeys a Grönwall-type integral inequality.

If the vorticity is bounded, then one can exploit the Biot–Savart law v=Kω in (1.2) together with some standard Calderón–Zygmund estimates to get1.5 ‖∇v‖Lp(Ω)≤Cp

for any p∈(1,+∞) sufficiently large, where the constant C>0 depends on ‖ω‖L∞(Ω) only. An energy estimate on (1.1) combined with (1.5) gives1.6

By comparison with the maximal solution of (1.6), one must have thatE(t)≤(Ct)p≤(CT)pfort∈[0,T],

so that E(t)=0 for all t∈[0,T] letting p→+∞, provided that CT<1.

If the vorticity is not bounded but the function p↦‖ω‖Lp(Ω) has moderate growth for p→+∞, then the argument above can be modified to get an estimate of the form1.7 E(t)≲∫0tβ(E(s))ds,

for some function β:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) depending on the growth of the Lp norm of the vorticity for p→+∞, namely, to which Yudovich space the vorticity belongs to.

Let us recall the definition of Yudovich space. Here and in the rest of the paper, we let Θ:[1,+∞)→(0,+∞) be a non-decreasing function.

Definition 1.1

(Yudovich space) We letYΘ(Ω)=f∈⋂p∈[1,+∞)Lp(Ω):‖f‖YΘ(Ω)=supp∈[1,+∞)‖f‖Lp(Ω)Θ(p)<+∞

be the Yudovich space on Ω associated to Θ.

Note that, if Θ is bounded, then YΘ(Ω)⊂L∞(Ω). If Θ is unbounded, then it is not difficult to see that YΘ(Ω)⊄L∞(Ω).

Now, if the vorticity belongs to YΘ(Ω), then one replaces (1.5) with‖∇v‖Lp(Ω)≲‖ω‖YΘ(Ω)pΘ(p)

and the computation leading to (1.6) now gives

for ε>0, where the implicit constant depends on the YΘ norm of the vorticity. Setting1.8

(here the choice of the value is irrelevant and is made for convenience only), we finally obtainddtE(t)≲E(t)ψΘ1E(t),

where the implicit constant depends on the YΘ norm of the vorticity. We have therefore obtained (1.7) with . Based on this computation, Yudovich’s well-posedness result can be stated as follows (for the precise notion of weak solution of (1.2), see Definition 3.2 below).

Theorem 1.2

(Yudovich [41, 42]) Let Ω⊂R2 be a bounded open set with C2 boundary and assume that the function ψΘ in (1.8) satisfies1.9

Then, for any initial datum ω0∈YΘ(Ω), there exists a unique weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) such that1.10 ω∈L∞([0,+∞);YΘ(Ω)),v∈L∞([0,+∞);Cb(Ω;R2)).

In [42, Theorem 2], Yudovich also proved that the velocity v in (1.10) satisfies1.11

for a.e. t>0, and observed that the modulus of continuity satisfies the Osgood condition

as a consequence of (1.9)

As it is apparent from the definition in (1.8), the precise behavior of ψΘ and its dependence on the growth function Θ are quite implicit. As a matter of fact, in his paper [42] Yudovich exhibited explicit formulas for the function ψΘ only in some particular cases. Precisely, if1.12 Θm(p)=logplog2plog3p⋯logmp

for some m∈N and for all p∈(1,+∞) sufficiently large, wherelogmp=loglog⋯log⏟m timesp,

thenψΘm(r)≲logrlog2rlog3r⋯logm+1r

for r>0 sufficiently large. In this range of examples, condition (1.9) holds for all m∈N. Condition (1.9) however fails for a growth function of order Θ(p)≂p for p→+∞. In other words, as observed in [42, Examples 3.2 and 3.3], Theorem 1.2 holds for vorticities with singularities of order |log|log|x|| (corresponding to a growth function of order Θ(p)≂logp), but not for vorticities with singularities of order |log|x|| (corresponding to a growth function of order Θ(p)≂p) which, in turn, are typical singularities of BMO functions, see the discussion in [38] and the estimate (1.18) below.

Uniformly-localized Lp and Yudovich spaces

As recently pointed out by the work of Taniuchi [35] and by the subsequent developments obtained in [12, 36], Yudovich’s approach can be suitably localized in order to treat vorticities with possibly infinite global L1 norm.

Let us recall the definition of the uniformly-localized version of the Yudovich space introduced above. Here and in the rest of the paper, we let d:Ω×Ω→[0,+∞) be the natural distance on Ω, that is, the Euclidean distance if Ω⊂R2 and the geodesic distance if Ω=T2. We let Br(x) be the open ball of radius r>0 centered at x∈R2.

Definition 1.3

(Uniformly-localized Lp and Yudovich spaces) Let p∈[1,+∞). We let1.13 Lulp(Ω)=f∈Llocp(Ω):‖f‖Lulp(Ω)=supx∈Ω‖f‖Lp(Ω∩B1(x))<+∞

be the uniformly-localized Lp space on Ω. By convention, we set Lul∞(Ω)=L∞(Ω). We also letYulΘ(Ω)=f∈⋂p∈[1,+∞)Lulp(Ω):‖f‖YulΘ(Ω)=supp∈[1,+∞)‖f‖Lulp(Ω)Θ(p)<+∞

be the uniformly-localized Yudovich space on Ω associated to Θ.

Clearly, we have YΘ(Ω)⊂YulΘ(Ω), with strict inclusion if Ω is unbounded. Note that, by an elementary geometric argument, if we set‖f‖Lul,rp(Ω)=supx∈Ω‖f‖Lp(Ω∩Br(x))

for all r>0, then1.14 ‖f‖Lul,Rp(Ω)≲Rr2/p‖f‖Lul,rp(Ω)

for all p∈[1,+∞) and R>r>0. In particular, the choice r=1 made in the definition (1.13) of the space Lulp(Ω) is completely irrelevant.

With these definitions at hand, Taniuchi’s well-posedness result can be stated as follows (see [36] for a similar result dealing with almost-periodic initial data in R2 and [12, Theorem 1.10] for initial data additionally belonging to a suitable Spanne space).

Theorem 1.4

(Taniuchi [12, 35]) Let Θ:[1,+∞)→(0,+∞) be a non-decreasing function such that1.15 ∫+∞dppΘ(logp)=+∞.

Then, for any initial datum ω0∈YulΘ(R2), there exists a weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) such that1.16 ω∈Lloc∞([0,+∞),YulΘ(R2)),v∈Lloc∞([0,+∞);Lloc∞(R2;R2)).

In addition, if Θ satisfies1.17 ∫+∞dppΘ(p)=+∞,

then the solution (ω,v) in (1.16) is unique.

Note that condition (1.15) is satisfied by a growth function Θ(p)≂p for p→+∞. In particular, since1.18 ‖f‖Lulp(R2)≲p‖f‖bmo(R2)

for all p∈(1,+∞) (see [35, Definitions 3 and 5]), Theorem 1.4 provides existence of weak solutions of (1.2) starting from a BMO initial vorticity and bounded initial velocity (although in general the solution does not belong to BMO at later times), improving the previous existence result by Vishik [38]. We refer the reader to [35, Corollary 1.2] for the precise (and more general) statement of this result.

Main results

In this paper, we first of all completely revisit Yudovich’s uniqueness result (Theorem 1.2), employing an elementary and direct approach which makes the relation among the growth of the Lp norm of the vorticity, the modulus of continuity of the associated velocity, and the condition required for the uniqueness fully explicit.

Before stating our uniqueness result, let us introduce some notation that will be used throughout the paper.

Definition 1.5

(The function φΘ) Let Θ:[1,+∞)→(0,+∞) be a non-decreasing function. We let the function φΘ:[0,+∞)→[0,+∞) be such that φΘ(0)=0 and1.19 φΘ(r)=r(1-logr)Θ(1-logr)forr∈(0,e-2][2mm]e-23Θ(3)forr>e-2

(the choice of the constant e-2 is irrelevant and is made for convenience only, see below). With a slight abuse of terminology, we say that φΘ is the modulus of continuity associated to the growth function Θ, and we defineCb0,φΘ(Ω;R2)=v∈L∞(Ω;R2):supx≠y|v(x)-v(y)|φΘ(d(x,y))<+∞.

With the above notation in force, our uniqueness result can be stated as follows (for the precise notions of weak solution and of Lagrangian weak solution of the system (1.2), we again refer the reader to Definition 3.2 below).

Theorem 1.6

(Uniqueness) Let Ω⊂R2 be either a sufficiently regular open set or the 2-dimensional torus Ω=T2. If Θ satisfies (1.17) and the function φΘ defined in (1.19) is concave on [0,+∞), then there is at most one Lagrangian weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) with1.20 ω∈Lloc∞([0,+∞);L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω)),v∈Lloc∞([0,+∞);Cb0,φΘ(Ω;R2)),

starting from the initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω).

In Theorem 1.6, we do not specify the required regularity of the open set Ω⊂R2 in detail, since such regularity is only needed to ensure the well-posedness of the Biot–Savart law appearing in (1.2). As a matter of fact, we do not require the open set Ω⊂R2 either to be bounded or to have finite measure, in contrast to the result in Theorem 1.2.

Actually, Theorem 1.6 does hold for any operator K satisfying some suitable conditions (which hold in particular in the case of the Biot–Savart law), see Assumption 2.1 and Assumption 3.1 below.

Last but not least, the function φΘ defined in (1.19) provides a fully explicit modulus of continuity of the velocity in terms of the integrability of the vorticity. In other words, the regularity of the velocity stated in (1.20) can be seen as a more explicit version of (1.11) (even for a growth function Θ possibly not implying the uniqueness of the solution, see Theorem 1.8 below). In particular, Theorem 1.6 applies to the explicit growth function Θm in (1.12) for all m∈N, for which one can easily see that

for all r>0 sufficiently small.

