\section{Introduction} \label{sec:intro}
Inspired by a series of works by Ebisu \cite{Ebisu1,Ebisu2,Ebisu3},
Iwasaki \cite{Iwasaki} set out to develop a theoretical study of
non-terminating hypergeometric summations with one free parameter.
In the present article we continue this study and settle some of the open
problems posed there, where two new symmetries which we
call {\sl duality} and {\sl reciprocity} will play central roles.
\par
The origin of these symmetries is very simple.
The Gauss hypergeometric equation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:hge}
z(1-z) \dfrac{d u}{d z^2} + \{\gamma - (\alpha+\beta+1) z \}
\dfrac{d u}{d z} - \alpha \beta \, u = 0
\end{equation}
has the Riemann scheme:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:rs}
\left\{\begin{matrix}
z = 0    & z = 1               & z = \infty \\[1mm]
0        & 0                   & \alpha     \\[1mm]
1-\gamma & \gamma-\alpha-\beta & \beta
\end{matrix}\right\},
\end{equation}
in which the hypergeometric series $\hgF(\alpha, \beta; \gamma; z)$ is
just the solution of local exponent $0$ at the origin $z = 0$.
Now the idea is this: exchanging the solution of exponent $0$ at
$z = 0$ with that of exponent $1-\gamma$ at the same point $z = 0$
produces duality, while exchanging the solution of exponent $0$ at
$z = 0$ with that of exponent $\gamma-\alpha-\beta$ at $z = 1$ gives
rise to reciprocity.
\par
The purpose of this article is to explain how these two symmetries
can be used not only to extend our previous results to a larger domain,
but also to strengthen themselves substantially in the original domain.
In particular we are able to show that they are powerful enough to
settle the {\sl rationality} and {\sl finite-cardinality}
conjectures for the numbers $a$ and $b$ in our notation below
(see Theorem \ref{thm:ab-rf} among other results).
\par
We recall the main issues of our study.
For a data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b,c;x) \in \mathbb{R}^6 \times
(-1, \, 1)$, let
\[
f(w;\lambda) := \hgF(pw+a, \, qw+b; \, rw + c; \, x).
\]
Putting the case $r = 0$ aside, we assume $r \neq 0$.
Then we may assume $r > 0$, for otherwise a simultaneous
change of signs $(p,q,r;w) \mapsto (-p,-q,-r;-w)$ makes $r > 0$.
Moreover we may assume $c = 0$ by a shift of variable
$w \mapsto w - c/r$.
Thus from the outset we have only to consider
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:f}
f(w;\lambda) := \hgF(pw+a, \, qw+b; \, rw; \, x),
\end{equation}
where the revised data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ ranges over the domain
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:real}
p, \, q \in \R; \qquad r > 0; \qquad a, \, b \in \R; \qquad
-1 < x < 0 \quad \mbox{or} \quad 0 < x < 1,
\end{equation}
with the trivial case $x = 0$ being excluded.
We are interested in the following problems.
\begin{problemgpf} \label{prob:gpf}
Find a data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ for which $f(w; \lambda)$
has a {\sl gamma product formula}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf}
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma(w+u_1)\cdots\varGamma(w+u_m)}{\varGamma(w+v_1)\cdots\varGamma(w+v_n)},
\end{equation}
for some $C, \, d \in \C^{\times}$; $m, \, n \in \Z_{\ge 0}$;
$u_1, \dots, u_m \in \C$; and $v_1, \dots, v_n \in \C$.
\end{problemgpf}
\par
Problem $\rI$ is something like the peak of a high mountain,
which is difficult to climb up directly.
We need a base camp for attacking it and this role is
played by the following.
\begin{problemocf} \label{prob:ocf}
Find a data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ for which
$f(w; \lambda)$ is {\sl of closed form}, that is,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ocf}
\dfrac{f(w+1; \lambda)}{f(w; \lambda)} =: R(w; \lambda)
\in \mathbb{C}(w) \,\,:\,\, \mbox{a rational function of $w$}.
\end{equation}
\end{problemocf}
\par
It is evident from recursion formula $\varGamma(w+1) = w \, \varGamma(w)$
that any solution to Problem $\rI$ leads to a solution to
Problem $\rII$, where the corresponding rational function is
given by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R}
R(w; \lambda) =
d \cdot \dfrac{(w+u_1) \cdots (w+u_m)}{(w+v_1) \cdots (w+v_n)}.
\end{equation}
However the converse question is by no means trivial.
We say that a solution \eqref{eqn:ocf} to Problem $\rII$ with
rational function \eqref{eqn:R} leads back to a solution \eqref{eqn:gpf}
to Problem $\rI$, if there exists a constant $C \in \C^{\times}$
such that formula \eqref{eqn:gpf} holds true with $d$; $u_1,\dots,u_m$;
and $v_1,\dots,v_n$ coming from \eqref{eqn:R}.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:back}
When does a solution to Problem $\rII$ lead back to a solution
to Problem $\rI$ ?
\end{problem}
\par
A solution $\lambda$ to Problem $\rI$ or $\rII$ is said to be
{\sl elementary}, if the function $f(w; \lambda)$ has at most
finitely many poles in $\C_w$; otherwise,
it is said to be {\sl non-elementary}.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:elem}
Enumerate all elementary solutions and determine them explicitly.
\end{problem}
\par
For a non-elementary solution the existence of infinitely many poles
allows us to discuss asymptotics and dynamics of their residues as
the poles tends to infinity.
This brings us significant information about the solution under
consideration (see Iwasaki \cite[\S 7--\S 10]{Iwasaki}).
\begin{definition} \label{def:trichtomy}
A data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ is said to be {\sl integral} if
$\bp := (p,q;r) \in \Z^3$; {\sl rational} if $\bp \in \Q^3$;
and {\sl irrational} if $\bp \not\in \Q^3$.
One can speak of an integral, rational or irrational
solution to Problem $\rI$ or $\rII$.
Note that the component $(a,b;x)$ has nothing to do with this definition.
\end{definition}
\par
There is an efficient method to find {\sl integral} solutions to
Problem $\rII$.
To describe it we simplify the notation by writing $\hgF(\ba;z) =
\hgF(\alpha,\beta;\gamma;z)$ with $\ba = (a_1,a_2;a_3) =
(\alpha,\beta;\gamma)$.
A {\sl three-term relation} for $\hgF(\ba;z)$ is an identity of
the form:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:3trF}
\hgF(\ba+\bp;z) = r(\ba; z) \, \hgF(\ba;z) + q(\ba; z) \, \hgF(\ba+\1;z),
\end{equation}
where $\bp = (p,q;r) \in \mathbb{Z}^3$ is an integer vector;
$\1 := (1,1;1)$; and $q(\ba;z)$ and $r(\ba;z)$ are rational
functions of $(\ba;z)$ uniquely determined by $\bp$.
Relation \eqref{eqn:3trF} can be obtained by composing a finite
sequence of fifteen contiguous relations of Gauss (see Andrews et al.
\cite[\S 2.5]{AAR}).
Ebisu \cite{Ebisu1} found an efficient formula for the coefficients
$q(\ba;z)$ and $r(\ba;z)$ (see also Vidunas \cite{Vidunas1}).
\par
For an integral data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$, substituting
$\ba = \bal(w) := (p w+a, q w +b; r w)$ and $z = x$ into equation
\eqref{eqn:3trF} we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:3trf}
f(w+1; \lambda) = R(w; \lambda) \, f(w; \lambda) +
Q(w; \lambda) \, \tilde{f}(w; \lambda),
\end{equation}
with $\tilde{f}(w; \lambda) := \hgF(\bal(w)+\1;x)$, where
$Q(w;\lambda) := q(\bal(w);x)$ and $R(w;\lambda):= r(\bal(w);x)$ are
rational functions of $w$ depending uniquely on $\lambda$.
If $\lambda$ happens to be such a data that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:cfcr}
Q(w;\lambda) = 0 \qquad \mbox{in} \quad \C(w),
\end{equation}
then three-term relation \eqref{eqn:3trf} reduces to a two-term one
\eqref{eqn:ocf}, yielding a solution to Problem $\rII$.
An integral solution to Problem $\rII$ so obtained is said to
{\sl come from contiguous relations}.
Finding a solution in this manner is called the {\sl method of
contiguous relations}.
Condition \eqref{eqn:cfcr} yields an overdetermined system of algebraic
equations for $(a,b;x)$ with a given triple $(p, q, r) \in \Z^3$.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:cfcr}
When does an integral solution to Problem $\rII$ come from contiguous
relations ?
\end{problem}
\par
Given a data $\lambda = (p,q,r; a,b; x)$ and a positive integer
$k \in \N$, the new data $k \lambda := (k p, k q, kr; a,b; x)$ is
referred to as the {\sl multiplication} of $\lambda$ by $k$.
It is said to be {\it nontrivial} if $k \ge 2$, in particular
$2 \lambda$ is the {\sl duplication} of $\lambda$.
In view of definition \eqref{eqn:f} we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:f-mult}
f(w; k \lambda) = f(k w; \lambda) \qquad (k \in \N).
\end{equation}
Gauss's multiplication formula for the gamma function
\cite[Theorem 1.5.2]{AAR}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:mult}
\varGamma(k w) = (2 \pi)^{(1-k)/2} \cdot k^{k w-1/2} \cdot
\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}
\varGamma\left(w + \textstyle \frac{j}{k}\right) \qquad (k \in \N)
\end{equation}
implies that if $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rI$ with gamma
product formula \eqref{eqn:gpf} then $k \lambda$ is also a solution to
the same problem with the ``multiplied" gamma product formula
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-mult}
f(w; k \lambda) = C_k \cdot d_k^w \cdot
\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}
\dfrac{\varGamma\left(w+ \frac{u_1 + j}{k}\right) \cdots
\varGamma\left(w+ \frac{u_m +j}{k}\right)}{\varGamma\left(w+ \frac{v_1 + j}{k}\right)
\cdots \varGamma\left(w+ \frac{v_n +j}{k}\right)},
\end{equation}
where $C_k := C \cdot (2 \pi)^{(k-1)(n-m)/2} \cdot
k^{u-v+(n-m)/2}$ with $u := u_1+\cdots+u_m$, $v := v_1+\cdots+v_n$, and
$d_k := d^k \cdot k^{k(m-n)}$.
In a similar manner, if $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$ with
rational function $R(w; \lambda)$ as in condition \eqref{eqn:ocf} then
$k \lambda$ is also a solution to the same problem with
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R-mult}
R(w; k \lambda) = \prod_{j=0}^{k-1} R(k w + j; \lambda)
= d_k \cdot
\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}
\dfrac{\left(w+ \frac{u_1 + j}{k}\right) \cdots
\left(w+ \frac{u_m +j}{k}\right)}{\left(w+ \frac{v_1 + j}{k}\right)
\cdots \left(w+ \frac{v_n +j}{k}\right)}.
\end{equation}
\par
For any rational solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ to Problem $\rII$
there exists a positive integer $k$ such that $k \bp := (k p, k q; k r)
\in \Z^3$, so it makes sense to ask whether the integral solution
$k \lambda$ comes from contiguous relations.
If the answer is ``yes" for some $k \in \N$, we say that the rational
solution $\lambda$ {\sl essentially comes from contiguous relations}.
As a variant of Problem \ref{prob:cfcr} we pose:
\begin{problem} \label{prob:cfcr-ess}
When does a rational solution to Problem $\rII$ {\sl essentially} come from
contiguous relations ?
\end{problem}
\par
It is easy to see that formula \eqref{eqn:gpf} can be recovered from formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf-mult} via relation \eqref{eqn:f-mult}.
Indeed, we have only to replace $w$ by $w/k$ in \eqref{eqn:gpf-mult} and
use the multiplication formula \eqref{eqn:mult} in the other way round
(see Lemma \ref{lem:divisible} for a relevant discussion).
However, it is totally unclear whether formula \eqref{eqn:R} can be
recovered from formula \eqref{eqn:R-mult}, because with respect to the
multiplication $R(w; \lambda)$ has no such simple structure as the
relation \eqref{eqn:f-mult} for $f(w; \lambda)$, so we have to establish
a bilateral link between Problems $\rI$ and $\rII$.
This is one of several reasons for the importance of
discussing Problem \ref{prob:back}.
We refer to Remark \ref{rem:kummer} for another reason.
\section{Symmetries} \label{sec:sym}
There are some transformations indispensable in discussing Problems
$\rI$ and $\rII$.
They consist of well-known classical symmetries in
\S\ref{subsec:classical}, as well as new ones we shall introduce
in \S\ref{subsec:d-r}.
\subsection{Classical Symmetries} \label{subsec:classical}
The hypergeometric series $\hgF(\alpha, \beta; \gamma; z)$ admits the
following well-known symmetries:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:transf}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\hgF(\alpha, \, \beta; \, \gamma; \, z)
&= \hgF(\beta, \, \alpha; \, \gamma; \, z)
& \qquad & \mbox{(trivial)} \label{eqn:transf0} \\
&= (1-z)^{\gamma-\alpha-\beta} \hgF(\gamma-\alpha, \, \gamma-\beta; \, \gamma; \, z)
& \qquad & \mbox{(Euler)} \label{eqn:transf1} \\
&= (1-z)^{-\alpha} \hgF(\alpha, \, \gamma-\beta; \, \gamma; \, z/(z-1))
&\qquad & \mbox{(Pfaff)} \label{eqn:transf2} \\
&= (1-z)^{-\beta} \hgF(\gamma-\alpha, \, \beta; \, \gamma; \, z/(z-1)).
&\qquad & \mbox{(Pfaff)} \label{eqn:transf3}
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
Compatible with Problems $\rI$ and $\rII$, they induce symmetries on
solutions to those problems:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:sym}
\begin{alignat}{2}
\lambda = (p,q,r; a,b; x)
& \mapsto (q,p,r; b,a; x)
& \qquad & \mbox{(trivial)} \label{eqn:sym0} \\
& \mapsto (r-p, \, r-q, \, r; \, -a, \, -b; \, x)
& \qquad & \mbox{(Euler)} \label{eqn:sym1} \\
& \mapsto (p, \, r-q, \, r; \, a, \, -b; \,x/(x-1))
& \qquad & \mbox{(Pfaff)}  \label{eqn:sym2} \\
& \mapsto (r-p, \, q, \, r; \, -a, \, b; \, x/(x-1)).
& \qquad & \mbox{(Pfaff)} \label{eqn:sym3}
\end{alignat}
\end{subequations}
The symmetries \eqref{eqn:sym} were already introduced and discussed
in Iwasaki \cite[\S 1]{Iwasaki}.
\subsection{Division into Several Components } \label{subsec:compo}
As to the argument $x$ in domain \eqref{eqn:real}, Pfaff's
transformation \eqref{eqn:sym2} or \eqref{eqn:sym3} takes the negative
unit interval $-1 < x < 0$ to a positive one $0 < x < 1/2$, so we have
only to work on the positive unit interval $0 < x < 1$.
Thus domain \eqref{eqn:real} can be reduced to the following.
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:real2}
p, \, q \in \R; \qquad r > 0; \qquad a, \, b \in \R; \qquad 0 < x < 1.
\end{equation}
\par
According to the location of $(p, q)$ relative to $r$ the domain
\eqref{eqn:real2} is divided into several components, the figures of
which are depicted upon projected to the $(p, q)$ plane with a fixed
value of $r > 0$ as in Figures \ref{fig:D} and \ref{fig:E}.
First we consider the ``square" domain
\[
\cD := \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,
0 < p < r, \quad 0 < q < r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \,\},
\]
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\begin{center}
\unitlength 0.1in
\begin{picture}( 26.0800, 28.0400)(  6.0000,-31.2000)
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 2310
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{pa 3094 2290
\special{pa 3108 2310
\special{pa 3094 2330
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 1408 3110
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{pa 1388 618
\special{pa 1408 604
\special{pa 1428 618
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 1350
\special{pa 3160 1350
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 1416 1350
\special{pa 2376 2310
\special{fp
\put(20.2000,-17.1000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^+$}
\put(16.1000,-21.2000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^-$}
\put(32.0800,-23.6600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$p$}
\put(13.6000,-4.8600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$q$}
\put(12.8000,-24.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$0$}
\put(24.4000,-24.4600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\put(12.7000,-12.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 2368 3110
\special{pa 2376 558
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{sh 1.000
\special{ar 1896 1830 40 40  0.0000000 6.2831853
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1410 3120
\special{pa 2370 3120
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1400 570
\special{pa 2380 570
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 610 1350
\special{pa 610 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 3150 1350
\special{pa 3150 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 1940 1900
\special{pa 1540 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1860 1860
\special{pa 1430 2290
\special{fp
\special{pa 1820 1780
\special{pa 1420 2180
\special{fp
\special{pa 1760 1720
\special{pa 1420 2060
\special{fp
\special{pa 1700 1660
\special{pa 1420 1940
\special{fp
\special{pa 1640 1600
\special{pa 1420 1820
\special{fp
\special{pa 1580 1540
\special{pa 1420 1700
\special{fp
\special{pa 1520 1480
\special{pa 1420 1580
\special{fp
\special{pa 1460 1420
\special{pa 1420 1460
\special{fp
\special{pa 2000 1960
\special{pa 1660 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2060 2020
\special{pa 1780 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2120 2080
\special{pa 1900 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2180 2140
\special{pa 2020 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2240 2200
\special{pa 2140 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2300 2260
\special{pa 2260 2300
\special{fp
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 2120 1360
\special{pa 1780 1700
\special{fp
\special{pa 2240 1360
\special{pa 1840 1760
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 1360
\special{pa 1930 1790
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 1470
\special{pa 1960 1880
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 1590
\special{pa 2020 1940
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 1710
\special{pa 2080 2000
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 1840
\special{pa 2140 2060
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 1960
\special{pa 2200 2120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2080
\special{pa 2260 2180
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2200
\special{pa 2320 2240
\special{fp
\special{pa 2000 1360
\special{pa 1720 1640
\special{fp
\special{pa 1880 1360
\special{pa 1660 1580
\special{fp
\special{pa 1760 1360
\special{pa 1600 1520
\special{fp
\special{pa 1640 1360
\special{pa 1540 1460
\special{fp
\special{pa 1520 1360
\special{pa 1480 1400
\special{fp
\put(19.4000,-9.4000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^0$}
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1950 1000
\special{pa 1770 1650
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 1770 1650
\special{pa 1808 1592
\special{pa 1784 1600
\special{pa 1770 1580
\special{pa 1770 1650
\special{fp
\end{picture
\end{center}
\caption{The domain $\cD$.}
\label{fig:D}
\end{minipage}
\begin{minipage}{0.45\hsize}
\begin{center}
\unitlength 0.1in
\begin{picture}( 26.0800, 28.0400)(  6.0000,-31.2000)
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 2310
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{pa 3094 2290
\special{pa 3108 2310
\special{pa 3094 2330
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 1408 3110
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{pa 1388 618
\special{pa 1408 604
\special{pa 1428 618
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 1350
\special{pa 3160 1350
\special{fp
\put(18.2400,-27.7400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{*-}$}
\put(26.8000,-19.0200){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{+*}$}
\put(18.1600,-9.9800){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{*+}$}
\put(9.1200,-18.9400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{-*}$}
\put(32.0800,-23.6600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$p$}
\put(13.6000,-4.8600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$q$}
\put(12.8000,-24.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$0$}
\put(24.4000,-24.4600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\put(12.7000,-12.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 2368 3110
\special{pa 2376 558
\special{fp
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1410 3120
\special{pa 2370 3120
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1400 570
\special{pa 2380 570
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 610 1350
\special{pa 610 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 3150 1350
\special{pa 3150 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 1880 2320
\special{pa 1420 2780
\special{fp
\special{pa 2000 2320
\special{pa 1420 2900
\special{fp
\special{pa 2120 2320
\special{pa 1420 3020
\special{fp
\special{pa 2240 2320
\special{pa 1440 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2350 2330
\special{pa 1560 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2440
\special{pa 1680 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2560
\special{pa 1800 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2680
\special{pa 1920 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2800
\special{pa 2040 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2920
\special{pa 2160 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 3040
\special{pa 2280 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 1760 2320
\special{pa 1420 2660
\special{fp
\special{pa 1640 2320
\special{pa 1420 2540
\special{fp
\special{pa 1520 2320
\special{pa 1420 2420
\special{fp
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 1400 1840
\special{pa 940 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1400 1720
\special{pa 820 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1400 1600
\special{pa 700 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1400 1480
\special{pa 610 2270
\special{fp
\special{pa 1390 1370
\special{pa 610 2150
\special{fp
\special{pa 1280 1360
\special{pa 610 2030
\special{fp
\special{pa 1160 1360
\special{pa 610 1910
\special{fp
\special{pa 1040 1360
\special{pa 610 1790
\special{fp
\special{pa 920 1360
\special{pa 610 1670
\special{fp
\special{pa 800 1360
\special{pa 610 1550
\special{fp
\special{pa 680 1360
\special{pa 610 1430
\special{fp
\special{pa 1400 1960
\special{pa 1060 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1400 2080
\special{pa 1180 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1400 2200
\special{pa 1300 2300
\special{fp
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 2370 630
\special{pa 1660 1340
\special{fp
\special{pa 2310 570
\special{pa 1540 1340
\special{fp
\special{pa 2190 570
\special{pa 1430 1330
\special{fp
\special{pa 2070 570
\special{pa 1420 1220
\special{fp
\special{pa 1950 570
\special{pa 1420 1100
\special{fp
\special{pa 1830 570
\special{pa 1420 980
\special{fp
\special{pa 1710 570
\special{pa 1420 860
\special{fp
\special{pa 1590 570
\special{pa 1420 740
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 750
\special{pa 1780 1340
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 870
\special{pa 1900 1340
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 990
\special{pa 2020 1340
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 1110
\special{pa 2140 1340
\special{fp
\special{pa 2370 1230
\special{pa 2260 1340
\special{fp
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 3150 1770
\special{pa 2620 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 1650
\special{pa 2500 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 1530
\special{pa 2390 2290
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 1410
\special{pa 2380 2180
\special{fp
\special{pa 3080 1360
\special{pa 2380 2060
\special{fp
\special{pa 2960 1360
\special{pa 2380 1940
\special{fp
\special{pa 2840 1360
\special{pa 2390 1810
\special{fp
\special{pa 2720 1360
\special{pa 2390 1690
\special{fp
\special{pa 2600 1360
\special{pa 2390 1570
\special{fp
\special{pa 2480 1360
\special{pa 2390 1450
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 1890
\special{pa 2740 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 2010
\special{pa 2860 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 2130
\special{pa 2980 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 3150 2250
\special{pa 3120 2280
\special{fp
\put(14.9000,-18.8000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cI^{-*}$}
\put(20.5000,-18.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cI^{+*}$}
\put(18.3000,-22.3000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cI^{*-}$}
\put(18.3000,-15.6000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cI^{*+}$}
\end{picture
\end{center}
\caption{The domain $\cE$ and the region $\cI$.}
\label{fig:E}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}
which is further decomposed into three components
$\cD = \cD^- \cup \cD^0 \cup \cD^+$, where
\begin{align*}
\cD^- &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6 \,:\,\,
p > 0, \quad q > 0, \quad p+q < r;
\quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cD^+ &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6 \,:\,\,
p < r, \quad q < r, \quad p+q > r;
\quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cD^0 &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6 \,:\,\,
p > 0, \quad q > 0, \quad p+q = r;
\quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \}.
\end{align*}
Euler's transformation \eqref{eqn:sym1} swaps $\cD^-$ and $\cD^+$
while preserving the diagonal $\cD^0$.
Thus we have only to deal with $\cD^- \cup \cD^0$.
Next we define
$\cE := \cE^{*-} \cup \cE^{*+} \cup \cE^{-*} \cup \cE^{+*}$ by
\begin{align*}
\cE^{*-} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
0 < p < r, \quad q < 0; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cE^{*+} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
0 < p < r, \quad q > r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cE^{-*} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
p < 0, \quad 0 < q < r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cE^{+*} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
p > r, \quad 0 < q < r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\end{align*}
where the first superscript $-$, $*$ or $+$ designates the interval
$p < 0$, $0 < p < r$ or $r < p$ respectively, while the second
superscript is subject to the same convention with respect to $q$.
In a similar manner we define
$\cI := \cI^{*-} \cup \cI^{*+} \cup \cI^{-*} \cup \cI^{+*}$ by
\begin{align*}
\cI^{*-} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
0 < p < r, \quad q = 0; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cI^{*+} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
0 < p < r, \quad q = r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cI^{-*} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
p = 0, \quad 0 < q < r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cI^{+*} &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6\,:\,\,
p = r, \quad 0 < q < r; \quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \}.
\end{align*}
The trivial and Euler's transformations \eqref{eqn:sym0} and
\eqref{eqn:sym1} induce the transpositions:
\[
\cE^{*-} \leftrightarrow \cE^{-*}, \quad \cE^{*+} \leftrightarrow \cE^{+*}
\quad \mbox{by \eqref{eqn:sym0}}; \qquad
\cE^{*-} \leftrightarrow \cE^{*+}, \quad \cE^{-*} \leftrightarrow \cE^{+*}
\quad \mbox{by \eqref{eqn:sym1}},
\]
with the same rules applying to the regions $\cI^{\mathbf{\star\star}}$.
Thus we have only to deal with $\cE^{*-} \cup \cI^{*-}$.
\subsection{Duality and Reciprocity} \label{subsec:d-r}
We introduce two symmetries or transformations, which we call duality
and reciprocity.
\begin{definition} \label{def:duality}
Define a transformation
$\lambda = (p, q, r; a, b; x) \mapsto
\lambda' := (p', q', r'; a', b'; x')$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:duality}
p' := p, \quad q':= q, \quad r':=r; \quad
a' := 1- \frac{2 p}{r} - a, \quad b' := 1 - \frac{2 q}{r} - b;
\quad x':= x,
\end{equation}
which is referred to as {\sl duality}, where the $(p,q,r;x)$-component
of $\lambda$ is kept unchanged.
It is a well-defined involution whenever $r$ does not vanish.
\end{definition}
Note that duality maps each of the components $\cD^{\pm}$, $\cD^0$,
$\cE^{* \pm}$ and $\cE^{\pm *}$ bijectively onto itself.
\par
Given a dual pair $(\lambda, \lambda')$,
it is convenient to think of the three-by-two matrix
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
p  & q \\
a  & b \\
a' & b'
\end{pmatrix}.
\]
Exchange of its columns represents the trivial symmetry \eqref{eqn:sym0}
applied to $(\lambda, \lambda')$, whereas the exchange of its middle and
bottom rows represents duality \eqref{eqn:duality} itself.
By the omission of its top row $(p, q)$, the matrix above
is abbreviated to the square matrix
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:matrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
a  & b \\
a' & b'
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Two dual pairs are said to be {\sl equivalent} if their matrices are
transitive via the column or row exchange or the composition of them.
This concept will be used in \S \ref{sec:dr-fc} to reduce the work
there.
\begin{definition} \label{def:recip}
Define a transformation $\lambda = (p, q, r; a, b; x) \mapsto
\check{\lambda} :=
(\check{p}, \check{q}, \check{r}; \check{a}, \check{b}; \check{x})$ by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:recip}
\begin{split}
\check{p} := -p, \qquad \check{q} :=-q, \qquad
\check{r} :=r-p-q; \qquad \check{x} :=1-x,  \\[2mm]
\check{a} := \dfrac{(r-q)(1-a)-p b}{r-p-q}, \qquad
\check{b} := \dfrac{(r-p)(1-b)-q a}{r-p-q},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is referred to as {\sl reciprocity}.
