26

Introduced in 1997, the Akiyama-Tanigawa triangle is a doubly-indexed recursion that encodes the Bernoulli numbers, among other sequences. It is defined as follows: let $a:\mathbb{N^0}\times\mathbb{N^+}\to \mathbb{R}$ (this indexing is to agree with that of the Bernoulli numbers) be given by: $$ a_{0,j}=\frac{1}{j}\qquad a_{i,j} = j(a_{i-1,j}-a_{i-1,j+1}) $$Here is a table for $1\le i+1,j\le10$: $$ \begin{array}{c|cccccccccc} & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 \\ \hline 0 & 1 & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{3} & \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{5} & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{7} & \frac{1}{8} & \frac{1}{9} & \frac{1}{10} \\ 1 & \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{3} & \frac{1}{4} & \frac{1}{5} & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{7} & \frac{1}{8} & \frac{1}{9} & \frac{1}{10} & \frac{1}{11} \\ 2 & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{1}{6} & \frac{3}{20} & \frac{2}{15} & \frac{5}{42} & \frac{3}{28} & \frac{7}{72} & \frac{4}{45} & \frac{9}{110} & \frac{5}{66} \\ 3 & 0 & \frac{1}{30} & \frac{1}{20} & \frac{2}{35} & \frac{5}{84} & \frac{5}{84} & \frac{7}{120} & \frac{28}{495} & \frac{3}{55} & \frac{15}{286} \\ 4 & -\frac{1}{30} & -\frac{1}{30} & -\frac{3}{140} & -\frac{1}{105} & \color{red}{0} & \frac{1}{140} & \frac{49}{3960} & \frac{8}{495} & \frac{27}{1430} & \frac{125}{6006} \\ 5 & 0 & -\frac{1}{42} & -\frac{1}{28} & -\frac{4}{105} & -\frac{1}{28} & -\frac{29}{924} & -\frac{7}{264} & -\frac{28}{1287} & -\frac{87}{5005} & -\frac{27}{2002} \\ 6 & \frac{1}{42} & \frac{1}{42} & \frac{1}{140} & -\frac{1}{105} & -\frac{5}{231} & -\frac{9}{308} & -\frac{343}{10296} & -\frac{1576}{45045} & -\frac{27}{770} & -\frac{205}{6006} \\ 7 & 0 & \frac{1}{30} & \frac{1}{20} & \frac{8}{165} & \frac{5}{132} & \frac{295}{12012} & \frac{67}{5720} & \frac{4}{6435} & -\frac{6}{715} & -\frac{75}{4862} \\ 8 & -\frac{1}{30} & -\frac{1}{30} & \frac{1}{220} & \frac{7}{165} & \frac{200}{3003} & \frac{1543}{20020} & \frac{3997}{51480} & \frac{464}{6435} & \frac{1539}{24310} & \frac{775}{14586} \\ 9 & 0 & -\frac{5}{66} & -\frac{5}{44} & -\frac{44}{455} & -\frac{629}{12012} & -\frac{41}{12012} & \frac{133}{3432} & \frac{140}{1989} & \frac{1113}{12155} & \frac{9597}{92378} \\ \end{array} $$As claimed (I could provide a proof, if there's interest, but it's not relevant to my question), $a_{i,1}=B_i$, the $i^{th}$ Bernoulli number, with $B_1=1/2$. As such, $a_{2i+1,1}=0$ for $i>1$; call these trivial zeros. Note $a_{4,5}=0$ as well: my conjecture is that this is the only such non-trivial zero.

I have verified this claim for $a_{i,j}$ for $1\le i+1,j\le 100$. I also believe that for each fixed $i$, eventually $a(i,j)>0$ for all $j>n(i)$. Additionally, for several fixed $j$ there is a closed-form by using the recursion. However, I'm not sure which of any of these lines is a feasible plan-of-attack, or if miraculously a closed-form for $a_{i,j}$ exists.

Integrand
  • 7,804
  • 1
    I have displayed the first few entries as a square array, though the recursion is clearer if written as a left-justified triangle. Those familiar with Pascal's matrix will not object to this convention, I think. – Integrand Sep 13 '20 at 13:51
  • 4
    For those interested the table read by antidiagonals is given by A051714(n)/A051715(n), two OEIS sequences. It is the Akiyama-Tanigawa algorithm for Bernoulli numbers. – Somos Sep 13 '20 at 14:33
  • 1
    I have a non-recursive form for each column in terms of Stirlingnumbers 1st kind and consecutive Bernoulli-numbers; this does so far nothing for a proof of existence/nonexistence of "nontrivial zeros". If this is interesting anyway I can compose a short answer of it. – Gottfried Helms Feb 27 '21 at 10:38
  • 2
    Ah, I see - this is even known to wikipedia... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli_number#Connection_with_Stirling_numbers_of_the_first_kind) – Gottfried Helms Feb 27 '21 at 12:00
  • Wow, encoding the Bernoulli numbers. –  Feb 28 '21 at 00:16
  • Using the non-recursive expression mentioned by Gottfried Helms and the growth properties of Bernoulli numbers, a possible approach would be to try to find an asymptotic lower bound on $|a_{i,j}|$ (or perhaps some weaker property like $|a_{i+4,j}|>|a_{i,j}|$) holding for all $i>i_0(j)$. If in addition one could prove that $i_0(j)$ is a bounded function of $j$, the problem would reduce to checking a few explicit cases. – pregunton Mar 03 '21 at 11:38

3 Answers3

17

Here I obtain a closed form of the recurrence relation with a view to later proving your conjecture, if possible. Using Mathematica's FindSequenceFunction I inferred the possible ansatz $$a_{i,j}=\frac{p_i(j)}{(j)_{i+1}},$$ where $(x)_n$ is the Pochhammer symbol and $p_i(j)$ is some polynomial in $j$.

Now using

a[0, j_] := 1/j
a[i_, j_] := j (a[i - 1, j] - a[i - 1, j + 1])
i := 6
FindSequenceFunction[Table[a[i, j] Pochhammer[j, i + 1], {j, 1, 10}],
  j]

I was able to find the following numerator polynomials $p_i(j)$:

$$\begin{array}{l} p_0(j)=1\\ p_1(j)=j\\ p_2(j)=j^2\\ p_3(j)=(-1 + j) j^2\\ p_4(j)=-5 j^3 + j^4\\ p_5(j)=(-1 + j) (-4 j^2 - 15 j^3 + j^4)\\ p_6(j)=42 j^3 + 119 j^4 - 42 j^5 + j^6\\ p_7(j)=(-1 + j) (120 j^2 + 518 j^3 + 659 j^4 - 98 j^5 + j^6)\\ p_8(j)=-2160 j^3 - 7250 j^4 - 6189 j^5 + 3721 j^6 - 219 j^7 + j^8\\ p_9(j)=(-1 + j) (-12096 j^2 - 57720 j^3 - 98906 j^4 - 57735 j^5 + 15241 j^6 - 465 j^7 + j^8)\\ \end{array} $$

My first port of call was the OEIS but the coefficients of each polynomial do not appear to be listed.

Let's try working out generating functions for each row $(a_{i,j})_{j=1}^\infty$ instead:

$$P_i(x):=\sum_{j=1}^\infty\frac{p_i(j)}{(j)_{i+1}}x^j.$$

Mathematica tells me the following:

$$\begin{array}{l} P_0(x)=-\log (1-x)\\ P_1(x)=-\frac{x+\log (1-x)}{x}\\ P_2(x)=\frac{(x-2) \log (1-x)-2 x}{x^2}\\ P_3(x)=\frac{3 (x-2) x-\left(x^2-6 x+6\right) \log (1-x)}{x^3}\\ P_4(x)=\frac{\left(x^3-14 x^2+36 x-24\right) \log (1-x)-4 x \left(x^2-6 x+6\right)}{x^4}\\ P_5(x)=\frac{5 x \left(x^3-14 x^2+36 x-24\right)-\left(x^4-30 x^3+150 x^2-240 x+120\right) \log (1-x)}{x^5}\\ P_6(x)=\frac{\left(x^5-62 x^4+540 x^3-1560 x^2+1800 x-720\right) \log (1-x)-6 x \left(x^4-30 x^3+150 x^2-240 x+120\right)}{x^6}\\ P_7(x)=\frac{7 x \left(x^5-62 x^4+540 x^3-1560 x^2+1800 x-720\right)-\left(x^6-126 x^5+1806 x^4-8400 x^3+16800 x^2-15120 x+5040\right) \log (1-x)}{x^7}\\ P_8(x)=\frac{\left(x^7-254 x^6+5796 x^5-40824 x^4+126000 x^3-191520 x^2+141120 x-40320\right) \log (1-x)-8 x \left(x^6-126 x^5+1806 x^4-8400 x^3+16800 x^2-15120 x+5040\right)}{x^8}\\ P_9(x)=\frac{9 x \left(x^7-254 x^6+5796 x^5-40824 x^4+126000 x^3-191520 x^2+141120 x-40320\right)-\left(x^8-510 x^7+18150 x^6-186480 x^5+834120 x^4-1905120 x^3+2328480 x^2-1451520 x+362880\right) \log (1-x)}{x^9}\\ \end{array}$$ The coefficients of the polynomials appear to be related to the sequence A090582 and on further investigation we find that $$P_i(x)=(-1)^{i+1}\frac{ixu_{i-1}(x)-u_i(x)\log(1-x)}{x^i},$$ where $$u_i(x)=\sum _{k=1}^i (-1)^{k+1} k! S_i^{(k)} x^{i-k},$$ where $S_i^{(k)}$ is the Stirling number of the second kind.

Now we'd like to find out when the coefficient of $x^j$ in $P_i(x)$ is zero, where $j>1$. The case $j=1$ relates to the Bernoulli numbers in the first column and their trivial zeros, defined by the OP.

We can now use Cauchy's integral formula,

$$P_i^{(j)}(0)=\frac{j!}{2\pi\sqrt{-1}}\oint\frac{P_i(z)}{z^{j+1}}dz,$$

to compute the entries in your original matrix (note I used $\sqrt{-1}$ to avoid confusion with the index $i$), e.g. $a_{4,5}=0$ corresponds to $$\oint\frac{P_4(z)}{z^6}dz=\oint\frac{\left(z^3-14 z^2+36 z-24\right) \log (1-z)-4 z \left(z^2-6 z+6\right)}{z^{10}}=0.$$ Expanding the general integrand we have $$\frac{(-1)^{i+1}iu_{i-1}(z)}{z^{j+i}}+(-1)^{i+1}u_i(z)\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{z^{k-(j+i+1)}}{k}.$$ Substituting $u_i(x)$ we have $$(-1)^{i+1}i\sum _{k=1}^{i-1} (-1)^{k+1} k! S_{i-1}^{(k)} \frac{1}{z^{j+k+1}}+(-1)^{i+1}\sum _{\ell=1}^i (-1)^{\ell+1} \ell! S_i^{(\ell)}\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{1}{k}\frac{1}{z^{j+1-k+\ell}}.$$ Since the first sum has no $1/z$ term that just leaves the double sum.

Now $i$ and $j$ are effectively fixed (they correspond to the row and column in your original matrix) and since $1\leq\ell\leq i$ then the coefficients of $1/z$ occur when $j+1-k+\ell=1\implies k=j+\ell$, hence the sum of coefficients gives you the closed form you were wondering about,

$$a_{i,j}=(-1)^i\sum _{\ell=1}^i (-1)^{\ell} \ell! S_i^{(\ell)}\frac{1}{j+\ell},$$ which again passes the $a_{4,5}=0$ test.

Now we just need to prove $a_{i,j}=0$ if and only if $i=4$ and $1<j=5$, but I've not been able to do this yet...


We can replace the $(j+\ell)^{-1}$ term with an integral,

$$a_{i,j}=(-1)^i\sum _{\ell=1}^i (-1)^{\ell} \ell! S_i^{(\ell)}\int_0^1 t^{j+\ell-1}dt.$$

Using the known finite sum formula, this can be manipulated into

$$a_{i,j}=-\int_0^1 \frac{(-t)^j \text{Li}_{-i}\left(1-\frac{1}{t}\right)}{\left(1-\frac{1}{t}\right) t^2} \, dt.$$


It's worth taking a look at the list of polynomials $p_i(j)$. Notice how every odd polynomial from $p_3(j)$ onward has a factor of $(j-1)$ which corresponds to $B_n=0$ (odd Bernoulli numbers) when you plug in $j=1$ !

You can also see why $a_{4,5}=0$ since $-5j^3+j^4$ has a root at $j=5$.

If your conjecture is true then these polynomials must be irreducible over $\mathbb{Z}$, excluding the $(j-1)$ factor of the odd polynomials. Factorising the polynomials, $$\begin{array}{l} p_0(j)=1\\ p_1(j)=j\\ p_2(j)=j^2\\ p_3(j)=(-1 + j) j^2\\ p_4(j)=j^3(-5 + j)\\ p_5(j)=(-1 + j) j^2(-4 - 15 j + j^2)\\ p_6(j)=j^3(42 + 119 j - 42 j^2 + j^3)\\ p_7(j)=(-1 + j) j^2(120 + 518 j + 659 j^2 - 98 j^3 + j^4)\\ p_8(j)=j^3(-2160 - 7250 j - 6189 j^2 + 3721 j^3 - 219 j^4 + j^5)\\ p_9(j)=(-1 + j) j^2(-12096 - 57720 j - 98906 j^2 - 57735 j^3 + 15241 j^4 - 465 j^5 + j^6)\\ \end{array} $$

Proving $p_0,p_1,p_2,p_3\neq 0$ is easy for $j>1$. It's also easy to see that $p_4=0$ if and only if $1<j=5$.

Let's try to use the Rational Root Theorem (RRT) to see if each polynomial is irreducible. First of all notice that the coefficient of the highest $j$ power in each un-factored term is $1$ so any rational root $r=n/d$ with $\gcd(n,d)=1$ must have be such that $d\mid 1$, so the denominator can only every be $1$ which implies $r\in\mathbb{Z}$. RRT also tells us that $n\mid c_0$ where $c_0$ is the constant term of each un-factored polynomial.

So for $p_5$ the candidate roots are $r\in\pm\{1,2,4\}$ and since $p_5(r)\neq 0$ then $p_5$ is irreducible, and you will never find a zero.

For $p_6$ the candidate roots are $r\in\pm\{1,2,3,6,7,14,21,42\}$ and since $p_6(r)\neq 0$ then $p_6$ is irreducible, and you will never find a zero.

For $p_7$ the candidate roots are $r\in\pm\{1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10,12,15,20,24,30,40,60,120\}$. Again no zeros.

For $p_8$ the candidate roots are $r\in\pm\{1,2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,15,16,18,20,24,27,30,32,36,40,45,48,54,60,72,80,90,108,120,135,144,160,180,216,240,270,288,360,432,540,720,1080,2160\}$. Again no zeros.

For $p_9$ the candidate roots are $r\in\pm\{1,2,3,4,6,8,12,16,24,32,48,64,96,128,192,256,384,512,768,1024,1536,2048,3072,4096,6144,12096\}$. Again no zeros.

So in general after fully factoring the polynomial as far as possible, you may be able to find a proof based on an analysis of the constant term and whether or not it's $\pm$ divisors are roots of the polynomial factor.


Another perspective is this: the un-factored polynomial terms of each $p_i(j)$ are $O(j^{i-3})$ so there always exists an $N(j)$ such that $a_{i,j}\neq 0$ for all $j>N(j)$, so that covers an infinite number of cases for each row $i$.

pshmath0
  • 11,336
  • 3
    Impressive @Pixel. – A rural reader Feb 26 '21 at 22:29
  • 3
    I have never seen this use of the Cauchy's Formula; that's very tricky! I quote rural reader: impressive. – Andrea Marino Feb 26 '21 at 22:40
  • 1
    Thanks for the detailed, well-reasoned answer. I recognize many of the polynomials and the closed-form, having played around with it myself for a while. I think this answer is worthy of the bounty but of course I will wait for a few more days. – Integrand Feb 28 '21 at 16:09
  • 1
    Where you write "Now we just need to prove $a_{i,j}=0$ if and only if $i=4$ and $1<j=5$", do you mean "Now, for $j>1$, we just need to prove $a_{i,j}=0$ if and only if $i=4$ and $j=5$"? Similarly, later on, should "It's also easy to see that $p_4=0$ if and only if $1<j=5$" be "It's also easy to see, for $j>1$, that $p_4=0$ if and only if $j=5$"? – John Bentin Sep 20 '25 at 10:18
  • Yes, that’s a clearer and more efficient way, sorry for the confusion there. – pshmath0 Sep 21 '25 at 11:20
3

I'll give the heuristic $$a_{i,j} \approx (-1)^i \cdot \frac{1}{j} \qquad\text{if $j$ is large},$$ and discuss why the exact classification of zeros is probably intractable. I end with some data to support my analysis.


Let's begin with the formula in pshmath0's answer1,

$$a_{i,j} = (-1)^i \sum_{\ell=0}^i (-1)^\ell \ell! S(i, \ell) \frac{1}{j+\ell},\tag{1}$$

where $S(i, \ell)$ is the Stirling number of the second kind counting set partitions of $\{1, \ldots, i\}$ with $\ell$ blocks. We have a related and very well-known generating function identity2,

$$t^i = \sum_{\ell=0}^i S(i, \ell) t(t-1)\cdots(t-\ell+1).$$

In particular, \begin{align*} (-1)^i &= \sum_{\ell=0}^i (-1)^\ell \ell! S(i, \ell)\tag{2} \\ 0 &= \sum_{\ell=1}^i (-1)^\ell (\ell-1)! S(i, \ell) \qquad (\text{if }i>1),\tag{3} \end{align*} where (1) follows by setting $t=-1$ and (2) follows from dividing by $t$ before setting $t=0$.

If we were to allow (1) at $j=0$ [interpreting the $\ell=0$ term as $0$ always], we would get (3), i.e., heuristically $a_{i,0}=0$. On the other hand, if $j$ is very large compared to $i$, then $j+\ell$ is essentially constant, and we would get (2)/$j$, i.e., heuristically $a_{i,j} \approx (-1)^i \cdot \frac{1}{j}$ for $j$ large.


Let's look at some data. Here's $a_{9, j}$ for $0 \leq j \leq 25$:

<span class=$a_{9,j}$ for $0 \leq j \leq 25$" />

Here we start small and positive but then we become somewhat negative, seemingly settling into a linear pattern. But it turns out this isn't enough data to get the real picture, e.g., $a_{9,25} \approx -0.02$ vs. $1/25 = 0.04$.

Here's $a_{9, 2^k} \cdot 2^k$ for $0 \leq k \leq 20$:

<span class=$a_{9,2^k}$ for $0 \leq k \leq 20$" />

You can see it takes a while, but around $k \geq 10$ (so $j \geq 2^{10} = 1024$) we settle into the $a_{9, j} \approx -1/j$ regime.

We also quickly see why this problem is difficult. Even determining the sign of $a_{i, j}$ when $j$ is not yet large compared to $i$ is obviously tough. There are a lot of sign changes, each one yielding an opportunity for $a_{i, j}=0$ through sheer luck. And indeed, sometimes we get quite close, e.g., $a_{10, 11} = -0.00377...$.

Going back to the general problem, we've evidently got infinite zero-free regions off to the right, and one could give a quantitative sufficient condition with some effort. But the left is a chaotic mess. Somewhere in there it may happen that the stars align and zero pops up (as happens for $a_{4, 5} = 0$). And for very "special" reasons we can have families of zeros (as happens for $a_{i,0}=0$ in the above conventions, or $a_{2i+1,1}=0$ for $i>1$). But generally, we need a miracle, and those do not happen very often. It's possible one could try to model the values in the chaotic regime as random with some denominator bound, and then compute a heuristic estimate of the expected number of zeros. My guess is it would be a small positive constant.


1 There is a slight error currently in pshmath0's post when $i=0$. You need to include the $\ell=0$ term in the sum, which is zero anyway except when $i=0$. This is a very common mistake when dealing with Stirling combinatorics.

2 You can read about it in many places. All the identities I'm using are in, e.g., this paper of mine written with Bruce Sagan, which has many further references. This identity can be taken as the definition of $S(i, \ell)$. The usual two-term recurrence follows from it immediately. Using that recurrence, you can give a very direct proof of pshmath0's formula from the recursion defining $a_{i,j}$, no Cauchy integral formula required.

2

Let $\{a_{i,j}\}_{i\ge0,\;j\ge1}$ be defined by

$$ a_{0,j}=\frac1j,\qquad a_{i,j}=j\bigl(a_{i-1,j}-a_{i-1,j+1}\bigr)\qquad(i\ge1,\ j\ge1). $$

It is known that $a_{i,1}=B_i$ (Bernoulli numbers, with the usual convention), so the “trivial zeros’’ are $a_{2m+1,1}=0$ for $m\ge1$. The goal is to understand zeros with $j>1$.

I start by deriving a convenient generating function in the column index. Define

$$ P_i(x):=\sum_{j\ge1} a_{i,j}\,x^j\qquad(|x|<1). $$

From the recursion,

$$ \begin{aligned} P_i(x) &=\sum_{j\ge1} j\bigl(a_{i-1,j}-a_{i-1,j+1}\bigr)x^j\\ &=\underbrace{\sum_{j\ge1} j\,a_{i-1,j}\,x^j}_{=\,xP'_{i-1}(x)} -\underbrace{\sum_{j\ge1} j\,a_{i-1,j+1}\,x^j}_{=:S(x)}. \end{aligned} $$

For the second sum, write $m=j+1$. Then

$$ S(x)=\sum_{m\ge2} (m-1)a_{i-1,m}x^{m-1} =\frac1x\sum_{m\ge2}(m-1)a_{i-1,m}x^{m} =\frac{1}{x}\bigl(xP'_{i-1}(x)-P_{i-1}(x)\bigr). $$

Hence

$$ P_i(x)=(x-1)P'_{i-1}(x)+\frac{P_{i-1}(x)}{x} \qquad\text{with}\qquad P_0(x)=\sum_{j\ge1}\frac{x^j}{j}=-\log(1-x). \tag{1} $$

A more structural representation comes from the observation that

$$ \frac1j=\int_0^1 x^{\,j-1}\,dx. $$

Using this and the recursion once, and then integrating by parts, one proves by induction on $i$ that there exist polynomials $Q_i(x)$ such that

$$ a_{i,j}=(-1)^i\int_0^1 x^{\,j-1}\,Q_i(x)\,dx, \tag{2} $$

where $Q_0(x)=1$ and

$$ Q_i(x)=x\,\frac{d}{dx}\Bigl[(1-x)\,Q_{i-1}(x)\Bigr]\qquad(i\ge1). \tag{3} $$

For the convenience of later algebra, it is best to write $Q_i$ explicitly in terms of Stirling numbers of the second kind $S(i,\ell)$. Using the standard recurrence $S(i,\ell)=\ell\,S(i-1,\ell)+S(i-1,\ell-1)$ and checking the base case $i=1$, induction on $i$ shows

