There are many proofs of a basic theorem of analysis - theorem of Weierstrass - which says that
Theorem 1 (Weierstrass). Let f:[0,1]-> R be a continuous function defined on the closed interval [0,1] and let
be a positive number. There exists a polynomial W:R->R such that
| W(x) - f(x) |
for any x from the interval [0,1].
In other words: for every continuous function f:[0,1]->R there exists a sequence
of polynomials uniformly approaching f on the [0,1].
There are generalizations of this theorem and non-constructive proofs. However polynomials
can be defined explicitly
This is a polynomial of n-th degree.
It is called n-th Bernstein polynomial for the function f.
Theorem 2. Let f:[0,1]->R be a continuous function and let e>0 be a positive number. There exists a number N such that for n>N
for x from [0,1].
Usually proofs of this theorem use probability methods. That is why 'Literka' decided to present a non-probabilistic proof.
Another reason is that the following proof uses, 'Literka' thinks, new ideas (see Lemma 1).
Let us define, for
,
These functions play an important role in probability theory. They define beta functions. Functions
are increasing on the interval
and decreasing on the interval
Lemma 1. Let
or .
Then
Proof. Let us assume that
It will be done, if we prove that the function
is negative for
A simple computation of the derivative of H gives us
because x*(1-x) .
This ends the proof, since F(b)=0.
The case
can be proved in a similar way.
Lemma 2. Let .
There exists N such that for n>N
for
Notice that if the summation of the statement of Lemma 2 extends over all
then the result of this summation is 1.
Proof. Let A be a set of all
such that
Let B be a part of A of elements less than p, let C be a part of A of elements bigger than p.
Define
Notice that
where
For k belonging to B and
we have
so that Lemma 1 can be applied:
if
Finally
A similar inequality can be derived with a set C instead of B. Adding both inequalities we receive the assertion of Lemma 2.
Proof of Theorem 2. Let
and take a positive integer n. Since f(x) is uniformly continuous on [0,1], there is a
such that if
then
Define an integer p to be
Then
only if n is large enough so that Lemma 2 is satisfied. This ends the proof of Theorem 2.