1 Introduction
The classical Waring problem proposed by Edward Waring in 1770 asserted that for every positive integer k there exists a positive integer
$g(k)$
such that every positive integer can be expressed as a sum of
$g(k)$
kth powers of nonnegative integers. In 1909, David Hilbert solved the problem. Various extensions and variations of this problem have been studied by different groups of mathematicians (see [Reference Brešar2–Reference Brešar and Šemrl4, Reference Fontanari9, Reference Helmke11, Reference Karabulut13, Reference Larsen, Shalev and Tiep14, Reference Panja and Prasad16, Reference de Seguins Pazzis17, Reference Shalev18]).
In 2009, Shalev [Reference Shalev18] proved that given a word
$w\neq 1$
, every element in any finite non-abelian simple group G of sufficiently high order can be written as the product of three elements from
$w(G)$
, the image of the word map induced by w. In 2011, Larsen, Shalev, and Tiep [Reference Larsen, Shalev and Tiep14] proved that, under the same assumptions, every element in G is the product of two elements from
$w(G)$
, which gave a definitive solution of the Waring problem for finite simple groups.
Let
$n\geq 2$
be an integer. Let K be a field, and let
$K\langle X\rangle $
be the free associative algebra over K, freely generated by the countable set
$X=\{x_1,x_2,\ldots \}$
of noncommutative variables. We refer to the elements of
$K\langle X\rangle $
as polynomials.
Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)\in K\langle X\rangle $
. Let
$\mathcal {A}$
be an algebra over K. The set

is called the image of p (on
$\mathcal {A}$
).
In 2020, Brešar [Reference Brešar2] initiated the study of various Waring’s problems for matrix algebras. He proved that if
$\mathcal {A}=M_n(K)$
, where
$n\geq 2$
and K is an algebraically closed field with characteristic
$0$
, and f is a noncommutative polynomial which is neither an identity nor a central polynomial of
$\mathcal {A}$
, then every trace zero matrix in
$\mathcal {A}$
is a sum of four matrices from
$f(\mathcal {A})-f(\mathcal {A})$
[Reference Brešar2, Corollary 3.19]. In 2023, Brešar and Šemrl [Reference Brešar and Šemrl3] proved that any traceless matrix can be written as sum of two matrices from
$f(M_n(\mathcal {C}))-f(M_n(\mathcal {C}))$
, where
$\mathcal {C}$
is the complex field and f is neither an identity nor a central polynomial for
$M_n(\mathcal {C})$
. Recently, they [Reference Brešar and Šemrl4] have proved that if
$\alpha _1, \alpha _2,\alpha _3\in \mathcal {C}\setminus \{0\}$
and
$\alpha _1+\alpha _2+\alpha _3=0$
, then any traceless matrix over
$\mathcal {C}$
can be written as
$\alpha _1A_1+\alpha _2A_2+\alpha _3A_3$
, where
$A_i\in f(M_n(\mathcal {C}))$
.
By
$T_n(K),$
we denote the set of all
$n\times n$
upper triangular matrices over K. By
$T_n(K)^{(0)}$
, we denote the set of all
$n\times n$
strictly upper triangular matrices over K. More generally, if
$t\geq 0$
, the set of all upper triangular matrices whose entries
$(i,j)$
are zero, for
$j- i\leq t$
, will be denoted by
$T_n(K)^{(t)}$
. It is easy to check that
$J^t=T_n(K)^{(t-1)}$
, where
$t\geq 1$
and J is the Jacobson radical of
$T_n(K)$
(see [Reference Brešar1, Example 5.58]).
Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a noncommutative polynomial with zero constant term over K. We define its order as the least positive integer r such that
$p(T_r(K))=\{0\}$
but
$p(T_{r+1}(K))\neq \{0\}$
. Note that
$T_1(K)=K$
. We say that p has order
$0$
if
$p(K)\neq \{0\}$
. We denote the order of p by ord
$(p)$
. For a detailed introduction of the order of polynomials, we refer the reader to the book [Reference Drensky7, Chapter 5].
In 2023, Panja and Prasad [Reference Panja and Prasad16] discussed the image of polynomials with zero constant term and Waring-type problems on upper triangular matrix algebras over an algebraically closed field, which generalized two results in [Reference Chen, Luo and Wang6, Reference Wang, Zhou and Luo19]. More precisely, they obtained the following main result.
Theorem 1.1 [Reference Panja and Prasad16, Theorem 5.18]
Let
$n\geq 2$
and
$m\geq 1$
be integers. Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over an algebraically closed field K. Set
$r=$
ord
$(p)$
. Then one of the following statements holds.
-
(i) Suppose that
$r=0$ . We have that
$p(T_n(K))$ is a dense subset of
$T_n(K)$ (with respect to the Zariski topology).
-
(ii) Suppose that
$r=1$ . We have that
$p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(0)}$ .
-
(iii) Suppose that
$1<r<n-1$ . We have that
$p(T_n(K))\subseteq T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$ , and equality might not hold in general. Furthermore, for every n and
$r,$ there exists d such that each element of
$T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$ can be written as a sum of d many elements from
$p(T_n(K))$ .
-
(iv) Suppose that
$r=n-1$ . We have that
$p(T_n(K))=T_{n}(K)^{(n-2)}$ .
-
(v) Suppose that
$r\geq n$ . We have that
$p(T_n(K))=\{0\}$ .
They proposed the following conjecture.
Conjecture 1.1 [Reference Panja and Prasad16, Conjecture]
Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over an algebraically closed field K. Suppose ord
${(p)=r}$
, where
$1<r<n-1$
. Then
$p(T_n(K))+p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
.
We note that if p is a multilinear polynomial and K is an infinite field, then
$p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
(see [Reference Fagundes and Koshlukov8, Reference Gargate and de Mello10, Reference Luo and Wang15]).
In the present paper, we shall prove the following main result of the paper, which gives a complete solution of Conjecture 1.1.
Theorem 1.2 Let
$n\geq 2$
and
$m\geq 1$
be integers. Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over an infinite field K. Suppose ord
$(p)=r$
, where
$1<r<n-1$
. We have that
$p(T_n(K))+p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
. Furthermore, if
$r=n-2$
, we have that
$p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(n-3)}$
.
We organize the paper as follows: In Section 2, we shall give some preliminaries. We shall modify some results in [Reference Chen5, Reference Fagundes and Koshlukov8, Reference Jacobson12], which will be used in the proof of Theorem 1.2. In Section 3, we shall give the proof of Theorem 1.2 by using some new arguments (for example, compatible variables in polynomials and recursive polynomials).
2 Preliminaries
Let
$\mathcal {N}$
be the set of all positive integers. Let
$m\in \mathcal {N}$
. Let K be a field. Set
$K^*=K\setminus \{0\}$
. For any
$k\in \mathcal {N}$
, we set

Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over K. We can write

where
$\lambda _{i_1i_2\dots i_k}\in K$
and d is the degree of p.
We begin with the following result, which is slightly different from [Reference Chen5, Lemma 3.2]. We give its proof for completeness.
Lemma 2.1 For any
$u_i=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_n(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
, we set

where
$j=1,\ldots ,n$
. We have that

where

for all
$1\leq s<t\leq n$
, where
$p_{i_1,\ldots ,i_k}(z_1,\ldots ,z_{m(k+1)})$
,
$1\leq i_1,i_2,\ldots ,i_k\leq m$
,
$k=1,\ldots , n-1$
, is a polynomial in commutative variables over K.
Proof Let
$u_i=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_n(K)$
, where
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
. For any
$1\leq i_1,\ldots ,i_k\leq m$
, we easily check that

where

for all
$1\leq s\leq t\leq n$
. It follows from (1) that

where

where
$1\leq s\leq t\leq n$
. In particular,

for all
$s=1,\ldots ,n$
, and

for all
$1\leq s<t\leq n$
, where
$p_{i_1,\ldots ,i_k}(z_1,\ldots ,z_{m(k+1)})$
is a polynomial in commutative variables over K. This proves the result.
The following result will be used in the proof of our main result.
Lemma 2.2 Let
$m\geq 1$
be an integer. Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over K. Let
$p_{i_1,\ldots ,i_k}(z_1,\ldots ,z_{m(k+1)})$
be a polynomial in commutative variables over K in (2), where
$1\leq i_1,\ldots ,i_k\leq m$
,
$1\leq k\leq n-1$
. Suppose that ord
$(p)=r$
,
$1<r<n-1$
. We have that:
-
(i)
$p(K)=\{0\}$ .
-
(ii)
$p_{i_1,\ldots ,i_k}(K)=\{0\}$ for all
$1\leq i_1,\ldots ,i_k\leq m$ , where
$k=1,\ldots ,r-1$ .
-
(iii)
$p_{i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_r^{\prime }}(K)\neq \{0\}$ for some
$1\leq i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_r^{\prime }\leq m$ .
Proof The statement (i) is clear. We now claim that the statement (ii) holds true. Suppose on the contrary that

for some
$1\leq i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_s^{\prime }\leq m$
, where
$1\leq s\leq r-1$
. Then there exist
$\bar {b}_{j}\in K^m$
, where
${j=1,\ldots ,s+1}$
such that

We take
$u_i=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_{s+1}(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
, where

It follows from (2) that

This implies that
$p(T_{s+1}(K))\neq \{0\}$
, a contradiction. This proves the statement (ii).
We finally claim that the statement (iii) holds true. Note that
$p(T_{1+r}(K))\neq \{0\}$
. Thus, we have that there exist
$u_{i}=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_{1+r}(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
, such that

In view of the statement (ii), we get that

This implies that
$p_{i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_r^{\prime }}(K)\neq \{0\}$
for some
$1\leq i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_r^{\prime }\leq m$
. This proves the statement (iii). The proof of the result is complete.
The following well-known result will be used in the proof of the rest results.
Lemma 2.3 [Reference Jacobson12, Theorem 2.19]
Let K be an infinite field. Let
$f(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a nonzero polynomial in commutative variables over K. Then there exist
$a_1,\ldots ,a_m\in K$
such that
$f(a_1,\ldots ,a_m)\neq 0$
.
Lemma 2.4 Let
$n,s$
be integers with
$1\leq s\leq n$
. Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_s)$
be a nonzero polynomial in commutative variables over an infinite field K. We have that there exist
$a_1,\ldots ,a_n\in K$
such that

for all
$1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_s\leq n$
.
Proof We set

It is clear that
$f\neq 0$
. In view of Lemma 2.3, we have that there exist
$a_1,\ldots ,a_n\in K$
such that

This implies that

for all
$1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_s\leq n$
. This proves the result.
The following technical result is a generalized form of [Reference Fagundes and Koshlukov8, Lemma 2.11], which discusses compatible variables in polynomials.
Lemma 2.5 Let
$t\geq 1$
. Let
$U_i=\{i_1,\ldots ,i_s\}\subseteq \mathcal {N}$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. Let
$p_i(x_{i_1},\ldots ,x_{i_s})$
be a nonzero polynomial in commutative variables over an infinite field K, where
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. Then there exist
$a_{k}\in K$
with
$k\in \bigcup _{i=1}^tU_i$
such that

for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
.
Proof Without loss of generality, we assume that

We set

It is clear that
$f\neq 0$
. In view of Lemma 2.3, we have that there exist
$a_1,\ldots ,a_n\in K$
such that

This implies that

for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. This proves the result.
The following technical result will be used in the proof of the main result of the paper.
Lemma 2.6 Let
$s\geq 1$
and
$t\geq 2$
be integers. Let K be an infinite field. Let
$a_{ij}\in K$
, where
$1\leq i\leq t$
,
$1\leq j\leq s$
with
$a_{11}\in K^*$
and
$b\in K^*$
. For any
$2\leq i\leq t$
, there exists a nonzero element in
$\{a_{i1},\ldots ,a_{is}\}$
. Then there exist
$c_i\in K$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,s$
, such that

for all
$i=2,\ldots ,t$
.
Proof Suppose first that
$s=1$
. Note that
$a_{i1}\in K^*$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. Take
$c_1=a_{11}^{-1}b$
. It is clear

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
. Suppose next that
$s\geq 2$
. Suppose first that
$a_{i1}\neq 0$
for all
$i=2,\ldots ,t$
. We define the following polynomials:

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
. Since
$b,a_{i1}\in K^*$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
, we note that
$f_i\neq 0$
for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. In view of Lemma 2.5, we get that there exist
$c_2,\ldots ,c_s\in K$
such that

for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. This implies that

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
. We set

It follows from (3) that

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
, as desired.
Suppose next that
$a_{i1}=0$
,
$i=2,\ldots ,t$
. Note that
$a_{il(i)}\neq 0$
, for some
$2\leq l(i)\leq s$
for all
$i=2,\ldots ,t$
. We define the following polynomials:

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
. Note that
$f_i\neq 0$
for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. In view of Lemma 2.5, we get that there exist
$c_i\in K$
,
$i=2,\ldots ,s$
, such that

for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. That is

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
. Since
$a_{11}\neq 0$
we get that there exists
$c_{1}\in K$
such that

