Maps of Degree 1 and Lusternik--Schnirelmann Category

Abstract: Given a map $f: M \to N$ of degree 1 of closed manifolds. Is it true that the Lusternik--Schnirelmann category of the range of the map is not more that the category of the domain? We discuss this and some related questions.

\section{Introduction}

 Below $\cat$ denotes the (normalized) Lusternik--Schnirelmann category,~\cite{CLOT}.

 \m
\begin{quest}\label{question}
Let $M, N$, $\dim M=\dim N=n$, be two closed connected orientable manifolds, and let $f: M \to N$ be a map of degree $\pm 1$. Is it true that $\cat M \geq \cat N$?
\end{quest}

There are several reasons to conjecture that the above-mentioned question has the affirmative answer for all maps $f$ of degree 1. Indeed, informally, the domain of $f$ is more ``massive'' than the range of $f$. For example, it is well known that the induced maps $f_*: H_*(M) \to H_*(N)$ and  $f_*: \pi_1(M) \to \pi_1(N)$ are surjective.

\m In~\cite{R2} I proved some results that confirm the conjecture under some suitable hypotheses, and now people speak about the Rudyak conjecture, cf. \cite[Open Problem 2.48]{CLOT},~ \cite{D}, (although I prefer to state questions rather than conjectures). To date we do not know any counterexample.

\m Here we demonstrate more situations when the conjecture holds,
and discuss some variations of the conjecture.

\section{Preliminaries}

\begin{df}\rm Let $M,N, \dim M=\dim N=n$, be two closed connected oriented smooth manifolds, and let $[M]\in H_n(M)=\Z$ and $[N]\in H_n(N)=\Z$ be the corresponding fundamental classes. Given a map $f: M\to N$, we define the {\em degree} of a map $f:M \to N$ as the number $\deg f\in \Z$ such that $f_*[M]=(\deg f) [N]$.
\end{df}

Let $E$ be a commutative ring spectrum (cohomology theory).

\begin{lem}\label{mono} If $M$ is $E$-orientable and $f: M \to N$ is a map of degree $1$ then $f_*\colon E_*(M)\to E_*(N)$ is an epimorphism and $f^*\colon E^*(N)\to E^*(M)$ is a monomorphism.
\end{lem}

\p See~\cite[Theorem V.2.13]{R1}, cf. also Dyer~\cite{Dyer}.
\qed

\begin{remark}\label{r:local}\rm An analog of \lemref{mono} holds for cohomology with local coefficients.  Let $\A$ be a local coefficient system of abelian groups on $N$, and let $f^*(\A)$ be the induced coefficient system. Then $f_*:H_*(M;f^*\A)\to H_*(N;\A)$ is a split epimorphism and $f^*\colon H^*(N;\A)\to H^*(M;f^*\A)$ is a split monomorphism. The proofs are based on Poincar\'e duality with local coefficients and the equality $f_*(f^*x\frown y)=x\frown f_* y$ for  $x\in H^*(N;\A), y\in H_*(M;f^*\A)$. See e.g.~\cite{B}.
\end{remark}

\begin{df}\rm  Given a CW space $X$, the {\em Lusternik--Schnirelmann category} $\cat X$ of $X$ is the least integer $m$ such that there exists an open covering $\{A_0, A_1,\ldots, A_m \}$ with each $A_i$ contractible in $X$ (not necessary in itself). If no such covering exist, we put  $\cat X=\infty$.
\end{df}

 Note the inequality $\cat X \leq \dim X$ for $X$ connected.

\m In future we abbreviate Lusternik--Schnirelmann to LS. A good source for LS theory is~\cite{CLOT}.

\m Given a closed smooth manifold $M$ and a smooth function $f: M \to \R$, the number of critical points of $f$ can't be less than $\cat M$,~\cite{LS1, LS2}. This result turned out to be the starting point of LS theory. Currently, the LS theory is a broad area of intensive topological research.

\m Let $X$ be a path connected space. Take a point $x_0\in X$, set
$$
PX=P(X,x_0)=\{\omega\in X^{[0,1]} \bigm| \omega(0)=x_0\}
$$
and consider the fibration $p: PX \to X, p(\omega)=\omega(1)$. Let $p_k=p_{k}^X: P_k(X)\to X$ be the $k$-fold fiberwise join $PX*_X\cdots *_X* PX \to X$. According to the Ganea--\v Svarc theorem, \cite{CLOT, S},  the inequality $\cat X<k$ holds if and only if the fibration $p_k: P_k(X)\to X$ has a section. In other words, the number $\cat X$ is the least $k$ such that the fibration $p_{k+1}: P_{k+1}(X)\to X$ has a section.

\section{Approximations}

Recall (see the Introduction) that we discuss whether the existence of a map $f: M \to N$ of degree 1 implies the inequality $\cat M \geq \cat N$. Here we present two  results appearing when we approximate the LS category by the cup-length and Toomer invariant.

\m Recall the following cup-length estimate of LS category. Let $E$ be a commutative ring spectrum (cohomology theory). The cup-length of $X$ with respect to $E$ is the number
\[
\cl_E(X):=\sup \{m\bigm| u_1\smallsmile\cdots \smallsmile u_m \neq 0 \text{ where } u_i\in\wt E^*(X)\}.
\]
The well-known cup-length theorem~\cite{CLOT} asserts that $\cl_E(X)\leq \cat X$.

\m We give another estimate of  LS category.

\begin{df}\label{d:toomer} \rm Define the (cohomological) Toomer invariant
\[
e_E^*(X)=\sup\{k\bigm | \ker \{p_k^*: E^*(X))\to E^*(P_k(X))\}\neq 0\}.
\]
\end{df}

Note the decreasing sequence $\cdots \supset \ker (p_k^*)\supset \ker (p_{k+1}^*)
\supset \cdots$. Moreover,
\[
e_E^*(X)=\inf\{k\bigm | \ker \{p_k^*: E^*(X)\to E^*(P_k(X))\}= 0\}-1.
\]

\m In the definition of the Toomer invariant, $E$ does not need to be a ring spectrum, it can be an arbitrary spectrum.

\begin{prop}\label{p:doubleineq}
 We have $\cl_E(X)\leq e_E^*(X)\leq \cat X$.
\end{prop}

\p First, $p_m=p_{m}^X$ has a section for $m> \cat X$, and so $\ker p_{m}^*=0$ for all $m>\cat X$. Hence, $e_E^*(X)\leq \cat X$. Now, we put $\cl_E(X)=l$, $e_E^*(X)=k$ and prove that $l\leq k$. Take $u_1, \ldots, u_l\in \wt E^*(X)$ such that $u_1\smallsmile \cdots \smallsmile u_l\neq 0$. Then, since $p_{k+1}^*$ is monic, we conclude that $p_{k+1}^*(u_1\smallsmile \cdots \smallsmile u_l)\neq 0$. In other words,
\[(p_{k+1}^*u_1)\smallsmile \cdots \smallsmile  (p_{k+1}^* u_l)\neq 0
\]
 in $P_{k+1}X$. Hence, $\cat P_{k+1}(X)\geq l$ because of the cup-length theorem. It remains to note that $\cat P_{k+1}(X)\leq k$ for all $k$, see~\cite[Prop. 1.5(ii)]{R2} or~\cite{CLOT}.
 \qed

\begin{prop}\label{p:ineq} Let $M$ be a closed connected $E$-orientable manifold, and let $f: M \to N$ be a map of degree $\pm 1$. Then $\cl_E(M)\geq \cl_E(N)$ and $e^*_E(M)\geq e^*_E(N)$.
\end{prop}

\p Put $\cl_E(N)=l$ and take $u_1, \ldots u_l\in \wt E^*(N)$ such that $u_1\smallsmile \cdots \smallsmile u_l\neq 0$. Then $f^*(u_1\smallsmile \cdots \smallsmile u_l)\neq 0$ by \ref{mono}. So, $f^*(u_1)\smallsmile \cdots \smallsmile f^*(u_l)\neq 0$ in $M$, and thus $\cl_E(M)\geq l$.

\m Now, let $e^*_E(M)=k$. Then $(p_i^M)^*$ is a monomorphism for $i>k$. Consider the commutative  diagram
\[
\CD
P_iM @>P_if>> P_i N\\
@Vp_i^M VV @Vp_i^N VV\\
M@>f>> N.
\endCD
\]
and note that, by \ref{mono}, $f^*((p_i^M)^*)$ is monic for $i>k$. Hence, because of commutativity of the diagram, $(p_i^N)^*$ is monic for $i>k$. Thus, $e^*_E(N)\leq k$.
\qed

\begin{cor}\label{c:cat=cl}
Let $M$ be a closed connected $E$-orientable manifold, and let $f: M \to N$ be a map of degree $\pm 1$.

{\rm(i)} Suppose that $e^*_E(N)=\cat N$. Then $\cat M\geq \cat N$.

 {\rm(ii)} Suppose that $\cl_E(N)=\cat N$. Then $\cat M\geq \cat N$.
\end{cor}

\p (i) We have $\cat M \geq e^*_E(M)\geq e^*_E(N)=\cat N$, the second inequality following from \propref{p:ineq}.

(ii) Because of (i), it suffices to prove that  $e^*_E(N)=\cat N$. But this holds since $\cl_E(N)\leq e^*_E(N)\leq \cat N$.
\qed

\section{Low-Dimensional Manifolds}\label{s:low}

We prove that for $n\leq 4, \cat M^n \geq \cat N^n$ provided that there exists a map $f: M \to N$ of degree 1. The inequality holds trivially for $n=1$.

\m The case $n=2$ is also simple. Denote by $g(X)$ the genus of a closed connected orientable surface $X$. Then $g(M)\geq g(N)$ because of surjectivity of $f_*: H_2(M) \to  H_2(N)$, see~\ref{mono}.  Furthermore, $\cat X=1$ if $g(X)=0$ ($ X=S^2)$ and $\cat X=2$ for $g>1$.

\m The case $n=3$ is considered in~\cite[Corollary 1.3]{OR}.

\m The case $n=4$.
First, if $\cat N=4$ then $\cat N=\cat M$ by~\cite[Corollary 3.6(ii)]{R2}.

\m
Next we consider $\cat N=3$ and prove that $\cat M \geq 3$. By way of contradiction, assume that $\cat M\leq 2$, and hence the group $\pi_1(M)$ is free by~\cite{DKR}.
Now, $\pi_1(N)$ is free since $\deg f=1$, see~\cite{DR}. But then $N$ has a CW decomposition whose 3-skeleton is a wedge of spheres,~\cite{Hil}, and hence $\cat N\leq 2$, a contradiction. Finally, the case $\cat M=1<2=\cat N$ is impossible for trivial reasons ($M$ should be a homotopy sphere, and therefore $N$ should be a homotopy sphere).

\section{Some exemplifications}

The following result is a weak version of \cite[Theorem 3.6(i)]{R2}.

\begin{thm} \label{t:main}
Let $M, N$ be two smooth closed connected stably parallelizable manifolds, and assume that there exists a map $f: M \to N$ of degree $\pm 1$. If $N$ is $(q-1)$-connected and $\dim N\leq 2q\cat N-4$ then $\cat M \geq \cat N$.
\qed
\end{thm}

\begin{remark}\rm
 In~\cite[Theorem 3.6(i)]{R2} we use~\cite[Corollary 3.3(i)]{R2} where, in turn, we require $\dim N \geq 4$. However, the case $\dim N \leq 4$ is covered by Section~\ref{s:low}.
 \end{remark}

\begin{thm} \label{t:torus}
Let $T^k$ denote the $k$-dimensional torus. Let $M, N$ be two smooth closed connected stably parallelizable  manifolds, and assume that there exists a map $f: M \to N$ of degree $\pm 1$. Then there exists $k$ such that $\cat (M \ts T^k)\geq \cat (N\ts T^k)$.
\end{thm}

\p Put $\dim M=n$ and note that $\cat (T^k\ts M)\geq \cat T^k=k$. Now, if $k\geq n+4$ then
\[
2\cat M-4\geq 2k-4 \geq k+n,
\]
and we are done by \theoref{t:main}.
\qed

\m Another example. Consider the exceptional Lie group $G_2$. Recall that $\dim G_2=14$. Note that  $G_2$ is parallelizable being a Lie group.

\begin{prop} Let $M$ be a stably parallelizable 14-dimensional closed manifold that admits a map $f: M \to G_2$ of degree $\pm 1$. Then $\cat M \geq \cat G_2$.
\end{prop}

\p The group $G_2$ is 2-connected and $\cat G_2=4$,~\cite{IM}. Now the result follows from \theoref{t:main} with $N=G_2$ and $q=3$ because $14=\dim G_2\leq 2q\cat G_2-4=20$.
\qed

\m Let $SO_n$ denote the special orthogonal group, i.e., the group of the orthogonal $n\times n$-matrices of determinant 1. Recall that  $\dim SO_n=n(n-1)/2$.

\begin{thm} \label{t:son}
Let $M$ be a closed connected smooth  manifold, and let $f: M \to SO_n$ be a map of degree $\pm 1$. Then $\cat M \geq \cat(SO_n)$ for $n\leq 9$.
\end{thm}

\p We apply \corref{c:cat=cl} for the case $E=H\Z/2$, i.e., to arbitrary closed connected manifolds.  Below $\cl$ denotes $\cl_{\Z/2}$. Because of \corref{c:cat=cl} it suffices to prove that $\cat SO_n=\cl(SO_n)$ for $n\leq 9$. Recall that $H^*(SO_n;\Z/2)$ is the polynomial algebra on generators $b_i$ of odd degree $i<n$, truncated by the relations ${b_i^{p_i}}=0$ where $p_i$ is the smallest power of 2 such that ${b_i^{p_i}}$ has degree $\geq n$,~\cite{H}. In other words,
\[
H^*(SO_n;\Z/2)=\Z/2[b_1, \ldots, b_k, \ldots]/(b_1^{p_1},  \ldots, b_k^{p_k}, \ldots).
\]
Note  that $p_k=1$ for $2k-1>n$, and so $H^*(SO_n)$ is really a truncated polynomial ring (not a formal power series ring). Hence,
 \[
 \cl(SO_n)=(p_1-1)+\ldots +(p_k-1)+\ldots
 \]
 and the sum on the right is finite because $p_k=1$ for all but finitely many $k$'s.

\m For sake of simplicity,  we use the notation $S_n$ for  $H^*(SO_n;\Z/2)$. We have:

$\dim SO_3=3$, $\cl(SO_3)=3 \text{ because } S_3=\Z/2[b_1]/(b_1^4)$.\\
$\dim SO_4=6$, $\cl(SO_4)=4 \text{ because } S_4=\Z/2[b_1,b_3]/(b_1^4,  b_3^2)$.\\
$\dim SO_5=10$, $\cl(SO_5)=8 \text{ because } S_5=\Z/2[b_1,b_3]/(b_1^8,  b_3^2)$.\\
$\dim SO_6=15$, $\cl(SO_6)=9 \text{ because } S_6=\Z/2[b_1,b_3, b_5]/(b_1^8,  b_3^2, b_5^2)$.\\
$\dim SO_7=21$, $\cl(SO_7)=11\text{ because } S_7=\Z/2[b_1,b_3, b_5]/(b_1^8,  b_3^4, b_5^2)$.\\
$\dim SO_8=28$, $\cl(SO_8)=12 \text{ because } S_8=\Z/2[b_1,b_3, b_5, b_7]/(b_1^8,  b_3^4, b_5^2, b_7^2)$.\\
$\dim SO_9=36$, $\cl(SO_9)=20 \text{ because } S_9=\Z/2[b_1,b_3, b_5, b_7]/(b_1^{16},  b_3^4, b_5^2, b_7^2)$.\\

The values of $\cat SO_n, n\leq 9$ are calculated in~\cite{IMN}, see also~\cite{I2}. Compare these values with the above-noted values of $\cl(SO_n)$ and see that $\cat SO_n=\cl(SO_n)$ for $n\leq 9$.
\qed

\begin{remarks}\rm  1. The anonymous referee noticed that, probably, the method of \theoref{t:son} can also be applied to other Lie groups ($U_n, SU_n$, etc.). This is indeed true, but we do not develop these things here.

