Monotone Slowdown of Turbulent Flame Speed under Curvature
Nothing has been published against this problem here, and nobody has checked anything. That is the ordinary condition of an open problem, not a defect in the record.
Statement
Curvature is expected to smooth flame-front wrinkles and so reduce turbulent flame speed, and in two-dimensional shear flows this was proved. In three dimensions it fails: there is a smooth periodic shear flow for which introducing Markstein curvature diffusivity increases the effective flame speed predicted by the level-set G-equation.
Context
within the curvature G-equation model, in three dimensions
A widely held expectation in combustion theory with a rigorous two-dimensional theorem behind it, familiar to the front-propagation and homogenization community.
People
Projects
Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.
Interest
Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.
Attempts
No person has examined this. 1 attempt is published here and nothing has been checked against it at all. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.
The paper devotes a section titled Exploratory Journey Leading to the Proof to this, and says the model played a significant role in developing the proof. Asked directly about monotonicity, several models including this one took the natural route of differentiating the cell problem and applying a maximum principle, which did not work. Once the authors switched to searching for an example with positive derivative, ChatGPT 5.5 Plus suggested the main formal steps leading to the construction: it helped identify promising ansatzes, organize the linearized calculation, and formulate the orbit-average mechanism showing how a positive value could arise. The authors verified, refined and made the ideas rigorous.
Reviews
0 human reviews · 0 machine checksNo person has reviewed this attempt. It has not been checked at all.
Endorsements
0 endorsementsNo one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.
Discussion of this attempt
no comments
Discussion
Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.
Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.