This implies that

for all
$2\leq i\leq t$
, as desired.
We finally assume that there exist
$a_{i1}\neq 0$
and
$a_{j1}=0$
for some
$i,j\in \{2,\ldots ,t\}$
. Without loss of generality, we assume that
$a_{i1}\neq 0$
for all
$i=2,\ldots ,t_1$
and
$a_{i1}=0$
for all
$i=t_1+1,\ldots ,t$
. We define the following polynomials:

for all
$2\leq i\leq t_1$
and
$t_1+1\leq j\leq t$
. Note that
$b,a_{i1}\in K^*$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,t_1$
,
$a_{jl(j)}\neq 0$
where
$2\leq l(j)\leq s$
for all
$j=t_1+1,\ldots t$
. It is clear that
$f_i\neq 0$
for all
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. In view of Lemma 2.5, we get that there exist
$c_i\in K$
,
$i=2,\ldots ,s$
, such that

where
$i=1,\ldots ,t$
. This implies that

for all
$2\leq i\leq t_1$
and
$t_1+1\leq j\leq t$
. We set

It follows from (4) that

for all
$2\leq i\leq t_1$
and
$t_1+1\leq j\leq t$
, as desired. The proof of the result is now complete.
3 The proof of Theorem 1.2
Let
$n\geq 2$
and
$m\geq 1$
be integers. Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over an infinite field K. Suppose that
$1<r<n-1$
, where
$r=ord(p)$
.
Take any
$u_i=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_n(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
. In view of both Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2, we have that

where

for all
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
and

for some
$1\leq i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_r^{\prime }\leq m$
. It follows from Lemma 2.4 that there exist
$\bar {c}_1,\ldots ,\bar {c}_n\in K^m$
such that

for all
$1\leq j_1<\dots <j_{r+1}\leq n$
. We set

For any
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
, we set

and

We define an order on the set

as follows:
-
(i)
$(s,r+s+t)<(s_1,r+s_1+t_1)$ if
$t<t_1$ ;
-
(ii)
$(s,r+s+t)<(s_1,r+s_1+t_1)$ if
$t=t_1$ and
$s<s_1$ .
That is,

For any
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
, we set

and

We begin with the following lemmas, which will be used in the proof of our main result.
Lemma 3.1 Let
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. Suppose that
$(s,r+s)\neq (1,r+1)$
. We claim that

Proof We first claim that

Take any
$(r+i-1,r+i,i_k^{\prime })\in \overline {W}_{s,r+s}\setminus \left \{(r+s-1,r+s,i_k^{\prime })~|~1\leq k\leq r\right \}$
. We have that

for some
$(1,r+1)\leq (s_2,r+s_2)\leq (s,r+s)$
. This implies that

We get that
$i\leq s$
. Suppose that
$i=s$
. It follows that

a contradiction. Hence
$i\leq s-1$
. It is clear that

where
$(1,r+1)\leq (i,r+i)\leq (s-1,r+s-1)$
. It follows that

We obtain that

as desired. We next claim that

If
$(r+s-1,r+s,i_k^{\prime })\in \overline {W}_{s-1,r+s-1}$
for
$1\leq k\leq r$
, we have that

a contradiction. Hence

Since
$\overline {W}_{s-1,r+s-1}\subseteq \overline {W}_{s,r+s}$
we get that

as desired. We obtain that

This proves the result.
Lemma 3.2 Let
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
. Suppose that
$t>0$
. We claim that

where

Proof We first claim that

Since
$t>0$
, we note that

This implies that
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}\supseteq \overline {W}_{n-r,n}$
. Take any
$(r+u-1,r+u,i_k^{\prime })\in \overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}$
. It is clear that

This implies that
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}\subseteq \overline {W}_{n-r,n}$
. Hence,
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}=\overline {W}_{n-r,n}$
as desired.
Since
$(n-r,n)<(s,r+s+t)$
we get that

This implies that

Since
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}=\overline {W}_{n-r,n}$
we obtain that
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}=\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}$
. This proves the result.
The following technical result will be used in the proof of the next result.
Lemma 3.3 Let
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
. If
$(r+i-1,r+i+j,i_k^{\prime })\in U_{s,r+s+t}$
, we have that
$j\leq t$
.
Proof Suppose that
$(r+i-1,r+i+j,i_k^{\prime })\in U_{s,r+s+t}$
. That is,
$x_{r+i-1,r+i+j}^{(i_k^{\prime })}$
appears in
$p_{s,r+s+t}$
. In view of (5), we note that every monomial in
$p_{s,r+s+t}$
is made up of at least r elements multiplied together. This implies that

