Some verification of equation on the article of Bessel Function

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
294
I want to verify there are typos in page 11 of http://math.arizona.edu/~zakharov/BesselFunctions.pdf

1) Right below equation (51)
\frac{1}{2\pi}\left(e^{j\theta}-e^{-j\theta}\right)^{n+q}e^{-jn\theta}=\left(1-e^{-2j\theta}\right)^n\left(e^{j\theta}-e^{-j\theta}\right)^q
There should not be ##\frac {1}{2\pi}## on the left hand side. That will not work.



2)Then in equation (52)
A_n(z)=\left(\frac z 2 \right)^n\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+2k)!}\left(\frac z 2 \right)^k I_{k,n}
Should have a 2 in the power of k. Also, since ##p=n+2k##, It should be:
A_n(z)=\left(\frac z 2\right)^n\sum_{n+2k=0}^{\infty}\frac{1}{(n+2k)!}\left(\frac z 2\right)^{2k} I_{k,n}
As ##p=n+q## where ##q=2k## for even order. Therefore ##p=n+2k##.
To further prove my assertion, if you look at the bottom of the page 11:
A_n(z)=\left(\frac z 2 \right)^n\sum_0^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^k}{k!(n+k)!}\left(\frac z 2 \right)^k ≠J_n(z)
J_n(z)\;=\;\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^k}{k!(n+k)!}\left(\frac z 2 \right)^{2k+n}

I don't even know how to set the lower limit of the ##\sum## as I stated that the original was ##\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}##, all of a sudden, it becomes ##\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}## which should be ##\sum_{n+2k=0}^{\infty}##
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
yungman said:
A_n(z)=\left(\frac z 2 \right)^n\sum_0^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^k}{k!(n+k)!}\left(\frac z 2 \right)^k ≠J_n(z)
J_n(z)\;=\;\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^k}{k!(n+k)!}\left(\frac z 2 \right)^{2k+n}

I don't even know how to set the lower limit of the ##\sum## as I stated that the original was ##\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}##, all of a sudden, it becomes ##\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}## which should be ##\sum_{n+2k=0}^{\infty}##

I was thinking, the reason ##\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}## is because even though ##p=n+2k##, n is really a constant and the ##\left(\frac{z}{2}\right)^n## can be moved totally out of the ##\sum##. So the ##\sum## is really for series representation of the exponential functions. Therefore, we start with k=0. What do you think?

Thanks
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top