Proof
YR60Consider the function
This function G(u) has a periodicity G(u+m \tau +n) \= G(u), with m, n \in \mathbb{Z} that descends from the periodicity of \varphi. It is a meromorphic function of u with poles at u=\pm \xi_2 (and its translates by (\mathbb{Z} \tau + \mathbb{Z})), with residues \pm 1. The function T_{1}(\tau,u,\xi_2) is a periodic function of u with the same poles and residues as G. Thus the function G(u)-T_{1}(\tau,u,\xi_2) is a periodic function of u that is holomorphic in u, implying that it is independent of u. The last implication holds because of Liouville’s theorem – extending the function to the complex plane by periodicity, we get a bounded analytic function on the complex plane which is therefore constant.
The function G is also periodic in z with period \mathbb{Z}\tau+\mathbb{Z}, and it is meromorphic in z with poles at z = \pm \xi_2+\mathbb{Z}\tau+\mathbb{Z} with residues \mp 1. Since T_{1}(\tau,u,\xi_2) is independent of z, the z-dependence of G(\tau,z,u, \xi_2) -T_{1}(\tau,u,\xi_2) is the same as that of G. By construction, -T_{1}(\tau,z,\xi_2) has the same poles in z and the same residues at those poles as G(\tau,z,u, \xi_2) -T_{1}(\tau,u,\xi_2) which implies that G(\tau,z,u, \xi_2)-T_{1}(\tau,u, \xi_2)+T_{1}(\tau,z, \xi_2) is periodic and holomorphic in z, and therefore independent of z. Since it is independent of u and z, the function G(\tau,z,u, \xi_2)-T_{1}(\tau,u, \xi_2)+T_{1}(\tau,z, \xi_2) is equal to its value at any choice of u and z. A convenient choice is u=z at which G(\tau,z,u, \xi_2)-T_{1}(\tau,u, \xi_2)+T_{1}(\tau,z, \xi_2) vanishes, thus proving that it identically vanishes.