Keyboard shortcuts

Press ← or → to navigate between chapters

Press ? to show this help

Press Esc to hide this help

Metadata
slug: khavinson-pereira-putinar-saff-shimorin-2011-nonunivalence-radius
bibkey: khavinson2011borcea
doi: 10.1007/978-3-0348-0142-3_16
url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5167
triage: theorem
motivation_gids:
  - D5/S3/Zeros/CriticalPoints/BorceaNonunivalenceRadius.result

Khavinson–Pereira–Putinar–Saff–Shimorin: nonunivalence radius

Problem

D. Khavinson, R. Pereira, M. Putinar, E. B. Saff and S. Shimorin, Borcea’s variance conjectures on the critical points of polynomials, arXiv:1010.5167v2, §5, Theorem 5.1 and Conjecture 4. See khavinson2011borcea.

Theorem 5.1 (Alexander-Kakeya). If a polynomial F of degree n has no critical points in a closed disk of radius R, then it is univalent in the concentric disk of radius R sin(π/n).

If F is an nth degree polynomial with F(0) = 0, then F is not univalent in any closed disk of radius larger than σ_p(F) sin(π/n), p ≥ 1, centered at zero.

Of course, if the conjecture is true for p = 1, then it follows for all p ≥ 1. By the Alexander-Kakeya Theorem, the truth of this conjecture implies the truth of Conjecture 1 for the same value of p. It can be easily seen that the strongest case p = 1 of this conjecture is true for n = 2.

For every , every complex polynomial of degree vanishing at zero, every real and every real , the assertion forbids injectivity on the closed disk centered at zero with radius . Zeros are counted with algebraic multiplicity, and is the infimum over all complex centers of the normalized root moment. The formal definition includes every stated quantifier and imposes no simple-root or geometric restrictions.

Motivation

The conjecture proposes an analytic route from a root-spread statistic to a critical-point bound. The external assertion and proposed counterexample are identified in issue #18950.

Gap

The proposed radius can be strictly smaller than a disk on which the polynomial remains injective. A root moment controls a global root configuration; the divided difference can still stay away from zero throughout that disk.

Route

Set , , and . Its four roots with multiplicity are , with and all three nonzero roots of modulus one. Evaluation of the moment at center zero gives . Nonnegativity of every root moment supplies the lower bound needed for this infimum comparison.

Since ,

For ,

The second factor never vanishes, proving injectivity on the closed disk.

Falsifier

The exact degree-four polynomial, order one and radius five eighths refute the universal assertion. The roots, strict radius inequality and closed-disk injectivity must all hold for the same polynomial and radius; none is substituted by an open-disk estimate or a numerical approximation.

Evidence

D5/S3/Zeros/CriticalPoints/BorceaNonunivalenceRadius.result : ¬ conjecture proves the refutation with the full conjecture as its target. The only public declarations are the root-moment definition, its infimum, the conjecture and its negation. All auxiliary calculations are private.

Triage

REFUTED — Conjecture 4, by at . The conjectured radius is at most , while the polynomial is injective on the closed disk of radius .

COMPUTED (analytic calculation, not Lean-verified here) — failure at every finite real . For , the roots are zero and the five fifth roots of unity. Thus , and . The divided-difference sum is . Its six terms each have modulus at most , so its modulus is at most . Hence is injective on the closed disk for every such order.

UNAFFECTED — Borcea’s variance Conjecture 1. Only the proposed nonunivalence route fails; no counterexample to the critical-point variance statement follows.

OPEN — a correct universal radius replacing . For , one can ask for the sharp constants such that every degree- polynomial vanishing at zero fails injectivity beyond . The counterexample rules out the proposed constants but does not determine valid sharp replacements. For , the same estimate proves injectivity whenever .

ASSUMED-UNVERIFIED

Absence of subsequent settlements and worldwide priority are not established. The degree-six calculation and any proposed sharp universal replacement are not Lean theorems in this module. Theorem 5.1 is contextual literature, not an additional formalized claim.