Partial Regularity of Suitable Weak Solutions of the

Navier-Stokes Equations
L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN, AND L. NIRENBERG

1. Introduction
We study the behavior of weak solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes
equations in three space dimensions with unit viscosity
+
u'; u Vu' - Aui +Vip =fi, i = 1,2,3,
v-u=o,
',
for given f = (f f', f 3, with V f = 0. Of particular physical interest is the initial
boundary value problem on a domain R c R3: in addition to (1.1) on R x (0, T)
one requires
XEfl,

x E an, O < t c T,
at least in a suitably weak sense; here the initial data should satisfy
(1.3) uo=O on an, V9~0=0.
The existence of weak solutions of this initial boundary value problem was
proved long ago by Leray and Hopf [MI, [12]. Despite much effort since their
pioneering work, however, the theory remains fundamentally incomplete. In
particular, it is not known whether or not the velocity u develops singularities
even if all the data are C".
In a series of recent papers [24]-[28], V. Scheffer began to study the partial
regularity theory of the Navier-Stokes system. Let us call a point ( x , t ) singular
if u is not Lp", in any neighborhood of ( x , t ) ; the remaining points, where u is
locally essentially bounded, will be called regular points. By a partial regularity
theorem, we mean an estimate for the dimension of the set S of singular points.
Scheffer's principal result is this:

THEOREM A. For f = 0, there exists a weak solution of ( l . l ) , (1.2) whose

singular set S satisfies
(1.4) < 00,
&p5'3(s)

(1.5) X'(S n(ax{ t ) ) )< 00 uniformly in t.

Communicationson Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. XXXV, 771-831 (1982)

@ 1982 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 00 10-3640/82/06077 1-61$07.10
772 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

Here Yek denotes Hausdorff k -dimensional measure, which will be defined

in Section 2; R must be a bounded domain such that aR has Lebesgue measure
zero. Theorem A is proved in [28]: the statement made there concerns the set
where the vorticity, curl u, is bounded; however, by the higher regularity results
of Serrin (see Section 2) such points are regular also in our sense. The case
R=W' was studied in [26]; one finds there the statement X 2 ( S )<a,but an easy
modification of the proof shows (1.4) for this case too. In [27], Scheffer proved
an analogue of (1.4) for the initial value problem on R4x W,. The set of singular
times, B = { t : 3 x E R, ( x , t ) E S } , was studied by Scheffer in case R = W3,f = 0 in
[24], and by Foias and Tkmam [6] in case R is bounded and f # 0; in both
contexts, H"*(2) = 0 for any weak solution of the initial boundary value problem.
Other, related results may be found in [6].'
The main goal of this paper is an improvement of Scheffer's theorem. Our
principal result is a local partial regularity theorem for a particular class of weak
solutions, henceforth called suitable weak solutions. We show that, for any such
weak solution, the singular set has one-dimensional Hausdorff measure zero.
Indeed, we prove the stronger statement that B'(S) = 0, for a measure 8' on
W' x W analogous to one-dimensional Hausdorff measure, but defined using
parabolic cylinders instead of Euclidean balls (in particular, X' 5 CB '). Postpon-
ing the definition of a suitable weak solution and the discussion of the measure
P until Section 2, we state the main local partial regularity result here.

THEOREM B. For any suitable weak solution of the Navier-Stokessystem on an

open set in space-time, the associated singular set satisfies S'(S) = 0.

Theorem B improves Scheffer's results (i) by its local character, (ii) by refining
the estimate on the Hausdorff dimension of S, and (iii) by allowing a rather
general force.
Of course, to apply Theorem B one must know that suitable weak solutions
exist. Scheffer proved this for the initial value problem in R3 with f = 0, in [26].
We prove, in an appendix, that the initial boundary value problem has a suitable
weak solution, under appropriate hypotheses on R, uo and f . Combining that
existence result with Theorem B gives

THEOREMA'. Assume either R = R3 or R c R3 bounded with smooth

boundary, and let D = R X (0, T ) .Suppose for some q > $
f e L 2 ( D ) n L f o c ( D and
) V -f=O
and that
uoeLZ(R), V * u o = O , and uo*vlan=0.
'Scheffer has recently extended Theorem A by proving an analogous partial regularity result at
the boundary in case Il is a half-space (Comm. Math. Phys., to appear).
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 113

If R is bounded, we require further that uoE W:$ (a),the space of functions with
“$ derivative in L5/4”.
Then the initial boundary value problem (1. l), (1.2) has a weak solution on
D whose singular set S satisfies P’(S) = 0.

(One should note that when R is bounded, Scheffer’s Theorem A assumes

less regularity of R and UO.)

The local theory of partial regularity which we develop to prove Theorem

B has other applications as well. We use it in Section 8 to study the initial value
problem on w‘ with f = 0, in case the initial velocity satisfies either

or

(1.7)

here Lo is a certain absolute constant.

Condition (1.6) stipulates that u should “decay sufficiently rapidly at 00”.
We shall show, for a suitable weak solution with initial data satisfying (1.6), that

using this, we show that u is regular for 1x1 large enough. Defining further

our precise result in this context is the following.

THEOREMC. Suppose uoE L2(W3)satisfies V uo = 0, and suppose (1.6)

holds. Then there exists a weak solution of the initial value problem with f = 0
which is regular in the region

{(x, t ) : IX 1% >Ki},

where K 1= K1(E,G ) is a constant depending on uo only through the values of E

and G.

Condition (1.7), on the other hand, represents a restriction that uo “not be

too singular” at the origin. We shall show, for an appropriate choice of the
114 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

constant Lo, that a suitable weak solution with initial data satisfying (1.7) has
the property

(1.8) sup
O c T c f R3X(T)
IU~~~XI-~<OO, lof
lR3I-1< IVu I21x 00 for each t ;

using this, we show that the line x = 0 consists entirely of regular points. Indeed,
we shall show that u is regular in a parabola above the origin.

THEOREMD. There exists an absolute constant Lo>O with the following

property. If ~ O LE2 ( W 3 ) with V uo = 0, and if (1.7) holds, then there exists a weak
solution of the initial value problem with f = 0 which is regular in the region
{(x, t ) : I x 1 2 < t ( L o - L ) } .

Our analysis uses many of the ideas from Scheffer’s paper [26];he, in turn,
draws from prior work of Almgren, Morrey, and others on nonlinear elliptic
systems, particularly in the theory of minimal surfaces (cf. [l], [20]).
Dimensional analysis of the equations, though elementary, is fundamental
to an understanding of the method. If u ( x , t ) and p ( x , t ) solve (1.1)with force
f ( x , r ) , then, for each A > 0,
U A ( X ,t ) = A u ( A x , A 2 t ) , ~ A ( x t, ) = h 2 p ( A X , A 2 t )
also solve ( l . l ) , with force f,,(x, t) = A 3 f ( A x , A ’ t ) . One can encode this property
by assigning a “dimension” to each quantity:
each x i has dimension 1,
time has dimension 2,
u ihas dimension - 1,
(1.9)
p has dimension - 2,
f has dimension - 3,
V ihas dimension - 1,
a, has dimension - 2,
so that each term in the equation has dimension -3.
Most of our work will be concerned with local, dimensionless estimates
for suitable weak solutions. Since time has dimension 2, it is natural to express
such estimates not with balls but with “parabolic cylinders”. At some stages it
is convenient to work with cylinders labeled by the top center point:
(1.10) Q,(x,t ) = {(y, 7):Iy -x( < r, t - : < T <t } .
At other stages it is more convenient to use a label representing a point below
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 775

the top center:

(1.11) Q , * ( x , t ) = ( ( y , ~ly-xI<r,
): t-&2<~<t+8r2}.

Note that Q,*(x, t) = Q r ( x , t +Qr2) and that (x, t ) is the geometric center of
Qr/Z(X, t +
It is well known that if uo and f are small enough in a suitable norm, t h h
the solution of ( l . l ) , (1.2) stays regular at least for a short time. The main task
in proving a partial regularity theorem lies in proving a local, dimensionless version
of an analogous result. We do so in two stages. The first, Proposition 1, asserts
that if u, p , and f are “sufficiently small” on the unit cyclinder 0 1 = Ql(0, 0 ) ,
then u is regular on the smaller cylinder 0 1 1 2 = Q1/~(0,0).

PROPOSITION 1. There are absolute constants E 1 and C1> 0 , and a constant

> 0 depending only on 4, with the following property. Suppose (u,p ) is a
E Z ( ~ )

suitable weak solution of the Navier-Stokes system on Q 1 with force f E Lq,for

z;
some 4 > suppose further that

01
and

(1.13)
01
Then

for Lebesgue-almost every (x, t ) E Q l p . In particular, u is regular on Q 1 / 2 .

Proposition 1 represents a local version of the main result proved in [26].

Our proof follows Scheffer’s in most respects, but we treat the pressure differently
in order to obtain a local conclusion.
Proposition 1 may be rescaled to a result concerning suitable weak solutions
on any cylinder. If Q, = Q,(x, t), define

0.
and

0.

Notice that M ( r ) and Fq(r)are dimensionless in the sense of (1.9); we suppress

776 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

their dependence on (w, I ) for simplicity of notation. An immediate consequence

of Proposition 1 is

COROLLARY 1. Suppose ( u , p ) is a suitable weak solution of the Navier-

Stokes system on some cylinder Q, = Q , ( x , I ) with force f E Lq, q >$.If moreover
(1.16) M ( r ) S & I and Fq(r)S&2,
rhen
(1.17)
Lebesgue-almost-everywhere on Q,/2(x, t ) . In particular, u is regular on Qr/2(x, t).

Corollary 1 should be viewed as an estimate of the minimum rate at which

a singularity can develop. Indeed, suppose that ( x o , t o ) is a singular point; then
(1.16) must fail for Q,(x, t ) whenever (xo, to) E QrI2(x,t ) . Since q > 5, F,(r) + 0 as
r + 0; hence, M ( r )= M ( r ;x , I ) > e l for a family of parabolic cylinders Q,(x, 1 )
shrinking to ( x o , to). This suggests heuristically the conclusion that

(1.18)
as r = (Ix -xOl2 + It - + 0;

and in view of (1.18) it is natural to guess that

C
(1.19) IVu I(x, t ) L 7 as ( x , t )+ ( x o , to).
r
The second stage of our local analysis, Proposition 2, verifies that (1.19) is in a
sense correct.
PROPOSITION 2. There is an absolute constant ~ 3 > 0with the following
property. Zf ( u , p ) is a suitable weak solution of the Nauier-Stokes system near
( x , t ) and if

(1.20) limsupr-1
r-0
jj 1vu)* S & 3 ,
o:(x*f )
then ( x , t ) is a regular point.

Theorem B follows from Proposition 2 by a rather standard covering argu-

ment. The proof is presented in detail in Section 6; but we outline the essential
points briefly here. Consider first the task of proving that the singular set S has
Hausdorff dimension at most ?. Using just Corollary 1 and a covering lemma,
one sees that S can be covered, for any S > O , by a family {Q? = Q : ( x i , ti)}of
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 777

parabolic cylinders satisfying

(1.21) ri<S for each i,

(1.23) {Q;,S (xi,t i ) }are pairwise disjoint.

Suppose for the moment that u E L1Ol3and p E L S i 3 ,(In fact, u E L1OI3holds for
any Leray-Hopf weak solution, but we know p E LSl3only when Q = R3. See
Section 2 for further discussion on this point.) Then by Holder's inequality,
(1.22) implies

(1.22)'
whence Q:,/s

(1.24)
U,Q:,/s

As 6+0, (1.24) implies that 9 5 / 3 ( S ) = 0 . (The measure PSI3is defined in

Section 2.) In particular, S has Hausdorff dimension at most 5.
The exponent $ in the left side of (1.24) arises because 5 5 lu110/3+Ip15/3
has
dimension $ (in the sense of (1.9)). In order to show that P"(S)=O by this
method, it is necessary to modify the argument so that a space time integral of
dimension one appears o n the right side of (1.24); that is the purpose of
Proposition 2. Indeed, using Proposition 2 we replace (1.22) by

(1.25)
O,?p
and (1.24) by
(1.26)
u, 0:,/5

and we conclude that B'(S) = 0 (even without the hypothesis p E L5I3).

It is natural to ask whether these methods might extend, with further develop-
ment, to prove better bounds on the dimension of s. It appears that in order to
prove 9 ( S ) = 0 for some k < 1 using these methods, one requires a global estimate
of dimension k for the weak solution in question. Theorem D is an attempt in
this direction: using the dimension zero hypothesis (1.7), we prove the dimension-
less estimate (1.8),from which the regularity assertion follows easily.
Many constants arise in the course of our work; where not otherwise indicated,
they are always absolute constants-i.e., their value does not depend on any of
the data. The symbol C denotes a generic constant; its value may change from
778 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

line to line. We reserve subscripts (Cl,E 1, etc.) for those few constants to which
repeated reference must be made. In principle, all the constants are computable;
but we make no effort to estimate them.
The plan of the remaining sections is as follows. In Section 2 we continue
with introductory material, discussing well-known properties of the Navier-
Stokes system, introducing the notion of a suitable weak solution, and defining
the measures Pk. Sections 3 and 4 present the proof of Proposition 1 ; some
general remarks concerning the motivation of the argument will be found at the
beginning of Section 4. Section 5 presents the proof of Proposition 2, and Section
6 the covering argument leading to the main local partial regularity result,
Theorem B. Section 7 presents some weighted interpolation inequalities that
are needed in Section 8; and Section 8 contains the proofs of Theorems C and
D. We conclude with an appendix, in which we prove the existence of a suitable
weak solution of the initial boundary value problem (1.l),(1.2).

2. Background and Definitions

Extended treatments of the Navier-Stokes system may be found in [13],
[17], [29], [35]. Here we present only a very brief discussion, concentrating on
those aspects that play a ma’or role in our work. The section closes with definitions
of the measures Xkand P . 1
2A. On the initial boundary value problem (Ll), (1.2). Concerning the
formulation of the problem, we remark that the restriction V * f = 0 is not a
significant one. Indeed, for f~ Lq(R) there is a decomposition f = W+fl with
V .fl = 0 and IlflllLqcn,5 C(q,fl)llfllLqcn,,1< q < a0 (cf. [8]). Using this decomposi-
tion at each time, one readily reduces the problem (1.1) for general f~
Lq(Rx (0, T))to the case V -f = 0.
There are many different choices for the space in which to seek a solution
of the initial boundary value problem; let us for the moment call a solution
“strong” if it lies in a space where the solution of (1.1),(1.2) is known to be
unique. The existence of strong solutions for a short time interval is known
under rather weak hypotheses upon the initial data uo: while u o ~ L 2 ( f l )
apparently does not suffice, it is enough for example that uo have “one-half
derivative in L2” or that uoE L 3 ( n )(cf. [7], [lo], [4]). Some references to recent
work on strong solutions may be found in [6].
Unfortunately, the estimates for these strong solutions blow up in finite time;
to obtain an existence theorem for arbitrary time intervals, Leray introduced
the idea of studying weak solutions for which

(2.1) lu12cix+ J~ J lVul~cixcit<co,

o n
 PARTIAL REGULARITY I19

where

This choice may be motivated as follows: given a smooth solution (u, p) of ( l . l ) ,

(1.2) and any 4 E C"(nx W), if one multiplies (1.1)by 2~4'4,adds, and integrates
by parts one obtains

In,
J J J V1'4~
1 u 1 +~24
o n
= Jn + '
1uo1~4 J J I ~ I ~+M~ , 4
O R
)
(2.2)
+ J r J (luI2+2p)u - v 4 + 2 J ' J
o n o n (f*u)4.
If u # 0 at do, the same formal relation holds provided that 4 has compact
support in a. When 4 = 1, (2.2) becomes

(2.3) &z+2JrJ o n o 2 nJft J. u ;

lvul~=Jnluol~+

hence (2.1) expresses the bounds that are demonstrated (formally) by (2.3).
The basic existence theorem proved by Leray (a= W3) and Hopf (bounded
a) is that there exists a measurable function u and a distribution p satisfying
(1.1)and (1.2) weakly, (2.1), and also the following energy inequality:

(2.4)

for almost every t > 0. We shall call such (u, p ) a Leray-Hopf weak solution.
One does not know whether Leray-Hopf weak solutions are unique, and one
does not know whether the inequality in (2.4) can be strict.
In order to develop a local theory of partial regularity, we shall assume not
the energy inequality (2.4) but its localized form, the analogue of (2.1): for
smooth 4 2 0 with compact support in space-time,

Relation (2.5) will be called the generalized energy inequality; it was also the
principal tool used by Scheffer in [26].

DEFINITION. The pair (u, p ) is a suitable weak solution of the Navier-Stokes

system (1.1) on an open set D c W3 x DB with force f if the following conditions
are satisfied:
780 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

1. (Integrability hypotheses) u, p andf are measurable functions on D and

z,
(a) f E Lq(D) for some q > and V f = 0, a

(b) P E L ' / ~ ( D ) ,
(c) for some constants Eo,El < 00,
Iu(2 d x S E o , D,=Dn(R3X{t)),
I,,
for almost every t such that D, # 0, and

(2.7)
D

2. (Equations) u, p , and f satisfy (1.1) in the sense of distributions on D (as

'in [35]).
3. (Generalized energy inequality) For each real-valued 4 E CF (D) with
4 20,inequality (2.5) is valid.

Some remarks are in order concerning the integrability hypotheses. We

require f E L 4 ( D )q, > 3, simply because that is the condition we need for proving
Proposition 1.We assume p E L'/4(D) because that is the best Lq estimate known
for the initial boundary value problem in case R is bounded. As we shall explain
presently, when R = 08' the pressure satisfies p E L5/3(R3X (0, T ) ) . It seems
reasonable to conjecture the analogous estimate, at least locally, for bounded
R;but this is apparently open.
It is not immediately clear that each term on the right in (2.5) is integrable.
However, this is indeed the case, as we shall explain in subsection C of the
present section.
Scheffer showed in [26] that the initial value problem on R3x R+ has a suitable
weak solution in case f = 0 and uoE L2(R3).Theorem A.l of the appendix proves
the existence of such solutions for the initial boundary value problem, under
certain conditions on uo, f, and R.

2B. Higher regularity. It may seem odd to call (x, t ) a regular point when
u is merely bounded nearby. However, from the local boundedness of u one
concludes higher regularity in the space variables whenever the force itself is
sufficiently smooth. Indeed, by a result of Serrin [30] (cf. also [22]), any weak
solution u of (1.1)on a cylinder D = B x ( a , b ) satisfying

(2.8) Iab(I,1 1'

u d x ) ' I qdt < co with
3 2
+
- -< 1
4 s
is necessarily Cm+2*pin space on compact subsets of D, iff is Cm**in the space
variables (m E 0,O < p < l), and u E C" in space if f is C". The effect of the
pressure prevents one from proving such a local higher regularity result in the
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 781

time variable. However, if u is absolutely continuous in time and ut E L;,(D),

q > 1, then the same is true of the space derivatives of ut on compact subsets of
D, provided of course that f is regular enough.

2C. Recurrent themes. Three simple observations will be used repeatedly

in our analysis. They concern interpolation inequalities for the velocity u, the
relationship between u and p, and the weak continuity of u as a function of time.
Interpolation inequalities have played an essential role in much of the work
on the Navier-Stokes equations. For u E H'(R3), the following well-known
inequalities follow by interpolation from Sobolev's inequality:
912-0
C
(2.9) JB, b 1' C( JB, IV~I')''( J B, I~I') +p(JB,~u~2)"",

where C is a constant independent of r, B, is a ball of radius r, and

3
2 S q S 6 and a = & -2).
If u has mean zero or if B, is replaced by all of R3, then the second term on the
right in (2.9) may be omitted. When u is a weak solution, one can use (2.9) to
interpolate between (2.6) and (2.7):for example, using q = y so that a = 1, we
integrate in time to obtain

(2.10) IoTJ-& )u110'35 C(E:'3EI +r-2E:'3T),

whenever B, x (0, T) is contained in the domain of u. In particular, it follows

-
that the term jj )u12u Vq5 in (2.5) is integrable.
Another application.of (2.9) which will be useful is

(2.11)

With regard to the pressure, we observe that (1.1) and (1.2) imply formally

(2.12)

(2.12)' Y .Qp = 1
v'bu on a R x ( 0 , T),

where v is the unit normal to aR, and for (2.12)' we assume u = 0 on an. For
weak solutions one must use great care in interpreting (2.12)';but (2.12) certainly
holds in the sense of distributions on R x (0, T), and hence on R x ( 1 ) for almost
every t.
In case 0 = R3, one can solve (2.12) explicitly; we see that p is a sum of
classical singular integral operators applied to the functions u By the
782 L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

Calder6n-Zygmund theorem (cf. [33]),

(2.13) 1<q Coo.

In particular, for a weak solution on R’ x (0, T ) satisfying (2.6) and (2.7),

(2.13)‘

In case R is bounded, it is convenient to localize (2.12). Let f i 1 c R, and let

4 E C: (R)with 4 = 1 in a neighborhood of h1. Then at any time

Substituting (2.12) for Ap in (2.14) and integrating by parts one obtains various
different expressions for 4p. A particularly useful one is this:
4p =p’+p3+p4,

Here we use the summation convention on repeated indices, p’ must be under-

stood as a singular integral operator, with a S-function contribution for i = j ,
and we assert (2.15) on R x { t } for almost every f, under the hypothesis p E
P 4 ( Rx (0, T)).
Since 4 = 1 on a neighborhood of fil,

IPS1 +l P 4 l c(nd ’ jn(IPI + If.4 12) for x E a1I

while by the Calderbn-Zygmund estimate,

It follows in particular that

(2.16) ~5/4(0, T ;L ~ / ~ ( R ~ ) ) .
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 783

If ( u , p ) is a suitable weak solution on D and (a, b)Xl?, cD,we see from

(2.16) and (2.11) that
p E L514(a,6 ;L5I3(B,)), u E L5(a,6 ; Ls'2(B,));
-
it follows in particular that the term j j p ( u V4) in (2.5) is integrable.
Our third observation concerns the weak continuity of u as a function of
time. This is a well-known property of weak solutions; in the present context,
it means that, for any suitable weak solution on a space-time cylinder D =
x (0,T),

u ( x , I ) . w(n) dx + u(x, f o ) w ( x ) dx
Jn
for each w E LZ(fl)as r + to.

A proof may be found, for example, in [35],pp. 281-282. (Although the theorems
stated there refer to solutions of a boundary value problem, the proofs are valid
also without any boundary condition for u . )
One consequence of weak continuity is the fact that it makes sense to impose
the initial condition u ( x , 0) = u&) for a weak solution. A second is that if D is
a cylinder, then (2.6) will hold for every t. A third is that if ( u , p ) is a suitable
weak solution on fl x (a,b ) , then, for each t, a < t < 6, and each smooth, com-
pactly supported 4 2 0,

) smooth, O S x 5 1, with ,y = O for s S O and ,y = 1 for s 2 1;

Indeed, let ~ ( s be
we apply (2.5) to the test function 4(x, s ) x ( ( t - s ) / & ) , E > O . Passing to the limit
as E + O yields (2.17) for almost every t ; by weak continuity, we conclude that
(2.17) holds for every t.
It is not known whether or not weak solutions are strongly continuous as
functions of time with values in L2.

2D. The measures H ' and 9'.We have chosen to state our local Theorem
B in terms of a measure 8',defined in a manner analogous to Hausdorff measure
2' but using the parabolic metric on R3x R. Both measures are special cases of
a construction due to Caratheodory, and treated at length in [ 5 ] . For any
X c R3x R and k 2 0 we define
784 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

Here Q, represents any “parabolic” cylinder, i.e., one with radius r in space and
r 2 in time. P k is then an outer measure, for which all Borel sets are measurable;
on its cr-algebra of measurable sets, Pk is a Borel regular measure (cf. [ 5 ] ,
0 2.10.1).
Hausdorff measure 2‘ is defined in an entirely similar manner, but with Q,,
replaced by an arbitrary closed subset of R3x R of diameter at most ri. (One
usually normalizes X k for integer k so that it agrees with surface area on smooth
k -dimensional surfaces.) Clearly,

X kSC(k)Bk.
All we shall really use is the following simple fact: for any X c R 3 X R ,
9 (X) = 0 if and only if, for each S > 0, X can be covered by parabolic cylinders
{Q,#}: such that 2 r f < 6.

3. Some Dimensionless Estimates

In order to use the generalized energy inequality effectively, we must be
prepared to bound the terms on the right

in terms of those on the left

Bounds of this type play a fundamental role in the proofs of both Propositions
1 and 2. In all cases, they amount to interpolation inequalities for u, com-
bined with estimates for p based on the representation (2.14). We present in
this section just those estimates that are needed in the proof of Proposition 1;
additional results of a similar character will be presented in Section 5 , in the
course of proving Proposition 2.
Let
Q, = Q,CO, 0)= ((x, t ) : 1x1< P , - p 2 < f <O),

and take a pair of measurable functions u and p defined on a,. We consider

the following quantities, for r <p :

(3.1) A(r)= sup

-r2C1C0
r-l J
B,x{t)
I~I~,
 PARTIAL REGULARITY I85

(3.2)

(3.3)
0,

(3.4)
0.

(3.5)

Here Or = Q r ( O , O ) , Br = {x : Ix I < r } , and

Br
k,
=p’r(t) = P ( Y ,t ) dy,

where the slashed integral ,f denotes an average. Our estimates will be applied
to a suitable weak solution of the Navier-Stokes system; in this section, however,
we shall use only the fact that the above quantities are finite and that

(3.6)

on B, x { t } for almost every t, - p 2 < t <O. Our goal is to derive estimates for
G ( r )and L(r)in terms of A, 8, and K ;note that each of the quantities (3.1H3.5)
has been scaled to have dimension zero.
LEMMA3.1.
G ( r )5 CA3I4(r)(A3I4(r)+ s3I4(r)).
Proof: We use (2.9) with q = 3:

Integrating in time and using Holder’s inequality, we obtain

(r)]’I4 + Cr’I2[rA (r)I3/’

0,

from which the lemma follows.

786 L. CAFFARELLI. R . KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

LEMMA3.2. Let r 5 $p ;then

(3.7) + c(y3 + CG 1/3(r)G2/3(2r)

G1/3(r)G2’3(p)

+Cr3G’l3(r) sup
-r2<r<0
I
zr<lyj<p
-.14z
lyI4

Proof: We use the representation (2.15) for p, with the function 4 chosen
so that
4 ( y ) = 1 if Iyl~ip, 4(y)=0 if Iyl~p,
(3.8)
JV,4I 5 cp-’, cp-2.
)VIjl$~S

We decompose p’ further as p’ = p1 + p z ,

We note that

and we estimate the four terms separately.

For p l , recall that each operator

is a bounded operator on L4(R3)for l < q < o O , by the Calderbn-Zygmund

theorem. Taking $ = 4 u i u ilB2, and q = 9 we conclude that

and so

(3.9)
I..
 PARTIAL REGULARITY I81

For pz, p3, and p4 we bound Ipi - p i [ uniformly on Br,using the mean value
theorem. Indeed, for ( x 1 < r,

and

Estimating in cases i = 2, 3 by

we see that

(3.10)

For p4 we must argue slightly differently:

(3.12)
788 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

Finally, we integrate each term (3.9)-(3.12) in time, using Holder’s inequality

as appropriate, to obtain

+c$( J[ JJ 1 ~ 1 ~ ) ~ ’ ~

The assertion of the lemma follows, by normalizing each term.

4. The Inductive Argument

In this section we prove Proposition 1. The constants C1,E ~ and, E&) will
be chosen in the course of the proof; but it must be emphasized that C1and
are absolute constants, independent of the data, and e Z depends only on q.
To motivate the argument, we recall that if q5 E C“(Ql(O,0)), q5 2 0, and q5
vanishes near {Ix I = 1)u { t = -l}, then, for -1 C s < 0,

In order to bound Iu I2(a,s), one is tempted to use the test function

q5*(x, t ) = x(x, t ) * (s - t)-3’2 exp {-lx - a lZ/4(s - t ) }

defined on { ( x ’ t ) : t c s } , where O S x S 1 is a smooth, compactly supported

function equal to one near (a, s). Where x = 1, d* is a constant times the
fundamental solution of & +Ad = 0 with singularity at (a, s); therefore, using
q5* in (4.1) leads formally to a bound for lulz(a,s).
Unfortunately, this approach fails, for want of suitable bounds for the last
two terms on the right in (4.1). Scheffer’s idea was to approximate the singular
test function q5* by a sequence of smoother ones; that is, to apply (4.1) to a
sequence of test functions {&}:=I, where d,, is more or less a smoothing of q5*
of order 2-”. The argument becomes an inductive one, in which the estimates
from Section 3 are used at each stage to bound the right-hand side of (4.1) with
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 789

4 = & + I in terms of the left side of (4.1) with C#J = # k , k S n . The cubic
homogeneity of the right side of (4.1) plays a critical role (we think of p as being
quadratic in u): it behaves, roughly speaking, like a power of J I U ~ ~ + J J IVuI'.
If these quantities are small enough, then this improves the estimates; that is
the function of the smallness hypotheses (1.12), (1.13).
We begin the proof of Proposition 1.

Step 1. Setting up the induction.

Our hypotheses are

(4.2) [[ ( l ~ l ~ + b l I p l (1
) + ~l ~~ l d x ) ~ ' ~ d r S ~ 1 ,
-1 a1
0 1

and
(4.3) 11
0 1
Ifl"44),

with Bl = (1x1 < l}, Q1= Q1(O,0). We shall show, for a suitable choice of the
constants, that

(4.4)

for each (a, s ) E Q1/2(0,0) and each n 2 2, where

r,, = 2-".
It then follows that
IuI 2( U , S ) S C ~ E : / ~ =cl
provided that ( a , s ) is a Lebesgue point for u, hence almost everywhere in
Qi/z(O, 0).
For the rest of this section our attention is thus focused upon a fixed but
arbitrary point (a, s ) E Ql/z(O, 0); note that Q l / z ( a ,s) c Ql(0, 0), so that

Let
Q" = Q,,(a, s), n = 1,2, - -.
Our procedure will be to prove inductively that, for n 2 3,
790 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

and, for n 2 2,

(4.71,

where8denotes an average, and

Pn = p n ( t ) = I;
x-ol<r,,
PdX.

We shall assume E 1 5 1, and shall impose several further smallness conditions

on E~ as we proceed. Clearly, (4.7), includes the assertion (4.4);thus once (4.71,
is established for n L 2 the proof will be complete.
The initial step of the induction is (4.7)2, which we deduce from (4.3) and
(4.5), using the generalized energy inequality (4.1). Indeed, choosing a smooth
function 4 2 0 with q5 = 1 on Q 2and supp C$ Q', we see from (4.1)that the
left side of (4.7)2is bounded by

o1 0'

which, by Holder's inequality, (4.3), and 0 . 3 , is at most C O E : provided

/~ that
e l and €2 are small enough.

step 2. (4.7)k,2 S k 5 n implies (4.6),+1,if n 22.

We use the lemmas of Section 3. In terms of the dimensionless quantities
A(r)and 6(r), our inductive hypothesis is
2/3 2
(4.8) A(/'k)4-8(rk)(=CEi.rk, 2SkSn,
and we also know, from (4.3, that
(4.9) G (rl) + K (rl) d CE1 ,
By Lemma 3.1, we conclude from (4.8) that

(4.10)
0"
so that
(4.11)
o"+l
0"

Therefore, if E is so small that the constant C* in (4.11) satisfies

(4.12) C*&y 3 5t,
 PARTlAL REGULARlTY 791

then

(4.13)
0“+1

which is half of (4*6)n+lm

For the second half of (4.6)n+1we use Lemma 3.2 with p =a and r = r,. We
have
G(rn+l)$CG(rn)~C&,r3,,
and
2/3 2
A ( r , , + l )5 CA(r,,)5 CE rn,
by (4.10) and (4.8); and K ( ~ ) S C Eby~(4.9).
, The terms on the right side of
(3.7) may therefore be estimated as follows, assuming E 1 5 1:
r:YlA ”’(r,, +l)G1/5(rn+l)K4/5(f) S C~!,’”E
1,

r:?1G1’3(rn+1)G2 / 3 (4)L 5 Cr8,/3~1,

5 Cr;c1,
G1/3(rn+l)G2/3(r,)
and

r ; + ~ G ” ~ ( r ~ + SUP
i)
$-:+1-=rss
Ir,<ly1<1/4
Iul2
-<cr4
Iy14 =
1
nE 113
k=2
ri3A(rk)
n
6CrtE1 C r;’
k=2

5 Cr3,e1.
Noting that r, 5 1, we conclude that, for 4 1,
L(rn+l)s C ~ ! , ~ / ’ E ~ ;
whence
riy1 .ff I ~IPI- P n + l l ~~ r i ~ ~ ’ ~ ~ ( r , + l )
On+l

s C**E,,
for some absolute constant C**.
We require that EI be small enough to satisfy
(4.14) C**&y 3 5 ;,
so that

(4.15)
@+I

From (4.13) and (4.15) we conclude (4.6)n+1.

192 L. CAFF'ARELLI. R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

Step 3 . (4.6)k,3 5k 5 n, implies (4.7),, if n h 3 .

We apply the generalized energy inequality (4.1)with a suitable test function
q5 = &,To simplify the notation, we shift the coordinates in space-time to center
them at the point of interest: from now on the origin x = 0, t = 0 will represent
the point formerly denoted by (a, s).
We take
(4.16) 4" = x * n ,
whe're 9, is a constant times the fundamental solution of the backward heat
equation 4, + Aq5 = 0 with singularity at (0, r t ) , and y, is a cutoff function. More
explicitly,

t <r t ,

and ,y is C" on ( t S 0 ) with OSx 5 1 and

x =1 on Q' = Q,/~(o,o),
o'x Off Q1/3(0,0).
Direct computation shows that q5,, 2 0 and that

(4.17) S
at
+A
=O ~
on ,~, 2 ,

(4.18)
a4n + A& I dC everywhere,

1 -3 I 3
(4.19) -rn Sq5,,SCrn , lVq5,,lSCri4 on Q", n 22,

(4.20) d,,5 c r i 3 , IVr$,lSCr;4 on Qk-'\Qk, l<kSn,

for a suitable absolute constant C, independent of n.
Using q5,, as the test function in (4.1),and estimating& from below by (4.19),
we see that
sup
-r,crnO
11
~ u ~ ~ ( x . t ) d x ) + r iIV~I*SC(I+II+III+IV),
0"
~

where
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 793

0’

We must bound each of these four terms, using (4.6)k,3 S k Sn,(4.3), and (4.5).
To estimate I we simply use (4.181, Holder’s inequality, and (4.5)to obtain
I s c( II
0’
Ju1)’ 5 C E ?3.

To estimate I . , we use (4.19), (4.201, and (4.6)k,3 5 k 5 n :

0*
n
sc c rk&y
k=l

5 c&y3.
We bound IV by using (4.3),(4.19),(4.20),and (4.6)k,3 5 k 5 n :

5 c E 219
1 & 2114 rt-51‘
k=l

Since q > 3, we may choose ~ 2 ( qso) that

(4.21)

then
Ivsc&:’3.
The term III has been left for last because it is the most troublesome: the
available estimates are not good enough to bound IuI J p IV&l;
( rather, we must
194 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

take advantage of the fact that u is divergence-free, and reduce the problem to
one involving the oscillation of p. For each k 2= 1let 0 5 x k . 5 1be a C" function
on Q' = Q1/2(0,0) such that

and

Then xldn = dn; thus

0' 0'
(4.22)

We estimate the terms on the right side of (4.22) separately. Since X k - X k + l is

supported on Qk and u is divergence-free, we have for k 2 3

Q' Qk

where

Similarly,

0' 0"

while, for k = 1, 2,

Therefore,
by (4.20).
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 795

Using the inductive hypothesis (4.6)k, 3 S k 5 n, and also (4.5) we conclude that
n
Illsc 1 r 215 2/3
k & 1 +C&:l3
k=3

s C&:I3.
Step 3 is now complete.
A final remark concerning the conditions we have placed on e l : the various
constants “C” appearing in the argument for step 3 are universal constants that
do not depend on either n or e l . Therefore the constants C* and C** in step
2 are independent of e l and n . It follows that (4.12) and (4.14) will indeed hold
if e l is small enough, and that such ~1 can be chosen without any danger of
circular reasoning. After ~1 is fixed, ~2 = E & ) may be chosen so that the initial
step of the induction holds and so that (4.21) is valid.

5. The Blow-up Estimate

In this section we present the proof of Proposition 2. The idea, described
already in Section 1, is to view Corollary 1 as an estimate for the minimum rate
at which singularities can develop. Corollary 1 suggests that near a singular point
(xo, to), Iu 12C/r,where r z = Ix -xoIz + It - to[.If u grows so fast, one expects IVu I,
too, to be singular; Proposition 2 asserts that this is so, in the sense that
IVu I2 L C/r4“in the parabolic mean”, as r + 0.
One can use Corollary 1 to prove .that (a, s ) is a regular point only when
(a, s) E Q,&, t ) ; therefore one can not consider just cylinders with top center
(a, s). We work instead with
Q,*(a,s)=Qr(a,s +ib2),
recalling that (a, s ) is the geometric center of Qr/2(a,s +ir2).
The proof of Proposition 2 is based on a rather explicit “decay estimate”
for a zero-dimensional quantity M,(r) closely related to M ( r ) ;recall that M ( r )5
c 1 is the principal hypothesis of Corollary 1. Our attention is henceforth fixed
upon the behavior of (u, p ) near a particular point (x, t); by translation we may
suppose that (x, t ) = (0, 0), and we shall write simply a,*
for Q,*(0,O).Consider
the dimensionless quantities

A,(r)= sup r-l

-&‘< r c t r ’
796 L. CAFFARELLI. R . KOHN, A N D L. NIRENBERG

and

0:

in the definition of H,(r) we have set

Notice that A,, S,, G,, and K, are analogues of A, 6,G, and K considered in
Section 3; in particular, G,(r) may be bounded in terms of S , ( r ) and A,(r) by
Lemma 3.1. Our “decay estimate” involves a particular combination of these
quantities,
(5.1) M,(r) = G:I3 ( r )+ H , ( r ) +J,(r) +K8,I5(I).

PROPOSITION 3. Let (u, p ) be a sutiable weak solution of the Navier-Stokes

system with force f on Q:. Assume S,(P) S 1and F&) 5 1. Then, for r Sb,

Here, as always, C2 is an absolute constant, independent of u, p, and f. The

important feature of the estimate (5.2) is the fact that those terms involving a
positive power of p / r (which will be large) are multiplied by a positive power
of S,(P) or F,(p) (which will be small); the one term which involves neither
a,@) nor F,(p) has a factor (r/p)”’ (which will be small).
Note that while M ( p ) is cubic in u, M&) is quadratic if one ignores factors
of IVuI; here we think of Iu12 -1uI
-
as being bounded by lulIVul. Nonetheless,
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 797

because u is divergence-free, M*(p) suffices to bound the right side of the

generalized energy inequality. Its quadratic homogeneity is critical for the proof
of (5.2): the proof uses the energy inequality to bound A&) in terms of M*(p),
then interpolation inequalities to bound M,(r) in terms of A&), S (p), and
M&). If M* were cubic in u this would lead only to a bound for Mi’ (r)-an
estimate of no value, since M&) need not be small. The factors of [Vulpose
no difficulty: they merely bring in factors 01 S,(p) on the right in (5.2).
It must be emphasized that while Proposition 3 has the appearance of a
“decay estimate”, it is really an estimate concerning the rate at which a singularity
can develop; if u is regular at (0, 0), then M,(r) converges quickly to zero as r + 0.
We begin by showing that Proposition 3 implies Proposition 2, which we
restate here for the reader’s convenience.

PROPOSITION 2. There is an absolute constant e 3 > 0 with the following

property. If ( u , p ) is a suitable weak solution of the Navier-Stokes system near
(x, C)and if

(5.3) limsupr-1 JVUl2 S E 3 ,

r-0
O:(x.f)

then ( x , t ) is a regular point.

Proof: Without loss of generality we may assume that (x, r ) = (0, 0), and
that (u,p ) is defined on a neighborhood D of (0,O);we recall from the definition
of a suitable weak solution that f E L q ( D )for some q >;.
Regarding the quantity F,(r) defined in (1.15), we have for r 5 1

0. D

whenever Orc D ; in particular,

F,(r)+O as r + O
uniformly over choices of Qrc D. Therefore, by Corollary 1, (0,O) is regular
provided that

(5.4)

Comparing (5.1) and (5.4), we see that for a suitable absolute constant El,

lim inf M,(r) S El 3 (0,O)is regular.

r-0
798 L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

We shall determine absolute constants 0 < c 35 1 and 0 < y S i such that

(5.5) M * ( P ) > I I ,F*(P)Sc3, and S,(P)Sc3

imply

(5.6) M*(YP)&M*(P).
For such a choice of we assert that (5.3) implies
~ 3 ,

(5.7) lim inf M,(r) IE l .

r-0

Indeed, by Holder's inequality,

0:

0:

0:

since q > $; therefore F&) + 0 as r -* 0. Whenever ro> 0 satisfies

F,(r) 5 c j and S , ( r ) 5 c 3 for all r < ro,
we apply (5.6) repeatedly to conclude that M,(y"ro)5 Ilfor some n. Thus (5.3)
implies (5.7); by the choice of F1, we see that if (5.3) holds, then (0,O)is a
regular point.
It remains to choose e 3 and y ; for this we use Proposition 3. If ( 5 . 5 ) holds,
then
M y (p)<E;'/'M*(P).
Using (5.2), we conclude that

(5.8) M,(r)=
< c2[ (i)1 (f) [
1I 5
M*(P +
2
&3 + (?)
E l 1/2]A4*@ + 2( ); 2& 3]

so long as r sip.
Choose y so that
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 799

next, with y fixed, choose c 3 5 1 so that

Substituting yp for r in (5.8) and assuming ( 5 . 9 , we find

M* (yp ) 5 $M*( p ) + :El 5 $M*(p ).

The rest of this section is devoted to proving Propostion 3. The methods

used in Section 3 play a large role here, too: we bound u in terms of V u by
interpolation, and p in terms of u by solving Ap = -Vii(uiu’) at each time. We
shall also need information on how lu 1’ changes in time; this is controlled using
the generalized energy inequality. We begin with a pair of interpolation
inequalities for H* and G,.

LEMMA5.1.

Proof: At almost every time we compute

using Holder’s inequality and Sobolev’s inequality on B,.Integration in time

yields

0: 0: 0:
whence, after dividing by r z , we obtain
H,(r)5CA~’2(r)G~’3(r)6~’2(r)
5 C[G~’3(r)+A*(r)S*(r)].
800 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN, A N D L. NIRENBERG

LEMMA5.2. If r S p ,

Proof: At almost every time we estimate

= j 6J ,I
J B , ~ ~ ~ 2+IJ+
2 7 ( /Z
~~
6,

using PoincarC’s inequality on the first term. Thus

We now repeat the argument of Lemma 3.1, but using (5.9) in place of r A , ( r )
in one step. By (2.9),

Using (5.9) on the right-most term, we get

Integrating in time from - f r 2 to kr’ and applying Holder’s inequality, we see that

0:

whence, dividing by r 2 and using the fact that p l r h 1,

 PARTIAL REGULARITY 80 1

The next two lemmas bound J* and K*,using the representation (2.14) for
p. The methods are similar to those of Lemma 3.2; however, it is convenient to
integrate by parts differently this time. Let 4(y)be a cutoff function as in (3.8);
integrating by parts in (2.14) leads to
p(x)=p4(x)+p5(x), Ix I 5 !P,
where

using the summation convention on repeated indices. We have observed that,

for ( x I S i p ,

(5.12)

Also, since ps has the form l/lxl*g for a function g supported on B,, Young’s
inequality gives

LEMMA5.3. If r Sb,

(5.14) J,(r) -
5 C{(3 1/5

A ( p )G:I5 ( r 1K (p ) + (r
2
(p )S, ( p )
A :I2 1.
7 2 1 2
Proof: As usual, we consider a fixed time t E (-sr , ijr ), By (5.12),
802 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

Integrating in time and using Holder’s inequality, we find

0:

Dividing by r2, we obtain

1/2 1/2

using (5.13). Hence,

(5.16) r - 2 1 1 lUllp5lsc
0:

We add (5.15) and (5.16) to get (5.14).

5.4. If r 5 $p, then

LEMMA

(5.17)

Proof: We use the representation p = p4+ p 5 once more. The term involving
p4 is easy: by (5.12),

whence
5/4 1/ 2
(5.18) r
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 803

To estimate p5 we must integrate by parts once more: p s = p6 +p7, where

We estimate p6 using Fubini’s theorem:

(5.19)

For p7, we have

whenever Ix I 5r, since r 5 ip. Hence,

(5.20)

Since PS = p6+p7, we add (5.19) and (5.20) and integrate in time to obtain
+I8 514 518
J
dr 5 ~ r ~ p ~ / ~ A : / ~I V U@ )’1) ( ;
I,,.,,(JB, 1~51)

whence, divding by rl3I4, we have

0:

Adding (5.18) and (5.21) yields (5.17).

Finally, we require an estimate for A&). This is the only stage in the proof
of Proposition 3 where we use the generalized energy inequality.
804 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

Proof: We use a test function q5 in (2.17)satisfying

~ E C ; ( Q ~ * OSq551,
), and 4 ~ on
1 Q?,
C C
(5.23) IVq5IS- and 1q5,1+1Aq51S~
P P
to conclude for - i r 2 < t 5 t r 2 that

Since u is divergence-free,

(5.25)
0: 0:

using (5.25), (5.24), and (5.23) we find that

But

and

0: 0:

(5.28) 5pGi’3(p)Fi’3(p)
SP(G~,/~(P)+F~*/~(P)).
Combining (5.26), (5.27), and (5.28) we obtain (5.22).

Proof of Proposition 3: According to Lemma 5.5,

(5.29) A , (1~ P ) ~ c { M , ( ~ ) + F ~ / ~ ( P ) } .
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 805

If r S $ , we can use Lemmas 5.1-5.5 to estimate M J r ) in terms of M , ( i p ) ,

A&pp), and S,(ip). We shall make frequent use of the inequalities

M*(b)5 CM*(p), S*(ip) s CS*(p)

and we recall that, by hypothesis, F,(p) 5 1 and S,(p) 5 1.

Consider first G:l3(r):by Lemma 5.2,

Therefore, using (5.29),

(5.30)

Next, we estimate H&) using Lemmas 5.1 and 5 . 5 :

H,(r) 5 C{G:13( r ) + A * ( r ) & ( r ) }
and

while from its definition &(r) 5 ( p / r ) S * ( p ) . Therefore,

806 L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

since r / p 5 1 and F & ) 5 1, we conclude using (5.29) and (5.1) that

On the other hand, using (5.29),

(5.34)

combining (5.14), (5.33), (5.34), and (5.30) we conclude that

Finally, we estimate K:” ( r ) using Lemma 5.4 and (5.29):

Combining (5.32),(5.35). and (5.36) we obtain (5.2).

6. Estimating the Singular Set

We prove Theorem B by using Proposition 2 along with a standard covering
argument. The following covering lemma is the analogue for parabolic cylinders
of the well-known Vitali lemma for balls. It is by no means new (see, for example
[23]); for the sake of completeness, however, we present the simple proof.

LEMMA6.1. Let f be any family of parabolic cylinders (2; ( x , t ) contained

in a bounded subset of Iw3 x R. Then there exists a finite or denumerable subfamily
f ’ = ((2; = Q,T ( x i , t i ) } such that
(6.1) Q ? f l Q T = 0 for i # j ,
(6.2) VQ* € 93 Q;(X,, ti) €9’3Q* c Q?ri(xi*ti).
Proof: We choose the elements of 9‘inductively, just as in the version for
balls in Euclidean space. Let fo = f ; once {C?Z}Z=l are chosen, let
Qt = 0 , l sk 5 n } .
f,,= {Q* €9: Q* fl
So long as f,,# 0 we choose Q:+l €9so that
(6.3) VQ*=C?,*(x, t ) E Y n , r s$rn+l.
If fn = 0, then the process terminates and 9’is finite. Property (6.1) is clear
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 807

from the construction. To prove (6.2), note first that if 9’ is infinite then r. + O
as n +a.Hence given any Q* = Q ? ( x , t)e9\$’, there exists n 2 0 such that
Q*E$. but Q*&9n+l. Then Q*nQ:+l# 0, and by (6.3),r S % . + l . It follows
that
Q* c QTr.,, (xn+1, t n + l ) *
Proof of Theorem B: Let (u, p) be a suitable weak solution defined on an
open set D ; without loss of generality we may suppose that D is bounded. By
Proposition 2,

(6.4)
( x , t ) E SJlim sup r-1
r-0
JJ J V >
~ e3.
I ~
O%X.f)

Let V be a neighborhood of S in D, and let S > 0. For each ( x , t) E S, we choose

Q:’ ( x , r ) with r <S such that

Q:(x.f)

Applying Lemma 6.1 to this family of cylinders, we obtain a disjoint subfamily

(0: (xi, a)) such that
S CUQ R ( X i , ti)

and
..
C?:,
(6.5)

J J
V

Since 6 was arbitrary, we conclude from (6.5) that S has Lebesgue measure
zero, and also that

for every neighborhood V of S.Since IVuI’ is an integrable function, it follows

that 9 ’ ( S ) = 0.

Unfortunately, Theorem B seems not to be strong enough to imply such

classical conjectures as uniqueness or strong continuity in time, for suitable weak
808 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

solutions. To approach these questions uia the study of the singular set S, further
information seems needed regarding the maximum rate at which u can grow
near a singularity.
One can, however, use Propositions 1 and 2 to prove certain local results
for suitable weak solutions which resemble previously known regularity theorems
for solutions of an initial boundary value problem: in the following remarks,
(u, p) is a suitable weak solution on a space-time domain D.

Remark 1. The set of singular times has Hausdorff $-dimensional measure

zero in R (cf. [6],[24]). Indeed, one easily verifies that, for any X c R3X R, its
projection Bx onto the t-axis satisfies X ’ / 2 ( 8 5
~ CP’(X).
)

Remark 2 . If either of the dimensionless estimates

or

holds, then u is regular on D (cf. [18]). Indeed, using Holder’s inequality we

find in the first case that

and in the second case that

Hence in either case u is regular.

Remark 3 . If u has cylindrical symmetry about some axis in space, then

singularities can occur only on the axis (cf. [14]). In fact, any off-axis singularity
would give rise to a circle of singular points, contradicting the fact that X ’ ( S )5
CP ‘(S) = 0.

7. Estimates for u and p in Weighted Norms

According to Propositions 1 and 2, u is regular at ( x , t ) if either it is locally
“sufficiently small” in a suitably scaled sense, or if IVuI2 is not too singular at
( x , t ) . It is natural to try t o use this information in conjunction with extra
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 809

hypotheses on the initial data to restrict further the set of possible singularities
in the solution of an initial value problem.
We have been able to do so in case R = R'; for simplicity, we restrict our
attention to the 'case f = O . In order to use the initial data one must strengthen
the hypothesis (2.5) to one that involves the initial velocity: we shall assume
(u,p) is a suitable weak solution of the
(7.1) Navier-Stokes system on R3X (0, a)with f = O
and initial velocity u O eL2;
also, for 4 6 C: (R3x R) with 4 Z 0,

The existence of such a weak solution is proved in the appendix under the
.
hypothesis U O E L2(R3),V uo = 0 (see also [26]).
Our idea is simply this: usage of (7.2) with 4 ( x , t ) = Ix I or 4 ( x , r ) = Ix 1-l leads
formally in each case to a differential inequality for certain weighted norms of
Iu 12, Ip 1, and IVu .1' In case the weights are positive powers of lx 1, one can use
Proposition 1 to prove that u is regular when 1x1 is large; in case the weights
are negative powers of 1x1 one uses Proposition 2 to prove that u is regular near
x =o.
Theorems C and D give the corresponding results; both should be thought
of as generalizations of the well-known fact that when uo is sufficiently small in
a suitable (unweighted) norm, then u is regular for all time. The proofs are
complicated somewhat by the fact that the choices 4 = 1x1 and = \XI-' are not
admissible for (7.2): instead, one must use approximations to these test functions
and eventually pass to the limit. In order to derive the desired differential
inequalities from (7.2) we require both weighted interpolation estimates for u,
and weighted-norm bounds for the singular integral operator which solves (2.12);
the rest of this section is devoted to assembling these tools.
The weighted interpolation inequalities we need are all of the form

(7.3)
I
17yu L'(R3) c ITp Ivu I I t2(R3) 1T8uI ZJfR3)
where the weight is T ( X ) = 1x1 in some cases and T = ( x )= ( E + 1x12)112 in others.
We shall not attempt to present the most general class of inequalities (7.3);
rather, we restrict our attention to certain cases of (7.3) which suffice for our
purposes and for which the proof is relatively easy. A more systematic analysis
will be found in [2]; similar results involving derivatives of higher order have
been proved by C. S. Lin [16].
810 L. CAFFARELLI, R . KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

LEMMA7 . 1 . Suppose
(i) r 2 2 , y + 3 / r > O , a + ~ > O , p + 31 > 0 , a n d1
1 5~51,
(ii) y + 3 / r = a ( a +t)+ ( 1 - a ) ( @+& (dimensional balance),
(iii) a ( a - l ) + ( l - a ) p 5 y s a a ! +(l-a)P.
Then (7.3) holds with weight T , ( x ) = ( E + I x ( ~ ) ~ /for
~ each E 20, with constant
C = C ( a ,p, y , r, a ) independent of E .
Proof: It suffices to consider smooth, compactly supported functions u ;
moreover, it suffices to consider E = 1, since then the other cases E > O follow
by scaling and the case E = 0 is obtained by passing to the limit. Thus from now
on we consider only the weight T ( X ) = ( 1 + Ixl')'''.
Conditions (ii) and (iii) lead to the inequality
(7.4) I / r 2i-g
1
~.
We set
A= IT^ Ivu 1 1 ~ 2 , B = (T'U 1 ~ 2 ,

and proceed in two steps.

Step 1 . The case r = 2 .

Note that r = 2 implies
y=a(a-l)+(l-a)p and y>-t.

We argue by radial integration by parts, using polar coordinates (p, 0 ) on R3:

(7.5)
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 811

Therefore combining (7.5) and (7.6) we see that

(7.7)

Writing
72y+11uIIVUI = (7pIvuI) * (7PIUl)a-'-1(7YIU1)2-1/0

and noticing that

we apply Holder's inequality to (7.7) to obtain

whence

Step 2. The general case.

Define Ek for integers k 2 0 by

€,=I IXlSl
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 '
and, for k 2 1, by

Ek =IRk
TYr(Ulr, Rk = { 2 k ~ ' < ( X ( ~ 2 k } .

By the standard interpolation inequality (without weights),

where

By (7.4), r S q ; hence, by Holder's inequality,

812 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

Since d k is comparable to T on R k ,we conclude using the dimensional balance

that
(7.8) E k 5 C ( / R k T 2 a l v u \ 2 )
(r/Z)a

(1 Rk T z p I u 1 2 )
(r/2)(1-0)

+.(IR k T2'IU12)r'2,

where
~ = y - y3 + 3 / r > - t
(7.9)
We add the inequalities (7.8), using the relations
Ex," s(xXk)rf2,
(r/2)a ( r f 2 X - a ) 5 (1 ) (I/2 ) 0 ( 1 ) ( r/z )( 1- 0 )
c x k Y k 9

which hold since r 2 2, to obtain

But, by (7.9), the latter term may be bounded using step 1,

(1 T~'(U/~)
1/2
5CAaB1-',

and the proof is complete.

Remark. The case CY = p = y of (7.3) may also be proved using results of

Muckenhaupt and Wheeden [ 191.
The bounds we require for the pressure are instances of the inequality
(7.10) I T ' ~ I L5
~ c ~ T ~ / 2~ u ( L ~ ~ ,

the weight being once again T , (x) = ( E + lx 12)1'2, E 2 0. Here p and u are related by

(7.11) Ap = - I V i j ( u i u i )
i.i
on all R'.

LEMMA7.2. The solution p of (7.11) satisfies (7.10) for r and y satisfying

(7.12)

with weight 7 = T., E Z 0 . The constant C depends on r and on y but not on E.

Proof: By (7.11),
p = c [ u l Z + CT i i ( U ' U ' ) ,
where, for each i, j , T j f =cij(Vii(l/lxl)) * f is a singular integral operator; we shall
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 813

show that each T = Tii satisfies

(7.13) IT’TflLr 5 ClT’flL..
The case y = 0 of (7.13) is the classical Calder6n-Zygmund estimate, while the
case T ( X ) = 1x1 is a theorem of Stein [34]. To prove (7.13) with T = T,, we may
take E = 1 by scaling. Decompose f = f l +f 2 with f l = 0 when 1x1 S 1 and with
f 2 = 0 when Ix I > 1; applying the results just cited to f l and f 2 , respectively, gives
(7.13) with T = (1 + lx12)1/2, which completes the proof.

8. Theorems C and D
We carry out the program sketched at the beginning of Section 7. We shall
assume (7.1) and (7.2) throughout; recall from Section 2 that u E
L ’ 0 / ’ ( R 3 x (0,oo)) and p EL’/~(R’x (0,m)). We adopt the notation
1 2
(8.1) Iuol =E.

Using a sequence of test functions converging to 4 = 1 in (7.2) one concludes

for each t > 0 that
(8.2)

-
It is well known that u is regular for t 2 C E 2 ,with C an absolute constant
(see e.g., [35]); using Corollary 1 we can prove a stronger result, which will be
used in proving Theorem C.

LEMMA8.1. In the context of (7.1), (7.2), there exists an absolute constant

c4 > 0 such
that if

then ( x , t ) is a regular point for u. In particular, u is regular at ( x , t ) if t > C4E2,

where C4is an absolute constant.
Proof: We apply Holder’s inequality on
5 1/2
Q = Q r ( x , zt), r = ( ~ t ),
to see that M ( r )5E holds for Q if
..
0

i.e., if (8.3) holds with c4 = C ( E ~Since

) . (x, t ) E Q r / 2 ( ~ , i t ) , u is regular at ( x , t )
in that case, by Corollary 1.
814 L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

To prove u is regular if t > C s 2 ,we observe that

integrating in time using Holder's inequality and (8.2) we find

(8.4) loTI IuI3 d x dt S C T 1 / 4 E 3 1 2 .

Using the Calderbn-Zygmund estimate to bound p, we conclude that

provided that t > C4E2holds, for a suitable absolute constant C4.

In case uo decays quickly enough at infinity, we shall use the energy inequality
to show that the same is true of each u( t), and then use Lemma 8.1 to conclude
a ,

that u is regular for sufficiently large 1x1. To impose the decay at infinity we
consider initial data uo for which

(8.5)

LEMMA8.2. Let ( u , p ) be as in (7.1), (7.2) with G<m. Then, for almost

every t > 0,

where A ( t )= G +Ct'12E+C t ' / 4E 3/ 2.

Proof: We note to begin with that

(8.7)

by Lemma 7.1; integrating in time and using (8.2) we see that

Now let x(s) be C" on s 2 0 with O S x S l , X = l for s 5 1 , and x=O for

s 2 2. For constants 1 > A >> E > 0 we use the test function
d ( x ) =f ( A + Ix 1 2 ) ' / 2 x ( ( & / N ~ x l )
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 815

in the energy inequality (7.2). One readily verifies that

IV4)5C, ~ A q 5 ~ S C ~ x ~ - ’ ,
with C independent of A and E. Therefore,

Letting E + 0 then A + 0, we conclude that the same inequality holds with 4

replaced by 1x1. Using (8.4) and (8.8) we arrive at (8.6).
Proof of Theorem C: We show that any weak solution with properties (7.l),
(7.2) is regular in the region {[x12t>K1),
for a suitable constant K1(E,G).
We begin with some estimates for u and for p. By Lemmas 7.1 and 8.2, at
almost every time,

and by Lemma 7.2 we see also that

J ~ x 1 s / 3 1 p 1 5 1 3 ~ C A 2 ’J3 (~xl~vul’.
t)

Integrating in time and noting that A ( t ) is an increasing function, we obtain

(8.10)

By Lemma 8.1, if (x, t ) E S, then

(8.11)

5 1/2
where Q = QAx, r2), r = (at) and

(8.12) t 5 C4E2.

Let us write R = 1x1, and suppose for the moment that R 22r. Then by (8.10),
816 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN, A N D L. NIRENBERG

(8.11) and Holder’s inequality,

0
5 Cr1/2R-3/2A5/3(f)

5 K (E, G)rIf4R-3’2,
using (8.12) in the last step. Therefore,
R2r 5 K,(E, G ) .
The set where R 5 2r, i.e., where
1x1 d ( 5 t ) 1 / 2 ,
has a similar bound, namely
( x I t 5 51 5 5(c4€2)2.
2

Therefore, Theorem C holds with K 1= max (KO,

5CaE4).

Remark. In the limit t + 0 the region Ix I2t S K I expands to include all space,
However, if u o is regular enough (for example, if u o E H1(R3)), then u is regular
for a short time interval; in this case, Theorem C shows that the singular set is
bounded in space.

In Theorem D we take the opposite approach: we suppose that the initial

velocity is not too singular at 0, in the sense that

(8.13)

As it turns out, the argument works only if L is sufficiently small; but in that
case we can show that the set of regular points includes the interior of a parabola
above (0,O).

LEMMA8.3. There is an absolute contant Lo>O with the following property.

Suppose ( u , p ) is a weak solution satisfying (7.1), (7.2), with initial data uo
satisfying L < L o . Then, for any 5 E R3 and t > 0 with I(I2r < L o - L ,

Proof: We introduce the new coordinates

( Y , t ) = (x - 15, t ) ,
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 817

and define
d y , t ) = u(x, t ) .
Then
I)' +(u -6) * V V -Au + V p = O ,
v.u=o,
and the equation for p is unchanged. We still have, for each t,

and

also, repeating the proof of (8.8),

Using the energy inequality (7.2),we see that, for C? functions 4 2 0,

JR,,,,, 4 I0 I' + 2 6'J 4 I V V 5 JR, 4 1u01'+ Jot I IU 12(4,- 6 ~4 + ~4

9

(8.15)

for every t > 0.

One verifies by mollification that (8.15) is still valid if q5 has the form
4 = 4 l ( Y )(I(?),
where c $ ~ E C? (I@), 41 2 0,(I2 0, and (I is measurable and absolutely continuous
in time with 4 E L'(0,OO).We choose
-kB(t)
(8.16) 41=dY)X(SlYl), (I=e 1

where E , S > O are constants that willeventually go to zero, k > O is an absolute

constant to be chosen later,

and x ( s ) is a C" function on s 8 0 with O S x S 1,x = 1 when O S s S 1 and x G O

818 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

when s 2 2. We apply (8.15) and pass to the limit 6 + 0 to conclude that

for every t ; here

Setting 8 = and noting that

we find

Using Lemmas 7.1 and 7.2 we shall derive an integral inequality for

We have, with the aid of the lemmas,

By Lemma 7.1 again,

(8.19) J c+2\u 12 5 C ( B)I/'.~

We substitute (8.18) and (8.19) into (8.17), and use

CBa'I25 B + C2Ba,
5 C 2 B a + e2,
c(8a)'12e
and

I'$B = k1(1 - e -kR(r)),

 PARTIAL REGULARITY 819

to obtain

where C* is an absolute constant, which moreover does not depend on k. We

are therefore free to choose k = C * , so that

and hence

(8.20) ekssO.

We choose Lo = l / k , and recall that

Lo- L - e2t > 0,
whence for sufficiently small E
1
- - a (0) - e2t > 0.
k
Passing to the limit as E +0 in (8.20), therefore, yields

(8.21) a o ( t )- L o + ( L o- L - e 2 t )exp {kBo(t)}5 0,

where

in particular, a(,(t)< CO and B d t ) C 00. Since (8.21) is identical to (8.14),the

proof is complete.
Proof of Theorem D: We shall show that a suitable weak solution satisfying
(7.1), (7.2), and (1.7) is regular at (a, s) whenever

(8.22) la 1' <s w0- L ),

with Lo as in Lemma 8.3.
We apply Lemma 8.3 with 6 = s-'a to conclude that

(8.23)
820 L. CAFFARELLI. R . KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

whenever

since the inequality in (8.22)is strict, (8.23)holds for some f >s.

If Qf = Qf(a, s) is a small cylinder about (a, s), then, for (x, O E Qf,
Ix - (51 5 r + r21tj;
in particular, if rl(lS 1, then

By (8.23),I V U ~ ~ /-ttl
I X is integrable in a neighborhood of (a, s); we conclude that

lim
,-DOs u p r - ’ 1 1 \vulZ=o
0:

and hence, by Proposition 2, that u is regular at (a, s).

COROLLARY.In the context of (7.1), (7.2), suppose u o ~ L ’ ( l R ~and,

) for
some R ,

Then u is regular in the region {Ix I > R ’ }for some R ’

Proof: It suffices, by Theorem D, t o show that

(8.24)

Choose R , so that

andchoose R z > R I + l so that

Then, for lxol > R 2 ,

 PARTIAL REGULARITY 821

On the other hand, we can bound the integral over Ix -xoI 5 1 using (8.7).Let
, be the usual smooth cutoff function, x ( s ) = 1 for s d 1 and x ( s ) = O for s Z2.
y
Applying (8.7)to the function ,y(lx - xol)uo(x) we conclude that

Hence if R ’ > R 2 is such that

then (8.24) is valid.

Appendix
We demonstrate the existence of a suitable weak solution of the initial
boundary value problem (1.l), (1.2), under appropriate hypotheses on R, uo,
and f. We use an iterative construction, closely related to the “semi-discrete
method” presented in Chapter 111, Section 4 of [3S]. The generalized energy
inequality will be obtained by proving an analogous relation for each approximate
solution, and passing to the limit.
The main difficulty lies in obtaining bounds for the pressure. When R = R’,
this may be done directly, using the expression for Ap which one obtains from
the equations. When R # W3,however, the situation is more complicated; there
we use estimates proved by Solonnikov for the time dependent Stokes system
u,-Au+Vp=F on f l x ( O , T ) ,
64.1) v.u=o,
u = 0 o n dfl x (0, T ) , u ( x , 0) = u&).
The results for bounded fl are weaker than those for all space, but they still
yield a “suitable weak solution” as defined in Section 2.
We shall use the following spaces:

HA (a)= closure of C,“(0,R’) in the norm (In

)1’Ivu

H-’(fl)= the dual space of Ht (fl),

~=C~(R,IW’)~{U:V,~=O},
H = closure of v in ~ ~ ( f l ) ,
v = closure of ~ l in
r H: (a),
V‘ = the dual space of V.
822 L. CAFFARELLI. R. K O H N. A N D L. NIRENBERG

When R is bounded, we require initial data to be in W$;(R), the space of

functions with “$ derivative in L5/4;” as a norm on Wf, (R), 0 < I < 1, q 2 1, one
may take (see [32])

The condition U O E W:::(n) is the natural one to assure that, for F E

L5/4(Rx ( 0 , T ) ) ,the solution of ( A . l ) satisfies
u,, Au, Vp E L5/4(Rx ( 0 , T ) ) .
Further discussion concerning the spaces Wb may be found in [32].
We use the notation
D=Rx(O,T),

When R = R3, our hypotheses on the data are

(A.2) R = la3,
(A.3) f E L 2 ( 0 ,T ;H-’(R3)) and V * f = 0 ,
(A.4) u~EH..
For bounded R, we require
R is a bounded, open, connected set in R3, lying
(A.2)’ locally on one side of its boundary, and dR is a
smooth manifold,
(A.3)’ f EL’(Rx(O,T ) ) and V * f =0,
(A.4)‘ U ~H
E n w::: (a).
Our main existence result is this:

THEOREM A.1. Suppose 0, uO, and f satisfy (A.2)-(A.4) or (A.2)’-(A.4)’.

Then there exists a weak solution ( u , p ) of the Navier-Stokes system on D with
force f satisfying
04.5) u E L 2 ( 0 ,T ; V )nL“(0, T ;H ) ,

(A.6) u ( t )4 uo weakly in H a s t + 0 ,
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 823

p E LS”(D)in case R = R3,

V p E L”4(D)in case R is bounded,

if 4 E C”(D),4 20, and 4 = 0 near

aR x (0, T ) ,then for 0 < t < T,

Remarks. 1. When R = R3, we interpret “4 = 0 near dR x (0, T ) ” in (A.8)

to mean that 4 has compact support in the space variables.
2. Each term on the right side of the inequality (A.8) is integrable; we refer
to Section 2 for the discussion of this fact.
3. The case f = O , R = R 3 of this theorem was proved by Scheffer in [26],
using a method similar to that presented here.
4. Since weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes system are not known to be
unique, it is reasonable to ask whether other constructions also lead to weak
solutions satisfying the generalized energy inequality (A.8). We d o not know,
for example, whether (A.8) holds for a solution obtained by the well-known
Galerkin approximation procedure (see for example [35], Chapter 11, Section 3).

The idea behind our construction is this. For fixed N > 0 we set S = TIN,
and we find u = U N , p = P N satisfying

04.9) u f + ’ l ’ 6 ( U ) ’ V ~ - A ~ + V p = f on D,

where W 6 ( u )is a “retarded mollification” of u ; in particular, *6(u) is smooth,

and its value at time t depends only on the values of u at times prior to t - 8 .
For fixed 8, solving (A.9) amounts to solving a linear equation on each strip
R x (ma, ( m + 1)S), 0 5 m 5 N - 1. We shall show that the solution of (A.9)
satisfies an inequality analogous to (A.8), and shall obtain estimates for uN and
p N independent of N. The estimates will assure the existence of a convergent
subsequence whose limit has the properties (A34A.8).
We shall refer extensively to [35]for various technical lemmas and standard
facts. We begin with some lemmas concerning the relevant linear systems.

LEMMAA.2. Suppose f E L2(0,T ; V ’ ) ,u E L 2 (0 ,T ; V ) , p is a distribution,

and

(A.lO) uI- Au +Vp = f

824 L. CAFFARELLI. R . KOHN. AND L. NIRENBERG

in the sense of distributions on D. Then

(A.ll) ut E L'(0, T ; V'),

(A.12)

in the sense of distributions on (0, T ) ,and

(A.13) u E C([O,TI, H )
after modification on a set of measure zero. Solutions of (A.lO) are unique in the
space L2(0,T ; V )for given initial data U ~ H.
E

Proof: Assertion ( A . l l ) follows directly from (A.lO) and the hypotheses

on f and u ; (A.12) and (A.13) follow from Lemma 1.2 in Chapter 111 of [35].
Uniqueness follows easily from (A.12)--see, for example [35], Chapter 111,
Section 1.4.

LEMMAA.3. Suppose f EL'(O, T ; V'),U ~ HE , and w E C"(D; R3) with

V * w = 0. Then there exists a unique function u and a distribution p such that

(A.14) u E C([O,TI, H )nL'(0, T ; V),

(A.15) u t + w V U - A u +Vp = f

in the sense of distributions on D, and

(A.16) u ( 0 )= ug *
Proof: We assert first the existence of a function u satisfying
(A.17) u EL'(O. T ; v )nL"(0, T ;H ) ,
for each u E V,

in the sense of distributions on (0, T), and u(0)= uo. It makes sense to impose
the initial condition, because (A.17) and V w = 0 imply w V u E L'(0, T; V');
whence by Lenima 1.1, Chapter I11 of [35], ut € L 2 ( 0 ,T ;V').
The existence of u may be proved using the Faedo-Galerkin method. The
argument is entirely parallel to the proof of Theorem 1.1 in Chapter I11 in [35];
we omit the details.
Given u satisfying (A.17) and (A.18), one obtains the distribution p and
verifies (A.15) by the argument used to prove Proposition 1.1, Chapter I11 of
[35]. We have u E C([O, TI, H ) , by Lemma A.2-after modifying it on a set of
measure zero, of course.
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 825

To prove uniqueness, it suffices to show that, if uo = 0 and f = 0, then u = 0.

But, by (A.12), if uo = 0 and f = 0, then

= -2
h (VU, VU)5 0 ,

since V * w = 0. It follows that u = 0.

LEMMAA.4. Suppose R, f , and uo satisfy (A.2)-(A.4). Then in the context

of Lemma A.3, the pressure p satisfies

(A.19)

whence

(A.20)
D D

Proof: Assertion (A.19) follows simply by taking the divergence of (A.15);

it implies (A.20), because the singular integral operator which solves (A.19) is
bounded on L5’3(R3).

Proof: Let u be the function constructed in Lemma A.3, and let F =

.
f - w V u . Then F E L2, and
u,-Au+Vp=F on D,
(A.23)
u ( O , x ) = u o ( x ) on R.
By Theorem 15 of [31], the (unique) solution of (A.23) satisfies an estimate
of the form (A.21).
826 L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

The proof of (A.22) is analogous to that of (2.16); we omit the details.

LEMMAA.6. For u, w E L2(0,T ;H’(R3)),

(A.24) IIW ) E Y 5( w 1,
’ VUIIL5/45 CE:I2(u) E : / l (’(w

(A.25) ~ ~ 5 CE3”n
~ 1 ~ )&Y5~ (u1,
(u ~ ~ I w ~

i/zn 7/20
(A.26) ~~u(IL~(o,T:L~/~) 5 CT €0 (U)€?/~’(U).

Proof: Use the interpolation inequality (2.9).

LEMMAA.7. Let R, uo, and f satisfy (A.2)-(A.4) or (A.2)’-(A.4)’, and let

w E C”@, R’) with V w = 0 . Let (u,p ) be the solution of (AS14)-(A.16).Then,
for every 4 E C“@) with 4 = 0 near aR x (0,T ) ,and for every t, 0 < t 5 T,

D
(A.27)

D D

Proof: We concentrate on the case (A.2)’-(A.4)’; the proof under

hypotheses (A.2HA.4) proceeds similarly, using Lemma A.4 in place of
Lemma AS.
Suppose for the moment that 4 also vanishes near t = 0; choose R I so that
fil c R and supp 4 c R1x (0,T ) .
Writing F =f - w * Vu, we have

(A.28) ul - A u + V p = F on D.
Mollifying (in R4) each term of (A.28), we obtain sequences of smooth functions
{F,}, m = 1,2, . . , such that
{urn},{ p , } , and -
durn
(A.29) --
dt
Au, + Vp, = F,, V urn= 0,

in a neighborhood of supp 4, and such that

urn+ u in L’(O, T ;L5/’(R))n L 2 ( D ) ,
VU,,,+VU in L’(D),
(A.30)
p, +p in ~ ~ ’ T
~ ;L
( ~0/ ’,( R ~ ) ) ,
F,+F in ~ ’ ( 0 ) .
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 827

Taking the inner product of (A.29)with 2um4 and integrating by parts yields

We pass to the limit as m +a,using (A.30),to conclude the analogue of (A.31)

for u, p, and F.Since F = f - w ‘ Vu,

D D D

this proves (A.27) when 4 E C,“( D )and r = T.

The general case, 4 # 0 near time zero and 0 < t < T, follows by introducing
a cutoff function in time and using the continuity of u as a function from [0, TI
to H . The argument is similar to that used for (2.17);we omit the details.
We now define the “retarded mollifier” *6(u) that appears in (A.9). Let
t,b(x,t ) be C” and satisfy

(A.32) 420 and J j $ d x d t = l ,

(A.33) supp 4 c {(x, t ): Ix I* < I, 1 < t < 2).

F o r u E L ’ ( 0 , T ; V),letu’:R3xR+R3be
u(x, t ) if (x, t)ED,
(A.34)
otherwise.
We set

(A.35)
R4

The values of 9 6 ( u ) at time t clearly depend only on the values of u at times

7 E ( r -26, t - 6 ) .

LEMMAA.8. For any u eLm(O,T; H ) n L 2 ( 0 ,T ;V),

(A.36) v * *6(U) = 0,

(A.37)
828 L. CAFFARELLI. R. KOHN, A N D L. NIRENBERG

(A.38)
D

where C denotes a universal constant.

Proof: Since the function u' defined by (A.34) satisfies V u' =0 on W4,
(A.36) is immediate; assertions (A.37) and (A.38) are standard.

We begin the proof of Theorem A.l. For any large integer N, let S = TIN
and solve
d
(A.39) -uN +'€'S(UN) * V U N -AuN +VPN = f,
dt
(A.40) U N E L2(o,T ; v )n c([o,
TI, w),
(A.41) U N (0) = uo.

Such uN and pN exist by applying Lemma A.3 inductively on each time interval
(mS,(m+l)S),O5m S N - 1 .
By (A.12), we have

for 0 < t < T; whence

in particular,
(A.42) UN stays bounded in L"(0, T; H) nL*(O,T; V).
Let Vz denote the closure of 'T in H 2 ( n ) ,and V ; its dual space. Using
Lemma 4.2 from Chapter 111 of [35] along with (A.39) and (A.42) we see that
d
(A.43) -uN stays bounded in L2(0,T; V L ) ,
dt
and hence, by Theorem 2.1 in Chapter I11 of [35],
(A.44) {uN} stays in a compact subset of L 2 ( D ) .
Consider first the case R = W3. By (A.42) and Lemmas A.4, A.6, and A.8
(cf. (2.12)-(2.13)') we infer that
(A.45) { p N } stays bounded in L5'3(D).

We conclude the existence of subsequences-again denoted by {uN},{pN}, for

 PARTIAL REGULARITY 829

simplicity-converging to limits u* and p * :

strongly in L’(D),
(A.46) weakly in L’(0, T; V),
weak-star in L”(0, T ;H ) ,
(A.47) PN +p* weakly in L513(D).
It is well known that
if 1 <r, UN +u* strongly in L 4 ( D ) ,
(A.48) and { u N }is bounded in L‘(D),then
U N -* u* strongly in L ” ( D ) , q<s<r.
Applying this with q = 2, r = we conclude that
(A.49) uN -* u* strongly in L’(D), 2 S S < S10.
From the definition of q 6 (recall that S = T / N )we conclude also that
(A.50) q6(uN)+ u* strongly in L ’ ( D ) , 2 9 s < 310.
One verifies easily using (A.46)-(A.50) that u* is a weak solution of the
Navier-Stokes system with force f. By (A.43), the functions { u N }are uniformly
continuous from (0, T) to V i ; hence u,(O) = limN+m~ ~ (=0u o). Since weak
solutions are necessarily weakly continuous in H, this demonstrates (A.6).
To prove (A.8), it suffices to consider the case I = T, with 4 = 0 on R x { T } ;
the general case then follows as in the proof of (2.17). So suppose 4 is smooth,
4 20,and 4 = O on {IxI>R}u{t= T}. By (A.29),

D D
(A.51)

D D

As N + co, IID lVuN124 is lower semicontinuous, while by (A.46)-(A.50), each

term on the right in (A.51) converges to the corresponding term involving u*
andp,. This proves (A.8) and completes the proof of Theorem A.l in case R = R3.
When R is bounded, we use Lemma A S in place of Lemma A.4. Let {R,}:
be a sequence of subdomains such that = ni OD
and U,l Rj = R. By Lemmas
AS and A.6,
{ V p N } stays bounded in L514(D),and
(A.52)
{pN} stays bounded in L514(0,T ;Ls’3(Rj)),
830 L. CAFFARELLI, R. KOHN. A N D L. NIRENBERG

for each j ; hence we can find a subsequence-again denoted by {pN}--such that,

for each j ,
(A.53) pN +p* weakly in L5l4(O,T; L513(Rj)).
The analogue of (A.48) in this context is:
If X is a Banach space, 15 q C r, uN -* U*
strongly in L‘(0, T; X),and { U N } is bounded
(A.54)
in L‘(0, T; X),then U N + u* strongly in
L’(0, T ; X )for q < s < r .
We take X = L5”(R); by (A.49), U N -* u* strongly in LS/*(O, T ;L 5 / * ( n ) while
),
we conclude from (2.11) that { u N }is bounded in L20/3(0,T; LS”(R)). Therefore,
(A.55) uN + u* strongly in L 5 ( 0 ,T; L5”(R)).
The proof of Theorem A . l proceeds now as in the case R = R’, using (A.53)
and (A.55) to pass to the limit in the term ~ ~ P N ( u *V+)
N of (A.51). We omit
further details.

Acknowledgment. The work of the first author was supported by NSF Grant
MCS-81-00802, that of the second author by NSF Grant MCS-7919146-A01,
and that of the third author by ONR Grant N00014-76-C-0439.

Bibliography
[ 11 Almgren, F., Existence and regularity almost everywhere of solutions to elliptic variational
problems among surfaces of varying topological type and singularity structure, Ann. Math. 87,
1968, pp. 321-391.
[2] Caffarelli, L.. Kohn, R., and Nirenberg, L., First-order interpolation inequalities with weights,
in preparation.
[3] Fabes, E., Lewis, J., and Rivitre, N., Singular integrals and hydrodynamic potentials, Amer. J.
Math. 99, 1977. pp. 601-625.
[4] Fabes. E., Lewis, J., and Rivikre. N., Boundary value problems for the Navier-Stokes equations,
Amer. J. Math. 99, 1977, pp. 626-668.
[5] Federer, H., Geometric Measure Theory, Springer-Verlag. New York, 1969.
[6] Foias, C., and TCmam, R., Some analytic and geometric properties of the solutions of the evolution
Navier-Stokes equations, J. Math. Pures et Appl. 58, 1979, pp. 339-368.
[7] Fujita, H., and Kato, T., On the Navier-Stokes initial value problem I, Arch. Ration. Mech.
Anal. 16, 1964, pp. 269-315.
[El Fujiwara, D., and Morimoto. H.,An L,theorem on the Helmholtz decomposition of vector fields,
Tokyo Univ. Fac. Sciences J. 24, 1977, pp. 685-700.
[9] Gagliardo, E., Ulreriori proprieta di alcune c l a d di funzioni in piri variabili, Richerche di Mat.
Napoli 8, 1959. pp. 24-51.
[lo] Giga, Y., and Miyakawa, T., Solutions in L, to the Navier-Stokes initial value problem, preprint.
[ l l ] Golovkin, K. K., and Ladyzenskaya, 0. A., Solutions of non-stationary boundary value problems
for the Navier-Stokes equations, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 59. 1960, pp. 100-114 (In Russian).
 PARTIAL REGULARITY 831

[12] Hopf, E., Uber die Anfangswertaufgabe fur die hydrodynamischen Grundgleichungen, Math.
Nachr. 4, 1951, pp. 213-231.
[13] Ladyzenskaya, 0. A., The Mathematical Theory of Viscous Incompressible Flows, 2nd ed.,
Gordon and Breach, New York, 1969.
[14] Ladyzenskaya, 0. A., Unique Solvability in the Large of Three-Dimensional Cauchy Problems
for the Navier-Stokes Equations in the Presence of Axial Symmetry, in Boundary Value Problems
of Mathematical Physics and Related Aspects of Function Theory, 11, Steklov Inst. Seminars in
Mathematics, Leningrad, Vol. 7, translated by Consultants Bureau, New York. 1970.
[15] Leray, J., Sur le mouvemenr d'un liquide visquex emplissant I'espace, Acta Math. 63, 1934,
pp. 193-248.
[ 161 Lin, C. S., Interpolation inequalities with weighted norms, in preparation.
[ 171 Lions, J.-L., Quelques Methodes de Rbolurion des ProblGmes aux Limires non Liniaires, Dunod-
Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1969.
[ 181 Lions, J.-L., Sur la regularite'et I'unicite'des solutions turbulentes des iquations de Navier-Stokes,
Rend. Sem. Mat. Padova 30,1960, pp. 16-23.
[19] Muckenhaupt, B., and Wheeden, R., Weighted norm inequalities for singular and fractional
integrals, Trans. Amer. Math. SOC.161, 1971, pp. 249-258.
[20] Morrey, C. B., Partial regularity results for nonlinear elliptic systems, J. Math. Mech. 17, 1968,
pp. 649-670.
[21] Nirenberg, L., On elliptic partial differentialequations, Ann. di Pisa 13, 1959, pp. 116-162.
[22] Ohyama, T., Interior regularity of weak solutions of the time dependent Navier-Stokes equation,
Proc. Japan Acad. 36, 1960. pp. 273-277.
[23] Rivibre, N . M., Singular integrals and multiplier operators, Arkiv f o r Mathematik 9, 1971,
pp. 243-278.
[24] Scheffer, V., Turbulence and Hausdorff dimension, in Turbulence and the Navier-Stokes
Equations, Lecture Notes in Math., No. 565, Springer-Verlag, 1976, pp. 94-112.
[ 2 5 ] Scheffer, V.,Parrial regularity of solutions to the Naoier-Stokes equations, Pacific J. Math. 66,
1976, pp. 535-552.
[26] Scheffer, V., Hausdorff measure and the Navier-Stokes equations, Comm. Math. Phys. 55,1977,
pp. 97-1 12.
[27] Scheffer, V., The Navier-Stokes equations in space dimension four, Comm. Math. Phys. 61,
1978, pp. 41-68.
[28] Scheffer, V., The Navier-Stokes equations on a bounded domain, Comm. Math. Phys. 73, 1980,
pp. 1-42.
[29] Serrin, J., The initial value problem for the Navier-Stokes equations, in Nonlinear Problems,
R. F. Langer, Ed., Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1963, pp. 69-98.
[30] Serrin, J., On the interior regularity of weak solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations, Arch
Ration. Mech. Anal. 9, 1962, pp. 187-195.
[3 13 Solonnikov, V. A., Estimates of the solutions of a nonsrationary linearized system of Navier-Stokes
equations, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov, Vol. 70, 1964, in Amer. Math. SOC.Translations, Series
2, VOI. 75, pp. 1-117.
[32] Solonnikov, V. A., A priori estimates for second-order parabolic equations, Trudy Mat. Inst.
Steklov, Vol.70, 1964, in Amer. Math. SOC.Trans., Series 2,65, 1967, pp. 51-137.
[33] Stein, E., Singular Integrals and the DifferentiabilityProperties of Functions, Princeton University
Press, 1970.
[34] Stein, E., Note on singular integrals, Proc. Amer. Math. SOC.8. 1957, pp. 250-254.
[35] Ttmam, R., Navier-Stokes Equations. Theory and Numerical Analysis, North-Holland, Amster-
dam and New York, 1977.
Received March, 1982.