31

I was wondering if the following properties of the Legendre polynomials are true in general. They hold for the first ten or fifteen polynomials.

  1. Are the roots always simple (i.e., multiplicity $1$)?

  2. Except for low-degree cases, the roots can't be calculated exactly, only approximated (unlike Chebyshev polynomials).

  3. Are roots of the entire family of Legendre Polynomials dense in the interval $[0,1]$ (i.e., it's not possible to find a subinterval, no matter how small, that doesn't contain at least one root of one polynomial)?

If anyone knows of an article/text that proves any of the above, please let me know. The definition of these polynomials can be found on Wikipedia.

user3180
  • 2,372
  • 1
    According to a Corollary (page 114) in the book linked below, the Legendre polynomial of degree $k$ has $k$ distinct roots in the interval $(-1,1)$. http://tinyurl.com/29c89tu – Timothy Wagner Nov 28 '10 at 03:32
  • The answer to question 2 depends on what you mean by "calculated exactly." – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 28 '10 at 03:34
  • 4
  • Yes. It is a deep theorem of the theory of orthogonal polynomials that all their roots within their support interval are simple. 2. There are no explicit closed forms for the general roots of a Legendre polynomial, but there are asymptotic expansions for the roots.
  • – J. M. ain't a mathematician Nov 28 '10 at 03:39
  • 4
  • Note that the roots of successive Legendre polynomials are interlacing (they form a Sturm sequence).
  • – J. M. ain't a mathematician Nov 28 '10 at 03:40
  • 2
    For 2) I mean are these polynomials solvable by radicals (can the roots be written in a finite amount of space using ration numbers and radicals). – user3180 Nov 28 '10 at 03:41
  • 2
    @user3971: what a specific definition of "calculated exactly"... what makes a radical so easy to calculate compared to other functions? Even to solve a cubic equation by the cubic formula "by radicals" requires one to compute cosines in the general case and I see no reason this is essentially easier than computing any other function whose Taylor series decays rapidly. – Qiaochu Yuan Nov 28 '10 at 03:44
  • @J. M.: Why not post your perfectly fine answers as an answer instead of as comments, so that the question won't show up with "0 answers" on the front page? – Hans Lundmark Nov 28 '10 at 13:27
  • @Hans: because real answers require elaboration in my opinion, which I didn't supply. Well, at least now, I have shown two ways to resolve the first question. The other two require more elaboration than I can currently muster, and I shall have to get back to those later. – J. M. ain't a mathematician Nov 28 '10 at 14:29
  • @J. M.: OK, then you're a bit more ambitious than I. Which is good, I guess... :) – Hans Lundmark Nov 28 '10 at 15:22
  • @J.M.: Maybe a bit late but I would prefer the word "known" in the above answer of yours to the second question. :o) – AD - Stop Putin - Nov 29 '10 at 19:13
  • @AD: Not really. Believe, me, I've tried (I did quite a fair bit of personal research on Gaussian quadrature; if there was, I've seen one by now.). – J. M. ain't a mathematician Nov 29 '10 at 20:04
  • In any event, maybe somebody here can make my Sturm sequence argument for the third question more rigorous? – J. M. ain't a mathematician Nov 29 '10 at 20:04