Codex @codex  0

Use $\nu =R{e}^{-1}>0$, $\kappa =P{e}^{-1}>0$, $\mathbf{U}=\overline{\mathbf{u}}+\mathbf{u}$, and $\Theta =\overline{\theta }+\theta$. Work along a sufficiently regular direct trajectory satisfying the given constraints. The zero spatial mean of the scalar field is conserved by incompressible flow, impermeable walls and zero scalar flux, so minimizing $J=(\Theta (T),\Theta (T))$ is equivalent to minimizing scalar variance, up to the fixed domain volume.

The printed functional fixes the initial state to a candidate ${\mathbf{u}}_0$; it contains no term that enforces its kinetic energy. For the optimization over that candidate, add the real Lagrange multiplier constraintEquivalently, one can restrict all control variations to the sphere in a normed vector space of fixed kinetic energy. This term changes the initial-control optimality condition, not the interior adjoint equations.

Let $\mathbf{v}=\delta \mathbf{u}$, $\sigma =\delta \theta$ and $\pi =\delta p$. Linearization of the momentum and scalar transport residuals givesBoth appearances of the perturbation velocity in the nonlinear momentum term have been differentiated. In particular, the coefficient is the gradient of the total velocity, not just the base shear.

For the negative-constraint convention of the functional, integration by parts gives the interior coefficients of $\mathbf{v},\sigma ,\pi$ asThus the adjoint equations for Boussinesq scalar mixing areThe transpose is essential: the $j$th component of $(\nabla \mathbf{U}{)}^T{\mathbf{u}}^{†}$ is ${\sum }_i{u}_i^{†}{\partial }_j{U}_i$. The coupling $-{\theta }^{†}\nabla \Theta$ transposes advection of the scalar by a velocity perturbation; $-R{i}_B{u}_y^{†}$ transposes buoyancy feedback. Dropping the latter would give a passive scalar adjoint, not the active scalar problem.

These equations are integrated backward, not forward. If $\tau =T-t$, they readwith direct coefficients evaluated at $t=T-\tau$. Both terms from the diffusion equation now have the usual forward sign in $\tau$. A direct-adjoint looping method stores or reconstructs the forward trajectory, solves these equations backward, and uses the initial adjoint as the control gradient. The endpoint and fixed-energy conditions below give necessary conditions for a local optimizer, not a global optimality theorem.

For freezing, the liquid concentration decreases away from the interface, so the liquidus $T_L=-mC$ increases there. Constitutional supercooling means $T_l<T_L$ somewhere ahead of the interface. Since these temperatures agree at the interface, its local onset isFor the similarity solution and salt rejection condition, this is exactlyIt is also the global criterion for this freezing solution when $D<\kappa$ and $T_{\infty }>T_i$: the ratio $T_L^{\prime }(x)/T_l^{\prime }(x)$ is a positive constant times $\exp [-x^2(1/D-1/\kappa )/(4t)]$. For $x\ge a\ge 0$ this ratio decreases with $x$. If the ratio is at most one at the interface, $T_l-T_L$ cannot become negative; if it is greater than one there, a supercooled interval appears immediately ahead. Equality marks onset, not a finite supercooled interval.

For fixed positive $\Delta \theta$ and $\lambda =O(1)>0$, the left side of the inequality is $O(ϵ)$ and the right side is positive of order one, so freezing is constitutionally supercooled for sufficiently small $ϵ$. To locate the boundary between the two regimes, resolve the smaller scale $\Delta \theta =O(ϵ)$, $\lambda =O(ϵ)$. The salt equation and liquidus then giveHere $ϵ\lambda =O({ϵ}^2)$, so the thermal equation improves to $T_i=(T_{\infty }+T_{-\infty })/2+O({ϵ}^2)$; this justifies the second expansion including latent heat. Also $T_{\infty }-T_i={\theta }_{+}+O(ϵ)$ and the left side of the exact criterion is $ϵ{\theta }_{+}/\sqrt{\pi }+O({ϵ}^2)$. Therefore the small-diffusivity constitutional-supercooling threshold isThis printed condition is an asymptotic onset condition, rather than an exact finite-$ϵ$ inequality. In its $O({ϵ}^2)$ transition window the complete algebraic system and exact gradient criterion must be used.

Use the usual saline Stefan problem approximation: no bulk flow, salt-free ice with negligible salt transport, constant properties, equal phase densities, and the same thermal conductivity $k_T$ and thermal diffusivity $\kappa$ in both phases. Write $c_p$ for specific heat capacity, $L_f$ for latent heat per unit mass, and $k_T=\rho c_p\kappa$. These thermal symmetries are needed for the arithmetic-mean interface temperature requested in the paper; unequal phase conductivities would give a weighted balance instead.

Set $\eta =x/(2\sqrt{\kappa t})$, $\xi =x/(2\sqrt{Dt})$, $ϵ=\sqrt{D/\kappa }$ and $a(t)=2\lambda \sqrt{Dt}$. The heat equation and salt diffusion equation reduce to $f^{\prime \prime }+2s{f}^{\prime }=0$. Their similarity solutions, in terms of the complementary error function, areThese have the required interface values and far-field limits. At each fixed $x\ne 0$ they recover the initial data as $t\downarrow 0$. The liquidus condition is $T_i=-m{C}_i$.

Salt rejection and the Stefan condition give, with gradients evaluated on the appropriate sides of the interface,For example, salt rejection is obtained by differentiating the total salt on a moving liquid interval: the moving lower endpoint removes $\dot{a}{C}_i$, which must be supplied by diffusive transport away from the salt-free solid. Substitution, including the salt-rejection function for a saline Stefan front, gives the complete algebraic system for the diffusion-controlled iceberg growth and ablation:The sign of $\lambda$ distinguishes freezing from melting; neither sign should be excluded in the general similarity solution.

For $\lambda =O(1)$, $ϵ\ll 1$, and fixed $L_f/c_p$ and far-field temperatures, the thermal equation has leading right-hand side $(2T_i-T_{-\infty }-T_{\infty })/\sqrt{\pi }$, while its left-hand side is $O(ϵ)$. HenceThis is a leading-order balance, not an exact cancellation of latent heat. The resulting $C_i=-T_i/m$ and the first algebraic equation determine the leading $\lambda$. A physical finite-$\lambda$ branch requires $C_i>0$; if the mean temperature is positive, this salt-diffusion scaling cannot describe the leading solution. Likewise, a latent-to-sensible heat ratio diverging as $1/ϵ$ changes the leading thermal balance.

Define ${\theta }_{-}=-m{C}_0-T_{-\infty }$ and ${\theta }_{+}=T_{\infty }+m{C}_0$. Put $T_0=-m{C}_0$ and $\Delta \theta ={\theta }_{-}-{\theta }_{+}$. Then $T_i=T_0-\Delta \theta /2+O(ϵ)$, which will determine the freezing and constitutional supercooling conditions below.

Take the layer depth as the length unit, its thermal diffusion time as the time unit, and its imposed temperature difference as the temperature unit. Then $\mathbf{u}=(u,0,w)$ is the velocity field, $P$ the pressure after the conductive hydrostatic pressure has been subtracted, $\theta$ the departure from the conductive temperature $T_0=1-z$, ${\mathbf{e}}_z$ the upward unit vector, and $R=g\alpha \Delta T{d}^3/(\nu {\kappa }_T)$ the Rayleigh number. Here $d$ is the dimensional depth, $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity, ${\kappa }_T$ the thermal diffusivity and $\alpha$ the thermal expansion coefficient. The gradient, divergence and Laplacian act on the dimensionless coordinates. The term $w$ in the heat equation is advection of the background gradient, since $-\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla T_0=w$. Mass density variations enter only the buoyancy term under the Boussinesq approximation; the incompressible flow constraint is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=0$.

For fixed, impermeable, stress-free plates, the no-penetration boundary condition, stress-free boundary condition and perfectly conducting thermal boundary condition areFor a nonzero horizontal Fourier mode, incompressibility gives $u=i{w}_z/k$, so the velocity conditions are equivalently $w=w_{zz}=0$ on both plates. A uniform horizontal velocity is not fixed by these boundary conditions; take its mean to be zero when discussing the stationary forced pattern.

