Uniform Approximation of Extremal Functions in Weighted Bergman Spaces
Timothy Ferguson

TL;DR
This paper studies how well extremal functions in weighted Bergman spaces can be approximated by polynomials, providing bounds on approximation errors and exploring the relationship between function smoothness and convergence rates.
Contribution
It introduces new bounds on polynomial approximation of extremal functions in weighted Bergman spaces and analyzes the impact of function smoothness on convergence speed.
Findings
Derived bounds on approximation errors in $A^p_\alpha$ and uniform norms.
Established relations between Bergman modulus of continuity and polynomial approximation convergence.
Provided insights into the rate of convergence of polynomial approximants.
Abstract
We discuss approximation of extremal functions by polynomials in the weighted Bergman spaces where and . We obtain bounds on how close the approximation is to the true extremal function in the and uniform norms. We also discuss several results on the relation between the Bergman modulus of continuity of a function and how quickly its best polynomial approximants converge to it.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHolomorphic and Operator Theory · Algebraic and Geometric Analysis · Meromorphic and Entire Functions
Uniform Approximation of Extremal Functions in Weighted Bergman Spaces
Timothy Ferguson
Department of Mathematics
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL
Abstract.
We discuss approximation of extremal functions by polynomials in the weighted Bergman spaces where and . We obtain bounds on how close the approximation is to the true extremal function in the and uniform norms. We also discuss several results on the relation between the Bergman modulus of continuity of a function and how quickly its best polynomial approximants converge to it.
Partially supported by RGC Grant RGC-2015-22 from the University of Alabama.
Thanks to Brendan Ames for a helpful discussion.
1. Introduction
In this article we discuss uniform approximation of extremal functions in weighted Bergman spaces. In general, we approximate these functions by solutions to extremal problems restricted to spaces of polynomials.
Definition 1.1**.**
For and we define the weighted Bergman space to be the space of all analytic functions in such that
[TABLE]
where and is Lebesgue measure.
For , it is know that the dual of is isomorphic to , where . Also, if and correspond to each other, then , where is some constant depending of and .
Definition 1.2**.**
Let be given, where and is not identically [math]. Let be such that and is as large as possible, where . There is always a unique function with this property. We say that is the extremal function for the integral kernel , and also that is the extremal function for the functional defined by .
We do not usually discuss the case because in this case is a scalar multiple of .
It is known (see [4]) that the spaces , since they are subspaces of spaces, are uniformly convex. In [7], general results are proven about approximating extremal functions in uniformly convex spaces, and a proof is given there of the well known fact that extremal functions are unique in uniformly convex spaces. See [2, 3] for more information on extremal problems in spaces of analytic functions. See also [12, 8, 10, 14] for more information on regularity questions related the extremal problems we discuss.
Definition 1.3**.**
Let . Suppose
[TABLE]
for some constant . We then say that . Furthermore, we define to be the infimum of the constants such that the above inequality holds.
We refer to functions in the classes as being (mean) Bergman-Hölder continuous (see [8]). We discuss several estimates that relate the mean Bergman-Hölder continuity of functions to the minimum error in approximating these functions with polynomials of fixed degree. We apply these results to obtain estimates for how close the solution of an extremal problem is to the solution to the problem with the same linear functional posed over the space of polynomials of degree at most . By using inequalities related to uniform convexity due to Clarkson [4] and Ball, Carlen and Lieb [1], we are able to obtain quantitative estimates for distance from approximate extremal functions to the true extremal functions.
The estimates just mentioned are all in the norm. However, our goal is to approximate (in certain cases) extremal functions in the uniform norm (i.e. the norm). To do so, we use results from [8] to obtain bounds on the norm of the extremal functions and the functions approximating them for certain , as long as the integral kernels are sufficiently regular. We also use Theorem 4.2, which allows us to conclude that two functions that are each not too large in the norm and that are close in the norm must actually be close in the uniform norm. In stating the theorems, we do not aim for the most general estimates possible; however, the estimates we state do apply to the case where is a polynomial, or even in .
