2013 American Institute of Mathematical Sciences.
The gap between near commutativity and almost commutativity in symplectic category
Abstract.
On any closed symplectic manifold of dimension greater than , we construct a pair of smooth functions, such that on the one hand, the uniform norm of their Poisson bracket equals to , 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 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 curves2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 53D991. 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 -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 , the uniform norm of the Poisson bracket of a pair of smooth functions on is a lower semi-continuous functional, when we consider the uniform (or the ) topology on . Informally speaking, this means that one cannot significantly reduce the norm of the Poisson bracket of two smooth functions by an arbitrarily small perturbation. The -rigidity of the Poisson bracket holds also when the symplectic manifold 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 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 be a closed symplectic manifold. Does there exist a constant , such that for any pair of smooth functions satisfying , there exists a pair of smooth functions , such that and such that on ?
The -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 be a symplectic manifold of dimension . Then for any there exists a pair of smooth compactly supported functions , such that , , and such that for any we have
(1.1 ) |
Here is the profile function [BEP], which is defined as
Now let be a symplectic manifold of dimension . Note that for a pair of smooth compactly supported functions, the value is precisely the uniform distance from the pair of functions to the set of pairs of smooth compactly supported Poisson commuting functions. Hence, if we take any , and set , then Theorem 1.2 implies the existence of a pair of smooth compactly supported functions, such that and , and hence for the functions , we first of all get , and moreover we get , which implies that there does not exist a pair of smooth compactly supported Poisson commuting functions, such that . Thus, we obtain
Corollary 1.3.
The answer to Question 1.1 is negative in dimension .
2. Proofs
Let us first remind the definition of the invariant which was initially introduced in [BEP] and which participates in the proof of Theorem 1.2.
Definition 2.1.
Let be a symplectic manifold. Let be a quadruple of compact sets. Then we define
where the infimum is taken over the set of all pairs of smooth compactly supported functions such that on , on , on , and on . Note that such set of pairs of functions is non-empty whenever . If the latter condition is violated, we put
Proposition 2.2.
Let be a symplectic surface of area . Consider a curvilinear quadrilateral of area with sides denoted in the cyclic order by - that is is a topological disc bounded by the union of four smooth embedded curves connecting four distinct points in in the cyclic order as listed here and (transversally) intersecting each other only at their common end-points. Let be an exact section of . Assume that and that . Then in the symplectic manifold (with the split symplectic form) we have
The proof of Proposition 2.2, which is presented in [BEP], is divided into two parts. The first part proves the inequality by providing a concrete example of a pair of functions as in Definition 2.1. The second part proves the inequality , and it uses the Gromov’s theory of pseudo-holomorphic curves.
Now we turn to the proofs of our results.
Lemma 2.3.
Consider endowed with the standard symplectic structure . Then given any open set and any , there exists a smooth symplectic embedding , where is the disc of area centred at the origin, and is the standard area form on (and on ).
Proof.
It is enough to construct a smooth embedding of into (where is the -dimensional ball of capacity , or equivalently, radius , 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 given by , where is large enough. ∎
Lemma 2.4.
Assume that we have a curvilinear quadrilateral of area on the plane , with sides (written in the cyclic order), and let be an exact section. Then in the symplectic manifold (with the split symplectic form) we have
Proof.
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
Consider a Darboux neighborhood . Denote , . Then , . By Lemma 2.3, there exists a symplectic embedding . By the symplectic neighborhood theorem, a neighborhood of contains an open subset which is symplectomorphic to the product of a disc of area and copies of a disc of area , for some . Let be a symplectic embedding whose image is this open subset. Choose a curvilinear quadrilateral inside with sides (which are given in cyclic order), and area .
Claim 2.5.
There exist smooth compactly supported functions , such that , such that on , on , on , on , such that on and such that .
Proof.
Denote , and consider such that . Denote . It is enough to find smooth compactly supported functions , such that , such that on , on , on , on , such that on and such that . We give an explicit construction. First, choose smooth functions with the following properties:
-
(a)
, , .
-
(b)
, on .
-
(c)
, on .
-
(d)
, ,
.
Now define by , . Then
We have , and
and hence . The rest of the claimed properties of follow immediately. ∎
Consider functions , as in Claim 2.5. Choose such that , and choose a smooth function such that its support lies inside the annulus , such that on , and such that on . Now define by
for , and then define by setting on and setting , for any . First note that on , on , on , and on . Secondly, we have
for any , and hence . Also we have that on , and that . Let us show that the constructed functions satisfy (1.1). For showing the upper bound, choose a smooth compactly supported function such that on the union of supports , and define functions by , (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 . Since the profile function is non-negative and non-increasing, it is sufficient to prove the lower bound for . Take and denote . Now assume that we have a pair of smooth compactly supported functions , such that . Denote , . Then and . Now choose small, and pick smooth functions , such that the function satisfies for , for , and for , and such that the function satisfies for , for , and for . Then the functions , satisfy . But moreover, we have that whenever , whenever , whenever , and whenever , for any . Hence if we denote , then the supports of lie inside , so in particular the supports of lie inside , and moreover we have that on , on , on , and on . Consider a symplectic embedding of into (where is the -dimensional torus), given as a product of maps, such that at the factor we have the standard embedding into (given by the identity map), and such that at each factor , the circle is mapped onto the zero section of . Denote the push-forwards , , which are a priori defined on , and extend them by to obtain functions on the whole . We have on , on , on , and on , where is the zero section. Therefore in view of Lemma 2.4, we get
Since we can choose to be arbitrarily small, we in fact get
Thus we have shown that for any with we have . This immediately implies
∎
References
- [B] L. Buhovsky, The -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, -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, -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.