M3M6: Methods of Mathematical Physics¶

$$\def\dashint{{\int\!\!\!\!\!\!-\,}} \def\infdashint{\dashint_{\!\!\!-\infty}^{\,\infty}} \def\D{\,{\rm d}} \def\E{{\rm e}} \def\dx{\D x} \def\dt{\D t} \def\dz{\D z} \def\C{{\mathbb C}} \def\R{{\mathbb R}} \def\CC{{\cal C}} \def\HH{{\cal H}} \def\I{{\rm i}} \def\qqqquad{\qquad\qquad} \def\qqfor{\qquad\hbox{for}\qquad} \def\qqwhere{\qquad\hbox{where}\qquad} \def\Res_#1{\underset{#1}{\rm Res}}\, \def\sech{{\rm sech}\,} \def\acos{\,{\rm acos}\,} \def\vc#1{{\mathbf #1}} \def\ip<#1,#2>{\left\langle#1,#2\right\rangle} \def\norm#1{\left\|#1\right\|}$$

Dr. Sheehan Olver

s.olver@imperial.ac.uk
Website: https://github.com/dlfivefifty/M3M6LectureNotes

Chapter 3: Orthogonal Polynomials¶

We now introduce orthogonal polynomials (OPs). These are ___fundamental___ for computational mathematics, with applications in

1. Function approximation
2. Quadrature (calculating integrals)
3. Solving differential equations
4. Spectral analysis of Schrödinger operators

We will investigate the properties of general OPs:

1. Construction via Gram–Schmidt
2. Three-term recurrence relationships
3. Gaussian quadrature
4. Relationship with Cauchy and logarithmic transforms

We will also investigate the properties of classical OPs:

1. Explicit formulae
2. Rodriguez formulae
3. Ordinary differential equations
4. Derivatives

A good reference is Digital Library of Mathematical Functions, Chapter 18.

Lecture 14: Constructing orthogonal polynomials¶

This lecture we do the following:

1. Definition of orthogonal polynomials
2. Definition of classical orthogonal polynomials
   • Hermite, Laguerre, and Jacobi polynomials
   • Legendre, Chebyshev, and ultraspherical polynomials
   • Explicit construction for Chebyshev polynomials
3. Construction of orthogonal polynomials via Gram–Schmidt process
4. Function approximation with orthogonal polynomials

Definition of orthogonal polynomials¶

Let $p_0(x),p_1(x),p_2(x),…$ be a sequence of polynomials such that $p_n(x)$ is exactly degree $n$, that is,

$$p_n(x) = k_n x^n + O(x^{n-1})$$ where $k_n \neq 0$.

Let $w(x)$ be a continuous weight function on a (possibly infinite) interval $(a,b)$: that is $w(x) \geq 0$ for all $a < x < b$. This induces an inner product

$$\ip<f,g> := \int_a^b f(x) g(x) w(x) \dx$$ We say that $\{p_0, p_1,\ldots\}$ are orthogonal with respect to the weight $w$ if $$\ip<p_n,p_m> = 0\qqfor n \neq m.$$ Because $w$ is continuous, we have $$\norm{p_n}^2 = \ip<p_n,p_n> > 0 .$$

Orthogonal polymomials are not unique: we can multiply each $p_n$ by a different nonzero constant $\tilde p_n(x) = c_n p_n(x)$, and $\tilde p_n$ will be orthogonal w.r.t. $w$. However, if we specify $k_n$, this is sufficient to uniquely define them:

Proposition (Uniqueness of OPs I) Given a non-zero $k_n$, there is a unique polynomial $p_n$ orthogonal w.r.t. $w$ to all lower degree polynomials.

Proof Suppose $r_n(x) = k_n x^n + O(x^{n-1})$ is another OP w.r.t. $w$. We want to show $p_n - r_n$ is zero. But this is a polynomial of degree $<n$, hence

$$p_n(x) - r_n(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} c_k p_k(x)$$ But we have for $k \leq n-1$ $$\ip<p_k,p_k> c_k = \ip<p_n - r_n, p_k> = \ip<p_n,p_k> - \ip<r_n, p_k> = 0 - 0 = 0$$ which shows all $c_k$ are zero.

Corollary (Uniqueness of OPs I) If $q_n$ and $p_n$ are orthogonal w.r.t. $w$ to all lower degree polynomials, then $q_n(x) = C p_n(x)$ for some constant $C$.

Monic orthogonal polynomials¶

If $k_n = 1$, that is,

$$p_n(x) = x^n + O(x^{n-1})$$ then we refer to the orthogonal polymomials as monic.

Monic OPs are unique as we have specified $k_n$.

Orthonormal polynomials¶

If $\norm{p_n} = 1$, then we refer to the orthogonal polynomials as orthonormal w.r.t. $w$. We will usually use $q_n$ when they are orthonormal. Note it's not unique: we can multiply by $\pm 1$ without changing the norm.

Remark The classical OPs are not monic or orthonormal (apart from one case). Many people make the mistake of using orthonormal polynomials for computations. But there is a good reason to use classical OPs: their properties result in rational formulae, whereas orthonormal polynomials require square roots. This makes a big performance difference.

Definition of classical orthogonal polynomials¶

Classical orthogonal polynomials are orthogonal with respect to the following three weights:

Name	Interval $(a,b)$	Weight function $w(x)$	Standard polynomial	highest order coefficient $k_n$
Hermite	$(-\infty,\infty)$	$\E^{-x^2}$	$H_n(x)$	$2^n$
Laguerre	$(0,\infty)$	$x^\alpha \E^{-x}$	$L_n^{(\alpha)}(x)$	See Table 18.3.1
Jacobi	$(-1,1)$	$(1-x)^{\alpha} (1+x)^\beta$	$P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x)$	See Table 18.3.1

Note out of convention the parameters for Jacobi polynomials are in the "wrong" order.

We can actually construct these polynomials in Julia: first consider Hermite:

We verify their orthogonality:

Now Jacobi:

Legendre, Chebyshev, and ultraspherical polynomials¶

There are special families of Jacobi weights with their own name.

Name	Jacobi parameters	Weight function $w(x)$	Standard polynomial	highest order coefficient $k_n$
Jacobi	$\alpha,\beta$	$(1-x)^{\alpha} (1+x)^\beta$	$P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}(x)$	See Table 18.3.1
Legendre	$0,0$	$1$	$P_n(x)$	$2^n(1/2)_n/n!$
Chebyshev (first kind)	$-{1 \over 2},-{1 \over 2}$	$1 \over \sqrt{1-x^2}$	$T_n(x)$	$1 (n=0), 2^{n-1} (n \neq 0)$
Chebyshev (second kind)	${1 \over 2},{1 \over 2}$	$\sqrt{1-x^2}$	$U_n(x)$	$2^n$
Ultraspherical	$\lambda-{1 \over 2},\lambda-{1 \over 2}$	$(1-x^2)^{\lambda - 1/2}, \lambda \neq 0$	$C_n^{(\lambda)}(x)$	$2^n(\lambda)_n/n!$

Note that other than Legendre, these polynomials have a different normalization than $P_n^{(\alpha,\beta)}$:

But because they are orthogonal w.r.t. the same weight, they must be a constant multiple of each-other.

Explicit construction of Chebyshev polynomials (first kind and second kind)¶

Chebyshev polynomials are pretty much the only OPs with simple closed form expressions.

Proposition (Chebyshev first kind formula)

$$T_n(x) = \cos n \acos x$$ or in other words, $$T_n(\cos \theta) = \cos n \theta$$

Proof We first show that they are orthogonal w.r.t. $1/\sqrt{1-x^2}$. Too easy: do $x = \cos \theta$, $\dx = -\sin \theta$ to get (for $n \neq m$)

$$\int_{-1}^1 {\cos n \acos x \cos m \acos x \dx \over \sqrt{1-x^2}} = -\int_\pi^0 \cos n \theta \cos m \theta \D \theta = \int_0^\pi {\E^{\I (-n-m)\theta} + \E^{\I (n-m)\theta} + \E^{\I (m-n)\theta} + \E^{\I (n+m)\theta} \over 4} \D \theta =0$$

We then need to show it has the right highest order term $k_n$. Note that $k_0 = k_1 = 1$. Using $z = \E^{\I \theta}$ we see that $\cos n \theta$ has a simple recurrence for $n=2,3,\ldots$:

$$\cos n \theta = {z^n + z^{-n} \over 2} = 2 {z + z^{-1} \over 2} {z^{n-1} + z^{1-n} \over 2}- {z^{n-2} + z^{2-n} \over 2} = 2 \cos \theta \cos (n-1)\theta - \cos(n-2)\theta$$ thus $$\cos n \acos x = 2 x \cos(n-1) \acos x - \cos(n-2) \acos x$$ It follows that $$k_n = 2 x k_{n-1} = 2^{n-1} k_1 = 2^{n-1}$$ By uniqueness we have $T_n(x) \cos n \acos x$.

⬛️

Proposition (Chebyshev second kind formula)

$$U_n(x) = {\sin (n+1) \acos x \over \sin \acos x}$$ or in other words, $$U_n(\cos \theta) = {\sin (n+1) \theta \over \sin \theta}$$

Gram–Schmidt algorithm¶

In general we don't have nice formulae. But we can always construct them via Gram–Schmidt:

Proposition (Gram–Schmidt) Define

$$\begin{align*} p_0(x) = 1 \\ q_0(x) = {1 \over \norm{p_0}}\\ p_{n+1}(x) = x q_n(x) - \sum_{k=0}^n \ip<x q_n, q_k> q_k(x)\\ q_{n+1}(x) = {p_{n+1}(x) \over \norm{p_n}} \end{align*}$$ Then $q_0(x), q_1(x), \ldots$ are orthonormal w.r.t. $w$.

Proof By linearity we have

$$\ip<p_{n+1}, q_j> = \ip<x q_n - \sum_{k=0}^n \ip<x q_n, q_k> q_k, q_j> = \ip<x q_n, q_j> - \ip<x q_n, q_j> \ip<q_j,q_j> = 0$$ Thus $p_{n+1}$ is orthogonal to all lower degree polynomials. So is $q_{n+1}$, since it is a constant multiple of $p_{n+1}$.

⬛️

Let's make our own family:

Function approximation with orthogonal polynomials¶

A basic usage of orthogonal polynomials is for polynomial approximation. Suppose $f(x)$ is a degree $n-1$ polynomial. Since $\{p_0(x),\ldots,p_{n-1}(x)\}$ span all degree $n-1$ polynomials, we know that

$$f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f_k p_k(x)$$ where $$f_k = {\ip<f, p_k> \over \ip<p_k,p_k>}$$

Here, we demonstrate this with Chebyshev polynomials:

Of course, if $p_k$ are othernormal than we don't need the denominator.

This can be extended to function approximation Provided the sum converges absolutely and uniformly in $x$, we can write

$$f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k p_k(x).$$ In practice, we can approximate smooth functions by a finite truncation: $$f(x) \approx f_n(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} f_k p_k(x)$$

Here we see that $\E^x$ can be approximated by a Chebyshev approximation using 14 coefficients and is accurate to 16 digits:

The accuracy of this approximation is typically dictated by the smoothness of $f$: the more times we can differentiate, the faster it converges. For analytic functions, it's dictated by the domain of analyticity, just like Laurent/Fourier series. In the case above, $\E^x$ is entire hence we get faster than exponential convergence.

Chebyshev expansions work even when Taylor series do not. For example, the following function has poles at $\pm {\I \over 5}$, which means the radius of convergence for the Taylor series is $|x| < {1 \over 5}$, but Chebyshev polynomials continue to work on $[-1,1]$:

This can be explained for Chebyshev expansion by noting that it is cosine expansion / Fourier expansion of an even function:

$$f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k T_k(x) \Leftrightarrow f(\cos \theta) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k \cos k \theta$$ From Lecture 4 we saw that Fourier coefficients decay exponentially (thence the approximation converges exponentially fast) uf $f\left({z + z^{-1} \over 2}\right)$ is analytic in an ellipse. In the case of $f(x) = {1 \over 25 x^2 + 1}$, we find that $$f(z) = {4 z^2 \over 25 + 54 z^2 + 25 z^4}$$ which has poles at $\pm 0.8198040\I,\pm1.2198\I:$

Hence we predict a rate of decay of about $1.2198^{-k}$:

Weighted approximation¶

Sometimes, we want to incorporate the weight into the approximation. This is typically one of two forms, depending on the application:

$$f(x) = w(x) \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k p_k(x)$$ or $$f(x) = \sqrt{w(x)} \sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k p_k(x)$$

This is often the case with Hermite polynomials: on the real line polynomial approximation is unnatural unless the function approximated is a polynomial as otherwise the behaviour at ∞ is inconsistent, so what we really want is weighted approximation. Thus we can either use

$$f(x) = \E^{-x^2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k H_k(x)$$ or $$f(x) = \E^{-x^2/2}\sum_{k=0}^\infty f_k H_k(x)$$ Depending on your problem, getting this wrong can be disasterous:

Note that correctly weighted Hermite, that is, with $\sqrt{w(x)} = \E^{-x^2/2}$ look "nice":

Compare this to weighting by $w(x) = \E^{-x^2}$: