Non-Real Zero Decreasing Operators Related to Orthogonal Polynomials

Abstract: Laguerre's theorem regarding the number of non-real zeros of a polynomial and its image under certain linear operators is generalized. This generalization is then used to (1) exhibit a number of previously undiscovered complex zero decreasing sequences for the Chebyshev, Legendre, and generalized Laguerre polynomial bases and (2) simultaneously generate a basis $B$ and a corresponding $B$-CZDS. Some extensions to transcendental entire functions in the Laguerre-Polya class are given which, in turn, give a new and short proof of a previously known result due to one of the authors. The paper concludes with several open questions.

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
For a non-zero complex valued function $f$ of a complex variable, denote the number (counted according to multiplicity) of real and non-real zeros of $f$ by $Z_R(f)$ and $Z_C(f)$, respectively. For the identically zero function, we define $Z_C(0) = 0=Z_R(0)$. Let $L:\mbb{R}[x]\to\mbb{R}[x]$ be a linear operator.  If $L$ has the property that
\be
Z_C(L(p))\leq Z_C(p)
\ee
for every real polynomial $p$, then $L$ is called a {\it Complex Zero Decreasing Operator}, or CZDO. Such an operator $L$ is diagonal with respect to a basis $B = \{b_k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ for $\mbb{R}[x]$ if, and only if, there are real constants $\{\gamma_k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ for which
\be
L(b_k(x)) = \gamma_k b_k(x) \qquad (k=0, 1, 2, \dots).
\ee
In this case, the sequence $\{\gamma_k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is called a {\it Complex Zero Decreasing Sequence for the basis $B$}, or a $B$-CZDS.

A theorem of Laguerre demonstrates the existence of CZDS for the standard basis. We give two versions of his theorem here.
\begin{thm}\label{laguerre}\emph{(Laguerre's Theorem \cite[p. 6]{O}, \cite[p. 23]{CCsurvey})} Let $ p(x) = \fs a_k x^k$ be an arbitrary real polynomial of degree $n$. If $\alpha$ lies outside the interval $(-n,0)$, then
$$
Z_C\left(\fs (k+\alpha)a_k x^k\right)\leq Z_C\left(\fs a_k x^k\right).
$$
In particular, if $\alpha\geq 0$, then the sequence $\bs k+\alpha \es$ is a CZDS for the standard basis.
\end{thm}
With notation as in Theorem \ref{laguerre},
$$
x p'(x) + \alpha p(x)  = \fs (k+\alpha)a_k x^k
$$
and Laguerre's theorem may be restated accordingly.
\begin{thm}\label{laguerreD}\emph{(Laguerre's Theorem; Differential Operator Version)} Let $ p(x)$ be an arbitrary real polynomial of degree $n$. If $\alpha$ lies outside the interval $(-n,0)$, then
$$
Z_C\left(xp'(x)+  \alpha p(x)\right)\leq Z_C\left(p(x)\right).
$$
In particular, if $\alpha\geq 0$, then the differential operator $xD+\alpha I$ is a CZDO.
\end{thm}

\begin{rem}\label{D}
The differentiation operator $D$ defined by $D(p) := p'$ is a CZDO. This is included in Laguerre's theorem as the special case $\alpha=0$. Indeed, this choice gives
$$
Z_C(p'(x)) = Z_C(xp'(x)) \leq Z_C(p(x)).
$$
\end{rem}
\nin Alternatively, the fact that $D$ is a CZDO can be proved via Rolle's theorem from elementary calculus (see, for example, \cite[p. 2-3]{O}).

Laguerre's theorem is easily extended by iteration to sequences of the form $\bs h(k)\es$, where $h$ is a real polynomial having only real non-positive zeros. This, in turn, leads to a further extension via Hurwitz' theorem to sequences of the form $\bs\varphi(k)\es$, where $\varphi$ is an entire function which is the uniform limit on compact subsets of $\mbb{C}$ of polynomials having only real non-positive zeros (see, for example, \cite[Theorem 1.4]{CCczds}, \cite[p. 6]{O}, \cite{PLaguerre}). We have opted to state Laguerre's theorem in its simplest form to ease the comparison of this theorem with some of its generalizations demonstrated below.

In 2007, Piotrowski gave a generalization of Laguerre's theorem to obtain a class of $H$-CZDS, where $H$ denotes the set of Hermite polynomials defined by
$$
H_n(x) = (-1)^n e^{x^2} \frac{d^n}{dx^n} e^{-x^2} \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots).
$$
\begin{thm}\label{hmslaguerregen}\emph{(\cite[p. 57, Proposition 68]{P})}
Suppose $p(x)$ is an arbitrary real polynomial of degree $n$. If $\alpha,\beta,c,d$ are real numbers such that $\alpha \geq 0$, $\beta\geq 0$, and $\alpha+c n \geq 0$,
then
$$\
\ds Z_C\big(-\beta p''(x)+ (cx+d)p'(x)+ \alpha p(x)\big) \leq Z_C\big(p(x)\big).
$$
In particular, if $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $c$ are all non-negative, then $-\beta D^2+ (cx+d)D + \alpha I$ is a CZDO.
\end{thm}
Since the Hermite polynomials satisfy the differential equation (see, for example, \cite[p. 188]{R})
$$
n H_n(x) = - \frac{1}{2}H_n''(x)+ xH_n'(x)  \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots)
$$
the previous theorem gives, as a special case, the existence $H$-CZDS which can be interpolated by linear polynomials.
\begin{thm}\emph{(\cite[p. 87, Theorem 101]{P})}
Let $p(x) = \fs a_k H_k(x)$ be an arbitrary real polynomial of degree $n$. If $\alpha$ lies outside the interval $(-n,0)$, then
$$
Z_C\left(\fs (k+\alpha)a_k H_k(x)\right)\leq Z_C\left(\fs a_k H_k(x)\right).
$$
In particular, if $\alpha\geq 0$, then the sequence $\bs k+\alpha \es$ is an $H$-CZDS.
\end{thm}
While no complete characterization of CZDS is currently known for any basis, the characterization of CZDS which can be interpolated by polynomials has been achieved for both the standard basis and the Hermite basis.
\begin{thm}\label{polyintCZDS}\emph{(Craven-Csordas \cite[p. 13]{CCczds})} Let $h(x)$ be a real polynomial.  Then $\bs h(k) \es$ is a CZDS for the standard basis if and only if either
\begin{enumerate}
\item{$h(0)\neq 0$ and $h(x)$ has only real negative zeros}, or
\item{$h(0)=0$ and $h(x)$ is of the form
\be
h(x) = x(x-1)(x-2)\cdots(x-m+1)\prod_{k=1}^{p} (x-b_k)
\ee}
where $m\geq 1$ and $p\geq 0$ are integers and $b_k < m$ for $k=1,2,3,\dots,p$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
The previous theorem remains valid {\it mutatis mutandis} if `CZDS for the standard basis' is replaced by `$H$-CZDS' (See \cite[p. 95, Theorem 111]{P}).

The main results of this paper include a generalization of Laguerre's theorem (Theorem \ref{bigcor}), the demonstration of classes of CZDS for the Jacobi, ultraspherical, Legendre, Chebyshev, and generalized Laguerre polynomial bases (Proposition \ref{JaCZDS}, Theorem \ref{JCZDS}, Corollaries \ref{PCZDS} and \ref{TCZDS}, and Theorem \ref{LCZDS}), a method for simultaneously generating a basis $B$ and a corresponding $B$-CZDS (Section \ref{generate}), and the extension of these results to transcendental entire functions in the Laguerre-P\'olya class (Section \ref{LP}).

\section{A Class of Complex Zero Decreasing Operators}\label{CZDO}

This section contains two theorems which generalize Laguerre's theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{bigthm}
Let $p$ and $q$ be real polynomials, each with degree at least one, and let $\alpha\geq 0$.  Then
$$
Z_R(f(x)) \geq Z_R(p(x))+ Z_R(q(x))-1
$$
where
$$
f(x) =  q(x) p'(x)+\alpha q'(x) p(x).
$$
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
When $\alpha=0$, we have
$$
Z_R( q(x) p'(x)) = Z_R(q(x))+ Z_R(p'(x)) \geq Z_R(p(x))+ Z_R(q(x))-1,
$$
where the last inequality is a consequence of Rolle's theorem.

We will now suppose $\alpha>0$ for the remainder of the proof.  Suppose $x_0$ is a zero of $p(x) \cdot q(x)$ and write
$$
p(x) = (x-x_0)^m h_1(x) \qquad (h_1(x_0)\neq 0),
$$
$$
q(x) = (x-x_0)^w h_2(x)  \qquad (h_2(x_0)\neq 0).
$$
Then
$$
f(x) = (x-x_0)^{m+w-1} h_3(x)
$$
where
$$
h_3(x_0) = (m+\alpha w) h_1(x_0) h_2(x_0) \neq 0.
$$
(Note:  here we have used the assumption $\alpha>0$.)
That is to say, if $x_0$ is a zero of $p\cdot q$ of multiplicity $m+w$, then $x_0$ is a zero of $f$ of multiplicity $m+w-1$.  We will now complete the proof by demonstrating that $f$ must vanish between consecutive zeros of $p\cdot q$. Define
$$
g(x) := 	\begin{cases}
				\big[q(x)\big]^\alpha & \qquad \text{if } q(x)\geq 0\\

				-\big[-q(x)\big]^\alpha & \qquad \text{if } q(x) <0, \\
				\end{cases}
$$
so that
$$
\big|q(x) \big|^{1-\alpha} \frac{d}{dx} \left[ g(x) p(x) \right] = q(x) p'(x)+\alpha q'(x) p(x) \qquad (x\notin\{ z|q(z)= 0\})
$$
Let $x_1<x_2$ be consecutive zeros of $p\cdot q$.  Then they are also consecutive zeros of $g\cdot p$, which is continuous on $[x_1, x_2]$ and differentiable on $(x_1, x_2)$.  By Rolle's theorem, $(g\cdot p)'$, and therefore $q(x) p'(x)+\alpha q'(x) p(x)$, has a zero in the interval $(x_1, x_2)$ and the conclusion of the theorem holds.
\end{proof}
We note that Theorem \ref{bigthm} is best possible in the sense that the conclusion does not necessarily hold for any $\alpha<0$. For example, if $\alpha<0$, $p(x) = x^n(x^2+\alpha)$, and $q(x)=x$, then $f(x) = x^n((\alpha+n+2)x^2+ \alpha(\alpha+n))$. Choosing $n=\max\{m\in\mbb{Z} | m\geq 0 \text{ and }  \alpha+m<0\}$ yields $Z_R(f)=n<n+2 = Z_R(p)+ Z_R(q)-1$.

\begin{thm}\label{bigcor}
Let $p$ and $q$ be real polynomials and $\alpha\geq 0$.  Then
$$
Z_C(q(x) p'(x)+\alpha q'(x) p(x)) \leq Z_C(p(x))+ Z_C(q(x)).
$$
In particular, if $q$ has only real zeros, then $q(x) D+\alpha q'(x) I $ is a CZDO.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We first note that the result is trivial when the function $ q(x)p'(x)+\alpha q'(x)p(x)$ is identically zero. Furthermore, if either $p$ or $q$ is a non-zero constant function, then the result follows from Rolle's theorem as was noted in Remark 3 above. We may, therefore, assume that $p$ and $q$ each have degree at least one. Suppose
$$
p(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n}a_k x^k \qquad \text{and} \qquad q(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{m} b_k x^k.
$$
Then the leading term of
$$
f(x) = q(x) p'(x)+ \alpha q'(x) p(x)
$$
is $(n+\alpha m) a_n b_m x^{n+m-1}$, so $f$ has degree $n+m-1$.  Applying Theorem \ref{bigthm}, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
Z_C(f) 	&=& n+m-1 - Z_R(f) \\
				&\leq&  n+m-1 - (Z_R(p) + Z_R(q) - 1) \\
				&=& n+m-1 - (n-Z_C(p) + m-Z_C(q) - 1) \\
				&=& Z_C(p)+Z_C(q).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, $Z_C(q(x) p'(x)+\alpha q'(x) p(x) ) \leq Z_C(p(x))+ Z_C(q(x))$.
\end{proof}
Note that part of Laguerre's theorem (Theorem \ref{laguerreD}) is obtained when we set $q(x) = x$ in Theorem \ref{bigcor}.

