310:
think people are using a non-Knowledge source for disambiguation. From my limited use I think the transformations of the nome should be emphasised as early as possible. The identities of the infinite sums, Sum_{k=- infinity}^{infinity} q^((k+a)^2), where a is 0, 1/2 or general and with (-1)^k, were the way I found my way into the theta functions and I would think they were fairly important. I would call these "nome in both arguments" as opposed to "nome" in one argument, but have no idea if that is standard. I would include mention of
Neville's notation, as per A&S also.
84:
74:
53:
198:
equation in 2 variables and says parametrize the solution set, you can say it is parametrized by the complex number z modulo integers and integer multiples of \tau, and particular expressions are the parametrization. A difficulty is that people who read the article are likely already to know this. It might be better to find a reference to an elliptic curve article somehow.
22:
1005:
that a somewhat random choice made by this article or is it a standard convention? Is the distinction meaningful, or merely stylistic? For example, if I'm hand-writing these equations, do I need to carefully distinguish between cursive and regular theta, or can I just write them all the same? I see that
1004:
I read through that section, looked at the rest of the article carefully, and I'm still left with questions. I think the pattern is that ϑ(z;τ) and theta with double-number-subscripts are written with the cursive theta, and theta with a single-number-subscript is written with a regular theta? But is
309:
The variety of notations for theta functions must be one of the nightmares of applied maths as others have noted! The existence of this section and a separate Jacobi_theta_functions_(notational_variations) wikipedia page is confusing. Neither seems to have been edited for some time, which makes me
386:
Here, don't be too hard on yourself. I had to go look up "Costa's minimal surface" because topology isn't my bag. :-) And I think the various systems of notation are confusing, also. (I don't particularly like the double-subscript notation this article uses, but I didn't write the article – I just
335:
I've thought about this a little bit, Cstaffa, but have not yet reached a conclusion about the best course of action. This article does mention Jacobi's original notation already, although it doesn't say anything about the transformation of variables that leads to period/quasi-period of either (1,
324:
How about some mention of, or better yet, a separate article on, the lack of standardization in notation? Abramowitz and Stegun has theta sub four; Whittaker and Watson include a table which shows four other notations not shown here, and some of these define the functions with period pi instead of
265:
I still don't understand what you are saying or asking. It is relatively straightforward to to demonstrate that the theta is a solution to the heat equation, and that it satisfies the periodic delta function boundary condition. Are you saying that you are unable to derive this proof on your own?
363:
It would help mopes like me who don't usually deal with such functions who are trying to use formulae pulled from references. I decided to compute g2 for the
Weierstrass function with periods 1/2 and 1/2i, so as to get the argument for the parameterization of Costa's minimal surface. I was using
197:
Not sure if one should add this, but an application in 'simple' math is that various expressions in the values of \theta(z,\tau), for fixed \tau and for z varying, parametrize an elliptic curve if it is viewed as the solution set of a cubic equation. So if someone gives you a cubic polynomial
400:
I can't promise how soon I'll get it done, but I'll put W&W's little table in an article somewhere, and link to that article from this one. Where do you think the link ought to go, Cstaffa? I'm thinking a short italicized sentence at the very beginning to the effect of "See x article for
213:
I agree that
Wikipages on mathematical functions should give some discussion on applications. Why were these functions invented or identified in the first place? Also useful to know. With respect to theta functions, for me, I've encountered theta functions when inverse Laplace transforming
797:
Some of the explicit values shown are incorrect. theta(2) is roughly 1+2exp(-2pi)=1.00 and theta(1) is roughly 1 + 2exp(-pi)=1.08. So the ratio is 0.92. But the ratio of the explicit values expressions is (2+sqrt(2))^0.25/2 = 0.68. I'm guessing theta(2) is wrong. theta(3)/theta(1) and
441:
The first Jacobi theta function presented is given as θ(z;τ). It should be θsub00. The notations are confusing enough without introducing a novel one. The function shown does not correspond to Jacobi's θ, as is shown on page 487 of
Whittaker and Watson.
234:
In
Mumford's paper they say theta function gives fundamental solution to the heat equation. To show that i miss the differential operator of the heat equation applied to the theta-function (distribution) for t=0. You say (and Mumford shows) that lim{t-:
891:
I may be interpreting something wrong here, but the 3D graphs of the four theta functions in this article don't specify whether it's the modulus, the real part or the imaginary part of the theta function that is the z-coordinate in the surface plot.
214:
coth]/sqrt. Spanier and Oldham (An Atlas of
Functions, 1987, 27:13) note that theta functions often arise in the context of Laplace transforms. So, this might translate into a more general application for problems of impulse response. Sincerely,
350:). Anyway, I'm curious … what purpose do you think it would serve to discuss all the different notations for the Theta functions on Knowledge? Perhaps if we identify a reason why, we can help each other understand the best way to go about it.
957:? If they are different, it would be nice to explain the different meanings, but if they are the same, it would be nice to make the typography consistent to avoid confusing readers just starting to learn the concept. --
285:
Someone has made a hash of this article by dumping unedited stuff from PlanetMath in here. Since the notations differ, this was not a good idea. I think I might reedit it to conform, and remove the PlanetMath tags.
140:
729:
448:
Under Theta functions in terms of the nome, the notation θ(z;q) is used, which conflicts with the usage established previously of θ(z;τ) and θ(z,q). Further along this is given as θ(z|q).
537:
Jacobi's identities describe how theta functions transform under the modular group, which is generated by τ ↦ τ+1 and τ ↦ -1/τ. We already have equations for the first transformation;
853:
Wouldn't it be better if the article had the name "Jacobi theta functions"? The article is mentions generalizations in a section, but everything else is about Jacobi theta functions.
341:
Oh – it's not just period π. Two of the functions have period 2π, just like the trigonometric functions. But a lot of authors, including
Whittaker and Watson, gloss over this point.
631:
528:
872:
It would be nice to elaborate on (or at least include a reference for) that last sentence about line bundles and descent; it is mentioned once and then never again in the article.
931:
951:
266:
Knowledge is not the place for long, detailed proofs, which is why this article doesn't have one. If you need help with an equation, you might try asking a question at
776:
668:
599:
1006:
749:
579:
559:
650:
I noticed this too, the equations for τ ↦ τ+1 aren't given anywhere in the article. This worried me a little, but they are easy to work out since adding 1 to
346:
I think that A&S implicitly adopted the notation of
Tannery & Molk (they refer to W&W, who acknowledge the French guys T&M for the version in
1079:
130:
256:
0} = delta(x)delta(t) in order to show that theta(x, it) is a fundamental solution, where Heat() shell be the differential operator of the heat equation.
834:
from the introduction. It seems wrong: at least, any function can be graphed in any coordinate system you like. It is not amplified in the text.
106:
1074:
445:
Further down, θsub01 is identified with Jacobi's θsub0. According to the above reference, Jacobi did not have a θsub0, but rather a bare θ.
267:
814:
798:
theta(4)/theta(1) both yield a value around 0.92 which suggests they are correct. theta(5)/theta(1) is too small by a factor of 25.
97:
58:
1009:
uses cursive theta with single-number-subscript. Is that an error, an arbitrary choice, or a different system of notation? --
401:
different systems of notation used with Theta functions" would probably work best for someone coming at it from your angle.
274:
249:
162:
Is there some canonical use for this that I simply can't see? Perhaps in physics or some `simple' math. 19:28, 12 Feb 2005
33:
877:
787:
642:
673:
364:
A&S and then checked
Knowledge. Not having seen W&W yet, I was confused by the difference in notations.
219:
830:
810:
783:
203:
873:
604:
501:
839:
806:
315:
39:
457:
Someone please check
Mumford to see if this follows his notation. I don't have easy access to Mumford.
83:
311:
802:
296:
287:
178:
21:
988:
215:
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1056:
899:
779:
634:
199:
89:
73:
52:
916:
778:
modulo 2. I added this comment just now, though it is a little irrelevant to the section title.
489:
402:
351:
236:
0} theta(x, it) = delta(x) . but what does that help for showing its a fundamental solution??
541:
However, while it has certainly been mentioned that the theta function is periodic of period
1014:
962:
936:
858:
835:
638:
174:
754:
653:
584:
476:
1031:
999:
984:
980:
734:
564:
544:
422:
I think that sounds ideal. I'll have a go at starting it if you don't get to it first.
1068:
1052:
895:
480:
186:
170:
163:
458:
449:
423:
368:
326:
1010:
974:
958:
854:
102:
230:
theta function gives green's function for heat equation ? i dont get the proof.
271:
246:
190:
79:
953:). Is the distinction meaningful, like the distinction between ℒ and L and
1045:
1060:
1018:
992:
966:
903:
881:
862:
843:
492:
483:
461:
452:
426:
405:
372:
354:
329:
319:
299:
290:
223:
207:
182:
1044:
It seems incomprehensible. E.g., is "Die" the German word for "The" ("
913:
Some of the expressions in this article use the cursive theta (ϑ or
229:
245:
I don't understand the question being asked. Can you rephrase?
15:
475:
might be suspicious. The identity before the identity is on
497:
472:
387:
stumbled across it and decided it needed some cleanup.)
601:
fixed, I can't find any mention of the transformation
939:
919:
757:
737:
676:
656:
607:
587:
567:
547:
504:
255:
i think it must be shown: Heat(theta(x, it)){t-: -->
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
933:) and others use the regular lowercase theta (θ or
945:
925:
770:
743:
731:has the same effect as adding 1/2 to z -- becuase
723:
662:
625:
593:
573:
553:
522:
471:I don't know anything about theta functions, but
438:I am undertaking to fix the following problems:
1007:Jacobi theta functions (notational variations)
533:In the section on Jacobi identities, it says:
177:. Does that work for you? Its also studied in
8:
724:{\displaystyle e^{i\pi n^{2}\tau +2i\pi nz}}
1039:Die mentioned up directed Delta triangle...
47:
938:
918:
762:
756:
736:
692:
681:
675:
655:
606:
586:
566:
546:
503:
49:
19:
295:I've got the notation consistent now.
7:
823:graphed on a polar coordinate system
626:{\displaystyle \tau \mapsto \tau +1}
523:{\displaystyle \tau \mapsto \tau +1}
268:Knowledge:Reference desk/Mathematics
259:(unsigned anonymous post 5 jan 2006)
239:(unsigned anonymous post 1 jan 2006)
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
1080:High-priority mathematics articles
981:Theta function#Auxiliary functions
488:Good catch, Akriasas. Thank you.
14:
909:Character differences in notation
829:A theta function is graphed on a
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
118:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
611:
508:
1:
788:11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
493:12:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
484:06:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
462:20:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
453:19:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
427:18:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
406:18:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
373:16:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
366:This unsigned comment is from
355:03:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
330:02:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
224:17:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
169:OK, I added a section on the
109:and see a list of open tasks.
1075:B-Class mathematics articles
208:00:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
1019:17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
993:17:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
967:21:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
275:23:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
250:23:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
1096:
926:{\displaystyle \vartheta }
863:22:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
320:01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
1061:19:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
904:18:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
887:Graphs of theta functions
793:Incorrect explicit values
134:
67:
46:
882:19:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
643:02:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
300:05:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
291:22:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
141:project's priority scale
946:{\displaystyle \theta }
849:The name of the article
844:16:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
831:polar coordinate system
827:I removed the sentence
193:04:21, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
98:WikiProject Mathematics
947:
927:
772:
745:
725:
664:
627:
595:
575:
555:
539:
524:
28:This article is rated
948:
928:
817:) 21:27, 30 July 2009
773:
771:{\displaystyle n^{2}}
746:
726:
665:
663:{\displaystyle \tau }
628:
596:
594:{\displaystyle \tau }
576:
556:
535:
525:
498:Transformation under
281:PlanetMath incursions
937:
917:
755:
735:
674:
654:
633:. Am I missing it?
605:
585:
565:
545:
502:
179:quantum field theory
121:mathematics articles
943:
923:
768:
741:
721:
660:
623:
591:
571:
551:
520:
90:Mathematics portal
34:content assessment
1027:Incomprehensible?
874:Michael Lee Baker
819:
805:comment added by
744:{\displaystyle n}
574:{\displaystyle z}
554:{\displaystyle 1}
375:
367:
261:
241:
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1087:
1003:
979:See the section
978:
952:
950:
949:
944:
932:
930:
929:
924:
818:
799:
777:
775:
774:
769:
767:
766:
751:is congruent to
750:
748:
747:
742:
730:
728:
727:
722:
720:
719:
697:
696:
669:
667:
666:
661:
632:
630:
629:
624:
600:
598:
597:
592:
580:
578:
577:
572:
560:
558:
557:
552:
529:
527:
526:
521:
371:
365:
257:
237:
175:Heisenberg group
123:
122:
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1065:
1064:
1029:
997:
972:
935:
934:
915:
914:
911:
889:
870:
851:
825:
800:
795:
758:
753:
752:
733:
732:
688:
677:
672:
671:
652:
651:
603:
602:
583:
582:
563:
562:
543:
542:
531:
500:
499:
469:
467:suspicious edit
348:Modern Analysis
336:τ), or (π, πτ).
307:
305:Other notations
297:Gene Ward Smith
288:Gene Ward Smith
283:
232:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1093:
1091:
1083:
1082:
1077:
1067:
1066:
1042:
1041:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
942:
922:
910:
907:
888:
885:
869:
866:
850:
847:
824:
821:
794:
791:
765:
761:
740:
718:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
695:
691:
687:
684:
680:
659:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
590:
570:
550:
530:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
496:
468:
465:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
379:
378:
377:
376:
358:
357:
343:
342:
338:
337:
306:
303:
282:
279:
278:
277:
253:
252:
231:
228:
227:
226:
216:DoctorTerrella
195:
194:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1092:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1070:
1063:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1047:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1033:
1026:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
990:
986:
982:
976:
971:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
956:
940:
920:
908:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
886:
884:
883:
879:
875:
867:
865:
864:
860:
856:
848:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
822:
820:
816:
812:
808:
807:209.67.107.10
804:
792:
790:
789:
785:
781:
780:Createangelos
763:
759:
738:
716:
713:
710:
707:
704:
701:
698:
693:
689:
685:
682:
678:
657:
648:
645:
644:
640:
636:
620:
617:
614:
608:
588:
568:
548:
538:
534:
517:
514:
511:
505:
495:
494:
491:
486:
485:
482:
478:
474:
466:
464:
463:
460:
455:
454:
451:
446:
443:
439:
428:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
407:
404:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
374:
370:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
353:
349:
345:
344:
340:
339:
334:
333:
332:
331:
328:
322:
321:
317:
313:
304:
302:
301:
298:
293:
292:
289:
280:
276:
273:
269:
264:
263:
262:
260:
251:
248:
244:
243:
242:
240:
225:
221:
217:
212:
211:
210:
209:
205:
201:
200:Createangelos
192:
188:
187:string theory
184:
181:specifically
180:
176:
173:and also the
172:
171:heat equation
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:User:Ub3rm4th
157:
142:
138:
137:High-priority
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
62:High‑priority
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1050:
1043:
1038:
1030:
954:
912:
894:
890:
871:
852:
828:
826:
796:
649:
646:
540:
536:
532:
490:DavidCBryant
487:
470:
456:
447:
444:
440:
437:
403:DavidCBryant
352:DavidCBryant
347:
323:
308:
294:
284:
258:
254:
238:
233:
196:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
868:Line bundle
836:Deltahedron
801:—Preceding
312:Nick Mulgan
158:Application
112:Mathematics
103:mathematics
59:Mathematics
1069:Categories
1032:Regarding
1000:JayBeeEll
479:anyways.
477:Mathworld
473:this edit
1053:Mortense
896:Isojarv1
815:contribs
803:unsigned
481:Akriasas
183:D-branes
459:Cstaffa
450:Cstaffa
424:Cstaffa
369:Cstaffa
327:Cstaffa
139:on the
30:B-class
1011:Beland
975:Beland
959:Beland
855:K9re11
635:JadeNB
36:scale.
983:. --
272:linas
247:linas
191:linas
1057:talk
1048:")?
1015:talk
989:talk
963:talk
900:talk
878:talk
859:talk
840:talk
811:talk
784:talk
647:Hi,
639:talk
581:for
316:talk
220:talk
204:talk
185:and
131:High
1046:the
985:JBL
670:in
561:in
235:-->
1071::
1059:)
1051:--
1034::
1017:)
991:)
965:)
941:θ
921:ϑ
902:)
880:)
861:)
842:)
813:•
786:)
711:π
699:τ
686:π
658:τ
641:)
615:τ
612:↦
609:τ
589:τ
512:τ
509:↦
506:τ
325:1.
318:)
270:.
222:)
206:)
1055:(
1013:(
1002::
998:@
987:(
977::
973:@
961:(
955:L
898:(
876:(
857:(
838:(
809:(
782:(
764:2
760:n
739:n
717:z
714:n
708:i
705:2
702:+
694:2
690:n
683:i
679:e
637:(
621:1
618:+
569:z
549:1
518:1
515:+
314:(
218:(
202:(
189:.
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
