Next Article in Journal
Effect of Nanoparticle Diameter in Maxwell Nanofluid Flow with Thermophoretic Particle Deposition
Previous Article in Journal
Decision-Making Model of Performance Evaluation Matrix Based on Upper Confidence Limits
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Fractal Divergences of Generalized Jacobi Polynomials

by
Răzvan-Cornel Sfetcu
1 and
Vasile Preda
1,2,3,*
1
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bucharest, Str. Academiei 14, 010014 Bucharest, Romania
2
“Gheorghe Mihoc-Caius Iacob” Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Applied Mathematics, Calea 13 Septembrie 13, 050711 Bucharest, Romania
3
“Costin C. Kiriţescu” National Institute of Economic Research, Calea 13 Septembrie 13, 050711 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2023, 11(16), 3500; https://doi.org/10.3390/math11163500
Submission received: 28 June 2023 / Revised: 7 August 2023 / Accepted: 11 August 2023 / Published: 13 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Difference and Differential Equations)

Abstract

:
The notion of entropy (including macro state entropy and information entropy) is used, among others, to define the fractal dimension. Rényi entropy constitutes the basis for the generalized correlation dimension of multifractals. A motivation for the study of the information measures of orthogonal polynomials is because these polynomials appear in the densities of many quantum mechanical systems with shape-invariant potentials (e.g., the harmonic oscillator and the hydrogenic systems). With the help of a sequence of some generalized Jacobi polynomials, we define a sequence of discrete probability distributions. We introduce fractal Kullback–Leibler divergence, fractal Tsallis divergence, and fractal Rényi divergence between every element of the sequence of probability distributions introduced above and the element of the equiprobability distribution corresponding to the same index. Practically, we obtain three sequences of fractal divergences and show that the first two are convergent and the last is divergent.

1. Introduction

In order to define the fractals, two methods in the literature are used. The first method was introduced by the French mathematicians Fatou (see [1]) and Julia (see [2]) at the beginning of the 20th century, who used the complex function theory in the study of the iteration of rational functions on a Riemann sphere. Mandelbrot [3] put into real light these two papers (which remained practically not quite understood until the second half of the 20th century) and generated a vast array in the literature and domain (see [4,5]). The second method was introduced by the Australian mathematician Hutchinson (see [6]), who used general topology and functional analysis. Afterwards, Barnsley (see [7]), another Australian mathematician, continued this work and contributed in a decisive manner to its dissemination. The main idea of this method was to consider the so-called iterated function systems ( I F S ) and find their fixed points. For a given I F S , Hutchinson’s theory generates the fractal set and the fractal measure using the Banach–Caccioppoli–Picard contraction principle. So, the fractal measure is the fixed point of the Markov operator associated to the respective I F S . A short survey of the two aforementioned fractals can be found in [8]. For recent results concerning this topic, readers can consult [9,10,11,12,13].
The entropy and fractal dimension are measures of complexity (see [14,15,16]). For example, the entropy can be used to measure the multiscale complexity (see [17,18]). In the multifractal dimension set, the macro state entropy is used on the capacity dimension, and the information dimension is based on Shannon’s information entropy (see [19]). The entropy and fractal dimension are also measures of spatial complexity (see [20,21,22,23,24,25]).
Stanley and Meakin [26] showed that there are analogies between thermodynamics and multifractals. They also proved in the same paper that Legendre transform is an analog of entropy. Ryabko [27] proved that Hausdorff dimension and Kolmogorov complexity are equivalent to Shannon entropy.
For more information about the relationship between entropy and fractal dimension, readers can consult [28].
Among other applications in many areas, the orthogonal polynomials also constitute an important tool in information theory. The interest began with the modern density functional theory (see [29,30,31]), which says that the physical and chemical properties of fermionic systems (atoms, molecules, nuclei, solids) can be described using the single-particle probability density. Also, it is known that the wave function of many important systems (for example, D -dimensional harmonic oscillator and hydrogen atom) can be expressed using the families of orthogonal polynomials.
There are several discrete measures which are associated with a sequence of orthogonal polynomials. Many times, the analysis of such measures needs the use of entropy (see [32,33]).
The concept of entropy has many generalizations: Tsallis entropy, Rényi entropy, Varma entropy, Kaniadakis entropy, fractional entropy, fractal entropy, natural time entropy, etc. The motivation to study these entropies are their applications, such as earthquakes (see [34,35,36,37,38,39]), stock exchanges (see [40,41]), plasma (see [42,43,44]), Markov chains (see [45,46,47]), astrophysics (see [48,49]), model selection (see [50,51]), combinatorics (see [52,53]), finance (see [54,55,56,57]), and Lie symmetries (see [58,59]). Other theoretical results, similar to those proved in this paper can be found in [60,61,62,63,64].
In the literature, there are some papers that study few entropies and divergences (Shannon, Kullback–Leibler, Tsallis, and Rényi) of orthogonal polynomials (see [65,66,67,68,69,70,71]).
Dehesa et al. [65] and Yáñez et al. [66] showed that the computation of some entropies can be reduced, many times, to integrals involving orthogonal polynomials.
Aptekarev et al. [67] obtain asymptotic expansions of discrete Shannon entropy corresponding to Chebyshev orthonormal polynomials of the first and second kind. In the proofs can be found many connections with relevant objects from number theory.
Buyarov et al. [68] study the asymptotic behavior of Shannon entropy of Jacobi and Laguerre polynomials with respect to a Jacobi and Laguerre weight function, respectively.
Buyarov et al. [69] develop an algorithm for an effective and accurate numerical computation of Shannon entropy of polynomials that are orthogonal on a segment of the real axis. They pay attention to Gegenbauer polynomials, both for their own interest (as a very representative class of polynomials) and also because of their many applications. The results of some numerical experiments are discussed, illustrating both the accuracy and efficiency of the algorithm proposed here and comparing it with other computing strategies used so far.
Martínez-Finkelshtein et al. [70] are concerned with the asymptotic behavior of Kullback–Leibler divergence (and of Shannon entropy) of generalized Jacobi polynomials. For the particular case of Chebyshev polynomials of the first and second kind, they compare the obtained results with those from [67].
Sfetcu [71] studies the asymptotic behavior of Tsallis and Rényi divergences (and of Tsallis and Rényi entropies, respectively) of generalized Jacobi polynomials.
Dehesa [72] deals with the spread of the hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials along their orthogonality interval. Fisher information, Shannon entropy, Rényi entropy, and their corresponding spreading lengths are analytically expressed in terms of the degree and the parameter(s) of the orthogonality weight function, being closely related to the gradient functional (Fisher) and L q -norms (Shannon and Rényi) of the polynomials. Moreover, there are degree asymptotics for these entropy-like functionals of the three canonical families of the hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials, namely Hermite, Laguerre and Jacobi polynomials. Finally, a number of open related issues, whose solutions are both physico-mathematically and computationally relevant, are identified.
Sobrino and Dehesa [73] solve the various asymptotics of the unweighted and weighted L q -norms of the hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials, taking into account their close connection to the entropy and complexity-like quantities because of their relevance in the information theory of special functions and quantum systems and technologies to facilitate their numerical and symbolic computation.
Sometimes, we cannot examine all the information about complex systems as the physical or observable probabilities become incomplete and do not sum to one. Wang introduced in [74] the fractal entropy, i.e., a generalized entropy, by using a so-called incomplete normalization with an empirical parameter q, which is intended to “absorb” the effect of complex correlations or interaction and can be related to the energy of the studied system, namely S = i = 1 n p i q log 1 p i . In general, q < 1 and q > 1 imply, respectively, the repulsive and attractive effect of the complex correlations. This extensive incomplete statistic is shown to be able to reproduce very well the quantum distributions of correlated heavy electrons in the weak coupling regime.
Motivated by the applications mentioned above, we deal, in this paper, with fractal divergences (they can be also called relative fractal entropies) between the equiprobability distibution and some probability distribution, which is defined with the help of a particular sequence of orthonormal polynomials, namely generalized Jacobi polynomials. More exactly, for any a ( 1 , ) and a sequence of probability distributions ( ψ n ( x ) ) n , where x ( 1 , 1 ) , there are defined fractal Kullback–Leibler divergence D a ( ψ n ( x ) ) n , fractal Tsallis divergence D a T ( ψ n ( x ) ) n , and fractal Rényi divergence D a R ( ψ n ( x ) ) n , which prove that the first two sequences are convergent to 0 and the last has infinite limit being divergent.

2. Preliminaries

We denote by N , the set of positive integer numbers; by Q , the set of rational numbers; by R , the set of real numbers; by G C D ( x , y ) , the greatest common divisor of two positive integer numbers x and y; and by log, the natural logarithm function.
Let n N , p = ( p 1 , , p n ) such that i = 1 n p i = 1 (i.e. p is a probability distribution) and a ( 1 , ) (if a = 1 , readers can consult [70,71]).
Fractal Kullback–Leibler divergence between the probability distributions p = ( p 1 , , p n ) and p * = 1 n , , 1 n is given via the following:
D a ( p ) = i = 1 n p i a log n p i .
Let α R \ { 1 } . Tsallis logarithm is given by the following:
log T ( x ) = x α 1 1 α 1 if x > 0 0 if x = 0 .
Fractal Tsallis divergence between the probability distributions p = ( p 1 , , p n ) and p * = 1 n , , 1 n is defined via the following:
D a T ( p ) = i = 1 n p i a log T n p i .
Fractal Rényi divergence between the probability distributions p = ( p 1 , , p n ) and p * = 1 n , , 1 n is given via the following:
D a R ( p ) = 1 1 α log i = 1 n p i a ( n p i ) α 1 = 1 1 α log i = 1 n p i a + α 1 n α 1 .
From now on, it is assumed that α 0 .
Let u, v ( 1 , ) , h : ( 1 , 1 ) ( 0 , ) an analytic function and
w ( x ) = d e f ( 1 x ) u ( 1 + x ) v h ( x )   for   any   x ( 1 , 1 )
Let x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ ( 0 , π ) .
Consider a sequence of polynomials as follows:
q n ( x ) = k n x n + + k 1 x + k 0 ,
n N { 0 } , k i R for any i { 0 , 1 , , n } , k n > 0 , such that
1 1 q m ( x ) q n ( x ) w ( x ) d x = δ m n
for any m , n N { 0 } , where δ m n is Kronecker symbol given via the following:
δ m n = 1 if m = n 0 if m n .
We use the same terminology as in [70] and call such kind of measures, as well the corresponding orthogonal polynomials, “generalized Jacobi”.
The reciprocal of the n -th Christoffel function is given via the following:
λ n ( x ) = d e f 1 i = 0 n 1 q i ( x ) 2 .
According to [75], the following relationship is valid uniformly on compact subsets of ( 1 , 1 ) :
lim n n λ n ( x ) = π w ( x ) 1 x 2
Let ψ n , j ( x ) = λ n ( x ) q j 1 2 ( x ) for any j = 1 , 2 , , n , and the discrete probability distribution is expressed as follows:
ψ n ( x ) = ( ψ n , 1 ( x ) , , ψ n , n ( x ) ) .
This paper is dedicated to the study of the asymptotic behavior of fractal Kullback–Leibler divergence D a ψ n ( x ) , fractal Tsallis divergence D a T ψ n ( x ) , and fractal Rényi divergence D a R ψ n ( x ) , as n .
For any i { 1 , , n } , the following asymptotic formula is expressed as follows (see [76]):
q i ( x ) = 2 π 1 w ( x ) ( 1 x 2 ) 1 4 cos i + 1 2 θ + φ ( x ) π 4 + O 1 i
The above equation is valid uniformly on compact subsets of ( 1 , 1 ) , where the phase function φ is given via the following:
φ ( x ) = d e f 1 2 ( u + v ) θ u π + 1 x 2 2 π 1 1 log ( h ( t ) ) ( t x ) 1 t 2 d t ,
The integral is understood in the sense of its principal value, i.e.,
1 1 log ( h ( t ) ) ( t x ) 1 t 2 d t = lim ε 0 1 x ε log ( h ( t ) ) ( t x ) 1 t 2 d t + x + ε 1 log ( h ( t ) ) ( t x ) 1 t 2 d t .
Let us denote
y i ( x ) = 2 π 1 w ( x ) ( 1 x 2 ) 1 4 cos i + 1 2 θ + φ ( x ) π 4
for any i { 0 , 1 , , n 1 } .
The following lemma is very useful in this paper.
Lemma 1
(see [70]). Let H : N R be a bounded and periodic function with period k. Then, the following will yield:
lim n 1 n i = 0 n 1 H ( i ) = 1 k i = 0 k 1 H ( i ) .

3. The Asymptotic Behavior of Fractal Kullback–Leibler Divergence

Theorem 1.
The sequence D a ( ψ n ( x ) ) n is convergent to 0 for any x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) .
Proof. 
Let x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) . Then
D a ( ψ n ( x ) ) = i = 1 n λ n ( x ) q i 1 2 ( x ) a log ( n λ n ( x ) q i 1 2 ( x ) ) = i = 0 n 1 λ n ( x ) q i 2 ( x ) a log ( n ) + log λ n ( x ) + log q i 2 ( x ) = ( λ n ( x ) ) a log ( n ) i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a + ( λ n ( x ) ) a log λ n ( x ) i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a + ( λ n ( x ) ) a i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log q i 2 ( x ) = ( λ n ( x ) ) a log n λ n ( x ) i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a + ( λ n ( x ) ) a i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log q i 2 ( x ) = ( n λ n ( x ) ) a log n λ n ( x ) 1 n a 1 · 1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a + ( n λ n ( x ) ) a 1 n a 1 · 1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log q i 2 ( x ) .
In order to obtain the conclusion, it is sufficient to show that the sequences
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a n and 1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log q i 2 ( x ) n
are convergent.
Let f 1 : R R , f 1 ( x ) = x 2 a .
Because f 1 is uniformly continuous on compact subsets of R and ε i ( x ) = o ( 1 ) , the following relationship is obtained
lim n 1 n i = 0 n 1 f 1 y i ( x ) + ε i ( x ) 1 n i = 0 n 1 f 1 y i ( x ) = 0 .
Let us consider
g n 1 ( x ) = 1 n i = 0 n 1 f 1 2 π 1 w ( x ) ( 1 x 2 ) 1 4 cos i + 1 2 θ + φ ( x ) π 4 .
It is sufficient to prove that the sequence g n 1 ( cos θ ) n is convergent.
Case 1. Assume that x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ π Q . Then θ π = s k , where s , k N with the property that s < k and such that G C D ( s , k ) = 1 .
Hence, there exist p, q in N { 0 } with the property that 0 q k 1 and such that n 1 = p k + q .
Applying Lemma 1 for the function
H ( n ) = f 1 2 π 1 w cos π s k 1 cos 2 π s k 1 4 cos n + 1 2 π s k + φ cos π s k π 4
the following equality is obtained
lim n g n 1 cos π s k = 1 k i = 0 k 1 f 1 2 π 1 w cos π s k 1 cos 2 π s k 1 4 cos i + 1 2 π s k + φ cos π s k π 4 = d e f g k , s 1 , a .
Combining these facts, we conclude that
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a n
is a convergent sequence.
Case 2. Assume that x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ π Q .
Using Kronecker’s Theorem (also known as Kronecker–Weyl’s Theorem) (see [77,78]), the following equality is obtained
lim n g n 1 ( cos θ ) = 0 1 f 1 2 π 1 w ( cos θ ) ( 1 cos 2 θ ) 1 4 cos ( y π ) d y .
Let f 2 : R R ,
f 2 ( x ) = x 2 a log ( x 2 ) if x 0 0 if x = 0 .
Using the same ideas like above with the function f 2 instead of f 1 , we obtain that the sequence
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log q i 2 ( x ) n
is also convergent.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1. □

4. The Asymptotic Behavior of Fractal Tsallis Divergence

Theorem 2.
The sequence D a T ( ψ n ( x ) ) n is convergent to 0 for any x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) .
Proof. 
Let x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) . Then
D a T ( ψ n ( x ) ) = i = 1 n λ n ( x ) q i 1 2 ( x ) a log T ( n λ n ( x ) q i 1 2 ( x ) ) = i = 0 n 1 ( λ n ( x ) ) a ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a ( n λ n ( x ) q i 2 ( x ) ) α 1 1 α 1 = i = 0 n 1 ( λ n ( x ) ) a q i 2 a ( x ) ( n λ n ( x ) ) α 1 [ ( q i 2 ( x ) ) α 1 1 + 1 ] 1 α 1 = i = 0 n 1 n α 1 ( λ n ( x ) ) a + α 1 q i 2 a ( x ) log T ( q i 2 ( x ) ) + i = 0 n 1 n α 1 ( λ n ( x ) ) a + α 1 q i 2 a ( x ) α 1 i = 0 n 1 ( λ n ( x ) ) a q i 2 a ( x ) α 1 = ( n λ n ( x ) ) a + α 1 1 n a 1 · 1 n i = 0 n 1 q i 2 a ( x ) log T ( q i 2 ( x ) ) + ( n λ n ( x ) ) a + α 1 α 1 1 n a 1 · 1 n i = 0 n 1 q i 2 a ( x ) ( n λ n ( x ) ) a α 1 1 n a 1 · 1 n i = 0 n 1 q i 2 a ( x ) .
In order to obtain the conclusion, it is sufficient to show that the sequences
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log T q i 2 ( x ) n and 1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a n
are convergent.
Let F 1 : R R , F 1 ( x ) = x 2 a log T ( x 2 ) .
Because F 1 is uniformly continuous on compact subsets of R and ε i ( x ) = o ( 1 ) , the following relationship is obtained:
lim n 1 n i = 0 n 1 F 1 y i ( x ) + ε i ( x ) 1 n i = 0 n 1 F 1 y i ( x ) = 0 .
Let us consider
G n 1 ( x ) = 1 n i = 0 n 1 F 1 2 π 1 w ( x ) ( 1 x 2 ) 1 4 cos i + 1 2 θ + φ ( x ) π 4 .
It is sufficient to prove that the sequence G n 1 ( cos θ ) n is convergent.
Case 1. We assume that x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ π Q . Then θ π = s k , where s , k N with the property that s < k and such that G C D ( s , k ) = 1 .
Hence, there exist p, q in N { 0 } with the property that 0 q k 1 and such that n 1 = p k + q .
Applying Lemma 1 for the function
H ( n ) = F 1 2 π 1 w cos π s k 1 cos 2 π s k 1 4 cos n + 1 2 π s k + φ cos π s k π 4
the following equality is obtained:
lim n G n 1 cos π s k = 1 k i = 0 k 1 F 1 2 π 1 w cos π s k 1 cos 2 π s k 1 4 cos i + 1 2 π s k + φ cos π s k π 4 = d e f G k , s 1 , a .
Combining these facts, we conclude that
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a log T q i 2 ( x ) n
is a convergent sequence.
Case 2. Assume that x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ π Q .
Using Kronecker’s Theorem (also known as Kronecker–Weyl’s Theorem) (see [77,78]), the following equality is obtained:
lim n G n 1 ( cos θ ) = 0 1 F 1 2 π 1 w ( cos θ ) ( 1 cos 2 θ ) 1 4 cos ( y π ) d y .
Let F 2 : R R , F 2 ( x ) = x 2 a .
Using the same ideas like above with the function F 2 instead of F 1 , we get that the sequence
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a n
is also convergent.
This completes the proof of Theorem 2. □

5. The Asymptotic Behavior of Fractal Rényi Divergence

Theorem 3.
The sequence D a R ( ψ n ( x ) ) n is divergent for any x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , more exactly
lim n D a R ( ψ n ( x ) ) = if α [ 0 , 1 ) + if α ( 1 , ) .
Proof. 
Let x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) . Then
D a R ( ψ n ( x ) ) = 1 1 α log i = 1 n λ n ( x ) q i 1 2 ( x ) a ( n λ n ( x ) q i 1 2 ( x ) ) α 1 = 1 1 α log i = 0 n 1 λ n ( x ) q i 2 ( x ) a + α 1 n α 1 = 1 1 α log i = 0 n 1 n λ n ( x ) a + α 1 1 n a q i 2 ( x ) a + α 1 = 1 1 α log n λ n ( x ) a + α 1 + 1 1 α log 1 n a 1 · 1 n i = 0 n 1 q i 2 ( x ) a + α 1 .
In order to obtain the conclusions, it is sufficient to show that the sequence
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a + α 1 n
is convergent.
Let f : R R , f ( x ) = x 2 a + 2 α 2 .
Because f is uniformly continuous on compact subsets of R and ε i ( x ) = o ( 1 ) , the following relationship is obtained:
lim n 1 n i = 0 n 1 f y i ( x ) + ε i ( x ) 1 n i = 0 n 1 f y i ( x ) = 0 .
Let us consider
g n ( x ) = 1 n i = 0 n 1 f 2 π 1 w ( x ) ( 1 x 2 ) 1 4 cos i + 1 2 θ + φ ( x ) π 4 .
It is sufficient to prove that the sequence g n ( cos θ ) n is convergent.
Case 1. Assume that x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ π Q . Then θ π = s k , where s , k N with the property that s < k and such that G C D ( s , k ) = 1 .
Hence, there exist p, q in N { 0 } with the property that 0 q k 1 and such that n 1 = p k + q .
Applying Lemma 1 for the function
H ( n ) = f 2 π 1 w cos π s k 1 cos 2 π s k 1 4 cos n + 1 2 π s k + φ cos π s k π 4
the following equality is obtained:
lim n g n cos π s k = 1 k i = 0 k 1 f 2 π 1 w cos π s k 1 cos 2 π s k 1 4 cos i + 1 2 π s k + φ cos π s k π 4 = d e f g k , s a .
Combining these facts, we conclude that
1 n i = 0 n 1 ( q i 2 ( x ) ) a + α 1 n
is a convergent sequence.
Case 2. Assume that x = cos θ ( 1 , 1 ) , with θ π Q .
Using Kronecker’s Theorem (also known as Kronecker–Weyl’s Theorem) (see [77,78]), the following equality is obtained
lim n g n ( cos θ ) = 0 1 f 2 π 1 w ( cos θ ) ( 1 cos 2 θ ) 1 4 cos ( y π ) d y .
This completes the proof of Theorem 3. □

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the asymptotic behavior of three sequences of fractal divergences defined using a sequence of some generalized Jacobi polynomials (i.e., fractal Kullback–Leibler divergence, fractal Tsallis divergence, and fractal Rényi divergence) was studied. More precisely, we showed that the first two sequences are convergent to 0, and the last sequence is divergent (however, the limit of this divergent sequence exists).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Methodology, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Software, R.-C.S.; Validation, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Formal analysis, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Investigation, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Writing—original draft, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Writing—review & editing, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Visualization, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Supervision, R.-C.S. and V.P.; Project administration, R.-C.S. and V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very much indebted to the editors and to the anonymous referees for their most valuable comments and suggestions which improved the quality of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fatou, P. Sur les équations fonctionelles. Bull. Soc. Math. Fr. 1919, 47, 161–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Julia, G. Sur l’itération des fonctions rationelles. J. Math. Pure Appl. 1918, 4, 47–245. [Google Scholar]
  3. Mandelbrot, B.B. The Fractal Geometry of Nature; Freeman: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  4. Beardon, A.F. Iteration of Rational Functions; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  5. Milnor, J. Dynamics in One Complex Variable, 3rd ed.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hutchinson, J. Fractals and self-similarity. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 1981, 30, 713–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barnsley, M.F. Fractals Everywhere, 2nd ed.; Morgan Kaufmann: Burlington, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  8. Chiţescu, I. Two ways to fractals. In Proceedings of the 12-th International Symposium on Geometric Function Theory and Applications, Alba Iulia, Romania, 25–28 August 2016; Aeternitas Publishing House: Alba Iulia, Romania, 2017; pp. 105–117. [Google Scholar]
  9. Miculescu, R.; Mihail, A. Graph Lipscomb’s space is a generalized Hutchinson-Barnsley fractal. Aequationes Math. 2022, 96, 1141–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Miculescu, R.; Mihail, A.; Păcurar, C.M. A fractal interpolation scheme for a possible sizeable set of data. J. Fractal Geom. 2022, 9, 337–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chiţescu, I.; Ioana, L.; Miculescu, R.; Niţă, L.; Sfetcu, R.-C. Invariant (fractal) vector measures as fixed points of Markov-type operators. Bull. Braz. Math. Soc. New Ser. 2023, 54, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Strobin, F.; Swaczyna, J. Connectedness of attractors of a certain family of IFSs. J. Fractal Geom. 2020, 7, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Banakh, T.; Nowak, M.; Strobin, F. Embedding fractals in Banach, Hilbert or Euclidean spaces. J. Fractal Geom. 2020, 7, 351–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bak, P. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  15. Cramer, F. Chaos and Order: The Complex Structure of Living Systems; Loewus, D.I., Translator; VCH Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  16. Pincus, S.M. Approximate entropy as a measure of system complexity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1991, 88, 2297–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bar-Yam, Y. Multiscale complexity/entropy. Adv. Complex Syst. 2004, 7, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bar-Yam, Y. Multiscale variety in complex systems. Complexity 2004, 9, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Feder, J. Fractals; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wilson, A.G. Complex Spatial Systems: The Modelling Foundations of Urban and Regional Analysis; Pearson Education: Singapore, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  21. Wilson, A. Entropy in urban and regional modelling: Retrospect and prospect. Geogr. Anal. 2010, 42, 364–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Batty, M. Cities and Complexity: Understanding Cities with Cellular Automata; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Batty, M.; Longley, P.A. Fractal Cities: A Geometry of Form and Function; Academic Press: London, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  24. Frankhauser, P. La Fractalité des Structures Urbaines (The Fractal Aspects of Urban Structures); Economica: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  25. White, R.; Engelen, G. Urban systems dynamics and cellular automata: Fractal structures between order and chaos. Chaos Solitons Fractals 1994, 4, 563–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stanley, H.E.; Meakin, P. Multifractal phenomena in physics and chemistry. Nature 1988, 335, 405–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ryabko, B. Noise-free coding of combinatorial sources, Hausdorff dimension and Kolmogorov complexity. Probl. Peredachi Informatsii 1986, 22, 16–26. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chen, Y. Equivalent relation between normalized spatial entropy and fractal dimension. Phys. A 2020, 553, 124627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dreizler, R.M.; Gross, E.K.U. Density Functional Theory: An Approach to the Quantum Mechanics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hohenberg, P.; Kohn, W. Inhomogeneous electron gas. Phys. Rev. B 1964, 136, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. March, N.H. Electron Density Theory of Atoms and Molecules; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacquet, P.; Szpankowski, W. Entropy computations via analytic depoissonization. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 1999, 45, 1072–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Knessl, C. Integral representations and asymptotic expansions for Shannon and Rényi entropies. Appl. Math. Lett. 1998, 11, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Abe, S.; Suzuki, N. Law for the distance between successive earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 2003, 108, 2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Darooneh, A.H.; Dadashinia, C. Analysis of the spatial and temporal distributions between successive earthquakes: Nonextensive statistical mechanics viewpoint. Phys. A 2008, 387, 3647–3654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hasumi, T. Hypocenter interval statistics between successive earthquakes in the twodimensional Burridge-Knopoff model. Phys. A 2009, 388, 477–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Ramírez-Rojas, A.; Flores-Márquez, E.L.; Sarlis, N.V.; Varotsos, P.A. The complexity measures associated with the fluctuations of the entropy in natural time before the deadly México M8.2 Earthquake on 7 September 2017. Entropy 2018, 20, 477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Sarlis, N.V.; Skordas, E.S.; Varotsos, P.A. A remarkable change of the entropy of seismicity in natural time under time reversal before the super-giant M9 Tohoku earthquake on 11 March 2011. Europhys. Lett. 2018, 124, 29001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Varotsos, P.A.; Sarlis, N.V.; Skordas, E.S. Tsallis entropy index q and the complexity measure of seismicity in natural time under time reversal before the M9 Tohoku earthquake in 2011. Entropy 2018, 20, 757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Jiang, Z.Q.; Chen, W.; Zhou, W.X. Scaling in the distribution of intertrade durations of Chinese stocks. Phys. A 2008, 387, 5818–5825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kaizoji, T. An interacting-agent model of financial markets from the viewpoint of nonextensive statistical mechanics. Phys. A 2006, 370, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Lima, J.A.S.; Silva, R., Jr.; Santos, J. Plasma oscillations and nonextensive statistics. Phys. Rev. E 2000, 61, 3260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Livadiotis, G.; McComas, D.J. Beyond kappa distributions: Exploiting Tsallis statistical mechanics in space plasmas. J. Geophys. Res. 2009, 114, A11105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Livadiotis, G.; McComas, D.J. Thermodynamic definitions of temperature and kappa and introduction of the entropy defect. Entropy 2021, 23, 1683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barbu, V.S.; Karagrigoriou, A.; Preda, V. Entropy, divergence rates and weighted divergence rates for Markov chains. I: The alpha-gamma and beta-gamma case. Proc. Rom. Acad. Ser. A Math. Phys. Tech. Sci. Inf. Sci. 2017, 18, 293–301. [Google Scholar]
  46. Barbu, V.S.; Karagrigoriou, A.; Preda, V. Entropy and divergence rates for Markov chains. II: The weighted case. Proc. Rom. Acad. Ser. A Math. Phys. Tech. Sci. Inf. Sci. 2018, 19, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  47. Barbu, V.S.; Karagrigoriou, A.; Preda, V. Entropy and divergence rates for Markov chains. III: The Cressie and Read case and applications. Proc. Rom. Acad. Ser. A Math. Phys. Tech. Sci. Inf. Sci. 2018, 19, 413–421. [Google Scholar]
  48. Abreul, E.M.C.; Neto, J.A.; Barboza, E.M.; Nunes, R.C. Jeans instability criterion from the viewpoint of Kaniadakis’ statistics. Europhys. Lett. 2016, 114, 55001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Cure, M.; Rial, D.F.; Christen, A.; Cassetti, J. A method to deconvolve stellar rotational velocities. Astron. Astrophys. 2014, 564, A85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Toma, A. Model selection criteria using divergences. Entropy 2014, 16, 2686–2698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Toma, A.; Karagrigoriou, A.; Trentou, P. Robust model selection criteria based on pseudodistances. Entropy 2020, 22, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Raşa, I. Convexity properties of some entropies. Result. Math. 2018, 73, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Raşa, I. Convexity properties of some entropies. II. Result. Math. 2019, 74, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Preda, V.; Dedu, S.; Sheraz, M. New measure selection for Hunt-Devolder semi-Markov regime switching interest rate models. Phys. A 2014, 407, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Preda, V.; Dedu, S.; Iatan, I.; Dănilă Cernat, I.; Sheraz, M. Tsallis entropy for loss models and survival models involving truncated and censored random variables. Entropy 2022, 24, 1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Trivellato, B. The minimal k-entropy martingale measure. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Financ. 2012, 15, 1250038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Trivellato, B. Deformed exponentials and applications to finance. Entropy 2013, 15, 3471–3489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Hirică, I.-E.; Pripoae, C.-L.; Pripoae, G.-T.; Preda, V. Lie symmetries of the nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation based on weighted Kaniadakis entropy. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pripoae, C.-L.; Hirică, I.-E.; Pripoae, G.-T.; Preda, V. Lie symmetries of the nonlinear Fokker-Planck equation based on weighted Tsallis entropy. Carpathian J. Math. 2022, 38, 597–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Furuichi, S.; Mitroi, F.-C. Mathematical inequalities for some divergences. Phys. A 2012, 391, 388–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Furuichi, S.; Yanagi, K.; Kuriyama, K. Fundamental properties of Tsallis relative entropy. J. Math. Phys. 2004, 45, 4868–4877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Furuichi, S.; Minculete, N.; Mitroi, F.-C. Some inequalities on generalized entropies. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Furuichi, S.; Mitroi-Symeonidis, F.-C.; Symeonidis, E. On some properties of Tsallis hypoentropies and hypodivergences. Entropy 2014, 16, 5377–5399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Furuichi, S.; Minculete, N. Refined Young inequality and its application to divergences. Entropy 2021, 23, 514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Dehesa, J.S.; Van Assche, W.; Yáñez, R.J. Information entropy of classical orthogonal polynomials and their application to the harmonic oscillator and Coulomb potentials. Methods Appl. Anal. 1997, 4, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Yáñez, R.J.; Van Assche, W.; Dehesa, J.S. Position and momentum information entropies of the D-dimensional harmonic oscillator and hydrogen atom. Phys. Rev. A 1994, 50, 3065–3079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Aptekarev, A.I.; Dehesa, J.S.; Martínez-Finkelshtein, A.; Yáñez, R.J. Discrete entropies of orthogonal polynomials. Constr. Approx. 2009, 30, 93–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Buyarov, V.S.; Dehesa, J.S.; Martínez-Finkelshtein, A.; Saff, E.B. Asymptotics of the information entropy for Jacobi and Laguerre polynomials with varying weights. J. Approx. Theory 1999, 99, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Buyarov, V.S.; Dehesa, J.S.; Martínez-Finkelshtein, A.; Sánchez-Lara, J. Computation of the entropy of polynomials orthogonal on an interval. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 2004, 26, 488–509. [Google Scholar]
  70. Martínez-Finkelshtein, A.; Nevai, P.; Peña, A. Discrete entropy of generalized Jacobi polynomials. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 2015, 431, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sfetcu, R.-C. Tsallis and Rényi divergences of generalized Jacobi polynomials. Phys. A 2016, 460, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dehesa, J.S. Entropy-like properties and Lq-norms of hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials: Degree asymptotics. Symmetry 2021, 13, 1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sobrino, N.; Dehesa, J.S. Parameter and q asymptotics of Lq-norms of hypergeometric orthogonal polynomials. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 2023, 123, e27013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, Q.A. Extensive generalization of statistical mechanics based on incomplete information theory. Entropy 2003, 5, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Nevai, P. Géza Freud, orthogonal polynomials and Christoffel functions. A case study. J. Approx. Theory 1986, 48, 3–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Kuijlaars, A.B.; McLaughlin, K.T.-R.; Van Assche, W.; Vanlessen, M. The Riemann-Hilbert approach to strong asymptotics for orthogonal polynomials on [−1,1]. Adv. Math. 2014, 188, 337–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Cassels, J.W.S. An Introduction to Diophantine Approximation, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics and Mathematical Physics; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1957; Volume 45. [Google Scholar]
  78. Khinchin, A. Zur Birkhoff’s lösung des ergodensproblems. Math. Ann. 1933, 107, 485–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sfetcu, R.-C.; Preda, V. Fractal Divergences of Generalized Jacobi Polynomials. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3500. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11163500

AMA Style

Sfetcu R-C, Preda V. Fractal Divergences of Generalized Jacobi Polynomials. Mathematics. 2023; 11(16):3500. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11163500

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sfetcu, Răzvan-Cornel, and Vasile Preda. 2023. "Fractal Divergences of Generalized Jacobi Polynomials" Mathematics 11, no. 16: 3500. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11163500

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop