Global boundedness of the curl for a p-curl system in convex domains

Baojun Bian; Hongjin Wu

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 28 references

Global boundedness of the curl for a p-curl system in convex domains

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that, for a bounded convex domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3$, the p-curl system with divergence-free data in $L^{3,1}$ has a unique weak solution whose curl is globally bounded, with explicit dependence on the data's norm.

desk verdict The main L∞ estimate is unproved: the core identity (2.5)–(2.6) has a sign error and is false for divergence-free vector fields, so the paper's central theorem collapses as written. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00159 v1 pith:KSRXUHN2 submitted 2019-08-31 math.AP

Hongjin Wu , Baojun Bian This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.AP MSC 26D1046E4035Q6182D55

keywords p-curlsystemcurloperatorconvexdomainLorentzspaceL-infinityestimateweaksolutionBeancritical-statemodeltype-IIsuperconductor

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper studies the semilinear p-curl system $\mathrm{curl}(|\mathrm{curl}\, u|^{p-2}\,\mathrm{curl}\, u)=f$ on a bounded convex domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3$, with $\mathrm{div}\,u=0$ and $u\times\nu=0$ on the boundary. The main result is that when the data $f$ is divergence-free and lies in the Lorentz space $L^{3,1}(\Omega)$, there is a unique weak solution and its current density $\mathrm{curl}\,u$ is globally bounded, with $\|\mathrm{curl}\,u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le C\|f\|_{L^{3,1}(\Omega)}^{1/(p-1)}$. A sympathetic reader should care because $\mathrm{curl}\,u$ is the total current density in the Bean critical-state model for type-II superconductors, so the theorem turns a physically expected statement into a provable estimate on nonsmooth convex geometries, and it places the p-curl system on the same footing as the p-Laplacian in terms of derivative boundedness.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a level-set integration scheme over the superlevel sets $\{|\mathrm{curl}\,u|>t\}$. Writing $\omega=\mathrm{curl}\,u$ and $G(s)=s^{p-2}$, the paper combines the identity $\mathrm{div}(A\times B)=\mathrm{curl}\,A\cdot B-A\cdot\mathrm{curl}\,B$ with a curl-curl expansion to obtain the differential identity $-\mathrm{div}(G(|\omega|)\omega\times\mathrm{curl}\,\omega)+\mathrm{div}(G(|\omega|)\nabla|\omega||\omega|)=(p-1)|\omega|^{p-2}|\nabla|\omega||^2-f\cdot\mathrm{curl}\,\omega$. Integrating this over $\{|\omega|>t\}$ and applying Cauchy's inequality produces the level-set inequality (2.4), whose boundary term is controlled by convexity: the second fundamental form of $\partial\Omega$ contributes $B(\omega_\tau,\omega_\tau)\le0$ on the boundary, where $\omega_\tau$ is the tangential part of $\omega$. Coarea-type estimates from [23] then bound the integrated terms by $\|f\|_{L^{3,1}(\Omega)}$, leaving a polynomial inequality in the superlevel parameter $T$ that forces $\|\omega\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}$ to be finite and satisfy the stated power bound.

What would settle it

Fix $p=2$, take the unit cube as $\Omega$ and a fixed smooth divergence-free $f$ with finite $L^{3,1}$ norm; approximate the cube by smooth convex domains and compute $\max|\mathrm{curl}\,u_m|$ for the corresponding solutions. If this maximum grows without bound as the approximation approaches the cube while $\|f\|_{L^{3,1}}$ stays fixed, the theorem's $L^\infty$ estimate would be false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is Theorem 1.2: for a bounded convex domain $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^3$, every divergence-free $f\in L^{3,1}(\Omega)$ gives a unique weak solution $u\in W^p_t(\Omega,\mathrm{div}\,0)$ to the system, and the bound (1.3) holds: $\|\mathrm{curl}\,u\|_{L^\infty(\Omega)}\le C\|f\|_{L^{3,1}(\Omega)}^{1/(p-1)}$ with $C$ depending only on $p$ and $\Omega$. The proof first establishes the estimate under the extra assumptions of smooth boundary and smooth data, then removes both assumptions by approximation: smooth convex domains $\Omega_m$ converging to $\Omega$ in the Hausdorff distance, and smooth divergence-free approximations of $f$ in $L^{3,1}$. The $L^\infty$ bound is obtained not by pointwise comparison but by controlling the distribution of the superlevel sets of $|\mathrm{curl}\,u|$ through a differential inequality in the level parameter $t$, which yields a polynomial bound and then the desired $L^\infty$ estimate in both cases $p\ge2$ and $p<2$.

Load-bearing premise

The proof leans on two imported results: that weak solutions are smooth up to the boundary on smooth domains, and that the level-set estimates from [23] hold verbatim for $|\mathrm{curl}\,u|$; if either is not available, the claimed $L^\infty$ bound does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The current density $\mathrm{curl}\,u$ is bounded up to the boundary in every bounded convex domain, including polyhedral and other nonsmooth convex shapes, for every $p\in(1,\infty)$.
The estimate is quantitative: the $L^\infty$ norm of the current grows at most like the $(p-1)$-th root of the $L^{3,1}$ norm of the data, so small data gives controllable currents.
Uniqueness follows from strict convexity of the energy $\int_\Omega(\frac1p|\mathrm{curl}\,u|^p-f\cdot u)\,dx$, so the solution map from divergence-free data to current density is well defined.
The result transfers the p-Laplacian phenomenon of global derivative boundedness to the curl setting, reinforcing the elliptic character of the p-curl system.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The proof uses convexity only to make the boundary term non-positive; a natural test is whether a non-convex Lipschitz domain with a reentrant corner admits a divergence-free $f\in L^{3,1}$ for which $\mathrm{curl}\,u$ becomes unbounded, which would show the convexity assumption is sharp.
Because the level-set estimates force a polynomial inequality in $T$, one could try to extract a modulus of continuity or Hölder exponent for $\mathrm{curl}\,u$ from the same inequalities; the paper does not state such a regularity result.
The Lorentz space $L^{3,1}$ is slightly smaller than $L^3$; a plausible extension is to test whether the same method fails at the endpoint $L^3$, or whether a weak-type $L^{3,\infty}$ datum still yields some unbounded but locally integrable current.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

The paper claims a global L∞ bound for the curl of weak solutions to a p-curl system in convex domains. That is a natural result, parallel to Cianchi–Maz'ya for p-Laplacian systems, and the existence/uniqueness part of Theorem 1.2 is fine. But the proof of the L∞ estimate collapses: the pointwise identity (2.5)–(2.6) is false.

The authors state that div(Gω×curlω) = f·curlω − Gω·curlcurlω, which is correct, so −f·curlω = −div(Gω×curlω) − Gω·curlcurlω. The sign on the divergence in (2.5) is reversed. The subsequent replacement for Gω·curlcurlω is also not a valid identity for divergence-free vector fields. A concrete check: take p=2, ω=(0,0,xy), f=curlω=(x,−y,0). Then −f·curlω = −(x²+y²), while the right-hand side of (2.6) evaluates to +(x²+y²). So the sign error is real, not a typo. Since (2.4) is built on (2.6), the convexity boundary argument and both cases p≥2 and p<2 rest on this faulty computation. The final estimate (1.3) is not proved.

There are secondary issues. Step 1 cites [25] for the C^{1,α} regularity that the introduction attributes to [28]; that mismatch needs fixing. The estimates quoted from [23], (2.13)–(2.14), are taken as black boxes, and there are notation slips (|∇|∇ω|| vs |∇|ω||). But these are minor compared to the failed identity.

What the paper does well: it identifies a real gap in the literature, sets up the variational framework cleanly, and the convexity boundary estimate from [15] is standard. The existence part via the convex functional is correct. If the authors can replace (2.5)–(2.6) with a correct identity, the rest of the argument might be salvageable. As written, though, the main theorem is unsupported.

I would not cite this paper in its current form. If it comes to me for review, I would reject, with a clear explanation of the sign error. A desk reject seems appropriate; the flaw is elementary and central.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the steady-state p-curl system (1.1) with the tangential boundary condition u × ν = 0 on a bounded convex domain in R^3. Theorem 1.2 claims existence, uniqueness, and the global L∞ estimate (1.3) for curl u in terms of the L^{3,1} norm of the divergence-free forcing f. The proof is organized as an existence argument by minimization, followed by a three-step regularization: smooth data, smooth domains, and general f. The central step is a level-set inequality (2.4) for |curl u|, which is derived from the pointwise identities (2.5)-(2.6), integrated with the aid of estimates quoted from [23] and a convexity boundary sign from [15].

Significance. If Theorem 1.2 were proved, the result would be a meaningful analogue for curl-type systems of the Cianchi-Maz'ya global gradient boundedness for p-Laplacian systems, with direct relevance to steady-state Bean critical-state models of type-II superconductors. The paper is clearly organized, and the variational existence part and the use of the convexity boundary sign are standard. However, the proof of the L∞ estimate rests on pointwise vector identities that are not correct, so the central claim of the paper is not established as written.

major comments (4)

[Section 2, Eq. (2.5)] The vector identity in (2.5) has the wrong sign. Applying div(A×B)=curlA·B−A·curlB with A=G(|ω|)ω and B=curlω, and using curl(G(|ω|)ω)=f from (1.1), gives div(G(|ω|)ω×curlω)=f·curlω−G(|ω|)ω·curlcurlω, hence f·curlω=div(G(|ω|)ω×curlω)+G(|ω|)ω·curlcurlω. The manuscript writes −f·curlω on the left-hand side. Since (2.6) and then the level-set inequality (2.4) are obtained from (2.5), this sign error invalidates the derivation of the main estimate.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.6)] The identity G(|ω|)ω·curlcurlω = −div(G(|ω|)∇|ω||ω|)+G(|ω|)|∇|ω||²+G′(|ω|)|∇|ω||²|ω| is not true for general divergence-free vector fields. For a concrete counterexample, take p=2, so G=1, and let ω=(y,z,0) in a small ball centered at (0,1,0). Then divω=0, |ω|=√(y²+z²), and at the center ∇|ω|=(0,1,0), so |∇|ω||²=1 and div(∇|ω||ω|)=0. A direct computation gives curlω=(−1,0,−1) and curlcurlω=(0,0,1), so the left side of the claimed identity is ω·curlcurlω=0, while the right side is 0−0+1=1. Thus (2.6) is false as a pointwise identity, and the subsequent inequality (2.4) is not established.
[Section 2, Eqs. (2.13)-(2.14)] The estimates imported from [23] are not shown to apply to the quantity |curl u| appearing in (2.12). As printed, the denominators in (2.13) and (2.14) contain |∇|∇ω||, not |∇|ω||, and the reference concerns a different limiting Ginzburg-Landau system. No argument is given that the level-set estimates transfer to the present p-curl setting, so even if (2.5)-(2.6) were corrected, the integration step from (2.12) to (2.15) would still lack support.
[Section 2, Step 1] The regularity input is attributed inconsistently: the introduction credits [28] for C^{1,α} regularity of weak solutions, while the proof cites the main theorem in [25]. Moreover, the assertion that classical regularity gives u∈C³ on {|curl u|>t} is not derived; for a degenerate quasilinear curl system this is a nontrivial claim and needs either a proof or a precise reference. Since the level-set computation and the boundary integrations in (2.4) require this smoothness, this is a load-bearing gap.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: "cur l" should be "curl".
[Throughout Section 2] Scalar products are written ambiguously as juxtapositions, e.g., "f curl ω" and "−f curlω"; these should be written as f·curlω for clarity and to avoid confusion in the sign-sensitive identities.
[Section 2, Eqs. (2.13)-(2.14)] Even if the quoted result is relevant, the displayed estimates use |∇|∇ω|| in the denominators, while the expression in (2.12) has |∇|ω||; the notation should be aligned if those estimates are to be substituted.
[Section 2, Step 2] When approximating the domain by smooth domains Ω_m containing Ω, the manuscript does not explain how the forcing f, a priori defined only on Ω, is extended to Ω_m; this needs to be stated explicitly.
[Section 2, Eq. (2.17)] There is a stray comma after the closing brace of the third integral in (2.17); it should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the L∞ bound is derived from external regularity and level-set estimates, not from fitted constants or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central estimate (1.3) is obtained by a minimization argument for existence followed by a level-set truncation proof for the L∞ bound. The load-bearing inputs are explicitly quoted as external results: C^{1,α} regularity up to the boundary is taken from Yin ([25], with the introduction citing [28]), the level-set integral estimates (2.13) and (2.14) are imported from Xiang ([23]), and the convex-boundary quadratic form bound is taken from Grisvard ([15]). None of these sources is authored by Wu or Bian, and none of the constants appearing in (2.13), (2.14), or (2.15) is fitted to the target quantity ||curl u||_{L∞}; the proof instead derives a bound on T and then lets T approach the L∞ norm. The paper does not define its conclusion into its hypotheses, nor does it rename an empirical pattern, and no fitted parameter is later called a prediction. The apparent algebraic issue in identities (2.5) and (2.6) pointed out by the skeptic is a correctness or proof-checking concern, not a circularity concern: even if the computation is wrong, the argument is not circular, because the claimed result does not reduce to an input by construction. A dependence on unverified imported lemmas is a robustness risk but not self-referential reasoning, and under the review rules external citations count as independent evidence unless they are load-bearing self-citations, which is not the case here. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities or fitted constants are introduced. The central claim depends on two imported results: the boundary regularity of weak solutions and the level-set inequalities of [23]. Both are treated as black boxes, which is the main source of soundness uncertainty.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Weak solutions are C^{1,α} up to the boundary under smoothness assumptions (imported regularity, cited as [25] in the proof and as [28] in the introduction).
Used in Step 1 to start the level-set argument; not proved in this paper and the citation appears inconsistent with the introduction.
domain assumption The level-set integral estimates (2.13) and (2.14) from [23] hold for the function |curl u|.
These inequalities bound the bulk terms in (2.12); the paper does not check their hypotheses for the p-curl system.
standard math The continuous embedding W^p_t(Ω, div 0) ↪ L^{3/2,∞}(Ω) holds.
Used without proof to derive the basic energy estimate (2.1); standard in Maxwell-space theory but unstated.
domain assumption Boundary trace identity and convexity sign: the boundary integral in (2.4) is non-positive because B(ω_τ, ω_τ) ≤ 0 on convex domains.
Quoted from [15, p.135-137]; the sign convention must match the outward normal for the negativity to hold.
standard math Smooth convex outer approximations of Ω and smooth divergence-free approximations of f exist with the stated convergence properties.
Used in Steps 2 and 3; the paper cites [12] and [22] without proof.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Global boundedness of the curl for a p-curl system in convex domains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KSRXUHN2

@misc{pith2026190900159,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Global boundedness of the curl for a p-curl system in convex domains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KSRXUHN2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00159}
}

abstract

In this paper, we study a semilinear system involving the curl operator in a bounded and convex domain in $R^3$, which comes from the steady-state approximation for Bean critical-state model for type-II superconductors. We show the existence and the $L^{\infty}$ estimate for weak solutions to this system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

28 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

[25]

Yin, On a singular limit problem for nonlinear Maxw ell’s equations, J

H.M. Yin, On a singular limit problem for nonlinear Maxw ell’s equations, J. Diﬀ. Eqs. 156 (2)(1998) 355-375

work page 1998
[28]

Yin, Regularity of weak solution to an p-curl syste m, Diﬀer

H.M. Yin, Regularity of weak solution to an p-curl syste m, Diﬀer. Integral Equ. 19 (4)(2006) 361-368. School of Mathematical Sciences, Tongji University, Shang hai 200092, P.R. China E-mail address : wuhongjin@tongji.edu.cn

work page 2006
[23]

Xiang, L∞ estimate for a limiting form of Ginzburg-Landau systems in c onvex domains, J

X.F. Xiang, L∞ estimate for a limiting form of Ginzburg-Landau systems in c onvex domains, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 438 (1)(2016) 328-338

work page 2016
[15]

Grisvard, Elliptic problems in nonsmooth domains, P itman Advanced Pub

P. Grisvard, Elliptic problems in nonsmooth domains, P itman Advanced Pub. Program. 1985

work page 1985
[1]

Antontsev, F

S. Antontsev, F. Miranda, L. Santos, A class of electroma gnetic p-curl systems: blow-up and ﬁnite time extinction, Nonlinear Anal. 75 (2012) 3916-3929

work page 2012
[2]

Antontsev, F

S. Antontsev, F. Miranda, L. Santos, Blow-up and ﬁnite ti me extinction for p(x,t)-curl systems arising in electromagnetism, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 440 (2016) 300-32 2

work page 2016
[3]

Aramaki, On a Degenerate evolution system associated with the Bean critical-state for type II super- conductors, Abstr

J. Aramaki, On a Degenerate evolution system associated with the Bean critical-state for type II super- conductors, Abstr. Appl. Anal. (2015) 1-13

work page 2015
[4]

Barrett, W.B

J.W. Barrett, W.B. Liu, Finite element approximation of the p-laplacian, Mathematics of Computation. 61 (204)(1994) 523-537

work page 1994

Show all 28 references

[5]

Barrett, L

J.W. Barrett, L. Prigozhin, Bean’s critical-state mode l as the p → ∞ limit of an evolutionary p-Laplacian equation, Nonlinear Anal. 42 (2000) 977-993

2000
[6]

Bartsch, J

T. Bartsch, J. Mederski, Ground and bound state solution s of semilinear time-harmonic Maxwell equa- tions in a bounded domain, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 215 (201 4) 283-306
[7]

Bean, Magnetization of high-ﬁeld superconductors , Rev

C.P. Bean, Magnetization of high-ﬁeld superconductors , Rev. mod. phys. 36 (1)(1964) 886-901

1964
[8]

Chapman, A hierarchy of models for type-II supercon ductors, Siam Review

S.J. Chapman, A hierarchy of models for type-II supercon ductors, Siam Review. 42 (4)(2000) 555-598

2000
[9]

Chen, X.B

J. Chen, X.B. Pan, Quasilinear systems involving curl, P roc. Royal Soc. Edingburgh Sect. A Mathe- matics 148 (2)(2018) 1-37

2018
[10]

Cianchi, V.G

A. Cianchi, V.G. Maz’ya, Global boundedness of the grad ient for a class of nonlinear elliptic systems, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 212 (2014) 129-177

2014
[11]

Cianchi, V.G

A. Cianchi, V.G. Maz’ya, Global Lipschitz regularity f or a class of quasilinear elliptic equations, Comm. Part. Diﬀer. Eq. 36 (2011) 100-133

2011
[12]

Costabel, A remark on the regularity of solutions of M axwell’s equations on Lipschitz domains, Math

M. Costabel, A remark on the regularity of solutions of M axwell’s equations on Lipschitz domains, Math. Method Appl Sci. 12 (4)(1990) 365-368

1990
[13]

DeGennes, Superconducting of Metal and Alloys, Be njamin, New York, 1966

P.G. DeGennes, Superconducting of Metal and Alloys, Be njamin, New York, 1966

1966
[14]

Dibenedetto, Degenerate parabolic equations, Spri nger-Verlag

E. Dibenedetto, Degenerate parabolic equations, Spri nger-Verlag. 2010

2010
[16]

Laforest, The p-curlcurl: Spaces, traces, coercivi ty and a Helmholtz decomposition in Lp, preprint

M. Laforest, The p-curlcurl: Spaces, traces, coercivi ty and a Helmholtz decomposition in Lp, preprint
[17]

Lieberman, Boundary regularity for solutions of deg enerate elliptic equations, Nonlinear Anal

G. Lieberman, Boundary regularity for solutions of deg enerate elliptic equations, Nonlinear Anal. 12 (11)(1988) 1203-1219

1988
[18]

Mederski, Ground states of time-harmonic Maxwell eq uations in R3 with vanishing permittivity, Arch

J. Mederski, Ground states of time-harmonic Maxwell eq uations in R3 with vanishing permittivity, Arch. Ration. Mech. Anal. 218 (2)(2015) 825-861

2015
[19]

Struwe, Variational Methods, 3rd edition, Springer -Verlag, Berlin, 2006

M. Struwe, Variational Methods, 3rd edition, Springer -Verlag, Berlin, 2006

2006
[20]

X. Tang, D. Qin, Ground state solutions for semilinear t ime-harmonic Maxwell equations, J. Math. Phys. 57 (4)(2016) 823-864

2016
[21]

Ural’ceva, Degenerate quasilinear elliptic syst ems, Zap

N.N. Ural’ceva, Degenerate quasilinear elliptic syst ems, Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI) 7 (1968) 184-222 (Russian)

1968
[22]

Verchota, Layer potentials and regularity for the Di richlet problem for Laplace’s equation in Lipschitz domains, J

G. Verchota, Layer potentials and regularity for the Di richlet problem for Laplace’s equation in Lipschitz domains, J. Funct. Anal. 59 (3)(1984) 572-611

1984
[24]

Xiang, F.L

M.Q. Xiang, F.L. Wang, B.L. Zhang, Existence and multip licity of solutions for p(x)-curl systems arising in electromagnetism, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 448 (2)(2016) 160 0-1617

2016
[26]

Yin, On a p-Laplacian type of evolution system and a pplications to the Bean model in the type-II superconductivity theory, Quart

H.M. Yin, On a p-Laplacian type of evolution system and a pplications to the Bean model in the type-II superconductivity theory, Quart. Appl. Math. 59 (1)(2001) 47-66. 10 GLOBAL BOUNDEDNESS OF THE CURL FOR A P -CURL SYSTEM IN CONVEX DOMAINS

2001
[27]

Yin, B.Q

H.M. Yin, B.Q. Li, J. Zou, A degenerate evolution system modeling Bean’s critical-state type-II super- conductors, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. Ser. A. 8 (3)(2002) 781-794

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Yin, On a singular limit problem for nonlinear Maxw ell’s equations, J

H.M. Yin, On a singular limit problem for nonlinear Maxw ell’s equations, J. Diﬀ. Eqs. 156 (2)(1998) 355-375

work page 1998

[2] [28]

Yin, Regularity of weak solution to an p-curl syste m, Diﬀer

H.M. Yin, Regularity of weak solution to an p-curl syste m, Diﬀer. Integral Equ. 19 (4)(2006) 361-368. School of Mathematical Sciences, Tongji University, Shang hai 200092, P.R. China E-mail address : wuhongjin@tongji.edu.cn

work page 2006

[3] [23]

Xiang, L∞ estimate for a limiting form of Ginzburg-Landau systems in c onvex domains, J

X.F. Xiang, L∞ estimate for a limiting form of Ginzburg-Landau systems in c onvex domains, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 438 (1)(2016) 328-338

work page 2016

[4] [15]

Grisvard, Elliptic problems in nonsmooth domains, P itman Advanced Pub

P. Grisvard, Elliptic problems in nonsmooth domains, P itman Advanced Pub. Program. 1985

work page 1985

[5] [1]

Antontsev, F

S. Antontsev, F. Miranda, L. Santos, A class of electroma gnetic p-curl systems: blow-up and ﬁnite time extinction, Nonlinear Anal. 75 (2012) 3916-3929

work page 2012

[6] [2]

Antontsev, F

S. Antontsev, F. Miranda, L. Santos, Blow-up and ﬁnite ti me extinction for p(x,t)-curl systems arising in electromagnetism, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 440 (2016) 300-32 2

work page 2016

[7] [3]

Aramaki, On a Degenerate evolution system associated with the Bean critical-state for type II super- conductors, Abstr

J. Aramaki, On a Degenerate evolution system associated with the Bean critical-state for type II super- conductors, Abstr. Appl. Anal. (2015) 1-13

work page 2015

[8] [4]

Barrett, W.B

J.W. Barrett, W.B. Liu, Finite element approximation of the p-laplacian, Mathematics of Computation. 61 (204)(1994) 523-537

work page 1994