This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Semialgebraic Solution
of Linear Equation with
Continuous Semialgebraic Coefficients

Marcello Malagutti

1 Introduction

C. Fefferman gave in [1], by means of analysis techniques, a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a continuous solution (ϕ1,,ϕs)(\phi_{1},\cdots,\phi_{s}) of the system

ϕ=i=1sϕifi\phi=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{s}\phi_{i}f_{i} (1.1)

given the continuous functions ϕ\phi and fif_{i}. More precisely, C. Fefferman, applying the theory of the Glaeser refinements for bundles, proved that system (1.1) has a continuous solution iff the affine Glaeser-stable bundle associated with system (1.1) has no empty fiber.

Moreover J. Kollár, in the same (joint) paper [1], starting from the above result and making use of algebraic geometry techniques as blowing up and at singular points, proved that fixed the polynomials f1,,fsf_{1},...,f_{s} and assuming system (1.1) solvable, then:

1) if ϕ\phi is semialgebraic then there is a solution (ψ1,,ψs)(\psi_{1},\cdots,\psi_{s}) of ϕ=𝑖ψifi\phi=\underset{i}{\sum}\psi_{i}f_{i} such that the ψi\psi_{i} are also semialgebraic;

2) let Un\ZU\subset\mathbb{R}^{n}\backslash Z (where Z:=(f1==fr=0)Z:=(f_{1}=\cdots=f_{r}=0)) be an open set such that ϕ\phi is CmC^{m} on UU for some 1m1\leq m\leq\infty or m=ωm=\omega. Then there is a solution ψ=(ψ1,,ψs)\psi=(\psi_{1},\cdots,\psi_{s}) of ϕ=i=1sψifi\phi=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{s}\psi_{i}f_{i} such that the ψi\psi_{i} are also CmC^{m} on UU.

In this paper we generalise and prove, by using Fefferman’s techniques, a part of the above results shown by Kollár. More in details, we consider a compact metric space QnQ\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n} and a system of linear equations

A(x)ϕ(x)=γ(x),x=(x1,,xn)QA\left(x\right)\phi\left(x\right)=\gamma\left(x\right),\quad x=(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})\in Q (1.2)

where

QxA(x)=(aij(x))Mr,s()Q\ni x\longmapsto A(x)=(a_{ij}(x))\in M_{r,s}(\mathbb{R})

is continuous semialgebraic, with Mr,s()M_{r,s}(\mathbb{R}) denoting the set of real r×sr\times s matrices and

Qxγ(x)r,γ(x)=[γ1(x)γr(x)]rQ\ni x\longmapsto\gamma(x)\in\mathbb{R}^{r},\gamma(x)=\left[\begin{array}[]{c}\gamma_{1}(x)\\ \vdots\\ \gamma_{r}(x)\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{r}

being themselves continuous semialgebraic functions on QnQ\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Our aim is to find a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a solution Qxϕ(x)=[ϕ1(x)ϕs(x)]sQ\ni x\longmapsto\phi\left(x\right)=\left[\begin{array}[]{c}\phi_{1}(x)\\ \vdots\\ \phi_{s}(x)\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{s} of system (1.2), with the ϕi:Q\phi_{i}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R} continuous and semialgebraic.

In particular, we find that a continuous and semialgebraic solution exists if and only if there exits a continuous solution and a semialgebraic one (they may possibly be different) under the hypothesis that

B(x,rvx)yγvx(y)=ΠHy(0)vxB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x}

is discontinuous at most at isolated points for each xQx\in Q where:

- Hy(0)H_{y}^{(0)} is the fiber at yQy\in Q of the singular affine bundle associated to

system (1.2);

- B(x,rvx)QB(x,r_{v_{x}})\subset Q is an euclidean ball of small radius;

- vxv_{x} a vector of Hx(0)H_{x}^{(0)};

- ΠHy(0)vx\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x} the projection of vxv_{x} on Hy(0)H_{y}^{(0)}.

Moreover, we show how to calculate a continuous and semialgebraic solution of system (1.2).

2 The setting

Let us start by setting some notations and by showing some important preliminary results that will be used to pursue our goal. We shall endow every s\mathbb{R}^{s} used here with euclidean norm.

Notation 1: Let VsV\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{s} be an affine space in s\mathbb{R}^{s} and wsw\in\mathbb{R}^{s}. We denote the projection of ww on VV (i.e. the point vVv\in V that makes the euclidean norm of vwv-w as small as possible) by ΠVw\Pi_{V}w.

Notation 2: If xxQ\in Q, consider QxA(x)Mr,s()Q\ni x\longmapsto A(x)\in M_{r,s}(\mathbb{R}) and wsw\in\mathbb{R}^{s}. We denote

Π1(x)w=ΠKerA(x)w,Π2(x)w=ΠKerA(x)w.\varPi_{1}(x)\,w=\varPi_{\mathrm{\mathrm{Ker}}A(x)^{\perp}}w,\quad\varPi_{2}(x)\,w=\varPi_{\mathrm{Ker}A(x)}w.

Notation 3: We denote the ii-th column of a matrix AA by AiA_{i}.

Lemma 2.1.

Consider

i) QnQ\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n} a compact space,

ii) QxA(x)Mr,s()Q\ni x\longmapsto A(x)\in M_{r,s}(\mathbb{R}) a matrix valued semialgebraic function,

iii) ϕ:Qs\phi:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} a map,

and let Qxp(x)=Π1(x)ϕ(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto p(x)=\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi(x) be the projection of ϕ\phi on KerA(x)\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp}.

If Qxϕ(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto\phi(x) is a semialgebraic function on QQ then Qxp(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto p(x) is a semialgebraic function on QQ.

Proof.

First of all notice that

KerA(x)=Span{A(x)iT}i{1,,r}=Span{rows of A(x)}.\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp}=\mathrm{Span}\{A(x)_{i}^{T}\}_{i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}}=\mathrm{Span}\left\{\text{rows of }A(x)\right\}.

Then consider for a given I{1,,r}I\subseteq\left\{1,\ldots,r\right\}

K(I)={xQ:(A(x)iT)iI is a basis of ImA(x)T}.K(I)=\{x\in Q:(A(x)_{\,i}^{T})_{i\in I}\text{ is a basis of }\mathrm{Im}A(x)^{T}\}.

The idea we want to pursue is to project the solution Qxϕ(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto\phi(x) on KerA(x)\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp} and apply the Tarski-Seidenberg theorem, thus concluding that the projection is semialgebraic. Actually, to apply the Tarski-Seidenberg theorem we need that the dimension of the projection space be independent of xQx\in Q, so we will be localizing the problem on the K(I)K(I). As a matter of fact on K(I)K(I) the dimension of KerA(x)=Span{A(x)iT}i{1,,r}=ImA(x)T\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp}=\mathrm{Span}\{A(x)_{i}^{T}\}_{i\in\{1,\ldots,r\}}=\mathrm{Im}A(x)^{T} is constant by definition of K(I)K(I). From the semialgebraicity of QxA(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto A(x) it is then trivial to deduce that K(I)K(I) is a semialgebraic (possibly empty) subset on QQ since:

\bullet\;the linear independence of (A(x)iT)iI(A(x)_{\,i}^{T})_{i\in I} can be translated in terms of the minors of A(x)A(x);

\bullet\;the condition that the vectors of (A(x)iT)iI(A(x)_{\,i}^{T})_{i\in I} are generators of ImA(x)T\mathrm{Im}A(x)^{T} can be expressed by the following first-order formula

vImA(x)T,(λiT)iI real numbers s.t.v=𝑖λiA(x)iT.\forall v\in\mathrm{Im}A(x)^{T},\,\exists(\lambda_{\,i}^{T})_{i\in I}\text{ real numbers s.t.}\>v=\underset{i}{\sum}\lambda_{i}A(x)_{\,i}^{T}.

As ImA(x)T\mathrm{Im}A(x)^{T} is semialgebraic by definition we get that that condition is semialgebraic

This is the reason why it suffices to prove the lemma for K(I)K(I) since if a function is semialgebraic on a finite collection of semialgebraic sets then it is semialgebraic on their union:

\bullet\; if K(I)=ØK(I)=\textrm{\O} there is nothing to prove;

\bullet\; if K(I)ØK(I)\neq\textrm{\O} let

Γ\displaystyle\varGamma (I)={(x,ϕ(x)):xK(I)}.\displaystyle(I)=\{(x,\phi(x)):\quad x\in K(I)\}.

\circ\; If srs\geq r we define

V={(x,y):y=A(x)T(λ1λr),xK(I),λi}n×sV=\left\{(x,y):\quad y=A(x)^{T}\begin{pmatrix}\lambda_{1}\\ \vdots\\ \lambda_{r}\end{pmatrix},\;x\in K(I),\>\lambda_{i}\in\mathbb{R}\right\}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{s}

\circ\; If s<rs<r we define

V={(x,y):y=A~(x)T(λ1λ|I|),xK(I),λi}n×sV=\left\{(x,y):\quad y=\widetilde{A}(x)^{T}\begin{pmatrix}\lambda_{1}\\ \vdots\\ \lambda_{\left|I\right|}\end{pmatrix},\;x\in K(I),\>\lambda_{i}\in\mathbb{R}\right\}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}\times\mathbb{R}^{s}

where A~(x)M|I|,s()\widetilde{A}(x)\in M_{\left|I\right|,s}(\mathbb{R}) and the columns of A~(x)T\widetilde{A}(x)^{T} form a basis of ImA(x)T\mathrm{Im}A(x)^{T} given by (A(x)iT)iI(A(x)_{i}^{T})_{i\in I}. In this case we will still write A(x)A(x) in place of A~(x)\widetilde{A}(x) and we will still write rr for |I|\left|I\right|.

