Multivariate polynomial interpolation and sampling in Paley-Wiener spaces

1) \Longrightarrow 2): From the definition of L_\ell we know that it is an onto isomorphism. This yields P_\ell = P_\ell L P_\ell L_\ell^{-1}, implying P_\ell = (P_\ell L P_\ell)(P_\ell L_\ell^{-1} P_\ell).

2) \Longrightarrow 1): Let A_\ell be the unique square matrix such that P_\ell L P_\ell A_\ell = A_\ell P_\ell L P_\ell = P_\ell. We need to show that L_\ell is an onto isomorphism.

First we show that L_\ell is one to one. Say 0 = L_\ell x = L P_\ell x +(I-P_\ell)x, then 0= P_\ell L P_\ell x, so that 0 = A_\ell P_\ell L P_\ell x = P_\ell x. We conclude that x = (I- P_\ell)x. This implies 0 = L_\ell (I-P_\ell)x = (I- P_\ell)x =x.

Next we show that L_\ell is onto. Note L_\ell (I-P_\ell)x = (I- P_\ell)x, so we only need to show that for all x, P_\ell x is in the range of L_\ell. Define

We have L_\ell ( P_\ell A_\ell P_\ell x) = L P_\ell A_\ell P_\ell x and

from which L_\ell y = P_\ell x.

L_\ell is a continuous bijection between Hilbert spaces, and hence is an onto isomorphism by the open mapping theorem.

We only need to show that P_\ell L P_\ell is one to one on P_\ell H when L_\ell is one to one on H, and apply Lemma 3.4. Let (P_\ell L P_\ell) P_\ell x =0. We have

where the last equality follows from L_\ell P_\ell = L P_\ell. Since L_\ell is one to one, we have that P_\ell x = (I-P_\ell)LP_\ell x, so that P_\ell x = 0.

1) \Longrightarrow 2): By Lemma 3.4, we only need to show that that

This follows from the identity

which is hereby demonstrated:

We have (I-L)P_\ell = I -L_\ell, so

Noting that L_\ell (I-P_\ell) = I-P_\ell, we obtain L_\ell^{-1}P_\ell -P_\ell +I = L_\ell^{-1}, which proves the identity.

2) \Longrightarrow 1): Noting that (P_\ell L P_\ell)^{-1} = P_\ell L_\ell^{-1} P_\ell yields the result.

Lemmas 3.6 and 4.3 imply the existence of a unique sequence of polynomials satisfying statements (a) and (b) of Theorem 4.2, namely,

where p_{\ell,n} is defined as in the proof of Lemma 4.3.

Proposition 4.7 gives the following:

Now (f(t_n))_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^d} \in \ell_2(\mathbb{Z}^d) implies that \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} S_{\ell,d} =0, so that by Proposition 4.6, statement (c) in Theorem 4.2 is true.

Suppose that the sequence (f_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^d} is a Riesz basis for L_2([-\pi,\pi]^d). We compute the biorthogonal functions of (f_{\ell,n})_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^d} when n \in C_{\ell,d}:

Passing to the Fourier transform and defining G_{\ell, n} = \mathcal{F}(f_{\ell,n}^*), we have

Denote the k^{th} summand in equation (Proof) by A_k, then

where p_{\ell,n,k} is some polynomial with coordinate degree at most 2\ell. Substituting into equation (Proof), we obtain

where \phi_{\ell,n} is a polynomial having coordinate degree at most 2 \ell. The fact that each zero of \mathrm{sinc}(\pi z) has multiplicity one implies that the zero set of \frac{\mathrm{SINC}(\pi t)}{Q_{d,\ell} (t)} (which is entire) is (\mathbb{Z}\setminus \{-\ell,\cdots, \ell\})^d \subset \mathbb{C}. Using that \mathrm{SINC}\pi(x-y) is the reproducing kernel for PW_{[-\pi,\pi]^d}, we see that

for all n,m \in C_{\ell,d}. This yields that

This shows \phi_{\ell,n} (t_n) \neq 0 and \frac{\mathrm{SINC}(\pi t_n)}{Q_{d,\ell} (t_n)}\neq0 for n \in C_{\ell,d}, and that t_n \notin (\mathbb{Z}\setminus \{-\ell,\cdots, \ell\})^d (statement 1) of Lemma 4.3).

For n,m \in C_{\ell,d}, n\neq m,

We conclude that

for n,m \in C_{\ell,d} From this, the “existence” part of statement 2) in Lemma 4.3 readily follows. Restated, the evaluation map taking the space of all polynomials of coordinate degree at most 2 \ell to \mathbb{R}^{(2\ell+1)^d} is onto. These spaces have the same dimension, hence the evaluation map is a bijection, which completes the proof of statement 2).

Suppose that 1) and 2) hold. For n \in C_{\ell,d}, let p_{\ell,n} be the unique polynomial of coordinate degree at most 2\ell such that p_{\ell,n} (t_m) = \delta_{nm} for m \in C_{\ell,d}. Define

Partial fraction decomposition can be used to show that \Phi_{\ell,n} \in PW_{[-\pi,\pi]^d}. For n,m \in C_{\ell,d}, we therefore have

Let L_\ell be defined as before. Let f=\sum_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^d} c_n e_n such that L_\ell (f) = 0, then

If, for each n \in C_{\ell,d} we integrate the above equation against \mathcal{F}^{-1}(\Phi_{\ell,n}), we see that c_k = 0 for k \in C_{\ell,d}, so that c_k =0 for all k \in \mathbb{Z}^d. L_\ell is one to one, so by Lemma 3.5, it is an onto isomorphism from L_2([-\pi,\pi]^d) to itself.

It is clear that 1) implies 2). For the other direction, note that the equality L_\ell^* = P_\ell L^* +I - P_\ell implies that

This implies that (L_\ell^*)^{-1}P_\ell is pointwise bounded. Together with the assumption in 2), this implies (L_\ell^*)^{-1} is pointwise bounded, hence norm bounded by the uniform boundedness principle. This yields uniform invertibility of L.

Recall equation (Proof) and apply Proposition 4.4.

Note that Le_n = f_n implies that f_n^* = (L^*)^{-1}e_n. Similarly, f_{\ell,n}^* = (L_\ell^*)^{-1}e_n. Given f \in PW_{[-\pi,\pi]^d}, let g= \mathcal{F}^{-1}(f). Equation (?) shows:

Passing to the Fourier transform, we have

where convergence in both L_2 and uniform. The values of a function in PW_{[-\pi,\pi]^d} on the set (t_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^d} uniquely determine the function. This and equation (?) show that

This implies that

Combined with equation (Proof), we see that statement (c) of Theorem 4.2 holds iff

where the limit is in the L_2 sense. Passing to the inverse Fourier transform, statement (c) holds iff

In addition to having uniformly norm bounded inverses, L_\ell is pointwise bounded, so there exists m, M>0 such that for all \ell \in \mathbb{N}, f \in PW_{[-\pi,\pi]^d}, m\| f\| \leq \|(L_\ell^*)^{-1} f \| \leq M\| f \|. This, combined with equation (?), proves the proposition.

For 1), the identity

implies

where convergence is uniform on compact subsets of \mathbb{C}. Fix \ell \in \mathbb{N}. If t \in [0,\ell+1], then \Big|\frac{\mathrm{sinc}(\pi t)}{Q_{1,\ell}(t)} \Big| \leq1. Note that |Q_{1,\ell} (t)| = \prod_{k=1}^\ell \Big(\frac{t^2}{k^2} -1 \Big) is increasing on (\ell+1, \infty). If t \in (\ell+1, \infty), then

Computation yields

so

Observing that \frac{\mathrm{sinc}(\pi t)}{Q_{1,\ell}(t)} is even proves 1).

