Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Krzysztof Maurin
Some four years ago (cf. [1]) I observed that a certain number of most
significant theorems and constructions of modern mathematics have under-
gone the following evolution and that one might even talk of a principle:
"Viewed historically, at first one knew certain" natural objects" (e.g.
spaces); then certain, "abstract objects" (or spaces) were discovered (or one
was forced to introduce them). Finally, with considerable effort and brilliance
of mind, it was proved that these objects were "simply" sub-spaces of the
well-known spaces, and that in some (favourable) cases they were indeed
isomorphic with "classical" objects. The more natural the spaces were, the
more difficult it was to prove the corresponding embedding theorems".
A little later, thanks to my contacts with some German Platonists (Georg
Picht and Carl Friedrich von Weizsacker), I realized that the evolution princi-
ple of modern mathematics that I had observed was an exact illustration of the
famous parable of the cave from the 7th Book of Plato's "Polites". The fol-
CHAPTER I
H.WEYL [1913]
Plato often expressed his most profound and boldest intuitions as para-
bles, metaphers or even myths. Since the grand parable in the beginning of
the VII book of POLITEIA did not lose anything of its eternal verity, I will
quote verbatim this masterpiece of the great artist.
"Next, then," I said, "take the following parable of education and ignorance as a
picture of the condition of our nature. Imagine mankind as dwelling in an underground
cave with a long entrance open to the light across the whole width of the cave; in this they
have been from childhood, with necks and legs fettered, so they have to stay where they
are. They cannot move their head around because of the fetters, and they can only look
forward, but light comes to them from a fire burning behind them higher up at a distance.
Between the fire and the prisoners is a road above their level, and along it imagine a low
wall has been built, as puppet showmen have screens in front of their people over which
they work their puppets."
"I see," he said.
"See, then, bearers carrying along this wall all sorts of articles which they hold
projecting above the wall, statues of men and other living things, made of stone or wood
and all kinds of stuff, some of the bearers speaking and some silent, as you might expext."
"What a remarkable image," he said, "and what remarkable prisoners!"
"Just like ourselves," I said. "For, first of all, tell me this: What do you think such
people would have seen of themselves and each other except their shadows, which the
fire cast on the opposite wall of the cave?"
"I don't see how they could see anything else," said he, "if they were compelled to
keep their heads unmoving all their lives!"
"Very well, what of the things being carried along? Would not this be the same?"
"Of course it would."
4
"Suppose the prisoners were able to talk together, don't you think that when they
named the shadows which they saw passing they would believe they were naming things?"
"Necessarily."
"Then if their prison had an echo from the opposite wall, whenever one of the
passing bearers uttered a sound, would they not suppose that the passing shadow must be
making the sound? Don't you think so?"
"Indeed I d o , " he said.
"If so," said I, "such persons would certainly believe that there were no realities
except those shadows of handmade things."
"So it must be," said he.
"Now consider," said I, "what their release would be like, and their cure from these
fetters and their folly; let us imagine it might naturally be something like this. One
might be released, and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck around, and
to walk and look towards the firelight; all this would hurt him, and he would be too much
dazzled to see distinctly those things whose shadows he had seen before. What do you
think he would say, if someone told him that what he saw before was foolery, but now he
saw more rightly, being a bit nearer reality and turned towards what was a little more real?
What if he were shown each of the passing things, and compelled by questions to answer
what each one was? Don't you think he would be puzzled, and believe what he saw before
was more true than what was shown to him now?"
"Far more," he said.
"Then suppose he were compelled to look towards the real light, it would hurt his
eyes, and he would escape by turning them away to the things which he was able to look
at, and these he would believe to be clearer than what was being shown to him."
"Just so," said he.
"Suppose, now," said I, "that someone should drag him thence by force, up the
rough ascent, the steep way up, and never stop until he could drag him out into the light of
the sun, would he not be distressed and furious at being dragged; and when he came into
the light, the brilliance would fill his eyes and he would not be able to see even one of the
things now called real?"
"That he would not," said he, "all of a sudden."
"He would have to get used to it, surely, I think, if he is to see the things above. First
he would most easily look at shadows, after that images of mankind and the rest in water,
lastly the things themselves. After this he would find it easier to survey by night the
the heavens themselves and all that is in them, gazing at the light of the stars and moon,
rather than by day the sun and the sun's light."
"Of course."
"Last of all, I suppose, the sun; he could look on the sun itself by itself in its own
place, and see what it is like, not reflections of it in water or as it appears in some alien
setting."
"Necessarily." said he.
"And only after all this he might reason about it, how this is he who provides
seasons and years, and is set over all there is in the visible region, and he is in a manner
the cause of all things which they saw."
"Yes, it is clear," said he, "that after all that, he would come to this last."
5
"Very good. Let him be reminded of his first habitation, and what was wisdom in
that place, and of his fellow-prisoners there; don't you think he would bless himself for
the change, and pity them?"
"Yes, indeed."
"And if there were honours and praises among them and prizes for the one who saw
the passing things most sharply and remembered best which of them used to come before
and which after and which together, and from these was best able to prophesy accordingly
what was going to come do you believe he would set his desire on that, and envy those who
were honoured men or potentates among them? Would he not feel as Homer says, and
heartily desire rather to be serf of some landless man- on earth and to endure anything in
the world, rather than to opine as they did and to live in that way?"
"Yes indeed," said he, "he would rather accept anything than live like that."
"Then again," I said, "just consider; if such a one should go down again and sit on
his old seat, would he not get his eyes full of darkness coming in suddenly out of the sun?"
"Very much so," said he.
"And if he should have to compete with those who had been always prisoners, by
laying down the law about those shadows while he was blinking before his eyes were
settled down — and it would take a good long time to get used to things — wouldn't they
all laugh at him and say he had spoiled his eyesight by going up there, and it was not
worth-while so much as to try to go up? And would they not kill anyone who tried to
release them and take them up, if they could somehow lay hands on him and kill him?"
"That they would!" said he.
We have to assume some notions, but in order "to fix the notations" let
us recall, that by C is denoted the (Gauss) plane of complex numbers;
C : = C U | o o j is the Riemann sphere: a one point compactification of C.
The sphere looks locally like the plane: it is a 2-dimensional manifold.
Holomorphicity is a local property: A continuous function f.X—>C
is holomorphic at z G X if it is complex different lable at z 0 (there exists
df/dz(z0) = lim ) A(X) - denotes the set of holomorphic
h->o h
functions on X.
X
One sees easily, that the maximal analytic continuation of a germ <p of
a local function in X is uniquely defined. Riemann recognised that the sur-
face Y >X is the natural "Lebensraum" (living space) of holomorphic
and meromorphic functions: subdomains of C as domains of definition of a
function are accidental. The true domains of complex analysis are surfaces Y
which cover (a part of) C.
1.8. Examples of Riemann surfaces are all open subsets of the sphere C =
= CU{ooj (C = R2):
1. The complex plane C (with the trivial atlas consisting of the single
map: the identity id c ).
2. The Riemann sphere C, which is isomorphic to P 1 (the 1-dimen-
sional complex projective space P 1 = P(C2) = } [zt, z2] • \zx, z2) € C2 -
-(0,0)) — the set of equivalence classes [2i,2 2 ] of pairs (2j,2 2 ) with
respect to the relation: ( 2 j , 2 2 ) ~ (2i,2 2 ) if 2 1 =tf2 , 1 , z2=az2, with
complex a). The atlas consists of (is generated by) the two maps:
b1--P1-\ll>0])-+C , h1([z1,z2]) = z1/z2
* V ^ - i [ 0 , l ] } - + C , b2([zl,z2]) = z2/zl
P 1 is biholomorphic to C since [2^22]—•2 1 /2 2 is biholomorphic.
10
/7<2 -)- h
Automorphisms (i.e. biholomorphic maps) of C are z —> XT'
where a,b,c,d€:R and ad — cb^0.
3. D = {zeC:\z\<l] - the unit disc in C.
4. H = \z 6 C : Imz > 0) — the upper half plane. Automorphisms of H
are the maps z —> — , where a,|3,7,6 E C and det ( ? J : = = a 5 -
— 7 0 = 1. The "surfaces" D and H are biholomorphic H3z —» £D
is a biholomorphic map.
Definition. A concrete Riemann surface is a Riemann surface provided
with a meromorphic function p :X —> C: i.e. cover of a sphere C = C U j°°].
It is easy to prove, that all the sets p~1(z1), zEC, have the same car-
dinality, which is called the number of sheets of the surface Y. If Y is
compact then this number is finite.