Let us now factorize A(x)TA(x)^{T} by QR decomposition: A(x)T=Q(x)R(x)A(x)^{T}=Q(x)R(x). As a matter of fact if mnm\geq n every m×nm\times n matrix can be written as the product of a squared orthogonal m×mm\times m matrix QQ and a rectangular m×nm\times n matrix RR with the blockwise structure

R=(R10)R=\left(\begin{array}[]{c}R_{1}\\ \hline\cr 0\end{array}\right)

where R1R_{1} is an n×nn\times n upper triangular matrix and 0 is the (mn)×n(m-n)\times n zero matrix.

The set Γ(I)\Gamma(I) is semialgebraic since it is the graph of a semialgebraic function, hence

Γ(I)={(In00Q(x)T)(xy):(x,y)Γ(I)}\Gamma^{\prime}(I)=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}I_{n}&0\\ 0&Q(x)^{T}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}x\\ y\end{pmatrix}:\quad(x,y)\in\Gamma(I)\right\}

is semialgebraic too. In fact, Q(x)Q(x) has semialgebraic entries since the ones of A(x)A(x) are semialgebraic and the QR decomposition can be computed by multiplying iteratively A(x)A(x) by appropriate Householder matrices. These matrices are constructed in the following way.

Letting \left\|\cdot\right\| be the euclidean norm, z=(A(x)T)1z=\left(A(x)^{T}\right)_{1}, v=z+ze1v=z+\left\|z\right\|e_{1}, α=v22\alpha=\mathbin{\frac{\left\|v\right\|^{2}}{2}} and U1=IsvvTαU_{1}=I_{s}-\frac{vv^{T}}{\alpha} where IsI_{s} is the s×ss\times s identity matrix we have that U1z=ze1U_{1}z=-\left\|z\right\|e_{1}. Now, repeating the procedure on the minor of A(x)TA(x)^{T} obtained by eliminating the first row and column (the new U2U_{2} matrix has the form (I100U)\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}I_{1}&0\\ 0&U^{\prime}\end{array}\right) where UU^{\prime} is calculated as U1U_{1} mutatis mutandis) we reach the goal. The QQ matrix of the QR decomposition is then the transpose of the product of all the UiU_{i} constructed in the previous way. The result is semialgebraic because in the construction we used only sums, products and square root extractions of semialgebraic functions (as the entries of A(x)A(x) are semialgebraic) that are semialgebraic by definition of semialgebraic function.

We next put

V={(In00Q(x)T)v:vV}V^{\prime}=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}I_{n}&0\\ 0&Q(x)^{T}\end{pmatrix}v:\quad v\in V\right\}

and see that if zVz\in V^{\prime} then, by the definition of VV^{\prime}, we can write

z=(z1,,zn+r,0,,0sr)T.z=(z_{1},\ldots,z_{n+r},\underbrace{0,\ldots,0}_{s-r})^{T}.

It is important to observe that VV^{\prime} is obviously a vector space of n+s\mathbb{R}^{n+s} .

Now, recalling the Tarski-Seidenberg theorem111Tarski-Seidenberg Theorem LetLet AA a semialgebraic subset of n+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} and π:n+1n\pi:\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n}, the projection on the first nn coordinates. Then π(A)\pi(A) is a semialgebraic subset of RnR^{n}. Corollary If AA is a semialgebraic subset of n+k\mathbb{R}^{n+k}, its image by the projection on the space of the first nn coordinates is a semialgebraic subset of n\mathbb{R}^{n}., we notice that the projection Γ~(I)\widetilde{\Gamma}^{\prime}(I) of Γ(I)\Gamma^{\prime}(I) onto VV^{\prime} is semialgebraic. It follows that

Γ^(I)={(In00Q(x))v,vΓ~(I)}\widehat{\Gamma}^{\prime}(I)=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}I_{n}&0\\ 0&Q(x)\end{pmatrix}v,\quad v\in\widetilde{\Gamma}^{\prime}(I)\right\}

is semialgebraic too. By construction, Γ^(I)\widehat{\Gamma}^{\prime}(I) is the graph of Π1(x)ϕ(x),xK(I)\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi(x),x\in K(I) and so the proof of Lemma 2.1 is complete. ∎

Theorem 2.2.

Consider a compact metric space QnQ\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n} and the system (1.2):

A(x)ϕ(x)=γ(x),xQ,A\left(x\right)\phi\left(x\right)=\gamma\left(x\right),\quad x\in Q,

for semialgebraic continuous AA and γ\gamma.

