The natural algorithmic approach of mixed trigonometric-polynomial problems
Tatjana Lutovac, Branko Malesevic, Cristinel Mortici

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new algorithm that simplifies mixed trigonometric-polynomial inequalities to polynomial inequalities, enabling automated proofs and applications in approximations and inequality improvements.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel algorithm for proving mixed trigonometric-polynomial inequalities by reduction to polynomial inequalities, enhancing automated proof capabilities.
Findings
Successfully applied to rational approximations of cos^2(x)
Improved a class of inequalities by Z.-H. Yang
Algorithm suitable for automated proof systems
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to present a new algorithm for proving mixed trigonometric-polynomial inequalities by reducing to polynomial inequalities. Finally, we show the great applicability of this algorithm and as examples, we use it to analyze some new rational (Pade) approximations of the function , and to improve a class of inequalities by Z.-H. Yang. The results of our analysis could be implemented by means of an automated proof assistant, so our work is a contribution to the library of automatic support tools for proving various analytic inequalities.
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.
The natural algorithmic approach of mixed trigonometric-polynomial problems
Tatjana Lutovac{}^{\mbox{\tiny,1)}}, Branko Malešević{}^{\mbox{\tiny,1),\ast}}, Cristinel Mortici{}^{\mbox{\tiny,2)}} ††Corresponding author, Telephone: +381113218321, Fax: +381113248681 ††E-mails: Tatjana Lutovac[email protected], Branko Malešević[email protected], Cristinel Mortici[email protected]
*1)**Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Belgrade,
Bulevar kralja Aleksandra 73, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2)Valahia University of Târgovişte, Bd. Unirii 18, 130082 Târgovişte, Romania;
Academy of Romanian Scientists, Splaiul Independenţei 54, 050094 Bucharest, Romania;
University Politehnica of Bucharest, Splaiul Independenţei 313, 060042 Bucharest, Romania*
**Abstract. ** The aim of this paper is to present a new algorithm for proving mixed trigonometric-polynomial inequalities of the form
[TABLE]
by reducing to polynomial inequalities. Finally, we show the great applicability of this algorithm and as examples, we use it to analyze some new rational (Pad) approximations of the function , and to improve a class of inequalities by Z.-H. Yang. The results of our analysis could be implemented by means of an automated proof assistant, so our work is a contribution to the library of automatic support tools for proving various analytic inequalities.
MSC 2010: 41A10; 26D05; 68T15; 12L05 41A58
Keywords: mixed trigonometric-polynomial functions; Taylor series; approximations; inequalities; algorithms; automated theorem proving
1 Introduction and Motivation
In this paper, we propose a general computational method for reducing some inequalities involving trigonometric functions to the corresponding polynomial inequalities. Our work has been motivated by many papers [10], [15], [17], [18], [22], [23], [26] - [32] recently published in this area. As an example, we mention the work of Mortici [17] who extended Wilker-Cusa-Huygens inequalities, using a method, he called the natural approach method. This method consists in comparing and replacing and by their corresponding Taylor polynomials, as follows:
[TABLE]
for every integers and .
In this way, complicated trigonometric expressions can be reduced to polynomial, or rational expressions, which can be, at least theoretically, easier studied (this can be done using some softwares for symbolic computation, such as Maple).
For example, Mortici in [17] (Theorem 1), proved the next inequality:
[TABLE]
by intercalating the following Taylor polynomials, as follows:
[TABLE]
where
Although transformation based on the natural approach method has been made by several researchers in their isolated studies, a unified approach has not been given yet. Moreover, it is interesting to note that just trigonometric expressions involving odd powers of were studied only, as the natural approach method cannot be directly applicable for the function in the entire over interval .
The aim of this paper is to extend and formalize the ideas of the natural approach method for a wider class of trigonometric inequalities, including also those containing even powers of , with no further restrictions.
Let with Recall that a function defined by the formula
[TABLE]
is named a mixed trigonometric-polynomial function, denoted in the sequel by MTP function [20], [27]. Here, , , . Moreover, an inequality of the form is called a mixed trigonometric-polynomial inequality (MTP inequality).
MTP functions currently appear in the monographs on the theory of analytical inequalities [3], [7] and [22], while concrete MTP inequalities are employed in numerous engineering problems (see e.g. [14], [19]). A large class of inequalities arising from different branches of science, can be reduced to MTP inequalities. Notwithstanding, the development of formal methods and procedures for automated generation of proofs of analytical inequalities remains a challenging and important task of artificial intelligence and automated reasoning [6], [9].
Notice the logical-hardness general problem under consideration. According to Wang [4], for every function defined by arithmetic operations and a composition over polynomials and sine functions of the form , there is a real number such that the problem is undecidable (see [21]). In 2003, M. Laczkovich [8] proved that this result can be derived if the function is defined in terms of the functions and , (without involving ). On the other hand, several algorithms [1], [11] and [25] have been developed to determine the sign and the real zeroes of a given polynomial, so that such problems can be considered as decidable (see also [5], [21]).
Let us denote by
[TABLE]
the Taylor polynomial of -th degree associated to the function at a point . Here, and represent the Taylor polynomial of -th degree associated to the function at a point , in case , respective , for every We will call and an upward, respective a downward approximation of on
We present a new algorithm for approximating a given MTP function by a polynomial function such that
[TABLE]
using the upward and downward Taylor approximations , , , .
2 The natural approach method and the associated algorithm
The following two lemmas [27] related to the Taylor polynomials associated to sine and cosine functions will be of great help in our study.
Lemma 1
*Let T_{n}(x)\!=\!\!\mathop{\mbox{\displaystyle\sum}}\limits_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2}\displaystyle\frac{(-1)^{i}x^{2i+1}}{(2i+1)!}.
If , with then:*
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
* If , with then:*
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Lemma 2
*Let T_{n}(x)=\!\mathop{\mbox{\displaystyle\sum}}\limits_{i=0}^{n/2}\displaystyle\frac{(-1)^{i}x^{2i}}{(2i)!}.
If , with , then:*
[TABLE]
* If , with , then:*
[TABLE]
According to Lemmas 1-2, the upper bounds of the approximation intervals of the functions and are and , respectively. As \varepsilon_{1}>\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}} and \varepsilon_{2}>\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}, the results of these lemmas are valid in particular, in the entire interval \left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right).
Lemma 3
- Let and x\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). Then:*
[TABLE]
2) Let , and x\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). Then:
[TABLE]
Lemma 4
Let , and x\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). Then:*
[TABLE]
In contrast to the function and its downward Taylor approximations, in the interval \left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) the function and the downward Taylor approximations \underline{T}_{\,4k+2}^{\,\cos,0}(x)=\mathop{\mbox{\displaystyle\sum}}_{i=0}^{2k+1}{\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{(-1)^{i}x^{2i}}{(2i)!}}}, , require special attention as there is no downward Taylor approximation , such that for every x\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right).
We present the following results related to the problem with downward Taylor approximations of the cosine function.
Proposition 5
-
For every , the downward Taylor approximation is a strictly decreasing function on \left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right).
-
For every , there exists an unique c_{k}\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) such that .
-
The sequence with , is strictly increasing and .*
4) For every , there exists d_{k}\in\left(c_{k},\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) such that .
5) The sequence is strictly increasing and .
Proof. 1) The function is strictly decreasing on \left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right), since, according to Lemma 1,
2) The existence of follows from the fact that and \displaystyle\,\underline{T}_{\,4k+2}^{\;\cos,0}\left(\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right)\,<\,\cos{\left(\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right)}\!=\!0.
3) The monotonicity of the sequence \displaystyle{\big{(}}c_{k}{\big{)}}_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{0}} is a result of the monotonicity of and Lemma 2 (ii).
The convergence of the sequence \displaystyle{\big{(}}T_{n}^{\;\cos,0}(x){\big{)}}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} implies the convergence of the sequence \displaystyle{\big{(}}c_{k}{\big{)}}_{k\in{\mathbb{N}}_{0}} to .
4) The function is decreasing on and increasing on \displaystyle\left(c_{k},\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). Based on Lemma 2 (ii), it follows that there exists d_{k}\in\left(c_{k},\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) such that .
5) This statement is a consequence of the monotonicity of the sequence \displaystyle{\big{(}}c_{k}{\big{)}}_{k\in\mathbb{N}_{0}} and the increasing monotonicity of the function on \displaystyle\left(c_{k},\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right).
Corollary 6
Let and . Then:*
1) for every \,\displaystyle x\in{\big{(}}0,d_{k}{\big{)}};
2) for every x\in{\big{(}}d_{k},\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}{\big{)}}.
Based on the above results, we have:
Corollary 7
Let and . Then is not a downward approximation of the MTP function \cos^{2p}{\!x}\on \displaystyle\left(d_{k},\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right).*
In order to ensure the correctness of the algorithm ( [5], [12]) we will develop next in the sequel, the following problem needs to be considered:
**Problem. **
For a given \delta\!\in\!\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) and \,\mathcal{I}\!\subseteq\!\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right), find such that for all , and
[TABLE]
Remark. If appears in odd powers only in the given MTP function , we take .
