15
$\begingroup$

Consider the sequence of Apéry numbers
$$ A_n = \sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k}\binom{n+k}{k}\sum_{j=0}^k \binom{k}{j}^3 = \sum_{k=0}^n \binom{n}{k}^2\binom{n+k}{k}^2 . $$ In an email, physicist Alan Sokal conjectures that it is a Stieltjes moment sequence. That is, that there exists a probability measure $\mu$ on $[0,+\infty)$ so that $$ A_n = \int_{[0,+\infty)} s^n\;d\mu(s) \tag{1}$$ for $n = 0,1,2,\dots$. [Of course you can equivalently say that $\mu$ is a nondecreasing function with $\mu(0)=0$ and $\lim_{x\to+\infty} \mu(s) = 1$ and that (1) is a Stieltjes integral, rather than a "measure" integral.]

Is that conjecture correct? Is $A_n$ a Stieltjes moment sequence?

[This question is a follow-up to A conjectured formula for Apéry numbers , where a formula for $A_n$ was established.]

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ oeis.org/A228143 $\endgroup$ – Steve Huntsman Aug 22 '14 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ I think there is some hope to determine a solution, and I'll try some computations. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Aug 26 '14 at 19:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I observed the following fact. Consider the following second order linear ODE with polynomial coefficients: $$(4x^3-136x^2+4x)u''+(8x^2-204x+4)u'+(x-10)u=0.$$ Assume that $u$ is a solution on $(0,+\infty)$, with $u(0)=0$ and $u(x)=o(x^{-n})$ for all natural $n$, and normalized so that $\int_0^\infty u^2dx=1$. Then, the measure $\mu$ with density $d\mu= u^2dx$ has the Apery numbers as a sequence of moments. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Aug 27 '14 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ (I'm just not completely sure that such a solution $u$ does exist) $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Aug 27 '14 at 19:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is $o(c^n)$, but that does not make the density vanish at the endpoint. Try density $1$ on $[0,1]$: the moments are $1/(n+1) = o(1)$, but $1$ does not vanish at the endpoint. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Aug 31 '14 at 13:21
3
$\begingroup$

Here are some computations that may be useful. Here below, $\big[ \,f\,\big]_a^b$ denotes $f(b)-f(a)$, and $n^{(k)}:=n(n-1)\dots(n-k+1)$.

1. (An integration by parts). Let $w$ be a solution of the third order linear ODE on the interval $[a,b]$: $$(x^4-34x^3+x^2)w''' + 3(2x^3-51x^2+x)w''+(7x^2-112x+1)w'+(x-5)w=0,$$ and put $$M(n):=\int_a^b x^nw(x)dx$$ for any integer $n\ge0$. Then, for any $n\ge 2$, $$n^3M(n)- (34n^3-51n^2+27n-5)M(n-1) + (n-1)^3M(n-2)= \Big[A(x)(x^n)'' + B(x)(x^n)' + C(x)x^n \Big]_a^b,$$ where $$ A:=pw \qquad B:= qw- (pw)' \qquad C:= (pw )'' - (qw)'+ rw ,$$ and $$p(x):=x^3-34x^2+x\qquad q(x):=3x^2-51x\qquad r(x):=x+10-x^{-1}.$$

Proof. We express the above polynomials of $n$ in the base $n^{(k)}$, then we absorb the latter terms as coefficients of derivatives of $x^n$, and finally we integrate by parts.

We have: $$n^3M(n)- (34n^3-51n^2+27n-5)M(n-1) + (n-1)^3M(n-2)=$$ $$\int_a^b\Big\{n^3x^nw -(34n^3-51n^2+27n-5)x^{n-1}w +(n-1)^3x^{n-2}w\Big\}dx=$$ $$\int_a^b\Big\{(n^ {(3)}+3n^ {(2)}+ n)x^nw -(34n^{(3)}+51n ^{(2)}+10n-5)x^{n-1}w +(n^{(3)}+n-1)x^{n-2}w\Big\}dx=$$ $$\int_a^b\Big\{(x^n)'''pw+(x^n)''qw+(x^n)'rw+x^n(5x^{-1} -x^{-2} )w\}dx=$$ $$ \int_a^bx^n \Big\{-(pw)'''+(qw)''-(rw)'+ (5x^{-1} -x^{-2} )w\}dx +\Big[ (x^n)''pw- (x^n)'(pw)'+ x^n(pw)'' +(x^n)'qw-x^n(qw)' +rw \Big]_a^b=$$ $$ -\int_a^bx^{n-1} \Big\{(x^4-34x^3+x^2)w''' + 3(2x^3-51x^2+x)w''+(7x^2-112x+1)w'+(x-5)w\Big\}dx+$$ $$+\Big[ (x^n)''pw+ (x^n)'\big(qw- (pw)'\big)+ x^n\big( (pw )'' - (qw)'+ rw \big) \Big]_a^b=$$ $$=\Big[A(x)(x^n)'' + B(x)(x^n)' + C(x)x^n \Big]_a^b.\qquad\square$$

