This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

11footnotetext: The author also uses the spelling “Buhovski” for his family name.22footnotetext: First published in Electronic Research Announcements in Mathematical Sciences in Volume 20 (2013), pp 71-76, published by American Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS).
©\copyright 2013 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences.

The gap between near commutativity and almost commutativity in symplectic category

Lev Buhovsky1 Lev Buhovski
School of Mathematical Sciences, Tel Aviv University
levbuh@post.tau.ac.il
(Date: July 25, 2025)
Abstract.

On any closed symplectic manifold of dimension greater than 22, we construct a pair of smooth functions, such that on the one hand, the uniform norm of their Poisson bracket equals to 11, but on the other hand, this pair cannot be reasonably approximated (in the uniform norm) by a pair of Poisson commuting smooth functions. This comes in contrast with the dimension 22 case, where by a partial case of a result of Zapolsky [Z-2], an opposite statement holds.

Key words and phrases:
Poisson bracket, rigidity, Poisson bracket invariants, pseudo-holomorphic curves
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 53D99
I would like to thank Leonid Polterovich for constant encouragement, interest in this work, useful comments, and for finding a mistake in the first draft of the paper. This work was partially supported by the Israel Science Foundation grant 1380/13.

1. Introduction and results

During the last ten years, function theory on symplectic manifolds has attracted a great deal of attention [B, BEP, CV, EP-1, EP-2, EP-3, EPR, EPZ, P, Z-1, Z-2]. The C0C^{0}-rigidity of the Poisson bracket [EP-2] (cf. [B]) is one of the achievements of this theory, and it states that on a closed symplectic manifold (M,ω)(M,\omega), the uniform norm of the Poisson bracket of a pair of smooth functions on MM is a lower semi-continuous functional, when we consider the uniform (or the C0C^{0}) topology on C(M)×C(M)C^{\infty}(M)\times C^{\infty}(M). Informally speaking, this means that one cannot significantly reduce the C0C^{0} norm of the Poisson bracket of two smooth functions by an arbitrarily small C0C^{0} perturbation. The C0C^{0}-rigidity of the Poisson bracket holds also when the symplectic manifold (M,ω)(M,\omega) is open, if we restrict to smooth compactly supported functions. In this context it is natural to ask, how strongly one should perturb a given pair of smooth functions in order to significantly reduce the C0C^{0} norm of their Poisson bracket. The following question was asked privately by Polterovich in 2009 (later it also appeared in [Z-2]):

Question 1.1.

Let (M,ω)(M,\omega) be a closed symplectic manifold. Does there exist a constant C>0C>0, such that for any pair of smooth functions f,g:Mf,g:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} satisfying {f,g}=1\|\{f,g\}\|=1, there exists a pair of smooth functions F,G:MF,G:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, such that Ff,GgC\|F-f\|,\|G-g\|\leqslant C and such that {F,G}=0\{F,G\}=0 on MM?

The 22-dimensional case of this question was answered affirmatively by Zapolsky, and in fact, it appeared as a particular case of a more general statement which applies to functions on a manifold with a volume form [Z-2].

The main result of this note is

Theorem 1.2.

Let (M,ω)(M,\omega) be a symplectic manifold of dimension 2n>22n>2. Then for any 0<p<q0<p<q there exists a pair of smooth compactly supported functions f,g:Mf,g:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, such that f=g=1\|f\|=\|g\|=1, {f,g}=q\|\{f,g\}\|=q, and such that for any s[0,q]s\in[0,q] we have

(1.1 ) 1212psρf,g(s)1212qs\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2p}s\leqslant\rho_{f,g}(s)\leqslant\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2q}s

Here ρf,g(s)\rho_{f,g}(s) is the profile function [BEP], which is defined as

ρf,g(s)=inf{Ff+Gg|F,GCc(M)and{F,G}s}.\rho_{f,g}(s)=\inf\{\|F-f\|+\|G-g\|\,\,|\,\,F,G\in C^{\infty}_{c}(M)\,\,\text{and}\,\,\|\{F,G\}\|\leqslant s\}.

