Lord Rayleigh (J. W. Strutt), Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 79, 399–416 (1907).
B. A. Lippmann, J. Opt. Soc. Am., 43, 408 (1953).
R. Petit and M. Cadilhac, C. R. Acad. Sci. B, 262, 468–471 (1966).
R. F. Millar, Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., 65,773–791 (1969).
M. Nevière and M. Cadilhac, Opt. Commun., 2, 235–238 (1970).
R. F. Millar, Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc., 69, 175–188 (1971).
1t has been pointed out that the results of the invalidity of the Rayleigh hypothesis for these types of profile can be done by an elementary extension of the work of Petit and Cadilhac.3. We remark that the analyticity of the Rayleigh solution (and hence the validity) for some type of grating profile cannot be derived from their work.
R. Petit, Revue d'Optique, 6, 249–276 (1966).
The conception of an analytic function is related to complex variables. We define that a function of a real variable is analytic when it can be expanded in a convergent power series (Ref. 12, p. 83).
We remark that only uniqueness is investigated; no attempt is made to prove an existence theorem.
The subdomain B may not exist. In that case the Rayleigh hypothesis never holds.
E. C. Titchmarsh, The theory of functions, 2nd ed., (Oxford University, New York, 1939).
One exception has to be made. It is possible that the series (1) is a finite one. Then, the Rayleigh hypothesis is true. This can occur in the case of dealing with a Neumann boundary condition and a certain angle of incidence. For instance, we refer to the Maréchal and Stroke position of the triangular grating [A. Maréchal and G. W. Stroke, C. R. Acad. Sci. (Paris), 249, 2042 (1959)]. The same kind of exception also apply to gratings of rectangular profile.