Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 39 references

Jacobi Endpoint Pencils and Sharp Interlacing for Centered Binomial Samples

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A strip half-width of $\sqrt{15/28}$ is the sharp uniform condition for interlacing of adjacent centered binomial quotients of even entire functions.

desk verdict The central adjacent-degree interlacing theorem with sharp Jacobi endpoint-pencil constants is real and self-contained; the arithmetic applications are conditional on an unverified companion preprint and should be reviewed with that in mind. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08714 v1 pith:ECMOIEGA submitted 2026-08-09 math.CV math.NT

Seokho Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CVmath.NT MSC 26C1015B4811M2611F6711R4230D1533C45
keywords Jacobispectralmultipliersendpoint-pencilpreservationreal-rootedpencilsweakandstrictinterlacingtotalnonnegativitycenteredbinomialsamplesDedekindzetafunctionsnewformcriticalvalues
topics The Riemann Hypothesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes a sharp Sturm-type law for centered binomial samples: if a nonzero even real entire function $F$ of order at most one has all its zeros in the strip $|\Re u|\le\sqrt{15/28}$, then the reduced quotients $C^-_{F,n}$ and $C^-_{F,n+1}$ weakly interlace for every $n\ge0$, and no larger uniform half-width works. The odd analogue holds with half-width $1$. This is stronger than knowing each sampled polynomial has its zeros on the unit circle, because adjacent samples can both be unit-circle rooted while their reduced quotients fail to interlace. The argument reduces the quotient pair to a Jacobi spectral multiplier acting on the endpoint pencil $y^n(y+t)$, and proves preservation of the one-defect class $E_{n+1}$ through Bernstein variation diminution and total nonnegativity of finite Jacobi matrices. For nonpolynomial sources with simple interior zeros, a remote-zero-orbit deformation turns the weak interlacing into strict interlacing, yielding explicit orderings and signed resultant inequalities for Dedekind zeta derivatives and self-dual newform critical-value blocks.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Jacobi spectral multiplier $M_{F,\nu}$, diagonal in the monic Jacobi basis $P_r^{(\nu)}$ with eigenvalues $F(r+1/2)$, for $0<\nu<2$. The endpoint reduction makes the even quotient equal to $M_{F,3/2}(y^n)$ and, after $G=uF$, the odd quotient a multiple of $M_{F,1/2}(y^n)$. The entire interlacing claim is encoded in one pencil: $M_{F,\nu}(y^n(y+t))\in E_{n+1}$ for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$, where $E_{n+1}$ allows at most one zero outside $[0,4]$, and this implies $M_{F,\nu}(y^n)\preceq M_{F,\nu}(y^{n+1})$. The proof mechanism is Bernstein variation diminution: each zero-orbit factor of $F$ has a checkerboard Bernstein matrix, the Bernstein coefficient matrix with alternating sign conjugation, that is totally nonnegative, so interval-root counts cannot decrease, while a possible unpaired outer real factor is handled by an explicit quadratic discriminant on the pencil. Strict interlacing is obtained by deforming a remote zero orbit to infinity, whose normalized derivative converges on each finite-dimensional space to the Jacobi operator $J_\nu=y(y-4)D_y^2+(2y-4\nu)D_y$.

What would settle it

Take $F(u)=u^2-15/28$ and compute $C^-_{F,1}$ and $C^-_{F,2}$; if any member of the pencil $C^-_{F,2}+tC^-_{F,1}$ has a nonreal conjugate pair, the strip theorem is false. The boundary is exactly testable: for $F_a(u)=u^2-a^2$, the discriminant of this pencil member as a quadratic in $y$ is $\Delta_a(t)=(9/4-a^2)^2t^2+(16a^2+60)t+400$, and the theorem predicts $\Delta_{\sqrt{15/28}}(t)\ge0$ for all $t$, while a direct scan at $a=0.74$ produces a negative value for some real $t$, exhibiting the claimed failure outside the strip.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the weak interlacing relation between adjacent quotient indices is governed by a structural theorem for Jacobi spectral multipliers. For $0<\nu<2$ and $n\ge1$, define $h_{n,\nu}=\min\{1,\sqrt{1/4+e_{n,\nu}}\}$ with $e_{n,\nu}=n(n+1)(2-\nu)/(2n+\nu)$. If $F$ is a real even polynomial or entire function of order at most one with $Z(F)\subseteq S_{h_{n,\nu}}$, then every member of the endpoint pencil $M_{F,\nu}(y^n(y+t))$ lies in the one-defect class $E_{n+1}$, so $M_{F,\nu}(y^n)\preceq M_{F,\nu}(y^{n+1})$. The specializations $\nu=3/2$ and $\nu=1/2$ recover the even and odd quotient families, and the strip widths $\sqrt{15/28}$ and $1$ are sharp where asserted. For nonpolynomial even $E$ with zeros in the same strip and with simple zeros of both images in $(0,4)$, the interlacing is strict, and this is what the arithmetic applications use. The paper also determines the exact optimal strip for the first nontrivial pencil $n=1$: $h^{\mathrm{opt}}_{1,1/2}=1.065615\ldots$ and $h^{\mathrm{opt}}_{1,3/2}=\sqrt{15/28}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise not proved in this paper is the validity of the companion preprint [23]: its fixed-degree unit-circle support theorem, simplicity of sampled zeros, and strict cyclic interlacing of derivative samples are imported rather than derived here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every even real entire $F\not\equiv0$ of order at most one with all zeros in $|\Re u|\le\sqrt{15/28}$, the quotient families satisfy $C^-_{F,n}\preceq C^-_{F,n+1}$ for all $n\ge0$, and the half-width cannot be enlarged uniformly.
  • For every odd real entire $G\not\equiv0$ of order at most one with all zeros in $|\Re u|\le1$, the anti-reciprocal quotients satisfy $C^+_{G,n}\preceq C^+_{G,n+1}$ for all $n\ge0$.
  • Separate unit-circle rootedness of the two sampled polynomials is insufficient: with $\sqrt{15/28}<a\le\sqrt{3/2}$, the source $F_a(u)=u^2-a^2$ gives $B_3[F_a]$ and $B_5[F_a]$ unit-circle rooted while $C^-_{F_a,1}\not\preceq C^-_{F_a,2}$.
  • For nonpolynomial even sources in the admissible strip with simple interior zeros of both adjacent images, the weak interlacing upgrades to strict interlacing, yielding the signed resultant inequality for Dedekind zeta derivatives and strict interlacing of nested centered critical-value blocks for self-dual newforms.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the mechanism is diagonal in an orthogonal-polynomial basis with a totally nonnegative checkerboard matrix, the same endpoint-pencil argument should transfer to other sampling schemes, not only the Jacobi parameters $\nu=1/2$ and $\nu=3/2$ used here.
  • The signed resultant inequality is directly computable for any number field by evaluating $\Xi_K(1)$, $\Xi_K(2)$, and $\Xi_K(3)$; a numerical check of the sign would audit the strict interlacing theorem and localize any missing hypothesis.
  • The exact first-pencil widths leave a concrete finite optimization problem: the uniform odd-endpoint optimum lies between $1$ and $1.065615\ldots$, and searching over single-pair versus repeated-pair extremizers might close the gap.
  • The remote-zero-orbit deformation suggests that strict interlacing is a generic property of nonpolynomial even sources in the admissible strip, independent of arithmetic origin, so arbitrary entire functions with zeros in the strip could be tested numerically to separate the analytic mechanism from the number-theoretic applications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies centered binomial samples B_{2n+1}[H] of an even or odd real entire function H of order at most one. After removing the forced endpoint at z=±1 and passing to x=z+z^{-1}, the sample becomes a real quotient C_n. The central result, Theorem 1.1, gives uniform strip conditions on the zeros of H under which the adjacent quotients C_n and C_{n+1} generate a real-rooted pencil; in the even case the half-width sqrt(15/28) is optimal uniformly in n, and in the odd case width 1 is sufficient. The proof is organized as preservation of the endpoint pencil y^n(y+t) by Jacobi spectral multipliers M_{F,ν}. It combines Bernstein variation diminution, total nonnegativity of checkerboard Jacobi matrices, direct quadratic analysis of a possible unpaired outer real pair, an exact threshold for the first nontrivial pencil, and a remote-zero-orbit deformation that upgrades weak to strict interlacing. Applications are given to Dedekind zeta derivatives and to nested critical-value blocks of self-dual newforms, yielding strict interlacing and signed resultant inequalities.

