I need a proof to show that the inequality $m < n$ leads to a contradiction and $P_n$ has $n$ distinct real roots, all of which lie in the open interval $(-1, 1)$.

  • What is the meaning of $m$? – gammatester Oct 15 '13 at 14:02
up vote 5 down vote accepted

By Rodrigues formula for Legendre polynomials, $$\displaystyle P_n(x) = \frac{1}{2^nn!}\frac{d^n}{dx^n} (x^2 - 1)^{n}\tag{*1}$$ $P_n(x)$ is the $n^{th}$ derivative of a polynomial with roots at $-1$ and $1$. Repeat applying Gauss-Lucas theorem $n$ times, we know all roots of $P_n(x)$ lie on the closed line segment $[-1,1]$ in the complex plane. By direct expansion of $(*1)$, one can check that $P_n(\pm 1) \ne 0$, so the roots of $P_n(x)$ are all real and belongs to $(-1,1)$.

Since Legendre polynomials are solutions of the Legendre's differential equation: $$\frac{d}{dx}\left[(1-x^2)\frac{d}{dx}P_n(x)\right] + n(n+1)P_n(x) = 0$$ which is a $2^{nd}$ order ODE, $P_n(x)$ cannot have any double roots. To see this, let's say $P_n(x)$ has a double root at $\alpha \in (-1,1)$. $P_n(x)$ will then be a solution of following initial value problem:

$$\frac{d}{dx}\left[(1-x^2)\frac{d}{dx}y(x)\right] + n(n+1)y(x) = 0,\quad \begin{cases}y(\alpha) = 0,\\y'(\alpha) = 0\end{cases}$$ Apply Picard-Lindelöf theorem to this $2^{nd}$ order ODE, the "uniqueness" part of the theorem tell us $P_n(x)$ vanishes over some neighbor of $\alpha$. Since $P_n(x)$ is not identically zero, this is impossible. As a consequence, all roots of $P_n(x)$ are simple.

  • @Sam: If you think the author of the Accepted Answer made a substantive error, you should point out your concern in a Comment rather than making a unilateral change by Editing. – hardmath Apr 22 at 22:31

From the wording of your question I guess you are looking for something like this:

The Legendre polynomial $P_n$ with $n>0$ has $n$ simple roots in $(-1, 1).$

Proof by contradiction: Assume $P_n$ has $m$ with $0 \le m \lt n\;$ pairwise different zeroes $x_1, x_2, \dots x_m$ of odd multiplicity in $(-1,1),\;$ i.e. $P_n$ changes sign in $x_i$, and consider the polynomial $Z_n(x) = (x-x_1)\cdot (x-x_2) \dots (x-x_m).\;$ Because $P_n$ is orthogonal to $P_0$ the intgeral $\int_{-1}^{1} P_n(x) dx$ vanishes and $P_n$ has at least one zero of odd multiplicity in $(-1,1),\,$ i.e. $m>0.\;$

The polynomial $Z_n(x) P_n(x)$ does not change sign in $(-1,1)$ and therefore $I_n = \int_{-1}^{1} Z_n(x) P_n(x) dx \ne 0.\;$ On the other hand $Z_n$ has degree $m$ and can be written as a linear combination $Z_n = \sum_{k=0}^m c_k P_k(x)$. Thus we get the contradiction by means of the orthogonality of the $P_k$: \begin{align} 0 \ne I_n &= \int_{-1}^{1} Z_n(x) P_n(x) dx\\ &= \int_{-1}^{1} P_n(x) \sum_{k=0}^m c_k P_k(x) dx\\ &= \sum_{k=0}^m c_k \int_{-1}^{1} P_n(x) P_k(x) dx\\ &= 0 \end{align}

This shows that $P_n$ has $n$ pairwise different zeroes of odd multiplicity, and because $P_n$ has at most $n$ zeroes, the zeroes $x_1,\dots, x_n$ are simple.

Note that this kind of proof can be applied to general orthogonal polynomials over intervals $(a,b)$ with weighting function $w(x) \ge 0$.

  • I don't see why "The polynomial $Z_n(x) P_n(x)$ does not change sign in $(-1,1)$". Suppose for example $P_n(x)$ has a root of multiplicity 3 in $(-1,1)$. Then $Z_n(x)P_n(x)$ will change sign at that point. – 6005 Dec 18 '13 at 14:32
  • @Goos: A root of multiplicity 3 is not simple. – gammatester Dec 18 '13 at 15:19
  • 1
    I am aware of that. Let $a$ be the root of multiplicity $3$. $Z_n(x)$ will not change sign at $a$ (since $a$ is not simple), and $P_n(x)$ will change sign (since $a$ has multiplicity 3). Hence $Z_n(x)P_n(x)$ will change sign. – 6005 Dec 18 '13 at 15:29
  • @Goos: I see what you mean and I refined the proof by showing that $P_n$ has $n$ roots of odd multiplicity. – gammatester Dec 19 '13 at 7:55
  • 1
    Nice approach. But the proof only works if you have shown that there is at least one odd zero? Otherwise $Z_n = 0$ and there is no contradiction. – andreas Mar 24 '14 at 12:07

Let Legendre polynomial be $$ f_n(x)=\frac{1}{2^n n!}\frac{d^{n}}{d x^n}(x^2-1)^n .$$

Note that $ (x^2-1)^n $ has roots $ -1, 1 $ each with multiplicity $ n $, and $$ (x^2-1)\Big|\frac{d^m}{d x^{m}}(x^2-1)^n, \, \text{when}\ m<n .$$

Thus, $ -1, 1 $ are always roots of $ \frac{d^{m}}{d x^m}(x^2-1)^n $. And by Rolle's theorem, we know that there are $ n-1 $ distinct zeros $ x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_{n-1} $ in the interval $ (-1, 1) $ for the polynomial $ \frac{d^{n-1}}{d x^{n-1}}(x^2-1)^n $. Since $ -1, 1 $ are also zeros of $ \frac{d ^{n-1}}{d x^{n-1}}(x^2-1)^n $. Use Rolle's theorem once again, we get $ n $ distinct zeros in $ (-1, 1) $ and since $ \deg (\frac{d^{n}}{d x^{n}}(x^2-1)^n)=n $, we have found all the distinct roots of $ f_n(x) $ in $ (-1, 1) $.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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