format: text

text:
# Irregular Input Data in Convergence Acceleration and Summation Processes: General Considerations and Some Special Gaussian Hypergeometric Series as Model Problems

## I Introduction

In mathematics and in the mathematical treatment of scientific problems, slowly convergent or divergent sequences and series occur abundantly. Accordingly, many techniques for the acceleration of convergence and the summation of divergent series have been invented, and some of them are even older than calculus (see for instance pp. 90 - 91 of  or p. 249 of ).

Sequence transformations are principal tools to overcome convergence problems. Let us assume that $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a slowly convergent or divergent sequence, whose elements $`s_n`$ may for example be the partial sums of an infinite series:

$$s_n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_k.$$
(1)
The basic assumption of all sequence transformations is that a sequence element $`s_n`$ can for all indices $`n0`$ be partitioned into a (generalized) limit $`s`$ and a remainder or truncation error $`r_n`$ according to

$$s_n=s+r_n.$$
(2)
The conventional approach of evaluating an infinite series consists in adding up so many terms that the remainders $`r_n`$ ultimately become negligible. Unfortunately, this is not always feasible because of obvious practical limitations. Moreover, adding up further terms does not work in the case of a divergent series since their terms usually increase in magnitude with increasing index.

Alternatively, one could try to determine approximations to the remainders $`r_n`$ and to eliminate them from the sequence elements $`s_n`$. At least conceptually, this is what a sequence transformation tries to accomplish. Thus, the original sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is transformed into a new sequence $`\{s_n^{}\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ whose elements have the same (generalized) limit $`s`$ but different remainders $`r_n^{}`$:

$$s_n^{}=s+r_n^{}.$$
(3)
The transformation process was successful if the transformed remainders $`r_n^{}`$ have superior numerical properties. For example, in the literature on extrapolation methods it is said that a sequence transformation accelerates convergence if the transformed remainders $`r_n^{}`$ vanish more rapidly than the original remainders $`r_n`$ according to

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{r_n^{}}{r_n}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{s_n^{}s}{s_ns}=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(4)
Similarly, a divergent sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$, whose remainders $`r_n`$ do not vanish as $`n\mathrm{}`$, is transformed into convergent sequence $`\{s_n^{}\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ if the transformed remainders $`r_n^{}`$ vanish as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

During the last years, considerable progress has been reached in this field, as documented by the large number of recent monographs  and review articles . Moreover, numerous applications of sequence transformations have been reported in the literature. For example, the present author has applied sequence transformations successfully in such diverse fields as the evaluation of special functions , the evaluation of molecular multicenter integrals of exponentially decaying functions , the summation of strongly divergent quantum mechanical perturbation expansions , and the extrapolation of crystal orbital and cluster calculations for oligomers to their infinite chain limits of stereoregular quasi-onedimensional organic polymers .

It should be noted that Padé approximants , which in applied mathematics and in theoretical physics have become the standard tool to overcome convergence problems with power series, can be considered to be a special class of sequence transformations since the partial sums of a power series are transformed into a doubly indexed sequence of rational functions.

As described above, sequence transformations try at least in principle to construct approximations to the actual remainders which are then eliminated from the input data. This is done by detecting and utilizing regularities in the behavior of the elements of the sequence to be transformed. For sufficiently large indices $`n`$, one can expect that certain asymptotic regularities do exist. However, sequence transformations are normally used with the intention of avoiding the asymptotic domain, i.e., the transforms are constructed from the *leading* elements of the input sequence. Unfortunately, sequence elements $`s_n`$ with small indices $`n`$ often behave irregularly. In such a case, a straightforward application of a sequence transformation may be ineffective and even lead to completely nonsensical results. Instead, one should analyze the behavior of the input data as a function of the index and exclude highly irregular sequence elements from the transformation process if necessary. In this way, one has a much better chance of obtaining good and reliable transformation results. It is the intention of this article to describe and classify some of the problems, which can result from irregular input data, and to discuss strategies to overcome them.

Sequence transformations are needed most in cases in which apart from the numerical values of a few elements of a slowly convergent or divergent sequence only very little is known. This is a situation which is not uncommon in scientific applications as for example the summation of strongly divergent perturbation expansions as they occur quantum mechanics or in quantum field theory. Thus, it would in principle be desirable to discuss problems with irregular input data also via examples of numerically determined input data. However, the lack of detailed knowledge about the behavior of the elements of such a sequence makes it hard to fully understand the numerical problems as well as to develop strategies to overcome them. Consequently, complications of that kind are discussed in this article predominantly via suitable mathematical model problems.

In Section II, some formal aspect of sequence transformations are discussed, in particular the concept of a path in the table of a transformation. In this way, different approaches for the determination of the approximations to the (generalized) limit of the input sequence can be classified and formalized. Moreover, the concept of a path helps to understand the impact of irregular input data on the performance of sequence transformations.

At least some of the problems mentioned above can be illuminated by considering the Gaussian hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ which is defined by a power series that converges in the interior of the unit circle. This function does not only depend on an argument $`z`$ but also on three essentially arbitrary parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$. As discussed in Section III, the convergence of the hypergeometric series can for most values of the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ be accelerated quite effectively by a variety of different sequence transformations. Moreover, it is in this way frequently possible to associate a finite value to a hypergeometric series even if its argument does not lie in the interior of the unit circle.

However, as discussed in Section IV, the situation changes dramatically if the third parameter $`c`$ of the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ is a negative real number. Then, the terms of this series first increase with increasing summation index even for $`|z|<1`$ and produce partial sums which look like the elements of a mildly divergent sequence. Only for sufficiently large indices, the terms decrease in magnitude and ultimately produce a convergent result. Accordingly, the leading partial sums of such a hypergeometric series display a highly irregular behavior, and they should not be used as input data for a sequence transformation. If the leading irregular coefficients are skipped and only regular coefficients with higher indices are used as input data, then sequence transformations are again able to produce good and reliable results.

Section V contains a summary. In Appendix A, the properties of the sequence transformations, which are used in this article, are discussed. Problems with irregular input data occur also quite frequently in the mathematical treatment of scientific problems. In Appendix B, it is shown that the convergence of extensive summation calculations for the so-called infinite coupling limit $`k_3`$ of the sextic anharmonic oscillator can be improved considerably by excluding the leading irregular coefficients of the divergent perturbation series from the transformation process. Finally, numerous new recurrence formulas for the hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ are derived in Appendix C.

## II Order-Constant and Index-Constant Paths

In this Section, some aspects of sequence transformations are discussed which admittedly look very formal. Nevertheless, they should not be ignored since they may be very consequential in practical applications.

Obviously, a computational algorithm can only involve a finite number of arithmetic operations. Consequently, a sequence transformation $`𝒯`$ can only use finite subsets of the original sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for the computation of new sequence elements $`s_m^{}`$. In addition, these finite subsets normally consist of consecutive elements. Accordingly, only subsets of the type $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{},s_{n+l}\}`$ will be considered in this article.

All the commonly used sequence transformations $`𝒯`$ can be represented by infinite sets of doubly indexed quantities $`T_k^{(n)}`$ with $`k,n0`$ that can be displayed in a two-dimensional array which is called the table of $`𝒯`$.

Here, the convention is used that the superscript $`n`$ always indicates the minimal index occurring in the finite subset of sequence elements used for the computation of a given $`T_k^{(n)}`$. The subscript $`k`$ – usually called the order of the transformation – is a measure for the complexity of the transformation process which yields $`T_k^{(n)}`$.

The elements $`T_k^{(n)}`$ of the table of $`𝒯`$ are gauged in such a way that $`T_0^{(n)}`$ corresponds to an untransformed sequence element,

$$T_0^{(n)}=s_n.$$
(5)
An increasing value of $`k`$ implies that the complexity of the transformation process increases. Moreover, $`l=l(k)`$ also increases. This means that for every $`k,n0`$ the sequence transformation $`𝒯`$ produces a new transform according to

$$T_k^{(n)}=𝒯(s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{},s_{n+l(k)}).$$
(6)
The exact relationship, which connects $`k`$ and $`l`$, is specific for a given sequence transformation $`𝒯`$.

Let us assume that a sequence transformation $`𝒯`$ should be used to speed up the convergence of some sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ to its limit $`s=s_{\mathrm{}}`$. One can try to obtain a better approximation to $`s`$ by proceeding on an in principle unlimited variety of different paths in the table of $`𝒯`$. Two extreme types of paths – and also those which are predominantly used in practical applications – are order-constant paths

$$T_k^{(n)},T_k^{(n+1)},T_k^{(n+2)},\mathrm{}$$
(7)
with fixed transformation order $`k`$ and $`n\mathrm{}`$, and index-constant paths

$$T_k^{(n)},T_{k+1}^{(n)},T_{k+2}^{(n)},\mathrm{}$$
(8)
with fixed minimal index $`n`$ and $`k\mathrm{}`$.

Order-constant and index-constant paths differ significantly. It is not even a priori clear that these two types of paths lead to the same limit in the case of an arbitrary sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. However, for the sake of simplicity this potential complication will be ignored here, and we shall always tacitly assume that order-constant and index-constant paths lead to the same limit.

In the case of an order-constant path, a fixed number of $`l+1`$ sequence elements $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{}s_{n+l}\}`$ is used for the computation of $`T_k^{(n)}`$, and the starting index $`n`$ of this string of fixed length is increased successively until either convergence is achieved or the number of available elements of the input sequence is exhausted.

In the case of an index-constant path, the starting index $`n`$ is kept fixed at a low value (usually $`n=0`$ or $`n=1`$) and the transformation order $`k`$ is increased and with it the number of elements contained in the subset $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{}s_{n+l(k)}\}`$. Thus, on an index-constant path it is always tried to compute from a given set of input data that element $`T_k^{(n)}`$ which has the highest possible transformation order $`k`$.

In order to clarify the differences between order-constant and index-constant paths, let us consider the probably best known sequence transformation, Wynn’s epsilon algorithm :

$`ϵ_1^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,ϵ_0^{(n)}=s_n,`$ (10)
$`ϵ_{k+1}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{k1}^{(n+1)}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/[ϵ_k^{(n+1)}ϵ_k^{(n)}].`$ (11)
Wynn  showed that if the input data $`s_n`$ for the epsilon algorithm are the partial sums

$$f_n(z)=\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n}{}}\gamma _\nu z^\nu $$
(12)
of a (formal) power series for some function $`f(z)`$, then the elements $`ϵ_{2k}^{(n)}`$ with even subscripts are Padé approximants to $`f`$ according to

$$ϵ_{2k}^{(n)}=[n+k/k].$$
(13)
Here, the notation of the monograph by Baker and Graves-Morris  is used, i.e., a Padé approximant $`[l/m]`$ corresponds to the ratio of two polynomials $`P_l(z)`$ and $`Q_m(z)`$, which are of degrees $`l`$ and $`m`$, respectively, in $`z`$. In contrast, the elements $`ϵ_{2k+1}^{(n)}`$ with odd subscripts are only auxiliary quantities which diverge if the whole process converges.

It follows from (13) that the epsilon algorithm (II) effects the following transformation of the partial sums (12) to Padé approximants:

$$\{f_n(z),f_{n+1}(z),\mathrm{},f_{n+2k}(z)\}[n+k/k].$$
(14)
Thus, if we use a window consisting of $`2k+1`$ partial sums $`f_{n+j}(z)`$ with $`0j2k`$ on an order-constant path and increase the minimal index $`n`$ successively, the epsilon algorithm produces the following sequence of Padé approximants:

$$[n+k/k],[n+k+1/k],\mathrm{},[n+k+m/k],\mathrm{}.$$
(15)
Only $`2k+1`$ partial sums are used for the computation of the Padé approximants, although many more are known. Obviously, the available information is not exploited optimally on such an order-constant path.

Moreover, the degree of the numerator polynomial of a Padé approximant $`[n+k+m/k]`$ increases with increasing $`m0`$, whereas the degree of the denominator polynomial remains fixed. Thus, these Padé look unbalanced. Instead, it seems to be much more natural to use diagonal Padé approximants, i.e., Padé approximants with numerator and denominator polynomials of equal degree, or – if this is not possible – to use Padé approximants with degrees of the numerator and denominator polynomials that differ as little as possible.

This approach has in principle many theoretical as well as practical advantages. For example, Wynn could show that if the partial sums $`f_0(z)`$, $`f_1(z)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`f_{2n}(z)`$ of a Stieltjes series are used for the computation of Padé approximants, then the diagonal approximant $`[n/n]`$ provides the most accurate approximation to the corresponding Stieltjes function $`f(z)`$, and if the partial sums $`f_0(z)`$, $`f_1(z)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`f_{2n+1}(z)`$ are used for the computation of Padé approximants, then either $`[n+1/n]`$ or $`[n/n+1]`$ provides the most accurate approximation (Theorem 5 of ). A detailed discussion of Stieltjes series and their special role in the theory of Padé approximants can for instance be found in Section 5 of the monograph by Baker and Graves-Morris .

Thus, it is apparently an obvious idea to try to use either diagonal Padé approximants or their closest neighbors whenever possible. Let us assume that the partial sums $`f_0(z)`$, $`f_1(z)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`f_m(z)`$ are known. If $`m`$ is even or odd, $`m=2\mu `$ or $`m=2\mu +1`$, respectively, the elements of the epsilon table with the highest possible transformation orders are given by the transformations

$`\{f_0(z),f_1(z),\mathrm{},f_{2\mu }(z)\}`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{2\mu }^{(0)}=[\mu /\mu ],`$ (16)
$`\{f_1(z),f_2(z),\mathrm{},f_{2\mu +1}(z)\}`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{2\mu }^{(1)}=[\mu +1/\mu ].`$ (17)
With the help of the notation $`[[x]]`$ for the integral part of $`x`$, which is the largest integer $`\nu `$ satisfying $`\nu x`$, these two relationships can be expressed by a single equation (Eq. (4.3-6) of ):

$`\{f_{m2[[m/2]]}(z),f_{m2[[m/2]]+1}(z),\mathrm{},f_m(z)\}`$ (18)
$``$ $`ϵ_{2[[m/2]]}^{(m2[[m/2]])}=\left[m[[m/2]]/[[m/2]]\right].`$ (19)
For $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, these transformations correspond to the following staircase sequence in the Padé table (Eq. (4.3-7) of ):

$`[0/0],[1/0],[1/1],\mathrm{}`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{},[\nu /\nu ],[\nu +1/\nu ],[\nu +1/\nu +1],\mathrm{}.`$
This staircase sequence exploits the available information optimally if the partial sums $`f_m(z)`$ with $`m0`$ are computed successively and if after the computation of each new partial sum the element of the epsilon table with the highest possible even transformation order is computed. Moreover, the Padé approximants obtained in this way look balanced since the degrees of their numerator and denominator polynomials differ as little as possible.

The example of Wynn’s epsilon algorithm strongly indicates that index-constant paths are at least in principle computationally more efficient than order-constant paths since they exploit the available information optimally. This is in general also true for all other sequence transformations considered in this article.

Another serious disadvantage of order-constant paths is that they cannot be used for the summation of divergent sequences and series since increasing $`n`$ in the set $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{},s_{n+l}\}`$ of input data normally only increases divergence.

In view of the examples given above, it is apparently an obvious idea to use exclusively index-constant paths, and preferably those which start at a very low index $`n`$, for instance at $`n=0`$ or $`n=1`$. This is certainly a good idea if all elements of the input sequence contain roughly the same amount of useful information. If, however, the leading terms of the sequence to be transformed behave irregularly, they cannot contribute useful information, or – to make things worse – they contribute *wrong* information. In such a case it is usually necessary to exclude the leading elements of the input sequence from the transformation process. Thus, it is preferable to use either an order-constant path or an index-constant path with a sufficiently large starting index $`n`$. The use of an order-constant path has the additional advantage that the diminishing influence of irregular input data with small indices $`n`$ should become obvious from the transformation results as $`n`$ increases.

Finally, an important theoretical advantage of order-constant paths should also be mentioned. Normally, it is much easier to perform a theoretical convergence analysis of a sequence transformation on an order-constant path than on an index-constant path. As the starting index $`n`$ of the string $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{},s_{n+l}\}`$ of input data becomes large, asymptotic approximations to the sequence elements $`s_n`$ can be used. Often, this greatly simplifies a theoretical analysis. In the case of index-constant paths, such a simplification is not possible because not all input data have large indices. Accordingly, theoretical convergence properties of sequence transformations are studied almost exclusively on order-constant paths. Notable exceptions are two articles by Sidi  where the convergence properties of sequence transformations on both order-constant and index-constant paths are analyzed.

## III The Gaussian Hypergeometric Function

The Gaussian hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ is one of the most important special functions of mathematical physics, and its properties are discussed in numerous books, for example in those by Abramowitz and Stegun , Erdélyi, Magnus, Oberhettinger, and Tricomi , Magnus, Oberhettinger, and Soni , Seaborn , Slater , Spanier and Oldham , Temme , and Wang and Guo .

The hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ is defined via the corresponding hypergeometric series (p. 37 of )

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a)_m(b)_m}{(c)_mm!}z^m,$$
(22)
where $`(a)_m=\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+m)/\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)`$ is a Pochhammer symbol (see for example p. 3 of ). The series (22) terminates after a finite number of terms if either $`a`$ or $`b`$ is a negative integer. Otherwise, it converges in the interior of the unit circle, i.e., for $`|z|<1`$, and it diverges for $`|z|>1`$. On the boundary $`|z|=1`$ of the unit circle, the series (22) diverges if $`\mathrm{Re}(a+bc)1`$, it converges *absolutely* for $`\mathrm{Re}(a+bc)<0`$, and it converges *conditionally* for $`0\mathrm{Re}(a+bc)<1`$, the point $`z=1`$ being excluded.

Thus, a nonterminating hypergeometric series does not suffice for the computation of the corresponding hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$, which is in general a multivalued function defined in the whole complex plane with branch points at $`z=1`$ and $`z=\mathrm{}`$. Instead, techniques which permit an analytic continuation from the interior to the exterior of the unit circle are needed.

Sequence transformations can be used to accelerate the convergence of a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ or to sum it in the case of divergence, which corresponds to an analytic continuation. Let us for example consider the following elementary special case of a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ (Eq. (15.1.3) of ):

$`\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^mz^{m+1}}{m+1}}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(1,1;2;z).`$ (24)
The infinite series converges only for $`|z|<1`$, whereas the logarithm is with the exception of the cut along $`\mathrm{}<z1`$ defined in the whole complex plane.

In Table I, Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, Eq. (II), Brezinski’s theta algorithm, Eq. (A), Levin’s transformation $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A36), and the closely related sequence transformation $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A40), are applied to the partial sums

$$s_n(z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(1)^mz^{m+1}}{m+1}$$
(25)
of the hypergeometric series (24) for $`z=7/2`$. The approximations to the limit in Table I were always chosen in such a way that the transforms with the highest possible transformation order were computed from a given set of input data. Thus, in the case of the epsilon algorithm, the approximations to the limit were chosen according to (19), in the case of the theta algorithm, they were chosen according to (A21), and in the case of the sequence transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$ and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, they were chosen according to (A41).

The second column of Table I, which displays the partial sums (25), shows that the hypergeometric series (24) for $`\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$ diverges quite strongly for $`z=7/2`$. Nevertheless, it is apparently possible to sum this divergent series to its correct value.

The results in Table I also show that Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, which in the case of a power series produces Padé approximants according to (13), is contrary to a widespread belief not necessarily the most powerful transformation. The theta algorithm and in particular the two Levin-type transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$ and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, which use the first term neglected in the partial sum as a remainder estimate according to (A35), produce significantly better summation results.

The other sequence transformations discussed in Appendix A give better results than Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, but are less effective than the transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$ and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$. For example, the two approximations with the highest possible transformation orders, which Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process (A) produces from the partial sums $`s_0(z)`$, $`s_1(z)`$, …, $`s_{15}(z)`$ according to (A11), are

$`𝒜_7^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.504077397173,`$ (26)
$`𝒜_7^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.504077396169.`$ (27)
Similarly, the iteration (A) of Brezinski’s theta algorithm produces according to (A32) the approximants

$`𝒥_4^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.504077404830,`$ (28)
$`𝒥_5^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.504077394094.`$ (29)
These results show that sequence transformations can be very useful. Nevertheless, in the case of a *real* real argument $`z`$ it is actually not necessary to to use sequence transformations for doing the analytic continuations or for speeding up convergence. Instead, it is often simpler to exploit some known mathematical properties: Unless certain linear combinations of the parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are positive or negative integers, a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ can be expressed as the sum of two other $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$’s with a transformed argument $`w=1z`$, $`w=1/z`$, $`w=1/(1z)`$, or $`w=11/z`$, respectively. Thus, the argument $`w`$ of the two resulting hypergeometric series can normally be chosen in such a way that the two new series in $`w`$ either converge, if the original series in $`z`$ diverges, or that they converge more rapidly if the original series converges too slowly to be numerically useful.

For example, if $`|1z|<1`$ and if $`cab`$ is not a positive or negative integer, then we can use the analytic continuation formula (Eq. (15.3.6) of )

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cab)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(ca)\mathrm{\Gamma }(cb)}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;a+bc+1;1z)`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+bc)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(a)\mathrm{\Gamma }(b)}}(1z)^{cab}`$
$`\times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,cb;cab+1;1z).`$
Let us now assume that $`z`$ is only slightly smaller than 1. Then, the convergence of the original hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ will be very bad. However, the two hypergeometric series on the right-hand side with argument $`1z`$ will converge rapidly in the vicinity of $`z=1`$.

With the help of this or similar analytic continuation formulas it is normally possible to compute a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ with *real* argument $`z`$ effectively since it is possible to find for every argument $`z(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ two hypergeometric series with an argument $`|w|1/2`$ (see p. 127 of  or Table I of ).

Unfortunately, this approach does not necessarily work in the case of complex arguments $`z`$. Consider the points

$$z_{1,2}=\frac{1\pm \sqrt{3}}{2},$$
(34)
which both lie on the boundary of the circle of convergence because of $`|z_{1,2}|=1`$. In practice, it is either impossible or not feasible to evaluate a nonterminating hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ by adding up its terms if its argument $`z`$ lies on the boundary of the unit circle. Consequently, something has to be done to speed up convergence or to accomplish a summation in the case of divergence. Unfortunately, the analytic continuation formulas of the type of (33) do not improve the situation if $`z=z_{1,2}`$ since

$`1z_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`z_{2,1},`$ (36)
$`1/z_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`z_{2,1},`$ (37)
$`1/(1z_{1,2})`$ $`=`$ $`z_{1,2},`$ (38)
$`11/z_{1,2}`$ $`=`$ $`z_{1,2}.`$ (39)
Hence, the analytic continuation formulas cannot help if the $`z`$ is close to $`z_{1,2}`$.

However, sequence transformations work for $`z=z_{1,2}`$. Let us consider the following elementary special case of a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ (p. 38 of ):

$$(1+z)(1z)^{2\alpha 1}={}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(2\alpha ,\alpha +1;\alpha ;z).$$
(40)
For $`\alpha >0`$, the hypergeometric series converges in the interior of the unit circle, but it diverges on its boundary.

In Table II, Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, Eq. (II), and Levin’s transformation $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A36), are used to sum the hypergeometric series (40) with $`\alpha =1/3`$ on the boundary of the unit circle, i.e., they are applied to the partial sums

$$s_n(z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(2/3)_m(4/3)_m}{(1/3)_mm!}z^m$$
(41)
with $`z=z_1=(1+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{3})/2`$.

The partial sums (41) in the second column of Table II display a very unusual sign pattern and grow slowly in magnitude. Nevertheless, both the epsilon algorithm as well as the Levin transformation are apparently able to sum the hypergeometric series (40) for $`z=(1+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{3})/2`$.

The other sequence transformations discussed in Appendix A are apparently also able to sum the hypergeometric series (40) for $`z=(1+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{3})/2`$. They give better results than Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, but are less effective than Levin’s transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$. The two approximations with the highest possible transformation orders, that can be produced from the partial sums $`s_0(z)`$, $`s_1(z)`$, …, $`s_{15}(z)`$ by Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process (A), by Brezinski’s theta algorithm (A) and its iteration (A), and by the Levin-type transformation (A40), are

$`𝒜_7^{(0)}=`$ (43)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340798057+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827896288,`$
$`𝒜_7^{(1)}=`$ (45)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340798408+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827896424,`$
$`\theta _8^{(2)}=`$ (47)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340797528+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827893689,`$
$`\theta _{10}^{(0)}=`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340799160+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827895539,`$
$`𝒥_4^{(2)}=`$ (51)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340798249+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827894967,`$
$`𝒥_5^{(0)}=`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340798314+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827895955,`$
$`\delta _{14}^{(0)}(1,s_0(z))=`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340798314+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827895955,`$
$`\delta _{15}^{(0)}(1,s_0(z))=`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.113}340798414+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.326}827896325.`$
The numerical results presented here should suffice to support the claim of the author that sequence transformations can be extremely useful numerical tools for the evaluation of special functions in general  and for the evaluation of Gaussian hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ in special. Moreover, the numerical results shown above indicate that a computational algorithm, which would be capable of evaluating of a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ with essentially arbitrary *complex* argument $`z`$ and parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$, should be a suitable combination of analytic continuation formulas of the type of (33) with sequence transformations.

Here it should be taken into account that a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ depends on four essentially arbitrary complex quantities $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`z`$. This makes the development of a general algorithm for its computation difficult since a very large variety of special cases and computationally different situations have to be taken into account. Consequently, the development of such an algorithm would first require extensive numerical studies which – although undeniably interesting – would clearly be beyond the scope of this article.

## IV Hypergeometric Series with a Negative Third Parameter

It is a direct consequence of its definition (22) that a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ terminates after a finite number of terms if either $`a`$ or $`b`$ is a negative integer. Moreover, $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ makes sense if both $`a`$ and $`c`$ are negative integers such that $`a=m`$ and $`c=mk`$ with $`k,m=1,2,\mathrm{}`$:

$${}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(m,b;mk;z)=\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{(m)_\mu (b)_\mu }{(mk)_\mu \mu !}z^\mu .$$
(58)
If $`c`$ is a negative integer and if neither $`a`$ nor $`b`$ is a negative integer, then it follows from (22) that the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ is in general undefined. However, the following limit exists for $`m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (p. 38 of ):

$`\underset{cm}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(c)}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)={\displaystyle \frac{(a)_{m+1}(b)_{m+1}z^{m+1}}{(m+1)!}}`$ (60)
$`\times {}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+m+1,b+m+1;m+2;z).`$
If $`c`$ is not a negative integer, there are no problems with Pochhammer symbols in the denominators of the terms of the series that could become zero. Nevertheless, unpleasant numerical problems occur even if $`c`$ is just a nonintegral negative real number. These problems can be demonstrated convincingly by trying to accelerate the convergence of two hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ which differ only by the sign of the third parameter $`c`$.

For that purpose, we consider in Table III and in Tables IV and V, respectively, the hypergeometric series with $`a=3/7`$, $`b=5/2`$, $`z=77/100`$, and $`c=\pm 7/2`$.

In Table III, Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, Eq. (II), Brezinski’s theta algorithm, Eq. (A), and the Levin-type transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A36), and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A40), are applied to the partial sums

$$s_n(z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(3/7)_m(5/2)_m}{(7/2)_mm!}z^m$$
(61)
of the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(3/7,5/2;7/2;z)`$ with $`z=77/100`$. The results in Table III show that the convergence of this series can indeed be accelerated quite effectively by sequence transformations. This is also true for the other sequence transformations discussed in Appendix A. The approximations with the highest transformation orders, that can be obtained from the partial sums $`s_0(z)`$, $`s_1(z)`$, …, $`s_{16}(z)`$ by Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process (A) and by the iteration (A) of Brezinski’s theta algorithm, are

$`𝒜_7^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.463807099629,`$ (62)
$`𝒜_8^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.463807099563.`$ (63)
$`𝒥_5^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.463807143254,`$ (64)
$`𝒥_5^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.463807103421.`$ (65)
In Tables IV and V, we now consider a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ which is identical with the one in Table III except that its third parameter is negative, i.e., we now have $`c=7/2`$. Thus, in Table IV we use Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process, Eq. (A), Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, Eq. (II), and Brezinski’s theta algorithm, Eq. (A), for the acceleration of the convergence of the partial sums

$$s_n(z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(3/7)_m(5/2)_m}{(7/2)_mm!}z^m.$$
(66)
of the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(3/7,5/2;7/2;z)`$ with $`z=77/100`$, and in Table V we use the iteration of Brezinski’s theta algorithm, Eq. (A), and the Levin-type transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A36), and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A40).

So far, the transformation results had always been very good as well as very reliable. In contrast, the results in Tables IV and V are very bad and not reliable at all. For small transformation orders $`n`$, all transformations produce results which are by 5 orders of magnitude too small, and in the case of Brezinski’s theta algorithm, the wrong results even seem to have converged with an accuracy of 4 decimal digits. For increasing transformation orders $`n`$, there occur sudden and unmotivated sign changes, and only if $`n`$ approaches 30, at least the epsilon algorithm in Table IV and the Levin transformation $`d_n^{(0)}`$ in Table V converge to the correct result. For $`n=30`$, the other transformations show no indication of convergence and produce results which are still by some orders of magnitude too small.

How can the disturbingly bad performance of sequence transformations in Tables IV and V be explained. The terms of a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ satisfy the 2-term recursion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{(a)_{n+1}(b)_{n+1}z^{n+1}}{(c)_{n+1}(n+1)!}}`$ (68)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(a+n)(b+n)z}{(c+n)(n+1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(a)_n(b)_nz^n}{(c)_nn!}}.`$
Obviously, the factor $`(a+n)(b+n)z/[(c+n)(n+1)]`$ on the right-hand side determines whether the terms increase or decrease in magnitude with increasing $`n`$. As long as this factor is greater than one in magnitude, the terms increase with increasing $`n`$, and as soon as this factor is smaller than one, the terms decrease.

Thus, we only have to determine those values of $`n`$ which satisfy

$$\left|\frac{(a+n)(b+n)z}{(c+n)(n+1)}\right|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}$$
(69)
for given $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`z`$ in order to find out for which values of the index $`n`$ the terms of a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ change their growth pattern.

In the case of the hypergeometric series in Table III with $`a=3/7`$, $`b=5/2`$, $`c=7/2`$, and $`z=77/100`$, there is no $`n>0`$ which satisfies condition (69). This implies that the terms of this series decrease monotonously in magnitude with increasing $`n0`$. Moreover, the results in Table III show that the convergence of this series can be accelerated quite effectively.

In the case of the hypergeometric series in Tables IV and V with $`c=7/2`$, the situation is more complicated since condition (69) is satisfied by $`n22`$. Thus, the terms of this series initially increase up to $`n=22`$, and only for $`n>22`$ they decrease and ultimately produce a convergent result. Accordingly, the partial sums (66) of this hypergeometric series initially look like the partial sums of a mildly divergent series, and only for $`n>22`$, they behave like the partial sums of a convergent series. Therefore, it should not be too surprising that sequence transformations perform poorly if they use as input data only the partial sums (66) with $`n22`$. However, even for $`22n30`$, only the epsilon algorithm and the Levin transformation $`d_n^{(0)}`$ ultimately converge to the correct result. This provides strong evidence that the irregular input data with small indices $`n`$ have a detrimental effect on the performance of sequence transformations with large transformation orders, which also use input data with a correct behavior.

We can test the hypothesis, that the irregular behavior of the initial partial sums (66) with $`n22`$ leads to the poor performance of sequence transformations in Tables IV and V, by skipping the terms up to $`n=22`$ in the transformation processes. Accordingly, Wynn’s epsilon algorithm, Eq. (II), and the Levin-type transformations $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A36), and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$, Eq. (A40), use in in Table VI the modified partial sums

$$s_n^{(22)}(z)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n+22}{}}\frac{(3/7)_m(5/2)_m}{(7/2)_mm!}z^m$$
(70)
of the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(3/7,5/2;7/2;z)`$ with $`z=77/100`$ as input data. This approach is possible since all sequence transformations considered in this article are quasi-linear, i.e., they satisfy (A45).

The results in Table VI indeed confirm our hypothesis since they are nearly as good as the results in Table III, at least with respect to the transformation orders that are needed to achieve a given relative accuracy.

The other sequence transformations discussed in Appendix A produce results that are less good than those shown in Table VI. The two approximations with the highest possible transformation orders, that can be produced from the partial sums $`s_0^{(22)}(z)`$, $`s_1^{(22)}(z)`$, …, $`s_{20}^{(22)}(z)`$ by Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process (A), by Brezinski’s theta algorithm (A) and its iteration (A), are

$`𝒜_9^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.01014772243910^{+5},`$ (71)
$`𝒜_{10}^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.01014753770110^{+5}.`$ (72)
$`\theta _{12}^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.01146205162810^{+5},`$ (73)
$`\theta _{12}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.01146201150110^{+5},`$ (74)
$`𝒥_7^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.01023390882510^{+5},`$ (75)
$`𝒥_7^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`1.01017605478610^{+5}.`$ (76)
The results in Table VI show that a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ with a negative third parameter can be evaluated reliably with the help of sequence transformations if the nonregular leading terms are excluded from the transformation processes. Unfortunately, this may lead to new problems since the number of terms, that initially grow in magnitude, may become quite large, in particular if $`z`$ is close to one. For example, if we increase the argument of the hypergeometric series in Table VI from $`z=77/100`$ to $`z=87/100`$ or to $`z=97/100`$, then the number of terms, which initially grow in magnitude and have to be skipped, grow from $`n=22`$ to $`n=40`$ or even to $`n=179`$. Moreover, more negative values of $`c`$ also increase the number of terms that have to be skipped. For instance, if we consider the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(3/7,5/2;13/2;z)`$ with $`z=77/100`$, $`z=87/100`$, or $`z=97/100`$, then we obtain $`n=35`$, $`n=63`$, or $`n=279`$, respectively. These examples show that it is in principle possible to construct hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ which can only be evaluated reliably with the help of sequence transformations if a very large number of terms is skipped in the transformation process.

In the case of a Gaussian hypergeometric series, this poses no unsurmountable problems. Firstly, it is a triviality to compute the terms, even for very large indices. Consequently, a brute force evaluation of a Gaussian hypergeometric series by adding up the terms is possible as long as the argument is not too close to the boundary of the circle of convergence. Secondly, the highly developed mathematical theory of these functions makes it possible to simplify the numerical task with the help of known transformation formulas. For example, if the number of terms, that have to be skipped, is large because the argument $`z`$ of the hypergeometric series with a negative third parameter is close to one, then it may be a good idea to use the analytic continuation formula (33). This would not necessarily solve the principal problems due to a negative third parameter, but the argument $`1z`$ of the two new hypergeometric series would then be small.

However, the probably simplest approach would be the use of recurrence formulas. In this approach, one would have to evaluate two hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ with suitable positive values of the third parameter, for example with the help of sequence transformations, and to compute recursively the numerical value of desired hypergeometric series with a negative third parameter. Of course, many recurrence formulas are known. Nevertheless, numerous new three-term recurrence formulas satisfied by the Gaussian hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ are derived in Appendix C.

Unfortunately, these alternative approaches are in general not available if we have to evaluate an infinite series whose terms are determined numerically and only behave like the terms of a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ with a negative third parameter. In such a case, it cannot be excluded that the number of terms, that have to be skipped, would be so large that their computation would no longer be feasible. Then, neither the conventional process of successively adding up the terms of the series nor sequence transformations would be able to provide reliable approximations to the value of such an infinite series.

## V Summary and Conclusions

A sequence transformation is a rule $`𝒯`$ which transforms a sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with the (generalized) limit $`s`$ to another sequence $`\{s_n^{}\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ having the same (generalized) limit $`s`$ but different remainders $`r_n^{}=s_n^{}s`$. The transformation process was successful if the new sequence has better numerical properties than the original sequence. For example, a sequence transformation $`𝒯`$ accelerates convergence, if the transformed remainders $`r_n^{}=s_n^{}s`$ converge more rapidly than the original remainders $`r_n=s_ns`$ according to (4), and $`𝒯`$ sums a divergent sequence, whose remainders $`r_n`$ do not vanish as $`n\mathrm{}`$, to its generalized limit $`s`$ if the transformed remainders $`r_n^{}`$ approach zero as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

As discussed in Section II, a sequence transformation $`𝒯`$ can be represented by an infinite set of doubly indexed quantities $`T_k^{(n)}`$ with $`k,n0`$ that can be displayed in a two-dimensional array called the table of $`𝒯`$. The superscript $`n`$ denotes the minimal index occurring in the finite string $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{}s_{n+l}\}`$ of sequence elements used for the computation of a given $`T_k^{(n)}`$. The subscript $`k`$ – usually called the order of the transformation – is a measure for the complexity of the transformation process which yields $`T_k^{(n)}`$.

A convergence acceleration or summation process tries to obtain a better approximation to the (generalized) limit of the input sequence by proceeding on a certain path in the table of $`𝒯`$. There is an in principle unlimited variety of different paths, but in practical applications either order-constant paths defined in (7) or index-constant paths defined in (8) are normally used.

On an order-constant path, a set $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{}s_{n+l}\}`$ of input data of fixed length is used and the starting index $`n`$ of this set is increased successively. In contrast, an index-constant path uses sets of input data of increasing length, and it is always tried to compute from a given set of input data that element $`T_k^{(n)}`$ which has the highest possible transformation order $`k`$.

Order-constant and index-constant paths differ substantially. For example, on an index-constant path the available information is exploited more efficiently than on an order-constant path. Accordingly, index-constant paths normally produce better transformation results. Moreover, order-constant paths cannot be used for the summation of a divergent sequence since increasing $`n`$ in the set $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{}s_{n+l}\}`$ of input data normally only increases divergence.

If, however, the leading elements of the input sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ behave irregularly, the principal advantages of index-constant paths can easily turn into disadvantages: If the sets $`\{s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{}s_{n+l}\}`$ of input data with increasing $`l`$ have a sufficiently small starting index $`n`$, then all transforms $`T_k^{(n)}`$ will be affected by irregular input data, albeit to a different degree. As shown by Tables IV and V, this can lead to unreliable or even completely nonsensical transformation results. In such a case, it is necessary to exclude the irregular input data from the transformation process. This can be accomplished by using either an order-constant path or an index-constant path with a sufficiently large starting index.

In Section III, the Gaussian hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F1(a,b;c;z)`$ is discussed, which is in general a multivalued function defined in the whole complex plane with branch points at $`z=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. However, it is defined by the power series (22) which only converges for $`|z|<1`$. Accordingly, sequence transformations can either be used for speeding up convergence or for accomplishing an analytic continuation in the case of divergence. In Table I, an alternating hypergeometric series for $`\mathrm{ln}(1+z)`$ is summed effectively by sequence transformations for an argument $`z=7/2`$ which is is far away from the unit circle, and in Table II, another special hypergeometric series, which converges only in the interior of the unit circle, is evaluated for an argument $`z=(1+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{3})/2`$ that is located on the boundary of the unit chicle.

For most parameters $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$, sequence transformations greatly facilitate the evaluation of a hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$, and the good transformation results presented in Tables I and II are fairly typical. However, as discussed in Section IV, there is an important and instructive exception: If the third parameter $`c`$ of a hypergeometric series is a negative real number, then the terms of this series initially increase in magnitude and look even for $`|z|<1`$ like the terms of a mildly divergent series. Only for sufficiently large values of the index, the terms decrease and ultimately produce a convergent result.

The use of these irregular terms as input data seriously affects the performance of sequence transformations and leads to unreliable and sometimes even completely nonsensical results. This is demonstrated by applying in Table III and in Tables IV and V, respectively, sequence transformations to the partial sums of the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ with $`a=3/7`$, $`b=5/2`$, $`z=77/100`$, and $`c=\pm 7/2`$.

In Table III, sequence transformations are applied to the hypergeometric series with the positive value of the third parameter. As expected, the transformation results are very good. However, in Tables IV and V, where the hypergeometric series with the negative value of the third parameter is considered, the transformation results are both unreliable and bad.

Nevertheless, it is possible to compute the hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(3/7,5/2;7/2;77/100)`$ efficiently and reliably with the help of sequence transformations. However, one cannot use an index-constant path with a small minimal index, as it was done in Tables IV and V. Instead, one should either use an order-constant path or an index-constant path with a sufficiently large minimal index, as it was done in Table VI, where all irregular terms were excluded from the transformation processes.

The sequence transformations, which are used in this article, are all described in Appendix A. The use of several transformations was quite intentional. The author wanted to make clear that problems due to irregular input data are not restricted to some special sequence transformations only. Of course, the results in Tables IV and V show that different sequence transformations respond differently to irregular input data. However, this is quite helpful and can protect us against misinterpretations. For example, in Table IV Brezinski’s theta algorithm produced transformation results which seemed to have converged with an accuracy of 4 decimal digits, but were actually by 5 orders of magnitude too small. Fortunately, the other transformations in Tables IV and V produced different results, which provided strong evidence that the transformation results were unreliable. Consequently, it is recommendable to use in convergence acceleration and summation processes more than a single transformation whenever possible. This is particularly important if numerically determined data are to be transformed, about which very little is known. If several different sequence transformations produce consistent results, then it is very likely that these results are indeed correct although it is of course clear that purely numerical results cannot be a substitute for a rigorous mathematical proof.

It looks like a contradiction that in Appendix B only the Levin-type transformation (A40) was used for the computation of the infinite coupling limit $`k_3`$ of the sextic anharmonic oscillator. However, the divergent perturbation series (B9), whose leading coefficients also show an irregular behavior, constitutes a very demanding summation problem, for which the other transformations discussed in Appendix A are not powerful enough.

Here, it should be emphasized once more that the two examples considered in this article – the Gaussian hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ with a negative third parameter and the divergent perturbation series (B9) for the infinite coupling limit $`k_3`$ – are comparatively simple model problems, and the leading irregular terms of their series expansions pose no unsurmountable computational problems. This is largely due to the fact that it is relatively easy to find out which terms behave irregularly. In the case of the perturbation series (B9), we are in the fortunate situation that the leading large-$`n`$ asymptotics (B11) of the coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ is known, and in the case of the hypergeometric series, one only has to solve (69) in order to find out for which indices $`n`$ the terms change their growth pattern. Moreover, in the case of a $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$ there are numerous alternative computational approaches. For example, with the help of recurrence formulas the evaluation of Gaussian hypergeometric series with a negative third parameter can be avoided completely. Consequently, in Appendix C numerous new recurrence formulas satisfied by a $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ are derived.

Finally, the author wishes to express his hope that this article will inspire additional research on the evaluation of special functions with the help of sequence transformations. There can be no doubt that sequence transformations are normally extremely useful tools for the evaluation of special functions, and since the terms of the series expansions for special functions are comparatively simple and explicitly known, we can even hope to gain additional insight from those cases in which sequence transformations fail to produce good transformation results.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks the Fonds der Chemischen Industrie for financial support.

## A Sequence Transformations

This appendix gives a short description of all the sequence transformations that are used in this article. Further details plus additional references can be found in . Here, the same notation as in  is used.

One of the oldest sequence transformations (see for instance pp. 90 - 91 of ) is Aitken’s $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ formula :

$$𝒜_1^{(n)}=s_n\frac{[\mathrm{\Delta }s_n]^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2s_n}.$$
(A1)
The (forward) difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acts for all integers $`n0`$ on a function $`f(n)`$ according to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }f(n)=f(n+1)f(n).$$
(A2)
The Aitken formula (A1) is by construction exact for model sequences of the type $`s_n=s+c\lambda ^n`$ with $`c0`$ and $`\lambda 1`$. If the numerical values of three consecutive elements $`s_n`$, $`s_{n+1}`$, and $`s_{n+2}`$ of this model sequence are known, then the (generalized) limit $`s`$ of this sequence can be computed according to

$$𝒜_1^{(n)}=s,$$
(A3)
no matter whether the sequence converges ($`|\lambda |<1`$) or diverges ($`|\lambda |>1`$).

The power and practical usefulness of Aitken’s $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ formula is of course limited since it is designed to eliminate only a single exponential term from the elements of the model sequence mentioned above. However, the quantities $`𝒜_1^{(n)}`$ can again be used as input data in (A1). Hence, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process can be iterated, yielding the following nonlinear recursive scheme \[13, Eq. (5.1-15)\]:

(A5)
$`𝒜_0^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`s_n,`$ (A6)
$`𝒜_{k+1}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜_k^{(n)}{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }𝒜_k^{(n)}\right]^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2𝒜_k^{(n)}}}.`$ (A7)
In this article, the difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acts only on the superscript $`n`$ and not on the subscript $`k`$ of a doubly indexed quantity like $`𝒜_k^{(n)}`$. A more detailed discussion of Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process as well as additional references can for instance be found in Section 5 of  or in . The iteration of other sequence transformations is discussed in .

