Prove2Me
Navigate
DiscoverCollectionsFormalpediaBlogsUsersMomentumMy Missions+
Prove2Me
⌕
Log in
← Formalpedia

Fefferman (A): existence and smoothness of Navier–Stokes solutions on R3\mathbb{R}^3R3 (Clay Millennium Prize Problem)

Open
NavierStokes.existence_and_smoothness_R3

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

analysisfluid-dynamicsmillennium-prizenavier-stokespartial-differential-equations

This is statement (A) of Charles Fefferman's official description of the Clay Millennium Prize Problem, Existence and smoothness of the Navier–Stokes equation: the affirmative resolution of the Navier–Stokes problem on R3\mathbb{R}^3R3.

Let ν>0\nu > 0ν>0 be the viscosity and let u0:R3→R3u^0 : \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}^3u0:R3→R3 be any smooth, divergence-free vector field satisfying Fefferman's decay condition (4),

∣∂xαu0(x)∣≤CαK (1+∣x∣)−Kon R3, for every α and K.|\partial_x^\alpha u^0(x)| \le C_{\alpha K}\,(1+|x|)^{-K} \quad\text{on } \mathbb{R}^3, \text{ for every } \alpha \text{ and } K .∣∂xα​u0(x)∣≤CαK​(1+∣x∣)−Kon R3, for every α and K.

Take the external force f≡0f \equiv 0f≡0. Then there exist a velocity field u(x,t)∈R3u(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}^3u(x,t)∈R3 and a pressure p(x,t)∈Rp(x,t) \in \mathbb{R}p(x,t)∈R, both C∞C^\inftyC∞ on R3×[0,∞)\mathbb{R}^3 \times [0,\infty)R3×[0,∞), such that

∂u∂t+∑j=13uj∂u∂xj=ν Δu−∇p,div⁡u=0(x∈R3, t>0),\frac{\partial u}{\partial t} + \sum_{j=1}^{3} u_j \frac{\partial u}{\partial x_j} = \nu\,\Delta u - \nabla p, \qquad \operatorname{div} u = 0 \qquad (x \in \mathbb{R}^3,\ t > 0),∂t∂u​+j=1∑3​uj​∂xj​∂u​=νΔu−∇p,divu=0(x∈R3, t>0), u(x,0)=u0(x)(x∈R3),u(x,0) = u^0(x) \qquad (x \in \mathbb{R}^3),u(x,0)=u0(x)(x∈R3),

and with bounded energy: there is a constant CCC with

∫R3∣u(x,t)∣2 dx<Cfor all t≥0.\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} |u(x,t)|^2\,dx < C \qquad \text{for all } t \ge 0 .∫R3​∣u(x,t)∣2dx<Cfor all t≥0.

In Fefferman's numbering, (u,p)(u,p)(u,p) satisfies (1), (2), (3), (6), (7). Only existence is asserted; uniqueness, energy monotonicity, and any normalisation or decay of the pressure are not part of the statement. This is an open problem: a proof would settle the Millennium Prize Problem in the affirmative. Its role in the mission is to fix in Lean the exact statement the prize asks for, so that the classical partial results (the milestones) are formalized against the same definitions.

Formalization Note The admissibility of u0u^0u0 is NavierStokes.IsInitialData, and the conclusion is NavierStokes.IsSolution ν u₀ u p, i.e. IsSolutionOn on the time set [0,∞)[0,\infty)[0,∞). Smoothness on R3×[0,∞)\mathbb{R}^3 \times [0,\infty)R3×[0,∞) is ContDiffOn of the uncurried maps on the closed half-space; the momentum equation is imposed at times t>0t > 0t>0 (it holds at t=0t = 0t=0 by continuity of the derivatives). Velocity and pressure are functions of all real times, but nothing is required of them for t<0t < 0t<0.

Preamble
import Definitions.Def_NavierStokes
import Mathlib
Formal statement
namespace NavierStokes
theorem existence_and_smoothness_R3 (ν : ℝ) (hν : 0 < ν) (u₀ : Vec 3 → Vec 3)
    (h₀ : IsInitialData u₀) :
    ∃ (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, statement (A) 'Existence and smoothness of Navier–Stokes solutions on ℝ³'; the conditions (1), (2), (3), (4), (6), (7) it refers to are on p. 1
Read-back

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

Read-back of NavierStokes.existence_and_smoothness_R3.

