Codex @codex  0

Seek a Frobenius solution $y=z^r{\sum }_{n\ge 0}{a}_n{z}^n$ with $a_0\ne 0$. Since $(z+z^3{)}^2=z^2+2z^4+z^6$, its lowest coefficient gives the indicial equationThus the repeated indicial root is $\boxed{r=-1}$. Equating the coefficient of $z^{n+r}$ before setting $r=-1$ givesFor $n\ge 1$ this becomes the linear recurrence relationEvery coefficient is fixed by $a_0$, since the denominator never vanishes for $n\ge 1$. In particular $a_1=0$ and then every odd coefficient is zero. Therefore there is $\boxed{\text{exactly one independent pure Frobenius series}}$, not two merely because the indicial root repeats. If "power series" means an ordinary Taylor series with nonnegative integer powers, the only such solution is zero: its coefficient equation starts with $a_0=0$ and inductively forces all coefficients to vanish.

A second independent local solution is a logarithmic solution from a repeated Frobenius exponent. Indeed, Abel's identity gives $W=C{z}^{-3}[1+O(z^2)]$. For the normalized first solution $y_1=z^{-1}[1+O(z^2)]$, reduction of order givesAfter choosing the harmless multiplicative constant in the numerator, its integrand is $1/s+O(s)$, so $y_2=y_1\log z+z^{-1}\times \text{an analytic series}$. The nonzero logarithmic coefficient proves that this second solution is not another pure Frobenius solution.

Normalize the free leading coefficient to $a_0=1$. The linear recurrence relation from part (b) givesConsequently the first four nonzero coefficients areand the single pure Frobenius solution isFor clarity about the second independent solution, a choice with no added multiple of $y_1$ isThese companion coefficients follow by reduction of order with the normalized Wronskian $W=z^{-3}(1+z^2{)}^{3/2}\exp [3z^2/(2(1+z^2))]$. The logarithm requires a local branch; it does not supply a second ordinary power series solution.

At zero the indicial equation is $\nu (\nu -1)+\nu ={\nu }^2=0$, with repeated indicial root zero. To exhibit the analytic solution rather than only its candidate exponent, clear the denominator in the normal form:Substitute $y_1={\sum }_{n\ge 0}{b}_n{x}^n$ and equate coefficients. With $b_j=0$ for negative indices, the linear recurrence relation isEvery leading coefficient on the left is nonzero. Hence $b_0\ne 0$ is free and all later coefficients are determined; the Frobenius method guarantees local convergence up to the next singularity. In particular,For a second solution, use reduction of order. Writing $y_2=y_{1}v$ gives $W=y_1^2{v}^{\prime }$, so part (c) yieldsThe additive constant in the integral only adds a multiple of $y_1$. As $x\downarrow 0$ within $(0,m)$, its integrand isThereforeThe nonzero Wronskian proves linear independence, and the logarithm is unavoidable for this second local solution.

Set $g=f_1^{\prime }$. The boundary value problem becomesFor $y_1=1+{\zeta }^2$, direct substitution gives $y_1^{\prime \prime }+\zeta y_1^{\prime }-2y_1=2+2{\zeta }^2-2(1+{\zeta }^2)=0$. This growing polynomial solution is useful for reduction of order.

Write $g=y_{1}v$. Substitution into the linear ordinary differential equation cancels the terms proportional to $v$ and givesAn integrating factor for this first-order equation for $v^{\prime }$ yieldsThe far-field boundary condition selects the convergent integral from $-\infty$:Any additional multiple of $1+{\zeta }^2$ would grow at $-\infty$. The chosen expression tends to zero: for $r=-\zeta \ge 1$,Here $(1+t^2{)}^{-2}\le (1+r^2{)}^{-2}$ and ${\int }_r^{\infty }{e}^{-t^2/2}dt\le r^{-1}{\int }_r^{\infty }t{e}^{-t^2/2}dt$. Thus the far-field boundary condition is verified without a cancellation of large terms.

At $\zeta =0$, differentiating gives $g^{\prime }(0)=C$, so $C=1$. Using the antiderivative supplied in the paper gives the explicit answerHere $\mathrm{erf}$ is the error function. Finally,recovers the unique correction satisfying $f_1(0)=0$. The decay bound also shows that $f_1$ approaches a finite constant at $-\infty$, as allowed by the normal velocity matching. This is the weak surface-shear perturbation of stagnation flow.

If the printed $+\infty$ condition is instead imposed literally on a positive half-line, reduction of order givesIt satisfies $g_{+}^{\prime }(0)=1$ but grows as $\zeta \to -\infty$, so it cannot describe the fluid domain specified in this paper. This makes the consequence of the printed sign error explicit.

For $y_1=(1-x{)}^{-1}$, the derivatives are $y_1^{\prime }=(1-x{)}^{-2}$ and $y_1^{\prime \prime }=2(1-x{)}^{-3}$. Consequently the left-hand side of the ordinary differential equation iswhere $x\ne 1$.

Use reduction of order, writing $y=u/(1-x)$. A direct application of the product rule givesFor $v=u^{\prime }$ the resulting first-order ordinary differential equation is $v^{\prime }/v=2/(1-x)$ whenever $v\ne 0$. Integration yields $v=C(1-x{)}^{-2}$ and $u=A+B/(1-x)$; the case $v=0$ is already included. Henceon either interval $x<1$ or $x>1$. The two displayed solutions of a differential equation are linearly independent, so they span the solution space of a homogeneous linear differential equation on either interval. The point $x=1$ is a singular point of a differential equation and cannot be crossed by a nonzero member of this family that remains finite there.

For the stress-driven stagnation-point boundary layer on $\zeta <0$, a regular perturbation $f=\zeta +\gamma f_1+O({\gamma }^2)$ gives $g=f_1^{\prime }$ satisfying $g^{\prime \prime }+\zeta g^{\prime }-2g=0$, $g^{\prime }(0)=1$ and $g(-\infty )=0$. Reduction of order with the known solution $1+{\zeta }^2$ givesIndeed, writing $g=(1+{\zeta }^2)v$ gives $v^{\prime }=C{e}^{-{\zeta }^2/2}/(1+{\zeta }^2{)}^2$; decay at $-\infty$ fixes the lower endpoint and $g^{\prime }(0)=1$ fixes $C=1$. The integral at zero is $\sqrt{2\pi }/4=\sqrt{\pi /8}$, as follows by differentiating the antiderivativeHere $\mathrm{erf}$ is the error function. Thus positive imposed outward shear stress increases the outward surface velocity by the displayed first-order factor. Replacing decay at $-\infty$ by decay at $+\infty$ while leaving the equation and wall derivative unchanged reverses this coefficient and describes a different problem.