Sharp Constants of Approximation Theory. II. Invariance Theorems and Certain Multivariate Inequalities of Different Metrics
Michael I. Ganzburg

TL;DR
This paper establishes invariance theorems for multivariate inequalities involving sharp constants, connecting polynomial inequalities on spheres and balls with entire functions, advancing approximation theory in multiple metrics.
Contribution
It introduces invariance theorems that relate sharp constants in multivariate polynomial inequalities to entire functions, expanding understanding of approximation bounds across different metrics.
Findings
Proved invariance theorems for inequalities of different metrics.
Established limit relations between sharp constants for polynomials and entire functions.
Discussed relations in univariate weighted spaces.
Abstract
We prove invariance theorems for general inequalities of different metrics and apply them to limit relations between the sharp constants in the multivariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities with the polyharmonic operator for algebraic polynomials on the unit sphere and the unit ball in and the corresponding constants for entire functions of spherical type on . Certain relations in the univariate weighted spaces are discussed as well.
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.
Sharp Constants of Approximation Theory. II. Invariance Theorems and Certain Multivariate Inequalities
of Different Metrics
Michael I. Ganzburg
Department of Mathematics
Hampton University
Hampton, VA 23668
USA
Abstract.
We prove invariance theorems for general inequalities of different metrics and apply them to limit relations between the sharp constants in the multivariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities with the polyharmonic operator for algebraic polynomials on the unit sphere and the unit ball in and the corresponding constants for entire functions of spherical type on . Certain relations in the univariate weighted spaces are discussed as well.
Key words and phrases:
Sharp constants, multivariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequality, algebraic polynomials, entire functions of exponential type, weighted spaces.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 41A17, 41A63, Secondary 26D10
1. Introduction
We continue the study of the sharp constants in multivariate inequalities of approximation theory that began in [17]. In this paper we prove invariance theorems for multivariate inequalities of different metrics and apply them to limit relations between the sharp constants in the multivariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities for algebraic polynomials and entire functions of exponential type. In addition, we discuss the asymptotic behavior of certain sharp constants in univariate weighted spaces.
Notation. Let be the Euclidean -dimensional space with elements , the inner product , and the norm . Next, is the -dimensional complex space with elements and the norm ; denotes the set of all integral lattice points in with nonnegative coordinates. In addition, we use a multi-index with and . We also use the Frobenius norm of an matrix with real elements. Given , let , and be the -dimensional ball of radius , the unit -dimensional ball, and the unit -dimensional sphere in , respectively. Next, let denote the -dimensional Lebesgue measure of a -dimensional measurable set . In particular, , and . In addition, we use generic notation and for the floor function, the gamma function and the beta function, respectively.
Throughout the paper denote positive constants independent of essential parameters. Occasionally we indicate dependence on certain parameters. The same symbol does not necessarily denote the same constant in different occurrences.
** Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii Type Inequalities.** Limit relations between sharp constants in the univariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities for trigonometric and algebraic polynomials and entire functions of exponential type were studied by Taikov [34, 35], Gorbachev [21], Levin and Lubinsky [25, 26], the author and Tikhonov [20], and the author [16]. Detailed surveys of the univariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities for trigonometric and algebraic polynomials and entire functions of exponential type were presented in [20, 16]. The corresponding multivariate problems were recently studied by Dai, Gorbachev, and Tikhonov [9] and the author [17]. The following publications [24, 3, 22] are also closely related to the subject of the paper.
The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, we extend invariance theorems of approximation theory, proved by the author and Pichugov [19] and by the author [15], to the generalized Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities. These results are presented and proved in Section 2 (see Theorems 2.1 and 2.2). In particular, invariance theorems reduce certain multivariate inequalities to univariate ones in weighted metrics. Certain special cases are discussed in Section 3 (see Examples 3.8, 3.10, 3.12 and Corollaries 3.9, 3.11, 3.13).
Second, in Section 4 we obtain limit relations between the sharp constants in the multivariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities with the polyharmonic operator for polynomials on the unit sphere and the unit ball in and the corresponding constants for entire functions of spherical type on (see Corollaries 4.4 and 4.5). In particular, the major part of Corollary 4.4 is the following statement: if is the Laplace operator, then the minimal (sharp) constant in the inequality
[TABLE]
over all polynomials of degree at most in variables and the minimal constant in the inequality
[TABLE]
() over all entire functions of spherical type are connected by the limit relation
A similar result on the unit sphere is proved in Corollary 4.5. A special case of Corollary 4.5 for was established in [9].
The proofs of multivariate results are based on the invariance theorems and certain univariate results. By using the invariance theorems, the limit multivariate relations can be reduced to the relations between sharp constants in the univariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities for algebraic polynomials with the Bessel and Gegenbauer differential operators in weighted -spaces on , and the corresponding constants for univariate entire functions of exponential type.
Third, limit relations between the univariate sharp constants in more general weighted spaces are presented in Theorems 4.1 and 4.3. Their proofs are given in Section 6. Note that the proofs are based on an approach to limit relations between sharp constants developed in [20, 16, 17].
Surprisingly, a special case of limit relations between the univariate sharp constants in weighted spaces is the asymptotic relation for the sharp constant in the classical inequality for univariate polynomials of different metrics (see Corollary 4.6; cf. [16, Theorem 1.4 and p. 94]).
Special cases of the results in Section 4 are obtained earlier in [25, 16, 9]. Section 5 contains certain properties of entire functions of exponential type and polynomials that are needed for the proofs.
2. General Invariance Theorems
The averaging (or symmetrization) principle is well known in approximation theory (see, e.g., [27, 8, 2, 19, 15] and references therein). In particular, general and special invariance theorems for the error of best approximation were proved in [19, 15]. In this section we discuss general invariance theorems for the sharp constants in the Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities.
It is easy to see that the sharp constant in inequality (1.1) for does not change if one restricts (1.1) to even polynomials (i.e., The proof of this fact involves first, the symmetrization operator of and second, the invariance of the operator and the class under the group , where is the identity transformation on the unit ball . Indeed, and
[TABLE]
Below we extend this example to compact topological groups of continuous transformations on more general sets and to more general classes of elements. The symmetrization will be provided by the Haar integral. More examples are discussed in Section 3.
Let and let be a Banach space of functions with the norm . Next, let be a closed subspace of and let be a bounded linear operator. Given , we define the sharp constant in the generalized Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequality by
[TABLE]
If is the imbedding operator , then is the sharp constant in the generalized Nikolskii-type inequality.
Further, let be a compact topological group of continuous transformations with a fixed point (i. e., ) and let denote a subspace of of all functions which are invariant under the group , i.e., .
Let be a closed subspace of . In this section we discuss sufficient conditions for the sharp constant to be invariant under , i.e.,
[TABLE]
We assume that and satisfy the following conditions.
- (C1)
The norm is invariant under , i.e., for every and each .
- (C2)
The operator is invariant under , i.e., for every and each , where .
- (C3)
The subspace is invariant under , i.e., for every and each .
- (C4)
For every the mapping is a continuous function in , i.e., for any .
- (C5)
.
The following general invariance theorem holds true.
Theorem 2.1**.**
If conditions (C1) through (C5) are satisfied, then (2.2) is valid.
Proof.
It suffices to prove the inequality
[TABLE]
for every . Note that due to condition (C5) the right-hand sides of (2.2) and (2.3) are well-defined.
Since is a compact topological group, there exists the Haar measure on with (see, e.g., [31, Theorem 5.14]). Next, for every the function is continuous on by conditions (C3) and (C4); therefore, its image is compact in . Since is a Banach space, the closure of the convex hull of (denote it by ) is compact as well (see, e.g., [31, Theorem 3.25 (a)]). Then the Haar integral
[TABLE]
exists and (see, e.g. [31, Theorem 3.27]). Note that examples of the Haar measures and the Haar integral can be found in [23, Sect. 15.17] and [32, Sect. 12.1]. Moreover, since is a closed subset of , we conclude that , so . Next, for every ,
[TABLE]
where the second equality in (2.5) follows from the invariance of the Haar measure. Therefore, . Using now the generalized Minkowski inequality (see, e.g., [10, Lemma 3.2.15]) and condition (C1), we obtain
[TABLE]
Further, by [10, Theorem 3.2.19(c)] and conditions (C3) and (C2), we have
[TABLE]
and since , we obtain from (2.7)
[TABLE]
If and , then (2.3) holds trivially true by (C5). If , then , and it follows from (2.6) and (2.8) that
[TABLE]
Hence (2.3) holds true in this case as well. Thus (2.2) is established.
The proof of Theorem 2.1 is based on the existence of the Haar integral which belongs to . These both facts follow from strong condition (C4). However, the existence of for each follows from the following weaker condition.
- (C4′)
For every and each fixed , the linear functional is continuous in .
It is obvious that (C4) implies (C4′), but the converse statement is not valid in general (see [15, Example 2.1]). If we introduce a new condition
- (C6)
For every , the Haar integral defined in (2.4) belongs to ,
then we arrive at the following version of Theorem 2.1.
Theorem 2.2**.**
If conditions (C1), (C2), (C3), (C4′), (C5), and (C6) are satisfied, then (2.2) is valid.
Proof.
The existence of follows from (C4′) (see, e.g., [31, Theorem 5.14]) and, in addition, by (C6). The rest of the proof of (2.2) is similar to that of Theorem 2.1.
Note that invariant means like the Haar integral exist in more general situation, more precisely, on amenable semigroups (see [2, Sect. 6] for details).
3. Special Invariance Theorems
Here, we discuss special cases of invariance theorems presented in Section 2.
Special Cases and Preliminaries. In all our examples of applications of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 we use special sets , spaces , subspaces , groups , and linear operators described below. In addition, we discuss here their certain properties.
Let be one of the following sets: and ; and let , be the space of all measurable functions with the finite norm
[TABLE]
if or and
[TABLE]
where is the spherical surface Lebesgue measure on . In addition, we also need the weighted space of all univariate measurable functions with the finite quasinorm
[TABLE]
Here, is a measurable subset of and is a locally integrable weight. This quasinorm allows the following ”triangle” inequality
[TABLE]
where for . In this section, is either , or . In Sections 4, 5, and 6, we use more general weights.
In the capacity of we discuss either the set of the restrictions to of polynomials in variables of degree at most (if is identified, we often write instead of ) or the set of the restrictions to of entire functions in variables of spherical type that belong to .
We recall that an entire function has spherical type if for any there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
(see [29, Sect. 3.2.6] and [11, Definition 5.1]). We often identify with its restriction to . Note that is a closed subspace of (cf. [29, Theorem 3.5]).
We need the following compactness theorem for functions from .
Proposition 3.1**.**
For any sequence , with , there exist a subsequence and a function such that
[TABLE]
uniformly on any compact set in .
Proof.
It follows from (3.5) that if , then
[TABLE]
Therefore, has exponential type by the definition in [29, Sect. 3.1]. Since , by Nikolskii’s compactness theorem [29, Theorem 3.3.6], there exists a subsequence and an entire function such that (3.6) holds true uniformly on any compact set in . In addition, Indeed, since
[TABLE]
(see [28, Eq. (4.13)]), we obtain by (3.8)
[TABLE]
Thus .
In addition to and , we also need univariate sets and of all even polynomials and even entire functions from and , respectively.
Throughout the paper we use the following groups . Let be the group of all proper and improper rotations (about the origin) of . We identify with the group of all orthogonal matrices which is isomorphic to since if and only if , where is an orthogonal matrix with and is a column vector. Let be a subgroup of of all proper and improper rotations (or orthogonal matrices) , satisfying the condition , where is a fixed vector from . For example, if , then , where is the identity matrix and
[TABLE]
which is the product of two transformations: reflection about the -axis and rotation by the angle . Note that will be used in Examples 3.8 and 3.10, while will be used in Example 3.12.
Throughout the paper we use the polyharmonic operator , where and
[TABLE]
is the Laplace operator on . Note that the restriction of on is defined by . In case of is the imbedding operator or . We need certain properties of .
Proposition 3.2**.**
*Let , be equipped with the spherical coordinates Then the following properties of hold true.
(a) In spherical coordinates,*
[TABLE]
where is the spherical Laplacian given by
[TABLE]
*and . In particular, is the representation of in spherical coordinates.
(b) For a fixed and *
[TABLE]
(c) If is a radial function , where is an even twice continuously differentiable function on , then . Here,
[TABLE]
*is the Bessel operator and .
(d) If , where , and is a fixed point, then . Here,*
[TABLE]
*is the Gegenbauer operator.
(e) The operators and are invariant under orthogonal transformations, i.e., for and and .*
Proof.
Statements (a), (b), and (e) are well-known and can be found in [12, Sect. 11.1.1], while (c) follows immediately from (a). It suffices to prove (d) for Using statement (b) for and , we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of the proposition.
Remark 3.3*.*
We call (3.9) the Bessel operator because the functions are eigenfunctions of for , see [37, Sect. 4.31]. We call (3.10) the Gegenbauer operator because the Gegenbauer polynomials are eigenfunctions of , see [12, Sect. 10.9].
Conditions in Special Cases. We first discuss conditions (C1), (C2), and (C3) in special cases.
Proposition 3.4**.**
*Let be a subgroup of . Then the following statements hold true.
(a) If is one of the sets , and , then (C1) is satisfied.
(b) If is the polyharmonic operator then (C2) is satisfied.
(c) If , where either , or , then (C3) is satisfied.
(d) If , then (C3) is satisfied.*
Proof.
Statement (a) is obviously satisfied, while (b) follows from Proposition 3.2 (e). Let and . Since , we have
[TABLE]
Next, is a linear transformation, so and by (3.11).
Further, let . Extending and to , we see that is an entire function since is a linear transformation. Moreover, for . Therefore, by (3.5). In addition, by statement (a). Thus statements (c) and (d) are established.
In the following two propositions we discuss the validity of conditions (C4) and (C4′) in special cases.
Proposition 3.5**.**
*Let be a closed subset of and . Next, let be a subspace of of continuous functions on , and let be a compact group of linear transformations of the form , where is an matrix. Then the following two statements hold true.
(a) Condition (C4′) is satisfied for .
(b) Condition (C4) is satisfied for and a compact set .*
Proof.
Statement (a) follows from the uniform continuity of in for each if we take into account the elementary inequality
[TABLE]
Similarly, statement (b) follows from the uniform continuity of in , the estimate
[TABLE]
and the continuous imbedding of into for a compact set .
Proposition 3.6**.**
Let be a subspace of of continuous functions on , and let be a subgroup of . Then condition (C4) is satisfied.
Proof.
Let and let and be two proper or improper rotations and let and be the corresponding orthogonal matrices. Given there exists such that
[TABLE]
Next, by statement (b) of Proposition 3.5, there exists such that for ,
[TABLE]
Combining (3.12) with (3.13), we obtain
[TABLE]
Then condition (C4) is satisfied.
Remark 3.7*.*
Note that condition (C4) is not always satisfied if is a subspace of of continuous functions on , see [15, Example 2.1].
Examples. Here, we discuss typical examples of applications of Theorems 2.1 and 2.2. In addition to , we also use Bessel and Gegenbauer operators and defined by (3.9) and (3.10). In case of and are the corresponding imbedding operators.
Example 3.8**.**
is the set of all radial functions from .
Conditions (C1), (C2), and (C3) are satisfied by Proposition 3.4 and (C4) is satisfied by Proposition 3.5 (b). In addition, for ,
[TABLE]
(see [33, Lemma 4.2.11] and [15, Proposition 4.1]). In particular, condition (C5) is satisfied by (3.14).
Using (3.14) and Proposition 3.2 (c), we obtain from Theorem 2.1
[TABLE]
Thus we arrive at the following corollary.
Corollary 3.9**.**
For , and ,
[TABLE]
Example 3.10**.**
is the set of all radial functions from .
Conditions (C1), (C2), and (C3) are satisfied by Proposition 3.4 and condition (C4) for is satisfied by Proposition 3.6.
In case of , condition (C4′) is satisfied by Proposition 3.5 (a). Next, we show that condition (C6) is satisfied for and condition (C5) is satisfied for .
We first state the following simple fact (cf. [29, Lemma 3.6.1]) that is used in this example: if is an even function, then . Indeed, it is an entire function with the extension to . Moreover, since by(3.5), we conclude that .
In particular, the function
[TABLE]
belongs to
Now we show that condition (C6) is satisfied, i.e., for the Haar integral
[TABLE]
belongs to . Let us set . Then , and by the elementary inequality , we obtain
[TABLE]
Next, for the corresponding Haar integral we have
[TABLE]
We prove (3.17) similarly to the fact that in the proof of Theorem 2.1. The mapping is continuous on by condition (C3) (i.e., ; see Proposition 3.4 (d)) and by Condition (C4) (see Proposition 3.5 (b)). Then its image is compact in and the closure of the convex hull of is compact as well (see, e.g., [31, Theorem 3.25 (a)]). Then exists and ; since , we conclude that .
In addition, it follows from (3.16), (3.17), and (3.18)
[TABLE]
Next, (3.19) shows that
[TABLE]
uniformly on any compact set of . Further,
[TABLE]
Then by Proposition 3.1 and (3.18), there exist a subsequence and a function such that
[TABLE]
uniformly on any compact set of . Comparing (3.20) and (3.21), we conclude that , so . Thus condition (C6) is satisfied in the case .
In addition, for ,
[TABLE]
(see [15, Proposition 6.1]). For example, the function
[TABLE]
belongs to . Then condition (C5) is satisfied for .
Thus we can use Theorem 2.1 for and use Theorem 2.2 for . Finally, taking account of Proposition 3.2 (c) and (3.22), we obtain for
[TABLE]
Thus we arrive at the following corollary.
Corollary 3.11**.**
For , and ,
[TABLE]
Example 3.12**.**
, where is a fixed point; (see Proposition 3.2 (a)), .
Conditions (C1), (C2), and (C3) are satisfied by Proposition 3.4 and (C4) is satisfied by Proposition 3.5 (b).
In addition, for ,
[TABLE]
(see [15, Proposition 5.2]). In particular, condition (C5) is satisfied by (3.24).
Finally, taking account of the formula ()
[TABLE]
(see, e.g., [12, Sect. 11.4]) and using (3.24) and Proposition 3.2 (d), we obtain from Theorem 2.1
[TABLE]
Thus we arrive at the following corollary.
Corollary 3.13**.**
For , and ,
[TABLE]
Note that a similar result for and was proved by Arestov and Deikalova [4, Theorem 2].
4. Univariate and Multivariate Constants
Here, we discuss main results on limit relations between sharp constants in the univariate and multivariate Markov-Bernstein-Nikolskii type inequalities. The necessary notation is introduced in Sections 1, 2, and 3. In particular, the sharp constant was defined by (2.1) and and are Bessel and Gegenbauer operators defined by (3.9) and (3.10), respectively.
We first discuss sharp constants in the univariate inequalities of different weighted metrics.
Theorem 4.1**.**
If and , then the limit relation
[TABLE]
is valid. In addition, there exists a function such that
[TABLE]
Note that for Theorem 4.1 in more general settings was proved in [16, Theorem 1.1].
Remark 4.2*.*
The domain of the operator is a subset of the set of all times differentiable functions on that consists of all , satisfying the relations . In particular, . In addition, and .
If , then belongs to and for ,
[TABLE]
Similarly, if , then belongs to and for .
[TABLE]
Therefore, it is possible to replace by and replace by in (4.1) for .
Theorem 4.3**.**
If and , then the limit relation
[TABLE]
is valid. In addition, there exists a function such that
[TABLE]
Note that for and relation (4.3) was proved in [25, p. 246] by a different method, while for Theorem 4.3 in more general settings was proved in [20, Theorem 1.5].
The proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 are presented in Section 6.
We also define the following sharp constant which is similar to :
[TABLE]
Certainly but in some cases .
Next, we discuss limit relations between sharp constants in multivariate inequalities of different metrics.
Corollary 4.4**.**
If , and , then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first relation in (4.4) follows from Corollaries 3.9 and 3.11 and Theorem 4.1 for . Next, let . Then inequality (3.7) holds for ; therefore, has exponential type by the definition in [29, Sect. 3.1]. In addition, has exponential type as well (see [29, Sect. 3.1] or [17, Lemma 2.1 (d)]), and also by Bernstein’s inequality (see, e. g., [29, Eq. 3.2.2(8)]).
If , then by [29, Theorem 3.2.5]. Therefore, there exists such that . Setting now , we see that and . Thus for .
If , then for any there exists such that . Setting again , we see that and . Thus for , and the second equality in (4.4) is established.
Corollary 4.5**.**
If and , then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The third relation in (4.5) is proved in the proof of Corollary 4.4 and the first one can be proved similarly. Finally, the second equality follows from Corollaries 3.11 and 3.13 and Theorem 4.3 for .
Note that the following special case of (4.5) for ,
[TABLE]
was proved in [9, Theorem 1.1 (i)] by a different method. The authors of [9] state that their proof of Theorem 1.1 is fairly nontrivial compared with [21, 25, 26, 20]. In this paper we show that an approach to limit relations between sharp constants developed in [20] can be applied to even more general relations than those in [9]. A general approach to these problems is developed in [18].
Finally, we discuss an asymptotic relation between sharp constants in the classical univariate Nikolskii-type inequality.
