Differentiability of the Evolution Map and Mackey Continuity
Maximilian Hanusch

TL;DR
This paper establishes that Mackey k-continuity ensures the differentiability of the evolution map in Milnor's infinite dimensional Lie groups, removing previous continuity assumptions and linking regularity to Mackey continuity.
Contribution
It introduces Mackey k-continuity as a key condition for differentiability of the evolution map, advancing the understanding of regularity in infinite dimensional Lie groups.
Findings
Mackey k-continuity implies differentiability of the evolution map.
Regularity and Mackey continuity are equivalent for Lie groups with Fréchet Lie algebras.
The strong Trotter property is analyzed under Mackey continuity.
Abstract
We solve the differentiability problem for the evolution map in Milnor's infinite dimensional setting. We first show that the evolution map of each -semiregular Lie group (for ) admits a particular kind of sequentially continuity called Mackey k-continuity. We then prove that this continuity property is strong enough to ensure differentiability of the evolution map. In particular, this drops any continuity presumptions made in this context so far. Remarkably, Mackey k-continuity arises directly from the regularity problem itself, which makes it particular among the continuity conditions traditionally considered. As an application of the introduced notions, we discuss the strong Trotter property in the sequentially-, and the Mackey continuous context. We furthermore conclude that if the Lie algebra of is a Fr\'{e}chet space,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Differentiability of the Evolution Map
and Mackey Continuity
Maximilian Hanusch
Institut für Mathematik
Universität Paderborn
Warburger Straße 100
33098 Paderborn
Germany [email protected]
(September 6, 2019)
Abstract
We solve the differentiability problem for the evolution map in Milnor’s infinite dimensional setting. We first show that the evolution map of each -semiregular Lie group (for ) admits a particular kind of sequentially continuity – called Mackey k-continuity. We then prove that this continuity property is strong enough to ensure differentiability of the evolution map. In particular, this drops any continuity presumptions made in this context so far. Remarkably, Mackey k-continuity arises directly from the regularity problem itself, which makes it particular among the continuity conditions traditionally considered. As an application of the introduced notions, we discuss the strong Trotter property in the sequentially-, and the Mackey continuous context. We furthermore conclude that if the Lie algebra of is a Fréchet space, then is -semiregular (for ) if and only if is -regular.
Contents
1 Introduction
In 1983 Milnor introduced his regularity concept [15] as a tool to extend proofs of fundamental Lie theoretical facts to infinite dimensions. Specifically, he adapted (and weakened) the regularity concept introduced in 1982 by Omori, Maeda, Yoshioka and Kobayashi for Fréchet Lie groups [20] to such Lie groups that are modeled over complete Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces. Then, he used this notion to prove the integrability of Lie algebra homomorphisms to Lie group homomorphisms under certain regularity and connectedness presumptions. In this paper, we work in the slightly more general setting introduced by Glöckner in [2] – specifically meaning that any completeness presumption on the modeling space is dropped.111Confer also [16, 17] for an introduction to this area. To prevent confusion, we additionally remark that Milnor’s definition of an infinite dimensional manifold involves the requirement that is a regular topological space, i.e., fulfills the separation axioms . Deviating from that, in [2], only the property of is explicitly presumed – This, however, makes no difference in the Lie group case, because topological groups are automatically .
Roughly speaking, regularity is concerned with definedness, continuity, and smoothness of the evolution map (product integral) – a notion that naturally generalizes the concept of the Riemann integral for curves in locally convex vector spaces, to infinite dimensional Lie groups (Lie algebra valued curves are thus integrated to Lie group elements). For instance, the exponential map of a Lie group is the restriction of the evolution map to constant curves; and, given a principal fibre bundle, then holonomies are evolutions of such Lie algebra valued curves that are pairings of smooth connections with derivatives of curves in the base manifold of the bundle. Although individual arguments show that the generic infinite dimensional Lie group is -regular or stronger, only recently general regularity criteria had been found [3, 16, 7]. Differentiability of the evolution map (hence, of the exponential map) is one of the key components of the regularity problem. In [7, 3], this issue had been discussed in the standard topological context – implicitly meaning that continuity of the evolution maps w.r.t. to the -topology was presumed.222The -topology is recalled in Sect. 2.2.4; and, the evolution maps are defined below. In this paper, we solve the differentiability problem in full generality, as we drop any continuity presumption made in this context so far. The results obtained in particular imply that if the Lie group is modeled over a Fréchet space, with evolution map defined on all -curves (the Lie group is -semiregular), then the evolution map is automatically smooth w.r.t. to the -topology (the Lie group is -regular). We furthermore generalize the results obtained in [8, 4] concerning the strong Trotter property by weakening the continuity presumptions made there.
More specifically, let denote an infinite dimensional Lie group as defined in [2] that is modeled over the Hausdorff locally convex vector space . We let denote the Lie algebra of ; as well as the differential of the right translation by , at the point . We furthermore define (right logarithmic derivative)
[TABLE]
as well as \mathrm{D}:=\{\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu)\>|\>\mu\in C^{1}([0,1],G)\} and . The evolution maps are given by
[TABLE]
with for each .333Here, denotes the set of Lipschitz curves, and denotes the set of constant curves. We say that is -semiregular if holds; hence, if each admits a (necessarily unique) solution to the differential equation \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu)=\phi. It was shown in [3] (cf. Theorem E in [3]) that if is -semiregular for , then (thus, ) is smooth if and only if is of class . Then, it was proven in [7] (cf. Theorem 4 in [7]) that is of class if and only if it is continuous, with Mackey complete for (as well as integral complete for ). All these statement have been established in the standard topological context – specifically meaning that (and ) was presumed to be continuous w.r.t. the -topology. In this paper, we more generally show that, cf. (the more comprehensive) Theorem 2 in Sect. 6.2.1
Theorem A**.**
Suppose that is -semiregular for . Then, is differentiable
- •
for if and only if is integral complete.
- •
for if and only if is Mackey complete.
In this case, is differentiable, with444Notably, this formula is well known from the finite dimensional context (cf., e.g., the proof of (1.13.4) Proposition in [1]), and also for regular Lie groups in the convenient setting [11].
[TABLE]
This theorem will be derived from significantly more fundamental results established in this paper: Let be a fixed chart around , and the system of continuous seminorms on . A pair is said to be
- •
admissible* if holds for some ,*
- •
regular* if it is admissible, with*
[TABLE]
Here, the limit is understood to be uniform – In general, we write for with and if
[TABLE]
holds, where denotes the continuous extension of the seminorm to the completion of . Then, the first result we want to mention is, cf. Proposition 3 in Sect. 6.2
Proposition B**.**
Suppose that is admissible.
The pair is regular if and only if we have
[TABLE] 2. 2)
If is regular, then is differentiable at (for suitably small) if and only if holds. In this case, we have
[TABLE]
Evidently, each is admissible if and only if is -semiregular. In Sect. 4, we furthermore prove that, cf. Theorem 1 in Sect. 4
Theorem C**.**
If is -semiregular for , then is Mackey k-continuous.
