Consider a polynomial in $n$ variables: $f(x_1,...,x_n)$. If the polynomial $(f)^2$ is symmetric in $x_1,..,x_n$, does it follow that $f$ is also symmetric in $x_1,..,x_n$? Generalize for higher exponents.

I just made up this problem. I think it is closely related to the fundamental theorem of elementary symmetric polynomials, but I have as of now no idea how to approach it.


2 Answers 2


No, take $f(x_1,x_2)=x_1-x_2$ or more generally $\prod_{1\leq i<j\leq n}(x_i-x_j)$. You always have a sign change which disappears upon squaring.

  • $\begingroup$ Oops I should have thought for more than 1 second about this... $\endgroup$ Mar 13, 2015 at 4:15

Interesting question, but your conjecture is not right (but almost!). The correct theorem is:

Is $\require{cancel} f \cancel{\equiv} 0$ a polynomial in $n$ variables and $(f)^k$ is symmetric, then

$f \text{ is }\begin{cases} \text{symmetric} & \text{for k odd} \\ \text{symmetric or antisymmetric} & \text{for k even} \end{cases}$

It is clear that for any antisymmetric polynomial $a$, then $a^{2l}$ is symmetric for $l \in \mathbb N$.

I won't post here tedious calculations in order to show the theorem, because I don't think this is the right place for it. Instead I'll provide a sketch of the proof and examples for convenience.

Lemma: Any polynomial $f$ can be represented as the sum of a symmetric $s$ and an antisymmetric $a$ part.

It is easy to prove this lemma. The symmetric part is $s=\frac{S(f)}{n!}$, where $S$ is the symmetrization operator. One has to show that $a = f - s$ is antisymmetric, which is true if and only if $S(a) = 0$, but this is a trivial task, since the $S$ operator is linear and $S(g) = n! \ g$ for any symmetric polynomial $g$ in $n$ variables.

The theorem is shown by expanding $(s+a)^k$ and setting to $0$ the antisymmetric part. For example:

$$(s+a)^2 = \underbrace{s^2}_{\text{symmetric}} + \underbrace{2sa}_{\text{antisymmetric}} + \underbrace{a^2}_{\text{symmetric}}$$

Thus $2sa = 0$, which directly implies that $f$ is either symmetric ($a=0$) or antisymmetric ($s=0$).

This analysis becomes harder for higher powers. For example, the antisymmetric part of $(s+a)^3$ and $(s+a)^4$ is $3 s^2 a + a^3 = a(3 s^2 + a^2)$ and $4 s^3 a + 4 s a^3 = 4 s a (s^2 + a^2)$ respectively. In general, from setting this part to $0$ follows that for odd/even exponents ($a=0$)/($a=0$ or $s=0$) is a sufficient condition. The challenge is to show that the remaining factor cannot be $0$, taking the examples above, that $3 s^2 + a^2 = 0$ and $s^2 + a^2 = 0$ have no solutions.

The antisymmetric part of $(s+a)^k$, as we saw, can be factored in two or three factors. One will be always $a$, for $k$ even there will be a factor $s$, and another factor that we will call $t$. Note that $t$ is a homogeneous polynomial of degree $m$, where $m$ is $k-1$ or $k-2$ for $k$ odd or even respectively. Note that $t$ is a sum of monomials, where one and only one of these is $c a^m$ and another one and only one is $d s^m$, with $c,d$ being constants. All other monomials will be "mixed" (i.e. $\propto s^j a ^{m-j}$). Considering $a(x_1;x_2,x_3,...)$ and $s(x_1;x_2,x_3,...)$ as polinomials in only the first variable, $x_1$, we can proof that for any root $r$ of $a$, we get $(s(r))^m=0$, and viceversa, so, in principle $s$ and $a$ have the same roots. Moreover, by substituting $a = a' \frac{a}{(x_1-r)^u}$, we can show that the roots have the same multiplicity in both $a$ and $s$ by using the same principle. Then $s=a$, thus $s=a=0$, which contradicts our initial assumption that $f$ is not $0$.

For example:

$$f^4 = (s+a)^5 = \underbrace{s^5}_{\text{sym}} + \underbrace{5 s^4 a}_{\text{asym}} + \underbrace{10 s^3 a^2}_{\text{sym}} + \underbrace{10 s^2 a^3}_{\text{asym}} + \underbrace{10 s a^4}_{\text{sym}} + \underbrace{a^5}_{\text{asym}}$$

$$\rightarrow 5 s^4 a + 10 s^2 a^3 + a^5 = a(5 s^4 + 10 s^2 a^2 + a^4) = 0$$

From $5 s^4 + 10 s^2 a^2 + a^4 = 0$ follows that $s=a$, a contradiction, thus we have $a=0$.

  • $\begingroup$ Oops, sorry, this was totally wrong. $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2015 at 16:01
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ On the other hand, here is a non-tedious proof. Let $f$ be a polynomial in $n$ variables $x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n$ over a field of characteristic $0$, and $k$ be a positive integer such that $f^k$ (the $k$-th power of $f$) is symmetric. We need to show that $f$ is symmetric or antisymmetric, and actually is symmetric if $k$ is odd. For every $i \in \left\{1,2,\ldots,n-1\right\}$, let $f_i$ denote the polynomial obtained from $f$ by switching the variables $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$. Then, it is ... $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2015 at 16:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ... enough to show that $f = \lambda f_i$ for all $i$, where $\lambda$ is an element of $\left\{1,-1\right\}$ independent of $i$. We know that $f^k$ is symmetric; thus, $f^k = f_i^k$ for all $i$. Thus, in the field of rational functions, we have $\left(f/f_i\right)^k = 1$ for all $i$. Hence, for all $i$, the rational function $f/f_i$ is a constant; call this constant $\lambda_i$. We then have $f = \lambda_i f_i$. Switching $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$ in this equality, we obtain $f_i = \lambda_i f$. Combined with $f = \lambda_i f_i$, this yields $\lambda_i \in \left\{1,-1\right\}$ (here we ... $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2015 at 16:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ... WLOG assume that $f \neq 0$, since in this case everything is obvious). So we know that $f = \lambda_i f_i$ for all $i$. It remains to prove that the $\lambda_i$ are all equal, and that they all equal $1$ if $k$ is odd. Here is a way to do this: For each $i \in \left\{1,2,\ldots,n-2\right\}$, it is easy to see that $\left(\left(f_i\right)_{i+1}\right)_i = \left(\left(f_{i+1}\right)_i\right)_{i+1}$, where we generally use the notation $g_k$ for the result of switching $x_k$ with $x_{k+1}$ in the polynomial $g$. Now, rewriting this using the ... $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2015 at 16:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ... formulas $f_i = \lambda_i f$ and $f_{i+1} = \lambda_{i+1} f$, we obtain $\lambda_i \lambda_{i+1} \lambda_i f = \lambda_{i+1} \lambda_i \lambda_{i+1} f$. After cancelling, this becomes $\lambda_i = \lambda_{i+1}$. Since this holds for all $i \leq n-2$, we thus obtain $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2 = \cdots = \lambda_{n-1}$. I'll let you figure out the rest. $\endgroup$ Mar 15, 2015 at 16:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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