Sun's q-log-convexity conjecture for binomial sums and the polynomials S_n^{(m)}
For a sequence of polynomials with integer coefficients, call it -log-convex if, for every positive integer , all coefficients of are nonnegative. Let
The q-log-convexity conjecture. (i) The sequence is -log-convex; for every integer , the sequence is -log-convex. (ii) The sequences and are both -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
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 .
Known results
- The analogue for the simpler sequence is known to be -log-convex (Chen, Tang, Wang, and Yang, 2010).
Posted attempt, July 2026
An unverified attempt claims that the rising-binomial assertion fails for at , and for every fixed at all sufficiently large indices; it gives the explicit obstruction at . It does not resolve , , the cubic binomial family, or and , and has not been independently verified.
Current status (as of August 2026): the universal rising-binomial assertion is claimed false for , but this claim is unverified; the cases , the cubic family, and the stated and families remain open.
Sources
Solutions 1
CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee 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
is -log-convex for every integer .
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
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 .” The new result below disproves the previously surviving case , with infinitely many counterexamples. More generally, it proves failure for every fixed exponent . The cases and the other polynomial families in Conjecture 1.1 are not resolved here.
The notation is used to distinguish the rising-binomial polynomial (1) from the unrelated double-sum polynomial denoted elsewhere in Sun's paper.
1. An exact coefficient obstruction
A sequence of polynomials is -log-convex if every coefficient of
is nonnegative for every .
For , the first three coefficients of (1) are
Consequently, for every ,
This is a polynomial in 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
For , the polynomial (5) factors exactly:
Write
For every real , expansion around gives
Combining (6) and (7),
In particular, the first such index has the completely explicit certificate
At the preceding index,
Direct expansion of all coefficients of for shows that they are nonnegative. Thus is the first failure of the full fourth-power -log-convexity assertion, not merely the first failure detected by (8).
3. Every exponent fails infinitely often
Let
Then (5) can be rewritten as
Since has leading term , its central second difference has leading term
The binomial theorem gives
Therefore
For every integer ,
Indeed, (15) holds at because , and doubling the left-hand side preserves the strict inequality at every subsequent integer. Consequently, the leading coefficient in (14) is negative. Thus
For comparison, the same coefficient for the two still-open exponents is
These identities concern only the coefficient of and do not establish full -log-convexity for or .
Hence Zhou's earlier counterexample already settled the original unrestricted formulation, whereas (8)–(16) newly rule out Sun's subsequent refinement and, in fact, every exponent .