Sun's q-log-convexity conjecture for binomial sums and the polynomials S_n^{(m)}

About 13 years old · traced to

For a sequence of polynomials (Pn(q))n≥0(P_n(q))_{n\geq0} with integer coefficients, call it qq-log-convex if, for every positive integer nn, all coefficients of Pn−1(q)Pn+1(q)−Pn(q)2P_{n-1}(q)P_{n+1}(q)-P_n(q)^2 are nonnegative. Let

Sn(m)(x)=∑i=0n∑j=0n(ni)m(nj)m(i+ji)xi+j.S_n^{(m)}(x)=\sum_{i=0}^n\sum_{j=0}^n\binom ni^m\binom nj^m\binom{i+j}i x^{i+j}.

The q-log-convexity conjecture. (i) The sequence (∑k=0n(nk)3qk)n≥8(\sum_{k=0}^n\binom nk^3q^k)_{n\geq8} is qq-log-convex; for every integer m≥2m\geq2, the sequence (∑k=0n(n+kk)mqk)n≥0(\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n+k}k^m q^k)_{n\geq0} is qq-log-convex. (ii) The sequences (Sn(2)(q))n≥0(S_n^{(2)}(q))_{n\geq0} and (Sn(3)(q))n≥2(S_n^{(3)}(q))_{n\geq2} are both qq-log-convex.

These are computationally formulated open conjectures about coefficientwise positivity.

References

Primary source

Zhi-Wei Sun, “A family of polynomials and related congruences and series”, arXiv:2505.02767 (2026).

Additional references

2 papers in this index state this conjecture (2013–2025). The statement above is taken from the most recent of them; the others are arXiv:1308.2961.

Progress summary

Refreshed
Claimed progress

The main universal claim has an unverified posted disproof for exponents at least four, but the lower exponents and the other polynomial families remain unresolved.

Zhi-Wei Sun’s 2025 paper formulates the coefficient-positivity conjecture for several binomial-sum sequences, including the rising-binomial family and the double-sum polynomials Sn(m)S_n^{(m)}.

Known results

  • The m=1m=1 analogue for the simpler sequence (∑k=0n(nk)2qk)n≥0\left(\sum_{k=0}^n\binom{n}{k}^2q^k\right)_{n\geq0} is known to be qq-log-convex (Chen, Tang, Wang, and Yang, 2010).

Posted attempt, July 2026

An unverified attempt claims that the rising-binomial assertion fails for m=5m=5 at n=7n=7, and for every fixed m≥4m\geq4 at all sufficiently large indices; it gives the explicit m=4m=4 obstruction at n=23n=23. It does not resolve m=2m=2, m=3m=3, the cubic binomial family, or Sn(2)S_n^{(2)} and Sn(3)S_n^{(3)}, and has not been independently verified.

Current status (as of August 2026): the universal rising-binomial assertion is claimed false for m≥4m\geq4, but this claim is unverified; the cases m=2,3m=2,3, the cubic family, and the stated Sn(2)S_n^{(2)} and Sn(3)S_n^{(3)} families remain open.

Sources

Solutions 1

CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

The repaired fourth-power binomial conjecture fails for every sufficiently large index

Source and essential prior attribution. In Conjecture 1.1(i) of Zhi-Wei Sun, A family of polynomials and related congruences and series, Frontiers in Combinatorics and Number Theory 2 (2026), 1–22, arXiv:2505.02767v4, one proposed assertion is that the polynomial sequence

Rn(m)(q)=∑j=0n(n+jj)mqj(n≥0)(1)R_n^{(m)}(q) = \sum_{j=0}^{n}\binom{n+j}{j}^{m}q^j \qquad(n\geq 0) \tag{1}

is qq-log-convex for every integer m≥2m\geq 2.

The unrestricted assertion was already disproved by Qiping Zhou on July 24, 2026. In an answer to Sun's original MathOverflow question, Zhou exhibited the existing counterexample

[q2](R6(5)(q)R8(5)(q)−R7(5)(q)2)=−499140.(2)[q^2]\left( R_6^{(5)}(q)R_8^{(5)}(q)-R_7^{(5)}(q)^2 \right) =-499140. \tag{2}

We make no claim to the first disproof of that unrestricted assertion.

However, in response on July 25, 2026, Sun proposed the explicitly narrower remaining possibility: “I believe that the conjecture still holds for m=2,3,4m=2,3,4.” The new result below disproves the previously surviving case m=4m=4, with infinitely many counterexamples. More generally, it proves failure for every fixed exponent m≥4m\geq 4. The cases m=2,3m=2,3 and the other polynomial families in Conjecture 1.1 are not resolved here.

The notation Rn(m)R_n^{(m)} is used to distinguish the rising-binomial polynomial (1) from the unrelated double-sum polynomial denoted Sn(m)S_n^{(m)} elsewhere in Sun's paper.

1. An exact coefficient obstruction

A sequence of polynomials is qq-log-convex if every coefficient of

Δn(m)(q)=Rn−1(m)(q)Rn+1(m)(q)−Rn(m)(q)2(3)\Delta_n^{(m)}(q) = R_{n-1}^{(m)}(q)R_{n+1}^{(m)}(q) -R_n^{(m)}(q)^2 \tag{3}

is nonnegative for every n≥1n\geq 1.

For r≥2r\geq 2, the first three coefficients of (1) are

[q0]Rr(m)(q)=1,[q]Rr(m)(q)=(r+1)m,[q2]Rr(m)(q)=(r+22)m.(4)[q^0]R_r^{(m)}(q)=1, \qquad [q]R_r^{(m)}(q)=(r+1)^m, \qquad [q^2]R_r^{(m)}(q) =\binom{r+2}{2}^{m}. \tag{4}

Consequently, for every n≥3n\geq 3,

Dm(n):=[q2]Δn(m)(q)=(n(n+1)2)m+((n+2)(n+3)2)m−2((n+1)(n+2)2)m+(n(n+2))m−(n+1)2m.(5)\begin{aligned} D_m(n) &:=[q^2]\Delta_n^{(m)}(q) \\ &= \left(\frac{n(n+1)}{2}\right)^m +\left(\frac{(n+2)(n+3)}{2}\right)^m -2\left(\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}\right)^m \\ &\hspace{1.2em} +\bigl(n(n+2)\bigr)^m -(n+1)^{2m}. \end{aligned} \tag{5}

This is a polynomial in nn with rational coefficients, obtained directly from the three terms contributing to a coefficient of degree two in each product.

2. The author's repaired case m=4m=4

For m=4m=4, the polynomial (5) factors exactly:

D4(n)=−n+22(n5−17n4−108n3−227n2−211n−78).(6)D_4(n) = -\frac{n+2}{2} \left( n^5-17n^4-108n^3-227n^2-211n-78 \right). \tag{6}

Write

F(n)=n5−17n4−108n3−227n2−211n−78.F(n)=n^5-17n^4-108n^3-227n^2-211n-78.

For every real t≥0t\geq 0, expansion around n=23n=23 gives

F(23+t)=t5+98t4+3618t3+60033t2+389800t+239996>0.(7)\begin{aligned} F(23+t) ={}&t^5+98t^4+3618t^3 \\ &+60033t^2+389800t+239996 >0. \end{aligned} \tag{7}

Combining (6) and (7),

[q2](Rn−1(4)(q)Rn+1(4)(q)−Rn(4)(q)2)<0for every n≥23.(8)\boxed{ [q^2]\left( R_{n-1}^{(4)}(q)R_{n+1}^{(4)}(q)-R_n^{(4)}(q)^2 \right)<0 \qquad\text{for every }n\geq 23. } \tag{8}

In particular, the first such index has the completely explicit certificate

[q2](R22(4)(q)R24(4)(q)−R23(4)(q)2)=2764+3254−2⋅3004+5754−248=−2999950<0.(9)\begin{aligned} [q^2]\left( R_{22}^{(4)}(q)R_{24}^{(4)}(q)-R_{23}^{(4)}(q)^2 \right) &= 276^4+325^4-2\cdot300^4+575^4-24^8 \\ &=-2999950<0. \end{aligned} \tag{9}

At the preceding index,

D4(22)=1119504>0.(10)D_4(22)=1119504>0. \tag{10}

Direct expansion of all 528528 coefficients of Δn(4)(q)\Delta_n^{(4)}(q) for 1≤n≤221\leq n\leq22 shows that they are nonnegative. Thus n=23n=23 is the first failure of the full fourth-power qq-log-convexity assertion, not merely the first failure detected by (8).

3. Every exponent m≥4m\geq 4 fails infinitely often

Let

Hm(x)=((x+1)(x+2)2)m.H_m(x) = \left(\frac{(x+1)(x+2)}{2}\right)^m.

Then (5) can be rewritten as

Dm(n)=Hm(n−1)−2Hm(n)+Hm(n+1)+((n+1)2−1)m−(n+1)2m.(11)D_m(n) = H_m(n-1)-2H_m(n)+H_m(n+1) +\bigl((n+1)^2-1\bigr)^m-(n+1)^{2m}. \tag{11}

Since Hm(x)H_m(x) has leading term 2−mx2m2^{-m}x^{2m}, its central second difference has leading term

Hm(n−1)−2Hm(n)+Hm(n+1)=(2m)(2m−1)2mn2m−2+O(n2m−3).(12)H_m(n-1)-2H_m(n)+H_m(n+1) = \frac{(2m)(2m-1)}{2^m}n^{2m-2} +O\left(n^{2m-3}\right). \tag{12}

The binomial theorem gives

((n+1)2−1)m−(n+1)2m=−mn2m−2+O(n2m−3).(13)\bigl((n+1)^2-1\bigr)^m-(n+1)^{2m} = -mn^{2m-2}+O\left(n^{2m-3}\right). \tag{13}

Therefore

Dm(n)=m(2m−12m−1−1)n2m−2+O(n2m−3).(14)D_m(n) = m\left( \frac{2m-1}{2^{m-1}}-1 \right)n^{2m-2} +O\left(n^{2m-3}\right). \tag{14}

For every integer m≥4m\geq4,

2m−1>2m−1.(15)2^{m-1}>2m-1. \tag{15}

Indeed, (15) holds at m=4m=4 because 8>78>7, and doubling the left-hand side preserves the strict inequality at every subsequent integer. Consequently, the leading coefficient in (14) is negative. Thus

For every fixed integer m≥4,[q2]Δn(m)(q)<0for all sufficiently large n.(16)\boxed{ \text{For every fixed integer }m\geq4, \quad [q^2]\Delta_n^{(m)}(q)<0 \quad\text{for all sufficiently large }n. } \tag{16}

For comparison, the same coefficient for the two still-open exponents is

D2(n)=(n+2)(n+3)>0,D3(n)=3(n+1)(n+2)(n2+11n+16)4>0(n≥3).(17)\begin{aligned} D_2(n)&=(n+2)(n+3)>0, \\ D_3(n)&= \frac{3(n+1)(n+2)(n^2+11n+16)}{4}>0 \qquad(n\geq3). \end{aligned} \tag{17}

These identities concern only the coefficient of q2q^2 and do not establish full qq-log-convexity for m=2m=2 or m=3m=3.

Hence Zhou's earlier m=5m=5 counterexample already settled the original unrestricted formulation, whereas (8)–(16) newly rule out Sun's subsequent m=4m=4 refinement and, in fact, every exponent m≥4m\geq4.