Definition 2.1
WJULWe call (?), regarded as the “z-component” of a Pfaffian system (?), a weak isomonodromic family of differential systems, and Y(z,u) a weak isomonodromic family of fundamental matrix solutions.
Notes on Non-Generic Isomonodromy Deformations
- arXiv
- 1804.05688v5 · PDF · 26 August 2018
- Categories
- math.CA, math-ph, math.CV, math.MP
- Journal
- SIGMA 14 (2018), 087, 34 pages
- DOI
- 10.3842/SIGMA.2018.087
- Licence
- CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.
Abstract
Some of the main results of [Cotti G., Dubrovin B., Guzzetti D., Duke Math. J., to appear, arXiv:1706.04808], concerning non-generic isomonodromy deformations of a certain linear differential system with irregular singularity and coalescing eigenvalues, are reviewed from the point of view of Pfaffian systems, making a distinction between weak and strong isomonodromic deformations. Such distinction has a counterpart in the case of Fuchsian systems, which is well known as Schlesinger and non-Schlesinger deformations, reviewed in Appendix A.
Items 54
Lemma 2.2
VI7VLet \omega_0 be as in (?), let \omega_1,\dots,\omega_n be holomorphic of (z,u)\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), and A(u) holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). The integrability condition (?) implies that A satisfies
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial A}{\partial u_j}=[\omega_j(0,u),A], \qquad j=1,\dots,n,
\end{gathered}
and that the above is Frobenius integrable. Moreover, the system
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} G=\left(\sum_{j=1}^n \omega_j(0,u){\rm d} u_j\right) G
\end{gathered}
is Frobenius integrable.
Used by T
C
BQ54ondition (?) for \beta=0 and \alpha=j\geq 1 yields
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_j}
\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right)+\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right)\omega_j(z,u)=\frac{\partial \omega_j(z,u)}{\partial z}
+\omega_j(z,u)\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right).
\end{gathered}
Since \omega_j(z,u)=\omega(0,u)+ Taylor series in z, identification of the coefficients of z^{-1} yields (2.2). The condition (?) for \beta=i\geq 1 and \alpha=j\geq 1 is regular at z=0. In particular, for z=0 we have
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial \omega_i(0,u)}{\partial u_j}+\omega_i(0,u)\omega_j(0,u)=\frac{\partial \omega_j(0,u)}{\partial u_i}+\omega_j(0,u)\omega_i(0,u),\qquad i\neq j=1,\dots,n,
\end{gathered}
which is the Frobenius integrability condition for (2.2). It is also the integrability condition of (2.2). Indeed, let us compute (for brevity, we write \omega_j(0):=\omega_j(0,u))
\begin{gathered}
\partial_k[\omega_j(0),A]-\partial_j[\omega_k(0),A]= \bigr(\partial_k\omega_j(0) A+\omega_j(0)\partial_kA-\partial_kA \omega_j(0)-A\partial_k\omega_j(0)\bigr)\\
\qquad\quad{} -\bigl(\partial_j\omega_k(0) A+\omega_k(0)\partial_jA-\partial_jA \omega_k(0)-A\partial_j\omega_k(0)\bigr)\\
\qquad{} =\bigr(\partial_k\omega_j(0) A+\omega_j(0)[\omega_k(0)A-A\omega_k(0)]-[\omega_k(0)A-A\omega_k(0)] \omega_j(0)-A\partial_k\omega_j(0)\bigr)\\
\qquad\quad{} -\bigr(\partial_j\omega_k(0) A+\omega_k(0)[\omega_j(0)A-A\omega_j(0)]-[\omega_j(0)A-A\omega_j(0)] \omega_k(0)-A\partial_j\omega_k(0)\bigr)\\
\qquad{} =\bigl\{[\partial_k\omega_j(0)+\omega_j(0)\omega_k(0)]-[\partial_j\omega_k(0)+\omega_k(0)\omega_j(0)]\bigr\}A\\
\qquad\quad{} + A\bigl\{[\omega_k(0)\omega_j(0)-\partial_k\omega_j(0)]-[\omega_j(0)\omega_k(0)-\partial_j\omega_k(0)]\bigr\}.
\end{gathered}
The last expression is zero for any possible A if and only if (C) holds.
Proposition 2.3
1PBBLet \omega_0 be as in (?), let \omega_1,\dots,\omega_n be holomorphic of (z,u)\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), and A(u) holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Then, A(u) is holomorphically similar to a constant (i.e., independent of u) Jordan form J, namely there exists a holomorphic fundamental matrix G(u) of (2.2) on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), such that
\begin{gathered}
G(u)^{-1}A(u)G(u)=J.
\end{gathered}
In particular, this means that the weak isomonodromy deformation (?) is isospectral.
Uses Definition 2.1
T
5C16ake a fundamental matrix \tilde{G}(u) of (2.2), which is holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Then, using (2.2) and (2.2), we have
\begin{gathered}
\partial_j\big(\tilde{G}^{-1}A\tilde{G}\big)=\tilde{G}^{-1} A \partial_j \tilde{G}+\tilde{G}^{-1}\partial_jA \tilde{G}-\tilde{G}^{-1}\partial_j\tilde{G} \tilde{G}^{-1}A \tilde{G}\\
\hphantom{\partial_j\big(\tilde{G}^{-1}A\tilde{G}\big)}{} =\tilde{G}^{-1}A \omega_j(0,u) \tilde{G} +\tilde{G}^{-1}\partial_jA \tilde{G} -\tilde{G}^{-1}\omega_j(0,u) A \tilde{G}\\
\hphantom{\partial_j\big(\tilde{G}^{-1}A\tilde{G}\big)}{}=\tilde{G}^{-1}\left([A,\omega_j(0,u)]+\partial_jA\right)\tilde{G}=0.
\end{gathered}
This implies that \mathcal{A}:=\tilde{G}^{-1}A\tilde{G} is constant over \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), and it has a constant Jordan form J=\mathcal{G}^{-1}\mathcal{A}\mathcal{G} for some invertible matrix \mathcal{G}. Thus, the desired holomorphic matrix is G(u)=\tilde{G}(u)\mathcal{G}.
Uses Lemma 2.2
Proposition 2.4
GSWBLet A(u) be holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and \omega_1(z,u), \dots,\omega_n(z,u) be holomorphic on \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Then:
the Pfaffian system (?) admits fundamental matrix solutions in Levelt form (?)–(?);
the exponents D and L are constant;
the convergent series \eqref{3aprile2018-1} defines a holomorphic matrix valued function on \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big); equivalently, Y^{(0)}(z,u) is holomorphic on \mathcal{R}\times \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big).
=0pt
T
K0DThe Pfaffian system (?) is of Fuchsian type at z=0. Thus, we can apply the result of [Bolibruch0, YT]. In particular, by theorem 5 of [YT], there exists a gauge transformation
\begin{gathered}
Y=V(z,u) \widetilde{Y},
\end{gathered}
holomorphic in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and represented by a convergent matrix valued series
\begin{gathered}
V(z,u)=I+\sum_{k\colon k_1+\cdots +k_n>0} V_k z^{k_0}\big(u-u_1^0\big)^{k_1}\cdots \big(u-u_n^0\big)^{k_n}
\end{gathered}
(here k=(k_0,k_1,\dots,k_n) and V_k are matrices), such that
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d}\widetilde{Y}=\big[ \omega_0\big(z,u^0\big){\rm d} z\big] \widetilde{Y} \equiv \left[ \left(\frac{A\big(u^0\big)}{z}+\Lambda\big(u^0\big)\right){\rm d} z\right] \widetilde{Y}.
\end{gathered}
The above admits fundamental solutions in Levelt form
\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{Y}^{(0)}(z)=W(z) z^D z^L,\qquad W(z)=W_0 +\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty W_\ell z^\ell, \qquad \det(W_0)\neq 0,
\end{gathered}
which are independent of u (u^0 being fixed). Here, W(z) converges and defines a holomorphic function on \mathbb{C}. This means that
\begin{gathered}
Y^{(0)}(z,u):=V(z,u)W(z) \widetilde{Y}^{(0)}(z)
\end{gathered}
is a fundamental matrix solution of (?) in Levelt form, with constant exponents L and D. Moreover, V(z,u)W(z) is holomorphic on \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and its series representation can be rearranged as follows
\begin{gathered}
G(u) \left(I+\sum_{j=1}^\infty \Psi_j(u)z^j\right), \qquad G(u)= V(0,u)W_0.
\end{gathered}
Notice that G(u) puts A(u) in Jordan form. The proof above can be also deduced by directly applying Theorems 4 and 7 of [YT].
Used by P
Remark 2.5
9E6AFor the sake of computations, we can write L=\Sigma+N, where \Sigma=\Sigma_1\oplus \cdots \oplus \Sigma_\ell is diagonal, with \Sigma_q=\sigma_q I_{\dim (\Sigma_q)} (here I_{\dim (\Sigma_q)} stands for the identity matrix of dimension \dim (\Sigma_q)), while N=N_1\oplus \cdots \oplus N_\ell is nilpotent. Since \Sigma_q and N_q have the same dimension (q=1,\dots,\ell), we have
\begin{gathered}
[\Sigma,N]=0,
\end{gathered}
and thus
\begin{gathered}
z^D z^L=z^D z^\Sigma z^N = z^{D+\Sigma} z^N =z^{D+\Sigma}\sum_{\ell=0}^{\overline{k}} \frac{N^\ell}{\ell!} (\log z)^\ell,
\end{gathered}
for some finite \overline{k}.
Proposition 2.6
89NHConsider a completely integrable linear Pfaffian system
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y=\omega Y,\qquad \omega=\left(\Lambda+\frac{A(u)}{z}\right){\rm d} z+\sum_{j=1}^n \omega_j(z,u) {\rm d} u_j,
\end{gathered}
with A(u) holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and \omega_1(z,u), \dots,\omega_n(z,u) holomorphic on \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Let z=\infty be at most a pole of \omega_1,\dots,\omega_n. Then:
(A) each \omega_j(z,u) is linear in z and determined by A(u) up to an arbitrary holomorphic diagonal matrix \mathcal{D}_j(u) on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), with the following structure(Explicitly,
\begin{gathered}\left( \frac{A_{ab}(\delta_{aj}-\delta_{bj})}{u_a-u_b} \right)_{a,b=1}^n =\left( \begin{matrix} 0 & 0&\dfrac{ -A_{1j}}{u_1-u_j} & 0& 0 \\ 0 &0 &\vdots & 0& 0 \\ \dfrac{ A_{j1}}{u_j-u_1} & \cdots&0 & \cdots&\dfrac{ A_{jn}}{u_j-u_n} \\ 0 &0 &\vdots &0 & 0 \\ 0 &0 &\dfrac{ -A_{nj}}{u_n-u_j} & 0& 0 \end{matrix} \right) \end{gathered})\begin{gathered} \omega_j(z,u)= zE_j+\omega_j(0,u),\\ \omega_j(0,u):=\left( \frac{A_{ab}(u) (\delta_{aj}-\delta_{bj})}{u_a-u_b} \right)_{a,b=1}^n+ \mathcal{D}_j(u), \end{gathered}where \mathcal{D}_j(u) is obtained by differentiating a matrix \mathcal{D} on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), whose diagonal entries only depend on u:
\begin{gathered} \mathcal{D}_j(u)=\frac{\partial \mathcal{D}(u)}{\partial u_j}; \end{gathered}(B) A(u) satisfies (2.2)
\begin{gathered} \frac{\partial A}{\partial u_j}=[\omega_j(0,u),A],\qquad j=1,\dots,n; \end{gathered}(C) the above non-linear system is Frobenius integrable;
(D) the diagonal of A, namley the matrix B=\operatorname{diag}(A_{11},\dots,A_{nn}) in (?), is constant;
(E) given the relations (?) for a fundamental matrix Y(z,u) holomorphic on \mathcal{R}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), then each H_r satisfies(We have H_r(u)=\exp\{\operatorname{diag}({\mathcal{D}(u)})\} H_r^0, with H_r^0 a constant invertible matrix.)
\begin{gathered} \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}=\mathcal{D}_j(u)H_r\qquad \forall\, r\in\mathbb{Z}; \end{gathered}(F) from (E), it follows that H_r(u) is holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), and Y_r(z,u) extends holomorphically on \mathcal{R}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big).
=0pt
Remark 2.7
45B6In this paper, we have assumed that each \omega_j(z,u) is holomorphic at z=0. More generally, one may study a Pfaffian system with Laurent expansions at z=0
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(z,u)= \sum_{m=1}^{p_j}\frac{\omega_j^{(-m)}(u)}{z^m}+\sum_{m=0}^\infty \omega_j^{(m)}(u)z^m.
\end{gathered}
Here, we only remark that if A(u) is non-resonant for each u in the domain of interest (it means that the difference of two eigenvalues of A(u) cannot be a non-zero integer), then the Frobenius integrability conditions imply that \omega_j(z,u) is holomorphic at z=0, namely
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j^{(-p_j)}(u)=\omega_j^{(-p_j+1)}(u)=\cdots =\omega_j^{(-1)}(u)=0.
\end{gathered}
To see this, substitute the Laurent expansion into (C). We find the following recurrence relations:
From the negative powers of z:
\begin{gathered}
(A+p_j)\omega_j^{(-p_j)}-\omega_j^{(-p_j)}A=0; \\
(A+m)\omega^{(-m)}-\omega^{(-m)}A=\big[\omega^{(-m-1)},\Lambda\big],\qquad \text{for $m= p_j-1,p_j-2,\dots,1$}; \\
\frac{\partial A}{\partial u_j}=\big[\omega^{(0)},A\big]+\big[\omega^{(-1)},\Lambda\big].
\end{gathered}
From the power z^0:
\begin{gathered} A\omega_j^{(1)}-\omega_j^{(1)}A-\omega_j^{(1)}+E_j=\big[\omega_j^{(0)},\Lambda\big].
\end{gathered}
From the positive powers z:
\begin{gathered}
(A-m-1)\omega_j^{(m+1)}-\omega_j^{(m+1)}A=\big[\omega_j^{(m)},\Lambda\big], \qquad m\geq 1 .
\end{gathered}
If A is non-resonant, the Sylvester equation (?) determines \omega_j^{(-p_j)}=0, thus the Sylvester equations (?) yield \omega_j^{(-m)}=0, m= p_j-1,p_j-2,\dots,1. Moreover, the equations (?) determine \omega_j^{(m+1)} for m\geq 1 in terms of \omega_j^{(1)}. In particular, each \omega_j^{(m+1)}=0 if \omega_j^{(1)} is diagonal.
Finally, we notice that, independently of the resonance properties of A, equation (?) determines the off-diagonal entries of \omega_j^{(0)} in terms of \omega_j^{(1)}, to be
\begin{gathered}\big(\omega_j^{(0)}\big)_{ab}=(u_a-u_b)^{-1}\big(\big[\omega_j^{(1)},A\big]+\omega_j^{(1)}\big)_{ab}.\end{gathered}
Moreover, the diagonal part of (?) yields
\begin{gathered}\big(\omega_j^{(1)}\big)_{aa}=\delta_{ja}-\sum_{b\neq a}\big(\big(\omega_j^{(1)}\big)_{ab}A_{ba}-A_{ab}\big(\omega_j^{(1)}\big)_{ba}\big).\end{gathered}
Under the assumptions of Proposition 2.6, we find that \omega_j^{(1)}=E_j and \omega_j^{(m+1)}=0 for m\geq 1.
Uses Proposition 2.6
Definition 3.1
AGKXLet Y(z,u) be a weak isomonodromic family of fundamental matrix solutions of the Pfaffian system (?), or equivalenlty (2.6), with coefficients (?). We call (?) a strong isomonodromic family of differential systems, and Y(z,u) a strong isomonodromic family of fundamental solutions over \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), if for all r\in \mathbb{Z} the connection matrices H_r in (?) are independent of u, namely
\begin{gathered} {\rm d} H_r=0.
\end{gathered}
Uses Definition 2.1
Proposition 3.2
QQB8The deformation is strongly isomonodromic if and only if the fundamental matrices Y_r(z,u) of the differential system (?) also satisfy the Pfaffian system (2.6)
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y_r=\omega Y_r, \qquad \forall \, r\in\mathbb{Z},\end{gathered}
being the coefficients
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(z,u)= zE_j+[F_1,E_j] \equiv zE_j+\left( \frac{A_{ab}(u)(\delta_{aj}-\delta_{bj})}{u_a-u_b} \right)_{a,b=1}^n.
