On classical orthogonal polynomials and the Cholesky factorization of a class of Hankel matrices
Misael E. Marriaga, Guillermo Vera de Salas, Marta Latorre, Rub\'en, Mu\~noz Alc\'azar

TL;DR
This paper explores the relationship between classical orthogonal polynomials and Hankel matrices with entries satisfying second order linear recurrences, providing new characterizations of their Cholesky factorizations.
Contribution
It establishes a novel link between classical moment functionals, orthogonal polynomials, and Hankel matrices through recurrence relations and Cholesky factorization characterizations.
Findings
Characterization of Hankel matrices with recurrent entries
Link between Cholesky factors and classical orthogonal polynomials
New insights into the structure of moment functionals
Abstract
Classical moment functionals (Hermite, Laguerre, Jacobi, Bessel) can be characterized as those linear functionals whose moments satisfy a second order linear recurrence relation. In this work, we use this characterization to link the theory of classical orthogonal polynomials and the study of Hankel matrices whose entries satisfy a second order linear recurrence relation. Using the recurrent character of the entries of such Hankel matrices, we give several characterizations of the triangular and diagonal matrices involved in their Cholesky factorization and connect them with a corresponding characterization of classical orthogonal polynomials.
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
TopicsMathematical functions and polynomials · Optical Polarization and Ellipsometry · Matrix Theory and Algorithms
On classical orthogonal polynomials and the Cholesky factorization of a class of Hankel matrices
Misael E. Marriaga*, Guillermo Vera de Salas, Marta Latorre, Rubén Muñoz Alcázar
Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, Ciencia e Ingeniería de Materiales y Tecnología Electrónica, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Spain)
Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, Ciencia e Ingeniería de Materiales y Tecnología Electrónica, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Spain)
Departamento de Matemática Aplicada, Ciencia e Ingeniería de Materiales y Tecnología Electrónica, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (Spain)
Departamento de Álgebra, Geometría y Topología, Universidad de Málaga (Spain)
Abstract.
Classical moment functionals (Hermite, Laguerre, Jacobi, Bessel) can be characterized as those linear functionals whose moments satisfy a second order linear recurrence relation. In this work, we use this characterization to link the theory of classical orthogonal polynomials and the study of Hankel matrices whose entries satisfy a second order linear recurrence relation. Using the recurrent character of the entries of such Hankel matrices, we give several characterizations of the triangular and diagonal matrices involved in their Cholesky factorization and connect them with a corresponding characterization of classical orthogonal polynomials.
Key words and phrases:
Orthogonal polynomials, Hankel matrices, Cholesky factorization.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
15A23, 15A23, 15A63, 33C45, 33D45
*Corresponding Author: Misael E. Marriaga
1. Introduction
Classical orthogonal polynomials (Hermite, Laguerre, Jacobi, and Bessel) have been characterized using different approaches. For instance, they can be characterized in terms of differential equations [3], their derivatives ([10, 14]), structure relations ([2, 6, 16]), and a Rodrigues formula ([21]), among others (see [7, 17] and the references therein). More recently, an approach that uses linear functionals and duality was introduced by P. Maroni ([18]). In all of these approaches, the starting point is to use the basis of monomials to represent polynomials and state the results.
However, an interesting (and most recent) approach is to start from the theory of semi-infinite matrices. The bibliography on this subject has grown greatly in the last years, and it has become increasingly difficult to do a comprehensive review of all the references. Hence, we refer the reader to [22, 23] (and the refereces therein) where the algebra of infinite triangular matrices and the algebra of infinite Hessenberg matrices are used to study some aspects of orthogonal polynomials, and to [5, 15] (and the references therein) where the main tool is the Cholesky factorization of Gram matrices of bilinear forms. We remark that the Cholesky factorization proves to be quite fruitful in the study of non standard orthogonality such as multiple, matrix, Sobolev, and multivariate orthogonality as well as orthogonality on the unit circle of the complex plane, and have successfully found its way into applications in random matrices, Toda lattices, integrable systems, Riemann-Hilbert problems, Painlevé equations, and Darboux transformations, among others topics.
Our goal is to contribute to the link between matrix factorization and orthogonal polynomials. In particular, we deal with several characterizations of classical orthogonal polynomials. However, we shift our paradigm from infinite matrices to the finite Gram matrix associated with a bilinear form defined on the linear space of polynomials of degree at most . For standard orthogonality, is a Hankel matrix (all of its antidiagonals are constant). Taking into account that the moments of a linear functional associated with a family of classical orthogonal polynomials satisfy a second order linear recurrence relation ([16]), we can say that this paper deals with Hankel matrices with an additional structure: the entries of satisfy such recurrence relation. In this way, we can extend the bilinear form to the linear space of polynomials of degree at most by constructing a new Gram matrix by means of bordering with a new row and column whose entries are obtained using the recurrence relation and the entries of . The resulting matrix will also be a Hankel matrix with the additional structure mentioned above. Consequently, it will be possible to prove by induction that the properties satisfied by are also satisfied by .
The change from infinite matrices to subsequently bordering finite matrices is motivated by an alternative proof of a classical result about the interlacing of zeros of orthogonal polynomials of consecutive degrees found in [7]. This classical result states that if the zeros of any two polynomials of consecutive degrees interlace, then these polynomials are elements of a sequence of orthogonal polynomials associated with a positive definite moment functional. This result can be proved using the Euclidean division algorithm for polynomials. However, this result can also be deduced using the following theorem about interlacing eigenvalues of Hermitian matrices found in [12, p. 185]:
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a given positive integer, and let and be two given sequences of numbers such that
[TABLE]
Let . Then there exists real number and a real vector such that is the set of eigenvalues of the real symmetric matrix
[TABLE]
From this, it seems reasonable to think that the procedure of bordering matrices encoding information about polynomial sequences is well suited for presenting and deducing results about orthogonal polynomials most likely due to the fact that for all , the linear space of polynomials of degree at most is a subspace of the space of polynomials of degree at most . In this way, the Gram matrices of bilinear forms associated with classical orthogonal polynomials posses the adequate structure to start exploring our proposed paradigm.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents basic background on classical orthogonal polynomials and their associated linear functionals, and we introduce classical sequences of real numbers in Section 3. In Section 4, we discuss the Cholesky factorization of Hankel matrices obtained from given sequences of real number and its relation to orthogonal polynomials. We present several characterizations of classical sequences of real numbers in Section 5.
2. Orthogonal polynomials and linear functionals
For , let be the linear space of polynomials of degree at most of a real variable and real coefficients, and let .
Let denote the algebraic dual space of . That is, is the linear space of linear functionals defined on ,
[TABLE]
We denote by the image of the polynomials under the linear functional .
Any linear functional is completely defined by the values
[TABLE]
and extended by linearity to all polynomials, where is called the -th moment of . Therefore, we refer to as a moment functional.
A moment functional is called positive definite if for every non zero polynomial .
Let be a moment functional. A sequence of polynomials is called an orthogonal polynomial sequence (OPS) with respect to if
- (1)
, 2. (2)
, with .
Here denotes the Kronecker delta defined as
[TABLE]
If there exists an OPS associated with , then is called quasi-definite. Positive definite moment functionals are quasi-definite.
Observe that an OPS constitutes a basis for . If for all , the leading coefficient of is 1, then is called a monic orthogonal polynomial sequence (MOPS).
Given a moment functional and a polynomial , we define the left multiplication of by as the moment functional such that
[TABLE]
and we define the distributional derivative by
[TABLE]
Moreover, the product rule is satisfied, that is,
[TABLE]
Definition 2.1**.**
Let be a quasi-definite moment functional, and let be an OPS with respect to . Then is classical if there are nonzero polynomials and with and , such that satisfies the distributional Pearson equation
[TABLE]
The sequence is called a classical OPS.
The following characterizations of classical moment functionals and OPS will be of central importance in the sequel.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let be a quasi-definite moment functional, and its associated MOPS. The following statements are equivalent:
* is a classical moment functional.* 2. 2.
(Bochner, **[3]**) There are nonzero polynomials and with and such that, for , satisfies
[TABLE]
where . 3. 3.
(Hahn,**[10]**) There is a nonzero polynomial with , such that is the MOPS associated with the moment functional . 4. 4.