The system has a semialgebraic solution ϕ0:Qs\phi_{0}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} iff, given a solution ϕ1:Qs\phi_{1}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} of the system,

p(x)=Π1(x)ϕ1(x)issemialgebraic.p(x)=\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x)\quad is\>semialgebraic.
Proof.

First of all we show that given a solution ϕ1:Qs\phi_{1}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} of the system, if Qxp(x)=Π1(x)ϕ1(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto p(x)=\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x) is semialgebraic then there exists a semialgebraic solution of the system (1.2). Notice that

ϕ1(x)=Π2(x)ϕ1(x)+Π1(x)ϕ1(x),xQ.\phi_{1}(x)=\varPi_{2}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x)+\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x),\quad\forall x\in Q.

From this we get that

γ(x)=A(x)ϕ1(x)=A(x)Π1(x)ϕ1(x),xQ\gamma(x)=A(x)\phi_{1}(x)=A(x)\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x),\quad\forall x\in Q

So Qxp(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto p(x) is a semialgebraic solution of the system.

Conversely we show that, given a solution ϕ1:Qs\phi_{1}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} of the system, if the system has a semialgebraic solution ϕ0:Qs\phi_{0}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} then

Qxp(x)=Π1(x)ϕ1(x)is semialgebraic.Q\ni x\longmapsto p(x)=\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x)\;\text{is semialgebraic.}

In fact

A(x)(ϕ0(x)ϕ1(x))=γ(x)γ(x)=0,xQ.A(x)(\phi_{0}(x)-\phi_{1}(x))=\gamma\left(x\right)-\gamma\left(x\right)=0,\quad\forall x\in Q.

Decomposing ϕ0(x)\phi_{0}(x) and ϕ1(x)\phi_{1}(x) into their components onto KerA(x)\mathrm{Ker}A(x) and KerA(x)\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp} we get, respectively,

ϕ0(x)\displaystyle\phi_{0}(x) =Π2(x)ϕ0(x)+Π1(x)ϕ0(x),xQ,\displaystyle=\varPi_{2}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x)+\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x),\quad\forall x\in Q,
ϕ1(x)\displaystyle\phi_{1}(x) =Π2(x)ϕ1(x)+Π1(x)ϕ1(x),xQ.\displaystyle=\varPi_{2}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x)+\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x),\quad\forall x\in Q.

Hence

A(x)(Π1(x)ϕ0(x)Π1(x)ϕ1(x))=0,xQ,A(x)(\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x)-\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x))=0,\quad\forall x\in Q,

so that

Π1(x)ϕ0(x)Π1(x)ϕ1(x)KerA(x)KerA(x)={0}.\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x)-\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x)\in\mathrm{Ker}A(x)\bigcap\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp}=\{0\}.

Therefore

Π1(x)ϕ1(x)=Π1(x)ϕ0(x),\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x)=\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x),

and since QxΠ1(x)ϕ0(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x) is semialgebraic by Lemma 2.1, so is QxΠ1(x)ϕ1(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{1}(x). ∎

Let us notice that Theorem 2.2 shows also that, given system (1.2), QxΠ1(x)ϕ0(x)Q\ni x\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(x)\,\phi_{0}(x) is uniquely defined on QQ since it is independent of the solution ϕ0\phi_{0}.

At this point let us consider a singular affine bundle (or bundle for short) (see [1]), meaning a family =(Hx)xQ\mathcal{H}=(H_{x})_{x\in Q} of affine subspaces HxsH_{x}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{s}, parametrized by the points xQx\in Q. The affine subspaces

Hx={λs:A(x)λ=γ(x)},xQH_{x}=\left\{\lambda\text{$\in$}\mathbb{R}^{s}:A\left(x\right)\lambda=\gamma\left(x\right)\right\},\quad x\in Q

are the fibers of the bundle \mathcal{H}. (Here, we allow the empty set Ø and the whole space s\mathbb{R}^{s} as affine subspaces of s\mathbb{R}^{s}.)

Now we define (k)\mathcal{H}^{(k)} to be the kk-th Glaeser refinement of \mathcal{H} and Gl\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{Gl}} to be the Glaeser-stable refinement of \mathcal{H} (their fibers will respectively be denoted by Hx(k)H_{x}^{(k)} and HxGl,xQH_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}},\quad\forall x\in Q). Notice that the projection on the fibers of \mathcal{H} is not linear as the fibers are affine spaces and not vector spaces.

Lemma 2.3.

Consider a compact metric space (Q,dQ),Qn(Q,d_{Q}),\>Q\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n} and an r×sr\times s system of linear equations

A(x)ϕ(x)=γ(x),xQA\left(x\right)\phi\left(x\right)=\gamma\left(x\right),\quad x\in Q

where for each xrx\in\mathbb{R}^{r} the entries of

A(x)=(aij(x))Mr,s()and γ(x)=(γi(x))rA(x)=(a_{ij}(x))\in M_{r,s}(\mathbb{R})\quad\text{and }\gamma(x)=(\gamma_{i}(x))\in\mathbb{R}^{r}

are themselves semialgebric functions on n\mathbb{R}^{n}.