Now let (M,ω)(M,\omega) be a symplectic manifold of dimension 2n>22n>2. Note that for a pair f,g:Mf,g:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} of smooth compactly supported functions, the value ρf,g(0)\rho_{f,g}(0) is precisely the uniform distance from the pair f,gf,g of functions to the set of pairs F,G:MF,G:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} of smooth compactly supported Poisson commuting functions. Hence, if we take any C>0C>0, and set q=1/(64C2)q=1/(64C^{2}), then Theorem 1.2 implies the existence of a pair f,g:Mf,g:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} of smooth compactly supported functions, such that {f,g}=q=1/(64C2)\|\{f,g\}\|=q=1/(64C^{2}) and ρf,g(0)=1/2\rho_{f,g}(0)=1/2, and hence for the functions f1=8Cff_{1}=8Cf, g1=8Cgg_{1}=8Cg we first of all get {f1,g1}=1\|\{f_{1},g_{1}\}\|=1, and moreover we get ρf1,g1(0)=4C\rho_{f_{1},g_{1}}(0)=4C, which implies that there does not exist a pair F,G:MF,G:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} of smooth compactly supported Poisson commuting functions, such that Ff1,Gg1C\|F-f_{1}\|,\|G-g_{1}\|\leqslant C. Thus, we obtain

Corollary 1.3.

The answer to Question 1.1 is negative in dimension >2>2.

The proof of Theorem 1.2 relies on a certain computation of the pb4pb_{4} invariant, which is carried out similarly as an analogous computation in the proof of Proposition 1.21 in [BEP]. Some part of the proof of Theorem 1.2 is reminiscent of the proof of Theorem 1.4 (ii) in [BEP].

Remark 1.4.

Question 1.1 has an analogue in the setting of Hermitian matrices equipped with a commutator (see [PeS, H]).

2. Proofs

Let us first remind the definition of the pb4pb_{4} invariant which was initially introduced in [BEP] and which participates in the proof of Theorem 1.2.

Definition 2.1.

Let (M,ω)(M,\omega) be a symplectic manifold. Let X0,X1,Y0,Y1MX_{0},X_{1},Y_{0},Y_{1}\subset M be a quadruple of compact sets. Then we define

pb4(X0,X1,Y0,Y1)=inf{F,G},pb_{4}(X_{0},X_{1},Y_{0},Y_{1})=\inf\|\{F,G\}\|,

where the infimum is taken over the set of all pairs of smooth compactly supported functions F,G:MF,G:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} such that F0F\leqslant 0 on X0X_{0}, F1F\geqslant 1 on X1X_{1}, G0G\leqslant 0 on Y0Y_{0}, and G1G\geqslant 1 on Y1Y_{1}. Note that such set of pairs of functions is non-empty whenever X0X1=Y0Y1=X_{0}\cap X_{1}=Y_{0}\cap Y_{1}=\emptyset. If the latter condition is violated, we put

pb4(X0,X1,Y0,Y1)=+.pb_{4}(X_{0},X_{1},Y_{0},Y_{1})=+\infty.

The following result was proved in [BEP] (in [BEP] this is Proposition 1.21):

Proposition 2.2.

Let (M,ω)(M,\omega) be a symplectic surface of area B>0B>0. Consider a curvilinear quadrilateral ΠM\Pi\subset M of area A>0A>0 with sides denoted in the cyclic order by a1,a2,a3,a4a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4} - that is Π\Pi is a topological disc bounded by the union of four smooth embedded curves a1,a2,a3,a4a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4} connecting four distinct points in MM in the cyclic order as listed here and (transversally) intersecting each other only at their common end-points. Let LL be an exact section of TS1T^{*}S^{1}. Assume that MS2M\neq S^{2} and that 2AB2A\leqslant B. Then in the symplectic manifold M×TS1M\times T^{*}S^{1} (with the split symplectic form) we have

pb4(a1×L,a3×L,a2×L,a4×L)=1/A>0.pb_{4}(a_{1}\times L,a_{3}\times L,a_{2}\times L,a_{4}\times L)=1/A>0.

The proof of Proposition 2.2, which is presented in [BEP], is divided into two parts. The first part proves the inequality pb4(a1×L,a3×L,a2×L,a4×L)1/Apb_{4}(a_{1}\times L,a_{3}\times L,a_{2}\times L,a_{4}\times L)\leqslant 1/A by providing a concrete example of a pair of functions F,GF,G as in Definition 2.1. The second part proves the inequality pb4(a1×L,a3×L,a2×L,a4×L)1/Apb_{4}(a_{1}\times L,a_{3}\times L,a_{2}\times L,a_{4}\times L)\geqslant 1/A, and it uses the Gromov’s theory of pseudo-holomorphic curves.

Now we turn to the proofs of our results.

Lemma 2.3.

Consider 2n\mathbb{R}^{2n} endowed with the standard symplectic structure ωstd\omega_{std}. Then given any open set U2nU\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{2n} and any A>0A>0, there exists a smooth symplectic embedding (B2(A),σstd)(U,ωstd)(B^{2}(A),\sigma_{std})\rightarrow(U,\omega_{std}), where B2(A)2B^{2}(A)\subset\mathbb{R}^{2} is the disc of area AA centred at the origin, and σstd\sigma_{std} is the standard area form on 2\mathbb{R}^{2} (and on B2(A)B^{2}(A)).

Proof.

It is enough to construct a smooth embedding of B2(π)B^{2}(\pi) into B2n(2π)B^{2n}(2\pi) (where B2n(2π)B^{2n}(2\pi) is the 2n2n-dimensional ball of capacity 2π2\pi, or equivalently, radius 2\sqrt{2}, centred at the origin), such that its image is a symplectic curve having arbitrarily large symplectic area. An example of such an embedding is the map u:B2(π)nu:B^{2}(\pi)\rightarrow\mathbb{C}^{n} given by u(z)=(zk,z,0,0,,0)u(z)=(z^{k},z,0,0,...,0), where kk\in\mathbb{N} is large enough. ∎

Lemma 2.4.

Assume that we have a curvilinear quadrilateral of area A>0A>0 on the plane 2\mathbb{R}^{2}, with sides a1,a2,a3,a4a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4} (written in the cyclic order), and let LT𝕋n1L\subset T^{*}\mathbb{T}^{n-1} be an exact section. Then in the symplectic manifold 2×T𝕋n1\mathbb{R}^{2}\times T^{*}\mathbb{T}^{n-1} (with the split symplectic form) we have

pb4(a1×L,a3×L,a2×L,a4×L)=1/A>0.pb_{4}(a_{1}\times L,a_{3}\times L,a_{2}\times L,a_{4}\times L)=1/A>0.
Proof.

The proof goes similarly as the proof of Proposition 2.2 (which is Proposition 1.21 in [BEP]). ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

Consider a Darboux neighborhood UMU\subset M. Denote l=1/ql=1/\sqrt{q}, ϵ=1/p1/q\epsilon=1/p-1/q. Then q=1/l2q=1/l^{2}, p=1/(l2+ϵ)p=1/(l^{2}+\epsilon). By Lemma 2.3, there exists a symplectic embedding u:(B2(2l2+3ϵ),σstd)(U,ω)u:(B^{2}(2l^{2}+3\epsilon),\sigma_{std})\rightarrow(U,\omega). By the symplectic neighborhood theorem, a neighborhood of u(B2(2l2+3ϵ))u(B^{2}(2l^{2}+3\epsilon)) contains an open subset which is symplectomorphic to the product B2(2l2+2ϵ)×B2(ϵ)×(n1)B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon)\times B^{2}(\epsilon^{\prime})^{\times(n-1)} of a disc of area 2l2+2ϵ2l^{2}+2\epsilon and n1n-1 copies of a disc of area ϵ\epsilon^{\prime}, for some ϵ>0\epsilon^{\prime}>0. Let ϕ:(W=B2(2l2+2ϵ)×B2(ϵ)×(n1),ωstd)(M,ω)\phi:(W=B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon)\times B^{2}(\epsilon^{\prime})^{\times(n-1)},\omega_{std})\rightarrow(M,\omega) be a symplectic embedding whose image is this open subset. Choose a curvilinear quadrilateral inside B2(2l2+2ϵ)B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon) with sides a1,a2,a3,a4a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},a_{4} (which are given in cyclic order), and area l2+ϵl^{2}+\epsilon.

Claim 2.5.

There exist smooth compactly supported functions f~1,g~1:B2(2l2+2ϵ)\tilde{f}_{1},\tilde{g}_{1}:B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, such that {f~1,g~1}=1/l2=q\|\{\tilde{f}_{1},\tilde{g}_{1}\}\|=1/l^{2}=q, such that f~1=0\tilde{f}_{1}=0 on a1a_{1}, f~1=1\tilde{f}_{1}=1 on a3a_{3}, g~1=0\tilde{g}_{1}=0 on a2a_{2}, g~1=1\tilde{g}_{1}=1 on a4a_{4}, such that f~1,g~10\tilde{f}_{1},\tilde{g}_{1}\geqslant 0 on B2(2l2+2ϵ)B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon) and such that f~1=g~1=1\|\tilde{f}_{1}\|=\|\tilde{g}_{1}\|=1.

Proof.

Denote ϵ1=ϵ/l>0\epsilon_{1}=\epsilon/l>0, and consider ϵ2>0\epsilon_{2}>0 such that (2l+ϵ1+3ϵ2)(l+3ϵ2)=2l2+2ϵ(2l+\epsilon_{1}+3\epsilon_{2})(l+3\epsilon_{2})=2l^{2}+2\epsilon. Denote ϵ3=min(ϵ1,ϵ2)/2\epsilon_{3}=\min(\epsilon_{1},\epsilon_{2})/2. It is enough to find smooth compactly supported functions f^1,g^1:(ϵ2,2l+ϵ1+2ϵ2)×(ϵ2,l+2ϵ2)\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1}:(-\epsilon_{2},2l+\epsilon_{1}+2\epsilon_{2})\times(-\epsilon_{2},l+2\epsilon_{2})\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, such that {f^1,g^1}=1/l2\|\{\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1}\}\|=1/l^{2}, such that f^1=0\hat{f}_{1}=0 on {0}×[0,l]\{0\}\times[0,l], f^1=1\hat{f}_{1}=1 on {l+ϵ1}×[0,l]\{l+\epsilon_{1}\}\times[0,l], g^1=0\hat{g}_{1}=0 on [0,l+ϵ1]×{0}[0,l+\epsilon_{1}]\times\{0\}, g^1=1\hat{g}_{1}=1 on [0,l+ϵ1]×{l}[0,l+\epsilon_{1}]\times\{l\}, such that f^1,g^10\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1}\geqslant 0 on (ϵ2,2l+ϵ1+2ϵ2)×(ϵ2,l+2ϵ2)(-\epsilon_{2},2l+\epsilon_{1}+2\epsilon_{2})\times(-\epsilon_{2},l+2\epsilon_{2}) and such that f^1=g^1=1\|\hat{f}_{1}\|=\|\hat{g}_{1}\|=1. We give an explicit construction. First, choose smooth functions u1,v1,u2,v2:[0,1]u_{1},v_{1},u_{2},v_{2}:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow[0,1] with the following properties:

  1. (a)

    supp(u1)(0,2l+ϵ1+ϵ2)\text{supp}(u_{1})\subset(0,2l+\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2}), u1(l+ϵ1)=1u_{1}(l+\epsilon_{1})=1, u1=1/(l+ϵ3)\|u_{1}^{\prime}\|=1/(l+\epsilon_{3}).

  2. (b)

    supp(v1)(ϵ2,l+ϵ2)\text{supp}(v_{1})\subset(-\epsilon_{2},l+\epsilon_{2}), v1(y)=1v_{1}(y)=1 on [0,l][0,l].