One can prove that the surface of any algebraic function / defined by
an irreducible polynomial W(f,z) of order n in / is precisely ra-sheeted:
this is the resolution of the puzzle of "many valued functions". But why is
the covering p : Y—+X many sheeted?
Answer: there is no reason why analytic continuations of a germ #
along different paths lt, l2 with the same end points a, b should produce the
same germ. Indeed we have the famous
1.9. Monodromy theorem (Weierstrass) gives a sufficient condition. If there
is a continuous deformation of the path lx into l2, then both analytic con-
tinuations produce the same germ \jj at b.
This theorem led Henri Poincare, the greatest French mathematician and
physicist, to the notion of
Homotopy. Two curves (pr maps) lx and l2 are homotopic if there
exists a 1-parameter continuous family Ls, s G [1,2] such that Lx=lx and
L2 = i>2'
Poincare proved that closed paths (loops) with the same end point x in
a connected space X form a group 7r1(X)= 71'^X,^) — the fundamental
group of X.
1.10. Definition. The connected manifold X is simply connected if
IIJCX) consists of only the neutral element 1, i.e. if each loop can be con-
tracted to a point.
2. The torus T is not simply connected: the group .TT 1 (T) has two
generators, namely n1 (T) = Z@ Z.
3. C * : = C - ( o } , D * : = { z G C : | z | < l } and anulus {zECirK
< | z | < 1} have the fundamental group n ^ X ) = Z (Z — additive group of
integers).
Remark. One can prove that these are the only Riemann surfaces (up
to biholomorphic equivalence) with Abelian fundamental groups.
One of the most important discoveries of Riemann was the
phisms of the covering p : Y—+X. Since the inverse 7" 1 and superposition
7i°72 °f automorphisms obviously satisfy (*). The set of all such auto-
morphisms form a group denoted by Aut(Y/X) or Deck(K >X), since
automorphisms (*) are called "decktransformations" (from the German
Decktransformation). The most interesting covering is p:X—>X, where
X is simply connected (^(X) = 1), this covering X iscalled the universal
covering of X. It can be shown that the universal covering is the strongest
/x/
Pi P
one: it covers every covering Y-^X of X:X >Y >X. Clearly
Aut (X/X) D Aut (Y/X). Poincare proved the following fundamental
1.13. Theorem (Poincare). i) If X—>X is the universal covering of X
then the group Aut (X/X) is isomorphic to the fundamental group irx (X)
of X. ii) To each covering Y —> X there exists a subgroup r = TY of
Aut (X/X) which is isomorphic to Aut(F/X). iii) The universal covering
surface X has the following universal property: every other covering Y of
X is obtained as the orbit space of some (discreet) subgroup T C Aut (X/X) :
: Y = X/T. The last point needs an explanation:
Transformation group and its orbits. If E is a set and G C Aut (E) is
a subgroup of its automorphisms. Then for each e £ E the G - orbit of the
point e is the set Ge =[ge :gGG]. Transformation groups are the oldest
groups in mathematics: they were used in aniquity in the theory of Platonic
solids, in ornaments... But the notion of the group appeared in mathematics
very late: in the Nineteenth century in the work of the brilliant Evariste
Galois (cf. the next Chapter) Felix Klein (1849-1925) and his great Norvegian
friend SophusLie (1842-1899) began the systematic study of transformation
groups. The young Klein, in his famous "Erlanger Program" (1872), put
transformation groups as a corner stone of the geometry.
If G is a transformation group of a space E then the set of the G-
-orbits is denoted by E/G and called the quotient (space) of E by G. Let
us return to the Poincare theory. We have a
1.14. Corollary. Every Riemann surface X is biholomorphically isomor-
phic to the quotient X/TTI (X) of the universal covering surface X of X by
its fundamental group:
X s X/TTJ (X) .
mental problem is striking: there are only three simply connected Riemann
surfaces (already mentioned in section 1.8). This answer was intuitively
"known" to Riemann but the solution was given 70 years later in the famous
Uniformisation theory of Riemann surfaces developped independently by
Koebe and Poincare in 1907. The only point is now the
Uniformisation of simply connected surfaces. The fundamental result
(called wrongly Riemann Mapping Theorem) is the following.