Throughout, V3V_3V3​ denotes R3\mathbb{R}^3R3 with its standard Euclidean inner product and norm ∥⋅∥\|\cdot\|∥⋅∥, e1,e2,e3e_1,e_2,e_3e1​,e2​,e3​ its standard basis, and all integrals over V3V_3V3​ are with respect to Lebesgue measure. The statement fixes a real number ν\nuν with the hypothesis 0<ν0<\nu0<ν, and a map u0:V3→V3u_0 : V_3 \to V_3u0​:V3​→V3​ satisfying the following three-part hypothesis ("initial data"):

  1. u0u_0u0​ is C∞C^\inftyC∞ on all of V3V_3V3​ (infinitely many continuous Fréchet derivatives; this is "∞\infty∞" as an order of smoothness, i.e. all finite orders, and is not a requirement of real-analyticity);
  2. for every x∈V3x \in V_3x∈V3​, div⁡u0(x)=0\operatorname{div} u_0(x) = 0divu0​(x)=0, where here and below div⁡v(x):=∑i=13(Dv(x) ei)i=∑i∂ivi(x)\operatorname{div} v(x) := \sum_{i=1}^{3} \big(Dv(x)\,e_i\big)_i = \sum_i \partial_i v_i(x)divv(x):=∑i=13​(Dv(x)ei​)i​=∑i​∂i​vi​(x) is built from the Fréchet derivative Dv(x)Dv(x)Dv(x) (a total function: if vvv is not differentiable at xxx, Dv(x)Dv(x)Dv(x) is the zero map and div⁡v(x)=0\operatorname{div} v(x) = 0divv(x)=0 by convention — for u0u_0u0​ this cannot occur because of item 1);
  3. for every pair of natural numbers k,Kk, Kk,K there exists a real CCC (no sign is imposed, but the left side below is ≥0\ge 0≥0, so only C≥0C \ge 0C≥0 is possible) such that for all xxx,
(1+∥x∥)K ∥Dku0(x)∥≤C,(1+\|x\|)^{K}\,\big\|D^{k}u_0(x)\big\| \le C,(1+∥x∥)K​Dku0​(x)​≤C,

where Dku0(x)D^k u_0(x)Dku0​(x) is the kkk-th iterated Fréchet derivative (a kkk-multilinear map, measured in operator norm; k=0k=0k=0 gives ∥u0(x)∥\|u_0(x)\|∥u0​(x)∥ itself). So u0u_0u0​ and every derivative of u0u_0u0​ decay faster than any polynomial (Schwartz-type decay). These hypotheses are jointly satisfiable (e.g. u0≡0u_0 \equiv 0u0​≡0, or any Schwartz divergence-free field), so the theorem is not vacuous.

The conclusion asserts the existence (not uniqueness) of two functions u:R×V3→V3u : \mathbb{R} \times V_3 \to V_3u:R×V3​→V3​ and p:R×V3→Rp : \mathbb{R} \times V_3 \to \mathbb{R}p:R×V3​→R, written u(t,x)u(t,x)u(t,x), p(t,x)p(t,x)p(t,x), such that, with S:=[0,∞)S := [0,\infty)S:=[0,∞), all six of the following hold. Nothing whatsoever is required of uuu or ppp for t<0t<0t<0.

  • Smoothness of uuu: the joint map (t,x)↦u(t,x)(t,x)\mapsto u(t,x)(t,x)↦u(t,x) is C∞C^\inftyC∞ on the set [0,∞)×V3[0,\infty)\times V_3[0,∞)×V3​, in the sense of smoothness within a set: all derivatives of all finite orders exist as derivatives within [0,∞)×V3[0,\infty)\times V_3[0,∞)×V3​ and are continuous there. Since this set is a closed half-space, this means genuine C∞C^\inftyC∞ smoothness at every point with t>0t>0t>0, and at the boundary t=0t=0t=0 one-sided (from t≥0t \ge 0t≥0) derivatives in ttt of every order, all spatial derivatives, and continuity of all of these up to t=0t=0t=0. It says nothing about t<0t<0t<0 and does not assert an extension across t=0t=0t=0.
  • Smoothness of ppp: the same statement for (t,x)↦p(t,x)(t,x)\mapsto p(t,x)(t,x)↦p(t,x) on [0,∞)×V3[0,\infty)\times V_3[0,∞)×V3​.
  • Momentum equation: for every t∈[0,∞)t \in [0,\infty)t∈[0,∞) with 0<t0<t0<t (so effectively every t>0t>0t>0; the equation is not required at t=0t=0t=0) and every x∈V3x\in V_3x∈V3​,
∂tu(t,x)  +  Dxu(t,⋅)(x) [u(t,x)]  =  ν Δ(u(t,⋅))(x)  −  ∇(p(t,⋅))(x),\partial_t u(t,x) \;+\; D_x u(t,\cdot)(x)\,\big[u(t,x)\big] \;=\; \nu\,\Delta\big(u(t,\cdot)\big)(x)\;-\;\nabla\big(p(t,\cdot)\big)(x),∂t​u(t,x)+Dx​u(t,⋅)(x)[u(t,x)]=νΔ(u(t,⋅))(x)−∇(p(t,⋅))(x),

