CaptainBlack said:
A slight hint: It is obvious that these polynomials have no negative roots, so we need only consider the posibility (or not) of positive roots.
CB
If I choose to use the hint provided by CB, I'll start to approach the problem by using the Descartes' rule of signs.
First, I assume the $ P_n(x)=x^{2n}-2x^{2n-1}+3x^{2n-2}-...-2nx+(2n+1)$ has real roots.
From $ P_n(x)=x^{2n}-2x^{2n-1}+3x^{2n-2}-...-2nx+(2n+1)$, I get
$ P_n(-x)=(-x)^{2n}-2(-x)^{2n-1}+3(-x)^{2n-2}-...-2n(-x)+(2n+1)$
$ P_n(-x)=x^{2n}+2x^{2n-1}+3x^{2n-2}-...+2nx+(2n+1)$
No sign changes between the coefficients of x's, that means if the polynomial $P_n(x)$ has any real roots, then it certainly has no real negative roots.
Now, I consider the case where $ P_n(x)=x^{2n}-2x^{2n-1}+3x^{2n-2}-...-2nx+(2n+1)$.
I see that the number of sign changes equals to 2n, so, based on the Descartes' rule of signs I can conclude that the number of positive roots of the polynomial $P_n(x)$is either equal to the number of sign differences between consecutive nonzero coefficients, i.e. 2n or is less than it by a multiple of 2.
That is to say, we're now need to consider two cases:
I: the number of positive real roots = 2n or
II: the number of positive real roots = 2n-2k, $k=1, 2, ..., n$ and the number of positive complex roots in the form $a\pm b\sqrt {c}$ where $a>b\sqrt {c}$ =2k, $k=1, 2, ..., n$But we can also tell right from the start that the product of all roots of $ P_n(x)=x^{2n}-2x^{2n-1}+3x^{2n-2}-...-2nx+(2n+1)$ is -(2n+1) for n=1, 2, ..., that is, the product of all the real positive roots (be it two integers/fractions or two pair of positive complex roots) = -ve.
Obviously this leads to contradiction and we can conclude at this point that the polynomial $ P_n(x)=x^{2n}-2x^{2n-1}+3x^{2n-2}-...-2nx+(2n+1)$ has no real roots.
Edit: I made a horrible mistake by saying that the product of all roots = - (2n+1) which is wrong. It should be (2n+1). So, my effort in proving in this post have been amounted to zero, zip, nothing. Please kindly dismiss it.
---------- Post added at 07:02 ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 ----------
Alexmahone said:
Yes. You have to prove this, though:
I think the pattern could be generalized from the hint given by Opalg.