Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Spencer delta-cohomology, restrictions, characteristics and involutive symbolic PDEs

Boris Kruglikov, Valentin Lychagin

TL;DR

The paper extends the classical Guillemin–Quillen theory from first-order PDE systems to general symbolic systems of arbitrary order by refining notions of non-characteristicity (strong vs weak) and characteristicity. It develops a Spencer δ-cohomology framework and a Leray–Serre spectral sequence to relate the cohomology of a system g to that of its restriction bar{g} on a non-characteristic subspace, establishing precise decompositions and exact sequences under involutivity. A key contribution is showing that, for strongly non-characteristic restrictions, involutivity of g implies involutivity of bar{g} and provides a reverse implication in the pure-order case, along with a generalization of Guillemin’s theorems to higher-order systems. The work also introduces equivalent reductions er_k to first-order systems, analyzes descended systems ∂g, and supplies counterexamples to illuminate the necessity of hypotheses, culminating in a broad, cohesive extension of the classical theory to the multi-order, algebraic-symbolic setting.

Abstract

We generalize the notion of involutivity to systems of differential equations of different orders and show that the classical results due to Guillemin and Quillen relating involutivity, restrictions, characteristics and characteristicity, known for first order systems, extend to the general context, though in a modified form. This involves, in particular, a new definition of strong characteristicity. The proof exploits a spectral sequence relating Spencer delta-cohomology of a symbolic system and its restriction to a non-characteristic subspace.

Spencer delta-cohomology, restrictions, characteristics and involutive symbolic PDEs

TL;DR

The paper extends the classical Guillemin–Quillen theory from first-order PDE systems to general symbolic systems of arbitrary order by refining notions of non-characteristicity (strong vs weak) and characteristicity. It develops a Spencer δ-cohomology framework and a Leray–Serre spectral sequence to relate the cohomology of a system g to that of its restriction bar{g} on a non-characteristic subspace, establishing precise decompositions and exact sequences under involutivity. A key contribution is showing that, for strongly non-characteristic restrictions, involutivity of g implies involutivity of bar{g} and provides a reverse implication in the pure-order case, along with a generalization of Guillemin’s theorems to higher-order systems. The work also introduces equivalent reductions er_k to first-order systems, analyzes descended systems ∂g, and supplies counterexamples to illuminate the necessity of hypotheses, culminating in a broad, cohesive extension of the classical theory to the multi-order, algebraic-symbolic setting.

Abstract

We generalize the notion of involutivity to systems of differential equations of different orders and show that the classical results due to Guillemin and Quillen relating involutivity, restrictions, characteristics and characteristicity, known for first order systems, extend to the general context, though in a modified form. This involves, in particular, a new definition of strong characteristicity. The proof exploits a spectral sequence relating Spencer delta-cohomology of a symbolic system and its restriction to a non-characteristic subspace.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 10 sections, 23 theorems, 50 equations.

Key Result

Theorem A

\!\!\!{\text{.}} Let V^* be a strongly non-characteristic subspace for a symbolic system g. If g is involutive, then its W-restriction \bar{g} is also involutive. Moreover the Spencer cohomology of g and \bar{g} are related by the formula: where \delta^t_s is the Kronecker symbol. If \bar{g} is an involutive system of pure order k=r_\text{min}(\bar{g})=r_\text{max}(\bar{g}), then g is also an inv

Theorems & Definitions (38)

  • Theorem A
  • Theorem B
  • Definition 1
  • Proposition 1
  • Definition 2
  • Remark 2
  • Proposition 2
  • Proposition 3
  • Definition 3
  • Definition 4
  • ...and 28 more