Abstract
Authors
T. Popoviciu
Institutul de Calcul
Keywords
?
Paper coordinates
T. Popoviciu, Sur un théorème de W.A. Markov, Mathematica (Cluj), 2(25) (1960) no. 2, pp. 299-321 (in French)
About this paper
Journal
Mathematica Cluj
Publisher Name
Published by the Romanian Academy Publishing House
DOI
Print ISSN
1222-9016
Online ISSN
2601-744X
This paper is the republishing of/republished from T. Popoviciu, Asupra unei teoreme a lui W.A. Markov, Acad. R. P. Romîne, Fil. Cluj, Stud. Cerc. Mat., 12 (1961), pp. 333-355 (in Romanian)
google scholar link
Similar papers published at ICTP:
??
ON A THEOREM OF WA MARKOV*)
On the occasion of generalizing AA Markov's famous inequality, WA Markov gave [2], as a helpful lemma, the following theorem:
If the roots of two polynomials of degree, with all real roots, separate, then the roots of their derivatives also separate.
In the second part of the paper we will give a proof of this theorem, slightly different from that of WA Markov himself as well as from that of P. Monte1 [3], given about 30 years ago.
The proof we give is based on the continuity and monotonicity of the roots of the derivative of a polynomial with all real roots, with respect to the roots of the polynomial. In the first part of this paper we will analyze this monotonicity property a little.
Finally, in the third part of the paper we will give a new theorem on polynomials with all real roots, analogous to the one cited byA. Markov.
In what follows we will consider only polynomials of one variable with all real roots, and by the degree of a polynomial we will understand its effective degree, even if these things are not explicitly specified. Since we are only interested in the roots of polynomials, two polynomials that differ only by a multiplicative constant can be considered equal. The emphasis on polynomials means derivation.
i
-
1.
If a polynomial has all its roots real, then its derivative also has all its roots real. There is an important, well-known property of the separation of the roots of the derivative by the roots of the polynomial. We will take this property into account below.
The roots of a polynomial with the highest coefficient equal to 1 (so a polynomial of the formpolynomial of degree 1) are continuous functions with respect to the coefficients of the polynomial, and the coefficients are continuous functions (polynomials) with respect to the roots of the polynomial. If we take into account the relations between the roots and coefficients of a polynomial, we deduce the continuity of the roots of the derivative with respect to the roots of the polynomial.
2. The monotonicity property of the roots of the derivative with respect to the roots of the polynomial can be stated in the following form:
The roots of the derivative are non-decreasing functions of the roots of the polynomial.
This property is well known and was widely used by Laguerre in his research on polynomials with all real roots.
To clarify the monotonicity property above, we introduce the relationbetween two polynomials which occurs if and only if:
Polynomialsare of the same grade.
The respective roots
| (1) |
of these polynomials verify the inequalities
| (2) |
This relation is (reflexive and) transitive.
It is unnecessary to consider the casewhen the previous relation makes no sense (because there are no roots). If, in the definition, it is sufficient to maintain only inequality (2) and it is easy to see that, in this case, at least one of the relationsalways takes place. For anypolynomials can be constructedfor which none of the relationshipsIt is not true.
The monotonicity property of the roots of the derivative with respect to those of the polynomial is then expressed by
Theorem 1. Ifare two polynomials of degree, fromresult.
We also introduce the relationbetween two polynomials, which occurs if and only if:
Polynomialshave the same degreeand both have all simple roots.
The respective roots
| () |
of these polynomials verify the inequalities
| () |
This relation, which is transitive, is a particular case of the previous relation, namely when everywhere in (1) and (2) the signis replaced withThe two relations are also related by a mixed transitivity property, analogous to the mixed transitivity of inequality relations.iIfand ifhas all simple roots, we haveFromresult.
We have the following:
If the roots ofare continuous functions of one parameteron an interval containingand if we havefor, we will have, but not in general, forThis observation is also valid for pairs of relationships., which will be considered below.
We have the following:
Theorem 2. Ifare two polynomials of degreeresult.
3. We will show that Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 2.
Indeed, either, (1) the roots of polynomialsi
| (3) |
respectively the roots of polynomialsLet 's
consider the polynomialsof the degree, having the roots respectively, whereis a positive number. Polynomialshave all simple roots and we haveIf
are respectively the roots of the polynomials, we have
| (4) |
If we assume that Theorem 2 is true, it follows thatand from (4) we deduce, making, that we have.
This proves that Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 2.
4. It remains to prove Theorem 2.
Whethertwo polynomials of degree 1lso that we haveand let (1') be the roots of these polynomials respectively. Leta polynomial of degree
having as its roots, forThe polynomialis equal toiis equal toPolynomialshave all simple roots, but we have, in general, only,But, if we can prove that we have
| (5) |
then, based on transitivity, it follows thatand Theorem 2 is proven.
It remains to prove relations (5). These relations follow from
Lemma 1. The roots of the derivative of a polynomial with all real and simple roots are increasing functions with respect to each of the roots of the polynomial.
Whethera polynomial of degreewith all the rootsreal and simple. By the statement of Lemma 1 we understand that each of the roots of the derivative of the polynomialis an increasing function ofThese rootsare continuous functions ofand remain distinct. We will first prove that they are strictly monotone functions ofIndeed, if, for example,would not be a strictly monotonic function of, we could find two different valueshis/hersfor which the polynomials
| (6) |
to have a common rootThis is impossible, however, because any common root of the polynomials (6) would have to be a common root of the polynomials, which contradicts the fact thathas only simple roots. With this strict monotonicity of the rootsis demonstrated. It remains only to specify the meaning of this monotony. If we take into account the fact that the roots of the derivative are separate from those of the polynomial and if we observe that
we immediately deduce that the sense of monotony is increasing for each of the roots.
With this Lemma 1 is proven.
Other proofs of Lemma 1 can be given. Proofs can be given based on some considerations analogous to those made in Part II and Part III of this paper. We will not deal with such proofs.
Observation. Ifare the roots of the polynomial, the rootsvaries respectively in the intervals,, ifIf, the rootvaries fromTO, and ifROOTSvaries respectively in the intervals.
yl
-
5.
We will now deal with the reported proof of WA Markov's theorem.
We introduce the relationshipbetween two polynomials, which occurs if and only if:
Polynomialshave the same degree.
The respective roots (1) of these polynomials verify the inequalities
| (7) |
Ifor, we can say that the roots of polynomialsseparate.
Generally fromresult, and for, relationships,are equivalent.
Based on a previous observation, for anywe can find the polynomialsof the degreeso that none of the relationshipsnot to be checked.
WA Markov's theorem can be stated in the following form:
Theorem 3. Ifare two polynomials of degree, fromresult.
If, Theorem 3 follows from Theorem 1. Indeed, fromresultfrom which, based on Theorem 1, it followsThis relationship is however (for) equivalent toand the property is proven.
We also introduce the relationshipbetween two polynomials, which occurs if and only if:
Polynomialshave the same degreeand both have all their roots simple.
The respective roots () of these polynomials verify the inequalities
| () |
fromresult, and forthese relations are equivalent.
We have the following particular case of WA Markov's theorem:
Theorem 4. Ifare two polynomials of degree, from, it results.
As above it is demonstrated that for, Theorem 4 follows from Theorem 2.
6. It is sufficient to prove Theorem 4, because then Theorem 3 follows. To show this we proceed in the same way as in No. 3, where we showed that Theorem 1 follows from Theorem 2.
If we haveand if we now consider the polynomialshaving respectively as roots, whereis a positive number, we haveIf we assume that Theorem 4 is true, it follows thatIf we do, his rootstend respectively towards its rootsand we deduce. Theorem 3 is proved.
7. Theorem 4 is proved based on Theorem 2, Lemma 1 and the continuity of the roots of the derivative.
If, it results, so. To show that we even have, it is sufficient to prove that the derivatives of the polynomials(which all have simple roots) cannot have any common root. Indeed, it is easy to see that, in this case, the relationit is maintained when its rootsgrow towards their respective roots.
But, ifare the roots of the polynomialsof the degree, the relationshipis equivalent to equality
| (8) |
whereis a non-zero constant,AREconstants different from zero and of the same sign. Moreover, the productis of opposite sign to the highest coefficient of, so with the sign offorvery big.
By derivation from (8) we deduce
| (9) |
From here it is seen that ifwould have a common root, this should also cancel the polynomial, which is impossible, because, by hypothesis,has all its roots simple.
8. Relationshipscan also be extended to the case when the polynomialis of the degreeand the polynomialof the degreeIfi
| (10) |
are respectively the roots ofand his, the relationshipoccurs if and only if
| (11) |
It can still be said that then the roots ofithey separate.
The relationshipoccurs if and only if, in addition, the roots ofiare all simple and instead of inequalities (11) we have
| () |
We then have:
Corollary 1. Ifis a polynomial of degreeia polynomial of degree, fromresult.
The property follows from Theorem 3 by a passage to the limit. To show this, let (10) be the roots ofi, which verifies the relationshipLet us consider the polynomialof the degreeIf, we have, from which, based on Theorem 3 , we deduceIf we do, one of its roots(the largest) tends toand the others to the respective roots ofTaking into account the continuity of the roots of the derivative with respect to the roots of the polynomial, it is seen that by doing, fromresult.
We also have:
Consecration 2. Ifis a polynomial of degreeia polynomial of degree, fromresult:
This property follows from Theorem 4 as well as Corollary 1 from Theorem 3. We form the polynomial as aboveIfi, we haveand therefore, based on the theorem. Hence, if we do, it results, and to show that we even haveit is enough to prove that if, polynomialsthey cannot have any common root.
Ifwe have formula (8), wherei. areconstants different from zero and of the same sign. Formula (9) shows us thatthey cannot have any common root.
Corollary 2 is proved.
9. As an application, consider a sequence of orthogonal polynomials
It is known that its rootsare all real and simple and that its rootsare separated, in a strict sense, by the roots ofIn other words for, we haveFrom consequence 2 it therefore also follows:
Consequence 3. Ifare two consecutive terms of a sequence of orthogonal polynomials, we have.
III
-
10.
We will now deal with a theorem analogous to WA Markov's.
We introduce the relationshipbetween two polynomials, which occurs if and only if:
Polynomialshave the same degree.
The roots (1) of these polynomials verify the inequalities
| (12) |
as well as equality
| (13) |
Ifwe keep only the equality (13) from the definition.
Ifthe relationshipmeans thathave the same root, so that - according to the meaning adopted at the beginning of this work - they are equal. It is clear that for anywe can find two polynomialsof the degree, so that none of the relationshipsnot to be checked.
According to GH Hardy, JE Litt1ewood and G. Pó 1 ya [1] the relationshipis equivalent to the fact that the roots ofare deduced from those of histhrough a so-called "mediation" process. This means that there is a matrix (), withlines andcolumns, with non-negative elements, with the sum of the elements on each row and each column equal to 1,
and so that we have
In what follows we will not use this property directly.
The relation considered is (reflexive and) transitive and we have the following theorem, analogous to that of WA Markov:
Theorem 5. Ifare two polynomials of degree, fromresult.
We also introduce the relationshipbetween two polynomials, which occurs if and only if:
Polynomialsare of the same gradeand both have all their roots simple.
The respective rootsof these polynomials verify the inequalities
as well as equality (13).
Forwe keep only the equality (13) as a definition and then the relationis equivalent to.
The relationshipis transitive. Here we also have some mixed transitivity properties between the two relations considered. Ifand ifhas all its simple roots, we haveresult.
Finally, we have the following particular case of Theorem 5:
Theorem 6. Ifare two polynomials of degree, fromresult.
ForTheorems 5, 6 follow immediately because the root of the derivative of a second-degree polynomial is equal to the half-sum of the roots of the polynomial. In this case, Theorems 5, 6 follow from equality (13).
11. There are two cases in which the proof of Theorem 5 presents no difficulty. These cases occur if one of the polynomialsit has all its roots mixed up.
First we will make a few observations. If
| (14) |
are the roots of the polynomial, we also have
| (15) |
If (1) are the roots of the polynomialsand if, we haveand so
| (16) |
Ifi, we have the more precise inequalities,
| () |
Let us now prove Theorem 5 in the two particular cases indicated.
Case 1. The polynomialhas all its roots confused. Fromand (16) it then follows that andhas all its roots confused, namely with the only distinct root of. In this casealso have their roots confused with the single distinct root ofand theorem 5 follows.
Case 2. The polynomialhas all its roots confused. Let (3) be the roots of the polynomialsand let us take into account the inequalities (15) corresponding to these roots. Then, if, we have
from which it immediately follows thatand Theorem 5 is proved.
12. To proceed further we will use some operations to which we will subject the roots of a polynomial. These operations, which we will call dilation and contraction of two roots, were used in the cited book by GH Hardy, JE Littlewood and G. Pólya.
A dilation of twoof the roots of a polynomial consists of replacing these roots byrespectively, whereand leaving the other roots of the polynomial unchanged.
A contraction of twoof the roots of a polynomial consists of replacing these roots by,respectively, whereand leaving the other roots of the polynomial unchanged.
numbercan be called the coefficient of expansion, respectively contraction, corresponding to the pair of roots considered.
In what follows, unless expressly stated otherwise1, we will only consider expansions and contractions that do not disturb the order of the roots of the polynomial. This means that the coefficientis subject to the restriction, in the first case, that the intervals [), (], and, in the second case, as the intervals (], [) does not contain any roots of the original polynomial or the transformed polynomial. If (14) are the roots of the original polynomial and, with the above restriction, the dilation operation is applicable to the rootsonly in the following cases:
The contract operation, with the above restriction, is applicable to rootsonly in the following cases:
The dilation and contraction operations being thus specified, it is seen that such an operation is perfectly characterized by the pair of roots to which it is applied and by the coefficientrespectively. In particular, if we can apply a coefficient expansion or contraction operation, we can apply, to the same roots, a dilation or a contraction of any kind
It follows that if we subject two of the roots of the polynomials to value value, they are continuous functions of the coefficient. 1 ot the stars are also the sumsThese amounts are converted intorespectively in, for, as it is a question of an expansion or contraction of coefficientof the rootsThe amountsfor the other values ​​ofremain unchanged. It should be noted that by dilating or contracting two roots, the sum of the roots does not change.
Ifis a polynomial that is deduced from the polynomialby applying a coefficient expansion or contraction, his rootstend, for, to the corresponding roots ofAt the same time, its roots, which are also continuous functions of, tend to the corresponding roots of.
It is important to extend these properties to the limit to the case whenit is deduced fromby successively applying a finite number of relative expansions or contractions to different pairs of roots of the polynomial. This expansion must be done with some caution because the successive application of several operations depends on their order. In other words, the expansion and contraction operations are not commutative when applied to different pairs of roots.
Example. Leti. Therefore the first root is equal to 0 and the second and third to 2 . If we first apply to the roots,(the first and the third) a dilation of coefficient 3, the roots become -3, 2, 5. Then applying a contraction of coefficient 1 to the roots(the second and the third), we obtain the rootsThe order of operations cannot be reversed because the contraction operation cannot be applied to roots., if we take into account the restriction of not disturbing the order of the roots.
Continuing with this example, let us assume that we first apply to the roots(second and third) a contraction of coefficient 1. The roots then become. We then apply a coefficient 3 expansion to the roots 0.1 (first and second) and find the roots. However, we must note that each time we have disturbed the order of the roots.
This example shows the precision brought by the restriction of not disturbing the order of the roots. It also shows how the roots of the polynomial must be tracked when we successively apply several expansions and contractions of two roots.
We will not examine this permutability problem in more detail because the 1st limit property above will apply in the following, only to certain particular cases that will be specified in due course.
13. We will now prove that Theorem 5 follows from Theorem 6 .
If the polynomialit is deduced fromby applying a dilation operation of two roots, it results, from the above, that we haveThis relationship is also true ifit is deduced fromby successively applying a certain number of dilations.
Let (14) be the roots of the polynomialand eitherLet us denote bya polynomial with roots
whereis a positive number. The polynomialit is deduced fromsuccessively applying the coefficient expansion operationroot, for(in this order). We have. It should be noted thathas all its simple roots which, for, tend to the corresponding roots ofAt the same time, his rootstend towards the corresponding roots of the.
Whethertwo polynomials of degree, (1) the roots of these polynomials and suppose we have. Either
roots of polynomials, whereis a positive number and is obtained fromaswas obtained above fromWe then have
So we haveAssuming that Theorem 6 is true, it follows thatBut, if, his rootstend to his rootsrespectively. So doing, we deduce.
We have therefore proven that Theorem 5 follows from Theorem 6.
Observation. The relationshipis true ifit is deduced fromby a dilation of two roots, without the restriction of preserving the order of the roots. This is easily seen by noting that if we apply a dilation to two rootsand if we assume that the coefficientof this dilation increases, we can replaceor onwith a root that it crosses. If we agree to say that a dilation of the rootsbotherthe order of the roots if the intervals (), () do not contain any roots of the polynomial, then the previous property follows from the fact that any dilation, without the restriction of preserving the order of the roots, can be obtained by successively applying a finite number of dilations that do not largely disturb the order of the roots.
It is also seen that the relationshipis true whenit is deduced fromby successively applying an arbitrary number (finite or not) of dilations with or without the restriction of preserving the order of the roots.
14. We will deduce Theorem 6 from a series of preparatory lemmas.
If the polynomialit is deduced fromby applying a contraction of two roots, we haveThis relationship remains true even ifit is deduced fromby successively applying a finite number of contractions. If the polynomialhas all simple roots, andhas all simple roots.
Lemma 2. Given a polynomialof the degreeand a positive number is arbitrary, one can find a polynomial of degreeso that:
This polynomial can be deduced fromby successively applying a finite number of contractions of two consecutive roots,
The roots of this polynomial must all lie within an interval of length.
Of course, if all his rootsare confused, we have nothing to prove. Here, however, we are interested in the opposite case, namely, in particular the case whenhas all its distinct roots. In the statement it was emphasized that we are only talking about contractions applied to pairs of consecutive roots. So if (14) are the roots of the polynomial, only to pairs of the form.
We will prove the lemma by complete induction.
Forthe property is true, because ifare the roots of the polynomial, it is sufficient to apply a coefficient contraction to these rootswhich checks inequalities.
Let us now suppose thatand that the property is true for polynomials of degree 1Let us prove that it is also true for polynomials of degree.
We will first show that ifis a polynomial of degreewith roots (14), by successively applying a finite number of consecutive root contractions we can deduce a polynomial whose roots are all contained in an interval of lengthFor this
we observe that, by hypothesis, applying a finite number of consecutive root contractions, we can deduce froma polynomialwith the rootsso thatContractions are applied only to root pairs., whereWe then apply to the polynomiala contraction of the rootscoefficient, where maxThe roots of the polynomial thus obtained are then contained in an interval of length, that is, exactly what needed to be shown.
It follows from this that if a polynomial of degreehas all its roots contained within an interval of length, by applying a finite number of contractions of two consecutive roots, one can derive a polynomial whose roots are confined within an interval of length. Repeating this procedure we see that for any natural numberone can deduce, by applying a finite number of contractions of two consecutive roots, a polynomial of degreewhose roots are all contained in an interval of length less than
It is enough to choose the numberso thatand the lemma is proven.
Observation. An observation analogous to that made in no. 13 can also be made here. The relationis true and ifit is deduced fromby a contraction of two roots, without the restriction of preserving the order of the roots but only with the condition that the coefficientto beThe proof is done analogously, replacingorwith a root that it traverses, and in particular exchanging these roots with each other when they traverse each other, whilegrows. And here it can be said that a contraction of the rootsdoes not largely disturb the order of the roots if the intervalsdo not contain any roots of the transformed polynomial and when. Then the preceding property follows from the fact that any contraction of two roots, subject only to the restriction, can be obtained by successively applying a finite number of contractions that do not largely disturb the order of the roots.
It is also seen that the relationshipis true whenit is deduced fromby successively applying an arbitrary number (finite or not) of contractions while preserving the order of the roots or only with the restriction imposed above on the contraction coefficient.
15. From the previous lemma we deduce:
Lemma 3. Ifare two polynomials of degreeand if, we can find a polynomialof the degree, which is deduced fromby successively applying a finite number of contractions of two consecutive roots, so that we have, without the relationshipto be checked.
Let (1') be the roots ofihis rootsWe haveand, based on the condition to which it is subject, we have the inequalities
| (17) |
in at least one of these relations the equality is true. Of course the equality is also verified
To prove the lemma, let's take a positive numberso that
| (18) |
We can find, based on Lemma 2, a finite sequence of polynomials of degree,
so that:
. Each termis deduced from the previous termby a contraction of two consecutive roots.
. The first termis equal toand the last onehas all its roots contained within an interval of length.
By hypothesis. So there is a largest indexso thatWe cannot have, because then inequality (18) would be in contradiction with inequalities (). We therefore haveThereforeand the polynomialcheck the relationship.
Whetherthe contraction coefficient by whichit is deduced from. Eithera polynomial that is deduced fromapplying a coefficient contraction to the same pair of (consecutive) rootsWhenhis rootstend towards the corresponding roots of, and whenthey tend towards the corresponding roots ofBased on continuity with respect toof the roots, there is a positive numberso that we havebut as the relationshipnot be verified. Taking the polynomialequal to the polynomialcorresponding to this, Lemma 3 is proven.
16. We also have
Lemma 4. Ifare two polynomials of degreeand if, we can find a finite sequence of polynomials of degree,
| (19) |
so that:
. Each termis deduced from the previous termby a contraction of two consecutive roots.
. The first termis equal to, and the last termis equal to.
We do the proof by complete induction.
Forit is enough to take, soand the lemma is proven.
Whetherand suppose that the property is true for polynomials of degreeLet us prove that it will also be true for polynomials of degree.
