Abstract: We describe how certain properties of the extrema of the digits of Luroth expansions lead to a probabilistic proof of a limiting relation involving the Riemann zeta function and the Bernoulli triangles. We also discuss trimmed sums of Luroth digits. Our goal is to show how direct computations in this case lead to explicit formulas and some interesting discussions of special functions.

\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}
{-30pt \@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}
{2.3ex \@plus.2ex}
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries\boldmath}}

\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}
{-3.25ex\@plus -1ex \@minus -.2ex}
{1.5ex \@plus .2ex}
{\normalfont\normalsize\bfseries\boldmath}}

\renewcommand{\@seccntformat}[1]{\csname the#1\endcsname. }

\makeatother

\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}

\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{conjecture}{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

\begin{document}

\begin{center}
\uppercase{\bf Extrema of Luroth Digits and a zeta function limit relations}
\vskip 20pt
{\bf Jayadev S. Athreya\footnote{Supported by National Science Foundation Grant DMS 2003528}}\\
{\smallit Department of Mathematics and Department of Comparative History of Ideas, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.}\\
{\tt jathreya@uw.edu}\\
{\bf Krishna B. Athreya}\\
{\smallit Department of Mathematics and Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.}\\
{\tt kbathreya@gmail.com}\\
\end{center}
\vskip 20pt
\centerline{\smallit Received: , Revised: , Accepted: , Published: }
\vskip 30pt

\centerline{\bf Abstract}
\noindent
We describe how certain properties of the extrema of the digits of Luroth expansions lead to a probabilistic proof of a limiting relation involving the Riemann zeta function and the Bernoulli triangles. We also discuss trimmed sums of Luroth digits. Our goal is to show how direct computations in this case lead to formulas and some interesting discussions of special functions.

\pagestyle{myheadings}
\markright{\smalltt INTEGERS: 21 (2021)\hfill}
\thispagestyle{empty}
\baselineskip=12.875pt
\vskip 30pt

\section{Introduction}

Let $X_1, X_2, \ldots X_k, \ldots$ be a sequence of independent, identically distributed (IID) random variables taking values in the positive integers $\mathbb N =\{1, 2, 3, \ldots \}$ with $$P(X_1 = n) = \frac{1}{n(n+1)}, n \geq 1.$$ We call this distribution the \emph{Luroth} distribution. The \emph{Luroth map} $L: (0, 1] \rightarrow (0, 1]$ is the piecewise-linear map given by $$L(x) = N(x) ( (N(x)+1) x - 1),$$ where $$N(x) =\left \lfloor \frac 1 x \right \rfloor.$$ It is a nice exercise to check that $L$ preserves Lebesgue measure $m$, and that if $U$ is a uniform $(0, 1]$ random variable, the sequence $X_k = N(L^{k-1} (U))$ is a sequence of IID random variables with the above distribution, since $$P(X_1 = n) = m\left(N^{-1}(n)\right) = m\left(\frac{1}{n+1}, \frac{1}{n}\right] = \frac{1}{n(n+1)}.$$

This map and its associated digit expansion was introduced by Luroth in~\cite{Luroth}.  Subsequently, Luroth random variables have been extensively studied,  since they provide an attractive motivating example at the intersection of many questions on number theory, probability theory, and dynamical systems and ergodic theory. The Luroth map is in some sense a kind of linearized version of the Gauss map (see Section~\ref{sec:Gauss}), where, as we remark above, the resulting digit expansion of numbers have the appealing property that the digits are \emph{independent} random variables.

This makes it often possible to do very explicit computations with Luroth random variables. See~\cite{JDv} for an introduction to the ergodic properties of the map $L$, ~\cite{Galambos} for a discussion of different types of digit expansions, and, for example~\cite{Giuliano} and~\cite{Tan} and the references within for more recent work on Luroth and related expansions from the probabilistic and dynamical perspectives respectively.

Our results center on understanding the limiting behavior of \emph{maxima} of sequences of IID Luroth random variables, and the convergence behavior of appropriately centered and scaled sums. These are classical topics in the theory of sequences of random variables, and focusing on this setting leads to some interesting computations.

Using the fact that the Luroth random variables are \emph{heavy-tailed}, we will show that the probability $\rho_k$ that the maximum $M_k$ of the first $k$ elements $\{X_1, \ldots, X_k\}$ of a a sequence of Luroth variables is \emph{unique} tends to $1$ as $k \rightarrow \infty.$ Our main new result, Theorem~\ref{theorem:rhok}, shows how to \emph{explicitly} compute this probability $\rho_k$, giving an interesting relationship between this probability, the Riemann zeta function, and partial sums of binomial coefficients which are entries in what is known as Bernoulli's triangle. Using the fact that $\rho_k \rightarrow 1$, we obtain a new limiting relation, Corollary~\ref{cor:zeta}, between these coefficients and the Riemann zeta function.

Our other main result considers the behavior of the sample sums $$S_k = \sum_{i=1}^k X_i.$$ Since $E(X_1) = \infty$, the law of large numbers shows that $S_k/k$ tends to infinity with probability one. Inspired by work of Diamond-Vaaler, who studied the corresponding \emph{trimmed sum} for continued fraction expansions, and using a result of Mori~\cite{Mori} we show in Theorem~\ref{theorem:trimmed} that by removing the maximum, and normalizing by $k\log k$, we have, with probability $1$, as $k \rightarrow \infty$,  $$\frac{S_k-M_k}{k\log k} \rightarrow 1.$$ Note that the asymptotic uniqueness result says that asymptotically, we are removing the \emph{unique} largest summand in $S_k$ by subtracting $M_k$. Let $$M_k = \max(X_1, \ldots, X_k)$$ be the sample maximum, and let $$\rho_k = P(\mbox{ there exists } !  1 \le i \le k \mbox{ such that }X_i = M_k)$$ be the probability that this maximum is achieved exactly once.  Our first main observation is the following explicit formula for $\rho_k$.
\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:rhok} For $k \geq 1$, \begin{equation}\label{eq:rhok} \rho_k = k\left (2^{k-1} + \sum_{j=2}^k T(k-1, k-j) \zeta(j) (-1)^{j+1}\right),\end{equation}  where $\zeta(j) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} n^{-j}, j > 1$ is the Riemann zeta function and for $l \geq j$ positive integers, $$T(l, j) = \sum_{i=0}^j \binom{l}{i}.$$
\end{theorem}

By \cite{AF, ESS}, we have $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \rho_k = 1.$$ Thus, as a corollary, we obtain the following limiting relation involving the coefficients $T(l, j)$ and values of the Riemann zeta function.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:zeta} We have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:zeta}\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}  k\left (2^{k-1} + \sum_{j=2}^k T(k-1, k-j) \zeta(j) (-1)^{j+1}\right) = 1.\end{equation}

\end{corollary}

The coefficients $T(l, j)$, partial sums of binomial coefficients, are entries in what is known as \emph{Bernoulli's triangle}; see~\cite{OEIS-A008949}. Note that $T(l, 0) = 1$, $T(l, l) = 2^l$, and $T(l, l-1) = 2^{l} -1$. Let $$S_k = \sum_{i=1}^k X_i$$ be the sample sum. Since $E(X_1) = \infty$, we have, by the strong law of large numbers, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \frac{S_k}{k} = +\infty.$$ However, if we subtract the sample maximum, we have the following almost sure result.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem:trimmed} With probability $1$, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}  \frac{S_k - M_k}{k \log k} = 1.$$

\end{theorem}

\noindent This is a consequence of a result of Mori~\cite{Mori}. The proof features a nice appearance of the Lambert $W$-function. There is a (more difficult) analogous result~\cite{DV} for continued fraction digits, where the limiting value is $\log 2$. There are substantial additional difficulties in that setting since continued fraction digits of a randomly chosen $x \in (0, 1)$ do not form an IID sequence.

\section{Uniqueness of Maxima}\label{sec:maxproof}
 Suppose $Y_1, \ldots, Y_k, \ldots$ is a sequence of IID $\mathbb N$-valued random variables with $$P(Y_1 = n) = p_n.$$ Let $$\tau_n = \sum_{m \geq n} p_m = P(Y_1 \geq n).$$ Let $\rho_{k, m}$ denote the probability that the sample maximum $M_k = \max(Y_1, \ldots, Y_k) = m$ and is achieved exactly once. Then $$\rho_{k,m} = k p_m (1-\tau_m)^{k-1}.$$ Note that $\rho_k$, the probability that the sample maximum $M_k$ is achieved exactly once by $Y_1, \ldots, Y_k$, is then given by $$\rho_k = \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \rho_{k,m}.$$ Also note that (although it is not a probability) we have $$\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \rho_{k,m} = p_m \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} k(1-\tau_m)^{k-1} = \frac{p_m}{\tau_m^2}.$$ Specializing to Luroth sequences, we have $p_m = \frac{1}{m(m+1)}$ and $\tau_m = \frac{1}{m}$. Thus $$\rho_{k,m} = \frac{k}{m(m+1)} \left( 1 - \frac 1 m \right)^{k-1} = k \frac{(m-1)^{k-1}}{m^k(m+1)} .$$ Let $$Q_k(m) = \frac{1}{k} \rho_{k, m} = \frac{(m-1)^{k-1}}{m^k(m+1)}.$$ Th next lemma shows how to expand $Q_k$ as a partial fraction.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:partial} We have \begin{equation}\label{eq:qk}Q_k(m) = 2^{k-1} \left( \frac 1 m - \frac{1}{m+1} \right) + \sum_{j=2}^k T(k-1, k-j) (-1)^{j+1} \frac{1}{m^j}.\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Note that $$T(k-1, 0) = 1, T(k-1, k-1) = 2^{k-1}, T(k-1, k-2) = 2^{k-1} - 1$$ and $$Q_{k+1}(m) = \left( 1 - \frac 1 m\right) Q_{k}(m).$$ Our proof proceeds by induction. For $k=1$, we have $$Q_1(m) = \rho_{1, m} = \frac{1}{m(m+1)}.$$ The right hand side of  Equation (\ref{eq:qk}) for $k=1$ is $$2^{1-1} \left (\frac 1 m - \frac{1}{m+1} \right) = \frac{1}{m(m+1)},$$ since the index of the sum starts at $j=2$, making the sum empty. Thus the base case ($k=1$) is verified. We now assume that Equation (\ref{eq:qk}) is true for $k$, and we need to prove it for $k+1$. Let $$c(j, k) = (-1)^{j+1} T(k-1, k-j).$$ Note that

\begin{align}\label{eq:induction} Q_{k+1}(m) &= \left( 1 - \frac 1 m\right) Q_{k}(m)  \nonumber
= \left( 1 - \frac 1 m\right) \left(2^{k-1} \left( \frac 1 m - \frac{1}{m+1} \right) + \sum_{j=2}^k c(j,k) \frac{1}{m^j}\right) \\ \nonumber
&= 2^{k-1}\frac{1}{m(m+1)} - \frac{2^{k-1}}{m}\left( \frac 1 m - \frac{1}{m+1}\right) + \sum_{j=2}^{k}\left( \frac{c(j,k) }{m^j} -\frac{c(j-1, k) }{m^{j+1}}\right)\\ \nonumber
&= 2^k \frac{1}{m(m+1)} - \frac{(2^{k-1} - c(2, k))}{m^2} + \sum_{j=3}^{k+1} \frac{\left(c(j, k)- c(j-1, k) \right)}{m^j} . \\
\end{align}

\noindent Now note that for $j \geq 2$, $$c(j, k) = c(j, k-1) - c(j-1, k-1)$$ and $$c(k+1, k) = 0, c(2, k) = 1-2^{k-1}, c(k,k) = (-1)^{k+1}, c(1, k) = 2^{k-1}.$$ Plugging these into Equation (\ref{eq:induction}), we have our result.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:rhok}} To prove Theorem~\ref{theorem:rhok}, we note that $$\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m(m+1)} = 1;  \sum_{m=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m^j} = \zeta(j), j \geq 2.$$ Using  Lemma~\ref{lem:partial}, and summing over $m$, we obtain Equation (\ref{eq:rhok}). To obtain Corollary~\ref{cor:zeta}, it was shown in~\cite{AF, ESS} that $$\rho_k \rightarrow 1 \mbox{ if and only if } p_m/\tau_m \rightarrow 0.$$ In our setting, $\rho_m/\tau_m = \frac{1}{m+1}$, so the condition is satisfied, and we obtain Corollary~\ref{cor:zeta}. In Figure~\ref{fig:rhok}, we show numerical values of $\rho_k$ for $2 \le k \le 40$ (note that $\rho_1 = 1$).

\begin{figure}[h!] \includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{rhokgraph.pdf}
\caption{$\rho_k$ for $k =2$ to $k=40$. \medskip}\label{fig:rhok}
\end{figure}

\section{Trimmed sums}\label{sec:trimproof}
In this section, we prove Theorem~\ref{theorem:trimmed}. We first note that using standard limit theorems in probability theory, we can show that $$\frac{S_k - M_k}{k \log k} \xrightarrow{d} 1.$$ The random variables $X_n$ are in the domain of attraction of a \emph{stable law} of order $1$. Using~\cite[Theorem 11.2.3]{AL}, we have $$\frac{S_k - k\log k}{k} \xrightarrow{d} C,$$ where $C$ is a Cauchy random variable. Thus, $$\frac{S_k}{k \log k}  = \left(\frac{1}{\log k}\frac{(S_k - k \log k)}{k} + 1 \right) \xrightarrow{d} 1.$$

Next, note that for $c >0$, $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} P\left(\frac{M_k}{k} < c\right) = \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{ck}\right)^{k} = e^{-1/c}.$$ Therefore $$\frac{M_k}{k\log k} \xrightarrow{d} 0.$$

Putting these together, we obtain $$\frac{S_k - M_k}{k \log k} \xrightarrow{d} 1,$$ and therefore we also have this convergence in probability.

To replace convergence in probability with almost sure convergence, we use a result of Mori~\cite[Theorem 1]{Mori}, with, in his notation, $$r=1, A(x) = x \log x.$$ Mori studies the behavior of the sample sums with the first $r$ largest terms removed, normalized by $A(n)$, where $A$ is an absolutely continuous increasing function such that there is an $0< \alpha< 2$, with $$A(x)x^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}} \mbox{ increasing and } \sup \frac{A(2x)}{A(x)} < \infty.$$ Keeping our notation consistent with ~\cite[Section 1]{Mori}, we write $A(x) = x \log x$, and note that this is a non-decreasing absolutely continuous function, with inverse function $B(x) = \frac{x}{W(x)}$, where $W(x)$ is the Lambert $W$ function, that is, the inverse of the function $we^w$. Putting $$\mathcal F(x) = P(X_1 > x) = \frac{1}{\lfloor x \rfloor + 1}$$ and $$J_2 = \int_{0}^{\infty} \mathcal F^2(x) dB^2(x) = \sum_{n=2}^{N} \frac{1}{n^2} \left( \frac{n^2}{W(n)^2} - \frac{(n-1)^2}{W(n-1)^2}\right),$$ Mori's result shows that if $J_2 < \infty$, that almost surely $$\frac{S_k-M_k}{A(k)} - c_k  \rightarrow 0,$$ where $$c_k = \frac{k}{A(k)} E(X_1| X_1 < A(k)).$$ In our setting, $$c_k \sim \frac{k}{k \log k} \log(k \log k) \rightarrow 1 \mbox{ as } k \rightarrow \infty.$$ So if we can show $J_2 < \infty$, we have completed our proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:trimmed}. From~\cite{lambertw}, we see that for $x >>1$, $$W(x) = \log x - \log \log x  + o(1).$$ Note that $$dB^2(x) = 2 B(x) B'(x) dx = \frac{x}{W(x) (W(x) + 1)} dx.$$ Thus we have $$J_2 \le \int_1^{\infty} \frac{2}{x^2} B(x) B'(x) dx \sim 2 \int_{1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{x W(x) (W(x) + 1)}  =  2 \left(\frac{1}{W(1)}\right).$$ In particular,  $J_2 < \infty$. In Figure~\ref{fig:lambert}, we show the partial sums for $J_2$.

\begin{figure}[h!]\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{LambertMoriSum.pdf}\caption{Partial sums of $\sum_{n=2}^{N} \frac{1}{n^2} \left( \frac{n^2}{W(n)^2} - \frac{(n-1)^2}{W(n-1)^2}\right)$, $N=3, \ldots, 1000$. \medskip}\label{fig:lambert}

\end{figure}

\section{Continued Fractions}\label{sec:Gauss} \noindent Similar questions can be asked for the \emph{Gauss map} $G: (0, 1) \rightarrow (0, 1)$, $$G(x) = \left\{ \frac 1 x \right\},$$ and the associated continued fraction expansion of a number $x \in [0, 1)$. Recall that for $x \in (0, 1)$, we can set, for $n \geq 1$, $$a_n = a_n(x) = \left \lfloor \frac{1}{G^{n-1}(x)} \right \rfloor,$$ and we can write $$x = \frac{1}{a_1 + \frac{1}{a_2 + \frac{1}{a_3 + \ldots}}}.$$ The probability measure $\mu_G$ given by $$d\mu_G(x) = \frac{1}{\log 2} \frac{dx}{1+x}$$ is an absolutely continuous ergodic invariant measure for $G$, and as noted after Theorem~\ref{theorem:trimmed}, Diamond and Vaaler~\cite{DV} proved a similar result for the digits $a_n$ for an $x$ chosen at random according to $\mu_G$. This is more difficult than our setting since although the digits form a stationary sequence, they are no longer IID. Regarding the uniqueness of sample maxima, if we define $$\rho_k = \mu_G\left(x \in (0, 1): \mbox{ there exists } ! 1 \le i \le k \mbox{ such that } a_i (x)= \max_{1 \le j \le k} a_j(x) \right),$$ we conjecture that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \rho_k = 1.$$ We believe this conjecture since although the sequence $\{a_i\}$ is not IID, it is rapidly mixing, and the distribution of $a_i$ is heavy-tailed. The Gauss map is associated in a natural way to geodesic flow on the modular surface, and we believe similar results should also hold for other continued fraction type expansions associated to geodesic flow on other hyperbolic surfaces, for example, the Rosen continued fractions.

\bigskip

 \noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.} We thank Bruce Berndt, Alex Kontorovich, and Jeffrey Lagarias for useful discussions. Lagarias pointed out to us some interesting asymptotics involving binomial coefficients and zeta functions in~\cite[Theorem 2]{BL}. We thank Avanti Athreya, the anonyomous referee, and the Integers Editorial Office for suggestions that greatly improved the exposition of the paper. The first author thanks the National Science Foundation for its support via grant NSF DMS 2003528. The first author is a faculty member at the University of Washington, which is on the lands of the Coast Salish people, and touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.

Probability (math.PR); Dynamical Systems (math.DS); Number Theory (math.NT)


The character graph of a finite group is perfect

Abstract: For a finite group $G$, let $\Delta(G)$ denote the character graph built on the set of degrees of the irreducible complex characters of $G$. In graph theory, a perfect graph is a graph $\Gamma$ in which the chromatic number of every induced subgraph $\Delta$ of $\Gamma$ equals the clique number of $\Delta$. In this paper, we show that the character graph $\Delta(G)$ of a finite group $G$ is always a perfect graph. We also prove that the chromatic number of the complement of $\Delta(G)$ is at most three.

\section{Introduction}
$\noindent$ Let $G$ be a finite group . Also let ${\rm cd}(G)$ be the set of all character degrees of $G$, that is,
 ${\rm cd}(G)=\{\chi(1)|\;\chi \in {\rm Irr}(G)\} $, where ${\rm Irr}(G)$ is the set of all complex irreducible characters of $G$. The set of prime divisors of character degrees of $G$ is denoted by $\rho(G)$. It is well known that the
 character degree set ${\rm cd}(G)$ may be used to provide information on the structure of the group $G$. For example, Ito-Michler's Theorem \cite{[C]} states that if a prime $p$ divides no character degree of a finite group $G$, then $G$ has a
 normal abelian Sylow $p$-subgroup. Another result due to Thompson \cite{[D]} says that if a prime $p$ divides
 every non-linear character degree of a group $G$, then $G$ has a normal $p$-complement.

A useful way to study the character degree set of a finite group $G$ is to associate a graph to ${\rm cd}(G)$.
One of these graphs is the character graph $\Delta(G)$ of $G$ \cite{[I]}. Its vertex set is $\rho(G)$ and two vertices $p$ and $q$ are joined by an edge if the product $pq$ divides some character degree of $G$. We refer the readers to a survey by Lewis \cite{[M]} for results concerning this graph and related topics.

Let $\Gamma=(V(\Gamma),E(\Gamma))$ be a finite simple graph with the vertex set $V(\Gamma)$ and edge set $E(\Gamma)$.  A clique of $ \Gamma $ is a set of mutually adjacent vertices, and that the maximum size of a clique of $ \Gamma $, the clique number of $ \Gamma $, is denoted by $ \omega(\Gamma) $. Minimum number of colors needed to color vertices of the graph $ \Gamma $ so that any two adjacent vertices of $ \Gamma $ have different colors, is called the chromatic number of $ \Gamma $ and denoted by $ \chi(\Gamma) $. Clearly $\omega(\Gamma)\leqslant \chi(\Gamma)$ for any graph $\Gamma$. The graph $\Gamma$ is perfect if $\omega(\Delta)=\chi(\Delta)$, for every induced subgraph $\Delta$ of $\Gamma$.

