On the oscillation of the modulus of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials on the unit circle
Tam\'as Erd\'elyi

TL;DR
This paper investigates the oscillation and zero distribution of Rudin-Shapiro polynomials on the unit circle, revealing they have fewer zeros on the circle than Fekete polynomials and many zeros near it.
Contribution
It provides new bounds on the number of zeros of Rudin-Shapiro polynomials on and near the unit circle, extending understanding of their oscillatory behavior.
Findings
Rudin-Shapiro polynomials have o(n) zeros on the unit circle.
At least c2n zeros lie within a narrow annulus around the unit circle.
The oscillation of the modulus on the circle is characterized.
Abstract
In signal processing the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials have good autocorrelation properties and their values on the unit circle are small. Binary sequences with low autocorrelation coefficients are of interest in radar, sonar, and communication systems. In this paper we study the oscillation of the modulus of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials on the unit circle. We also show that the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials and of degree with have zeros on the unit circle. This should be compared with a result of B. Conrey, A. Granville, B. Poonen, and K. Soundararajan stating that for odd primes the Fekete polynomials of degree have asymptotically zeros on the unit circle, where . Our approach is based heavily on the Saffari and Montgomery conjectures proved recently by B. Rodgers. We also prove that there are…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMathematical functions and polynomials · Analytic and geometric function theory · Mathematical Analysis and Transform Methods
On the oscillation of the modulus of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials on the unit circle
Tamás Erdélyi
Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, College Station, Texas 77843
(February 28, 2018 )
In signal processing the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials have good autocorrelation properties and their values on the unit circle are small. Binary sequences with low autocorrelation coefficients are of interest in radar, sonar, and communication systems. In this paper we study the oscillation of the modulus of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials on the unit circle. We also show that the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials and of degree with have zeros on the unit circle. This should be compared with a result of B. Conrey, A. Granville, B. Poonen, and K. Soundararajan stating that for odd primes the Fekete polynomials of degree have asymptotically zeros on the unit circle, where . Our approach is based heavily on the Saffari and Montgomery conjectures proved recently by B. Rodgers. We also prove that there are absolute constants and such that the -th Rudin-Shapiro polynomials and of degree have at least zeros in the annulus
[TABLE]
polynomials, restricted coefficients, number of zeros on the unit circle, Rudin-Shapiro polynomials
††support: 2010 Mathematics Subject Classifications. 11C08, 41A17, 26C10, 30C15
1. Introduction and Notation
Let denote the open unit disk of the complex plane. Let denote the unit circle of the complex plane. The Mahler measure is defined for bounded measurable functions on by
[TABLE]
It is well known, see [HL-52], for instance, that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
It is also well known that for a function continuous on we have
[TABLE]
It is a simple consequence of the Jensen formula that
[TABLE]
for every polynomial of the form
[TABLE]
See [BE-95, p. 271] or [B-02, p. 3], for instance. It will be convenient for us to introduce the notation
[TABLE]
for functions defined on the period by , where is a bounded measurable functions on .
Let be the set of all algebraic polynomials of degree at most with complex coefficients. Let be the set of all real (that is, real-valued on the real line) trigonometric polynomials of degree at most . Finding polynomials with suitably restricted coefficients and maximal Mahler measure has interested many authors. The classes
[TABLE]
of Littlewood polynomials and the classes
[TABLE]
of unimodular polynomials are two of the most important classes considered. Observe that and
[TABLE]
for every . Beller and Newman [BN-73] constructed unimodular polynomials whose Mahler measure is at least .
Section 4 of [B-02] is devoted to the study of Rudin-Shapiro polynomials. Littlewood asked if there were polynomials satisfying
[TABLE]
with some absolute constants and , see [B-02, p. 27] for a reference to this problem of Littlewood. To satisfy just the lower bound, by itself, seems very hard, and no such sequence of Littlewood polynomials is known. A sequence of Littlewood polynomials that satisfies just the upper bound is given by the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials. The Rudin-Shapiro polynomials appear in Harold Shapiro’s 1951 thesis [S-51] at MIT and are sometimes called just Shapiro polynomials. They also arise independently in Golay’s paper [G-51]. They are remarkably simple to construct and are a rich source of counterexamples to possible conjectures.
The Rudin-Shapiro polynomials are defined recursively as follows:
[TABLE]
for Note that both and are polynomials of degree with having each of their coefficients in . In signal processing, the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials have good autocorrelation properties and their values on the unit circle are small. Binary sequences with low autocorrelation coefficients are of interest in radar, sonar, and communication systems.
It is well known and easy to check by using the parallelogram law that
[TABLE]
Hence
[TABLE]
It is also well known (see Section 4 of [B-02], for instance), that
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
P. Borwein’s book [B-02] presents a few more basic results on the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials. Various properties of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials are discussed in [B-73] by Brillhart and in [BL-76] by Brillhart, Lemont, and Morton. Obviously by the Parseval formula. In 1968 Littlewood [L-68] evaluated and found that . The norm of Rudin-Shapiro like polynomials on are studied in [BM-00].
P. Borwein and Lockhart [BL-01] investigated the asymptotic behavior of the mean value of normalized norms of Littlewood polynomials for arbitrary . They proved that
[TABLE]
In [C-15c] we proved that
[TABLE]
for every . In [CE-15c] we also proved the following result on the average Mahler measure of Littlewood polynomials. We have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
is the Euler constant and . These are analogues of the results proved earlier by Choi and Mossinghoff [CM-11] for polynomials in . Let . Let denote the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure of . In 1980 Saffari conjectured the following.
Conjecture 1.1
Let and be the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials of degree with . We have
[TABLE]
for all real exponents . Equivalently, we have
[TABLE]
whenever .
This conjecture was proved for all even values of by Doche [D-05] and Doche and Habsieger [DH-04]. Recently B. Rodgers [R-16] proved Saffari’s Conjecture 1.1 for all . See also [EZ-17]. An extension of Saffari’s conjecture is Montgomery’s conjecture below.
Conjecture 1.2
Let and be the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials of degree with . We have
[TABLE]
for any measurable set
B. Rodgers [R-16] proved Montgomery’s Conjecture 1.2 as well.
Despite the simplicity of their definition not much is known about the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials. It has been shown in [E-16c] fairly recently that the Mahler measure ( norm) and the norm of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials and of degree with on the unit circle of the complex plane have the same size, that is, the Mahler measure of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials of degree with is bounded from below by , where is an absolute constant.
It is shown in this paper that the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials and of degree with have zeros on the unit circle. We also prove that there are absolute constants and such that the -th Rudin-Shapiro polynomials and of degree have at least zeros in the annulus
[TABLE]
while there is an absolute constant such that each of the functions , , , and has at least zeros on the unit circle. The oscillation of and on the period is also studied.
For a prime number the -th Fekete polynomial is defined as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
is the usual Legendre symbol. Since has constant coefficient [math], it is not a Littlewood polynomial, but defined by is a Littlewood polynomial of degree . Fekete polynomials are examined in detail in [B-02], [CG-00], [E-11], [E-12], [E-17], [EL-07], and [M-80]. In [CE-15a] and [CE-15b] the authors examined the maximal size of the Mahler measure and the norms of sums of monomials on the unit circle as well as on subarcs of the unit circles. In the constructions appearing in [CE-15a] properties of the Fekete polynomials turned out to be quite useful. In [CG-00] B. Conrey, A. Granville, B. Poonen, and K. Soundararajan proved that for an odd prime the Fekete polynomial f_{p}(z)=\sum^{p-1}_{j=0}\big{(}{j\over p}\big{)}z^{j} (the coefficients are Legendre symbols) has zeros on the unit circle, where . So Fekete polynomials are far from having only zeros on the unit circle.
Mercer [M-06a] proved that if a Littlewood polynomial of the form is skew-reciprocal, that is, for each , then it has no zeros on the unit circle. However, by using different elementary methods it was observed in both [E-01] and [M-06a] that if a Littlewood polynomial of the form (1.1) is self-reciprocal, that is, for each , , then it has at least one zero on the unit circle.
There are many other papers on the zeros of constrained polynomials. Some of them are [BP-32], [BE-97], [BE-01], [BE-07], [BE-08a], [BE-08b], [BE-99], [BE-13], [B-97], [D-08], [E-08a], [E-08b], [E-16a], [E-16b], [L-61], [L-64], [L-66a], [L-66b], [L-68], [M-06b], [Sch-32], [Sch-33], [Sz-34], and [TV-07].