So let's consider two polynomialsof the degreeand let's assume thatBased on Lemma 3, we can construct a finite sequence
| (20) |
of polynomials of degreein whichis equal toand the terms check the conditionfrom Lemma 4. In addition, the last term, determined by Lemma 3 , verifies the relationbut does not verify the relationshipWe will continue to denote withhis roots.
Ifis equal to, the sequence (20) verifies all the conditions imposed on the sequence (19) and Lemma 4 is proven.
Otherwise, so ifis not equal to, only(where) of the relations (17) reduce to equalities. Lethis valuesfor which in (17) we have equality, for the other values ​​ofthe strict inequality being valid. We can assume
..Let us now consider the pairs of consecutive indicesThese pairs are of two categories:
If, then they are of the first category and we have.
If, the pairs are of the second category. In this case we have
However, we haveand, based on the hypothesis made, lemma 4 is true for polynomials of degreeIt follows that we can successively apply toa finite number of contractions of two consecutive roots, in which, so that the rootsto become respectively equal to, leaving the other roots unchanged. It follows that we can extend the series (20) thus,
where the terms verify the same conditions as the string (20), except that the last termhas one less pair of consecutive second-class indices.
Since there are obviously only a finite number of consecutive index pairsof the second category, it is immediately seen that, possibly repeating the above procedure at most a finite number of times, we end up constructing the sequence (19), through a convenient extension of the sequence (20) and which verifies all the conditions of lemma 4.
With this, Lemma 4 is proven.
17. Finally we have the following
Lemma 5. Ifis a polynomial of degreewith all its simple roots and if the polynomialit is deduced fromby a contraction of two consecutive roots, we have.
Before proving this lemma, we will show that it implies Theorem 6. Indeed, lettwo polynomials of degreeand let's assume thatWe apply Lemma 4 forming the sequence (19) which verifies the properties. We then have, based on Lemma 5,, whence, based on the transitivity of the relation, we deduce, so, that is, exactly what needed to be demonstrated.
Theorem 6 is therefore proven.
18. It remains to prove Lemma 5. From the foregoing it follows that it is sufficient to prove forIt is easy to see that Lemma 5 is then equivalent to the following:
LEMMA 6. Ifand if,, whereis a polynomial of degreewith all real, simple roots located outside the closed interval, we have.
polynomialit is deduced fromapplying a contraction of consecutive rootsi.
Let's note with
his rootsi(if) and let us denote by
roots of polynomialsLet the index bedetermined by the fact that
ifand let's putif all the rootsI am on his right.iif all the rootsI am on his left.Thus the natural numberis well determined and takes the values.
Thenis the root ofbetweeniihis rootbetweeniThe other pairs of rootsare respectively contained in the open intervals:
In this table, the first two lines are deleted if, the first line if, the last line ifand the last two lines ifFinally, it is seen that forione or both of the second and third lines are retained.
formulas
| (21) | ||||
shows us, becausecannot have any common root, that the polynomialsI can only haveas a common root and this if and only if. ThenIfHAVEand none of the roots, for such a value of, cannot cancel. Moreover, from (21) the formula results
| (22) |
So that we can study the pairs furtherfor, we will distinguish two cases:
Case 1. Suppose thatand let's examine the root pairsforFrom the second formula (21) we deduce, for these values ​​of,
| (23) |
and from the first formula (21) and from (22) we deduce
| (24) |
using the sg functionequal, by definition, torespectively 1 , asis, =, respectively > 0 .
From (23) it follows thatis in the right neighborhood of the point, more precisely it is in the interval (). We then have
| (25) |
and from (24) we deduce
| (26) |
which shows us thathas at least one root contained in (). However, we can only have one such root and this is obviousIt follows therefore that we have
| (27) |
If, we can take, in the previous considerations, forimproper numberand the results remain valid.
Case 2. Suppose thatand let's examine the root pairsfor. Proceeding as above we see that, for these values ​​of, instead of (23) we have
| () |
which shows us thatis in the left neighborhood of the point, more precisely in the interval ().
Instead of (24), (25) and (26) we have respectively
| () | |||
| (a) | |||
| () |
and it is deduced, as above, thatis within the rangeWe therefore have
| () |
If, forwe can take the wrong numberand the results remain valid.
The inequalities (27), (27') together with the equality
proves Lemma 6. Indeed, based on this equality, the inequalities
are equivalent to
| (28) | |||
which are immediate consequences of inequalities ( 27 ), ().
