The vanishing of sum of coefficients: symmetric polynomials












7












$begingroup$


Denote $pmb{X}_n=(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$. Consider the symmetric polynomial
$$f_n(pmb X_n)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i+x_j).$$
Expand these in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials, say
$$f_n(pmb{X}_n)=sum_{mu}c_{mu,n}cdot e_{mu}(pmb{X}_n).$$



For example,
begin{align*} f_3&=-e_{(3)}+e_{(2,1)} \
f_5&=-e_{(5,5)}+2e_{(5,4,1)}+e_{(5,3,2)}-e_{(5,2,2,1)}-e_{(4,4,1,1)}-e_{(4,3,3)}+e_{(4,3,2,1)}.
end{align*}




QUESTION 1. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
$$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n+1}=0?$$




POSTSCRIPT. Fedor's reply (to Question 1) shown below suggests to me to ask:




QUESTION 2. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
$$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n}=(-1)^{binom{n}2}?$$











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    7












    $begingroup$


    Denote $pmb{X}_n=(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$. Consider the symmetric polynomial
    $$f_n(pmb X_n)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i+x_j).$$
    Expand these in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials, say
    $$f_n(pmb{X}_n)=sum_{mu}c_{mu,n}cdot e_{mu}(pmb{X}_n).$$



    For example,
    begin{align*} f_3&=-e_{(3)}+e_{(2,1)} \
    f_5&=-e_{(5,5)}+2e_{(5,4,1)}+e_{(5,3,2)}-e_{(5,2,2,1)}-e_{(4,4,1,1)}-e_{(4,3,3)}+e_{(4,3,2,1)}.
    end{align*}




    QUESTION 1. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
    $$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n+1}=0?$$




    POSTSCRIPT. Fedor's reply (to Question 1) shown below suggests to me to ask:




    QUESTION 2. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
    $$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n}=(-1)^{binom{n}2}?$$











    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      7












      7








      7


      1



      $begingroup$


      Denote $pmb{X}_n=(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$. Consider the symmetric polynomial
      $$f_n(pmb X_n)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i+x_j).$$
      Expand these in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials, say
      $$f_n(pmb{X}_n)=sum_{mu}c_{mu,n}cdot e_{mu}(pmb{X}_n).$$



      For example,
      begin{align*} f_3&=-e_{(3)}+e_{(2,1)} \
      f_5&=-e_{(5,5)}+2e_{(5,4,1)}+e_{(5,3,2)}-e_{(5,2,2,1)}-e_{(4,4,1,1)}-e_{(4,3,3)}+e_{(4,3,2,1)}.
      end{align*}




      QUESTION 1. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
      $$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n+1}=0?$$




      POSTSCRIPT. Fedor's reply (to Question 1) shown below suggests to me to ask:




      QUESTION 2. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
      $$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n}=(-1)^{binom{n}2}?$$











      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Denote $pmb{X}_n=(x_1,x_2,dots,x_n)$. Consider the symmetric polynomial
      $$f_n(pmb X_n)=prod_{1leq i<jleq n}(x_i+x_j).$$
      Expand these in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials, say
      $$f_n(pmb{X}_n)=sum_{mu}c_{mu,n}cdot e_{mu}(pmb{X}_n).$$



      For example,
      begin{align*} f_3&=-e_{(3)}+e_{(2,1)} \
      f_5&=-e_{(5,5)}+2e_{(5,4,1)}+e_{(5,3,2)}-e_{(5,2,2,1)}-e_{(4,4,1,1)}-e_{(4,3,3)}+e_{(4,3,2,1)}.
      end{align*}




      QUESTION 1. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
      $$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n+1}=0?$$




      POSTSCRIPT. Fedor's reply (to Question 1) shown below suggests to me to ask:




      QUESTION 2. Is it true that, for integers $n geq 1$, we have
      $$sum_{mu}c_{mu,2n}=(-1)^{binom{n}2}?$$








      reference-request co.combinatorics rt.representation-theory symmetric-functions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 7 hours ago







      T. Amdeberhan

















      asked 10 hours ago









      T. AmdeberhanT. Amdeberhan

      17.7k229131




      17.7k229131






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9












          $begingroup$

          Choose $n$ numbers $x_1,dots,x_n$ for which all elementary symmetric polynomials are equal to 1 and substitute them to our $f_n$. We should get zero value for odd $n$. Well, what are these numbers? The roots of $x^{n}-x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}-ldots-1=(x^{n+1}-1)/(x+1)$. This polynomial indeed has two roots with sum equal to 0 when $n$ is odd.



          If $n=2k$ is even, we substitute the roots $w_1,dots,w_n$ of the polynomial $f(x)=x^{2k}-x^{2k-1}+ldots+1=(x^{2k+1}+1)/(x+1)=(x-w_1)dots (x-w_n)$. Then your claim reads as $$A:=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n} (w_i+w_j)=(-1)^{binom{k}2}.$$ This is done by the standard trick (and is well known itself). At first,
          $$
          |A|^2=prod_{i=1}^n prod_{jne i,1leqslant jleqslant n}|w_i+w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n prod_{j=1}^n|(-w_i)-w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n |f(w_i)|=\=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^nleft|frac{(-w_i)^{2k+1}+1}{-w_i+1}right|=1,
          $$

          since $1+(-w_i)^{2k+1}=2$ for all $i=1,2,dots,n$ and $prod_{i=1}^n (1-w_i)=f(1)=1$.



          At second, we need to find the argument of the complex number $A$. This may be done for example as follows: all pairs $w_i+w_j$ for which $w_i$ and $w_j$ are not complex conjugate are partitioned onto complex conjugate pairs. In each pair the product is positive reals. If $w_i$ and $w_j$ are complex conjugate, the sum $w_i+w_j$ is a real number whose sign is the sign of the real part of $w_i$. Therefore $A$ is the real number whose sign equals $(1)^{m/2}$, where $m$ is the number of $w$'s in the left half-plane. It is easy to see that $m/2=[k/2]$ and that $(-1)^{[k/2]}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 4




            $begingroup$
            An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
            $endgroup$
            – darij grinberg
            7 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
            $endgroup$
            – Fedor Petrov
            7 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "504"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324489%2fthe-vanishing-of-sum-of-coefficients-symmetric-polynomials%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          9












          $begingroup$

          Choose $n$ numbers $x_1,dots,x_n$ for which all elementary symmetric polynomials are equal to 1 and substitute them to our $f_n$. We should get zero value for odd $n$. Well, what are these numbers? The roots of $x^{n}-x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}-ldots-1=(x^{n+1}-1)/(x+1)$. This polynomial indeed has two roots with sum equal to 0 when $n$ is odd.



          If $n=2k$ is even, we substitute the roots $w_1,dots,w_n$ of the polynomial $f(x)=x^{2k}-x^{2k-1}+ldots+1=(x^{2k+1}+1)/(x+1)=(x-w_1)dots (x-w_n)$. Then your claim reads as $$A:=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n} (w_i+w_j)=(-1)^{binom{k}2}.$$ This is done by the standard trick (and is well known itself). At first,
          $$
          |A|^2=prod_{i=1}^n prod_{jne i,1leqslant jleqslant n}|w_i+w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n prod_{j=1}^n|(-w_i)-w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n |f(w_i)|=\=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^nleft|frac{(-w_i)^{2k+1}+1}{-w_i+1}right|=1,
          $$

          since $1+(-w_i)^{2k+1}=2$ for all $i=1,2,dots,n$ and $prod_{i=1}^n (1-w_i)=f(1)=1$.



          At second, we need to find the argument of the complex number $A$. This may be done for example as follows: all pairs $w_i+w_j$ for which $w_i$ and $w_j$ are not complex conjugate are partitioned onto complex conjugate pairs. In each pair the product is positive reals. If $w_i$ and $w_j$ are complex conjugate, the sum $w_i+w_j$ is a real number whose sign is the sign of the real part of $w_i$. Therefore $A$ is the real number whose sign equals $(1)^{m/2}$, where $m$ is the number of $w$'s in the left half-plane. It is easy to see that $m/2=[k/2]$ and that $(-1)^{[k/2]}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 4




            $begingroup$
            An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
            $endgroup$
            – darij grinberg
            7 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
            $endgroup$
            – Fedor Petrov
            7 hours ago
















          9












          $begingroup$

          Choose $n$ numbers $x_1,dots,x_n$ for which all elementary symmetric polynomials are equal to 1 and substitute them to our $f_n$. We should get zero value for odd $n$. Well, what are these numbers? The roots of $x^{n}-x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}-ldots-1=(x^{n+1}-1)/(x+1)$. This polynomial indeed has two roots with sum equal to 0 when $n$ is odd.



          If $n=2k$ is even, we substitute the roots $w_1,dots,w_n$ of the polynomial $f(x)=x^{2k}-x^{2k-1}+ldots+1=(x^{2k+1}+1)/(x+1)=(x-w_1)dots (x-w_n)$. Then your claim reads as $$A:=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n} (w_i+w_j)=(-1)^{binom{k}2}.$$ This is done by the standard trick (and is well known itself). At first,
          $$
          |A|^2=prod_{i=1}^n prod_{jne i,1leqslant jleqslant n}|w_i+w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n prod_{j=1}^n|(-w_i)-w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n |f(w_i)|=\=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^nleft|frac{(-w_i)^{2k+1}+1}{-w_i+1}right|=1,
          $$

          since $1+(-w_i)^{2k+1}=2$ for all $i=1,2,dots,n$ and $prod_{i=1}^n (1-w_i)=f(1)=1$.



          At second, we need to find the argument of the complex number $A$. This may be done for example as follows: all pairs $w_i+w_j$ for which $w_i$ and $w_j$ are not complex conjugate are partitioned onto complex conjugate pairs. In each pair the product is positive reals. If $w_i$ and $w_j$ are complex conjugate, the sum $w_i+w_j$ is a real number whose sign is the sign of the real part of $w_i$. Therefore $A$ is the real number whose sign equals $(1)^{m/2}$, where $m$ is the number of $w$'s in the left half-plane. It is easy to see that $m/2=[k/2]$ and that $(-1)^{[k/2]}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 4




            $begingroup$
            An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
            $endgroup$
            – darij grinberg
            7 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
            $endgroup$
            – Fedor Petrov
            7 hours ago














          9












          9








          9





          $begingroup$

          Choose $n$ numbers $x_1,dots,x_n$ for which all elementary symmetric polynomials are equal to 1 and substitute them to our $f_n$. We should get zero value for odd $n$. Well, what are these numbers? The roots of $x^{n}-x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}-ldots-1=(x^{n+1}-1)/(x+1)$. This polynomial indeed has two roots with sum equal to 0 when $n$ is odd.



          If $n=2k$ is even, we substitute the roots $w_1,dots,w_n$ of the polynomial $f(x)=x^{2k}-x^{2k-1}+ldots+1=(x^{2k+1}+1)/(x+1)=(x-w_1)dots (x-w_n)$. Then your claim reads as $$A:=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n} (w_i+w_j)=(-1)^{binom{k}2}.$$ This is done by the standard trick (and is well known itself). At first,
          $$
          |A|^2=prod_{i=1}^n prod_{jne i,1leqslant jleqslant n}|w_i+w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n prod_{j=1}^n|(-w_i)-w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n |f(w_i)|=\=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^nleft|frac{(-w_i)^{2k+1}+1}{-w_i+1}right|=1,
          $$

          since $1+(-w_i)^{2k+1}=2$ for all $i=1,2,dots,n$ and $prod_{i=1}^n (1-w_i)=f(1)=1$.



          At second, we need to find the argument of the complex number $A$. This may be done for example as follows: all pairs $w_i+w_j$ for which $w_i$ and $w_j$ are not complex conjugate are partitioned onto complex conjugate pairs. In each pair the product is positive reals. If $w_i$ and $w_j$ are complex conjugate, the sum $w_i+w_j$ is a real number whose sign is the sign of the real part of $w_i$. Therefore $A$ is the real number whose sign equals $(1)^{m/2}$, where $m$ is the number of $w$'s in the left half-plane. It is easy to see that $m/2=[k/2]$ and that $(-1)^{[k/2]}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Choose $n$ numbers $x_1,dots,x_n$ for which all elementary symmetric polynomials are equal to 1 and substitute them to our $f_n$. We should get zero value for odd $n$. Well, what are these numbers? The roots of $x^{n}-x^{n-1}+x^{n-2}-ldots-1=(x^{n+1}-1)/(x+1)$. This polynomial indeed has two roots with sum equal to 0 when $n$ is odd.



          If $n=2k$ is even, we substitute the roots $w_1,dots,w_n$ of the polynomial $f(x)=x^{2k}-x^{2k-1}+ldots+1=(x^{2k+1}+1)/(x+1)=(x-w_1)dots (x-w_n)$. Then your claim reads as $$A:=prod_{1leqslant i<jleqslant n} (w_i+w_j)=(-1)^{binom{k}2}.$$ This is done by the standard trick (and is well known itself). At first,
          $$
          |A|^2=prod_{i=1}^n prod_{jne i,1leqslant jleqslant n}|w_i+w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n prod_{j=1}^n|(-w_i)-w_j|=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^n |f(w_i)|=\=2^{-n}prod_{i=1}^nleft|frac{(-w_i)^{2k+1}+1}{-w_i+1}right|=1,
          $$

          since $1+(-w_i)^{2k+1}=2$ for all $i=1,2,dots,n$ and $prod_{i=1}^n (1-w_i)=f(1)=1$.



          At second, we need to find the argument of the complex number $A$. This may be done for example as follows: all pairs $w_i+w_j$ for which $w_i$ and $w_j$ are not complex conjugate are partitioned onto complex conjugate pairs. In each pair the product is positive reals. If $w_i$ and $w_j$ are complex conjugate, the sum $w_i+w_j$ is a real number whose sign is the sign of the real part of $w_i$. Therefore $A$ is the real number whose sign equals $(1)^{m/2}$, where $m$ is the number of $w$'s in the left half-plane. It is easy to see that $m/2=[k/2]$ and that $(-1)^{[k/2]}=(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 8 hours ago

























          answered 9 hours ago









          Fedor PetrovFedor Petrov

          50.3k6115230




          50.3k6115230








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
            $endgroup$
            – darij grinberg
            7 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
            $endgroup$
            – Fedor Petrov
            7 hours ago














          • 4




            $begingroup$
            An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
            $endgroup$
            – darij grinberg
            7 hours ago








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
            $endgroup$
            – Fedor Petrov
            7 hours ago








          4




          4




          $begingroup$
          An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
          $endgroup$
          – darij grinberg
          7 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          An alternative to your "standard trick" is to observe that $w_i + w_j = dfrac{w_i^2 - w_j^2}{w_i - w_j}$. This yields $prodlimits_{i<j} left(w_i+w_jright) = dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$. But the $n$ numbers $-w_1^2, -w_2^2, ldots, -w_n^2$ are just a permutation of the $n$ numbers $w_1, w_2, ldots, w_n$, and thus $dfrac{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i^2 - w_j^2right)}{prodlimits_{i<j}left(w_i-w_jright)}$ equals a power of $-1$ times the sign of this permutation. Both are easy to compute.
          $endgroup$
          – darij grinberg
          7 hours ago






          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
          $endgroup$
          – Fedor Petrov
          7 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Yes, this is another standard trick:) Actually possibly the shortest proof is to combine them: the absolute values equals 1 since the differences $w_i^2-w_j^2$ and $w_i-w_j$ are the same up to sign, and the sign may be obtained by looking at the argument.
          $endgroup$
          – Fedor Petrov
          7 hours ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324489%2fthe-vanishing-of-sum-of-coefficients-symmetric-polynomials%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          GameSpot

          日野市

          Tu-95轟炸機