\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

Introduced by \textcite{edelsbrunner_topological_2000}, persistent homology has seen significant success in making homology directly applicable to problems from data analysis and graphics. A good overview of the development of the field has been written by \textcite{carlsson_topology_2009}.

Fundamentally, everyone agree on what it is persistent homology is supposed to model: given a topological space $X$ with a function $X\to\RR$, we can consider the sequence of sublevel sets: $X_t = f^{-1}(-\infty, t]$. This sequence is a filtration of the original space, and assuming $f$ fulfills certain tameness conditions can be discretized to a finite filtration of $X$.

The field has developed in two distinct directions, characterized by the choice of two different families of categories to represent the underlying algebra of persistent homology. In one direction, persistence modules is considered to be representations of the total order of the real numbers, and attention is paid to analytic style questions -- in particular to questions of \emph{stability} (this viewpoint is dominant in \cite{crawley-boevey_decomposition_2012,chazal_proximity_2009,cohen-steiner_stability_2007,chazal_stability_2008,chazal_structure_2012}). In the other direction, the process is discretized very early on, and attention is paid to algebraically natural extensions and algorithms (this is the viewpoint used in \cite{chen_output-sensitive_2011,bendich_analyzing_2008,gamble_applied_2012,ghrist_barcodes:_2008,wang_branching_2011,chacholski_combinatorial_2012,zomorodian_computing_2005,heras_computing_2012,de_silva_coordinate-free_2006,de_silva_coverage_2007,de_silva_dualities_2011,tausz_javaplex:_2012,zomorodian_localized_2007,carlsson_local_2007,carlsson_persistence_2005,morozov_persistent_2011,cohen-steiner_persistent_2009,carlsson_theory_2009,de_silva_topological_2004,carlsson_topology_2009,weinberger_what_2011,carlsson_zigzag_2008,carlsson_zigzag_2009,milosavljevic_zigzag_2009}).

The two directions both provide important facts to the analysis sequence: the analytic style questions enable stability results that provide a style of inference for persistent homology as a data analysis approach. The discretized approach identifies persistence modules with either modules over a quiver of type $A_n$, or graded modules over the polynomial ring $\kk[t]$ in one variable. In either case, the algebraic characterization implies the decomposition of a persistence module into \emph{interval modules}, and enable the description of persistent homology by \emph{barcodes} or \emph{persistence diagrams}.

In this paper, we will prove the equivalence of the two approaches by describing a weakened form of equivalence of categories, and then demonstrate that such a weakened equivalence exists between the models in use in the two cultures.

\section{Background}
\label{sec:background}

We shall recall some fundamental notions that are used in this paper. A \dfn{category} is a collection of objects and morphisms, where a morphism is associated to a source and a a target object. Morphisms $f, g$ such that the source of $f$ is the target of $g$ compose to a new morphism $fg$ sharing source with $g$ and target with $f$. This composition is associative, and each object $x$ has an identity morphism $1_x$ such that $1_xf = f1_y = f$ for any $f:x\to y$.

An isomorphism is a morphism with an inverse: $f:x\to y$ is an isomorphism if there is some $g:y\to x$ such that $fg=1_y$ and $gf=1_x$.

A \dfn{functor} is a map between categories. It takes objects to objects and morphisms to morphisms respecting composition. One example is the \dfn{trivial functor} $1_{\ct C}$ that acts with the identity map on both objects and morphisms.

For functors $\mathcal F, \mathcal G: \ct C\to \ct D$, we define a \dfn{natural transformation} $\phi: \mathcal F\Rightarrow\mathcal G$ to be a collection of morphisms $\phi_c:\mathcal F(c)\to\mathcal G(c)$ such that they commute with lifted morphisms: $\phi_d\mathcal F(c\to d) = \mathcal G(c\to d)\phi_c$. If all the morphisms $\phi_c$ are isomorphisms, we call $\phi$ a \dfn{natural isomorphism}.

Two categories $\ct C, \ct D$ are \dfn{equivalent} whenever there are functors $\mathcal F:\ct C\fromto \ct D:\mathcal G$ such that both compositions $\mathcal{FG}$ and $\mathcal{GF}$ are naturally isomorphic to the trivial functor of the appropriate category.

A partial order $(S, \leq)$ generates a category with objects given by elements of $S$ and a single unique morphism $s\to t$ whenever $s\leq t$ in $S$. We will write $s\leq t$ for this morphism.

Given a category $\ct D$ and a \dfn{small category} $\ct C$ -- i.e. a category where the objects form a set and not a proper class -- we define a category of $\ct C$-shaped diagrams in $\ct D$ as the category $\ct D^{\ct C}$ of functors $\ct C\to\ct D$ with morphisms given by natural transformations between functors.

While the actual topology will be irrelevant to this paper, we shall mention that \dfn{homology with coefficients in a field $\kk$} is a functor from a category of topological spaces (compactly generated Haussdorff, or simplical sets, or CW-complexes, or simplicial complexes, being some of the most popular categories to use) to the category of $\kk$-vector spaces, which we denote by $\Vect_\kk$.

\section{Persistence modules}
\label{sec:persistence-modules}

We identify the two characterizations of persistent homology with two categories of order modules.

A \dfn{real persistence module} is a diagram $(\RR, \leq)\to\Vect_\kk$. These usually appear as the homology functor images of $\RR$-parametrized diagrams of topological spaces, such as those acquired as sublevel sets of some real-valued tame function on a topological space.

A \dfn{natural persistence module} is a diagram $(\NN, \leq)\to\Vect_\kk$. These usually appear as the homology functor images of countable or finite filtrations of a topological space, such as those acquired by the sublevel set filtration of some real-valued tame function on a topological space.

We adapt the definition provided by \textcite{chazal_proximity_2009,chazal_structure_2012} of weak and strong $\varepsilon$-interleaving of persistence modules. Suppose $(\mathcal P, \leq, +)$ is a totally ordered monoid.

Let $\ct D$ be some arbitrary category, $\mathcal P$ a totally ordered monoid, $\varepsilon\geq0$ and $M, N\in\ct D^{\mathcal P}$. We shall refer to $M, N$ as modules and write $M(p), N(p)$ for the corresponding evaluations and $M(p\leq q)$, $N(p\leq q)$ for the translation maps within $M, N$ induced by the morphism $p\leq q$ in $\mathcal P$. Recall that morphisms in $\ct D^{\mathcal P}$ are natural transformations between $M, N$ seen as functors. We shall refer to these as morphisms, however, to disambiguate layers of functors in the following. Each such category $\ct D^{\mathcal P}$ has a family of endofunctors $T_p$ defined for $p\in\mathcal P$ by $T_pM(q) = M(p+q)$.

We define a \dfn{strong $\varepsilon$-interleaving} of $M$ and $N$ to be a pair of morphisms $f:M\to T_\varepsilon N$ and $g:N\to T_\varepsilon M$ such that\footnote{This is a slightly abuse of notation; a stringent defintion defines $T_\varepsilon$ as acting on $\mathcal P$ and describes $f, g$ as natural transformations. We choose this exposition to emphasize the similarities to how isomorphisms behave.} $fg(p)=N(p\leq p+2\varepsilon)$ and $gf(q)=M(q\leq q+2\varepsilon)$ for all $p, q\in\mathcal P$. If a strong $\varepsilon$-interleaving exists, we say that $M, N$ are strongly $\varepsilon$-interleaved.

We define a \dfn{weak $\varepsilon$-interleaving} of $M$ and $N$ to be a pair of morphisms $f:M\to T_\varepsilon N$ and $g:N\to T_\varepsilon M$ such that for some $x_0$ (dependent on the choice of morphisms) and all $k\in\NN$, $fg=N(x_0+k\varepsilon\leq x_0+(k+2)\varepsilon)$ and $gf=M(x_0+k\varepsilon\leq x_0+(k+2)\varepsilon)$.
If a weak $\varepsilon$-interleaving exists, we say that $M, N$ are weakly $\varepsilon$-interleaved.

These $\varepsilon$-interleavings are fundamental building blocks in the various proofs of stability that abound~\cite{chazal_proximity_2009,cohen-steiner_stability_2007,chazal_stability_2008,chazal_structure_2012}.

\section{Equivalence of categories}
\label{sec:equiv-categ}

First, we present an argument that the graded $\kk[t]$-module model of persistence modules is equivalent (as a category) to the category of natural persistence modules.
We shall then proceed to introduce a weakened equivalence notion for categories, and use this to relate natural and real persistence modules to each other.

\begin{proposition}
  The category of graded $\kk[t]$-modules is equivalent to the category of natural persistence modules.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
  We shall construct an explicit equivalence between these two categories. Given a natural persistence module $M:\mathbb N\to\Vect_\kk$, we describe a graded $\kk[t]$-module $\mathcal FM$ by describing each homogenous submodule $\mathcal FM_n=M(n)$. The $\kk$-linear structure is inherited from $M(n)$, and the action of $t\cdot$ is set to $M(n\leq n+1)$.

  Given a map $f: M\to N$ of natural persistence modules, we transfer its action pointwise to a map $\mathcal Ff:\mathcal FM\to\mathcal FN$.

  In the other direction, we start with a graded $\kk[t]$-module $N$. We may construct a natural persistence module by setting $(\mathcal GN)(n) = N_n$. We define $\mathcal G(n\leq m)=t^{m-n}\cdot$. Again, we map morphisms by acting pointwise.

  The composition $\mathcal F\mathcal G N$ has as its degree $n$ homogenous component the vector space $(\mathcal GN)(n) = N_n$, so $\mathcal F\mathcal G N = N$ as graded vector spaces. Furthermore, the action of $t\cdot$ is given by the action of $n\leq n+1$ which is in turn defined as $t\cdot$. Hence, the modules are identical.

  Similarily, $\mathcal G\mathcal F M$ is identical to $M$ since the definitions are all performed by delegation to the previous algebraic structure.
\end{proof}

Now, since the notion of equality we want to use in order to be able to transfer stability results to the algebraic setting is that of $\varepsilon$-interleaving, we will need to modify our expectation on equivalence of categories. Hence, we shall define an \dfn{$\varepsilon$-$\delta$-interleaved equivalence} of order monoid module categories $\ct C$ and $\ct D$ to be a pair of functors $\mathcal F:\ct C\fromto\ct D :\mathcal G$ such that $\mathcal{FG}$ is naturally $\varepsilon$-interleaved with $\Id_{\ct D}$ and $\mathcal{GF}$ is naturally $\delta$-interleaved with $\Id_{\ct C}$. In other words, for any object $M\in\ct C$ we require the existence of a $\delta$-interleaving between $M$ and $\mathcal{GF}M$; for any $N\in\ct D$ we expect $N$ to be $\varepsilon$-interleaved with $\mathcal{FG}N$.

The category of real persistence modules has a subcategory of \dfn{lower stable real persistence modules}, i.e. persistence modules $M$ for which there exists some real number $x_0$ such that for all $x<y<x_0$, $M(x\leq y)$ is an isomorphism. For any given $x_0$, there is a subcategory of real persistence modules that are stable for that particular choice of $x_0$.

\begin{proposition}
  The category of lower stable real persistence modules with a given threshold value $x_0$ is equivalent to the category of lower stable real persistence modules with the threshold value of $0$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
  The functor $T_{x_0}$ has an inverse given by $\mathcal T_{-x_0}$. Hence any global translation of parameter values produces an equivalence of subcategories.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:strong-interleaving-m-tm}
  A module $M$ is strongly $\varepsilon$-interleaved with $T_\varepsilon M$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
  An interleaving is given by the family of maps $M(x)\xrightarrow{M(x\leq x+2\varepsilon)} T_\varepsilon M(x+\varepsilon)$ in the one direction, and the family of maps $T_\varepsilon M(x)\xrightarrow{M(x\leq x)}M(x+\varepsilon)$ in the other direction.
\end{proof}

We shall later on be interested in a type of \emph{pixelation} where out of a real persistence module $M$, we create a new real persistence module that is constant over intervals $[x_0+k\varepsilon, x_0+(k+1)\varepsilon)$. Write $P_{x_0,\varepsilon}$ for the endofunctor such that $P_{x_0,\varepsilon}M(x) = M\left(\left\lfloor\frac{x-x_0}{\varepsilon}\right\rfloor\cdot\varepsilon\right)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop:weak-interleaving-m-tm}
  A module $M$, stable below $x_0$, is weakly $\varepsilon$-interleaved with $P_{x_0,\varepsilon} M$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
  For a weak $\varepsilon$-interleaving of lower stable modules, it is enough to demonstrate the existence of interleaving maps for points out of some family $x_0+\mathbb N\cdot\varepsilon$.

  An interleaving is given by the families of maps
  \begin{align*}
    M(x_0+k\varepsilon)&\xrightarrow{M(x_0+k\varepsilon\leq x_0+(k+2)\varepsilon)} T_\varepsilon M(x_0+(k+1)\varepsilon) \\
    T_\varepsilon
    M(x_0+k\varepsilon)&\xrightarrow{M(x_0+k\varepsilon\leq
      x_0+k\varepsilon)}M(x_0+k\varepsilon)
  \end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
  A weak $\varepsilon$-interleaving gives rise to a strong $2\varepsilon$-interleaving.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
  Suppose $M$ and $N$ are weakly $\varepsilon$-interleaved with basepoint $x_0$, interval size $\varepsilon$, and functions $f:M\to T_\varepsilon N$, $g:N\to T_\varepsilon M$.

  A strong $2\varepsilon$-interleaving is given by

\begin{align*}
  M(x) &\to  M\left(\left\lceil\frac{x-x_0}{\varepsilon}\right\rceil\cdot\varepsilon\right)\xrightarrow{f}N\left(\left\lceil\frac{x-x_0}{\varepsilon}\right\rceil\cdot\varepsilon+\varepsilon\right)\to
  N(x+2\varepsilon) \\
  N(x) &\to  N\left(\left\lceil\frac{x-x_0}{\varepsilon}\right\rceil\cdot\varepsilon\right)\xrightarrow{g}M\left(\left\lceil\frac{x-x_0}{\varepsilon}\right\rceil\cdot\varepsilon+\varepsilon\right)\to
  M(x+2\varepsilon) \\
\end{align*}

\end{proof}

The approach we are giving in the following theorem to an equivalence is very similar to the $\varepsilon$-periodic pixelization described by \textcite{chazal_proximity_2009}. One fundamental difference is that we here define a new real persistence module which is constant between pixelization indices, allowing us to use Proposition~\ref{prop:weak-interleaving-m-tm} to prove weak interleaving.

\begin{theorem}
  For any $\varepsilon>0$, the category of $0$-based lower stable real persistence modules is weakly $2\varepsilon$-$2$-interleaved equivalent with the category of natural persistence modules.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  Fix some $\varepsilon>0$. We shall define a pair of functors as follows:

  For a real persistence module $M$, we define a natural persistence module $\mathcal FM$ by $\mathcal FM(n) = M((n+1)\cdot\varepsilon)$. The map $\mathcal FM(n\leq m)$ is defined to be $M((n+1)\cdot\varepsilon\leq(m+1)\cdot\varepsilon)$.

  For a natural persistence module $N$, we define a real persistence module $\mathcal GN$ by $\mathcal GN(x) = N\left(\left\lfloor\frac x \varepsilon \right\rfloor+1\right)$.

  \textbf{Claim} $\mathcal{GF}M$ is weakly $2\varepsilon$-interleaved with $M$. \\
  Indeed, $\mathcal{GF}M(x) = M\left(\left(\left\lfloor\frac x\varepsilon\right\rfloor+2\right)\cdot\varepsilon\right)$.
So in particular, $\mathcal{GF}M(n\varepsilon)=M((n+2)\varepsilon)$.

We note that this situation is almost identical to the situation in Proposition~\ref{prop:strong-interleaving-m-tm}; but due to the pixelation in effect from the floor computation, we only recover a weak interleaving, using Proposition~\ref{prop:weak-interleaving-m-tm}.

  \textbf{Claim} $\mathcal{FG}N$ is strongly $2$-interleaved with $N$. Indeed, $\mathcal{FG}N(n) = N\left(\left(\left\lfloor\frac{(n+1)\cdot\varepsilon}{\varepsilon}\right\rfloor +1\right)\right)=N(n+2)$.

  The result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
  For any $\varepsilon>0$, the category of $0$-based lower stable real persistence modules is strongly $4\varepsilon$-$4$-interleaved equivalent with the category of natural persistence modules.
\end{corollary}

\section{Software considerations}
\label{sec:softw-cons}

It is useful at this point to consider the software landscape. Most algorithms for persistent homology expect a \emph{simplex stream} -- a total refinement of the inclusion partial order on simplices in a simplicial complex, compatible as an order with the order induced by the filtration. For these, the algorithms then step one step for each new simplex added, and at the end of the computation translate the natural numbered indices back to the original \emph{filtration values}. This is how all persistent homology software we know operates~\cite{morozov_dionysus_2011,sexton_jplex_2008,tausz_javaplex:_2012}.

In this framework, this operation mode corresponds to taking categorical skeleta on the algebraic side; all runs of isomorphisms get pulled together to a single representative, and only the transitions between these runs are given space in the computation. After the algorithm finishes, these chunks are unpacked back into longer runs of modules, and translated back along the equivalence over to the real persistence module side of the operation at the same time.

\section{Concluding remarks}
\label{sec:concluding-remarks}

We have demonstrated that up to $\varepsilon$-interleavings, the two major categories used for classical persistent homology are equivalent. This means, in particular, that results on either side transfer to the other side stringently; a decomposition of a natural persistence module into interval modules, say, produces a corresponding decomposition of a real persistence module. On the other hand, a stability result for a real persistence module applies to its corresponding natural persistence module. For the equivalence, we have to settle on a scale, and on a lower bound, but the results hold regardless of the particular choice made.

The lower bound is only really chosen to enable us to build an interleaved equivalence to diagrams of the shape $(\NN, \leq)$. If we were to remove the lower bound requirement, these arguments would instead demonstrate an interleaved equivalence to diagrams of the shape $(\mathbb Z, \leq)$. These are, however, of much less use in current persistent homology.

It is also worth pointing out that the equivalences demonstrated do not in any way require tameness results to hold for the modules or their origins. Actual stability results or algebraic structure theorems will require additional prerequisites, but the interleaved equivalences hold regardless of the structures of the constituent modules.

\section{Acknowledgements}
\label{sec:acknowledgements}

Conversations with both Wojciech Chacholski and Primoz Skraba have refined and clarified important steps of the arguments in this paper.

The research was funded entirely by TOPOSYS (FP7-ICT-318493-STREP).

\newpage
\printbibliography

\end{document}


\section{Introduction}

This paper continues our studies in \cite{ns} and it is dealing with
the problem of estimating the max-norm $\|p^{(k)}\|$
of the $k$-th derivative of an algebraic polynomial $p$ of degree $n$
under restriction
$$
    |p(x)| \le \mu(x), \qquad x \in [-1,1],
$$
where $\mu$ is a non-negative majorant.
We want to find for which majorants $\mu$ the supremum of $\|p^{(k)}\|$
is attained
by the so-called snake-polynomial $\omega_\mu$ which oscillates most
between $\pm \mu$,
namely by the polynomial of degree $n$ that satisfies the following conditions
$$
   a) \quad |\omega_\mu(x)| \le \mu(x), \qquad
   b) \quad \omega_\mu(\tau_i^*) = (-1)^i \mu(\tau_i^*),
       \quad i = 0,\ldots,n\,.
$$
(This is an analogue of the Chebyshev polynomial $T_n$ for $\mu \equiv 1$.)
Actually, we are interested in those $\mu$ that provide the same supremum
for $\|p^{(k)}\|$ under the weaker assumption
$$
    |p(x)| \le \mu(x), \qquad x \in \delta^* = (\tau_i^*)_{i=0}^n,
$$
where $\delta^*$ is the set of oscillation points of $\omega_\mu$.
These two problems are generalizations of the classical results
for $\mu \equiv 1$ of Markov \cite{m} and of Duffin-Schaeffer \cite{ds41},
respectively.
$$
\begin{array}{@{}c@{\hspace{0.5cm}}c@{}}
\epsfig{file=y5.eps,width=5cm,height=4cm} &
\epsfig{file=y6.eps,width=5cm,height=4cm}
\\
\mbox{\small
\begin{tabular}{c}
Fig.\,1. Markov inequality with a majorant $\mu$: \\
$|p| \le \mu, \quad \|p^{(k)}\| \to \sup$
\end{tabular}
}  &
\mbox{\small
\begin{tabular}{c}
Fig.\,2. Duffin-Schaeffer inequality with a majorant $\mu$: \\
$|p|_{\delta^*} \le |\mu|_{\delta^*},\quad \|p^{(k)}\| \to \sup$
\end{tabular}
}
\end{array}
$$

\begin{problem}[Markov inequality with a majorant] \rm
For $n,k \in {\mathbb N}$, and a majorant $\mu \ge 0$, find
\be \lb{M_k}
    M_{k,\mu}
 := \sup_{|p(x)| \le \mu(x)} \|p^{(k)}\|
\end{equation}
\end{problem}

\begin{problem}[Duffin--Schaeffer inequality with a majorant] \rm
For $n,k \in {\mathbb N}$, and a majorant $\mu \ge 0$, find
\be \lb{D_k}
    D_{k,\mu}^*
 := \sup_{|p|_{\delta^*} \le |\mu|_{\delta^*} }
    \|p^{(k)}\|
\end{equation}
\end{problem}

In these notation, results of Markov \cite{m}
and Duffin--Schaeffer \cite{ds41} read:
$$
     \mu \equiv 1
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad}  M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^* = \|T_n^{(k)}\|\,,
$$
so, the question of interest is for which other majorants $\mu$
the snake-polynomial $\omega_\mu$ is extremal to both problems
\rf[M_k]-\rf[D_k], i.e., when we have the equalities
\be \lb{q}
 M_{k,\mu}   \stackrel{\mbox{?}}{=}
 D_{k,\mu}^* \stackrel{\mbox{?}}{=}
     \|\omega^{(k)}_\mu\|\,.
\end{equation}
Note that, for any majorant $\mu$, we have
$
    \|\omega^{(k)}_\mu\|
\le M_{k,\mu} \le D_{k,\mu}^*\,,
$
so the question marks in \rf[q] will be removed once we show that
\be \lb{D<w}
    D_{k,\mu}^* \le \|\omega^{(k)}_\mu\|\,.
\end{equation}
Ideally, we would also like to know the exact numerical value
of $\|\omega^{(k)}_\mu\|$ and that requires some kind of explicit expression
for the snake-polynomial $\omega_\mu$. The latter is available
for the class of majorants of the form
\be \lb{R}
   \mu(x) = \sqrt{ R_s(x) },
\end{equation}
where $R_s$ is a non-negative polynomial of degree $s$,
so it is this class that we paid most of our attention to.

In the previous paper \cite{ns}, we proved that inequality \rf[D<w] is valid
if $\widehat \omega_\mu := \omega^{(k-1)}_\mu$ belongs to the class $\Omega$
which is defined by the following three conditions:
$$
   \widehat\omega_\mu \in \Omega: \quad
\begin{array}{rcl}
    0) && \widehat\omega_\mu(x) = \prod_{i=1}^{\widehat n} (x - t_i),
          \qquad t_i \in [-1,1]; \\
   1a) && \|\widehat\omega_\mu\|_{C[0,1]} = \widehat\omega_\mu(1), \qquad \qquad
         1b) \quad \|\widehat\omega_\mu\|_{C[-1,0]} = |\widehat\omega_\mu(-1)|; \\
   2)  && \widehat\omega_\mu = c_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i T_i\,,
    \quad a_i \ge 0.
\end{array}
$$

\begin{theorem}[\cite{ns}]
Let $\omega^{(k-1)}_\mu \in \Omega$. Then
$$
    M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^* = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)\,.
$$
\end{theorem}

Let us make some comments about the polynomial class $\Omega$.

For $\omega_\mu$, assumption (0) is redundant, as the snake-polynomial
$\omega_\mu \in {\cal P}_n$
has $n+1$ points of oscillations between $\pm \mu$, hence, all of its $n$ zeros
lie in the interval $[-1,1]$, thus the same is true for any of its
derivative. We wrote it down as we will use this property repeatedly.

In the case of symmetric majorant $\mu$,
condition (1) becomes redundant
too, as in this case the snake-polynomial $\omega_\mu$ is either even or odd,
hence all $T_i$ in its Chebyshev expansion (2) are of the same parity,
and that, coupled with non-negativity of $a_i$, implies (1a) and (1b).

\begin{corollary} \lb{c}
Let $\mu(x) = \mu(-x)$, and let $\omega_\mu$ be the corresponding
snake-polynomial of degree $n$. If
$$
    \omega_\mu^{(k_0)}
  =  c_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i T_i\,, \quad a_i \ge 0,
$$
then
$$
    M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu} = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)\,, \qquad k \ge k_0+1\,.
$$
\end{corollary}

This corollary allowed us to establish Duffin-Schaeffer (and, thus, Markov)
inequalities for various symmetric majorants $\mu$ of the form \rf[R].

However, for non-symmetric $\omega_\mu$ satisfying (2), equality (1b)
is often not valid for small $k$, and that did not allow us to bring
our Duffin-Schaeffer-type results to a satisfactory level.
For example, (1b) is not fulfilled in the case
$$
     \mu(x) = x+1, \qquad k = 1,
$$
although intuitively it is clear that the Duffin-Schaeffer inequality
with such $\mu$ should be true.

\medskip
Here, we show that, as we conjectured in \cite{ns}), inequality \rf[D<w]
is valid under condition (2) only, hence, the statement of Corollary \ref{c}
is true for non-symmetric majorants $\mu$ as well.

\begin{theorem} \lb{main}
Given a majorant $\mu \ge 0$, let $\omega_\mu$ be the corresponding
snake-polynomial of degree $n$. If
$$
    \omega_\mu^{(k_0)}
  =  c_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i T_i\,, \quad a_i \ge 0,
$$
then
$$
    M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu} = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)\,, \qquad k \ge k_0+1\,.
$$
\end{theorem}

A short proof of this theorem is given in \S\,\ref{sP}.
It is based on a new idea which allow to "linearize" the problem
and reduce it to the following property of the Chebyshev polynomial $T_n$.

\begin{proposition} \lb{tmain}
For a fixed $t \in [-1,1]$, let
$$
   \tau_n(x,t) := \frac{1-xt}{x-t} (T_n(x) - T_n(t))\,.
$$
Then
$$
    \max_{x,t \in[-1,1]} |\tau_n'(x,t)| = T_n'(1).
$$
\end{proposition}

A simple and explicit form of the polynomials $\tau_n'(x,t)$
involved allows to draw their graphs in a straightforward way
and thus to check this proposition numerically for rather large
degrees $n$. The graphs below show that $\tau_n'(x,t)$,
as a function of two variables, has $n-3$ local extrema approximately
half the value of the global one, namely
$$
    \max_{|x| \le \cos\frac{\pi}{n}} \max_{|t| \le 1} |\tau_n'(x,t)|
\approx \frac{1}{2} T_n'(1)\,,
$$

$$
\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{0.5cm}}c}
\epsfig{file=y7.eps,width=5cm,height=4cm} &
\epsfig{file=y8.eps,width=5cm,height=4cm}
\\
\mbox{\small
Fig.\,3. Graphs of $\tau_n'(\cdot,t)$ for $n=6$}
&
\mbox{\small
Fig.\,4. Graphs of $\tau_n'(\cdot,t)$ for $n=16$}
\end{array}
$$

However, the rigorous proof of Proposition \ref{tmain}
turned out to be relatively long, and it would be interesting
to find a shorter one.

\nopagebreak

\section{Markov-Duffin-Schaeffer inequalities for various majorants}

1) Before our studies, Markov- or Duffin-Schaeffer-type inequalities
were obtained for the following majorants $\mu$ and derivatives $k$:
{\small
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{9}{c}{ \mbox{Markov-type inequalities:
      $M_{k,\mu} = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)$ } } \\[1ex]
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   1^\circ & \sqrt{ax^2 + bx +1},\; b \ge 0 & k=1 & \cite{v58} & &
   2^\circ & (1+x)^{\ell/2}(1-x^2)^{m/2} & k \ge m+\frac{\ell}{2} & \cite{pr81}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   3^\circ & \sqrt{1 + (a^2-1)x^2} & \mbox{all $k$} & \cite{v58} & &
   4^\circ & \sqrt{\prod_{i=1}^m (1+c_i^2 x^2)} & k=1 & \cite{v59}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
\multicolumn{9}{c}{\mbox{Duffin-Schaeffer-type inequalities:
    $M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^* = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)$ }
    \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   2^*_1 & \sqrt{1 - x^2} & k \ge 2 & \cite{rs88} & &
   2^*_2 &  1 - x^2 & k \ge 3 & \cite{rw92}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
\end{array}
$$
}
Our next theorem combines results from our previous paper \cite{ns}
with some new results based on Theorem \ref{main}.
In particular, it shows that, in cases $1^\circ$ and $4^\circ$,
Markov-type inequalities $M_{k,\mu} = \omega_\mu^{(k)}(1)$ are valid
also for $k \ge 2$, and in case $2^\circ$ they are valid
for $k \ge m+1$ independently of $\ell$. Moreover, in all our cases
we have stronger Duffin-Schaeffer-type inequalities.

\begin{theorem}
Let $\mu$ be one of the majorant given below. Then, with the corresponding
$k$, the $(k-1)$-st derivative of its snake-polynomial $\omega_\mu$
satisfies
\be \lb{w>0}
     \omega_\mu^{(k-1)} = \sum_i a_i T_i, \qquad a_i \ge 0\,,
\end{equation}
hence, by Theorem \ref{main},
\be \lb{M=D}
    M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^* = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
{\small
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{9}{c}{ \mbox{Duffin-Schaeffer-type inequalities:
      $M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^* = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)$ }
     \phantom{ \begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array} }} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   1^* & \sqrt{ax^2 + bx +1},\; b \ge 0 & k \ge 2 & \mbox{new} & &
   2^* & (1+x)^{\ell/2}(1-x^2)^{m/2} & k \ge m+1 & \mbox{new}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   3^* & \sqrt{1 + (a^2-1)x^2} & k \ge 2 & \cite{ns} & &
   4^* & \sqrt{\prod_{i=1}^m (1+c_i^2 x^2)} & k \ge 1 & \cite{ns}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   5^* & \mbox{any $\sqrt{R_m(x^2)}$} & k \ge m+1 & \cite{ns} & &
   6^* & \mbox{any $\mu(x)=\mu(-x)$}
           & k\ge \lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor + 1 & \cite{ns}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
   7^* & \sqrt{(1+c^2x^2)(1 + (a^2-1)x^2)} & k \ge 2 & \cite{ns} & &
   8^* & \sqrt{1 - a^2x^2 + a^2 x^4}
           & k\ge 1 & \mbox{new}
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-4} \cline{6-9}
\end{array}
$$
}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
The proof of \rf[w>0] for particular majorants
consists of sometimes tedious checking.

a) The cases $3^*$-$7^*$, with symmetric majorants $\mu$, are taken
from \cite{ns} where we already proved both \rf[w>0] and \rf[M=D].
Here, we added one more symmetric case $8^*$ as an example
of the majorant which is not monotonely increasing on $[0,1]$,
but which is still providing Duffin-Schaeffer inequality for all $k \ge 1$.
(One can check that its snake-polynomial has the form
$\omega_\mu(x) = b T_{n+2} + (1-b) T_{n-2}$.

b) In the non-symmetric case $1^*$, we also proved \rf[w>0] for $k \ge 2$
already in \cite{ns}, however in \cite{ns} we were able to get \rf[M=D]
only for $k\ge 3$.

c) The second non-symmetric case $2^*$ is new,
but proving \rf[w>0] in this case is relatively easy.
\quad $\Box$

\medskip
2) Our next theorem allows to produce Duffin-Schaeffer inequalities
for various types of majorants based on the cases that have been
already established.

\begin{theorem} \lb{ab}
Let a majorant $\mu$ have the form
$$
    \mu(x) = \mu_1(x)\mu_2(x) := \sqrt{Q_r(x)} \sqrt{R_s(x)},
$$
where the snake-polynomials for $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, respectively, satisfy
$$
   \omega_{\mu_1}^{(m_1)} = \sum a_i T_i, \quad a_i \ge 0, \qquad
   \omega_{\mu_2}^{(m_2)} = \sum b_i T_i, \quad b_i \ge 0\,.
$$
Then the snake-polynomial for $\mu$ satisfies
$$
   \omega_\mu^{(m_1+m_2)} = \sum c_i T_i, \quad c_i \ge 0\,.
$$
\end{theorem}

In the following example, $9^*$ is a combination of the cases
$2^*$ (with $m=0$) and $4^*$, and $10^*$ is a combination of $1^*$
with itself.
{\small
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{7}{c}{ \mbox{Further Markov-Duffin-Schaeffer inequalities:
      $M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^* = \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1)$
} } \\[1ex]
\cline{1-3} \cline{5-7}
   9^* &  (1+x)^{\ell/2} \sqrt{\prod_{i=1}^m (1+c_i^2 x^2)}
       & k \ge 1 &&
   10^* & \sqrt{\prod_{i=1}^m (a_ix^2 + b_i x +1)},\; b_i \ge 0
       & k \ge m+1
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-3} \cline{5-7}
\end{array}
$$
}
In fact, cases $2^*$, $4^*$ and $7^*$ can be obtained in the same way
from the majorants of degree $1$ and $2$.

\medskip
3) There are two particular cases of a majorant $\mu$ and a derivative $k$
for which Markov-type inequalities have been proved,
but which cannot be extended to Duffin-Schaeffer-type within our method,
as in those case $\omega_\mu^{(k-1)}$ does not have a positive Chebyshev
expansion.
{\small
$$
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\multicolumn{7}{c}{ \mbox{ Markov-
but not Duffin-Schaeffer-type inequalities:
$M_{k,\mu}=\omega_\mu^{(k)}(1)$,\quad $D_{k,\mu}^* = \;?$
} } \\[1ex]
\cline{1-3} \cline{5-7}
   1^\circ & \sqrt{ax^2+bx+1},\; b \ge 0 & k = 1 & &
   2^\circ & \qquad (1-x^2)^{m/2} \qquad & k = m
      \phantom{\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}1\\[-1ex]2 \end{array}} \\
\cline{1-3} \cline{5-7}
\end{array}
$$
}
In this respect, a natural question is whether this situation
is due to imperfectness
of our method, or maybe it is because the equality $M_{k,\mu} = D_{k,\mu}^*$
is no longer valid. An indication that the latter could undeed be the case
was obtained by Rahman-Schmeisser \cite{rs88} for the majorant
$\mu_1(x) := \sqrt{1-x^2}$. Namely they showed that
$$
    \mu_1(x) = \sqrt{1-x^2}, \quad k=1
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad} 2n = \omega_{\mu_1}'(1) =  M_{1,\mu_1} < D_{1,\mu_1}^* = {\cal O}(n\ln n)\,.
$$
Here, we show that, in case $2^\circ$, i.e., for $\mu_m := (1-x^2)^{m/2}$
with any $m$, similar inequalities between Markov and Duffin-Schaeffer
constants hold for all $k \le m$.

\begin{theorem} \lb{MD}
We have
$$
     \mu_m(x) = (1-x^2)^{m/2}, \quad k \le m
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad} {\cal O}(n^k) = M_{k,\mu_m} < D_{k,\mu_m}^* = {\cal O}(n^k \ln n)\,.
$$
\end{theorem}

As to the remaining case $1^\circ$, we believe that if $\mu(1) > 0$,
i.e., except the degenerate case $\mu(x) = \sqrt{1-x^2}$,
we will have Markov-Duffin-Schaeffer inequality at least for large $n$:
$$
   \mu(x) = \sqrt{ax^2+bx+1},\quad b \ge 0, \quad k = 1
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad} M_{1,\mu} = D_{1,\mu} = \omega'_\mu(1), \qquad n \ge n_\mu\,,
$$
where $n_\mu$ depends on $\mu(1)$.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}} \lb{sP}

In \cite{ns}, we used the following intermediate estimate
as an upper bound for $D_{k,\mu}^*$.

\begin{proposition}[\cite{ns}] \lb{D<phi}
Given a majorant $\mu$,
let $\omega_\mu \in {\cal P}_n$ be its snake-polynomial,
let $\widehat \omega_\mu(x) := \omega_\mu^{(k-1)}(x)$, and let
\be \lb{phi0}
   \phi_{\widehat\omega}(x,t_i)
:= \frac{1-xt_i}{x-t_i}\, \widehat \omega_\mu (x),
   \qquad \mbox{where $\;t_i\;$ are the roots of $\;\widehat\omega_\mu$}.
\end{equation}
Then
\be \lb{Dphi}
    D_{k,\mu}^*
\le \max\left\{ \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1),
    \max_{x,t_i \in[-1,1]} |\phi'_{\widehat\omega}(x,t_i)|\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\noindent
We showed in \cite{ns} that if $\widehat\omega_\mu \in \Omega$, then
$\phi_{\widehat\omega}'(x,t_i)| \le \widehat\omega_\mu'(1) = \omega_\mu^{(k)}(1)$.

\medskip
Here, we will use very similar estimate.

\begin{proposition} \lb{D<tau}
Given a majorant $\mu$, let $\omega_\mu \in {\cal P}_n$ be its snake-polynomial,
let $\widehat \omega_\mu = \omega_\mu^{(k-1)}$, and let
\be \lb{tau0}
   \tau_{\widehat\omega}(x,t)
:= \frac{1-xt}{x-t} (\widehat \omega_\mu (x) - \widehat\omega_\mu(t)),
   \qquad t \in [-1,1].
\end{equation}
Then
\be \lb{Dtau}
    D_{k,\mu}^*
\le \max\left\{ \omega^{(k)}_\mu(1),
    \max_{x,t \in[-1,1]} |\tau'_{\widehat\omega}(x,t)|\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
Comparing two definitions \rf[phi0] and \rf[tau0], we see that,
since $\widehat\omega(t_i) = 0$, we have
$$
  \tau_{\widehat\omega}(x,t_i)
= \frac{1-xt_i}{x-t_i} (\widehat \omega_\mu (x) - \widehat\omega_\mu(t_i))
= \frac{1-xt_i}{x-t_i}\, \widehat \omega_\mu (x)
= \widehat\phi_{\widehat\omega}(x,t_i)\,.
$$
Therefore,
$$
   \max_{x,t_i \in[-1,1]} |\phi'_{\widehat\omega}(x,t_i)|
 = \max_{x,t_i \in[-1,1]} |\tau'_{\widehat\omega}(x,t_i)|
\le \max_{x,t \in[-1,1]} |\tau'_{\widehat\omega}(x,t)|\,,
$$
and \rf[Dtau] follows from \rf[Dphi].

\medskip\noindent
{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{main}.}
By Proposition \ref{D<tau}, we are done if we prove that
$$
     \max_{x,t \in[-1,1]} |\tau_{\widehat\omega}'(x,t)|
\le \widehat \omega_\mu'(1) \quad \left( = \omega_\mu^{(k)}(1)\,\right).
$$
By assumption,
\be \lb{aT}
     \widehat\omega_\mu = c_0 + \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i T_i, \qquad a_i \ge 0,
\end{equation}
therefore
\baa
     \widehat \tau_{\widehat\omega}(x,t)
&:=& \frac{1-xt}{x-t} (\widehat \omega_\mu (x) - \widehat\omega_\mu(t))
 =  \frac{1-xt}{x-t}   \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i (T_i(x) - T_i(t)) \\
&= &  \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i \frac{1-xt}{x-t} (T_i(x) - T_i(t))
 =   \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i \tau_i(x,t)\,,
\end{eqnarray*}
and respectively
$$
     |\tau_{\widehat\omega}'(x,t)|
\le  \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} |a_i| |\tau_i'(x,t)|
\stackrel{(a)}{=}  \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i |\tau_i'(x,t)|
\stackrel{(b)}{\le}  \sum_{i=1}^{\widehat n} a_i T_i'(1)
\stackrel{(c)}{=} \widehat \omega_\mu'(1).
$$
Here, the equality $(a)$ is due to assumption $a_i \ge 0$ in \rf[aT],
equality $(c)$ also follows from \rf[aT],
and inequality $(b)$ is the matter of the Proposition \ref{tmain}.

\section{Preliminaries} \lb{pre}

For a polynomial
$$
    \omega(x) = c \prod_{i=1}^n (x-t_i)\,, \quad
    -1 \le t_n \le \cdots \le t_1 \le 1, \quad c > 0,
$$
with all its zeros in the interval $[-1,1]$ (and counted in the reverse
order), set
\be \lb{phi}
    \phi(x,t_i) := \frac{1-xt_i}{x-t_i}\,\omega(x)\,, \qquad i = 1,\ldots,n.
\end{equation}
For each $i$, we would like to estimate the norm
$\|\phi'(\cdot,t_i)\|_{C[-1,1]}$, i.e., the maximum value of $|\phi(x,t_i)|$,
and the latter is attained either at the end-points $x=\pm 1$,
or at the points $x$ where $\phi''(x,t_i) = 0$.

Let us introduce two functions
\ba
     \psi_1(x,t)
&:=& \frac{1}{2}(1-xt)\,\omega''(x) - t\,\omega'(x)\,. \lb{psi1} \\
     \psi_2(x,t)
&:=& \frac{1}{2}(1-x^2)\,\omega''(x)
         + \frac{x-t}{1-xt}\,\omega'(x)
         - \frac{x(1-t^2)}{(x-t)(1-xt)}\,\omega(x)\,. \lb{psi2}
\end{eqnarray}

In \cite{ns} we obtained the following results.

\begin{claim} \lb{c1}
We have
$$
     |\phi'(\pm1,t_i)| \le |\omega'(\pm1)|\,.
$$
\end{claim}

\begin{comment}
This inequality follows from the straightforward calculations:
$$
   \phi'(1,t_i) = \omega'(1) - \frac{1+t_i}{1-t_i}\,\omega(1).
$$
The last term is non-negative, hence $\phi'(1,t_i) \le \omega'(1)$.
Also, since $1+t_i \le 2$ and $\frac{\omega(1)}{1-t_i} \le \omega'(1)$,
it does not exceed $2\omega'(1)$, hence $\phi'(1,t_i) \ge -\omega'(1)$.
\end{comment}

\begin{claim} \lb{c2}
For each $i$, both $\psi_{1,2}(\cdot,t_i)$
interpolate $\phi'(\cdot,t_i)$ at the points of its local extrema,
\be \lb{phi'}
    \phi''(x,t_i) = 0 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad}  \phi'(x,t_i) = \psi_{1,2}(x,t_i)\,,
\end{equation}
\end{claim}

\begin{comment}
Implication \rf[phi'] follows immediately from the formulas
\be \lb{psi12}
   \psi_1(x,t)
= \phi'(x,t) + \frac{1}{2}(x-t)\phi''(x,t)\,, \qquad
   \psi_2(x,t)
= \phi'(x,t) + \frac{1}{2}\, \frac{x-t}{1-xt}\,(1-x^2)\,\phi''(x,t)\,.
\end{equation}
Expanding expression on the right-hand sides in terms of $\omega$
via \rf[phi] gives\rf[psi1] and \rf[psi2]
\end{comment}

\begin{claim} \lb{c3}
With some specific functions $f_\nu(\omega,\cdot)$, we have
$$
\begin{array}{lllr@{}l}
   1) & |\psi_1(x,t_i)| \le \max\limits_{\nu=1,2,3} |f_\nu(x)|, \quad
      &0 \le x \le 1, \quad
      & -& 1 \le \frac{x-t_i}{1-xt_i} \le \frac{1}{2}\,; \\[1ex]
   2) & |\psi_2(x,t_i)| \le \max\limits_{\nu=1,2} |f_\nu(x)|, \quad
      & t_1 \le x \le 1; \quad
      &&  \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t_i}{1-xt_i} \le 1;
\end{array}
$$
and, under addittional assumption that $|\omega(x)| \le \omega(1)$,
$$
\begin{array}{lllr@{}l}
    3)  & |\psi_2(x,t_i)| \le \max\limits_{\nu=1,2,4} |f_\nu(x)|, \quad
      & 0 \le x \le t_1, \quad
      && \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t_i}{1-xt_i} \le 1.
\end{array}
$$
\end{claim}

\begin{claim} \lb{c4}
Let
$$
    \omega = c_0 + \sum_{i=1}^n a_i T_i, \qquad a_i \ge 0\,,
$$
Then
$$
    \max_{1\le\nu\le 4} |f_\nu(\omega,x)| \le \omega'(1)\,.
$$
\end{claim}

From Claims \ref{c1}-\ref{c4}, we obtain the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}
Let $\omega$ satisfy the following three conditions
\baa
    0) &&  \omega(x) = c \prod_{i=1}^n (x-t_i)\, \qquad t_i \in [-1,1], \\
   1a) && \|\omega\|_{C[0,1]} = \omega(1), \qquad \qquad
         1b) \quad \|\omega\|_{C[-1,0]} = |\omega(-1)|; \\
   2)  && \omega = c_0 + \sum_{i=1}^n a_i T_i,
    \quad a_i \ge 0\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then
$$
    \max_{x,t_i\in[-1,1]} |\phi'(x,t_i)| \le \omega'(1)
$$
\end{theorem}

We will need the following corollary.

\begin{proposition} \lb{pphi}
Let
$$
    \omega(x) = c_0 + T_n(x) = \prod_{i=1}^n (x-t_i), \quad |c_0| \le 1,
$$
and let a pair of points $(x,t_i)$ satisfy any of the following conditions:
\be \lb{xt_i}
\begin{array}{llr@{}ll}
   1) & 0 \le x \le 1, \quad
      & -& 1 \le \frac{x-t_i}{1-xt_i} \le \frac{1}{2}\,; \\[1ex]
   2) & t_1 \le x \le 1; \quad
      && \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t_i}{1-xt_i} \le 1;  \\[1ex]
   3) & 0 \le x \le t_1, \quad
      && \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t_i}{1-xt_i} \le 1
       & \mbox{and} \quad |\omega(x)| \le \omega(1).
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then
\be \lb{phi''=0}
   \phi''(x,t_i) = 0 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad} |\phi'(x,t_i)| \le \omega'(1)
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\section{Preliminaries}

Here, we will prove Proposition \ref{tmain}, namely that the polynomial
$$
    \tau(x,t) := \frac{1-xt}{x-t}\left(T_n(x)-T_n(t)\right),
$$
considered as a polynomial in $x$, admits the estimate
\be \lb{tau<T}
   |\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)\,, \qquad x,t \in [-1,1]\,, \qquad n \in {\mathbb N}\,.
\end{equation}
We prove it as before by considering, for a fixed $t$, the points $x$
of local extrema of $\tau'(x,t)$ and the end-points $x = \pm1$,
and showing that at those points $|\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)$.

\begin{lemma} \lb{1}
If $x = \pm 1$, then $|\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)$.
\end{lemma}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
This inequality follows from the straightforward calculations:
$$
   \tau'(1,t) = T_n'(1) - \frac{1+t}{1-t}\,(T_n(1)-T_n(t))\,.
$$
The last term is non-negative, hence $\tau'(1,t) \le T_n'(1)$.
Also, since $1+t \le 2$ and $\frac{T_n(1)-T_n(t)}{1-t} \le T_n'(1)$,
it does not exceed $2T_n'(1)$, hence $\tau'(1,t) \ge -T_n'(1)$.

It remains to consider the local maxima of $\tau'(\cdot,t)$, i.e.,
the points $(x,t)$ where $\tau_n''(x,t) = 0$  Note that local maxima
of the polynomial $\tau_n'(\cdot,t)$ exist only
for $n \ge 3$, and  that, because of symmetry
$\tau(x,t) = \pm\tau(-x,-t)$, it is sufficient to prove the inequality
\rf[tau<T] only on the half of the square $[-1,1]\times[-1,1]$.
So, we are dealing with the case
$$
      {\cal D}: \quad x \in [0,1], \quad t \in [-1,1]\,; \qquad n \ge 3.
$$
We split the domain ${\cal D}$ into two main subdomains:
$$
{\cal D} = {\cal D}_1 \cup {\cal D}_2, \quad
\begin{array}{lllr@{}l}
  {\cal D}_1: & x \in [0,1], \quad & t \in [-1,1], \quad
         & -&1 \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le \frac{1}{2}\,; \\
  {\cal D}_2: & x \in [0,1], \quad & t \in [-1,1], \quad
         && \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1\,;
\end{array}
$$
with a further subdivision of ${\cal D}_2$
$$
{\cal D}_2 = {\cal D}_2^{(1)} \cup {\cal D}_2^{(2)} \cup {\cal D}_2^{(3)}, \quad
\begin{array}{llll}
  {\cal D}_2^{(1)}: & x \in [0,1], \quad & t \in [\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n},1], \quad
           & \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1; \\[1ex]
  {\cal D}_2^{(2)}: & x \in [0,\cos\frac{\pi}{n}], \quad
           & t \in [-1, \cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}], \quad
           & \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1; \\[1ex]
  {\cal D}_2^{(3)}: & x \in [\cos\frac{\pi}{n},1], \quad
           & t \in [-1, \cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}], \quad
           & \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1.
\end{array}
$$
We will prove

\begin{proposition} \lb{DD}
$\begin{array}[t]{l}
  \mbox{ a)\quad if $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_1 \cup {\cal D}_2^{(1)}\cup{\cal D}_2^{(2)}$
       and $\tau''(x,t) = 0$, then $|\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)$; } \\
  \mbox{ b)\quad if $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_2^{(3)}$,
       then $\tau''(x,t) \ne 0$. }
\end{array}$
\end{proposition}

For (a), we use use results of \S\ref{pre}, in particular Proposition
\ref{pphi}.

\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{DD}.a}

\begin{proposition} \lb{ptau}
For a fixed $t \in [-1,1]$, let $t_1$ be the rightmost zero of the polynomial
$$
     \omega_*(\cdot) = T_n(\cdot)-T_n(t)\,,
$$
and let a pair of points $(x,t)$ satisfy any of the following conditions:
\be \lb{xt}
\begin{array}{llr@{}ll}
   1') & 0 \le x \le 1, \quad
      & -& 1 \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le \frac{1}{2}\,; \\[1ex]
   2') & t_1 \le x \le 1; \quad
      && \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1;  \\[1ex]
   3') & 0 \le x \le t_1, \quad
      && \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1
       & \mbox{and} \quad T_n(t) \le 0\,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
Then
\be \lb{tau''=0}
   \tau''(x,t) = 0 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad} |\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
For a fixed $t \in [-1,1]$, the polynomial
$\omega_*(\cdot) = T_n(\cdot) - T_n(t)$ has $n$ zeros inside $[-1,1]$
counting possible multiplicities, i.e. $\omega_*(x) = c \prod (x-t_i)$,
and $x=t$ is one of them, i.e., $t=t_i$ for some $i$.
Therefore, conditions $(1')$-$(3')$ for $(x,t)$ in \rf[xt] are equaivalent
to the conditions $(1)$-$(3)$ for $(x,t_i)$ in \rf[xt_i], in particular,
the inequality $|\omega_*(x)| < \omega_*(1)$ in $\ref{xt_i}(3)$ follows
from $T_n(t) \le 0$.
Hence, the implication \rf[phi''=0] for $\phi_*$ is valid.
But, since $t=t_i$, we have
$$
     \tau(x,t)
 = \frac{1-xt}{x-t}\left(T_n(x)-T_n(t)\right)
 = \frac{1-xt_i}{x-t_i}\,\omega_*(x) = \phi_*(x,t_i),
$$
so \rf[tau''=0] is identical to \rf[phi''=0].

\begin{lemma}
Let $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_1 = \{x \in [0,1], t \in [-1,1],
         -1 \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le \frac{1}{2}]\}$.
Then
$$
    \tau''(x,t_i) = 0 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad} |\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)\,.
$$
\end{lemma}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
Condition $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_1$ is identical to condition (1')
in Proposition \ref{ptau}, hence the conclusion.

\begin{lemma}
Let $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_2^{(1)} = \{x \in [0,1], t \in [\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n},1],
         -1 \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le \frac{1}{2}]\}$.
Then
$$
    \tau''(x,t_i) = 0 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad} |\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)\,.
$$
\end{lemma}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
We split ${\cal D}_2^{(2)}$ into two further sets:
$$
\textstyle
  2a) \quad t \in [\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n},\cos\frac{\pi}{2n}]\,, \qquad
  2b) \quad t \in [\cos\frac{\pi}{2n},1]\,.
$$

\medskip
2a) For $t \in [\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}\cos\frac{\pi}{2n}]$ we have
$T_n(t) \le 0$,  so we apply again Proposition \ref{ptau} where
we use condition (3'), if $x < t_1$, and condition (2') otherwise.

\medskip
2b) For  $t \in [\cos\frac{\pi}{2n},1]$, the Chebyshev polynomial $T_n(t)$
is increasing, hence $t$ is the rightmost
zero $t_1$ of the polynomial $\omega_*(x) = T_n(x) - T_n(t)$.
Now, we use the inequality $\frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1$
for $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_2^{(2)}$. Since $t=t_1$, we have
$$
    \frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t_1}{1-xt_1} \le 1
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad} t_1 \le x \le 1,
$$
so we apply Proposition \ref{ptau} with condition (2').

\begin{lemma}
Let $(x,t) \in {\cal D}_2^{(2)} = \{x \in [0,\cos\frac{\pi}{n}],
t \in [-1,\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}],
         -1 \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le \frac{1}{2}]\}$.
Then
$$
    \tau''(x,t) = 0 {\quad\Rightarrow\quad} |\tau'(x,t)| \le T_n'(1)\,.
$$
\end{lemma}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
By Claim \ref{c2}, since $\tau(x,t) = \phi_*(x,t_i)$, we have
$$
    \tau''(x,t) = 0
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad} |\tau'(x,t)| \le |\psi_2(x,t)|\,,
$$
where
\be \lb{psi*}
     \psi_2(x,t)
 := \frac{1}{2}(1-x^2)\,\omega_*''(x)
         + \frac{x-t}{1-xt}\,\omega_*'(x)
         - \frac{x(1-t^2)}{(x-t)(1-xt)}\,\omega_*(x)\,,
\end{equation}
so let us prove that
\be \lb{3}
    \max_{x,t \in {\cal D}_2^{(2)}} |\psi_2(x,t)| \le T_n'(1).
\end{equation}
Making the substitution $\gamma  =  \frac{x-t}{1-xt}$ into
\rf[psi*], we obtain
\be
     \psi_2(x,t) := \psi_\gamma(x)
  = \frac{1}{2}(1-x^2)\,\omega_*''(x) + \gamma\,\omega_*'(x)
         - \frac{1-\gamma^2}{\gamma}\,\frac{x}{1-x^2}\,
      \omega_*(x)
     \;=:\; g_\gamma(x) - h_\gamma(x)\,,
\end{equation}
where $g_\gamma(x)$ is the sum of the first two terms, and $h_\gamma(x)$
is the third one, so that
\be  \lb{psi2g}
    |\psi_2(x,t_i)|
\le |g_\gamma(x)| + |h_\gamma(x)|
\end{equation}
Let us evaluate both $g_\gamma$ and $h_\gamma$.

1) Since $\omega_*(x) = T_n(x) - T_n(t)$, we have
$$
    2 g_\gamma(x)
 =  (1-x^2)T_n''(x) + 2\gamma T_n'(x)
 =  (x+2\gamma) T_n'(x) - n^2 T_n(x)\,,
$$
so that, using Cauchy inequality and the well-known identity for Chebyshev
polynomials, we obatin
\ba
    2 |g_\gamma(x)|
&=& n \left| nT_n(x)
        - \frac{x+\gamma}{n\sqrt{1-x^2}}\sqrt{1-x^2} T_n'(x)\right|
    \nonumber \\
&\le& n \left(n^2 T_n(x)^2 + (1-x^2)T_n'(x)^2\right)^{1/2}
  \left( 1 + \frac{(x+2\gamma)^2}{n^2(1-x^2)}\right)^{1/2}
      \nonumber\\
&\le & n^2 \left( 1 + \frac{(x+2\gamma)^2}{n^2(1-x^2)}\right)^{1/2}
    \lb{g}
\end{eqnarray}

2) For the function $h_\gamma$, since $\omega_*(x) = T_n(x) - T_n(t)$
does not exceed $2$ in the absolute value, we have the trivial estimate
\be \lb{h}
    |h_\gamma(x)|
\le \frac{1-\gamma^2}{\gamma}\,\frac{2x}{1-x^2}\
 = n^2  \frac{1-\gamma^2}{\gamma}\,\frac{2x}{n^2(1-x^2)}\,.
\end{equation}

3) So, from \rf[psi2g], \rf[g] and \rf[h], we have
$$
    \max_{x,t \in (C_3)} |\psi_2(x,t_i)|
\le T_n'(1) \max_{x,\gamma} F(x,\gamma)\,,
$$
where
$$
   F(x,\gamma)
:= \frac{1}{2}\left( 1 + \frac{(x+2\gamma)^2}{n^2(1-x^2)}\right)^{1/2}
   + \frac{1-\gamma^2}{\gamma}\,\frac{2x}{n^2(1-x^2)},
$$
and the maximum is taken over $\gamma \in [\frac{1}{2},1]$ and
$x \in [0,x_n]$, $x_n = \cos\frac{\pi}{n}$. Clearly,
$F(x,\gamma) \le F(x_n,\gamma)$, so we are done with \rf[3]
once we prove that $F(x_n,\gamma) \le 1$. We have
\baa
     F(x_n,\gamma)
&=&  \frac{1}{2}
       \left( 1 + \frac{(\cos\frac{\pi}{n}+2\gamma)^2}
                       {n^2\sin^2\frac{\pi}{n}}   \right)^{1/2}
   + \frac{1-\gamma^2}{\gamma}\,
           \frac{2\cos\frac{\pi}{n}}{n^2\sin^2\frac{\pi}{n}} \\
&\le&  \frac{1}{2}
       \left( 1 + \frac{(1+2\gamma)^2}
                       {4^2\sin^2\frac{\pi}{4}}   \right)^{1/2}
   + \frac{1-\gamma^2}{\gamma}\,
           \frac{2\cdot 1}{4^2\sin^2\frac{\pi}{4}} \;=:\; G(\gamma),
   \qquad n \ge 4,
\end{eqnarray*}
where we used $\cos\frac{\pi}{n} < 1$ and the fact that the sequence
$(n^2\sin^2\frac{\pi}{n})$ is increasing. Hence,
$F(x_n,\gamma) \le 1$ for all $n \ge 3$ if
$$
    F(x_3,\gamma) \le 1,\qquad G(\gamma) \le 1
$$
and the latter follows from the graphs
$$
\begin{array}{c@{\hspace{2cm}}c}
\epsfig{file=y3.eps,width=6cm,height=3cm} &
\epsfig{file=y4.eps,width=6cm,height=3cm}
\\
\mbox{Figure 1: The graph of $F(x_3,\gamma)$} &
\mbox{Figure 2: The graphs of $G(\gamma)$}
\end{array}
$$

\section{Proof of Proposition \ref{DD}.b}

\begin{lemma}
Let $x \in {\cal D}_2^{(3)} = \{ x \in [\cos\frac{\pi}{n},1],
t \in [-1, \cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}],
\frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1\}$. Then
$$
    \tau''(x,t) > 0\,.
$$
\end{lemma}

We prove this statement in several steps,
restriction $\frac{1}{2} \le \frac{x-t}{1-xt} \le 1$ is irrelevant.

\begin{lemma}
\begin{tabular}[t]{l@{\,}l}
\multicolumn{2}{l}{
a) If $t \in [-1,0]$,
      then $\tau''(x,t) > 0$ for $x \ge \cos\frac{\pi}{n}\,.$} \\
b) If $t \in (0,1]$,
      & then $\tau''(x,t)$ has at most one zero on
              $[\cos\frac{\pi}{n}, \infty)$, \\
      & and $\tau''(x,t) < 0$ for large $x$.
\end{tabular}
\end{lemma}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
By definition,
$$
  \tau(x,t) = \frac{1-xt}{x-t}\left(T_n(x)-T_n(t)\right)\,.
$$
For a fixed $t \in [-1,1]$, the polynomial
$\omega_*(\cdot) = T_n(\cdot)-T_n(t)$ has $n$ zeros inside $[-1,1]$,
say $(t_i)$, one of them at $x=t$, so $t=t_i$ for some $i$. From definition,
we see that the polynomial $\tau(\cdot,t)$ has the same zeros
as $\omega_*$ except $t_i$ which is replaced by $1/t_i$. So, if
$(s_i)_{i=1}^n$ an $(t_i)_{i=1}^n$ are the zeros of
$\tau(\cdot,t)$ and $\omega_*(\cdot,t)$ respectively,
counted in the reverse order, then
$$
     1) \quad s_i \le t_i \le s_{i-1}, \quad\mbox{if}\quad t \le 0, \qquad
     2) \quad s_{i+1} \le t_i \le s_i, \quad\mbox{if}\quad t > 0\,.
$$
That means that zeros of $\tau(\cdot,t)$ and $\omega_*(\cdot)$ interlace,
hence, by Markov's lemma, the same is true for the zeros of any of their
derivatives. In particular, for the rightmost zeros of the second
derivatives, we have
$$
    1) \quad s_1'' < t_1'', \quad\mbox{if}\quad t \le 0, \qquad
    2) \quad s_2'' < t_1'' < s_1'', \quad\mbox{if}\quad t > 0\,.
$$
Since $\omega_*'' = T_n''$, its rightmost zero $t_1''$ satisfies
$t_1'' < \cos\frac{\pi}{n}$ as the latter is the rightmost zero of $T_n'$,
This proves case $(a)$ and the forst part of the case $(b)$ of the lemma.
Second part of $(b_2)$ follows
from the observation that, for $t > 0$, polynomial $\tau(\cdot,t)$
has a negative leading coefficient.

\begin{corollary}
For a fixed $t \in [0,1]$, if $\tau''(x,t) \ge 0$ at $x=1$,
then $\tau''(x,t) > 0$ for all $x \in [\cos\frac{\pi}{n},1)$\,.
\end{corollary}

\begin{lemma}
If $t \in [0,\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}]$,
then  $\tau''(x,t) > 0$ for $x \in [x_n,1]$
\end{lemma}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
We have
$$
   \tau''(x,t)
= \frac{1-xt}{x-t}\,T_n''(x) - 2\, \frac{1-t^2}{(x-t)^2}\,T_n'(x)
  + 2\,\frac{1-t^2}{(x-t)^3} \left(T_n(x)-T_n(t)\right)
$$
By the previous corollary, it is sufficient to prove that
\be \lb{tau1}
   \tau''(1,t)
=   \frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{3} - 2\, \frac{1+t}{1-t}\,n^2
  + 2\,\frac{1+t}{(1-t)^2} \left(1-T_n(t)\right) \ge 0\,.
\end{equation}

\medskip
1) Since the last term is non-negative for $t \in [-1,1)$,
this inequality is true if
$$
     \frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{3} - 2\, \frac{1+t}{1-t}\,n^2 \ge 0
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad} t \le \frac{n^2-7}{n^2+5}\,.
$$
We have
$$
    \cos\frac{3\pi}{2n} < \frac{n^2-7}{n^2+5}\,, \quad 4 \le n \le 6\,,
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
    \cos\frac{2\pi}{n} < \frac{n^2-7}{n^2+5} < \cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}\,,
     \quad n \ge 7.
$$
So, we are done, once we prove that \rf[tau1] is valid for
$t \in [\cos\frac{2\pi}{n},\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}]$ and $n \ge 7$.

\medskip
2) Consider the function
$$
   f(t) := (1-t)\tau''(1,t)
=  (1-t)\frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{3} - 2(1+t)n^2 + 2\,(1+t)\, \frac{1-T_n(t)}{1-t}\,.
$$
This function is convex on $I = [\cos\frac{2\pi}{n},+\infty]$.
Indeed, the first two terms are linear in $t$ and the last term consists
of two factors, both convex, positive and increasing on $I$.
The latter claim is obvious for $1+t$, and it is true for
$P_n(t) := \frac{1-T_n(t)}{1-t}$, since this $P_n$ is a polynomial
with positive leading coefficient whose rightmost zero is the double
zero at $t = \cos\frac{2\pi}{n}$.

So, $f$ is convex and satisfies $f(0) = 0$, $f(\cos\frac{2\pi}{n}) > 0$,
therefore if $f(t_*) > 0$ for some $t_*$, then $f(t) > 0$ for all
$t \in [\cos\frac{2\pi}{n},t_*]$.

Thus, it remains to show that $\tau''(1,\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}) > 0$, i.e.,
\be \lb{t*}
  \frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{3} - 2n^2 u + \frac{2}{1+\cos\frac{3\pi}{2n}}u^2 > 0,
  \quad u = \cot^2 \frac{3\pi}{4n}\,.
\end{equation}
This inequality will certainly be true if
$u^2 - 2n^2 u + \frac{n^2(n^2-1)}{3} > 0$, and a sufficient condition for
the latter is
$$
     \cot^2 \frac{3\pi}{4n} = u
  <  n^2\Big(1 - \sqrt{\frac{2}{3} + \frac{1}{3n^2}}\Big)
$$
Since $\cot \alpha < \alpha^{-1}$ for $0 < \alpha < \frac{\pi}{2}$,
this condition is fulfilled if
$
    (\frac{4}{3\pi})^2 < 1 - \sqrt{\frac{2}{3} + \frac{1}{3n^2}}
$
and that is true for $n \ge 8$. For $n=7$, we verify \rf[t*]directly.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{ab}}

\begin{lemma}
Let a majorant $\mu$ have the form $\mu(x) = \sqrt{R_s(x)}$,
where $R_s$ is a non-negative polynomial of degree $s$.
Then, for $N \ge \lfloor -\frac{s+1}{2} \rfloor$,
its snake-polynomial  $\omega_N$ of degree $N+s$ has the form
$$
    \omega_\mu = \sum_{i=0}^s a_i T_{N+i}
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}
Let a majorant $\mu$ have the form
$$
     \mu(x) = \mu_1(x) \mu_2(x) = \sqrt{Q_r(x)}\sqrt{R_s(x)}
$$
and let
$$
    \omega_{\mu_1} = \sum_{i=0}^r a_i T_{N+i}, \qquad
    \omega_{\mu_2} = \sum_{i=0}^s b_i T_{N+i}\,.
$$
Then
$$
    \omega_\mu = \sum_{i=0}^r \sum_{j=0}^s a_i b_j T_{N+i+j}
$$
\end{lemma}

{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{ab}.}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{MD}}

In this section, we prove that, for the majorant $\mu_m(x) = (1-x^2)^{m/2}$,
its snake-polynomial $\omega_\mu$ is not extremal for the
Duffin-Schaeffer inequality for $k \le m$, i.e., for
$$
   D_{k,\mu_m}^*
:= \sup_{|p(x)|_{\delta^*} \le |\mu_m(x)|_{\delta^*}}\|p^{(k)}\|
$$
where $\delta^* = (\tau_i^*)$ is the set of points of oscillation
of $\omega_\mu$ between $\pm \mu_m$, we have
$$
    D_{k,\mu_m}^* > \|\omega_\mu^{(k)}\|, \qquad k \le m.
$$
Snake-polynomial for $\mu$ is given by the formula
$$
  \omega_{\mu_m}(x) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
   (x^2-1)^s T_n(x), & m=2s, \\
   (x^2-1)^s \frac{1}{n}T_n'(x),&  m=2s-1\,,
  \end{array} \right.
$$
so its oscillation points are the sets
$$
\textstyle
    \delta^1_n := (\cos\frac{\pi i}{n})_{i=0}^n\,, \qquad
    \delta^2_n := (\cos\frac{\pi (i-1/2)}{n})_{i=1}^n\,,
$$
where $|T_n(x)| = 1$ and $|T_n'(x)| = \frac{n}{\sqrt{1-x^2}}$,
respectively, with additional multiple points at $x=\pm 1$.
Now, we introduce the pointwise Duffin-Schaeffer function:
$$
   d_{k,\mu}^*(x)
:= \sup_{|p|_{\delta^*} \le |\mu_m|_{\delta^*}} |p^{(k)}(x)|
 =  \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
    \sup\limits_{|q|_{\delta^1} \le |T_n|_{\delta^0}}
            |(x^2-1)^s q(x)]^{(k)}|\,,
    & m = 2s, \\
    \sup\limits_{|q|_{\delta^2} \le \frac{1}{n}|T_n'|_{\delta^1}}
            |(x^2-1)^s q(x)]^{(k)}|\,,
    & m = 2s-1\,,
  \end{array} \right.
$$
and note that
$$
    D_{k,\mu}^* = \|d_{k,\mu}^*(\cdot)\| \ge d_{k,\mu}^*(0)\,.
$$

\begin{proposition}
We have
$$
    D_{k,\mu_m}^* \ge {\cal O}(n^k \ln n)\,.
$$
\end{proposition}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
We divide the proof in two cases, for even and odd $m$, respectively.

\smallskip
{\bf Case 1 ($m=2s$).} Let us show that,
for a fixed $k \in {\mathbb N}$, and for all large
$n \not\equiv k\, ({\rm mod}\, 2)$,
there is a polynomial $q_1 \in {\cal P}_n$ such that
$$
    1) \quad |q_1(x)|_{\delta^1_n} \le 1, \qquad
    2) \quad |[(x^2-1)^s q_1(x)]^{(k)}|_{x=0} = {\cal O}(n^k \ln n)\,.
$$

1) Set
$$
     P(x) := (x^2-1) T_n'(x) = c \prod_{i=0}^n (x-t_i)\,, \qquad
    (t_i)_{i=0}^n = {\textstyle (\cos\frac{\pi i}{n})_{i=0}^n} = \delta^1_n\,,
$$
and, having in mind that $t_{n-i} = -t_i$, define the polynomial
$$
   q_1(x)
:= \frac{1}{n^2}P(x)
  \sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)/2} \Big(\frac{1}{x-t_i} - \frac{1}{x+t_i}\Big)
=: \frac{1}{n^2}P(x) U(x)\,.
$$
This polynomial vanishes at all $t_i$ that do not appear under the sum,
i.e., at $t_0 = 1$, $t_n = -1$ and, for even $n$,
at $t_{n/2} = 0$. At all other $t_i$
it has the absolute value $|q(t_i)| = \frac{1}{n^2} |P'(t_i)| = 1$,
by virtue of $P'(x) = n^2 T_n(x) + xT_n'(x)$.

\smallskip
2) We see that $U$ is even, and $P$ is either even or odd, and
for their nonvanishing derivatives at $x=0$ we have
\baa
    |P^{(r)}(0)|
&=& |T_n^{(r+1)}(0) - r(r+1) T_n^{(r-1)}(0)| = {\cal O}(n^{r+1})\,,
    \quad n \not\equiv r\, ({\rm mod}\,2)\,,  \\
    |U^{(r)}(0)|
&=& 2r! \sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)/2} \frac{1}{(t_i)^{r+1}}
= \sum_{j=1}^{(n-1)/2} \frac{1}{ (\sin\frac{\pi j}{n})^{r+1} }
= \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
   {\cal O}(n \ln n), & r = 0, \\
   {\cal O}(n^{r+1}), & r = 2r_1 \ge 2.
  \end{array} \right.
\end{eqnarray*}
Respectively, in Leibnitz formula for
$q_1^{(k)}(x) = \frac{1}{n^2}[P(x)U(x)]^{(k)}$, the term
$P^{(k)}(0) U(0) = {\cal O}(n^{k+2} \ln n)$ dominates, hence
$$
   q_1^{(k)}(0) = {\cal O}(n^{k} \ln n) {\quad\Rightarrow\quad}
   [(x^2-1)q(x)]^{(k)}_{x=0} = {\cal O}(n^{k} \ln n)\,.
$$

{\bf Case 2 ($m=2s-1$).}
Similarly, for a fixed $k$, and for all large
$n \equiv k\, ({\rm mod}\, 2)$,
the polynomial $q_2 \in {\cal P}_{n-1}$ defined as
$$
   q_2(x)
:= \frac{1}{n}T_n(x)
  \sum_{i=1}^{(n-1)/2} \Big(\frac{1}{x-t_i} - \frac{1}{x+t_i}\Big),
  \qquad (t_i)_{i=1}^n
= {\textstyle (\cos\frac{\pi (i-1/2)}{n})_{i=1}^n} = \delta^2_n\,,
$$
satisfies
$$
    1) \quad |q_2(x)|_{\delta^1_n}
\le \frac{1}{n}|T_n'(x)|_{\delta^1_n}, \qquad
    2) \quad |(x^2-1)^s q_2^{(k)}(x)|_{x=0} = {\cal O}(n^k \ln n)\,.
$$

\begin{proposition}
Let $\mu_m(x) = (1-x^2)^{m/2}$. Then
\be \lb{n^k}
   M_{k,\mu_m} = {\cal O}(n^k), \quad k \le m\,.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\medskip\noindent{\bf Proof.}
Pierre and Rahman \cite{pr81} proved that
$$
    M_{k,\mu_m}
 := \sup_{|p(x)| \le |\mu_m(x)|} \|p^{(k)}\|
  = \max \left(\|\omega_N^{(k)}\|,(\|\omega_{N-1}^{(k)}\|\right),
    \qquad k \ge m\,,
$$
where $\omega_N$ and $\omega_{N-1}$ are the snake-polynomial for $\mu_m$
of degree $N$ and $N-1$, respectively. However,
they did not investigate which norm is bigger
and at what point $x \in [-1,1]$ it is attained.  We proved in \cite{ns}
that, for $f(x) := (x^2-1)^s T_n(x)$ and for
$g(x) := (x-1)^s \frac{1}{n}T_n'(x)$,
we have
$$
   \|f^{(k)}\| = f^{(k)}(1), \quad k \ge 2s, \qquad
   \|g^{(k)}\| = g^{(k)}(1), \quad k \ge 2s-1,
$$
therefore, since those $f$ and $g$ are exactly the snake-polynomials
for $\mu_m(x) = (1-x^2)^{m/2}$ for $m=2s$ and $m=2s-1$, we can refine
result of Pierre and Rahman:
$$
    M_{k,\mu_m} = \omega_\mu^{(k)}(1), \qquad k \ge m\,.
$$
It is easy to find that $f^{(k)}(1) = {\cal O}(n^{2(k-s)})$ and
$g^{(k)}(1) = {\cal O}(n^{2(k-s)+1})$, hence
$\omega_\mu^{(k)}(1) = {\cal O}(n^{2k-m})$, in particular,
\be \lb{n^m}
    M_{m,\mu_m} = \omega_\mu^{(m)}(1) = {\cal O}(n^m)\,,
\end{equation}
and that proves \rf[n^k] for $k=m$. For $k < m$, we observe that
$$
   \mu_m \le \mu_k
{\quad\Rightarrow\quad}  M_{k,\mu_m} \le  M_{k,\mu_k}
\stackrel{\rf[n^m]}{=} {\cal O}(n^k)\,,
$$
and that completes the proof.
\quad $\Box$