General Geronimus Perturbations for Mixed Multiple Orthogonal Polynomials

Using the orthogonality relations, for n \geq Np + p-1, it is straightforward to verify that:

Consequently, the result is independent of n:

Now, we prove the projection property for n \rightarrow \infty,

To achieve the stated result, we have used the definition of the moment matrix and its Gauss–Borel factorization.

From (?), we have (A(x)T)^{[n]} = xA^{[n]}(x) and (TB(y))^{[n]} = y B^{[n]}(y). Expanding these:

Thus, we obtain:

We have

The expansion of (1-\frac{x}{z})^{-1} in a power series is valid since \lvertz\rvert > \mathrm{sup}\{ \lvertx\rvert: x \in \Delta \}. A similar proof can be given for D(z).

We prove only the first formula, as the second follows similarly.

We start with

and use the Christoffel–Darboux formula:

Since

we find

Expanding the determinant we get

where the permutation \Tilde{\sigma}(i) is such that i \rightarrow r+i for i \leq (p-r) and i \rightarrow i-(p-r) for i \geq (p-r)+1. This term in the determinant expansion leads to a contribution of the form:

Any other permutation either results in zero or produces terms of lower degree.

We have

The block

has p-r subdiagonals. Up to the matrix R_{N-1}, there will be M-1 matrices, which sum up to a total of Np-r subdiagonals.

Recalling that \Lambda_{[p]}X_{[p]}(x) = x X_{[p]}(x), we have:

where \mathbb{C}^{p \times \infty}[x] is considered a \mathbb{C}^{p \times p}[x] bimodule.

The equality follows from Proposition 2.1. The structure of the connection matrix follows from the properties of the LU matrix factors and the fact that R(\Lambda_{[p]}^\top) has M subdiagonals.

These follow from the definitions of \check{A}(x), \: A(x), \: \check{B}(x), \: B(x), and Proposition 2.2. For instance,

We will prove the second relation, as the first can be shown similarly. We have:

Using the identity:

it is straightforward to verify that:

Hence, it is a polynomial in both x and y.

We cannot directly evaluate Equation (2.4) at x_i, so we examine the following limit:

where we have used the fact that R(x_i)\boldsymbol{v}_{i}^R = 0. The term that remains non-zero can be rewritten as

Let us now focus on the case n \geq M. By using the orthogonality relations for B(x) and taking into account Proposition 2.5 (see proof of Corollary 1.13),

Taking the limit in Equation (2.4) when x \rightarrow x_i, then multiplying by the corresponding right eigenvector, and finally considering the n-th component, we find

Recalling Proposition 2.3, we obtain

and using the notation introduced, we can write

Rearranging the equation yields

Considering the M distinct roots, it is straightforward to arrive at the stated equation.

For n \geq M, using Equation (2.4), we find:

Using Proposition 1.2 and 2.5 , the last term equals \frac{R(x) - R(y)}{x - y}. On the other hand,

From Proposition 2.3 and Equation (?), we obtain

Thus, the desired relation follows immediately.

First, consider:

Once again, the only nonzero term is the one corresponding to j = i:

Taking the limit in Equation (2.9) for y\to x_i and applying the corresponding Jordan chain:

Rearranging terms and introducing the notation mentioned above:

Let us assume that the orthogonality exists even though \tau_{n-1} = 0. Since \tau_{n-1} = 0, there exists a non-zero constant vector such that:

Considering (2.10), the following relation must also hold:

For x \notin \sigma\left( R \right), the last relation now reads:

Let us integrate the last relation in the complex plane using a counterclockwise contour C_i surrounding once x_i and not any other eigenvalue:

Which can only be true if \boldsymbol{v}_{i}^R\times c_i = 0, or equivalently, \boldsymbol{c} = 0 (remember \boldsymbol{v}_{i}^R is a vector). We arrive at a contradiction and therefore, the initial assumption must be false.

We will begin by proving Equation (2.13). Multiply by the vector \left[\begin{NiceMatrix} 1 & 0 & \Cdots \end{NiceMatrix}\right]^\top to obtain:

The last expression can be rewritten as:

The second relation in (2.13) can be proven similarly. We now proceed to prove Equation (2.13). From Equation (2.10) we obtain

Right-multiplying both terms by a matrix with a non-zero entry only in the first position yields:

Focusing only on the term \check{A}_n^{(a)}(x):

From this relation and Equation (2.13), one can easily obtain the following result,

we can decompose this determinantal formula as follows

The sum on i is truncated when i = n-M+1 up to n-1. We then obtain Equation (2.13).

In order to prove Equation (2.13), let us make use of the second equation in Proposition 2.3. Entrywise, we find (for n \geq M):

Using now Proposition 2.7, this can be rewritten as:

And from this last relation it is straight forward to prove Equation (2.13).

This result is obtained by substituting the conclusions of Theorems 1.3 and 1.8 into Definition 2.10 and performing certain simplifications.

Differentiating l times gives:

By changing the summation index as \lambda = l-m and \mu = m, the expression becomes:

This results in zero, as the term in parentheses represents the action of an appropriate Jordan chain on R(x) and its derivatives.

Explicitly, the limit is:

The first integral term, as well as the summation term for i \neq \tilde{\imath}, vanishes because we have a holomorphic function at x=x_i, and we can apply Lemma 2.16. The non-zero term simplifies as:

Using the derivative product formula, the limit becomes:

Adjusting the summations on l and \lambda yields:

By subtracting the following combination:

which is always zero, the limit simplifies to:

which only depends on the derivatives of R(x), and the limit exists.

We will highlight the key distinction between these formulas and those previously established (Equation (2.13) and (2.13)), particularly focusing on Equation (2.21). In the proof of Proposition 2.10, when dealing with different Jordan chains, it becomes necessary to consider the term

which, by applying Lemma 2.16, can be reformulated as:

This expression is simply R(x) multiplied by the k-th component of the vector \mathbb{P}_j(x,x_i). Hence, the formulas generalize from

in the simple eigenvalue case, to

in the more general case.

This follows from the relationship \operatorname{d} \check{\mu}(x) R(x) = \operatorname{d} \mu(x). Indeed, we have the identity

where

Recalling (Proof), we see that

which is a polynomial of degree N-1.

Let us study the following integral,

which is always valid, provided that \alpha_2 > 0. The Cauchy transform of the type II Jacobi–Piñeiro can be expressed as:

Substituting the first result in this equation yields the desired relation. To prove the second relation, one proceeds similarly for D_n^{(3)}(1;\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\beta).

It is direct consequence of Theorem 2.13, where we have substituted the corresponding perturbation matrix.

Define two new families of matrix polynomials:

where R(x) is a polynomial matrix satisfying Condition (?) and \Omega is a unitriangular matrix with entries given by Equation (2.13). Since \Omega is invertible and the \tau-determinants are nonzero, it follows that the matrix is invertible. Note that no assumptions are made regarding the structure of these matrix families. As \sigma(R) \cap \Delta = \varnothing, we obtain:

The expression:

is strictly zero. Therefore:

Define the lower unitriangular matrix \check{S} \coloneq \Omega S and the polynomial family \check{B}(x) \coloneq \check{S} X_{[q]}(x), so the last expression becomes:

What has been proven so far is the biorthogonality condition for the families of matrix polynomials \check{A}(x) and B(x) as well as the degree structure of \check{B}(x). The theorem’s hypothesis concerning the orthogonality relations of \check{B}_i(x) (for i<{Np-r}), under the biorthogonality condition, can be equivalently reformulated as an assumption about the degree structure of \check{A}(x) as follows. For n \in \{0, \dots, N-2\}, the block

has diagonal terms of degree n, terms above the main diagonal of degree at most n, and lower diagonal terms of degree at most n-1. For \mathcal{\check{A}}_{N-1}(x), we have:

Namely, the known structure extends to the first p-r-1 columns (this column will have entries \check{A}_{Np-r-1}^{(a)}. However, no degree structure is assumed for \check{A}_{n}(x) with n \geq {Np-r}.

Let us examine the relation \check{A}(x)\Omega = R(x)A(x) and focus on the first block of size p \times p:

By construction, \left[ \Omega_{N,0} \right]_p and \left[ \Omega_{N-1,0} \right]_p are of the form:

with entries of the form \Omega_{i+Np-r,i} nonzero due to the hypothesis that \tau_n \neq 0. The product R(x)\mathcal{A}_0 is a matrix polynomial as described in Condition ?. We focus our attention on terms of degree N-1. By hypothesis, it holds that

Considering the first column of Equation (?) and focusing on the terms of degree N-1, we have:

where the * notation denotes constant terms, which could be zero. The product \mathcal{\check{A}}_N(x)\left[ \Omega_{N,0} \right]_p does not appear in the first column, since \left[ \Omega_{N,0} \right]_p has the first r columns equal to zero.

It follows that the terms \check{A}_{Np-r}^{(a)} with a \in\{1,\dots, p-r \} can have degree up to N-1, as other terms of degree N-1 also appear in the summation. For the case a = p-r+1, since the terms of the form A_n^{(p-r+1)} are of degree N-2 for n < Np-r and \check{A}_0^{(1)} \neq 0, the term \check{A}_{Np-r}^{(p-r+1)} must have degree N-1. Below these terms, for p-r+1 < a \leq p, there are no terms of degree N-1 on the left-hand side, implying that \check{A}_{Np-r}^{(a)} can have degree up to N-2. Repeating this analysis r times for subsequent columns of Equation (?), completes the degree structure for \mathcal{\check{A}}_{N-1}.

Next, let us examine the r+1-th column and focus on the terms of degree N:

Clearly, \check{A}_{Np}^{(1)}(x) must have degree N, whereas the remaining terms can have a degree of at most N-1. By iterating this reasoning as described, we can conclude that up to n = Np+p-r, all vector polynomials possess the required degree structure.

Thus, the proof is complete. Under the assumption \tau_n \neq 0 for n \in \mathbb{N} and the existence of the orthogonality conditions for B_i(x), we derive certain orthogonality relations for \check{A}(x) as well as their degree structure.

Assume orthogonality exists despite \tau_n = 0 for some n \in \{0, \dots, {Np-r}-2\}. Since \tau_n = \alpha_n \tau_{n-1} and \tau_{n-1} \neq 0, the only possibility is \alpha_n = 0. However,

and orthogonality would not be satisfied.

The assumption of non-cancellation of these determinants ensures the desired biorthogonality relations for \check{B}_n(x) when n < {Np-r}, satisfying the conditions of Theorem 3.1.