2.(Consequence). Let $w$ a solution of the above linear equation on $(0,c)\setminus\{c_0\}$, with $\int_0^c w(x)dx=1$, and and assume it verifies the following linear boundary conditions, expressed in terms of the above coefficients $A,B,C$:

i) $A(x)=o(1),\quad B(x)=o(1),\quad C(x)=O(1)$, as $x\to0$;

ii) $A(x),\quad B(x),\quad C(x)$, are continuous at $x=c_0$ ,

iii) $A(x)=o(1) ,\quad B(x)=o(1) ,\quad C(x)=o(1)$, as $x\to c$.

Then the corresponding $M(n)$ are the Apéry sequence.

Indeed, computing the integral on $[0,c]$ for $M(n)$ as limit of integrals on $[\epsilon, c_0-\epsilon]\cup[c_0+\epsilon, c-\epsilon]$ as $\epsilon\to0$, and applying the above integration by parts formula, one gets that $M(n)$ satisfy the Apéry's recurrence, with $M(0)=1$ (note that $M(1)=5M(0)$ follows from the recurrence as well).

rmk. This also include the case where $w$ vanishes identically on $(0,c_0)$, and the condition is simply that $A, B, C$ should vanish both at $x=c_0$ and at $x=c$.

3. (Positive solutions of the third order ODE). Assume $u$ solves the second order linear ODE $$(x^3-34x^2+x)u''+(2x^2-51x+1)u'+\frac{1}{4}(x-10)u=0.$$ Then $w:=u^2$ solves $$(x^4-34x^3+x^2)w''' + 3(2x^3-51x^2+x)w''+(7x^2-112x+1)w'+(x-5)w=0.$$

Proof. Put $$P:=x^4-34x^3+x^2\qquad Q:=\frac{x^2}{2}-5x,$$ so the equation for $u$ (multiplied by $2x$) writes: $$2Pu''+P'u'+Qu=0,$$ and we have $$0=(2Pu''+P'u'+Qu)'u+ 3(2Pu''+P'u'+Qu)u'=$$ $$=(2Pu'''+2P'u''+P'u''+P''u'+Qu'+Q'u)u+3(2Pu''+P'u'+Qu)u'=$$ $$=P(2u'''u+6u''u')+3P'(u''u+u'^2)+(P''+4Q)u'u+Q'u^2=$$ $$=Pw''' +\frac{3}{2}P'w''+\Big(\frac{P''}{2}+2Q\Big)w'+Q'w,$$ which is the above third order equation for $w$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The next step should be, checking if the boundary conditions in 2 are compatible with the solutions $u_1$ and $u_2$. And, of course, if they are in $L^2$. Note that (iii) would be satisfied if $u(c)=0$ because $c$ is then a root of $pw$, $qw$, $rw$ with multiplicity resp. $3,2,2$. Unfortunately this w.e. I'm in a place with no Maple! $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Aug 31 '14 at 20:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I noticed something else. According to the OEIS listing, $A_n = O(c^n/n^{3/2})$. If $w$ has a nonzero limit at $c$, we would only get $O(c^n/n)$ for the moments. So we need a $w$ to have a singularity like $(c-x)^{1/2}$ at $x=c$. Fortunately, that is compatible with the 3rd-order DE (but not with being a square of a solution of the 2nd-order DE). $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Aug 31 '14 at 22:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My computation says, for a solution of the 3rd-order DE, the boundary terms in the integration by parts will cancel at $c_o$ and at $c$. (The individual terms don't cancel, but taken together they do.) So I'm thinking of using interval $(c_o,c)$ and not trying the tricky thing of going down to $0$. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Aug 31 '14 at 22:11
  • $\begingroup$ I thought each term $A(x), B(x), C(x)$ should vanish at $x=0$ and $x=c$, and be continuous at $x=c_0$, in order that the boundary terms cancel, because they are coefficients with different powers of $n$ in front. Also, by linearity $2u_1u_2=((u_1+u_2)^2-u_1^2-u_2^2$ is also a solution of the 3rd order DE, so we have $3$ linearly independent solutions ODE. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Sep 1 '14 at 6:15
  • $\begingroup$ But yes, $(c_0,c)$ would make everything nicer. (btw the 2-order DE can be written in a form of Sturm-Liouville operator, $(gu')'+hu=0$, dividing $2Pu''+P'u'+Qu=0$ by $|P|^{1/2}$ ). $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Sep 1 '14 at 6:38
11
$\begingroup$

I think the conjecture is true.

Below is an outline of a proof strategy---however, carefully verification of the details remains. If I find more time, I can try to fill those in (or maybe someone else provides a different proof before that).

For $\{A_n\}$ to be a Stieltjes-Moment sequence, two matrices $\Delta$ and $\Delta'$ must be positive definite.

The matrix $\Delta$ is defined as \begin{equation*} \Delta := \begin{pmatrix} A_0 & A_1 & \cdots & A_n\\ A_1 & A_2 & \cdots & A_{n+1}\\ & \vdots & & \\ A_n & A_{n+1} & \cdots & A_{2n} \end{pmatrix},\quad\text{i.e.}\quad \Delta_{ij} = A_{i+j-2}, 1\le i,j \le n+1, \end{equation*} while the matrix $\Delta' := [\Delta'_{ij}] = [A_{i+j-1}]$ for $1 \le i,j \le n+1$.

We prove below that $\Delta$ is symmetric positive semidefinite (a brief additional argument should establish strict positivity, which is what is needed to ensure infinite support).

First, we write $A_n$ using slightly different notation: \begin{equation*} A_n = \sum_{k=0}^n a_{n,k}^2,\qquad a_{n,k} := \binom{n}{k}\binom{n+k}{k}. \end{equation*} Next, define the order-0 Schmidt numbers \begin{equation*} S_n := \sum_{k=0}^n a_{n,k}, \end{equation*} and consider the matrix $M$ formed like $\Delta$ except that instead of $A_n$ we use $S_n$. We begin by proving that $S_n$ is positive definite, in particular by showing that \begin{equation*} S_{i+j-2} = \langle \phi(i), \phi(j) \rangle, \end{equation*} for some $\phi$. A similar (though more involved) technique can be followed for $A_n$ (though, if we actually could represent $a_{i+j-2,k}$ as an inner product, then the proof for $A_n$ would follow immediately using the Schur-product theorem).

The key trick is to use the ``symmetric'' form of the Vandermonde-Chu identity: \begin{equation*} \binom{r+s}{k} = \sum_{p,q \ge 0; p+q=k}\binom{r}{p}\binom{s}{q}. \end{equation*} Applying this identity, we have \begin{eqnarray*} \binom{i+j-2}{k} &=& \sum_{p,q\ge 0, p+q=k} \binom{i-1}{p}\binom{j-1}{q}\\ \binom{i+j-2+k}{k} &=& \sum_{p,q\ge 0, p+q=k} \binom{i-1+k/2}{p}\binom{j-1+k/2}{q}. \end{eqnarray*} Since $\binom{n}{j} = 0$ for $j > n$, we drop the summation indices (unless needed), and obtain \begin{eqnarray*} M_{ij} &=& \sum_{k}\biggl( \sum_{\substack{p,q \ge 0\\ p+q=k}} \binom{i-1}{p}\binom{j-1}{q} \biggr) \biggl( \sum_{p,q \ge 0, p+q=k} \binom{i-1+k/2}{p}\binom{j-1+k/2}{q}\biggr)\\ &=& \sum_k\sum_{\substack{p,q\ge 0, p+q=k\\ r,s \ge0, r+s=k}}\binom{i-1}{p}\binom{i-1+k/2}{r}\binom{j-1}{q}\binom{j-1+k/2}{s}\\ &=& \sum_{p,r,q, s \ge 0}\psi(i; p,r) \psi(j; q,s),\\ &=& \langle \psi(i), \psi(j) \rangle, \end{eqnarray*} for suitably defined $\psi(i; p, r)$. This proves that $M$ is a Gram matrix, hence positive definite.

