Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Global existence and smoothness on R3\mathbb{R}^3R3 for small initial data: ∥u0∥L22∥∇u0∥L22≤c ν4\|u^0\|_{L^2}^2\|\nabla u^0\|_{L^2}^2 \le c\,\nu^4∥u0∥L22​∥∇u0∥L22​≤cν4

Open
NavierStokes.small_data_global_existence_R3

by korbonits · Sep 8, 2026 · Mathlib 0df444a (Lean v4.33.1)

analysisfluid-dynamicsmillennium-prizenavier-stokespartial-differential-equations

Fefferman's survey of what is known (p. 2): "In three dimensions, it is known that (A) and (B) hold provided the initial velocity u0u^0u0 satisfies a smallness condition." This theorem is that statement for (A), with the smallness condition made explicit in Leray's scale-invariant form.

There is an absolute constant c>0c > 0c>0 such that the following holds. Let ν>0\nu > 0ν>0 and let u0:R3→R3u^0 : \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3u0:R3→R3 be a smooth, divergence-free vector field satisfying Fefferman's decay condition (4), and assume

(∫R3∣u0(x)∣2 dx)(∫R3∣∇u0(x)∣2 dx)≤c ν4,∣∇u0∣2=∑i,j=13(∂ui0∂xj)2.\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |u^0(x)|^2\,dx\Big)\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |\nabla u^0(x)|^2\,dx\Big) \le c\,\nu^4, \qquad |\nabla u^0|^2 = \sum_{i,j=1}^{3}\Big(\frac{\partial u^0_i}{\partial x_j}\Big)^2 .(∫R3​∣u0(x)∣2dx)(∫R3​∣∇u0(x)∣2dx)≤cν4,∣∇u0∣2=i,j=1∑3​(∂xj​∂ui0​​)2.

Then there exist u(x,t)∈R3u(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}^3u(x,t)∈R3 and p(x,t)∈Rp(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}p(x,t)∈R, C∞C^\inftyC∞ on R3×[0,∞)\mathbb{R}^3 \times [0,\infty)R3×[0,∞), satisfying Fefferman's (1), (2), (3) with f≡0f \equiv 0f≡0 and the bounded-energy condition (7): a physically reasonable solution for all time, exactly as in statement (A).

The quantity ∥u0∥L2∥∇u0∥L2/ν2\|u^0\|_{L^2}\|\nabla u^0\|_{L^2}/\nu^2∥u0∥L2​∥∇u0∥L2​/ν2 is dimensionless (invariant under the Navier–Stokes scaling u↦λu(λx,λ2t)u \mapsto \lambda u(\lambda x, \lambda^2 t)u↦λu(λx,λ2t)), which is why a condition of this shape can control the solution for all time; the condition is stated with an existential constant so that the theorem does not depend on the value of ccc. The phenomenon is due to Leray (1934). By Hölder's inequality and the Sobolev inequality ∥u0∥L6≤C∥∇u0∥L2\|u^0\|_{L^6} \le C\|\nabla u^0\|_{L^2}∥u0∥L6​≤C∥∇u0∥L2​ on R3\mathbb{R}^3R3, the hypothesis implies that ∥u0∥L3/ν\|u^0\|_{L^3}/\nu∥u0∥L3​/ν is small, so the statement is also a consequence of Kato's theorem (1984) on global strong solutions for small L3L^3L3 data, combined with the smoothness of such solutions for smooth data.

Formalization Note The order of quantifiers is ∃c>0 ∀ν>0 ∀u0\exists c > 0\ \forall \nu > 0\ \forall u^0∃c>0 ∀ν>0 ∀u0. The two integrals in the hypothesis are Bochner integrals of real functions; for admissible (Schwartz) u0u^0u0 both integrands are integrable, so they are the genuine L2L^2L2 norms squared. The conclusion is NavierStokes.IsSolution ν u₀ u p, identical to the conclusion of the goal theorem.

Preamble
import Definitions.Def_NavierStokes
import Mathlib

open MeasureTheory
Formal statement
namespace NavierStokes
theorem small_data_global_existence_R3 :
    ∃ c : ℝ, 0 < c ∧ ∀ (ν : ℝ), 0 < ν → ∀ (u₀ : Vec 3 → Vec 3), IsInitialData u₀ →
      (∫ x, ‖u₀ x‖ ^ 2) * (∫ x, gradNormSq u₀ x) ≤ c * ν ^ 4 →
      ∃ (u : ℝ → Vec 3 → Vec 3) (p : ℝ → Vec 3 → ℝ), IsSolution ν u₀ u p := by sorry
end NavierStokes
Source
C. L. Fefferman, Existence and smoothness of the Navier–Stokes equation, Clay Mathematics Institute Millennium Prize Problem description (2000), https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/navierstokes.pdf, p. 2, paragraph beginning 'In two dimensions, the analogues...': the sentence 'In three dimensions, it is known that (A) and (B) hold provided the initial velocity u⁰ satisfies a smallness condition.' Smallness in the form ‖u⁰‖₂‖∇u⁰‖₂ ≤ cν²: J. Leray, Acta Math. 63 (1934), 193–248, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02547354; via small L³ data: T. Kato, Strong Lᵖ-solutions of the Navier–Stokes equation in ℝᵐ, with applications to weak solutions, Math. Z. 187 (1984), 471–480, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01174182
Read-back

What the Lean code literally says, in plain math · claude-fable-5-1

Throughout, R3\mathbb{R}^3R3 denotes Euclidean 3-space (the type Vec 3, i.e. R{0,1,2}\mathbb{R}^{\{0,1,2\}}R{0,1,2} with the Euclidean norm ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\|∥⋅∥ and Lebesgue measure dxdxdx), e0,e1,e2e_0,e_1,e_2e0​,e1​,e2​ its standard basis vectors, Dv(x)Dv(x)Dv(x) the Fréchet derivative of a map v:R3→R3v:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3v:R3→R3 at xxx (a linear map R3→R3\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3R3→R3; if vvv is not differentiable at xxx this is the junk value 000), and Dkv(x)D^k v(x)Dkv(x) the kkk-th iterated derivative (a kkk-linear map, with ∥D0v(x)∥=∥v(x)∥\|D^0v(x)\| = \|v(x)\|∥D0v(x)∥=∥v(x)∥, and ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\|∥⋅∥ the operator norm; again junk if vvv is not kkk times differentiable there). The declaration asserts:

∃ c∈R,    c>0  ∧  ∀ ν∈R,  ν>0  ⇒  ∀ u0:R3→R3,    IsInitialData(u0)  ⇒  (∫R3∥u0(x)∥2 dx)(∫R3gradNormSq u0(x) dx)≤c ν4  ⇒  ∃ u:R×R3→R3,  ∃ p:R×R3→R,    IsSolution(ν,u0,u,p).\exists\, c\in\mathbb{R},\;\; c>0 \;\wedge\; \forall\,\nu\in\mathbb{R},\; \nu>0 \;\Rightarrow\; \forall\, u_0:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3,\;\; \mathrm{IsInitialData}(u_0)\;\Rightarrow\; \Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\|u_0(x)\|^2\,dx\Big)\Big(\int_{\mathbb{R}^3}\mathrm{gradNormSq}\,u_0(x)\,dx\Big)\le c\,\nu^4 \;\Rightarrow\; \exists\, u:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3,\;\exists\, p:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R},\;\; \mathrm{IsSolution}(\nu,u_0,u,p).∃c∈R,c>0∧∀ν∈R,ν>0⇒∀u0​:R3→R3,IsInitialData(u0​)⇒(∫R3​∥u0​(x)∥2dx)(∫R3​gradNormSqu0​(x)dx)≤cν4⇒∃u:R×R3→R3,∃p:R×R3→R,IsSolution(ν,u0​,u,p).

Order of quantifiers. A single real constant c>0c>0c>0 is chosen first, and it must work uniformly for every viscosity ν>0\nu>0ν>0 and every admissible initial datum u0u_0u0​; nothing else is asserted about ccc (no formula, no bound). ν\nuν is strictly positive. The solution (u,p)(u,p)(u,p) is chosen last and may depend on ν\nuν and u0u_0u0​; existence only, not uniqueness.

The custom notions.

  • div⁡v(x):=∑i=02(Dv(x) ei)i=∑i∂ivi(x)\operatorname{div} v(x) := \sum_{i=0}^{2}\big(Dv(x)\,e_i\big)_i = \sum_i \partial_i v_i(x)divv(x):=∑i=02​(Dv(x)ei​)i​=∑i​∂i​vi​(x), the usual divergence (with junk 000 contributions wherever vvv is not differentiable).
  • gradNormSq v(x):=∑j=02∥Dv(x) ej∥2=∑i,j(∂jvi(x))2\mathrm{gradNormSq}\, v(x) := \sum_{j=0}^{2}\big\|Dv(x)\,e_j\big\|^2 = \sum_{i,j}(\partial_j v_i(x))^2gradNormSqv(x):=∑j=02​​Dv(x)ej​​2=∑i,j​(∂j​vi​(x))2, the squared Frobenius norm of the Jacobian, ∥∇v(x)∥F2\|\nabla v(x)\|_F^2∥∇v(x)∥F2​.
  • IsInitialData(u0)\mathrm{IsInitialData}(u_0)IsInitialData(u0​) is the conjunction of three conditions: (i) u0u_0u0​ is C∞C^\inftyC∞ on all of R3\mathbb{R}^3R3 (here "∞\infty∞" is the smooth order ⊤\top⊤ of N∪{∞}\mathbb{N}\cup\{\infty\}N∪{∞} cast into WithTop ℕ∞, i.e. all finite-order derivatives exist and are continuous; it is not the analytic order ω\omegaω); (ii) div⁡u0(x)=0\operatorname{div}u_0(x)=0divu0​(x)=0 for every x∈R3x\in\mathbb{R}^3x∈R3; (iii) for every pair of naturals k,Kk,Kk,K there is a real CCC (depending on k,Kk,Kk,K; necessarily C≥0C\ge0C≥0 since the left side is ≥0\ge 0≥0) with (1+∥x∥)K ∥Dku0(x)∥≤C(1+\|x\|)^K\,\|D^k u_0(x)\|\le C(1+∥x∥)K∥Dku0​(x)∥≤C for all xxx — i.e. u0u_0u0​ and all its derivatives decay faster than every polynomial (a Schwartz-type condition). In particular u0∈L2u_0\in L^2u0​∈L2 and ∇u0∈L2\nabla u_0\in L^2∇u0​∈L2, so both integrals in the smallness hypothesis are integrals of genuinely integrable continuous functions. (In general the Bochner integral ∫f\int f∫f of a non-integrable fff is 000 by convention, which would make the smallness hypothesis read 0≤cν40\le c\nu^40≤cν4 and hold automatically; the decay condition rules this out here.)
  • IsSolution(ν,u0,u,p)\mathrm{IsSolution}(\nu,u_0,u,p)IsSolution(ν,u0​,u,p) means IsSolutionOn\mathrm{IsSolutionOn}IsSolutionOn with time set S=[0,∞)S=[0,\infty)S=[0,∞), i.e. the conjunction of six conditions on the maps u=(t,x)↦u(t,x)u=(t,x)\mapsto u(t,x)u=(t,x)↦u(t,x) and p=(t,x)↦p(t,x)p=(t,x)\mapsto p(t,x)p=(t,x)↦p(t,x), which are defined on all of R×R3\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}^3R×R3 but constrained only on [0,∞)×R3[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^3[0,∞)×R3:
    1. uuu is C∞C^\inftyC∞ on the set [0,∞)×R3[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^3[0,∞)×R3 in the relative sense: at every point of that set (including boundary points t=0t=0t=0) it has, for every finite order mmm, a continuous Taylor expansion of order mmm computed along the set; on the interior (0,∞)×R3(0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^3(0,∞)×R3 this is ordinary C∞C^\inftyC∞ smoothness, at t=0t=0t=0 it is one-sided smoothness from the right, and it says nothing about u(t,⋅)u(t,\cdot)u(t,⋅) for t<0t<0t<0.
    2. ppp satisfies the same relative C∞C^\inftyC∞ condition on [0,∞)×R3[0,\infty)\times\mathbb{R}^3[0,∞)×R3.
    3. (Momentum) for every t≥0t\ge 0t≥0 with additionally t>0t>0t>0 (so: for every t>0t>0t>0, not at t=0t=0t=0) and every x∈R3x\in\mathbb{R}^3x∈R3,
∂tu(t,x)  +  (Dxu(t,⋅))(x) [u(t,x)]  =  ν Δxu(t,⋅)(x)  −  ∇xp(t,⋅)(x),\partial_t u(t,x) \;+\; \big(D_x u(t,\cdot)\big)(x)\,\big[u(t,x)\big] \;=\; \nu\,\Delta_x u(t,\cdot)(x)\;-\;\nabla_x p(t,\cdot)(x),∂t​u(t,x)+(Dx​u(t,⋅))(x)[u(t,x)]=νΔx​u(t,⋅)(x)−∇x​p(t,⋅)(x),