Significance. If valid, the results are significant: they establish family-level interlacing across sampling degrees rather than only fixed-degree unit-circle support, identify a sharp uniform strip constant with an explicit counterexample, and connect Jacobi spectral-multiplier theory with arithmetic L-function quotients. The central weak interlacing theorem is largely self-contained and rests on explicit, checkable computations: the checkerboard Bernstein matrices of the shifted Jacobi operator, the shifted-cofactor identities for quartet and paired-outer factors, and the direct discriminant analysis for the unpaired real factor. The exact n=1 threshold and the remote-orbit strictness mechanism are genuine novelties, and the paper supplies falsifiable tests such as Proposition 5.10 and the resultant inequality in Corollary 8.7. The main caveats are a sign error in the strictness lemma and the heavy reliance on the unpublished companion preprint [23] for the arithmetic sections; neither appears to affect the weak interlacing theorem itself, but both affect the full advertised scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [Lemma 7.4] The final displayed formula of Lemma 7.4 is internally contradictory: the expression (-a(ξ))^{-2} W(p0,q0)(ξ)/|p0(ξ)q0(ξ)| is strictly negative under the Wronskian sign W(p0,q0)<0 established in (35), yet it is asserted to be positive. The preceding root-velocity computation can likely be repaired, because the sign of the oriented gap derivative depends on whether the collision is a right gap or a left gap, but as printed the proof of the sign in this central strict-interlacing lemma is incorrect. This is load-bearing for Theorem 1.3 and for the strict-interlacing applications in Section 8.
  2. [Sections 5.2, 5.3, 8.2, 8.5] Several theorem-level inputs are imported from the unpublished companion preprint [23] without proof: the fixed-degree unit-circle support theorem (used in Lemma 5.3, Lemma 5.8, and Corollary 5.4) and the simplicity and strict cyclic interlacing of derivative samples (used in Theorem 8.5 and hence in Theorem 8.3, Corollary 8.6, and Corollary 8.12). If [23] is not available to the reader, the arithmetic results in Section 8 are unverified. The central weak interlacing Theorem 1.1(i) is self-contained, but the paper's advertised strict and arithmetic claims are conditional on [23]. The authors should either include complete statements and proofs of the imported theorems or explicitly label the affected results as conditional on [23].
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 6] In the paragraph after Theorem 6.1, the polynomial called '2p_{1/2}' is exactly twice the polynomial p_ν defined in (17) specialized to ν=1/2; the factor of 2 should be noted or removed to avoid confusion.
  2. [Section 8.5] The sentence preceding (63), stating that absolute convergence and the functional equation give Z(F_f)⊆S_{1/2}, is correct but terse; the reader should be reminded that S_{1/2} is the narrow critical strip obtained from the Deligne bound and the functional equation, not a claim of the Lindelöf or Riemann hypothesis.
  3. [Section 4, table] In the orbit-configuration table, the spectral factor 'Jν + a1' should read 'Jν + a I' or 'Jν + a' with the identity operator made explicit; as typeset, 'a1' is ambiguous.
  4. [Appendix A.3] The proof of Lemma 8.13 is too terse: the asymptotic (68) for F_f^{(m)} is asserted without displaying the contribution of derivatives of L(f,s), and the reader must rely on [23, Lemma 5.4] to fill the gap.
  5. [Throughout] There are several minor typographical issues, including 'nonforced' in Remark 8.11 and the occasional use of 'row' where 'summand' or 'coefficient index' is meant in Section 8.1; these do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core endpoint-pencil proof is self-contained; arithmetic applications import same-author companion preprint [23] as a theorem-level black box.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 1 (p. 3), companion-preprint paragraph; applied in Theorem 8.5 proof, Corollary 8.6, Corollary 8.12]
    "All comparisons across sampling degree and all Jacobi preservation results are proved here. The only theorem-level inputs from the companion preprint are the fixed-degree support theorem and the simplicity and derivative-order interlacing conclusions just described."

    The vertical interlacing, simplicity, and strict cyclic interlacing results used for the Dedekind zeta and newform applications are imported from [23], a preprint by the same author, and are not reproduced or independently verified in this manuscript. In Theorem 8.5 the paper writes: "Therefore the strict fixed-degree theorem [23, Theorem 1.2] gives simple unit-circle zeros and strict cyclic interlacing." This makes the arithmetic claims (Theorem 8.3(i),(iii), Corollary 8.6, Corollary 8.12) load-bearing on a self-citation. However, the central endpoint-pencil interlacing theorem (Theorem 1.1(i)) and its Jacobi thresholds are proved without [23]; the companion preprint enters only through fixed-degree support, simplicity, and derivative-interlacing auxiliary statements.

full rationale

The main claim, Theorem 1.1(i), is derived self-contained: the Jacobi spectral representation (Section 2), the interval-root monotonicity from checkerboard total nonnegativity (Proposition 3.5), the orbit factors (Lemmas 4.1, 4.9, 4.10), and the direct endpoint-pencil computation for a possible unpaired outer real pair (Lemma 5.1) do not use the companion preprint for interlacing. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions, and no definitional equivalence between inputs and outputs occurs. The only load-bearing self-citation is the companion preprint [23], which supplies fixed-degree unit-circle support, simplicity, and strict cyclic interlacing of derivative samples; those inputs are needed for the arithmetic applications but not for the central interlacing theorem. Because the central result has independent content and the self-citation is confined to auxiliary and application-level theorems, the circularity score is 4 rather than higher.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters appear: all strip constants are derived from the Jacobi spectrum and are proved sharp by explicit extremal polynomials. The main assumptions are classical complex-analysis and total-positivity facts plus theorem-level inputs from the author's companion preprint.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Hadamard factorization for entire functions of order at most one, including pairing of zeros and cancellation of genus-one factors.
    Used in Lemma 2.5 to reduce entire sources to limits of polynomial zero-orbit products.
  • standard math Total nonnegativity, checkerboard inverses, and variation diminution for totally nonnegative matrices.
    Used in Proposition 3.5 to turn matrix total nonnegativity into interval-root monotonicity.
  • standard math Obreschkoff equivalence: A ⪯ B iff every real linear combination B + tA is real-rooted.
    Defines weak interlacing, cited to [34], and used throughout the pencil arguments.
  • domain assumption Fixed-degree unit-circle support and derivative-order interlacing theorems from companion preprint [23].
    Used as theorem-level inputs in Lemmas 5.3, 5.8 and Section 8; not proved in this text.
  • domain assumption Standard analytic properties of Dedekind zeta functions and self-dual newform L-functions, including Z(F_K) subset S_{1/2}, functional equation, and nonpolynomiality.
    Imported from [31], [11], [22] for the arithmetic applications in Section 8.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jacobi Endpoint Pencils and Sharp Interlacing for Centered Binomial Samples." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ECMOIEGA

@misc{pith2026260808714,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jacobi Endpoint Pencils and Sharp Interlacing for Centered Binomial Samples},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ECMOIEGA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08714}
}
abstract

For an even or odd real entire function $H$ of order at most one, let $B_{2n+1}[H]$ denote its centered binomial sample of odd degree. After removing the zero at $z=\pm1$ forced by the parity of $H$ and writing $x=z+z^{-1}$, one obtains a real quotient $C_n(x)$. We prove uniform strip conditions on the zeros of $H$ under which $C_n$ and $C_{n+1}$ generate a real-rooted pencil for every $n$. For even $H$ the optimal uniform half-width is $\sqrt{15/28}$, whereas for odd $H$ the half-width $1$ is sufficient. This conclusion is genuinely stronger than separate unit-circle-rootedness of the two sampled polynomials: the latter may hold while the adjacent quotients fail to interlace. The structural result is a theorem for Jacobi spectral multipliers. For every $0<\nu<2$, the quotient problem becomes preservation of the endpoint pencil $y^n(y+t)$. We obtain explicit fixed-$n$ and uniform strip thresholds and determine the exact threshold for $n=1$. The proof combines Bernstein variation diminution with total nonnegativity of finite Jacobi matrices attached to the zero orbits of $H$; a possible unpaired outer real pair, which is not covered by the full defect-class argument, is treated directly on the endpoint pencil. For nonpolynomial even sources satisfying the fixed-$n$ strip condition, a remote-zero-orbit deformation removes common zeros whenever the adjacent images have simple zeros in $(0,4)$. This yields strict interlacing for quotient families associated with Dedekind zeta derivatives and with nested critical-value blocks of self-dual newforms.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Sharp Circular Sampling and Derivative Period Polynomials

    S. Jin,Sharp circular sampling and derivative period polynomials, preprint, arXiv:2607.05262 [math.NT] (2026)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    Adm and J

    M. Adm and J. Garloff,Improved tests and characterizations of totally nonnegative matrices, Electron. J. Linear Algebra27(2014), 588–610

    work page 2014

  3. [2]

    Bates and R

    R. Bates and R. Yoshida,Quadratic hyperbolicity preservers and multiplier sequences, Rocky Mountain J. Math.46(2016), no. 1, 51–72

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Blakeman, E

    K. Blakeman, E. Davis, T. Forgács, and K. Urabe,On Legendre multiplier sequences, Missouri J. Math. Sci.24(2012), no. 1, 7–23

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Borcea and P

    J. Borcea and P. Brändén,The Pólya–Schur master theorems for circular domains and their boundaries, Ann. of Math. (2)170(2009), no. 1, 465–492

    work page 2009

  6. [5]

    Brändén and M

    P. Brändén and M. Chasse,Classification theorems for operators preserving zeros in a strip, J. Anal. Math. 132(2017), 177–215

    work page 2017

  7. [6]

    Breland, K

    L. Breland, K. H. Le, J. Ni, L. O’Brien, H. Xue, and D. Zhu,Interlacing of zeros of period polynomials, J. Math. Soc. Japan77(2025), no. 1, 255–299

    work page 2025

  8. [7]

    Chasse, T

    M. Chasse, T. Forgács, and A. Piotrowski,Polynomially interpolated Legendre multiplier sequences, Com- put. Methods Funct. Theory18(2018), no. 2, 315–333

    work page 2018

Show all 39 references
  1. [8]

    J. B. Conrey, D. W. Farmer, and Ö. Imamoglu,The nontrivial zeros of period polynomials of modular forms lie on the unit circle, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN2013, no. 20, 4758–4771

  2. [9]

    Comtet,Advanced Combinatorics: The Art of Finite and Infinite Expansions, D

    L. Comtet,Advanced Combinatorics: The Art of Finite and Infinite Expansions, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, 1974

    1974

  3. [10]

    W. A. Coppel,Disconjugacy, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 220, Springer-Verlag, Berlin–New York, 1971

    1971

  4. [11]

    Deligne,La conjecture de Weil

    P. Deligne,La conjecture de Weil. I, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math.43(1974), 273–307

    1974

  5. [12]

    Diamantis and L

    N. Diamantis and L. Rolen,Eichler cohomology and zeros of polynomials associated to derivatives ofL- functions, J. Reine Angew. Math.770(2021), 1–25

    2021

  6. [13]

    Diamantis and L

    N. Diamantis and L. Rolen,Period polynomials, derivatives ofL-functions, and zeros of polynomials, Res. Math. Sci.5(2018), article no. 9

    2018

  7. [14]

    El-Guindy and W

    A. El-Guindy and W. Raji,Unimodularity of zeros of period polynomials of Hecke eigenforms, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.46(2014), no. 3, 528–536

    2014

  8. [15]

    S. M. Fallat and C. R. Johnson,Totally Nonnegative Matrices, Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2011

    2011

  9. [16]

    R. T. Farouki,The Bernstein polynomial basis: a centennial retrospective, Comput. Aided Geom. Design 29(2012), no. 6, 379–419

    2012

  10. [17]

    Fomin and A

    S. Fomin and A. Zelevinsky,Total positivity: tests and parametrizations, Math. Intelligencer22(2000), no. 1, 23–33

    2000

  11. [18]

