椭圆积分
For the elliptic integral of first kind, , it is well-known that can be expressed in what Chowla and Selberg call "finite terms" (i.e. algebraic numbers and a finite product of Gamma functions of rational values) whenever belongs to an imaginary quadratic field
(see Theorem 7 in S. Chowla and A. Selberg, [On Epstein's zeta function, J. reine angew. Math. 227, 86-110, 196][1]).
Examples for these so called **elliptic integral singular values** are given on [this Wolfram page][2] (with some small typos) and in the note of J.M. Borwein and I.J. Zucker, "Elliptic integral evaluation of the Gamma function at
rational values of small denominator," [IMA Journal on Numerical Analysis, 12 (1992), 519-
526][3].
See also what Tito Piezas has to say about this in his pleasant-to-read [Collection of Algebraic Identities][4].
The following question arises:
- **For these singular values, is there** (always, or, if not always: when?) **a polynomial of degree 3 with *integer* coefficients such that with ?**
(EDIT: After Noam Elkies' remark, introduced , the biggest real zero of , instead of as the lower limit. Only "complete" integrals make sense here.)
In particular for , we have by the [Carlson symmetric form][5] on the other hand I have seen somewhere (I can't remember the reference)
I would like to get it straight at least for this example:
- **Can the polynomial in the first integral be transformed into one with integer coefficients? And is there any sort of relationship between both above polynomials?**
Note that the ratio of the discriminants of the two above polynomials is , and both of them do *not* yield affirmative answers, as the second one would have to be divided by to obtain directly!
- **EDIT: Follow-up question: If is an integer cubic polynomial such that (with its biggest real zero) can be written in "finite terms", is this value always an algebraic multiple of an elliptic integral singular value ?**
[1]: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1063041/pdf/pnas01544-0031.pdf
[2]: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EllipticIntegralSingularValue.html
[3]: http://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/Preprints/Books/EMA/Exercises/For%20others/K-beta.pdf
[4]: https://www.sites.google.com/site/tpiezas/0026
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlson_symmetric_form
The flurry of comments did not yet produce an answer to the question
concerning the complete elliptic integrals
and
It turns out that (i) Yes, can be transformed to a complete
elliptic integral associated to a cubic with integer coefficients, and
(ii) The identity can then be recovered via
a form of
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landen's_transformation">Landen's transformation</a>.
This could be surmised by calculating the -invariants of the
corresponding elliptic curves
The first -invariant is , which is rational,
so there's a linear change of variable that transforms
to a polynomial with integer coefficients.
The second -invariant is , so we can't
get immediately from to . But and are still
related by a -isogeny [indeed and
], so and are related by
a Landen transformation.
For (i), first translate by to get
Then observe that
Thus the change of variable yields
with the integrand having integer coefficients.
For (ii), we apply Landen's change of variable for elliptic integrals
with : if then
where .
Moreover the map maps the interval
to , with each value arising twice
except for the left endpoint which has a single preimage
of multiplicity . Therefore
The coefficients yield and
. Therefore as desired.
来源:这里
For the first one,
and so your conjecture is correct.
For the second integral, let :
Extending **@nospoon**'s idea, we notice that
If , then and using the substitution we get
Making further substitution , we have
This is easily integrated when or , each correspondingto or , but I doubt that this integral has a nice closed form in general. For example, when , this becomes an elliptic integral and *Mathematica 11* gives
where is the [*complete elliptic integral of the 1st kind*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_integral#Complete_elliptic_integral_of_the_first_kind).
>
After first multiplying and dividing the integrand by 2, substitute :
Next, substituting yields:
Making the sequence of substitutions , then , and finally , puts this integral into the form of a beta function:
Hence,
---
**Possible Alternative:** You could also derive the answer from the complete elliptic integral of the first kind instead of from the beta function by making the substitution instead of .
The equality numerically holds up to at least decimal digits.
> Can we prove that the equality is exact?
An equivalent form of this conjecture is
where is the [regularized beta function](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RegularizedBetaFunction.html).
---
Even simpler case:
which is equivalent to
---
A [related question](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/538564/conjecture-int-01-fracdx-sqrt3x-sqrt61-x-sqrt1-x-left-sqrt6).
For satisfying and
, define
When , we can rewrite the integral as
This implies
and hence
Notice if we substitute by , we have
Combine these two representations of and let , we obtain
Let and , the identity we want to check becomes
Let be the complete elliptic integral of the first kind associated with modulus . i.e.
It is known that . In term of , it is easy to check is equivalent to
To see whether this is the case, let be the inverse function of above integral.
More precisely, define by following relation:
Let be . It is easy to check/verify
Compare the ODE of with that of a Jacobi elliptic functions with modulus , we find
Since we are going to deal with elliptic functions/integrals with only,
we will simplify our notations and drop all reference to modulus, i.e
now means and means .
Over the complex plane, it is known that is doubly periodic with
fundamental period and . It has two poles at and in the fundamental domain.