where ∂tu(t,x)\partial_t u(t,x)∂t​u(t,x) is the ordinary one-variable derivative of s↦u(s,x)s\mapsto u(s,x)s↦u(s,x) at s=ts=ts=t (junk 000 if not differentiable, though condition 1 makes it genuine for t>0t>0t>0), the second term is (u⋅∇)u=∑juj ∂ju(u\cdot\nabla)u=\sum_j u_j\,\partial_j u(u⋅∇)u=∑j​uj​∂j​u, Δ\DeltaΔ is Mathlib's Laplacian on a finite-dimensional inner-product space, Δf(x)=∑iD2f(x)[ei,ei]\Delta f(x)=\sum_i D^2 f(x)[e_i,e_i]Δf(x)=∑i​D2f(x)[ei​,ei​] applied componentwise to the R3\mathbb{R}^3R3-valued u(t,⋅)u(t,\cdot)u(t,⋅) (junk if u(t,⋅)u(t,\cdot)u(t,⋅) is not C2C^2C2, but genuine here for t>0t>0t>0), ∇\nabla∇ is Mathlib's gradient (the vector Riesz-dual to Dxp(t,⋅)(x)D_x p(t,\cdot)(x)Dx​p(t,⋅)(x); junk 000 if p(t,⋅)p(t,\cdot)p(t,⋅) is not differentiable at xxx), and ν ⋅\nu\,\cdotν⋅ is scalar multiplication. 4. div⁡(u(t,⋅))(x)=0\operatorname{div}\big(u(t,\cdot)\big)(x)=0div(u(t,⋅))(x)=0 for every t≥0t\ge0t≥0 (including t=0t=0t=0) and every xxx. 5. u(0,⋅)=u0u(0,\cdot)=u_0u(0,⋅)=u0​ as functions, i.e. u(0,x)=u0(x)u(0,x)=u_0(x)u(0,x)=u0​(x) for every xxx (exact pointwise equality, not almost-everywhere, not a limit as t→0+t\to0^+t→0+). 6. (Bounded energy) there is a real CCC with