2. New Results
Let and be the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials of degree with . Let either or . Let . We use the notation
[TABLE]
for a complex-valued function defined on a set .
Theorem 2.1
and have zeros on the unit circle.
The proof of Theorem 2.1 will follow by combining the recently proved Saffari’s conjecture stated as Conjecture 1.1 and the theorem below. Let .
Theorem 2.2
If is of the form , where , and has at least zeros (counted with multiplicities) in , then
[TABLE]
for every , where denotes the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure of a measurable set .
Theorem 2.3
There is an absolute constant such that each of the functions , , , and has at least zeros on the unit circle for every .
Theorem 2.4
There is an absolute constant such that the equation has at most solutions (counted with multiplicities) in for every and sufficiently large , while the equation has at most solutions (counted with multiplicities) in for every and sufficiently large .
Theorem 2.5
The equation has at least distinct solutions in for every , , and sufficiently large , while the equation has at least distinct solutions in for every , , and sufficiently large .
Theorem 2.6
There s an absolute constants such that the equation has at least distinct solutions in whenever is real and .
Theorem 2.7
There are absolute constants and such that and have at least zeros in the annulus
[TABLE]
We note that for every there is an absolute constant depending only on such that every of the form
[TABLE]
has at least zeros in the annulus
[TABLE]
See Theorem 2.1 in [E-01].
On the other hand, there is an absolute constant such that for every there is a polynomial having no zeros in the annulus (2.1). See Theorem 2.3 in [E-01]. So in Theorem 2.7 some special properties, in addition to being Littlewood polynomials, of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials must be exploited.
A key to the proof of Theorem 2.7 is the result below.
Theorem 2.8
Let . There is an absolute constant depending only on such that has at least one zero in the disk
[TABLE]
whenever
[TABLE]
Problem 2.9
Is there an absolute constant such that the equation has at least distinct solutions in for every and sufficiently large ? In other words, can Theorem 2.5 be extended to all ?
We note that it follows from , , that the products have at least zeros in the closed unit disk and at least zeros outside the open unit disk. So in the light of Theorem 2.1 the products have asymptotically zeros in the open unit disk. However, as far as we know, the following questions are open.
Problem 2.10
Is there an absolute constant such that has at least zeros in the open unit disk?
Problem 2.11
Is there an absolute constant such that has at least zeros in the open unit disk?
Problem 2.12
Is it true that both and have asymptotically half of their zeros in the open unit disk?
Problem 2.13
Is it true that if is odd then has a zero on the unit circle only at and has a zero on the unit circle only at , while if is even then neither nor has a zero on the unit circle?
As for both and have odd degree, both and have at least one real zero. The fact that for both and have exactly one real zero was proved in [B-73].
3. Lemmas
Let, as before, and be the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials of degree with . To prove Theorem 2.1 we need the lemma below that is proved in [BE-95, E.11 of Section 5.1 on pages 236–237].
Lemma 3.1
If , , and , then has at most zeros in the interval .
Our next lemma is in [E-18], and for the sake of completeness we present its short proof in
Our next lemma is stated as Lemma 3.5 in [E-16c], where its proof may also be found.
Lemma 3.2
If and
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
for every , .
By Lemma 3.2, for every there are
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
and with
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
(Moreover, each is an -th root of unity.)
Our next lemma is stated and proved as Lemma 3.4 in [E-18].
Lemma 3.3
There is an absolute constant such that
[TABLE]
for every sufficiently large , , and .
Our next lemma is based on the work of M. Taghavi [T-97] and gives an upper bound for the so-called autocorrelation coefficients of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials.
Lemma 3.4
If
[TABLE]
(, , ), then
[TABLE]
with an absolute constant .
In fact, Taghavi [T-97] claimed
[TABLE]
However, as Allouche and Saffari observed, in his proof Taghavi used an incorrect statement saying that the spectral radius of the product of some matrices is independent of the order of the factors. So what he ended up with cannot be viewed as a correctly proved result. Building on what is correct in [T-97] Stephen Choi made some computations leading to the above correct form of Taghavi’s upper bound on the autocorrelation coefficients of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials. The correction based on Choi’s computations will be the subject of a forthcoming note [AC-17] perhaps even in a more optimized form.
Using the notation of Lemma 3.4 Taghavi [T-96] claims also that
[TABLE]
for all with an absolute constant .