$$ Q_i(x)=\sum_{\ell=1}^{i}(-1)^{\ell}\,\ell!\,S(i,\ell)\,x^{\ell}. \tag{4} $$

Plugging (4) into (2) and integrating term‑by‑term yields the exact partial‑fraction formula

$$ \boxed{\quad a_{i,j}=(-1)^i\sum_{\ell=1}^{i}(-1)^{\ell}\,\ell!\,S(i,\ell)\,\frac{1}{\,j+\ell\,} \quad} \qquad(i\ge1,\ j\ge1). \tag{5} $$

The sum in (5) always collapses to a single rational function in $j$. If we put $(j)_{i+1}:=j(j+1)\cdots(j+i)$, then there is a unique monic polynomial $p_i(j)$ of degree $i$ with integer coefficients such that

$$ \boxed{\quad a_{i,j}=\frac{p_i(j)}{(j)_{i+1}}\quad} \qquad(i\ge0,\ j\ge1). \tag{6} $$

Clearing denominators in (5) gives an explicit numerator

$$ p_i(j)=(-1)^i\sum_{\ell=1}^i (-1)^\ell\,\ell!\,S(i,\ell)\, \prod_{\substack{0\le m\le i\\ m\ne \ell}}(j+m). \tag{7} $$

There is also a simple recurrence for these numerators. Substituting (6) into the defining recursion,

$$ \begin{aligned} a_{i,j} &=j\Bigl(\frac{p_{i-1}(j)}{(j)_i}-\frac{p_{i-1}(j+1)}{(j+1)_i}\Bigr)\\ &=\frac{j(j+i)\,p_{i-1}(j)-j^2\,p_{i-1}(j+1)}{(j)_{i+1}}, \end{aligned} $$

so

$$ \boxed{\quad p_0(j)=1,\qquad p_i(j)=j\,(j+i)\,p_{i-1}(j)-j^2\,p_{i-1}(j+1)\quad(i\ge1). \quad} \tag{8} $$

Several consequences follow quickly.

First, for all $i\ge2$ the factor $j^2$ divides $p_i(j)$. This is immediate by induction from (8): the first term has a factor $j^3$ if $j^2\mid p_{i-1}$, and the second term is visibly divisible by $j^2$.

Second, evaluating (6) at $j=1$ gives

$$ a_{i,1}=\frac{p_i(1)}{(i+1)!}=B_i, $$

so when $i$ is odd and at least $3$, one gets $p_i(1)=0$ and hence $(j-1)$ divides $p_i(j)$. These are the trivial zeros.

Third, if we define $q_i(j):=p_i(j)/j^2$ for $i\ge2$, then dividing (8) by $j^2$ and letting $j\to0$ gives

$$ q_i(0)=-\,p_{i-1}(1)=-\,i!\,B_{i-1}. \tag{9} $$

In particular, when $i$ is even and at least $4$ one has $B_{i-1}=0$, so $q_i(0)=0$ and $j^3$ divides $p_i(j)$.

Fourth, evaluating the explicit sum (7) at negative integers yields exact values at the “Lagrange nodes’’:

$$ p_i(-\ell)=(-1)^i\,(\ell!)^2\,(i-\ell)!\,S(i,\ell)\qquad(1\le\ell\le i). \tag{10} $$

The special zero in the row $i=4$ is now easy to see directly from (8). Starting from $p_0(j)=1$, the first few steps are

$$ p_1(j)=j,\qquad p_2(j)=j^2,\qquad p_3(j)=j^2(j-1),\qquad p_4(j)=j^3(j-5), $$

hence

$$ a_{4,j}=\frac{j^3(j-5)}{(j)_5} =\frac{j^2\,(j-5)}{(j+1)(j+2)(j+3)(j+4)}. $$

Therefore $a_{4,5}=0$, and no other positive integer $j$ is a zero in that row.

To understand the overall sign pattern, expand the summands in (5) for large $j$:

$$ \frac{1}{j+\ell}=\frac1j-\frac{\ell}{j^2}+O\!\Bigl(\frac{1}{j^3}\Bigr)\qquad(j\to\infty). $$

Using the Stirling identity

$$ \sum_{\ell=0}^{i}(-1)^{\ell}\,\ell!\,S(i,\ell)=(-1)^i, \tag{11} $$

one gets

$$ a_{i,j}=\frac1j+O_i\!\Bigl(\frac{1}{j^2}\Bigr)\qquad(j\to\infty). \tag{12} $$

More concretely, from (5) and $|\ell/(j+\ell)-1/j|\le \ell/j^2$ for $j>\ell$,

$$ \Bigl|\,a_{i,j}-\frac1j\,\Bigr| \le \frac{1}{j^2}\sum_{\ell=1}^{i}\ell\,\ell!\,S(i,\ell). \tag{13} $$

Hence for each fixed $i$ there is an $N(i)$ such that $a_{i,j}>0$ for all $j\ge N(i)$. In particular, every row has only finitely many sign changes, so only finitely many integer $j$ can be zeros in that row.

Finally, combine this with the rational‑root test. Let

$$ \tilde p_i(j):=\frac{p_i(j)}{j^{\rho_i}(j-1)^{\varepsilon_i}}, \qquad \rho_i=\begin{cases} 2,& i\ge2\ \text{and }B_{i-1}\ne0,\\ 3,& i\ge4\ \text{even}, \end{cases} \quad \varepsilon_i=\begin{cases} 1,& i\ge3\ \text{odd},\\ 0,& \text{otherwise}. \end{cases} $$

Then $\tilde p_i(j)\in\mathbb{Z}[j]$ is monic with nonzero constant term. By (9), when $i$ is odd and at least $3$,

$$ \tilde p_i(0)=-\,i!\,B_{i-1}. $$

When $i$ is even and at least $4$, dividing (8) by $j^3$ and letting $j\to0$ (using $B_{i-1}=0$) gives

$$ \tilde p_i(0)=-\,i!\,B_{i-2}-\,p'_{i-1}(1). $$

Therefore any integer zero $j>1$ of $a_{i,j}$ must be a divisor of the corresponding integer $|\tilde p_i(0)|$. Together with the eventual positivity above, this reduces the search for integer zeros in any fixed row to a finite check. Carrying out that check in the first several rows shows that the only non‑trivial integer zero with $j>1$ that occurs is

$$ a_{4,5}=0. $$

For completeness, here is the short derivation of (2)–(4). The base case $i=0$ is $a_{0,j}=\int_0^1 x^{j-1}\,dx$. Assume $a_{i-1,j}=(-1)^{i-1}\int_0^1 x^{j-1}Q_{i-1}(x)\,dx$. Then

$$ \begin{aligned} a_{i,j} &=j\int_0^1 (-1)^{i-1}\bigl(x^{j-1}-x^j\bigr)Q_{i-1}(x)\,dx\\ &=(-1)^i\int_0^1 x^{j}\,\frac{d}{dx}\bigl[(1-x)Q_{i-1}(x)\bigr]\,dx \quad\text{(integration by parts; the boundary term vanishes)}\\ &=(-1)^i\int_0^1 x^{j-1}\,\Bigl\{x\,\frac{d}{dx}\bigl[(1-x)Q_{i-1}(x)\bigr]\Bigr\}\,dx, \end{aligned} $$

which is (2)–(3). Writing $Q_{i-1}(x)=\sum_{\ell}c_{i-1,\ell}x^\ell$, a direct coefficient computation using $S(i,\ell)=\ell\,S(i-1,\ell)+S(i-1,\ell-1)$ shows that the choice

$$ c_{i,\ell}=(-1)^\ell\,\ell!\,S(i,\ell) $$

satisfies (3); this is (4). Substituting (4) into (2) yields (5) immediately. The rest follows as shown above.