5
$\begingroup$

Fix integers $1 \leq k \leq n$ and suppose $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ is such that $e_j(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n) \geq 0$ for all $1 \leq j \leq k$, where $e_j$ is the $j$-th elementary symmetric polynomial.

Question 1: Is it true that $x_1 + x_2 + \cdots + x_{n-k+1} \geq 0$?

The answer is trivially "yes" in the edge cases $k = 1$ and $k = n$, but the intermediate cases seem much less obvious.

While Question 1 is the one that I'm really interested in, there is a natural generalization of it that is perhaps known, so I'll ask it now:

Question 2: Is it true that $e_j(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_{n-1}) \geq 0$ for all $1 \leq j \leq k-1$?

In other words, can we use non-negativity of elementary symmetric polynomials in $n$ variables to infer non-negativity of elementary symmetric polynomials in $n-1$ variables? If the answer to Question 2 is "yes" then we can use it $k-1$ times to see that the answer to Question 1 is "yes" too.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

4
+100
$\begingroup$

The answer to question 2, and therefore question 1, is "yes". We abbreviate $e_k(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n-1})$ to $b_k$ and $e_k(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x_n)$ to $a_k$, so $a_k = x_n b_{k-1} + b_k$.

We are trying to show that, if $a_1$, $a_2$, ..., $a_k \geq 0$ then $b_1$, $b_2$, ..., $b_{k-1} \geq 0$. We prefer to prove the contrapositive: If $b_j<0$ then one of $a_1$, $a_2$, ..., $a_j$, $a_{j+1} <0$. We may assume that $j$ is minimal with $b_j<0$, so $b_1$, $b_2$, ..., $b_{j-1} \geq 0$.

Case 1: $x_n<0$. Then $a_j = x_n b_{j-1} + b_j < 0$.

Case 2: $x_n \geq 0$. First of all, if $b_{j-1} \leq 0$, then $a_j<0$ and, if $b_{j+1} \leq 0$, then $a_{j+1} < 0$. So we may assume that $b_{j-1}$ and $b_{j+1}>0$.

Now, Newton's inequalities give $$\frac{b_{j-1} b_{j+1}}{\binom{n-1}{j-1} \binom{n-1}{j+1}} \leq \frac{b_j^2}{\binom{n-1}{j}^2}$$ or $$b_{j-1} b_{j+1} \leq \frac{j(n-j-1)}{(j+1)(n-j)} b_j^2 < b_j^2.$$ So $$0<\frac{b_{j+1}}{- b_j} < \frac{-b_j}{b_{j-1}}.$$

We must either have $x_n > \tfrac{b_{j+1}}{- b_j}$ or $x_n < \tfrac{-b_j}{b_{j-1}}$. In the first case, $0 > x_n b_j + b_{j+1} = a_{j+1}$; in the second case, $a_j = x_n b_{j-1} + b_j < 0$. Either way, we have found a negative $a_j$.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ This is very like a standard proof of Descartes' rule of signs, where one checks that multiplying by $f(t)$ by $t+a$ adds one sign alternation if $a<0$ and, if $a>0$ and all roots of $f$ are real, keeps the number of sign alternatations the same. I couldn't find this version of the proof quickly enough to link to though. $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2022 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ The equality $a_j=x_n b_{j-1}+b_j$ does not seem to be correct. E.g., when $j=2$ and $x_1=\cdots=x_{n-1}=0$, then $a_j=0\ne x_n^2=x_n b_{j-1}+b_j$ if $x_n<0$. $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2022 at 16:34
  • $\begingroup$ $a$'s and $b$'s switched from the first paragraph to the rest; try now. $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2022 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ Why can't $x_n$ be equal to $\frac{b_{j+1}}{- b_j}$ or $\frac{-b_j}{b_{j-1}}$? $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2022 at 17:09
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding my latter comment, it appears that the things can be fixed by a density-continuity argument, which allows one to assume that all the $a_j$'s and $b_j$'s are nonzero. $\endgroup$ Mar 7, 2022 at 18:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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