(First structure relation, **[2]**) There is a nonzero polynomial with , and real numbers , , , , with , such that
[TABLE] 5. 5.
(Second structure relation, **[6, 16]**) There are real numbers and , , such that
[TABLE] 6. 6.
(Rodrigues formula, **[21]**) There is a non zero polynomial with , and a non zero real number such that
[TABLE]
It is well known (see [3] as well as [13]) that, up to affine transformations of the independent variable, the only families of positive definite classical orthogonal polynomials are the Hermite, Laguerre, and Jacobi polynomials. The corresponding moment functionals admit an integral representation of the form
[TABLE]
where and in the Hermite case, and with in the Laguerre case, and and with in the Jacobi case. We note that in each case, on and, thus, we say that is a weight function.
The definition of classical moment functionals in terms of the distributional Pearson equation not only encompasses positive definite moment functionals associated with weight functions, but includes the non positive case as well. Considering the non positive definite case gives rise to the Bessel classical moment functional satisfying the distributional Pearson equation (2.1) with and . The Bessel functional is quasi-definite when Moreover, it has the following integral representation
[TABLE]
where , and is the unit circle oriented in the counter-clockwise direction.
Observe that from Theorem 2.2, if is a classical moment functional satisfying (2.1), then is a classical moment functional satisfying the Pearson equation
[TABLE]
Iterating this idea, we get that the high-order derivatives of classical orthogonal polynomials are again classical orthogonal polynomials of the same type.
Theorem 2.3** ([10, 13, 14]).**
Let be a classical moment functional satisfying (2.1), and its corresponding MOPS. For , let and be the sequence of polynomials given by
[TABLE]
where is the -th derivative of , and , , denotes the Pochhammer symbol. Then, for each , is a MOPS associated with the moment functional , satisfying
[TABLE]
where . Hence, is a classical moment functional.
3. Classical sequences of numbers
This section is devoted to presenting the definition of classical moment functionals from a different approach. We start by introducing sequences of real numbers that satisfy a second order recurrence relation and use them to construct linear functionals defined on .
Definition 3.1**.**
Let be a sequence of real numbers with . Then is a pre-classical sequence if there are real numbers satisfying
[TABLE]
such that the following holds
[TABLE]
By convention, whenever .
Let be a pre-classical sequence of real numbers. Then it is possible to define a functional as
[TABLE]
and extend it by linearity to all polynomials, where is called the -th moment of . Therefore, we refer to as a pre-classical moment functional. Observe that the condition , , guarantees that is completely defined since each moment
[TABLE]
is well-defined.
The recurrence relation (3.1) can be passed down to the pre-classical moment functional associated with .
Theorem 3.2**.**
A sequence is pre-classical if and only if there are non zero polynomials and with , , and for , such that the moment functional defined by satisfies the distributional Pearson equation
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose that satisfies (2.1) with non zero and with such that for . Then
[TABLE]
In particular,
[TABLE]
Therefore is a pre-classical sequence of real numbers and, thus, is a pre-classical moment functional. It is easy to verify that the implications in the opposite direction holds by inverting each of the previous steps. ∎
For any sequence , we can define the sequence of matrices where is an matrix given by and
[TABLE]
In particular, consider the sequence with and for . Observe that this sequence corresponds to the linear functional , known as the Dirac delta, defined as
[TABLE]
In this case, we have ,
[TABLE]
and for . In the sequel, we will need to exclude this and other similar cases and, therefore, we impose that for . Hence, we have the following definition.
Definition 3.3**.**
A pre-classical sequence is classical if the sequence of matrices defined as in (3.2) satisfy for . The moment functional defined by is called a classical moment functional.
In the sequel, some orthogonal bases for associated with a classical sequence of numbers will play an important role in our study of such sequences. Therefore, in the following section we discuss the orthogonal structure of induced by general sequences of numbers.
4. Sequences of numbers and orthogonality
Given an integer , a sequence of numbers induces a bilinear form in whose Gram matrix is defined in (3.2). In this section, we explore orthogonal bases of associated with a sequence of numbers and use it to construct bases of polynomials in orthogonal with respect to its corresponding moment functional.
For , we will denote by the columns of the identity matrix , that is, . The set of column vectors is called the canonical basis for .
Definition 4.1**.**
Let be a sequence of numbers. For , denotes the bilinear form defined by
[TABLE]
and is called the bilinear form associated with (relative to the canonical basis of ).
For , if , then is an inner product on . In this case, we can define the norm
[TABLE]
Of course, there are many orthogonal bases for associated with . However, we are interested in orthogonal bases obtained from the Cholesky factorization of . Recall that if , there is an unit lower triangular matrix (that is, with ’s in its main diagonal) and an non singular diagonal matrix such that
[TABLE]
where (see Theorem 4.1.3 in [9]). Moreover, this matrix factorization is unique. We can immediately observe that if we write the above identity as
[TABLE]
then we have an orthogonality relation for the columns of as we show in the following theorem.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let be the Cholesky decomposition of . Then the columns of form an orthogonal basis for with respect to the bilinear form .
Proof.
If are the columns of , then
[TABLE]
Since is a diagonal matrix and is the representation of the bilinear form , it follows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where is the -th non zero entry of , that is, ∎
The following theorem shows that the Cholesky factorization of and are related. In fact, the Cholesky factorization of is obtained by bordering and with a new row and a new column. The proof relies heavily on the expressions for and in terms of cofactors. If is the -cofactor of with , then
[TABLE]
Hereon, will denote the zero matrix of appropriate size.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let , and let be the Cholesky factorization of . Then, with
[TABLE]
where is a vector given by the formal determinant
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Observe that the columns of are linear combinations of the vectors (that is, the first columns of ). Then with and as in (4.1) and (4.2) if and only if
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The above conditions can be written as a system of linear equations:
[TABLE]
By Cramer’s rule,
[TABLE]
which is the expansion of the determinant (4.1) across the last row.
Moreover, we also have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
It follows from (4.4) that and . Finally, using (4.3) and the fact that , we obtain
[TABLE]
which proves (4.2). ∎
We can reformulate the above discussion in the context of as follows. Given a sequence of numbers , denote by the moment functional defined by . If , then
[TABLE]
is a (non degenerate) bilinear form defined on . It is easy to see that its Gram matrix relative to the basis of monomials is . Let be the Cholesky decomposition of () and let
[TABLE]
be the explicit expression of the matrix . It follows from Theorem 4.2 that the set of polynomials where
[TABLE]
form an orthogonal basis for with respect to ; that is, and
[TABLE]
with . Moreover, by Theorem 4.3 the polynomial
[TABLE]
has degree exactly , is orthogonal to every polynomial in and
[TABLE]
5. Characterizations of classical sequences
Our goal for this section is to recast Theorem 2.2 in terms of classical sequences by shifting our point of view from the moment functional to the Gram matrix associated with a bilinear form defined on . Recall that is a Hankel matrix (all of its antidiagonals are constant). Hence, we can say that this section deals with Hankel matrices with an additional structure: the entries of satisfy the recurrence relation (3.1). In this way, we can extend the bilinear form to by constructing a new Gram matrix by means of bordering with a new row and column whose entries are obtained with (3.1) from the entries of . The resulting matrix will also be a Hankel matrix with the additional structure mentioned above. Consequently, it will be possible to prove by induction that the properties satisfied by are also satisfied by .
The following matrices will play an important role in the sequel.
Definition 5.1**.**
Let , and be real numbers such that and for . For , we define the matrix recursively as follows:
[TABLE]
Consider the differential operator defined as
[TABLE]
where and . Observe that
[TABLE]
In this way, the matrix is the matrix representation relative to the basis of monomials of restricted to .
Let be a sequence of real numbers. Define the vector of moments
[TABLE]
If is pre-classical, then equation (3.1) for can be written as
[TABLE]
This implies that if is the moment functional defined as , then by (3.1), the following holds
[TABLE]
Now, consider the vector whose entries are the monomials in :
[TABLE]
If we define the matrix
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
5.1. Bochner-type characterization
For , let us introduce the matrix defined as
[TABLE]
It is possible to express recursively as follows:
[TABLE]
Observe that is the matrix representation relative the basis of monomials of the operator
[TABLE]
restricted to .
In the following theorem, we show that is a self-adjoint matrix with respect to the bilinear form given in Definition 4.1.
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let be a classical sequence satisfying (3.1), and let be the operator defined in Definition 4.1. Then, for , the matrix satisfies
[TABLE]
Proof.
Observe that proving (5.2) is equivalent to proving
[TABLE]
We prove this for by induction.
It is obvious that . We also prove the case for the sake of clarity since it is the first non trivial case. We compute
[TABLE]
Again, multiplying by blocks, we get
[TABLE]
Since is a classical sequence, by condition (3.1) with , we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, we can write
[TABLE]
This proves .
Now, suppose that holds for some . We compute
[TABLE]
Multiplying by blocks, we get
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since by our induction hypothesis we have
[TABLE]
it is clear that our main efforts should focus on showing that . Observe that
[TABLE]
Then, the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
while the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
which means that the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
where we have used condition (3.1).
Now, noticing that the last row of is
[TABLE]
we have that the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
while the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
Then the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
where, again, we have used (3.1) with .
If we continue in this way, then for , the -th entry of is
[TABLE]
This means that and, consequently,
[TABLE]
which proves that holds for . ∎
Let us now consider the eigenvectors of . Suppose that are eigenvectors corresponding to distinct eigenvalues and , respectively. Then,
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
Since , we must have that and, therefore, and are orthogonal with respect to . We have already encountered the eigenvectors of , as the following theorem shows. This theorem is, in fact, a characterization of classical sequences in terms of .
Theorem 5.3**.**
For , let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . Then is a classical sequence if and only if
[TABLE]
where .
Proof.
Suppose that is a classical sequence. For , then and . Thus it is obvious that .
For ,
[TABLE]
Then, multiplying by blocks, we have
[TABLE]
Since is upper triangular with ’s on its diagonal, then constitutes a basis for . Then we can write
[TABLE]
for some constants and . Using the orthogonality of the columns of with respect to and Theorem 5.2, we obtain
[TABLE]
It follows that and, thus,
[TABLE]
where we have taken into account that (the value of the entry denoted by has no relevance). If we multiply by blocks, we get
[TABLE]
which implies that .
Now, suppose that
[TABLE]
holds for some . Recall that
[TABLE]
and that, by Theorem (4.3),
[TABLE]
where the values of the entries denoted by are not relevant here. Multiplying by blocks and using the induction hypothesis, we get
[TABLE]
Since is an upper triangular matrix with ’s on its diagonal, its columns constitute a basis for . Then, we can write
[TABLE]
where, by the orthogonality of the columns of with respect to and Theorem 5.2, we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
and, consequently,
[TABLE]
Moreover, if we multiply by blocks, we get
[TABLE]
which implies that . Then the sufficient condition is proved by the principle of induction.
Conversely, if is the bilinear form defined in Definition 4.1, then
[TABLE]
Indeed,
[TABLE]
which vanishes for all . This implies that
[TABLE]
or, equivalently,
[TABLE]
Since , the first column of the above matrix identity reads , or, equivalently,
[TABLE]
for and . It follows that satisfies (3.1); hence, it is pre-classical. Furthermore, is classical since, otherwise, would not have a Cholesky factorization for some . ∎
The above results can be passed down to the operator defined in (5.1). Let be a classical sequence of real numbers, and let be the moment functional defined as , . Then (5.2) implies that
[TABLE]
That is, is a self-adjoint operator on polynomials. Moreover, for , let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . From Theorem 5.3 we deduce that the sequence of polynomials with
[TABLE]
are eigenfunctions of the operator . That is,
[TABLE]
with . Note that is a sequence of polynomials orthogonal with respect to .
5.2. Hahn-type characterization
Let be a sequence of real numbers and let such that . We can define a new sequence as follows:
[TABLE]
Notice that if is the moment functional defined as , then is the sequence of moments of the functional given by where . Indeed, for ,
[TABLE]
We denote by the sequence of matrices with
[TABLE]
The following theorem shows that the pre-classical character is inherited by .
Theorem 5.4**.**
If is pre-classical satisfying (3.1), then is pre-classical satisfying
[TABLE]
where and . Moreover,
[TABLE]
Proof.
For , we compute
[TABLE]
where we have used . By (3.1), we have
[TABLE]
Finally, (5.4) follows from the fact that (3.1) can be written as
[TABLE]
∎
When is a classical sequence of real numbers, the matrix satisfies an interesting and useful relation involving the matrices and .
Proposition 5.5**.**
Let be a classical sequence of real numbers satisfying (3.1). Then, for ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We prove this theorem by induction. For , on one hand we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
Since satisfies (3.1), we have that and, by (5.4), . Therefore,
[TABLE]
which proves that .
Now, suppose that holds for . On one hand, we compute
[TABLE]
Multiplying by blocks and using the induction hypothesis, we get
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
After multiplying by blocks, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
By Theorem 5.2, we have that . Hence, our efforts should focus on showing that and . Let us start by proving the second identity.
Observe that
[TABLE]
From (5.4) and the fact that , we deduce that
[TABLE]
In order to prove that , we note that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then, the last entry of is
[TABLE]
where we have used (5.4) and the fact that . In general, the -th entry of , with , is
[TABLE]
where we have used (5.4) and the fact that . This proves that and, in turn, that .
It follows from the Principle of Induction that holds for . ∎
Now, let be a classical sequence of real numbers. For , let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . Consider the set of vectors in with
[TABLE]
Observe that constitutes a basis for . Furthermore, since is a unit upper triangular matrix, the matrix defined as
[TABLE]
is also a unit upper triangular matrix. We show that defined in (5.3) admits a Cholesky factorization with its triangular matrix factor.
Theorem 5.6**.**
Let be a classical sequence of real numbers satisfying (3.1). For , let be the Cholesky factorization of . Then admits the Cholesky factorization given by
[TABLE]
where is the matrix defined in (5.5) and with
[TABLE]
and .
Proof.
For , we compute
[TABLE]
Using Theorem 5.3 and Proposition 5.5, we obtain
[TABLE]
This implies that and, hence, . ∎
Corollary 5.7**.**
If is a classical sequence, then so is .
Proof.
By Theorem (5.4), is a pre-classical sequence.
Now, we must show that for (Definition 3.3). From Theorem 5.6 we deduce that
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
and . Since is classical, then we have
[TABLE]
(see equality (4.2) and Definition 3.1). This implies that for . Therefore for and, thus, is classical. ∎
Theorem 5.6 implies that for , the columns of constitute an orthogonal basis for with respect to the bilinear form associated with (see Definition 4.1), which we denote by
[TABLE]
We are ready for the following characterizations of classical sequences.
Theorem 5.8**.**
Let be a sequence of real numbers such that for . Let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . Then is classical if and only if there are real numbers satisfying
[TABLE]
such that the set of vectors in with
[TABLE]
constitutes an orthogonal basis for with respect to the bilinear form associated with , where
[TABLE]
Proof.
If is classical, then it follows from Theorem 5.6 that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and with
[TABLE]
and . This implies that
[TABLE]
This proves the necessary condition.
Conversely, for , on one hand we have
[TABLE]
or, equivalently,
[TABLE]
Using the fact that where, recall, is the first column of the identity matrix of order , we write
[TABLE]
On the other hand
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
and, thus,
[TABLE]
Since the first row of is and , we have
[TABLE]
and, consequently,
[TABLE]
where we have used the fact that is an invertible matrix. If
[TABLE]
then let and . Observe that by Theorem 4.3, is independent of . In this way, the entries of (5.6) read
[TABLE]
which proves that satisfies (3.1) and, thus, is classical. ∎
Corollary 5.7 shows that the classical character of is inherited by allowing us to apply all of our previous results about classical sequences to and . Therefore, we can define a new sequence as follows:
[TABLE]
We denote by the sequence of matrices with
[TABLE]
By Theorem 5.4, is pre-classical satisfying
[TABLE]
where and . Moreover, if for , then is classical and, by Theorem 5.8, the set of vectors in with
[TABLE]
constitutes an orthogonal basis for with respect to the bilinear form associated with , that is,
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and .
Iterating this idea, we obtain the following result.
Corollary 5.9**.**
Let be a classical sequence of real numbers. Let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . For each , define the sequence of real numbers by
[TABLE]
where for . Then is classical satisfying
[TABLE]
where and . Moreover, the set of vectors in with
[TABLE]
where , constitutes an orthogonal basis for with respect to the bilinear form associated with .
Observe that the vectors in Corollary 5.9 can be written in terms of the vectors as follows: for each ,
[TABLE]
where , , denotes the Pochhammer symbol. If dentoes the sequence of matrices with
[TABLE]
then the orthogonality of with respect to the bilinear form associated with is given by
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and . Note that we can write
[TABLE]
Moreover, (5.9) implies the Cholesky factorization of :
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and .
Let us reformulate the above results in terms of polynomials and moment functionals. Let be a classical sequence of real numbers satisfying (3.1), and let be the moment functional defined as , . For each , the sequence of real numbers defined by
[TABLE]
where for , is the sequence of moments of the functional given by where . Moreover, for , let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . For , Corollary 5.9 implies that the polynomials given by
[TABLE]
satisfy . Therefore, constitutes an orthogonal basis for with respect to . Furthermore, Theorem 4.3 allows us to write
[TABLE]
and, in this way, is an MOPS associated with . We note that if
[TABLE]
then, by (5.7), we have
[TABLE]
where denotes the -th order derivative of .
5.3. First structure relation
For and given real numbers , and , we define the matrices
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.10**.**
Let and be sequences of real numbers satisfying
[TABLE]
where . Then, for ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We use induction to prove this result. For , observe that, for all ,
[TABLE]
This proves the base case.
Suppose that (5.11) holds for some . Let
[TABLE]
We compute
[TABLE]
Multiplying by blocks and using the induction hypothesis, we get
[TABLE]
Then, it is straightforward to verify that
[TABLE]
This proves that
[TABLE]
and, thus, (5.11) holds for . ∎
We have the following characterization of classical sequences of real numbers.
Theorem 5.11**.**
Let be a sequence of real numbers such that for . Let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . Then is classical if and only if there are real numbers satisfying
[TABLE]
and real numbers , , with , such that the set of vectors in with
[TABLE]
satisfy
[TABLE]
with as defined in (5.10)
Proof.
We will use the fact that
[TABLE]
is a unit upper triangular matrix.
Suppose that is a classical sequence satisfying (3.1). Since and constitutes an orthogonal basis for , we can write
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
The absence of a subindex indicating some dependence on is justified by Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 5.6, which imply that the expression for and are independent of .
By (5.11) and since
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
On one hand, by Corollary 5.9, the set is an orthogonal basis for , and since , we get that for , and
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, since is upper triangular, we have
[TABLE]
where the last entries are zero. This implies that for . Therefore, (5.12) holds with , and .
Conversely, suppose that (5.12) holds with the entries of are real numbers satisfying . On one hand, multiplying both sides of (5.12) by , we obtain for ,
[TABLE]
By the orthogonality of , we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
or, equivalently,
[TABLE]
Since and , we have
[TABLE]
and, therefore,
[TABLE]
where we have used the fact that is an invertible matrix. If
[TABLE]
then let and . In this way, the entries of (5.13) read
[TABLE]
which proves that satisfies (3.1) and, thus, is classical. ∎
We briefly recast Theorem 5.11 in terms of polynomials. Let be a classical sequence of real numbers, and let be the moment functional defined as , . Let and let be sequences of polynomials with
[TABLE]
Then is an OPS associated with , and
[TABLE]
For such that , and , the matrix is the matrix representation of the linear mapping from to defined by with . Therefore,
[TABLE]
In this way, by Theorem 5.11, is a classical moment functional if and only if there is a non zero polynomial with , and real numbers , , with ,
[TABLE]
5.4. Second structure relation
The following characterization is similar to (5.12) but it has a dual flavor in the sense that the roles of and are interchanged.
Theorem 5.12**.**
Let be a sequence of real numbers such that for . Let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . Then is classical if and only if there are real numbers , , such that
[TABLE]
where, by convention, we set .
Proof.
We will use the fact that
[TABLE]
is a unit upper triangular matrix.
Suppose that is a classical sequence. By Corollary 5.9, is an orthogonal basis for . Since is a unit upper triangular matrix, we can write
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
As before, the absence of a subindex indicating some dependence on is justified by Theorem 4.3 and Theorem 5.6, which imply that the expression for and are independent of . Using (5.11) and Theorem 5.11, we get
[TABLE]
From the orthogonality of , we obtain for . Therefore, (5.14) holds with and .
Conversely, suppose that there are real numbers , , such that (5.14) holds. For , define the unit upper triangular matrices
[TABLE]
Then (5.14) can be written as
[TABLE]
Using , we get
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
From this equality we get
[TABLE]
On one hand, observe that
[TABLE]
Combining (5.15) and (5.16), we get
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
If we let
[TABLE]
then the entries of (5.17) read
[TABLE]
which proves that satisfies (3.1) and, thus, is classical. ∎
For a classical sequence , let be the moment functional defined as , , and let and let be sequences of polynomials with
[TABLE]
Theorem 5.12 implies that there are real numbers , , such that
[TABLE]
where, by convention, . Moreover, we deduce from (5.18) and Theorem 3.2 that satisfies with
[TABLE]
5.5. Rodrigues-type formula
Recall that classical sequences of real numbers satsisfy the three-term recurrence relation (3.1) which can be written in matrix form as
[TABLE]
with as defined in (5.3). The following characterization shows that classical sequences satisfy higher order recurrence relations which can be written in matrix form as well.
Theorem 5.13**.**
Let be a sequence of real numbers such that , . Let be the Cholesky factorization of and let denote the columns of . Then is classical if and only if there are such that , and non zero real numbers , , such that
[TABLE]
with as defined in (5.8).
Proof.
Suppose that is classical satisfying (3.1). For , by Corollary 5.9, the set of vectors in with
[TABLE]
where , constitutes an orthogonal basis for with respect to the bilinear form associated with . Let
[TABLE]
On one hand, observe that for ,
[TABLE]
Then, since for ,
[TABLE]
where denotes the -th column of the identity matrix . On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Since is invertible, it follows that
[TABLE]
Hence, (5.19) holds with .
Conversely, suppose that there are such that , and non zero real numbers , , such that (5.19) holds. In particular, for , we have
[TABLE]
If we let
[TABLE]
and since , then the entries of (5.20) read
[TABLE]
which proves that satisfies (3.1) and, thus, is classical. ∎
We remark that if is a classical sequence of real numbers, and be the moment functional defined as , , then the entries of (5.20) can be written as
[TABLE]
where and , which holds for all . Hence, satisfies (2.1). Moreover, it is straightforward, but tedious, to verify that the entries of (5.19) can be written as
[TABLE]
where , , which holds for . Hence, satisfies for (and holds for with ).
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R. Álvarez-Nodarse, On characterizations of classical polynomials , J. Comput. Appl. Math. 196 (2006), 320–337.
- 2[2] W. Al Salam, T. S. Chihara, Another characterization of the classical orthogonal polynomials , SIAM J. Math. Anal. 3 (1), (1972), 65-70.
- 3[3] S. Bochner, Über Sturm-Liouvillesche Polynomsysteme , Math. Z. 29 (1929), no. 1, 730–736.
- 4[4] F. A. Costabile, M. I. Gualtieri, A. Napoli, Matrix Calculus-Based Approach to Orthogonal Polynomial Sequences , Mediterr. J. Math. 17 (118) (2020).
- 5[5] D. Dominici, Matrix factorizations and orthogonal polynomials , Random Matrices Theor. 9 (2020), 2040003, 33pp.
- 6[6] J. Geronimus, On polynomials orthogonal with regard to a given sequence of numbers , Comm. Inst. Math. Mec. Univ. Kharkoff [Zapiski Inst. Math. Mech.] 17 (4) (1940), 3–18 (Russian).
- 7[7] J. C. Garcia-Ardila, F. Marcellán, M. E. Marriaga, Orthogonal Polynomials and Linear Functionals. An Algebraic Approach and Applications , European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2021.
- 8[8] J. C. Garcia-Ardila, M. E. Marriaga, On Sobolev bilinear forms and polynomial solutions of second-order differential equations , Rev. Real Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fis. Nat. Ser. A-Mat. (2021).
