text:
# A PROPERTY OF THE SKEIN POLYNOMIAL WITH AN APPLICATION TO CONTACT GEOMETRY This is a preprint. I would be grateful for any comments and corrections!

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we will show the following result on the skein (or HOMFLY) polynomial \[H\].

###### Theorem 1

The set

$$\{P_K:\underset{l}{span}P_Kb,\stackrel{~}{g}(K)g\}$$

is finite for any natural numbers $`g`$ and $`b`$.

Here $`span_lP_K`$ if the span of the HOMFLY polynomial $`P_K=P(K)`$ of a knot $`K`$ in the (non-Alexander) variable $`l`$, that is, the difference between its minimal and maximal degree in $`l`$, $`\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_l(P_K)`$ and $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_l(P_K)`$. By $`\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$ we denote the weak genus of $`K`$ \[St\].

The main application of this theorem is to exhibit large families of knots to have arbitrarily unsharp Bennequin inequality for any of their realizations as topological knot type of a Legendrian knot, which simplifies and extends the main result of Kanda \[K\] and its alternative proofs given by Fuchs–Tabachnikov \[FT\] and Dasbach-Mangum \[DM\].

###### Corollary 1

Bennequin’s inequality becomes arbitrarily unsharp on any sequence of (Legendrian embeddings of distinct) properly obversed (mirrored) homogeneous knots.

The main tool we use for the proof of theorem 1 is the result of \[St\] and an analysis of the skein (HOMFLY) polynomial \[H\]. The proof of corollary 1 uses the inequality, known from work of Tabachnikov \[T, FT\], relating the Thurston–Bennequin and Maslov (rotation) number of Legendrian knots to the minimal degree of their skein polynomial. This inequality suggests that one should look at knots behaving “nicely” with respect to their skein polynomial. The homogeneous knots introduced by Cromwell in \[Cr\], are, in some sense, the largest class of such knots. These are the knots having homogeneous diagrams, that is, diagrams containing in each connected component (block) of the complement of their Seifert (circle) picture only crossings of the same sign. This class contains the classes of alternating and positive/ negative knots.

The other application we give of theorem 1 is also related to Bennequin’s paper \[Be\] and the work of Birman and Menasco building on it. In their paper \[BM\], its referee made the observation that there are only finitely many knots of given genus and given braid index (theorem 2). This fact came as a bi-product of the work of the authors on braid foliations introduced in Bennequin’s paper and bases on a rather deep theory. Here we will use our work in \[St\] to give a simple, because entirely combinatorial, proof of a generalization of this result for homogeneous knots. In fact we show that the lower bound for the braid index coming from the inequality of Franks–Williams \[FW\] and Morton \[Mo\] gets arbitrarily large for homogeneous knots of given genus (corollary 3). The result of \[BM\] for homogeneous knots is then a formal consequence of ours.

###### Corollary 2

There are only finitely many homogeneous knots $`K`$ of given genus $`g(K)`$ and given braid index $`b(K)`$.

We should remark that the corollary will straightforwardly generalize to links. The arguments we will give apply for links of any given (fixed) number of components, and clearly a link of braid index $`n`$ has at most $`n`$ components.

Since this paper was originally written, more work was done on the subject, including by Etnyre, Honda, Ng, and in particular Plamenevskaya \[Pl\]. A recent survey can be found in \[Et\].

## 2 Knot-theoretic preliminaries

The skein (HOMFLY) polynomial111Further names I have seen in the literature are: 2-variable Jones, Jones-Conway, LYMFHO, FLYPMOTH, HOMFLYPT, LYMPHTOFU, … $`P`$ is a Laurent polynomial in two variables $`l`$ and $`m`$ of oriented knots and links and can be defined by being $`1`$ on the unknot and the (skein) relation

$$l^1P\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right)+lP\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right)=mP\left(\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\right).$$
(1)
This convention uses the variables of \[LM\], but differs from theirs by the interchange of $`l`$ and $`l^1`$.

Let $`[Y]_{t^a}=[Y]_a`$ be the coefficient of $`t^a`$ in a polynomial $`Y[t^{\pm 1}]`$. For $`Y0`$, let $`𝒞_Y=\{a:[Y]_a0\}`$ and define

$$\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}Y=\mathrm{min}𝒞_Y,\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}Y=\mathrm{max}𝒞_Y,\text{ and }spanY=\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}Y\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}Y$$

to be the minimal and maximal degree and span (or breadth) of $`Y`$, respectively.

Similarly one defines for $`Y[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ the coefficient $`[Y]_X`$ for some monomial $`X`$ in the $`x_i`$. For a multi-variable polynomial the coefficient may be taken with respect only to some variables, and is a polynomial in the remaining variables, for example $`[Y]_{x_1^k}[x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. (Thus it must be clear as a monomial in which variables $`X`$ is meant. For example, for $`X=x_1^k[x_1]`$, the coefficient $`[Y]_X=[Y]_{x_1^k}[x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is not the same as when regarding $`X=x_1^k=x_1^kx_2^0[x_1,x_2]`$ and taking $`[Y]_X=[Y]_{x_1^kx_2^0}[x_3,\mathrm{},x_n]`$.)

We call the three diagram fragments in (1) from left to right a positive crossing, a negative crossing and a smoothed out crossing (in the skein sense). The smoothing out of each crossing in a diagram $`D`$ leaves a collection of disjoint circles called Seifert circles. We write $`c(D)`$ for the number of crossings of $`D`$ and $`s(D)`$ for the number of its Seifert circles.

The weak genus of $`K`$ \[St\] is the minimal genus of all its diagrams, and the genus $`g(D)`$ of a diagram $`D`$ we will call the genus of the surface, obtained by applying the Seifert algorithm to this diagram:

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(K)=\mathrm{min}\left\{g(D)=\frac{c(D)s(D)+1}{2}:D\text{ is a diagram of }K\right\}.$$

The genus $`g(K)`$ of $`K`$ is the minimal genus of all Seifert surfaces of $`K`$ (not necessarily coming from Seifert’s algorithm on diagrams of $`K`$). The slice genus $`g_s(K)`$ of $`K`$ is the minimal genus of all smoothly embedded surfaces $`SB^4`$ with $`S=KS^3=B^4`$. Clearly $`g_s(K)g(K)\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$. $`\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$ coincides with the usual genus for many knots, in particular knots up to 10 crossings and homogeneous knots.

The braid index $`b(K)`$ of $`K`$ is the minimal number of strings of a braid having $`K`$ as its closure. See \[BM, FW, Mo\].

Recall, that a knot $`K`$ is homogeneous, if it has a diagram $`D`$ containing in each connected component of the complement (in $`^2`$) of the Seifert circles of $`D`$ (called block in \[Cr, §1\]) only crossings of the same sign (that is, only positive or only negative ones). This notion was introduced in \[Cr\] as a generalization of the notion of alternating and positive knots.

## 3 On the genus and braid index of homogeneous knots

The main tool we use for the proof of theorem 1 is the result of \[St\].

###### Theorem 2

(\[St\]) Knot diagrams of given genus (with no nugatory crossings and modulo crossing changes) decompose into finitely many equivalence classes under flypes \[MT\] and (reversed) applications of antiparallel twists at a crossing

$$\text{ }\text{}\text{ }\text{ }\text{}\text{ }.$$
(2)
This theorem allows to define for every natural number $`g`$ an integer $`d_g`$ as follows (see \[St\] for more details): call 2 crossings in a knot diagram equivalent, if there is a sequence of flypes making them to form a clasp $`\text{ }\text{}\text{ },`$ in which the strands are reversely oriented. One checks that this is an equivalence relation. Then $`d_g`$ is the maximal number of equivalence classes of crossings of diagrams of genus $`g`$. The theorem ensures that $`d_g`$ is finite. It follows from the work of Menasco and Thistlethwaite \[MT\] that $`d_g`$ can we expressed more self-containedly as

$$d_g=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+sup\{i:\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{a_{n,g}}{n^i}>\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\},$$

where $`a_{n,g}`$ is the number of alternating knots of $`n`$ crossings and genus $`g`$. (Note that it is not a priori clear, whether the supremum on the right is integral or even finite.)

Proof of theorem 1. It follows from theorem 2 that we can w.l.o.g. consider only one equivalence class $`𝒟`$ of diagrams of genus $`g`$ modulo the move (2). We will now argue that the skein relation for the HOMFLY polynomial implies that for a knot diagram $`D`$ in $`𝒟`$ we have for its polynomial $`P(D)=P_D`$

$$(l^2+1)^{d_g}P(D)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_𝒟}{}}l^{t_i(D)}L_{i,𝒟},$$
(3)
where the number $`n_𝒟`$ and the polynomials $`L_{i,𝒟}[l^{\pm 1},m^{\pm 1}]`$ depend on $`𝒟`$ only, and the only numbers depending on $`D`$ are the $`t_i`$. (The reader may compare to \[St2, proof of theorem 3.1\] for the case of the Jones polynomial, which is analogous.) An easy consequence of this skein relation (1) is the relation

$$P_{2n+1}=\frac{(il)^{2n}1}{l+l^1}mP_{\mathrm{}}+(il)^{2n}P_1,$$
(4)
where $`L_{2n+1}`$ is the the link diagram obtained by $`n`$ $`\overline{t}_2`$ moves at a positive crossing $`p`$ in the link diagram $`L_1`$ (we call the tangle in $`L_{2n+1}`$ containing the $`2n+1`$ crossings so obtained a “twist box”), $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`L_1`$ with $`p`$ smoothed out, and $`P_i`$ is the polynomial of $`L_i`$. (Compare also to the formula (8) of \[St2\], but note that this formula has a misprint: the second term on the right must be multiplied by $`t`$.) To obtain (3), iterate (4) over the at most $`d_g`$ twist boxes of a genus $`g`$ diagram. The factor $`(l^2+1)^{d_g}`$ is used to get disposed of the denominators.

From (3) we obtain for a diagram $`D`$ of genus $`g`$

$$\left|\left[(l^2+1)^{d_g}P(D)\right]_{l^pm^q}\right|C_g$$
(5)
for some constant $`C_g`$ depending on $`g`$ only.

Morton showed in \[Mo\] that $`[P(D)]_{l^pm^q}=0`$ if $`q>2g(D)`$, and, as well-known, the same is true for $`q<0`$ (we assume that $`D`$ is a knot diagram). Furthermore, it follows from the identity $`P_D(l,ll^1)=1`$ that $`[P(D)]_{l^pm^q}0`$ for some $`|p|2g(D)`$. Thus, if $`span_lP_Db`$ and $`g(D)g`$, then $`[P_D]_{l^pm^q}=0`$ for $`|p|+q>C_{b,g}^{}`$ with $`C_{b,g}^{}`$ depending only on $`b`$ and $`g`$, and hence the same is true for $`(l^2+1)^{d_g}P_D`$. But we already saw that $`(l^2+1)^{d_g}P_D`$ has uniformly bounded coefficients (5), so that

$$\{(l^2+1)^{d_g}P_D:\underset{l}{span}P_Db,g(D)g\}$$

is finite. From this the theorem follows because multiplication with $`(l^2+1)^{d_g}`$ is injective (the polynomial ring is an integrality domain). $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3

There are only finitely many homogeneous knots $`K`$ of given genus $`g(K)`$ and given value of $`span_lP_K`$.

We should point out that (trivially) a given knot may have infinitely many diagrams of given genus, and that even infinitely many different knots may have diagrams of given genus with the same HOMFLY polynomial \[Ka\]. This, not unexpectedly, shows that the combinatorial approach has its limits.

Proof of corollary 3. Combine theorem 1 with the facts that for a homogeneous knot $`K`$ we have $`g(K)=\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$ \[Cr, corollary 4.1\], that there are only finitely many homogeneous knots already of given Alexander polynomial \[St, corollary 3.5\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally, as the inequality $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_mP(K)2\stackrel{~}{g}(K)`$ of Morton \[Mo\] is known to be sharp in very many cases, we are led to conjecture more.

###### Conjecture 1

The set

$$\{P_K:K\text{ knot, }\underset{l}{span}P_Kb,\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_mP_Kg\}$$

is finite for any natural numbers $`g`$ and $`b`$.

## 4 The HOMFLY polynomial and Bennequin’s inequality for Legendrian knots

A contact structure on a smooth 3-manifold is a 1-form $`\alpha `$ with $`\alpha d\alpha 0`$ (which is equivalent to the non-integrability of the plane distribution defined by $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha `$). In the following we consider the $`1`$-form $`\alpha =dx+ydz`$ on $`^3(x,y,z)`$, called the standard contact space. A Legendrian knot is a smooth embedding $`𝒦:S^1^3`$ with $`\alpha \left(\frac{𝒦}{t}\right)0`$. Each such knot has its underlying topological knot type $`K=[𝒦]`$ and two fundamental invariants in contact geometry known as the Thurston–Bennequin number $`tb(𝒦)`$ and Maslov index $`\mu (𝒦)`$. (See \[FT, Fe\] for an excellent introductory account on this subject.)

###### Definition 1

The Thurston–Bennequin number $`tb(𝒦)`$ of a Legendrian knot $`𝒦`$ in the standard contact space is the linking number of $`𝒦`$ with $`𝒦^{}`$, where $`𝒦^{}`$ is obtained from $`𝒦`$ by a push-forward along a vector field transverse to the (hyperplanes of the) contact structure.

The Maslov (rotation) index $`\mu (𝒦)`$ of $`𝒦`$ is the degree of the map

$$tS^1\frac{\text{pr}\frac{𝒦}{t}(t)}{\left|\text{pr}\frac{𝒦}{t}(t)\right|}S^1,$$

where $`\text{pr}:^3^2`$ is the projection $`(x,y,z)(y,z)`$.

Both invariants $`tb(𝒦)`$ and $`\mu (𝒦)`$ can be interpreted in terms of a regular diagram of the (topological) knot $`[𝒦]`$, and thus it was recently realized that the theory of polynomial invariants of knots and links in $`^3`$, developed after Jones \[J\], can be applied in the context of Legendrian knots to give inequalities for $`tb`$ and $`\mu `$. In particular we have the inequality

$$tb(𝒦)+|\mu (𝒦)|\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP([𝒦])1.$$
(6)
This follows from the work of Morton \[Mo\] and Franks–Williams \[FW\], and was translated to the Legendrian knot context by Tabachnikov and Fuchs \[FT\]. See also \[T, CGM, GH, Fe\].

On the other hand, a purely topological inequality was previously known for a while – Bennequin’s inequality. In \[Be\], Bennequin proved

$$tb(𝒦)+|\mu (𝒦)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}g([𝒦])1.$$
(7)
This inequality was later improved by Rudolph \[Ru3\] who showed

$$tb(𝒦)+|\mu (𝒦)|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}g_s([𝒦])1,$$
(8)
where $`g_s(K)`$ is the slice (4-ball) genus of $`K`$. This improvement used the proof of the Thom conjecture by Kronheimer and Mrowka, achieved originally by gauge theory \[KM, KM2\], and later much more elegantly by Seiberg–Witten invariants \[KM3\].

While the r.h.s. of (7) and (8) are invariant w.r.t. taking the mirror image, the l.h.s. are strongly sensitive, so we have

$$\tau ^{}(L)\tau (L)2g_s(L)12g(L)1$$
(9)
for any topological knot type $`L`$, where

$$\tau ^{}(L):=\mathrm{max}\{tb(𝒦)+|\mu (𝒦)|:[𝒦]=L\}$$

and

$$\tau (L):=\mathrm{max}\{tb(𝒦)+|\mu (𝒦)|:[𝒦]\{L,!L\}\}=\mathrm{max}(\tau ^{}(L),\tau ^{}(!L)),$$

and $`!L`$ is the obverse (mirror image) of $`L`$.

In \[K\], Kanda used an original argument and the theory of convex surfaces in contact manifolds developed mainly by Giroux \[Gi\] to show that the inequality $`\tau ^{}2g1`$ can get arbitrarily unsharp, i.e. $`\{L_i\}:\tau ^{}(L_i)2g(L_i)\mathrm{}`$. (Here, and in the following, an expression of the form ‘$`x_n\mathrm{}`$’ should abbreviate $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}x_n=\mathrm{}`$. Analogously ‘$`x_{n_m}\mathrm{}`$’ should mean the limit for $`m\mathrm{}`$ etc.) In Kanda’s paper, all $`L_i`$ are alternating pretzel knots, and hence of genus 1, so that for these examples in fact we also have $`\tau ^{}(L_i)2g_s(L_i)\mathrm{}`$.

It was realized (see the remarks on \[FT, p. 1035\]) that Kanda’s result admits an alternative proof using (6) (whose proof in turn is also “elementary” in a sense discussed more detailedly in \[Fe\]). Other examples (connected sums of two $`(2,.)`$-torus knots) were given by Dasbach and Mangum \[DM, §4.3\], for which even $`\tau 2g\mathrm{}`$. However, their examples do not apply for the slice version (8) of Bennequin’s inequality. In \[Fe\] it was observed that Kanda’s result also follows from the work of Rudolph \[Ru, Ru2\].

Here we give a larger series of examples of knots with $`2g\tau \mathrm{}`$ containing as very special cases the previous ones given by Kanda and Dasbach–Mangum. These knots show that the inexactness of Bennequin’s inequality is by far not an exceptional phenomenon. While arguments also use (6) (and hence are much simpler than the original proof of Kanda), they still apply in many cases also for the slice version (8) of Bennequin’s inequality. Similar reasoning works for links of any fixed number of components, but for simplicity we content ourselves only with knots.

From theorem 1, the aforementioned application to the unsharpness of Bennequin’s inequality is almost straightforward. We formulate the consequence somewhat more generally and more precisely than in the introduction.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\{L_i\}`$ be a sequence of knots, such that only finitely many of the $`L_i`$ have the same skein polynomial. Then $`2\stackrel{~}{g}(L_i)\mathrm{min}(\tau ^{}(L_i),\tau ^{}(!L_i))\mathrm{}`$. If additionally $`\stackrel{~}{g}(L_i)C`$ for some constant $`C`$, then even $`\mathrm{min}(\tau ^{}(L_i),\tau ^{}(!L_i))\mathrm{}`$.

The condition $`g=\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is very often satisfied, but unfortunately this is not always the case, as pointed out by Morton \[Mo, remark 2\]. Worse yet, as shown in \[St2\], there cannot be any inequality of the type $`\stackrel{~}{g}(K)f(g(K))`$ for any function $`f:`$ for a general knot $`K`$. Nevertheless, by the results mentioned in the proof of corollary 3, any sequence of homogeneous knots satisfies $`g(L_i)=\stackrel{~}{g}(L_i)`$ and the condition of theorem 3. In particular, we have

###### Corollary 4

If $`\{L_i\}`$ are negative or achiral homogeneous knots, then $`2g(L_i)\tau ^{}(L_i)\mathrm{}`$. If $`L_i`$ are negative or additionally $`g(L_i)C`$ for some constant $`C`$, then even $`2g_s(L_i)\tau ^{}(L_i)\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1

Before we prove theorem 3, we make some comments on corollary 4.

1. Clearly for an achiral knot $`L`$ we have $`\tau (L)=\tau ^{}(L)`$, so that in the case all $`L_i`$ are achiral (like the examples $`T_{2,n}\mathrm{\#}T_{2,n}`$, with $`T_{2,n}`$ being the $`(2,n)`$-torus knot, given in \[DM\]) the stronger growth statement with $`\tau ^{}`$ replaced by $`\tau `$ holds, $`2g\tau \mathrm{}`$.
2. Contrarily, the statement $`2g\tau \mathrm{}`$ is not true in the negative case: Tanaka \[Ta, theorem 2\] showed that $`\tau ^{}=2g1`$ for positive knots. On the other hand, this means that for negative knots $`2g\tau ^{}\mathrm{}`$, and in fact $`2g_s\tau ^{}\mathrm{}`$, as by \[St4\] $`g=g_s`$ for positive (and hence also for negative) knots. However, we have from \[St5\] the stronger statement that $`\tau ^{}\mathrm{}`$, which also holds for almost negative knots (see \[St6, §5\]).
3. The conditions can be further weakened. For example we can replace achirality by self-conjugacy of the HOMFLY polynomial (invariance under the interchange $`ll^1`$) and ‘negative’ by ‘$`k`$-almost negative’ for any fixed number $`k`$, as the condition $`g=\stackrel{~}{g}`$ in corollary 3 can in fact be weakened to $`\stackrel{~}{g}f(g)`$ for any (fixed) function $`f:`$. However, in latter case the assumption needs to be retained that only finitely many $`L_i`$ have the same polynomial. (This is known to be automatically true for $`k1`$ \[St5, St6\], but not known for $`k2`$.)
4. The fact that our collection of examples is richer than the one of Kanda can be made precise followingly: the number of all pretzel knots of at most $`n`$ crossings is $`O(n^3)`$, while it follows from \[ES\] and \[St3\] that the number of achiral and positive knots of crossing number at most $`n`$, already among the 2-bridged ones, grows exponentially in $`n`$.
5. The boundedness condition on the genus in the achiral case is essential (at least for this method of proof) as show the examples $`T_{2,n}\mathrm{\#}T_{2,m}`$ of Dasbach and Mangum, on which the skein polynomial argument fails for the slice genus.

Proof of theorem 3. If $`\stackrel{~}{g}(L_i)C`$, then theorem 1 implies that $`\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_lP(L_i)\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP(L_i)=span_lP(L_i)\mathrm{}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP(L_i),\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP(!L_i))\mathrm{}`$, and the assertions follow from (6) and (8). Else there is a subsequence $`\{L_{i_j}\}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{g}(L_{i_j})\mathrm{}`$. Clearly,

$$\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP(L_{i_j}),\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP(!L_{i_j}))0,$$

so that $`2\stackrel{~}{g}(L_{i_j})\mathrm{min}(\tau ^{}(L_{i_j}),\tau ^{}(!L_{i_j}))\mathrm{}`$, that is, $`\{L_i\}`$ always has a subsequence with the asserted property. Applying the argument on any subsequence of $`\{L_i\}`$ gives the property on the whole $`\{L_i\}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As a final remark, there is another inequality, proved in \[CG\] and \[T\], involving the Kauffman polynomial $`F`$ (in the convention of \[Ka\]),

$$tb(𝒦)\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_aF([𝒦])1.$$
(10)
It gives in general better estimates on $`tb(𝒦)`$, but lacks the additional term $`|\mu (𝒦)|`$ and also a translation to the transverse knot context (see \[Fe, remark at end of §6\]). Contrarily, (6) admits a version for transverse knots as well (in which case the term $`|\mu (𝒦)|`$ is dropped; see \[GH\] and \[FT, theorem 2.4\]), and so our results hold in the transverse case, too. Moreover, as remarked by Ferrand in \[Fe, §8\] (see also \[Ta, Problem, p. 3428\]), the inequality

$$\mathrm{max}\mathrm{deg}_aF(K)\mathrm{min}\mathrm{deg}_lP(K)$$
(11)
is not always satisfied. Among the 313,230 prime knots of at most 15 crossings tabulated in \[HT\] there are 134 knots $`K`$ such that at least one of $`K`$ and $`!K`$ fails to satisfy (11). The simplest examples are two 12 crossing knots, one of them, $`12_{1584}`$, being quoted by Ferrand.

Acknowledgement. I wish to thank to E. Ferrand and S. Tabachnikov for some helpful conversations and for introducing me to the subject. I also wish to thank to K. Hulek for organizing and inviting me to the conference “Perspectives in Mathematics” and letting me there prepare a part of this manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Locally Lagrangian Symplectic and Poisson Manifolds

## 1 Locally Lagrangian Symplectic Manifolds

The present paper is the text of a lecture presented at the Conference “Poisson 2000” held at CIRM, Luminy, France, between June 26 and June 30, 2000, and it reviews results contained in the author’s papers  as well as in papers by other authors. The notion of a locally Lagrangian Poisson manifold is defined for the first time here.

The symplectic structures used in Lagrangian dynamics are defined on a tangent manifold $`TN`$, and consist of symplectic forms of the type

$`(1.1)`$
$$\omega _{}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{^2}{q^iu^j}\frac{^2}{q^ju^i}\right)dq^idq^j+\frac{^2}{u^iu^j}du^idq^j.$$

In (1.1), $`(q^i)_{i=1}^n`$ $`(n=dimN)`$ are local coordinates in the configuration space $`N`$, $`(u^i)`$ are the corresponding natural coordinates in the fibers of $`TN`$, and $``$ is the non degenerate Lagrangian function on $`TN`$ (i.e., $`C^{\mathrm{}}(TN)`$, $`rank(^2/u^iu^j)=n`$). (In this paper, everything is $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$.)

The most known geometric description of $`\omega _{}`$ is that it is the pullback of the canonical symplectic form of $`T^{}N`$ by the Legendre transformation defined by $``$. But, geometrically, it is more significant that $`\omega _{}`$ is related with the tangent structure of the manifold $`TN`$. The latter is the bundle morphism $`S:TTNTTN`$ defined by

$`(1.2)`$
$$SXT𝒱,(SX)(<\alpha _{\pi (u)},u>)=<\alpha _{\pi (u)},\pi _{}X_u>,$$

where $`𝒱`$ is the foliation of $`TN`$ by fibers (the vertical foliation), $`uTN`$, $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }TTN`$, $`\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }T^{}N`$, and $`\pi :TNN`$ is the natural projection. ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes spaces of global cross sections.) Formulas (1.2) define the action of $`SX`$ on $`q^i,u^i`$, and one has

$`(1.3)`$
$$S\left(\frac{}{q^i}\right)=\frac{}{u^i},S\left(\frac{}{u^i}\right)=0.$$

The relation between $`\omega _{}`$ and $`S`$ is e.g.,

$`(1.4)`$
$$\omega _{}=d\theta _{},\theta _{}=dS.$$

A symplectic form given by (1.4) is called a global Lagrangian symplectic (g.L.s.) structure. The Lagrangian $``$ on $`TN`$ uniquely defines $`\omega _{}`$ but, if (and only if) we change $``$ by

$`(1.5)`$
$$^{}=+f(q)+\alpha _i(q)u^i,$$

where $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$ and $`\alpha _i(q)dq^i`$ is a closed $`1`$-form on $`N`$, we get the same symplectic form $`\omega _{^{}}=\omega _{}`$.

Accordingly, it is natural to study locally Lagrangian symplectic manifolds $`M`$ i.e., manifolds which have an open covering $`M=_{\alpha A}U_\alpha `$, with local Lagrangian functions $`_\alpha C^{\mathrm{}}(U_\alpha )`$ that give rise to a global symplectic form which locally is of the type (1.4). In particular, this is interesting since we may expect to also have compact manifolds of this type while, a g.L.s. manifold cannot be compact since its symplectic form is exact.

First, we must ask our manifold $`M`$ to carry a tangent structure  i.e., an almost tangent structure $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }End(TM)`$ where

$`(1.6)`$
$$S^2=0,imS=kerS,$$

which is integrable i.e., locally defined by (1.3). The existence of $`S`$ implies the even-dimensionality of $`M`$, say $`dimM=2n`$, whence $`rankS=n`$, and integrability is equivalent with the vanishing of the Nijenhuis tensor

$`(1.7)`$
$$𝒩_S=[SX,SY]S[SX,Y]S[X,SY]+S^2[X,Y]=0.$$

It is important to notice that $`S`$ defines the vertical distribution $`V:=imS=kerS`$, which is tangent to a foliation $`𝒱`$ if $`S`$ is integrable. Moreover, in the latter case $`𝒱`$ is locally leafwise affine since a change of local coordinates where (1.3) holds is of the form

$`(1.8)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{q}^i=\stackrel{~}{q}^i(q^j),\stackrel{~}{u}^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^i}{q^j}u^j+\theta ^i(q^j).$$

(We use the Einstein summation convention.)The parallel vector fields of the locally affine structure of the leaves of $`𝒱`$ are the vector fields $`SX`$ where $`X`$ is a $`𝒱`$-projectable vector field on $`M`$.

Now, we can give the formal definition: a locally Lagrangian symplectic (l.L.s.) manifold is a manifold $`M`$ endowed with a tangent structure $`S`$ and a symplectic structure $`\omega `$ of the form (1.4), where $``$ are local functions on $`M`$.

A simple example can be obtained as follows. Take $`N=𝐑^n`$, $`TN=𝐑^{2n}`$, and the Lagrangian of the modified harmonic oscillator

$`(1.9)`$
$$=\frac{1}{2}(\delta _{ij}u^iu^j+\alpha _{ij}q^iq^j),$$

where $`(\delta _{ij})`$ is the unit matrix and $`(\alpha _{ij})`$ is a constant symmetric matrix. Then, quotientize by the group

$$q^iq^i+m^i,u^iu^i+s^i(m^i,s^i𝐙)$$

to get the torus $`T^{2n}`$. The tangent structure of $`𝐑^{2n}`$ projects to $`T^{2n}`$, and the function $``$ yields local functions on $`T^{2n}`$ which have transition relations (1.5) hence, define the same Lagrangian symplectic form. Notice that this example is on a compact manifold. Further examples will be given later on.

Following is a coordinate-free characterization of the l.L.s. manifolds :

###### 1.1 Proposition

Let $`M`$ be a manifold with a tangent structure $`S`$ and a symplectic form $`\omega `$. Then, $`\omega `$ is locally Lagrangian with respect to $`S`$ iff

$`(1.10)`$
$$\omega (X,SY)=\omega (Y,SX)(X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }TM).$$

Proof. Using local coordinates where (1.3) and (1.1) hold, it is easy to check (1.10). Conversely, from (1.10), it follows that the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of $`S`$ ($`T𝒱=imS`$) is $`\omega `$-Lagrangian. Hence, $`M`$ may be covered by local charts $`(U,x^i,y^i)`$ such that

$`(1.11)`$
$$V:=T𝒱=span\left\{\frac{}{y^i}\right\},\omega =\underset{i}{}dx^idy^i.$$

Furthermore, we must also have

$`(1.12)`$
$$S\left(\frac{}{x^i}\right)=\underset{k}{}\lambda _{ik}\frac{}{y^k},$$

where, because of (1.10), $`\lambda _{ik}=\lambda _{ki}`$.

Now, (1.7) implies

$$[S\frac{}{x^i},S\frac{}{x^j}]=0$$

hence, there are new coordinates

$`(1.13)`$
$$q^i=x^i,u^i=u^i(x^j,y^j)$$

such that

$`(1.14)`$
$$S\left(\frac{}{q^i}\right)=S\left(\frac{}{x^i}+\frac{y^k}{q^i}\frac{}{y^k}\right)=S\left(\frac{}{x^i}\right)=\frac{}{u^i}.$$

From (1.12) and (1.14) we get $`y^i/u^k=\lambda _{ki}`$, and, since $`\lambda _{ki}=\lambda _{ik}`$, there exist local functions $``$ such that $`y^i=/u^i`$. Using (1.11), we get (1.1). Q.e.d.

(1.10) is the compatibility condition between $`S`$ and $`\omega `$. It allows us to notice one more interesting object namely,

$`(1.15)`$
$$\mathrm{\Theta }([X]_V,[Y]_V):=\omega (SX,Y),$$

where the arguments are cross sections of the transversal bundle $`\nu 𝒱:=TM/V`$ of the foliation $`𝒱`$. $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a well defined pseudo-Euclidean metric with the local components $`(^2/u^iu^j)`$. If this metric is positive definite, we say that the manifold $`(M,S,\omega )`$ is of the elliptic type.

###### 1.2 Proposition

Let $`(M,\omega )`$ be a symplectic manifold endowed with a Lagrangian foliation $`𝒱`$ $`(T𝒱=V)`$, and a $`𝒱`$-projectable pseudo-Euclidean metric $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on $`\nu 𝒱=TM/V`$. Then, there exists a unique $`\omega `$-compatible tangent structure $`S`$ on $`M`$ for which $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the metric (1.15).

Proof. Split $`TM=V^{}V`$, where $`V^{}`$ also is a $`\omega `$-Lagrangian distribution, and identify $`\nu 𝒱`$ with $`V^{}`$. Then define

$`(1.16)`$
$$S/_V=0,S/_V^{}=\mathrm{}_\omega \mathrm{}_\mathrm{\Theta },$$

where the musical isomorphisms are defined as in Riemannian geometry. It is easy to check that $`S`$ is the required tangent structure. In particular, we must check that $`𝒩_S(X,Y)=0`$, and it suffices to look at the various cases where the arguments are in $`V,V^{}`$ while, if in $`V^{}`$, they are $`𝒱`$-projectable vector fields. The only non trivial case $`X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }V^{}`$ is settled by noticing that, whenever $`X,Y,Z\mathrm{\Gamma }_{proj}V^{}`$, one has

$$d\omega (Z,SX,SY)=\omega (Z,[SX,SY])=0,$$

whence $`[SX,SY]=0`$. Q.e.d.

Proposition 1.2 allows us to find more examples of l.L.s. manifolds. Let

$`(1.17)`$
$$H(1,p):=\{\left(\begin{array}{ccc}Id_p& X& Z\\ 0& 1& y\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)/X,Z𝐑^p,y𝐑\}$$

be the generalized Heisenberg group, and take the quotients

$$M(p,q):=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q)\backslash (H(1,p)\times H(1,q)),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p,q)`$ consists of pairs of matrices of type (1.17) with integer entries. Then, with the notation of (1.17) on the two factors, the form

$`(1.18)`$
$$\omega =^tdX_1(dZ_1X_1dy_1)+^tdX_2(dZ_2X_2dy_2)+dy_1dy_2$$

($`t`$ denotes matrix transposition) defines a symplectic structure on $`M(p,q)`$, and the equations

$`(1.19)`$
$$X_1=const.,X_2=const.,y_1\alpha y_2=const.(\alpha 𝐑),$$

define an $`\omega `$-Lagrangian foliation $`𝒱`$ . Furthermore

$`(1.20)`$
$$g:=^tdX_1dX_1+^tdX_2dX_2+[d(y_1\alpha y_2][d(y_1\alpha y_2]$$

$$+^t(dZ_1X_1dy_1)(dZ_1X_1dy_1)+^t(dZ_2X_2dy_2)(dZ_2X_2dy_2)+dy_2dy_2$$

is a projectable metric on the transversal bundle of $`𝒱`$.

Correspondingly, the construction of Proposition 1.2 yields a l.L.s. structure of elliptic type on $`M(p,q)`$.

A similar construction holds on the so-called Iwasawa manifolds

$$I(p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }_c(1,p)\backslash H_c(1,p),$$

where $`H_c(1,p)`$ is given by (1.17) with $`𝐑`$ replaced by $`𝐂`$, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_c(1,p)`$ consists of matrices with Gauss integers entries .

We end this section by

###### 1.3 Proposition

The l.L.s. manifold $`(M,S,\omega )`$ is globally Lagrange symplectic iff $`\omega =dϵ`$ for some global $`1`$-form $`ϵ`$ on $`M`$ such that (i) $`ϵ`$ vanishes on the vertical leaves of $`S`$, and (ii) if $`\eta `$ is the cross section of $`V^{}`$ ($`V=T𝒱`$, $`𝒱`$ is the vertical foliation of $`S`$) which satisfies $`\eta S=ϵ`$, then $`\eta =d_𝒱`$, where $`d_𝒱`$ is the differential along the leaves of $`𝒱`$ and $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$.

Proof. Notice the exact sequence

$$0V\stackrel{}{}TM\stackrel{\pi }{}TM/VV0$$

which shows that $`V^{}`$ can be identified with the subbundle $`(TM/V)^{}`$ of $`T^{}M`$. Accordingly, we see that a unique leafwise form $`\eta `$ as required is associated with each $`ϵ`$ that satisfies (i) namely, using the local coordinates of (1.3), we have

$`(1.21)`$
$$ϵ=ϵ_idq^i\eta =ϵ_i[du^i]_{(TM/V)^{}}.$$

If we are in the g.L.s. case, we have (1.4), and $`ϵ=\theta _{}`$ is the required form.

Conversely, if $`\omega =dϵ`$, where (i), (ii) hold, we must locally have

$`(1.22)`$
$$ϵ=(\frac{}{u^i}du^i)S=\frac{}{u^i}dq^i,$$

and $``$ is the required global Lagrangian. Q.e.d.

Notice that condition (ii) has a cohomological meaning. If the l.L.s. form $`\omega =dϵ`$ where $`ϵ`$ satisfies (i) then (1.4) implies

$$ϵ/_U=\theta __U+\lambda _U,d\lambda _U=0,$$

where $`U`$ is an open neighborhood on which the local Lagrangian $`_U`$ exists, and $`\lambda `$ is a $`1`$-form which vanishes on the leaves of $`𝒱`$. Thus,

$$\lambda =d(\phi (q)),\eta =\left(\frac{_U}{u^i}+\frac{\phi (q)}{q^i}\right)[du^i],$$

and we get $`d_𝒱\eta =0`$. In foliation theory (e.g., ), it is known that if $`H^1(M,\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒱)=0`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒱`$ is the sheaf of germs of functions $`f(q^i)`$, then $`d_𝒱\eta =0`$ implies $`\eta =d_𝒱`$ for a global function $``$.

## 2 Further geometric results

a). Let $`(M,S)`$ be a manifold endowed with an integrable tangent structure $`S`$. Then, the following problem is of an obvious interest: find the symplectic structures $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ which are compatible with $`S`$ hence, are l.L.s. forms.

###### 2.1 Proposition

The symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`M`$ is $`S`$-compatible iff

$`(2.1)`$
$$\omega =\frac{1}{2}\phi _{ij}(q)dq^idq^j+d(\zeta _i(q,u)dq^i),$$

where $`(q^i,u^i)`$ are the local coordinates of (1.3), the first term of (2.1) is a local closed $`2`$-form and $`\zeta =\zeta _idq^i`$ is a local $`1`$-form such that $`d_𝒱(\zeta _i[du^i])=0`$ and $`d\zeta `$ is non degenerate.

Proof. If $`\omega `$ is $`S`$-compatible, $`\omega `$ is of the form (1.4), which is (2.1) with a vanishing first term.

For the converse result, we notice that our hypotheses indeed imply that the form $`\omega `$ is closed and non degenerate, while the compatibility condition (1.10) is equivalent to $`\zeta _i/u^j=\zeta _j/u^i`$ i.e., $`d_𝒱(\zeta _i[du^i])=0`$. Q.e.d.

The local Lagrangians of the form $`\omega `$ of (2.1) are obtained by putting (locally)

$`(2.2)`$
$$\frac{1}{2}\phi _{ij}(q)dq^idq^j=d(\alpha _i(q)dq^i),\zeta _i[du^i]=d_𝒱f,fC^{\mathrm{}}(M).$$

Then the Lagrangians are

$`(2.3)`$
$$=f+\alpha _iu^i.$$

A coordinate-free criterion which ensures (2.1) is given by

###### 2.2 Proposition

The symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`(M,S)`$ has the local form (2.1), possibly without $`d_𝒱(\zeta _i[du^i])=0`$, iff the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of $`S`$ is a Lagrangian foliation with respect to $`\omega `$.

Proof. Consider the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of $`S`$, denote $`V=T𝒱`$, and let $`V^{}`$ be a transversal distribution. We will use a well known technique of foliation theory namely, the bigrading of differential forms and multivector fields associated with the decomposition $`TM=V^{}V`$. In particular, one has

$`(2.4)`$
$$d=d_{(1,0)}^{}+d_{(0,1)}^{\prime \prime }+_{(2,1)},$$

where $`d^{\prime \prime }`$ may be identified with $`d_𝒱`$, and $`d^2=0`$ becomes

$`(2.5)`$
$$d^{\prime \prime 2}=0,^2=0,d^{}d^{\prime \prime }+d^{\prime \prime }d^{}=0,d^{}+d^{}=0,d^2+d^{\prime \prime }+d^{\prime \prime }=0.$$

Furthermore, $`d^{\prime \prime }`$ is the coboundary of the leafwise de Rham cohomology, and it satisfies a Poincaré lemma e.g., .

Clearly, $`𝒱`$ is Lagrangian with respect to (2.1).

Conversely, if the foliation $`𝒱`$ is Lagrangian for a symplectic form $`\omega `$, we must have a decomposition

$`(2.6)`$
$$\omega =\omega _{(2,0)}+\omega _{(1,1)},$$

and $`d\omega =0`$ means

$`(2.7)`$
$$d^{\prime \prime }\omega _{(1,1)}=0,d^{\prime \prime }\omega _{(2,0)}+d^{}\omega _{(1,1)}=0,d^{}\omega _{(2,0)}+\omega _{(1,1)}=0.$$

Accordingly, there exists a local $`(1,0)`$-form $`\zeta `$ such that $`\omega _{(1,1)}=d^{\prime \prime }\zeta `$ (the $`d^{\prime \prime }`$-Poincaré lemma), and (with (2.5)) the last two conditions (2.7) become

$`(2.8)`$
$$\begin{array}{cc}d^{\prime \prime }\omega _{(2,0)}+d^{}d^{\prime \prime }\zeta =\hfill & d^{\prime \prime }(\omega _{(2,0)}d^{}\zeta )=0,\hfill \\ d^{}\omega _{(2,0)}+d^{\prime \prime }\zeta =\hfill & d^{}\omega _{(2,0)}d^2\zeta d^{\prime \prime }\zeta =d^{}(\omega _{(2,0)}d^{}\zeta )=0,\hfill \end{array}$$

whence,

$`(2.9)`$
$$\mathrm{\Phi }:=\omega _{(2,0)}d^{}\zeta $$

is a closed $`2`$-form of bidegree $`(2,0)`$. Therefore, $`\omega `$ has the local expression (2.1). Q.e.d.

The simplest geometric case is that of a tangent bundle $`M=TN`$ with the canonical tangent structure (1.3). In this case, the local expressions (2.1) can be glued up by means of a partition of unity on $`N`$, and we get all the global $`S`$-compatible symplectic forms

$`(2.10)`$
$$\omega =\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+d\zeta ,$$

where $`\pi :TNN`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a closed $`2`$-form on $`N`$, and $`\zeta `$ is a $`1`$-form on $`TN`$ which satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 2.1. In particular, $`d_𝒱(\zeta _i[du^i])=0`$, and the contractibility of the fibers of $`TN`$ allows to conclude that $`\zeta _i[du^i]=d_𝒱\phi `$, $`\phi C^{\mathrm{}}(TN)`$. This also yields another expression of the $`S`$-compatible forms on $`TN`$:

$`(2.11)`$
$$\omega =\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }+\omega _\phi ,$$

where $`\omega _\phi `$ is given by (1.1).

Furthermore, if we also use Proposition 1.3, we see that $`\omega `$ of (2.10) is globally Lagrangian iff it is exact. Indeed,if $`\omega `$ of (2.10) is $`\omega =d\xi `$, where $`\xi =\xi _{(1,0)}+\xi _{(0,1)}`$, we must have $`d^{\prime \prime }\xi _{(0,1)}=0`$ since $`\omega `$ has no $`(0,2)`$-component. Then, because the fibers of $`TN`$ are contractible, $`\xi _{(0,1)}=d^{\prime \prime }\phi `$, $`\phi C^{\mathrm{}}(TN)`$, and

$$\omega =d\xi _{(1,0)}+dd^{\prime \prime }\phi =d\xi _{(1,0)}+d(dd^{})\phi =d(\xi _{(1,0)}d^{}\phi )=dϵ,$$

where $`ϵ=\xi _{(1,0)}d^{}\phi `$ is a $`(1,0)`$-form. If (2.10) is l.L.s., then it is clear that $`ϵ`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Proposition 1.3, with a global Lagrangian of the form (2.3).

In this context it is interesting to mention that a criterion to distinguish the tangent bundles in the class of the manifolds $`(M,S)`$ with an integrable tangent structure is available. Namely, $`M`$ is a tangent bundle iff the following three conditions hold: (i) the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ of $`S`$ has simply connected leaves, (ii) the flat affine connection induced by $`S`$ on the leaves of $`𝒱`$ is complete, (iii) $`(𝒱)=0`$, where $`(𝒱)`$ is the $`1`$-dimensional cohomology class with coefficients in the sheaf of germs of $`𝒱`$-projectable cross sections of $`T𝒱`$ produced by the difference cocycle of the local Euler vector fields $`E:=u^i(/u^i)`$ .
b). At this point we restrict ourselves to the case of a tangent bundle $`M=TN`$ with the canonical tangent structure $`S`$ of (1.3). Then, we may speak of second order vector fields $`X`$ on $`TN`$ i.e., vector fields $`X`$ such that the projection on $`N`$ of their trajectories satisfy an autonomous system of ordinary differential equations of the second order. With respect to the local coordinates (1.3) such a vector field has the form

$`(2.12)`$
$$X=u^i\frac{}{q^i}+\gamma ^i(q,u)\frac{}{u^i}.$$

For $`TN`$, the local coordinate transformations (1.8) of $`u^i`$ are linear (i.e., $`\theta ^i=0`$ in (1.8)) and $`E=u^i(/u^i)`$ is a well defined global vector field on $`TN`$ (the infinitesimal generator of the homotheties) called the Euler vector field. We see that the vector field $`X`$ is of the second order iff $`SX=E`$.

###### 2.3 Proposition

The symplectic form $`\omega `$ on $`TN`$ is $`S`$-compatible iff the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ by the fibers of $`TN`$ is $`\omega `$-Lagrangian, (ii) there exist $`\omega `$-Hamiltonian vector fields which are second order vector fields.

Proof. . If $`\omega `$ is $`S`$-compatible, it must be of the form (2.11), and (i) holds. Concerning (ii), it is known in Lagrangian dynamics that, if we consider the energy associated with the Lagrangian $`\phi `$ of (2.11) given by

$$_\phi =E\phi \phi ,$$

its $`\omega _\phi `$-Hamiltonian vector field $`X_\phi `$ ($`i(X_\phi )\omega _\phi =d_\phi `$) is of the second order.

Furthermore, all the second order vector fields are given by $`X=X_\phi +Z`$, where $`Z`$ is an arbitrary vertical vector field, and the $`1`$-form $`\mathrm{\Psi }=i(X)\pi ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ of (2.11)) is independent on $`Z`$.

If we want a function $`hC^{\mathrm{}}(TN)`$ such that

$$dh=i(X)\omega =i(X_\phi +Z)\omega =\mathrm{\Psi }d_\phi +i(Z)\omega _\phi ,$$

it means we want a relation of the form

$`(2.13)`$
$$\mathrm{\Psi }+i(Z)d^{\prime \prime }\zeta =df,$$

where $`\zeta `$ is the $`1`$-form of (2.10), $`d^{\prime \prime }`$ is defined using an arbitrary complementary distribution $`V^{}`$ of $`V=T𝒱`$, and $`f=_\phi h`$ must be the lift of a function on $`N`$, since the left hand side of (2.13) is of bidegree $`(1,0)`$.

Because the Lagrangian $`\phi `$ is non degenerate, (2.13) has a solution $`Z`$ for any $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$. Therefore, condition (ii) of Proposition 2.3 is satisfied and we even know how to find all the $`\omega `$-Hamiltonian, second order vector fields.

Conversely, condition (i) implies (2.10) (see Proposition 2.2), and, if a vector field $`X`$ of the form (2.12) such that $`i(X)\omega =dh`$ ($`hC^{\mathrm{}}(TN)`$) exists, the equality of the $`(0,1)`$-components yields

$`(2.14)`$
$$u^i\frac{\zeta _i}{u^k}=\frac{h}{u^k}$$

whence the derivatives

$$\frac{\zeta _j}{u^k}=\frac{^2h}{u^ju^k}u^i\frac{^2\zeta _i}{u^ju^k}$$

are symmetric, and we are done (see Proposition 2.1). Q.e.d.

Concerning second order vector fields on a tangent bundle $`TN`$, the following problem is important:

###### Problem 1

Let $`X`$ be a second order vector field on TN. Study the existence and generality of the Poisson structures $`P`$ on $`TN`$ such that $`X`$ is a $`P`$-Hamiltonian vector field.

Conversely, we can formulate:

###### Problem 2

If $`P`$ is a Poisson structure on $`TN`$, study the existence and generality of second order $`P`$-Hamiltonian vector fields.

In analogy with the variational calculus problems, Problem 2 can be called the direct problem, and Problem 1 the inverse problem for Hamiltonian second order vector fields. Proposition 2.3 gives the solution of the direct problem for symplectic structures $`\omega `$ on $`TN`$ for which the vertical foliation $`𝒱`$ is Lagrangian . But, it is easy to check that if $`W`$ is a Poisson structure on $`N`$ its lift $`P`$ to $`TN`$ has no second order Hamiltonian vector fields. $`P`$ is defined by $`\{f\pi ,g\pi \}=0`$ for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(N)`$, $`\pi :TNN`$, and

$$\{\alpha ,f\pi \}=(\mathrm{}_W\alpha )f,\{\alpha ,\beta \}=L_{\mathrm{}_W\alpha }\beta L_{\mathrm{}_W\beta }\alpha d(W(\alpha ,\beta )),$$

for fiberwise linear functions identified with $`1`$-forms $`\alpha ,\beta `$. We again refer to  for an iterative method of solving the inverse problem for Poisson structures $`P`$ such that $`\{f\pi ,g\pi \}=0`$.

It is interesting to notice that the notion of a second order vector field may also be defined for arbitrary manifolds endowed with an integrable almost tangent structure.

Let $`(M,S)`$ be a manifold with the integrable structure (1.3). Then, (1.8) shows the existence of a natural foliated structure on the vector bundle $`V=T𝒱`$ ($`𝒱`$ is the vertical foliation of $`S`$), and it makes sense to speak of $`𝒱`$-projectable cross sections of $`V`$. A vector field $`X\mathrm{\Gamma }TM`$ will be called a second order vector field if for each canonical coordinate neighborhood $`(U,q^i,u^i)`$, $`SXE_U`$, where $`E_U=u^i(/u^i)`$ is the local Euler vector field, is a $`𝒱`$-projectable cross section of $`V`$. The condition is invariant by the coordinate transformations (1.8), and the local expression of $`X`$ is of the form

$`(2.15)`$
$$X=(u^i+\alpha ^i(q))\frac{}{q^i}+\beta ^i(q,u)\frac{}{u^i},$$

which yields

$`(2.16)`$
$$\frac{d^2q^i}{dt^2}=\beta ^i(q^j,\frac{dq^j}{dt}\alpha ^i(q))+\frac{\alpha ^i}{q^j}\frac{dq^j}{dt}$$

along the trajectories of $`X`$. Equation (2.16) explains the name.

Notice that, if $`𝒱`$ is a fibration, second order vector fields always exist. It suffices to glue up local second order fields by a partition of unity on the basis.

The following fact, which is known for tangent bundles (e.g. ) is also true in the general case: if $`X`$ is a second order vector field then $`(L_XS)^2=Id`$, where $`L`$ denotes the Lie derivative. This is easily checked by using (2.15) and by acting on $`/q^i,/u^i`$. It follows that $`F:=L_XS`$ is an almost product structure on $`M`$ which has the $`(+1)`$-eigenspace equal to $`V=T𝒱`$. The complementary distribution

$`(2.17)`$
$$V^{}=span\left\{\frac{}{q^i}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\alpha ^j}{q^i}\frac{\beta ^j}{u^i}\right)\frac{}{u^j}\right\}$$

is the $`(1)`$-eigenspace of $`F`$.

In particular, if the functions $`\beta ^i`$ of (2.15) are quadratic with respect to $`u^i`$ (a condition which is invariant by (1.8)), $`V^{}`$ is an affine distribution transversal to $`𝒱`$ i.e., the process of lifting paths of transversal submanifolds of $`𝒱`$ to paths tangent to $`V^{}`$ yields affine mappings between the leaves of $`𝒱`$ .
c). In what follows, we give a result concerning symplectic reduction of locally Lagrangian symplectic manifolds.

###### 2.4 Proposition

Let $`(M,S,\omega )`$ be a l.L.s. manifold and $`N`$ a coisotropic submanifold with the kernel foliation $`C=(TN)^_\omega `$. Assume that the following conditions are satisfied:

$`(i)`$
$$S(TN)TN,VTNS(TN)+C(V=imS),$$

(ii) the leaves of $`C`$ are the fibers of a submersion $`r:NP`$,
(iii) the restriction of $`S`$ to $`N`$ sends $`C`$-projectable vector fields to $`C`$-projectable vector fields.
Then $`S`$ induces a tangent structure $`S^{}`$ on $`P`$ which is compatible with the reduction $`\omega ^{}`$ of the symplectic structure $`\omega `$ to $`P`$.

Proof. (i) and the compatibility condition (1.10) imply $`S(C)C`$, therefore, we get an induced morphism $`\stackrel{~}{S}:TN/CTN/C`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{S}^2=0`$ and $`im\stackrel{~}{S}=(VTN)/(VC)`$.

Since the quotient is Lagrangian for the reduction of $`\omega `$, we get

$$rank\stackrel{~}{S}=\frac{1}{2}dim(TN/C).$$

Condition (ii) allows us to reduce $`\omega `$ to a symplectic structure $`\omega ^{}`$ of $`P`$, and (iii) ensures that $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ projects to an $`\omega ^{}`$-compatible tangent structure $`S^{}`$. Q.e.d.

## 3 Maslov Classes

Since a l.L.s. manifold $`(M,S,\omega )`$ has a canonical Lagrangian foliation $`𝒱=imS`$, any Lagrangian submanifold $`L`$ of $`M`$ has Maslov classes, which are cohomological obstructions to the transversality of $`L`$ and $`𝒱`$. In this section, we will indicate a differential geometric way of computation of these Maslov classes.

We begin by a brief recall of the general definition of the Maslov classes . Let $`\pi :EM`$ be a vector bundle of rank $`2n`$, and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }^2E^{}`$ a nowhere degenerate cross section. Then $`(E,\sigma )`$ is a symplectic vector bundle. Furthermore, $`(E,\sigma )`$ has a reduction of its structure group $`Sp(2n,𝐑)`$ to the unitary group $`U(n)`$ which is defined up to homotopy, and can be fixed by the choice of a complex structures $`J`$ calibrated by $`\sigma `$ (i.e., $`\sigma `$-compatible: $`\sigma (Js_1,Js_2)=\sigma (s_1,s_2)`$, and such that $`g(s_1,s_2):=\sigma (s_1,Js_2)`$ is positive definite, $`s_1,s_2\mathrm{\Gamma }E`$).

If $`L_0M`$ is a Lagrangian subbundle of $`(E,\sigma )`$, the complex version of $`(E,J,g)`$ has local unitary bases of the form

$`(3.1)`$
$$ϵ_i=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(e_i\sqrt{1}Je_i),$$

where $`(e_i)_{i=1}^n`$ is a local, real, $`g`$-orthonormal basis of $`L_0`$ ($`L_0`$-orthonormal, $`J`$-unitary bases).

Correspondingly, $`E`$ admits $`L_0`$-orthogonal, $`J`$-unitary connections $`^0`$ of local expressions

$`(3.2)`$
$$^0ϵ_i=\theta _{0i}^jϵ_j(\theta _{0i}^j+\theta _{0j}^i=0),$$

and a local curvature matrix

$`(3.3)`$
$$\mathrm{\Theta }^0=d\theta ^0+\theta ^0\theta ^0.$$

Furthermore, if $`L_1M`$ is a second Lagrangian subbundle of $`(E,\sigma )`$, and $`^1`$ is a $`L_1`$-orthogonal, $`J`$-unitary connection, the following objects exist:
i) the difference tensor $`\alpha :=^1^0`$,
ii) the curvature variation

$`(3.4)`$
$$\mathrm{\Theta }_t:=(1t)\mathrm{\Theta }_0+t\mathrm{\Theta }_1+t(1t)\alpha \alpha ,$$

$`0t1`$ (of course, $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are matrices),
iii) the Chern-Weil-Bott forms

$`(3.5)`$
$$\mathrm{\Delta }(^0,^1)c_{2h1}:=$$

$$=(1)^{h+1}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{(2\pi )^{2h1}(2h2)!}_0^1(\delta _{i_1\mathrm{}i_{2h1}}^{j_1\mathrm{}j_{2h1}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{j_1}^{i_1}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{tj_2}^{i_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{tj_{2h1}}^{i_{2h1}})𝑑t,$$

where the components $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_j^i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Theta }}_{tj}^i`$ of $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_t`$ are taken with respect to any common, local, $`J`$-unitary bases of $`(E,J,g)`$ (which may not be $`L_a`$-orthogonal $`(a=0,1)`$).

It turns out that the forms (3.5) are closed, and define cohomology classes

$`(3.6)`$
$$\mu _h(E,L_0,L_1):=[\mathrm{\Delta }(^0,^1)c_{2h1}]H^{4h3}(M,𝐑),$$

($`h=1,2,\mathrm{}`$), which do not depend on the choice of $`J`$, $`^0`$, $`^1`$, and are invariant by homotopy deformations of $`(L_0,L_1)`$ via Lagrangian subbundles.

We refer to  for details. The classes (3.6) are called the Maslov classes of the pair $`(L_0,L_1)`$. If $`L_0L_1=E`$, one may use $`^1=^0`$ and $`\mu _h=0`$. The following two properties are also important:

$`(3.7)`$
$$\mu _h(E,L_0,L_1)=\mu _h(E,L_1,L_0),$$

$`(3.8)`$
$$\mu _h(E,L_0,L_1)+\mu _h(E,L_1,L_2)+\mu _h(E,L_2,L_0)=0.$$

If $`(M,\omega )`$ is a symplectic manifold endowed with a Lagrangian foliation $`𝒱`$, and if $`L`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $`M`$, we have Maslov classes of $`L`$ defined by

$`(3.9)`$
$$\mu _h(L)=\mu _h(TM/_L,T𝒱/_L,TL))H^{4h3}(L,𝐑).$$

For $`h=1`$, and if $`L`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $`𝐑^{2n}=T^{}𝐑^n`$, $`\mu _1(L)`$ is the double of the original class defined by Maslov.

In particular, if $`(M,S,\omega )`$ is a l.L.s. manifold, and $`𝒱`$ is its vertical Lagrangian foliation, formula (3.9) will be the definition of the Maslov classes of the Lagrangian submanifold $`L`$ of $`M`$. We will discuss a way of computing these classes.

Let $`V^{}`$ be a transversal Lagrangian distribution of $`V=imS`$. Then $`F:=S/_V^{}`$ is an isomorphism $`V^{}V`$ with the inverse $`F^1:VV^{}`$, and it is easy to check that, if $`F^1`$ is extended to a morphism $`S^{}:TMTM`$ by asking $`S^{}/_V^{}=0`$, then $`S^{}`$ is an almost tangent structure on $`M`$ which satisfies the compatibility condition

$`(3.10)`$
$$\omega (X,S^{}Y)=\omega (Y,S^{}X).$$

Furthermore, it is also easy to check that $`J:=S^{}S`$ is an $`\omega `$-compatible almost complex structure, which is positive iff $`(M,S,\omega )`$ is of the elliptic type (i.e., $`\omega (SX,Y))`$ is a positive definite bilinear form on $`V^{}`$; see Section 1).

Therefore, on l.L.s. manifolds of the elliptic type there is an easy construction of an almost complex structure $`J`$ as needed in the computation of the Maslov classes, and we also get the corresponding Riemannian metric

$`(3.11)`$
$$g(X,Y):=\omega (X,JY).$$

We will say that $`g`$ is the Riemannian metric associated with $`V^{}`$, and the restriction of $`g`$ to $`V^{}`$ is the metric $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ defined in Section 1.

Now, we need connections as required in (3.5). We can obtain such connections in the following way. Start with a metric connection $`^0`$ of the vector bundle $`V`$, and extend $`^0`$ to $`TM`$ by asking

$`(3.12)`$
$$_X^0Z=S^{}_X^0Y,$$

if $`Z=S^{}Y\mathrm{\Gamma }V^{}`$ ($`Y\mathrm{\Gamma }V`$). It follows easily that the extended connection, also denoted by $`^0`$, is a $`V`$-orthogonal, $`J`$-unitary connection, and we will use it on $`TM/_L`$.

Furthermore, since $`L`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold and $`J`$ is compatible with $`\omega `$, the $`g`$-normal bundle of $`L`$ is $`JTL`$, and we may write down Gauss-Weingarten equations of the form

$`(3.13)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}^0e_i\hfill & =& \hfill \lambda _i^je_j+b_i^j(Je_j),\\ ^0(Je_i)\hfill & =& \hfill b_i^je_j+\lambda _i^j(Je_j).\end{array}$$

In (3.13), $`(e_i)`$ is a $`g`$-orthonormal basis tangent to $`L`$, the coefficients are $`1`$-forms and the second equation is obtained by acting by $`J`$ on the first equation. Moreover, the metric character of $`^0`$ implies

$`(3.14)`$
$$\lambda _i^j+\lambda _j^i=0,b_i^j=b_j^i.$$

The coefficients $`\lambda _i^j`$ are the local connection forms of the metric connection $`^1`$ induced by $`^0`$ in $`L`$, and $`b_i^j`$ are the local components of the second fundamental form of $`L`$.

The connection $`^1`$ extends to $`TM`$ by putting

$$_X^1JZ=J_X^1Z(Z\mathrm{\Gamma }TL),$$

and it becomes the connection $`^1`$ which is required in (3.5).

In order to use (3.5) we need local unitary bases, and we may use the bases (3.1) where $`e_i`$ are those of (3.13). Accordingly, we get

$`(3.15)`$
$$^0ϵ_i=(\lambda _i^j+\sqrt{1}b_i^j)ϵ_j,^1ϵ_i=\lambda _i^jϵ_j.$$

The difference tensor has the components

$`(3.16)`$
$$\alpha _i^j=\sqrt{1}b_i^j.$$

The curvature variation can also be obtained by a technical computation . In particular, we get

###### 3.1 Proposition

The first Maslov class $`\mu _1(L)`$ is represented by the differential $`1`$-form $`(1/2\pi )b_i^i`$.

This is a generalization of a result due to J. M. Morvan in $`𝐑^{2n}`$ , where Proposition 3.1 yields a nice relationship between the first Maslov class and the mean curvature vector of a Lagrangian submanifold $`L𝐑^{2n}`$.

An interesting situation where the calculations above can be used is that of a symplectic manifold $`(M,\omega )`$ endowed with a transversally Riemannian Lagrangian foliation $`𝒱`$. The tangent structure is provided by Proposition 1.2, and the natural connection $`^0`$ to be used is that for which $`^0/_V^{}`$ is the Levi-Civita connection of the transversal metric of the foliation. In particular, we can apply these choices to the case of a Lagrangian submanifold of a tangent bundle $`TN`$ with a global Lagrangian symplectic structure. What we will get is a translation of known calculations on cotangent bundles via a Legendre transformation .

## 4 Locally Lagrangian Poisson Manifolds

The aim of this section is to suggest an open problem namely, the study of Poisson manifolds such that their symplectic leaves are l.L.s manifolds. Besides, we would also like to have the l.L.s. structure of the leaves vary smoothly, in a reasonable sense. This leads to the following

###### 4.1 Definition

A locally Lagrangian Poisson (l.L.P.) manifold is a triple $`(M,P,S)`$ where $`P`$ is a Poisson bivector field on $`M`$, and $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }EndTM`$ and satisfies the properties:

$`(4.1)`$
$$P(\alpha ,\beta S)=P(\beta ,\alpha S),$$

$`(4.2)`$
$$P(\alpha S,\beta S)=0,$$

$`(4.3)`$
$$rank_xS/_{im\mathrm{}_P}=\frac{1}{2}rank_xP,$$

$`(4.4)`$
$$𝒩_S(X,Y)=0,X,Y\mathrm{\Gamma }(im\mathrm{}_P),$$

where $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{\Gamma }T^{}M`$, $`xM`$, $`\mathrm{}_P:T^{}MTM`$ is defined by $`<\mathrm{}_P\alpha ,\beta >=P(\alpha ,\beta )`$, and $`𝒩_S`$ is the Nijenhuis tensor (1.7). If all these conditions, with the exception of (4.4) hold, $`(M,P,S)`$ is an almost l.L.P. manifold.

The name is justified by

###### 4.2 Proposition

The symplectic leaves of a l.L.P. manifold are locally Lagrangian symplectic manifolds.

Proof. Formula (4.1) also reads

$`(4.5)`$
$$S\mathrm{}_P\alpha =\mathrm{}_P(\alpha S),$$

and this shows that the tangent spaces of the symplectic leaves are $`S`$-invariant. From (4.1), (4.2), it follows that for $`F:=S/_{im\mathrm{}_P}`$, $`F^2=0`$ which, together with (4.3) and (4.4), shows that $`F`$ defines a tangent structure on every symplectic leaf $`𝒮`$ of $`P`$. Furthermore, if we look at the symplectic structure

$`(4.6)`$
$$\omega _𝒮(\mathrm{}_P\alpha ,\mathrm{}_P\beta ):=P(\alpha ,\beta )$$

of the leaf $`𝒮`$, we see that (4.1) implies the compatibility condition (1.10). Q.e.d.

An easy example is provided by a manifold

$`(4.7)`$
$$M=TN^n\times _fTN^n,$$

which is the fibered product of two copies of a tangent bundle. In this case, $`M`$ has an atlas of local coordinates $`(x^i,y^i,z^i)_{i=1}^n`$ with the coordinate transformations

$`(4.8)`$
$$\stackrel{~}{x}^i=\stackrel{~}{x}^i(x^j),\stackrel{~}{y}^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^j}y^j,\stackrel{~}{z}^i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{x}^i}{x^j}z^j,$$

and we get a tensor field $`S\mathrm{\Gamma }EndTM`$ if we ask

$`(4.9)`$
$$S(X_i)=0,S\left(\frac{}{y^i}\right)=\frac{}{z^i},S\left(\frac{}{z^i}\right)=0,$$

where

$`(4.10)`$
$$X_i=\frac{}{x^i}+t_i^j\frac{}{z^j}$$

are chosen such as to span a fixed transversal distribution of the fibers of the second copy of $`TN`$ in (4.7).

The definition of $`S`$ is inspired by (1.3), and it is easy to check that $`S`$ is invariant by (4.8) and satisfies

$`(4.11)`$
$$S^2=0,𝒩_S=0.$$

Now, let $`P`$ be a $`2`$-contravariant non degenerate symmetric tensor field on $`N`$. Then,

$`(4.12)`$
$$\mathrm{\Pi }=P^{ij}\frac{}{y^i}\frac{}{z^j}$$

is a Poisson bivector field on $`M`$ with the symplectic leaves given by the fibers of the natural fibration $`MN`$, and the conditions (4.1)-(4.4) are satisfied.

Therefore, $`(M,\mathrm{\Pi },S)`$ is a l.L.P. manifold. Moreover, if we define the covariant tensor $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}P^{jk}=\delta _i^k`$, the symplectic structure of the leaf over any fixed point $`xM`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}(x)dz^idy^j`$, and the leaf has the global Lagrangian function $`=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}(x)z^iy^j`$, which also is a global function on $`M`$.

In agreement with this example we give

###### 4.3 Definition

A l.L.P.manifold $`(M,P,S)`$ is a globally Lagrangian Poisson (g.L.P.) manifold if there exists a global function $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ such that its restriction to the symplectic leaves of $`P`$ is a global Lagrangian function of the induced symplectic structure.

###### 4.4 Remark

If $`N`$ is a locally affine manifold with the affine local coordinates $`(x^i)`$, the manifold (4.7) can also be seen as $`M=T^{(2)}N`$, the second order osculating bundle of $`N`$ (i.e., the bundle of the second order jets at $`0`$ of the mappings in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐑,M)`$).

Now, the following question is natural: on a tangent bundle $`TN`$, find all the Poisson structures $`P`$ such that $`(M,P,S)`$ where $`S`$ is the canonical tangent structure of $`TN`$ is a l.L.P. or a g.L.P. manifold.

If we use the coordinates of (1.3), it follows

$`(4.13)`$
$$dq^iS=0,du^iS=dq^i,$$

and (4.2) with $`\alpha =du^i,\beta =du^j`$ yields $`P(df,dg)=0`$ for all $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$. This means that $`P`$ must be a zero-related structure i.e., such that $`\pi :(TN,P)(N,0)`$ is a Poisson mapping . Furthermore, again using (4.13), we see that (4.1) reduces to

$$P(dq^i,du^j)=P(dq^j,du^i).$$

Hence, $`P`$ must be of the form

$`(4.14)`$
$$P=P^{ij}\frac{}{q^i}\frac{}{u^j}+\frac{1}{2}A^{ij}\frac{}{u^i}\frac{}{u^j},$$

where $`P^{ij}=P^{ji}`$, $`A^{ij}=A^{ji}`$.

It is an easy consequence of (4.13), (4.14) that

$$S(im\mathrm{}_P)=span\left\{P^{ij}\frac{}{u^j}\right\}$$

hence, $`rankS=rank(P^{ij})`$. Therefore, the problem becomes that of finding the Poisson bivectors fields which satisfy the condition

$`(4.15)`$
$$rankP=2rank(P^{ij})$$

at each point of $`TN`$.

Department of Mathematics,
University of Haifa, Israel.
E-mail: vaisman@math.haifa.ac.il