  3. (c)

    supp(u2)(ϵ2,2l+ϵ1+2ϵ2)\text{supp}(u_{2})\subset(-\epsilon_{2},2l+\epsilon_{1}+2\epsilon_{2}), u2(x)=1u_{2}(x)=1 on [0,2l+ϵ1+ϵ2][0,2l+\epsilon_{1}+\epsilon_{2}].

  4. (d)

    supp(v2)(0,l+2ϵ2)\text{supp}(v_{2})\subset(0,l+2\epsilon_{2}), v2(l)=1v_{2}(l)=1,
    max[0,l]|v2(y)|=max[0,l+ϵ2]|v2(y)|=(l+ϵ3)/l2\max_{[0,l]}|v_{2}^{\prime}(y)|=\max_{[0,l+\epsilon_{2}]}|v_{2}^{\prime}(y)|=(l+\epsilon_{3})/l^{2}.

Now define f^1,g^1:(ϵ2,2l+ϵ1+2ϵ2)×(ϵ2,l+2ϵ2)\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1}:(-\epsilon_{2},2l+\epsilon_{1}+2\epsilon_{2})\times(-\epsilon_{2},l+2\epsilon_{2})\rightarrow\mathbb{R} by f^1(x,y)=u1(x)v1(y)\hat{f}_{1}(x,y)=u_{1}(x)v_{1}(y), g^1(x,y)=u2(x)v2(y)\hat{g}_{1}(x,y)=u_{2}(x)v_{2}(y). Then

{f^1,g^1}(x,y)=v1(y)u2(x)u1(x)v2(y)u1(x)v2(y)u2(x)v1(y)\{\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1}\}(x,y)=v_{1}(y)u_{2}(x)u_{1}^{\prime}(x)v_{2}^{\prime}(y)-u_{1}(x)v_{2}(y)u_{2}^{\prime}(x)v_{1}^{\prime}(y)
=v1(y)u2(x)u1(x)v2(y)=u1(x)v2(y)v1(y).=v_{1}(y)u_{2}(x)u_{1}^{\prime}(x)v_{2}^{\prime}(y)=u_{1}^{\prime}(x)v_{2}^{\prime}(y)v_{1}(y).

We have u1=1/(l+ϵ3)\|u_{1}^{\prime}\|=1/(l+\epsilon_{3}), and

v2v1=max|v2(y)v1(y)|=max[0,l+ϵ2]|v2(y)v1(y)|=(l+ϵ3)/l2,\|v_{2}^{\prime}v_{1}\|=\max|v_{2}^{\prime}(y)v_{1}(y)|=\max_{[0,l+\epsilon_{2}]}|v_{2}^{\prime}(y)v_{1}(y)|=(l+\epsilon_{3})/l^{2},

and hence {f^1,g^1}=u1v2v1=1/l2\|\{\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1}\}\|=\|u_{1}^{\prime}\|\cdot\|v_{2}^{\prime}v_{1}\|=1/l^{2}. The rest of the claimed properties of f^1,g^1\hat{f}_{1},\hat{g}_{1} follow immediately. ∎

Consider functions f~1,g~1\tilde{f}_{1},\tilde{g}_{1}, as in Claim 2.5. Choose 0<ρ1<ρ<ρ20<\rho_{1}<\rho<\rho_{2} such that πρ22<ϵ\pi\rho_{2}^{2}<\epsilon^{\prime}, and choose a smooth function h~1:B2(ϵ)\tilde{h}_{1}:B^{2}(\epsilon^{\prime})\rightarrow\mathbb{R} such that its support lies inside the annulus Dρ1,ρ22={zB2(ϵ)|ρ1<|z|<ρ2}D^{2}_{\rho_{1},\rho_{2}}=\{z\in B^{2}(\epsilon^{\prime})\,|\,\rho_{1}<|z|<\rho_{2}\}, such that 0h~110\leqslant\tilde{h}_{1}\leqslant 1 on B2(ϵ)B^{2}(\epsilon^{\prime}), and such that h~1=1\tilde{h}_{1}=1 on Sρ1={zB2(ϵ)||z|=ρ}S^{1}_{\rho}=\{z\in B^{2}(\epsilon^{\prime})\,|\,|z|=\rho\}. Now define f1,g1:Wf_{1},g_{1}:W\rightarrow\mathbb{R} by

f1(z,w1,,wn1)=f~1(z)h~1(w1)h~1(wn1),f_{1}(z,w_{1},...,w_{n-1})=\tilde{f}_{1}(z)\tilde{h}_{1}(w_{1})...\tilde{h}_{1}(w_{n-1}),
g1(z,w1,,wn1)=g~1(z)h~1(w1)h~1(wn1),g_{1}(z,w_{1},...,w_{n-1})=\tilde{g}_{1}(z)\tilde{h}_{1}(w_{1})...\tilde{h}_{1}(w_{n-1}),

for (z,w1,,wn1)W(z,w_{1},...,w_{n-1})\in W, and then define f,g:Mf,g:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} by setting f=g=0f=g=0 on Mϕ(W)M\setminus\phi(W) and setting f(ϕ(x))=f1(x)f(\phi(x))=f_{1}(x), g(ϕ(x))=g1(x),g(\phi(x))=g_{1}(x), for any xWx\in W. First note that f1=0f_{1}=0 on a1×(Sρ1)n1a_{1}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}, f1=1f_{1}=1 on a3×(Sρ1)n1a_{3}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}, g1=0g_{1}=0 on a2×(Sρ1)n1a_{2}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}, and g1=1g_{1}=1 on a4×(Sρ1)n1a_{4}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}. Secondly, we have

{f,g}(ϕ(z,w1,,wn1))={f~1,g~1}(z)h~12(w1)h~12(wn1)\{f,g\}(\phi(z,w_{1},...,w_{n-1}))=\{\tilde{f}_{1},\tilde{g}_{1}\}(z)\tilde{h}_{1}^{2}(w_{1})...\tilde{h}_{1}^{2}(w_{n-1})

for any (z,w1,,wn1)W(z,w_{1},...,w_{n-1})\in W, and hence {f,g}=q\|\{f,g\}\|=q. Also we have that f,g0f,g\geqslant 0 on MM, and that f=g=1\|f\|=\|g\|=1. Let us show that the constructed functions f,gf,g satisfy (1.1). For showing the upper bound, choose a smooth compactly supported function h:M[0,1]h:M\rightarrow[0,1] such that h=1h=1 on the union of supports supp(f)supp(g)\text{supp}(f)\cup\text{supp}(g), and define functions F,G:MF,G:M\rightarrow\mathbb{R} by F=(12s2q+sqf)hF=(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{s}{2q}+\frac{s}{q}f)h, G=gG=g (the upper bound in (1.1) is essentially the statement of Theorem 1.4 (ii), inequality (8) in [BEP]). Let us show the lower bound, for a given value of ss. Since the profile function ρf,g\rho_{f,g} is non-negative and non-increasing, it is sufficient to prove the lower bound for s(0,p)s\in(0,p). Take s(0,p)s\in(0,p) and denote t=1212ps>0t=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2p}s>0. Now assume that we have a pair of smooth compactly supported functions F,GCc(M)F,G\in C^{\infty}_{c}(M), such that Ff+Ggt\|F-f\|+\|G-g\|\leqslant t. Denote α=Ff\alpha=\|F-f\|, β=Gg\beta=\|G-g\|. Then α,β0\alpha,\beta\geqslant 0 and α+βt\alpha+\beta\leqslant t. Now choose δ>0\delta>0 small, and pick smooth functions u,v:u,v:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}, such that the function uu satisfies u(x)=0u(x)=0 for x[α,α]x\in[-\alpha,\alpha], |u(x)x|(1+δ)α|u(x)-x|\leqslant(1+\delta)\alpha for xx\in\mathbb{R}, and |u(x)|1|u^{\prime}(x)|\leqslant 1 for xx\in\mathbb{R}, and such that the function vv satisfies v(x)=0v(x)=0 for x[β,β]x\in[-\beta,\beta], |v(x)x|(1+δ)β|v(x)-x|\leqslant(1+\delta)\beta for xx\in\mathbb{R}, and |v(x)|1|v^{\prime}(x)|\leqslant 1 for xx\in\mathbb{R}. Then the functions F=uFF^{\prime}=u\circ F, G=vGG^{\prime}=v\circ G satisfy {F,G}{F,G}\|\{F^{\prime},G^{\prime}\}\|\leqslant\|\{F,G\}\|. But moreover, we have that F(x)=0F^{\prime}(x)=0 whenever f(x)=0f(x)=0, F(x)1(2+δ)αF^{\prime}(x)\geqslant 1-(2+\delta)\alpha whenever f(x)=1f(x)=1, G(x)=0G^{\prime}(x)=0 whenever g(x)=0g(x)=0, and G(x)1(2+δ)βG^{\prime}(x)\geqslant 1-(2+\delta)\beta whenever g(x)=1g(x)=1, for any xMx\in M. Hence if we denote W=B2(2l2+2ϵ)×(Dρ1,ρ22)×(n1)WW^{\prime}=B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon)\times(D^{2}_{\rho_{1},\rho_{2}})^{\times(n-1)}\subset W, then the supports of F,GF^{\prime},G^{\prime} lie inside ϕ(W)\phi(W^{\prime}), so in particular the supports of ϕF,ϕG\phi^{*}F^{\prime},\phi^{*}G^{\prime} lie inside WW^{\prime}, and moreover we have that ϕF=0\phi^{*}F^{\prime}=0 on a1×(Sρ1)n1a_{1}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}, ϕF1(2+δ)α\phi^{*}F^{\prime}\geqslant 1-(2+\delta)\alpha on a3×(Sρ1)n1a_{3}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}, ϕG=0\phi^{*}G^{\prime}=0 on a2×(Sρ1)n1a_{2}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}, and ϕG1(2+δ)β\phi^{*}G^{\prime}\geqslant 1-(2+\delta)\beta on a4×(Sρ1)n1a_{4}\times(S^{1}_{\rho})^{n-1}. Consider a symplectic embedding ψ\psi of W=B2(2l2+2ϵ)×(Dρ1,ρ22)×(n1)W^{\prime}=B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon)\times(D^{2}_{\rho_{1},\rho_{2}})^{\times(n-1)} into 2×(TS1)×(n1)=2×T𝕋n1\mathbb{R}^{2}\times(T^{*}S^{1})^{\times(n-1)}=\mathbb{R}^{2}\times T^{*}\mathbb{T}^{n-1} (where 𝕋n1=(S1)n1\mathbb{T}^{n-1}=(S^{1})^{n-1} is the (n1)(n-1)-dimensional torus), given as a product of maps, such that at the factor B2(2l2+2ϵ)B^{2}(2l^{2}+2\epsilon) we have the standard embedding into 2\mathbb{R}^{2} (given by the identity map), and such that at each factor Dρ1,ρ22D^{2}_{\rho_{1},\rho_{2}}, the circle Sρ1S^{1}_{\rho} is mapped onto the zero section of TS1T^{*}S^{1}. Denote the push-forwards F2=ψϕF=Fϕψ1F_{2}=\psi_{*}\phi^{*}F^{\prime}=F^{\prime}\circ\phi\circ\psi^{-1}, G2=ψϕG=Gϕψ1G_{2}=\psi_{*}\phi^{*}G^{\prime}=G^{\prime}\circ\phi\circ\psi^{-1}, which are a priori defined on ψ(W)\psi(W^{\prime}), and extend them by 0 to obtain functions on the whole 2×T𝕋n1\mathbb{R}^{2}\times T^{*}\mathbb{T}^{n-1}. We have F2=0F_{2}=0 on a1×L0a_{1}\times L_{0}, F21(2+δ)αF_{2}\geqslant 1-(2+\delta)\alpha on a3×L0a_{3}\times L_{0}, G2=0G_{2}=0 on a2×L0a_{2}\times L_{0}, and G21(2+δ)βG_{2}\geqslant 1-(2+\delta)\beta on a4×L0a_{4}\times L_{0}, where L0T𝕋n1L_{0}\subset T^{*}\mathbb{T}^{n-1} is the zero section. Therefore in view of Lemma 2.4, we get

{F,G}{F,G}={F2,G2}\|\{F,G\}\|\geqslant\|\{F^{\prime},G^{\prime}\}\|=\|\{F_{2},G_{2}\}\|
(1(2+δ)α)(1(2+δ)β)pb4(a1×L0,a3×L0,a2×L0,a4×L0)\geqslant(1-(2+\delta)\alpha)(1-(2+\delta)\beta)\cdot pb_{4}(a_{1}\times L_{0},a_{3}\times L_{0},a_{2}\times L_{0},a_{4}\times L_{0})
=(1(2+δ)α)(1(2+δ)β)l2+ϵ1(2+δ)(α+β)l2+ϵ1(2+δ)tl2+ϵ=(1(2+δ)t)p.=\frac{(1-(2+\delta)\alpha)(1-(2+\delta)\beta)}{l^{2}+\epsilon}\geqslant\frac{1-(2+\delta)(\alpha+\beta)}{l^{2}+\epsilon}\geqslant\frac{1-(2+\delta)t}{l^{2}+\epsilon}=(1-(2+\delta)t)p.

Since we can choose δ>0\delta>0 to be arbitrarily small, we in fact get

{F,G}(12t)p=s.\|\{F,G\}\|\geqslant(1-2t)p=s.

Thus we have shown that for any F,GCc(M)F,G\in C^{\infty}_{c}(M) with Ff+Ggt\|F-f\|+\|G-g\|\leqslant t we have {F,G}s\|\{F,G\}\|\geqslant s. This immediately implies

ρf,g(s)t=1212ps.\rho_{f,g}(s)\geqslant t=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2p}s.

References

  • [B] L. Buhovsky, The 2/32/3-convergence rate for the Poisson bracket, Geom. and Funct. Analysis 19 (2010), 1620–1649.
  • [BEP] L. Buhovsky, M. Entov, L. Polterovich, Poisson brackets and symplectic invariants, Selecta Mathematica 18:1 (2012), 89–157.
  • [CV] F. Cardin, C. Viterbo, Commuting Hamiltonians and Hamilton-Jacobi multi-time equations, Duke Math. J. 144 (2008), 235–284.
  • [EP-1] M. Entov, L. Polterovich, Quasi-states and symplectic intersections, Comm. Math. Helv. 81 (2006), 75–99.
  • [EP-2] M. Entov, L. Polterovich, C0C^{0}-rigidity of Poisson brackets, in Proceedings of the Joint Summer Research Conference on Symplectic Topology and Measure-Preserving Dynamical Systems (eds. A. Fathi, Y.-G. Oh and C. Viterbo), 25–32, Contemporary Mathematics 512, AMS, Providence RI, 2010.
  • [EP-3] M. Entov, L. Polterovich, C0C^{0}-rigidity of the double Poisson bracket, Int. Math. Res. Notices. 2009; 2009:1134–1158.
  • [EPR] M. Entov, L. Polterovich, D. Rosen, Poisson brackets, quasi-states and symplectic integrators, Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems 28 (2010), no. 4, 1455–1468.
  • [EPZ] M. Entov, L. Polterovich, F. Zapolsky, Quasi-morphisms and the Poisson bracket, Pure and Applied Math. Quarterly 3 (2007), 1037–1055.
  • [H] M. B. Hastings, Making almost commuting matrices commute, Comm. Math. Phys. 291 (2009), no. 2, 321–345.
  • [PeS] C. Pearcy, A. Shields, Almost commuting matrices, J. Funct. Anal. 33 (1979), 332–338.
  • [P] L. Polterovich, Symplectic geometry of quantum noise, http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.3707
  • [Z-1] F. Zapolsky, Quasi-states and the Poisson bracket on surfaces, J. Mod. Dyn. 1 (2007), 465–475.
  • [Z-2] F. Zapolsky, On almost Poisson commutativity in dimension two, Electron. Res. Announc. Math. Sci. 17 (2010), 155–160.