MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is motivated by idle curiosity. I recently learned a result of Duistermaat and Van Der Kallen in "Constant terms of powers of a Laurent polynomial" which says that:

If the constant term of $f^n$ vanishes for all $n\in \mathbb N$, where $f\in \mathbb C[x,x^{-1}]$ is a Laurent polynomial, then either $f\in \mathbb C [x]$ or $f\in \mathbb C[x^{-1}]$.

Their proof uses complex analysis and I was wondering if one can prove the statement over an arbitrary field of characteristic zero using algebraic or combinatorial methods. Characteristic zero is of course necessary since $x^{p-1}+\frac{1}{x}$ satisfies the conditions in characteristic $p$.

share|cite|improve this question
Our main result was about Laurent polynomials in several variables. – Wilberd van der Kallen Nov 15 '11 at 16:01
Isn't it false without some convergence condition? Just take f=x^-2+g, where g= a1x+a2x^2+..., choose the a_m with m odd arbitrarily, and define the a_m with m even inductively to make the coefficients that you want equal to 0? – paul Monsky Nov 15 '11 at 16:28
A polynomial has only finitely many terms, so you cannot define the a_m inductively like that. – Wilberd van der Kallen Nov 15 '11 at 16:53
If $K$ is a field of characteristic $0$ and $f\in K[x,x^{-1}]$, then $f$ is also in $L[x,x^{-1}]$, where $L$ is the subfield of $K$ generated by the coefficients of $f$. As $L$ is of finite type over $\mathbb{Q}$, it can be embedded in $\mathbb{C}$, so you can see $f$ as an element of $\mathbb{C}[x,x^{-1}]$ and apply the result that you are citing. So the result that you want seems to at least be true. But I'm guessing that you wanted another proof. – Alex Nov 15 '11 at 19:27
@Gjergji--There's one thing to be said for the algebraic proof. When we adjoin the solutions of f(x)=t to the field of fractions of K[[t]], we get the splitting field of a polynomial of degree r+s. When char K is >r+s this extension is tamely ramified. So each solution, a, still admits a Newton-Puiseux expansion, and the proof I gave in my answer still works---when char K is > r+s, then c1, c2,... cannot all be 0. As you pointed out there are counterexamples when char K = r+s. – paul Monsky Dec 28 '11 at 20:03
up vote 5 down vote accepted

I'll give an algebraic argument, which is I think essentially the same as Duistermatt's, but substitutes partial fractions and some valuation theory for complex analysis. K will be algebraically closed of characteristic 0; f will be in K[x,1/x]. We suppose f is not in K[x] or K[1/x]. Let r and -s be the largest and smallest exponent of x appearing in f; r and s are >0.

Lemma:---Let M be a finite extension of the field of fractions of K[[t]]. Extend the obvious valuation on the field of fractions to M. Then if a is in M with f(a)=t, ord f'(a) must be < 1. (To see this note that ord a is 0. Then a has a Newton-Puiseux expansion a0 +(a1)(t^p)+..., with a0 and a1 non-zero, and p a positive rational. The derivation D=d/dt extends to M, and 1=D(f(a)) is the product of f'(a) by (a1)(p)*(t^(p-1))+... So ord f'(a)=1-p which is < 1.)

Theorem 1:---Let S be a subset of the algebraic closure of K(z). Suppose that for each a in S, f(a)=1/z. Then the sum over S of the 1/(af'(a)) cannot be z. (To see this let t=1/z. Then K(z)= K(t) which imbeds in the field of fractions of K[[t]], and we may view S as a subset of a finite extension, M, of this field. By the lemma, each 1/(af'(a)) has ord > -1. But z=1/t has ord equal to -1.)

Now let c_n be the constant term in f^n, and W=1+... be the element sigma (c_n)(z^n) of K[[z]]. Combinatorialists know that a partial fraction argument shows that W is algebraic over L=K(z). Carrying out the partial fraction argument explicitly one finds:

Theorem 2:---There are a lying in a finite extension of L with each f(a) equal to 1/z, such that zW is the sum of the 1/(af'a)). (So by Theorem 1, W is not 1, and c_1, c_2,... cannot all be 0.)

I'll sketch a proof of Theorem 2. Let U be the element (x^s)(1-zf) of L[x]. If a is a root of u, then f(a)=1/z. So by the lemma f'(a) is not 0. Then U'(a) is not 0, and U is separable. It follows that 1/(1-fz)=(x^s)/U is a sum of c/(x-a) where a runs over the roots of f(x)=1/z. It's easy to see that the c corresponding to a given a is -1/(zf'(a)). I now refer to Lemmas 3.6 and 3.7 of my article "Generating functions attached to some infinite matrices"---see arXiv 0906.1836 or Elec. J. of Comb, v.18 (1) 2011:

If we take U1=x^s and U2=U=(x^s)(1-zf) we are in the situation of Lemma 3.7. W is "the coefficient of x^0 in the element (U1)/(U2)". In the language of the lemma, W is the sum of the l_0(c/(z-a)). The proof of Lemma 3.6 shows that l_0(1/(z-a)) is either 0 or -1/a. So z l_0(c/(z-a)) is either 0 or 1/(af'(a)). This completes the proof.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.