You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The transform is defined on $\mathbb{R}$ and in terms of quasimatrices it's an $\mathbb{R}\times I$ kernel multiplied by an $I\times\mathbb{N}$ basis, so the result should be an $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{N}$ basis.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
When you use the full broadcast notation it's clear what the domain is:
W =Weighted(ChebyshevT())
x =axes(W,1)
S =inv.(x .- x') * W
@testaxes(S) == (Inclusion(-1..1), 1:∞)
So I guess you are referring to the behaviour of stieltjes(W)? I think the convention is that it evaluates on the domain axes(W,1).
This may also be true for complex supported domains but I've just realised if I write
Γ = somecomplexcontour
W =Weighted(chebyshevt(Γ))
z =axes(W,1)
S =inv.(z .- z') * W
The definition follows from the definition of the adjoint/inner product. Which would only sensibly be the $\int_Γ \bar f(z) g(z) ds$ where we would also want a version with $dz$. Probably we would use stieltjes to mean the latter and cauchy (with the $1/(2πi)$ to mean the former.
If you indeed want the whole real line we can support the syntax
W =Weighted(ChebyshevT())
x =Inclusion(ℝ)
t =axes(W,1)
S =inv.(x .- t') * W
@testaxes(S) == (x, 1:∞)
which could lower to a call steiltjes(W, ℝ). Would take some thought how to implement this.
The transform is defined on$\mathbb{R}$ and in terms of quasimatrices it's an $\mathbb{R}\times I$ kernel multiplied by an $I\times\mathbb{N}$ basis, so the result should be an $\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{N}$ basis.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: