<< Предыдущая стр. 41(из 61 стр.)ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ Следующая >>
We refer to CОіj as the jth monodromy factor. Note that we do not consider
a monodromy factor corresponding to a path encircling inп¬Ѓnity, since such
a matrix can be expressed as a product, in a suitable order, of the other
ones. These matrices generate a group, called the monodromy group of the
system, but this is of no importance here.
Obviously, a Fuchsian system is given in terms of n ОЅ 2 free parameters,
namely, the matrices Aj . The monodromy matrices carry the same number
of parameters, and therefore it makes sense to ask the following question:
12.4 Birkhoп¬ЂвЂ™s Reduction Problem 189

вЂў Given the points aj , the paths Оіj , and invertible matrices CОіj , are
there matrices Aj , so that the corresponding Fuchsian system has the
CОіj as its monodromy factors?
The above problem is usually referred to as the Riemann-Hilbert problem,
or HilbertвЂ™s 21st problem. It was believed to have been positively solved by
Plemelj , but Bolibruch [58, 59, 63] in 1989 showed that the answer is
in fact negative by giving an explicit counterexample. For a discussion of
the history of the problem, and a presentation of related results, see the
book of Anosov and Bolibruch . Very recently, new results have been
obtained for the same problem, but lower triangular monodromy matrices,
by Vandamme , based on earlier work of Bolibruch .

12.4 Birkhoп¬ЂвЂ™s Reduction Problem
Let a system of ordinary diп¬Ђerential equations of the form (3.1) (p. 37) be
given. One classical question concerning such systems is that of the behavior
of its solutions as z в†’ в€ћ. Since analytic transformations essentially leave
this behavior unchanged, Birkhoп¬Ђ [53, 56] in 1913 suggested the following
approach:
вЂў Within an equivalence class of such systems, with respect to analytic
transformations, determine the system(s) that in some sense are the
simplest, and then study their solutions near the point inп¬Ѓnity. This
approach is very much analogous to the question of normal forms
of constant matrices with respect to similarity, leading to Jordan
canonical form.
Birkhoп¬Ђ conjectured that for every system (3.1) one can always п¬Ѓnd an
analytic transformation x = T (z) y, such that the transformed system z y =
B(z) y, B(z) = T в€’1 (z) [A(z) T (z) в€’ z T (z)], has a polynomial B(z) as its
coeп¬ѓcient matrix. In his honor, we shall call every system with polynomial
coeп¬ѓcient matrix a system in Birkhoп¬Ђ standard form.
Birkhoп¬Ђ himself showed in  that the answer to his question is positive
under the additional assumption that some monodromy matrix, around
the point inп¬Ѓnity, of (3.1) is diagonalizable, but seemed to believe that
the same would hold in general. However, in 1959 Gantmacher  and
Masani  independently presented examples of systems (3.1), in the
smallest nontrivial dimension of ОЅ = 2, for which no such transformation
exists. These counterexamples had triangular coeп¬ѓcient matrices, hence
the following harder problem arose:
вЂў Calling (3.1) reducible if an analytic transformation exists for which
the transformed system is lower triangularly blocked, with square
diagonal blocks of arbitrary dimensions, is it so that every irreducible
system can be analytically transformed to Birkhoп¬Ђ standard form?
190 12. Other Related Questions

This question was answered positively, п¬Ѓrst for dimension ОЅ = 2 by Jurkat,
Lutz, and Peyerimhoп¬Ђ , then for ОЅ = 3 in , and п¬Ѓnally for any
dimension by Bolibruch [61, 62, 64].
While the problem stated above concerns linear systems of ODE, all the
attempts on proving it for various special cases are based on a general
result on factorization of holomorphic matrices which was independently
obtained by Hilbert  and Plemelj , as well as Birkhoп¬Ђ :

Suppose that we are given a ОЅ Г— ОЅ matrix function S(z), holo-
morphic for |z| > ПЃ, for some ПЃ в‰Ґ 0, whose determinant does
not vanish there. Then

S(z) = T (z) E(z) z K , (12.1)

with an analytic transformation T (z), an entire matrix function
E(z) whose determinant does not vanish for any z в€€ C , and a
diagonal matrix of integers K = diag [k1 , . . . , kОЅ ].

For ОЅ = 1 one can easily show this through an additive decomposition
of log S(z); however, the proof for ОЅ в‰Ґ 2 is much more involved and shall
not be given here. For a very readable presentation of the basic ideas of
Birkhoп¬ЂвЂ™s proof, see Sibuya .
The above factorization result applies to systems of ODE as follows: Let
X(z) be a fundamental solution of (3.1) with monodromy matrix M , so
that S(z) = X(z) z в€’M is single-valued for |z| > ПЃ. Then det S(z) cannot
vanish for these z, because of Proposition 1 (p. 6). With T (z) as in (12.1),
the transformation x = T (z) x takes (3.1) into a system z x = B(z) x, of
Лњ Лњ Лњ
Лњ
the same PoincarВґ rank r, and having the fundamental solution X(z) =
e
KM
E(z) z z . So

B(z) = z X (z) X в€’1 (z) = [zE (z) + E(z) {K + z K M z в€’K }] E в€’1 (z),
Лњ Лњ

showing that B(z) is holomorphic and single-valued in C , except for the
Лњ
origin. Moreover, we see from the form of X that the origin is a regular-
singular point of the new system, and will be of п¬Ѓrst kind if z K M z в€’K is
a polynomial. This certainly holds whenever M is diagonal. Hence we have
proven the following result:

Theorem 60 Every system (3.1) is analytically equivalent to one being
singular only at inп¬Ѓnity and at the origin, with the origin being regular-
singular. In case (3.1) has a fundamental solution with diagonal monodromy
matrix, then there exists an analytically equivalent system in Birkhoп¬Ђ stan-
dard form.

In order to obtain BolibruchвЂ™s result on irreducible systems, we show a
somewhat diп¬Ђerent factorization result:
12.4 Birkhoп¬ЂвЂ™s Reduction Problem 191

Lemma 23 Suppose that we are given a ОЅ Г— ОЅ matrix function S(z), holo-
morphic for |z| > ПЃ, for some ПЃ в‰Ґ 0, whose determinant does not vanish
there. Then
S(z) = T (z) z K E(z),
with an analytic transformation T (z), an entire matrix function E(z) whose
determinant does not vanish for any z в€€ C , and a diagonal matrix of
integers K = diag [k1 , . . . , kОЅ ] satisfying k1 в‰Ґ k2 в‰Ґ . . . в‰Ґ kОЅ .

Proof: For the proof, we factor S(z) as in (12.1), and let F (z) = E(z) z K .
Then det F (z) = e(z) z k , k = k1 + . . . + kОЅ , e(z) = det E(z), hence e(z) = 0
Лњ
for every z в€€ C . The rows of F (z) can be written as fj = ej (z) z kj , with
Лњ
Лњ
kj в€€ Z, ej (z) holomorphic at the origin, and ej (0) = 0. Without loss of
Лњ Лњ
Лњj are weakly decreasing with respect to
generality, we may assume that k
j, since otherwise, we may permute the rows of F (z) and columns of T (z)
ЛњЛњ Лњ
accordingly. Note F (z) = z K E(z), with E(z) having rows ej (z). Hence,
Лњ
Лњ Лњ
det F (z) = z k e(z), and k в‰¤ k, e(z) = 0 for every z except possibly z = 0.
Лњ Лњ
Лњ = k if and only if e(0) = 0, in which case the proof
Moreover, we have k Лњ
Лњ Лњ
is completed. Suppose k < k. This occurs if and only if the rows of E(0)
are linearly dependent; however, note that no row vanishes, owing to the
Лњ
choice of kj . In this situation, we choose j в‰Ґ 2 minimally, so that the jth
Лњ
row of E(0) is linearly dependent on the earlier ones. We now add multiples
of the th row of F (z) to the jth one, for 1 в‰¤ в‰¤ j в€’ 1, the factor used
ЛњЛњ
being a constant times z kj в€’k . This operation is nothing but multiplication
from the left with a special analytic transformation. Choosing the constants
properly, we can achieve that the new matrix, which for simplicity is again
ЛњЛњ Лњ
denoted by F (z), has the form z K E(z), where now the jth row of E(0)
ВЇВЇ ВЇВЇ
vanishes. Consequently, we factor F (z) as z K E(z), with K, F (z) as above,
ВЇ ВЇ Лњ
but k1 + . . . + kОЅ > k. Repeating this п¬Ѓnitely many times, the proof can be
2
completed.
We now show BolibruchвЂ™s result:

