text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

### 1. Inozemtsev limit

Let us consider a system of two interacting particles with the hamiltonian:

$$\begin{array}{c}H(v,u)=v^2+m^2E_2(u)\end{array}$$
(1)
where $`v`$ and $`v`$ their momenta in the center of mass frame, $`u`$ is the difference between their coordinates, $`m`$ is the coupling constant and $`E_2(u,\tau )`$ is the Eisenstein function defined on the complex torus $`T^2`$ with moduli $`\tau `$. It is related to the Weierstrass functions as follows: $`E_2(z,\tau )=\mathrm{}(z,\tau )+2\zeta (\frac{1}{2})`$.

Inozemtsev limit (see ,,) is a combination of the trigonometric limit $`Im(\tau )\mathrm{}`$ with the infinite shifts of coordinates and a scaling of the coupling constant. This procedure can transform the above hamiltonian into the following one written in the shifted coordinates $`U=u\frac{1}{2}Im(\tau )`$ and with the rescaled coupling constant $`\overline{m}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{H}=v^2+\overline{m}^2(e^U+e^U)\end{array}$$
(2)
In a similar manner the IL may be applied to the system of $`N`$ interacting particles:

$$\begin{array}{c}H(v_i,u_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_i^2+m^2\underset{ij}{\overset{N}{}}E_2(u_iu_j)\end{array}$$
(3)
The limit leads to the periodic Toda system (non periodic case is also possible):

$$\begin{array}{c}H(v_i,U_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_i^2+2\overline{m}^2\underset{i,j=i+1;j=1,i=N}{\overset{N}{}}e^{U_jU_i}\end{array}$$
(4)
Thus IL describes the connection between the Elliptic Calogero-Moser and the Toda models.

### 2. Purpose of the paper

The purpose of the paper is to apply the IL to different kinds of generalizations of the elliptic Calogero model and to find out what sort of systems appear in the limit depending on its parameters.

We are going to apply the IL to the following models:

$`1.`$ The $`sl(N,𝐂)`$ elliptic Euler-Calogero Moser model (ECM):

$$\begin{array}{c}L_{kl}(z,\overline{z})=v_k\delta _{kl}p_{kk}\delta _{kl}E_1(z)p_{kl}(1\delta _{kl})e^{2\pi i\frac{z\overline{z}}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u_{kl}}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{kl},z)\end{array}$$
(5)
where $`p_{ij}sl(N,𝐂)`$ and Poisson brackets are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{v_i,u_j\}=\delta _{ij},\{p_{ij},p_{kl}\}=p_{kj}\delta _{il}p_{il}\delta _{kj},\{p_{ij},v_k\}=0,\{p_{ij},u_k\}=0\end{array}$$
(6)
$$\begin{array}{c}H(u_i,v_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}v_i^2+\underset{ij}{}p_{ij}p_{ji}E_2(u_{ij})\end{array}$$
(7)
The integrable system is defined on the symplectic factor $`sl(N,𝐂)//\{diagSL(N,𝐂)\}`$. In this case it is given by $`p_{kk}=0`$ and some gauge fixing condition (see section $`2`$). In the following the degrees of freedom related to $`p_{ij}`$ on the reduced space are called the orbital.

The hamiltonians $`H_{k,l}`$ are defined by the Lax matrix $`L_{ij}(z,\overline{z})sl(N,𝐂)`$, $`zT^2`$:

$$Tr(L^k(z,\overline{z}))=\underset{l=0}{\overset{N}{}}E_l(z)H_{k,l}$$

where $`E_l(z)\frac{1}{z^l}`$ are the elliptic functions (see Appendix A).

$`2.`$ The elliptic Gaudin model (EG) (see ):

$$\begin{array}{c}(L_G)_{kl}=v_k\delta _{kl}\underset{a=1}{\overset{N_0}{}}(p_a)_{kk}\delta _{kl}E_1(zx_a)\\ (1\delta _{kl})\underset{a;kl}{}e^{2\pi i\frac{(zx_a)(\overline{z}\overline{x}_a)}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u_{kl}}(p_a)_{kl}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{kl},zx_a)\end{array}$$
(8)
where $`(p_a)_{kl}sl(N,𝐂)`$. The Poisson brackets are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{v_i,u_j\}=\delta _{ij},\{(p_a)_{ij},(p_b)_{kl}\}=\delta _{ab}((p_a)_{kj}\delta _{il}(p_a)_{il}\delta _{kj}),\\ \{(p_a)_{ij},u_k\}=0,\{(p_a)_{ij},v_k\}=0,a=1\mathrm{}N_0\end{array}$$
(9)
### 3. Notations

For making the limits it is convenient to consider the torus $`T^2:𝐂/(\mathrm{𝟐}\omega _\mathrm{𝟏}𝐙+\mathrm{𝟐}\omega _\mathrm{𝟐}𝐙)`$, $`\omega _1=i\pi ,Im(\omega _2)=0,\tau =\frac{\omega _2}{\omega _1}`$.

The trigonometric limit is produced by $`\omega _2\mathrm{}`$. Bar is used for the rescaled variables and function $`\chi `$ for the powers of the exponents: $`m=\overline{m}e^{\chi _m\omega _2},\chi _m\chi (m)`$.

The shifts of coordinates are introduced as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}u_{ij}=U_{ij}+f_{ij}\omega _2\end{array}$$
(10)
### 4. Results

In the $`sl(3,𝐂)`$ ECM model the quadratic hamiltonian follows from $`(6)`$:

$$h_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^22aE_2(u_{12})2bE_2(u_{23})2cE_2(u_{31})$$

where $`a=p_{12}p_{21},b=p_{23}p_{32},c=p_{31}p_{13}`$ are the orbital variables on the reduced phase space (the last one is $`d=p_{12}p_{23}p_{31}`$).

Let us write down the possible quadratic hamiltonians, obtained from the above one via the IL, modulo permutations of the particles and degenerations (some terms can vanish in the limit):

$$\begin{array}{c}1.\overline{h}_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^22\overline{a}e^{U_{12}}2\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}2\overline{c}e^{U_{31}}\end{array}$$
(11)
$$\begin{array}{c}2.\overline{h}_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^22\overline{a}e^{U_{12}}2\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}2\overline{c}e^{U_{31}}\end{array}$$
(12)
$$\begin{array}{c}3.\overline{h}_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^22\overline{a}(e^{U_{12}}+e^{U_{12}})2\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}2\overline{c}e^{U_{31}}\end{array}$$
(13)
$$\begin{array}{c}4.\overline{h}_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{a}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{U_{12}}{2}}2\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}2\overline{c}e^{U_{31}}\end{array}$$
(14)
$$\begin{array}{c}5.\overline{h}_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{a}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{U_{12}}{2}}2\overline{b}(e^{U_{23}}+e^{U_{23}})2\overline{c}(e^{U_{31}}+e^{U_{31}})\end{array}$$
(15)
$$\begin{array}{c}6.\overline{h}_{2,0}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}v_i^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{a}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{U_{12}}{2}}\frac{1}{2}\overline{b}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{U_{23}}{2}}\frac{1}{2}\overline{c}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{U_{31}}{2}}\end{array}$$
(16)
The first and the last one are a direct generalizations of the periodic Toda and the Sutherland-Calogero systems correspondingly. All others content an unusual dependence on the coordinates.

The classification can be given by the following figure ($`f_{ij}`$ are parameters of the shifts of coordinates: $`u_{ij}=U_{ij}+\omega _2f_{ij}`$ and thus $`f_{ij}+f_{jk}+f_{ki}=0`$):

On fig .1 different kinds of the systems correspond to symplexes of different dimensions and situations (modulo permutations of $`a`$,$`b`$,$`c`$): $`\{I\}`$ and $`\{III\}`$ \- two types of two dimensional symplexes, which content the limits to hamiltonians of the first $`(11)`$ and the second $`(12)`$ types (domains $`\{II\}`$ and $`\{IV\}`$ are equivalent to $`\{III\}`$ in sense of the permutations); lines $`\{f_{ij}=2𝐙\}`$ and midlines $`\{f_{ij}=1+2𝐙\}`$ content intervals which correspond to the mixture of the Sutherland and the Toda $`(14)`$ and $`\mathrm{cosh}(U_{ij})`$ terms $`(13)`$; all vertices - zero dimensional symplexes correspond to fifth $`(15)`$ and sixth $`(16)`$ types of the hamiltonians.

The considering of the cubic hamiltonians provides more complicated structure on the fig.$`1`$. by adding a dual lattice (see fig.$`2`$ in Section $`4`$).

The resultant picture (unification of fig.$`1`$ and fig.$`2`$) appear to describe the classification of possible limits of brackets between $`\overline{a}`$, $`\overline{b}`$, $`\overline{c}`$ and $`\overline{d}`$.

Fig.$`1`$,$`2`$ have obvious symmetries and thus the classification can be generalized to an arbitrary number of particles. In the case of $`N`$ interacting particles all possible limits of hamiltonians and Poisson brackets correspond to different types of domains in the $`N1`$ dimensional hyperplane of variables $`f_{ij}`$.

There are more possible limits in the EG because the diagonal part of the Lax matrix $`(9)`$ content dependence on $`(p_a)_{ii}`$ even on the reduced phase space and there are additional parameters $`(x_ax_b)`$ which can be also shifted in the limit. In this case resultant hamiltonians content a direct dependence on the parameters of the limits (see Section $`7`$).

## 2 EG and $`sl(N,𝐂)`$ ECM.

The Elliptic Gaudin Model is an example of the Hitchin system  (see also  and ) and was introduced in . The Lax matrix is given by $`(8)`$.

We can restrict algebra $`(9)`$ on the submanifold:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{a}{}(p_a)_{kk}=0,k=1\mathrm{}N\end{array}$$
(17)
since it corresponds to the fixing of the moment map $`\mu _p`$ by the adjoint action of the diagonal $`SL(N,𝐂)`$ subgroup on $`p_{kl}`$ and the fact $`p_{kk}`$ are Poisson commute with the $`Tr(L(z)^n)`$. By fixing the adjoint action one reduces the number of independent variables in $`(p_a)_{kl}`$ by $`N1`$. Note that the restriction $`(17)`$ is in agreement with the simple requirement on holomorphic function:

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{simplepoles}{}res\{(L_G(z))_{kk}\}=0\end{array}$$
(18)
The hamiltonians appear as the coefficients in the equation describing the spectral curve:

$$\begin{array}{c}det(L(z)+\mu )=0\end{array}$$
(19)
Another way is to decompose $`Tr(L^m)`$ on the basis of functions $`\{E_1(zx_a),E_2(zx_a),E_2^{}(zx_a),\mathrm{}\}`$. Then the coefficients in the decomposition are again hamiltonians (see ,).

The $`sl(N,𝐂)`$ ECM corresponds to $`N_0=1`$. In this case $`(17)`$ is written as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}(\mu _p)_i=p_{ii}=0i=1\mathrm{}N\end{array}$$
(20)
and thus the Lax matrix is:

$$\begin{array}{c}(L)_{kl}=v_k\delta _{kl}\underset{kl}{}e^{2\pi i\frac{z\overline{z}}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u_{kl}}p_{kl}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{kl},z)\end{array}$$
(21)
Using appendix B we obtain to the following hamiltonians in this case:

$$\begin{array}{c}<L(z)^2>=H_{2,0}+H_{2,2}E_2(z),\end{array}$$
(22)
$$\begin{array}{c}<L(z)^3>=H_{3,0}+H_{3,2}E_2(z)+H_{3,3}E_2^{}(z),\end{array}$$
(23)
$$\begin{array}{c}H_{2,0}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(v_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}p_{ij}p_{ji}E_2(u_{ij})),\end{array}$$
(24)
$$\begin{array}{c}H_{2,2}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{ij}p_{ji},\end{array}$$
(25)
$$\begin{array}{c}H_{3,0}=\underset{i,j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}(v_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}3v_ip_{ij}p_{ji}E_2(u_{ij})p_{ij}p_{jk}p_{ki}[E_2(u_{ij})E_1(u_{jk})+E_2(u_{jk})E_1(u_{ij})+\\ +\frac{1}{2}E_1(u_{ki})(E_2(u_{ij})+E_2(u_{jk}))+\frac{1}{2}E_1(u_{ij}u_{jk})(E_2(u_{ij})E_2(u_{jk}))]),\end{array}$$
(26)
$$\begin{array}{c}H_{3,2}=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(3v_ip_{ij}p_{ji}+p_{ij}p_{jk}p_{ki}[E_1(u_{ij})+E_1(u_{jk})+E_1(u_{ki})]),\end{array}$$
(27)
$$\begin{array}{c}H_{3,3}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{N}{}}p_{ij}p_{jk}p_{ki}.\end{array}$$
(28)
Note that $`H_{2,2}`$ and $`H_{3,3}`$ are the Casimir functions of the algebra $`(6)`$.

It should be also mentioned that the exponential factors in the Lax matrices $`(5),(8)`$ are not necessary for computing the hamiltonians since $`u_{ij}+u_{ji}=0,u_{ij}+u_{jk}+u_{ki}=0`$. However these factors plays an important role in the limits of the Lax matrix itself (see Section $`8`$).

