text:
# Projective normality of abelian varieties

## 1 Introduction

Let $`L`$ be an ample line bundle of type $`\delta =(d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_g)`$ on an abelian variety $`A`$ of dimension $`g`$. Consider the associated rational map $`\varphi _L:AIPH^0(L)`$. Suppose $`L=M^n`$, for some ample line bundle $`M`$ on $`A`$. Then Koizumi and Ohbuchi have shown that $`L`$ gives a projectively normal embedding if $`n3`$ and when $`n=2`$, no point of $`K(L)`$ is a base point for $`M`$, (see \[BL\], 7.3.1). Consider the case when $`g=2`$, and $`L`$ is an ample line bundle of type $`(1,d)`$ on $`A`$, i.e. $`LM^n`$ for any ample line bundle $`M`$ on $`A`$, $`n>1`$. Then it has been shown by Lazarsfeld (see \[L\]) that whenever $`\varphi _L`$ is birational onto its image and $`d7`$ odd and $`d14`$ and even, then $`\varphi _L`$ gives a projectively normal embedding. We showed that if the $`\mathrm{𝑁𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑆𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑖}\mathrm{𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝}`$ of $`A`$, $`NS(A)`$, is $`ZZ`$, generated by $`L`$, and $`d7`$, then $`\varphi _L`$ gives a projectively normal embedding, (see \[I\]).

In this article we show

###### Theorem 1.1

Suppose $`L`$ is an ample line bundle on a $`g`$-dimensional simple abelian variety $`A`$. If $`h^0(L)>2^g.g!`$ then $`L`$ gives a projectively normal embedding, for all $`g1`$.

Since projective normality is an open condition, our theorem is, therefore true for a generic pair $`(A,L)`$, as above.

We outline the proof of 1.1.

We firstly show that for abelian varieties, it is enough to show the surjectivity of the homomorphism

$$Sym^2H^0(L)\stackrel{\rho _2}{}H^0(L^2)$$

to give a projectively normal embedding, (see 2.3).

To show $`2`$-normality and hence projective normality of $`L`$, we firstly consider a finite isogeny $`AB=A/H`$, where $`H`$ is a maximal isotropic subgroup of the fixed group of $`L`$, $`K(L)`$. Then $`L`$ descends down to a principal polarization $`M`$ on $`B`$. We then show that the surjectivity of the map $`\rho _2`$ is equivalent to showing the dual subgroup $`H^{}`$ of $`H`$, in $`B(Pic^0(B))`$ generates the linear system of $`M^2`$( and hence its translates also) i.e. the images of points of $`H^{}`$, under the morphism $`B\stackrel{\varphi _{t_\sigma ^{}M^2}}{}𝒦(B)_\sigma |t_\sigma ^{}M^2|`$, $`bt_b^{}\theta +t_{b+\sigma }^{}\theta `$, have their linear span as $`|t_\sigma ^{}M^2|`$, for all $`\sigma H^{}`$. ( Here $`\theta `$ is the unique divisor in $`|M|`$ and $`𝒦(B)`$ ( respectively $`𝒦(B)_\sigma `$) denotes the Kummer variety of $`B`$ in $`|M^2|`$ ( respectively in $`|t_\sigma ^{}M^2|`$).

We show ( see 3.2)

###### Proposition 1.2

Let $``$ be an ample line bundle on a simple abelian variesty $`Z`$ and consider the associated rational map $`Z\stackrel{\varphi _{}}{}IPH^0()`$. Then any finite subgroup $`G`$ of $`Z`$, of order strictly greater than $`h^0().g!`$, generates the linear system $`IPH^0()`$. More precisely, the points $`\varphi _{}(g)`$ where $`g`$ runs over all elements of $`G`$ not in the base locus of $``$ span $`IPH^0()`$.

We then apply above proposition to $`=t_\sigma ^{}M^2`$, to obtain bounds as asserted for a polarized abelian variety $`(A,L)`$, in 1.1

$`\mathrm{𝐴𝑐𝑛𝑜𝑤𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑔𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠}`$: We thank A.Hirschowitz and M.Waldschmidt for a useful conversation. We are grateful to Marc Hindry for a discussion which helped us in 3.1 and the referee for suggestions. We also thank Institut de Mathematiques, Univ.Paris-6, for their hospitality where this work was done and the French Ministry of National Education, Research and Technology and DFG ’Arithmetic und Geometrie’ Essen, for their support.

$`\mathrm{𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬}:`$ Let $``$ be an ample line bundle on an abelian variety Z, of dimension $`g`$.

The $`\mathrm{𝑓𝑖𝑥𝑒𝑑}\mathrm{𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝}`$ of $``$ is $`K()=\{aA:t_a^{}\},t_a:AA,xa+x`$.

The $`\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑡𝑎}\mathrm{𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝}`$ of $``$ is $`𝒢()=\{(a,\varphi ):\stackrel{\varphi }{}t_a^{}\}`$.

The $`\mathrm{𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑙}\mathrm{𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚}e^{}:K()\times K()IC^{}`$, is the commutator map $`(x,y)x^{}y^{}x^1y^1`$, for any lifts $`x^{},y^{}𝒢()`$, of $`x,yK()`$.

$`h^0()=dimH^0(Z,)`$

If $`G`$ is a finite subgroup of $`Z`$, then $`Card(G)=order(G)`$.

## 2 ‘r-normality’ of L

Consider an abelian variety $`A`$ of dimension $`g`$ and an ample line bundle $`L`$ on $`A`$.

Consider the multiplication maps

$$H^0(L)^r\stackrel{\rho _r}{}H^0(L^r),forr2.$$

###### Definition 2.1

$`L`$ is said to be $`r`$-normal, if $`\rho _r`$ is surjective.

###### Definition 2.2

$`L`$ is normally generated, if $`L`$ is $`r`$-normal for all $`r2`$.

The main result of this section is the following.

###### Proposition 2.3

Suppose $`L`$ is an ample line bundle on an abelian variety $`A`$. If $`L`$ is $`2`$-normal, then $`L`$ is $`r`$-normal, for all $`r2`$. In particular, $`L`$ is normally generated.

Firstly, we will see

###### Proposition 2.4

Suppose $`L`$ and $`M`$ are ample line bundles on an abelian variety $`A`$.

1) The multiplication map

$$\underset{\alpha U}{}H^0(L\alpha )H^0(M\alpha ^1)H^0(LM)$$

is surjective, for any open subset $`U`$ of $`Pic^0(A)`$.

2) If the multiplication map $`H^0(L)H^0(M)H^0(LM)`$ is surjective, then the maps

$$(a)H^0(L)H^0(M\alpha )H^0(LM\alpha )$$

and

$$(b)H^0(L\alpha ^1)H^0(M\alpha )H^0(LM)$$

are also surjective, for $`\alpha `$ in some open subset $`U`$ of $`Pic^0(A)`$.

Proof: 1) See \[BL\], 7.3.3.

2) Denote $`\widehat{A}=Pic^0(A)`$. Consider the projections $`p_A:A\times \widehat{A}A`$ and $`p_{\widehat{A}}:A\times \widehat{A}\widehat{A}`$ and the sheaves $`_0=p_{\widehat{A}}(p_A^{}L),_1=p_{\widehat{A}}(p_A^{}L𝒫^1)`$, $`_2=p_{\widehat{A}}(p_A^{}M𝒫)`$, where $`𝒫`$ is the Poincare bundle on $`A\times \widehat{A}`$. Since the fibres $`_0(\alpha )=H^0(L),_1(\alpha )=H^0(L\alpha )`$ and $`_2(\alpha )=H^0(M\alpha ^1)`$ have constant dimension, for all $`\alpha \widehat{A}`$, $`_0,_1`$ and $`_2`$ are vector bundles on $`\widehat{A}`$.

Consider the natural maps

$$_0_2\stackrel{\rho _{02}}{}p_{\widehat{A}}(p_A^{}(LM)𝒫)$$

and

$$_1_2\stackrel{\rho _{12}}{}H^0(LM)𝒪_{\widehat{A}}$$

Since the map

$$\rho _{02}(0)=\rho _{12}(0):H^0(L)H^0(M)H^0(LM)$$

by assumption, is surjective, by semi-continuity, $`\rho _{02}(\alpha )`$ and $`\rho _{12}(\alpha )`$ are surjective, for $`\alpha `$ in some open subset $`U`$ of $`\widehat{A}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}2.3}:`$ We prove by induction on $`r`$. Suppose the map $`\rho _r:H^0(L)^rH^0(L^r)`$ is surjective.

Consider the map

$$H^0(L)^{r+1}\stackrel{Id\rho _r}{}H^0(L)H^0(L^r)\stackrel{\rho _{1,r}}{}H^0(L^{r+1}).$$

To see the surjectivity of the map $`\rho _{r+1}=\rho _{1,r}(Id\rho _r)`$, we need to show that the map $`\rho _{1,r}`$ is surjective.

By 2.4 1),

$$H^0(L).H^0(L^r)=\underset{\alpha U}{}H^0(L).H^0(L\alpha ^1).H^0(L^{r1}\alpha ).$$

Since $`L`$ is $`2`$-normal, by 2.4 2) (a),

$$H^0(L).H^0(L\alpha ^1)=H^0(L^2\alpha ^1)$$

which implies ( using 2.4 1)) that

$$H^0(L).H^0(L^r)=\underset{\alpha U}{}H^0(L^2\alpha ^1).H^0(L^{r1}\alpha )$$

$$=H^0(L^{r+1}).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 ‘2-normality’ of $`L`$

Consider the multiplication map

$$H^0(L)H^0(L)\stackrel{\rho _2}{}H^0(L^2).$$

This map factors via

$$H^0(IPH^0(L),𝒪(2))=Sym^2H^0(L)\stackrel{\rho _2}{}H^0(L^2)$$

and $`Ker\rho _2=I_2=`$ the vector space of quadrics containing $`\varphi _L(A)`$ in $`IPH^0(L)`$.

We will use the following.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`D`$ be an ample divisor on a $`g`$-dimensional simple abelian variety $`Z`$. Suppose $`G`$ is a finite subgroup of $`Z`$, of order $`k`$ ($`=Card(G)`$, in the sequel), and contained in $`D`$. Then $`kD^g`$. ( Here $`D^g`$ denotes the self intersection number of $`D`$, which by Riemann-Roch is $`h^0(𝒪(D)).g!)`$.

Proof: Let $`GZ`$ be a subgroup of order $`k`$ with $`GD`$. This implies that $`GY=_{\sigma G}D+\sigma `$, where $`D+\sigma =\{x+\sigma :xD\}`$, and now $`Y`$ is invariant under the group $`G`$. If $`s=dimY=0`$, then our proof ends here. Otherwise, let $`Y=Y_1\mathrm{}Y_r`$, where $`Y_j`$ are the irreducible components, with $`s_j=dimY_j`$. Let $`Y_1`$ be an irreducible component of $`Y`$, with $`dimY_1=dimY`$. Choose $`gs`$ translates $`D+h_j`$, $`h_jZ`$, of $`D`$ which intersect properly with $`Y`$, i.e. $`Y_{j=1}^{gs}D+h_j`$ is a finite set of points. Then $`Y_1_{j=1}^{gs}D+h_jY_{j=1}^{gs}D+h_j`$ and hence $`degY_1degYD^g`$. ( Here $`degY`$ is the intersection number of $`Y`$ with the class of $`D^{gs}`$, in $`H^{}(Z)`$).

Since $`Y`$ is $`G`$\- invariant, $`_{\sigma G}Y_1+\sigma Y`$. Consider the subgroup $`G_{Y_1}=\{gG:Y_1+g=Y_1\}`$ of $`G`$. Since $`_{\sigma \frac{G}{G_{Y_1}}}deg(Y_1+\sigma )degY`$ and $`degY_1=degY_1+\sigma `$ we get the inequalities $`Card(\frac{G}{G_{Y_1}}).degY_1degYD^g`$, i.e. $`Card(G)D^g.\frac{Card(G_{Y_1})}{degY_1}`$. To complete our proof, it suffices to show that $`Card(G_{Y_1})degY_1`$. Now $`G_{Y_1}Stab(Y_1)=\{aZ:Y_1+a=Y_1\}`$. Observe that $`Stab(Y_1)=_{yY_1}Y_1y`$. Now for a $`y_0Y_1`$, $`Stab(Y_1)=(Y_1y_0)_{yY_1,yy_0}Y_1y(Y_1y_0)_{gG,yY_1,yy_0}D+gy`$. Hence it is now clear that $`degStab(Y_1)degY_1`$. Since $`Z`$ is simple, $`Stab(Y_1)`$ is zero-dimensional and we get $`Card(G_{Y_1})degStab(Y_1)degY_1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We will require the geometric interpretation of 3.1, namely,

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $``$ be an ample line bundle on a simple abelian variety $`Z`$ and consider the associated rational map $`Z\stackrel{\varphi _{}}{}IPH^0()`$. Then any finite subgroup $`G`$ of $`Z`$, of order strictly greater than $`h^0().g!`$, generates the linear system $`IPH^0()`$. More precisely, the points $`\varphi _{}(g)`$ where $`g`$ runs over all elements of $`G`$ not in the base locus of $``$ span $`IPH^0()`$.

$`\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐟}\mathrm{𝐨𝐟}\mathbf{\hspace{0.17em}1.1}:`$

Consider a polarized simple abelian variety $`(A,L)`$, of type $`(d_1,\mathrm{},d_g)`$. Let $`HK(L)`$ be a maximal isotropic subgroup, for the Weil form $`e^L`$. Consider the isogeny $`A\stackrel{\pi }{}B=\frac{A}{H}`$. Then $`L`$ descends down to a principal polarization $`M`$ on $`B`$. We may assume $`M`$ is symmetric , i.e, $`Mi^{}M`$, $`i(b)=b,bB`$. By Projection formula and using the fact that $`\pi _{}𝒪_A=_{\chi \widehat{H}}L_\chi `$, where $`L_\chi `$ denotes the degree $`0`$ line bundle on $`B`$, corresponding to the character $`\chi `$ on $`H`$, we get

$$H^0(L)=_{\chi \widehat{H}}H^0(ML_\chi )=_{\sigma H^{}}H^0(t_\sigma ^{}M)$$

via the isomorphism $`B\stackrel{\psi _M}{}Pic^0(B)`$, $`bt_b^{}MM^1`$, $`H^{}=\psi _M^1(\widehat{H})`$.

Similarly,

$$H^0(L^2)=_{\sigma H^{}}H^0(t_\sigma ^{}M^2).$$

Consider the multiplication map

$$Sym^2H^0(L)\stackrel{\rho _2}{}H^0(L^2).$$

Then $`Sym^2H^0(L)=_{\sigma ,\tau H^{}}H^0(t_\tau ^{}M).H^0(t_{\tau ^1\sigma }^{}M)`$ and we can write the map $`\rho _2`$ as $`_{\sigma H^{}}\rho _\sigma `$, where

$$\underset{\tau H^{}}{}H^0(t_\tau ^{}M).H^0(t_{\tau +\sigma }^{}M)\stackrel{\rho _\sigma }{}H^0(t_\sigma ^{}M^2)\mathrm{}(I).$$

To show surjectivity of $`\rho _2`$, it is enough to show surjectivity of $`\rho _\sigma `$, for each $`\sigma H^{}`$.

Now it is well known that the morphism associated to the line bundle $`M^2`$, embeds the Kummer variety of $`B`$, $`𝒦(B)`$, in the linear system $`|M^2|`$ and is given as

$$B\stackrel{\varphi _{M^2}}{}𝒦(B)|M^2|,bt_b^{}\theta +t_b^{}\theta $$

where $`\theta `$ is the unique symmetric divisor in $`|M|`$.

Under translation by $`\sigma B`$, we have the corresponding morphism

$$B\stackrel{\varphi _{t_\sigma ^{}M^2}}{}𝒦(B)_\sigma |t_\sigma ^{}M^2|,bt_b^{}\theta +t_{b+\sigma }^{}\theta .$$

( Here $`𝒦(B)_\sigma =Image(B)`$ in $`|t_\sigma ^{}M^2|`$). So showing surjectivity of $`\rho _\sigma `$ in (I) is equivalent to showing that the image of $`H^{}`$ in $`𝒦(B)`$, generates the linear system $`|M^2|`$ and hence the translates $`|t_\sigma ^{}M^2|`$. Since the pair $`(A,L)`$ is a simple polarized abelian variety, with $`h^0(L)=Card(H^{})>2^g.g!=h^0(M^2).g!`$, by 3.2 and (I), each $`\rho _\sigma `$ is surjective. Hence, by 2.3, our proof is now complete.

###### Remark 3.3

Notice that if $`g=1`$, any line bundle of degree strictly greater than $`2`$ on an elliptic curve, gives projectively normal embedding. Hence the bound is sharp.

If $`g=2`$ and $`L(1,d)`$ is an ample line bundle on an abelian surface $`A`$, with $`h^0(L)=7,8`$, then by \[I\] and \[L\], we know $`L`$ gives projectively normal embedding (generically). By the method of proof of 1.1, we cannot expect to obtain a sharp bound since if L were to be of type $`(2,4)`$, then it does not give a projectively normal embedding.

Consider the situation when $`g3`$. It is clear, by Kunneth, that if $`A=A_1\times A_2\times \mathrm{}\times A_r`$ and $`L=p_1^{}L_1\mathrm{}p_r^{}L_r`$, where $`(A_j,L_j)`$ are polarized abelian varieties and $`L_j`$ give projectively normal embedding then $`L`$, of type $`\delta `$, also gives a projectively normal embedding. Hence for a generic pair $`(A,L)`$ of type $`\delta `$, $`L`$ gives a projectively normal embedding. This will show that there exists line bundles L with $`h^0(L)2^g.g!`$ on $`A`$, such that $`A`$ is projectively normal in $`IPH^0(L)`$.

But we can hope to improve the bound in 3.1, for $`g>1`$, by taking into consideration the structure of the finite subgroup $`H^{}`$, which essentially distinguishes the type $`\delta `$ of $`L`$, for instance, types $`(1,8)`$ and $`(2,4)`$, when $`g=2`$. Here $`H^{}\frac{ZZ}{8ZZ}`$ in the former case and in the latter case either $`\frac{ZZ}{2ZZ}\times \frac{ZZ}{4ZZ}`$ or $`(\frac{ZZ}{2ZZ})^3`$( satisfying certain condition with respect to the Weil form $`e^^2`$).

Also, in 3.1, if the ample divisor $`DZ`$ is moreover a symmetric divisor, i.e. $`i(D)=D`$, then the subset $`Y=_{gG}D+g`$ is in fact invariant for the action of $`G\times <i>`$. So one may get better bounds in some cases and hence for the pair $`(A,L)`$, in 1.1, ( since all the divisors in the linear system of $`M^2`$, are symmetric for the action of $`i`$).


format: text

text:
# Small polynomials with integer coefficients

## 1. Integer Chebyshev problem: History and new results

Define the uniform (sup) norm on a compact set $`E`$ by

$$f_E:=\underset{zE}{sup}|f(z)|.$$

The primary goal of this paper is the study of polynomials with integer coefficients that minimize the sup norm on the set $`E`$. In particular, we consider the asymptotic behavior of these polynomials and of their zeros. Let $`𝒫_n()`$ and $`𝒫_n()`$ be the classes of algebraic polynomials of degree at most $`n`$, respectively with complex and with integer coefficients. The problem of minimizing the uniform norm on $`E`$ by monic polynomials from $`𝒫_n()`$ is well known as the Chebyshev problem (see , , , , etc.) In the classical case $`E=[1,1]`$, the explicit solution of this problem is given by the monic Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`n`$:

$$T_n(x):=2^{1n}\mathrm{cos}(n\mathrm{arccos}x),n.$$

Using a change of variable, we can immediately extend this to an arbitrary interval $`[a,b]`$, so that

$$t_n(x):=\left(\frac{ba}{2}\right)^nT_n\left(\frac{2xab}{ba}\right)$$

is a monic polynomial with real coefficients and the smallest uniform norm on $`[a,b]`$ among all monic polynomials from $`𝒫_n()`$. In fact,

(1.1)
$$t_n_{[a,b]}=2\left(\frac{ba}{4}\right)^n,n,$$

and we find that the Chebyshev constant for $`[a,b]`$ is given by

(1.2)
$$t_{}([a,b]):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}t_n_{[a,b]}^{1/n}=\frac{ba}{4}.$$

The Chebyshev constant of an arbitrary compact set $`E`$ is defined in a similar fashion:

(1.3)
$$t_{}(E):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}t_n_E^{1/n},$$

where $`t_n`$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`n`$ on $`E`$. It is known that $`t_{}(E)`$ is equal to the transfinite diameter and the logarithmic capacity $`cap(E)`$ of the set $`E`$ (cf. \[43, pp. 71-75\],  and  for the definitions and background material).

One may notice that the Chebyshev polynomials on the interval $`[2,2]`$ have integer coefficients. The roots of the $`n`$-th Chebyshev polynomial on $`[2,2]`$ are

(1.4)
$$x_k=2\mathrm{cos}\frac{(2k1)\pi }{2n},k=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

A remarkable result of Kronecker  states that any complete set of conjugate algebraic integers, i.e., roots of a monic irreducible polynomial over $``$, all contained in $`[2,2]`$, must belong to one of the sets (1.4) for some $`n`$. Thus we have an exhaustive description of all complete sets of conjugate algebraic integers in $`[2,2]`$, which indicates that there are infinitely many such sets in this interval. In fact, Kronecker first proved in  that any complete set of conjugates on the unit circle $`\{|z|=1\}`$ must be a subset of the roots of unity, and then deduced the above result by using the transformation $`x=z+1/z.`$ It is difficult to obtain such a complete characterization when $`[2,2]`$ is replaced by a more general set, but one can extract substantial amount of interesting information from the study of integer Chebyshev problem.

An integer Chebyshev polynomial $`Q_n𝒫_n()`$ for a compact set $`E`$ is defined by

(1.5)
$$Q_n_E=\underset{0P_n𝒫_n()}{inf}P_n_E,$$

where the $`inf`$ is taken over all polynomials from $`𝒫_n()`$, which are not identically zero. Further, the integer Chebyshev constant (or integer transfinite diameter) for $`E`$ is given by

(1.6)
$$t_{}(E):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_n_E^{1/n}.$$

The existence of the limit in (1.6) follows by the same argument as for (1.3), which may be found in  or . Note that, for any $`P_n𝒫_n()`$,

$$P_n_E=P_n_E^{},$$

where $`E^{}:=E\{z:\overline{z}E\}`$, because $`P_n`$ has real coefficients. Thus the integer Chebyshev problem on a compact set $`E`$ is equivalent to that on $`E^{}`$, and we can assume that $`E`$ is symmetric with respect to the real axis ($``$-symmetric) without any loss of generality.

One may readily observe that if $`E=[a,b]`$ and $`ba4`$, then $`Q_n(x)1,n,`$ by (1.1) and (1.6), so that

(1.7)
$$t_{}([a,b])=1,ba4.$$

On the other hand, we obtain directly from the definition and (1.2) that

(1.8)
$$\frac{ba}{4}=t_{}([a,b])t_{}([a,b]),ba<4.$$

Hilbert  proved an important upper bound

(1.9)
$$t_{}([a,b])\sqrt{\frac{ba}{4}},$$

by using Legendre polynomials and Minkowski theorem on the integer lattice points in a convex body. Actually, he worked with $`L_2`$ norm on $`[a,b]`$, but this gives the same $`n`$-th root behavior as for $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ norm in (1.6).

With the help of Hilbert’s result (1.9), Schur and Polya (see ) showed that any interval $`[a,b]`$, of length less than 4, can contain only finitely many complete sets of conjugate algebraic integers. Thus one may be able to explicitly find those polynomials with integer coefficients and all roots in $`[a,b],ba<4`$. These results were generalized to the case of an arbitrary compact set $`E`$ by Fekete , who developed a new analytic setting for the problem, by introducing the transfinite diameter of $`E`$ and showing that it is equal to $`t_{}(E).`$ Both quantities were later proved to be equal to the logarithmic capacity $`cap(E)`$, by Szegő . Therefore we state the result of Fekete as follows:

(1.10)
$$t_{}(E)\sqrt{t_{}(E)}=\sqrt{cap(E)},$$

where $`E`$ is $``$-symmetric. It contains Hilbert’s estimate (1.9) as a special case, since $`t_{}([a,b])=(ba)/4`$ by (1.2). Using the same argument as in , Fekete concluded by (1.10) that there are only finitely many complete sets of conjugate algebraic integers in any compact set $`E`$, satisfying $`cap(E)<1`$. These ideas found many applications, but we only discuss here the developments that are closely related to the subject of this paper. Fekete and Szegő  showed that any open neighborhood of the set $`E`$, which is symmetric in real axis and has $`cap(E)=1`$, must contain infinitely many complete sets of conjugates. Robinson  proved that any interval of length greater than 4 carries infinitely many complete sets of conjugates. But the case of intervals of length exactly 4, or sets of capacity 1, in general, remains open (for further references, see , , etc.)

The following useful observation on the asymptotic sharpness for the estimates (1.9) of Hilbert and (1.10) of Fekete is due to Trigub .

###### Remark 1.1.

For the sequence of the intervals $`I_m:=[1/(m+4),1/m]`$, we have

$$t_{}(I_m)>\frac{1}{m+2},$$

so that

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(t_{}(I_m)\sqrt{\frac{|I_m|}{4}}\right)=0.$$

We include a proof of this fact, due to a relative inaccessibility of the original paper .

The value $`t_{}([a,b])`$ is not known for any segment $`[a,b],ba<4.`$ This represents a difficult open problem, as can be seen from the study of the classical case $`E=[0,1]`$, which is considered below. From a more general point of view, we are able to find the exact value of $`t_{}(E)`$ only for a special class of compact sets, namely for lemniscates. Note that if $`cap(E)1`$ then the problem is trivial, because $`P_n_E(cap(E))^n`$ for any $`P_n𝒫_n()`$ of exact degree $`n`$ (cf. \[30, p. 155\]). This implies that

$$t_{}(E)=1,\text{ if }cap(E)1.$$

###### Proposition 1.2.

Let

(1.11)
$$V_m(z):=a_mz^m+\mathrm{}+a_0𝒫_m(),a_m0.$$

Then we have for the lemniscate

(1.12)
$$L_r:=\{z:|V_m(z)|=r\},0r<1,$$

that

(1.13)
$$(r/|a_m|)^{1/m}t_{}(L_r)r^{1/m}.$$

This gives an immediate corollary.

###### Corollary 1.3.

If $`V_m(z)`$ of (1.11) is monic, then

(1.14)
$$t_{}(L_r)=r^{1/m},$$

where $`L_r`$ is defined in (1.12). Furthermore, $`(V_m)^k`$ is an integer Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`km,k.`$

One may notice that $`t_{}(L_r)=t_{}(L_r)=cap(L_r)`$ (see \[30, p. 135\]) in Corollary 1.3. However, the following result is more interesting.

###### Theorem 1.4.

Suppose that the polynomial $`V_m(z)`$ of (1.11) is irreducible over integers and that $`L_r`$ of (1.12) satisfies $`0r1/|a_m|`$. Then

(1.15)
$$t_{}(L_r)=r^{1/m},$$

and $`(V_m)^k`$ is an integer Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`km,k.`$

Observe that $`t_{}(L_r)t_{}(L_r)=cap(L_r)=(r/|a_m|)^{1/m}`$ in this case (cf. \[30, p. 135\]).

A deeper insight into the nature of integer Chebyshev constant and properties of the asymptotically extremal polynomials for integer Chebyshev problem can be found in the study of this problem for $`E=[0,1]`$. It was initiated by Gelfond and Schnirelman, who discovered an elegant connection with the distribution of prime numbers (see  and Gelfond’s comments in \[7, pp. 285–288\]). Their argument shows that if $`t_{}([0,1])=1/e,`$ then the Prime Number Theorem follows. Unfortunately, $`t_{}([0,1])>1/e,`$ as we shall see below. One can find a nice exposition of this and related topics in Montgomery \[22, Ch. 10\] (also see Chudnovsky ). Let $`_n𝒫_n()`$ be the set of irreducible over $``$ polynomials, of exact degree $`n`$, that have all their zeros in $`[0,1].`$ Define

(1.16)
$$s:=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}}{F_n_n}}{lim\; inf}c_n^{1/n},$$

where $`F_n=c_nx^n+\mathrm{}.`$ Then

(1.17)
$$t_{}([0,1])1/s,$$

which is the content of Theorem 2 in \[22, p. 182\]. In fact, Montgomery conjectured that equality holds in (1.17), but this remains open (essentially the same conjecture was also made in \[8, p. 90\]). One may try to construct various sequences of polynomials $`F_n_n,n,`$ to obtain lower bounds for $`t_{}([0,1])`$ from (1.17). A few of such sequences have been devised (cf.  and ), with the best known being the Gorshkov sequence of polynomials. It was originally found by Gorshkov in , and rediscovered by Wirsing  and others. These polynomials arise as the numerators in the sequence of iterates of the rational function

$$u(x)=\frac{x(1x)}{13x(1x)},$$

and they give the following lower bound:

(1.18)
$$t_{}([0,1])1/s_0=0.420726\mathrm{}$$

(see \[22, pp. 183-188\]).

The upper bounds for $`t_{}([0,1])`$ can be obtained from the very definition of integer Chebyshev constant (1.5)-(1.6). One may even try to find some low degree integer Chebyshev polynomials and compute their norms, to find out that this is quite a nontrivial exercise. It was noticed in many papers that small polynomials from $`𝒫_n(),n,`$ arise as products of powers of polynomials from $`_n,k<n.`$ Aparicio was the first to prove this in the following strong form (cf. Theorem 3 in ):

If a sequence $`Q_n𝒫_n(),n,`$ satisfies

(1.19)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_n_{[0,1]}^{1/n}=t_{}([0,1]),$$

then

(1.20)
$$Q_n(x)=(x(1x))^{[\alpha _1n]}(2x1)^{[\alpha _2n]}(5x^25x+1)^{[\alpha _3n]}R_n(x),\text{as }n\mathrm{},$$

where

(1.21)
$$\alpha _10.1456,\alpha _20.0166\text{ and }\alpha _30.0037,$$

and $`R_n𝒫_n()`$, $`n`$.

This gives a good indication of what might be the asymptotic structure of the integer Chebyshev polynomials on $`[0,1]`$ and other sets. Thus Amoroso  considered intervals with rational endpoints, and applied a refinement of Hilbert’s approach in  to the polynomials vanishing with high multiplicities at the endpoints, to improve upon (1.9). Essentially the same ideas were used by Kashin  for dealing with the symmetric intervals $`[a,a]`$, in which case one should consider polynomials with factors $`x^k.`$

Borwein and Erdélyi  used numerical optimization techniques to find small polynomials of the form

(1.22)
$$Q_n(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Q_{m_i,i}^{[\alpha _in]}(x),0<\alpha _i<1,i=1,\mathrm{},k,$$

where $`Q_{m_i,i}𝒫_{m_i}()`$ and $`_{i=1}^k\alpha _im_i=1`$. They improved the upper bound for $`t_{}([0,1])`$, which triggered a number of numerical studies on the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ and other intervals. Borwein and Erdélyi also improved the result of Aparicio (1.19)-(1.21):

$$\alpha _10.26,$$

and used this to show that the strict inequality holds in (1.18). Hence the Gorshkov polynomials do not give the exact value of $`t_{}([0,1])`$.

The ideas of Borwein and Erdélyi have been developed in the papers by Flammang , by Flammang, Rhin and Smyth , and by Habsieger and Salvy , to obtain further numerical improvements in the upper bounds for $`t_{}`$ on $`[0,1]`$ and on Farey intervals. In particular, Habsieger and Salvy computed 75 first integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ and found the best known upper bound

(1.23)
$$t_{}([0,1])0.42347945.$$

Flammang, Rhin and Smyth  generalized the approach of  to improve the lower bounds in (1.21)

$$\alpha _10.264151,\alpha _20.021963\text{ and }\alpha _30.005285,$$

as well as bounds for six additional factors of the integer Chebyshev polynomials on $`[0,1]`$. They also extended the Gorshkov polynomials technique to the Farey intervals $`[p/q,r/s],`$ with $`qrps=1`$, and obtained an interesting generalization of (1.18).

From the above discussion, it is natural to expect that the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ are built out of the factors as in (1.22), which is suggested in Montgomery \[22, p. 182\]. In addition, Montgomery proposed to study the zero distribution of these polynomials, associated measures and extremal potentials. Potential theory indeed provides powerful methods for dealing with various extremal problems for polynomials, which proved to be very effective for classical Chebyshev polynomials, orthogonal polynomials, etc. It is clear that the study of zeros for integer Chebyshev polynomials is essentially equivalent to the study of their factors and asymptotic behavior. We should note that not all of the zeros of the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ actually lie on $`[0,1]`$. This was discovered by Habsieger and Salvy , who found a factor of an integer Chebyshev polynomial of degree 70, with two pairs of complex conjugate roots.

One might hope that the sequence of the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ is composed from products of powers of a finite  number of irreducible polynomials over $`.`$ Unfortunately, this is not true as we show by the following result, answering a question of Borwein and Erdélyi (see , Q7).

###### Theorem 1.5.

Let $`E`$ be a compact set, $`cap(E)<1`$, consisting of infinitely many points. The integer Chebyshev polynomials $`Q_n`$ for $`E,n,`$ have infinitely many distinct factors with integer coefficients, as $`n\mathrm{}`$.

It is obvious from the known results that integer Chebyshev polynomials are completely different from the classical companions in their “discrete” nature. However, their zeros cannot be so isolated, as it might appear.

###### Theorem 1.6.

Let $`Z`$ be the set of accumulation points for the zeros of the integer Chebyshev polynomials for a compact set $`E,0<cap(E)<1`$. Then

(1.24)
$$cap(Z)>0.$$

This immediately implies that $`Z`$ cannot be too small, e.g., it cannot be a countable set. One might conjecture that the zeros of the integer Chebyshev polynomials on $`[0,1]`$ are dense in a Cantor-type set of positive capacity.

Since the nature of the unknown factors of the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ is rather obscure, we may view the integer Chebyshev polynomials as being of the form

(1.25)
$$Q_n(x)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Q_{m_i,i}^{l_i(n)}(x)\right)R_n(x),n,$$

where $`l_i(n),`$ $`Q_{m_i,i}(x)`$ is the known irreducible factor of degree $`m_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ and $`R_n(x)`$ is the remainder. Assuming that the limits

(1.26)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{l_i(n)}{n}=:\alpha _i>0,i=1,\mathrm{},k,$$

exist, at least along a subsequence, we observe that the $`n`$-th root of the absolute value of the product in (1.25) converges to a fixed “weight” function, as $`n\mathrm{}`$, locally uniformly in $``$:

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}(x)|^{l_i(n)}\right)^{1/n}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}(x)|^{\alpha _i},$$

where $`_{i=1}^k\alpha _im_i1.`$ Hence, for the purposes of studying the asymptotic behavior, as $`n\mathrm{},`$ we may regard $`Q_n(x)`$ of (1.25) as a “weighted polynomial” and use the methods of weighted potential theory . Following this idea, we generalize the Hilbert-Fekete upper bound for $`t_{}`$ and find new lower bounds. We also prove various results on the multiplicities of factors and zeros of integer Chebyshev polynomials in the next section. Then we apply the general theory to the integer Chebyshev problem on $`[0,1]`$ and obtain substantial improvements over the previously known results in Section 3. Section 4 contains a brief outline of the basic facts of weighted potential theory, used in this paper. All proofs are given in Section 5.

It must be mentioned that the history of the problem as sketched here is far from being complete. Integer Chebyshev problem is closely connected to approximation by polynomials with integer coefficients (see Ferguson  and Trigub  for surveys), which has interesting history of its own. Further related topics are entire functions with integer coefficients (or integer valued) (cf. Pólya ,  and , Pisot ,  and , and Robinson , , etc.), integer moment problem (see Barnsley, Bessis and Moussa ), Schur-Siegel trace problem (cf. Schur , Siegel , Smyth , Borwein and Erdélyi , etc.) and many others.

## 2. Upper and lower bounds for integer Chebyshev constant

Motivated by the known results on the asymptotic structure of the integer Chebyshev polynomials, we study the weighted polynomials $`w^n(z)P_n(z)`$, where $`w(z)`$ is a continuous nonnegative function on a compact $``$-symmetric set $`E`$ and $`P_n𝒫_n()`$. By analogy with (1.5)-(1.6), consider the weighted integer Chebyshev polynomials $`q_n𝒫_n(),n,`$ such that

$$v_n(E,w):=w^nq_n_E=\underset{0P_n𝒫_n()}{inf}w^nP_n_E,$$

and define the weighted integer Chebyshev constant by

(2.1)
$$t_{}(E,w):=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(v_n(E,w)\right)^{1/n}.$$

The limit in (2.1) exists by the following standard argument. Note that

$$v_{k+m}(E,w)w^{k+m}q_kq_m_Ew^kq_k_Ew^mq_m_E=v_k(E,w)v_m(E,w).$$

If we set $`a_n=\mathrm{log}v_n(E,w)`$, then

$$a_{k+m}a_k+a_m,k,m.$$

Hence

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{a_n}{n}=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}\left(v_n(E,w)\right)^{1/n}$$

exists by Lemma on page 73 of .

Our first goal is to give an upper bound for $`t_{}(E,w)`$. It is possible to generalize the Hilbert-Fekete method for this purpose, but we also need the concept of the weighted capacity of $`E`$, denoted by $`cap(E,w)`$ (see  and a brief overview of the weighted potential theory in Section 4).

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`E`$ be a compact set and let $`w:E[0,+\mathrm{})`$ be a continuous function. Then

(2.2)
$$t_{}(E,w)\sqrt{cap(E,w)}.$$

###### Remark 2.2.

If $`w(z)1`$ on $`E`$ then $`cap(E,1)=cap(E)`$, i.e., (2.2) reduces to the result of Fekete (1.10).

It is clear from Section 1 that our main applications are related to the weights of the following type:

(2.3)
$$w(z)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}(z)|^{\alpha _i}\right)^{1/(1\alpha )},$$

where factors $`Q_{m_i,i}𝒫_{m_i}()`$ have the form

(2.4)
$$Q_{m_i,i}(z)=a_i\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}(zz_{j,i}),a_i0,i=1,\mathrm{},k,$$

and

(2.5)
$$\alpha :=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _im_i<1,$$

with $`0<\alpha _i<1,i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ Thus we immediately obtain an upper bound for the classical (not weighted) integer Chebyshev constant.

###### Theorem 2.3.

Suppose that $`E`$ is a compact set, and that the weight $`w(z)`$ satisfies (2.3)-(2.5). Then

(2.6)
$$t_{}(E)\left(cap(E,w)\right)^{(1\alpha )/2}.$$

Theorem 2.3 suggests that we may be able to improve the results of Hilbert (1.9) and of Fekete (1.10), by using (2.6) with a proper choice of factors $`Q_{m_i,i},i=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ for the weight $`w.`$ It is natural to utilize the known factors of integer Chebyshev polynomials for that purpose. We shall carry out this program in the next section, and obtain an improvement of the upper bound (1.23).

It is clear that we need an effective method of finding weighted capacity, in order to make the estimate (2.6) practical. For the “polynomial-type” weights we are considering here, one can express $`cap(E,w)`$ through the regular logarithmic capacity and Green functions.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`E`$ be a compact set, $`cap(E)>0`$, and let $`w(z)`$ be as in (2.3)-(2.5). Then there exists a compact set $`S_wE_{i=1}^k\{z_{j,i}\}_{j=1}^{m_i},`$ such that (2.6) holds with

(2.7)
$$cap(E,w)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{log}wd\mu _wF_w\right),$$

where

(2.8)
$$F_w=\frac{1}{\alpha 1}\left(\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _i\mathrm{log}|a_i|+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\alpha _ig_\mathrm{\Omega }(z_{j,i},\mathrm{})\right)$$

and

(2.9)
$$\mu _w=\frac{1}{1\alpha }\left(\omega (\mathrm{},,\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\alpha _i\omega (z_{j,i},,\mathrm{\Omega })\right)$$

is the unit positive measure supported on $`S_w`$. Alternatively,

(2.10)
$$cap(E,w)=cap(S_w)\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{log}wd(\omega (\mathrm{},,\mathrm{\Omega })+\mu _w)\right).$$

Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\overline{}S_w,g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,\xi )`$ is the Green function of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ with pole at $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$, and $`\omega (\xi ,,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the harmonic measure at $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with respect to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Note that $`\mu _w`$ arises as the equilibrium measure in the weighted energy problem associated with the weight $`w`$ of (2.3)-(2.5), and $`F_w`$ is the modified Robin constant for that energy problem (cf.  and Section 4 of this paper for the details). The measure $`\omega (\mathrm{},,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is the classical equilibrium distribution on $`S_w`$, in the sense of logarithmic potential theory (see , , etc.)

Using certain information on the asymptotic behavior of integer Chebyshev polynomials, we can find lower bounds for integer Chebyshev constant, as below.

###### Theorem 2.5.

Suppose that the integer Chebyshev polynomials of a compact set $`E,cap(E)>0,`$ satisfy, along a subsequence of $`n\mathrm{},`$

(2.11)
$$Q_n(z)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Q_{m_i,i}^{l_i(n)}(z)\right)R_n(z),\mathrm{deg}Q_n=n,$$

where $`Q_{m_i,i}(z)𝒫_{m_i}()`$, $`l_i(n),`$ and the limits

(2.12)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{l_i(n)}{n}=:\alpha _i>0,i=1,\mathrm{},k,$$

exist. Then

(2.13)
$$t_{}(E)e^{(\alpha 1)F_w},$$

where $`F_w`$ is the modified Robin constant for the weight $`w`$ of (2.3) and $`\alpha `$ is given by (2.5).

Moreover, if $`E`$ then

(2.14)
$$t_{}(E)cap(S_w)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|a_i|^{\alpha _i}\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\alpha _ig_\mathrm{\Omega }(z_{j,i},\mathrm{})\right),$$

in the notations of Theorem 2.4.

Theorem 2.5 is an easy consequence of the results in weighted potential theory and a simple fact that the leading coefficient of $`R_n(z)`$ is at least 1 in absolute value, being a nonzero integer. It turns out that we can obtain better lower bounds for $`t_{}(E)`$, by using rational points. One of the possible results in this direction is given below. Recall that the logarithmic potential of a Borel measure $`\mu `$ is defined by

$$U^\mu (z):=\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|zt|}d\mu (t).$$

###### Theorem 2.6.

Assume that the integer Chebyshev polynomials of $`E,cap(E)>0,`$ satisfy (2.11) and (2.12), where $`R_n(\zeta )0`$ for a point $`\zeta `$, along a subsequence of $`n\mathrm{}.`$ If $`\zeta =(p_1+ip_2)/q`$ is a complex rational number in reduced form, i.e., $`gcd(p_1,p_2,q)=1,`$ then

(2.15)
$$t_{}(E)q^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{exp}\left((\alpha 1)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta ))\right),$$

where $`F_w`$ is the modified Robin constant and $`\mu _w`$ is the weighted equilibrium distribution associated with the weight $`w`$ of (2.3)-(2.5). For $`\zeta =0`$, we set $`q=1`$ in (2.15).

Estimate (2.15) has interesting applications in the “opposite” direction, as it can be used to improve the bounds for the multiplicities of the known factors of integer Chebyshev polynomials. Thus we can deduce the “asymptotic structure” result from the upper bound for $`t_{}(E),`$ as an immediate corollary of Theorem 2.6.

###### Corollary 2.7.

Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 2.6 are satisfied and that

$$t_{}(E)M.$$

Then the set of multiplicities $`\{\alpha _i\}_{i=1}^k`$ must satisfy

(2.16)
$$q^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{exp}\left((\alpha 1)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta ))\right)M.$$

This inequality defines a domain for the possible values of $`\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ which allows to significantly improve the known bounds for $`\alpha _i`$’s.

Another immediate, but nontrivial, consequence of the weighted potential theory is the following fact.

###### Proposition 2.8.

Let $`E`$ be a compact set, $`cap(E)>0.`$ Suppose that the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`E`$ satisfy (2.11) and (2.12), along a subsequence of $`n\mathrm{}.`$ Then there exists $`\epsilon >0`$, so that

(2.17)
$$t_{}(E)=t_{}(EH_\epsilon ),$$

where

$$H_\epsilon =\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\{z:|zz_{j,i}|\epsilon \}.$$

Perhaps, the most interesting application of our general results, developed in this section, is the classical case $`E=[0,1]`$. Therefore, we concentrate on its study below, to demonstrate the strength of the method.

## 3. Integer Chebyshev problem on $`[0,1]`$

We remind that the best known bounds for $`t_{}([0,1])`$, as mentioned in (1.18) and (1.23), are as follows:

$$0.42072638\mathrm{}<t_{}([0,1])0.42347945.$$

The above lower bound was believed to be the precise value of $`t_{}([0,1])`$, but Borwein and Erdélyi  showed that there must be the strict inequality. However, they did not give a numerical value for the improvement in the lower bound. Using the general methods of Section 2, based on weighted potential theory, we show here that

###### Theorem 3.1.

$$0.4213<t_{}([0,1])<0.4232.$$

It is convenient for technical reasons to use the symmetry of $`[0,1]`$ and the standard change of variable $`x(1x)z`$, which reduces the integer Chebyshev problem on $`[0,1]`$ to that on $`[0,1/4]`$:

(3.1)
$$(t_{}([0,1]))^2=t_{}([0,1/4]).$$

Furthermore, we have by Lemmas 1-2 of  that the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$ and $`[0,1/4]`$ are related by

(3.2)
$$Q_{2k}(x)=q_k(x(1x))$$

and

(3.3)
$$Q_{2k+1}(x)=(12x)q_k(x(1x)).$$

Hence we can study the integer Chebyshev problem on $`[0,1/4]`$, and then return to $`[0,1]`$ without any loss of information.

Habsieger and Salvy  give the following list of known factors of the integer Chebyshev polynomials for $`[0,1]`$:

$`A_1(x)=x(1x),A_2(x)=2x1,A_3(x)=5x^25x+1,`$
$`A_4(x)=6x^26x+1,A_5(x)=29x^458x^3+40x^211x+1,`$
$`A_6(x)=(13x^320x^2+9x1)(13x^319x^2+8x1),`$
$`A_7(x)=(31x^463x^3+44x^212x+1)(31x^461x^3+41x^211x+1),`$
$`A_8(x)=4921x^{10}24605x^9+53804x^867586x^7+53866x^628388x^5`$
$`+9995x^42317x^3+338x^228x+1.`$
Incidentally, $`A_8(x)`$ is the “surprise factor” with four non-real zeros. Changing the variable to $`z=x(1x)`$, we obtain the following factors for $`[0,1/4]`$:

(3.4) $`Q_{1,1}(z)=z,Q_{1,2}(z)=A_2^2(x)=4z1,Q_{1,3}(z)=5z1,`$
$`Q_{1,4}(z)=6z1,Q_{2,5}(z)=29z^211z+1,`$
$`Q_{3,6}(z)=169z^394z^2+17z1,`$
$`Q_{4,7}(z)=961z^4712z^3+194z^223z+1,`$
$`Q_{5,8}(z)=4921z^54594z^4+1697z^3310z^2+28z1.`$
Exactly these factors will be used in the definition of the weight $`w`$ of (2.3) for the applications of the results from Section 2. We start with the case of two factors $`Q_{1,1}`$ and $`Q_{1,2}`$, vanishing at the endpoints of $`[0,1/4]`$, where all the parameters of the corresponding weighted potential theory can be found explicitly.

### 3.1. Two factors on $`[0,1/4]`$

Note that if the relative multiplicities for the factors $`A_1(x)=x(1x)`$ and $`A_2(x)=2x1`$, in the integer Chebyshev polynomial on $`[0,1]`$, are $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, then the relative multiplicities for the corresponding factors $`Q_{1,1}(z)=z`$ and $`Q_{1,2}(z)=4z1`$ on $`[0,1/4]`$ are $`2\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ (see (3.2)-(3.4)). Thus we define the weight $`w`$ according to (2.3):

(3.5)
$$w(x)=\left(x^{2\alpha _1}(14x)^{\alpha _2}\right)^{1/(12\alpha _1\alpha _2)},x[0,1/4],$$

where $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2>0`$ and $`2\alpha _1+\alpha _2<1.`$ The needed quantities of the weighted potential theory are contained in the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.2.

For the weight $`w`$ of (3.5), we have that $`S_w=[a,b](0,1/4)`$, with

(3.6)
$$a:=(4\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}+1)/8\text{ and }b:=(4\alpha _1^2\alpha _2^2+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}+1)/8,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=(1(2\alpha _1+\alpha _2)^2)(1(2\alpha _1\alpha _2)^2)`$. Furthermore,

$`F_w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha _2}{12\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\mathrm{log}4\mathrm{log}(ba){\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha _1}{12\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\mathrm{log}(\sqrt{a}+\sqrt{b})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha _2}{12\alpha _1\alpha _2}}\mathrm{log}(\sqrt{1/4a}+\sqrt{1/4b}),`$
(3.8)
$$d\mu _w(x)=\frac{\sqrt{(xa)(bx)}dx}{\pi (12\alpha _1\alpha _2)x(1/4x)},x[a,b],$$

and

$`F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)`$ $`=`$ $`(g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,\mathrm{})2\alpha _1(\mathrm{log}|z|+g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,0))`$
$``$ $`\alpha _2(\mathrm{log}|4z1|+g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,1/4)))/(12\alpha _1\alpha _2),`$
where we use the notation of Theorem 2.4.

Note that the function in (3.2) is continuous in $``$ and harmonic in $`[a,b]`$. The weighted capacity $`cap([0,1/4],w)`$ is found from (2.7) or (2.10), with the help of (3.6)-(3.8). Obviously, $`cap([0,1/4],w)`$ is a function of two variables $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, defined on the triangle $`T:=\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2>0:2\alpha _1+\alpha _2<1\}.`$ Thus we obtain from Theorem 2.3, via computation, that

$$t_{}([0,1/4])\underset{\alpha _1,\alpha _2T}{inf}\left(cap([0,1/4],w)\right)^{(12\alpha _1\alpha _2)/2}0.18043338.$$

The bound is attained for $`\alpha _10.290447`$ and $`\alpha _20.09`$, which matches the result of \[1, p. 906\]. But this upper bound is greater than the one in (1.23), by (3.1), so that it is not interesting for us.

We can also apply Theorem 2.6 here, with $`\zeta _1=0`$ and $`\zeta _2=1/4`$, because these zeros are absorbed by the weight $`w`$. Hence we have two simultaneous lower bounds

$$t_{}([0,1/4])>l_1(\alpha _1,\alpha _2):=\mathrm{exp}\left((2\alpha _1+\alpha _21)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(0))\right)$$

and

$$t_{}([0,1/4])>l_2(\alpha _1,\alpha _2):=4^{2\alpha _1+\alpha _21}\mathrm{exp}\left((2\alpha _1+\alpha _21)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(1/4))\right),$$

for $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2T.`$ It follows that

$$t_{}([0,1/4])\underset{\alpha _1,\alpha _2T}{inf}\mathrm{max}(l_1(\alpha _1,\alpha _2),l_2(\alpha _1,\alpha _2))0.176056,$$

where the numerical value, attained for $`\alpha _10.330333`$ and $`\alpha _20.128`$, is found by using (3.2) and computations. Again, this lower bound is weaker than (1.18).

However, the application of Corollary 2.7, with the upper bound $`M`$ obtained from (1.23) and (3.1), gives an interesting new result (also see ). We translate it to $`[0,1]`$ setting here.

###### Theorem 3.3.

The integer Chebyshev polynomials $`\{Q_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`[0,1]`$ satisfy

(3.10)
$$Q_n(x)=(x(1x))^{[\alpha _1n]}(2x1)^{[\alpha _2n]}R_n(x),\text{as }n\mathrm{},$$

where

(3.11)
$$0.2961\alpha _10.3634\text{ and }0.0952\alpha _20.1767,$$

and $`R_n𝒫_n()`$, $`n`$. Furthermore, the pair $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2)`$ must belong to the region $`G`$ pictured below in Figure 1, which is determined by the inequalities

$$\mathrm{exp}\left((2\alpha _1+\alpha _21)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(0))\right)<0.179335$$

and

$$4^{2\alpha _1+\alpha _21}\mathrm{exp}\left((2\alpha _1+\alpha _21)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(1/4))\right)<0.179335.$$

Note that, in addition to improving the previous lower bounds obtained in ,  and , (3.11) also gives the upper bounds for $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$.

### 3.2. Three and more factors on $`[0,1/4]`$: Numerical approach

It is natural to expect improvements in the bounds for $`t_{}([0,1/4])`$ and for $`\alpha _i`$’s, if we use three or more known factors from (3.4). There is, however, a substantial difficulty arising on our way. Although Theorem 2.4 can still produce the needed quantities of weighted potential theory, it assumes the knowledge of the set $`S_w`$. In fact, when $`w`$ is defined by (2.3)-(2.5), with the help of the factors

(3.12)
$$Q_{1,1}(z)=z,Q_{1,2}(z)=4z1\text{and}Q_{1,3}(z)=5z1,$$

we have that $`S_w=[a_1,b_1][a_2,b_2]`$, where $`[a_1,b_1](0,1/5)`$ and $`[a_2,b_2](1/5,1/4)`$. But the endpoints of the intervals $`[a_1,b_1]`$ and $`[a_2,b_2]`$ are some unknown functions of the multiplicities $`(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)`$. The problem becomes even more complicated, if we consider further factors listed in (3.4). Fortunately, we can apply the numerical methods for finding $`S_w`$ and the weighted equilibrium measure $`\mu _w`$, based on weighted Leja points (see Section V.1 of ). Weighted Leja points are easy to generate numerically, as they are defined by the following simple recursive procedure. For a general compact set $`E`$ and $`w`$ of (2.3)-(2.5), let $`a_0E`$ be a point such that

(3.13)
$$|a_0|w(a_0)=zw(z)_E.$$

Given the points $`\{a_i\}_{i=0}^{n1},`$ we define the weighted Leja polynomial

(3.14)
$$L_n(z)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(za_i),$$

so that $`a_n`$ is found as a point satisfying

(3.15)
$$w^n(a_n)|L_n(a_n)|=w^nL_n_E,a_nE.$$

Of course, the choice of $`a_n`$ might not be unique. The fundamental property of weighted Leja points is that they give a discrete approximation to the weighted equilibrium measure $`\mu _w,`$ corresponding to the weight $`w`$ on $`E,cap(E)>0`$. This is stated in the best way by using the weak\* convergence of measures:

(3.16)
$$\tau _n:=\frac{1}{n+1}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _{a_i}\stackrel{}{}\mu _w,\text{as }n\mathrm{},$$

where $`\delta _{a_i}`$ is the unit point mass at $`a_i,i=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (see Theorem V.1.1 in ). Furthermore, Theorem V.1.2 of  gives that

(3.17)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}w(a_n)|L_n(a_n)|^{1/n}=e^{F_w}.$$

It follows from Theorem III.2.1 and Remark III.2.2 of  (also cf. (4.4)) that $`\{a_i\}_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}S_w^{}`$, where $`S_w^{}S_w`$ is a compact set defined by

(3.18)
$$S_w^{}:=\{zE:U^{\mu _w}(z)\mathrm{log}w(z)F_w\}.$$

One can immediately see from (3.18) and the form of $`w`$ in (2.3)-(2.5), that

(3.19)
$$S_w^{}E\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\{z_{j,i}\}_{j=1}^{m_i}.$$

Thus we obtain from (3.16), (3.17) and the definition of weak\* convergence that

(3.20)
$$\mathrm{exp}(F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta ))=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{w(a_n)}\left|\frac{L_n(\zeta )}{L_n(a_n)}\right|^{1/n},\zeta S_w^{}.$$

Similarly, we have from (2.7), (3.16), (3.17) and (3.19) that

(3.21)
$$cap(E,w)=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}w(a_n)\left(|L_n(a_n)|\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}w(a_i)\right)^{1/n}.$$

Equations (3.20) and (3.21) give a straightforward way of computing all quantities of weighted potential theory, necessary for the applications of our results from Section 2.

We now proceed in the same fashion as in the case of two factors, by defining the weight

$$w(x)=\left(x^{2\alpha _1}|4x1|^{\alpha _2}|5x1|^{2\alpha _3}\right)^{1/(12\alpha _1\alpha _22\alpha _3)},x[0,1/4],$$

where

$$(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)T:=\{2\alpha _1+\alpha _2+2\alpha _3<1\}_+^3.$$

Theorem 2.6 applies here with $`\zeta _1=0,\zeta _2=1/4`$ and $`\zeta _3=1/5,`$ so that we have the corresponding values $`q_1=1,q_2=4`$ and $`q_3=5`$ for (2.15). Each $`q_i`$ gives a lower bound

(3.22)
$$l_i(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3):=q_i^{2\alpha _1+\alpha _2+2\alpha _31}e^{(2\alpha _1+\alpha _2+2\alpha _31)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta _i))},i=1,2,3,$$

by (2.15), so that

$$t_{}([0,1/4])\underset{T}{inf}\underset{i}{\mathrm{max}}l_i(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\alpha _3)>0.1775.$$

This numerical lower bound was found by using (3.20) and a simple C code for generating weighted Leja points. It should be noted that the most time consuming part of the computation is finding of the above inf, which is done by a search over a discrete lattice in $`T`$. The lower bound of Theorem 3.1 follows at once from (3.1).

Using the upper bound $`M=0.179335`$ in Corollary 2.7, as in the two-factor case, and taking advantage of the ready numerical results on computing (3.22), we find the following improved bounds for $`\alpha _1,\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _3`$.

###### Theorem 3.4.

The integer Chebyshev polynomials $`\{Q_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`[0,1]`$ satisfy

(3.23)
$$Q_n(x)=(x(1x))^{[\alpha _1n]}(2x1)^{[\alpha _2n]}(5x^25x+1)^{[\alpha _3n]}R_n(x),\text{as }n\mathrm{},$$

where

(3.24)
$$0.31\alpha _10.34,0.11\alpha _20.14\text{ and }0.035\alpha _30.057,$$

and $`R_n𝒫_n()`$, $`n`$.

The upper bound in Theorem 3.1 was obtained by using all eight factors of (3.4) to find an upper bound for $`t_{}([0,1/4])`$, with the help of the weight

$$w(x)=\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{8}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}(z)|^{\beta _i}\right)^{1/(1_{i=1}^8\beta _i)}.$$

If we choose the following set of values for $`\beta _i`$’s

$$(0.625,0.11,0.07,0.0032,0.0302,0.0112,0.0048,0.00094),$$

then the upper bound

$$t_{}([0,1/4])<0.1791$$

is easily found from Theorem 2.3 and (3.21) via another computation, involving weighted Leja points. This implies by (3.1) that

$$t_{}([0,1])<0.4232,$$

as claimed in Theorem 3.1.

One can further improve the numerical results on the lower bound for $`t_{}([0,1])`$ and the bounds for $`\alpha _i`$’s, by considering four and more factors from (3.4). The upper bound of Theorem 3.1 can also be improved by optimizing the choice of $`\beta _i`$’s. All the details for computations and suggested improvements of numerical results will be published separately.

## 4. Weighted capacity and potentials

We give a brief description of the basic facts from the potential theory with external fields, or weighted potential theory, for the convenience of the reader. One should consult Saff and Totik  for a complete exposition including the history of this subject.

With $`(E)`$ denoting the class of all positive Borel measures $`\mu `$ on $``$ such that $`\mu ()=1`$ and supp $`\mu E`$, consider the following weighted energy problem (cf. \[37, Section I.1\]):

For the weighted energy integral

(4.1)
$$I_w(\mu ):=\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{|zt|w(z)w(t)}d\mu (z)𝑑\mu (t),\mu (E),$$

find

(4.2)
$$V_w:=\underset{\mu (E)}{inf}I_w(\mu ),$$

and identify the extremal measures, if the infimum in (4.2) is attained.

The following is a special case of Theorem I.1.3 in .

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`w:E[0,+\mathrm{})`$ be a continuous function on a compact set $`E`$ such that $`cap(\{zE:w(z)>0\})>0`$. Then
(a) $`V_w`$ of (4.2) is finite;
(b) there exists a unique $`\mu _w(E)`$ such that $`I_w(\mu _w)=V_w`$;
(c) $`U^{\mu _w}(z)\mathrm{log}w(z)F_w`$, for quasi every $`zE`$;
(d) $`U^{\mu _w}(z)\mathrm{log}w(z)F_w,zS_w`$,
where $`S_w:=\mathrm{supp}\mu _w`$ and $`F_w:=V_w+{\displaystyle \mathrm{log}w(t)𝑑\mu _w(t)}`$.

By saying in (c) that a property holds quasi everywhere (q.e.), we mean that it holds everywhere, with the possible exception of a set of zero logarithmic capacity (cf. \[37, Sec. I.1\]). The weighted capacity of $`E`$ is then defined by

(4.3)
$$cap(E,w):=e^{V_w}.$$

In the case $`cap(\{zE:w(z)>0\})=0`$, we set $`cap(E,w)=0.`$

It will become clear from the proofs that the $`n`$-th root asymptotic behavior of integer Chebyshev polynomials is essentially equivalent to that of the weighted polynomials, for $`w`$ given by (2.3)-(2.5). Therefore, weighted potential theory provides useful tools for the study of integer Chebyshev problem, such as the following proposition (see Theorem III.2.1 and Corollary III.2.6 in ).

###### Proposition 4.2.

Suppose that the assumptions of Proposition 4.1 are satisfied. Then, for any polynomial $`P_n𝒫_n()`$, we have

(4.4)
$$|w^n(z)P_n(z)|w^nP_n_{S_w}\mathrm{exp}(n(F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)+\mathrm{log}w(z))),z.$$

Assume further that for every point $`zE`$, the set $`\{t:|tz|<\delta ,tE\}`$ has positive capacity for any $`\delta >0`$. Then

(4.5)
$$w^nP_n_E=w^nP_n_{S_w}.$$

## 5. Proofs

The following proof is found in Trigub \[42, p. 316\].