In the case of Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process, the approximation to the limit of the input sequence with the highest possible transformation order depends upon the index $`m`$ of the last sequence element $`s_m`$ which was used in the recursion. If $`m`$ is either even or odd, $`m=2\mu `$ or $`m=2\mu +1`$, respectively, the approximations to the limit are chosen according to

$`\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_{2\mu }\}`$ $``$ $`𝒜_\mu ^{(0)},`$ (A8)
$`\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{2\mu +1}\}`$ $``$ $`𝒜_\mu ^{(1)}.`$ (A9)
As in the case of Wynn’s $`ϵ`$ algorithm, these two relationships can with the help of the notation $`[[x]]`$ for the integral part of $`x`$ be expressed by a single equation (Eq. (5.2-6) of ):

$`\{s_{m2[[m/2]]},s_{m2[[m/2]]+1},\mathrm{},s_m\}`$ (A10)
$``$ $`𝒜_{[[m/2]]}^{(m2[[m/2]])}.`$ (A11)
The behavior of many practically relevant convergent sequences $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be characterized by the asymptotic condition

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{s_{n+1}s}{s_ns}=\rho ,$$
(A12)
where $`s=s_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the limit of the sequence $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. This condition closely resembles the well known ratio test for infinite series. A convergent sequence satisfying (A12) with $`|\rho |<1`$ is called linearly convergent, and it is called logarithmically convergent if $`\rho =1`$.

It is one of the major weaknesses of the otherwise very powerful and very useful epsilon algorithm (II) that it does not work in the case of logarithmic convergence. Brezinski showed that this principal weakness can be overcome by a suitable modification of the recursive scheme (II), which leads to the so-called theta algorithm :

$`\theta _1^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`0,\theta _0^{(n)}=s_n,`$ (A14)
$`\theta _{2k+1}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{2k1}^{(n+1)}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{2k}^{(n)}],`$ (A15)
$`\theta _{2k+2}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _{2k}^{(n+1)}+{\displaystyle \frac{[\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{2k}^{(n+1)}][\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{2k+1}^{(n+1)}]}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2\theta _{2k+1}^{(n)}}}.`$ (A16)
As in the case of Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process (A), it is assumed that the difference operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ acts only upon the superscript $`n`$ and not on the subscript $`k`$.

Again, the approximation to the limit of the input sequence depends upon the index $`m`$ of the last sequence element $`s_m`$ which was used in the recursion. If we have $`m=3\mu `$, $`m=3\mu +1`$, or $`m=3\mu +2`$, respectively, the approximations to the limit with the highest transformation orders are chosen according to

$`\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_{3\mu }\}`$ $``$ $`\theta _{2\mu }^{(0)},`$ (A17)
$`\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{3\mu +1}\}`$ $``$ $`\theta _{2\mu }^{(1)},`$ (A18)
$`\{s_2,s_3,\mathrm{},s_{3\mu +2}\}`$ $``$ $`\theta _{2\mu }^{(2)}.`$ (A19)
These three relationships can be expressed by a single equation (Eq. (10.2-8) of ):

$`\{s_{m3[[m/3]]},s_{m3[[m/3]]+1},\mathrm{},s_m\}`$ (A20)
$``$ $`\theta _{2[[m/3]]}^{(m3[[m/3]])}.`$ (A21)
Further details on the theta algorithm as well as additional references can be found in Section 2.9 of  or in Sections 10 and 11 of .

As for example discussed in , new sequence transformations can be constructed by iterating explicit expressions for sequence transformations with low transformation orders. The best known example of such an iterated sequence transformation is probably Aitken’s iterated $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ process (A) which is obtained by iterating (A1).

The same approach is also possible in the case of the theta algorithm (A). A suitable closed-form expression, which may be iterated, is (Eq. (10.3-1) of )

$`\vartheta _2^{(n)}=s_{n+1}`$ (A23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }s_n\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }s_{n+1}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2s_{n+1}\right]}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }s_{n+2}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2s_n\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }s_n\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2s_{n+1}\right]}}.`$
The iteration of this expression yields the following nonlinear recursive scheme (Eq. (10.3-6) of ):

$`𝒥_0^{(n)}=s_n,`$ (A25)
$`𝒥_{k+1}^{(n)}=𝒥_k^{(n+1)}`$ (A26)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }𝒥_k^{(n)}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }𝒥_k^{(n+1)}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2𝒥_k^{(n+1)}\right]}{\left[\mathrm{\Delta }𝒥_k^{(n+2)}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2𝒥_k^{(n)}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }𝒥_k^{(n)}\right]\left[\mathrm{\Delta }^2𝒥_k^{(n+1)}\right]}}.`$ (A27)
In convergence acceleration and summation processes, the iterated transformation $`𝒥_k^{(n)}`$ has similar properties as Brezinski’s theta algorithm from which it was derived: Both transformations are very powerful as well as very versatile. $`𝒥_k^{(n)}`$ is not only an effective accelerator for linear convergence as well as able to sum divergent alternating series, but it is also able to accelerate the convergence of many logarithmically convergent sequences and series .

Again, the approximation to the limit of the input sequence depends upon the index $`m`$ of the last sequence element $`s_m`$ which was used in the recursion. If we have $`m=3\mu `$, $`m=3\mu +1`$, or $`m=3\mu +2`$, respectively, the approximations to the limit with the highest transformation orders are chosen according to

$`\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_{3\mu }\}`$ $``$ $`𝒥_\mu ^{(0)},`$ (A28)
$`\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{3\mu +1}\}`$ $``$ $`𝒥_\mu ^{(1)},`$ (A29)
$`\{s_2,s_3,\mathrm{},s_{3\mu +2}\}`$ $``$ $`𝒥_\mu ^{(2)}.`$ (A30)
These three relationships can be expressed by a single equation (Eq. (10.4-7) of ):

$`\{s_{m3[[m/3]]},s_{m3[[m/3]]+1},\mathrm{},s_m\}`$ (A31)
$``$ $`𝒥_{[[m/3]]}^{(m3[[m/3]])}.`$ (A32)
So far, only sequence transformations were considered which use as input data the elements of the sequence to be transformed. However, in some cases structural information on the dependence of the remainders $`r_n`$ on the index $`n`$ is available. For example, it is well known that the truncation error of a convergent series with strictly alternating and monotonously decreasing terms is bounded in magnitude by the first term not included in the partial sum and has the same sign as this term (see for instance p. 132 of ). The first term neglected is also the best simple estimate for the truncation error of a strictly alternating nonterminating hypergeometric series $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{0}^{}(\alpha ,\beta ;x)`$ with $`\alpha ,\beta ,x>0`$ (Theorem 5.12-5 of ). Such an information on the behavior of the truncation errors can be extremely helpful in a convergence acceleration or summation process. Unfortunately, the sequence transformations considered so far are not able to benefit from it.

A convenient way of incorporating such an information into the transformation process consists in the use of remainder estimates $`\{\omega _n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Because of the explicit incorporation of the information contained in the remainder estimates, sequence transformations of that kind are potentially very powerful and as well as very versatile.

The best-known example of such a sequence transformation is Levin’s transformation  which is both very versatile and very powerful :

$`_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\omega _n)`$ (A34)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta +n+j)^{k1}}{(\zeta +n+k)^{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{n+j}}{\omega _{n+j}}}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta +n+j)^{k1}}{(\zeta +n+k)^{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{n+j}}}}}.`$
The shift parameter $`\zeta `$ has to be positive in order to admit $`n=0`$ in (A34). The most obvious choice, which is always used in this article, is $`\zeta =1`$. Recurrence formulas for the numerator and denominator sums of $`_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\omega _n)`$ can be found in Section 7.2 of .

Levin’s transformation is based on the assumption that the remainders $`r_n`$ of the input sequence can for all $`n0`$ be approximated by a remainder estimate $`\omega _n`$, which should be chosen such that $`s_ns=\omega _n\left[c+O(n^1)\right]`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, multiplied by a polynomial in $`1/(n+\zeta )`$ with $`\zeta >0`$. Levin  introduced several simple remainder estimates for infinite series which give rise to several variants of Levin’s sequence transformation. Further details on Levin’s transformation can for instance be found in Section 7 of .

In this article, we only consider the remainder estimate

$$\omega _n=\mathrm{\Delta }s_n=a_{n+1},$$
(A35)
which was first proposed by Smith and Ford . It yields the following variant of Levin’s transformation (Eq. (7.3-9) of ):

$$d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)=_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\mathrm{\Delta }s_n).$$
(A36)
Levin’s transformation is based on the implicit assumption that the ratio $`[s_ns]/\omega _n`$ can be expressed as a power series in $`1/(n+\zeta )`$. A different class of sequence transformations can be derived by assuming that the ratio $`[s_ns]/\omega _n`$ can be expressed as a so-called factorial series according to (Section 8 of )

$$s_n=s+\omega _n\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_j/(n+\zeta )_j,$$
(A37)
where $`(n+\zeta )_j=\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+j+\zeta )/\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+\zeta )`$ is a Pochhammer symbol (p. 3 of ). In this way, the sequence transformation (Eq. (8.2-7) of )

$`𝒮_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\omega _n)`$ (A39)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta +n+j)_{k1}}{(\zeta +n+k)_{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_{n+j}}{\omega _{n+j}}}}{{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{j}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(\zeta +n+j)_{k1}}{(\zeta +n+k)_{k1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _{n+j}}}}}`$
can be derived which is formally very similar to Levin’s sequence transformation. The only difference between the transformations $`_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\omega _n)`$ and $`𝒮_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\omega _n)`$ is that the powers $`(\zeta +n+j)^{k1}`$ in (A34) are replaced by the Pochhammer symbols $`(\zeta +n+j)_{k1}`$ in (A39). Again, the shift parameter $`\zeta `$ has to be positive in order to admit $`n=0`$ in (A39), and the most obvious choice is also $`\zeta =1`$ which is exclusively used in this article. Recurrence formulas for the numerator and denominator sums of $`𝒮_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\omega _n)`$ can be found in Section 8.3 of .

If we use the remainder estimate (A35) also in (A39), we obtain the following sequence transformation (Eq. (8.4-4) of ):

$$\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)=𝒮_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n,\mathrm{\Delta }s_n).$$
(A40)
It was shown in several articles that the transformation (A39) as well as its variant (A40) can be very effective , in particular if strongly divergent alternating series are to be summed.

In the case of the transformations (A36) and (A40), the approximation to the limit with the highest transformation order is given by

$$\{s_0,s_1,\mathrm{},s_{m+1}\}\mathrm{\Xi }_m^{(0)}(\zeta ,s_0),$$
(A41)
where $`\mathrm{\Xi }_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$ stands for either $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$ or $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$.

If the input data $`s_n`$ are the partial sums of a (formal) power series for some function $`f(z)`$ according to (12), $`s_n=f_n(z)`$, then the transformations (A36) and (A40) produce rational functions $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,f_n(z))`$ and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,f_n(z))`$, whose numerator and denominator polynomials are of degrees $`k+n`$ and $`k`$ in $`z`$, respectively (Eqs. (4.25) and (4.26) of ). Moreover, the rational approximants $`d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,f_n(z))`$ and $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,f_n(z))`$ satisfy the following asymptotic error estimates as $`z0`$ (Eqs. (4.28) and (4.29) of ),

$`f(z)d_k^{(n)}(\zeta ,f_n(z))`$ $`=`$ $`O(z^{k+n+2}),`$ (A42)
$`f(z)\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,f_n(z))`$ $`=`$ $`O(z^{k+n+2}),`$ (A43)
which are very similar to the well known accuracy-through-order relationships satisfied by Padé approximants .

It is a typical feature of all sequence transformations discussed in this Appendix that they are both homogeneous and translative: If the elements of two sequences $`\{s_n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{\sigma _n\}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfy

$$\sigma _n=as_n+b,$$
(A44)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are suitable constants, then

$$𝒯(\sigma _n,\sigma _{n+1},\mathrm{})=a𝒯(s_n,s_{n+1},\mathrm{})+b.$$
(A45)
Sequence transformations $`𝒯`$ satisfying this condition are called quasi-linear in the book by Brezinski and Redivo Zaglia . In Section 1.4 of this book, a detailed discussion of the properties of quasi-linear sequence transformations as well as further references can be found.

## B The Infinite Coupling Limit of the Sextic Anharmonic Oscillator

The detrimental effect of the irregular behavior of the leading elements of a sequence in convergence acceleration and summation processes is not restricted to mathematical model problems but occurs also in the mathematical treatment of scientific problems.

This will be shown by performing extensive summation calculations for the so-called strong coupling limit $`k_3`$ of the sextic anharmonic oscillator. The quartic ($`m=2`$), sextic ($`m=3`$), and octic ($`m=4`$) anharmonic oscillators are defined by the Hamiltonians

$$\widehat{H}(\beta )=\widehat{p}^2+\widehat{x}^2+\beta \widehat{x}^{2m},m=2,3,4,$$
(B1)
and the strong coupling limit $`k_m`$ of the ground state energy eigenvalue $`E^{(m}(\beta )`$ of this Hamiltonian is defined by

$$k_m=\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}E^{(m)}(\beta )/\beta ^{1/(m+1)}.$$
(B2)
Ever since the seminal work of Bender and Wu , the divergent weak coupling perturbation expansion

$$E^{(m)}(\beta )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n^{(m)}\beta ^n$$
(B3)
for the ground state energy of an anharmonic oscillator has been considered to be the model example of a strongly divergent quantum mechanical perturbation expansion which has to be summed in order to produce numerically useful results. Accordingly, there is an extensive literature on the summation of the divergent perturbation expansions of the anharmonic oscillators (see for example  and references therein).

In addition to the divergent weak coupling expansion (B3), there is also a strong coupling expansion

$$E^{(m)}(\beta )=\beta ^{1/(m+1)}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_n^{(m)}\beta ^{2n/(m+1)}.$$
(B4)
It can be shown that this expansion converges for sufficiently large values of $`\beta `$ . However, the computation of the perturbative coefficients $`K_n^{(m)}`$ is very difficult (see for example  and references therein).

It follows from (B2), (B3), and (B4) that the infinite coupling limit $`k_m`$ corresponds to the leading coefficient of the strong coupling expansion (B4) according to

$$k_m=K_0^{(m)}.$$
(B5)
The weak coupling perturbation expansion (B3) cannot be used in a straightforward way for a calculation of the strong coupling limit $`k_m`$. However, this can be accomplished comparatively easily with the help of the following renormalized weak coupling perturbation expansion (Eqs. (3.30) - (3.31) of ):

$$E^{(m)}(\beta )=(1\kappa )^{1/2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n^{(m)}\kappa ^n.$$
(B6)
This expansion is based on a renormalization scheme introduced by Vinette and Čížek . In this approach, the original coupling constant $`\beta [0,\mathrm{})`$ is transformed into a renormalized and explicitly $`m`$-dependent coupling constant $`\kappa [0,1)`$ according to (Eq. (3.19) of )

$$\beta =\frac{1}{B_m}\frac{\kappa }{(1\kappa )^{(m+1)/2}},$$
(B7)
where (Eq. (3.17) of )

$$B_m=\frac{m(2m1)!!}{2^{m1}}.$$
(B8)
For the sextic ($`m=3`$) case, these expressions correspond to $`B_3=45/4`$ and $`\beta =4\kappa /[45(1\kappa )^2]`$.

Thus, the infinite coupling limits $`k_3`$ of the sextic anharmonic oscillator can be expressed by the renormalized weak coupling expansion (B6) according to (Eqs. (3.43) and (3.44) of )

$$k_3=[45/4]^{1/4}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_n^{(3)}.$$
(B9)
The summation of either this or the perturbation series (B6) with $`m=3`$, from which (B9) was derived, is a formidable computational problem. This follows at once from the large-$`n`$ asymptotics of the renormalized perturbative coefficients for the sextic anharmonic oscillator (Eq. (3.34) of ):

$`c_n^{(3)}(1)^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{(128)^{1/2}}{\pi ^2}}`$ (B11)
$`\times \mathrm{\Gamma }(2n+1/2)(64/[45\pi ^2])^n,n\mathrm{}.`$
It should be noted that the summation of the perturbation series (B9) for $`k_3`$ is much more demanding than the summation of the divergent asymptotic expansions for special functions since their coefficients $`c_n`$ grow essentially like $`n!`$ . Although Padé approximants – or equivalently Wynn’s epsilon algorithm – are in principle capable of summing alternating divergent power series whose coefficients $`c_n`$ grow essentially like $`(2n)!`$ in magnitude, the convergence of Padé approximants is too slow to be practically useful. Moreover, it was shown in  that the Levin transformation (A36) produces in the case of the perturbation expansions for the anharmonic oscillators sequences of approximants which initially seem to converge but which ultimately diverge. In contrast, the Levin-type transformation (A40) produces comparatively good results.

Thus, in analogy to  we sum the perturbation series (B9) with the help of the Levin-type transformation $`\delta _k^{(n)}(\zeta ,s_n)`$ defined in (A40). It was shown in several articles that the sequence transformation (A40) as well as the transformation (A39), from which it was derived, is apparently very effective, in particular if strongly divergent alternating series are to be summed .

In our summation calculations for $`k_3`$ we use the renormalized coefficients $`c_\nu ^{(3)}`$ with $`0\nu 300`$. The coefficients were calculated using the exact rational arithmetics of Maple by solving a system of nonlinear difference equations as described in the Appendix of . Unfortunately, Eq. (A22) in the Appendix of , which specifies the system of nonlinear equations, contains a typographical error. Correct is

$`4jG_j^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`2(j+1)(2j+1)G_{j+1}^{(n)}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{B_m}}G_{jm}^{(n1)}`$ (B13)
$`G_{j1}^{(n1)}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}G_1^{(k)}G_j^{(nk)}.`$
The topic of this article is the study of the impact of irregular input data on the performance of sequence transformations. Accordingly, we have to investigate whether the renormalized coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ behave irregularly for small indices $`n`$. For that purpose, we list in Table VII selected renormalized coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ as well as the corresponding ratios

$$𝒞_n^{(3)}=\frac{(1)^{n+1}\pi ^2c_n^{(3)}}{\sqrt{128}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n+1/2)}\left(\frac{45\pi ^2}{64}\right)^n,$$
(B14)
that are obtained by dividing the renormalized coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ by the leading order of their large-$`n`$ asymptotics according to (B11).

The last column in Table VII shows quite clearly that the renormalized coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ deviate for small values of $`n`$ considerably from their larger-order behavior. Firstly, the coefficients $`c_0^{(3)}`$ and $`c_1^{(3)}`$ apparently possess “wrong” sign. Secondly, the coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ initially decrease in magnitude, and only for $`n4`$ they grow as they should according to (B11). Nevertheless, it is only a relatively mild irregularity, which affects only a few of the available coefficients $`c_\nu ^{(3)}`$ with $`0\nu 300`$.

The impact of the irregular coefficients $`c_n^{(3)}`$ with small indices $`n`$ can be checked by computing for $`l=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ and for $`n299l`$ the approximants

$$k_3^{(n,l)}=\delta _n^{(0)}(1,s_0^{(l)}),$$
(B15)
to the infinite coupling limit $`k_3`$ of the sextic anharmonic oscillator. Here, $`\delta _n^{(0)}`$ is the Levin-type transformation (A40), and

$$s_n^{(l)}=[45/4]^{1/4}\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{n+l}{}}c_\nu ^{(3)}$$
(B16)
is a partial sum of the perturbation series (B9) which skips the first $`l`$ terms in the transformation process.

In Table VIII, the approximants $`k_3^{(l,n)}`$ with the three highest possible values of $`n299l`$ are listed for $`l12`$.

If we compare the results with the extremely accurate result of Vinette and Čížek (Eq. (69) of )

$$k_3=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1.144}802453797052763765457534149549,$$
(B17)
which was obtained nonperturbatively, we see that we gain 5 decimal digits by skipping the first 7 terms of the perturbation series (B9) for $`k_3`$. For $`l8`$, the accuracy of the summation results deteriorates again.

This is a very remarkable gain of accuracy, if we take into account that the summation of the perturbation series (B9) is a formidable task and that the leading terms $`c_n^{(3)}`$ display an only relatively mild irregularity, as shown in Table VII. Nevertheless, the results show quite clearly that the transformation order is not the only criterion which affects the performance of a sequence transformation. The results in Table VIII show that may be more effective to use smaller sets of more regular input data.

## C Recurrence Formulas for the Gaussian Hypergeometric Function

Many three-term recurrence formulas satisfied by the Gaussian hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ are known. For example, on pp. 557 - 558 of  or on pp. 46 - 47 of , the following formulas can be found:

$`(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C1)
$`+`$ $`[2ac(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C3)
$`+a(z1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C4)
$`+`$ $`[2bc(ba)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C6)
$`+b(z1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c(1c)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c1;z)`$ (C7)
$`+`$ $`c[c1(2cab1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C9)
$`+(ca)(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(ba){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)+a{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C11)
$`b{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(bc){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C12)
$`+`$ $`(cab){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C14)
$`+a(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c[a(cb)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C15)
$``$ $`ac(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C17)
$`+(ca)(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c1;z)`$ (C18)
$`+`$ $`(ca1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C20)
$`+a{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(ac){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C21)
$`+`$ $`(cab){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C23)
$`+b(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(ac){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C24)
$`+`$ $`(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C26)
$`+(ba)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C27)
$`+`$ $`c(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C29)
$`+(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C30)
$``$ $`(c1)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c1;z)`$ (C32)
$`+[a1(cb1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c[b(ca)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C33)
$``$ $`bc(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)`$ (C35)
$`+(ca)(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c1;z)`$ (C36)
$`+`$ $`(cb1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C38)
$`+b{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C39)
$`+`$ $`c(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C41)
$`+(ca)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C42)
$``$ $`(c1)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c1;z)`$ (C44)
$`+[b1(ca1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
It is a typical feature of these recurrence formulas that there is a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ plus two other $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$’s which differ with respect to only one of the three parameters by $`\pm 1`$. However, recurrence formulas, which contain a hypergeometric function $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ plus two other $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}`$’s which differ with respect to two or even three parameters by $`\pm 1`$, can be constructed comparatively easily. For that purpose, we combine those of the recurrence formulas given above, whose the third parameter $`c`$ assumes at least two different values, with the linear transformation formulas (see for example p. 559 of  or p. 47 of )

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ $`=`$ $`(1z)^{cab}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,cb;c;z)`$ (C45)
$`=`$ $`(1z)^a{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,cb;c;z/(z1))`$ (C46)
$`=`$ $`(1z)^b{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,b;c;z/(z1)).`$ (C47)
For the derivation of new recurrence formulas, we replace in (C9) $`a`$ by $`ca`$ and $`b`$ by $`cb`$. This yields:

$`c(1c)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,cb;c1;z)`$ (C48)
$`+`$ $`c[c1(a+b1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,cb;c;z)`$ (C50)
$`+abz{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,cb;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
If we now combine this relationship with the linear transformation (C45), we obtain the following recurrence formula, where all three parameters of the hypergeometric functions change simultaneously:

$`c(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b1;c1;z)`$ (C51)
$`+`$ $`c[c1(a+b1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C53)
$`+abz(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
If we now proceed in (C17), (C20), and in (C29) - (C44) in exactly the same way, we obtain the following recurrence formulas:

$`c(cabz){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C54)
$``$ $`c(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C56)
$`+abz(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b1;c1;z)`$ (C57)
$`+`$ $`(a1)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C59)
$`+(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C60)
$``$ $`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C62)
$`bz{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`a(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C63)
$`+`$ $`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b1;c1;z)`$ (C65)
$`+[ca1(b1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c(cbaz){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C66)
$``$ $`c(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C68)
$`+abz(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b1;c1;z)`$ (C69)
$`+`$ $`(b1)(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C71)
$`+(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)`$ (C72)
$``$ $`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C74)
$`az{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`b(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)`$ (C75)
$`+`$ $`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b1;c1;z)`$ (C77)
$`+[cb1(a1)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
Not all of these recurrence formulas are independent. For example, (C56) and (C68) can be transformed into each other by interchanging $`a`$ and $`b`$. This is also true for the pairs (C59) and (C71), (C62) and (C74), and (C65) and (C77), which can be transformed into each other by interchanging $`a`$ and $`b`$.

For the derivation of recurrence formulas which differ with respect to two parameters by $`\pm 1`$, we replace in (C9) $`a`$ by $`ca`$ and $`z`$ by $`z/(z1)`$. This yields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c(1c)}{1z}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,b;c1;{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z1}})`$ (C78)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c[c1+(ab)z]}{z1}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,b;c;{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z1}})`$ (C80)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a(cb)z}{z1}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(ca,b;c+1;{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z1}})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
If we now combine this relationship with the linear transformation (C47), we obtain the following recurrence formula, where the first and the third parameter of the hypergeometric series change simultaneously:

$`c(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c1;z)`$ (C81)
$``$ $`c[c1+(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C83)
$`+a(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
If we now proceed in (C17), (C20), and in (C29) - (C44) in exactly the same way, we obtain the following recurrence formulas:

$`c[ca+(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C84)
$``$ $`c(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C86)
$`a(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c1;z)`$ (C87)
$`+`$ $`(a1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C89)
$`+(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C90)
$``$ $`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C92)
$`+(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`a(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C93)
$`+`$ $`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c1;z)`$ (C95)
$`+[ca1+(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c[b+(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C96)
$``$ $`bc(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)`$ (C98)
$`a(cb)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c1;z)`$ (C99)
$`+`$ $`(cb1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C101)
$`+b(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C102)
$``$ $`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C104)
$`+az{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C105)
$`+`$ $`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c1;z)`$ (C107)
$`+[b1+(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
Next, we replace in (C9) $`b`$ by $`cb`$ and $`z`$ by $`z/(z1)`$. This yields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{c(1c)}{1z}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,cb;c1;{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z1}})`$ (C108)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c[c1(ab)z]}{z1}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,cb;c;{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z1}})`$ (C110)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(ca)bz}{z1}}{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,cb;c+1;{\displaystyle \frac{z}{z1}})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
If we now combine this relationship with the linear transformation (C46), we obtain the following recurrence formula, where the second and the third parameter of the hypergeometric series change simultaneously:

$`c(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c1;z)`$ (C111)
$`+`$ $`c[c1(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C113)
$`(ca)bz{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
If we now proceed in (C17), (C20), and in (C29) - (C44) in exactly the same way, we obtain the following recurrence formulas:

$`c[(ab)za]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C114)
$`+`$ $`ac(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)`$ (C116)
$`+(ca)bz{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c1;z)`$ (C117)
$`+`$ $`(ca1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C119)
$`+a(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a+1,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C120)
$``$ $`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C122)
$`+bz{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(ca){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a1,b;c;z)`$ (C123)
$`+`$ $`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c1;z)`$ (C125)
$`+[a1(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c[cb(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C126)
$``$ $`c(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)`$ (C128)
$`(ca)bz{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c1;z)`$ (C129)
$`+`$ $`(b1){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C131)
$`+(cb){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`c(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)`$ (C132)
$``$ $`c{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)`$ (C134)
$`+(ca)z{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c+1;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$
$`b(1z){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b+1;c;z)`$ (C135)
$`+`$ $`(1c){}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b1;c1;z)`$ (C137)
$`+[cb1(ab)z]{}_{2}{}^{}F_{1}^{}(a,b;c;z)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$
The two groups of recursions (C83) - (C107) and (C113) - (C137), respectively, are not independent. They can be transformed into each other by interchanging $`a`$ and $`b`$.

TABLES