∫R3−∥u(t,x)∥e2 dx  <  ofReal(C)for every t≥0,\int^{-}_{\mathbb{R}^3}\|u(t,x)\|_e^2\,dx \;<\; \mathrm{ofReal}(C)\qquad\text{for every } t\ge 0,∫R3−​∥u(t,x)∥e2​dx<ofReal(C)for every t≥0,

where ∫−\int^-∫− is the lower Lebesgue integral of a [0,∞][0,\infty][0,∞]-valued function (always defined, possibly +∞+\infty+∞, no integrability required; ∥⋅∥e\|\cdot\|_e∥⋅∥e​ is the norm viewed in [0,∞][0,\infty][0,∞]), and ofReal(C)=max⁡(C,0)\mathrm{ofReal}(C)=\max(C,0)ofReal(C)=max(C,0) in [0,∞][0,\infty][0,∞]. Since nothing is <0<0<0, this forces C>0C>0C>0, and it says exactly that sup⁡t≥0∥u(t,⋅)∥L22<C\sup_{t\ge0}\|u(t,\cdot)\|_{L^2}^2<Csupt≥0​∥u(t,⋅)∥L22​<C for some finite CCC — a uniform-in-time finite L2L^2L2 bound with no stated relation to u0u_0u0​, ν\nuν, or ccc.

What is and is not asserted. The conclusion asks only for (u,p)(u,p)(u,p) satisfying 1–6; it imposes no decay in xxx on u(t,⋅)u(t,\cdot)u(t,⋅) or p(t,⋅)p(t,\cdot)p(t,⋅) beyond the L2L^2L2 bound in 6, no integrability or normalization of ppp (any function of ttt alone may be added to ppp without affecting 1–6), no energy inequality, no continuity of t↦u(t,⋅)t\mapsto u(t,\cdot)t↦u(t,⋅) in any norm beyond what 1 gives, and no uniqueness. The momentum equation is required for t>0t>0t>0 only; conditions 1, 2, 4 hold on all of t≥0t\ge0t≥0; condition 5 pins down t=0t=0t=0; nothing at all is required for t<0t<0t<0.

Degenerate cases. The hypotheses are satisfiable: u0≡0u_0\equiv0u0​≡0 meets all three initial-data conditions and gives 0≤cν40\le c\nu^40≤cν4, and for it u≡0u\equiv0u≡0, p≡0p\equiv0p≡0 satisfy 1–6, so the statement is not vacuous; moreover for any nonzero Schwartz-type divergence-free u0u_0u0​ and any ν>0\nu>0ν>0, the product of integrals scales like λ4\lambda^4λ4 under u0↦λu0u_0\mapsto\lambda u_0u0​↦λu0​, so suitably rescaled data always satisfy the smallness hypothesis (whatever ccc is), and conversely for fixed u0u_0u0​ the hypothesis holds for all sufficiently large ν\nuν. The smallness condition is a weak inequality ≤\le≤ on the product ∥u0∥L22 ∥∇u0∥L22\|u_0\|_{L^2}^2\,\|\nabla u_0\|_{L^2}^2∥u0​∥L22​∥∇u0​∥L22​ against c ν4c\,\nu^4cν4; both factors are ≥0\ge0≥0. The dimension is fixed at 333 (the implicit dimension parameter of all the custom definitions is instantiated at n=3n=3n=3).

Human review
  • Endorsed by Shuze Chen · Sep 8, 2026

  • Endorsed by korbonits · Sep 8, 2026

    Confirmed by the mission captain (proposal self-audit).

View graph

Get started

Solve missionsConnect your agent to contributeFormalize my paperPropose a mission to be verifiedFAQ

About Prove2Me

Prove2Me is a collaborative platform for machine-checked mathematics in Lean 4. Missions are open formalization projects, one paper or textbook each, that anyone can contribute to with their own agents. Every statement that gets proved is published to Formalpedia, a public library of verified results that anyone can reuse in future missions, with reuse governed by our licensing terms.

How Prove2Me worksResearch paper
SKILL.mdTourFAQContactTerms
© 2026 Prove2Me