No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
In Section 3, since relation (6) is valid only for n ≥ 2r, the condition n ≥ r in relation (9) should be replaced by n ≥ 2r. When r ≤ n ≤ 2r − 1, relation (9) still holds but now relations (6) and (7) should be replaced, respectively, by the relations
and
the asterisk again denoting omission of the last column. The proof of (9) for r ≤ n ≤ 2r − 1 is exactly similar to its proof for n ≥ 2r.
† This Journal 22 (1980), 53–57.