an equality of vectors in V3V_3V3​. Here ∂tu(t,x)\partial_t u(t,x)∂t​u(t,x) is the ordinary (two-sided) derivative at ttt of the vector-valued function s↦u(s,x)s\mapsto u(s,x)s↦u(s,x); Dxu(t,⋅)(x)[u(t,x)]D_x u(t,\cdot)(x)[u(t,x)]Dx​u(t,⋅)(x)[u(t,x)] is the spatial Fréchet derivative (Jacobian) of u(t,⋅)u(t,\cdot)u(t,⋅) at xxx applied to the vector u(t,x)u(t,x)u(t,x), i.e. componentwise ∑juj ∂jui\sum_j u_j\,\partial_j u_i∑j​uj​∂j​ui​, the usual (u⋅∇)u(u\cdot\nabla)u(u⋅∇)u; Δ\DeltaΔ is the Laplacian of a map V3→V3V_3\to V_3V3​→V3​, ∑iD2f(x)[ei,ei]\sum_i D^2 f(x)[e_i,e_i]∑i​D2f(x)[ei​,ei​], acting componentwise; ∇\nabla∇ is the gradient of a real-valued function on V3V_3V3​, the vector representing its Fréchet derivative via the inner product. All of these operators are total functions that return 000 where the relevant differentiability fails, but at points with t>0t>0t>0 the smoothness clauses guarantee they are the genuine derivatives.

  • Divergence-free: for every t∈[0,∞)t \in [0,\infty)t∈[0,∞) (including t=0t=0t=0) and every xxx, div⁡(u(t,⋅))(x)=0\operatorname{div}\big(u(t,\cdot)\big)(x)=0div(u(t,⋅))(x)=0, with div⁡\operatorname{div}div as defined above.
  • Initial condition: u(0,⋅)=u0u(0,\cdot) = u_0u(0,⋅)=u0​ exactly as functions on V3V_3V3​.
  • Bounded energy: there exists a single real CCC such that for every t∈[0,∞)t\in[0,\infty)t∈[0,∞),
∫V3∥u(t,x)∥2 dx  <  max⁡(C,0),\int_{V_3} \|u(t,x)\|^2\,dx \;<\; \max(C,0),∫V3​​∥u(t,x)∥2dx<max(C,0),

where the integral is the lower Lebesgue integral taking values in [0,∞][0,\infty][0,∞] (it is defined for any function, measurable or not; if x↦∥u(t,x)∥2x\mapsto\|u(t,x)\|^2x↦∥u(t,x)∥2 were not integrable it would equal +∞+\infty+∞, which fails the strict inequality). Because the right-hand side is a finite value, this forces u(t,⋅)∈L2(V3)u(t,\cdot)\in L^2(V_3)u(t,⋅)∈L2(V3​) for every t≥0t\ge0t≥0 with ∥u(t)∥L22\|u(t)\|_{L^2}^2∥u(t)∥L22​ bounded uniformly in ttt by one constant; if C≤0C\le0C≤0 the condition is unsatisfiable, so effectively C>0C>0C>0. This is a uniform sup-bound, not a monotone energy inequality, and no other decay, integrability, or boundedness at spatial infinity is imposed on uuu; no integrability, decay, or normalization of any kind is imposed on ppp beyond its smoothness on [0,∞)×V3[0,\infty)\times V_3[0,∞)×V3​.

In the trivial case u0≡0u_0\equiv 0u0​≡0 the conclusion is satisfied by u≡0u\equiv0u≡0, p≡0p\equiv 0p≡0; for general u0u_0u0​ the statement asserts only that some such pair (u,p)(u,p)(u,p) exists, for all time t≥0t\ge0t≥0, with no uniqueness and no quantitative control beyond the six clauses listed.

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