We note that in [11], Khavinson and Stessin derive Hölder regularity results for extremal problems in unweighted Bergman spaces, However, they do not state explicit bounds on the exponent or on the norm of the extremal function, so we cannot use their result to get explicit bounds on extremal functions.
The following lemma about the uniform convexity of will be needed. The inequality for can be proved from Theorem 1 in [1]. The other inequality follows from equation (3) in Theorem 2 in [4].
Lemma 1.1**.**
Let and . Let . If then . If then .
2. Mean Holder Continuity and Best Polynomial Approximation
In this section we discuss several results relating mean Hölder continuity of functions to their distance from the space of polynomials of degree at most . Some of these results are used in the rest of the paper. The proofs of these results are similar to the proofs for similar results about classical Hölder continuity that can be found in [15], Volume 1, starting on p. 115.
Definition 2.1**.**
Let . We define
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let . Suppose that . Let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let Let represent the function restricted to the circle of radius . Let be the best polynomial approximant of , let be the remainder and let be the Cesàro sum of the remainder. Let be the the Fejér kernel for the Cesàro sum. Then has norm of , and Young’s inequality for convolutions shows that . Let be the Cesàro sum of . From [15, eq. (13.4), p. 115, Volume 1] we see that
[TABLE]
Using this equation with , subtracting from both sides and using the fact that shows that M_{p}\big{[}r,(2\sigma_{2n-1}-\sigma_{n-1})-f\big{]}\leq 4M_{p}(r,R_{n}). Multiply by and integrate from [math] to to see that
[TABLE]
Let . Now
[TABLE]
where . Apply Minkowski’s inequality to see that
[TABLE]
Since , the theorem follows. ∎
We can also prove the following theorem.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let be an integer. Suppose that . Let
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Then .
Proof.
Let . Then integrating by parts in equation (2.1) shows that
[TABLE]
Applying Minkowski’s inequality shows that
[TABLE]
As above, this implies that . ∎
Define the modulus of continuity for by
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let be an integer. Suppose has modulus of continuity . Then
[TABLE]
where .
Let . Note that . Minkowski’s inequality shows that . Let . Then using the fundamental theorem of calculus, we see that
[TABLE]
Also .
Thus by Theorem 2.2,
[TABLE]
Taking the supremum over in the inequality
[TABLE]
shows that . Thus
[TABLE]
Now choose to see that
[TABLE]
where .
From this it follows that if for then .
Theorem 2.4**.**
Suppose that and that . Then where
[TABLE]
Proof.
Write where . Then
[TABLE]
as in the last equation on [15, Volume 1, p. 117]. Thus
[TABLE]
Following the first and second equations on [15, Volume 1, p. 118] shows that
[TABLE]
which shows that . Applying Theorem 2.2 to and and setting now yields the result. ∎
3. Approximation of Extremal Functions by Polynomials
in the Bergman Norm
We now discuss extremal problems restricted to the space of polynomials of degree . Let denote the extremal polynomial of degree , for the extremal problem of maximizing where ranges over all polynomials of degree at most with norm . We will need the following theorem from [8].
Theorem 3.1**.**
Suppose that , and let be the extremal function for . Then if we have while if we have .
Furthermore, suppose that and . If then whereas if then .
The space of polynomials of degree is isomorphic with . The set of all for which the corresponding polynomial has norm of at most is a convex set. Thus, the extremal problem for finding can be thought of as a problem of maximizing a (real) linear functional over a convex set in . This is a convex optimization problem, and many algorithms for approximating the solution are known.
We first discuss a worst case rate of convergence of to in the Bergman space norm.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be the extremal function for and let be the extremal polynomial of degree , when the problem is posed over polynomials of degree . Suppose Then for we have . Similarly if we have .
More precisely, for and
[TABLE]
for and
[TABLE]
for and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let denote . The argument in [7, Theorem 4.1] shows that, if is the best approximate of of degree and and , then . This also shows that . Thus
[TABLE]
Therefore . This shows that for and for .
∎
The convergence rate in the previous theorem may be slow, especially for large . However, this is a worst case scenario and a given may be more accurate than this predicts. The following theorem give a way to bound the distance of a given function from in terms of the distance from to . An advantage of the theorem is that it applies to any function , so we can directly apply it to an approximation of , and not just itself. In the theorem statement, denotes the Bergman projection for , which is the orthogonal projection from onto . Also should be interpreted to equal [math] when has a zero. It is known that is bounded from to for (see [9]).