Corollary 4.6**.**
If , then
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first note that
[TABLE]
This equality follows from Theorem 2.1 since conditions (C1) through (C5) are obviously satisfied for and , where is the identity transformation on . In other words, (4.8) follows from the following simple fact: if , then .
Next, Arestov and Deikalova [5, Theorem 1] proved that
[TABLE]
Then (4.7) follows from equalities (4.8) and (4.9) and relation (4.3) for and .
Note that a different asymptotic relation for was proved in [16, Theorem 1.4] (see also [16, p. 94]).
5. Properties of Entire Functions and
Polynomials
Throughout the section we use the notation . In this section we discuss certain properties of univariate entire functions of exponential type and polynomials that are needed for the proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.3. We start with estimates of the error of polynomial approximation for functions from and Bernstein- and Nikolskii-type inequalities.
Lemma 5.1**.**
For and any function there is a sequence of polynomials , such that
[TABLE]
where .
This result was proved by Bernstein [7] (see also [36, Sect. 5.4.4] and [1, Appendix, Sect. 83]). More precise and more general inequalities were obtained by the author in [13] and [14].
Lemma 5.2**.**
For and any , there is a sequence of polynomials , such that for , , , and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
First of all, for , and we need the following crude Markov-type inequalities:
[TABLE]
Inequality (5.4) follows from A. A. Markov’s inequality [36, Sect. 4.8.7], while (5.5) is a consequence of the Mean Value Theorem and (5.4). Combining (5.4) with (5.5), we obtain (5.6) since .
Next, let be the sequence of polynomials from Lemma 5.1. Then using (5.6) and estimate (5.1), we obtain
[TABLE]
Hence for , and , we have
[TABLE]
Thus (5.3) is established. Relation (5.2) can be proved similarly if we use Lemma 5.1 and inequality (5.4).
Lemma 5.3**.**
(a) If , and , then the following Bernstein-type inequalities hold:
[TABLE]
(b) Let and . If , then the following Nikolskii-type inequality holds:
[TABLE]
Proof.
(a) The first inequality in (5.7) is a classical Bernstein inequality [36, Sect. 4.8.2] and the second one immediately follows from the Mean Value Theorem and the first one.
(b) Inequality (5.8) for and was proved by Platonov [30, Theorem 3.5], while for and , (5.8) follows from Nikolskii’s inequality [29, Theorem 2.3.5]. If and , then ; hence by Nikolskii’s inequality. Then since
[TABLE]
Using estimate (5.9) and Platonov’s inequality (5.8) for , we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, (5.8) for follows from (5.10) with .
In addition to a compactness theorem for entire functions of exponential type from Proposition 3.1, we need a different type of a compactness theorem.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let be the set of all univariate entire functions , satisfying the following condition: for any there exists a constant , independent of and , such that
[TABLE]
Then for any sequence there exist a subsequence and a function such that for every ,
[TABLE]
uniformly on each compact subset of .
Proof.
The existence of a subsequence and a function such that for every uniformly on the disk , was proved in [16, Lemma 2.6 (a)]. In particular,
[TABLE]
Next, it is easy to prove by induction in that if , then
[TABLE]
Then we obtain from (5.14) for
[TABLE]
where by (5.11) for ,
[TABLE]
Further, given and , we can choose such that . Finally, by (5.13), we can choose such that for all . Thus the second relation in (5.12) holds uniformly on as well.
Certain inequalities of different weighted metrics for univariate polynomials are discussed in the following lemma.
Lemma 5.5**.**
For and the following inequalities hold:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Inequality (5.15) for and was proved in [16, Eq. (2.10)] by using an extension of Bari’s inequality [6, Theorem 6] to (see [16, Lemma 2.4]). Then (5.15) for implies the estimate
[TABLE]
Therefore, (5.15) follows from (5.17) and the inequalities
[TABLE]
where and in (5.18) are independent of and . To prove the first inequality in (5.18), we observe that
[TABLE]
where is a fixed number. Next, we note that , so by (5.17),
[TABLE]
Choosing now , we obtain from (5.20)
[TABLE]
Finally, combining (5.19) and (5), we arrive at the first inequality in (5.18). Thus (5.15) is established. To prove (5.16), we use the estimate
[TABLE]
(see [36, Eq. 4.8(49)]) and inequality (5.15).
In the next lemma, in particular, we discuss a relation between the Bessel and Gegenbauer operators.
