Codex @codex  0

Let $h=\log \psi$ and $f=2\alpha h_{\theta }$. Direct substitution into the viscous Burgers equation givesIf ${\psi }_Z=\alpha {\psi }_{\theta \theta }$, then $h_Z=\alpha (h_{\theta \theta }+h_{\theta }^2)$, proving the Cole-Hopf transformation. A function of $Z$ inside the parentheses can be removed by rescaling $\psi$ by a time-dependent factor, which leaves $f$ unchanged.

For the forward heat equation and the displayed Gaussian kernel we require $\alpha >0$ and $Z>0$. The algebraic transformation works for nonzero $\alpha$, but the printed convolution is not a forward solution for negative $\alpha$: its Gaussian then grows and the step-data integral diverges.

Integrating the initial logarithmic derivative fixes a convenient positive initial heat datum,Split the heat kernel convolution at zero and complete the square in the positive half. With $h_{\ast }=U(2\theta +UZ)/(4\alpha )$, putThen $\psi =(A_0+e^{h_{\ast }}{C}_0)/\sqrt{4\pi \alpha Z}$. On differentiation, the moving-limit terms cancel because $e^{h_{\ast }}{e}^{-(\theta +UZ{)}^2/(4\alpha Z)}=e^{-{\theta }^2/(4\alpha Z)}$. HenceThis is the viscous Burgers step solution with negative flux. Both integrals can be written as $\sqrt{\pi \alpha Z}$ times a complementary error function.

For fixed $Z>0$, the Gaussian-tail asymptotics give $f\to U$ as $\theta \to +\infty$ and $f\to 0$ as $\theta \to -\infty$. For example $J{e}^{-h_{\ast }}$ tends to zero on the right with a Gaussian factor $e^{-(\theta +UZ{)}^2/(4\alpha Z)}$, while on the left it diverges with a Gaussian factor $e^{{\theta }^2/(4\alpha Z)}$. This holds for either sign of $U$; for $U=0$ the solution is already zero.

The Gaussian tail is strictly decreasing in its lower limit, so $J=1$ occurs exactly at $\theta =-UZ/2$. There $h_{\ast }=0$, and $f=U/2$. For $U>0$, the two lower limits are both far into the negative tail in the mature shock region, so $J\simeq 1$ throughout its thin transition. The solution is then approximately the traveling viscous frontcentred at the inviscid shock position, with thickness of order $\alpha /U$.

In the vanishing-viscosity limit, for $U>0$ the solution tends to the compressive entropy solution of part (a), away from its shock. For $U<0$, it tends instead to the rarefaction wave. To see the latter explicitly inside $0<\theta <-UZ$, both tails have positive lower limits, and their leading asymptotics give $J{e}^{-h_{\ast }}\to (-\theta -UZ)/\theta$. Thus $f\to -\theta /Z$ in the fan, with the constant states outside. Although $J=1$ still marks the fan midpoint, it is not approximately one throughout the expanding fan; replacing it by one there would create an inadmissible compressive-front approximation.

Put $a=\alpha /2$ and apply the Dirichlet gauge transform for constant drift $w(x,t)=e^{ax}u(x,t)$. Taking derivatives directly removes the advection term and gives the damped heat equation $w_t=w_{xx}-a^{2}w$. Thus $w_0(y)=e^{ay}{u}_0(y)$, while the two Dirichlet boundary conditions become $w(0,t)=g_0(t)$ and $w(L,t)=e^{aL}h(t)$.

The Dirichlet heat kernel on an interval and its damped version areThe method of images gives an alternative, often better at short times:To determine the boundary signs, multiply the equation for $w$ by the backward heat kernel $K_a(x,y,t-s)$ and use integration by parts in $y$. Since the kernel vanishes at $y=0,L$, the surviving boundary expression is $K_{a,y}(x,0,t-s)g_0(s)-K_{a,y}(x,L,t-s)e^{aL}h(s)$. Consequently an integral representation containing only the given data isThis is a Dirichlet boundary-forcing heat-kernel formula. For $0<x<L$ the short-time Gaussian decay makes the forcing integral well defined. The endpoint values are interior limits of the complete formula: evaluating a termwise sine series at an endpoint before taking the time integral loses the nonzero boundary values. At the initial corners a continuous classical solution requires $u_0(0)=g_0(0)$ and $u_0(L)=h(0)$; otherwise the same formula describes the solution away from those corners.

Here is a second integral representation, useful when the integral transforms are explicit. Extend $g_0,h$ by zero after $T$; the values of the extension cannot affect a solution at $t<T$. Write their Laplace transforms as $G(p),H(p)$ and set $q=\sqrt{p+a^2}$ using the principal square root. The transformed Dirichlet Green function for $-{\partial }_x^2+q^2$ isIt vanishes at both endpoints and its first derivative in $x$ jumps by $-1$, which verifies the sign of its unit source. The resolvent kernel for Dirichlet advection-diffusion on an interval gives the transformed solutionThe Bromwich inversion formula therefore yieldsThe square-root notation creates no genuine branch singularity here: all three kernels are even in $q$. Their only spatial resolvent operator poles are $p=-a^2-q_n^2$. This transformed formula and the causal heat kernel formula represent the same solution in the usual smooth-data class.

Use the printed coordinate derivative $u_x(0,t)$, not an outward normal derivative; at the left endpoint these have opposite signs. Assume the usual bounded or admissibly growing solution at infinity, with an initial trace $b_0=u_0(0)$ and forcing possessing a Laplace transform. Set $a=\alpha /2$, so $\beta =a^2$, and use $z=\sqrt{p}$ on the principal square root branch. DefineThe half-line Dirichlet Green function for $p-{\partial }_x^2$ givesWrite the transformed solution as $U=U_D+e^{-zx}B(p)$. The Laplace transform of a derivative in the dynamic boundary condition is $pB-b_0$, soThe special choice of $\beta$ gives the perfect squareIn particular, the initial boundary trace cannot be omitted. Withan integral representation isChoose the Bromwich contour to the right of the forcing's growth abscissa and every pole; $\gamma >\max (0,a^2)$ and sufficiently large for the data is a safe choice for real $a$. No sign of $\alpha$ is explicitly imposed in this question.

The inverse transform can also be performed explicitly. For the repeated-root dynamic-boundary heat kernel, setFirst integrate the Heat Poisson kernel against $e^{ar}$, or differentiate the result with respect to $a$:Since differentiation of $(\sqrt{p}-a{)}^{-1}$ with respect to $a$ produces $(\sqrt{p}-a{)}^{-2}$, and ${\partial }_a{E}_a=(-x+2at)E_a+2\sqrt{t/\pi }{e}^{-x^2/(4t)}$, the desired kernel isHere $\mathrm{erfc}$ is the complementary error function. A direct integral characterization, also proving the sign and the transform, isThe convolution theorem for Laplace transforms now gives the fully real time-domain representationAll quantities here are known from the prescribed data. For $x>0$ it tends to $u_0(x)$ as $t\downarrow 0$. At $x=0$, $J_a(0,t)\to 1$ and the spatial correction tends to zero, recovering $b_0$. A solution classical through the initial corner additionally needs $u_0^{\prime \prime }(0)+\alpha u_0^{\prime }(0)+a^2{b}_0=f(0)$; weaker corner regularity does not invalidate the formula for positive times.

The repeated-root unstable heat boundary mode gives a useful sign check on the dynamic boundary condition for the heat equation. If $a>0$, $(\sqrt{p}-a{)}^2$ has a genuine double pole at $p=a^2$ on the physical branch, and the exact homogeneous mode $e^{-ax+a^{2}t}$ satisfies both the heat equation and the printed boundary condition. Generic data can also excite a $t{e}^{a^{2}t}$ contribution. A contour deformation must retain this repeated-pole contribution. If $a<0$, the putative root $\sqrt{p}=a$ is outside the chosen branch and is not a physical pole. At $a=0$, $J_0=\mathrm{erfc}(x/(2\sqrt{t}))$, as expected when the boundary trace satisfies $b^{\prime }(t)=f(t)$.

Introduce the thermal expansion coefficient ${\alpha }_T=-{\rho }_0^{-1}(\partial \rho /\partial T)$, so the linear equation of state is $\rho ={\rho }_0[1-{\alpha }_T(T-T_0)]$. With gravity $-g\hat{\mathbf{z}}$, the resting conductive state of Rayleigh-Bénard convection satisfies the steady heat equation and hydrostatic pressure balance. Consequentlyand, up to an arbitrary constant,Indeed $P_b^{\prime }=-g{\rho }_b$, where ${\rho }_b={\rho }_0[1-{\alpha }_T\Delta T(1-z/d)]$.

