Yeah, they relaxed one of the criterion’s for Leary solutions (the energy inequality) they’ve proved that these solutions are energetically unstable, and that doesn’t strike me as very profound (I need to go read the paper though, I haven’t had time yet).
Just mentioning at the bottom of the article “yeah now we are going to see if the same thing applies to proper Leary solutions, we think it does” means close to nothing, honestly.
And even if it does, the article’s author is right when he remarks that this can be seen entirely as a warning against using approximations that are too broad or coarse.
I’ll add that I find it funny that nowhere in the article (that I can see, but I am reading on mobile Safari, so maybe...) is the Navier-Stokes partial differential equation even displayed, and the relationships it defines are not explained (other than some waffle about ‘derivatives’).
Just mentioning at the bottom of the article “yeah now we are going to see if the same thing applies to proper Leary solutions, we think it does” means close to nothing, honestly.
And even if it does, the article’s author is right when he remarks that this can be seen entirely as a warning against using approximations that are too broad or coarse.
I’ll add that I find it funny that nowhere in the article (that I can see, but I am reading on mobile Safari, so maybe...) is the Navier-Stokes partial differential equation even displayed, and the relationships it defines are not explained (other than some waffle about ‘derivatives’).