Theorem 61 Every irreducible system (3.1) is analytically equaivalent to
one in Birkhoп¬Ђ standard form.

Proof: Choose a fundamental solution of (3.1) of the form X(z) = S(z) z J ,
with a monodromy matrix J in lower triangular Jordan form, and S(z)
single-valued and holomorphic for |z| > ПЃ. Let D = diag [d1 , . . . , dОЅ ] have
integer diagonal elements with dj в€’ dj+1 > r (ОЅ в€’ 1), and apply the above
lemma to S(z) z в€’D to obtain X(z) = T (z) z K E(z) z D z J . For B(z) =
T в€’1 (z) [A(z) T (z) в€’ z T (z)], the system z y = B(z) y then has the funda-
mental solution Y (z) = z K E(z) z D z J . This implies

z в€’K B(z) z K = K + [z E (z) + E(z) (D + z D J z в€’D )] E в€’1 (z).
192 12. Other Related Questions

Because of J lower triangular and dj decreasing, we п¬Ѓnd the right-hand
side to be holomorphic at the origin. If there was a j with kj в€’ kj+1 > r,
then the fact that z y = B(z) y has PoincarВґ rank r would imply B(z)
e
triangularly blocked. This, however, would contradict the irreducibility of
(3.1). Hence, kj в€’ kj+1 в‰¤ r for 1 в‰¤ j в‰¤ ОЅ в€’ 1 follows. Using Exercise 2, we
Лњ
conclude Y (z) = T (z) Y (z), with Y (z) = E(z) z K+D z J , where E В± (z) are
ВЇ Лњ Лњ ВЇ ВЇ
Лњ
entire, and K is equal to K but for a permutation of its diagonal elements.
Лњ
Owing to our choice of D, we п¬Ѓnd that the diagonal elements of K + D
are decreasing, so that z Y (z) Y в€’1 (z) is holomorphic at the origin, i.e., in
Лњ Лњ
2
fact, is a polynomial.

As we pointed out above, the problem of Birkhoп¬Ђ standard form arose
in the study of behavior of solutions of (3.1) for z в†’ в€ћ. This behavior
is not too drastically altered even when using meromorphic transforma-
tions instead of analytic ones. So it is natural to ask whether transfor-
mation to Birkhoп¬Ђ standard form is always possible using meromorphic
transformations. The answer to this question is positive, once we allow the
transformation to increase the PoincarВґ rank of the system. However, it is
e
more natural to restrict to meromorphic transformations leaving the rank
the same. For dimensions ОЅ = 2, resp. ОЅ = 3, Jurkat, Lutz, and Peyer-
imhoп¬Ђ , resp. Balser , have shown the answer to this question to
be positive. For general dimensions, but under the additional assumption
of the leading matrix A0 of (3.1) having distinct eigenvalues, Turrittin 
also obtained a positive answer, but in general this problem is still open.
For numerous suп¬ѓcient conditions under which a positive answer is known,
see Balser and Bolibruch .

Exercises: Let E(z) be an entire ОЅГ—ОЅ matrix function with det E(0) = 0,
and let kj в€€ Z, k1 в‰Ґ . . . в‰Ґ kОЅ be given.

