Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Difference between revisions of "Diliberto-Straus algorithm"

From Encyclopedia of Mathematics
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Automatically changed introduction)
m (convert png to latex)
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
==Generalizations.==
 
==Generalizations.==
There are two natural generalizations of the Diliberto–Straus algorithm. First, one can continue working in the space but increase the complexity of the subspace from C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { 0 } ( T ) + \pi _ { 0 } ( S ) \otimes C ( T ) to $C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { k } ( T ) + \pi _{\text{l}} ( S ) \otimes C ( T ). Here, \pi _ { k } ( T ) is the subspace of C ( T ) consisting of all polynomials of degree at most k$, and <img align="absmiddle" border="0" src="https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/legacyimages/d/d120/d120160/d12016046.png"/> has a similar definition. One has to notice now that the operator {\cal M} _ { s } as defined above has the property that, for each t \in T, the number ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) is the best approximation to f (\, \cdot\, , t ) from \pi_{ 0} ( S ). In the present scenario, the correct generalization is to take the mapping s \mapsto ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) to be the polynomial of degree k which is the best approximation to f (\, \cdot\, , t ) from \pi _ { k } ( S ). One can then examine the convergence of the algorithm as before. This was done by N. Dyn [[#References|[a3]]], who showed that convergence cannot be guaranteed. In fact, if $k , \text{l} \geq 1, then there exists a function f \in C ( S \times T ) such that the algorithm is stationary, that is, f _ { n } = f for all n \geq 1, but \| f \| \neq \operatorname { dist } ( f , C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { k } ( T ) + \pi_{\text{l}}( S ) \otimes C ( T ) )$.
+
There are two natural generalizations of the Diliberto–Straus algorithm. First, one can continue working in the space C ( S \times T ) but increase the complexity of the subspace from C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { 0 } ( T ) + \pi _ { 0 } ( S ) \otimes C ( T ) to $C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { k } ( T ) + \pi _{\ell} ( S ) \otimes C ( T ). Here, \pi _ { k } ( T ) is the subspace of C ( T ) consisting of all polynomials of degree at most k$, and \pi_{\ell}(S) has a similar definition. One has to notice now that the operator {\cal M} _ { s } as defined above has the property that, for each t \in T, the number ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) is the best approximation to f (\, \cdot\, , t ) from \pi_{ 0} ( S ). In the present scenario, the correct generalization is to take the mapping s \mapsto ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) to be the polynomial of degree k which is the best approximation to f (\, \cdot\, , t ) from \pi _ { k } ( S ). One can then examine the convergence of the algorithm as before. This was done by N. Dyn [[#References|[a3]]], who showed that convergence cannot be guaranteed. In fact, if $k , \ell \geq 1, then there exists a function f \in C ( S \times T ) such that the algorithm is stationary, that is, f _ { n } = f for all n \geq 1, but \| f \| \neq \operatorname { dist } ( f , C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { k } ( T ) + \pi_{\ell}( S ) \otimes C ( T ) )$.
  
 
Another very natural generalization is to consider the algorithm in different spaces. For example, one could examine the behaviour of the analogous algorithm in L _ { p } ( S \times T ), with the subspace L _ { p } ( S ) + L _ { p } ( T ), where 1 \leq p \leq \infty. In the case p = 2, the algorithm takes place in a Hilbert space, and becomes the alternating algorithm of von Neumann. Because of the uniform convexity of L _ { p } ( S \times T ) for 1 &lt; p &lt; \infty, the analysis of the algorithm can be carried out in considerable generality. The case p = 1 is more delicate. As with the case studied by Dyn, there exist functions f \in L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) for which the algorithm is stationary, but \| f \| \neq \operatorname { dist } ( f , L _ { 1 } ( S ) + L _ { 1 } ( T ) ). However, a class of functions \mathcal F \subset L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) can be identified on which the algorithm can be shown to converge. When working within this set of functions, the task of verifying that the incremental functions satisfy that \| g _ { n } \| and \| h_n  \| tend to 0 is actually easier than the original problem tackled by Aumann. These results can be found in [[#References|[a4]]], [[#References|[a5]]].
 
Another very natural generalization is to consider the algorithm in different spaces. For example, one could examine the behaviour of the analogous algorithm in L _ { p } ( S \times T ), with the subspace L _ { p } ( S ) + L _ { p } ( T ), where 1 \leq p \leq \infty. In the case p = 2, the algorithm takes place in a Hilbert space, and becomes the alternating algorithm of von Neumann. Because of the uniform convexity of L _ { p } ( S \times T ) for 1 &lt; p &lt; \infty, the analysis of the algorithm can be carried out in considerable generality. The case p = 1 is more delicate. As with the case studied by Dyn, there exist functions f \in L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) for which the algorithm is stationary, but \| f \| \neq \operatorname { dist } ( f , L _ { 1 } ( S ) + L _ { 1 } ( T ) ). However, a class of functions \mathcal F \subset L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) can be identified on which the algorithm can be shown to converge. When working within this set of functions, the task of verifying that the incremental functions satisfy that \| g _ { n } \| and \| h_n  \| tend to 0 is actually easier than the original problem tackled by Aumann. These results can be found in [[#References|[a4]]], [[#References|[a5]]].

Revision as of 08:20, 16 March 2023

An algorithm first proposed in 1951 by S.P. Diliberto and E.G. Straus [a2]. It is concerned with the problem of finding a best approximation to f \in C ( S \times T ) from the subspace C ( S ) + C ( T ). In the original paper, S and T were closed, bounded intervals in \mathbf{R}, but there is no difficulty in thinking of them as compact Hausdorff spaces, and then giving C ( S \times T ) the usual supremum norm (cf. also Approximation theory). The subspace C ( S ) + C ( T ) might be more properly written as C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { 0 } ( T ) + \pi _ { 0 } ( S ) \otimes C ( T ), where \pi_{ 0} ( S ) is the subspace of C ( S ) consisting of functions that are constant on S. For f \in C ( S \times T ), one defines

\begin{equation*} ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \operatorname { sup } _ { s } f ( s , t ) + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \operatorname { inf } _ { s } f ( s , t ) \end{equation*}

and

\begin{equation*} ( M _ { t } f ) ( s ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \operatorname { sup } _ { t } f ( s , t ) + \frac { 1 } { 2 } \operatorname { inf } _ { t } f ( s , t ). \end{equation*}

The algorithm is then given by f _ { 1 } = f, f _ { 2 n } = f _ { 2 n - 1 } - g _ { n } and f _ { 2 n + 1 } = f _ { 2 n } - h _ { n }, where g _ { n } = \mathcal{M} _ { t }\, f _ { 2 n - 1} and h _ { n } = \mathcal{M} _ { s }\, f _ { 2n }.

Diliberto and Straus showed that \{ f _ { n } \} is an equicontinuous family of functions (cf. also Equicontinuity) and that \| f _ { n } \| \downarrow \text { dist } ( f , C ( S ) + C ( T ) ). These two facts may be used to deduce, via the Ascoli theorem, that the sequence \{ f _ { n } \} has cluster points (cf. also Cluster set), and that any such cluster point f ^ { * } has the property that f ^ { * } - f is a closest point to f from C ( S ) + C ( T ). These results are interesting, because they establish that every f \in C ( S \times T ) has a best approximation in the infinite-dimensional subspace C ( S ) + C ( T ). Diliberto and Straus could not establish that the sequence \{ f _ { n } \} is convergent. However, they came intriguingly near to such a proof when they apparently verified that in the algorithm the incremental functions g _ { n } and h_{n} satisfy \| g _ { n } \| \rightarrow 0 and \| h _ { n } \| \rightarrow 0 as n \rightarrow \infty. Unfortunately, a referee demanded that the paper be shortened prior to publication, so the sequence of lemmas needed to establish this result appears without proof. Up till now (1998), no-one has been able to reproduce the series of arguments needed to support some of these lemmas. However, later work by G. Aumann [a1] established that \| g _ { n } \| \rightarrow 0 and \| h _ { n } \| \rightarrow 0 as n \rightarrow \infty independently of the methods of Diliberto and Straus. Armed with this knowledge, Aumann was able to prove that the Diliberto–Straus algorithm converges. A relatively simple proof of the convergence of the algorithm, which contains Aumann's result on \| g _ { n } \| and \| h_n \|, can be found in [a6].

Generalizations.

