On sufficient conditions for the total positivity and for the multiple positivity of matrices.

Olga M. Katkova, Anna M. Vishnyakova Dept. of Math., Kharkov State University, Svobody sq., 4, 61077, Kharkov, Ukraine, e-mail: olga.m.katkova@ilt.kharkov.ua , anna.m.vishnyakova@univer.kharkov.ua

November 27, 2006

Abstract
The following theorem is proved.
Theorem. Suppose M = ( a i , j )   be a k × k   matrix with positive entries and a i , j a i + 1 , j + 1 > 4 cos 2 π k + 1 a i , j + 1 a i + 1 , j ( 1 ≤ i ≤ k − 1 , 1 ≤ j ≤ k − 1 ) .   Then det M > 0 .   The constant 4 cos 2 π k + 1   in this Theorem is sharp. A few other results concerning totally positive and multiply positive matrices are obtained.
Keywords: Multiply positive matrix; Totally positive matrix; Strictly totally positive matrix; Toeplitz matrix; Hankel matrix; Pólya frequency sequence.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 15A48, 15A57, 15A15.

1 Introduction and statement of results.

This paper is inspired by the interesting work [5] in which some useful and easily verified conditions of strict total positivity of a matrix are obtained. We recall that a matrix A   is said to be k   -times positive, if all minors of A   of order not greater than k   are non-negative. A matrix A   is said to be multiply positive if it is k   -times positive for some k ∈ N .   A matrix A   is said to be totally positive, if all minors of A   are non-negative. For more information about these notions and their applications we refer the reader to [3] and [12] . According to [12] we will denote the class of all k   -times positive matrices by T P k   and the class of all totally positive matrices by T P .   By S T P   we will denote the class of matrices with all minors being strictly positive and by S T P k   the class of matrices with all minors of order not greater than k   being strictly positive.
In [5] the following theorem was proved Theorem A. Denote by c ~   the unique real root of x 3 − 5 x 2 + 4 x − 1 = 0   ( c ~ ≈ 4.0796   ). Let M = ( a i , j )   be an n × n   matrix with the property that (a) a i , j > 0 ( 1 ≤ i , j ≤ n )   and (b) a i , j a i + 1 , j + 1 ≥ c ~ a i , j + 1 a i + 1 , j ( 1 ≤ i , j ≤ n − 1 ) .   Then M   is strictly totally positive.
Note that the verification of total positivity is, in general, a very difficult problem. Surely, it is not difficult to calculate the determinant of a given matrix with numerical entries. But if the order of a matrix or the entries of a matrix depend on some parameters then the testing of multiple positivity is complicated.
Theorem A provides a convenient sufficient condition for total positivity of a matrix.
For c ≥ 1   we will denote by T P 2 ( c )   the class of all matrices M = ( a i , j )   with positive entries which satisfy the condition
a i , j a i + 1 , j + 1 ≥ c a i , j + 1 a i + 1 , j for all i , j . (1)
For c ≥ 1   we will denote by S T P 2 ( c )   the class of all matrices M = ( a i , j )   with positive entries which satisfy the condition
a i , j a i + 1 , j + 1 > c a i , j + 1 a i + 1 , j for all i , j . (2)
It is easy to verify that S T P 2 = S T P 2 ( 1 ) .   Theorem A states that T P 2 ( c ~ ) ⊂ S T P .   Denote by c k : = 4 cos 2 π k + 1 , k = 2 , 3 , 4 , … .   The main result of this paper is the following:
Theorem 1. Suppose M = ( a i , j )   be a k × k   matrix with positive entries.
(i) if M ∈ T P 2 ( c k )   then det M ≥ 0   ; (ii) if M ∈ S T P 2 ( c k )   then det M > 0   .
In the proof of Theorem 1 we will show that if M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   then every submatrix of M   belongs to T P 2 ( c ) .   Therefore the following theorem is the simple consequence of Theorem 1.
Theorem 2. For every c ≥ c k   we have (i) if M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   then M ∈ T P k   ; (ii) if M ∈ S T P 2 ( c )   then M ∈ S T P k   .
The following fact is a simple consequence of this theorem.
Theorem 3. For every c ≥ 4   we have if M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   then M ∈ S T P .   The following statement demonstrates that the constants in Theorems 1 and 3 are unimprovable not only in the class of matrices with positive entries but in the classes of Toeplitz matrices and of Hankel matrices. We recall that a matrix M   is a Toeplitz matrix if it is of the form M = ( a j − i )   and a matrix M   is a Hankel matrix if it is of the form M = ( a j + i ) .   Theorem 4.
(i) For every 1 ≤ c < c k   there exists a k × k   Toeplitz matrix M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   with det M < 0 ;   (ii) for every 1 ≤ c < c k   there exists a k × k   Hankel matrix M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   with det M < 0 .   A simple consequence of Theorem 4 is the following fact Corollary of Theorem 4.