Remark 1.7

Actually, the word “Lagrangian” can be removed from the statement of Theorem 1.6, in the sense that uniqueness can be shown in the (a priori larger) class of all weak solutions. This is due to the fact that, for a continuity equation with an Osgood velocity field, all weak solutions in L1(Ω) are in fact Lagrangian. This fact is not at all elementary and has been proved (via very different approaches) in [2, 13], also see [10] in the context of Sobolev velocity fields. We nevertheless prefer to state Theorem 1.6 for Lagrangian solutions in order to emphasize the best result that it is possible to prove just relying on our elementary approach.

Concerning the existence of weak solutions of (1.2), somewhat inspired by Taniuchi’s Theorem 1.4, we prove the following result.

Theorem 1.8

(Existence) Let Ω⊂R2 be either a sufficiently regular open set or the 2-dimensional torus Ω=T2 and let p∈(2,+∞). For any initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω), there exists a weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) such that1.21

Moreover, if ω0∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω), then the weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) given in (1.21) additionally satisfies (1.20) and, provided that Θ satisfies (1.17), is Lagrangian.

As for Theorem 1.6 above, the regularity of the open set Ω⊂R2 is only needed to guarantee the well-posedness of the Biot–Savart law. In fact, as before, also Theorem 1.8 applies to any operator K satisfying the a priori estimates stated in Assumption 2.1 and Assumption 3.1 below.

Up to our knowledge, the global-in-time existence result stated in Theorem 1.8 is new, even for K being the standard Biot–Savart operator. Local-in-time existence of weak solutions of (1.2) with vorticity only in Lulp for some p>2 is known for Ω=R2, see [35, Theorem 1.3].

The global-in-time existence result for the L1∩YulΘ-spatial regularity of the vorticity in Theorem 1.8 does not require any assumption on the behavior at infinity of the growth function Θ. In this sense, the global L1 integrability of the vorticity allows us to remove the condition (1.15) needed in Theorem 1.4.

Finally, Theorem 1.8 provides the existence of a solution and a modulus of continuity for the velocity even for growth functions Θ allowing for vorticities not included in the BMO-like spaces considered by Vishik in [38], by Bernicot, Hmidi and Keraani in [5, 6] and by Chen, Miao and Zhen in [12]. Indeed, we can treat growth functions like Θ(p)≂pα for p→+∞ for all α>0, corresponding to singularities of order |log|x||α. In addition, since the classes considered in Theorem 1.8 are of integral type, our existence result allows for the cut-off of the initial datum, a property which is known not to preserve any BMO-like regularity.

Strategy of the proof

Let us briefly explain the strategy behind the proof of our main results. We can divide our approach in three fundamental parts.

The first part is the study of the regularity of the velocity. As it is well-known, even for a bounded vorticity the associated velocity is in general not Lipschitz, but just log-Lipschitz. In the case the vorticity satisfies ω∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω) for some p∈(2,+∞) (actually, it is enough to assume ω∈Lq(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω) for any 1≤q<2<p<+∞, see Theorem 2.2 below), we prove that the velocity satisfies1.22

for all x,y∈Ω.

The Hölder continuity in (1.22) should not come as a surprise. Indeed, inequality (1.22) is a well-known consequence of the Calderón–Zygmund theory and the Morrey inequality in the case of the Biot–Savart kernel, see [42, Section 4] and [31, Lemma 2.2 and Remark 2.3] for instance. Our approach, however, is different, since our proof of (1.22) solely exploits the metric properties of the kernel (see Assumption 2.1 below) and some elementary integral estimates (known in the literature for bounded vorticities, see the proofs of [28, Lemma 8.1] and of [30, Lemma 3.1] for example).

The next key idea is the following simple but crucial observation. If ω∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω), then (1.22) holds for any p≥3 and can be rewritten as1.23

for all x,y∈Ω. Here and in the rest of the paper, for simplicity and clearly without loss of generality, we can assume that Θ(3)≥1. In particular, if d(x,y) is sufficiently small, then we can takep=1-logd(x,y)

in (1.23) and discover that|v(x)-v(y)|≲(‖ω‖L1(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))φΘ(d(x,y))

for all x,y∈Ω, where φΘ is the function defined in (1.19). In particular, if ω∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω), then Θ is bounded and the definition in (1.19) gives|v(x)-v(y)|≲(‖ω‖L1(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))ℓ(d(x,y))

for all x,y∈Ω, where ℓ:[0,+∞)→[0,1] is defined as ℓ(0)=0 and1.24 ℓ(r)=r(1-logr)forr∈(0,1],1forr>1,

recovering the classical log-Lipschitz continuity of the velocity.

The second part is the existence of weak solutions. The key tool we use in this part is a simplified version of the celebrated Aubin–Lions Lemma, see Theorem A.1 in Sect. 5, whose elementary proof is just a combination of the Dunford–Pettis Theorem and the Arzelà–Ascoli Compactness Theorem. With this compactness criterion at hand, we first prove existence of weak solutions of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩L∞. Having in mind to deal with a general operator K which may not be necessarily the Biot–Savart one, we cannot rely on the existence theory for smooth solutions, but rather we build a weak solution of (1.2) from scratch via a time-stepping argument (a procedure which may be of some interest by itself even in the case of the Biot–Savart law). The construction of weak solutions with vorticity in L1∩Lulp then follows by applying the Aubin–Lions-like Lemma to the sequence of bounded weak solutions starting from the truncations of the initial vorticity.

The third and last part is the uniqueness of weak solutions. In contrast to Yudovich’s original approach [42], we do not employ an energy method by estimating the relative energy between two solutions, but we rather compare the flows associated to the two velocities by an elementary (non-linear) Picard–Lindelöf iteration-like argument (similar to the one used for bounded vorticities in [30, Section 2.3] and in [26]), which can also be seen as an estimate for the Wasserstein distance between the two vorticities. It is precisely at this point that the we exploit the Osgood property1.25 ∫0-2drφΘ(r)=∫3+∞dppΘ(p)=+∞

and the concavity of the modulus of continuity φΘ given in (1.19). This approach is also somewhat reminiscent of the one by Serfati [33, 34], see also [1].

Organization of the paper

The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we study the mapping properties of the operator K under some minimal assumptions on the kernel. In Sect. 3, we prove the existence of weak solutions, namely Theorem 1.8, see Theorem 3.4 and Theorem 3.6. In Sect. 4, we establish the uniqueness of weak solutions, namely Theorem 1.6. Finally, in Sect. 5, we state and prove the simplified version of the Aubin–Lions Lemma we need in the existence part, see Theorem A.1.

Mapping properties of the kernel

In this section, we study the mapping properties of the operator K. Here and in the rest of the paper, we rely on the metric properties of the underlying kernel in Assumption 2.1 below, and not on its specific form. These properties are satisfied by the standard Biot–Savart kernel in any (bounded or unbounded) sufficiently smooth domain and on the 2-dimensional torus (for instance see the aforementioned [29, 30]).

Assumption 2.1

(Estimates on the kernel) We assume that the kernel k:Ω×Ω→R2 satisfies2.1 |k(x,y)|≤C1d(x,y)∀x,y∈Ω,x≠y,

and2.2 |k(x,z)-k(y,z)|≤C2d(x,y)d(x,z)d(y,z)∀x,y,z∈Ω,z≠x,y,

for some constants C1,C2>0.

We begin by establishing the Hölder continuity of the velocity, extending to our setting the proof of [28, Lemma 8.1] and of [30, Lemma 3.1].

Theorem 2.2

(Hölder continuity) Let Assumption 2.1 be in force and let q∈[1,2) and p∈(2,+∞). If ω∈Lq(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω), then the function2.3 Kω(x)=∫Ωk(x,z)ω(z)dz,x∈Ω,

is well defined and satisfies with2.4 ‖Kω‖L∞(Ω;R2)≲max1,1p-2(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖Lulp(Ω))

and2.5

for all x,y∈Ω. The implicit constants in (2.4) and (2.5) only depend on the constants C1 and C2 in Assumption 2.1 and on the exponent q (but not on the exponent p).

Remark 2.3

Observe that the Hölder continuity of order is the same that would follow by using Morrey’s inequality from the W1,p Sobolev regularity of the velocity field associated (via the standard Biot–Savart law) to an Lp vorticity. In the proof below, we make no use of such tools, which are not available in the case of a kernel satisfying Assumption 2.1 only.

Proof of Theorem 2.2

We divide the proof in three steps.

Step 1: proof of (2.4). Let x∈Ω be fixed. We start by noticing that the function in (2.3) can be estimated as|Kω(x)|≤∫Ω∩B1(x)|k(x,z)||ω(z)|dz+∫Ω\B1(x)|k(x,z)||ω(z)|dz.

On the one side, by (2.1) we can estimate

where . On the other side, again by (2.1), we can estimate∫Ω\B1(x)|k(x,z)||ω(z)|dz≤C1∫Ω\B1(x)|ω(z)|d(x,z)dz≲‖ω‖Lq(Ω).

In conclusion, we find that|Kω(x)|≲‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+max1,1p-2‖ω‖Lulp(Ω)

for each x∈Ω, proving (2.4).

Step 2: proof of (2.5), part 1. Let x,y∈Ω be fixed and assume that d=d(x,y)<1. We note that2.6 |Kω(x)-Kω(y)|≤∫Ω|k(x,z)-k(y,z)||ω(z)|dz=∫Ω\B2(x)+∫Ω∩(B2(x)\B2d(x))+∫Ω∩B2d(x)|k(x,z)-k(y,z)||ω(z)|dz.

By (2.2), we can estimate the first integral in (2.6) as∫Ω\B2(x)|k(x,z)-k(y,z)||ω(z)|dz≤C2d(x,y)∫Ω\B2(x)|ω(z)|d(x,z)d(y,z)dz≲d(x,y)‖ω‖Lq(Ω).

