1
$\begingroup$

Let $n$ (unknown) real numbers $x_i$ be given. Suppose all Vieta's coefficient equations are positive, i.e. $$ a_1 = \sum_{i=1}^n x_i > 0\\ a_2 =\sum_{(i>j)} x_i x_j > 0\\ a_3 =\sum_{(i>j>k)} x_i x_j x_k> 0\\ \dots \\ a_n =\prod_{i=1}^n x_i > 0 $$ where the sums go over all possible indicated pairs, triples, ... , $n$-tupels.

Question: Are these conditions sufficient to show that all $x_i>0$?

I observed that this is linked to roots of polynomials. Let $a_0=1$. We have the identity (Vieta): $$ p(x) = \prod_{i=1}^n (x + x_i) = \sum_{k=0}^n a_k x^{n-k} $$ The roots of the polynomial $p(x)$ are given by $-x_i$, so if all roots are negative, then all $x_i$ are positive and all Vieta's coefficients are positive. The question asks for the other way.

For $n=2$, it is easy to show that it's true. For higher $n$, it will become cumbersome / impossible to give an analytic solution of the roots, since it is known that no such analytic solutions exist for $n >4$.

Before I start trying to produce (numerical) counterexamples, I ask if there is an already existing answer to this question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If all $a_k$ are positive then $\sum_{k=0}^n {n\choose k} a_k x^{n-k}$ cannot have a positive root. Am I overlooking or misunderstanding something? $\endgroup$ – Martin R Mar 28 '18 at 7:39
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinR Your statement would be the (affirming) answer to my question. So: why can there be no positive root? $\endgroup$ – Andreas Mar 28 '18 at 7:43
  • $\begingroup$ If $p(x)$ has (real) positive coefficients then $x > 0$ implies $p(x) >0$, trivially. $\endgroup$ – Martin R Mar 28 '18 at 7:44
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinR So this gives a proof by contradiction, right? $\endgroup$ – Andreas Mar 28 '18 at 7:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There should be no $\binom{n}{k}$ in the Vieta identity, should it? $\endgroup$ – user Mar 28 '18 at 7:57
1
$\begingroup$

Your $a_k$ are the “elementary symmetric polynomials” of $x_1, \ldots, x_n$. If all $a_k$ are positive then $$ p(x) = \prod_{i=1}^n (x + x_i) = \sum_{k=0}^n a_k x^{n-k} $$ is a polynomial with real, strictly positive coefficients.

If $x_i \le 0$ for some $i$ then $$ 0 = p(-x_i) = a_n + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} a_k (-x_i)^{n-k} > 0 $$ gives a contradiction.

So yes, if $x_1, \ldots, x_n$ are given real numbers and all their elementary symmetric polynomials $a_k$ are positive, then all $x_i$ are necessarily positive.

If the $x_i$ are complex numbers and the $a_k$ are positive real numbers then one can only conclude that the $x_i$ are not zero or negative real numbers.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Based on your definition of $a_1,...,a_n$, each of $x_1,...,x_n$ is a root of $$x^n -a_1 x^{n-1} + a_2 x^{n-2} + \cdots + (-1)^na_n=0$$ Note the alternating signs.

Now suppose $a_1,...,a_n > 0$.

Then none of the roots can be zero (since the constant term is nonzero).

Moreover, none of the roots can be negative either, since if $x_1<0$ and $n$ is even, then substituting $x_1$ for $x$, all terms on the $\text{LHS}$ of the equation would be positive, and if $x_1<0$ and $n$ is odd, then substituting $x_1$ for $x$, all terms on the $\text{LHS}$ of the equation would be negative.

Hence, if any of $x_1,...,x_n$ are real, they must be positive.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For odd $n$, none of the roots can be negative either. $\endgroup$ – Martin R Mar 28 '18 at 8:23
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks (it was a momentary blind spot), but now it's clear. I've edited it accordingly. $\endgroup$ – quasi Mar 28 '18 at 8:40

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.