ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Sums of the form add((-1)^n q^(n(n-1)/2) x^n, n>=0) are called partial theta functions. In his lost notebook, Ramanujan recorded many identities for those functions. In 2003, Warnaar found an elegant formula for a sum of two partial theta functions. Subsequently, Andrews and Warnaar established a similar result for the product of two partial theta functions. In this note, I discuss the relation between the Andrews-Warnaar identity and the (1986) product formula due to Gasper and Rahman. I employ nonterminating extension of Sears-Carlitz transformation for 3phi_2 to provide a new elegant proof for a companion identity for the difference of two partial theta series. This difference formula first appeared in the work of Schilling-Warnaar (2002). Finally, I show that Schilling-Warnnar (2002) and Warnaar (2003) formulas are, in fact, equivalent.
Ramanujan studied the analytic properties of many $q$-hypergeometric series. Of those, mock theta functions have been particularly intriguing, and by work of Zwegers, we now know how these curious $q$-series fit into the theory of automorphic forms.
We study the parity of coefficients of classical mock theta functions. Suppose $g$ is a formal power series with integer coefficients, and let $c(g;n)$ be the coefficient of $q^n$ in its series expansion. We say that $g$ is of parity type $(a,1-a)$ i
In this paper we set up a bivariate representation of partial theta functions which not only unifies some famous identities for partial theta functions due to Andrews and Warnaar, et al. but also unveils a new characteristic of such identities. As fu
We define a new parameter $A_{k,n}$ involving Ramanujans theta-functions for any positive real numbers $k$ and $n$ which is analogous to the parameter $A_{k,n}$ defined by Nipen Saikia cite{NS1}. We establish some modular relation involving $A_{k,n}$
We evaluate regularized theta lifts for Lorentzian lattices in three different ways. In particular, we obtain formulas for their values at special points involving coefficients of mock theta functions. By comparing the different evaluations, we deriv