Lagrangian aspects of Yudovich theory for 2D Euler

We employ the Picard scheme:

Then we have

and taking first supremum over n, then using non-decreasing property of \mu, and finally by defining

we have \rho^k (t) \le C \int_0 ^t \mu (\rho^k (t') ) + \mu (\rho^{k-1} (t') ) dt', and writing \rho (t) = \limsup_{k\rightarrow \infty} \rho^k (t) we have \rho(t) \le C \int_0 ^t \mu (\rho (t')) dt'. Here we have used Reverse Fatou’s lemma with uniform upper bounds on \mu(\rho^{k}) using that \mu is bounded. This implies that \rho=0: in other words, \{X^k\} is a Cauchy sequence in (M, d). Uniqueness immediately follows from (3) and Osgood lemma.

The first two inequalities are immediate, and also the case M\ge 1: in fact the third inequality is vacuous when M \ge 1. We only need to check the last two in the case M\in (0,1). For the third inequality, for each p > \log \mathfrak{C}_0 we have

Since the constant C does not depend on p, we conclude that

Similarly, for M \in (0,1),

using 1/(2-p') < C(\mathfrak{C}_0 ) for p>\log \mathfrak{C}_0 and that \ell \in [1, \mathfrak{C}_0 ]. Again we conclude that

We obtain the conclusion by taking p = \log \frac{\mathfrak{C}_0}{ M } (>\log \mathfrak{C}_0 ).

Suppose that |\tilde{X}(a,t) - a| \le \mathfrak{C}_0^{-1}. We have

First we see that \left | \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\Omega} K(a, X(b,t)) \omega_0 (b) db \right | \le C_q \| \omega_0 \|_{L^1 \cap L^q} for any q>2. Next, we let

and

Now if |X(b,t) - \tilde{X}(a,t) | \ge M, then |X(b,t) - \tilde{X}(a,t) | \ge 2 |\tilde{X}(a,t) - a| (since \mathfrak{C}_0 is large) and

On the other hand, if |X(b,t) - \tilde{X}(a,t) | \le M, then

Therefore, we have

if M \le 1, and if M>1, we have \left |\int_{\Omega} F_a (b) \omega_0 (b) db \right | \le C_q \| \omega_0 \| _{L^1 \cap L^q} for any q>2. Thus, by Lemma 4

for any q > 2. Integrating over time gives the desired conclusion.

We note that if \omega_0 \in H^s \cap L^1 \cap \mathbf{Y}_{\Theta} for sufficiently large s>1, then the statement is true: we can define \nabla_a \tilde{X}, and \mathrm{det} \nabla_a \tilde{X} can easily be shown to be 1. Now we denote \omega_0 ^\varepsilon = \omega_0 \star \phi_\varepsilon, where \phi_\varepsilon (x) = \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \phi (\varepsilon^{-1} x ) with \phi being a standard mollifier, and let \tilde{X}_\varepsilon = S_{\omega_0^\varepsilon} [X]. Since \sup_{\varepsilon>0} \| \omega_0 ^\varepsilon \|_{L^1 \cap \mathbf{Y}_{\Theta} } \le \| \omega_0 \|_{L^1 \cap \mathbf{Y}_{\Theta} }< \infty, we see that associated velocity fields v_X ^{(\varepsilon)} for S_{\omega_0 ^\varepsilon} have uniform Osgood modulus \varphi_{\Theta}.

Next we show that v_X ^{(\varepsilon)} converges to v_X in L^\infty: note that for every y \in \mathbb{R}^2,

and therefore for any q>2, \| v_X^{(\varepsilon)} - v_X \|_{L^\infty} \le C_q \| \omega_0 - \omega_0 ^\varepsilon \|_{L^1 \cap L^q} \rightarrow 0, as \varepsilon \rightarrow 0.

Finally, we have

and thus

and Osgood’s lemma gives us the uniform convergence of \tilde{X}_{\varepsilon} to \tilde{X}. This shows that \tilde{X} is continuous. Now, since from Lemma 5 and Osgood’s lemma we see that \sup_{t \in [0, T]} d (\tilde{X} (t), \mathrm{id} ) \le C(T, \| \omega_0 \|_{L^1 \cap \mathbf{Y}_{\Theta} } ), which implies that there exists a constant C := C(T, \| \omega_0 \|_{L^1 \cap \mathbf{Y}_{\Theta} } ) such that for every \varepsilon>0

Then we obtain the desired result from interchangeability of uniform convergence and integration.

Let a, b \in \Omega, and M = \mathfrak{C}_0 |\tilde{X} (a,t) - \tilde{X} (b,t) |.

Now if |X(c,t) - \tilde{X}(a,t) | \ge M,

and if |X(c,t) - \tilde{X}(a,t) | \le M,

To summarize, if 0 < M < 1, we have

for M \in (0,1). For M \ge 1, the first term C \mathbf{1}_{|X(c,t) - \tilde{X}(a,t) | \ge 1 } (c) \frac{M}{|\tilde{X}(a,t) - X(c,t) |^2} is replaced by C_q \| \omega_0 \|_{L^1 \cap L^q} for some q > 2. Then Lemma 4 gives

and integration over time and application of Osgood’s lemma gives us the desired conclusion.

We write \tilde{X} = S_{\omega_0} [X], \ \tilde{Y} = S_{\omega_1} [Y] and

For any a \in \Omega,

Suppose first that M<1. If

then

so by the first two inequalities, (?) is satisfied with x_1 = X(a,t), x_2 = Y(a,t), y = X(b,t), and also (?) is satisfied with x = Y(a,t), y_1 = X(b,t), and y_2 = Y(b,t). Thus, for a, b satisfying (Proof) we have

On the other hand, if

then we have

Let

We have

and if M \ge 1, the first term is replaced by

and by Lemma 4 we obtain the desired estimate.