MHB Symmetric Polynomials Involving Discriminant Poly

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the discriminant polynomial δ(rτ(1), ..., rτ(n)) equals -δ(r1, ..., rn) for a transposition τ = (i, j). Participants express confusion about the application of the transposition and the structure of the discriminant polynomial. An example with n = 3 illustrates how the sign changes when applying the transposition, specifically noting that only the factor (x_i - x_j) changes sign while others remain the same. The clarification emphasizes that factors involving neither i nor j retain their signs, leading to the conclusion that the overall discriminant changes sign due to the transposition. This understanding resolves the initial confusion regarding the properties of the discriminant under permutations.
mathjam0990
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Question: Let τ = (i, j) ∈ Sn with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n. Prove: δ(rτ(1) , . . . ,rτ(n) ) = −δ(r1, . . . ,rn)

Note: Discriminant Polynomial δ(r1,r2,...,rn) = ∏ (ri - rj) for i<j

I am pretty confused on where to begin. Based on the note, does −δ(r1, . . . ,rn) then = (r1-r2)(r1-r2)·····(r1-rn)(r2-r3)(r2-r4)····(r2-rn)····(rn-1-rn) ?

Also, since τ = (i, j) is a transposition, does that suggest τ(1) = j (because i "goes to" j), then τ(2) = i (because i "goes to" j and j "goes to" i) ? Sorry I feel like I've got this all mixed up. Could anyone provide detailed insight please?

Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathjam0990 said:
Question: Let τ = (i, j) ∈ Sn with 1 ≤ i < j ≤ n. Prove: δ(rτ(1) , . . . ,rτ(n) ) = −δ(r1, . . . ,rn)

Note: Discriminant Polynomial δ(r1,r2,...,rn) = ∏ (ri - rj) for i<j

I am pretty confused on where to begin. Based on the note, does −δ(r1, . . . ,rn) then = (r1-r2)(r1-r2)·····(r1-rn)(r2-r3)(r2-r4)····(r2-rn)····(rn-1-rn) ?

Also, since τ = (i, j) is a transposition, does that suggest τ(1) = j (because i "goes to" j), then τ(2) = i (because i "goes to" j and j "goes to" i) ? Sorry I feel like I've got this all mixed up. Could anyone provide detailed insight please?

Thanks in advance!

Let's just look at an example: take $n = 3$.

Then $\delta(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (x_1-x_2)(x_1-x_3)(x_2-x_3)$.

Suppose we examine the result of $\sigma = (1\ 2)$ applied to $\delta$, that is, we look at:

$(x_{\sigma(1)} - x_{\sigma(2)})(x_{\sigma(1)} - x_{\sigma(3)})(x_{\sigma(2)} - x_{\sigma(3)})$

We have:

$\sigma(1) = 2$
$\sigma(2) = 1$
$\sigma(3) = 3$, so we get:

$(x_2 - x_1)(x_2 - x_3)(x_1 - x_3) = (x_2 - x_1)(x_1 - x_3)(x_2 - x_3) = -\delta(x_1,x_2,x_3)$.

Note the only factor that changed sign in this example is $(x_1 - x_2)$. In general (for higher $n$) what will happen is that $(x_i - x_j)$ will change sign, factors that involve neither $x_i$ nor $x_j$ will remain the same, factors where $i,j < k$ and $k < i,j$ will keep the same sign, so the only factors that will change sign (besides ($x_i - x_j)$) are when $i < k < j$ where the two factors $(x_i - x_k),(x_k - x_j)$ will change sign together.
 
Deveno said:
$(x_2 - x_1)(x_2 - x_3)(x_1 - x_3) = (x_2 - x_1)(x_1 - x_3)(x_2 - x_3) = -\delta(x_1,x_2,x_3)$.

Note the only factor that changed sign in this example is $(x_1 - x_2)$. In general (for higher $n$) what will happen is that $(x_i - x_j)$ will change sign, factors that involve neither $x_i$ nor $x_j$ will remain the same, factors where $i,j < k$ and $k < i,j$ will keep the same sign, so the only factors that will change sign (besides ($x_i - x_j)$) are when $i < k < j$ where the two factors $(x_i - x_k),(x_k - x_j)$ will change sign together.

This is the part I wasn't seeing! Thanks a lot for breaking that down!
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K