Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The problem:

Let $P(n)$ be a polynomial of degree $n$. Let $$M(r):= \underset{|z|\le r}{\mbox{sup}} \hspace{2mm} \left|P(z)\right|.$$ I desire to establish that $$r\mapsto \frac{M(r)}{r^n}$$ for $r>0$ is non-increasing as a function of $r$.

At least I believe this to be true and necessary to conclude a long homework assignment :P.

1st attempt at solution

I think it is reasonable to assume the polynomial has no constant term, for adding a constant term as far as I understand can only change the $M(r)$ term by a constant. So $P(z)$ can be taken to fix the origin. Then considering, say the holomorphic function, $$\frac{P(rz)}{M(r)}$$ the function should take the disk to the disk, so we can apply Schwartz's Lemma, and get the inequality: $$\left|\frac{P(rz)}{M(r)}\right|\le |z|$$ From here I would hope to pick a nice $z$ in the disk to establish something useful... I'm at a loss.

2nd attempt at solution

I did start thinking, establishing an inequality between expressions doesn't quite get me that an expression is non-increasing. What would get me there is taking derivative. I think it's clear $M(r)$ is smooth. So we can differentiate the function in question (with respect to $r$) and get that the derivative is:

$$\frac{M'(r)r^n - n r^{n-1}M(r)}{r^{2n}}=\frac{M'(r)r - n M(r)}{r^{n+1}}$$

We want that this derivative is $\le 0$. That is, that

$$M'(r) \le \frac{n M(r)}{r}$$

The RHS sort of makes me think of what $M'(r)$ would look like. $P'(z)$ would of course be almost $\frac{n P(z)}{z}$, except of course for the constant term of $P(z)$ which disappears when differentiating.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If $f$ is entire, then by the maximum modulus principle $\max_{|z|=r}|f(z)|$ is non-decreasing in $r$. Take $f(z) = z^n P(\tfrac{1}{z})$. This is an entire function (a polynomial). So $\max_{|z|=r} r^n|P(\tfrac{1}{z})|$ is non-decreasing in $r$. In other words, $\max_{|z|=r}|P(z)|/r^n$ is non-increasing in $r$.

share|improve this answer

Define $g(z) = f(z)/z^n$. Then $g$ is analytic on $\mathbb C \setminus \{0\}$, and $g(z) \rightarrow a_n$, the leading coefficient of $f$, as $z\rightarrow \infty$.

Suppose to the contrary that $M(r_1)/r_1 ^n < M(r_2)/r_2^n$ for some $r_1 < r_2$. Equivalently,

$$\sup\{|g(z)| : |z| = r_1 \} < \sup\{|g(z)| : |z| = r_2 \}$$

By the maximum modulus principle, $g$ attains its maximum modulus on the annulus $A_r = \{r_1 \leq |z| \leq r\}$ on the boundary of $A$ for each $r > r_2$. For each such $r$, we have $|g(w)| > \sup\{|g(z)| : |z| = r_1\}$ for some $w\in A_r$ (specifically, one with $|w| = r_2$) by hypothesis, so $g$ must attain its maximum modulus on $A_r$ somewhere on $\{|z| = r\}$. Taking the limit as $r\rightarrow \infty$, we get $|g(z)| < |a_n|$ on $A_r$ for each $r$, and in particular on $\{|z| = r_1\}$.

But, by the Cauchy integral formula, we have

$$|a_n| =|\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{|z| = r_1} \frac{f(z)}{z^{n+1}} dz | \leq \frac{1}{r_1^n} M(r_1) = \sup\{|g(z)| : |z| = r_1\} < |a_n| .$$

This is a contradiction.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks very much! I've been looking at this for a while, and I don't quite see how you obtained the estimate for the integral in the last line. Could you explain? –  Marcel T. Apr 24 '12 at 22:42
    
I feel like the RHS of your last inequality should be multiplied by $2\pi$, which would only give $|a_n|<2\pi|a_n|$, not so useful. –  Marcel T. Apr 24 '12 at 23:58
    
I edited it, there should be a $2\pi$ by the first integral. We are integrating over a curve of length $2\pi r$. Therefore, when we take the absolute value of the integral, we get that it is at most $2\pi r$ times the supremum of the modulus of the integrand. The $2\pi$'s cancel out, so the rest of the equation stays as is. –  user15464 Apr 25 '12 at 0:08
    
I still do not see the strict inequality, why cannot the $|g(z)|$ approach the $|a_n|$? I'm beginning to doubt if what I wanted to prove holds after all. –  Marcel T. May 7 '12 at 19:45

Your Answer

 
discard

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.