Here, Mackey k-continuity is a specific kind of sequentially continuity (cf. Sect. 3.3) that, in particular, implies that each admissible is regular (cf. Lemma 15 in Sect. 3.3) – Theorem A thus follows immediately from Proposition B and Theorem C. We will conclude from Theorem C and Theorem 4 in **[7]** that, cf. Corollary 7 in Sect. 7
Corollary D**.**
Suppose that is a Fréchet space; and let be fixed. Then, is -regular if and only if is -semiregular.
Now, Proposition B is actually a consequence of a more fundamental differentiability result (Proposition 2 in Sect. 6) that we will also use to generalize Theorem 5 in **[7]**. Specifically, we will prove that, cf. Theorem 3 in Sect. 6.3
Theorem E**.**
Suppose that is Mackey k-continuous for – additionally abelian if holds. Let ( open) be given with for each . Then,
[TABLE]
holds for , provided that
- a)
We have . 2. b)
For each and ,555This means for , for , for , and for . The corresponding seminorms are defined in Sect. 2.1.1. there exists , and open with , such that
[TABLE]
In particular, we have
[TABLE]
if and only if the Riemann integral on the right side exists in .
We explicitly recall at this point that, by Theorem C, for , Mackey k-continuity is automatically given if is -semiregular. Finally, let denote the exponential map of ; and recall that a Lie group is said to have the strong Trotter property **[4, 8, 13, 19]** if for each with , we have
[TABLE]
uniformly666Thus, for each neighbourhood of , there exists some with for each and .* for each . As already figured out in [4], the strong Trotter property implies the strong commutator property; and, also the Trotter and the commutator property that are relevant, e.g., in representation theory of infinite dimensional Lie groups [19]. Now, Theorem I in [4] states that has the strong Trotter property if is -regular. This was generalized in [8] to the locally -convex case (hence, the case where is -continuous on its domain, cf. Theorem 1 in [7]). In this paper, we go a step further, as we show (cf. Proposition 1 in Sect. 5) that has the strong Trotter property if is sequentially continuous (the precise definitions can be found in Sect. 3.4); which is much weaker than locally -convexity (provided that is not metrizable, of course). We furthermore show in Proposition 1 that (1) holds for each with and \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu)\in C^{\mathrm{lip}}([0,1],\mathfrak{g}) if is Mackey continuous, the latter condition being even less restrictive than sequentially continuity.*
This paper is organized as follows:
- •
In Sect. 2, we provide the basic definitions; and discuss the most elementary properties of the core mathematical objects of this paper.
- •
In Sect. 3, we discuss the continuity notions considered in this paper.
- •
In Sect. 4, we prove Theorem 1 (i.e., Theorem C).
- •
In Sect. 5, we discuss the strong Trotter property in the sequentially/Mackey continuous context.
- •
In Sect. 6, we establish the differentiability results for the evolution map.
- •
In Sect. 7, we prove Corollary 7 (i.e., Corollary D).
2 Preliminaries
In this section, we fix the notations, and discuss the properties of the product integral (evolution map) that we will need in the main text. The proofs of the facts mentioned but not verified in this section, can be found, e.g., in Sect. 3 and Sect. 4 in **[7]**.
2.1 Conventions
In this paper, Manifolds and Lie groups are always understood to be in the sense of **[2]**; in particular, smooth, Hausdorff, and modeled over a Hausdorff locally convex vector space.777We explicitly refer to Definition 3.1 and Definition 3.3 in [2]. A review of the corresponding differential calculus – including the standard differentiation rules used in this paper – can be found, e.g., in Appendix A.1 that essentially equals Sect. 3.3.1 in [7]. If is a -map between the manifolds and , then denotes the corresponding tangent map between their tangent manifolds – we write for each . By an interval, we understand a non-empty, non-singleton connected subset . The set of all compact intervals is denoted by . We furthermore let for each . A curve is a continuous map for a manifold and an interval . If is open, then is said to be of class for if it is of class when considered as a map between the manifolds and . If is an arbitrary interval, then is said to be of class for if holds for a -curve that is defined on an open interval containing – we write in this case. If is of class , then we denote the corresponding tangent vector at by . The above conventions also hold if is a Hausdorff locally convex vector space with system of continuous seminorms . In this case, we let denote the completion of ; as well as the continuous extension of to , for each . We furthermore define
[TABLE]
for all and . If are sets, then denotes the set of all mappings .
2.1.1 Sets of Curves
Let be a Hausdorff locally convex vector space with system of continuous seminorms .
- •
By we denote the set of all Lipschitz curves on ; i.e., all curves , such that
[TABLE]
exists for each – i.e., we have
[TABLE]
- •
By we denote the set of all constant curves on ; i.e., all curves of the form
[TABLE]
for some .
We define , , ; as well as
[TABLE]
for each , , , and – Here, means
- •
* for ,*
- •
* for ,*
- •
* for ,*
- •
* for .*
The -topology on for is the Hausdorff locally convex topology that is generated by the seminorms for all and .
Remark 1**.**
In the Lipschitz case, the above conventions deviate from the conventions used, e.g., in [7, 9] as there the -seminorms, i.e., the -topology is considered on .
Finally, we let denote the set of piecewise -curves on ; i.e., all , such that there exist and
[TABLE]
2.1.2 Lie Groups
In this paper, will always denote an infinite dimensional Lie group in the sense of **[2]** (cf. Definition 3.1 and Definition 3.3 in **[2]**) that is modeled over the Hausdorff locally convex vector space , with corresponding system of continuous seminorms . We denote the Lie algebra of by , fix a chart
[TABLE]
with convex, and ; and define
[TABLE]
We let denote the Lie group multiplication, the right translation by , the inversion, and the adjoint action – i.e., we have
[TABLE]
for each and . We furthermore recall the product rule
[TABLE]
2.1.3 Uniform Limits
Let , , and for be given. We write
- •
* if for each open neighbourhood of , there exists some with*
* for each .*
- •
* if for each open neighbourhood of , there exists some *
with for each .
Evidently, then we have
Lemma 1**.**
Suppose and are given. If holds for each sequence , then we have .
Proof.
If the claim is wrong, then there exists a neighbourhood of , such that the following holds: For each , there exists some with as well as some , such that holds. Since we have , this contradicts the presumptions. ∎
The same conventions (and Lemma 1) also hold if is a Hausdorff locally convex vector space (or its completion) – In this case, we use the following convention:
Let and be given, with for each . Then, for , we write
[TABLE]
Remark 2**.**
In this paper, the above convention will mainly be used in the following form: will be the completion of a Hausdorff locally convex vector space ; and we will have as well as .
2.2 The Evolution Map
In this subsection, we provide the relevant facts and definitions concerning the right logarithmic derivative and the evolution map.
2.2.1 Basic Definitions
We define
[TABLE]
The right logarithmic derivative is given by
[TABLE]
for each ; and we define \mathfrak{D}_{[r,r^{\prime}]}:=\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(C^{1}([r,r^{\prime}],G)) for each , as well as
[TABLE]
Then, \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}} restricted to is injective for each ; so that
[TABLE]
is well defined by
[TABLE]
for each . Here,
[TABLE]
holds for each , and each .
2.2.2 The Product Integral
The product integral is given by
[TABLE]
and we let \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}\phi\equiv\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{r^{\prime}}\phi as well as \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{c}^{c}\phi:=e for and . Moreover, we set
[TABLE]
and let as well as for each . We furthermore let
[TABLE]
Then, we have the following elementary identities, cf., **[3, 11]** or Sect. 3.5.2 in **[7]**
- a)
For each , we have \phi+\mathrm{Ad}_{\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi}(\psi)\in\mathfrak{D}_{[r,r^{\prime}]}, with
[TABLE] 2. b)
For each , we have \mathrm{Ad}_{[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi]^{-1}}(\psi-\phi)\in\mathfrak{D}_{[r,r^{\prime}]}, with
[TABLE] 3. c)
For and , we have
[TABLE] 4. d)
For of class and , we have , with
[TABLE] 5. e)
For each homomorphism between Lie groups and that is of class , we have
[TABLE]
We say that is -semiregular for if holds; which, by d), is equivalent to that holds for each , cf. e.g., Lemma 12 in **[7]**.
2.2.3 The Exponential Map
The exponential map is defined by
[TABLE]
with .
Then, instead of saying that is -semiregular, in the following we will rather say that admits an exponential map. We furthermore remark that d) implies ; and that is a -parameter group for each , with
[TABLE]
cf., e.g., Remark 2.1) in **[7]**. Finally, if is abelian, then holds for all , because we have
[TABLE]
2.2.4 Standard Topologies
We say that is -continuous for if is continuous w.r.t. the -topology. We explicitly remark that under the identification , the -topology just equals the subspace topology on that is inherited by the locally convex topology on . So, instead of saying that is -continuous if is continuous w.r.t. this topology, we will rather say that the exponential map is continuous.
2.3 The Riemann Integral
Let be a Hausdorff locally convex vector space with system of continuous seminorms , and completion . For each , we let denote the continuous extension of to . The Riemann integral of (for ) is denoted by ; and we define
[TABLE]
for and . Clearly, the Riemann integral is linear, with
[TABLE]
as well as
[TABLE]
We furthermore have the substitution formula
[TABLE]
for each , and each of class with and . Moreover, if is a Hausdorff locally convex vector space, and is a continuous linear map, then we have
[TABLE]
Finally, for with as in (2), we define
[TABLE]
A standard refinement argument in combination with (6) then shows that this is well defined; i.e., independent of any choices we have made. We define , and as in (5); and observe that (12) is linear and fulfills (6).
2.4 Standard Facts and Estimates
Let be Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces with corresponding system of continuous seminorms . We recall that
Lemma 2**.**
Let be a topological space; and let be continuous with -multilinear for each . Then, for each compact and each , there exist seminorms as well as open with , such that
[TABLE]
holds for all .
Proof.
Confer, e.g., Corollary 1 in [7]. ∎
Next, given Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces , and a continuous linear map , we denote its unique continuous linear extension by (cf., 2. Theorem in Sect. 3.4 in **[10]**). We recall that
Lemma 3**.**
Let be Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces; and let be of class . Suppose that is continuous at , such that exists. Then, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Confer, e.g., Lemma 7 in [7]. ∎
Remark 3**.**
Let be a Hausdorff locally convex vector space, let be open, and let be a Lie group. A map is said to be
- •
differentiable at if there exists a chart of with , such that
[TABLE]
exists. Then, Lemma 3 applied to coordinate changes shows that (13) holds for one chart around if and only if it holds for each chart around – and that
[TABLE]
is independent of the explicit choice of .
- •
differentiable if is differentiable at each .
In particular, Lemma 2 provides us with the following statements (cf. also Sect. 3.4.1 in **[7]**):
- I)
Since is smooth as well as linear in the second argument (by Lemma 2), to each compact and each , there exists some , such that holds for each . 2. II)
By Lemma 2 applied to and , to each , there exists some , as well as symmetric open with , such that holds for each . 3. III)
Suppose that holds for . Then, we have
[TABLE]
for the smooth map . Since is linear in the second argument, (by Lemma 2) for each , there exists some with
[TABLE] 4. IV)
Suppose that holds for . Then, we have
[TABLE]
for the smooth map \upsilon\colon\mathcal{V}\times\mathfrak{g}\ni(x,X)\mapsto\big{(}\mathrm{d}_{\Xi^{-1}(x)}\Xi\circ\mathrm{d}_{e}\mathrm{R}_{\Xi^{-1}(x)}\big{)}(X)\in E. Since is linear in the second argument, (by Lemma 2) for each , there exists some with
[TABLE]
For each with , we thus obtain from (16), (7), and (8) that
[TABLE]
For instance, we immediately obtain from (17) that
Lemma 4**.**
For each , there exist , and open with , such that
[TABLE]
holds, for each with \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\chi\in U; for all .
Moreover,
Lemma 5**.**
We have for each , , and .
Proof.
Confer, e.g., Lemma 13 in [7]. ∎
Lemma 6**.**
Let , , and be fixed. Then, for each and , there exists some with
[TABLE]
Proof.
Confer, e.g., Lemma 14 in [7]. ∎
Then, modifying the argumentation used in the proof of the Lipschitz case in Lemma 13 in **[7]** to our deviating convention concerning the topology on the set of Lipschitz curves, we also obtain
Lemma 7**.**
Let , and be fixed. Then, for each , there exists some with
[TABLE]
Proof.
Confer Appendix A.2. ∎
2.5 Continuity Statements
For , we define for each ; and recall that, cf. Lemma 8 in **[7]**
Lemma 8**.**
Let be compact. Then, for each , there exists some , and a symmetric open neighbourhood of with and , such that
[TABLE]
holds for each .
Now, combining Lemma 4 with Lemma 8, we obtain the following variation of Proposition 1 in **[7]**:
Lemma 9**.**
For each , there exist and open with , such that
[TABLE]
holds for all with \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi,\>\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\psi\in V; for each .
Proof.
We let and be as in Lemma 8 for there (i.e., is symmetric with ). We choose and as in Lemma 4. We furthermore let and be as in II). Then, shrinking if necessary, we can assume that as well as holds. Then, for as in the presumptions, Lemma 8 applied to q\equiv\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi,\>q^{\prime}\equiv\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\psi,\>h\equiv\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi\in V, and gives
[TABLE]
By assumption, for each , we have
[TABLE]
We obtain from Lemma 4 and II) that
[TABLE]
holds for each ; which proves the claim. ∎
We furthermore observe that
Lemma 10**.**
Suppose that is continuous; and let be fixed. Then, for each open neighbourhood of , there exists some , such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
By assumption, is continuous; and we have . For fixed, there thus exists an open interval containing , as well as an open neighbourhood of , such that we have
[TABLE]
We choose with ; and define . Then, (18) holds for each and ; so that the claim holds for each fixed with . ∎
3 Auxiliary Results
In this section, we introduce the continuity notions that we will need to formulate our main results. We furthermore provide some elementary continuity statements that we will need in the main text.
3.1 Sets of Curves
Let be fixed. We will tacitly use in the following that is a real vector space for each . We will furthermore use that:
- A)
For each , , and , we have \mathrm{Ad}_{[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi]^{-1}}(\psi)\in C^{k}([r,r^{\prime}],\mathfrak{g}) by Lemma 5. Evidently, the same statement also holds for if is abelian. 2. B)
For each , , , and
[TABLE]
we have by d); with
[TABLE]
We say that is k-complete for if
[TABLE]
holds for all , for each . Then,
Remark 4**.**
- •
* is -complete if is abelian.*
- •
* is k-complete for if and only if (19) holds for .*
For this, let be given. Then, for as in B) with there, we have with
[TABLE]
In particular, Point A) then shows:
- •
If is -semiregular, then is 0-complete if and only if is integral complete – i.e., if and only if holds for each .
- •
If is -semiregular for , then is k-complete if and only if is Mackey-complete.888Recall that is Mackey complete if and only if holds for each , for any , cf., 2.14 Theorem in [12].
3.2 Weak Continuity
A pair is said to be
- •
admissible* if holds for some .*
- •
regular* if it is admissible with*
[TABLE]
Then,
Remark 5**.**
It follows from c) that is admissible/regular if and only if is admissible/regular for each . 3. 2)
Each with is regular; because we have
[TABLE]
for each , and each .
We say that is weakly k-continuous for if each admissible is regular.
Lemma 11**.**
If is weakly k-continuous for , then each admissible (for each ) is regular.
Proof.
We define ; and observe that
[TABLE]
holds for suitably small. Since we have by Point B), the claim is clear from the presumptions. ∎
Lemma 12**.**
* is weakly k-continuous for if and only if*
[TABLE]
holds, for each with for some . The same statement also holds for if is abelian.
Proof.
The one implication is evident. For the other implication, we suppose that is admissible. Since holds, we have
[TABLE]
with \chi:=\mathrm{Ad}_{[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{0}^{\bullet}\phi]^{-1}}(\psi)\in C^{k}([0,1],\mathfrak{g}) by Point A). The claim is thus clear from (20). ∎
Corollary 1**.**
If is abelian, then is weakly -continuous.
Proof.
This is clear from Lemma 12 and Remark 5.2). ∎
3.3 Mackey Continuity
We write for , , and if
[TABLE]
holds for certain , , and .
Remark 6**.**
Suppose that holds for . Then,
[TABLE]
holds for each strictly increasing .
We say that is Mackey k-continuous if
[TABLE]
In analogy to Lemma 11, we obtain
Lemma 13**.**
* is Mackey k-continuous for if and only if*
[TABLE]
for each .
Proof.
The one implication is evident. For the other implication, we suppose that (22) holds. Then, for fixed, we let ; and obtain
[TABLE]
whereby the second step is due to the presumptions. ∎
In analogy to Lemma 12, we obtain
Lemma 14**.**
* is Mackey k-continuous for if and only if*
[TABLE]
The statement also holds for if is abelian.
Proof.
The one implication is evident. For the other implication, we suppose that holds; and observe that
[TABLE]
holds by Point A). Then, by Lemma 6 and Lemma 7, we have ; from which the claim is clear. ∎
We furthermore observe that
Lemma 15**.**
If is Mackey k-continuous for , then is weakly k-continuous.
Proof.
If is not weakly k-continuous, then there exists an admissible , an open neighbourhood of , as well as sequences and , such that
[TABLE]
holds. Then, cannot be Mackey k-continuous, because we have . ∎
Remarkably, the uniform convergence on the right side of (23) in Lemma 14 can be replaced by a weaker convergence property; namely,
Lemma 16**.**
* is Mackey k-continuous for if and only if*
[TABLE]
The statement also holds for if is abelian.
Proof.
The one implication is evident. For the other implication, we suppose that (24) holds; and that is not Mackey k-continuous. By Lemma 14, there exist , open with , a sequence , and strictly increasing, such that
[TABLE]
holds. For each , we define
[TABLE]
and conclude from Remark 6 and Point B) that holds. Then, (24) implies
[TABLE]
which contradicts (25). ∎
3.4 Sequentially Continuity
We write for , , and if
[TABLE]
holds. We say that is sequentially k-continuous if
[TABLE]
Remark 7**.**
Suppose that is sequentially k-continuous for . Evidently, then is Mackey k-continuous; thus, weakly k-continuous by Lemma 15. 3. 2)
* is sequentially k-continuous for if and only if*
[TABLE]
holds for each . This just follows as in Lemma 13. 4. 3)
Let , with abelian for . Then, the same arguments as in Lemma 14 show that is sequentially k-continuous if and only if
[TABLE] 5. 4)
Let , with abelian for . Then, the same arguments as in Lemma 16 show that is sequentially k-continuous if and only if
[TABLE] 6. 5)
If is -continuous for , then is sequentially k-continuous – This is clear
- •
for from Point 4),
- •
for from Lemma 10. 7. 6)
Let be given; and suppose that the -topology on is first countable, and that is sequentially k-continuous. Then, is -continuous.
In fact, if is not -continuous, then there exists open, such that is not open, i.e., not a neighbourhood of some . Since (thus, ) is first countable, there exists a sequence with . We obtain for each ; thus, , as is sequentially continuous, and since is closed. This contradicts that holds.
3.5 Piecewise Integrable Curves
We now finally discuss piecewise integrable curves. Specifically, we provide the basic facts and definitions999Confer Sect. 4.3 in [7] for the statements mentioned but not proven here.; and furthermore show that sequentially 0-continuity and Mackey 0-continuity carry over to the piecewise integrable category. This will be used in Sect. 5 to generalize Theorem 1 in **[8]**.
3.5.1 Basic Facts and Definitions
For and , we let denote the set of all , such that there exist and
[TABLE]
In this situation, we define \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{r}\psi:=e, as well as
[TABLE]
A standard refinement argument in combination with c) then shows that this is well defined; i.e., independent of any choices we have made. It is furthermore not hard to see that for , we have \mathrm{Ad}_{[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi]^{-1}}(\psi-\phi)\in\mathfrak{D}\mathrm{P}^{k}([r,r^{\prime}],\mathfrak{g}) with
[TABLE]
We write
- •
* for and if*
[TABLE]
holds.
- •
* for and if*
[TABLE]
holds for certain , , and .
3.5.2 A Continuity Statement
We recall the construction made in Sect. 4.3 in **[7]**.
- i)
We fix (a bump function) smooth with
[TABLE]
Then, given and , we let
[TABLE]
and define by
[TABLE]
Then, is smooth, with for each , ; and (10) shows that
[TABLE]
holds, with for . 2. ii)
For with as well as as in (26), we let and be as in i). Then, it is straightforward from the definitions that
[TABLE]
for each .101010In the proof of Lemma 24 in [7], this statement was more generally verified for the case that holds.
We obtain
Lemma 17**.**
If is sequentially 0-continuous, then
[TABLE] 3. 2)
If is Mackey 0-continuous, then
[TABLE]
Specifically, in both situations, for each , there exist some and with
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let and be given. For fixed, we choose and as in Lemma 4. We furthermore let be as in I), for \mathrm{C}\equiv\mathrm{im}[[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi]^{-1}] and there. Then, for each , we let , , and be as in ii), for
[TABLE]
there. Then,
- •
we have
[TABLE]
- •
we have for each by Lemma 6, which shows that
- –
holds if we are in the situation of 1),
- –
holds if we are in the situation of 2).
In both situations, there thus exists some with \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\chi_{n}\in U for each .
We obtain from Lemma 4 (second step), and I) (last step) that111111For the third step observe that holds for each .
[TABLE]
holds for all and ; which proves the claim. ∎
4 Mackey Continuity
In this section, we show that
Theorem 1**.**
If is -semiregular for , then is Mackey k-continuous.
The proof of Theorem 1 is based on a bump function argument similar to that one used in the proof of Theorem 2 in **[7]**. It furthermore makes use of the fact that [0,1]\ni t\mapsto\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{0}^{t}\phi\in G is continuous for each . However, before we can provide the proof, we need some technical preparation first.
4.1 Some Estimates
Suppose we are given ; and let as well as
[TABLE]
We observe the following:
- •
Let for and be given. By c), d) in Appendix A.1, we have
[TABLE]
for a map that is independent of .121212More concretely, are the coefficients appearing in the Leibniz rule for iterated derivatives of compositions. We obtain
[TABLE]
for each , , and .
- •
Let be given. Then we have
[TABLE]
for each ; thus,
[TABLE]
Let now be a fixed bump function as in (29); as well as strictly decreasing with . For each , we define , as well as
[TABLE]
We obtain from (10) that
[TABLE]
holds; and furthermore observe that
[TABLE]
4.2 A Construction
Suppose we are given with ; and let be as in Sect. 4.1. Then,
- •
We obtain from (31) and (33) that
[TABLE]
holds, for each , , and .
- •
We obtain from (32) and (33) that
[TABLE]
holds, for each and .
We define , by
[TABLE]
Then, it is straightforward to see that131313The technical details can be found, e.g., in the proof of Lemma 24 in [7].* holds for each , with*
[TABLE]
Moreover, for , we obtain from (35) that
[TABLE]
holds, cf. Appendix A.3.
4.3 Proof of Theorem 1
We are ready for the
Proof of Theorem 1.
Suppose that the claim is wrong, i.e., that is -semiregular for but not Mackey k-continuous. Then, by Lemma 14, there exists a sequence (with , , and as in (21) for there), as well as open with , such that \mathrm{im}[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{0}^{\bullet}\phi_{n}]\not\subseteq U holds for infinitely many . Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we thus can assume that
[TABLE]
holds. We let , and for each ; so that holds for each . We construct as in (36) in Sect. 4.2; and fix open with and .
Suppose now that we have shown that is of class ; i.e., that holds as is -semiregular. Since [0,1]\ni t\mapsto\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{0}^{t}\phi\in G is continuous, there exists some with \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{0}^{t}\phi\in V for each ; thus,
[TABLE]
for each with , which contradicts (39).
To prove the claim, it thus suffices to show that is of class :
- •
Suppose first that holds. Then, it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
holds, because is of class on .
For this, we let for be given; and observe that
[TABLE]
holds. Then, for fixed and , we obtain from (34) (with ) as well as (39) that
[TABLE]
holds; which clearly tends to zero for .
- •
Suppose now that holds. The previous point then shows . For fixed, we thus have . We let for each , define
[TABLE]
and obtain for that
[TABLE]
holds; thus,
[TABLE]
Moreover, since is continuous with , for each we have
[TABLE]
This shows , i.e., .∎
5 The Strong Trotter Property
In this Section, we want to give a brief application of the notions introduced so far. For this, we recall that a Lie group is said to have the strong Trotter property if (1) holds; and now will show
Proposition 1**.**
If is sequentially 0-continuous, then has the strong Trotter property. 2. 2)
If is Mackey [math]-continuous, then (1) holds for each with and \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu)\in C^{\mathrm{lip}}([0,1],\mathfrak{g}).
Here,
- •
By Remark 7.5), Proposition 1.1) generalizes Theorem 1 in **[8]**, stating that admits the strong Trotter property if is locally -convex (recall that, by Theorem 1 in **[7]**, local -convexity is equivalent to that is -continuous).
- •
By Theorem 1, the presumptions made in Proposition 1.2) are always fulfilled, e.g., if is -semiregular, and is of class with .
We will need the following observations: Let , be given; and define \phi:=\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu), , as well as
[TABLE]
Then, for each , we have
[TABLE]
For each , , and , we thus obtain
[TABLE]
whereby, for the case that holds, we additionally have
[TABLE]
We are ready for the
Proof of Proposition 1.
Let \phi:=\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu) and , for
with if is sequentially 0-continuous. 2. 2)
with and if is Mackey [math]-continuous.
We suppose that (1) is wrong; i.e., that there exists some , an open neighbourhood of , a sequence , and a strictly increasing sequence with
[TABLE]
Passing to a subsequence if necessary, we can additionally assume that exists. We choose open with and , and fix some with
[TABLE]
Moreover, for each :
- •
We define
[TABLE]
- •
We define for ; as well as for . Then, we have141414In the first step below, d) is applied with .
[TABLE]
- •
We define by
[TABLE]
and obtain
[TABLE]
Then, for each and , we have
[TABLE]
For the case that holds, we furthermore obtain
[TABLE]
for each and ; whereby holds. We thus have
[TABLE]
In both cases, by Lemma 17, there exists some with
[TABLE]
and we obtain for that
[TABLE]
holds, which contradicts (42). ∎
6 Differentiation
In this section, we discuss several differentiability properties of the evolution map. The whole discussion is based on the following generalization of Proposition 7 in **[7]**.
Proposition 2**.**
Let , , and be given with , such that
- i)
* holds for each ,* 2. ii)
* holds for each .*
Then, the following two conditions are equivalent:
- a)
\lim^{\infty}_{n}\Xi(\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}h_{n}\cdot\chi+h_{n}\cdot\varepsilon_{n})=0. 2. b)
\lim^{\infty}_{n}1/h_{n}\cdot\Xi\big{(}\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}h_{n}\cdot\chi+h_{n}\cdot\varepsilon_{n}\big{)}=\int_{r}^{\bullet}(\mathrm{d}_{e}\Xi\circ\chi)(s)\>\mathrm{d}s\in\overline{E}.
The proof of Proposition 2 will be established in Sect. 6.4. We now first use this proposition, to discuss the differential of the evolution maps as well as the differentiation of parameter-dependent integrals.
6.1 Some Technical Statements
We will need the following variation of Proposition 2:
Corollary 2**.**
Let , , and be given with , such that
- i)
* holds for each ,* 2. ii)
* holds for some , for each .*
Then, the following conditions are equivalent:151515Recall Remark 2 for the notation used in d).
- a)
\lim^{\infty}_{h\rightarrow 0}\hskip 1.0pt\Xi(\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}h\cdot\chi+h\cdot\varepsilon_{h})=0. 2. b)
\lim^{\infty}_{n}\Xi(\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}h_{n}\cdot\chi+h_{n}\cdot\varepsilon_{h_{n}})=0* for each sequence .* 3. c)
\lim^{\infty}_{n}\hskip 1.0pt1/h_{n}\cdot\Xi\big{(}\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}h_{n}\cdot\chi+h_{n}\cdot\varepsilon_{h_{n}}\big{)}=\int_{r}^{\bullet}(\mathrm{d}_{e}\Xi\circ\chi)(s)\>\mathrm{d}s\in\overline{E}* for each sequence .* 4. d)
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}h}\big{|}^{\infty}_{h=0}\hskip 1.0pt\Xi\big{(}\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}h\cdot\chi+h\cdot\varepsilon_{h}\big{)}=\int_{r}^{\bullet}(\mathrm{d}_{e}\Xi\circ\chi)(s)\>\mathrm{d}s\in\overline{E}.
Proof.
By Lemma 1 (applied to there), a) is equivalent to b). Moreover, by Proposition 2, b) is equivalent to c), because
Condition i) implies Condition i) in Proposition 2, for there,
Condition ii) implies Condition ii) in Proposition 2, for there.
Finally, by Lemma 1 (applied to there), c) is equivalent to d). ∎
Given a net , and some , we write if
[TABLE]
Lemma 18**.**
Suppose that is Mackey k-continuous for . Suppose furthermore that we are given as well as for , such that the expressions
[TABLE]
are well defined; i.e., such that the occurring Riemann integrals exist in . Then, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
This follows by the same arguments as in Corollary 13 and Lemma 41 in [7]. For completeness, the adapted argumentation is provided in Appendix A.4. ∎
6.2 The Differential of the Evolution Map
We now discuss the differential of the evolution map – for which we recall the conventions fixed in Remark 3. Then, Corollary 2 (with there) provides us with
Proposition 3**.**
Suppose that is admissible, with .
The pair is regular if and only if we have
[TABLE] 2. 2)
If is regular, then (-\delta,\delta)\ni h\mapsto\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}\phi+h\cdot\psi\in G is differentiable at (for suitably small) if and only if \int\mathrm{Ad}_{[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{s}\phi]^{-1}}(\psi(s))\>\mathrm{d}s\in\mathfrak{g} holds. In this case, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
For , with suitably small, we have
[TABLE]
We obtain from the Equivalence of a) and d) in Corollary 2 for there that (third step)
[TABLE] 2. 2)
Let be regular; and \mu\colon(-\delta,\delta)\ni h\mapsto\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}\phi+h\cdot\psi\in G.
- •
Suppose that \int\mathrm{Ad}_{[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{s}\phi]^{-1}}(\psi(s))\>\mathrm{d}s\in\mathfrak{g} holds; and let (shrink if necessary)
[TABLE]
Then, we have
[TABLE]
Since (thus, ) holds for the chart
[TABLE]
(50) shows that is differentiable at [math] – Specifically, we have, cf. Remark 3
[TABLE]
which shows (48).
- •
Suppose that is differentiable at . Then, for as in (51) we have, cf. Remark 3
[TABLE]
We obtain
[TABLE]
In particular, (48) holds by the previous point. ∎
6.2.1 The Generic Case
Combining Proposition 3 with Theorem 1 and Lemma 15, we obtain
Theorem 2**.**
Suppose that is -semiregular for . Then, is differentiable if and only if is k-complete. In this case, is differentiable for each , with
[TABLE]
In particular,
- a)
\mathrm{d}_{\phi}\hskip 1.0pt{\mathrm{evol}}^{k}_{[r,r^{\prime}]}\colon C^{k}([r,r^{\prime}],\mathfrak{g})\rightarrow T_{\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}\!\phi}G\hskip 1.0pt* is linear and -continuous for each ,* 2. b)
for each sequence , and each net , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
The first part is clear from Theorem 1, Lemma 15, Remark 4, and Proposition 3.2). Then, b) is clear from Lemma 18. Moreover, (by the first part) is linear; with (cf. (3))
[TABLE]
Then, since is -continuous by (9) and I), a) is clear from smoothness of the Lie group multiplication. ∎
Corollary 3**.**
Suppose that is -semiregular for , and that is k-complete. Then, \mu\colon\mathbb{R}\ni h\mapsto\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}\phi+h\cdot\psi is of class for each and .
Proof.
Theorem 1 and Lemma 15 show that is continuous. Moreover, for each , and each sequence , we have ; thus,
[TABLE]
by Theorem 2.b). This shows that is continuous, i.e., that is of class . ∎
Remark 8**.**
It is straightforward from Corollary 3, the differentiation rules d) and c), as well as (3), (12), c), and e) (for there) that (48) also holds for all , for each . 3. 2)
Expectably, as defined in Corollary 3 is even of class . A detailed proof of this fact, however, would require further technical preparation – which we do not want to carry out at this point. 4. 3)
Expectably, the equivalence
[TABLE]
also holds for – implying that Proposition 3.1) carries over to the piecewise category. This might be shown by the same arguments (Taylor expansion) as used in the proof of Lemma 7 in **[7]** (cf. Lemma 3) additionally using (27) as well as that for fixed,
[TABLE]
is smooth, with for all . The details, however, appear to be quite technical, so that we leave this issue to another paper.
6.2.2 The Exponential Map
We recall the conventions fixed in Sect. 2.2.3, specifically that holds. Then, Proposition 3.2), for and there, reads as follows.
Corollary 4**.**
Suppose that is regular for . Then, is differentiable at (for suitably small) if and only if holds. In this case, we have
[TABLE]
Remark 9**.**
Suppose that admits an exponential map; and that is weakly -continuous. Then, Corollary 4 shows that we have
[TABLE]
if and only if is -complete. For instance, is weakly -continuous, and is -complete if
- •
* is of class , by Remark 7.1), Remark 7.5), and Corollary 4.*
- •
* is abelian, by Corollary 1 and Remark 4.* 3. 2)
Suppose that is -complete; and that admits a continuous exponential map. Then, is -semiregular; and is weakly -continuous by Remark 7.1) and Remark 7.5). More formally, (52) then reads
[TABLE]
The same arguments as in **[7]** then show that (thus ) is of class . More specifically, one has to replace Lemma 23 by Lemma 10 in the proof of Lemma 41 in **[7]**. Then, substituting Equation (95) in **[7]** by (53), the proof of Corollary 13 in **[7]** just carries over to the case where holds (a similar adaption has been done in the proof of Lemma 18).
As in the Lipschitz case, cf. Remark 7 in **[7]**, it is to be expected that a (quite elaborate and technical) induction shows that is even smooth if is Mackey complete (or, more generally, if all the occurring iterated Riemann integrals exist in ).
6.3 Integrals with Parameters
Given an open interval as well as , in the following, we denote
[TABLE]
The next theorem generalizes Theorem 5 in **[7]** (with significantly simplified proof).
Theorem 3**.**
Suppose that is Mackey k-continuous for – additionally abelian if holds. Let ( open) be given with for each . Then,
[TABLE]
holds for , provided that
- a)
We have .161616More specifically, this means that for each , the map is differentiable at with derivative , such that holds. The latter condition in particular ensures that holds for each and , cf. ii). 2. b)
For each and , there exists , as well as open with , such that
[TABLE]
In particular, we have
[TABLE]
if and only if the Riemann integral on the right side exists in .
Proof.
The last statement follows from the first statement and Lemma 3 – just as in the proof of Proposition 3.2). Now, for , we have
[TABLE]
with such that
- i)
, 2. ii)
for all , .
We let \alpha:=\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\Phi(x,\cdot); and obtain
[TABLE]
with , because our presumptions ensure that holds. By Lemma 6 and Lemma 7, for each and , there exists some with171717If holds, we can just choose and , because is presumed to be abelian in this case.
[TABLE]
For each fixed sequence , we thus have . Since is Mackey k-continuous, this implies
[TABLE]
Now, for such small that holds, by i) and ii), fulfills the presumptions in Corollary 2. We thus have
[TABLE]
by (54), (55), as well as the equivalence of b) and d) in Corollary 2. ∎
We immediately obtain
Corollary 5**.**
Suppose that is -semiregular for ; and that is k-complete. Let ( open) be given with for each . Then,
[TABLE]
holds for , provided that the conditions a) and b) in Theorem 3 are fulfilled.
Proof.
This is clear from Theorem 1 and Theorem 3. ∎
We furthermore obtain the following generalization of Corollary 11 in **[7]**.
Corollary 6**.**
Suppose that is Mackey k-continuous for – additionally abelian if holds. Suppose furthermore that is of class ; and define . Then, for , we have
[TABLE]
provided that the Riemann integral on the right side exists in . If this is the case for each , then is of class .
Proof.
We let ; and observe that \alpha(z)=\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}\Phi(z,\cdot) holds for each . Then, the first statement is clear from Theorem 3. For the second statement, we suppose that
[TABLE]
is well defined; i.e., that the Riemann integral on the right side exists for each . We fix and with ; and observe that
[TABLE]
holds by (8). For each sequence , we thus have
[TABLE]
Moreover, since is of class , we have
[TABLE]
so that Lemma 18 shows
[TABLE]
This shows that is continuous at . Since was arbitrary, it follows that is of class . ∎
For instance, we obtain the following generalization of Remark 2.3) in **[7]**.
Example 1**.**
Suppose that is Mackey -continuous and abelian. Then, for each with , we have, cf. Appendix A.5
[TABLE]
In particular, if holds ( admits an exponential map), then is -semiregular for if is k-complete.
6.4 Differentiation at Zero
In this subsection, we prove Proposition 2. We start with some general remarks:
Let and be given. For fixed, we define for ; as well as for . We furthermore define by and
[TABLE]
Then, constructed in this way, admits the following properties:
- a)
We have for each . 2. b)
We have for each and . 3. c)
Since is bounded, also are bounded. Thus,
- •
For each , there exists some with
[TABLE]
- •
For suitably small,
[TABLE]
is well defined for each , ; and we define
[TABLE]
Moreover, for each fixed open neighbourhood of , there exists some with
[TABLE]
Modifying the proof of Proposition 7 in **[7]**, we obtain the
Proof of Proposition 2.
Suppose first that b) holds; and let
[TABLE]
Then, a) is clear from .
Suppose now that a) holds – i.e. that we have \lim^{\infty}_{n}\Xi(\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\psi_{n})=0 with
[TABLE]
We now have to show that for fixed, the expression
[TABLE]
tends to zero for . For this, we choose and as in Lemma 9; and let
[TABLE]
be as above – with additionally such small that \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\psi_{n}\in V holds for each with . We choose such large that holds. Then, for each and , we obtain from (9) (second step), (59) and Lemma 9 (fifth step), as well as (58) (last step) that
[TABLE]
holds. By Lebesgue’s dominated convergence theorem and i), ii), the first term tends to zero for ; and, by a), the third term tends to zero for . Thus, given, there exists some , such that both the first-, and the third term is bounded by for all . Moreover, since holds (second step), we can estimate the second term by
[TABLE]
- •
Since is compact, increasing if necessary, by (57), we can achieve that the fourth line in (60) is bounded by for each .
- •
To estimate the last line in (60), we choose as in (15); and increase in such a way (use (57)) that holds for all ; thus,
[TABLE]
Then, it is clear from a) that for suitably large, the last line in (60) is bounded by for all .
We thus have for each ; which shows . ∎
7 Extension: The Metrizable Category
We recall that a Hausdorff locally convex vector space is said to be metrizable if it admits a metric that generates the topology thereon. We furthermore recall that is said to be -regular if is -semiregular such that is smooth w.r.t. the -topology.
After this paper had been put on the arXiv, the author’s attention was drawn by Glöckner and Schmeding to the fact that in metrizable locally convex vector spaces, convergence of a sequence implies its Mackey convergence (and vice versa). Specifically, it was argued that the following two results will hold:
Lemma 19**.**
Suppose that is metrizable; and let . Then, the following conditions are equivalent:
- i)
* is -continuous.* 2. ii)
* is sequentially k-continuous.* 3. iii)
* is Mackey k-continuous.*
Corollary 7**.**
Suppose that is a Fréchet space; and let . Then, is -regular if and only if is -semiregular.
Proof.
The one implication is evident. Suppose thus that is -semiregular. Then, is Mackey k-continuous by Theorem 1; so that is -continuous by Lemma 19. Since is complete (thus, integral complete and Mackey complete), Theorem 4 in [7] shows that is smooth, i.e., that is -regular. ∎
The rest of this section is dedicated to a selfcontained proof of Lemma 19.
Some Standard Facts:
Let be a Hausdorff locally convex vector space, with system of continuous seminorms . A subsystem is said to be a fundamental system if is a local base of zero in . We recall that
Lemma 20**.**
Let be a fundamental system, and a subsystem. Then, the following statements are equivalent:
- 1)
* is a fundamental system.* 2. 2)
To each , there exist and with .
Proof.
If is a fundamental system, then 2) follows from Proposition 22.6 in [14] when applied to the identity . Suppose thus that 2) holds; and let be open with . We choose with , fix and with ; and observe that holds. Since is open, 1) follows. ∎
Lemma 21**.**
The following statements are equivalent:
- 1)
* is metrizable.* 2. 2)
There exists a countable fundamental system . 3. 3)
There exists as in 2) with for each .
Proof.
The equivalence of 1) and 2) is covered by Proposition 25.1 in [14]. It is furthermore clear that 3) implies 2). Let thus be as in 2); and define
[TABLE]
Since holds for each , Lemma 20 shows that is a fundamental system; which establishes 3). ∎
Let be a fundamental system. We write for and if
[TABLE]
holds for certain , , and .
Remark 10**.**
It is immediate from Lemma 20 that the definition made in (61) does not depend on the explicit choice of the fundamental system .
We obtain
Lemma 22**.**
Suppose that is metrizable; and let be a sequence with . Then, we have .
Proof.
Although this statement is well known from the literature (cf., e.g., 4. Proposition in Sect. 10.1 in [10]), for completeness reasons, we provide an elementary proof that is adapted to our particular formulation of Mackey convergence, cf. Appendix A.6. ∎
We recall that the -topology on for is the Hausdorff locally convex topology that is generated by the seminorms (cf. Sect. 2.1.1). Since is a fundamental system, the definition made in (61) coincides with the definition made in (21). We furthermore recall that
Lemma 23**.**
If is metrizable, then is metrizable for each .
Proof.
Confer, e.g., Appendix A.7. ∎
The Proof of Lemma 19:
We obtain from Lemma 21 and Lemma 23:
Corollary 8**.**
Suppose that is metrizable; and let . Then, is sequentially k-continuous if and only if is Mackey k-continuous.
Proof.
Let , and be given.
- •
Evidently, implies ; so that is Mackey k-continuous if is sequentially k-continuous.
- •
By Lemma 23, is metrizable. Lemma 22 thus shows that implies . Consequently, is sequentially k-continuous if is Mackey k-continuous. ∎
We are ready for the
Proof of Lemma 19.
The equivalence of ii) and iii) is covered by Corollary 8. Moreover, since Lemma 23 shows that is metrizable (thus, first countable), the equivalence of i) and ii) is clear from Remark 7.5) as well as Remark 7.6). ∎
APPENDIX
Appendix A Appendix
A.1 Bastiani’s Differential Calculus
In this Appendix, we recall the differential calculus from **[6, 2, 15, 18]**, cf. also Sect. 3.3.1 in **[7]**.
Let and be Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces. A map , with open, is said to be differentiable at if
[TABLE]
exists for each . Then, is said to be differentiable if it is differentiable at each . More generally, is said to be -times differentiable for if
[TABLE]
is well defined for each – implicitly meaning that is -times differentiable for each . In this case, we define
[TABLE]
for ; and let , as well as for each . Then, is said to be
- •
of class if it is continuous – In this case, we let .
- •
of class for if it is -times differentiable, such that
[TABLE]
is continuous for each . In this case, is symmetric and -multilinear for each and , cf. **[2]**.
- •
of class if it is of class for each .
We have the following differentiation rules **[2]**:
- a)
A map is of class for if is of class when considered as a map for and . 2. b)
If is linear and continuous, then is smooth; with for each , as well as for each . 3. c)
Suppose that and are of class for , for Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces . Then, is of class with
[TABLE] 4. d)
Let be Hausdorff locally convex vector spaces, and let be of class . Then, is of class if and only if for , the “partial derivative”
[TABLE]
exists in , and is continuous. In this case, we have
[TABLE]
for each , and for .
A.2 Proof of Lemma 7
In this appendix, we prove
Lemma 7.
Let , and be fixed. Then, for each , there exists some with
[TABLE]
Proof.
By definition, there exists some , for an open interval containing , with \operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\hstretch{1.2}{\rotatebox{0.0}{\SavedStyle\delta^{r}}}}}(\mu)|_{[r,r^{\prime}]}=\phi and . We now have to show that
[TABLE]
holds, for each fixed . For this, we let be fixed; and obtain
[TABLE]
- •
We let , choose as in I) for there; and obtain
[TABLE]
- •
The map is well defined, continuous, and linear in the second argument. By Lemma 2 applied to , there thus exists some with
[TABLE]
Then, we obtain from (8) that
[TABLE]
holds, for each with .
We choose with (i.e., ); and obtain
[TABLE]
We furthermore obtain from (62), (64), (65) that
[TABLE]
holds for each ; thus,
[TABLE]
which proves the claim. ∎
A.3 Proof of Equation (38)
In this appendix, we show
[TABLE]
Proof of Equation (38).
We let for each ; so that
[TABLE]
holds by (35). Then, for with , we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, for and , with and , we have
[TABLE]
Combining (67) with (68), we obtain (38). ∎
A.4 Proof of Lemma 18
In this appendix, we prove
Lemma 18.
Suppose that is Mackey k-continuous for . Suppose furthermore that we are given as well as for , such that the expressions
[TABLE]
are well defined; i.e., such that the occurring Riemann integrals exist in . Then, we have
[TABLE]
For this, we first show the following analogue to Lemma 41 in **[7]**.
Lemma 24**.**
Suppose that is Mackey k-continuous for ; and let be fixed. Let be continuous; and define
[TABLE]
Then, for each sequence and each net , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
By (9), it suffices to show that for
[TABLE]
we have w.r.t. the -topology; i.e., that for and fixed, there exist and with
[TABLE]
For this, we let \mu:=\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\bullet}\phi, and consider the continuous map
[TABLE]
Then, for fixed, there exists an open neighbourhood of , as well as open with , such that
[TABLE]
holds. We choose
- a)
open with and . 2. b)
open with and . 3. c)
open with , such that for , we have
[TABLE]
Since is compact, there exist , such that holds.
- •
We define .
Since is Mackey k-continuous, there exists some with
[TABLE]
- •
We define .
Since holds, there exists with
[TABLE]
Then, for with , as well as and , we obtain from (73), (74), as well as (72) for there that
- •
\mu(t_{p})^{-1}\cdot\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\tau}\phi_{n}=\big{(}\mu(t_{p})^{-1}\cdot\mu(\tau)\big{)}\cdot\big{(}[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\tau}\phi]^{-1}[\operatorname*{\ThisStyle{\vstretch{0.9}{\hstretch{1.5}{\rotatebox{10.0}{\SavedStyle!\int!}}}}}_{r}^{\tau}\phi_{n}]\big{)}\in V\cdot V\subseteq W[t_{p}],
- •
.
The claim is thus clear from (71) and (72). ∎
Proof of Lemma 18.
For each , we have, cf. (3)
[TABLE]
so that (69) holds by Lemma 24, because the Lie group multiplication is smooth. ∎
A.5 Proof of Equation (56)
In this appendix, we show
[TABLE]
Proof of Equation (56).
We fix with , define by
[TABLE]
and observe that181818Recall the last statement in Sect. 2.2.3 for the fact that holds.
[TABLE]
fulfills the presumptions in Corollary 6, with
[TABLE]
By Corollary 6, we thus have , with
[TABLE]
for each . Here, we have used in the second-, and the fifth step that is abelian. ∎
A.6 Proof of Lemma 22
In this appendix, we prove
Lemma 22.
Suppose that is metrizable; and let be a sequence with . Then, we have .
Proof.
We choose as in Lemma 21.3); and let be strictly increasing with
[TABLE]
- •
We define for each with ; and observe that holds.
- •
For with , we obtain
[TABLE]
This shows that holds for each ; thus, .∎
A.7 Proof of Lemma 23
In this appendix, we prove
Lemma 23.
If is metrizable, then is metrizable for each .
Proof.
Let be as in Lemma 21.3). For each , we define
[TABLE]
Moreover, for each , we let
[TABLE]
Let now , , be fixed. By Lemma 20, there exist , with . We define
[TABLE]
observe that as well as holds; and obtain
[TABLE]
Then, Lemma 20 shows that is a fundamental system; and, since is countable, the claim follows from Lemma 21. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk, Lie Groups, Universitext, Springer, Berlin, 2000.
- 2[2] H. Glöckner: Infinite-dimensional Lie groups without completeness restrictions, in: Geometry and Analysis on Finite- and Infinite-dimensional Lie Groups (Bȩdlewo 2000), Banach Center Publ. 55, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw (2002), 43–59.
- 3[3] H. Glöckner: Regularity properties of infinite-dimensional Lie groups, and semiregularity, preprint (2012), https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.0715.
- 4[4] H. Glöckner: Measurable regularity properties of infinite-dimensional Lie groups, preprint (2015), https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.02568.
- 5[5] H. Glöckner, K.-H. Neeb: When unit groups of continuous inverse algebras are regular Lie groups, Studia Math. 211 (2012), no. 2, 95–109.
- 6[6] R. Hamilton: The inverse function theorem of Nash and Moser, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N. S.) 7 (1982), no. 1, 65–222.
- 7[7] M. Hanusch: Regularity of Lie groups, preprint (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03508 v 2.
- 8[8] M. Hanusch: The strong Trotter property for locally μ 𝜇 \mu -convex Lie Groups, preprint (2018), https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08923 v 1.
