Approximating function by trigonometric polynomial

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around approximating a function \( f(x) \) defined on the interval \( [0, 2\pi] \) using a trigonometric polynomial, specifically exploring the implications of changing the interval to \( [0, \pi/2] \) and the corresponding inner product. Participants are examining the best approximation theorem and the conditions under which the approximation remains optimal.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how the best approximation changes when using the inner product defined over a smaller interval \( [0, \pi/2] \) while still employing the functions \( \{ e^{inx} \} \), which are no longer orthonormal.
  • Another participant suggests that the condition \( \frac{\partial (f,g)}{\partial a_n} = 0 \) for all \( a_n \) could lead to interesting results regarding optimal solutions.
  • A participant reflects on the idea that the optimal result should occur when \( (f-g) \perp f \), but notes a potential misunderstanding regarding the linearity of the coefficients \( a_n \) and the absence of extrema.
  • One participant corrects their earlier statement, indicating that minimizing \( (f-g, f-g) \) is the goal, and elaborates on how the inner product's linearity affects the expression, suggesting that the nonlinearity introduced by \( (g,g) \) could lead to a proper minimum.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of changing the inner product and the nature of the optimal approximation, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing ideas presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity introduced by changing the interval and the inner product, which may affect the orthonormality of the basis functions and the resulting approximation. There are indications of missing assumptions regarding the independence of coefficients and the nature of the function being approximated.

ekkilop
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi!

Say that we wish to approximate a function f(x), \, x\in [0, 2\pi] by a trigonometric polynomial such that

f(x) \approx \sum_{|n|\leq N} a_n e^{inx} \qquad (1)

The best approximation theorem says that in a function space equipped with the inner product

(f,g) = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2\pi} f \bar{g} dx

the best possible approximation is the truncated Fourier series of the function, which follows from the orthonormality of the basis functions \{ e^{inx} \}. But what happens if we wish to consider a smaller interval, say x \in [0, \pi/2], and a corresponding inner product

(f,g) = \frac{2}{\pi} \int_0^{\pi/2} f \bar{g} dx

but still use the functions \{ e^{inx} \} (no longer orthonormal) in our approximation (1)? We could of course use the Fourier coefficients for all n that are multiples of 4 and set the rest to zero to get the corresponding Fourier series, but this is no longer the best possible approximation. So my question is basically, what would the best approximation be in this case?

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$$\frac{\partial (f,g)}{\partial a_n} = 0$$ for all ##a_n## is a natural result of an optimal solution. Analyzing this equation could give some interesting results.
 
Thank you mfb for your reply!

Yes, that was my original idea as well. If g is the approximation in the RHS of (1), then I reasoned that the optimal result should be when (f-g) \perp f. However, (f-g, f) is a linear function in the coefficients a_n so there are no extrema (I am assuming the coefficients are independent of x). Or perhaps I misunderstood something?
 
Ah, small fix:
I would expect that you want to minimize (f-g,f-g). As the inner product is linear in its arguments, (f-g,f-g) = (f,f) + (g,g) - (f,g) - (g,f) = (f,f) + (g,g) - 2 Re (f,g)
(f,f) is fixed, the other two parts depend on an and the expression should be minimal with respect to all an. The (g,g) part gives a nonlinearity with a proper minimum.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K