This is a well-defined involution on the domain
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:real3}
p, \, q, \, r \in \R, \quad r(r-p-q) \neq 0; \qquad a, \, b \in \R;
\qquad 0 < x < 1.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\par
As indicated in Figure \ref{fig:D-r}, two new components
$\cF^{\pm}$ are introduced by
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\unitlength 0.1in
\begin{picture}( 62.4800, 28.0800)(  6.0000,-31.2400)
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 2310
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{pa 3094 2290
\special{pa 3108 2310
\special{pa 3094 2330
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 1408 3110
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{pa 1388 618
\special{pa 1408 604
\special{pa 1428 618
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 1350
\special{pa 3160 1350
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 1416 1350
\special{pa 2376 2310
\special{fp
\put(20.2000,-17.1000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^+$}
\put(16.1000,-21.2000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^-$}
\put(32.0800,-23.6600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$p$}
\put(13.6000,-4.8600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$q$}
\put(12.8000,-24.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$0$}
\put(24.4000,-24.4600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\put(12.7000,-12.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 2368 3110
\special{pa 2376 558
\special{fp
\put(27.0400,-9.9800){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cF^+$}
\put(9.2000,-27.6600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cF^-$}
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1410 3120
\special{pa 2370 3120
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1400 570
\special{pa 2380 570
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 610 1350
\special{pa 610 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 3150 1350
\special{pa 3150 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1410 2300
\special{pa 600 2300
\special{pa 600 3120
\special{pa 1410 3120
\special{pa 1410 2300
\special{ip
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 1700 1660
\special{pa 1420 1940
\special{fp
\special{pa 1760 1720
\special{pa 1420 2060
\special{fp
\special{pa 1820 1780
\special{pa 1420 2180
\special{fp
\special{pa 1880 1840
\special{pa 1430 2290
\special{fp
\special{pa 1940 1900
\special{pa 1540 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2000 1960
\special{pa 1660 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2060 2020
\special{pa 1780 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2120 2080
\special{pa 1900 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2180 2140
\special{pa 2020 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2240 2200
\special{pa 2140 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 2300 2260
\special{pa 2260 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 1640 1600
\special{pa 1420 1820
\special{fp
\special{pa 1580 1540
\special{pa 1420 1700
\special{fp
\special{pa 1520 1480
\special{pa 1420 1580
\special{fp
\special{pa 1460 1420
\special{pa 1420 1460
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 4240 2314
\special{pa 6800 2314
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 6800 2314
\special{pa 6734 2294
\special{pa 6748 2314
\special{pa 6734 2334
\special{pa 6800 2314
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 5048 3114
\special{pa 5048 554
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 5048 554
\special{pa 5028 622
\special{pa 5048 608
\special{pa 5068 622
\special{pa 5048 554
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 4240 1354
\special{pa 6800 1354
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 5056 1354
\special{pa 6016 2314
\special{fp
\put(56.6000,-17.1400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^+$}
\put(52.5000,-21.2400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cD^-$}
\put(68.4800,-23.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{p}$}
\put(50.0000,-4.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{q}$}
\put(49.1000,-22.6000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$0$}
\put(60.8000,-24.8000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{r}$}
\put(49.1000,-12.9400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{r}$}
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 6008 3114
\special{pa 6016 562
\special{fp
\put(63.4400,-10.0200){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cF^+$}
\put(45.6000,-27.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cF^-$}
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 5050 3124
\special{pa 6010 3124
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 5040 574
\special{pa 6020 574
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 4250 1354
\special{pa 4250 2314
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 6790 1354
\special{pa 6790 2314
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 5050 2304
\special{pa 4240 2304
\special{pa 4240 3124
\special{pa 5050 3124
\special{pa 5050 2304
\special{ip
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 4880 2320
\special{pa 4240 2960
\special{fp
\special{pa 5000 2320
\special{pa 4240 3080
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2400
\special{pa 4320 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2520
\special{pa 4440 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2640
\special{pa 4560 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2760
\special{pa 4680 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2880
\special{pa 4800 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 3000
\special{pa 4920 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 4760 2320
\special{pa 4240 2840
\special{fp
\special{pa 4640 2320
\special{pa 4240 2720
\special{fp
\special{pa 4520 2320
\special{pa 4240 2600
\special{fp
\special{pa 4400 2320
\special{pa 4240 2480
\special{fp
\special{pa 4280 2320
\special{pa 4240 2360
\special{fp
\put(33.5000,-18.8000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\xrightarrow{\mathrm{\ss reciprocity}}$}
\end{picture
\end{center}
\caption{Reciprocity between $\cD^-$ and $\cF^-$.}
\label{fig:D-r}
\end{figure}
\begin{align*}
\cF^- &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6 \,:\,\,
p < 0, \quad q < 0, \quad r > 0;
\quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\\
\cF^+ &:= \{\, \lambda \in \R^6 \,:\,\,
p > r, \quad q > r, \quad r > 0;
\quad a, \, b \in \R; \quad 0 < x < 1 \, \},
\end{align*}
where we have only to deal with $\cF^-$, because Euler's transformation
\eqref{eqn:sym1} swaps $\cF^-$ and $\cF^+$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\unitlength 0.1in
\begin{picture}( 62.4800, 28.0800)(  6.0000,-31.2400)
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 2310
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{pa 3094 2290
\special{pa 3108 2310
\special{pa 3094 2330
\special{pa 3160 2310
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 1408 3110
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{pa 1388 618
\special{pa 1408 604
\special{pa 1428 618
\special{pa 1408 550
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 600 1350
\special{pa 3160 1350
\special{fp
\put(25.9000,-18.8000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{+*}$}
\put(18.0000,-27.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{*-}$}
\put(32.0800,-23.6600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$p$}
\put(13.6000,-4.8600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$q$}
\put(12.8000,-24.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$0$}
\put(24.4000,-24.4600){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\put(12.7000,-12.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$r$}
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 2368 3110
\special{pa 2376 558
\special{fp
\put(18.0000,-9.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{*+}$}
\put(9.3000,-19.0000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{-*}$}
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1410 3120
\special{pa 2370 3120
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 1400 570
\special{pa 2380 570
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 610 1350
\special{pa 610 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 3150 1350
\special{pa 3150 2310
\special{ip
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 4240 2314
\special{pa 6800 2314
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 6800 2314
\special{pa 6734 2294
\special{pa 6748 2314
\special{pa 6734 2334
\special{pa 6800 2314
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 5048 3114
\special{pa 5048 554
\special{fp
\special{sh 1
\special{pa 5048 554
\special{pa 5028 622
\special{pa 5048 608
\special{pa 5068 622
\special{pa 5048 554
\special{fp
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 4240 1354
\special{pa 6800 1354
\special{fp
\put(68.4800,-23.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{p}$}
\put(50.0000,-4.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{q}$}
\put(49.1000,-24.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$0$}
\put(60.8000,-24.8000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{r}$}
\put(49.1000,-12.9400){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\check{r}$}
\special{pn 20
\special{pa 6008 3114
\special{pa 6016 562
\special{fp
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 5050 3124
\special{pa 6010 3124
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 5040 574
\special{pa 6020 574
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 4250 1354
\special{pa 4250 2314
\special{ip
\special{pn 8
\special{pa 6790 1354
\special{pa 6790 2314
\special{ip
\put(33.5000,-18.8000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\xrightarrow{\mathrm{\ss reciprocity}}$}
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 2360 2440
\special{pa 1680 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2350 2330
\special{pa 1560 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2240 2320
\special{pa 1440 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2120 2320
\special{pa 1420 3020
\special{fp
\special{pa 2000 2320
\special{pa 1420 2900
\special{fp
\special{pa 1880 2320
\special{pa 1420 2780
\special{fp
\special{pa 1760 2320
\special{pa 1420 2660
\special{fp
\special{pa 1640 2320
\special{pa 1420 2540
\special{fp
\special{pa 1520 2320
\special{pa 1420 2420
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2560
\special{pa 1800 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2680
\special{pa 1920 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2800
\special{pa 2040 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 2920
\special{pa 2160 3120
\special{fp
\special{pa 2360 3040
\special{pa 2280 3120
\special{fp
\put(54.6000,-9.5000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{*+}$}
\put(54.7000,-27.6000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{*-}$}
\put(62.2000,-18.7000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{+*}$}
\put(45.6000,-18.9000){\makebox(0,0)[lb]{$\cE^{-*}$}
\special{pn 4
\special{pa 5040 1920
\special{pa 4660 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 1800
\special{pa 4540 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 1680
\special{pa 4420 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 1560
\special{pa 4300 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 1440
\special{pa 4250 2230
\special{fp
\special{pa 5000 1360
\special{pa 4250 2110
\special{fp
\special{pa 4880 1360
\special{pa 4250 1990
\special{fp
\special{pa 4760 1360
\special{pa 4250 1870
\special{fp
\special{pa 4640 1360
\special{pa 4250 1750
\special{fp
\special{pa 4520 1360
\special{pa 4250 1630
\special{fp
\special{pa 4400 1360
\special{pa 4250 1510
\special{fp
\special{pa 4280 1360
\special{pa 4250 1390
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2040
\special{pa 4780 2300
\special{fp
\special{pa 5040 2160
\special{pa 4900 2300
\special{fp
\end{picture
\end{center}
\caption{Reciprocity between $\cE^{*-}$ and $\cE^{-*}$.}
\label{fig:E-r}
\end{figure}
As is indicated in Figures \ref{fig:D-r} and \ref{fig:E-r},
the reciprocity induces the following transpositions:
\[
\cD^{-} \leftrightarrow \cF^-, \qquad
\cE^{*-} \leftrightarrow \cE^{-*}.
\]
\par
A chief idea underlying duality and reciprocity is the concept of an Ebisu
symmetry to be developed in \S \ref{sec:kummer}, based on which these
two symmetries will be constructed in \S \ref{sec:duality} and
\S \ref{sec:r-cf}.
\section{Main Results} \label{sec:results}
The main results of this article are established on the foundation
of our previous work \cite{Iwasaki}.
So this section begins with a review of our previous results, upon
rearranged somewhat in a manner suitable for the purposes of the
present as well as forthcoming papers.
\subsection{Review of the Previous Results} \label{subsec:review}
As to Problem \ref{prob:back}, Theorem 2.3 of \cite{Iwasaki}
contains the following statement.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:back}
In region $\cD \cup \cI \cup \cE$ any solution to Problem $\rII$
leads back to a solution to Problem $\rI$ and hence Problems $\rI$ and
$\rII$ are equivalent.
\end{theorem}
\par
Thus in this region we can speak of a solution without specifying
to which problem it is a solution.
The next results are about solutions on the square domain $\cD$,
which are a collection of some parts of Theorems 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7 and
2.10, as well as of Remark 2.5 in \cite{Iwasaki}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:D}
The following hold in $\cD$.
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD$ in what follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Every solution in $\cD^0$ is elementary, while every solution in
$\cD^{\pm}$ is non-elementary.
All elementary solutions $\lambda$ are at the center $\bullet$ of the
square $\cD$ in Figure $\ref{fig:D}$, or more precisely,
\[
p = q = \frac{r}{2} > 0; \quad a = i, \quad b = j - \frac{1}{2},
\quad i, j \in \Z; \quad 0 < x < 1,
\]
where $a$ and $b$ are exchangeable by symmetry while $r$ and
$x$ are free.
The corresponding $f(w; \lambda)$ is a degenerate hypergeometric
functions with a dihedral monodromy group,
\[
f(w) = S_{ij}(r w; x) \cdot \left(\ts \frac{1+\sqrt{1-x}}{2}\right)^{1-r w},
\]
studied by Vidunas \cite[Theorem 3.1]{Vidunas2}, where $S_{ij}(w;x)$ is a
rational function of $w$ explicitly representable in terms of terminating
Appell's $F_3$ series (see Iwasaki \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Iwasaki}).
\item Any solution $\lambda \in \cD^{\pm}$ falls into one of the
following two types:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\rA)$] \, $p$, $q$, $r \in \Z$ and $0 \neq r-p-q \equiv 0 \mod 2$,
\item[$(\rB)$] \, $p$, $q \in \frac{1}{2} + \Z$ and $r \in \Z$.
\end{enumerate}
\item Any solution of type $(\rA)$ in $\cD^{\pm}$ comes from contiguous relations.
\item If $\lambda \in \cD^{\pm}$ is a solution of type $(\rB)$ then
its duplication $2 \lambda := (2p, 2q, 2r;a,b;x) \in \cD^{\pm}$ is
an $(\rA)$-solution, so any $(\rB)$-solution in $\cD^{\pm}$ essentially
comes from contiguous relations.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\par
In \cite[Theorem 2.4]{Iwasaki} we included certain additional
conditions involving $(a, b)$ to describe the dichotomy of types
$(\rA)$ and $(\rB)$.
Those conditions are omitted here because they will not be used in this
article.
In any case assertion (2) above implies that the $(p,q,r)$-component
of any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ must belong
to the integer domain
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:D-m}
D^{-}_{\rA} := \{\, \bp = (p,q;r) \in \Z^3 \,:\, p > 0, \,\, q > 0, \,\,
0 < r-p-q \equiv 0 \mod 2 \, \}.
\end{equation}
In view of assertion (4) above we may concentrate our attention on
$(\rA)$-solutions.
Then by assertion (3) the method of contiguous relations developed in
\cite[\S11]{Iwasaki} produces the following results about the numbers
$x$ and the gamma product formulas (GPFs) for $(\rA)$-solutions.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sol-A}
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ be any $(\rA)$-solution with
$\bp = (p,q;r) \in D^-_{\rA}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $x$ must be an algebraic number as a real root in
$0 < z < 1$ of an algebraic equation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Y}
Y(z) = Y(z; \bp) = 0,
\end{equation}
where $Y(z) \in \Z[w]$ depends only on $\bp$ and is defined
implicitly as follows: If we put
\begin{align*}
\varDelta(z) &:= (p-q)^2 z^2 - 2 \{(p+q)r-2 p q\} z + r^2, \\[1mm]
Z_{\pm}(z) &:=
\big\{r+(p-q)z \pm \sqrt{\varDelta} \big\}^p
\big\{r-(p-q)z \pm \sqrt{\varDelta} \big\}^q
\big\{(2 r-p-q)z-r \mp \sqrt{\varDelta} \big\}^{r-p-q},
\end{align*}
then there exist unique polynomials $X(z)$, $Y(z) \in \Z[z]$ such that
\[
Z_{\pm}(z) = X(z) \pm Y(z) \, \sqrt{\varDelta}.
\]
\item There exists a positive constant $C > 0$ such that a gamma
product formula
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf2}
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r
\varGamma\left(w+v_i \right)}
\end{equation}
holds true, where the number $d$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:d}
d = \dfrac{r^r}{\sqrt{p^p q^q (r-p)^{r-p} (r-q)^{r-q} x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r}}},
\end{equation}
while $v_1, \dots, v_r$ are such numbers that sum up to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sum}
v_1 + \cdots + v_r = \dfrac{r-1}{2},
\end{equation}
and that admit a division relation in $\C[w]$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:division}
\prod_{i=1}^r \left(w+v_i\right) \,\, \Big| \,\,
\prod_{i=1}^{p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i=1}^{q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\prod_{j=0}^{r-p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{j-a}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{j=0}^{r-q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{j-b}{r-q}}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\par
Here algebraic equation \eqref{eqn:Y} stems from
\cite[assertion (1) of Theorem 2.10]{Iwasaki}.
For any triple $\bp = (p, q; r) \in D^-_{\rA}$ the equation \eqref{eqn:Y}
has at least one root in the interval $0 < z < 1$ by
\cite[assertion (2) of Lemma 11.7]{Iwasaki}.
Formula \eqref{eqn:d} comes from \cite[formula (20) in Theorem 2.4]{Iwasaki};
condition \eqref{eqn:division} is from
\cite[assertion (3) of Theorem 2.10]{Iwasaki}, whereas formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf2} follows from a combination of
\cite[assertion (3) of Theorem 2.10]{Iwasaki} and
\cite[Proposition 5.4]{Iwasaki} by taking $S(w) \equiv 1$, $m=r$ and
$u_i = (i-1)/r$ $(i = 1, \dots, r)$ in \cite[formula (57)]{Iwasaki}.
Condition \eqref{eqn:sum} is derived by adapting the equality
$v := v_1 + \cdots + v_r = u + s_0$ in \cite[Proposition 5.4]{Iwasaki}
to the current situation where $u := u_1 +\cdots+ u_r = \sum_{i=1}^r
(i-1)/r = (r-1)/2$ and $s_0 = 0$.
In GPF \eqref{eqn:gpf2} some but not all gamma factors in the numerator
may coincide pairwise with (and hence can be canceled by) the same
number of gamma factors in the denominator.
\par
Article \cite{Iwasaki} mainly concerns the domain $\cD$,
but it also contains a few results on $\cI$ and $\cE$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:I}
The following hold in $\cI^{*-}$.
Let $\lambda = (p, q=0, r; a, b; x) \in \cI^{*-}$ in what follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\lambda$ is an elementary solution if and only if
$b \in \Z_{\le 0}$, in which case the hypergeometric series
that defines $f(w; \lambda)$ is terminating, so that $f(w; \lambda)$
itself is a rational function of $w$.
\item For any non-elementary solution $\lambda \in \cI^{*-}$ we have
$p$, $r \in \Z$, $p \equiv r \mod 2$ and $b = 1/2$.
\item Any non-elementary solution comes from contiguous relations.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\par
Here assertion (1) comes from \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Iwasaki}; assertion (2)
follows from a combination of \cite[Theorem 2.3]{Iwasaki},
\cite[formula (80b) in Proposition 8.1]{Iwasaki} and
\cite[Lemma 10.1]{Iwasaki}, while assertion (3) stems from
\cite[Proposition 11.2]{Iwasaki}.
It is remarkable that one must have $b = 1/2$ for any
non-elementary solution in $\cI^{*-}$.
Certainly all previously known examples enjoy this condition
and this empirical fact has now been established logically and
theoretically.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:E}
The following hold in $\cE^{*-}$.
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cE^{*-}$ in what follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Every solution in $\cE^{*-}$ is non-elementary.
\item For any solution $\lambda \in \cE^{*-}$ we must have
$p$, $r \in \Z$ and $p \equiv r \mod 2$.
\item Any solution $\lambda \in \cE^{*-}$ with $q \in \Z$
comes from contiguous relations.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\par
Here assertion (1) comes from \cite[Theorem 2.1]{Iwasaki};
assertion (2) follows from a combination of \cite[Theorem 2.3]{Iwasaki},
\cite[formula (80c) in Proposition 8.1]{Iwasaki} and
\cite[Lemma 10.1]{Iwasaki}, while assertion (3) stems from
\cite[Proposition 11.2]{Iwasaki}.
It is not yet known whether $\cE^{*-}$ contains a solution with
non-integral or irrational $q \in \R$; for this reason
Proposition \ref{prop:E} is not called Theorem \ref{prop:E}.
\subsection{Statement of the New Results} \label{subsec:new}
We proceed to stating the new results of this article.
Most of them are results on domain $\cD^-$ and are a substantial
sharpening of the results in the previous article \cite{Iwasaki},
becoming more arithmetic, while the remaining ones are on the new
domain $\cF^-$ which is focused on for the first time in this article.
We also include a small but important new result on domain $\cE^{*-}$.
All these are largely indebted to the new ingredients of this article,
that is, duality and reciprocity.
\par
The first result is about the arithmetic properties of
$(p,q;r)$ for $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:pqr}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ the
integer triple $\bp = (p,q;r)$ must belong to $D^-_{\rA}$ and
moreover satisfy the division relations:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:dr}
(\, p|r \quad \mbox{or} \quad p|(r-p-q) \,) \quad \mbox{and} \quad
(\, q|r \quad \mbox{or} \quad q|(r-p-q) \,).
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\par
This theorem does not refer to which option comes true in each ``or"
phrase of condition \eqref{eqn:dr}, while item (1) of Theorem \ref{thm:ab}
below has something to do with this question.
Theorem \ref{thm:pqr} is presented at the beginning because it
concerns the principal part $\bp$ of the data $\lambda$, but its proof
will be given rather late in \S 8 (Proposition \ref{prop:dr}), preceded
by the proofs of Theorems \ref{thm:gpf-d}, \ref{thm:ab}, \ref{thm:ab-rf}
and \ref{thm:D-r} below.
The second result is regarding the duality for $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:gpf-d}
The duality $\lambda \mapsto \lambda'$ defined by \eqref{eqn:duality}
yields an involution on the set of all $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$.
For those solutions it induces a transformation of gamma product
formulas:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-d}
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \varGamma\left(w+v_i\right)}
\quad \mapsto \quad
f(w; \lambda') = C' \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \varGamma\left(w+v_i'\right)},
\end{equation}
where $C'$ is a positive constant, $d$ is the number given by
formula \eqref{eqn:d}, while
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-p}
v_i':= 1 - \dfrac{2}{r} - v_i^* \qquad (i = 1, \dots, r),
\end{equation}
with $v_1^*, \dots, v_r^*$ being the numbers complementary to
$v_1, \dots, v_r$, to the effect that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-s}
\resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{$\displaystyle
\prod_{i=1}^r \left(w+v_i\right) \prod_{i=1}^r \left(w+v_i^*\right)
=
\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\prod_{j=0}^{r-p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{j-a}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{j=0}^{r-q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{j-b}{r-q}}\right). $}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\par
Notice that condition \eqref{eqn:vi-s} is well defined, since we have
division relation \eqref{eqn:division}.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:gpf-d} will be given in
\S \ref{sec:duality} (see Proposition \ref{prop:duality}).
Notice also that the first and second products on the right-hand side of
division relation \eqref{eqn:division} are taken from $i = 1$, whereas
those of equation \eqref{eqn:vi-s} are from $i = 0$.
This subtle difference eventually grows into the following significant
result about the arithmetic nature of $(a, b)$ as well as its dual
$(a', b')$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:ab}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ and its
dual $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda' = (p,q,r;a',b';x) \in \cD^-$, the pair
$(\lambda, \lambda')$ must be subject to the conditions listed in
Table $\ref{tab:ab}$, which consist of the following four items:
\begin{enumerate}
\item two division relations for the integer triple $\bp = (p,q;r)$,
\item a formula for $(a,b)$ in terms of $\bp$ and a pair
of nonnegative integers $(i,j)$,
\item a formula for $(a',b')$ in terms of $\bp$ and a pair
of nonnegative integers  $(i',j')$,
\item two $\Z$-linear equations for quadruple $(i,j;i',j') \in \Z_{\ge 0}^4$,
\end{enumerate}
where for each $\nu \in \{1,2,3,4\}$ item $(\nu)$ is exhibited in
column $(\nu)$ of Table $\ref{tab:ab}$.
\begin{table}[p]
\begin{center}
\rotatebox{90}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|l|l|l|l|c|}
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
     & (1) & (2) & (3) & (4) & (5) \\[1mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
case & {\small division relations} & {\small formula for $(a, b)$} & {\small formula for $(a', b')$} &
$\Z$-linear equations for $(i, j; i', j')$ & type \\[2mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
$1$ &
$\begin{array}{l} p|r \\[1mm] q|r \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a = \frac{i}{r_p} \\[2mm] b = \frac{j}{r_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a'= \frac{i'}{r_p} \\[2mm] b'= \frac{j'}{r_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} i+i'= r_p-2 \\[1mm] j+j' = r_q-2 \end{array}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rI \\[1mm] \rI & \rI \end{matrix}$ \\[5mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
$2$ &
$\begin{array}{l} p|(r-p-q) \\[2mm] q|(r-p-q) \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a  = \frac{(r-p)i-q j}{r(r-p-q)_p} \\[2mm] b  = \frac{(r-q)j-p i}{r(r-p-q)_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a' = \frac{(r-p)i'-q j'}{r(r-p-q)_p} \\[2mm] b' = \frac{(r-q)j'-p i'}{r(r-p-q)_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} i+i' = (r-p-q)_p \\[2mm] j+j' = (r-p-q)_q \end{array}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rII & \rII \\[2mm] \rII & \rII \end{matrix}$ \\[6mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
$3$ &
$\begin{array}{l} p|r \\[2mm] q|(r-p-q) \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a  = \frac{i}{r_p} \\[2mm] b  = \frac{r_p j-i}{r_p (r-p)_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a' = \frac{i'}{r_p} \\[2mm] b' = \frac{r_p j'-i'}{r_p (r-p)_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} i+i' = r_p-2 \\[2mm] j+j' = (r-p-q)_q \end{array}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rII \\[2mm] \rI & \rII \end{matrix}$ \\[6mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
$4$ &
$\begin{array}{l} p|r \\[2mm] q|r_p(r-p-q) \end{array}$  &
$\begin{array}{l} a = \frac{i}{r_p} \\[2mm] b  = \frac{q j}{r} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a' = \frac{i'}{r_p} \\[2mm] b' = \frac{r_p j'-i'}{(r_p(r-p))_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} i+i' = r_p-2 \\[2mm] {\scriptstyle i+(r_p-1)j+r_p j' = (r_p(r-p-q))_q}
\end{array}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rI \\[2mm] \rI & \rII \end{matrix}$ \\[6mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
$5$ &
$\begin{array}{l} p|(r-p-q) \\[2mm] q|r(r-p-q)_p \end{array}$  &
$\begin{array}{l} a = \frac{(r-p)i-q j}{r(r-p-q)_p} \\[2mm] b  = \frac{(r-q)_p j-i}{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a' = \frac{r i'-q j'}{r(r-q)_p} \\[2mm] b' = \frac{q j'}{r} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} i+i' = (r-p-q)_p \\[2mm] {\scriptstyle i'+(r-q)_p j+ (r-p-q)_p j' = ((r-q)(r-p-q)_p)_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rII & \rII \\[2mm] \rII & \rI \end{matrix}$ \\[6mm]
\hline
     &     &     &     &     &     \\[-3mm]
$6$ &
$\begin{array}{l} p|r(r-p-q) \\[2mm] q|r(r-p-q) \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a  = \frac{p i}{r} \\[2mm] b  = \frac{r j-p i}{(r(r-p))_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} a' = \frac{r i'-q j'}{(r(r-q))_p} \\[2mm] b' = \frac{q j'}{r} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{array}{l} {\scriptstyle (r-p-q)i+(r-p)i'+q j = ((r-p)(r-p-q))_p} \\[2mm]
{\scriptstyle (r-p-q)j'+p i' + (r-q)j = ((r-q)(r-p-q))_q} \end{array}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rII \\[2mm] \rII & \rI \end{matrix}$ \\[6mm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\caption{Candidates for dual pairs of $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$.}
\label{tab:ab}
\end{table}
There are a total of six cases or patterns, up to equivalence,
according to the type of the dual pair $(\lambda, \lambda')$
shown in column $(5)$, the notion of which will be defined
in \S $\ref{sec:dr-fc}$ and may be skipped until there.
Moreover,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:estimate}
a, b, \, a', b', \, v_1, \dots, v_r, \, v_1', \dots, v_r' \in
\Q \cap [0, \, 1),
\end{equation}
where $v_1, \dots, v_r$ and $v_1', \dots, v_r'$ are the numbers
appearing in formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-d}.
\end{theorem}
\par
Theorem \ref{thm:ab} will be proved in \S \ref{sec:dr-fc} (see
Proposition \ref{prop:ab}) after a preliminary discussion in
\S \ref{sec:r-cf}.
\begin{remark} \label{rem:ab}
A few remarks about Table \ref{tab:ab} should be in order at this stage.
\begin{enumerate}
\item In Table \ref{tab:ab} (and also in \S\ref{sec:dr-fc}--\S\ref{sec:dr}),
for positive integers $s$ and $t$ we write $s_t := s/t$ when and only when
$t|s$, i.e., $t$ divides $s$.
It is a convenient notation which indicates at once that $s_t$ stands for
a positive integer; it also saves space when $s$ is a large expression,
but for example $(r-p-q)_p$ should not be confused with a rising
factorial number.
\item The division relations in column (1) have something to do with
those in condition \eqref{eqn:dr}.
Indeed, in case 1 the divisions $p|r$ and $q|r$ must occur in
the two ``or" phrases in \eqref{eqn:dr}.
Cases 2 and 3 are similar to case 1, that is, there are unique
choices in the two ``or"s.
In case 4 the division $p|r$ must happen in the former ``or",
while either option in the latter ``or" guarantees the condition
$q|r_p(r-p-q)$.
Case 5 is similar to case 4.
In case 6 any combination in the two ``or"s implies $p|r(r-p-q)$
and $q|r(r-p-q)$.
\item In each case of Table \ref{tab:ab} the $\Z$-linear
equations for $(i,j;i',j') \in \Z_{\ge0}^4$ are of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:z-linear}
\mu_1 \, i + \mu_2 \, j + \mu_3 \, i' + \mu_4 \, j' = \mu_5, \qquad
\nu_1 \, i + \nu_2 \, j + \nu_3 \, i' + \nu_4 \, j' = \nu_5,
\end{equation}
where for each $k \in \{1,2,3,4\}$ the coefficients $\mu_k$ and $\nu_k$
are nonnegative integers with a positive sum $\mu_k + \nu_k \ge 1$ so that
system \eqref{eqn:z-linear} cannot have infinitely many solutions.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\par
A data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ with $\bp = (p,q;r) \in
D_{\rA}^-$ is said to be a {\sl candidate} for an $(\rA)$-solution,
if $\bp$ satisfies condition \eqref{eqn:dr} and $\lambda$ is subject
to one of the six patterns in Table \ref{tab:ab}.
By Theorems \ref{thm:pqr} and \ref{thm:ab}, a data cannot be an
$(\rA)$-solution unless it is a candidate, but it may (perhaps quite
frequently) happen that a candidate is not an actual $(\rA)$-solution.
\par
Theorem \ref{thm:ab} together with assertion (1) of Theorem \ref{thm:sol-A}
gives the following.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:ab-rf}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ the numbers
$a$ and $b$ must be rational while $x$ must be algebraic.
Given any integer triple $\bp = (p,q;r) \in D_{\rA}^-$, there are no
or only a finite number of $(\rA)$-solutions $\lambda \in \cD^-$ with
the prescribed principal data $\bp$.
\end{theorem}
\par
We turn our attention to the reciprocity $\lambda \mapsto \check{\lambda}$
defined by formula \eqref{eqn:recip}.
Considering the reciprocals of $(\rA)$-solutions on $\cD^-$ not only
produces new solutions on the target domain $\cF^-$, but also brings
us a deeper understanding of the original solutions on the source
domain $\cD^-$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:D-r}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$
there exists a division relation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:division2}
\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\, \Big| \, \prod_{i=1}^r \left(w+v_i\right)
\qquad \mbox{in \, $\Q[w]$},
\end{equation}
which allows us to rearrange the numbers $v_1, \dots,v_r$ in formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf2} so that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-pq}
\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
= \prod_{i=r-p-q+1}^{r} \left(w+v_i\right).
\end{equation}
With this convention the reciprocity $\lambda \mapsto \check{\lambda}$
sends any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda \in \cD^-$ to a new solution
$\check{\lambda}$ to Problem $\rI$ in $\cF^-$, inducing a
transformation of gamma product formulas:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-c}
\resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{$\displaystyle
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r
\varGamma\left(w+v_i \right)} \,\, \mapsto \,\,
f(w; \check{\lambda}) = \check{C} \cdot \check{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-p-q-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r-p-q} \right)}{
\prod_{i=1}^{r-p-q} \varGamma\left(w+ \check{v}_i \right)}, $}
\end{equation}
where $\check{C}$ is a positive constant and
\begin{align}
\check{d} &= (r-p-q)^{r-p-q}
\sqrt{\frac{p^p \, q^q \, x^r}{(r-p)^{r-p} \, (r-q)^{r-q} \, (1-x)^{r-p-q}}},
\label{eqn:d-c}
\\[3mm]
\check{v}_i &= v_i - \frac{1-a-b}{r-p-q} \qquad (i = 1, \dots, r-p-q).
\label{eqn:vi-c}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\par
Theorem \ref{thm:D-r} will be proved in \S\ref{sec:dr-fc} as a main part of
Proposition \ref{prop:division}.
This theorem concerns the reciprocity in the direction $\cD^- \to \cF^-$.
Starting from $\cF^-$ take the reciprocity in the other way round
$\cF^- \to \cD^-$ and then use Theorem \ref{thm:D-r} to return home in
$\cF^-$.
This idea leads to the following solutions to Problems
\ref{prob:back}--\ref{prob:cfcr-ess} on the domain $\cF^-$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:F}
The following hold on $\cF^-$.
Let $\lambda = (p, q, r; a, b; x) \in \cF^-$ in what follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any solution $\lambda \in \cF^-$ to Problem $\rI$ or $\rII$
is non-elementary.
\item If $\lambda \in \cF^-$ is an integral solution to Problem $\rII$,
then $\lambda$ comes from contiguous relations with its reciprocal
$\check{\lambda}$ being an $(\rA)$-solution in $\cD^-$,
in other words, $\lambda$ is the reciprocal of an $(\rA)$-solution
$\check{\lambda} \in \cD^-$ so that $r$ must be an even positive
integer and $\lambda$ becomes a solution to Problem $\rI$ with
$f(w; \lambda)$ admitting a GPF as stated in assertion $(3)$ below.
\item If $\lambda \in \cF^-$ is a rational solution to Problem $\rII$,
then $\lambda$ essentially comes from contiguous relations,
$r$ must be a positive integer but not necessarily even; $a$, $b \in \Q$;
$x$ algebraic, and $\lambda$ becomes a solution to Problem $\rI$ with
$f(w; \lambda)$ having a GPF of the form
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F}
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \varGamma \left( w+\frac{i}{r}\right) }{\prod_{i=1}^{r}
\varGamma\left(w+v_i\right)},
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a positive constant, $d$ is a positive algebraic number defined
by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:d-F}
d = r^r \sqrt{\dfrac{|p|^{|p|} \, |q|^{|q|} \,
(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{(r-p)^{r-p} \, (r-q)^{r-q} \, x^r}},
\end{equation}
and $v_1, \dots, v_r$ are such numbers that satisfy the following conditions:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-F}
v_1 + \cdots + v_r = \frac{r-1}{2}, \quad
v_1, \dots, v_r \in \left(\Q \setminus \textstyle \frac{1}{r} \, \Z\right)
\cap \left[c, \, c+1\right), \quad c:= \frac{1-a-b}{r-p-q}.
\end{equation}
In particular, Problems $\rI$ and $\rII$ are equivalent for
rational data in domain $\cF^-$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} \label{rem:F}
We make three comments about Theorem \ref{thm:F}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item When $\lambda$ is integral, formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F} is computable
from the GPF for the $(\rA)$-solution $\check{\lambda} \in \cD^-$ through
transformation \eqref{eqn:gpf-c}, where the roles of $\lambda$ and
$\check{\lambda}$ are exchanged.
Regarding duality it is possible to formulate a result similar to
Theorem \ref{thm:gpf-d} for integral solutions in $\cF^-$.
\item We mention how to calculate formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F} when
$\lambda$ is rational but not integral.
If $k$ is the least common denominator of $p$, $q \in \Q$,
then $k \lambda \in \cF^-$ is an integral solution to Problem $\rII$,
so that as in item (1) the GPF for $k \lambda$ is computable from the
GPF for the $(\rA)$-solution $(k \lambda)^{\vee} \in \cD^-$ via
transformation \eqref{eqn:gpf-c}.
It turns out that the result is
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F-k}
f(w; k \lambda) = C_k \cdot d^{k w} \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{k r-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{k r}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \prod_{j=0}^{k-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{v_i + j}{k}\right)},
\end{equation}
for some $C_k > 0$ and $v_1, \dots, v_r$ satisfying condition \eqref{eqn:vi-F}.
Replacing $w$ with $w/k$ in formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F-k} and using the
multiplication formula \eqref{eqn:mult} for the gamma function we get the
desired formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F}.
For details we refer to the proofs of Lemma \ref{lem:gpf-F} and
Proposition \ref{prop:gpf-F}.
\item Theorem \ref{thm:F} concerns only rational solutions in $\cF^-$.
It is an interesting open problem to know whether $\cF^-$ contains any
irrational solution (see Problem \ref{prob:F}).
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
\par
Assertions (1) and (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:F} will be proved in
\S \ref{sec:SW} as Propositions \ref{prop:cfcr-F}, while assertion (3)
will be established as Proposition \ref{prop:gpf-F} by developing the idea
in item (2) of Remark \ref{rem:F}.
This idea for rational solutions in $\cF^-$ can also be used to get
information about the GPFs for $(\rB)$-solutions in $\cD^-$ because the
latter situation is similar to the former or even simpler in the sense
that only duplication $k = 2$ is involved for the latter class of solutions.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sol-B}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ is a $(\rB)$-solution then $a$ and
$b$ are rational numbers with $0 \le a, \, b < 1$, $x$ is an algebraic number,
and $\lambda$ admits a GPF of the form \eqref{eqn:gpf2} where $d$ is given by
formula \eqref{eqn:d} and $v_1, \dots, v_r$ are rational numbers such that
$0 \le v_1, \dots, v_r < 1$.
\end{theorem}
\par
Only a hint for the proof of this theorem will be given in \S \ref{sec:SW}
after the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:gpf-F}.
In \S \ref{sec:algorithm} we shall put all the results on $\cD^- \cup \cF^-$
into context from an algorithmic point of view and discuss how to find all
solutions $\lambda$ with a given bound for $r$ in a finite number of steps.
\par
Finally we present a small but important result on the domain
$\cE^{*-} \cup \cE^{-*}$, where Problems $\rI$ and $\rII$ are equivalent
by Theorem \ref{thm:back}, so we can speak of a solution without
specifying to which problem it is a solution.
By assertion (2) of Proposition \ref{prop:E}, for any solution
$\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cE^{*-}$ we have $p$, $r \in \Z$
so that $\lambda$ is integral if and only if $q \in \Z$.
Similarly, for any solution $\lambda =  (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cE^{-*}$
we have $q$, $r \in \Z$, so that $\lambda$ is integral if and only if
$p \in \Z$.
It is not known whether $q \in \Z$ resp. $p \in \Z$ for every solution
$\lambda \in \cE^{*-}$ resp. $\lambda \in \cE^{-*}$.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:E}
Duality $\lambda \mapsto \lambda'$ in \eqref{eqn:duality} induces a
self-bijection on the set of all integral solutions in $\cE^{*-}$.
Similarly, reciprocity $\lambda \mapsto \check{\lambda}$ in
\eqref{eqn:recip} induces a bijection between the set of all integral
solutions in $\cE^{*-}$ and the set of all integral solutions in
$\cE^{-*}$.
\end{theorem}
\par
The former and latter assertions of this theorem will be proved in
\S \ref{sec:duality} and \S \ref{sec:r-cf} as Corollaries
\ref{cor:duality1} and \ref{cor:r-cf1} respectively.
Applications of the theorem will be discussed elsewhere.
\section{Kummer's 24 Solutions and Ebisu Symmetries} \label{sec:kummer}
Kummer \cite{Kummer} constructed twenty-four solutions (or more precisely
power series representations of solutions) to the Gauss hypergeometric
equation \eqref{eqn:hge}.
They are known as {\sl Kummer's twenty-four solutions}, among which
the hypergeometric series $\hgF(\ba;z)$ is the most
representative member.
A complete list of them can be found in Erd\'elyi
\cite[Chap. I\!I, \S 2.9, formulas (1)--(24)]{Erdelyi}.
Ebisu \cite[Lemma 3.2.2]{Ebisu3} showed that each of Kummer's
solutions, say $\hgK(\ba;z)$, admits a three-term relation of the
following form: for every integer vector $\bp = (p,q;r) \in \Z^3$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:3trK}
\hgK(\ba+\bp;z) = \psi(\ba;\bp) \, r(\ba;z) \, \hgK(\ba;z) +
\phi(\ba;\bp) \, q(\ba;z) \, \hgK(\ba+\1;z),
\end{equation}
where $q(\ba;z)$ and $r(\ba;z)$ are the same functions as those in the
original three-term relation \eqref{eqn:3trF} for $\hgF(\ba;z)$,
whereas $\phi(\ba;\bp)$ and $\psi(\ba;\bp)$ are nontrivial rational
functions of $\ba$ depending uniquely on $\hgK(\ba;z)$ and $\bp$,
explicit formulas for which can be found in \cite{Ebisu3}.
\par
Problem $\rII$ makes sense not only for $\hgF(\ba;z)$ but
also for any other member $\hgK(\ba;z)$ of Kummer's solutions.
Given an integral data $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$, if we put
$k(w;\lambda) := \hgK(\bal(w);x)$, $\tilde{k}(w; \lambda)
:= \hgK(\bal(w)+\1;x)$, $\Phi(w; \lambda) := \phi(\bal(w); x)$ and
$\Psi(w; \lambda) := \psi(\bal(w); x)$ with
$\bal(w) := (pw+a, \, qw+b; \, rw)$, then the three-term relation
\eqref{eqn:3trK} leads to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:3trk}
k(w+1; \lambda) = \Psi(w; \lambda) R(w; \lambda) \cdot k(w; \lambda) +
\Phi(w;\lambda) Q(w; \lambda) \cdot \tilde{k}(w; \lambda),
\end{equation}
just as the relation \eqref{eqn:3trF} leads to \eqref{eqn:3trf}.
Notice that $\Phi(w; \lambda)$ and $\Psi(w; \lambda)$ are nontrivial
rational functions of $w$.
This observation gives the following important lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:kummer}
Let $\hgK(\ba; z)$ be any member of Kummer's twenty-four solutions.
An integral data $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$ for
the function $\hgF(\ba; z)$ that comes from contiguous relations,
if and only if the same is true for the function $\hgK(\ba; z)$.
If this is the case, then
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ocf-k}
\dfrac{k(w+1; \lambda)}{k(w; \lambda)} = \Psi(w; \lambda) \cdot
R(w; \lambda) \in \C(w),
\end{equation}
which is corresponding to condition \eqref{eqn:ocf} for the original
function $f(w; \lambda)$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Recall that an integral data $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$
for $\hgF(\ba; z)$ that comes from contiguous relations if and only if
condition \eqref{eqn:cfcr} is satisfied.
In view of formula \eqref{eqn:3trk} the corresponding condition for
$\hgK(\ba; z)$ is $\Phi(w; \lambda) Q(w; \lambda) = 0$ in $\C(w)$.
But this is just equivalent to condition \eqref{eqn:cfcr}, because
$\Phi(w; \lambda)$ is nontrivial.
Now formula \eqref{eqn:3trk} leads to condition \eqref{eqn:ocf-k}.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{remark} \label{rem:kummer}
Any member $\hgK(\ba; z)$ of Kummer's $24$ solutions can be written
$\hgK(\ba; z) = \mbox{(an elementary factor)} \times
\hgF(\tilde{\ba}; \tilde{z})$ in terms of the original hypergeometric
function $\hgF(\ba; z)$ and a certain transformation of variables
$(\ba; z) \mapsto (\tilde{\ba}; \tilde{z})$.
So Lemma \ref{lem:kummer} suggests that each $\hgK(\ba; z)$ brings a
symmetry to Problem $\rII$ for the original function $\hgF(\ba; z)$.
It may be referred to as an {\sl Ebisu symmetry} because it
originates from Ebisu's observation \eqref{eqn:3trK}.
The existence of Ebisu symmetries is an advantage of dealing with
Problem $\rII$, whereas such a helpful structure cannot be expected
for Problem $\rI$, although we must keep it in mind that {\sl Ebisu
symmetries make sense only on those solutions which come from
contiguous relations}.
\end{remark}
\par
In this article we exhibit two special choices of Kummer's solutions
other than the original one $\hgF(\ba;z)$.
The resulting Ebisu symmetries will be the main players in this article,
that is, duality and reciprocity.
Here one choice of $\hgK(\ba; z)$ is to take
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:hgG}
\hgG(\ba;z) := z^{1-\gamma} \hgF(\alpha-\gamma+1,\beta-\gamma+1;2-\gamma;z),
\end{equation}
which is the solution of local exponent $1-\gamma$ at $z=0$ in Riemann
scheme \eqref{eqn:rs}.
Note that solutions $\hgF(\ba; z)$ and $\hgG(\ba; z)$ form a linear
basis of local solutions to the hypergeometric equation \eqref{eqn:hge}
at $z = 0$, unless $\gamma$ is an integer.
The other choice is
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:hgH}
\hgH(\ba;z) := z^{1-\gamma}(1-z)^{\gamma-\alpha-\beta}
\hgF(1-\alpha,1-\beta;\gamma-\alpha-\beta+1;1-z),
\end{equation}
which is an expression for the local solution of exponent
$\gamma-\alpha-\beta$ at $z = 1$ in the scheme \eqref{eqn:rs}.
\par
When $\hgK(\ba; z)$ is $\hgG(\ba; z)$ or $\hgH(\ba; z)$,
we use Lemma \ref{lem:kummer} to construct duality or reciprocity,
where we employ the following notation.
For $\hgK(\ba; z) = \hgG(\ba; z)$ the functions $k(w;\lambda)$, $\psi(\ba;\bp)$
and $\Psi(w; \lambda)$ are denoted by $g(w;\lambda)$, $\psi_g(\ba;\bp)$ and
$\Psi_g(w; \lambda)$, while for $\hgK(\ba; z) = \hgH(\ba; z)$ they are denoted
by $h(w;\lambda)$, $\psi_h(\ba;\bp)$ and $\Psi_h(w; \lambda)$, respectively.
Note that
\begin{align}
g(w; \lambda) &= x^{1-r w} \hgF((p-r)w+a+1, (q-r)w+b+1; 2 -r w; x),
\label{eqn:g} \\[1mm]
h(w;\lambda) &= x^{1-r w}(1-x)^{(r-p-q)w-a-b} \nonumber \\
&\phantom{==}  \times \hgF(1-a-p w, \, 1-b-q w; \, (r-p-q)w+1-a-b; \, 1-x).
\label{eqn:h}
\end{align}
\par
From a result of Ebisu \cite[Lemma 3.2.2]{Ebisu3} we have
\begin{align*}
\psi_g(\ba;\bp) &= (-1)^{r-p-q}
\dfrac{(\alpha)_p(\beta)_q(\gamma-\alpha)_{r-p}(\gamma-\beta)_{r-q}}{(\gamma-1)_r (\gamma)_r},
\\[2mm]
\psi_h(\ba;\bp) &= (-1)^{r-p-q}
\dfrac{(\alpha)_p(\beta)_q(\gamma-\alpha-\beta+1)_{r-p-q}}{(\gamma)_r},
\end{align*}
in formula \eqref{eqn:3trK}, from which we find
\begin{align}
\Psi_g(w; \lambda) &= (-1)^{r-p-q}
\dfrac{(p w+a)_p(q w+b)_q((r-p)w-a)_{r-p}((r-q)w-b)_{r-q}}{(r w-1)_r (r w)_r},
\label{eqn:Psi-g} \\[2mm]
\Psi_h(w; \lambda) &= (-1)^{r-p-q}
\dfrac{(p w+a)_p(q w+b)_q((r-p-q)w-a-b+1)_{r-p-q}}{(r w)_r}, \label{eqn:Psi-h}
\end{align}
in formula \eqref{eqn:ocf-k}, where $(s)_n :=
\varGamma(s+n)/\varGamma(s)$ is Pochhammer's symbol or the rising
factorial.
Solution \eqref{eqn:hgG} and formula \eqref{eqn:Psi-g} will be used to
construct duality in \S\ref{sec:duality}, while solution \eqref{eqn:hgH}
and formula \eqref{eqn:Psi-h} will be employed to construct reciprocity
in \S\ref{sec:r-cf}, respectively.
\section{Duality} \label{sec:duality}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:kummer} to $\hgK(\ba;z) = \hgG(\ba;z)$ leads to the
duality \eqref{eqn:duality} in Definition \ref{def:duality}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:duality1}
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ be an integral data in domain \eqref{eqn:real2}.
If $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$ that comes from contiguous
relations, with rational function $R(w; \lambda)$ in condition
\eqref{eqn:ocf}, then its dual $\lambda' = (p',q',r';a',b';x')$ is also
a solution to Problem $\rII$ that comes from contiguous relations,
with the corresponding rational function
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R-p}
R(w;\lambda') =
\dfrac{x^{-r}(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{\Psi_g(w'; \lambda) \, R(w';\lambda)},
\end{equation}
where the function $\Psi_g(w; \lambda)$ is given by formula
\eqref{eqn:Psi-g} and $w \mapsto w'$ is the reflection
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:w-p}
w' := \frac{2}{r}-1-w.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Replacing $w$ by $w+1 = \frac{2}{r} - w'$ in formula \eqref{eqn:g},
we observe that
\[
\begin{split}
g(w+1;\lambda)
&= \resizebox{0.8\hsize}{!}{$\displaystyle
x^{1-r\left(\frac{2}{r} - w'\right)}
\hgF\left((p-r)\left(\ts\frac{2}{r} - w'\right)+a+1, \,
(q-r)\left(\ts\frac{2}{r} - w'\right)+b+1;
2 - r\left(\ts\frac{2}{r}-w'\right); x\right)$} \\
&= x^{r w'-1} \hgF\left((r-p) w' - a', \, (r-q) w' - b'; r w'; x\right) \\
&= x^{r w'-1} (1-x)^{(p+q-r)w'+a'+b'} f(w'; \lambda'),
\end{split}
\]
where definition \eqref{eqn:duality} and Euler's transformation
\eqref{eqn:transf1} are used in the second and third
equalities respectively.
Since the shift $w \mapsto w-1$ is equivalent to
$w' \mapsto w'+1$, we have
\begin{align}
f(w'; \lambda')
&= x^{1-r w'} (1-x)^{(r-p-q) w'-a'-b'} g(w+1;\lambda),  \nonumber \\
f(w'+1; \lambda')
&= x^{1-r (w'+1)} (1-x)^{(r-p-q) (w'+1)-a'-b'} g(w;\lambda),
\label{eqn:f-p}
\end{align}
which together with formula \eqref{eqn:ocf-k} in Lemma \ref{lem:kummer}
yields
\[
R(w'; \lambda') := \dfrac{f(w'+1; \lambda')}{f(w'; \lambda')}
= x^{-r}(1-x)^{r-p-q} \cdot \dfrac{g(w;\lambda)}{g(w+1;\lambda)} =
\dfrac{ x^{-r}(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{\Psi_g(w; \lambda) \, R(w; \lambda)}.
\]
Replacing $w$ by $w'$ in the above and noting $w'' = w$,
we obtain formula \eqref{eqn:R-p}. \hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Using Lemma \ref{lem:duality1} in domain $\cE^{*-}$ leads to an
immediate consequence.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:duality1}
Duality $\lambda \mapsto \lambda'$ in \eqref{eqn:duality} induces a
self-bijection on the set of all solutions $\lambda =
(p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cE^{*-}$ with $q \in \Z$.
\end{corollary}
{\it Proof}.
In view of definition \eqref{eqn:duality} the duality
$\lambda \mapsto \lambda'$ is a bijection $\cE^{*-} \to \cE^{*-}$ in
the data level.
By assertion (3) of Proposition \ref{prop:E} and Lemma \ref{lem:duality1},
it induces a bijection in the solution level among all solutions
$\lambda \in \cE^{*-}$ to Problem $\rII$ (and to Problem $\rI$
by Theorem \ref{thm:back}) with $q \in \Z$.  \hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
The same results holds true for $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$ since
the duality is also a bijection $\cD^- \to \cD^-$ in the data level,
but in fact we are able to obtain more detailed results on $\cD^-$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:duality2}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ is an $(\rA)$-solution to
Problem $\rII$, then its dual $\lambda' = (p,q,r;a',b';x) \in \cD^-$ is
also an $(\rA)$-solution to the same problem with
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R-p2}
R(w;\lambda') = d \cdot
\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+\frac{i}{r}
\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \left(w+v_i' \right)},
\end{equation}
where $d$ and $v_1', \dots, v_r'$ are defined by formulas
\eqref{eqn:d} and \eqref{eqn:vi-p} respectively.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
By assertion (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:sol-A} we have the gamma product
formula \eqref{eqn:gpf2}, so that the rational function
$R(w; \lambda)$ in formula \eqref{eqn:R} is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R2}
R(w; \lambda) = d \cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+\frac{i}{r}
\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \left(w+v_i\right)},
\end{equation}
where $d$ is defined in formula \eqref{eqn:d}.
On the other hand, formula \eqref{eqn:Psi-g} can be rewritten
\[
\begin{split}
\Psi_g(w; \lambda) &= \dfrac{p^p q^q (r-p)^{r-p} (r-q)^{r-q}}{r^{2r}} \\
&\phantom{=} \times
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{r-p-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i-a}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{r-q-1}\left(w+{\ts\frac{i-b}{r-q}}\right)}{
\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+\frac{i}{r}\right)},
\end{split}
\]
where $(-1)^{r-p-q} = 1$ is taken into account, which follows from
assertion (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:D}.
Thus taking the product of equations \eqref{eqn:Psi-g} and \eqref{eqn:R2}
and using definition \eqref{eqn:vi-s}, we have
\[
\dfrac{1}{\Psi_g(w; \lambda) \, R(w; \lambda)} =
d \cdot x^r\cdot (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}
\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r \left(w+v_i^*\right)}.
\]
Replacing $w$ by $w'$ in the above, where $w'$ is defined by
\eqref{eqn:w-p}, and using
$\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\left(w'+ \frac{i-1}{r}\right) = (-1)^r
\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\left(w + \frac{i}{r}\right)$ and
$\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\left(w'+ v_i^*\right) = (-1)^r
\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}\left(w + v_i'\right)$, we have
\[
\dfrac{1}{\Psi_g(w'; \lambda) \, R(w'; \lambda)} =
d \cdot x^r\cdot (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+\frac{i}{r}
\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r \left(w+v_i'\right)}.
\]
Substituting this into formula \eqref{eqn:R-p} leads to
the desired formula \eqref{eqn:R-p2}.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:duality}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ is an $(\rA)$-solution to
Problem $\rI$ with gamma product formula \eqref{eqn:gpf2}, then
there exists a positive constant $C' > 0$ such that
\begin{align}
f(w; \lambda') &= C' \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \varGamma\left(w+v_i'\right)},
\label{eqn:gpf3} \\[2mm]
g(w; \lambda) &= D \cdot \delta^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \sin \pi \left(w+v_i^*\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \sin \pi \left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)}
\cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \varGamma\left(w+v_i^*\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)},
\label{eqn:gpf-g}
\end{align}
where $d$, $v_i'$ and $v_i^*$ are given by formulas
\eqref{eqn:d}, \eqref{eqn:vi-p} and \eqref{eqn:vi-s}, whereas
$D$ and $\delta$ are defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:D-d}
D := \dfrac{x \cdot d^{2/r} \cdot C'}{(1-x)^{a+b}}, \qquad
\delta := \dfrac{(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{d \cdot x^r}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof}.