For 2), let t \in \mathbb{R} such that \Big| \frac{t}{\ell+1} \Big| < \frac{1}{\ell^{2/3}}, then 0 < \frac{\mathrm{sinc}(\pi t)}{Q_{1,\ell}(t)}, and

Basic calculus shows that

Equality (?) implies

If n \in \Delta_{\ell,d}, then for each 1 \leq k \leq d, \Big| \frac{t_n (k)}{\ell+1} \Big| >\frac{\ell+2}{\ell^{4/3}-1}, so that

Statement 2) of Proposition 4.7 follows readily.

If f \in PW_{[-\pi,\pi]^d}, Theorem 4.2 states that

where \xi_\ell \rightarrow 0 on \mathbb{R}^d both in L_2 and L_\infty senses. By Lemma 5.3, we have

the right side of which has zero limit. Also,

whose right hand side, by Lemma 5.4, also has zero limit. Combining inequalities (Proof) and (Proof), we obtain

Equation (5.1) follows by a final application of Theorem 4.2.

Now we prove equation (5.1). Lemma 5.3 and Theorem 4.2 imply

the right hand side of which has zero limit. Also,

The second term in the right hand side of inequality (?) is bounded from above by

which has zero limit. The integrand of the first term in the right hand side of inequality (?) (as a function over \mathbb{R}^d), converges uniformly to zero by Lemma 5.4, and is bounded from above by

so this term has zero limit by the Dominated Convergence Theorem. Combining equations (?) and (?) yields

Equation (5.1) follows by a final application of Theorem 4.2.

Letting |t| < \ell+1/2 and recalling equation (?), we see that

Applying Proposition 5.5 to the function f(t) = \frac{1}{t^{2k}} when k \geq 1, we obtain

Equation (Proof) becomes

Restated,

Exponentiating,

Let \ell be chosen large enough so that A (\ell+1/2)^\frac{2N+1}{2N+2} <\ell+1/2. If \ell is large enough, then for any t \in E_{\ell N,A}, t=c (\ell+1/2)^\frac{2N+1}{2N+2} for some c \in [-A,A]. For such t, inequality (Proof) implies

If t \in (E_{\ell,N,A})^d, then t=c (\ell+1/2)^\frac{2N+1}{2N+2} for some c \in [-A,A]^d. For any such t, we have

On one hand,

where the “big O” constant is independent of c \in [-A,A]^d. On the other hand,

Inequality (Proof) yields

The left most side of inequality (Proof) is of the order O((\ell+1/2)^{-\frac{N+2}{N+1}}), and the right most side of inequality (Proof) is of the order O((\ell+1/2)^{-\frac{1}{N+1}}), where the “big O” constants are independent of c\in [-A,A]^d. The lemma follows readily.

Equivalently, we need to show

Suppose the contrary. Let c_\ell \in [-A,A]^d be a value that maximizes the \ell-th term in the above limit. There exists (\ell_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}}, and \epsilon>0 such that for all k \in \mathbb{N},

so that the sequence \big( f\big(c_{\ell_k} (\ell_k+1/2)^\frac{2N+1}{2N+2}\big) \big)_{k \in \mathbb{N}} is bounded away from 0. This implies there exists \delta >0 such that \big\| c_{\ell_k} (\ell_k+1/2)^\frac{2N+1}{2N+2} \big\|_{2(N+1)} \leq \delta for k \in \mathbb{N}, that is, \| c_{\ell_k} \|_{2(N+1)} \leq \delta (\ell_k+1/2)^{-\frac{2N+1}{2N+2}}. This forces

The last term in the above inequality has limit 0 as \ell \rightarrow \infty, which is a contradiction.

The proof follows naturally from geometric considerations.

Using uniform invertiblity of L, and noting that (L_\ell^*)^{-1} -(L^*)^{-1} = (L_\ell^*)^{-1}(L^* - L_\ell^*)(L^*)^{-1} and \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} L_\ell^* x=L^* x for all x \in H, we see that \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} (L_\ell^*)^{-1}x = (L^*)^{-1}x for all x \in H. Equation (Proof) implies that \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} (L_\ell^*)^{-1} x - (P_\ell L^* P_\ell)^{-1} x =0 for all x \in H. Together we have

General principles imply

This yields \| L - A \| \leq \frac{\gamma}{\| L^{-1}\|}, so that A is invertible by usual Neumann series manipulation. Equation (6.3) yields that \| P_\ell L P_\ell- P_\ell A P_\ell \| \leq \frac{\gamma}{M}, where the norm is now the standard matrix norm on the set of matrices of dimension \mathrm{dim}(\mathrm{ran}{P_\ell}). This implies

Choose N large enough so that \| (P_\ell L P_\ell)^{-1} \| \leq \frac{\gamma+1}{2\gamma} M when \ell \geq N. This yields

Standard manipulation shows that P_\ell A P_\ell is invertible for \ell \geq N, and

From the definition of L_\ell, we have I = (I-P_\ell)L_\ell^{-1}+L P_\ell L_\ell^{-1}, so that

This implies

As \ell \rightarrow \infty, the right hand side of equation (Proof) has 0 limit pointwise. Combined with the compactness of \Delta, we obtain

where limit is in the operator norm topology. This yields

where the limit is also in the operator norm topology. The right had side of equation (Proof) is invertible, so there exists N such that \ell \geq N implies (I+\Delta P_\ell L_\ell^{-1})^{-1} exists, and

From the definition of \tilde{L}_\ell, we obtain

When \ell \geq N, we have

and equation (Proof) implies

This completes the proof.

Apply Corollaries 6.4 and 6.6.

Define L e_n = f_n and \tilde{L}e_n = g_n. By Corollary 6.6, \tilde{L} is bounded linear and \tilde{L} = L+\Delta for some compact operator \Delta. Define the operator

Rewritten, we have

Compactness of \Delta implies that \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} R_\ell = L in the operator norm topology. We conclude that R_{\ell_0} is an onto isomorphism for some \ell_0 sufficently large; that is, the set

is a Riesz basis for L_2[-\pi,\pi]. If we apply Lemma 6.9, by replacing (f_n)_{|n| \leq \ell_0} with (g_n)_{|n| \leq \ell_0} in expression (Proof), we have that (g_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} is a Riesz basis for L_2[-\pi,\pi].

If we can prove the case when \ell = 0, the general result follows inductively. Let f_n(\cdot) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{i \langle \cdot , t_n \rangle} for n \neq 0, and g_0(\cdot) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{i \langle \cdot , \tau_0 \rangle} where \tau_0 \in \mathbb{R} and \tau_0 \neq t_n for n \neq 0. Let (e_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} be an orthonormal basis for L_2[-\pi,\pi]. Lemma 3.5 shows that (g_0) \cup (f_n)_{n \neq 0} is a Riesz basis if and only if the map defined by

is one to one. This is readily seen to be equivalent to \langle g_0, f_1^* \rangle \neq 0, or by passing to the Fourier transform, to G_0 (\tau_0)\neq 0, (recall that G_0 = \mathcal{F}(f_0^*)). If we can show that the only zeros of G_0 in \mathbb{R} are (t_n)_{n \neq 0}, we are done.

Suppose there exists \lambda \in \mathbb{R}, \lambda\notin (t_n)_{n \neq 0}. Such that G_0 (\lambda) = 0 with multiplicity m. Define the entire function

Note that H|_\mathbb{R} \in L_2(\mathbb{R}), and H is of exponential type \pi, so H \in PW_{[-\pi,\pi]} by the Theorem 2.4. The expansion

combined with H(t_n) = \delta_{n,0}, shows that H(t) = G_0(t) for all t \in \mathbb{R}, an immediate contradiction. We conclude that G_0 (\lambda) \neq 0.

Equation (7.1) follows immediately from Propositions 7.2 and 7.3.

The previous two propositions prove equation when d=1. The multidimensional case follows inductively.

Let t = \alpha C_{\ell,N} where \alpha \in [-1,1]^d. Noting that

the quantity in equation (7.2) becomes

The last term in the above inequality has limit 0 as \ell \rightarrow \infty. This proves the proposition.

