Convergence of λ-Bernstein-Kantorovich operators
in the Lp-norm

Purshottam N. Agrawal1 and Behar Baxhaku2
(Date: November 15, 2023; accepted: May 30, 2024; published online: July 11, 2024.)
Abstract.

We show the convergence of λ-Bernstein-Kantorovich operators defined by Acu et al. [J. ineq. Appl. 2018], for functions in Lp[0,1], p1. We also determine the convergence rate via integral modulus of smoothness.

Key words and phrases:
Bernstein-Kantorovich type operators, Peetre’s K-functional, integral modulus of smoothness.
2005 Mathematics Subject Classification:
41A10, 41A25, 41A36.
1Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee-247667, India, e-mails: pnappfma@gmail.com.
2Department of Mathematics, University of Prishtina ”Hasan Prishtina”, Prishtina, Kosovo, e-mail: behar.baxhaku@uni-pr.edu, corresponding author.

1. Introduction

Bernstein [4] gave a marvellous proof of the Weierstrass approximation theorem by defining a sequence of polynomials as follows:

(1) m(φ;z)=ν=0mqm,ν(z)φ(νm),zI,m,

where qm,ν(z)=(mν)zν(1z)mν,  0νm, I=[0,1] and φ𝒞(I), 𝒞(I):={ϕ:ϕis continuous onI} with the sup-norm .C(I). Later, many researchers [8, 9, 17, 12, 11], etc. introduced new sequences of operators based on (1) and studied their approximation behaviour for functions in several function spaces. Ye et al. [16] proposed the following Bezier basis through a parameter λ[1,1]:

q~m,0(z) =qm,0(z)λm+1qm+1,1(z)
q~m,ν(z) =qm,ν(z)+λ(m2ν+1m21qm+1,ν(z)m2ν1m21qm+1,ν+1(z)),
1 νm1
(2) q~m,m(z) =qm,m(z)λm+1qm+1,m(z).

In the particular case λ=0, it is evident that (1) leads us to the Bernstein basis qm,ν(z),  0νm. We remark here that addition of the parameter λ provides better modeling flexibility to the basis (1). Cai et al. [6] generalized the operators (1) by involving the Bezier basis (1) in the following manner:

(3) 𝔅m(φ;z)=ν=0mq~m,ν(z)φ(νm),zI,m

and studied some direct approximation results.

For φLp(I), p1, Acu et al. [1] presented a Kantorovich variant of the operators (3) as

(4) m,λ(φ;z)=(m+1)ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1φ(u)𝑑u,

and studied a quantitative Voronovskaja type theorem by means of the Ditzian-Totik modulus of smoothness and a Grüss-Voronovskaja type theorem. Rahman et al. [14] investigated the convergence properties of a generalized case of (3) by shifting the nodes, for functions in C(I). Agrawal et al. [2] considered a two dimensional version of the operators defined in [14] and obtained the degree of approximation. Further, the authors [2] also examined the approximation behavior of the associated generalized boolean sum operators. Kumar [10] considered another generalization of (3) along the lines of [13] and discussed some direct theorems in the continuous functions space C(I). Aslan [3] derived the approximation properties for a new class of (3) in the univariate and the bivariate cases. Bodur et al. [5] discussed a Stancu type variant of (3) and established some results in local approximation.

Sucu and Ibikli [15] investigated the convergence of the Bernstein-Stancu- Kantorovich type operators in the spaces C(I) and Lp(I), p1. Encouraged by their work, our objective in this paper is to prove that m,λ(φ;z) converge to φ(z) in the Lp-norm, as m, φLp(I), p1 and also estimate the approximation error via integral modulus of smoothness.

2. Preliminaries

In our study, the following results are needed:

Lemma 1 ([1]).

For all m>2, there hold the inequalities:

|m,λ(uz;z)|(12(m+1)+|λ|m21);

and

(5) |m,λ((uz)2;z)|(3m+412(m+1)2+|λ|2(m21))=ζ(m,λ).
Theorem 2 ([1]).

For φC(I), the operators (4) verify

limmm,λ(φ)φC(I)=0.

For φLp(I), 1p<, the integral modulus of smoothness is given by

ωp1(φ;δ)=sup0<ηδφ(.+η)φ(.)Lp(Ωη),

where .Lp(Ωη) is the Lp-norm over the interval Ωη=[0,1η].
For φLp(I), 1p<, the Peetre’s K- functional is defined as

𝔎p(φ;δ)=infgWp1(I)(φgLp(I)+δgLp(I)),

where Wp1(I)={ψLp(I):ψis absolutely continuous andψLp(I)}.
It is well known [7, Thm. 2.4, p. 177] that for some positive constants c1 and c2, there holds the following relation:

(6) c1ωp1(φ;δ)𝔎p(φ;δ)c2ωp1(φ;δ).
Lemma 3.

For ψWp1(I),p>1, we have

m,λ(ψ)ψLp(I)21p(pp1)ζ(m,λ)ψLp(I).

where ζ(m,λ) is given by (5).

Proof.

For any zI, we have

|m,λ(ψ;z)ψ(z)| =(m+1)|ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1(ψ(u)ψ(z))𝑑z|
(m+1)ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1|zuψ(t)𝑑t|𝑑u
(7) θψ(z)(m+1)ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1|uz|𝑑z,

where

θψ(z)=supuI,uz1|uz||zuψ(t)𝑑t|,

is the Hardy-Littlewood majorant of ψ. Now, applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to (2) and Lemma 2.1 of [6], one gets

|m,λ(ψ;z)ψ(z)|
θψ(z)(m+1)(ν=0mq~m,ν(z))×(ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1(uz)2𝑑u)
(8) θψ(z)maxzI(m,λ((uz)2;z))θψ(z)ζ(m,λ).

Using Hardy-Littlewood theorem (see [18]), one has

(9) 01(θψ(z))p𝑑z2(pp1)p01|ψ(z)|p𝑑z,p>1.

From (2) and (9), we get

01|m,λ(ψ;z)ψ(z)|p𝑑z(ζ(m,λ))p{2(pp1)p01|ψ(z)|p𝑑z}.

Hence,

m,λ(ψ)ψLp(I)21p(pp1)ζ(m,λ)ψLp(I).

3. Main Results

The following result shows that the operator (4) is an approximation method for functions in Lp(I).

Theorem 4.

For φLp(I),1p<, the operators (4), verify

limmm,λ(φ)φLp(I)=0.
Proof.

By Luzin theorem, we know that for a given ϵ>0, a function gC(I) satisfying

(10) φgLp(I)<ϵ.

From Theorem 2, we have

limmm,λ(g)gC(I)=0,

hence for ϵ>0, an integer m0 in such a way that

(11) m,λ(g)gC(I)<ϵ,mm0.

Next, we show that a constant M>0 satisfying m,λM, for all m2.
By Jensen’s inequality

|m,λ(φ;z)|p {(m+1)ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1φ(u)𝑑u}p
(m+1)ν=0mq~m,ν(z)νm+1ν+1m+1|φ(u)|p𝑑u.

Hence,

01|m,λ(φ;z)|p𝑑z (m+1)ν=0m(01q~m,ν(z)𝑑z)νm+1ν+1m+1|φ(u)|p𝑑u
2φLp(I)p,m2.

Hence,

m,λ(φ)Lp(I)21/pφLp(I).

Consequently, a constant M>0 satisfying

(12) m,λM,m2.

Let us define m=max(m0,2). Then in view of (10)–(12), we have

m,λ(φ)φLp(I) m,λ(φ)m,λ(g)Lp(I)+|m,λ(g)gC(I)+φgLp(I)
(m,λ+1)φgLp(I)+|m,λ(g)gC(I)
(M+2)ϵ,mm.

Due to the arbitrariness of ϵ>0, the result follows. ∎

The next result yields the approximation degree for the operators (4) via integral modulus of smoothness.

Theorem 5.

For φLp(I), p>1, the operators m,λ verify the following inequality

m,λ(φ)φLp(I)Cωp1(φ;ζ(m,λ)),

where ζ(m,λ) is given by (5) and the constant C is independent of φ and m.

Proof.

From the proof of Theorem 4 and 3, we have

m,λ(g)gLp(I){3gLp(I),gLp(I)21p(pp1)ζ(m,λ)gLp(I),gWp1(I).

Then for φLp(I) and any ψWp1(I), we may write

m,λ(φ)φLp(I) m,λ(φψ)(φψ)Lp(I)+m,λ(ψ)ψLp(I)
3(φψLp(I)+21p(pp1)ζ(m,λ)ψLp(I)).

Hence due to the arbitrariness of ψWp1(I), we get

m,λ(φ)φLp(I)3𝔎(φ;21p(pp1)ζ(m,λ)).

Finally using (6), we have

m,λ(φ)φLp(I) 3c2ωp1(φ;21p(pp1)ζ(m,λ))
3c2(1+21p(pp1))ωp1(φ;ζ(m,λ))
Cωp1(φ;ζ(m,λ)),

whence the result follows. ∎

Acknowledgements.

The authors are extremely grateful to the learned reviewer for the invaluable suggestions and comments leading to a considerable improvement in the presentation of the paper.

References