We consider the following simple fact about matrices. Then we try to generalize it in the context of smooth manifolds;

Let $L$ be the collection of all $n \times n$ real matrices $A=(a_{ij})$ with the following property:

$$\sum_{i=1}^{n} a_{ij}=0$$ for every fixed $j$.

Obviousely $L$ is a Lie algebra.(As I have already learned from Qiaochu Yuan in another MO post)

Moreover the linear map $X \mapsto AX$ has non trivial kernel.

These simple facts can be modelized in an infinite dimensional manner.(note that a vector $X\in\mathbb{R}^{n}$ can be considered as a function on a finite ($n$ pointed)set $M$ equiped with discrete counting measure and a matrix is a function on $M\times M$. Now the product $AX$ has an integral representation if we replace $\sum$ by the integral sign. That is we read the expersion $\sum a_{ij}x_{j}$ in the integral form $\int_{M} a_{ij}x_{j}$ where the integration is based on the normalized counting measure.

Now we state our questions as generalization of the above simple fact about matrices.

Assume that $M$ is a compact orientable manifold or a Lie or topological group. So $M$ has a natural measure, correspond to volum form or the invariant metric or Haar measure. Assume that $g: M \times M \to \mathbb{R}$ is a smooth function which satisfies $$\int_{M} g(x,y)dx=0\;\;\;\;\;(1) $$ for all $y \in M$.

Does the linear map $A$ on $C^{\infty} (M)$ has nontrivial kernel? $$A(f)(x)=\int_{M} g(x,y)f(y)dy$$

Note that for topological groups we consider continuous functions, since smoothness is meaningles.

For our next question, we assume that $M$ is a symplectic manifold, so $M \times M$ has a natural symplectic structure. Let $L$ be the space of all smooth functions on $M\times M$ which satisfy the equation (1).

Is $L$ closed under Poisson bracket?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |

For the first question, the answer is not necessarily.

Very rough idea: The rank-nullity theorem doesn't always hold on infinite dimensional spaces.

Rough idea: Let the operator $A$ be defined on $L^2(M)$ be a injective mapping such that its range does not include the constant function. More precisely, since $M$ is compact we can enumerate its eigenvalues (of the Laplacian) increasing with multiplicity as $\lambda_i$, with $\lambda_0 = 0$ corresponding to the constants. Now let $\psi:\overline{\mathbb{N}}\to \overline{\mathbb{N}}$ such that $\psi$ is injective and such that the range of $\psi$ does not contain $0$. Then defining $A$ as the map that sends the $i$th eigenspace to $\psi(i)$th eigenspace will provide a counterexample.

Realization: In practice to guarantee smoothness it is easier to not keep $A$ an isometry. Take $M = \mathbb{S}^1$ for simplicity. Let

$$ \phi_-(x) := \sum_{k < 0} 2^{-|k|} e^{ik x} $$

The series is absolutely convergent and in fact defines a $C^\infty$ function. Similarly we define

$$ \phi_+(x) := \sum_{k \geq 0} 2^{-|k|} e^{ikx} $$

Define your function $g$ by

$$ g(x,y) = \phi_-(x-y) + e^{ix} \phi_+(x-y) $$

It is easy to check that $\int_{0}^{2\pi} g(x,y) ~\mathrm{d}x = 0$ for any fixed $y$. But the operator $f(x) \mapsto \int g(x,y) f(y) ~\mathrm{d}y$ has no nontrivial kernel.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ Is it possible that you have the sign wrong in the definition of $\phi_-$ (i.e. $2^{-k} \mapsto 2^k$)? $\endgroup$ – kosta Jul 1 '16 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ @kosta: it is entirely possible. Thanks, fixed. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Jul 1 '16 at 18:35
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong thanks a lot for your answer. $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Jul 2 '16 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong I am sorry if my question is elementary: But are not you using some thing as Mercer Theorem?If yes, Is your g a symmetric function? $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Feb 25 '17 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi: (1) I don't know Mercer Theorem. Perhaps it is using the same idea. (The idea is elementary, so likely appears in many places.) (2) Do you mean symmetric in $x$ and $y$? Then obviously no: if it were symmetric, then $\int g(x,y) f(y) dy = 0$ for $f$ being any constant function, which basically is the entire opposite of the construction. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Feb 26 '17 at 3:04

Willie Wong answered the general case, and I'd like to give a counterexample for the symplectic case:

Let $M=S^2$, the standard 2-sphere embedded in $\mathbb{R}^3$ as the unit sphere, with the standard symplectic form corresponding to the Euclidean metric on $\mathbb{R}^3$. Take on $(M \times M, \Omega = \omega \oplus - \omega)$ the functions \begin{align} f(z,w) &= z_3\cdot F(w), \\ g(z,w) &= z_3 \cdot G(w) \end{align}

both of which are in $L$. Now, $\{ f, g \} = \Omega(\mathrm{sgrad}(g), \mathrm{sgrad}(f)) =: \Omega'(\mathrm{d}f, \mathrm{d}g)$. Then,

\begin{align} \{f,g\} &= (\omega' \oplus (-\omega')) \left( F(w)\mathrm{d} z_3 + z_3 \mathrm{d} F(w), G(w)\mathrm{d} z_3 + z_3 \mathrm{d} G(w) \right) \\ &= F(w)G(w) \omega'(\mathrm{d}z_3,\mathrm{d}z_3) - z_3^2 \omega'(\mathrm{d} F(w),\mathrm{d} G(w)) \\ &= z_3^2 \{G,F\}(w) =:h(z,w) \end{align}

Now, unless $\{G,F\} \equiv 0$, $h$ will not be in $L$.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
  • $\begingroup$ thank you so much for your answer.I think you mean $\Omega(X_{f},X_{g}$ where the later are hamiltonian vector fields. Moreover what is $\Omega '$. How a two form act one forms df and dg. $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Jul 2 '16 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AliTaghavi $X_f \equiv \mathrm{sgrad}(f)$ - just different notation. A symplectic form $\omega$ gives an isomorphism between $TM$ and $T^*M$ by $\eta \leftrightarrow \iota_X \omega$. Define $\omega'(\eta,\sigma) := - \omega(X,Y)$ where $\eta = \iota_X \omega$ and $\sigma = \iota_Y \omega$. I may have messed up the sign somewhere. $\endgroup$ – kosta Jul 2 '16 at 18:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you again for your very interesting answer. I am sorry that I can not accept two answers, simultaneously. meta.mathoverflow.net/questions/1491/… $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Aug 10 '16 at 9:31
  • $\begingroup$ where did you use the minus sign in $\Omega= \omega\oplus -\omega$? $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Feb 25 '17 at 10:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think the same argument works for $\omega \oplus \omega$. am I right? $\endgroup$ – Ali Taghavi Feb 25 '17 at 10:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.