## 3 $`sl(3,𝐂)`$ ECM.

Let us compute the dimension of the phase space of the $`sl(N,𝐂)`$ ECM. In the $`p_{ij}`$ space a number of the independent variables equals $`(N1)(N2)`$ since the integrable system is defined on the orbit $`\{p_{ij}//DiagSL(N,𝐂)\}`$ with the values of the Casimir functions fixed, where $`DiagSL(N,𝐂)`$ is the Cartan subgroup in the $`SL(N,𝐂)`$. In the space $`(u,v)T^{}Bun_{G,\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ there are $`2(N1)`$ such variables. Thus the total dimension of the phase space equals $`N(N1)`$ and consequently $`dim(sl(3,𝐂)ECM)=6`$ that is in the agreement with a fact there are three integrals of motion in this case: $`H_{2,0}`$, $`H_{3,0}`$, $`H_{3,2}`$.

The orbit $`\{p_{ij}//DiagSL(N,𝐂)\}`$ is given by conditions $`p_{ii}=0`$ and some fixation of the coadjoint action by the Cartan subgroup. However a certain fixation of the coadjoin action (either a fixation of values of the Casimir functions) may be not useful. Thus we will only imply some choice of the gauge fixing condition without any exact one when consider not invariant quantities.

Poisson algebra $`(6)`$ between nondiagonal variables in $`N=3,N_0=1`$ case looks like:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{p_{12},p_{23}\}=p_{13},\{p_{32},p_{21}\}=p_{31},\\ \{p_{31},p_{12}\}=p_{32},\{p_{21},p_{13}\}=p_{23},\\ \{p_{23},p_{31}\}=p_{21},\{p_{13},p_{32}\}=p_{12}.\end{array}$$
(29)
We may do not care about fixing the action of $`DiagSL(N,𝐂)`$ if choose variables which are invariant with respect to it:

$$\begin{array}{c}a=p_{12}p_{21},b=p_{23}p_{32},c=p_{13}p_{31},d=p_{12}p_{23}p_{31}\end{array}$$
(30)
Note that $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$ and $`d`$ are the combinations of $`p_{kl}`$ sufficient for introducing the hamiltonians $`(2428)`$. From $`(29)`$ we obtain the brackets between the invariant variables:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{a,b\}=\{b,c\}=\{c,a\}=d\frac{abc}{d},\\ \{a,d\}=abac,\{b,d\}=bcab,\{c,d\}=accb\end{array}$$
(31)
Note also that there is no singularity in $`\frac{abc}{d}`$ since it equal to $`p_{21}p_{32}p_{13}`$. Hamiltonians are given by $`(24)(28)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}h_{2,0}=v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^22aE_2(u_{12})2bE_2(u_{23})2cE_2(u_{31})\end{array}$$
(32)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_{2,2}=2(a+b+c)\end{array}$$
(33)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_{3,0}=v_1^3+v_2^3+v_3^3+3v_3aE_2(u_{12})+3v_1bE_2(u_{23})+3v_2cE_2(u_{31})+\\ +\frac{3}{2}(d\frac{abc}{d})\frac{E_2^{}(u_{12})E_2(u_{23})E_2^{}(u_{23})E_2(u_{12})}{E_2(u_{12})E_2(u_{23})}\end{array}$$
(34)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_{3,2}=3(v_1+v_2)a+3(v_1+v_3)c+3(v_2+v_3)b+\\ +3(d\frac{abc}{d})[E_1(u_{12})+E_1(u_{23})+E_1(u_{31})]\end{array}$$
(35)
$$\begin{array}{c}h_{3,3}=\frac{3}{2}(d+\frac{abc}{d})\end{array}$$
(36)
Here $`h_{2,2}`$ and $`h_{3,3}`$ are the quadratic and the cubic Casimir functions of the algebra $`(31)`$.

The spectral curve is written as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}det(L(z)+\mu )=0\\ \mu ^3\frac{1}{2}\mu (E_2(z)h_{2,2}+h_{2,0})+\frac{1}{3}(E_2^{}(z)h_{3,3}+E_2(z)h_{3,2}+h_{3,0})=0\end{array}$$
(37)
## 4 Degenerations of elliptic functions.

### 1. Formulas used for computing IL in quadratic hamiltonians

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{Let us put}x=x_n+\sigma \omega _2,\text{where}x_n\text{is a new (shifted) coordinate},\\ |\sigma |<2,0<\beta <1,\omega _2\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(38)
Below we right down the main non vanishing order in the limit $`\omega _2\mathrm{}`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}E_1(x)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{x}{2}k\omega _2)\{\begin{array}{c}1.\sigma =0:\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{x_n}{2})\hfill \\ \mathrm{2.\; 0}<\sigma <1:\frac{1}{2}+e^{x_n\sigma \omega _2}\hfill \\ 3.\sigma =1:\frac{1}{2}2e^{\omega _2}\mathrm{sinh}(x_n)\hfill \\ 4.\sigma >1:\frac{1}{2}e^{x_n(2\sigma )\omega _2}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(39)
$$e^{\beta \omega _2}E_2(x)=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{e^{\beta \omega _2}}{e^{x+2k\omega _2}+e^{x2k\omega _2}2}$$

$$\frac{e^{\beta \omega _2}}{e^{x_n+\sigma \omega _2}+e^{x_n\sigma \omega _2}2}+\frac{e^{\beta \omega _2}}{e^{x_n+\sigma \omega _22\omega _2}+e^{x_n\sigma \omega _2+2\omega _2}2}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \{\begin{array}{c}1.\beta =0,0<\sigma <2\hfill \\ 1.1\sigma =0,\beta =0:\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{x_n}{2}}\hfill \\ 1.2\beta =0,0<\sigma <1:e^{\sigma \omega _2x_n}\hfill \\ 1.3\beta =0,\sigma =1:e^{\omega _2}(e^{x_n}+e^{x_n})\hfill \\ 1.4\beta =0,1<\sigma <2:e^{(2\sigma )\omega _2+x_n}\hfill \\ 2.\beta >0,0<\sigma <2,\hfill \\ 2.1.\sigma =\beta <2\sigma :e^{x_n}\hfill \\ \mathrm{2.2.\; 2}\sigma =\beta <\sigma :e^{x_n}\hfill \\ 2.3\sigma =\beta =2\sigma :e^{x_n}+e^{x_n}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(40)
From $`(40)`$ one can simply obtain the quadratic hamiltonians $`(11)(16)`$ and $`(4)`$ given in the Introduction. For example $`(4)`$ appears if one put $`u_j=U_j+2j\omega _2\frac{1}{N}m=\overline{m}e^{\frac{1}{N}\omega _2}`$ (see ).

### 2. Formulas used for computing IL in cubic hamiltonians

$$\begin{array}{c}E_2^{}(x)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{x}{2}k\omega _2)}{\mathrm{sinh}^3(\frac{x}{2}k\omega _2)}\{\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{1.\; 0}<\sigma <1:e^{\sigma \omega _2x_n}\\ 2.\sigma =1:e^{\omega _2}(e^{x_n}e^{x_n})\\ \mathrm{3.\; 1}<\sigma <2:e^{(2\sigma )\omega _2+x_n}\end{array}\end{array}$$
(41)
Let us consider the limits of following expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{E_2^{}(u_{12})E_2(u_{23})E_2^{}(u_{23})E_2(u_{12})}{E_2(u_{12})E_2(u_{23})}\end{array}$$
(42)
It is contented in $`h_{3,0}`$ given by $`(34)`$. To analyze this expression one should take into account terms of the second non vanishing order in the approximate formulas for $`E_2(z)`$ and $`E_2^{}(z)`$. The result is represented on fig.$`2`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{E_2^{}(u_{12})E_2(u_{23})E_2^{}(u_{23})E_2(u_{12})}{E_2(u_{12})E_2(u_{23})}\{\begin{array}{c}A_+:e^{U_{12}}e^{(2f_{12})\omega _2}\\ A_{}:e^{U_{12}}e^{f_{12}\omega _2}\\ B_+:e^{U_{23}}e^{(2f_{23})\omega _2}\\ B_{}:e^{U_{23}}e^{f_{23}\omega _2}\\ C_+:e^{U_{31}}e^{f_{31}\omega _2}\\ C_{}:e^{U_{31}}e^{(2+f_{31})\omega _2}\end{array}\end{array}$$
(43)
Areas $`A_{}^{}`$, $`A_+^{}`$, $`B_{}^{}`$, $`B_+^{}`$ and $`C_{}^{}`$ are shifted on the hole period with respect to $`A_{}`$, $`A_+`$, $`B_{}`$, $`B_+`$ and $`C_{}`$ correspondingly.

There are two types of boundaries on fig.$`2`$. The first corresponds to the case when the boundary belongs to one of the axis ($`f_{12}2𝐙`$ or $`f_{23}2𝐙`$ or $`f_{31}2𝐙`$). All other lines are contented in the second type. They belong to the dual lattice. In fig.$`2`$ one can see a hexagon $`A_+^{}B_{}^{}C_+^{}A_{}^{}B_+^{}C_{}`$. The sides of this hexagon content the boundaries of the first type and the lines coming through the centers of the hexagons content the boundaries of the second type. Let us write down an example of limits of $`\mathrm{}`$ corresponding to the first type of the boundaries:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}\{\begin{array}{c}C_+\{f_{23}=0\}:e^{U_{12}}e^{f_{12}}(1\mathrm{coth}\frac{U_{23}}{2})\hfill \\ A_+\{f_{23}=0\}:e^{U_{12}}e^{(2f_{12})}(1+\mathrm{coth}\frac{U_{23}}{2})\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(44)
The boundaries of the first type correspond to a combination of the trigonometric limit and the IL and thus content the mixture of the Toda and the Calogero-Sutherland potentials.

As for the boundaries of the second type the values of $`\mathrm{}`$ from the neighboring domains are of the same order and thus the potential is equal to the sum of those from the neighboring domains. (All the same is valid for the zero dimensional boundary.)

### 3. $`sl(N,𝐂)`$ case

In the $`N`$ particle case one should consider $`tr(L^2)`$,…,$`tr(L^N)`$. The most complicated potential appears as a free term in the expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{12},z)\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{23},z)\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{N1},z)\end{array}$$
(45)
It is possible to generalize fig.$`2`$ on higher dimensions. In $`sl(4,𝐂)`$ case the space of the parameters is three dimensional ($`f_{12}+f_{23}+f_{34}+f_{41}=0`$). The whole space is subdivided into regular tetrahedrons with a three dimensional structure inside that correspond to the fig.$`2`$ on the two dimensional walls. The case of the arbitrary $`N`$ can be obtained by analogy.

## 5 Limits of brackets for $`sl(3,𝐂)`$ case.

We are going to find non-singular limits of the brackets $`(31)`$ and all possible limits of the hamiltonians $`(3236)`$ for each of them.

The idea is to multiply if it is necessary a certain hamiltonian by the exponent with the power canceling the highest power in the hamiltonian.

$$\begin{array}{c}h_{i,j}=\overline{h}_{i,j}e^{\chi (h_{i,j})},\chi (h_{i,j})0\end{array}$$
(46)
This procedure saves the involution property of the hamiltonians but certainly does not guaranty the independence of $`\overline{h}_{i,j}`$. The sufficient condition for the independence of the hamiltonians is a saving of the kinetic terms $`v_i^2`$ and $`v_i^3`$ in $`h_{2,0}`$ and $`h_{3,0}`$ correspondingly.

Another (equivalent to the previous) way of studding the limits comes from considering the spectral curve $`(37)`$.

$$\mu ^3\frac{1}{2}\mu (E_2(z)h_{2,2}+h_{2,0})+\frac{1}{3}(E_2^{}(z)h_{3,3}+E_2(z)h_{3,2}+h_{3,0})=0$$

One may require to have a non singular spectral curve in the limit. We will see it is true for all limits if $`\chi (h_{3,0})=\chi (h_{2,0})=0`$.

One can also make the rescaling of the spectral parameter:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mu =\overline{\mu }e^{\chi _\mu }\end{array}$$
(47)
However in this case the kinetic terms vanish in $`h_{2,0}`$ and $`h_{3,0}`$ and this may lead to the lost of independence of the hamiltonians. To save the independence one may resale momenta

$$\begin{array}{c}v_i=\overline{v}_ie^{\chi _\mu }\end{array}$$
(48)
But this can be done only if there is a factor $`e^{\chi _\mu }`$ in the canonical form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega =e^{\omega _2\chi _\mu }\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}dv_idu_i\end{array}$$
(49)
In this sense the rescaling of the momenta does not provide interesting consequences. We consider the case $`\chi _\mu =0,\chi (h_{2,0})=0,\chi (h_{3,0})=0`$.

The purpose of the section is to find possible (non-singular) limits of the brackets $`(31)`$:

$$\{a,b\}=\{b,c\}=\{c,a\}=d\frac{abc}{d},\{a,d\}=abac,\{b,d\}=bcab,\{c,d\}=accb.$$

and thus find out whether there exist limits with non-trivial dynamics of rescaled $`a,b,c,d`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{a}=e^{\chi _a\omega _2}a,\overline{b}=e^{\chi _b\omega _2}b,\overline{c}=e^{\chi _c\omega _2}c,\overline{d}=e^{\chi _d\omega _2}d.\end{array}$$
(50)
The non singularity conditions for the rescaling of the brackets $`(31)`$ are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\chi _a\chi _d,\chi _b\chi _d,\chi _c\chi _d,\\ \chi _d\chi _a+\chi _c,\chi _d\chi _a+\chi _b,\chi _d\chi _b+\chi _c.\end{array}$$
(51)
It is important to notice that it is impossible to satisfy the above non-equalities if some $`\chi <0`$.

Non triviality of the rescaled brackets means an exact equality besides any of the inequalities $`(51)`$. Let us write down all such possibilities modulo permutations of $`a,b,c`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}1:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a<\chi _d,\chi _b<\chi _d,\chi _c<\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b=\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _c>\chi _d,\chi _b+\chi _c>\chi _d\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=0,\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=0\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(52)
$$\begin{array}{c}2:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a<\chi _d,\chi _b<\chi _d,\chi _c<\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b=\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _c=\chi _d,\chi _b+\chi _c>\chi _d\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=0\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(53)
$$\begin{array}{c}3:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a<\chi _d,\chi _b<\chi _d,\chi _c<\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b=\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _c=\chi _d,\chi _b+\chi _c=\chi _d\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=0\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(54)
$$\begin{array}{c}4:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a=\chi _d,\chi _b<\chi _d,\chi _c<\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b>\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _c>\chi _d,\chi _b+\chi _c>\chi _d\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{b},\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(55)
$$\begin{array}{c}5:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a=\chi _d,\chi _b=\chi _d,\chi _c<\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b>\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _c>\chi _d,\chi _b+\chi _c>\chi _d\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{b},\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{b},\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c}\overline{c}\overline{b}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(56)
$$\begin{array}{c}6:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a=\chi _d,\chi _d=\chi _d,\chi _c=\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b>\chi _d\chi _a+\chi _c>\chi _d,\chi _b+\chi _c>\chi _d\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\hfill \\ \{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{a}\overline{c},\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{b}\overline{c}\overline{a}\overline{b},\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c}\overline{c}\overline{b}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(57)
$$\begin{array}{c}7:\{\begin{array}{c}\chi _a=\chi _d,\chi _b=0,\chi _c=\chi _d,\{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\hfill \\ \{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=\{\overline{d},\overline{c}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c},\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{b}\overline{c}\overline{a}\overline{b}\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(58)
$$\begin{array}{c}8:\{\begin{array}{c}0<\chi _a<\chi _d,0<\chi _b<\chi _d,\chi _c=\chi _d,\chi _a+\chi _b=\chi _d,\{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\hfill \\ \{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c},\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{b}\overline{c},\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=0\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(59)
Let us note that the spectral curve unites $`h_{3,2}`$ and the cubic Casimir $`h_{3,3}`$ in the limit $`\omega _2\mathrm{}`$ if $`|\frac{x_nx}{\omega _2}|1`$.

## 6 Classification of Limits in $`sl(3,𝐂)`$ECM

The classification consists of possible limits of the hamiltonians $`(3236)`$ and the limits of the brackets $`(31)`$.

A notable fact about classification of the limits of the brackets takes place if one require non triviality of all three terms in the quadratic hamiltonians in the limit. In this case $`\chi _a`$, $`\chi _b`$ and $`\chi _c`$ satisfy some equality coming from $`f_{12}+f_{23}+f_{31}=0`$. In the domain $`\{I\}`$ on fig.$`1`$ it looks like $`\chi _a+\chi _b+\chi _c=2`$ and in $`\{III\}`$: $`\chi _a=\chi _b+\chi _c`$. These equations can be either compatible or not with the relations determining some given limit of the brackets. By comparing them with the list of the limits of the brackets given in Section $`5`$ we arrive to the fact all types of brackets $`(52)(59)`$ are distributed on fig.$`3`$ with the midlines drawn on fig.$`1`$. The domains $`\{II\}`$, $`\{III\}`$ and $`\{IV\}`$ correspond to brackets $`8`$ \- formula $`(59)`$; midlines - type $`8`$, $`(60)`$ with $`\chi _d=1`$; the sides of the fundamental triangle -type $`7`$, $`(59)`$; the dual lattice figured on fig.$`2`$ split the domain $`\{I\}`$ on fig.$`1`$ by three parts: they correspond to the type $`1`$ and $`4`$, $`(52),(55)`$; and one dimensional boundaries between them - type $`2`$ and $`5`$, see $`(53),(56)`$ and the center of the fundamental triangle - type $`3`$ and $`6`$, see $`(54),(57)`$.

### Examples

Let us write down three examples corresponding to the cases $`1,7,8`$ ($`(52),(58),(59)`$ correspondingly) for the limits of the brackets. Example $`1`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\overline{d},\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=0,\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=0,\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=0\\ f_{12}=\frac{1}{3},f_{23}=\frac{1}{4},f_{31}=\frac{7}{12},\chi _a=\frac{1}{3},\chi _b=\frac{1}{4},\chi _c=\frac{1}{2},\chi _d=\frac{7}{12}\\ \overline{h}_{2,0}=v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^22\overline{a}e^{U_{12}}2\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}\overline{h}_{2,2}=2\overline{c}\\ \overline{h}_{3,0}=v_1^3+v_2^3+v_3^3+3v_3\overline{a}e^{U_{12}}+3v_1\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}3\overline{d}e^{U_{31}}\\ \overline{h_{3,2}+h_{3,3}}=3\overline{c}v_23\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\overline{h}_{3,3}=\frac{3}{2}\overline{d}\end{array}$$
(60)
Example $`2`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c},\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{b}\overline{c}\overline{a}\overline{b},\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c}\\ f_{12}=1,f_{23}=0,f_{31}=1,\chi _a=1,\chi _b=0,\chi _c=1,\chi _d=1\\ \overline{h}_{2,0}=v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^24\overline{a}\mathrm{cosh}(U_{12})\frac{1}{2}\overline{b}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{U_{23}}{2})}4\overline{c}\mathrm{cosh}(U_{31}),\overline{h}_{2,2}=2(\overline{a}+\overline{c})\\ \overline{h}_{3,0}=v_1^3+v_2^3+v_3^3+6v_3\overline{a}\mathrm{cosh}(U_{12})+\frac{3}{2}v_1\overline{b}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{U_{23}}{2})}+6v_2\overline{c}\mathrm{cosh}(U_{31})\\ 3(\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}})\{\mathrm{sinh}(U_{12})+\mathrm{cosh}(U_{12})\mathrm{coth}(\frac{U_{23}}{2})\}\\ \overline{h}_{3,2}=3(v_1+v_2)\overline{a}+3(v_1+v_3)\overline{c}+\frac{3}{2}(\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}})\mathrm{coth}(\frac{U_{23}}{2}),\overline{h}_{3,3}=\frac{3}{2}(\overline{d}+\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}})\end{array}$$
(61)
Example $`3`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\overline{a},\overline{b}\}=\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}},\{\overline{b},\overline{c}\}=\{\overline{c},\overline{a}\}=0,\{\overline{a},\overline{d}\}=\overline{a}\overline{c},\{\overline{b},\overline{d}\}=\overline{b}\overline{c},\{\overline{c},\overline{d}\}=0\\ f_{12}=\frac{1}{2},f_{23}=\frac{1}{2},f_{31}=1,\chi _a=\frac{1}{2},\chi _b=\frac{1}{2},\chi _c=\chi _d=1\\ \overline{h}_{2,0}=v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^22\overline{a}e^{U_{12}}2\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}4\overline{c}\mathrm{cosh}(U_{31})\\ \overline{h}_{2,2}=2\overline{c}\\ \overline{h}_{3,0}=v_1^3+v_2^3+v_3^3+3v_3\overline{a}e^{U_{12}}+3v_1\overline{b}e^{U_{23}}+6v_2\overline{c}\mathrm{cosh}(U_{31})3(\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}})e^{U_{31}}\\ \overline{h}_{3,2}=3(v_1+v_3)\overline{c}+\frac{3}{2}(\overline{d}\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}}),\overline{h}_{3,3}=\frac{3}{2}(\overline{d}+\frac{\overline{a}\overline{b}\overline{c}}{\overline{d}})\end{array}$$
(62)
## 7 Limits in $`sl(2,𝐂)`$ EG with two marked points on elliptic curve.

Let us consider the following Lax matrix:

$$\begin{array}{c}L_{kl}=v_k\delta _{kl}+(p_1)_{kk}E_1(zx_1)+(p_2)_{kk}E_1(zx_2)+\\ +(p_1)_{kl}e^{2\pi i\frac{(zx_1)(\overline{z}\overline{x_1})}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u_{kl}}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{kl},zx_1)+(p_2)_{kl}e^{2\pi i\frac{(zx_2)(\overline{z}\overline{x_2})}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u_{kl}}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{kl},zx_2)\end{array}$$
(63)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}v_1=v_2\\ (p_1)_{11}=(p_1)_{22}\\ (p_2)_{11}=(p_2)_{22}\end{array}\end{array}$$
(64)
Due to $`(18)`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}(p_1)_{11}=(p_2)_{11}\\ (p_1)_{22}=(p_2)_{22}\end{array}\end{array}$$
(65)
Let us use the following notations $`v=v_1`$, $`u=u_{12}`$ and $`p_{11}=(p_1)_{11}`$ Instead of the fixing of the action by diagonal $`SL(2,𝐂)`$ matrix we again choose invariant coordinates:

$$\begin{array}{c}(p_1)_{12}(p_1)_{21}=a_1(p_2)_{12}(p_2)_{21}=a_2(p_1)_{12}(p_2)_{21}=a_3(p_1)_{11}=a_4\end{array}$$
(66)
The brackets are easily computed:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{a_1,a_2\}=\{a_1,a_4\}=\{a_2,a_4\}=0\\ \{a_1,a_3\}=\{a_2,a_3\}=2a_3a_4\\ \{a_3,a_4\}=a_3\end{array}$$
(67)
To compute the hamiltonians produced by the $`tr(L^2)`$ we need the following identity:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(w,z_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(w,z_2)=\mathrm{\Phi }(w,z_1z_2)[E_1(z_1)E_1(z_2)+E_1(w)E_1(w+z_1z_2)]\end{array}$$
(68)
The hamiltonians are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}h_{2,0}=v^2a_1E_2(u)a_2E_2(u)+\\ +a_3e^{2\pi i\frac{(\overline{x}_1x_1)(\overline{x}_2x_2)}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,x_2x_1)[E_1(u+x_2x_1)E_1(u)]+\\ +\frac{a_1a_2}{a_3}e^{2\pi i\frac{(\overline{x}_2x_2)(\overline{x}_1x_1)}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,x_1x_2)[E_1(u+x_1x_2)E_1(u)],\end{array}$$
(69)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}h_{2,1,1}=2a_4v2a_4^2E_1(x_1x_2)a_3e^{2\pi i\frac{(\overline{x}_1x_1)(\overline{x}_2x_2)}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,x_2x_1)+\\ +\frac{a_1a_2}{a_3}e^{2\pi i\frac{(\overline{x}_2x_2)(\overline{x}_1x_1)}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,x_1x_2),\\ \frac{1}{2}h_{2,2,1}=a_1+a_4^2,\frac{1}{2}h_{2,2,2}=a_2+a_4^2.\end{array}$$
(70)
The notable features of the EG case are:

1.There is non trivial non diagonal part in the matrix $`p_{ii}`$ that makes hamiltonians and algebra more complicated.

2.There is a parameter $`x_1x_2`$ which can be also shifted.

3.The resultant hamiltonians directly depend on the parameters of the limit:$`f_{ij}`$,…

## 8 Limits of Lax matrix.

Using formulas from the Appendix C one can obtain the approximate expression for the Lax matrix $`(6)`$, $`N_0=1`$, $`p_{ii}=0`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}L_{kl}=v_k\delta _{kl}e^{2\pi i\frac{(z)\overline{z}}{\tau \overline{\tau }}u_{kl}}p_{kl}\mathrm{\Phi }(u_{kl},z)\end{array}$$
(71)
It degenerates into the following one:

$$\begin{array}{c}L_{ij}v_i+\\ +e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}\frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma \omega _2}\overline{p}_{ij}e^{\omega _2\zeta _{ij}}\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{coth}\frac{u_{ij}}{2}+\mathrm{coth}\frac{z}{2})(1e^{u_{ij}+z2\omega _2})\\ v_i+\\ +\{\begin{array}{c}f_{ij}>0:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}e^{\frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma \omega _2+\omega _2\zeta _{ij}}(1e^{U_{ij}+f_{ij}\omega _2+z_n+\sigma \omega _22\omega _2})\hfill \\ f_{ij}<0:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}e^{\frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma \omega _2+\omega _2\zeta _{ij}}(e^{z_n\sigma \omega _2}e^{U_{ij}+f_{ij}\omega _2})\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(72)
The simplest way to obtain the above formula (besides of the straightforward evaluations given in the Appendix C) is to use series representation:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)=\underset{n𝐙}{}\frac{e^{nz}}{1e^{2n\omega _2u}}\end{array}$$
(73)
Let us consider possible limits.

### 1.

For $`f_{ij}>0`$ the requirement of non singularity of $`L_{ij}`$ when $`\omega _2\mathrm{}`$ is the following:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma +\zeta _{ij}0\hfill \\ \frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma +\zeta _{ij}+f_{ij}+\sigma 20\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(74)
Three exists three non trivial limits for the non diagonal part of $`L_{ij}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}L_{ij}v_i+\{\begin{array}{c}1:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}\hfill \\ 2:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}(e^{U_{ij}+z_n})\hfill \\ 3:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}(1e^{U_{ij}+z_n})\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(75)
The cases $`1,2`$ and $`3`$ correspond the following conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}1:f_{ij}=\frac{2}{\sigma }\zeta _{ij},f_{ij}<2\sigma ,\zeta _{ij}<\sigma (1\frac{\sigma }{2}).\hfill \\ 2:f_{ij}=2\frac{\zeta _{ij}}{1\frac{\sigma }{2}},f_{ij}>2\sigma ,\zeta _{ij}<\sigma (1\frac{\sigma }{2}).\hfill \\ 3:f_{ij}=2\sigma ,\zeta _{ij}=\sigma (1\frac{\sigma }{2}).\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(76)
### 2.

For $`f_{ij}<0`$ we have the following non singularity condition for $`L_{ij}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma +\zeta _{ij}\sigma 0\hfill \\ \frac{f_{ij}}{2}\sigma +\zeta _{ij}+f_{ij}0\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(77)
$$\begin{array}{c}L_{ij}v_i+\{\begin{array}{c}4:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}(e^{z_n})\hfill \\ 5:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}(e^{U_{ij}})\hfill \\ 6:e^{\frac{U_{ij}}{2}\sigma f_{ij}\frac{z_n+\overline{z_n}}{4}}\overline{p}_{ij}(e^{z_n}e^{U_{ij}})\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(78)
The cases $`4,5`$ and $`6`$ correspond to the following conditions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}4:f_{ij}=\frac{2}{\sigma }\zeta _{ij}2,f_{ij}<\sigma ,\zeta _{ij}<\sigma (1\frac{\sigma }{2}).\hfill \\ 5:f_{ij}=\zeta _{ij}\frac{1}{1\frac{\sigma }{2}},f_{ij}>\sigma ,\zeta _{ij}<\sigma (1\frac{\sigma }{2}).\hfill \\ 6:f_{ij}=\sigma ,\zeta _{ij}=\sigma (1\frac{\sigma }{2}).\hfill \end{array}\end{array}$$
(79)
### 3. Example

With the help of the obtained formulas it is possible to obtain the Lax matrices for the examples given in Section $`6`$. For the example $`3`$ (see $`(62)`$) we have

$$\begin{array}{c}L(z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}v_1\overline{p}_{12}e^{\frac{1}{2}U_{12}}\overline{p}_{13}e^{\frac{1}{2}U_{31}}(e^{U_{31}}e^z)\hfill \\ \overline{p}_{21}e^{\frac{1}{2}U_{12}}v_2\overline{p}_{23}e^{\frac{1}{2}U_{23}}\hfill \\ \overline{p}_{31}e^{\frac{1}{2}U_{31}}(1e^{U_{31}}e^z)\overline{p}_{32}e^{\frac{1}{2}U_{23}}v_3\hfill \end{array}\right)\end{array}$$
(80)
## 9 Conclusion.

In the recent paper it is shown that the IL applied to the $`sl(N,𝐂)`$ elliptic Euler-Calogero Model and the elliptic Gaudin Model produces new Toda-like systems of $`N`$ interacting particles endowed with additional degrees of freedom corresponding to a coadjoint orbit in $`sl(n,𝐂)`$. The limits corresponding to the complete degeneration of the orbital degrees provide only ordinary periodic and non periodic Toda systems. We introduce a classification of the systems appearing from the $`sl(3,𝐂)`$ case. The classification is represented on two-dimensional space of parameters describing the infinite shifts of the coordinates. This space is subdivided into symmetric domains. The mixture of the Toda and the Sutherland-Calogero potentials emerges on the low dimensional domain walls of this picture. Due to obvious symmetries this classification can be generalized to the arbitrary number of particles. We also apply the Inozemtsev limit to $`sl(2,𝐂)`$ elliptic Gaudin Model with two marked points on the elliptic curve and discuss main features of its possible limits. The limits of Lax matrices are also considered.

We are grateful to A.Chervov, A.Marshakov, A.Gorsky, A.Mironov, A.Morozov and A.Zabrodin for useful remarks and to A.Levin for many discussions. We especially grateful to M.A.Olshanetsky for initiating the work and useful discussions. The work of both authors was partially supported by RFBR grant N00-02-16530 and the program for support of the scientific schools 00-15-96557.

## 10 Appendix A: Basic Formulas and Definitions

The rest of the formulas given in appendices are borrowed from , and .

The basic element is the theta function:

$$\begin{array}{c}\vartheta (z,\tau )=q^{\frac{1}{8}}e^{\frac{\pi }{4}}(e^{i\pi z}e^{i\pi z})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q^n)(1q^ne^{2\pi iz})(1q^ne^{2\pi iz}),q=e^{2\pi i\tau }\end{array}$$
(81)
The series representation for the Eisenstein functions is convenient to make the limit $`\omega _2\mathrm{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_1(z,\tau )=_zlog\vartheta (z,\tau ),E_1(z,\tau )\frac{1}{z}+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(82)
$$\begin{array}{c}E_2(z,\tau )=_zE_1(z,\tau ),E_2(z,\tau )\frac{1}{z^2}+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(83)
Relations to the Weierstrass functions:

$$\begin{array}{c}\zeta (z,\tau )=E_1(z,\tau )+2\eta _1(\tau )z\end{array}$$
(84)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{}(z,\tau )=E_2(z,\tau )2\eta _1(\tau )\end{array}$$
(85)
where

$$\eta _1(\tau )=\zeta (\frac{1}{2})$$

In the Appendices B and C we use notations which are convenient for making the limits (see ):

$$\begin{array}{c}\{\begin{array}{c}\tau =\frac{\omega _2}{\omega _1},\\ \omega _1=i\pi Im(\omega _2)=0\end{array}\end{array}$$
(86)
## 11 Appendix B: formulas which are used for computing the hamiltonians and their limits

Let us represent the Eisenstein functions in the form convenient to make the limit $`\omega _2\mathrm{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}E_1(z)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{coth}(\frac{z}{2}k\omega _2)\end{array}$$
(87)
$$\begin{array}{c}E_2(z)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\frac{z}{2}k\omega _2)}\end{array}$$
(88)
$$\begin{array}{c}E_2^{}(z)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{cosh}(\frac{z}{2}k\omega _2)}{\mathrm{sinh}^3(\frac{z}{2}k\omega _2)}\end{array}$$
(89)
The following important expression appears in the Lax matrix:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)=\frac{\vartheta (u+z)\vartheta ^{}(0)}{\vartheta (u)\vartheta (z)}\end{array}$$
(90)
It has a pole at $`z=0`$ and

$$res|_{z=0}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)=1$$

The well known identities are:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)=E_2(v)E_2(u)\end{array}$$
(91)
$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }_u^{}(u,v)=\mathrm{\Phi }(u,v)(E_1(u+v)E_1(u))\end{array}$$
(92)
And consequently

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{E_2^{}(u)}{E_2(u)E_2(v)}=E_1(u+v)+E_1(uv)2E_1(u)\end{array}$$
(93)
The following identity is necessary to find the cubic hamiltonians:

$$\begin{array}{c}det\left(\begin{array}{c}1E_2(u)E_2^{}(u)\\ 1E_2(v)E_2^{}(v)\\ 1E_2(w)E_2^{}(w)\end{array}\right)=\frac{2\vartheta (vw)\vartheta (wu)\vartheta (uv)\vartheta (u+v+w)}{[\vartheta (u)\vartheta (v)\vartheta (w)]^3}\end{array}$$
(94)
It can be rewritten in the following way:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(v,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(uv,z)=\frac{1}{2}E_2^{}(z)\frac{1}{2}E_2(z)\frac{E_2^{}(u)E_2^{}(v)}{E_2(u)E_2(v)}\\ \frac{1}{2}\frac{E_2^{}(v)E_2(u)E_2^{}(u)E_2(v)}{E_2(u)E_2(v)}\end{array}$$
(95)
Using formula $`(93)`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{E_2^{}(u)E_2^{}(v)}{E_2(u)E_2(v)}=2E_1(u+v)2E_1(u)2E_1(v)\end{array}$$
(96)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{E_2^{}(v)E_2(u)E_2^{}(u)E_2(v)}{E_2(u)E_2(v)}=E_1(u+v)(E_2(u)+E_2(v))+\\ +E_1(uv)(E_2(u)E_2(v))+2(E_2(u)E_1(v)+E_2(v)E_1(u))\end{array}$$
(97)
Thus formula $`(95)`$ can be written in the following form:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(u,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(v,z)\mathrm{\Phi }(uv,z)=\frac{1}{2}E_2^{}(z)+E_2(z)[E_1(u)+E_1(v)+E_1(uv)]\\ E_2(u)E_1(v)E_2(v)E_1(u)+\\ +\frac{1}{2}E_1(u+v)(E_2(u)+E_2(v))\frac{1}{2}E_1(uv)(E_2(u)E_2(v))\end{array}$$
(98)
## 12 Appendix C: formulas which are used for computing the limits in the Lax matrix

$$\begin{array}{c}\vartheta (z,\tau )=q^{\frac{1}{8}}e^{\frac{\pi }{4}}(e^{i\pi z}e^{i\pi z})\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1q^n)(1q^ne^{2\pi iz})(1q^ne^{2\pi iz}),q=e^{2\pi i\tau }\end{array}$$
(99)
$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}1=\zeta (0)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n=\zeta (1)=\frac{1}{12}\end{array}$$
(100)
where $`\zeta (z)`$ is the Riemann zeta function.

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\vartheta (u,\tau )}{\vartheta ^{}(0,\tau )}=\frac{\omega _1}{\pi }q^{\frac{1}{12}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\pi (un\tau ))\end{array}$$
(101)
$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{\vartheta (\frac{z}{2\pi i},\tau )}{\vartheta ^{}(0,\tau )}=ie^{\frac{\omega _2}{6}}\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{z}{2}+n\omega _2)=\\ =2ie^{\frac{\omega _2}{6}}\mathrm{sinh}\frac{z}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(e^z+e^ze^{2n\omega _2}e^{2n\omega _2})=\\ =2i\mathrm{sinh}\frac{z}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1+e^{z2n\omega _2}+e^{z2n\omega _2}e^{4n\omega _2})\\ 2i\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{z}{2})(1e^{z2\omega _2}e^{z2\omega _2})\end{array}$$
(102)
If $`\frac{z}{\omega _2}>0`$ and $`\frac{u}{\omega _2}>0`$ than

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{(1e^{u+z2\omega _2}e^{uz2\omega _2})}{(1e^{u2\omega _2}e^{u2\omega _2})(1e^{z2\omega _2}e^{z2\omega _2})}1e^{u+z2\omega _2}\end{array}$$
(103)


format: text

text:
# Isospectral metrics on five-dimensional spheres

## Introduction

During the past two decades, research on isospectral manifolds – that is, Riemannian manifolds sharing the same spectrum (including multiplicities) of the Laplace operator acting on functions – has been very active; see, for example, the survey article \[Go2\]. However, it was only recently that Zoltan I. Szabó and Carolyn Gordon independently discovered the first examples of isospectral metrics on spheres: Pairs of such metrics on $`S^{n10}`$ \[Sz2, 3\], and continuous families on $`S^{n8}`$ \[Go3\].

In spite of the wealth of other isospectral manifolds obtained before, the construction of isospectral spheres had seemed beyond reach for a long time. The reason was that both of the main methods of construction which were known and used until 2000 had excluded spheres:

The key to Gordon’s construction of isospectral metrics on the spheres $`S^{n8}`$ (and on the balls $`B^{n9}`$) was a new approach which still involves $`T^{k2}`$@-actions, but does not require them to be free anymore. On the other hand, Z.I. Szabó’s pairs of isospectral metrics on $`S^{n10}`$ (and on $`B^{n11}`$) do not arise by such a construction and seem to be of a completely different type. A spectacular feature of his examples is that they include pairs of isospectral metrics on $`S^{11}`$ in which one of the metrics is homogeneous while the other is not.

The present paper serves several purposes.

First, we reformulate Gordon’s new theorem \[Go3,  Theorem~1.2\] in a somewhat more elegant way – see Theorem 1.4 below –, and in Theorem 1.6 we establish a special version of it which turns to be a useful tool for finding new applications. It also accounts for all applications of Theorem 1.4 which are known so far.

Second, we derive a general sufficient nonisometry condition for the type of Riemannian metrics occurring in Theorem 1.6; see Proposition 2.4 below. Although we will apply this criterion only to certain new examples constructed in this paper, we wish to point out that it could also be used to unify most of the various nonisometry proofs from \[GW2\], \[GGSWW\], \[GSz\], \[Go3\] (however, some of the locally homogeneous manifolds with boundary from \[GW2\] and \[GSz\] cannot be proven nonisometric using this approach because they violate a certain genericity condition; see G in Proposition 2.3). Similarly, it would be possible to apply our method to the isospectral examples from \[Sch2, 3\] where we had instead performed explicit curvature computations in order to show that objects like $`\text{scal}^2`$, $`R^2`$, the critical values of the scalar curvature, or the dimension of their loci are not spectrally determined.

