In this post, we continue the discussion from a previous post about the existence of a suitable sine angle product identity.
Let’s try a different approach. We know that and
are transcendental for any nonzero algebraic number
. We also know that we can express
as an
-degree polynomial in
and
for
(look at Wikipedia’s list of trig identities.) Can we show that, with
fixed and
varying, any polynomial expression for
must be at least degree
? Can we use this then for our
question and use infinite degree contradiction?
—
Say is fixed, and
is a polynomial such that
Now, say there existed some other polynomial such that
Then,
But we can choose infinitely many values of with distinct values of
(the sine function goes continuously from -1 to 1), thus the Factor Theorem guarantees this is impossible.
Note however that this does not directly show that the polynomial identity for given by Wikipedia is unique, for that identity involves
as well as
.
Can we adapt this to show uniqueness of a polynomial identity for ? Let’s say there existed two distinct polynomials
such that, for all
,
Actually, this is not unique: we can in fact write a counterexample, . This further shows that an entire infinite family of polynomial expressions can replace
,
for any
. Thus,
cannot be unique.
—
Maybe we can yield some progress by removing cosines and dealing only with . Say there existed a polynomial
such that, for all
,
We try to show that there exists a polynomial such that, for all
,
(with cosines removed.)
Unfortunately, we can shed some doubt on our ability to do this. We disprove the following: given a two-variable polynomial , there exists a single-variable polynomial
such that
for all
. Indeed, consider
, and assume for the sake of contradiction
existed. So we want
. We can write this as
, where
is the identity
. Thus,
, so there is a (nonzero) polynomial
such that
for all
. But we can choose infinitely many
with distinct values of
, yielding a contradiction.
We can repeat this proof to show the non-existence of for any
of the form
, where
is any single-variable polynomial. In fact, we have non-existence of
for any
of the form
, where
are any single-variable polynomials.
—
Can we show the following? For , if there exists a two-variable polynomial
such that
for all
, then
must be at least degree
. Would that yield our desired result?
Let’s assume this is the case. Assume we had a polynomial such that for all
,
Let be the degree of
. But now let
. Let the two-variable polynomial
be defined by
. Then,
is at most degree
by definition. But we have
so must have degree at least
. This is a contradiction.
We can yield a similar result if we show that the polynomial expressions for must have degree tending to infinity as
tends to infinity. Thus, if we show that, we’re done.
We can attempt this by induction!
—
Toy example: . Why does this have to be degree 2? Well, we have
Each of these terms increases the degree by 1. Thus, if the best we can do for sine and cosine is degree , then the best we can do for sine and cosine for
is degree
.
Is it the best though? We’re going one way, not the other.
OK, let’s say then that for the sake of contradiction there was a linear expression for in terms of
. In other words, say that there were constants
such that
for all . To mimic our proof structure, we have that
and we’re trying to show this isn’t possible.
So how can we do this? We’ve already used all the trigonometry that we think is applicable, with using the sine angle addition formula. Equivalently, we want to show the impossibility of
Why is this so impossible? Well, we know in this case that the sinusoidal coefficient of cannot match, so these functions will be out of phase and cannot be equal for all
. But that involves specific info around
, so how can we do a generalized argument?
We know that it’s impossible for to be a constant. That’s basically the induction step assumption for this toy case. How do we go from that to yielding the impossibility of this?
—
Let’s try , still concrete and a toy example, but maybe could give us more insight into how the induction step assumption can be used. We want to prove the impossibility of: there is a quadratic
such that
We know that there cannot be a linear expression for or
.
So we have
Thus,
How do we proceed?
—
Maybe it’s about the phase.
Consider the function
Can we write as a sinusoidal function, or can we show that it cannot have phase coefficient
? If that’s the case, we’re done.
I think I know how to do this. It’s just about writing out the details now.
Toy example:
It remains to continue this.
—
Can we show that if there is a polynomial expression between and
, it must have degree at least 2? (We know
works.)
Yes, we can! Let’s say there was a linear expression
It’s easy to show from this that , just from the sinusoidal forms.
So this shows the following: if we have two different polynomial expressions for
in terms of
and
, then their difference must be a polynomial of degree at least 2.
Can we show something even stronger \ldots{} that the difference must have as a factor? If that’s the case, then does that yield our result?
We know that an -degree expression exists for
. Let’s say for the sake of contradiction that there was also an expression of degree less than
. The difference between these two expressions has degree
and must have
as a factor. Thus, it can be written
It remains to continue this.
—
Let’s write out the induction approach. We attempt to show a generalization: any polynomial expression involving must have degree at least
. This is sufficient for our desired application, and it may allow us more flexibility in the induction step.
Base case: . Say there is a polynomial
such that
for all
. If
doesn’t have degree at least 1, then it is nonzero constant, but this is impossible, contradiction.
Toy example: . Say there is a linear polynomial
such that
. We have
But how do we proceed now?
Induction step: now, assume the result for ; we prove it for
. Assume for contradiction there was a polynomial
of degree at most
such that, for all
,
We have
thus
But now this is a degree at most expression for
in terms of
:
Thus, for all ,
It remains to continue this.
Written December 12, 2022.
—
This discussion is continued in a follow-up post.