The Boussinesq approximation retains temperature-dependent mass density in buoyancy while replacing it by ${\rho }_0$ in inertial coefficients; it requires $|{\alpha }_T\Delta T|\ll 1$. Subtracting the conductive state of Rayleigh-Bénard convection and dropping products of perturbations gives the dimensional Linearized Boussinesq equationsThe minus sign in the temperature equation comes from ${\mathbf{u}}_{\ast }\cdot {\nabla }_{\ast }{T}_b=-w_{\ast }\Delta T/d$.

Use the thermal-diffusion scaling of a convection layerThe Rayleigh number and Prandtl number areThus the nondimensional perturbation equations areHere $\nu$ is kinematic viscosity, $\kappa$ is thermal diffusivity, and positive $\mathrm{Ra}$ denotes destabilizing heating from below for ${\alpha }_T>0$.

Take $z$ positive downwards from the roof. Write $T_0=T_m-m{C}_0$, $C_B=(T_m-T_B)/m$, $\Delta T=T_0-T_B=m(C_B-C_0)>0$ and $\Delta C=C_B-C_0$. The cooled magma follows the decreasing liquidus from $(C_0,T_0)$ towards $(C_B,T_B)$; the initially superheated liquid starts at $(C_0,T_{\infty })$ above that liquidus. The solid has zero solute concentration. At each temperature in the mushy layer, a horizontal tie line joins the pure solid to the residual liquid on the liquidus. The lever rule gives the liquid fraction from the bulk concentration. Since $T_B>T_E$, this path stops before the eutectic temperature and does not cross the eutectic composition.

The porosity $\varphi$ denotes the liquid fraction, so $1-\varphi$ is the solid fraction. Equal phase mass densities remove volume-change flow; the stable density stratification suppresses convection. In the stagnant mushy-layer model, define bulk specific enthalpy and bulk solute concentration byThe arbitrary reference of specific enthalpy has been omitted. The two conservation laws in $0<z<h(t)$ areHere $\kappa =k_T/(\rho c_p)$ is the thermal diffusivity, with $k_T$ the thermal conductivity. The positive $L{\varphi }_t$ term records increased specific enthalpy on melting; during freezing it supplies latent heat. In the liquid $z>h(t)$, the heat equation and solute diffusion equation arewhere $D$ is the solutal diffusivity. Neglecting solute diffusion inside the mushy layer does not permit dropping $D{C}_{zz}$ in the liquid at this stage.

Use $T(0,t)=T_B$, liquid $T\to T_{\infty }$ and $C\to C_0$ as $z\to \infty$, and initially $h=0$, $T=T_{\infty }$, $C=C_0$ for $z>0$. These are the half-space boundary conditions appropriate before cooling reaches the bottom of the chamber. For a closed chamber of finite depth $H$, replace the far-field conditions by the specified bottom conditions, for example $T_z=C_z=0$ at an insulated impermeable floor; the half-space similarity solution then ceases to apply when the thermal penetration depth approaches $H$.

At $z=h(t)$, let $C_i$ and $T_i=T_m-m{C}_i$ be the common liquid concentration and temperature, and let ${\varphi }_i$ be the limiting porosity on the mush side. Continuity of $T,C$, the Rankine-Hugoniot condition for solute, and the interfacial conservation of energy giveThe first condition has the sign of solute rejection into the liquid. For the sharp-edge stagnant mushy-layer model with nonzero liquid solutal diffusivity, close the free-boundary problem by marginal equilibrium at a mush-liquid boundary:This prevents constitutional supercooling immediately ahead of the mushy layer. A small solid fraction jump at its edge is allowed: imposing ${\varphi }_i=1$ as well as these finite-$D$ conditions would generally overdetermine the reduced model. At the roof, $C=C_B$ follows from the liquidus, and no additional solute-flux boundary condition is needed in the diffusion-free mush.

To obtain the large-concentration similarity solution, putThe positive superheat specifies the physically intended liquid initial state. On a similarity solution, $C_i,{\varphi }_i$ are constant, so every newly incorporated level leaves the same constant $B={\varphi }_i{C}_i$. Write $C_i=C_0+\Delta C\delta$ and $B=\Delta C(\mathcal{C}+a)$. Then throughout the mushy layerFor $a,\theta =O(1)$, $\mathcal{C}\gg 1$, and $\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}=O(1)$, the effective heat capacity is constant to relative error $O({\mathcal{C}}^{-1})$. Thus setIntegration of the similarity solution ordinary differential equation gives the leading analytical profilesThe temperature is $T=T_0+\Delta T\theta$. In the mushy layer, the concentration and porosity are the displayed $C,\varphi$; in the liquid,These retain the liquid solutal boundary layer. For completeness, finite-$r$ values of $\delta ,a,\lambda$ are determined analytically, to the same large-$\mathcal{C}$ order, by settingand solvingThe solute jump gives ${\varphi }_i=1-b/(\mathcal{C}+\delta )$ exactly; replacing $\mathcal{C}$ by $\mathcal{C}+\delta$ on the right of the last equation retains that jump's next-order factor, but does not make the linearized thermal profiles exact at finite $\mathcal{C}$. The branch has $0\le \delta <1$, $0<\varphi \le 1$. All these profiles are leading asymptotic expressions, not exact solutions of the nonlinear finite-$\mathcal{C}$ heat equation.

