In the following we solve the second-order differential equation called the hypergeometric differential equation using Frobenius method, named after Ferdinand Georg Frobenius. This is a method that uses the series solution for a differential equation, where we assume the solution takes the form of a series. This is usually the method we use for complicated ordinary differential equations. 
The solution of the hypergeometric differential equation is very important. For instance, Legendre's differential equation can be shown to be a special case of the hypergeometric differential equation. Hence, by solving the hypergeometric differential equation, one may directly compare its solutions to get the solutions of Legendre's differential equation, after making the necessary substitutions. For more details, please check the hypergeometric differential equation. 
We shall prove that this equation has three singularities, namely at x = 0, x = 1 and around x = infinity. However, as these will turn out to be regular singular points, we will be able to assume a solution on the form of a series.  Since this is a second-order differential equation, we must have two linearly independent solutions. 
The problem however will be that our assumed solutions may or not be independent, or worse, may not even be defined (depending on the value of the parameters of the equation). This is why we shall study the different cases for the parameters and modify our assumed solution accordingly. 
  The equation
 Solve the hypergeometric equation around all singularities: 
 
 Solution around x = 0
 Let 
 
 Then 
 
 Hence, x = 0 and x = 1 are singular points.  Let's start with x = 0.  To see if it is regular, we study the following limits: 
 
 Hence, both limits exist and x = 0 is a regular singular point.  Therefore, we assume the solution takes the form 
 
 with a0 ≠ 0. Hence, 
 
 Substituting these into the hypergeometric equation, we get 
 
 That is, 
 
 In order to simplify this equation, we need all powers to be the same, equal to r + c − 1, the smallest power.  Hence, we switch the indices as follows: 
 
 Thus, isolating the first term of the sums starting from 0 we get 
 
 Now, from the linear independence of all powers of x, that is, of the functions 1, x, x2, etc., the coefficients of xk vanish for all k. Hence, from the first term, we have 
 
 which is the indicial equation. Since a0 ≠ 0, we have 
 
 Hence, 
 
 Also, from the rest of the terms, we have 
 
 Hence, 
 
 But 
 
 Hence, we get the recurrence relation 
 
 Let's now simplify this relation by giving ar in terms of a0 instead of ar−1.  From the recurrence relation (note: below, expressions of the form (u)r refer to the Pochhammer symbol). 
 
 As we can see, 
 
 Hence, our assumed solution takes the form 
 
 We are now ready to study the solutions corresponding to the different cases for c1 − c2 = γ − 1 (this reduces to studying the nature of the parameter γ: whether it is an integer or not). 
 Analysis of the solution in terms of the difference γ − 1 of the two roots
 γ not an integer
 Then y1 = y|c = 0 and y2 = y|c = 1 − γ.  Since 
 
 we have 
 
 Hence, 
  Let A′ a0 = a and B′ a0 = B.  Then 
 
 γ = 1
 Then y1 = y|c = 0.  Since γ = 1, we have 
 
 Hence, 
 
 To calculate this derivative, let  
 
 Then 
 
 But 
 
 Hence, 
 
 Differentiating both sides of the equation with respect to c, we get: 
 
 Hence,  
 
 Now, 
 
 Hence, 
 
 For c = 0, we get 
 
 Hence, y = C′y1 + D′y2.  Let C′a0 = C and D′a0 = D.  Then 
 
 γ an integer and γ ≠ 1
 γ ≤ 0
 The value of 
 is 
.  To begin with, we shall simplify matters by concentrating a particular value of  
 and generalise the result at a later stage. We shall use the value  
. The indicial equation has a root at 
, and we see from the recurrence relation 
 
that when 
 that that denominator has a factor  
 which vanishes when  
. In this case, a solution can be obtained by putting 
 where 
 is a constant. 
With this substitution, the coefficients of 
 vanish when 
  and 
. The factor of 
 in the denominator of the recurrence relation cancels with that of the numerator when 
. Hence, our solution takes the form 
 
 
If we start the summation at 
 rather than 
 we see that 
 
The result (as we have written it) generalises easily.  For 
, with 
 then 
 
Obviously, if 
, then 
.  The expression for 
 we have just given looks a little inelegant since we have a multiplicative constant apart from  the usual arbitrary multiplicative constant 
. Later, we shall see that we can recast things in such a way  that this extra constant never appears 
The other root to the indicial equation is 
, but  this gives us (apart from a multiplicative constant) the same result as found using 
.  This means we must take the partial derivative (w.r.t. 
) of the usual trial solution in order to find a second independent solution. If we define the  linear  operator 
 as 
 
then since 
 in our case, 
 
(We insist that 
.) Taking the partial derivative w.r.t 
, 
 
Note that we must evaluate the partial derivative at  
 (and not at the other root  
). Otherwise the right hand side is non-zero in the above, and we do not have a solution of 
. The factor 
 is not cancelled for 
 and 
. This part of the second independent solution is 
 
 
Now we can turn our attention to the terms where the factor 
 cancels. First 
 
After this, the recurrence relations give us 
 
 
So, if 
 we have 
 
We need the partial derivatives 
 
 
Similarly, we can write 
 
 
and 
 
 
It becomes clear that for 
 
 
Here, 
 is the 
th partial sum of the harmonic series, and by definition  
 and  
. 
Putting these together, for the case 
 we have a second solution 
 
 
The two independent solutions for 
 (where  
  is a positive integer) are then 
 
and 
 
 
The general solution is as usual 
 where 
 and 
 are arbitrary constants. Now, if the reader consults a ``standard solution" for this case, such as given by Abramowitz and Stegun [1] in §15.5.21 (which we shall write down at the end of the next section) it shall be found that the 
 solution we have found looks somewhat different from the standard solution. In our solution for 
, the first term in the  infinite series part of  
 is a term in 
. The first term in the corresponding infinite series in the standard solution is a term in 
. The 
 term is missing from the standard solution. Nonetheless, the two solutions are entirely equivalent. 
  The reason for the apparent discrepancy between the solution given above and the standard solution in Abramowitz and Stegun [1] §15.5.21 is that there are an infinite number of ways in which to represent the two independent solutions of the hypergeometric ODE. In the last section, for instance, we replaced 
 with 
. Suppose though, we are given some function 
 which is continuous and finite everywhere in an arbitrarily small interval about 
. Suppose we are also given 
 and  
 
Then, if instead of replacing 
 with 
 we replace 
 with 
, we still find we have a valid solution of the hypergeometric equation. Clearly, we have an infinity of possibilities for 
. There is however a ``natural choice" for 
. Suppose that  
 is the first non zero term in the first 
 solution with 
. If we make 
 the reciprocal of 
, then we won't have a multiplicative constant involved in  
 as we did in the previous section. From another point of view, we get the same result if we ``insist" that 
 is independent of 
, and find 
 by using the recurrence relations backwards. 
For the first 
 solution, the function 
 gives us (apart from multiplicative constant) the same 
 as we would have obtained using 
. Suppose that using 
 gives rise to two independent solutions 
 and  
. In the following we shall denote  the solutions arrived at given some 
 as 
 and  
. 
The second solution requires us to take the partial derivative w.r.t 
, and substituting the usual trial solution gives us 
 
The operator 
 is the same linear operator discussed in the previous section.  That is to say, the hypergeometric ODE is represented as 
. 
Evaluating the left hand side at 
 will give us a second independent solution. Note that this second solution 
 is in fact a linear combination of 
 and 
. 
Any two independent linear combinations (
 and 
) of 
 and 
 are independent solutions of 
. 
The general solution can be written as a linear combination of 
 and 
 just as well as linear combinations of 
 and 
. 
  We shall review the special case where 
 that was considered in the last section. If we ``insist" 
, then the recurrence relations yield 
 
 
and 
 
These three coefficients are all zero at 
 as expected. We have three terms involved in 
 by taking the partial derivative w.r.t 
, we denote the sum of the three terms involving these coefficients as  
 where 
 
 
The reader may confirm that we can tidy this up and make it easy to generalise by putting 
 
Next we can turn to the other coefficients, the recurrence relations yield 
 
 
Setting 
 gives us 
 
This is (apart from the multiplicative constant
) the same as  
. Now, to find 
 we need partial derivatives 
 
 
Then 
 
we can re-write this as 
 
The pattern soon becomes clear, and for 
 
 
Clearly, for 
, 
 
The infinite series part of 
 is 
, where 
 
Now we can write (disregarding the arbitrary constant) for
 
 
 
 
Some authors prefer to express the finite sums in this last result using the digamma function 
. In particular, the following results are used 
 Here, 
 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Also 
 
With these results we obtain the form given in Abramamowitz and Stegun §15.5.21, namely 
 
 
 
  In this section, we shall concentrate on the ``standard solution", and we shall not replace 
 with 
. We shall put 
 where 
. For the root 
 of the indicial equation we had 
 
where 
 in which case we are in trouble if 
. For instance, if 
, the denominator in the recurrence relations vanishes for 
. We can use exactly the same methods that we have just used for the standard solution in the last section. We shall not (in the  instance where 
)  replace 
 with 
 as this will not give us the standard form of solution that we are after. Rather, we shall ``insist" that 
 as we did in the standard solution for 
 in the last section. (Recall that this defined the function 
 and that 
 will now be replaced with 
.) Then we may work out the coefficients of  
 to 
 as functions of 
 using the recurrence relations backwards. There is nothing new to add here, and the reader may use the same methods as used in the last section to find the results of [1]§15.5.18 and §15.5.19, these are 
 
and 
 
 
Note that the powers of 
 in the finite sum part of 
  are now negative so that this sum diverges as 
 
