1

Let $f(x_1,...,x_n)$ be a symmetric polynomial, so that $f(x_{\sigma(1)},...,x_{\sigma(n)}) = f(x_1,...,x_n)$ for each $\sigma \in S_n$. For $1 \leq k \leq n$, we denote by $s_k$ the $k^{\text{th}}$ elementary symmetric function given by $s_k(x_1,...,x_n) = \sum_{1 \leq j_1 < ... < j_k \leq n}x_{j_1}\cdots x_{j_k}$. One is asked to prove by induction on $n$ that $f(x_1,...,x_{n-1},0) = g(s_1(x_1,...,x_{n-1},0),...,s_{n-1}(x_1,...,x_{n-1},0))$ for some polynomial g in $n-1$ variables.

The result is trivial for $n = 1$ since $f(0)$ is a constant polynomial. Now, assuming that the result holds for $n = k$, where $k \geq 1$ is fixed, we can write $f(x_1,...,x_k, x_{k+1}) = \sum_{j = 0}^mg_j(x_1,...,x_k)x_{k+1}^j$, where $g_j(x_1,...,x_k)$ is a symmetric polynomial for $0 \leq j \leq m$. Hence $f(x_1,...,x_k,0) = g_0(x_1,...,x_k)$. It is not immediately obvious to me how the induction hypothesis leads to an expression of the form $f(x_1,...,x_k,0) = g_0(x_1,...,x_k) = g(s_1(x_1,...,x_k,0),...,s_k(x_1,...,x_k,0))$, where $g$ is some polynomial in $k$ variables. Any hints/suggestions would be much appreciated.

  • This just looks like the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials dressed up with a spurious extra variable $x_n$ which is fixed at $0$ in the claim to be proved. – Rob Arthan Dec 04 '23 at 20:28
  • Or perhaps a middle step in the proof of that theorem ... – WhatsUp Dec 04 '23 at 20:29
  • @RobArthan It is presented in a set of exercises as the first step in a proof of the fundamental theorem of symmetric polynomials, so the two statements are presumably not equivalent. – Menander I Dec 04 '23 at 20:37
  • @WhatsUp Indeed, the exercise set involves a series of steps leading to a proof of the fundamental theorem, and I can see clearly how the remaining steps follow from this preliminary result which has nonetheless left me somewhat confused. – Menander I Dec 04 '23 at 20:42
  • 1
    The two statements certainly are equivalent, but the extra variable may somehow be useful in the induction. The proof I know is the (first) one given in the Wiki page that I quoted. It does consider something like this, but the induction is more complicated. Perhaps you could quote the source of your exercise. – Rob Arthan Dec 04 '23 at 20:47
  • @RobArthan It appears as Exercise 6.5.1 (i) in "Elements of Algebra" by John Stillwell. – Menander I Dec 04 '23 at 20:50
  • 1
    Thanks (this also may be of interest to @WhatsUp). That exercise says "under an induction hypothesis" not just "by induction". You are being asked to come up with a stronger induction hypothesis than the obvious one. The proof you will end up with is like the first one on the Wiki page. – Rob Arthan Dec 04 '23 at 20:59
  • @RobArthan Many thanks for your helpful replies. It appears that the main issue was with my own mistaken interpretation of the question. The Wiki page clarifies things nicely! – Menander I Dec 04 '23 at 21:34

0 Answers0