We obtain that
$j\leq t$
. This proves the result.
Lemma 3.4 Let
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
and
$t>0$
. We claim that

where

Proof We first claim that

If
$(r+s-1,r+s+t,i_k^{\prime })\in W_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
for some
$1\leq k\leq r$
, we get that

for some
$(1,r+1)\leq (s_2,r+s_2+t_2)\leq (s_1,r+s_1+t_1)$
. It is clear that

In view of Lemma 3.3, we get that
$t\leq t_2$
. It follows that

Since
$(s_1,r+s_1+t_1)<(s,r+s+t)$
we get that
$s_1<s$
. Since
$(s_2,r+s_2+t_2)\leq (s_1,r+s_1+t_1)$
we get that
$s_2\leq s_1$
. Thus, we obtain that
$s_2<s$
. It follows from (9) that

This implies that
$s\leq s_2$
, a contradiction. Hence, we have that

for all
$1\leq k\leq r$
. It is clear that
$W_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}\subseteq W_{s,r+s+t}$
. We obtain that

as desired. We next claim that

For any
$(r+i-1,r+i+j,i_k^{\prime })\in W_{s,r+s+t}\setminus \{(r+s-1,r+s+t,i_k^{\prime })~|~1\leq k\leq r\}$
, we have

for some
$(1,r+1)\leq (s_2,r+s_2+t_2)\leq (s,r+s+t)$
. This implies that
$t_2\leq t$
. In view of Lemma 3.3, we note that
$j\leq t_2$
. We have that
$j\leq t$
. It is clear that

where
$(1,r+1)\leq (i,r+i+j)\leq (s,r+s+t)$
. Note that

We get that

This implies that

It follows that
$U_{i,r+i+j}\subseteq W_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
. We have that

We obtain that

as desired. Thus, we obtain that

This proves the result.
We set

It follows from (6) that

For any
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
and
$s\leq r-1$
, we set

We set

where
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
and
$s\leq r-1$
. It is clear that
$f_{s,r}$
is a polynomial on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$V_{s,r}$
.
For any
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
and
$s\geq r$
, we set

We claim that
$f_{s,r}(K)\neq \{0\}$
for all
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. In view of (10), it suffices to prove that
$f_{s,r}(K)\neq 0$
, where
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
and
$s\leq r-1$
.
We take
$a_{i,i+1}^{(k)}\in K$
,
$(i,i+1,k)\in V_{s,r}$
such that

It follows from (10) that

as desired. In view of Lemma 2.5, we get that there exist
$a_{i,i+1}^{(k)}\in K$
,
$(i,i+1,k)\in \bigcup _{s=1}^{\min\{n-r,r-1\}}V_{s,r}$
such that

for all
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
and
$s\leq r-1$
.
For any
$2\leq s\leq r+s\leq n$
, we define

for all
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1,r-1\}$
. It is clear that
$f_{s,r+s-i}$
is a polynomial over K on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s-i,r+s-i}$
, where
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1, r-1\}$
.
The following result implies that
$f_{s,r+s-i}$
, where
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1,r-1\}$
, is a recursive polynomial.
Lemma 3.5 For any
$2\leq s<r+s\leq n$
, we claim that

for all
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1,r-1\}$
, where both
$f_{s,r+s-i-1}$
and
$\alpha _{s,r+s-i-1,k}$
are polynomials over K on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s-i-1,r+s-i-1}$
.
Proof We get from (11) that

for all
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1,r-1\}$
. It follows from (11) that

We set

for all
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1,r-1\}$
and
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
. It follows from both (11) and (12) that

for all
$1\leq i\leq \min\{s-1,r-1\}$
. It is clear that both
$f_{s,r+s-i-1}$
and
$\alpha _{s,r+s-i-1,k}$
are polynomials over K on commutative variables indexed by elements from

In view of Lemma 3.1, we note that

We have that both
$f_{s,r+s-i-1}$
and
$\alpha _{s,r+s-i-1,k}$
are polynomials over K on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s-i-1,r+s-i-1}$
. This proves the result.
Lemma 3.6 For any
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
, we have that

where
$f_{1,r}\in K^*$
,
$\beta _{1,r,k}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
,
$f_{s,r+s-1},\beta _{s,r+s-1,k}$
,
$s\geq 2$
,
$1\leq k\leq r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
are polynomials on some commutative variables in
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
and
$\beta _{s,r+s+t}$
, where
$t>0$
, is a polynomial over K in some commutative variables in
$W_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
, where

Moreover,
$\beta _{s,r+s}=0$
.
Proof It follows from (5) that

It follows from (11) that

We set

for
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, and

It follows from (13) that

where
$f_{1,r}\in K^*, \beta _{1,r,k}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
,
$f_{s,r+s-1},\beta _{s,r+s+t,k}$
, where
$s\geq 2$
,
$1\leq k\leq r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, are polynomials on some commutative variables indexed by elements from

and
$\beta _{s,r+s+t}$
, where
$t>0$
, is a polynomial over K in some commutative variables indexed by elements from

Suppose first that
$t=0$
. In view of Lemma 3.1, we note that

We get from (15) that
$f_{s,r+s-1},\beta _{s,r+s+t,k}$
, where
$s\geq 2$
,
$1\leq k\leq r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, are polynomials on some commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s-1,r+s-1}$
. It is clear that
$\beta _{s,r+s}=0$
. Suppose next that
$t>0$
. In view of Lemma 3.2, we note that

We get from (15) that
$f_{s,r+s-1},\beta _{s,r+s+t,k}$
, where
$s\geq 2$
,
$1\leq k\leq r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, are polynomials on some commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
. In view of Lemma 3.4, we note that

We get from (16) that
$\beta _{s,r+s+t}$
is a polynomial over K in some commutative variables indexed by elements from
$W_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
. This proves the result.
The following result is crucial for the proof of the main result.
Lemma 3.7 Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over an infinite field K. Suppose ord
$(p)=r$
, where
$1<r<n-1$
. For any
$A'=(a_{s,r+s+t}^{\prime })\in T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
, where
$a_{s,r+s}^{\prime }\neq 0$
for all
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
, we have that
$A'\in p(T_n(K))$
.
Proof Take any
$A'=(a_{s,r+s+t}^{\prime })\in T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
, where
$a_{s,r+s}^{\prime }\neq 0$
for all
${1\leq s<r+s\leq n}$
. For any
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
, we claim that there exist
$c_{r+u-1,r+u+w}^{(i_k^{\prime })}\in K$
with

such that

for all
$(1,r+1)\leq (i,r+i+j)\leq (s,r+s+t)$
and

for all
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
on commutative variables in
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}$
, where
$s'\geq 2$
and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
.
We prove the claim by induction on
$(s,r+s+t)$
. Suppose first that
$(s,r+s+t)=(1,r+1)$
. Note that

In view of Lemma 3.6, we get that

where
$f_{1,r}\in K^*$
,
$\beta _{1,r,k}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
.
Take any
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
on
$x_{r,r+1}^{(i_k^{\prime })}$
, where
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
,
$s'\geq 2$
, and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
, we get from Lemma 3.5 that

and so
$v=s'-1$
. It follows that

Note that
$f_{s',r}\in K^*$
and
$\alpha _{s',r,k}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_{r-v}$
. Note that
$a_{1,r+1}^{\prime }\in K^*$
. In view of Lemma 2.6, we get from both (17) and (18) that there exist
$c_{r,r+1}^{(i_k^{\prime })}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
, such that

where
$2\leq s'\leq r$
and
$v=s'-1$
, as desired.
Suppose next that
$(s,r+s+t)\neq (1,r+1)$
. We rewrite (7) as follows:

where

By induction on
$(s_1,r+s_1+t_1),$
we have that there exist
$c_{r+u-1,r+u+w}^{(i_k^{\prime })}\in K$
with

such that

for all
$(1,r+1)\leq (i,r+i+j)\leq (s_1,r+s_1+t_1)$
and

for any
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
with commutative variables in
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
, where
$s'\geq 2$
, and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
. We now divide the proof into the following two cases.
Suppose first that
$t=0$
. Note that

