Chords of an ellipse, Lucas polynomials, and cubic equations
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.


2019-09-25T02:04:06.000
1810
1810.00492
en
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.00492
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.
History and Overview (math.HO); Number Theory (math.NT)
Chords of an ellipse, Lucas polynomials, and cubic equations
Qwen/Qwen-72B
1. YES
2. YES