 \m 2. In above-mentioned \theoref{t:main} we can relax the assumption on $M$ by requiring that the normal bundle of $M$ be stably fiber homotopy trivial, i.e., that $M$ is $S$-orientable where $S$ is the sphere spectrum. However, we can't provide the same weakening for $N$ because our proof in~\cite{R2} uses surgeries on $N$.
\end{remarks}

\section{Theme and Variations: Other Numerical Invariants Similar to LS Category}

Let $\crit X$ denote the minimum number of critical points of a smooth function $f:X \to \R$ on the closed smooth manifold $X$, and let $\ballcat (X)$ be the minimum $m\in \N$ such that there is a covering of $X$ by $m+1$ smooth open balls. It is known that $\cat X \leq \ballcat(X)\leq \crit M-1$, see~\cite{CLOT}. Note that there are examples with $\cat M<\ballcat(M)$. Indeed, there are examples of manifolds $M$ such that $\cat M=\cat (M\setminus \pt)$,~\cite{I1}, while $\cat (M\setminus \pt)=\cat M-1$ whenever $\cat M=\ballcat(M)$. On the other hand, there are no known examples with $\ballcat M +1<\crit M$.

 \m Now,  we can pose an open question whether $\ballcat M\geq \ballcat N$ and $\crit M \geq \crit N$ provided there exists a map $f: M \to N$ of degree 1.

\m We can also consider the number $\crit^*(X)$, that is, the minimum number of {\em nongenerate} critical points of a smooth function $f:X \to \R$ on the closed smooth manifold $X$. There is a big difference between $\crit X$ and $\crit^*X$. For example, if $S_g$ is a surface of genus $g\geq 1$ then $\crit S_g=3$ while $\crit^*S_g=2g$. So, we can ask if $\crit^* M \geq \crit^* N$ provided there exists a map $f: M \to N$ of degree~1. One of the lower bounds of $\crit^*(X)$ is the sum of Betti numbers $\SB(X)$, the inequality $\SB(X)\leq\crit^*(X)$ being a direct corollary of Morse theory, \cite{M}, and we can regard $\SB(X)$ as an approximation of $\crit^*X$. Now, if $f: M \to N$ is a map of degree~1 then the inequality $\SB(M)\geq \SB(N)$ follows from \ref{mono}.

\m If $M,N$ are closed simply-connected manifolds of dimension $\geq 6$ and there exists a map $M\to N$ of degree~1 then $\crit^*(M)\geq \crit^*(N)$. Indeed, for every Morse function $h: X\to  \R$ on a closed connected smooth manifold $X$ we have the Morse inequalities
\[
m_{\gl}\geq r_{\gl}+t_{\gl}+t_{\gl-1}
\]
 where $m_{\gl}$ is the number of critical points of index $\gl$ of $h$ and $r_{\gl}, t_\lambda$ are the rank and the torsion rank of $H_{\gl}(X)$, respectively.  Now, if $X$ is a closed simply connected manifold with $\dim M \geq 6 $ then $X$ possesses a Morse function for which the above-mentioned Morse inequalities turn out to be equalities. This is a well-known Smale Theorem~\cite{Sm}. Now, the inequalities $r_{\gl}(M)\geq r_{\gl}(N)$ and $t_{\gl}(M) \geq t_{\gl}(N)$ follow from \ref{r:local}, and we are done.
\qed

\m {\bf Acknowledgments:} The work was partially supported by a grant from the Simons Foundation (\#209424 to Yuli Rudyak). I am very grateful to the anonymous referee who assisted a lot in my work with \corref{c:cat=cl} and \theoref{t:son},  and made other valuable suggestions that improved the paper.


Chords of an ellipse, Lucas polynomials, and cubic equations

Abstract: A beautiful theorem of Thomas Price links the Fibonacci numbers and the Lucas polynomials to the plane geometry of an ellipse, generalizing a classic problem about circles. We give a brief history of the circle problem, an account of Price's ellipse proof, and a reorganized proof, with some new ideas, designed to situate the result within a dense web of connections to classical mathematics. It is inspired by Cardano's solution of the cubic equation and Newton's theorem on power sums, and yields an interpretation of generalized Lucas polynomials in terms of the theory of symmetric polynomials. We also develop additional connections that surface along the way; e.g., we give a parallel interpretation of generalized Fibonacci polynomials, and we show that Cardano's method can be used write down the roots of the Lucas polynomials.

\section{Introduction}

A classic problem
instructs the reader to mark off $n$-equally spaced points around on a unit circle, draw the chords connecting one of the points to the remaining $n-1$ others, and find the product of the lengths.

\begin{figure}[htbp]\label{fig:circlechords}
\begin{center}
\resizebox{2in}{!}{\includegraphics{CircleDiagonals}}
\caption{Chords of a Circle}
\label{diagonals}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Although most or all of the lengths are irrational, the product is exactly $n$. An elegant solution (\cite{galovich},
 \cite{price1}, \cite{silva}) involves the $n$th roots of unity $1, \zeta, \zeta^2, \ldots, \zeta^{n-1}$, which are equally spaced around the unit circle in the complex plane. Connecting $1$ to each of the $n - 1$ others and multiplying the lengths of the segments gives the product:
$$\Pi_n = |1 - \zeta | |1 - \zeta^2| \cdots |1 - \zeta^{n-1}| = |(1 - \zeta)(1 - \zeta^2) \cdots (1 - \zeta^{n-1})|.$$

This is the absolute value of the polynomial $$\Pi_n(z) = (z - \zeta)(z - \zeta^2) \cdots (z - \zeta^{n-1})$$ evaluated at $z=1$.

The $n$th roots of unity are, by definition, the roots of $z^n-1$.  Now $\Pi_n$ has as roots all roots of unity except 1; it follows that $\Pi_n(z) = \frac{z^n - 1}{z - 1}=z^{n-1}+\dots+z+1$.  Thus the answer desired is $|\Pi_n(1)| = n$.

This problem has an interesting history, of which we discuss a few highlights below in section \ref{sec:circlehistory}.

In \cite{price1}, Thomas E. Price considered the following generalization. Scale Figure \ref{fig:circlechords} horizontally and/or vertically. It becomes an ellipse. What happens to the product of the chord lengths? An elegant explicit formula is given in \cite{price1}, which we re-derive below (Proposition \ref{prop:price}).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}

\resizebox{2in}{!}{\includegraphics{StretchedDiagonals}}

\caption{Stretched Chords}
\label{fig:ellipsechords}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Showcasing the power of his results, Price in \cite{price2} considered the special case of a vertical stretch factor of $\sqrt{5}$ (see Figure \ref{fig:ellipsechords}). In this situation, the product of the chord lengths is given in Table \ref{tbl:ellipseproducts}. The answer is remarkable.

\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c|c}
$n$ & product\\ \hline
2 & $2 = 2\cdot 1$\\
3 & $6 = 3\cdot 2$\\
4 &  $12 = 4\cdot 3$\\
5 &  $25 = 5\cdot 5$\\
6 & $48 = 6\cdot 8$\\
7 & $91= 7\cdot 13$\\
\vdots & \vdots \\
$n$ & $nF_n$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Products of stretched chords. The symbol $F_n$ refers to the $n$th Fibonacci number.}\label{tbl:ellipseproducts}
\end{table}

Our purpose in this note is to offer an alternative proof of this beautiful and insufficiently-well-known result of Price. We recover the result via a conceptually transparent argument that highlights several gems of classical mathematics. It is inspired by the classical Cardano formula for the solution of a reduced cubic equation by radicals, and makes use of a formula of Newton expressing the elegant relation between elementary symmetric polynomials and power sums. In the situation of interest, Newton's formula becomes the two-term linear recurrence that characterizes the generalized Lucas polynomials. Thus, the generalized Lucas polynomials also generalize the reduced cubic. The method provides an interpretation of the generalized Lucas polynomials that makes their Binet formula fall out as an immediate consequence. We give an analogous interpretation of the generalized Fibonacci polynomials that justifies their Binet formula as well.

