1

Let $$p(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n}a_ix^i$$ be a polynomial in $\mathbb{R}[x]$ such that $0$ and $1$ aren't roots of $p.$ Prove that $\frac{1}{\alpha}$ is a root of $p$ whenever $\alpha$ is a root of $p,$ and they have the same multiplicity iff $a_{n-k}=a_{k}$ or $a_{n-k}=-a_{k}$ for each $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}.$

Basically, I am talking about polynomials like $p(x)=2x^2-x+2.$ Notice that the roots of this polynomial are reciprocals of each other.

My Attempt: I am able to prove the one-way implication. Let $$p(x)=\sum_{i=0}^{n}a_ix^i.$$ Let $a_{n-k}=a_k$ for each $k\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}.$ Let $p(\alpha)=0.$ Then, $$a_n\alpha^n+a_{n-1}\alpha^{n-1}+\ldots+a_{n-1}\alpha+a_n=0.$$ Multiplying throughout by $\frac{1}{\alpha^n},$ we get that $\frac{1}{\alpha}$ is a root of $p$ too. If $a_{n-k}=-a_{k},$ we can multiply by $\frac{-1}{\alpha^n}$ to get the desired result.

How to prove the reverse implication?

aqualubix
  • 1,794
  • @ancientmathematician, you're right. Let me edit the question. – aqualubix May 24 '23 at 15:32
  • 2
    I don't think you want the absolute values? If we require $a_{n - k} = a_k$, then we get palindromic polynomials, for which the statement holds. (See e.g. https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2783280/reason-for-substitution-a-z-frac1z.) – Jakob Streipel May 24 '23 at 15:32
  • @prets, yes, I was glitching when I put in the absolute values. However, the link you've given doesn't prove the reverse implication. – aqualubix May 24 '23 at 15:40
  • 2
    Note: You want the roots with multiplicity. Otherwise $(2x-1)(2x-1)(x-2)$ is a counterexample. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 15:42
  • Note: You'd also want to exclude roots like $x = 1, x = -1$ (because they self-pair up). For example, $(x-1)(2x^2 - x + 2 ) = 2x^3 -3x^2 + 3x - 2$ is a counterexample. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 15:47
  • @CalvinLin, okay let me make a few edits to my question. – aqualubix May 24 '23 at 15:48
  • Actually, we can allow for $ x = -1$, even though it self-pairs up. That occurs when the polynomial has odd degree (but I'm not certain how to deal with it). – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 15:58
  • @CalvinLin, I did not expect this question to have so many subtleties. Let me edit that in. – aqualubix May 24 '23 at 15:59
  • Note that since $a_ 0 = a_n \neq 0$, we don't need the condition that excludes $0$ from being a root (as it naturally won't be a root). – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 16:20

2 Answers2

2

[Note: Per the comments, we do NOT want $a_{n-k} = -a_k$.]

The complete classification of roots of coefficient-symmetric polynomials (without restriction on roots) is

  1. $ \alpha, \frac{1}{ \alpha}$ with $ \alpha \neq 1, -1$ occur with the same multiplicity
  2. $\alpha = - 1$
  3. $\alpha = 1$ with even multiplicity.

We will prove this version, from which OP's question follows as a corollary.

Lemma: A polynomial of degree $n$ has symmetric coefficients if and only if $x^n f(\frac{1}{x} ) = f(x)$.
This is obvious by expanding the terms and comparing coefficients.

Forward direction of the classification (Roots of that structure result in symmetric coefficients):
For the roots that occur in pairs, we have $( x- \alpha_i )(x -\frac{1}{\alpha_i}) = ( x^2 - \beta_i x + 1 )$.
For $ \alpha = 1$, since $(x-1)(x-1) = (x^2 - 2x + 1)$, it has the above form with $ \beta_i = 2$.
Thus, $f(x) = A(x+1) ^m \prod ( x^2 - \beta_i x + 1 )$. Observe that $$x^n f( \frac{1}{x} ) = A[ x^m ( \frac{1}{x} + 1 ) ^m ] \prod x^2 ( \frac{1}{x^2 } - \beta_i \frac{1}{x} + 1 ) = A(x+1) ^m \prod ( x^2 - \beta_i x + 1 ) = f(x),$$
hence the polynomial has symmetric coefficients.

Backward direction of the classification (Coefficient-symmetric polynomials have that structure of roots):
If $a_{k} = a_{n-k}$, OP's work shows that the roots either pair up with $ \alpha , \frac{1}{\alpha}$, or must satisfy $ \alpha = \frac{1}{\alpha}$.
Hence, $f(x) = A(x-1)^a (x+1)^b \prod ( x^2 - \beta_i x + 1) $.
Since $A = a_n = a_0= f(0) = A(-1)^a (1)^b \prod 1$, hence $a $ must be even. So $ \alpha = 1$ appears with even multiplicity.
Thus, the roots are in the required form.

Calvin Lin
  • 68,864
0

Assume that every $1/\alpha$ is a zero of $p$ whenever $\alpha$ is a zero of $p$. Therefore, the degree of the polynomial has to be even if $\pm 1$ are not roots. Furthermore, assume that if $1$ is a root of $p$, then its multiplicity is even.

The reciprocal polynomial of $p(x) = \sum^{m}_{i=0} a_i x^i$ (where $a_0 \neq 0$) is $p^*(x) := \sum^{m}_{i=0} a_i x^{m-i}$. Notice that $p(x) = x^m \cdot p^*(x^{-1})$ (write it out), therefore $\alpha$ is a root of $p$ iff $1/\alpha$ is root of $p^{*}$ (where $\alpha \neq 0$, because $a_0 \neq 0$).

If we assume that each zero $\alpha$ of $p$ has the same multiplicity as $1/\alpha$, then we see that $p$ and $p^*$ have exactly the same roots with the same multiplicity. That is, if $\alpha_0$ is a zero of $p$ with multiplicity of $n_0$ (hence $1/\alpha_0$ has multiplicity $n_0$ as well), then this root $1/\alpha_0$ corresponds exactly to the root $1/(1/\alpha_0) = \alpha_0$ of $p^*$ with multiplicity $n_0$. Therefore, if you factorize $p$ and $p^*$ into its linear factors, you will have the same factorization but in both cases there will be a constant factor in front (namely $a_n$ resp $a_0$, this is just a fact of polynomials. If you write the factorization of some polynomial in monic linear factors, and your polynomial is not monic then this constant in front of the leading term times this factorization will be your polynomial).

Now it remains to show that this constant term is the same. Notice firstly that if we take the product of all the roots of $p$ (that is, the roots $\alpha_0$ to corresponding $1/\alpha_0$ with multiplicity $n_0$) then this product will be equal to $1$. The same goes for $p^*$. Notice that this product will not always be equal to $1$ when the multiplicity of roots $\alpha$ and $1/\alpha$ do not match. Something funny happens when $1$ is a root, because its inverse is $1$. Therefore if $1$ has an odd multiplicity this product will not be equal to $1$. Notice that the only cases where $1/\alpha = \alpha$ is when $\alpha = \pm 1$. Notice that for $\alpha = -1$ this will always work. There are no more cases to check!

Let's first look at the case when $p$ is monic. When $p$ is monic the term $a_0$ will be $1$. Because if we write the factorization of $p$ out, the constant term $a_n$ in front of this factorization will be $1$. We already know that the product of the constant term in these monic linear factors (the roots) is equal to $1$. And this product is equal to $a_0$ in $p$. So, the constant term in front of $p^*$ is equal to $1$ as well. Now we conclude that $p = p^*$.

If your polynomial is not monic, then write $p = a_m\cdot h$, where $h = \sum^m_{i=0}\frac{a_i}{a_m}x^i$ is monic. Then use the previous argument to conclude that $h = h^* =: \sum^m_{i=0}\frac{a_i}{a_m}x^{m-i}$. Now, compare the terms and you see that $a_0/a_m = 1$. Therefore, $a_0 = a_m$.

Now you conclude that $p = p^*$, and thus your statement follows.

Anton Odina
  • 605
  • 2
  • 10
  • @Calvin Lin, You should write it out. – Anton Odina May 24 '23 at 18:48
  • Ah, I misread what you wrote. $\quad$ 1/ I agree you now have $x^m \cdot p^(x^{-1} ) = p(x) = Ap^(x)$ and need to show that $A = 1$. 2/ Note that you will need the condition that 1 is not a root. For example, $x - 1$ satisfies the conditions alongside your reasoning, but clearly is not coefficient-symmetric. As such, you'd need to figure out what gap that caused. $\quad$ My guess is that $ A = \pm 1$, and the $-1$ case needs to be dealt with to explain the above. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 19:02
  • @CalvinLin, I'm not sure why this doesn't work for $x-1$. – Anton Odina May 24 '23 at 19:06
  • It's because of the $ A = \pm 1$. $\quad$ I do not see any logic provided for "if you assume $p$ to be monic, then the statement follows" (IE That $A=1$). Can you add that in, and I can review? $\quad$ Note that it's also not true (IE that $A = -1$) for say $(x-1)(x-2)(x-0.5)$ or $(x-1)(x+1)$, which is why I'm suspicious of the handwaving. $\quad$ Basically, that $(x-1)$ term was giving me trouble in this general case. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 19:26
  • With the assumption that 1 is not a root, then $ p^(1) \neq 0$, and we can substitute in $x = 1$ to conclude that $ 1^m p^(1) = p(1) = A p^*(1) \Rightarrow A = 1$. $\quad$ However, for the more general case, it's not immediately clear to me how else we can proceed. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 19:55
  • @CalvinLin I believe this argument works (I have edited my answer). – Anton Odina May 24 '23 at 20:12
  • That still seems very handwavy to me, and you're not checking details, but rather relying on others to check your work. $\quad$ As a quick read, there are several issues: 1/ The product of roots need not be 1. In fact, it is $-1$ when $n$ is odd. 2/ Saying that the product is not equal to 1 if the multiplicities do not match isn't true either, since $2^3 \times 1/2 \times 4 \times 1/4^2 = 1$. 3/ If 1 appears with odd multiplicity, the product of roots is still 1 since $1^n = 1$.$\quad$ Given that I had issues with almost every line, I didn't read much further. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 20:37
  • Notice that $n$ has to be even if $\pm1$ is not a root. – Anton Odina May 24 '23 at 21:05
  • I agree that $n$ is even if $ \pm 1 $ is not a root. Is that an assumption you are making in this part of the solution? If so, please state it. Note that OP currently allows $-1$ to be a root, so you won't be answering the question. $\quad$ The rest of my criticism still stands. Please provide the details instead of just handwaving around. EG What is "something funny happens"? Describe the issue. $\quad$ We're not all mindreaders and can't tell exactly what you are thinking. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 21:22
  • Well, I beg to differ. You should be able to figure it out. 'Something funny happens' refers to 'its inverse is $1$'. Just read it carefully. – Anton Odina May 24 '23 at 21:37
  • Sure, we have a difference of opinion. At this point, I don't think I can contribute more to this exchange, so I'm going to exit the conversation. – Calvin Lin May 24 '23 at 21:47