12

Let $k$ be a field and $K=k(x_0,x_1,\ldots, x_n)[x]$. Define $$\mathcal{L}_k(x)\triangleq \prod_{\substack{j=0\\ j\ne k}}^n\frac{x-x_j}{x_k-x_j}.$$

Is there a purely combinatorial way to show that $$\sum_{k=0}^n\mathcal{L}_k(x)=1?$$

That is, I would like to consider the $\mathcal{L}_k(x)$ as formal polynomials, not as functions. I am aware of proof by interpolation, but I think there must be an interesting combinatorial proof using counting arguments with the indices.


My attempt.

To directly add the summands together, we need a common denominator. Let $R_n=\{0,\ldots, n\}$, $S=\{(i,j)\in R_n\times R_n |j<i\}$, and $S_k=\{(i,j)\in S | i=k\text{ or }j=k\}$. First, note that $$\begin{eqnarray*}\prod_{\substack{j=0\\ j\ne k}}^n\frac{1}{x_k-x_j}&=& \prod_{\substack{j=0\\ j< k}}^n\frac{1}{x_k-x_j}\prod_{\substack{j=0\\ j> k}}^n\frac{1}{-(x_j-x_k)}\\&=&\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}\frac{1}{x_k-x_j}\prod_{j=k+1}^n\frac{1}{-(x_j-x_k)}\\ &=&(-1)^{n-k}\prod_{(i,j)\in S_k}\frac{1}{x_i-x_j} \end{eqnarray*}$$ To get a common denominator, we therfore multiply each term by $$\frac{\prod_{(i,j)\in S\setminus S_k}x_i-x_j}{\prod_{(i,j)\in S\setminus S_k}x_i-x_j}$$
to obtain $$\prod_{j<i}\frac{1}{x_i-x_j}\sum_{k=0}^n\left((-1)^{n-k}\prod_{\substack{j=0\\ j\ne k}}^n(x-x_j)\prod_{(i,j)\in S\setminus S_k}(x_i-x_j)\right)$$ ...and here is where I can't get stuck, can't think of a how to continue.

Bruno Joyal
  • 54,711

1 Answers1

2

There is a nice argument using the Vandermonde determinant. I don't know if it's combinatorial enough to your taste.

Consider the Vandermonde matrix $V(x_0, x_1, \dots, x_n)$. Its determinant is $$D = \prod_{0 \leq i< j \leq n} (x_i-x_j).$$ (There are many arguments for this.) Remark that if we shift all of the $x_i$'s by the same variable, the determinant doesn't change, because $x_i-x_j = (x_i+x)-(x_j+x)$. Therefore,

$$D(x_0+x,\: x_1+x,\: \dots,\: x_n+x) = D(x_0, x_1, \dots, x_n) = D.$$

But now if we expand the determinant $D(x_0+x,\: x_1+x,\: \dots,\: x_n+x)$ along the column of $1$'s, we get precisely the formula $\sum \mathcal L_k(x) = 1$ after dividing by $D$ (using induction on each of the $n+1$ smaller determinants).

Edit: Here's an example of what I mean, for $n=2$. I hope it's clear. At the top we have the Vandermonde determinant, and I have expanded it out along the column of $1$'s. I end up with $3$ Vandermonde determinants of one smaller size, which I also evaluate using the trick above. Dividing the bottom result by the top result gives your formula. Sorry about the picture quality, it's a narrow space and I couldn't get the whole board in any other way.

enter image description here

Bruno Joyal
  • 54,711
  • This is very neat but I'm not sure how exactly it proves the summation. Could you spell it out for me? – Alexander Gruber Feb 07 '14 at 05:52
  • @AlexanderGruber I have posted an example, it's faster like this. Let me know what you think. – Bruno Joyal Feb 07 '14 at 06:21
  • Well @Alexander? – Bruno Joyal Feb 17 '14 at 13:59
  • Sorry, I've been quite busy and hadn't been able to look over your edit yet. I will do so now. – Alexander Gruber Feb 17 '14 at 17:21
  • 1
    I like this a lot, I think it is exactly what I'm looking for. One question, regarding $\prod_{0<=i<j\leq n}(x_i-x_j)$, how do we know that this will end up with the same signs as the $\prod_{k\ne j}{x_k-x_j}$? – Alexander Gruber Feb 17 '14 at 17:32
  • @AlexanderGruber No worries about the delay, I was just wondering if you had seen my answer at all! As for your question, well, this is also kind of awkward to explain, but you can see what is going on in the example. The alternating signs in the expansion of the determinant compensate for the fact that some of the terms have to be switched to get the formula in the form you want it. I hope you won't mind if I let you think about how that works precisely... – Bruno Joyal Feb 17 '14 at 20:56
  • I thought about it, and I believe it. Thanks, this is exactly as combinatorial as I wanted. – Alexander Gruber Feb 18 '14 at 03:28
  • You are welcome @Alex! – Bruno Joyal Feb 18 '14 at 10:52