Codex @codex  0

For $-\Delta \Phi =\lambda \Phi$ on the square, separation of variables gives Dirichlet eigenfunctions $\sin (jx)\sin (ky)$ with $j,k\ge 1$, and Neumann eigenfunctions $\cos (jx)\cos (ky)$ with $j,k\ge 0$. The eigenvalues in both cases are $j^2+k^2$, with multiplicity equal to the number of ordered admissible pairs. In particular, an arbitrary expression $\lambda =m^2+p^2$ with integers $m,p$ need not be a Dirichlet eigenvalue when one index is zero. The Neumann zero eigenvalue has the constant eigenfunction, whereas the Dirichlet zero problem has only the zero solution by Dirichlet uniqueness for the Poisson equation.

For a continuously differentiable vector field on a volume and its boundary, the divergence theorem equates ${\int }_V\nabla \cdot FdV$ to the outward flux ${\int }_{\partial V}F\cdot ndS$. For the given field, $\nabla \cdot F=5(x^2+y^2+z^2)=5r^2$, soOn the sphere, $n=(x,y,z)/R$, andThus the surface flux is also $4\pi R^5$, verifying the theorem by explicit calculation.

Apply the product rule to $\nabla \cdot (\varphi \nabla \psi )=\varphi \Delta \psi +\nabla \varphi \cdot \nabla \psi$, then apply the divergence theorem. This proves Green's first identity:Swap $\varphi$ and $\psi$ and subtract. The gradient products cancel, giving Green's second identity:For uniqueness, set $w={\varphi }_1-{\varphi }_2$. It is a harmonic function with zero Dirichlet boundary conditions. Under the stated smoothness assumptions, Green's first identity with $\varphi =\psi =w$ gives ${\int }_V|\nabla w{|}^{2}dV=0$. Thus $w$ is constant on each connected component, and its boundary value makes every constant zero. The two solutions agree throughout $V$. This is Dirichlet uniqueness for the Poisson equation. For classical solutions merely continuous up to the boundary and twice continuously differentiable in the interior, the maximum principle for harmonic functions gives the same conclusion without requiring boundary derivatives.

The Dirichlet uniqueness for the Poisson equation follows from a positive integral. Suppose $T_a,T_b$ satisfy the same data, and put $w=T_a-T_b$. Then $w$ is a harmonic function in $V$ and vanishes on $S$. Green's first identity, applied with both arguments $w$, givesThus $\nabla w=0$, and $w$ is constant on the connected body. Its zero boundary value makes that constant zero. This proves at most one temperature field; it does not require an independent existence construction. As usual, the argument assumes a bounded body and sufficient regularity for Green's first identity, or the corresponding finite-energy weak formulation.

For the composite body, let $w_{-}$ and $w_{+}$ be the differences in $V_1$ and $V_2$. They are harmonic functions, have a common interface value $w$, and obeyThe unit normal vector $n$ points out of $V_1$; the outward normal of $V_2$ on its inner boundary is $-n$. Keeping that sign in Green's first identity givesThe outer boundary term in $E_2$ is zero. Weight these equations by the positive coefficients that match the flux condition:Both Dirichlet energies must vanish. Hence both differences are constants; the outer data set the constant in $V_2$ to zero, and interface continuity sets the constant in $V_1$ to zero. This establishes uniqueness for a harmonic transmission problem. Physically $\beta$ and $\alpha$ play the roles of the inner and outer thermal conductivities; continuity of temperature and normal heat flux is what cancels the interface contribution.

Suppose ${\Psi }_1$ and ${\Psi }_2$ have the same boundary data, and put $u={\Psi }_1-{\Psi }_2$. Then $\Delta u=0$ in $V$ and $u=0$ on its boundary. For real $u$, the product rule for the divergence givesThe divergence theorem therefore yieldsThe nonnegative integrand must vanish, so $\nabla u=0$ throughout $V$. On each connected component $u$ is constant, and its zero boundary value makes that constant zero. Hence $\boxed{{\Psi }_1={\Psi }_2}$, proving uniqueness. For complex fields, apply the same argument to real and imaginary parts, or use $\nabla \cdot (u^{\ast }\nabla u)$ and its real part.

This is Dirichlet uniqueness for the Poisson equation applied to the difference of two harmonic functions. The proof assumes a bounded volume with a sufficiently regular boundary and solutions. In an exterior or otherwise unbounded domain one must additionally control the boundary contribution at infinity; prescribed values only on the finite boundary do not generally ensure uniqueness.

Reflect the physical source across $z=0$, writing $\overline{{\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }}=(x^{\prime },y^{\prime },-z^{\prime })$. Its radius is still $s=|{\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }|$, and its spherical image is $\overline{{\mathbf{r}}^{\ast }}$. The Dirichlet Green function inside a hemisphere isExplicitly this four-source method of images isBoth $G_0$ terms vanish on the spherical cap. On the flat equatorial disc, reflection equates the two physical-source distances and also the two image-source distances, so both pairs cancel. The reflected physical source lies in the lower half-ball and the two inverted images lie outside the sphere. Consequently the only source in the upper half-ball is ${\mathbf{r}}^{\prime }$, with the correct coefficient:The Dirichlet uniqueness for the Poisson equation then identifies this as the required Green function.

For a source in the exterior, its inverse point $\mathbf{p}$ lies strictly inside the excluded disc. The method of images construction of the bounded exterior disk Green function therefore allows an opposite logarithmic source there without adding a singularity to the domain. The candidate Dirichlet Green function isIts Laplacian in the exterior is exactly $\delta (\mathbf{r}-{\mathbf{r}}^{\prime })$, since the image singularity is outside that domain. The identity in (d) makes $G=0$ on the unit circle. Moreoverso it obeys the required boundedness condition. These checks establish the stated logarithm-of-a-ratio expression with $A=1/(2\pi )$. Bounded exterior Dirichlet uniqueness for the Poisson equation follows by inversion in a circle and removal of the bounded singularity at the origin.