1.15. Theorem (Koebe-Poincare). Let Y be a simply connected Riemann
surface. Then Y is isomorphic to one and only one of the following three
(caninic domains of the Riemann Sphere):
a) The Riemann Sphere C (''elliptic" case).
b) C ("parabolic" case).
c) H — the upper half plane (= D) — ("hyperbolic" case).
Therefore all Riemann surfaces can be separated into three classes: hyperbolic,
parabolic and elliptic according to their universal covering: H,C or C (= P 1 ).
By far the most interesting compact surfaces are hyperbolic Riemann
surfaces, since non hyperbolic surfaces are only C and complex tori T.
Remark. The important case of subdomains of C is much easier and
was solved by Koebe and Osgood. It is relatively simple. But the proof of
general uniformisation theorem is very deep and difficult, and was solved with
methods suggested by Riemann, namely potential theory. Perhaps it is quite
natural: holomorphic functions: solutions of the Laplace equation
d2u du2
Au = — 2- + — 2- = 0
bx by
since the real and imaginary part of every holomorphic functions are potential
functions. Here we see the deep influence of physics upon mathematics!
Both of these preceding theorems of Poincare force us to investigate.
The automorphism group Aut (H) of the upper half plane was known
already to Mobius: it has a quite simple form given by the
1.16. Theorem. The group Aut(//) is isomorphic to the group SL(2yR)
of 2 X 2 real matrices I , I with determinant 1: ad — cb = 1.
14
G=SL(2,R)
n = K\-
X= H^K\G
X - Universal covering of X
{
X
1.22. Remark. C - the Riemann sphere ^P(C2)^S2.
Ascent. A local holomorphic (algebraic) function / at x€U C C
defines the holomorphic germ fx, which generates by the maximal
analytic continuation the Riemann surface X and the (global) algebraic
function F :X —> C. X has as its universal covering the Poincare halfplane
X —• X s H/Y where F = irl (X) a Deck (X -» X). H- in turn - can be con-
sidered as the quotient (homogeneous) space K\SL(2,R) bz the orthogonal
group K = 50(2) of the symmetry group of H: SL(2,R).
Descent. In the beginning was the symmetry: the group SL(2,R) —
which can be considered as the symmetry group of the non Euclidean plane
H. The first descent is the projection n = K\» of SL(2,R) into the homo-
17
CHAPTER II
Galois group Gal (l/k) = Aut (l/k) Deck (Y/X) = Aut (Y/X)
i
23
Martin Eichler: "... mathematics obeys the law of the biological theory of
evolution: all individuals follow the general development of the species... The
immense formative force of mathematics on the human mind assures particu-
lar adherence to this law".
CHAPTER III
The impulse for the creation of new mathematical concepts, theories and
disciplines is always given by the desire to solve concrete problems.
The deepest and boldest mathematical ideas of Riemann's theory were
"dictated" by the desire to understand algebraic functions and their integrals.
Complex manifolds and complex spaces arose in a "natural" and convincing
way from the idea of analytic continuation of germs of holomorphic func-
tions. The set of these germs form an "abstract" topological manifold, which
is in a natural way endowed with a complex structure, but which is not
situated in C or Rk. It was Riemann again, who stressed the need of multi-
dimensional geometry and who has given the notion of Riemann space
(manifold) — as an "abstract" object i.e. as an mathematical entity not im-
bedded in any Rk. It is interesting that in Riemann, concepts (and of his
genial follower and English translator William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879))
physical considerations played an important role. There is no a priori reason
that the real 4-dimensional space-time should be imbedded in an Euclidean
space (of many dimensions). Of course a surface or a manifold imbedded in
EN inherit from EN its natural Riemann metric. The natural question arises:
can these magnificent and indispensable mathematical objects: differentiable
manifolds, Riemann spaces, Riemann surfaces and their natural many dimen-
sional analogues — Stein manifolds — be isomorphic ally imbedded in RN or
C N ? By "isomorphically" we always understand an imbedding which pre-
serves the structure of the corresponding object: in the case of Riemann surface
and complex manifold, a biholomorphic maping; in the case of Riemann (analytic)
manifold, an isometric differentiable (or analytic) imbedding. Solutions of
24
important and natural problems are very difficult and therefore require the
greatest invention and labour of several generations of mathematicians.
Let us now collect some of these magnificiant theorems:
A. Theorem of Whitney (1936). Let M be an ^-dimensional differentiable,
second countable manifold. Then there exists a proper C°° imbedding
F:M->R2m+1.
Remark. The map F is proper if F'1 (K) is compact for each compact K.
B. The problem of isometric imbeddings of a Riemann manifold (M,d) is
plainly much more difficult although this problem is much older then the A
(B was considered already by Schlaefli in 1873). The problem was completely
solved in the magnificiently difficult labour of John Nash (1954).
3.1. Theorem of J. Nash. Every m-dimensional Riemann manifold with
C -metric, where 3 < & < ° ° , can have a Ck-isometric embedding into RN,
k
where N= 111 m3 4- 7m 2 + 1 1 / 2 m.
The work of Nash uses very sharp and difficult estimates from the theory
of elliptic differential equations.
C. Embedding of Stein manifolds. The theory of functions of several complex
variables encounters quite different phenomena then the complex analysis of
1 dimension. For instance every open subset 0 C C is a natural domain of
some holomorphic function f-.f cannot be extended holomorphically to a
greater domain. As was remarked by Fritz Hartogs (1905) the situation in C 2 ,
is quite different: there are such domains O C C 2 that every holomorphic
function in 0 can be extended to a greater domain.
Holomorphy domains in CN, N> 1 could be characterized by some
sort of convexity. This lead Karl Stein (1951) to consider a very natural class
of complex manifolds which are a generalization of holomorphy domains in
CN. These spaces were investigated in the fundamental papers of Hans Grauert
(a pupil of Stein and Behnke) which considerably simplified the axiomes of
Stein:
3.2. Definition. An w-dimensional complex manifold X is Stein manifold if
a) y for every pair of different points x,y E X there exists such fGA(X),
that f(x)¥=f(y) (one says that holomorphic functions A(X) on X sep-
arate points of X).
b) For each zGX there exist n functions flt ...,/„ £A(X) which form a
coordinate system in z.
25
painting in the work of Alberti (1404-1472) (which was followed by the begin-
nings of projective and descriptive geometry in the 16 th century) and by the
emergence of a mathematically conceived spatial structure of the universe in
the theology of Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464). Problems of persective ("infi-
nite points") led to the notion of the projective space P3- first real and soon
afterwards to the complex projective space P(Cn)".
The most important geometric objects are algebraic curves and surfaces:
conic sections and quadrics were known in hellenistic geometry. A natural and
fundamental notion is that of the algebraic set (or variety): the locus given by
zeros of polynomials. The geometry of the XIX century was the geometry of
algebraic varietes and the mathematics of the XX century is concerned to a
large extent with algebraic geometry.
The projective space P(E) where E is a complex (real) vector space can
be defined in three ways as:
i) the set of 1-dimensional complex subspaces (complex lines) of the vector
space C w+1 ;
ii) the set of the set of («4-1)-tuples a0,... ,an of complex numbers not
all zero modulo the equivalence relation
{aQ9...,an)«»(zaQt...,zan) , zGC-{0|;
iii) the unit sphere \a G Cn+1: \\a\\2 = l ) in Cn+1 modulo the equivalence
relation
(a0,...,an)^(eita0,...,eitan) , 0<t<2ir.
CHAPTER IV
(4.7) A = I xdEx
Jx
The proof is now quite simple: One extends the Gelfand (-Najmark)
isomorphism (4.3), where $4(A) is now the C*-algebra generated by the
operator A (and 1H), to all Borel functions on Spec$/(/4). Then to the
characteristic function %s of a Borel subset S CX corresponds precisely
the projective operator Es. Then the fundamental t formula (4.6) of the
spectral theorem is the well known fact: each Borel function <p on X can
be approximated by step functions.
Remark. Formula (4.6) is often used to define functions of an self-
adjoint (or normal) operator A.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Eichler, M., Introduction to the theory of algebraic numbers and functions. N.Y.
and London 1966.
[2] Maurin, K., Analysis //, Warsaw 1980.
[3] , Globale Analysis, Heidelberg 1976.
[4] , Mathematic als Sprache and Kunst in u Offene Systeme, Hsg. Maurin. Michelski,
Rudolph, Stuttgart 1981.
[5] Shafarevich, I., Basic Algebraic Geometry, Springer 1977.
[6] Weyl, H., Die Idee der Riemannschen Flache (1913, 1955).