(i) For every 1 ≤ c < 4   there exists a Toeplitz matrix M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   but M / ∈ T P ;   (ii) for every 1 ≤ c < 4   there exists a Hankel matrix M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   but M / ∈ T P .   The following theorem shows that Theorem 1 remains valid for some special classes of matrices with nonnegative elements.
Theorem 5. Let M = ( a i , j )   be a k × k   matrix. Suppose that ∃ s , l ∈ Z : − ( k − 1 ) ≤ s < l ≤ k − 1   such that a i , j > 0   for s ≤ j − i ≤ l   and a i , j = 0   for j − i < s   or j − i > l   . If a i , j a i + 1 , j + 1 ≥ c k a i , j + 1 a i + 1 , j ( 1 ≤ i < m , 1 ≤ j < n )   then det M ≥ 0 .   We will show how to prove Theorem 5 in the section ”Proof of Theorem 4”.
A variation of Theorem 3 for the class of Toeplitz matrices was proved by J. I. Hutchinson in [11] . To formulate his result we need some notions.
The class of m   -times positive sequences consists of the sequences { a k } k = 0 ∞   such that all minors of the infinite matrix
‖ a 0 a 1 a 2 a 3 . . . 0 a 0 a 1 a 2 . . . 0 0 a 0 a 1 . . . 0 0 0 a 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‖ (3)
of order not greater than m   are non-negative. The class of m   -times positive sequences is denoted by P F m .   A sequence is called a multiply positive sequence if it is m   -times positive for some m ∈ N .   A sequence { a k } k = 0 ∞   such that all minors of the infinite matrix ( 3 ) are nonnegative is called a totally positive sequence.
The class of totally positive sequences is denoted by P F ∞ .   The corresponding classes of generating functions f ( z ) = ∑ k = 0 ∞ a k z k   are also denoted by P F m   and P F ∞   .
The multiply positive sequences (also called Pólya frequency sequences) were introduced by Fekete in 1912 see [7] in connection with the problem of exact calculation of the number of positive zeros of a real polynomial.
The class P F ∞   was completely described by Aissen, Schoenberg, Whitney and Edrei in [1] (see also [12,p.412] ):
Theorem ASWE. A function f ∈ P F ∞   iff f ( z ) = C z n e γ z ∞ ∏ k = 1 ( 1 + α k z ) / ( 1 − β k z ) ,   where C ≥ 0 , n ∈ Z , γ ≥ 0 , α k ≥ 0 , β k ≥ 0 , ∑ ( α k + β k ) < ∞ .   By Theorem ASWE a polynomial p ( z ) = ∑ k = 0 n a k z k , a k ≥ 0 ,   has only real zeros if and only if the sequence ( a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , 0 , 0 , … ) ∈ P F ∞ .   In 1926, Hutchinson [11,p.327] extended the work of Petrovitch [15] and Hardy [9] or [10,pp.95-100] and proved the following theorem.
Theorem B. Let f ( z ) = ∑ k = 0 ∞ a k z k   , a k > 0 , ∀ k .   Inequality
a n 2 ≥ 4 a n − 1 a n + 1 , ∀ n ≥ 1 (4)
holds if and only if the following two properties hold:
(i) The zeros of f(x) are all real, simple and negative and (ii) the zeros of any polynomial ∑ k = m n a k z k   , formed by taking any number of consecutive terms of f ( x )   , are all real and non-positive.
It is easy to see that ( 4 ) implies a n ≤ a 1 4 n ( n − 1 ) / 2 ( a 1 a 0 ) n − 1 , n ≥ 2 ,   that is f   is an entire function of the order 0 .   So by the Hadamard theorem (see, for example, [14,p.24] ) f ( z ) = C z n ∞ ∏ k = 1 ( 1 + α k z ) ,   where C ≥ 0 , n ∈ N ∪ { 0 } , α k ≥ 0 , ∑ ( α k ) < ∞ .   Using ASWE Theorem we obtain from Theorem B that
a n 2 ≥ 4 a n − 1 a n + 1 , ∀ n ≥ 1 ⇒ { a n } n = 0 ∞ ∈ P F ∞ . (5)
In [13] it was proved that the constant 4   in ( 5 ) is sharp.
Thus, Theorem B provides a simple sufficient condition for deducing when a sequence is a totally positive sequence. Theorem 5 provides the following simple sufficient condition of multiple positivity for a sequence.
Corollary of Theorem 5. Let { a n } n = 0 ∞   be a sequence of nonnegative numbers.
Then a n 2 ≥ c m a n − 1 a n + 1 , ∀ n ≥ 1 ⇒ { a n } n = 0 ∞ ∈ P F m .   Our results are applicable also to the moment problem. Recall that a sequence of positive numbers { s k } k = 0 ∞   is said to be the moment sequence of a nondecreasing function F : R → R   if s k = ∫ − ∞ ∞ t k d F ( t ) .   A sequence of positive numbers is called a Hamburger moment sequence if it is a moment sequence of a function F   having infinitely many points of growth. The following famous theorem gives the description of Hamburger moment sequences.
Theorem C. ([8] , see also [2,chapt.2] ) A sequence of positive numbers { s k } k = 0 ∞   is a Hamburger moment sequence if and only if
det ( s 0 s 1 . . . s k s 1 s 2 . . . s k + 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . s k s k + 1 . . . s 2 k ) > 0 , k = 0 , 1 , 2 , … . (6)
The following statement is proved in [4] .
Theorem D. Let d   be the positive solution of ∑ n = 1 ∞ d − n 2 = 1 / 4   ( d ≈ 4.06 ) .   Then any positive sequence { s k } k = 0 ∞   satisfying s n − 1 s n + 1 ≥ d s n 2 n = 0 , 1 , 2 , …   is a Hamburger moment sequence.
Theorem 3 implies the following statement.
Corollary of Theorem 3. Any positive sequence { s k } k = 0 ∞   satisfying s n − 1 s n + 1 ≥ 4 s n 2 n = 0 , 1 , 2 , …   is a Hamburger moment sequence.
The constant 4   in the Corollary above cannot be improved.

2 Proof of Theorem 1.

We need the following sequence of functions:
F m ( c ) = ∑ j = 0 ⌊ m / 2 ⌋ ( m − j j ) ( − 1 ) j 1 c j , m = 0 , 1 , 2 , … , c ≥ 1 , (7)
where by ⌊ x ⌋   we denote the integral part of x .   The following lemma provides some properties for this sequence of functions.
Lemma 1.
(i) The following identities hold
F 0 ( c ) = F 1 ( c ) = 1 F m ( c ) = F m − 1 ( c ) − 1 c F m − 2 ( c ) , m = 2 , 3 , 4 , … . (8)
(ii) For c = 4 cos 2 φ   we have
F m ( c ) = sin ( m + 1 ) φ c m / 2 sin φ . (9)
(iii) For c k = 4 cos 2 π k + 1   we have
F j − 1 ( c k ) − 1 c k 2 F j − 2 ( c k ) − 1 c k j ≥ F j ( c k ) , k ≥ 3 , j = 2 , 3 , … , k − 1 . (10)
Proof of Lemma 1. Formula ( 8 ) follows directly from ( 7 ). Formula ( 9 ) is a simple consequence of the well-known trigonometric identity (see, for example, [16,p.696] ) sin ( m + 1 ) φ sin φ = ∑ j = 0 ⌊ m / 2 ⌋ ( m − j j ) ( − 1 ) j ( 2 cos φ ) m − 2 j .   Using the identity 4 cos 2 φ − 1 = sin ( 3 φ ) sin φ   we have F j − 1 ( c k ) − 1 c k 2 F j − 2 ( c k ) − 1 c k j − F j ( c k ) = ( 1 c k − 1 c k 2 ) F j − 2 ( c k ) − 1 c k j   = 1 c k ( j + 2 ) / 2 ( sin ( 3 π k + 1 ) sin π k + 1 ⋅ sin ( ( j − 1 ) π k + 1 ) sin π k + 1 − 1 ( 2 cos π k + 1 ) j − 2 ) ≥   1 c k ( j + 2 ) / 2 ( sin ( 3 π k + 1 ) sin π k + 1 ⋅ sin ( ( j − 1 ) π k + 1 ) sin π k + 1 − 1 ) ≥ 0 ,   for k ≥ 3   and j = 2 , 3 , … , k − 1 .   Inequality ( 10 ) is proved.
Lemma 1 is proved. □   The following Lemma was proved in [5] .
Lemma A. Let M = ( a i , j ) , 1 ≤ i ≤ m , 1 ≤ j ≤ n   and M ∈ T P 2 ( c ) , c ≥ 1 .   Then a i , j a k , l ≥ c ( l − j ) ( k − i ) a i , l a k , j , for all i < k , j < l .   A simple consequence of Lemma A is the fact that if M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   then any submatrix of M   also belongs to T P 2 ( c ) .   Analogously if M ∈ S T P 2 ( c )   then any submatrix of M   also belongs to S T P 2 ( c ) .   For a matrix M = ( a i , j )   we will denote by M ( j 1 , j 2 , … , j k i 1 , i 2 , … , i k )   the following submatrix of M   M ( j 1 , j 2 , … , j k i 1 , i 2 , … , i k ) = ( a i 1 , j 1 a i 1 , j 2 . . . a i 1 , j k a i 2 , j 1 a i 2 , j 2 . . . a i 2 , j k . . . . . . ⋅ ⋅ ⋅ . . . a i k , j 1 a i k , j 2 . . . a i k , j k )   We now prove the following claim (which consists of three parts) by induction on n .   Let M = ( a i , j )   be an n × n   matrix and M ∈ T P 2 ( c ) ,   where c ≥ 4 cos 2 π n + 1 .   Then the following inequalities hold:
det M ≥ 0 . (11)
det M ≥ a 1 , 1 det M ( 2 , 3 , … , n 2 , 3 , … , n ) − a 1 , 2 a 2 , 1 det M ( 3 , 4 , … , n 3 , 4 , … , n ) . (12)
det M ≤ a 1 , 1 det M ( 2 , 3 , … , n 2 , 3 , … , n ) . (13)
Since M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   then hypothesis ( 11 ), ( 12 ), ( 13 ) are true for n = 2 .   The proof below is based on the following lemma.
Lemma 2. Let c 0 ≥ 1 ,   M = ( a i , j ) ∈ T P 2 ( c 0 )   be an n × n   matrix satisfying the following conditions (i) ∀ i = 2 , 3 , … , n det M ( i , i + 1 , … , n i , i + 1 , … , n ) ≥ 0 ;   (ii) ∀ i = 1 , 2 , … , n − 2   det M ( i , i + 1 , … , n i , i + 1 , … , n ) ≥ a i , i det M ( i + 1 , i + 2 , … , n i + 1 , i + 2 , … , n ) − a i , i + 1 a i + 1 , i det M ( i + 2 , i + 3 , … , n i + 2 , i + 3 , … , n ) .   Then for all c , 1 ≤ c ≤ c 0   the following inequalities are valid:
det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) ≥ a m + 1 , m + 1 ( det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) − (14)
1 c a m + 2 , m + 2 det M ( m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n ) ) , m = 0 , 1 , … , n − 3 .
det M ≥ a 1 , 1 a 2 , 2 ⋯ a m , m ( F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − (15)
1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) ) , m = 1 , 2 , … , n − 2 .
F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) ≥ (16)
a m + 1 , m + 1 ( F m + 1 ( c ) det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) − 1 c F m ( c ) a m + 2 , m + 2 det M ( m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n ) ) ,
m = 1 , 2 , … , n − 3 .
F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) ≥ (17)
a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 ⋯ a n , n F n ( c ) , m = 1 , 2 , … , n − 2 .
Proof of Lemma 2. First we prove ( 14 ). Since M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   and by (ii) we have det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) ≥ a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) −   a m + 1 , m + 2 a m + 2 , m + 1 det M ( m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n ) ≥ a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n )   − 1 c a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 det M ( m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n ) , m = 0 , 1 , … , n − 3 .   Inequality ( 14 ) is proved.
Let us prove ( 16 ). Multiplying ( 14 ) by F m ( c )   we have F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) ≥   a m + 1 , m + 1 ( ( F m ( c ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) ) det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) −   1 c F m ( c ) a m + 2 , m + 2 det M ( m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n m + 3 , m + 4 , … , n ) ) , m = 1 , 2 , … , n − 3 ,   and, using ( 8 )we obtain ( 16 ). To prove ( 17 ) we apply ( 16 ) ( n − 2 − m )   times. We derive F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) ≥   a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 ⋯ a n − 2 , n − 2 ( F n − 2 ( c ) det M ( n − 1 , n n − 1 , n ) − 1 c F n − 3 ( c ) a n − 1 , n − 1 a n , n ) .   Since M ∈ T P 2 ( c 0 )   the following inequality holds for all c , 1 ≤ c ≤ c 0 ,  
d e t M ( n − 1 , n n − 1 , n ) ≥ ( 1 − 1 c ) a n − 1 , n − 1 a n , n , (18)
so by ( 8 ) we obtain F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) ≥   a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 ⋯ a n , n ( ( F n − 2 ( c ) − 1 c F n − 3 ( c ) ) − 1 c F n − 2 ( c ) ) =   a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 ⋯ a n , n ( F n − 1 ( c ) − 1 c F n − 2 ( c ) ) =   a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 ⋯ a n , n F n ( c ) .   Inequality ( 17 ) is proved.
By ( 8 ) we rewrite inequality ( 14 ) for m = 0   in the following form:
det M ≥ a 1 , 1 ( F 1 ( c ) det M ( 2 , 3 , … , n 2 , 3 , … , n ) − 1 c F 0 ( c ) a 2 , 2 det M ( 3 , 4 , … , n 3 , 4 , … , n ) ) .   To prove ( 15 ) we apply ( 16 ) ( m − 1 )   times.
Lemma 2 is proved. □   Remark. If a matrix M   satisfies the conditions of Lemma 2 and, moreover, a n − 1 , n − 1 a n , n > c 0 a n − 1 , n a n , n − 1 ,   then inequality ( 18 ) is strict, hence ( 17 ) is strict, i.e.
F m ( c ) det M ( m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n m + 1 , m + 2 , … , n ) − 1 c F m − 1 ( c ) a m + 1 , m + 1 det M ( m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n m + 2 , m + 3 , … , n ) > (19)
a m + 1 , m + 1 a m + 2 , m + 2 ⋯ a n , n F n ( c ) , m = 1 , 2 , … , n − 2 .
In particular, for all matrices M ∈ S T P ( c 0 )   inequality ( 19 ) is valid for all c , 1 ≤ c ≤ c 0 .   Assume that conditions ( 11 ), ( 12 ) and ( 13 ) hold for all matrices of sizes smaller than k .   Let us prove these conditions for n = k .   Lemma 3. Let M = ( a i , j )   be a k × k   matrix, M ∈ T P 2 ( c )   , c ≥ c k : = 4 cos 2 π k + 1 .   For all j = 2 , 3 , … , k − 1   the following inequality holds.
a 1 , j det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) − a 1 , j + 1 det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≥ 0 .   Proof of Lemma 3. Since m ∈ T P 2 ( c ) ,   M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ∈ T P 2 ( c )   and M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ∈ T P 2 ( c ) .   Since 4 cos 2 π n + 1 ≤ 4 cos 2 π k + 1   for n = 2 , 3 , … , k − 1   we can apply the induction hypothesis to the matrices M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) , M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k )   and to all their square submatrices. We apply inequality ( 13 ) j   times and obtain det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≤ a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j + 1 , j det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k ) .   From Lemma A and from the fact a 1 , j + 1 a j + 1 , j ≤ 1 c k j a 1 , j a j + 1 , j + 1   now we conclude
a 1 , j + 1 det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≤ 1 c k j a 1 , j a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j , j − 1 a j + 1 , j + 1 det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k ) . (20)
By the induction hypothesis the matrix M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k )   satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 2. Applying to this matrix ( 15 ) with m = j − 2   we obtain det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≥ a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j − 1 , j − 2 ( F j − 2 ( c k ) det M ( j − 1 , j + 1 , j + 2 … , k j , j + 1 , j + 2 … , k )   − 1 c k F j − 3 ( c k ) a j , j − 1 det M ( j + 1 , j + 2 , … , k j + 1 , j + 2 , … , k ) ) .   Applying ( 12 ) to the matrix M ( j − 1 , j + 1 , j + 2 … , k j , j + 1 , j + 2 … , k )   and plugging the result into the last formula we have det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≥ a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j − 1 , j − 2 ( a j , j − 1 ( F j − 2 ( c k ) −   1 c k F j − 3 ( c k ) ) det M ( j + 1 , j + 2 … , k j + 1 , j + 2 … , k ) − a j , j + 1 a j + 1 , j − 1 F j − 2 ( c k ) det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k ) ) ,   whence, by Lemma A and ( 8 ) we obtain det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≥ a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j − 1 , j − 2 a j , j − 1 ( F j − 1 ( c k ) det M ( j + 1 , j + 2 … , k j + 1 , j + 2 … , k ) −   1 c k 2 a j + 1 , j + 1 F j − 2 ( c k ) det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k j + 2 , j + 3 , … , k ) ) .   Further applying ( 14 ) to the matrix M ( j + 1 , j + 2 … , k j + 1 , j + 2 … , k )   we have
det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≥ a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j , j − 1 a j + 1 , j + 1 ( det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 … , k j + 2 , j + 3 … , k ) (21)
( F j − 1 ( c k ) − 1 c k 2 F j − 2 ( c k ) ) − 1 c k a j + 2 , j + 2 F j − 1 ( c k ) det M ( j + 3 , j + 4 , … , k j + 3 , j + 4 , … , k ) ) .
By ( 20 ) and ( 21 ) we derive
a 1 , j det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) − a 1 , j + 1 det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) (22)
≥ a 1 , j a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j , j − 1 a j + 1 , j + 1 ( ( F j − 1 ( c k ) − 1 c k 2 F j − 2 ( c k ) − 1 c k j )
det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 … , k j + 2 , j + 3 … , k ) − 1 c k a j + 2 , j + 2 F j − 1 ( c k ) det M ( j + 3 , j + 4 , … , k j + 3 , j + 4 , … , k ) ) .
It follows from ( 22 ),( 10 ) and ( 17 ) that a 1 , j det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) − a 1 , j + 1 det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≥   a 1 , j a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j , j − 1 a j + 1 , j + 1 ( F j ( c k ) det M ( j + 2 , j + 3 … , k j + 2 , j + 3 … , k ) −   1 c k a j + 2 , j + 2 F j − 1 ( c k ) det M ( j + 3 , j + 4 , … , k j + 3 , j + 4 , … , k ) ) ≥   a 1 , j a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j , j − 1 a j + 1 , j + 1 a j + 2 , j + 2 ⋯ a k , k F k − 1 ( c k ) .   Hence by Lemma 1 and ( 9 ) with m = k − 1   we conclude that a 1 , j det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) − a 1 , j + 1 det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j , j + 2 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k )   ≥ a 1 , j a 2 , 1 a 3 , 2 ⋯ a j , j − 1 a j + 1 , j + 1 a j + 2 , j + 2 ⋯ a k , k sin ( k π k + 1 ) c k ( k − 1 ) / 2 sin π k + 1 ≥ 0 .   Lemma 3 is proved. □   Now we will prove ( 12 ). Using Lemma 3 we have det M ( 1 , 2 , … , k 1 , 2 , … , k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ( − 1 ) j + 1 a 1 , j det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k )   ≥ a 1 , 1 det M ( 2 , 3 … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) − a 1 , 2 det M ( 1 , 3 , 4 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) .   We apply the induction hypothesis ( 13 ) to the matrix M ( 1 , 3 , 4 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) .   We have det M ( 1 , 2 , … , k 1 , 2 , … , k ) ≥ a 1 , 1 det M ( 2 , 3 … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) − a 1 , 2 a 2 , 1 det M ( 3 , 4 , … , k 3 , 4 , … , k ) .   The inequality ( 12 ) is proved.
By Lemma 3 det M ( 1 , 2 , … , k 1 , 2 , … , k ) = ∑ j = 1 k ( − 1 ) j + 1 a 1 , j det M ( 1 , 2 , … , j − 1 , j + 1 , … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) ≤ a 1 , 1 det M ( 2 , 3 … , k 2 , 3 , … , k ) .   The inequality ( 13 ) is proved.
To prove ( 11 ) we note that by ( 12 ) and induction hypothesis the matrix M   satisfies the assumptions of Lemma 2. It follows from ( 15 ), ( 17 ) and Lemma 1 that det M ≥ a 1 , 1 a 2 , 2 ⋯ a k , k F k ( c k ) = a 1 , 1 a 2 , 2 ⋯ a k , k sin π c k k / 2 sin π k + 1 = 0 .   Hence the statement (i) in Theorem 1 is proved.
Now we will prove the statement (ii) in Theorem 4. If M ∈ S T P k ( c k )   then by ( 19 ) we can rewrite the last inequality in the following form det M > a 1 , 1 a 2 , 2 ⋯ a k , k F k ( c k ) = a 1 , 1 a 2 , 2 ⋯ a k , k sin π c k k / 2 sin π k + 1 = 0 .   Hence the statement (ii) in Theorem 1 is proved, which completes the proof of Theorem 1. □   In fact, we have proved a slightly stronger theorem, which may be of independent interest.
Theorem 6. Suppose c ≥ 4 cos 2 π k + 1 .   Let M = ( a i , j ) ∈ T P 2 ( c )   be a k × k   matrix. Then det M ≥ a 1 , 1 a 2 , 2 ⋯ a k , k F k ( c ) .  

3 Proof of Theorem 4.

Note that T P 2 ( c 1 ) ⊂ T P 2 ( c 2 )   for c 1 ≥ c 2   . Thus it is sufficient to prove Theorem 4 with c ∈ ( c k − ɛ , c k )   for ɛ > 0   being small enough.
Consider the following n × n   symmetrical Toeplitz matrix.
M n ( φ ) : = ‖ 2 cos φ 1 0 0 . . . 0 0 1 2 cos φ 1 0 . . . 0 0 0 1 2 cos φ 1 0 . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 . . . 0 1 2 cos φ 1 0 0 0 . . . 0 1 2 cos φ ‖ , (23)
where 0 ≤ φ < π / 2 .   Obviously, M n ( φ ) ∈ T P 2 ( 4 cos 2 φ ) .   The matrix M n ( φ )   satisfies the following recursion relation det M n ( φ ) = 2 cos φ det M n − 1 ( φ ) − det M n − 2 ( φ )   and M 1 ( φ ) = 2 cos φ , M 2 ( φ ) = 4 cos 2 φ − 1 .   It is easy to verify that det M n ( φ ) = sin ( n + 1 ) φ sin φ .   So for all φ ∈ ( π n + 1 , 2 π n + 1 )   we have det M n ( φ ) < 0 .   For φ ∈ ( π n + 1 , 2 π n + 1 )   consider the following n × n   symmetrical Toeplitz matrix
T n ( φ , ɛ 1 , … , ɛ n − 2 ) : = (24)
‖ 2 cos φ 1 ɛ 1 ɛ 2 . . . ɛ n − 3 ɛ n − 2 1 2 cos φ 1 ɛ 1 . . . ɛ n − 4 ɛ n − 3 ɛ 1 1 2 cos φ 1 ɛ 1 . . . ɛ n − 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ɛ n − 3 ɛ n − 4 . . . ɛ 1 1 2 cos φ 1 ɛ n − 2 ɛ n − 3 ɛ n − 4 . . . ɛ 1 1 2 cos φ ‖ ,
where ɛ 1 > ɛ 2 > ⋯ > ɛ n − 2 > 0   and ɛ 1   is chosen to satisfy the inequality 1 ≥ 4 cos 2 φ ⋅ 2 cos φ ⋅ ɛ 1 ,   then ɛ 2   is chosen to satisfy the inequality ɛ 1 2 ≥ 4 cos 2 φ ⋅ ɛ 2 ,   then ɛ 3   is chosen to satisfy the inequality ɛ 2 2 ≥ 4 cos 2 φ ⋅ ɛ 1 ⋅ ɛ 3 , …   and then ɛ n − 2   is chosen to satisfy the inequality ɛ n − 3 2 ≥ 4 cos 2 φ ⋅ ɛ n − 4 ⋅ ɛ n − 2 .   Under these conditions we have T n ( φ , ɛ 1 , … , ɛ n − 2 ) ∈ T P 2 ( 4 cos 2 φ ) .   Since T n ( φ , 0 , 0 , … , 0 ) = M n ( φ )   we obtain det T n ( φ , 0 , 0 , … , 0 ) < 0   for φ ∈ ( π n + 1 , 2 π n + 1 ) .   Therefore we have det T n ( φ , ɛ 1 , … , ɛ n − 2 ) < 0   for φ ∈ ( π n + 1 , 2 π n + 1 )   if ɛ 1   is small enough.
Thus, for every c ∈ ( 4 cos 2 2 π n + 1 , c n )   the statement (i) of Theorem 4 is proved.
Since T P 2 ( c 1 ) ⊂ T P 2 ( c 2 )   for c 1 ≥ c 2   the statement (i) of Theorem 4 follows.
We use the same method to obtain the proof of Theorem 5.
To prove the statement (ii) we consider the following Hankel matrix D n ( p , q )   with p ≥ 1 , q ≥ 1 .  
D n ( p , q ) : = ( p ⌊ ( i + j − 2 ) / 2 ⌋ ⌊ ( i + j − 1 ) / 2 ⌋ q ⌊ ( i + j − 3 ) / 2 ⌋ ⌊ ( i + j − 2 ) / 2 ⌋ , 1 ≤ i , j ≤ n , (25)
or,
D n ( p , q ) = ‖ 1 1 p p 2 q . . . * * 1 p p 2 q p 4 q 2 . . . * * p p 2 q p 4 q 2 p 6 q 4 . . . * * . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * . . . p ( n − 2 ) 2 q ( n − 2 ) ( n − 3 ) p ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q ( n − 2 ) 2 * * * * . . . p ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q ( n − 2 ) 2 p ( n − 1 ) 2 q ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) ‖ , (26)
By direct calculation we obtain D n ( p , q ) ∈ T P 2 ( min ( p , q ) ) .   Lemma 4. For all n ≥ 3   we have
det D n ( p , q ) = p β n q α n F n ( p ) + Q α n − 1 ( p , q ) , (27)
where α n = n ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) 3 , β n = n ( n − 1 ) ( 2 n − 1 ) 6   and Q α n − 1 ( p , q )   is a polynomial in p , q   such that deg q Q α n − 1 ( p , q ) ≤ α n − 1 .   (Here and further by deg q Q ( p , q )   we will denote the degree of Q ( p , q )   with respect to q .   ) Proof. We will prove this lemma by induction in n .   For n = 3   the statement is true as can be verified directly. The expansion of det D n ( p , q )   along column n   gives
det D n ( p , q ) = R α n − 1 ( p , q ) + (28)
det ‖ 1 1 p p 2 q . . . * 0 1 p p 2 q p 4 q 2 . . . * 0 p p 2 q p 4 q 2 p 6 q 4 . . . * 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * . . . * 0 * * * * . . . p ( n − 2 ) 2 q ( n − 2 ) ( n − 3 ) p ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q ( n − 2 ) 2 * * * * . . . p ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q ( n − 2 ) 2 p ( n − 1 ) 2 q ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) ‖ ,
where R α n − 1 ( p , q )   is a polynomial in p , q   and deg q R α n − 1 ( p , q ) ≤ α n − 1 .   The expansion of the determinant on the right-hand side of the last equation along row n   gives
det D n ( p , q ) = S α n − 1 ( p , q ) + (29)
det ‖ 1 1 p p 2 q . . . * 0 1 p p 2 q p 4 q 2 . . . * 0 p p 2 q p 4 q 2 p 6 q 4 . . . * 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * * . . . * 0 * * * * . . . p ( n − 2 ) 2 q ( n − 2 ) ( n − 3 ) p ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q ( n − 2 ) 2 0 0 0 . . . 0 p ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q ( n − 2 ) 2 p ( n − 1 ) 2 q ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) ‖ ,
where S α n − 1 ( p , q )   is a polynomial in p , q   and deg q S α n − 1 ( p , q ) ≤ α n − 1 .   The last equation provides the following recursion relation D n ( p , q ) = p ( n − 1 ) 2 q ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) D n − 1 ( p , q ) − p 2 ( n − 1 ) ( n − 2 ) q 2 ( n − 2 ) 2 D n − 2 ( p , q ) + T α n − 1 ( p , q ) ,   where T α n − 1 ( p , q )   is a polynomial in p , q   and deg q T α n − 1 ( p , q ) ≤ α n − 1 .   Using the induction hypothesis and formula ( 8 ) we obtain the statement of Lemma 4.