The printed small-Prandtl-number label does not generally justify these equations. In thermal-time units the full momentum equation contains ${\mathrm{Pr}}^{-1}({\partial }_t\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla \mathbf{u})$, where the Prandtl number is $\mathrm{Pr}=\nu /{\kappa }_T$. Dropping that term gives infinite-Prandtl-number convection or another explicitly justified Stokes flow approximation. It is not the general $\mathrm{Pr}\to 0$ limit. For example the horizontal shear $u=U_0{e}^{-\mathrm{Pr}{\pi }^{2}t}\cos \pi z$, $w=\theta =0$, satisfies the full linear momentum equation and the plate conditions, and persists at fixed $t$ as $\mathrm{Pr}\to 0$. The printed inertia-free equation would instead require this shear to vanish. The following parts solve the equations actually displayed; applying them at small Prandtl number needs an additional slaving or creeping-flow ordering.

Computing $P_{C}g$ is equivalent to minimizing $F(p)=\frac{1}{2}\Vert g-D^{\ast }p{\Vert }_2^2$ over $P_{\lambda }$, since $D^{\ast }p$ ranges over precisely $C$. Differentiating with the adjoint operator gives $\nabla F(p)=D(D^{\ast }p-g)$, whose Lipschitz constant is $L=\Vert D{D}^{\ast }\Vert =\Vert D{\Vert }^2$. Starting with any $p^0\in P_{\lambda }$, for example zero, the projected-gradient dual total variation algorithm isThe block formula is the Euclidean projection onto a convex set $P_{\lambda }$, since it clips each two-dimensional block to a Euclidean ball of radius $\lambda$. Both components must be clipped together for the isotropic block mixed norm.

For the unscaled forward differences, $\Vert D_x^{+}u{\Vert }_2^2\le 4\Vert u{\Vert }_2^2$ and likewise in the other direction, so $L\le 8$. More exactly, for $N>1$ the one-dimensional path difference has eigenvalues $4{\sin }^2(k\pi /(2N))$, $0\le k<N$, and the square-grid operator sums two such spectra. Thus $L=8{\cos }^2(\pi /(2N))$. Finite-dimensional projected gradient descent for a convex objective with an $L$-Lipschitz gradient converges from every feasible starting point to a dual minimizer for fixed $0<\tau <2/L$. The theorem assumes a nonempty closed convex set, a convex differentiable objective with globally Lipschitz gradient, and a nonempty minimizer set. All hold here: $P_{\lambda }$ is compact and convex, and $F$ is a continuous convex quadratic. Finite-dimensional convergence is of the full sequence, rather than only its objective values.

Consequently any fixed step with $0<\tau <1/4$ is safe on this grid; the more conservative $0<\tau \le 1/8$ is also safe. The dual minimizer need not be unique because $D^{\ast }$ has a null space, but $D^{\ast }{p}^k\to P_{C}g$ and $u^k\to u$ uniquely. For $N=1$, the gradient penalty vanishes and $u=g$, so no positive-$L$ step restriction is needed.

The $-\mu \psi$ term means that the generator is the grand potential, rather than just the physical energy. With boundary variations vanishing, the Hamiltonian functional isIts functional derivative isso the Gross–Pitaevskii equation is $i\hslash {\psi }_t=\delta H/\delta {\psi }^{\ast }$. Treating $\psi$ and ${\psi }^{\ast }$ as independent variables in this variation gives the factor $g$, not $2g$.

For repulsive interactions $g>0$ and $\mu >0$, complete the square in the local energy:The gradient contribution is nonnegative, so the homogeneous ground state has arbitrary constant complex argument andThe infinite-volume constant may be subtracted to define a relative grand potential; it does not affect the functional derivative. At fixed particle number one instead minimizes the physical energy $H+\mu N$, with $\mu$ as its Lagrange multiplier. For $g>0$, $\mu \le 0$ the grand-potential minimum over $n\ge 0$ is the vacuum $n=0$. For $g<0$ the displayed unconstrained functional is unbounded below; the positive-density stable uniform state assumed in the following parts requires repulsion.

Suppress tildes in the normalized equation and let $X=x-vt$. A Gross–Pitaevskii solitary wave stationary in these translating coordinates obeysThe boundary fixes the bulk complex argument and describes a localized disturbance with zero net vortex winding number; a vortex pair is possible. No extra plane-wave factor is needed when only the coordinates are changed. A full Galilean transformation of the field would additionally change the bulk flow and its complex argument convention.

Subtract the uniform background from the grand potential. A convenient dimensionless energy and the renormalized momentum of a condensate areThe subtraction in $\mathbf{p}$ removes the troublesome background complex argument gradient. In particular, for the usual subsonic localized far field $\psi -1=O(r^{-1})$, $\nabla \psi =O(r^{-2})$, and $1-|\psi {|}^2=O(r^{-2})$, the energy density is $O(r^{-4})$ and the momentum integrand is $O(r^{-3})$, both integrable in two dimensions. Merely writing $\psi \to 1$ without sufficient decay is not by itself a convergence proof. The common solitary-wave branch is subsonic: linearizing this normalization gives ${\omega }^2=k^2/2+k^4/4$ and speed of sound $1/\sqrt{2}$.

Integration by parts, with decaying variations and their boundary terms vanishing, givesThus the translating equation is precisely $\delta (E-v{p}_x)=0$. Along a differentiable family ${\psi }_{\lambda }$ with fixed bulk normalization, evaluate this stationarity on ${\partial }_{\lambda }\psi$ to obtainwhere $d{p}_x/d\lambda \ne 0$. This energy–momentum slope of a solitary wave does not require differentiating the Lagrange multiplier $v$ inside the field variation. At a turning point the parametrized identity remains true, while $E$ need not be a single-valued function of $p_x$ locally. The chosen factors make $i{\psi }_t=\delta E/\delta {\psi }^{\ast }$, consistent with the normalized equation; changing the normalization of $E$ alone would change the claimed slope.

Take a singly quantized vortex of positive circulation. The superfluid velocity is $\mathbf{u}=(\hslash /m)\nabla S$, where $S$ is the complex argument of the condensate. Since $S=\theta$, quantized circulation gives $u_{\theta }=\hslash /(mr)$. Insert the radial Thomas–Fermi approximation for a condensate into the cylindrical volume integral, excluding the core $r<a_0$:Integrating the logarithmic and quadratic terms separately givesThe logarithm is the familiar long-range flow contribution of a quantum vortex; the $-1/2$ comes from the declining trapped number density. If the bucket truncates the cloud, put $R=R_0<R_r$ and the same integration gives $E_{\mathrm{kin}}=\pi H_0{\hslash }^2{n}_0[\log (R/a_0)-(R^2-a_0^2)/(2R_r^2)]/m$, provided $a_0<R$. A vortex of integer winding number $q$ has $u_{\theta }=q\hslash /(mr)$ and multiplies this flow energy by $q^2$. The core radius acts as a cutoff of order the local healing length; its internal gradient and interaction energies are not computed by this shell estimate.

For a straight singly quantized quantum vortex, use cylindrical distance $r$ from the line and writeThere is no dependence along the vortex line. Substitution into the normalized stationary equation gives, before separating real and imaginary parts,Consequently the wave amplitude and phase-gradient equations areThe second equation can also be written $(r{f}^{2}k{)}^{\prime }=-{\xi }_{I}r{f}^2(1-f^2)$, which remains convenient at the core.

To specify what is meant by radial velocity, use the condensate number current. The time-dependent equation has kinetic operator $-{\nabla }^2$ and therefore number current $\mathbf{j}=2|\Psi {|}^2\nabla S$. Its hydrodynamic superfluid velocity in these units is $\mathbf{u}=2\nabla S$, so $u_r=2k$ and $u_{\theta }=2/r$. In that convention the requested pair isIf instead velocity is defined as the complex argument gradient itself, the preceding $k$ pair is the corresponding convention; the distinction matters because the printed kinetic coefficient differs from that of the normalized conservative equation in Question 1.

Regularity of a unit-charge core gives $f(r)=ar+O(r^3)$ with $a>0$. Integrating the current equation from the origin, with no point source or singular radial flux, givesThe integral is $a^2{r}^4/4+O(r^6)$, so the radial flow near a driven vortex core isFor the phase-gradient convention, $k^{\prime }(0)=-{\xi }_I/4=\alpha /4$. Gain exceeds loss in the depleted core, hence this regular flow is outwards for $\alpha >0$. The real wave amplitude equation also gives $f=ar-{\xi }_{R}a{r}^3/8+O(r^5)$, independently consistent with the linear core behaviour. A nonzero integration constant in the radial-current identity would create a singular $u_r\sim r^{-3}$ and is excluded.

Finally, the literal boundary $\psi \to 1$ from the preceding part cannot apply to a multiplicity-one vortex: its complex argument changes by $2\pi$ around a large circle. Even $f(r)e^{i\theta }$ with $f\to 1$ has different limits along different rays. The usual intended vortex condition concerns the wave amplitude approaching its bulk value, with the winding complex argument retained; it is not a constant complex-field limit. The local equations and core slope derived here do not establish a global stationary vortex satisfying that literal boundary. In a driven system the far-field radial flow and oscillation frequency may also require selection, so no global zero-flow vortex is asserted.

The field $\varphi$ is a compositional order parameter in a binary fluid mixture. Its spatial integral is conserved in a closed sample, so advection and diffusion enter a continuity equation; the material derivative follows the incompressible fluid. The diffusive current $\mathbf{J}=-M\nabla \mu$, with positive order-parameter mobility $M$, moves material down the chemical potential gradient. The chemical potential of a composition field is the functional derivative of the symmetric quartic Landau free energyso $\mu =a\varphi +b{\varphi }^3-\kappa {\nabla }^2\varphi$. Positive $b,\kappa$ stabilize large amplitudes and penalize sharp interfaces; $a<0$ permits phase separation.

The momentum equation is the Navier-Stokes equation with dynamic viscosity $\eta$, constant mass density $\rho$, and the Korteweg force $-\varphi \nabla \mu$ arising from composition stresses. The pressure enforces incompressible flow, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}=0$, and can absorb pure gradient contributions to that thermodynamic force. For example, $-\varphi \nabla \mu =\mu \nabla \varphi -\nabla (\varphi \mu )$ gives an equivalent force after redefining the pressure. These equations constitute deterministic Model H dynamics.

Their dissipative signs can be checked by the energy dissipation identity for Model H. Under periodic or no-flux, no-work boundary conditions, composition advection and capillary work cancel between $F$ and the kinetic energy, givingThus diffusion and viscosity dissipate energy, while the reversible advective coupling transfers it between composition and motion. Thermal noises are omitted at this deterministic hydrodynamic level.

The dynamical scaling of binary-fluid coarsening assumes a statistically self-similar bicontinuous morphology with one growing length $L$, thin interfaces, curvature of order $1/L$, and typical fluid speed of order $\dot{L}$. Inertial acceleration then scales as $\ddot{L}$ and ${\dot{L}}^2/L$, viscous force density as $\eta \dot{L}/L^2$, and capillary force density as $\sigma /L^2$. The pressure is eliminated or estimated together with the interfacial force. The numerical coefficients summarize geometry and projected force directions; this is a scaling closure, not a spatially exact momentum equation.

The approximation further neglects diffusive growth relative to advective growth, assumes fixed volume fraction and material parameters, no external forcing, and no additional relevant macroscopic length. A finite initial domain size, interface width or finite container would introduce further ratios outside the asymptotic scaling regime. Velocity gradients need not stay on the domain scale in a genuinely multiscale turbulent flow, so this single-length argument is not a proof for every hydrodynamic morphology.

With $[\rho ]=\mathrm{M}{\mathrm{L}}^{-3}$, $[\eta ]=\mathrm{M}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}$ and $[\sigma ]=\mathrm{M}{\mathrm{T}}^{-2}$, dimensional analysis gives the unique scalesThus, within the stated asymptotic single-scale hypothesis, the hydrodynamic coarsening crossover scales give $L=L_{0}f(u)$, $u=t/t_0$. All four force-density terms have the same dimensional prefactor ${\rho }^2{\sigma }^3/{\eta }^4$. Dividing by it yieldsPrimes denote $d/du$. The PDF includes $\eta \gamma \dot{L}/L^2$; the TeX drops $\eta$. The PDF expression is dimensionally consistent. For a positive growth branch, a resisting viscous term and a driving capillary term have opposite signed coefficients; one may set $\gamma =-c_v<0$, $\delta =c_s>0$. The question calls these coefficients order one, not positive. Treating every term on the printed right-hand side as positive would lose the viscous-capillary balance.

The unit normal pointing out of the fluid at its lower boundary is $-{\mathbf{e}}_y$. Since impermeability gives $v(x,0)=0$, also $v_x(x,0)=0$, and the tangential viscous traction exerted on the fluid is $t_x=-\mu u_y(x,0)$. The cilia do positive work at rate $t_{x}u=\rho P$, soFor positive downstream velocity this requires $u_y<0$, as expected when the wall-driven flow slows away from the cilia. The wall velocity is not prescribed independently; the driving condition prescribes power.

In a laminar boundary layer, momentum diffuses over a thickness $\delta$ during the downstream advection time $x/U$, giving ${\delta }^2\sim \nu x/U$. The wall power condition gives $U^2/\delta \sim P/\nu$. With these balances the downstream Reynolds number grows and $\delta /x\propto x^{-3/5}$ tends to zero. This explains the thin layer for large $x$ within the laminar approximation. Pressure is uniform across it and has no imposed streamwise gradient because the outer fluid is at rest. The two-dimensional boundary-layer equations are

Choose the scales to satisfy the balances exactly:The stream function $\psi =U\delta f(\eta )$, $\eta =y/\delta$, enforces continuity equation and givesThus the advective term is $U^2[\frac{1}{5}{f}^{\prime 2}-\frac{3}{5}f{f}^{\prime \prime }]/x$, while $\nu u_{yy}=\nu U{f}^{\prime \prime \prime }/{\delta }^2=U^2{f}^{\prime \prime \prime }/x$. HenceImpermeability, imposed wall power and matching to resting outer fluid giveA regular decaying profile also has $f^{\prime \prime }\to 0$ and finite positive $f_{\infty }$; no arbitrary additional wall value for $f^{\prime }$ should be imposed.

The volume flux per unit span is $Q={\int }_0^{\infty }udy=U\delta f_{\infty }\propto x^{3/5}$, so continuity equation gives $v_{\infty }=-dQ/dx<0$: outer fluid is entrained toward the wall. In the physical positive decaying similarity profile, $f^{\prime }>0$ and $f^{\prime \prime }<0$. To justify monotonicity, $f^{\prime \prime }(0)<0$ by the power condition; if $f^{\prime \prime }$ first crossed zero with $f^{\prime }>0$, the equation would give $f^{\prime \prime \prime }=f^{\prime 2}/5>0$, after which $f^{\prime \prime }>0$ cannot cross back and $f^{\prime }$ could not decay to zero. Therefore $f(\eta )={\int }_0^{\eta }{f}^{\prime }(s)ds\ge \eta f^{\prime }(\eta )$, and the velocity formula gives $2\eta f^{\prime }-3f<0$ for $\eta >0$. Consequently the transverse velocity is negative throughout that physical layer, and zero at the wall. This pointwise conclusion uses the positive decaying branch; the flux argument already establishes entrainment of the exterior.

Assume the holonomic constraints have linearly independent gradients, so their common level set is locally a smooth constraint manifold parametrized by $q_1,\dots ,q_n$. The multiplier form of the Euler-Lagrange equations isAt fixed time ${\sum }_A{\partial }_A{f}_{\alpha }{\partial }_i{x}_A=0$. The chain rule for the reduced Lagrangian givesConversely, if these reduced equations hold, the Cartesian Euler-Lagrange residual annihilates every tangent direction. Linear independence of the constraint gradients implies that it is a linear combination of those gradients, giving the required Lagrange multipliers. This proves the local equivalence, including time-dependent constraints; singular constraints would need separate analysis.

For the bead, $\dot{y}=f^{\prime }(x)\dot{x}$, soThe autonomous conservation of energy gives $E=\frac{1}{2}(1+f^{\prime 2}){\dot{x}}^2$. If $E>0$, the motion has a fixed sign $s=\mathrm{sgn}\dot{x}$ andThe integral is the signed arc length divided by the constant speed, and is locally invertible. The special solution $E=0$ is a stationary bead, for which writing time as a function of its unchanging position is not meaningful.

