Chebyshev systems and Sturm oscillation theory for discrete polynomials

D. V. Gorbachev; S. Yu. Tikhonov; V. I. Ivanov

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Chebyshev systems and Sturm oscillation theory for discrete polynomials

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves exact discrete analogues of Chebyshev's alternation theorem and Sturm's oscillation theorem for eigenfunctions of Jacobi matrices, and applies them to spectral-gap polynomials.

desk verdict The Chebyshev-system characterization is solid, but the proof of the central discrete Sturm theorem has a real boundary-condition gap that a referee should require the authors to fix. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02358 v1 pith:CBNOTGZG submitted 2025-01-04 math.CA

D. V. Gorbachev , V. I. Ivanov , S. Yu. Tikhonov This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.CA MSC 41A5039A2152A40

keywords ChebyshevsystembestuniformapproximationSturmoscillationtheoremdiscretepolynomialsspectralgapproblemJacobimatrixT_Z-systemorthogonal

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

On a finite integer grid, the paper finds the precise condition under which best uniform approximation behaves exactly as on an interval: a discrete system of $n$ functions admits alternating-error sets of length $n+1$ for every target function if and only if it is a Chebyshev system on the grid. It then shows that eigenfunctions of a discrete Sturm-Liouville problem form such systems, and proves the discrete Sturm oscillation theorem: every nontrivial combination of eigenfunctions with indices $m$ through $n$ has between $m-1$ and $n-1$ zeros, counting sign changes. This yields a discrete Sturm-Hurwitz spectral gap theorem and, as an application, a monotonicity result for the Fourier coefficients of orthogonal polynomials with their largest zeros removed, which in turn settles an extremal problem for polynomials with a spectral gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the eigenfunctions $\psi_k(\nu)=P_\nu(\lambda_k)$ of the discrete Sturm-Liouville problem (1.12), generated by a Jacobi matrix with positive off-diagonal coefficients, and the two notions of discrete zero: a first-type zero where $f(\nu)=0$, and a second-type zero where $f(\nu-1)f(\nu)<0$. The argument combines Favard's theorem (positivity of the coefficients produces a positive orthogonal measure), the interlacing of zeros of orthogonal polynomials, a Christoffel-Darboux identity, and a discrete version of Liouville's method: multiplying $V$ by $(\lambda_1-\lambda_k)^r$ and letting $r\to\pm\infty$ forces $V_r$ to converge to a single eigenfunction, transferring the known zero count of that eigenfunction to $V$.

What would settle it

Take a small Jacobi problem, say $q=2$ with concrete positive coefficients such as $\alpha=(0,0,0)$, $\beta=\gamma=(1,1)$, $\rho=(1,1,1)$, $\eta=0$, compute $\psi_1,\psi_2,\psi_3$ by the recurrence, and list the sign-change counts of all combinations $\sum_{k=m}^n a_k\psi_k$; any combination violating $m-1\le S_-(V)\le S_+(V)\le n-1$ would refute the central theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a discrete analogue of Sturm's theorem. For the eigenvectors $\psi_k(\nu)=P_\nu(\lambda_k)$ of the Jacobi Sturm-Liouville problem (1.12), any nontrivial polynomial $V(\nu)=\sum_{k=m}^{n} a_k \psi_k(\nu)$ with $1\le m\le n\le q+1$ satisfies $m-1\le S_-(V)\le N(V)\le S_+(V)\le n-1$, where $S_-$ and $S_+$ are the least and largest numbers of sign changes after zero values are replaced, and $N$ counts vanishings together with sign changes between neighbouring points. Together with Theorem 1.4, which characterizes the systems for which every best uniform approximant has a Chebyshev alternance set of length $n+1$ as exactly the Chebyshev ($T_{\mathbb{Z}}$) systems, this implies that $\{\psi_k\}_{k=1}^n$ is a $T_{\mathbb{Z}}$-system and that any discrete function with a spectral gap starting at $m$ has at least $m-1$ sign changes.

Load-bearing premise

The whole Sturm part assumes that the Jacobi coefficients $\beta_l,\gamma_l,\rho_l$ are positive and the boundary condition has the form $\psi(q+1)=\eta\psi(q)$; if any coefficient changes sign, the interlacing of zeros and the oscillation bounds in Theorem 1.11 need not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Best uniform approximation on a finite grid has an alternating-error set exactly for $T_{\mathbb{Z}}$-systems, so alternation-based (Remez-type) algorithms are justified precisely for this class.
Eigenfunction systems of discrete Sturm-Liouville problems are $T_{\mathbb{Z}}$-systems, giving unique best approximants and Chebyshev alternance for such bases.
A discrete spectral-gap theorem holds: if $f=\sum_{k=m}^{q+1} a_k\psi_k$, then $f$ has at least $m-1$ sign changes on $[0,q]_{\mathbb{Z}}$.
In the expansion of $P_{q+1}(\lambda)$ divided by its $m+1$ largest zero factors, the Fourier coefficients, after normalization by $P_l(b)$, are strictly monotone and positive, strengthening earlier nonnegativity results.
The extremal problem for polynomials with spectral gap and nonnegative coefficients is solved: the extremal value is the $(m+1)$-st zero of the corresponding orthogonal polynomial, with a unique extremizer, whenever the Krein property holds.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The determinant condition of Theorem 1.4 gives a finite, checkable certificate for a discrete system to be Chebyshev: one only needs to verify that all $n\times n$ interpolation determinants have one sign, which could be automated for numerical basis selection.
The discrete Sturm-Hurwitz statement may extend to any orthonormal family with a three-term recurrence and positive transfer coefficients, suggesting a general finite-dimensional uncertainty principle in which the size of the spectral gap controls the minimum number of oscillations.
The monotonicity of the normalized coefficients is stronger than positivity and could yield quantitative lower bounds for extremal constants of spectral-gap polynomials, not just the extremal values computed in the two cases covered by Theorem 1.16.
The Krein property in Theorem 1.16 is used only to ensure that squares of basis expansions stay in the nonnegative cone; if it fails, the extremal polynomial may still be extremal, but the present proof would not cover it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper's Theorem 1.4—the iff characterization of discrete Chebyshev systems via alternance—is a clean and correct piece of work, and the determinant proof in Section 4 for the monotone Fourier coefficients is independent and looks solid. Second, the advertised discrete Sturm oscillation theorem (Theorem 1.11) is not actually proved as written. The stress-test note is right: Lemma 3.7 applies the discrete Rolle inequalities to f = V/ψ1, but those lemmas require f(q+1)=0. For the eigenfunctions, the boundary condition gives ψ(q+1)=ηψ(q), so V/ψ1 satisfies f(q+1)=f(q) when η≠0, and when η=0 the ratio is 0/0 at q+1. The paper never proves a Rolle-type inequality for that boundary condition. The step K(Δ(V/ψ1)) ≥ K(V/ψ1) is the engine of Lemma 3.7 and therefore of the whole theorem; without it, the inequalities m−1 ≤ S−(V) and S+(V) ≤ n−1 don't follow from the written argument. This is not a trivial typo: the proof of Theorem 1.11 rests on it, and Corollaries 1.12 and 1.13 inherit the problem.

What the paper does well: the equivalence in Theorem 1.4 is a genuine contribution, with useful lemmas about alternating sets, and the application to coefficient monotonicity in Theorem 1.14 is proved by a self-contained determinant argument (Section 4) that does not appear to depend on the Sturm theorem. The Yudin application is a reasonable extension if the coefficient result holds. The writing is careful and the citations are appropriate.

So my overall take: this is a paper with real value, but the central result is currently unproven. It deserves a serious referee—the problem is nontrivial and the rest of the paper is worth engaging with—but I would not accept it in this form. I'd ask the authors to either prove the Δ-Rolle inequality for the boundary condition f(q+1)=f(q), or restructure the proof to avoid that step. If they do, the paper would be a solid accept.

My recommendation to you: if you're editor, send it to review, but with clear instructions that the Sturm proof needs scrutiny. If you're reading it for your own work, cite Theorem 1.4; be cautious about Theorem 1.11 until the gap is closed.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proves three main results: (i) Theorem 1.4, a characterization of discrete Chebyshev systems (T Z-systems) via the existence of Chebyshev alternance sets in the best uniform approximation of discrete functions; (ii) Theorem 1.11, a discrete Sturm oscillation theorem for eigenfunctions of the discrete Sturm-Liouville problem (1.12), asserting that any nontrivial linear combination V = Σ_{k=m}^n a_k ψ_k satisfies m−1 ≤ S_−(V) ≤ N(V) ≤ S_+(V) ≤ n−1; and (iii) Theorems 1.14 and 1.16, giving monotonicity of Fourier coefficients of polynomials with removed largest zeros and a solution of a Yudin-type extremal problem. The proofs are largely self-contained and rely on detailed determinant and sign-change arguments.

Significance. If the main theorems hold, this is a substantial contribution: Theorem 1.11 supplies a long-sought discrete analogue of Sturm's oscillation theorem, yielding Corollary 1.12 (the eigenfunctions form a T Z-system) and Corollary 1.13 (a discrete Sturm-Hurwitz spectral gap theorem). Theorem 1.4 is a clean characterization of when a discrete best-uniform-approximation problem admits a full alternance set. Theorem 1.14 strengthens earlier results of Cohn-Kumar on nonnegative coefficients, and Theorem 1.16 solves a Yudin-type extremal problem, with the appendix providing explicit determinant sign computations. The proofs are written in full detail and are mostly rigorous. However, the gap identified in the major comment below currently leaves Theorem 1.11 unproved for general boundary parameter η, which is a central claim of the paper.

major comments (1)

[§3.1, Lemma 3.7] The proof of Lemma 3.7, which is the engine of Theorem 1.11, applies Lemmas 3.5 and 3.6 to the function f = V/ψ_1 in order to conclude K(Δ(V/ψ_1)) ≥ K(V/ψ_1) for K = N, S_−, S_+. Lemmas 3.5 and 3.6 are explicitly stated under the hypothesis f(q+1)=0, and the parts (3.18) and (3.20) for the forward difference Δf rely exactly on that Dirichlet condition through the final clause of Lemma 3.4. For f = V/ψ_1, the boundary condition in (1.12) gives, for η ≠ 0, f(q+1) = V(q+1)/ψ_1(q+1) = ηV(q)/(ηψ_1(q)) = f(q), not f(q+1)=0. Thus the hypotheses of Lemmas 3.5 and 3.6 are not satisfied, and no substitute argument is provided. This is not a merely technical gap: for example, with q=1, η=1, and the Jacobi coefficients α_l=0, β_l=γ_l=ρ_l=1, the function f=ψ_2/ψ_1 satisfies f(2)=f(1) but S_−(Δf)=0 < 1 = S_−(f), so the announced discrete Rolle inequality fails under the actual boundary condition. Consequently, the monotonicity step K(V_1) ≥ K(V) is unproved for general η, and Theorem 1.11 is not established for the stated range η ∈ R. The proof does work for η=0, but the theorem and its corollaries are claimed for arbitrary real η.

minor comments (5)

[§3.1, equation (3.14)] Equation (3.14) appears to have a sign error: the correct identity is d_ν(λ_l−λ_k)ψ_l(ν)ψ_k(ν) = −∇(w_ν{ψ_l(ν)Δψ_k(ν) − ψ_k(ν)Δψ_l(ν)}). This does not affect the later arguments, since only zero counts and sign-change counts of g are used, but it should be corrected.
[§3.1, proof of Lemma 3.5] In the proof of Lemma 3.5, the sentence 'Therefore, N(Δf) ≥ N(f)' in the paragraph proving (3.17) should read 'N(∇f) ≥ N(f)', since the inequality being established is for ∇f.
[§3.1, proof of Lemma 3.1] In the second bullet of the proof of Lemma 3.1, the notation 'S−(f, [m,q]_Z)' should likely be 'S−(f, [m,n]_Z)' for consistency with the other terms in the displayed inequality.
[§3.1, proof of Lemma 3.7] In the chain (3.21), the expression '∇g(s)/(d_l ψ_1(s))' uses an undefined index 'l'; it should be 'd_s ψ_1(s)' (or simply a positive factor), since ∇g(s) = d_s ψ_1(s) V_1(s).
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors (e.g., 'Fourier' for 'Fourier' in a reference, inconsistent notation for intervals). A careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the derivation chain is self-contained; the cited [13] upper bound is an independent prior result, and the boundary-condition issue is a proof gap rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived rather than assumed. Theorem 1.4 is proved directly from Lemmas 2.1-2.5: the equivalence of the TZ-system property, existence of alternance, and common sign of determinants is established by constructing interpolating polynomials and counting sign changes, with no occurrence of the conclusion among the hypotheses. Theorem 1.11 is proved from Theorem 1.10 (itself obtained from B. Simon's external Theorem 1.9 and standard interlacing of zeros) and from discrete Rolle-type inequalities; the Liouville method compares V to the limiting eigenfunctions psi_m and psi_n, and no fitted parameter or definitional identity is used. Theorem 1.14 reduces coefficient monotonicity to determinant sign relations via Lemma 4.1 and Christoffel-Darboux identities, and positivity follows from the sign analysis. The only self-citation of note is [13], which supplies the upper bounds and uniqueness in Theorem 1.16; that is a prior published result by one of the authors solving the same Yudin problem without the positivity restriction, so it is independent support and does not make the present derivation circular. A skeptical reader may object that Lemma 3.7 applies Lemmas 3.5/3.6 to V/psi_1 although the boundary condition (1.12) gives V(q+1)=eta V(q) and psi_1(q+1)=eta psi_1(q), so f(q+1)=f(q) rather than f(q+1)=0 for generic eta. This is a potential gap in the written proof, but it is a correctness issue, not a circularity: no equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; eta is a theorem variable over which every case is proved. The central derivations rest on standard orthogonal-polynomial facts plus one domain assumption, the Krein property, in the final application. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

standard math Favard's theorem guarantees a positive measure for the recurrence (1.7) with positive gamma, beta, rho.
Used in Theorem 1.8 to obtain orthogonal polynomial representation and measure support. Positivity of gamma_l, beta_l, rho_l is assumed before (1.7).
standard math Zeros of consecutive orthogonal polynomials and of P_q and P-tilde_{q+1} interlace.
Equation (3.2), cited from Szego III.3.3, drives the sign counts in Theorem 1.10 and the location of lambda_1 relative to b in Theorem 1.14.
standard math Simon's Theorem 1.9, a discrete Sturm count for Jacobi matrices.
Used as input to Theorem 1.10 for the count of sign changes of psi_k.
domain assumption Krein property: products of basis polynomials have nonnegative expansion coefficients.
Assumed in Theorem 1.16 to lift coefficient positivity to squares and products. Not proved in the paper; it restricts the application to bases satisfying it.
standard math Boundedness conditions (1.9) characterize compact support of the measure.
Invoked from Chihara IV.2.2 in the proof of Theorem 1.8 to get finite support [a,b].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chebyshev systems and Sturm oscillation theory for discrete polynomials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CBNOTGZG

@misc{pith2026250102358,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chebyshev systems and Sturm oscillation theory for discrete polynomials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CBNOTGZG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02358}
}

abstract

We prove an analogue of Chebyshev's alternation theorem for linearly independent discrete functions $\Phi_n=\{\varphi_k\}_{k=1}^n$ on the interval $[0,q]_{\mathbb{Z}}=[0,q]\cap \mathbb{Z}$. In particular, we establish that the polynomial of best uniform approximation of a discrete function $f$ admits a Chebyshev alternance set of length $n+1$ if and only if $\Phi_n$ is a Chebyshev $T_{\mathbb{Z}}$-system. Also, we obtain a discrete version of Sturm's oscillation theorem, according to which the number of discrete zeros of the polynomial $\sum_{k=m}^{n}a_k\varphi_k$ is no less than $m-1$ and no more than $n-1$. This implies that $\Phi_n$ is a $T_{\mathbb{Z}}$-system and a discrete Sturm-Hurwitz spectral gap theorem is valid. As applications, we study the orthogonal polynomials with removed largest zeros. We establish the monotonicity property of coefficients in the Fourier expansions of such polynomials, thereby strengthening the results of H. Cohn and A. Kumar. We apply this to solve a Yudin-type extremal problem for polynomials with spectral gap.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Agarwal, M

R.P. Agarwal, M. Bohner, S.R. Grace, and D. O’Regan, Discrete Oscillation Theory , Hindawi Publ. Corp., New York, 2005

work page 2005
[2]

Babenko, An extremal problem for polynomials , Math

A.G. Babenko, An extremal problem for polynomials , Math. Notes 35 (1984), no. 3, 181–186

work page 1984
[3]

Sturm's theorem on zeros of linear combinations of eigenfunctions

P. B´ erard and B. Helﬀer, Sturm’s theorem on zeros of linear combinations of eigenfunc tions, Exposi- tiones Mathematicae 38 (2020), no. 1, 27–50; arXiv:1706.08247v4

work page Pith review arXiv 2020
[4]

Cohn and A

H. Cohn and A. Kumar, Universally optimal distribution of points on spheres J. Amer. Math. Soc. 20 (2007), no. 1, 99–148

work page 2007
[5]

Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials , Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York–London–Paris, 1978

T.S. Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials , Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York–London–Paris, 1978

work page 1978
[6]

Dunham, Discrete Chebyshev approximation: alternation and the Reme z algorithm , Z

C.B. Dunham, Discrete Chebyshev approximation: alternation and the Reme z algorithm , Z. Angw. Math. Mech. 58 (1979), 326–328

work page 1979
[7]

Dzyadyk and I.A

V.K. Dzyadyk and I.A. Shevchuk, Theory of Uniform Approximation of Functions by Polynomials , de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008. 30 D. V. GORBACHEV, V. I. IV ANOV, AND S. YU. TIKHONOV

work page 2008
[8]

Eremenko and D

A. Eremenko and D. Novikov, Oscillation of Fourier integrals with a spectral gap , J. Math. Pures Appl. 83 (2004), no. 3, 313–365

work page 2004

Show all 31 references

[9]

Gantmacher and M

F. Gantmacher and M. Krein, Oscillation Matrices and Kernels and Small Vibrations of Mech anical Systems, revised ed., AMS Chelsea Publishing, 2002

2002
[10]

Gorbachev and V.I

D.V. Gorbachev and V.I. Ivanov, An extremum problem for polynomials related to codes and des igns, Math. Notes 67 (2000), no. 4, 433–438

2000
[11]

Gorbachev, V

D. Gorbachev, V. Ivanov, and S. Tikhonov, Uncertainty principles for eventually constant sign ban- dlimited functions , SIAM J. Math. Anal. 52 (2020), no. 5, 4751–4782

2020
[12]

Gorbachev, V

D. Gorbachev, V. Ivanov, and S. Tikhonov, Logan’s problem for Jacobi transforms, Canad. J. Math. 76 (2024), no. 3, 4751–4782

2024
[13]

Ivanov, Yudin–Hermite extremal problems for polynomials , Math

V.I. Ivanov, Yudin–Hermite extremal problems for polynomials , Math. Notes 110 (2021), no. 5, 799–805

2021
[14]

Karlin and W.J

S. Karlin and W.J. Studden, Tchebycheﬀ Systems: With Applications in Analysis and Stat istics, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966

1966
[15]

Laurent, Approximation et Optimisation, Herman n, Paris, 1972

P.-J. Laurent, Approximation et Optimisation, Herman n, Paris, 1972

1972
[16]

Levenshtein, Boundaries for packings of metric spaces and some application s, Problems of Cyber- netics 40 (1983), 43–110

V.I. Levenshtein, Boundaries for packings of metric spaces and some application s, Problems of Cyber- netics 40 (1983), 43–110. (in Russian)

1983
[17]

Levitan and I.S

B.M. Levitan and I.S. Sargsjan, Introduction to Spectral Theory: Selfadjoint Ordinary Diﬀere ntial Operators, Transl. Math. Monogr. 39, AMS, Providence, Rhode Island, 1975

1975
[18]

Logan, Information in the zero crossings of bandpass signals , Bell Syst

B. Logan, Information in the zero crossings of bandpass signals , Bell Syst. Tech. J. 56 (1977), no. 4, 487–510

1977
[19]

Mao, Reconstruction of binary functions and shapes from incomplet e frequency information , IEEE Trans Inf

Y. Mao, Reconstruction of binary functions and shapes from incomplet e frequency information , IEEE Trans Inf. Theory 58 (2012), no. 6, 3642–3653

2012
[20]

Mitkovski and A

M. Mitkovski and A. Poltoratski, On the determinacy problem for measures , Invent. Math. 202 (2015), no. 3, 1241–1267

2015
[21]

Montgomery and M.A

H.L. Montgomery and M.A. Ulrike, Biased trigonometric polynomials . Am. Math. Mon. 114 (2007), no. 9, 804–809

2007
[22]

Protasov, R

V.Yu. Protasov, R. Kamalov, How do the lengths of switching intervals inﬂuence the stabil ity of a dynamical system?, Automatica 171 (2025), 111929; arXiv:2312.10506

2025 arXiv
[23]

Simon, Sturm oscillation and comparison theorems , Amrein, Werner O

B. Simon, Sturm oscillation and comparison theorems , Amrein, Werner O. (ed.) et al., Sturm-Liouville theory. Past and present, 29–43. Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2005

2005
[24]

Steinerberger, Quantitative projections in the Sturm oscillation theorem , J

S. Steinerberger, Quantitative projections in the Sturm oscillation theorem , J. Math. Pures Appl. 144 (2020), 1–16

2020
[25]

Szeg¨ o, Orthogonal Polynomials, AMS, New York, 1959

G. Szeg¨ o, Orthogonal Polynomials, AMS, New York, 1959

1959
[26]

Teschl, Jacobi Operators and Completely Integrable Nonlinear Lattic es, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 72, Amer

G. Teschl, Jacobi Operators and Completely Integrable Nonlinear Lattic es, Mathematical Surveys and Monographs 72, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 2000

2000
[27]

Ulanovskii, The Sturm–Hurwitz theorem and its extensions , J

A. Ulanovskii, The Sturm–Hurwitz theorem and its extensions , J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 12 (2006), no. 6, 629–643

2006
[28]

Zamarashkin, S.V

N.L. Zamarashkin, S.V. Morozov, and E.E. Tyrtyshnikov , On the best approximation algorithm by low-rank matrices in Chebyshev’s norm , Comput. Math. Math. Phys. 62 (2022), 701–718

2022
[29]

Yudin, Code and design , Discrete Math

V.A. Yudin, Code and design , Discrete Math. Appl. 7 (1997), no. 2, 147–155

1997
[30]

Yudin, Positive values of polynomials , Math

V.A. Yudin, Positive values of polynomials , Math. Notes 72 (2002), no. 3, 440–443

2002
[31]

Yudin, Distribution of the points of a design on the sphere , Izv

V.A. Yudin, Distribution of the points of a design on the sphere , Izv. Math. 69 (2005), no. 5, 1061–1079. CHEBYSHEV SYSTEMS AND STURM OSCILLATION THEORY 31 D. V. Gorbachev, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow Сent er of Fundamental and Applied Mathematics, 119991 Moscow...

2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Agarwal, M

R.P. Agarwal, M. Bohner, S.R. Grace, and D. O’Regan, Discrete Oscillation Theory , Hindawi Publ. Corp., New York, 2005

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Babenko, An extremal problem for polynomials , Math

A.G. Babenko, An extremal problem for polynomials , Math. Notes 35 (1984), no. 3, 181–186

work page 1984

[3] [3]

Sturm's theorem on zeros of linear combinations of eigenfunctions

P. B´ erard and B. Helﬀer, Sturm’s theorem on zeros of linear combinations of eigenfunc tions, Exposi- tiones Mathematicae 38 (2020), no. 1, 27–50; arXiv:1706.08247v4

work page Pith review arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Cohn and A

H. Cohn and A. Kumar, Universally optimal distribution of points on spheres J. Amer. Math. Soc. 20 (2007), no. 1, 99–148

work page 2007

[5] [5]

Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials , Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York–London–Paris, 1978

T.S. Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials , Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York–London–Paris, 1978

work page 1978

[6] [6]

Dunham, Discrete Chebyshev approximation: alternation and the Reme z algorithm , Z

C.B. Dunham, Discrete Chebyshev approximation: alternation and the Reme z algorithm , Z. Angw. Math. Mech. 58 (1979), 326–328

work page 1979

[7] [7]

Dzyadyk and I.A

V.K. Dzyadyk and I.A. Shevchuk, Theory of Uniform Approximation of Functions by Polynomials , de Gruyter, Berlin, 2008. 30 D. V. GORBACHEV, V. I. IV ANOV, AND S. YU. TIKHONOV

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Eremenko and D

A. Eremenko and D. Novikov, Oscillation of Fourier integrals with a spectral gap , J. Math. Pures Appl. 83 (2004), no. 3, 313–365

work page 2004