By Lemma \ref{lem:duality2}, $\lambda'$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$
in $\cD^-$ with rational function $R(w;\lambda')$ in formula
\eqref{eqn:R-p2}.
Theorem \ref{thm:back} then implies that it leads back to a
solution to Problem $\rI$, which is exactly the one in
formula \eqref{eqn:gpf3}.
Next we have
\[
\begin{split}
g(w;\lambda)
&= x^{r(w'+1)-1} (1-x)^{a'+b'-(r-p-q)(w'+1)} \, f(w'+1; \lambda') \\
&= \dfrac{x}{(1-x)^{a+b}} \cdot \left\{\frac{(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{x^r} \right\}^w
\cdot f\left(\textstyle \frac{2}{r}-w; \lambda' \right) \\
&= \dfrac{x}{(1-x)^{a+b}} \cdot \left\{\frac{(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{x^r} \right\}^w
\cdot C' \cdot d^{\frac{2}{r} -w} \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma\left(\frac{2}{r}-w+\frac{i}{r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r
\varGamma\left(\frac{2}{r}-w + v_i'\right)} \\
&= \dfrac{C' \cdot x \cdot d^{\frac{2}{r}}}{(1-x)^{a+b}} \cdot
\left\{\frac{(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{d \cdot x^r} \right\}^w
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma\left(1-(w+\frac{(r-1-i)-1}{r}) \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r
\varGamma\left(1-(w + v_i^*)\right)} \\
&= D \cdot \delta^w \cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma\left(1-(w+\frac{i-1}{r}) \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^r
\varGamma\left(1-(w + v_i^*)\right)}
\end{split}
\]
where the first equality follows from \eqref{eqn:f-p}, the second
from \eqref{eqn:duality} and \eqref{eqn:w-p}, the third from
\eqref{eqn:gpf3}, the fourth from \eqref{eqn:vi-p}, the fifth
from \eqref{eqn:D-d} and the replacement of indices
$i \leftrightarrow r-1-i$, respectively.
Finally we use Euler's reflection formula for the gamma
function \cite[Theorem 1.2.1]{AAR}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:refl}
\varGamma(w) \varGamma(1-w) = \dfrac{\pi}{\sin \pi w},
\end{equation}
to establish the desired formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-g}
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
With the proof of formula \eqref{eqn:gpf3} in Proposition
\ref{prop:duality}, Theorem \ref{thm:gpf-d} has been established.
\section{Reciprocity and Connection Formula} \label{sec:r-cf}
We shall show that applying Lemma \ref{lem:kummer} to $\hgK(\ba;z) =
\hgH(\ba;z)$ yields the reciprocity \eqref{eqn:recip} in
Definition \ref{def:recip}.
First we observe that under the involution
$\lambda \mapsto \check{\lambda}$, the transformation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:w-c}
w \mapsto \check{w} := w + c, \qquad
c = c(\lambda) := \frac{1-a-b}{r-p-q}
\end{equation}
also yields an involution, since definition \eqref{eqn:recip} implies
$\check{c}:= c(\check{\lambda}) = - c(\lambda) = -c$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:r-cf1}
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ be an integral data in domain \eqref{eqn:real3}.
If $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$ that comes from contiguous
relations, with rational function $R(w;\lambda)$ in condition
\eqref{eqn:ocf}, then its reciprocal $\check{\lambda}
= (\check{p},\check{q},\check{r};\check{a},\check{b}; \check{x})$
is also a solution to Problem $\rII$ that comes from contiguous
relations, with the corresponding rational function
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R-c}
R(w; \check{\lambda}) = x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot
\Psi_h(\hat{w}; \lambda) R(\hat{w}; \lambda),
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_h(w; \lambda)$ is given by formula \eqref{eqn:Psi-h} and
$\hat{w}$ is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:w-h}
\hat{w} := w - c, \qquad c = c(\lambda) := \frac{1-a-b}{r-p-q}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Definitions \eqref{eqn:recip} and \eqref{eqn:w-c} imply
$(r-p-q) w+1-a-b = \check{r} \check{w}$ and
\[
1-a - p w = 1-a - p (\check{w} - c) = \check{p} \check{w} + \check{a},
\]
and similarly $1-b-q w = \check{q} \check{w} + \check{b}$.
Substituting these into formula \eqref{eqn:h} we find
$h(w; \lambda) = x^{1-r w}(1-x)^{(r-p-q)w-a-b} \,
f(\check{w}; \check{\lambda})$, or in other words,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:f-h}
f(\check{w}; \check{\lambda}) = x^{r w-1}(1-x)^{(p+q-r)w+a+b}
\, h(w; \lambda).
\end{equation}
Since increasing $\check{w}$ by $1$ is equivalent to increasing $w$
by $1$, we also have
\[
f(\check{w}+1; \check{\lambda}) =
x^{r(w+1)-1}(1-x)^{(p+q-r)(w+1)+a+b} \, h(w+1; \lambda),
\]
so that formula \eqref{eqn:ocf-k} in Lemma \ref{lem:kummer} and
definition \eqref{eqn:w-c} yield
\[
\begin{split}
R(\check{w}; \check{\lambda}) &=
\dfrac{f(\check{w}+1; \check{\lambda})}{f(\check{w}; \check{\lambda})}
= x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \dfrac{h(w+1; \lambda)}{h(w; \lambda)} =
x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot \Psi_h(w; \lambda) R(w;\lambda) \\
&= x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot \Psi_h(\check{w} - c; \lambda) \,
R(\check{w} - c; \lambda).
\end{split}
\]
Since $\check{w}$ is an indeterminate variable, we can replace
$\check{w}$ by $w$ in the above to obtain
\[
\begin{split}
R(w; \check{\lambda}) &=
x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot \Psi_h(w - c; \lambda) R(w - c; \lambda) \\
&= x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \cdot \Psi_h(\hat{w}; \lambda) \, R(\hat{w}; \lambda),
\end{split}
\]
where definition \eqref{eqn:w-h} is used in the last equality.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Using Lemma \ref{lem:r-cf1} in domains $\cE^{*-}$ and $\cE^{-*}$
yields the following direct consequence.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:r-cf1}
Reciprocity $\lambda \mapsto \check{\lambda}$ in \eqref{eqn:recip}
induces a bijection between the set of all solutions $\lambda =
(p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cE^{*-}$ with $q \in \Z$ and the set of all solutions
$\check{\lambda} =
(\check{p}, \check{q}, \check{r}; \check{a}, \check{b}; \check{x})
\in \cE^{-*}$ with $\check{p} \in \Z$.
\end{corollary}
{\it Proof}.
In view of definition \eqref{eqn:recip} the reciprocity
$\lambda \mapsto \check{\lambda}$ is a bijection $\cE^{*-} \to \cE^{-*}$
in the data level.
By Proposition \ref{prop:E} and Lemma \ref{lem:r-cf1} it induces
a bijection in the solution level between the solutions
$\lambda \in \cE^{*-}$ with $q \in \Z$ and the solutions
$\check{\lambda} \in \cE^{-*}$ with $\check{p} \in \Z$.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Although the reciprocity is also a bijection $\cD^- \to \cF^-$ in the
data level, it does not immediately induce a bijection in the
integral solution level as in Corollary \ref{cor:r-cf1}.
This is because we have not yet known whether every integral solution
in $\cF^-$ to Problem $\rII$ comes from contiguous relations,
so that the backward reciprocity $\cF^- \to \cD^-$ is not established
yet in the solution level (see Remark \ref{rem:kummer}).
This issue is postponed until it is settled in Proposition
\ref{prop:cfcr-F}.
In the rest of this section we develop a detailed study of the forward
reciprocity $\cD^- \to \cF^-$ in the integral solution level by using
the connection formula for hypergeometric functions.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:r-cf2}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ is an $(\rA)$-solution
with GPF \eqref{eqn:gpf2}, then
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:h2}
\resizebox{0.85\hsize}{!}{$\displaystyle
h(w;\lambda) = \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot \tilde{d}^w \cdot \chi(w)
\cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r}
\varGamma\left(w+v_i\right)}$},
\end{equation}
where the constant $\tilde{d}$ and the function $\chi(w)$ are given by
\begin{align}
\tilde{d} &= \sqrt{p^p q^q (r-p)^{p-r} (r-q)^{q-r} x^{-r} (1-x)^{r-p-q}},
\label{eqn:d-t} \\[1mm]
\chi(w) &= C_1 \cdot \dfrac{\sin \pi(p w+a) \sin \pi(q w+b)}{\sin(\pi r w)}
+ C_2 \cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^r \sin \pi(w+v_i^*)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\sin \pi\left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)}, \label{eqn:chi} \\[1mm]
C_1 &:= 2 \, (2\pi)^{(r-p-q-1)/2} \cdot C \cdot p^{a-1/2} q^{b-1/2} r^{1/2},
\label{eqn:C1} \\
C_2 &:= (2\pi)^{(r-p-q-1)/2} \cdot D \cdot (r-p)^{a+1/2} (r-q)^{b+1/2} r^{-3/2},
\label{eqn:C2}
\end{align}
with $C$ and $D$ being the constants in formulas \eqref{eqn:gpf2} and
\eqref{eqn:D-d} respectively.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
A connection formula in Erd\'elyi
\cite[Chap.\! I\!I, \S 2.9, formula (43)]{Erdelyi}) reads
\[
\hgH(\ba;z) =
\dfrac{\varGamma(\gamma-\alpha-\beta+1) \varGamma(1-\gamma)}{\varGamma(1-\alpha) \varGamma(1-\beta)} \, \hgF(\ba;z) +
\dfrac{\varGamma(\gamma-\alpha-\beta+1) \varGamma(\gamma-1)}{\varGamma(\gamma-\alpha) \varGamma(\gamma-\beta)} \, \hgG(\ba;z).
\]
Substituting $\ba = \bal(w) := (p w+a, \, q w+b; \, r w)$ and $z = x$
into the connection formula and using the definitions of
$g(w; \lambda)$ and $h(w; \lambda)$ (just before formulas
\eqref{eqn:g} and \eqref{eqn:h}), we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:cf}
h(w; \lambda) = C_f(w) \, f(w; \lambda) + C_g(w) \, g(w; \lambda),
\end{equation}
where the connection coefficients $C_f(w)$ and $C_g(w)$ are given by
\begin{align*}
C_f(w)
&= \frac{\varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b)\, \varGamma(1-r w)}{\varGamma(1-a-p w)\, \varGamma(1-b-q w)},
\\[1mm]
C_g(w)
&= \frac{\varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \, \varGamma(r w-1)}{\varGamma((r-p)w-a) \varGamma((r-q)w-b)}.
\end{align*}
\par
The connection coefficient $C_f(w)$ can be written
\[
\begin{split}
C_f(w)
&= \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot
\dfrac{\sin \pi(p w+a) \, \sin \pi(q w+b)}{\pi \, \sin(\pi r w)} \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma(p w+a) \, \varGamma(q w+b)}{\varGamma(r w)} \\
&= \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot
\dfrac{\sin \pi(p w+a) \, \sin \pi(q w+b)}{\pi \, \sin(\pi r w)} \\
&\phantom{=} \times (2 \pi)^{(r-p-q+1)/2} p^{a-1/2} q^{b-1/2} r^{1/2}
\left(\frac{p^p q^q}{r^r}\right)^w
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r}\right)},
\end{split}
\]
where the first equality follows from the reflection formula
\eqref{eqn:refl}, while the second equality from Gauss's multiplication
formula \eqref{eqn:mult} for the gamma function.
The above expression for $C_f(w)$ is multiplied by formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf2} to yield
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Cf}
\begin{split}
C_f(w) \, f(w;\lambda)
&= \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot
\dfrac{\sin \pi(p w+a) \, \sin \pi(q w+b)}{\sin(\pi r w)} \\
&\phantom{=} \times C_1 \cdot
\tilde{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma(w+v_i)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where one uses definition \eqref{eqn:C1} and relation
$d \cdot p^p q^q r^{-r} = \tilde{d}$ that follows from \eqref{eqn:d}
and \eqref{eqn:d-t}.
\par
In a similar manner the multiplication formula \eqref{eqn:mult} allows us
to write
\[
\begin{split}
C_g(w) &= \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot (2\pi)^{(r-p-q-1)/2}
(r-p)^{a+1/2} (r-q)^{b+1/2} r^{-3/2} \\
&\phantom{=} \times
\left\{ \frac{r^r}{(r-p)^{r-p}(r-q)^{r-q}} \right\}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-p-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i-a}{r-p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{r-q-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i-b}{r-q}\right)},
\end{split}
\]
which is multiplied by formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-g} to yield
\begin{align*}
C_g(w) \, g(w;\lambda)
&= \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^r \sin \pi(w+v_i)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\sin \pi\left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)} \\
&\phantom{=} \times C_2 \cdot \tilde{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^r \varGamma(w+v_i^*)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-p-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i-a}{r-p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{r-q-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i-b}{r-q}\right)},
\end{align*}
where one uses definition \eqref{eqn:C2} and the relation
$\delta \cdot r^r (r-p)^{p-r} (r-q)^{q-r} = \tilde{d}$ that
follows from \eqref{eqn:D-d} and \eqref{eqn:d-t}.
Taking equation \eqref{eqn:vi-s} into account we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:Cg}
\begin{split}
C_g(w) \, g(w;\lambda) &= \varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b) \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^r \sin \pi(w+v_i)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\sin \pi\left(w+\frac{i-1}{r}\right)} \\
&\phantom{=} \times C_2 \cdot \tilde{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma(w+v_i)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Substituting \eqref{eqn:Cf} and \eqref{eqn:Cg} into \eqref{eqn:cf} yields
the desired formula \eqref{eqn:h2} with \eqref{eqn:d-t} and
\eqref{eqn:chi}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:chi}
In Lemma $\ref{lem:r-cf2}$ the function $\chi(w)$ in formula \eqref{eqn:chi}
must be constant so that there exists a real constant $C_3$ such that
formula \eqref{eqn:h2} becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:h3}
\dfrac{h(w;\lambda)}{\varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b)} = C_3 \cdot \tilde{d}^w
\cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r}
\varGamma\left(w+v_i\right)}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
The left-hand side of equation \eqref{eqn:h3}, which is denoted by
$\tilde{h}(w;\lambda)$, is an entire holomorphic function of $w$,
since by formula \eqref{eqn:h} any pole of $h(w;\lambda)$ must be
simple and located where $(r-p-q)w+1-a-b$ becomes a nonpositive
integer, so that it is canceled by a zero of
$1/\varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b)$.
It follows from formula \eqref{eqn:h2} that
\begin{equation*}
\chi(w) = \tilde{d}^{-w} \cdot \tilde{h}(w;\lambda)
\cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=1}^{r} \varGamma\left(w+v_i\right)}{\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)},
\end{equation*}
and so $\chi(w)$ is holomorphic in the half-plane $\rRe \, w >
- \min\{ v_i \,:\, i = 1, \dots, n \}$.
On the other hand formula \eqref{eqn:chi} implies that
$\chi(w)$ is a periodic function of period one, since
$p$, $q$, and $r$ are positive integers with $r-p-q$ even.
Thus $\chi(w)$ must be an entire holomorphic and periodic function
of period one.
In particular $\chi(w)$ is bounded on the horizontal strip
$|\rIm \, z| \le 1$.
\par
Now notice that $\sin z$ admits a two-sided bound
$\frac{1}{4} \, e^{|\rIm \,z|} \le |\sin z| \le e^{|\rIm \, z|}$ on
the outer region $|\rIm \, z| \ge 1$.
Applying it to formula \eqref{eqn:chi} yields an estimate:
\[
|\chi(w)| \le |C_1| \,
\dfrac{e^{\pi p |\rIm \, z|} \cdot e^{\pi q |\rIm \, z|}}{\frac{1}{4} \,
e^{\pi r |\rIm \, z|}} + |C_2| \, \dfrac{ \prod_{i=1}^r
e^{\pi |\rIm \, z|}}{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \frac{1}{4} \, e^{\pi |\rIm \, z|}}
= 4|C_1| \, e^{-\pi(r-p-q)|\rIm \, z|} + 4^r |C_2|,
\]
and hence $|\chi(w)| \le 4|C_1| \, e^{-\pi(r-p-q)} + 4^r |C_2|$ on
$|\rIm \, z| \ge 1$.
Thus the entire function $\chi(w)$ is bounded on $\C_w$.
By Liouville's theorem $\chi(w)$ must be constant.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Given a positive integer $k$, we put $[k] := \{0,1,\dots, k-1\}$.
By division relation \eqref{eqn:division} there exist subsets
$I_p \subset [p]$, $I_q \subset [q]$, $J_p \subset [r-p]$,
$J_q \subset [r-q]$, with $0 \not \in I_p$ and $0 \not \in I_q$,
such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:IJ}
\prod_{i=1}^r (w+v_i) =
\prod_{i \in I_p} \left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i \in I_q} \left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\prod_{j \in J_p} \left(w+{\ts\frac{j-a}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{j \in J_q} \left(w+{\ts\frac{j-b}{r-q}}\right).
\end{equation}
If we put $\bar{I}_p := [p] \setminus I_p$ and $\bar{I}_q := [q] \setminus I_q$,
then equation \eqref{eqn:h3} becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:h4}
\dfrac{h(w;\lambda)}{\varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b)} = C_3 \cdot \tilde{d}^w
\cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i\in \bar{I}_p} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+a}{p}\right)
\prod_{i \in \bar{I}_q} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i+b}{q}\right)}{
\prod_{j \in J_p} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{j-a}{r-p}\right)
\prod_{j \in J_q} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{j-b}{r-q}\right)}.
\end{equation}
\par
To exploit formula \eqref{eqn:h4} we need a preliminary lemma.
A {\sl multi-set} is a set allowing repeated elements.
For multi-sets $S = \{s_1, \dots, s_m\}$ and $T = \{t_1, \dots, t_n\}$,
we write $S \succ T$ if $m \le n$ and there exists a re-indexing of
$t_1, \dots, t_n$ such that $s_i - t_i \in \Z_{\ge 0}$ for every
$i = 1, \dots, m$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:nni}
Let $S = \{s_1, \dots, s_m\}$ and $T = \{t_1, \dots, t_n\}$ be
multi-sets of real numbers.
If
\[
h(w) = \dfrac{\varGamma(w+s_1) \cdots \varGamma(w+s_m)}{\varGamma(w+t_1) \cdots \varGamma(w+t_n)}
\]
is an entire function of $w$, then $S \succ T$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
The proof is by induction on $m$.
When $m = 0$ the assertion is obvious as the numerator of $h(w)$ is $1$.
Let $m \ge 1$.
We may assume $s_1 \le \cdots \le s_m$.
An upper factor $\varGamma(w+s_1)$ of $h(w)$ has a pole at $w = -s_1$.
In order for $h(w)$ to be holomorphic, a lower factor
$\varGamma(w+t_j)$ must have a pole at the same point.
After a transposition of $t_j$ and $t_1$ we may put $j = 1$.
Then $-s_1+t_1=-r_1 \in \mathbb{Z}_{\le 0}$, that is,
$r_1 \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0}$.
Since $\varGamma(w+s_1)/\varGamma(w+t_1) = (w+t_1)_{r_1}$, we have
\[
h(w) = (w+t_1)_{r_1} \cdot h_1(w), \qquad \mbox{where} \qquad
h_1(w) := \dfrac{\varGamma(w+s_2) \cdots \varGamma(w+s_m)}{\varGamma(w+t_2) \cdots \varGamma(w+t_n)}.
\]
We claim that $h_1(w)$ is entire holomorphic.
If $r_1 = 0$ this is obvious since $h(w) = h_1(w)$.
Let $r_1 \ge 1$.
Any pole of $\varGamma(w+s_2) \cdots \varGamma(w+s_m)$ is separated
from all the roots of $(w+t_1)_{r_1}$, because we have
$-s_m \le \cdots \le -s_2 \le -s_1$ and the roots of $(w+t_1)_{r_1}$
are located at $-s_1+1 < -s_1+2 < \dots < -t_1$ in an increasing order.
Thus any pole of $h_1(w)$, if it exists, cannot be
canceled by a root of $(w+t_1)_{r_1}$.
Accordingly, $h_1(w)$ has no poles, since $h(w)$ has no poles.
Now we can apply the induction hypothesis to $h_1(w)$ to conclude the proof.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Since the left-hand side of equation \eqref{eqn:h4} is entire holomorphic
in $w$, so must be the gamma products on the right.
Thus Lemma \ref{lem:nni} yields
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:succ1}
\left\{ \frac{i+a}{p}\right\}_{i\in \bar{I}_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{i+b}{q}\right\}_{i \in \bar{I}_q}
\succ \,
\left\{\frac{j-a}{r-p}\right\}_{j \in J_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{j-b}{r-q}\right\}_{j \in J_q},
\end{equation}
where the both sides above are thought of as multi-sets.
Note that $0 \in \bar{I}_p$ and $0 \in \bar{I}_q$.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
     &      &     &     \\[-4mm]
case & type & $a$ & $b$ \\[1mm]
\hline
     &      &     &     \\[-3mm]
$1$ & $(\rI, \, \rI)$   & $\dfrac{p i}{r}$                         & $\dfrac{q j}{r}$ \\[3mm]
\hline
     &      &     &     \\[-3mm]
$2$ & $(\rII, \, \rII)$ & \hspace{2mm} $\dfrac{p \{ (r-p)i - q j \}}{r(r-p-q)}$ \hspace{2mm}
& \hspace{2mm} $\dfrac{q \{ (r-q)j - p i \}}{r(r-p-q)}$ \hspace{2mm} \\[5mm]
\hline
     &      &     &     \\[-3mm]
$3$ & $(\rI, \, \rII)$  & $\dfrac{p i}{r}$                         & $\dfrac{q (r j - p i)}{r(r-p)}$ \\[4mm]
\hline
     &      &     &     \\[-3mm]
$4$ & $(\rII, \, \rI)$  & $\dfrac{p (r i -q j)}{r(r-q)}$           & $\dfrac{q j}{r}$ \\[4mm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Formula for $(a, b)$ in terms of $(p,q,r)$ and $(i, j) \in \Z_{\ge 0}^2$.}
\label{tab:lem-ab}
\end{table}
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ab}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ there exists
a pair $(i, j)$ of nonnegative integers such that one of the four cases
in Table $\ref{tab:lem-ab}$ comes about.
In particular, in either case $a$ and $b$ must be rational numbers.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Since $0 \in \bar{I}_p$, condition \eqref{eqn:succ1} implies that either
$(\rI)_p$ or $(\rII)_p$ below holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\rI_p)$] there exists an integer $i \in J_p + (r-p) \, \Z_{\ge0}$ such that
$\dfrac{a}{p} = \dfrac{i-a}{r-p}$,
\item[$(\rII_p)$] there exists an integer $i \in J_q + (r-q) \, \Z_{\ge0}$ such that
$\dfrac{a}{p} = \dfrac{i-b}{r-q}$.
\end{enumerate}
In a similar manner, since $0 \in \bar{I}_q$, condition \eqref{eqn:succ1}
implies that either $(\rI)_q$ or $(\rII)_q$ below holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$(\rI_q)$] there exists an integer $j \in J_q + (r-q) \, \Z_{\ge0}$ such that
$\dfrac{b}{q} = \dfrac{j-b}{r-q}$,
\item[$(\rII_q)$] there exists an integer $j \in J_p + (r-p) \, \Z_{\ge0}$ such that
$\dfrac{b}{q} = \dfrac{j-a}{r-p}$.
\end{enumerate}
There are a total of four types $(\rI_p, \, \rI_q)$, $(\rII_p, \, \rII_q)$,
$(\rI_p, \, \rII_q)$, $(\rII_p, \, \rI_q)$, which are exactly the Cases
$1$--$4$ of Table \ref{tab:lem-ab} respectively, where suffixes
$* \in \{p, \, q\}$ of $\rI_*$ and $\rII_*$ are omitted.
In each case we have a pair of linear equations for $(a, b)$,
which can be solved as indicated in Table \ref{tab:lem-ab}.
\hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ab-J}
If $a > 0$ then $0 \not\in J_p$.
Similarly if $b > 0$ then $0 \not\in J_q$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
We use assertion (1) of Iwasaki \cite[Proposition 11.14]{Iwasaki} with
$k = 0$.
In the notation there it states that for each $k = 0, \dots, r-p-1$,
one has $(w-w_k^*)|\prod_{i=1}^r(w+v_i)$ if and only if
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ab-J1}
(\gamma_k^*+k)_{p+1} \cdot \cF_k(\beta_k^*; \gamma_k^*;x) = 0,
\end{equation}
unless \cite[condition (122a)]{Iwasaki} is satisfied, that is, unless
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ab-J2}
\tilde{\beta}_k^*, \,\, \tilde{\gamma}_k^* \in \Z, \qquad
0 \le - \tilde{\beta}_k^* \le - \tilde{\gamma}_k^* \le r-p-k-2.
\end{equation}
When $k = 0$, definitions in
\cite[formula (117) and Proposition 11.12]{Iwasaki} read
\[
w_0^* = \dfrac{a}{r-p}, \qquad
\gamma_0^* = r w_0^* =  \dfrac{r a}{r-p}, \qquad
\tilde{\gamma}_0^* = 2-r(w_0^* +1) = 2-r-\dfrac{r a}{r-p},
\]
so condition $- \tilde{\gamma}_k^* \le r-p-k-2$ in \eqref{eqn:ab-J2}
is equivalent to $a \le -p(r-p)/r \,\, (< 0)$.
Thus if $a > 0$ then condition \eqref{eqn:ab-J2} with $k = 0$ is not
fulfilled.
When $k = 0$, condition \eqref{eqn:ab-J1} becomes
$(\gamma_0^*)_{p+1} = 0$, since $\cF_0(\beta_0^*; \gamma_0^*;x) = 1$
by \cite[definition (116)]{Iwasaki}.
But if $a > 0$ then $\gamma_0^* > 0$ and so $(\gamma_0^*)_{p+1} > 0$,
which means that $w-w_0^* = w + \frac{0-a}{r-p}$ is {\sl not} a factor
of $\prod_{i=1}^r(w+v_i)$.
This in turn implies $0 \not\in J_p$ by formula $\eqref{eqn:IJ}$.
The implication $b > 0 \Rightarrow 0 \not\in J_q$ is proved in
the same way. \hfill $\Box$
\section{Duality Revisited and Finite Cardinality} \label{sec:dr-fc}
Consider a solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ of type $(\rA)$
and its dual $\lambda = (p,q,r;a',b';x) \in \cD^-$.
Then the associated matrix \eqref{eqn:matrix} is said to be of type
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:type}
\begin{pmatrix}
J_1 & J_2 \\
J_3 & J_4
\end{pmatrix}, \qquad J_1, J_2, J_3, J_4 \in \{\rI, \, \rII\},
\end{equation}
if the top row $(a, b)$ of matrix \eqref{eqn:matrix} is of type
$(J_1, J_2)$, while its bottom row $(a', b')$ is of type $(J_3, J_4)$
in the sense of Table \ref{tab:lem-ab}.
\begin{table}[t]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
     &   &   &   &   &   &   &   \\[-3mm]
case & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 \\[1mm]
\hline
     &   &   &   &   &   &   &   \\[-3mm]
type &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rI \\[1mm] \rI & \rI \end{matrix}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rII & \rII \\[2mm] \rII & \rII \end{matrix}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rII \\[2mm] \rI & \rII \end{matrix}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rI \\[2mm] \rI & \rII \end{matrix}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rII & \rII \\[2mm] \rII & \rI \end{matrix}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rII \\[2mm] \rII & \rI \end{matrix}$ &
$\begin{matrix} \rI & \rI \\[2mm] \rII & \rII \end{matrix}$ \\[4mm]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Types of matrix \eqref{eqn:matrix} up to its column and/or row exchanges.}
\label{tab:type}
\end{table}
There are a total of seven types up to column and/or row exchanges of
the matrix, which are tabulated in Table \ref{tab:type}, where
parentheses in \eqref{eqn:type} are omitted.
\par
The essential parts of definition \eqref{eqn:duality} for duality can be
rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:duality2}
a + a' = 1- \dfrac{2 p}{r}, \qquad b + b' = 1- \dfrac{2 q}{r}.
\end{equation}
In each case of Table \ref{tab:type} we shall see what kinds of
consequences are derived from equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}.
In this section we employ the notation introduced in item (1) of
Remark \ref{rem:ab}.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:case1-6}
In cases $1$--$6$ of Table $\ref{tab:type}$, equations
\eqref{eqn:duality2} give rise to the conditions in Table $\ref{tab:ab}$,
regarding items $(1)$--$(4)$ mentioned in Theorem $\ref{thm:ab}$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}. This lemma is proved by case-by-case treatments presented
below. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 1}. By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of
nonnegative integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c1-1}
a = \dfrac{p i}{r}, \qquad b = \dfrac{q j}{r}, \qquad
a' = \dfrac{p i'}{r}, \qquad b' =  \dfrac{q j'}{r}.
\end{equation}
Substituting formula \eqref{eqn:c1-1} into equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}
yields $i + i' = \frac{r}{p} -2 \in \Z$ and $j + j' = \frac{r}{q} -2 \in \Z$,
which implies $p|r$ and $q|r$, so that we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ls-c1}
i + i' = r_p -2, \qquad  j + j' = r_q -2, \qquad
i, j, i', j' \in \Z_{\ge 0}.
\end{equation}
Formula \eqref{eqn:c1-1} then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c1-2}
a = \dfrac{i}{r_p}, \qquad b = \dfrac{j}{r_q}, \qquad
a' = \dfrac{i'}{r_p}, \qquad b' =  \dfrac{j'}{r_q}.
\end{equation}
Thus all the conditions in case 1 of Table \ref{tab:ab} have been
obtained. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 2}. By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of
nonnegative integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c2-1}
\begin{array}{rlrl}
a &= \dfrac{p \{(r-p)i-q j\}}{r(r-p-q)}, \qquad &
b &= \dfrac{q \{(r-q)j-p i\}}{r(r-p-q)}, \\[4mm]
a' &= \dfrac{p \{(r-p)i'-q j'\}}{r(r-p-q)}, \qquad &
b' &= \dfrac{q \{(r-q)j'-p i'\}}{r(r-p-q)}.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Substituting formula \eqref{eqn:c2-1} into equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}
yields
\[
\resizebox{0.9\hsize}{!}{$\displaystyle
(r-p) (i+i') - q(j+j') = (r-p-q) \left(\textstyle \frac{r}{p} - 2\right),
\qquad
-p (i+i') +(r-q)(j+j') = (r-p-q) \left(\textstyle \frac{r}{q} - 2\right).
$}
\]
They are solved with respect to $i+i'$ and $j+j'$ to obtain
$i+i' = (r-p-q)/p \in \Z$ and $j+j' = (r-p-q)/q \in \Z$, which imply
$p|(r-p-q)$ and $q|(r-p-q)$, so that we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ls-c2}
i+i' = (r-p-q)_p, \qquad j+j' = (r-p-q)_q, \qquad
i, j, i', j' \in \Z_{\ge 0}.
\end{equation}
Formula \eqref{eqn:c2-1} then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c2-2}
a = \dfrac{(r-p)i-q j}{r(r-p-q)_p}, \quad
b = \dfrac{(r-q)j-p i}{r(r-p-q)_q}, \quad
a' = \dfrac{(r-p)i'-q j'}{r(r-p-q)_p}, \quad
b' = \dfrac{(r-q)j'-p i'}{r(r-p-q)_q}.
\end{equation}
Thus all the conditions in case 2 of Table \ref{tab:ab} have been
obtained. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 3}. By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of
nonnegative integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c3-1}
a = \dfrac{p i}{r}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{q (r j- p i)}{r(r-p)}, \qquad
a'= \dfrac{p i'}{r}, \qquad
b'= \dfrac{q(r j'- p i')}{r(r-p)}.
\end{equation}
Substituting formula \eqref{eqn:c3-1} into equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}
yields $i+i' = \frac{r}{p}-2 \in \Z$ and $r(j+j')-p(i+i') = (r-p)
\left(\frac{r}{q}-2\right)$, the former of which is put into the
latter to yields $j+j' = (r-p-q)/q \in \Z$.
Thus we have $p|r$ and $q|(r-p-q)$, and hence
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ls-c3}
i+i' = r_p -2, \qquad j+j' = (r-p-q)_q, \qquad
i, j, i', j' \in \Z_{\ge 0}.
\end{equation}
Formula \eqref{eqn:c3-1} then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c3-2}
a = \dfrac{i}{r_p}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{r_p \, j - i}{r_p (r-p)_q}, \qquad
a'= \dfrac{i'}{r_p}, \qquad
b'= \dfrac{r_p \, j' - i'}{r_p (r-p)_q}.
\end{equation}
Thus all the conditions in case 3 of Table \ref{tab:ab} have been
obtained. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 4}. By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of
nonnegative integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c4-1}
a = \dfrac{p i}{r}, \qquad b = \dfrac{q j}{r}, \qquad
a' = \dfrac{p i'}{r}, \qquad b' = \dfrac{q (r j'-p i')}{r(r-p)}.
\end{equation}
Substituting formula \eqref{eqn:c4-1} into equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}
yields
\[
i+i' = \textstyle \frac{r}{p} - 2 \in \Z, \qquad
(r-p)j - p i' + r j' = (r-p)\left(\textstyle \frac{r}{q}-2\right).
\]
The former equation implies $p|r$ and $i+i' = r_p - 2$, while the
division of the latter by $p$ makes $(r_p -1)j -i' + r_p \, j' = (r_p -1)
\left(\frac{r}{q} - 2\right)$, to which $i+i'=r_p - 2$ is added to give
$i + (r_p-1)j + r_p \, j' = r_p(r-p-q)/q \in \Z$.
Summing up we have $q|r_p(r-p-q)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ls-c4}
i+i' = r_p - 2, \qquad i + (r_p-1)j + r_p \, j' = (r_p(r-p-q))_q,
\qquad i, j, i', j' \in \Z_{\ge 0}.
\end{equation}
Formula \eqref{eqn:c4-1} then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c4-2}
a = \dfrac{i}{r_p}, \qquad b = \dfrac{q j}{r}, \qquad
a' = \dfrac{i'}{r_p}, \qquad b' =
\dfrac{r_p \, j'- i'}{(r_p(r -p))_q}.
\end{equation}
Thus all the conditions in case 4 of Table \ref{tab:ab} have been
obtained. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 5}. By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of
nonnegative integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c5-1}
a = \dfrac{p \{(r-p)i-q j\}}{r(r-p-q)}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{q \{(r-q) j- p i\}}{r(r-p-q)}, \qquad
a'= \dfrac{p(r i'-q j')}{r(r-q)}, \qquad
b'= \dfrac{q j'}{r}.
\end{equation}
Substituting formula \eqref{eqn:c5-1} into equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}
yields
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:c5-2}
\begin{align}
\resizebox{0.6\hsize}{!}{$\displaystyle (r-p)(r-q) i -q(r-q) j + r(r-p-q)i' - q(r-p-q) j'$}
&= \resizebox{0.2\hsize}{!}{$(r-p-q)(r-q)\left(\frac{r}{p} - 2\right)$},
\label{eqn:c5-2a} \\
-p i + (r-q)j + (r-p-q) j' &=
(r-p-q)\left(\textstyle \frac{r}{q}-2\right). \label{eqn:c5-2b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Calculating $\eqref{eqn:c5-2a} + q \times \eqref{eqn:c5-2b}$ we have
$i+i' = (r-p-q)/p \in \Z$, which implies $p|(r-p-q)$ and so
$i+i' = (r-p-q)_p$.
Division of \eqref{eqn:c5-2b} by $p$ makes $-i + (r-q)_p \, j +
(r-p-q)_p \, j' = (r-p-q)_p \left(\frac{r}{q}-2\right)$, to which
$i+i' = (r-p-q)_p$ is added to yield $i' + (r-q)_p \, j +
(r-p-q)_p \, j' = (r-q)(r-p-q)_p/q \in \Z$.
Summing up we have $q|r(r-p-q)_p$ and
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:ls-c5}
\begin{align}
i+i' &= (r-p-q)_p,  & i, i' &\in \Z_{\ge 0}, \label{eqn:ls-c5a} \\
i' + (r-q)_p \, j + (r-p-q)_p \, j' &= ((r-q)(r-p-q)_p)_q, &
i', j, j' &\in \Z_{\ge 0}. \label{eqn:ls-c5b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Formula \eqref{eqn:c5-1} then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c5-3}
a = \dfrac{(r-p)i-q j}{r(r-p-q)_p}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{(r-q)_p \, j- i}{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q}, \qquad
a'= \dfrac{r i'-q j'}{r(r-q)_p}, \qquad
b'= \dfrac{q j'}{r}.
\end{equation}
Thus all the conditions in case 5 of Table \ref{tab:ab} have been
obtained. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 6}. By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of
nonnegative integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c6-1}
a = \dfrac{p i}{r}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{q (r j- p i)}{r(r-p)}, \qquad
a'= \dfrac{p(r i'- q j')}{r(r-q)}, \qquad
b'= \dfrac{q j'}{r}.
\end{equation}
Substituting formula \eqref{eqn:c6-1} into equations \eqref{eqn:duality2}
yields
\[
(r-q)i - q j' + r i' = (r-q)\left(\textstyle \frac{r}{p}-2\right), \qquad
-p i + (r-p)j'+ r j  = (r-p)\left(\textstyle \frac{r}{q}-2\right).
\]
They are recast to $(r-p-q)i +(r-p) i' + q j = (r-p)(r-p-q)/p \in \Z$
and $(r-p-q)j'+ p i' + (r-q)j = (r-q)(r-p-q)/q \in \Z$.
Thus $p|r(r-p-q)$ and $q|r(r-p-q)$, so that
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:ls-c6}
\begin{align}
(r-p-q)i +(r-p) i' + q j &= ((r-p)(r-p-q))_p, & i, i', j &\in \Z_{\ge0},
\label{eqn:ls-c6a} \\
(r-p-q)j'+ p i' + (r-q)j &= ((r-q)(r-p-q))_q, & j', i', j &\in \Z_{\ge0}.
\label{eqn:ls-c6b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Formula \eqref{eqn:c6-1} then becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c6-2}
a = \dfrac{p i}{r}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{r j- p i}{(r(r-p))_q}, \qquad
a'= \dfrac{r i'- q j'}{(r(r-q))_p}, \qquad
b'= \dfrac{q j'}{r}.
\end{equation}
Thus all the conditions in case 6 of Table \ref{tab:ab} have been
obtained. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:case7}
Case $7$ of Table $\ref{tab:type}$ cannot occur.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
By Lemma \ref{lem:ab} there exists a quadruple of nonnegative
integers $(i,j;i',j')$ such that
\[
a = \dfrac{p i}{r}, \qquad
b = \dfrac{q j}{r}, \qquad
a' = \dfrac{p \{(r-p) i'-q j'\}}{r(r-p-q)}, \qquad
b' =  \dfrac{q \{(r-q) j'-p i'\}}{r(r-p-q)}.
\]
Substituting these into relations \eqref{eqn:duality2} yields
\begin{align*}
(r-p-q) i + (r-p) i' -q j' &= (r-p-q)\left(\textstyle \frac{r}{p} -2\right), \\
(r-p-q) j + (r-q) j' -p j' &= (r-p-q)\left(\textstyle \frac{r}{q} -2\right),
\end{align*}
which can readily be converted into
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:c7-1}
\begin{align}
(r-q) i + q j + r i' &= \textstyle \frac{r}{p} -2 \in \Z, \label{eqn:c7-1a} \\
p i + (r-p) j + r j' &= \textstyle \frac{r}{q} -2 \in \Z, \label{eqn:c7-1b},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
which imply $p|r$ and $q|r$.
Now $r$ must be even, for otherwise $r$ is odd and hence so are
$p$ and $q$ by $p|r$ and $q|r$, but then $r-p-q \equiv 1-1-1 \equiv
1 \mod 2$, that is, $r-p-q$ is odd, which is absurd since it must be
even by assertion (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:D}.
If $i' \ge 1$ then \eqref{eqn:c7-1a} gives an absurd estimate
$r = (r-q) \cdot 0 + q \cdot 0 + r \cdot 1 \le (r-q) i + q j + r i' =
r_p -2 \le r-2$.
Thus we must have $i' = 0$.
In a similar manner equation \eqref{eqn:c7-1b} forces $j' = 0$.
Therefore \eqref{eqn:c7-1} reduces to
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:c7-2}
\begin{align}
(r-q) i + q j &= r_p -2, \label{eqn:c7-2a} \\
p i + (r-p) j &= r_q -2, \label{eqn:c7-2b},
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
If $i \ge 1$ and $j \ge 1$ then \eqref{eqn:c7-2a} gives an absurd
estimate $r = (r-q) \cdot 1 + q \cdot 1 \le (r-q) i + q j = r_p -2
\le r-2$.
Thus we must have either $i = 0$ or $j = 0$.
Here we may and shall assume $j = 0$ due to the symmetry of conditions
\eqref{eqn:c7-2a} and \eqref{eqn:c7-2b}.
Then \eqref{eqn:c7-2a} and \eqref{eqn:c7-2b} yield
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:c7-3}
i = \frac{r_p-2}{r-q} = \frac{r_q-2}{p} \in \Z,
\end{equation}
which in particular implies $p|(r_q-2)$.
Now $r_q$ must be even, for otherwise $r_q$ is odd and hence so is
$p$ by $p|(r_q-2)$, while $q$ is even since $r = q r_q$ is even with
$r_q$ odd, but then $r-p-q \equiv 0-1-0 \equiv 1 \mod 2$, that is,
$r-p-q$ is odd, which is again absurd.
By the second equality in \eqref{eqn:c7-3} we have
$2 q = 4 r - 2 p - r \cdot r_q = 4 r - 2 p - 2 r \cdot r_{2q}$, that is,
$q/p = 2 r_p - 1 - r_p \cdot r_{2q} \in \Z$, where $r_{2 q}$ makes
sense as $r_q$ is even.
Thus $p|q$ and so we have integer equations
$1 = 2 r_p - q_p - r_p \cdot r_{2 q} = 4 r_{2 q}
\cdot q_p - q_p - 2 (r_{2 q})^2 q_p =
q_p \cdot \{4 r_{2 q} - 2 (r_{2 q})^2 - 1\}$, where
$r_p = 2 r_{2 q} \cdot q_p$ is used in the second equality.
Thus $q_p = 1$ and $4 r_{2 q}- 2 (r_{2 q})^2 -1 = 1$,
the former of which means $p = q$ while the latter yields
$r_{2 q} (2-r_{2 q}) = 1$, that is, $r_{2 q} = 1$ and so
$r = 2 q$.
Then $r-p-q = r-2 q = 0$, which is absurd since we have
$r-p-q > 0$ in $\cD^-$.
This last contradiction shows that the occurrence of case $7$ in
Table \ref{tab:type} is impossible. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:ab-bound}
We must have $-1 < a, \, b, \, a', \, b' < 1$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}. The lemma is proved by a case-by-case check. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 1}. From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c1} we have
$0 \le i, \, i' \le r_p-2$ and $0 \le j, \, j' \le r_q-2$,
so that estimate $0 \le a, \, a', \, b, \, b' < 1$ follows from
representation \eqref{eqn:c1-2}. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 2}. From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c2} we have $i \ge 0$
and $j \le (r-p-q)_q$ as well as $i \le (r-p-q)_p$ and $j \ge 0$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c2-2} that
\begin{align*}
1+ a &= \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p+(r-p)i-q j}{r(r-p-q)_p} \ge
\dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p - q(r-p-q)_q}{r(r-p-q)_p} \\
&= \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p - p (r-p-q)_p}{r(r-p-q)_p} = \dfrac{r-p}{r} > 0, \\
1- a &= \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p-(r-p)i+q j}{r(r-p-q)_p} \ge
\dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p - (r-p)(r-p-q)_p}{r(r-p-q)_p}
= \dfrac{p}{r} > 0,
\end{align*}
which shows $-1 < a < 1$.
In similar manners we have $-1 < b, \, a', \, b' < 1$. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 3}. From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c3} we have
$0 \le i, \, i' \le r_p-2$, so that estimate $0 \le a, \, a' < 1$
follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c3-2}.
Similarly, from condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c3} we have $j \ge 0$ and
$i \le r_p-2$ as well as $j \le (r-p-q)_q$ and $i \ge 0$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c3-2} that
\begin{align*}
1+b &= \dfrac{r_p(r-p)_q + r_p j-i}{r_p(r-p)_q}
\ge \dfrac{r_p(r-p)_q -(r_p -2)}{r_p(r-p)_q} =
\dfrac{r_p(r-p-q)_q + 2}{r_p(r-p)_q} > 0, \\
1-b &= \dfrac{r_p(r-p)_q - r_p j+i}{r_p(r-p)_q}
\ge \dfrac{r_p(r-p)_q -r_p (r-p-q)_q}{r_p(r-p)_q} =
\dfrac{1}{(r-p)_q} > 0,
\end{align*}
which shows $-1 < b < 1$.
In a similar manner we have $-1 < b' < 1$.
\\[1mm]
{\bf Case 4}. From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c4} we have
$0 \le i, \, i' \le r_p-2$, so that estimate $0 \le a, \, a' < 1$
follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c4-2}.
Similarly, from condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c4} we have
$0 \le (r_p -1) j \le (r_p(r-p-q))_q$, that is,
$0 \le q j \le r(r-p-q)/(r-p)$.
Thus representation \eqref{eqn:c4-2} yields
\[
0 \le b = \dfrac{q j}{r} \le \dfrac{r-p-q}{r-p} < 1.
\]
From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c4} we have $j' \ge 0$ and $i' \le r_p-2$
as well as $r_p j' \le (r_p(r-p-q))_q$ and $i' \ge 0$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c4-2} that
\begin{align*}
1+b' &= \dfrac{(r_p(r-p))_q + r_p j' - i'}{(r_p(r-p))_q}
\ge \dfrac{(r_p(r-p))_q -(r_p -2)}{(r_p(r-p))_q} =
 \dfrac{(r_p(r-p-q))_q + 2}{(r_p(r-p))_q} > 0, \\
1-b' &= \dfrac{(r_p(r-p))_q - r_p j' + i'}{(r_p(r-p))_q}
\ge \dfrac{(r_p(r-p))_q -(r_p(r-p-q))_q}{(r_p(r-p))_q} =
 \dfrac{q}{r-p} > 0.
\end{align*}
Therefore we have $0 \le a, \, a', \, b < 1$ and $-1 < b' < 1$. \\[1mm]
{\bf Case 5}. From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c5b} we have
$(r-q)_p j \le ((r-q)(r-p-q)_p)_q$, that is, $q j \le r-p-q =
p(r-p-q)_p$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c5-3} and $i \ge 0$ that
\[
1+a = \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p + (r-p)i-q j}{r(r-p-q)_p}
\ge \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p - p(r-p-q)_p}{r(r-p-q)_p} = \frac{r-p}{r} > 0.
\]
From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c5a} we have $i \le (r-p-q)_p$.
It then follows from \eqref{eqn:c5-3} and $j \ge 0$ that
\begin{align*}
1-a &= \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p - (r-p)i+ q j}{r(r-p-q)_p}
\ge \dfrac{r(r-p-q)_p - (r-p)(r-p-q)_p}{r(r-p-q)_p} = \frac{p}{r} > 0, \\
1+b &= \dfrac{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q + (r-q)_p j -i}{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q}
\ge \dfrac{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q -(r-p-q)_p}{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q} =
\dfrac{r-q}{r} > 0.
\end{align*}
Since $(r-q)_p j \le ((r-q)(r-p-q)_p)_q$ and $i \ge 0$,
representation \eqref{eqn:c5-3} yields
\[
1-b = \dfrac{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q -(r-q)_p j + i}{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q -(r-q)_p j + i}
\ge \dfrac{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q - ((r-q)(r-p-q)_p)_q}{(r(r-p-q)_p)_q -(r-q)_p j + i}
= \dfrac{q}{r} > 0.
\]
From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c5b} we have $(r-p-q)_p j' \le ((r-q)(r-p-q)_p)_q$,
that is, $q j' \le r-q = p(r-q)_p$.
Thus it follows from formula \eqref{eqn:c5-3} and $i' \ge 0$ that
\[
1+a' = \dfrac{r(r-q)_p + r i'-q j'}{r(r-q)_p}
\ge  \dfrac{r(r-q)_p - p(r-q)_p}{r(r-q)_p} = \dfrac{r-p}{r} > 0.
\]
From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c5a} we have $i' \le (r-p-q)_p$.
Then it follows from \eqref{eqn:c5-3} and $j' \ge 0$ that
\[
1-a' = \dfrac{r(r-q)_p - r i'+ q j'}{r(r-q)_p}
\ge  \dfrac{r(r-q)_p - r(r-p-q)_p}{r(r-q)_p} = \dfrac{1}{(r-q)_p} > 0.
\]
Finally, since $0 \le q j' \le r-q$,
we have $0 \le b' = q j'/r \le (r-q)/r < 1$.
\\[1mm]
{\bf Case 6}. From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c6a} we have $(r-p-q) i \le
((r-p)(r-p-q))_p$, that is, $p i \le r-p$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c6-2} and $i \ge 0$ that
$0 \le a = p i/r \le (r-p)/r < 1$.
Similarly, we have $0 \le b' < 1$.
From condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c6b} we have $(r-p-q)j' \le ((r-q)(r-p-q))_q$,
that is, $q j' \le r-q$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c6-2} and $i' \ge 0$ that
\[
1+ a' = \dfrac{(r(r-q))_p + r i'-q j'}{(r(r-q))_p}
\ge \dfrac{(r(r-q))_p - (r-q)}{(r(r-q))_p} = \dfrac{r-p}{r} > 0.
\]
On the other hand, from condition \eqref{eqn:ls-c6a} we have
$(r-p)i' \le ((r-p)(r-p-q))_p$, that is, $p i' \le r-p-q$.
Thus it follows from representation \eqref{eqn:c6-2} and $j' \ge 0$ that
\[
1-a' = \dfrac{(r(r-q))_p - r i' + q j'}{(r(r-q))_p}
\ge \dfrac{(r(r-q))_p - r i'}{(r(r-q))_p}
= \dfrac{(r-q) - p i'}{r-q} \ge \dfrac{p}{r-q} > 0.
\]
In a similar manner we have $-1 < b < 1$.  \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:incl}
We have $0 \le a, \, b < 1$ and there exist inclusions of multi-sets:
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:incl}
\begin{align}
\left\{ \frac{i+a}{p}\right\}_{i\in \bar{I}_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{i+b}{q}\right\}_{i \in \bar{I}_q}
& \subset \,
\left\{\frac{j-a}{r-p}\right\}_{j \in J_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{j-b}{r-q}\right\}_{j \in J_q},
\label{eqn:incl-a} \\
\left\{ \frac{i+a}{p}\right\}_{i\in I_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{i+b}{q}\right\}_{i \in I_q}
& \subset \,
\left\{\frac{j-a}{r-p}\right\}_{j \in \bar{J}_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{j-b}{r-q}\right\}_{j \in \bar{J}_q},
\label{eqn:incl-b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\bar{I}_p := [p] \setminus I_p$, $\bar{I}_q := [q] \setminus I_q$,
$\bar{J}_p := [r-p] \setminus J_p$ and $\bar{J}_q := [r-q] \setminus J_q$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}. Recall that $J_p \subset [r-p] = \{0, \dots, r-p-1\}$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:ab-bound} we have $-a < 1$ so that
$(j-a)/(r-p) < (r-p-1+1)/(r-p) = 1$ for any $j \in J_p$.
If $a \le 0$ then obviously we have $(j-a)/(r-p) \ge 0$ for any
$j \in J_p$.
If $a > 0$ then we have $J_p \subset \{1, \dots, r-p-1\}$ by
Lemma \ref{lem:ab-J} and $-a > -1$ by Lemma \ref{lem:ab-bound}, so that
$(j-a)/(r-p) > (1-1)/(r-p) = 0$ for any $j \in J_p$.
In either case we have $0 \le (j-a)/(r-p) < 1$ for any $j \in J_p$.
In a similar manner we have $0 \le (j-b)/(r-q) < 1$ for any $j \in J_q$.
So the multi-set on the right-hand side of \eqref{eqn:succ1} lies
in the interval $[0, \, 1)$.
Since $0 \in \bar{I}_p$ and $0 \in \bar{I}_q$, the numbers
$a/p$ and $b/q$ belong to the multi-set on the left so that they
must be nonnegative by the binary relation \eqref{eqn:succ1}.
Hence we have $a, \, b \ge 0$, which together with
Lemma \ref{lem:ab-bound} yields the estimate $0 \le a, \, b < 1$.
\par
Since $0 \le a < 1$ and $\bar{I}_p \subset \{0, \dots, p-1\}$ we
have $0 = (0+0)/p \le (i+a)/p < (p-1+1)/p = 1$ for any $i \in \bar{I}_p$.
In a similar manner we have $0 \le (i+b)/q < 1$ for any $i \in \bar{I}_q$.
Thus the multi-set on the left-hand side of \eqref{eqn:succ1} also lies
in the interval $[0, \, 1)$, as does the multi-set on the right.
Therefore binary relation \eqref{eqn:succ1} mus be the inclusion
\eqref{eqn:incl-a}.
\par
To prove inclusion \eqref{eqn:incl-b}, we use the dual version of
inclusion \eqref{eqn:incl-a}:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:incl-a-p}
\left\{ \frac{i'+a'}{p}\right\}_{i' \in \bar{I}'_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{i'+b'}{q}\right\}_{i' \in \bar{I}'_q}
\subset \,
\left\{\frac{j'-a'}{r-p}\right\}_{j' \in J'_p} \bigcup \,\,
\left\{\frac{j'-b'}{r-q}\right\}_{j' \in J'_q},
\end{equation}
where $I'_p$, $I'_q$, $J'_p$, $J'_q$ are the dual counterparts
of $I_p$, $I_q$, $J_p$, $J_q$, with $\bar{I}'_p := [p] \setminus
I'_p$ and $\bar{I}'_q := [r-q] \setminus I'_q$.
Dividing equation \eqref{eqn:vi-s} by \eqref{eqn:IJ}, we have
\[
\prod_{i=1}^r (w+v_i^*) =
\prod_{i \in \bar{I}_p} \left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i \in \bar{I}_q} \left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\prod_{j \in \bar{J}_p} \left(w+{\ts\frac{j-a}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{j \in \bar{J}_q} \left(w+{\ts\frac{j-b}{r-q}}\right).
\]
Taking the reflection $w \mapsto w'$ as in \eqref{eqn:w-p} and
using definitions \eqref{eqn:duality} and \eqref{eqn:vi-p} there
yield
\begin{align*}
\prod_{i=1}^r (w+v_i') &=
\prod_{i \in \bar{I}_p} \left(w+{\ts\frac{(p-1-i)+a'}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i \in \bar{I}_q} \left(w+{\ts\frac{(q-1-i)+b'}{q}}\right) \\
&\phantom{=} \times
\prod_{j \in \bar{J}_p} \left(w+{\ts\frac{(r-p-1-j)-a'}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{j \in \bar{J}_q} \left(w+{\ts\frac{(r-q-1-j)-b'}{r-q}}\right),
\end{align*}
which together with the definitions of $I'_s$, $\bar{I}'_s$ and
$J'_s$, $s \in \{p, \, q\}$, implies
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:IJ-p}
\begin{split}
I'_s &= \{ i' = s-1-i \,:\, i \in \bar{I}_s \}, \qquad
\bar{I}'_s = \{ i' = s -1-i \,:\, i \in I_s \}, \\
J'_s &= \{ j' = r-s-1-j \,:\, j \in \bar{J}_s \}
\qquad \qquad (s \in \{p, \, q\}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Under the correspondences $i' \leftrightarrow i$ and
$j' \leftrightarrow j$ in \eqref{eqn:IJ-p}, it follows from
definition \eqref{eqn:duality} that
\[
\dfrac{i'+c'}{s} = 1 - \frac{2}{r} - \dfrac{i+c}{s}, \qquad
\dfrac{j'-c'}{r-s} = 1 - \frac{2}{r} - \dfrac{j-c}{r-s},
\qquad ((s, c) = (p, a), \, (q, b)).
\]
Thus inclusion \eqref{eqn:incl-a-p} and relation \eqref{eqn:IJ-p}
lead to inclusion \eqref{eqn:incl-b}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:ab}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ and its
dual $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda' = (p,q,r;a',b';x) \in \cD^-$ the pair
$(\lambda, \lambda')$ must be in one of the six cases in
Table $\ref{tab:ab}$ and furthermore we must have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:estimate2}
a, b, \, v_1, \dots, v_r \in \Q; \qquad
0 \le a, \, b < 1, \qquad 0 \le v_1, \dots, v_r < 1,
\end{equation}
along with the same condition for $a', b'$ and $v_1', \dots, v_r'$.
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof}.
The first assertion concerning Table \ref{tab:ab} is an immediate
consequence of Lemmas \ref{lem:case1-6} and \ref{lem:case7}.
To prove the second assertion \eqref{eqn:estimate2}, notice that the
rationality of $a$ and $b$ is already proved in Lemma \ref{lem:ab},
while $v_1, \dots, v_r \in \Q$ follows from $a, b \in \Q$ and
formula \eqref{eqn:IJ}.
The estimate $0 \le a, \, b < 1$ is already proved in
Lemma \ref{lem:incl}, while $0 \le v_1, \dots, v_r < 1$ follows from
a combination of $0 \le a, \, b < 1$, formula \eqref{eqn:IJ} and
Lemma \ref{lem:ab-J}.
Thus we have condition \eqref{eqn:estimate2}.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Theorem \ref{thm:ab} is the same as Proposition \ref{prop:ab},
while Theorem \ref{thm:D-r} is contained in the following.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:division}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ the
division relation \eqref{eqn:division2} holds true along with
yet another division relation
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:division3}
\prod_{i=0}^{p-1} \left(w+{\ts\frac{i+a}{p}}\right)
\prod_{i=0}^{q-1} \left(w+{\ts\frac{i+b}{q}}\right)
\,\, \Big| \,\,
\prod_{j=0}^{r-p-1} \left(w+{\ts\frac{j-a}{r-p}}\right)
\prod_{j=0}^{r-q-1} \left(w+{\ts\frac{j-b}{r-q}}\right)
\qquad \mbox{in \,\, $\Q[w]$},
\end{equation}
and hence one can arrange $v_1, \dots, v_r$ so that equation
\eqref{eqn:vi-pq} holds.
With this convention the reciprocal $\check{\lambda}$ of $\lambda$
becomes a solution to Problem $\rI$ in $\cF^-$ with gamma product
formula
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-c2}
f(w; \check{\lambda}) = \check{C} \cdot \check{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-p-q-1}\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r-p-q} \right)}{
\prod_{i=1}^{r-p-q} \varGamma\left(w+ \check{v}_i \right)},
\end{equation}
where $\check{C}$ is a positive constant, $\check{d}$ and
$\check{v}_1, \dots, \check{v}_{r-p-q}$ are given by formulas
\eqref{eqn:d-c} and \eqref{eqn:vi-c}.
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof}.
The inclusions of multi-sets \eqref{eqn:incl-a} and \eqref{eqn:incl-b}
are equivalent to the division relations
\begin{subequations} \label{eqn:division4}
\begin{align}
\prod_{i\in \bar{I}_p} \left(w+ \ts \frac{i+a}{p} \right)
\prod_{i \in \bar{I}_q} \left(w+ \ts \frac{i+b}{q} \right) \,\,
& \Big | \,
\prod_{j \in J_p} \left(w+ \ts \frac{j-a}{r-p} \right)
\prod_{j \in J_q} \left(w+ \ts \frac{j-b}{r-q} \right),
\label{eqn:division4a} \\
\prod_{i\in I_p} \left(w+ \ts \frac{i+a}{p} \right)
\prod_{i \in I_q} \left(w+ \ts \frac{i+b}{q} \right) \,\,
& \Big | \,
\prod_{j \in \bar{J}_p} \left(w+ \ts \frac{j-a}{r-p} \right)
\prod_{j \in \bar{J}_q} \left(w+ \ts \frac{j-b}{r-q} \right),
\label{eqn:division4b}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
in $\C[w]$, respectively.
Then division relation \eqref{eqn:division2} follows from formula
\eqref{eqn:IJ} and relation \eqref{eqn:division4a}, while division
relation \eqref{eqn:division3} is derived by multiplying relations
\eqref{eqn:division4a} and \eqref{eqn:division4b} together.
\par
Now that division relation \eqref{eqn:division2} is proved, the
convention \eqref{eqn:vi-pq} recasts formula \eqref{eqn:h3} to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:h5}
h(w;\lambda) = C_3 \cdot \tilde{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma((r-p-q)w+1-a-b)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-p-q}
\varGamma\left(w+v_i\right)}.
\end{equation}
Replacing $w$ by $\hat{w}$ in formula \eqref{eqn:f-h}, where $\hat{w}$
is defined by formula \eqref{eqn:w-h}, we have
\[
\begin{split}
f(w; \check{\lambda})
&= x^{r \check{w}-1} (1-x)^{(p+q-r)\check{w}+a+b} \,
h(\hat{w}; \lambda) \\[2mm]
&= C_3 \cdot x^{r \check{w}-1} (1-x)^{(p+q-r)\check{w}+a+b} \,
\tilde{d}^{\hat{w}} \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma((r-p-q) \hat{w} +1-a-b)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-p-q}
\varGamma\left(\hat{w} + v_i\right)} \\[2mm]
&= C_4 \cdot x^{r w} (1-x)^{(p+q-r) w} \, \tilde{d}^w \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma\left( (r-p-q)w \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-p-q}
\varGamma\left(w + \check{v}_i\right)},
\end{split}
\]
where \eqref{eqn:h5} is used in the second equality,
definitions \eqref{eqn:vi-c} and \eqref{eqn:w-h} are used in
the third equality and $C_4$ is a real constant.
Applying the multiplication formula \eqref{eqn:mult} to
$\varGamma\left((r-p-q)w \right)$ yields
\[
f(w; \check{\lambda})
= \check{C} \cdot \{ x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \, \tilde{d} \, (r-p-q)^{r-p-q} \}^w
\cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-p-q-1}
\varGamma\left(w + \frac{i}{r-p-q}\right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{r-p-q}
\varGamma\left(w + \check{v}_i\right)},
\]
where $\check{C}$ is a real constant.
This gives GPF \eqref{eqn:gpf-c2}, since
$x^r (1-x)^{p+q-r} \, \tilde{d} \, (r-p-q)^{r-p-q} = \check{d}$
by definition \eqref{eqn:d-c}.
To see $\check{C} > 0$, we look at formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-c2}
for a large positive value of $w$.
The right-hand side of it without constant factor $\check{C}$ is positive,
while the left-hand side $f(w;\check{\lambda})$ is also positive since
$\check{\lambda} \in \cF^-$.
Here we used the fact that if $\mu \in \cF^-$ then $f(w; \mu) > 0$
for every large $w > 0$, which will be shown in the proof of
Lemma \ref{lem:zeros}; see claim \eqref{eqn:f>0}.
Thus $\check{C} > 0$. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{remark} \label{rem:division}
In the situation of Proposition \ref{prop:division} we have
$\check{a}$, $\check{b} \in \Q$, $\check{x}$ algebraic, and
\begin{gather}
\check{v}_1 + \cdots + \check{v}_{r-p-q} = \frac{r-p-q-1}{2} =
\frac{\check{r}-1}{2}, \label{eqn:sum2} \\
\check{v}_1, \dots, \check{v}_{r-p-q} \in \Q, \qquad
-c \le \check{v}_1, \dots, \check{v}_{r-p-q} < 1-c, \qquad
c := c(\lambda) = \frac{1-a-b}{r-p-q}. \label{eqn:estimate3}
\end{gather}
Indeed, since $a$ and $b$ are rational by Lemma \ref{lem:ab} while
$x$ is algebraic by assertion (1) of Theorem \ref{thm:sol-A}, so are
$\check{a}$, $\check{b}$ and $\check{x}$ via the definition of
reciprocity \eqref{eqn:recip}.
Moreover summation \eqref{eqn:sum2} comes from \eqref{eqn:sum} together
with convention \eqref{eqn:vi-pq} and definition \eqref{eqn:vi-c}.
while condition \eqref{eqn:estimate3} follows from \eqref{eqn:estimate2}
via definition \eqref{eqn:vi-c}.
These remarks will play an important part in \S \ref{subsec:gpf-F}.
\end{remark}
\section{Division Relations} \label{sec:dr}
In Lemma \ref{lem:case1-6} we derived some arithmetical constraints
on $\bp = (p, q; r)$ for $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$.
In this section we exploit division relation \eqref{eqn:division3}
to amplify this kind of study.
In what follows let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ be an
arbitrary solution of type $(\rA)$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:dr1}
If $p \not| r$ and $p \not| (r-p-q)$, then $p | 2r$ and $p | 2(r-p-q)$
with $p \ge 4$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
If $p = 1$ we obviously have $p|r$.
If $p = 2$ we have $p|(r-p-q)$ since $r-p-q$ must be even.
Hereafter we suppose $p \ge 3$.
Since $\prod_{i=0}^{p-1}\left( w+(i+a)/p \right)$ divides the
right-hand side of \eqref{eqn:division3}, there exists a mapping
$\phi : [p] \to [r-p] \sqcup [r-q]$ such that for each $i \in [p]$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:hm-ht}
\dfrac{i+a}{p} =
\begin{cases}
\dfrac{\phi(i) - a}{r-p} \quad & \mbox{if} \quad \phi(i) \in [r-p]
\quad (\mbox{$i$ is homogeneous, or of type $\rI$}), \\[4mm]
\dfrac{\phi(i) - b}{r-q} \quad & \mbox{if} \quad \phi(i) \in [r-q]
\quad (\mbox{$i$ is heterogeneous, or of type $\rII$}).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then a sequence $\tau = (\tau_0, \tau_1, \dots, \tau_{p-1})$ of
symbols $\rI$ and $\rII$ is defined by assigning $\tau_i = \rI$ or
$\tau_i = \rII$ if $i$ is homogeneous or heterogeneous respectively.
There is a dichotomy:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists at least one index $i \in [p-1]$ such that
$\tau_i = \tau_{i+1}$.
\item The sequence $\tau$ is interlacing, that is,
$\tau_i \neq \tau_{i+1}$ for any index $i \in [p-1]$.
\end{enumerate}
\par
We begin with case (1).
In this case we have either $\tau_i = \tau_{i+1} = \rI$ or
$\tau_i = \tau_{i+1} = \rII$.
In the former subcase, it follows from formula \eqref{eqn:hm-ht} that
\[
\dfrac{i+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(i) - a}{r-p} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\dfrac{(i+1)+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(i+1) - a}{r-p}, \quad \mbox{so that} \quad
\dfrac{1}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(i+1) - \phi(i)}{r-p},
\]
that is, $r-p = p \{\phi(i+1)-\phi(i)\}$, which implies $p|r$.
In the latter subcase, similarly we have
\[
\dfrac{i+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(i) - b}{r-q} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\dfrac{(i+1)+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(i+1) - b}{r-q}, \quad \mbox{so that} \quad
\dfrac{1}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(i+1) - \phi(i)}{r-q},
\]
that is, $r-q = p \{\phi(i+1)-\phi(i)\}$, which implies $p|(r-p-q)$.
\par
We proceed to case (2) with $p = 3$.
In this case we have either $\tau = (\rI, \rII, \rI)$ or
$\tau = (\rII, \rI, \rII)$.
In the former subcase, it follows from \eqref{eqn:hm-ht}
and $\tau_0 = \tau_2 = \rI$ that
\[
\dfrac{a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(0) - a}{r-p} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\dfrac{2+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(2) - a}{r-p}, \quad \mbox{so that} \quad
\dfrac{2}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(2) - \phi(0)}{r-p},
\]
that is, $2(r-p) = p \{\phi(2)-\phi(0)\}$, which implies $p|2 r$,
but since $p = 3$ is odd, we must have $p|r$.
In the latter subcase, a similar reasoning with $\tau_0 = \tau_2 =
\rII$ leads to $2(r-q) = p \{\phi(2)-\phi(0)\}$, which implies
$p|2(r-p-q)$, but since $p = 3$ is odd, we must have $p|(r-p-q)$.
\par
Finally we consider case (2) with $p \ge 4$.
In this case we have either $(\tau_0, \tau_1, \tau_2, \tau_3) =
(\rI, \rII, \rI, \rII)$ or $(\tau_0, \tau_1, \tau_2, \tau_3) =
(\rII, \rI, \rII, \rI)$.
In the former subcase, it follows from \eqref{eqn:hm-ht} that
\begin{align*}
\dfrac{a}{p} &= \dfrac{\phi(0) - a}{r-p} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\dfrac{2+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(2) - a}{r-p}, \quad \mbox{so that} \quad
\dfrac{2}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(2) - \phi(0)}{r-p}, \\[4mm]
\dfrac{1+a}{p} &= \dfrac{\phi(1)-b}{r-q} \quad \mbox{and} \quad
\dfrac{3+a}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(3)-b}{r-q}, \quad \mbox{so that} \quad
\dfrac{2}{p} = \dfrac{\phi(3) - \phi(1)}{r-q},
\end{align*}
that is, $2(r-p) = p \{\phi(2)-\phi(0)\}$ and
$2(r-q) = p \{\phi(3)-\phi(1)\}$, which imply
$p|2 r$ and $p|2(r-p-q)$.
In the latter subcase, a similar reasoning leads to
$2(r-p) = p \{\phi(3)-\phi(1)\}$ and $2(r-q) = p \{\phi(2)-\phi(0)\}$,
which again imply $p|2 r$ and $p|2(r-p-q)$.
Thus if $p \not| r$ and $p \not| (r-p-q)$, then we must be in case (2)
with $p \ge 4$, which forces $p | 2r$ and $p | 2(r-p-q)$. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:dr2}
If $p \not| r$ and $p \not|(r-p-q)$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exist positive integers $s$, $t$ and $k$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:stk}
p = 2^{k+1} \, s; \qquad p|q; \qquad r = 2^k \, t;
\qquad s, \, t : \mbox{odd}; \qquad s|t,
\end{equation}
\item we must also have $q \not| r$ and $q \not|(r-p-q)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
We use Lemma \ref{lem:dr1}, upon writing $p = 2^i \, s$, $r = 2^k \, t$,
$r-q = 2^j \, u$ with $i,j,k \in \Z_{\ge0}$ and odd $s, t, u \in \N$.
Division relation $p| 2 r$ implies $i \le k+1$ and $s|t$, while
$p \not| r$ yields $i \ge k+1$ and hence $i = k+1$.
In a similar manner the division relation $p| 2 (r-q)$ implies
$i \le j+1$ and $s|u$, while $p \not| (r-q)$ yields $i \ge j+1$
and hence $i = j+1$.
In summary we have
\[
p = 2^{k+1} \, s; \quad r = 2^k \, t; \quad
r-q = 2^k \, u; \quad k \in \Z_{\ge0}; \quad
s, \,t, \,u : \mbox{odd}; \quad s|t, \quad s|u.
\]
Since $t$ and $u$ are odd, we can write $t = 2 t'+1$ and $u = 2 u'+1$
with $t', u' \in \Z_{\ge0}$, so that $s|t$ and $s|u$ imply
$s|(t-u) = s|2(t'-u')$, which in turn yields $s|(t'-u')$ since
$s$ is also odd.
It then implies $p|q$ because $p = 2^{k+1} \, s$ and $q = r-(r-q) =
2^k (t-u) = 2^{k+1} (t'-u')$.
Note that $p$ is even by $p = 2^{k+1} \, s$ with $k \ge 0$,
so $q$ is even too by $p|q$ and $r$ is also even, since $r-p-q$ is even.
Thus we have $k \ge 1$ and all the conditions in \eqref{eqn:stk}
have been proved.
\par
Next we show that $q \not| r$ and $q \not|(r-p-q)$ by contradiction.
Indeed, if $q|r$ then the division relation $p|q$ in condition
\eqref{eqn:stk} yields $p|r$ contrary to the assumption $p \not|r$,
while if $q|(r-p-q)$ then $p|q$ gives $p|(r-p-q)$ contrary to the
assumption $p \not|(r-p-q)$. \hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Note that Lemmas \ref{lem:dr1} and \ref{lem:dr2} remain true
if the roles of $p$ and $q$ are exchanged.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:dr}
For any $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ the integer
vector $\bp = (p,q;r) \in D^-_{\rA}$ must satisfy division relations
\eqref{eqn:dr}.
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof}.
To prove the lemma by contradiction, suppose the contrary that
\[
(\, p \not| r \quad \mbox{and} \quad p \not| (r-p-q) \,)
\quad \mbox{or} \quad
(\, q \not| r \quad \mbox{and} \quad q \not| (r-p-q) \,).
\]
By symmetry we may take the former condition in the ``or" sentence
above, but the latter condition also follows from assertion (2) of
Lemma \ref{lem:dr2},
so that we are led to the ``and" sentence:
\[
(\, p \not| r \quad \mbox{and} \quad p \not| (r-p-q) \,)
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
(\, q \not| r \quad \mbox{and} \quad q \not| (r-p-q) \,).
\]
By a part of condition \eqref{eqn:stk} we have $p|q$ and likewise
$q|p$ upon exchanging the role of $p$ and $q$.
Hence $p=q$ and condition \eqref{eqn:stk} becomes
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:stk2}
p = q = 2^{k+1} \, s; \qquad r = 2^k \, t;
\qquad k \in \N, \quad s, \, t : \mbox{odd}; \qquad s|t,
\end{equation}
\par
A look at Table \ref{tab:ab} shows that if $p = q$ then we must have
$p|r$ in cases (1)--(5), while currently we have the contrary
$p \not| r$.
Thus we must be in case 6 of Table \ref{tab:ab}, so that $\Z$-linear
equation \eqref{eqn:ls-c6a} must be satisfied.
It follows from formula \eqref{eqn:stk2} that $r-p-q = 2^k s(t_s-4)$,
$r-p = 2^k s(t_s-2)$, $q = 2^{k+1} s$ and
$((r-p)(r-p-q))_p = 2^{k-1} s(t_s-2)(t_s-4)$, so equation
\eqref{eqn:ls-c6a} is equivalent to
\[
(t_s-4) i + (t_s-2) i' + 2 j = \frac{1}{2} (t_s-2)(t_s-4), \qquad
i, i', j \in \Z_{\ge0},
\]
where we used the notation introduced in item (1) of Remark \ref{rem:ab}.
Notice that the left-hand side above is an integer, while the
right-hand side is a half-integer (not an integer), because $s$ and
$t$ are odd integers with $s|t$ so $t_s = t/s$ is also an odd integer.
This contradiction shows that our starting assumption is false
and condition \eqref{eqn:dr} must be true.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
Theorem \ref{thm:pqr} is now established because it is the same as
Proposition \ref{prop:dr}.
By definition \eqref{eqn:D-m}, if $\bp = (p,q;r) \in D^-_{\rA}$ then
$\check{r} := r-p-q \in 2 \N$.
Conversely we have the following.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:dr-bound}
Given any $\check{r} \in 2 \N$, there are only a finite number of triples
$\bp = (p,q;r) \in D^-_{\rA}$ that satisfy $r-p-q = \check{r}$ and the
division relations \eqref{eqn:dr}; any such $\bp$ must be bounded by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:dr-bound}
1 \le p, \, q \le 3 \check{r},
\qquad 2 \le p+q \le 5 \check{r},
\qquad 4 \le r \le 6 \check{r}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Since $p, \, q \in \N$ and $r \in 2 \N$, it is evident that
$p, \, q \ge 1$ and $r = \check{r}+p+q \ge 4$.
Division relation \eqref{eqn:dr} is equivalent to the condition that
$( p|\check{r} \,\, \mbox{or} \,\, p|(\check{r}+q) )$ and
$( q|\check{r} \,\, \mbox{or} \,\, q|(\check{r}+p) )$, which is divided
into four cases: (i) $p|\check{r}$ and $q|\check{r}$;
(ii) $p|\check{r}$ and $q|(\check{r}+p)$;
(iii) $p|(\check{r}+q)$ and $q|\check{r}$;
(iv) $p|(\check{r}+q)$ and $q|(\check{r}+p)$.
In case (i) we have $p, \, q \le \check{r}$ and $r = \check{r}+p+q \le 3
\check{r}$.
In case (ii) we have $p \le \check{r}$, $q \le \check{r}+p \le 2 \check{r}$
and $r = \check{r}+p+q \le 4 \check{r}$.
Case (iii) is similar to case (ii).
In case (iv) there exist $i$, $j \in \N$ such that
$\check{r}+q = i p$ and $\check{r}+p = j q$.
Note that $i j \ge 2$, for otherwise $i = j = 1$ would imply
$\check{r} = p-q = - \check{r} = 0$, a contradiction to $\check{r} \ge 4$.
Thus the two equations above for $(p, q)$ are uniquely settled as
$p = l \, \check{r}$, $q = m \, \check{r}$ and hence
$r = \check{r}+p+q = n \, \check{r}$, where
\[
l = \dfrac{j+1}{i j-1}, \qquad m = \dfrac{i+1}{i j-1}, \qquad
n = 1+l+m = \dfrac{(i+1)(j+1)}{i j-1} \qquad (i, j \in \N; \, i j \ge 2).
\]
To estimate these numbers we may assume $i \ge j$ and so
$i \ge 2$ and $j \ge 1$ by symmetry.
Then
\[
l \le \frac{j+1}{2j-1} = \frac{1}{2} + \frac{3}{2(2j-1)} \le
\frac{1}{2} + \frac{3}{2} = 2, \qquad
m \le \frac{i+1}{i-1} = 1 + \frac{2}{i-1} \le 1+2=3,
\]
and $n = 1+l+m \le 1+ 2+3 =6$.
This establishes the bound \eqref{eqn:dr-bound}.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
For example, those $\bp = (p,q;r) \in D_{\rA}^-$ with
$\check{r} = 2$ and $p \ge q$ are exactly $\bp = (1,1;4)$, $(2,1;5)$,
$(2,2;6)$, $(3,1;6)$, $(4,2;8)$, among which only $(2,1;5)$ leads to
no solutions (see \cite[Table 2]{Iwasaki}).
\section{The South-West Domain} \label{sec:SW}
We discuss Problem \ref{prob:back} (regarding the relationship between
Problems $\rI$ and $\rII$) and Problem \ref{prob:cfcr} (regarding the
method of contiguous relations) on the south-west domain $\cF^-$.
The corresponding work on the cross-shaped domain $\cD \cup \cI \cup \cE$
was carried out in \cite{Iwasaki}, where Problem \ref{prob:back} was
treated  first (\S 5) and Problem \ref{prob:cfcr} was discussed
later (\S 11.1).
This logical order will be reversed on the domain $\cF^-$,
that is, we first tackle Problem \ref{prob:cfcr} (as well as
Problem \ref{prob:cfcr-ess}) and then proceed to Problem \ref{prob:back}.
The main tool for this passage is the use of reciprocity.
\subsection{Coming from Contiguous Relations} \label{subsec:cfcr-F}
In solving Problem \ref{prob:cfcr} it is important to think of the
linear independence of $f(w; \lambda)$ and $\tilde{f}(w; \lambda)$
over the rational function field $\C(w)$, where $\tilde{f}(w; \lambda)$
is defined right after formula \eqref{eqn:3trf}.
This issue was already discussed in \cite[\S 11.1]{Iwasaki} on the
domain $\cD \cup \cI \cup \cE$, where the equivalence of Problems
$\rI$ and $\rII$ (Theorem \ref{thm:back}) made it more tractable.
Without such an advantage, our discussion on $\cF^-$ should be more
elaborate and require some function-theoretic preliminaries.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:sin}
If $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_k$ and $\beta_1, \dots, \beta_k$ are
real numbers with $\alpha_1 \ge \cdots \ge \alpha_k > 0$, then
for any integer $m \ge \beta_1$ there exists a positive number
$\rho_m \in I_m$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sin1}
\prod_{j=1}^k \dfrac{1}{|\sin \pi(\alpha_j w + \beta_j)|} \le C
\qquad \mbox{on the circle} \quad |w| = \rho_m,
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a positive constant independent of $m$ and $I_m$ is
an open interval defined by
\[
I_m := \left(\frac{m-\beta_1}{\alpha_1}, \,\,
\frac{m+1-\beta_1}{\alpha_1}\right) \qquad (m \in \Z).
\]
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Note that $I_m$ is an open interval of width $1/\alpha_1$, whose
endpoints are a pair of consecutive zeros of $\sin \pi(\alpha_1 w+ \beta_1)$.
For each $j = 2, \dots,k$, all the zeros of $\sin \pi(\alpha_j w + \beta_j)$
form an arithmetic progression
$w_{j,m}:=\frac{m - \beta_j}{\alpha_j}$ $(m \in \Z)$ of common difference
$1/\alpha_j \ge 1/\alpha_1$, so that $I_m$ can contain at most one zero of
$\sin \pi(\alpha_j w + \beta_j)$.
Thus $I_m$ can contain at most $k-1$ zeros of $\prod_{j=2}^k
\sin \pi(\alpha_j w+\beta_j)$, which partition $I_m$ into at most
$k$ subintervals.
Among them let $J_m$ be a subinterval of the largest width.
By pigeon hole principle the width of $J_m$ cannot be smaller than
$\frac{1}{k \alpha_1}$, so that the midpoint $\rho_m$ of $J_m$ is
at least $\delta := \frac{1}{2 k \alpha_1}$ distant from all the
zeros of $\prod_{j=1}^k \sin \pi(\alpha_j w + \beta_j)$.
For $j = 1, \dots,k$ and $m \in \Z$ let $D_{j,m}$ be the open disk
of radius $\delta$ with center at $w_{j,m}$.
Then it is not hard to see that there exists a positive constant
$C_j$ such that
\[
\dfrac{1}{|\sin \pi(\alpha_j w + \beta_j)|} \le C_j \qquad
\mbox{for all} \quad w \in \C \setminus D_j,
\quad \mbox{with} \quad D_j := \bigcup_{m \in \Z} D_{j,m}.
