text:
# Periodic Floer pro-spectra from the Seiberg-Witten equations

## 1. Introduction

In , Cohen, Jones, and Segal posed the question of constructing a “Floer homotopy type.” They conjectured that Floer homology (in either of the two variants known at the time, symplectic or instanton) should be the homology of an object called a *pro-spectrum.* However, the passage from homology to homotopy in either of these cases seems a difficult task at the moment. Because of their remarkable compactness properties, the Seiberg-Witten equations are better suited for this task. Using the technique of finite dimensional approximation, Furuta and Bauer were able to define stable homotopy invariants for four-manifolds (, , ). In , the second author has associated to each rational homology 3-sphere a certain equivariant spectrum whose homology is the Seiberg-Witten Floer homology.

This paper is a continuation of . Here we define the stable homotopy generalization of the Seiberg-Witten Floer homology for closed, oriented 3-manifolds $`Y`$ with $`b_1(Y)=1,`$ together with $`spin^c`$ structures $`𝔰.`$ We assume that $`c_1(𝔰),`$ the first Chern class of the corresponding determinant line bundle, is nontorsion.

It turns out that the usual homotopy category $`𝔖`$ of spectra is not good enough to support our invariants. To ensure the existence of good colimits, we divide out the sets of morphisms in $`𝔖`$ by the class of phantom maps, and we call the resulting category $`𝔖^{}.`$ Furthermore, to ensure the existence of good inverse limits, we enlarge the class of objects to include *pro-spectra*. The resulting category is called $`\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}.`$ Its exact definition will be given in section 3.

The main result of this article is:

###### Theorem 1.

a) Given a Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`Y`$ and a $`spin^c`$ connection $`A_0,`$ finite dimensional approximation for the Seiberg-Witten map produces an invariant $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ in the form of a pointed $`S^1`$-equivariant pro-spectrum well-defined up to canonical equivalence in $`\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}.`$

When the metric $`g`$ or the connection $`A_0`$ change, the invariant $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ can change only by suspending or desuspending by a finite dimensional complex representation of $`S^1.`$

Furthermore, the pro-spectrum is periodic modulo $`\mathrm{},`$ where

$$\mathrm{}=g.c.d.\{(hc_1(𝔰))[Y]|hH^1(Y;)\},$$

in the sense that there is a complex representation $`E`$ of $`S^1`$ of real dimension $`\mathrm{}`$ and a natural equivalence:

$$\text{SWF}\mathrm{\Sigma }^E(\text{SWF}).$$

b) There is a different version $`\text{SWF}_0(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ which is a spectrum obtained by doing finite dimensional approximation for the Seiberg-Witten map with a nonexact perturbation in the cohomology class $`c_1(𝔰).`$ It has the same properties as the ones mentioned above for $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0),`$ and there is a natural morphism:

$$j:\text{SWF}_0\text{SWF}$$

which induces isomorphisms on homology and on the equivariant Borel homology.

c) Under change of orientation, $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ and $`\text{SWF}(\overline{Y},\overline{𝔰},g,A_0)`$ are duals, but the analogous statement for $`\text{SWF}_0`$ is false.

Our construction of SWF runs parallel to the one for rational homology spheres in . However, there is an important complication, given by the loss of compactness of the Seiberg-Witten moduli space. If we work in Coulomb gauge, the solutions of the Seiberg-Witten equations are the critical points of the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional

$$CSD:V=(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;i)/\text{Im }d)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0),$$

where $`W_0`$ is a $`spin^c`$ bundle on $`Y`$ with determinant line bundle $`L.`$

There is a residual gauge action of $`=H^1(Y;i)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;i)`$ on $`V`$ with respect to which $`CSD`$ is periodic modulo $`4\pi ^2\mathrm{};`$ more precisely, the action of $`uH^1(Y;i)`$ changes $`CSD`$ by $`4\pi ^2([u]c_1(𝔰))[Y].`$ The Seiberg-Witten moduli space is therefore periodic modulo $`.`$ It would be compact if we divided out by the residual gauge action, but this would destroy the linear structure of the configuration space and hinder the application of finite dimensional approximation.

In , SWF was defined as the Conley index of a flow on a finite dimensional space. To be able to define the Conley index in the current setting we need to restrict our attention to a bounded subset of the configuration space. We manage to do this by cutting the configuration space between two levels of the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional. (This procedure was used before by Fintushel and Stern in  to define $``$-graded instanton homology and by Marcolli and Wang in  in the context of Seiberg-Witten theory.) We approximate the gradient flow of $`CSD`$ in a bounded set between the two levels by a flow on a finite-dimensional approximation. The pro-spectrum SWF is then obtained from the Conley index of this flow by taking direct and inverse limits as the levels of $`CSD`$ go to $`\pm \mathrm{}.`$

If we perturb the Seiberg-Witten equations by a nonexact $`\nu `$ with $`[\nu ]=c_1(𝔰),`$ the Chern-Simons-Dirac functional is invariant under the residual gauge action, so we can no longer use it to cut the configuration space. Instead, we cut between the levels of $`CSD+f,`$ for a certain function $`f.`$ Depending on our choice of $`f,`$ we are free to take either direct or inverse limits as the levels go to $`\pm \mathrm{}.`$ Direct limits at $`+\mathrm{}`$ and inverse limits at $`\mathrm{}`$ give us back $`\text{SWF},`$ while direct limits in both directions produce the new invariant $`\text{SWF}_0.`$ This is different from SWF: for example, when $`Y=S^1\times S^2`$ with any nontorsion $`spin^c`$ structure, $`\text{SWF}=`$ is trivial, while $`\text{SWF}_0`$ is nontrivial.

We choose to mention $`\text{SWF}_0`$ here because of the connection to Ozsváth-Szabó theory. In  and , Ozsváth and Szabó have constructed several versions of Floer homology for three-manifolds, which they denoted by $`\widehat{HF},HF^+,HF^{},HF^{\mathrm{}}.`$ Their theory is supposed to give the same output as Seiberg-Witten theory. In , they have made the precise conjecture relating $`HF^+`$ and $`HF^{}`$ to two versions of the Seiberg-Witten Floer homology for rational homology 3-spheres.

More generally, we conjecture that all variants of the Ozsváth-Szabó Floer homology are different functors applied to our invariant. Given an integer-graded generalized homology theory $`h_{}`$ for $`S^1`$-equivariant pro-spectra, we can apply $`h_{}`$ to either SWF or $`\text{SWF}_0`$ and obtain a sequence of abelian groups periodic modulo $`\mathrm{}.`$ Since a change in the Riemannian metric only changes $`\text{SWF},\text{SWF}_0`$ by suspending or desuspending by an even dimensional representation, $`h_{}(\text{SWF})`$ and $`h_{}(\text{SWF}_0)`$ are invariants of $`Y`$ and $`𝔰`$ only, thought of either as having a relative grading modulo $`\mathrm{}`$ or an absolute grading modulo $`2.`$

###### Remark 1.

All generalized homology theories $`h_{}`$ are meant to be reduced, but we suppress the conventional tilde from notation for simplicity.

In section 5, we explore some of these theories: the ordinary (non-equivariant) homology $`H_{},`$ the equivariant Borel homology $`H_{}^{S^1},`$ the co-Borel homology $`cH_{}^{S^1},`$ and the Tate homology $`tH_{}^{S^1}.`$

###### Conjecture 1.

Let $`Y`$ be a 3-manifold with $`b_1(Y)=1`$ and a nontorsion $`spin^c`$ structure $`𝔰.`$ Then:

$$\widehat{HF}_n=H_n(\text{SWF}_0)=H_n(\text{SWF});HF_n^+=H_{n+1}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0)=H_{n+1}^{S^1}(\text{SWF});$$

$$HF_n^{}=cH_{n+2}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0);HF_n^{\mathrm{}}=tH_n^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0).$$

The same should be true for manifolds with $`b_1(Y)=0`$ if we replace $`\text{SWF}_0`$ by $`\text{SWF}.`$

In the last section we discuss relative invariants of four-manifolds with boundary and prove:

###### Theorem 2.

Consider a Riemannian 4-manifold $`X`$ together with a $`spin^c`$ structure, such that the boundary $`(Y,𝔰)`$ has $`b_1(Y)=1,c_1(𝔰)`$ nontorsion, and the image of $`H^1(X;)`$ in $`H^1(Y;)`$ is zero. Let $`T(Ind)`$ be the Thom spectrum for the Dirac index bundle on $`X.`$ The Seiberg-Witten equations on $`X`$ induce a morphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{b_2^+(X)}T(Ind)\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0).$$

The reader may wonder what happens when $`b_1(Y)1`$ or $`b_1(Y)=0`$ and $`c_1(𝔰)`$ is torsion. As Cohen, Jones and Segal pointed out in , in general there is an obstruction to defining Floer homotopy which lies in $`KO^1`$ of the configuration space, and usually factors through the map $`K^1KO^1.`$ For the Seiberg-Witten case, we present a computation of this obstruction in the appendix. It turns out that the obstruction is zero if and only if for every

$$a_1,a_2,a_3c_1(𝔰)^{}=\{aH^1(Y;):a_jc_1(𝔰)=0\},$$

we have

$$a_1a_2a_3=0.$$

For example, the obstruction is zero whenever $`b_1(Y)3.`$ In such cases, we expect to be able to mod out by the residual gauge action in the cohomological directions in which $`CSD`$ is unchanged. We can then use the notion of Conley index over a base from , where the base is a Picard torus. The result should be a “fiberwise deforming” pro-spectrum over the torus. When we vary the metric, this can change by suspending or desuspending by an arbitary complex bundle over the torus. We hope to explain this case in a subsequent paper.

However, the obstruction can be nonzero. This is the case, for example, when $`Y=T^3`$ and $`𝔰`$ is torsion. In such a situation, it seems that to define a similar invariant one needs an even more general notion. Furuta has proposed in  the concept of *pro-spectrum with parametrized universe.* It should be noted that, according to , one cannot expect to define stable Floer homotopy groups in this setting, but at most complex oriented generalized Floer homology theories, such as Floer complex bordism and Floer K-homology.

## 2. Seiberg-Witten trajectories

Let $`Y`$ be a closed, oriented, Riemannian 3-manifold with $`b_1(Y)=1.`$ Fix a nontorsion $`spin^c`$ structure $`𝔰`$ on $`Y`$ with spinor bundle $`W_0`$ and set $`L=det(W_0).`$ We identify the space of $`spin^c`$ connections on $`W_0`$ with $`i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)`$ via the correspondence $`AAA_0,`$ where $`A_0`$ is a fixed reference connection. We denote Clifford multiplication by $`\rho :TY\text{ End}(W_0)`$ and the Dirac operator corresponding to the connection $`A_0+a`$ by $`\overline{)}_a=\rho (a)+\overline{)}.`$

The gauge group $`𝒢=\text{ Map}(Y,S^1)`$ acts on the space $`i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0)`$ by

$$u(a,\varphi )=(au^1du,u\varphi ).$$

We will work with the completions of $`i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0)`$ and $`𝒢`$ in the $`L_{k+1}^2`$ and $`L_{k+2}^2`$ norms, respectively, where $`k4`$ is a fixed integer. In general, we denote the $`L_k^2`$ completion of a space $`E`$ by $`L_k^2(E).`$

Unlike in , here it becomes necessary to perturb the Seiberg-Witten equations by an exact 2-form $`\nu `$ on $`Y`$ in order to obtain a genericity condition. The perturbed Chern-Simons-Dirac functional is defined on $`L_{k+1}^2(i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0))`$ as

$$CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}_Ya(2F_{A_0}+da+2\pi i\nu )+_Y\varphi ,\overline{)}_a\varphi 𝑑\text{vol}.$$

The change in $`CSD_\nu `$ under the action of the gauge group is

$$CSD_\nu (u(a,\varphi ))CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )=4\pi ^2([u]c_1(𝔰))[Y].$$

The gradient of $`CSD_\nu `$ with respect to the $`L^2`$ metric is the vector field

$$CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )=(da+F_{A_0}+i\nu +\tau (\varphi ,\varphi ),\overline{)}_a\varphi ),$$

where $`\tau `$ is the bilinear form defined by $`\tau (\varphi ,\psi )=\rho ^1(\varphi \psi ^{})_0`$ and the subscript $`0`$ denotes the trace-free part.

The *perturbed Seiberg-Witten equations* on $`Y`$ are the equations for the critical points of $`CSD_\nu :`$

$$da+F_{A_0}+i\nu +\tau (\varphi ,\varphi )=0,\overline{)}_a\varphi =0.$$

The basic compactness result for the solutions $`(a,\varphi )`$ to the Seiberg-Witten equations () is that one can always find a gauge transformation $`u`$ such that $`u(a,\varphi )`$ is smooth and bounded in all $`C^m`$ norms by constants which depend only on $`\nu `$ and the metric on $`Y.`$

As mentioned in the introduction, we intend to cut the moduli space between two levels of $`CSD_\nu .`$ In order for this to be possible, we need to impose a constraint on $`\nu .`$

###### Definition 1.

A perturbation $`\nu `$ is called good if the set of critical points of $`CSD_\nu `$ is discrete modulo gauge.

The set of good perturbations is Baire in the space of exact 2-forms. Indeed, according to , all critical points are nondegenerate for a Baire set of perturbations, and any nondegenerate critical point is isolated.

From now on we will always assume that $`\nu `$ is good. Let us study the trajectories of the downward gradient flow of $`CSD_\nu ,`$ given by:

(1)
$$x=(a,\varphi ):L_{k+1}^2(i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0)),\frac{}{t}x(t)=CSD_\nu (x(t)).$$

Such Seiberg-Witten trajectories can be interpreted as solutions of the four-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equations on the infinite cylinder $`\times Y.`$

We borrow the terminology of  and say that a Seiberg-Witten trajectory $`x(t)`$ is *of finite type* if both $`CSD_\nu (x(t))`$ and $`\varphi (t)_{C^0}`$ are bounded functions of $`t.`$

The following proposition was proved in  for the case $`b_1(Y)=0,`$ but the proof works in general, with only minor changes:

###### Proposition 1.

There exist $`C_m>0`$ such that for any $`(a,\varphi )L_{k+1}^2(i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0))`$ which is equal to $`x(t_0)`$ for some $`t_0`$ and some Seiberg-Witten trajectory of finite type $`x:L_{k+1}^2(i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0))`$, there exists $`(a^{},\varphi ^{})`$ smooth and gauge equivalent to $`(a,\varphi )`$ such that $`(a^{},\varphi ^{})_{C^m}C_m`$ for all $`m>0.`$

As in , it is useful to project our configuration space to the *Coulomb gauge slice*. Let $`𝒢_0`$ be the group of gauge transformations of the form $`u=e^{i\xi },`$ where $`\xi :Y`$ satisfies $`_Y\xi =0.`$ The Coulomb gauge slice is the space

$$V=i\mathrm{ker}d^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0)i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0)/𝒢_0.$$

For every $`(a,\varphi )i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0),`$ there is a unique element $`\mathrm{\Pi }(a,\varphi )V`$ which is gauge equivalent to $`(a,\varphi )`$ by a transformation in $`𝒢_0.`$ We call it the *Coulomb projection* of $`(a,\varphi ).`$

There is a residual gauge action of $`H^1(Y;)\times S^1`$ on $`V`$ as follows: if we choose basepoints on $`Y`$ and $`S^1,`$ then $`hH^1(Y;)`$ is the homotopy class of a unique pointed harmonic map $`u:YS^1.`$ Then $`h`$ acts on $`(a,\varphi )`$ via the gauge transformation $`u,`$ while $`e^{i\theta }S^1`$ sends $`(a,\varphi )V`$ to $`(a,e^{i\theta }\varphi ).`$

As in , one can find a metric on $`V`$ such that the downward gradient trajectories of $`CSD_\nu |_V`$ with respect to this metric are exactly the Coulomb projections of the trajectories of $`CSD_\nu `$ on $`i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0).`$ Given a tangent vector at some point in $`V,`$ its length in the new metric is the $`L^2`$ length of its projection to the orthogonal complement of the tangent space to the gauge equivalence class through that point in $`i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0).`$ The gradient of $`CSD_\nu |_V`$ with respect to this metric on $`V`$ is of the form $`l+c,`$ where $`l,c:VV`$ are given by

$$l(a,\varphi )=(da,\overline{)}\varphi )$$

$$c(a,\varphi )=(\pi (F_{A_0}+\tau (\varphi ,\varphi ))+i\nu ,\rho (a)\varphi i\xi (\varphi )\varphi ).$$

Here $`\pi `$ denotes the orthogonal projection from $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y)`$ to $`\mathrm{ker}d^{}.`$ Also, $`\xi (\varphi ):Y`$ is defined by $`d\xi (\varphi )=i(1\pi )\tau (\varphi ,\varphi )`$ and $`_Y\xi (\varphi )=0.`$

Let us look at finite type trajectories $`x:L_{k+1}^2(V)`$ for some fixed $`k4.`$ From Proposition 1 we know that they are locally the Coulomb projections of smooth trajectories contained in a bounded set modulo the residual gauge action. In other words, if we denote by $`Str_m(R)`$ the union of balls

$$\{(a,\varphi )V|hH^1(Y;)\text{ such that }h(a,\varphi )_{L_m^2}R\},$$

then the following statement is true: all trajectories $`x`$ as above are smooth in $`t`$ and there are uniform constants $`C_m>0`$ such that $`x(t)Str_m(C_m)`$ for each $`m.`$

## 3. The construction of SWF

This section contains the proof of Theorem 1 (a). Let $`h`$ be the generator of $`H^1(Y;)`$ which satisfies

$$\mathrm{}=(hc_1(𝔰))[Y]>0.$$

Let $`u:YS^1`$ be the pointed harmonic map in the homotopy class $`h.`$ Then $`u^1du=ih,`$ where we think of $`h`$ as a harmonic 1-form. The Seiberg-Witten moduli space is compact modulo the residual gauge action $`u(a,\varphi )(aih,u\varphi ).`$ We have $`CSD_\nu (u(a,\varphi ))=CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )+4\pi ^2\mathrm{}.`$

We follow  and consider the orthogonal projections from $`V`$ to the finite dimensional subspaces $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ spanned by the eigenvectors of $`l`$ with eigenvalues in the interval $`(\lambda ,\mu ].`$ We can smooth out these projections to obtain a family $`p_\lambda ^\mu `$ which is continuous in $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ and still satisfies $`V_\lambda ^\mu =\text{Im }(p_\lambda ^\mu ).`$

### 3.1. The Conley index.

As mentioned in the introduction, we intend to cut the moduli space between two levels of the $`CSD_\nu `$ functional. Since the set of critical points is discrete modulo gauge, we can choose $`v`$ which is not the value of $`CSD_\nu `$ at any critical point. Because of the periodicity in the residual gauge direction, the same must be true for the values $`v+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{},n.`$ Choose $`m,n,m<n,`$ and consider the set

$$T(R)=\{(a,\varphi )Str_{k+1}(R)|CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )(m,n)\}.$$

Recall that the “strip” $`Str_{k+1}(R)`$ is the union of the residual gauge translates of the ball of radius $`R`$ in the $`L_{k+1}^2`$ norm. On that ball, $`CSD_\nu `$ takes values in a compact interval $`I.`$ On a translate of the ball, it takes values in the corresponding interval $`I+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{},`$ for some $`n.`$ It follows that $`T(R)`$ intersects only finitely many such translates, hence it is bounded in the $`L_{k+1}^2`$ norm. Furthermore, if $`R`$ is sufficiently large, all the Seiberg-Witten trajectories contained in $`T(2R)`$ are of finite type, hence contained in $`T(R).`$

Now we are in the right setting for doing finite dimensional approximation: the gradient flow of $`CSD_\nu `$ on the bounded set $`T(2R)`$ is of the form $`(/t)x(t)=(l+c)x(t),`$ where $`l`$ is linear Fredholm and self-adjoint and $`c:L_{k+1}^2(V)L_k^2(V)`$ is compact. Let us consider the trajectories of the gradient flow of $`CSD_\nu `$ restricted to $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ which are contained in $`T(2R).`$ The following compactness result is the analogue of Proposition 2 in , and the proof is completely similar:

###### Proposition 2.

For any $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$ sufficiently large, if a trajectory $`x:L_{k+1}^2(V_\lambda ^\mu ),`$

$$(l+p_\lambda ^\mu c)(x(t))=\frac{}{t}x(t)$$

satisfies $`x(t)T(2R)`$ for all $`t,`$ then in fact $`x(t)T(R)`$ for all $`t.`$

Let $`S`$ be the invariant part of $`T=T(2R)V_\lambda ^\mu `$ under the flow, i.e. the set of critical points of $`CSD_\nu |_{V_\lambda ^\mu }`$ contained in $`T`$ together with the gradient trajectories between them. Then $`S`$ is contained in the interior of $`T`$ by Proposition 2 and the fact that no gradient trajectory can be tangent to a level set of $`CSD_\nu .`$

Because of these properties, we can associate to $`S`$ a *Conley index* $`I(S),`$ which is the pointed space $`N/L,`$ where $`(N,L)`$ is an index pair for $`S,`$ i.e. a pair of compact subsets $`LNT`$ satisfying the following conditions:

1. $`S\text{int}(NL);`$
2. $`L`$ is an exit set for $`N,`$ i.e. for any $`xN`$ and $`t>0`$ such that $`\phi _t(x)N,`$ there exists $`\tau [0,t)`$ with $`\phi _\tau (x)L.`$ Here we denote by $`\varphi `$ the downward gradient flow on $`T.`$
3. $`L`$ is positively invariant in $`N,`$ i.e. if for $`xL`$ and $`t>0`$ we have $`\phi _{[0,t]}(x)N,`$ then in fact $`\phi _{[0,t]}(x)L.`$

For the basics of Conley index theory, the reader is referred to  or . Section 5 of  also gives an overview of the relevant properties. The most important ones are the existence of the index pair and the fact that the Conley index is independent of $`N`$ and $`L`$ up to canonical homotopy equivalence.

We are interested in the Conley index $`I_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)`$ of $`S=S_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)`$ because its homology is the same as the Morse homology computed by counting critical points and trajectories between them in the usual way. In our case, if we are able to take the limits $`n,\mu \mathrm{},m,\lambda \mathrm{},`$ the homology of the resulting object should be some version of Seiberg-Witten Floer homology.

Let us first see what happens as $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{}.`$ This process was studied in detail in . If $`\mu `$ increases so that $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ increases in dimension by 1, the flow on the new $`T`$ is homotopic to the product of the flow on the old $`T`$ and a linear flow on the complementary subspace. Since the linear operator $`l`$ on this subspace has only positive eigenvalues, the respective Conley index is trivial, which implies that $`I_\lambda ^\mu `$ does not change with $`\mu ,`$ up to homotopy equivalence.

However, if we decrease $`\lambda `$ so that $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ increases in dimension by 1, then $`l`$ has negative eigenvalues on the complementary subspaces and the new Conley index $`I_\lambda ^\mu `$ is the suspension of the old one. In order to obtain an invariant object, we need to desuspend by $`V_\lambda ^0.`$ Let $`𝒮(I_\lambda ^\mu )`$ be the $`S^1`$-equivariant spectrum of $`I_\lambda ^\mu `$, in the sense of . Set:

$$J_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{V_\lambda ^0}𝒮(I_\lambda ^\mu ).$$

Then $`J(m,n)=J_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)`$ is independent of $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda ,`$ up to canonical equivalence.

### 3.2. Some algebraic-topological preliminaries.

Let $`𝔖`$ be the homotopy category of $`S^1`$-equivariant spectra with semifree $`S^1`$ actions, modelled on the standard universe $`^{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}.`$ Here $``$ and $``$ are the real and complex representations of $`S^1.`$

As it stands, the category $`𝔖`$ does not have colimits. However, as explained in  for the nonequivariant case, given a sequential direct system of spectra in $`𝔖:`$

$$X_1X_2\mathrm{}$$

there is a *minimal weak colimit* $`X=`$ wcolim $`X_i`$ with maps $`X_iX`$ inducing isomorphisms at the level of all homotopy groups. The minimal weak colimit is not usually a colimit: given a system of commuting morphisms $`X_iY,`$ they factor through a morphism $`XY,`$ but this morphism is not unique. Furthermore, while $`X=`$ wcolim $`X_i`$ is unique up to equivalence, it is not unique up to canonical equivalence. Indeed, there can be nontrivial self-homotopy equivalences of $`X`$ which are the identity on all homotopy groups: they could be of the form id $`+f,`$ where $`f`$ is a *phantom map*.

###### Definition 2.

A phantom map $`f:XY`$ is a morphism in $`𝔖`$ with the property that for every finite CW-spectrum $`Z\text{Ob }𝔖`$ and morphism $`g:ZX,`$ the composite $`fg:ZY`$ is zero. We denote the abelian group of phantom maps from $`X`$ to $`Y`$ by ph$`(X,Y).`$

Note that this maps are called f-phantoms in . We can get a better behavior if we replace the category $`𝔖`$ by $`𝔖^{},`$ whose objects are the same as those of $`𝔖,`$ but whose sets of morphisms are:

$$\text{Mor}_𝔖^{}(X,Y)=\text{Mor}_𝔖(X,Y)/\text{ph}(X,Y).$$

From now on we will denote $`\text{Mor}_𝔖^{}(X,Y)`$ by $`[X,Y]_{S^1}^{}`$ for simplicity. The weak colimit becomes an actual colimit in the category $`𝔖^{}.`$ In other words, for a sequential direct system $`X_i`$ as before, there exists $`X,`$ unique up to canonical equivalence, such that for every $`Y𝔖`$:

$$[X,Y]_{S^1}^{}=\underset{}{lim}[X_i,Y]_{S^1}^{}.$$

Moreover, for every generalized homology theory $`h_{},`$ there is a natural isomorphism:

$$h_{}(X)=\underset{}{lim}h_{}(X_i).$$

The category $`𝔖^{}`$ still does not have good inverse limits. There is a notion of weak inverse limit, but its cohomology is not the direct limit of the cohomologies of the terms.

The solution to this problem is to introduce pro-spectra, along the lines of Cohen, Jones, and Segal (). (For the general definition of a pro-category, we refer to .) Basically, a *pro-spectrum* $`X`$ is an inverse system of spectra $`\{X_p\},p`$:

$$\mathrm{}X_{p1}X_p\mathrm{}$$

We could call $`X`$ the *pro-limit* of $`X_p.`$ The set of morphisms between two pro-spectra $`X=\{X_p\}`$ and $`Y=\{Y_q\}`$ is defined as

$$\text{Mor}_{\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}}(X,Y)=\underset{\mathrm{}q}{lim}\underset{p\mathrm{}}{lim}[X_p,Y_q].$$

In fact, it is easy to check that the pro-limit is in fact the inverse limit of $`X_p`$ in the category $`\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}`$ of pro-spectra. As before, we denote $`\text{Mor}_{\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}}(X,Y)`$ by $`[X,Y]_{S^1}^{}`$ for simplicity. The category $`\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}`$ is closed under both sequential colimits and limits.

### 3.3. Taking co- and pro-limits.

Let us come back to the spectrum $`J(m,n),`$ which still depends on $`m`$ and $`n,`$ and let us see what happens as we vary $`n.`$ In a finite dimensional approximation $`V_\lambda ^\mu ,`$ the isolated invariant set $`S_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)`$ is an attractor subset of $`S=S_\lambda ^\mu (m,n+1).`$ This means that it “attracts” nearby points of $`S`$ under the downward gradient flow, which is obviously true because $`CSD_\nu `$ is decreasing along flow lines. There is a corresponding repeller subset $`S_\lambda ^\mu (n,n+1).`$ There is a coexact sequence for the Conley indices of an attractor-repeller pair (see ):

$$I(S_\lambda ^\mu (m,n))I(S_\lambda ^\mu (m,n+1))I(S_\lambda ^\mu (n,n+1))\mathrm{\Sigma }I(S_\lambda ^\mu (m,n))\mathrm{}$$

For $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ sufficiently large, the first map in the above sequence gives a morphism $`J(m,n)J(m,n+1).`$ This gives a sequential direct system:

$$J(m,n)J(m,n+1)J(m,n+2)\mathrm{}.$$

we can take its colimit in $`𝔖^{}`$:

$$J(m,\mathrm{})=\text{colim}_nJ(m,n).$$

We may expect a similar construction for $`m\mathrm{}.`$ Indeed, we have exact triangles:

$$J(m1,m)J(m1,n)J(m,n)\mathrm{\Sigma }J(m1,m)\mathrm{}$$

The maps obtained by the composition $`J(m1,n)J(m,n)J(m,\mathrm{})`$ induce a well-defined morphism $`J(m1,\mathrm{})J(m,\mathrm{})`$ in $`𝔖.`$

Using the resulting maps we can take the pro-limit of $`J(m,\mathrm{})`$ as $`m\mathrm{}.`$ Let us define $`SWF(Y,𝔰,g)`$ as being the pro-spectrum $`J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})=\{J(m,\mathrm{})\}.`$

### 3.4. Invariance.

Of course, we have to check that our invariant is independent of the choices made in its construction. The first step is:

###### Proposition 3.

The pro-spectrum $`J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ does not depend on the value $`v`$ of $`CSD_\nu `$ where we do the cutting, up to canonical equivalence in $`\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}.`$

Proof.  From our construction it is clear that nothing changes if we replace $`v`$ by $`v+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{},n`$ (the direct limits and the pro-limits are the same). Thus it suffices to study the case of $`v,v^{}`$ which are not values of $`CSD_\nu `$ at critical points and which satisfy $`v<v^{}<v+4\pi ^2\mathrm{}.`$ Let us switch notation and denote by $`J(a,b)`$ the Conley index obtained as before from the approximate trajectories between the levels $`CSD_\nu =a`$ and $`CSD_\nu =b,`$ for some $`\mu ,\lambda 0.`$ (For example, $`J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{})`$ is what we previously denoted $`J(m,n).`$) We have a sequential direct system:

$$J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{})J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v^{}+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{})$$

$$J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v+4\pi ^2(n+1)\mathrm{})J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v^{}+4\pi ^2(n+1)\mathrm{})\mathrm{}$$

Its colimit is the same as that of its subsequence

$$J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v+4\pi ^2n\mathrm{})J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},v+4\pi ^2(n+1)\mathrm{})\mathrm{}$$

which gives back $`J(v+4\pi ^2m\mathrm{},\mathrm{}),`$ the one previously denoted $`J(m,\mathrm{}).`$

Taking the pro-limits as $`m\mathrm{}`$ according to the levels of both $`v+4\pi ^2`$ and $`v^{}+4\pi ^2`$ gives the same pro-spectrum as taking the pro-limit according to each of them separately (they would be subsystems of the same inverse system.) $`\mathrm{}`$

Then, from the invariance of the Conley index under deformations it is straightforward to deduce:

###### Proposition 4.

$`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ does not change (up to canonical equivalence) as we vary the other parameters involved in the construction, such as the perturbation $`\nu `$ or the radius $`R`$ in Proposition 2.

### 3.5. Changing the connection and the metric.

Let us explain what happens when we vary the base connection $`A_0.`$ It suffices to consider nearby connections $`A_0,A_0^{}.`$ For these we can find $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ sufficiently large so that $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ does not changes dimension as we choose the base connection to be $`A_0+t(A_0^{}A_0),t[0,1].`$ Using the invariance under continuation of the Conley index, we get that all the corresponding Conley indices are equivalent. However, the number of negative eigenvalues $`n_\lambda =dimV_\lambda ^0`$ by which we desuspend in the construction of SWF varies according to the spectral flow of the Dirac operator $`\overline{)}_t,t[0,1].`$ Let $`E`$ be the spinorial part of $`V_\lambda ^0`$ for $`\overline{)}_0`$ and $`E^{}`$ that for $`\overline{)}_0.`$ Then $`E,E^{}`$ are complex $`S^1`$-representations, and the difference in their dimensions is the spectral flow. After taking the co- and pro-limits, it follows that SWF changes according to the formula:

$$\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0^{})=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{E^{}E}\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0).$$

Changes in the Riemannian metric have a similar effect.

### 3.6. Periodicity.

Let us consider a particular change in connection: the homotopy $`A_t=A_0ith,t[0,1].`$ The spectral flow of the Dirac operators (over $``$) along this homotopy is $`\mathrm{}.`$ Hence:

(2)
$$(I_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)\text{ with }A_0)\mathrm{\Sigma }^E(I_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)\text{ with }A_0ih),$$

where $`E`$ is (noncanonically) isomorphic to $`^{\mathrm{}/2}.`$

On the other hand, recall the periodicity on $`V:CSD_\nu (aih,u\varphi )=CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )+4\pi ^2\mathrm{}.`$ This does not translate into a periodicity on $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ because $`(aih,u\varphi )`$ may not be in $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ for $`(a,\varphi )V^{\mu ,\lambda }.`$ However, if $`(a,\varphi )V_\lambda ^\mu `$ with base connection $`A_0,`$ then it is true that $`(aih,u\varphi )V_\lambda ^\mu `$ with base connection $`A_0ih.`$ Hence there is a canonical equivalence:

(3)
$$(I_\lambda ^\mu (m,n)\text{ with }A_0)(I_\lambda ^\mu (m+1,n+1)\text{ with }A_0ih).$$

Putting (2) and (3) together and taking the limits as $`n,m\mathrm{}`$ we get the equivalence:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^E(\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰))\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰)$$

mentioned in Theorem 1 (a).

### 3.7. The $`S^1`$ action.

All the constructions above can be done in an $`S^1`$-equivariant manner, preserving the residual gauge action of $`S^1`$ on $`V,`$ given by $`e^{i\theta }:(a,\varphi )(a,e^{i\theta }\varphi ).`$ The resulting pro-spectrum SWF is $`S^1`$-equivariant.

In fact, in this case we can “divide out” by the $`S^1`$ action. Indeed, there is no reducible critical point $`(a,0)`$ of $`CSD_\nu ,`$ because there are no flat connections on $`W_0.`$ This is also true for critical points in the finite dimensional approximations. It follows by $`S^1`$-equivariance that the flow lines between such points also do not intersect the plane $`\varphi =0.`$ Thus we can replace the strip $`Str`$ by the set $`Str^{}`$ obtained from $`Str`$ by deleting a neighborhood of the plane $`\varphi =0.`$ The $`S^1`$ action is free on $`Str^{},`$ so we can take the quotient $`Str^{\prime \prime }=Str^{}/S^1.`$ By doing all the constructions as before, but with the quotient flow on $`Str^{\prime \prime },`$ we obtain a pro-spectrum $`\text{swf}.`$ The periodicity is reflected in an equivalence $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\text{swf}\text{swf}.`$

### 3.8. Duality

Every $`S^1`$-equivariant spectrum has a Spanier-Whitehead dual defined as the function spectrum:

$$DX=F(X,S),$$

where $`S=S^0`$ is the sphere spectrum. It is characterized by the property that

$$[W,DX]_{S^1}=[WX,S]_{S^1}$$

for every spectrum $`W.`$ Furthermore, the same is true in $`𝔖^{}:`$

$$[W,DX]_{S^1}^{}=[WX,S]_{S^1}^{}.$$

The functor $`D`$ is contravariant. We can extend its definition to pro-spectra $`X=\{X_1X_2\mathrm{}\}`$ by letting:

$$DX=\text{colim}\text{ }DX_i.$$

If we have a sequential direct system of pro-spectra $`X_1X_2\mathrm{},`$ it is not hard to check that

$$D(\text{colim}X_i)=\text{pro-lim }DX_i.$$

Proof of Theorem 1 (c). If we change the orientation on $`Y,`$ the function $`CSD_\nu `$ switches sign and the Seiberg-Witten flow changes its direction. As a consequence, by a duality theorem for Conley indices (see ), the spaces $`J(m,n)`$ for $`X`$ and $`J(n,m)`$ for $`\overline{X}`$ are duals. Since pro-limits and colimits are dual operations, it follows that $`\text{SWF}=J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ for $`X`$ and SWF for $`\overline{X}`$ are duals.

The fact that the analogue is not true for $`\text{SWF}_0`$ can be seen from the example of $`S^1\times S^2`$ in Section 5. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4. Nonexact perturbations

### 4.1. Reconstructiong SWF

In Section 2 we have considered exact perturbations $`\nu `$ of the $`CSD`$ functional. More generally, let us consider

$$CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}_Ya(2F_{A_0}+da+2\pi i\nu )+_Y\varphi ,\overline{)}_a\varphi 𝑑\text{vol}$$

for any 1-form $`\nu .`$ The change under the gauge group is:

$$CSD_\nu (u(a,\varphi ))CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )=4\pi ^2([u](c_1(𝔰)+[\nu ])[Y].$$

An important qualitative difference appears when $`[\nu ]=c_1(𝔰):`$ no perturbation $`\nu `$ is good (in the sense of Definition 1) in this cohomology class! Indeed, there is always a line of reducible monopoles. Thus we need to introduce an additional perturbation. Recall that $`h`$ is the generator of $`H^1(Y;)`$ which satisfies $`\mathrm{}=(hc_1(𝔰))[Y]>0.`$ We can think of $`h`$ as a harmonic function.

We replace $`CSD_\nu `$ by the functional

$$CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}(a,\varphi )=CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )+ϵ\mathrm{sin}(2\pi a,h).$$

The (twice perturbed) Seiberg-Witten equations $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}(a,\varphi )=0`$ have a discrete set of solutions for generic $`\nu `$ and small $`ϵ.`$ We call the pair $`(\nu ,ϵ)`$ *good* if this condition is satisfied.

However, even introducing $`ϵ`$ does not make the situation completely analogous to that in the previous section. The problem is that $`CSD_\nu `$ is periodic:

$$CSD_\nu (aih,u\varphi )=CSD_\nu (a,\varphi ).$$

This implies that cutting the configuration space between its levels does not work as well: the set $`T(R)=Str_{k+1}(R)\{(a,\varphi )V|CSD_\nu (a,\varphi )(m,n)\}`$ may not be bounded. Therefore, we need to find another way of cutting. For this we introduce a new notion, that of transverse functions.

The Hodge decomposition of 1-forms gives $`V=ihi\text{Im }d^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(W_0).`$ Let $`p:Vih`$ be the orthogonal projection to the first factor, and $`T:VV,T(a,\varphi )=(a+ih,u^1\varphi )`$ be the generator of the residual gauge group. The strip of balls $`Str=Str_{k+1}(2R)`$ is as in the previous section.

###### Definition 3.

A positively (resp. negatively) transverse function is a smooth functions $`f:Str`$ satisfying the following properties:

1. There exists a constant $`M>0`$ such that $`f(x)<0`$ whenever $`p(x)<M`$ and $`f(x)>0`$ whenever $`p(x)>M.`$
2. If $`f(x)0,`$ then $`f(Tx)0.`$
3. We have $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}(x),f(x)>0`$ (resp. $`<0`$ whenever $`f(x)=0.`$

The inner product in condition 3 is the one used for getting the gradient of $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}`$ in the gauge slice. Condition 3 basically says that the level sets of $`f`$ at $`0`$ are transverse to the gradient flow, and specifies the direction of the flow at these level sets. Note that because $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}`$ is invariant under $`T,`$ all the translates $`T^n\{x|f(x)=0\}`$ are also transverse to the flow.

Given a positively transverse function $`f,`$ we obtain a nice partition of the strip $`Str`$ in the following way. Let us denote

$$A_n=T^n\{xStr|f(x)0\}.$$

Because of Condition 2 in the definition of a transverse function, we have a nested sequence

$$\mathrm{}A_nA_{n+1}\mathrm{}$$

Let $`U(m,n)=A_nA_m.`$

We claim that $`U(m,n)`$ is bounded in the $`L_{k+1}^2`$ norm. Indeed, $`Str`$ is the union of the residual gauge translates of a ball, so it suffices to check that $`p(U(m,n))`$ is bounded in $`.`$ But this is true because of Condition 1.

Note that when $`ϵ=0,`$ the function $`CSD_\nu `$ itself is positively transverse. In general we have:

###### Lemma 1.

For every good pair $`(\nu ,ϵ)`$ with $`[\nu ]=tc_1(𝔰),t1,`$ positively transverse functions exist. When $`t=1,`$ negatively tranverse functions also exist.

Proof. Let $`[\alpha ,\beta ](0,1)`$ be a small interval such that $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}(x)0`$ for all $`xStr`$ such that $`p(x)(\alpha ,\beta ).`$ We then define a smooth increasing function $`g:[0,1]`$ such that $`g0`$ on $`[0,\alpha ],`$ and $`f`$ increases slowly on $`[\alpha ,\beta ]`$ so that

$$(gp)(x)<CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}(x)\text{ if }xStr,p(x)[\alpha ,\beta ].$$

Then we set $`g\delta `$ on $`[\beta ,1]`$ for some $`\delta =g(\beta )>0.`$ Next, we extend $`f`$ to the whole real line by requiring $`g(u+1)=g(u)+ϵ`$ for all $`u.`$ Set :

$$f=gp+CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}.$$

We claim that $`f`$ is positively transverse. Condition 1 is satisfied because $`lim_{u\pm \mathrm{}}g(u)=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}`$ is either invariant under $`T`$ and therefore a bounded function on $`Str`$ (when $`t=1`$) or satisfies $`lim_{u\pm \mathrm{}}CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}(u)=\pm \mathrm{}`$ itself (when $`t1.`$)

Condition 2 is also satisfied because

$$f(Tx)f(x)+\delta $$

for $`xStr`$ (when $`t=1`$ we have equality.)

Finally, condition 3 is satisfied because $`(gp)CSD_{\nu ,ϵ},`$ with equality only at the critical points of $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ},`$ and we can easily arrange so that that the level sets of $`f`$ at $`0`$ do not go through such points.

Similarly, for $`t=1`$ one can show that the function $`gpCSD_{\nu ,ϵ}`$ is negatively transverse. However, this function does not satisfy conditions 1 and 2 in the case $`t1,`$ when $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}`$ is not periodic. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now that we have constructed a positively transverse function, note that each of the sets $`U(m,n)`$ can be used instead of $`T(2R)`$ to do finite dimensional approximation as in the previous section. Indeed, they are bounded and the flow lines are transverse to the level sets which are separating them, because of condition 3.

We can again consider the set of critical points of $`CSD_{\nu ,ϵ}`$ inside of $`U_n`$ together with the trajectories between them (in a suitable finite dimensional approximation), and take its Conley index. After taking the relevant desuspension, we get spectra $`J_n^i=J(U_n),`$ the analogues of $`J(m,n)`$ from the previous section. We can take colimits as $`n\mathrm{}`$ and pro-limits as $`m\mathrm{}.`$ The result is a pro-spectrum $`J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).`$

###### Proposition 5.

The pro-spectrum $`J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})=\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ is independent of $`ϵ,\nu `$ and of the positively transverse function $`f`$ used in its definition, as long as $`[\nu ]=tc_1(𝔰)`$ for $`t1,`$ and $`ϵ0`$ when $`t=1.`$

Proof.  The proof of invariance under changing the transverse function $`f`$ is similar to the proof of Proposition 3. Independence of the perturbation follows from the invariance under continuation of the Conley index. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.2. The construction of $`\text{SWF}_0`$

For $`[\nu ]=c_1(𝔰),`$ there is an alternate construction, which makes use of negatively transverse functions as well. Let $`f_1`$ be a positively transverse function and $`f_2`$ a negatively transverse one. We denote:

$$A_n=T^n\{xStr|f_1(x)0\};B_n=T^n\{xStr|f_2(x)0\}.$$

For $`n0m,`$ we have $`B_mA_n.`$ Let $`V(m,n)=A_nB_m.`$ There is a nested sequence:

$$V(m,n)V(m1,n+1)V(m2,n+2)\mathrm{}$$

If we take the Conley indices of the flow inside $`V(m,n)`$ and desuspend by $`V_\lambda ^0`$ we get finite spectra $`J^{}(m,n).`$ Note that $`V(m,n)`$ is an attractor subset of $`V(m1,n+1).`$ Thus we can take the colimit as $`n\mathrm{},m\mathrm{}.`$ Set

$$\text{SWF}_0(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)=\text{colim}_{m,n}J^{}(m,n).$$

Unlike $`\text{SWF},`$ since there is no need of taking pro-limits, this is an actual spectrum. Apart from this, it is easy to see that the other invariance properties of SWF still hold for $`\text{SWF}_0.`$

Let us now construct the morphism $`j:\text{SWF}_0\text{SWF}`$ announced in the statement of Theorem 1. Let $`U(m,n)`$ be the sets between the different levels of $`f_1`$ as before. Then, for $`mm^{}0,`$ $`V(m^{},n)`$ is an attractor subset of $`U(m,n).`$ This induces a map between the Conley indices:

$$J^{}(m^{},n)J(m,n).$$

Sending in turn $`n\mathrm{},m\mathrm{},`$ and $`m^{}\mathrm{},`$ we obtain the desired morphism in $`\text{Pro-}𝔖^{}`$:

$$j:J^{}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}).$$

It is not hard to check that this does not depend on the choices made in its construction.

## 5. Floer Homologies

Let $`X`$ be an $`S^1`$-equivariant pointed pro-spectrum and $`DX`$ its dual. In this section we discuss some of the generalized homology and cohomology theories of $`X,`$ and what happens when we apply them to SWF and $`\text{SWF}_0.`$ All our theories are reduced, but we do not write down the conventional tilde.

### 5.1. Nonequivariant homology theories.

First, we can think of $`X`$ as a nonequivariant pro-spectrum. We can apply any of the usual nonequivariant generalized homology functors to $`X,`$ such as stable homotopy, K-theory, or bordism. Of particular interest will be the ordinary homology.

For any generalized homology $`h_{},`$ there is an associated dual cohomology theory:

$$h^n(X)=h_n(DX).$$

### 5.2. Some equivariant homology theories.

The material here is taken from . First, a bit of notation: $`M_+`$ is the disjoint union of $`M`$ and a basepoint, while $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is the unreduced suspension of $`M`$ with one of the cone points as basepoint.

The simplest homology theory which takes into account the $`S^1`$ equivariance is *Borel homology*:

$$H_n^{S^1}(X)=H_{n1}(ES_+^1_{S^1}X).$$

There is also *Borel cohomology*:

$$H_{S^1}^n(X)=H^n(ES_+^1_{S^1}X).$$

However, these two theories are not dual to each other, as one can easily see from the example of $`X=S=DS,`$ when both $`H_{}^{S^1}`$ and $`H_{S^1}^{}`$ are nonzero in infinitely many positive degrees but zero in negative degrees.

The dual homology theory to Borel cohomology is called *coBorel homology* (or $`c`$-homology), and is defined by:

$$cH_n^{S^1}(X)=\text{colim}_m[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{n+m}ES_+^1,K_mX]_{S^1},$$

where $`K_m=K(,m)`$ is the Elienberg-MacLane spectrum. Notice the analogy with usual homology:

$$H_n(X)=\text{colim}_m[S^{n+m},K_mX].$$

For example, when $`X=S,`$ one can compute $`cH_n^{S^1}(S)=`$ if $`n0`$ is even and $`cH_n^{S^1}(S)=0`$ otherwise.

Similarly, there is a dual cohomology theory to Borel homology, which is called *coBorel cohomology* (or $`f`$-cohomology):

$$fH_{S^1}^n(X)=H_n^{S^1}(DX).$$

We need to introduce one more pair of dual theories: *Tate homology* and *Tate cohomology*. These were originally defined for spaces with finite group actions by Swan. The analogue for $`S^1`$-spaces which we use below is due to Jones .

$$tH_n^{S^1}(X)=cH_n^{S^1}(\stackrel{~}{E}S^1X);tH_n^{S^1}(X)=fH_{S^1}^{n+1}(\stackrel{~}{E}S^1X).$$

The group $`H_{S^1}^{}(S)=[U],`$ with deg $`U=2,`$ acts on Borel, coBorel, and Tate cohomologies by cup product and on the respective Borel homologies by cap product. Correspondingly, the action of $`U`$ increases degree by 2 in cohomology and decreases degree by 2 in homology. We can also think of the ordinary homology and cohomology as $`[U]`$ modules with the trivial $`U`$ action.

There are long exact sequences of $`[U]`$-modules:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}H_n(X)H_{n+1}^{S^1}(X)& \stackrel{\mathrm{U}}{}& H_{n1}^{S^1}(X)H_{n1}(X)\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

(4)
$$\mathrm{}H_n^{S^1}(X)cH_n^{S^1}(X)tH_n^{S^1}(X)H_{n1}^{S^1}(X)\mathrm{}$$

When applied to the invariant $`\text{SWF}_0,`$ in light of Conjecture 1, these long exact sequences mimic the ones in Ozsváth-Szabó theory from . There are also analogous sequences in cohomology.

Let us conclude with a few remarks on Tate homology and cohomology: when $`X`$ is a free $`S^1`$-spectrum, according to :

$$tH_{}^{S^1}(X)=tH_{S^1}^{}(X)=0.$$

More generally, Tate cohomology can be computed by localizing Borel cohomology:

$$tH_{S^1}^{}(X)=U^1H_{S^1}^{}(X).$$

By the localization theorem, when $`X`$ is a finite $`S^1`$-CW complex with semifree $`S^1`$ action and $`X^{S^1}`$ is its fixed point set, we have:

$$tH_{S^1}^{}(X)=tH_{S^1}^{}(X^{S^1})=U^1H_{S^1}^{}(X^{S^1}).$$

In particular, when $`Y`$ is a homology 3-sphere and $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰)`$ is its Seiberg-Witten Floer spectrum as defined in , for generic perturbations there is a unique nondegenerate reducible monopole. Thus $`\text{SWF}^{S^1}=S`$ and

$$tH_{S^1}^{}(X)=[U,U^1].$$

When $`X=\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ for $`b_1(Y)=1`$ and $`𝔰`$ nontorsion as in Section 3, we have $`X^{S^1}=`$ and

$$tH_{S^1}^{}(X)=0.$$

### 5.3. The effect of $`j`$ on homology.

In Theorem 1 (b) it is claimed that $`j:\text{SWF}_0\text{SWF}`$ induces isomorphisms on homology and Borel homology. Here we prove this claim. We let $`h_{}`$ stand for either ordinary or Borel homology.

Recall from Subsection 4.2 the construction of the map $`j.`$ It comes from an attractor-repeller sequence:

$$V(m^{},n)U(m,n)W(m,m^{}),$$

for $`mm^{}0n.`$ Here $`W(m,m^{})=B_m^{}A_m`$ and let $`J^{\prime \prime }(m,m^{})`$ be the corresponding Conley index. There is a coexact sequence of Conley indices:

$$J^{}(m^{},n)J(m,n)J^{\prime \prime }(m,m^{})\mathrm{\Sigma }J^{}(m^{},n)\mathrm{}$$

Applying the functor $`h_{}`$ we get a long exact sequence:

(5)
$$h_s(J^{}(m^{},n))h_s(J(m,n))h_s(J^{\prime \prime }(m,m^{}))h_{s1}(J^{}(m^{},n))\mathrm{}$$

###### Lemma 2.

Fix $`k.`$ Then for every $`mm^{}0,`$ we have $`h_k(J^{\prime \prime }(m,m^{}))=0.`$

Proof. Because of periodicity,

$$h_k(J^{\prime \prime }(m,m^{}))=h_{k+\mathrm{}}(J^{\prime \prime }(m+1,m^{}+1))=\mathrm{}=h_{k|m|\mathrm{}}(J^{\prime \prime }(0,m^{}m)).$$

Now it suffices to show that there exists $`s_0`$ such that

(6)
$$h_s(J^{\prime \prime }(0,m^{}m))=0\text{ for all }ss_0.$$

For fixed $`p=m^{}m,`$ this is true because $`J^{\prime \prime }(0,p)`$ is a finite desuspension of a finite $`S^1`$-CW-complex, and such complexes have their homology and Borel homology bounded below.

Fix some $`p_00`$ and choose $`s_0`$ so that

$$h_s(J^{\prime \prime }(0,p_0))=h_s(J^{}(0,1))=0$$

for all $`ss_0.`$ By periodicity

$$h_s(J^{}(p,p+1))=h_{sp}(J^{}(0,1))=0$$

for all $`p0`$ as well. Using the long exact sequences coming form attractor-repeller pairs:

$$h_s(J^{}(p,p+1))h_s(J^{}(0,p+1))h_s(J^{}(0,p))\mathrm{}$$

we obtain (6) for any $`p=m^{}mp_0`$ by induction on $`p.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Lemma 2 says that the map $`h_s(J^{}(m^{},n))h_s(J(m,n))`$ in (5)is an isomorphism for $`mm^{}0.`$ Taking direct limits as $`n\mathrm{},`$ inverse limits as $`m\mathrm{},`$ and finally direct limits as $`m^{}\mathrm{},`$ we obtain that

$$(h_s)_{}j:h_s(J^{}(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}))h_s(J(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}))$$

is an isomorphism as well.

### 5.4. The case of $`S^1\times S^2`$

Let us make concrete the difference between SWF and $`\text{SWF}_0`$ by means of an example. Let $`Y=S^1\times S^2`$ and $`𝔰`$ a nontorsion $`spin^c`$ structure with $`\mathrm{}>0`$ an even integer. Choose $`g`$ to be the product of the flat metric on $`S^1`$ and the round metric on $`S^2.`$

It is easy to see that in this case all Seiberg-Witten solutions are reducible. When $`[\nu ]=ϵ=0,`$ there are no reducibles either, so in fact

$$\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)=$$

Since $`j`$ is an isomorphism at the level of homology and Borel homology, for $`\text{SWF}_0=\text{SWF}_0(Y,𝔰,g,A_0)`$ we must have:

$$H_{}(\text{SWF}_0)=H_{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0)=0.$$

From the sequence (4) it follows that

$$cH_{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0)=tH_{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0).$$

If Conjecture 1 is true, we expect:

$$cH_{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0)=tH_{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}_0)=[U,U^1],$$

and the periodicity map $`\text{SWF}_0\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}\text{SWF}_0`$ should be given by the action of $`U^{\mathrm{}/2}.`$ This computation can also be carried out in the context of Seiberg-Witten theory .

## 6. Relative invariants of four-manifolds with boundary

In this section we prove Theorem 2. Let $`X`$ be a compact 4-manifold with boundary $`Y`$ such that the image of $`H^1(X;)`$ in $`H^1(Y;)`$ is $`0.`$ Assume that $`X`$ has a $`spin^c`$ structure $`\widehat{𝔰}`$ which extends $`𝔰,`$ and that we are given orientations on $`H^1(X;)`$ and $`H_+^2(X;).`$

Our goal is to construct a relative Seiberg-Witten invariant of $`X`$ in the form of an element in a stable homotopy group of $`\text{SWF}_0(Y,𝔰).`$ This construction was done in Section 9 of  for the case $`b_1(Y)=0`$, and then corrected by Khandhawit in . The current case is more or less similar, so here we will only sketch the construction. The reader is referred to  for the analytical details.

Let us also choose a $`spin^c`$ connection $`\widehat{A}_0`$ on $`X`$ which restricts to $`A_0`$ on $`Y.`$ Then we can define the Seiberg-Witten map

$`SW^\mu :i\mathrm{\Omega }_g^1(X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^+)`$ $``$ $`i\mathrm{\Omega }_+^2(X)\mathrm{\Gamma }(W^{})V^\mu `$
$`(\widehat{a},\widehat{\varphi })`$ $``$ $`(F_{\widehat{A}_0+\widehat{a}}^+\rho ^1(\varphi \varphi ^{})_0,D_{\widehat{A}_0+\widehat{a}},p^\mu i^{}(\widehat{a},\widehat{\varphi }))`$
We need to explain the notation. The space $`\mathrm{\Omega }_g^1(X)`$ consists of 1-forms on $`X`$ in double Coulomb gauge, as in \[15, Definition 1\]. Furthermore, $`W^+`$ and $`W^{}`$ are the positive and negative spinor bundles on $`X,`$ respectively, $`\rho `$ is Clifford multiplication, and $`D`$ is the four-dimensional Dirac operator. Finally, $`i^{}`$ is the restriction to $`Y`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ is the Coulomb projection for $`Y,`$ and $`p^\mu `$ is the orthogonal projection to $`V^\mu =V_{\mathrm{}}^\mu .`$

The map $`SW`$ can be decomposed into a linear and a compact map between suitable Sobolev completions of the domain and the target. We can apply Furuta’s technique of finite dimensional approximation and obtain a map:

$$SW_{\lambda ,U}^\mu =\text{pr}_{U\times V_\lambda ^\mu }SW^\mu :U^{}U\times V_\lambda ^\mu .$$

Here $`U,U^{}`$ are finite dimensional spaces. Take a small ball centered at the origin $`B(ϵ)U`$ and consider the preimage of $`B(ϵ)\times V_\lambda ^\mu `$ in $`U^{}.`$ Let $`\overline{K}_1,\overline{K}_2`$ be the intersections of this preimage with a large ball $`B^{}`$ in $`U^{}`$ and its boundary, respectively. Finally, map $`\overline{K}_1,\overline{K}_2`$ back to $`V_\lambda ^\mu `$ by composing $`SW_{\lambda ,U}^\mu `$ with the obvious projection. Denote the respective images by $`K_1`$ and $`K_2.`$

Let us assume for the moment that we are in the simplest case, when $`b_1(Y)=1`$ and $`c_1(𝔰)`$ is not torsion. Recall the notations from Section 3. Since $`K_1`$ is compact, we can choose $`n,m,`$ and $`R`$ sufficiently large so that $`K_1T(R).`$ Furthermore, the analysis done in  (based on the compactness properties of the four-dimensional Seiberg-Witten equations) shows that there exists an index pair $`(N,L)`$ for the invariant part of $`T(2R)`$ in the gradient flow such that $`K_1L`$ and $`K_2N.`$

Thus we can define a map

$$(U^{})^+B^{}/B^{}(B(ϵ)\times N)/(B(ϵ)\times LB(ϵ)\times N)U^+I_\lambda ^\mu $$

by applying $`SW_{\lambda ,U}^\mu `$ to the elements of $`\overline{K}_1`$ and sending everything else to the basepoint.

For $`\lambda ,\mu 0,`$ after taking the relevant desuspensions, this gives an element in a stable homotopy group of $`J=J(m,n).`$ There are such elements for any $`m,n0,`$ and they commute with the maps between the different $`J(m,n)`$ coming from the attractor-repeller exact triangles. Therefore, we can take direct limits and pro-limits and obtain a map to $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰).`$ If we insist on doing the constructions equivariantly, we get an element

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\widehat{𝔰},\widehat{A}_0)\pi _{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰)).$$

In the end we find that for any $`X`$ and $`Y`$ there is an element:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\widehat{𝔰},\widehat{A}_0)\pi _{}^{S^1}(\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰)).$$

One can show by a continuity argument that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is independent of the choices made in its construction, up to canonical equivalence.

Starting from here we can compose with the canonical map from stable homotopy to any other generalized homology theory $`h.`$ Thus we obtain relative Seiberg-Witten invariants of $`X`$ with values in any $`h_{}(\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰)).`$

Now let us vary the base connection $`\widehat{A}_0`$ on $`X`$ by adding to it a harmonic 1-form $`\alpha H^1(X;)`$ which annihilates the normal vector to the boundary.

We can collect together the maps $`\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\widehat{𝔰},\widehat{A}_0+\alpha )`$ as $`\alpha `$ varies over the Picard torus $`P=H^1(X;)/H^1(X;)`$ and obtain a bundle of morphisms from spheres to $`\text{SWF}.`$ In other words, we get a morphism from the Thom space of a vector bundle over $`P`$ (the Dirac index bundle) to $`\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰):`$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(X,\widehat{𝔰}):T(Ind)\text{SWF}(Y,𝔰).$$

In the case when $`X`$ is closed, this is the invariant constructed by Bauer in .

###### Remark 2.

By adding a nonexact 2-form perturbation together with a small $`ϵ\mathrm{sin}`$ perturbation to the Seiberg-Witten map, an analogous argument should give a morphism from the Picard torus to $`\text{SWF}_0.`$ Thus, we expect $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to factor through the map $`j:\text{SWF}_0\text{SWF}.`$

## Appendix A The K-theoretic obstruction.

Let $`Y`$ be a closed, oriented, Riemannian 3-manifold, endowed with a $`spin^c`$ structure $`𝔰.`$ We keep the notations from Section 2, but do not impose any condition on $`b_1`$ or on $`𝔰.`$

In particular, if we fix a base connection $`A_0,`$ we identify all other connections $`A`$ with forms $`ai\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Y;)`$ via $`a=AA_0.`$ For each $`a`$ there is a Dirac operator $`\overline{)}_a.`$ We restrict our attention to harmonic 1-forms $`aH^1(Y;).`$ In particular, if $`aH^1(Y;),`$ there is a harmonic map $`u:YS^1`$ with $`a=u^1du.`$ In this case, for every spinor $`\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }(W),`$

$$\overline{)}_a\varphi =\overline{)}_0(u\varphi ).$$

We can then form a Hilbert bundle over the Picard torus

$$P=H^1(Y;)/H^1(Y;),$$

with fiber $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(W)`$ by gluing via isomorphisms of the form $`\varphi u\varphi .`$ In this setting we get a continuous family of Dirac operators $`\overline{)}_a`$ acting on each fiber, which is parametrized by $`P.`$

As explained in  and , such a family induces a family of polarizations over $`P,`$ and therefore a *structural map* $`PU,`$ where $`U`$ denotes the infinite unitary group.

Denote:

$$H^{}(Y,𝔰)=c_1(𝔰)^{}=\{aH^{}(Y):ac_1(𝔰)=0\};$$

$$\stackrel{~}{P}=H^1(Y,𝔰;)/H^1(Y,𝔰;).$$

Let

$$b_1(Y,𝔰)=dimH^1(Y,𝔰;).$$

Note that $`b_1(Y,𝔰)`$ equals $`b_1(Y)`$ when $`c_1(𝔰)`$ is torsion and $`b_1(Y)1`$ otherwise.

The obvious covering map $`\stackrel{~}{P}P`$ corresponds to the group homomorphism $`\pi _1(P)\pi _1(U)=`$ given by the spectral flow.

We lift the family of Dirac operators from $`P`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{P}.`$ The composition $`\stackrel{~}{P}PU`$ induces an element

$$q(Y,𝔰)K^1(\stackrel{~}{P}).$$

According to , this is the obstruction for the Seiberg-Witten flow category to be framed, or, in other words, for Floer stable homtopy to be well-defined.

Note that since $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is a torus, by the Künneth formula

$$K^1(\stackrel{~}{P})=H^1(\stackrel{~}{P})H^3(\stackrel{~}{P})H^5(\stackrel{~}{P})\mathrm{}.$$

###### Proposition 6.

The obstruction $`q(Y,𝔰)=qK^1(\stackrel{~}{P})`$ is given by the intersection form:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^3H^1(Y,𝔰;),(a_1,a_2,a_3)(a_1a_2a_3)[Y],$$

considered as an element in $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3H^1(Y,𝔰;))^{}=H^3(\stackrel{~}{P})K^1(\stackrel{~}{P}).`$

Proof. According to , the obstruction $`qK^1(\stackrel{~}{P})=K^0(\stackrel{~}{P}\times S^1)`$ is given by the K-theoretic index of the family $`\{D_{t,a}\}`$ of Dirac operators on $`Y\times S^1:`$

$$D_{t,a}=\{\begin{array}{cc}I\mathrm{cos}t+i(\overline{)}_a+\frac{}{t})\mathrm{sin}t,\hfill & 0t\pi ;\hfill \\ (\mathrm{cos}t+i\mathrm{sin}t)I,\hfill & \pi t2\pi .\hfill \end{array}$$

parametrized by $`(a,t)\stackrel{~}{P}\times S^1.`$

Since $`K^0(\stackrel{~}{P}\times S^1)`$ is nontorsion, it suffices to compute the Chern character of $`qH^{}(\stackrel{~}{P}\times S^1).`$ This can be done using the index theorem for families (). Set $`m=b_1(Y,𝔰).`$ Let $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m`$ be a basis for $`H^1(Y,𝔰;),`$ $`a_{m+1}`$ a generator of $`H^1(S^1;),`$ and $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{m+1}`$ the dual basis for $`H^1(\stackrel{~}{P}\times S^1).`$ The Dirac line bundle $``$ over $`Y\times S^1\times \stackrel{~}{P}\times S^1`$ has first Chern class:

$$c_1()=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}\alpha _ia_i.$$

The index theorem gives:

$$ch(q)=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \alpha _ia_i}}\widehat{A}(Y\times S^1)[Y\times S^1].$$

The 3-manifold $`Y`$ is parallelizable, hence so is $`Y\times S^1.`$ Thus the $`\widehat{A}`$ genus is $`1.`$

In the Taylor decomposition the only term that survives is:

$$ch(q)=\frac{1}{4!}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}\alpha _ia_i)^4[Y\times S^1],$$

which corresponds to the intersection form in $`H^4(Y\times S^1)H^3(Y).`$

Acknowledgements.  The second author would like to thank Daniel Biss, Danny Calegari, Mikio Furuta, and Michael Hopkins for helpful discussions during the preparation of this paper.


format: text

text:
# Rakib–Sivashinsky and Michelson–Sivashinsky Equations for Upward Propagating Flames: A Comparison Analysis

## Abstract

We establish a comparison between Rakib–Sivashinsky and Michelson–Sivashinsky quasilinear parabolic differential equations governing the weak thermal limit of upward flame front propagating in a channel. For the former equation, we give a complete description of all steady solutions and present their local and global stability analysis. For the latter, multi–coalescent unstable steady solutions are introduced and shown to be exponentially more numerous than the previous known coalescente solutions. This fact is argued to be responsible for the disagreement of the observed dynamics in numerical experiments with the exact (linear) stability analysis and also gives the ingredients to describe the quasi–stable behavior of parabolic steadily propagating flame with centered tip.

Rakib–Sivashinsky quasilinear parabolic differential equation governing the weak thermal limit of an upward flame interface propagating in a channel is given by

$$\varphi _t=\epsilon \varphi _{xx}\frac{1}{2}\varphi _x^2+\varphi \stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi },$$
(1)
where $`y=\varphi (t,x)`$, $`0<x<\pi `$, defines an instantaneous flame profile in dimensionless variables, $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\varphi (t,x)dx`$ denotes the space average, $`\epsilon >0`$ is a physical parameter (Markstein length) and Neumann (adiabatic) boundary condition at channel walls is imposed: $`\varphi _x(t,0)=\varphi _x(t,\pi )=0`$. According to Darrieus–Landau’s hydrodynamic flame theory\[RS\] there are two competing sources of instabilities in this model given by the last two terms of (1). A plane flame front separating the cold and hot gas is subject to Rayleigh–Taylor instability, due to the thermal expansion, and to the buoyancy effect caused by external acceleration. These two ingredients lead the front to become convex toward the cold gas. As in \[RS\], the acceleration vector points toward positive $`y`$–values and the upward propagating direction is negative. For the purpose of comparison such convention will be maintained.

Paraboloid profiles with the tip located around the center of the channel are observed, both experimentally and in computational simulations, to remain “stable” for long time (see e.g. \[MiS\] and references therein). There are, however, experiments whose paraboloid tip eventually slides to the channel wall. A mathematical description of the former configuration as a “quasi–equilibrium transient state” was provided by Berestycki, Kamin and Sivashinsky \[BKS\] in which work stationary solutions of (1), their respective stability properties and the nonlinear dynamics were described for sufficiently small $`\epsilon `$. Metastable dynamics has been studied in details in \[SW\]. The proofs of the other theorems stated in \[BKS\] remain, to the best of our knowledge, unpublished.

Sivashinsky’s previous equation of weak thermal expansion\[S, MS\]

$$\varphi _t=\epsilon \varphi _{xx}\frac{1}{2}\varphi _x^2+I(\varphi ),$$
(2)
hasn’t considered buoyancy effect and Darrieus–Landau instability has been taken into account replacing $`\varphi \stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi }`$ in (1) by a linear singular integral operator given by a multiplication by $`\left|k\right|`$ in the Fourier representation

$$I\left(\varphi \right)(t,x)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}k_\pi ^\pi \mathrm{cos}\left[k\left(xy\right)\right]\varphi (t,y)𝑑y.$$

In contradistinction, the only trace of $`I(\varphi )`$ term in equation (1) comes from the removal of $`k=0`$ mode

$$\varphi \stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi }=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_\pi ^\pi \mathrm{cos}\left[k(xy)\right]\varphi (t,y)dy.$$

Michelson–Sivashinsky equation (2) has been studied by many authors after Thual–Frish–Hénon’s application\[TFH\] of pole decomposition. For a more recent survey of this method, see Vaymblat and Matalon\[VM1, VM2\] and references therein.

Despite of the fact that equations (1) and (2) differ in many respects, it is our purpose to expose the similarities and distinctions of their solutions. We shall see, by the introduction of so called bi–coalescent steady states, that equation (2) may also admit quasi–equilibrium transient “parabolic” profile with centered tip. Our comparison relies on two recent analysis. Firstly, Vaymblat and Matalon \[VM1\] have determined all steady solutions whose poles coalesce into a line parallel to the imaginary axis and solved explicitly the eigenvalue problem of (2) linearized about those states. They conclude, in a second paper\[VM2\], the existence of only one linearly stable steady coalescent pole solution.

For equation (1) with a different parametrization, we have given \[GM\] a complete description of all equilibrium solutions and provided their local and global stability in an appropriated Sobolev space. Since our results are major extensions of those stated in \[BKS\] and the mathematical presentation in \[GM\] may cause certain difficulties in translating to the present application, we shall here restate them with a brief explanations of their proofs. A detailed presentation including the metastable states analysis will appear elsewhere \[MG\].

We shall first restrict ourselves to the Rakib–Sivashinsky equation. The details presented after each statement (detached by brackets) are essentials to establish the subsequent comparison but may be skipped in a first reading. Multi–coalescent steady states of Michelson–Sivashinsky equation will be considered next. A conclusion will be presented at the end.

To discuss our results let us consider the equation

$$u_t=\epsilon u_{xx}uu_x+u,$$
(3)
for the derivative $`u=\varphi _x`$, with Dirichlet boundary conditions $`u(t,0)=u(t,\pi )=0`$. There is a one–to–one correspondence between

$$\theta (t,x):=_0^xu(t,y)𝑑y,$$
(4)
with $`u`$ a solution of (3), and a solution $`\varphi `$ of (1) given as follows. Notice that $`\theta `$ satisfy (1) with $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi }`$ replaced by $`\epsilon \varphi _{xx}(t,0)`$. By definition, $`\theta (t,0)=0`$ for all $`t0`$ and their steady solutions do not propagate (they are equilibrium). We have $`\theta (t,x)=\varphi (t,x)\varphi (t,0)`$, $`\theta _x=\varphi _x`$ and $`\theta _{xx}=\varphi _{xx}`$. For the opposite relation, we have

$$\varphi +_0^t\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi }(s)e^{ts}ds=\theta +\epsilon _0^t\theta _{xx}(s,0)e^{ts}𝑑s,$$

because both sides satisfy equation (1) without $`\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\varphi }`$ term, which yields

$$\varphi (t,x)=\theta (t,x)_0^t(\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\theta }(\tau )\epsilon \theta _{xx}(\tau ,0))ds.$$
(5)
This and (4) will be used to discuss the steadily propagating solutions of (1).

If $`A`$ denotes the operator given by r.h.s. of (3) linearized about the trivial solution $`u_0=0`$, let $`^{1/2}`$ be the Banach space equipped with the graph norm $`f_{1/2}={\displaystyle _0^\pi }\left|A^{1/2}f(x)\right|^2𝑑x`$ (equivalent to the Sobolev space $`H_0^1(0,\pi )`$). In \[GM\], Theorems 3.2 and 5.10, we have proven:

The initial value problem (3) with $`u(0,)=u_0^{1/2}`$  has a unique solution for all $`t>0`$ and the trajectories $`\left\{u(t,)\right\}_{t0}`$ lie in a compact set in $`^{1/2}`$.

By (4) and (5), this provides the existence and uniqueness of the initial value problem (1) for all $`t>0`$. Compactness property will be useful for the global stability analysis.

The steadily propagating solutions of (1) can be obtained from the equilibrium solution of (3). The quantity inside the parenthesis in (5) remains positive under the dynamics of (3) and the front propagates upward (toward negative $`y`$–values). As a consequence, the flame front propagates steadily with velocity

$$V=\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}}{\vartheta }+\epsilon \vartheta _{xx}(0)=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\vartheta ^2},$$
(6)
provided $`\vartheta (x)=_0^xv(y)𝑑y`$, where $`v`$ is a non trivial solution of

$$\epsilon v_{xx}vv_x+v=0,$$
(7)
with $`v(0)=v(\pi )=0`$. The next result is Theorem 4.1 of \[GM\]:

For $`\epsilon >1`$, $`v_0=0`$ is the unique solution of (7). For $`\epsilon <1`$ such that $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k+1}}\epsilon <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}`$ holds for some $`kN`$, there exist $`2k`$ nontrivial solutions $`u_j^\pm `$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, with $`j1`$ zeros in $`(0,\pi )`$ and such that $`u_j^{}(x)=u_j^+(\pi x)`$ for $`j`$ odd and $`u_j^{}(x)=u_j^+(\pi /j+x)`$ mod $`\pi `$ for $`j`$ even. Each pair $`u_j^\pm `$ bifurcate from the trivial solution $`v_0=0`$ at $`\epsilon _j=1/j^2`$ with $`\underset{\epsilon \epsilon _j}{lim}u_j^\pm =0`$. In the phase space $`^2`$, $`(u_j^\pm ,u_j^\pm )`$ describes closed orbits around $`(0,0)`$ whose distance from the origin increases monotonically as $`\epsilon `$ decreases.

\[Equation (7) can be written as a dynamical system

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}w\stackrel{´}{}\hfill & =\hfill & \epsilon ^1p\left(w1\right)\hfill \\ p\stackrel{´}{}=\hfill & w,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(8)
where $`p=v`$ and $`w=v\stackrel{´}{}`$. Since (8) remains unaltered by changing $`pp`$ and $`xx`$, the orbits are symmetric with respect to the $`w`$–axis and Dirichlet boundary conditions $`p(0)=p(\pi )=0`$ hold for any periodic orbit with period $`2\pi `$ such that $`p=0`$ at $`x=0`$. In \[GM\] we have shown that (i) $`^2`$ is foliated by non–overlapping orbits

$$\gamma _{w_0}=\{(w(x),p(x)):x\mathrm{and}(w(0),p(0))=(w_0,0)\}$$

labeled by the coordinate $`w_0`$ of the positive $`w`$–axis; (ii) as $`\epsilon `$ varies, the orbit varies continuously from one to another; (iii) the orbits are closed if $`w_0<1`$ and open if $`w_01`$; (iv) the origin $`(0,0)`$ is enclosed by any closed orbits. The trajectories $`\gamma _{w_0}`$, $`w_00`$, are portrayed in Figure 1.

The period $`T=T(\epsilon ,w_0)`$ of a closed orbit varies continuously in $`\epsilon `$ and $`w_0`$ and is given by

$$T=_{\gamma _{w_0}}𝑑x=2\frac{dp}{w},$$

where the second integral is calculated in the semi–orbit. Hence, $`T=2\pi `$ defines implicitly a continuous function $`w_0=w_0(\epsilon )`$, whose corresponding semi–orbit $`\gamma _{w_0}=\{(w(x),p(x)):0x\pi \}`$ determines the solution $`v(x)=p(x)`$ of (7). The question to be addressed now is how many $`2\pi `$–periodic orbits there are for each $`\epsilon `$. If $`w_0`$ is small, $`\gamma _{w_0}`$ can be approximated by an ellipsoid: $`\epsilon ^1p^2+w^2=w_0^2`$ ;

$$T_{\mathrm{ellipse}}=4_0^\sqrt{\epsilon }\frac{dp}{\sqrt{1\epsilon ^1p^2}}=2\pi \sqrt{\epsilon }$$
(9)
uniformly in $`w_0`$ and we have

$$\underset{w_00}{lim}T(\epsilon ,w_0)=2\pi \sqrt{\epsilon }.$$
(10)
In \[GM\], we have shown

$$\frac{T}{w_0}>0$$
(11)
holds form any $`\epsilon >0`$. Consequently, $`T=T(\epsilon ,w_0)`$ is a (strictly) monotonic increasing function of $`w_0`$ and $`\epsilon `$, since $`T(\epsilon ,w_0)=\sqrt{\epsilon }T(1,w_0)`$. As $`T`$ increases when $`\epsilon `$ and $`w_0`$ increase, equation (10) implies that there is no nontrivial solutions ($`v0`$) for $`\epsilon 1`$, since the period of each nontrivial orbit exceeds $`2\pi `$. Now, let

$$G_1(\epsilon ,w_0)=T(\epsilon ,w_0)2\pi ,$$

be defined for $`0<\epsilon 1`$ and $`0w_0<1`$. Under the condition (11), there exist a unique function $`g_1:[0,1]_+`$ with $`g_1(1)=0`$ such that $`G_1(\epsilon ,g(\epsilon ))=0`$ for all $`0<\epsilon 1`$. In view of (11), $`g(\epsilon )`$ is a monotonically (strictly) decreasing function and $`lim_{\epsilon 0}g(\epsilon )=1`$.

Now, $`v0`$ is the unique equilibrium solution of (3) for any $`\epsilon 1`$. For $`\epsilon <1`$ such that $`1/(k+1)^2\epsilon <1/k^2`$ holds for some integer $`k1`$, one can apply the implicit function theorem to equation

$$G_j(\epsilon ,w_0):=T(\epsilon ,w_0)\frac{2\pi }{j}=0,$$

with $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ and conclude, exactly as in the case for $`G_1`$, the existence of a unique monotone decreasing function $`g_j:[0,1/j^2]_+`$ with $`g_j(1/j^2)=0`$ and $`\underset{\epsilon 0}{lim}g_j(\epsilon )=1`$, such that $`G_j(\epsilon ,g_j(\epsilon ))=0`$. The branch $`g_j(\epsilon )`$ defines a nontrivial equilibrium solution $`v_j`$ of (3) given by the $`p`$–component of the orbit $`\gamma _{g_j(\epsilon )}`$ with $`(g_j(\epsilon ),0)`$ at $`x=0`$ and $`p(x)=0`$ at each semi–period $`x=m\pi /j`$, $`m=1,\mathrm{},j`$. Hence, if $`\epsilon `$ is such that $`1/(k+1)^2\epsilon <1/k^2`$, there exist $`k`$ equilibrium (not identically $`0`$) solutions of (3), $`v_1^+,\mathrm{},`$ $`v_k^+`$, with $`v_j^+`$ having $`j1`$ zeros in the interval $`(0,\pi )`$. Notice that $`g_j(\epsilon )=v_j^{}(0)>0`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and $`v_1(x)>0`$ for all $`0<x<\pi `$. These will be useful for the stability analysis. There is an additional set of $`k`$ equilibrium solution $`v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_k^{}`$, with $`v_j^{}(x)=p(\pi /j+x)`$.\]

When $`\epsilon `$ is small enough the orbit spends most of time at right semi–plane, $`p(x)x`$ mod $`2\pi /j`$ and $`\vartheta _j^\pm (x):=_0^xv_j^\pm (y)𝑑y`$ has wrinkles of parabolic shape separated by “cusps”. From (6) the steadily propagating solutions of (1) has the profile of $`\vartheta _j`$ propagating with the velocity $`V`$:

$$\phi _j(x)=\vartheta _j(x)\frac{t}{2}\overline{\vartheta _j^2}.$$
(12)
The plane flame front solution $`\phi _0=\mathrm{Const}`$ is an asymptotically stable solution if $`\epsilon 1`$ for both equations (1) and (2). Its local stability can be read directly from the spectrum $`\sigma (A)`$ of the operator $`A`$, given by (1) and (2) linearized about $`\phi _0`$, which consist of simple eigenvalues

$$\lambda _n=1\epsilon n^2\mathrm{and}\eta _n=n\epsilon n^2,n=1,2\mathrm{},$$
(13)
respectively, with corresponding eigenfunction $`\sqrt{1/\pi }\mathrm{cos}nx`$. So, $`\lambda _n<0`$ and $`\eta _n<0`$ if $`\epsilon >1`$. At $`\epsilon =1`$, the trivial solution $`\phi _0`$ bifurcates  into a steadily propagating front in which, when extended periodically to the real line as an even function, there is one “parabolic” tip centered at one wall and a single “cusp” at another. The next result of \[GM\], Theorems $`5.1`$ and $`5.14`$, states that such configuration is the only one globally asymptotically stable solution of (1) for all $`\epsilon <1`$. Parabolic front with centered tip or wrinkled flame fronts may be described as quasi–equilibrium states discussed in refs. \[MS, BKS, SW\]. By (5), it is enough to examine the stability of the nontrivial equilibrium solutions of (3).

If $`u_0^{1/2}`$ and $`\epsilon >1`$, then the initial value problem (3) with $`u(0,)=u_0`$ satisfies $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}u(t,)_{1/2}=0`$ and the trivial solution is globally stable. For $`\epsilon <1`$ so that $`1/(k+1)^2\epsilon <1/k^2`$ holds, there exist $`\rho >0`$ such that, if $`u_0v_{1/2}\rho `$, then $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}u(t,)v_{1/2}=0`$ for $`v=v_1^\pm `$ and, for any sequence $`\left\{u_n\right\}_{n1}`$ with $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}u_nv_{1/2}=0`$, we have $`\underset{t>0}{sup}u(t,)v_{1/2}\delta >0`$ for all $`n`$ and $`v`$  equal to $`0`$ or any equilibrium $`v_j^\pm `$, $`j=2,\mathrm{},k`$. Moreover, there is an open dense set $`U^{1/2}`$  containing the origin and $`\left\{v_j^\pm \right\}_{j=1}^k`$ such that, if $`u_0U`$ and $`\epsilon <1`$, then $`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}u(t,)v_1^\pm _{1/2}=0`$.

\[Let us first examine the linear stability. If $`u(t,x)=v(x)+\zeta (t,x)`$ then equation (3) can be written as

$$\zeta _t=L\zeta +\zeta \zeta _x,$$

where

$$L\xi =L\left[v\right]\xi =\epsilon \xi ^{\prime \prime }v\xi ^{}+(1v^{})\xi $$

is the linearization of the right hand side of (3) about $`v`$. Acting on the space of functions $`\xi `$ satisfying $`\xi (0)=\xi (\pi )=0`$, $`L`$ is symmetric, $`(\eta ,L\xi )_\rho =(L\eta ,\xi )_\rho `$, with respect to the inner product

$$(\eta ,\xi )_p=_0^\pi \eta (x)\xi (x)\rho (x)𝑑x$$

with weight $`\rho (x)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\epsilon ^1_0^xv(y)𝑑y\right\}`$. As a consequence, we can apply the comparison theorem to establish the following criterium (see \[GM\] for details).

Stability Criterium. If $`\phi `$ is the solution of

$$L\left[v\right]\phi =0,$$

on $`0<x<\pi `$, satisfying $`\phi (0)=0`$ and $`\phi ^{}(0)=1`$, the largest eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ of $`L\left[v\right]`$ is negative if $`\phi >0`$ on $`(0,\pi )`$ and positive if there exist $`x^{}`$ such that $`0<x^{}<\pi `$ and $`\phi (x^{})=0`$.

For an equilibrium solution $`v`$ of (3), let

$$\chi =c\left(2vv^{\prime \prime }\right),$$

where $`c>0`$ is chosen so that $`\chi ^{}(0)=1`$. It follows from equilibrium equation $`\epsilon v^{\prime \prime }=\left(1v^{}\right)v`$ that $`\chi (0)=0`$ and $`\chi >0`$ whenever $`v>0`$ (recall $`v(0)=0`$ and $`\left(1v^{}\right)>0`$ for all closed orbits). Moreover, if $`v>0`$, an explicit calculation gives (see \[GM\])

$$L\left[v\right]\chi =2\left(v^{}\right)^2v<0,$$

and this implies, by applying the comparison theorem once more,

$$\phi (x)\chi (x)$$

for all $`0x<\pi `$. It thus follows from the stability criterium that $`v_1`$ is a stable equilibrium solution for all $`\epsilon <1`$ (recall $`v_1(x)>0`$ for all $`0<x<\pi `$, implying $`\chi (x)>0`$ in the same domain). To show $`v_2,\mathrm{},v_k`$ are unstable, we observe

$$L\left[v_j\right]v_j^{}=\left(\epsilon v_j^{\prime \prime }+(1v_j^{})v_j\right)^{}=0,$$
(14)
by the equilibrium equation. It thus follows that $`v_j`$ with $`j2`$ is unstable in view of the equilibrium criterium and the fact that $`v_j`$ has at least one zero in $`(0,\pi )`$ and the same holds for $`\phi `$ by the Wronskian positivity $`W(\phi ,v_j^{};x)>0`$. It is important to note that $`v_j^{}`$ fails to be an eigenfunction of $`L\left[v_j\right]`$ with $`0`$ eigenvalue because it does not satisfies the boundary conditions required. Approximate eigenfunction with exponentially small (in $`\epsilon `$) eigeinvalue can, however, be constructed using boundary layer techniques (see e. g. \[SW\]). Equation (14) holds also for any stationary solution $`v`$ of Michelson–Sivashinsky equation.

We turn to the global stability. A Liapunov function for equation (3) can be constructed via the generalized Euler–Lagrange method due to Zelenyak, Lavrentiev and Vishnevskii \[ZLV\]. Let

$$U(u)=_0^\pi \mathrm{\Phi }(u,u_x)𝑑x$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(p,w)=p^2/(2\epsilon )+\left(1w\right)\mathrm{ln}\left(1w\right)+w`$ is an appropriated “Lagrangian” . The total derivative of $`U`$ with respect to $`t`$ is obtained by the calculus of variation

$`\stackrel{}{U}\left(u\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{u_x}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }v}{u}}\right)u_t𝑑x`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\rho (u_x)\left(\epsilon u_{xx}uu_x+u\right)u_t𝑑x`$
where $`\rho (w)=\epsilon ^1/(1w)`$ is a positive weight. Note $`\stackrel{}{U}`$ is negative in view of (3) and $`U`$ is a Liapunov functional. Due to the fact that the trajectories $`\left\{u(t,)\right\}_{t0}`$ lie in a compact set, LaSalle’s invariance principle can be applied to show that all solutions of (3) in $`^{1/2}`$ converge to an equilibrium solution as $`t\mathrm{}`$. From equations (5), (4) and the two results stated before one concludes that $`\phi _0=0`$ is globally asymptotically stable solution of (1) for $`\epsilon 1`$. In addition, if $`\epsilon <1`$, there is an open dense set $`𝒰^{1/2}`$ of initial condition such that all solutions $`\varphi (t,x)`$, with initial condition on $`𝒰`$, is asymptotically of the form $`\vartheta _1+Vt`$ where $`\vartheta _1=_0^xv_1(y)𝑑y`$, the velocity $`V=\stackrel{\mathrm{\_}\mathrm{\_}}{\vartheta _1^2}/2`$ and $`v_1`$ is the stable equilibrium solution of (3).\]

MULTI–COALESCENT POLE SOLUTIONS

The same scenario seems to hold for equation (2), at least if one restricts to the space of coalescent pole solutions. According to \[TFH, VM1\], if $`\epsilon `$ is such that $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n+1}}\epsilon <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n1}}`$, $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, there exist$`n`$ steadily propagating fronts, $`\phi _j(t,x)=\vartheta _j(x)+Vt`$, with $`\vartheta _j(x)={\displaystyle _0^x}v_j(y)𝑑y`$ and

$$v_j(x)=\epsilon \underset{k=1}{\overset{2j}{}}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{xz_k}{2}\right)$$

for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$, each corresponding to the coalescent $`j`$–pole solution of (2), but only the one with largest number of poles, $`\phi _n`$, is asymptotically stable. When $`\epsilon `$ crosses $`1/(2n+1)`$ from above, $`\phi _n`$ becomes unstable and a new solution $`\phi _{n+1}`$ bifurcates from the former solution.

