Appendix/Mathematics/ToroidalConfusion
Confusion Regarding Whipple Formulae[edit]
May, 2018 (J.E.Tohline): I am trying to figure out what the correct relationship is between half-integer degree, associated Legendre functions of the first and second kinds. In order to illustrate my current confusion, here I will restrict my presentation to expressions that give in terms of .
Published Expressions[edit]
From equation (34) of H. S. Cohl, J. E. Tohline, A. R. P. Rau, & H. M. Srivastiva (2000, Astronomische Nachrichten, 321, no. 5, 363 - 372) I find:
| Expression #1 | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
From Howard Cohl's online overview of toroidal functions, I find:
| Expression #2 | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Copying the Whipple's formula from §14.19 of DLMF,
| Expression #3 | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
So far, this gives me three similar but not identical formulae for the same function mapping! As per equation (8) in (yet another source!) A. Gil, J. Segura, & N. M. Temme (2000, JCP, 161, 204 - 217), the relationship is:
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gil, Segura, & Temme (2000): eq. (8) |
|||
| where: |
|
This expression from Gil et al. (2000) means, for example, that by identifying with , we have , and,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is, we have,
| Expression #4 | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
which matches the above expression #1 drawn from Cohl et al. (2000), but which appears not to match either of the other two "published" (online) formulae, expressions #2 or #3.
Specific Application[edit]
I stumbled into this dilemma when I tried to explicitly demonstrate how can be derived from where, from §8.13 of M. Abramowitz & I. A. Stegun (1995), we find,
|
|
|
|
| Abramowitz & Stegun (1995), eq. (8.13.4) | ||
and,
|
|
|
|
| Abramowitz & Stegun (1995), eq. (8.13.1) | ||
When I used the Whipple formula as defined in §14.19 of DLMF (expression #3 reprinted above), the function mapping gave me the wrong result; I was off by a factor of . But, as demonstrated below, the Whipple formula provided by Cohl et al. (2000) and by Gil et al. (2000) — that is, expressions #1 and #4, above — does give the correct result.
|
Demonstration that can be derived from |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Copying equation (34) from Cohl et al. (2000), we begin with,
then setting , we have,
Step #1: Associate … . Then,
Step #2: Now making the association … , and drawing on eq. (8.13.1) from Abramowitz & Stegun (1995), we can write,
Step #3: Again, making the association … , means,
This, indeed, matches eq. (8.13.4) from Abramowitz & Stegun (1995). |
Cohl's Response to My (May 2018) Email Query[edit]
Proper Interpretation of DLMF Expression[edit]
Most of the confusion expressed above stems from the DLMF's use of bold fonts, such as the function on the left-hand side of expression #3, above — that is, the Whipple formula from §14.19 of DLMF,
|
|
|
|
What has been missing in my discussion is an appreciation of the following relationship between bold and plain-text function names,
After making the substitutions, and , the Whipple formula displayed above as expression #3 becomes,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which matches expression #2, above. But it does not appear to match expressions #1 or #4.
|
The standard "Euler reflection formula for gamma functions" is usually presented in the form,
If we make the association,
with and both being either zero or a positive integer, then, this Euler reflection formula becomes,
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
However, in our situation the so-called "Euler reflection formula for gamma functions" gives the relation,
|
|
|
|
Hence, we may also write,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
which matches expressions #1 and #4. So everything appears to be in agreement! Hooray!
Derivation From Scratch[edit]
Whenever he deals with these types of relations, Cohl usually begins with,
| Expression #5 | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
Making the pair of substitutions,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we also have,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in which case,
|
|
|
|
Now, since,
|
|
|
|
if we make the substitution,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
we also know that,
|
|
|
|
Hence, we can write,
|
|
|
|
Finally, another relation states that, for ,
|
|
|
|
So, we obtain,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This matches expressions #2 and #3, above.
Index Values of Zero[edit]
Setting gives the following sought-for relationship:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joel's Additional Manipulations[edit]
From §14.19.6 of DLMF, we find the following summation expression:
Then, if we again employ the DLMF relationship between bold and plain-text function names, namely,
where we have made the substitution, , the Sums expression becomes,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When dealing with Dyson-Wong tori, we will set , in which case the Sums expression becomes,
|
|
|
|
But this can be rewritten in the form,
|
|
|
|
See Also[edit]
|
Appendices: | VisTrailsEquations | VisTrailsVariables | References | Ramblings | VisTrailsImages | myphys.lsu | ADS | |