One of the method to solve the problem of downward approximation of the function is the method of multiple angles developed in [27]. All degrees of the functions and are eliminated from the given MTP function , through conversion into multiple-angle expressions. This removes all even degrees of the function , but then sine and cosine functions appear in the form \sin$$\kappa$$x or \cos$$\kappa$$x where \mbox{\boldmath\kappa}\,x\!\in\!\left(0,\mbox{\boldmath\kappa}\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) and \mbox{\boldmath\kappa}\!\in\!\mathbb{N}. In this case, in order to use the results of Lemmas 1-2, we are forced to choose large enough values of , such that \sqrt{(k+3)(k+4)}\!>\!\mbox{\boldmath\kappa}\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}. Note that higher value of implies a higher degree of the downward Taylor approximations and of the polynomial in (2) (for instance, see [29] and [31]).
Several more ideas to solve the above problem are proposed and considered below, under the names of Method A-D. In the following, the numbers and are those defined in Proposition 5.
If \displaystyle\delta\,<\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}, find the smallest such that \displaystyle d_{k}\in\left(\delta,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). Then .
Note that Method A assumes the solving of a transcendental equation of the form that requires numerical methods.
If \displaystyle\delta\,<\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}, find the smallest such that \displaystyle c_{k}\in\left(\delta,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). Then .
If \displaystyle\,\delta\,<\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}, find the smallest such that . Then .
Note that Method B and Method C return the same output as for a given and for every the following equivalence holds true:
[TABLE]
As Method B assumes the determining the root of the downward Taylor approximation and Method C assumes the checking the sign of the downward Taylor approximation at point the , it is notable that Method C presents a faster and simpler procedure.
Eliminate all even degrees of the function using the transformation
[TABLE]
Then .
Note that Method D can be applied for any . Hence, if a MTP function is considered in the whole interval \left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right), then Method D is applicable only (apart from the multiple-angle method). However, Method D implies an increasement of the number of terms needed to be estimated. Let us represent a given MTP function in the following form:
[TABLE]
where there are no terms of the form in . The elimination of all terms of the form from (11) using the transformation (10), will increase the number of addends in (11), in the general case with
[TABLE]
consequently, it will increase the number of terms of the form , , in (11) needed to be estimated.
2.1 An algorithm based on the natural approach method
Let be a MTP function and . We concentrate to find a polynomial such that for every
[TABLE]
In this case, the associated MTP inequality can be proved if we show that for every
[TABLE]
which is a decidable problem according to Tarski [1], [21].
The following algorithm describes the method for finding such a polynomial .
INPUT: function ,
OUTPUT: polynomial
1. Solve a problem involving downward approximations depending on
i.e. determining , such that for all it holds:
for every
If and there are even degrees of the function then
If \displaystyle\delta<\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}} then use or
else use
else
2. In the procedure Estimation (described below), for a given MTP function
each addend in the function is estimated.
PROCEDURE Estimation
END / Algorithm /
INPUT: the function where .
OUTPUT:
the polynomial and array where and represent the number that determines the degree of the Taylor approximation of the function , respective in the addend .
Estimate each addend with , as follows:
I If , then:
/ First select the degrees of the downward approximations /
Select and .
Estimate:
II If , (i.e. with )
/ First select the degrees of the downward approximations /
Select and .
Estimate:
;
Estimation of each addend in function yields a polynomial
of the form:
\;P(x)=\mathop{\mbox{\displaystyle\sum}}_{i=1}^{n}\alpha_{i}x^{p_{i}}\left(T_{\,n_{i}}^{\;\sin,0}(x)\right)^{q_{i}}\left(T_{\,m_{i}}^{\;\cos,0}(x)\right)^{r_{i}}, where .
Return: the polynomial and array .
END / Procedure /
Comment on step II of the Procedure Estimation: in the general case, the addend can be estimated in one of the following three ways:
Note that for fixed and , the method generates polynomials of the smallest degree.
We present the following characteristic ([2], [12]) for the Natural Approach algorithm.
Theorem 8
The Natural Approach algorithm is correct.
Proof. Every step in the algorithm is based on the results obtained from Lemmas 1-4 and Proposition 5. Hence, for every input instance (i.e. for any MTP function over a given interval ), the algorithm halts with the correct output (i.e. the algorithm returns the corresponding polynomial).