There are two natural generalizations of the Diliberto–Straus algorithm. First, one can continue working in the space C ( S \times T ) but increase the complexity of the subspace from C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { 0 } ( T ) + \pi _ { 0 } ( S ) \otimes C ( T ) to C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { k } ( T ) + \pi _{\ell} ( S ) \otimes C ( T ). Here, \pi _ { k } ( T ) is the subspace of C ( T ) consisting of all polynomials of degree at most k, and \pi_{\ell}(S) has a similar definition. One has to notice now that the operator {\cal M} _ { s } as defined above has the property that, for each t \in T, the number ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) is the best approximation to f (\, \cdot\, , t ) from \pi_{ 0} ( S ). In the present scenario, the correct generalization is to take the mapping s \mapsto ( \mathcal{M} _ { s } f ) ( t ) to be the polynomial of degree k which is the best approximation to f (\, \cdot\, , t ) from \pi _ { k } ( S ). One can then examine the convergence of the algorithm as before. This was done by N. Dyn [a3], who showed that convergence cannot be guaranteed. In fact, if k , \ell \geq 1, then there exists a function f \in C ( S \times T ) such that the algorithm is stationary, that is, f _ { n } = f for all n \geq 1, but \| f \| \neq \operatorname { dist } ( f , C ( S ) \otimes \pi _ { k } ( T ) + \pi_{\ell}( S ) \otimes C ( T ) ).

Another very natural generalization is to consider the algorithm in different spaces. For example, one could examine the behaviour of the analogous algorithm in L _ { p } ( S \times T ), with the subspace L _ { p } ( S ) + L _ { p } ( T ), where 1 \leq p \leq \infty. In the case p = 2, the algorithm takes place in a Hilbert space, and becomes the alternating algorithm of von Neumann. Because of the uniform convexity of L _ { p } ( S \times T ) for 1 < p < \infty, the analysis of the algorithm can be carried out in considerable generality. The case p = 1 is more delicate. As with the case studied by Dyn, there exist functions f \in L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) for which the algorithm is stationary, but \| f \| \neq \operatorname { dist } ( f , L _ { 1 } ( S ) + L _ { 1 } ( T ) ). However, a class of functions \mathcal F \subset L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) can be identified on which the algorithm can be shown to converge. When working within this set of functions, the task of verifying that the incremental functions satisfy that \| g _ { n } \| and \| h_n \| tend to 0 is actually easier than the original problem tackled by Aumann. These results can be found in [a4], [a5].

Finally, it was the intention of Diliberto and Straus to consider approximation of multivariate functions by sums of univariate functions, and their paper gives a number of such results. Other generalizations in L _ { 1 } ( S \times T ) are given in [a7].

References

[a1] G. Aumann, "Uber approximative nomographie II" Bayer. Akad. Math. Natur. Kl. Sitzungsber. (1959) pp. 103–109
[a2] S.P. Diliberto, E.G. Straus, "On the approximation of a function of several variables by the sum of functions of fewer variables" Pacific J. Math. , 1 (1951) pp. 195–210
[a3] N. Dyn, "A straightforward generalization of Diliberto and Straus' algorithm does not work" J. Approx. Th. , 30 : 4 (1980) pp. 247–250
[a4] W.A. Light, "Convergence of the Diliberto–Straus algorithm in L _ { 1 } ( X \times Y )" Numer. Funct. Anal. Optim. , 3 : 2 (1981) pp. 137–146
[a5] W.A. Light, "The Diliberto–Straus algorithm in L _ { 1 } ( X \times Y )" J. Approx. Th. , 38 : 1 (1983) pp. 1–8
[a6] W.A. Light, E.W. Cheney, "On the approximation of a bivariate function by the sum of univariate functions" J. Approx. Th. , 29 : 4 (1980) pp. 305–322
[a7] W.A. Light, S.M. Holland, "The L_1-version of the Diliberto–Straus algorithm in C ( T \times S )" Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. , 27 (1984) pp. 31–45
How to Cite This Entry:
Diliberto-Straus algorithm. Encyclopedia of Mathematics. URL: http://encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php?title=Diliberto-Straus_algorithm&oldid=52647
This article was adapted from an original article by W. Light (originator), which appeared in Encyclopedia of Mathematics - ISBN 1402006098. See original article