We prove that Klein quartic maximizes the multiplicity of the first positive eigenvalue of the Laplacian among all closed hyperbolic surfaces of genus 3, with multiplicity equal to 8. We also obtain partial results in genus 2, where we find that the maximum multiplicity is between 3 and 6. Along the way, we show that for every g\geq 2, there exists some \delta_g>0 such that the multiplicity of any eigenvalue of the Laplacian on a closed hyperbolic surface of genus g in the interval [0,1/4+\delta_g] is at most 2g-1 despite the fact that this interval can contain arbitrarily many eigenvalues. This extends a result of Otal to a larger interval but with a weaker bound, which nevertheless improves upon the general upper bound of Sévennec.
For every g \geq 2, there exist 0<\delta_g < \eps_g such that the following implications hold for every closed hyperbolic surface S genus g. If \lambda is any eigenvalue of the Laplacian on S such that \lambda \leq \frac14+\delta_g, then its multiplicity is at most 2g-1. If \lambda_1(S) < \frac14+\eps_g, then m_1(S) \leq 2g.
If S is a closed hyperbolic surface of genus 3, then m_1(S)\leq 8 and equality holds if S is the Klein quartic.
If S is a closed hyperbolic surface of genus 2, then m_1(S) \leq 6=2g+2.
We thank Joseph Cook, Dmitry Jakobson, Iosif Polterovich, and Alexander Strohmaier for useful conversations and references. We also thank Chul-hee Lee for catching errors in the previous version of the proofs of Propositions 5.5 and 5.6, and the files verify2.sage and verify3.sage and Benno Wendland for catching an error in Section ?.
Let X be a topological space. A cohomology class u \in \check{H}^N(X) is weakly zero if F^*u = 0 in \check{H}^N(M) for every continuous map F:M \to X from a finite dimensional metric space M.
Let Y be a topological space and let Y_i\subset Y be arbitrary subsets such that Y =\bigcup_{i=0}^k Y_i. If u_0, \ldots, u_k \in \check{H}^*(Y) are such that u_i|_{Y_i} is weakly zero in \check{H}^*(Y_i) for every i, then the cup product u_0 \cdots u_k is weakly zero in \check{H}^*(Y).
Let g \geq 2 and let D and E be hyperbolic disks of area 4 \pi (g-1) and 2 \pi (g-1) respectively. Suppose that S is a closed hyperbolic surface of genus g and that f is an eigenfunction of the Laplacian on S corresponding to an eigenvalue \lambda. If \lambda \leq \lambda_0(D) where \lambda_0 denotes the smallest Dirichlet eigenvalue, then no nodal domain of f can be contracted to a point in S. If \lambda < \lambda_0(E), then not all nodal domains of f can contracted to points in S.
We proceed by contraposition for each implication, starting with the first. Suppose that U is a nodal domain of f that can be contracted to a point. Since the restriction of f to U is an eigenfunction for the Laplacian on U which vanishes along the boundary, we have
In fact, equality holds by Courant’s nodal domain theorem.
Since U lifts to the hyperbolic plane, which satisfies an isoperimetric inequality, the Faber–Krahn inequality cite Chavel tells us that
where D' is a round hyperbolic disk with the same area as U. Since S is not contractible, f must have more than one nodal domain so that \area(U) < \area(S) = 4\pi(g-1). If D is a disk of area 4\pi(g-1), then we have \lambda_0(D') > \lambda_0(D) by the strict monotonicity of eigenvalues cite Chavel, so that \lambda > \lambda_0(D).
For the second implication, suppose that all nodal domains of f can be contracted to points in S. Once again, there are at least two nodal domains. Let U be a nodal domain of f of smallest area. Then \area(U) \leq \area(S)/2 =2\pi(g-1). The same reasoning as above can be applied with a disk E of area 2\pi(g-1) to yield \lambda = \lambda_0(U) \geq \lambda_0(E).
For an essential annulus U in a hyperbolic surface S, there is a lower bound on \lambda_0(U) which is larger than 1/4, but by an amount that depends on the length of the closed geodesic homotopic to U cite Mondal.
Let S be a closed hyperbolic surface of genus g\geq 2 and suppose that f is an eigenfunction of the Laplacian on S corresponding to an eigenvalue \lambda \leq \lambda_0(D) where D is a hyperbolic disk of area 4\pi(g-1). Then each nodal domain of f is incompressible in S.
Suppose that U is a nodal domain of f that is not incompressible. Then there is a closed curve \gamma in U which is homotopic to a point in S but not in U. This implies that \gamma bounds a union of topological disks in S. Some component of the complement of U must be contained in one of these disks, for otherwise \gamma would be contractible in U. Since every component of the complement of U is the closure of a union of nodal domains, we conclude that f has a nodal domain contained in a disk, which contradicts Lemma 2.3.
Suppose that \lambda \leq \frac14+ \delta_g = \lambda_0(D), let \calE be the corresponding eigenspace, and let f \in \calE. By Lemma 2.3, no nodal domain of f is homeomorphic to a disk. It follows that
and hence that \PP(\calE) = \bigcup_{i={2-2g}}^{0} X_i. By Corollary 2.5, all the components of U^+(f) and U^-(f) are incompressible. For i<0, the same argument as on pages 692-693 of cite Otal applies verbatim to show that the covering \widetilde{X}_i \to X_i is trivial. If i=0, then U^+(f) and U^-(f) are both unions of annuli, which could be isotopic to each other. However, in that case the pair (U^+(f),U^-(f)) is not isotopic to (U^-(f),U^+(f)) cite Sevennec, so Otal’s argument (or cite Sevennec) still implies that the covering \widetilde{X}_i \to X_i is trivial. We conclude that the multiplicity of \lambda is at most 2g-1.
If instead we assume that \lambda = \lambda_1(S) < \frac14+ \eps_g=\lambda_0(E), then Lemma 2.3 still tells us that at most one of U^+(f) or U^-(f) is homeomorphic to a disk. It follows that
so that \PP(\calE) = \bigcup_{i=1}^{2g} Y_i. By appealing to Sévennec’s result that \alpha|_{Y_i} = 0 for i>0 cite Sevennec, we deduce that \alpha^{2g} is weakly zero, and hence that m_1(S) \leq 2g.
If S is a closed hyperbolic surface of genus 3, then m_1(S)\leq 8.
Let S be a closed hyperbolic surface of genus g \geq 2. Suppose that 0 < a \leq \lambda_1(S) and a<b, and let f be an admissible function such that \what{f}(r(\lambda)) \geq c > 0 for every \lambda \in [a,b], \what{f}(r(\lambda)) \geq 0 for every \lambda \geq b, and f(x)\leq 0 for every x \geq \sys(S). Then the number of eigenvalues of the Laplacian \Delta on S in the interval [a,b] counting multiplicity is at most
for any set P of unoriented primitive closed geodesics in S.
By hypothesis, the only eigenvalue of in the interval [0,a) is the trivial eigenvalue \lambda_0(S)=0 and \what{f}(r(\lambda)) \geq 0 for all other eigenvalues. We thus have
Since f is non-positive on the length spectrum of S, the last quantity does not decrease if we omit terms in the geometric sum \calG. The advantage of restricting to primitive curves is that we have \Lambda(\gamma)=\ell(\gamma) for these. By taking the two possible orientations along each curve in P, we get
The desired inequality is obtained upon dividing by c.
There exists an admissible function f such that f(x)\leq 0 for every x \in \RR, \what{f}(r(\lambda))\geq 0.673429 for every \lambda \in [1.04,1.857], \what{f}(r(\lambda))\geq 0 for every \lambda \geq 1.857, and
for g=3.
Let a = 1.04 and b=1.857. We choose f of the form f(x) = u(x^2)e^{-x^2/2} with u(y) = \sum_{n=0}^N s_n L_n^{-1/2}(y) for some coefficients s_n, where the L_n^{-1/2}(y) are Laguerre polynomials, so that \what{f}(\xi) = v(\xi^2)e^{-\xi^2/2} with v(y) = \sum_{n=0}^N (-1)^n s_n L_n^{-1/2}(y). The coefficients s_n are chosen in such a way that u has a simple root at 0 and double roots at {42.26} and {79.78}, v has double roots at {4.57}, {11.43}, {21.45}, {35.34}, and {54.4}, and v(a-1/4)=1. This last condition is a normalization which ensures that
is positive at \lambda=a.
These conditions on u and v define a system of linear equations for the coefficients s_n which has a unique solution when the number N+1 of coefficients is equal to 16, the number of equations. The coefficients s_n are solved for over the rational numbers, yielding an exact solution. The formal verification that the resulting polynomials u and v have roots of the prescribed orders at the prescribed places was done using the program verify0.sage, whose output can be read in the file output0.txt.
The program verify0.sage also proves that \what{f}(r(\lambda)) \geq 0.673429 for every \lambda \in [a,b] as follows. It first checks that 2v'-2v has a unique zero between a-1/4 and b-1/4 using Sturm’s theorem (implemented in PARI/GP cite PARI2, which Sage calls). This implies that \what{f} has a unique critical point between r(a) and r(b) since
The program then checks that 2v' - v is positive at a-1/4 and negative at b-1/4. This implies that the critical point is a local maximum, and hence that the minimum of \what{f} on the interval [r(a),r(b)] is achieved at the endpoints. To conclude the proof, the program verifies that \what{f}(r(a)) \geq 0.673429 and \what{f}(r(b)) \geq 0.673429 using interval arithmetic (as implemented in the Arb library cite Johansson).
In order to show that \what{f}(r(\lambda))\geq 0 for every \lambda \geq b, we need to make sure that \what{f} does not change sign on the interval [r(b),\infty) since we already know that \what{f}(r(b)) \geq 0.673429 \geq 0. For this, we use Sturm’s theorem to check that v has only 5 distinct zeros in [b-1/4,\infty). As we already checked that these are double zeros, we conclude that v does not change sign on [b-1/4,\infty) and neither does \what{f} on [r(b),\infty). Similarly, we can count the number of zeros of u in [0,\infty) to make sure that it does not change sign, and verify that u'' is negative at any of the double zeros so that u and hence f is non-positive on [0,\infty).
The last thing to check is that \calI - \what{f}(i/2) \leq 0.673429 \cdot 8.957. For this, we can estimate \what{f}(i/2) using interval arithmetic as before. To get an upper bound on
we split the integral into two parts. Indeed, the Arb library can provide rigorous bounds on definite integrals, but not improper ones. We thus use Arb to compute an upper bound on
and then estimate
since \what{f} is non-negative on [100,\infty) \subset [r(b),\infty). The advantage is that since r \, v(r^2) is an odd polynomial, the function r \, v(r^2) e^{-r^2/2} has an explicit primitive that can be found using integration by parts. One of these primitives has the form V(r) = p(r)e^{-r^2/2} for some polynomial p, so that \lim_{r \to \infty} V(r) = 0 and hence
Combining the resulting estimates yields
as required.
The condition u(0)=0 is not used anywhere in the above proof. We impose it only because it increases the stability of the program we used to find f and seems to be optimal anyway.
There exists an admissible function f such that f(x)\leq 0 for every x \in \RR, \what{f}(r(\lambda))\geq 0.447759 for every \lambda \in [1.857,2.71], \what{f}(r(\lambda))\geq 0 for every \lambda \geq 2.71, and
for g=3.
The construction and proof is similar as in Lemma 3.3. Using the same notation as before, the functions f(x) = u(x^2)e^{-x^2/2} and \what{f}(\xi) = v(\xi^2)e^{-\xi^2/2} are chosen such that u vanishes at 0 and has double roots at 19.68 and 50.7, and v has double roots at 7.87, 13.78, 19.7, 30.22, 41.93, and 57.93, and satisfies v(1.857-1/4)=1. The coefficients s_n required as well as the resulting polynomials u and v are given in the file verify1.sage, which formally verifies the required properties and computes that
Its output can be read in output1.txt.
Let S be a closed hyperbolic surface of genus 3. If \lambda_1(S) \leq 1.04, then m_1(S) \leq 6 according to Theorem 1.1. If \lambda_1(S) \in [1.04,1.857], then Lemma 3.2 applied with the function f from Lemma 3.3 shows that m_1(S) \leq 8.957, and hence m_1(S) \leq 8 since m_1(S) is an integer. Similarly, if \lambda_1(S) \in [1.857,2.71], then Lemma 3.2 applied with the function f from Lemma 3.5 shows that m_1(S) \leq \lfloor 8.967 \rfloor = 8. By Ros’s inequality (?), \lambda_1(S) cannot exceed 2.71, so this proves the result.
Since we are taking the Laplacian to act on real-valued functions, it is the real representation theory of \Isom(S) which is relevant here. Of course, \Delta can be extended to complex-valued functions by linearity, but there is no advantage in doing so. For instance, Courant’s nodal domain theorem only holds for real-valued functions (because 0 disconnects \RR but not \CC).
On the other hand, character tables and irreducible representations of finite groups are usually listed for complex representations rather than real ones. An irreducible complex representation of dimension d of a finite group G is either realizable over \RR (where it remains irreducible) or else its realification of dimension 2d (obtained by restricting the scalars to \RR) is irreducible. Moreover, every irreducible real representation of G arises in one of these two ways cite Serre. That is, every irreducible real representation of G of dimension d is either the restriction to the real locus of an irreducible complex representation of dimension d or the realification of an irreducible complex representation of dimension d/2. Furthermore, one can compute which case occurs from the character table of the group G using cite Serre.
Let p \leq q \leq r be integers. A (p,q,r)-kaleidoscopic surface is a connected Riemannian surface S of constant curvature that admits a tiling \calT by geodesic triangles with interior angles \frac{\pi}{p}, \frac{\pi}{q}, and \frac{\pi}{r} such that for every side e of a triangle in \calT, there is an isometry of S that acts as a reflection along e.
A (p,q,r)-kaleidoscopic surface S with p=2 is called Platonic, because it admits a tiling by regular r-gons (and a dual tiling by q-gons) such that the isometry group of S acts transitively on the flags (nested triples of vertex, edge, and face) of either tiling.
Let S be a (p,q,r)-kaleidoscopic hyperbolic surface. Then no 1-dimensional real representation of \Isom(S) can occur for any eigenvalue of the Laplacian in the interval (0,\lambda_0(F)) where F is a hyperbolic disk of area A=2\pi r \left( 1 - \frac1p - \frac1q -\frac1r \right), nor for any eigenvalue \lambda_j with 1 \leq j \leq \area(S)/A-2.
Let f be a non-constant eigenfunction of the Laplacian spanning a 1-dimensional real representation of \Isom(S). Then for every h \in \Isom(S), we have that f \circ h^{-1} = \pm f. In particular, the nodal set \calZ(f)=f^{-1}(0) is invariant under \Isom(S). We will use the symmetries of the kaleidoscopic tiling \calT of S by (p,q,r)-triangles to show that there is a nodal domain of f whose area is not too large.
Let T be any triangle in \calT and let C = \calZ(f)\cap T. Since f is non-constant, it has at least two nodal domains so that \calZ(f) is non-empty. As \Isom(S) acts transitively on the triangles in \calT and preserves the nodal set, C is non-empty as well.
We consider several possibilities for what C can look like. If C is disjoint from the sides of T, then there is a nodal domain contained in T since \calZ(f) is a union of smooth circles. If C connects one side s of T to itself, then by reflecting across s we see that there is a nodal domain contained in the union of two triangles in \calT. If C connects two distinct sides of T, then by repeated reflections we see that there is a nodal domain contained in the union of all the triangles that share the same vertex as those two sides. If none of these things occur, then C must be contained in \partial T. However, if \calZ(f) contains any segment of a side s of T, then it must contain the entire side as well as the closed geodesic that contains it. Indeed, if L is a nodal line with a segment along s, then the reflection of L across s is a nodal line that intersects L tangentially. By Cheng’s theorem, this implies that L is equal to its reflection, hence is contained in the locus of reflection, which is a union of closed geodesics. Since nodal lines are smooth circles, L is equal to one of these closed geodesics. We are back to the previous case because then C connects two distinct sides of T.
In all of these cases, there is a nodal domain U of f contained in the (simply connected) union of at most 2r triangles in \calT (this is the number of triangles around a vertex of angle \pi/r). The area of U is thus at most 2r times the area of T, or
Let F be a hyperbolic disk of area A. Then \lambda = \lambda_0(U) \geq \lambda_0(F) by the Faber–Krahn inequality cite Chavel.
Moreover, the number of nodal domains of f is greater than or equal to the size of the orbit of U under the group G generated by the reflections in the sides of triangles in \calT (which may be smaller than \Isom(S) a priori). The size of this orbit is equal to the order of G divided by the order of the stabilizer of U in G. Depending on whether U is contained in a single triangle, a pair of triangles, or a fan around a vertex, its stabilizer has order at most 1, 2, 2p, 2q, or 2r. In any case, its order is at most 2r. Now |G| is at least the number of triangles in \calT, or \area(S) / (A/2r), so that the orbit of U has size at least \area(S)/A. If \lambda=\lambda_j(S), then Courant’s nodal domain theorem tells us that \area(S)/A \leq j+1.
Artamoshin’s inequality (?) yields the estimate
The Klein quartic satisfies m_1(K) = 8.
The 1-dimensional real representations of \Isom(K) do not occur for any Laplacian eigenvalue of K in the interval (0,7.85].
Since K is a (2,3,7)-kaleidoscopic surface, Proposition 4.4 shows that 1-dimensional real representation of \Isom(K) can only occur for non-trivial eigenvalues larger than or equal to
Any eigenvalue of the Laplacian on K in the interval (0,7.85] occurs with multiplicity at least 6 and if its multiplicity is more than 8, then it is at least 12.
By Corollary 5.2, the 1-dimensional real representations of \Isom(K) do not occur in the eigenspace \calE corresponding to any eigenvalue \lambda \in (0,7.85]. The eigenspace \calE can therefore be decomposed into irreducible real representations of dimensions 6, 7 or 8 since these are the dimensions of the remaining irreducible real representations of \Isom(K). In particular, \calE has dimension at least 6. If \dim \calE > 8, then \calE contains at least two irreducible representations of dimension at least 6 each, for a total of at least 12.
The Klein quartic satisfies m_1(K) \geq 6 and
By cite Ros, we have \lambda_1(K) \leq 2(4 - \sqrt{7}) \approx 2.708497 < 7.85, so the first inequality follows from Corollary 5.3. Since 6> 2g-1 where g=3 is the genus of K, the second inequality follows from the first and Theorem 1.1.
The number of eigenvalues of \Delta_K in [0.71,2.575] is strictly less than 6 counting multiplicity.
The number of eigenvalues of \Delta_K in [2.575,5.5] is strictly less than 12 counting multiplicity.
The number of eigenvalues of \Delta_K in [2.575,5.5] is strictly more than 7 counting multiplicity.
By Corollary 5.3, any eigenvalue in (0,7.85] occurs with multiplicity at least 6. Together with Proposition 5.5, this implies that there are no eigenvalues at all in [0.71,2.575]. Combined with the bound \lambda_1(K)>0.71 from Corollary 5.4, this shows that \lambda_1(K)>2.575. Then Proposition 5.6 and Corollary 5.3 tell us that there is at most one distinct eigenvalue in the interval [2.575,5.5] and that its multiplicity is either 6, 7, or 8. Finally, Proposition 5.7 rules out multiplicities 6 and 7.
There are at least 28 unoriented primitive closed geodesics of length
on the Klein quartic.
The Klein quatic is tiled by 24 regular heptagons with interior angles 2\pi / 3. Take any geodesic segment \sigma that joins the midpoints of two sides that are separated by one other side in such a heptagon. By extending \sigma in both directions, we obtain a primitive closed geodesic that crosses a total of 6 heptagons in the same way (joining the midpoints of two sides separated by another). One example of such a geodesic is depicted in Figure ?. The fact that this particular example closes up implies that all others do since the isometry group of the Klein quartic acts transitively on flags of heptagons in the tiling, hence on geodesic segments with the same description as \sigma. There are 7 geodesic segments to choose from per heptagon and 24 heptagons, while each closed geodesic obtained consists of 6 segments, for a total of 7\times 24 / 6 = 28 closed geodesics of this kind.
The length of these closed geodesics is equal to 6 times the length of \sigma. Note that \sigma forms an isoceles triangle with the center of its heptagon H, with two sides of length equal to the inner radius r of H (the second shortest side of a (2,3,7)-triangle), and angle 4\pi/7 at the center of H. Trigonometric formulas for right-angled triangles cite Buser yield
and
Since \sinh(\arccosh(y)) = \sqrt{y^2 - 1}, we have \sinh(r)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{4\sin^2(\pi/7)}-1}. Combining this with \sin(2\pi / 7)= 2 \sin(\pi/7)\cos(\pi/7) yields the folmula
for the length L of the resulting geodesics. Using the identity \cosh(2x)=2\sinh^2(x)+1, we get that 2\arcsinh(y) = \arccosh(2y^2+1) for y>0, and hence
We apply Lemma 3.2 with S=K, a = 0.71, b=2.575 and the function f(x) = u(x^2) e^{-x^2/2} with Fourier transform \what{f}(x) = v(x^2) e^{-x^2/2} specified by the following conditions. We require that u satisfies u(0)=1, u(3.9359^2)= -716\cdot 10^{-11}, and that it has a double zero at 58.59, and that v has double zeros at
The required coefficients and resulting polynomials are given in the files verify2.sage and output2.txt.
To apply the lemma, we need to verify that u(x^2) \leq 0 if x\geq \sys(K). Here we use the estimate \sys(K) > 3.9359 and verify that u(x^2) has no zeros in [3.9359,\infty) besides the one at \sqrt{58.49}. Since u(x^2) is negative at 3.9359 and does not change sign afterwards, it is non-positive on [\sys(K),\infty) \subset [3.9359,\infty).
Note that 0<a = 0.71 \leq \lambda_1(K) by Corollary 5.4, as required to apply Lemma 3.2. We then check that v is non-negative on [a-1/4, \infty) by counting its zeros there and verifying that v(a-1/4)>0. We also verify that \what{f} is either monotone or has a unique local maximum in [r(a),r(b)] as in in the proof of Lemma 3.3 in order to determine its minimum c on that interval (achieved at an endpoint).
The integral term \calI and -\what{f}(i/2) are bounded above in the same way as in Lemma 3.3. For the geometric term, we use the set P of shortest and second shortest closed geodesics in K, and use interval arithmetic to compute the corresponding summands. This is why we needed exact formulas for the lengths, so that this last calculation is rigorous.
The resulting upper bound for the number of eigenvalues between a and b is
as required.
We apply Lemma 3.2 with S=K, a = 2.575, b=5.5 and P as before. By Proposition 5.5 and Corollary 5.3, we know that \lambda_1(K) \geq a. The function f(x) = u(x^2) e^{-x^2/2} and its Fourier transform \what{f}(x) = v(x^2) e^{-x^2/2} are determined by requiring that u satisfies u(3.9359^2)=-1 and that it has a double zero at 8.43, and that v has a simple zero at the origin and double zeros at
The required coefficients are given in the file verify3.sage, which performs all the necessary checks and gives the upper bound
for the number of eigenvalues between a and b. The output of the program can be read in output3.txt.
Let S be a closed hyperbolic surface of genus g \geq 2. Suppose that 0 < a \leq \lambda_1(S) and a<b, and let f be an admissible function such that \what{f}(r(\lambda)) \leq c for some c>0 and every \lambda \in [a,b], \what{f}(r(\lambda)) \leq 0 for every \lambda \geq b, and f(x)\geq 0 for every x \geq \sys(S). Then the number of eigenvalues in [a,b] counting multiplicity is at least
for any set P of unoriented primitive closed geodesics in S.
We have
where the notation is as in subsection ?.
Since f is non-negative on the length spectrum of S, we have
where the factor of 2 is because we pass from oriented closed geodesics to unoriented ones. Dividing by c gives the desired inequality.
We apply Lemma 3.2 with S=K, a = 2.575, b=5.5 and P the set of shortest and second shortest closed geodesics in K. We know that \lambda_1(K) \geq a as noted before. We then take f(x) = u(x^2) e^{-x^2/2} with Fourier transform \what{f}(x) = v(x^2) e^{-x^2/2} such that u has a double zero at 2.8 and v satisfies v(0)=1, v(b-1/4)=-2/10^{12}, and has double zeros at 9, 15, 23 and 34. The required coefficients are given in the file verify4.sage, which checks that u is non-negative everywhere in [0,\infty), that v is non-positive on [b-1/4,\infty), and that \what{f} is decreasing on [r(a),r(b)], so that c=\what{f}(r(a)) is an upper bound for \what{f} on that interval. The output of the program can be read in output4.txt.
To bound the integral term from below, we can use
since \what{f}(r) \leq 0 for every r \in \left[\sqrt{b-1/4},\infty\right) \supset [100,\infty). The first term is estimated with interval arithmetic and the second term is computed using integration by parts.
The resulting lower bound is
for the number of eigenvalues between a and b.
If S be a closed hyperbolic surface of genus 2 such that \lambda_1(S) \in [1.67,4], then m_1(S) \leq 6.
