0
$\begingroup$

I have been attempting to understand the logic of the Weierstrass Theorem in the Principle of Mathematical Analysis by Rudini. enter image description here enter image description here

I know the proof is long but I am having problems understanding the following:

1-Why is $\int_{-1}^{1} Q_n(x) dx=1$?

2-Why use integrals to define the sequence of polynomials $P_n$, is it because we want to define the polynomial in the smallest partition of the interval $[0,1]$?

3- Can $sup(f(x+t)-f(x))=M$ because of the last inequality on the 51 step?

Thanks for reading!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ you can see a proof of this theorem in the book Analysis I of Amann and Escher without the need to use integrals, but it is longer and more complex. $\endgroup$ – Masacroso Mar 11 '17 at 19:10
  • $\begingroup$ Rudini. I kind of like that. $\endgroup$ – zhw. Mar 12 '17 at 0:20
1
$\begingroup$

Here are answers to your question. I personally prefer this proof (french version here) of Weierstrass' theorem from Sergi Bernstein (1912), although both proofs rely on the same underlying principles.

  1. The polynomial $Q_n$ is explicitly normalized by a constant $c_n$ so that $\int Q_n = 1$. This implies $$ f(x) = \int_{-1}^1 f(x) Q_n(t) dt, $$ an equality used to write $|P_n(x) - f(x)|$ as an integral.

  2. The question is unclear.

  3. No. The function $f$ is continuous on a closed interval and is thus bounded by some constant $M$. Therefore by the triangle inequality $$ \sup_x | f(x+t) - f(x)|\le \sup_x (|f(x+t)| + |f(x)|) \le \sup_x|f(x+t)| + \sup_x|f(x)| \le 2M . $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer but you are not answering my questions? Why is $\int Q_n=1$ despite the fact there is constant $c_n$ that makes it equal to 1, why choose 1? Could you expand on point number 2? I am not getting what you wrote. Point number 3 I think the inequality holds if you remove the 2, I guess the 2 comes from the interval. However I am not certain, could you further explain it? $\endgroup$ – Pedro Gomes Mar 11 '17 at 19:00
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for precising your question. See my edit. $\endgroup$ – Olivier Mar 11 '17 at 19:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you too, this was really clear. Only one problem arose me now which I think you could clarify me please. Why write $\int_{-1}^{1} f(x+t)Q_n(t) dt$ for $P_n$ which is equal to $\int_{0}^{1} f(t)Q_n(t-x) dt$ can $f(t)$ in this case be treated as a constant? $\endgroup$ – Pedro Gomes Mar 11 '17 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ The integral is with respect to $t$, so you cannot treat $f(t)$ as a constant here. To better understand $P_n$, I suggest you draw the graph of $Q_n(t-x)$ as a function of x. Note that it is bell shaped around $t$. If you think about it, you will be able to see that $P_n(t)$ is an average of the values of $f$ giving a lot of importance to the value $f(x)$ when $x$ is close to $t$, and very litlle importance to the value $f(x)$ when $x$ is far from $t$. $\endgroup$ – Olivier Mar 11 '17 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! Your assistance has been incredible! $\endgroup$ – Pedro Gomes Mar 11 '17 at 19:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.