I Associated Legendre polynomials: complex vs real argument

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the discrepancies between complex- and real-argument associated Legendre polynomials, particularly in the context of their definitions and calculations. Users highlight that while the polynomials appear to have similar forms, applying the relationship between them leads to different numerical results. Specific examples for m=3 show conflicting outputs from various sources, including Abramowitz, Arfken, and Wolfram MathWorld, raising questions about the validity of these definitions. The inclusion of a phase factor, such as the ##(-1)^m## in Wolfram's definition, is debated, with participants questioning its necessity in a purely mathematical context. The thread seeks clarity on the underlying issues with the definitions of ##P^m_m(z)## and their implications.
avikarto
Messages
56
Reaction score
9
I am having trouble understanding the relationship between complex- and real-argument associated Legendre polynomials. According to Abramowitz & Stegun, EQ 8.6.6,
$$P^\mu_\nu(z)=(z^2-1)^{\mu/2}\cdot\frac{d^\mu P_\nu(z)}{dz^\mu}$$
$$P^\mu_\nu(x)=(-1)^\mu(1-x^2)^{\mu/2}\cdot\frac{d^\mu P_\nu(x)}{dx^\mu}$$

Since the Legendre polynomials P_v(z) and P_v(x) don't differ by overall imaginary factors (EQ 8.6.18, Rodrigues' formula), it would seem that one could write
$$P^\mu_\nu(z)=\frac{P^\mu_\nu(x)}{i\,^\mu}$$

However, calculating the complex-argument polynomial from the real-argument polynomial this way gives numerically different values than using the complex formula directly. What am I missing in the relationship between these definitions? Thanks!
 
Some more info for clarification - from different sources, these expressions can be written (for ##\nu=\mu=m##) as...

According to Abramowitz & Stegun, EQ 8.6.6,
$$P^m_m(z)=\frac{(z^2-1)^{m/2}}{2^m m!}\cdot\frac{d^{2m} (z^2-1)^m}{dz^{2m}}$$
According to Arfken 85, Section 12.5,
$$P^m_m(z)=\frac{(1-z^2)^{m/2}}{2^m m!}\cdot\frac{d^{2m} (z^2-1)^m}{dz^{2m}}$$
According to Wolfram MathWorld,
$$P^m_m(z)=(-1)^m\frac{(1-z^2)^{m/2}}{2^m m!}\cdot\frac{d^{2m} (z^2-1)^m}{dz^{2m}}$$

Testing some calculations arbitrarily for m=3, these come out to be...

Abram: ##P^m_m(Cos(z))=-15\,i\,Sin^3(z)##
Arfken: ##P^m_m(Cos(z))=15\,Sin^3(z)##
Wolfram: ##P^m_m(Cos(z))=-15\,Sin^3(z)##
(note, Wolfram's appears to be real valued. Dividing by ##i^m## as in the OP would bring this one in line with Abramowitz.)

Clearly, all of these can't simultaneously be right. Something about the general state of the definition for ##P^m_m(z)## seems to have serious issues. Does anyone know what is going on here?

Supposedly, the ##(-1)^m## in Wolfram's definition is a phase which makes it differ from Arfken, but why is a phase included at all in something that is purely mathematical and not at all physical? Aren't the polynomials just solutions to a mathematical equation with no physical meaning?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Back
Top