Stability of conforming space-time isogeometric methods for the wave equation

Matteo Ferrari and Sara Fraschini

arXiv: 2403.15043v2 · PDF · 24 October 2024
Categories: math.NA, cs.NA
Licence: CC BY SA 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We consider a family of conforming space-time finite element discretizations for the wave equation based on splines of maximal regularity in time. Traditional techniques may require a CFL condition to guarantee stability. Recent works by O. Steinbach and M. Zank (2018), and S. Fraschini, G. Loli, A. Moiola, and G. Sangalli (2023), have introduced unconditionally stable schemes by adding non-consistent penalty terms to the underlying bilinear form. Stability and error analysis have been carried out for lowest order discrete spaces. While higher order methods have shown promising properties through numerical testing, their rigorous analysis was still missing. In this paper, we address this stability analysis by studying the properties of the condition number of a family of matrices associated with the time discretization. For each spline order, we derive explicit estimates of both the CFL condition required in the unstabilized case and the penalty term that minimises the consistency error in the stabilized case. Numerical tests confirm the sharpness of our results.

Items 49

Example

Example 3.1

6LEA

Here we explicitly write the entries of the matrices \mathbf{M}_{h}^2, \mathbf{B}_{h}^2, \mathbf{D}_{h}^2 \in \mathbb{R}^{(N+1)\times (N+1)} to show their structure. With the exception of 5 entries at the top-left and 5 at the bottom-right corners, they are Toeplitz band matrices:

\begin{aligned} \hspace{-1.3cm} \mathbf{M}_{h}^2 & = \frac{h}{120} \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{20} \begin{pmatrix} 14 & 2 \\ 40 & 25 & 1 \\ 25 & 66 & 26 & 1 \\ 1 & 26 & 66 & 26 & 1 \\ & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots \\ & & 1 & 26 & 66 & 26 & 1 \\ & & & 1 & 26 & 66 & 25 & 2 \\ & & & & 1 & 25 & 40 & 14 \\ \end{pmatrix}_{(N+1) \times (N+1)}\hspace{-1.95cm}, \\ \mathbf{B}_{h}^2 & = \frac{1}{6h} \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{20} \begin{pmatrix} -6 & -2 \\ 8 & -1 & -1 \\ -1 & 6 & -2 & -1 \\ -1 & -2 & 6 & -2 & -1 \\ & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots \\ & & -1 & -2 & 6 & -2 & -1 \\ & & & -1 & -2 & 6 & -1 & -2 \\ & & & & -1 & -1 & 8 & -6 \\ \end{pmatrix}_{(N+1) \times (N+1)} \hspace{-1.95cm}, \end{aligned}

and

\mathbf{D}_{h}^2 = \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{20} \frac{1}{h^3} \begin{pmatrix} -6 & 2 \\ 10 & -5 & 1 \\ -5 & 6 & -4 & 1 \\ 1 & -4 & 6 & -4 & 1 \\ & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots \\ & & 1 & -4 & 6 &-4 & 1 \\ & & & 1 & -4 & 6 & -5 & 2 \\ & & & & 1 & -5 & 10 & -6 \\ \end{pmatrix}_{(N+1) \times (N+1)}\hspace{-1.8cm}.

Proposition

Proposition 3.2

9HS9

For all p \ge 1, let \mathbf{M}_h^p, \mathbf{B}_h^p and \mathbf{D}_h^p be defined in (?). Then, the following properties hold true.

The entries within matrices \frac{1}{h} \mathbf{M}_h^p, h \mathbf{B}_h^p and h^{2p-1} \mathbf{D}_h^p are independent of the mesh parameter h.
The matrices \mathbf{M}_h^p, \mathbf{B}_h^p and \mathbf{D}_h^p are persymmetric, i.e., they are symmetric about their northeast-southwest diagonal.
The matrices \mathbf{M}_h^1, \mathbf{B}_h^1 and \mathbf{D}_h^1 are lower triangular Toeplitz band matrices with three non-zero diagonals. For p>1, with the exception of 2p^2-3 entries located at the top-left and bottom-right corners, the matrices \mathbf{M}_h^p, \mathbf{B}_h^p, and \mathbf{D}_h^p exhibit a Toeplitz band structure. In particular, in the top-left corner, precisely the non-zero entries of the first p rows and the first p-1 columns do not respect the Toeplitz structure, with the exception of the entries in position (p,2p-1) and (2p,p-1). The precise structure of that block is as follows
\vphantom{ \begin{matrix} \overbrace{XYZ}^{\mbox{$R$}}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \underbrace{pqr}_{\mbox{$S$}} \\ \end{matrix}} \begin{matrix} \vphantom{a} p+1\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vdots \\ * \\ * \vspace{0.5cm} \end{matrix}}\right. \vspace{0.1cm}\\ p-1\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vdots \\ * \end{matrix}}\right. \end{matrix} \begin{pmatrix} \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \hspace{0.1cm} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$p-1$}}}}* & \ldots & * \hspace{0.1cm}& \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \phantom{***} & \phantom{*} & \phantom{ \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} } \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$p$}}}}* & \phantom{***} & \phantom{*} & \phantom{ \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} } \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * & \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \\ * & \ldots & * & & & & \\ * & \ldots & * & & & & & \\ & \ddots & \vdots & & & \\ & & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & & & \end{pmatrix}.
In their purely Toeplitz band parts, the matrices exhibit symmetry in the entries with respect to the first lower codiagonal. Specifically, the central non-vanishing elements can be expressed as
\begin{aligned} \frac{1}{h} \mathbf{M}^p_{h}[\ell,\ell-1 \pm j] = \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j), & \quad h \mathbf{B}^p_{h}[\ell,\ell-1 \pm j] = - \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j), \\ h^{2p-1} \mathbf{D}^p_h[\ell,\ell-1 \pm j] & = (-1)^p \partial_s^{2p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j), \end{aligned}
for j=0,\ldots,p and \ell = 2p+1,\ldots,N-p.

Proof of Proposition 3.2

The first three properties readily follow from the definition of the matrices (?), and the B-splines definition (?). On the other hand, representations (?) are consequences of (?) and (?), along with the characterization for inner products of derivatives of cardinal B-splines [GaroniManniPelosiSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2014, Lemma 4]

\int_{\mathbb{R}} \partial^{k_1}_s \Phi_p(s) \partial^{k_2}_s \Phi_p(s+j) \dd s = (-1)^{k_2} \partial^{(k_1+k_2)}_s \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j)

and their symmetry property [GaroniManniPelosiSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2014, Lemma 3]

\partial_s^k \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1+s) = (-1)^k \partial_s^k \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-s).

Remark

Remark 3.3

T04N

The indices of the first and last rows representing integrals involving only central splines are the (2p+1)^{\operatorname{th}} and (N-p)^{\operatorname{th}}, respectively. There exists at least one row of that type if and only if N-p \ge 2p+1, i.e., N \ge 3p+1.

Assumption

Assumption 3.4

9I6L

We assume that p \in \mathbb{N} and \delta \le 0 are such that \mathbf{K}_{\mu,h}^p(\delta) is nonsingular for all \mu, h>0.

Remark

Remark 3.5

09EJ

For p=1, Assumption 3.4 is readily verified since \mathbf{K}_{\mu,h}^1(\delta) is a triangular Toeplitz matrix with entries on the diagonal 1/h + (\mu h)/6 - \mu \delta h.

Theorem

Theorem 4.1

52P8

[AmodioBrugnano1996, Theorem 3] Let \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_{n} represent a family of nonsingular Toeplitz band matrices, and let q^{\mathbf{C}} in (?) be the associated polynomial. Then, the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_{n} exhibits the following behaviour:

it is well-conditioned if q^{\mathbf{C}} is of type (m,0,k);
it is weakly well-conditioned if q^{\mathbf{C}} is of type (m_1,m_2,k) or (m,k_1,k_2), where m_1+m_2=m and k_1+k_2=k. In this scenario, \kappa(\mathbf{C}_n) grows at most as \mathcal{O}(n^\eta), with \eta representing the highest multiplicity among the zeros of unit modulus of q^{\mathbf{C}}.

Additionally, if q^{\mathbf{C}} is of type (q_1,q_2,q_3) for q_1,q_2 and q_3 such that q_1+q_3>0 and simultaneously q_1 \ne m and q_3 \ne k, then \kappa(\mathbf{C}_n) grows exponentially as n increases.

Used by Proof

Remark

Remark 4.2

EC7C

Weakly well-conditioning may be true for families of type (0,m+k,0). Consider indeed the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n of symmetric tridiagonal Toeplitz matrices with c_{-1} = 1, c_{0} = 2, and c_1 = 1. The polynomial q^{\mathbf{C}}(z) = 1+2z+z^2 is of type (0,2,0), and the eigenvalues of matrices of this family are explicitly known (see, e.g. [Smith1985, Pag. 59])

\left\{\lambda_j = 2+2 \cos\left( \frac{j \pi}{n+1} \right) \quad j = 1,\ldots,n\right\}.

From the latter expression we readily obtain that \kappa_2(\mathbf{C}_n) = \mathcal{O}(n^2).

Remark

Remark 4.3

AZUM

Property that q^{\mathbf{C}} is of type (m_1,m_2,k) or (m,k_1,k_2) , where m_1+m_2=m and k_1+k_2=k actually implies nonsingularity, for n sufficiently large, of the elements of the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n (see [AmodioBrugnano1996, Remark 2]).

Remark

Remark 4.4

QWG4

Note that similar results can be obtained in the 2-norm by recalling that the following inequality is valid (see, for example, [GolubVanLoan1996, Equations 2.3.11 and 2.3.12])

\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} \| \mathbf{C} \|_1 \le \| \mathbf{C} \|_2 \le \sqrt{n} \| \mathbf{C} \|_1, \quad \text{for all~} \mathbf{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}.

Theorem

Theorem 4.5

G9V0

Let \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n be a family of nonsingular Toeplitz band matrices as in (?). Consider a family \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n consisting of nonsingular matrices that are perturbations of \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n, where the perturbations of each \widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n are restricted to the top-left and bottom-right blocks of size (m+k) \times (m+k) with entries independent on n, depicted as

\vphantom{ \begin{matrix} \overbrace{XYZ}^{\mbox{$R$}} \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \underbrace{pqr}_{\mbox{$S$}} \\ \end{matrix}} \begin{matrix} m\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right. \vspace{0.1cm}\\ k\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right. \end{matrix} \hspace{-0.15cm} \begin{pmatrix} \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \hspace{0.2cm} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$k$}}}}* & \ldots & * \hspace{0.2cm}& \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$m$}}}} \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \\ \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & * & & & \\ & \ddots & \vdots & & & \\ & & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & & & \end{pmatrix}, \hspace{0.2cm} \quad \vphantom{ \begin{matrix} \overbrace{XYZ}^{\mbox{$R$}}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \underbrace{pqr}_{\mbox{$S$}} \\ \end{matrix}} \begin{pmatrix} & & & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & & \\ & & & \vdots & \ddots & \\ & & & * & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \\ \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \\ & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\ \mathrlap{\smash{\underbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \end{matrix}}}_{\mbox{$k$}}}} \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (-0.1,-0.1) rectangle (0.6em, 0.6em); \node at (0.06,0.06) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \mathrlap{\smash{\underbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \end{matrix}}}_{\mbox{$m$}}}}* & \ldots & * \end{pmatrix} \hspace{-0.15cm} \begin{matrix} \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}m \vspace{0.1cm}\\ \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}k \vspace{0.1cm} \end{matrix}

where the matrix on the left represents the top-left perturbation block, and the matrix on the right the bottom-right perturbation block. Let us further assume that the matrices \widehat \mathbf{C}_n have entries in the two outer codiagonals (the k^{\operatorname{th}} and the (-m)^{\operatorname{th}}, i.e., the entries in the square boxes of the two perturbed blocks) all different from zero. Then, the families \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n and \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n have the same conditioning behaviour.

Used by Remark 4.6, Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof, Remark A.3, Remark A.4, Example A.7

Remark

Remark 4.6

26Z8

Finding a matrix criterion that guarantees the nonsingularity of the matrices \widehat \mathbf{C}_n under the weakly well-conditioning of the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n should be interesting. A necessary condition is clearly the nonsingularity of the two perturbed blocks of size (m+k) \times (m+k) in (?), but this is not sufficient (see Example A.7). A sufficient condition, however difficult to verify in our case, is given in Remark A.6, the proof of which is deduced from the proof of Theorem 4.5 and [AmodioBrugnano1996, Remark 2]. At present, to apply Theorem 4.5 to the families \{\mathbf{K}_n^p(\rho,\delta)\}_n in (?) we have to assume the nonsingularity of their elements as in Assumption 3.4.

Uses Theorem 4.5

Lemma

Lemma 4.7

ATNP

Let the family of matrices \{\mathbf{G}_n^p\}_n be as in (?), and, if p>1, assume that not all the zeros of q^{\mathbf{G}^p}, defined in (?), are on the boundary of the unit circle. Then, \{\mathbf{G}_n^p\}_n is weakly well-conditioned if and only if the associated polynomial q^{\mathbf{G}^p} has exactly two zeros of unit modulus.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 4.7

Assume p>1, if p=1 the proof is analogous. According to Theorem 4.1, the matrix family \{\mathbf{G}_n^p\}_n exhibits weakly well-conditioned, or well-conditioned, behaviour if and only if q^{\mathbf{G}^p} falls into one of the following types: (r_1,p+1-r_1,p-1) for some r_1 \in \{0,\ldots,p+1\} or (p+1,p-1-r_2,r_2) for some r_2 \in \{0,\ldots,p-1\}. It is worth noting that if \xi is a zero of q^{\mathbf{G}^p}, then \xi^{-1} is also a zero. Hence, q^{\mathbf{G}^p} necessarily is a polynomial of type (r,2p-2r,r) for some r \in \{1,\ldots,p\}. Consequently, the only admissible choice for weakly well-conditioning is q^{\mathbf{G}^p} of type (p-1,2,p-1).

Uses Theorem 4.1

Lemma

Lemma 4.8

YO17

If p>1, assume that not all the zeros of q^{\mathbf{G}^p} in (?) are on the boundary of the unit circle. Then, the family of matrices \{ \mathbf{G}_n^p \}_n as defined in (?) exhibits weakly well-conditioned behaviour if and only if the Chebyshev transform \mathcal{T} q^{\mathbf{G}^p} (?) of the polynomial q^{\mathbf{G}^p} has exactly one real root in the interval [-2,2].

Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 4.9

PP3V

Consider q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(z) = g_0 z^{2p} + g_1 z^{2p-1} + \ldots + g_1 z + g_0, a self-reciprocal polynomial of degree 2p. Let \{x_1,\ldots,x_p\} denote the roots of its Chebyshev transform \mathcal{T} q^{\mathbf{G}^p}. Assuming g_0 \ne 0, the following formulas are valid

\begin{aligned} \prod_{j=1}^p (x_j-2) = (-1)^p \, \frac{q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(1)}{g_0}, \quad \quad \quad \prod_{j=1}^p (x_j+2) = \frac{q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(-1)}{g_0}. \end{aligned}

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 4.9

To prove the first formula, let us consider f(x) = \mathcal{T} q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(x+2). For all roots x_j of \mathcal{T} q^{\mathbf{G}^p}, we have f(x_j-2)=\mathcal{T} q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(x_j)=0. Therefore, recalling Vieta’s formulas the product (x_1-2)\dots(x_p-2) is equal to (-1)^p f(0)/g_0. We can compute f(0) = \mathcal{T} q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(2) = q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(1), the latter because x(z) = z^{-1} + z = 2 if and only if z=1. For the second formula, the proof follows a similar reasoning.

Proposition

Proposition 4.10

1BYO

If the family of matrices \{ \mathbf{G}_n^p \}_n in (?) is weakly well-con-
ditioned, and if p>1 not all zeros of the associated polynomial q^{\mathbf{G}^p}, as defined in (?), are on the boundary of the unit circle, then q^{\mathbf{G}^p} satisfies the following condition

(-1)^p q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(-1) q^{\mathbf{G}^p}(1) \le 0.

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 4.10

Result follows from Lemmas 4.8 and 4.9.

Uses Lemma 4.8, Lemma 4.9

Proposition

Proposition 5.1

4XVT

For p \ge 1 and \theta \in [-\pi,\pi], let the functions M_p, B_p, D_p : [-\pi,\pi] \to \mathbb{R} be defined as

\begin{aligned} M_p(\theta) = (2-2\cos \theta)^{p+1} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\theta + 2j\pi)^{2p+2}}, & \quad B_p(\theta) = -(2-2\cos \theta)^{p+1} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\theta + 2j\pi)^{2p}}, \\ & \hspace{-1.5cm} D_p(\theta) = (-1)^p (2-2\cos \theta)^p. \end{aligned}

Then, the following relations hold true

\begin{aligned} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta}+e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) & = M_p(\theta), \\ \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta} + e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) & = B_p(\theta), \\ \partial_s^{2p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \partial_s^{2p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta} + e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) & = D_p(\theta). \end{aligned}

Therefore, we can express q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(e^{\mathrm{i} \theta}) as

q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(e^{\mathrm{i} \theta}) = e^{\mathrm{i} p \theta}\left( B_p(\theta) + \rho\left(M_p(\theta) + \delta (-1)^p D_p(\theta) \right) \right).

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Proposition 5.1

There is already a proof for the explicit expressions of M_p(\theta) and B_p(\theta) in [GaroniManniPelosiSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2014, Lemmas 7 and 6]. For the sake of completeness, we report the details for M_p(\theta), and present a different proof for B_p(\theta), which is useful for calculating D_p(\theta).

We recall that the Fourier transform of a cardinal spline \Phi_p is

\widehat \Phi_p(\xi) = \left(\frac{1-e^{-\mathrm{i} \xi}}{\mathrm{i} \xi} \right)^{p+1}, \quad \left| \widehat \Phi_p(\xi) \right|^2 = \left(\frac{2-2\cos \xi}{\xi^2} \right)^{p+1}, \quad \quad \xi \in \mathbb{R}

(see [Chui1992, Example 3.4]), and satisfies the hypothesis of a Poisson summation formula [Chui1992, Theorem 2.28], i.e., for all \theta \in [-\pi,\pi]

\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}} \Phi_p(s) \Phi_p(s+j) \dd s\right) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \widehat{\Phi}_p(\theta+2j\pi) \right|^2.

To show (?), recalling (?) and (?), we compute for \theta \in [-\pi,\pi],

\begin{aligned} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) & + \sum_{j=1}^{p}\Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta}+e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} \\ & = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\int_{\mathbb{R}} \Phi_p(s) \Phi_p(s+j) \dd s\right) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \left| \widehat{\Phi}_p\left(\theta+2j\pi\right) \right|^2 \\ & = (2-2\cos \theta)^{p+1} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\theta+2j\pi)^{2(p+1)}}. \end{aligned}

Using the recurrence relation for derivatives of cardinal splines [Chui1992, Theorem 4.3]

\partial_s^k \Phi_p(s) = \partial_s^{k-1} \Phi_{p-1}(s) - \partial_s^{k-1} \Phi_{p-1}(s-1),

and considering that e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} - 2e^{\mathrm{i} (j+1) \theta} + e^{\mathrm{i} (j+2) \theta} = e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} (1-e^{\mathrm{i} \theta})^2 = -e^{\mathrm{i} (j+1) \theta}(2-2\cos \theta), we can compute

\begin{aligned} \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) & + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta}+e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) \\ &= \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} \\ & = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\partial_s \Phi_{2p}(p+1-j)-\partial_s \Phi_{2p}(p-j)\right) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} \\ & = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \left(\Phi_{2p-1}(p+1-j)-2\Phi_{2p-1}(p-j)+\Phi_{2p-1}(p-j-1)\right) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} \\ & = -(2-2\cos \theta)\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_{2p-1}(p+1-j) e^{\mathrm{i} (j+1) \theta} \\ & = -(2-2\cos \theta)\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_{2p-1}(p-j) e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} \\ & = -(2-2\cos \theta)^{p+1} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\theta + 2j\pi)^{2p}}, \end{aligned}

where in the last equality we used the same procedures as in the proof for M_p(\theta). Similarly, we can iteratively make the same steps as before to show that

\begin{aligned} \partial_s^{2p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \partial_s^{2p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta}+e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) & = (-1)^p (2-2\cos \theta)^p \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_1(1-j)e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta} \\ & = (-1)^p (2-2\cos \theta)^{p}. \end{aligned}

Uses Proof

Remark

Remark 5.2

Y8PD

For p \ge 1, we have obtained B_p(\theta) = -(2-2\cos \theta) M_{p-1}(\theta), where we set M_0(\theta) \equiv 1.

Remark

Remark 5.3

7E0A

The statement of Proposition 5.1 exhibits a close connection to [GaroniManniPelosiSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2014, Lemma 6] and [GaroniManniPelosiSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2014, Lemma 7], where the authors investigate the symbols of matrices associated with IgA discretizations. Specifically, the p^{\operatorname{th}} symbol is e_p(\theta) = f_p(\theta) / g_p(\theta), as detailed in, for example, [EkstromFurciGaroniManniSerraCapizzano2018, Equation 15], where f_p(\theta) = -B_p(\theta) and g_p(\theta) = M_p(\theta). For an extensive discussion on how symbols are used to derive analytical spectral properties for IgA discretization of boundary value problems, see [GaroniSpeleersEkstromRealiSerraCapizzanoHughes2019] and the references provided therein.

Corollary

Corollary 5.4

W0BQ

For p \ge 1, let M_p, B_p, D_p be the functions defined in Proposition 5.1. It holds true that M_p(0)=1, and B_p(0) = D_p(0) = 0. Furthermore, we have

\begin{aligned} M_p(\pi) = \frac{2}{\pi^{2(p+1)}} (2^{2(p+1)}-1) \zeta(2(p+1)), & \quad \quad B_p(\pi) = -2^2M_{p-1}(\pi) = -\frac{2^3}{\pi^{2p}} (2^{2p}-1) \zeta(2p), \\ & \hspace{-1cm} D_p(\pi) = (-1)^p 2^{2p}, \end{aligned}

where \zeta is the Riemann zeta function. Therefore, we have q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(1) = \rho and

\begin{aligned} q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(-1) = (-1)^p \Biggl( -\frac{2^3}{\pi^{2p}}(2^{2p}-1) \zeta(2p) + \rho \left(\frac{2}{\pi^{2(p+1)}}(2^{2(p+1)}-1) \zeta\left(2(p+1)\right) + \delta 2^{2p}\right)\Biggr). \end{aligned}

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Corollary 5.4

The limits as \theta \to 0 and the values at \theta=\pi are readily obtained from the explicit expressions of M_p, B_p, D_p in Proposition 5.1:

\begin{aligned} &\lim_{\theta \to 0} M_p(\theta) = 1, \quad \lim_{\theta \to 0} B_p(\theta) = 0, \quad \lim_{\theta \to 0} D_p(\theta) = 0; \end{aligned}

\begin{aligned} M_p(\pi) = 2^{2(p+1)} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\pi + 2j\pi)^{2(p+1)}}&, \quad B_p(\pi) = -2^{2(p+1)} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\pi + 2j\pi)^{2p}}, \quad D_p(\pi)= (-1)^p 2^{2p}. \end{aligned}

It remains to explicitly calculate the two infinite sums. We have, for m \ge 1,

\begin{aligned} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\pi+2j \pi)^{2m}} & = \frac{1}{\pi^{2m}} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(1+2j)^{2m}} \\ & = \frac{1}{\pi^{2m}} \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{1}{(1+2j)^{2m}} + \frac{1}{\pi^{2m}} \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(2j-1)^{2m}} \\ & = \frac{2}{\pi^{2m}} \sum_{j=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(2j-1)^{2m}} \\ &= \frac{1}{\pi^{2m}} \frac{(2^{2m}-1)}{2^{2m-1}} \zeta(2m), \end{aligned}

where for the last equality, we used [GradshteynRyzhik2015, Equation 0.233.5]. The expressions for q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(\pm 1) follow from (?).

Uses Proposition 5.1

Remark

Remark 5.5

9UXO

The cardinal splines satisfy the property of partition for unity (see [Chui1992, Theorem 4.3]), meaning \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_p(s-j) = 1, and consequently \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \partial_s \Phi_p(s-j) = 0. Therefore, q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(1) can be computed directly without Proposition 5.1 as

\begin{aligned} q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(1) = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \partial_s^2 \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) + \rho \Biggl(\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) + \delta (-1)^p \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \partial_s^{2p} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j)\Biggr) = \rho. \end{aligned}

Proposition

Proposition 5.6

JZI4

Let p \ge 1 and define the quantities

\begin{aligned} \delta_p & = -\frac{M_p(\pi)}{(-1)^p D_p(\pi)} = -\frac{(2^{2(p+1)}-1)}{2^{2p-1} \pi^{2(p+1)}} \zeta\left(2(p+1)\right), \quad \rho_p & = - \frac{B_p(\pi)}{M_p(\pi)} = 4 \pi^2 \frac{(2^{2p}-1)}{(2^{2(p+1)}-1)} \frac{\zeta(2p)}{\zeta(2(p+1))} \end{aligned}

with M_p, B_p and D_p as in Proposition 5.1. If p>1, assume that not all the zeros of q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)} are on the boundary of the unit circle. Then, the following statements are valid.

If the family of matrices \{\mathbf{K}_n^p(\rho,\delta)\}_n is weakly well-conditioned for all \rho > 0, then \delta \le \delta_\rho.
If the family of matrices \{\mathbf{K}^p_n(\rho,0)\}_n is weakly well-conditioned, then \rho \le \rho_p.

Proof of Proposition 5.6

The result directly follows by Proposition 4.10, Corollaries 5.4 and Theorem 4.5. Specifically, if the family of matrices \{\mathbf{K}^p_n(\rho,\delta)\}_n is weakly well-conditioned, then we have (-1)^p q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(-1)q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(1) \le 0, which is equivalent to

B_p(\pi) + \rho(M_p(\pi) + \delta (-1)^p D_p(\pi)) \le 0

or explicitly,

-\frac{2^3}{\pi^{2p}}(2^{2p}-1) \zeta(2p) + \rho \left(\frac{2}{\pi^{2(p+1)}}(2^{2(p+1)}-1) \zeta\left(2(p+1)\right) + \delta 2^{2p}\right) \le 0.

Uses Proposition 4.10, Corollary 5.4, Theorem 4.5

Remark

Remark 5.7

PSYN

As a consequence of the proof of Lemma 5.9 that follows, we will conclude that for all p \ge 1, \rho>0 and \delta \le0 the polynomial q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)} has at most two zeros on the boundary of the unit circle. Therefore, the related assumption of Proposition 5.6 is always satisfied.