We integrate our proof of Price's result with exposition of the classical mathematics involved. Thus, we aim for a completely self-contained treatment. We include short proofs of Cardano's and Newton's formulas, as well as all the facts about Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials that are needed.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In section \ref{sec:cardano}, we give a short proof of Cardano's formula for solving a reduced cubic polynomial in radicals, due to Solomon, and show that the polynomial that serves for the ellipse the role played above by $z^n-1$ for the circle, which we call $\Omega_n(z)$, generalizes the reduced cubic. We show that $\Omega_n(z)$ has a natural interpretation in terms of the fundamental theorem on symmetric polynomials (FTSP). In section \ref{sec:newtonbinet}, we sketch a proof of Newton's theorem on power sums, and then use it to derive a recursive formula for the key part of $\Omega_n(z)$. We observe that this recurrence is actually none other than the recurrence defining the generalized Lucas polynomials, up to a sign change, and therefore $\Omega_n(z)$ is expressed in terms of the generalized Lucas polynomials. The Binet formula for the generalized Lucas polynomial now falls out as a consequence of the interpretation in terms of the FTSP. In section \ref{sec:solution}, we use known facts about generalized Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials to derive Price's beautiful formula \ref{prop:price} for the product of the stretched elliptical chords. In section \ref{sec:solnbyradicals}, we bring the inquiry full-circle by giving the solution of $\Omega_n(z)$ by radicals, which generalizes the Cardano formula, and recovers the known formula for the roots of the Lucas polynomial as a special case. The rest of the paper consists of commentary and loose ends. Price's starting point, the circle problem described above, has an interesting history, and we give some highlights in section \ref{sec:circlehistory}. In section \ref{sec:furtherremarks}, in the name of self-containment, we offer proofs for the facts we used in section \ref{sec:solution}, including a proof of the Binet formula for generalized Fibonacci polynomials along the lines of what was done for the generalized Lucas polynomials in section \ref{sec:newtonbinet}. We also discuss the relation between this and Price's work.

Throughout, $\zeta$ refers to a primitive $n$th root of unity, which can be taken to be $e^{2\pi i / n}$. We prefer it to $\zeta_n$ to avoid visual clutter, but the notation conceals the dependence of $\zeta$ on $n$. Hopefully no confusion will result.

\section{A generalization of Cardano's reduced cubic}\label{sec:cardano}

Since the product of chord lengths for the circle is so elegantly found via the polynomial $z^n-1$ whose roots $1,\zeta, \zeta^2,\dots$ describe the points of interest in the complex plane, the essential challenge in the generalized elliptical version of the problem is to describe the polynomial whose roots are the horizontally and vertically scaled images of these points. As Price observed in \cite{price1}, these image points have the form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:roots}
\zeta^ja + \zeta^{-j}b,
\end{equation}
where $a> |b|\geq 0$, and $a+b$, $a-b$ are the lengths of the ellipse's horizontal and vertical axes. The original unit circle of Figure \ref{fig:circlechords} is the case $a=1$, $b=0$. In the case where the circle is vertically scaled by $\sqrt{5}$, as in Figure \ref{fig:ellipsechords}, we have $a=\phi = (1+\sqrt{5})/2$, the golden ratio, and $b=\hat\phi = (1-\sqrt{5})/2$, its algebraic conjugate.

Our solution begins with the observation that, by the classical Cardano formula, the roots of a {\em reduced cubic equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cubic}
z^3 + pz + q = 0
\end{equation}
also have the form \eqref{eq:roots}, where $n=3$, and
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aandb}
a,b = \sqrt[3]{-\frac{q}{2}\pm\sqrt{\frac{q^2}{4}+\frac{p^3}{27}}}.
\end{equation}
The  cube roots must be chosen so that $ab = -p/3$. (In this context the word ``reduced" refers to the fact that \eqref{eq:cubic} is monic with no quadratic term.)

The following interpretation of Cardano's formula
is given by Ronald Solomon in \cite[pp.~50--51]{solomon}. The identity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:identity}
(a+b)^3 - 3ab(a+b) - (a^3 + b^3) = 0
\end{equation}
holds in any field (indeed, in any commutative ring). This identity becomes the reduced cubic \eqref{eq:cubic} if $z=a+b$, $p = -3ab$, and $q=-(a^3 + b^3)$. Thus, finding a $z$ satisfying \eqref{eq:cubic} can be achieved by finding $a$ and $b$ satisfying $ab = -p/3$ and $a^3 + b^3 = -q$, whereupon $z=a+b$ is the desired solution. This in turn can be accomplished by noting that $ab = -p/3$ implies $a^3b^3 = -p^3/27$; thus $a^3,b^3$ are quantities whose sum and product are known. It follows that $a^3,b^3$ solve the known quadratic equation $X^2 + qX - p^3/27=0$ (the {\em resolvent quadratic} of \eqref{eq:cubic}). Applying the quadratic formula to this equation and taking cube roots yields \eqref{eq:aandb}.

Because we have a choice of cube roots for $a,b$ but must preserve the known relation $ab = -p/3$, we can twist $a$ by a factor of $\zeta$, but not without twisting $b$ by $\zeta^{-1}$. This is why the three solutions to \eqref{eq:cubic} have the form \eqref{eq:roots}.

We seek a generalization of \eqref{eq:identity} for $n>3$ with the same property, that $a$ can be replaced by $\zeta a$ but not without replacing $b$ by $\zeta^{-1}b$.

By moving the final term to the right side, the identity \eqref{eq:identity} expresses the {\em power sum} $a^3 + b^3$ in terms of the {\em elementary symmetric polynomials} $a+b$ and $ab$. By the fundamental theorem on symmetric polynomials, higher power sums $a^n+b^n$ can also be expressed in terms of $a+b$ and $ab$, since they are symmetric in $a,b$; in fact, the expression can be taken, in a unique way, to be an integer polynomial.

\begin{definition}\label{def:L}
For each $n$, let $L_n(X,Y)$ denote the unique integer polynomial such that\begin{equation}\label{eq:higheridentity}
L_n(a+b,ab) - (a^n + b^n) = 0
\end{equation} is an identity.
\end{definition}

We will see below that the polynomial $L_n(X,Y)$ just defined is actually a familiar mathematical object, although it is not usually defined in this way.

Since $a^n+b^n$ is homogeneous of degree $n$ in the indeterminates $a,b$, the expression $L_n(a+b,ab)$ must also be homogeneous of degree $n$. Thus $L_n(X,Y)$ is homogeneous if $X$ and $Y$ are given the weights $1$ and $2$ respectively. Since $a^n+b^n$ is not divisible by $ab$, $L_n(X,Y)$ cannot be divisible by $Y$. Thus it must have a term that does not include $Y$, and it follows that $L_n(X,Y)$ is of degree $n$ in $X$. (It is not hard to see, and we will show below,  that it is actually \textit{monic} of degree $n$ in $X$.)

This is the desired identity generalizing \eqref{eq:identity}: if one makes the substitution $a \mapsto \zeta a$, $b\mapsto \zeta^{-1}b$, both $ab$ and $a^n+b^n$ are left unchanged. Thus \eqref{eq:higheridentity} becomes $L_n(\zeta a + \zeta^{-1}b, ab) - (a^n + b^n) = 0$. Repeating this substitution $n-2$ more times, we conclude that all the desired numbers \eqref{eq:roots} are roots of $L_n(z,ab) - (a^n+b^n)$; bearing in mind the above remark about the degree of $L_n(X,Y)$ in $X$, we have

\begin{prop}\label{prop:thepoly}
The roots of the polynomial
\[
\Omega_n(z) := L_n(z,ab) - (a^n + b^n),
\]
are the $n$ numbers \eqref{eq:roots} for $j=0,1,\dots,n-1$, where $L_n$ is the polynomial of Definition \ref{def:L}.\qed
\end{prop}

By \eqref{eq:higheridentity}, $\Omega_n(z)$ can also be written $L_n(z,ab) - L_n(a+b,ab)$, implying a certain symmetry between the constant (in $z$) term and the rest. To avoid notational clutter, we have suppressed the dependence of $\Omega_n(z)$ on $a$ and $b$.

