Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Claim. Fix and consider the node systems
that contain both endpoints, the paper's
convention and the site's canonical systems. For such a system let
be the maximum of the Lebesgue function on the
gap , and call the system equioscillating when
. Theorem 1 of de Boor and Pinkus (p. 295)
shows that the map sending a system to its vector of consecutive differences
is a homeomorphism onto , so
exactly one system equioscillates; with Kilgore's theorem [Ki77], that a
system minimizing the Lebesgue constant must equioscillate, its Corollary
(p. 295) gives that the equioscillating system has a strictly smaller
Lebesgue constant than every other system in this convention. Theorem 2
(p. 298) adds that no two distinct systems satisfy
for every , so every system has
, where is the
minimal Lebesgue constant. Among systems containing both endpoints the
minimizing choice of nodes is therefore the unique system whose Lebesgue
function equioscillates, as Bernstein [Be31] conjectured and Erdős added
([Er47], and Problems and results on the theory of interpolation. I, Acta
Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 9 (1958), 381–388, as de Boor and Pinkus cite them).
For the free nodes of Problem 1129 the
minimizers are its affine images whose Lebesgue function at stays at
most , as the Convention paragraph explains. Kilgore and Cheney
[KiCh76] had shown that an equioscillating system exists, and Kilgore [Ki77]
that a minimizer equioscillates; the paper supplies uniqueness and the
strict comparison. The source card is
de Boor and Pinkus 1978.
The problem asks to describe the minimizing choice, a question with neither
a proved nor a disproved shape, so the claim value is answered; the site's
label PROVED is recorded on the problem page.
Convention. The site lets the range over all of and
writes the equioscillation condition over the pieces cut out by the
nodes and the auxiliary points and ; the paper's
theorem concerns systems containing both endpoints, and the site states the
uniqueness for those canonical systems. The minimal value over all systems
is the canonical minimum : the fundamental polynomials are
invariant under an affine change of variable, so the Lebesgue constant of a
system is at least that of its affine rescaling onto . Which systems
outside the canonical convention also attain is not part of the
paper's statement, and its uniqueness is a statement about canonical systems.
Rack and Vajda print the transfer
(Rack and Vajda 2015,
Theorems 2.5 and 5.2 with their proofs): an affine shrink of the optimal
canonical system whose Lebesgue function at stays at most
keeps its interior maxima and attains , and every optimal system
rescales to the optimal canonical one; so for the free-node
minimizers are not unique, as Luttmann and Rivlin (IBM J. Res. Develop. 9
(1965), Theorem 2, as Rack and Vajda cite it) had shown. Two third-party
Lean 4 developments, linked above at their pinned commits, prove these facts
from the paper's theorems and name de Boor and Pinkus as their mathematical
source. The file in the lean-proofs repository, with Codex and GPT-5.6 Sol as
its formal authors, calls itself a correction to the unconstrained formulation
and proves erdos_1129: for three free nodes the minimal Lebesgue constant
is , attained both by and by , so
free-node minimizers are not unique. Collin Yuanjie Ren's JSP-000936
development, which the community database lists as the problem's Lean
formalization as of its last update on 2026-09-16 and describes as
AI-assisted, builds on the canonical de Boor–Pinkus formalization of
randyxian08 and proves
minimizer_iff_equioscillating_and_controlled_tails: a family of at least
two distinct nodes in minimizes the Lebesgue constant among all
families of its size exactly when all interior gap maxima are equal and the
Lebesgue function at and at does not exceed that common maximum;
every singleton family is optimal, and no uniqueness of free-node minimizers
is asserted. The optimal canonical system is known explicitly only for
: the three-node minimum is in Bernstein [Be31, p. 1027], and
the four-node system is Rack's (1984 and 2013), as Rack and Vajda [RaVa15,
Section 3] recall it.
Acceptance. Refereed: Journal of Approximation Theory 24 (1978), no. 4,
289–303, received 1977-04-01, in the issue dated December 1978 in the
publisher's record, which dates this page. Reviewed: the site's curator,
Thomas F. Bloom, labels the problem proved and records in its commentary
that de Boor and Pinkus proved the existence of a unique minimizing choice,
after the results of Kilgore and Cheney and of Kilgore
(erdosproblems.com/1129, last edited 2026-01-23, accessed 2026-09-04). The
paper's note added in proof records that Kilgore also proved Bernstein's
conjecture, by a different argument, in a paper published in the same
issue; that independent proof has its own accepted page,
Kilgore 1978. The
theorem statements are taken from the paper itself, whose proofs are known
here in outline only; the proofs are not compiled in this wiki.
Formalization: the two Lean 4 developments linked above are neither built
nor audited in this repository, so no formalized evidence is listed.
Depends on. Nothing in this wiki; the result rests on the refereed paper linked above.