Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
freem
Search
Search
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
Openai/696b1675-eda0-800c-80f9-612b39635436
(section)
Add languages
Page
Discussion
English
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
Page information
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== Assistant: Write the Lebesgue function === Write the Lebesgue function ΛX(x) := ∑k=1n∣lk(x)∣,X={x1<⋯<xn}⊂(−1,1),\Lambda_X(x)\;:=\;\sum_{k=1}^n |l_k(x)|,\qquad X=\{x_1<\cdots<x_n\}\subset(-1,1),ΛX(x):=k=1∑n∣lk(x)∣,X={x1<⋯<xn}⊂(−1,1), and extend the partition points by x0=−1, xn+1=1x_0=-1,\ x_{n+1}=1x0=−1, xn+1=1. A basic (and very useful) fact is that ΛX\Lambda_XΛX is piecewise polynomial and, on each subinterval (xi,xi+1)(x_i,x_{i+1})(xi,xi+1), it has exactly one local maximum; if ±1\pm1±1 are not interpolation points, there are also local maxima “at the endpoints” ±1\pm1±1. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> So if we set λi(X) := maxx∈[xi,xi+1]ΛX(x)(i=0,1,…,n),\lambda_i(X)\;:=\;\max_{x\in[x_i,x_{i+1}]}\Lambda_X(x)\qquad (i=0,1,\dots,n),λi(X):=x∈[xi,xi+1]maxΛX(x)(i=0,1,…,n), then your quantity is simply the smallest local maximum Υ(X)=min0≤i≤nλi(X).\Upsilon(X)=\min_{0\le i\le n}\lambda_i(X).Υ(X)=0≤i≤nminλi(X). ==== 1) Is ==== Υ ( 𝑋 ) ≪ log 𝑛 Υ(X)≪logn for all 𝑋 X? Yes — and the right “reason” is that the max–min problem you wrote down is already a classical extremal problem in interpolation theory (Bernstein–Erdős). One formulation (in modern notation) is: * Let M(X):=maxiλi(X)=maxx∈[−1,1]ΛX(x)M(X):=\max_i \lambda_i(X)=\max_{x\in[-1,1]}\Lambda_X(x)M(X):=maxiλi(X)=maxx∈[−1,1]ΛX(x) be the usual Lebesgue constant. * Let m(X):=miniλi(X)=Υ(X)m(X):=\min_i \lambda_i(X)=\Upsilon(X)m(X):=miniλi(X)=Υ(X) be the smallest local maximum. Then there exists a distinguished point set X\''X^\''X\* (“Lebesgue–optimal nodes”) for which the local maxima are all equal (equioscillation), and for every node set XXX one has the sandwich inequality m(X) ≤ m(X\'') = M(X\'') ≤ M(X),m(X)\ \le\ m(X^\'')\ =\ M(X^\'')\ \le\ M(X),m(X) ≤ m(X\'') = M(X\'') ≤ M(X), i.e. the same set X\''X^\''X\* maximizes the smallest local maximum and minimizes the largest one. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> Equivalently, Υ(X)≤Υ(X\'')=M(X\'').\Upsilon(X)\le \Upsilon(X^\'') = M(X^\'').Υ(X)≤Υ(X\'')=M(X\''). Now M(X\'')M(X^\'')M(X\*) is the optimal Lebesgue constant, and it is known to have logarithmic growth: M(X\'') = 2π(log(n+1)+γ+log4π)+o(1)(n→∞),M(X^\'') \;=\; \frac{2}{\pi}\Big(\log(n+1)+\gamma+\log\frac{4}{\pi}\Big)+o(1) \qquad (n\to\infty),M(X\*)=π2(log(n+1)+γ+logπ4)+o(1)(n→∞), in the standard indexing conventions (shifting n↦n−1n\mapsto n-1n↦n−1 just changes log(n+1)\log(n+1)log(n+1) to logn\log nlogn at this level). DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> Therefore, Υ(X) ≤ Clogn\Upsilon(X)\ \le\ C\log nΥ(X) ≤ Clogn for an absolute constant CCC, uniformly over all XXX. Moreover, this is sharp in order: at the extremal set X\''X^\''X\'', Υ(X\'')∼2πlogn\Upsilon(X^\'')\sim \tfrac{2}{\pi}\log nΥ(X\'')∼π2logn. ==== 2) Which ==== 𝑥 𝑖 x i maximize Υ Υ? They are exactly the Lebesgue–optimal interpolation nodes X\''X^\''X\*, characterized by an equioscillation/equal–peak property: : The maximizer : 𝑋 : \* : = : { : 𝑥 : 1 : \* : < : ⋯ : < : 𝑥 : 𝑛 : \* : } : X : \* : ={x : 1 : \* : : : <⋯<x : n : \* : : : } is the (unique) node set for which : : 𝜆 : 0 : ( : 𝑋 : \* : ) : = : 𝜆 : 1 : ( : 𝑋 : \* : ) : = : ⋯ : = : 𝜆 : 𝑛 : ( : 𝑋 : \* : ) : , : λ : 0 : : : (X : \* : )=λ : 1 : : : (X : \* : )=⋯=λ : n : : : (X : \* : ), : : i.e. the : 𝑛 : + : 1 : n+1 “relative maxima” of : Λ : 𝑋 : \* : Λ : X : \* : : : on the : 𝑛 : + : 1 : n+1 subintervals : [ : 𝑥 : 𝑖 : \* : , : 𝑥 : 𝑖 : + : 1 : \* : ] : [x : i : \* : : : ,x : i+1 : \* : : : ] all have the same height. : DNB Portal : +1 This is precisely the Bernstein–Erdős characterization: the optimal set is unique, symmetric (about 0), and its Lebesgue function must equioscillate. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> In general the points xi\''x_i^\''xi\* do not have a simple closed form; explicit formulas are only known for very small degrees, and otherwise they are computed numerically (e.g. via a Remez-type exchange algorithm). DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> ===== What do these maximizing nodes look like? ===== While not closed-form, their shape is well understood: '' They are symmetric: xn+1−k\''=−xk\''x_{n+1-k}^\''=-x_k^\''xn+1−k\''=−xk\*. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> '' They cluster toward ±1\pm1±1 with an asymptotic arcsine/Chebyshev density, i.e. heuristically xk\''≈cos ((2k−1)π2n),x_k^\''\approx \cos\!\Big(\frac{(2k-1)\pi}{2n}\Big),xk\''≈cos(2n(2k−1)π), (Chebyshev–Gauss nodes), with small nnn-dependent corrections. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> There are also explicit near-optimal “modified Chebyshev” node families in the literature that achieve the same asymptotic 2πlogn\frac{2}{\pi}\log nπ2logn growth. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> ==== Summary ==== '' Yes: for every choice of nodes, Υ(x1,…,xn)=O(logn)\Upsilon(x_1,\dots,x_n)=O(\log n)Υ(x1,…,xn)=O(logn). In fact Υ(X)≤M(X\'')∼2πlogn\Upsilon(X)\le M(X^\'')\sim \frac{2}{\pi}\log nΥ(X)≤M(X\'')∼π2logn. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> '' The node set that maximizes Υ\UpsilonΥ is the unique Lebesgue–optimal set X\''X^\''X\'', characterized by equal local maxima (equioscillation) of the Lebesgue function on all n+1n+1n+1 subintervals. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref> '' Asymptotically, those points are distributed like Chebyshev points (arcsine law), so xk\''x_k^\''xk\'' are very close to cos((2k−1)π/(2n))\cos((2k-1)\pi/(2n))cos((2k−1)π/(2n)) for large nnn. DNB Portal<ref>{{cite web|title=DNB Portal|url=https://d-nb.info/1090940718/34|publisher=DNB Portal|access-date=2026-01-18}}</ref>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to freem are considered to be released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (see
Freem:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)