5

(My original post starts here, and ends right before the Edit part. I am keeping it so that the comments and answer make sense, but what I am really interested in is what is in the Edit section.)

My experience has been so far mostly with finite-dimensional spaces. However, there is definitely a need to study infinite-dimensional spaces, even if one is mostly interested in finite-dimensional spaces, as the spaces of functions on finite-dimensional spaces are often infinite-dimensional.

Let us consider the infinite-dimensional polynomial ring $\mathbb{R}[x_1, \ldots, x_d]$. I am interested for instance in the set $\mathcal{I}_n$ of codimension $n$ ideals in that ring. Note that $\mathcal{I}_n$ can be thought of as a subset of the Grassmannian $\mathcal{G}_n$ of codimension $n$ subspaces of $\mathbb{R}[x_1, \ldots, x_d]$.

I am interested in the question of whether or not there is a natural topology on $\mathcal{I}_n$ which makes it into a smooth/continuous manifold. Maybe there is a manifold topology on $\mathcal{G}_n$ which makes $\mathcal{I}_n$ into a manifold?

I think that if one considers topologies related to the Zariski topology, then analogues of my questions above would have a negative answer, because the Hilbert scheme of degree $n$ points on affine $d$-dimensional space $\mathbb{A}^d$ could develop singularities if $d > 2$ (please correct me if I am writing something inaccurate or wrong).

Edit: here is what I am really interested in. In $\mathbb{R}^d$, you can consider the configuration space $C_n(\mathbb{R}^d)$ of $n$ distinct points in $\mathbb{R}^d$. I would like to define some kind of completion of $C_n(\mathbb{R}^d)$ which contains for instance degenerate configurations where $2$ or more of its points collide. The purpose is to enlarge the domain for instance for numerical approximations of the first order directional derivative of a function $f$ of $x_1, \ldots, x_d$ at some point $p$ and in some direction $v \in \mathbb{R}^d$ (i.e. $D_v(f)(p)$). For instance, one may approximate

$$D_v(f)(p) \simeq (f(p_1) - f(p_0))/h$$

where $p_0 = p$ and $p_1 = p + h v$ and $h$ is a small positive number. Note that if we enlarge the domain of the approximation so as to include the case where $h$ goes to $0$, so that $p_1$ and $p_0$ collide, we then get that the approximation is exactly $D_v(f)(p)$.

So I would like to enlarge the domain of numerical approximations so as to depend not just on finitely many distinct points, but to also include limiting configurations where two or more of these points collide.

There are two such approaches which come to my mind (well, that I know of) that could be relevant: the Fulton-Macpherson compactification and the Hilbert scheme of points.

So my question is really, which completion of $C_n(\mathbb{R}^d)$ is well suited for extending the domain of $n$ point numerical schemes? Another question is, has this been done? (Such questions were proposed to me by another Mathematician actually)

Malkoun
  • 5,011
  • 3
    The set $\mathcal I_n$ is the set of real points of a finite type scheme over $\mathbb R$ (the Hilbert scheme of points). As such it has a natural topology, the analytic topology (the Zariski topology is not relevant). I claim that this is the only natural topology to consider. When $d>2$ this will not be a manifold, as you indicated, and the answer to your question is "no". Infinite-dimensional manifolds seem to be a red herring here. – Dan Petersen Jun 15 '21 at 15:45
  • @DanPetersen, how is the natural topology defined on the set $\mathcal{I}_n$ please? I have been reading on the internet about Hilbert schemes of points, and I have learned a lot, but still do not know what is the natural topology on it. If you could give an online reference perhaps, or write a few comments, it would help me and perhaps other readers. – Malkoun Jun 16 '21 at 00:13
  • @Malkoun - The above claim is nonsense - The relevant topology to consider is the Zariski topology. –  Jun 16 '21 at 08:51
  • @Malkoun By "analytic topology" I mean the following construction. If $X \subseteq \mathbb A^n_{\mathbf R}$ is an affine real algebraic variety, then $X(\mathbf R)$ is a closed subset of $\mathbf R^n$ and inherits a topology from the usual euclidean topology. This topology on $X(\mathbf R)$ is independent of choice of affine embedding, and for a general real algebraic variety $X$ one can define a topology on $X(\mathbf R)$ by working locally on affine charts of $X$. I am just describing the real version of the usual complex analytic topology on a complex algebraic variety. – Dan Petersen Jun 16 '21 at 09:38
  • That said, with your updated motivation I would bet good money that the Hilbert scheme is not what you're looking for - the local structure of the Hilbert scheme is horrendously complicated, and it seems you are anyway not looking to exploit the algebraic structure (such as via Gröbner methods). – Dan Petersen Jun 16 '21 at 09:38
  • 2
    I would be slightly more optimistic about the Fulton-MacPherson compactification; more specifically, the version due to Kontsevich (the "real oriented Fulton-MacPherson compactification"), rather than the algebro-geometric version you can find in the paper of Fulton and MacPherson. A useful reference is Sinha, "Manifold theoretic compactifications of configuration spaces". – Dan Petersen Jun 16 '21 at 09:39
  • I agree with @DanPetersen, that's a wonderful reference. Since I have spent much time understanding compactifications of configuration spaces I would be glad to help, but I actually didn't understand the question (in the edit). What formula do you want to be able to write? There are many variants of Fulton Mac Pherson, and the question I think one should answer first is: which data do you want to keep track of in a collision? Some examples: 1. No data --> you get $(\mathbb{R}^m) ^n$ 2. The direction of collision --> Konsevitch spaces (contd) – Andrea Marino Jun 17 '21 at 08:42
  • The direction of collision and the mutual quotients $s_{ijk}= \frac{|x_i -x_j|}{|x_k-x_j|} $ --> you get the Fulton-Mac Pherson spaces. This is the structured version of the question: what kind of boundary do you want? It seems like you definitely want to keep track of the direction of collision, so that you can define the derivative of a collided configuration. I suggest you try to write a wanna-be approximation formula and you understand which quantities you are using! :)
  • – Andrea Marino Jun 17 '21 at 08:45
  • I think I agree with @DanPetersen's bet. This was my first impression too, though I needed to learn more to be able to be convinced one way or another. Now I am not so sure what to do with this post. It did generate an interesting discussion and the related research project can possibly start now. I thank you all, D.P., A.M. and hm2020. – Malkoun Jun 17 '21 at 21:13