6

A Gaussian quadrature is used to approximate the following integral: $$ \int_{-1}^{1} f(x) dx \approx \sum_{i=1}^n w_i f(x_i). $$ Numerically I've found an interesting property of $x_i$ and $w_i$: if we split $[-1,1]$ interval into subintervals $I_i = [y_i, y_{i+1}]$ each of length $w_i$ (order matters) then each node $x_i$ belongs to corresponding interval $I_i$.

Formally speaking if we define $$ y_i = \sum_{k=1}^{i-1} w_k - 1 $$ then sequences $\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n$ and $\{y_i\}_{i=1}^{n+1}$ interleave.

Here's an example for $n=15$ (nodes are blue and the intervals endpoints' are marked with yellow)

enter image description here

Can this be proven for all $n$? I thought this could be proved using interleaving property of orthogonal polynomial roots, but $y_i$ do not seem to relate to any of those.

Edit Moreover, I've found the similar property holds for Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature. If we rewrite the quadrature formula as $$ \int_{-1}^1 f(x) \omega(x) dx \approx \sum_{i=1}^n f(x_i) \int_{y_i}^{y_{i+1}} \omega(x) dx, $$ and the $y_i$ are now obtained from solving $$ \int_{y_i}^{y_{i+1}} \omega(x) dx = w_i. $$

uranix
  • 7,503
  • That's interesting! But I suspect it won't be easy to prove that, because it's certainly not a property shared by many orthogonal polynomials (it's definitely wrong for Chebyshev nodes and weights). –  Jan 11 '18 at 13:49
  • @ProfessorVector are you talking about Chebyshev or Gauss-Chebyshev quadrature? The former does not scale with $n$ (exist only for $n < 10, n \neq 8$), and the latter may need some weight scaling, I think. – uranix Jan 11 '18 at 13:57
  • I mean Chebyshev–Gauss quadrature, the first case, where the weights are all equal. –  Jan 11 '18 at 14:02
  • @ProfessorVector I've found very similar property for Gauss-Chebyshev. The minor difference is in definition of $y_i$. – uranix Jan 11 '18 at 14:29
  • 3
    Ah, I knew I've seen something similar, in an exercise in a book by Chihara. Yes, you're absolutely correct, and you've rediscovered the Chebyshev–Markov–Stieltjes inequalities. –  Jan 11 '18 at 14:39
  • @ProfessorVector probably means Exercise 5.6 in Chapter II of Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials (1978). This is embedded in a 70-page account of positive-definite moment functionals, intervals of orthogonality, spectral points, quasi-orthogonal polynomials, kernel polynomials, and representation by Stieltjes integrals, using a few special notations. I have taken the liberty of extracting the [mostly!] simple algebraic argument from its elaborate context, and posting it as a self-contained answer. – Calum Gilhooley Sep 04 '18 at 23:02
  • I make a further conjecture here. – Calum Gilhooley Sep 11 '18 at 16:30

1 Answers1

5

This proof is based closely on Exercise 5.6 in Chapter II of Theodore S. Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials (Gordon and Breach 1978, reprinted by Dover 2011).

Chihara (1978), Chapter II, Exercise 5.6

Given $n \geqslant 1$, and $i$ with $1 \leqslant i \leqslant n$, we prove below that there exists a polynomial $f$ such that:

  1. $f$ has degree $2n - 2$;
  2. $f(x) \geqslant 0$ for all $x$;
  3. $f(x) \geqslant 1$ for $x \leqslant x_i$;
  4. $f(x_1) = f(x_2) = \cdots = f(x_i) = 1$;
  5. $f(x_{i+1}) = f(x_{i+2}) = \cdots = f(x_n) = 0$;
  6. $f(x) \ne 0$ if $x \notin \{x_{i+1}, x_{i+2}, \ldots, x_n\}$.

The $n$-point Gaussian quadrature formula applied to a function $f$ holds as an exact identity when $f$ is a polynomial of degree $2n - 1$ or less, therefore: $$ 1 + x_i = \int_{-1}^{x_i}dx < \int_{-1}^1f(x)\,dx = \sum_{j=1}^n w_jf(x_j) = w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_i. $$ Applying this inequality to $n - i + 1$ in place of $i$, and using the symmetry of the abscissae and weights, and the fact that the sum of the weights is $2$, we get: \begin{align*} 1 + x_i & = 2 - (1 + x_{n-i+1}) \\ & = (w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_n) - (1 + x_{n-i+1}) \\ & > (w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_n) - (w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_{n-i+1}) \\ & = (w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_n) - (w_n + w_{n-1} + \cdots + w_i) \\ & = w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_{i-1}. \end{align*} Finally, then: $$ w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_{i-1} - 1 < x_i < w_1 + w_2 + \cdots + w_i - 1. $$ $\square$

It remains to prove that $f$ exists.

Definition A continuous real-valued function $g$ on an open subset of $\mathbb{R}$ has a simple zero at an interior point $a$ if $g(a) = 0$ and $g'(a)$ is defined and non-zero.

From the definition of $g'(a)$, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $$ \lvert{g(a + h) - g'(a)h}\rvert < \lvert{g'(a)h}\rvert/2 \quad (\lvert{h}\rvert < \delta). $$ It follows that if $g$ has a simple zero at $a$, then for sufficiently small $h$, $g(a + h)$ always has the same sign as $h$, or else it always has the opposite sign from $h$.

This definition of "simple zero" (it doesn't seem to be standard, which is why I gave it) coincides with the standard definition in the case where $g$ is a function defined by a polynomial expression.

Lemma 1 If $a, b$ are real numbers (or $\pm\infty$), $a < b$, and the continuous function $g: (a, b) \to \mathbb{R}$ has only finitely many zeros $\zeta_k$, where $a < \zeta_1 < \zeta_2 < \cdots < \zeta_r < b$, all of them simple, then $g(x)$ has a constant sign for all $x$ in each of the intervals $$ (a, \zeta_1), (\zeta_1, \zeta_2), \cdots, (\zeta_{r-1}, \zeta_r), (\zeta_r, b), $$ and this sign reverses between each pair of successive subintervals.

Proof The Intermediate Value Theorem implies that the sign of the value of $g$ cannot differ between two points in the same interval; and the remark immediately following the definition above implies that the sign reverses at each $\zeta_k$. $\square$

Lemma 2 Let $p, q$ be non-negative integers, $M, m, a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_p, b, c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_q$ real numbers, with $M > m$, and: $$ a_1 < a_2 < \cdots < a_p < b < c_1 < c_2 < \cdots < c_q. $$ Then there exists a unique polynomial $f \in \mathbb{R}[X]$ of degree $\leqslant 2p + 2q$ such that: \begin{gather*} f(a_1) = f(a_2) = \cdots = f(a_p) = f(b) = M; \\ f(c_1) = f(c_2) = \cdots = f(c_q) = m; \\ f'(a_1) = f'(a_2) = \cdots = f'(a_p) = f'(c_1) = f'(c_2) = \cdots = f'(c_q) = 0. \end{gather*} Moreover, this polynomial also satisfies these two conditions: \begin{gather*} f(x) \geqslant M \text{ for all } x \leqslant b; \\ f(x ) \geqslant m \text{ for all } x \in \mathbb{R}. \end{gather*}

Proof Let $U$ be the vector space of all polynomials in $\mathbb{R}[X]$ of degree $\leqslant 2p + 2q$, and let $V = \mathbb{R}^{2p + 2q + 1}$. Define a linear map $L: U \to V$, where: \begin{multline*} L(f) = (f(a_1), f(a_2), \ldots, f(a_p), f(b), f(c_1), f(c_2), \ldots, f(c_q), \\ f'(a_1), f'(a_2), \ldots, f'(a_p), f'(c_1), f'(c_2), \ldots, f'(c_q)). \end{multline*} If $L(f) = 0$, then $f$ is divisible by the polynomial: $$ (x - a_1)^2(x - a_2)^2\cdots(x - a_p)^2(x - b) (x - c_1)^2(x - c_2)^2\cdots(x - c_q)^2, $$ of degree $2p + 2q + 1$, therefore $f = 0$. Therefore $L$ is injective. Since the dimensions of $U$ and $V$ are equal (both $2p + 2q + 1$), $L$ is also surjective. The first conclusion (the existence and uniqueness of $f$) follows.

The derivative $f'$ is a polynomial of degree at most $2p + 2q - 1$, therefore it has at most $2p + 2q - 1$ real zeros, counted with multiplicity.

By construction, these zeros include the $p + q$ numbers $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_p, c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_q$. But also, by Rolle's theorem, there are $p + q - 1$ other zeros $\xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots, \xi_p, \eta_1, \eta_2, \ldots, \eta_{q-1}$, where: $$ a_1 < \xi_1 < a_2 < \cdots < \xi_{p-1} < a_p < \xi_p < b < c_1 < \eta_1 < c_2 < \cdots < \eta_{q-1} < c_q. $$ These $2p + 2q - 1$ numbers (excluding $b$) must therefore be a complete list of zeros of $f'$; and they must all be simple zeros.

Applying Lemma 1 to $f'$, on the interval $(-\infty, \infty) = \mathbb{R}$, we find that $f'$ changes sign at each of its zeros, the sign remaining constant on the $2p + 2q + 1$ open intervals having successive zeros as their endpoints, as well as the infinite open intervals $(-\infty, a_1)$ and $(c_q, \infty)$.

Because $f(b) = M > m = f(c_1)$, the sign of $f'$ must be negative in $(\xi_p, c_1)$. It is therefore positive in every $(a_k, \xi_k)$, negative in every $(\xi_{k-1}, a_k)$ (where $\xi_{-1} = -\infty$), positive in every $(c_k, \eta_k)$ (where $\eta_q = \infty$), and negative in every $(\eta_{k-1}, c_k)$. Every real number other than $a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_p, b, c_1, c_2, \ldots, c_q$ lies in one of these intervals, and the stated inequalities for $f$ follow from this fact. $\square$