Lemma 3.3**.**
Suppose that and are the extremal functions for and respectively Suppose that and . Then for
[TABLE]
for
[TABLE]
Proof.
Note that
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
The result now follows by Lemma 1.1 ∎
It is known that if is a positive scalar multiple of , where has unit norm, then is the extremal function for . Since , we see that if is scaled so that , then .
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let , and let be the extremal function for . Let be any positive scalar multiple of (so that also has as extremal function.) Let and suppose that for some such that the inequality
[TABLE]
is satisfied. Then for ,
[TABLE]
and for
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be the functional of unit norm for which is the extremal function. Then has kernel and . Let be the functional with kernel . We then have
[TABLE]
This implies that . Let . Then and thus . The conclusion now follows from the previous lemma. ∎
4. Approximation of Extremal Functions
by Polynomials in the Supremum Norm
We now discuss how to use the results in the previous section to bound the distance from a given function to in the supremum norm. We will use the following theorem found in [8, Corollary 4.3]. The proof of this theorem shows that the same results hold if is replaced by . However, we may need to multiply by a positive scalar constant greater than so that the condition holds.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let and let and be conjugate exponents. Suppose and that . If and , then has Hölder continuous boundary values. If and , the same conclusion holds.
Let . For , The Hölder exponent is . The Hölder constant is bounded above by
[TABLE]
For , if we let be any number greater than [math], then the Hölder exponent can be taken to be (if the indicated exponent is positive). The Hölder constant is bounded above by
[TABLE]
For ease of notation, we will call the Hölder exponent for and for . We will denote the constant by and respectively. For if we refer to and , we mean and respectively.
Since , it follows that . Thus the preceding estimate can be used to bound . However, the estimates do not allow one to conclude directly that must be small for large . The following theorem remedies this situation. It says that if a function is Hölder continuous (with control on the exponent and size of the constant) and the function has small norm, then its uniform norm cannot be too large.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let and be given. Suppose that and that for some we have for every . Then there exists a such that if then . In fact, we may take to be
[TABLE]
as long as . Here is the Beta function.
For ease of notation we will denote the in the theorem by . We let denote the inverse function of .
Proof.
Suppose that . Then for , where . So
[TABLE]
Now for fixed , the quantity on the right is a continuous function of for , and thus has a minimum; call the minimum . Then if we have . So if we have .
We may estimate for by noting that in this case the region contains at least a quarter sector of the disc , so
[TABLE]
where is the beta function. ∎
We may also prove the following theorem. It will not be used in the sequel, but we include it for completeness.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let and be given. Suppose that and that for some we have for every . Then there exists a such that if then .
Proof.
Suppose for some and . Since we have . Thus , and so . But this contradicts the previous theorem if is small enough. ∎
Theorem 4.4**.**
Let and let and be conjugate exponents. Suppose . If let . If let . Suppose that . Then if then , where and
[TABLE]
Proof.
This follows from Theorems 4.1 and 4.2. We use the fact that Theorem 4.1 applies to if is first multiplied by , which ensures that the condition holds. ∎
5. Approximation of Extremal Functions for Even
We will give an example of approximating an extremal function. The case where is even is in some ways easier than other cases since then we can explicitly compute when is a polynomial, due to the fact that and are polynomials, so our example will involve this case.
Define
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
(see [9, Section 1.1]).
Example 5.1**.**
Let us approximate the solution to the problem of maximizing the (real part of) the functional , where the are the Taylor series coefficients of about [math], and where and (and where has unit norm). Then .
This problem is made simpler because the uniqueness of implies that it must have real coefficients. Let us take the approximation of degree . We thus seek to maximize subject to the constraint , i.e.
[TABLE]
This is a convex optimization problem, and we are aided by the fact that any local maximum must be a global maximum, since if is any local maximum (necessarily of norm ) then a variational argument similar to the one in the proof of [6, Chapter 5, Lemma 2] shows that the is a scalar multiple of , and thus is the extremal function (see [13, p. 55]). Here we let denote the orthogonal projection from onto the subspace of of consisting of polynomials of degree at most .