###### Proof of Remark 1.1.

Consider the Chebyshev polynomials for $`[2,2]`$, given by

(5.1)
$$t_n(x)=2\mathrm{cos}(n\mathrm{arccos}(x/2))=2^n\left((x+\sqrt{x^24})^n+(x\sqrt{x^24})^n\right),n.$$

We already observed in Section 1 that $`t_n(x)`$ is a monic polynomial with integer coefficients, whose roots are given by (1.4). Schur showed that if $`n=p`$ is a prime number, then $`t_p(x)/x`$ is irreducible over integers (see \[31, p. 228\]). Hence the numbers

$$2\mathrm{cos}\frac{(2k1)\pi }{2p},k=1,\mathrm{},p;k\frac{p+1}{2},$$

form a complete set of $`p1`$ conjugate algebraic integers in $`[2,2]`$, for any prime $`p`$. It is clear that the corresponding roots $`\{b_k\}_{k=1}^{p1}`$ of $`F_{p1}(x)=t_p(xm2)/(xm2)`$, obtained by shifting the above set by $`m+2`$, form a complete set of conjugates on $`[m,m+4]`$. Let $`Q_{p2}`$ be an integer Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`p2`$ for $`[1/(m+4),1/m]`$. Note that

$$Q_{p2}\left(\frac{1}{b_k}\right)=\frac{\stackrel{~}{Q}_{p2}(b_k)}{b_k^{p2}}0,k=1,\mathrm{},p1,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{p2}𝒫_{p2}().`$ Indeed, if $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_{p2}(b_k)=0`$ for just one $`k`$, then this must be true for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},p1,\text{ i.e., }\stackrel{~}{Q}_{p2}0.`$ Since the product $`_{k=1}^{p1}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{p2}(b_k)`$ is a symmetric form in $`b_k`$’s with integer coefficients, it may be written as a polynomial in the elementary symmetric functions of $`b_k`$’s, with integer coefficients, by the fundamental theorem on symmetric forms. Thus the above product must be a nonzero integer, so that we have

$$\left|\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}Q_{p2}\left(\frac{1}{b_k}\right)\right|=\frac{\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}\stackrel{~}{Q}_{p2}(b_k)\right|}{\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}b_k^{p2}\right|}\frac{1}{\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}b_k\right|^{p2}}$$

and

(5.2)
$$Q_{p2}_{[1/(m+4),m]}^{p1}\frac{1}{\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}b_k\right|^{p2}}.$$

Observe that

$$\left|\underset{k=1}{\overset{p1}{}}b_k\right|=|F_{p1}(0)|=\left|\frac{t_p(m+2)}{m+2}\right|\frac{(m+2+\sqrt{(m+2)^24})^p}{2^{p1}(m+2)},$$

where the last inequality follows from (5.1). Combining (5.2) with the above estimate and (1.6), we obtain that

$$t_{}([1/(m+4),1/m])\frac{2}{m+2+\sqrt{(m+2)^24}}>\frac{1}{m+2}.$$

###### Proof of Proposition 1.2.

For the sequence of polynomials $`V_m^k(z),k,`$ we have

$$t_{}(L_r)\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}V_m^k_{L_r}^{km}=r^{1/m}.$$

Thus the upper bound in (1.13) follows. Suppose that $`P_l𝒫_l()`$ has a leading coefficient $`b_l0`$. Then we estimate

$$P_l_{L_r}^{1/l}=|b_l|^{1/l}z^l+\mathrm{}_{L_r}^{1/l}cap(L_r)=(r/|a_m|)^{1/m},$$

by \[30, p. 155 and p. 135\], which gives the lower bound of (1.13). ∎

###### Proof of Corollary 1.3.

Since $`a_m=1`$, (1.14) follows at once from (1.13). Furthermore, if $`P_l𝒫_{km}()`$ is of exact degree $`l`$, with the leading coefficient $`b_l0`$, then

$$P_l_{L_r}=|b_l|z^l+\mathrm{}_{L_r}(cap(L_r))^l=r^{l/m}r^k=V_m^k_{L_r},$$

where we used \[30, p. 155\]. Hence $`V_m^k(z)`$ is an integer Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`km`$ on $`L_r,k.`$

###### Proof of Theorem 1.4.

If $`V_m^k(z)`$ is an integer Chebyshev polynomial of degree $`km`$ on $`L_r`$, for any $`k,`$ then (1.15) is immediate from the definition (1.6). Therefore, we only need to prove the second statement of the theorem. It is trivial for $`r=0`$, so that we assume $`r(0,1/|a_m|].`$ Suppose to the contrary that there exists a polynomial $`P_l𝒫_{km}()`$, of exact degree $`l`$, such that

$$P_l_{L_r}<V_m^k_{L_r}=r^k.$$

Let $`z_i,i=1,\mathrm{},m,`$ be the zeros of $`V_m`$. Clearly, all $`z_i`$’s are inside $`L_r`$, so that we have by the maximum principle

$$|P_l(z_i)|P_l_{L_r}<r^k,i=1,\mathrm{},m.$$

Using a known argument based on the fundamental theorem of symmetric forms (see Lemma in \[22, p. 181\]), we obtain that

$$N=a_m^l\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}P_l(z_i).$$

On the other hand, we estimate

$$\left|a_m^l\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}P_l(z_i)\right||a_m|^lP_l_{L_r}^m<|a_m|^{km}r^{km}1.$$

Consequently, this integer N is equal to zero, which means that $`P_l(z_i)=0`$ for some $`i`$. But then the irreducible polynomial $`V_m`$ must divide $`P_l`$.

Assume that $`P_l(z)=V_m^d(z)R(z)`$, where $`d`$ and $`R𝒫_{m(kd)}()`$, of exact degree $`lmd`$, does not have $`V_m`$ as a factor. It follows that

$$|R(z)|=|P_l(z)|/|V_m(z)|^d<r^{kd},zL_r,$$

and

$$R_{L_r}<r^{kd}.$$

Hence we can use the same argument for $`R`$, to conclude that

$$a_m^{lmd}\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}R(z_i)=0.$$

This implies that $`V_m`$ divides $`R`$, contradicting our assumption. ∎

Before giving the proof of Theorem 1.5, we need to state two lemmas. The first one shows that if a sequence of polynomials is composed of only finitely many factors, then the $`n`$-th root behavior of this sequence can be essentially described by a fixed “polynomial-power” function.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Suppose that all polynomials $`P_n𝒫_n(),`$ of exact degrees $`n,`$ have finitely many distinct factors $`P_{m_i,i}𝒫_{m_i}(),i=1,\mathrm{},K.`$ If, for a compact set $`E,`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}P_n_E^{1/n}=A,$$

then there exist $`\alpha _i(0,1],i=1,\mathrm{},kK,`$ such that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|P_{m_i,i}|^{\alpha _i}_E=A,$$

where $`_{i=1}^k\alpha _im_i=1.`$

###### Proof.

We begin by choosing an increasing subsequence $`n_j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ such that

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{l_i(n_j)}{n_j}=:\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},K,$$

where $`l_i(n_j)`$ is the power of the factor $`P_{m_i,i}`$ in $`P_{n_j}`$. Clearly, $`0\alpha _i1,i=1,\mathrm{},K,`$ and $`_{i=1}^K\alpha _im_i=1.`$ We may assume that

$$0<\alpha _i1,i=1,\mathrm{},k,\text{and}\alpha _i=0,i=k+1,\mathrm{},K.$$

Our goal is to show that the factors with $`\alpha _i=0`$ do not have influence on the $`n`$-th root behavior for the norms of the sequence. If $`z`$ is not a zero of $`P_{m_i,i},i=k+1,\mathrm{},K,`$ then

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}|P_{n_j}(z)|^{1/n_j}=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{}}|P_{m_i,i}(z)|^{l_i(n_j)/n_j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|P_{m_i,i}(z)|^{\alpha _i},$$

where convergence in the above equation is uniform on compact subsets of $`\{z:P_{m_i,i}(z)=0,i=k+1,\mathrm{},K\}.`$ Hence

(5.3)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|P_{m_i,i}(z)|^{\alpha _i}A,$$

for any $`zE`$, with finitely many exceptions. But the function on the left of (5.3) is continuous, so that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|P_{m_i,i}|^{\alpha _i}_EA.$$

It is easy to obtain the opposite inequality from

$`A=\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{n_j}_E^{1/n_j}`$ $``$ $`\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|P_{m_i,i}|^{l_i(n_j)/n_j}_E\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i=k+1}{\overset{K}{}}}P_{m_i,i}_E^{l_i(n_j)/n_j}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|P_{m_i,i}|^{\alpha _i}_E.`$
The following fact is intuitively obvious.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Assume that $`P_{m_i,i}𝒫_{m_i}(),i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ For any $`A>0`$ and any set of exponents $`\alpha _i>0,i=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ the equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|P_{m_i,i}(x)|^{\alpha _i}=A$$

has only finitely many solutions on the real line.

###### Proof.

Suppose that this is not the case, and there are infinitely many real solutions of the above equation. Since the function $`f(x)`$ on the left hand side grows indefinitely, as $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$, all these solutions are contained in a bounded open interval $`I`$. Note that in this case $`f(x)`$ must have infinitely many points of local maximum in $`I,`$ with at least one point of accumulation $`x_0I`$. Let $`x_nI,n,`$ be the sequence of maxima for $`f(x)`$ in $`I`$, such that $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}x_n=x_0`$ and $`f(x_n)A,n.`$ Observing that $`f(x_0)A>0`$, we conclude that there exists a 2-dimensional neighborhood $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`x_0`$, free of zeros of $`P_{m_i,i},i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ Hence $`f(z)`$ can be defined as a single valued analytic function in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is real valued on $`\mathrm{\Delta },`$ by an appropriate choice of branches for the powers $`\alpha _i.`$ It follows that $`f^{}(x_n)=0,n,`$ where $`f^{}(z)`$ is also analytic in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Thus the zeros of $`f^{}(z)`$ have a point of accumulation in its domain of analyticity, forcing this function to vanish identically in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This implies that $`f(z)A,z\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which can be extended to the whole domain $`G`$ of definition for $`f(z)`$. But that gives an immediate contradiction, as $`G`$ has the zeros of $`f`$ on the boundary. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.5.

We first note that the actual degrees of integer Chebyshev polynomials on $`E`$ cannot be bounded, for our assumption that $`E`$ has infinitely many points would give at once that $`cap(E)=1`$, by (1.5)-(1.6). Suppose to the contrary that there are only finitely many polynomials, with integer coefficients, that can be factors of $`Q_n,n.`$ Then we have by Lemma 5.1 that, for a subsequence $`\{n_j\}_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}},`$

$$t_{}(E)=\underset{n_j\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_{n_j}_E^{1/n_j}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}|^{\alpha _i}_E,$$

where $`Q_{m_i,i}𝒫_{m_i}(),0<\alpha _i1,i=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ and $`_{i=1}^k\alpha _im_i=1.`$ Observe that there are only finitely many points $`x_jE`$, where the function $`_{i=1}^k|Q_{m_i,i}(x)|^{\alpha _i}`$ attains its norm on $`E`$:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}(x_j)|^{\alpha _i}=t_{}(E),j=1,\mathrm{},M,$$

according to Lemma 5.2. Let $`U(\delta ):=_{j=1}^M\{xE:|xx_j|\delta \}.`$ By choosing $`\delta >0`$ sufficiently small, we can make the logarithmic capacity of $`U(\delta )`$ as small as we wish (see Theorem 5.1.4(a) in \[30, p. 130\]). This implies that $`t_{}(U(\delta ))`$ can also be made arbitrarily small by (1.10). In particular, we can find an integer Chebyshev polynomial $`P_l`$ for $`U(\delta )`$ such that

$$P_l_{U(\delta )}^{1/l}<t_{}(E).$$

It follows that

$$|P_l|^{\epsilon /l}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}|^{(1\epsilon )\alpha _i}_{U(\delta )}P_l_{U(\delta )}^{\epsilon /l}\left(t_{}(E)\right)^{1\epsilon }<t_{}(E),$$

for any $`\epsilon (0,1).`$ Note that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}(x)|^{\alpha _i}<t_{}(E)c(\delta ),xEU(\delta ),$$

where $`c(\delta )>0.`$ Hence we can estimate for $`xEU(\delta )`$ that

$`|P_l(x)|^{\epsilon /l}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|Q_{m_i,i}(x)|^{(1\epsilon )\alpha _i}`$ $`<`$ $`P_l_E^{\epsilon /l}\left(t_{}(E)c(\delta )\right)^{1\epsilon }`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_l_E^{1/l}}{t_{}(E)c(\delta )}}\right)^\epsilon (t_{}(E)c(\delta )).`$
It is clear that we can now choose $`\epsilon >0`$ sufficiently small, to insure that

$$|P_l|^{\epsilon /l}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}|Q_{m_i,i}|^{(1\epsilon )\alpha _i}_E<t_{}(E).$$

But this immediately implies that the polynomials

$$P_l^{[n\epsilon /l]}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Q_{m_i,i}^{[(1\epsilon )\alpha _in]},n,$$

have smaller sup norms on $`E`$ than those of integer Chebyshev polynomials, as $`n\mathrm{}`$. This is an obvious contradiction. ∎

One can generalize Theorem 1.5 to certain classes of compact sets $`E`$. The major element needed in the proof is that the intersection of $`E`$ and any lemniscate defined by $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|Q_{m_i,i}(z)|^{\alpha _i}=t_{}(E)`$ has integer Chebyshev constant less than $`t_{}(E)`$.

We are now passing to the proof of Theorem 1.6 and stating an auxiliary result.

