Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: consider the isentropic compressible navier - stokes equations @xmath2 on the quarter - plane @xmath3 , where @xmath4 , @xmath5 , @xmath6 denote density , velocity , and pressure at spatial location @xmath7 and time @xmath8 , with @xmath0-law pressure function @xmath9 and noncharacteristic constant `` inflow '' or `` outflow '' boundary conditions @xmath10 or @xmath11 as discussed in @xcite . the sign of the velocity at @xmath12 determines whether characteristics of the hyperbolic transport equation @xmath13 enter the domain ( considering @xmath14 as a lower - order forcing term ) , and thus whether @xmath15 should be prescribed . the variable - coefficient parabolic equation @xmath16 requires prescription of @xmath17 in either case , with @xmath18 . by comparison , the purely hyperbolic isentropic euler equations @xmath19 have characteristic speeds @xmath20 , hence , depending on the values of @xmath21 , may have one , two , or no characteristics entering the domain , hence require one , two , or no prescribed boundary values . in particular , there is a discrepancy between the number of prescribed boundary values for and in the case of mild inflow @xmath22 small ( two for , one for ) or strong outflow @xmath23 large ( one for , none for ) , indicating the possibility of _ boundary layers _ , or asymptotically - constant stationary solutions of : @xmath24 indeed , existence of such solutions is straightforward to verify by direct computations on the ( scalar ) stationary - wave ode ; see @xcite or section [ profsec ] . these may be either of `` expansive '' type , resembling rarefaction wave solutions on the whole line , or `` compressive '' type , resembling viscous shock solutions . a fundamental question is whether or not such boundary layer solutions are _ stable _ in the sense of pde . for the expansive inflow case , it has been shown in @xcite that _ all _ boundary layers are stable , independent of amplitude , by energy estimates similar to those used to prove the corresponding result for rarefactions on the whole line . here , we concentrate on the complementary , _ compressive case _ ( though see discussion , section [ discussion ] ) .    linearized and nonlinear stability of general ( expansive or compressive ) _ small - amplitude _ noncharacteristic boundary layers of have been established in @xcite . more generally , it has been shown in @xcite that linearized and nonlinear stability are equivalent to spectral stability , or nonexistence of nonstable ( nonnegative real part ) eigenvalues of the linearized operator about the layer , for boundary layers of arbitrary amplitude . however , up to now the spectral stability of _ large - amplitude compressive _ boundary layers has remained largely undetermined . we resolve this question in the present paper , carrying out a systematic , global study classifying the stability of all possible compressive boundary - layer solutions of . our method of analysis is by a combination of asymptotic ode techniques and numerical evans function computations , following a basic approach introduced recently in @xcite for the study of the closely related shock wave case . here , there are interesting complications associated with the richer class of boundary - layer solutions as compared to possible shock solutions , the delicate stability properties of the inflow case , and , in the outflow case , the nonstandard eigenvalue problem arising from reduction to lagrangian coordinates . our conclusions are , for both inflow and outflow conditions , that compressive boundary layers that are uniformly noncharacteristic in a sense to be made precise later ( specifically , @xmath25 bounded away from @xmath26 , in the terminology of section [ profsec ] ) are _ unconditionally stable _ , independent of amplitude , on the range @xmath27 $ ] considered in our numerical computations . we show by energy estimates that _ outflow boundary layers are stable also in the characteristic limit_. the omitted characteristic limit in the inflow case , analogous to the small - amplitude limit for the shock case should be treatable by the singular perturbation methods used in @xcite to treat the small - amplitude shock case ; however , we do not consider this case here .    in the inflow case , our results , together with those of @xcite , completely resolve the question of stability of isentropic ( expansive or compressive ) uniformly noncharacteristic boundary layers for @xmath28 $ ] , yielding _ unconditional stability independent of amplitude or type . _ in the outflow case , we show stability of all compressive boundary layers without the assumption of uniform noncharacteristicity . the small - amplitude results obtained in @xcite are of `` general type '' , making little use of the specific structure of the equations . essentially , they all require that the difference between the boundary layer solution and its constant limit at @xmath29 be small in @xmath30 . be small in @xmath30 . ( for monotone profiles , @xmath31 . ) ] as pointed out in @xcite , this is the `` gap lemma '' regime in which standard asymptotic ode estimates show that behavior is essentially governed by the limiting constant - coefficient equations at infinity , and thus stability may be concluded immediately from stability ( computable by exact solution ) of the constant layer identically equal to the limiting state . these methods do not suffice to treat either the ( small - amplitude ) characteristic limit or the large - amplitude case , which require more refined analyses . in particular , up to now , _ there was no analysis considering boundary layers approaching a full viscous shock profile _ , _ not even a profile of vanishingly small amplitude_. our analysis of this limit indicates why : the appearance of a small eigenvalue near zero prevents uniform estimates such as would be obtained by usual types of energy estimates . by contrast , the large - amplitude results obtained here and ( for expansive layers ) in @xcite make use of the specific form of the equations . in particular , both analyses make use of the advantageous structure in lagrangian coordinates . the possibility to work in lagrangian coordinates was first pointed out by matsumura  nishihara @xcite in the inflow case , for which the stationary boundary transforms to a moving boundary with constant speed . here we show how to convert the outflow problem also to lagrangian coordinates , by converting the resulting variable - speed boundary problem to a constant - speed one with modified boundary condition . this trick seems of general use . in particular , it might be possible that the energy methods of @xcite applied in this framework would yield unconditional stability of expansive boundary - layers , completing the analysis of the outflow case . alternatively , this case could be attacked by the methods of the present paper . these are two further interesting direction for future investigation .    in the outflow case , a further transformation to the `` balanced flux form '' introduced in @xcite , in which the equations take the form of the integrated shock equations , allows us to establish stability in the characteristic limit by energy estimates like those of @xcite in the shock case . the treatment of the characteristic inflow limit by the methods of @xcite seems to be another extremely interesting direction for future study .    finally , we point to the extension of the present methods to full ( nonisentropic ) gas dynamics and multidimensions as the two outstanding open problems in this area .    new features of the present analysis as compared to the shock case considered in @xcite are the presence of two parameters , strength and displacement , indexing possible boundary layers , vs. the single parameter of strength in the shock case , and the fact that the limiting equations in several asymptotic regimes possess zero eigenvalues , making the limiting stability analysis much more delicate than in the shock case . the latter is seen , for example , in the limit as a compressive boundary layer approaches a full stationary shock solution , which we show to be spectrally equivalent to the situation of unintegrated shock equations on the whole line . as the equations on the line possess always a translational eigenvalue at @xmath32 , we may conclude existence of a zero at @xmath32 for the limiting equations and thus a zero _ near _ @xmath32 as we approach this limit , which could be stable or unstable . similarly , the evans function in the inflow case is shown to converge in the large - strength limit to a function with a zero at @xmath32 , with the same conclusions ; see section [ description ] for further details .    to deal with this latter circumstance , we find it necessary to make use also of topological information provided by the stability index of @xcite , a mod - two index counting the parity of the number of unstable eigenvalues . together with the information that there is at most one unstable zero , the parity information provided by the stability index is sufficient to determine whether an unstable zero does or does not occur . remarkably , in the isentropic case we are able to compute explicitly the stability index for all parameter values , recovering results obtained by indirect argument in @xcite , and thereby completing the stability analysis in the presence of a single possibly unstable zero . we begin by carrying out a number of preliminary steps similar to those carried out in @xcite for the shock case , but complicated somewhat by the need to treat the boundary and its different conditions in the inflow and outflow case . the analyses of @xcite in the shock wave case were carried out in lagrangian coordinates , which proved to be particularly convenient . our first step , therefore , is to convert the eulerian formulation into lagrangian coordinates similar to those of the shock case . however , standard lagrangian coordinates in which the spatial variable @xmath33 is constant on particle paths are not appropriate for the boundary - value problem with inflow / outflow . we therefore introduce instead `` psuedo - lagrangian '' coordinates @xmath34 in which the physical boundary @xmath12 remains fixed at @xmath35 . straightforward calculation reveals that in these coordinates becomes    @xmath36    on @xmath37 , where @xmath38 so that @xmath39 is the negative of the momentum at the boundary @xmath40 . from now on , we drop the tilde , denoting @xmath33 simply as @xmath7 .      for the inflow case , @xmath22 so we may prescribe _ two _ boundary conditions on , namely @xmath41 where both @xmath42 are constant .      for the outflow case , @xmath23 so we may prescribe _ only one _ boundary condition on , namely @xmath43 thus @xmath44 is an unknown in the problem , which makes the analysis of the outflow case more subtle than that of the inflow case . our next step is to rescale the equations in such a way that coefficients remain bounded in the strong boundary - layer limit . consider the change of variables @xmath45 where @xmath46 is chosen so that @xmath47 where @xmath25 is the limit as @xmath48 of the boundary layer ( stationary solution ) @xmath49 under consideration and @xmath50 is the limit as @xmath51 of its continuation into @xmath52 as a solution of the standing - wave ode ( discussed in more detail just below ) . under the rescaling , becomes @xmath53 where @xmath54 , @xmath55 , on respective domains @xmath56      stationary boundary layers @xmath57 of satisfy @xmath58 where ( d ) is imposed at @xmath59 in the inflow case , @xmath60 in the outflow case and ( imposing @xmath61 ) @xmath62 . using ( a ) we can reduce this to the study of the scalar ode , @xmath63 with the same boundary conditions at @xmath12 and @xmath64 as above . taking the antiderivative of this equation yields @xmath65 where @xmath66 is a constant of integration .    noting that @xmath67 is convex , we find that there are precisely two rest points of whenever boundary - layer profiles exist , except at the single parameter value on the boundary between existence and nonexistence of solutions , for which there is a degenerate rest point ( double root of @xmath67 ) . ignoring this degenerate case , we see that boundary layers terminating at rest point @xmath25 as @xmath48 must either continue backward into @xmath52 to terminate at a second rest point @xmath50 as @xmath51 , or else blow up to infinity as @xmath51 . the first case we shall call _ compressive _ , the second _ expansive_.    in the first case , the extended solution on the whole line may be recognized as a standing viscous shock wave ; that is , _ for isentropic gas dynamics , compressive boundary layers are just restrictions to the half - line @xmath68 [ resp . @xmath69 of standing shock waves . _ in the second case , as discussed in @xcite , the boundary layers are somewhat analogous to rarefaction waves on the whole line . from here on , we concentrate exclusively on the compressive case .    with the choice @xmath70 , we may carry out the integration of once more , this time as a definite integral from @xmath60 to @xmath7 , to obtain @xmath71 where @xmath72 is found by letting @xmath73 , yielding @xmath74 in particular , @xmath75 in the large boundary layer limit @xmath76 . this is exactly the equation for viscous shock profiles considered in @xcite . linearizing about @xmath77 , we obtain    @xmath78    where @xmath79 , @xmath80 and @xmath81 denote perturbations of @xmath82 .      in the inflow case , @xmath83 , yielding @xmath84 on @xmath37 , with full dirichlet conditions @xmath85 .      letting @xmath86 , @xmath87 , and denoting by @xmath88 the operator associated to the linearization about boundary - layer @xmath89 , @xmath90 where @xmath91 we have @xmath92 , with associated eigenvalue equation @xmath93 where @xmath94 .    to eliminate the nonstandard inhomogeneous term on the righthand side of , we introduce a  good unknown " ( c.f . @xcite ) @xmath95 since @xmath96 by differentiation of the boundary - layer equation , the system expressed in the good unknown becomes simply @xmath97 or , equivalently , with boundary conditions @xmath98 solving for @xmath99 in terms of @xmath100 and recalling that @xmath101 by , we obtain finally @xmath102    [ outrmk ] problems and  are evidently equivalent for all @xmath103 , but are not equivalent for @xmath32 ( for which the change of coordinates to good unknown becomes singular ) . for , @xmath104 by inspection is a solution of , but is not a solution of . that is , we have introduced by this transformation a spurious eigenvalue at @xmath32 , which we shall have to account for later . [ @xcite ] [ profdecay ] for each @xmath105 , @xmath106 , has a unique ( up to translation ) monotone decreasing solution @xmath107 decaying to endstates @xmath108 with a uniform exponential rate for @xmath25 uniformly bounded away from @xmath70 . in particular , for @xmath109 ,    [ decaybd ] @xmath110    where @xmath111 is defined by @xmath112 .    existence and monotonicity follow trivially by the fact that is a scalar first - order ode with convex righthand side . exponential convergence as @xmath48 follows by @xmath113 whence @xmath114 by @xmath115 for @xmath116 . exponential convergence as @xmath51 follows by a similar , but more straightforward calculation , where , in the `` centered '' coordinate @xmath117 , the constants @xmath118 are uniform with respect to @xmath119 . see @xcite for details . the following estimates are established in appendices [ basicproof ] and [ outbasicproof ] . [ hf ] nonstable eigenvalues @xmath120 of , i.e. , eigenvalues with nonnegative real part , are confined for any @xmath121 to the region @xmath122 for the inflow case , and to the region @xmath123 for the outflow case . setting @xmath124 , we may express as a first - order system @xmath125 where @xmath126 where @xmath127 with @xmath128 as in and @xmath72 as in , or , equivalently , @xmath129    [ shockrel ] the coefficient matrix @xmath130 may be recognized as a rescaled version of the coefficient matrix @xmath131 appearing in the shock case @xcite , with @xmath132 the choice of variables @xmath133 may be recognized as the modified flux form of @xcite , adapted to the hyperbolic  parabolic case . eigenvalues of correspond to nontrivial solutions @xmath134 for which the boundary conditions @xmath135 are satisfied . because @xmath136 as a function of @xmath137 is asymptotically constant in @xmath7 , the behavior near @xmath138 of solutions of is governed by the limiting constant - coefficient systems @xmath139 from which we readily find on the ( nonstable ) domain @xmath140 , @xmath103 of interest that there is a one - dimensional unstable manifold @xmath141 of solutions decaying at @xmath142 and a two - dimensional stable manifold @xmath143 of solutions decaying at @xmath144 , analytic in @xmath120 , with asymptotic behavior @xmath145 as @xmath146 , where @xmath147 and @xmath148 are eigenvalues and associated analytically chosen eigenvectors of the limiting coefficient matrices @xmath149 . a standard choice of eigenvectors @xmath150 @xcite , uniquely specifying @xmath151 ( up to constant factor ) is obtained by kato s ode @xcite , a linear , analytic ode whose solution can be alternatively characterized by the property that there exist corresponding left eigenvectors @xmath152 such that @xmath153 where `` @xmath154 '' denotes @xmath155 ; for further discussion , see @xcite .      in the inflow case , @xmath156 , we define the _ evans function _ @xmath157 as the analytic function @xmath158 where @xmath159 are as defined above , and @xmath160 is a solution satisfying the boundary conditions @xmath161 at @xmath12 , specifically , @xmath162 with this definition , eigenvalues of @xmath163 correspond to zeroes of @xmath157 both in location and multiplicity ; moreover , the evans function extends analytically to @xmath32 , i.e. , to all of @xmath140 . see @xcite for further details . equivalently , following @xcite , we may express the evans function as @xmath164 where @xmath165 spans the one - dimensional unstable manifold of solutions decaying at @xmath144 ( necessarily orthogonal to the span of @xmath166 and @xmath167 ) of the adjoint eigenvalue ode @xmath168 the simpler representation is the one that we shall use here .      