0
$\begingroup$

By playing around with assoc. Legendre polynomials, I arrived at

$$((l+1)+m) (P_l^m(x))^2+((l+1)-m)(P_{l+1}^m(x))^2 = 2(l+1)x P_l^m(x)P_{l+1}^m(x).$$

Now, I want to show that we don't have equality for $x \in (-1,1).$

I undertook quite some computations in order to be sure that this is really the case, but I currently don't see why this is true.

There are some simple ways to start with:

For $x=0$ the inequality is obvious and both sides are even functions.

The remarkable remark: A remarkable, but maybe not obvious fact is that this equation is equivalent to the fact that the Wronskian of the functions $P_l^m$ and $P_{l+1}^m$ does not vanish inside $(-1,1)$, so if it is possible to show this, then you showed the inequality too. Maybe this has be shown somewhere, I don't know, I could not find it.

So equivalently, I want to understand why $W(P_l^m,P_{l+1}^m) \neq 0$ in $(-1,1)$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I am confused: you've written down an equation, and then you say "I want to show that we have don't have equality unless $x\in\{-1,1\}$". $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi sorry, a small typo and yes, I want to show that this equation does not hold for $x \in (-1,1).$ $\endgroup$
    – Simon B.
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 19:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I still don't understand. Normally when someone says they arrive at an equation, that means they have derived it from something and they think it is true. So why did you write down this formula and ask for help proving it is false? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ @YemonChoi it may happen if we arrive to equation assuming something which must be wrong:) $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 22:39
  • $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov that's the point here. I took the wronskian set it equal to zero and substituted the derivatives. $\endgroup$
    – Simon B.
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 22:48

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Let $y_1< z_1< y_2< z_2< \dots< y_{l-m}\leq z_{l-m}< y_{l-m+1}$ be roots of polynomials $f=(1-x^2)^{-m/2} P_l^m$ and $g=(1-x^2)^{-m/2} P_{l+1}^m$ ($y$'s are roots of $g$, $z$'s are roots of $f$). They are real, belong to $(-1,1)$ and alternate as written because $f$, $g$ are orthogonal polynomial in weighted $L^2_w(-1,1)$ with weight $w=(1-x^2)^m$.

Wronskian vanishes (in a point different from $\pm 1$) iff $(P_{l+1}^m/P_l^m)'=0$, i.e. iff $(g/f)'=0$, i.e. iff $f'/f=g'/g$ i.e. iff $$ \sum \frac1{x-y_i}=\sum \frac1{x-z_i}. $$ But it is impossible for real $x$. If, say, $y_k<x<z_k$ for some $k$, then $1/(x-y_i)>1/(x-z_{i-1})$ for $i=2,\dots,{l-m+1}$ and $1/(x-y_1)>0$, thus LHS exceed RHS.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ you know that although the associated legendre polynomials are called polynomials, they are not necessarily polynomials, so I am not sure why we must have all these properties that you named. (although this might work especially in the case m=0). $\endgroup$
    – Simon B.
    Commented Mar 11, 2015 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong but associated Legendre polynomials satisfy different second order ODEs, depending on $l$. Or what am I missing? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19, 2015 at 10:49
  • $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov: oops, you are right. I did over look that fact. In fact I only have $[(1-x^2) W]' = 2 (\ell + 1) P_\ell P_{\ell + 1}$ which is not enough. This should be fixable, let me think about it and delete my previous comment in the mean while. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19, 2015 at 11:36
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, re-reading your answer I noticed that it is much more elegant than I originally thought. So +1 and I won't bother thinking about it more. // and yes, I absent-mindedly forgot to type the $m$ in my previous comment. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 19, 2015 at 11:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .