In integral calculus, an elliptic integral is one of a number of related functions defined as the value of certain integrals, which were first studied by Giulio Fagnano and Leonhard Euler (c. 1750). Their name originates from their originally arising in connection with the problem of finding the arc length of an ellipse.
Modern mathematics defines an "elliptic integral" as any functionf which can be expressed in the form
In general, integrals in this form cannot be expressed in terms of elementary functions. Exceptions to this general rule are when P has repeated roots, or when R(x, y) contains no odd powers of y or if the integral is pseudo-elliptic. However, with the appropriate reduction formula, every elliptic integral can be brought into a form that involves integrals over rational functions and the three Legendre canonical forms (i.e. the elliptic integrals of the first, second and third kind).
Incomplete elliptic integrals are functions of two arguments; complete elliptic integrals are functions of a single argument. These arguments are expressed in a variety of different but equivalent ways (they give the same elliptic integral). Most texts adhere to a canonical naming scheme, using the following naming conventions.
Each of the above three quantities is completely determined by any of the others (given that they are non-negative). Thus, they can be used interchangeably.
The other argument can likewise be expressed as φ, the amplitude, or as x or u, where x = sin φ = sn u and sn is one of the Jacobian elliptic functions.
Specifying the value of any one of these quantities determines the others. Note that u also depends on m. Some additional relationships involving u include
The latter is sometimes called the delta amplitude and written as Δ(φ) = dn u. Sometimes the literature also refers to the complementary parameter, the complementary modulus, or the complementary modular angle. These are further defined in the article on quarter periods.
In this notation, the use of a vertical bar as delimiter indicates that the argument following it is the "parameter" (as defined above), while the backslash indicates that it is the modular angle. The use of a semicolon implies that the argument preceding it is the sine of the amplitude:
This potentially confusing use of different argument delimiters is traditional in elliptic integrals and much of the notation is compatible with that used in the reference book by Abramowitz and Stegun and that used in the integral tables by Gradshteyn and Ryzhik.
There are still other conventions for the notation of elliptic integrals employed in the literature. The notation with interchanged arguments, F(k, φ), is often encountered; and similarly E(k, φ) for the integral of the second kind. Abramowitz and Stegun substitute the integral of the first kind, F(φ, k), for the argument φ in their definition of the integrals of the second and third kinds, unless this argument is followed by a vertical bar: i.e. E(F(φ, k) | k2) for E(φ | k2). Moreover, their complete integrals employ the parameterk2 as argument in place of the modulus k, i.e. K(k2) rather than K(k). And the integral of the third kind defined by Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, Π(φ, n, k), puts the amplitude φ first and not the "characteristic" n.
Thus one must be careful with the notation when using these functions, because various reputable references and software packages use different conventions in the definitions of the elliptic functions. For example, Wolfram's Mathematica software and Wolfram Alpha define the complete elliptic integral of the first kind in terms of the parameter m, instead of the elliptic modulus k.
Incomplete elliptic integral of the first kindEdit
The incomplete elliptic integral of the first kindF is defined as
This is the trigonometric form of the integral; substituting t = sin θ and x = sin φ, one obtains the Legendre normal form:
Equivalently, in terms of the amplitude and modular angle one has:
Plot of the complete elliptic integral of the second kind E(k)
The complete elliptic integral of the second kindE is defined as
or more compactly in terms of the incomplete integral of the second kind E(φ,k) as
For an ellipse with semi-major axis a and semi-minor axis b and eccentricity e = √1 − b2/a2, the complete elliptic integral of the second kind E(e) is equal to one quarter of the circumferenceC of the ellipse measured in units of the semi-major axis a. In other words:
The complete elliptic integral of the second kind can be expressed as a power series
Like the integral of the first kind, the complete elliptic integral of the second kind can be computed very efficiently using the arithmetic–geometric mean.
Define sequences an and gn, where a0 = 1, g0 = √1 − k2 = k′ and the recurrence relations an + 1 = an + gn/2, gn + 1 = √an gn hold. Furthermore, define
In practice, the arithmetic-geometric mean would simply be computed up to some limit. This formula converges quadratically for all |k| ≤ 1. To speed up computation further, the relation cn + 1 = cn2/4an + 1 can be used.
Furthermore, if k2 = λ(i√r) and (where λ is the modular lambda function), then E(k) is expressible in closed form in terms of
and hence can be computed without the need for the infinite summation term. For example, r = 1 and r = 7 give, respectively,
Derivative and differential equationEdit
A second solution to this equation is E(√1 − k2) − K(√1 − k2).
Complete elliptic integral of the third kindEdit
Plot of the complete elliptic integral of the third kind Π(n,k) with several fixed values of n
The complete elliptic integral of the third kindΠ can be defined as
Note that sometimes the elliptic integral of the third kind is defined with an inverse sign for the characteristicn,
Just like the complete elliptic integrals of the first and second kind, the complete elliptic integral of the third kind can be computed very efficiently using the arithmetic-geometric mean.
^Borwein, Jonathan M.; Borwein, Peter B. (1987). Pi and the AGM: A Study in Analytic Number Theory and Computational Complexity (First ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 0-471-83138-7. p. 296
^Borwein, Jonathan M.; Borwein, Peter B. (1987). Pi and the AGM: A Study in Analytic Number Theory and Computational Complexity (First ed.). Wiley-Interscience. ISBN 0-471-83138-7. p. 298
^Chowla, S.; Selberg, A. (1949). "On Epstein's Zeta Function (I)". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 35 (7): 373. Bibcode:1949PNAS...35..371C. doi:10.1073/PNAS.35.7.371. PMC1063041. PMID 16588908. S2CID 45071481.
^Chowla, S.; Selberg, A. (1967). "On Epstein's Zeta-Function". Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik. 227: 86–110.
Byrd, P. F.; Friedman, M.D. (1971). Handbook of Elliptic Integrals for Engineers and Scientists (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-05318-2.
Carlson, B. C. (1995). "Numerical Computation of Real or Complex Elliptic Integrals". Numerical Algorithms. 10 (1): 13–26. arXiv:math/9409227. Bibcode:1995NuAlg..10...13C. doi:10.1007/BF02198293. S2CID 11580137.
Hancock, Harris (1910). Lectures on the Theory of Elliptic Functions. New York: J. Wiley & sons.
King, Louis V. (1924). On The Direct Numerical Calculation Of Elliptic Functions And Integrals. Cambridge University Press.
Press, W. H.; Teukolsky, S. A.; Vetterling, W. T.; Flannery, B. P. (2007), "Section 6.12. Elliptic Integrals and Jacobian Elliptic Functions", Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (3rd ed.), New York: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88068-8
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Elliptic integral.