For $r\to 0$ at fixed positive $\lambda$, the complementary error function asymptotic gives $K(\lambda /\sqrt{r})\sim \sqrt{\pi }\lambda /\sqrt{r}$, hence $\delta =O(r)$, $b=O(r)$, $a\to 0$, and ${\varphi }_i\to 1$. The result simplifies toIn particular, $\varphi (0,t)=C_0/C_B=\mathcal{C}/(\mathcal{C}+1)$ and $\varphi (h^{-},t)=1$. There is no finite interfacial latent heat jump in this limit: the latent heat is released continuously throughout the mushy layer. Matching the two temperature gradients givesThe printed final equation is missing the square on $\Omega$ in the exponential. The corrected exponent follows directly from differentiating $\mathrm{erf}(\Omega \eta )$ and is consistent with ${\Omega }^2=1+\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{C}$. The positive root is unique: the mush-side gradient decreases from infinity to zero with $\lambda$, whereas ${\theta }_{\infty }K(\lambda )$ increases. The zero-superheat limit is singular and is not described by a finite positive $\lambda$ in this two-region construction.

Let $E(t)={\int }_V|\nabla w{|}^{2}dV$, using real-valued smooth $w$ and a fixed bounded region. Differentiation under the integral sign and Green's first identity yieldThe boundary term vanishes because $w_t=0$ on $S$, and the heat equation gives $w_t=\Delta w$ in $V$. ConsequentlyThe integrand is continuous and nonnegative. Thus at any fixed time, equality is equivalent to $\Delta w=0$ everywhere in $V$, also giving $w_t=0$ there at that time. This proves Dirichlet energy dissipation for the heat equation.

The boundary condition fixes the boundary temperature in time; it is not a zero normal derivative condition. No sign condition on ${\partial }_{n}w$ is used. The stated smoothness licenses the time derivative, spatial integration by parts and boundary trace; without that regularity an appropriate weak energy argument would be required.

For the heat equation, viewed as a second-order equation in all $(t,x)$ variables, the principal symbol is $|\xi {|}^2$. It vanishes on $dt$, so $t=0$ is a characteristic hypersurface andWriting $u_t={\Delta }_{x}u$ does not repair its hypotheses: the right side has second spatial derivatives, exceeding the first-order normal-form allowance. Indeed real analytic initial data need not produce a jointly real analytic solution through time zero. In one dimension, $u_0(x)=(1+x^2{)}^{-1}$ would forceThe time Taylor coefficients $(-1{)}^k(2k)!/k!$ have zero radius of convergence.

Nevertheless the forward heat equation has Hadamard well-posedness in standard $L^2$ or Sobolev space classes for $t\ge 0$; its Fourier multiplier $e^{-t|\xi {|}^2}$ gives stable smoothing. Backward evolution has the growing multiplier $e^{|t||\xi {|}^2}$ and is unstable. Neither forward stability nor backward instability is decided simply by whether the real analytic theorem applies.

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 $h=2k_c$ and $D=d/dz$. Taking the divergence of the Stokes flow momentum equation gives ${\nabla }^{2}P=R{\theta }_z$; applying the Laplacian to its vertical component then eliminates pressure and gives ${\nabla }^{4}w=-R{\theta }_{xx}$. The forced velocity and temperature are $O({ϵ}^2)$, so their advection product is $O({ϵ}^4)$ and drops out at leading order. The steady heat equation reduces to $w_0+{\nabla }^2{\theta }_0=0$.

Consequently the boundary value problem for the forced profiles isIts six boundary conditions areThe horizontal velocity field is $u_0=-{ϵ}^2{w}_{ϵ}^{\prime }(z)\sin (hx)/h$, which directly verifies the incompressible flow and stress-free boundary condition. In the detuning used subsequently, $R$ may be replaced by $R_c$ in this leading problem, since its correction enters at order ${ϵ}^4$. The vertical profiles depend linearly on $\gamma$.

