Associated Legendre functions (24.9.99)

TANGUY Christian

There seem to be something curious about the associated Legendre function of the first kind, LegendreP(v,u,x) (I am using version 5.1 on a PC under NT 4.0):

> g1 := sum('binomial(2*n+1,2*k+1)*2^(3*k)','k'=0..n); 
 
                                       (3/4)     n 
         g1 := 1/8 (2 n + 1) sqrt(Pi) 8      (-7)  LegendreP(n, -1/2, -9/7)

let us see g1 for n=0 and 1

> for n from 0 to 1 do g1 od; 
 
                                    (3/4) 
                             -2 (-1) 
 
                            (3/4) 
           - 21/8 sqrt(Pi) 8      LegendreP(1, -1/2, -9/7)

first surprise, we would have expected 1 and 11, respectively, and certainly not a complex number in the case n=0. I found no way to obtain the answers expressed as integers, so I decided to force the floating point evaluation of g1

> for n from 0 to 3 do evalf(g1) od; 
 
                     1.414213562 - 1.414213562 I 
 
                             22.00000000 
 
                             298.0000001 
 
                             4286.000004

Hmmm, truncation errors... AND, apart from the spurious complex value for n=0, what seems to be TWICE the correct result.

Let us try something else, using the inert operator Sum.

> g1b := Sum(binomial(2*n+1,2*k+1)*2^(3*k),k=0..n): 
> for n from 0 to 3 do value(g1b) od; 
 
                                  1 
 
                                  11 
 
                                 149 
 
                                 2143

correct results at last!

In fact, the result is the sum of the nth powers of 9 +- 4sqrt(2) with appropriate coefficients. It can also be calculated using


I have two questions:

- why are the LegendreP functions used in the simplification of sums when even the Help about them acknowledges that their definition is a bit tricky, with _EnvLegendreCut being -1..1 or 1..infinity?

- is the numerical evaluation of these functions correctly implemented? LegendreP(0,-1/2,cos(phi)) differs from 2*sqrt(tan(phi/2)/Pi), as given in the Gradshteyn-Ryzhik (eq. 8.753.1).

Helmut Kahovec (30.9.99)

Apparently there is a bug in Release 5 concerning Legendre functions. Release 4 uses hypergeometric functions for the sum:


This is the correct result.