We apply Lemma 3.2 on the intervals [1.67,2.2], [2.2,3.5], and [3.5,4]. In each case, we choose the polynomials u and v such that u(0)=0 and v(a-1/4)=1 where a is the left endpoint of the interval. We also impose some double zeros that are listed below. We then check that u is non-positive on [0,\infty) by counting its zeros using Sturm’s theorem and by checking the sign of u'' at the double zeros. We verify that v is non-negative on [a,\infty) in the same way. Finally, we check that on the interval [r(a),r(b)], the function \what{f}(x)=v(x^2) e^{-x^2 / 2} attains its minimum at the endpoints and estimate the expression on the right-hand side of inequality (?) using interval arithmetic.
For the interval [1.67,2.2], the double zeros of u are at 26.7 and 84.69, and those of v are at 7.06, 15.89, and 28.94. The program verify5.sage makes the required verifications and outputs the upper bound
whenever \lambda_1(S) \in [1.67,2.2].
For the interval [2.2,3.5], the double zeros of u are at 15.57 and 75.82, and those of v are at 10.14, 21.54, and 37.3. The program verify6.sage makes the required verifications and outputs the upper bound
whenever \lambda_1(S) \in [2.2,3.5].
For the interval [3.5,4], the double zeros of u are at 11.8 and 37.39, and those of v are at 11.85, 18.03, 30.21, and 51.66. The program verify7.sage makes the required verifications and outputs the upper bound
whenever \lambda_1(S) \in [3.5,4].
The Bolza surface satisfies m_1(B)=3.
No 1-dimensional real representation of the isometry group \Isom(B) can occur for any eigenvalue \lambda_j(B) with 1\leq j \leq 4.
This follows from Proposition 4.4 since B is a (2,3,8)-kaleidoscopic surface. The resulting upper bound is
No 2-dimensional irreducible real representation of the isometry group \Isom(B) can occur for any eigenvalue \lambda_j(B) with j\leq 2.
Let \lambda=\lambda_j(B) be an eigenvalue of the Laplacian and let \calE be the corresponding eigenspace. Suppose that a 2-dimensional irreducible real representation (V, \rho) of \Isom(B) appears as a summand in \calE. There are two such representations up to conjugation.
The first 2-dimensional irreducible representation of \Isom(B) is given by
with respect to some basis \{f_1,f_2\} for V. Consider the function
in these coordinates. Observe that
and
This implies that f vanishes on the fixed point sets of all these transformations since \Isom(B) acts on functions by precomposition with the inverse. In the octagon O, the fixed point set of s is a main diagonal D, from which it follows that the fixed point set of r^{2m}s=r^m s r^{-m} is r^{m}(D) for any m. The fixed point set M of rs is a geodesic joining the midpoints of two opposite sides of O together with the pair of opposite sides disjoint from the first. The fixed point set of r^{2m+1}s= r^m rs r^{-m} is then r^m(M). As for the fixed point set of t, it is equal to N=L\cup r^2(L) \cup r^4(L) \cup r^6(L) where L is as in subsection ?. This is not immediately obvious, and is more easily seen in the representation of B as a 4-holed sphere with gluings from cite FBRafi, where t is the front-to-back reflection. In any case, we can also conjugate t by higher powers of r to obtain these rotations of L. The fixed point set of rtr^{-1} is then r(N). Altogether, these loci cut B into 32 triangles with interior angles \pi/2, \pi/4, and \pi/8. By Courant’s nodal domain theorem, we have j \geq 31.
The second 2-dimensional irreducible representation of \Isom(B) is given by
with respect to some basis for V. The function f=\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ 1 \end{array}\right) in this basis has the property that
Thus, f vanishes on all the main diagonals of O. These divide B into four congruent quadrilaterals. It follows that f has at least four nodal domains, and hence that j \geq 3.
The number of eigenvalues of \Delta_B in [1,3.9] is strictly less than 4.
We apply Lemma 3.2 with P equal to the set of closed geodesics of length \ell_1, \ell_2, and \ell_3, of which there are 12, 12, and 24 respectively. We use a pair of polynomials u and v such that u has a simple zero the the origin and a double zero at 50.46, v satisfies v(1-1/4)=1 and has double zeros at 5.62, 11.95, 18.12, and 31.92, and such that u(x^2)e^{-x^2/2} and v(\xi^2)e^{-\xi^2/2} are Fourier transforms of each other. That these functions have the correct sign on the required intervals is checked in verify8.sage, which proves that \Delta_B has at most 3.53617865617108 < 4 eigenvalues in the interval.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2111.14699v4 by Maxime Fortier Bourque and Bram Petri, 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/2111/2111.14699.jsonl.