The theory of perfect graphs relates the concept of graph colorings to the concept of cliques. Aside from having an interesting structure, perfect graphs are considered important for three reasons. First, several common classes of graphs are known to always be perfect. For instance, bipartite graphs, chordal graphs and comparability graphs are perfect. Second, a number of important algorithms only work on perfect graphs. Finally, perfect graphs can be used in a wide variety  of applications, ranging from scheduling to order theory to communication theory.

One of the turning point for the investigation on the character degree graph is the "Three-Vertex Theorem" by Palfy \cite{palfy}: the complement of $\Delta(G)$ does not contain any triangle whenever $G$ is a finite solvable group. In a recent paper  \cite{1} this was extended by showing that, under the same solvability assumption, the complement of $\Delta(G)$ dose not contain any cycle of odd length, which is equivalent to say that the complement of $\Delta(G)$ is a bipartite graph. Thus as the complement of a perfect graph is perfect \cite{lovasz}, the character graph $\Delta(G)$ of a solvable group $G$ is perfect. This argument motivates an interesting problem: is the character graph of an arbitrary finite group perfect?. In this paper, we wish to solve this problem.\\

\noindent \textbf{Theorem A.}  \textit{Let $G$ be a finite group then $\Delta(G)$ is a perfect graph.
}\\

Theorem A will be used to determine the chromatic number of the complement of $\Delta(G)$.\\

\noindent \textbf{Corollary B.}  \textit{ Suppose $G$ is a finite group. Then the chromatic number of the complement of $\Delta(G)$ is at most three.
}
\section{Preliminaries}
$\noindent$ In this paper, all groups are assumed to be finite and all
graphs are simple and finite. For a finite group $G$, the set of prime divisors of $|G|$ is denoted by $\pi(G)$.  Also note that for an integer $n\geqslant 1$,  the set of prime divisors of $n$ is denoted by $\pi(n)$. We begin with Corollary 11.29 of \cite{[isa]}.

\begin{lemma}\label{fraction}
Let $ N \lhd G$ and $\chi \in \rm{Irr}(G)$. Let $\varphi \in \rm{Irr}(N)$ be a constituent of $\chi_N$. Then $\chi(1)/\varphi(1)$ divides $[G:N]$.
\end{lemma}

Let $\Gamma$ be a graph with vertex set $V(\Gamma)$ and edge set
$E(\Gamma)$. A cycle on $n$ vertices $v_1, \ldots,
v_n$, $n \geq 3$, is a graph whose vertices can be arranged in a
cyclic sequence in such a way that two vertices are adjacent if
they are consecutive in the sequence, and are non-adjacent
otherwise. A cycle with $n$ vertices is said to be of length $n$
and is denoted by $C_n$, i.e., $C_n : v_1, \ldots, v_n, v_1$.
 The join $\Gamma \ast \Delta$ of graphs $\Gamma$
and $\Delta$ is the graph $\Gamma \cup \Delta$ together with all
edges joining $V (\Gamma)$ and $V (\Delta)$.  An independent set is a set of vertices of a graph
$\Gamma$ such that no two of them are adjacent. A maximum
independent set is an independent set of largest possible size.
This size is called the independence number of $\Gamma$ and is
denoted by $\alpha(\Gamma)$. Finally we should mention that  the complement of $\Gamma$ and the induced subgraph of $\Gamma$ on $X\subseteq V(\Gamma)$
 are denoted by $\Gamma^c$ and  $\Gamma[X]$, respectively.  For more details, we
refer the reader to basic textbooks on the subject, for instance
\cite{BM}. Now we present some properties of perfect graphs.

\begin{lemma}\label{comp}\cite{lovasz}
A graph $\Gamma$ is perfect if and only if the complement of $\Gamma$ is perfect.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{hole}\cite{[cr]}
A graph $\Gamma$ is perfect  if and only if it has no induced subgraph isomorphic either to a cycle of odd order at least 5, or to the complement of such a cycle.
\end{lemma}

We now state some relevant results on character graphs
needed in the next section.

\begin{lemma}\label{pal}
Let $G$ be a group and let $\pi \subseteq \rho(G)$.\\
\textbf{a)} (Palfy's condition) \cite {palfy} If $G$ is solvable and $|\pi|\geqslant 3$, then there exist two distinct primes $u, v$ in $\pi$ and $\chi \in \rm{Irr}(G)$ such that $uv | \chi(1)$.\\
\textbf{b)} (Moreto-Tiep's condition) \cite{moreto} If $|\pi|\geqslant 4$, then there exists $\chi \in \rm{Irr}(G)$ such that $\chi (1)$ is divisible by two distinct primes in $\pi$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{chpsl}\cite{[white]}
Let $G\cong \rm{PSL}_2(q)$, where $q\geqslant 4$ is a power of a prime $p$.\\
\textbf{a)}
 If $q$ is even, then $\Delta(G)$ has three connected components, $\{2\}$, $\pi(q-1)$ and $\pi(q+1)$, and each component is a complete graph.\\
\textbf{b)}
 If $q>5$ is odd, then $\Delta(G)$ has two connected components, $\{p\}$ and $\pi((q-1)(q+1))$.\\
i)
 The connected component $\pi((q-1)(q+1))$ is a complete graph if and only if $q-1$ or $q+1$ is a power of $2$.\\
ii)
  If neither of $q-1$ or $q+1$  is a power of $2$, then $\pi((q-1)(q+1))$ can be partitioned as $\{2\}\cup M \cup P$, where $M=\pi (q-1)-\{2\}$ and $P=\pi(q+1)-\{2\}$ are both non-empty sets. The subgraph of $\Delta(G)$ corresponding to each of the subsets $M$,$P$ is complete, all primes are adjacent to $2$, and no prime in $M$ is adjacent to any prime in $P$.
 \end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}\label{cycle} \cite{AC}
Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $\pi$ be a subset of the vertex set of $\Delta(G)$ such that $|\pi|$ is an odd number larger than 1. Then $\pi$ is the set of vertices of a cycle in $\Delta(G)^c$ if and only if $O^{\pi^\prime}(G)=S\times A$, where $A$ is abelian, $S\cong \rm{SL}_2(u^\alpha)$ or $S\cong \rm{PSL}_2(u^\alpha)$ for a prime $u\in \pi$ and a positive integer $\alpha$, and the primes in $\pi - \{u\}$ are alternately odd divisors of $u^\alpha+1$ and  $u^\alpha-1$.
\end{lemma}

 \begin{lemma}{\label{HIHLEW}}\cite{HIHL}
If $G$ and $H$ are two non-abelian groups that satisfy $\rho (G)
~\cap~ \rho (H) = F$ with $|F| = n$, then $\Delta (G\times H) = K_n \ast \Delta (G) [\rho (G) - F] \ast \Delta (H) [\rho (H) - F]$, where $K_n$ is a complete graph with vertex set $F$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Proof of main results}
\noindent In this section, we wish to prove our main results.\\

\noindent\textit{\bf Proof of Theorem A.}
On the contrary, we assume that $\Delta(G)$ is not perfect. Then by Lemma \ref{hole}, there exists a subset $\pi\subseteq \rho (G)$ such that for some integer $n\geqslant 2$, $|\pi|=2n+1$ and $\Delta(G)^c[\pi]$ or $\Delta(G)[\pi]$ is a cycle. Now one of the following cases occurs:\\
Case 1. $\Delta(G)^c[\pi]$ is a cycle. Then there exist primes $p_0, p_1, \dots , p_{2n} \in \rho(G)$ such that $\Delta(G)^c[\pi]$ is the cycle $C:p_0, p_1, \dots , p_{2n},p_0$. Using Lemma \ref{cycle},
 $N:=O^{\pi^\prime}(G)=S\times A$, where $A$ is abelian, $S\cong \rm{SL}_2(p^m)$ or $S\cong \rm{PSL}_2(p^m)$ for a prime $p\in \pi$ and a positive integer $m$, and the primes in $\pi - \{p\}$ are alternately odd divisors of $p^m+1$ and  $p^m-1$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $p=p_0$. Since $\Delta(G)^c[\pi]$ is a cycle of length at least $5$, $p_1$ is not adjacent to both vertices $p_3$ and $p_4$ in $\Delta(G)^c$. Also for some $\epsilon \in \{\pm 1\}$, $p_3 \in \pi(p^m-\epsilon)-\{2\}$ and $p_4 \in \pi(p^m+\epsilon)-\{2\}$. Note that $p_1$ is an element of either $\pi(p^m-\epsilon)-\{2\}$ or $\pi(p^m+\epsilon)-\{2\}$.  Without loss of generality, we can assume that $p_1 \in\pi(p^m-\epsilon)-\{2\}$. since $p_1$ and $p_4$ are adjacent vertices in $\Delta(G)$, for some $\chi \in \rm{Irr}(G)$, $p_1p_4|\chi(1)$. Now let $\varphi \in \rm{Irr}(N)$ be a constituent of $\chi_N$. Then by Lemma \ref{fraction}, $\chi(1)/\varphi(1)$ divides $[G:N]$. Therefore as $G/N$ is a $\pi^\prime$-group, $p_1p_4|\varphi(1)$. It is a contradiction as using Lemma \ref{chpsl}, $p_1$ and $p_4$ are non-adjacent vertices in $\Delta(N)$.\\
Case 2. $\Delta(G)[\pi]$ is a cycle. If $\Delta(G)[\pi]\cong C_5$, then $\Delta(G)^c[\pi]\cong C_5$ which is a contradiction with Case 1. Thus $|\pi|\geqslant 7$. Hence there exist distinct primes $p_1, p_2, p_3,q_1, q_2, q_3\in \pi$ such that the induced subgraphs of $\Delta(G)^c$ on the sets  $\pi_1:=\{p_1, p_2, p_3\}$ and $\pi_2:=\{q_1, q_2, q_3\}$ are cycles of length $3$. Hence by Lemma \ref{cycle}, for every $i=1,2$, $N_i:=O^{\pi_i^\prime}(G)=S_i\times A_i$, where $A_i$ is abelian, $S_i\cong \rm{SL}_2(u_i^{\alpha_i})$ or $S_i\cong \rm{PSL}_2(u_i^{\alpha_i})$ for a prime $u_i\in \pi_i$ and a positive integer $\alpha_i$, and the primes in $\pi_i - \{u_i\}$ are alternately odd divisors of $u_i^{\alpha_i}+1$ and  $u_i^{\alpha_i}-1$. Let $N:=S_1S_2$. It is easy to see that $N/Z(N)\cong \rm{PSL}_2(u_1^{\alpha_1})\times\rm{PSL}_2(u_2^{\alpha_2})$. Therefore by Lemmas \ref{chpsl} and \ref{HIHLEW}, $\Delta(N/Z(N))[\pi_1 \cup \pi_2]\subseteq \Delta(G)$ is a complete bipartite graph with parts $\pi_1$ and $\pi_2$ which is a contradiction as $\Delta(G)[\pi]$ is a cycle of $\Delta(G)$.\qed\\

\noindent\textit{\bf Proof of Corollary B.}
Using Theorem A, $\Delta(G)$ is a perfect graph. Thus by Lemma \ref{comp}, $\Delta(G)^c$ is too. Hence $\chi(\Delta(G)^c)=\omega(\Delta(G)^c)$. It is clear that $\omega(\Delta(G)^c)=\alpha(\Delta(G))$. By Lemma \ref{pal}, $\alpha(\Delta(G))\leqslant 3$. Hence $\chi(\Delta(G)^c)\leqslant 3$ and the proof is completed.\qed

\section*{Acknowledgements}
This research was supported in part
by a grant  from School of Mathematics, Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences (IPM).


Infinite log-concavity: developments and conjectures

Abstract: Given a sequence (a_k) = a_0, a_1, a_2,... of real numbers, define a new sequence L(a_k) = (b_k) where b_k = a_k^2 - a_{k-1} a_{k+1}. So (a_k) is log-concave if and only if (b_k) is a nonnegative sequence. Call (a_k) "infinitely log-concave" if L^i(a_k) is nonnegative for all i >= 1. Boros and Moll conjectured that the rows of Pascal's triangle are infinitely log-concave. Using a computer and a stronger version of log-concavity, we prove their conjecture for the nth row for all n <= 1450. We also use our methods to give a simple proof of a recent result of Uminsky and Yeats about regions of infinite log-concavity. We investigate related questions about the columns of Pascal's triangle, q-analogues, symmetric functions, real-rooted polynomials, and Toeplitz matrices. In addition, we offer several conjectures.

\section{Introduction}

Let
$$
(a_k)=(a_k)_{k\ge0}=a_0,a_1,a_2,\ldots
$$
be a sequence of real numbers.  It will
be convenient to extend the sequence to negative indices by letting
$a_k=0$ for $k<0$. Also, if $(a_k)=a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n$ is a finite
sequence then we let $a_k=0$ for $k>n$.

Define the {\it ${\cal L}$-operator\/} on sequences to be ${\cal L}(a_k)=(b_k)$
where $b_k=a_k^2-a_{k-1}a_{k+1}$.
Call a sequence {\it $i$-fold log-concave\/} if ${\cal L}^i(a_k)$
is a nonnegative sequence.  So log-concavity in the ordinary sense is
$1$-fold log-concavity.
Log-concave sequences arise in many areas of algebra, combinatorics,
and geometry.  See the survey articles of Stanley~\cite{sta:lus} and
Brenti~\cite{bre:lus} for more information.

Boros and Moll~\cite[page 157]{bm:ii} defined $(a_k)$ to be
{\it  infinitely log-concave\/} if it is $i$-fold log-concave  for all
$i\ge1$.  They introduced this definition in conjunction with the
study of a specialization of the Jacobi polynomials whose coefficient
sequence they conjectured to be infinitely log-concave.
Kauers and Paule~\cite{kp:cpm} used a computer algebra package to prove
this conjecture for ordinary log-concavity.
Since the coefficients of these polynomials can be expressed in terms of
binomial coefficients, Boros and Moll also made the statement:
\begin{center}
``Prove that the binomial coefficients are $\infty$-logconcave.''
\end{center}
We will take this to be a conjecture that the rows of Pascal's triangle are infinitely log-concave, although we will later discuss the columns and other lines.
When
given a function of more than one variable, we will
subscript the ${\cal L}$-operator by the parameter which is varying to form
the sequence.
So ${\cal L}_k\binom{n}{k}$ would refer to the operator acting on the
sequence $\binom{n}{k}_{k\ge0}$.
Note that we drop the sequence parentheses
for sequences of binomial coefficients to improve readability.
We now restate
the Boros-Moll conjecture formally.
\begin{conj}
\label{bm:con}
The sequence $\binom{n}{k}_{k\ge0}$ is  infinitely log-concave for all
$n\ge0$.
\end{conj}

In the next section, we use a strengthened version of log-concavity
and computer calculations to verify Conjecture~\ref{bm:con} for all
$n\le 1450$.  Uminsky and Yeats~\cite{uy:uri} set up a correspondence
 between certain symmetric
sequences and points in ${\mathbb R}^m$.  They then described an infinite region
${\cal R}\subset{\mathbb R}^m$ bounded by hypersurfaces and such that
each sequence corresponding to a point of ${\cal R}$
is infinitely log-concave.  In Section~\ref{ril}, we show how
our methods can be used to give a simple derivation of one of their
main theorems.  We investigate infinite log-concavity of the columns
and other lines of Pascal's
triangle in Section~\ref{cpt}.
Section~\ref{gps} is devoted to two $q$-analogues of the binomial
coefficients.  For the Gaussian polynomials, we show that certain
analogues of some infinite log-concavity conjectures
are false while others appear to be true.  In contrast, our second
$q$-analogue seems to retain all the log-concavity properties of the
binomial coefficients.   In Section~\ref{sf}, after showing why the
sequence $(h_k)_{k\ge0}$ of complete homogeneous symmetric is an
appropriate analogue of sequences of binomial coefficients, we explore
its log-concavity properties.  We end with a section of related
results and questions about real-rooted polynomials and Toeplitz matrices.

While one purpose of this article is to present our
  results, we have written it with two more targets in mind.
  The first is to convince our audience that infinite log-concavity is
  a fundamental concept.  We hope that its definition as a natural
  extension of traditional log-concavity helps to make this case.
Our second aspiration is to attract others to work on the subject; to
  that end, we have presented several open problems.  These
  conjectures each represent fundamental questions in the area, so even
  solutions of special cases may be interesting.

\section{Rows of Pascal's triangle}
\label{rpt}

One of the difficulties with proving the Boros-Moll conjecture is that
log-concavity is not preserved by the ${\cal L}$-operator.  For example,
the sequence
$4,5,4$ is log-concave but ${\cal L}(4,5,4)=16,9,16$ is not.  So we
will seek a condition stronger than log-concavity which is preserved
by ${\cal L}$.  Given $r\in{\mathbb R}$, we say that a sequence $(a_k)$ is
{\it $r$-factor  log-concave\/} if
\begin{equation}
\label{r}
a_k^2\ge r a_{k-1}a_{k+1}
\end{equation}
for all $k$.  Clearly this implies log-concavity if $r\ge1$.

We seek an $r>1$ such that $(a_k)$ being $r$-factor log-concave implies
that $(b_k)={\cal L}(a_k)$ is as well.  Assume the original sequence is
nonnegative.  Then expanding $r b_{k-1} b_{k+1}\le b_k^2$ in terms of
the $a_k$ and rearranging the summands, we see that this is equivalent
to proving
$$
(r-1) a_{k-1}^2 a_{k+1}^2 + 2 a_{k-1} a_k^2 a_{k+1}
\le a_k^4 + r  a_{k-2} a_k (a_{k+1}^2-a_k a_{k+2} ) + r a_{k-1}^2 a_k a_{k+2}.
$$

By our assumptions, the two expressions with factors of $r$ on the right are
nonnegative, so it suffices to prove the inequality obtained when
these are dropped.  Applying~\ree{r} to the left-hand side gives
$$
(r-1) a_{k-1}^2 a_{k+1}^2 + 2 a_{k-1} a_k^2 a_{k+1}
\le  \frac{r-1}{r^2} a_k^4 + \frac{2}{r} a_k^4.
$$
So we will be done if
$$
 \frac{r-1}{r^2}+ \frac{2}{r} =1.
$$
Finding the root $r_0>1$ of the corresponding quadratic equation
finishes the proof of the first assertion of the following lemma, while the second assertion follows easily from the first.

\begin{lem}
\label{rfactor:le}
Let
$(a_k)$ be a nonnegative sequence and let $r_0=(3+\sqrt{5})/2$.
Then $(a_k)$ being $r_0$-factor log-concave
implies that ${\cal L}(a_k)$ is too. So in this case $(a_k)$ is infinitely
log-concave.\hfill \qed
\end{lem}

Now to prove that any row of Pascal's triangle is infinitely
log-concave, one merely lets a computer find ${\cal L}_k^i\binom{n}{k}$ for
$i$ up to some bound $I$.
If these sequences are all nonnegative and
${\cal L}_k^I\binom{n}{k}$ is $r_0$-factor log-concave, then the
previous lemma shows that this row is infinitely log-concave.  Using
this technique, we have obtained the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
\label{row:th}
The sequence $\binom{n}{k}_{k\ge0}$ is infinitely log-concave for
all $n\le 1450$.\hfill \qed
\eth

We note that the necessary value of $I$ increases slowly with increasing $n$.
As an example, when $n=100$, our technique works with $I=5$, while for
$n=1000$, we need $I=8$.

Of course, the method developed in this section can be applied to any
sequence such that ${\cal L}^i(a_k)$ is $r_0$-factor log-concave for some
$i$.  In particular, it is interesting to try it on the original
sequence which motivated Boros and Moll~\cite{bm:ii} to define infinite
log-concavity.  They were studying the polynomial
\begin{equation}
\label{Pm}
P_m(x) = \sum_{\ell=0}^m d_\ell(m) x^\ell
\end{equation}
where
$$
d_\ell(m) = \sum_{j=\ell}^m 2^{j-2m}
\binom{2m-2j}{m-j}\binom{m+j}{m}\binom{j}{\ell}.
$$
Kauers~[private communication] has used our method to verify
infinite log-concavity of the sequence $(d_\ell(m))_{\ell\ge0}$ for
$m\le 129$.  For such values of $m$, ${\cal L}^5_\ell$ applied to the sequence is
$r_0$-factor log-concave.

\section{A region of infinite log-concavity}
\label{ril}

Uminsky and Yeats~\cite{uy:uri}  took a different approach to the
Boros-Moll Conjecture as described in the Introduction.  Since they
were motivated by the rows of Pascal's triangle, they only considered
real sequences $a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n$ which are symmetric (in that
$a_k=a_{n-k}$ for all $k$) and satisfy $a_0=a_n=1$.  Each such sequence
corresponds to a point $(a_1,\ldots,a_m)\in{\mathbb R}^m$ where $m=\fl{n/2}$.

Their region, ${\cal R}$, whose points all correspond to infinitely log-concave
sequences, is bounded by $m$ parametrically defined hypersurfaces.  The
parameters are $x$ and $d_1,d_2,\ldots,d_m$  and it will be convenient
to have the notation
$$
s_k=\sum_{i=1}^k d_i.
$$
We will also need $r_1=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$.  Note that $r_1^2=r_0$.
The $k$th hypersurface, $1\le k< m$, is defined as
$$
\begin{array}{l}
{\cal H}_k=
\{(x^{s_1},\ldots,x^{s_{k-1}},r_1x^{s_k},x^{s_{k+1}+d_k-d_{k+1}},\ldots,x^{s_m+d_k-d_{k+1}}):
\\[5pt]
\hs{100pt} x\ge1, \quad 1=d_1>\cdots> d_k>d_{k+2}>\cdots>d_m>0\},
\end{array}
$$
while
$$
{\cal H}_m=
\{(x^{s_1},\ldots,x^{s_{m-1}},cx^{s_{m-1}}):\
x\ge1, \quad 1=d_1>\cdots > d_{m-1}>0\},
$$
where
$$
c=\case{r_1}{if $n=2m$,}{2}{if $n=2m+1$.}
$$

Let us say that the \emph{correct side} of ${\cal H}_k$ for $1\le k\le m$ consists of those points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ that can be obtained from a point on ${\cal H}_k$ by increasing the $k$th coordinate.
Then let ${\cal R}$ be the region of all points in ${\mathbb R}^m$ having
increasing coordinates and lying on the correct side of ${\cal H}_k$ for all $k$.
We will show how our method of the previous section can be used to give
a simple proof  of one of  Uminsky and Yeats' main theorems.  But first we
need a modified version of Lemma~\ref{rfactor:le} to take care of the
case when $n=2m+1$.

\begin{lem}
\label{rfactor:mod}
Let $a_0,a_1,\ldots, a_{2m+1}$ be a symmetric, nonnegative sequence such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]  $a_k^2 \ge r_0 a_{k-1} a_{k+1}$ for $ k< m$, and
\item[(ii)]  $a_m\ge 2 a_{m-1}$.
\end{enumerate}
Then ${\cal L}(a_k)$ has the same properties, which implies that $(a_k)$ is
infinitely log-concave.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Clearly ${\cal L}(a_k)$ is still symmetric.  To show that the other
two properties persist, note that in demonstrating
Lemma~\ref{rfactor:le} we actually proved more.  In particular, we
showed that if equation~\ree{r} holds at index $k$ of the
sequence $(a_k)$ (with $r=r_0$), then it also holds at index $k$ of the
sequence ${\cal L}(a_k)$ provided that the original sequence is log-concave.
Note that the assumptions of the current lemma imply log-concavity of
$(a_k)$:  This is clear at indices $k\neq m,m+1$ because of
condition~(i).  Also, using symmetry
and multiplying condition (ii) by $a_m$ gives
$a_m^2 \ge 2 a_{m-1} a_{m} = 2 a_{m-1} a_{m+1}$ (and symmetrically for
$k=m+1$).

So now we know that condition~(i) is also true for ${\cal L}(a_k)$.  As for
condition~(ii), using symmetry we see that we need to prove
$$
a_m^2-a_{m-1} a_m\ge 2\left( a_{m-1}^2-a_{m-2} a_m \right).
$$
Rearranging terms and dropping one of them shows that it suffices to
demonstrate
$$
2 a_{m-1}^2 + a_{m-1} a_m \le a_m^2.
$$
But this is true because of~(ii), and we are done.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}[\cite{uy:uri}]
Any sequence corresponding to a point of ${\cal R}$ is infinitely log-concave.
\eth
\begin{proof}
It suffices to show that the sequence satisfies the hypotheses of
Lemma~\ref{rfactor:le} when $n=2m$, or Lemma~\ref{rfactor:mod} when $n=2m+1$.

Suppose first that
$k<m$.  Being on the correct side of ${\cal H}_k$
is equivalent to there being values of the parameters such that
$$
a_k^2
\hs{5pt}\ge\hs{5pt}
(r_1 x^{s_k})^2
\hs{5pt}=\hs{5pt}
r_1^2 x^{(s_{k-1}+d_k)+(s_{k+1}-d_{k+1})}
\hs{5pt}=\hs{5pt}
r_0 a_{k-1} a_{k+1}.
$$
Thus we have the necessary inequalities for this range of $k$.

If $k=m$ then we can use an argument as in the previous paragraph if $n=2m$.
If
$n=2m+1$, then being on the correct side of ${\cal H}_m$
is equivalent to
$$
a_m\ge 2 x^{s_{m-1}}=2 a_{m-1}.
$$
This is precisely condition~(ii) of Lemma~\ref{rfactor:mod}, which finishes
the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Columns and other lines of Pascal's triangle}
\label{cpt}

While we have treated Boros and Moll's statement about the infinite
log-concavity of the binomial coefficients to be a statement about the
rows of Pascal's triangle, their wording also suggests an examination
of the columns.
\begin{conj}
\label{col:con}
The sequence $\binom{n}{k}_{n\ge k}$ is  infinitely log-concave for
all fixed $k\ge0$.
\end{conj}

We will give two pieces of evidence for this conjecture.  One is a demonstration
that various columns corresponding to small values
of $k$ are infinitely log-concave.
 Another is a proof that ${\cal L}_n^i\binom{n}{k}$ is
nonnegative for certain values of $i$ and all $k$.

\begin{prop}
\label{small:k}
The sequence $\binom{n}{k}_{n\ge k}$ is  infinitely log-concave for
$0\le k \le 2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}  When $k=0$ we have, for all $i \geq 1$,
$$
{\cal L}_n^i\binom{n}{0}=(1,0,0,0,\ldots).
$$
For $k=1$ we obtain
$$
{\cal L}_n\binom{n}{1} = (1,1,1,\dots)
$$
so infinite log-concavity follows from the $k=0$ case.
The sequence when $k=2$ is a fixed point of
the ${\cal L}$-operator, again implying infinite log-concavity.
\end{proof}

In what follows, we use the notation $L(a_k)$ for the $k$th
element of the sequence ${\cal L}(a_k)$, and similarly for $L_k$ and $L_n$.

\begin{prop}
\label{small:i}
The sequence ${\cal L}_n^i\binom{n}{k}$ is nonnegative for all $k$ and for
$0\le i\le 4$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By the previous proposition, we only need to check $k\ge3$.
Using the expression for a binomial coefficient in terms of
factorials, it is easy to derive the following expressions:
$$
L_n\binom{n}{k} =
\frac{1}{n}\binom{n}{k}\binom{n}{k-1}
$$
and
$$
L_n^2\binom{n}{k} =
\frac{2}{n^2 (n-1)}
\binom{n}{k}^2 \binom{n}{k-1}\binom{n}{k-2}.
$$

With a little more work, one can show that $L_n^3\binom{n}{k}$ can
be expressed as a product of nonnegative factors times the polynomial
$$
(4k-6)n^2-(4k^2-10k+6)n-k^2.
$$
To show that this is nonnegative, we write $n=k+m$ for $m\ge0$ to get
$$
(4k-6)m^2+(4k^2-2k-6)m+(3k^2-6k).
$$
But the coefficients of the powers of $m$ are all positive for $k\ge3$,
so we are done with the case $i=3$.

When $i=4$, we follow the same procedure, only now the polynomial in
$m$ has coefficients which are polynomials in $k$ up to degree $7$.
For example, the coefficient of $m^3$ is
$$
528 k^7- 8 k^6 - 11,248 k^5 + 25,360 k^4 - 5,888 k^3 - 24,296 k^2
+16,080 k - 1,584.
$$
To make sure this is nonnegative for integral $k\ge3$, one rewrites
the polynomial as
$$
(528 k^2- 8 k - 11,248) k^5 + (25,360 k^2 - 5,888 k - 24,296) k^2
+(16,080 k - 1,584),
$$
finds the smallest $k$ such that each of the factors in parentheses is
nonnegative from this value on, and then checks any remaining $k$ by
direct substitution.
\end{proof}

Kauers and Paule~\cite{kp:cpm} proved that the rows of Pascal's
triangle are $i$-fold log-concave for $i\le5$.
Kauers~[private communication] has used their techniques to confirm
Proposition~\ref{small:i} and to also check the case $i=5$ for the
columns.  For the latter case, Kauers used a computer to determine
\begin{equation}
\label{kau}
\frac{({\cal L}_n^5 \binom{n}{k})}{\binom{n}{k}^{2^5}}
\end{equation}
explicitly, which
is just a rational function in $n$ and $k$.  He then showed that
\ree{kau} is nonnegative by means of cylindrical algebraic decomposition.
We refer the interested reader to~\cite{kp:cpm} and the references therein for more
information on such techniques.

More generally, we can look at an arbitrary line in Pascal's triangle,
i.e.,  consider the sequence $\binom{n+mu}{k+mv}_{m\ge0}$.
The unimodality and (1-fold) log-concavity of such sequences has been investigated in
\cite{bbs:ucs, sw:upp, tz:usb, tz:usb2}.
We do not require that $u$ and $v$ be coprime, so such sequences
need not contain all of the binomial coefficients in which a geometric
line would intersect Pascal's triangle, e.g., a sequence such as
$\binom{n}{0}, \binom{n}{2},\binom{n}{4},\ldots$ would be included.
By letting $u<0$, one can get a finite truncation of a column.  For
example, if $n=5$, $k=3$, $u=-1$, and $v=0$ then we get the sequence
$$
\binom{5}{3}, \binom{4}{3}, \binom{3}{3}
$$
which is not even $2$-fold log-concave.   So we will only consider $u\ge0$.
Also
$$
\binom{n+mu}{k+mv} = \binom{n+mu}{n-k+m(u-v)}
$$
so we can also assume $v\ge0$.

We offer the following conjecture, which includes
Conjecture~\ref{bm:con} as a special case.
\begin{conj}
\label{all:con}
Suppose that $u$ and $v$ are distinct nonnegative integers.  Then
$\binom{n+mu}{mv}_{m\ge0}$ is infinitely log-concave for all $n \geq 0$ if
and only if $u<v$ or $v=0$.
\end{conj}

We first give a quick proof of the ``only if'' direction.  Supposing
that $u>v \ge1$, we consider the sequence
$$
\binom{0}{0}, \binom{u}{v}, \binom{2u}{2v}, \ldots
$$
obtained when $n=0$.
We claim that this sequence is not even log-concave and that
log-concavity fails at the second term.  Indeed, the fact that
$\binom{u}{v}^2 < \binom{2u}{2v}$ follows immediately from the
identity
\[
\binom{u}{0}\binom{u}{2v} + \binom{u}{1}\binom{u}{2v-1} + \cdots +
\binom{u}{v}\binom{u}{v} + \cdots + \binom{u}{2v}\binom{u}{0} = \binom{2u}{2v},
\]
which is a special case of Vandermonde's Convolution.

The proof just given shows that subsequences of the columns of
Pascal's triangle are the only {\it infinite} sequences of the form
$\binom{n+mu}{mv}_{m\ge0}$ that can possibly be infinitely log-concave.
We also note that the previous conjecture says nothing about what
happens on the diagonal $u=v$.  Of course, the case $u=v=1$ is
Conjecture~\ref{col:con}.  For other diagonal values, the evidence is
conflicting.
One can show by computer that $\binom{n+mu}{mu}_{m\ge0}$ is not $4$-fold log-concave
for $n=2$ and any
$2\le u\le500$.  However, this is the only {\it known} value of $n$
for which $\binom{n+mu}{mu}_{m\ge0}$ is not an infinitely log-concave
sequence for some $u\ge1$.

We conclude this section by offering considerable computational
evidence in favor of the ``if'' direction of Conjecture~\ref{all:con}.
Theorem~\ref{row:th} provides such evidence when $u=0$ and $v=1$.  Since all
other
sequences with $u<v$ have a finite number of nonzero entries, we can
use the $r_0$-factor log-concavity technique for these sequences as well.
For all $n\le 500$, $2\le v\le20$ and $0\le u<v$, we have checked that
$\binom{n+mu}{mv}_{m\ge0}$ is infinitely log-concave.

\section{$q$-analogues}
\label{gps}

This section will be devoted to discussing two $q$-analogues of
binomial coefficients.   For the Gaussian polynomials, we will see
that the corresponding generalization of Conjecture~\ref{bm:con} is
false, and we show one exact reason why it fails.  In contrast, the
corresponding generalization of Conjecture~\ref{col:con} appears to be
true.   This shows how delicate these conjectures are and may in part
explain why they seem to be difficult to prove.  After introducing our
second $q$-analogue, we
conjecture that the corresponding generalizations of
Conjectures~\ref{bm:con}, \ref{col:con} and \ref{all:con} are all
true.  This second $q$-analogue arises in the study of quantum groups; see,
for example, the books of Jantzen~\cite{jan:lqg} and Majid~\cite{maj:qgp}.

Let $q$ be a variable and consider a polynomial $f(q)\in{\mathbb R}[q]$.
Call $f(q)$ \linebreak $q$-{\it nonnegative\/}  if all the coefficients of $f(q)$ are
nonnegative.  Apply
the ${\cal L}$-operator to sequences of polynomials $(f_k(q))$ in the
obvious way.  Call such a sequence {\it $q$-log-concave\/} if
${\cal L}(f_k(q))$ is a sequence of $q$-nonnegative polynomials, with
$i$-fold $q$-log-concavity and infinite $q$-log-concavity defined
similarly.

We will be particularly interested in the Gaussian polynomials.  The
standard {\it $q$-analogue of the nonnegative integer $n$\/} is
$$
[n]=[n]_q=\frac{1-q^n}{1-q} = 1+q+q^2+\cdots+q^{n-1}.
$$
Then, for $0\le k\le n$, the {\it Gaussian polynomials\/} or
{\it $q$-binomial coefficients\/} are defined as
$$
\gaus{n}{k}=\gaus{n}{k}_q = \frac{[n]_q!}{[k]_q! [n-k]_q!}
$$
where $[n]_q!=[1]_q [2]_q\cdots [n]_q$.   For more information,
including proofs of the assertions made in the next paragraph, see the
book of Andrews~\cite{and:tp}.

Clearly substituting $q=1$ gives $\genfrac{[}{]}{0pt}{}{n}{k}_1=\binom{n}{k}$.
Also, it is well known that the Gaussian polynomials
are indeed $q$-nonnegative polynomials.  In fact, they have
various combinatorial interpretations, one of which we will need.
An (integer) {\it partition of $n$\/} is a weakly decreasing
positive integer sequence $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\ldots,\lambda_\ell)$ such
that $|\lambda|\stackrel{\rm def}{=}\sum_i \lambda_i=n$.  The $\lambda_i$ are
called {\it parts\/}.  For notational convenience, if a part $k$ is repeated $r$ times in a
partition $\lambda$ then we will denote this by writing $k^r$ in the
sequence for $\lambda$.
We say that $\lambda$ {\it fits inside an $s\times t$ box} if
$\lambda_1\le t$ and  $\ell\le s$.  Denote the set of all such partitions
by $P(s,t)$.
It is well known, and easy to prove by induction on $n$, that
\begin{equation}
\label{gau}
\gaus{n}{k}=\sum_{\lambda\in P(n-k,k)} q^{|\lambda|}.
\end{equation}

We are almost ready to prove that the sequence
$\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)_{k\ge0}$ is not infinitely $q$-log-concave.
In fact, we will show it is not even $2$-fold $q$-log-concave.
First we need a lemma.  In it, we use $\mathop{\rm mint}\nolimits f(q)$ to denote the
nonzero term of least degree in $f(q)$.
\begin{lem}
\label{mint}
Let $L_k\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)=B_k(q)$.  Then for $k\le n/2$,
$$
\mathop{\rm mint}\nolimits B_k(q)=
\case{q^k}{if $k<n/2$,}{2q^k}{if $k=n/2$.}
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $B_k(q)=\gaus{n}{k}^2-\gaus{n}{k-1}\gaus{n}{k+1}$ it suffices to
prove, in view of~\ree{gau}, the following two statements.  If $i\le k$ and
$$
(\lambda,\mu)\in P(n-k+1,k-1)\times P(n-k-1,k+1)
$$
with $|\lambda|+|\mu|=i$, then $(\lambda,\mu)\in P(n-k,k)^2$.  Furthermore,
the number of elements in
$P(n-k,k)^2- P(n-k+1,k-1)\times P(n-k-1,k+1)$ is 0 or 1 or 2 depending
on whether $i<k$ or $i=k<n/2$ or $i=k=n/2$, respectively.

The first statement is an easy consequence of
$|\lambda|+|\mu|=i\le k\le n-k$.  A similar argument works for the $i<k$
case of the second statement.  If $i=k$ then the pair $((k),\emptyset)$ is in the
difference and if $i=k=n/2$ then the pair $(\emptyset,(1^k))$ is as well.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
\label{gau:pr}
Let $L_k^2\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)=C_k(q)$.  Then for
$n\ge2$ and $k=\fl{n/2}$ we have
$$
\mathop{\rm mint}\nolimits C_k(q)=-q^{n-2}.
$$
Consequently, $\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)_{k\ge0}$ is not $2$-fold $q$-log-concave.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The proofs for $n$ even and odd are similar, so we will only do the
former.  So suppose $n=2k$ and consider
$$
C_k(q)=B_k(q)^2-B_{k-1}(q)B_{k+1}(q)=B_k(q)^2-B_{k-1}(q)^2.
$$
By the previous lemma
$\mathop{\rm mint}\nolimits B_k(q)^2=4q^{2k}$ and $\mathop{\rm mint}\nolimits B_{k-1}(q)^2= q^{2k-2}$.  Thus
$\mathop{\rm mint}\nolimits C_k(q) = -q^{2k-2}=-q^{n-2}$ as desired.
\end{proof}

After what we have just proved, it may seem surprising that the
following conjecture, which is a $q$-analogue of
Conjecture~\ref{col:con}, does seem to hold.
\begin{conj}
\label{qcol:con}
The sequence $\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)_{n\ge k}$ is  infinitely
$q$-log-concave for
all fixed $k\ge0$.
\end{conj}

As evidence, we will prove a $q$-analogue of Proposition~\ref{small:k}
and comment on Proposition~\ref{small:i} in this setting.
\begin{prop}
\label{qsmall:k}
The sequence $\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)_{n\ge k}$ is  infinitely
$q$-log-concave for
$0\le k\le 2$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
When $k=0$ one has the same sequence as when $q=1$.

When $k=1$ we claim that
$$
{\cal L}\left(\gaus{n}{1}\right) = (1,q,q^2,q^3,\ldots).
$$
Indeed,

\begin{eqnarray*}
[n]^2-[n-1][n+1]
&=& \frac{(1-q^n)^2-(1-q^{n-1})(1-q^{n+1})}{(1-q)^2}\\
&=& \frac{q^{n-1}-2q^n+q^{n+1}}{(1-q)^2}\\
&=& q^{n-1}
\end{eqnarray*}
(and recall that the sequence starts at $n=1$).  It follows that
$$
{\cal L}^i\left(\gaus{n}{1}\right) = (1,0,0,0,\ldots)
$$
for $i\ge2$.

For $k=2$, the manipulations are much like those in the previous paragraph.
Using induction on $i$, we obtain
$$
L^i\left(\gaus{n}{2}\right) = q^{(2^i-1)(n-2)}\gaus{n}{2}
$$
for $i\ge0$.  This completes the proof of the last case of the
proposition.
\end{proof}

If we now consider arbitrary $k$ it is not hard to show, using
algebraic manipulations like those in the proof just given,
that
\begin{equation}
\label{lq}
L_n \left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)=
\frac{q^{n-k}}{[n]}\gaus{n}{k}\gaus{n}{k-1}.
\end{equation}
These are, up to a power of $q$, the $q$-Narayana numbers.  They were
introduced by F\"urlinger and Hofbauer~\cite{fh:qcn} and are contained
in a specialization of a result of MacMahon~\cite[page 1429]{mac:cp}
which was stated without proof.  They were further studied by
Br\"and\'en~\cite{bra:qnn}.  As shown in the references just cited,
these polynomials are the generating functions for a number of
different families of combinatorial objects.  Thus they are $q$-nonnegative.

More computations show that
\begin{equation}
\label{llq}
L_n^2\left(\gaus{n}{k}\right)
=\frac{q^{3n-3k}[2]}{[n]^2[n-1]}\gaus{n}{k}^2\gaus{n}{k-1}\gaus{n}{k-1}.
\end{equation}
It is not clear that these polynomials are $q$-nonnegative, although they
must be if Conjecture~\ref{qcol:con} is true.  Furthermore, when $q=1$,
the triangle made as $n$ and $k$ vary is not in Sloane's
Encyclopedia~\cite{slo:oei} (although it has now been submitted).  We
expect that these integers and polynomials have interesting, yet to be
discovered, properties.

We conclude our discussion of the Gaussian polynomials by considering the
sequence
\begin{equation}
\label{gs}
\left(\gaus{n+mu}{mv}\right)_{m\ge0}
\end{equation}
for nonnegative integers $u$ and $v$, as we did in Section~\ref{cpt} for the
binomial coefficients.
When $u>v$ the sequence has an infinite number of nonzero entries.  We
can use $\eqref{gau}$ to show that the highest degree term in
$\gaus{n+u}{v}^2 - \gaus{n+2u}{2v}$ has coefficient $-1$, so the
sequence \eqref{gs} is not even $q$-log-concave.   When $u<v$, it
seems to be the case that the sequence is not $2$-fold $q$-log-concave,
as shown for the rows in Proposition~\ref{gau:pr}.  When $u=v$, the
evidence is conflicting, reflecting the behavior of the binomial
coefficients.  Since setting $q=1$ in $\gaus{n+mu}{mu}$ yields
$\binom{n+mu}{mu}$, we know that
$\left(\gaus{2+mu}{mu}\right)_{m\ge0}$ is not always
$4$-fold $q$-log-concave.  It also transpires that the case $n=3$ is
not always $5$-fold $q$-log-concave.  We have not encountered other
values of $n$ that fail to yield a $q$-log-concave sequence when
$u=v$.

