Is there an interesting or useful necessary and sufficient condition for a rational function $f \in \mathbb{C}(X)$ to be expressible as the difference $g(X+1)-g(X)$ of another rational function $g \in \mathbb{C}(X)$?

As an example, every polynomial $f$ is expressible in such a way since we have the Faulhaber's formula.

Alternately, we can observe that $(X+1)^n - X^n = \sum\limits_{k=0}^{n-1}{n\choose k}X^k$ and so given a polynomial $f(X) = a_nX^n + \ldots + a_1X + a_0$ we may solve the system of equations obtained by equating the $k$-th terms of $f$ with those of $\sum\limits_{k=0}^{n}\left(\sum\limits_{i=k+1}^{n+1}b_i{i \choose k}\right)X^k$. The associated matrix consists of the upper triangular matrix with entries $A_{ij} = {j \choose i-1}, 1 \leq i \leq j \leq n+1$, and its determinant is clearly nonzero since it is the product of the diagonal entries ${i \choose i-1} = i$, so the determinant is $(n+1)!$.

The solution for the $b_i$, $1 \leq i \leq n+1$ will give a polynomial $g(X) = b_{n+1}X^{n+1} + \ldots b_1X + b_0$ such that $f(X) = g(X+1)-g(X)$ ($b_0$ is arbitrary).

Another example is the rational function $f(X) = \frac{1}{X(X+1)}$ where $g(X) = -\frac{1}{X}$.

As a non-example, consider the function $f(X) = \frac{1}{X}$. Suppose there exist polynomials $p(X), q(X) \in \mathbb{C}[X]$ such that $\frac{p(X+1)}{q(X+1)}-\frac{p(X)}{q(X)} = \frac{1}{X}$. Assume moreover that $p$ and $q$ are coprime after dividing by any common factors.

Then we have $Xp(X+1)q(X)-Xp(X)q(X+1)=q(X+1)q(X)$ so that $q(X)$ divides $Xq(X+1)$ and $q(X+1)$ divides $Xq(X)$. This means we have polynomials $\alpha(X), \beta(X)$ such that $$Xq(X+1) = \alpha(X)q(X)$$ $$Xq(X) = \beta(X)q(X+1)$$

By degree considerations, we have $\deg \alpha = \deg \beta = 1$.

Then $X^2q(X) = \alpha(X)\beta(X)q(X)$ which means $X^2 = \alpha(X)\beta(X)$ and finally this forces $\alpha(X) = cX$ and $\beta(X) = \frac{1}{c}X$ for some $c \neq 0$. Substituting in the equations above we obtain $q(X+1) = cq(X)$ which is only possible if $q$ is constant because any zero would lead to infinitely many zeros.

But this is impossible because $\frac{p(X)}{q(X)}$ would then be a polynomial, and its forward difference cannot equal $\frac{1}{X}$.

I believe this proof can generalize to other cases where $f(X) = \frac{1}{g(X)}$ where $g$ is irreducible (that would just be the linear functions since $\mathbb{C}$ is algebraically closed).

