Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Setting

The paper normalizes a polynomial with simple, equally spaced, real zeros by a change of scale to one of two forms (p. 293). Odd degree 2n+12n+1:

pn(x)=x∏k=1n(x2−k2),n=1,2,…,(1)p_n(x)=x\prod_{k=1}^{n}(x^2-k^2),\qquad n=1,2,\ldots, \tag{1}

with zeros at the integers −n,…,n-n,\ldots,n and centre of symmetry 00. Even degree 2n+22n+2, n=0,1,…n=0,1,\ldots:

q0(x)=x(x−1),qn(x)=(x−n−1) pn(x),n=1,2,…,(2)q_0(x)=x(x-1),\qquad q_n(x)=(x-n-1)\,p_n(x),\qquad n=1,2,\ldots, \tag{2}

with zeros at the integers −n,…,n+1-n,\ldots,n+1 and centre of symmetry 12\tfrac12. By symmetry the paper states its results for positive xx. An arch is the part of the graph between two consecutive zeros.

Statement

Statement (I) (p. 294). Let xx be a non-integer with 0<x<n0<x<n. Then

∣pn(x+1)∣>∣pn(x)∣and∣qn(x+1)∣>∣qn(x)∣.(3)|p_n(x+1)|>|p_n(x)|\qquad\text{and}\qquad|q_n(x+1)|>|q_n(x)|. \tag{3}

Consequently the areas, and the maxima, under the successive arches of ∣pn(x)∣|p_n(x)| and of ∣qn(x)∣|q_n(x)|, for x>0x>0, each form an increasing sequence.

The paper notes (p. 293) that this arch-to-arch monotonicity, for a fixed polynomial, does not depend on the normalizations (1) and (2). A footnote (p. 294) reports D. J. Newman's remark that parts of (I) are implicit in Milne-Thomson's The Calculus of Finite Differences (1960), especially from p. 131 on.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement and the setting were read clause by clause on the page images of pp. 293--294. The short proof was followed.

Proof pointer

P. 294. Shifting the argument by one gives the exact ratio pn(x+1)=x+n+1x−n pn(x)p_n(x+1)=\frac{x+n+1}{x-n}\,p_n(x), and similarly qn(x+1)=x+n+1x−n−1 qn(x)q_n(x+1)=\frac{x+n+1}{x-n-1}\,q_n(x). For 0<x<n0<x<n the numerator exceeds the absolute value of the denominator, and neither side vanishes at a non-integer.

Dependencies

None beyond the definitions (1) and (2).

Bears on

Problem 1114: context only. The paper calls (I) an analogue of Bálint's verification of Erdős's conjecture, since both describe a monotonicity in passing from one arch of a fixed polynomial to the next (p. 294). Statement (I) concerns the values of the polynomial, not the gaps between zeros of its derivative, and says nothing about those gaps.