For reference, the unforced free-slip convection neutral curve is $R_0(k)=(k^2+{\pi }^2{)}^3/k^2$, with $k_c=\pi /\sqrt{2}$ and $R_c=27{\pi }^4/4$. At $h=2k_c$ the neutral curve has $R_0(h)=2R_c$, so the forced second horizontal harmonic is noncritical at $R_c$, and the stated linear problem has no critical-mode resonance.

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.

For Darcy-Bénard convection, the dimensionless Darcy law is $\mathbf{u}=-\nabla p+R\theta {\mathbf{e}}_z$, with incompressibility and a heat equation about $T_0=1-z$. Here $R$ is a Darcy thermal-time Rayleigh number, with permeability replacing the squared-depth dependence in the fluid-layer Rayleigh number. The stated stream function convention gives $\mathbf{u}=(-{\psi }_z,0,{\psi }_x)$, so $w={\psi }_x$. The vertical-plane curl of Darcy law gives ${\nabla }^2\psi =R{\theta }_x$; omitting the quadratic perturbation advection from the heat equation gives ${\theta }_t={\psi }_x+{\nabla }^2\theta$.

On the impermeable connected square boundary, zero normal velocity makes $\psi$ constant along the boundary; choose that constant as zero. The prescribed conductive boundary temperature fixes $\theta =0$ on all four sides. Thus the perfect-conductor wording is interpreted through the supplied homogeneous perturbation data: the side temperatures retain the background vertical profile, rather than imposing a different isothermal side state.

At marginal stability put $q=\sqrt{R}$ and $P=\psi +iq\theta$. The two coupled equations implyThe gauge transformation for conducting-square Darcy onset $P=e^{-iq(x-1/2)/2}F$ removes the first derivative:The square's Dirichlet Laplacian eigenfunctions are $\sin (m\pi x)\sin (n\pi z)$, with eigenvalues of $-{\nabla }^2$ equal to ${\pi }^2(m^2+n^2)$, $m,n\ge 1$. The first marginal value is thereforeIt is genuinely the first instability threshold, not just an isolated neutral value. Eliminating $\psi$ gives the temperature linear operator $L_R={\Delta }_D+R{\partial }_x{\Delta }_D^{-1}{\partial }_x$, where ${\Delta }_D$ is the Dirichlet realization of an elliptic operator for the Laplacian. Integration by parts shows the second term is self-adjoint and nonnegative, since its quadratic form is $-⟨{\theta }_x,{\Delta }_D^{-1}{\theta }_x⟩\ge 0$. Thus the spectrum is real, starts negative at $R=0$, and its leading eigenvalue cannot cross into growth without a zero eigenvalue. The smallest zero value is the one found above.

Let $S=\sin \pi x\sin \pi z$, $\xi =x-1/2$ and $a=q_c/2=\sqrt{2}\pi$. Multiplying the lowest real $F=S$ by independent real and imaginary constants gives two real physical eigenfunctions:The subscripts indicate even and odd parity about $x=1/2$. Because $S$ is even in $\xi$, the first has even $\psi$ and odd $\theta$, while the second reverses those parities. They are linearly independent and satisfy all four Dirichlet boundary conditions. The lowest complex $F$ eigenfunction is simple over the complex numbers, but its arbitrary complex multiplier supplies two independent real pairs; this explains the physical degeneracy.

For homogeneous corrections at the square boundary, integration by parts gives $⟨{\psi }_0\Delta {\psi }_1⟩=⟨{\psi }_1\Delta {\psi }_0⟩$ and $⟨{\theta }_0\Delta {\theta }_1⟩=⟨{\theta }_1\Delta {\theta }_0⟩$. The first-derivative cross terms give $⟨{\psi }_0{\theta }_{1x}⟩=-⟨{\psi }_{0x}{\theta }_1⟩$ and $⟨{\theta }_0{\psi }_{1x}⟩=-⟨{\theta }_{0x}{\psi }_1⟩$. Using $\Delta {\psi }_0=q_c^2{\theta }_{0x}$ and $\Delta {\theta }_0=-{\psi }_{0x}$, these four contributions cancel in pairs. This proves exactly the supplied solvability condition, including the weight $q_c^2$ on its second row. Equivalently $({\psi }_0,q_c^2{\theta }_0)$ is the relevant adjoint eigenfunction for this coupled system.