You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This is sloppy and doesn't take into account degree, $n$, of the polynomial.
"In the limit", this is true, but this is violated for smaller degree polynomials.
In general, we can ask what are the symmetries of transformations on $z$ that will
still admit Littlewood polynomials.
Some candidates for $p(z)$ are:
$p(z^{-1})$
$p(z^{\dagger})$
$p(-z)$
The complex conjugate gives the mirror symmetry about the x-axis.
The negation and complex conjugation gives the symmetry about the y-axis ($p(\alpha + i \beta) = 0 \to q(-\alpha + i \beta)=0$).
The inversion gives a kind of projection onto the Riemann sphere and/or Mobius transformation like
symmetry, giving a projection symmetry about the circle/sphere at radius 1.
Noting that $z^n p_{-1}(\frac{1}{z})$ is also a Littlewood polynomial.
All of the above create a situation that for every $p(z)=0$, there's a corresponding
$p_{-}(-z)=0$, $p_{\dagger}(z^{\dagger})=0$ and $p_{-1}(z^{-1})=0, (z \ne 0)$, establishing
the gross level symmetry.
An explanation of how Dragon curves show up:
The idea is that the dragon curve can be created through in iterated
function system (IFS) by choosing randomly between $f_{-,z}(x)=1-zx$ and $f_{+,z}(x)=1+zx$
for some complex z and initial $x=0$.
The iteration of ${f_{-,z}, f_{+,z}}$ trace out all Littlewood polynomials for
initial values of $f_{-,z}(0)$ and $f_{+,z}(0)$.
Here's what I think the argument is in the category cafe thread:
$p(z_0)=0$ is the result of a finite cutoff IFS from above.
If the IFS is a nice fractal, that means other polynomials from the IFS evaluated
at the source point $z_0$ will trace out a fractal (dragon-like curve) around the image point 0.
Since we're dealing with a small neighborhood, we can heuristically use linearity
to shift the image points not landing on 0 to 0, moving their source points along with them.
The source points will then create a dragon-like fractal curve in the source map,
giving us the dragon curves that we see in zoomed in snapshots of the root map.
Also note that the 'twist' in the dragon-like curves might be explained with another
heuristic argument that goes as follows:
Take $p(z_0)=0$ and a 'similar' polynomial Littlewood $q(z_0 + \delta) = 0$.
$p'(z_0) \sim q'(z_0)$ (and perhaps even more so than $p \sim q$?), and
$q(z_0 + \delta) \sim q(z_0) + \delta q'(z_0)$, we can try solving for
$q(z_0) + \delta q'(z_0) = 0 \to \delta = -\frac{q(z_0)}{q'(z_0)} \sim -\frac{q(z_0)}{p'(z_0)}$.
So the 'correction' source change for $q(z)$ has the factor of $p'(z_0)$ which might induce a
sort of 'twist' to the curve.
Attempts at explaining the holes around the unit circle:
The holes on the unit disc look to have bigger gaps in a Farey like sequence.
Take the upper quadrent of the roots ($z = a+ib, a>0, b>0$) to remove as much
symmetry as possible and then take the complex logarithm.
The points below the unit disc could also be discarded but the gaps are easier
to see when they're left in, which introduces a mirror symmetry in the complex
logarithm plot.
The lines correspond to the first few Farey sequence numbers with a factor of $\pi$.
One observation is that if we have a polynomial, $p_0(z)$, of $\deg(p_0) = d$, with
root $p_0(z_0)=0$, then this implies the existence of another Littlewood polynomial,
$p_1(z)$ with $\deg(p_1) = \frac{d}{\alpha}$ (for $\frac{d}{\alpha} \in \mathbb{Z}$) and $p_1(z_0^{\alpha}) = 0$.
If we collect roots for Littlewood polynomials of finite degree $n$, this means
that for all polynomials of $\lfloor \frac{\deg(d)}{2} \rfloor$ ($d \le n$), there is a
corresponding Littlewood polynomial of $deg(d)$ that share half of its roots under
the $(\cdot)^\frac{1}{2}$ transformation.
The same with $\lfloor \frac{\deg(d)}{3} \rfloor$, $\lfloor \frac{\deg(d)}{5} \rfloor$,
$\lfloor \frac{\deg(d)}{7} \rfloor$, etc.
The roots of $p_0(z)$ get 'squashed' by a factor of $\alpha$ when they become roots
of $p_1(z)$, giving the plot another more subtle symmetry.
That is, for every root (of unit length) $e^{i \theta}$, there are other roots $e^{ i \alpha \theta }$
and $e^{ - k \alpha \theta }$, for $k$ cycling through all the possibilities.
If the "dead zone" of roots around ${ 1, -1 }$ is taken as a given, this explains
the other "holes" around the $|z| = 1$ circle, as the roots fan out to the other locations
along the circle and why it's a Farey sequence.
The number of polynomials that can be scaled up by $2$ is more than can be scaled up by $3$ which
is more than can be scaled up by $5$, etc.
Where there's a "dead zone" around the ${ 1, -1 }$ points ist still something that I don't understand.
As some guy on the street notices, if $p(z)$ and $q(z)$ are Littlewood polynomials, with $\deg(q) = d-1$, then
$q(z) \cdot p(z^d)$ is also Littlewood.
Some questions I have (they might be known, I just don't know them) are how what are the sizes of the dead zone
holes and how do they scale as the degree increases.
One way to attack this is to plot the minimum distance between roots that fall along the Farey sequence angle
proportions (excluding purely real roots) and/or to plot the frequency/falloff.
Most likely, once the initial dead zone around $z = 1$ is understood, then the rest should follow, though this
would need confirmation.
In terms of an initial heuristic argument for the size of the dead zone around $z=1$, the root $z_0=1$ might
be privileged because of the way the coefficients are chosen.
Any polynomial which has an equal number of coefficients equal to 1 as -1 must have a root at $z=1$.
Doing a quick estimate with Stirling's approximation tells us that there should roughly be $O(\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}})$
of these polynomials for a given degree $d$.
This, combined with the fact that roots tend to "repel", by some heuristic measure, might give us enough information
to get an understanding of the dead zone around $z=1$.
