text:
# Indecomposable racks of order 𝑝²

## 1. Introduction and Notation

Racks and quandles have been considered since 1982 by Joyce \[J\] and Matveev \[M\] as a tool to provide knot invariants. Since then, cohomology theories for them have been introduced independently at least with two main goals: to give new knot invariants and invariants of knotted surfaces on one hand (cf. \[CJKLS\]), and to classify Yetter–Drinfeld modules over groups on the other hand (cf. \[G\]). These theories coincide, which put racks, as a subject, between topology and Hopf algebras. We refer to the survey \[O\] for topological issues and to \[AG\] for Hopf algebraic ones.

Let us define the object of study:

###### Definition 1.1.

A *rack* is a pair $`(X,)`$ where $`X`$ is a set and $`:X\times XX`$ is a binary operation satisfying

(1.2) $`\text{The functions }\varphi _x:XX,\varphi _x(y)=xy\text{ are bijections for all }xX,`$
(1.3) $`x(yz)=(xy)(xz)x,y,zX,`$
A rack is a *quandle* if it further verifies
(1.4) $`xx=xxX.`$
The main model for racks are unions (possibly with repetitions) of conjugacy classes in a group, where the operation is the conjugation $`xy=xyx^1`$. When there are repetitions, $`xy`$ is defined to be in the same copy as $`y`$. Notice that any of these racks is actually a quandle.

So far, the classification of (finite) racks turns out to be a natural problem, though it seems to be out of reach. Classifications which seem more tractable include that of racks of low order (which can be either done by computers), that of indecomposable racks, of faithful racks (see definitions below). A first approach in this direction was done in \[EGS\], where indecomposable set-theoretical solutions to the Yang-Baxter equation with a prime number of elements were classified. As a byproduct, it included the classification of indecomposable racks of prime order.

Here we classify indecomposable racks of order $`p^2`$ ($`p`$ a prime); the main techniques are contained in \[EGS\] and \[AG\]. This is the natural place to put the
Acknowledgments. I thank N. Andruskiewitsch and P. Etingof for valuable comments. I also thank T. Ohtsuki who, by giving a list of indecomposable quandles of order $`9`$, encouraged me to write this paper. Finally, I thank the warm hospitality of MIT and its productive atmosphere in which I wrote it.

We give now the definition of indecomposability, as well as the necessary definitions for reading the paper.

###### Definition 1.5.

A rack $`(X,)`$ is *decomposable* if it can be split properly into stable subracks, i.e., if $`X=YZ`$ (a disjoint union), neither of them empty, and $`XY=Y`$, $`XZ=Z`$. A rack is *indecomposable* if it is not decomposable.

Let $`\varphi :X𝕊_X`$ be the function defined in (1.2). We denote by $`G_X^0`$ the subgroup of $`𝕊_X`$ generated by the image of $`\varphi `$. This group operates on $`X`$ by rack automorphisms; i.e, if $`\sigma G_X^0`$ then $`\sigma (xy)=\sigma (x)\sigma (y)`$. A rack is *faithful* if $`\varphi `$ is injective. In this case $`X`$ is naturally seen as a union of conjugacy classes inside $`G_X^0`$, and then it is a quandle. If $`X`$ is a rack, we denote by $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ the group of rack automorphisms of $`X`$.

An *affine quandle* (also called *Alexander quandle*) is a pair $`(A,g)`$, where $`A`$ is an abelian group and $`g\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$. It is a quandle with the structure $`xy=(1g)(x)+g(y)`$. It is easy to see that such a quandle is indecomposable iff $`1g`$ is surjective and it is faithful iff $`1g`$ is injective. If $`A`$ is cyclic, we denote $`g`$ usually by $`g(1)`$. It is proved in \[EGS\] that an indecomposable quandle of prime order $`p`$ is affine, isomorphic to $`(_p,q)`$, where $`q_p^{}\{1\}`$.

If $`X`$ is a quandle and $`H`$ is a group, the *non-abelian $`2`$-cocycles with values in $`H`$* are the functions $`\beta :X\times XH`$ such that

$$\beta (x,yz)\beta (y,z)=\beta (xy,xz)\beta (x,z)x,y,zX.$$

Two cocycles $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ are *cohomologous* if there exists a function $`\gamma :XH`$ such that

$$\beta ^{}(x,y)=\gamma (xy)\beta (x,y)\gamma (y)^1.$$

A non-abelian $`2`$-cocycle is said to be a *quandle cocycle* if $`\beta (x,x)=1xX`$. We denote by $`H^2(X,H)`$ the set of cohomology classes of $`2`$-cocycles. We denote by $`H_Q^2(X,H)`$ the set of cohomology classes of quandle $`2`$-cocycles.

If $`X`$ is a rack, $`S`$ is a set and $`\beta :X\times X𝕊_S`$ is a $`2`$-cocycle, then there is a structure of rack in the product $`X\times S`$ given by

$$(x,s)(y,t)=(xy,\beta (x,y)(t)).$$

We denote by $`X\times _\beta S`$ the rack with this structure. Two cohomologous cocycles give rise to isomorphic structures. If $`X`$ is a quandle then $`X\times S`$ is a quandle iff $`\beta `$ is a quandle cocycle.

Let $`X`$ be a rack, let $`\iota :XX`$ be defined by $`x\iota (x)=x`$. Define $`(X,^\iota )`$ as $`X`$ with the structure $`x^\iota y=x\iota (y)`$. It can be seen that $`\iota `$ is bijective and $`(X,^\iota )`$ is a quandle.

For a natural number $`n`$ we denote its $`p`$-valuation by $`v_p(n)`$, i.e., $`v_p(n)=r`$ if $`n=p^rq`$ where $`q`$ is coprime to $`p`$.

## 2. Racks of order $`p^2`$

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be an indecomposable rack of order $`p^2`$, $`p`$ a prime number. Then either:

(2.2) $`X=_p_p,`$ $`(x_1,x_2)(y_1,y_2)=((1\alpha )x_1+\alpha y_1,(1\beta )x_2+\beta y_2)`$ $`\alpha ,\beta _p^{}\{1\}`$
(2.3) $`X=_p_p,`$ $`(x_1,x_2)(y_1,y_2)=((1\alpha )x_1+\alpha y_1,(1\alpha )x_2+\alpha y_2+y_1x_1)`$ $`\alpha _p^{}\{1\}`$
(2.4) $`X=𝔽_{p^2},`$ $`xy=(1\alpha )x+\alpha y`$ $`\alpha 𝔽_{p^2}𝔽_p`$
(2.5) $`X=_{p^2},`$ $`xy=(1\alpha )x+\alpha y`$ $`\alpha 0,1modp`$
(2.6) $`X=_{p^2},`$ $`xy=y+1`$
(2.7) $`X=_p_p,`$ $`(x_1,x_2)(y_1,y_2)=((1\alpha )x_1+\alpha y_1,y_2+1)`$ $`\alpha _p^{}\{1\}`$
Two racks in different rows are not isomorphic. The non trivial isomorphisms inside each row are as follows: in (2.2), the rack associated to $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is isomorphic to that associated to $`(\beta ,\alpha )`$; in (2.4) the rack associated to $`\alpha `$ is isomorphic to that associated to $`\sigma (\alpha )`$, where $`\sigma `$ is the non-trivial element of the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}(𝔽_{p^2}|𝔽_p)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`X`$ is faithful then $`X`$ is a quandle and we prove in 2.10 below that it is affine. If $`X`$ is not faithful then we consider its associated quandle $`(X,^\iota )`$, which is neither faithful. Then either $`\varphi (X)`$ has order $`1`$ or $`p`$. In the first case $`(X,^\iota )`$ is trivial, and then $`(X,)`$ is given by a permutation $`\sigma 𝕊_{p^2}`$: $`xy=\sigma (y)`$. Since $`(X,)`$ is indecomposable, $`\sigma `$ must be a $`p^2`$-cycle. Then it is of the form (2.6). In the second case, we have that $`(X,^\iota )`$ is a nonabelian extension of $`\varphi (X)`$ by some set $`S`$ of order $`p`$, i.e., $`(X,^\iota )(_p,\alpha )\times S`$. Since $`\varphi _x=\varphi _{\iota x}`$, we have that $`\iota `$ restricts to the fibers, i.e., $`\iota _x=\iota |_{\{x\}\times S}:\{x\}\times S\{x\}\times S`$. The structure in $`X`$ can be recovered from $`^\iota `$ as $`(x,s)(y,t)=(x,s)^\iota (\iota ^1(y,t))=((1\alpha )x+\alpha y,\iota _y^1(t))`$. Now, it is easy to see that (1.3) implies $`\iota _{yz}^1\iota _z^1=\iota _{xz}^1\iota _z^1`$ $`x,y,z`$, and thus $`\iota _x^1=\iota _y^1`$ $`x,y`$. We can call then $`f=\iota _x^1`$, and we have $`(x,s)(y,t)=(xy,f(t))`$. But for this rack to be indecomposable $`f`$ must be a $`p`$-cycle whence $`X`$ is isomorphic to the rack in (2.7).

To see that (2.2), (2.3), (2.4), (2.5) cover all the affine cases, simply notice that there are two groups of order $`p^2`$: $`_p_p`$ and $`_{p^2}`$. For $`_p_p`$ the isomorphism $`g\mathrm{GL}_2(_p)`$ can be either diagonalizable (class (2.2)), it can be given by a Jordan block (class (2.3)) or its minimal polynomial can be irreducible over $`_p`$ (class (2.4)). For $`_{p^2}`$ any automorphism is given by an element in $`_{p^2}^{}`$, and we get class (2.5). The conditions on $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in the statement are equivalent for these quandles to be indecomposable.

Now, by \[AG, Lemma 1.33\] two indecomposable affine quandles $`(A,g)`$ and $`(B,h)`$ are isomorphic iff there is an isomorphism of the pairs $`(A,g)`$ and $`(B,h)`$; i.e, iff there exists an isomorphism $`T:AB`$ such that $`Tg=hT`$. This proves that the classes have no intersection and shows also that the isomorphisms inside each class are those in the statement. ∎

Before dealing with the rest of the proof, we derive two corollaries:

###### Corollary 2.8.

If $`X`$ is an indecomposable rack of order $`p^2`$ then $`v_p(|G_X|)=2`$ or $`3`$.

###### Proof.

It is proved in \[AG\] that if $`(A,g)`$ is an affine quandle then $`G_X^0`$ is the semidirect product $`A(g)`$, where $`(g)`$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ generated by $`g`$. Since the racks in classes (2.2), (2.3), (2.4) and (2.5) are affine and the underlying group has order $`p^2`$, we must prove that $`v_p(|(g)|)1`$, but this follows easily by inspection (actually, this result is part of the proof of 2.10, which in turn is part of the proof of 2.1).

For the rack of class (2.6) it is clear that $`G_X^0`$ is cyclic of order $`p^2`$, and for those of class (2.7) it can be seen that $`G_X^0`$ is isomorphic to the direct product between a cyclic group of order $`p`$ and $`G_Y^0`$, where $`Y`$ is the quotient $`(x_1,x_2)x_1`$. Since $`Y(_p,\alpha )`$, $`v_p(|G_Y^0|)=1`$ and we are done. ∎

###### Corollary 2.9.

The isomorphisms classes of indecomposable racks of order $`p^2`$ and their cardinalities are given in the following table:

| Type | Class | # |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Affine quandle over $`_p^2`$; diagonalizable isomorphism | (2.2) | $`\frac{1}{2}(p^23p+2)`$ |
| Affine quandle over $`_p^2`$; Jordan block | (2.3) | $`p2`$ |
| Affine quandle over $`_p^2`$; irreducible polynomial (simple) | (2.4) | $`\frac{1}{2}p(p1)`$ |
| Affine quandle over $`_{p^2}`$ | (2.5) | $`p^22p`$ |
| Rack which is not a quandle with $`|\varphi (X)|=1`$ | (2.6) | $`1`$ |
| Rack which is not a quandle with $`|\varphi (X)|=p`$ | (2.7) | $`p2`$ |

We now finish the proof of 2.1.

###### Proposition 2.10.

Indecomposable quandles of order $`p^2`$ are affine. In particular, they are faithful.

###### Proof.

Since for $`p=2`$ this is known, we can assume that $`p2`$ (the same tools here work for the case $`p=2`$, though sometimes the formulas are easier if we have $`\frac{1}{2}_p`$).

For simple quandles the result is a consequence of \[AG, Thm. 3.12\]. Let $`X`$ be an indecomposable non-simple quandle of order $`p^2`$. Then by \[AG, Cor. 2.10\] we have $`XY\times _\alpha S`$, where $`Y`$ is an indecomposable quandle of order $`p`$, $`S`$ is a set of order $`p`$ and $`\alpha `$ is a *dynamical $`2`$-cocycle* (see \[AG\] for the definition, it is not needed to understand the proof, though). For $`yY`$, let us denote by $`X_y`$ the fibers $`y\times S`$. These are quandles and since $`Y`$ is indecomposable they are all isomorphic, i.e., $`X_yX_y^{}`$ as quandles. We claim that either $`X_y`$ is indecomposable or either it is trivial. To see this, take for each $`yY`$ the decomposition $`X_y=_nX_y^n`$, where $`X_y^n`$ is the union of the orbits of $`X_y`$ with cardinality $`n`$. Take $`(y,s)X`$; since $`\varphi _{(y,s)}:X_zX_{yz}`$ is a quandle isomorphism, it must send $`X_z^n`$ to $`X_{yz}^n`$. Thus, we have a decomposition of $`X`$ as $`X=_n(_yX_y^n)`$. But $`X`$ is indecomposable, hence all the orbits in $`X_y`$ (any $`y`$) have the same cardinality. And since $`S`$ has a prime cardinality, either there is one orbit of order $`p`$ (and $`X_y`$ is indecomposable) or there are $`p`$ orbits of order $`1`$ (and $`X_y`$ is trivial), proving the claim.

We suppose first that $`X`$ is faithful. By \[EGS, Thm. A.2\] the group $`G_X^0`$ is an extension of a cyclic group by a $`p`$-group. That is, $`G_X^0=N_fC`$, $`N`$ a $`p`$-group, $`C`$ cyclic and $`f`$ a $`2`$-cocycle. Let $`M`$ be the order of $`C`$ and let $`t`$ be a generator of it. We have the structure $`(a,t^i)(b,t^j)=(a\alpha ^i(b)f(i,j),t^{i+j})`$, where $`f(i,j)=1N`$ if $`i+j<M`$ and $`t`$ acts by $`\alpha `$ on $`N`$. Now, the image of $`\varphi :XG_X^0`$ is invariant, then it is included in $`\{(a,t^i)|i=i_0\}`$ for some $`i_0`$. Since this image must generate $`G_X^0`$, we can assume that $`i_0=1`$ (otherwise we re-name $`t`$ to $`t^{i_0}`$). The structure of $`X`$ is given then by

(2.11)
$$(a,t)(b,t)=(a,t)(b,t)(a,t)^1=(a,t)(b,t)(1,t^1)(a^1,1)=(a\alpha (ba^1),t).$$

Furthermore, $`G_X^0`$ has trivial center; in particular if $`gZ(N)`$ then $`\alpha (g)g`$, and, since any $`p`$ group has a non-trivial center, $`\alpha \mathrm{id}`$. Thus, to classify $`X`$ we can seek what pairs $`N,\alpha `$ can arise and then look for the structure of the orbits for the action $`ab=a\alpha (ba^1)`$. The strategy of the proof in \[EGS\] is the same as this one; however in that case $`X`$ can be seen as an orbit in the symmetric group $`𝕊_p`$ (actually, the faithfulness condition is immediate), whence the order of $`N`$ divides the power of $`p`$ in $`𝕊_p`$, which is $`p`$; thus $`N_p`$. With a similar reasoning we can prove that the order of $`N`$ here divides the power of $`p`$ in $`𝕊_{p^2}`$, but this is $`p^{p+1}`$, which gives too much freedom to $`N`$. However, the group $`N`$ is rather small: we claim that $`|N|p^3`$. To see this, if $`X_y`$ is indecomposable we have by \[EGS\] that it is affine and $`v_p(|\mathrm{Aut}(X_y)|)=v_p(|_p_p^{}|)=1`$. If $`X_y`$ is not indecomposable, we have that it is trivial and then $`v_p(|\mathrm{Aut}(X_y)|)=v_p(|𝕊_{X_y}|)=1`$. Since $`X`$ is indecomposable, $`Y`$ is indecomposable and again $`v_p(|G_Y^0|)=1`$. By \[AG, Lemma 1.13\] we have a morphism of groups $`G^0(\pi ):G_X^0G_Y^0`$ induced by the projection $`\pi :XY`$. We look to its kernel $`K=\mathrm{ker}G^0(\pi )`$. By an abuse of notation, we denote the elements of $`Y`$ by those of $`_p`$. Let $`wK`$, we have $`w(X_y)=X_yyY`$. Then we can restrict $`w`$ to $`X_0`$ and $`X_1`$, i.e., we have a homomorphism of groups $`R:K\mathrm{Aut}(X_0)\times \mathrm{Aut}(X_1)`$. But $`X_0X_1`$ generates $`X`$ as a quandle, since $`0`$ and $`1`$ generate $`Y`$. Then $`R`$ is injective, which proves that the order of $`K`$ divides that of $`\mathrm{Aut}(X_0)\times \mathrm{Aut}(X_1)=\mathrm{Aut}(S)\times \mathrm{Aut}(S)`$. Then $`v_p(|K|)2v_p(|\mathrm{Aut}(S)|)=2`$, and $`v_p(|G_X|)v_p(|K|)+v_p(|G_Y|)3`$, proving the claim.

If $`N`$ is abelian we are done, since in this case (2.11) defines an affine structure. Thus, if $`N`$ has order $`p`$ or $`p^2`$, there is nothing else to prove. The classification of groups of order $`p^3`$ is well known (cf. \[B\]); there are $`3`$ abelian groups and two groups which are not abelian. We must concentrate the attention on the later. We prove in sections 3 and 4 that for each of them we get affine quandles.

Suppose now that $`X`$ is not faithful. The image of $`\varphi :XG_X^0`$ must have order $`p`$, since if it was $`1`$ then $`X`$ would be trivial. Let $`Y=\varphi (X)`$; as before it is an indecomposable quandle and then $`Y(_p,q)`$, where $`q_p^{}\{1\}`$. By \[AG, Prop. 2.20\], we have $`X=Y\times _\beta S`$, where $`S`$ is a set of order $`p`$ and $`\beta :Y\times Y𝕊_S`$ is a nonabelian quandle $`2`$-cocycle. Now, we prove in 5.1 that this set is trivial; whence any of these quandles is isomorphic to the product $`Y\times S`$, $`S`$ a trivial quandle; but this implies that $`Y\times S`$ is decomposable. ∎

## 3. The group $`(_p_p)C_p`$

Let $`G=(_p_p)C_p`$ be the group with $`t`$ a generator of $`C_p`$ acting on $`_p_p`$ by $`t(x,y)t^1=(x,x+y)`$. We denote the elements of $`G`$ as $`(x,y)t^zx,y,z_p`$. Let $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$. Since $`(0,1)`$ generates the center of $`G`$, we must have $`\alpha (0,1)=(0,q)`$ for some $`q_p^{}`$. Since $`\alpha `$ must act non trivially on the elements of the center, $`q1`$. We denote $`\alpha ((1,0))=(a,j)t^b`$, $`\alpha (t)=(c,k)t^d`$. We have $`\alpha ((x,y))=((a,j)t^b)^x(0,yq)=(xa,xj+ab\frac{x(x1)}{2}+yq)t^{bx}`$ and $`\alpha (t^z)=((c,k)t^d)^z=(zc,zk+cd\frac{z(z1)}{2})t^{dz}`$, whence

$$\alpha ((x,y)t^z)=(xa+zc,bcxz+xj+zk+ab\frac{x(x1)}{2}+cd\frac{z(z1)}{2}+yq)t^{bx+dz}.$$

For $`\alpha `$ to be a group homomorphism we must have $`\alpha (t)\alpha ((1,0))=\alpha ((1,1))\alpha (t)`$, while

$`\alpha (t)\alpha ((1,0))`$ $`=(c,k)t^d(a,j)t^b=(c+a,k+j+da)t^{d+b}`$
$`\alpha ((1,1))\alpha (t)`$ $`=(a,j+q)t^b(c,k)t^d=(c+a,k+j+q+bc)t^{b+d},`$
whence necessarily $`q=dabc`$.

As said, for $`hG`$, we consider the orbits $`𝒪_h`$ under the action $`gh=g\alpha (hg^1)`$. We seek the conditions on $`\alpha `$ that give orbits of order $`p^2`$. Take $`g=1`$; we get that $`\{\alpha ^n(h)|0n<N\}𝒪_h`$. Take $`g=(0,y)`$ and notice that $`(0,y)h=(0,y)\alpha (h)(0,qy)=\alpha (h)(0,(1q)y)`$. Then $`\{\alpha ^n(h)(0,)\}𝒪_h`$. Let us compute the orbit of $`\zeta =(0,1)`$. We have $`\{(0,)\}𝒪_\zeta `$. Acting by $`(x,0)t^z`$, we get

$`(x,0)t^z(0,)`$ $`=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((0,)t^z(x,0))=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((x,)t^z)`$
$`=(x,0)t^z(xa+zc,)t^{bx+dz}=((a1)x+cz,)t^{bx+(d1)z}.`$
Let $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& c\\ b& d\end{array}\right)`$. We get that $`𝒪_\zeta =G`$ if $`A1`$ is invertible. Then, $`A1`$ is degenerate.

We suppose first that $`A=1`$. We have $`𝒪_\zeta `$ of order $`p`$. Consider other orbits:

$`(x,0)t^z(\lambda ,)t^\mu `$ $`=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((\lambda ,)t^{\mu +z}(x,0))=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((\lambda +x,)t^{\mu +z})`$
$`=(x,0)t^z(\lambda +x,)t^{\mu +z}=(\lambda ,)t^\mu ,`$
whence all orbits have order $`p`$. This is not interesting for us.

Suppose then that $`A1`$ and that the first row of $`A1`$ is non-trivial. Then $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r+1& s\\ ur& us+1\end{array}\right)`$ for some $`r,s,u^p`$. We compute the orbit of $`(\lambda ,)`$:

$`(x,0)t^z(\lambda ,)t^\mu `$ $`=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((\lambda ,)t^{\mu +z}(x,0))=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((\lambda +x,)t^{\mu +z})`$
$`=(x,0)t^z((r+1)(\lambda +x)+s(\mu +z),)t^{ur(\lambda +x)+(us+1)(\mu +z)}`$
$`=((\lambda r+xr+\mu s+zs)+\lambda ,)t^{u(\lambda r+xr+\mu s+zs)+\mu },`$
whence the orbits are characterized as $`𝒪^C:=\{(\lambda ,\sigma )t^\tau |\tau u\lambda =C\}`$, and this case is interesting for us.

If the first row of $`A1`$ is trivial we have $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ r& s+1\end{array}\right)`$ and the orbits are

$`(x,0)t^z(\lambda ,)t^\mu `$ $`=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((\lambda ,)t^{\mu +z}(x,0))=(x,0)t^z\alpha ((\lambda +x,)t^{\mu +z})`$
$`=(x,0)t^z((\lambda +x),)t^{r(\lambda +x)+(s+1)(\mu +z)}=(\lambda ,)t^{r\lambda +rx+s\mu +sz+\mu },`$
whence the orbits are characterized as $`𝒪^C:=\{(\lambda ,\sigma )t^\tau |\lambda =C\}`$, and this case is also interesting for us.

We return then to the case $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}r+1& s\\ ur& us+1\end{array}\right)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x=\overline{x}x`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y=\overline{y}y`$. Notice that $`q=1+r+us`$. We have in $`𝒪^C`$:

$`((x`$ $`,y)t^{C+ux})((\overline{x},\overline{y})t^{C+u\overline{x}})=((x,y)t^{C+ux})\alpha ((\overline{x},\overline{y})t^{u(\overline{x}x)}(x,y))`$
$`=((x,y)t^{C+ux})\alpha ((\overline{x}x,\overline{y}yxu(\overline{x}x))t^{u(\overline{x}x)})`$
$`=(x,y)t^{C+ux}((\overline{x}x)(r+1)+su(\overline{x}x),u^2rs(\overline{x}x)^2+(\overline{x}x)j+u(\overline{x}x)k+(r+1)ur{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{x}x)(\overline{x}x1)}{2}}`$
$`+s(us+1){\displaystyle \frac{u(\overline{x}x)(u\overline{x}ux1)}{2}}+(\overline{y}y)qxu(\overline{x}x)q)t^{ur(\overline{x}x)+(us+1)u(\overline{x}x)}`$
$`=((\overline{x}x)(r+1)+su(\overline{x}x)+x,u^2rs(\overline{x}x)^2+(\overline{x}x)j+u(\overline{x}x)k+(r+1)ur{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{x}x)(\overline{x}x1)}{2}}`$
$`+s(us+1){\displaystyle \frac{u(\overline{x}x)(u\overline{x}ux1)}{2}}+(\overline{y}y)qxu(\overline{x}x)q`$
$`+y+(C+ux)((\overline{x}x)(r+1)+su(\overline{x}x)))t^{ur(\overline{x}x)+(us+1)u(\overline{x}x)+C+ux}`$
$`=(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x,\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2(u^2rs+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(r+1)r+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{2}}s(us+1))`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_x(j+uk{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(r+1)r{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}s(us+1)+Cq)+q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y)t^{uq\mathrm{\Delta }_x+C+ux}`$
$`=(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x,\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}rq+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{2}}sq)+\mathrm{\Delta }_x(j+uk{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(r+1)r{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}s(us+1)+Cq)+q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y)t^{uq\mathrm{\Delta }_x+C+ux}`$
Now we use the following bijection: $`f:𝒪^C_p_p`$, $`f((x,y)t^{ux+C})=(x,yu\frac{x(x1)}{2})`$. We compute then the quandle structure of $`𝒪^C`$ transported to $`_p_p`$ by $`f`$. We have

$`f(f^1(x,y)`$ $`f^1(\overline{x},\overline{y}))=f((x,y+u{\displaystyle \frac{x(x1)}{2}})t^{ux+C}(\overline{x},\overline{y}+u{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(\overline{x}1)}{2}})t^{u\overline{x}+C})`$
$`=f((q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x,\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}rq+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{2}}sq)+\mathrm{\Delta }_x(j+uk{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(r+1)r{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}s(us+1)+Cq)+q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q(\overline{x}^2\overline{x}x^2+x)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}x(x1))t^{uq\mathrm{\Delta }_x+C+ux})`$
$`=(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x,\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}rq+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{2}}sq+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q)+\mathrm{\Delta }_x(j+uk{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(r+1)r{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}s(us+1)+Cq)+q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q(2\overline{x}x+2x^2\overline{x}+x)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}x(x1){\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x)(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x1))`$
$`=(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x,\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2({\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q^2{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q^2)+q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_x(j+uk{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}qr+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}usr{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}sq+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}sr+Cq{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q)+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}q(2x\mathrm{\Delta }_x2x\mathrm{\Delta }_x))`$
$`=(q\mathrm{\Delta }_x+x,q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y+\mathrm{\Delta }_x(j+uk{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}qr+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}usr{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}sq+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}sr+Cq))`$
This means that $`𝒪^C`$ is isomorphic to the affine quandle $`(_p_p,g)`$, where

$$g(x,y)=(qx,qy+(j+uk\frac{u}{2}qr+\frac{u}{2}usr\frac{u}{2}sq+\frac{u}{2}sr+Cq)x).$$

We consider now the case $`A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ r& s+1\end{array}\right)`$. Notice that here $`q=s+1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_z=\overline{z}z`$. We have for the orbit $`𝒪^C`$:

$`(C,y)t^z(C,\overline{y})t^{\overline{z}}`$ $`=(C,y)t^z\alpha ((C,\overline{y})t^{\overline{z}z}(C,\overline{y}))=(C,y)t^z\alpha ((0,\mathrm{\Delta }_y\mathrm{\Delta }_zC)t^{\mathrm{\Delta }_z})`$
$`=(C,y)t^z(0,\mathrm{\Delta }_zk+q\mathrm{\Delta }_yCq\mathrm{\Delta }_z)t^{(s+1)\mathrm{\Delta }_z}`$
$`=(C,q\mathrm{\Delta }_y+y+\mathrm{\Delta }_z(kCq))t^{q\mathrm{\Delta }_z+z},`$
Then, taking the bijection $`f:𝒪^C_p_p`$ given by $`f((C,y)t^z)=(y,z)`$ we get on $`_p_p`$ the affine quandle $`(_p_p,g)`$ with $`g`$ given by $`g(y,z)=(qy+(kCq)z,qz)`$.

## 4. The group $`_{p^2}C_p`$

Let $`G=_{p^2}C_p`$, where $`C_p`$ is generated by $`t`$ and the action is given by $`tat^1=a(p+1)`$. Notice that $`(at^b)^n=a(n+pb\frac{n(n1)}{2})t^{bn}`$. In particular $`(at^b)`$ has order $`p`$ iff $`p|a`$.

Take $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$, $`\alpha (1)=at^b`$, $`\alpha (t)=ct^d`$. Let’s compute the conditions on $`a,b,c,d`$ for $`\alpha `$ to be a homomorphism:

$`\alpha (t)\alpha (1)`$ $`=(ct^d)(at^b)=(c+(1+pd)a)t^{d+b}=(c+a+pad)t^{d+b}`$
$`\alpha (1+p)\alpha (t)`$ $`=(a(1+p))t^b(ct^d)=(a+ap+c+bpc)t^{b+d}`$
i.e., we must have $`pad=pa+pbcmodp^2`$, or $`a(d1)=bcmodp`$. On the other hand, $`\alpha (t)`$ must have order $`p`$, whence $`c=0modp`$. This means that either $`a=0modp`$ or $`d=1modp`$. The first possibility is excluded since $`\alpha (1)`$ must have order $`p^2`$. Then, $`d=1`$ and $`\alpha (t)=(pc^{})t`$.

$`\alpha (nt^m)`$ $`=(at^b)^n(pc^{}t)^m=(a(n+pb{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}))t^{bn}(pc^{}m)t^m`$
$`=(an+pab{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}+pc^{}m(1+pbn))t^{bn+m}`$
$`=(an+p(ab{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}+c^{}m))t^{bn+m}`$
We have, then

$`(nt^m)(\overline{n}t^{\overline{m}})`$ $`=(nt^m)\alpha (\overline{n}t^{\mathrm{\Delta }_m}(n))=nt^m\alpha (\overline{n}n(1+p\mathrm{\Delta }_m)t^{\mathrm{\Delta }_m})=nt^m\alpha ((\mathrm{\Delta }_npn\mathrm{\Delta }_m)t^{\mathrm{\Delta }_m})`$
$`=nt^m(a(\mathrm{\Delta }_npn\mathrm{\Delta }_m)+p(ab{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }_npn\mathrm{\Delta }_m)(\mathrm{\Delta }_npn\mathrm{\Delta }_m1)}{2}}+c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_m))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_n+\mathrm{\Delta }_m}`$
$`=(n+(1+mp)(a\mathrm{\Delta }_n+p(an\mathrm{\Delta }_m+ab{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_n1)}{2}}+c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_m)))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_n+\overline{m}}`$
$`=(n+a\mathrm{\Delta }_n+p(am\mathrm{\Delta }_n+(c^{}an)\mathrm{\Delta }_m+ab{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_n1)}{2}}))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_n+\overline{m}}`$
$`=(\overline{n}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_n+p(c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_m+a(m\overline{n}n\overline{m})+ab{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_n1)}{2}}))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_n+\overline{m}}`$
$`=(\overline{n}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_n+p(c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_m+a(\mathrm{\Delta }_m\overline{n}+\mathrm{\Delta }_n\overline{m})+ab{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_n(\mathrm{\Delta }_n1)}{2}}))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_n+\overline{m}}.`$
We see then that if $`b0`$ we have

$$𝒪_{\overline{n}t^{\overline{m}}}\{xt^y|x=\frac{a1}{b}(y\overline{m})+a\overline{n}modp\},$$

while if $`b=0`$ we have

$$𝒪_{\overline{n}t^{\overline{m}}}\{xt^y|y=\overline{m}\}.$$

Thus, all orbits have order $`p^2`$. We exclude now the cases in which the order is $`<p^2`$. We write $`n=r+ps`$ ($`pr`$), and $`D=\overline{n}r`$, we get

$`(nt^m)(\overline{n}t^{\overline{m}})`$ $`=(\overline{n}(1a)D+p((1a)s+c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_m+a(\mathrm{\Delta }_m\overline{n}+D\overline{m})+ab{\displaystyle \frac{D(D1)}{2}}))t^{bD+\overline{m}}`$
$`=(\overline{n}(1a)D+p((1a)s+(c^{}a\overline{n})\mathrm{\Delta }_m+aD\overline{m}+ab{\displaystyle \frac{D(D1)}{2}}))t^{bD+\overline{m}}`$
Thus, if $`a=1modp`$, we must have $`b0`$ and $`c^{}\overline{n}=c^{}a\overline{n}0modp`$.

Suppose first that $`a1modp`$. Then we have to consider the orbits $`𝒪^C=\{xt^{\frac{b}{1a}x+C}\}`$. We get

$`xt^{\frac{b}{1a}x+C}\overline{x}t^{\frac{b}{1a}\overline{x}+C}`$ $`=(\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+p(c^{}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x+a({\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x\overline{x}\mathrm{\Delta }_x{\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}\overline{x}+\mathrm{\Delta }_xC)`$
$`+ab{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_x(\mathrm{\Delta }_x1)}{2}}))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_x\frac{b}{1a}\overline{x}+C}`$
$`=(\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+p(({\displaystyle \frac{bc^{}}{1a}}+aC{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_x+{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_x\frac{b}{1a}\overline{x}+C}`$
Consider now the function

$$f:_{p^2}G,f(x)=(xp\frac{b}{1a}\frac{x(x1)}{2})t^{\frac{b}{1a}x+C}.$$

We translate the structure of $`𝒪^C`$ to $`_{p^2}`$ via $`f`$. We have $`f^1(xt^{\frac{b}{1a}x+C})=x+p\frac{b}{1a}\frac{x(x1)}{2}`$.

$`f^1(f(x)f(\overline{x}))`$ $`=f^1((xp{\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}{\displaystyle \frac{x(x1)}{2}})t^{\frac{b}{1a}x+C}(\overline{x}p{\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(\overline{x}1)}{2}})t^{\frac{b}{1a}\overline{x}+C})`$
$`=f^1((\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+p({\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(\overline{x}1)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}(\overline{x}^2\overline{x}x^2+x)`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{bc^{}}{1a}}+aC{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_x+{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2))t^{b\mathrm{\Delta }_x\frac{b}{1a}\overline{x}+C})`$
$`=\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+p({\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{x}(\overline{x}1)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}(\overline{x}^2\overline{x}x^2+x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{1a}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x)(\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x1)}{2}}+({\displaystyle \frac{bc^{}}{1a}}+aC{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_x+{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2)`$
$`=\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+p({\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}(\overline{x}^2\overline{x}x^2+x)b\overline{x}\mathrm{\Delta }_x+({\displaystyle \frac{bc^{}}{1a}}+aC{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}})\mathrm{\Delta }_x+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_x^2)`$
$`=\overline{x}(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+p\mathrm{\Delta }_x({\displaystyle \frac{bc^{}}{1a}}+aC{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{2}}).`$
Thus, $`𝒪^C`$ is affine, isomorphic to $`(_{p^2},g)`$, with $`g(x)=(a+p(\frac{bc^{}}{1a}+aC\frac{ab}{2}))x`$.

Suppose now that $`a=1modp`$. Then we have the orbits $`𝒪^C=\{(C+px)t^y\}`$. We have

$$(C+px)t^y(C+p\overline{x})t^{\overline{y}}=(C+p(x(1a)\mathrm{\Delta }_x+c^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_y\mathrm{\Delta }_yC))t^{\overline{y}},$$

but this shows that $`𝒪^C`$ is in this case decomposable as $`_y𝒪_y^C`$, with $`𝒪_y^C=\{(C+px)t^y\}`$.

## 5. Nonabelian cohomology of the quandle $`(_p,q)`$

Let $`(X,)=(_p,q)`$ and let $`H`$ be a group. Many of the computations here are useful to compute $`H_Q^2(X,H)`$ when $`X=(𝔽_{p^t},\omega )`$.

###### Lemma 5.1.

$`H_Q^2(X,H)`$ is trivial.

###### Proof.

Let $`\beta :X\times XH`$ be a quandle nonabelian $`2`$-cocycle. Let $`\gamma :XH`$ be defined by

$$\gamma (x)=\beta (x/(1q),0)^1.$$

We deform $`\beta `$ by $`\gamma `$, i.e., we take the cohomologous cocycle $`\beta ^{}(x,y)=\gamma (xy)\beta (x,y)\gamma (y)^1`$. We then have

$$\beta ^{}(x,0)=\gamma ((1q)x)\beta (x,0)\gamma (0)^1=\beta (x,0)^1\beta (x,0)\beta (0,0)=1.$$

Also $`\beta ^{}(x,x)=1xX`$. We then assume that $`\beta `$ has these properties. The cocycle condition reads as

$$\beta ((1q)x+qy,(1q)x+qz)\beta (x,z)=\beta (x,(1q)y+qz)\beta (y,z).$$

Take $`x=qz/(1q)`$, and get $`\beta (qz+qy,0)\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},z)=\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},(1q)y+qz)\beta (y,z)`$, i.e.,

$$\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},z)=\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},(1q)y+qz)\beta (y,z).$$

Take now $`y=qz/(1q)`$, and get $`\beta ((1q)x\frac{q^2z}{1q},(1q)x+qz)\beta (x,z)=\beta (x,0)\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},z)`$, i.e.,

$$\beta ((1q)x\frac{q^2z}{1q},(1q)x+qz)\beta (x,z)=\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},z).$$

In particular, $`\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},(1q)x+qz)\beta (x,z)=\beta ((1q)x\frac{q^2z}{1q},(1q)x+qz)\beta (x,z)`$, and then

$$\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},(1q)x+qz)=\beta ((1q)x\frac{q^2z}{1q},(1q)x+qz).$$

Put now $`t=(1q)x+qz`$ and get $`\beta (\frac{qz}{1q},t)=\beta (tqz\frac{q^2z}{1q},t)=\beta (t\frac{qz}{1q},t)`$. Put $`s=qz/(1q)`$ and get

$$\beta (s,t)=\beta (t+s,t)s,tX.$$

If $`t0`$, then $`t`$ generates $`_p`$ and then $`\beta (s,t)=\beta (t,t)=1`$ $`s`$. Since for $`t=0`$ we have $`\beta (s,t)=1`$, we are done. ∎


format: text

text:
# Non-holonomic systems with symmetry allowing a conformally symplectic reduction

## 1. Introduction

We adopt in this work the view of writing the equations of a non-holonomic systems in terms of an almost-Poisson bracket on a constrained manifold $`PT^{}Q`$, introduced by van der Shaft and Mashke . See also Cantrijn et al.  for more recent developments.

In this note we add a new twist to the simplest example of a non-holonomic system, the contact system in $`Q=\text{R}^3`$ (see eg. ), namely:

After performing the reduction by the transversal $`\text{R}^1`$symmetry, we observe that, for some metrics, the reduced (“compressed”) almost-Poisson bivector admits a conformal symplectic structure, ie, a special Jacobi structure . In contrast, the “non-compressed” constrained system never admits a Jacobi structure.

The examples point to the fact that, in quite favorable circunstances, the reduced system can be studied by symplectic techniques (for instance, when internal symmetries are present, integrability can be achieved by Marsden-Weinstein procedure, which holds in the conformally symplectic setting, see ). The examples also show that, generally, non-holonomic systems are non-Jacobi systems (in the sense of Marle et al. ).

Hopefully our observations can help attracting more interest to investigations on the geometrical properties of almost-Poisson bivectors which naturally describe non-holonomic dynamics on the constrained submanifold of the original cotangent bundle.

## 2. The contact non-holonomic system

Consider a non-holonomic systems in $`Q=\text{R}^3`$ having the constraint

(1)
$$\dot{z}x\dot{y}=0.$$

The admissible sub-bundle $`E`$ is the union of the horizontal spaces for the connection $`1`$-form $`\omega =dzxdy`$ on the (trivial) bundle $`G=\text{R}^1Q=\text{R}^3S=\text{R}^2`$, with curvature $`d\omega =dxdy`$, where the $`\text{R}^1`$ action is the usual translation on the $`z`$-fibers.

For motivation, consider the javelin, a rod of mass $`m`$ and moment of inertia $`I`$ moving on a vertical plane $`(y,z)`$ in such a way that it always remains tangent to its trajectory. If $`\phi `$ is the angle with the horizontal, then $`dz=\mathrm{tan}(\phi )dy`$, and if we introduce the change of variables $`x=\mathrm{tan}\phi `$, then $`T=\frac{1}{2}[m(\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2)+I\dot{\phi }^2]=\frac{1}{2}[m(\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2)+I\frac{\dot{x}^2}{(1+x^2)^2}]`$ . Choose units so that $`m=I=1`$. Under the assumption of small angles, $`\phi x`$, we get

(2)
$$L=T=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^2+\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^2).$$

According to our previous work () system (1,2) is “z-Caplygin” and thus can be reduced to $`TS=\{(x,y,\dot{x},\dot{y})\}`$ with lagrangian

(3)
$$\overline{L}=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^2+(1+x^2)\dot{y}^2).$$

with an external gyroscopic force added to it. Actually it can be also interesting to regard it as a y-Caplygin system $`dy=\mathrm{cot}(\phi )dz=(1/x)dz`$ , since we may want to add the gravitational potential $`V=gz`$.

## 3. Almost-Poisson brackets via moving frames

The giroscopic force can be concealed in an almost Poisson bracket in the constrained manifold $`PT^{}Q`$ via the dynamical equation

$$\dot{x}=\{x,H\}_P$$

where $`H`$ is the hamiltonian, and $`PT^{}Q`$ is the Legendre transform of the constraint subbundle $`ETQ`$, as defined below.

Let $`e_J=e_{LJ}/q_L`$ be a moving frame on $`Q`$ such that the first $`m`$ vectors (labelled by lowercase latin indices) generate $`E`$. By a direct calculation (, equation(19)) van der Shaft and Maschke verified that the brackets are given by

$$\{q_I,q_J\}=0,\{q_I,\stackrel{~}{p}_J\}=e_{LJ}(q)=dq_Ie_J(e_J=e_{LJ}/q_L)$$

(4)
$$\{\stackrel{~}{p}_I,\stackrel{~}{p}_J\}=p_q[e_I,e_J]R_{IJ}$$

where $`p_q`$ is evaluated on $`P`$. For a geometric interpretation and simple derivation of these formulas using the moving frame method see our paper . Here’s an outline:

Choose an adapted moving frame to the constrained distribution $`ETQ`$ that is, consider a complete set of vector fields $`e_i`$ , $`e_\alpha `$ where $`e_i(q)E_q`$. The greek labels $`\alpha `$ denote $`e_\alpha E_q`$. Denote the dual 1-forms by $`ϵ_i`$ , $`ϵ_\alpha `$. We shall denote by uppercase latin indices $`e_I`$ , $`ϵ_I`$ the complete dual set in $`TQ`$ and $`T^{}Q`$. The canonical $`1`$-form on $`T^{}Q`$ writes as

(5)
$$pdq=u_Iϵ_I$$

where $`u_I`$ define new coordinates on each $`T_q^{}Q`$. Now,

$$d(pdq)=du_Iϵ_I+u_Idϵ_I.$$

The last term vanishes on vertical vectors. Moreover

$$u_Idϵ_I(e_J,e_K)=u_Ie_J(ϵ_I(e_K))u_Ie_K(ϵ_I(e_J))u_Iϵ_I[e_J,e_K]=u_Iϵ_I[e_J,e_K]$$

which gives us the symplectic matrix on $`T^{}Q`$ as

(6)
$$[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}]_{\mathrm{moving}\mathrm{frame}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}R\hfill & I_n\hfill \\ I_n\hfill & 0_n\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

and its inverse, the Poisson matrix on $`T^{}Q`$ as $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]_{\mathrm{moving}\mathrm{coframe}}=[\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}]_{\mathrm{moving}\mathrm{coframe}}^1`$ , where

(7)
$$R_{JK}=u_Iϵ_I[e_J,e_K]=p_q[e_J,e_K].$$

The moving coframe for $`[\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]_{\mathrm{moving}\mathrm{coframe}}`$ is $`ϵ_I,du_I`$. The moving frame for (6) is its dual. Caveat: this basis contains the vertical vectors $`/u_I`$ and lifted $`e_I^{}=e_I+vertical`$ (see ). From this we obtain the matrix of almost-Poisson brackets in $`PT^{}Q`$ by directly substituting the $`u_\alpha `$ by the $`u_i`$ (and q’s) via the defining equation for $`P`$ :

(8)
$$H/u_\alpha =0$$

which is a consistency requirement for any constrained (holonomic or non-holonomic) dynamical system on $`Q`$ , see .

## 4. The contact almost-Poisson structure

In the case of the contact system, let us begin by taking as moving co-frame the set

(9)
$$ϵ_1=dx,ϵ_2=dy,ϵ_3=\omega =dzxdy$$

that is dual to

(10)
$$e_1=/x,e_2=/y+x/z,e_3=/z.$$

Note that

(11)
$$[e_1,e_2]=e_3,[e_1,e_3]=[e_2,e_3]=0,$$

so that we have the 3-dimensional Heisenberg algebra. The identity (5) yields

(12)
$$u_1=p_x,u_2=p_y+xp_z,u_3=p_z,$$

hence the Hamiltonian is

(13)
$$H=\frac{1}{2}(p_x^2+p_y^2+p_z^2)=\frac{1}{2}(u_1^2+(u_2xu_3)^2+u_3^2).$$

Now, the Legendre transform of the admissible sub-bundle $`TQ`$ is given by (8) as $`H/u_3=0`$ so that the constrained manifold $`P`$ is

(14)
$$P=\{(x,y,z,u_1,u_2,u_3)|u_3=\frac{xu_2}{1+x^2}\}=\{(x,y,z,p_x,p_y,p_z)|p_z=xp_y\}.$$

As moving basis for $`T^{}P`$ we take $`dx,dy,dzxdy,du_1,du_2`$ and the corresponding $`5\times 5`$ matrix of Poisson Brackets is given by

(15)
$$[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{\mathrm{moving}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0_{2\times 2}\hfill & 0_{2\times 1}\hfill & I_{2\times 2}\hfill \\ 0_{1\times 2}\hfill & 0_{1\times 1}\hfill & 0_{1\times 2}\hfill \\ I_{2\times 2}\hfill & 0_{2\times 1}\hfill & R_{2\times 2}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

where $`R_{2\times 2}`$ is the antisymmetric matrix with

(16)
$$R_{12}=p_q[e_1,e_2]=u_3=\frac{xu_2}{1+x^2}.$$

Here, the vanishing of the middle row and column means of course that

(17)
$$\{dzxdy,H\}=0\dot{z}x\dot{y}=0$$

which gives the differential equation for $`z`$.

## 5. The compressed system

Deleting the middle column and row of (15), we obtain a non-degenerate matrix

(18)
$$\overline{[\mathrm{\Lambda }]}=[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{compressed}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_{2\times 2}\hfill & I_{2\times 2}\hfill \\ I_{2\times 2}\hfill & R_{2\times 2}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

which characterizes the almost-Poisson structure in $`\overline{P}=P_{compressed}=\{(x,y,u_1,u_2)\}`$ with

(19)
$$\overline{H}=H_{compressed}=\frac{1}{2}\left(u_1^2+\frac{u_2^2}{1+x^2}\right)$$

as the reduced Hamiltonian. It follows that the reduced equations of motion are

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\dot{x}\hfill \\ \dot{y}\hfill \\ \dot{u}_1\hfill \\ \dot{u}_2\hfill \end{array}\right]=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0_{2\times 2}\hfill & I_{2\times 2}\hfill \\ I_{2\times 2}\hfill & R_{2x2}\hfill \end{array}\right)\left[\begin{array}{c}\overline{H}_x\hfill \\ \overline{H}_y\hfill \\ \overline{H}_{u_1}\hfill \\ \overline{H}_{u_2}\hfill \end{array}\right]$$

or

$$\dot{x}=u_1,\dot{y}=\frac{u_2}{1+x^2},\dot{u}_1=\overline{H}_x+R_{12}\overline{H}_{u_2},\dot{u}_2=\overline{H}_yR_{12}\overline{H}_{u_1}$$

A “miraculous” cancelation takes place in the $`\dot{u_1}`$ equation, and the system is actually

(20)
$$\dot{x}=u_1,\dot{y}=\frac{u_2}{1+x^2},\dot{u}_1=0,\dot{u}_2=\frac{x}{1+x^2}u_1u_2$$

This cancelation has a reason. The Lagrangian is invariant under the 1-parameter group $`(x,y,z)(x+ϵ,y,z)`$ and the generator $`/x`$ is an admissible vectorfield. By the non-holonomic Noether theorem , the momentum $`p_x=u_1=\dot{x}`$ is conserved. The 2 degrees of freedom compressed system separates and can be integrated by quadratures:

$$\mathrm{ln}(u_2)=a\frac{x_o+at}{1+(x_o+at)^2}dt=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(1+(x_o+at)^2)+\mathrm{const}.\mathrm{Thus},$$

$$u_2=A\sqrt{1+(x_o+at)^2},y=y_o+_0^tA\frac{\sqrt{1+(x_o+at)^2}}{1+(x_o+at)^2}dt$$

and we reconstruct the z-fiber dynamics via the constraint equation:

$$z=z_o+_0^t(x_o+at)\frac{A\sqrt{1+(x_o+at)^2}}{1+(x_o+at)^2}𝑑t.$$

The almost-symplectic form in the compressed space $`T^{}S`$, $`S=\text{R}^2=\{x,y\}`$, is the $`2`$-form $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=du_1dx+du_2dy+R_{12}dxdy`$ , $`R_{12}=\frac{xu_2}{1+x^2}`$ and so $`d\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\frac{x}{1+x^2}du_2dxdy`$ .

Let us investigate if there is a function $`f:T^{}S\text{R}`$ such that $`f\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is closed. It looks simpler to try the ansatz $`f=f(x)`$ only. The condition $`df\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}+fd\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ = 0 leads to

(21)
$$[f^{}(x)+f\frac{x}{1+x^2}]dxdu_2dy=0,\mathrm{so}\mathrm{that}f=\frac{A}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}.$$

The significance of this observation is that the compressed system (20) is Hamiltonian in the time scale $`s`$ such that $`dt/ds=\sqrt{1+x^2}`$ , with the same Hamiltonian $`\overline{H}=H_{compressed}`$ and bona-fide symplectic form $`f\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Now, the corresponding Poisson structure in $`T^{}S`$ is $`\frac{1}{f}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{compressed}`$ (refer to (18)) and one is tempted to guess that the conformally changed bivector in $`P`$ given by $`\frac{1}{f}[\mathrm{\Lambda }]_{\mathrm{moving}}`$ (refer to (15)) satisfies Jacobi. But as we shall see below, this is not the case !

## 6.  Non-Jacobi for the constrained almost-Poisson

Let us now take a closer look on the algebraic properties of the almost-Poisson structure on the constrained space $`P`$. In order to compute the Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket of the almost-Poisson bivector $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with itself, we first rewrite $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by (15) as a matrix in a coordinate basis. Choosing $`\{x,y,z,u_1,u_2\}`$ as coordinates, we write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\{x,y,z,u_1,u_2\}}`$ as

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0_{2\times 2}\hfill & 0_{2\times 1}\hfill & I_2\hfill \\ 0_{1\times 2}\hfill & 0_{1\times 1}\hfill & L_{1\times 2}\hfill \\ I_{2\times 2}\hfill & L_{2\times 1}^T\hfill & R_{2\times 2}\hfill \end{array}\right)$$

where, as before, $`R_{2\times 2}`$ is the antisymmetric matrix with $`R_{12}=xv/(1+x^2)`$ and now

$$L_{1\times 2}=(0x)$$

in such a way that we can compute the self S-N bracket $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$ using:

(22)
$$[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]^{IJK}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{LK}_L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{IJ}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{LI}_L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{JK}+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{LJ}_L\mathrm{\Lambda }^{KI}$$

where the summation convention is subtended. We then get

(23)
$$[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\left(\frac{2}{1+x^2}\right)\left(x_y_z\right)_{u_1}_{u_2}.$$

One can check explicitly that there is no vector field $`E`$ satisfying the first of the equations for the existence of an associated Jacobi structure  (the second one is given by (40)) :

(24)
$$[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2E\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

Thus no Jacobi structure, in the sense of Marle, exists for this bi-vector (or any conformal one as well). Notice that we can rewrite $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\left(\frac{2}{1+x^2}\right)e^{}_{u_1}_{u_2}`$ , where $`e^{}=x_y_z`$ is a vector orthogonal to $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ and hence to the distribution. Remark that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/f`$ , where $`f`$ is given by (21), is really “$`z`$-almost” Poisson. A calculation in the same lines shows that the only nonvanishing entries of $`[\mathrm{\Lambda }/f,\mathrm{\Lambda }/f]`$ are the permutations of $`(3,4,5)`$, namely $`2(1+x^2)_z_{u_1}_{u_2}`$ . (“almost” is really almost)!

In order to better appreciate the Non-Jacobi result for the almost-Poisson structure, let us now choose a different moving frame and co-frame adapted to the contact distribution. Specifically, we choose an orthonormal set with respect to the euclidean metric:

(25)
$$e_1=_x,e_2=\frac{_y+x_z}{\sqrt{1+x^2}},e_3=\frac{_zx_y}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}$$

whose dual set is “itself”:

(26)
$$ϵ_1=dx,ϵ_2=\frac{dy+xdz}{\sqrt{1+x^2}},ϵ_3=\frac{dzxdy}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}=\frac{\omega }{\sqrt{1+x^2}}.$$

This frame does not respect the natural $`z`$-fibration, but it’s still true that $`\omega (e_1)=\omega (e_2)=0`$. However, the Lie algebra is now modified : $`[e_1,e_2]=\left(\frac{1}{1+x^2}\right)e_3,[e_2,e_3]=0,[e_3,e_1]=\left(\frac{1}{1+x^2}\right)e_2`$ , but the hamiltonian $`H`$ corresponding to the euclidean metric is again euclidean: $`H=(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2)/2`$ , so that the condition $`H/u_3=0`$ yields the simpler equation

(27)
$$u_3=0$$

for the definition of $`P`$ (generally, we have $`u_\alpha =0`$ for orthonormal frames).

From the theory of moving frames , the Poisson bi-vector on $`T^{}Q`$ can be written as

(28)
$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=e_I^{}_{u_I}+R_{IJ}_{u_I}_{u_J}$$

where $`R_{IJ}`$ is given by (4), $`_{u_I}`$ is the “vertical dual” to $`du_I`$ and $`e_I^{}`$ is the correct lift of the base vector $`e_I`$ to $`T(TQ)`$ . Alternatively, we can rewrite this full bi-vector using Darboux quasi-coordinates as $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=e_I_{u_I}`$ . For an orthonormal adapted moving frame, from (5) we get that the almost-Poisson bivector on the constrained space $`P`$ is:

(29)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=e_i_{u_i}+\stackrel{~}{R}_{ij}_{u_i}_{u_j}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ means evaluating at $`P`$, in this case:

(30)
$$\stackrel{~}{R}_{IJ}=u_iϵ_i[e_I,e_J].$$

For the contact system with orthonormal moving frame, we have simply

(31)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=e_1_{u_1}+e_2_{u_2}$$

where $`_{u_i}`$ is the “vertical dual” to $`ϵ_i`$ : $`_{u_1}=_{p_x},_{u_2}=\frac{_{p_y}+x_{p_z}}{\sqrt{1+x^2}},_{u_3}=\frac{_{p_z}x_{p_y}}{\sqrt{1+x^2}}`$ . The self S-N bracket of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be easily computed using the decomposition formulas for the S-N bracket of bivectors. We get :

$$[e_1_{u_1}+e_2_{u_2},e_1_{u_1}+e_2_{u_2}]=[e_1_{u_1},e_1_{u_1}]+[e_2_{u_2},e_2_{u_2}]+2[e_1_{u_1},e_2_{u_2}]$$

It’s easy to see that the first two terms on the right vanish. The third one decomposes as

$$[e_1_{u_1},e_2_{u_2}]=[e_1,e_2]_{u_1}_{u_2}e_1[e_2,_{u_1}]_{u_2}e_2[e_1,_{u_2}]_{u_1}+e_1e_2[_{u_1},_{u_2}]$$

Since the only nontrivial Lie bracket is $`[e_1,e_2]=\left(\frac{1}{1+x^2}\right)e_3`$ we are left with

(32)
$$[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=\left(\frac{2}{1+x^2}\right)e_3_{u_1}_{u_2},$$

which is equivalent to the result previously obtained (23). It’s now even simpler to verify that no Jacobi structure  is possible for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, just compare (24), (31) and (32).

Let us consider a still simpler, even more symmetrical case. Namely, on the contact system, we consider a metric which is invariant under the full Heisenberg group. Again, taking (10) as moving frame we have the Heisenberg algebra (11). The simplest Heisenberg-invariant metric is thus given by the kinetic energy $`T=\frac{1}{2}(v_1^2+v_2^2+v_3^2)`$ , where $`v_i`$ is given by the identification $`v_1e_1+v_2e_2+v_3e_3=\dot{x}_x+\dot{y}_y+\dot{z}_z`$ , which gives:

(33)
$$T=\frac{1}{2}(\dot{x}^2+(1+x^2)\dot{y}^2+\dot{z}^22x\dot{y}\dot{z}).$$

In other words, for such metric $`2T`$, the Heisenberg moving frame (10) is orthonormal. In terms of the hamiltonian, we have that the co-frame (9) is also orthonormal, and thus

(34)
$$H=\frac{1}{2}(u_1^2+u_2^2+u_3^2)=\frac{1}{2}(p_x^2+p_y^2+(1+x^2)p_z^2+2xp_yp_z)$$

where the relation between the u’s and the p’s is the one given earlier in (12), section 3. Once again, the almost-Poisson bivector is given by

(35)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=e_1_{u_1}+e_2_{u_2},\mathrm{and}\mathrm{thus}[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]=2e_3_{u_1}_{u_2}.$$

Therefore, no Jacobi structure  exists on $`P`$ for this Schaft-Maschke  bivector.