3 Some applications of the algorithm
We present an application of the Natural Approach algorithm in the proof (Application 1 - Theorem 9) of certain new rational (Pad) approximations of the function , as well as in the improvement of a class of inequalities (20) by Z. H. Yang (Application 2, Theorem 10).
Application 1
Bercu [26] used the Pad approximations to prove certain inequalities for trigonometric functions. Let us denote by the Pad approximant of the function .
In this example we introduce a constraint of the function by the following Pad approximations:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Theorem 9
The following inequalities hold true, for every \displaystyle x\!\in\!\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right)\!:
[TABLE]
Proof. We first prove the left-hand side inequality (11). Using a computer software for symbolic computations, we can conclude that the function G_{1}(x)\,=\,\left(\cos^{2}{\!x}\right)_{[6/4]}\,\has exactly one zero in the interval \left(0,\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). As and G_{1}\left(\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right)=-0.000431...\,<0, we deduce that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Moreover, , for every x\in\left(\delta,\,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right). We prove now that
[TABLE]
We search a downward Taylor polynomial , such that for every
[TABLE]
We apply the Natural Approach algorithm to the function , to determine the downward Taylor polynomial , such that
[TABLE]
We can use Method C, or Method D from the Natural Approach algorithm, since \delta<\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}. In this proof, we choose Method C.
The smallest for which is . Therefore . In the *Estimation * procedure only step I can be applied to the (single) addend . In this step, and should be selected. Let us select and (1)(1)(1)For the selection and , the output of the Natural Approach algorithm is the polynomial:
such that \mathcal{TP}(x)\!\!\begin{array}[]{c}\mbox{\scriptsize<}\\[-5.38193pt] \mbox{\scriptsize>}\end{array}\!\!G_{1}(x) holds for some . As a result of this selection, the output of the Natural Approach algorithm is the polynomial:
[TABLE]
We prove that
[TABLE]
This is true, since
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Finally, we have for every . According to (14), we have
[TABLE]
Now we prove the right-hand side inequality (12). For we prove the following inequalities, for every x\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right):
[TABLE]
Based on Proposition 5, it is enough to prove that for every x\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right)
[TABLE]
This is true, as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since , for every and all x\in(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}), we have
[TABLE]
Note: Using Pad approximations, Bercu [26], [32] recently refined certain trigonometric inequalities over various intervals \mathcal{I}=(0,\delta)\subseteq(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}). All such inequalities can be proved in a similar way and using the natural approach algorithm, as in the proof of Theorem 9.
Application 2.
Z.-H. Jang [23] proved the following inequalities, for every
[TABLE]
Previously, Kln, Visuri, and Vuorinen [15] proved the above inequality on {\big{(}}0,\sqrt{27/5}\,{\big{)}} only.
In this example we propose the following improvement of (20):
Theorem 10
The following inequalities hold true, for every and a\in\displaystyle\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right):
[TABLE]
Proof. As and , we have:
[TABLE]
We prove now the following inequality:
[TABLE]
for every and a\in\displaystyle\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right). It suffices to show that the following mixed logarithmic-trigonometric-polynomial function [30]
[TABLE]
is positive, for every and a\in\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right). Given that
[TABLE]
based on the ideas from [30], we connect the function to the analysis of its derivative:
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Let us note that is the quotient of two MTP functions.
The inequality is equivalent to . The proof of the later inequality will be done using the Natural Approach algorithm for the function on \left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right), with a\!\in\!\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right). As before, we search a polynomial such that
[TABLE]
In the step 1 of the Natural Approach algorithm, we can use Method D only, because \delta=\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}. Then
[TABLE]
with . In the Estimation procedure only(2)(2)(2)Because for every fixed : and . the step II can be applied to the first and second addends in (26), where and , should be selected. Let us, for example, select . As a result of this selection, the Natural Approach algorithm yields the polynomial
[TABLE]
for which , for every t\!\in\!\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right) and a\!\in\!\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right). The inequality is reduced to a decidable problem:
[TABLE]
The sign of the polynomial can be determined in several ways. For example, let us represent the polynomial as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
For every fixed \displaystyle t\in\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right), the function is linear, monotonically decreasing with respect to a\!\in\!\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right), since for every t\!\in\!\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right),
[TABLE]
Hence, for every fixed \displaystyle t\!\in\!\left(0,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{\pi}{2}}\right), the value of (28) is greater than the value of the same expression for a=\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}:
[TABLE]
But
[TABLE]
so the inequality (27) is true and consequently, on for every a\in\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right). But , so on , for every a\in\left(1,\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}}\right).