If t \in \mathbb{R}^d and \|t \|_\infty <\ell+1/2, then equation (Proof) implies

Let t \in [-C_{\ell,N},C_{\ell,N}]^d where t= \alpha C_{\ell,N}, \alpha \in [-1,1]. Consider the right hand side of inequality (Proof) for such t.

for some constant M. Noting that

we can bound the left hand side of inequality (Proof) from below as follows:

where m>0 is chosen independently of \ell. Relations (Proof) through (Proof) imply

Further simplification implies (for appropriate constants C, C', and C'') that

after the change in variable t = \alpha C_{\ell,N} and simple estimates. This proves the proposition.

Let t \in [-D_{\ell,N},D_{\ell,N}], then t = \alpha D_{\ell,N} for \alpha \in [-1,1]. Simplification shows that equation (7.4) holds if

Note that for large \ell,

Let 0 < \alpha \leq 1/2. The Mean Value Theorem implies

This yields

for some constant M. Combined with inequality (Proof), we have equation (Proof), which proves the proposition.

Let t \in [-C_{\ell,N},C_{\ell,N}] where t=\alpha C_{\ell,N}, \alpha \in [-1,1]. Proceeding in the same manner as in the proof of Proposition 7.3, we see (for appropriate constants C and C') that

This proves the proposition.

Fix N\geq0, and define c=\frac{2N+1}{2N+4}+\delta/2 where 0<\delta is small enough so that c<1/2. Define

and

Note that \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} \epsilon_\ell = 0. Let t \in [A_\ell (\ell+1/2), (1+\epsilon_\ell)A_\ell(\ell+1/2)], then t=\alpha(\ell +1/2) for some \alpha \in [A_\ell,(1+\epsilon_\ell)A_\ell]. For large \ell, note that inequality (Proof) implies

Moving to the multivariate case, if t \in [A_\ell (\ell+1/2), (1+\epsilon_\ell)A_\ell(\ell+1/2)]^d, then t = \alpha (\ell+1/2) for some \alpha \in [A_\ell, (1+\epsilon_\ell)A_\ell]^d. This yields

For sufficiently large \ell, we can conclude

Applying Proposition 7.7 for a= A_\ell (\ell+1/2), \epsilon = \epsilon_\ell, and \omega = 1-2c, and using the definition of \epsilon_\ell, we obtain

The first term in the brackets in the previous equation has limit 1/2, while the second term has limit 0. We conclude there exists a constant \beta >0 such that

If M_{\ell,N} \geq (\ell+1/2)(1+\epsilon_\ell)A_\ell for infinitely many \ell, there exists a subsequence (\ell_k)_{k \in \mathbb{N}} such that (in particular),

This contradicts inequality (?). This yields that for sufficiently large \ell,

Note that since \epsilon_\ell \rightarrow 0, for large \ell, the quantity (1+\epsilon_\ell)\Big(\frac{2N+1}{4N+4}+\delta/2 \Big)^\frac{1}{2(N+1)} is less than, (and bounded away from) the quantity \Big(\frac{2N+1}{4N+4}+\delta \Big)^\frac{1}{2(N+1)}. We conclude that for any \delta>0, there exists \ell_{N,\delta} such that

Proposition 7.6 follows.

Let b=(1+\epsilon)a. We have

and

This yields

so that

Noting that

proves the proposition.

Let N \geq 0. Choose \delta>0 such that c := \frac{2N+1}{2N+2}+\delta/2<1. Define

and

Note that \lim_{\ell \rightarrow \infty} \epsilon_\ell = 0. Let t \in [A_\ell (\ell+1/2),A_\ell(\ell+1/2)+\epsilon_\ell]. Proceeding as before, for sufficiently large \ell, we have

Now for all t \in [A_\ell (\ell+1/2),A_\ell(\ell+1/2)+\epsilon_\ell],

In the multivariate case, if t \in [A_\ell (\ell+1/2),A_\ell(\ell+1/2)+\epsilon_\ell]^d, we obtain

For large \ell, an application of Proposition 7.9 yields

By the definition of \epsilon_\ell, the right hand side of the above equation tends to a positive constant. The remainder of the proof is almost identical to that of Proposition 7.6.

The proof is clear from geometric considerations.