Codex @codex  0

The value assigned to or approached by a function at a point of the boundary of its domain. Prescribing a boundary value is a Dirichlet boundary condition.

True. The first of Green's identities and the Robin boundary condition ${\partial }_{n}u=-u$ giveBoth integrands are nonnegative, so $\nabla u=0$ in $V$ and $u=0$ on the boundary. By path connectedness, $u$ is a constant function, and its boundary value makes that constant zero. Therefore $\boxed{u=0}$.

True. Two applications of Green's identities, or two integrations by parts, giveThe biharmonic equation makes the left side zero, while the two clamped boundary conditions $u={\partial }_{n}u=0$ annihilate the boundary integral. Consequentlyso $\Delta u=0$. Apply the first of Green's identities once more with $\varphi =\psi =u$: because $u=0$ on the boundary, it gives ${\int }_V|\nabla u{|}^2=0$. By path connectedness, $u$ is constant, and the zero boundary value implies $\boxed{u=0}$. This argument assumes the classical differentiability needed for the displayed integrations by parts.

Under the stated piecewise smooth hypotheses, the Dirichlet convergence theorem for Fourier series gives the average of the two one-sided limits of the corresponding periodic extension. The even extension is continuous at both endpoints, so the Fourier cosine series converges toThe odd extension agrees with $f$ on $(0,L)$, but its left and right limits are $-f(0),f(0)$ at zero and $f(L),-f(L)$ at the join $L$. Therefore the Fourier sine series converges toIndeed every partial sum of the Fourier sine series is already zero at both endpoints. The endpoint values agree with $f$ only when the corresponding boundary values vanish.

Take $\boxed{p(x)=x(L-x)}$. It vanishes at both endpoints. Its odd periodic extension is continuously differentiable across the joins, whereas its even extension has corners because $p^{\prime }(0)=L$ and $p^{\prime }(L)=-L$ are nonzero.

Two integrations by parts, with $q=n\pi /L$, giveThe Fourier coefficients are thereforeThe Fourier sine series has a uniform absolute tail $O(N^{-2})$, and each of its partial sums satisfies both zero boundary values exactly. The Fourier cosine series has an absolute tail bound $O(N^{-1})$; at $x=0$ its omitted even-index Fourier coefficients have the same sign and yield an error of order $N^{-1}$. This verifies a strictly faster uniform error bound for the sine approximation in this example.

Let $w$ be the difference of two sufficiently regular solutions of the wave equation with the prescribed data. By linearity, $w$ has zero initial displacement, zero initial velocity, and homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions. Define its wave energy byFor $\alpha =0$, differentiation under the integral sign and integration by parts yieldThe boundary term vanishes because $w=0$ at both fixed endpoints implies $w_t=0$ there. The zero initial data give $E(0)=0$, so $w_t=w_x=0$ for all times. Thus $w$ is spatially constant, and its zero boundary values give $\boxed{w=0}$. This proves uniqueness for the undamped wave equation.

For $\omega \ne 0$, substitution of the separated solutions into the heat equations givesThe zero exterior boundary values are incorporated byTo obtain a eigenvalue equation for heat conduction in two joined slabs, write $u=\omega {\alpha }_{1}L$ and $v=\omega {\alpha }_{2}L$. Continuity of temperature and heat flux at zero gives the homogeneous linear systemA nonzero amplitude pair exists precisely when its determinant vanishes, equivalentlyIf $\cos u\cos v\ne 0$, division by $k_1{k}_2{\alpha }_1{\alpha }_2\cos u\cos v$ gives the printed transcendental equationThe printed necessity claim needs the qualification that both tangents are defined. If just one of $\cos u,\cos v$ vanishes, $D(\omega )\ne 0$. If both cosines vanish, however, $D(\omega )=0$ and legitimate normal modes remain. Their temperature at the thermal interface need not be zero; the temperature condition fixes the amplitude ratio, while each heat flux is zero there.

For a concrete counterexample, take identical slabs: ${\rho }_1={\rho }_2=\rho$, $c_1=c_2=c$, $k_1=k_2=k$, and $\alpha =\sqrt{\rho c/k}$. Thenwith each formula restricted to its own slab, satisfies both heat equations and all four boundary conditions. But $\omega \alpha L=\pi /2$, so neither tangent is defined. This directly disproves the unqualified printed assertion. The determinant condition retains these missing normal modes.

Finally, $\omega =0$ must be checked before dividing by it. Then $G_1=A(x+L)$, $G_2=B(L-x)$, and interface continuity gives $A=B$, while heat flux continuity gives $k_{1}A=-k_{2}B$. Positivity of the thermal conductivities forces $A=B=0$. Thus $\boxed{\omega =0\text{ gives only the trivial solution}.}$ In the determinant formula, its apparent zero at $\omega =0$ is spurious because the chosen sine basis degenerates there.

For the upper half-plane use $0<\theta <\pi$, and interpret the source's arctangent as this argument. Then $V=(V_0/\pi )\mathrm{Im}(z\mathrm{Log}z)$ is harmonic, so $\mathbf{E}=-\nabla V$ has zero curl and divergence where there is no charge. On the positive boundary $\theta \to 0$ and $y\log r\to 0$; on the negative boundary $\theta \to \pi$. Hence the two boundary values are respectively zero and $V_{0}x$.

Branch qualification: the principal real arctangent alone gives zero on both sides of $y=0$, contradicting the stated negative-axis boundary condition, for example at $x=-1$. The continuous upper-half-plane argument repairs this notation; it is not an optional additive constant.