_0)}
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
    &=&  -{ 1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}
          \;{{\nu}_c K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) -Mr_0 K'_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) + \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)
           \over  I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)\left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) }
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
    &\simeq& - { 1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}
          \;{ I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')/ (rr')^{{n}/2}
           \over
    I^2_{n/2}(Mr_0) \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c \right)} + {\cal~O}\left[({\nu}-{\nu}_c)^0\right]\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we used Eq. (\[muc\]) and the Wronskian relation $K_{n/2}^{}(z) I_{n/2}'(z)-K_{n/2}'(z)
I_{n/2}^{}(z)=1/z$. Using Eq. (\[BSmassM\]), it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{taylor}
    {\nu}-{\nu}_c
=        \partial_{p_d} {\nu}\big|_{p_d=in/2}\,
        \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) + \dots =        -{\partial_{p}\left[ {\nu}_c I_{-ip} -Mr_0 I_{-ip}'(Mr_0)
        \right]\big|_{p=in/2}\over I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) }\; \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) +
        \dots~,\end{aligned}$$ so (\[zerozero\]) and (\[cancelation\]) agree in the limit $p_d\to in/2$. Note that since
_ 0) } 
     \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr 
     & = &   - { 1 \over   S_{({n}+1) } } 
           \;{{\nu}_c K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) -Mr_0 K'_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) + \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) 
            \over   I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)\left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) } 
     \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr 
     & \simeq & - { 1 \over   S_{({n}+1) } } 
           \; { I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')/ (rr')^{{n}/2 } 
            \over 
     I^2_{n/2}(Mr_0) \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c \right) } + { \cal ~ O}\left[({\nu}-{\nu}_c)^0\right]\end{aligned}$$ where in the second line we used Eq.   (\[muc\ ]) and the Wronskian relation $ K_{n/2}^{}(z) I_{n/2}'(z)-K_{n/2}'(z) 
 I_{n/2}^{}(z)=1 / z$. Using Eq.   (\[BSmassM\ ]), it is easy to visualize that $ $ \begin{aligned } 
 \label{taylor } 
     { \nu}-{\nu}_c 
 =         \partial_{p_d } { \nu}\big|_{p_d = in/2}\, 
         \left(p_d - i{n\over2}\right) + \dots =         -{\partial_{p}\left [ { \nu}_c I_{-ip } -Mr_0 I_{-ip}'(Mr_0) 
         \right]\big|_{p = in/2}\over I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) } \; \left(p_d - i{n\over2}\right) + 
         \dots~,\end{aligned}$$ therefore (\[zerozero\ ]) and (\[cancelation\ ]) agree in the limit $ p_d\to in/2$. Note that since
_0)}
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
    &=&  -{ 1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}
          \;{{\iu}_c K_{{n}/2}(Md_0) -Mr_0 K'_{{n}/2}(Mf_0) + \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)
           \ovtg  I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)\left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) }
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\ovee (rr')^{{i}/2}}\cr
    &\simeq& - { 1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}
          \;{ N_{{n}/2}(Nr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')/ (rr')^{{n}/2}
           \ovar
    I^2_{n/2}(Mr_0) \lefd({\nj}-{\nb}_c \right)} + {\cal~O}\left[({\nu}-{\nu}_c)^0\right]\end{alignqd}$$ wherr ln the second jine re uavd Eq. (\[muc\]) and the Wronskian relafion $K_{n/2}^{}(e) I_{n/2}'(z)-K_{n/2}'(z)
I_{n/2}^{}(z)=1/z$. Using Eq. (\[BSmassM\]), it is easy to sfe tjat $$\begin{aligned}
\lahel{taylor}
    {\nu}-{\gy}_c
=        \paftial_{p_d} {\nu}\big|_{p_d=in/2}\,
        \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) + \dots =        -{\pcrtial_{p}\left[ {\ny}_c L_{-hp} -Mr_0 I_{-ip}'(Mr_0)
        \right]\big|_{p=lm/2}\over H_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) }\; \lrft(p_d-i{n\over2}\rigmt) +
        \dots~,\end{aligned}$$ so (\[verozero\]) and (\[cancelajion\]) agree iu the limit $p_d\to in/2$. Nitw thaj sinwe