Lemma 5.6**.**
(a) If , then
[TABLE]
(b) If , and , then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
(c) Let be defined by (5.25), where and satisfies the condition . Next, let there exist a sequence of natural numbers and an even entire function such that for every ,
[TABLE]
uniformly on each compact subset of . Then the following relation holds for each :
[TABLE]
Proof.
(a) It suffices to prove that . Let and let , where . Then by Taylor’s formula, , where
[TABLE]
Therefore, and (5.22) is established.
(b) Setting , we see that for ,
[TABLE]
where . Then choosing
[TABLE]
we obtain (5.23) for from (5.28) by a straightforward calculation. Next, it follows from (5.23) for that for
[TABLE]
Hence identity (5.23) can be proved by induction in .
[TABLE]
where for any is a continuous differential operator in the -metric on the set of all even entire functions. Then using (5.26) and (5.29), we see that
[TABLE]
uniformly on each interval . Thus (5.27) follows from (5.23) and (5.30).
6. Proofs of Theorems 4.1 and 4.3
Throughout the section we use the notation for introduced in Section 3 and also use the operator introduced in Section 5.
Proof of Theorem 4.1. We first prove the inequality
[TABLE]
Let be any function from , and let be a fixed number. Then using even polynomials from Lemma 5.2 for , we obtain by (5.3) and by definition (2.1) of ,
[TABLE]
Next, note that , by Nikolskii-type inequality (5.8). Further, applying ”triangle” inequality (3.4) and using again relation (5.3) of Lemma 5.2 for , and , we have
[TABLE]
Combining (6) with (6), we obtain
[TABLE]
Letting in (6), we arrive at (6) for , and .
Further, we prove the inequality
[TABLE]
by constructing a nontrivial function such that
[TABLE]
Then inequalities (6) and (6) imply (4.1). In addition, is an extremal function in (4.1), that is, relation (4.1) is valid.
It remains to construct a nontrivial function , satisfying (6). We first note that
[TABLE]
This inequality follows immediately from (6). Let be an even polynomial, satisfying the equality
[TABLE]
The existence of an extremal polynomial in (6.8) can be proved by the standard compactness argument (cf. [20]). Next, setting , we have from (6.8) that
[TABLE]
We can assume that
[TABLE]
Then it follows from (6), (6.10), and (6.7) that for ,
[TABLE]
Further, and it follows from inequality (5.16) of Lemma 5.5 for and and from (6.11) that for any and any ,
[TABLE]
Let be a subsequence of natural numbers such that
[TABLE]
Inequality (6.12) shows that the polynomial sequence satisfies the conditions of Lemma 5.4. Therefore, there exist a function and a subsequence such that
[TABLE]
uniformly on any interval . Moreover, by (6.14) for and (6.10),
[TABLE]
In addition, applying ”triangle” inequality (3.4) and using (6.14) for , (6), and (6.10), we obtain for any interval ,
[TABLE]
Next using (6) and (6.7), we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, is a nontrivial function from , by (6.15) and (6.17). Thus for any interval , we obtain from (6), (6.14), and (6.15)
[TABLE]
Finally, letting in (6), we arrive at (6) for , and .
Proof of Theorem 4.3. The proof is similar to the proof of Theorem 4.1 but it needs more technical details. We first prove the inequality
[TABLE]
Let be any function from , and let be a fixed number. It follows from Nikolskii-type inequality (5.8) that . Given , we define
[TABLE]
where . It is easy to see that and
[TABLE]
In addition, we prove the equality
[TABLE]
where for or and for and . Here, is independent of and , and
[TABLE]
Equality (6.22) holds trivially for or . To prove (6.22) for and , we first need the Leibniz-type rule for the Bessel operator. Note that the Leibniz rule holds for the operator , that is,
[TABLE]
Taking also into account the Leibniz rule for the derivative , we arrive at the following formula:
[TABLE]
Next, for by (6.20), where and . In addition,
[TABLE]
To estimate
[TABLE]
we use identity (6) for and . Then the uniform norm on of all terms in (6) with and can be estimated by Bernstein-type inequalities (5.7) and by the relations
[TABLE]
All those estimates do not exceed . The norms of other terms in (6) do not exceed by Lemma 5.3 (a) as well. Combining these estimates, we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, setting in (6.25), we obtain (6.22) for and from (6.25) and (6.26).
Next, we use even polynomials from Lemma 5.2 such that for every
[TABLE]
uniformly on each compact subset of . In addition, relation (5.2) of Lemma 5.2 for and shows that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 5.6 (a), there exists such that for ,
[TABLE]
Then relations (6.27) show that we can use Lemma 5.6 (c) for . Therefore, we obtain by (5.27)
[TABLE]
Further, using the substitution , ”triangle” inequality (3.4), and relation (6.28), we obtain for and
[TABLE]
Next, we prove the estimate
[TABLE]
It suffices to prove this inequality for . For inequality (6.31) follows immediately from (6.21). If , then for any and ,
[TABLE]
where by (6.21),
[TABLE]
and by (6.20),
[TABLE]
since .
Collecting relations (6.32), (6.33), and (6.34), we obtain
[TABLE]
Letting in (6) we arrive at (6.31).
Combining (6.22) and (6) with (6) and (6.31), we obtain for and
[TABLE]
Letting and in (6), we obtain
[TABLE]
Hence we arrive at (6) for and .
Further, we prove the inequality
[TABLE]
by constructing a nontrivial function such that
[TABLE]
Then inequalities (6) and (6) imply (4.3). In addition, is an extremal function in (4.3), that is, relation (4.3) is valid.
It remains to construct a nontrivial function , satisfying (6). We first note that
[TABLE]
This inequality follows immediately from (6). Let be a polynomial, satisfying the equality
[TABLE]
The existence of an extremal polynomial in (6.40) can be proved by the standard compactness argument. We can assume that
[TABLE]
Next, setting , we have from (6.40), (6.41), and (6.39) that for ,
[TABLE]
Further, , and combining inequality (5.16) of Lemma 5.5 for and with (6.41) we obtain for any and any ,
[TABLE]
Let be a subsequence of natural numbers such that
[TABLE]
Inequality (6.43) shows that the polynomial sequence satisfies the conditions of Lemma 5.4. Therefore, there exist a function and a subsequence such that for all ,
[TABLE]
uniformly on any interval . In addition, it follows from (6.45) for that for and ,
[TABLE]
Then relations (6.45) show that we can use Lemma 5.6 (c) for . Therefore, we obtain by (5.27)
[TABLE]
It follows from (6.41) and (6.47) that
[TABLE]
In addition, applying ”triangle” inequality (3.4) and using (6) and (6), we obtain for any interval ,
[TABLE]
Therefore, is a nontrivial function from , by (6) and (6.48). Thus for any interval , we obtain from (6), (6), (6), and (6.48)
[TABLE]
Finally, letting in (6), we arrive at (6) for , and .
Acknowledgement. We are grateful to both anonymous referees for valuable suggestions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] N. I. Akhiezer, Lectures on the Theory of Approximation, second ed., Nauka, Moscow, 1965 (in Russian).
- 2[2] V. V. Arestov, Approximation of unbounded operators by bounded operators and related extremal problems, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 51 (1996), no. 6, 689–124 (in Russian); English transl. in Russian Math. Surveys 51 (1996), no. 6 , 1093–1126.
- 3[3] V. Arestov, A. Babenko, M. Deikalova, A. Horvath, Nikol’skii inequality between the uniform norm and integral norm with Bessel weight for entire functions of exponential type on the half-line, Anal. Math. 44 (2018), no. 1, 21–42.
- 4[4] V. V. Arestov, M. V. Deikalova, Nikolskii inequality for algebraic polynomials on a multidimensional Euclidean sphere, Trudy IMM Ur O RAN 19 (2013), no. 2, 34–47 (in Russian); English transl. in Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 284 (Suppl. 1) (2014), S 9–S 23.
- 5[5] V. Arestov, M. Deikalova, Nikol’skii inequality between the uniform norm and L q subscript 𝐿 𝑞 L_{q} -norm with ultraspherical weight of algebraic polynomials on an interval, Comput. Methods Funct. Theory 15 (2015), 689–708.
- 6[6] N. K. Bari, Generalization of inequalities of S. N. Bernstein and A. A. Markov, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR. Ser. Mat. 18 , (1954), 159–176 (in Russian).
- 7[7] S. N. Bernstein, On the best approximation of continuous functions on the whole real axis by entire functions of given degree V, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 54 (1946), 479–482 (in Russian).
- 8[8] E. W. Cheney, C. R. Hobby, P. D. Morris, F. Schurer, D. E. Wulbert, On the minimal property of the Fourier projection, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (1969), 249–258.
