Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I've come across two equivalent definitions of the Weierstrass $\wp$-function, but don't know how to prove that they are equivalent.

Definition 1
$\wp(z)=cf(z)+d$ where $f$ is the elliptic function w.r.t. $\Lambda$ with a pole of order $2$ at $0$ and a zero of order $2$ at $-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\lambda}{2}$, and $c$, $d$ constants s.t. $c_{-2}=1$, $c_0=0$ in the Laurent expansion of $\wp$ about $0$. In terms of the $\theta$ function $f(z)=e^{2\pi i z}\frac{\theta(z)^2}{\theta(z-\frac{1}{2}-\frac{\lambda}{2})^2}$.

Definition 2

Has anyone got a good reference where these are proved to be equivalent, or a nice idea for a quick proof? Many thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
Your probably need to use Liouville's theorem that any bounded entire function on $\mathbb{C}$ is constant. – Zhen Lin May 30 '12 at 19:23
Unimportant comment: this is usually denoted by $\wp$ (\wp in $\LaTeX$), at least in the number theory literature. – Dylan Moreland May 30 '12 at 19:24
If you know that both functions are $\Lambda$-periodic, show that their difference is holomorphic. As Zhen says, it follows that the difference is a bounded holomorphic functions on $\mathbb{C}$. – Qiaochu Yuan May 30 '12 at 19:28
@QiaochuYuan: And the difference is bounded as it's periodic without poles, right? – Edward Hughes May 30 '12 at 19:40
Thanks Dylan, I'll use that next time! – Edward Hughes May 30 '12 at 19:45

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.