Weierstrass p-Function Asympototics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter "pi"mp
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on the Weierstrass p-function and its asymptotic behavior for both small and large half-periods, specifically examining the expression |wp(u; g2, g3) - wp((u + 2ω1); g2, g3)|. The user seeks clarification on the nature of the function, confirming that u represents the real part of a complex variable z, and acknowledges a typo in their original function formulation. They reference a formula involving Weierstrass Sigma Functions but express concern about the complexity of the infinite product defining the sigma function. Despite expectations that the function should vanish due to the even nature of the Weierstrass P function, the user observes discrepancies in their Mathematica plots, indicating further investigation is needed. The conversation highlights the challenges in deriving asymptotics and understanding the properties of the Weierstrass p-function.
"pi"mp
Messages
129
Reaction score
1
Hi,
I need to study the function:
\bigg| \wp(u ; g_{2}, g_{3})- \wp( (u+2 \omega_{1}); g_{2}, g_{3}) \bigg|

where u is the real part of the argument and I'm using the convention where \omega_{1} is actually half of the overall period on the torus.

Specifically, I'd like asymptotics for both small \omega_{1} and large \omega_{1}. I haven't been able to find anything too helpful in the form of addition formulas or anything.

Has anyone seen anything potentially helpful in any of the literature?
Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
P is a function of a complex variable z. What do you mean that u is the real part of the argument? u = Re(z)? Then the meaning of P(u) is not clear to me. Do you mean you are looking at P(z) only for real values of the argument z?
 
That is indeed what I meant. Sorry. I only care about u real from zero to the half-period.
 
why isn't the function you wrote down identically zero? I.e. you are adding a period to u and hence subtracting the same value.
 
Ugh, you're right...stupid typo I meant to write the function:

\bigg| \wp(u) - \wp(2 \omega_{1} - u) \bigg|

So it vanishes at u=w1 and is indeterminate at u=0. I did find the following formula in terms of Weierstrass Sigma Functions:

\wp(z_{1})-\wp(z_{2}) = \frac{\sigma(z_{1}+z_{2}) \sigma(z_{1}-z_{2})}{\sigma(z_{1})^{2} \sigma(z_{2})^{2}}

however it seems like the infinite product which defines the sigma function will be a pain. Maybe there are asymptotics on the sigma function I can look at.
 
Wait...now I'm confusing myself. The formula with the absolute value that I wrote just above should also vanish right? Since Weierstrass P is even! However, I have plots in mathematica where the absolute value is clearly not zero. I've also made sure that my half-periods agree with my g2, g3 values. What's going on here?
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K