Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider the 2-torus $T=S^1\times S^1$ with symplectic form $\omega=d\theta\wedge d\varphi$ and the vector field $X=\partial_\theta$. I wonder if $X$ is hamiltonian. In other words, is $\iota_X\omega$ exact on $T$?

By definition, we locally get $$ \iota_X\omega=\omega(X,-)=\omega(\partial_\theta,-)=d\varphi $$

How to show that this local relation fails globally on $T$? (and that $\iota_X\omega$ is not globally exact?)

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Remark: $\theta$ and $\varphi$ are regarded as the angle coordinates of $S^1 \subset \mathbb C$.

First we should recall that the 1-form $d\varphi$ is not the exterior derivative of $\varphi$ on $X$. Namely $\varphi$ is not defined on the whole space $T$. But it is defined on arbitrary simply connected open subset on $T$ (after choosing a branch).

For any exact 1-form $df$ (on $T$) and any closed curve $\gamma:[0,1] \to T$, we always have $$\int_{[0,1]} \gamma^*df = \int_{[0,1]} d(f \circ \gamma) = f(\gamma(1))-f(\gamma(0)) = 0.$$

On the other hand, considering the closed curve $\gamma(t):=(0,e^{2\pi t})$, we have $$\int_{[0,1]} \gamma^* d\varphi = \int_0^1 2\pi dt = 2\pi.$$ Therefore $d\varphi$ is not exact.

share|improve this answer
    
I slightly changed the 2nd sentence to make my explanation more suitable. –  H. Shindoh Feb 10 '13 at 22:47

Preliminaries

The mapping $ \theta \times \varphi: \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} \to (0,2 \pi) \times (0,2 \pi) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2} $ defined by $$ \forall (a,b) \in (0,2 \pi) \times (0,2 \pi): \quad (\theta \times \varphi) \left( e^{2 \pi ia},e^{2 \pi ib} \right) \stackrel{\text{def}}{=} (a,b) $$ is a homeomorphism. Hence, $ \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} $ is seen to be a smooth $ 2 $-dimensional manifold.


Main Discussion

The symplectic form $ \omega = d{\theta} \wedge d{\varphi} $ is, technically speaking, only defined on $ \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} $; we cannot immediately say that it is extendable to a symplectic form defined on all of $ \mathbb{T} $. The same must also be said of the vector field $ X = \partial_{\theta} $, which is only defined on $ \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} $.

Theorem 1 $ X $ is a Hamiltonian vector field on $ \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} $.

Proof: \begin{align} X(\bullet) &= {\partial_{\theta}}(\bullet) \\ &= (\partial_{\theta} \wedge \partial_{\varphi})(\bullet ~ \otimes d{\varphi}) \\ &= \Pi(\bullet ~ \otimes d{\varphi}) \\ &= {X_{\varphi}}(\bullet), \end{align} where $ \Pi $ is the bi-vector field that corresponds to $ \omega $. This immediately shows that $ X $ is the Hamiltonian vector field on $ \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} $ corresponding to $ \varphi $. $ \quad \spadesuit $

As shown by H. Shindoh, $ d{\varphi} $ cannot be extended to a vector field on all of $ \mathbb{T} $, otherwise we would obtain an exact form on $ \mathbb{T} $, which leads to a contradiction if we integrate a carefully chosen closed contour in $ \mathbb{T} $.

This leads us to the grand finalé.

Theorem 2 Although $ X $ is a Hamiltonian vector field on $ \mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \} $, it cannot be extended to a Hamiltonian vector field $ X_{f} $ on $ \mathbb{T} $.

Proof: Assume the contrary. Then we would have $$ d{f|_{\mathbb{T} \setminus \{ (1,1) \}}} = d{\varphi}, $$ which leads to the same contradiction as shown in H. Shindoh’s solution. $ \quad \spadesuit $

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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