Using Mathematica (for example) to approximate a solution yields a maximum functional value of and
[TABLE]
All of the omitted terms have coefficients of less than . If we compute , we find that it is
[TABLE]
All of the omitted terms have coefficients of at most . We must now find a multiple of close to . We could find the closest one as an optimization problem, but we will choose in order to make the first coefficients of and match, since this is simpler and yields a result close to . If we now compute , we see that it is about . Theorem 3.4 shows that is less than . In fact, I suspect that the true error is much smaller. For example, , so the true error may be closer to this order of magnitude.
We find that times the sum of the first three coefficients of is bigger than by about . The second derivative of is most , so is at most . Thus Theorem 4.4 shows that . Again, I suspect the true error is much smaller. For example, , and the true error may be this order of magnitude.
It would be interesting to see if the estimates in this paper can be substantially improved in order to yield better estimates on the approximation of extremal functions in the uniform norm. The example above shows that the estimates in the paper are likely too large by a substantial margin. However, the estimates in this paper are the only ones known (as far as I know) that allow approximation of these extremal functions in the uniform norm, and they have the advantage of being explicitly computable without great difficulty.
6. Non-zero Extremal Functions
The proceeding results can be used to find explicit conditions on that guarantee that is non-zero. In Theorem 6.2 we give one such result.
Theorem 6.1**.**
Let and . Suppose that has range that is a subset of the sector , and that . Let be the extremal function for and let
[TABLE]
where is the bound for the Bergman projection from onto . Then if we have and if we have .
Proof.
Note that is well defined, where we take the branch with . Notice that . Thus
[TABLE]
and therefore
[TABLE]
Let be the bound for the Bergman projection from onto . Then
[TABLE]
since . The result now follows from Theorem 3.4. ∎
Theorem 6.2**.**
Let and and . If also suppose . Let and suppose that . Then there exists a depending only on , , , and such that if the range of is a subset of then is non-zero.
Proof.
Let be given. This will make the conclusion of the theorem true if the assumptions show that . Let . For choose and let ; otherwise let .
Note that by [8, Theorems 3.1 and 1.2] and [5, Theorems 5.9 and 5.1], we have with Hölder constant depending only on , , and . Since is bounded away from [math], we also have that with constant depending only on , , , and . Let be the smallest constant such that .
By Theorem 4.2 we will be done if we can show that
[TABLE]
where where . But by the previous theorem, this is true if is small enough. ∎
Notice that, given , , , and , we could if we wish calculate an explicit value for .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Keith Ball, Eric A. Carlen, and Elliott H. Lieb, Sharp uniform convexity and smoothness inequalities for trace norms , Invent. Math. 115 (1994), no. 3, 463–482. MR 1262940
- 2[2] Catherine Bénéteau and Dmitry Khavinson, A survey of linear extremal problems in analytic function spaces , Complex analysis and potential theory, CRM Proc. Lecture Notes, vol. 55, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2012, pp. 33–46. MR 2986891
- 3[3] Catherine Bénéteau and Dmitry Khavinson, Selected problems in classical function theory , Invariant subspaces of the shift operator, Contemp. Math., vol. 638, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015, pp. 255–265. MR 3309357
- 4[4] James A. Clarkson, Uniformly convex spaces , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (1936), no. 3, 396–414. MR MR 1501880
- 5[5] Peter Duren, Theory of H p superscript 𝐻 𝑝 H^{p} spaces , Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 38, Academic Press, New York, 1970. MR MR 0268655 (42 #3552)
- 6[6] Peter Duren and Alexander Schuster, Bergman spaces , Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 100, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004. MR MR 2033762 (2005 c:30053)
- 7[7] Timothy Ferguson, Continuity of extremal elements in uniformly convex spaces , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 137 (2009), no. 8, 2645–2653.
- 8[8] Timothy Ferguson, Bergman–hölder functions, area integral means and extremal problems , Integral Equations and Operator Theory 87 (2017), no. 4, 545–563.
