2
$\begingroup$

Prove that:

$$ f(x) = \log\big( {}_2F_1(a,\,b\,;\,c\,;\,x^{-1})\big),\;\;a,b,c>0 $$

is convex (and decreasing) on $(1,\infty)$.

It actually seems that the stronger result that $f\big((x+1)^{\beta}\big)$, $\beta>0$, is completely monotonic, is true. I saw a post on here proving a similar result using continued fractions to show that all the Taylor series coefficients are positive when $c\ge a+b$. I wonder if such an approach could used to show that the coefficients of a series expansion of $f\big((x+1)^{\beta}\big)$ have alternating signs for $x>0$ ( for arbitrary $a,b,c>0$ ). Or compute the inverse Laplace transform?

This result would imply that $f(\!\sqrt{x})$ is convex on $(1,\infty)$, which is equivalent to the function:

$$ g(x) = \frac{ _2F_1(a,\,b\,;\,c\,;\,\alpha x)}{ _2F_1(a,\,b\,;\,c\,;\,x)},\;\; 0<\alpha<1,\;\,a,b,c>0$$

being decreasing on $[0,1]$, which is what I originally wanted to show.

This result is important to show UMP properties of multiple determination coefficient tests.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The software has flagged this question for excessive edits (currently 22). Given that it was asked only about 6 hours ago, may I suggest holding off on more edits here, and working on a local version, until you are wholly satisfied with any potential future changes? Every edit bumps the question to the top of the front page, and too many is frowned on in MO culture. $\endgroup$
    – David Roberts
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ Are you using one of those software packages that write your MathJax code for you? (Some of those do some bizarre things.) $\endgroup$ Commented Aug 10, 2023 at 21:18

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Arbitrary $a,b,c>0$?
Here is $\log\big({}_2F_1(1,1;\frac{1}{100};z)\big)$

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, ok, so the stronger result isn't true. I'll modify to what I actually want to show. $\endgroup$
    – japalmer
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 7:34
  • $\begingroup$ good example !! $\endgroup$
    – mick
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 11:07
  • $\begingroup$ I originally thought the "stronger result" that $\log {}_2 F_1(a,b;c;x)$ is convex, on $[0,1)$ for $a,b,c>0$, was true, but it's only provably true for $c\ge a+b$ apparently, though there seems to be a wider domain of validity. $\endgroup$
    – japalmer
    Commented Aug 9, 2023 at 11:20
0
$\begingroup$

Using the series representation of the hypergeometric function, we see that $_2F_1(a,b\,;c\,;(1+x)^{-1})$, $x>0$, is the pointwise convergent limit of positive sums of completely monotonic functions for $a,b,c>0$, and is thus completely monotonic.

Since completely monotonic functions are log convex, it follows that $\log \big({}_2F_1(a,b\,;c\,;(x+1)^{-1}\big)$ is convex on $(0,\infty)$.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .