text:
# On the local systems Hamiltonian in the weakly nonlocal Poisson brackets.

## 1 Local and Weakly Nonlocal Poisson and Symplectic Structures.

We are going to consider only one-dimensional (i.e. 1+1) systems, so we define the Poisson Structures either on the spaces of loops $`L(^N)`$ containing the mappings $`f:S^1^N`$ of the circle (periodic boundary conditions)

or on the spaces $`L(^N,y)`$ of mappings of the line $`R^N`$ constant at infinity, into some manifold $`^N`$ with local coordinates $`\phi ^1,\mathrm{}\phi ^n`$ where $`\phi (y)=0`$. Therefore we think about these mappings as vector-functions (fields) $`\phi (x)=(\phi ^1(x),\mathrm{}\phi ^n(x))`$. In the nonlocal case we consider only the boundary conditions constant at infinity, i.e. our mapping should be such that for $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$ we have $`f(x)y^N`$ and $`\phi (x)0`$. Here $`y`$ is some point of the manifold $`^N`$. We require also that all derivatives of the map $`f`$ tend to zero at infinity.

The local field-theoretical PB can be completely defined by the finite order differential Hamiltonian operator of the form:

$$J^{ij}=\underset{Lk0}{}B_k^{ij}(x,\phi (x),\phi _x(x),\mathrm{})_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}$$

We call this PB translation invariant if the Hamiltonian operator does not depend on $`x`$. The Hamiltonian system generated by the Hamiltonian functional $`I\{\phi \}`$ has the form

$$\phi _t^i=J^{ij}\frac{\delta I\{\phi \}}{\delta \phi ^j(x)}$$

The Poisson bracket of two local functionals is defined by the formula

$$\{I_1,I_2\}=\frac{\delta I_1}{\delta \phi ^i(x)}J^{ij}\frac{\delta I_2}{\delta \phi ^j(x)}𝑑x$$

In the field theory people prefer to write the Poisson Brackets for fields in the local form convenient for calculations

$$\{\phi ^i(x),\phi ^j(y)\}=J^{ij}\delta (xy)$$

These formulas define a skew-symmetric bilinear operation satisfying to the so-called Leibnitz Identity $`\{fg,h\}=f\{g,h\}+g\{f,h\}`$. It should satisfy also to the Jacoby Identity for 3 functionals:

$$\{\{f,g\},h\}+\{\{h,f\},g\}+\{\{g,h\},f\}=0$$

This requirement is very strong. It leads to specific, very serious restrictions on the class of admissible Hamiltonian operators.

We define the weakly non-local Poisson brackets (PB) through the corresponding class of Hamiltonian operators:

$$J^{ij}=\underset{k0}{}B_k^{ij}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})_x^k+\underset{k,l0}{}e_{kl}S_{(k)}^i(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})^1S_{(l)}^j(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})$$
(1.1)
where $`_xd/dx`$ and $`^1`$ is defined here as a skew-symmetric operator on the line

$$^1=\frac{1}{2}_{\mathrm{}}^x𝑑x\frac{1}{2}_x^+\mathrm{}𝑑x$$
(1.2)
on the space of rapidly decreasing at $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ vector-functions. The constants $`e_{kl}=e_{lk}`$ give a quadratic form in the linear space generated by the (linearly independent) flows $`S_{(k)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})`$. We say that the bracket is written in the Reduced Form if $`e_{kl}=e_k\delta _{kl}`$ where $`e_k=\pm 1`$.

Let us point out that we define only translation invariant weakly nonlocal Hamiltonian operators. It is no problem to extend this definition to the coefficients dependent on $`x`$, but such brackets will not be considered in this work.

In the same way we define a class of weakly-nonlocal Symplectic Structures. We call the symplectic structure weakly-nonlocal if the operator $`J^1`$ (if it exists) has a weakly-nonlocal form, i.e.

$$\left(J^1\right)_{ij}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}C_{(k)ij}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})^k+\underset{k,l0}{}d_{kl}Q_{(k)i}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})^1Q_{(l)j}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})$$
(1.3)
As far as we know, the first example of Poisson bracket written in the literature precisely in this form was the Sokolov bracket ( )

$$\{\phi (x),\phi (y)\}=\phi _x\nu (xy)\phi _y$$
(1.4)
designed to prove that the so-called Krichever-Novikov equation is Hamiltonian:

$$\phi _t=\phi _{xxx}\frac{3}{2}\frac{\phi _{xx}^2}{\phi _x}+\frac{h(\phi )}{\phi _x}=\phi _x^1\phi _x\frac{\delta H}{\delta \phi _x}$$

where $`h(\phi )=c_3\phi ^3+c_2\phi ^2+c_1\phi +c_0`$ and

$$H=\left(\frac{1}{2}\frac{\phi _{xx}^2}{\phi _x^2}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{h(\phi )}{\phi _x^2}\right)𝑑x$$

For the Sokolov bracket the corresponding symplectic structure is local:

$$J^1=\frac{1}{\phi _x}\frac{1}{\phi _x}$$

This equation appeared originally in work  describing the ”rank 2” solutions of the KP system. In pure algebra it describes the deformations of the commuting genus 1 pairs OD operators of the rank 2 whose classification was obtained in this work. As it was found later, this equation is a unique third order in $`x`$ completely integrable evolution equation which cannot be reduced to KdV by Miura type transformations.

Let us mention that the local symplectic structures was considered by I.Dorfman and O.I.Mokhov (see Review ).

For the Weakly Nonlocal Poisson Brackets of basic fields we use the same definition as above. They have the following form:

$$\{\phi ^i(x),\phi ^j(y)\}=J^{ij}\delta (xy)=\underset{k0}{}B_k^{ij}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})\delta ^{(k)}(xy)+$$

$$+\underset{k,l}{}e_{kl}S_{(k)}^i(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})\nu (xy)S_{(l)}^j(\phi ,\phi _y,\mathrm{})$$
(1.5)
where $`e_{kl}=e_{lk}`$ is a constant symmetric matrix, $`\delta ^{(k)}(xy)d^k/dx^k\delta (xy)`$, $`\nu (xy)=1/2sgn(xy)`$ and both sums contain the finite number of terms. All functions involved depend on the finite numbers of derivatives of $`\phi `$ with respect to $`x`$. The bracket is written in the Reduced form if $`e_{kl}=e_k\delta _{kl}`$ and $`e_k=\pm 1`$.

We include in the definition the following requirements: all flows with right-hand parts equal to $`S_{(k)}^i,k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ form a linearly independent set; the flows

$$\phi _t^i=S_{(k)}^i(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})$$
(1.6)
commute with each other. We call them the Structure Flows for a given weakly-nonlocal Hamiltonian structure. The structure flows should preserve the Poisson structure (1.5). Both requirements were proved in the works  as a corollary from the definition of the weakly nonlocal PB given above, but here we simply include them in the definition.

The brackets (1.5) were already used in fact in the recent works  and  where the nonlocal Hamiltonian version of the Whitham averaging method was considered for the local systems (PDEs) with the full necessary set of local commuting integrals. The Poisson Brackets used in these works are in fact weakly nonlocal.

We call the weakly nonlocal Poisson Bracket fundamental if it contains only one flow of the form $`S_0^i=\phi _x^i`$ in the non-local part (i.e. its nonlocal part exactly coincides with the Sokolov PB written above).

In this case every local translation invariant Hamiltonian

$$H=h(\phi (x),\phi _x(x),\mathrm{},\phi _{x\mathrm{}x}(x))𝑑x$$

generates the local (PDE) system because:

$$\phi _x^i\frac{\delta H}{\delta \phi ^i(x)}=_xQ(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})$$

for some function $`Q`$.

For the more general weakly nonlocal Poisson brackets defined above this property is valid only for the special Hamiltonians: it was pointed out by E.V.Ferapontov (), that for the nonlocal brackets of Hydrodynamic Type

local Hamiltonian generates local system if and only if it is a conservative quantity for the flows $`\phi ^i=S_{(k)}^i`$ in the nonlocal part of the bracket.

This statement is valid for any weakly nonlocal bracket, and the proof is the same.

Let us mention also that it is easy to check by direct calculation that for any closed 2-form (1.3) the corresponding forms $`Q_{(k)i}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})`$ should be closed 1-forms in the functional space $`\phi (x)`$. In the weakly-nonlocal symplectic structures given by the integrable systems they usually appear as the Euler-Lagrange derivatives of local Hamiltonian functionals of the corresponding hierarchy (see below).

## 2 Weakly nonlocal Poisson and Symplectic Structures and famous Integrable Systems.

Let us mention here that in the late 70s many people considered an infinite series of the the nonlocal Poisson Brackets for the famous integrable systems like KdV, NLS, etc., on the spaces of rapidly decreasing functions. They obtained these brackets following the Lenard-Magri scheme starting with the initial pair of local brackets for KdV (for the NLS system the second bracket is already nonlocal indeed, it is weakly nonlocal in our sense). For the KdV - equation: $`\phi _t=6\phi \phi _x\phi _{xxx}`$ we have $`J_0=`$ (Gardner - Zakharov - Faddeev bracket) and $`J_1=^3+2(\phi +\phi )`$ (Lenard-Magri bracket)

The recursion operator $`R=^2+4\phi +2\phi _x^1`$ such that $`RJ_0=J_1`$, generates the next bracket with the Hamiltonian operator $`R^2J_0=J_2`$:

$$J_2=^58\phi ^312\phi _x^28\phi _{xx}+16\phi ^22\phi _{xxx}+16\phi \phi _x4\phi _x^1\phi _x$$

In work  all nonlocal parts of higher PBs were calculated. These authors never defined any specific class of Poisson Brackets, but using their results we are easily coming to the statement:

All higher brackets for KdV given by the formula $`J_n=R^nJ_0`$, $`n0`$ are weakly nonlocal. The corresponding flows $`S_{(k)}^i(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})`$ are exactly the Higher KdV systems and the exact formula for $`J^n`$ can be written in the form:

$$J^n=(localpart)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}S_{(k)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})^1S_{(nk1)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})$$

where $`S_{(1)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})=2\phi _x`$ and

$$S_{(k)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})RS_{(k1)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})$$

are higher KdV flows.

The similar weakly-nonlocal expression for the positive powers of the recursion operator for KdV was also considered in . Let us represent here the corresponding result

$$R^n=(localpart)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{(k)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)},n0$$

where $`S_{(k)}=_x\delta H_{(k)}/\delta \phi (x)`$, $`H_{(0)}=\phi 𝑑x`$ and

$$\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta \phi (x)}R$$

are Euler-Lagrange derivatives of higher Hamiltonian functions for KdV hierarchy. Let us mention also that in our notations $`R`$ acts from the left on the vectors and from the right on the 1-forms in the functional space.

Using these results we prove here the following

Proposition.

All symplectic structures for KdV $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=(J_n)^1`$ are weakly nonlocal for $`n0`$. The 1-forms $`Q_{(k)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})`$ in the nonlocal part are the Euler-Lagrange derivatives of higher Hamiltonian functions $`H_{(n)}`$ and the formula for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n=(localpart)+\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}$$

Proof. We have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=^1`$ and by the definition:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n=^1R^n=^1(localpart)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}^1S_{(k)}(\phi ,\phi _x,\mathrm{})^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}=$$

$$=^1(localpart)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}^1\left(\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\right)_x^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}=$$

$$=^1(localpart)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}^1\left(\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\right)^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}=$$

$$=\frac{\delta H_{(0)}}{\delta \phi (x)}^1\frac{\delta H_{(0)}}{\delta \phi (x)}(localpart)+$$

$$+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\delta H_{(0)}}{\delta \phi (x)}^1\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}$$

We can also write that

$$\frac{\delta H_{(0)}}{\delta \phi (x)}(localpart)=\zeta (x)+(localpart)^{}$$

where $`\zeta (x)`$ is a result of the action of the local part of $`R^n`$ on $`\delta H_{(0)}/\delta \phi (x)`$ (from the right) and $`(localpart)^{}`$ is a differential operator. So we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n=(localpart)^{}+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}+$$

$$+\frac{\delta H_{(0)}}{\delta \phi (x)}^1\left[\zeta (x)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta \phi (x)}\right]$$

where the expression in the brackets is equal to

$$\frac{\delta H_{(0)}}{\delta \phi (x)}R^n\frac{\delta H_{(n)}}{\delta \phi (x)}$$

So we obtain the statement of the Proposition.

It seems that this property is very general for the brackets given by the recursion operators for integrable systems. We prove here the similar fact for the NLS-equation:

$`i\psi _t=\psi _{xx}+2\kappa |\psi |^2\psi `$ where $`\psi `$ is a complex function. We have

$$\{\psi (x),\overline{\psi }(y)\}_0=i\delta (xy)$$
(2.1)
This is the first Hamiltonian structure. It corresponds to the operator

$$J_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)$$

There is an infinite number of Hamiltonian structures connected with this one through the recursion operator ( , p. 218). The bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_1`$ corresponds to the Hamiltonian operator

$$J_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \\ & 0\end{array}\right)2\kappa \left(\begin{array}{cc}\psi ^1\psi & \psi ^1\overline{\psi }\\ \overline{\psi }^1\psi & \overline{\psi }^1\overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)$$

which has the form (1.1) with only one flow in the nonlocal part

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi \\ \overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)_t=\sqrt{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{c}i\psi \\ i\overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)$$
(2.2)
Proposition. All the brackets $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_n`$, $`n0`$ given by the recursion $`R^nJ_0`$ have the form (1.1) with the flows from NLS-hierarchy in the nonlocal parts. All the symplectic structures $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=(J_n)^1=\mathrm{\Omega }_0R^n`$ have the form (1.3) where the forms $`Q_{(k)i}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})`$ are the Euler-Lagrange derivatives of the higher Hamiltonian functionals of the NLS-hierarchy. The corresponding formulas for $`J_n`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ and $`R^n`$ $`(n0)`$ can be written as

$$J_n=(localpart)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{(k1)}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})^1S_{(nk)}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})$$

$$R^n=(localpart)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_{(k1)}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_n=(localpart)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}^1\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}$$

where

$$S_{(k)}J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)},H_{(0)}=\sqrt{2\kappa }\psi \overline{\psi }𝑑x,and\frac{\delta H_{(k)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}=R\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}$$

for any $`k1`$.

Proof. We use the induction. The recursion operator $`R=J_1J_0^1`$ takes here the form:

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)+2\kappa \left(\begin{array}{cc}i\psi ^1\overline{\psi }& i\psi ^1\psi \\ i\overline{\psi }^1\overline{\psi }& i\overline{\psi }^1\psi \end{array}\right)$$

Suppose now that $`J_n`$ has the required form:

$$J_n=\underset{k0}{}B_{(n)k}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})^k\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}^1J_0\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}$$
(2.3)
where $`B_{(n)k}`$ are $`2\times 2`$ \- matrices and $`H_{(k)}`$ are the higher NLS Hamiltonians by the induction assumption. We note that $`R`$ can be written in the form:

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)+\sqrt{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\psi ^1\delta N/\delta \psi (x)& i\psi ^1\delta N/\delta \overline{\psi }(x)\\ i\overline{\psi }^1\delta N/\delta \psi (x)& i\overline{\psi }^1\delta N/\delta \overline{\psi }(x)\end{array}\right)$$

Here $`N=\sqrt{2\kappa }\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(x)𝑑x`$ is the first Hamiltonian in the NLS hierarchy, generating the flow (2.2) with respect to the bracket (2.1). Since it commutes with any $`H_{(k)}`$ with respect to the bracket (2.1), we have

$$\left(\frac{\delta N}{\delta \psi (x)}\frac{\delta N}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}\right)J_0\left(\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta \psi (x)}\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}\right)^t\left(Q_{(k1)}\right)_x=Q_{(k1)}Q_{(k1)}$$

for some functions $`Q_{(k1)}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})`$. We have

$$RJ_n=(localterms)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}^1J_0\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}+$$

$$+\sqrt{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{cc}i\psi ^1\delta N/\delta \psi (x)& i\psi ^1\delta N/\delta \overline{\psi }(x)\\ i\overline{\psi }^1\delta N/\delta \psi (x)& i\overline{\psi }^1\delta N/\delta \overline{\psi }(x)\end{array}\right)\underset{k0}{}B_{(n)k}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})^k$$

$$\sqrt{2\kappa }\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\begin{array}{c}i\psi \\ i\overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)^1\left(Q_{(k1)}Q_{(k1)}\right)^1J_0\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}$$

We can write the relations:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)\left[\left(J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}\right)_x+J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}\right]$$

and

$$\left(\frac{\delta N}{\delta \psi (x)}\frac{\delta N}{\delta \overline{\psi }(x)}\right)\underset{k0}{}B_{(n)k}(\psi ,\overline{\psi },\mathrm{})^k=\left(\zeta (x)\overline{\zeta }(x)\right)+(localterms)$$

where $`(\zeta (x)\overline{\zeta }(x))`$ is a result of the action of the local part of $`J_n`$ (from the right) on $`(\delta N/\delta \psi (x)\delta N/\delta \overline{\psi }(x))`$. So the nonlocal part of $`RJ_n`$ has a form

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)\left(J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}\right)_x+\sqrt{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{c}i\psi \\ i\overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)Q_{(k1)}\right]^1J_0\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}$$

$$+\sqrt{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{c}i\psi \\ i\overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)^1\left[\left(\zeta (x)\overline{\zeta }(x)\right)+\sqrt{2\kappa }\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}Q_{(k1)}J_0\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}\right]$$

Using the relations:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right)\left(J_0\frac{\delta H_{(k1)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}\right)_x+\sqrt{2\kappa }\left(\begin{array}{c}i\psi \\ i\overline{\psi }\end{array}\right)Q_{(k1)}=RS_{(k1)}=S_{(k)}$$

and

$$\left(\zeta (x)\overline{\zeta }(x)\right)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}Q_{(k1)}J_0\frac{\delta H_{(nk)}}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}=\frac{\delta N}{\delta (\psi ,\overline{\psi })(x)}J_n=S_{(n)}$$

we obtain the required formula for $`J_{n+1}`$.

Now using the expressions $`R^n=J_n\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\mathrm{\Omega }_0R^n=\mathrm{\Omega }_0J_n\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)$$

it is easy to obtain the corresponding formulas for $`R^n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ for $`n1`$.

Proposition is proved.111 It is worth to mention that in the variables $`r=\sqrt{\psi \overline{\psi }}`$, $`\theta =i(\psi _x/\psi \overline{\psi }_x/\overline{\psi })`$ (i.e. $`\psi =r\mathrm{exp}(i\theta 𝑑x)`$) the NLS-equation has in fact three ($`J_0`$, $`J_1`$, $`J_2`$) local Hamiltonian structures. We don’t know any place in the literature where this fact was clearly mentioned.

## 3  Poisson brackets of Hydrodynamic Type.

The well-known Whitham averaging procedure (or the nonlinear WKB method) we consider for the local (PDE) evolution system only. It is based on the family of invariant tori (i.e. exact solutions quasiperiodic in $`x,t`$) dependent on some parameters $`U`$. We assume that a family of the local integrals is given such that the value of parameters $`U`$ can be chosen as the average values of the densities of integrals along the invariant tori. For the Hamiltonian systems we assume that these integrals are commuting (we call it ”Liouville Property”), and we have an invariant, completely integrable finite-dimensional subsystem or family of them.

This procedure leads to first order homogeneous quasilinear systems (Hydrodynamic type system) useful in many cases for asymptotic studies:

$$U_T^\nu =V_\mu ^\nu (U)U_X^\mu $$

As it was established in 1983 (see ), they are Hamiltonian in the so-called Hydrodynamic Type Poisson Brackets (HTPB) or Dubrovin-Novikov (DN)–brackets in the local case (i.e. the original system was Hamiltonian in the local PB)

$$\{U^\nu (X),U^\mu (Y)\}=g^{\nu \mu }(U)\delta ^{}(XY)+b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }(U)U_X^\lambda \delta (XY)$$
(3.1)
introduced in  (see also , ) for more complete information) . (There was a gap in the general proof of the Jacoby Identity for the ”averaged” Poisson Bracket constructed in 1983; this gap was finally fulfilled in work ).

Let us remind here the general properties of the brackets (3.1) - (see ).

Any Hydrodynamic type Hamiltonian $`H=h(U(x))𝑑x`$ (i.e. its density does not depend on derivatives) generates a H.T.System with Hydrodynamic type (or DN) P.B.. Consider the H.T. bracket (3.1) such that $`detg^{\nu \mu }0`$. It follows from the Leibnitz property that the first coefficient ($`\delta `$-prime term) transforms under the ”pointwise” change of coordinates $`u(w)`$ as a Riemannian metric with upper indices, and the second coefficient ($`\delta `$-term) transforms as a set of Christoffel symbols (=connection) with two upper indices. Indices should be raised up with the same metric. It is skew-symmetric if and only if the tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ is symmetric (i.e. defines a pseudo-Riemannian metric), and the connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }^\nu =g_{\mu \tau }b_\lambda ^{\tau \nu }`$ is compatible with this metric: $`_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }0`$. The bracket (3.1) satisfies the Jacobi Identity if and only if connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }^\nu `$ is symmetric, and the metric is flat. Therefore the signature of metric is a complete local invariant under the change of coordinates $`u(w)`$.

Three types of coordinates for this kind of P.B. play an important role in applications:

1.The Canonical (flat) coordinates $`n^\mu `$ where the connection coefficients are equal to zero. The integrals $`n^\nu (x)𝑑x`$ are Casimirs for this P.B..

2. The so-called ”Physical Coordinates” $`U^\nu `$ obtained by the averaging of densities of local commuting integrals. We say that the coordinates are ”Liouville” or Physical for H.T.P.B. if it has the form:

$$\{U^\nu (X),U^\mu (Y)\}=(\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(U)+\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(U))\delta ^{}(XY)+\frac{\gamma ^{\nu \mu }}{U^\lambda }U_X^\lambda \delta (XY)$$

for some functions $`\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(U)`$.

Any coordinates such that integrals of them define the commuting flows, are physical in that sense.

In particular, any coordinates such that PB is linear, are physical.

The general local Poisson Brackets of any order linearly dependent on the fields were studied in works . The especially interesting class of linear Hydrodynamic Type P.B. was studied in works . It leads to the beautiful algebraic and differentially geometrical theory of the local translational invariant first order Lie algebras, Frobenius type algebras and their non-associative analogs (”Novikov Algebras”), and super-analogs of that theory.

3. The diagonal form where our metric and H.T.system both are diagonal: the coordinates are orthogonal for the metric, and the velocity tensor $`V_\nu ^\mu (U)`$ is diagonal (in classical terminology the coordinates $`U`$ are the ”Riemann Invariants” for our system). This form has the following fundamental property: all diagonal H.T. Systems Hamiltonian in such PB, are Completely Integrable. It was conjectured by S.P.Novikov and proved by S.P. Tsarev in his PhD thesis in 1985 (see ).

Let us point out that the beautiful Tsarev integration procedure based on the Riemannian metric turns out to be more broad than the class of H.T.Systems Hamiltonian corresponding to the local H.T.P.B.. It integrates also the systems called ”semihamiltonian”. The Riemannian metric is nonflat in that case. Probably, all semihamiltonian systems are in fact Hamiltonian corresponding to some weakly nonlocal H.T.P.B. with (maybe) an infinite number of terms in the nonlocal tail. Some investigation of this problem can be found in ,  but this problem is still open.

The first weakly nonlocal fundamental PB of hydrodynamic type was found in , the more general class - in . The weakly nonlocal PB of the types different from the hydrodynamic one, never have been studied to our knowledge. Let us describe the Mokhov-Ferapontov fundamental weakly nonlocal Poisson bracket of hydrodynamic type (MF-bracket, see ):

$$\{U^\nu (X),U^\mu (Y)\}=g^{\nu \mu }(U)\delta ^{}(XY)+b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }(U)U_X^\lambda \delta (XY)+$$

$$+cU_X^\nu \nu (XY)U_Y^\mu $$
(3.2)
and more general Ferapontov weakly nonlocal brackets of hydrodynamic type (F-bracket ):

$$\{U^\nu (X),U^\mu (Y)\}=g^{\nu \mu }(U)\delta ^{}(XY)+b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }(U)U_X^\lambda \delta (XY)+$$

$$+\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_kw_{(k)\lambda }^\nu (U)U_X^\lambda \nu (XY)w_{(k)\delta }^\mu (U)U_Y^\delta $$
(3.3)
$`e_k=\pm 1`$.

Consider the fundamental MF-bracket (3.2) with non-degenerate metric tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$. It is skew-symmetric if and only if the tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ is symmetric, and the connection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }^\nu =g_{\mu \tau }b_\lambda ^{\tau \nu }$$

is compatible with this metric: $`_\lambda g_{\mu \nu }0`$.

The bracket (3.2) satisfies Jacobi Identity if and only if its connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }^\nu `$ is symmetric (i.e. torsion tensor is equal to zero) and has constant curvature equal to $`c`$ , i.e.

$$R_{\mu \lambda }^{\nu \tau }=c\left(\delta _\mu ^\nu \delta _\lambda ^\tau \delta _\mu ^\tau \delta _\lambda ^\nu \right)$$
(3.4)
Consider the F-bracket (3.3) with $`detg^{\nu \mu }0`$.

The bracket (3.3) is skew-symmetric if and only if tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ is symmetric and connection is compatible with this metric as above for the local case.

The bracket (3.3) satisfies Jacobi Identity if and only if its connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \lambda }^\nu `$ is symmetric, the metric $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ (with lower indices) and tensors $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu `$ satisfy the equations:

$$g_{\nu \tau }w_{(k)\mu }^\tau =g_{\mu \tau }w_{(k)\nu }^\tau ,_\nu w_{(k)\lambda }^\mu =_\lambda w_{(k)\nu }^\mu $$
(3.5)
$$R_{\mu \lambda }^{\nu \tau }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_k\left(w_{(k)\mu }^\nu w_{(k)\lambda }^\tau w_{(k)\mu }^\tau w_{(k)\lambda }^\nu \right)$$
(3.6)
Moreover, this set is commutative $`[w_k,w_k^{}]=0`$.

It was pointed out by E.V.Ferapontov that the equations written above are the Gauss-Codazzi equations for the submanifolds $`^N`$ with flat normal connection in the Pseudo-Euclidean space $`E^{N+g}`$. Here $`g_{\nu \mu }`$ is the first quadratic form of $`^N`$, and $`w_{(k)}`$ are the Weingarten operators corresponding to the field of pairwise orthogonal unit normals $`\stackrel{}{n}_k`$, see . Moreover, it was proved by E.V.Ferapontov that these brackets can be obtained as a result of Dirac restriction of the local DN-bracket

$$\{N^I(X),N^J(Y)\}=ϵ^I\delta ^{IJ}\delta ^{}(XY),I,J=1,\mathrm{},N+g,ϵ^I=\pm 1$$

in $`E^{N+g}`$ to the submanifold $`^N`$ (see ).

Let us note that for the brackets (3.3) corresponding to the submanifolds with flat normal connection and holonomic net of the lines of curvature, the commutativity of the flows $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu u_X^\mu `$ was proved in ) for this particular case. Concerning their Hamiltonian structure, it was suggested in work  to consider them as ”being generated by formal Hamiltonian functions like $`H=1𝑑x`$”. This statement makes no sense in any symplectic geometry where the Poisson Bracket is well-defined. Besides that, we demonstrate below the local Hamiltonians generating these flows.

Let us introduce the Physical or Liouville coordinates for the weakly nonlocal Poisson brackets of hydrodynamic type: this form is given by the formulas

$$\{U^\nu (X),U^\mu (Y)\}=\left(\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(X)+\gamma ^{\mu \nu }(X)\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_kf_{(k)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\mu \right)\delta ^{}(XY)+$$

$$+\left(\frac{\gamma ^{\nu \mu }}{U^\lambda }U_X^\lambda \underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_k(f_{(k)}^\nu )_Xf_{(k)}^\mu \right)\delta (XY)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_k(f_{(k)}^\nu )_X\nu (XY)(f_{(k)}^\mu )_Y$$
(3.7)
for some functions $`\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ and $`f_{(k)}^\nu (U)`$. Like in the local case, we have the following property:

Lemma 1. The bracket (3.3) of F-type (i.e. weakly nonlocal H.T.P.B.) has Physical form in the coordinates $`U^\mu `$ if and only if the integrals $`J^\nu =U^\nu (X)𝑑X`$ generate the set of local commuting flows according to the bracket (3.3).

Proof. Suppose all functionals $`J^\nu `$ satisfy the conditions above. Then we have for any $`\nu `$ and $`k`$

$$w_{(k)\tau }^\nu (U)U_X^\tau f_{(k)X}^\nu $$

for some functions $`f_{(k)}^\nu (U)`$ as it follows from the condition of locality of the flow corresponding to $`J^\nu `$. From the commutativity of the set of functionals $`\{J^\nu \}`$ we then have

$$b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }U_X^\lambda +\underset{k0}{}e_k(f_{(k)}^\nu )_Xf_{(k)}^\mu \frac{d}{dx}\gamma ^{\nu \mu }$$

for some $`\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(U)`$. Again, from the skew-symmetry property of the bracket we have

$$\frac{d}{dx}g^{\nu \mu }b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }U_X^\lambda +b_\lambda ^{\mu \nu }U_X^\lambda =\frac{d}{dx}\left(\gamma ^{\nu \mu }+\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\underset{k0}{}e_kf_{(k)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\mu \right)$$

and it’s clear that we can choose $`\gamma ^{\nu \mu }`$ in such a way that

$$g^{\nu \mu }=\gamma ^{\nu \mu }+\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\underset{k0}{}e_kf_{(k)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\mu $$

It is easy to obtain from (3.7) that functionals $`J^\nu `$ generate the local flows according to this bracket and commute with each other.

Lemma is proved.

Let us also point out here that the first non-local bracket for the averaged NLS-equation was constructed by M.V.Pavlov ( ) from a nice differential-geometrical consideration. In  and  the construction of non-local brackets for the averaged KdV equation using its local bi-Hamiltonian structure was considered.

## 4 Canonical forms and Casimirs
for Fundamental Poisson bracket.

The structure of the MF fundamental bracket written in the densities of Casimirs was first found by M.V. Pavlov in Theorem 6 of work  who never published any proof later. As far as we know, he never paid any attention to the dependence on the boundary conditions and linear Poisson $`\lambda `$-pencils in this structure.

Definition. Let MF type bracket (3.2) be given with non-degenerate metric tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$. We say that it is written in the canonical form if:

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}=$$

$$=\left(ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }cn^\nu n^\mu \right)\delta ^{}(XY)cn_X^\nu n^\mu \delta (XY)+cn_X^\nu \nu (XY)n_Y^\mu $$
(4.1)
where $`ϵ^\nu `$ are equal to $`\pm 1`$, and the term

$`ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }`$ has the same signature as metric tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$.

Let us formulate here the following Theorem:

Theorem 1. Every fundamental MF-bracket (3.2) with non-degenerate metric tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ of the constant curvature $`c`$ can be written locally in the canonical form (4.1) for any point $`U_0`$ after some change of coordinates $`n^\nu =n^\nu (U^1,\mathrm{},U^N)`$, such that $`n^\nu (U_0)0`$.

The bracket (4.1) represents the Linear Poisson pencil given by the compatible Poisson brackets

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}_0=ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\delta ^{}(XY)$$

and

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}_1=$$

$$=n^\nu (X)n^\mu (X)\delta ^{}(XY)n_X^\nu n^\mu (X)\delta (XY)+n_X^\nu \nu (XY)n_Y^\mu $$

where curvature $`c`$ is the parameter of a pencil.

We postpone the proof of Theorem 1 for the general case of Ferapontov brackets (see Theorem 3). Here we just check that the expression (4.1) really defines the MF-bracket with constant curvature $`c`$. Here we have:

$$g^{\nu \mu }=ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }cn^\nu n^\mu $$

where $`ϵ^\nu =\pm 1`$, and

$$b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }=c\delta _\lambda ^\nu n^\mu $$

The symmetry of $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ is clear; the compatibility of the connection with metric can be written in upper indices as an equation

$$\frac{g^{\nu \mu }}{n^\lambda }=b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }+b_\lambda ^{\mu \nu }$$

(see ), which is also clear in our case. So we should check symmetry of the connection and its curvature. The symmetry of connection in upper indices is equivalent to the equation:

$$b_\alpha ^{\nu \mu }g^{\alpha \lambda }b^{\lambda \mu }g^{\alpha \nu }=0$$

which in our case is

$$c\delta _\alpha ^\nu n^\mu \left(ϵ^\alpha \delta ^{\alpha \lambda }cn^\alpha n^\lambda \right)+c\delta _\alpha ^\lambda n^\mu \left(ϵ^\alpha \delta ^{\alpha \nu }cn^\alpha n^\nu \right)=$$

$$=cn^\mu ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \lambda }+c^2n^\mu n^\nu n^\lambda +cn^\mu ϵ^\lambda \delta ^{\lambda \nu }c^2n^\mu n^\lambda n^\nu 0$$

For the curvature we use the formula

$$g^{\nu \alpha }g^{\mu \beta }R_{\beta \lambda \alpha }^\tau =\left(b_{\lambda ,\alpha }^{\mu \tau }b_{\alpha ,\lambda }^{\mu \tau }\right)g^{\alpha \nu }+b_\alpha ^{\nu \mu }b_\lambda ^{\alpha \tau }b_\alpha ^{\nu \tau }b_\lambda ^{\alpha \mu }=$$

$$=\left(c\delta _\lambda ^\mu \delta _\alpha ^\tau +c\delta _\alpha ^\mu \delta _\lambda ^\tau \right)g^{\alpha \nu }+c^2\delta _\alpha ^\nu n^\mu \delta _\nu ^\alpha n^\tau c^2\delta _\alpha ^\nu n^\tau \delta _\lambda ^\alpha n^\mu $$

$$c\left(\delta _\lambda ^\mu \delta _\alpha ^\tau \delta _\lambda ^\tau \delta _\alpha ^\mu \right)g^{\alpha \nu }$$

so that finally we have

$$R_{\lambda \alpha }^{\mu \tau }=g^{\mu \beta }R_{\beta \lambda \alpha }^\tau =c\left(\delta _\lambda ^\mu \delta _\alpha ^\tau \delta _\lambda ^\tau \delta _\alpha ^\mu \right)$$

which corresponds to the constant curvature $`c`$.

Remark. The metric $`g^{\nu \mu }`$ in (4.1) is not well-defined for all values of $`n^\nu `$ but only for some small enough domain near the zero point. So our theorem claims in fact that for the space of constant curvature $`^N`$ (and given signature of the metric) there exists a standard Canonical form for the corresponding bracket (3.2) on the small neighborhood of the constant point in the ”loop space”, i.e space of mappings $`R^1^N`$, such that $`n(X)y`$ at $`X\pm \mathrm{}`$ for some point $`y^N`$ . We shall clarify in the next work the canonical forms globally.

In work  an implicit expression for the density of the momentum functional for the bracket (4.1) in terms of annihilators was also derived. 222As it will be clear from our later considerations we can not actually speak about the Casimirs and momentum functional until we fix the boundary conditions at infinity. As we shall show in the general case it’s better to speak about the invariant set of $`N+g`$ canonical functionals playing the role of annihilators or some ”canonical Hamiltonian functions” depending on the boundary conditions. We postpone these considerations to the case of the general Ferapontov bracket and assume here the rapidly decreasing boundary conditions at infinity. We formulate here this result in the explicit form.

Lemma 2. On the space of rapidly decreasing functions $`n^\nu (X)`$ the functionals

$$N^\nu =n^\nu 𝑑X$$
(4.2)
are the annihilators of the bracket (4.1). The functional

$$P=\frac{1}{c}\left(1\sqrt{|1c\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu n^\nu (X)n^\nu (X)|}\right)𝑑X$$
(4.3)
is the momentum generating shifts along the coordinate $`X`$.

This lemma follows from a simple calculation. We just point out here that the constant in the density $`𝒫(n)`$ of the functional $`P`$ is chosen in such a way that $`𝒫(X)0`$ at $`X\pm \mathrm{}`$ on the space of rapidly decreasing at $`X\pm \mathrm{}`$ functions $`n^\nu (X)`$. The expression (4.3) becomes the ordinary momentum operator

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu n^\nu (X)n^\nu (X)dX$$

for the corresponding DN bracket as $`c0`$. Our definition of the operator $`^1`$ leads to the identity:

$$\underset{\mu }{}^1n_X^\mu \frac{𝒫(n)}{n^\mu }𝒫(n)$$

It is interesting that the functional $`P`$ is uniquely defined only on the part of the phase space where

$$\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu n^\nu (X)n^\nu (X)<1/c$$

for any $`X`$. If it is not so, we have nonsmooth functions and the problem of choosing the sign. Let us postpone these questions.

The bracket (4.1) is written also in the Physical form with $`\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(n)=1/2ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }`$, $`e=sgnc`$ and $`f^\nu (n)=\sqrt{|c|}n^\nu `$.

Lemma 3. Suppose we have a Poisson bracket (3.7) such that

$$\gamma ^{\nu \mu }(n)=A^{\nu \mu }+B_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }n^\lambda $$

for some constants $`A^{\nu \mu }`$ and $`B_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }`$, $`e=sgnc`$ and $`f^\nu (n)=\sqrt{|c|}n^\nu `$. Then $`B_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }\delta _\lambda ^\nu b^\mu `$ for some constants $`b^\mu `$; therefore the linear part can be removed from the bracket by the simple shifts of coordinates $`n^\nu =\stackrel{~}{n}^\nu +b^\nu /c`$.

Proof. We have in our case

$$g^{\nu \mu }(n)=A^{\nu \mu }+A^{\mu \nu }+B_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }n^\lambda +B_\lambda ^{\mu \nu }n^\lambda cn^\nu n^\mu $$

$$b_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }=B_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }c\delta _\lambda ^\nu n^\mu $$

So from the symmetry of the connection

$$b_\alpha ^{\nu \mu }g^{\alpha \lambda }b_\alpha ^{\lambda \mu }g^{\alpha \nu }=0$$

we can obtain for the quadratic part in the variables $`n`$:

$$B_\alpha ^{\nu \mu }n^\alpha n^\lambda B_\beta ^{\lambda \mu }n^\beta n^\nu 0$$

for $`\nu \lambda `$. So for $`\alpha \nu `$ or $`\beta \lambda `$ we obtain

$$B_\alpha ^{\nu \mu }0,B_\beta ^{\lambda \mu }0$$

and for $`\alpha =\nu `$ and $`\beta =\lambda `$

$$B_\nu ^{\nu \mu }=B_\lambda ^{\lambda \mu }$$

for any $`\nu \lambda `$. So we have $`B_\lambda ^{\nu \mu }\delta _\lambda ^\nu b^\mu `$ for some $`b^\mu `$.

Lemma is proved.

It is clear also that any change of the term $`ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }`$ by a constant symmetric matrix $`A^{\nu \mu }`$ leads to the Poisson pencil; however, in the degenerate case we do not claim that any bracket (3.2) of the MF type can be presented in that form after some coordinate transformation.

The MF-brackets can be obtained as the averaged ones according to the recent works  from the original weakly nonlocal fundamental brackets with terms like

$$\phi _x^i\nu (xy)\phi _y^j$$

in the non-local part.

## 5 General F-brackets.
Riemannian Geometry.

Let us consider more general F-brackets.

Definition. We say that the F-bracket is written in the Canonical form if

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}=\left(ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\underset{k=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_kf_{(k)}^\nu (n)f_{(k)}^\mu (n)\right)\delta ^{}(XY)$$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_k\left(f_{(k)}^\nu (n)\right)_Xf_{(k)}^\mu (n)\delta (XY)+$$

$$+\underset{k=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_k\left(f_{(k)}^\nu (n)\right)_X\nu (XY)\left(f_{(k)}^\mu (n)\right)_Y$$
(5.1)
with non-degenerate metric and some functions $`f_{(k)}^\nu (n)`$ such that $`f_{(k)}^\nu (0)0`$, $`e_k=\pm 1`$.

Theorem 2. The expression (5.1) with non-degenerate metric and linearly independent set of functions $`f_{(k)}^\nu (n)`$ defines a Poisson bracket if and only if:

1) The flows

$$n_{T_k}^\nu =\left(f_{(k)}^\nu (n)\right)_X$$

commute with each other, i.e. $`d/dT_k^{}(f_{(k)}^\nu (n))=d/dT_k(f_{(k^{})}^\nu (n))`$ or

$$\frac{f_{(k)}^\nu }{n^\lambda }\frac{f_{(k^{})}^\lambda }{n^\mu }\frac{f_{(k^{})}^\nu }{n^\lambda }\frac{f_{(k)}^\lambda }{n^\mu }0$$

for any $`k`$, $`k^{}`$.

The functions $`f_{(k)}^\nu (n)`$ are such that 2) and 3) are true:

2)

$$\frac{f_{(k)}^\nu }{n^\lambda }\left(ϵ^\lambda \delta ^{\lambda \mu }\underset{s=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_sf_{(s)}^\lambda f_{(s)}^\mu \right)=\frac{f_{(k)}^\mu }{n^\lambda }\left(ϵ^\lambda \delta ^{\lambda \nu }\underset{s=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_sf_{(s)}^\lambda f_{(s)}^\nu \right)$$

3)

$$\left(ϵ^\lambda \delta ^{\lambda \alpha }\underset{s=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_sf_{(s)}^\lambda f_{(s)}^\alpha \right)\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_n\frac{f_{(n)}^\mu }{n^\beta }f_{(n)}^\nu \right)\frac{f_{(k)}^\beta }{n^\alpha }=$$

$$=\left(ϵ^\mu \delta ^{\mu \alpha }\underset{s=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_sf_{(s)}^\mu f_{(s)}^\alpha \right)\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{g}{}}e_n\frac{f_{(n)}^\lambda }{n^\beta }f_{(n)}^\nu \right)\frac{f_{(k)}^\beta }{n^\alpha }$$

Proof. As was shown in , the commutativity of the flows $`(f_{(k)}^\nu )_X`$ is the necessary requirement under the conditions of the Theorem.

The condition $`(2)`$ is exactly the identity

$$g_{\nu \alpha }w_{(k)\mu }^\alpha =g_{\mu \alpha }w_{(k)\nu }^\alpha $$

written in the upper indices for our case.

By direct calculation (like in Theorem 1) it’s not hard to show that in our case the conditions

$$R_{\mu \lambda }^{\nu \tau }=\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_k\left(w_{(k)\mu }^\nu w_{(k)\lambda }^\tau w_{(k)\mu }^\tau w_{(k)\lambda }^\nu \right)$$

and the symmetry of connection are corollaries of $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$, respectively.

The condition $`(3)`$ is equivalent to the equality

$$_\mu w_{(k)\lambda }^\nu =_\lambda w_{(k)\mu }^\nu $$

So from Ferapontov’s results we obtain the statement of our Theorem.

Let us mention also that the commutativity of affinors $`[w_{(k)},w_{(k^{})}]=0`$ follows from the commutativity of the flows $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu n_X^\mu `$.

Theorem is proved.

Let the F-bracket (3.3) be given with the non-degenerate tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$. Fix some point $`U_0=(U_0^1,\mathrm{},U_0^N)`$. By the local Canonical Form of F-bracket corresponding to the point $`U_0`$ we call the bracket (5.1) where $`n^\nu =n^\nu (U)`$, $`n^\nu (U_0)0`$; the term $`ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }`$ has the same signature as $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ and $`f_{(k)}^\nu (U_0)0`$ at the point $`U_0`$.

Theorem 3.

I) Every F-bracket (3.3) with the non-degenerate metric tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ can be locally written in the Canonical form (5.1) after some coordinate transformation $`n^\nu =n^\nu (U)`$. Moreover, for any given point $`U_0`$ it’s possible to choose the coordinates $`n^\nu (U)`$ in such a way that $`n^\nu (U_0)0`$, $`f_{(k)}^\nu (U_0)0`$.

II) The integrals

$$N^\nu =n^\nu (X)𝑑X$$
(5.2)
are annihilators of the bracket (5.1) on the domain in the space of rapidly decreasing functions $`n^\nu (X)`$ bounded by the small enough constant;

III) The flows

$$n_{t_k}^\nu =\frac{d}{dX}f_{(k)}^\nu (n)$$

are generated by the local Hamiltonians

$$H_k=h_k(n)𝑑X$$

on the same phase space. The functions $`n^\nu (U)`$, $`h_k(n(U))`$ can be represented as linear combinations of coordinates $`V^I`$ in the pseudo-Euclidean space $`R^{N+g}`$ for the local representation of our manifold as a submanifold $`M^NR^{N+g}`$ with flat normal connection.

Proof.

As follows from the results of Ferapontov ( ) the relations (3.5)-(3.6) are the Gauss-Codazzi equations; so every space with non-degenerate metric $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ and the relations (3.5)-(3.6) for the operators $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu (U)`$ can be represented as a submanifold $`^N`$ with flat normal connection in the pseudo-Euclidean space $`R^{N+g}`$ such that:

the restriction of the constant metric on $`^N`$ is equal to $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$;

the restriction of this metric on the orthogonal subspace has at every point the signature corresponding to the signature of the nonlocal part of the bracket (3.3);

$`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu (U)`$ are the Weingarten operators corresponding to $`g`$ parallel normal vector fields.

Moreover, the bracket (3.3) can be obtained as a Dirac restriction of the constant bracket

$$\{V^I(X),V^J(Y)\}=e_I\delta ^{IJ}\delta ^{}(XY)$$
(5.3)
where $`I,J=1,\mathrm{},N+g`$, $`e_I=\pm 1`$.

Let us point out also that the Dirac restriction of (5.3) to any submanifold $`^N`$ (not necessarily with flat normal connection) has the similar structure as (3.3) with $`^1`$ replaced by $`_{}^1`$ where $`_{}`$ is the normal connection corresponding to $`^N`$ (Ferapontov ).

We can assume that the coordinates $`V^I`$ are such that:

1) $`V^I0`$ at the point $`U_0`$ of submanifold $`^N`$;

2) The first $`N`$ coordinate lines are tangent to $`^N`$ at the point $`U_0`$; the remaining $`g`$ coordinates are orthogonal to $`^N`$.

It follows that the first $`N`$ quantities $`e_I`$ in this new system of coordinates correspond to the signature of the metric $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$, and the last $`g`$ coordinates correspond to the nonlocal part of (3.3).

We take $`n^\nu (U)=V^\nu `$, $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N`$ as the local coordinates on the manifold $`^N`$ in the domain around of $`U_0`$ ($`n^\nu (U_0)0`$); for the last of the quantities $`V^I`$ at the points of $`^N`$ we have

$$V^{N+k}=v_k(n)$$

for some functions $`v_k(n)`$ such that $`v_k(U_0)=0`$, $`v_k/n^\nu (U_0)=0`$.

Make now the Dirac restriction of the bracket (5.3) on $`^N`$ in the coordinates $`n^\nu `$, $`V^I`$. We know that it should coincide with our initial PB of the F type.

According to the Dirac procedure, for any functional $`F(n)`$ we should find such linear combination

$$m^s(X)g_s(X)𝑑X$$

of the constraints:

$$g_k(X)=V^{N+k}(X)v_k(n(X)),k=1,\mathrm{},g$$

that the functional

$$F(n)+m^s(X)g_s(X)𝑑X$$

leaves $`^N`$ invariant; i.e.

$$\{g_k(X),F(n)+m^s(Y)g_s(Y)𝑑Y\}=$$

$$=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}+e_{N+k}\frac{d}{dX}m^k(X)+$$

$$+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\left(\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }\frac{d}{dX}m^s(X)+\left(\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }\right)_Xm^s(X)\right)0$$
(5.4)
The restricted bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}^{}`$ on $`^N`$ we define as

$$\{n^\nu (X),F(n)\}^{}=\{n^\nu (X),F(n)+m^s(Y)g_s(Y)𝑑Y\}$$

The relations (5.4) for $`m^s(X)`$ can be written in the form

$$\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}+\frac{d}{dX}\left(e_{N+k}\delta ^{ks}+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }\right)m^s(X)$$

$$\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \left(\frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\right)_X\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }m^s(X)0$$

We note now that the vectors $`𝐭_\nu (n)`$ tangent to $`^N`$ can be written as

$$𝐭_\nu (n)=(0,\mathrm{},1,\mathrm{},0,\frac{v_1}{n^\nu },\mathrm{},\frac{v_g}{n^\nu })^t$$
(5.5)
where $`1`$ stays at the position $`\nu `$. The vectors $`𝐪_k(n)`$ orthogonal to $`^N`$ can be chosen as

$$𝐪_k(n)=(e_1\frac{v_k}{n^1},\mathrm{},e_N\frac{v_k}{n^N},0,\mathrm{},e_{N+k},\mathrm{},0)^t$$
(5.6)
Therefore the quantities

$$e_{N+k}\delta ^{ks}+\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }=(𝐪_k(n),𝐪_s(n))=G_{ks}(n)$$
(5.7)
are equal to the pairwise scalar products of the normal vectors $`𝐪_k`$.

Let us introduce the inverse matrix $`G^{ks}(n)`$ such that

$$G^{ks}(n)(𝐪_s(n),𝐪_n(n))=\delta _n^k$$

$`k,n=1,\mathrm{},g`$.

It can be easily shown that the quantities

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{n,\mu }^k=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{^2v_n}{n^\nu n^\mu }\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }G^{sk}=G^{ks}(𝐪_s,\frac{𝐪_𝐧}{n^\mu })$$
(5.8)
are the connection coefficients of the normal connection for $`^N`$ following from the pseudo-Euclidean structure in $`R^{N+g}`$ written in the basis $`\{𝐪_s\}`$ in the normal bundle.

So we can write the relations (5.4) as

$$_{}\left[G_{kp}m^p(X)\right]\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}\right)_X0$$

where

$$_{}=\delta _k^s\frac{d}{dX}\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{k,\mu }^sn_X^\mu $$
(5.9)
is the covariant derivative with respect to $`X`$ applied to the lower(upper) indices in the normal bundle.

From this we get

$$m^k(X)=G^{ks}_{}^1\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}\right)_X$$

We define the operator $`_{}^1`$ in a ”skew-symmetric” way as $`^1`$ above, i.e. $`_{}^1\kappa _s`$, (where $`\kappa _s(X)0`$ at $`X\pm \mathrm{}`$) is the sum of the solutions to the equation

$$\frac{d}{dX}\tau _s+\mathrm{\Omega }_{s,\mu }^tn_X^\mu \tau _t=\kappa _s$$

equal to $`0`$ at $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`+\mathrm{}`$ respectively and divided by $`2`$.

Besides that, we consider here the index $`k`$ in the formula

$$\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_k}{n^\nu }\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}\right)_Xq_k^I\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^I(X)}\right)_X$$
(5.10)
as a lower index in the basis $`\{𝐪_s\}`$

So, for the bracket restricted to $`^N`$ we can write

$$\{n^\nu (X),F(n)\}^{}=e_\nu \frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}e_\nu \left(\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }G^{sk}_{}^1\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }\left(\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}\right)_X\right)_X$$

After some elementary calculations (using the expressions for operators $`d/dX_{}^1`$ and $`_{}^1d/dX`$ following from the form (5.9) and the relations (5.7) and (5.8)) we can write this bracket in the form:

$$\{n^\nu (X),F(n)\}^{}=e_\nu \frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }G^{sk}e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }\frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}$$

$$e_\nu \left(_{}G^{sk}\frac{v_s}{n^\nu }\right)\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}+$$

$$+\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(_{}G^{sk}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }\right)_{}^1\left(_{}e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }\right)\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}$$
(5.11)
Here differential operators $`_{}`$ act only on the functions staying within the same brackets $`(\mathrm{})`$. It is necessary to differ their actions on upper and lower indices. So the expressions $`(_{}G^{sk}e_\nu v_k/n^\nu )`$ and $`(_{}e_\mu v_s/n^\mu )`$ are just $`(_{}G^{sk}𝐪_k)^\nu `$ and $`(_{}𝐪_s)^\mu `$ where we take $`\nu ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},N`$ for their components.

Formula (5.11) gives us the restriction of the bracket (5.3) to any submanifold $`^NR^{N+g}`$ in the coordinates $`n^\nu `$, $`V^I`$. Suppose now that $`^N`$ has a flat normal connection. This means that locally there exists such non-degenerate matrix $`S_n^k(n)`$ that the normal connection

$$_{}=\left(S^1\right)_n^s\frac{d}{dX}S_s^k$$
(5.12)
\- for the action on the covectors $`\kappa _k`$ and

$$_{}=S_s^n\frac{d}{dX}\left(S^1\right)_k^s$$
(5.13)
for the action on the vectors $`\xi ^k`$ in the normal bundle.

We can take $`S_n^k(U_0)=I`$ and introduce the basis of parallel vector fields

$$𝐍_n(n)=S_n^k(n)𝐪_k(n)$$

where $`𝐪_k(n)`$ were defined in (5.6).

Since our normal connection preserves the scalar product in $`R^{N+g}`$ we conclude that the pairwise scalar products of $`𝐍_k(n)`$ are constant at any $`n`$; i.e.

$$(𝐍_k,𝐍_n)=e_{N+k}\delta _{kn}$$

Therefore we have for the matrix $`G^{kn}(n)`$:

$$G^{kn}(n)=\underset{s=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+s}S_s^k(n)S_s^n(n)$$
(5.14)
Substituting (5.12), (5.13), (5.14) and the expression corresponding to $`_{}^1`$ for the covectors in (5.11), we obtain after the simple calculation:

$$\{n^\nu (X),F(n)\}^{}=e_\nu \frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\nu (X)}$$

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}\left(e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{d}{dX}\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}$$

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}+$$

$$+\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(\frac{d}{dX}\right)^1\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{\delta F}{\delta n^\mu (X)}$$
(5.15)
(The operator $`(d/dX)^1`$ is defined as above in a ”skew-symmetric” way.)

So if we put:

$$f_{(k)}^\nu (n)e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_k^s(n)=N_k^\nu (n)$$

for $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N`$ (summation with respect to $`s`$) we just obtain the expression corresponding to the bracket (5.1) where $`f_{(k)}^\nu (U_0)=0`$. It is not hard to see that the flows $`N_{(k)X}^\nu `$ correspond to the Weingarten operators, the expressions corresponding to $`\delta ^{}`$ and $`\delta `$ terms are equal to the restricted metric with upper indices and to the corresponding connection respectively in accordance with Ferapontov theorems. So we proved the part (I) of the Theorem.

Since $`f_{(k)}^\nu (X)0`$ at $`X\pm \mathrm{}`$ on the space of rapidly decreasing functions $`n^\nu (X)`$, we write $`(d/dX)^1f_{(k)X}^\nu f_{(k)}^\nu `$. It is easy to see that the functionals

$$n^\nu (X)𝑑X$$

are annihilators of the bracket (5.1) on the space of rapidly decreasing functions.

Consider now the functionals:

$$H_n=v_n(n)𝑑X$$
(5.16)
We have

$$\{n^\nu (X),H_n\}^{}=e_\nu \frac{d}{dX}\frac{v_n}{n^\nu }$$

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}\left(e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{d}{dX}\frac{v_n}{n^\mu }$$

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{v_n}{n^\mu }+$$

$$+\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(\frac{d}{dX}\right)^1\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{v_n}{n^\mu }$$

We can write

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{v_n}{n^\mu }=(𝐍_q,𝐪_n)+N_q^{N+n}=(𝐍_q,𝐪_n)e_{N+n}S_q^n$$

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)\frac{d}{dX}\frac{v_n}{n^\mu }=(𝐍_q,\frac{d}{dX}𝐪_n)$$

$$\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(e_\mu \frac{v_k}{n^\mu }S_q^k\right)_X\frac{v_n}{n^\mu }=(\frac{d}{dX}𝐍_q,𝐪_n)e_{N+n}\left(S_q^n\right)_X=$$

$$=(_{}𝐍_q,𝐪_n)e_{N+n}\left(S_q^n\right)_X=e_{N+n}\left(S_q^n\right)_X$$

since $`_{}𝐍_q`$ is tangent to $`M^N`$.

So we have

$$\{n^\nu (X),H_n\}^{}=\frac{d}{dX}\left(q_n^\nu \underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_{N+q}N_q^\nu (𝐍_q,𝐪_n)\right)+$$

$$+\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(\frac{d}{dX}e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s\right)\left(S_q^n\left(\frac{d}{dX}\right)^1\left(S_q^n\right)_X\right)$$

for $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N`$. As we know, any $`𝐪_n`$ is orthogonal to $`^N`$ and $`\{𝐍_q\}`$ give the pseudo-orthonormal basis in the normal bundle. Therefore the first term in this expression is zero. As for the last term, we know that $`S_q^n(X)\delta _q^n`$ at $`X\pm \mathrm{}`$. So we have

$$\left(\frac{d}{dX}\right)^1\left(S_q^n\right)_X=S_q^n(X)\frac{S_q^n(+\mathrm{})+S_q^n(\mathrm{})}{2}=S_q^n(X)\delta _q^n$$

and

$$\{n^\nu (X),H_n\}^{}=\frac{d}{dX}\left(e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_n^s\right)=\frac{d}{dX}f_{(n)}^\nu $$

on the space of rapidly decreasing functions $`n^\nu (X)`$. So we proved the parts (II) and (III) of the Theorem.

Theorem is proved.

It is easy to see that the nonlocal tail of the MF bracket (3.2) has the same form in any coordinate system $`\stackrel{~}{U}^\nu =\stackrel{~}{U}^\nu (U)`$. So if we require $`f^\nu (0)0`$ in the case of the MF bracket, we obtain $`f^\nu (n)n^\nu `$ here. By direct calculation we obtain the following:

Lemma 4. For the variables

$$v^\nu (X)=^1n^\nu (X)$$
(5.17)
with the nonlocal operator $`^1`$ defined in (1.2) we have for the Poisson brackets (5.1)

$$\{v^\nu (X),v^\mu (Y)\}=$$

$$=ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\nu (XY)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_kf_{(k)}^\nu (v_X)\nu (XY)f_{(k)}^\mu (v_Y)=$$

$$=\underset{\lambda =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\lambda \delta _\lambda ^\nu \nu (XY)\delta _\lambda ^\mu +\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_kf_{(k)}^\nu (v_X)\nu (XY)f_{(k)}^\mu (v_Y)$$
(5.18)
So, the local and nonlocal parts of (5.1) can be unified after the non-local transformation (5.17). The flows

$$v_{t_\mu }^\nu =\delta _\mu ^\nu $$

and

$$v_{T_k}^\nu =f_{(k)}^\nu (v_X)$$

commute with each other. They preserve the bracket (5.18) as follows from the general theorem.

For the MF-bracket we have in this case

$$\{v^\nu (X),v^\mu (Y)\}=$$

$$=ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\nu (XY)+cv_X^\nu \nu (XY)v_Y^\mu $$

We would like to emphasize here that the annihilators (Casimirs) of the bracket (3.3) and the Hamiltonians for the flows $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu U_X^\mu `$ strongly depend on the boundary conditions for the functions $`U^\nu (X)`$. We can see that it is not possible to divide a set of $`N+g`$ ”Canonical forms” (the restrictions of Euclidean coordinates to $`^N`$) to the Casimirs of the bracket and Hamiltonians for the flows from nonlocal tail until we fix a point $`y^N`$ and define the corresponding loop space

$$L(,y)=\{\gamma :R^1^N:\gamma (\mathrm{})=\gamma (+\mathrm{})=y^N\}$$

corresponding to any point $`y^N`$. In this case any global function $`h(U)`$ on $`^N`$ such that $`h(y)=0`$ gives a ”hydrodynamic type Hamiltonian”

$$H=h(\gamma (X))𝑑X$$

on the loop space $`L(,y)`$ and the Hamiltonian flow on $`L(,y)`$ defined in the invariant way on $`^N`$.

Remark.

If we consider the Poisson bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_y`$ on the loop space $`L(,y)`$ for the Dirac restriction (5.11) of $`e_I\delta ^{IJ}d/dX`$ on the general space $`^N`$ in $`R^{N+g}`$ it is possible to introduce the relations (5.12)-(5.13) with some matrix $`S_n^k[\gamma ](X)`$ along every curve $`\gamma L(,y)`$. The relations (5.15) can be also formally written on the space $`L(,y)`$, but in this case the expressions $`S_n^k[\gamma ](X)`$ are nonlocal functionals. They are defined on the loop spaces $`\gamma L(,y)`$ and depend on the whole curve $`\gamma `$. However, in this case it can be shown by the same way that the integrals (5.2) are still the local Casimirs for the bracket (5.11); the functionals (5.16) generate the nonlocal flows

$$n_{T_n}^\nu =\frac{1}{2}\underset{q=1}{\overset{g}{}}\frac{d}{dX}\left(e_\nu \frac{v_s}{n^\nu }S_q^s[\gamma ](X)\right)\left(S_q^n(\mathrm{})+S_q^n(+\mathrm{})[\gamma ]\right)$$

on $`L(,y)`$.

Now we prove that the general F-bracket with nondegenerate $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ has exactly $`N`$ Casimirs on the space $`L(^N,y)`$ with fixed point $`y^N`$.

Theorem 4. Suppose we have a manifold $`^N`$ with non-degenerate $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ and the relations (3.5)-(3.6) for the affinors set $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu `$. Then:

For any point $`y^N`$ there exist locally exactly $`N+g`$ linearly independent functions $`V_y^I(U)`$, $`I=1,\mathrm{},N+g`$ such that the functionals

$$H^I=V_y^I(U)𝑑X$$

generate the flows proportional to $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu (U)U_X^\mu `$ on the space $`L(,y)`$ of loops close enough to $`y`$. The functions $`V_y^I(U)`$ can be chosen in such a way that for close enough $`y`$, $`y^{}`$

$$V_y^I(U)=A_J^I(y,y^{})V_y^{}^J(U)+B^I(y,y^{})$$
(5.19)
with some constants $`B^I(y,y^{})`$ and the matrix $`A_J^I(y,y^{})`$ orthogonal with respect to diagonal metric

$$g_{IJ}=ϵ_I\delta _{IJ},I=1,\mathrm{},N+g$$

where $`ϵ^I=ϵ^I,I=1,\mathrm{},N`$, $`ϵ^I=e_{IN},I=N+1,\mathrm{},N+g`$.

Proof.

We should prove that the linear space of functions $`F_y(n)`$ such that: $`F_y(0)0`$,

$$\frac{F_y}{n^\mu }f_{(k)X}^\mu G_{y(k)X}$$
(5.20)
for some $`G_{y(k)}(U)`$, $`G_{y(k)}(y)0`$ and

$$\frac{d}{dX}\left(ϵ^\nu \frac{F_y}{n^\nu }\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_k\left(f_{(k)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\mu \frac{F_y}{n^\mu }f_{(k)}^\nu G_{y(k)}\right)\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _kf_{(k)X}^\nu $$
(5.21)
(any $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g`$) is at most $`N+g`$ \- dimensional ($`ϵ^\nu =\pm 1`$). We have

$$ϵ^\nu \frac{F_y}{n^\nu }\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\left(f_{(k)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\mu \frac{F_y}{n^\mu }f_{(k)}^\nu G_{y(k)}\right)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _kf_{(k)}^\nu +\beta ^\nu $$

for some constants $`\beta ^1,\mathrm{},\beta ^N`$, and

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}f_{(k)}^\mu \frac{F_y}{n^\mu }\left(\delta ^{sk}e_k\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu f_{(s)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\nu \right)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}e_k\left(\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu f_{(s)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\nu G_{y(k)}\right)=$$

$$=\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu f_{(s)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\nu +\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu f_{(s)}^\nu \beta ^\nu $$

For the points close enough to $`y`$ the matrix

$$\delta ^{sk}e_k\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\nu f_{(s)}^\nu f_{(k)}^\nu $$

is non-degenerate, and we can locally express the value $`f_{(k)}^\mu F_y/n^\mu `$ as a function of $`G_{y(s)}`$, $`f_{(s)}^\nu `$, $`\alpha _k`$, $`\beta ^\nu `$ at every point. After that we obtain the equations:

$$\frac{F_y}{n^\nu }=ϵ^\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu (G_{y(s)},f_{(s)}^\mu ,\alpha _k,\beta ^\nu )$$
(5.22)
and the linear (non-homogeneous) equations

$$\frac{G_{y(k)}}{n^\nu }=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N}{}}ϵ^\mu \frac{f_{(k)}^\mu }{n^\nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu (G_{y(s)},f_{(s)}^\mu ,\alpha _k,\beta ^\nu )$$

for every derivative of $`G_{y(k)}`$ with the normalizing conditions $`G_{y(k)}(y)=0`$ which give us the unique $`G_{y(k)}(U)`$ at every $`\{\alpha _k,\beta ^\nu \}`$. So, from (5.22) we obtain that the family $`F_y(U)`$ is at most $`N+g`$ parametric.

The functions constructed in the proof of Theorem 3 then give us $`N`$ linearly independent densities of annihilators of the bracket $`n^\nu (U)`$ and $`g`$ functions $`v_k(n)`$ (generating linearly independent flows $`e_kf_{(k)X}^\nu `$) which satisfy all the conditions of the Theorem.

Theorem is proved.

The construction of the Dirac restriction for the F-brackets leads also to the following statement:

Theorem 5.

The symplectic form for any F-bracket with nondegenerate tensor $`g^{\nu \mu }(U)`$ is weakly nonlocal and can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\nu \mu }(X,Y)=\underset{I=1}{\overset{N+g}{}}ϵ_I\frac{V_I}{U^\nu }(X)\nu (XY)\frac{V_I}{U^\mu }(Y)$$
(5.23)
where $`V_I(U)`$ are the restrictions of the Euclidean coordinates to $`^N`$ (canonical forms) and $`ϵ_I=\pm 1`$ according to the signature of the flat metric in $`R^{N+g}`$.333The symplectic form for the case of the MF-bracket was considered also by M.V.Pavlov (private communication).

Proof. For the proof of the Theorem we just note that the symplectic form of the F-bracket should coincide with the restriction of the symplectic form for the corresponding DN-bracket in $`R^{N+g}`$. The symplectic form for the DN-bracket is given by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{IJ}(X,Y)=ϵ_I\delta _{IJ}\nu (XY)$$

and it it easy to see that its restriction to $`^N`$ is given by the formula (5.23).

Theorem is proved.

At the end we give some classification for the special class of brackets (5.1) which represent the multi-parametric Poisson pencils.

Theorem 6. I. The expression

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}=\left(ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\underset{k=0}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _kf_{(k)}^\nu (n)f_{(k)}^\mu (n)\right)\delta ^{}(XY)$$

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(f_{(k)}^\nu (n)\right)_Xf_{(k)}^\mu (n)\delta (XY)+\underset{k=0}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(f_{(k)}^\nu (n)\right)_X\nu (XY)\left(f_{(k)}^\mu (n)\right)_Y$$
(5.24)
with a linearly independent set of $`f_{(k)}^\nu (n)`$ defines a Poisson bracket at any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _N)`$ if and only if:

1) The flows

$$n_{T_k}^\nu =\left(f_{(k)}^\nu \right)_X$$

are Hamiltonian with respect to local Poisson bracket

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}_0=ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\delta ^{}(XY)$$

with some local Hamiltonian functions $`H_k`$, i.e. there exist such functions $`h_k(n)`$ that

$$f_{(k)}^\nu (n)ϵ^\nu \frac{h_k}{n^\nu }$$

2) The Hamiltonians

$$H_k=h_k(X)𝑑X$$

commute with each other with respect to the bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_0`$ and moreover:

$$\{h_k,H_k^{}\}_0=\tau _{kk^{}}(h_k)h_{kX}=\left(W_{kk^{}}(h_k)\right)_X$$

for some $`\tau (h_k)`$ and $`W(h_k)`$.

II. If the conditions of (I) take place (i.e. we have a Poisson pencil) then the functionals $`H_k`$ generate local Hamiltonian flows and commute with each other with respect to the full bracket (5.24). Besides that, the maximal functionally independent subset of $`h_k(n)`$ defines at any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g)`$ a closed sub-bracket on the space of corresponding $`h_k(X)`$.

Proof.

First of all we note that our bracket at any $`(\alpha ^1,\mathrm{},\alpha ^g)`$ can be written in the Canonical form (5.1) after the linear changes of the functions $`f_{(k)}^\nu (n)`$. So we can use here the results of Theorem 2 replacing the quantities $`e_s`$ by $`\alpha _s`$ in every case. After that from the constant part of the condition $`(2)`$ of Theorem 2 we get the equation

$$ϵ^\mu \frac{f_{(k)}^\nu }{n^\mu }=ϵ^\nu \frac{f_{(k)}^\mu }{n^\nu }$$

So locally we have:

$$f_{(k)}^\nu ϵ^\nu \frac{h_k}{n^\nu }$$
(5.25)
for some $`h_k(n)`$. Therefore we are coming to the first statement of our Theorem. The commutativity of the functionals $`H_k=h_k(X)𝑑X`$ with respect to the bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_0`$ now follows from condition $`(1)`$ of Theorem 2.

Now from the linear term (with respect to $`\alpha _s`$) of the condition $`(2)`$ of Theorem 2 we have:

$$ϵ^\nu ϵ^\mu \underset{\lambda }{}ϵ^\lambda \frac{^2h_k}{n^\lambda n^\nu }\frac{h_s}{n^\lambda }\frac{h_s}{n^\mu }=ϵ^\mu ϵ^\nu \underset{\lambda }{}ϵ^\lambda \frac{^2h_k}{n^\lambda n^\mu }\frac{h_s}{n^\lambda }\frac{h_s}{n^\nu }$$

for any $`k`$, $`s`$, $`\nu `$, $`\mu `$. This fact means that the rows (with respect to $`\nu `$) $`\frac{h_s}{n^\nu }`$ and $`_\lambda ϵ^\lambda \frac{^2h_k}{n^\lambda n^\nu }\frac{h_s}{n^\lambda }`$ are linearly dependent for any $`k`$ and $`s`$, i.e.

$$\underset{\lambda }{}ϵ^\lambda \frac{^2h_k}{n^\lambda n^\nu }\frac{h_s}{n^\lambda }=\tau _{sk}(n)\frac{h_s}{n^\nu }$$
(5.26)
After multiplying (5.26) by $`n_X^\nu `$ and the summation with respect to $`\nu `$, we obtain the following equality

$$\frac{dh_s}{dT_k}=\tau _{sk}(n)h_{sX}$$

This expression should be equal to some $`(W_{sk}(n))_X`$ because of the commutativity of $`H_s`$ and $`H_k`$ with respect to the bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_0`$. So we conclude that $`W_{sk}(n)`$ can be expressed in terms of the values of $`h_s(n)`$:

$$\tau _{sk}(n)\tau _{sk}(h_s)$$
(5.27)
and $`W_{sk}(\xi )=\tau _{sk}(\xi )𝑑\xi `$.

Therefore the requirements of our Theorem are equivalent to the requirements corresponding to the analogs of $`(1)`$ and $`(2)`$ of Theorem 2 for all $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g)`$. It is not hard to check by direct calculation that the analog of the condition $`(3)`$ of Theorem 2 for any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g)`$ follows also from (5.25), (5.26) and $`(\text{5.27})`$. So we proved part $`(I)`$ of the Theorem.

To prove part $`(II)`$ we note that all $`H_s`$ generate the local flows according to the full bracket (5.24) since they are the integrals of the flows $`w_{(k)\mu }^\nu n_X^\mu `$ from the non-local part of a bracket according to the commutativity of the $`\{H_k\}`$ with respect to the bracket $`\{\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}_0`$. To prove the rest of the Theorem we mention that we deduce from (5.26) and (5.27) the relation

$$\underset{\nu }{}\frac{h_k}{n^\nu }ϵ^\nu \left(\frac{h_s}{n^\nu }\right)_X=\left(W_{sk}(h_k)\right)_X$$

We can obviously choose $`W_{sk}(h_k)`$ such that

$$\underset{\nu }{}\frac{h_k}{n^\nu }ϵ^\nu \frac{h_s}{n^\nu }=W_{sk}(h_k)+W_{ks}(h_s)$$

So for the bracket $`\{h_s(X),h_t(Y)\}`$ after the simple calculation we can write the the following equalities

$$\{h_s(X),h_t(Y)\}=\left(W_{st}(h_s)+W_{ts}(h_t)\right)\delta ^{}(XY)$$

$$\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(W_{sk}(h_s)+W_{ks}(h_k)\right)\left(W_{kt}(h_k)+W_{tk}(h_t)\right)\right)\delta ^{}(XY)+$$

$$+\left(W_{st}(h_s)\right)_X\delta (XY)\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(W_{sk}(h_s)W_{kt}(h_k)\right)_X\delta (XY)$$

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(W_{ks}(h_k)\left(W_{kt}(h_k)\right)_X+\left(W_{sk}(h_s)\right)_XW_{tk}(h_t)\right)\delta (XY)+$$

$$+\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(W_{sk}(h_s)\right)_X\nu (XY)\left(W_{tk}(h_t)\right)_Y$$
(5.28)
where all $`W_{kk^{}}`$ are expressed in terms of the corresponding $`h_k`$ and

$$\{h_s(X),H_t\}=\left(W_{st}(h_s)\right)_X\underset{k=1}{\overset{g}{}}\alpha _k\left(W_{sk}(h_s)W_{kt}(h_k)Z_{kst}(h_k)\right)_X$$

where $`Z_{kst}(\xi )=W_{ks}(\xi )W_{kt}^{}(\xi )𝑑\xi `$.

So we conclude that any $`H_s`$ and $`H_t`$ commute with each other with respect to the full pencil (5.24), and the maximal functionally independent subset of $`\{h_k\}`$ form a sub-bracket (5.28) at any $`(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _g)`$.

Theorem is proved.

Simple example. Let us consider the bracket

$$\{n^\nu (X),n^\mu (Y)\}_0=ϵ^\nu \delta ^{\nu \mu }\delta ^{}(XY)$$

It’s easy to show that any set of functions $`h_k(R^2)`$ where $`R^2=_\nu ϵ^\nu n^\nu n^\nu `$ satisfy the requirements of Theorem 3 as the Hamiltonian functions for the flows $`(f_{(k)}^\nu )_X`$. So, any linearly independent set of such functions gives us the Poisson pencil (5.24) according to the relations

$$f_{(k)}^\nu (n)=ϵ^\nu \frac{h_k}{n^\nu }=2h_k^{}(R^2)n^\nu $$

In particular, if we take only one function $`h(R^2)=R^2/2`$ we obtain the Canonical form of the MF bracket corresponding to the constant curvature $`\alpha `$.


format: text

text:
# Implementation of a Deutsch-like quantum algorithm utilizing entanglement at the two-qubit level, on an NMR quantum information processor

## I Introduction

It has been demonstrated recently that a quantum computer, exploiting quantum state superposition and entanglement, is definitely more powerful than any existing classical computer . Many “quantum” algorithms that achieve the same computational tasks much faster than their classical counterparts have been designed . Thus far, NMR has been the most successful method employed to physically implement small quantum information processors and to test the power of intrinsically quantum algorithms . The visualisation of a spin-1/2 particle as a qubit, combined with existing multi-dimensional NMR methods has led to breakthroughs in pseudopure state preparation , the demonstration of universal quantum logic gates , and the implementation of various quantum algorithms .

Early on, Deutsch and Jozsa presented a simple problem to determine whether a Boolean function $`f`$ is constant or balanced . Classically, the algorithm requires many function calls to solve the problem without error, but a quantum computer can solve the problem using only a single function call. The Cleve version of the algorithm used an extra qubit to encode the required unitary transformations and the solution could be read out as the relative phase of the qubits . Recently, the Deutsch-Jozsa (DJ) problem was modified and implemented using a lesser number of input qubits , and interest continues in further generalisations of the DJ problem . It was realised that, for upto two bits the DJ problem need not invoke entangling transformations for its solution. The problem thus allows a classical description for the two-qubit case, and it is only for three or more qubits that the quantum nature of the algorithm is displayed . As pointed out recently by Seth Lloyd , Grover’s search algorithm for two qubits also does not require entangling transformations. Hence both these algorithms become truly quantum only for three or more qubits.

A quantum algorithm to distinguish between even and odd functions using fewer function calls than a classical algorithm has been recently designed . The algorithm uses entangling transformations at the two-qubit level itself and is an interesting example of the power of a quantum computer over corresponding classical systems. In this paper, we present the experimental implementation of the algorithm on a two-qubit NMR quantum computer. The requisite unitary transformations have been implemented using spin-selective and composite-z pulses. A judicious combination of composite pulses and evolution under the scalar coupling Hamiltonian has been used to construct the desired entangling transformations. The algorithm requires distinguishing between non-orthogonal states of the two qubits in order to classify the functions . In our NMR implementation, such a distinction is achieved in a single measurement. The algorithm to evaluate the even or odd nature of a function uses entangling transformations for its implementation on two input qubits. Entangling transformations can produce entangled states that have no classical analogue .

Consider a Boolean function defined from a two-bit domain space to a one-bit range space: $`f(x):\{0,1\}^2\{0,1\}`$. There are four possible input values $`(00),(01),(10)`$ and $`(11)`$, the output for each of these being either $`0`$ or $`1`$. The 16 possible functions can be divided into sub-classes based on the number of ones and zeros in their outputs. The functions can be categorised in the sub-classes $`[0,4],[1,3],[2,2],[3,1],`$ or $`[4,0]`$, where the first entry indicates the number of ones and the second indicates the number of zeros in the output. The functions with an even number of ones in the output (the functions belonging to the categories $`[0,4],[2,2]`$ and $`[4,0]`$) are denoted “even” functions while the functions with an odd number of ones in the output (the $`[1,3]`$ and $`[3,1]`$ functions) are said to be “odd” functions. For the two-qubit case, we thus have 8 even and 8 odd functions.

Classically, the classification of a function as even or odd would require computing it at all input points. The quantum algorithm constructed uses just two function calls to evaluate the even or odd character of the given function . The implementation requires a quantum gate to call the function, and a judicious use of pseudo-Hadamard transformations (on both qubits, and selectively on one qubit alone). The function call mechanism is similar to the one used to solve the modified Deutsch problem . Each function $`f`$ can be encoded by a unitary transformation $`U_f`$, with its action on the eigenstates of the two qubits being defined as

$`|x_{\text{2-bit}}\stackrel{U_f}{}(1)^{f(x)}|x_{\text{2-bit}}`$ (1)
(2)
$`U_f=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}(1)^{f(00)}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& (1)^{f(01)}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (1)^{f(10)}& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& (1)^{f(11)}\end{array}\right)`$ (7)
Pseudo-Hadamard gates  are practically equivalent to the Hadamard operator and have been utilised throughout our analysis. The one-qubit pseudo-Hadamard gate is given by

$`\begin{array}{c}|0\stackrel{h}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1+|0)\\ |1\stackrel{h}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|1|0)\end{array};h={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \hfill 1\\ 1\hfill & \hfill 1\end{array}\right)`$ (12)
In our analysis, the pseudo-Hadamard gate is applied on both qubits non-selectively as well as selectively on one qubit alone. The corresponding gates are denoted as

$$h^{(1)}=hI;h^{(2)}=Ih;h^{(1,2)}=hh$$
(13)
where $`1`$ and $`2`$ label the qubit involved.

There are sixteen $`U_f`$ matrices in all, with eight of them being entangling and the rest non-entangling in character. For example, the $`U_f`$ matrix with diagonal entries $`[1,1,1,1]`$ cannot be written as a tensor product of two matrices, one belonging to each qubit. This unitary transformation is hence entangling in nature. It is interesting to note that for the two-bit case, the sub-class of functions that are either constant or balanced in the sense of the Deutsch problem i.e. the functions belonging to the $`(0,4)`$ and $`(2,2)`$ sub-classes, are all separable in character. Therefore, the two-bit Deutsch problem affords a classical explanation and can be implemented using non-entangling transformations alone.

A quantum circuit to evaluate the even or odd nature of a function is shown in Figure 1. The algorithm starts with both qubits in a thermal (mixed) initial state. A pseudo-Hadamard transformation is applied on both qubits, resulting in both of them being in a state which is a superposition of all possible input states.

The desired unitary transformation $`U_f`$ is then applied on this superposition state, followed by a pseudo-Hadamard gate operating on the second qubit alone. The function is called again through $`U_f`$ and an inverse pseudo-Hadamard is applied on both qubits before the read-out operation. The result of the computation is encoded in the final state of the two qubits. If the function is even, both the qubits are in an unentangled state and a signal is obtained for the qubit on which the selective pseudo-Hadamard gate is applied, with no signal being obtained for the other qubit. If the function is odd, both qubits are in an entangled state, corresponding to multiple-quantum coherence of the two spins, and no observable signal is obtained. The even or odd nature of the function can thus be distinguished “pictorially”, by looking at the final NMR spectrum.

Previously, the algorithm has been described for a pure initial state . In NMR one normally encounters mixed states. Hence we first generalise the procedure to include mixed initial states. Consider the two qubits in an initial state described by the deviation density matrix

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{initial}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}k_1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& k_2\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
with $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ being independent variables. For $`k_1=1`$ and $`k_2=0`$ this density matrix represents a pseudopure state. For $`k_1=1`$ and $`k_2=1`$ it represents a thermal state. Multiples of identity have been ignored in the density matrix, as they do not contribute to the measured signal in an NMR experiment.

We now evolve this density matrix through the sequence of operations $`h^{(1,2)}U_fh^{(2)}U_f\left[h^{(1,2)}\right]^1`$. After some algebra, this leads to the deviation density matrix

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{even}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}k_2& \zeta k_2& 0& 0\\ \zeta k_2& k_2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& k_1& \zeta k_1\\ 0& 0& \zeta k_1& k_1\end{array}\right),\text{and}`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{odd}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}k_1+k_2& 0& 0& \zeta (k_1k_2)\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ \zeta (k_1k_2)& 0& 0& k_1+k_2\end{array}\right)`$ (24)
where $`\zeta =+1`$ or $`1`$, for different $`U_f`$ transformations. For $`k_1=1`$ and $`k_2=0`$ we arrive at the the pure state result of  i.e., the final state is $`|00+\zeta |01`$ for an even function and $`|00+\zeta |11`$ for an odd function. For a thermal initial state i.e. $`k_1=k_2=1`$, the deviation density matrices $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{even}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\rho _{\mathrm{odd}}`$, can be distinguished unambiguously by a single NMR measurement. The spectrum for even functions will give two lines corresponding to the observable single quantum coherences present in the density matrix. For odd functions there is no signal as the only non-diagonal elements of the density matrix are the ones corresponding to double-quantum coherences. We note here that a single NMR measurement is able to distinguish between two non-orthogonal quantum states which is normally not possible using other measurement techniques . We further note that the presence of double-quantum coherences in the final state for the odd functions shows the entangling nature of the unitary transformations used. The use of a Hadamard instead of a pseudo-Hadamard transformation would lead to results which are qualitatively similar. The entanglement in the final state would show up as a zero-quantum coherence of the two qubits, instead of a double-quantum coherence . We have implemented the two-qubit even/odd quantum algorithm using the molecule of 5-Fluorouracil (dissolved in DMSO) as an NMR quantum computer, with the fluorine and the ortho-proton being identified as the two input qubits. This fluorine-proton spin system is a good candidate for quantum computing since it has good sensitivity, a resolved J-coupling of 6.1 Hz and the duration of spin-selective pulses can be relatively short. All experiments have been performed on a Bruker AMX-400 spectrometer at room temperature. The pseudo-hadamard gate has been achieved by applying a $`(90^0)_y`$ pulse selectively on a spin, or non-selectively on both spins, as the case maybe.

We have used pulse schemes consisting of sandwiches of composite and spin-selective pulses (described schematically in Figure 2), to implement the even and odd $`U_f`$ transformations.

As an illustration, the unitary transformation $`U_4`$ (given by the diagonal matrix $`[1,1,1,1]`$) corresponds to a $`\pi `$-rotation about the $`z`$-axis of both the qubits, upto a global phase factor. Global phase changes are not detectable in NMR and are hence ignored for the purposes of the experiment. The $`z`$-rotation can be implemented using a composite-pulse sandwich, as a set of rotations about the $`x`$ and $`y`$ axes $`[\theta ]_z[\pi /2]_x[\theta ]_y[\pi /2]_x`$ The $`U_f`$’s encoding the other even functions $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ and $`U_3`$ correspond to the do-nothing operation (the transformation is the unity matrix), a $`[\pi ]_z`$ rotation in the single-spin subspace of the first qubit, and a $`[\pi ]_z`$ rotation on the second qubit respectively, and have been constructed using similar pulse schemes. All these even transformations can be decomposed into transformations in the subspaces of each individual qubit and have hence been implemented experimentally without invoking quantum entanglement. The result of applying all the even transformations on the two qubits is shown in Fig 3. Spin-selective pulses of $`12.7\mu `$ secs on the proton and $`22.1\mu `$ secs on the fluorine have been used to achieve good selectivity. The spectra obtained reveal a retention of the fluorine spin single-quantum coherence, while no lines are seen for the proton (whose coherence has been converted back to unobservable $`z`$-magnetization by the selective pseudo-Hadamard gate).

We have used entangling transformations to implement the odd functions. Consider the non-separable $`U_9`$ matrix with the entries $`[1,1,1,1]`$ along its diagonal. The transformation is achieved experimentally by a $`[\pi /2]_z`$ rotation on the first spin, followed by a $`[\pi /2]_z`$ rotation on the second spin, and then a free evolution for a time interval $`\tau `$ tailored to $`\tau =1/2J`$, $`J`$ being the value of the scalar coupling. A non-selective $`\pi `$ pulse has been applied in the middle of the $`\tau `$ interval, to refocus the chemical shift evolution. The $`[\pi /2]_z`$ rotations in the single-spin subspaces have been achieved by the composite pulse sandwiches $`[\pi /2]_x[\pi /2]_y[\pi /2]_x`$, selective on the spin concerned. The other odd functions have been similarly implemented. The spectra corresponding to the experimental implementation of the odd functions is shown in Fig. 4. The states of the two qubits are completely entangled, leading to no observable spectral lines for all the these functions. All the spectra in both Figs. 3 and 4 have been plotted to the same scale.

In conclusion, we have shown the NMR implementation of a quantum algorithm that uses the entangled states of two input qubits to distinguish between even and odd functions. We have used spin-selective, composite pulse sandwiches and evolution under scalar coupling to implement the required non-trivial entangling transformations. It is interesting that NMR experiments are able to distinguish between two non-orthogonal quantum mechanical states in a single measurement.

SIF at IISc Bangalore is acknowledged for the use of the AMX-400 spectrometer and IISc for financial support.