\section{Newton's and Binet's formulas}\label{sec:newtonbinet}

To use proposition \ref{prop:thepoly} to find the product of the stretched elliptical chords as in figure \ref{fig:ellipsechords}, we need more information about $\Omega_n(z)$, or, equivalently, $L_n(X,Y)$. A classical result of Newton delivers a recursive formula for $L_n(X,Y)$.

{\em Newton's theorem} states that, for any $m$ indeterminates $a_1,\dots,a_m$, the {\em power sums} $s_1 = \sum_j a_j$, $s_2 = \sum_j a_j^2$, $\dots$, and the {\em elementary symmetric polynomials} $\sigma_1 = \sum_j a_j$, $\sigma_2 = \sum_{j<k} a_ja_k$, $\sigma_3 = \sum_{j<k<\ell} a_{j}a_{k}a_{\ell}$, $\dots$, obey the following relation for any natural number $n$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newton}
s_n - s_{n-1}\sigma_1 + s_{n-2}\sigma_2 - \dots \pm s_1\sigma_{n-1} \mp n\sigma_n = 0.
\end{equation}
The proof is a beautiful computation. The power sum $s_n$ is, of course, the sum of all terms of the form $a_j^n$. The next term of \eqref{eq:newton}, $s_{n-1}\sigma_1$, cancels all of these terms, but introduces new ones of the form $a_j^{n-1}a_k$. Then $s_{n-2}\sigma_2$ cancels these, but introduces new terms $a_j^{n-2}a_ka_\ell$, and so on, until finally $n\sigma_n$ cancels everything remaining. The relation holds even when $n>m$, via the convention that $\sigma_j = 0$ when $j>m$, in which case, only the first $m+1$ terms are nonzero.

In the situation of interest to us, we have $m=2$ unknowns. Thus \eqref{eq:newton} reduces to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:newton2}
(a^n + b^n) - (a^{n-1}+b^{n-1})(a+b) + (a^{n-2}+b^{n-2})(ab) = 0
\end{equation}
for any $n\geq 3$. In fact, since when $n=2$ we have $a^{n-2}+b^{n-2}=2=n$, it actually holds for all $n\geq 2$, which can of course also be checked directly. Making the substitution $a^j + b^j\mapsto L_j(a+b,ab)$ (for $j=n, n-1, n-2$) followed by $a+b \mapsto X$ and $ab \mapsto Y$, we obtain
\[
L_n(X,Y) - XL_{n-1}(X,Y) + Y L_{n-2}(X,Y) = 0,
\] or
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lucasrec}
L_n(X,Y) = X L_{n-1}(X,Y) - Y L_{n-2}(X,Y),
\end{equation}
valid for all $n\geq 2$. This linear recurrence characterizes $L_n(X,Y)$ for all $n$ once $L_0(X,Y)$ and $L_1(X,Y)$ are known. Since $L_0(a+b,ab) = a^0 + b^0 =2$, we have $L_0(X,Y) = 2$, and since $L_1(a+b,ab) = a^1 + b^1 = a+b$, we have $L_1(X,Y) = X$. It now follows from \eqref{eq:lucasrec} by induction on $n$ that $L_n(X,Y)$ is monic in $X$, as was claimed above. Thus, per Proposition \ref{prop:thepoly}, $\Omega_n(z)$ is the unique monic polynomial with the roots \eqref{eq:roots}.

Readers familiar with the generalized Fibonacci and Lucas polynomials (\cite{bergumhoggatt}, \cite{hoggattbicknell}, \cite{swamy}, \cite{webbparberry}) will recognize in \eqref{eq:lucasrec} the recurrence defining these polynomials, up to the sign change $Y\mapsto -Y$. The first two polynomials $L_0 = 2$ and $L_1 = X$ coincide with the generalized Lucas polynomials. It is then immediate, since $L_0$ and $L_1$ do not involve $Y$, that

\begin{prop}\label{prop:lucas}
The $L_n(X,Y)$ of Definition \ref{def:L} is the image of the $n$th generalized Lucas polynomial $V_n(X,Y)$ under the substitution $Y\mapsto -Y$.\qed
\end{prop}

Thus we can get a formula for $L_n$ (and thus for $\Omega_n$) from the known formula (\cite[equation (2.22)]{swamy}) for the generalized Lucas polynomials:
\[
L_n(X,Y) = \sum_{r=0}^{\lfloor n/2\rfloor} (-1)^r\frac{n}{n-r}\binom{n-r}{r} X^{n-2r}Y^r
\]
We include this formula for interest, although it turns out not to be needed for proving the intended result of Price about the product of elliptical chords.

Proposition \ref{prop:lucas} is a reformulation of a standard fact about the generalized Lucas polynomials. The so-called \textit{Binet formula} (e.g. \cite[equation (14)]{bergumhoggatt} or \cite[equation (2.2)]{swamy}) asserts that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:binet}
V_n(X,Y) = a^n + b^n,
\end{equation}
where $a=(X + \sqrt{X^2 + 4Y})/2$ and $b=(X-\sqrt{X^2+4Y})/2$, or, equivalently, $X = a+b$ and $Y = -ab$. Normally, one sees $X,Y, V_n$ as conceptually prior to $a,b$. The usual proof is either by a mechanical induction, or via a standard exercise in finding a closed form for the linear recurrence $V_n = XV_{n-1} + YV_{n-2}$. In the latter case, $a,b$ enter as the roots of the characteristic polynomial of that recurrence. However, in our present context, which treats $a,b$ as the conceptual starting point (as in Definition \ref{def:L}), \eqref{eq:binet} asserts that up to the substitution $Y\mapsto -Y$, $V_n(X,Y)$ is the polynomial that expresses the power sum $a^n+b^n$ in terms of the elementary symmetric polynomials $X = a+b$ and $-Y = ab$. This is the content of proposition \ref{prop:lucas}. Thus our argument for proposition \ref{prop:lucas} is an alternative proof of the Binet formula. It is essentially computation-free in the sense that the important calculation was subcontracted to Newton's theorem.

\section{Stretched chords}\label{sec:solution}

We apply the above to re-derive Price's formula for the product of the elliptical chords. By Proposition \ref{prop:thepoly}, the polynomial with roots in the form \eqref{eq:roots} is $$\Omega_n(z) = L_n(z,ab) - (a^n+b^n).$$ This polynomial plays the role played by $z^n-1$ in the product of chords in the circle, and $a+b$ is the image of $1$ under the scaling, so by the same logic used in the introduction, the product of the elliptical chords is the absolute value of
\[
\frac{\Omega_n(z)}{z-(a+b)}
\]
evaluated at $z=a+b$. This is equal to $\Omega_n'(a+b)$, since $a+b$ is a root of $\Omega_n(z)$. We have that
\[
\Omega_n'(z) = \frac{d}{dz} L_n(z,ab) = \frac{d}{dz} V_n(z,-ab)
\]
where $V_n$ is the generalized Lucas polynomial, with the second equality by Proposition \ref{prop:lucas}. Let $U_n(X,Y)$ denote the generalized Fibonacci polynomial, which is defined by the same recurrence as the Lucas polynomials but with the initial data $U_0 = 0$, $U_1= 1$. By a known relation \cite[equation (3.10)]{swamy} between Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials,
\[
\frac{d}{dz} V_n(z,-ab) = n U_n(z,-ab)
\]
where $U_n$ is the generalized Fibonacci polynomial. Substituting $a+b$ for $z$, the Binet formula for generalized Fibonacci polynomials (\cite[Theorem 1]{webbparberry} or \cite[equation (2)]{hoggattbicknell
) states that
\[
U_n(a+b,-ab) = \frac{a^n-b^n}{a-b}.
\]
Recalling that $a>|b|\geq 0$, this is positive, so taking absolute values has no effect. Thus, we recover Price's beautiful result that
\begin{prop}[Price \cite{price1}]\label{prop:price}
The product of the elliptical chord lengths described in the introduction is
\[
\pushQED{\qed}
n\frac{a^n-b^n}{a-b}.\qedhere
\popQED
\]
\end{prop}
As noted by Price in \cite{price2}, this yields $nF_n$, as in Table \ref{tbl:ellipseproducts}, when $a=\phi$ and $b=\hat\phi$, the golden ratio and its algebraic conjugate.