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`E`$ be a compact set. Define

$$E_\delta :=\{z:|zw|\delta ,wE\}.$$

Then for any $`\epsilon >0`$ we can find $`\delta >0`$ such that

$$t_{}(E_\delta )t_{}(E)\epsilon .$$

###### Proof.

Take $`\epsilon >0`$ and choose $`n`$ such that $`Q_n_E^{1/n}t_{}(E)+\epsilon /2.`$ Clearly, $`EH:=\{z:|Q_n(z)|_E^{1/n}t_{}(E)+\epsilon /2\}.`$ On the other hand, $`H`$ is inside the lemniscate $`L_\epsilon :=\{z:|Q_n(z)|_E^{1/n}=t_{}(E)+\epsilon \},`$ by the maximum principle, so that we can set $`\delta :=dist(H,L_\epsilon )>0.`$ Hence $`E_\delta `$ lies interior to $`L_\epsilon ,`$ and

$$t_{}(E_\delta )t_{}(L_\epsilon )t_{}(E)+\epsilon .$$

The last inequality follows by considering a sequence of polynomials $`(Q_n)^m,m,`$ on $`L_\epsilon .`$

The result of Lemma 5.3 can be quantified, provided we have some knowledge of the geometric properties for $`E`$. In fact, one can show that if $`E`$ consists of finitely many non-degenerate continua, then

$$t_{}(E_\delta )t_{}(E)C(E)\sqrt{\delta },$$

where $`C(E)>0`$ depends only on $`E`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 1.6.

We first assume that $`cap(Z)=0`$, and then obtain a contradiction, to prove (1.24). Let $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ be the closure of all zeros of the integer Chebyshev polynomials $`Q_n,n,`$ for $`E.`$ Since the sets $`Z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ differ only by countably many isolated points, we have that

(5.4)
$$cap(\stackrel{~}{Z})=cap(Z)=0$$

(cf. Theorem 5.1.4 in \[30, p. 130\]). Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is a connected open set, which follows from Theorem 5.3.2(a) of \[30, p. 138\]. Consider a sequence of functions

$$u_n(z):=\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}|Q_n(z)|$$

that are subharmonic in $``$ and harmonic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ It follows from Bernstein-Walsh lemma (see, e.g., Theorem 5.5.7(a) in \[30, p. 156\]) that this sequence is bounded on compact subsets of $``$. Therefore, we can select a subsequence $`u_{n_j}(z)`$, converging to a harmonic function $`u(z)`$ locally uniformly in $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Note that $`u(z)=u(\overline{z}),z\mathrm{\Omega },`$ which is inherited from the polynomials $`Q_n,n.`$ Also,

$$u(z)\mathrm{log}t_{}(E),zE\stackrel{~}{Z}.$$

We want to show that all accumulation points for the solutions of the equation

(5.5)
$$u(x)=\mathrm{log}t_{}(E),xE,$$

belong to $`E\stackrel{~}{Z}.`$ Indeed, if $`x_0E\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is such a point, then it must also be a point of accumulation for the local maxima of $`u(x)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Let $`x_k,k,`$ be those maxima of $`u(x)`$ such that $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}x_k=x_0.`$ Consider a 2-dimensional neighborhood $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ of $`x_0`$. We can define an analytic completion of $`u(z)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, denoted by $`f(z),`$ such that $`\mathrm{}f(x_0)=0.`$ It is easy to see from the Schwarz integral formula that $`\overline{f(z)}=f(\overline{z}),z\mathrm{\Delta },`$ because $`u(z)=u(\overline{z}),z\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ Hence $`\mathrm{}f(z)=0,z\mathrm{\Delta },`$ which means that

$$u^{}(x_k)=0f^{}(x_k)=0,k,$$

where by $`f^{}(z)`$ we understand the complex derivative of $`f(z)`$. It follows that $`f^{}(z)`$ vanishes identically in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, so that $`f(z)`$ and $`u(z)`$ are identically constant in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. But then $`u(z)`$ is identically constant in the whole domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which cannot be true, because $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contains compact sets $`H`$ of arbitrarily large capacity and $`u_n_H\mathrm{log}cap(H)`$, for any $`n`$ (cf. Theorem 5.5.4(a) of \[30, p. 155\]).

Thus the set $`M`$ of solutions for (5.5) in $`E\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ consists of isolated points, i.e., $`M`$ is countable and $`cap(M)=0`$. Furthermore,

$$cap\left((E\stackrel{~}{Z})M\right)=0,$$

by (5.4) and Theorem 5.1.4 of \[30, p. 130\]. Set

$$U(\delta ):=\{yE:|yx|\delta ,x(E\stackrel{~}{Z})M\}.$$

We choose a sufficiently small $`\delta >0`$, so that

$$t_{}(U(\delta ))<t_{}(E),$$

by Lemma 5.3 and (1.10). Hence there exists $`c_1(\delta )>0`$, such that

$$P_l_{U(\delta )}^{1/l}<t_{}(E)c_1(\delta ),$$

for integer Chebyshev polynomials $`P_l`$ on $`U(\delta )`$ of degree $`ll_0`$. Recall that for the integer Chebyshev polynomials $`Q_{n_j}`$ on $`E`$, we have

$$Q_{n_j}_E^{1/n_j}<t_{}(E)+\epsilon _j,j,$$

where $`lim_j\mathrm{}\epsilon _j=0.`$ We now let $`l_j=l_0+[n_j\sqrt{\epsilon _j}]`$ and consider sequences of polynomials $`\{P_{l_j}^mQ_{n_j}^m\}_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}},j`$. Using two preceding estimates and Young’s inequality, we obtain that

(5.6) $`P_{l_j}^mQ_{n_j}^m_{U(\delta )}^{1/(m(l_j+n_j))}`$ $``$ $`P_{l_j}_{U(\delta )}^{1/(l_j+n_j)}Q_{n_j}_{U(\delta )}^{1/(l_j+n_j)}`$
$`<`$ $`(t_{}(E)c_1(\delta ))^{l_j/(l_j+n_j)}(t_{}(E)+\epsilon _j)^{n_j/(l_j+n_j)}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l_j}{l_j+n_j}}\left(t_{}(E)c_1(\delta )\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{n_j}{l_j+n_j}}\left(t_{}(E)+\epsilon _j\right)`$
$`=`$ $`t_{}(E){\displaystyle \frac{l_jc_1(\delta )n_j\epsilon _j}{l_j+n_j}}<t_{}(E),`$
for all large $`j.`$

Observe that we can find $`c_2(\delta )>0`$, so that

$$u(x)<\mathrm{log}\left(t_{}(E)2c_2(\delta )\right),xEU(\delta ),$$

by our construction of the set $`U(\delta ).`$ Therefore,

$$Q_{n_j}_{EU(\delta )}^{1/n_j}<t_{}(E)c_2(\delta ),$$

for all sufficiently large $`j.`$ This gives the following estimate

(5.7) $`P_{l_j}^mQ_{n_j}^m_{EU(\delta )}^{1/(m(l_j+n_j))}`$ $``$ $`P_{l_j}_E^{1/(l_j+n_j)}(t_{}(E)c_2(\delta ))^{n_j/(l_j+n_j)}`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{P_{l_j}_E^{1/l_j}}{t_{}(E)c_2(\delta )}}\right)^{\frac{l_j}{l_j+n_j}}(t_{}(E)c_2(\delta ))<t_{}(E),`$
where $`j`$ is selected to be sufficiently large. The last inequality in (5.7) follows because $`P_{l_j}_E^{1/l_j}<c_3(\delta ),j,`$ by Bernstein-Walsh inequality, and because $`lim_j\mathrm{}l_j/n_j=0.`$ Finally, we combine (5.6) and (5.7) to obtain the contradiction:

$$t_{}(E)\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}P_{l_j}^mQ_{n_j}^m_E^{1/(m(l_j+n_j))}<t_{}(E).$$

###### Proof of Theorem 2.1.

Observe that if the set $`E^{}=\{zE:w(z)>0\}`$ is finite, then $`t_{}(E,w)=0`$. Indeed, we can use the regular integer Chebyshev polynomials $`Q_n,n,`$ on $`E^{}`$, to find that

$$t_{}(E,w)\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}w^nQ_n_E^{1/n}w_E^{}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_n_E^{}^{1/n}=w_E^{}t_{}(E^{}).$$

But $`cap(E^{})=0`$ in this case, so that $`t_{}(E^{})=0`$ by (1.10). Thus, (2.2) is trivially true when $`E^{}`$ is finite, and we assume that $`E^{}`$ has infinitely many points for the rest of this proof.

We need to find a sequence of polynomials

$$P_n(z)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_kz^k𝒫_n(),n,$$

with small weighted norms $`w^nP_n_E.`$ It is possible to use the Lagrange interpolation in weighted Fekete points for this purpose. The weighted Fekete points $`\{\zeta _j\}_{j=0}^nE`$ are defined as a set of points maximizing the absolute value of the “weighted Vandermonde determinant” (cf. \[37, p. 143\])

$$V_w(z_0,\mathrm{},z_n):=\underset{0i<jn}{}(z_iz_j)w(z_i)w(z_j)$$

among all $`(n+1)`$-tuples $`\{z_j\}_{j=0}^nE`$. Note that $`w(\zeta _j)0,j=0,\mathrm{},n,`$ and we obtain from the Lagrange interpolation formula that

(5.8)
$$w^n(z)P_n(z)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}w^n(\zeta _i)P_n(\zeta _i)\underset{ji}{}\frac{(z\zeta _j)w(z)}{(\zeta _i\zeta _j)w(\zeta _i)}.$$

Since

$$|V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},z,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)||V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},\zeta _i,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)|,zE,$$

for any $`i=0,\mathrm{},n,`$ we have that

$$\left|\underset{ji}{}\frac{(z\zeta _j)w(z)}{(\zeta _i\zeta _j)w(\zeta _j)}\right|=\left|\frac{V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},z,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)}{V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},\zeta _i,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)}\right|1,zE.$$

It follows at once from (5.8) that

(5.9)
$$w^nP_n_E\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}|w^n(\zeta _i)P_n(\zeta _i)|(n+1)\underset{0in}{\mathrm{max}}|w^n(\zeta _i)P_n(\zeta _i)|$$

(also see Theorem III.1.12 in ). Observe that

$$l_i:=w^n(\zeta _i)P_n(\zeta _i)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}w^n(\zeta _i)\zeta _i^ka_k,i=0,\mathrm{},n,$$

are linear forms in $`\{a_k\}_{k=0}^n`$, with real coefficients. Applying Minkowski’s theorem (see \[6, p. 73\]), we conclude that there exists a set of integers $`\{a_k\}_{k=0}^n`$, not all zero, such that

$$|l_i||det\left(w^n(\zeta _i)\zeta _i^k\right)_{0i,kn}|^{1/(n+1)}.$$

But

$$det\left(w^n(\zeta _i)\zeta _i^k\right)_{0i,kn}=V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},\zeta _n),$$

so that we can find a sequence $`P_n(z)=_{k=0}^na_kz^k0,`$ satisfying

$$w^nP_n_E(n+1)|V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)|^{1/(n+1)},n.$$

Hence

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}w^nP_n_E^{1/n}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|V_w(\zeta _0,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)|^{\frac{1}{n(n+1)}}=\sqrt{cap(E,w)},$$

by Theorem III.1.3 of \[37, p. 145\]. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.3.

Let $`P_n𝒫_n(),n,`$ be a sequence polynomials satisfying

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}w^nP_n_E^{1/n}=t_{}(E,w),$$

where $`w`$ is defined in (2.3). We construct the following new sequence of polynomials with integer coefficients:

$$P_n(z)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}Q_{m_i,i}^{l_i(n)}(z),n,$$

where $`l_i(n)`$ are selected so that

$$\frac{l_i(n)}{n}\frac{\alpha _i}{1\alpha },\text{ as }n\mathrm{},i=1,\mathrm{},k.$$

Using (1.6), we obtain that

$`t_{}(E)`$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}P_n{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Q_{m_i,i}^{l_i(n)}_E^{1/\left(n+_{i=1}^km_il_i(n)\right)}`$
$``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left(w^nP_n_E^{1/n}\right)^{\frac{n}{n+_{i=1}^km_il_i(n)}}`$
$`\times `$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Q_{m_i,i}_E^{\frac{l_i(n)}{n}\frac{\alpha _i}{1\alpha }}\right)^{\frac{n}{n+_{i=1}^km_il_i(n)}}\left(t_{}(E,w)\right)^{1\alpha },`$
because

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}Q_{m_i,i}_E^{\frac{l_i(n)}{n}\frac{\alpha _i}{1\alpha }}1,i=1,\mathrm{},k.$$

It now follows from Theorem 2.1 that

$$t_{}(E)\left(t_{}(E,w)\right)^{1\alpha }\left(cap(E,w)\right)^{(1\alpha )/2}.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 2.4.