in the outflow case , @xmath169 , we define the _ evans function _ as @xmath170 where @xmath171 is as defined above , and @xmath172 are a basis of solutions of satisfying the boundary conditions , specifically , @xmath173 or , equivalently , as @xmath174 where @xmath175 is the solution of the adjoint eigenvalue ode dual to @xmath176 and @xmath177 . [ outevansrmk ] as discussed in remark [ outrmk ] , @xmath178 has a spurious zero at @xmath32 introduced by the coordinate change to `` good unknown '' . we can now state precisely our main results .      taking a formal limit as @xmath76 of the rescaled equations and recalling that @xmath179 , we obtain a limiting evolution equation @xmath180 corresponding to a _ pressureless gas _ , or @xmath181 . the associated limiting profile equation @xmath182 has explicit solution @xmath183 @xmath184 ; the limiting eigenvalue system is @xmath185 @xmath186 where @xmath187    convergence of the profile and eigenvalue equations is _ uniform _ on any interval @xmath188 , or , equivalently , @xmath189 , for @xmath190 any positive constant , where the sequence of coefficient matrices is therefore a _ regular perturbation _ of its limit . following @xcite , we call @xmath191 the `` regular region '' . for @xmath192 on the other hand , or @xmath193 , the limit is less well - behaved , as may be seen by the fact that @xmath194 as @xmath195 , a consequence of the appearance of @xmath196 in the expression for @xmath197 . similarly , @xmath136 does not converge to @xmath198 as @xmath48 with uniform exponential rate independent of @xmath25 , @xmath0 , but rather as @xmath199 . as in the shock case , this makes problematic the treatment of @xmath200 . following @xcite we call @xmath200 the `` singular region '' .    to put things in another way , the effects of pressure are not lost as @xmath76 , but rather pushed to @xmath144 , where they must be studied by a careful boundary - layer analysis . ( note : this is not a boundary - layer in the same sense as the background solution , nor is it a singular perturbation in the usual sense , at least as we have framed the problem here . )    [ newparam ] a significant difference from the shock case of @xcite is the appearance of the second parameter @xmath201 that survives in the @xmath76 limit . observe that the limiting coefficient matrix @xmath202 is nonhyperbolic ( in ode sense ) for all @xmath120 , having eigenvalues @xmath203 ; in particular , the stable manifold drops to dimension one in the limit @xmath76 , and so the prescription of an associated evans function is _ underdetermined_.    this difficulty is resolved by a careful boundary - layer analysis in @xcite , determining a special `` slow stable '' mode @xmath204 augmenting the `` fast stable '' mode @xmath205 associated with the single stable eigenvalue @xmath206 of @xmath207 . this determines a _ limiting evans function _ @xmath208 by the prescription , of section [ evanssec ] , or alternatively via as @xmath209 with @xmath210 defined analogously as a solution of the adjoint limiting system lying asymptotically at @xmath144 in direction @xmath211 orthogonal to the span of @xmath212 and @xmath213 , where `` @xmath214 '' denotes complex conjugate , and @xmath215 defined as the solution of the limiting eigenvalue equations satisfying boundary condition , i.e. , @xmath216 . we have no such difficulties in the outflow case , since @xmath217 remains uniformly hyperbolic , and we may define a limiting evans function @xmath218 directly by , , , at least so long as @xmath201 remains bounded from zero . ( as perhaps already hinted by remark [ newparam ] , there are complications associated with the double limit @xmath219 . )      with the above definitions , we have the following main theorems characterizing the strong - layer limit @xmath76 as well as the limits @xmath220 . [ mainthm ] for @xmath221 and @xmath120 in any compact subset of @xmath140 , @xmath222 and @xmath223 converge uniformly to @xmath208 and @xmath224 as @xmath76 . [ main3 ] for @xmath120 in any compact subset of @xmath140 and @xmath25 bounded from @xmath26 , @xmath222 , appropriately renormalized by a nonvanishing analytic factor , converges uniformly as @xmath225 to the evans function for the ( unintegrated ) eigenvalue equations of the associated viscous shock wave connecting @xmath70 to @xmath25 ; likewise , @xmath224 , appropriately renormalized , converges uniformly as @xmath226 to the same limit for @xmath120 uniformly bounded away from zero .    by similar computations , we obtain also the following direct result . [ main2 ] inflow boundary layers are stable for @xmath201 sufficiently small . we have also the following parity information , obtained by stability - index computations as in @xcite .    [ index ] for any @xmath105 , @xmath201 , and @xmath25 , @xmath227 , hence the number of unstable roots of @xmath228 is even ; on the other hand @xmath229 and @xmath230 . likewise , @xmath231 , @xmath232 , @xmath233 , hence the number of nonzero unstable roots of @xmath234 , @xmath178 , @xmath218 is even .    finally , we have the following auxiliary results established by energy estimates in appendices [ stronglimit ] , [ outnonv ] , [ char ] , and [ nonvanish - expansive - inflow ] . [ redenergy ] the limiting evans function @xmath234 is nonzero for @xmath235 on @xmath236 , for all @xmath237 . the limiting evans function @xmath218 is nonzero for @xmath235 on @xmath236 , for @xmath238 , where @xmath239 is determined by the functional equation @xmath240 . [ charsmallamp ] compressive outflow boundary layers are stable for @xmath25 sufficiently close to @xmath26 .    [ expansive ] expansive inflow boundary layers are stable for all parameter values . collecting information , we have the following analytical stability results . [ v01 ] for @xmath201 or @xmath25 sufficiently small , compressive inflow boundary layers are stable . for @xmath201 sufficiently small , @xmath25 sufficiently close to @xmath26 , or @xmath241 and @xmath25 sufficiently small , compressive outflow layers are stable . expansive inflow boundary layers are stable for all parameter values .    stability of inflow boundary layers in the characteristic limit @xmath242 is not treated here , but should be treatable analytically by the asymptotic ode methods used in @xcite to study the small - amplitude ( characteristic ) shock limit . this would be an interesting direction for future investigation . the characteristic limit is not accessible numerically , since the exponential decay rate of the background profile decays to zero as @xmath243 , so that the numerical domain of integration needed to resolve the eigenvalue ode becomes infinitely large as @xmath242 . [ weakreg ] stability in the noncharacteristic weak layer limit @xmath244 [ resp . @xmath26 ] in the inflow [ outflow ] case , for @xmath25 bounded away from the strong and characteristic limits @xmath246 and @xmath26 has already been established in @xcite . indeed , it is shown in @xcite that the evans function converges to that for a constant solution , and this is a _ regular _ perturbation . [ extra ] stability of @xmath234 , @xmath218 may also be determined numerically , in particular in the region @xmath247 not covered by proposition [ redenergy ] . the asymptotic results of section [ analytical ] reduce the problem of ( uniformly noncharacteristic , @xmath25 bounded away from @xmath70 ) boundary layer stability to a bounded parameter range on which the evans function may be efficiently computed numerically in a way that is uniformly well - conditioned ; see @xcite . specifically , we may map a semicircle @xmath248 enclosing @xmath249 for @xmath28 $ ] by @xmath234 , @xmath218 , @xmath228 , @xmath178 and compute the winding number of its image about the origin to determine the number of zeroes of the various evans functions within the semicircle , and thus within @xmath249 . for details of the numerical algorithm , see @xcite .    in all cases , we obtain results consistent with stability ; that is , a winding number of zero or one , depending on the situation . in the case of a single nonzero root , we know from our limiting analysis that this root may be quite near @xmath32 , making delicate the direct determination of its stability ; however , in this case we do not attempt to determine the stability numerically , but rely on the analytically computed stability index to conclude stability . see section [ computations ] for further details .      