If there is a semialgebraic solution ϕ:Qs\phi:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} of the system then xQ,vxHxGl\forall x\in Q,\>\forall v_{x}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}:

Qyγvx(y)ΠHy(0)vx is semialgebraic.Q\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)\coloneqq\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x}\text{ is semialgebraic.}
Proof.

Consider xQx\in Q and vxHxGlv_{x}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}. We define

γvx(y)ΠHy(0)vx,yQ.\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)\coloneqq\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x},\quad\forall y\in Q.

By the definition of Hy(0)H_{y}^{(0)} it is true that

Hy(0)=KerA(y)+Π1(y)ϕ(y),yQ,H_{y}^{(0)}=\mathrm{Ker}A(y)+\varPi_{1}(y)\,\phi(y),\quad\forall y\in Q,

and from this expression that

ΠHy(0)vx=Π1(y)ϕ(y)+Π2(y)vx,yQ,\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x}=\varPi_{1}(y)\,\phi(y)+\varPi_{2}(y)\,v_{x},\quad\forall y\in Q,

Now, QyΠ2(y)vx=vxΠ1(y)vxQ\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{2}(y)\,v_{x}=v_{x}-\varPi_{1}(y)\,v_{x} is semialgebraic, as QyvxQ\ni y\longmapsto v_{x} is semialgebraic (since it is constant) and so QyΠ1(y)vxQ\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(y)\,v_{x} is semialgebraic by Lemma 2.1. In conclusion, QyΠHy(0)vxQ\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x} is semialgebraic, for it is the sum of semialgebraic functions (recall that QyΠ1(y)ϕ(y)Q\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(y)\,\phi(y) is also semialgebraic by Lemma 2.1 since ϕ\phi is a semialgebraic solution of system (1.2)). ∎

After this let us introduce a new notion.

Definition 2.4.

Consider a compact metric space (Q,d),Qn(Q,d),Q\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}. Given =(Hx)xQ\mathcal{H}=(H_{x})_{x\in Q} whose Glaeser-stable subbundle is denoted by (HxGl)xQ(H_{x}^{Gl})_{x\in Q}, a semialgebric Glaeser-stable bundle associated with the system (1.2) is a family ~Gl=(H~xGl)xQ\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}}=(\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}})_{x\in Q} of affine subspaces H~xGls\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{s}, parametrized by the points xQx\in Q , where the fibers H~xGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} are given by:

H~xGl\displaystyle\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} ={vHxGl:rv+ s.t.\displaystyle=\{v\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}:\exists r_{v}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}\text{ s.t. }
B(x,rv)yγv(y)=ΠHy(0)v is semialgebraic}.\displaystyle\qquad\quad B(x,r_{v})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v\text{ is semialgebraic}\}.

It is important to notice that ~Gl\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}} is indeed a bundle, for H~xGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} is an affine space, for all xQx\in Q. As a matter of fact:

-\; if H~xGl=Ø\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}=\textrm{\O} the space is affine as we assume the empty space to be an affine space;

-\; if H~xGlØ\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\neq\textrm{\O}, given v0,v1,v2H~xGlv_{0},v_{1},v_{2}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} and λ\lambda\in\mathbb{R}, we have that

(v1v0)+λ(v2v0)+v0H~xGl.(v_{1}-v_{0})+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0})+v_{0}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}. (2.1)

Property (2.1) holds because HxGlH_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} is an affine space and since v0,v1,v2H~xGlHxGlv_{0},v_{1},v_{2}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\subseteq H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} we have

(v1v0)+λ(v2v0)+v0HxGl.(v_{1}-v_{0})+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0})+v_{0}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}.

Moreover

i{0,1,2},rvi+ s.t. B(x,rvi)yγi(y)=ΠHy(0)vi is semialgebraic.\forall i\in\{0,1,2\},\,\exists r_{v_{i}}\in\mathbb{R}^{+}\text{ s.t. }\;B(x,r_{v_{i}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{i}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{i}\text{ is semialgebraic}.

Considering r¯=min{rv0,rv1,rv2}\overline{r}=\min\{r_{v_{0}},r_{v_{1}},r_{v_{2}}\} we get that on B(x,r¯)B(x,\overline{r})

γ(y):=ΠHy(0)((v1v0)+λ(v2v0)+v0).\gamma(y):=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}((v_{1}-v_{0})+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0})+v_{0}).

We now consider the orthogonal decomposition of γ(y)\gamma(y) on to KerA(y)\mathrm{Ker}A(y) and KerA(y)\mathrm{Ker}A(y)^{\bot}

γ(y)=Π1(y)ΠHy(0)(v1+λ(v2v0))+Π2(y)ΠHy(0)(v1+λ(v2v0)).\gamma(y)=\varPi_{1}(y)\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}(v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0}))+\varPi_{2}(y)\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}(v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0})).

Recalling then that the projection of a solution of system (1.2) on KerA(y)\mathrm{Ker}A(y)^{\bot} is unique and considering B(x,r¯)yp(y)=Π1γvi(y),i=0,1,2,B(x,\overline{r})\ni y\longmapsto p(y)=\varPi_{1}\gamma_{v_{i}}(y),\quad i=0,1,2, gives

γ(y)=p(y)+Π2(y)(v1+λ(v2v0))\gamma(y)=p(y)+\varPi_{2}(y)(v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0}))

Note that pp is semialgebraic on B(x,r¯)B(x,\overline{r}) by Lemma 2.1 and by the uniqueness of pp (that is p(y)=Π1(y)ΠHy(0)v0p(y)=\varPi_{1}(y)\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{0} and ΠHy(0)v0\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{0} is semialgebraic by hypothesis). Moreover

B(x,r¯)yΠ2(y)(v1+λ(v2v0))=(v1+λ(v2v0))Π1(y)(v1+λ(v2v0))B(x,\overline{r})\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{2}(y)\,(v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0}))=(v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0}))-\varPi_{1}(y)\,(v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0}))

is semialgebraic by Lemma 2.1 as B(x,r¯)yv1+λ(v2v0)B(x,\overline{r})\ni y\longmapsto v_{1}+\lambda(v_{2}-v_{0}) is semialgebraic since it is constant.

Remark 2.5.

By Lemma 2.3 it follows that if a semialgebraic solution of system (1.2) exists then ~Gl=Gl\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}}=\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{Gl}}. Moreover if for an xQx\in Q there is a vxHxGlv_{x}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} such that B(x,rvx)yγvx(y)=ΠHy(0)vxB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x} is semialgebraic then H~xGl=HxGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}=H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} since if vHxGlv^{\prime}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} then

B(x,rvx)yΠHy(0)v=Π1(y)ΠHy(0)v+Π2(y)ΠHy(0)v=Π1(y)γvx(y)+Π2(y)v=Π1(y)γvx(y)+vΠ1(y)v\begin{array}[]{ccc}B(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v^{\prime}&=&\varPi_{1}(y)\,\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v^{\prime}+\varPi_{2}(y)\,\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v^{\prime}\\ &=&\varPi_{1}(y)\,\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)+\varPi_{2}(y)\,v^{\prime}\\ &=&\varPi_{1}(y)\,\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)+v^{\prime}-\varPi_{1}(y)\,v^{\prime}\end{array}

where the equality in the second line is due to the uniqueness of the projection of a solution and to the fact that Hy(0)H_{y}^{(0)} is parallel to KerA(y)\mathrm{\mathrm{Ker}}A(y).

Therefore B(x,rvx)yΠHy(0)v=Π1(y)ΠHy(0)v+Π2(y)ΠHy(0)vB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v^{\prime}=\varPi_{1}(y)\,\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v^{\prime}+\varPi_{2}(y)\,\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v^{\prime} is semialgebraic as it is a sum of semialgebraic functions by Lemma 2.1 and thus vxH~xGlv_{x}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}.

3 Existence of a continuous semialgebraic solution

Theorem 3.1.

Consider a compact metric space QnQ\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n} and a system of linear equations

A(x)ϕ(x)=γ(x),xQA\left(x\right)\phi\left(x\right)=\gamma\left(x\right),\quad x\in Q (3.1)

where the entries of

A(x)=(aij(x1,,xn))Mr,s()andγ(x)=(γi(x))rA(x)=(a_{ij}(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n}))\in M_{r,s}(\mathbb{R})\quad\text{and}\quad\gamma(x)=\left(\gamma_{i}(x)\right)\in\mathbb{R}^{r}

are themselves semialgebric functions on n\mathbb{R}^{n}.

Assume that for every given xQx\in Q such that H~xGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\neq\emptyset there exists vxH~xGlv_{x}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} such that B(x,rvx)yγvx(y)=ΠHy(0)vxB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x} is discontinuous, at most, at isolated points (that therefore must be finitely many). Then system (3.1) has a continuous semialgebraic solution ϕ:Qs\phi:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} iff ~Gl\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}} has no empty fiber.

Proof.

\bullet\; At first we show that if H~xGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} has no empty fiber then the system (1.2) has a continuous semialgebraic solution ϕ:Qs\phi:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s}.

By hypothesis we have that xQ,vxHxGlØ, so that rvx+\forall x\in Q,\>\exists v_{x}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\neq\textrm{\O, so that }\exists r_{v_{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{+} s.t. B(x,r¯vx)yγvx(y)=ΠHy(0)vxB(x,\overline{r}_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x} is semialgebraic and possibly discontinuous at isolated points.

We next claim that

x\displaystyle\forall x Q,vxH~xGlØ,r¯vx with 0<r¯vx<rvx s.t.\displaystyle\in Q,\>\forall v_{x}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\neq\textrm{\O},\exists\overline{r}_{v_{x}}\text{ with }0<\overline{r}_{v_{x}}<r_{v_{x}}\>\text{ s.t.} (3.2)
B(x,r¯vx)yγvx(y)=ΠHy(0)vx is continuous.\displaystyle\quad B(x,\overline{r}_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x}\text{ is continuous}.

To prove the claim, let us, by contradiction, assume that

x\displaystyle\exists x Q,vxH~xGl:n,ynB(x,rvxn) s.t.\displaystyle\in Q,\>\exists v_{x}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}:\forall n\in\mathbb{N},\,\exists y_{n}\in B(x,\frac{r_{v_{x}}}{n})\text{ s.t. }
B(x,rvx)yγvx(y) is discontinuous at yn.\displaystyle\quad B(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)\text{ is discontinuous at }y_{n}.

We have two cases:

1. n one has ynx\forall n\in\mathbb{N}\text{ one has }y_{n}\neq x. Then γvx(y)\gamma_{v_{x}}(y) has infinitely many isolated discontinuity points which is impossible because γvx\gamma_{v_{x}}is semialgebraic;

2. n¯ such that yn¯=x\exists\overline{n}\in\mathbb{N}\text{ such that }y_{\overline{n}}=x. If vxHxGlv_{x}\notin H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} then vxH~xGlv_{x}\notin\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} since HxGlH~xGlH_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\supseteq\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}: this is clearly not possible as we took vxH~xGlv_{x}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}. Now, if we had vxHxGlv_{x}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} then on the one hand

dist(vx;HyGl)yx0,\mathrm{dist}(v_{x};H_{y}^{\mathrm{Gl}})\underset{{\scriptstyle y\rightarrow x}}{\longrightarrow}0,

and, on the other,

ΠHy(0)vxvx=dist(vx,Hy(0))HyGlHy(0)d(vx,HyGl).\left\|\Pi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x}-v_{x}\right\|=dist(v_{x},H_{y}^{(0)})\underset{{\scriptstyle H_{y}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\subseteq H_{y}^{(0)}}}{\underbrace{\leq}}d(v_{x},H_{y}^{\mathrm{Gl}}).

Therefore

ΠHy(0)vxyxvx=vxHxGlHx(0)ΠHx(0)vx.\Pi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x}\underset{{\scriptstyle y\rightarrow x}}{\longrightarrow}v_{x}\underset{\overset{\uparrow}{{\scriptstyle v_{x}\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}\subseteq H_{x}^{(0)}}}}{=}\Pi_{H_{x}^{(0)}}v_{x}.

This is impossible since γvx(y)\gamma_{v_{x}}(y) would be continuous at xx, contrary to the assumption. Thus (3.2) holds.

Now notice that the set of balls {B(x,r¯vx)}xQ\{B(x,\overline{r}_{v_{x}})\}_{x\in Q}, where vxv_{x} is chosen in H~xGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}}, is an open cover of the compact space QQ. Then there is NN such that {B(xi,r¯vxi)}i=1,,N\{B(x_{i},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{i}}})\}_{i=1,\ldots,N} is an open cover of QQ. Consider

τ(x,r)(y)={r2yx2for yB(x,r),0for yB(x,r).\tau_{(x,r)}(y)=\begin{cases}\sqrt{r^{2}-\left\|y-x\right\|^{2}}&\text{for }y\in B(x,r),\\ 0&\text{for }y\notin B(x,r).\end{cases}

Notice that τ(x,r)(y)\tau_{(x,r)}(y) is semialgebraic and continuous on QQ, xQ\forall x\in Q, r+\forall r\in\mathbb{R}^{+} and that i=1Nτ(xi,r¯vxi)(y)>0{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}}\tau_{(x_{i},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{i}}})}(y)>0 for each yQy\in Q as τ(x,r)(y)0\tau_{(x,r)}(y)\geq 0 for every yQy\in Q and τ(x,r)(y)>0\tau_{(x,r)}(y)>0 for all yB(x,r)y\in B(x,r). Moreover, yQ,B(xi,r¯vxi) as above s.t. yB(xi,r¯vxi)\forall y\in Q,\,\exists B(x_{i},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{i}}})\text{ as above s.t. }y\in B(x_{i},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{i}}}) since {B(xi,r¯vxi)}i=1,,N\{B(x_{i},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{i}}})\}_{i=1,\ldots,N} is an open covering of QQ. Hence the function

ϕ(y)=1i=1Nτ(xi,r¯vxi)(y)j=1Nτ(xj,r¯vxj)(y)ΠHy(0)vxj\phi(y)=\frac{1}{{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{N}}\tau_{(x_{i},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{i}}})}(y)}\sum_{j=1}^{N}\tau_{(x_{j},\overline{r}_{v_{x_{j}}})}(y)\Pi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x_{j}}

is a semialgebraic and continuous solution of the system on QQ.

