Polynomial methods to construct inputs for uniformly ensemble reachable linear systems
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2105.14963
\documentclass[preprint]{imsart}
\RequirePackage[OT1]{fontenc}
\RequirePackage{amsthm,amsmath,amssymb}
\RequirePackage[numbers]{natbib}
\RequirePackage[colorlinks,citecolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{stmaryrd}
\usepackage[sans]{dsfont}
%settings
% \pubyear{2000}
% \volume{0}
% \issue{0}
% \firstpage{1}
% \lastpage{00}
%\arxiv{math.PR/0000000}
\usepackage{vmargin}
\newcommand{\interior}{\emph{\mbox{int}}}
\newcommand{\trans}{\mathsf{T}}
\newcommand{\e} {\varepsilon}
\newcommand{\C} {\mathbb{C}}
\newcommand{\D} {\mathbb{D}}
\newcommand{\Z} {\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand{\N} {\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\E} {\mathbb{E}}
\newcommand{\prob} {\mathbb{P}}
%\newcommand{\di}{\operatorname{d}}
\newcommand{\di}[1]{\operatorname{d}\!#1}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{|#1|_{\text{vec}}}
\newcommand{\inte}{ \operatorname{int}}
\newcommand{\Q} {\mathcal{Q}}
\newcommand{\h} {\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\A} {\mathcal{A}}
\newcommand{\K} {\mathcal{K}}
\newcommand{\B} {\mathcal{B}}
\newcommand{\X} {\mathcal{X}}
\newcommand{\J} {\mathcal{J}}
\newcommand{\F} {\mathcal{F}}
\newcommand{\G} {\mathcal{G}}
\newcommand{\p} {\mathbf{P}}
\newcommand{\R} {\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\I} {\operatorname{Im}}
\newcommand{\op} {\operatorname}
\newcommand{\Rea} {\mathcal{R}}
\newcommand{\diag}[1]{\operatorname{diag}\left(#1\right)}
\newcommand{\rk}{\operatorname{rk}}
\newcommand{\tr}{\operatorname{tr}}
\newcommand{\pro} {\mathcal{P}}
% \usepackage{theorem}
% {\theorembodyfont{\rmfamily}\newtheorem{bem}{Bemerkung}[section]}
% \newtheorem{asss}[bem]{Assumptions}
\usepackage{algorithmicx}
% \newcommand{\MM}{\mathcal{M}}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage[noend]{algcompatible}
\newcommand{\algorithmicinput}{\textbf{input}}
\newcommand{\INPUT}{\item[\algorithmicinput]}
%\newcommand {\R} {\mathbb{R}}
%\newcommand {\Q} {\mathcal{Q}}
\newcommand {\s} {\mathcal{S}}
%\newcommand {\C} {\mathbb{C}}
%\newcommand {\D} {\mathbb{D}}
%\newcommand {\Z} {\mathbb{Z}}
%\newcommand {\N} {\mathbb{N}}
%\newcommand {\E} {\mathbb{E}}
%\newcommand {\K} {\mathcal{K}}
%\newcommand {\A} {\mathcal{A}}
%\newcommand {\e} {\varepsilon}
%\newcommand{\trans}{\mathsf{T}}
\startlocaldefs
%\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}
\endlocaldefs
\begin{document}
\begin{frontmatter}
\title{Polynomial methods to construct inputs for uniformly ensemble reachable linear systems}%\protect\thanksref{T1}}
\runtitle{Input construction for uniformly ensemble reachable linear systems}
% \thankstext{T1}{This research was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation under grant I/83 087.}
\begin{aug}
\author{\fnms{Michael} \snm{Sch\"onlein}\ead[label=e1]{schoenlein@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de}}
% \and
% \author{\fnms{Fabian} \snm{Wirth}\ead[label=e2]{wirth@mathematik.uni-wuerzburg.de}}
% \and
% \author{\fnms{Third} \snm{Author}\thanksref{t1,m2}
% \ead[label=e3]{third@somewhere.com}
% \ead[label=u1,url]{http://www.foo.com}}
%\thankstext{t1}{Some comment}
%\thankstext{t2}{First supporter of the project}
%\thankstext{t3}{Second supporter of the project}
\runauthor{M. Sch\"onlein}
\affiliation{University of W\"urzburg}
\address{Institute for Mathematics\\
University of W\"urzburg\\
Emil-Fischer Stra\ss e 40\\
97074 W\"urzburg, Germany\\
\printead{e1}\\
\phantom{E-mail:\ }%\printead*{e2}}
}
% \address{Address of the Third author\\
% Usually a few lines long\\
% Usually a few lines long\\
% \printead{e3}\\
% \printead{u1}}
\end{aug}
\begin{abstract}
This paper is concerned with linear parameter-dependent systems and considers the notion uniform ensemble reachability. The focus of this work is on constructive methods to compute suitable parameter-independent open-loop inputs for such systems. In contrast to necessary and sufficient conditions for ensemble reachability, computational methods have to distinguish between continuous-time and discrete-time systems. Based on recently derived sufficient conditions and techniques from complex approximation we present two algorithms for discrete-time singe-input linear systems. Moreover, we illustrate that one method can also be applied to certain continuous-time single-input systems.
\end{abstract}
% \keywords{fluid networks \and HLPPS disciplines \and strict GFN models \and stability \and Lyapunov function \and converse Lyapunov theorem}
% \subclass{}
\begin{keyword}[class=AMS]
%\kwd[Primary ]
\kwd{30E10}
\kwd{93B05}
\kwd{93C05}
\end{keyword}
\begin{keyword}
\kwd{parameter-dependent linear systems}
\kwd{reachability}
\kwd{controllability}
\kwd{complex approximation}
\end{keyword}
\end{frontmatter}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Ensemble control is an emerging field in mathematical systems and control theory refers to the task of controlling a large, potentially infinite, number of states, or systems, using a single input function or a single feedback controller. Being not a rigor defined term it subsumes several different scenarios, where in each particular case the problems and the required techniques differ from each other. Ensemble control embraces the scenario of uncertainties in the initial data. This is modeled by a probability distribution of the initial state and the ensemble control problem leads to a transport problem of density functions and therefore to controllability and observability
issues of the Liouville and the Fokker-Plank equation
\cite{brockett2012notes}, \cite{chen2017optimal}, \cite{fleig2016estimates}, \cite{shen2017discrete}, \cite{zeng2016ensemble}.
Another setting tackles uncertainties in the model parameters by addressing controllability problems for parameter-dependent system
and the goal is to achieve certain control task by using only a single or a few open-loop inputs which are \textit{independent} of the (usually unknown) model parameters. The notion \emph{ensemble controllability} is used for this, cf. \cite{li2009ensemble}. In this context we also mention the notions \emph{averaged controllability} and \emph{moment controllability}, cf. \cite{zuazua2014averaged} and \cite{Zeng_scl_2016}, respectively. Motivated by the controllability analysis of the Bloch equation, there is also the concept of asymptotic controllability, cf. e.g. \cite{beauchard2010controllability}, \cite{Gauthier_scl_2018}.
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{Problem statement and main results}\label{sec:1}
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this paper we consider families of parameter-dependent systems of the form
\begin{align} \label{eq:def-ensemble}\begin{split}
\tfrac { \partial } { \partial t } x ( t , \theta ) &= A ( \theta ) x ( t , \theta ) + B ( \theta ) u ( t )
\\
x _{ t + 1 }( \theta ) &= A ( \theta ) x _ t ( \theta ) + B ( \theta ) u _t, \end{split}
\end{align}
where $\theta\in \p$ is considered as a parameter and the parameter space $\p$ is assumed to be a Jordan arc in the complex plane, i.e. $\p$ is the image of a continuous and bijective function defined on a compact interval. Moreover, we assume that the matrix-valued functions $A: \p \to \C^{n \times n}$ and $B: \p \to \C^{n \times m}$ are continuous. Throughout the paper we will use the short notation $(A,B) \in C_{n,n}(\mathbf{ P })\times C_{n,m}(\mathbf{ P })$. In addition, let $C_n(\p)$ denote the space of continuous functions from $\p$ to $\C^n$. To treat continuous-time and discrete-time systems along the same lines, we take the initial conditions $x(0,\theta)=x_0(\theta)=0$. To express that the solutions to \eqref{eq:def-ensemble} are regarded as functions from the parameter space $\p$ to $\C^n$ we denote it by $\varphi(T,u,0)(\theta):=\varphi(T,u,0,\theta)$. Further, we wish to highlight the essential property that the input is {\it independent} of the parameters.
The notion of reachability we are considering in this paper is as follows: We say that a pair $(A,B) \in C_{n,n}(\mathbf{ P })\times C_{n,m}(\mathbf{ P })$ is \textit{uniformly ensemble reachable} (from zero), if for every $f \in C_n(\p)$ and $\e>0$ there are $T>0$ and $u\in L^1([0,T],\C^m)$ or $u = (u_{0},u_{1}, \dots), u_{i} \in \C^{m}$ such that $$ \|\varphi(T,u,0)-f\|_{C_n(\p)}= \sup_{\theta \in \p} \|\varphi(T,u,0)(\theta)-f(\theta) \|_{\C^n} <\e.$$
Note that ensemble reachability is equivalent to approximate reachability of the infinite dimensional linear system defined by the bounded linear matrix-multiplication operators $ {\cal M}_A\colon C_n(\p) \to C_n(\p)$, ${\cal M}_A f(\theta)=A(\theta)f(\theta)$
and
$
{\cal M}_B\colon \C^m \to C_n(\p)$, ${\cal M}_B u =B(\theta)u$.
It is a consequence of the restriction that the inputs are not allowed to dependent on the parameter, it is well-known that exact reachability (i.e. $ \e=0$) is never possible provided $\p$ is not finite, cf. \cite[Theorem~3.1.1]{triggiani75} and \cite[p.244]{fuhrmann_hilbert_book}. Moreover, it follows from \cite[Theorem~3.1.1, Remark~3.1.2]{triggiani75} that in the continuous-time case a pair $(A,B)$ is uniformly ensemble reachable if and only it is {\it completely approximately controllable}, i.e. for every $T>0$, for every $\e>0$ and for every pair $x_0,x_1 \in C_n(\p)$ there exists $u \in L^1([0,T],\C^m)$ such that
\begin{align*}
\| x_1 - \varphi(T,u,x_0)\|_{C_n(\p)} < \e.
\end{align*}
Therefore, as most of the literature considers the continuous-time case the term ensemble controllability is present more frequently.
We note that this equivalence does not hold for discrete-time systems. Indeed, the notions of approximate reachability (from zero) and approximate controllability (to zero)
are independent of each other, cf.~\cite[Lemma~4.1]{fuhrmann1972weak} and none of both implies approximate
complete controllability. Recall that a pair $(A,B) \in C_{n,n}(\p)\times C_{n,m}(\p)$ is called {\it uniformly ensemble controllable} (to zero), if for all $x_0 \in C_n(\p)$ and $\e >0$ there {exist} $T \geq 0$
and an input $u$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|\varphi(T,u,x_0)\|_{C_n(\p)} < \e.
\end{align*}
Moreover, recall that the application of \cite[Theorem~3.1.1]{triggiani75} yields that a pair $(A,B)$ is uniformly ensemble reachable if and only if
\begin{align}\label{eq:trig-control}
\overline{\operatorname{span} \{\theta \mapsto A(\theta)^lb_j(\theta) \,\, |\, \, j=1,...,m, \, l=0,1,...\} } = C_n(\p),
\end{align}
where $b_j(\theta)$ denotes the $j$th column of $B(\theta)$. In operator theory language, uniform ensemble reachability of $(A,B)$ is equivalent to the fact that the matrix multiplication operator ${\cal M}_A$ is $m$-multicyclic and the columns $b_1,...,b_m$ are cyclic vectors. For other characterizations we refer to \cite[Section~6.2]{curtainzwart95} and \cite[Section~VI.8.a]{engelnagel}. As these characterizations have the drawback that they are hard to check in practice, much effort has recently been spent on the derivation of pointwise testable necessary and sufficient conditions, cf. \cite{JDE_ensembles_2021}, \cite{li_tac_2016}.
The ensemble controllability problem for parameter-dependent systems is also studied in \cite{Agrachev_ensemble_lie_2016}, \cite{agrachev2020control}, \cite{chen2019mcss}, \cite{li2011}, \cite{li2009ensemble}, \cite{li_tac_2016} and \cite{Zeng_scl_2016}. Agrachev and Sarychev consider ensemble controllability for nonlinear drift-free parameter-dependent systems and provide a characterization in terms of Lie-brackets. In the same direction, the work of Chen \cite{chen2019mcss} also treats nonlinear systems and considers Lie extensions. We note that these approaches do not apply to the setting in this thesis. In \cite{li2011} a characterization for ensemble controllability for time-varying parameter-dependent linear systems is presented, which is based on the singular value decomposition of the reachability operator. Like condition \eqref{eq:trig-control}, this condition is hard to check.
% \bigskip
% \bigskip
% ------------------------------
%
%
\medskip
{\it Problem statement} $ \,$ The main objective of this paper is to tackle the following problem. Given an uniformly ensemble reachable pair $(A,B) \in C_{n,n}(\p) \times C_{n,m}(\p)$, a desired target family $f \in C_n(\p)$ and an $\e$-neighborhood of it, how to compute a suitable $T>0$ and an input $u$ such that
\begin{align*}
\|\varphi(T,u,0) - f\|_{\infty} < \e.
\end{align*}
In doing so, we will distinguish whether the system defined by the pair $(A,B)$ is in continuous-time or in discrete-time. Also we will put special emphasis on single-input pairs. For discrete-time single-input systems
\begin{align*}%\label{eq:sys-par-discrete}
x_{t+1}(\theta)=A(\theta)x_{t}(\theta)+b(\theta)u_t, \quad x_0(\theta)=0
\end{align*}
at time $T>0$ and for input $u=(u_0,...,u_{T-1}) \in \C \times \cdots \times \C$ the solution is
\begin{equation*}%\label{eq:sol}
\varphi(T,u,0)(\theta) =
\sum_{k=0}^{T-1} \big(A(\theta)\big)^{T-1-k}b(\theta)u_{k}= p\big(A(\theta)\big) b(\theta),
\end{equation*}
where $p$ denotes the polynomial
\[p(z)= u_{T-1} + u_{T-2}\,z+\cdots + u_{1}\, z^{T-2}+ u_{0} \,z^{T-1}.\]
Thus, to derive for a given $f\in C_n(\p)$ and a given $\e>0$ a time $T>0$ and an input $u=(u_0,...,u_{T-1})$ we will explore methods from (complex) approximation theory. We note that, using different methods, this problem is also addressed for continuous-time systems in \cite{lazar:hal-03035494}, \cite{scindis}, \cite{miao2020convexgeometric}.
In this paper we present two algorithms to compute suitable open-loop inputs. These will be called \emph{Method~S1} and \emph{Method~S2} and are based on sufficient conditions for uniform ensemble reachability derived in \cite{JDE_ensembles_2021}. While Method~S1 is limited to discrete-time systems, Method~S2 can also be applied to continuous-time single-input systems.
%
%
% \bigskip
% \bigskip
% ------------------------------
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
\medskip
{\it Organization} $ \,$
In Section~\ref{sec:poly_si_methods}, we present constructive methods for parameter-dependent linear single-input systems. More precisely, starting with discrete-time systems we present two methods for the computation of suitable inputs. In addition we show that one method can also be applied to continuous-time systems. In Section~\ref{sec:approx}, we will revisit relevant results from complex approximation that are used in the construction procedures. Subsection~\ref{sec:approx_runge_weier} presents the well-known Theorems of Runge and Weierstrass, where we put special emphasis on the construction of the polynomials by providing an explicit representation of the degree and the coefficients. Moreover, in subsection~\ref{sec:approx_walsh} we present several results which are due to Walsh. In Section~\ref{sec:approx_extensions} we discuss how the results of Walsh can be used to extend the methods from Section~\ref{sec:poly_si_methods}.
% In Section~\ref{sec:poly_si_methods}, we present constructive methods for single-input pairs of parameter-dependent linear systems. More precisely, starting with discrete-time systems we show two methods for the computation of suitable inputs, which are based on the sufficient conditions given in Theorem~\ref{thm:CC-SI-sufficient-conditions} and Corollary~\ref{cor:scl_si}. Afterwards we show how these methods can also be applied to continuous-time systems.
% Moreover, we treat examplarily the controlled harmonic oscillator to illustrate the methods and to present other techniques that might also be of interest for other particular situations.
% In Section~\ref{sec:moment-colocation} we focus on continuous-time multi-input systems by pursuing a different direction. Recall that, in continuous-time the reachability operator $\Rea \colon L^2_m([0,T]) \to C_n(\p)$ is given by the (compact) integral operator
% \begin{equation*}
% \Rea u (\theta) = \int_0^T e^{A(\theta)(T-s)} B(\theta) \, u(s) \di{s}.
% \end{equation*}
% Thus, for a given target function $f \in C_n(\p)$, suitable input functions $u$ can be obtained as approximate solutions to the linear operator (integral) equation
% \begin{equation*}
% \Rea u = f,
% \end{equation*}
% which is a classical ill-posed inverse problem. In Section~\ref{sec:moment-colocation} we will combine finite-dimensional control theory and moment-collocation techniques to derive appropriate input functions.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Computational Methods for Single-Input Systems}\label{sec:poly_si_methods}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section we consider single-input pairs $(A,b)\in C_{n,n}(\p) \times C_n(\p)$ where the parameter space $\p$ is a Jordan arc. We will explore how the results from (complex) approximation, like Bernstein, Runge, Weierstrass can be used to obtain suitable inputs for single-input systems. We begin with discrete-time case. As pointed out in the introduction, the solution can be represented by a polynomial $p$ and given a target function $f \in C_n(\p)$ and $\e>0$ we will present methods to derive a suitable polynomial $p$ so that
\begin{align*}%\label{eq:def-uer-poly}
\|p(A)b -f\|_\infty < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Based on the necessary and sufficient conditions for uniform ensemble reachability developed in \cite[Theorem~4, Corollary~3]{JDE_ensembles_2021}, we will derive two constructive methods to compute suitable inputs. For convenience, we recall the corresponding conditions. That is, if the pair $(A,b)$ is uniformly ensemble reachable, the following necessary conditions are satisfied:
\begin{description}
\item[(N1)] The pair $(A(\theta),b(\theta))$ is reachable for every $\theta\in \p$.
\item[(N2)] For any pair of distinct parameters $\theta,\theta'\in \p$, the spectra of $A(\theta)$ and $A(\theta')$ are disjoint:
\begin{equation*}
\sigma (A(\theta))\cap \sigma (A(\theta'))=\emptyset.
\end{equation*}
% \item[(iii)] For each $\theta\in \textbf{P}$, the eigenvalues of $A(\theta)$
% have algebraic multiplicity one.
\end{description}
Further, $(A,b)$ is uniformly ensemble reachable if it satisfies (N1) and (N2) and one of the following sufficiency conditions:
\begin{description}
\item[(S1)] The characteristic polynomials of $A(\theta)$ take the form
\begin{equation*}
z^n - (a_{n-1}z^{n-1} + \cdots +a_1z + a_0(\theta))
\end{equation*}
for some $a_{n-1},...,a_1 \in \C$ and $a_0 \in C(\p)$.
\item[(S2)] $A(\theta)$ has simple eigenvalues for each $\theta\in \textbf{P}$.
\end{description}
% \end{thm}
We note that due to the condition (N2) the function $a_0$ in (S2) is necessarily injective. Thus, $a_0\colon \p \to a_0(\p)$ is one-to-one and onto and so $a_0(\p)$ defines a Jordan arc. In certain cases, like the controlled harmonic oscillator considered at the end of this section, it happens that the sufficiency conditions~(S1) and~(S2) are satisfied at the same time. We take the sufficient conditions as a starting point and we provide for each case a constructive procedure to compute a suitable input for a given target function $f$ and a given neighborhood $B_{\varepsilon}(f)$ of it. To this end, we will need the following notations. For $g \colon \Omega \subset \C \to \C$ we define $$M_{g} := \max_{z \in \Omega} |g(z)|.$$ Also we say that $g$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition, i.e. there exists a $L_g>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
|g(z_1) - g(z_2)| \leq L_g \, |z_1- z_2|
\end{equation*}
for all $z_1, z_2 \in \Omega$. We use $\operatorname{Lip}(\Omega)$ to denote the set of functions that satisfy a Lipschitz condition.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Method~S1}\label{sec:meth_A}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The first procedure is called Method~S1 and is based on the proof of Theorem~4 in \cite{JDE_ensembles_2021}. That is, we assume that the pair $(A,b)$ satisfies the conditions (N1), (N2) and (S1). Also, let $f \in \operatorname{C}_n(\p)$ and $\varepsilon>0$ be given.
% The subsequent statement provides conditions such that the following algorithm yields a suitable input sequence.
The algorithm goes as follows.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Method~S1}
\label{DolphinnPrep}
\begin{algorithmic}
\INPUT{$f =(f_1,\dots,f_n)\in C_n(\p)$, $\e >0$, $a_0 \in C(\p)$, $a_1,...,a_{n-1} \in \C$ }
\STATE Compute the Jordan arc $$a_0(\p)= \{ a_0(\theta) | \, \theta \in \p\} \subset \C.$$
\FOR{$k = 1$ to $n$}
\STATE Compute the polynomials $p_k$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in a_0(\p)} | p_k(z) - f_k(a_0^{-1}(z))| < \varepsilon
\end{align*}
\IF{$a_0(\p)=[a,b]\subset \R$}
\STATE{Take $p_k = B_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1},n_k}$ with $n_k$, such that
\begin{equation*}% \label{eq:}
\sqrt{2} \left( 4\,M_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}} + \frac{(b-a)\,L_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}}}{2} \right) {\sqrt\frac{\log n_k}{n_k}} \leq \varepsilon.
\end{equation*}}
\ENDIF
\IF{$a_0(\p)\subset \partial\D=\{z \in \C\, |\, |z|=1\}$}
\STATE{extend $f_k\circ a_0^{-1}$ to $\partial \D$ by defining
\begin{align*}
f_k(z):= w_{k,1} + (w_{k,2}-w_{k,1})\frac{z-z_{k,1}}{z_{k,2}-z_{k,1}} \qquad \forall \,\, z \in \partial \D \setminus a_k(\p),
\end{align*}
where $w_{k,1}$ and $w_{k,2}$ are the values of $f_k$ at the end-points $z_{k,1}$ and $z_{k,2}$
% \begin{align*}
% f_k(z):= w_1 + (w_2-w_1)\frac{z-z_1}{z_2-z_1} \qquad \forall \,\, z \in \partial \D \setminus a_0(\p),
% \end{align*}
% where $w_1$ and $w_2$ are the values of $f$ at the end-points $z_1$ and $z_2$
of $a_0(\p)$, respectively and
take $p_k=F_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1},n_k}$ with $n_k$ such that
\begin{align*}
\left( 2\sqrt{2}\pi L_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}} \frac{\ln n_k }{n_k} \right) \leq \varepsilon.
\end{align*}}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE{Define
\begin{align}\label{eq:def_poly_A}
p(z):= \sum_{k=1}^n p_k\big( z^n - a_{n-1}z^{n-1}- \dots -a_1 z \big)z^{k-1}
\end{align}}
% \STATE{}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
%
% The first method is based on sufficient condition~(S1). Let $f \in \operatorname{C}_n(\p)$ and $\varepsilon>0$ be given. A suitable input is obtained by carrying out the following basic steps (details for step (A2) will be given below):
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item[(A1)] Compute the Jordan arcs $$a_0(\p)= \{ a_0(\theta) | \, \theta \in \p\} \subset \C.$$
%
% \item[(A2)] Compute the polynomials $p_1,...,p_n$ such that
% \begin{align*}
% \sup_{z \in a_0(\p)} | p_k(z) - f_k(a_0^{-1}(z))| < \varepsilon
% \end{align*}
% for all $k=1,...,n$.
% \item[(A3)] Set $g(z):=z^n - (a_{n-1}z^{n-1}+ \dots +a_1 z)$ and define
% \begin{align}\label{eq:def_poly_A}
% p(z):= \sum_{k=1}^n p_k\big(g(z)\big)z^{k-1},
% \end{align}
% with $p_k \in \C[z]$.
%
% % $f$ the polynomials $p_k$, $k =1,...,n$ as the Bernstein polynomials to the component functions $f_k$ of degree $n_k$, where
% % $n_k \in \N$ is chosen such that
% % \begin{equation} \label{eq:}
% % \left( 4\,M_{f_k} + \frac{(b-a)\,L_f}{2} \right) \frac{\sqrt{\log n}}{\sqrt{n}} \leq \varepsilon
% % \end{equation}
% % \item[(3)] Set $g(z):=z^n - (a_{n-1}z^{n-1}+ \dots +a_1 z)$ and define
% % \begin{align}\label{eq:def_poly_A}
% % p(z):= \sum_{k=1}^n p_k\big(g(z)\big)z^{k-1},
% % \end{align}
% % with $p_k \in \C[z]$.
% \end{enumerate}
%
% It remains to provide how to get the polynomials in step~(A2). We distinguish the cases that $a_0(\p)$ is real or complex. Also we will assume that
% \begin{align*}
% f_k \circ a_0^{-1} \in \operatorname{Lip}(a_0(\p)) %\quad \forall\, \, k=1,...,n.
% \end{align*}
% for all $k=1,...,n$. The polynomials are determined via the constructive proofs to the approximation results stated in Section~\ref{sec:approx} More precisely:
%
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item[(A2a)] Let $a_0(\p)=[a,b]\subset \R$. According to Theorem~\ref{thm:gzyl} we take $p_k$, $k =1,...,n$ as the Bernstein polynomials to the component functions $f_k\circ a_0^{-1}$ of degree $n_k$, where the degree $n_k \in \N$ is chosen such that
% \begin{equation*}% \label{eq:}
% \sqrt{2} \left( 4\,M_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}} + \frac{(b-a)\,L_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}}}{2} \right) {\sqrt\frac{\log n_k}{n_k}} \leq \varepsilon.
% \end{equation*}
% \item[(A2b)] Let $a_0(\p)\subset \partial\D=\{z \in \C\, |\, |z|=1\}$. Then, first extend the functions $f_k\circ a_0^{-1}$ to $\partial \D$ by defining
% \begin{align*}
% f_k(z):= w_1 + (w_2-w_1)\frac{z-z_1}{z_2-z_1}
% %\qquad \forall \, \, z \in \partial \D \setminus a_0(\p),
% \end{align*}
% for all $z \in \partial \D \setminus a_0(\p)$, where $w_1$ and $w_2$ are the values of $f$ at the end-points $z_1$ and $z_2$ of $a_0(\p)$, respectively. Then, define the
% polynomials $p_k$, $k =1,...,n$ according to Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} to the functions $f_k\circ a_0^{-1}$ of degree $n_k$, where $n_k \in \N$ is chosen such that
% \begin{align*}
% \left( \pi \sqrt{2}L_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}} +\frac{2\,M_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}}}{\sin^2(\tfrac{\pi}{2e})}\right) \cdot \frac{1}{n_k+1} \leq \varepsilon.
% \end{align*}
% \end{enumerate}
The next result states conditions so that the algorithm in {\it Method~S1} yields an appropriate input sequence.
\medskip
\begin{theorem}
Assume that $(A,b)$ satisfies (N1), (N2) and (S1). Let $\varepsilon>0$ and suppose that $f \in C_n(\p)$ is such that $f_k \circ a_0^{-1} \in \operatorname{Lip}(a_0(\p))$ for all $k=1,...,n$ and assume that the Jordan arc $a_0(\p)$ lies either on the real line or the unit circle. Let
\begin{align*}
p(z)=p_0 +\cdots + p_{k}z^{k}
\end{align*}
be the polynomial of degree $k$ defined by Method~S1. Then, at time $T=k+1>0$ with inputs
\begin{align*}
u=(u_0,...,u_{T-1}) = (p_0,...,p_{k})
\end{align*}
one has
\begin{align*}
\| \varphi(T,u,0) - f\|_{\infty} < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This follows by the proofs of Theorem~4 in \cite{JDE_ensembles_2021} together with the Theorems~\ref{thm:gzyl} and~\ref{thm:weier-circ}~(b).
\end{proof}
% \medskip
%
% The construction yields that the degree of the polynomial defined in \eqref{eq:def_poly_A} is given by
% \begin{align*}
% \max_{k=1,...,n} n_k(k-1)n.
% \end{align*}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Method~S2}\label{sec:meth_B}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Another method is based on the sufficient condition~(S2). Let $f \in \operatorname{C}_n(\p)$ and $\varepsilon>0$ be given. After applying a change of coordinates $T(\theta)$ we consider the pair
\begin{align*}
T(\theta)^{-1} A(\theta)T(\theta)=\begin{pmatrix}
a_1(\theta) & & \\
& \ddots &\\
& & a_n(\theta)
\end{pmatrix},\quad
%\quad \text{ and } \quad
T(\theta)^{-1}b(\theta) = \begin{pmatrix}
1\\
\vdots\\
1
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where $a_1,...,a_n$ denote the distinct eigenvalue Jordan arcs. Let
\begin{align*}
\tilde f(\theta)= T(\theta)^{-1}f(\theta)
\end{align*}
and let $\|\cdot \|_M$ be a matrix norm that is submultiplicative to $\|\cdot\|$ and set $$\|T\|_{M,\infty} := \sup_{\theta \in \p} \|T(\theta)\|_M.$$
The next result states conditions so that the below algorithm {\it Method~S2} yields an appropriate input sequence.
\begin{theorem}
Assume that $(A,b)$ satisfies (N1), (N2) and (S2). Let $\varepsilon>0$ and suppose that $f \in C_n(\p)$ is such that $f_k \circ a_k^{-1} \in \operatorname{Lip}(a_k(\p))$ for all $k=1,...,n$ and assume that the Jordan arcs $a_k(\p)$ are either on the real line or the unit circle. Let
\begin{align*}
p(z)=p_0 +\cdots + p_{k}z^{k}
\end{align*}
be the polynomial of degree $k$ defined by Method~S2. Then, at time $T=k+1>0$ with inputs
\begin{align*}
u=(u_0,...,u_{T-1}) = (p_0,...,p_{k})
\end{align*}
one has
\begin{align*}
\| \varphi(T,u,0) - f\|_{\infty} < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This follows by the proofs of Theorem~1 and Proposition~3 in \cite{JDE_ensembles_2021} together with the Theorems~\ref{thm:gzyl} and~\ref{thm:weier-circ}~(b).
\end{proof}
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Method~S2}
\label{algo:A}
\label{DolphinnPrep}
\begin{algorithmic}
\INPUT{$f =(f_1,\dots,f_n)\in C_n(\p)$, $\e >0$, $a_1,\dots,a_n \in C(\p)$ }
\STATE{Compute the Jordan arcs $$a_k(\p)= \{ a_k(\theta) | \, \theta \in \p\} \subset \C,\quad k=1,...,n.$$
Set $a(\p) = a_1(\p) \cup \cdots \cup a_n(\p)$.}
\FOR{$k = 1$ to $n$}
\STATE Compute the polynomials $p_k$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in a_k(\p)} | p_k(z) - f_k(a_k^{-1}(z))| < \frac{\e}{3\|T\|_{M,\infty}}
\end{align*}
\IF{$a_k(\p)=[a,b]\subset \R$}
\STATE{Take $p_k = B_{f_k\circ a_k^{-1},n_k}$ with $n_k$, such that
\begin{equation*}% \label{eq:}
\sqrt{2} \left( 4\,M_{f_k\circ a_k^{-1}} + \frac{(b-a)\,L_{f_k\circ a_k^{-1}}}{2} \right) {\sqrt\frac{\log n_k}{n_k}} \leq \frac{\e}{3\|T\|_{M,\infty}}.
\end{equation*}}
\ENDIF
\IF{$a_k(\p)\subset \partial\D=\{z \in \C\, |\, |z|=1\}$}
\STATE{extend $f_k\circ a_k^{-1}$ to $\partial \D$ by defining
\begin{align*}
f_k(z):= w_{k,1} + (w_{k,2}-w_{k,1})\frac{z-z_{k,1}}{z_{k,2}-z_{k,1}} \qquad \forall \,\, z \in \partial \D \setminus a_k(\p),
\end{align*}
where $w_{k,1}$ and $w_{k,2}$ are the values of $f_k$ at the end-points $z_{k,1}$ and $z_{k,2}$ of $a_k(\p)$, respectively and
take $p_k=F_{f_k\circ a_k^{-1},n_k}$ with $n_k$ such that
\begin{align*}
\left( 2\sqrt{2}\pi L_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}} \frac{\ln n_k }{n_k} \right) \leq \frac{\e}{3 \|T\|_{M,\infty}}.
% \left( \pi \sqrt{2}L_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}} +\frac{2\,M_{f_k\circ a_0^{-1}}}{\sin^2(\tfrac{\pi}{2e})}\right) \cdot \frac{1}{n_k+1} \leq \tfrac{\tilde \varepsilon}{2}.
\end{align*}}
\ENDIF
\FOR{$l = 1$ to $n$}
\STATE{Let $\alpha_{k,l}:= \sup_{\theta \in \p}|p_k(a_l(\theta))|$ and define $h_k\colon a(\p) \to \C$ by
\begin{align*}
h_k(z)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } z \in a_k(\p) \\
0 & \text{ if } z \in a(\p) \setminus a_k(\p)
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
for $k=1,...,n$. Compute via Runge's little Theorem the polynomials $q_1,...,q_n$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in a(\p)} | q_k(z) - h_k(z))| < \frac{\varepsilon}{3\,\|T\|_{M,\infty} \,\sum_{l=1}^n \alpha_{k,l}}
\end{align*}
for all $k=1,...,n$.}
\ENDFOR
\ENDFOR
\STATE{ Set
\begin{equation*}
p(z) = \sum_{k=1}^n p_k(z)q_k(z).
\end{equation*}}
% \STATE{}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
% A different approach to extend the applicability of the Methods~S1 and~S2 is discussed in
In Section~\ref{sec:approx_extensions_arcs} we discuss an approach to extend the applicability of the Methods~S1 and~S2, where requirements that $a_0(\p),a_1(\p),...,a_n(\p)$ are subsets of the real line or the unit circle can be relaxed to Jordan arcs.
% Indeed, concerning Method~S2 it is shown in \cite[Proof of Theorem~2]{laa_feedback} that $a_k(\p) \subset \R$ or $a_k(\p) \subset \partial\D$ for all $k=1,...,n$ can be ensured by using a mixture of open-loop and feedback control inputs of the form
% \[u(t) + k(\theta)x_t(\theta),\]
% where the feedback $k(\theta)$ can explicitly be derived based on Ackermann's formula. Similarly, using \cite[Theorem~6.19]{fuhrmann2015mathematics} the same holds true for Method~S1.
%
%
% to arbitrary Jordan arcs in the complex plane.
%
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item[(1)] Use techniques from numerical conformal mapping theory. That is, if $\gamma$ is a Jordan arc in the complex plane an exploration of the proofs to the Theorems of Walsh shows that suitable approximating polynomials can be constructed once the conformal mapping from $\inte \Gamma$ to $\D$ is known, where $\Gamma$ denotes a Jordan curve containing the arc $\gamma$. Here, there is some freedom left how to define the Jordan curve, see also Remark~\ref{rem:4.1.15}~2.
%
% \medskip
% \item[(2)] Another apporach to extend the applications of Method~S1 and~S2 is to use a mixture of open-loop and feedback control inputs of the form
% \[u(t) + k(\theta)x_t(\theta).\]
% Based on the pole placement theorem it is possible enforce one of the sufficiency conditions~(S1) or~(S2) to hold and that the eigenvalue arcs are either on the real line on the unit circle, cf. \cite[Proof of Theorem~2]{laa_feedback}.
%
% \end{enumerate}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Method~S2 for continuous-time single-input systems}\label{sec:poly_approx_cont}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Next, we investigate how to get constructive methods for continuous-time single-input systems. First, we recall that a direct application of the discrete-time methods above is not immediately possible. The reason is that, for $u\in L^1([0,T])$ the solution to
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial x}{\partial t}
(t,\theta)=A(\theta)x(t,\theta)+b(\theta)u(t), \quad x(0,\theta)=0
\end{align*}
is given by
\begin{align*}
\varphi(T,u,0) (\theta) = \int_0^T {\rm e}^{(T-\tau)A(\theta)}b(\theta)u(\tau)\di{\tau}.
% = T(\theta)
% \begin{pmatrix}
% \int_0^T u(\tau) {\rm e}^{(T-\tau)a_1(\theta)} \di{\tau} \\
% \vdots\\
% \int_0^T u(\tau) {\rm e}^{(T-\tau)a_n(\theta)} \di{\tau}
% \end{pmatrix}
\end{align*}
which is not of the form $p(A(\theta))b(\theta)$ for some polynomial $p$. In the following we present an approach that enables us to use Method~S2 also for continuous-time systems. The basic idea simply is to approximate the integral in the solution formula by a polynomial using piecewise constant inputs. The analysis will be carried out in six steps:
Suppose the pair $(A,b)$ satisfies the conditions (N1), (N2) and (S2). Let $f \in C_n(\p)$ and $\e>0$ be given. We also note that for continuous-time systems $T>0$ can chosen arbitrarily. Thus, for $\tau>0$ and $N \in \N$ we set $T = N\tau$ and note that the numbers $\tau$ and $N$ will be specified in the construction of a suitable input.
\medskip
{\it Step~1: Diagonalize $A(\theta)$}. By assumptions (N2) and (S2) there is a continuous change of coordinates $T(\theta)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
T(\theta)^{-1} A(\theta) T(\theta) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\lambda_1(\theta) & & 0\\
& \ddots & \\
0 & & \lambda_n(\theta)
\end{pmatrix}
\quad
\text{ and } \quad
T(\theta)^{-1} b(\theta)=
\begin{pmatrix}
1\\
\vdots \\
1
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
The solution can be written as
\begin{align*}
\varphi(N\tau,u,0) (\theta)
= T(\theta)
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde \varphi_1(N\tau,u,0)(\theta) \\
\vdots\\
\tilde \varphi_n(N\tau,u,0)(\theta)
\end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
\tilde \varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)(\theta)= \int_0^{N\tau} {\rm e}^{(N\tau-s)\lambda_k(\theta)} u(s) \di{s} , \quad k=1,...,n.
\end{align*}
\medskip
{\it Step~2: Take piecewise constant inputs}. Let $\tau>0$ (not yet specified) and consider the following partition
$$[0,N\tau] = [0,\tau) \cup [\tau, 2\tau) \cup \cdots \cup [(N-1)\tau, N\tau],$$
where every interval $I_l:=[l\tau, (l+1)\tau)$ has length $\tau$. Further, we consider inputs $u\colon [0,T] \to \C$ that are constant on every interval, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{def:u}
u\vert_{I_l}(t):= u_l \in \C, \quad l =0,...,N-1.
\end{align}
%
%$I_l$ $l=0,...,K-1$ so that the mappings $$\theta \mapsto \operatorname{e}^{\tau_1\, \lambda_k(\theta)}$$ are injective for all $k=1,...,n$. Then, we
%
%
%for some complex numbers $u_0,...,u_{K-1}$.
%Also,
Let $\mathbf{1}_{I_l}$ denote the indicator function defined by
\begin{align*}
s \mapsto \mathbf{1}_{I_l}(s) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } s \in I_l\\ 0 & \text{ else }. \end{cases}
\end{align*}
Then we take input functions $u$ of the form
\begin{align*}
u(T-s)= \sum_{l=0}^{N-1} u_l \, \mathbf{1}_{I_l}(T-s)= \sum_{l=0}^{N-1} u_{N-1-l} \, \mathbf{1}_{I_l}(s).
\end{align*}
If $\lambda_k(\theta)\neq 0$ the $k$th component of the solution is then
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
\tilde \varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)(\theta) &= \int_0^{N\tau} \operatorname{e}^{ \lambda_k(\theta)s} u(N\tau-s) \di{s} \\
&= \sum_{l=0}^{N-1} \int_{l\tau}^{(l+1)\tau} \!\!\operatorname{e}^{\lambda_k(\theta)s} u_{N-1-l} \mathbf{1}_{I_l}(s) \di{s}\\
&= \left(\frac{ \operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} -1}{\tau \lambda(\theta)}\right)\sum_{l=0}^{N-1} \tau u_{N-1-l} \operatorname{e}^{l \tau \lambda_k(\theta)} .
\end{split}
\end{align*}
If $\lambda_k(\theta)=0$, we have
\begin{align*}
\tilde \varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)= \sum_{l=0}^{N-1} \int_{l\tau}^{(l+1)\tau} \!\!u_{N-1-l} \mathbf{1}_{I_l}(l\tau + s) \di{s}
= \sum_{l=0}^{N-1} \tau \,u_{N-1-l} .
\end{align*}
%Then, choose $\tau <\min\{\tau_1,\tau_2\}$.
\medskip
{\it Step~3: Approximate the solution by a polynomial}. Observing that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{l=0}^{N-1} u_{N-1-l} \left(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}\right)^l
\end{align*}
defines a polynomial whose coefficients are given by the values of the input function $u$ defined in \eqref{def:u}, let
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-p}
p(z) := \sum_{l=0}^{N-1} u_{N-1-l} \, z^l.%\operatorname{e}^{k\tau z}.
\end{align}
In terms of polynomial $p$ the $k$th component of the solution reads as
\begin{align}\label{eq:component_k}
\tilde\varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)=
\begin{cases}
\left(\frac{ \operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} -1}{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}\right) \,\tau \, p\left(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}\right) & \quad \text{ if }\lambda_k(\theta)\neq 0\\
\tau \, \, p\left(1\right) & \quad \text{ if } \lambda_k(\theta)=0.
\end{cases}
\end{align}
Moreover, since
\begin{align*}
\lim_{\tau \to 0} \frac{\operatorname{e}^{\tau z} -1}{ \tau z} = 1 \quad \text{ for all } z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus\{ 0\},
\end{align*}
there is a $\tau_1>0$ so that for any $\tau \in (0,\tau_1)$ we have
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp-est_1}
\left| \frac{\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} -1}{ \tau \lambda_k(\theta)} -1\right|< \tfrac{\varepsilon}{2} \qquad \text{ for all }\, \, \lambda_k(\theta)\neq 0, \, \, k=1,...,n.
\end{align}
%
%
%
%
%
% Let $K:= \left\lfloor \tfrac{T}{\tau}\right\rfloor$, where $\left\lfloor x\right\rfloor =\max \{z \in \mathbb{Z}: z \leq x\}$.
% and consider polynomials
% \begin{align}\label{eq:def-p}
% p(z) = \sum_{l=0}^{K-1} u_{K-l} \, z^l .
% \end{align}
Then, by \eqref{eq:component_k} and \eqref{eq:exp-est_1} for every $\tau \in (0, \tau_1)$ each component of the solution satisfies
\begin{align}\label{eq:exp-est-2}
\left| \tau p(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)})-\varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)(\theta) \right|< \tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}.
\end{align}
The significance of \eqref{eq:exp-est-2} is that it holds independently from the number of input values $u_0,...,u_{N-1}$.
%
% The significance of \eqref{eq:exp-est-2} is that the verification of the assertion can be traced back to the problem of approximating a continuous function uniformly by a polynomial.
\medskip
{\it Step~4: Approximation of each component of the target states by a polynomial}. First, we note that there is a $\tau_2>0$ such that the mappings $$\theta \mapsto \operatorname{e}^{\tau\, \lambda_k(\theta)}$$ are injective for all $k=1,...,n$ and all $\tau \in (0,\tau_2)$. Thus, we fix some $\tau <\min\{\tau_1,\tau_2\}$. Then, the sets
$$\Omega_k:=\{ \operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}: \theta \in \mathbf{P}\} \subset \mathbb{C}$$
define Jordan arcs. Moreover, let $g(\theta) =T(\theta)f(\theta) $ denote the transformed family of terminal states and consider the continuous function
\begin{align*}
\tilde g_k \colon \Omega_k \to \mathbb{C}, \quad \tilde g_k(z) = \tfrac{1}{\tau} g_k \left( \lambda^{-1}_k \left( \tfrac{\ln z}{\tau}\right) \right).
\end{align*}
Then, we can apply the results from Section~\ref{sec:approx} to construct polynomials $p_1,...,p_n$ such that
\begin{align*}
|\tilde g_k(z) - p_k(z)| < \tfrac{\varepsilon}{6\,\tau\, \|T\|_{M,\infty}} \qquad \forall \, \,z \in \Omega_k.
\end{align*}
for all $k=1,...,n$. Note that, the latter is equivalent to
\begin{align}\label{eq:est-mergelyan}
| g_k(\theta) - \tau p_k(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} )| < \tfrac{\varepsilon}{6\, \|T\|_{M,\infty}} \qquad \forall \, \,\theta \in \p.
\end{align}
\medskip
{\it Step~5: Construction of a single polynomial}. Let $\Omega = \bigcup_{k=1}^n \Omega_k$. Note that the assumptions imply that the sets $\Omega_1,..., \Omega_n$ are disjoint. Consider the holomorphic functions $h_1,...,h_n$ defined by
\begin{align*}
h_k\colon \Omega \to \C , \quad h_k(z)=
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{ if } z \in \Omega_k \\
0 & \text{ if } z \in \Omega \setminus \Omega_k
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
and compute via Runge's little Theorem polynomials $q_1,...,q_n$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \Omega} | q_k(z) - h_k(z))| < \frac{\varepsilon}{6\, \tau \, \|T\|_{M,\infty} \, \sum_{l=1}^n \alpha_{k,l}}
\end{align*}
for all $k=1,...,n$, where $\alpha_{k,l}:= \sup_{\theta \in \p}|p_k(\lambda_l(\theta))|$.
Then, we define the polynomial
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_poly_cont_si_case}
p(z) = \sum_{k=1}^n p_k(z)q_k(z).
\end{equation}
\medskip
{\it Step~6: Definition of the input values}. Consider the monic representation of polynomial in \eqref{eq:def_poly_cont_si_case}, i.e.
\begin{equation}\label{eq:def_poly_cont_si_case_monic}
p(z) = \sum_{k=1}^n p_k(z)q_k(z) = \sum_{k=0}^K c_k z^k.
\end{equation}
Then, we set $N=K+1$ and define the input values in \eqref{def:u} by
\begin{align*}
u_l = c_l, \quad l=0,...,N-1.
\end{align*}
Then, putting things together we get, for given $f \in C_n(\p)$ and $\varepsilon>0$, that each component satisfies
\begin{align*}
|\varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)(\theta)- f_k(\theta)| &\leq \|T\|_{M,\infty} \, \left|\tilde \varphi_k(N\tau,u,0)(\theta)-\tau p(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} ) \right|
\\ & \qquad \qquad + \|T\|_{M,\infty} \, \left| \tau p(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} )- g_k(\theta) \right| \\
%
&< \tfrac{\e}{2} + \|T\|_{M,\infty}\, \left| g_k(\theta) - \tau p_k(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} ) q_k( \operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}) \right| \\
& \qquad \qquad+ \|T\|_{M,\infty} \,\tau \,\sum_{l\neq k} \left| p_l(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}) \right| \,\left|q_l(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)}) \right|\\
&< \tfrac{\e}{2} + \tfrac{\e}{6} + \|T\|_{M,\infty} \, \left| g_k(\theta) - \tau p_k(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} ) \right| \\
& \qquad \qquad+ \|T\|_{M,\infty} \, \tau \left| 1-q_k( \operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)})\right|\, \left| p_k(\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} ) \right|\\
& < \tfrac{\e}{2} + \tfrac{\e}{6} + \tfrac{\e}{6} + \tfrac{\e}{6} = \e .
% &\|T\|_M \left|g_k(\theta) - \tau p_k (\operatorname{e}^{\tau \lambda_k(\theta)} )| + | | + | -\varphi_k(T,u,0)(\theta) \right| < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
Consequently, we have
\begin{align*}
\sup_{\theta \in \mathbf{P}} \|f(\theta) - \varphi(N\tau,u,0)(\theta)\| < \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Elements of Approximation Theory}\label{sec:approx}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section we discuss results from approximation theory for which constructive proofs are available. The presented results are due to Bernstein, Runge, Weierstrass and Walsh. Note that the definite result in this context is the famous Mergelyan's Theorem saying that a continuous function $f \colon K \to \C$ can be uniformly approximated by polynomials if $K$ is compact, $\C\setminus K$ is connected and $f$ is analytic in the interior of $K$, cf. \cite[Chap.~III, \S~2, Theorem~1]{gaier1987}. However, its highly ingenious method of proof is not constructive. Therefore we will present some special cases which can be proofed constructively and provide the ground for the computational Methods~S1 and~S2. This will be presented in the Section~\ref{sec:approx_runge_weier}. Moreover, in Section~\ref{sec:approx_walsh} we present some extension of the classical approximation theorems by Runge and Weierstrass, which were derived by Walsh more then twenty years before Mergelyan's result.
% Since the exposition of the these results in the literature focuses on the existence of approximating polynomials rather then an explicit construction, we display the parts of the proofs explicitely that are used in Section~\ref{sec:poly_si_methods}.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Approximation Theorems of Runge and Weierstrass}\label{sec:approx_runge_weier}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
We start with the Weierstrass approximation theorems and consider the special cases where the continuous function that shall be approximated additionally satisfies a Lipschitz condition. Recall that for a function $f\in C([a,b],\R)$ the $n$th Bernstein polynomial is given by
% \begin{align*}
% B_{n,f}(x):= \sum_{k=0}^n {n \choose k}\, f(\tfrac{k}{n}) \,x^k \, (1-x)^{n-k}.
% \end{align*}
% Using the linear transformation
% \begin{align*}
% T\colon [a,b] \to [0,1], \quad y=T(x)= \frac{x-a}{b-a}
% \end{align*}
% a simple calculation shows that the Bernstein polynomials on the interval $[a,b]$ for $f$ are
\begin{align*}
B_{n,f}(x):= \frac{1}{(b-a)^n}\sum_{k=0}^n {n \choose k}\, f(a+\tfrac{k}{n}(b-a)) \,(x-a)^k \, (b-x)^{n-k}.
\end{align*}
Also, a function $f\colon[a,b] \to \C$ is said to satisfy a Lipschitz condition if there is a constant $L_f>0$ such that
\begin{align*}
|f(x)-f(y)| \leq L_f |x-y|
\end{align*}
for all $x,y \in [a,b]$. For complex-valued functions $f \colon [a,b] \to \C$ one can apply the latter to the real and imaginary part. That is, for $f(x) = g(x)+ih(x)$ we consider the complex Bernstein polynomial $B_{n,f}(x) = B_{n,g}(x) + i B_{n,h}(x) $. Next, we recap a result of Gzyl and Palacios that provides an explicit error bound, cf. \cite{gzyl1997}.
\begin{theorem}[Gzyl, Palacios (1997)]\label{thm:gzyl}
Let $f\colon [a,b]\to \C$ satisfy a Lipschitz condition. Then, for $n \geq 3$ the sequence of complex Bernstein polynomials satisfies
\begin{align*}
\|f - B_{n,f}\|_{\infty} \leq \sqrt{2}
\left( 4\,M_f + \frac{(b-a)\,L_f}{2} \right) \frac{\sqrt{\log n}}{\sqrt{n}}.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
%
Note that, since Gyzl and Palacios consider real-valued functions defined on the unit interval, the constants in the previous statement are adjusted.
%
% \begin{center}
% >------------------------------------------------------------<
% \end{center}
% \newpage
%
Similarly, the second or trigonometric Weierstrass approximation theorem can also be proven constructively. It is based on Fej\'{e}r's Theorem and we first introduce Fej\'{e}r polynomials. Associated with a continuous function $f\colon \partial \mathbb{D} \to \C$ we call
\begin{align*}
F_{f,n}(z) := \sum_{k=-n+1}^{n-1} \frac{n-|k|}{n} \hat f (k)\, \, z^k
\end{align*}
the $n$th Fej\'{e}r polynomial, where
\begin{align*}
\hat f(k) := \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^\pi f(e^{is}) e^{-iks} \di{s}
\end{align*}
denotes the $k$th \emph{Fourier coefficient} of $f$.
% Then, a simple calculation shows that
% \begin{align*}
% F_{f,n}(e^{it}) = \sum_{k=-n+1}^{n-1} \frac{n-|k|}{n} \hat f (k)\, \, e^{ikt} = \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(e^{is}) \sum_{k=-n+1}^{n-1} \frac{n-|k|}{n} e^{i(t-s)} \di{s}.
% \end{align*}
% That is, the Fej\'{e}r polynomial $F_{f,n}$ is a convolution of $f$ with the so-called \emph{Fej\'{e}r-kernel} $K_n(s) = \sum_{k=-n+1}^{n-1} \frac{n-|k|}{n} e^{is}$. It is well-known that $K_n$ can also be written as
% \begin{align*}
% K_n(s) = \frac{1}{n} \frac{\sin^2\left( \tfrac{n s}{2} \right) }{\sin^2(\tfrac{s}{2})},\qquad s \not =0
% \end{align*}
% and $K_n(0) = \tfrac{1}{n}$. Another simple caclulation yields the following representation of the Fej\'{e}r-polynomials
% \begin{align*}
% F_{f,n}(e^{it}) &= \frac{1}{ 2 \pi \, n} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} f(e^{is}) \frac{\sin^2\left( \tfrac{n (t-s)}{2} \right) }{\sin^2(\tfrac{(t-s)}{2})} \di{s}
% =\frac{1}{ \pi \, n} \int_{-\tfrac{\pi}{2}}^{\tfrac{\pi}{2}} f(e^{i(t-2s)}) \frac{\sin^2\left( n s \right) }{\sin^2(s)} \di{s}
% \\&
% =\frac{1}{ \pi \, n} \int_{-\tfrac{\pi}{2}}^{0} f(e^{i(t-2s)}) \frac{\sin^2\left( n s \right) }{\sin^2(s)} \di{s} + \frac{1}{ \pi \, n} \int_{0}^{\tfrac{\pi}{2}} f(e^{i(t-2s)}) \frac{\sin^2\left( n s \right) }{\sin^2(s)} \di{s}
% \\&
% \frac{1}{ \pi \, n} \int_{0}^{\tfrac{\pi}{2}} \left( f(e^{i(t+2s)}) +f(e^{i(t-2s)}) \right) \frac{\sin^2\left( n s \right) }{\sin^2(s)} \di{s} .
% \end{align*}
% Moreover, for the function $f\equiv 1$ we get that
% \begin{align}\label{eq:fejer_int=1}
% \frac{1}{ \pi \, n} \int_{0}^{\tfrac{\pi}{2}} 2\, \frac{\sin^2\left( n s \right) }{\sin^2(s)} \di{s} =1.
% \end{align}
%
%
% can show that the \emph{Fej\'{e}r-kernel} has the following properties.
%
% \begin{lemma}\label{lem:Fej\'{e}r-kernel_porps}
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item $K_n(0)=n+1$ and for all $s \neq 0$ it holds
% \begin{align*}
% K_n(s) = \frac{1}{n+1} \left(\frac{\sin\left( \tfrac{(n+1)s}{2} \right) }{\sin(\tfrac{s}{2})}\right)^2 .
% \end{align*}
% \item $K_n(s)\geq 0$ for all $s \in [-\pi,\pi]$.
% \item For every $\delta>0$ it holds
% \begin{align*}
% K_n(s) \leq \frac{1}{n+1} \left(\frac{1}{\sin(\tfrac{\delta}{2})}\right)^2.
% \end{align*}
% In particular, $K_n(s)$ converges uniformly to zero on $[-\pi,\delta)\cup (\delta,\pi]$.
% \item It holds
% \begin{align*}
% \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} K_n(s) \di{s}.
% \end{align*}
% \end{enumerate}
%
% \end{lemma}
%
From \cite[Ch.~VIII, Sec.~1, Thm.~1 and Sec.~2, Thm.~3]{natanson1964constructive} we recap the following result.
\begin{theorem}[Second Weierstrass Theorem]\label{thm:weier-circ}
Suppose that $f\colon \partial \mathbb{D} \to \C$ is continuous. Let $(F_n)_{n\in \N}$ denote the Fej\'{e}r polynomials.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] Then, the sequence $(F_n)_{n\in \N}$ converges uniformly to $f$.
\item[(b)] If $f$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition it holds
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \partial \mathbb{D}} |f(z)- F_{f,n}(z)| \leq 2 \sqrt{2} \pi \,L_f \cdot \frac{\ln n }{n},
\end{align*}
where $L_f>0$ denotes the Lipschitz constant.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
%
\medskip
We note that sharper but less explicit error bounds for the second Weierstrass approximation Theorem have been derived in L.~Lorch~\cite{lorch1962approximation}, S.M.~Nikolski~\cite{nikolski1940allure} and S.A.~Telyakovskii \cite{telyakovskii1969approximation}.
% \begin{center}
% >------------------ \"Ubergang --------------------<
% \end{center}
Another famous result from approximation theory, which is due to Runge. Before presenting a constructive proof, we have to fix some notation. The presentation of Runge's little Theorem is based on \cite{greene_krantz_1997} and \cite{remmert2013classical}. Let $\gamma$ denote a closed (piecewise) $C^1$-path. With a slight abuse of notation we denote its trace also by $\gamma$. Then,
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{ind}_{\gamma}(z) := \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{\xi-z} \di{\xi}\,,
\quad z\in \C\setminus \gamma
\end{align*}
denotes the winding number of $z$ with respect to $\gamma$. Moreover, a closed polygon $\tau=[p_1\,p_2\,\cdots\, p_k\, p_1]$
composed of finitely many horizontal or vertical segments $[p_1\,p_2]$,$[p_2\,p_3]$,..., $[p_k\,p_1]$ is called a \emph{grid polygon} if
there exists a not necessarily regular grid $G \subset \C$ of horizontal or vertical lines such that all vertices $p_1,...,p_k$ are pairwise distinct adjacent grid point of $G$. Moreover, let
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{ext} \gamma := \{ z\in \C\setminus \gamma \, | \, \operatorname{ind}_{\gamma}(z) = 0\}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{int} \gamma := \{ z\in \C\setminus\gamma\, | \, \operatorname{ind}_{\gamma}(z) = 1\}
\quad \text{ or } \quad
\operatorname{int} \gamma := \{ z\in \C\setminus\gamma\, | \, \operatorname{ind}_{\gamma}(z) = -1\}
\end{align*}
depending on the orientation of $\gamma$. We will not provide a complete proof. As we are interested a constructive method we will leave out some analytical parts and refer to \cite{remmert2013classical}. We note that the proof will contain explicit estimates on the degree of the approximating polynomial as well as an explicit representation of its coefficients.
\begin{theorem}[Runge's little Theorem (1885)]\label{thm:runge}
Let $K\subset \C$ be compact such that $\C \setminus K$ is connected. If there is an open set $\Omega$ containing $K$ such that $f$ is holomorphic on $\Omega$, then for every $\e>0$ there is polynomial $p$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z\in K} |f(z)-p(z)|< \e.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
%
%
%\medskip
%\noindent
\begin{proof}
The proof is carried out in four constructive steps. We start with the construction of finitely many grid polygons in $\Omega\setminus K$ so that $f$ can be represented via the Cauchy integral formula for compact sets.
%
%
% Let $\e>0$. and all constants depending on $f$ and $K$, $\Omega$ ...
% \emph{Step~1.} {\bfseries $\Omega$ + $K$ define $\tau_1,....,\tau_N$ and $\delta$ = length of the $\tau_k$'s }
\medskip
\noindent
{\bfseries Step~1: Grid polygon construction} \emph{There are finitely many distinct oriented horizontal or vertical line segments $\tau_1,...,\tau_N$ of length $\delta < \tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \operatorname{d}(K,\partial \Omega)$ so that
\begin{align*}
f(z)= \sum_{k=1}^N \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\tau_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi}\qquad \forall \, \, z \in K.
\end{align*}
}
\medskip
\noindent
\emph{Proof of Step~1:}
Let $\delta\in (0,\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \operatorname{d}(K,\partial \Omega))$ and consider a grid consisting of lines that are parallel to the real and imaginary axis so that the distance between two parallel lines is $\delta$. Since $K$ is compact there are finitely many boxes $Q_1,...,Q_n$ that intersect with $K$ and satisfy
\begin{align*}
K \subset \bigcup_{k=1}^n Q_k \subset \Omega.
\end{align*}
Indeed, for $q_l \in Q_l$ it follows from $2\delta < \operatorname{d}(K,\partial \Omega)$ that $B_{\delta}(q_l) \subset \Omega$. As each box has diameter $\sqrt{2}\delta$ and
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{2}\delta < \operatorname{d}(K,\partial \Omega)< \operatorname{d}(q_l,\partial \Omega)
\end{align*}
it follows that $Q_l\subset \Omega$.
The boundaries of the boxes $Q_1,...,Q_n$ consist of line segments. We now pick those boundary segments that are not common for two distinct boxes $Q_l$ and $Q_m$ with $l\neq m$. Let $\tau_1,...,\tau_N$ denote the selected segments. The construction yields that
\begin{align*}
\bigcup_{k=1}^N \gamma_k \subset \Omega\setminus K.
\end{align*}
Indeed, if line segment $\tau_k$ meets $K$, there are two boxes of the grid having $\tau_k$ as a common side, a contradiction to the choice of the segments $\tau_1, ..., \tau_N$.
Let $z \in K$ be a point that does not lie on any boundary of the boxes $Q_1,...,Q_n$. Then, there is exactly one box $Q_l$ containing $z$ and it holds
\begin{align*}
f(z)= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial Q_l} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi} \quad \text{ and } \int_{\partial Q_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi} =0 \quad \forall\, k\neq l .
\end{align*}
Since common sides of different boxes of the grid occur twice with different orientation it follows that
\begin{align*}
f(z)= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \sum_{k=1}^n \int_{\partial Q_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \sum_{k=1}^N \int_{\gamma_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi} =0.
\end{align*}
Moreover, as shown in \cite[Chapter~12, \S~1.1]{remmert2013classical}, the last equality also holds for all $z \in K$ that are on the boundary of some box.
$\,$ \hfill {\small $\Box$}
\medskip
Now, let $\e>0$, $\delta>0$ and $N$ be fixed. Moreover, let $L>0$ denote the Lipschitz constant of the function $\xi \mapsto \tfrac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z}$ on $ \tau$.
\medskip
% Following the proof of the Theorem~\ref{thm:Cauchy-formula-compacta} we construct finitely many line segments $\tau_1,...,\tau_N$ such that of For every $\delta \in (0,\tfrac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \operatorname{d}(K,\partial \Omega))$ there are finitely many distinct oriented horizontal or vertical line segments $\tau_1,...,\tau_n$ of length $\delta$ such that for all $z \in K$ it holds
% \begin{align*}
% f(z)= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \sum_{k=1}^N\int_{\tau_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi}.
% \end{align*}
\noindent
{\bfseries Step~2: Rational approximation} \emph{Let $M:= \lfloor\tfrac{3}{\e}\tfrac{2\pi}{\delta^2 \,L\,N}\rfloor$ and divide each line segment in $M$ subsegments of length $\tfrac{\delta}{M}$. Let the subsegments be denoted by $\tau_{k,l}$, for $l=1,...,M$ and $k=1,...,N$. Take distinct points $w^{(k)}_{l} \in \tau_{k,l}$ such that $|w^{(k)}_{l+1} - w^{(k)}_{l}| \leq \tfrac{\delta}{M}$ and let
\begin{align*}
c^{(k)}_l:= f(w^{(k)}_l) \int_{\tau_{k,l}} \di{\xi} \quad \text{ for } l=1,...,M \text{ and } k=1,...,N.
\end{align*}
Then, the rational function
\begin{align*}
r(z)= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} \frac{c^{(k)}_l}{w^{(k)}_l-z}
\end{align*}
approximates $f$ uniformly on $K$, i.e. $r$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z\in K} | f(z)-r(z)|< \tfrac{\e}{3}.
\end{align*}
}
\medskip
\noindent
\emph{Proof of Step~2:}
It holds
\begin{align*}
\left| \int_{\tau_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z}\di{\xi} - \sum_{l=1}^{M} \frac{c^{(k)}_l}{w^{(k)}_l-z} \right|
&=
\left| \sum_{l=1}^M \int_{\tau_{k,l}} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z}\di{\xi}
- \sum_{l=1}^{M} \int_{\tau_{k,l}} \frac{f(w^{(k)}_l)}{w^{(k)}_l-z} \di{\xi}
\right|
\\
&\leq \sum_{l=1}^M
\left| \int_{\tau_{k,l}} \left( \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} - \frac{f(w^{(k)}_l)}{w^{(k)}_l-z} \right)\di{\xi} \right|\\
&\leq \sum_{l=1}^M \frac{\delta}{M} \max_{\xi \in \tau_{k,l}} \left|\frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} - \frac{f(w^{(k)}_l)}{w^{(k)}_l-z} \right| .
\end{align*}
As the function $\xi \mapsto \tfrac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z}$ is Lipschitz continuous on $ \tau$ one has
\begin{align*}
\left| \int_{\tau_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z}\di{\xi} - \sum_{l=1}^{M} \frac{c^{(k)}_l}{z-w^{(k)}_l} \right| &\leq
\sum_{l=1}^M \frac{\delta}{M} L\, \max_{\xi \in \tau_{k,l}} \left|\xi - w^{(k)}_l \right|
\leq \frac{\delta^2L}{M}
% \sum_{l=1}^m
% \left| \int_{[w^{(k)}_{l}\, w^{(k)}_{l+1}]} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z}\di{\xi} - \int_{[w^{(k)}_{l}\, w^{(k)}_{l+1}]} \frac{f(w^{(k)}_l)}{z-w^{(k)}_l} \di{\xi} \right|\\
% &\leq \sum_{l=1}^m L |\xi - w_k| \di{\xi} < \e
\end{align*}
for every $z \in K$.
% Then, defining
% \begin{align*}
% q(z)= \sum_{l=1}^N \frac{\int_{\tau_k} h(w_k)\di{\xi}}{w_k-z}
% \end{align*}
% leads to
% \begin{align*}
% \left| \int_{\tau} v(\xi,z) \di{\xi} - q(z)\right|& \leq \sum_{l=1}^N \left| \int_{\tau_l} v(\xi,z) \di{\xi} - \frac{\int_{\tau_l} h(w_l)}{w_l-z} \di{\xi} \right|\\
% &\leq \sum_{l=1}^N \int_{\tau_l} \left| v(\xi,z) - v(w_l,z) \right| \di{\xi}
% \leq \sum_{l=1}^N \int_{\tau_l} L\, \left| \xi - w_l \right| \di{\xi} \leq \e.
% \end{align*}
Thus, for all $z\in K$ one has
\begin{align*}
|f(z) - r(z)| \leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^N \left| \int_{\tau_k} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi} - \sum_{l=1}^{M} \frac{c^{(k)}_l}{w^{(k)}_l-z} \right|
\leq \frac{N}{2\pi}\cdot \frac{\delta^2L}{M} \,
< \frac{\e}{3}.
\end{align*}
$\,$ \hfill {\small $\Box$}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bfseries Step~3: Pole shifting} \emph{
Let $\eta = \max_{z \in K} |z|$ and let $b \in \C \setminus K$ with $|b|>2\eta$, $\delta_{kl}:= | w^{(k)}_l -b|$ and $\alpha:=\min_{z\in K} |z-b|$. Then, the rational function
\begin{align*}
r_b(z)= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} c^{(k)}_l q_{kl}\left(\frac{1}{z-b} \right),
\end{align*}
defined by the polynomials $q_{kl}(z) =z+ (w^{(k)}_l-b) z^2+ \cdots + (w^{(k)}_l -b)^{m_{kl}} z^{m_{kl}+1}$ of degree
\begin{align}\label{eq:degree_r_b}
m_{kl}+1 \geq \frac{\log \left( \frac{\e}{3} \frac{2\pi(\alpha-\delta_{kl})}{ NM\,|c^{(k)}_l|} \right) } {\log(\delta_{kl}) - \log(\alpha) }
\end{align}
approximates $r$ uniformly on $K$, i.e. $r_b$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z\in K} | r(z)-r_b(z)|< \tfrac{\e}{3}.
\end{align*}
}
\medskip
\noindent
\emph{Proof of Step~3:}
% Similar to \eqref{eq:krantz-geometric-series}
Since
\begin{align}\label{eq:krantz-geometric-series}
\frac{1}{z-w^{(k)}_l} = \frac{1}{z-b} \cdot \frac{1}{1-\tfrac{w^{(k)}_l-b}{z-b}}= \frac{1}{z-b} \sum_{v=0}^\infty \left(\tfrac{w^{(k)}_l-b}{z-b}\right)^v
\end{align}
for all $z \in K$, one has
\begin{align*}
|r(z)- r_b(z)| &\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} | c^{(k)}_l| \,\left| \frac{1}{w^{(k)}_l-z} - q_{kl}\left(\frac{1}{z-b} \right) \right| \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} | c^{(k)}_l| \,\left| \frac{1}{w^{(k)}_l-z} - \frac{1}{z-b} \sum_{p=0}^{m_{kl}} \left(\frac{w^{(k)}_l -b}{z-b} \right)^p \right| \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} \, \frac{| c^{(k)}_l| }{|z-b|} \sum_{p=m_{kl}+1}^\infty \left|\frac{w^{(k)}_l -b}{z-b} \right|^p \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} \, \frac{| c^{(k)}_l| }{\alpha} \sum_{p=m_{kl}+1}^\infty \left|\frac{\delta_{kl}}{\alpha} \right|^p \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} \, \frac{| c^{(k)}_l| }{\alpha - \delta_{kl}} \left(\frac{\delta_{kl}}{\alpha}\right)^{m_{kl}+1}.
\end{align*}
The assertion then follows from observing that \eqref{eq:degree_r_b} is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{\delta_{kl}}{\alpha}\right)^{m_{kl}+1} \leq \frac{\e}{3} \, \frac{2\pi(\alpha-\delta_{kl}) }{ NM\,|c^{(k)}_l|}.
\end{align*}
$\,$ \hfill {\small $\Box$}
\medskip
\noindent
{\bfseries Step~4: Polynomial approximation} \emph{
The polynomial
\begin{align}\label{eq:runge_poly}
p(z):= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} c^{(k)}_l \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} (w^{(k)}_l-b)^v p_{kl}^{(v)}(z),
\end{align}
where
\begin{align*}
p_{kl}^{(v)}(z)&:= a^{(klv)}_0 + a^{(klv)}_1z+\cdots + a^{(klv)}_{m^{(v)}_{kl}} z^{m^{(v)}_{kl}+1},\\
% \end{align*}
% and
% \begin{align*}
a^{(klv)}_s &:= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial B_{r}(0)} \frac{\di{\xi}}{\xi^{s+1} (\xi-b)^{v+1}}, \qquad s=0,1,...,m_{kl}^{(v)}, \quad r:=\tfrac{|b|}{2},
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align}\label{eq:degree_p}
m^{(v)}_{kl} +1 >
\frac{\log \left( 1+\frac{\e}{3} \cdot \frac{2\pi}{ NM\,r\, |c^{(k)}_l|} \cdot (r-\eta) \cdot (\delta_{kl}-r)\right) } {\log \delta_{kl} - \log r } ,\qquad \eta := \max_{z \in K}|z|
\end{align}
approximates $r_b$ uniformly on $K$, i.e. $p$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z\in K} | r_b(z)-p(z)|< \tfrac{\e}{3}.
\end{align*}
}
\medskip
\noindent
\emph{Proof of Step~4:} By construction, for $z \in K$, we have
\begin{align*}
| r_b(z)-p(z)| &\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \left| \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} \frac{(w^{(k)}_l-b)^v}{(z-b)^{v+1}} - (w^{(k)}_l-b)^v p_{kl}^{(v)}(z) \right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} | w^{(k)}_l-b|^v \, \left| \frac{1}{(z-b)^{v+1}} - p_{kl}^{(v)}(z) \right|.
\end{align*}
Since the function $\frac{1}{(z-b)^{v+1}}$ is holomorphic on $B_r(0)$ its series expansion around zero is given by the coefficients
\begin{align*}
a^{(klv)}_\mu := \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial B_r(0)} \frac{\di{\xi}}{\xi^{\mu+1} (\xi-b)^{v+1}}, \qquad \mu=0,1,2,3,...., \quad r:=\tfrac{|b|}{2}>1.
\end{align*}
That is,
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{(z-b)^{v+1}} = \sum_{\mu=0}^\infty a_\mu^{(klv)} z^\mu
\end{align*}
and one has
\begin{align*}
\left| \frac{1}{(z-b)^{v+1}} - p_{kl}^{(v)}(z) \right|\leq \sum_{\mu=m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}^\infty |a_\mu^{(klv)}| |z|^\mu.
\end{align*}
By the Cauchy estimates \cite[Theorem~3.4.1]{greene_krantz_1997} one has
\begin{align*}
|a^{(klv)}_\mu | \leq \frac{1}{r^{\mu}} \max_{|\xi|=r} \frac{1}{|\xi-b|^{v+1}} = \frac{1}{r^{\mu}} \cdot \frac{1}{\min_{|\xi|=r} |\xi-b|^{v+1}} = \frac{1}{r^{\mu}} \cdot \frac{1}{ r^{v+1}} .
\end{align*}
Consequently, with $| w^{(k)}_l-b|^v = (\delta_{kl})^v$ for $z \in K$, we have
\begin{align*}
| r_b(z)-p(z)| %&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \left| \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} \frac{(w^{(k)}_l-b)^v}{(z-b)^{v+1}} - (w^{(k)}_l-b)^v p_{kl}^{(v)}(z) \right|\\
% &\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} \left| \frac{(w^{(k)}_l-b)^v}{(z-b)^{v+1}} - (w^{(k)}_l-b)^v p_{kl}^{(v)}(z) \right|\\
%&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} | w^{(k)}_l-b|^v \, \left| \frac{1}{(z-b)^{v+1}} - p_{kl}^{(v)}(z) \right|\\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \, \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} \, \frac{(\delta_{kl})^v}{r^{v+1}} \sum_{\mu=m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}^\infty \left(\tfrac{|z|}{r}\right)^\mu \\
&\leq \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l| \, \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} \, \frac{(\delta_{kl})^v}{r^{v+1}} \sum_{\mu=m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}^\infty \left(\tfrac{\eta}{r}\right)^\mu \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l|\, \frac{\left(\tfrac{\eta}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}}{r-\eta} \sum_{v=0}^{m_{kl}} \, \left(\frac{\delta_{kl}}{r} \right)^{v} \\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l|\, \frac{\left(\tfrac{\eta}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}}{r-\eta} \,
\left( \frac{ 1- \left( \tfrac{\delta_{kl}}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}+1} }{1-\frac{\delta_{kl}}{r} } \right) \\
&< \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} |c^{(k)}_l|\, \frac{r}{(r-\eta)(r-\delta_{kl})} \,
\left( 1- \left( \tfrac{\delta_{kl}}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}+1} \right) ,
%\frac{1}{1-\frac{
% \delta_{kl}}{r} \right)
%
% \\
% &= \frac{1}{2\pi} \sum_{k=1}^{N} \sum_{l=1}^{M} \frac{r\,|c^{(k)}_l|}{2\eta-r - \delta_{kl}} \,
% %
% \, \left( 1- \left( \frac{\delta_{kl}}{2\eta-r}\right)^{m_{kl}+1} \right)
% %
% \frac{\left(\tfrac{\eta}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}}{r-\eta } .
\end{align*}
where in the last inequality we used that $ \left(\tfrac{\eta}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}^{(v)}+1}<1$ since $\eta < r$. By construction it holds $\delta_{kl}>r$ and thus \eqref{eq:degree_p} is equivalent to
\begin{align*}
1 - \left(\frac{\delta_{kl}}{r}\right)^{m_{kl}^{(v)}+1} < \frac{\e}{3} \cdot \frac{2\pi}{NM\,r\,|c^{(k)}_l|} \cdot (r-\eta) \cdot (r-\delta_{kl}) .
\end{align*}
This completes step~4.
$\,$ \hfill {\small $\Box$}
\medskip
The above construction steps yield for every $z\in K$
\begin{align*}
|f(z) - p(z)| \leq |f(z) - r(z)| + |r(z) - r_b(z)| + |r_b(z) - p(z)| < \e,
\end{align*}
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] The set $\bigcup_{k=1}^N \tau_k$ is determined only by the sets $\Omega$ and $K$, and the grid constructed in Step~1. The set $\bigcup_{k=1}^N \tau_k$ also contains all the poles of $r$ and is independent from the quality of approximation.
\item[(b)] If $\e>0$ decreases the number of poles of the approximating rational function increases, however, the poles will still be located on $\bigcup_{k=1}^N \tau_k$.
\item[(c)] It is shown in \cite[Chapter~12, \S~4]{remmert2013classical} that the line segments $\tau_1,...,\tau_N$ close to cycle $\tau$ consisting of finitely many grid polygons. In general it is not possible to find a single closed path $\Gamma$ such that
\begin{align*}
f(z)= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\Gamma} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi-z} \di{\xi}\qquad \forall \, \, z \in K.
\end{align*}
A counterexample is given \cite[Chapter~12, \S~1]{remmert2013classical}. However, under suitable assumptions on the compact set $K$, the line segments $\tau_1,...,\tau_N$ yield a single closed grid polygon, cf. \cite[Theorem~9~(b)]{JDE_ensembles_2021}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remark}
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Walsh's results}\label{sec:approx_walsh}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \medskip
% \begin{center}
% >------------------ \"Ubergang --------------------<
% \end{center}
%
%
%
% As the goal of this section is provide computational methods to determine suitable polynomials that approximate a given continuous function we go ahead and provide a constructive method to proof the following special case of Mergelyan's Theorem, which was shown by Walsh in 1926.
%
%
% \begin{center}
% >--------------------------------------<
% \end{center}
%
% In order to prove the Walsh's refinement of Runge's theorem, which is still considerably short of Mergelyan's Theorem, we have to consider the sequences of domains, or more precisely we provide a notion for convergence of sequences of domains.
%
% Let $(\Omega_n)_{n \in \N} \subset \C$ be a sequence of simply connected domains containing the origin $z=0$. If there is an $r>0$ such that the disc $D_r(0)$ lies in all domains $\Omega_n$, then a domain $K$ is called the \emph{kernel} of $(\Omega_n)_{n \in \N}$ if it is the largest\footnote{By largest domain is meant the domain containing any other domain possessing this property.} domain containing $z=0$ so that for every closed subset $\tilde K$ there is an $\tilde n \in \N$ such that $\tilde K \subset \Omega_n$ for all $n \geq \tilde n$. In the case the sequence does not contain such a disc, its kernel is defined as $z=0$. A sequence $(\Omega_n)_{n\in \N}$ is said to converge to its kernel $K$, denoted by $\Omega_n \to K$ if every subsquence of it also has $K$ as its kernel.
\medskip
In this subsection we shall prove Walsh's refinement of Runge's theorem, which is still considerably short of Mergelyan's Theorem. The treatise of the results of Walsh is taken from the original papers \cite{walsh1926_1}, \cite{walsh1926_2}. The results are also contained in the Walsh's monograph \cite{walsh1965interpolation}, the description of the proofs, however, is less explicit. Recall that, a {\it Jordan arc} is a homeomorphic image of a compact interval. The result is a follows, cf. \cite[Bemerkung~$6^{\circ}$]{walsh1926_2}.
\begin{theorem}[Walsh (1926)]\label{thm:walsh-arc}
Let $\gamma$ be a Jordan arc. If $f$ is continuous on $\gamma$ it can uniformly approximated on $ \gamma$ by a polynomial in $z$.
\end{theorem}
Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} is suitable for the ensemble reachability problem. This is because the parameter-dependent matrices are assumed to be continuous and thus, the eigenvalues also depend continuously on the parameter. Moreover, for single-input systems the necessary conditions yields that the eigenvalues define Jordan arcs provided $\p$ is a Jordan arc. Therefore, we consider the instances so that the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} yields a constructive method. A proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} is given at the end of this section. In Section~\ref{sec:approx_extensions_arcs} we outline conditions so that the results of Walsh can be used to derive a constructive method.
Before we come to the proof we need some preparation. To do so, we have to consider sequences of Jordan curves, or more precisely we provide a notion of convergence for sequences of Jordan curves. Recall that, a {\it Jordan curve} {is a homeomorphic image (within $\C$) of the unit circle $\partial \mathbb{D}$}.
Following Courant \cite{courant1922bemerkungen}, a
% \begin{definition}[Courant (1922)]
% A
sequence $(\Gamma_n)_{n \in \N} \subset \C$ of Jordan curves is said to converge to a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ if (i) any accumulation point of any sequence $(p_n)_{n \in \N}$ with $p_n \in \inte \Gamma_n $ lies on $\Gamma$ and (ii) for every $\e>0$ there are $n(\e) \in \N$ and $\delta(\e)>0$ with $\lim_{\e \to 0} \delta(\e) = 0$ such that for every $p \in \Gamma$ and for every $q_1,q_2 \in \inte \Gamma_n \cap B_{\e}(p)$, $n > n(\e)$ there is a polygon $\tau_n$ in $\Gamma_n$ connecting $q_1$ and $q_2$ so that $\operatorname{diam} \tau_n:= \sup \{|z-w|\, | z,w \in \tau_n\}< \delta(\e)$.
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item any accumulation point of any sequence $(p_n)_{n \in \N}$ with $p_n \in \inte \Gamma_n $ lies on $\Gamma$,
% \item for every $\e>0$ there are $n(\e) \in \N$ and $\delta(\e)>0$ with $\lim_{\e \to 0} \delta(\e) = 0$ such that for every $p \in \Gamma$ and for every $q_1,q_2 \in \inte \Gamma_n \cap B_{\e}(p)$, $n > n(\e)$ there is a polygon $\tau_n$ in $\Gamma_n$ connecting $q_1$ and $q_2$ so that $\operatorname{diam} \tau_n:= \sup \{|z-w|\, | z,w \in \tau_n\}< \delta(\e)$.
% \end{enumerate}
% % \end{definition}
%
%
% \medskip
Let $\Omega$ be a proper subdomain of $\C$. Recall that a function $f\colon \Omega \to \D$ is called conformal if it is holomorphic, one-to-one and onto. The following result is due to Courant, cf. \cite{courant1914ueber,courant1922bemerkungen}.
\begin{theorem}[Courant (1914)]\label{thm:courant}
Let $\Omega$ and $(\Omega_n)_{n\in \N}$ be domains containing the origin such that the boundaries $\Gamma=\partial \Omega$ and $\Gamma_n=\partial \Omega_n$ are Jordan curves. Let $\psi \colon \overline{\D} \to \overline{\Omega}$ and $\psi_n\colon \overline{\D} \to \overline{\Omega_n}$, $n\in \N$ denote continuous functions that are one-to-one, onto, and conformal on $\D$ such that $\psi(0)=\psi_n(0)=0$ and $\psi'(0)>0 $ and $\psi'_n(0)>0$. Then, $(\psi_n)_{n \in \N}$ converges uniformly on $\overline{\D}$ to $\psi$ if and only if $(\Gamma_n)_{n\in \N}$ converges to $\Gamma$.
\end{theorem}
Using a different method, Courant's Theorem was also derived by Rad\'{o} \cite{rado1923representation}. We note that Rad\'{o} used the Fr\'{e}chet-distance to characterize convergence for sequences of Jordan curves. That these notions are in fact equivalent was shown by Markushevich. A nice and in-depth exposition for this, as well as extensions to more general domains can be found in \cite{Gaier_math_z_1956}.
For a given Jordan curve $\Gamma$ a sequence of Jordan curves $(\Gamma_n)_{n \in \N}$ that converges to $\Gamma$ from outside, i.e. $\Gamma_n \subset \C \setminus \overline{\inte \Gamma}$, can be constructed via the grid construction in Step~1 in the proof Runge's Theorem. Indeed, as illustrated in Step~1 in the proof Runge's Theorem, it is sufficient to choose a grid consisting of horizontal and vertical lines defined by
\begin{align*}
x = \frac{k}{2^n} \qquad y= \frac{l}{2^n}, \quad k,l \in \mathbb{Z}
\end{align*}
and define $\Gamma_n$ as the boundary of the boxes given by the vertices
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{k}{2^n}, \frac{l}{2^n} \right), \, \, \left(\frac{k+1}{2^n}, \frac{l}{2^n} \right) , \, \, \left(\frac{k+1}{2^n}, \frac{l+1}{2^n} \right), \, \,\left(\frac{k}{2^n}, \frac{l+1}{2^n} \right)
\end{align*}
that intersect with $\overline{\inte \Gamma}$. Next we recap a proof for a refinement of Runge's theorem, which is also due to Walsh, cf. \cite[Satz]{walsh1926_1}.
\begin{theorem}[Walsh (1926)]\label{thm:walsh_jordan_curve_poly}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve and suppose that $f$ is holomorphic on $\inte \Gamma$
and continuous on $\overline{ \inte \Gamma}$. Then, $f$ can be uniformly approximated on $\overline{ \inte \Gamma}$ by polynomials. That is, for every $\e>0$ there is a polynomial $p$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z\in \overline{\inte \Gamma} } | f (z)- p(z)| < \e.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
%
\begin{proof}
Let $\e>0$ and let w.l.o.g. $z=0 \in \inte \Gamma$. Using the grid construction as in the proof of Runge's theorem there is sequence $(\Gamma_n)_{n \in \N}$ of grid polygons such that $ \Gamma_n \subset \C \setminus \overline{\inte \Gamma}$ and $(\Gamma_n)_{n \in \N}$ converges to $\Gamma$. Then, we consider the conformal mappings
\begin{align*}
\Phi &\colon {\inte \Gamma} \to \D, \quad \,\,\,\, \, \Phi(0)=0, \, \Phi'(0)>0 \\
\Phi_n &\colon {\inte \Gamma_n} \to \D, \quad \Phi_n(0)=0, \, \Phi_n'(0)>0 .
\end{align*}
\medskip
{\it Step~1: (Approximate $f$ by a sequence of holomorphic functions on $ \overline{\inte \Gamma}$)}. \\
We consider the holomorphic functions
\begin{align*}
%g &= f\circ \Phi^{-1} \colon \overline{\D} \to \C \\
g_n &= f \circ \Phi^{-1}\circ \Phi_n \colon {\inte \Gamma_n} \to \C
\end{align*}
and shall show that for every $\e>0$ there is an $N\in \N$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:g_N-f}
|g_N(z) - f(z)| < \tfrac{\e}{2} \qquad \text{ for all } \quad z \in \overline{\inte \Gamma}.
\end{align}
Indeed, for $n \in \N$ we consider the Jordan curve $\gamma_n:=\Phi_n(\Gamma) \subset \D$ and note that for every $z \in \overline{\inte \Gamma}$ there exists an $w\in \overline{\inte \gamma_n}$ so that $z=\Phi_n^{-1}(w)$. Thus, together with the maximum modulus theorem~\cite[Corollary~5.3.4]{greene_krantz_1997}, it is sufficient to show that there is a $K=K(\e) \in \N$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{w \in \gamma_K } |f( \Phi^{-1}(w))- f( \Phi_K^{-1}(w))| < \tfrac{\e}{2}.
\end{align*}
Note that, $\overline{\inte \Gamma}$ is compact and $f$ is continuous, and so $f$ is uniformly continuous on $\overline{\inte \Gamma}$.
Thus, there is a $\delta(\e)>0$ such that $|f(z)-f(w)|< \tfrac{\e}{2}$ for all $z,w \in \overline{\inte \Gamma}$ with $|z-w|<\delta(\e)$. Since the Jordan curves $(\Gamma_n)_{n\in \N}$ converge to $\Gamma$ we can apply Courant's Theorem~\ref{thm:courant} to the sequence $(\Phi^{-1}_n)_{n\in \N}$ and conclude that there is an $N=N(\e) \in \N $ such that
\begin{align*}
|\Phi^{-1}(w) - \Phi^{-1}_N(w)| < \delta(\e) \qquad \text{ for all } \quad w \in \gamma_N \subset \D,
\end{align*}
which shows \eqref{eq:g_N-f}.
\medskip
{\it Step~2: (Approximate $g_N$ via Runge's Theorem)}. The function
\begin{align*}
g_N &= f \circ \Phi^{-1}\circ \Phi_N \colon \overline{\inte \gamma} \to \C
\end{align*}
is holomorphic on the compact set $\overline{\inte \Gamma}$. Then, by Runge's Theorem~\ref{thm:runge}, for $\tfrac{\e}{2}>0$ there is a polynomial $p$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \overline{\inte \Gamma} } |g_N(z)- p(z)| < \tfrac{\e}{2}.
\end{align*}
Consequently, for every $z \in \overline{\inte \Gamma} $ it follows that
\begin{align*}
|f(z)-p(z)|\leq |f(z)-g_N(z)| + |g_N(z)- p(z)| < \e.
\end{align*}
$\hfill \blacksquare$
\end{proof}
\medskip
We will use the latter statement to prove Walsh's extension of the second Weierstrass Theorem to arbitrary Jordan curves, cf. \cite[Satz~I]{walsh1926_2}.
\begin{theorem}[Walsh (1926)]\label{thm:satz_I}
Let $\Gamma$ be a Jordan curve containing the origin in its interior and let the function $f$ be continuous on $\Gamma$. Then, $f$ can be uniformly approximated on $\Gamma$ by polynomials in $z$ and $\tfrac{1}{z}$.
\end{theorem}
%
\begin{proof}
Let $\e>0$. By Caratheodory's Theorem~\cite[Theorem~13.2.3]{greene_krantz_1997} there is a continuous and bijective map $\Phi\colon \overline{\inte \Gamma} \to \overline{\D} $ so that $\Phi(0)=0$ which is conformal in $\D$. Then, the mapping $$g:=f\circ \Phi^{-1} \colon \partial \D \to \C$$ is continuous. Consider the sequence of Fej\'{e}r polynomials $(F_{g,n})_{n\in \N}\colon \partial \D\to \C$ defined by
\begin{align*}
F_{g,n}(w) := F_{g,n}^-(w) + F_{g,n}^+(w) = \sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{n-|k|}{n} \hat g (-k)\, \, w^{-k} + \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \frac{n-|k|}{n} \hat g (k)\, \, w^{k}.
\end{align*}
Since for every $z \in \Gamma$ there is a unique $w \in \partial \D$ such that $z= \Phi^{-1}(w)$, by Theorem~\ref{thm:weier-circ}~(a), there is a $N=N(\e) \in \N$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \Gamma}|f(z)- F_{g,N}(\Phi(z))| = \sup_{w\in \partial \D} |g(w) -F_{g,N}(w)| < \frac{\e}{3}.
\end{align*}
To show the claim, we shall prove that the functions $\Phi$ and $\tfrac{1}{\Phi}$ can be uniformly approximated on $\Gamma$ by polynomials in $z$ and $z$, $\tfrac{1}{z}$, respectively. Let $\delta>0$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh_jordan_curve_poly}, there is a polynomial $p_\Phi$ such that
\begin{align*}
| {\Phi(z)} - p_\Phi(z)| < \delta \qquad \forall \, \, z \in \overline{\inte \Gamma}.
\end{align*}
%
Then, for every $\delta>0$ there is a polynomial $q$ such that
\begin{align*}
\left| \frac{1}{\Phi(z)}- \frac{a_{-1}}{z} + q(z)\right| < \delta \qquad \text{ for all } \, \, z \in \Gamma,
\end{align*}
where $$a_{-1} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial B_r(0)} \frac{1}{\Phi(\xi)} \di{\xi}, \qquad r >0 \, \, \text{such that } \overline{B_r(0)} \subset \inte \Gamma $$
is the residue of $\tfrac{1}{\Phi}$ at zero.
To see this, recall that $\Phi$ is conformal on $\inte \Gamma$ with $\Phi(0)=0$. Hence, the function $\tfrac{1}{\Phi}$ is meromorphic on $\inte \Gamma$ with a simple pole at $0$ and the function $ z \mapsto \tfrac{1}{\Phi(z)} - \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} $ has a removable singularity at zero. Let $\Phi_e\colon \inte \Gamma\to \C$ denote its holomorphic extension, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-phi_e-walsh-curve}
\Phi_e(z) = \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{\Phi(z)} - \frac{a_{-1}}{z} & z \in \inte \Gamma\setminus \{0\}\\
a_0= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial B_r(0)} \frac{1}{\xi \Phi(\xi)} \di{\xi} & z=0,
\end{cases}
\end{align}
which is continuous on $\overline{ \inte \Gamma}$. Then, we choose $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:walsh-circ-deltas}
\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \left( (1+\delta)^k -1 \right) < \frac{\e}{3\,c}, \qquad c := \max_{k=-N+1,...,N-1} \tfrac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g(k).
\end{align}
By Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh_jordan_curve_poly} there is polynomial $q_\Phi$ such that
\begin{align*}
\left| \Phi_e(z)- q_\Phi(z)\right| < \delta \qquad \text{ for all } \, \, z \in \overline{ \inte \Gamma }.
\end{align*}
Next, we show that
\begin{align*}
\left| \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\, \, \Phi(z)^k - \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\, \, p_\Phi(z)^k\right| < \frac{\e}{3} \qquad \forall \, \, z\in \Gamma.
\end{align*}
To see this, note that $|\Phi(z)| =1$ for all $z \in \Gamma$ and, thus,
\begin{align*}
|p_\Phi(z)| < 1+ \delta \qquad \text{ for all } z \in \Gamma.
\end{align*}
Moreover, we recall that for all $v,w \in \C$ it holds
\begin{align*}
|v^n-w^n| \leq |v-w| \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} |v|^k \, |w|^{n-1-k}.
\end{align*}
The combination of the latter yields that for all $z\in \Gamma$ one has
\begin{multline*}
\left| \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\, \, \Phi(z)^k - \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\, \, p_\Phi(z)^k \right| \\
\leq \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \left|\frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\right| \left| \Phi(z)^k - p(z)^k\right| \\
\leq \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \left|\frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\right| \left| \Phi(z) - p_\Phi(z)\right| \,\,
\sum_{l=0}^{k-1} \,| p_\Phi(z)|^l \leq
c \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \left\{ (1+\delta)^k -1 \right\}< \frac{\e}{3}.
\end{multline*}
Similarly, for all $z\in \Gamma$ we get
\begin{align*}
\left|
\sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (-k)\, \, (\tfrac{1}{\Phi(z)})^k - \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (-k)\, \, \left(\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)\right)^k
\right|
< \frac{\e}{3}.
\end{align*}
Finally, defining the polynomial
\begin{align*}
P(z,\tfrac{1}{z}) &:= F_{g,N}^-( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)) + F_{g,N}^+(p_\Phi(z))\\&= \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (-k)\, \, \left(\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)\right) ^k + \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{N-|k|}{N} \hat g (k)\, p_\Phi(z)^k
\end{align*}
we derive the following estimate
\begin{align*}
\left|f(z) - P(z,\tfrac{1}{z}) \right| &\leq \left|f(z) - F_{g,N}(\Phi(z)) \right| + \left| F_{g,N}^-(\Phi(z)) -F_{g,N}^-( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)) \right| \\
&\hspace{2cm}+ \left| F_{g,N}^+(\Phi(z)) - F_{g,N}^+(p_\Phi(z))) \right| < 3\, \tfrac{\e}{3} = \e.
\end{align*}
This shows the assertion. $\hfill \blacksquare$
\end{proof}
\medskip
% \begin{remark}
% We note that, by Kellogg's Theorem~\ref{thm:Kellogg}, the above proof provides a constructive method to determine the approximating polynomial if the Jordan curve $\Gamma$ is twice continuously differentialable.
%
% Indeed, under this assumption the conformal mapping $\Phi^{-1} \colon \D \to \inte \Gamma $ with $\Phi^{-1}(0)=0$ and $(\Phi^{-1})'(0)>0$ can be extended to the boundary such that
% $$g:=f\circ \Phi^{-1} \colon \partial \D \to \C$$
% is Lipschitz continuous provided $f$ is also Lipschitz continuous. Then, by Theorem~\ref{thm:weier-circ-bernstein} one has
% \begin{align*}
% \sup_{z \in \Gamma}|f(z)- F_{g,n}(\Phi(z))| = \sup_{w\in \partial \D} |g(w) -F_{g,n}(w)| \leq 2\sqrt{2} L_g\, \frac{ \ln n }{ n}.
% \end{align*}
% Thus, for a given $\e>0$ the degree of $P_n(z,\tfrac{1}{z})$ such that
% \begin{align*}
% \left|f(z) - F_{g,n}^-( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)) + F_{g,n}^+(p_\Phi(z)) \right| < \e
% \end{align*}
% can be obtained if an explicit representation of the conformal mapping $\Phi$ is available.
% \end{remark}
%
%
\noindent
%
{\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} } %[Meinardus / paper / book \cite[Theorem~8,, \S~II.2.5]{walsh1965interpolation} ]
Without loss of generality let $0 \not \in \gamma$. The Jordan arc can be extended to a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ so that $0 \in \inte \Gamma$. Also the function $f$ can be continuously extended to $\Gamma$. This can be archived by defining
\begin{align}\label{eq:extension_f_arc_to_curve}
f(z)= w_1 + (w_2-w_1)\frac{z-z_1}{z_2-z_1} \qquad \forall \, \, z \in \Gamma \setminus \gamma,
\end{align}
where $w_1$ and $w_2$ are the values of $f$ at the end-points $z_1$ and $z_2$ of $\gamma$, respectively. By Caratheodory's Theorem~\cite[Theorem~13.2.3]{greene_krantz_1997} there is a continuous and bijective map $\Phi\colon \overline{\inte \Gamma} \to \overline{\D} $ so that $\Phi(0)=0$ which is conformal in the interior of $\Gamma$.
Let $\e>0$. By Theorem~\ref{thm:satz_I}, for the continuous function $f \colon \Gamma \to \C$ there is a $N=N(\e) \in \N$ such that the polynomial
\begin{align*}
P_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}(z,\tfrac{1}{z}) &:= F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^-( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)) + F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^+(p_\Phi(z))
\end{align*}
in $z$ and $\tfrac{1}{z}$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \tr \Gamma} |f(z) -P_{f\circ\Phi^{-1},N}(z,\tfrac{1}{z}) |< \frac{\e}{2}.
\end{align*}
Furthermore, on $\gamma$ the function $z \mapsto \tfrac{1}{z}$ can be uniformly approximated by polynomials in $z$. To see this, let $\gamma_{0,\infty}$ be a Jordan arc connecting the origin and $\infty$ such that $ \gamma_{0,\infty} \cap \gamma = \emptyset$. Then, $\Omega:= \C \setminus \gamma_{0,\infty}$ is simply connected, $\infty \not \in \inte \Omega$ and the function $z \mapsto \tfrac{1}{z}$ is holomorphic on $\inte \Omega$.
%
%
% \medskip
% \begin{center}
% >-------------- $\checkmark$ ------------------------<
% \end{center}
%
%
Let
\begin{align*}
\nu:= \max_{z \in \gamma} \left|\tfrac{1}{z} \right|, \, \,
\mu:= \max_{z \in \gamma} \left|q_{\Phi}(z) \right|
%\beta:= \max_{k=0,...,N-2} \nu^k
\quad \text{and} \quad c:= \max_{k=1,....,N-1} \left| \tfrac{N-|k|}{N} \widehat{f\circ \Phi^{-1}} (-k) \right|.
\end{align*}
Moreover, choose $\delta>0$ such that
\begin{align}\label{eq:delta-walsh_arc}
\delta \cdot \frac{1-(2\delta + |a_{-1}|\nu +\mu)^{N-1}}{1-(2\delta + |a_{-1}|\nu +\mu)} < \frac{\e}{2 c(N-1)}.
\end{align}
%
% \medskip
% \begin{center}
% >--------------------------------------<
% \end{center}
%
%
By Runge's Theorem~\ref{thm:runge} there is polynomial $\tilde q$ in $z$ such that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \gamma} |\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} -\tilde q(z)|< \delta.
\end{align*}
Next, we define the polynomial
\begin{align}\label{eq:def-poly-walsh-arc}
p(z) := F_{f\circ\Phi^{-1},N}^+ (p_\Phi(z)) + F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^- (\tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z)).
\end{align}
Similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:satz_I} we get
\begin{align*}
\left|F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^- ( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}+ q_\Phi(z)) - F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^- (\tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z)) \right|
\\ \leq
c \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \left| ( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}+ q_\Phi(z))^k - (\tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z))^k \right|
\\ \leq
c\, \delta \sum_{k=1}^{N-1} \sum_{l=0}^{k-1} \left| \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}+ q_\Phi(z)\right|^l \left| \tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z) \right|^{k-1-l}.
\end{align*}
Using the triangular inequality, for every $z \in \gamma$ one has
\begin{align*}
| \tilde q(z)|< \delta + |\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}| \leq \delta + |a_{-1}|\nu
\end{align*}
and hence
\begin{align*}
| \tilde q(z) + q_{\Phi}(z) |< \delta + |a_{-1}|\nu + \mu
\end{align*}
as well as
\begin{align*}
|\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_{\Phi}(z) | \leq |\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} - \tilde q(z)| + | \tilde q(z) - q_{\Phi}(z) | < 2 \delta + |a_{-1}|\nu + \mu.
\end{align*}
Thus, we have
\begin{align*}
\left|F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^- ( \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}+ q_\Phi(z)) - F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^- (\tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z)) \right|
\\ \leq
c\, \delta \, (N-1) \sum_{k=0}^{N-2} \left( 2 \delta + |a_{-1}|\nu + \mu \right)^{k} < \frac{\e}{2}.
\end{align*}
Consequently, it holds
\begin{multline*}
\sup_{z \in \gamma} |f(z) -p(z)| \leq \sup_{z \in \Gamma} |f(z) -p(z)| \\
\leq
\sup_{z \in \Gamma} |f(z) -P_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}(z,\tfrac{1}{z})| \\+ \sup_{z \in \Gamma} |F_{f\circ\Phi^{-1},N}^-(\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} + q_\Phi(z)) - F_{f\circ\Phi^{-1},N}^-(\tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z))|<\e.
\end{multline*}
This shows the assertion.
$\hfill \blacksquare$
\medskip
% Note that Runge's theorem yiels a construcive method derive the polynomial $q$. can
% \medskip
% \begin{center}
% >-------------------------------------<
% \end{center}
% In the following remark we comment on instances such that the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} yields a constructive method.
%
%
% \begin{remark}%[\textcolor{red}{TODO}]
% \label{rem:4.1.15}
% % Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} is suitable for the ensemble reachability problem. This is because the parameter-dependent matrices are assumed to be continuous and thus, the eigenvalues also depend continuously on the parameter. Moreover, for single-input systems the necessary conditions yields that the eigenvalues define Jordan arcs. Therefore, we consider the instances so that the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} yields a constructive method.
% \begin{enumerate}
% \item In order to determine the polynomial defined in \eqref{eq:def-poly-walsh-arc} we first note that the polynomial $\tilde q$ approximating $z \mapsto \tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}$ can be constructed as described above via Runge's theorem. Second, the derivation of the Fej\'{e}r polynomials $F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^+$ and $F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^-$ requires two steps. First, one has to compute the conformal mapping $\Phi \colon \inte \Gamma \to \D$. Second, one has to compute the polynomials $p_\Phi$ and $q_\Phi$ via Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh_jordan_curve_poly}, which is also based on Runge's theorem. For the numerical computation of conformal mappings we refer to the Notes and References at the end of this chapter.
%
% % \item For the numerical computation of conformal mappings there are different approaches available. A recent approach is the so-called Zipper-algorithm, cf. \cite{marshall2007convergence} and \cite{garnett_marshall_2005}. Another construction procedure uses the Schwarz-Christoffel mapping, cf. \cite{trefethen_schwarz}. A third technique is given by Henrici in terms of integral equations (?-CHECK-?), cf. \cite{henrici1993applied}. Finally another method to construct approximations to conformal maps is given by the Bergmann kernel, cf. \cite{gaier1987}, \cite{fischerlieb_2}.
%
%
% \item The method of following the proof of Walsh's theorem contains some degree of freedom. On one hand, closing the Jordan arc to a Jordan curve is not specified. On other hand, the extension of the continuous function given in \eqref{eq:extension_f_arc_to_curve} is not necessarily of this form.
%
%
% \item Persuing a different direction, a new and more direct proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} may be obtained by considering the simply connected complement $\C \setminus \tr \gamma$ of the Jordan arc $\gamma$. Considering a conformal mapping $\Phi\colon \C \setminus \gamma \to \D$ a polynomial can be derived by using Fej\'{e}r polynomials applied to the continuous extension of $\Phi$ to the unit circle.
% \end{enumerate}
%
%
% \end{remark}
% \medskip
%
% \begin{center}
% >--------------------------------------<
% \end{center}
%
% \newpage
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% \section{Method~S2 for Continuous-Time Systems}\label{sec:poly_approx_cont}
% %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
%
%
% \newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Extensions}\label{sec:approx_extensions}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section we discuss two opportunities to extend the methods of Section~\ref{sec:poly_si_methods}. The first extension is concerned with the possibility is concerned with more general spectra of the matrices $A(\theta)$. More precisely, we will discuss the case where the spectra of the matrices define Jordan arcs. The second extension tackles circumstances that allow the application of the methods presented here also to multi-input systems.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Extension to Jordan arcs}\label{sec:approx_extensions_arcs}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In this section we outline conditions so that the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} can be used to extend the Methods~S1 and~S2 to Jordan arcs. To this end, we will describe the relevant steps and discuss suitable requirements.
First, recall that the crucial parts in the Methods~S1 and~S2 require the possibility to solve a scalar approximation problem. More precisely, the task is to find a polynomial $p$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in a(\p)} | p(z) - f(a^{-1}(z))| < \varepsilon,
\end{align*}
where $\e>0$, the continuous target function $f \colon \p \to \C$ and the continuous injective eigenvalue function $a\colon \p \to \C$ are given, cf. \cite[Proposition~3]{JDE_ensembles_2021}.
%
In the case that the parameter space $\p$ is a Jordan arc it follows that $a(\p)$ also defines a Jordan arc. Thus, we follow the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:walsh-arc} and the basic idea is to compute the polynomial $p$ defined in \eqref{eq:def-poly-walsh-arc}, i.e.
\begin{align*}
p(z) = F_{f\circ\Phi^{-1},N}^+ (p_\Phi(z)) + F_{f\circ \Phi^{-1},N}^- (\tilde q(z) + q_\Phi(z)).
\end{align*}
In order to compute $p$, the following consecutive steps are required.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] Close $a(\p)$ to a Jordan curve $\Gamma$ and compute a bijective mapping $\Phi\colon \overline{\inte \Gamma} \to \overline{\D}$ with $\Phi(0)=0$ which is conformal on $\inte \Gamma$.
\item[(2)] The degree $N$ of the Fej\'{e}er polynomial can be determined via Theorem~\ref{thm:weier-circ}~(b) provided $f \circ \Phi^{-1}$ satisfies a Lipschitz condition. To ensure this, based on Kellogg's Theorem \cite[Theorem~4.3]{garnett_marshall_2005}, it is sufficient to assume that $a \in C^2(\p)$ and $\p$ has a parametrization which twice continuously differentiable. Under these assumptions the degree $N$ can be computed via
\begin{align*}
\sqrt{2} \pi \,L_{f\circ \Phi^{-1}} \cdot \frac{\ln N }{N} < \frac{\e}{6},
\end{align*}
where $L_{f\circ \Phi^{-1}}>0$ denotes the Lipschitz constant of $f\circ \Phi^{-1}$.
\item[(3)] Determine a conformal mapping $\Phi_K$ such that
$$| \Phi^{-1}(w)- \Phi_N^{-1}(w)|< \tfrac{\e}{2L_f}.$$
\item[(4)] Apply Runge's Theorem to $f\circ a^{-1} \circ \Phi^{-1}\circ \Phi_K$ and compute a polynomial $p_\Phi$ via \eqref{eq:runge_poly}.
\item[(5)] Apply Runge's Theorem to $\Phi_e$ and compute a polynomial $q_\Phi$ via \eqref{eq:runge_poly} so that
% $\sup_{z \in a(\p)} \|\Phi_e(z) - q_\Phi\| < \delta$, where
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in a(\p)} |\Phi_e(z) - q_\Phi| < \delta \quad \text{with} \quad \sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \left( (1+\delta)^k -1 \right) < \frac{\e}{6\,c},
\end{align*}
cf. \eqref{eq:walsh-circ-deltas}.
\item[(6)] Apply Runge's Theorem to $\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z}$ on $a(\p)$ and compute $\tilde q$ so that
\begin{align*}
\sup_{z \in \gamma} |\tfrac{a_{-1}}{z} -\tilde q(z)|< \delta,
\end{align*}
with $\delta$ such that \eqref{eq:delta-walsh_arc} holds. Note that \eqref{eq:delta-walsh_arc} contains $\sup_{z \in a(\p) }|q_\Phi(z)|$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{remark}
The approach in Section~\ref{sec:poly_approx_cont} was used in a first and direct proof of the sufficiency of (N1), (N2) and (S2) for uniform ensemble reachability for single-input systems, cf. \cite{helmke2014uniform}. Indeed, since the set $\Omega$ is compact with empty interior and $\C \setminus \Omega$ is connected, it is possible to applying Mergelyan's theorem directly to the continuous function
\begin{align*}
g \colon \Omega \to \mathbb{C}, \quad g{|_{\Omega_k}}(z) = \tfrac{1}{\tau} g_k \left( \lambda^{-1}_k \left( \tfrac{\ln z}{\tau}\right) \right).
\end{align*}
Thus, there is a polynomial $p$ such that
\begin{align*}
|g(z) - \tau p(z)|< \e \qquad \forall \, z \in \Omega.
\end{align*}
Also we note that, the property that the interior of $\Omega$ is empty is a special case of Mergelyan's result, which was proven earlier by Lavrientev in 1934, cf. \cite{gaier1987}. However, Lavrientev's proof is not available to the author. Maybe the proof can be used to obtain another constructive method for at least special cases.
\end{remark}
% \bigskip
% ------------------------------------
We close this section we some comments on the construction of conformal mappings and their numerical computation. There are different approaches are available in the literature. Peter Henrici presents a method to determine conformal mappings by solving a Dirichlet boundary problem. The solution of it together with its harmonic conjugate determines the conformal map, cf. \cite[Theorem~16.5a]{henrici1993applied}. Moreover, Henrici describes numerical techniques to solve the Dirichlet problem by means of numerical methods to solve Symm's integral equation of first kind, cf. \cite[\S~16.6~V]{henrici1993applied}. Besides, Tobin. A. Driscoll and Llyod N. Trefethen depict procedures, as suggested by Peter Henrici, based on the Schwarz-Christoffel mapping to compute conformal maps, cf. \cite{trefethen_schwarz}. Another, recent approach to compute conformal maps is the Zipper-algorithm \cite{marshall2007convergence}. For earlier approaches to this area we refer to \cite{gaier1964konstruktive,gaier1976integralgleichungen}. Furthermore, approximation techniques for conformal mappings based on Bergmann kernels are outlined in \cite{gaier1987} and \cite{greene_krantz_1997}. Finally, we mention the monograph \cite{Papamichael_book}, which contains a profound literature review and many more references.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\subsection{Extension to multi-input systems}\label{sec:approx_extensions_multi_input}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
In order to derive sufficient conditions for uniform ensemble reachability for multi-input pairs we recall the Hermite canonical form for a (parameter independent) system $(A,B) \in \C^{n\times n} \times \C^{n\times m}$, cf.~\cite[Section~6.4.6]{kailath1980}. Let $b_i$ denote the $i$-th column of $B$.
Select from left to right in the permuted Kalman matrix
\begin{align}\label{eq:Hermite-list}
\begin{pmatrix}
b_1 & Ab_1& \cdots A^{n-1}b_1&\cdots& b_m & Ab_m \cdots & A^{n-1}b_m
\end{pmatrix}
\end{align}
the first linear independent columns. Then, one obtains a list of basis vectors
\begin{align*}
b_1,...,A^{h_1-1}b_1,...,b_m,...,A^{h_m-1}b_m
\end{align*}
of the reachability subspace. The integers $h_1,...,h_m$ are called the {\it Hermite indices},
where $h_i:=0$ if the column $b_i$ has not been selected. One has $h_1+\cdots+h_m=n$ if and only if $(A,B)$ is reachable.
{Now suppose} $(A,B)$ is reachable with Hermite indices $h_1\neq 0 , \cdots , h_k\neq 0$ and $ h_{k+1} =\cdots =h_m=0$. This is always achievable by applying a suitable permutation. The invertible transformation
\begin{align*}\label{eq:Hermite-T}
T = (b_1,...,A^{h_1-1}b_1,...,b_k,...,A^{h_k-1}b_k )
\end{align*}
yields the Hermite canonical form
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hermite-canonical-form}
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde A_{11} & \cdots & \tilde A_{1k} \\
& \ddots& \vdots\\
0 & & \tilde A_{kk}
\end{pmatrix},
\quad
\begin{pmatrix}
\tilde b_{1} & & 0 & * & * \\
& \ddots & &*& * \\
0 & & \tilde b_{k}&*& *
\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where the subsystems $(\tilde A_{ii},\tilde b_i)\in \C^{h_i\times h_i}\times \C^{h_i}$, $i=1,...,k$ are reachable. It is shown in \cite[Theorem~6]{JDE_ensembles_2021} that a multi-input pair $(A,B) \in C_{n,n}(\p) \times C_{n,m}(\p)$ is uniformly ensemble reachable if its Hermite indices are constant and each single-input subpair $(\tilde A_{ii},\tilde b_i)\in C_{h_i,h_i}(\p) \times C_{h_i}(\p)$ is uniformly ensemble reachable. This follows from \cite[Proposition~1]{JDE_ensembles_2021}. As the corresponding proof is constructive, suitable inputs can be computed in this case if either Method~S1 or Method~S2 can be applied to the subpairs $(\tilde A_{ii},\tilde b_i)$. Observe that it is not required to use one the methods for all subpairs.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgements}
The author is grateful to Vladimir Andrievskii and Oliver Roth for many comments and valuable suggestions on complex approximation and conformal mappings. This research was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the grant SCHO 1780/1-1.
% Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that
% could have direct or potential influence or impart bias on
% the work:
%
% \section*{Conflict of interest}
%
% The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%
% % BibTeX users please use one of
% %\bibliographystyle{spbasic} % basic style, author-year citations
% \bibliographystyle{spmpsci} % mathematics and physical sciences
% %\bibliographystyle{spphys} % APS-like style for physics
% \bibliography{schoenlein_habil} % name your BibTeX data base
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
\providecommand{\arxiv}[1]{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{arXiv:#1}}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL }
% \providecommand{\url}[1]{{#1}}
% \providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL }
% \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax
% \providecommand{\doi}[1]{DOI~\discretionary{}{}{}#1}\else
% \providecommand{\doi}{DOI~\discretionary{}{}{}\begingroup
% \urlstyle{rm}\Url}\fi
\bibitem{Agrachev_ensemble_lie_2016}
Agrachev, A., Baryshnikov, Y., Sarychev, A.: Ensemble controllability by {L}ie
algebraic methods.
\newblock ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. \textbf{22}(4), 921--938 (2016).
\bibitem{agrachev2020control}
Agrachev, A., Sarychev, A.: Control in the spaces of ensembles of points.
\newblock SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization \textbf{58}(3), 1579--1596
(2020)
\bibitem{beauchard2010controllability}
Beauchard, K., Coron, J.M., Rouchon, P.: Controllability issues for
continuous-spectrum systems and ensemble controllability of bloch equations.
\newblock Communications in Mathematical Physics \textbf{296}(2), 525--557
(2010)
\bibitem{brockett2012notes}
Brockett, R.: Notes on the control of the {L}iouville equation.
\newblock In: F.~Alabau-Boussouira, R.~Brockett, O.~Glass, J.~LeRousseau,
E.~Zuazua (eds.) Control of {P}artial {D}ifferential {E}quations,
\emph{Lecture Notes in Mathematics}, vol. 2048, pp. 101--129. Springer,
Heidelberg (2012).
\bibitem{chen2019mcss}
{Chen}, X.: Structure theory for ensemble controllability, observability and
duality.
\newblock {Math. Control Signals Syst.} \textbf{31}(1), 1--40 (2019)
\bibitem{chen2017optimal}
Chen, Y., Georgiou, T.T., Pavon, M.: Optimal transport over a linear dynamical
system.
\newblock IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control \textbf{62}(5), 2137--2152
(2017)
\bibitem{Gauthier_scl_2018}
Chittaro, F.C., Gauthier, J.P.: Asymptotic ensemble stabilizability of the
{B}loch equation.
\newblock Systems Control Lett. \textbf{113}, 36--44 (2018).
\bibitem{courant1914ueber}
Courant, R.: \"Uber eine Eigenschaft der Abbildungsfunktioen bei konformer Abbildung.
\newblock Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G{\"o}ttingen,
Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse \textbf{1914}, 101--109 (1914)
\bibitem{courant1922bemerkungen}
Courant, R.: Bemerkungen zu meiner note.
\newblock Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu G{\"o}ttingen,
Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse \textbf{1922}, 69--70 (1922)
\bibitem{curtainzwart95}
Curtain, R.F., Zwart, H.: {An introduction to infinite-dimensional linear
systems theory.}
\newblock {Texts in Applied Mathematics. 21. Springer, New York} (1995)
\bibitem{JDE_ensembles_2021}
Dirr, G., Sch\"onlein, M.: Uniform and $L^q$-ensemble reachability of parameter-dependent linear systems.
\newblock Journal of Differential Equations \textbf{283}, 216--262 (2021)
\bibitem{trefethen_schwarz}
{Driscoll}, T.A., {Trefethen}, L.N.: {Schwarz-Christoffel mapping.}
\newblock Cambridge University Press (2002).
\bibitem{engelnagel}
{Engel}, K.J., {Nagel}, R.: {One-parameter semigroups for linear evolution equations.}
\newblock Berlin: Springer (2000).
\bibitem{fleig2016estimates}
Fleig, A., Gr{\"u}ne, L.: Estimates on the minimal stabilizing horizon length
in model predictive control for the Fokker-Planck equation.
\newblock IFAC-PapersOnLine \textbf{49}(8), 260--265 (2016).
\bibitem{fuhrmann1972weak}
Fuhrmann, P.A.: On weak and strong reachability and controllability of infinite-dimensional linear systems.
\newblock Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications \textbf{9}(2), 77--89 (1972)
\bibitem{fuhrmann_hilbert_book}
Fuhrmann, P.A.: Linear systems and operators in Hilbert space.
\newblock McGraw-Hill Inc., New York (1981)
\bibitem{fuhrmann2015mathematics}
Fuhrmann, P.A., Helmke, U.: The mathematics of networks of linear systems.
\newblock Springer International Publishing, Switzerland (2015)
\bibitem{Gaier_math_z_1956}
Gaier, D.: \"{U}ber die konforme {A}bbildung ver\"{a}nderlicher {G}ebiete.
\newblock Math. Z. \textbf{64}, 385--424 (1956).
\bibitem{gaier1964konstruktive}
Gaier, D.: Konstruktive Methoden der konformen Abbildung, vol.~3.
\newblock Springer-Verlag (1964)
\bibitem{gaier1976integralgleichungen}
Gaier, D.: Integralgleichungen erster Art und konforme Abbildung.
\newblock Mathematische Zeitschrift \textbf{147}(2), 113--129 (1976)
\bibitem{gaier1987}
Gaier, D.: {Lectures on complex approximation}.
\newblock {Birkh\"auser, Boston} (1987)
\bibitem{garnett_marshall_2005}
Garnett, J.B., Marshall, D.E.: Harmonic Measure.
\newblock New Mathematical Monographs. Cambridge University Press (2005).
\bibitem{greene_krantz_1997}
Greene, R.E., Krantz, S.G.: Function theory of one complex variable.
\newblock Pure and Applied Mathematics (New York). John Wiley \& Sons, Inc., New York (1997).
\bibitem{gzyl1997}
{Gzyl}, H., {Palacios}, J.L.: {The {W}eierstrass approximation theorem and large deviations.}
\newblock {Am. Math. Mon.} \textbf{104}(7), 650--653 (1997).
\bibitem{helmke2014uniform}
Helmke, U., Sch{\"o}nlein, M.: Uniform ensemble controllability for one-parameter families of time-invariant linear systems.
\newblock Systems \& Control Letters \textbf{71}, 69--77 (2014)
\bibitem{henrici1993applied}
Henrici, P.: Applied and computational complex analysis, Volume 3: Discrete Fourier analysis, Cauchy integrals, construction of conformal maps, univalent functions, vol.~41.
\newblock John Wiley \& Sons (1993)
\bibitem{kailath1980}
Kailath, T.: {Linear systems.}
\newblock {Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs Publ., N.J.} (1980)
\bibitem{lazar:hal-03035494}
Lazar, M., Loh{\'e}ac, J.: {Control of parameter dependent systems}.
\newblock HAL archieves-ouvertes,
\newblock hal-03035494 (2020)
\bibitem{li2011}
Li, J.S.: Ensemble control of finite-dimensional time-varying linear systems.
\newblock IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control \textbf{56}(2), 345--357
(2011)
\bibitem{li2009ensemble}
Li, J.S., Khaneja, N.: Ensemble control of {B}loch equations.
\newblock IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control \textbf{54}(3), 528--536 (2009)
\bibitem{li_tac_2016}
Li, J.S., Qi, J.: Ensemble control of time-invariant linear systems with linear
parameter variation.
\newblock IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control \textbf{61}(10), 2808--2820
(2016)
\bibitem{lorch1962approximation}
Lorch, L.: On approximation by Fej{\'e}r means to periodic functions satisfying a Lipschitz condition.
\newblock Canadian Mathematical Bulletin \textbf{5}(1), 21--27 (1962)
\bibitem{marshall2007convergence}
Marshall, D.E., Rohde, S.: Convergence of a variant of the Zipper algorithm for conformal mapping.
\newblock SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis \textbf{45}(6), 2577--2609 (2007)
\bibitem{miao2020convexgeometric}
Miao, W., Li, J.S.: A Convex-Geometric Approach to Ensemble Control Analysis and Design in a Hilbert Space.
\newblock arXiv:2003.09987, (2020)
\bibitem{natanson1964constructive}
Natanson, I.P.: Constructive function theory, vol.~1.
\newblock Ungar (1964)
\bibitem{nikolski1940allure}
Nikolski, S.: Sur l'allure asymptotique du reste dans l'approximation au moyen
des sommes de fej er des fonctions v eri ant la condition de lipschitz
(russ.).
\newblock Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat \textbf{4}, 501--508 (1940)
\bibitem{Papamichael_book}
Papamichael, N., Stylianopoulos, N.: Numerical conformal mapping.
\newblock Domain decomposition and the mapping of quadrilaterals
\newblock World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ (2010).
\bibitem{rado1923representation}
Rad{\'o}, T.: Sur la repr{\'e}sentation conforme de domaines variables.
\newblock Acta Univ. Szeged \textbf{1}, 180--186 (1923)
\bibitem{remmert2013classical}
Remmert, R.: Classical topics in complex function theory, vol. 172.
\newblock Springer Science \& Business Media (2013)
\bibitem{scindis}
Sch\"onlein, M.: Computation of open-loop inputs for uniform ensemble controllable systems.
\newblock Mathematical Control and Related Fields, to appear.
% \newblock see also arXiv: ...
% \bibitem{laa_feedback}
% Sch{\"o}nlein, M.: Feedback equivalence and uniform ensemble reachability.
% \newblock arXiv preprint arXiv:??? (2021)
\bibitem{telyakovskii1969approximation}
Telyakovskii, S.: Approximation of functions satisfying lipschitz conditions by
fejer sums.
\newblock Ukrainian Mathematical Journal \textbf{21}(3), 279--286 (1969)
\bibitem{triggiani75}
Triggiani, R.: Controllability and observability in {B}anach space with bounded
operators.
\newblock SIAM Journal on Control \textbf{13}(2), 462--491 (1975)
\bibitem{walsh1965interpolation}
{Walsh}, J.: {Interpolation and approximation by rational functions in the complex domain. 4th ed.}
\newblock {American Mathematical Society,
Providence, R.I.}
(1965)
\bibitem{walsh1926_1}
Walsh, J.L.: \"Uber die {E}ntwicklung einer analytischen {F}unktion nach {P}olynomen.
\newblock Math. Ann. \textbf{96}(1), 430--436 (1926).
\bibitem{walsh1926_2}
Walsh, J.L.: \"Uber die {E}ntwicklung einer {F}unktion einer komplexen
{V}er\"anderlichen nach {P}olynomen.
\newblock Math. Ann. \textbf{96}(1), 437--450 (1926).
\bibitem{Zeng_scl_2016}
Zeng, S., Allg{\"o}wer, F.: A moment-based approach to ensemble controllability of linear systems.
\newblock Systems \& Control Letters \textbf{98}, 49 -- 56 (2016).
\bibitem{shen2017discrete}
Zeng, S., {I}shii, H., {A}llg\"ower, F.: Sampled observability and state estimation of discrete ensembles.
\newblock IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr. \textbf{62}(5), 2406--2418 (2017)
\bibitem{zeng2016ensemble}
Zeng, S., Waldherr, S., Ebenbauer, C., Allg{\"o}wer, F.: Ensemble observability of linear systems.
\newblock IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control \textbf{61}(6), 1452--1465 (2016)
\bibitem{zuazua2014averaged}
Zuazua, E.: Averaged control.
\newblock Automatica \textbf{50}(12), 3077--3087 (2014)
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}