When , we want and hence . So the constant
in has to be one of the pole. For small and positive , we want and hence to be positive. This fixes the constant to . i.e.
and the condition becomes whether following equality is true or not.
Notice is a pole of . if one repeat
apply the addition formula for
One find in order for to blow up, will be a root of
following polynomial equation:
Substitute and into this, the equation need to satisfy is given by:
One can check that is indeed a root of this polynomial. As a result, the original equality is valid.
Here is another approach for evaluating the integral (3).
Using **@achille hui**'s transformation, we can write
Using the substitution , we get
We can now transform this integral into a beta integral using the substitution . This gives us
Let
Note that is the unique positive root of the polynomial equation
Now consider the following integral:
I have a conjectured elementary value for it
---
Actually, the integral can be evaluated in an exact form using _Mathematica_ or manually, using formula [DLMF 15.6.1](http://dlmf.nist.gov/15.6):
but I could not find a way to simplify this result to .
So, my conjecture can be restated in a different form:
or
---
The conjecture can also be given in terms of the [incomplete beta function](http://mathworld.wolfram.com/IncompleteBetaFunction.html):
---
> _Question:_ Is the conjecture indeed true?
_Note:_ It holds numerically up to at least decimal digits.
---
__Conjecture 2__
Let
_Added later:_ We can simplify it to
I conjecture that:
I can imagine that if these conjectures are true, then there are generalizations for some other algebraic numbers.
Let , we can rewrite as
Following the setup in my [answer](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/692107/59379) to a related question. Let
and be the [Weierstrass elliptic function](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weierstrass%27s_elliptic_function) with fundamental periods and . is known to satisfy an ODE of the form
If one perform variable substitution , one has
Using this, we can express conjecture in terms of and/or :
Let , and . Using the addition formula for function,
we have
Using the duplication formula of function, we get
Let and , above condition is equivalent to
+ Since is a root for one of the factors in , satisfies and hence .
+ Since implies , in this particular case.
i.e. satisfies and hence .
+ Since lies between and , . Using
the fact has only one positive root, we find . i.e. conjecture is true.
Perhaps this might be helpful to someone. The integral is equal to, as you note,
where is the incomplete beta function.
Consider the function
and rewrite using [DLMF 8.17](http://dlmf.nist.gov/8.17) it as
Then the function
is the one for which the conjectures are equivalent to (choosing the right root ):
From my tests it appears (I don't know how to prove this)
that the function which solves
the equation always has algebraic values when
is a rational number. The original integral is
, which is algebraic times when
is rational and algebraic, so I think the question is really about solving .
How to prove the following conjectured identity?
It holds numerically with precision of at least decimal digits.
Are there any other integers under the radical except and that result in a nice closed form?
I will follow @user15302's idea. In [**this answer**](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1379472/closed-form-of-int-0-infty-frac1-lefta-cosh-x-right1-n-dx-for/1379605#1379605), I showed that
where . Now let denote the Vladimir's integral and set and . Then we have and
The reason why the case is special is that, if we plug then we can utilize the triple angle formula to get the following surprisingly neat integral
Now using the substitution , we easily find that
The last integral can be easily calculated by the following formula
Therefore we obtain the following closed form
In order to verify that this is exactly the same as Vladimir's result, We utilize the [*Legendre multiplication formula*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplication_theorem#Gamma_function-Legendre_function) and the [*reflection formula*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_formula) to find that
This completes the proof.
By replacing with , then with , we have:
Next, by replacing with ,
then, by setting ,
that, at least, looks manageable. We also have:
that Mathematica gladly evaluates to:
Now we just need to understand *how*.
----------
I think this problem can be solved by invoking the theory of -invariants for (hyper?)-elliptic curves, but I am not so confident in the topic to find the right change of variables that brings our integral into a complete elliptic integral. I think that [Noam Elkies][1] would solve this problem in a few seconds, so I am asking his help.
----------
**Update**. Found. Our claim was proven by Zucker and Joyce in [Special values of the hypergeometric series II][2], it is the result . It is derived through standard hypergeometric manipulations, by starting with the elliptic modulus for which:
The modular function to be considered for regarding our integral as a period is so the [elliptic lambda function][3].
[1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/users/93983/noam-d-elkies
[2]: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/231927689_Special_values_of_the_hypergeometric_series_III
[3]: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EllipticLambdaFunction.html
Take the integral in the form then put and now put Now recalling the identity we have and in this case it is possible calculate the exact value of the hypergeometric function (see the update in the Jack D'Aurizio's answer for reference) and so The result is not equal to but I haven't found a mistake in my calculations.
It is quite a well known fact that:
also the value of related series is very similiar:
Combining these two identities and using function we get:
What is more interesting is the fact that the equality:
holds for . There are some other nice identities with where sum equals integral but moving on to other functions we have e.g.:
which is due to Pollard & Shisha.
And finally the identity which is related to the famous *Sophomore's Dream*:
Unfortunately in this case the summation range is not even close to the interval of integration.
Do you know any other interesting identities which show that "sum = integral"?
Several papers are dedicated to the subject of integrals of functions that equal the sum of the same function, primarily for estimation purposes.
[Boas and Pollard][1] (1973) has some interesting sum-integral equalities:
It also gives several general formulae for functions that suffice:
mainly with Fourier analysis.
---
[This][2] paper gives an equality with the [Bessel J function][3]:
and some more references:
> There have been a number of studies of this kind of sum-integral
> equality by various groups, for example, Krishnan & Bhatia in the
> 1940s (Bhatia & Krishnan 1948; Krishnan 1948a,b; Simon 2002) and Boas,
> Pollard & Shisha in the 1970s (Boas & Stutz 1971; Pollard & Shisha
> 1972; Boas & Pollard 1973).
---
See also [Surprising Sinc Sums and Integrals][4] which has some other equalities. This paper also states that (paraphrasing)
*If is of bounded variation on , vanishes outside , is Lebesgue integrable over with and has a Fourier transform of , then*
---
Ramanujan's [second lost notebook][5] contains some sums of functions that equal the integral of their functions (Chapter 14, entries 5(i), 5(ii), 16(i), 16(ii)).
---
If you want, even more references with examples are in the papers I have mentioned.
[1]: http://carma.newcastle.edu.au/jon/Preprints/Papers/Published-InPress/Sinc-sums/Related/boas.pdf
[2]: http://rsc.anu.edu.au/~pgill/papers/159_Bessel.pdf
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessel_function#Bessel_functions_of_the_first_kind_:_J.CE.B1
[4]: http://web.cs.dal.ca/~jborwein/sinc-sums.pdf
[5]: http://www.scribd.com/doc/48940173/Ramanujan-Notebooks-II-pdf
How one can prove that the infinite sum of this function equals its integral
My analysis: Mathematica wasn't able to return any closed form for the integral or the sum. Then I checked this relation by numerical computations and it agreed to about 20 decimal places.
I know from this question [Sum equals integral][1] that the function has the same property
I tried to find a closed form for the integral but couldn't.
Motivation: I was challenged by a friend to prove this relation. I'm curious how one can prove it?
Note: There has been a suggestion to straightforwardly apply Euler-MacLauren summation formula to prove this statement. Though I don't know why it can not be applied in this case, I checked numerically whether the sum equals the integral for the similar looking functions and , but in both cases there was a difference of about 1% between the sum and the integral. In starck contrast to this, using the same algorithm for there wasn't any difference between the sum and the integral at least to 20 decimal places. So I think it is very unlikely that 1% error can be attributed to computational error.
[1]: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/170747/sum-equals-integral
For any positive , define
What you have observed is caused by the equality
and the fact
To see why is true, we use the fact is an even function in to rewrite LHS of as
This is similar to what you will find in
the [Abel-Plana formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel%E2%80%93Plana_formula),
> For any function which is
>
> 1. continuous on and analytic on
> 2. as , uniformly with respect to .
> 3. as .
>
> we have
>
However, doesn't exactly satisfy the condition above. It has two
poles at . After a little bit of tweaking of the contour used in the proof of the Abel-Plana formula, one find:
For , since is even, the two pieces in cancels out as .
For , the two pieces can be combined to a integral of over a circle centered at .
As a result, RHS reduces to
Back to the special case which corresponds to the equality in question.
When , the "pole" of at become removable singularities. The original version of Abel-Plana formula in applies. Since is even, last integral in vanishes and the equality follows. This explain why the sum equal to the integral for but not other similar looking integrand like or .
**Notes**
+ For more details of Abel-Plana formula and its derivation, please refer to of Frank W. J Olver's book: [Asymptotics and Special Functions](http://www.amazon.com/Asymptotics-Special-Functions-Computer-mathematics/dp/012525850X).
+ In order to convert the AP formula on finite sum in Olver's book to infinite sum here, I have added a condition for this particular problem. The whole purpose of that is to force following limits to zero.
For other , if one can justifies these limits, we can forget condition and the AP formula remains valid.
【推荐】国内首个AI IDE,深度理解中文开发场景,立即下载体验Trae
【推荐】编程新体验,更懂你的AI,立即体验豆包MarsCode编程助手
【推荐】抖音旗下AI助手豆包,你的智能百科全书,全免费不限次数
【推荐】轻量又高性能的 SSH 工具 IShell:AI 加持,快人一步
· 开发者必知的日志记录最佳实践
· SQL Server 2025 AI相关能力初探
· Linux系列:如何用 C#调用 C方法造成内存泄露
· AI与.NET技术实操系列(二):开始使用ML.NET
· 记一次.NET内存居高不下排查解决与启示
· Manus重磅发布:全球首款通用AI代理技术深度解析与实战指南
· 被坑几百块钱后,我竟然真的恢复了删除的微信聊天记录!
· 没有Manus邀请码?试试免邀请码的MGX或者开源的OpenManus吧
· 园子的第一款AI主题卫衣上架——"HELLO! HOW CAN I ASSIST YOU TODAY
· 【自荐】一款简洁、开源的在线白板工具 Drawnix