In a paper about Zsigmondy's theorem, there is the following statement as a remark, without proof, nor reference:

Let $n, a $ be integers $(\gt1)$ and $q$ a prime divisor of $n=q^{i}.r$, such that $q$ does not divide $r$, let $b=a^{q^{i-1}}$, let $\Phi_n$ be the nth cyclotomic polynomial and $\phi$ the Euler totient function. Then $$\Phi_n(a)\ge\left(\frac{b^q+1}{b+1}\right)^{\phi(r)}$$

In the same paper, a weaker result: $$\Phi_n(a)\gt\left(\frac{b^q-1}{b+1}\right)^{\phi(r)}$$ is easily proved, thanks to a quite simple geometric argument, and used for a nice and quick proof that $$\Phi_n(a)\gt a^{\frac{\phi(n)}{2}}$$

I have tried, but failed, to prove the first inequality: this one seems to me much more difficult. Any help?

Edit: this where I am: for $q$ a prime, $b\gt1$, and $r$ not divisible by $q$ one has to demonstrate that $$\frac{\Phi_r(b^q)}{\Phi_r(b)}\ge\left(\frac{b^q+1}{b+1}\right)^{\phi(r)}$$ because the left side is $\Phi_n(a)$.

Actually, when $r=2$, since $\phi(2)=1$, this inequality is true because it is obviously an equality. Then I think one should try to show that, when $r\gt2$ $$\frac{\Phi_r(x)}{(x+1)^{\phi(r)}}$$ is a growing function of $x$ (from $x\ge1$) ? but i am stuck here.

One could also try to prove that it is decreasing from $1$, as $x$ varies from $0$ to $1$ and use the fact that this function is unchanged when $x$ is changed for $1/x$ (because $x^{\phi(r)}.\Phi_r(1/x)=\Phi_r(x)$). It must tend to $1$ as $x$ grows to infinity (as the ratio of two polynomials with same degree). Should also be minimal at $x=1$.


I'll venture a proof of the last claim in your edit. First, we recall the definition of the $r$th cyclotomic polynomial is the product of $\phi(r)$ terms of the form $x-\xi$ where $\xi$ is a primitive $r$th root of unity. Therefore we may write $$\frac{\Phi_r(x)}{(1+x)^{\phi(r}}=\prod_{\xi\in\text{ prim.}} \left|\frac{x-\xi}{x+1}\right|.$$ Here we have assumed $x>0$ and used the fact that primitive roots occur in conjugate pairs to eliminate the phases. (Note that if $-1$ is a primitive root then it cancels in this product and so we ignore it in the set of primitive roots; the $r=2$ case has this as the only factor.).

Now consider some particular $\xi$, and note that $|x-\xi|$ and $|x+1|$ represent the distances to $\xi$ and $-1$. Since $x$ is on the positive real axis and $\xi$ is on the unit circle, $x$ is always closer to $\xi$ than $-1$ and so the ratio is always less than 1. But as $x$ increases, their relative separations are becoming smaller and smaller and so the ratio increases towards 1 from below. Since this occurs for every such factor, we conclude that $\dfrac{\Phi_r(x)}{(1+x)^{\phi(r)}}$ is indeed an increasing function of $x$.

EDIT: To give the argument in the last paragraph more rigorously, consider a point $e^{i\phi}\neq -1$ on the unit circle. Then $$1-\left|\frac{x-e^{i\phi}}{x+1}\right|^2 =1-\frac{x^2-2x\cos \phi+1}{(x+1)^2} =\frac{2x}{(x+1)^2}(1+\cos \phi)\sim \frac{2}{x^2}(1+\cos\phi)$$ which is positive and decreasing with increasing $x$ as claimed above.

  • $\begingroup$ @ReneGy: let me know if I've misinterpreted your question or something isn't clear $\endgroup$ – Semiclassical Jul 28 '14 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ I like your proof because it is geometric, but it seems to me that at some point you may need to assume $x\ge1$, don't you? $\endgroup$ – René Gy Jul 28 '14 at 22:15
  • $\begingroup$ @RenéGy) Oh, certainly: you have to be past $1$ for the geometry to work. But that's exactly what the ratio does---it has a global minimum at $x=1$ and is concave up for positive $x$. So any proof that it's increasing had better assume $x\geq 1$. (Whether that's enough to prove what you need is a different question...) $\endgroup$ – Semiclassical Jul 28 '14 at 22:40

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.