Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T02:40:46.322Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

General Transformations ofBilateral Cognate Trigonometrical Seriesof Ordinary Hypergeometric Type

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

R. P. Agarwal
R. P. Agarwal*
Affiliation:
Bedford College, London
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Whipple [6] was the first to consider transformations connecting well-poised hypergeometric series as particular cases of relations between cognate trigonometrical series. He used contour integrals of the Barnes type to deduce such transformations. Later Sears [3] gave a systematic theory of general and well-poised transformations of trigonometrical series of any order which included Whipple's results as particular cases.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Mathematics , Volume 5 , 1953 , pp. 544 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Mathematical Society 1953

References

1. Bailey, W. N., Series of hyper geometric type which are infinite in both directions, Quart. J. Math., 7 (1936), 105–115.Google Scholar
2. Jackson, M., A note on the sum of a particular well-poised 6H6 with argument —1, J. London Math. Soc, 27 (1952), 124–126.Google Scholar
3. Sears, D. B., On the transformation theory of hyper geometric functions and cognate trigonometrical series, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2), 53 (1951), 138–157.Google Scholar
4. Slater, L. J., General transformations of bilateral series, Quart. J. Math. (2), 3 (1952), 73–80.Google Scholar
5. Slater, L. J., Integrals representing general hyper geometric transformations, Quart. J. Math. (2), 3 (1952), 206–216.Google Scholar
6. Whipple, F. J. W., Well-poised hyper geometric series and cognate trigonometrical series, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2), 42 (1936), 410–421.Google Scholar
7. Whittaker, E. T. and Watson, G. N., Modern analysis (Cambridge, 1920).Google Scholar