In a similar way, we can prove that $\Delta_{ij} = \sum_k a_{i+j-2,k}^2 = \langle \phi(i), \phi(j)\rangle$ for a suitable mapping $\phi$, thus establishing positive definiteness of $\Delta$.

Continuing along this path, we can similarly prove $\Delta'$ is also positive definite, which will then finally establish the conjecture.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Some information on Pietro's ODE: $$ (4x^3-136x^2+4x)u''+(8x^2-204x+4)u'+(x-10)u=0 \tag{1}$$ I will use this notation: $$ c := (1+\sqrt{2}\;)^4 = 17+12\sqrt{2} \approx 33.97056 , \\ c_o := \frac{1}{c} = 34-c = 17-12\sqrt{2} \approx 0.02944 , \\ a := 1-c^2 = -576-408\sqrt{2} \approx -1159.9991 , \\ q := -\frac{11317}{4}-234\sqrt{2} \approx -660.176 , \\ \alpha := \frac{3}{2}, \beta := \frac{3}{2}, \gamma := \frac{3}{2}, \delta := 1, \epsilon := \frac{3}{2} . $$ Maple converts $(1)$ to a Heun differential equation, and evaluates it in terms of the Heun functions. See DLMF for information on that. I will follow their notation. In interval $(c_o,c)$, two linearly independent solutions of $(1)$ are $$ u_1(x) := (x-c_o)^{1/2}(c-x)^{1/2} Hl\big(a,q;\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta;1-cx\big) \\ = \sqrt {-{x}^{2}+34\,x-1}\;{\it Hl} \left( -408\,\sqrt {2}-576,-234\, \sqrt {2}-{\frac {1317}{4}};\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2},1,-17\;x-12\,x\sqrt {2}+1 \right) \\ u_2(x) := (c-x)^{1/2} Hl\big(a,(a\delta+\epsilon)(1-\gamma)+q;\alpha+1-\gamma,\beta+1-\gamma,2-\gamma,\delta;1-cx\big) \\ = \sqrt {-x+17+12\,\sqrt {2}}\; {\it Hl} \left( -408\,\sqrt {2}-576,-42-30\,\sqrt {2},1,1,\frac{1}{2},1,-17 \,x-12\,x\sqrt {2}+1 \right) $$ The endpoints $x=c_o$ and $x=c$ correspond to $1-cx$ at the Heun singularities $0$ and $a$, respectively.

Here is a graph of $u_1(x)$

u1 all

At the left end, $x=c_o$, it goes to zero, but has a vertical tangent (like a square-root)

u1 left

At the right end, $x=c$, it goes to a finite limit, but has a vertical tangent

u1 right

The wiggles are not real, but show Maple's difficulty in evaluating close to the singularity.

Here is a graph of $u_2(x)$

u2 all

At the left end $x=c_o$ it approaches a definite value $2^{7/4}3^{1/2}$ with a non-vertical tangent

u2 left

and at the right end $x=c$ it approaches a definite value with vertical tangent

u2 right

For some linear combinations of $u_1$ and $u_2$ the square-root term cancels and it approaches a definite limit at $x=c$ with non-zero tangent. But for those, the approach at $x=c_o$ has vertical tangent.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ This is very interesting. I will take into account carefully the boundary terms in the integration by parts that produces the ODE for the weight: I think that a singularity at $c_0$ may not be a problem, and $u(0)=0$ is not necessarily required, but the solution should verify some suitable linear boundary conditions at $0$, $c_0$, and $c$. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Aug 31 '14 at 12:45
3
$\begingroup$

OK, here is my current thinking on Pietro's approach.

We use the differential equation $$ (x^4-34x^3+x^2)U'''(x) + 3(2x^3-51x^2+x)U''(x)+(7x^2-112x+1)U'(x)+(x-5)U(x)=0 \tag{ODE3}$$ Multiply by $x^k$, $k \ge 0$, then integrate by parts as much as possible. The result is $$ \int \!{x}^{k-1} \left( {k}^{3}{x}^{2}-34\,{k}^{3}x +3\,{k}^{2}{x}^{2}+{k}^{3}-51\,{k}^{2}x+3\,k{x}^{2}-27\,kx+{x}^{2}-5\, x \right) U \left( x \right) {dx} = \left( {x}^{k+2}{k}^{2}-34\,{x}^{1+k}{k}^{2}+{x}^{k+2}k+{x}^{k}{k}^{2 }-17\,{x}^{1+k}k+{x}^{k+2}-10\,{x}^{1+k} \right) U \left( x \right) + \left( -{x}^{1+k}k-{x}^{3+k}k+34\,{x}^{k+2}k+{x}^{1+k}+2\,{x}^{3+k}- 51\,{x}^{k+2} \right) U' \left( x \right) + \left( {x}^{k+4}-34\,{x}^{3+k}+{x}^{k+2} \right) U'' \left( x \right) \tag{A}$$ In particular, for $k=0$, $$ \int (x-5)U(x)\;dx = \left( {x}^{2}-10\,x \right) U \left( x \right) + \left( 2\,{x}^{3}- 51\,{x}^{2}+x \right) U' \left( x \right) + \left( {x}^{ 4}-34\,{x}^{3}+{x}^{2} \right) U'' \left( x \right) \tag{A0}$$ Write $Q_k(x)$ for the right-hand-side of (A) and $\int R_k(x)U(x)\;dx$ for the left side. We will be doing differences like $$ \big[Q_k(x)\big]_a^b := Q_k(b)-Q_k(a) $$ since that will equal the integral on the left $\int_a^b R_k(x)U(x)\;dx$.
We want to arrange a solution $U$ so that $\int_0^c R_k(x)U(x)\;dx=0$ for $k \ge 0$. As Pietro noted, this will give us the recurrence we want for the moments $M(k):=\int_0^c x^kU(x)\;dx$. And in particular from (A0) we would have $\int_0^c (x-5)U(x)\;dx = 0$ so that $M(1)=5M(0)$.

Now consider (ODE3). First look at solutions as we approach $x=c$ from the left. Three linearly independent solutions are asymptotically: $1$, $(c-x)^{1/2}$, $(c-x)$. Other terms are higher powers (integer and half-integer). My calculations show:

for the term $1$, we get $Q_k(c^-)=1/2\, \left( 24+17\,\sqrt {2} \right) \left( 24\,k+24+7\,\sqrt {2} \right) \left( 17+12\,\sqrt {2} \right) ^{k}$

for the term $(c-x)^{1/2}$, we get $Q_k(c^-)=0$, amazingly

for the term $(c-x)$, we get $Q_k(c^-)=\left( -9792-6924\,\sqrt {2} \right) \left( 17+12\,\sqrt {2} \right) ^{k}$

terms $(c-x)^2$ and higher all produce $Q_k(c^-)=0$.

Now look at solutions as we approach $x=c_o$ from the right. Three linearly independent soltuions are asymptotically: $1$, $(x-c_o)^{1/2}$, $(x-c_o)$.

for the term $1$, we get $Q_k(c_o^+)=1/2\, \left( 17\,\sqrt {2}-24 \right) \left( -24\,k-24+7\,\sqrt {2} \right) \left( 17-12\,\sqrt {2} \right) ^{k}$

for the term $(x-c_o)^{1/2}$, we get $Q_k(c_o^+)=0$

for the term $(x-c_o)$, we get $Q_k(c_o^+)=-12\,\sqrt {2} \left( 17-12\,\sqrt {2} \right) ^{k+2}$

for higher terms, we get $Q_k(c_o^+)=0$

Now look at solutions as we approach $x=c_o$ from the left. Three linearly independent soltuions are asymptotically: $1$, $(c_o-x)^{1/2}$, $(x-c_o)$.

for the term $1$, we get $Q_k(c_o^-)=1/2\, \left( 17\,\sqrt {2}-24 \right) \left( -24\,k-24+7\,\sqrt {2} \right) \left( 17-12\,\sqrt {2} \right) ^{k}$

for the term $(c_o-x)^{1/2}$, we get $Q_k(c_o^-)=0$

for the term $(x-c_o)$, we get $Q_k(c_o^-)=-12\,\sqrt {2} \left( 17-12\,\sqrt {2} \right) ^{k+2}$

for higher terms, we get $Q_k(c_o^-)=0$

Now look at terms as we approach $x=0$ from the right. Three linearly independent terms are asymptotically: $1$, $\log x$, $(\log x)^2$.