That is,
$s_1=s-1$
and
$t_1=0$
. In view of Lemma 3.6, we get that

where
$f_{s,r+s-1}, \beta _{s,r+s-1,k}$
, where
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, are polynomials in commutative variables in
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1}$
. By induction hypothesis, we get that
$f_{s,r+s-1}\in K^*$
and
$\beta _{s,r+s-1,k}\in K$
.
Take any
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s}$
, where
$s'\geq 2$
and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
. Suppose first that
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
is a polynomial on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1}$
. By induction hypothesis we have that
$f_{s',r+s'-v}\in K^*$
. Suppose next that
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
is not a polynomial on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1}$
. In view of Lemma 3.1, we note that

This implies that
$x_{r+s-1,r+s}^{(i_k^{\prime })}$
appears in
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
for
$k=1,\ldots , r$
. In view of Lemma 3.5 we get that

and so
$v=s'-s$
. We get that

where
$f_{s',r+s'-v-1}$
and
$\alpha _{s',r+s'-v-1,k}$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_{r-v}^{\prime }$
, are polynomials over K on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1}$
. By induction hypothesis, we have that
$f_{s',r+s'-v-1}\in K^*$
and
$\alpha _{s',r+s'-v-1,k}\in K$
, where
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_{r-v}^{\prime }$
.
Note that
$a_{s,r+s}^{\prime }\in K^*$
. In view of Lemma 2.6, we get from both (19) and (20) that there exist
$c_{r+s-1,r+s}^{(i_k^{\prime })}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
, such that

as desired.
Suppose next that
$t>0$
. It follows from Lemma 3.6 that

where
$f_{s,r+s-1},\beta _{s,r+s-1,k}$
, where
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, are polynomials over K in commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{r+s_1+t_1}$
, and
$\beta _{s,r+s+t}$
is a polynomial over K in commutative variables indexed by elements from
$W_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
. By induction hypothesis, we have that
$f_{s,r+s-1}\in K^*$
,
$\beta _{s,r+s-1,k}\in K$
for all
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
with
$i_k^{\prime }\neq i_r^{\prime }$
, and
$\beta _{s,r+s+t}\in K$
.
Take
$c_{r+s-1,r+s+t}^{(i_k^{\prime })}\in K$
, where
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
in (21) such that

We get that

Take any
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s,r+s+t}$
, where
$s'\geq 2$
and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
. In view of Lemma 3.2, we note that

This implies that
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
is a commutative polynomial over K on some commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{s_1,r+s_1+t_1}$
. By induction hypothesis, we get that

where
$s'\geq 2$
and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
, as desired. This proves the claim.
Let
$(s,r+s+t)=(1,n)$
. We have that there exist
$c_{r+u-1,r+u+w}^{(i_k^{\prime })}\in K$
,
$k=1,\ldots ,r$
, with

such that

for all
$(1,r+1)\leq (i,r+i+j)\leq (1,n)$
and

for all
$f_{s',r+s'-v}$
on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$\overline {W}_{1,n}$
, where
$s'\geq 2$
and
$1\leq v\leq \min\{s'-1,r-1\}$
. It follows from both (5) and (22) that

This implies that
$A'\in p(T_n(K))$
. The proof of the result is complete.
Lemma 3.8 Let
$n\geq 4$
and
$m\geq 1$
be integers. Let
$p(x_1,\ldots ,x_m)$
be a polynomial with zero constant term in noncommutative variables over an infinite field K. Suppose that ord
$(p)=n-2$
. We have that
$p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(n-3)}$
.
Proof In view of Lemma 2.2(ii), we note that
$p(T_n(K))\subseteq T_n(K)^{(n-3)}$
. It suffices to prove that
$T_n(K)^{(n-3)}\subseteq p(T_n(K))$
.
For any
$u_i=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_n(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
, in view of Lemma 2.2(ii), we get from (2) that

where

In view of Lemma 2.2(iii), we have that

for some
$i_1^{\prime },\ldots ,i_{n-2}^{\prime }\in \{1,\ldots ,m\}$
. It follows from Lemma 2.4 that there exist
$\bar {b}_1,\ldots ,\bar {b}_n\in K^m$
such that

for all
$1\leq j_1<\cdots <j_{n-1}\leq n$
.
For any
$A'=(a_{s,n-2+s+t}^{\prime })\in T_n(K)^{(n-3)}$
, where
$1\leq s<n-2+s+t\leq n$
, we claim that there exist
$u_i=(a_{jk}^{(i)})\in T_n(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
, such that

That is,

We prove the claim by the following two cases:
Case 1. Suppose that
$a_{1,n-1}^{\prime }\neq 0$
. We take

It follows from (23) that

We set

and

Note that
$f_{1,n-1},f_{2n},f_{1n}$
are polynomials over K on commutative variables indexed by elements from
$V_{1,n-1},V_{2n}, V_{1n}$
, respectively.
We claim that
$f_{1,n-1},f_{2n},f_{1n}\neq 0$
. Indeed, we take
$a_{jk}^{(i)}\in K$
,
$(j,k,i)\in V_{1,n-1}$
such that

It follows from (25) that

as desired. Next, we take
$a_{jk}^{(i)}\in K$
,
$(j,k,i)\in V_{2n}$
such that

It follows from (25) that

as desired. Finally, we take
$a_{jk}^{(i)}\in K$
,
$(j,k,i)\in V_{1n}$
such that

It follows from (25) that

as desired. In view of Lemma 2.5, we get that there exist
$a_{jk}^{(i)}\in K$
, where
$(j,k,i)\in V_{1,n-1}\cup V_{2n}\cup V_{1n}$
such that

We set

It follows from (24) that

We take

It follows from (26) that

as desired.
Case 2. Suppose that
$a_{1,n-1}^{\prime }=0$
. We take

It follows from (23) that

We set

and

Note that both
$g_{2n}$
and
$g_{1n}$
are polynomials over K on some commutative variables indexed by elements from V. We claim that
$g_{2n},g_{1n}\neq 0$
. Indeed, we take
$a_{jk}^{(i)}\in K$
,
$(j,k,i)\in V$
such that

It follows from (28) that

as desired. It follows from (27) that

We take

It follows from (29) that

as desired. We obtain that

This implies that
$T_n(K)^{(n-3)}\subseteq p(T_n(K))$
. Hence
$p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(n-3)}$
.
We are ready to give the proof of the main result of the paper.
Proof The proof of Theorem 1.2
For any
$A=(a_{s,r+s+t})\in T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
, we set

for all
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. It is clear that both
$f_{s,r+s}$
and
$g_{s,r+s}$
are nonzero polynomials in commutative variables over K, where
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that there exist
$b_{s,r+s}\in K$
,
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
, such that

for all
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. That is,

for all
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. We set

for all
$1\leq s<r+s+t\leq n$
and
$t>0$
and

We set

It is clear that

where
$B,C\in T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
with
$b_{s,r+s},c_{s,r+s}\in K^*$
for all
$1\leq s<r+s\leq n$
. In view of Lemma 3.7, we get that there exist
$u_i,v_i\in T_n(K)$
,
$i=1,\ldots ,m$
, such that

It follows that

This implies that

In view of Lemma 2.2(ii), we note that
$p(T_n(K))\subseteq T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
. Since
$T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
is a subspace of
$T_n(K),$
we get that

We obtain that

In particular, if
$r=n-2,$
we get from Lemma 3.8 that

The proof of the result is complete.
We conclude the paper with following example.
Example 3.1 Let
$n\geq 5$
and
$1<r<n-2$
be integers. Let K be an infinite field. Let

We have that ord
$(p)=r$
and
$p(T_n(K))\neq T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
.
Proof It is easy to check that
$p(T_r(K))=\{0\}$
. Set

Note that f is a multilinear polynomial over K. It is clear that ord
$(f)=1$
. In view of [Reference Gargate and de Mello10, Theorem 4.3] or [Reference Luo and Wang15, Theorem 1.1], we have that

It implies that there exist
$A,B\in T_{r+1}(K)$
such that

We get that

This implies that
$p(T_{r+1}(K))\neq \{0\}$
. We obtain that ord
$(p)=r$
.
Suppose on contrary that
$p(T_n(K))=T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
for some
$n\geq 5$
and
$1<r<n-2$
. For
$e_{1,r+1}+e_{3,r+3}\in T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
, we get that there exists
$B,C\in T_n(K)$
such that

It is clear that
$[B,C]\in T_n(K)^{(0)}$
. We set

It follows that

We get from the last relation that

This is a contradiction. We obtain that
$p(T_n(K))\neq T_n(K)^{(r-1)}$
for all
$n\geq 5$
and
${1<r<n-2}$
. This proves the result.
We remark that [Reference Panja and Prasad16, Example 5.7] is a special case of Example 3.1 (
$r=2$
and
$n=5$
).
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their sincere thanks to the referee for his/her careful reading of the manuscript.