Difference between revisions of "Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind"
m (→Second proof (Induction)) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | The Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind are defined recursively by <cmath>T_0(x) = 1,</cmath> <cmath>T_1(x) = x,</cmath> <cmath>T_{n+1}(x) = 2xT_n(x) - T_{n-1}(x),</cmath> or equivalently by <cmath>T_n(x) = \cos (n \arccos x).</cmath> | + | The <b> Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind </b> are defined [[Recursion|recursively]] by <cmath>T_0(x) = 1,</cmath> <cmath>T_1(x) = x,</cmath> <cmath>T_{n+1}(x) = 2xT_n(x) - T_{n-1}(x),</cmath> or equivalently by <cmath>T_n(x) = \cos (n \arccos x).</cmath> |
==Proof of equivalence of the two definitions== | ==Proof of equivalence of the two definitions== | ||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
&= T_{m+1}(T_n(x)), \\ | &= T_{m+1}(T_n(x)), \\ | ||
\end{align*}</cmath> completing the inductive step. | \end{align*}</cmath> completing the inductive step. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Roots== | ||
+ | Since <math>T_n(\cos y) = \cos ny</math>, and the values of <math>ny</math> for which <math>\cos ny = 0</math> are <math>\frac{2k+1}{2}\pi</math> for integers <math>k</math>, the roots of <math>T_n(x)</math> are of the form <cmath>\cos \left( \frac{2k+1}{2n}\pi \right).</cmath> | ||
+ | |||
+ | These roots are also called<b> Chebyshev nodes</b>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Connection to roots of unity== | ||
+ | Because cosine is <math>1</math> only at integer multiples of <math>2\pi</math>, the roots of the polynomial <math>T_n(x) - 1</math> follow a simpler formula: <math>\cos \frac{2k\pi}{n}</math> for integers <math>k</math>. The <math>n</math>th roots of unity have arguments of <math>\frac{2k\pi}{n}</math> and magnitude <math>1</math>, so the roots of <math>T_n(x) - 1</math> are the real parts of the <math>n</math>th roots of unity. This lends intuition to several patterns. | ||
+ | |||
+ | All roots of <math>T_n(x) - 1</math> are also roots of <math>T_{mn}(x) - 1</math>, since all <math>n</math>th roots of unity are also <math>mn</math>th roots of unity. This can also be shown algebraically as follows: Suppose <math>T_n(x) - 1 = 0</math>. Then <cmath>T_{mn}(x) - 1 = T_m(T_n(x)) - 1 = T_m(1) - 1 = 1 - 1 = 0,</cmath> | ||
+ | using the composition identity and the fact that <math>T_m(1) = \cos(m \arccos 1) = \cos 0 = 1</math> for all <math>m</math>. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Particular cases include that <math>1</math>, being a root of <math>T_1(x) - 1 = x - 1</math>, is a root of <math>T_n(x) - 1</math> for all <math>n</math>, and <math>-1</math>, being a root of <math>T_2(x) - 1 = 2x^2 - 2</math>, is a root of <math>T_n(x) - 1</math> for all even <math>n</math>. All other roots of <math>T_n(x) - 1</math> correspond to roots of unity which fall into [[Complex conjugate|conjugate pairs]] with the same real part. |
Revision as of 11:34, 2 March 2022
The Chebyshev polynomials of the first kind are defined recursively by or equivalently by
Contents
Proof of equivalence of the two definitions
In the proof below, will refer to the recursive definition.
For the base case, for the base case,
Now for the inductive step, let , so that . We then assume that and , and we wish to prove that .
From the cosine sum and difference identities we have and The sum of these equations is rearranging, Substituting our assumptions yields as desired.
Composition identity
For nonnegative integers and , the identity holds.
First proof
By the trigonometric definition, .
As before, let . We have for some integer . Multiplying by and distributing gives ; taking the cosine gives .
For now this proof only applies where the trigonometric definition is defined; that is, for . However, is a degree- polynomial, and so is , so the fact that for some distinct is sufficient to guarantee that the two polynomials are equal over all real numbers.
Second proof (Induction)
First we prove a lemma: that for all . To prove this lemma, we fix and induct on .
For all , we have and for all , proving the lemma for and respectively.
Suppose the lemma holds for and ; that is, and . Then multiplying the first equation by and subtracting the second equation gives which simplifies to using the original recursive definition, as long as . Thus, the lemma holds for (as long as ), completing the inductive step.
To prove the claim, we now fix and induct on .
For all , we have and proving the claim for and respectively.
Suppose the claim holds for and ; that is, and . We may also assume , since the smaller cases have already been proven, in order to ensure that . Then by the lemma (with ) and the original recursive definition, completing the inductive step.
Roots
Since , and the values of for which are for integers , the roots of are of the form
These roots are also called Chebyshev nodes.
Connection to roots of unity
Because cosine is only at integer multiples of , the roots of the polynomial follow a simpler formula: for integers . The th roots of unity have arguments of and magnitude , so the roots of are the real parts of the th roots of unity. This lends intuition to several patterns.
All roots of are also roots of , since all th roots of unity are also th roots of unity. This can also be shown algebraically as follows: Suppose . Then using the composition identity and the fact that for all .
Particular cases include that , being a root of , is a root of for all , and , being a root of , is a root of for all even . All other roots of correspond to roots of unity which fall into conjugate pairs with the same real part.