A non-realization theorem in the context of Descartes' rule of signs

TL;DR

This paper investigates the realizability of root sign patterns in polynomials with nonvanishing coefficients, providing a counterexample for degree 9 that challenges previous conjectures about root distribution constraints.

Contribution

It presents a counterexample for degree 9, disproving the conjecture that all nonrealizable cases have zero positive or negative roots, and advances understanding of root sign pattern realizability.

Findings

Counterexample for degree 9 with specific sign pattern and root counts

Disproof of the conjecture that nonrealizable cases only occur with zero positive or negative roots

Identification of a unique nonrealizable case at degree 9

Abstract

For a real degree $d$ polynomial $P$ with all nonvanishing coefficients, with $c$ sign changes and $p$ sign preservations in the sequence of its coefficients ($c+p=d$), Descartes' rule of signs says that $P$ has $pos\leq c$ positive and $neg\leq p$ negative roots, where $pos\equiv c($\, mod $2)$ and $neg\equiv p($\, mod $2)$. For $1\leq d\leq 3$, for every possible choice of the sequence of signs of coefficients of $P$ (called sign pattern) and for every pair $(pos, neg)$ satisfying these conditions there exists a polynomial $P$ with exactly $pos$ positive and $neg$ negative roots (all of them simple); that is, all these cases are realizable. This is not true for $d\geq 4$, yet for $4\leq d\leq 8$ (for these degrees the exhaustive answer to the question of realizability is known) in all nonrealizable cases either $pos=0$ or $neg=0$. It was conjectured that this is the case for any $d\geq 4$. For $d=9$, we show a counterexample to this conjecture: for the sign pattern $(+,-,-,-,-,+,+,+,+,-)$ and the pair $(1,6)$ there exists no polynomial with $1$ positive, $6$ negative simple roots and a complex conjugate pairs and, up to equivalence, this is the only case for $d=9$.