Journal of Systems Science and Complexity

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 1436–1445 | Cite as

The equivalent representation of the breadth-one D-invariant polynomial subspace and its discretization

Article
First Online:
Received:
Revised:
  • 54 Downloads

Abstract

This paper demonstrates the equivalence of two classes of D-invariant polynomial subspaces, i.e., these two classes of subspaces are different representations of the breadth-one D-invariant subspace. Moreover, the authors solve the discrete approximation problem in ideal interpolation for the breadth-one D-invariant subspace. Namely, the authors find the points, such that the limiting space of the evaluation functionals at these points is the functional space induced by the given D-invariant subspace, as the evaluation points all coalesce at one point.

Keywords

Breadth-one D-invariant polynomial subspace discrete approximation problem ideal interpolation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Dayton B H and Zeng Z G, Computing the multiplicity structure in solving polynomial systems, Proceedings of the 2005 International Symposium on Symbolic and Algebraic Computation, ACM, New York, 2005, 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Dayton B H, Li T Y, and Zeng Z G, Multiple zeros of nonlinear systems, Math. Comput., 2011, 80(276): 2143–2168.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Li N and Zhi L H, Computing the multiplicity structure of an isolated singular solution: Case of breadth-one, J. Symb. Comput., 2012, 47(6): 700–710.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Li Z, Zhang S G, and Dong T, The discretization for a special class of ideal projectors, ISRN Applied Mathematics, 2012, 2012, article ID: 359069, DOI: 10.5402/2012/359069.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    Birkhoff G, The algebra of multivariate interpolation, Constructive Approaches to Mathematical Models, Academic Press, New York, 1979, 345–363.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    de Boor C, Ideal interpolation, Approximation Theory XI: Gatlinburg, Eds. by Chui C K, Neamtu M, and Schumaker L L, Nashboro Press, Brentwood, 2005, 59–91.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Shekhtman B, Ideal interpolation: Translations to and from algebraic geometry, Approximate Commutative Algebra, Eds. by Robbiano L and Abbott J, Springer Vienna, 2010, 163–192.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    de Boor C and Ron A, On multivariate polynomial interpolation, Constr. Approx., 1990, 6(3): 287–302.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    de Boor C, What are the limits of Lagrange projectors?, Constructive Theory of Functions, Varna, 2005, 51–63.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    de Boor C and Shekhtman B, On the pointwise limits of bivariate Lagrange projectors, Linear Algebra Appl., 2008, 429(1): 311–325.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Shekhtman B, On a conjecture of Carl de Boor regarding the limits of Lagrange interpolants, Constr. Approx., 2006, 24(3): 365–370.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Shekhtman B, On the limits of Lagrange projectors, Constr. Approx., 2009, 29(3): 293–301.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    van Lint J H and Wilson R M, A Course in Combinatorics, Cambridge University Press, 2001.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Systems Science, Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Mathematics, Key Laboratory of Symbolic Computation and Knowledge Engineering (Ministry of Education)Jilin UniversityChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations