Finding the $J$ for a symplectic vector space - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-21T22:24:49Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/27642http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/27642/finding-the-j-for-a-symplectic-vector-spaceFinding the $J$ for a symplectic vector spaceBo Peng2010-06-10T05:03:40Z2010-06-10T18:04:36Z
<p>I found something strange when I was working on some other problems.</p>
<p>I thought the triple intersection description of the unitary group said that any two of $(g, \omega, J)$ determines the third pointwisely. Then I found I was very wrong: when one tries to find a $J$ from some $(g,\omega)$ , one need not have $g(Jx, Jy)=g(x, y)$ for the resulting $J$, and hence may not have $J^2=−1$... very strange.</p>
<p>Consider the usual inner product on $\mathfrak{gl}(n)$:</p>
<p>$g(X,Y) = tr(XY)$</p>
<p>and this "symplectic structure"</p>
<p>$\omega(X,Y)=tr(A X A^{-1} Y - A Y A^{-1} X)$</p>
<p>where $A$ is a fixed constant element in $GL(n)$.</p>
<p>Now the $J$ corresponding to it seems to be</p>
<p>$J(X) = AXA^{-1} - A^{-1}XA$</p>
<p>but then $J^2 \neq -1$.</p>
<p>================================</p>
<p>Now the above symplectic form is degenerate, but I thought the real cause shall be something different.</p>
<p>Define $\omega$ on $\mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g}$ as follows:</p>
<p>$\omega((x_1, x_2),(y_1, y_2)) = tr(x_1 y_2 - y_1 x_2 + Ad_g x_1 \cdot y_1 - Ad_g y_1 \cdot x_1 + Ad_h x_2 \cdot y_2 - Ad_h y_2 \cdot x_2)$</p>
<p>where $(g,h) \in G \times G$ is fixed, $(x_1,x_2) \in \mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g}$, $(y_1,y_2) \in \mathfrak{g} \times \mathfrak{g}$.</p>
<p>One still have the $J$ issue.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/27642/finding-the-j-for-a-symplectic-vector-space/27725#27725Answer by Fran Burstall for Finding the $J$ for a symplectic vector spaceFran Burstall2010-06-10T18:04:36Z2010-06-10T18:04:36Z<p>It is true that any two of $(g,\omega,J)$ determine the third. What is not true is that arbitrary choices of these three ingredients give rise to a third.</p>
<p>For example, given a metric $g$ and an almost complex structure $J$, you won't get a symplectic form out of these two unless $J$ is skew (equivalently, $J$ is an isometry for $g$). In short, your two ingredients must have some kind of compatibility. Again, given $\omega$ and $J$, you will need $J^*\omega=\omega$ before you have even a chance of defining $g$ (and even then you need to worry about whether $g$ is positive definite).</p>
<p>I leave it as an exercise to determine the compatibility of $g$ and $\omega$ required to define $J$.</p>