\section{Solution of $\Omega_n(z)$ by radicals}\label{sec:solnbyradicals}

In this section we bring the inquiry full circle by returning to Cardano. The key polynomial $\Omega_n(z)$ of our argument is modeled on Cardano's reduced cubic (cf. section \ref{sec:cardano}). Thus it is no surprise that it can be solved in radicals by essentially the same method. We recover the known formula for the roots of the Lucas polynomials as a special case.

For $n=3$, we have
\[
\Omega_3(z) = z^3 - 3abz - (a^3 +b^3)
\]
by comparing \eqref{eq:identity} with definition \ref{def:L} and proposition \ref{prop:thepoly} (which defines $\Omega_n(z)$). In section \ref{sec:cardano}, we identified this with Cardano's reduced cubic $x^3 + px + q$ by setting $-3ab = p$ and $-(a^3+b^3)=q$. The presumption is that $p$ and $q$ belong to a prespecified field, such as the rational numbers. Rationality would not have been affected by instead setting $ab = p$ and $a^3 + b^3=q$, so moving forward, this is the convention we generalize: let $p=ab$ and let $q=a^n+b^n$. Then $\Omega_n(z)=L_n(z,p)-q$ is a univariate polynomial over the field that contains $p$ and $q$, and the goal of a solution in radicals is an expression for its roots in terms of $p$ and $q$.

We already know the roots are given by \eqref{eq:roots}; thus we only need to express $a,b$. The method is identical to that which derived Cardano's formula in section \ref{sec:cardano}. We know that $a^nb^n=p^n$. Thus, $a^n$ and $b^n$ are roots of the quadratic equation
\[
X^2 - qX + p^n = 0.
\]
Applying the quadratic formula and taking $n$th roots, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solnbyradicals}
a,b = \sqrt[n]{\frac{q \pm \sqrt{q^2-4p^n}}{2}}.
\end{equation}
So a radical expression for the roots of $\Omega_n(z) = L_n(z,p)-q$ is obtained by substituting \eqref{eq:solnbyradicals} in \eqref{eq:roots}.

The generalized Lucas polynomials are $V_n(X,Y) = L_n(X,-Y)$, i.e. the case $p=-Y$, $q=0$. In this case, \eqref{eq:solnbyradicals} simplifies to
\[
a,b = \sqrt[n]{\pm\sqrt{-(-Y)^n}} = \sqrt[n]{\pm i\sqrt{-Y}^n} = \xi\sqrt{-Y}, \xi^{-1}\sqrt{-Y},
\]
where $\xi$ is an $n$th root of $i$, i.e. a $4n$th root of unity that is not a $2n$th root. We can take $\xi = e^{\pi i / 2n}$, $\zeta = \xi^4$, for example, and then by \eqref{eq:roots}, the roots of $V_n(X,Y)$ (as a polynomial in $X$) are
\[
\sqrt{-Y} (\zeta^j\xi + \zeta^{-j}\xi^{-1})= 2\sqrt{-Y} \cos \frac{(1+4j)\pi}{2n}
\]
for $j=0,1,\dots,n-1$. The expression $(1+4j)\pi/2n$ ranges over all the $(1\operatorname{mod} 4)$-multiples of $\pi / 2n = 2\pi / 4n$ in the range $[0,2\pi)$. Exploiting the symmetry $\cos \theta = \cos(2\pi - \theta)$, those in the range $[\pi,2\pi)$ can be replaced by the $(3\operatorname{mod} 4)$-multiples in the range $[0,\pi)$. Thus a slight simplification is
\[
X = 2\sqrt{-Y}\cos\frac{(1+2j)\pi}{2n}
\]
for $j=0,1,\dots,n-1$. Compare \cite[equation (2.24)]{swamy}. The classical Lucas polynomials are the case $Y=1$, so $\sqrt{-Y} = i$. Compare \cite[p.~274]{hoggattbicknell}

\section{History of the circle problem}\label{sec:circlehistory}

Price's inspiration, the circle problem described in the introduction, has its own interesting print history, of which we share some highlights here. We think it is likely that the problem has been rediscovered many times, so we make no attempt to be exhaustive. As given in the introduction, the proof (henceforth, the ``standard proof") that the product of the chord lengths is $n$ (henceforth, the ``circle theorem") consists of five steps:
\begin{enumerate}[label = (\alph*)]
\item Interpret the $n$ equidistant points on the unit circle as the $n$th roots of unity $1,\zeta,\dots,\zeta^{n-1}$ in the complex plane $\mathbb{C}$.\label{step:demoivre}
\item Interpret the relevant chord lengths as absolute values of the complex numbers $1-\zeta^j$, $j=1,\dots,n-1$.\label{step:geom}
\item Exploit the fact that products commute with absolute values in $\mathbb{C}$ to identify the product of the chord lengths with $(1-\zeta)\dots(1-\zeta^{n-1})$.\label{step:absval}
\item Note that this is the polynomial $(z-\zeta)\dots(z-\zeta^{n-1})$, evaluated at $z=1$.\label{step:poly}
\item Invoke the identity $\left(z-\zeta\right)\dots(z-\zeta^{n-1}) = z^{n-1} + \dots + z + 1$.\label{step:identity}
\end{enumerate}
Taken individually, each of these is routine, very classical, or both. Thus a broadly-construed ``history of the circle theorem" would be a history of the complex plane, the roots of unity, and their connection to the circle. This is beyond our present scope. But we mention some striking signposts.

The first of these is a result quite close to the circle theorem that was discovered in 1716 by Roger Cotes, and enunciated (without proof) in his {\em Harmonia Mensurarum}, published posthumously in 1722 (see \cite[p.~194-195]{stillwell}). Cotes is better known as the editor of the second edition of Newton's {\em Principia}. The following statement of Cotes' theorem is taken from \cite[p.~195]{stillwell}:

{\em If $A_0,\dots,A_{n-1}$ are equally spaced points on the unit circle with center $O$, and if $P$ is a point on $OA_0$ such that $OP=x$, then
\[
PA_0\cdot PA_1\cdot \dots \cdot PA_{n-1} = 1 - x^n.
\]}
One obtains the circle theorem by dividing through by $PA_0 = 1-x$ and then letting  $P\to A_0$ (equivalently $x\to 1$).

How Cotes came to this conclusion has not been preserved, but he and his contemporaries Johann Bernoulli and Abraham de Moivre were taking halting steps toward the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:demoivre}
(\cos \theta + i\sin\theta)^n = \cos n\theta + i\sin n\theta.
\end{equation}
This formula now bears de Moivre's name \cite[p.~192--195]{stillwell}, although it never appeared in his writings \cite[p.~193]{stillwell}. To a modern reader, and indeed by later in the 18th century, de Moivre's formula would be seen as a consequence of the formula
\[
e^{i\theta} = \cos\theta + i\sin \theta
\]
given by Euler \cite[Ch. 8, article 138]{euler} in 1748.

John Stillwell has speculated \cite[p.~195]{stillwell} that Cotes may have used reasoning related to some variant of \eqref{eq:demoivre}. To us, this formula is the starting point of the circle theorem, for it gives the identification \ref{step:demoivre} of the roots of unity with points on a unit circle: set the right side of \eqref{eq:demoivre} to $1$, obtaining $n\theta=2\pi k$ for some integer $k$, and then solve for $\theta$, yielding $\theta = 2\pi k / n$. Then consult the left side to conclude $(\cos 2\pi k / n + i\sin 2\pi k / n)^n = 1$, so that the $n$th roots of unity are the numbers $\cos 2\pi k/n + i\sin 2\pi k / n$. By the late 18th century, this was a standard maneuver -- see for example \cite[article 23, p.~249]{lagrange}.

We are about to skip ahead 200 years, but we mention two major 19th century developments that are mathematically adjacent to our story.

First, the identity \ref{step:identity} is the starting point for the chapter on cyclotomic (``circle-dividing") equations in Carl Friedrich Gauss' 1801 {\em Disquisitiones Arithmeticae} (\cite[Ch. 7]{gauss}). In this work, Gauss proved that any root of unity $\zeta$ can be expressed in radicals, via calculations in what we now recognize as the Galois group of the polynomial $\Pi_n(z)=z^{n-1} + \dots + z + 1$. This was the first real use of Galois groups -- 30 years before Galois! As a corollary, he deduced that if $n$ is prime, a regular $n$-gon can be constructed with ruler and compass if and only if $n$ has the form $2^k + 1$, and therefore the 17-gon is constructible.

Second, the special case of \ref{step:identity} with the substitution $z=1$ (as in \ref{step:poly}, \ref{step:absval}) figures in the series of monumental papers by Ernst Kummer (\cite{kummerw}) that birthed the field of algebraic number theory. Kummer investigated how factorization changes when one expands from the ring of integers $\mathbb{Z}$ to the bigger ring $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]$ consisting of integer linear combinations of $\zeta$ and its powers. (See \cite[Ch. 4-6]{edwards} for a modern exposition of Kummer's contribution.) When $n=p$ is prime, substituting $z=1$ into the identity \ref{step:identity} yields $p=(1-\zeta)\dots(1-\zeta^{p-1})$, which is the factorization of $p$ into primes in $\mathbb{Z}[\zeta]$ (e.g. \cite[p.~174]{kummer}).

We now reach the 20th century. The circle theorem was stated in a short 1954 note of W. Sichardt \cite{sichardt} in \textit{Zeitschrift f\"{u}r Angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik} (\textit{ZAMM}). This is the first instance of which we are aware in which the theorem was given in the form we have stated it, although again we make no claim to comprehensivity.

Sichardt made the observation much earlier --- in 1927 --- in the context of an engineering problem having to do with the construction of wells! The calculation of this particular product of chords was directly motivated by the engineering context.

Sichardt described finding the pattern in the products empirically. He did not claim credit for the proof. He stated that an unnamed mathematician who worked for Siemens provided a proof that was lost during the war. He attributed the proof given in the note to a Prof. Szab\'{o} of the Technical University of Berlin. It is a slightly less clean version of the standard proof. It makes use of the fact that the length of a chord in the unit circle subtended by an angle $\theta$ is $2\sin(\theta/2)$, and thus the product of interest can be expressed as
\[
2^{n-1}\prod_{j=1}^{n-1} \sin \pi j/n.
\]
Each factor $\sin \pi j / n$ is expressed as $\frac{1}{2i}\left(\eta^j - \eta^{-j}\right)$, where $\eta$ is a $2n$th root of unity rather than an $n$th, so a certain amount of bookkeeping is needed to arrive at the expression in terms of the polynomial $\Pi_n(z)$. The comparative cleanness of the standard proof comes from the fact that taking absolute values allows one to forego all this bookkeeping.

In 1972, Kurt Eisemann, in another short note in {\em ZAMM} \cite{eisemann}, extended Sichardt's result by considering the product of the lengths of perpendiculars from the center of the circle to the chords. Independently, Zalman Usiskin \cite{usiskin} in 1979 derived various identities involving products of sines using only the standard trigonometric identities $\sin 2\theta = 2\sin\theta\cos\theta$ and $\cos\theta = \sin (\pi/2-\theta)$, and noted the interpretation of these identities in terms of chord lengths. One of the identities proven by Usiskin yielded the case $n=45$ of the circle theorem, and he stated the general case without proof.

In 1987, Steven Galovich \cite{galovich} took up Usiskin's challenge to find a general principle explaining his various sine-product identities. Among other results, Galovich proved the circle theorem, using exactly the standard proof. But he introduced it with the words, ``Although the next theorem and proof are evidently well known, it is natural to include them in this note." \cite[p.~112]{galovich}

By this point, the circle theorem had been posed as an exercise in textbooks, for example \cite[p.~16, exercise 12]{baknewman} and \cite[p.~69, problem 44]{kreyszig}.

In 1995, Andre Mazzoleni and Samuel Shan-Pu Shen published a note \cite{mazzolenishen} in the February issue of {\em Mathematics Magazine} giving a short proof of the circle theorem via the theory of residues of a function of a complex variable. For precedents for the result, they cited exercises in several textbooks in complex analysis. Responses from readers were published in the June and October issues pointing out other precedents. Among these readers were Usiskin, and also Eisemann, who called attention to Sichardt's contribution as well as his own. One reader fit an extremely concise version of the standard proof into a letter to the editor \cite{silva}.

In 2002, Barry Lewis gave a riff \cite{lewis} on the circle theorem by deriving formulas for power sums of the chord lengths, rather than their product.

Finally we come to Price's work in the early 2000's. In addition to \cite{price1}, \cite{price2} which are the starting point of the present article, Price also produced \cite{price3}, extending Eisemann's \cite{eisemann} results to the elliptical situation. In these works, Price cited Sichardt for the circle theorem, and gave the standard proof.

\section{Further remarks}\label{sec:furtherremarks}

\subsection{The Binet formula for the generalized Fibonacci polynomials}\label{sec:binetfibonacci}

We touted our computation-free proof of the Binet formula for the generalized Lucas polynomials in section \ref{sec:newtonbinet}, but then in section \ref{sec:solution}, we {\em used} the Binet formula for the generalized Fibonacci polynomials, cited from the literature and so justified by one of the standard proofs, in our proof of Price's main result (Proposition \ref{prop:price}). This situation calls out for an independent proof of the Binet formula for generalized Fibonacci polynomials along the lines of what we have done above for Lucas polynomials. Can this be given?

It can. The proof above for the Lucas polynomials proceeds by defining (Definition \ref{def:L}) a polynomial that expresses $a^n+b^n$ in terms of $a+b$ and $ab$, whose existence and uniqueness are guaranteed by the fundamental theorem on symmetric polynomials; verifying that it is the generalized Lucas polynomial in the cases $n=0$ and $n=1$; and then specializing Newton's theorem to prove that it obeys the Fibonacci/Lucas recursion (up to a sign change) and therefore (Proposition \ref{prop:lucas}) coincides with the generalized Lucas polynomial (up to the same sign change) for all $n$. Finally it observes that the Binet formula can be interpreted as the statement that the generalized Lucas polynomial expresses $a^n+b^n$ in terms of $a+b$ and $-ab$, i.e. the statement that has just been proven. In the Fibonacci case, the Binet formula states that
\[
U_n(X,Y) = \frac{a^n-b^n}{a-b},
\]
where $a,b$ are defined by $a+b=X$, $ab=-Y$, as above. Now $(a^n-b^n)/(a-b)$ is equal to $$a^{n-1}+a^{n-2}b+\dots+ab^{n-2} + b^{n-1},$$ the {\em complete homogeneous symmetric polynomial} of degree $n-1$ in $a,b$. Like the power sum $a^n+b^n$, the fundamental theorem on symmetric polynomials guarantees a unique polynomial expressing this in terms of $a+b$ and $ab$, so we can copy the entire pattern of the above proof if we can find an analogue to Newton's theorem that tells us this polynomial (call it $F_n(X,Y)$) obeys the Fibonacci/Lucas recursion up to the sign change. (The verification that it coincides with $U_n$ if $n=0$ and $n=1$ is trivial: $(a^0-b^0)/(a-b) = 0$, so $F_0 = 0= U_0$, and $n=1$ is similar.)

In fact, there is such an analogue. For any $m$ indeterminates $a_1,\dots,a_m$, and any natural number $j$, let $h_j$ be the complete homogeneous symmetric polynomial of degree $j$, i.e. the sum of {\em every} monomial in the $a_i$'s of degree $j$. Let $\sigma_j$ be the elementary symmetric polynomial of degree $j$, as in section \ref{sec:newtonbinet}. Then these polynomials satisfy a relation nearly identical to the one between the $\sigma$'s and the power sums captured by Newton, namely
\begin{equation}\label{eq:completehom}
h_n-h_{n-1}\sigma_1+h_{n-2}\sigma_2 - \dots \pm h\sigma_{n-1} \mp \sigma_n = 0
\end{equation}
for all $n\geq 1$. (As in section \ref{sec:newtonbinet}, this continues to hold for $n>m$ via the convention that $\sigma_j=0$ for $j>m$.) In the two-variable case, where we have $(a^k-b^k)/(a-b) = h_{k-1}$, this specializes to
\[
\frac{a^n-b^n}{a-b} - (a+b) \frac{a^{n-1}-b^{n-1}}{a-b} + (ab)\frac{a^{n-2}-b^{n-2}}{a-b} = 0
\]
for all $n\geq 3$. In fact it even specializes for $n = 2$ in view of $(a^0-b^0)/(a-b)=0$ so that the final term vanishes. The proof now proceeds exactly as in section \ref{sec:newtonbinet} to identify $F_n(X,Y)$ with $U_n(X,-Y)$.

The formula \eqref{eq:completehom} is easy to find in the literature (e.g. \cite[equation (7.13)]{stanley}), but for the sake of self-containedness and because it is very beautiful, we give the usual proof via formal power series. Let
\[
H(t) = \sum_0^\infty h_jt^j
\]
be the ordinary generating function for the complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials. Because $h_j$ is the sum of all monomials of a given degree $j$ in the given set of indeterminates, $H(t)$ is the sum of {\em all} monomials, each multiplied by $t^{\text{its degree}}$. Thus
\begin{align*}
H(t) &= \left(1 + a_1t + a_1^2t^2 + \dots\right) \ldots \left(1 + a_mt + a_m^2t^2 + \dots\right)\\
&= \left(\frac{1}{1-a_1t}\right)\ldots\left(\frac{1}{1-a_mt}\right).
\end{align*}
Then
\[
H(t)^{-1} = \left(1 - a_1t\right) \ldots \left(1 - a_mt\right) = \sum_0^\infty (-1)^k\sigma_k t^k,
\]
since the coefficient of a given $t^k$ is the sum of all products of $k$-sets of $-a_j$'s, by multiplying out. Thus,
\[
1 = H(t)H(t)^{-1} = \sum_0^\infty h_jt^j\sum_0^\infty (-1)^k\sigma_k t^k,
\]
and \eqref{eq:completehom} is obtained from this formula by extracting the coefficient of $t^n$ on both sides and comparing.

\subsection{Relation between generalized Fibonacci and Lucas polynomials}\label{sec:fiblucas}

In the proof of Price's formula, Proposition \ref{prop:price}, we made use of the following identity relating generalized Fibonacci and Lucas polynomials, for which we cited a paper \cite{swamy} by Swamy:
\[
\frac{d}{dX} V_n(X,Y) = nU_n(X,Y).
\]
In the interest of keeping this paper self-contained, we give a proof. It resembles a calculation in \cite[p.~152]{price2}. (It is different from the proof given by Swamy, which is based on generating functions.) Set $a+b=X$ and $ab=-Y$ as usual. Treating $Y$ as a constant, $b$ and therefore $X$ and $V_n(X,Y)$ become rational functions of $a$. We have $b=-Ya^{-1}$, so that $db/da = Ya^{-2} = -ba^{-1}$. Thus, by the Binet formulas for $V_n$ and $U_n$ and the chain rule, we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dX} V_n(X,Y) &= \frac{dV_n(X,Y)/da}{dX/da}\\
&= \frac{d(a^n + b^n)/da}{d(a+b)/da}\\
&= \frac{na^{n-1} +nb^{n-1}(-ba^{-1})}{1-ba^{-1}}\\
&= n\frac{a^n - b^n}{a-b}\\
&= nU_n(X,Y).
\end{align*}

\subsection{Relation with Price's work}\label{sec:price}

A comparison of the method above with \cite{price1} and \cite{price2} has a through-the-looking-glass quality. There are many contact points, but the overall effect is completely different. The direct calculations in \cite{price1} and \cite{price2} are here contextualized as special cases of classical theorems and other known results. What follows is our best attempt to tease out the relationship in more detail.

Price \cite{price1} worked with a polynomial $P_n(z)$ (called $P_n(z;a,b)$ in \cite{price2}) that is equal to our $L_n(z,ab)$, but {\em defined} it to be the polynomial such that $P_n(z) - (a^n+b^n)$ has the roots \eqref{eq:roots}. Our additions are the direct proof, using the invariance of $ab$ and $a^n+b^n$ under $a\mapsto \zeta a, b\mapsto \zeta^{-1}b$, that the polynomial characterized by Definition \ref{def:L} is this same polynomial, and the related observation that it generalizes Cardano's reduced cubic.

Price proved the recurrence relation $P_n(z) = zP_{n-1}(z) - ab P_{n-2}(z)$ in \cite{price1}. This is our \eqref{eq:lucasrec}, after the substitution $Y\mapsto ab$. Price's proof amounts to verifying a version of \eqref{eq:newton2} with direct calculation. In \cite{price2}, he observed that this makes $P_n(z)$ a generalized Lucas polynomial, and used this to prove the Binet formulas for Lucas and Fibonacci numbers. Our additions are the observation that \eqref{eq:newton2} is immediate from Newton's theorem, that the analogous formula for Fibonacci polynomials is immediate from a standard fact about complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials (section \ref{sec:binetfibonacci}), and the interpretation of the Binet formulas as the statements that the Lucas and Fibonacci polynomials are the polynomials that express, respectively, power sums and complete homogeneous symmetric polynomials, in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials.

Price's \cite{price1} proof of proposition \ref{prop:price} proceeds by first proving with an induction based on the same calculation mentioned in the previous paragraph that, for any $\theta\in [0,2\pi)$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:continuous}
P_n(ae^{i\theta} + b e^{-i\theta}) = a^ne^{in\theta} + b^ne^{-in\theta},
\end{equation} and then deriving proposition \ref{prop:price} from a computation with the continuous variable $\theta$ involving the L'Hopital rule. The L'Hopital calculation is repeated in \cite[p.~152]{price2}. We do not need \eqref{eq:continuous} for our proof of \ref{prop:price}, but it is immediate from our work by substituting $a\mapsto ae^{i\theta}$ and $b\mapsto be^{-i\theta}$ in $L_n(a+b,ab) = a^n + b^n
. We instead derived proposition \ref{prop:price} from the Binet formulas and the known identity $\frac{d}{dX}V_n(X,Y) = nU_n(X,Y)$. In the name of keeping this paper self-contained, we included a proof of this identity, which is structurally similar to Price's L'Hopital calculation.

Another addition is our observation (section \ref{sec:solnbyradicals}) that Cardano's method allows us to express the roots of $\Omega_n(z)$ by radicals and thereby obtain the known formula for the roots of the Lucas polynomial.

Proposition \ref{prop:price}, and the other results given here, do not exhaust the results found in \cite{price1} and \cite{price2}. In \cite{price1}, Price also considered the products of chord lengths that arise from rotating the roots of unity by a fixed angle along the unit circle prior to scaling. In \cite{price2}, he used the interpretation of Fibonacci and Lucas numbers in terms of products of elliptical chord lengths to recover identities and divisibility properties of these numbers, such as $F_{2n} = F_nL_n$.

\section{Acknowledgement}

Several individuals were involved in calling the authors' attention to Price's work: Francis Su, who included the special case of Table \ref{tbl:ellipseproducts} in his Harvey Mudd Math Fun Facts (\cite{su}); Bowen Kerins and Darryl Yong, who then included the problem of computing this product in a problem set during a summer course at the Park City Mathematics Institute; and Sam Shah, who posted the problem on his blog, whereby the authors were acquainted with it. The authors wish to thank Kerins in particular, who was a generous correspondent, and also Thomas Price himself, Tom Edgar, and Harold Edwards, for useful comments and for alerting us to \cite{price3}, \cite{galovich}, and \cite{kummerw} respectively.

History and Overview (math.HO); Number Theory (math.NT)