for the term $1$, we get $Q_k(0^+)=0$

for the term $\log x$, we get $Q_k(0^+)=0$

for the term $(\log x)^2$, we get $Q_k(0^+)=0$ for $k \ge 1$ but $Q_0(0^+)=2$

for higher terms (such as $x$, $x\log x$, etc.), we get $Q_k(0^+)=0$

After all that, we come to the strategy for a solution. Start with the solution of (ODE3) approaching $c$ from the left that is asymptotically $(c-x)^{1/2}$. If we use only that, then $Q_k(c^-)=0$. (At the end we will multiply by a constant to get our final result.) Follow this solution to the left to the next singularity, that is approaching $c_o$ from the right. It will look like $r_1 + r_2(x-c_o)^{1/2}+r_3(x-c_o)+\dots$ for some constants $r_1, r_2, r_3$. Now consider solutions approaching $0$ from the right. Using only the two basis elements asymptotically $1$ and $\log x$, following them to the right until we approach $c_o$ from the left, we can choose a linear combination so that we get $r_1$ and $r_3$ from before: $r_1+r_2^*(c_o-x)^{1/2}+r_3(x-c)+\dots$. We want the same $r_1$ and $r_3$ as from the right, but $r_2^*$ is probably not the same as $r_2$. This way we get $Q_k(c_o^+)=Q_k(c_o^-)$ and $Q_k(0^+)=0$. So that all boundary terms cancel as desired.

Now we still have a constant factor to set. If $\int_0^c U(x)\;dx$ turns out to be nonzero, choose that factor so that $\int_0^c U(x)\;dx = 1$. Then (as noted at the beginning) we will have $A_n = \int_0^c x^n U(x)\;dx$ for all $n \ge 0$. Another thing we have to hope for is that $U(x)$ turns out to have constant sign: The way we constructed it, we have $U(x)>0$ near $c$, but we have to hope it turns out to be nonnegative everywhere.

I will see if I can get Maple to produce some pictures. I'm doing fine from $c$ going left to $c_o$, and from $c_o$ going both ways, but Maple seems reluctant to do (ODE3) from $0$ going up.

added
I am no expert on numerical ODEs. But here is what I get. Starting at the right, using the solution of (ODE3) with $U(x) = (c-x)^{1/2}+O((c-x)^{3/2})$ as $x \to c^-$, when I reach $c_o$ it looks like $$ U(x) = 1831.7 - 5769.99(x-c_o)^{1/2}-13916.8 (x-c_o)+O((x-c_o)^{3/2}) \qquad\text{as } x \to c_o^+ $$ Then, starting with the soution satisfying $$ U(x) = 1831.7 + 0.000103 (c_o-x)^{1/2}-13916.8 (x-c_o)+O((c_o-x)^{3/2}) \qquad\text{as } x \to c_o^- $$ we end up with $0$ on the $(\log x)^2$ term: $$ U(x) = O(\;|\log x|\;) \qquad\text{as } x \to 0^+ $$ The graph seems to be positive everywhere! So we merely need to divide by the integral.

Here is a plot. (Not very informative.)
plot

Here it is near the point $c_o$:

near c_o

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I estimated the integral using 1000 points. It is between 751 and 824. From the asymptotic formula at OEIS, we see it should be $2^{5/4} c \pi^2 \approx 797.4$. I take this agreement as an indication I did this right. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Sep 3 '14 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I think so, even with no numerics. Indeed I think I could turn the argument in my answer into a regularity result for the measure that solves the moment problem. Therefore, assuming Suvrit's existence proof, it follows that the measure whose moments are the Apéry numbers, does admit a density satisfying the third order EDO that I wrote. Thus, no wonder that the numerics suggest that there is such a solution. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Sep 3 '14 at 19:05
  • $\begingroup$ Moreover, from this point of view, the boundary conditions in my answer should be sufficient to determine the solution $w$ just looking at the point $c$, arguing by exclusion, since as I showed a base of solutions is $u_1^2$ $u_1u_2$ and $u_2$ &cetera. $\endgroup$ – Pietro Majer Sep 3 '14 at 19:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.