as in the shock case @xcite , our results indicate _ unconditional stability _ of uniformly noncharacteristic boundary - layers for isentropic navier  stokes equations ( and , for outflow layer , in the characteristic limit as well ) , despite the additional complexity of the boundary - layer case . however , two additional comments are in order , perhaps related . first , we point out that the apparent symmetry of theorem [ main3 ] in the @xmath226 outflow and @xmath225 inflow limits is somewhat misleading . for , the limiting , shock evans function possesses a single zero at @xmath32 , indicating that stability of inflow boundary layers is somewhat delicate as @xmath225 : specifically , they have an eigenvalue near zero , which , though stable , is ( since vanishingly small in the shock limit ) not `` very '' stable . likewise , the limiting evans function @xmath234 as @xmath76 possesses a zero at @xmath32 , with the same conclusions . by contrast , the evans functions of outflow boundary layers possess a spurious zero at @xmath32 , so that convergence to the shock or strong - layer limit in this case implies the _ absence _ of any eigenvalues near zero , or `` uniform '' stability as @xmath76 . in this sense , strong outflow boundary layers appear to be more stable than inflow boundary layers . one may make interesting comparisons to physical attempts to stabilize laminar flow along an air- or hydro - foil by suction ( outflow ) along the boundary . see , for example , the interesting treatise @xcite . second , we point out the result of _ instability _ obtained in @xcite for inflow boundary - layers of the full ( nonisentropic ) ideal - gas equations for appropriate ratio of the coefficients of viscosity and heat conduction . this suggests that the small eigenvalues of the strong inflow - layer limit may in some cases perturb to the unstable side . it would be very interesting to make these connections more precise , as we hope to do in future work . since the structure of is essentially the same as that of the shock case , we may follow exactly the treatment in @xcite analyzing the flow of in the singular region @xmath48 . as we shall need the details for further computations ( specifically , the proof of theorem [ main2 ] ) , we repeat the analysis here in full . our starting point is the observation that @xmath250 is approximately block upper - triangular for @xmath107 sufficiently small , with diagonal blocks @xmath251 and @xmath252 that are uniformly spectrally separated on @xmath236 , as follows by @xmath253 we exploit this structure by a judicious coordinate change converting to a system in exact upper triangular form , for which the decoupled `` slow '' upper lefthand @xmath254 block undergoes a _ regular perturbation _ that can be analyzed by standard tools introduced in @xcite . meanwhile , the fast , lower righthand @xmath255 block , since scalar , may be solved exactly . we first block upper - triangularize by a static ( constant ) coordinate transformation the limiting matrix @xmath256 at @xmath144 using special block lower - triangular transformations @xmath257 where @xmath258 denotes the @xmath254 identity matrix and @xmath259 is a @xmath260 row vector . [ pretranslem ] on any compact subset of @xmath236 , for each @xmath261 sufficiently small , there exists a unique @xmath262 such that @xmath263 is upper block - triangular , @xmath264 where @xmath265 and @xmath266 , satisfying a uniform bound @xmath267 block of @xmath268 to zero , we obtain the matrix equation @xmath269 where @xmath270 , or , equivalently , the fixed - point equation @xmath271 by @xmath272 , @xmath273 is uniformly bounded on compact subsets of @xmath236 ( indeed , it is uniformly bounded on all of @xmath236 ) , whence , for @xmath274 bounded and @xmath25 sufficiently small , there exists a unique solution by the contraction mapping theorem , which , moreover , satisfies . defining now @xmath275 and @xmath276 we have converted to an asymptotically block upper - triangular system @xmath277 with @xmath278 as in . our next step is to choose a _ dynamic _ transformation of the same form @xmath279 converting to an exactly block upper - triangular system , with @xmath280 uniformly exponentially decaying at @xmath144 : that is , a _ regular perturbation _ of the identity .    [ dyntranslem ] on any compact subset of @xmath236 , for @xmath190 sufficiently large and each @xmath261 sufficiently small , there exists a unique @xmath281 such that @xmath282 is upper block - triangular , @xmath283 and @xmath284 , satisfying a uniform bound @xmath285 independent of the choice of @xmath190 , @xmath25 .    setting the @xmath286 block of @xmath287 to zero and computing @xmath288 we obtain the matrix equation @xmath289 where @xmath290 and the forcing term @xmath291 by derivative estimate @xmath292 together with the mean value theorem is uniformly exponentially decaying : @xmath293    initializing @xmath284 , we obtain by duhamel s principle / variation of constants the representation ( supressing the argument @xmath120 ) @xmath294 where @xmath295 is the solution operator for the homogeneous equation @xmath296 or , explicitly , @xmath297    for @xmath274 bounded and @xmath25 sufficiently small , we have by matrix perturbation theory that the eigenvalues of @xmath298 are small and the entries are bounded , hence @xmath299 for @xmath300 . recalling the uniform spectral gap @xmath301 for @xmath236 , we thus have @xmath302 . combining and , we obtain @xmath303    defining @xmath304 and recalling we thus have @xmath305 where @xmath306 is uniformly bounded , @xmath307 , and @xmath308 is contractive with arbitrarily small contraction constant @xmath309 in @xmath310 for @xmath311 for @xmath190 sufficiently large , by the calculation @xmath312 it follows by the contraction mapping principle that there exists a unique solution @xmath313 of fixed point equation with @xmath314 for @xmath315 , or , equivalently ( redefining the unspecified constant @xmath316 ) , . making now the further change of coordinates @xmath317 and computing @xmath318 we find that we have converted to a block - triangular system @xmath319 related to the original eigenvalue system by @xmath320 where @xmath321    since it is triangular , may be solved completely if we can solve the component systems associated with its diagonal blocks . the _ fast system _ @xmath322 associated to the lower righthand block features rapidly - varying coefficients . however , because it is scalar , it can be solved explicitly by exponentiation . the _ slow system _ @xmath323 associated to the upper lefthand block , on the other hand , by , is an exponentially decaying perturbation of a constant - coefficient system @xmath324 that can be explicitly solved by exponentiation , and thus can be well - estimated by comparison with . a rigorous version of this statement is given by the _ conjugation lemma _ of @xcite :    [ conjugation ] let @xmath325 , with @xmath326 continuous in @xmath120 and @xmath327 , for @xmath120 in some compact set @xmath249 . then , there exists a globally invertible matrix @xmath328 such that the coordinate change @xmath329 converts the variable - coefficient ode @xmath330 to a constant - coefficient equation @xmath331 satisfying for any @xmath190 , @xmath332 a uniform bound @xmath333    see @xcite , or appendix c , @xcite .    by proposition [ conjugation ] , the solution operator for is given by @xmath334 where @xmath335 is a uniformly small perturbation of the identity for @xmath315 and @xmath336 sufficiently large . with these preparations , we turn now to the proofs of the main theorems .      we begin by recalling the following estimates established in @xcite on @xmath337 , that is , the value of the dual mode @xmath338 appearing in at the boundary @xmath339 between regular and singular regions . for completeness , and because we shall need the details in further computations , we repeat the proof in full . [ matching ] for @xmath120 on any compact subset of @xmath236 , and @xmath336 sufficiently large , with @xmath338 normalized as in @xcite , latexmath:[\[\label{wcon }    @xmath76 , uniformly in @xmath120 , where @xmath66 , @xmath341 are independent of @xmath190 and @xmath342 is the limiting direction vector appearing in the definition of @xmath234 . [ matching2 ] under the hypotheses of lemma [ matching ] , latexmath:[\[\label{limcon }    latexmath:[\[\label{wcon2 }    as @xmath76 , uniformly in @xmath120 , where @xmath66 , @xmath341 are independent of @xmath190 and @xmath344 is the solution of the limiting adjoint eigenvalue system appearing in definition of @xmath345 . first , make the independent coordinate change @xmath346 normalizing the background wave to match the shock - wave case . making the dependent coordinate - change @xmath347 @xmath348 as in , reduces the adjoint equation @xmath349 to block lower - triangular form , @xmath350 with `` @xmath214 '' denoting complex conjugate . denoting by @xmath351 a suitably normalized element of the one - dimensional ( slow ) stable subspace of @xmath352 , we find readily ( see @xcite for further discussion ) that , without loss of generality , @xmath353 as @xmath76 , while the associated eigenvalue @xmath354 uniformly for @xmath120 on an compact subset of @xmath355 . the dual mode @xmath356 is uniquely determined by the property that it is asymptotic as @xmath48 to the corresponding constant - coefficient solution @xmath357 ( the standard normalization of @xcite ) .    by lower block - triangular form , the equations for the slow variable @xmath358 decouples as a slow system @xmath359 dual to , with solution operator @xmath360 dual to , i.e. ( fixing @xmath361 , say ) , solutions of general form @xmath362 @xmath363 arbitrary .    denoting by @xmath364 therefore , the unique ( up to constant factor ) decaying solution at @xmath59 , and @xmath365 , we thus have evidently @xmath366 which , as @xmath76 , is uniformly bounded by latexmath:[\[\label{weakexp }    @xmath309 and , by , converges for @xmath7 less than or equal to @xmath368 for any fixed @xmath369 simply to @xmath370    defining by @xmath371 the fast coordinate of @xmath372 , we have , by , @xmath373 whence , by duhamel s principle , any decaying solution is given by @xmath374 where @xmath375 recalling , for @xmath236 , that @xmath376 , combining and , and noting that @xmath72 converges uniformly on @xmath377 as @xmath76 for any @xmath378 to @xmath379 we obtain by the lebesgue dominated convergence theorem that @xmath380 recalling , finally , , and the fact that @xmath381 for @xmath25 sufficiently small , we obtain as claimed .    again , make the coordinate change @xmath346 normalizing the background wave to match the shock - wave case . applying proposition [ conjugation ] to the limiting adjoint system @xmath382 we find that , up to an @xmath383 coordinate change , @xmath384 is given by the exact solution @xmath385 of the limiting , constant - coefficient system @xmath386 this yields immediately , which , together with , yields . the rest of our analysis is standard . [ regconj ] on @xmath387 for any fixed @xmath336 , there exists a coordinate - change @xmath388 conjugating to the limiting equations , @xmath389 , satisfying a uniform bound latexmath:[\[\label{tbd }     make the coordinate change @xmath346 normalizing the background profile . for @xmath391 $ ] , this is a consequence of the _ convergence lemma _ of @xcite , a variation on proposition [ conjugation ] , together with uniform convergence of the profile and eigenvalue equations . for @xmath392 $ ] , it is essentially continuous dependence ; more precisely , observing that @xmath393 for @xmath392 $ ] , setting @xmath394 , and writing the homological equation expressing conjugacy of and , we obtain @xmath395 which , considered as an inhomogeneous linear matrix - valued equation , yields an exponential growth bound @xmath396 for some @xmath118 , giving the result . make the coordinate change @xmath346 normalizing the background profile . lemma [ regconj ] , together with convergence as @xmath76 of the unstable subspace of @xmath397 to the unstable subspace of @xmath398 at the same rate @xmath399 ( as follows by spectral separation of the unstable eigenvalue of @xmath400 and standard matrix perturbation theory ) yields @xmath401 gives @xmath402 where @xmath403 denotes the solution operator of the limiting adjoint eigenvalue equation @xmath404 . applying proposition [ conjugation ] to the limiting system , we obtain @xmath405 by direct computation of @xmath406 , where @xmath407 is independent of @xmath336 . together with and , this gives latexmath:[\[|\tilde w_1^+(0,\lambda)- \tilde w_1^{0+}(0,\lambda)|\le c(l)v_+    @xmath274 bounded , @xmath409 taking first @xmath410 and then @xmath76 , we obtain therefore convergence of @xmath411 and @xmath412 to @xmath413 and @xmath414 , yielding the result by definitions and . straightforward , following the previous argument in the regular region only . first make the coordinate change @xmath346 normalizing the background profile location to that of the shock wave case , where @xmath415 as @xmath225 . by standard duality properties , @xmath416 is independent of @xmath417 , so we may evaluate at @xmath12 as in the shock case . denote by @xmath418 , @xmath419 the corresponding modes in the shock case , and @xmath420 the resulting evans function . noting that @xmath421 and @xmath422 are asymptotic to the unique stable mode at @xmath59 of the ( same ) adjoint eigenvalue equation , but with translated decay rates , we see immediately that @xmath423 @xmath424 on the other hand is initialized at @xmath425 ( in the new coordinates @xmath426 ) as @xmath427 whereas @xmath418 is the unique unstable mode at @xmath60 decaying as @xmath428 , where @xmath429 is the unstable right eigenvector of @xmath430    denote by @xmath431 the associated dual unstable left eigenvector and @xmath432 the eigenprojection onto the stable vector @xmath433 . by direct computation , @xmath434 yielding @xmath435 for @xmath436 , on which @xmath437 . once we know , we may finish by a standard argument , concluding by exponential attraction in the positive @xmath7-direction of the unstable mode that other modes decay exponentially as @xmath438 , leaving the contribution from @xmath439 plus a negligible @xmath440 error , @xmath341 , from which we may conclude that @xmath441 collecting information , we find that @xmath442 @xmath341 , yielding the claimed convergence as @xmath225 , @xmath443 . for @xmath120 uniformly bounded from zero , @xmath444 converges uniformly as @xmath226 to @xmath445 whereas the shock evans function @xmath446 is initiated by @xmath447 proportional to @xmath448 agreeing in the first two coordinates with @xmath449 . by the boundary - layer analysis of section [ estw1 ] , the backward ( i.e. , decreasing @xmath7 ) evolution of the adjoint eigenvalue ode reduces in the asymptotic limit @xmath76 ( forced by @xmath226 ) to a decoupled slow flow @xmath450 in the first two coordinates , driving an exponentially slaved fast flow in the third coordinate . from this , we may conclude that solutions agreeing in the first two coordinates converge exponentially as @xmath7 decreases . performing an appropriate normalization , as in the inflow case just treated , we thus obtain the result . we omit the details , which follow what has already been done in previous cases . following @xcite , we note that @xmath222 is real for real @xmath120 , and nonvanishing for real @xmath120 sufficiently large , hence @xmath451 is well - defined and constant on the entire ( connected ) parameter range . the number of roots of @xmath228 on @xmath140 is therefore even or odd depending on the _ stability index _ @xmath452.\ ] ] similarly , recalling that @xmath453 , we find that the number of roots of @xmath178 on @xmath140 is even or odd depending on @xmath454.\ ] ]    examining the adjoint equation at @xmath32 , @xmath455 @xmath456 , we find by explicit computation that the only solutions that are bounded as @xmath48 are the _ constant solutions _ @xmath457 . taking the limit @xmath458 as @xmath459 along the real axis of the unique stable eigenvector of @xmath460 , we find ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) that it lies in the direction @xmath461 , where @xmath462 is the positive characteristic speed of the hyperbolic convection matrix @xmath463 , i.e. , @xmath464 , @xmath465 . thus , @xmath466 as claimed . on the other hand , the same computation carried out for @xmath467 yields @xmath468 . ( note : @xmath469 as @xmath76 . ) similarly , as @xmath226 , @xmath470 finally , note @xmath227 implies that the stability index , since continuously varying so long as it does nt vanish and taking discrete values @xmath471 , must be constant on the connected set of parameter values . since inflow boundary layers are known to be stable on some part of the parameter regime by energy estimates ( theorem [ main2 ] ) , we may conclude that the stability index is identically one and therefore there are an even number of unstable roots for all @xmath472 .    to establish that @xmath473 , we compute @xmath474 since @xmath475 is independent of @xmath120 , we need only show that the first component of @xmath476 is nonzero . note that @xmath477 solves the limiting adjoint variational equations    @xmath478 with @xmath479 by , and the fact that @xmath480 , @xmath481 is chosen so that asymptotically at @xmath144 it lies in the direction of @xmath482 . . then the third component solves @xmath484 which has solution @xmath485 where @xmath486 integrating the equation for the first component of @xmath487 yields @xmath488 using the condition @xmath489 we have @xmath490 so that    @xmath491 finally , note that by using we have @xmath492 so that for all @xmath493 , @xmath494 which implies @xmath495    [ apparent ] the result @xmath227 at first sight appears to contradict that of theorem [ main3 ] , since @xmath496 for the shock wave case . this apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the normalizing factor @xmath497 is exponentially decaying in @xmath111 for @xmath32 , since @xmath498 , while @xmath499 . recalling that @xmath443 as @xmath225 , we recover the result of theorem [ main3 ] . similarly , we compute @xmath500 where @xmath501 satisfies the variational equation @xmath502 , or , written as a first - order system , @xmath503 which may be solved exactly for the unique solution decaying at @xmath60 of @xmath504 recalling from that @xmath505 , hence @xmath506 we thus find that @xmath507 as claimed . the proof that @xmath233 goes similarly .    finally , as in the proof of the inflow case , we note that nonvanishing implies that the stability index is constant across the entire ( connected ) parameter range , hence we may conclude that it is identically one by existence of a stable case ( corollary [ v01 ] ) , and therefore that the number of nonzero unstable roots is even , as claimed .      by proposition [ redenergy ] we find that @xmath228 has at most a single zero in @xmath140 . however , by our stability index results , theorem [ index ] , the number of eigenvalues in @xmath140 is even . thus , it must be zero , giving the result .    