Our third (and main) purpose is to use Theorem 1.6 for constructing isospectral pairs of metrics on $`S^5`$ (and on $`B^6`$) and thus decreasing the minimal dimensions of Gordon’s examples by three; see Example 3.3. We also obtain continuous isospectral families of metrics on $`S^7`$ (and on $`B^8`$); see Example 3.2. For the nonisometry proofs we use the general criterion mentioned above.

Fourth, we show that in these new examples – in particular, on $`S^5`$ and $`B^6`$ (pairs), and on $`S^7`$ and $`B^8`$ (continuous families) – it is possible to choose the isospectral metrics in such a way that they are equal to the round (resp. flat) metric outside certain subsets of arbitrarily small volume; see Theorm 5.3. This gives a nice contrast to the fact that in dimensions up to six, the round spheres themselves are completely determined by their spectra \[Ta1\] (the corresponding problem in higher dimensions has not yet been solved), and to the fact that no round sphere in any dimension admits a continuous isospectral deformation \[Ta2\].

The paper is organized as follows:

In Section 1 we present our reformulation (Theorem 1.4) of Gordon’s theorem and the afore-mentioned specialization (Theorem 1.6). Section 2 contains our general sufficient nonisometry criterion for the metrics occurring in Theorem 1.6. In Section 3 we construct our new examples: Continuous families of isospectral metrics on $`S^7`$ and on $`B^8`$ (Example 3.2), and pairs of such metrics on $`S^5`$ and on $`B^6`$ (Examle 3.3). Moreover, we give a survey of a number of related examples in 3.4; each of them can be obtained using Theorem 1.6. Section 4 gives the nonisometry proof for Examples 3.2 / 3.3. Finally, we show in Section 5 how to make the isospectral metrics round (resp. flat) on large subsets (Theorem 5.3).

The author would like to thank Carolyn Gordon and Werner Ballmann for interesting discussions concerning these and related topics.

## §1 Isospectrality via effective torus actions

###### Definition 1.1 Definition

(i) The spectrum of a closed Riemannian manifold is the spectrum of eigenvalues, counted with multiplicities, of the associated Laplace operator acting on functions. The Dirichlet spectrum of a compact Riemannian manifold $`M`$ with boundary is the spectrum of eigenvalues corresponding to eigenfunctions which satisfy the Dirichlet boundary condition $`f|M=0`$. The Neumann spectrum of such a manifold is defined analogously with respect to the Neumann boundary condition $`Nf=0`$, where $`N`$ is the inward-pointing unit normal field on the boundary.

(ii) Two closed Riemannian manifolds are called isospectral if they have the same spectrum (including multiplicities). Two compact Riemannian manifolds with boundary are called Dirichlet isospectral, resp. Neumann isospectral, if they have the same Dirichlet spectrum, resp. the same Neumann spectrum.

### 1.2 Remark

Let $`(M,g)`$ be a compact Riemannian manifold with or without boundary. Consider the Hilbert spaces $`^N:=H^{1,2}(M,g)`$ and $`^D:=\stackrel{}{H}{}_{}{}^{1,2}(M,g)^N`$. Note that $`^N`$, resp. $`^D`$, is the completion of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$, resp. $`\{fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)f|M=0\}`$, with respect to the $`H^{1,2}`$@-norm associated to $`(M,g)`$. For each $`f^N\{0\}`$ the Rayleigh quotient is defined as

$$(f):=_Mdf_g^2\text{dvol}_g/_M|f|^2\text{dvol}_g=\left(f_{H^{1,2}(M,g)}^2/f_{L^2(M,g)}^2\right)1.$$

Let $`0\lambda _1^N\lambda _2^N\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, resp. $`0\lambda _1^D\lambda _2^D\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, denote the Neumann spectrum, resp. the Dirichlet spectrum, of $`(M,g)`$; if $`M=\mathrm{}`$ then both of these sequences coincide with the spectrum of $`(M,g)`$. Finally, denote by $`L_k^N`$, resp. $`L_k^D`$, the set of all $`k`$@-dimensional subspaces of $`^N`$, resp. $`^D`$. Then we have the following variational characterization of eigenvalues (see, e.g., \[Be\]):

$$\lambda _k^N=\underset{UL_k^N}{inf}\underset{fU\{0\}}{sup}(f)\text{ and }\lambda _k^D=\underset{UL_k^D}{inf}\underset{fU\{0\}}{sup}(f).$$
$`1`$
### 1.3 Notation

By a torus, we always mean a nontrivial, compact, connected abelian Lie group. If a torus $`T`$ acts smoothly and effectively by isometries on a compact connected Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ then we denote by $`\widehat{M}`$ the union of those orbits on which $`T`$ acts freely. Note that $`\widehat{M}`$ is an open dense submanifold of $`M`$. The action of $`T`$ gives $`\widehat{M}`$ the structure of a principal $`T`$@-bundle. By $`g^T`$ we denote the unique Riemannian metric on the quotient manifold $`\widehat{M}/T`$ such that the canonical projection $`\pi :(\widehat{M},g)(\widehat{M}/T,g^T)`$ is a Riemannian submersion.

###### 1.4 Theorem

Let $`T`$ be a torus which acts effectively on two compact connected Riemannian manifolds $`(M,g)`$ and $`(M^{},g^{})`$ by isometries. For each subtorus $`WT`$ of codimension one, suppose that there exists a $`T`$@-equivariant diffeomorphism $`F_W:MM^{}`$ which satisfies $`F_W^{}\text{dvol}_g^{}=\text{dvol}_g`$ and induces an isometry $`\overline{F}_W`$ between the quotient manifolds $`(\widehat{M}/W,g^W)`$ and $`(\widehat{M}^{}/W,g^W)`$. Then $`(M,g)`$ and $`(M^{},g^{})`$ are isospectral; if the manifolds have boundary then they are Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral.

###### Remark Remark

Theorem 1.4 above is a slight variation of Carolyn Gordon’s Theorem 1.2 in \[Go3\]. Instead of our condition $`F_W^{}\text{dvol}_g^{}=\text{dvol}_g`$ , Gordon assumes the condition that $`\overline{F}_W`$ maps the projected mean curvature vector field $`\overline{H}_W`$ of the submersion $`(\widehat{M},g)(\widehat{M}/W,g^W)`$ to the corresponding vector field $`\overline{H}_W^{}`$ . While the two conditions actually turn out to be equivalent in this context, our volume preserving condition is not only easier to formulate but also more convenient to check in applications. More than that, it is inherent and automatically satisfied in the specialization described below in 1.5 / 1.6 which covers all applications of the above theorem which are known so far. Our different formulation of the theorem has also led to a different proof (construction of a certain isometry between the $`H^{1,2}`$@-spaces instead of intertwining the Laplacians). An advantage of our proof is that it does not require a certain additional condition which Gordon assumes in the case of manifolds with boundary (namely, that $`\widehat{M}M`$ be dense in $`M`$).

###### Demonstration Proof of Theorem 1.4

Consider the Hilbert space $`:=H^{1,2}(M,g)`$ in the case of manifolds without boundary or in case of Neumann boundary conditions, resp. $`:=\stackrel{}{H}{}_{}{}^{1,2}(M,g)`$ in the case of Dirichlet boundary conditions. Let $`^{}`$ be defined analogously with respect to $`(M^{},g^{})`$. We claim that there is a Hilbert space isometry from $``$ to $`^{}`$ which moreover preserves $`L^2`$@-norms; the theorem will thus follow from the variational characterization of eigenvalues 1.

Consider the unitary representation of $`T`$ on $``$ defined by $`(zf)(x)=f(zx)`$ for all $`f`$, $`zT`$, $`xM`$. Write $`T=𝔷/`$ and let $`^{}`$ be the dual lattice. Since $`T`$ is abelian, $``$ decomposes as the orthogonal sum $`_\mu ^{}_\mu `$ with $`_\mu =\{fzf=e^{2\pi i\mu (Z)}f\text{ for all }zT\}`$, where $`Z`$ denotes any representative for $`z`$ in $`𝔷`$. In particular, this implies the coarser decomposition

$$=_0_W(_W_0),$$
$`2`$
where $`W`$ runs though the set of all subtori of codimension $`1`$ in $`T`$, and $`_W`$ is the sum of all $`_\mu `$ such that $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`T_eW\text{ker}\mu `$. In other words, $`_W`$ is just the space of $`W`$@-invariant functions in $``$. Let $`_W^{}`$ and $`_0^{}`$ be the analogously defined subspaces of $`^{}`$. Now let $`W`$ be any subtorus of codimension $`1`$ in $`T`$ and choose a diffeomorphism $`F_W`$ as in the assumption. Since $`F_W`$ intertwines the $`T`$@-actions, $`F_W^{}`$ sends $`_W^{}`$ to $`_W`$ and $`_0^{}_W^{}`$ to $`_0_W`$ . We will now show that $`F_W^{}:_W^{}_W`$ is a Hilbert space isometry which also preserves $`L^2`$@-norms; in view of the decomposition 2 this will prove our above claim. Preservation of $`L^2`$@-norms is trivial by the assumption $`F_W^{}\text{dvol}_g^{}=\text{dvol}_g`$ . Moreover, this assumption implies that it suffices to show that for each $`\psi C^{\mathrm{}}(M^{})`$ which is invariant under the $`W`$@-action and for all $`yM^{}`$ we have $`d\psi |y_g^{}=d\phi |x_g`$ , where $`\phi :=F_W^{}\psi `$ and $`x:=F_W^1(y)`$. We can assume $`x\widehat{M}`$; let $`\overline{\phi }`$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ be the functions induced on $`\widehat{M}/W`$ and $`\widehat{M}^{}/W`$. Then $`\overline{\phi }=\overline{F}_W^{}\overline{\psi }`$ ; since $`g^W`$ and $`g^W`$ are the submersion metrics and $`\overline{F}_W`$ is an isometry we obtain indeed, at the appropriate points: $`d\phi _g=d\overline{\phi }_{g^W}=d\overline{\psi }_{g^W}=d\psi _g^{}`$ . ∎

### 1.5 Notation and Remarks

In the following we fix a torus $`T`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔷=T_eT`$. Let $``$ be the cocompact lattice in $`𝔷`$ such that $`\text{exp}:𝔷T`$ induces an isomorphism from $`𝔷/`$ to $`T`$, and denote by $`^{}𝔷^{}`$ the dual lattice. We also fix a compact connected Riemannian manifold $`(M,g_0)`$, with or without boundary, and a smooth effective action of $`T`$ on $`(M,g_0)`$ by isometries.

###### 1.6 Theorem

In the context of Notation 1.5, let $`\lambda `$, $`\lambda ^{}`$ be two admissible $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-forms on $`M`$. Assume:

Then $`(M,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ are isospectral; if $`M`$ has boundary then the two manifolds are Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral.

###### Demonstration Proof

We show that $`(M,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 1.4. Let $`W`$ be a subtorus of codimension $`1`$ in $`T`$. Choose $`\mu ^{}`$ such that $`𝔴:=T_eW`$ equals $`\text{ker}\mu `$, and choose a corresponding $`F_\mu `$ as in $``$. We claim that $`F_W:=F_\mu `$ satisfies the conditions required in Theorem 1.4. First of all note that $`F_\mu `$ , being an isometry of $`g_0`$ , trivially satisfies $`F_\mu ^{}\text{dvol}_{g_\lambda ^{}}=\text{dvol}_{g_\lambda }`$ because of $`\text{dvol}_{g_\lambda }=\text{dvol}_{g_0}=\text{dvol}_{g_\lambda ^{}}`$ (see 1.5(iii)). Thus it remains to prove that $`F_\mu `$ induces an isometry from $`(\widehat{M}/W,g_\lambda ^W)`$ to $`(\widehat{M}/W,g_\lambda ^{}^W)`$.

Let $`VT_xM`$ be any vector which is $`g_\lambda `$@-orthogonal to $`𝔴_x`$ ; then $`V=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (X)`$ for some $`X`$ which is $`g_0`$@-orthogonal to $`𝔴_x`$ . By condition $``$ we know that $`\lambda (X)`$ equals $`\lambda ^{}(F_\mu X)`$ modulo $`𝔴`$. Keeping in mind that $`F_\mu `$ commutes with the $`T`$@-action, we conclude that the vector $`F_\mu V=F_\mu (\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda X)`$ equals $`Y:=\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda ^{}(F_\mu X)`$ up to an error in $`𝔴_{F_\mu (x)}`$ . But $`F_\mu X`$ is $`g_0`$@-orthogonal to $`𝔴_{F_\mu (x)}`$ ; thus $`Y`$ is the projection of $`F_\mu V`$ to the $`g_\lambda ^{}`$@-orthogonal complement of $`𝔴_{F_\mu (x)}`$ . Our assertion now follows from $`Y_{g_\lambda ^{}}=F_\mu X_{g_0}=X_{g_0}=V_{g_\lambda }`$ . ∎

## §2 A sufficient condition for nonisometry

Throughout this section we let $`(M,g_0)`$, $`T`$, $`𝔷`$ be as in Notation 1.5, and we define the principal $`T`$@-bundle $`\pi :\widehat{M}\widehat{M}/T`$ as in Notation 1.3. By $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ we will always denote admissible $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-forms on $`M`$. In Proposition 2.4 below we will establish a sufficient condition for $`(M,g_\lambda )`$, $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ to be nonisometric.

### 2.1 Notation and Remarks

###### 2.2 Lemma

Suppose that $`F:(M,g_\lambda )(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ is a $`T`$@-preserving isometry.

###### Demonstration Proof

(i) This follows immediately from 1.5(iv).

(ii) We have $`\omega _\lambda ^{}(Z^{})=\omega _\lambda (Z^{})=Z`$ for all $`Z𝔷`$, hence $`\omega _\lambda ^{}(F_{}(Z^{}))=\omega _\lambda ^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }_F(Z)^{})=\mathrm{\Psi }_F(Z)=\mathrm{\Psi }_F(\omega _\lambda (Z^{}))`$. The equation thus holds when applied to vectors tangent to the $`T`$@-orbits. Since $`F`$ is an isometry and maps orbits to orbits, it must map $`g_\lambda `$@-horizontal vectors to $`g_\lambda ^{}`$@-horizontal vectors. Hence both sides of the asserted equation vanish when applied to a $`g_\lambda `$@-horizontal vector.

(iii) This follows from (ii) and 2.1(v). ∎

###### 2.3 Proposition

Let $`\lambda `$ be an admissible $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-form on $`M`$ such that the associated curvature form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ on $`\widehat{M}/T`$ satisfies the following genericity condition:

No nontrivial $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$@-parameter group in $`\overline{\text{Aut}}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)`$ preserves $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ . $`G`$
Then $`T`$ is a maximal torus in $`\text{Isom}(M,g_\lambda )`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`F_t\text{Isom}(M,g_\lambda )`$ be a $`1`$@-parameter family of isometries commuting with $`T`$. In particular, the maps $`F_t`$ are $`T`$@-preserving and thus induce a $`1`$@-parameter family $`\overline{F}_t\text{Isom}(\widehat{M}/T,g_0^T)`$. The corresponding $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{F_t}𝒟`$ satisfy $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{F_t}\text{Id}`$ because $`𝒟`$ is discrete and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{F_0}=\text{Id}`$. Thus according to 3, each $`\overline{F}_t`$ preserves $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ . The assumed property G of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ now implies $`\overline{F}_t\text{Id}`$. We conclude that $`F_t`$ restricts to a gauge transformation of the principal $`T`$@-bundle $`\widehat{M}`$. On the other hand, $`F_t^{}\omega _\lambda \omega _\lambda `$ by 2.2(ii). But a gauge transformation which preserves the connection form of a principal bundle must act as an element of the structural group on each connected component of the bundle. Since an isometry of the connected Riemannian manifold $`(M,g_\lambda )`$ is determined by its restriction to any nonempty open subset, it follows that the family $`F_t`$ is contained in $`T`$. ∎

###### 2.4 Proposition

Let $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ be admissible $`1`$@-forms on $`M`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}`$ has property G. Furthermore, assume that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda 𝒟\overline{\text{Aut}}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)_{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}.$$
$`N`$
Then $`(M,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ are not isometric.

###### Demonstration Proof

Suppose that there were an isometry $`F:(M,g_\lambda )(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$. By Proposition 2.3, $`T`$ is a maximal torus in $`\text{Isom}(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$. Since all maximal tori are conjugate, we can assume $`F`$ – after possibly combining it with an isometry of $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ – to be $`T`$@-preserving. But then Lemma 2.2 implies $`\overline{F}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}=\mathrm{\Psi }_F\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ with $`\overline{F}\overline{\text{Aut}}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_F𝒟`$, which contradicts our assumption N. ∎

### 2.5 Remark

Note that equally valid (but weaker) versions of Propositions 2.3 and 2.4 would be obtained by replacing $`\overline{\text{Aut}}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)`$ by the possibly larger group $`\text{Isom}(\widehat{M}/T,g_0^T)`$.

## §3 Examples

### 3.1 Notation

### 3.2 Example:Continuous isospectral families of metrics on $`𝚂^{\mathrm{𝟸}𝚖+\mathrm{𝟷}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟽}}`$ and on $`𝙱^{\mathrm{𝟸}𝚖+\mathrm{𝟸}\mathbf{}\mathrm{𝟾}}`$

#### 3.2.1 Notation

For each linear map $`j:𝔷^2𝔰𝔲(m)`$ we define a $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-form $`\lambda =(\lambda ^1,\lambda ^2)`$ on $`^{2m+2}^m`$ by letting

$$\lambda _{(p,q)}^k(X,U)=|p|^2j_{Z_k}p,XX,ipj_{Z_k}p,ip$$
$`4`$
for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`(X,U)T_p^{2m}T_q^2`$. Here $`.,.`$ denotes the standard euclidean inner product on $`^{2m}`$, and the skew-hermitian maps $`j_{Z_k}:=j(Z_k)`$ act on $`p^{2m}`$ via the above identification $`^{2m}^m`$.

By restriction we obtain a smooth $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-form $`\lambda `$ on the unit sphere $`S^{2m+1}`$, respectively on the unit ball $`B^{2m+2}`$.

#### 3.2.2 Remark

We observe that $`\lambda `$ is admissible (see Notation 1.5(ii)) with respect to the action $`\rho `$ of $`T`$ defined above in 3.1(iii). In fact, invariance of $`\lambda `$ under the action of $`T`$ is immediate because multiplication with the complex scalar factor $`e^{ia}`$ commutes with $`j_{Z_k}𝔰𝔲(m)`$ and preserves the euclidean inner product. It remains to check that $`\lambda `$ vanishes on the spaces $`𝔷_{(p,q)}=\text{span}\{(ip,0),(0,iq)\}T_p^{2m}T_q^2`$. Indeed we have $`\lambda _{(p,q)}^k(ip,0)=|p|^2j_{Z_k}p,ipip,ipj_{Z_k}p,ip=0`$ for $`k=1,2`$, and $`\lambda _{(p,q)}(0,iq)=0`$ by definition.

#### 3.2.3 Definition

Let $`g_0`$ be the round standard metric on $`S^{2m+1}`$, respectively the standard metric on $`B^{2m+2}`$, and let $`g_\lambda `$ be the metric associated with $`\lambda `$ and $`g_0`$ as in Notation 1.5(iii).

Summarizing, for each linear map $`j:^2𝔰𝔲(m)`$ we have an associated Riemannian metric $`g_\lambda `$ on $`S^{2m+1}`$, respectively on $`B^{2m+2}`$, via the corresponding $`1`$@-form $`\lambda `$ as defined in 4.

#### 3.2.4 Definition

Let $`j,j^{}:𝔷^2𝔰𝔲(m)`$ be two linear maps.

###### 3.2.5 Proposition

Let $`j,j^{}:𝔷^2𝔰𝔲(m)`$ be two linear maps, and let $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ be the associated pair of Riemannian metrics on $`S^{2m+1}`$, or on $`B^{2m+2}`$, as above. If $`jj^{}`$ then the Riemannian manifolds $`(S^{2m+1},g_\lambda )`$ and $`(S^{2m+1},g_\lambda ^{})`$ are isospectral, and $`(B^{2m+2},g_\lambda )`$ and $`(B^{2m+2},g_\lambda ^{})`$ are Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral. If $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$ are not equivalent and if at least one of them is generic, then in both of these pairs the two manifolds are not isometric.

###### Demonstration Proof

We will prove the nonisometry statement in Section 4. To prove isospectrality we use Theorem 1.6. Fix an arbitrary $`\mu ^{}`$. We have to show that there exists an isometry $`F_\mu `$ of $`g_0`$ which commutes with the action of $`T`$ and satisfies $`\mu \lambda =F_\mu ^{}(\mu \lambda ^{})`$. Let $`Z𝔷`$ be the vector corresponding to $`\mu ^{}𝔷^{}`$ under the canonical identification of $`𝔷`$ with $`𝔷^{}`$ associated with the basis $`\{Z_1,Z_2\}`$. Choose $`A_Z\text{SU}(m)\text{SO}(2m)`$ as in Definition 3.2.4(i), and let $`F_\mu :=(A_Z,\text{Id})\text{SO}(2m+2)`$. Then $`F_\mu `$ is an isometry of $`g_0`$ and satisfies

$`\left(F_\mu ^{}(\mu \lambda ^{})\right)_{(p,q)}(X,U)`$ $`=(\mu \lambda ^{})_{(A_Zp,q)}(A_ZX,U)`$
$`=|A_Zp|^2j_Z^{}A_Zp,A_ZXA_ZX,iA_Zpj_Z^{}A_Zp,iA_Zp`$
$`=|p|^2A_Z^1j_Z^{}A_Zp,XX,ipA_Z^1j_Z^{}A_Zp,ip`$
$`=|p|^2j_Zp,XX,ipj_Zp,ip=(\mu \lambda )_{(p,q)}(X,U),`$
as desired. ∎

The following result shows that there are in fact many examples to Proposition 3.2.5.

###### 3.2.6 Proposition

Let $`m3`$ and $`\{Z_1,Z_2\}`$ be the standard basis of $`^2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

(i) The same statement, but without requirement 3.), was shown in \[Sch3,  Proposition~3.6\]. Since the section of two nonempty Zariski open sets is again such a set, it just remains to show that the subset $`𝒪𝒥`$ of those elements which are generic in the sense of 3.2.4(iii) is nonempty and Zariski open. Note that the map $`j𝒥`$ given by

$$j_{Z_1}:=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}i\alpha _1& & & & \\ & i\alpha _2& & & \\ & & i\alpha _3& & \\ & & & \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & i\alpha _m\end{array}\right),j_{Z_2}:=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& 1& & & \\ 1& 0& 1& & \\ & 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \\ & & \mathrm{}& 0& 1\\ & & & 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with pairwise different $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{}\alpha _m`$ satisfying $`\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _m=0`$ is an element of $`𝒪`$; thus $`𝒪`$ is nonempty. To see that $`𝒪`$ is Zariski open, note that it is equal to the set of those $`j𝒥`$ for which the map $`F_j:𝔰𝔲(m)\tau ([j_{Z_1},\tau ],[j_{Z_2},\tau ])𝔰𝔲(m)𝔰𝔲(m)`$ has maximal rank $`r_m:=\text{dim}(𝔰𝔲(m))`$. But the latter condition can be expressed as the nonvanishing of a certain polynomial in the coefficients of $`j`$, namely, the sum of the squared determinants of the $`(r_m\times r_m)`$@-minors of a matrix representation of $`F_j`$ .

(ii) This can be checked by straightforward calculation. ∎

###### 3.2.7 Corollary

For every $`m3`$ there exist continuous families of isospectral metrics on $`S^{2m+1}`$ and continuous families of Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral metrics on $`B^{2m+2}`$. In particular, there exist such families on $`S^7`$, resp. on $`B^8`$. An explicit example is given by the metrics $`g_{\lambda (t)}`$ associated with the family $`j(t)`$ from 3.2.6(ii).

###### Remark Remark

Carolyn Gordon \[Go3\] has previously given continuous families of isospectral metrics on each $`S^{n8}`$ and $`B^{n9}`$ using a related construction (see 3.4(i)). Those were the first examples of continuous isospectral families of metrics on balls and spheres.

### 3.3 Example: Isospectral pairs of metrics on $`𝚂^\mathrm{𝟻}`$ and on $`𝙱^\mathrm{𝟼}`$

#### 3.3.1 Notation

In the context of Notation 3.1 we consider now the case $`m=2`$.

(i) We fix a realization of the Hopf projection $`P:S^3S_{1/2}^2^3`$ in coordinates, say

$$P:(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )(\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^2+\beta ^2\gamma ^2\delta ^2),\alpha \gamma +\beta \delta ,\alpha \delta \beta \gamma ).$$

We extend $`P`$ to a smooth map from $`^4^2`$ to $`^3`$, defined by the same formula (note that $`P`$ will map $`S_a^3`$ to $`S_{a^2/2}^2`$ for each radius $`a0`$).

(ii) Let $`\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ denote the space of symmetric traceless real $`(3\times 3)`$@-matrices. For each linear map $`c:𝔷^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ we define a $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-form $`\lambda =(\lambda ^1,\lambda ^2)`$ on $`^6^2`$ by letting

$$\lambda _{(p,q)}^k(X,U)=c_{Z_k}P(p)\times P(p),P_p(X)$$
$`5`$
for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`(X,U)T_p^{2m}T_q^2`$, where $`.,.`$ denotes the standard euclidean inner product on $`^3`$, and $`\times `$ denotes the vector product in $`^3`$. By restriction we obtain a smooth $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-form $`\lambda `$ on the unit sphere $`S^5`$, respectively on the unit ball $`B^6`$.

#### 3.3.2 Remark

We observe that $`\lambda `$ is admissible with respect to the action $`\rho `$ of $`T`$ on $`S^5^2`$, resp. $`B^6^2`$. Invariance of $`\lambda `$ under the action of $`T`$ is immediate since $`P(e^{ia}p)=P(p)`$ for all $`a`$, $`p^2`$. By the same reason we have $`P_p(ip)=0`$, which implies that $`\lambda `$ vanishes on the spaces $`𝔷_{(p,q)}`$ .

#### 3.3.3 Definition

Let $`g_\lambda `$ be the metric associated with $`\lambda `$ and the standard metric $`g_0`$ on $`S^5`$, resp. $`B^6`$. Thus for each linear map $`c:^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ we have an associated Riemannian metric $`g_\lambda `$ on $`S^5`$, respectively on $`B^6`$, via the corresponding $`1`$@-form $`\lambda `$ as defined in 5.

#### 3.3.4 Definition

Let $`j,j^{}:𝔷^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ be two linear maps.

###### 3.3.5 Proposition

Let $`c,c^{}:𝔷^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ be two linear maps, and let $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ be the associated pair of Riemannian metrics on $`S^5`$, or on $`B^6`$, as above. If $`cc^{}`$ then the Riemannian manifolds $`(S^5,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(S^5,g_\lambda ^{})`$ are isospectral, and $`(B^6,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(B^6,g_\lambda ^{})`$ are Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral. If $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ are not equivalent and if at least one of them is generic, then in both of these pairs the two manifolds are not isometric.

###### Demonstration Proof

Again, we postpone the proof of the nonisometry statement to Section 4, and we use Theorem 1.6 to prove isospectrality. Fix $`\mu ^{}`$ and let $`Z`$ be the dual vector in $`𝔷`$ as in the proof of 3.2.5. Choose $`E_Z\text{SO}(3)`$ as in Definition 3.3.4(i), and choose $`A_Z\text{SU}(2)\text{SO}(4)`$ such that for the Hopf projection $`P:S^3S_{1/2}^2`$ from 3.3.1(i) we have $`PA_Z=E_ZP`$. Let $`F_\mu :=(A_Z,\text{Id})\text{SO}(6)`$. Then $`F_\mu `$ is an isometry of $`g_0`$ and satisfies

$`\left(F_\mu ^{}(\mu \lambda ^{})\right)_{(p,q)}`$ $`(X,U)=(\mu \lambda ^{})_{(A_Zp,q)}(A_ZX,U)`$
$`=c_Z^{}P(A_Zp)\times P(A_Zp),P_{A_Zp}(A_ZX)`$
$`=c_Z^{}E_ZP(p)\times E_ZP(p),E_ZP_p(X)`$
$`=E_Z^1c_Z^{}E_ZP(p)\times P(p),P_p(X)`$
$`=c_ZP(p)\times P(p),P_p(X)=(\mu \lambda )_{(p,q)}(X,U),`$
as desired. ∎

###### 3.3.6 Proposition

There exist pairs of linear maps $`c,c^{}:^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ such that $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ are isospectral in the sense of 3.3.4(i), not equivalent in the sense of 3.3.4(ii), and both generic in the sense of 3.3.4(iii). An example of such a pair is given by

$$c_{Z_1}=c_{Z_1}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),c_{Z_2}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),c_{Z_2}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \sqrt{2}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ \sqrt{2}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

where $`\{Z_1,Z_2\}`$ is the standard basis of $`^2`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

One easily checks that for each fixed pair $`s,u`$, the characteristic polynomials of $`sc_{Z_1}+uc_{Z_2}`$ and $`sc_{Z_1}^{}+uc_{Z_2}^{}`$ are equal (namely, to $`\lambda ^3+(s^2+2u^2)\lambda `$), which implies isospectrality. That $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ are not equivalent can be seen from the fact that $`c_{Z_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+c_{Z_2}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^2=14`$, while $`c_{Z_1}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}+c_{Z_2}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}^2=18`$. The maps are generic in the sense of 3.3.4(iii) because not even the map $`c_{Z_1}=c_{Z_1}^{}`$ alone commutes with any nonzero element of $`𝔰𝔬(3)`$. ∎

###### 3.3.7 Corollary

There exist nontrivial pairs of isospectral metrics on $`S^5`$, and there exist nontrivial pairs of Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral metrics on $`B^6`$.

###### Remark Remark

Our above pairs of isospectral $`5`$@-spheres constitute the lowest dimensional examples of isospectral spheres which have been constructed so far. The analogous statement holds for our isospectral $`6`$@-dimensional balls.

### 3.4 Survey of related examples

As a complement to our above new examples of isospectral spheres and balls we now give a short survey of related examples. Among them, (ii) and (v) are new; (i), (iii), and (iv) are already known, but were constructed first in slightly different settings.

Although we will not present any proofs here, we note that in each of the examples below the Riemannian manifolds can be described within the setting of 1.5 and proven to be isospectral by Theorem 1.6. Moreover, for each of them there is a nonisometry proof using the general results from Section 2 and following the lines of Section 4 below, where we will prove nonisometry for the above examples 3.2 / 3.3. Since the formulas defining $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ in the examples below (except (v)) are less complicated than those in 3.2 or 3.3, the corresponding computations are simpler than those in Section 4. Also note that in some of the examples the situation is simplified by the fact that $`\widehat{M}=M`$ (in (iii) and (v)), or that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0`$ (in (i)–(iv)). For example, in (iii) below, the curvature form $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ equals $`d\overline{\lambda }`$ on $`M/T=S^{2m1}`$, where $`d\overline{\lambda }^k`$ is of the form $`(X,Y)2j_{Z_k}X,Y`$.

The notation we use is similar to the one we used above. In particular, $`T`$ again denotes the torus $`^2/(2\pi \times 2\pi )`$, and $`\{Z_1,Z_2\}`$ is the standard basis of its Lie algebra $`𝔷^2`$. On all manifolds $`M`$ which we consider below there is a canonical standard metric which will in each case play the role of $`g_0`$ . When we call two manifolds with boundary isospectral we always mean Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral.

(i) Continuous families of isospectral metrics on $`S^{n8}`$ and on $`B^{n9}`$ \[Go3\].

Let $`M=S^{m+3}^m`$, resp. $`M=B^{m+4}^m`$. Let the action of $`T`$ on $`M`$ be induced by its canonical action on the $``$ component (generated by multiplication with $`i`$ on each summand). For each linear map $`j:^2𝔰𝔬(m)`$ we define a $`𝔷^2`$@-valued $`1`$@-form on $`^m^m^4`$ (and hence on $`M`$) by letting

$$\lambda _{(p,q)}^k(X,U)=j_{Z_k}p,X$$

for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`(X,U)T_p^mT_q^4`$. The following conditions on a pair $`j,j^{}`$ imply that the associated Riemannian manifolds $`(M,g_\lambda )`$, $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ are isospectral and not isometric:

It is known \[GW2\] that for $`m5`$ there are continuous families – even multiparameter families – $`j(t)`$ whose elements pairwise satisfy these conditions. The associated manifolds $`(M,g_{\lambda (t)})`$ are Carolyn Gordon’s examples of isospectral deformations on spheres and balls.

(ii) Isospectral pairs of metrics on $`S^6`$ and on $`B^7`$.

This is just a slight modification of Example 3.3 which does not involve the Hopf projection $`P`$ anymore; in turn, an additional dimension is needed for the construction. Let $`M=S^6^3`$, resp. $`M=B^7^3`$. Let $`T`$ act canonically on the $``$ component as in (i). For each linear map $`c:^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ we define a $`𝔷^2`$@-valued $`1`$@-form on $`^3^3^4`$ (and hence on $`M`$) by letting

$$\lambda _{(p,q)}^k(X,U)=c_{Z_k}p\times p,X$$

for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`(X,U)T_p^3T_q^4`$. The conditions on a pair $`c,c^{}`$ which cause $`(M,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(M,g_\lambda ^{})`$ to be isospectral and not isometric are the same as in 3.3, except that in the nonequivalence condition the group $``$ has to be replaced by the larger group $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ as in (i).

The specific pair $`c,c^{}`$ given in 3.3.6 satisfies these conditions and thus yields a pair of isospectral metrics $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ on $`S^6`$ (resp. on $`B^7`$). Moreover, one can compute the loci $`N,N^{}`$ of the maximal scalar curvature in $`(S^6,g_\lambda )`$ and $`(S^6,g_\lambda ^{})`$. It turns out that $`N^{}`$ contains a $`4`$@-sphere, while $`N`$ is a union of $`2`$@- and $`3`$@-spheres.

(iii) Continuous families of isospectral metrics on $`S^{m14}\times T^2`$ \[GGSWW\] and on $`B^{m5}\times T^2`$ \[GW2\]; pairs of isospectral metrics on $`S^2\times T^2`$ \[Sch3\] and on $`B^3\times T^2`$.

For $`a,b,c>0`$ with $`a^2+b^2+c^21`$ we define $`M_{a,b,c}:=\{(p,u,v)^m|p|^2=a^2,|u|^2=b^2,|v|^2=c^2\}`$. Then $`M_{a,b,c}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^{m1}\times T^2`$ and is a submanifold of $`B^{m+4}^m`$. The restrictions of two metrics $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ from (i) to one of these submanifolds are again isospectral and nonisometric under the same conditions as in (i) on the underlying pair of maps $`j,j^{}`$. In particular, one obtains continuous isospectral families $`g_{\lambda (t)}`$ on $`S^{m1}\times T^2`$ for $`m5`$. These are just the examples constructed in \[GGSWW\].

Similarly, for $`m=3`$ the metrics $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ from (ii) restrict to isospectral nonisometric metrics on $`M_{a,b,c}`$ which is now diffeomorphic to $`S^2\times T^2`$; these pairs were first constructed in \[Sch3\].

In both cases we can replace the condition $`|p|^2=a^2`$ by $`|p|^2a^2`$ in the definition of $`M_{a,b,c}`$ which then becomes diffeomorphic to $`B^m\times T^2`$. We obtain continuous families of isospectral metrics $`g_{\lambda (t)}`$ on $`B^m\times T^2`$ for $`m5`$ \[GW2\] and pairs of such metrics on $`B^3\times T^2`$.

(iv) Isospectral pairs of metrics on $`S^2\times S^3`$ \[Ba\].

Instead of considering the submanifolds $`M_{a,b,c}S^2\times T^2`$ of $`B^7^3`$ as in the middle part of (iii) above, we now consider $`M_{a,b}:=\{(p,q)^3^4|p|^2=a^2,|q|^2=b^2\}`$ with $`a,b>0`$. Then $`M_{a,b}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^2\times S^3`$, and again the metrics $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ from (ii) restrict to isospectral nonisometric metrics on $`M_{a,b}`$ .

(v) Continuous isospectral families on $`S^{2m15}\times S^1`$ and on $`B^{2m6}\times S^1`$; pairs of isospectral metrics on $`S^3\times S^1`$ and on $`B^4\times S^1`$.

We return to the context of our examples 3.2 / 3.3 above and consider the submanifolds $`M_{a,b}:=\{(p,q)^m|p|^2=a^2,|q|^2=b^2\}`$ of $`B^{2m}`$. For $`a,b>0`$ the manifold $`M_{a,b}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^{2m1}\times S^1`$. If $`j,j^{}:^2𝔰𝔲(m)`$ satisfy the assumptions of Proposition 3.2.5 then the associated pair of metrics $`g_\lambda ,g_\lambda ^{}`$ on $`B^{2m}`$ restricts to a pair of isospectral nonisometric metrics on $`M_{a,b}`$ as well. In particular, for $`m3`$ we obtain continuous families $`g_{\lambda (t)}`$ of such metrics as in 3.2.6 / 3.2.7.

Similarly, for $`m=2`$ each pair $`c,c^{}:^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ satisfying the assumptions of Proposition 3.3.5 also yields a pair of isospectral nonisometric metrics on the manifold $`S^{2m1}\times S^1=S^3\times S^1`$.

In both cases we can again replace the condition $`|p|^2=a^2`$ by $`|p|^2a^2`$ in the definition of $`M_{a,b}`$ which then becomes diffeomorphic to $`B^{2m}\times S^1`$. We obtain continuous families of isospectral metrics $`g_{\lambda (t)}`$ on $`B^{2m}\times S^1`$ for $`m3`$, and pairs of such metrics on $`B^4\times S^1`$.

## §4 Nonisometry of the examples from 3.2 / 3.3

Our strategy for proving the nonisometry statements of Proposition 3.2.5 / 3.3.5 consists in showing that the nonequivalence condition on $`j,j^{}`$ (resp. on $`c,c^{}`$) implies condition N of Proposition 2.4, while the genericity condition on the pair of maps implies Property G for the associated curvature forms. See Proposition 4.3 below for these assertions. The desired nonisometry statements then follow immediately from Proposition 2.4.

### 4.1 Notation and Remarks

Throughout this section we denote by $`(M,g_0)`$ either $`S^{2m+1}^{2m}^2`$ or $`B^{2m+2}^{2m}^2`$, endowed with the standard metric. We consider the action $`\rho `$ of $`T=^2/(2\pi \times 2\pi )`$ on $`M`$ which was defined in 3.1(iii).

###### 4.2 Lemma

If $`F\text{Aut}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)`$ then $`F`$ preserves each of the submanifolds $`M_{a,b}`$ of $`\widehat{M}`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$ (see Notation 3.1(ii)). In particular, for the group $`𝒟`$ defined in 2.1(ii) we have $`𝒟`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Note that the $`T`$@-orbit through $`(p,q)M_{a,b}\widehat{M}`$, endowed with the metric induced by $`g_0`$ , is a rectangular torus with side lengths $`2\pi a`$ and $`2\pi b`$. It follows that $`F`$ preserves the sets $`M_{a,b}M_{b,a}\widehat{M}`$. We have to show that $`F`$ cannot switch the components $`M_{a,b}`$ and $`M_{b,a}`$ if $`ab`$. If it did then it would induce an isometry from $`(M_{a,b}/T,g_0^T)`$ to $`(M_{b,a}/T,g_0^T)`$. But by 4.1(ii) these manifolds have different volume. Thus $`F`$ preserves $`M_{a,b}`$ . Now choose $`0<a<b`$ such that $`M_{a,b}\widehat{M}`$, and let $`(p,q)M_{a,b}`$ . Since $`F`$ preserves $`M_{a,b}`$ , both of the orbits $`T(p,q)`$ and $`TF(p,q)`$ are rectangular tori on which the shortest closed loops have length $`2\pi a`$ and are precisely the flow lines of $`Z_1^{}`$ . This, together with $`Z_1^{}Z_2^{}`$ and $`Z_2^{}|(p,q)=Z_2^{}|F(p,q)=b`$, implies that $`F_{}(Z_1^{})\{\pm Z_1^{}\}`$ and $`F_{}(Z_2^{})\{\pm Z_2^{}\}`$; hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_F`$. Now $`𝒟`$ follows from the definition of $`𝒟`$. ∎

In view of Proposition 2.4, the following result implies immediately the nonisometry statements of Proposition 3.2.5 / 3.3.5 :

###### 4.3 Proposition

Let $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ be of the type defined in 4 (resp. in 5), and let $`j,j^{}:^2𝔰𝔲(m)`$ (resp. $`c,c^{}:^2\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$) be the pair of linear maps with which $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ are associated.

###### Demonstration Proof

We choose one of the submanifolds $`M_{a,b}=:L`$ of $`\widehat{M}`$ and denote by $`\omega _\lambda ^L,\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^L`$ the forms induced by $`\omega _\lambda ,\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ on $`L\widehat{M}`$ and $`L/T\widehat{M}/T`$, respectively.

(i) Suppose that condition N were not satisfied. Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }𝒟`$ (recall 4.2) and $`\overline{F}\overline{\text{Aut}}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{F}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}`$ . Lemma 4.2 implies that $`\overline{F}`$ preserves $`L/T`$; hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^L=\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{F}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}^L`$. Recall from 2.1(vi) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =\mathrm{\Omega }_0+d\overline{\lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_0+d\overline{\lambda }^{}`$. Each closed $`2`$@-form on $`P^{m1}`$ is uniquely decomposable into an exact component and a multiple of the Kähler form. Therefore, the description of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0^L`$ given in 4.1(iii) now implies that

$$d\overline{\lambda }^L=\mathrm{\Psi }\overline{F}^{}d\overline{\lambda ^{}}^L$$
$`6`$
and hence

$$d\lambda ^L=\mathrm{\Psi }A^{}d\lambda ^{}^L$$
$`7`$
for the map $`A\text{SU}(m)\text{SU}(m)Q`$ which induces the isometry $`\overline{F}`$ of $`(L/T,g_0^T)=(P^{m1},a^2g_{\text{FS}})`$ (recall 4.1(iv)). Here $`\lambda ^L,\lambda ^{}^L`$ and $`\overline{\lambda }^L,\overline{\lambda ^{}}^L`$ denote the forms which $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\lambda },\overline{\lambda ^{}}`$ induce on $`L`$ and $`L/T`$, respectively. We are going to show that

$$j_{\mathrm{\Psi }(Z)}^{}=Aj_ZA^1$$
$`8`$
for all $`Z𝔷`$ in the case of forms of type 4, and

$$c_{\mathrm{\Phi }(Z)}^{}=Ec_ZE^1$$
$`9`$
for all $`Z𝔷`$ in the case of forms of type 5, where $`E:=\overline{F}|L/T\text{O}(3)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:=det(E)\mathrm{\Psi }\{\pm \mathrm{\Psi }\}`$. This will contradict the assumed nonequivalence of $`j`$ and $`j^{}`$ (resp. of $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$).

In the first case, we have for all $`(X,Z),(Y,W)T_{(p,q)}L=T_pS_a^{2m1}\times T_qS_b^1`$ and for $`k=1,2`$:

$`\lambda ^k(X,Z)`$ $`=a^2j_kp,Xj_kp,ipX,ip,\text{hence}`$
$`d\lambda ^k((X,Z),(Y,W))`$ $`=2a^2j_kX,Y2j_kX,ipY,ip+2j_kY,ipX,ip`$
$`2j_kp,ipiX,Y`$
$`=2a^2j_kX^h,Y^h2j_kp,ipiX,Y,`$
where $`j_k:=j_{Z_k}`$ and $`X^h`$ denotes the $`g_0`$@-orthogonal projection of $`X`$ to $`(ip)^{}`$. Let $`\epsilon _k\{\pm 1\}`$ be such that $`\mathrm{\Psi }(Z_k)=\epsilon _kZ_k`$ . Then one derives from equation 7:

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \epsilon _k(a^2j_k^{}(AX)^h,(AY)^hj_k^{}Ap,iApiAX,AY)\\ \hfill =a^2j_kX^h,Y^hj_kp,ipiX,Y\end{array}$$

for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`X,YT_pS_a^{2m1}`$. Since $`(AX)^h=AX^h`$ and since $`A`$ either commutes or anticommutes with $`i`$, we get, letting $`\tau _k:=\epsilon _kA^1j_k^{}Aj_k𝔰𝔲(m)`$:

$$a^2\tau _kX^h,Y^h\tau _kp,ipiX,Y=0.$$

In particular, we obtain for all $`pS_a^{2m1}`$ and all nonvanishing $`X\text{span}\{p,ip\}^{}`$, by letting $`Y:=iX`$:

$$\tau _kX,iX/|X|^2=\tau _kp,ip/|p|^2.$$

The hermitian map $`i\tau _k`$ must therefore be a scalar multiple of the identity, and $`\tau _k`$ be a scalar multiple of $`i\text{Id}`$. This implies $`\tau _k=0`$ because of $`\tau _k𝔰𝔲(m)`$; equation 8 now follows.

In the second case (namely, with $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ of type 5) we have

$$\overline{\lambda }^k(X)=a^3c_kx\times x,X$$

for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`XT_x(L/T)=T_xS_{a/2}^2`$ , where $`c_k:=c_{Z_k}`$ . The factor $`a^3`$ is due to the fact that if $`\pi :S_a^3S_{a/2}^2`$ denotes the Riemannian submersion, then for the projection $`P`$ as defined in 3.3.1 we have $`|P(p)|=a|\pi (p)|`$. We obtain

$`d\overline{\lambda }^k(X,Y)/a^3`$ $`=c_kX\times x+c_kx\times X,Yc_kY\times x+c_kx\times Y,X`$
$`=c_kX\times x,Y+2c_kx\times X,Yc_kY\times x,X`$
$`=c_kX\times x,Y+2c_kx\times X,Y+Y\times c_kx,X+Y\times x,c_kX`$
$`=3c_kx\times X,Y.`$
Note that in the third equation we have used $`\text{tr}(c_k)=0`$. Equation 6 now implies for $`\overline{F}|S_{a/2}^2=E\text{O}(3)`$:

$$\epsilon _kc_k^{}Ex\times EX,EY=c_kx\times X,Y$$

for $`k=1,2`$ and all $`X,YT_xS_{a/2}^2`$ , where $`\epsilon _k`$ is defined as above. Letting $`\tau _k:=\epsilon _kdet(E)E^1c_k^{}Ec_k\text{Sym}_0(^3)`$ we obtain

$$\tau _kx\times X,Y=0$$

for all $`X,Yx`$, which implies $`\tau _kxx`$ for all $`xS_{a/2}^2`$ . Since $`\tau _k`$ is symmetric, it must be zero; equation 9 now follows.

(ii) Suppose to the contrary that $`\lambda `$ does not have Property G; i.e., there is a $`1`$@-parameter family $`\overline{F}_t\overline{\text{Aut}}{}_{g_0}{}^{T}(M)`$ such that $`\overline{F}_t^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ . Proceeding as in the proof of (i) (in the special situation $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\text{Id}`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$) we now obtain $`1`$@-parameter families $`A_t\text{SU}(m)`$ (resp. $`E_t\text{SO}(3)`$) preserving $`d\lambda ^L`$ (resp. $`d\overline{\lambda }^L`$), and we derive that $`j_ZA_tj_ZA_t^1`$ (resp. $`c_ZE_tc_ZE_t^1`$) for each $`Z𝔷`$ (cp. 8, 9). But this contradicts the genericity assumption made on $`j`$ (resp. $`c`$). ∎

## §5 Isospectral metrics on spheres and balls which are equal to the standard metric on large subsets

The main idea of this section is to simultaneously multiply $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ by some smooth scalar function $`f`$ on the sphere (resp. the ball) which has small support but is chosen such that both isospectrality and nonisometry of the associated metrics $`g_{f\lambda }`$ and $`g_{f\lambda ^{}}`$ continue to hold.

The following observation is trivial.

### 5.1 Remark

In the context of Theorem 1.6, let $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ be two admissible $`𝔷`$@-valued $`1`$@-forms on $`M`$ which satisfy $``$. Let $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ be any function which is invariant under $`T`$ and under each of the isometries $`F_\mu `$ occurring in $``$. Then $`f\lambda `$ and $`f\lambda ^{}`$ are again admissible and satisfy $``$. In particular, $`(M,g_{f\lambda })`$ and $`(M,g_{f\lambda ^{}})`$ are isospectral.

###### 5.2 Proposition

Let $`(M,g_0)=S^{2m+1}^{2m}^2`$, resp. $`(M,g_0)=B^{2m+2}^{2m}^2`$. Choose any $`\phi C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1]^2)`$ which does not vanish identically; in case $`M=S^{2m+1}`$ we assume that $`\phi `$ does not vanish identically on the set $`\{(s,1s)s[0,1]\}`$. Let $`fC^{\mathrm{}}(M)`$ be defined by $`f(p,q):=\phi (|p|^2,|q|^2)`$ for $`(p,q)M^{2m}^2`$. Then under the assumptions of Proposition 3.2.5 (resp. 3.3.5) on the pair $`j,j^{}`$ (resp. $`c,c^{}`$) which defines $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ as in 4 (resp. 5), the manifolds $`(M,g_{f\lambda })`$ and $`(M,g_{f\lambda ^{}})`$ are isospectral and not isometric.

###### Demonstration Proof

The function $`f`$ is obviously invariant under the action of $`T=^2/`$ as defined in 3.1(iii). Moreover, $`f`$ is invariant under those $`F_\mu `$ occurring in the isospectrality proofs of Proposition 3.2.5 / 3.3.5: Recall that the $`F_\mu `$ used there were of the form $`(A_Z,\text{Id})`$ with $`A_Z\text{SO}(2m)`$. The isospectrality statement thus follows from Remark 5.1 above.

For the nonisometry proof we must only slightly modify Proposition 4.3 and its proof. In both statements of that proposition we replace each occurrence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{f\lambda }`$ , and similarly $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}`$ by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{f\lambda ^{}}`$ . In the proof, we now choose $`L:=M_{a,b}\widehat{M}`$ not arbitrarily, but such that $`C:=\phi (a^2,b^2)0`$. This is possible by the assumptions made on $`\phi `$. The forms induced by $`f\lambda `$$`f\lambda ^{}`$ on $`L`$ are then equal to the ones induced by $`C\lambda `$ and $`C\lambda ^{}`$, respectively. But replacing $`\lambda ^L,\lambda ^L`$ by $`C\lambda ^L,C\lambda ^L`$ does not afflict any of the subsequent arguments of the proof. Thus both statements of Proposition 4.3, modified as described, remain true. ∎

###### 5.3 Theorem

Let $`\epsilon >0`$ be given, and let $`m2`$. Then there exist nonisometric pairs of isospectral metrics on $`S^{2m+1}`$ whose volume element is the standard one and which are equal to the round standard metric outside a subset of volume smaller than $`\epsilon `$. For $`m3`$ there are even continuous families of such metrics. The analogous statements hold for $`B^{2m+2}`$ (with metrics which are both Dirichlet and Neumann isospectral ). The mentioned subset of small volume can be chosen as a tubular neighborhood around any of the submanifolds $`S_a^{2m1}\times S_b^1`$ with $`0a,b1`$ and $`a^2+b^2=1`$ (in the case of $`S^{2m+1}`$), resp. $`a^2+b^21`$ (in the case of $`B^{2m+2}`$).

###### Demonstration Proof

We can choose the function $`\phi C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1]^2)`$ in Proposition 5.2 such that its support is contained in a sufficiently small rectangle around $`(a^2,b^2)`$. Concerning the coincidence of the volume elements of $`g_0`$ and $`g_{f\lambda }`$ recall 1.5(iii). ∎