Лњ
1. Show E(z) = P (z) E(z) R, with:

вЂў P (z) = [pj ] is a lower triangular matrix with pjj (z) в‰Ў 1, and
pj (z) polynomials of degree at most k в€’ kj , for 1 в‰¤ < j в‰¤ ОЅ;
Лњ
вЂў E(z) = [Лњj (z)] is entire, with ej (z) vanishing at the origin at
e Лњ
least of order k в€’ kj + 1 for 1 в‰¤ < j в‰¤ ОЅ;
вЂў R is a permutation matrix.
Лњ
ВЇ ВЇ
2. With K = diag [k1 , . . . , kОЅ ], show z K E(z) = T (z) E(z) z K , with an
ВЇ ВЇ ВЇ
analytic transformation T (z), E(z) entire, det E(z) = 0 everywhere,
Лњ
and K a diagonal matrix of integers, diп¬Ђering from K only by per-
mutation of its diagonal elements.
12.5 Central Connection Problems 193

12.5 Central Connection Problems
Generally speaking, a connection problem is concerned with two fundamen-
tal solutions X1 (z), X2 (z) of the same system of ODE, say, of the form (1.1)
(p. 2). The solutions may be given in terms of power series, or integrals, con-
verging in regions G1 , G2 вЉ‚ G, and usually have certain natural properties
there. According to Theorem 1 (p. 4), both solutions Xj (z) can be holomor-
phically continued into all of G, and then are related as X1 (z) = X2 (z) в„¦,
with a unique invertible constant matrix в„¦. This matrix then is the cor-
responding connection matrix, and its computation is referred to as the
connection problem. For example, the system may be of the form (3.1)
(p. 37), and the fundamental solutions can be two consecutive highest-level
normal solutions Xj (z) and Xjв€’1 (z), which were introduced in Section 9.1
and are characterized through their Gevrey asymptotic in the correspond-
ing sectors Sj , Sjв€’1 . In this setting, the connection problem is the same
as the computation of the corresponding Stokes multiplier of highest level
and has been discussed in Chapter 9. While such problems sometimes are
called lateral connection problems, we shall here be concerned with another
type: Consider a system that is singular at two points z1 , z2 . Assume z1 to
be of п¬Ѓrst kind, or at least regular-singular; then a fundamental solution
в€ћ
X1 (z) can be obtained as X1 (z) = 0 Sm (z в€’z1 )m I+M , |z в€’z1 | < ПЃ, with
a monodromy matrix M and matrix coeп¬ѓcients Sn that at least theoret-
ically can be computed from the system. Then the problem arises of how
this fundamental solution behaves as we approach the other singularity z2 .
To study this behavior is what we call the central connection problem.
Such problems, with z2 also being regular-singular, have been treated,
e.g., by SchВЁfke , resp. SchВЁfke and Schmidt [241, 253]. Here, we shall
a a
instead assume that the point z2 is irregular-singular. This situation, under
various additional assumptions, has been investigated by, among others,
Newell , Kazarinoп¬Ђ and Kelvey , Knobloch , Wasow ,
Kohno [156вЂ“159], Wyrwich [285, 286], Okubo , Naundorf [198вЂ“200],
Bakken [6, 7], Jurkat , SchВЁfke [237, 239, 240], Paris and Wood [216вЂ“
a
218], Paris , Lutz , Kovalevski [163, 164], Balser, Jurkat, and
Lutz [37, 41], Yokoyama [287вЂ“289], Balser , Lutz and SchВЁfke ,
a
Okubo, Takano, and Yoshida , Sibuya , and Reuter [231, 232].
For numerical investigations and applications to problems in physics, see a
recent article by Lay and Slavyanov  and the literature quoted there.
Here, we shall study the central connection problem in the following
 << Предыдущая стр. 41(из 61 стр.)ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ Следующая >>