While the variety of behavior of the Gaussian polynomials is
interesting, it would be desirable to have a $q$-analogue that
better reflects the behavior of the binomial coefficients.  A
$q$-analogue that arises in the study of quantum groups serves
this purpose.  Let us
replace the previous $q$-analogue of the nonnegative integer $n$
with the expression
$$
\langle n\rangle = \frac{q^n-q^{-n}}{q-q^{-1}} =
q^{1-n} + q^{3-n} + q^{5-n} + \cdots + q^{n-1}.
$$
From this, we obtain a $q$-analogue of the binomial coefficients by
proceeding as for the Gaussian polynomials: for $0\le k\le n$, we
define
$$
\qua{n}{k} = \frac{\langle n\rangle!}{\langle k\rangle! \langle n-k\rangle!}
$$
where $\langle n\rangle!=\langle1 \rangle \langle2 \rangle\cdots \langle
n\rangle$.

Letting $q\to1$ in $\qua{n}{k}$ gives $\binom{n}{k}$, and a
straightforward calculation shows that
\begin{equation}
\label{quagau}
\qua{n}{k} = \frac{1}{q^{nk-k^2}}\gaus{n}{k}_{q^2}.
\end{equation}
So $\qua{n}{k}$ is, in general, a Laurent polynomial in $q$
with nonnegative coefficients.  Our definitions of $q$-nonnegativity and $q$-log-concavity for polynomials in $q$ extend to Laurent polynomials in the obvious way.

We offer the following generalizations of Conjectures~\ref{bm:con},
\ref{col:con} and \ref{all:con}.

\begin{conj}
\label{qua:con}
\
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] The row sequence $\left(\qua{n}{k}\right)_{k\ge0}$ is
  infinitely $q$-log-concave for all $n\ge0$.
\item[(b)] The column sequence $\left(\qua{n}{k}\right)_{n\ge
    k}$ is infinitely $q$-log-concave for all fixed $k\ge0$.
\item[(c)] For all integers $0\le u<v$, the sequence
  $\left(\qua{n+mu}{mv}\right)_{m\ge0}$ is infinitely
  $q$-log-concave for all $n\ge0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{conj}

Several remarks are in order.  Suppose that for $f(g), g(q) \in
{\mathbb R}[q, q^{-1}]$, we say $f(q) \le g(q)$  if $g(q)-f(q)$ is $q$-nonnegative.
Then the proofs of Lemmas~\ref{rfactor:le} and
\ref{rfactor:mod} work equally well if the $a_i$'s are Laurent
polynomials and we replace the term ``log-concave'' by
``$q$-log-concave.''  Using these lemmas, we have verified
Conjecture~\ref{qua:con}(a) for all $n\le 53$.   Even though (a) is a
special case of (c), we state it separately since (a) is the
$q$-generalization of the Boros-Moll conjecture, the primary
motivation for this paper.

As evidence for Conjecture~\ref{qua:con}(b), it is not hard to prove
the appropriate analogue of Propositions~\ref{small:k} and
\ref{qsmall:k}, i.e.\ that the sequence $\qua{n}{k}_{n\ge k}$ is
infinitely $q$-log-concave for all $0\le k\le2$.  To obtain the
expressions for $L_n\left(\qua{n}{k}\right)$ and
$L_n^2\left(\qua{n}{k}\right)$, take
equations~\eqref{lq} and \eqref{llq}, replace all square
brackets by angle brackets and replace each the terms $q^{n-k}$ and
$q^{3n-3k}$ by the number 1.

Conjecture~\ref{qua:con}(c) has been verified for all $n\le 24$
with $v\le10$.   When $u > v$, we can use $\eqref{quagau}$ to show
that the lowest degree term in  $\qua{n+u}{v}^2 - \qua{n+2u}{2v}$ has
coefficient $-1$, so the sequence is not even $q$-log-concave.
When $u=v$, the quantum groups analogue has exactly the same behavior
as we observed above for the Gaussian polynomials.

\section{Symmetric functions}
\label{sf}

We now turn our attention to symmetric functions.
We will demonstrate that the complete homogeneous symmetric functions
$(h_k)_{k\ge0}$ are a natural analogue of the rows and columns of
Pascal's triangle.  We show that the sequence
$(h_k)_{k\ge0}$ is
$i$-fold log-concave in the appropriate sense for $i\le3$,
but not $4$-fold log-concave.
Like the results of Section~\ref{gps}, this
result underlines the difficulties and subtleties of
Conjectures~\ref{bm:con} and~\ref{col:con}.  In particular, it shows
that any proof of Conjecture~\ref{bm:con} or Conjecture~\ref{col:con}
would need to use techniques that do not carry over to the sequence
$(h_k)_{k\ge0}$.
For a more detailed
exposition of the background material below, we refer the reader to
the texts of Fulton~\cite{ful:yt}, Macdonald~\cite{mac:sfh},
Sagan~\cite{sag:sym} or Stanley~\cite{sta:ec2}.

Let ${\bf x}=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots\}$ be a countably infinite set of variables.
For each $n\ge0$, the elements of the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ act on formal
power series $f({\bf x})\in{\mathbb R}[[{\bf x}]]$ by permutation of variables (where
$x_i$ is left fixed if $i>n$).  The algebra of symmetric functions,
$\Lambda({\bf x})$, is the set of all series left fixed by all symmetric
groups and of bounded (total) degree.

The vector space of symmetric functions homogeneous of degree $k$ has
dimension equal to the number of partitions
$\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_\ell)$ of $k$.  We will be
interested in three bases for this vector space.  The
{\it monomial symmetric function\/} corresponding to $\lambda$,
$m_\lambda=m_\lambda({\bf x})$, is obtained by
symmetrizing the monomial $x_1^{\lambda_1}\cdots x_\ell^{\lambda_\ell}$.  The
$k$th {\it complete homogeneous symmetric function\/}, $h_k$, is the sum of
all monomials of degree $k$.  For partitions, we then define
$$
h_\lambda=h_{\lambda_1}\cdots h_{\lambda_\ell}.
$$
Finally, the
{\it Schur function\/} corresponding to $\lambda$ is
$$
s_\lambda= \det(h_{\lambda_i-i+j})_{1\le i,j \le \ell}.
$$
We remark that this determinant is a minor of the Toeplitz matrix for
the sequence $(h_k)$.  We will have more to say about Toeplitz matrices
in the next section.

Our interest will be in the sequence just mentioned
$(h_k)_{k\ge0}$.  Let $h_k(1^n)$
denote the integer obtained by substituting $x_1=\cdots=x_n=1$ and
$x_i=0$ for $i>n$ into $h_k=h_k({\bf x})$.  Then $h_k(1^n)=\binom{n+k-1}{k}$
(the number of ways of choosing $k$ things from $n$ things with
repetition) and so the above sequence becomes a column of Pascal's
triangle.  By the same token $h_k(1^{n-k})=\binom{n-1}{k}$ and so the
sequence becomes a row.

We will now collect the results from the theory of symmetric functions
which we will need.
Partially order partitions by {\it dominance\/}
where $\lambda\le\mu$ if and only if for every $i\ge1$ we have
$\lambda_1+\cdots+\lambda_i\le\mu_1+\cdots+\mu_i$.  Also,  if  $\{b_\lambda\}$ is
any basis of $\Lambda({\bf x})$ and $f\in\Lambda({\bf x})$ then we let
$[b_\lambda]f$ denote the coefficient of the basis element $b_\lambda$ in the
expansion of $f$ in this basis.   First we have a simple consequence
of Young's Rule.
\begin{thm}
\label{yr}
For any partitions $\lambda,\mu$ we have $[m_\mu] s_\lambda$ is a nonnegative
integer.  In particular,

\vs{5pt}

\eqed{
[m_\mu]s_\lambda=
\case{$1$}{if $\mu=\lambda$,}
{$0$}{if $\mu\not\le \lambda.$}
}
\eth

Let $\lambda+\mu$ denote the componentwise sum
$(\lambda_1+\mu_1,\lambda_2+\mu_2,\ldots)$.
The next result follows from the
Littlewood-Richardson Rule and induction.
\begin{thm}
\label{lrr}
For any partitions $\lambda^1,\ldots,\lambda^r$ and $\mu$ we have
$[s_\mu] s_{\lambda^1}\cdots s_{\lambda_r}$ is a nonnegative integer.  In particular,

\vs{5pt}

\eqed{
[s_\mu]s_{\lambda^1}\cdots s_{\lambda^r}=
\case{$1$}{if $\mu=\lambda^1+\cdots+\lambda^r$,}
{$0$}{if $\mu\not\le \lambda^1+\cdots+\lambda^r$.}
}
\eth
Because of this result we call $\lambda^1+\cdots+\lambda^r$ the
{\it dominant partition\/} for $s_{\lambda^1}\cdots s_{\lambda^r}$.

Finally, we need a result of Kirillov~\cite{kir:csg} about the product
of Schur functions, which was proved bijectively by Kleber~\cite{kle:prs} and
Fulmek and Kleber~\cite{fk:bps}.  This result can be obtained by applying the Desnanot-Jacobi Identity---also known as Dodgson's condensation formula---to the Jacobi-Trudi matrix for $s_{k^{r+1}}$.
Note that, to improve readability, we drop the sequence parentheses when a sequence appears as a subscript.

\begin{thm}[\cite{fk:bps,kir:csg,kle:prs}]
\label{kir:thm}
For positive integers $k,r$ we have

\vs{5pt}

\eqed{
\left(s_{k^r}\right)^2 - s_{(k-1)^r} s_{(k+1)^r} = s_{k^{r-1}} s_{k^{r+1}}.
}
\eth

To state our results, we need a few more definitions.  If ${b_\lambda}$ is
a basis for $\Lambda({\bf x})$ and $f\in\Lambda({\bf x})$ then we
say $f$ is {\it $b_\lambda$-nonnegative\/} if $[b_\lambda]f\ge0$ for all
partitions $\lambda$.  Note that $m_\lambda$-nonnegativity is the natural
generalization to many variables of the $q$-nonnegativity definition for
${\mathbb R}[q]$.  Also note that $s_\lambda$-nonnegativity implies
$m_\lambda$-nonnegativity by Theorem~\ref{yr}.
\begin{thm}
The sequence ${\cal L}^i(h_k)$ is $s_\lambda$-nonnegative  for $0\le  i\le 3$.
But the sequence ${\cal L}^4(h_k)$ is not $m_\lambda$-nonnegative.
\eth
\begin{proof}
From the definition of the Schur function we have
$$
L^0(h_k)=h_k=s_k \quad\mbox{and}\quad L^1(h_k)=(h_k)^2-h_{k-1}h_{k+1}=s_{k^2}.
$$
Now Theorem~\ref{kir:thm} immediately gives
$$
L^2(h_k) = \left(s_{k^2}\right)^2 - s_{(k-1)^2}s_{(k+1)^2} = s_k s_{k^3}
$$
which is $s_\lambda$-nonnegative by the first part of Theorem~\ref{lrr}.
Using Theorem~\ref{kir:thm} twice gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
L^3(h_k)
&=& \left(s_k\right)^2 \left(s_{k^3}\right)^2 - s_{k-1} s_{(k-1)^3} s_{k+1} s_{(k+1)^3}\\
&=& \left(s_k\right)^2 \left(s_{k^3}\right)^2 - \left(s_k\right)^2 s_{(k-1)^3} s_{(k+1)^3}\\
& & + \left(s_k\right)^2 s_{(k-1)^3} s_{(k+1)^3} - s_{k-1} s_{(k-1)^3} s_{k+1} s_{(k+1)^3}\\
&=& \left(s_k\right)^2 s_{k^2} s_{k^4} +  s_{(k-1)^3} s_{k^2} s_{(k+1)^3}
\end{eqnarray*}
which is again $s_\lambda$-nonnegative.  This finishes the cases
$0\le i\le3$.

We now assume $k\ge2$.  Computing $L^4(h_k)$ from the expression for
$L^3(h_k)$ gives the sum of the terms in the left column below.  The right column gives the dominant partition for each term, as determined by Theorem~\ref{lrr}.
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
+(s_k)^4 (s_{k^2})^2  (s_{k^4})^2
& (8k, 4k, 2k, 2k) \\
+2 (s_k)^2 (s_{k^2}) ^2  s_{k^4} s_{(k-1)^3} s_{(k+1)^3}
& (7k, 5k, 3k, k) \\
+ (s_{(k-1)^3})^2 (s_{k^2})^2  (s_{(k+1)^3})^2
& (6k, 6k, 4k) \\
-  (s_{k-1})^2 s_{(k-1)^2} s_{(k-1)^4} (s_{k+1})^2 s_{(k+1)^2} s_{(k+1)^4}
& (8k, 4k, 2k, 2k) \\
- (s_{k-1})^2 s_{(k-1)^2} s_{(k-1)^4} s_{k^3} s_{(k+1)^2} s_{(k+2)^3}
& (7k-1, 5k+1, 3k+1, k-1) \\
-s_{(k-2)^3} s_{(k-1)^2} s_{k^3} (s_{k+1})^2 s_{(k+1)^2} s_{(k+1)^4}
& (7k+1, 5k-1, 3k-1, k+1)\\
-s_{(k-2)^3} s_{(k-1)^2} (s_{k^3})^2 s_{(k+1)^2} s_{(k+2)^3}
& (6k, 6k, 4k)
\end{array}
\]

Now consider $\lambda=(7k+1,5k-1,3k-1,k+1)$, the dominant partition for the penultimate term above.  Observe that if $\mu$ is the dominant partition for any other
term, then $\lambda\not\le\mu$.  So, by the
second part of Theorem~\ref{lrr}, $s_\lambda$ appears in the Schur-basis
expansion for $L^4(h_k)$ with coefficient $-1$.  It then follows from the
second part of Theorem~\ref{yr}, that
the coefficient of $m_\lambda$ is $-1$ as well.
\end{proof}

\section{Real roots and Toeplitz matrices}
\label{rrp}

We now consider two other (almost equivalent) settings where, in contrast
to the results of the previous section, Conjecture~\ref{bm:con} does
seem to generalize.  In fact, this may be the right level of
generality to find a proof.

Let $(a_k)=a_0,a_1,\ldots,a_n$ be a finite sequence of nonnegative real numbers.
It was shown by Isaac Newton that if all the roots of the polynomial
$p[a_k]\stackrel{\rm def}{=}a_0 + a_1 x + \cdots a_n x^n$ are real, then the
sequence $(a_k)$
is log-concave.  For example, since the polynomial
$(1+x)^n$ has only real roots, the $n$th row of Pascal's triangle is
log-concave.  It is natural to ask if the real-rootedness property is
preserved by the ${\cal L}$-operator.
The literature includes a
number of results about operations on polynomials which preserve
real-rootedness; for example,
see~\cite{bra:ltp,bre:ulp,bre:lus,pit:pbc,wag:tph,wy:prz}.

\begin{conj}
\label{pla:con}
Let $(a_k)$ be a finite sequence of nonnegative real numbers.  If $p[a_k]$
has only real roots then the same is true of $p[{\cal L}(a_k)]$.
\end{conj}

This conjecture is due independently to
Richard Stanley~[private communication].  It is also one of a number
of related conjectures made by Steve Fisk~\cite{fis:qdp}.
If true, Conjecture~\ref{pla:con}
would immediately imply the original Boros-Moll Conjecture.
As evidence for the conjecture, we have verified it by computer for a
large number of randomly chosen real-rooted polynomials.  We have also checked
that
$p[{\cal L}_k^i\binom{n}{k}]$ has only real roots for all $i\le 10$ and
$n\le 40$.  It is interesting to note that  Boros and Moll's
polynomial $P_m(x)$ in equation~\ree{Pm} does not have real roots even
for $m=2$.  So if the corresponding sequence is infinitely log-concave
then it must be so for some other reason.

Along with the rows of Pascal's triangle, it appears that applying ${\cal L}$ to the other finite lines we were considering in Section~\ref{cpt} also yields sequences with real-rooted
generating functions.
So we make the following conjecture
which implies the ``if'' direction of Conjecture~\ref{all:con}.
\begin{conj}
For $0\le u<v$, the polynomial $p[{\cal L}_m^i(\binom{n+mu}{mv})]$  has
only real roots for all $i\ge0$.
\end{conj}
We have verified this assertion for all $n\le24$ with $i\le10$ and
$v\le10$.
In fact, it follows from a theorem of Yu~\cite{yu:ctc} that the conjecture holds for $i=0$ and all $0\le u<v$.  So it will suffice to prove Conjecture~\ref{pla:con} to obtain this result for all $i$.

We can obtain a matrix-theoretic perspective on problems of
real-rooted\-ness via
the following renowned result of Aissen, Schoenberg and
Whitney~\cite{asw:gft}.  A matrix $A$ is said to be totally
nonnegative if every minor of $A$ is nonnegative.
We can associate with any sequence $(a_k)$ a corresponding
(infinite) {\it Toeplitz matrix\/} $A = (a_{j-i})_{i,j\ge0}$.
In comparing the
next theorem to Newton's result, note that for a real-rooted
polynomial $p[a_k]$ the roots being nonpositive is
equivalent to the sequence $(a_k)$ being nonnegative.

\begin{thm}[\cite{asw:gft}]
\label{asw:th}
Let $(a_k)$ be a finite sequence of real numbers.  Then every root of
$p[a_k]$ is a nonpositive real number if and only if the
Toeplitz matrix $(a_{j-i})_{i,j\ge0}$ is totally nonnegative. \hfill \qed
\eth

To make a connection with the ${\cal L}$-operator, note that
$$
a_k^2-a_{k-1}a_{k+1}= \left| \begin{array}{cc} a_k & a_{k+1} \\ a_{k-1} & a_k
\end{array} \right|,
$$
which is a minor of the Toeplitz matrix
$A =(a_{j-i})_{i,j\ge0}$.  Call such a minor {\it adjacent}
since its entries are adjacent in $A$.
Now, for an arbitrary infinite matrix
$A = (a_{i,j})_{i,j\geq 0}$, let us define the infinite matrix ${\cal L}(A)$ by
$$
{\cal L}(A) = \left( \left|
\begin{array}{cc} a_{i,j}   & a_{i,j+1} \\
                  a_{i+1,j} & a_{i+1,j+1}
\end{array}
\right| \right)_{i,j \ge0}.
$$
Note that if $A$ is the Toeplitz matrix of $(a_k)$ then ${\cal L}(A)$ is
the Toeplitz matrix of ${\cal L}(a_k)$.
Using Theorem~\ref{asw:th}, Conjecture~\ref{pla:con} can now be strengthened as
follows.

\begin{conj}
\label{tnn:con}
For a sequence $(a_k)$ of real numbers,
if $A = (a_{j-i})_{i,j\ge0}$ is totally nonnegative then ${\cal L}(A)$ is also
totally nonnegative.
\end{conj}

Note that if $(a_k)$ is finite, then Conjecture~\ref{tnn:con} is equivalent to Conjecture~\ref{pla:con}.
As regards evidence for Conjecture~\ref{tnn:con}, consider an arbitrary $n$-by-$n$
matrix $A = (a_{i,j})_{i,j=1}^n$.  For finite matrices, ${\cal L}(A)$ is
defined in the obvious way to be the $(n-1)$-by-$(n-1)$ matrix
consisting of the 2-by-2 adjacent minors of $A$.
In~\cite[Theorem 6.5]{fhgj:ctp}, Fallat, Herman, Gekhtman, and Johnson
show that for $n\le4$, ${\cal L}(A)$
is totally nonnegative whenever $A$ is.  However,
for $n=5$, an example from their paper can be modified to show that
if
$$
A =
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
1 & t & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
t & t^2+1 & 2t & t^2 & 0\\
t^2 & t^3+2t & 1+4t^2 & 2t^3+t & 0\\
0 & t^2 & 2t^3+2t & t^4+2t^2+1 & t\\
0 & 0 & t^2 & t^3+t & t^2
\end{array}
\right)
$$
then $A$ is totally nonnegative for $t\ge0$,  but ${\cal L}(A)$ is not
totally nonnegative for sufficiently large $t$ ($t\ge\sqrt{2}$ will
suffice).  We conclude that the Toeplitz structure would be important
to any affirmative answer to Conjecture~\ref{tnn:con}.

We finish our discussion of the matrix-theoretic perspective with a
positive result similar in flavor to Conjecture~\ref{tnn:con}.

\begin{prop}
If $A$ is a finite square matrix that is positive semidefinite, then ${\cal L}(A)$
is also positive semidefinite.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
The key idea is to construct the {\it second compound matrix}
$\mathcal{C}_2(A)$ of $A$, which is the array of all 2-by-2 minors of
$A$, arranged lexicographically according to the row and column
indices of the minors~\cite{hj:ma}.

We claim that if $A$ is
positive semidefinite, then so is $\mathcal{C}_2(A)$.  Indeed, since
the compound operation preserves multiplication and inverses, the
eigenvalues of $\mathcal{C}_2(A)$ are equal to the eigenvalues of
$\mathcal{C}_2(J)$, where $J$ is the Jordan form of $A$.  If $J$ is
upper-triangular and has diagonal entries $\lambda_1, \lambda_2, \ldots,
\lambda_n$, then we see that $\mathcal{C}_2(J)$ is upper-triangular with
diagonal entries $\lambda_i \lambda_j$ for all $i<j$.  Since the $\lambda_i$'s are
all nonnegative, so too are the eigenvalues of $\mathcal{C}_2(J)$,
implying that $\mathcal{C}_2(A)$ is positive semidefinite.

Finally, since ${\cal L}(A)$ is a principal submatrix of
$\mathcal{C}_2(A)$, ${\cal L}(A)$ is itself positive semidefinite.
\end{proof}

\medskip

{\it Acknowledgements.}  We thank Bodo Lass for suggesting that we
approach Conjecture~\ref{bm:con} from the point-of-view of real roots
of polynomials.  Section~\ref{rrp} also benefited from interesting
discussions with Charles R. Johnson.