Timeline for Evaluation of EllipticK on the branch cut
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 17:57 | history | edited | J. M.'s missing motivation♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| May 5, 2017 at 7:04 | comment | added | Armin | @MichaelSeifert I do understand now, what you meant and that you answered my question already... Sry, for me being so slow... | |
| May 5, 2017 at 6:11 | vote | accept | Armin | ||
| May 4, 2017 at 22:38 | answer | added | QuantumDot | timeline score: 4 | |
| May 4, 2017 at 18:32 | comment | added | Armin | @MichaelSeifert But how do I know, what value it gives me if I evaluate e.g. EllipticK[2]? Does it evaluate ``K[2]+2 I K[-1]" or "K[2]"? | |
| May 4, 2017 at 18:29 | comment | added | Armin | @MichaelSeifert Thx! | |
| May 4, 2017 at 18:29 | history | edited | Armin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| May 4, 2017 at 18:27 | comment | added | Michael Seifert | Also, a "brunch cut" (line below the equations) sounds pretty tasty. :-) | |
| May 4, 2017 at 18:25 | comment | added | Michael Seifert | The Wolfram Functions website describes the branch cut of the complete elliptic integral as you do. I have always assumed that the conventions are the same between the Wolfram Functions website and the Mathematica software, but I admittedly do not know for sure. | |
| May 4, 2017 at 18:22 | history | edited | Armin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| May 4, 2017 at 17:50 | history | edited | Armin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| May 4, 2017 at 11:37 | history | asked | Armin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |