Abstract
In this note, we analyze a few major claims about . As a consequence, we rewrite a major theorem, nullify its proof and one remark of importance, and offer a valid proof for it. The most important gift of this paper is probably the reasoning involved in all: We observe that a constant, namely t, has been changed into a variable, and we then tell why such a move could not have been made, we observe the discrepancy between the claimed domain and the actual domain of a supposed function that is created and we then explain why such a function could not, or should not, have been created, along with others.
Highlights
P. 496, L. 13 - 14: Theorem B should be correctly read as follows: Theorem B
The irrational equation satisfied by determines the integral constant c in the r.h.s. of (2) as c = 2a2
W′2 = 4 w3 + 4 aw + 4 b 37 9 is reduced to v′2 = 4v3 − g2v − g3 by w = 3v, and g2 =
Summary
P. 496, L. 13 - 14: Theorem B should be correctly read as follows: Theorem B. Received 1 June 2014; revised 3 July 2014; accepted 15 July 2014 The original online version of this article (2014) Weierstrass’ Elliptic Function Solution to the Autonomous Limit of the String Equation of Type (2,5).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