We need to find a solution of the weighted energy problem on $`E`$, corresponding to the weight $`w`$ of (2.3)-(2.5). It follows from Theorem I.1.3 of  that there exists a weighted equilibrium measure $`\mu _w`$, whose support is a compact set $`S_wE_{i=1}^k\{z_{j,i}\}_{j=1}^{m_i}.`$ Let $`\delta _z`$ be a unit point mass at $`z`$. Observe that

(5.10)
$$Q(z)=\mathrm{log}w(z)=U^\nu (z)\frac{1}{1\alpha }\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _i\mathrm{log}|a_i|,$$

where $`U^\nu `$ is the logarithmic potential of the measure

$$\nu :=\frac{1}{1\alpha }\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\alpha _i\delta _{z_{j,i}}.$$

It is clear that $`\nu `$ is a positive Borel measure of total mass $`\nu ()=\alpha /(1\alpha ).`$ Let $`\widehat{\nu }`$ be the balayage of $`\nu `$ from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto $`S_w`$ (see, e.g., Section II.4 of ). Then $`\widehat{\nu }`$ is a positive Borel measure of the same mass as $`\nu `$, which is supported on $`S_w`$. Furthermore, we can express $`\widehat{\nu }`$ via harmonic measures

$$\widehat{\nu }=\frac{1}{1\alpha }\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\alpha _i\omega (z_{j,i},,\mathrm{\Omega })$$

(cf. Appendix A.3 of ). The potentials of $`\nu `$ and $`\widehat{\nu }`$ are related by the equation

(5.11)
$$U^{\widehat{\nu }}(z)=U^\nu (z)+_\mathrm{\Omega }g_\mathrm{\Omega }(t,\mathrm{})𝑑\nu (t),$$

which holds quasi everywhere on $`S_w`$ (see Theorem II.4.4 of ). Hence the measure

$$\mu :=\frac{1}{1\alpha }\omega (\mathrm{},,\mathrm{\Omega })\widehat{\nu }=\frac{1}{1\alpha }\left(\omega (\mathrm{},,\mathrm{\Omega })\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}\alpha _i\omega (z_{j,i},,\mathrm{\Omega })\right)$$

is a probability measure on $`S_w`$. Using (5.10) and (5.11), we obtain for quasi every $`zS_w`$ that

$`U^\mu (z)+Q(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha 1}}\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)U^{\widehat{\nu }}(z)+U^\nu (z){\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\alpha }}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\alpha _i\mathrm{log}|a_i|`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha 1}}\left(\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\alpha _i\mathrm{log}|a_i|\right){\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Omega }}g_\mathrm{\Omega }(t,\mathrm{})𝑑\nu (t)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha 1}}\left(\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\alpha _i\mathrm{log}|a_i|+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{m_i}{}}}\alpha _ig_\mathrm{\Omega }(z_{j,i},\mathrm{})\right).`$
Note that $`\mu `$ has finite logarithmic energy, since it is composed of harmonic measures. Thus we can apply Theorem I.3.3 to prove that $`\mu `$ is the weighted equilibrium measure $`\mu _w`$ and that the associated modified Robin constant $`F_w`$ is given by (2.8). Equation (2.7) expresses $`cap(E,w)`$ through $`w`$, $`\mu _w`$ and $`F_w`$ (cf. Section I.6 of ).

We now obtain (2.10) from (2.7) by the following simple manipulation. Recall that

$$g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)U^{\omega (\mathrm{},,\mathrm{\Omega })}(z)=\mathrm{log}|zt|d\omega (\mathrm{},t,\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)$$

(see Chapter 4 of ). Substituting this relation into (2.8), we have that

$`F_w`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha 1}}\left(\mathrm{log}cap(S_w)+(1\alpha ){\displaystyle \mathrm{log}w(t)𝑑\omega (\mathrm{},t,\mathrm{\Omega })}\alpha \mathrm{log}cap(S_w)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}cap(S_w){\displaystyle \mathrm{log}w(t)𝑑\omega (\mathrm{},t,\mathrm{\Omega })}.`$
Hence (2.10) is proved too. ∎

###### Lemma 5.4.

Assume that the integer Chebyshev polynomials of $`E,cap(E)>0,`$ satisfy (2.11) and (2.12), along a subsequence of $`n\mathrm{}.`$ Then

(5.12)
$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}^{1/n}t_{}(E),m(n)=\mathrm{deg}R_n,$$

where $`w`$ is given by (2.3)-(2.5) and $`S_w`$ is the support of the weighted equilibrium measure $`\mu _w`$, corresponding to the weight $`w`$.

###### Proof.

Observe that the actual degree of $`R_n`$ is $`m(n)=n_{i=1}^km_il_i(n).`$ It follows from Theorem I.1.3 of  that there exists a weighted equilibrium measure $`\mu _w`$, whose support is a compact set $`S_wE_{i=1}^k\{z_{j,i}\}_{j=1}^{m_i}.`$ Hence the factors $`Q_{m_i,i},i=1,\mathrm{},k,`$ do not vanish on $`S_w.`$ Estimating

$`w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}^{1/n}`$ $``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Q_{m_i,i}^{l_i(n)}\right)R_n_{S_w}^{1/n}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}|Q_{m_i,i}|^{\alpha _im(n)/(1\alpha )l_i(n)}_{S_w}^{1/n}`$
$``$ $`Q_n_E^{1/n}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Q_{m_i,i}_{S_w}^{\frac{\alpha _im(n)}{(1\alpha )n}\frac{l_i(n)}{n}},`$
and noting that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_{m_i,i}_{S_w}^{\frac{\alpha _im(n)}{(1\alpha )n}\frac{l_i(n)}{n}}=1,i=1,\mathrm{},k,$$

by (2.12), we obtain (5.12). ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 2.5.

Clearly, the degrees of integer Chebyshev polynomials on $`E`$ must be unbounded, because $`cap(E)>0,`$ so that the assumptions of this theorem are valid. Since the leading coefficient of $`R_n`$ is at least 1 in absolute value and the degree of $`R_n`$ is $`m(n)=n_{i=1}^km_il_i(n)`$, we obtain from Theorem I.3.6 of  that

$$w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}e^{m(n)F_w}.$$

Thus (2.13) follows by taking the $`n`$-th root in the above inequality, and using (5.12) together with (2.12), as $`n\mathrm{}.`$

Finally, (2.14) is a direct consequence of (2.13) and (2.8), for $`E.`$

###### Proof of Theorem 2.6.

Recall that the actual degree of $`R_n`$ is given by $`m(n)=n_{i=1}^km_il_i(n).`$ Since $`R_n(\zeta )0`$, we have that

$$|R_n(\zeta )|\frac{N}{q^{m(n)}}\frac{1}{q^{m(n)}},$$

for a positive integer $`N`$. On the other hand, Theorem III.2.1 of  gives the estimate

(5.13)
$$|R_n(z)|w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}\mathrm{exp}\left(m(n)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(z))\right),z.$$

Consequently,

$`w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}`$ $``$ $`|R_n(\zeta )|\mathrm{exp}\left(m(n)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta ))\right)`$
$``$ $`q^{m(n)}\mathrm{exp}\left(m(n)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta ))\right).`$
Taking the $`n`$-th root in the above inequality, and using (5.12) together with (2.12), we obtain (2.15), as $`n\mathrm{}.`$

###### Proof of Proposition 2.8.

Consider a sequence of integer Chebyshev polynomials $`Q_n,n,`$ satisfying (2.11) and (2.12). It is not difficult to see that we can assume

$$\frac{l_i(n)}{n}\alpha _i,\text{ as }n\mathrm{},i=1,\mathrm{},k,$$

while preserving the property

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_n_E^{1/n}=t_{}(E).$$

Since

$$t_{}(E)t_{}(EH_\epsilon ),$$

we only need to show that, for some $`\epsilon >0`$,

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}Q_n_{H_\epsilon }^{1/n}t_{}(E).$$

Using the same notations as in the proofs of Theorems 2.5 and 2.6, we have that

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}Q_n_{H_\epsilon }^{1/n}`$ $``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}w^{m(n)}R_n_{H_\epsilon }^{1/n}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}Q_{m_i,i}_{H_\epsilon }^{\frac{l_i(n)}{n}\frac{\alpha _im(n)}{(1\alpha )n}}`$
$``$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}w^{m(n)}R_n_{H_\epsilon }^{1/n}.`$
We next estimate, multiplying (5.13) by $`w^{m(n)}(z)`$,

(5.14)
$$|w^{m(n)}(z)R_n(z)|w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}\mathrm{exp}\left(m(n)(F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)+\mathrm{log}w(z))\right),z.$$

Recall that $`S_w`$ is a compact set, $`S_wE_{i=1}^k\{z_{j,i}\}_{j=1}^{m_i}`$. Therefore, the potential $`U^{\mu _w}`$ is harmonic and bounded on $`H_\epsilon `$, if $`\epsilon >0`$ is sufficiently small. On the other hand, we can obviously make $`\mathrm{log}w`$ smaller than any negative number on $`H_\epsilon `$, by choosing $`\epsilon `$ small. It follows that

$$F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)+\mathrm{log}w(z)0,zH_\epsilon ,$$

for some $`\epsilon `$, which further implies that

$$w^{m(n)}R_n_{H_\epsilon }w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w},$$

by (5.14). Using Lemma 5.4, we now obtain that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}Q_n_{H_\epsilon }^{1/n}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}w^{m(n)}R_n_{H_\epsilon }^{1/n}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}w^{m(n)}R_n_{S_w}^{1/n}t_{}(E).$$

###### Proof of Lemma 3.2.

Note that the weight $`w`$ of (3.5) is just a special case of the Jacobi weights of Examples IV.1.17 and IV.5.2 in . Thus our problem on the interval $`[0,1/4]`$ is easily reduced to that on the interval $`[1,1]`$ considered in , with the help of the change of variable $`x(x+1)/8`$. We obtain from Example IV.1.17 of  that $`S_w=[a,b]`$, with $`a`$ and $`b`$ given by (3.6) (see (1.27) and (1.28) in \[37, p. 207\]). Similarly, Example IV.5.2 gives (3.8) after this change of variable.

Consider the following natural extension for $`w(x)`$ of (3.5):

$$w(z):=|z|^{\frac{2\alpha _1}{12\alpha _1\alpha _2}}|14z|^{\frac{\alpha _2}{12\alpha _1\alpha _2}},z.$$

It follows from Theorem I.1.3 of  that

(5.15)
$$F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)=\mathrm{log}w(z),$$

for quasi every $`z[a,b]`$ (i.e., with the exception of a set of zero capacity). Denote the right hand side of (3.2) by $`h(z).`$ Then $`F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)h(z)`$ is a harmonic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[a,b]`$, such that

$$F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)h(z)=0$$

for quasi every $`z[a,b]=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by (5.15) and the basic properties of Green functions (see \[43, p. 14\]). Using the uniqueness theorem for the solution of the Dirichlet problem in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (cf. Theorem III.28 and its Corollary in ), we conclude that

$$F_wU^{\mu _w}(z)h(z),z.$$

Thus $`F_w`$ can be found from

$$F_w=\underset{z\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(U^{\mu _w}(z)+h(z)\right),$$

or from (2.8). We obtain the explicit representation of (3.2) by expressing the Green functions of (3.2) via the conformal mappings of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the exterior of the unit disk. Indeed, introducing these conformal mappings by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}(z):=\frac{2zab+2\sqrt{(za)(zb)}}{ba},z\mathrm{\Omega },$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z):=\frac{2z^1b^1a^1+2\sqrt{(z^1b^1)(z^1a^1)}}{b^1a^1},z\mathrm{\Omega },$$

and

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/4}(z):={\displaystyle \frac{2(z1/4)^1(b1/4)^1(a1/4)^1}{(b1/4)^1(a1/4)^1}}+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{((z1/4)^1(a1/4)^1)((z1/4)^1(b1/4)^1)}}{(b1/4)^1(a1/4)^1}},z\mathrm{\Omega },`$
we observe that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }_0(0)=\mathrm{}\text{ and }\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/4}(1/4)=\mathrm{}.$$

Hence

$`g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,\mathrm{})=\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{}}(z)|,g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,0)=\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Phi }_0(z)|`$
$`\text{and }g_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,1/4)=\mathrm{log}|\mathrm{\Phi }_{1/4}(z)|,z\mathrm{\Omega },`$
by Theorem I.17 of \[43, p. 18\]. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.3.

This theorem is an immediate application of Corollary 2.7 to the integer Chebyshev polynomials on $`[0,1/4]`$. Using (1.23) and (3.1), we obtain the upper bound

$$t_{}([0,1/4])0.42347945^2<0.179335=M.$$

Then we choose $`\zeta _1=0`$ and $`\zeta _2=1/4`$ to produce the inequalities, defining the region $`G`$ of Figure 1, by (2.16). The values of $`F_wU^{\mu _w}(\zeta _i)`$ are readily found from (3.2) and the explicit formulas for the Green functions, obtained in the proof of Lemma 3.2. Figure 1, as well as the bounds for $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$, is generated by Matlab. ∎