An extension of the Geometric Modulus Principle to holomorphic and harmonic functions

Abstract: Kalantari's Geometric Modulus Principle describes the local behavior of the modulus of a polynomial. Specifically, if $p(z) = a_0 + \sum_{j=k}^n a_j\left(z-z_0\right)^j,\;a_0a_ka_n \neq 0$, then the complex plane near $z = z_0$ comprises $2k$ sectors of angle $\frac{\pi}{k}$, alternating between arguments of ascent (angles $\theta$ where $|p(z_0 + te^{i\theta})| > |p(z_0)|$ for small $t$) and arguments of descent (where the opposite inequality holds). In this paper, we generalize the Geometric Modulus Principle to holomorphic and harmonic functions. As in Kalantari's original paper, we use these extensions to give succinct, elegant new proofs of some classical theorems from analysis.

\section*{Introduction}
	For a holomorphic function $p$ and fixed $z_0\in\C$, we define a value $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$ to be
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item an \ic{argument of ascent} if there exists $t^* > 0$ such that
			\begin{equation}
				\aval{p(z_0 + te^{i\theta})} > \aval{p(z_0)},\quad t\in\inps{0, t^*}; \mbox{ and}
			\end{equation}
		\item an \ic{argument of descent} if there exists $t^* > 0$ such that
			\begin{equation}
				\aval{p(z_0 + te^{i\theta})} < \aval{p(z_0)},\quad t\in\inps{0, t^*}.
			\end{equation}
	\end{enumerate}  Moreover, we define the \ic{cone of ascent} $C_{a}(p, z_0)$ to be the intersection of the set of arguments of ascent with $[0, 2\pi)$ and define the \ic{cone of descent} $C_d(p, z_0)$ analogously.
	\par
	Kalantari's Geometric Modulus Principle is the following.
	\begin{theorem}[Geometric Modulus Principle\footnotemark] \label{thm:gmp}
		Let $p(z)$ be a nonconstant polynomial. If $p(z_0) = 0$ then $C_a(p, z_0) = [0, 2\pi)$. If $p(z_0)\neq 0$ then $C_a(p, z_0)$ and $C_d(p, z_0)$ partition the unit circle into alternating sectors of angle $\frac{\pi}{k}$. Specifically, if $re^{i\alpha}$ is the polar form of $\overline{p(z_0)}p^{(k)}(z_0)$ then $\theta$ is an argument of ascent if
		\begin{equation} \label{eq:aor}
			\frac{-2\alpha - \pi}{2k} < \theta < \frac{-2\alpha + \pi}{2k}\quad \inps{\mbox{mod }\frac{2\pi}{k}}.
		\end{equation}
		\footnotetext{\cite[Theorem 1]{geomod}}
The interiors of the remaining sectors are arguments of descent.  A boundary point between two sectors is either an argument of ascent or an argument of descent.
\end{theorem}
Except in its last sentence, Theorem \ref{thm:gmp} is a straightforward corollary of the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:cos}
	Let $p(z)$ be a polynomial of degree $n\geq 1$. Suppose that $z_0$ is a complex number, $p(z_0)\neq 0$, and $k:=\min_{\ell\geq 1}\:\sbld{\ell : p^{(\ell)}(z_0)\neq 0}$. Given a real
number $\theta$, define $F_{\theta}(t):=\aval{p\inps{z_0 + te^{i\theta}}}^2$.  Finally, let $re^{i\alpha}$ be the polar form of $\overline{p(z_0)}p^{(k)}\inps{z_0}$.  Then $$F_{\theta}^{(k)}\inps{0} = 2r\cos\inps{\alpha + k\theta}.$$
	\begin{proof}
		We paraphrase the proof from \cite{geomod}.  First, by Taylor's Theorem we assume without loss of generality that $z_0 = 0$.  Then
		\begin{align}
			F_{\theta}(t) &= p(te^{i\theta})\cdot\overline{p(te^{i\theta})}\\
			&= \inps{a_0+\sum_{j\geq k} a_j t^j e^{ij\theta}}\cdot\inps{\overline{a_0}+\sum_{j\geq k} \overline{a_j} t^j e^{-ij\theta}}  \label{eq:realanal} \\
			&= \aval{a_0}^2 + t^k\cdot \inps{\overline{a_0}a_ke^{ik\theta} + a_0\overline{a_k}e^{-ik\theta}}  + t^{k+1}\cdot \inps{\cdots}. \label{eq:cprod}
		\intertext{The terms of this Maclaurin series correspond to the derivatives of $F_{\theta}(t)$ at $t = 0$, so that}
			F_{\theta}^{(k)}\inps{0} &= k!\cdot\inps{\overline{a_0}a_ke^{ik\theta} + a_0\overline{a_k}e^{-ik\theta}}.  \label{eq:match}
		\intertext{Continuing, we obtain}
			F_{\theta}^{(k)}\inps{0} &= 2\cdot Re\inps{\overline{p(0)}p^{(k)}(0)e^{ik\theta}} \\
			&= 2\cdot Re\inps{re^{i\inps{\alpha + k\theta}}} \\
			&= 2r\cos\inps{\alpha + k\theta}.
		\end{align}
	\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
Thus the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:gmp} is very simple.
\begin{proof}[Theorem \ref{thm:gmp}]
	At $\theta$ such that $F_{\theta}^{(k)}\inps{0}\neq 0$, the behavior of $\aval{p(z_0 + te^{i\theta})}$ for small positive $t$ follows directly from Lemma \ref{lemma:cos}.  On the other hand, $F_{\theta}(t)$ is real analytic and not identically zero, so if $F_{\theta}^{(k)}\inps{0} = 0$ then there exists $m > k$ such that $F_{\theta}^{(m)}\inps{0}\neq 0$.  The sign of this derivative determines whether $\theta$ is an argument of ascent or descent.
\end{proof}
\section{Extension to holomorphic functions}
Extending the Geometric Modulus Principle requires the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:egmp}
	In Lemma \ref{lemma:cos}, the requirement that $p(z)$ be a non-constant polynomial may be relaxed to a requirement that $p(z)$ be non-constant and holomorphic near $z_0$.
	\begin{proof}
		The proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:cos} requires only that $p(z)$ be complex analytic (equivalently, holomorphic) with at least one non-constant term.  In particular:
		\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
			\item By Mertens' Theorem, Equation \eqref{eq:cprod} continues to hold as long as one of the two series converges absolutely.  But holomorphic functions converge absolutely within their discs of convergence.
			\item Equation \eqref{eq:match} continues to hold because the series of Equation \eqref{eq:cprod} can be differentiated term-by-term in its interval of convergence \cite[Theorem~3]{apostol_1952}.
		\end{enumerate}
	\end{proof}
\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem}[Extended Geometric Modulus Principle] \label{thm:egmp}
	In Theorem \ref{thm:gmp}, the requirement that $p(z)$ be a non-constant polynomial may be relaxed to a requirement that $p(z)$ be non-constant and holomorphic near $z_0$.
	\begin{proof}
		The proof is the same as that of Theorem \ref{thm:gmp}, except with Lemma \ref{lemma:egmp} in place of Lemma \ref{lemma:cos}.
	\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Example} Define $\omega:=e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}$ and $f(z):=\frac{1}{1-\omega z^3}$.  Near $z_0 = 0$, $f(z)$ has the expansion
\begin{equation}
	f(z) = 1 + \omega z^3 + iz^6 + \cdots,
\end{equation}
so that
\begin{align}
	re^{i\alpha} &= \overline{f(0)}\cdot f^{(3)}(0) \\
	&= 6 \omega,
\end{align} yielding $\alpha = \frac{\pi}{4}$.  Thus we expect that
\begin{equation}
	C_a(f, 0) = \inps{-\frac{\pi}{4}, \frac{\pi}{12}} \cup \inps{\frac{5\pi}{12}, \frac{3\pi}{4}} \cup \inps{\frac{13\pi}{12}, \frac{17\pi}{12}}\quad \inps{\mbox{mod }2\pi}
\end{equation} up to boundary points.  Figure \ref{fig:GeoMod1}, which graphs the lemniscate $\sbld{\aval{f(z)} > \aval{f(0)}}$, bears this prediction out.
\begin{figure}[h]
    		\centering
    		\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{GeoMod1.jpg}
  		  \caption{The lemniscate $\aval{\frac{1}{1-e^{i\pi/4}z^3}} > 1$.}
  		  \label{fig:GeoMod1}
\end{figure} \par

\section{Extension to harmonic functions}
In this section we extend the Geometric Modulus Principle to harmonic functions, using the fact that all harmonic functions are locally the real part of some holomorphic function.  Define an \ic{argument of ascent} (resp., \ic{argument of descent}) of a harmonic function $u$ at $z_0$ to be an angle $\theta$ such that ${u\inps{z_0 + te^{i\theta}}} > {u\inps{z_0}}$ [resp., ${u\inps{z_0 + te^{i\theta}}} < {u\inps{z_0}}$] for sufficiently small positive $t$.  As before, let $C_a(u, z_0)$ and $C_d(u, z_0)$ represent the cones of, respectively, ascent and descent of $u$ at $z_0$. \par
In what follows, assume $\Omega$ to be an open, connected subset of $\C$.  We observe that $Re(f)$ and $e^f$ have the same cones of ascent and descent.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:uexp}
	Let $u:\Omega\rightarrow\R$ be the real part of a holomorphic function $f:\Omega\rightarrow\C$.  Then for $z_0\in\Omega$, $C_a(u, z_0) = C_a\inps{e^{f}, z_0}$ and $C_d(u, z_0) = C_d\inps{e^{f}, z_0}$.
	\begin{proof}
		Note that
		\begin{align}
			\aval{e^{f(z)}} &= \aval{e^{u(z) + iv(z)}} \\
			&= \aval{e^{u(z)}} \\
			&= e^{u(z)},
		\end{align}
		so that $\aval{e^{f(z_1)}} - \aval{e^{f(z_0)}}$ and $u(z_1) - u(z_0)$ have the same sign for all $z_0, z_1\in\C$.
	\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
The following two lemmas relate the behavior of $e^f$ and $f$ near $z_0$.
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:expd}
	If $k\geq 1$ and $f(z)$ is $k$ times differentiable, then
	\begin{equation}
		\left[\exp\inps{f(z)}\right]^{(k)} = \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\binom{k-1}{j} f^{\inps{k-j}}\inps{z}\cdot \left[\exp\inps{f(z)}\right]^{\inps{j}}. \label{eq:sum}
	\end{equation}
	\begin{proof}
	For $k = 1$, we simply apply the Chain Rule.  For $k > 1$, we may apply the General Leibniz Rule to $\left[\exp\inps{f(z)}\right]'$:
	\begin{align}
		\left[\exp\inps{f(z)}\right]^{(k)} &= \left[f'(z)\cdot \exp\inps{f(z)}\right]^{(k-1)} \\
		 &= \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\binom{k-1}{j}\left[f'(z)\right]^{\inps{k-1-j}} \left[\exp\inps{f(z)}\right]^{(j)} \\
		 &= \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\binom{k-1}{j} f^{\inps{k-j}}\inps{z}\cdot \left[\exp\inps{f(z)}\right]^{\inps{j}}.
	\end{align}
	\end{proof}
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma} \label{lemma:exp}
	Let $f:\Omega\rightarrow\C$ be holomorphic at $z_0\in\Omega$ and define $g(z):=\exp\inps{f(z)}$.  Suppose that, for some $k\geq 1$ and $z_0\in\Omega$,
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\arabic*)]
	\item $f^{(k)}(z_0)\neq 0$ and
	\item $f^{(\ell)}(z_0) = 0$ for each $\ell$ such that $1 \leq \ell < k$.
\end{enumerate}
Then
\begin{enumerate}[label=(\roman*)]
	\item $g^{(k)}(z_0) = g(z_0)\cdot f^{(k)}(z_0)\neq 0$ \label{item:kder} and
	\item $g^{(\ell)}(z_0) = 0$ for each $\ell$ such that $1 \leq \ell < k$. \label{item:zeroders}
\end{enumerate}
	\begin{proof}
		Both items follow readily from applying the hypotheses to Equation \eqref{eq:sum}.
	\end{proof}
\end{lemma}

Using the preceding lemmas, we extend the Geometric Modulus Principle to harmonic functions:
\begin{theorem}[Geometric Modulus Principle for harmonic functions] \label{thm:hgmp}
	Let $u:\Omega\rightarrow\R$ be the real part of a holomorphic function $f:\Omega\rightarrow\C$ such that $k:=\min_{\ell \geq 1} \sbld{\ell : f^{(\ell)}(z_0) \neq 0}$.  Then $C_a(u, z_0)$ and $C_d(u, z_0)$ partition the unit circle into $2k$ alternating sectors of angle $\frac{\pi}{k}$.  Specifically, if $se^{i\beta}$ is the polar form of $f^{(k)}(z_0)$ then $\theta$ is an argument of ascent if
		\begin{equation} \label{eq:aor}
			\frac{-2\beta - \pi}{2k} < \theta < \frac{-2\beta + \pi}{2k}\quad \inps{\mbox{mod }\frac{2\pi}{k}}.
		\end{equation}
The interiors of the remaining sectors are arguments of descent.
\begin{proof}
	By Lemma \ref{lemma:uexp}, it suffices to apply Theorem \ref{thm:egmp} to $e^f$.  Combining Lemma \ref{lemma:exp} with Theorem \ref{thm:egmp}, we see that $e^f =: g$ yields $2k$ equal sectors whose angle of rotation is determined by the argument of
	\begin{align}
		\overline{g(z_0)}g^{(k)}(z_0) &= \overline{g(z_0)} g(z_0) f^{(k)}(z_0) \\
		&= \aval{g(z_0)}^2\cdot f^{(k)}(z_0).
	\end{align}
	Since we need only the argument of this quantity, we may drop the real coefficient $\aval{g(z_0)}^2$.
\end{proof}
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Remark} Theorem \ref{thm:hgmp} appears (in a non-constructive form) as Theorem 12.1 of \cite{pvf}, where it is proved by properties of conformal maps. \par \vspace{1em}

\section{Corollaries} \label{sec:co}
In his original paper, Kalantari uses the Geometric Modulus Principle to give a two-line proof of the Maximum Modulus Principle for polynomials.  Having expanded his theorem to apply to all holomorphic functions, we generalize his proof\footnote{\cite[Theorem 2]{geomod}} to a proof of the general Maximum Modulus Principle.

\begin{theorem}[Maximum Modulus Principle]
	Let $\Omega$ be a connected, open subset of $\C$; let $f:\Omega\rightarrow\C$ be holomorphic.  If
		$\aval{f(z_0)} \geq \aval{f(z)}$
	for all $z$ in a neighborhood of some $z_0\in \Omega$, then $f$ is constant on $\Omega$.
	\begin{proof}
		By Theorem \ref{thm:egmp}, if $f$ is non-constant then it has at least one direction of ascent at each $z_0\in \Omega$; in particular, $\aval{f}$ cannot attain a local maximum in $\Omega$.
	\end{proof}
\end{theorem}

By analogous reasoning, we prove the Maximum Principle for harmonic functions.
\begin{theorem}[Maximum Principle]
	If the harmonic function $u:\Omega\rightarrow\R$ attains a local extremum at $z_0\in\Omega$, then $u$ is constant.
	\begin{proof}
		If $u$ is non-constant, then it is locally the real part of a non-constant holomorphic function.  Thus, by Theorem \ref{thm:hgmp}, it has at least one argument of ascent and at least one argument of descent.
	\end{proof}
\end{theorem}

Another straightforward corollary of Theorem \ref{thm:hgmp} is that the zeros of non-constant harmonic functions are never isolated, in contrast to the holomorphic case.
\begin{theorem}
	If the non-constant harmonic function $u:\Omega\rightarrow\C$ has a zero at $z = z_0$, then it also has a zero in every punctured disc $\sbld{z : 0 < \aval{z - z_0} < t}$.
	\begin{proof}
		By Theorem \ref{thm:hgmp}, the cones of ascent and descent of $u$ at $z_0$ partition the unit circle into at least two sectors.  By continuity, these sectors are bounded by the level curve $\sbld{z\in\Omega : u(z) = 0}$.
	\end{proof}
\end{theorem}

\section{Conclusion}
By expanding the Geometric Modulus Principle, we obtain stronger versions of two of the most powerful theorems in analysis: the Maximum Modulus Principle for holomorphic functions and the Maximum Principle for harmonic functions.  Given the implications of these theorems, of which Liouville's Theorem and the Schwarz lemma stand out in particular, we expect that careful application of the Geometric Modulus Principle will yield more results like those of Section \ref{sec:co}, or allow for briefer or more constructive proofs of existing results.
\iffalse
In future works, we would like to expand Theorems \ref{thm:egmp} and \ref{thm:hgmp} to elaborate on how to classify \ic{boundary points} of the sets $C_a(f, z_0)$ and $C_d(f, z_0)$ [resp., $C_a(u, z_0)$ and $C_d(u, z_0)$].  Having already proved that these points must belong to \ic{one} of the cones, we seek a simple method of determining \ic{which one}.   Such an algorithm could, in particular, simply the problem of polynomial factoring; indeed, if $f = f_1 \cdot \dots \cdot f_n$ is a product of functions, then $\theta\in C_a(f, z_0)$ if $\theta\in \bigcap_{j=1}^nC_a(f_j, z_0)$ [and \ic{only if} $\theta\in \bigcup_{j=1}^nC_a(f_j, z_0)$].
\fi

\section*{Acknowledgements}
I would like to thank Yuefei Wang for his comments on an early draft.
\section*{Declarations}
\subsection*{Ethics approval and consent to participate}
Not applicable.
\subsection*{Consent for publication}
Not applicable.
\subsection*{Availability of data and materials}
Not applicable.
\subsection*{Competing interests}
None.
\subsection*{Funding}
For the 2020-21 academic year, I am receiving a fellowship from the SAS Department at Rutgers University.

\setcitestyle{numbers}

Complex Variables (math.CV); Functional Analysis (math.FA)


On the multiplicity and regularity index of toric curves

Abstract: In this note we revisit the problem of determining combinatorially the multiplicity at the origin of a toric curve. In addition, we give the exact value of the regularity index of that point for plane toric curves and effective bounds for this number for arbitrary toric curves.

\section*{Introduction}

A classical numerical invariant associated to a point of an algebraic variety is the (Hilbert-Samuel) multiplicity. This invariant has
numerous applications on algebraic geometry and commutative algebra (for instance, it plays a fundamental role in the problem of
resolution of singularities). On the other hand, it is known that this invariant can be computed using the theory of Gr\"obner bases
(see \cite[Chapter 5]{GP}).

In the context of toric varieties the computation of this invariant is simpler. Assuming that an affine toric variety contains the origin,
its multiplicity can be computed in a combinatorial way by looking at the semigroup defining the toric variety (see
\cite[Chapter 5, Theorem 3.14]{GKZ}). The proof of this fact, although not too difficult, requires some tools from topology,
commutative algebra, and combinatorics. The first goal of this note is to give a completely elementary proof of that fact in the case
of toric curves.

Let $S\subset\N$ be a numerical semigroup generated by ${a_1,\ldots,a_r}$, where $a_1<\cdots<a_r$. The corresponding toric
curve contains the origin and its multiplicity can be easily computed: it is $a_1$. We will prove this fact using only basic concepts
of numerical semigroups. In addition, the proof we present is sufficiently constructive so that a related question can be answered
along the way.

Recall that for a point in a curve, say $p\in X\subset\K^r$, its multiplicity is defined as the number $m\in\N$ such that
$\dim_{\K}\mm^{n}/\mm^{n+1}=m$ for all $n\gg0$, where $\mm\subset\K[X]$ denotes the maximal ideal corresponding to $p$.
It is natural to ask for the minimum $k\in\N$ for which the previous statement holds. Some related questions have been studied
by several authors (see, for instance, \cite{M} or \cite{St2}). The second goal of this note is to describe exactly this minimum for
plane toric curves and to give effective bounds for this number for arbitrary toric curves.

\section{Numerical semigroups and toric curves}

In this section we recall the basic definitions and facts regarding numerical semigroups and toric curves. The notation introduced in
this section will be used throughout this note.

Let $A=\{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_r\}\subset\N$ be such that $1<a_1<a_2<\cdots<a_r$ and $\gcd(A)=1$. We denote as
$S:=\lag A \rag$ the numerical semigroup generated by $A$, and we assume that $A$ is the minimal generating set of $S$
(see \cite{RG} for generalities on numerical semigroups).

Given a numerical semigroup, we can associate a toric curve. We are interested in the study of some relations among numerical
invariants of toric curves and data of the corresponding semigroup. Let us recall the general definition of an affine toric variety
(see, for instance, \cite[Section 1.1]{CLS} or \cite[Chapter 4]{St1}).

Let $A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}\subset\ZZ^d$ be such that $\ZZ A=\{\sum_i \lambda_i a_i|\lambda_i\in\ZZ\}=\ZZ^d$.
The set $A$ induces a homomorphism of semigroups
\begin{align}\label{e. pi}
\pi_{A}:\N^r\rightarrow\ZZ^d,\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\mbox{ }\alpha=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r)
\mapsto \alpha_1 a_1+\cdots+\alpha_r a_r.\notag
\end{align}
Let $\K$ be a field and consider the ideal (by using the usual multi-index notation):
$$I_{A}:=\langle x^{\alpha}-x^{\beta}|\alpha,\beta\in\N^r,\mbox{ }\pi_{A}(\alpha)=\pi_{A}
(\beta)\rangle\subset\Po.$$

\begin{defi}
We call $X_A:=\V(I_A)\subset\K^r$ the toric variety defined by $A$.
\end{defi}

It is well known that a variety obtained in this way is irreducible, contains a dense open set isomorphic
to $(\K^*)^d$ and the natural action of $(\K^*)^d$ on itself extends to an action on $X_A$.

Now we introduce a numerical invariant associated to a toric curve. Let $A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}\subset\N$ be as before.
Let $\mm=\lag t^{a_1},\ldots,t^{a_r} \rag\subset\K[t^{a_1},\ldots,t^{a_r}]=\K[X_A]$ be the maximal ideal corresponding to
$\underline{0}:=(0,\ldots,0)\in X_A$. For $n\in\N$, we denote
$$\lb(n):=\dim_{\K}\mm^{n}/\mm^{n+1}.$$
A classical result states that $\lb(n)=m$ for some $m\in\N$, for all $n\gg0$. This number is called the \textit{multiplicity of}
$X_A$ \textit{in} $\underline{0}$. Another well known result states that $m$ is actually $a_1$ (this is proved in greater generality
in \cite{L} or \cite[Chapter 5, Theorem 3.14]{GKZ}). In addition, we denote
$$\ri(X_A):=\min\{k\in\N|\lb(n)=a_1\mbox{ for all }n\geq k\}.$$
The number $\ri(X_A)$ is called the \textit{regularity index of the origin of the toric curve} $X_A$. In what follows we give an
elementary proof of the fact $\lb(n)=a_1$ for all $n\gg0$, as well as effective bounds for $\ri(X_A)$.

\section{Multiplicity and regularity index of plane toric curves}

In this section we study the special case of plane toric curves. This case is particularly simple and the regularity index can
be computed explicitly.

\begin{pro}
Let $A=\{a_1,a_2\}$ be as before. Then $\lb(n)<a_1$ if $n<a_1-1$ and $\lb(n)=a_1$ if $n\geq a_1-1$.
In particular, $\ri(\gr)=a_1-1$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mm=\lag t^{a_1},t^{a_2}\rag\subset\K[X_A]$. For $n\geq1$, a $\K$-basis for $\mm^n$ is the set
$\{t^{(a_1, a_2) \cdot \alpha }\mid  \alpha\in \N^2, |\alpha|\geq n\}$, where $(a_1, a_2) \cdot \alpha$ denotes
the standard dot product. Thus, a generating set for $\mm^n/\mm^{n+1}$, as $\K$-vector space, is given by
$\{ t^{(a_1, a_2)\cdot \alpha}+\mm^{n+1}\mid\alpha\in\N^2,|\alpha|=n\}.$ Let $c$ be
the cardinality of this set. If $n<a_1-1$ then $\lb(n)\leq c\leq n+1<a_1-1+1=a_1$. This shows the first statement of the proposition.

Now assume that $n\geq a_1-1$. We claim that
$$B_n:=\{t^{(a_1,a_2)\cdot(n-j,j)}+ \mm^{n+1} \mid j\in \{0,\ldots,a_1-1\} \}$$
is a $\K$-basis for $\mm^n/\mm^{n+1}$. To see that it is a generating set it is enough to show that
$t^{(a_1,a_2)\cdot(n-j,j)}\in\mm^{n+1}$ if $j\geq a_1$. Let $j=qa_1+r$, where $1\leq q$ and $0\leq r<a_1$. Then,
since $n+(a_2-a_1)q\geq n+1$ we conclude
$$t^{a_1(n-j)+a_2j}=t^{a_1(n-qa_1-r)+a_2(qa_1+r)}=t^{a_1(n+(a_2-a_1)q-r)+a_2r}\in\mm^{n+1}.$$

Now suppose that $\sum_{j=0}^{a_1-1}\lb_jt^{(a_1,a_2)\cdot(n-j,j)}=\sum_{|\beta|\geq n+1}b_{\beta}t^{(a_1,a_2)\cdot\beta}$,
for some $\lambda_i,b_{\beta}\in\K$. Let us define $B'_n:= \{a_1(n-j)+a_2j|j\in\{0,\ldots,a_1-1\}\}.$ We claim that
$\{(a_1,a_2) \cdot \beta \mid |\beta| \geq n+1\} \cap B'_n= \emptyset.$ This implies that $\lb_i=b_{\beta}=0$ for all $i$ and all $\beta$,
i.e., $B_n$ is linearly independent.

Let us prove the claim.
Suppose that $a_1\beta_1+a_2\beta_2=a_1(n-j)+a_2j,$ where $n+1 \leq \beta_1+\beta_2,$ $0\leq \beta_1,$ $0\leq \beta_2$ and
$0 \leq j\leq a_1-1.$ Then $a_1(\beta_1-n+j)=a_2(j-\beta_2).$ In particular, $a_1 \mid j-\beta_2$. If $\beta_1-n+j=0,$ then
$j- \beta_2=0$ implying $\beta_1+ \beta_2=n$, which is a contradiction. Suppose $\beta_1-n+j >0$. Then $j-\beta_2 >0.$
Since $a_1 \mid j-\beta_2,$ we have $j-\beta_2 \geq a_1$. Thus $\beta_2\leq j-a_1\leq -1$, a contradiction. Finally, suppose
$\beta_1-n+j <0$. Then $0 \leq \beta_1 <n-j$. Let $\beta_1=n-j-l$ for some $l\in\{ 1, \dots, n-j\}$. Then
$\beta_2 \geq n+1-\beta_1=j+l+1$ and so we obtain the following contradiction:
$$a_1(n-j)+a_2j<a_1(n-j-l)+a_2(j+l)<a_1(n-j-l)+a_2\beta_2=a_1\beta_1+a_2\beta_2.$$
These contradictions prove the claim. Finally, the same claim also implies that $\lb(n)=|B_n|=a_1$.
\end{proof}

\section{Multiplicity and bounds for the regularity index of toric curves}

In this section we show that the multiplicity of the origin of a toric curve coincides with the smallest non-zero element of the corresponding
semigroup. In addition, we give a bound for its regularity index. The bound is given in terms of the so-called Frobenius number, which we
now define.

Let $A=\{a_1,\ldots,a_r\}\subset\N$ be as before, and let $S=\lag A \rag$. It is well known that any sufficiently large integer belongs
to $S$. The Frobenius number of $S$, denoted as $F(S)$, is the largest integer that does not belong to $S$.

Let $a=(a_1, \dots, a_r)\in\N^r$ and $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_r ) \in \N^r.$ As before, $a\cdot\alpha$ denotes the usual
dot product. Let $n\in\N$, $n\geq1$, and consider the following sets:
$$\Sn:= \{0\}\cup\{a\cdot\alpha\mid\alpha\in\N^r, |\alpha|\geq n\}.$$
Notice that $\Sn$ is a numerical semigroup and $S=S^{(1)} \supset S^{(2)} \supset \cdots$.

In all that follows we assume $a_1<a_2<F(S)$. A brief discussion of the cases $F(S)<a_1$ and $a_1<F(S)<a_2$ will be given
at the end of this section.

\begin{lem}\label{division}
Let $S=\lag a_1,\ldots,a_r\rag$ be as before. Let $\delta=F(S)-a_1$, $\epsilon=a_2-a_1$, and $\delta=q\epsilon+\tau$, where
$1\leq q$ and $0\leq\tau<\epsilon.$ Then, for every $n\geq q$:
$$F(\Snu)=F(\Sn)+a_1<(n+1)a_2.$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
First notice that $F(\Sn)+a_1+l\in\Snu$ for all $l\geq1$ and so $F(\Snu)\leq F(\Sn)+a_1$ for all $n\geq1$. Thus, for any given $n$,
$$F(\Snu)\leq F(\Sn)+a_1\leq F(S^{(n-1)})+2a_1\leq\cdots\leq F(S)+na_1.$$
Let $n\geq q$. From the equation $\delta=q\epsilon+\tau$ we obtain
\begin{align}
F(S)+na_1&=q(a_2-a_1)+\tau+(n+1)a_1\notag\\
&<q(a_2-a_1)+a_2-a_1+(n+1)a_1\notag\\
&=(q+1)a_2+(n-q)a_1\notag\\
&<(q+1)a_2+(n-q)a_2=(n+1)a_2.\notag
\end{align}
We conclude that $F(\Snu)\leq F(\Sn)+a_1<(n+1)a_2$ for all $n\geq q$. It remains to prove that $F(\Snu)=F(\Sn)+a_1$ for $n\geq q$.
Suppose that $F(\Sn)+a_1=a\cdot\alpha\in\Snu$, i.e., $|\alpha|=n+1$. If $\alpha_1\geq1$ then $F(\Sn)=a\cdot\alpha-a_1\in\Sn$,
which is a contradiction. If $\alpha_1=0$ then $F(\Sn)+a_1=\sum_{i=2}^ra_i\alpha_i\geq(n+1)a_2$, a contradiction.
Therefore, $F(\Sn)+a_1\notin\Snu$ and so $F(\Snu)=F(\Sn)+a_1$ for all $n\geq q$.
\end{proof}

\begin{pro}\label{S(n+1)=S(n)+a_1}
Let $S= \lag a_1, \dots, a_r  \rag$. Then $S^{(n+1)}=S^{(n)}+a_1$ for every $n\geq q$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
By definition, $\Sn+a_1\subset\Snu$, for every $n\geq1$. Assume that $n\geq q$ and let $s \in S^{(n+1)}$. Suppose $s>F(\Snu)$.
By lemma \ref{division}, $F(\Snu)=F(\Sn)+a_1$ and so, for some $l\geq1$, $s=F(\Sn)+a_1+l=(F(\Sn)+l)+a_1\in\Sn+a_1$.

Now suppose that $s<F(\Snu)$. Let $s=a\cdot\alpha$, where $|\alpha|\geq n+1$. If
$\alpha_1\geq1$ then $s=(a\cdot\alpha-a_1)+a_1\in\Sn+a_1$. If $\alpha_1=0$ then $s=\sum_{i=2}^{r}a_i\alpha_i\geq(n+1)a_2$.
On the other hand, by lemma \ref{division}, $s<F(\Snu)<(n+1)a_2$, which is a contradiction. We conclude that $\Snu\subset\Sn+a_1$.
\end{proof}

Now we are ready to prove our main theorem.

\begin{teo}\label{main}
Let $A=\{a_1,\ldots, a_r\}$ be as before and $S=\lag A \rag$. Let $\delta=F(S)-a_1$, $\epsilon=a_2-a_1$, and $\delta=q\epsilon+\tau$,
where $1\leq q$ and $0\leq\tau<\epsilon.$ Then $\lb(n)=a_1$ for every $n\geq q$. In particular, $\ri(\gr)\leq q$.
\end{teo}
\begin{proof}
Let $\mm= \lag t^{a_1},\ldots,t^{a_r}\rag\subset \K[X_A]$ be the maximal ideal corresponding to $\underline{0}\in X_A$.
A $\K$-basis for $\mm^n$ is given by $\{t^\gamma\mid\gamma\in S^{(n)}\}.$ In particular, a $\K$-basis for $\mm^n/ \mm^{n+1}$
is given by $\{t^{\gamma}+\mm^{n+1} \mid \gamma \in S^{(n)}\backslash S^{(n+1)} \}.$ We claim that
$|S^{(n)}\backslash S^{(n+1)}|=a_1$ for every $n\geq q$.

Consider the following sets:
\begin{align}
A&:= \{ s \in S^{(n)} \mid s<(n+1)a_1 \},\notag\\
B&:= \{ h+ka_1 \mid h<(n+1)a_1, h \notin S^{(n)}, \medspace \text{and} \medspace k:= \min \{ l \mid h+la_1 \in S^{(n)}\} \}.\notag
\end{align}
Let us prove that $S^{(n)} \backslash  S^{(n+1)}= A \cup B$, for $n\geq q$. This proves the theorem since $|A\cup B|=a_1$.

Let $s\in A \cup B$. If $s \in A$, then $s\in S^{(n)}$ and $s<(n+1)a_1$. Thus, $s\in S^{(n)} \backslash  S^{(n+1)}$.
If $s\in B,$ then $s=h+ka_1$, where $h<(n+1)a_1, h \notin S^{(n)}$, and $k=\min \{ l \mid h+ la_1 \in S^{(n)}\}$.
Suppose that $s \in S^{(n+1)}$. By proposition \ref{S(n+1)=S(n)+a_1} we have that $h+ka_1=t+a_1$, for some $t \in S^{(n)}$.
Then $h+(k-1)a_1=t$, which contradicts the minimality of $k.$ Therefore, $s\in S^{(n)} \backslash  S^{(n+1)}.$

Now let $s \in S^{(n)} \backslash  S^{(n+1)}$. If $s<(n+1)a_1$ then $s\in A$. If $s>(n+1)a_1$, let $s=pa_1+t$, where
$0\leq t < a_1$ and $n+1\leq p$. Notice that $t=0$ implies $s=pa_1\in S^{(p)} \subset S^{(n+1)}$, a contradiction. Thus,
$0<t<a_1.$ We claim that $t+na_1\notin S^{(n)}.$  Suppose that $t+na_1=a\cdot\alpha\in S^{(n)},$ i.e., $|\alpha|\geq n$. Then
$s+na_1=pa_1+t+na_1=pa_1+a\cdot\alpha$. Since $p-n \geq 1,$ we have $s=a\cdot\alpha+(p-n)a_1\in S^{(n+1)}$,
contradicting again that $s \in S^{(n)} \backslash  S^{(n+1)}.$ This proves the claim.

Let $h:= t+na_1$ and $k:=p-n.$ Then $s=h+ka_1.$ Suppose that $j<k$ is such that $h+ja_1 \in S^{(n)},$ i.e.,
$h+ja_1=a\cdot\beta$, where $|\beta|\geq n.$ Let $k=j+l$ for some $l\geq 1.$ Then
$s= h+(j+l)a_1  =h+ja_1+la_1 =a\cdot\beta+la_1\in S^{(n+1)}$, a contradiction. Therefore $k$ is the minimal element such that
$h+ka_1 \in S^{(n)}$ and so $s\in B$.
\end{proof}

In the following example we show that the bound for the regularity index given in theorem \ref{main} is sharp.
\begin{exam}
Let $a_1\geq3$ and $S=\lag a_1,2a_1+1,2a_1+2,\ldots,2a_1+(a_1-2)\rag$. In this example, $F(S)=4a_1-1$ and $q=2$.
Since the generating set of $S$ has cardinality $a_1-1$, we have $\lb(1)=a_1-1$. Therefore, $\ri(\gr)=2=q$.
\end{exam}

The bound given in theorem \ref{main} is given in terms of the Frobenius number of the semigroup. Unfortunately, it is well-known
that this number cannot be explicitly computed in general. However, there are some known bounds for it.

\begin{coro}
With the notation of the theorem,
$$\ri(\gr)\leq \frac{1}{a_2-a_1}\Big(a_1a_r-2a_1-a_r-\tau\Big).$$
\end{coro}
\begin{proof}
It follows from the theorem and the fact $F(S)\leq a_1a_r-a_1-a_r$ (see \cite{B}).
\end{proof}

Throughout this section, we considered the case $a_1<a_2<F(S)$. Let us conclude with a discussion on the two other special cases:
$F(S)<a_1$ and $a_1<F(S)<a_2$.

\begin{rem}
Suppose that $F(S)=a_1-1$, i.e., $S=\{0,a_1,a_1+1,\ldots\}$. We already checked that $\Sn+a_1\subset\Snu$ for all $n\geq1$.
In addition, since $\min\Snu\setminus\{0\}=(n+1)a_1$, it follows that $\Snu=\Sn+a_1$ for all $n\geq1$. Following the proof of
theorem \ref{main} we obtain that $\lb(n)=a_1$ for all $n\geq1$, i.e., $\ri(\gr)=1$.
\end{rem}

\begin{rem}
Suppose that $a_1<F(S)<a_2$. First notice that $F(\Sn)\leq F(S^{(n-1)})+a_1\leq\cdots\leq F(S)+(n-1)a_1<a_2+(n-1)a_1<na_2$,
for every $n\geq1$. In addition, the last paragraph of the proof of lemma \ref{division} also applies to show that $F(\Snu)=F(\Sn)+a_1$,
for all $n\geq1$. These facts were the main ingredients to prove that $\Snu=\Sn+a_1$. As in the previous remark, we conclude
that $\lb(n)=a_1$ for all $n\geq1$, i.e., $\ri(\gr)=1$.
\end{rem}

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We want to thank Enrique Ch\'avez for suggesting us an idea to conclude the proof of theorem \ref{main}. We also thank
Mario Huicochea for explaining us some results on sumsets and for the reference \cite{B}. Finally, we thank Omar Antol\'in for
stimulating discussions on the topic of this note.


Optimal parametric interpolants of circular arcs

Abstract: The aim of this paper is a construction of quartic parametric polynomial interpolants of a circular arc, where two boundary points of a circular arc are interpolated. For every unit circular arc of inner angle not greater than $\pi$ we find the best interpolant, where the optimality is measured by the simplified radial error.

\section{Introduction}

Circular arcs are basic ingredients of several graphical and control systems, so their approximation by parametric polynomials is important in Computer Aided Geometric Design (CAGD), Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM). Usually we construct parametric polynomial approximant of a circular arc by interpolation of some corresponding geometric quantities. This usually include interpolation of boundary points, corresponding tangent directions, signed curvatures... The results are so called geometric parametric polynomial interpolants (${\mathcal G}^n$ interpolants), which can be combined to form geometrically smooth spline curves.
One of the standard measures in this case is the radial distance $d_r$, measuring the distance of the point on the parametric polynomial to the corresponding point on the circular arc in the radial direction. Under some assumptions the metric $d_r$ is equivalent to the Hausdorff metric (\cite{Ahn-Kim-arcs-1997} and \cite{Jaklic-Kozak-18}). Hence to find the best interpolant of the unit circular arc $\bfm{c}$ with respect to the Hausdorff metric, we have to find an interpolant $\bfm{p}=(x,y)^T$ which minimizes the value $d_r(\bfm{c},\bfm{p})=\max_t\big|\|\bfm{p}(t)\|-1\big|=\max_t\big|\sqrt{x^2(t)+y^2(t)}-1\big|$.
In the very first paper in which the optimality was proved \cite{Morken-91}, M{\o}rken observed that the distance $d_r$ is rather cumbersome to work with, so he suggested that instead of the radial distance, we should use the simplified radial distance $d_{sr}$ defined by $d_{sr}(\bfm{c},\bfm{p})=\max_t\big|x^2(t)+y^2(t)-1\big|$. The involved function $x^2+y^2-1$ is a polynomial, which significantly simplifies an analysis of the optimality of the best interpolant.

There are many papers where different types of geometric approximations are considered. But only a few of them are dealing with the optimality of the solution. M{\o}rken considered the parabolic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ interpolation of a circular arc \cite{Morken-91}. Hur and Kim analyzed the cubic ${\mathcal G}^{1}$ and the quartic ${\mathcal G}^{2}$ cases \cite{Hur-Kim-11}. In this three cases there is only one free parameter involved. Two parametric cases are considered by Vavpeti\v{c} and \v{Z}agar in \cite{Vavpetic-Zagar-19} where the optimal solutions for the cubic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ and the quartic ${\mathcal G}^{1}$ interpolants were found. So far there are no results on the optimal solution of the quintic or higher degree interpolants.
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccc} \hline\hline
 order & 2 & 3 & 4 \\ \hline
${\mathcal G}^{0}$ & M{\o}rken (1991) & Vavpeti\v{c}, \v{Z}agar (2019) & this paper \\
${\mathcal G}^{1}$ & Knez, \v{Z}agar (2018) & Hur, Kim (2011) & Vavpeti\v{c}, \v{Z}agar (2019)  \\
${\mathcal G}^{2}$ & -- & Knez, \v{Z}agar (2018) & Hur, Kim (2011)  \\
${\mathcal G}^{3}$ & -- & -- & Knez, \v{Z}agar (2018) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The list of all results where the optimality of the solution was proved.}
\end{table}
In all cases the optimality is measured by simplified radial distance. The only paper where the optimality of the best interpolant is proved according to the real radial distance is \cite{Vavpetic-Zagar-preprint}.
Let us also mention the ${\mathcal G}^{n}$ interpolation of order $n+1$. For every circular arc and for every $n\in{\mathbb N}$ there are only finitely many ${\mathcal G}^{n}$ interpolants of order $n+1$, and for many circular arcs there is only one such interpolant. Hence there is nothing much to optimize, the only question is the existence of the optimal interpolant, which was positively answered by Knez and \v{Z}agar \cite{Knez-Zagar-18}. In this paper we consider the only remaining case of order less then 5, i.e., the quartic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ interpolation.

The paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{prelim} we review basic definitions and describe the idea of the construction of the best ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ interpolant of order $n$. In Sections~\ref{parabolic} and \ref{cubic} we use our method to confirm known results about the parabolic and the cubic interpolations of a circular arc. The main part of the paper is Section~\ref{quartic}, where we construct the best quartic interpolant of a circular arc and we prove its optimality according to the simplified radial distance. In Section~\ref{conc} we give some concluding remarks and suggestions for possible future research.

\section{Preliminaries}\label{prelim}

Let $0<\varphi\le\tfrac\pi 2$ and let $\bfm{c}\colon[-\varphi,\varphi]\to{\mathbb R}^2$, $\bfm{c}(t)=(\cos t,\sin t)^T$, be the standard nonpolynomial parametrization of a unit circular arc. We'd like to find the best approximation of $\bfm{c}$ by polynomial curve $\bfm{p}\colon [-1,1]\to{\mathbb R}^2$ of degree $n\in{\mathbb N}$ for which $\bfm{p}(\pm 1)=(\cos \varphi,\pm\sin \varphi)^T$.
It is convenient to write $\bfm{p}=(x,y)^T$, where $x$ and $y$ are polynomials of degree at most $n$.
We shall choose the Bernstein-B\'ezier representation of $\bfm{p}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{p_Bern_Bez_form}
  \bfm{p}(t)=\sum_{j=0}^n B_j^n(t)\,\bfm{b}_j,
\end{equation}
where $B_j^n$, $j=0,1,\dots,n$, are (reparameterized) Bernstein polynomials over $[-1,1]$, given as
\begin{equation*}
  B_j^n(t)=\binom{n}{j}\left(\frac{1+t}{2}\right)^{j}\left(\frac{1-t}{2}\right)^{n-j},
\end{equation*}
and $\bfm{b}_j\in{\mathbb R}^2$, $j=0,1,\dots,n$, are the control points. Since we consider ${\mathcal G}^0$ interpolation, we have $\bfm{b}_0=(\cos \varphi,-\sin \varphi)^T$ and $\bfm{b}_n=(\cos \varphi,\sin \varphi)^T$. The circular arc is symmetric over $x$ axis, therefore the best interpolant possesses the same symmetry, i.e., $\bfm{b}_{n-j}=r(\bfm{b}_j)$ for all $j=0,1,\dots,n$, where $r\colon{\mathbb R}^2\to{\mathbb R}^2$ is the reflection over $x$ axis. Therefore all possible sets of control points of desired interpolants can be described by $n-1$ parameters.

The simplified signed radial error function $\psi$ will be defined as
\begin{align*}
  \psi(t)&=x^2(t)+y^2(t)-1=\|\bfm{p}(t)\|_2^2-1,\quad t\in[-1,1],
\end{align*}
where $\|\cdot\|_2$ is the Euclidean norm. In the case of ${\mathcal G}^0$ interpolant, the corresponding simplified error function has zeros at $\pm 1$.
Eisele showed \cite{Eisele-94} that the best ${\mathcal G}^k$ interpolant of order $n$
(if it exists) is an alternant with $2(n-k-1)+1$ extreme points, i.e., the corresponding signed simplified error function has $2(n-k-1)+1$ local extrema of the same absolute value and sequential ones have different sign (see Figure~\ref{graph_error}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.33\textwidth]{errorgraph.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The graph of the error function of the best quartic ${\mathcal G}^0$ interpolant.}\label{graph_error}
\end{figure}
In the case of ${\mathcal G}^0$ interpolants which is considered in this paper, the simplified error function of the best interpolant of order $n$ is of the form $\chi(t)=\mu T_{2n}(\zeta_{n} t)$, where $T_{2n}$ is the Chebyshev polynomial of order $2n$, $\zeta_{n}=\cos\tfrac{\pi}{2n}$ is its largest zero and $\mu\in{\mathbb R}\setminus\{0\}$ is a multiplicative constant.

The candidates for the best interpolants are those which have the coresponding simplified error function of the form $\chi$. Hence, to find all candidates for the best interpolant of a circular arc of order $n$ we have to solve the system of equations $\psi(\zeta_i)=0$, where $\zeta_i=(\cos\tfrac{\pi}{2n})^{-1}\cos(\tfrac{2i+1}{2n}\pi)$, $i=1,\ldots,n-1$, are zeros of the function $\chi$ on the interval $(0,1)$. This is a nonlinear system of $n-1$ polynomial equations for $n-1$ parameters (which describe control points of an interpolant). The system is solved using Gr{\"o}bner basis. Namely, we find a Gr{\"o}bner basis for the ideal $\langle \psi(\zeta_i)\mid i=1,\ldots,n-1\rangle$ for some monomial order, such that one element of the basis is a polynomial $f$ in only one variable (of order $n$). All interpolants obtained as a solution of the above system of equations induce error functions of the same shape (see Figure \ref{graph_error}), which differ only by the multiplicative constant $\mu$. So we have to find the zero of $f$, such that the absolute value of the corresponding multiplicative constant $\mu$ is the smallest possible, or equivalently, such that the absolute value of the leading coefficient (or any other coefficient) of the simplified error function is the smallest possible.

In what follows many mathematical expressions are considered as polynomial in $\cos\varphi$, so it makes sense to define new variables $c:=\cos\varphi$ and $s:=\sin\varphi$.

\section{The parabolic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ case}\label{parabolic}

The first paper, where polynomial interpolants of circular arcs are considered in Bernstein-B\'ezier form, is \cite{Morken-91}. In this paper M{\o}rken found the best parabolic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ interpolant for arbitrary circular arc with inner angle not greater then $\pi$. Using Eisele's theorem \cite{Eisele-94} it is now very easy to find such interpolant. The control points of an arbitrary parabolic ${\mathcal G}^0$ interpolant are $\bfm{b}_0=(c,-s)^T$, $\bfm{b}_1=(d,0)^T$, $\bfm{b}_2=(c,s)^T$, where $d\in{\mathbb R}$ is an unknown parameter, and the corresponding simplified error function is
$$
\psi(t)=\frac {1} 4 \left(t^2-1\right)\left((d-c)^2t^2-(d+c)^2+4\right).
$$
Because the simplified error function of the best interpolant must be of the form $\chi(t)=\mu T_{4}(\zeta_{2} t)=c(t^2-1)(t^2-(3-2\sqrt{2}))$, we get the equation
$$
\frac{(d+c)^2-4}{(d-c)^{2}}=(3-2\sqrt{2})
$$
for the parameter $d$, which gives the best interpolant. The only positive solution is
$$
d=\left(1+\sqrt{2}\right) \left(\sqrt{2 \left(\sqrt{2}-1\right)+\left(3-2 \sqrt{2}\right) c^2}-\left(2-\sqrt{2}\right) c\right).
$$
\vskip-8mm
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
$$
\begin{array}{ccccc} \hline\hline
\varphi && d &&  \text{radial error}\\ \hline
\frac\pi2 && 2.19737 && 2.07107\times 10^{-1} \\
\frac\pi3 && 1.54643 && 4.69687\times 10^{-2} \\
\frac\pi4 && 1.30834 && 1.55050\times 10^{-2} \\
\frac\pi6 && 1.13712 && 3.15242\times 10^{-3} \\
\frac\pi8 && 1.07713 && 1.00735\times 10^{-3} \\
\frac\pi{12}&& 1.03427 && 2.00378\times 10^{-4} \\ \hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{center}
\caption{A table of the simplified radial errors of the best parabolic ${\mathcal G}^0$ geometric interpolants of a circular arc given by the inner angle of $2\varphi$. }
\end{table}

\section{The cubic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ case}\label{cubic}

This case was considered in \cite{Vavpetic-Zagar-19}. A little different approach is presented here, which was described in Section~\ref{prelim} and which can be generalised to the quartic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ case. The control points for an arbitrary cubic ${\mathcal G}^0$ interpolant are $\bfm{b}_0=(c,-s)^T$, $\bfm{b}_1=(\xi,-\eta)^T$, $\bfm{b}_2=(\xi,\eta)^T$ $\bfm{b}_3=(c,s)^T$, and the corresponding signed simplified error function is
\begin{align*}
\psi(t)=&\frac{1}{16} (t^2-1) \big((3 \eta -s)^2 t^4+(16 s^2-9 (\eta +s)^2+9 (\xi -c)^2) t^2
+(16-(3 \xi +c)^2)\big).
\end{align*}
The simplified error function of the best interpolant is of the form $\chi(t)=\mu T_{6}(\zeta_{3} t)=c(t^2-1)(t^2-u^2)(t^2-v^2)$, where $u=\sqrt{3}-1$ and $v=2-\sqrt{3}$. To get parameters $(\xi,\eta)$ of the best interpolant, we have to solve the system of equations: $\psi(u)=\psi(v)=0$.
From $(1-v^2)^2v^2\psi(u)-(1-u^2)^2u^2\psi(v)=0$, we get
\begin{align}\label{cubic1}
\eta=\frac1{s}\left(\frac{2+\sqrt{3}}{8} \left(3 \xi +c\right)^2-\xi  c-3-2\sqrt{3}\right).
\end{align}
To keep the symmetry we use \eqref{cubic1} in the equality $\psi(u)-\psi(v)=0$. We get one solution, $\xi=c$, and the remaining ones satisfy the equality
\begin{align}\label{equationcubic}
f(\xi):=243 \xi ^3-27 c \left(11-16 \sqrt{3}\right) \xi ^2-3 \left(32\left(1+2\sqrt{3}\right)-3 \left(81-32\sqrt{3}\right) c^2\right) \xi
-32\left(13+2\sqrt{3}\right) c-\left(163-112 \sqrt{3}\right) c^3=0.
\end{align}
Because $f(0)=-(579-48\sqrt 3)c-(112\sqrt 3-163)cs^2<0$, $f(-\tfrac 1 9(8\sqrt 3-1)c)=\tfrac{256}3cs^2>0$,
and the leading coefficient of the cubic polynomial $f$ is positive, $f$ has only one positive solution. Since $f(c)=-256(2+\sqrt 3)c s^2<0$ and
$f(\tfrac 1 3(4+c))=8(56-32\sqrt 3+(80\sqrt 3-68)c+102c^2+(7+8\sqrt 3)c^3)>0$, the positive solution is on the interval $(c,\tfrac 1 3(4+c))$.
We have two candidates for the best interpolant, induced by $\xi_1=c$ and $\xi_2\in(c,\tfrac 1 3(4+c))$. Both candidates induce an error function of the form $\psi(t)=\mu T_{6}(\zeta_{3} t)$. Therefore we want to minimize the absolute value of the constant $\mu$, which is equivalent to minimizing the absolute value of the constant coefficient of the simplified error polynomial $\psi$. The constant coefficient of the polynomial $\psi$ is $-\tfrac 1{16}(16-(3\xi+c)^2)$, which is negative and increasing function of the variable $\xi$ on the interval $[c,\tfrac 1 3(4+c)]$, hence the best interpolant is induced by the parameter $\xi_2$. We proved the following theorem.

\begin{thm}
For every $\varphi\in (0,\tfrac\pi 2]$ there exists the unique pair of parameters $(\xi,\eta)$ which induces the best polynomial interpolant of a given circular arc. The parameter $\xi$ is the only zero of the function \eqref{equationcubic} on the interval $(\cos\varphi,\tfrac 1 3(4+\cos\varphi))$ and $\eta$ is defined by \eqref{cubic1}.
\end{thm}

\begin{remark}
A purely geometric observation reveals that the solution $\xi=c$ is not an admissible one. The first coordinate of the cubic interpolant \eqref{p_Bern_Bez_form} is $x(t)=\tfrac1 4(3\xi+c-3t^2(\xi-c))$. For $\xi=c$ the function $x(t)=c$ is a constant, therefore the interpolant is a line segment which is not a desired solution. Hence also in the cubic case for every $\varphi$ we get only one admissible candidate for the best interpolant of the circular arc with the inner angle $2\varphi$.
\end{remark}

\vspace{-8mm}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
$$
\begin{array}{ccccccc} \hline\hline
\varphi && \xi && \eta && \text{radial error}\\ \hline
\frac\pi2 && 1.32800 && 0.94046 && 7.97742\times 10^{-3} \\
\frac\pi3 && 1.16617 && 0.47494 && 7.50902\times 10^{-4} \\
\frac\pi4 && 1.09754 && 0.31523 && 1.36878\times 10^{-4} \\
\frac\pi6 && 1.04465 && 0.19043 && 1.22221\times 10^{-5} \\
\frac\pi8 && 1.02537 && 0.13762 && 2.18815\times 10^{-6} \\
\frac\pi{12}&& 1.01136 && 0.08926 && 1.92912\times 10^{-7} \\ \hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{center}
\caption{A table of the simplified radial errors of the best cubic ${\mathcal G}^0$ geometric interpolants of a circular arc given by the inner angle of $2\varphi$.}
\end{table}

\section{The quartic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ case}\label{quartic}

This is a tree-parametric problem.
The control points are $\bfm{b}_0=(c,-s)^T$, $\bfm{b}_1=(\alpha,\beta)^T$, $\bfm{b}_2=(\gamma,0)^T$, $\bfm{b}_3=(\alpha,-\beta)^T$, $\bfm{b}_4=(c,s)^T$, and the corresponding signed simplified error function is
\begin{align*}
\psi(t)=-1+\frac{1}{64} \left(4 \left(1-t^4\right) \alpha +3 \left(1-t^2\right)^2 \gamma +\left(1+6 t^2+t^4\right) c \right)^2
+\frac{1}{4} t^2\left(2 \left(1-t^2\right) \beta +\left(1+t^2\right) s\right)^2.
\end{align*}
By Eisele's theorem the simplified error function of the best interpolant is of the form $\chi(t)=\mu T_8\left(\zeta_4 t\right)$, with three zeros $u_1=\sqrt{2 \left(2+\sqrt{2}\right)}-1-\sqrt{2}$, $u_2=\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}-1$ and $u_3=1+\sqrt{2}-\sqrt{2+\sqrt{2}}$ on the interval $(0,1)$.
We have to solve the system of equations $\psi(u_j)=0$, $j=1,2,3$, and find out
which solution $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ induces the best interpolation of the circular arc. In what follows it is useful to define $\sigma_1=(1-u_1^2)+(1-u_1^2)+(1-u_1^2)\approx 1.92$, $\sigma_2=(1-u_1^2)(1-u_2^2)+(1-u_1^2)(1-u_3^2)+(1-u_2^2)(1-u_3^2)\approx 1.11$, and $\sigma_3=(1-u_1^2)(1-u_1^2)(1-u_1^2)\approx 0.18$.

We form the linear combination of equations of the system so that we eliminate the variable $\beta$ and get
\begin{align*}
0&=64\left(\frac{u_{2}^2u_{3}^2\psi(u_1)}{(u_{2}^2-u_1^2)(u_1^2-u_{3}^2)(1-u_1^2)}+
\frac{u_{1}^2u_{3}^2\psi(u_2)}{(u_{3}^2-u_2^2)(u_2^2-u_{1}^2)(1-u_2^2)}+
\frac{u_{1}^2u_{2}^2\psi(u_3)}{(u_{1}^2-u_3^2)(u_3^2-u_{2}^2)(1-u_3^2)}\right)\\
&=64+u_1^2 u_2^2 u_3^2 (4 \alpha -3 \gamma -c)^2-(4 \alpha +3 \gamma +c)^2,
\numberthis\label{quartic1}
\end{align*}
then set $x:=4 \alpha -3 \gamma -c$ and $y:=4 \alpha +3 \gamma +c$. Similarly we eliminate $\beta^2$ and $y^2$ and get
\begin{align*}
0&=\sum_{j=1}^3(u_{j-1}^2 \left(1-u_{j-1}^2\right)^2-u_{j+1}^2 \left(1-u_{j+1}^2\right)^2)\psi(u_j)
   -\frac{\sigma_2}{64}\left(u_1^2-u_2^2\right) \left(u_2^2-u_3^2\right)\left(u_3^2-u_1^2\right) \left(64+u_1^2 u_2^2 u_3^2 x^2-y^2\right)\\
&=2\left(u_1^2-u_2^2\right) \left(u_2^2-u_3^2\right)\left(u_3^2-u_1^2\right)(\sigma_2-\sigma_1+1)\left(-1+\frac{1}{128} \sigma_3 x^2+\frac{1}{8} (x+y) c+\beta s\right),
\end{align*}
where $u_0=u_3$ and $u_4=u_1$, therefore
\begin{align}\label{beta_quartic}
0=-1+\frac{1}{128} \sigma_3 x^2+\frac{1}{8} (x+y) c+\beta s.
\end{align}
Using the equalities \eqref{quartic1} and \eqref{beta_quartic} we get
\begin{align*}
0&=\frac{\psi(u_1)}{1-u_1^2}+\frac{\psi(u_2)}{1-u_2^2}+\frac{\psi(u_3)}{1-u_3^2}
+\frac1{64}\sigma_1(64+u_1^2u_2^2u_3^2x^2-y^2)
-\left(\sigma_1^2-3\sigma_1-2\sigma_2+6\right)\left(-1+\frac{1}{128} \sigma_3 x^2+\frac{1}{8}c (x+y)+\beta s\right)\\
&=\frac{1}{128} \left(\sigma_1^2-2 \sigma_2-\sigma_1\right) \left(96-4 x y-128 \beta ^2+
   16c (x-y)+ 32c^2- \left(4-2\sigma_1+\sigma_3\right)x^2\right),
\end{align*}
so
\begin{align*}
0&=96-4 x y-128 \beta ^2+
   16 c(x-y)+ 32c^2- \left(4-2\sigma_1+\sigma_3\right)x^2.
\end{align*}
We multiply the last equality by $s^2$, use the equality $\beta^2s^2=(-1+\frac{1}{128} \sigma_3 x^2+\frac{1}{8}c (x+y))^2$ obtained from \eqref{beta_quartic}, then use the equality $y^2=64+u_1^2u_2^2u_3^2x^2=64+(1-s_1+s_2-s_3)x^2$ obtained from \eqref{quartic1},
and get
\begin{align}\label{y_quartic}
0=\left(-\frac{x}{32}+\frac{c}{8}+\frac{c^3}{8}-\frac{1}{512} \sigma_3c x^2 \right)y
-\frac1 4\bigg(\left(\frac{1}{64} \sigma_3 x^2+\frac{1}{4} cx-s^2\right)^2
-\frac{1}{16} \left(1-\sigma_2+2 \sigma_3\right)  c^2x^2+\frac{1}{16} \left(2-\sigma_1\right) x^2-c (x-8 c)\bigg).
\end{align}
By combining the equalities \eqref{y_quartic} and \eqref{quartic1}, we see that we have to investigate the zeros of the function
\begin{align*}
f(x)&:=\frac{1}{16}\biggl(\!\biggl(\frac{1}{64} \sigma_3 x^2+\frac{1}{4} c x-s^2\biggr)^2
-\frac{1}{16} \left(1-\sigma_2+2 \sigma_3\right) c^2 x^2
+\frac{1}{16} \left(2-\sigma_1\right) x^2- c(x-8 c) \!\biggr)^2\\
&-(64+u_1^2u_2^2u_3^2x^2)\left(\frac{x}{32}-\frac{c}{8}-\frac{c^3}{8}+\frac{1}{512} \sigma_3c x^2 \right)^2.\numberthis\label{function_quartic}
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{graph_f.pdf}
\caption{The graph of the function $f$ for the angle $\varphi=\tfrac 1 4 \pi$ is on the left and the graph of the function $f$ for the angle $\varphi=\tfrac{5}{12} \pi$ on smaller interval around 0 where the desired zero of $f$ appears on the right. The vertical line on the right graph is drawn at $x=-(1-\cos\varphi)^2$.}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that for every real zero $x$ of the function $f$ there are the unique (real) number $y$ obtained from \eqref{y_quartic} and the unique (real) number $\beta$ obtained from \eqref{beta_quartic}, such that the triple $(\alpha=\tfrac 1 8(x+y),\beta,\gamma=\tfrac 1 6(y-x-2\cos\varphi))$ induces an interpolant with the simplified error function $\psi$ of the form $\chi$.
The amplitude of the simplified error function $\psi$ is the smallest possible if the leading coefficient of $\psi$ is the smallest possible. The leading coefficient of $\psi$ is $\tfrac{x^2}{64}$, hence we must find the zero of $f$ with the smallest absolute value.

\begin{remark}\label{positive}
Quite often we will use the following argument:
Let $p(x)=c_0+c_1x+\ldots+c_nx^n$ be a nonzero polynomial such that the sum $d_j:=c_0+\ldots+c_j$ is nonnegative for all $j=0,\ldots,n$. Then we can write $p(x)=(1-x)(d_0+d_1x+\ldots+d_{n-1}x^{n-1})+d_nx^n$, therefore $p(x)> 0$ for all $x\in(0,1)$. Similarly, if $d_j\le 0$ for all $j=0,\ldots,n$, then $p(x)< 0$ for all $x\in(0,1)$.
\end{remark}

\begin{lemma}
The function $f$ has a zero on the interval $[-(1-c)^2,0]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{pf}
Note that $f(0)=\tfrac{s^8}{16}>0$. We can write
$f(-(1-c)^2)=-\left(f_1^2(c)+(1-c)^4f_2(c)f_3(c)\right)$, where
\begin{align*}
f_1(c)&=\frac 1 {512}u_1u_2u_3(1-c)^2\Big(
\sigma_3(1-c)^4c-16(1+2c+c^2+4c^3)\Big),\\
f_2(c)&=
-\frac{1}{32}+\frac{\sigma_1}{64}+\frac{\sigma_3}{128}-\frac{\sigma_3^2}{16384}+
\left(\frac{1}{8}-\frac{7\sigma_3}{512}+\frac{\sigma_3^2}{4096}\right) c
+\left(-\frac{\sigma_2}{64}+\frac{5\sigma_3}{256}-\frac{3 \sigma_3^2}{8192}\right)c^2
+\left(\frac{\sigma_3}{512}+\frac{\sigma_3^2}{4096}\right) c^3
-\frac{\sigma_3^2}{16384} c^4,\\
f_3(c)&=
\frac{17}{32}-\frac{\sigma_1}{64}-\frac{\sigma_3}{128}+\frac{\sigma_3^2}{16384}+
\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{\sigma_1}{16}+\frac{7\sigma_3}{512}-\frac{\sigma_3^2}{2048}\right) c
+\left(\frac{19}{16}-\frac{3\sigma_1}{32}+\frac{\sigma_2}{64}+\frac{\sigma_3}{256}+\frac{7\sigma_3^2}{4096}\right)
c^2\\
&+\left(\frac{9}{8}+\frac{\sigma_1}{16}-\frac{\sigma_2}{16}+\frac{\sigma_3}{512}-\frac{7 \sigma_3^2}{2048}\right)c^3
+\left(\frac{17}{32}-\frac{\sigma_1}{64}+\frac{3\sigma_2}{32}-\frac{3 \sigma_3}{64}+\frac{35 \sigma_3^2}{8192}\right)c^4
+\left(-\frac{1}{8}-\frac{\sigma_2}{16}+\frac{25\sigma_3}{512}-\frac{7 \sigma_3^2}{2048}\right) c^5\\
&+\left(\frac{\sigma_2}{64}-\frac{3 \sigma_3}{256}+\frac{7\sigma_3^2}{4096}\right)c^6
+\left(-\frac{\sigma_3}{512}-\frac{\sigma_3^2}{2048}\right) c^7
+\frac{\sigma_3^2}{16384} c^8.
\end{align*}
By Remark~\ref{positive} it is easy to see that $f_2(c),f_3(c)>0$ for all $c\in(0,1]$, hence $f(-(1-c)^2)< 0$, therefore $f$ has a zero on the interval $[-(1-c)^2,0]$.
\qed
\end{pf}

\begin{lemma}
Let $\zeta_-$ be the largest negative zero of the function $f$. If $\varphi<\tfrac \pi 2$, then for every positive zero $\zeta_+$ of $f$, we have $\zeta_+>|\zeta_-|$. If $\varphi=\tfrac\pi 2$, then $f$ has a positive zero and the smallest positive zero $\zeta_+$ of $f$ satisfies $\zeta_+=|\zeta_-|$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{pf}
If $\varphi=\tfrac\pi 2$, then $f$ is an even function, hence $|\zeta_-|=\zeta_+$.

Let $\varphi<\tfrac\pi 2$.
By the previous lemma we know that $f$ has a zero on the interval $[-(1-c)^2,0]$ and $f(0)>0$. So it is enough to show that $f(x)> f(-x)$ for all $x\in(0,(1-c)^2]$. Let us define $g(x)=f(x)-f(-x)$. Since $g(0)=0$ it is enough to prove that the function $g$ is convex on $[0,(1-c)^2]$ and $g((1-c)^2)> 0$.

The second derivative of $g$ is
\begin{align*}
g''(x)&=\frac{c}{256}x\left(g_1(c)+ g_2(c)x^2+\frac{21 \sigma_3^3}{4096} x^4\right),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
g_1(c)&=3 \left(\left(-16+4 \sigma_1+8 \sigma_2-9 \sigma_3\right)+\left(16-12 \sigma_1-4 \sigma_2+14 \sigma_3\right) c^2+\left(4 \sigma_2-5 \sigma_3\right) c^4\right),\\
g_2(c)&=\frac{5}{32} \sigma_3 \left(4 \sigma_1-8 \sigma_2+3 \sigma_3+\left(4 \sigma_2-5 \sigma_3\right) c^2\right).
\end{align*}
By Remark~\ref{positive}, $g_1(c)<0$, $g_1(c)+g_2(c)<0$ and $g_1(c)+g_2(c)+\tfrac{21}{4096}\sigma_3^3<0$ for all $c\in[0,1]$. Then, again by Remark~\ref{positive}, we get $g''(x)< 0$ for all $x\in(0,1)$ and all $c\in[0,1]$, hence $g$ is a convex function on $[0,1]$ for all $c\in [0,1]$.

Since
\begin{align*}
g((1-c)^2)=c(1-c)^4(\frac 1 3(1+2c)^2+\frac 1{64}(1-c)^2g_3(c)),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
g_3(c)&=\frac{1}{3} \left(176-3 \sigma_1+3 \sigma_2\right)-\left(52-3 \sigma_1+\sigma_2+\sigma_3\right)(1-c)+\frac{1}{2} \left(20-3 \sigma_1+5 \sigma_2-4 \sigma_3\right) (1-c)^2\\
&-\frac{1}{2} \left(4 \sigma_2-5 \sigma_3\right) (1-c)^3+\frac{1}{256} \left(2 \sigma_2 \left(64-\sigma_3\right)-\left(160-2 \sigma_1+\sigma_3\right) \sigma_3\right) (1-c)^4\\
&-\frac{1}{256} \sigma_3 \left(4 \sigma_2-5 \sigma_3\right) (1-c)^5+\frac{1}{512}\left(4 \sigma_2-5 \sigma_3\right) \sigma_3(1-c)^6+\frac{1}{32768}\sigma_3^3 (1-c)^8
\end{align*}
it is enough to prove that $g_3(c)>0$ for all $c\in [0,1]$. The function $g_3$ is a polynomial in variable $(1-c)$ and by Remark~\ref{positive}, $g_3(c)> 0$ for all $c\in[0,1]$.
\qed
\end{pf}

By the previous lemma it seems that for $\varphi=\tfrac\pi 2$, there are two candidates for the best interpolation, but the next lemma shows that one is not admissible.

\begin{lemma}
Let $\varphi=\tfrac\pi 2$ and let $\zeta_+$ be the smallest positive zero of the function $f$. The interpolant induced by $\zeta_+$ is not admissible.
\end{lemma}

\begin{pf}
By \eqref{y_quartic} we get
\begin{align*}
y&=-\frac{32}{\zeta_+}\left(\frac 1{64}\zeta_+^2(2-\sigma_1)+\left(\frac12-\frac{\zeta_+^2\sigma_3}{128}\right)^2\right)
<-\frac{32}{\zeta_+}\left(\frac12-\frac{1}{128}\right)^2<-\frac{63^2}{16\cdot 32}<-1.
\end{align*}
Then $\alpha=\tfrac 1 8(x+y)=\tfrac1 8(\zeta_++y)<0$ and $\gamma=\tfrac 1 6(y-x-2c)\le\tfrac1 6(y-\zeta_+)<0$,  hence by the convex hull property, the whole B\'ezier polygon lies left from $y$-axis, therefore the interpolant is not a desired one.
\qed
\end{pf}

We proved that the best interpolant is induced by the largest negative zero of the function $f$ on $[-(1-c)^2,0]$. For numerical computations it would be desired that $f$ has only one zero on that interval.

\begin{lemma}
There is exactly one zero of $f$ on the interval $[-(1-c)^2,0]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{pf}
It is enough to show that $f'(x)>0$ for all $x\in(-(1-c)^2,0)$ which is equivalent to $g'(t)<0$ for all $t\in(0,1)$, where $g(t)=f(-t(1-c)^2)$. We can write $g'(t)=-\left((1-c)^4 g_1(t)+\tfrac1{8192}(1-c)^8\left(g_2(t)+g_3(t)+g_4(t)\right)\right)$ where
\begin{align*}
g_1(t)&=\frac{1}{16} (1+c)^2 \left(5+c^2\right)c
+\frac{1}{128} \left(12-56 c^2+28 c^4+2\sigma_1 \left(1-c^2\right) \left(1+5 c^2+2 c^4\right)+2 \sigma_2
   \left(1-c^2\right)^2c^2+ \sigma_3\left(1-c^2\right)^3\right) t\\
&+\frac{3}{1024} \left(4 \sigma_1\left(1-3 c^2\right)+4 \sigma_2\left(2-c^2+c^4\right) + \left(1-c^2\right)\left(-16+\left(-9+5 c^2\right)\sigma_3\right)\right) (1-c)^2 c t^2,\\
g_2(t)&=\left(\frac{5}{2}\sigma_3-\sigma_2 c\right)^2 t^3,\\
g_3(t)&=\Bigl(\sigma_2 \left(32\left(1-c^2\right)+
     \sigma_3 \left(5-8 c+8 c^3\right)c\right)-\frac{1}{4} \sigma_3 \left(64 \left(1-5 c^2+2 c^4\right)+\sigma_3\left(37-24 c^2+12 c^4\right)\right)+8 \sigma_1 \left(2\sigma_2 c^2
   - \sigma_3\left(1+c^2-2 c^4\right)\right)\\
&-8 \sigma_1^2-\left(c^2+8 c^4\right) \sigma_2^2\Bigr)t^3
-\frac{5}{8} \sigma_3 \left(8 \sigma_2+5 c^2 \sigma_3\right)(1-c)^2 c t^4 -\frac{3}{64} \sigma_3^2 \left(4+4 c^2 \sigma_1+c^2
   \sigma_3\right)(1-c)^4 t^5-\frac1{4096} \sigma_3^4(1-c)^8t^7,\\
g_4(t)&=\frac{5}{8} \sigma_3 \left(4 \sigma_1+4 c^2 \sigma_2+3 \sigma_3\right)(1-c)^2 c t^4+\frac{3}{64} \sigma_3^2 \left(2 \sigma_1+2 c^2 \sigma_2+\sigma_3\right) (1-c)^4 t^5
+\frac{7}{512} \sigma_3^3(1-c)^6 c  t^6.
\end{align*}
It is easy to see that $g_2(t)> 0$ and $g_4(t)\ge 0$ for all $t\in (0,1)$ and $c\in [0,1)$. By Remark~\ref{positive}, also $g_1(t)\ge 0$ for all $t\in [0,1]$ and $c\in [0,1)$. The coefficients of $t^4$, $t^5$ and $t^7$ in the polynomial $g_3$ are obviously negative for all $c\in[0,1)$. Hence if we replace all $t^k$ in $g_3$ by $t^3$, we decrease the value of $g_3(t)$ and we get the expression of the form $t^3 h(c)$, where $h$ is a polynomial. By Remark~\ref{positive} we get $h(c)>0$ for all $c\in [0,1)$, hence $g_2(t)>0$ for all $t\in(0,1)$ and $c\in [0,1)$. This implies that $f$ is increasing on the interval $[-(1-c)^2,0]$.
\qed
\end{pf}

We proved the following theorem.

\begin{thm}
For every $\varphi\in (0,\tfrac\pi 2]$ there exists the unique triple of parameters $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$, which induces the best polynomial interpolant of a circular arc of the inner angle $2\varphi$, where $\alpha=\tfrac1 8 (x+y)$, $\gamma=\tfrac1 6(y-x-2\cos\varphi)$, $x$ is the only zero of the function \eqref{function_quartic} on the interval $[-(1-\cos\varphi)^2,0]$, $y$ is the solution of the equation \eqref{y_quartic}, and $\beta$ is the solution of the equation \eqref{beta_quartic}.
\end{thm}

\begin{figure}[h]\label{quartic_table}
\begin{center}
$$
\begin{array}{ccccc} \hline\hline
\varphi & \alpha & \beta & \gamma & \text{radial error}\\ \hline
\frac\pi2 & 0.87518 & 0.99857 & 1.49995 & 1.42325\times 10^{-4} \\
\frac\pi3 & 0.97471 & 0.59188 & 1.20039 & 5.83570\times 10^{-6} \\
\frac\pi4 & 0.99193 & 0.42228 & 1.10839 & 5.94378\times 10^{-7} \\
\frac\pi6 & 0.99840 & 0.27073 & 1.04680 & 2.34778\times 10^{-8} \\
\frac\pi8 & 0.99949 & 0.20014 & 1.02605 & 2.36051\times 10^{-9} \\
\frac\pi{12}& 0.99990 & 0.13203 & 1.01149 & 9.23852\times 10^{-11} \\ \hline
\end{array}
$$
\end{center}
\caption{A table of the radial errors of the best quartic ${\mathcal G}^0$ geometric interpolants of an circular arc given by inner angle of $2\varphi$.}
\end{figure}

Numerical computations reveal that the function $f$ has five real zeros for $\varphi\approx 0.9188$, six real zeros for $\varphi< 0.9188$, and only four real zeros for $\varphi> 0.9188$. All real zeros of $f$ induce a quartic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ interpolant which have an alternating simplified signed error function, i.e., its error function has the same shape as the error function $\chi$ of the best interpolant (only the amplitude can vary). We proved that the largest negative zero of $f$ induces the best interpolant of the unit circular arc with the inner angle $2\varphi$. Examples show that the smallest positive zero of $f$ induces the best interpolant of the unit circular arc with the inner angle $2(\pi-\varphi)$; in this case all three control points $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$ of the interpolant lie left from the control points $b_0$ and $b_4$. Most of the remaining zeros induce a non admissible interpolant, i.e., an interpolant with self intersections. The reason why interpolant has self intersections is that some of the control points $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$ of an interpolant lie left and some right from the control points $b_0$ and $b_4$.
Numerical computations show that for $\varphi<0.6772$, the second largest negative zero induces an admissible interpolant (all three control points $b_1,b_2,b_3$ are right of the control points $b_0$ and $b_4$) but the corresponding error function has a larger amplitude than the error function of the best interpolant (see Figure \ref{admissible}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{pi6.pdf}
\caption{Two quartic ${\mathcal G}^{0}$ interpolants of circular arc of inner angle $2\tfrac \pi6$ with the simplified signed error function as in the Figure~\ref{graph_error}. The left one is the best interpolant with the error $2.34778\times 10^{-8}$, the right one has the error $4.01760\times 10^{-5}$.}\label{admissible}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}\label{conc}

In this paper we presented an interpolation of a circular arc given by an inner angle $2\varphi$ not greater then $\pi$, where both boundary points of the arc are interpolated. Our method works well in the parabolic case, where for every $\varphi$ we get only one candidate for the best interpolant, and also in the cubic case, where for every $\varphi$ we get only one admissible candidate. In the quartic case we get more candidates and the analysis to figure out which candidate is the best one is quite demanding. Our method could be applied for interpolation of a circular arc by higher order polynomials, but it seems that it is very hard to prove which candidate is the best one. Maybe the method can be used for some particular cases, like half circular arc or quarter circular arc.

{\noindent \sl Acknowledgments.}{ The author would like to thank Emil \v{Z}agar for many useful discussions.

Research on this paper was supported in part by the program P1-0292 and the grants J1-8131 and J1-7025 from ARRS, Republic of Slovenia.}


An elegant 3-basis for inverse semigroups

Abstract: It is well known that in every inverse semigroup the binary operation and the unary operation of inversion satisfy the following three identities: [\quad x=(xx')x \qquad \quad (xx')(y'y)=(y'y)(xx') \qquad \quad (xy)z=x(yz"). ] The goal of this note is to prove the converse, that is, we prove that an algebra of type $<2,1>$ satisfying these three identities is an inverse semigroup and the unary operation coincides with the usual inversion on such semigroups.

\section{Introduction}
\seclabel{intro}

In the language of a binary operation $\cdot$ and a unary operation ${}'$, a set of $n$ independent identities is an $n$-basis
for inverse semigroups, if those identities define the variety of inverse semigroups considered as algebras $(S,\cdot,{}')$
of type $\langle 2,1\rangle$, where the unary operation coincides with the natural inversion.
Denoting by $x'$ the inverse of an element $x$ in an inverse semigroup, we then have $x=(xx')x$ (as inverse semigroups are
regular semigroups) and $(xx')(y'y)=(y'y)(xx')$ (as both $xx'$ and $y'y$ are idempotents, and idempotents commute in inverse
semigroups). Thus we might be tempted to think that the following identities provide a $3$-basis for inverse semigroups:
\begin{equation}
\eqnlabel{candidates}
x=(xx')x,  \qquad (xx')(y'y)=(y'y)(xx') \qquad  \text{and}\qquad (xy)z=x(yz)\,.
\end{equation}
However, for $S=\{0,1\}$ with $xy=0$, except for $11=1$, and defining $x'=1$, we have the previous identities satisfied,
but $0'\neq 0'00'$ and hence $'$ does not coincide with the natural inversion in $(S,\cdot)$.

B.M. Schein \cite{Schein} repaired the {\em defect} of \eqnref{candidates} by adjoining two additional identities: $x''=x$ and $(xy)'=y'x'$. The resulting set of five identities indeed provides a $4$-basis for inverse semigroups. (The identity $(xy)'=y'x'$ is dependent upon the others, and hence can be discarded. However it is worth observing that in the same paper Schein also provided a $5$-basis using $xx'x'x=x'xxx'$ instead of $xx'y'y=y'yxx'$; see \cite[Theorem 1.6]{Schein} and
\cite[p. 15, Ex. 20(b)]{higgins}.) Therefore the natural question to ask would be: \emph{is it possible to find a 3-basis for inverse semigroups?} This question was first answered in the affirmative in \cite{AM}, but the $3$-basis given there requires an extremely complicated proof (it is still an open problem to provide a reasonable proof for that result).

The aim of this note is to repair \eqnref{candidates} by providing an easy, transparent and
\emph{elegant} $3$-basis for inverse semigroups.

\begin{main}
Let $(S,*,')$ be an algebra of type $\langle 2,1\rangle$. Then this algebra is an inverse semigroup and the unary operation coincides with the usual inversion on such semigroups if and only if
\[
(\mathbf{E}_1)\quad x=(xx')x, \qquad
(\mathbf{E}_2)\quad (xx')(y'y)=(y'y)(xx'), \qquad
(\mathbf{E}_3)\quad (xy)z=x(yz'')\,.
\]
\end{main}

\section{Proof of the Theorem}
\seclabel{Proof}

In this section we prove that the identities ($\mathbf{E}_1$)--($\mathbf{E}_3$) imply Schein's $4$-basis for inverse semigroups. As the converse is obvious, the equivalence of the two bases will follow.

Throughout this section let $(S,\cdot,{}')$ be an algebra of type $\langle 2,1\rangle$ satisfying ($\mathbf{E}_1$)--($\mathbf{E}_3$). We start by proving a few handy identities.

\begin{lemma} The following identities hold.
\begin{align}
x'x''&= x'x  \eqnlabel{lemma1} \\
(xy')y&=x(y'y)  \eqnlabel{lemma5}\\
x & =x(x'x)  \eqnlabel{lemma3b}\\
x''&= (x''x')x = x''(x'x) \eqnlabel{lemma6}\\
x'''x&=x'''x''=x''' x^{(4)}  \eqnlabel{lemma50}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Firstly, for \eqnref{lemma1}, we have
\[
x'x'' \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} x'[(x''x''')x'']
\byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} [x'(x''x''')]x \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} [(x'x'')x']x \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} x'x\,.
\]

Next, for \eqnref{lemma5}, we compute $(xy')y \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} x(y'y'') \by{lemma1} x(y'y)$.

Regarding \eqnref{lemma3b}, we have $x(x'x) \by{lemma5} (xx')x \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} x$.

Then for \eqnref{lemma6}, we compute
$x'' \by{lemma3b} x''(x'''x'') \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} (x''x''')x \by{lemma1} (x''x')x \by{lemma5} x''(x'x)$.

Finally, for \eqnref{lemma50}, we have
\[
x'''x \by{lemma3b} [x'''(x''''x''')]x \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} x'''[(x''''x''')x'']
\by{lemma6} x''' x'''' \by{lemma1} x''' x''\,.
\]
\end{proof}

The next two lemmas are the key tools in the proof that the identities ($\mathbf{E}_1$)--($\mathbf{E}_3$)
imply $x''=x$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{396}
 $(x'x)x'''=x'''$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 We start with two observations. Firstly,
 as
\[
[x(y''' y)]y' \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} x[(y'''y)y''']
\by{lemma50} x[(y'''y'''')y'''] \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} xy'''\,,
\]
we have
\begin{equation}
\eqnlabel{136}
(x(y''' y))y' = xy'''\,.
\end{equation}

Secondly,
\[
(x'x)(x'''x) \by{lemma50} (x'x)(x'''x'''')
\byx{(\mathbf{E}_2)} (x'''x'''')(x'x) \by{lemma50} (x'''x'')(x'x)
\by{lemma5} [(x'''x'')x']x \by{lemma6} x'''x\,,
\]
so that
\begin{align}
(x'x)(x'''x)&=x'''x.  \eqnlabel{148}
\end{align}

Now we have all we need to prove the lemma.
\[
 x'''\by{lemma6}(x'''x'')x'\by{lemma50}(x'''x)x'\by{148}[(x'x)(x'''x)]x'\by{136}(x'x)x'''.
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma16}
 $(xy)z'=x(yz')$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We start by proving that
\begin{equation}
\eqnlabel{455}
x'''=x'\,.
\end{equation}
In fact we have $xx' \by{lemma3b} [x(x'x)]x' \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} x[(x'x)x'''] = xx'''$, using
Lemma \ref{396} in the last equality. Thus
\begin{equation}
\eqnlabel{452}
xx'''=xx'\,.
\end{equation}
Now, by Lemma \ref{396},
\[
 x'''=(x'x)x''' \by{lemma1} (x'x'')x'''
\byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)} x'(x''x^{(5)}) \by{452} x'(x''x''') \byx{(\mathbf{E}_3)}
(x'x'')x' \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} x'\,.
\]

Replacing $z$ by $z'$ in ($\mathbf{E}_3$), we get
\[
 (xy)z'=x(yz''')=x(yz')\,,
\]
where the last equality follows from  \eqnref{455}. The lemma is proved.
\end{proof}

We have everything we need to prove our main result.

\begin{theorem}
The identities \emph{(}$\mathbf{E}_1$\emph{)}--\emph{(}$\mathbf{E}_3$\emph{)} imply $x'' = x$ and the associative law.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
First, we have
\begin{align*}
x''x' &\by{lemma6} [(x''x')x]x' = (x''x')(xx') \byx{(\mathbf{E}_2)} (xx')(x''x')\\
&= [(xx')x'']x' = [x(x'x'')]x' = x[(x'x'')x'] \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} xx'\,,
\end{align*}
where we have used Lemma \ref{lemma16} in the unlabeled equalities. Thus
\begin{equation}
\eqnlabel{hmph}
x''x' = xx'\,.
\end{equation}

Now $x'' \by{lemma6} (x''x')x \by{hmph} (xx')x \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} x$, as claimed.

Associativity now follows easily: $(xy)z \byx{(\mathbf{E}_1)} x(yz'') = x(yz)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Other Sets of Axioms}

It is natural to ask how sensitive the axioms ($\mathbf{E}_1$)--($\mathbf{E}_3$) are
to certain modifications, such as shifting the parentheses in ($\mathbf{E}_1$)
or changing the placement of the double inverse in ($\mathbf{E}_3$).

If, for instance,
we leave ($\mathbf{E}_2$) intact, replace ($\mathbf{E}_1$) with $x(x'x) = x$ and replace ($\mathbf{E}_3$) with
$(x''y)z = x(yz)$, then we obtain a set of identities which are dual to
($\mathbf{E}_1$)--($\mathbf{E}_3$). By an argument dual to that in \S\secref{Proof},
this set of identities is another $3$-basis for inverse semigroups.

Thus to dispense with these sorts of obvious dualities, we will assume that
both ($\mathbf{E}_1$) and ($\mathbf{E}_2$) are left intact, and consider only alternative placement
of the double inverse in ($\mathbf{E}_3$). Using \textsc{Prover9}, we found that each of
the following identities can substitute for ($\mathbf{E}_3$) to give another $3$-basis for
inverse semigroups:
\begin{align*}
(xy)z &= x''(yz) \hspace{2cm}  (xy)z = x(y''z) \\
x(yz) &= (xy'')z   \hspace{2cm}   x(yz) = (xy)z''.
\end{align*}

The remaining possibility, $x(yz) = (x''y)z$, does not work. Using \textsc{Mace4}, we found
the counterexample given by the following tables. It satisfies ($\mathbf{E}_1$), ($\mathbf{E}_2$) and
$x(yz) = (x''y)z$, but the binary operation is not associative
($(0\cdot 0)\cdot 0 = 1\cdot 0 = 7\neq 6 = 0\cdot 1 = 0\cdot (0\cdot 0)$), and
the unary operation clearly fails to satisfy $x'' = x$.

\begin{table}[htb]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{r|cccccccccccc}
$\cdot$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11\\
\hline
    0 & 1 & 6 & 5 & 7 & 3 & 8 & 4 & 2 & 0 & 4 & 4 & 4 \\
    1 & 7 & 2 & 6 & 0 & 8 & 4 & 5 & 1 & 3 & 5 & 5 & 5 \\
    2 & 5 & 8 & 3 & 6 & 1 & 7 & 0 & 4 & 2 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
    3 & 8 & 0 & 7 & 4 & 6 & 2 & 1 & 3 & 5 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\
    4 & 3 & 7 & 1 & 8 & 5 & 6 & 2 & 0 & 4 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
    5 & 6 & 4 & 8 & 2 & 7 & 0 & 3 & 5 & 1 & 3 & 3 & 3 \\
    6 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 6 & 6 & 6 \\
    7 & 4 & 3 & 0 & 5 & 2 & 1 & 7 & 8 & 6 & 7 & 7 & 7 \\
    8 & 2 & 5 & 4 & 1 & 0 & 3 & 8 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 8 & 8 \\
    9 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 6 \\
    10 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 10 & 9 & 6 \\
    11 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 6 & 6 & 11
\end{tabular}

\bigskip

\begin{tabular}{r|cccccccccccc}
${}'$ & 0 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & 10 & 11 \\
\hline
 & 1 & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 0 & 6 & 8 & 7 & 9 & 10 & 11
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\section{Problem}

\emph{Does there exist a $2$-basis for inverse semigroups?}

\medskip

We guess that the answer is no.

\begin{acknowledgment}
We are pleased to acknowledge the assistance of the automated deduction tool
\textsc{Prover9} and the finite model builder \textsc{Mace4}, both developed by
McCune \cite{McCune}.

The first author was partially supported by FCT and FEDER, Project POCTI-ISFL-1-143 of Centro de Algebra da Universidade de Lisboa, and by FCT and PIDDAC through the project PTDC/MAT/69514/2006.
\end{acknowledgment}