Lemma 4 is proved. □   Note that p ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ F n ( p )   is a polynomial in p   of degree ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ .   By ( 9 ) it has the following ⌊ n / 2 ⌋   roots:
4 cos 2 π n + 1 , 4 cos 2 2 π n + 1 , … , 4 cos 2 ⌊ n / 2 ⌋ π n + 1 .   Obviously, 4 cos 2 π n + 1   is the largest root of this polynomial. Hence for p ∈ ( 4 cos 2 2 π n + 1 , 4 cos 2 π n + 1 )   we have F n ( p ) < 0 .   Let us fix an arbitrary p 0 ∈ ( 4 cos 2 2 π n + 1 , 4 cos 2 π n + 1 ) .   Since det D n ( p 0 , q ) = q α n ( p 0 β n F n ( p 0 ) + q − α n Q α n − 1 ( p 0 , q ) ) ,   where Q α n − 1 ( p 0 , q )   is a polynomial in q   and deg Q α n − 1 ( p 0 , q ) ≤ α n − 1 ,   for q   being large enough (and q > p 0   ) we obtain D n ( p 0 , q ) ∈ T P 2 ( p 0 )   but det D n ( p 0 , q ) < 0 .   Thus, for every p ∈ ( 4 cos 2 2 π n + 1 , c n )   the statement (ii) of Theorem 4 is proved.
Since T P 2 ( c 1 ) ⊂ T P 2 ( c 2 )   for c 1 ≥ c 2   the statement (ii) of Theorem 4 follows.
Theorem 4 is proved. □   Remark. This is a revised version of the paper originally submitted to the journal ”Linear Algebra and its Applications” in summer of 2004. Recently in the paper [6] the authors formulated a conjecture which coincides with the statement proved in our Theorem 1.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. The authors are deeply grateful to Professor V.M. Kadets for valuable suggestions.
References

  1. M. Aissen, A. Edrei, I.J. Schoenberg, A. Whitney, On the Generating Functions of Totally Positive Sequences, J. Anal. Math. 2 (1952), 93–109.
  2. N. I. Akhiezer, The classical moment problem and some related questions in analysis, Translated by N. Kemmer, Hafner Publishing Co., New York, 1965.
  3. T.Ando, Totally Positive Matrices, Linear Algebra Appl. 90 (1987), 165–219.
  4. T.M. Bisgaard and Z. Sasvari, On the positive definiteness of certain functions, Math. Machr. 186 (1997), 81-99.
  5. T. Craven and G. Csordas, A sufficient condition for strict total positivity of a matrix, Linear and Multilinear Algebra 45 (1998), 19–34.
  6. D.K.Dimitrov, J.M.Pena, Almost strict total positivity and a class of Hurwitz polynomials, Journal of Approximation Theory 132 (2005), 212–223.
  7. M. Fekete, G. Pólya, Über ein Problem von Laguerre, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 34 (1912), 89–120.
  8. H. Hamburger, Über eine Erweiterung des Stieltjesschen Momentenproblems Math. Ann.81 (1920); 82 (1921).
  9. G. H. Hardy, On the zeros of a class of integral functions, Messenger of Math. 34 (1904), 97–101.
  10. G. H. Hardy, Collected Papers of G. H. Hardy, vol. IV, Oxford Clarendon Press 1969.
  11. J. I. Hutchinson, On a remarkable class of entire functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 25 (1923), 325–332.
  12. S. Karlin, Total Positivity, Vol. I, Stanford University Press, California 1968.
  13. O.M.Katkova, T.Lobova, A.M.Vishnyakova, On power series having sections with only real zeros, Computation Methods and Functional Theory, 3, No 2, (2003), 425–441.
  14. B. Ja. Levin, Distribution of Zeros of Entire Functions, Transl. Math. Mono., 5, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1964; revised ed. 1980.
  15. Petrovitch, Une classe remarquable de séries entiéres, Atti del IV Congresso Internationale dei Matematici, Rome, (Ser. 1) 2 (1908), 36–43.
  16. D. Zwillinger, (Ed.), CRC standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae, Boca Raton, Fl:CRC Press, (1995)