Symmetry in Landen's transformation in elliptic integrals

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the application of Landen's transformation in elliptic integrals, specifically regarding the definitions of parameters a_1 and b_1. The participants agree that defining a_1 as the geometric mean and b_1 as the arithmetic mean is valid, enhancing the symmetry argument necessary for maintaining the elliptic modulus below 1. The conversation references the 1975 paper by Derjaguin, Muller, and Toporov, which utilizes Landau Lifgarbagez's formulation to derive a solution involving elliptic integrals. The importance of symmetry in the transformation is emphasized, particularly when considering complex fields.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of elliptic integrals and their properties
  • Familiarity with Landen's transformation
  • Knowledge of geometric and arithmetic means
  • Basic concepts of complex analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of elliptic integrals in real and complex domains
  • Study Landen's transformation in detail, including its applications
  • Explore the implications of symmetry in mathematical transformations
  • Examine the 1975 Journal of Colloid and Interface Science paper for deeper insights
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers working with elliptic integrals, as well as researchers interested in the applications of Landen's transformation in theoretical and applied contexts.

sshzp4
Messages
41
Reaction score
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landen%27s_transformation"

Since both the expressions [tex]a_1[/tex] and [tex]b_1[/tex] in Landen's transformation are selected in an arbitrary manner, is it all right to define [tex]a_1[/tex] with the geometric mean and [tex]b_1[/tex] with the arithmetic mean, instead of as given in the above link? I think so, but what is your opinion?


Irrelevant background: In the 1975 Journal of Colloid and Interface Science paper by the Russians Derjaguin, Muller and Toporov, the authors attempt to take long range van der Waals type adhesion into account during contact deformation. They use the Landau Lifgarbagez formulation (Vol 7, Theory of elasticity) for the deformation profile of two symmetric solids, under loading and uniform contact, for describing the deformed surface profile. They end up with an elliptic integral (Eq. 6, in the paper) which they magically transform to the regular complete elliptic int. of the first kind form. I am trying to re-derive their solution and it appears that the symmetry argument is important to keep the value of the elliptic modulus under 1. Otherwise, they should end up with a diverging series solution to the integral.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
That looks true to me. Using the first transformation in the citation:

[tex]\begin{aligned} \int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{dt}{\sqrt{a^2\cos^2(t)+b^2\sin^2(t)}}&=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{(x^2+a^2)(x^2+b^2)}}\\<br /> &=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dt}{\sqrt{(t^2+\left(\frac{a+b}{2}\right)^2)(t^2+(\sqrt{ab})^2)}}\\<br /> &=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dt}{\sqrt{(t^2+(\sqrt{ab})^2)(t^2+\left(\frac{a+b}{2}\right)^2)}}\\<br /> &=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{dx}{\sqrt{(x^2+A^2)(x^2+B^2)}};\quad A=\sqrt{ab}, B=\frac{a+b}{2}\\<br /> &=\int_0^{\pi/2}\frac{dt}{\sqrt{A^2\cos^2(t)+B^2\sin^2(t)}}<br /> \end{aligned}[/tex]
 
Thanks Jack. That's how I chose to consider it as well. And it certainly is true when a, b and A, B are defined over the real domain. But if we examine the definition over a complex field, the transformation seems to stretch things a bit. But nevertheless, elliptics are usually defined exclusively over the in the real space and that fits my case. Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K