Uses Lemma 5.9

Remark

Remark 5.8

AAJ2

Note that \zeta(m) \to 1 as m \to +\infty. This can observed from the inequality

1 \le \zeta(m) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-m} = 1 + \sum_{n=2}^\infty n^{-m} \le 1 +\int_1^\infty x^{-m} \dd x = 1+ \frac{1}{m-1}.

Consequently, we deduce \rho_p \to \pi^2 and \delta_p \sim -8/\pi^2 \, \pi^{-2p} \to 0 as p \to \infty. These results are consistent with those obtained in [FLMS2023, Figure 1], where the trend \delta_p \approx -10^{-p} was observed. Furthermore, the constants \rho_1 and \delta_1 are exactly the same as those obtained in [SZ2019]. Some values of \rho_p and \delta_p are reported in Table ?.

The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

Moreover, for all p \ge 1, we have \rho_p > \pi^2. Indeed, this is equivalent to the inequality

\frac{\zeta(2p+2)}{\zeta(2p)} < 4 \frac{2^{2p}-1}{2^{2(p+1)}-1},

which is always true as shown in [Qi2019, Theorem 1.1] (see also [Qi2019, Equation 2.1]).

Lemma

Lemma 5.9

4B0O

For p \ge 1, let \delta_p and \rho_p be defined as in (?). Define the function

F_p(\theta;\rho,\delta) = e^{- \mathrm{i} p \theta} q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}(e^{\mathrm{i} \theta}) = B_p(\theta) + \rho(M_p(\theta) + \delta (-1)^p D_p(\theta))

with M_p, B_p and D_p as in Proposition 5.1. Then, the following statements hold true.

The equation (in terms of \theta) F_p(\theta;\rho,\delta) = 0 has exactly two simple zeros in [-\pi,\pi] for all \rho > 0 if and only if \delta \le \delta_p;
The equation (in terms of \theta) F_p(\theta;\rho,0) = 0 has exactly two simple zeros in [-\pi,\pi] if and only if \rho \le \rho_p.

Used by Remark 5.7, Proof

Proof of Lemma 5.9

Let p \ge 1. We study the equation only in the interval [0,\pi] since F_p(\theta; \rho,\delta) is even in \theta. From (Proof) and the definition in Proposition 5.1, we observe that M_p(\theta) > 0 for all \theta \in [0,\pi]. Hence, the ratio F_p(\theta;\rho,\delta)/M_p(\theta) is well defined for \theta \in [0,\pi]. Our objective is to show that for all p \ge 1, \rho > 0 and \delta \le 0, the function F_p(\theta; \rho, \delta)/M_p(\theta) is strictly decreasing in \theta for \theta \in (0,\pi). We begin by computing

\frac{d}{d \theta} \frac{F_p(\theta;\rho,\delta)}{M_p(\theta)} = \frac{d}{d \theta} \frac{B_p(\theta)}{M_p(\theta)} + \rho \delta (-1)^p \left( \frac{D'_p(\theta)M_p(\theta) - D_p(\theta)M_p'(\theta)}{(M_p(\theta))^2} \right).

It is shown in [EkstromFurciGaroniManniSerraCapizzano2018, Theorem 2] that \frac{d}{d \theta}\left[B_p(\theta)/M_p(\theta)\right] < 0 for all p \ge 1 and \theta \in (0,\pi). Additionally, we calculate (-1)^p D_p'(\theta) = 2p \sin \theta (2-2\cos \theta)^{p-1} > 0 for all \theta \in (0,\pi). Therefore, combining [DonatelliGaroniManniSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2017, Lemma A.2.] that tell us that M_p'(\theta) < 0 for all p \ge 1 and \theta \in (0,\pi), and the fact that M_p(\theta) > 0, and (-1)^p D_p(\theta) > 0, we conclude that for all \rho >0 and \delta \le 0, \frac{d}{d \theta} [F_p(\theta; \rho, \delta)/M_p(\theta)] < 0 for all \theta \in (0,\pi). This confirms that F_p(\theta; \rho, \delta)/M_p(\theta) is strictly decreasing in \theta for \rho>0 and \delta \le 0.

We can state that F_p(\theta; \rho, \delta) has exactly one zero in [0,\pi] if and only if F_p(0; \rho, \delta) \ge 0 and F_p(\pi ; \rho, \delta) \le 0. Both quantities have been computed in Corollary 5.4, leading to the desired result.

Uses Proof, Proposition 5.1, Corollary 5.4

Theorem

Theorem 5.10

BG81

For p \ge 1, let \delta_p and \rho_p be the quantities defined in (?). Then, the following statements hold true assuming Assumption 3.4.

The family of matrices \{\mathbf{K}_n^p(\rho,\delta)\}_n is weakly well-conditioned for all \rho > 0 if and only if \delta \le \delta_p.
The family \{\mathbf{K}^p_n(\rho,0)\}_n is weakly well-conditioned if and only if \rho \le \rho_p.

Proof of Theorem 5.10

The result follows from Lemmas 5.9 and 4.7, and Theorem 4.5.

Uses Lemma 5.9, Lemma 4.7, Theorem 4.5

Remark

Remark 6.1

1YI4

Another possibility, mantaining the symmetric structure of the numerical scheme, could have been to include the more general stabilizing term:

\mu \delta h^{k_1+k_2} \left((\partial_t^{k_1} u_h, \partial_t^{k_2} v_h)_{L^2(0,T)} + (\partial_t^{k_2} u_h, \partial_t^{k_1} v_h)_{L^2(0,T)}\right),

for some k_1, k_2 \ge 0. However, note that if k_1 + k _2 \equiv 0 \ (\bmod \, 2), then after integration by parts, this term coincides with the one added in (?) with k = (k_1+k_2)/2. Conversely, if k_1 + k _2 \equiv 1 \ (\bmod \, 2), recalling (?), this term vanishes when computed on central splines.

Proposition

Proposition 6.2

ZOXM

For 0 \le k \le p and \theta \in [-\pi,\pi], the following relation is valid

\partial_s^{2k} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1) + \sum_{j=1}^{p} \partial_s^{2k} \Phi_{2p+1}(p+1-j) (e^{-\mathrm{i} j \theta}+e^{\mathrm{i} j \theta}) = D^k_p(\theta),

with D_p^k : [-\pi,\pi] \to \mathbb{R} defined as D_p^k(\theta) = (-1)^k (2-2\cos \theta)^k M_{p-k}(\theta) with M_p as in Proposition 5.1. More explicitly,

\begin{aligned} D_p^k(\theta) = (-1)^k (2-2\cos \theta)^{p+1} \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \frac{1}{(\theta + 2j\pi)^{2(p+1-k)}}. \end{aligned}

In particular, we can evaluate D_p^0(0) = 1 and D_p^k(0) = 0 for k \ge 1, and

\begin{aligned} D_p^k(\pi) & = (-1)^k 2^{2(k+1)} M_{p-k}(\pi) = (-1)^k 2^{2k+1} \frac{2^{2(p+1-k)}-1}{\pi^{2(p+1-k)}}\zeta\left(2(p+1-k)\right), \end{aligned}

for 0 \le k \le p.

Used by Proof

Remark

Remark 6.3

CIDI

Given that \zeta(2) = \pi^2/6, the value D_p^p(\pi) is in agreement with the previously obtained D_p(\pi) = (-1)^p 2^{2p}.

Theorem

Theorem 6.4

EWHE

For p \ge 1 and 1 \le k \le p, let us define

\delta_p^k = - \frac{M_p(\pi)}{(-1)^k D_p^k(\pi)} = - \frac{1}{2^{2k} \pi^{2k}} \frac{(2^{2(p+1)}-1)}{(2^{2(p+1-k)}-1)} \frac{\zeta\left(2(p+1)\right)}{\zeta\left(2(p+1-k)\right)}.

Let assume the nonsingularity of the matrices \mathbf{K}_n^{p,k}(\rho,\delta) and that all the elements on the outer diagonals of the top-left block of size 2p \times 2p of each \mathbf{K}_n^{p,k}(\rho,\delta) are non-zeros. Then, the family \{\mathbf{K}_n^{p,k}(\rho,\delta)\}_n is weakly well-conditioned for all \rho > 0 if and only \delta \le \delta_p^k.

Proof of Theorem 6.4

Let us consider the function F_p^k(\theta;\rho,\delta) = e^{- \mathrm{i} p \theta} q^{\mathbf{K}^{p,k}(\rho,\delta)}(e^{\mathrm{i} \theta}). We aim to show that the equation (in terms of \theta) F^k_p(\theta;\rho,\delta) = 0 has exactly one simple zero in [0,\pi] for all \rho > 0 if and only if \delta \le \delta_p^k. Establishing this fact leads to the conclusion by Lemma 4.7 and Theorem 4.5.

As in the proof of Lemma 5.9, for all p \ge 1, \rho > 0, and \delta < 0, we show that the function F_p^k(\theta; \rho, \delta)/M_p(\theta) is strictly decreasing in \theta. Explicitly, we can express it as

\frac{F_p^k(\theta ; \rho, \delta)}{M_p(\theta)} = \frac{B_p(\theta)}{M_p(\theta)} + \rho + \rho \delta (-1)^k \frac{D_p^k(\theta)}{M_p(\theta)}.

By virtue of [EkstromFurciGaroniManniSerraCapizzano2018, Theorem 2], showing that the last term is a decreasing functions suffices. From Proposition 6.2,

(-1)^k \frac{D^k_p(\theta)}{M_p(\theta)} = (2-2\cos \theta)^k \frac{M_{p-k}(\theta)}{M_p(\theta)} = \prod_{j=0}^{k-1} (2-2\cos \theta) \frac{M_{p-k+j}(\theta)}{M_{p-k+j+1}(\theta)}.

Each factor here is a decreasing function (as established in [DonatelliGaroniManniSerraCapizzanoSpeleers2017, Lemma A.2.]) and positive, hence the product is decreasing as well. Consequently, F_p^k(\theta; \rho, \delta) has only one simple zero in [0,\pi] if and only if F_p^k(0; \rho, \delta) \ge 0 and F_p^k(\pi; \rho, \delta) \le 0. This holds true for all \rho > 0 if and only if \delta \le \delta_p^k, given that F_p^k(0;\rho,\delta)= \rho. The explicit expression of \delta_p^k is a consequence of (?).

Uses Lemma 4.7, Theorem 4.5, Proposition 6.2

Remark

Remark 6.5

MZH5

We note two distinct trends of \delta_p^k as p \to \infty depending on the nature of k:

for k \equiv k(p) such that p+1-k(p) \to \infty as p \to \infty, then \delta_p^{k(p)} \to - \pi^{-2k(p)};
for k \equiv k(p) such that p+1-k(p) \to M \in \mathbb{N} as p \to \infty, then \delta_p^{k(p)} \sim - C_M \pi^{-2p} \to 0 , as p \to \infty with
C_M = \frac{1}{\pi^{(2-2M)}(1-2^{-2M}) \zeta(2M)}.

If k(p) = p, as in the stabilization of [FLMS2023], i.e., M=1, we obtain the already mentioned constant C_1 = 8/\pi^2. Moreover, recalling (?) we conclude that \{C_M\}_M is an increasing sequence, with C_{M+1}/C_M > \pi^2, implying that C_M > 8\pi^{2M-4}.

In Figure ?, we exhibit the behaviour of |\delta_p^k| for different choices of k \equiv k(p), and in Figure ?, we report the sequence \{C_M\}_M.

The paper has a figure here, which this page does not show.

Lemma

Lemma A.1

T5N8

Consider \mathbf{F}_1, \mathbf{F}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k}, and \mathbf{C}, \widehat{\mathbf{C}} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} such that \mathbf{C} - \widehat{\mathbf{C}} is non-zero only in the first k columns. Assume the nonsingularity of the two block matrices

\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{E}_{11} & \mathbf{0}_{k} \\ \mathbf{C} & \mathbf{E}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \quad \hspace{-2.2cm}, \quad \quad \hspace{1.6cm} \mathbf{E}_{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{E}_{11} & \mathbf{0}_{k} \\ \widehat{\mathbf{C}} & \mathbf{E}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \hspace{-1.85cm},

with

\mathbf{E}_{11} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{F}_1 & \mathbf{0}_{k,n-k} \end{pmatrix}_{k \times n} \quad \quad \text{and} \quad \quad \quad \mathbf{E}_{22} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{0}_{n-k,k} \\ \mathbf{F}_2 \end{pmatrix}_{n \times k}\hspace{-0.65cm},

where we denote \mathbf{0}_{m_1,m_2} \in \mathbb{R}^{m_1 \times m_2} and \mathbf{0}_{m_3} \in \mathbb{R}^{m_3 \times m_3} matrices with only zeros. Then, the following block decompositions apply

\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{X}_{11} & \mathbf{X}_{12} \\ \mathbf{X}_{21} & \mathbf{X}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \quad \hspace{-2.2cm}, \quad \hspace{1.6cm} \quad \quad \mathbf{E}_{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{11} & \mathbf{X}_{12} \\ \widehat{\mathbf{X}}_{21} & \mathbf{X}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \hspace{-1.8cm},

where \mathbf{X}_{12} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} and \mathbf{X}_{21} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k}. Moreover, \mathbf{C} is nonsingular if and only if \mathbf{X}_{21} is nonsingular, in which case it holds

\mathbf{C}^{-1} = \mathbf{X}_{12} - \mathbf{X}_{11} \mathbf{X}_{21}^{-1} \mathbf{X}_{22}.

Used by Proof, Remark A.5

Proof of Lemma A.1

The first part is obtained from a direct calculation, while the second is exactly [AmodioBrugnano1996, Lemma 1].

Proof

Proof (Theorem :45)

EQ7I

The proof consists of four steps. We show in sequence that the following five matrix families have the same conditioning behaviour

\{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n = \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}\}_n \to \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}\}_n \to \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}\}_n \to \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)}\}_n \to \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(4)}\}_n = \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n,

where:

\{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}\}_n is the family of matrices differing from those in \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}\}_n only for the block of size (m+k) \times k on the top-left, i.e.,
\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} = \left( \begin{array}{c|c} \begin{matrix} \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$k$}}}} \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} c_k & \phantom{**} & \phantom{***} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$m$}}}}c_k & \phantom{**} & \phantom{***} \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots \\ \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & c_{k-m+1} & \ldots & c_k \\ * & \ldots & * & & \\ & \ddots & \vdots & & \\ & & * & & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \\ & & \\ \\ \hspace{-2.5cm} c_k \\ & \hspace{-1.5cm} \ddots \\ \end{matrix} \\ \hline \begin{matrix} & & & \hspace{0.7cm} c_{-m} \\ & & & & \hspace{0.1cm} \ddots \\ \\ \\ & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} c_0 & \ldots & c_k & & \\ \vdots & \ddots & & \ddots \\ c_{-m} & & \ddots & & c_k \\ & \ddots & & \ddots & \vdots \\ & & c_{-m} & \ldots & c_0 \\ \end{matrix} \end{array} \right)_{n \times n} \hspace{-0.65cm},
with the same entries of \widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n in the top-left sub-block of size k \times k from the (m+1)^{\operatorname{th}} to the (m+k)^{\operatorname{th}} rows, and whose other entries in this block (the circled ones) are such that each (\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)})^{-1} exists for n sufficiently large (we will comment in Remark A.5 why this is always possible),
\{\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}\}_n is the family of matrices differing from those in \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}\}_n for the whole top-left block perturbation as depicted in (?)-left, i.e.,
\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)} = \left( \begin{array}{c|c} \begin{matrix} \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \hspace{0.2cm} & * & \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$m+k$}}}}* & \ldots & * \hspace{0.2cm} & * & \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \\ * & \ldots & * & & & \\ & \ddots & \vdots & & & \\ & & * & & & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \\ & & \\ \\ \hspace{-2.5cm} c_k \\ & \hspace{-1.5cm} \ddots \\ \end{matrix} \\ \hline \begin{matrix} & & & \hspace{1.2cm} c_{-m} \\ & & & & \hspace{-0.1cm} \ddots \\ \\ \\ & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} c_0 & \ldots & c_k & & \\ \vdots & \ddots & & \ddots \\ c_{-m} & & \ddots & & c_k \\ & \ddots & & \ddots & \vdots \\ & & c_{-m} & \ldots & c_0 \\ \end{matrix} \end{array} \right)_{n \times n} \hspace{-0.65cm},
with the same entries of \widehat\mathbf{C}_n,
\{\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)}\}_n is the family of matrices differing from those in \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}\}_n only for the block of size k \times (m+k) on the bottom-right, i.e.,
\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)} \hspace{-0.05cm} = \hspace{-0.1cm} \left( \begin{array}{c|c|c} \hspace{-0.1cm} \begin{matrix} \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \hspace{0.2cm}& * & \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$m+k$}}}}* & \ldots & * \hspace{0.2cm}& * & \phantom{**} & \phantom{**} \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \\ * & \ldots & * & & & \\ & \ddots & \vdots & & & \\ & & * & & & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \\ & & \\ \\ \hspace{-0.3cm} c_k \\ & \hspace{-0.3cm}\ddots \\ \end{matrix} & \makebox[\wd0]{\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\large\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14} \phantom{1}} \\ \hline \begin{matrix} && & \hspace{0.7cm} c_{-m} \\ & & & & \hspace{-0.2cm} \ddots \\ & & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} c_0 & & \hspace{0.1cm} \ddots \\ & \ddots & \\ \hspace{-0.1cm} \ddots & & c_0 \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} \\ \hspace{-1.8cm} \ddots & & & \\ & \hspace{-0.6cm} c_k & \end{matrix} \\ \hline \makebox[\wd0]{\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\large\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14}\@xiipt{14} \phantom{1}} & \begin{matrix} & \hspace{0.5cm}\ddots & \\ & & \hspace{-0.3cm} c_{-m} \\ & & \\ & \\ & \end{matrix} & \begin{matrix} & & & c_k \\ & & & \vdots & \ddots \\ & & & c_{k-m+1} & \ldots & c_k \\ * & \ldots & * & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \\ & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\ & & * & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \end{matrix} \end{array} \right) \hspace{-0.2cm} \begin{matrix} \phantom{ \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}k} \\ \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}m \vspace{0.05cm} \\ \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.1cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}k \vspace{0.1cm} \end{matrix} \hspace{-0.5cm},
with the same entries of \widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n in the bottom-right sub-block of size k \times k from the (n-m-k)^{\operatorname{th}} to the (n-m-1)^{\operatorname{th}} columns, and whose other entries in this block (the circled ones) are such that each (\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)})^{-1} exists for n sufficiently large.

At each step j=1,\ldots,4 we show that

(\mathbf{C}_n^{(j)})^{-1} = (\mathbf{C}_n^{(j-1)})^{-1} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(j)},

for four matrices \mathbf{H}_n^{(j)} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n} such that

\| \mathbf{H}_n^{(j)}\|_{1} = \mathcal{O}\bigl(\| (\mathbf{C}_n^{(j-1)})^{-1}\|_{1}\bigr) \quad \quad j = 1,\ldots,4

for n sufficiently large. Combining the four steps we deduce

\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n^{-1} = \mathbf{C}^{-1}_n + \mathbf{H}_n^{(1)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(2)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(3)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(4)},

and the same conditioning behaviour for the families \{ \mathbf{C}_n \}_n and \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n \}_n.

Let z_1,\ldots,z_{m+k} be the zeros of the polynomial q^{\mathbf{C}} associated with the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n, defined in (?), ordered such that 0 < | z_1 | \le \ldots \le | z_{m+k} |. Associated with these zeros we define the matrix

\mathbf{Z} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{Z}_1 & \\ & \mathbf{Z}_2 \end{pmatrix}_{(m+k) \times (m+k)} \hspace{-2cm},

with

\mathbf{Z}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} z_1 & \\ & \ddots \\ & & z_m \end{pmatrix}_{m \times m} \hspace{-0.85cm}, \quad \quad \quad \mathbf{Z}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} z_{m+1} & \\ & \ddots \\ & & z_{m+k} \end{pmatrix}_{k \times k} \hspace{-0.65cm},

and the Casorati matrix \mathbf{W} (see, e.g. [AmodioBrugnano1996, Section 1.1] and [LakshmikanthamTrigiante1988, Section 2.1] for precise definitions) partitioned as

\mathbf{W} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{W}_{11} & \mathbf{W}_{12} \\ \mathbf{W}_{21} & \mathbf{W}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(m+k) \times (m+k)} \hspace{-2cm},

with \mathbf{W}_{12} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k} and \mathbf{W}_{21} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times m}.

Suppose from now on the simplest case in which q^{\mathbf{C}} is of the type (m_1,m_2,k) and all its zeros are simple. In the case where q^{\mathbf{C}} is of type (m,k_1,k_2), it is sufficient to consider the families \{\mathbf{C}_n^{\top}\}_n and \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n^{\top}\}_n, while in case of non-weakly well-conditioning, or multiple zeros, proofs of (?) and (?) can be obtained by similar arguments.

Step 1. Define the lower triangular block matrices

\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{E}_{11} & \mathbf{0}_{k} \vspace{0.05cm} \\ \mathbf{C}_n^{(0)} & \mathbf{E}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \quad \hspace{-2.2cm}, \quad \quad \hspace{1.6cm} \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{E}_{11} & \mathbf{0}_{k} \vspace{0.05cm} \\ \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} & \mathbf{E}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \hspace{-1.85cm},

with

\mathbf{E}_{11} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{I}_k & \mathbf{0}_{k,n-k} \end{pmatrix}_{k \times n} \quad \quad \text{and} \quad \quad \mathbf{E}_{22} = \left( \begin{array}{c} \mathbf{0}_{n-k,k} \\[0.15cm] \hline \begin{matrix} c_k & \\ \vdots & \ddots \\ c_1 & \ldots & c_k \end{matrix} \end{array} \right)_{n \times k} \hspace{-0.65cm},

where \mathbf{I}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k} is the identity matrix. The matrices \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}} and \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}} are nonsingular since the elements on their diagonals are not zero. Then, by virtue of Lemma A.1, the following decompositions are true

\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} & \mathbf{X}_{12} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{X}_{21}^{(0)} & \mathbf{X}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \quad \hspace{-2.2cm}, \quad \hspace{1.6cm} \quad \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)} & \mathbf{X}_{12} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{X}_{21}^{(1)} & \mathbf{X}_{22} \end{pmatrix}_{(n+k) \times (n+k)} \hspace{-1.85cm},

and with (?), we compute

\mathbf{H}_n^{(1)} = (\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)})^{-1} - (\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)})^{-1} = \bigl(\mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{X}_{21}^{(0)})^{-1}-\mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)} (\mathbf{X}_{21}^{(1)})^{-1} \bigr) \mathbf{X}_{22}.

We now show that, for n sufficiently large,

\mathbf{H}_n^{(1)}[\ell,j] = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|z_m|^\ell}{|z_{m+1}|^j}\right), \quad \ell = k+1,\ldots,n \quad \text{and} \quad j = 1,\ldots, n.

The first k columns of \mathbf{E}^{-1}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}} and \mathbf{E}^{-1}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}} are obtained by solving the block linear systems

\mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{X}_{21}^{(0)} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \textbf{I}_k \\ \mathbf{0}_{n,k} \end{pmatrix}, \quad \quad \quad \mathbf{E}_{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{X}_{21}^{(1)} \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \textbf{I}_k \\ \mathbf{0}_{n,k} \end{pmatrix}.

Exactly as in [AmodioBrugnano1996, Equation (21)] it is possible to show that the \ell^{\operatorname{th}} row of \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} satisfies the relation

\begin{aligned} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)}[\ell,1], & \ldots \, , & \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)}[\ell,k] \end{pmatrix}^\top & = \mathbf{e}_\ell^\top \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} = \mathbf{1}_{m+k}^{\top} \mathbf{Z}^{\ell-1} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} \end{pmatrix}, \quad \ell = 1, \ldots, n \end{aligned}

where \mathbf{e}_\ell is the \ell^{\operatorname{th}} vector of the canonical base of \mathbb{R}^n, \mathbf{1}_{m+k} = (1,\ldots,1)^{\top} \in \mathbb{R}^{m+k}, \mathbf{Z} is defined in (?), and the matrices \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times k} and \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k} are defined by

\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} \end{pmatrix} = \mathbf{W}^{-1} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)}[1:m+k,1:k],

with \mathbf{W} the Casorati matrix, and \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)}[1:m+k,1:k] the (m+k) \times k top-left block of \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} in standard indices notation. A similar expression is obtained for the \ell^{\operatorname{th}} row of \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)} with the difference that the top-left block of \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} in (?) must be also considered, from which the analogue of (?) only holds for \ell \ge k+1. With greater details, we obtain

\mathbf{e}_\ell^\top \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)} = \mathbf{1}_{m+k}^{\top} \mathbf{Z}^{\ell-1-k} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} \end{pmatrix}, \quad \ell = k+1,\ldots, n

with the matrices \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times k} and \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} \in \mathbb{R}^{k \times k} defined by

\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} \end{pmatrix} = \mathbf{W}^{-1} \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)}[k+1:m+2k,1:k].

Note that the block \mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)}[k+1:m+2k,1:k] depends on the top-left block perturbation of size (m+k) \times k of \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}.

For n sufficient large, similarly, we compute

\begin{aligned} \mathbf{X}_{21}^{(0)} & = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{W}_{11} & \mathbf{W}_{12} \end{pmatrix} \mathbf{Z}^n \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} \end{pmatrix} = \mathbf{W}_{12} \mathbf{Z}_2^n \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} + \mathcal{O}\left(\left|\frac{z_m}{z_{m+1}}\right|^n\right), \\ \mathbf{X}_{21}^{(1)} & = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{W}_{11} & \mathbf{W}_{12} \end{pmatrix} \mathbf{Z}^{n-k} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} \end{pmatrix} = \mathbf{W}_{12} \mathbf{Z}_2^{n-k} \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} + \mathcal{O}\left(\left|\frac{z_m}{z_{m+1}}\right|^{n-k}\right). \end{aligned}

Since it is assumed that \mathbf{C}_n^{(0)} and \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} are nonsingular, for sufficiently large n, by Lemma A.1 also \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} and \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} are.

Finally, \mathbf{X}_{22} has been calculated in [AmodioBrugnano1996, Equation (25)], and it holds true

\mathbf{X}_{22} \mathbf{e}_j = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{W}_{11} & \mathbf{W}_{12} \end{pmatrix} \mathbf{Z}^{n+m-j} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(\cdot)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(\cdot)} \end{pmatrix}, \quad j = 1,\ldots,n

with the vectors \mathbf{G}_1^{(\cdot)} and \mathbf{G}_2^{(\cdot)} not depending on j, defined as

\begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(\cdot)} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(\cdot)} \end{pmatrix} = \mathbf{W}^{-1} \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ \vdots \\ 0 \\ c_k^{-1} \end{pmatrix}.

Combining (?)-(?), for \ell = k+1,\ldots,n and j=1,\ldots,n we deduce from (?), for n sufficiently large,

\begin{aligned} \mathbf{H}_n^{(1)}[\ell,j] & = \mathbf{e}_\ell^\top \bigl(\mathbf{X}_{11}^{(0)} (\mathbf{X}_{21}^{(0)})^{-1}-\mathbf{X}_{11}^{(1)} (\mathbf{X}_{21}^{(1)})^{-1} \bigr) \mathbf{X}_{22} \mathbf{e}_j \\ & \hspace{-1cm} \approx \mathbf{1}_{m+k}^\top \mathbf{Z}^{\ell-1} \left( \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(0)} \end{pmatrix} (\mathbf{G}_2^{(0)})^{-1} - \mathbf{Z}^{-k} \begin{pmatrix} \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} \\ \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} \end{pmatrix} (\mathbf{G}_2^{(1)})^{-1} \mathbf{Z}_2^k \right) \mathbf{Z}_2^{-n} \mathbf{W}_{12}^{-1} \mathbf{X}_{22} \mathbf{e}_j \\ & \hspace{-1cm} = \mathbf{1}_{m+k}^\top \mathbf{Z}_1^{\ell-1} \left( \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} (\mathbf{G}_2^{(0)})^{-1} - \mathbf{Z}_1^{-k} \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} (\mathbf{G}_2^{(1)})^{-1} \mathbf{Z}_2^k \right) \mathbf{Z}_2^{-n} \mathbf{W}_{12}^{-1} \mathbf{X}_{22} \mathbf{e}_j \\ & \hspace{-1cm} \approx \mathbf{1}_{m+k}^\top \mathbf{Z}_1^{\ell-1} \left( \mathbf{G}_1^{(0)} (\mathbf{G}_2^{(0)})^{-1} - \mathbf{Z}_1^{-k} \mathbf{G}_1^{(1)} (\mathbf{G}_2^{(1)})^{-1} \mathbf{Z}_2^k \right) \mathbf{Z}_2^{m-j} \mathbf{G}_2^{(\cdot)} \\ & \hspace{-1cm} = \mathcal{O} \left( \frac{|z_m|^\ell}{|z_{m+1}|^j} \right). \end{aligned}

From the latter, we deduce that the families \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}\}_n and \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}\}_n have the same conditioning behaviour.

Step 2. Consider the families of matrices \{(\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)})^\top\}_n and \{(\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)})^\top\}_n. Since each difference (\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)})^\top - (\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)})^\top has the same structure as each \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} - \mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}, it is possible to proceed exactly as in Step 1. and bound component-wise the elements of the matrix \mathbf{H}_n^{(2)}. Note that the polynomial q^{\mathbf{C}^\top} associated with the purely Toeplitz part of the family \{(\mathbf{C}_n^{(1)})^\top\}_n has as roots the reciprocals of the roots of q^{\mathbf{C}}, while m and k now have an inverted role. Therefore, if q^{\mathbf{C}} is of type (m_1,m_2,k), then q^{\mathbf{C}^\top} is of type (k,m_2,m_1). Taking these facts into account, we deduce that, for n sufficiently large,

\mathbf{H}_n^{(2)}[\ell,j] = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|z_{n-k+1}|^{-j}}{|z_{n-k}|^{-\ell}}\right) = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|z_m|^\ell}{|z_{m+1}|^j}\right),

for \ell = m+1,\ldots,n and j = k+1,\ldots, n. As in the previous step, we conclude that the families \{ \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}\}_n and \{ \mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}\}_n have the same conditioning behaviour.

Step 3. Let us define \textbf{J}_n the exchange matrix of size n \times n, i.e.,

\textbf{J}_n = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & \\ 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \vdots &\ddots &\ddots & \ddots \\ 0 &\ldots& 0 & 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}_{n \times n} \hspace{-0.65cm}.

Consider the families \{\textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)})^\top \textbf{J}_n\}_n and \{\textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)})^\top \textbf{J}_n \}_n. Given a nonsingular matrix \mathbf{C} \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}, it holds valid (\textbf{J}_n \mathbf{C} \textbf{J}_n)^{-1} = \textbf{J}_n \mathbf{C}^{-1} \textbf{J}_n. Therefore, the conditioning behaviour of the families just defined is equal to that of \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}\}_n and \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)}\}_n, respectively. As in Step 2., each difference \textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)})^\top \textbf{J}_n - \textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)})^\top \textbf{J}_n has the same structure as each \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} - \mathbf{C}_n^{(0)}, and it is possible to proceed as in Step 1. to bound component-wise the elements of \mathbf{H}_n^{(3)}. Note that in this case the polynomial q^{\textbf{J} \mathbf{C}^\top \textbf{J}} associated with the Toeplitz part of the family \{\textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(2)})^\top \textbf{J}_n\}_n satisfies q^{\textbf{J} \mathbf{C}^\top \textbf{J}} = q^{\mathbf{C}}. We deduce, for n sufficiently large,

(\textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{H}_n^{(3)})^\top \textbf{J}_n) [\ell,j] = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|z_m|^\ell}{|z_{m+1}|^j}\right), \quad \ell = k+1,\ldots,n \quad \text{and} \quad j = m+1,\ldots, n,

or equivalently

\mathbf{H}_n^{(3)} [\ell,j] = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|z_m|^{n-j+1}}{|z_{m+1}|^{n-\ell+1}}\right), \quad \ell = k+1,\ldots,n \quad \text{and} \quad j = m+1,\ldots, n.

We deduce the same conditioning behaviour for the families \{ \mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}\}_n and \{ \mathbf{C}_n^{(3)}\}_n.

Step 4. Finally, we consider the families \{\textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)}) \textbf{J}_n\}_n and \{\textbf{J}_n (\mathbf{C}_n^{(4)}) \textbf{J}_n \}_n. Proceeding as in Steps 2. and 3., with estimates similar as in Step 1., we obtain

\mathbf{H}_n^{(4)} [\ell,j] = \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{|z_m|^{n-j+1}}{|z_{m+1}|^{n-\ell+1}}\right), \quad \ell = m+1,\ldots,n \quad \text{and} \quad j = k+1,\ldots, n.

Combining the four steps concludes the proof.

Uses Theorem 4.5, Remark A.5, Lemma A.1 · Used by Remark A.4, Remark A.5

Remark

Remark A.2

6NMF

Note that in Theorem 4.5, it is actually sufficient to assume that at least three of the four outer codiagonals of the two perturbed blocks have entries all different from zero.

Remark

Remark A.3

E69K

We observe that, by a similar proof, it can be shown that Theorem 4.5 also holds if instead of a perturbation of type (?), in top-left and bottom-right corners, there are two perturbation blocks of size M_1 \times N_1 and M_2 \times N_2, respectively, of type

\vphantom{ \begin{matrix} \overbrace{XYZ}^{\mbox{$R$}} \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \underbrace{pqr}_{\mbox{$S$}} \\ \end{matrix}} \begin{matrix} M_1\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \\ * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right. \end{matrix} \hspace{-0.15cm} \begin{pmatrix} \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$N_1$}}}}* & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \\ * & \ldots & * & & & \\ \vdots & & \vdots & & & \\ \mathrlap{\smash{\underbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \end{matrix}}}_{\mbox{$k$}}}}* & \ldots & * & \phantom{*} & \phantom{\ldots} & \phantom{*} \end{pmatrix} \hspace{-0.15cm} \begin{matrix} \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}m \\\phantom{ \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}m} \end{matrix} \hspace{-0.25cm}, \quad \quad \quad \vphantom{ \begin{matrix} \overbrace{XYZ}^{\mbox{$R$}}\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \underbrace{pqr}_{\mbox{$S$}} \\ \end{matrix}} \hspace{-0.5cm} \begin{matrix} \phantom{ N_2\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right.}\vspace{-1.4cm} k\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right. \end{matrix} \hspace{-0.15cm} \begin{pmatrix} & & & \mathrlap{\smash{\overbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * \end{matrix}}}^{\mbox{$m$}}}} * & \ldots & * \\ & & & \vdots & & \vdots \\ & & & * & \ldots & * \\ * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \\ \vdots & & \vdots & \vdots & & \vdots \\ \mathrlap{\smash{\underbrace{\phantom{ \begin{matrix} * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \end{matrix}}}_{\mbox{$N_2$}}}} * & \ldots & * & * & \ldots & * \end{pmatrix} \hspace{-0.1cm} \begin{matrix} \left.\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \\ * \\ * * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right\}M_2 \vspace{0.1cm} \end{matrix} \hspace{0.1cm}.

Here, N_1, M_1, N_1, N_2 are independent of n, and at least three of the four sub-blocks of the perturbed matrices in positions [1:m, k+1:m+k], [m+1:m+k, 1:k], [n-k-m+1:n-k, n-m+1:n] and [n-k+1:n, n-m-k+1:n-m] are nonsingular.

Uses Theorem 4.5 · Used by Remark A.4

Remark

Remark A.4

4TMA

Let \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n be a family of nonsingular Toeplitz band matrices as in (?). Let the associated polynomial q^{\mathbf{C}} in (?) be of type (m_1,m_2,k) or (m,k_1,k_2), where m_1+m_2=m and k_1+k_2=k. From [AmodioBrugnano1996, Lemma 2], there exist \mathbf{L}_n, \mathbf{U}_n \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}, respectively, lower and upper Toeplitz triangular matrices (see [AmodioBrugnano1996, Section 3] for the precise definition) such that

\mathbf{C}_n^{-1} = \mathbf{U}_n^{-1} \mathbf{L}_n^{-1} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(0)}

with \mathbf{H}_n^{(0)} satisfying the analogous of (?). Consider now a family of perturbed matrices \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n as in the assumptions of Theorem 4.5 or Remark A.3. Combining (?) with (?), we deduce that

\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n^{-1} = \mathbf{U}_n^{-1} \mathbf{L}_n^{-1} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(0)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(1)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(2)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(3)} + \mathbf{H}_n^{(4)}

with the same \mathbf{L}_n, \mathbf{U}_n and \mathbf{H}_n^{(0)} as in [AmodioBrugnano1996], and the four matrices \mathbf{H}_n^{(j)}, j=1,\ldots,4, characterized in the proof of Theorem 4.5.

Uses Theorem 4.5, Remark A.3, Proof

Remark

Remark A.5

PPTW

Let the family of nonsingular Toeplitz band matrices \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n be weakly well-conditioned and q^{\mathbf{C}} of type (m_1,m_2,k) with m_1+m_2=m. Let \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n be a family of nonsingular perturbed matrices with perturbation as in the assumption of Theorem 4.5. Then, the matrices \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}, defined in the proof of Theorem 4.5, are nonsingular, for n sufficiently large, if and only if the corresponding matrix \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)}, see definition (?), is nonsingular. This is due to Lemma A.1 and (?). Consider the top-left perturbed block of \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} of size (m+k) \times (m+2k),

\begin{matrix} m+k\left\{\vphantom{\begin{matrix} * \\ \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \\ * \\ \vspace{0.15cm} \\ * \end{matrix}}\right. \end{matrix} \begin{pmatrix} \phantom{12} \tikz[overlay,remember picture] \node (left1) {}; \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{0.15cm} & \tikz[overlay,remember picture] \node (left2) {}; c_k & & & \\ \phantom{12} \vdots & & \vdots \hspace{0.1cm} & \vdots & \hspace{-1.5cm} \ddots & \\\phantom{12} \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} & \ldots & \begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-0.5ex] \draw (0,0) circle (0.5em); \node at (0,0) {$*$}; \end{tikzpicture} \hspace{0.1cm} & \vdots & \ddots & \\\phantom{12} * & \ldots & * \hspace{0.1cm} & \vdots & & \ddots \\ & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \hspace{0.1cm} & & & \ddots \\ & & * \tikz[overlay,remember picture] \node (right1) {}; & \phantom{12345} c_{-m+1} & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots & c_k \tikz[overlay,remember picture] \node (right2) {}; \phantom{1} \end{pmatrix} \vspace{0.1cm} \tikz[overlay,remember picture]{ \coordinate (TopLeft) at ($(left1)+(-0.2em,0.9em)$); \coordinate (BottomRight) at ($(right1)+(0.2em,-0.3em)$); \path (TopLeft); \pgfgetlastxy{\XCoord}{\IgnoreCoord}; \path (BottomRight); \pgfgetlastxy{\IgnoreCoord}{\YCoord}; \coordinate (LabelPoint) at ($(\XCoord,\YCoord)!0.5!(BottomRight)$); \draw [red,thick, black] (TopLeft) rectangle (BottomRight); \node [below, thick, black, fill=none, fill opacity=1] at (LabelPoint) {\textcolor{black}{\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\footnotesize\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt$\mathbf{Y_1}$}}; } \tikz[overlay,remember picture]{ \coordinate (TopLeft) at ($(left2)+(-0.2em,0.9em)$); \coordinate (BottomRight) at ($(right2)+(0.2em,-0.3em)$); \path (TopLeft); \pgfgetlastxy{\XCoord}{\IgnoreCoord}; \path (BottomRight); \pgfgetlastxy{\IgnoreCoord}{\YCoord}; \coordinate (LabelPoint) at ($(\XCoord,\YCoord)!0.5!(BottomRight)$); \draw [red,thick, black] (TopLeft) rectangle (BottomRight); \node [below, thick, black, fill=none, fill opacity=1] at (LabelPoint) {\textcolor{black}{\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\@setfontsize\footnotesize\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt\@ixpt\@xpt$\mathbf{Y_2}$}}; } \vspace{0.2cm}

and denote as in figure the sub-blocks \mathbf{Y}_1 \in \mathbb{R}^{(m+k) \times k} and \mathbf{Y}_2 \in \mathbb{R}^{(m+k) \times (m+k)}. Then, one can compute

\mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} = (\mathbf{W}^{-1})[m+1:m+k,1:m+k] \mathbf{Y}_2^{-1} \mathbf{Y}_1,

where \mathbf{W} is the Casorati matrix associated with the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n. Readily follows that it is always possible to find components in \mathbf{Y}_1 such that \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} is nonsingular, and therefore, for n sufficiently large, each \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)} is nonsingular. The nonsingularity of \mathbf{C}_n^{(2)}, for n sufficiently large, follows from the nonsingularity of each \widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n and \mathbf{C}_n. Finally, with a similar idea as for \mathbf{C}_n^{(1)}, also the elements in the bottom-right block of \{\mathbf{C}_n^{(3)}\}_n can be defined such that, for n sufficiently large, each \mathbf{C}_n^{(3)} is nonsingular.

Uses Lemma A.1, Proof · Used by Proof

Remark

Remark A.6

FZMR

With a similar idea as in the previous remark, we also deduce a criterion to guarantee the nonsingularity of the elements of the family \{\widehat \mathbf{C}_n\}_n. Let the family of nonsingular Toeplitz band matrices \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n be weakly well-conditioned with q^{\mathbf{C}} of type (m_1,m_2,k) with m_1+m_2=m, and let \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n be a family of perturbed matrices with perturbation as in the assumption of Theorem 4.5. If the matrix \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} associated with the family \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n and \mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} associated with \{\mathbf{J}_n (\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n)^\top \mathbf{J}_n\}_n, being \mathbf{J}_n as defined in (?), are nonsingular, then for n sufficiently large, each \widehat\mathbf{C}_n is nonsingular. In our case, it is difficult to verify this criterion for the families \{\mathbf{K}_n^p(\rho,\delta)\}_n since the Casorati matrix \mathbf{W} involves the zero of the associated polynomial q^{\mathbf{K}^p(\rho,\delta)}, which are difficult to obtain due to dependence on the parameters \rho and \delta.

Example

Example A.7

2ZTC

In this example we show that, to guarantee the nonsingularity of each \widehat \mathbf{C}_n, it is not enough that the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n is weakly well-conditioned and that the top-left and bottom-right blocks of size (m+k) \times (m+k) of each element of \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n are full rank. Consider the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n with c_{-3} = 1, c_{-2} = 2, c_{-1} = -6, c_0 = 2 and c_1 = 1. The associated polynomial q^{\mathbf{C}}(z) = 1 + 2z - 6z^2 + 2z^3 + z^4 is of type (1,2,1), since it has roots -2 \pm \sqrt{3} and double root 1. Therefore, the family \{\mathbf{C}_n\}_n is weakly well-conditioned. Consider the family of perturbed matrices \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n with perturbation only in the top-left block defined as

\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n = \setcounter{MaxMatrixCols}{20} \begin{pmatrix} -6 & 2 \\ -8 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -6 & 2 & 1 \\ 1 & 2 & -6 & 2 & 1 \\ & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots \\ & & 1 & 2 & -6 & 2 & 1 \\ & & & 1 & 2 & -6 & 2 \\ \end{pmatrix}_{n \times n} \hspace{-0.5cm}.

According to the notation in the proof of Theorem 4.5, we can compute with (?)

\mathbf{G}_2^{(1)} = \begin{pmatrix} -1 & -\frac{3}{2} & - \frac{1}{2} \vspace{0.1cm}\\ -\frac{2}{3} & -1 & -\frac{1}{3} \vspace{0.1cm} \\ -\frac{23}{18} \sqrt{3} - \frac{13}{6} & -\frac{19}{12} \sqrt{3} - \frac{11}{4} & \frac{19}{36} \sqrt{3} + \frac{11}{12} \\ \end{pmatrix}

associated with the family \{\widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n\}_n. This matrix is not full rank. Therefore, for n sufficiently large, each \widehat{\mathbf{C}}_n is singular, even if the top-left block of size 4 \times 4 of each \widehat \mathbf{C}_n is full rank.

Uses Theorem 4.5

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2403.15043v2 by Matteo Ferrari and Sara Fraschini, under the licence CC BY SA 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY SA 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2403/2403.15043.jsonl.