## 7. The compressed almost-Poisson structure <br>is not conformally symplectic in general

We’ve seen earlier in section $`5`$ that the compressed system for the contact nonholonomic system with euclidean metric is conformally symplectic. However such conformal symplectic structure (or any Jacobi structure) on the compressed system does not exist for generic metrics. To see this, consider a $`z`$-invariant hamiltonian of the general form

(36)
$$H=\gamma _{ij}u_iu_j+V(x,y),\gamma _{ij}\gamma _{ij}(x,y)=\gamma _{ji}(x,y).$$

The condition $`H/u_3=0`$ yields $`u_3=(\gamma _{13}u_1+\gamma _{23}u_2)/\gamma _{33}=R_{12}`$ , so that the compressed almost-Poisson bivector can be written as

(37)
$$\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=_x_{u_1}+_y_{u_2}+\left(\frac{\gamma _{13}u_1+\gamma _{23}u_2}{\gamma _{33}}\right)_{u_1}_{u_2}.$$

Since $`\{x,y,u_1,u_2\}`$ is a coordinate system for $`T^{}S`$, we can apply formula (22) directly to obtain $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=2\left(\frac{\gamma _{13}}{\gamma _{33}}\right)_x_{u_1}_{u_2}2\left(\frac{\gamma _{23}}{\gamma _{33}}\right)_y_{u_1}_{u_2}`$ . On the other hand, a general vector field on $`T^{}S`$ has the form :

(38)
$$E=\alpha _x+\beta _y+\mu _{u_1}+\nu _{u_2}$$

so that the condition $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }},\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=2E\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is satisfied for

(39)
$$\nu =\gamma _{13}/\gamma _{33},\mu =\gamma _{23}/\gamma _{33}.$$

For $`E`$ to be the vector field of a Jacobi structure , it is also necessary that

(40)
$$[E,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]_E(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})=0.$$

A simple computation gives $`[E,\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=\left(\frac{}{x}\left(\frac{\gamma _{13}}{\gamma _{33}}\right)+\frac{}{y}\left(\frac{\gamma _{23}}{\gamma _{33}}\right)\right)_{u_1}_{u_2}`$ and thus

(41)
$$\frac{}{x}\left(\frac{\gamma _{13}}{\gamma _{33}}\right)+\frac{}{y}\left(\frac{\gamma _{23}}{\gamma _{33}}\right)=0$$

is a necessary condition for the existence of a Jacobi structure on the compressed system in $`T^{}S`$. Of course, the hamiltonians (13) and (34), obtained from the euclidean and the Heisenberg metrics, (2) and (33) respectively, satisfy the above condition. More generally, in order to verify this condition, one can substitute for the original metric elements $`g_{ij}(x_1,x_2)`$ in a basis $`x_1=x,x_2=y,x_3=z`$, with the relations

(42)
$$\frac{\gamma _{13}}{\gamma _{33}}=\frac{g_{12}g_{23}g_{13}g_{22}x_1(g_{12}g_{33}g_{13}g_{23})}{g_{11}g_{22}g_{12}^22x_1(g_{11}g_{23}g_{12}g_{13})+x_1^2(g_{11}g_{33}g_{13}^2)},$$

(43)
$$\frac{\gamma _{23}}{\gamma _{33}}=\frac{g_{11}g_{23}g_{12}g_{13}x_1(g_{11}g_{33}g_{13}^2)}{g_{11}g_{22}g_{12}^22x_1(g_{11}g_{23}g_{12}g_{13})+x_1^2(g_{11}g_{33}g_{13}^2)}.$$

Clearly, (38), (39) and (41) mean that any possible Jacobi structure on this compressed system comes from a conformal symplectic structure.

## 8. Conclusions

We’ve seen that the failure of the Jacobi identity for the Schaft-Maschke  almost-Poisson structure on the constrained submanifold $`PT^{}Q`$ of a nonholonomic system cannot be cirvumvented by the introduction of an associated Jacobi structure , even in the simplest cases. It remains to be confirmed whether this “no-go” result is generic.

These examples also suggest that pehaps the almost-Poisson structure can be most useful when there is a principal bundle structure $`GQS`$, and all data are equivariant with respect to the group $`G`$. In the contact case, $`z`$-invariant Lagrangians. In this case, the degenerate almost-Poisson bracket in $`P`$ projects over a non-degenerate almost-Poisson bracket in $`T^{}S`$, which in favorable cases (not all) is conformally symplectic, or Jacobi. It remains to be found a geometrical interpretation for these cases.

More generally, it also remains to be determined whether or when such a conformally symplectic reduction can be applied for less simple nonholonomic systems. Work in this direction is under way and shall be reported elsewhere.


text:
# XMM -Newton observations of merging clusters of galaxies: A3921 and A1750

## 1 Introduction

In the hierachical scenario of structure formation in the Universe, clusters are assembled by mergers of smaller systems. Observations and simulations show that merging strongly changes the physical characteristics of the intracluster medium. The study of this dynamical process would give us new insights into the physical process involved and better constraints in a more general cosmological context. A good indication of merging events is given by the detection of substructures in a cluster because these are destroyed in a few Gyr. Our XMM-Newton guaranteed time programme allows us to trace the evolution of the intracluster medium, and the cluster itself, by observing clusters in different stages of the merger process. We will present the cluster A3921 which seems to be in a stage of ongoing merging. The EPIC observations show an increase of the temperature toward the center and a compression region between the main cluster and the infalling subcluster. We will show how AMR simulations of a galaxy cluster of the same type as A3921 predict this behaviour. The recent observation of our second guaranteed time target, A1750, allows us to show an earlier merging event between two subclusters of roughly equal mass. The EPIC/MOS data indicate the presence of a shocked region between the two subunits even in a so early stage of merger.

## 2 A3921

A3921 has been observed by ROSAT and GINGA revealing that a substructure is falling onto the main relaxed cluster from behind with a velocity of 1000 km s-1. The substructure is located at a projected distance of 1.2 Mpc (z=0.094; ho= 0.5) and it has a mass 1/3 of the main component. A3921 was observed by XMM-Newton on October 2000 for a total exposure of 30 ks. The analysis of EPIC/EMOS data had already shown a complex structure in the center of the main cluster which seems highly perturbed (Belsole et al. 2001) and a filamentary structure in the hardness ratio map in the region between the two components which has an higher temperature than the main cluster (Sauvageot et al. 2001).

### 2.1 Imaging

The surface brightness profile is obtained excluding point sources, the falling cluster and the region q$`<`$1.25’ corresponding to the central excess. The central radius and b parameter are in good agreement with ROSAT/PSPC results

### 2.2 Spectro-imaging

The temperature map is obtained by a combined fit (absorbed mekal model in XSPEC) of the EMOS1 and EMOS2 spectra in each box, after background subtraction and vignetting correction. The temperature at the center of the main component is kT = 5.3 where the surroundings have a slightly lower temperatures, thus the cooling flow hypothesis is ruled out. The region between the two merging clusters is at a mean temperature of 5.8 keV. Curiously the small subcluster has a relatively high temperature (5.8 keV).

## 3 AMR simulations

We show an example of a merging cluster extracted from a high-resolution cosmological simulation, using the newly developed Adaptive Mesh Refinement code RAMSES (Teyssier, 2001). The two color maps show the bolometric X-ray luminosity and the luminosity-weighted temperature. This simulated cluster is of the same type of A3921 in order directly to indicate comparisons between observations and simulations. The hot compression wave in between the two interacting clusters is clearly visible in the figure. For more detalis about AMR simulations, see the poster by J-L. Sauvageot et al. at this conference.

## 4 A1750

The bimodal shape of A1750 was first observed by EINSTEIN (Forman et al. 1981). The ASCA and ROSAT data (Novicki et al. 1998) apparently showed evidence for shock heated region between the two components. A difference of 1000 km/s in the radial velocity between the two substructures is a indication of the fact that we are looking at a bound double system (Quintana & Ramirez 1989).

### 4.1 Imaging

The surface brightness profiles are obtained excluding point sources and the other merging component for each subcluster, in the 0.3-1.5 kev image. Both subclusters exhibit an excess in the central region which may suggest the presence of a cooling flow. If this hypothesis is confirmed by further analysis , it will represent significant proof supporting the suggestion that the components are at a very early stage of the merger because merger events destroy cooling flows.

### 4.2 Spectro-imaging

Temperature map. Contours correspond to the image above after adaptive smoothing The temperature map is obtained as for A3921. The A1750 northern subcluster has a lower temperature (kT 3.3 keV) then the southern one (kT 4.2keV). The region between the two merging component shows a mean temperature of (5.4 keV with some regions rising to 6.7 keV. This preliminary result needs confirmation from EPN analysis, but taken at face value, it is proof that the two subclusters really are interacting and display a shocked region due to the merger event.

## 5 References:

Belsole E., Sauvageot J-L, Bourdin H., 2001, Sesto 2001 Astrophysical meeting Forman et al. 1981, ApJ, 243, L133 Novicki et al. 1998, AAS 193 Quintana & Ramirez 1989 Sauvageot J-L & Belsole E. 2001, XXI Moriond Astrophysical Meeting Teyssier 2001 astro-ph/0111368