\end{gathered}
Used by F
O
JYQ0bvious. We have
\begin{gathered}
\omega ={\rm d} Y Y^{-1}={\rm d} Y_r Y_r^{-1}+ Y_r {\rm d} H_r H_r^{-1}Y_r^{-1}.
\end{gathered}
Therefore, {\rm d} Y_r Y_r^{-1}=\omega if and only if {\rm d} H_r=0. Since {\rm d} H_r=0, then \mathcal{D}_j=0 in Proposition 2.6, so that \omega_j is (3.2).
Uses Proposition 2.6
Definition 3.3
2LD4The matrices \mathbb{S}_r, B, D, L, C_r (r\in \mathbb{Z}) are called the essential monodromy data associated with the fundamental matrix solutions Y_r(z,u) and Y^{(0)}(z,u) of the system (?). In view of (?) and (?), it suffices to consider the data
\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{S}_0, \ \mathbb{S}_1, \ B, \ D, \ L, \ C_0.
\end{gathered}
or equivalently, for some fixed value of r,
\begin{gathered}
\mathbb{S}_r, \ \mathbb{S}_{r+1}, \ B, \ D, \ L, \ C_r.
\end{gathered}
Proposition 3.4
O7FCA deformation is strongly isomonodromic as in Definition 3.1 if and only if
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} \mathbb{S}_r={\rm d} \mathbb{S}_{r+1}=0, \qquad {\rm d} C_r=0,
\end{gathered}
for one value of r\in\mathbb{Z}.
F (Proof of Proposition 3.4)
FO2Oor a weak isomonodromic deformation D, L and B are constant (Propositions 2.4 and 2.6), so we have nothing to prove about them.
\bullet Suppose that the deformation is strong, so that {\rm d} Y_r=\omega Y_r by Proposition 3.2. We prove that {\rm d} C_r=0 for any r. Indeed
\begin{aligned}
\omega ={\rm d} Y_rY_r^{-1}&={\rm d} Y^{(0)} \big(Y^{(0)}\big)^{-1}+Y^{(0)} {\rm d} C_r C_r^{-1} \big(Y^{(0)}\big)^{-1}\\
& = \omega +Y^{(0)} {\rm d} C_r C_r^{-1} \big(Y^{(0)}\big)^{-1} \quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad {\rm d} C_r=0.
\end{aligned}
We prove that {\rm d} \mathbb{S}_r=0. Invoking again Proposition 3.2, we have
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j= \frac{\partial Y_{r+1}}{\partial u_j} Y_{r+1}^{-1}=\frac{\partial Y_{r}}{\partial u_j} Y_{r}^{-1} +
Y_{r}\frac{\partial \mathbb{S}_r}{\partial u_j} \mathbb{S}_r^{-1}Y_{r}^{-1}
=\omega_j+ Y_{r}\frac{\partial \mathbb{S}_r}{\partial u_j} \mathbb{S}_r^{-1}Y_{r}^{-1}
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad
\frac{\partial \mathbb{S}_r}{\partial u_j}=0.
\end{gathered}
\bullet Conversely, we assume that {\rm d} \mathbb{S}_0={\rm d} \mathbb{S}_1={\rm d} B={\rm d} C_0={\rm d} L=0, and that D is constant. First, we see that {\rm d} \mathbb{S}_r=0 and {\rm d} C_r=0 for any r, by formulae (?) and (?). By virtue of Proposition 3.2, it suffices to show that {\rm d} Y_r=\omega Y_r for any r. By construction \partial_zY_r=\omega_0(z,u)Y_r, which is the differential system (?), so it suffices to show that \partial_j Y_r=\omega_j Y_r, j=1,\dots,n. Since {\rm d} C_0=0 and each {\rm d} \mathbb{S}_r=0, we have
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y^{(0)}\big(Y^{(0)}\big)^{-1} = {\rm d} Y_0 Y_0^{-1}=\cdots= {\rm d} Y_r Y_r^{-1}={\rm d} Y_{r+1}Y_{r+1}^{-1}=\cdots \qquad \forall\, r\in \mathbb{Z}.
\end{gathered}
Moreover, Y^{(0)} is a weak isomonodromic family, so that {\rm d} Y^{(0)}=\omega Y^{(0)}, where \omega is (2.6) with components (?), namely
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(z,u)=zE_j+[F_1(u),E_j]+\mathcal{D}_j(u).
\end{gathered}
Thus, by (?), each Y_r also satisfies
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y_r= \omega Y_r,\qquad\forall\, r.
\end{gathered}
We need to prove that \mathcal{D}_j(u)=0. At z=\infty, using the fact that dB=0 and \partial_j\Lambda=E_j, we have for any r\in \mathbb{Z}
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j=\frac{\partial Y_r}{\partial u_j}Y_r^{-1}=\frac{\partial \widehat{Y}_r}{\partial u_j}\widehat{Y}_r^{-1} +z\widehat{Y}_r E_j \widehat{Y}_r ^{-1}= zE_j +[F_1,E_j]+\mathcal{O}\big(z^{-1}\big).
\end{gathered}
The above \mathcal{O}(z^{-1}) stands for an asymptotic expansion in \mathcal{S}_r(\overline{\mathbb{D}^\prime}), given for any r by the same series in z^{-1}. Since \omega_j is single valued in z, then \mathcal{O}(z^{-1}) is a convergent Taylor series at z=\infty. Thus, \omega_j-zE_j-[F_1,E_j] is holomorphic both at z=0 and z=\infty, and it vanishes as z\to \infty. Hence, by Liouville theorem,
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j =zE_j+[F_1,E_j],
\end{gathered}
with \mathcal{D}_j=0. The equality extends from \mathbb{D}^\prime to \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) by analiticity.
Lemma 4.1
6EL6Consider the Pfaffian system (?)–(?), with A(u) holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big). Let \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) be compactly contained in a \widetilde{\tau}-cell. Assume that the Frobenius integrability holds on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and that the \omega_j(z,u) are holomorphic on \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), with z=\infty being at most a pole, so that Proposition 2.6 holds on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and (?)–(?) becomes system (2.6) with coefficients (?) on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Then, the following statements are true:
i) The coefficients \omega_j(z,u) in (?) extend holomorphically on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) if and only if \mathcal{D}_j(u) is holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) and the following vanishing conditions hold in \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big):
\begin{gathered} A_{ij}(u)=\mathcal{O}(u_i-u_j)\qquad \text{whenever $u_i-u_j\to 0$ at a point of $\Delta$}. \end{gathered}In this case, the system (2.6), (?) is Frobenius integrable on the whole \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big).
ii) A fundamental matrix solution Y(z,u) exists holomorphic on \mathcal{R}\times \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) if and only if (4.1) holds.
=0pt
T
4SK7he statement follows simply by recalling that, by Proposition 2.6, for u\in\mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) we have (?), namely
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(z,u)= zE_j+\left( \frac{A_{ab}(\delta_{aj}-\delta_{bj})}{u_a-u_b} \right)_{a,b=1}^n+\mathcal{D}_j(u),
\end{gathered}
so that if u_i-u_j\to 0, the condition A_{ij}\to 0 guarantees analyticity on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big). The integrability condition (?) then holds by analytic continuation from \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) to \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big). The last statement concerning Y(z,u) follows from the fact that if (4.1) holds, then the Pfaffian system is integrable and linear on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) with holomorphic (in u) coefficients. Conversely, if a fundamental matrix Y(z,u) exists holomorphic on \mathcal{R}\times \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big), then \omega={\rm d} YY^{-1} has coefficients holomorphic in u on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big), which implies (4.1).
Corollary 4.2
L2ONUnder the assumptions of Lemma 4.1, A(u) is holomorphically similar to a constant Jordan form J on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big), and there exists an isomonodromic family of fundamental solutions Y^{(0)}(z,u) in Levelt form (?)–(?), holomorphic on \mathcal{R}\times \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big), with constant L and D, if and only if A_{ij}(u)=\mathcal{O}(u_i-u_j) for u_i-u_j\to 0 at \Delta.
Uses Lemma 4.1
Proposition 4.3
LJG4Let A(u) be holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big). For any z\in\mathcal{R}, the fundamental matrices Y_r(z,u), r\in\mathbb{Z}, of a differential system (?) or (?), not necessarily isomonodromic, defined on \mathbb{D}^\prime\subset \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) (on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), in the isomonodromic case) can be analytically continued w.r.t. u on the whole \widetilde{\tau}-cell containing u^0, maintaining the asymptotics (?). The asymptotics is uniform in any compact subset K of the cell, for z\to \infty in the following sector
\begin{gathered}\mathcal{S}_r(K):=\bigcap_{u\in K}\mathcal{S}_r(u).\end{gathered}
Moreover, the analytic continuation – maintaining for each u the asymptotics in \mathcal{S}_r(u) – exists along any curve slightly beyond the boundary of the cell, if the curve crosses the boundary at a point corresponding to just one Stokes ray crossing \arg z=\widetilde{\tau} (simple crossing).
Proposition 4.4
T5QLIn case of strong isomonodromy deformations, the fundamental matrices Y_r(z,u) extend to holomorphic functions on \mathcal{R}\times\mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) if and only if the vanishing conditions (4.1) hold.
Used by P
Proposition 4.5
90HZLet A(u) be holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) and assume that the vanishing conditions (4.1) hold in \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big). Then, in case of strong isomonodromic deformations, the coefficients F_k(u), k\geq 1, of the formal solution Y_F(z,u) are holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big).
Used by P
T
MDS9he coefficients F_k(u) are computed recursively from (?). This standard computation yields coefficients depending rationally on A(u) and on the differences (u_i-u_j), which appear in the denominators, as in (?). In particular (?) holds:
\begin{gathered}(F_1)_{ij}(u)=\frac{A_{ij}(u)}{u_j-u_i}, \qquad i\neq j, \qquad (F_1)_{ii}(u)=-\sum_{j\neq i}A_{ij}(u)(F_1)_{ji}(u).
\end{gathered}
Thus, if (4.1) holds, F_1(u) is holomorphic in \mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}\big(u^C\big). By Proposition 4.3, the asymptotic expansion is uniform in compact subsets of a cell, so we can substitute it into \partial_iY=\omega_i Y (with \omega_i as in (3.2)), compare coefficients of z^{-l} and find
\begin{gathered}
[F_{l+1}(u),E_i]=[F_1(u),E_i]F_l(u)-\partial_i F_l(u),\qquad l\geq 1,
\end{gathered}
with
\begin{gathered}
[F_{l+1}(u),E_i ]=\left(
\begin{matrix}
0 & & (F_{l+1})_{1i} & & 0
\\
& & \vdots & &
\\
-(F_{l+1})_{i1} & \cdots & 0 & \cdots & -(F_{l+1})_{in}
\\
& & \vdots &
\\
0 & & (F_{l+1})_{ni} & & 0
\end{matrix}
\right).
\end{gathered}
Moreover, \operatorname{diag}(F_{l+1}) is determined by
\begin{gathered}
l (F_{l+1})_{ii}(u)=-\sum_{j\neq i}A_{ij}(u)(F_l)_{ji}(u).
\end{gathered}
Therefore, (T)–(T) recursively determines F_{l+1} as a function of F_l, F_{l-1}, \dots, F_1. Since F_1 is holomorphic when conditions (4.1) hold, by induction all the F_{l+1}(u) are holomorphic.
Remark 4.6
L9BAProposition 4.5 holds only in the strong isomonodromic case. In the non-isomonodromic case the vanishing conditions (4.1) only guarantee that F_1(u) is holomorphic. In order for F_1, F_2, \dots, F_l to be holomorphic up to a certain l, also the following quantities
\begin{gathered}\bigl( A_{ii}-A_{jj}+k-1 \bigr)(F_{k-1})_{ij}+\sum_{p\neq i}A_{i p}(F_{k-1})_{p j},
\qquad 2\leq k \leq l,\end{gathered}
must vanish when u_i-u_j\to 0. The above, which follow from (?)–(?), are conditions on the entries of A, since the F_k are determined by A.
Theorem 4.7
4RGSConsider the differential system (?), with coefficients A(u), A_j(u) holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big), where \epsilon is specified as above. Assume that all the F_k(u) are holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big). Moreover, assume that the fundamental matrices
\begin{gathered}Y_r(z,u) =\widehat{Y}_r(z,u) z^{B(u)}e^{z\Lambda},
\end{gathered}
which are holomorphic on a \widetilde{\tau}-cell by Proposition 4.3, admit analytic continuation on the whole \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) as single valued holomorphic functions of u, for any r\in \mathbb{Z} and z fixed. Then the following results hold.
The asymptotic representation of Y_r(z,u) in terms of the formal matrix
\begin{gathered} Y_F(z,u)=F(z,u)z^{B(u)}e^{z\Lambda},\end{gathered}extends beyond the \widetilde{\tau}-cell, namely
\begin{gathered} \widehat{Y}_r(z,u)\sim F(z,u)= I+\sum_{k=1}^\infty F_k(u) z^{-k}, \qquad z\to \infty \text{ in } \widehat{\mathcal{S}}_r, \end{gathered}uniformly in every compact subset of \mathcal{U}_{\epsilon_1}\big(u^C\big) for every \epsilon_1<\epsilon. Moreover, for any r\in\mathbb{Z} the Stokes matrix \mathbb{S}_r(u) relating Y_r(z,u) and Y_{r+1}(z,u) satisfies
\begin{gathered} (\mathbb{S}_r)_{ij}=(\mathbb{S}_r)_{ji}=0 \qquad \text{for $i$, $j$ such that } u_i^C=u_j^C. \end{gathered}The system (?) at fixed u=u^C, namely
\begin{gathered} \frac{{\rm d} Y}{{\rm d} z}=\left(\Lambda\big(u^C\big) +\frac{A\big(u^C\big)}{z}+\sum_{j=2}^\infty \frac{A_j\big(u^C\big)}{z^j}\right) Y, \end{gathered}has formal solutions with the following structure (Without the assumptions of the theorem, the formal solutions have a more complicated structure. See [BJL2, BJL3] for a general theory, and [CDG] for the specific case here studied.)
\begin{gathered} \mathring{Y}_F(z)=\mathring{F}(z) z^{B(u^C)}e^{z\Lambda(u^C)}, \end{gathered}where \mathring{F}(z)=I+ \sum\limits_{f=1}^\infty \mathring{F}_Kz^{-k} is a formal series and B\big(u^C\big)=\operatorname{diag}\big(A_{11}\big(u^C\big),\dots,A_{nn}\big(u^C\big)\big).
The solution \mathring{Y}_F(z) is unique if and only if the diagonal entries of A\big(u^C\big) do not differ by non-zero integers; otherwise, there is a family of formal solutions \mathring{Y}_F(z).
For any fixed formal solution \mathring{Y}_F(z) of (?), there are unique actual solutions
\begin{gathered} \mathring{Y}_r(z)=\mathring{\widehat{Y}}_r(z) z^{B(u^C)}e^{z\Lambda(u^C)},\qquad r\in \mathbb{Z}, \end{gathered}such that
\begin{gathered} \mathring{\widehat{Y}}_r(z)\sim \mathring{F}(z) \qquad\text{for } z\to \infty \text{ in } \widehat{\mathcal{S}}_r\big(u^C\big). \end{gathered}In particular, there exists a formal solution \mathring{Y}_F(z) of (?) satisfying
\begin{gathered} \mathring{Y}_F(z)=Y_F\big(z,u^C\big). \end{gathered}The corresponding unique actual solutions \mathring{Y}_r(z) satisfy
\begin{gathered} \mathring{Y}_r(z)= \lim_{u\to u_c}Y_r(z,u)\equiv Y_r\big(z,u^C\big). \end{gathered}Let \mathring{\mathbb{S}}_r be the Stokes matrices of the above solutions \mathring{Y}_r(z). Then,
\begin{gathered} \lim_{u\to u_c} \mathbb{S}_r(u)=\mathring{\mathbb{S}}_r. \end{gathered}
=0pt
Remark 4.8
AA10We use the notation \mathring{Y}, \mathring{F}, \mathring{\mathbb{S}}, etc., for objects Y, F, \mathbb{S}, etc, relative to the system at u=u^C, such as (?) above and (?) below.
Theorem 4.9
9D9ULet A(u) be holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) and \epsilon small as specified above. If the system
\begin{gathered}
\partial_z Y=\left(\Lambda+\frac{A(u)}{z}\right)Y.
\end{gathered}
is strongly isomonodromic on a polydisk interior to a \widetilde{\tau}-cell and the vanishing conditions (4.1) hold, then:
a) the coefficients of the unique formal solution Y_F(z,u)=F(z,u)z^Be^{z\Lambda} are holomorphic on \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big), and the corresponding actual solutions Y_r(z,u) extend holomorphically on \mathcal{R}\times \mathcal{U}_{\epsilon}\big(u^C\big), maintaining the asymptotics
\begin{gathered} \widehat{Y}_r(z,u)\sim F(z,u) \qquad \text{for $z\to\infty$ in $\widehat{\mathcal{S}}_r$}, \end{gathered}uniformly in every compact subset of \mathcal{U}_{\epsilon_1}\big(u^C\big) (\forall\, \epsilon_1<\epsilon).
b) For any r, the essential monodromy data \mathbb{S}_r, \mathbb{S}_{r+1}, B, L, D and C_r are constant on the whole \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) and satisfy
\begin{gathered} (\mathbb{S}_r)_{ij}=(\mathbb{S}_{r+1})_{ij}=(\mathbb{S}_r)_{ji}=(\mathbb{S}_{r+1})_{ji}=0 \qquad \text{for $i$, $j$ such that } u_i^C=u_j^C. \end{gathered}c) They coincide with a set of essential monodromy data of
\begin{gathered} \partial_z Y=\left(\Lambda\big(u^C\big)+\frac{A\big(u^C\big)}{z}\right)Y. \end{gathered}in the following way. Take the formal solution \mathring{Y}_F(z) of (?) satisfying
\begin{gathered} \mathring{Y}_F(z)=Y_F\big(z,u^C\big) \end{gathered}and the associated actual solutions \mathring{Y}_r(z), with Stokes matrices \mathring{\mathbb{S}}_r. Then, choose a fundamental matrix solution of (?) in Levelt form
\begin{gathered} \mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z)= \mathring{\widehat{Y}}(z)z^D z^{\mathring{L}}, \end{gathered}and take the corresponding connection matrix \mathring{C}_r such that
\begin{gathered}\mathring{Y}_r(z)=\mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z) \mathring{C}_r.\end{gathered}Then, there exists a fundamental matrix Y^{(0)}(z,u) of (4.9) in Levelt form such that the essential monodromy data of (4.9) on the whole \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^C\big) are
\begin{gathered}B,\quad \mathbb{S}_r=\mathring{\mathbb{S}}_r, \quad \mathbb{S}_{r+1}=\mathring{\mathbb{S}}_{r+1} , \quad C_r=\mathring{C}_r , \quad L=\mathring{L}, \quad D.\end{gathered}d) If the diagonal entries of A(u^c) do not differ by non-zero integers, then there is a unique formal solution \mathring{Y}_F(z) which necessarily satisfies \mathring{Y}_F(z)=Y_F\big(z,u^C\big).
=0pt
Used by Remark 4.10
P
FE7Hoints a), b), c) follow from Propositions 4.4 and 4.5, Theorem 4.7 and Corollary 4.2. We only need to justify that given a fundamental matrix \mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z) of (?) in Levelt form (?), there exists a fundamental matrix Y^{(0)}(z,u) of {\rm d} Y=\omega(z,u) Y in Levelt form (namely an isomonodromic fundamental matrix of (4.9)), such that
\begin{gathered}Y^{(0)}\big(z,u^C\big)=\mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z).\end{gathered}
To this end, recall the proof of Proposition 2.4, with the replacements u\mapsto u^C and \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) \mapsto \mathcal{U}_\epsilon\big(u^0\big) (this becomes the proof of Corollary 4.2). The gauge transformation (T)
\begin{gathered}
Y=V(z,u) \widetilde{Y},\qquad V\big(z,u^C\big)=I,
\end{gathered}
transforms the Pfaffian system to a differential system (T) in variable z only, with u^0 replaced by u^C, namely
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d}\widetilde{Y}= \left[ \left(\frac{A\big(u^C\big)}{z}+\Lambda\big(u^C\big)\right){\rm d} z\right] \widetilde{Y},\qquad {\rm d} \equiv \frac{\partial }{\partial z} {\rm d} z.
\end{gathered}
This is exactly (?). A fundamental solution \mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z) in Levelt form (?) is actually a solution (T), namely
\begin{gathered}
\mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z)=W(z) z^D z^{\mathring{L}},\qquad W(z)=W_0 +\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty W_\ell z^\ell, \qquad \det(W_0)\neq 0.
\end{gathered}
Thus, we conclude from (T) that
\begin{gathered}
Y^{(0)}(z,u)= V(z,u) \mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z), \qquad Y^{(0)}\big(z,u^C\big)= \mathring{Y}^{(0)}(z).
\end{gathered}
Point d) follows from the recursive computation of the coefficients \mathring{F}_k in
\begin{gathered}
\mathring{Y}_F(z)=\left(I+ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \mathring{F}_kz^{-k} \right)z^{B(u^C)}e^{z \Lambda(u^C)}.
\end{gathered}
For 1\leq \ell \neq s \leq n such that u_\ell^C=u_s^C, one finds at step k that (recall that \operatorname{diag}(A(u))=B is constant)
\begin{gathered}
(A_{\ell\ell}-A_{ss}+k)(\mathring{F}_k)_{\ell s}= \text{known expression from previous steps}.
\end{gathered}
This implies that if A_{\ell\ell}-A_{ss}+k is different from zero for every k\geq 1, then all the \mathring{F}_k are uniquely recursively determined. For the detailed formulae of the recursion, see [CDG, Section 4].
Remark 4.10
7HAWWhen applying Theorem 4.9 as explained above, among the possible formal solutions \mathring{Y}_F(z) of (?), we need precisely the one satisfying \mathring{Y}_F(z)=Y_F\big(z,u^C\big). The fact that we do not have this information without knowing already Y_F(z,u) may constitute a difficulty. Fortunately, the problem does not arise when the diagonal entries of A\big(u^C\big) do not differ by non-zero integers, because in this case (?) only has the unique formal solution \mathring{Y}_F(z)=Y\big(z,u^C\big). In applications to Frobenius manifolds, discussed in [CDG, CDG1, C-et-all, Eretico2], we are in this good situation. Notice that the Stokes matrices are completely determined by (?) in this case.(Since the choice of a solution in Levelt form is not unique, there may be a freedom in the data C_r, D, L. Only the Stokes matrices are uniquely determined.)
Uses Theorem 4.9
Remark 4.11
7DE7For a system analogous to (?), associated with a semisimple Frobenius manifold, where A(u) is skew symmetric, a synthetic proof is given in [GGI] that a fundamental matrix solution asymptotic to the formal solution in a sector of central opening angle \pi+\varepsilon (the analogous to our Y_r(z,u)\sim Y_F(z,u)) is holomorphic in a small neighbourhood of a coalescence point u^C. This result, in case of Frobenius manifolds, is analogous of the first point of Theorem 4.9. The proof in [GGI] is based on the Laplace transformation of the irregular system into an isomonodromic Fuchsian system, whose associated Pfaffian system is of Fuchsian type and has the good analyticity properties discussed in [YT].
Definition A.1
RMABThe family of systems (?) is weakly isomonodromic if there exists a family of fundamental matrix solutions Y(z,u) having the same monodromy matrices for all u\in \mathbb{D}(u_0). This family Y(z,u) is called a weak isomonodromic family of fundamental matrices.
Uses Definition 2.1
Proposition A.2
SJVUIf (?) is weakly isomonodromic, then there exists an isomonodromic family of fundamental matrices Y(z,u) which is holomorphic in z and u on the universal covering of \mathcal{E}.
Used by C
Theorem A.3
NAR6The u-family of Fuschsian systems (?) is weakly isomonodromic if and only if there exists a matrix valued 1-form \omega, holomorphic on \mathcal{E}, such that
1) for any fixed u\in \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) we have
\begin{gathered}\omega|_{u} = \sum_{i=1}^N\frac{A_i(u)}{z-u_i} {\rm d} z;\end{gathered}2) {\rm d}\omega=\omega\wedge \omega.
=0pt
C
X0O2ondition 2) is the Frobenius integrability condition for the Pfaffian system {\rm d} Y=\omega Y. Condition 1) assures that the z part of the Pfaffian system is the Fuchsian system (?). If the deformation is isomonodromic, then by Proposition A.2 there is a holomorphic family Y(z,u) and as in the case of (?)–(?), we see that \omega={\rm d} Y Y^{-1} is single valued and holomorphic on \mathcal{E}. This also implies that the Pfaffian system is integrable, then 2) holds. Conversely, if 2) holds, then by the general properties of linear Pfaffian systems there exist a solution Y, holomorphic on the universal covering of \mathcal{E}, whose monodromy – as in (?)–(?) – is independent of u.