by theorem [ main3 ] , @xmath178 , suitably renormalized , converges as @xmath226 to the evans function for the ( unintegrated ) shock wave case . but , the shock evans function by the results of @xcite has just a single zero at @xmath32 on @xmath436 , already accounted for in @xmath178 by the spurious root at @xmath32 introduced by recoordinatization to `` good unknown '' . finally , we treat the remaining , `` corner case '' as @xmath25 , @xmath201 simultaneously approach zero . the fact ( lemma [ index ] ) that @xmath508 shows that this limit is quite delicate ; indeed , this is the most delicate part of our analysis . consider again the adjoint system @xmath509 by the boundary analysis of section [ estw1 ] , @xmath510 where @xmath511 , and @xmath512 is the unique stable eigenvalue of @xmath513 , satisfying ( by matrix perturbation calculation ) @xmath514 and thus @xmath515 as @xmath226 ( hence @xmath76 ) on bounded subsets of @xmath140 . combining these expansions , we have @xmath516 for @xmath201 sufficiently small .    from the @xmath517 equation @xmath518 , we thus obtain @xmath519 observing , finally , that , for @xmath140 , the ratio of real to imaginary parts of @xmath520 is uniformly positive , we find that @xmath521 for @xmath201 sufficiently small , which yields nonvanishing of @xmath222 on @xmath140 as claimed . in this section , we show , through a systematic numerical evans function study , that there are no unstable eigenvalues for @xmath522\times(0,1],\ ] ] in either inflow or outflow cases . as defined in section [ evanssec ] , the evans function is analytic in the right - half plane and reports a value of zero precisely at the eigenvalues of the linearized operator . hence we can use the argument principle to determine if there are any unstable eigenvalues for this system . our approach closely follows that of @xcite for the shock case with only two major differences . first , our shooting algorithm is only one sided as we have the boundary conditions and for the inflow and outflow cases , respectfully . second , we `` correct '' for the displacement in the boundary layer when @xmath523 in the inflow case and @xmath524 in the outflow case so that the evans function converges to the shock case as studied in @xcite ( see discussion in section [ sectionshocklimit ] ) . @xmath525{inflow1 } & \includegraphics[width=6.4cm , height=4.5cm]{inflow2 } \\ \mbox{\bf ( a ) } & \mbox{\bf ( b)}\\ \includegraphics[width=5.75cm]{inflow3 } & \includegraphics[width=5.6cm]{inflow4 } \\ \mbox{\bf ( c ) } & \mbox{\bf ( d ) } \end{array}$ ]    the profiles were generated using matlab s bvp4c routine , which is an adaptive lobatto quadrature scheme . the shooting portion of the evans function computation was performed using matlab s ode45 package , which is the standard 4th order adaptive runge - kutta - fehlberg method ( rkf45 ) . the error tolerances for both the profiles and the shooting were set to abstol=1e-6 and reltol=1e-8 . we remark that kato s ode ( see section [ evanssec ] and @xcite for details ) is used to analytically choose the initial eigenbasis for the stable / unstable manifolds at the numerical values of infinity at @xmath526 . finally in section [ errorstudy ] , we carry out a numerical convergence study similar to that in @xcite . @xmath527{outflow1 } & \includegraphics[width=5.75cm]{outflow2 } \\ \mbox{\bf ( a ) } & \mbox{\bf ( b)}\\ \includegraphics[width=5.75cm]{outflow3 } & \includegraphics[width=5.3cm]{outflow4 } \\ \mbox{\bf ( c ) } & \mbox{\bf ( d ) } \end{array}$ ]      the high - frequency estimates in proposition [ hf ] restrict the set of admissible unstable eigenvalues to a fixed compact triangle @xmath249 in the right - half plane ( see and for the inflow and outflow cases , respectively ) . we reiterate the remarkable property that @xmath249 does not depend on the choice of @xmath25 or @xmath201 . hence , to demonstrate stability for a given @xmath0 , @xmath25 and @xmath201 , it suffices to show that the winding number of the evans function along a contour containing @xmath249 is zero . note that in our region of interest , @xmath528 $ ] , the semi - circular contour given by @xmath529 contains @xmath249 in both the inflow and outflow cases . hence , for consistency we use this same semicircle for all of our winding number computations . a remarkable feature of the evans function for this system , and one that is shared with the shock case in @xcite , is that the evans function has limiting behavior as the amplitude increases , section [ analytical ] . for the inflow case , we see in figure [ first ] , the mapping of the contour @xmath530 for the monatomic case ( @xmath531 ) , for several different choices of @xmath201 , as @xmath532 . we remark that the winding numbers for @xmath533 are all zero , and the limiting contour touches zero due to the emergence of a zero root in the limit . note that the limiting case contains the contours of all other amplitudes . hence , we have spectral stability for all amplitudes . the outflow case likewise has a limiting behavior , however , all contours cross through zero due to the eigenvalue at the origin . nonetheless , since the contours only wind around once , we can likewise conclude that these profiles are spectrally stable . we remark that the outflow case converges to the limiting case faster than the inflow case as is clear from figure [ second1 ] . indeed , @xmath534 and the limiting case @xmath535 , as well as all of the values of @xmath25 in between , are virtually indistinguishable . @xmath527{index1 } & \includegraphics[width=5.75cm]{index2 } \\ \mbox{\bf ( a ) } & \mbox{\bf ( b ) } \end{array}$ ]    in our study , we systematically varied @xmath201 in the interval @xmath536 $ ] and took the @xmath532 limit at each step , starting from a @xmath537 ( or some other appropriate value , for example when @xmath538 ) on the small - amplitude end and decreased @xmath25 steadily to @xmath539 for @xmath540 , followed by evaluation at @xmath535 . for both inflow and outflow cases , over @xmath541 contours were computed . we remark that in the @xmath532 limit , the system becomes pressureless , and thus all of the contours in the large - amplitude limit look the same regardless of the value of @xmath0 chosen .      as an additional verification of stability , we computed the evans function along the unstable real axis on the interval @xmath542 $ ] for varying parameters to show that there are no real unstable eigenvalues . since the evans function has a root at the origin in the limiting system for the inflow case , and for all values of @xmath25 in the outflow case , we can perform in these cases a sort of _ numerical stability index analysis _ to verify that the evans function cuts transversely through the origin and is otherwise nonzero , indicating that there are no unstable real eigenvalues as expected . in figure [ second2 ] , we see a typical example of @xmath543 the inflow and @xmath544 outflow cases . note that in both images , the evans function cuts transversally through the origin and is otherwise nonzero as @xmath120 increases . @xmath545{limit1 } & \includegraphics[width=5.9cm]{limit2 } \\ \mbox{\bf ( a ) } & \mbox{\bf ( b ) } \end{array}$ ]      when @xmath201 is far from the midpoint @xmath546 of the end states , the the evans function of the boundary layer is similar to the evans function of the shock case evaluated at the displacement point @xmath417 . hence , when we compute the boundary layer evans function near the shock limits , @xmath523 for the inflow case and @xmath524 for the outflow case , we multiply for the correction factor @xmath547 so that our output looks close to that of the shock case studied in @xcite . the correction factors are @xmath548 for the inflow case and @xmath549 for the outflow case , where @xmath550 is the growth mode of @xmath551 and @xmath552 is the decay mode of @xmath198 . in figure [ second3 ] , we see that these highly displaced profiles appear to be very similar to the shock cases with one notable difference . these images have a small dimple near @xmath32 to account for the eigenvalue there , whereas those in the shock case @xcite were computed in integrated coordinates and thus have no root at the origin .    