 Solution around x = 1
 Let us now study the singular point x = 1.  To see if it is regular,  
 
 Hence, both limits exist and x = 1 is a regular singular point.  Now, instead of assuming a solution on the form 
 
 we will try to express the solutions of this case in terms of the solutions for the point x = 0.  We proceed as follows: we had the hypergeometric equation 
 
 Let z = 1 − x.  Then 
 
 Hence, the equation takes the form 
 
 Since z = 1 − x, the solution of the hypergeometric equation at x = 1 is the same as the solution for this equation at z = 0.  But the solution at z = 0 is identical to the solution we obtained for the point x = 0, if we replace each γ by α + β − γ + 1.  Hence, to get the solutions, we just make this substitution in the previous results. For x = 0, c1 = 0 and c2 = 1 − γ.  Hence, in our case, c1 = 0 while c2 = γ − α − β.  Let us now write the solutions.  In the following we replaced each z by 1 - x. 
 Analysis of the solution in terms of the difference γ − α − β of the two roots
 To simplify notation from now on denote γ − α − β by Δ, therefore γ = Δ + α + β. 
 Δ not an integer
 
 Δ = 0
 
 Δ is a non-zero integer
 Δ > 0
 
 Δ < 0
 
 Solution around infinity
 Finally, we study the singularity as x → ∞.  Since we can't study this directly, we let x = s−1.  Then the solution of the equation as x → ∞ is identical to the solution of the modified equation when s = 0. We had 
 
 Hence, the equation takes the new form 
 
 which reduces to 
 
 Let 
 
 As we said, we shall only study the solution when s = 0. As we can see, this is a singular point since P2(0) = 0.  To see if it is regular, 
 
 Hence, both limits exist and s = 0 is a regular singular point. Therefore, we assume the solution takes the form 
 
 with a0 ≠ 0. Hence, 
 
 Substituting in the modified hypergeometric equation we get 
 
 And therefore: 
 
 i.e., 
 
 In order to simplify this equation, we need all powers to be the same, equal to r + c, the smallest power. Hence, we switch the indices as follows 
 
 Thus, isolating the first term of the sums starting from 0 we get 
 
 Now, from the linear independence of all powers of s (i.e., of the functions 1, s, s2, ...), the coefficients of sk vanish for all k. Hence, from the first term we have 
 
 which is the indicial equation. Since a0 ≠ 0, we have 
 
 Hence, c1 = α and c2 = β. 
Also, from the rest of the terms we have 
 
 Hence, 
 
 But 
 
 Hence, we get the recurrence relation 
 
 Let's now simplify this relation by giving ar in terms of a0 instead of ar−1.  From the recurrence relation, 
 
 As we can see, 
 
 Hence, our assumed solution takes the form 
 
 We are now ready to study the solutions corresponding to the different cases for c1 − c2 = α − β. 
 Analysis of the solution in terms of the difference α − β of the two roots
 α − β not an integer
 Then y1 = y|c = α and y2 = y|c = β.  Since  
 
 we have  
 
 Hence, y = A′y1 + B′y2. Let A′a0 = A and B′a0 = B.  Then, noting that s = x−1, 
 
 α − β = 0
 Then y1 = y|c = α. Since α = β, we have 
 
 Hence, 
 
 To calculate this derivative, let 
 
 Then using the method in the case γ = 1 above, we get 
 
 Now,  
 
 Hence, 
 
 Therefore: 
 
 Hence, y = C′y1 + D′y2. Let C′a0 = C and D′a0 = D. Noting that s = x−1, 
 
 α − β an integer and α − β ≠ 0
 α − β > 0
 From the recurrence relation 
 
 we see that when c = β (the smaller root), aα−β → ∞.  Hence, we must make the substitution a0 = b0(c − ci), where ci is the root for which our solution is infinite. Hence, we take a0 = b0(c − β) and our assumed solution takes the new form 
 
 Then y1 = yb|c = β. As we can see, all terms before 
 
 vanish because of the c − β in the numerator. 
But starting from this term, the c − β in the numerator vanishes. To see this, note that 
 
 Hence, our solution takes the form 
 
 Now, 
 
 To calculate this derivative, let 
 
 Then using the method in the case γ = 1 above we get 
 
 Now, 
 
 Hence, 
 
 Hence, 
 
 At c = α  we get y2. Hence, y = E′y1 + F′y2. Let E′b0 = E and F′b0 = F. Noting that s = x−1 we get 
 
 α − β < 0
 From the symmetry of the situation here, we see that 
 
 References
   - ^ a b c Abramowitz and Stegun 
  
  - Ian Sneddon (1966). Special functions of mathematical physics and chemistry. OLIVER B. ISBN 978-0-05-001334-2.
 
 Abramowitz, Milton; Stegun, Irene A. (1964). Handbook of Mathematical Functions. New York: Dover. ISBN 978-0-48-661272-0.