But I have not found a "nice" condition on $f$ which could be necessary and sufficient. The continuous analogue of the problem is easy, we know that $f$ has a rational antiderivative if and only if its partial fraction decomposition does not contain denominators of degree $1$.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Not enough for an answer, but: I believe $f(X) = X^{-2}$ is also not the forward difference of a rational function, and in fact no $X^{-k}$ is; an argument can be built around the fact that if we have rational functions $f(), g()\in\mathbb{C}(x)$ with $g(X)=\Delta f(X)$, then $f(X)\in \mathbb{Q}(X)\Leftrightarrow g(X)\in\mathbb{Q}(X)$ (up to a constant); but then $\lim_{X\to\infty} g(X)\in\mathbb{Q}$ if it exists, but this conflicts with $\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n)=\frac{\pi^2}6\not\in\mathbb{Q}$. $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Mar 22 '18 at 19:05
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A very minor quibble about your interesting question: given any property $\phi$, there is always a necessary and sufficient condition for $\phi$, e.g., $\phi$ itself. What you are asking for is an interesting or useful necessary and sufficient condition, I think. $\endgroup$ – Rob Arthan Mar 22 '18 at 19:10
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Another proof that $\frac 1 X$ is a non-example: if ${\frac 1 X}=\Delta g$, then $\frac{1}{X^2}=\Delta (-g')$ with $-g'\in \Bbb C(X)$. But this can't be by @StevenStadnicki 's argument. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud Mortier Mar 22 '18 at 19:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think you can show that if $z_0$ is a singularity of $f$ then $f$ must have a singularity at $z_0+n$ for some non-zero integer $n.$ That eliminates a lot of your functions. $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Mar 22 '18 at 19:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Boring but probably accurate answer to the original question: over $\mathbb{C}(x)$, any rational function $f(X)$ can be written as a polynomial plus a sum of terms $a_{n,t}(X-t)^{-n}$. Then there exists a $g(X)$ with $f(X)=\Delta g(X)$ iff for each degree $n$, the corresponding condition holds on the set $\{a_{n,t}\}$, and I think this could easily be written purely combinatorially. $\endgroup$ – Steven Stadnicki Mar 22 '18 at 19:32

Every rational fraction $f\in \mathbb{C}(X)$ can be written uniquely as a sum $$f(X) = P(X) + R(X)$$ where $P$ is a polynomial and $R$ is the polar part. Now the polar part is uniquely expressed as a finite sum $$R(X)= \sum_{k\ge 1, \alpha \in \mathbb{C}}\frac{c_{k,\alpha}}{(X-\alpha)^k}$$

The map $g(X) \mapsto g(X+1) -g(X)$ takes polynomial (polar) part to polynomial (polar) part. So $f$ is in the image of this map if and if only if its polar part is. It is easy to see that the necessary and sufficient condition is $$\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} c_{k,\alpha +n}=0$$ for all $k\ge 1$ and $\alpha \in \mathbb{C}$. (finitely many linear conditions).

ADDED: Consider now the case $f\in \mathbb{Q}(X)$. The decomposition in partial fraction of $f$ happens in a finite (Galois) extension $K$ of $\mathbb{Q}$. Assume that there exists $g\in \mathbb{C}(X)$ so that $f(X) = g(X+1) - g(X)$. Since the linear conditions above are satisfied then we can find $g\in K(X)$ so that $f(X) = g(X+1)-g(X)$. Now average all the equalities $f(X) =g^{\sigma}(X+1)-g^{\sigma}(X)$ for all $\sigma \in Gal(K/\mathbb{Q})$. We get $\bar g\in \mathbb{Q}(X)$ so that $f(X) = \bar g(X+1) - \bar g(X)$.


The linear necessary and sufficient conditions follow from the following combinatorial lemma: for a sequence $(a_n)_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$ of finite support there exists a sequence of finite support $b= (b_n)_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}$ so that $a= \Delta b$ if and only if $\sum a_n =0$. Moreover, in that case $b$ is uniquely defined. This is the discrete analogue of the result: a function with compact support on $\mathbb{R}$ has an antiderivative with compact support if and only if its total integral is $0$. In our case we want $b_{n+1}-b_n =a_n$ for all $n$. The unique solution with finite support is given by $b_n=\sum_{k<n}a_k$ for all $n$.

ADDED: As @Steven Stadnicki: noticed, if a solution $g$ exists, it is unique up to a constant. Moreover, if $f$ has coefficients in a subfield $K$, so can $g$ be taken with coefficients in $K(X)$.

We give now some results in particular cases:

  1. Assume that $f(X) = \frac{P(X)}{Q(X)}$ where $Q$ has simple integral roots and $\deg Q \ge \deg P +2$. Then $f$ is a difference. Indeed, it is enough to check that the sum of residues of $f$ is $0$, and this follows from Cauchy's formula.

  2. Assume that $\deg f =-1$. Then $f$ is not a difference. This can be seen in two ways: one, since the sum of residues is not $0$; another way is to notice that $\deg f = \deg g -1$, but $g$ is at most of degree $-1$ ( basically we look at the rate of decrease at $\infty$.


If the equation $f(X)= h(X+2)-h(X)$ has a solution $h$, then the equation $f(X)=g(X+1)-g(X)$ has a solution $g(X)= h(X+1)+h(X)$.

  • $\begingroup$ Yep, that's basically what I got, only maybe expressed cleaner. But it unclear what you mean by "polar." $\endgroup$ – Thomas Andrews Mar 22 '18 at 20:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas Andrews: it is really the remainder over the divisor. and then do partial fractions. the poles of the functions show up. $\endgroup$ – Orest Bucicovschi Mar 22 '18 at 21:04
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas Andrews: Still it's not a very useful criterion in that one needs to find the decomposition into partial fractions. For instance, it's easy to see directly for $f(X) = \frac{1}{X(X+1)\ldots (X+m)}$, but its parial fraction decomposition is a bit more involved. $\endgroup$ – Orest Bucicovschi Mar 22 '18 at 21:08
  • $\begingroup$ @Thomas Andrews: i wonder how it works for fields like $\mathbb{Q} $ $\endgroup$ – Orest Bucicovschi Mar 22 '18 at 21:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Tob Ernack: the $c_{k, \alpha}$ are complex numbers (constants). Btw, I added a part that says that for a fraction with rational coefficients, the existence of a $g$ with complex coefficients implies the existence of $g$ with rational coefficients. $\endgroup$ – Orest Bucicovschi Mar 22 '18 at 23:16

If $f(z)$ has a singularity at $0$ (WLOG) then we must have either $g(z)$ having a singularity at $0$ or at $1$ (or both.)

If $0$ is a singularity of $g$ then since $f(-1)=g(0)-g(-1)$, either $f$ has a singularity at $-1$ or $g$ does (or both.) If $g$ does, then we can keep moving down and find that either $g$ has a singularity at $-k$ or $f$ has singularities at $0$ and $-k.$ So for some $k> 0$, we must have $f(z)$ with singularities at $0,-k$ and $g$ has a singularity at $-1,\dots,-(k-1).$ We have to be able to stop at some point because $f$ must have finitely many singularities.

If $1$ is a singularity of $g$, then either $2$ is a singularity of $g$ or $1$ is a singularity of $f$. We then move up or down, and find that $0$ and $k$ must be a singularity of $f$ for some integer $k>0.$

This means that if $f$ has a singularity at $z_0$ then there must be an integer $n\neq 0$ such that $f$ has a singularity at $z_0+n.$

An Algorithm

Here is an algorithm that doesn't require you to find the exact roots.

The general strategy: Each time through the loop, we will reduce the problem to another $f$ with fewer singularities.

Write $f(x)=\frac{p(x)}{q(x)}$ with $\deg p<\deg q,$ and $p,q$ are relatively prime. (Any polynomial part can be handled separately.) Compute $q_n(x)=\gcd(q(x),q(x+n))$ for $n=1,2,\dots$ until either:

  1. $q_n(x)\neq 1,$ or
  2. $n$ is greater than the diameter of the set of (complex) zeros of $q(x).$

If 2. is reached, and $f\neq 0,$ then there is no $g$. (We can at least compute an upper bound for the diameter, so we only have to check finitely many $n.$)

Otherwise, we've found a $q_n(x)\neq 1.$ Write $q(x)=a(x)b(x)$ where $q_n(x)\mid a(x)\mid q_n^k(x)$ for some $k$ and and $\gcd(a(x),b(x))=1.$ Basically, let $a(x)=\gcd(q(x),q_n^k(x))$ for some large $k,$ so that $a(x)$ has all repetitions of the roots $z_0$ of $q$ such that $z_0+n$ is also a root.

We know that $b(x)$ is non-constant, because any root with a maximal real part is not a root of $q_n(x).$

Then we can write:

$$f(x)=\frac{p(x)}{q(x)}=\frac{c(x)}{a(x)} + \frac{d(x)}{b(x)},$$ using standard partial fraction approaches.

Let $$\begin{align}f_1(x)&=\frac{c(x-n)}{a(x-n)}+\frac{d(x)}{b(x)}. \end{align}$$

Note that if $h(x)=\frac{c(x)}{a(x)},$ then $h(x)-h(x-n)=\Delta(h(x-1)+h(x-2)+\cdots h(x-n))$, so $f_1$ and $f$ differ by an element in the range of $\Delta.$

So $f_1$ is in the range of $\Delta$ if and only if $f$ is.

If $f_1=0$, we are done.

Otherwise we apply the process to $f_1.$

We know that $f_1$ has a smaller set of singularities - we have removed the singularities $z_0$ such that $z_0+n$ is also a singularity, and potentially added in more repetitions of the singularities at $z_0+n.$ What this means is that this process must eventually stop.

For example, if $$f(x)=\frac{3x^3+16x^2+28x+12}{(x+3)(x+2)^2x^2}$$ then $q_1(x)=x+3,$ and you get:


Then you get $$f_1(x)=\frac{-1}{x+2}+\frac{x^3+4x^2+8x+4}{(x+2)^2x^2}=\frac{2x^2+8x+4}{(x+2)^2x^2}.$$

For this $f_1$, we get $q_2(x)=(x+2)^2$ and we solve:

$$f_1(x)=\frac{-(x+3)}{(x+2)^2} + \frac{x+1}{x^2}.$$

Then we get:


So our resulting expression is:

$$\begin{align}f(x)&=\left(\frac{-1}{x+3}-\frac{-1}{x+2}\right)+\left(\frac{-(x+3)}{(x+2)^2}+\frac{x+1}{x^2}\right)\\ &=-\Delta\left(\frac{1}{x+2} + \frac{x+2}{(x+1)^2}+\frac{x+1}{x^2}\right) \end{align}$$

In this, I am obviously using the knowledge of the roots to do the work, you need not. All of the steps above can be computed without the roots. You can compute the $q_n,$ then the $a,b$, then $c,d$ all using standard operations.

For example, if the singularities of $f$ were at $0,1,2\pm i,3\pm i,5\pm i$, then your first $a(x)$ would be found with $a(x)$ having roots $0$ and $2\pm i.$ $f_1$ would have remaining singularities a subset of $\{1,3\pm i,5\pm i\}.$ The next step would find $n=2$ and remove singularities at $3\pm i.$ Then we'd find out if $f_2=0.$ If it isn't, the next attempt to find an $n$ will fail.

This algorithm also works in any $k(x)$ where $k\subseteq \mathbb C$ is a field, because all the algorithmic steps work inside the field.

In particular, if $f(x)\in k(x)$ has a $g(x)\in\mathbb C(x)$ then it has a solution in $k(x).$

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! So if I understand the first part of your answer, starting with a singularity of $f$ at $z_0$, by continuing the recurrence and having finitely many singularities for $g$, we are forced to have a second singularity for $f$ at some $z_0 \pm n$. Then if $f$ has two singularities spaced out at $n$ (and none further apart) we can reduce their distance by adding a term of the form $g(z+1)-g(z)$ where $g(z) = A/(z-z_0-n)$ which moves the second singularity at $z_0+n-1$. $\endgroup$ – Tob Ernack Mar 22 '18 at 21:58
  • $\begingroup$ Then we can use induction to find a linear combination of the $g_i(z+1)-g_i(z)$ which leaves us with either a polynomial or a rational function with a single unpaired singularity. And the first case leads to a solution of the recurrence, the second case leads to impossibility. $\endgroup$ – Tob Ernack Mar 22 '18 at 22:00
  • $\begingroup$ Ah in my first comment I should really have said $g(z) = p(z)/(z-z_0-n)^k$ (as in your answer) since the singularities might have order greater than $1$. $\endgroup$ – Tob Ernack Mar 22 '18 at 22:09

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.