Work per unit axial length, with $y$ vertically upward and $x$ across the thin gap. In the frame of the downward-translating cylinder, the wall moves upward at speed $U$ and the cylinder surface is stationary. Let $\eta$ be viscosity and use the leading lubrication theoryThe transverse pressure gradient is negligible; solving $\eta u_{xx}=p_y$ with $u(0)=U$, $u(h)=0$ givesThe flux $q$ is constant by incompressibility. Equal ambient pressure at both ends implies $\int p_{y}dy=0$. With $I_j={\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{h}^{-j}dy$ and $I_2/I_3=4h_0/3$, this yieldsThe tangential traction on the cylinder isSince $I_2=I_1/(2h_0)$, its integrated force is $-2\eta U{I}_1+4\eta U{h}_0{I}_2=0$. Pressure acts radially on a circular cylinder and contributes no torque; the tangential traction has moment arm $a$ to leading order. HenceFor clarity, the total vertical hydrodynamic force is not zero. Its leading pressure contribution isupward, while the leading shear contribution just calculated vanishes. Thus this model predicts no induced rolling direction: a freely rotating cylinder can remain nonrotating, rather than rolling like a wheel in contact with the wall. This is the torque-free cylinder in a lubrication gap cancellation; finite ends or different boundary conditions would require a different model.

Set $F(z,w)=w^2-z^n+1$. Its complex gradient is $(-n{z}^{n-1},2w)$, never zero on $F=0$: simultaneous zero would give $z=w=0$, which is not on the curve. The complex implicit function theorem therefore gives a one-dimensional complex manifold, hence a Riemann surface. Where $w\ne 0$ use $z$ as coordinate, and where $z\ne 0$ use $w$; the transition maps and both projections are holomorphic.

For $\pi$, a ramification point of a holomorphic map has $w=0$ and $z=\zeta$ with ${\zeta }^n=1$. In the coordinate $w$, $z-\zeta =w^2/(n{\zeta }^{n-1})+O(w^4)$, giving ramification index $2$. Thus there are $n$ such points, and their branch points are the $n$th roots of unity.

For $\tau$, a ramification point of a holomorphic map has $z=0,w=\pm i$. In the coordinate $z$, $w-w_0=z^n/(2w_0)+O(z^{2n})$, giving ramification index $n$ at both points and branch points $\pm i$.

Write $n=2m$. At infinity set $u=1/z$, $v=w{u}^m$; then $v^2=1-u^n$. At $u=0$ there are two smooth points, $v=\pm 1$, and $u$ is a local coordinate. The extended $\pi$ has a simple pole at each, so neither is ramified. The degree-two Riemann-Hurwitz formula for the map to the Riemann sphere gives $2g-2=2(-2)+n$, henceThe list for $\tau$ above concerns the original affine Riemann surface; on the compactification its poles at the two added points have order $m$ and are additionally ramified if $m>1$.

Write $\mathbf{g}=-g{\mathbf{e}}_z$. The vertical component of the balance gives hydrostatic pressure,Its horizontal gradient is ${\nabla }_{h}p=\rho g{\nabla }_{h}h$. The horizontal balance is consequentlyThus $\mathbf{u}\cdot {\nabla }_{h}h=0$: the velocity is tangent to every level set of $h$, so those contours are streamlines of the geostrophic flow.

Across a vertical section joining the contours $h_0$ and $h_0+\Delta h$, an element of horizontal distance normal to the contours is $dn=dh/|{\nabla }_{h}h|$, while $|\mathbf{u}|=(g/f)|{\nabla }_{h}h|$. The volumetric flow rate is thereforeFor dimensional analysis, $[g]=L{T}^{-2}$, $[f]=T^{-1}$ and $[h_0]=[\Delta h]=L$, so the result has dimension $L^3{T}^{-1}$, exactly that of a volume flux.

Assume uniform ellipticity $a^{ij}{\xi }_i{\xi }_j\ge \lambda |\xi {|}^2$ with $\lambda >0$, bounded coefficients, and $c\le 0$. The weak maximum principle for elliptic operators isWhen $c=0$, zero can be omitted. The sign restriction is necessary, as shown by the failure of the weak maximum principle with a positive zeroth-order coefficient.

Let $M=\max (0,{\sup }_{\partial \Omega }u)$ and $w=u-M$, so $Lw=Lu-cM\ge 0$ and $w\le 0$ on the boundary. For sufficiently large $k$, $q=e^{k{x}_1}$ satisfiesIf $w$ is positive somewhere, $w+\epsilon q$ retains a positive interior maximum above all its boundary values for small $\epsilon >0$. At that point its gradient is zero and its Hessian matrix is negative semidefinite; ellipticity and $c\le 0$ give $L(w+\epsilon q)\le 0$, contradicting its strict positivity. This exponential perturbation proof of the weak maximum principle with drift also works with $M={\sup }_{\partial \Omega }u$ of either sign when $c=0$.