ccccccc + @xmath190 & @xmath553 & @xmath554 & @xmath555 & @xmath556 & @xmath557 & @xmath558 + 8 & 7.8(-1 ) & 8.4(-1 ) & 9.2(-1 ) & 1.0(0 ) & 1.2(0 ) & 1.3(0 ) + 10 & 1.4(-1 ) & 1.2(-1 ) & 9.2(-2 ) & 6.8(-2 ) & 4.4(-2 ) & 2.8(-2 ) + 12 & 1.4(-2 ) & 7.9(-3 ) & 3.6(-3 ) & 1.3(-3 ) & 3.1(-4 ) & 7.3(-5 ) + 14 & 1.3(-3 ) & 4.9(-4 ) & 1.3(-4 ) & 2.4(-5 ) & 8.7(-6 ) & 8.2(-6 ) + 16 & 1.2(-4 ) & 3.0(-5 ) & 4.7(-6 ) & 2.8(-6 ) & 2.7(-6 ) & 2.6(-6 ) + 18 & 1.1(-5 ) & 5.8(-6 ) & 8.0(-6 ) & 8.1(-6 ) & 8.0(-6 ) & 8.0(-6 ) +   + @xmath190 & @xmath553 & @xmath554 & @xmath555 & @xmath556 & @xmath557 & @xmath558 + 8 & 5.4(-3 ) & 5.4(-3 ) & 5.4(-3 ) & 5.4(-3 ) & 5.4(-3 ) & 5.4(-3 ) + 10 & 9.2(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) + 12 & 1.5(-4 ) & 1.5(-4 ) & 1.5(-4 ) & 1.5(-4 ) & 1.5(-4 ) & 1.5(-4 ) + 14 & 2.5(-5 ) & 2.7(-5 ) & 2.0(-5 ) & 2.0(-5 ) & 2.0(-5 ) & 2.0(-5 ) + 16 & 2.3(-6 ) & 2.6(-6 ) & 2.6(-6 ) & 2.5(-6 ) & 2.5(-6 ) & 2.5(-6 ) + 18 & 6.6(-6 ) & 3.6(-6 ) & 8.7(-6 ) & 8.7(-6 ) & 8.7(-6 ) & 8.7(-6 ) +    ccccccc + abs / rel & @xmath553 & @xmath554 & @xmath555 & @xmath556 & @xmath557 & @xmath558 + @xmath559 & 5.4(-4 ) & 4.1(-4 ) & 4.0(-4 ) & 5.0(-4 ) & 3.4(-4 ) & 8.6(-4 ) + @xmath560 & 3.1(-5 ) & 4.6(-5 ) & 3.4(-5 ) & 3.3(-5 ) & 3.3(-5 ) & 3.2(-5 ) + @xmath561 & 2.9(-6 ) & 3.6(-6 ) & 3.9(-6 ) & 6.8(-6 ) & 2.7(-6 ) & 2.5(-6 ) + @xmath562 & 4.6(-7 ) & 9.9(-7 ) & 1.1(-6 ) & 6.0(-7 ) & 2.9(-7 ) & 3.2(-7 ) +   + abs / rel & @xmath553 & @xmath554 & @xmath555 & @xmath556 & @xmath557 & @xmath558 + @xmath559 & 9.2(-4 ) & 9.2(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.1(-4 ) & 9.2(-4 ) + @xmath560 & 5.3(-5 ) & 4.9(-5 ) & 5.3(-5 ) & 5.3(-5 ) & 5.3(-5 ) & 5.3(-5 ) + @xmath561 & 6.7(-5 ) & 6.7(-5 ) & 6.7(-5 ) & 6.7(-5 ) & 6.7(-5 ) & 6.7(-5 ) + @xmath562 & 2.9(-6 ) & 2.9(-6 ) & 2.9(-6 ) & 2.9(-6 ) & 2.9(-6 ) & 2.9(-6 ) +      as in @xcite , we carry out a numerical convergence study to show that our results are accurate . we varied the absolute and relative error tolerances , as well as the length of the numerical domain @xmath563 $ ] . in tables 12 , we demonstrate that our choices of @xmath564 , abstol=1e-6 and reltol=1e-8 provide accurate results . our starting point is remark [ shockrel ] , in which we observed that the first - order eigensystem in variable @xmath565 may be converted by the rescaling @xmath566 to a system identical to that of the integrated equations in the shock case ; see @xcite . artificially defining @xmath567 , we obtain a system    [ ep ] @xmath568    identical to that in the integrated shock case @xcite , but with boundary conditions @xmath569 imposed at @xmath12 . this new eigenvalue problem differs spectrally from only at @xmath32 , hence spectral stability of is implied by spectral stability of . hereafter , we drop the tildes , and refer simply to @xmath5 , @xmath570 .    with these coordinates , we may establish by exactly the same argument used in the shock case in @xcite , for completeness reproduced here . the following identity holds for @xmath571 : @xmath572    we multiply by @xmath573 and integrate along @xmath7 . this yields @xmath574 we get by taking the real and imaginary parts and adding them together , and noting that @xmath575 . [ kawashima ] the following identity holds for @xmath571 : @xmath576 |v'|^2\ ] ]    we multiply by @xmath577 and integrate along @xmath7 . this yields @xmath578 using on the right - hand side , integrating by parts , and taking the real part gives @xmath579 = { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\left[\frac{h(\bv)}{\bv^{\gamma+1 } } + \frac{\bv_x}{2 \bv^2 } \right ] |v'|^2 + \r(\lambda){\int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\frac{|v'|^2}{\bv}.\ ] ] the right hand side can be rewritten as @xmath580 = \frac{1}{2 } { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\left[\frac{h(\bv)}{\bv^{\gamma+1 } } + \frac{a\gamma}{\bv^{\gamma+1 } } \right ] |v'|^2 + \r(\lambda){\int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\frac{|v'|^2}{\bv}.\ ] ] now we manipulate the left - hand side . note that @xmath581 hence , by taking the real part we get @xmath579 = { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}|u'|^2 - 2\r(\lambda)^2 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}|v|^2.\ ] ] this combines with to give . [ hlem ] for @xmath582 as in , we have @xmath583 where @xmath584 is the profile solution to .    defining @xmath585 we have @xmath586 for @xmath587 , hence the maximum of @xmath588 on @xmath589 $ ] is achieved at @xmath590 . substituting into and simplifying yields . using young s inequality twice on right - hand side of together with , we get @xmath591 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\bv |u|^2.\end{aligned}\ ] ] assuming that @xmath592 and @xmath593 , this simplifies to @xmath594 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\bv    @xmath595   { \int_{\mathbb{r}^+}}\bv |u|^2,\ ] ] or equivalently , @xmath596 setting @xmath597 gives . similarly as in the inflow case , we can convert the eigenvalue equations into the integrated equations as in the shock case ; see @xcite . artificially defining @xmath598 , we obtain a system    [ outep ] @xmath599    identical to that in the integrated shock case @xcite , but with boundary conditions @xmath600 imposed at @xmath12 . we shall write @xmath601 for @xmath602 , for any function @xmath603 . this new eigenvalue problem differs spectrally from only at @xmath32 , hence spectral stability of is implied by spectral stability of . hereafter , we drop the tildes , and refer simply to @xmath5 , @xmath570 . the following identity holds for @xmath571 : @xmath604    we multiply by @xmath573 and integrate along @xmath7 . this yields @xmath605 we get by taking the real and imaginary parts and adding them together , and noting that @xmath606 . [ outkawashima ] the following inequality holds for @xmath607 : @xmath608 |v'|^2 & + \r(\lambda){\int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\frac{|v'|^2}{\bv}+ \frac { |v'_0|^2}{4\bv_0 } + 2\r\lambda ^2{\int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}|v|^2\notag \\&\le { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}|u'|^2 + \bv_0|u_0|^2.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we multiply by @xmath577 and integrate along @xmath7 . this yields @xmath609 using on the right - hand side , integrating by parts , and taking the real part gives @xmath610 = { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\left[\frac{h(\bv)}{\bv^{\gamma+1 } } + \frac{\bv_x}{2 \bv^2 } \right ]    { |v'_0|^2}{2\bv_0}.\ ] ] the right hand side can be rewritten as @xmath611 \notag\\&= \frac{1}{2 } { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\left[\frac{h(\bv)}{\bv^{\gamma+1 } } + \frac{a\gamma}{\bv^{\gamma+1 } } \right ] |v'|^2 + \r(\lambda){\int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\frac{|v'|^2}{\bv}+ \frac { |v'_0|^2}{2\bv_0}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] now we manipulate the left - hand side . note that @xmath612 hence , by taking the real part and noting that @xmath613 we get @xmath610 = { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}|u'|^2 - 2\r\lambda ^2{\int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}|v|^2 - \r\lambda |v_0|^2 + \r(\lambda u_0\bar v_0).\ ] ]    this combines with to give @xmath614 |v'|^2 & + \r(\lambda){\int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\frac{|v'|^2}{\bv}+ \frac { |v'_0|^2}{2\bv_0 } + 2\r\lambda ^2{\int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}|v|^2\\ &   + \r\lambda    we get by observing that and young s inequality yield @xmath615 here we used @xmath616 . note that @xmath617 and @xmath618 . using young s inequality twice on right - hand side of together with , and denoting the boundary term on the right by @xmath619 , we get @xmath620 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\bv |u|^2+i_b.\end{aligned}\ ] ] here we treat the boundary term by @xmath621    therefore using , we simply obtain from the above estimates @xmath622 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\bv |u|^2+\frac 1\theta |\alpha|^2 \bv_0|u_0|^2\\ & < 2\theta { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}|u'|^2 + \left[\frac{\gamma}{2\theta } + \frac{1}{4 \epsilon}\right ] { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\bv |u|^2+j_b\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath623 assuming that @xmath624 , this simplifies to @xmath625 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\bv |u|^2+j_b.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    note that @xmath626 . therefore for @xmath627 , we get @xmath628 and @xmath629 for sake of simplicity , choose @xmath630 and @xmath631 . this shows that @xmath632 can be absorbed into the left by the term @xmath633 and thus we get @xmath634 { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\bv |u|^2 = \left [ 3\gamma+ \frac{3}{8}\right ] { \int_{\mathbb{r}^-}}\bv |u|^2,\end{aligned}\ ] ] provided that @xmath635 . this shows @xmath636 working in @xmath637 variables as in , the limiting eigenvalue system and boundary conditions take the form    [ limitep ] @xmath638    corresponding to a pressureless gas , @xmath181 , with @xmath639 hereafter , we drop the tildes . multiplying by @xmath640 and integrating on @xmath641\subset\mathbb{r}^+$ ] , we obtain @xmath642 integrating the third and fourth terms by parts yields @xmath643 u'\bar{u } dx \\ & \quad+ \int^b_0 \frac{|u'|^2}{1-\bv } dx +   \int^b_0 v ( \overline{\lambda v + v ' } ) dx   \\ & = \left [ v \bar{u } + \frac{u'\bar{u}}{1-\bv } \right ] \big|^b_0.\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] taking the real part , we have    @xmath644 |u|^2 - \frac{|v|^2 } { 2 } \right ] \big|^b_0,\label{mnen}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath645.\ ] ] note that @xmath646 thus , @xmath647 and the third term on the right - hand side vanishes , leaving @xmath648 \big|^b_0\\ & \quad   = \left [ \r(v \bar{u } ) + \frac{\r(u'\bar{u})}{1-\bv } - \frac{|v|^2 } { 2 } \right](b).