\]
Accordingly, if we set $C := C_1 \cdots C_k$ then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sin2}
\prod_{j=1}^k \dfrac{1}{|\sin \pi(\alpha_j w + \beta_j)|} \le C
\qquad \mbox{for all} \quad w \in K := \C \setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^k D_j.
\end{equation}
Notice that $\rho_m \in K$ for any $m \in \Z$.
If $m \ge \beta_1$ then $\rho_m > 0$ and the circle $|w| = \rho_m$
is contained in $K$, hence estimate \eqref{eqn:sin2} leads to
estimate \eqref{eqn:sin1}. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:hg-estimate}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ lies in domain \eqref{eqn:real2}
then there exists an infinite sequence of positive numbers
$\{ \rho_m \}_{m \ge m_0}$ such that for any integer $m \ge m_0$,
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:hg-estimate}
\sigma m + \tau < \rho_m < \sigma(m+1) + \tau, \qquad
|f(w; \lambda)| \le M_1 e^{c_1 \rho_m} \quad \mbox{on the circle}
\quad |w| = \rho_m,
\end{equation}
where $M_1$, $c_1$, $\sigma > 0$ and $\tau \in \R$ are independent of
$m$ and $m_0$ is an integer with $\sigma m_0 + \tau \ge 0$.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
The hypergeometric function admits Euler's contour integral representation
\[
\hgF(\alpha,\beta;\gamma;z) = - \dfrac{e^{-\pi i \gamma}}{4 \sin \pi \beta
\cdot \sin \pi(\gamma-\beta) \cdot B(\beta, \, \gamma-\beta)}
\int_{\wp} t^{\beta-1} (1-t)^{\gamma-\beta-1} (1-z t)^{-\alpha} d t,
\]
along a Pochhammer loop $\wp$ around $t=0$ and $t=1$.
Notice that
\[
\begin{split}
\dfrac{1}{B(\beta, \gamma-\beta)}
&= (1-\gamma) \cdot
\dfrac{\sin \pi \beta \cdot \sin \pi(\gamma-\beta)}{\pi \sin \pi \gamma} \cdot
B(1-b, \, 1-(\gamma-\beta)) \\
&= - \dfrac{(1-\gamma) e^{\pi i \gamma}}{4 \pi \cdot \sin \pi \gamma} \int_{\wp}
t^{-\beta} (1-t)^{-(\gamma-\beta)} d t,
\end{split}
\]
where the first equality follows from the reflection formula
for the beta function:
\[
B(\alpha, \beta) B(1-\alpha, 1-\beta) =
\frac{\pi \sin \pi(\alpha+\beta)}{(1-\alpha-\beta) \cdot
\sin \pi \alpha \cdot \sin \pi \beta},
\]
while the second equality stems from Euler's integral representation
of the beta function along the Pochhammer loop $\wp$.
Putting these together we have
\[
\begin{split}
\hgF(\alpha, \beta; \gamma; z) &= \dfrac{1-\gamma}{16 \pi \cdot \sin \pi \beta
\cdot \sin \pi \gamma \cdot \sin \pi(\gamma-\beta)} \\
&\phantom{=} \times
\left(\int_{\wp} t^{-\beta}(1-t)^{-(\gamma-\beta)} d t\right)
\left(\int_{\wp} t^{\beta-1} (1-t)^{\gamma-\beta-1} (1-z t)^{-\alpha} d t \right),
\end{split}
\]
which evaluated at $(\alpha, \beta; \gamma; z) = (p w + a, q w + b; r w; x)$
yields $f(w; \lambda) = \psi_1(w) \psi_2(w)$ with
\[
\begin{split}
\psi_1(w) &= \dfrac{1- r w}{16 \pi \cdot \sin \pi (q w+b)
\cdot \sin(\pi r w) \cdot \sin \pi((r-q)w-b)}, \\[1mm]
\psi_2(w) &= \left(\int_{\wp} t^{- q w-b}(1-t)^{-(r-q)w+b} d t\right)
\left(\int_{\wp} t^{q w+b-1} (1-t)^{(r-q)w-b-1} (1-x t)^{-p w-a} d t \right).
\end{split}
\]
\par
We can apply Lemma \ref{lem:sin} to the first factor $\psi_1(w)$.
For some constants $\sigma > 0$ and $\tau \in \R$ there exists an infinite
sequence $\rho_m \in (\sigma m + \tau, \, \sigma(m+1) + \tau)$ such that
$|\psi_1(w)| = O(\rho_m)$ on the circle $|w| = \rho_m$ as $m \to + \infty$.
For the second factor $\psi_2(w)$ it is easy to see that there exists
a constant $c_2$ such that $|\psi_2(w)| = O(e^{c_2|w|})$ as $|w| \to +\infty$,
because the integrands in $\psi_2(w)$ admit similar exponential estimates,
uniform in $t \in \wp$, as $|w| \to +\infty$.
Now \eqref{eqn:hg-estimate} follows readily. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:zeros}
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ be a solution to Problem $\rII$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any pole of $f(w;\lambda)$ is simple and lies in the arithmetic
progression $\{w_j := -j/r\}_{j=0}^{\infty}$.
Conversely, $f(w; \lambda)$ actually has a pole at $w = w_j$ for every
sufficiently large integer $j$, in particular it has infinitely many poles.
\item $f(w;\lambda)$ has infinitely many zeros.
\item $f(w;\lambda)$ and $\tilde{f}(w;\lambda)$ are linearly independent
over the rational function field $\C(w)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}. Assertion (1).
It is evident from definition \eqref{eqn:f} that every pole of
$f(w;\lambda)$ is simple and lies in the sequence $\{w_j\}_{j=0}^{\infty}$.
By Lemma 4.1 of Iwasaki \cite{Iwasaki} we have
\[
\underset{\scriptstyle w = w_j}{\mathrm{Res}} \, f(w) = C_j \cdot
\hgF(a_j, \, b_j; \, j+2; \, x) \qquad (j = 0,1,2,\dots),
\]
where $a_j := pw_j+j+a+1$, $b_j := qw_j+j+b+1$ and
\[
C_j := \frac{(-1)^j}{r} \cdot
\frac{(p w_j+a)_{j+1} \, (q w_j+b)_{j+1}}{j! \, (j+1)!} \, x^{j+1}.
\]
Since $\lambda \in \cF^-$, we have $p < 0$, $q < 0$, $r > 0$ and
$0 < x < 1$, so there exists an integer $j_0$ such that
$p w_j + a > 0$, $q w_j + b > 0$ and hence $(-1)^j C_j > 0$
for every $j \ge j_0$.
Notice also that if $j \ge j_0$ then $a_j > p w_j + a > 0$,
$b_j > q w_j + b > 0$ and thus $\hgF(a_j, b_j; j+2; x) > 0$.
Therefore $f(w)$ actually has a simple pole with a non-vanishing
residue at $w = w_j$ for every $j \ge j_0$.
\par
Assertion (2).
Suppose the contrary that $f(w;\lambda)$ has at most finitely many zeros.
Then it follows from assertion (1) that $u(w) := f(w;\lambda)/\varGamma(r w)$
is an entire holomorphic function with at most finitely many zeros.
Here we have a uniform estimate $|1/\varGamma(r w)| =
O\left(e^{r |w| (\log|w| + c_3)}\right)$ as $|w| \to \infty$,
which follows from Stirling's formula: for any $\varepsilon \in
(0, \, \pi)$ one has uniformly
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:stirling}
\dfrac{1}{\varGamma(w)} \sim
\dfrac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}} \, w^{1/2} \, e^{w(1-\log w)} \qquad
\mbox{as} \quad w \to \infty \quad \mbox{in} \quad |\arg w| <
\pi - \varepsilon,
\end{equation}
combined with the reflection formula \eqref{eqn:refl} for
the gamma function.
By this estimate and Lemma \ref{lem:hg-estimate} we have
$|u(w)| \le M_2 \, e^{r \rho_m (\log \rho_m + c_4)}$ on the circle
$|w| = \rho_m$ for every $m \ge m_0$.
Given any $z \in \C$ with sufficiently large $|z|$, take an $m \ge m_0$
so that $\rho_{m-1} < |z| \le \rho_m$.
Since $u(w)$ is entire and $\rho_m < \rho_{m-1} + 2 \sigma < |z| + 2 \sigma$
by estimate \eqref{eqn:hg-estimate}, the maximum principle yields
\[
|u(w)| \le M_2 \, e^{r \rho_m (\log \rho_m + c_4)}
\le M_2 \, e^{r (|z|+ 2 \sigma) \{\log (|z| + 2 \sigma) + c_4\}}
\le M_3 \, e^{r |z| (\log |z| + c_5)},
\]
which means that $u(w)$ is an entire function of order at most $1$.
Since $u(w)$ has at most finitely many zeros, Hadamard's factorization
theorem allows us to write $u(w) = u_0(w) \, e^{c_6 w + c_7 w^2}$,
where $u_0(w)$ is a nonzero polynomial (or constant) and
$c_6$, $c_7 \in \C$, so that
\[
\dfrac{u(w+1)}{u(w)} = \dfrac{u_0(w+1)}{u_0(w)}
\cdot e^{c_6 + c_7 + 2 c_7 w} \sim e^{c_6 + c_7 + 2 c_7 w}
\qquad \mbox{as} \quad w \to \infty.
\]
On the other hand, since $\lambda$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$,
that is, satisfies condition \eqref{eqn:ocf}, we have
\[
\dfrac{u(w+1)}{u(w)} = \dfrac{f(w+1; \lambda)}{f(w; \lambda)}
\cdot \dfrac{\varGamma(r w)}{\varGamma(r(w+1))} =
R(w;\lambda) \cdot \dfrac{\varGamma(r w)}{\varGamma(r(w+1))}.
\]
As a rational function, $R(w;\lambda) \sim M_4 \, w^{k_1}$
as $w \to \infty$ for some $M_4 \in \C^{\times}$ and $k_1 \in \Z$,
while by Stirling's formula \eqref{eqn:stirling} we have
$\varGamma(r w)/\varGamma(r(w+1)) \sim (r w)^{-r}$ as
$\R \ni w \to +\infty$.
Thus
\[
\dfrac{u(w+1)}{u(w)} \sim M_4 \, r^{-r} \cdot w^{k_1-r}
\quad \mbox{and so} \quad w^{r-k_1} e^{2 c_7 w}
\sim M_4 \, r^{-r} e^{-c_6-c_7} \quad
\mbox{as} \quad \R \ni w \to + \infty,
\]
which forces $c_7 = 0$ and hence $u(w) = u_0(w) \, e^{c_6 w}$.
As a polynomial, $u_0(w) \sim M_5 \, w^{k_2}$ as
$w \to \infty$ for some $M_5 \in \C^{\times}$ and
$k_2 \in \Z_{\ge0}$.
It follows from estimates \eqref{eqn:hg-estimate} and
\eqref{eqn:stirling} that
\[
\begin{split}
1 &= \left|\dfrac{u(\rho_m)}{u_0(\rho_m) \, e^{c_6 \rho_m}} \right|
= \left|\dfrac{f(\rho_m; \lambda)}{u_0(\rho_m) \, e^{c_6 \rho_m}}
\cdot \frac{1}{\varGamma(r \rho_m)} \right| \underset{\sim}{<}
\dfrac{M_1 \, e^{c_1 \rho_m} \cdot (r \rho_m)^{1/2}
e^{r \rho_m \{1-\log(r \rho_m) \}}}{|M_5| \, \rho_m^{k_2} \cdot e^{c_6 \rho_m} \cdot
\sqrt{2\pi}} \\
&= M_6 \cdot \rho_m^{\frac{1}{2}-{k_2}} \cdot e^{\rho_m (c_8 - r \log \rho_m)}
\to 0 \qquad \mbox{as} \quad m \to \infty,
\end{split}
\]
where $M_6 := \frac{M_1}{|M_5|}\sqrt{\frac{r}{2\pi}}$ and
$c_8 := c_1 - c_6 + r - r \log r$.
This contradiction shows that $f(w;\lambda)$ must have infinitely many
zeros.
\par
Assertion (3) can be established by modifying the proof of Lemma 11.1 in
Iwasaki \cite{Iwasaki}.
Suppose the contrary that $f(w; \lambda)$ and $\tilde{f}(w; \lambda)$ are
linearly dependent over $\C(w)$, so that there exists a rational function
$T(w) \in \C(w)$ such that $\tilde{f}(w; \lambda) = T(w) f(w;\lambda)$,
because $f(w; \lambda)$ does not vanish identically.
Then as in the proof of \cite[Lemma 11.1]{Iwasaki} we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:f-f1}
f(w; \lambda) f_1(w; \lambda) = (1-x)^{(r-p-q)w-a-b-1},
\end{equation}
where $f_1(w; \lambda)$ is defined by
\[
\begin{split}
f_1(w; \lambda) &:= \hgF( (p-r)w+a+1, (q-r)w+b+1; 1-r w; x) \\
&\phantom{:=} + \dfrac{(p w+a)(q w+b) x}{r w(r w-1)} \cdot T(w) \cdot
\hgF( (p-r)w+a+1, (q-r)w+b+1; 2-r w; x).
\end{split}
\]
Observe that any pole of $f_1(w; \lambda)$ is either a pole of
$T(w)$ or in the discrete set $\frac{1}{r} \Z_{\ge0}$.
Thus $f_1(w; \lambda)$ cannot have infinitely many
poles off the positive real axis $\R_+$.
On the other hand, applying Euler's transformation \eqref{eqn:transf1}
to definition \eqref{eqn:f}, we have
\[
f(w;\lambda) = (1-x)^{(r-p-q)w-a-b} \hgF( (r-p)w-a, (r-q)w-b; r w; x),
\]
where $r-p > 0$, $r-q > 0$ and $r > 0$ while $0 < x < 1$
by the assumption $\lambda \in \cF^-$.
Thus
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:f>0}
f(w;\lambda) > 0 \qquad \mbox{for every real} \quad
w > \max \{a/(r-p), \, b/(r-q), \, 0\},
\end{equation}
so $f(w;\lambda)$ cannot have infinitely many zeros on $\R_+$.
Assertion (2) then implies that $f(w; \lambda)$ must have
infinitely many zeros off $\R_+$.
Therefore $f(w; \lambda)$ admits a zero $w_0 \in \C \setminus \R_+$
that is not a pole of $f_1(w; \lambda)$.
Substituting $w = w_0$ into equation \eqref{eqn:f-f1} yields a
contradiction $0 = f(w_0; \lambda) f_1(w_0; \lambda) =
(1-x)^{(r-p-q)w_0-a-b} \neq 0$, which shows that
$f(w; \lambda)$ and $\tilde{f}(w; \lambda)$ are linearly independent
over the rational function field $\C(w)$. \hfill $\Box$
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:cfcr-F}
Let $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ in what follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any solution to Problem $\rI$ or $\rII$ in $\cF^-$ is non-elementary.
\item Any integral solution in $\cF^-$ to Problem $\rII$ comes from
contiguous relations.
\item For any integral solution $\lambda \in \cF^-$ to Problem $\rII$,
its reciprocal $\check{\lambda}$ is an $(\rA)$-solution in $\cD^-$
so that $r \equiv 0 \mod 2$ and $\lambda = \lambda^{\vee\vee}$
is the reciprocal of an $(\rA)$-solution $\check{\lambda} \in \cD^-$.
\item Any rational solution in $\cF^-$ to Problem $\rII$
essentially comes from contiguous relations.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof}.
Assertion (1) follows directly from assertion (1) of Lemma \ref{lem:zeros}.
With assertion (3) of Lemma \ref{lem:zeros} the proof of assertion (2)
is exactly the same as that of \cite[Proposition 11.2]{Iwasaki}.
The proof of assertion (3) proceeds as follows.
Since the $\lambda$ in assertion (3) comes from contiguous relations by
assertion (2), Lemma \ref{lem:r-cf1} can be used to infer that its
reciprocal $\check{\lambda}$ is a solution to Problem $\rII$ and hence
becomes an $(\rA)$-solution in $\cD^-$ by Theorems \ref{thm:back}
and \ref{thm:D}.
In other words, $\lambda = \lambda^{\vee\vee}$ is the reciprocal of an
$(\rA)$-solution $\check{\lambda} \in \cD^-$.
Applying assertion (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:D} to $\check{\lambda}$
we have $r = \check{r} - \check{p} - \check{q} \equiv 0 \mod 2$.
Assertion (4) is an immediate consequence of assertion (2) applied to
a multiplication $k \lambda$, where $k \in \N$ is chosen so that
$k \lambda$ becomes integral. \hfill $\Box$
\subsection{Gamma Product Formulas} \label{subsec:gpf-F}
Now that Proposition \ref{prop:cfcr-F} is established, the reciprocity
can be used to tackle Problem \ref{prob:back} for {\sl rational} data
in $\cF^-$ through their suitable multiplications.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:gpf-F}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ is a rational solution to
Problem $\rII$ with
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ocf-F}
\dfrac{f(w+1; \lambda)}{f(w; \lambda)} = d
\dfrac{(w+u_1)\cdots(w+u_m)}{(w+v_1)\cdots(w+v_n)},
\end{equation}
for some $d \in \C^{\times}$, $u_1, \dots, u_m \in \C$ and
$v_1, \dots, v_m \in \C$, then $m = n$, $d$ is a positive number given
by formula \eqref{eqn:d-F}, and $\lambda$ becomes a solution to Problem
$\rI$ with gamma product formula
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F2}
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma(w+u_1) \cdots \varGamma(w+u_m)}{\varGamma(w+v_1)
\cdots \varGamma(w+v_m) },
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a positive constant.
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Let $k \in \N$ be the least common denominator of $p$, $q$, $r \in \Q$.
Then the multiplication $k \lambda = (k p, k q, kr; a, b; x) \in \cF^-$
is an integral solution to Problem $\rII$.
It follows from assertion (3) of Proposition \ref{prop:cfcr-F} that
$(k \lambda)^{\vee}$ is an $(\rA)$-solution in $\cD^-$ and $k \lambda
= (k \lambda)^{\vee\vee}$ is its reciprocal.
Accordingly we can apply Proposition \ref{prop:division} to the
$(\rA)$-solution $(k \lambda)^{\vee} = (k|p|, k|q|, k(r-p-q); \, \check{a},
\check{b}; \, \check{x}) \in \cD^-$.
Adapting GPF \eqref{eqn:gpf-c2} to the current situation, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F3}
f(w; k \lambda) = f\left(w; (k \lambda)^{\vee\vee} \right)
= \check{C} \cdot \delta^{k w} \cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{k r-1}
\varGamma\left(w + \frac{i}{k r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{k r}
\varGamma(w+ \xi_i)},
\end{equation}
where $r-p-q$ in the general formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-c2} is now $k r$,
the constant $\check{d}$ there is now $\delta^k$ with
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:d-F2}
\delta := r^r \sqrt{\dfrac{|p|^{|p|} \, |q|^{|q|} \,
(1-x)^{r-p-q}}{(r-p)^{r-p} \, (r-q)^{r-q} \, x^r}},
\end{equation}
which is different from $\delta$ in \eqref{eqn:D-d}, while the numbers
$\check{v}_i$ there are now written $\xi_i$.
Under these circumstances the conditions \eqref{eqn:sum2} and
\eqref{eqn:estimate3} with $\lambda$ replaced by $(k \lambda)^{\vee}$
are represented as
\begin{gather}
\xi_1 + \cdots + \xi_{k r} = \frac{k r -1}{2}, \label{eqn:sum3} \\
\xi_1, \dots, \xi_{k r} \in \Q; \qquad
\frac{c}{k} \le \xi_1, \dots, \xi_{k r} < \frac{c}{k} + 1, \qquad
c = c(\lambda) := \dfrac{1-a-b}{r-p-q},  \label{eqn:estimate4}
\end{gather}
where we used $c\left((k \lambda)^{\vee}\right) = - c(k \lambda) =
- c(\lambda)/k = -c/k$ to derive condition \eqref{eqn:estimate4}.
\par
On the one hand formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F3} leads to a closed-form
expression
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ocf-F2}
\frac{f(w+1; k \lambda)}{f(w; k \lambda)}
= \delta^k \cdot \dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{k r-1}
\left( w + \frac{i}{k r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{k r} (w+ \xi_i) },
\end{equation}
whereas on the other hand applying formula \eqref{eqn:R-mult} to
assumption \eqref{eqn:ocf-F} yields
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:ocf-F3}
\frac{f(w+1; k \lambda)}{f(w; k \lambda)}
= d^k \cdot k^{k(m-n)} \cdot
\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}
\dfrac{\left(w+ \frac{u_1 + i}{k}\right) \cdots
\left(w+ \frac{u_m +i}{k}\right)}{\left(w+ \frac{v_1 + i}{k}\right)
\cdots \left(w+ \frac{v_n +i}{k}\right)}.
\end{equation}
Since \eqref{eqn:ocf-F2} and \eqref{eqn:ocf-F3} must be exactly the same,
they must be so asymptotically, that is,
$\delta^k \sim d^k \cdot k^{k(m-n)} \cdot w^{k(m-n)}$ as $w \to \infty$,
which forces $m = n$ and $\delta^k = d^k$.
Formula \eqref{eqn:ocf-F} together with \eqref{eqn:f>0} and $m = n$
yields $0 < f(w+1; \lambda)/f(w; \lambda) \to d$ as $\R \ni w \to +\infty$
and so $d \ge 0$.
Since $\delta$ is positive by definition \eqref{eqn:d-F2},
equation $\delta^k = d^k$ gives $d = \delta$.
Thus in view of definition \eqref{eqn:d-F2}, $d$ must be given
by formula \eqref{eqn:d-F}.
The coincidence of \eqref{eqn:ocf-F2} and \eqref{eqn:ocf-F3} yields
\[
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{k r-1}
\left( w + \frac{i}{k r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{k r} (w+ \xi_i) }
=
\prod_{i=0}^{k-1}
\dfrac{\left(w+ \frac{u_1 + i}{k}\right) \cdots
\left(w+ \frac{u_m +i}{k}\right)}{\left(w+ \frac{v_1 + i}{k}\right)
\cdots \left(w+ \frac{v_m +i}{k}\right)},
\]
so that gamma product formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F3} can be recast to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F4}
f(w; k \lambda) = \check{C} \cdot d^{k w} \cdot \prod_{i=0}^{k-1}
\dfrac{\varGamma\left(w+ \frac{u_1 + i}{k}\right) \cdots
\varGamma\left(w+ \frac{u_m +i}{k}\right)}{\varGamma
\left(w+ \frac{v_1 + i}{k}\right)
\cdots \varGamma \left(w+ \frac{v_m +i}{k}\right)},
\end{equation}
where $m = n$ and $d = \delta$ are also incorporated.
Replacing $w$ by $w/k$ in \eqref{eqn:gpf-F4} and using the multiplication
formula \eqref{eqn:mult} for the gamma function, we obtain formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf-F2} with $C = \check{C} \cdot k^{v-u}$, where
$u := u_1+\cdots+u_m$ and $v := v_1+\cdots+v_m$ are real numbers
as $\lambda$ is a real data.
Since $\check{C}$ is positive, so is the constant $C$.  \hfill $\Box$
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:gpf-F}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ is a rational solution to Problem
$\rII$, then $r \in \N$, $a, b \in \Q$, $x$ algebraic, and $\lambda$ is
a solution to Problem $\rI$ with GPF
\eqref{eqn:gpf-F} where $C$ is a positive constant, $d$ is given by
formula \eqref{eqn:d-F} and $v_1, \dots, v_r$ satisfy condition
\eqref{eqn:vi-F}.
\end{proposition}
{\it Proof}.
By assertion (1) of Lemma \ref{lem:zeros} the function $f(w; \lambda)$
has infinitely many poles so we must have $m \ge 1$ in formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf-F2}.
There exists an integer $s$ with $0 \le s \le m$ such that
\begin{center}
(i) \,\, $u_i - v_j \not\in \Z$ \, for any \, $i, j = 1, \dots, s$,
\qquad
(ii) \,\, $u_i - v_i \in \Z$ \, for any \, $i = s+1, \dots, m$,
\end{center}
after suitable rearrangements of $\{u_1, \dots, u_m\}$ and
$\{v_1, \dots, v_m \}$, where condition (i) resp. (ii) should be
ignored if $s = 0$ resp. $s = m$.
In view of property (ii) a repeated use of the recursion formula
$\varGamma(w+1) = w \varGamma(w)$ allows us to rewrite formula
\eqref{eqn:gpf-F2} as
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F5}
f(w; \lambda) = S(w) \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\varGamma(w+u_1) \cdots \varGamma(w+u_s)}{\varGamma(w+v_1)
\cdots \varGamma(w+v_s) },
\end{equation}
where $S(w)$ is a nontrivial rational function of $w$.
We must have $s \ge 1$, for otherwise $f(w; \lambda) = S(w) \cdot
d^w$ could not have infinitely many poles, contradicting assertion (1)
of Lemma \ref{lem:zeros}.
\par
Take a nonnegative integer $i$ sufficiently large so that neither
$\omega_0 := -u_1-i$ nor $\omega_1 := -u_1-i-1$ are zeros of $S(w)$.
Then by property (i), $w = \omega_0$ and $w = \omega_1$ are actually
poles of $f(w; \lambda)$, so by assertion (1) of Lemma \ref{lem:zeros}
there exist nonnegative integers $j_0$ and $j_1$ with $j_0 < j_1$
such that $\omega_0 = -j_0/r$ and $\omega_1 = -j_1/r$.
Thus we have $1 = \omega_0 - \omega_1 = (j_1 - j_0)/r$, namely,
$r = j_1 - j_0 \in \N$ and hence the number $k$ in the proof of
Lemma \ref{lem:gpf-F} is the least common denominator of $p$, $q \in \Q$.
The assertion that $a$, $b \in \Q$ and $x$ is rational follows
from the first part of Remark \ref{rem:division} applied to
$(k \lambda)^{\vee}$ in place of $\lambda$.
\par
Again by assertion (1) of Lemma \ref{lem:zeros}, for a sufficiently
large $j_2$, the set
\[
\left\{-\frac{j}{r} \right\}_{j \ge j_2 \, r} =
\coprod_{i=1}^r \left\{ -j- \frac{i-1}{r} \right\}_{j \ge j_2}
\]
constitutes all but a finite number of poles of $f(w; \lambda)$.
The same is true with the multi-set
\[
\bigcup_{i=1}^s \left\{ -j- u_i \right\}_{j \ge j_3} \qquad
(\mbox{union as multi-sets}),
\]
due to formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F5} and property (i).
Since all poles are simple, we have $u_i - u_j \not\in \Z$ for every
distinct $i,j = 1, \dots, s$, so the union of multi-sets above is
just a disjoint union of ordinary sets.
As the two sets above can differ only by a finite number of elements,
we must have
\[
r = s, \qquad u_i - (i-1)/r \in \Z \qquad (i = 1, \dots,r),
\]
after taking a suitable rearrangement of $u_1, \dots, u_r$.
Thus property (i) is equivalent to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-F2}
v_1, \dots, v_r \not\in \frac{1}{r} \, \Z,
\end{equation}
and a further repeated use of the recursion formula
$\varGamma(w+1) = w \varGamma(w)$ converts \eqref{eqn:gpf-F5} to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F6}
f(w; \lambda) = S(w) \cdot d^w \cdot \dfrac{ \prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{r} \right)}{ \prod_{i=1}^r
\varGamma(w+v_i)},
\end{equation}
with a possibly different rational function $S(w)$ of $w$, where we may
assume
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-F3}
c \le \mathrm{Re} \, v_1, \dots, \mathrm{Re}\, v_r < c + 1,
\qquad c := \frac{1-a-b}{r-p-q},
\end{equation}
after translating $v_1, \dots, v_r$ by suitable integers and making yet
another use of the recursion formula $\varGamma(w+1) = w \varGamma(w)$
with an ensuing modification of the rational function $S(w)$.
\par
Replacing $w$ by $k w$ in formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F6} and using
formulas \eqref{eqn:f-mult} and \eqref{eqn:mult}, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:gpf-F7}
f(w; k \lambda) = k^{(r-1)/2-v} \cdot S(k w) \cdot d^{k w} \cdot
\dfrac{ \prod_{i=0}^{k r-1} \varGamma\left(w+\frac{i}{k r} \right)}{
\prod_{i=1}^{k r} \varGamma(w+\eta_i)},
\end{equation}
where $v := v_1 + \cdots + v_r$ and $\eta_1, \dots, \eta_{k r}$ are the
numbers defined by the multi-set
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:eta}
\{\eta_1, \dots, \eta_{k r}\} :=
\{v_{i,j} \,:\, i = 1, \dots, r, \, j = 0, \dots, k-1\}, \qquad
v_{i,j} := \frac{v_i + j}{k}.
\end{equation}
In view of this definition the estimate \eqref{eqn:vi-F3} leads to
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:vi-F4}
\frac{c}{k} \le \mathrm{Re} \, \eta_1, \dots,
\mathrm{Re} \, \eta_{k r} < \frac{c}{k} + 1.
\end{equation}
Comparing formulas \eqref{eqn:gpf-F3} and \eqref{eqn:gpf-F7} with
$\delta = d$ taken into account, we find
that
\[
\dfrac{ \prod_{i=1}^{k r} \varGamma(w+ \eta_i)}{\prod_{i=1}^{k r}
\varGamma(w+\xi_i)} = \left(\check{C} \right)^{-1} k^{(r-1)/2-v}
\cdot S(k w),
\]
which must be a rational function of $w$, having only at most finitely
many poles and zeros.
This forces $\eta_i - \xi_i\in \Z$ for every $i = 1, \dots, k r$,
after a suitable rearrangement of $\xi_1, \dots, \xi_{k r}$.
But in view of conditions \eqref{eqn:estimate4} and \eqref{eqn:vi-F4},
this coincidence modulo $\Z$ must be an exact coincidence
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:eta-xi}
\eta_i = \xi_i \qquad (i = 1, \dots, k r).
\end{equation}
So $\left(\check{C} \right)^{-1} k^{(r-1)/2-v} \cdot S(k w) = 1$
and thus $S(w) = \check{C} k^{v-(r-1)/2} =: C$ must be a positive
constant and formula \eqref{eqn:gpf-F6} reduces to GPF
\eqref{eqn:gpf-F}.
We can arrange $\eta_1, \dots, \eta_{k r}$ so that
$\eta_i = v_{i,0} = v_i/k$ for each $i = 1, \dots, r$.
Then coincidence \eqref{eqn:eta-xi} and the rationality in
\eqref{eqn:estimate4} imply $v_i = k \eta_i = k \xi_i \in \Q$ for
every $i = 1, \dots, r$.
This together with \eqref{eqn:vi-F2} and \eqref{eqn:vi-F3} gives
$v_1, \dots, v_r \in \left(\Q \setminus \frac{1}{r} \, \Z\right)
\cap \left[c, \, c+1\right)$ in conditions \eqref{eqn:vi-F}.
To prove the remaining condition in \eqref{eqn:vi-F} we observe that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:xi-eta}
\sum_{i=1}^{k r} \xi_i = \sum_{i=1}^{k r} \eta_i =
\sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} v_{i,j} \\
= \sum_{i=1}^r \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \frac{v_i + j}{k} =
\sum_{i=1}^r v_i + \frac{(k-1) r}{2},
\end{equation}
where we used \eqref{eqn:eta-xi} in the first equality and
\eqref{eqn:eta} in the second and third equalities.
Comparing \eqref{eqn:xi-eta} with \eqref{eqn:sum3}
we have $v_1 + \cdots + v_r = (r-1)/2$ and hence proves conditions
\eqref{eqn:vi-F}. \hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
It is evident that Theorem \ref{thm:F} follows from Propositions
\ref{prop:cfcr-F} and \ref{prop:gpf-F}.
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sol-B} is virtually contained in the proof
of Proposition \ref{prop:gpf-F} as a special case $k = 2$; the only
necessary modification is to deduce the condition
$0 \le v_1, \dots, v_r < 1$ for a $(\rB)$-solution from a similar
condition for an $(\rA)$-solution.
\section{From an Algorithmic Point of View} \label{sec:algorithm}
We put all the results on $\cD^- \cup \cF^-$ (in \S \ref{sec:results})
into context from an algorithmic point of view and discuss how to
enumerate all (rational) solutions $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b,x)$ with a
prescribed value of $\bp = (p,q;r)$, or perhaps how to prove the
nonexistence of such solutions, both in finite steps.
\subsection{Integral Solutions} \label{subsec:integral}
If $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)$ is an $(\rA)$-solution in $\cD^-$ then
$\bp = (p,q;r) \in D^-_{\rA}$ by assertion (2) of Theorem \ref{thm:D},
where $D^-_{\rA}$ is defined by formula \eqref{eqn:D-m}.
Putting Theorems \ref{thm:back}, \ref{thm:sol-A}, \ref{thm:pqr} and
\ref{thm:ab} together along with Theorem \ref{thm:truncate} below,
we are able to develop an algorithm to find all $(\rA)$-solutions
$\lambda \in \cD^-$ with a prescribed value of $\bp \in D^-_{\rA}$.
To describe it we introduce some notation.
Let $\langle \varphi(z) \rangle_k := \sum_{j=0}^k c_j \, z^j$
be the {\sl truncation} at degree $k$ of a power series $\varphi(z) =
\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} c_j \, z^j$.
For a data $\lambda \in \cD^-$ with $\bp \in D^-_{\rA}$ we consider
two ``truncated hypergeometric products":
\begin{align*}
V(w;\lambda)
&:= (r w)_{r-1} \, \langle \, \hgF(\bal^*(w); z) \cdot
\hgF(\bv-\bal^*(w+1);z) \, \rangle_{k} \big|_{z = x},
\\[2mm]
P(w;\lambda)
&:= (r w)_r \, \langle \, \hgF(\bal^*(w); z) \cdot
\hgF(\1-\bal^*(w+1);z) \, \rangle_{k}\big|_{z = x},
\end{align*}
where $(s)_n := \varGamma(s+n)/\varGamma(s)$, $\bal^*(w) :=
((r-p)w-a, \, (r-q)w-b; \, r w)$, $\bv := (1,1;2)$,
$\1 := (1,1;1)$ and $k := \max\{r-p-1, \, r-q-1\}$.
Note that $V(w; \lambda)$ is written $\Phi(w; \lambda)$ in
the previous paper \cite{Iwasaki} but the latter symbol is
already used in a different context in \S \ref{sec:kummer}
of the present article and hence altered.
It is shown in \cite[Lemma 11.10]{Iwasaki} that $V(w; \lambda)$ is a
polynomial of degree at most $r-1$ in $w$ and so admits an expansion
\[
V(w; \lambda) = \sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} V_{\nu}(\lambda) \, w^{\nu}
= \sum_{\nu=0}^{r-1} V_{\nu}(a,b;x) \, w^{\nu} ,
\]
where $V_{\nu}(\lambda)$ is written $V_{\nu}(a,b; x)$ when
$\bp$ is understood to be a priori given.
It is also known that $P(w; \lambda)$ is a polynomial of degree
at most $r$.
Our algorithm is based on the following.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:truncate}
$\lambda \in \cD^-$ is a solution of type $(\rA)$ if and only if
$\bp \in D^-_{\rA}$ and $V(w; \lambda)$ vanishes identically as a
polynomial of $w$, that is, $(a,b;x)$ is a simultaneous root of
algebraic equations
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:cfcr2}
V_{\nu}(a, b; x) = 0 \qquad (\nu = 0, \dots, r-1),
\end{equation}
in which case $P(w; \lambda)$ is exactly of degree $r$ in $w$
and $R(w; \lambda)$ in formula \eqref{eqn:ocf} is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:R-l}
R(w;\lambda) = (1-x)^{r-p-q-1} \cdot \dfrac{(r w)_r}{P(w;\lambda)}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\par
This theorem follows from \cite[Theorems 2.9 and 2.10]{Iwasaki}.
Now we have the following.
\begin{algorithm} \label{algorithm}
To enumerate all $(\rA)$-solutions $\lambda \in \cD^-$ with any
prescribed $\bp \in D^-_{\rA}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Check if $\bp = (p,q;r)$ satisfies division relation \eqref{eqn:dr}
in Theorem \ref{thm:pqr}.
\item If it is alright, then following Theorem \ref{thm:ab} find a
candidate for $\ba =(a,b)$ explicitly in terms of $\bp$, which must be
in one of Cases 1--6 of Table \ref{tab:ab}.
\item Substitute the ensuing candidate $\ba$ into \eqref{eqn:cfcr2}
to derive algebraic equations for $x$ over $\Q$:
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:V}
V_{\nu}(x) = 0 \qquad (\nu = 0, \dots, r-1),
\end{equation}
where $V_{r-1}(x) = 0$ is equivalent to equation \eqref{eqn:Y} in
Theorem \ref{thm:sol-A} (see \cite[Remark 2.11]{Iwasaki}).
\item Check if equations \eqref{eqn:V} admits a simultaneous root $x$
with $0 < x < 1$.
If so, we certainly get an $(\rA)$-solution $\lambda = (\bp; \ba; x) \in
\cD^-$; otherwise the current candidate gives no solution.
\item If we actually have a solution $\lambda$ in step (4), put it into
formula \eqref{eqn:R-l} to find $R(w;\lambda)$ explicitly.
If $R(w;\lambda)$ is of the form \eqref{eqn:R} (inevitably with $m = n$),
then we have a GPF \eqref{eqn:gpf} by Theorem \ref{thm:back}, where the
constant $C$ can be determined explicitly by evaluating $f(w; \lambda)$
at such a point $w = w_0$ that the hypergeometric series $f(w_0; \lambda)$
is terminating or more specifically it is vanishing except for its
leading term.
\item Repeat the procedures (2)--(5) until all candidates are exhausted.
By Theorem \ref{thm:ab-rf} there are only a finite number of candidates
so that the algorithm terminates in finite steps.
\end{enumerate}
\end{algorithm}
\par
Empirically, it almost surely occurs that algebraic equations
\eqref{eqn:V} have no roots in common for all candidates,
in which case Algorithm \ref{algorithm} serves as a rigorous proof of
the nonexistence of any solution in $\cD^-$ with a given value of
$\bp \in D^-_{\rA}$.
Observe also that for any $\bp = (p,q;r) \in D_{\rA}^-$ with
division relation \eqref{eqn:dr} there is an estimate
$1 \le p, \, q \le r/2$.
Thus by the use of Algorithm \ref{algorithm} the enumeration of all
$(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$ with any  prescribed bound for $r$
terminates in finite steps after producing at most finitely many solutions.
In view of estimate \eqref{eqn:dr-bound} in Lemma \ref{lem:dr-bound},
this is true even with any prescribed bound for $\check{r} := r-p-q$.
For example, there are exactly seven $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$ with
$\check{r} = 2$, all of which are contained in \cite[Table 2]{Iwasaki}.
\par
We proceed to the treatment of integral solutions in $\cF^-$, which
is based on the following.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:D-F}
Reciprocity \eqref{eqn:recip} induces a bijection between the set of all
$(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$ and the set of all integral solutions in
$\cF^-$.
\end{theorem}
\par
This theorem is an immediate consequence of Theorems \ref{thm:D-r} and
\ref{thm:F}.
It implies that all integral solutions $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$
with a given $\bp = (p,q;r)$ is in one-to-one correspondence with all
$(\rA)$-solutions $\check{\lambda} =
(\check{p}, \check{q}, \check{r}; \check{a}, \check{b}; \check{x}) \in \cD^-$
with a given $\check{\bp} = (\check{p}, \check{q}; \check{r}) =
(-p,-q;r-p-q) = (|p|,|q|;r+|p|+|q|)$, so that the enumeration of former
solutions is accomplished through the enumeration of latter solutions
by the use of Algorithm \ref{algorithm}.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:D-F}
There are at most finitely many integral solutions $\lambda =
(p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ with any prescribed bound for $r$.
Moreover any integral solution $\lambda \in \cF^-$ must satisfy
\[
-3 r \le p, \, q \le -1, \qquad -5 r \le p + q \le -2.
\]
\end{corollary}
\par
These inequalities follow from estimates \eqref{eqn:dr-bound} in
Lemma \ref{lem:dr-bound} by replacing $\lambda$ with $\check{\lambda}$.
\subsection{Rational Solutions} \label{subsec:rational}
We turn our attention to dealing with rational solutions in
$\cD^- \cup \cF^-$ that are non-integral.
In $\cD^-$ this amounts to considering solutions of type
$(\rB)$, since all solutions in $\cD^-$ are rational and the
dichotomy of types $(\rA)$ and $(\rB)$ is exactly that of
`integral' and `non-integral'.
\par
A solution $\lambda = (p, q, r; a, b; x)$ to Problem $\rI$ or $\rII$
is said to be {\sl divisible} by an integer $k \ge 2$, if the data
$\lambda/k := (p/k, q/k, r/k; a, b; x)$ is also a solution to the
same problem, in which case $\lambda/k$ is referred to as the
{\sl division} of $\lambda$ by $k$, in particular, $\lambda/2$
is a {\sl half} of $\lambda$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:divisible}
For an integer $k \ge 2$, an integral solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x)
\in \cD^- \cup \cF^-$ is divisible by $k$ if and only if $k|r$ and there
exist $d > 0$ and $v_1, \dots, v_s \in \Q$ with $s := r/k$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:divisible}
R(w; \lambda) = d \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1} \left(w+ \frac{i}{r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{s}
\prod_{j=0}^{k-1} \left(w+ \frac{v_i + j}{k} \right)}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\it Proof}.
Essential is the ``if" part.
Since Problems $\rI$ and $\rII$ are equivalent for integral (or more
generally rational) data in $\cD^- \cup \cF^-$ by Theorem \ref{thm:back}
and assertion (3) of Theorem \ref{thm:F}, the closed-form condition
\eqref{eqn:divisible} lifts to a ``multiplied" gamma product formula
\[
f(w; \lambda) = C \cdot d^w \cdot
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{r-1}
\varGamma \left(w+ \frac{i}{r} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{s}
\prod_{j=0}^{k-1} \varGamma \left(w+ \frac{v_i + j}{k} \right)}
= C \cdot d^w \cdot \prod_{j=0}^{k-1}
\dfrac{\prod_{i=0}^{s-1}
\varGamma \left(w+ \frac{(i/s) + j}{k} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{s}
\varGamma \left(w+ \frac{v_i + j}{k} \right)},
\]
which in turn descends through the multiplication formula
\eqref{eqn:mult} to a GPF
\[
f(w; \lambda/k) = f(w/k; \lambda) = C \cdot d^{w/k} \cdot
\dfrac{ \prod_{i=0}^{s-1}
\varGamma \left(w+ \frac{i}{s} \right)}{\prod_{i=1}^{s}
\varGamma \left(w+ v_i \right)},
\]
with a possibly different $C$.
Thus $\lambda/k$ is a solution and hence $\lambda$ is divisible by $k$.
The proof of ``only if" part is a simple reversing of the
argument so far, with the positivity $d > 0$ coming from
formulas \eqref{eqn:d} and \eqref{eqn:d-F}, while the
rationality $v_1, \dots, v_s \in \Q$ from properties
\eqref{eqn:estimate} and \eqref{eqn:vi-F}.
\hfill $\Box$ \par\medskip
By assertions (2) and (4) of Theorems \ref{thm:D} and
assertion (3) of Theorem \ref{thm:F},
\begin{enumerate}
\item any $(\rB)$-solution in $\cD^-$ is a {\sl half} of an
$(\rA)$-solution $\lambda_* = (p_*, q_*, r_*; a_*, b_*; x_*)
\in \cD^-$ such that $p_*$ and $q_*$ are odd positive integers
and $r_*$ is an even positive integer,
\item any rational solution in $\cF^-$ is the division
$\lambda_*/k$ of an integral solution $\lambda_* \in \cF^-$
by a {\sl divisor} $k$ of $r_*$, where $r_*$ is necessarily
an even positive integer.
\end{enumerate}
Thus finding a rational solution consists of finding an integral
solution $\lambda_*$ by using the recipe in \S \ref{subsec:integral}
and verifying if $\lambda_*$ is divisible by a divisor of $r_*$
based on Lemma \ref{lem:divisible}.
All rational solutions are obtained in this manner.
Note that any seed solution $\lambda_*$ produces only
a finite number of division solutions.
All $(\rB)$-solutions $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ with any
prescribed bound for $r$ are only of a finite cardinality, since
only division by $2$ is involved in this case.
It is not known whether this is also the case for rational solutions
in $\cF^-$, because $r_*$ and $k$ may be arbitrary large while
$r = r_*/k$ is kept bounded (see Problem \ref{prob:F}).
\subsection{Examples of Solutions in the South-West Domain} \label{subsec:sol-F}
\begin{table}[t]
\[
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|cccc|l}
\hline
  &    &    &             &                  &      &     &      &       &       &      &               \\[-4mm]
r & p  & q  & x           & d                & a    & b   & v_1  & v_2   & v_3   & v_4  & \mbox{remark} \\[1mm]
\cline{1-12}
  &    &    &             &                 &              &             &              &               &  &  &                            \\[-3mm]
2 & -1 & -1 & \frac{1}{9} & \frac{2^8}{3^5} & \frac{11}{8} & \frac{9}{8} & \frac{5}{24} & \frac{7}{24}  &  &  & \mbox{GS \cite[(6.6)]{GS}} \\[2mm]
\cline{6-12}
  &    &    &             &                 &              &             &              &               &  &  &                            \\[-3mm]
  &    &    &             &                 & \frac{5}{8}  & \frac{7}{8} & \frac{1}{24} & \frac{11}{24} &  &  & \mbox{GS \cite[(6.5)]{GS}} \\[2mm]
\cline{6-12}
  &    &    &             &                 &              &             &              &               &  &  &                  \\[-3mm]
  &    &    &             &                 & \frac{5}{4}  & \frac{3}{4} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{5}{12}  &  &  & \mbox{self-dual} \\[2mm]
\cline{1-12}
  &    &    &             &                    &             &             &              &              &               &               &                         \\[-3mm]
4 & -1 & -1 & \frac{1}{5} & \frac{2^{14}}{5^6} & \frac{9}{8} & \frac{5}{8} & \frac{3}{40} & \frac{7}{40} & \frac{23}{40} & \frac{27}{40} & \mbox{divisible by $2$} \\[2mm]
\cline{6-12}
  &    &    &             &                    &             &             &              &              &               &               &                         \\[-3mm]
  &    &    &             &                    & \frac{3}{8} & \frac{7}{8} & \frac{1}{40} & \frac{9}{40} & \frac{21}{40} & \frac{29}{40} & \mbox{divisible by $2$} \\[2mm]
\cline{1-12}
  &    &    &                           &                          &             &             &              &              &     & & \\[-3mm]
2 & -2 & -2 & \frac{1}{4}(3 \sqrt{3}-5) & \frac{3^4}{2^7} \sqrt{3} & \frac{5}{3} & \frac{4}{3} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{5}{12} &     & & \mbox{self-dual} \\[2mm]
\cline{2-12}
  &    &    &                &                              &             &             &              &              &   &  &    \\[-3mm]
  & -3 & -1 & 9 -4 \sqrt{5}  & \frac{2^8}{5^3}(5-2\sqrt{5}) & \frac{9}{4} & \frac{5}{4} & \frac{3}{20} & \frac{7}{20} &   &  &    \\[2mm]
\cline{6-12}
  &    &    &                &                              &             &             &              &              &   &  &    \\[-3mm]
  &    &    &                &                              & \frac{7}{4} & \frac{3}{4} & \frac{1}{20} & \frac{9}{20} &   &  &    \\[2mm]
\cline{2-12}
  &    &    &                &                                   &             &             &              &              & & &                   \\[-3mm]
  & -4 & -2 & 17-12 \sqrt{2} & \frac{2^{10}}{3^3}(17-12\sqrt{2}) & \frac{5}{2} & \frac{3}{2} & \frac{1}{12} & \frac{5}{12} & & &  \mbox{self-dual} \\[2mm]
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Some integral solutions in $\cF^-$; reciprocals of the $(\rA)$-solutions in \cite[Table 2]{Iwasaki}.}
\label{tab:sol-F}
\end{table}
Some examples of $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$ were presented in the previous article
\cite[Table 2]{Iwasaki}.
Their reciprocal solutions in $\cF^-$ are given in the corresponding places of
Table \ref{tab:sol-F}, which exhibits for each solution the data
$\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ itself as well as the values of the numbers
$d$ and $v_1, \dots, v_r$ in GPF \eqref{eqn:gpf-F}, with a brief remark in the
last column, if any.
Solutions in the top and second row of Table \ref{tab:sol-F} are Gosper's conjectural
identities in Gessel and Stanton \cite[formulas (6.6) and (6.5)]{GS}, proved later
by Koepf \cite[Table 5]{Koepf} using an extension of Wilf-Zeilberger method \cite{WZ}.
Self-dual solutions are indicated so in the remark column, while any pair of
consecutive solutions without this indication is a dual pair of solutions.
Two solutions with $(p,q;r) = (-1,-1;4)$ are divisible by $2$, halves of
which are tabulated in Table \ref{tab:sol-F-half}.
These two solutions in $\cF^-$ are ``dual" to each other as well as
``reciprocal" to the $(\rB)$-solutions in \cite[Table 3]{Iwasaki},
although we have to be careful in applying these terminologies to
non-integral solutions (as mentioned in Remark \ref{rem:kummer}).
\begin{table}[b]
\[
\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c|c|c|cc}
\hline
  &              &              &             &                    &             &             &              &              \\[-4mm]
r & p            & q            & x           & d                  &  a          & b           & v_1          & v_2          \\[1mm]
\cline{1-9}
  &              &              &             &                    &             &             &              &              \\[-3mm]
2 & -\frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{5}  & \frac{2^{7}}{5^3}  & \frac{9}{8} & \frac{5}{8} & \frac{3}{20} & \frac{7}{20} \\[2mm]
\cline{6-9}
  &              &              &             &                    &             &             &              &              \\[-3mm]
  &              &              &             &                    & \frac{3}{8} & \frac{7}{8} & \frac{1}{20} & \frac{9}{20} \\[2mm]
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\caption{Two non-integral rational solutions in $\cF^-$.}
\label{tab:sol-F-half}
\end{table}
\section{Concluding Discussions} \label{sec:CD}
The main orientation of the field has been toward searching for as
many solutions as possible, but the converse orientation of confining
solutions into as slim a region as possible or perhaps of proving
the nonexistence of solutions other than those already known is equally
important for the ultimate goal of a complete enumeration.
In the latter direction there are such interesting studies as
\cite{Maier,Wimp,Zeilberger}.
The principal aim of our studies is also in this direction.
With this in mind we close this article by giving a couple of
problems that should be discussed in the future.
\par
A solution to Problem $\rI$ or $\rII$ is said to be {\sl primitive}
if it is a multiplication of no other solution.
Since any solution is a multiplication of a primitive solution, the
enumeration of all solutions boils down to that of primitive ones.
As a milestone toward the complete enumeration we pose the following
problem which is still very ambitious.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:primitive}
Are there infinitely many {\sl primitive} solutions in domain $\cD^-$
or only a finite number of them ?
Ask the same question for domain $\cE^{*-}$ or region $\cI^{*-}$
or anywhere else.
\end{problem}
\par
We have no idea as to whether the cardinality of them is finite or infinite.
As $r$ becomes larger, it is increasingly more difficult that the $r$
algebraic equations \eqref{eqn:V} have a root in common, but there
is no logical reasoning that prohibits this miracle.
Either answer is welcome as it contributes to the topic
in one or the other orientation.
Solving Problem \ref{prob:primitive} seems to require an amazingly
new idea.
\par
For solutions in $\cD^-$ such a variety of results are at our
disposal as Theorems \ref{thm:D}, \ref{thm:sol-A},
\ref{thm:pqr}--\ref{thm:ab}, \ref{thm:ab-rf}, \ref{thm:D-r},
\ref{thm:sol-B}, while only Proposition \ref{prop:E} and
Theorem \ref{thm:E} are available for solutions in $\cE^{*-}$
besides Theorem \ref{thm:back} which is common with $\cD^-$ and $\cE^{*-}$.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:E}
Lift our understanding of solutions in $\cE^{*-}$ to the same level
as that of solutions in $\cD^-$ by establishing appropriate
$\cE^{*-}$-counterparts of the above-mentioned results on $\cD^-$.
\end{problem}
\par
For any solution $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cD^-$ the numbers $a$ and
$b$ must be rational by Theorems \ref{thm:ab-rf} and \ref{thm:sol-B}.
This remains true for any rational solution in $\cF^-$
by Theorem \ref{thm:F}.
However, it is not always the case in the south domain $\cE^{*-}$.
Indeed, for each pair $(i, j)$ of integers with $j > k > 0$,
Iwasaki \cite[formula (123)]{Iwasaki} gives a one-parameter family
of solutions $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) = (j-k, k-j, j+k; c, 1-c; 1/2)
\in \cE^{*-}$ with gamma product formula
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:sol-E}
\begin{split}
& \hgF(\, (j-k)w+c, \, -(j-k)w+1-c; \, (j+k)w; \, 1/2) \\[2mm]
& \qquad = \dfrac{\sqrt{2} \, k^{c/2}}{j^{(c-1)/2} \, (j+k)^{1/2}}
\left\{\dfrac{(j+k)^{j+k}}{2^{j+k} \, j^j \, k^k} \right\}^w
\dfrac{\prod_{\nu=0}^{j+k-1} \varGamma\big(w+\frac{\nu}{j+k}\big)}{\prod_{\nu=0}^{j-1}
\varGamma\big(w+\frac{c}{2j}+\frac{\nu}{j}\big) \prod_{\nu=0}^{k-1}
\varGamma\big(w+\frac{1-c}{2k}+\frac{\nu}{k}\big)},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $c$ is a free parameter.
If $c$ is irrational, so are $a = c$ and $b = 1-c$.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:E-rat}
In spite of the existence of such solutions as \eqref{eqn:sol-E}, it might
be expected that $a$ and $b$ must be rational for ``almost all" solutions
in $\cE^{*-}$.
Is this true and in what sense ?
\end{problem}
\par
Thanks to reciprocity our knowledge of integral solutions in $\cF^-$
is at the same level as that of $(\rA)$-solutions in $\cD^-$.
However, we know less about (non-integral) rational solutions and
even nothing about irrational solutions in $\cF^-$.
Thus we pose the following.
\begin{problem} \label{prob:F}
For rational solutions $\lambda = (p,q,r;a,b;x) \in \cF^-$ how large
can the least common denominator of $p$, $q \in \Q$ become ?
Moreover, as mentioned in item (3) of Remark \ref{rem:F} we can also ask:
Is there any irrational solution in $\cF^-$?
\end{problem}
\par
These are among many interesting problems in searching for, or rather
confinement of, or perhaps proving the nonexistence of ``strange"
hypergeometric identities (see also \cite{AZ} for a related discussion).
\par\vspace{5mm} \noindent
{\bf Acknowledgment}. The author thanks Akihito Ebisu
for many stimulating discussions.