    F. R. Gantmacher and M. G. Krein,Oscillation Matrices and Kernels and Small Vibrations of Mechanical Systems, revised ed., AMS Chelsea Publishing, Providence, RI, 2002

    2002

  12. [19]

    Gasca and J

    M. Gasca and J. M. Peña,Total positivity and Neville elimination, Linear Algebra Appl.165(1992), 25–44

    1992

  13. [20]

    Gasca and J

    M. Gasca and J. M. Peña,Total positivity, QR factorization, and Neville elimination, SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl.14(1993), no. 4, 1132–1140

    1993

  14. [21]

    I. I. Hirschman, Jr.,Variation diminishing transformations and orthogonal polynomials, J. Analyse Math. 9(1961), 177–193

    1961

  15. [22]

    Iwaniec and E

    H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski,Analytic Number Theory, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publi- cations, Vol. 53, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004

    2004

  16. [24]

    S. Jin, W. Ma, K. Ono, and K. Soundararajan,The Riemann hypothesis for period polynomials of modular forms, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA113(2016), no. 10, 2603–2608

    2016

  17. [25]

    Karlin,Total positivity, interpolation by splines, and Green’s functions of differential operators, J

    S. Karlin,Total positivity, interpolation by splines, and Green’s functions of differential operators, J. Ap- proximation Theory4(1971), no. 1, 91–112

    1971

  18. [26]

    Karlin,Total Positivity

    S. Karlin,Total Positivity. Vol. I, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1968

    1968

  19. [27]

    G. Ko, J. Mackenzie, and H. Xue,Interlacing of zeros of odd period polynomials, J. Math. Anal. Appl.543 (2025), no. 2, Part 2, Paper No. 128976

    2025

  20. [28]

    Kurdyka and L

    K. Kurdyka and L. Paunescu,Nuij type pencils of hyperbolic polynomials, Canad. Math. Bull.60(2017), no. 3, 561–570

    2017

  21. [29]

    B. Ya. Levin,Distribution of Zeros of Entire Functions, revised ed., Translations of Mathematical Mono- graphs, Vol. 5, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1980. 62 SEOKHO JIN

    1980

  22. [30]

    G. G. Lorentz,Bernstein Polynomials, 2nd ed., Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1986

    1986

  23. [31]

    Neukirch,Algebraic Number Theory, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol

    J. Neukirch,Algebraic Number Theory, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 322, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1999

    1999

  24. [32]

    F. W. J. Olver, D. W. Lozier, R. F. Boisvert, and C. W. Clark, eds.,NIST Handbook of Mathematical Functions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010

    2010

  25. [33]

    Nuij,A note on hyperbolic polynomials, Math

    W. Nuij,A note on hyperbolic polynomials, Math. Scand.23(1968), 69–72

    1968

  26. [34]

    Obreschkoff,Verteilung und Berechnung der Nullstellen reeller Polynome, Hochschulbücher für Mathe- matik, Vol

    N. Obreschkoff,Verteilung und Berechnung der Nullstellen reeller Polynome, Hochschulbücher für Mathe- matik, Vol. 55, VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1963

    1963

  27. [35]

    Pinkus,Totally Positive Matrices, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Vol

    A. Pinkus,Totally Positive Matrices, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, Vol. 181, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Rababah,Jacobi–Bernstein basis transformation, Comput

    A. Rababah,Jacobi–Bernstein basis transformation, Comput. Methods Appl. Math.4(2004), no. 2, 206– 214

    2004

  29. [37]

    I. J. Schoenberg,Über variationsvermindernde lineare Transformationen, Math. Z.32(1930), 321–328

    1930

  30. [38]

    Szegő,Orthogonal Polynomials, 4th ed., American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol

    G. Szegő,Orthogonal Polynomials, 4th ed., American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, Vol. 23, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1975

    1975

  31. [39]

    A. M. Whitney,A reduction theorem for totally positive matrices, J. Analyse Math.2(1952), 88–92. Department of Mathematics, Chung-Ang University, 84 Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul 06974, Republic of Korea Email address:archimed@cau.ac.kr

    1952

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.