Again by (2.2), we can estimate the second integral in (2.6) as∫Ω∩(B2(x)\B2d(x))|k(x,z)-k(y,z)||ω(z)|dz≤C2d(x,y)∫Ω∩(B2(x)\B2d(x))|ω(z)|d(x,z)d(y,z)dz.

Since d(x,y)=d and d(x,z)≥2d, we haved(x,z)≤d(x,y)+d(y,z)=d+d(y,z)≤12d(x,z)+d(y,z),

and therefored(y,z)≥12d(x,z)for allz∈Ω\B2d(x).

Hence, we can estimate∫Ω∩(B2(x)\B2d(x))|ω(z)|d(x,z)d(y,z)dz≲∫Ω∩(B2(x)\B2d(x))|ω(z)|d(x,z)2dz.

Finally, using (2.1) and observing that B2d(x)⊂B3d(y), we can estimate the third integral in (2.6) as∫Ω∩B2d(x)|k(x,z)-k(y,z)||ω(z)|dz≲∫Ω∩B2d(x)|ω(z)|d(x,z)dz+∫Ω∩B3d(y)|ω(z)|d(y,z)dz.

Step 3: proof of (2.5), part 2. To conclude, we just need to estimate the functionsα(d)=supx∈Ω∫Ω∩(B2(x)\B2d(x))|ω(z)|d(x,z)2dzandβ(d)=supx∈Ω∫Ω∩B3d(x)|ω(z)|d(x,z)dz

defined for d∈(0,1]. Concerning the function α, by Hölder’s inequality we can estimate2.7

We can argue similarly for the function β, obtaining2.8

Recalling the bound (2.4), this is enough to conclude the proof of (2.5).

From Theorem 2.2 we easily derive the following result, generalizing the well-known log-Lipschitz continuity of the velocity valid for vorticities in L1∩L∞.

Corollary 2.4

(φΘ-continuity) Let Assumption 2.1 be in force and let q∈[1,2). If ω∈Lq(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω), then Kω∈Cb0,φΘ(Ω;R2) with2.9 ‖Kω‖L∞(Ω;R2)≲‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω)

and2.10 |Kω(x)-Kω(y)|≲(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))φΘ(d(x,y))

for all x,y∈Ω, where φΘ is the function defined in (1.19). The implicit constants in (2.9) and (2.10) only depend on the constants C1 and C2 in Assumption 2.1 and on the exponent q (but not on the behavior of the growth function Θ at infinity).

Proof

We divide the proof in two steps.

Step 1: proof of (2.9). Taking p=3 in (2.4), since Θ(3)≥1 by assumption, we immediately see that‖Kω‖L∞(Ω;R2)≲‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖Lul3(Ω)≲‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+Θ(3)‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω)≲‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω).

Step 2: proof of (2.10). Let x,y∈Ω be such that d=d(x,y)∈(0,e-2]. Taking p=1-logd∈[3,+∞) in (2.5), we get that Θ(1-logd)≥Θ(3)≥1 and thus|Kω(x)-Kω(y)|≲(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+Θ(1-logd)‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))(1-logd)d1-21-logd≤(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))Θ(1-logd)(1-logd)d1-21-logd≲(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))d(1-logd)Θ(1-logd).

Thanks to the bound (2.9), this proves (2.10).

Remark 2.5

(Stronger versions of (2.5) and (2.10)) For later use, we observe that, in Steps 2 and 3 of the proof of Theorem 2.2, we actually showed that2.11

for all x,y∈Ω, where the implicit constant only depends on C1 and C2 in Assumption 2.1 and on q (but not on p). Consequently, in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 2.4, we actually showed that2.12 ∫Ω|k(x,z)-k(y,z)||ω(z)|dz≲(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))φΘ(d(x,y))

for all x,y∈Ω, where the implicit constant only depends on the constants C1 and C2 in Assumption 2.1 and on the exponent q (but not on the behavior of the growth function Θ at infinity).

Remark 2.6

(Yudovich’s approach) Inequality (2.10) in Theorem 2.4 can also be obtained by re-doing the estimates (2.7) and (2.8) following Yudovich’s approach in [42, Lemma 3.1]. Indeed, for we have

by applying Hölder’s inequality with exponents and . A similar computation shows that

so that|Kω(x)-Kω(y)|≲(‖ω‖Lq(Ω)+‖ω‖YulΘ(Ω))ψ~Θ(d(x,y))

for all x,y∈Ω, where2.13 ψ~Θ(d)=infΘ(1ε)(1-logd)1-εd1-2ε:0<ε<13

for all d∈(0,e-2], in analogy with the definition in (1.8). Due to its implicit definition in (2.13), the function ψ~Θ is not easily exploitable for further computations (at least, unless Θ has a more explicit expression, such as (1.12)). However, as in the proof of Theorem 2.4, one realizes that the choice in (2.13) givesψ~Θ(d)≲d(1-logd)Θ(1-logd)≲φΘ(d)

for all d∈(0,e-2], so that we recover (2.10) also via this alternative approach.

Existence of weak solutions (Theorem 1.8)

In this section, we show existence of weak solutions for the Euler equations (1.2). Here and in the rest of the paper, in addition to Assumption 2.1, we assume two further properties concerning the divergence and the behavior at the boundary of the velocity generated by the operator K.

Assumption 3.1

(Bounded divergence and no-flow boundary condition) Let p∈(2,+∞] be given. We assume that the operator

defined in (2.3) of Theorem 2.2 is such that the distributional divergence div(Kω) satisfies3.1 ‖div(Kω)‖L∞(Ω)≤C3‖ω‖L1(Ω)

for all ω∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω), for some constant C3>0. If Ω⊂R2 is an open set with sufficiently regular boundary, we assume the no-flow boundary condition3.2 νΩ·Kω=0on∂Ω

for all ω∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω). Condition (3.2) is empty if either Ω=R2 or Ω=T2.

Note that Assumption 3.1 is trivially satisfied in the case of the standard Biot–Savart law, since the specific form of the kernel entails div(Kω)=0.

We will employ the following standard definition of weak solution and of Lagrangian weak solution of the Euler equations (1.2).

Definition 3.2

(Weak solution) Let p∈(2,+∞]. Given an initial condition for the vorticity ω0∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω), we say that the couple (ω,v) is a weak solution of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩Lulp provided that: (i) ω∈Lloc∞([0,+∞);L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω));

(ii) v=Kω in Lloc∞([0,+∞);Cb(Ω;R2));

(iii) given T∈(0,+∞), for all φ∈Cc1([0,T]×Ω) it holds ∫Ωφ(T,x)ω(T,x)dx-∫Ωφ(0,x)ω0(x)dx=∫0T∫Ωω(∂tφ+v·∇φ)dxdt.

A weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩Lulp is called Lagrangian if ω(t,·)=X(t,·)#ω0 for a.e. t∈[0,+∞), where X is a flow associated to the velocity field v.

In Definition 3.2, we say that X is a flow associated to the velocity field v if3.3 ddtX(t,x)=v(t,X(t,x))for(t,x)∈(0,+∞)×Ω,[3mm]X(0,x)=xforx∈Ω.

The ODE in (3.3) is understood in the classical sense (for an overiview, as well as for the connection with the continuity equation, see [3]). Since the velocity belongs to the space Lloc∞([0,+∞);Cb(Ω;R2)) and satisfies the no-flow boundary condition (3.2), the existence of a solution X of the problem (3.3) follows from the Peano Theorem. The relation ω(t,·)=X(t,·)#ω0 stands for the usual push-forward, i.e.∫Ωω(t,·)φdx=∫Ωω0φ(X(t,·))dx

for all bounded measurable functions φ:Ω→R.

We are now ready to deal with the existence of weak solutions. We begin with the case of weak solutions with vorticity in L1∩L∞. The result in Theorem 3.3 below is well known in the case of the standard Biot–Savart kernel. In our more general setting, we cannot rely on any general results of existence of smooth solutions for smooth data, due to the lack of an evolution equation for the velocity. Instead, we construct the solution by combining a time-stepping argument with the Aubin–Lions-like Lemma given in Sect. 5.

Here and in the following, ℓ:[0,+∞)→[0,1] denotes the log-Lipschitz modulus of continuity defined in (1.24).

Theorem 3.3

(Existence in L1∩L∞) Let Assumptions 2.1 and 3.1 be in force. Then there exists a Lagrangian weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩L∞ starting from the initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) such that3.4 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤‖ω0‖L1(Ω),

3.5 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω))≤exp(C3T‖ω0‖L1(Ω))‖ω0‖L∞(Ω),

3.6 ‖v‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω;R2))≲‖ω0‖L1(Ω)+‖ω0‖L∞(Ω),

and3.7 |v(t,x)-v(t,y)|≲(‖ω0‖L1(Ω)+‖ω0‖L∞(Ω))ℓ(d(x,y)),for allx,y∈Ωand a.e.t∈[0,T],

for all T∈(0,+∞), where the implicit constants may depend on the chosen T.

Proof

Let T∈(0,+∞) and ω0∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) be fixed and define v0=Kω0.

Step 1: construction of (ωn,vn)n∈N by time-stepping. Let n∈N and consider the time step . We construct a sequence of functions (ωn,vn)n∈N as follows. We set ω0n=ω0 for all n∈N by definition. If for some j∈1,⋯,n, then we define ωn(t,·)=w(t,·), where w is advected on the interval by the time-independent velocity , that is, w solves3.8

in the distributional sense.

We show that the couple (ωn,vn) is well defined for each n∈N by an inductive argument. By Theorem 2.4 for and j=1,⋯,n we have3.9

and3.10

We argue inductively on j=1,⋯,n. For j=1, we have ωn(t,·)=Xn(t,·)#ω0 for all , where is the flow associated to the time-independent velocity field v0n=v0. Consequently, for all we can estimate‖ωn(t,·)‖L1(Ω)≤‖ω0n‖L1(Ω)=‖ω0‖L1(Ω)

and, thanks to (3.1) in Assumption 3.1,‖ωn(t,·)‖L∞(Ω)≤exp∫0t‖divvn(s,·)‖L∞(Ω)ds‖ω0n‖L∞(Ω)≤expTn‖div(Kω0)‖L∞(Ω)‖ω0‖L∞(Ω)≤expC3Tn‖ω0‖L1(Ω)‖ω0‖L∞(Ω).

Now, for j∈2,⋯,n-1, let us assume that

and

Then for all , where is the flow associated to the time-independent velocity field . Consequently, we can estimate

and, thanks to (3.1) in Assumption 3.1,

for all . Therefore, we conclude that3.11 ‖ωn(t,·)‖L1(Ω)≤‖ω0‖L1(Ω)

and3.12 ‖ωn(t,·)‖L∞(Ω)≤expC3T‖ω0‖L1(Ω)‖ω0‖L∞(Ω)

for all t∈[0,T] and n∈N. In particular, the uniform bounds (3.11) and (3.12) in combination with the inequalities (3.9) and (3.10) imply that (vn)n∈N is uniformly equi-bounded and uniformly equi-continuous (uniformly in time) with modulus of continuity ℓ. Observe that we actually proved that ωn(t,·)=Xn(t,·)#ω0 for all t∈[0,T] and n∈N, where Xn is the flow associated to the (piecewise constant-in-time) velocity field vn. Finally, it is immediate to check that (ωn,vn) solves3.13 ∂tωn+div(vnωn)=0in(0,T)×Ω,[2mm]ωn|t=0=ω0onΩ,

in the distributional sense for each n∈N.

Step 2: properties of (ωn)n∈N. We now claim that the sequence (ωn)n∈N satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem A.1. Indeed, (A.1) follows immediately from (3.11). By (3.12), we havesupn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L1(A))≤|A|supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω))≤expC3T‖ω0‖L1(Ω)‖ω0‖L∞(Ω)|A|

for all A⊂Ω, from which (A.2) immediately follows. Assumption (A.3) is empty if |Ω|<+∞. In order to show (A.3) when |Ω|=+∞, we exploit the representation ωn(t,·)=Xn(t,·)#ω0. Given ε>0, we choose r>0 such that∫Ω\Br|ω0|dx<ε.

Note that, for any x∈Ω, we havesupn∈Nsupt∈[0,T]d(Xn(t,x),x)≤Tsupn∈N‖vn‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω;R2))≲T(‖ω0‖L1(Ω)+‖ω0‖L∞(Ω))

and thus Xn(t,Br)⊂BR for all n∈N and t∈[0,T], where R=r+CT and C>0 is a constant depending only on ‖ω0‖L1(Ω) and ‖ω0‖L∞(Ω). Therefore Xn(t,·)-1(Ω\BR)⊂Ω\Br for all n∈N and t∈[0,T], and, consequently, we conclude thatsupn∈Nsupt∈[0,T]∫Ω\BR|ωn(t,·)|dx≤supn∈Nsupt∈[0,T]∫Xn(t,·)-1(Ω\BR)|ω0|dx≤∫Ω\Br|ω0|dx<ε,

proving (A.3). Finally, using (3.11), (3.12) and (3.13), for each n∈N and φ∈Cc1(Ω) the functiont↦∫Ωωn(t,·)φdx∈AC([0,T];R)

satisfies3.14 |ddt∫Ωωn(t,·)φdx|=|∫Ωωn(t,·)vn(t,·)·∇φdx|≤C‖∇φ‖L∞(Ω;R2)

for a.e. t∈[0,T], where C>0 is a constant depending on ‖ω0‖L1(Ω) and ‖ω0‖L∞(Ω) only, proving the validity of (A.5).

Step 3: passage to the limit. Thanks to Step 2, we can apply Theorem A.1 to the sequence (ωn)n∈N and find a subsequence (ωnk)k∈N such that3.15 limk→+∞supt∈[0,T]|∫Ωωnk(t,·)φdx-∫Ωω(t,·)φdx|=0

for each φ∈L∞(Ω), for someω∈L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))∩C([0,T];L1(Ω)-w⋆).

From (3.15), we see that‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))

and‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω))≤supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω)),

proving (3.4) and (3.5) in virtue of (3.11) and (3.12) respectively. Now we set v~n=Kωn for all n∈N and3.16 v=Kω∈L∞([0,T];Cb(Ω;R2)).

We observe that, for φ∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω), we can write3.17 ∫Ωφv~n(t,·)dx=∫ΩφKωn(t,·)dx=∫Ωφ(x)∫Ωk(x,y)ωn(t,y)dydx=∫Ωωn(t,y)∫Ωk(x,y)φ(x)dxdy=∫Ωωn(t,·)K~φdy

for a.e. t∈[0,T] and n∈N by the Fubini Theorem and by (2.4) in Theorem 2.2, where we have set3.18 K~φ(y)=∫Ωk(x,y)φ(x)dx,x∈Ω,

(we do not assume k to be symmetric in the two variables, but note that the right-hand sides of the estimates (2.1) and (2.2) in Assumption 2.1 are indeed symmetric). In a similar way, we also have∫Ωφv(t,·)dx=∫Ωω(t,·)K~φdx

for a.e. t∈[0,T]. Because of (3.15), we can thus write3.19 limk→+∞∫Ωv~nk(t,·)φdx=∫Ωv(t,·)φdx

for a.e. t∈[0,T], whenever φ∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) is given. In addition, arguing exactly as in Step 1 of the proof of Theorem A.1, given φ∈L∞(Ω) and ε>0, we can find δ>0 such that3.20 s,t∈[0,T],|s-t|<δ⇒supn∈N|∫Ωωn(s,·)φdx-∫Ωωn(t,·)φdx|<ε.

Therefore, given φ∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) and ε>0, for each t∈[0,T] we can find τn(t)∈[0,T] (defined according to the construction performed in Step 1) such that and vn(t,·)=vn(τn(t),·)=Kωn(τn(t),·), so that|∫Ωφvn(t,·)dx-∫Ωφv~n(t,·)dx|=|∫Ωφvn(τn(t),·)dx-∫Ωφv~n(t,·)dx|=|∫Ωωn(τn(t),·)K~φdx-∫Ωωn(t,·)K~φdx|<ε

for all , where δ>0 is given by (3.20) applied to K~φ∈L∞(Ω). Consequently, because of (3.19), we get that3.21 limk→+∞∫Ωvnk(t,·)φdx=∫Ωv(t,·)φdx

for a.e. t∈[0,T], whenever φ∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) is given. Now, by Step 1, the sequence (vn)n∈N is uniformly equi-bounded and uniformly equi-continuous (uniformly in time) with modulus of continuity ℓ. Thus, by the Arzelà–Ascoli Theorem, for a.e. t∈[0,T] fixed, we can find a further subsequence vnkj(t)j∈N (possibly depending on the chosen time t) and v~(t,·)∈Cb(Ω;R2) such that3.22 limk→+∞vnkj(t)(t,·)-v~(t,·)Lloc∞(Ω;R2)=0.

By combining (3.21) and (3.22), we get that v~(t,·)=v(t,·) and thus3.23 limk→+∞vnk(t,·)-v(t,·)Lloc∞(Ω;R2)=0

for a.e. t∈[0,T], that is, the subsequence (vnk)k∈N is strongly convergent in space independently on the chosen time t∈[0,T]. Hence, we obtain that3.24 ‖v(t,·)‖L∞(Ω;R2)≲‖ω0‖L1(Ω)+‖ω0‖L∞(Ω)

and3.25 |v(t,x)-v(t,y)|≲(‖ω0‖L1(Ω)+‖ω0‖L∞(Ω))ℓ(d(x,y)),∀x,y∈Ω,

for a.e. t∈[0,T], proving (3.6) and (3.7) respectively. Combining (3.15) with (3.23), we get thatlimk→+∞∫Ωωnk(t,·)vnk(t,·)φdx=∫Ωω(t,·)v(t,·)φdx

for a.e. t∈[0,T] and all φ∈Cc(Ω). Consequently, passing to the limit as k→+∞ along the subsequence (ωnk,vnk)k∈N in the distributional formulation of (3.13), we conclude that (ω,v) solves∂tω+div(vω)=0in(0,T)×Ω,[2mm]ω|t=0=ω0onΩ,

in the distributional sense, with v=Kω according to the definition made in (3.16).

Step 4: (ω,v) is Lagrangian. We finally prove that the solution (ω,v) is Lagrangian, i.e. ω(t,·)=X(t,·)#ω0, where X is the flow associated to v. Note that X is well defined and unique by the classical theory of ODEs, thanks to (3.24) and (3.25).

Since (vnk)k∈N is uniformly equi-bounded and uniformly equi-continuous (uniformly in time), and since the modulus of continuity ℓ satisfies the Osgood condition, the corresponding sequence of flows (Xnk)k∈N is locally uniformly equi-bounded and equi-continuous (uniformly in time) as well. Thus, again by the Arzelà–Ascoli Theorem (possibly passing to a further subsequence, which we do not relabel), we have thatlimk→+∞‖Xnk-X‖L∞([0,T];Lloc∞(Ω;Ω))=0

for some X∈L∞([0,T];Lloc∞(Ω;Ω)). Passing to the limit as k→+∞ in the expressionXnk(t,x)=x+∫0tvnk(s,Xnk(s,x))ds,

we get thatX(t,x)=x+∫0tv(s,X(s,x))ds

for x∈Ω and t∈[0,T], so that X must be the (unique) flow associated to v. Thereforelimk→+∞∫Ωωnk(t,·)φdx=limk→+∞∫Ωω0φ(Xnk(t,·))dx=∫Ωω0φ(X(t,·))dx

for a.e. t∈[0,T] and all φ∈L∞(Ω) by the Dominated Convergence Theorem, and the claimed representation of ω follows from (3.15). The proof is complete.

We are now ready to prove the first part of Theorem 1.8, which we recall in the next statement.