Uses Proposition A.2
Proposition A.4
3SWUConsider the Pfaffian system
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y=\left(\sum_{i=1}^N\frac{A_i(u)}{z-u_i}{\rm d} (z-u_i)+\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_i(u){\rm d} u_i\right)Y,
\end{gathered}
where the matrices A_i(u) and \gamma_i(u) are holomorphic in \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Then each A_i(u) is holomorphically similar to a constant Jordan form J_i. Namely, there exists G_i(u) holomorphic in \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) such that J_i=G_i(u)^{-1}A_i(u)G_i(u) is Jordan and independent of u. In particular, the spectrum of each A_i(u) is independent of u, so that a Schlesinger isomonodromic deformation is isospectral.
S
X8SKuppose we want to prove that J_1=G_1(u)^{-1}A_1(u)G_1(u) is independent of u. As far as the local behaviour around z-u_1=0 is concerned, (A.4) can be rewritten as
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y=\left(\frac{P_0(x,u)}{x}{\rm d} x+\sum_{i=1}^N P_i(x,u){\rm d} u_i\right) Y,
\end{gathered}
where the N+1 independent variables are x:=z-u_1; u_1, u_2,\dots,u_N. Each P_k(x,u), for k=0,1,\dots,N, is holomorphic in a neighbourhood of x=z-u_1=0. Explicitly
\begin{gathered}
\frac{P_0}{x}= \frac{A_1(u)}{x}+\sum_{j=2}^N\frac{A_j(u)}{x-(u_j-u_1)},\\
\sum_{i=1}^NP_i {\rm d} u_i= \sum_{j=2}^N\frac{A_j(u)}{x-(u_j-u_1)}({\rm d} u_1-{\rm d} u_j)+\sum_{j=1}^N\gamma_j(u){\rm d} u_j.
\end{gathered}
So, the proof repeats the arguments of the proofs of Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 2.3.
Lemma A.5
DHEAL_i(u) and C_i(u) can be taken holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), so that also each \widehat{Y}_i(z,u) depends holomorphically on u.
Lemma A.6
QLXYFor a weak isomonodromic deformation of a Fuchsian system, the diagonal of L_i(u) is constant and D_i is constant, so that the eigenvalues of each A_i(u) do not depend on u.
Uses Definition 2.1
W
KR4Ve rewrite (?) as
\begin{gathered}
Y(z,u)= \widehat{Y}_i(z,u) (z-u_i)^{D_i}C_i(u)(z-u_i)^{\mathcal{L}_i},\\
\mathcal{L}_i:=C_i(u)^{-1}L_i(u)C_i(u)\equiv \frac{1}{2\pi i } \log M_i, \qquad 0\leq \operatorname{Re} (\text{Eigenvls of }\mathcal{L}_i)<1.
\end{gathered}
Since {\rm d} M_i=0, then {\rm d}\mathcal{L}_i=0. Hence, the eigenvalues \sigma_q^{(i)} of L_i(u) are constant. Now, the eigenvalues \lambda_{q,s}^{(i)}(u)=\sigma_q^{(i)}+d_{q,s}^{(i)} of A_i(u) are continuous, being A_i(u) continuous, so the integers d_{q,s}^{(i)} are constant.
Lemma A.7
NSTLIf the deformation is Schlesinger, i.e., \omega=\omega_s, or its non-normalized version (?), then C_i and L_i are constant.
W
AH4Ze prove that L_1 and C_1 are constant, being the other cases analogous. The Pfaffian system is rewritten in the form (S)–(S). Then, by [YT, Theorem 5], there exists a gauge transformation
\begin{gathered}
Y=V(x,u)\widetilde{Y},
\end{gathered}
holomorphic in a neighbourhood of (x,u)=(0,u^0), given by a convergent series
\begin{gathered}
V(x,u)=I+\sum_{k_1+\cdots +k_N>0} V_k x^{k_0}\big(u_1-u_1^0\big)^{k_1}\cdots\big(u_N-u_N^0\big)^{k_N} ,
\end{gathered}
with k=(k_0,k_1,\dots,k_N), such that the Pfaffian system is transformed to
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} \widetilde{Y}=
\left(\frac{P_0(0,u^0)}{x}{\rm d} x\right) \widetilde{Y} \equiv \left[ \left(\frac{A_1\big(u^0\big)}{x}+\sum_{j=2}^N\frac{A_j\big(u^0\big)}{x-\big(u_j^0-u_1^0\big)}\right) {\rm d} x\right] \widetilde{Y}.
\end{gathered}
Thus, \widetilde{Y} satisfies an n\times n Fuchsian system in variable x, independent of parameters (being u^0 fixed), so that there is a fundamental matrix solutions in Levelt form at x=0, independent of u,
\begin{gathered}
\widetilde{Y}_1(x):=W(x) x^{D_1} x^{L_1} ,\qquad W(x) = W_0+\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty W_\ell x^\ell,
\end{gathered}
the series being convergent and holomorphic at x=0. Hence, there is a fundamental matrix solution of the initial system of the form
\begin{gathered}
Y_1(z,u) =V(x,u) W(x) x^{D_1} x^{L_1} \equiv \widehat{Y}_1(z,u) (z-u_1)^{D_1}(z-u_1)^{L_1},
\end{gathered}
where
\begin{gathered}
\widehat{Y}_1(z,u):= V(x,u) W(x) |_{x=z-u_1}\\
= \left(I+\sum_{k_1+\cdots +k_N>0} V_k (z-u_1)^{k_0}\big(u_1-u_1^0\big)^{k_1}\cdots\big(u_N-u_N^0\big)^{k_N}\right) \left(W_0+\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty W_\ell (z-u_1)^\ell\right).
\end{gathered}
The latter can be rewritten as a convergent saries at z=u_1 with coefficients holomorphic in u:
\begin{gathered}
\widehat{Y}_1(z,u)=G_1(u) \left(I+\sum_{\ell=1}^\infty \Psi_\ell(u)(z-u_1)^\ell\right),\qquad G_1(u)=V(0,u)W_0.
\end{gathered}
Notice that G_1(u) puts A_1(u) in Jordan form as in Proposition A.4. The proof is concluded observing that Y_1(z,u) solves the initial Pfaffian system, so that also Y(z,u)=Y_1(z,u)C_1 is a fundamental solution if and only if C_1 is constant. The proof can also be deduced directly from [YT, Theorems 4 and 7].
Proposition A.8
CRNQThe deformation in Theorem A.3 is Schlesinger, namely \omega=\omega_s, or its non-normalized version (?), if and only if the Pfaffian system admits an isomonodromic fundamental matrix (?) such that L_i and C_i are constant.
Used by T
Definition A.9
HU7KThe essential monodromy data associated with a weakly isomonodromic Y(z{,}u) are the matrices
\begin{gathered}
D_j, \ L_j, \ C_j,\qquad j=1,\dots,N.
\end{gathered}
Definition A.10
MDB6We call Y(z,u) as strongly isomonodromic fundamental matrix if the essential monodromy data are constant on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Equivalently, each Y_j(z,u):=\widehat{Y}_j(z,u) (z-u_j)^{D_j}(z-u_j)^{L_j} is a fundamental matrix of {\rm d} Y=\omega Y.
Remark A.11
QDGRRecall that the D_j are always constant for a weak isomonodromic deformation (Lemma A.6). Moreover,
\begin{gathered}{\rm d} C_j=0 \quad \text{implies} \quad {\rm d} L_j=0,
\end{gathered}
because we can write the monodromy matrices as M_j=C_j^{-1}e^{2\pi i L_j}C_j. Thus, one can define a strong deformation to be one such that all the matrices C_j are constant, in the same way as in Definition 3.1 (the connection matrices C_j play the same role of the matrices H_r).
Uses Definition 2.1
Proposition A.12 (Proposition A.8 revised)
K2MIAn isomonodromic deformation is strong if and only if it is a Schlesinger deformation or its non-normalized version (?).
Theorem A.13 (non-Schesinger deformations, Bolibruch)
5DJRAll the possible matrix differential 1-form of Theorem A.3, holomorphic on \mathbb{P}^1 \times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big)\backslash \bigcup_{i=1}^n \{z-u_i=0\}, which give an isomonodromic family of Fuchsian systems (?), have the form
\begin{gathered}
\omega =\omega_s +\sum_{i=1}^N \gamma_i(u) {\rm d} u_i + \sum_{i=1}^N\sum_{j=1}^N\sum_{k=1}^{m_i} \frac{ \gamma_{ijk}(u)}{(z-u_i)^k}{\rm d} u_j.
\end{gathered}
where \gamma_i(u), \gamma_{ijk}(u) are holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big) and m_i is the maximal integer difference of eigenvalues of A_i(u).
Used by T
T
L7MRhe proof is in [Bolibruch] and [Bolibruch1]. We take the Schlesinger deformation \omega_s with the same initial condition A_i^0=A_i\big(u^0\big) of \omega, namely
\begin{gathered}
\omega_s|_{u^0}=\omega|_{u^0}.
\end{gathered}
Let Y_s(z,u) be an isomonodromic fundamental matrix for \omega_s. By isomonodromicity, Y(z,u) and Y_s(z,u) have the same monodromy matrices, which are those of
\begin{gathered}\frac{{\rm d} Y}{{\rm d} z}=\sum\limits_{i=1}^N\frac{A_i^0}{z-u_i^0} Y.
\end{gathered}
Hence, \Gamma(z,u):=Y(z,u) Y_s(z,u)^{-1} is single valued and meromorphic on \mathbb{P}^1\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), with poles at z=u_i, 1\leq i \leq N. Moreover \omega = {\rm d}\Gamma \Gamma^{-1} +\Gamma\omega_s \Gamma^{-1}. This expression does show that \omega has the structure (A.13). In order to predict m_i, we write
\begin{aligned}
&Y(z,u)=\widehat{Y}_i(z,u) (z-u_i)^{D_i}(z-u_i)^{L_i(u)}C_i(u),
\\
&
Y_s(z,u)=\widehat{Y}_i^s(z,u) (z-u_i)^{D_i}(z-u_i)^{L_i^s}C_i^s,
\end{aligned}
where L_i^s and C_i^s are constant, by Proposition A.8. Being the monodromy M_i of Y and Y_s the same, we have
\begin{gathered}
C_i(u)^{-1}L_i(u)C_i(u)={C_i^s}^{-1}L_i^sC_i^s.
\end{gathered}
Thus,
\begin{gathered}
L_i(u)=\mathcal{R}_i L_i^s \mathcal{R}_i^{-1},
\qquad
\mathcal{R}_i:= C_i(u){C_i^s}^{-1},
\end{gathered}
and \mathcal{R}_i must have the same block structure of L_i(u) and L_i^s. Moreover,
\begin{gathered}
Y(z,u)=\widehat{Y}_i(z,u)(z-u_i)^{D_i} \mathcal{R}_i (z-u_i)^{L_i^s}C_i^s.
\end{gathered}
Thus, we have
\begin{gathered}
{\rm d} Y Y^{-1} = {\rm d}\widehat{Y}_i \widehat{Y}_i^{-1} +\widehat{Y}_i \left(\frac{D_i+(z-u_i)^{D_i}\mathcal{R}_i E_i^s \mathcal{R}_i^{-1}(z-u_i)^{-D_i}}{z-u_i}\right) \widehat{Y}_i^{-1} {\rm d}(z-u_i)\\
\hphantom{{\rm d} Y Y^{-1} =}{} +\widehat{Y}_i(z-u_i)^{D_i}{\rm d}\mathcal{R}_i \mathcal{R}_i^{-1} (z-u_i)^{-D_i} \widehat{Y}_i^{-1}\\
\hphantom{{\rm d} Y Y^{-1}}{} = {\rm d}\widehat{Y}_i \widehat{Y}_i^{-1} +\widehat{Y}_i\left(\frac{D_i+(z-u_i)^{D_i}L_i(u) (z-u_i)^{-D_i}}{z-u_i}\right)\widehat{Y}_i^{-1}{\rm d}(z-u_i)\\
\hphantom{{\rm d} Y Y^{-1} =}{} +\widehat{Y}_i(z-u_i)^{D_i}{\rm d} \mathcal{R}_i \mathcal{R}_i^{-1} (z-u_i)^{-D_i} \widehat{Y}_i^{-1}\\
\hphantom{{\rm d} Y Y^{-1}}{} = \text{holomorphic}+ \frac{A_i(u)}{z-u_i} {\rm d}(z-u_i) +\widehat{Y}_i (z-u_i)^{D_i}{\rm d}\mathcal{R}_i \mathcal{R}_i^{-1} (z-u_i)^{-D_i} \widehat{Y}_i^{-1}.
\end{gathered}
The last term \widehat{Y}_i (z{-}u_i)^{D_i}{\rm d}\mathcal{R}_i \mathcal{R}_i^{-1} (z{-}u_i)^{-D_i} \widehat{Y}_i^{-1} contains matrix entries with poles at (z{-}u_i){=}0, plus holomorphic terms. This proves again, by Liouville theorem, that \omega has the structure (A.13). The block diagonal structure of \mathcal{R}_i, being the same as that of D_i=D_1^{(i)}\oplus \cdots \oplus D_{\ell_i}^{(i)}, assures that m_i is the maximum over q of the maximal difference of the eigenvalues of D_q^{(i)}, q=1,2,\dots,\ell_i. This is precisely the maximal integer difference of eigenvalues of A_i(u).
Corollary A.14
0U7NIf for every i=1,\dots,N the matrices A_i are non-resonant, then every \omega of Theorem A.3, defining an isomonodromic family of Fuchsian systems (?), is of the form
\begin{gathered}
\omega=\omega_s+\sum_{i=1}^n \gamma_i(u){\rm d} u_i.
\end{gathered}
Lemma B.1
62M7Let \omega_0(x)=\big(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\big) be as in (?), let \omega_1,\dots,\omega_n be holomorphic of (z,u)\in \mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), and A(u) holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Assume that z=\infty is at most a pole of \omega_1,\dots,\omega_n. Then, for u\in \mathbb{D}^\prime, the Pfaffian system has the following structure
\begin{gathered}
\omega=\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right){\rm d} z +\sum_{j=1}^n ( zE_j+\omega_j(0,u)) {\rm d} u_j ,
\end{gathered}
with
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(0,u)=[F_1(u),E_j]+\mathcal{D}_j(u),
\end{gathered}
where F_1, appearing in the formal expansion (?), is given explicitly in (?), and
\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{D}_j(u)=\frac{\partial H_r(u)}{\partial u_j}H_r(u)^{-1}
\end{gathered}
is a diagonal matrix independent of r\in\mathbb{Z} and holomorphic on u\in \mathbb{D}^\prime. Moreover,
\begin{gathered}{\rm d} B=0. \end{gathered}
Used by T
W
5OWJe write
\begin{gathered}
\omega ={\rm d} Y Y^{-1}.
\end{gathered}
where Y(z,u)=Y^{(0)}(z,u) H is a holomorphic isomonodromic family. Recalling that D is constant and {\rm d} L={\rm d} H=0 (one can take directly H=I), we have
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j=\frac{\partial Y}{\partial u_j} Y^{-1} =\frac{\partial \widehat{Y}^{(0)}}{\partial u_j} \big(\widehat{Y}^{(0)}\big)^{-1}= \operatorname{holom}(z,u),
\end{gathered}
where \operatorname{holom}(z,u) is some convergent Taylor series at z=0, of order \mathcal{O}(1) for z\to 0, with holomorphic coefficients depending on u\in\mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Keeping into account the explicit form (?) of \widehat{Y}^{(0)} (in particular, recall that G(u) satisfies (2.2) as in Proposition 2.3), we have
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j=\partial_jG G^{-1}+\mathcal{O}(z) \equiv \omega_j(0,u)+\mathcal{O}(z).
\end{gathered}
Successively, we compute the representation of \omega_j close to z=\infty, using (?),
\begin{aligned}
\omega_j&=\frac{\partial Y}{\partial u_j} Y^{-1}\\
&=\frac{\partial \widehat{Y}_r}{\partial u_j} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}+\widehat{Y}_r\frac{\partial B}{\partial u_j} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1} \log z + z\widehat{Y}_rE_j\widehat{Y}_r^{-1}
+\widehat{Y}_rz^B\left(e^{z\Lambda}\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1} e^{-z\Lambda}\right)z^{-B}\widehat{Y}_r^{-1}.
\end{aligned}
We recall that u_i\neq u_j for i\neq j and observe that e^{(u_i-u_j)z} diverges for z\to\infty in some subsector of \mathcal{S}_r(\overline{ \mathbb{D}^\prime}), because the central angular opening is more than \pi. Hence
\begin{gathered}
e^{z\Lambda}\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1} e^{-z\Lambda} \quad\text{does not diverge exponentially}
\quad \Longleftrightarrow \quad \frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1} \quad \text{is diagonal}.\end{gathered}
Since \Lambda and B are also diagonal, we have
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j=\left(\frac{\partial \widehat{Y}_r}{\partial u_j} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}+z\widehat{Y}_r E_j \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}+\widehat{Y}_r\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}\right)
+\widehat{Y}_r\frac{\partial B}{\partial u_j} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1} \log z.
\end{gathered}
We have at most a pole at z=\infty if and only if
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial B}{\partial u_j}=0.
\end{gathered}
Then, the asymptotic behaviour (?) of \widehat{Y}_r implies that
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j=z\widehat{Y}_r E_j \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}
+\widehat{Y}_r\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}
+\frac{\partial \widehat{Y}_r}{\partial u_j} \widehat{Y}_r^{-1}=
zE_j+[F_1,E_j]+\frac{\partial H_r}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right)
\end{gathered}
in the sector \mathcal{S}_r(\overline{ \mathbb{D}^\prime}). The asymptotics holds for every r\in\mathbb{Z}. Now, the asymptotic expansion of a function (in our case \omega_j) on a sector is unique. Since \mathcal{S}_r(\overline{ \mathbb{D}^\prime})\cap \mathcal{S}_{r+1} (\overline{\mathbb{D}^\prime}) is not empty, this implies that \omega_j has the same expansion in every sector \mathcal{S}_r(\overline{ \mathbb{D}^\prime}), \forall\, r. In particular, \partial_jH_r H_r^{-1} cannot depend on r. We set
\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{D}_j(u):=\frac{\partial H_r(u)}{\partial u_j}H_r^{-1}(u) \qquad \forall\, r\in\mathbb{Z}.
\end{gathered}
Moreover, being \omega_j single valued, the asymptotic series represented by \mathcal{O}\big(\frac{1}{z}\big) above, must be a convergent Taylor expansion. In conclusion
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j-(zE_j+[F_1,E_j]+\mathcal{D}_j)=\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{z}\right) \qquad \text{is holomorphic at $z=\infty$}.
\end{gathered}
Keeping into account (W) and Liouville theorem, we obtain that
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j-(zE_j+[F_1,E_j]+\mathcal{D}_j)=0,
\end{gathered}
as we wanted to prove.
Lemma B.2
1E5EConsider a Pfaffian system {\rm d} Y=\omega Y, and assume that \omega has the following structure
\begin{gathered}\omega=\left(\Lambda+\frac{A(u)}{z}\right){\rm d} z+\sum_{j=1}^n ( zE_j+\omega_j(0,u) ){\rm d} u_j,
\end{gathered}
where A(u) and \omega_1(0,u),\dots,\omega_n(0,u) are holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). Then, the Frobenius integrability conditions (?) are equivalent to 1) and 2) below:
1) \omega_j(0,u) satisfies the constraint
\begin{gathered} [\Lambda,\omega_j(0,u)]=[E_j,A]; \end{gathered}2) A(u) satisfies the non-linear system
\begin{gathered} \frac{\partial A}{\partial u_j}=[\omega_j(0,u),A],\qquad j=1,2,\dots,n, \end{gathered}which is Frobenius integrable.
=0pt
The above (B.2) determines \omega_j(0,u) up to a diagonal matrix \mathcal{D}_j(u), as follows
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(0,u)=\left( \frac{A_{ab}(u)(\delta_{aj}-\delta_{bj})}{u_a-u_b} \right)_{a,b=1}^n+\mathcal{D}_j(u).
\end{gathered}
Moreover, the diagonal matrix B:=\operatorname{diag}(A_{11},\dots,A_{nn}) is constant and
\begin{gathered}
\mathcal{D}_j=\frac{\partial \mathcal{D}}{\partial u_j},
\end{gathered}
where \mathcal{D} is a matrix whose diagonal only depends on u\in \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big).
Used by T
F
9F0Bor brevity, let us write \omega_j(0) in place of \omega_j(0,u). As in the proof of Lemma 2.2, consider (?) for \beta=0, \alpha=j=1,\dots,n:
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_j}\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right)+\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right)(zE_j+\omega_j(0))=
\frac{\partial}{\partial z}(zE_j+\omega_j(0))+(zE_j+\omega_j(0))\left(\Lambda+\frac{A}{z}\right).
\end{gathered}
Since \partial_j\Lambda=E_j, we have
\begin{gathered}
\cancel{E_j}+\frac{\partial_jA}{z}+\cancel{z\Lambda E_j}+\Lambda\omega_j(0)+AE_j+\frac{A\omega_j(0)}{z}=\cancel{E_j}+\cancel{zE_j\Lambda} +E_jA+\omega_j(0)\Lambda+\frac{\omega_j(0)A}{z}.
\end{gathered}
The above identity is equivalent to (B.2) and (B.2). Consider now (?) for \alpha=k, \beta=j\in\{1,\dots,n\}:
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial}{\partial u_k}(zE_j+\omega_j(0))+(zE_j+\omega_j(0))(zE_k+\omega_k(0))\\
\qquad{} =\frac{\partial}{\partial u_j}(zE_k+\omega_k(0))+(zE_k+\omega_k(0))(zE_j+\omega_j(0)),
\end{gathered}
so that
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial \omega_j(0)}{\partial u_k}+\cancel{z^2E_jE_k}+z(E_j\omega_k(0)+\omega_j(0)E_k)+\omega_j(0)\omega_k(0)\\
\qquad{} =\frac{\partial \omega_k(0)}{\partial u_j}+\cancel{z^2E_kE_j}+z(E_k\omega_j(0)+\omega_k(0)E_j)+\omega_k(0)\omega_j(0).
\end{gathered}
Identifying the coefficients of the same powers of z we get
\begin{gathered}
[E_j,\omega_k(0)]=[E_k,\omega_j(0)],\\
\frac{\partial \omega_j(0)}{\partial u_k}+\omega_j(0)\omega_k(0)=\frac{\partial \omega_k(0)}{\partial u_j}+\omega_k(0)\omega_j(0),\qquad 1\leq j\neq k \leq n.
\end{gathered}
(F) is the Frobenius integrability condition of system (B.2), as it is shown in the proof of Lemma 2.2. Explicitly writing (B.2), a simple calculation yields (B.2). Now, (F) is identically satisfied. Substitution of (B.2) into (F) shows, by considering the diagonal, that
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial \mathcal{D}_j}{\partial u_k}-\frac{\partial \mathcal{D}_k}{\partial u_j}=0, \qquad j\neq k,
\end{gathered}
so that the matrix valued form \sum\limits_{j=1}^n\mathcal{D}_j(u) {\rm d} u_j is closed. Being the domain simply connected, it is also exact. Substitution of (B.2) into (B.2) and direct calculation shows that
\begin{gathered}
\frac{\partial A_{kk}}{\partial u_1}=\cdots=\frac{\partial A_{kk}}{\partial u_n}=0,\qquad \forall\, k=1,\dots,n.
\end{gathered}
T (Proof of Proposition 2.6)
12RJhe assumption that \omega_j(z,u) has at most a pole at z=\infty implies that Lemma B.1 applies for u\in \mathbb{D}^\prime. Hence
\begin{gathered}
\omega_j(z,u)=zE_j+[F_1(u),A(u)]+ \mathcal{D}_j(u) \qquad \text{for $u\in \mathbb{D}^\prime$}.
\end{gathered}
Now, Lemma B.2 applies on \mathbb{D}^\prime. On the other hand, \omega_j(z,u) and zE_j+[F_1(u),A(u)] are holomorphic on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big), therefore (T) holds on \mathbb{D}\big(u^0\big). All the other statements of Proposition 2.6 follow from Lemmas B.1 and B.2.
Source and licence
The text on this page is from arXiv:1804.05688v5 by Davide Guzzetti, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/1804/1804.05688.jsonl.