\bullet\; Conversely, we show that if system (1.2) has a continuous semialgebraic solution ϕ:Qs\phi:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{s} then H~xGl\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} has no empty fiber.

By Remark 2.5 we have that ~Gl=Gl\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}}=\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{Gl}} but Gl\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{Gl}} has no empty fiber because there is a continuous solution of the system (1.2) as shown in [1].

The proof of the theorem is complete. ∎

Theorem 3.1 gives therefore an answer to the initial problem of determining a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a solution Qxϕ(x)=[ϕ1(x)ϕs(x)]sQ\ni x\longmapsto\phi\left(x\right)=\left[\begin{array}[]{c}\phi_{1}(x)\\ \vdots\\ \phi_{s}(x)\end{array}\right]\in\mathbb{R}^{s} of the system (1.2), with the ϕi:Q\phi_{i}:Q\rightarrow\mathbb{R} continuous and semialgebric.

Remark 3.2.

Let pp be the projection of a solution of the system (1.2) on KerA(y),yQ\mathrm{Ker}A(y)^{\perp},\,y\in Q. If pp is not semialgebraic the system has no semialgebraic solution by Theorem 2.2 and so it has no continuous and semialgebraic solution. Otherwise, if pp is semialgebraic then ~Gl=Gl\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}}=\mathcal{H}^{\mathrm{Gl}} since if vHxGlv\in H_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} we may write

QyΠHy(0)v=p(y)+Π2(y)v=p(y)+vΠ1(y)vQ\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v=p(y)+\varPi_{2}(y)\,v=p(y)+v-\varPi_{1}(y)\,v

that is semialgebraic by Lemma 2.1. We have that γvx(y)=p(y)+Π1(y)vx\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=p(y)+\varPi_{1}(y)\,v_{x}, yB(x,rvx)\forall y\in B(x,r_{v_{x}}) since γvx(y)\gamma_{v_{x}}(y) is the projection of vxv_{x} on Hy(0)H_{y}^{(0)}. This implies that for each xQx\in Q there is a vxv_{x} such that γvx\gamma_{v_{x}} is semialgebraic iff pp is semialgebraic and γvx\gamma_{v_{x}} is discontinuous at most at isolated points for each xQx\in Q iff pp and B(x,rvx)yΠ1(y)vxB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(y)\,v_{x} are discontinuous at most at isolated points for each xQx\in Q. Note that if there is a vxv_{x} such that γvx\gamma_{v_{x}} is semialgebraic then γvx\gamma_{v_{x}} is semialgebraic for all vHGlv\in H^{\mathrm{Gl}} by Remark 2.5.

Hence, if we know a solution ϕ\phi of system (1.2) or, at least, its projection on KerA(x)\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp}, Theorem 3.1 can be written in the following (equivalent) form.

Theorem 3.3.

Let pp be the projection of a solution of the system on KerA(x)\mathrm{Ker}A(x)^{\perp} and assume that for every given xQx\in Q there exists vxH~xGlv_{x}\in\widetilde{H}_{x}^{\mathrm{Gl}} such that B(x,rvx)yγvx(y)=ΠHy(0)vxB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\gamma_{v_{x}}(y)=\varPi_{H_{y}^{(0)}}v_{x} is discontinuous, at most, at isolated points (which is the same as saying that pp and B(x,rvx)yΠ1(y)vxB(x,r_{v_{x}})\ni y\longmapsto\varPi_{1}(y)\,v_{x} are discontinuous at most at isolated points for every given xQx\in Q). We have that the following conditions are equivalent:

i) The system has a continuous and semialgebraic solution.

ii) ~Gl\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}^{\mathrm{Gl}} has no empty fiber.

iii) The Glaeser-stable refinement \mathcal{H} associated with the system has no empty fibers and pp is semialgebraic.

iv) The system has a continuous solution and a semialgebraic one (they may possibly be different).

Proof.

We showed that i)ii)i)\Leftrightarrow ii) in Theorem 3.1 (using also Remark 3.2). The proof of ii)iii)ii)\Leftrightarrow iii) follows from Remark 3.2 and that of iii)iv)iii)\Longleftrightarrow iv) from Fefferman’s result that a system like (1.2) has a continuous solution iff the Glaeser-stable refinement \mathcal{H} associated with the system has no empty fibers (see [1]) and from Theorem 2.2. ∎

References

  • [1] C. Fefferman, J. Kollár, Continuous Solutions of Linear Equations, From Fourier analysis and number theory to Radon transforms and geometry, Dev. Math., vol. 28, Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 233-282. MR 2986959