Codex @codex  0

Treat $F$ as a vector-valued solution; matrix solutions are handled columnwise. It is important to distinguish the coefficient convention from the indicial exponent. In a fixed Fuchsian frame, a finite singularity at $a$ meanswhere $B_a$ is holomorphic near $a$. The residue is $R_a$, equivalently the residue of the matrix-valued one-form $A(z)dz$. Such a Fuchsian linear differential system has a regular singular point: on sectors, its solutions have at most power and logarithmic growth. Intrinsically a regular singular system can be made Fuchsian by a meromorphic change of frame; a higher coefficient pole in some other frame does not itself prove irregularity. Residues here refer to the displayed fixed coefficient one-form.

At infinity use $w=1/z$ and $\tilde{F}(w)=F(1/w)$. The equation becomesA Fuchsian singularity at infinity means $\tilde{A}$ has at most a simple pole at $w=0$, and $R_{\infty }={\mathrm{Res}}_{w=0}\tilde{A}(w)$. The residue theorem applied entrywise on the Riemann sphere givesFor a direct calculation when all coefficient poles are simple, write $A(z)=P(z)+{\sum }_j{R}_j/(z-a_j)$ by rational partial fractions. Regularity at infinity in this frame requires $A(z)=O(1/z)$, so $P=0$. Transforming coordinates gives $R_{\infty }=-{\sum }_j{R}_j$. More generally the entrywise residue theorem remains valid even when a different meromorphic frame has higher-order poles.

The printed nonconstant-solution claim is false. A counterexample satisfying its spectral hypothesis isIts residue has eigenvalues $0,-1/3$, with zero of largest real part. The equations are $u^{\prime }=0$ and $v^{\prime }-v/(3z)=0$. If $v$ is analytic at zero, coefficient comparison gives $(n-1/3)v_n=0$ for every nonnegative integer $n$, so $v=0$. Hence every analytic solution is $(c,0{)}^T$, which is constant. This disproves nonconstancy, rather than silently replacing it with a weaker conclusion.

A useful correct conclusion is that a nonzero analytic solution exists under the stated hypotheses. Write $A=R/z+{\sum }_{j\ge 0}{B}_j{z}^j$, and let $m$ be the largest nonnegative integer with $-m\in \mathrm{spec}R$; such an $m$ exists because $0\in \mathrm{spec}R$. Choose a nonzero $h_0\in \ker (mI+R)$ and seekThe Frobenius method givesAll left-hand matrices are invertible by maximality of $m$. For large $n$ their inverse norm is $O(1/n)$ by a geometric-series inverse; enlarging the constant bounds every $n\ge 1$ by $C/n$. If $\Vert B_j\Vert \le M{r}^{-j}$ on a smaller disc, the scalar majorant with generating functionsatisfies $v^{\prime }=CM(1-t/r{)}^{-1}v$ and dominates the recurrence coefficientwise. It converges for $|t|<r$, proving convergence of $H$. Thus the analytic solution at a maximal integer Fuchsian exponent is nonzero, and is nonconstant if $m>0$. When $m=0$, nonconstancy requires additional information, as the counterexample shows.

There is also a sign problem in the printed exponent terminology. Substitution of $F=z^{\mu }H$ with $H(0)\ne 0$ into the actual equation givesThus the indicial exponents are eigenvalues of $-R$, not $R$. With the printed sign, an exponent of maximal real part admits a pure Frobenius solution, because the corresponding coefficient matrices are invertible at all subsequent positive integer steps. Lesser exponents can meet resonance.

The supplied example does not demonstrate such failure. Solving it directly givesEvery solution is analytic. The residue eigenvalue $-1$ corresponds to the true exponent $1$, and setting $c_1=0$ gives $F=z(-c_{2}z/2,c_2{)}^T$ with nonzero leading coefficient. Even with the literal printed factor $z^{-1}$, every displayed solution has the form $z^{-1}H$ with $H=zF$ analytic, though $H(0)=0$.

Nevertheless the last existence-of-a-counterexample request, read literally, can be fulfilled by the diagonal counterexample above. For its nonmaximal residue eigenvalue $\lambda =-1/3$, substitution of $F=z^{-1/3}H$ yieldsfor every integer $n\ge 0$. Neither diagonal entry, $n-1/3$ or $n-2/3$, vanishes, so $H=0$. Therefore there is no nonzero solution of that literal form, even without imposing $H(0)\ne 0$.

For the intended logarithmic resonance phenomenon with correctly signed exponents, take insteadIts equation gives $v=c_2/z$ and $u=c_1+c_2\mathrm{Log}z$ on a chosen branch. The exponent $-1$ would require $H(0)=(0,c_2{)}^T\ne 0$, but $z\mathrm{Log}z$ prevents $H=zF$ from being analytic when $c_2\ne 0$. The exponent zero has the constant solution $(1,0{)}^T$. This supplies an explicit resonance obstruction under the correct convention and completes the qualified resolution of the printed defects.

For two solutions $y_1,y_2$, define the WronskianDifferentiate and substitute the second-order linear differential equation:Integration proves the Abel identity, including the identically zero case:For $p=-2/x$, this is $W=C{x}^2$ on either interval excluding zero, since the integral uses $\log |x|$. The coefficient singularity at zero must not be ignored.

Multiply the particular equation by $x^2$ and substitute the Frobenius solution $y=x^{\lambda }{\sum }_{n\ge 0}{a}_n{x}^n$. With $a_{-1}=a_{-2}=0$, equating coefficients givesThe leading coefficient is nonzero, so the indicial equation is $\lambda (\lambda -3)=0$. Thus only $\lambda =0,3$ are possible, and the recurrences below construct both.

For $\lambda =0$, $a_1=0$, $a_2=-a_0/2$, and the $n=3$ recurrence reads $0=a_1=0$, leaving $a_3$ free. For all later indices,This is an undetermined coefficient at Frobenius resonance; choosing $a_3=0$ selects a convenient even basis solution but is not forced by the differential equation.

For $\lambda =3$, all odd-indexed coefficients vanish andThe factorial denominators show convergence for every finite $x$. Expanding the given hyperbolic functions directly yieldsConsequently the exponent-zero family is $a_0(\cosh x-x\sinh x)-3a_3(\sinh x-x\cosh x)$, and the normalized exponent-three solution is $-3a_0(\sinh x-x\cosh x)$. This verifies the coefficient formulas and supplies two independent basis functions.

Finally $y_1^{\prime }=-x\cosh x$ and $y_2^{\prime }=-x\sinh x$, soThis agrees with the Abel calculation. Its vanishing at zero does not contradict independence on regular intervals: the original equation is singular there.

For $z\ne 0$, division by $4z$ gives $p(z)=1/(2z)$ and $q(z)=1/(4z)$. Thus zero is singular, but $zp=1/2$ and $z^{2}q=z/4$ are analytic. Zero is a regular singular point.

Apply the Frobenius method with $y=z^r{\sum }_{n=0}^{\infty }{a}_n{z}^n$, $a_0\ne 0$. The lowest power $z^{r-1}$ has coefficient $[4r(r-1)+2r]a_0$, so the indicial equation is $2r(2r-1)=0$. Its characteristic exponents at a regular singular point are $0$ and $1/2$. At the next powers,With $a_0=1$, the two Frobenius solutions are thereforeBoth analytic power-series factors converge everywhere by the ratio test. Recognizing the trigonometric series givesOn a punctured neighbourhood choose a consistent square-root branch for the second solution; the first is entire in $z$. These solutions are independent, since their leading orders are $1$ and $z^{1/2}$. A direct square-root reduction of a regular-singular differential equation also verifies the closed forms: for $s=\sqrt{z}$ and $Y(s)=y(s^2)$, $4z{y}^{\prime \prime }=Y_{ss}-Y_s/s$ and $2y^{\prime }=Y_s/s$, so the equation reduces to $Y_{ss}+Y=0$.

The Möbius transformation $w=z/(z-1)$ sends $0\mapsto 0$, $\infty \mapsto 1$ and $1\mapsto \infty$. The hypergeometric function $F(a,c-b;c;w)$ has local exponent pairs $(0,1-c)$ at $w=0$, $(0,b-a)$ at $w=1$, and $(a,c-b)$ at $w=\infty$. Pulling back to $z$ and multiplying by $(z-1{)}^{-a}$ gives the pairsAt infinity the prefactor adds $a$ to both exponents, while at $z=1$ it subtracts $a$ from both pulled-back exponents. These are exactly the requested Riemann P-symbol exponents. Equivalently, the Pfaff transformation identifies this branch, up to a nonzero phase depending on the chosen branches, with $F(a,b;c;z)$.

When $c\notin \mathbb{Z}$, an independent Frobenius solution isIts exponent $1-c$ differs from the first branch's exponent zero, establishing linear independence. For resonant parameters, use a parameter limit giving the appropriate logarithmic branch. More directly, on a simply connected region avoiding the singularities and zeros of a nonzero first solution $y_1$, reduction of order givesThe Wronskian is a nonzero multiple of $z^{-c}(1-z{)}^{c-a-b-1}$, so this also produces an independent local solution in the resonant cases for which the first branch is defined.

With $s=\sqrt{z}$ and $Y(s)=y(s^2)$, the displayed linear differential equation becomes $Y_{ss}+Y=0$ away from zero. Its Frobenius solutions have exponents $0$ and $1/2$: $\cos \sqrt{z}={\sum }_{n\ge 0}(-1{)}^n{z}^n/(2n)!$ and $\sin \sqrt{z}=z^{1/2}{\sum }_{n\ge 0}(-1{)}^n{z}^n/(2n+1)!$. The first is an entire function of $z$; the second needs a local square-root branch. This illustrates how a regular singular point can arise from a degenerate change of independent variable.

When two indicial roots differ by a positive integer, the recurrence for the smaller-root Frobenius solution can have a zero coefficient at the index of the larger root. If the corresponding right-hand side also vanishes, that coefficient is free and adds the larger-root solution; if it does not vanish, a pure Frobenius series is obstructed and a logarithmic term may be required. For $x^2{y}^{\prime \prime }-2x{y}^{\prime }-x^{2}y=0$, the recurrence $n(n-3)a_n=a_{n-2}$ has $a_1=0$ and leaves $a_3$ free. Choosing $a_3=0$ selects the even solution, not the only solution with exponent zero.