Orthogonal polynomials/Proofs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This mathematics article is devoted entirely to providing mathematical proofs and support for claims and statements made in the article orthogonal polynomials. This article is currently an experimental vehicle to see how well we can provide proofs and details for a math article without cluttering up the main article itself. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Proofs for some current discussion. This article is "experimental" in the sense that it is a test of one way we may be able to incorporate more detailed proofs in Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Proof of the recurrence relation

Any orthogonal series has a recurrence formula relating any three consecutive polynomials in the series.

p_{n+1}\ =\ (a_nx+b_n)\ p_n\ -\ c_n\ p_{n-1}

The coefficients a, b, and c depend on n. They also depend on the standardization, obviously.

Proof:

We will prove this for fixed n, and omit the subscripts on a, b, and c.

First, choose a so that the xn + 1 terms match, so we have

a\ x\ p_n\ -\ p_{n+1}\ =\ a polynomial of degree n.

Next, choose b so that the xn terms match, so we have

(ax+b)\ p_n\ -\ p_{n+1}\ =\ a polynomial of degree n − 1

Expand the right-hand-side in terms of polynomials in the sequence

(ax+b)\ p_n\ -\ p_{n+1}\ =\ \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} {\lambda}_i p_i

Now if j\le n-2, then

\langle (ax+b)\ p_n,\ p_j \rangle\ -\ \langle p_{n+1},\ p_j \rangle\ =\ \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} {\lambda}_i \langle p_i,\ p_j \rangle\ =\ {\lambda}_j \langle p_j,\ p_j \rangle.

But

\langle p_n,\ p_j \rangle\ =\ 0 and \langle p_{n+1},\ p_j \rangle\ =\ 0,

so

a\ \langle x\ p_n,\ p_j \rangle\ =\ {\lambda}_j \langle p_j,\ p_j \rangle.

Since the inner product is just an integral involving the product:

\langle x\ p_n,\ p_j \rangle\ =\ \langle p_n,\ x\ p_j \rangle

we have

a\ \langle p_n,\ x\ p_j \rangle\ =\ {\lambda}_j \langle p_j,\ p_j \rangle

If \ j < n-1, then x\ p_j has degree \le n-1, so it is orthogonal to \ p_n; hence {\lambda}_j \langle p_j,\ p_j \rangle\ =\ 0, which implies {\lambda}_j\ =\ 0 for \ j < n-1.

Therefore, only λn − 1 can be nonzero, so

(ax+b)\ p_n\ -\ p_{n+1}\ ={\lambda}_{n-1}\ p_{n-1}\

Letting c\ =\ {\lambda}_{n-1}, we have

p_{n+1}\ =\ (ax+b)\ p_n\ -\ c\ p_{n-1}.

[edit] Proof of the existence of real roots

Each polynomial in an orthogonal sequence has all n of its roots real, distinct, and strictly inside the interval of orthogonality.

Proof:

Let m be the number of places where the sign of Pn changes inside the interval of orthogonality, and let x_1 \dots x_m be those points. Each of those points is a root of Pn. By the fundamental theorem of algebra, mn. Now m might be strictly less than n if some roots of Pn are complex, or not inside the interval of orthogonality, or not distinct. We will show that m = n.

Let S(x) = \prod_{j=1}^m (x - x_j)

This is an mth-degree polynomial that changes sign at each of the xj, the same way that Pn(x) does. S(x)Pn(x) is therefore strictly positive, or strictly negative, everywhere except at the xj. S(x)Pn(x)W(x) is also strictly positive or strictly negative except at the xj and possibly the end points.

Therefore, \langle S, P_n \rangle, the integral of this, is nonzero. But, by Lemma 2, Pn is orthogonal to any polynomial of lower degree, so the degree of S must be n.

[edit] Proof of interlacing of roots

The roots of each polynomial lie strictly between those of the next higher polynomial in the sequence.

Proof:

First, standardize all of the polynomials so that their leading terms are positive. This will not affect the roots.

Next, a lemma: For all n and all x,

P_{n+1}'(x)\ P_n(x) > P_{n+1}(x)\ P_n'(x)\,

Proof by induction. For n = 0, P_1'(x) > 0\,, P_0(x) > 0\,, and P_0'(x) = 0\,.

Otherwise, the recurrence formula has

P_{n+1}(x) = (ax + b) P_n(x) - c P_{n-1}(x)\,

with a = \frac{k_{n+1}}{k_n} > 0\, and c = a\,\frac{k_{n-1}h_n}{k_{n}h_{n-1}} > 0\,.

So

P_{n+1}' = a P_n + (ax + b) P_n' - c P_{n-1}'\,.

So

P_{n+1}'\ P_n - P_{n+1}\ P_n' = [a P_n + (ax + b) P_n' - c P_{n-1}'] P_n - [(ax + b) P_n - c P_{n-1}] P_n'\,
= [a P_n - c P_{n-1}'] P_n + c P_{n-1}\ P_n'\,
= a P_n^{ 2} + c (P_n'\ P_{n-1} - P_n\ P_{n-1}')\,
\ge c (P_n'\ P_{n-1} - P_n\ P_{n-1}')\,

But P_n'\ P_{n-1} - P_n\ P_{n-1}' > 0\, by the induction step.

Now if x is a root of Pn+1, the lemma tells us that

P_{n+1}'(x)\ P_n(x) > P_{n+1}(x)\ P_n'(x) = 0\,

So P_{n+1}'(x)\, and P_n(x)\, have the same sign. But P_{n+1}'(x)\, must change sign from any root of Pn+1 to the next. Therefore, Pn must change sign also, so Pn must have a root in that interval.