 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Functions whose smoothness is not improved under the limit qBernstein operator
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2012, Article number: 297 (2012)
Abstract
The limit qBernstein operator {B}_{q} emerges naturally as a modification of the SzászMirakyan operator related to the Euler probability distribution. At the same time, this operator serves as the limit for a sequence of the qBernstein polynomials with 0<q<1. Over the past years, the limit qBernstein operator has been studied widely from different perspectives. Its approximation, spectral, and functionalanalytic properties, probabilistic interpretation, the behavior of iterates, and the impact on the analytic characteristics of functions have been examined. It has been proved that under a certain regularity condition, {B}_{q} improves the smoothness of a function which does not satisfy the Hölder condition. The purpose of this paper is to exhibit ‘exceptional’ functions whose smoothness is not improved under the limit qBernstein operator.
MSC:26A15, 26A16, 41A36.
1 Introduction
The limit qBernstein operator {B}_{q} comes out as an analogue of the SzászMirakyan operator related to the Euler probability distribution, also called the qdeformed Poisson distribution (see [1]). On the other hand, this operator is important for approximation theory as it provides the limit for a sequence of the qBernstein polynomials in the case 0<q<1 (cf. [2]). A comprehensive review of the results on the qBernstein polynomials can be found in [3]. It should be pointed out that operators whose nature is similar to that of {B}_{q} typically emerge as the limit for a sequence of positive operators based on the qintegers; see, for example, [4–8] making {B}_{q} a principal exemplary model. A general approach to this problem based on the Korovkintype theorem has been developed by Wang in [9].
In the sequel, we employ the notation (see, e.g., [10], Ch. 10):
In addition, we adopt the writing
meaning
for some positive constants {C}_{1} and {C}_{2} independent of δ.
Definition 1.1 Given q\in (0,1), f\in C[0,1], the limit qBernstein operator is defined by f\mapsto {B}_{q}f, where
The limit qBernstein operator has been undergoing an intensive scrutiny lately. Among other facts, it has been established that {B}_{q} is a shapepreserving positive linear operator on C[0,1] with \parallel {B}_{q}\parallel =1, which possesses the endpoint interpolation property, leaves the linear functions invariant, and maps a polynomial of degree m to a polynomial of degree m. Moreover, it takes a binomial {(1x)}^{m} to the corresponding qbinomial, that is,
The object of study of this paper is the impact of {B}_{q} on the analytic properties of functions. This problem has been considered in [11–13], where some direct and inverse theorems have been proved. In general, it can be stated that functions become ‘better’ after applying {B}_{q}. It is not difficult to see that for any f\in C[0,1], the function {B}_{q}f being continuous on [0,1] admits an analytic continuation into the open unit disc centered at 0. As a result, possible ‘bad’ smoothness of f will be removed for its image. What can be concluded about the smoothness at 1? To describe the behavior of f(x) as x approaches 1^{−}, the local modulus of continuity at 1 is applied:
It has been demonstrated that if f satisfies the Hölder condition at 1, then {B}_{q}f is a ‘better’ function than f in terms of its analytic properties unless f is a polynomial. A detailed analysis of this situation is provided in [12]. How about functions without the Hölder condition at 1? Theorem 5.1 of [12] states that for any f\in C[0,1], there is C>0 such that
A detailed analysis of formula (1.1) implies that under the following regularity condition:
one has \mathrm{\Omega}({B}_{q}f;\delta )=o(\mathrm{\Omega}(f;\delta )) as \delta \to {0}^{+}; see [12], Theorem 5.7. That is, if condition (1.2) is satisfied, {B}_{q}f approaches its value at 1 faster than the function f. It is natural to ask whether the same is true for functions which do not satisfy (1.2). The aim of the present paper is to prove the existence of continuous functions different from polynomials whose analytic properties are not improved under the limit qBernstein operator. To be specific, as a main result, it is proved that there are continuous functions on [0,1] which do not satisfy the Hölder condition at 1 such that the following holds:
It should be mentioned here that the last equality is satisfied whenever f is an eigenfunction of {B}_{q} corresponding to a nonzero eigenvalue. Consequently, the findings of this article encourage the search for nonpolynomial eigenfunctions of the limit qBernstein operator whose existence as yet remains an open problem (cf. [3]).
2 Some auxiliary results
In the sequel, we denote by the letter C  with or without indices  a positive constant whose value does not need to be addressed. The same letter does not necessary mean the equal values of the constant. This section presents some technical lemmas needed for the proof of main Theorem 3.1.
Lemma 2.1 Let p\in (0,1). Consider a sequence {\{{a}_{n}\}}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}} defined by
where h\in (0,L) and L is the least positive root of the equation {x}^{x}=p, and an associated sequence
Then (i) the sequence \{{a}_{n}\} is decreasing with {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}{a}_{n}=0; (ii) {lim}_{n\to \mathrm{\infty}}\frac{{m}_{n+1}}{{m}_{n}}=\mathrm{\infty}.
Proof (i) It can be readily seen by the induction on n that \{{a}_{n}\} is a strictly decreasing sequence of positive real numbers, hence \{{a}_{n}\}\to A\in [0,h]. If A>0, then A satisfies A={p}^{1/A}. For p<{e}^{1/e}, this is impossible since p<{x}^{x} for all x\in [0,1]. For p\ge {e}^{1/e}, this contradicts the choice of {a}_{1}. Thus, A=0.

(ii)
Obviously, {m}_{n}=ln({a}_{n})+(1/{a}_{n})ln(1/p), whence
\frac{{m}_{n+1}}{{m}_{n}}=\frac{(1/{a}_{n+1})}{(1/{a}_{n})}\cdot \frac{ln(1/p)+{a}_{n+1}ln({a}_{n+1})}{ln(1/p)+{a}_{n}ln({a}_{n})}.
As \{{a}_{n}ln({a}_{n})\}\to 0, one has
because \{{a}_{n}\}\to 0. □
Lemma 2.2 For every p\in (0,1), there exists a function \omega :[0,1]\to \mathbb{R} satisfying the following conditions:

(a)
\omega \not\equiv 0 is a continuous nondecreasing function on [0,1] with \omega (0)=0;

(b)
there exists C>0 such that
\omega \left({p}^{1/\delta}\right)\ge C\omega (\delta ),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathit{\text{for all}}\phantom{\rule{0.5em}{0ex}}\delta \in (0,1].(2.3)
Proof Consider the sequence of intervals ({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}], n=0,1,2,\dots , where {a}_{n} are given by (2.1). Since \{{a}_{n}\}\to 0, it follows that {\bigcup}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{\infty}}({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}]=(0,1]. As \omega (0)=0, it is left to construct \omega (\delta ) on the intervals ({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}], n=0,1,2,\dots . Let {\{{v}_{n}\}}_{n=0}^{\mathrm{\infty}} be a sequence of positive numbers satisfying the conditions
Define a continuous piecewise linear function ω on each ({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}], n=0,1,2,\dots as follows:
and put \omega (0)=0. It follows directly from (2.4) and (2.5) that \omega (\delta ) is both continuous and nondecreasing on [0,1]. Further, since for n\ge 1,
while
it can be derived that for \delta \in ({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}] and all n\ge 0,
Thus, ω satisfies the conditions (a) and (b) of Lemma 2.2 with C={\rho}^{2}. □
For the sequel, we need the next statement.
Lemma 2.3 Given p\in (0,1), let ω be a function on [0,1] obeying the conditions (a) and (b) of Lemma 2.2. Then ω does not satisfy the Hölder condition of any order α at 0.
Proof In order to establish the absence of the Hölder condition, it suffices to show that \frac{\omega ({a}_{n})}{{({a}_{n})}^{\alpha}}\to \mathrm{\infty}. For the given value of p, we construct the sequence \{{a}_{n}\} as defined by (2.1) and denote \omega ({a}_{n})={u}_{n}. By the condition (b), \frac{{u}_{n+1}}{{u}_{n}}\ge C>0 for all n\in \mathbb{N}. Now, consider
Since
it follows that
□
Analyzing the constructions of the preceding lemmas, the following observations can be derived. The notation is the same as adopted in Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2, and ω is a function satisfying the conditions (a), (b) of Lemma 2.2.
Lemma 2.4 For all n=1,2,\dots , the following estimate holds:
where C>0 is independent of n.
Proof Indeed, one concludes by virtue of (2.3) that \frac{\omega ({a}_{ni})}{\omega ({a}_{n})}\le {C}^{i}, while (ii) of Lemma 2.1 implies \frac{{m}_{ni}}{{m}_{n}}\le {C}_{1}{(\frac{C}{2})}^{i}, i=0,\dots ,n, where {C}_{1} does not depend on n. As a result,
□
Lemma 2.5 Let ω be a function satisfying the conditions of Lemma 2.2. Then
Proof Clearly,
where the last inequality is a consequence of (2.3).
To prove the converse inequality, we use the sequence (2.1) and select {\delta}_{0}={\delta}_{0}(p)>0 in such a way that {\delta}_{0}\in ({a}_{m+1},{a}_{m}], where {a}_{m}\le ln(1/p) and, in addition, {p}^{1/\delta}<\delta for \delta \in (0,{\delta}_{0}]. Then, for \delta \in (0,{\delta}_{0}], one has
Now, let \delta <{\delta}_{0} and \delta \in ({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}], n\ge m. Since {a}_{m}\le ln(1/p), the function {\int}_{{p}^{1/\delta}}^{\delta}\frac{dt}{t} is decreasing in δ for \delta <{\delta}_{0} and hence
To estimate {I}_{2}(\delta ), we write for \delta \in ({a}_{n+1},{a}_{n}]
by virtue of Lemma 2.4. Combining (2.8) and (2.9), we derive
The statement now follows. □
3 Main theorem
The aim of this section is to study the comparative behavior of \mathrm{\Omega}(f;\delta ) and \mathrm{\Omega}({B}_{q}f;\delta ) in the situation when the local modulus of continuity of f at 1 is a function satisfying the conditions of Lemma 2.2. It is not difficult to see that such a function f does not satisfy the regularity condition (1.2). The examination carried out here implies that f is a continuous function on [0,1] without the Hölder condition at 1 for which the order of \mathrm{\Omega}(f;\delta ) as \delta \to {0}^{+} is not changed under {B}_{q}. Such examples have not been known previously. The next theorem constitutes the main result of this work.
Theorem 3.1 For every q\in (0,1), there exists a function f\in C[0,1] such that

(i)
f does not satisfy the Hölder condition at 1;

(ii)
the following relation is true:
\mathrm{\Omega}({B}_{q}f;\delta )\asymp \mathrm{\Omega}(f;\delta ),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\delta \in [0,1].
Proof Given q\in (0,1), let \omega (t) be a function satisfying the conditions of Lemma 2.2 with p=\sqrt{q}. Set f(x):=\omega (1x) for x\in [0,1]. By virtue of Lemma 2.3, f does not satisfy the Hölder condition at x=1. Besides, \mathrm{\Omega}(f;\delta )=\omega (\delta ) due to the monotonicity of f.
Step 1. First, we prove that for some {C}_{1}>0, the following holds:
Applying Definition 1.1 for x\in [0,1), one has
Hence,
for any A>0. With A=\frac{1}{ln(1/(1\delta ))}, one obtains
Now, we restrict our attention to the case \delta \in (0,1/2). In this case, ln(1/(1\delta ))\le 2\delta and as a result,
By Lemma 2.5,
Substituting the last inequality into (3.2), one obtains (3.1) on [0,1/2] and (with a different constant) on [0,1].
Step 2. Now, we are going to prove that for the function f and some {C}_{3}>0, the following inequality is true:
Theorem 5.1 of [12]  we refer to formula (5.2) therein  claims that for any f\in C[0,1], one has
Since q={p}^{2}<p, in order to apply (3.3), we need to estimate {\int}_{{q}^{1/\delta}}^{{p}^{1/\delta}}\frac{\omega (t)}{t}\phantom{\rule{0.2em}{0ex}}dt as follows:
Combining the last inequality with (3.3), we obtain
Finally, the application of Lemma 2.5 yields
as claimed. □
References
Charalambides CA: The q Bernstein basis as a q binomial distribution. J. Stat. Plan. Inference 2010, 140(8):2184–2190. 10.1016/j.jspi.2010.01.014
Il’inskii A, Ostrovska S: Convergence of generalized Bernstein polynomials. J. Approx. Theory 2002, 116: 100–112. 10.1006/jath.2001.3657
Ostrovska S: The first decade of the q Bernstein polynomials: results and perspectives. J. Math. Anal. Approx. Theory 2007, 2(1):35–51.
Gupta V, Wang H: The rate of convergence of q Durrmeyer operators for 0<q<1 . Math. Methods Appl. Sci. 2008, 31(16):1946–1955. 10.1002/mma.1012
Mahmudov NI, Sabancigil P: Voronovskaja type theorem for the Lupas q analogue of the Bernstein operators. Math. Commun. 2012, 17(1):83–91.
Videnskii VS: On some classes of q parametric positive operators. 158. Operator Theory, Advances and Applications 2005, 213–222.
Wang H: Properties of convergence for the q MeyerKonig and Zeller operators. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2007, 335(2):1360–1373. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.01.103
Wang H: Properties of convergence for ω , q Bernstein polynomials. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2008, 340(2):1096–1108. 10.1016/j.jmaa.2007.09.004
Wang H: Korovkintype theorem and application. J. Approx. Theory 2005, 132(2):258–264. 10.1016/j.jat.2004.12.010
Andrews GE, Askey R, Roy R: Special Functions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 1999.
Ostrovska S: On the limit q Bernstein operator. Mathematica Balkanica, N.S. 18. Proceedings of the 1st Congress of MASSEE 2004, 165–172.
Ostrovska S: On the improvement of analytic properties under the limit q Bernstein operator. J. Approx. Theory 2006, 138(1):37–53. 10.1016/j.jat.2005.09.015
Ostrovska S: On the properties of the limit q Bernstein operator. Studia Sci. Math. Hung. 2011, 48(2):160–179.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The author declares that she has no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Ostrovska, S. Functions whose smoothness is not improved under the limit qBernstein operator. J Inequal Appl 2012, 297 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2012297
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2012297