Specific proof technique of the complex Stone-Weierstrass theorem












2














The question is as follows:




If $f:mathbb{T}rightarrowmathbb{C}$ is continuous, prove that there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $mathbb{T}$ denotes the unit circle.) I've seen proofs of the more general statement of the complex version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem#Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem,_complex_version), but this is asked in the context of a first course in complex analysis, so we have not developed the foundation to even understand the more general statement. We are given the following hint, however.




Let $g(re^{itheta})=P_r(f)$ and show that for each $r<1$ there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_n$ converge uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $P_r(f)$ denotes the Poisson kernel.) Here are my specific questions:



1) Can we prove this by simply writing $f$ as $f=u+iv$ for some real-valued, continuous functions $u$ and $v$ and then applying the real version of Stone-Weierstrass? I.e. approximating $u$ and $v$ with polynomials of real variables and claiming that the supremum norm of $f$ minus the sum of these polynomials is arbitrarily small? (Applying the fact that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable.)



2) If the above is an invalid approach, how does introducing the Poisson kernel fix the logical error (as what I'm proposing is a similar idea to the hint)?





It is quite possible that I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Poisson kernel. Maybe my claim in 1) that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable is dependent on the Poisson kernel?



The purpose of this post is to request assistance in interpreting this problem (and required tools to prove it), not to ask for a solution.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$. that doesn't really make sense.
    – zhw.
    Nov 25 at 1:13










  • @zhw. ...why not?
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 1:15










  • @Atsina what is your definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}?$
    – Idonknow
    Nov 25 at 3:43










  • @Idonknow A sequence of complex numbers ${z_1,z_2,cdots}$ converges to $winmathbb{C}$ if $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}|z_n-w|=0$? I mean, there are plenty of equivalent definitions and theorems involving them, but this is probably the simplest definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}$
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 3:51
















2














The question is as follows:




If $f:mathbb{T}rightarrowmathbb{C}$ is continuous, prove that there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $mathbb{T}$ denotes the unit circle.) I've seen proofs of the more general statement of the complex version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem#Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem,_complex_version), but this is asked in the context of a first course in complex analysis, so we have not developed the foundation to even understand the more general statement. We are given the following hint, however.




Let $g(re^{itheta})=P_r(f)$ and show that for each $r<1$ there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_n$ converge uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $P_r(f)$ denotes the Poisson kernel.) Here are my specific questions:



1) Can we prove this by simply writing $f$ as $f=u+iv$ for some real-valued, continuous functions $u$ and $v$ and then applying the real version of Stone-Weierstrass? I.e. approximating $u$ and $v$ with polynomials of real variables and claiming that the supremum norm of $f$ minus the sum of these polynomials is arbitrarily small? (Applying the fact that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable.)



2) If the above is an invalid approach, how does introducing the Poisson kernel fix the logical error (as what I'm proposing is a similar idea to the hint)?





It is quite possible that I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Poisson kernel. Maybe my claim in 1) that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable is dependent on the Poisson kernel?



The purpose of this post is to request assistance in interpreting this problem (and required tools to prove it), not to ask for a solution.










share|cite|improve this question






















  • $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$. that doesn't really make sense.
    – zhw.
    Nov 25 at 1:13










  • @zhw. ...why not?
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 1:15










  • @Atsina what is your definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}?$
    – Idonknow
    Nov 25 at 3:43










  • @Idonknow A sequence of complex numbers ${z_1,z_2,cdots}$ converges to $winmathbb{C}$ if $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}|z_n-w|=0$? I mean, there are plenty of equivalent definitions and theorems involving them, but this is probably the simplest definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}$
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 3:51














2












2








2







The question is as follows:




If $f:mathbb{T}rightarrowmathbb{C}$ is continuous, prove that there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $mathbb{T}$ denotes the unit circle.) I've seen proofs of the more general statement of the complex version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem#Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem,_complex_version), but this is asked in the context of a first course in complex analysis, so we have not developed the foundation to even understand the more general statement. We are given the following hint, however.




Let $g(re^{itheta})=P_r(f)$ and show that for each $r<1$ there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_n$ converge uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $P_r(f)$ denotes the Poisson kernel.) Here are my specific questions:



1) Can we prove this by simply writing $f$ as $f=u+iv$ for some real-valued, continuous functions $u$ and $v$ and then applying the real version of Stone-Weierstrass? I.e. approximating $u$ and $v$ with polynomials of real variables and claiming that the supremum norm of $f$ minus the sum of these polynomials is arbitrarily small? (Applying the fact that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable.)



2) If the above is an invalid approach, how does introducing the Poisson kernel fix the logical error (as what I'm proposing is a similar idea to the hint)?





It is quite possible that I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Poisson kernel. Maybe my claim in 1) that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable is dependent on the Poisson kernel?



The purpose of this post is to request assistance in interpreting this problem (and required tools to prove it), not to ask for a solution.










share|cite|improve this question













The question is as follows:




If $f:mathbb{T}rightarrowmathbb{C}$ is continuous, prove that there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $mathbb{T}$ denotes the unit circle.) I've seen proofs of the more general statement of the complex version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem#Stone%E2%80%93Weierstrass_theorem,_complex_version), but this is asked in the context of a first course in complex analysis, so we have not developed the foundation to even understand the more general statement. We are given the following hint, however.




Let $g(re^{itheta})=P_r(f)$ and show that for each $r<1$ there is a sequence of polynomials $p_n(z,bar{z})$ such that $p_n$ converge uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$.




(Note: $P_r(f)$ denotes the Poisson kernel.) Here are my specific questions:



1) Can we prove this by simply writing $f$ as $f=u+iv$ for some real-valued, continuous functions $u$ and $v$ and then applying the real version of Stone-Weierstrass? I.e. approximating $u$ and $v$ with polynomials of real variables and claiming that the supremum norm of $f$ minus the sum of these polynomials is arbitrarily small? (Applying the fact that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable.)



2) If the above is an invalid approach, how does introducing the Poisson kernel fix the logical error (as what I'm proposing is a similar idea to the hint)?





It is quite possible that I just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Poisson kernel. Maybe my claim in 1) that polynomials in 2 real variables can be transformed into polynomials in complex conjugates of 1 variable is dependent on the Poisson kernel?



The purpose of this post is to request assistance in interpreting this problem (and required tools to prove it), not to ask for a solution.







real-analysis complex-analysis uniform-convergence weierstrass-approximation






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 24 at 21:07









Atsina

791116




791116












  • $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$. that doesn't really make sense.
    – zhw.
    Nov 25 at 1:13










  • @zhw. ...why not?
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 1:15










  • @Atsina what is your definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}?$
    – Idonknow
    Nov 25 at 3:43










  • @Idonknow A sequence of complex numbers ${z_1,z_2,cdots}$ converges to $winmathbb{C}$ if $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}|z_n-w|=0$? I mean, there are plenty of equivalent definitions and theorems involving them, but this is probably the simplest definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}$
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 3:51


















  • $p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$. that doesn't really make sense.
    – zhw.
    Nov 25 at 1:13










  • @zhw. ...why not?
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 1:15










  • @Atsina what is your definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}?$
    – Idonknow
    Nov 25 at 3:43










  • @Idonknow A sequence of complex numbers ${z_1,z_2,cdots}$ converges to $winmathbb{C}$ if $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}|z_n-w|=0$? I mean, there are plenty of equivalent definitions and theorems involving them, but this is probably the simplest definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}$
    – Atsina
    Nov 25 at 3:51
















$p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$. that doesn't really make sense.
– zhw.
Nov 25 at 1:13




$p_nrightarrow f$ uniformly for every $zinmathbb{T}$. that doesn't really make sense.
– zhw.
Nov 25 at 1:13












@zhw. ...why not?
– Atsina
Nov 25 at 1:15




@zhw. ...why not?
– Atsina
Nov 25 at 1:15












@Atsina what is your definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}?$
– Idonknow
Nov 25 at 3:43




@Atsina what is your definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}?$
– Idonknow
Nov 25 at 3:43












@Idonknow A sequence of complex numbers ${z_1,z_2,cdots}$ converges to $winmathbb{C}$ if $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}|z_n-w|=0$? I mean, there are plenty of equivalent definitions and theorems involving them, but this is probably the simplest definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}$
– Atsina
Nov 25 at 3:51




@Idonknow A sequence of complex numbers ${z_1,z_2,cdots}$ converges to $winmathbb{C}$ if $lim_{nrightarrowinfty}|z_n-w|=0$? I mean, there are plenty of equivalent definitions and theorems involving them, but this is probably the simplest definition of convergence in $mathbb{C}$
– Atsina
Nov 25 at 3:51















active

oldest

votes











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012082%2fspecific-proof-technique-of-the-complex-stone-weierstrass-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3012082%2fspecific-proof-technique-of-the-complex-stone-weierstrass-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Probability when a professor distributes a quiz and homework assignment to a class of n students.

Aardman Animations

Are they similar matrix