$`\phi _j`$ was called coalescent $`j`$–pole solution because of the dynamic of poles $`\left\{z_k(t)\right\}_{k=1}^{2j}`$, induced by (2), tends to align them parallel to the imaginary axis. In \[TFH, VM1\], (2) was considered with periodic boundary conditions. With Newmann (adiabatic) boundary conditions there are two sets of steadily propagating fronts $`\left\{\phi _j^\pm \right\}_{j=1}^n`$ distinguished by the location of their poles: $`\phi _j^+`$ and $`\phi _j^{}`$ has poles aligned at $`\mathrm{}ez=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}ez=\pi `$, respectively.

Note that there is a relation between the number of steadily propagating fronts and of positive eigenvalues in the spectrum $`\sigma (A)=\left\{\eta _j\right\}_{j1}`$ of the linear operator $`Av=\epsilon v^{\prime \prime }+I(v)`$, since the latter increases by one unit at $`\epsilon _n=1/n`$ and the former at $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_n=1/\left(2n1\right)`$. For equation (1), the number of steady solutions and the dimension of the unstable manifold $`_n`$ of the trivial solution $`\phi _0=\mathrm{const}`$, are equal with the instability value now located at $`1/n^2`$. There, in contradistinction, $`\phi _1^\pm `$ are the only asymptotically stable solution for all $`\epsilon <1`$.

Although (12) holds for $`\phi _j^\pm `$ with $`v_j^\pm `$ a coalescent pole solution of

$$\epsilon v_{xx}vv_x+I(v)=0,$$
(15)
$`v_j^\pm `$ does not vanish in $`(0,\pi )`$. One may define a coalescent $`j`$–pole solution $`v_j^{(k)\pm }`$ with $`k1`$ zeros in $`(0,\pi )`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, by setting $`v_j^{(k)\pm }(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k}}v_j^\pm (kx)`$ mod $`\pi `$. Note $`v_j^{(k)\pm }`$ solves (15) provided $`v_j^\pm `$ solves the same equation with $`\epsilon `$ replaced by $`k\epsilon `$. As a consequence, a sets of steadily propagating fronts $`\left\{\phi _j^{(k)\pm }\right\}_{j=1}^n`$ exists if $`\epsilon `$ is such that $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n+1}}k\epsilon <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n1}}`$ holds for some $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ (see Figure 3). In total, there are $`2{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left[2n/(2m1)\right]=o(n^2)`$ coalescent steady solutions for $`\epsilon {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n+1}}`$, where $`\left[z\right]`$ means the integer part of real number $`z`$. The solutions $`\phi _j^{(k)\pm }`$ with $`k2`$, are not stable and may represent the cellular profile observed experimentally provided an associate quasi–equilibrium solution described in \[MS, BKS, SW\] can be defined.

In the following, for each $`\epsilon `$ such that $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+1}}\epsilon <{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$ holds, a new family $`_n`$ of steadily propagating flame front solutions, denominated multi–coalescent $`n`$–pole solutions, will be introduced. Our preliminary investigation indicates that there are at least an exponential number $`c^{n1}`$ of solutions in $`_n`$ and all, but $`2`$ of them, seems to be unstable by numerical computation. As a consequence, the invariant set $`𝒦_n^{MS}=_\phi _n(\phi )`$, defined as the union of the unstable manifold of all equilibrium solutions, for equation (2) differs enormously from the invariant set $`𝒦_n^{RS}=_n(\phi _0)`$ for equation (1). Here, $`n`$ indicates the number of bifurcations with respect to the trivial solution $`\phi _0`$. In particular, $`𝒦_n^{MS}`$ may have dimension exponentially more numerous than the dimension of $`𝒦_n^{RS}`$ (for comparison, see Figures 2 and 3). We believe that this crucial distinction is responsible for the disagreement between the numerical study by Gutman–Sivashinky \[GS\] and the exact calculation by Vaymblat–Matalon \[VM1\].

The bi–coalescent $`n`$–pole solutions $`\phi _{n_0,n_\pi }`$ are indexed by $`(n_0,n_\pi )`$ with $`n_0+n_\pi =n`$ indicating the number of pairs of complex conjugate poles in each line $`\mathrm{}ez=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}ez=\pi `$. Note that the system of equations governing the dynamics of the poles $`z_j=x_j+iy_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},2n`$, in the complex plane, given by

$$\stackrel{}{z_j}=\epsilon \underset{lj}{}\mathrm{cot}\left(\frac{z_jz_l}{2}\right)i\frac{y_j}{\left|y_j\right|},$$

preserves the location of real part $`x_j`$ since, in this case, $`\mathrm{}e\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_jz_l}{2}}\right)=0`$. The poles of the bi–coalescent solution $`\phi _{n_0,n_\pi }`$ thus satisfies

$$\stackrel{}{x_j}=0\mathrm{and}\stackrel{}{y_j}=F_j$$
(16)
where

$$F_j=\epsilon \underset{lj}{}\left(\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{y_jy_l}{2}\right)\right)^{\eta _{jl}}\frac{y_j}{\left|y_j\right|}.$$
(17)
with $`\eta _{jl}:=\mathrm{cos}\left(x_jx_l\right)`$ taking $`\pm 1`$ values according the poles $`z_j`$ and $`z_l`$ are in the same or different line. Because of the real parte $`x_j`$ of the pole gives the “cusp” position of a propagating flame profile, the bi–coalescent solution has its tip centered somewhere in the interior of channel.

Thual, Frisch and Hénon \[TFH\] have proven that, provided $`n`$ is such that $`\epsilon \left(2n1\right)<1`$, there exist one and only one coalescent steady solution and any solution of (16) with $`\eta _{jl}=1`$ for all $`j`$ and $`l`$, tends toward this steady state as $`t\mathrm{}`$. The proof of these properties is based on the existence of a Liapunov function with negative curvature in every direction. Here, there exists a Liapunov function for bi–coalescent solutions

$$U=\epsilon \underset{j,l:jl}{}\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{e^{(y_jy_l)/2}+\eta _{jl}e^{(y_jy_l)/2}}{2}\right|\underset{j}{}\left|y_j\right|,$$

satisfying $`\stackrel{}{U}={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2n}{}}}F_j^20`$ whose Hessian matrix $`H=[U_{y_iy_j}]_{i,j=1}^{2n}`$ cannot be proven to be negative definite in the case of strictly bi–coalescent solution ($`n_0,n_\pi 0,n/2`$ ) since its Geršgorin discs may have non–vanishing intersection with the semi–plane $`\mathrm{}ez0`$. As $`U`$ may have several local maxima and saddle points in this case (see Figure 2), any solution of equations (16) tends toward to a steady bi–coalescent state as $`t\mathrm{}`$ but uniqueness cannot be guaranteed.

Let the poles $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{2n}`$ of a bi–coalescente steady solution $`\phi _{n_0,n_\pi }`$ be indexed as follows: $`x_j=0`$ if $`j=1,\mathrm{},n_0`$, $`x_j=\pi `$ if $`j=n_0+1,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`y_{n+j}=y_j`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n`$. The case with $`n_0=n_\pi =n/2`$ plays special role to describe the stability of coalescent solutions. Note that, if $`y_j=y_{j+n/2}`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},n/2`$, then

$`v_{n/2,n/2}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\eta \{1,1\}}{}}\left\{\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{xi\eta y_j}{2}}\right)+\mathrm{cot}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x\pi i\eta y_j}{2}}\right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`2\epsilon {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n/2}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\eta \{1,1\}}{}}\mathrm{cot}\left(xi\eta y_j\right)`$
corresponds to a coalescent $`n/2`$–pole solution $`v_{n/2}^2`$ with one zero in $`(0,\pi )`$. As $`\epsilon `$ varies from $`1/\left(2n1\right)`$ to $`1/\left(2n+1\right)`$, a point $`\left\{z_j\right\}_{j=1}^{2n}`$ satisfying $`y_j=y_{j+n/2}`$ can be shown to change from saddle point to a global maximum of $`U`$, turning a local maximum somewhere in between.

Two conclusions can immediately be extracted from these observations. Because (16) tends to align the poles along either the line $`\mathrm{}ez=0`$ or $`\mathrm{}ez=\pi `$, the coalescent $`n`$–pole solution $`\phi _n`$ is more stable than $`\phi _{n/2}^2`$ since $`\phi _{n/2}^2`$ is equivalent to a bi–coalescent $`n`$–pole solution $`\phi _{n/2,n/2}`$ which is unstable under small perturbation which involves the real part $`x_j`$ of the poles. Moreover, we may construct from a coalescent $`n`$–pole solution $`\phi _n^k`$ with $`k1`$ zeros in $`(0,\pi )`$ a family of bi–coalescent solutions $`\phi _{n_0,n_{\pi /k}}^k`$ with $`n_0`$ poles aligned in $`\mathrm{}ez=0`$ and $`nn_0`$ poles aligned in $`\mathrm{}ez=\pi /k`$ which agree with the coalescent solution at $`\epsilon 1/\left(2kn+k\right)`$ if $`n_0=`$ $`n_{\pi /k}=n/2`$ and $`y_j=y_{j+n/2}`$. Proceeding in a similar fashion, one can introduce muti–coalescent $`n`$–pole solutions $`\phi _{n_0,n_{2\pi /k},\mathrm{}n_{2(k1)\pi /k}}`$, with $`n_{2j\pi /k}1`$ poles at $`\mathrm{}ez=2j\pi /k`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}n_{2j\pi /k}=n`$ and which vanishes at $`k1`$ points in $`(0,\pi )`$. Hence, a trajectory $`\left\{z_j(t)\right\}_{t0}`$ of (16) in the phase space $`^n`$, with $`\left\{z_j(0)\right\}`$ close to the poles of a multi–coalescent steady solution may go along many intermediate steady states before it reaches the final equilibrium.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether the cellular structure (flame profile with many wrinkles), observed numerically by Gutman–Sivashinky \[GS\] and experimentally by \[G\], could be produced by the instability of the coalescent pole solutions for $`\epsilon `$ small, has been debated in the literature (see e.g.\[KOP, RAS\]). The work of Vaymblat–Matalon \[VM1, VM2\] has resolved the controversies by proving that there always exist a unique (linearly) stable coalescent pole solution for $`\epsilon <1`$. In \[VM1\], the discrepancy between the numerical and the exact results is explained as an artefact of truncation and we shall not observe different profiles if more modes were included. According to Joulin \[J\], once equation (2) is incapable to describe observed wrinkled propagating flames (as an equilibrium solution) it should be replaced by another model.

A different scenario has been presented for Rakib–Sivashinsky equation. Numerical integrations of (1) have agreed with the analytic prediction since the beginning, although truncated equation has been used. Besides, parabolic profile with centered tip and cellular profiles can be successfully explained as metastable states \[MiS, BKS, SW\]. So, the question to be addressed is why equation (2) is more sensitive than (1) to be treated numerically and whether the cellular profiles can be described as a quasi–equilibrium solution of (2).

Based in the present analysis of equation (1) and in the existence of multi–coalescent steady states of (2), we argue in the following that many questions remain to be investigated before Michelson–Sivashinsky equation is abandoned.

Using the analysis in \[GM\], global existence in a Sobolev space $`H_0^1`$ (for all times $`t>0`$) and uniqueness can be established for equation (2). A basic question is: Does the solution $`\varphi `$ of (2) with initial condition $`\varphi _0`$ in a dense subset of $`H_0^1`$ converge, as $`t\mathrm{}`$ and for all $`\epsilon <1`$, to one of coalescent steady state described in \[VM1\]?

To answer this question a geometric analysis, as given for equation (1), must be carried out for equation (2). A family $`_n`$ of steady multi–coalescent poles solutions have been described. It may be difficult to determine whether $`_n`$ exhausts all steady solutions of (2) but it is already a remarkable difference between both equations. If all states of $`_n`$, except the states $`\phi _n^\pm `$ described by \[VM1\], are shown to be unstable, then the unstable manifold $`𝒦_n^{MS}`$ containing the origin would have dimension at least exponentially large with $`n`$.

The method of \[ZLV\] may be useful to construct a Liapunov function. To establish the existence of a dense subspace of initial conditions from which the solutions of (2) converge to a steady solution requires, besides a Liapunov function, that the trajectories remain in a compact set. For this, it is enough that the trajectories remain bounded, which follows if the maximum principle can be shown to be adapted for equation (2).

Finally, the existence of multi–coalescent pole solutions would explain the discrepancy between the numerical integration by Sivashinky and the linear stability analysis in \[VM1\]. For Rakib–Sivashinsky equation, there exist metastable solutions whose time interval they remain “stable” becomes exponentially long when $`\epsilon `$ is small, creating the illusion that they have reached the equilibrium. If metastable states can be constructed from the bi–coalescent states is a question to be investigate. It would, in particular, describe the quasi–stable behavior of parabolic steadily propagating flame with centered tip. Moreover, the effect of truncation would become more sensitive than for equation (1) in view of the fact there is exponentially more numerous (meta)states available.