Talk:Bessel function
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Integral representation of Bessel functions of the second kind
editHow to derive the Integral representation of Bessel functions of the second kind from its definition Y(x)={Jn(x)cos(n times pi)-J-n(x)}/sin(n times pi) with n tends to a integer ? I eager to know the proof because the Integral representation explain the asymptotic behaviour of Y with large x. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.29 (talk • contribs)
Error in "Modified Bessel functions" section
editIn the "Modified Bessel functions: Iα, Kα" section I see the phrase "...when α is not an integer; when α is an integer, then the limit is used." This seems to be an error, and not merely above my head. Anyone care to comment? Sanpitch (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Rayleigh's formula is for spherical Bessel function of the first kind jn(x) not for Jn(x)
editThe following formulas [28] are for jn(x), not for Jn(x). https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/0772c8b0a04450eefc953f90004fc2eb76f918be The Rayleigh's formula [27] is for jn(x),too. Rjeffchen (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Many annoying references to Mathematica
editIt strikes me that there are numerous references to Mathematica in many of the plots. I consider this a sneaky type of advertisement, which does not belong in a Wikipedia page. I already had bad experiences with the aggressive commercial branch of Wolfram in the past and so was a little shocked to see their influancde also popping up here. Actually, the same pictures or better can also be made by WxMaxima or Maple, so why refer to the package so many times? 130.161.210.156 (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- Numbered list item
Origin of Bessel functions
edit@Limit-theorem: thanks for adding a reference to Bernoulli. Could you expand on when he did so? I see that the cited article talks about James Bernoulli and not Daniel. ReyHahn (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- 1732, According to [1], p. 111. That article probably contains enough for a History section, if someone were inclined to add it. XabqEfdg (talk) 12:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- But that is not the same article cited? Could somebody verify it is in the other article? or should we replace the citation? --ReyHahn (talk) 08:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)