Theorem 3.4

(Existence in L1∩Lulp for p>2) Let Assumptions 2.1 and 3.1 be in force and let p∈(2,+∞). Then there exists a weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩Lulp starting from the initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω) such that3.26 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤‖ω0‖L1(Ω),

3.27 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];Lulp(Ω))≤C,

3.28 ‖v‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω;R2))≤C,

and3.29

for all T∈(0,+∞), where C>0 only depends on T, p, ‖ω0‖L1(Ω) and ‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω).

Proof

Let T∈(0,+∞) and ω0∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω) be fixed and define v0=Kω0.

Step 1: construction of (ωn,vn)n∈N. For each n∈N, we let ω0n∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) be the truncation ω0n=max-n,minn,ω0. We note that‖ω0n‖L1(Ω)≤‖ω0‖L1(Ω),for alln∈N,

and thatlimn→+∞‖ω0n-ω0‖L1(Ω)=0.

Moreover, we also have that3.30 ‖ω0n‖Lulp(Ω)≤‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω),for alln∈N.

For each n∈N, we let (ωn,vn)n∈N be the Lagrangian weak solution of (1.2) in L1∩L∞ with initial datum ω0n given by Theorem 3.3. In particular, we have that3.31 supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤‖ω0‖L1(Ω).

Step 2: uniform estimates for (ωn,vn)n∈N. Now let n∈N be fixed. Since vn(t,·)=Kωn(t,·) for a.e. t∈[0,T], by (2.4) in Theorem 2.2 and by (3.31) in Step 1 we have that3.32 ‖vn(t,·)‖L∞(Ω;R2)≲max1,1p-2‖ωn(t,·)‖L1(Ω)+‖ωn(t,·)‖Lulp(Ω)≲max1,1p-2‖ω0‖L1(Ω)+‖ωn(t,·)‖Lulp(Ω)≲max1,1p-2max1,‖ω0‖L1(Ω)1+‖ωn(t,·)‖Lulp(Ω)

for a.e. t∈[0,T]. We now consider the function3.33 Rn(t)=∫0t‖vn(s,·)‖L∞(Ω;R2)ds

defined for t∈[0,T]. Let Xn be the flow associated to the velocity vn. Sinced(Xtn(x),x)≤Rn(t)for allx∈Ω,

by exploiting (3.31) in Step 1 and (3.1) we can estimate3.34 ‖ωn(t,·)‖Lulp(Ω)≤expTp′‖divvn‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω))‖ω0‖Lul,1+Rn(t)p(Ω)≤expTp′C3‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))‖ω0‖Lul,1+Rn(t)p(Ω)≤expTp′C3‖ω0‖L1(Ω)‖ω0‖Lul,1+Rn(t)p(Ω)

for all t∈[0,T], where . By (1.14) we have that

and thus3.35

for all t∈[0,T]. Therefore, by combining (3.32), (3.33), (3.34) and (3.35), we get3.36

for a.e. t∈(0,T), whereC=Tmax1,1p-2max1,‖ω0‖L1(Ω)expTp′C3‖ω0‖L1(Ω).

From inequality (3.36) we thus get that3.37 Rn(t)≤C(p,T,‖ω0‖L1(Ω),‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω))

for all t∈[0,T], where the constant appearing in the right-hand side does not depend on the choice of n∈N. Consequently, by (3.35) we get that3.38 supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];Lulp(Ω))≤C(p,T,‖ω0‖L1(Ω),‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω))

and then, using (3.32), we deduce3.39 supn∈N‖vn‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω;R2))≤C(p,T,‖ω0‖L1(Ω),‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω)).

Step 3: properties of (ωn)n∈N. We now claim that the sequence (ωn)n∈N satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem A.1. Indeed, property (A.1) follows from (3.31) in Step 1. Property (A.3) can be proved as in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 3.3, thanks to the uniform bound (3.39) proved in Step 2. In particular, for each ε>0 we can find R>0 such that3.40 supn∈Nsupt∈[0,T]∫Ω\BR|ωn(t,·)|dx<ε.

Also property (A.5) can be proved as in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 3.3, again thanks to the uniform bound in (3.31) and (3.32) and since (ωn,vn) solves (1.2) for each n∈N. We are thus left to show property (A.2). To this aim, let ε>0 and A⊂Ω. Letting R>0 be the radius given by (3.40), we can write3.41 ∫A|ωn(t,·)|dx=∫A∩BR|ωn(t,·)|dx+∫A\BR|ωn(t,·)|dx≤∫A∩BR|ωn(t,·)|dx+ε

for all t∈[0,T] and n∈N. Moreover, thanks to the uniform bound (3.38) and the inequality (1.14), we can estimate3.42

where the implicit (geometric) constant in the intermediate inequality does not depend on ε, and as usual . Property (A.2) thus follows by combining (3.41) and (3.42).

Step 4: construction of (ω,v). Thanks to Step 3, we can apply Theorem A.1 to the sequence (ωn)n∈N and find a subsequence (ωnk)k∈N such that3.43 limk→+∞supt∈[0,T]|∫Ωωnk(t,·)φdx-∫Ωω(t,·)φdx|=0

for all φ∈L∞(Ω), for someω∈L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))∩C([0,T];L1(Ω)-w⋆).

From (3.43) it follows that3.44 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))

and3.45 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];Lulp(Ω))≤supn∈N‖ωn‖L∞([0,T];Lulp(Ω)),

proving (3.26) and (3.27) in virtue of (3.31) and (3.38) respectively. Now, since3.46 vn(t,·)=Kωn(t,·)for a.e.t∈[0,T]and alln∈N,

by (3.43) and the Fubini Theorem we get that3.47 limk→+∞∫Ωvnk(t,·)φdx=limk→+∞∫Ωωnk(t,·)K~φdx=∫Ωω(t,·)K~φdx

for a.e. t∈[0,T] and all φ∈Cc(Ω), where K~ is as in (3.18). From Step 2, we already know that the sequence (vn)n∈N is uniformly equi-bounded (uniformly in time). By recalling (3.46) and by combining (3.31) and (3.38) with (2.5) of Theorem 2.2, we get that the sequence (vn)n∈N is also uniformly equi-Hölder-continuous (uniformly in time). Therefore, by the Arzelà–Ascoli Theorem, for a.e. t∈[0,T] we can find a subsequence (nkj(t))j∈N (which a priori may depend on the chosen t) and a function v(t,·)∈L∞(Ω;R2) such that3.48 limj→+∞‖vnkj(t)(t,·)-v(t,·)‖Lloc∞(Ω;R2)=0.

Consequently, for a.e. t∈[0,T] we must have thatlimj→+∞∫Ωvnkj(t)(t,·)φdx=∫Ωv(t,·)φdx

for all φ∈Cc(Ω). Thanks to (3.47), we thus have v(t,·)=Kω(t,·) for a.e. t∈[0,T] and hence, in virtue of Theorem 2.2 again and the bounds (3.44) and (3.45), we immediately get that3.49 ‖v‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω;R2))≲C

and3.50

where C=C(p,T,‖ω0‖L1(Ω),‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω)) is the constant appearing in (3.39), proving (3.28) and (3.29) respectively. In addition, by combining (3.47) with (3.48), we easily see that, in fact,3.51 limk→+∞‖vnk(t,·)-v(t,·)‖Lloc∞(Ω;R2)=0

for a.e. t∈[0,T], that is, the subsequence can be chosen independently of time. Consequently, given any φ∈Cc(Ω), from (3.31), (3.43), and (3.51), we immediately getlimk→+∞∫Ωωnk(t,·)vnk(t,·)φdx=∫Ωω(t,·)v(t,·)φdx

for a.e. t∈[0,T]. Therefore, passing to the limit as k→+∞ along the subsequence (ωnk,vnk)k∈N in the weak formulation of (1.2), we conclude that (ω,v) solves (1.2) in the distributional sense and the proof is complete.

Remark 3.5

Inequality (3.35) and the overall strategy developed in Step 2 of the above proof can be seen as a Lagrangian reformulation of the Eulerian a priori estimates established in [35, Lemma 1.4] and in [12, Proposition 3.1].

We can now conclude this section by proving the second part of Theorem 1.8, which we recall in the next statement.

Theorem 3.6

(Existence in L1∩YulΘ for any Θ) Let Assumptions 2.1 and 3.1 be in force. Then there exists a weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) in L1∩YulΘ with initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω) such that3.52 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤‖ω0‖L1(Ω),

3.53 ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];YulΘ(Ω))≤C,

3.54 ‖v‖L∞([0,T];L∞(Ω;R2))≤C,

and3.55 |v(t,x)-v(t,y)|≤CφΘ(d(x,y)),for allx,y∈Ωand a.e.t∈[0,T],

for all T∈(0,+∞), where C>0 only depends on T, ‖ω0‖L1(Ω) and ‖ω0‖YulΘ(Ω). Moreover, if the growth function Θ satisfies (1.17), then (ω,v) is Lagrangian.

Proof

Since ω0∈L1(Ω)∩Lulp(Ω) for all 2<p<∞, we can apply Theorem 3.4, the only thing we have to check being the behavior of the constant C appearing in (3.27), (3.28) and (3.29) for large values of p. A quick inspection of the proof of Theorem 3.4 immediately shows that it is enough to control the functionp↦C(p,T,‖ω0‖L1(Ω),‖ω0‖Lulp(Ω))

appearing in the right-side of (3.37) in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 3.4. However, with the same notation of the proof of Theorem 3.4, we can replace (3.30) with‖ω0n‖YulΘ(Ω)≤‖ω0‖YulΘ(Ω)for alln∈N.

As a consequence, we can repeat the argument of Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 3.4 line by line and replace (3.36) withRn′(t)≲C1+‖ω0‖YulΘ(Ω)(1+Rn(t))

for all t∈(0,T), where nowC=max1,‖ω0‖L1(Ω)expTC3‖ω0‖L1(Ω),

and the first part of the statement readily follows.

If Θ satisfies (1.17), then in Step 4 of the proof of Theorem 3.4 the sequence (vn)n∈N is also uniformly equi-φΘ-continuous (uniformly in time), i.e.|vn(t,x)-vn(t,y)|≤CφΘ(d(x,y)),for allx,y∈Ωand a.e.t∈[0,T],

for all n∈N, where C>0 is as above. Since φΘ satisfies the Osgood condition (1.25), the sequence (Xn)n∈N of the (unique) associated flows is locally uniformly equi-bounded and equi-continuous (uniformly in time) and we can argue as in Step 4 of the proof of Theorem 3.3. The proof is complete.

Uniqueness of weak solutions (Theorem 1.6)

In this section, we prove the uniqueness of Lagrangian weak solutions of the Euler equations (1.2) in L1∩YulΘ under the Osgood condition (1.25) and the concavity property of the modulus of continuity φΘ defined in (1.19), establishing Theorem 1.6. We recall the result in the next statement.

Theorem 4.1

(Lagrangian uniqueness in L1∩YulΘ) Let Assumptions 2.1 and 3.1 be in force. If the growth function Θ satisfies (1.17) and the function φΘ defined in (1.19) is concave on [0,+∞), then there exists at most one Lagrangian weak solution (ω,v) of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩YulΘ starting from a given initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω).

Proof

Let (ω,v) and (ω~,v~) be two Lagrangian weak solutions of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩YulΘ starting from the same initial datum ω0∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω) and let T∈(0,+∞) be fixed. We write ω(t,·)=X(t,·)#ω0 and ω~(t,·)=X~(t,·)#ω0 for t∈[0,T], where X and X~ are the (unique) flows associated to v and v~ respectively. Let η∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) such that η(x)>0 for all x∈Ω, let ω¯=|ω0|+η, note that ω¯∈L1(Ω)∩YulΘ(Ω), and define the finite measure μ=ω¯L2∈M(Ω). Now, for x∈Ω, we can estimated(X(t,x),X~(t,x))≤∫0t|v(s,X(s,x))-v~(s,X~(s,x))|ds≤∫0t|v(s,X(s,x))-v(s,X~(s,x))|ds+∫0t|v(s,X~(s,x))-v~(s,X~(s,x))|ds

for all t∈[0,T]. On the one side, by (2.10) in Theorem 2.4 and by the fact that (ω,v) is a Lagrangian weak solution of (1.2) with vorticity in L1∩YulΘ, we have|v(s,X(s,x))-v(s,X~(s,x))|≲AφΘ(d(X(s,x),X~(s,x)))

for a.e. s∈[0,T], where A>0 only depends on T, ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)), and ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];YulΘ(Ω)). On the other side, we have|v(s,X~(s,x))-v~(s,X~(s,x))|=|(Kω)(s,X~(s,x))-(Kω~)(s,X~(s,x))|=∫Ωk(X~(s,x),y)ω(s,y)dy-∫Ωk(X~(s,x),y)ω~(s,y)dy=∫Ωk(X~(s,x),X(s,y))ω0(y)dy-∫Ωk(X~(s,x),X~(s,y))ω0(y)dy≤∫Ω|k(X~(s,x),X(s,y))-k(X~(s,x),X~(s,y))||ω0(y)|dy

for a.e. s∈[0,T]. Therefore, we get that∫Ωd(X(t,x),X~(t,x))dμ(x)≤∫0t∫Ω|v(s,X(s,x))-v(s,X~(s,x))|dμ(x)ds+∫0t∫Ω|v(s,X~(s,x))-v~(s,X~(s,x))|dμ(x)ds≤A∫0t∫ΩφΘ(d(X(s,x),X~(s,x)))dμ(x)ds+∫0t∫Ω∫Ω|k(X~(s,x),X(s,y))-k(X~(s,x),X~(s,y))||ω0(y)|dydμ(x)ds=A∫0t∫ΩφΘ(d(X(s,x),X~(s,x)))dμ(x)ds+∫0t∫Ω|ω0(y)|∫Ω|k(X~s(x),Xs(y))-k(X~s(x),X~s(y))|dμ(x)dyds

for all t∈[0,T]. Thanks to (2.12) in Remark 2.5 (applied to the operator K~ defined in (3.18)), we can thus estimate∫Ω|k(X~(s,x),X(s,y))-k(X~(s,x),X~(s,y))|dμ(x)=∫Ω|k(x,X(s,y))-k(x,X~(s,y))|d(X~(s,·))#μ(x)=∫Ω|k(x,X(s,y))-k(x,X~(s,y))||ω¯(s,x)|dx≲‖ω¯(s,·)‖L1(Ω)+‖ω¯(s,·)‖YulΘ(Ω)φΘ(d(X(s,y),X~(s,y)))

for a.e. s∈[0,T] and y∈Ω, where ω¯(s,·)=X~(s,·)#μ. Now, since ω¯=|ω0|+η, we can write ω¯(s,·)=|ω~(s,·)|+η~(s,·) for all s∈[0,T], where η~(s,·)=X~(s,·)#η. Consequently, recalling that η∈L1(Ω)∩L∞(Ω) by definition, we can estimate‖η~(t,·)‖L∞(Ω)≤exp∫0t‖divv~(s,·)‖L∞(Ω)ds‖η‖L∞(Ω)≤expC3‖ω~‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))‖η‖L∞(Ω)

for all t∈[0,T] according to (3.1) in Assumption 3.1, and thus‖ω¯(s,·)‖L1(Ω)+‖ω¯(s,·)‖YulΘ(Ω)≤B

for all s∈[0,T], where B>0 only depends on T, ‖η‖L1(Ω), ‖η‖L∞(Ω), ‖ω~‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)), and ‖ω~‖L∞([0,T];YulΘ(Ω)). Therefore, recalling that |ω0|≤ω¯ by construction, we conclude that∫Ωd(X(t,x),X~(t,x))dμ(x)≤A∫0t∫ΩφΘ(d(X(s,x),X~(s,x)))dμ(x)ds+∫0t∫Ω|ω0(y)|∫Ω|k(X~(s,x),X(s,y))-k(X~(s,x),X~(s,y))|dμ(x)dyds≤A∫0t∫ΩφΘ(d(X(s,x),X~(s,x)))dμ(x)ds+B∫0t∫ΩφΘ(d(X(s,y),X~(s,y)))|ω0(y)|dyds≲C∫0t∫ΩφΘ(d(X(s,x),X~(s,x)))dμ(x)ds

for all t∈[0,T], where C>0 only depends on T, ‖η‖L1(Ω), ‖η‖L∞(Ω), ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)), ‖ω‖L∞([0,T];YulΘ(Ω)), ‖ω~‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)), and ‖ω~‖L∞([0,T];YulΘ(Ω)). Since μ(Ω)<+∞ and φΘ is concave, by Young’s inequality we thus get that

for all t∈[0,T]. Hence, since φΘ satisfies the Osgood condition (1.25), we conclude that

proving that X(t,x)=X~(t,x) for all t∈[0,T] and all x∈Ω. So we must have that ω(t,·)=ω~(t,·) for all t∈[0,T] and, since T∈(0,+∞) was arbitrary, the conclusion follows. □

Appendix A: An Aubin–Lions-like Lemma

In this section, we prove a simple Aubin–Lions-like Lemma. This result is needed in Sect. 3 for the construction of the weak solutions of the Euler equations (1.2). The proof exploits a combination of the Dunford–Pettis Theorem and the Arzelà–Ascoli Compactness Theorem together with some standard approximation arguments.

We were not able to find the result below in this precise form in the literature, so we prove it here from scratch for the reader’s convenience. We underline that Theorem A.1 just assumes weak compactness in space, while one usually deals with strong compactness in space. For a result very similar to Theorem A.1, see [18, Corollary 2.1] (we thank Stefano Spirito for pointing this reference to us).

Theorem A.1

Let Ω⊂RN be an open set and T∈(0,+∞). Let (fn)n∈N⊂L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)) be a bounded sequence which is equi-integrable in space uniformly in time, that is,A.1 supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))<+∞,

A.2 ∀ε>0∃δ>0:A⊂Ω,|A|<δ⇒supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(A))<ε

andA.3 ∀ε>0∃Ωε⊂Ωwith|Ωε|<+∞:supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω\Ωε))<ε.

Assume that, for each φ∈Cc∞(Ω), the functions Fn[φ]:[0,T]→R, given byA.4 Fn[φ](t)=∫Ωfn(t,·)φdx,t∈[0,T],

are uniformly equi-continuous on [0, T], that is,A.5 ∀ε>0∃δ>0:s,t∈[0,T],|s-t|<δ⇒supn∈N|Fn[φ](s)-Fn[φ](t)|<ε.

Then there exist a subsequence (fnk)k∈N and a functionA.6 f∈L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))∩C([0,T];L1(Ω)-w⋆)

that is,t↦∫Ωf(t,·)φdx∈C([0,T];R)for everyφ∈L∞(Ω),

such thatA.7 limk→+∞supt∈[0,T]∫Ωfnk(t,·)φdx-∫Ωf(t,·)φdx=0

for all φ∈L∞(Ω).

Proof

We divide the proof in four steps.

Step 1: equi-continuity testing against L∞(Ω). We claim that (A.5) actually holds for each φ∈L∞(Ω). To prove this statement, we distinguish two cases.

Case 1. Let us prove (A.5) for any φ∈Cc(Ω) at first. Let ε>0 be fixed. We can find ψ∈Cc∞(Ω) such that ‖ψ-φ‖L∞(Ω)<ε. Now let δ>0 be given by (A.5) when applied to ψ. Then, for all s,t∈[0,T] such that |s-t|<δ, we have|Fn[φ](s)-Fn[φ](t)|≤|Fn[ψ](s)-Fn[ψ](t)|+2‖ψ-φ‖L∞(Ω)supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))<ε1+2supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))

for all n∈N, proving the validity of (A.5) for φ∈Cc(Ω).

Case 2. Let us prove (A.5) for any φ∈L∞(Ω). Let ε>0 be fixed and let Ωε⊂Ω be the set given by (A.3). Without loss of generality, we can assume that Ωε is a non-empty open set. Let δ′>0 be given by (A.2). By the Lusin Theorem, we can find ψ∈Cc(Ω) with suppψ⊂Ωε such that ‖ψ‖L∞(Ω)≤‖φ‖L∞(Ω) and the setΩ~ε=x∈Ωε:φ(x)=ψ(x)⊂Ωε

satisfies |Ωε\Ω~ε|<δ′. Finally, let δ>0 be given by (A.5) when applied to ψ. Then, for all s,t∈[0,T] such that |s-t|<δ, we have|Fn[φ](s)-Fn[φ](t)|≤|Fn[ψ](s)-Fn[ψ](t)|+8‖φ‖L∞(Ω)supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω\Ωε))+8‖φ‖L∞(Ω)supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ωε\Ω~ε))<ε1+16‖φ‖L∞(Ω)supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω\Ωε))

for all n∈N, proving the validity of (A.5) for φ∈L∞(Ω).

Step 2: definition of f on a countable dense set T⊂[0,T]. By (A.1), (A.2) and (A.3), we can find a countable dense set T⊂[0,T] such that, for every given t∈T, the sequence (fn(t,·))n∈N is bounded in L1(Ω) and equi-integrable on Ω. Therefore, by the Dunford–Pettis Theorem and a diagonal argument, we can find a subsequence (fnk)k∈N and a function f(t,·)∈L1(Ω), for each t∈T, such thatA.8 limk→+∞∫Ωfnk(t,·)φdx=∫Ωf(t,·)φdx

for all φ∈L∞(Ω) and t∈T. We emphasize that the function f(t,·)∈L1(Ω) depends on the chosen subsequence (which is fixed from now on) and is defined for t∈T only. Moreover, we have thatA.9 (f(t,·))t∈Tis bounded inL1(Ω)and equi-integrable onΩuniformly int∈T

thanks to the semicontinuity of the L1-norm under weak⋆ convergence. Now, by Step 1, for each given φ∈L∞(Ω), the sequence of functions (Fnk[φ])k∈N is uniformly equi-continuous on [0, T] and, thanks to (A.8), it converges to the functionA.10 T∋t↦∫Ωf(t,·)φdx

for each t∈T. Therefore, we must have that, for each given φ∈L∞(Ω), the function in (A.10) is the restriction to T of a continuous function F[φ]∈C([0,T];R).

Step 3: proof of (A.6). We now extend the function T∋t↦f(t,·)∈L1(Ω) given in Step 2 to a function f∈C([0,T];L1(Ω)-w⋆). Let t∈[0,T]\T be given. We claim thatA.11 lims→t,s∈Tf(s,·)exists inL1(Ω)-w⋆.

In virtue of (A.9) and the Dunford–Pettis Theorem, we just need to prove that, for any two sequences (tm)m∈N⊂T and (t~m)m∈N⊂T such that tm,t~m→t as m→+∞,f(tm,·)→g,f(t~m,·)→g~inL1(Ω)-w⋆asm→+∞⇒g=g~inL1(Ω).

Indeed, if g≠g~ in L1(Ω) by contradiction, then we can find φ∈L∞(Ω) such that∫Ωgφdx≠∫Ωg~φdx.

However, since f(tm,·)→g and f(t~m,·)→g~ in L1(Ω)-w⋆ as m→+∞, this implies thatlimm→+∞∫Ωf(tm,·)φdx-∫Ωf(t~m,·)φdx>0,

which contradicts the continuity on T of the function in (A.10). This proves the claimed (A.11) and thus the function f∈C([0,T];L1(Ω)-w⋆) is well defined, meaning that, for each φ∈L∞(Ω), we havet↦∫Ωf(t,·)φdx∈C([0,T];R).

As a consequence, the function f:[0,T]→L1(Ω) is weakly measurable and thus, by the Pettis Theorem, is strongly measurable (for precise definitions and statements, see [25, Chapter 8] and [32, Section 1.9.1]), so that f∈L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)), with‖f‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω))≤supn∈N‖fn‖L∞([0,T];L1(Ω)),

and the function f:[0,T]×Ω→[-∞,+∞] is measurable. This concludes the proof of (A.6).

Step 4: proof of (A.7). We now conclude the proof by establishing the convergence in (A.7). Let φ∈L∞(Ω) and let ε>0 be fixed. By Step 1, we can find δ>0 such thatsupk∈N|∫Ωfnk(t,·)φdx-∫Ωfnk(s,·)φdx|<ε3

for all s,t∈[0,T] such that |s-t|<δ. Moreover, since f∈C([0,T];L1(Ω)-w⋆) by Step 3, we can choose the above δ>0 in such a way that, in addition,|∫Ωf(s,·)φdx-∫Ωf(t,·)φdx|<ε3

for all s,t∈[0,T] such that |s-t|<δ. Now, since [0, T] is a compact interval, we can find N∈N and s1,⋯,sN∈T such that[0,T]=⋃i=1Nt∈[0,T]:|t-si|<δ.

Thanks to (A.8) in Step 2, for each i=1,⋯,N, we can choose ki∈N such that|∫Ωfnk(si,·)φdx-∫Ωf(si,·)φdx|<ε3

for all k≥ki. Hence, let us set k¯=maxki:i=1,⋯,N and note that k¯ depends on ε (and φ) only. Now, given any t∈[0,T], we can find i∈1,⋯,N such that |t-si|<δ and|∫Ωfnk(t,·)φdx-∫Ωf(t,·)φdx|≤|∫Ωfnk(t,·)φdx-∫Ωfnk(si,·)φdx|+|∫Ωfnk(si,·)φdx-∫Ωf(si,·)φdx|+|∫Ωf(si,·)φdx-∫Ωf(t,·)φdx|<ε

for all k≥k¯, proving the validity of (A.7). The proof is complete.

Acknowledgements

This research has been partially supported by the ERC Starting Grant 676675 FLIRT—Fluid Flows and Irregular Transport and by the SNF Project 212573 FLUTURA—Fluids, Turbulence, Advection. The second author is member of the Istituto Nazionale di Alta Matematica (INdAM), Gruppo Nazionale per l’Analisi, la Probabilità e le loro Applicazioni (GNAMPA), has been partially supported by the INdAM–GNAMPA Project 2020 Problemi isoperimetrici con anisotropie (n. prot. U-UFMBAZ-2020-000798 15-04-2020), is partially supported by the INdAM–GNAMPA 2022 Project Analisi geometrica in strutture subriemanniane, codice CUP_E55F22000270001 and by the INdAM–GNAMPA 2023 Project Problemi variazionali per funzionali e operatori non-locali, codice CUP_E53C22001930001, and has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant Agreement No. 945655). The authors thank M. Inversi for his careful reading of the manuscript and for several precious comments that helped to improve the exposition.

Funding

Open access funding provided by University of Basel.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Ambrose DM Kelliher JP Filho L Milton C Lopes N Helena J Serfati solutions to the 2D Euler equations on exterior domains J. Differ. Equ. 2015 259 9 4509 4560 10.1016/j.jde.2015.06.001
Ambrose, D.M., Kelliher, J.P., Filho, L., Milton, C., Lopes, N., Helena, J.: Serfati solutions to the 2D Euler equations on exterior domains. J. Differ. Equ. 259(9), 4509–4560 (2015)
2. Ambrosio L Bernard P Uniqueness of signed measures solving the continuity equation for Osgood vector fields Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 2008 19 3 237 245
Ambrosio, L., Bernard, P.: Uniqueness of signed measures solving the continuity equation for Osgood vector fields. Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Lincei Mat. Appl. 19(3), 237–245 (2008)
3. Ambrosio L Crippa G Continuity equations and ODE flows with non-smooth velocity Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A 2014 144 6 1191 1244 10.1017/S0308210513000085
Ambrosio, L., Crippa, G.: Continuity equations and ODE flows with non-smooth velocity. Proc. R. Soc. Edinb. Sect. A 144(6), 1191–1244 (2014)
4. Bahouri, H., Chemin, J.-Y., Danchin, R.: Fourier Analysis and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences], vol. 343. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)
5. Bernicot F Hmidi T On the global well-posedness for Euler equations with unbounded vorticity Dyn. Part. Differ. Equ. 2015 12 2 127 155 10.4310/DPDE.2015.v12.n2.a3
Bernicot, F., Hmidi, T.: On the global well-posedness for Euler equations with unbounded vorticity. Dyn. Part. Differ. Equ. 12(2), 127–155 (2015)
6. Bernicot F Keraani S On the global well-posedness of the 2D Euler equations for a large class of Yudovich type data Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 2014 47 3 559 576 10.24033/asens.2222
Bernicot, F., Keraani, S.: On the global well-posedness of the 2D Euler equations for a large class of Yudovich type data. Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. (4) 47(3), 559–576 (2014)
7. Bressan A Murray R On self-similar solutions to the incompressible Euler equations J. Differ. Equ. 2020 269 6 5142 5203 10.1016/j.jde.2020.04.005
Bressan, A., Murray, R.: On self-similar solutions to the incompressible Euler equations. J. Differ. Equ. 269(6), 5142–5203 (2020)
8. Bressan A Shen W A posteriori error estimates for self-similar solutions to the Euler equations Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 2021 41 1 113 130 10.3934/dcds.2020168
Bressan, A., Shen, W.: A posteriori error estimates for self-similar solutions to the Euler equations. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 41(1), 113–130 (2021)
9. Brué E Colombo M Nonuniqueness of solutions to the Euler equations with vorticity in a Lorentz space Comm. Math. Phys. 2023 403 2 1171 1192 10.1007/s00220-023-04816-4
Brué, E., Colombo, M.: Nonuniqueness of solutions to the Euler equations with vorticity in a Lorentz space. Comm. Math. Phys. 403(2), 1171–1192 (2023)
10. Caravenna L Crippa G A directional Lipschitz extension lemma, with applications to uniqueness and Lagrangianity for the continuity equation Comm. Part. Differ. Equ. 2021 46 8 1488 1520 10.1080/03605302.2021.1883650
Caravenna, L., Crippa, G.: A directional Lipschitz extension lemma, with applications to uniqueness and Lagrangianity for the continuity equation. Comm. Part. Differ. Equ. 46(8), 1488–1520 (2021)
11. Chemin J-Y Fluides parfaits incompressibles Astérisque 1995 230 177
Chemin, J.-Y.: Fluides parfaits incompressibles. Astérisque 230, 177 (1995)
12. Chen Q Miao C Zheng X The two-dimensional Euler equation in Yudovich and bmo-type spaces Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 2019 35 1 195 240 10.4171/rmi/1053
Chen, Q., Miao, C., Zheng, X.: The two-dimensional Euler equation in Yudovich and bmo-type spaces. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 35(1), 195–240 (2019)
13. Clop A Jylha H Mateu J Orobitg J Well-posedness for the continuity equation for vector fields with suitable modulus of continuity J. Funct. Anal. 2019 276 1 45 77 10.1016/j.jfa.2018.10.001
Clop, A., Jylha, H., Mateu, J., Orobitg, J.: Well-posedness for the continuity equation for vector fields with suitable modulus of continuity. J. Funct. Anal. 276(1), 45–77 (2019)
14. Constantin P On the Euler equations of incompressible fluids Bull. Am. Math. Soc. NS 2007 44 4 603 621 10.1090/S0273-0979-07-01184-6
Constantin, P.: On the Euler equations of incompressible fluids. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. NS 44(4), 603–621 (2007)
15. Delort J-M Existence de nappes de tourbillon en dimension deux J. Am. Math. Soc. 1991 4 3 553 586 10.1090/S0894-0347-1991-1102579-6
Delort, J.-M.: Existence de nappes de tourbillon en dimension deux. J. Am. Math. Soc. 4(3), 553–586 (1991)
16. DiPerna RJ Majda AJ Concentrations in regularizations for 2-D incompressible flow Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 1987 40 3 301 345 10.1002/cpa.3160400304
DiPerna, R.J., Majda, A.J.: Concentrations in regularizations for -D incompressible flow. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 40(3), 301–345 (1987)
17. Evans LC Müller S Hardy spaces and the two-dimensional Euler equations with nonnegative vorticity J. Am. Math. Soc. 1994 7 1 199 219 10.1090/S0894-0347-1994-1220787-3
Evans, L.C., Müller, S.: Hardy spaces and the two-dimensional Euler equations with nonnegative vorticity. J. Am. Math. Soc. 7(1), 199–219 (1994)
18. Feireisl E Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids 2004 Oxford Oxford University Press
Feireisl, E.: Dynamics of Viscous Compressible Fluids. Oxford Lecture Series in Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 26. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2004)
19. Han, Z., Zlatoš, A.: Euler equations on general planar domains. Ann. PDE 7(2), Paper No. 20, 31 (2021)
20. Hmidi T Keraani S Incompressible viscous flows in borderline Besov spaces Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2008 189 2 283 300 10.1007/s00205-008-0115-7
Hmidi, T., Keraani, S.: Incompressible viscous flows in borderline Besov spaces. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 189(2), 283–300 (2008)
21. Iftimie D Lopes Filho MC Nussenzveig Lopes HJ Weak vorticity formulation of the incompressible 2D Euler equations in bounded domains Comm. Part. Differ. Equ. 2020 45 2 109 145 10.1080/03605302.2019.1663433
Iftimie, D., Lopes Filho, M.C., Nussenzveig Lopes, H.J.: Weak vorticity formulation of the incompressible 2D Euler equations in bounded domains. Comm. Part. Differ. Equ. 45(2), 109–145 (2020)
22. Lacave C Uniqueness for two-dimensional incompressible ideal flow on singular domains SIAM J. Math. Anal. 2015 47 2 1615 1664 10.1137/140972238
Lacave, C.: Uniqueness for two-dimensional incompressible ideal flow on singular domains. SIAM J. Math. Anal. 47(2), 1615–1664 (2015)
23. Lacave C Miot E Wang C Uniqueness for the two-dimensional Euler equations on domains with corners Indiana Univ. Math. J. 2014 63 6 1725 1756 10.1512/iumj.2014.63.5402
Lacave, C., Miot, E., Wang, C.: Uniqueness for the two-dimensional Euler equations on domains with corners. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 63(6), 1725–1756 (2014)
24. Lacave C Zlatoš A The Euler equations in planar domains with corners Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 2019 234 1 57 79 10.1007/s00205-019-01384-7
Lacave, C., Zlatoš, A.: The Euler equations in planar domains with corners. Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 234(1), 57–79 (2019)
25. Leoni G A First Course in Sobolev Spaces 2017 2 Providence American Mathematical Society
Leoni, G.: A First Course in Sobolev Spaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 181, 2nd edn. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2017)
26. Loeper G Uniqueness of the solution to the Vlasov–Poisson system with bounded density J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 2006 86 1 68 79 10.1016/j.matpur.2006.01.005
Loeper, G.: Uniqueness of the solution to the Vlasov–Poisson system with bounded density. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 86(1), 68–79 (2006)
27. Majda AJ Remarks on weak solutions for vortex sheets with a distinguished sign Indiana Univ. Math. J. 1993 42 3 921 939 10.1512/iumj.1993.42.42043
Majda, A.J.: Remarks on weak solutions for vortex sheets with a distinguished sign. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 42(3), 921–939 (1993)
28. Majda, A.J., Bertozzi, A.L.: Vorticity and Incompressible Flow. Cambridge Texts in Applied Mathematics, vol. 27, p. xii+545. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)
29. Marchioro, C., Pulvirenti, M.: Vortex Methods in Two-Dimensional Fluid Dynamics, Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 203, i+137. Springer, Berlin (1984)
30. Marchioro C Pulvirenti M Mathematical Theory of Incompressible Nonviscous Fluids 1994 New York Springer
Marchioro, C., Pulvirenti, M.: Mathematical Theory of Incompressible Nonviscous Fluids. Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 96. Springer, New York (1994)
31. Miot E A uniqueness criterion for unbounded solutions to the Vlasov–Poisson system Comm. Math. Phys. 2016 346 2 469 482 10.1007/s00220-016-2707-7
Miot, E.: A uniqueness criterion for unbounded solutions to the Vlasov–Poisson system. Comm. Math. Phys. 346(2), 469–482 (2016)
32. Robinson, J.C., Rodrigo, J.L., Sadowski, W.: The Three-Dimensional Navier–Stokes Equations. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 157. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016). Classical Theory
33. Serfati, P.: Solutions en temps, - Lipschitz bornées en espace et équation d’Euler. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 320(5), 555–558 (1995)
34. Serfati P Structures holomorphes à faible régularité spatiale en mécanique des fluides J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 1995 74 2 95 104
Serfati, P.: Structures holomorphes à faible régularité spatiale en mécanique des fluides. J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 74(2), 95–104 (1995)
35. Taniuchi Y Uniformly local Lp estimate for 2-D vorticity equation and its application to Euler equations with initial vorticity in bmo Comm. Math. Phys. 2004 248 1 169 186 10.1007/s00220-004-1095-6
Taniuchi, Y.: Uniformly local estimate for 2-D vorticity equation and its application to Euler equations with initial vorticity in . Comm. Math. Phys. 248(1), 169–186 (2004)
36. Taniuchi Y Tashiro T Yoneda T On the two-dimensional Euler equations with spatially almost periodic initial data J. Math. Fluid Mech. 2010 12 4 594 612 10.1007/s00021-009-0304-7
Taniuchi, Y., Tashiro, T., Yoneda, T.: On the two-dimensional Euler equations with spatially almost periodic initial data. J. Math. Fluid Mech. 12(4), 594–612 (2010)
37. Vecchi I Wu SJ On L1-vorticity for 2-D incompressible flow Manuscr. Math. 1993 78 4 403 412 10.1007/BF02599322
Vecchi, I., Wu, S.J.: On -vorticity for -D incompressible flow. Manuscr. Math. 78(4), 403–412 (1993)
38. Vishik M Incompressible flows of an ideal fluid with vorticity in borderline spaces of Besov type Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 1999 32 6 769 812 10.1016/S0012-9593(00)87718-6
Vishik, M.: Incompressible flows of an ideal fluid with vorticity in borderline spaces of Besov type. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4) 32(6), 769–812 (1999)
39. Vishik, M.: Instability and Non-uniqueness in the Cauchy Problem for the Euler Equations of an Ideal Incompressible Fluid. Part I, 2018, preprint, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.09426.pdf
40. Vishik, M.: Instability and Non-uniqueness in the Cauchy Problem for the Euler Equations of an Ideal Incompressible Fluid. Part II, 2018, preprint, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.09440.pdf
41. Yudovich VI Non-stationary flows of an ideal incompressible fluid Ž. Vyčisl. Mat i Mat. Fiz. 1963 3 1032–1066 0044 4669
Yudovich, V.I.: Non-stationary flows of an ideal incompressible fluid. Ž. Vyčisl. Mat i Mat. Fiz. 3(1032–1066), 0044–4669 (1963)
42. Yudovich VI Uniqueness theorem for the basic nonstationary problem in the dynamics of an ideal incompressible fluid Math. Res. Lett. 1995 2 1 27 38 10.4310/MRL.1995.v2.n1.a4
Yudovich, V.I.: Uniqueness theorem for the basic nonstationary problem in the dynamics of an ideal incompressible fluid. Math. Res. Lett. 2(1), 27–38 (1995)
