Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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. [1] Define sequences a n and g n, where a 0 = 1, g 0 = √ 1 − k 2 = k ′ and the recurrence relations a n + 1 = a n + g n / 2 , g n + 1 = √ a n g n hold.
The incomplete elliptic integral of the first kind is defined as, (,) = (),the second kind as (,) = (),and the third kind as (,,) = ( ()) ().The argument n of the third kind of integral is known as the characteristic, which in different notational conventions can appear as either the first, second or third argument of Π and furthermore is sometimes defined with the opposite sign.
where K and K′ are the complete elliptic integrals of the first kind for values satisfying k 2 + k′ 2 = 1, and E and E′ are the complete elliptic integrals of the second kind. This form of Legendre's relation expresses the fact that the Wronskian of the complete elliptic integrals (considered as solutions of a differential equation) is a ...
The relation to elliptic integrals has mainly a historical background. Elliptic integrals had been studied by Legendre, whose work was taken on by Niels Henrik Abel and Carl Gustav Jacobi. Abel discovered elliptic functions by taking the inverse function of the elliptic integral function
In general, the arguments x, y, z of Carlson's integrals may not be real and negative, as this would place a branch point on the path of integration, making the integral ambiguous. However, if the second argument of R C {\displaystyle R_{C}} , or the fourth argument, p, of R J {\displaystyle R_{J}} is negative, then this results in a simple ...
Hence, for any , the arithmetic-geometric mean and the complete elliptic integral of the first kind are related by = (,) By performing an inverse transformation (reverse arithmetic-geometric mean iteration), that is
Integration is the basic operation in integral calculus.While differentiation has straightforward rules by which the derivative of a complicated function can be found by differentiating its simpler component functions, integration does not, so tables of known integrals are often useful.
The lead discusses integrals of the form () = (, ()), where r is a rational function and P(t) is a polynomial, yet in the rest of the article in concentrates on integrals with trigonometric functions. Would it make sense to discuss the trigonometric form in the lead, as this is the form most people will be familiar with?--