4

In the picture below, the symmetry principle was used to show that the rectangle of Figure $36$a is mapped onto Figure $36$b. I did that. Shortly thereafter the function $\mathrm{sn}( \alpha \cdot z)$ is considered, where $\alpha$ is such that $\mathrm{sn}(\alpha \cdot K) = 1$. Then, it claims that with this condition on $\alpha$, the function $\mathrm{sn}(\alpha \cdot z)$ maps Figure $36$a onto the upper half-plane. I can't see why this statement is true. I had some ideas but none with success, if someone could give me a light, I would be grateful.

Idea $1$: Since the function $\mathrm{sn}(z)$ is analytical, in particular, continuous, then it maps boundary to boundary, and connected set to connected set. Thus, it is enough to show that the boundary of the interior of the rectangle is mapped to the real axis, but I couldn't do it.

The other idea was to remember that, by definition, the function $\mathrm{sn}(z)$ maps the interior of the rectangle with vertices $-K, K, K+iK' \hspace{1mm} \mbox{and} \hspace{1mm} -K+iK'$ onto the upper half-plane. Thus, if the function $\mathrm{sn}(\alpha \cdot z)$ is considered, it maps the inside of the rectangle with vertices $- \dfrac{K}{\alpha}, \dfrac{K}{\alpha}, \dfrac{K+iK'}{\alpha} \hspace{1mm} \mbox{and} \hspace{1mm} -\dfrac{K+iK'}{\alpha}$ onto the upper half-plane. My idea was to show that this last rectangle and the rectangle of Figure 36a are the same. I think I should use the condition $\mathrm{sn}(\alpha \cdot K) = 1$ to conclude this fact but I couldn't do it.

enter image description here

Applying the symmetry principle to an inversion of the rectangle in Fig $34$a with respect to its upper side, we find that the function $w=\mathrm{sn}(z;q)$ maps the rectangle of Fig. $36$a onto the full $w$-plane which is furnished with a slit as indicated in Fig. $36$b. Consider now the function $\mathrm{sn}(\alpha z)$ (where $\alpha$ is such that $\mathrm{sn}(\alpha K=1)$) which maps the rectangle in Fig. $36$a onto the upper half-plane.

  • In the later text, the book comments that it is considering the function $sn(\alpha \cdot z; q ^ 2)$, and argues that the fact that the parameter $q ^ 2$ (parameter related to the ellipse's eccentricity ) is being considered is sufficient to conclude that the $sn(\alpha \cdot z)$ function maps figure 36a onto upper half-plane. I confess that I have already thought a lot but I have not found any way that leads me to such a conclusion. – Júlio César Aug 25 '20 at 23:28
  • Well, what can I say... the text (not the question) looks like nonsense. The condition $\operatorname{sn}\alpha K=1$ holds at $\alpha=1$ (and also at $\alpha=5$, $\alpha=1+2\mathrm{i}K'/K$, etc.), but the image of $(-K,K)+\mathrm{i}(0,2K')$ under $\operatorname{sn}\alpha z$ ($=\operatorname{sn}z$ in this case) has just been given (full plane with a slit), so the claim is wrong. Not saying that things are even worse for other values of $\alpha$. – metamorphy Aug 26 '20 at 05:17
  • I can't say what is the source of confusion (nonstandard notation, typographic or other mistakes, ...). To "reconstruct" the original meaning, one has to have the whole book at hands I'm afraid. – metamorphy Aug 26 '20 at 05:23
  • I also think. I am a layman in the stack community, would I be able to share with you the print of the page regarding the problem? I mean having a mechanism that allows me to do that, if you don't mind of course. I believe it would be better for a possible discussion. – Júlio César Aug 26 '20 at 16:26

0 Answers0