\\\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we show finally that the right - hand side goes to zero in the limit as @xmath649 . by proposition [ conjugation ] , the behavior of @xmath5 , @xmath570 near @xmath650 is governed by the limiting constant  coefficient systems @xmath651 , where @xmath652 and @xmath653 . in particular , solutions @xmath134 asymptotic to @xmath654 at @xmath144 decay exponentially in @xmath655 and are bounded in coordinate @xmath5 as @xmath48 . observing that @xmath656 as @xmath48 , we thus see immediately that the boundary contribution at @xmath657 vanishes as @xmath658 . thus , in the limit as @xmath658 , @xmath659 but , for @xmath355 , this implies @xmath660 , or @xmath661 , which , by @xmath662 , implies @xmath663 . this reduces to @xmath664 , yielding the explicit solution @xmath665 . by @xmath666 , therefore , @xmath667 for @xmath355 . substituting into , we obtain @xmath668 . it follows that there are no nontrivial solutions of , for @xmath355 except at @xmath32 . [ symmetrizers ] the above energy estimate is essentially identical to that used in @xcite to treat the limiting shock case . working in @xmath637 variables as in , the limiting eigenvalue system and boundary conditions take the form    [ outlimitep ] @xmath669    corresponding to a pressureless gas , @xmath181 , with @xmath670 @xmath671 in particular , @xmath672 hereafter , we drop the tildes . multiplying by @xmath640 and integrating on @xmath673\subset\mathbb{r}^-$ ] , we obtain @xmath674 integrating the third and fourth terms by parts yields @xmath675 u'\bar{u } dx \\ & \quad+ \int^0_a \frac{|u'|^2}{1-\bv } dx +   \int^0_a v ( \overline{\lambda v + v ' } ) dx   \\ & = \left [ v \bar{u } + \frac{u'\bar{u}}{1-\bv } \right ] \big|^0_a.\\\end{aligned}\ ] ] taking the real part , we have    @xmath676 |u|^2 - \frac{|v|^2 } { 2 } \right ] \big|^0_a,\label{mnen2}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath645\equiv 0\ ] ] and the third term on the right - hand side vanishes , as shown in section [ stronglimit ] , leaving @xmath677 \big|^0_a.\\\end{aligned}\ ] ]    a boundary analysis similar to that of section [ stronglimit ] shows that the contribution at @xmath72 on the righthand side vanishes as @xmath678 ; see @xcite for details . thus , in the limit as @xmath678 we obtain @xmath679 ( 0)\\ & \quad   = \left[(1-v_0)\r(v \bar{u } ) - \frac{|v|^2 } { 2 } \right ] ( 0),\\ & \quad   \le \left[(1- v_0 ) |v||u| - \frac{|v|^2 } { 2}\right](0)\\ & \quad   \le ( 1- v_0 ) ^2\frac{|u(0)|^2}{2},\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the second equality follows by and the final line by young s inequality .    next , observe the sobolev - type bound @xmath680 together with @xmath681 hence @xmath682 for @xmath683 , where @xmath684 is the unique solution of @xmath685    thus , for @xmath683 , @xmath686 for @xmath687 . for @xmath355 , this implies @xmath660 , or @xmath661 , which , by @xmath688 , implies @xmath689 . this reduces to @xmath664 , yielding the explicit solution @xmath665 . by @xmath666 , therefore , @xmath667 for @xmath355 . it follows that there are no nontrivial solutions of , for @xmath355 except at @xmath32 .    by iteration , starting with @xmath690 , we obtain first @xmath691 then @xmath692 , then @xmath693 , then @xmath694 , then @xmath695 and @xmath696 , terminating with @xmath697 . [ smallcase ] our evans function results show that the case @xmath201 small not treated corresponds to the shock limit for which stability is already known by @xcite . this suggests that a more sophisticated energy estimate combining the above with a boundary - layer analysis from @xmath12 back to @xmath339 might yield nonvanishing for all @xmath237 . we now show stability of compressive outflow boundary layers in the characteristic limit @xmath242 , by essentially the same energy estimate used in @xcite to show stability of small - amplitude shock waves .    as in the above section on the outflow case , we obtain a system    [ charep ] @xmath698    identical to that in the integrated shock case @xcite , but with boundary conditions @xmath671 in particular , @xmath699 this new eigenvalue problem differs spectrally from only at @xmath32 , hence spectral stability of is implied by spectral stability of . hereafter , we drop the tildes , and refer simply to @xmath5 , @xmath570 . [ proof of proposition [ charsmallamp ] ]    we note that @xmath700 . by multiplying by both the conjugate @xmath701 and @xmath702 and integrating along @xmath7 from @xmath60 to @xmath246 , we have @xmath703 integrating the last three terms by parts and appropriately using to substitute for @xmath704 in the third term gives us @xmath705\big|_{x=0}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] we take the real part and appropriately integrate by parts to get @xmath706 } dx } +   { \int_{-\infty}^0 { g(\bv ) |u|^2 } dx } + { \int_{-\infty}^0 { \frac{\bv^\gamma}{h(\bv)}|u'|^2 } dx}= g(0),\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath707\ ] ] and @xmath708|u|^2 + \r\left[v\bar u+\frac{v^\gamma u'\bar u}{h(\bv)}\right ] - \frac{|v|^2}{2}\ ] ] evaluated at @xmath12 . here , the boundary term appearing on the righthand side is the only difference from the corresponding estimate appearing in the treatment of the shock case in @xcite . we shall show that as @xmath709 , the boundary term @xmath710 is nonpositive . observe that boundary conditions yield @xmath711\big|_{x=0 } = \r(v(0)\bar u(0))\left[1+\frac{\bv^\gamma \bv'}{h(\bv)}\right]\big|_{x=0}.\ ] ]    we first note , as established in @xcite , that @xmath712 on @xmath713 $ ] , under certain conditions including the case @xmath709 . straightforward computation gives identities : @xmath714 using and , we abbreviate a few intermediate steps below : @xmath715\right]\notag\\ & = -\frac{\bv_x}{2}\left [ \frac{\bv^\gamma\left((\gamma+1)h(\bv ) - \bv h'(\bv)\right)}{h(\bv)^2 } + \frac{d}{d\bv}\left [ \frac{\gamma h(\bv)-\bv h'(\bv)}{h(\bv)^2 } ( a\gamma - h(\bv ) ) \right]\right]\notag\\ & = -\frac{a\bv_x\bv^{\gamma-1}}{2 h(\bv)^3 } \times\notag\\ & \qquad\left [ \gamma^2(\gamma+1)\bv^{\gamma+2 } - 2 ( a+1)\gamma(\gamma^2 - 1)\bv^{\gamma+1}+(a+1)^2\gamma^2(\gamma-1)\bv^\gamma\right.\notag\\ & \qquad\qquad + \left . a\gamma(\gamma+2)(\gamma^2 - 1)\bv - a ( a+1 ) \gamma^2 ( \gamma^2 - 1 ) \right]\notag\\ & = -\frac{a\bv_x\bv^{\gamma-1}}{2 h(\bv)^3}[(\gamma+1)\bv^{\gamma+2}+\bv^\gamma(\gamma-1)\left((\gamma+1)\bv-(a+1)\gamma\right)^2 \label{charpremn}\\ & \qquad + a\gamma(\gamma^2 - 1)(\gamma+2)\bv - a ( a+1)\gamma^2(\gamma^2 - 1)]\notag\\ & \geq -\frac{a\bv_x\bv^{\gamma-1}}{2 h(\bv)^3}[(\gamma+1)\bv^{\gamma+2}+ a\gamma(\gamma^2 - 1)(\gamma+2)\bv - a ( a+1)\gamma^2(\gamma^2 - 1)]\notag\\ & \geq-\frac{\gamma^2 a^3 \bv_x ( \gamma+1)}{2 h(\bv)^3 v_+}\left[\left(\frac{v_+^{\gamma+1}}{a\gamma}\right)^2 + 2(\gamma-1)\left(\frac{v_+^{\gamma+1}}{a\gamma}\right)-(\gamma-1)\right].\label{charmn}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this verifies @xmath716 as @xmath709 . second , examine @xmath717|u(0)|^2+\left[1+\frac{\bv^\gamma \bv'}{h(\bv)}\right]\r(v(0)\bar u(0))- \frac{|v(0)|^2}{2}.\ ] ]    applying young s inequality to the middle term , we easily get @xmath718|u(0)|^2 = : -\frac 12 i|u(0)|^2.\ ] ]    now observe that @xmath258 can be written as @xmath719\bv ' - \frac{\bv^\gamma h'(\bv)}{h^2(\bv)}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using and , we get @xmath720 and thus @xmath721\bv ' - \frac{\bv^\gamma h'(\bv)}{h^2(\bv)}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    now since @xmath722 , as @xmath723 , @xmath724 . therefore , as @xmath725 is close to @xmath26 , @xmath726 . this , @xmath727 , and give , as @xmath725 is close enough to @xmath26 , @xmath728 } dx } & + { \int_{-\infty}^0 { \frac{\bv^\gamma}{h(\bv)}|u'|^2 } dx}\le 0,\end{aligned}\ ] ] which evidently gives stability as claimed . for completeness , we recall the argument of @xcite in the expansive inflow case . * profile equation . * note that , in the expansive inflow case , we assume @xmath729 . therefore we can still follow the scaling to get @xmath730                            l.  q. brin and k.  zumbrun . analytically varying eigenvectors and the stability of viscous shock waves . , 22:1932 , 2002 . seventh workshop on partial differential equations , part i ( rio de janeiro , 2001 ) .                                              k.  zumbrun . stability of large - amplitude shock waves of compressible navier - stokes equations . in _ handbook of mathematical fluid dynamics . iii _ , pages 311533 . north - holland , amsterdam , 2004 . with an appendix by helge kristian jenssen and gregory lyng .
Abstract:

Answer: building on work of barker , humpherys , lafitte , rudd , and zumbrun in the shock wave case , we study stability of compressive , or `` shock - like '' , boundary layers of the isentropic compressible navier  stokes equations with @xmath0-law pressure by a combination of asymptotic ode estimates and numerical evans function computations . our results indicate stability for @xmath1 $ ] for all compressive boundary - layers , independent of amplitude , save for inflow layers in the characteristic limit ( not treated ) . expansive inflow boundary - layers have been shown to be stable for all amplitudes by matsumura and nishihara using energy estimates . besides the parameter of amplitude appearing in the shock case , the boundary - layer case features an additional parameter measuring displacement of the background profile , which greatly complicates the resulting case structure . moreover , inflow boundary layers turn out to have quite delicate stability in both large - displacement and large - amplitude limits , necessitating the additional use of a mod - two stability index studied earlier by serre and zumbrun in order to decide stability .