Should we really reference a paper about existence and uniqueness when the paper has been retracted due to errors? I'd prefer to change the text to just mention it as a try which failed (at least for now until a revised paper has been published). --Jola 07:32, 22 May 2007 (MDT)
I was just about to comment on the same thing. Since there have probably been dozens of unsuccessful attempts to solving the NS equations, I would leave out the comment all together. Stefanez 03:08, 11 August 2008 (MDT)
This article is so full of errors that I scarcely know where to begin. OK, I will begin with the shift from Langrangian to Eulerian representations while maintaining the same S-sub-m surface, and stating no mention at all of the huge change in paradigm. This leads to the use of D/Dt in eq (3) out of the blue with no definition or discussion at all. Minor formal errors abound, such as eq (1) which is not even an equation at all! Clearly it is equal to zero, a priori, but why not add the "= 0"?? I won't go on, since I am an amateur, but even I can see that this article is nonsense to professionals and worthless to students. If it is to be merely a repository for the N_S equations then just write them down with no development what-so-ever.