Remark on Theorem 10.
Let us consider possible refinements of the inequality (20) by a real analytical function for and . The function is real analytical, as it is related to the analytical function
[TABLE]
( are the Bernoulli numbers, see e.g. [24]). The following consideration of the sign of the analytical function in the left and right neighborhood of zero is based on Theorem 2.5 from [27]. Let us consider the real analytical function
[TABLE]
. The restriction
[TABLE]
i.e.
[TABLE]
is a necessary and sufficient condition for to hold on an interval {\big{(}}0,\delta_{1}^{(a)}{\big{)}} (for some ). Also, the restriction
[TABLE]
is a necessary and sufficient condition for to hold on an interval {\big{(}}0,\delta_{2}^{(a)}{\big{)}} (for some ). The following equivalences hold true for every :
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The refinement in Theorem 10 is given based on the possible values of the parameter in (33) and (34). A similar analysis shows us that only the following refinements of the inequality (20) are possible:
Corollary 11
Let a\in\left[\mbox{\small\displaystyle\frac{3}{2}},\,+\infty\right). There exists such that for every , it holds:
[TABLE]
Corollary 12
Let . There exists such that for every , it holds:
[TABLE]
4 Conclusions and Future Work
The results of our analysis could be implemented by means of an automated proof assistant [13], so our work is a contribution to the library of automatic support tools [16] for proving various analytic inequalities.
Our general algorithm associated to the natural approach method can be successfully applied to prove a wide category of classical MTP inequalities. For example, the Natural Approach algorithm has recently been used to prove some several open problems that involve MTP inequalities (see e.g. [27] - [31]).
It is our contention that the Natural Approach algorithm can be used to introduce and solve other new similar results. Chen [18] used a similar method to prove the following inequalities, for every :
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
then he proposed the following inequalities as a conjecture:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Very recently, Malešević et al. [31] solved this open problem using the same procedure - the natural approach method - associated to upwards and downwards approximations of the inverse trigonometric functions.
Finally, we present other ways for approximating the function , . It is well known that the power series of the function converges to the function everywhere on . The power series of the function is an alternating sign series. For example, for and , we have:
[TABLE]
Therefore, for the above power (Taylor) series it is not hard to determine (depending on ) which partial sums (i.e. Taylor polynomials) \displaystyle T_{m}^{\,\cos^{2}\!x,\mbox{\scriptsize0}}(x) become good downward or upward approximations of the function in a given interval . Assuming the following representation of the function in power (Taylor) series
[TABLE]
with , the power (Taylor) series of function will be an alternating sign series as follows:
[TABLE]
with {\big{(}}j=0,2,4,6,\ldots{\big{)}}.
Therefore, in general, for the function it is possible to determine, depending on the form of the real natural number , the upward (downward) Taylor approximations \overline{T}^{\,\cos^{2n}{\!x},\mbox{\scriptsize0}}_{m}(x) (\underline{T}^{\,\cos^{2n}\!x,\mbox{\scriptsize0}}_{m}(x)) that are all above (below) the considered function in a given interval . Such estimation of the function and the use of corresponding Taylor approximations will be the object of future research.
Acknowledgements. The first and the second author was supported in part by the Serbian Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development, Projects ON 174032, III 44006 and TR 32023. The third author was supported by a Grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research, CNCS-UEFISCDI, with the Project Number PN-II-ID-PCE-2011-3-0087.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A. Tarski, A Decision Method for Elementary Algebra and Geometry, University of California Press Berkeley, 1951.
- 2[2] D. E. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, Vololume 1: Fundamental Algorithms, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1968.
- 3[3] D. S. Mitrinović, Analytic Inequalities, Springer-Verlag, 1970.
- 4[4] P. S. Wang, The undecidability of the existence of zeros of real elementary functions, J. Assoc. Comput. Mach. 21 (1974) 586–589.
- 5[5] N. Cutland, Computability: An Introduction to Recursive Function Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1980.
- 6[6] A. Bundy, The Computer Modelling of Mathematical Reasoning, Academic Press London, New York, 1983.
- 7[7] G.V. Milovanović, D.S. Mitrinović, Th.M. Rassias, Topics in Polynomials: Extremal Problems, Inequalities, Zeros; World Science Singapore, 1994.
- 8[8] M. Laczkovich, The removal of π 𝜋 \pi from some undecidable problems involving elementary functions, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131 :7 (2003) 2235–2240.