_0)} \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr &=& -{ 1 \;{{\nu}_c -Mr_0 K'_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) \over &\simeq& { 1 \over \;{ I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')/ \over I^2_{n/2}(Mr_0) \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c \right)} + {\cal~O}\left[({\nu}-{\nu}_c)^0\right]\end{aligned}$$ in the second line we used Eq. (\[muc\]) and the Wronskian relation $K_{n/2}^{}(z) I_{n/2}^{}(z)=1/z$. Using Eq. (\[BSmassM\]), it is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned} \label{taylor} {\nu}-{\nu}_c \partial_{p_d} \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) \dots -{\partial_{p}\left[ {\nu}_c I_{-ip} -Mr_0 I_{-ip}'(Mr_0) \right]\big|_{p=in/2}\over I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) }\; \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) + \dots~,\end{aligned}$$ so (\[zerozero\]) and (\[cancelation\]) agree the limit $p_d\to in/2$. Note that since
_0)}
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
    &=&  -{ 1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}
          \;{{\nu}_C K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) -Mr_0 K'_{{n}/2}(MR_0) + \left({\Nu}-{\nU}_c\rIgHt) K_{{n}/2}(mr_0)
           \ovEr  I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)\left({\nu}-{\nu}_C\RighT) }
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
    &\simeQ& - { 1 \over  s_{({n}+1)}}
          \;{ i_{{N}/2}(Mr) I_{{N}/2}(mr')/ (Rr')^{{n}/2}
           \ovEr
    I^2_{n/2}(Mr_0) \lEFt({\NU}-{\Nu}_c \RiGhT)} + {\caL~O}\LEfT[({\nu}-{\nu}_C)^0\riGht]\end{aLigned}$$ wherE in ThE second line wE UsEd Eq. (\[muc\]) and The wronskian relAtiOn $K_{n/2}^{}(z) I_{N/2}'(z)-k_{n/2}'(z)
i_{N/2}^{}(z)=1/z$. UsIng eq. (\[BSmAssM\]), it IS easy tO see that $$\bEgIN{alignED}
\label{tAYLoR}
    {\nu}-{\nU}_c
=        \partial_{p_d} {\nu}\big|_{p_D=In/2}\,
        \LEft(p_d-i{n\over2}\rigHt) + \dots =        -{\PaRTiAL_{P}\leFt[ {\nU}_c I_{-ip} -Mr_0 I_{-ip}'(mr_0)
        \Right]\BIg|_{p=in/2}\ovER I_{{N}/2}(mR_0) }\; \LefT(P_d-i{n\over2}\right) +
        \Dots~,\end{aligNEd}$$ sO (\[zerozErO\]) anD (\[CancelAtion\]) AgREe iN the limit $p_d\To in/2$. note that sInce
_0)}
    \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr)I_{{n}/2}( Mr')\ ove r ( rr ')^{ {n}/ 2}}\cr
    &=&  -{1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}       \; { {\ nu}_c  K_{{n} / 2} ( M r_0 )-M r_0  K ' _{ {n}/2 }(M r_0) +\left({\nu }-{ \n u}_c\right)K _{ {n}/2}(Mr_ 0)           \ ove r  I_{ {n }/2 } (Mr_0 )\l eft({ \nu}-{ \ nu}_c\ right) }  \;{I_ { {n}/2}( M r )I_{{ n}/2}(Mr')\over ( r r' ) ^{{n}/2}}\cr
   &\s im e q& -  {1 \ over  S_{( {n }+1)} } 
      \ ; { I _ {{n}/2}(Mr) I _{{n}/2}(Mr ' )/(rr')^ {{ n}/ 2 }
        \ ove r
    I^2_{ n/2} (Mr_0) \l eft({\ n u}-{\nu } _c \rig ht)} +  {\ cal ~O}\ l ef t[ ({\ nu } -{\ n u} _c) ^ 0\r ight]\en d{ al igned }$$w h e r e in  th e se condline we usedEq.  (\[ m uc\ ]) an d the  Wro ns kianrelati on $K _{ n/2}^{}(z) I_{n /2}' (z)-K_{n/ 2}' (z )
I _{ n/2}^ { }(z)=1 /z$ . U sing Eq . (\[BS m ass M\ ] ) ,  i t is easy to see t ha t $$ \begin{a ligned } 
\ la b el{taylo r} 
   {\ n u }-{\n u}_c =       \ partia l _{ p_ d} {\nu }\ big|_{ p_ d=i n/2 }\,
     \lef t(p_d-i{ n\ove r 2}\right) + \d o ts =        - { \p a r ti a l_{p }\l eft[ {\nu}_ c I_ { -ip}  -Mr _ 0I_{ - ip}'( Mr_0) 
    \right]\big|_{p= in /2}\ov er I_ {{n}/2}(Mr_0)  }\; \left ( p _ d-i{n\ov er2} \ ri g ht) +
       \dots ~,\end{ali g ned}$$ s o (\[ zerozero \]) and ( \ [ cancelat ion \])  ag ree i nthe limit $p_ d \ to i n/ 2$. Not e t hat sin ce
_0)}
 _ _\;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over (rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
 _ _&=&_ -{_1_\over  S_{({n}+1)}}
_  _   _  \;{{\nu}_c_K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)_-Mr_0 K'_{{n}/2}(Mr_0) + \left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right) K_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)
         __\over _I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)\left({\nu}-{\nu}_c\right)_}
_   \;{I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')\over_(rr')^{{n}/2}}\cr
    &\simeq&_- {_1 \over  S_{({n}+1)}}
    __  _ \;{ I_{{n}/2}(Mr) I_{{n}/2}(Mr')/ (rr')^{{n}/2}
    _     _\over
  __I^2_{n/2}(Mr_0)_\left({\nu}-{\nu}_c \right)} + {\cal~O}\left[({\nu}-{\nu}_c)^0\right]\end{aligned}$$_where in the second line we_used Eq. (\[muc\]) and the Wronskian relation_$K_{n/2}^{}(z) I_{n/2}'(z)-K_{n/2}'(z)
I_{n/2}^{}(z)=1/z$. Using Eq. (\[BSmassM\]), it is easy_to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{taylor}
  _ {\nu}-{\nu}_c
=   _ _  \partial_{p_d} {\nu}\big|_{p_d=in/2}\,
 _  _ _ \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) +_\dots =    _  _-{\partial_{p}\left[ {\nu}_c I_{-ip} -Mr_0 I_{-ip}'(Mr_0)
 __  ___\right]\big|_{p=in/2}\over I_{{n}/2}(Mr_0)_}\; \left(p_d-i{n\over2}\right) +
__ __   \dots~,\end{aligned}$$ so (\[zerozero\])_and_(\[cancelation\]) agree in the limit $p_d\to in/2$._Note that since