(What’s “pairwise distinct”? Isn’t that the same thing as “distinct”? Oh well…)
It sounds like you already have a handle on the counterexample, so here’s a proof of the first part.
Suppose P_n(x_j) -> y_j as n->oo for j = 0,1,2,…,m. Define
pi(x) = (x - x_0) (x – x_1) (x – x_2)…(x – x_m)
and let pi’(x_j) denote the same product but omitting the factor (x – x_j).
Define L_j(x) = pi(x) / ((x – x_j) pi’(x_j)).
The Lagrange interpolating polynomial for P_n, given its values at x_0, x_1,…,x_m is then
Sum{L_j(x) P_n(x_j); j= 0,1,…,m}.
Since P_n is a polynomial of degree at most m, it coincides with its interpolating polynomial, i.e.
P_n(x) = Sum{L_j(x) P_n(x_j); j= 0,1,…,m} for all x.
Taking limits, we see
lim P_n(x) = lim Sum{L_j(x) P_n(x_j); j= 0,1,…,m} = Sum{L_j(x) y_j; j=0,1,…,m}
as n-> oo, which is a polynomial.
2007-07-05 14:49:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by jw 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nealjking's answer is fairly stable. I even have no longer something exciting to function. I purely want to point out that, without pointing out it, he implicitly used the so observed as Lagrange Interpolation formula, which shows his matrix Z is definitely invertible. As for section 2, properly this is no longer a trivial difficulty. i will think of greater approximately it
2016-11-08 04:12:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