Our next lemma is due to Littlewood, see [Theorem 1 in L-66a].
Lemma 3.5
If of the form
[TABLE]
satisfies
[TABLE]
where is a constant, ,
[TABLE]
for some constant , and satisfies
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
where denotes the number of real zeros of in , and is an absolute constant.
Our next lemma is a key to prove Theorem 2.7. It is an extension of Theorem 1 in [E-02] establishing the right Bernstein inequality for trigonometric polynomials not vanishing in the strip
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.6
Let . We have
[TABLE]
for every having no zeros in the disk .
For the proof of Lemma 3.6 we need the lemma below.
Lemma 3.7
Let . We have
[TABLE]
for every having no zeros in the disk centered at of radius , and for every in the square
[TABLE]
with .
For the proof of Lemma 3.7 we need the lemma below.
Lemma 3.8
Let . We have
[TABLE]
for every having no zeros in the disk , and for every with .
For the proof of Lemma 3.8 we need the lemma below stated as Lemma 4.3 in [E-98].
Lemma 3.9
Let . We have
[TABLE]
for every having no zeros in the disk centered at of radius .
Demonstration Proof of Lemma 3.8
It is sufficient to prove the lemma for , since for we can study the polynomial defined by having no zeros in the disk . Associated with we define by . Observe that is an even trigonometric polynomial of degree at most , hence we can define (in fact, with real coefficients) by
[TABLE]
Assume that , and hence , has no zeros in the disk . We show that has no zeros in the disk centered at of radius . Indeed, as , and hence , has no zeros in the disk , has no zeros in the region bounded by the curve . As , goes around at least once by the Argument Principle. Observe that if , then implies that
[TABLE]
and hence contains the disk . In conclusion, has no zeros in the disk as we claimed.
Using Lemma 3.9 with and , we have
[TABLE]
Now let
[TABLE]
Then and imply that
[TABLE]
Using (3.1) we have
[TABLE]
for every with , . ∎
Demonstration Proof of Lemma 3.7
Observe that if has no zeros in the disk centered at of radius , then it has no zeros in the disks centered at of radius . Observe that implies . Using Lemma 3.8 we obtain that
[TABLE]
for every having no zeros in the disk centered at of radius , and for every
[TABLE]
with . As implies , the lemma follows. ∎
Demonstration Proof of Lemma 3.6
If then using Cauchy’s integral formula and Lemma 3.7, we obtain
[TABLE]
for every having no zeros in the disk . If then the classical Bernstein inequality valid for all gives the lemma. ∎
4. Proofs of the Theorems
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.2
Let be of the form , where . We define and by
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Suppose defined by has at least zeros in , and let . Then
[TABLE]
can be written as the union of pairwise disjoint intervals , . Each of the intervals contains a point such that
[TABLE]
Hence, (4.1) implies that for each , we have either
[TABLE]
or
[TABLE]
Also, each zero of lying in is contained in one of the intervals . Let denote the number of zeros of lying in . Since has at least zeros in , so do and , and we have . Note that Lemma 3.1 applied to yields that
[TABLE]
for each for which (4.2) holds. Also, Lemma 3.1 applied to yields that
[TABLE]
for each for which (4.3) holds. Hence
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
and the lemma follows. ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.1
We show that the has zeros on the unit circle, where . The proof of the fact that has zeros on the unit circle is analogous. Suppose to the contrary that there are and an increasing sequence of positive integers such that the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials have at least zeros on the unit circle, where for each . Then has at least one zero on the unit circle and hence (1.1) and (1.2) imply that
[TABLE]
Then Theorem 2.2 implies that
[TABLE]
for every and . Hence,
[TABLE]
for every . On the other hand, Conjecture 1.1 proved in [R-16] combined with (4.4) imply that
[TABLE]
for every . Combining (4.5) and (4.6) we obtain
[TABLE]
that is, for every , a contradiction. ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.3
We prove that there is an absolute constant such that has at least zeros on the unit circle; the fact that each of the functions , , and has at least zeros on the unit circle can be proved similarly. Let, as before, . Let
[TABLE]
Let with be defined by
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
Let be the number of real roots of in . Observe that (1.1) implies that for all and , and hence
[TABLE]
for all . Thus, applying Lemma 3.5 with we can deduce that there is an absolute constant such that
[TABLE]
has at least zeros in whenever
[TABLE]
This finishes the proof when is sufficiently large. On the other hand, if then always has at least one zero in the closed unit disk, hence has at least two zeros in . ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.4
The proof is a combination of Lemmas 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3. Recalling (1.2) we can observe that without loss of generality we may assume that , that is, it is sufficient to prove only the first statement of the theorem. As the trigonometric polynomial of degree has at most zeros in , without loss of generality we may assume also that , where as before. In the light of Lemma 3.3 it is sufficient to prove that there is an absolute constant such that the equation has at most solutions in the interval for every for which
[TABLE]
However, this follows from Lemmas 3.1 combined with Lemma 3.2. ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.5
Recalling (1.1), without loss of generality we may assume that . Let
[TABLE]
By Saffari’s Conjecture 1.1 proved by Rodgers [R-16] we have
[TABLE]
for every , , and sufficiently large . Hence, with the notation
[TABLE]
there are at least distinct values of such that for every and sufficiently large . On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2, for each there is a such that . Hence by the Intermediate Value Theorem there are at least distinct values of for which there is a such that for every , , and sufficiently large . ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.6
Let be defined by
[TABLE]
We show that satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 3.5 with and if is sufficiently large. Clearly, is of the form (3.1) with , , and for . As it is already mentioned in Section 1, Littlewood [L-68] evaluated and found that . Hence . Also, it follows from (1.1) that , hence
[TABLE]
implies that if is sufficiently large. Now Lemma 3.4, , , , and imply that
[TABLE]
if is sufficiently large. So satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 3.5 with and if is sufficiently large, indeed. Thus Lemma 3.5 implies that
[TABLE]
whenever is real with and is sufficiently large. ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.8
Suppose does not have a zero in the disk
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
implies that defined by does not have a zero in
[TABLE]
It follows from Lemma 3.6 and that
[TABLE]
whenever
[TABLE]
Hence, if we chose as above, must have a zero in the disk
[TABLE]
whenever . ∎
Demonstration Proof of Theorem 2.7
[TABLE]
Let as before. By Saffari’s Conjecture 1.1 proved by Rodgers [R-16] we have
[TABLE]
for every sufficiently large . Hence, with the notation
[TABLE]
there are at least distinct values of such that for every sufficiently large . On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2, for each there is a such that . Hence by the Mean Value Theorem there are at least distinct values of for which there is a such that
[TABLE]
for every sufficiently large . Hence, by Theorem 2.8, there are at least distinct values of such that the open disk centered at of radius has at least one zero of , where the absolute constant is chosen to as in the proof of Theorem 2.8, that is,
[TABLE]
∎
5. Acknowledgement
The author thanks Stephen Choi for checking the details of the proof in this paper and for his computations leading to a correctly justified upper bound, stated as Lemma 3.4, for the autocorrelation coefficients of the Rudin-Shapiro polynomials.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1AC-17 J.-P. Allouche, K.-K. S. Choi, A. Denise, T. Erdélyi, and B. Saffari , Bounds on autocorrelation coefficients of Rudin-Shapiro polynomials , manuscript .
- 2BN-73 E. Beller and D.J. Newman, , An extremal problem for the geometric mean of polynomials , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 39 ( 1973 ), 313–317 .
- 3BP-32 A. Bloch and G. Pólya, , On the roots of certain algebraic equations , Proc. London Math. Soc. 33 ( 1932 ), 102–114 .
- 4B-02 P. Borwein , Computational Excursions in Analysis and Number Theory , Springer , 2002 .
- 5BE-95 P. Borwein and T. Erdélyi , Polynomials and Polynomial Inequalities , Springer , 1995 .
- 6BE-97 P. Borwein and T. Erdélyi , On the zeros of polynomials with restricted coefficients , Illinois J. Math. 41 ( 1997 ), no. 4, 667–675 .
- 7BE-01 P. Borwein and T. Erdélyi , Trigonometric polynomials with many real zeros and a Littlewood-type problem , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 129 ( no. 3, 2001 ), 725–730 .
- 8BE-07 P. Borwein and T. Erdélyi , Lower bounds for the number of zeros of cosine polynomials in the period: a problem of Littlewood , Acta Arith. 128 ( 2007 ), no. 4, 377–384 .
