In my paper with É. Fouvry and Ph. Michel where we find upper bounds for the number of certain sheaves on the affine line over a finite field with bounded ramification, the combinatorial part of the argument involves spherical codes and the method of Kabatjanski and Levenshtein, and turns out to depend on the rather recondite question of knowing a lower bound on the size of the largest zero of the -th Hermite polynomial , which is defined for integers by

This is a classical orthogonal polynomial (which implies in particular that all zeros of are real and simple). The standard reference for such questions seems to still be Szegö’s book, in which one can read the following rather remarkable asymptotic formula:

where is the *first* (real) zero of the function

which is a close cousin of the Airy function (see formula (6.32.8) in Szegö’s book, noting that he observes the Peano paragraphing rule, according to which section 6.32 comes before 6.4).

(Incidentally, if — like me — you tend to trust any random PDF you download to check a formula like that, you might end up with a version containing a typo: the cube root of is, in some printings, replaced by a square root…)

Szegö references work of a number of people (Zernike, Hahn. Korous, Bottema, Van Veen and Spencer), and sketches a proof based on ideas of Sturm on comparison of solutions of two differential equations.

As it happens, it is better for our purposes to have explicit inequalities, and there is an elementary proof of the estimate

which is only asymptotically weaker by a factor from the previous formula. This is also explained by Szegö, and since the argument is rather cute and short, I will give a sketch of it.

Besides the fact that the zeros of are real and simple, we will use the easy facts that , and that is an even function for even, and an odd function for odd, and most importantly (since all other properties are rather generic!) that they satisfy the differential equation

The crucial lemma is the following result of Laguerre:

Let be a polynomial of degree . Let be a simple zero of , and let

Then if is any line or circle passing through and ,eitherall zeros of are in ,orboth components of contain at least one zero of .

Before explaining the proof of this, let’s see how it gives the desired lower bound on the largest zero of . We apply Laguerre’s result with and . Using the differential equation, we obtain

Now consider the circle such that the segment is a diameter of .

Now note that is the *smallest* zero of (as we observed above, is either odd or even). We can not have : if that were the case, the unbounded component of the complement of the circle would not contain any zero, and neither would contain all zeros (since ), contradicting the conclusion of Laguerre's Lemma. Hence we get

and this implies

as claimed. (Note that if , one deduces easily that the inequality is strict, but there is equality for .)

Now for the proof of the Lemma. One defines a polynomial by

so that has degree and has zero set formed of the zeros of different from (since the latter is assumed to be simple). Using the definition, we have

We now compute the value at of the logarithmic derivative of , which is well-defined: we have

hence

which becomes, by the above formulas and the definition of , the identity

or equivalently

where is a Möbius transformation.

Recalling that , this means that is the average of the . It is then elementary that for line , either is contained in , or intersects both components of the complement of . Now apply to this assertion: one gets that either is contained in , or intersects both components of the complement of . We are now done, after observing that the lines passing through are precisely the images under of the circles and lines passing through and through (because , and each line passes through in the projective line.)

Ah, but what about the *second* largest zero? Eyeballing the numbers suggests that the asymptote might be of exactly the same form, but with a different constant i_2 rather than i_1. My eyeballs are not big enough to hazard a guess concerning whether i_2 is the *second* smallest root of A(x). [Looking up Szego’s book via your link, it seems that this is indeed correct, but I may as well leave this comment here anyway.]

Yes, that’s what Szegö writes, and similarly for the third, etc, (positive) zeros, with i_3, …. I vaguely wonder what kind of uniformity there is — asymptotically, all positive zeros are , how close do they really cluster??

Does one really expect that they cluster? Suppose one normalizes the zeroes to lie in [-1,1], and then asks for a limit distribution of the zeros for large N. Then the k-th largest zero is approximately, for some constant j_k,

1 – j_k/N^(2/3).

(Supposing that A(x) looks something like sin(x^(3/2)) as far as zeros goes, one would even have j_k ~ k^(2/3) as well.)

But this suggests that the zeros are being *repelled* from 1 in comparison with a flat distribution, where one would expect the k-th zero to be somewhere near 1 – k/N. In particular, if the zeros become uniformly distributed with respect to some measure F(x)dx, then one might even guess that F(1-t) = O(t^(1/2)) as t->0.

In fact, the simplest possible function F(x) of that kind is sqrt(1-x^2), or rather (2/pi) sqrt(1-x^2), if one normalizes the function so that F(x)dx has measure zero. And this is indeed the distribution of the limit of the zeros, see \S~4 (and Theorem 4.1) of:

ftp://ftp.math.ethz.ch/EMIS/journals/HOA/AAA/61ba.pdf

I was thinking of “clustering” in a less precise sense, meaning only that the first normalized zeros are all converging to . But that limiting distribution property is quite nice! I’m always happy to know a new examples where the arcsine law arises…