So, in a break from the earlier series I was doing on Lie algebras, I want to discuss a very elementary question about polynomials. The answer is well-known but is interesting. It would make a good competition type problem (indeed, it’s an exercise in Serge Lang’s Algebra). Moreover, ironically, it’s useful in algebra: At some point one of us will probably discuss Hilbert polynomials, which take integer values, so this result tells us something about them.
We have a polynomial which takes integer values at all sufficiently large
. What can we say about
?
Denote the set of such by
. Then clearly
. But the converse is false.
Take for instance
which is always integral, since and
always have the same parity.
Binomial Coefficients
It turns out that we can always express any polynomial in terms of the binomial coefficients:
Definition 1 We define the
-th binomial coefficient:
This is of course a generalization of the normal definition of the binomial coefficients.
We see that since the ordinary binomial coefficients are integers.
The binomial coefficients have many interesting properties. First, we define the difference operator mapping
. The key idea to this problem is that
preserves
, i.e.
.
We have:
which is checked directly from the definition and a little bit of algebra.
Finally, the polynomials form a basis for
. Given a polynomial
of degree
and leading coefficient
, take the difference
and get a polynomial of degree . Then induct on the degree of
to see that the
span
; since the degrees are different, they are linearly independent. (This is basically the proof that a triangular matrix with nonzero elements on the diagonal is invertible.)
Solution of the problem
Theorem 2
. In other words, every polynomial
is a linear combination, with integral coefficients, of binomial coefficients.
Proof: Induction on . If
we are working with a constant function which must be an integer, and
by definition. Otherwise, if
and the theorem is proved for smaller degrees, we can write
where , but not necessarily
. Then
since , we see that necessarily the
by the inductive hypothesis.
[Edit, 6/22- this material is also covered, with some additional results as well, in this post. See also here. AM]
July 22, 2009 at 1:02 pm
The difference operator you want is actually the forward one,
.
Anyway, there’s a rather clever way to do this proof “constructively” analogous to the Taylor series expansion: just check the identity
. A polynomial takes integer values if and only if its finite difference table consists of integers. But even better, the coefficients
are precisely the entries in its first row!
This turns out to be extremely convenient for polynomial interpolation; see my old posts here and here.
Anyway, here’s a problem along these lines. Suppose we want a polynomial of degree
to satisfy
for some sequence of integers
. The “local” obstruction to this polynomial having integer coefficients is that the integers
may not satisfy
, which must be true of any polynomial with integer coefficients. Is this the only obstruction? In other words, given that the condition holds does
have integer coefficients?
July 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Thanks for the correction!
Your method of finding the explicit coefficients is also how one finds the coefficients in the infinite binomial expansion of a continous function
(and shows their uniqueness); the existence of an infinite binomial expansion (Mahler’s theorem), may become a future post. If someone else doesn’t do it, I probably will eventually, since I like the result.
I looked at your posts, and they cover everything I mentioned here quite well, so I will add a link to them. I will think about your problem as well, but I don’t have an immediate answer.
July 22, 2009 at 7:24 pm
There’s some additional discussion of finite differences at Palmer Mebane’s blog here.
July 27, 2009 at 6:00 am
Qiaochu, if I understand the problem, the answer is no. The polynomial
takes values
and
, so we have
for this range of arguments, but the leading coefficient of
is 1/2.
July 27, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Argh. The correct condition I want is stronger, then: if
is the unique polynomial with rational coefficients of minimal degree satisfying
and in addition
for all
, then the conclusion holds. This is a corollary of a problem on USAMO 1995, but I’m curious how much we can weaken its hypotheses.
More specifically, suppose
is the unique polynomial with rational coefficients of minimal degree such that
. Does there exist
such that if
then
?