Last post I mentioned some types of subsets of the cotangent bundle, associated to the bundle’s natural symplectic structure (i.e., the isotropic, involutive, and Lagrangian subsets). What was I talking about? Back to basics! Today, I want to talk about some “symplectic linear algebra.”
A symplectic vector space is a pair , where
is a finite dimensional real vector space (henceforth, all vector spaces for us will be finite dimensional over
), and
is a symplectic form on
; that is,
is a non-degenerate, alternating, bilinear form on
. Let’s play with an example to get acquainted.
Example 1. Let be a vector space,
, and let
be the canonical pairing of
and
. Define a bilinear form
on
by
for . Naturally, I claim that
is a symplectic form on
. By construction,
is alternating and bilinear, so we only need to check non-degeneracy. Let
be such that, for all
,
. That is, for all
,
.
By non-degeneracy of , setting
yields
, and setting
yields
(remember, that equality was assumed to hold for all elements of
!). Hence,
, implying
is non-degenerate. Note that, for
, the form
looks a lot like the determinant map! (
).
Now, for a subspace of a symplectic vector space
, we associate its symplectic complement, or symplectic orthogonal.
.
This is where we get the notions of isotropic, involutive, and Lagrangian subspaces: a subspace of
is
- isotropic if
,
- involutive if
, and
- Lagrangian if
.
Let’s end with some easy examples:
Example 2. A line is always an isotropic subspace.
Let be a non-zero vector, so that every element of
is of the form
for some
. Then, the fact that
is bilinear and alternating implies that
.
Example 3. A hyperplane is always an involutive subspace.
Let be non-zero. If
, then since
is a hyperplane, we must have
(by
, I mean the line spanned by the non-zero vector
), so that every element
of
is of the form
, for some
and
. But, since
, we must have
by bilinearity. Since was arbitrary, the non-degeneracy of
yields
, a contradiction. Thus,
, so
is an involutive subset.
Naturally, when we introduce new structures on spaces, we want to identify those morphisms that “preserve” that structure. In this case, it’s the symplectic form. A linear map is called symplectic provided
. That is, for all
, we have (by definition of the pullback)
.
A symplectic map that is also invertible is called a symplectomorphism.
Just like every vector space is modeled on for some
(upon choosing a basis), all symplectic vector spaces of dimension
are symplectomorphic to
, where
() for each
(cf: example 1). This isn’t TOO hard to show, but it takes a little bit to work through all the necessary details. I don’t feel like writing this one out; you’ll just have to take my word for it (or, you know, work it out yourself).
That being said, there is a similar result that I do want to show you. It’s pretty clear that, for each , the subspace
is a Lagrangian subspace of
(i.e.,
). As it turns out,
is the prototype for all Lagrangian subspaces:
Proposition 4: Given any symplectic vector space of dimension
, and Lagrangian
, there exists a symplectic map
sending
to
.
proof: Assume that we’ve proved the result for all dimensions (for
, the Lagrangian subspaces are all just lines through the origin in
, and the desired symplectic map is just a rotation about the origin). We want to then show the result for dimension
. Okay. Let
be a Lagrangian subspace,
. Pick some
non-zero. Since
is non-degenerate, there exists some
such that
. As
is Lagrangian, this gives
. Set
;
with the restriction ,
is a symplectic space. Of course, from
, the only thing to check is that
is non-degenerate (if
is non-zero, there exists some
such that
. By the definition of
, we must have
. It follows that
).
Now, set . We need to show
is Lagrangian in
, and
. Since
, and
, it follows that
is an isotropic subspace. Is it maximally isotropic in
(i.e., Lagrangian?). If not, there would exist an isotropic subspace
with
. But then,
would be isotropic in
, and
. But this is a contradiction, since an isotropic subspace of
must have dimension
! (exclamation, not factorial. whoops). Thus,
is Lagrangian. For the second part of the claim, we note that
, and the above shows
, so
.
Okay, here’s where we invoke the inductive hypothesis: there exists a symplectic map sending
to
. Then, the map
via
is symplectic, and sends to
. Oh, by the way: we define the form
. By assumption, we know
. Since I’m lazy, and this calculation is pretty messy, let’s write
,
. Then, by algebra:
as , and hence
((
) and by expanding the term
in terms of
). So,
is symplectic.
, because
, and
. Done!
end proof.
Next time, I’ll talk some more about Lagrangian subspaces and some facts about the Lagrangian Grassmanian of a symplectic vector space.
Reference: M. Kashiwara and P. Schapira, Sheaves on Manifolds (Appendix A).