1
$\begingroup$

This question is reposted from Math Stack Exchange (you can see the original post here). The motivation for reposting is that I feel like the question isn't getting much attention in MSE - if there is something wrong with reposting I have no problem with deleting the question and obviously being sorry for any inconvenience caused. Follows the question:

Conext and notation. In the question below, $R_n(z) / S_n(z)$ denotes the n-th convergent of the continued fraction

$$ \frac{1|}{|z-b_1} + \frac{-a_2|}{|z-b_2} + \dots + \frac{-a_n|}{|z-b_n} + \dots,$$

where $a_n,b_n$ are the coefficients of a generic orthogonal sequence of monic polynomials $\{p_n(z)\}$ that satisfies the three term recurrence relation

$$ p_n(z) = (z-b_n)p_{n-1}(z) - a_np_{n-2}(z), \quad \text{ for } \, \, n= 1,2,\dots$$

The problem. Define the function

$$ \hat w(z) = \int_a^b \frac{1}{z-t}w(t) dt,$$ which is normally known as the Stieltjes transformation. I wish to prove that

\begin{equation} \tag{1} \hat w(z) - \frac{R_n(z)}{S_n(z)} = \frac{1}{p_n(z)}\int_a^b \frac{p_n(t)}{z-t}w(t) \, dt.\end{equation}

and

\begin{equation} \tag{2} \hat w(z) - \frac{R_n(z)}{S_n(z)} = \frac{k_n^1}{z^{2n+1}} + \frac{k_n^2}{z^{2n+2}} + \dots, \quad |z| > R, \end{equation}

where $R$ is big enough to guarantee uniform convergence of the series $\displaystyle{\sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{t^j}{z^{j+1}}}.$

My attempt. I was able to prove $(1)$ with ease. Identity $(2)$ gave me quite some more problems. Follows my attempt:

We have that

\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \hat w(z) - \frac{R_n(z)}{S_n(z)} &= \frac{1}{p_n(z)} \int_a^b \frac{p_n(t)}{z-t}w(t) \, dt \\[.25cm] &= \frac{1}{p_n(z)} \int_a^b \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{t^j}{z^{j+1}}p_n(t) w(t) \, dt \\[.25cm] &= \frac{1}{p_n(z)} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{1}{z^{j+1}} \boxed{\int_a^b t^j p_n(t) w(t) \, dt}. \end{split} \end{equation*}

So, all we have to do is study the boxed integral above. From the theory of orthogonal polynomials, we know that for $j<n$ this integral is zero and for $j=n$ we have that

$$ \int_a^b t^np_n(t) w(t) \, dt = \gamma_n h_n, $$

where $\displaystyle{h_n = \int_a^b p_n^2(t)w(t) \, dt}$ and $\gamma_n$ is such that $\displaystyle{t^n = \sum_{i=0}^n \gamma_i p_i(t)}$ (recall that $\{p_0(t),\dots,p_n(t)\}$ forms a basis for the vectorial space of the polynomials in one variable of degree equal or smaller than $n$). So everything we have to do is to study the boxed integral for values of $j$ such that $j > n.$ For this cases, it is clear that $\{ p_0(t),\dots,p_j(t)\}$ forms a basis for the vectorial space of the polynomials in one variable of degree equal or smaller than $j$. Therefore, we can find scalars $\delta_i$ such that $$ t^j = \sum_{i=0}^j \delta_i p_i(t). $$ Then, $$ \int_a^b t^j p_n(t) w(t) \, dt = \sum_{i=0}^j \delta_i \int_a^b p_i(t)p_n(t) w(t) \, dt = \delta_n h_n. $$ Therefore, we have that

$$ \hat w(z) - \frac{R_n(z)}{S_n(z)} = \frac{1}{p_n(z)}\left[ \frac{\gamma_n h_n}{z^{n+1}} + \sum_{j=n+1}^\infty \frac{\delta_n h_n}{z^{j+1}} \right].$$

Based on the latest equation presented above, one can write equivalently

$$ \hat w(z) - \frac{R_n(z)}{S_n(z)} = \frac{1}{p_n(z)} \sum_{j=n}^\infty \frac{\zeta_n h_n}{z^{j+1}},$$

where $\zeta_n = \gamma_n$ if $j=n$ and $\zeta_n = \delta_n$ otherwise. Furthermore, this can also be written as

$$ \hat w(z) - \frac{R_n(z)}{S_n(z)} = \frac{1}{p_n(z)} z^{-(n+1)}\sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{\iota_n h_n}{z^{j}},$$ where $\iota_n = \gamma_n$ if $j=0$ and $\iota_n = \delta_n$ otherwise. This is closer to what I aim to achieve. Now the problem resumes itself to find an appropriate way to re-write $1/p_n(x).$

I can see some similarities with the result we wish to prove but at the same time I think I am quite far away. I don't know how to simplify this further, thought.

Thanks for any help in advance.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Rodrigo, I am not an expert in the field, but it seems to me that there's nothing wrong with your question. However, the commonly accepted praxis on cross posting requires to wait at least a week between each post in order to give time to potential answerers to write theirs. This is especially true for complex question. Maybe this is the reason behind the anonymous downvote. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 5:54
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you @DanieleTampieri for your kind comment - I have to admit I was somewhat worried about the downvote, I didn't know about that! Should I delete the post and wait more time then? $\endgroup$
    – Rodrigo
    Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 6:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, just keep this in mind for the next time you need to do so, and good luck😊 $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 4, 2023 at 6:59

0

You must log in to answer this question.