\begin{rem}{\label{pqr}}
The two theorems in this section can be extended to any number of constants and functions. For example, using the same techniques as above, one can show that
$$
Z_C(p q r'+\alpha p' q r + \beta p q' r   ) \leq Z_C(p)+Z_C(q)+Z_C(r),
$$
where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are non-negative real numbers and $p$, $q$, and $r$ are polynomials.
\end{rem}

\section{CZDS for the Jacobi Polynomial Basis}\label{JCZDSsection}
\subsection{The Jacobi Polynomials}
We now apply the results of the previous section to demonstrate the existence of CZDS for the Jacobi polynomial basis. Following Rainville \cite[p. 257]{R}, we define the Jacobi polynomials with parameters $\alpha>-1$ and $\beta>-1$ by
$$
P_n^{(\alpha, \beta)}(x) = \frac{(-1)^n (1-x)^{-\alpha}(1+x)^{-\beta}}{2^n n!} \frac{d^n}{dx^n} \left[(1-x)^{n+\alpha} (1+x)^{n+\beta}\right].
$$
For each non-negative integer $n$, the Jacobi polynomials satisfy the differential equation \cite[p. 258]{R}
\be \label{Jdiffeq}
\left((x^2-1) D^2 + [(2+\alpha+\beta)x + \alpha-\beta ]D \right) P_{n}^{(\alpha, \beta)}(x)=n(n+1+\alpha+\beta)P_{n}^{(\alpha, \beta)}(x).
\ee

\begin{prop}\label{JaCZDS}
The sequence $\bs k(k+1+\alpha+\beta) \es$ is a $P^{\ab}$-CZDS.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Define the linear operator $L:\mbb{R}[x]\to\mbb{R}[x]$ by
$$
L\left(P_k^{\ab}(x)\right) = k(k+1+\alpha+\beta)  P_k^{\ab}(x) \qquad (k=0, 1, 2, \dots)
$$
so that, by linearity,
$$
L\left(\sum_{k=0}^{n} a_k P_k^{\ab}(x)\right) = \sum_{k=0}^{n} a_k L(P_k^{\ab}(x)) = \sum_{k=0}^{n} a_k k(k+1+\alpha+\beta) P_k^{\ab}(x).
$$
Our goal, then, is to show that $L$ is a CZDO. From the differential equation (\ref{Jdiffeq}), the linear operator $L$ is equal to the differential operator
$$
L  = \left((x^2-1)D+[(2+\alpha+\beta)x + \alpha-\beta ]I\right)D.
$$
If, in Remark \ref{pqr}, we take $p(x)=x-1$, $q(x) = x+1$ and replace $\alpha$ and $\beta$ by $\alpha + 1$ and $\beta+1$, respectively, then we see that
$$
(x^2-1)D+[(2+\alpha+\beta)x + \alpha-\beta ]I \qquad (\alpha, \beta >-1)
$$
is a complex zero decreasing operator. Thus, $L$ is the composition of two CZDO (recall that D is a CZDO as discussed in Remark 3 above) and so it is a CZDO itself.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Operator Identities}\label{opid}
In order to extend the preceding result, we will develop a number of operator identities. We consider two operators $L_1$ and $L_2$ on $\mbb{R}[x]$ to be equal if $L_1(p) = L_2(p)$ for every real polynomial $p$. For example, as a consequence of the product rule for differentiation, $(Dx)p(x) = xp'(x)+ p(x)$, and thus we obtain the equality
\be\label{Dx}
Dx = xD+I.
\ee
\begin{prop}\label{genD'd}
Suppose $\{g_k(x)\}_{k=0}^{m}$ is a sequence of polynomials satisfying $\text{deg}(g_k)\leq k$ for all $k$. Then
$$
D^n \sum_{k=0}^{m} g_k(x) D^k = \left[\sum_{j=0}^{m} \sum_{k=j}^{m} \binom{n}{k-j} g_{k}^{(k-j)}(x) D^{j}\right] D^n.
$$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We first note that we are following the convention that $\ds \binom{n}{k}=0$ whenever $k>n$.

Using the fact that the derivative operator is linear, applying Leibniz' formula for the $n$th derivative of a product, and noting our assumption on the degree of the polynomials $g_k$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
 D^n \sum_{k=0}^{m} g_k(x) D^k &=& \sum_{k=0}^{m} \sum_{i=0}^{k} \binom{n}{i}g_k^{(i)}(x) D^{k+n-i}\\
&=& \left[\sum_{k=0}^{m} \sum_{i=0}^{k} \binom{n}{i}g_k^{(i)}(x) D^{k-i}\right]D^n.
\end{eqnarray*}
Making the substitution $j=k-i$ and then switching the order of summation gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
 D^n \sum_{k=0}^{m} g_k(x) D^k &=& \left[\sum_{k=0}^{m} \sum_{j=0}^{k} \binom{n}{k-j}g_k^{(k-j)}(x) D^{j}\right]D^n\\
 &=& \left[\sum_{j=0}^{m} \sum_{k=j}^{m} \binom{n}{k-j}g_k^{(k-j)}(x) D^{j}\right]D^n,
\end{eqnarray*}
as desired.
\end{proof}
In what follows, we will make frequent use of Proposition \ref{genD'd} with $m=2$, which asserts that if
\begin{equation} \label{gD1}
L := D^n (g_2(x) D^2 + g_1(x) D + g_0(x) I),
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation} \label{gD2}
L = \left(g_2(x) D^2 + (n g_2'(x)+ g_1(x))D + \left(\binom{n}{2} g_2''(x) + n g_1'(x) + g_0(x)\right)I\right)D^n,
\end{equation}
provided deg$(g_k)\leq k$ for all $k$.
\subsection{Ultraspherical Polynomials} \label{JlambdaCZDS}
We now focus on the Jacobi polynomials for which $\alpha=\lambda=\beta$, which are called the ultraspherical polynomials (see, e.g., \cite[p.143]{R}). To ease notation, we define
$$
P_n^{(\lambda)}(x) := P_n^{(\lambda, \lambda)}(x) \qquad (\lambda>-1; n=0, 1, 2, \dots).
$$
With this choice, the differential equation (\ref{Jdiffeq}) takes on the form
\be \label{lambdade}
\left[(x^2-1) D^2 + (1+\lambda)2x D\right] P_n^{(\lambda)}(x) = n(n+1+2\lambda)  P_n^{(\lambda)}(x).
\ee
Due to the frequent use of the operator involved in the previous equation we define, for any $a\in\mbb{R}$,
\be \label{Phi}
\Phi_a := (x^2-1)D + (1+a)2xI.
\ee
\begin{lm} \label{JnD'd}
Suppose $c\in \mbb{R}$ and $\lambda>-1$. Then, for all non-negative integers $n$,
$$
D^n (\Phi_{\lambda}D -n(n+1+2\lambda)I) = \big( \Phi_{\lambda+n} \big)D^{n+1},
$$
where $\Phi_a$ is defined in equation \emph{(\ref{Phi})}.
\end{lm}

\begin{proof}
This is an immediate application of equations (\ref{gD1}) and (\ref{gD2}).
\end{proof}

We now use a product notation for composition of operators. Since differential operators need not commute, care is required in using this notation. For a collection of operators $L_1, L_2, \dots, L_n$ on $\mbb{R}[x]$, we define
$$
\left(\prod_{k=1}^{n} L_k\right) p := (L_1 L_2 \cdots L_n)p = L_1(L_2(\cdots (L_n(p))))\qquad (p\in\mbb{R}[x]).
$$
\begin{prop}\label{mud}
Let $w$ be a positive integer and $\{m_k\}_{k=0}^{w-1}\subset\mbb{N}$. Then
$$
\prod_{k=0}^{w-1} (\Phi_{\lambda}D-k(k+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_k} = \left[\prod_{k=0}^{w-1}  \left[( \Phi_{\lambda+k}D)^{m_k-1} \Phi_{\lambda+k} \right]\right]D^{w},
$$
where $\Phi_a$ is defined by equation \emph{(\ref{Phi})}.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We will argue by mathematical induction. The case $w=1$ is clear. Now suppose that the result is true for some integer $w\geq 1$ and fix natural numbers $m_0, m_1, \dots, m_w$. Then
\be\label{theta1}
\prod_{k=0}^{w} (\Phi_{\lambda} D -k(k+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_k} = \Theta D^{w} (\Phi_{\lambda}D-w(w+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_w},
\ee
where
\be\label{theta2}
\Theta = \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}  \left[\big( \Phi_{\lambda+k}D\big)^{m_k-1}\big(\Phi_{\lambda+k}\big)\right].
\ee
Applying lemma \ref{JnD'd} a total of $m_w$ times we see that
\be\label{theta3}
D^{w} ( \Phi_{\lambda}D-w(w+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_w}  = ( \Phi_{\lambda+w}D )^{m_w}D^{w}.
\ee
Together, equations (\ref{theta1}), (\ref{theta2}), and (\ref{theta3}) show that
$$
\prod_{k=0}^{w} (\Phi_{\lambda}D-k(k+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_k} = \left[\prod_{k=0}^{w}  \left[\big( \Phi_{\lambda+k}D \big)^{m_k-1}\big(\Phi_{\lambda+k}\big)\right] \right]D^{w+1}
$$
as desired.
\end{proof}

We are now in a position to demonstrate the existence of several $P^{(\lambda)}$-CZDS for any fixed $\lambda>-1$.

\begin{thm}\label{JCZDS} If $\lambda>-1$,  $w$ is a positive integer, and $\{m_k\}_{k=0}^{w-1}\subset\mbb{N}$, then the sequence
\be\label{Jfallingfactorial}
\left\{ \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n(n+1+2\lambda)-k(k+1+2\lambda))^{m_k} \right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}
\ee
is a $P^{(\lambda)}$-CZDS, where $P^{(\lambda)}$ is the set of ultraspherical polynomials.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let the linear operator $L:\mbb{R}[x]\to\mbb{R}[x]$ be defined by
$$
L(P_n^{(\lambda)}(x)) = \left(\prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n(n+1+2\lambda)-k(k+1+2\lambda))^{m_k} \right)P_n^{(\lambda)}(x).
$$
From the differential equation (\ref{lambdade}), we have
$$
L = \prod_{k=0}^{w-1} ((x^2-1)D^2+(1+\lambda)2xD-k(k+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_k},
$$
or, using the notation in equation (\ref{Phi}) and applying Proposition \ref{mud},
$$
L =  \prod_{k=0}^{w-1} ( \Phi_{\lambda} D-k(k+1+2\lambda)I)^{m_k} = \left[\prod_{k=0}^{w-1}  \left[( \Phi_{\lambda+k}D)^{m_k-1} \Phi_{\lambda+k} \right]\right]D^{w}.
$$
The operator $L$ is, therefore, a composition of individual operators, each of which are CZDO. This can be seen by appealing to Theorem \ref{bigcor}, which shows that $\Phi_a$ is a CZDO whenever $a>-1$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{CZDS for Legendre Basis}

The polynomials
$$
P_n(x) := P_n^{(0)}(x) = P_n^{(0,0)}(x) \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots)
$$
are known as the Legendre polynomials (see \cite[p. 254]{R}).

In \cite{BDFU}, open question (4) conjectures that a certain type of falling factorial sequence is a multiplier sequence for the Legendre basis ($P$-MS). Since every $P$-CZDS is a $P$-MS, we can apply the results of the previous section to settle a variation of this question.

\begin{cor}\label{PCZDS} If $w$ is a positive integer and $\{m_k\}_{k=0}^{w-1}\subset\mbb{N}$, then the sequence
\be\label{Pfallingfactorial}
\left\{ \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n(n+1)-k(k+1))^{m_k} \right\}_{n=0}^{\infty} = \left\{ \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}((n+k+1)(n-k))^{m_k} \right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}
\ee
is a CZDS for the Legendre basis.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Apply Theorem \ref{JCZDS} with $\lambda=0$.
\end{proof}

Corollary \ref{PCZDS} strengthens and extends some of the results obtained in \cite{BDFU} by showing that $\bs k^2+k \es$ is a $P$-CZDS, and by demonstrating the existence of $P$-CZDS (and hence $P$-multiplier sequences) which are not products of quadratic $P$-multiplier sequences.

\subsection{CZDS for the Chebyshev Basis}
The Chebyshev polynomials $\mathcal{T} = \{T_n(x)\}$ and $\mathcal{U} = \{U_n(x)\}$ of the first and second kind, respectively, can be defined by (see \cite[p. 301]{R})
$$
T_n(x) := \frac{n!}{(\frac{1}{2})_n} P_n^{(-1/2)}(x) \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots),
$$
$$
U_n(x) := \frac{(n+1)!}{(\frac{3}{2})_n} P_n^{(1/2)}(x) \qquad  (n=0, 1, 2, \dots),
$$
where $(a)_n := a(a+1)\cdots (a+n-1) $ is the rising factorial. In \cite[Lemma 156]{P} it is shown that a sequence $\{\gamma_k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is a CZDS for a simple set $Q = \{q_k(x)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ if and only if it is a $\widehat{Q}$-CZDS, where $\widehat{Q}$ consists of the polynomials
$$
\widehat{q}_n(x) = c_n q_n(\alpha x + \beta) \qquad (\beta\in \mbb{R}; \alpha, c_n \in \mbb{R}\setminus\{0\}).
$$
Combining this with Theorem \ref{JCZDS}, we arrive at the following corollary.
\begin{cor} \label{TCZDS}
If $w$ is a positive integer and $\{m_k\}_{k=0}^{w-1}\subset\mbb{N}$, then
\begin{enumerate}
\item the sequence $\left\{ \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n^2-k^2)^{m_k} \right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a $\mathcal{T}$-CZDS, and
\item the sequence $\left\{ \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n(n+2)-k(k+2))^{m_k} \right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a $\mathcal{U}$-CZDS.
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Apply Theorem \ref{JCZDS} with $\lambda=-1/2$ and again with $\lambda = 1/2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Simultaneous Generation of a Basis $B$ and a class of $B$-CZDS}\label{generate}

Given a basis $B$ and a sequence $\seq$, a typical strategy in showing that $\seq$ is a $B$-CZDS is to find a differential operator representation for the diagonal operator which is a CZDO. In this section, we begin with a known CZDO and use it to simultaneously generate a basis $B$ and a corresponding $B$-CZDS. Our results focus on bases which are {\it simple sets}, i.e., for which deg$(b_k) = k$ for all $k$.
\begin{thm}
Let $\alpha\geq 0$ and let
$$
q(x) = c_0+ c_1x + \cdots + c_r x^r \qquad (r \geq 1, c_r \neq 0)
$$
be a real polynomial with only real zeros. If the simple set of real polynomials $B = \{b_k(x)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ satisfy the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{bde}
\gamma_n b_n(x) =  q(x) b_n^{(r)}(x)+\alpha q'(x) b_n^{(r-1)} (x) \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots),
\end{equation}
where $\{\gamma_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a sequence of real numbers, then
$$
\gamma_n = c_r \frac{n!(n+(\alpha-1)r+1)}{(n-r+1)!} \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots)
$$
and $\{\gamma_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a $B$-CZDS.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Writing the polynomials $b_n$ in the form
$$
b_n(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n} \frac{a_{n,k}}{k!} x^k \qquad (a_{n,n}\neq 0),
$$
we have
$$
b_n^{(j)}(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n-j}\frac{a_{n,k+j}}{k!}{x^{k}}
$$
and so the leading coefficient of the $j^{th}$ derivative of $b_n$ is $a_{n,n} / (n-j)!$.
\vskip .1 in
\nin {\bf Case 1:} $n < r-1$.  In this case, the differential equation becomes
$$
\gamma_n b_n(x) = 0
$$
from which we must have $\gamma_n=0$.
\vskip .1 in
\nin {\bf Case 2:} $n=r-1$. In this case, the differential equation becomes
$$
\gamma_{r-1} b_{r-1}(x) = \alpha q'(x) {a_{r-1,r-1}}
$$
and equating leading coefficients, we obtain
$$
\gamma_{r-1} \frac{a_{r-1,r-1}}{(r-1)!} = \alpha r c_r {a_{r-1,r-1}}
$$
or
$$
\gamma_{r-1}  = \alpha r! c_r.
$$
\vskip .1 in
\nin {\bf Case 3:} $n > r-1$.
If we assume (\ref{bde}) is satisfied, then we can equate leading coefficients on each side of the equals sign to obtain
$$
\gamma_n \frac{a_{n,n}}{n!} =  c_r \frac{a_{n,n}}{(n-r)!}+ \alpha r c_r \frac{a_{n,n}}{(n-(r-1))!} .
$$
From this, it follows that
$$
\gamma_n = c_r \frac{n!(n+(\alpha-1)r+1)}{(n-r+1)!}
$$
as desired.

To show that $\{\gamma_n\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ is a $B$-CZDS, suppose
$$
g(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{m} d_k b_k(x) \qquad (d_m \neq 0)
$$
is a real polynomial. Then
$$
Z_C(g(x)) \geq Z_C(g^{(r-1)}(x)) \geq Z_C( q(x) g^{(r)}(x)+\alpha q'(x) g^{(r-1)}(x)),
$$
where we have made use of Remark \ref{D} and Theorem \ref{bigcor}.
Since
\begin{eqnarray*}
 q(x) g^{(r)}(x)+\alpha q'(x) g^{(r-1)}(x) &=& \sum_{k=0}^m d_k (q(x) b_k^{(r)}(x)+\alpha q'(x) b_k^{(r-1)}(x) ) \\
&=&  \sum_{k=0}^m \gamma_k d_k b_k(x),
\end{eqnarray*}
the desired result is obtained.
\end{proof}

As an example, if we choose $q(x) = (x+1)^3$ and $\alpha = 1$, then the corresponding sequence would be $\gamma_n = (n+1)n(n-1)$, and we would need to find a simple set $B = \{b_n(x)\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ which solves the differential equation
\begin{equation}{\label{DEex}}
(n+1) n (n-1) b_n(x) = (x+1)^3 b_n'''(x)+3(x+1)^2 b_n''(x)  \qquad (n=0, 1, 2, \dots).
\end{equation}
With some effort, one finds that sets $B$ which solve equation (\ref{DEex}) do exist, each of which has the form
$$
b_0(x) = r,
$$$$
b_1(x) = sx+t,
$$$$
 b_n(x) = c_n (x+1)^n \quad (n=2, 3, 4, \dots)
$$
where $t\in\mbb{R}$ and $r, s, c_2, c_3, \dots$ are any (fixed) non-zero real numbers. Thus, the sequence
$$
\{(n+1)n(n-1)\}_{n=0}^{\infty}
$$
is a $B$-CZDS for any such basis $B$.

\section{An Extension to Certain Transcendental Entire Functions}

\subsection{The Laguerre-P\'olya Class}\label{LP}
A real entire function $ \varphi$ is said to belong to the \textit{Laguerre-P\'olya class}, denoted $\varphi\in \mathcal{L-P}$, if it can be written in the form
\be
\varphi(x)=cx^me^{-ax^2+bx}\prod_{k=1}^\omega \left(1+\frac{x}{x_k}\right)e^{-x/x_k}
\ee
where $b,c,x_k\in \mbb{R}$,  $m$ is a non-negative integer, $a\geq 0$, $0\leq \omega \leq \infty$, and $ \sum_{k=1}^{\omega} {x_k^{-2}}<\infty$.

An alternate characterization of this class is as follows: $\varphi\in\lp$ if and only if $\varphi$ is the uniform limit on compact subsets of $\mbb{C}$ of real polynomials having only real zeros (See, for example, \cite[Ch. VIII ]{Levin} or \cite[Satz 9.2]{O}). This point of view, together with Hurwitz' theorem (see \cite[p. 4]{Marden}) allow us to obtain some useful extensions of results in Section \ref{CZDO}.

\begin{thm}\label{LPcor}
Suppose $\varphi$ belongs to the class $\lp$, $p$ and $q$ are real polynomials, and $\alpha\geq 0$.  Then
$$
Z_C(\varphi  q p'+\alpha (\varphi q )' p ) \leq  Z_C(p)+Z_C(q).
$$
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $\bs f_k \es$ is a sequence of real polynomials with only real zeros which converge uniformly on compact subsets of $\mbb{C}$ to $\varphi.$ By Theorem \ref{bigcor},
$$
Z_C( f_k q p'+\alpha (f_k q)' p ) \leq Z_C(p)+Z_C(q) \qquad (k=0, 1, 2, \dots).
$$
Since $ f_k q p'+\alpha (f_k q)' p $ converges uniformly on compact subsets of $\mbb{C}$ to $\alpha (\varphi q)' p + \varphi q p'$, Hurwitz' theorem gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
In order to prove an extension of Laguerre's theorem related to $H$-CZDS (Theorem \ref{hmslaguerregen} in the Introduction), Piotrowski first proved a special case as a lemma. We now show how to obtain a new proof of this lemma using Theorem \ref{LPcor}.

\begin{cor}\label{lmgenBC}\emph{(\cite[p. 55, Lemma 67]{P})}
Suppose that $p(x)$ is a real polynomial of degree $n$.  If $c,d,\beta$ are real numbers such that $c\geq 0$ and $\beta\geq 0$, then
$$
Z_C\big( (cx+d)p(x)-\beta p'(x)\big) \leq Z_C\big(p(x)\big).
$$
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
If $\beta = 0$, the result clearly holds. If $\beta>0$ we may appeal to corollary \ref{LPcor} with $\alpha = \beta^{-1}$, $q(x) = 1$, and
$$
\varphi(x) = -\exp\left(-\frac{c}{2}x^2- d\,x\right) \qquad (c\geq 0, d\in\mbb{R})
$$
to obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}

\subsection{CZDS for the Generalized Laguerre Polynomial Basis}

In this section, we combine the results of the previous section with the methods of Section \ref{JlambdaCZDS} to obtain a class of CZDS for the generalized Laguerre polynomial basis, defined by
$$
L_n^{(\alpha)}(x) :=\sum_{k=0}^{n} \binom{n+\alpha}{n-k} \frac{(-x)^k}{k!} \qquad (\alpha>-1; n=0, 1, 2, \dots).
$$
The generalized Laguerre polynomials satisfy the differential equation (see, e.g., \cite[p. 204]{R})
\begin{equation}\label{Ldiffeq}
 - x \frac{d^2}{dx^2} L_n^{(\alpha)}(x) +(x-(\alpha+1)) \frac{d}{dx}L_n^{(\alpha)}(x) = n L_n^{(\alpha)}(x).
\end{equation}
Just as with the Jacobi basis, we will develop a number of operator identities in order to arrive at a collection of $L^{(\alpha)}$-CZDS. We begin by defining, for any $a\in\mbb{R}$,
\be\label{Psi}
\Psi_a = -xD + (x-(a+1))I
\ee
\begin{lm} \label{LnD'd}
Suppose $c,\alpha\in \mbb{R}$.  Then, for all non-negative integers $n$,
$$
D^n ( \Psi_{\alpha} D - n I) = \Psi_{\alpha+n} D^{n+1}.
$$
\end{lm}

\begin{proof}
This is an immediate application of equations (\ref{gD1}) and (\ref{gD2}) which appear after the proof of Proposition \ref{genD'd} in Section \ref{opid}.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{Lmud}
Let $w$ be a positive integer and $\{m_k\}_{k=0}^{w-1}\subset\mbb{N}$.
Then
$$
\prod_{k=0}^{w-1} (\Psi_{\alpha}D -kI)^{m_k} = \left[\prod_{k=0}^{w-1}  \left[(\Psi_{\alpha+k}D)^{m_k-1} \Psi_{\alpha+k}  \right]\right]D^{w},
$$
where $\Psi_a$ is defined in equation (\ref{Psi}).
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We will argue by mathematical induction. The case $w=1$ is clear. Now suppose that the result is true for some integer $w\geq 1$ and fix natural numbers $m_0, m_1, \dots, m_w$. Then
\be\label{Ltheta1}
\prod_{k=0}^{w} (\Psi_{\alpha}D -kI)^{m_k} = \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}  \left[\big(\Psi_{\alpha+k}D \big)^{m_k-1} \Psi_{\alpha+k} \right] D^{w} ( \Psi_{\alpha}D -w I)^{m_w}.
\ee
Applying lemma \ref{LnD'd} a total of $m_w$ times we see that
\be\label{Ltheta3}
D^{w} ( \Psi_{\alpha}D -wI)^{m_w}  = (\Psi_{\alpha+w}D)^{m_w}D^{w} =  (\Psi_{\alpha+w}D)^{m_w-1} \Psi_{\alpha+w} D^{w+1}.
\ee
Together, equations (\ref{Ltheta1}) and (\ref{Ltheta3}) give the desired result.
\end{proof}

In order to use the operator identities above to find a collection of $L^{(\alpha)}$-CZDS for any $\alpha>-1$, we will use the result of Section \ref{LP}.

\begin{lm}\label{Llem}
For any $a>-1$, the operator $ \Psi_a = - x D+(x-(a+1))I$ is a CZDO.
\end{lm}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $a>-1$ and set $c=a+1$. By Theorem \ref{LPcor}, for any real polynomial $p$,
$$
Z_C\left( c \frac{d}{dx}\left( -x\exp(-x/c) \right)p(x) + (-x \exp(-x/c))p(x)   \right) \leq Z_C(p(x)).
$$
The smaller quantity above simplifies to
$$
Z_C\left( (- x p'(x)+(x-c)p(x) )\exp(-x/c)  \right).
$$
Since the exponential function never vanishes, we have shown that
$$
Z_C(\Psi_a p(x)) = Z_C( - x p'(x)+(x-c)p(x))\leq Z_C(p(x)).
$$
\end{proof}

We now arrive at the main theorem of this section.

\begin{thm}\label{LCZDS} Fix $\alpha>-1$. If $w$ is a positive integer and $\{m_k\}_{k=0}^{w-1}\subset\mbb{N}$, then the sequence
\be\label{Lfallingfactorial}
\left\{ \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n-k)^{m_k} \right\}_{n=0}^{\infty}
\ee
is an $L^{(\alpha)}$-CZDS.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
Let the linear operator $\Theta:\mbb{R}[x]\to\mbb{R}[x]$ be defined by
$$
\Theta(L_n^{(\alpha)}(x)) := \left( \prod_{k=0}^{w-1}(n-k)^{m_k}  \right)L_n^{(\alpha)}(x).
$$
Combining the differential equation (\ref{Ldiffeq}), the notation defined in equation (\ref{Psi}), and Proposition \ref{Lmud}, we have
$$
\Theta = \prod_{k=0}^{w-1} (\Psi_{\alpha}D - k I )^{m_k} = \left[\prod_{k=0}^{w-1}  \left[(\Psi_{\alpha+k}D)^{m_k-1} \Psi_{\alpha+b}\right]\right]D^{w}.
$$
The operator $\Theta$ is, therefore, a composition of individual operators, each of which are CZDO. This can be seen by appealing to Lemma \ref{Llem}.
\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{LCZDS} is a significant generalization and extension of a theorem due to Forg\'acs and Piotrowski \cite[Theorem 4.4]{FP} and a stronger result on a narrower class of sequences than those characterized by Br\"and\'en and Ottergren in \cite{BO}.

\section{Open Questions}
Any sequence of the form
$$
\{k(k-1)\cdots (k-(m-1))\}_{k=0}^{\infty}
$$
(the ``falling-factorial sequence'') is a CZDS for the standard basis. By Corollary \ref{TCZDS}, any sequence of the form
$$
\{k^2(k^2-1)\cdots(k^2-(m-1)^2)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}
$$
is a $T$-CZDS. The similarity of these results lead us to wonder if an analog of Theorem \ref{polyintCZDS} could be obtained for the Chebyshev basis.
\begin{prob} \label{P1}
Find a complete characterization of polynomials $h$ for which $\bs h(k)\es$ is a $T$-CZDS, where $T$ denotes the Chebyshev basis.
\end{prob}
We note that the characterization will be different from that of the standard basis, since the sequence $\{k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is not a $T$-CZDS.

The results on ultraspherical and Laguerre CZDS also have a falling factorial nature which leads us to consider the more general problem.
\begin{prob} \label{P2}
For any basis $B$, find a complete characterization of polynomials $h$ for which $\bs h(k)\es$ is a $B$-CZDS.
\end{prob}
Recall that this problem has been solved when the basis is taken to be either the standard basis or the Hermite basis. The result \cite[Lemma 157]{P} solves the problem for any affine transformation of the standard basis or the Hermite basis. To date, Problem \ref{P2} remains unsolved for any other choice of the basis $B$.

As it was mentioned earlier, no complete characterization of CZDS for the standard basis is known. In particular, it is not known whether or not every rapidly decreasing sequence (such as $\{\exp(-k^3)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$) is a CZDS for the standard basis (see \cite[Problem 4.8]{CCsurvey} for more details). A theorem of Piotrowski gives a connection between these and CZDS for other bases.
\begin{thm}\label{thmqczdsczds}\cite[Theorem 159]{P}
Let $B = \{q_k(x)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ be a simple set of polynomials.  If the sequence $\{\gamma_k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is a $B$-CZDS, then the sequence $\{\gamma_k\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is a CZDS for the standard basis.
\end{thm}
This prompts us to state a weaker version of Problem 4.8(a) of \cite{CCsurvey} which may be easier to settle.
\begin{prob}\label{P3}
Is there a simple set $B$ for which $\{\exp(-k^3)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ is a $B$-CZDS?
\end{prob}
We mention that our methods of simultaneously generating a basis and CZDS may apply. However, the original operator will have to be modified as all of our methods generated sequences which can be interpolated by polynomials.

Our last open problem has to do with the existence of solutions of differential equations. We believe the following problem can be answered in the affirmative and this result would give a more complete picture of the main result in section \ref{generate}.
\begin{prob}\label{P4}
Let $\alpha\geq 0$ and let $q$ be a real polynomial of degree $r$ with leading coefficient $c_r$.
Is there a simple set of polynomials $B = \{b_k(x)\}_{k=0}^{\infty}$ that satisfy the differential equation
\begin{equation}\label{P4bde}
 c_r \frac{n!(n+(\alpha-1)r+1)}{(n-r+1)!} b_n(x) =  q(x) b_n^{(r)}(x)+ \alpha q'(x) b_n^{(r-1)} (x)
\end{equation}
for $n=0, 1, 2, \dots$?
\end{prob}

\section{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank the MAA, NSA, and NSF for their financial support of this project and the mathematics program faculty and staff at UAS for their moral and administrative support. The fifth author would also like to recognize Dr. George Csordas and Dr. Tam\'as Forg\'acs for their inspiration, encouragement, and helpful suggestions.


Balanced diagonals in frequency squares

Abstract: We say that a diagonal in an array is {\em $\lambda$-balanced} if each entry occurs $\lambda$ times. Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(n;\lambda^m)$; that is, an $n\times n$ array in which each entry from $\{1,2,\dots ,m\}$ occurs $\lambda$ times per row and $\lambda$ times per column. We show that if $m\leq 3$, $L$ contains a $\lambda$-balanced diagonal, with only one exception up to equivalence when $m=2$. We give partial results for $m\geq 4$ and suggest a generalization of Ryser's conjecture, that every latin square of odd order has a transversal. Our method relies on first identifying a small substructure with the frequency square that facilitates the task of locating a balanced diagonal in the entire array.

\section{Introduction}
In what follows, rows and columns of an $n\times n$ array $L$ are each indexed by $N(n)=\{1,2,\dots ,n\}$, with
$L_{i,j}$ denoting the {\em entry} in cell $(i,j)$. We sometimes consider an array~$L$ to be a set of ordered triples $L=\{(i,j;L_{i,j})\}$ so that the notion of a subset of an array is precise.
A subarray of $L$ is any array induced by subsets of the rows and columns of $L$; thus the rows and columns in a subarray need not be adjacent.

A {\em frequency square} or {\em $F$-square} $L$ of {\em type} $F(n;\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots ,\lambda_m)$ is an $n\times n$ array such that for each $i\in N(m)$, $i$ occurs $\lambda_i$ times in each row and $\lambda_i$ times in each column; necessarily $\sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i=n$.
In the case where $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=\dots =\lambda_m=\lambda$ we say that $L$ is of type $F(n;\lambda^m)$, where $n=\lambda m$.
Clearly a frequency square of type $F(n;1^n)$ is a Latin square of order $n$.

We define a {\em diagonal} in any square array to be a subset that uses each row and each column exactly once.
We say that a diagonal is $\lambda$-balanced if each entry occurs  $\lambda$ times, for some $\lambda$.
Thus, a $1$-balanced diagonal in a Latin square is precisely a transversal.

In this paper we restrict ourselves to frequency squares of type $F(n;\lambda^m)$; in this context we refer to a $\lambda$-balanced diagonal as simply being {\em balanced}; here each element of $N(m)$ appears exactly $\lambda$ times.
For our purposes, two frequency squares of type $F(n;\lambda^m)$
 are equivalent if and only if one can be obtained from the other by rearranging rows or columns, relabelling symbols or taking the transpose.

Trivially, any diagonal of a frequency square of type $F(\lambda;\lambda)$ is balanced.
In Section 2 we show, with one exception up to equivalence, that each frequency square of type $F(2\lambda;\lambda,\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal. In Section 3 we show that {\em every}  frequency square of type $F(3\lambda;\lambda,\lambda,\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal.
We then make some observations and conjectures about the existence of balanced diagonals in $F(m\lambda;\lambda^m)$ for $m >3$ in Section 4.

The existence of {\em transversals} in arrays (diagonals in which each entry appears at most once) or, equivalently, {\em rainbow matchings} in coloured bipartite graphs, has been well-studied \cite{ACH12,transurvey}. However there appears to be scarce results on the existence of diagonals in which each entry has a fixed number of multiple occurrences.
Nevertheless, the existence of transversals (and other regular structures called {\em plexes}) in Latin squares imply the existence of balanced diagonals in certain frequency squares, as shown in Section 4.
 Conversely, the results in this paper suggest a certain generalization of Ryser's conjecture, that each Latin square of odd order has a transversal; see Conjecture \ref{bigandbold}.

 Research into frequency squares focuses mainly on constructing sets of pairwise orthogonal frequency squares, where each ordered pair occurs a constant number of times \cite{LM,LZD,Mav,JMM}. Here, in general, the existence of a balanced diagonal is not necessary.  ELABORATE? GIVE EXAMPLE?

Instead of starting with any diagonal and trying to permute rows and columns to make it balanced, we obtain our main results in Sections 2 and 3 by first identifying a subarray that allows us to construct a diagonal within the rest of the square that is {\em close} to being balanced. The properties of the subarray then allow us to find a balanced diagonal in the entire square. This approach makes the proof of Theorem \ref{main2} in particular delightfully terse (compared to an originally drafted much longer proof) and the proof of Theorem \ref{main3} manageable. This idea may be of use towards the solution of related combinatorial problems.

\section{Balanced diagonals in frequency squares with $2$ symbols}

Let $A_{2\lambda}$ be the frequency square of type $F(2\lambda;\lambda,\lambda)$
with only $1$'s in the top-left and bottom-right quadrants, formally
defined as follows:
$$A_{2\lambda}=
\{(i,j;1),(i+\lambda,j+\lambda;1),(i,j+\lambda;2),(i+\lambda,j;2) \mid i,j\in N(\lambda)\}.$$

$$\begin{array}
{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
\hline
1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
\hline
1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
\hline
2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\hline
2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\hline
2 & 2 & 2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
\hline
\multicolumn{6}{c}{A_6}
\end{array}$$
\begin{lemma}
The frequency array $A_{2\lambda}$ possesses a balanced diagonal if and only if $\lambda$ is even.
\label{tobe}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
It is easy to find a balanced diagonal if $\lambda$ is even.
If $\lambda$ is odd,
suppose that $A_{2\lambda}$ possesses a balanced diagonal $M$ with $x$ elements in cells $(i,j)$ where $i,j\in N(\lambda)$.
  Then $M$ has $\lambda-x$ elements in cells $(i,j)$ where $i,j-\lambda\in N(\lambda)$ and in turn,
$x$ elements in cells $(i,j)$ where  $i-\lambda,j-\lambda\in N(\lambda)$.
Thus, $2x$ elements of $M$ contain entry $1$, contradicting the fact that $\lambda$ is odd.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(2\lambda;\lambda,\lambda)$. Then $L$ has a balanced diagonal, unless $L$ is equivalent to $A_{2\lambda}$ where $\lambda$ is odd.
\label{main2}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(2\lambda;\lambda,\lambda)$.
Observe that if $L$ does not possess the following subarray, it must be equivalent to $A_{2\lambda}$ and the previous lemma applies.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 1 \\
\hline
1 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
Otherwise, we assume without loss of generality that
$L_{1,1}=L_{1,2}=L_{2,1}=1$ and $L_{2,2}=2$.
 Let $M$ be the main diagonal and let $x$ be the number of $1$'s in $M$. Rearrange the rows and columns (except for the first two rows and columns) so that $|x-\lambda|$ is minimized.
If $x-\lambda=0$ the main diagonal is balanced and we are done.
If $x-\lambda=-1$, we can swap rows $1$ and $2$ and the main diagonal becomes a balanced diagonal.

Suppose that $x-\lambda<-1$. Then there must exist $r,r'>2$ such that cells $(r,r)$ and $(r',r')$ each contain $2$ and $(r,r')$ contains $1$. Swapping rows $r$ and $r'$ reduces $|x-\lambda|$ by either $1$ or~$2$, a contradiction. If
$x-\lambda\geq 1$, then there must exist $r,r'>2$ such that cells $(r,r)$ and $(r',r')$, each containing $1$, with $(r,r')$ containing $2$; if not, there is a $\lambda\times \lambda$ subarray containing only $1$'s and our array is equivalent to $A_{2\lambda}$, a contradiction.
 Swapping rows $r$ and $r'$ reduces $|x-\lambda|$ by at least one unless $x-\lambda=1$ and $(r',r)$ contains $2$. In that case we can further swap rows $1$ and $2$ to create a balanced main diagonal.
\end{proof}

\section{Balanced diagonals in frequency squares with $3$ symbols}

In this section we prove the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(3\lambda;\lambda,\lambda,\lambda)$. Then $L$ has a balanced diagonal.
\label{main3}
\end{theorem}
Throughout this section, $L$ is a frequency square of type $F(3\lambda;\lambda,\lambda,\lambda)$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: must contain subsquare}
Let $\lambda\geq 2$ and let $e\in \{1,2,3\}$. Suppose that for each $f\in \{1,2,3\}\setminus \{e\}$,
$L$ does not contain the following subarray:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
e & e \\
\hline
e & f \\
\hline
\end{array} \;.$$
Then $L$ contains a balanced diagonal.
\label{nonny}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, let $e=1$. It can quickly be shown that the rows and columns of $L$ can be partitioned into sets $R_1,R_2,R_3$ and $C_1,C_2,C_3$, respectively, where each set is of size $\lambda$ and the cells in $R_i\times C_i$ contain only symbol $1$, for each $1\leq i\leq 3$.
Let $B_{ij}$ be the subarray formed by the intersection of the rows in $R_i$ and the columns in $C_j$; we call such subarrays {\em blocks}.

We know that $B_{11}$, $B_{22}$, $B_{33}$ each contain only the symbol $1$. Suppose that one of the remaining blocks contains only the symbol $2$; it quickly follows that each block contains only one type of symbol.
In this case diagonals from each of $B_{13}$, $B_{22}$ and $B_{31}$ together form a balanced diagonal.
Otherwise, without loss of generality, each block not on the main diagonal contains at least one $2$ and at least one $3$.

Let $X$ be the main diagonal from $B_{12}$
(i.e. on the cells $\{(i,\lambda+i)\mid i\in N(\lambda)\}$), and let~$Y$ be the main diagonal from $B_{21}$.
Let $x$ and $y$ be the number of $3$'s in diagonals $X$ and $Y$, respectively.
If $x+y=\lambda$, we can construct a balanced diagonal by adding a diagonal from block $B_{33}$.
Otherwise, without loss of generality, $x+y> \lambda$.
We call a rearrangement of rows and columns that preserves the block structure  {\em good} if it reduces $x+y$ by at most $x+y-\lambda$.

Partition $C_{2}$ into sets of columns $D_1$ and $D_2$ and $R_{1}$ into sets of
rows $S_1$ and $S_2$, so that $S_{i-1}\times D_{i-1}$ contains the $i$'s from $X$,
where $i\in \{2,3\}$.
Similarly,
partition $R_{2}$ into sets of rows $T_1$ and $T_2$ and $C_{1}$ into sets of
 columns $E_1$ and $E_2$, so that $T_{i-1}\times E_{i-1}$ contains the $i$'s from $Y$,
where $i\in \{2,3\}$.

Suppose that $x+y\geq \lambda+2$ and there are no good swaps.
Then there exists no $2$ in $S_2\times D_2$; otherwise we can swap rows within $S_2$ and columns within $D_2$ to reduce $x+y$ by either $1$ or~$2$.
Similarly, $T_2\times E_2$ contains only $3$'s.
If both $(r,c) \in S_1 \times D_2$ and $ (c-\lambda,r+\lambda)) \in S_2\times D_1$ contain a $2$,
then swapping row $r$ with row $c-\lambda$ is a good swap; a contradiction.
Thus, at most one of $(r,c) \in S_1 \times D_2$ and $(c-\lambda,r+\lambda) \in S_2\times D_1$ contains a $2$.
Similarly,
at most one of $(r,c) \in T_1 \times E_2$ and $ (c+\lambda,r-\lambda) \in T_2\times E_1$ contains a $2$.
Hence, the number of $3$'s in $B_{12}\cup B_{21}$ is at least $x^2+y^2+x(\lambda-x)+y(\lambda-y)=\lambda(x+y)>\lambda^2$.

However, since each column contains $\lambda$ $3$'s, if there are $\alpha$ $3$'s in $B_{12}$, there are $\lambda^2-\alpha$ $3$'s in $B_{32}$. In turn, there are $\alpha$
$3$'s in $B_{31}$ and $\lambda^2-\alpha$ $3$'s in $B_{21}$.
Therefore, the total number of~$3$'s in $B_{12}\cup B_{21}$ is equal to $\lambda^2$, a contradiction.

So if $x+y>\lambda+1$ a good swap always exists; recursively we can always apply a
series of good swaps until $x+y\in \{\lambda,\lambda+1\}$.
So we are left with the case when $x+y=\lambda+1$.
Since $\lambda\geq 2$, either $x\geq 2$ or $y\geq 2$. By symmetry we may assume that $x\geq 2$. Then, since $2\leq x\leq \lambda$, we have that $1\leq y\leq \lambda-1$. Thus,
$X$ has distinct cells $(r_1,c_1),(r_2,c_2)$ each containing $3$ and
$Y$ has a cell $(r_3,c_3)$ containing $2$ and a cell $(r_4,c_4)$ containing
$3$.

Since cell $(r_4,c_4)$ contains $3$, there exists a row $r_5\in R_3$ such that
$(r_5,c_4)$ contains $2$.
Suppose that there exists a column $c_5\in C_3$ such that $(r_2,c_5)$ contains $3$.
Let $Z$ be a diagonal from $B_{3,3}$ which includes $(r_5,c_5)$.
We can construct a balanced diagonal
by including $X$ (except for cell $(r_2,c_2)$),  $Y$ (except for cell $(r_4,c_4)$), $Z$ (except for cell $(r_5,c_5)$) and the
cells $(r_4,c_2)$, $(r_2,c_5)$ and $(r_5,c_4)$.

Otherwise, row $r_2$ contains only $2$'s within $B_{13}$.
Similarly, column $c_4$ contains only $2$'s within $B_{31}$.
Therefore cell $(r_3,c_4)$ contains $3$.
Thus, there exists a column $c_6\in C_3$ such that $(r_3,c_6)$ contains $2$.
Next, there exists a row $r_6\in R_3$ such that $(r_6,c_1)$ contains $2$.
Let $Z$ be a diagonal from $B_{3,3}$ which includes $(r_6,c_6)$.

Finally, we can construct a balanced diagonal
by including $X$ (except for cell $(r_1,c_1)$),  $Y$ (except for cell $(r_3,c_3)$),
$Z$ (except for cell $(r_6,c_6)$ and
the
cells $(r_6,c_1)$, $(r_3,c_6)$ and $(r_1,c_3)$.
\end{proof}

We next do the case $\lambda=2$.

\begin{theorem}
Any frequency square of type $F(6;2,2,2)$ contains a balanced diagonal.
\label{case6222}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(6;2,2,2)$. From Lemma \ref{nonny}, we may assume without loss of generality
that $L_{1,1}=L_{1,2}=L_{2,1}=1$ and $L_{2,2}=2$.
Since there are four~$3$'s in rows $1$ and $2$ and another four $3$'s in columns $1$ and $2$, there are four $3$'s in the block $\{3,4,5,6\}\times \{3,4,5,6\}$ and without loss of generality we can assume $L_{3,3}=L_{4,4}=3$.

Suppose that there are no $3$'s in the block $\{5,6\}\times \{5,6\}$.
If there exists at least one $2$ in this block, we can find a balanced diagonal. But if there are only $1$'s in this block the resultant partial structure does not complete to a frequency square of type $F(6;2,2,2)$.

Thus, without loss of generality, $L_{5,5}=3$. If $\{L_{3,6},L_{6,3}\}=\{1,2\}$ or $\{2,2\}$ we can construct a balanced diagonal.
Similarly, if $\{L_{4,6},L_{6,4}\}$ or $\{L_{5,6},L_{6,5}\}$ is equal to $\{1,2\}$ or $\{2,2\}$  we are done. Therefore, without loss of generality,
we may assume that $L_{3,6}=L_{4,6}=L_{6,3}=L_{6,4}=1$, $L_{6,5}=3$ and $L_{5,6}=2$.
Hence, there are no more $3$'s in the block $\{3,4,5,6\}\times \{3,4,5,6\}$ and we are forced to have
$L_{6,6}=2$, $L_{1,6}=L_{2,6}=3$ and $L_{1,5}=2$.

If $L_{5,4}=2$ there is a balanced diagonal on cells $(1,1),(2,2),(3,3),(4,6),(5,4)$ and $(6,5)$. Similarly we are done if $L_{5,3}=2$. Otherwise $L_{5,4}=L_{5,3}=1$ and in turn, considering where a $1$ can be placed in row $2$, $L_{2,5}=1$.
If $L_{5,2}=2$, there is a balanced diagonal on cells $(1,1),(2,5),(3,3),(4,4),(5,2)$ and $(6,6)$. Otherwise $L_{5,2}=3$.
Thus, $L_{5,1}=2$; a balanced diagonal is shown underlined below.
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
1 & \underline{1} & & & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
1 & 2 & & & \underline{1} & 3 \\
\hline
& & \underline{3} &  & & 1 \\
\hline
 & &  & \underline{3} & & 1 \\
\hline
\underline{2} & 3 & 1 & 1 & 3 & 2 \\
\hline
 &  & 1 & 1 & 3 & \underline{2} \\
\hline
\end{array}$$

\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem: must contain two subsquares}
Let $\lambda\geq 3$. Suppose that $L$ contains the following subarray:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
e & e \\
\hline
e & f \\
\hline
\end{array} \;,
$$
for some $e,f\in\{1,2,3\}$ such that $e\neq f$.

Let $\{g\}=\{1,2,3\}\setminus \{e,f\}$.
Then either $L$ contains one of the following subarrays (on rows and columns disjoint to the above) or $L$ contains a balanced diagonal.
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
g & g \\
\hline
g & e \\
\hline
\end{array}
\quad \quad
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
g & g \\
\hline
g & f \\
\hline
\end{array}\;.$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $e=1$, $f=2$, $g=3$,
$L_{1,1}=L_{1,2}=L_{2,1}=1$ and $L_{2,2}=2$.
We assume that whenever $L_{r,c}=L_{r,c'}=L_{r',c}=3$, where $r,r',c,c'\geq 3$, then
$L_{r',c'}=3$.
If we can show that such an $L$ always contains a balanced diagonal, we are done.

Since $\lambda\geq 3$, we can assume, without loss of generality, that
the set of rows is $\{1,2\}\cup\bigcup_{i=1}^{\alpha} R_i$ and the set of columns is
 $\{1,2\}\cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{\alpha}C_i$ where
the cells in $R_i\times C_i$ each contain $3$,  $1\leq i\leq \alpha$.

Let $|R_i|=a_i$ and $|C_i|=b_i$ where $1\leq i\leq \alpha$.
Then clearly $a_i,b_i\in\{\lambda,\lambda-1,\lambda-2\}$ for each $1\leq i\leq \alpha$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{i=1}^{\alpha} a_i & = & \sum_{i=1}^{\alpha} b_i=3\lambda-2.
\label{eqq1}
\end{eqnarray}
(Note that since $\lambda>2$, this implies that $\alpha\geq 3$.)
For each $1\leq i\leq \alpha$, the number of $3$'s in $\{1,2\}\times C_i$ is equal to $(\lambda-a_i)b_i$; thus since there are no $3$'s in the subarray
$\{1,2\}\times \{1,2\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
0=2\lambda-\sum_{i=1}^{\alpha} (\lambda-a_i)b_i
& = & \sum_{i=1}^{\alpha} a_i'b_i'-(\alpha-3)\lambda^2,
\label{eqq2}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_i'=\lambda-a_i\in \{0,1,2\}$ and $b_i'=\lambda-b_i\in \{0,1,2\}$, for each $i\in N(\alpha)$.
Thus $0\leq 4\alpha-(\alpha-3)\lambda^2$.

Suppose $\alpha>3$. Then $12/(\alpha-3)+4\geq \lambda^2$, so by inspection
we must have $(\lambda,\alpha)\in \{(3,4),(3,5),(4,4)\}$.
In the case $(\lambda,\alpha)=(4,4)$,  observe that the system of equations:
$$\sum_{i=1}^4 a_i'=\sum_{i=1}^4 b_i'=6,\quad \sum_{i=1}^4 a_i'b_i'=16$$
under the constraint $a_i' ,b_i' \in \{0,1,2\}$ for $1 \leq i \leq \alpha $ has no solution.
By a similar observation, the case when $(\lambda,\alpha)=(3,5)$
is also impossible and,
 without loss of generality,  the only possibility is when $(\lambda,\alpha)=(3,4)$ and  $a_1=a_2=b_1=b_2=1$, $a_3=b_3=2$ and $a_4=b_4=3$:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 1 & & & & & & &\\
\hline
1 & 2 & & & & & & &\\
\hline
 &  & 3 &  & & & & &\\
\hline
 &  &  & 3 & & & & &\\
\hline
 &  &  &  & 3& 3 & & &\\
\hline
 &  &  &  & 3& 3 & & &\\
\hline
 &  &  &  & & & 3& 3& 3\\
\hline
 &  &  &  & & & 3& 3& 3\\
\hline
 &  &  &  & & & 3& 3& 3\\
\hline
\end{array}\;,
$$
with no other $3$'s outside rows $1,2$ and columns $1,2$.
 Then clearly the entries in $\{1,2\}\times\{3,4\}$ and $\{3,4\}\times\{1,2\}$ are each $3$.
Observe that column $9$ has no $3$'s in rows $1$ and $2$.
If $L_{1,9}=L_{2,9}$, then we are done by considering cells $\{1,2\}\times \{2,9\}$ and cells $\{3,4\}\times \{1,4\}$. Otherwise $L_{1,9}\neq L_{2,9}$; again we are done by considering cells $\{1,2\}\times \{1,9\}$ and cells
$\{3,4\}\times \{2,3\}$.

Thus $\alpha=3$. Then, as above,
$$\sum_{i=1}^3 a_i'=\sum_{i=1}^3 b_i'=2, \quad \sum_{i=1}^3 a_i'b_i'=0.$$
If
$\{a_i',a_2',a_3'\}=\{b_1',b_2',b_3'\}=\{0,0,2\}$, then
$\{a_1,a_2,a_3\}=\{b_1,b_2,b_3\}=\{\lambda,\lambda,\lambda-2\}$ and without loss of generality $a_1=a_2=b_1=b_3=\lambda$ and $a_3=b_2=\lambda-2$.
It follows that whenever~$3$ is in cells $(r,c)$, $(r,c')$ and $(r',c)$, it is also in cell $(r',c')$. So a balanced diagonal exists
  by Lemma \ref{nonny}.
Thus, without loss of generality, we may otherwise assume that
$a_1=\lambda-2$, $b_2=b_3=\lambda-1$ and $a_2=a_3=b_1=\lambda$.
Clearly $\{1,2\}\times C_1$ contains only $3$. It follows there exists a column $c'\in C_2\cup C_3$ such that
$(2,c')$ contains $1$ and $(1,c')$ contains $2$. Thus we have a subarray of the form
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 2 \\
\hline
1 & 1 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
within rows $1$ and $2$, using column $1$ and one column from $C_2\cup C_3$.

Next, consider $R_2\times \{1,2\}$. If all the $3$'s are in one column in this subarray, then, similarly to before, we are done by Lemma \ref{nonny}.
Otherwise, there exists
 a subarray of the form
$$\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
e & 3 \\
\hline
3 & 3 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
where $e\in \{1,2\}$, the rows are in $R_2$, column $2$ and one column from $C_2$ can be used. Since $\lambda\geq 3$, this can be made to avoid
the previous subarray, and
we are done.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
Let $\lambda\geq 3$. If $L$ does not contain a balanced diagonal, then $L$ contains a $4\times 4$ subarray with (possibly non-disjoint) diagonals $D_1,D_2,D_3$ and $D_4$, where:
\begin{itemize}
\item $D_1$ contains symbol $1$ twice and each other symbol once;
\item $D_2$ contains symbol $2$ twice and each other symbol once;
\item $D_3$ contains symbol $3$ twice and each other symbol once; and
\item $D_4$ contains two symbols twice each, with the remaining symbol not included.
\end{itemize}
\label{setup}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
If $L$ contains row- and column- disjoint subarrays equivalent to:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 1 \\
\hline
1 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\quad \quad
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
3 & 3 \\
\hline
3 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
observe that we are done.
Moreover, if
 $L$ contains row and column disjoint subarrays equivalent to:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 2 \\
\hline
1 & 3 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\quad \quad
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
2 & 3 \\
\hline
2 & 1 \\
\hline
\end{array}$$
observe that we are done. We call these Cases 1 and 2, respectively and refer to them later in the proof.
In Case 2, the transpose of either $2\times 2$ subarray is also allowed.

From Lemmas \ref{lem: must contain subsquare} and \ref{lem: must contain two subsquares},
we are left, without loss of generality, with the case when
there is a substructure as follows:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 1 & & \\
\hline
1 & 2 & & \\
\hline
 &  & 2 & 2 \\
\hline
 &  & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
\end{array}\;,
$$
on rows $1,2,3$ and $4$ and columns $1,2,3$ and $4$.
Note that if a diagonal of the form $D_3$ exists in this subarray we are done.

Let the remaining sets of rows and columns be $R'$ and $C'$ respectively.
If there is a column $c\in C'$ such that $(3,c)$ and $(4,c)$ each contain $3$, we
obtain Case 1 by swapping columns $3$ and $c$ and we are done.
Similarly, if there is a row $r\in R'$ such that $(3,r)$ and $(4,r)$ each contain $3$, we are done.

{\bf Claim:}\ {\em Either} there exists a column
 $c'\in C'$ such that the set of entries in $(3,c')$ and $(4,c')$ is $\{1,3\}$; {\em or}
there exists a row $r'\in R'$ such that the set of entries in $(r',3)$ and $(r',4)$ is $\{1,3\}$.
If not, for each occurrence of entry $3$ in a cell $(3,c')$ where $c'\in C'$, entry $2$ must occur in $(4,c')$.
Also,
 for each occurrence of entry $3$ in a cell $(4,c')$ where $c'\in C'$, entry $2$ must occur in $(3,c')$.
Since cells $(3,3)$, $(3,4)$ and $(4,3)$ each contain $2$,
there are at most $\lambda-1$ columns in $C'$ containing $3$ in row $3$ and
at most $\lambda-2$ columns in $C'$ containing $3$ in row $4$.
Thus, there exists at least one 3 in cells $(3,1)$ or $(3,2)$ and at least one 3 in cells
$(4,1)$ or $(4,2)$.
By symmetry, there
 exists at least one 3 in cells $(1,3)$ or $(2,3)$ and at least one three in cells
$(1,4)$ or $(2,4)$.

If $3$ is in cell $(4,2)$, then $D_3$ exists either on the set of cells $\{(1,1),(2,3),(3,4),(4,2)\}$ or on the set of cells $\{(1,3),(2,1),(3,4),(4,2)\}$. Thus, $3$ is not in cell
$(4,2)$ and $3$ is in cell $(4,1)$. Similarly, $3$ is in cell $(1,4)$ (and not in cell $(2,4)$). If $3$ is in cell $(3,2)$ then $D_3$ exists on cells
$\{(1,4),(2,1),(3,2),(4,3)\}$. Thus, $3$ is in cell $(3,1)$ (and not in cell $(3,2)$).

By further inspection, the only possible scenario that does not allow diagonal $D_3$ to exist in
the first four rows and columns is:
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
1 & 1 & 3 & 3 \\
\hline
1 & 2 & 1 & 1 \\
\hline
3  & 1 & 2 & 2 \\
\hline
3 & 1 & 2 & 3 \\
\hline
\end{array} \;.
$$
But then we are done (as in Case $1$), considering the entries in cells
$\{1,2\}\times \{1,4\}$ and
$\{3,4\}\times \{3,c'\}$, since there exists $c'$ such that $(3,c')$ and $(4,c')$ contain entries $3$ and $2$, respectively.

Hence, our claim is true. Without loss of generality,
 there exists a column
 $c'\in C'$ such that
the set of entries in $(3,c')$ and $(4,c')$ is $\{1,3\}$.
If there exists a column $c''\in C'$ such that
$c''\neq c'$ and
cells $(1,c'')$ and $(2,c'')$ each contain $3$ we are done,
 since we have Case 2 on
cells $\{1,2\}\times \{2,c''\}$ and
cells $\{3,4\}\times \{3,c'\}$.
If there exists a column $c''\in C'$ such that
$c''\neq c'$ and
the set of entries in $(1,c'')$ and $(2,c'')$ is $\{2,3\}$ we are also done,
 since we have Case 2 on
cells
$\{1,2\}\times \{1,c''\}$
and
cells $\{3,4\}\times \{3,c'\}$.

Since cells $(1,1)$ and $(1,2)$ each contain $1$,
there are at most $\lambda-2$ columns in $C'\setminus \{c'\}$ containing $3$ in row $2$.
It follows that $3$ either exists in cell $(2,3)$ or cell $(2,4)$.

If there is a $3$ in cell $(4,2)$, then we can find diagonal $D_3$ and we are done.
Therefore, $3$ occurs as an entry at least $\lambda-1> 1$ times in column $c_2$ (within rows $R'$).

Let $r'\in R'$ be such that $(r',2)$ contains $3$. Suppose that
$(r',1)$ contains $1$. Then we are back to Case 1 on cells
$\{1,r'\}\times \{1,2\}$ and
$\{3,4\}\times \{3,4\}$.
If $(r',1)$ contains $2$, we are back to Case 2
on cells
$\{1,r'\}\times \{1,2\}$ and
$\{3,4\}\times \{3,c'\}$.
Thus, $(r',1)$ contains $3$.
But then we have Case 2 on cells
$\{2,r'\}\times \{1,2\}$ and
$\{3,4\}\times \{3,c'\}$.
\end{proof}

In our proof of Theorem \ref{main3}, we also need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(3\lambda;\lambda,\lambda,\lambda)$
and suppose that there is a $k\times k$ subarray missing a particular entry. Then $k\leq 3\lambda/2$.
\label{halfy}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $R$ and $C$ be subsets of the rows and columns, respectively, such that $|R|=|C|=k$ and
the cells $R\times C$ are missing entry $1$ (say). Let $R'=N(3\lambda)\setminus R$ and
$C'=N(3\lambda)\setminus C$.
Then there are $k\lambda$ $1$'s in $R'\times C$ and in turn, $(3\lambda-2k)\lambda$ $1$'s in $R'\times C'$. Thus $2k\leq 3\lambda$.
\end{proof}

Finally, we are ready to prove Theorem \ref{main3}:

\begin{proof}
The case $\lambda=1$ is trivial and the case $\lambda=2$ is done by Theorem \ref{case6222}.
Otherwise suppose, for the sake of contradiction, that there exists a frequency square $L$ of type $F(3\lambda;\lambda,\lambda,\lambda)$ with no balanced diagonal, where $\lambda\geq 3$.
From Lemma \ref{setup}, there is a $4\times 4$ subarray in~$L$ as described in the statement of that lemma.
Let this subarray be on the set of rows $R_0=\{1,2,3,4\}$ and the set of columns $C_0=\{1,2,3,4\}$, with $R'$ and $C'$ the remaining sets of rows and columns. Observe that each entry occurs in at least two cells of $R_0\times C_0$.

At any stage in the following, $M$ is the main diagonal on the subarray $R'\times C'$ and
$\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are the number of $1$'s, $2$'s and $3$'s, respectively, within $M$.
Thus $\alpha+\beta+\gamma = 3\lambda-4$. Let $\Delta=\gamma-\alpha$.
Let $R_1$ and $C_1$ be the sets of rows and columns, respectively, which contain $1$ on the main diagonal (within $M$), with $R_2,C_2,R_3$ and $C_3$ similarly defined.
For $0\leq i,j\leq 3$ let $B_{i,j}$ be the block of cells $R_i\times C_j$.
At certain steps we will perform a permutation of rows in $R'$ or columns of $C'$, changing the entries in $M$;
we recalculate $\alpha$, $\beta$, $\gamma$, $\Delta$ (and in turn $R_1,R_2,R_3,C_1,C_2$ and $C_3$) accordingly, assuming always (by relabelling if necessary) that
$\alpha\leq \beta\leq \gamma$.

If $\Delta =1$ then $\alpha=\lambda-2$, $\beta=\gamma=\lambda-1$ and we are done by Lemma \ref{setup}.
Otherwise $\Delta\geq 2$.
We call a permutation of $R'$ or $C'$ {\em good} if it decreases the value of $\Delta$
{\em or} creates a balanced diagonal on $M$ together with $D_4$ (in the case $\Delta=2$).
We are done if we can show that there always exists a good permutation, so we assume no such permutation exists for the sake of contradiction.

\vspace{5mm}

\noindent {\bf Case 1}: $\alpha+3\leq \beta$. \
If there is a $1$ in
cell $(r,c)$ in block $B_{2,3}$, then the permutation $(rc)$ (applied to the rows) is good.
Similarly, there is no $1$ in block $B_{3,2}$.
If there is a $1$ in
cell $(r,c)$ in block $B_{3,3}$, then the permutation $(rc)$ (applied to the rows) is good, unless $\beta=\gamma$ and cell $(c,r)$ contains $2$.
In this latter case,
if there is a $1$ in cell $(r',c')$ of block $B_{2,2}$, then
the permutation $(r'c')(rc)$ applied to the rows is always good.
If there are no $1$'s in block $B_{2,2}$,
then we globally swap entry $2$ with entry $3$ within $L$, noting that $\beta=\gamma$ still holds.
In any case we may assume that $1$ is neither in block
$B_{2,3}$ nor block $B_{3,3}$.

Thus, the $1$'s in the columns of $C_3$
are in rows $R_0\cup R_{1}$.
Therefore, $\alpha\geq \lambda-4$.
If $\alpha=\lambda-4$,  every entry in block $B_{0,3}$ must be $1$; hence $\gamma\leq \lambda$.
If $\gamma <\lambda$, $\alpha+\beta+\gamma<3\lambda-4$, a contradiction. Hence, $\gamma=\lambda$. However, then there are no $1$'s in $B_{0,0}$, a contradiction.  Thus, $\alpha\geq \lambda-3$. But then $\beta,\gamma \geq \lambda$, which gives $\alpha+\beta+\gamma>3\lambda-4$, again a contradiction.

\vspace{5mm}

\noindent {\bf Case 2}: $\alpha+2=\beta$. \
Note that $\gamma>\beta$; otherwise $\alpha+\beta+\gamma\not\equiv 2$ (mod $3$).
Therefore, if there is a $1$ in block $B_{3,3}$ or $B_{2,3}$, a good permutation exists, similarly to the previous case.
Furthermore, the 1's in the columns $C_3$ are in rows $R_0\cup R_1$.
Thus, $\alpha\geq \lambda-4$. If $\alpha=\lambda-4$,
then the first row must contain $\gamma=\lambda+2>\lambda$ $1$'s. If $\alpha\geq \lambda-2$,
then $\alpha+\beta+\gamma > 3\lambda-4$. Hence $\alpha=\lambda-3$, $\beta=\lambda-1$ and $\gamma=\lambda$.

For each $1$ in a cell $(r,c)$ of block $B_{1,3}$, if there is also a $1$ in cell $(c,r)$ (of block $B_{3,1}$), the permutation $(rc)$ applied to the rows is good. A similar result holds for each $1$ in block $B_{3,1}$. Therefore, without loss of generality, we may assume there are at most $\lambda(\lambda-3)/2$ $1$'s in block $B_{1,3}$.
 But the number of $1$'s in $B_{0,3}$ is at most $4\lambda-2$
(since $B_{0,0}$ has at least two $1$'s). But the total number of $1$'s in columns $C_3$ is $\lambda^2$, so $(4\lambda-2)+\lambda(\lambda-3)/2\geq \lambda^2$. It follows that $\lambda<5$.

Suppose that $\lambda=4$. Without loss of generality, suppose there are at most two $1$'s in block $B_{1,3}$. Thus, there are at least $14$ $1$'s in $B_{0,3}$. But there are already at least two $1$'s in $R_0\times C_0$. We thus have that
$B_{0,2}$ has no $1$'s. But $B_{3,2}$ also has no $1$'s,
 so each cell in $B_{1,2} \cup B_{2,2}$ contains 1, which is impossible
 as the main diagonal contains 2 within $B_{2,2}$.

Otherwise $\lambda=3$. Then $R_1$ and $C_1$ are empty and $B_{0,3}$ contains nine $1$'s. Since $R_0\times C_0$ contains at least two $1$'s,
$B_{0,2}$ contains at most one $1$. But there are no $1$'s in $B_{3,2}$ and at most two $1$'s in $B_{2,2}$ (as this block has $4$ cells),
contradicting the fact that each column of~$C_2$ must have three $1$'s.

\vspace{5mm}

\noindent {\bf Case 3}: $\alpha=\beta$ or $\alpha+1=\beta$ and $\alpha\leq \lambda-3$. \
Since $\alpha+\beta+\gamma=3\lambda-4$,  observe that $\gamma\geq \beta+3$.
Since no good permutations exist, there are only $3$'s in the block $B_{3,3}$. But then $\gamma\leq \lambda$ and $\alpha+\beta+\gamma\leq 3\lambda-5$, a contradiction.

\vspace{5mm}
\noindent {\bf Case 4}: $\alpha=\beta=\lambda-2$ and $\gamma=\lambda$.
Recall the existence of the diagonal $D_4$ from the statement of Lemma \ref{setup}. If $D_4$ contains no $3$'s there exists a balanced diagonal. Hence, $D_4$ contains entry $3$ twice.

First suppose there are only $3$'s in the block $B_{3,3}$. Then, to avoid a good permutation, there are only $1$'s in
blocks $B_{2,3}$ and $B_{3,2}$ and only $2$'s in blocks $B_{1,3}$ and $B_{3,1}$.
Since $\lambda\geq 3$, $R_1$, $R_2$, $C_1$ and $C_2$ are each non-empty and $|R_3|=|C_3|\geq 3$.
Let $r_1\in R_1$, $r_2\in R_2$ and $r_3,r_4$ distinct rows from $R_3$.
Then the permutation $(r_1r_3)(r_2r_4)$ (applied to the rows) is good, a contradiction.

Thus, without loss of generality, there is a cell $(r,c)$ in $B_{3,3}$ containing $2$; the cell $(c,r)$ must also contain $2$ otherwise $(rc)$ is a good permutation. If~$D_4$ is missing $2$ we are done; therefore~$D_4$ has entry  $2$ twice and entry $3$ twice.
If there is also a cell $(r,c)$ in $B_{3,3}$ containing~$1$, then again cell $(c,r)$ must contain $1$. However, we are now done by the existence of the diagonal~$D_4$. Therefore, $B_{3,3}$ does not contain entry $1$.

Next, suppose there is a row $r_1$ of $B_{3,3}$ with no $2$'s. Then column $r_1$ contains no $2$'s in~$B_{3,3}$. There exists a cell $(r_{2},c_{3})$ of $B_{3,3}$ containing $2$.
Then the permutation $(r_1r_{2}c_{3})$ is good when applied to the columns. Hence, {\em every} row and column of $B_{3,3}$ contains a $2$.

Next, suppose that there is a $1$ in cell $(r_1,c_2)$ of $B_{2,2}$.
Let $(r_3,c_4)$ be a cell of $B_{3,3}$ containing~$2$; from above, $(c_4,r_3)$ also contains $2$.
Then the permutation $(r_1c_2)(r_3c_4)$ is always good, using $D_4$ in the case when $(c_2,r_1)$ contains $1$.
Thus, there are no $1$'s in $B_{2,2}$.

Suppose that there is a $1$ in $B_{2,3}$ in cell $(r_{1},c_{2})$, say.
Then there exists $r_{3}\in R_3$ such that $(r_{3},c_{2})$ contains $2$.
Observe that cells $(r_{1},r_{1})$ and $(c_{2},r_{3})$ each contain $2$ and
cells $(c_{2},c_{2})$ and $(r_{3},r_{3})$ each contain $3$.
However regardless of whether cell $(r_{3},r_{1})$ contains a $1$, $2$ or a $3$, the permutation $(r_{1}c_{2}r_{3})$ (applied to the columns) is always good (possibly using $D_4$).

Thus, there are no $1$'s in $B_{2,3}$; similarly there are no $1$'s in $B_{3,2}$.
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{halfy}, $\lambda+(\lambda-2)\leq 3\lambda/2$ and $\lambda\leq 4$.
If $\lambda=4$ then there are $24$ $1$'s in $B_{1,2}\cup B_{1,3}\cup B_{0,2}\cup B_{0,3}$ and thus there are no $1$'s in $B_{0,0}$, a contradiction.

So we are left with the case $\lambda=3$.
 Observe there are at least two $1$'s in $B_{0,2}$ (since $B_{2,2}\cup B_{3,2}$ contains no $1$'s and
$|R_1|=1=|C_2|$). Hence, there are at most eight $1$'s in $B_{0,3}$ and at least one $1$ in $B_{3,1}$.
Similarly, there is at least one $1$ in $B_{1,3}$.
If there is a $1$ in cell $(r,c)$ of $B_{1,3}$ and in cell $(c,r)$ of $B_{3,1}$, the permutation $(rc)$ applied to the rows is good.
Thus, there exist rows $r_1\in R_1$ and $r_2,r_3\in R_3$ such that $(r_1,r_2)$ and $(r_3,r_1)$ each contain~$1$ and $r_2\neq r_3$. Observe that $(r_1,r_1)$ contains $1$, $(r_2,r_2)$ and $(r_3,r_3)$ each contain~$3$ and $(r_2,r_3)$ contains either~$2$ or $3$. Therefore, the permutation $(r_1r_2r_3)$ (applied to the columns) is good.
\end{proof}

\section{Frequency squares with $m\geq 4$}

We conjecture the following.

\begin{conjecture}
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(m\lambda;\lambda^m)$.
If $(m-1)\lambda$ is even,
$L$ contains a balanced diagonal.
\label{bigandbold}
\end{conjecture}

We have shown in the previous sections this conjecture to be true for $m\in {2,3}$ (it is trivially true for $m=1$).
In this section we make some observations and constructions that support (or at least don't contradict) this conjecture and show its connection with existing conjectures and known results.

The following conjecture is commonly known (including in this paper) as Ryser's conjecture, though, as pointed out in \cite{transurvey}, Ryser's original conjecture was that each Latin square of order $n$ has an odd number of transversals \cite{Ryser}. It is known to be true for $n\leq 9$ \cite{MMW06}.

\begin{conjecture} {\rm (Ryser's conjecture)}\
Each Latin square of odd order $n$ has at least one transversal.
\end{conjecture}
\noindent
Setting $\lambda=1$ with $m$ odd, observe that Conjecture \ref{bigandbold} implies Ryser's conjecture.

Next, we explore a method to construct a frequency square from a Latin square, and explore how the existence or non-existence of transversals in the Latin square affects the existence or non-existence of balanced diagonals in the resultant frequency square.
To this end,  given a Latin square $L$ of order $m$, let $L(\lambda)$ be the frequency square of type $F(m\lambda; \lambda^m)$ created by replacing each cell in $L$ containing entry $e$ with a $\lambda\times \lambda$ block of $e$'s.

A {\em $k$-plex} in a Latin square of order $n$ is a subset in which each row, column and entry occurs exactly $k$ times.
 Note that a $1$-plex is a transversal.

\begin{theorem}
If a Latin square has a $k$-plex and $k$ divides $\lambda$ then $L(\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal.
In particular, if a Latin square $L$ has a transversal, then $L(\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal for any $\lambda$.
\label{goodwork}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $L$ be a Latin square with a $k$-plex $K$ and let $\lambda/k=\alpha$.
It is well-known that any regular bipartite graph partitions into perfect matchings; thus
we may partition $K$ into diagonals  $D_1,D_2,\dots ,D_{k}$, noting, in general that
these diagonals are not necessarily balanced (i.e. there may be repeated entries within a particular diagonal).

For each cell $(r,c)$ in diagonal $D_i$, $1\leq i\leq k$,
choose the entries in cells
$$\{(\lambda(r-1)+j,\lambda(c-1)+j)\mid  i(\alpha-1) +1\leq j\leq i\alpha \}$$
from $L(\lambda)$. Overall we have constructed a balanced diagonal in $L(\lambda)$.
\end{proof}

Since any Latin square of order $n$ is by definition an $n$-plex, we have the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}
Let $L$ be an $n\times n$ Latin square. If $n$ divides $\lambda$, the frequency square $L(\lambda)$ contains a balanced diagonal.
\end{corollary}

The following generalization of Ryser's conjecture is implied by Conjecture 8.5 from \cite{transurvey}, originally given in \cite{Dough} (and attributed to Rodney \cite{CD}, p. 143); independently given also in~\cite{Wan02}.

\begin{conjecture}
If $n$ is even, every Latin square of order $n$ has a $2k$-plex, for each $k\in N(n/2)$.
If $n$ is odd, every Latin square of order $n$ has a $k$-plex for each $k\in N(n)$.
\end{conjecture}

If true this conjecture, together with Theorem \ref{goodwork},  would imply that if $L$ is a Latin square of order $n$,
$L(\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal whenever $(n-1)\lambda$ is even, supporting Conjecture~\ref{bigandbold} above.

Conversely, the existence of Latin squares without any odd plexes is known, for example certain Cayley tables \cite{Wan02}:
\begin{theorem}
If $G$ is a group of finite order $n$ with a non-trivial cyclic Sylow $2$-subgroup, then the Cayley table of $G$ contains no $k$-plex for any odd $k$.
\end{theorem}
For other results on the existence of Latin squares that do not contain plexes of certain sizes, see \cite{EW08,transurvey}.

Next, we construct frequency squares that do {\em not} possess a balanced diagonal.
Let $B_n$ be the Latin square of order $n$ where cell $(i,j)$ contains $i+j$ (mod $n$); we further replace each $0$ with $n$ to be consistent with definitions earlier in the paper, for our purposes this is a cosmetic change.
That is, $B_n$ is the addition table for the integers  modulo $n$. It is well-known that $B_n$ possesses a transversal if and only if $n$ is odd.
Note that $B_2(\lambda)$ is equivalent to $A_{2\lambda}$ from Section 2.
The following theorem is similar to the Delta lemma, first introduced in \cite{EW08} and \cite{Ev}.

\begin{theorem}
The frequency square $B_n(\lambda)$ possesses a balanced diagonal if and only if $(n-1)\lambda$ is even.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
If $n$ is odd, the main diagonal of $B_n$ is a transversal.
By Theorem \ref{goodwork}, $B_n(\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal for any $\lambda$.
If $n$ is even, a $2$-plex of $B_n$ is given by the main diagonal and the diagonal of cells of the form $(r,r+1)$, $r\in N(n)$ (where $n+1$ is replaced by $1$);   then apply Theorem \ref{goodwork}.
If $\lambda$ is even, again apply Theorem \ref{goodwork} to obtain a balanced diagonal in $B_n(\lambda)$.

Otherwise suppose that $n$ is even and $\lambda$ is odd and (for the sake of contradiction) that $B_n(\lambda)$ has a balanced diagonal $T$.
For each cell $(r,c)$ in $B_n(\lambda)$ containing entry $e$,
let
$$\Delta(r,c)=\lceil r/\lambda \rceil +\lceil c/\lambda \rceil - e.$$
Observe that $\Delta(r,c)\equiv 0$ (mod $n$)  for each cell $(r,c)$ in $B_n(\lambda)$.
However, since $T$ is a balanced diagonal, each column appears exactly once and each entry appear exactly
$\lambda$ times in $T$, so:
$$\sum_{(r,c)\in T} \Delta(r,c)=
\sum_{r\in N(n\lambda)}
\lceil r/\lambda \rceil
=
\lambda \binom{n}{2} \equiv \frac{n}{2} \pmod{n},$$
a contradiction.
\end{proof}

Finally we show the existence of frequency squares {\em not} equivalent to $L(\lambda)$ for some Latin square $L$, which do not contain balanced diagonals.
Let $L$ be a frequency square of type $F(m\lambda;\lambda^m)$ and let $\alpha$ be a divisor of $m$.
Let $L_{\alpha}$ be the frequency square of type $F(m\lambda;(\lambda\alpha)^{m/\alpha})$
formed by replacing each entry $e$ of $L$ with $\lceil e/\alpha \rceil$.
Observe the following.

\begin{lemma}
If there is a balanced diagonal in a frequency square $L$ of type $F(m\lambda;\lambda^m)$ and $\alpha$ divides $m$, there is a balanced diagonal in the corresponding set of cells in
$L_{\alpha}$.
\end{lemma}

This lemma allows us to construct many classes of frequency squares without balanced diagonals (without directly creating any counterexamples to Conjecture \ref{bigandbold}). For example,
if~$L$ is a frequency square of dimensions $2m\times 2m$, where $m$ is odd, and all odd entries occur in the top-left or bottom right quadrants (with even entries in the other quadrants),
then~$L_{m}$ is equivalent to $A_{2m}$, which does not have a balanced diagonal by Lemma \ref{tobe}; hence $L$ does not have a balanced diagonal.

  \let\oldthebibliography=\thebibliography
  \let\endoldthebibliography=\endthebibliography
  \renewenvironment{thebibliography}[1]{%
    \begin{oldthebibliography}{#1}%
      \setlength{\parskip}{0.4ex plus 0.1ex minus 0.1ex}%
      \setlength{\itemsep}{0.4ex plus 0.1ex minus 0.1ex}%
  }%
  {%
    \end{oldthebibliography}%
  }

Balanced diagonals in frequency squares