Symbolic Manipulation of Integrodifferential Expressions and Factorization of
Linear Ordinary Differential Operators over Transcendental Extensions of a
Differential Field*
S.P. Tsarev
Department
Krasnoyarsk State
Lebedevoi,89
660049, Krasnoyarsk,
tsarev@edk.krasnoyarsk
Abstract
We discuss the problem of manipulation of expressions in-
volving indefinite functions, integration operators and in-
verses of linear ordinary differential operators (LODO). Us-
ing Loewy-Ore formal theory we obtain some subnormal
forms for such expressions and algorithms for verification
of identities involving such expressions.
1 Introduction
In this paper we will consider manipulation of expressions
involving alongside with unknown functions U1(z), w2(z),
..$> ujV(Z), their derivatives Dui = u:, Dzui = u;, . . . .
also “antiderivatives” such as D-1 u, D– 1(u’/vD– 1w), with
respect to one independent variable x, and even operator
inversw (Dn + jl (Z)D”– 1 + ., . ~. (s)) – 1. For simplicity we
usuaIly fix D-1 R = s~m R dz for arbitrary expression R
and suppose that R is rapidly vanishing at -co. Practical
examples of such computations are numerous, especially in
the modern theory of integrable nonlinear partial differential
equations (also called “soliton theory”), see e.g. [8, 9].
Due to identities similar to
p = (D-lp)(D-lg) = D-l(@-lg) + D-l(gD-lp) (1)
(where p and g are arbitrary expressions) one shall find a
way to transform any formula involving operators D, D – *
to some “normal form” which vanishes (as a function) iff it
has no nontrivial terms. A method of such normalization
of expressions involving a finite number of indefinite func-
tions U;(z), operations +, –, *, D, D–l (no division!) and
rational numbers was given in [7]. More complicated formu-
las used in solitonics may include not only the inverse D-1
“The research described in this article wss partially supported by
INTAS grant 95-lN-RU-412 and RFBR-DFG grant 96-01-00050
Permission to make digital/hard copy of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage, the
copyright notice, the title of the publication and its date appear,
and notice is given that copying is by permission of ACM, Inc. To
copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to
lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. ISSAC’97, Maui,
Hawaii, USA. @1997 ACM 0-89791 -S75-4/ 97/ 0007$3.50
of Mathematics
Pedagogical University
Russia
.SU
of the elementary operator D but also inverses of general
LODO
L=c.oD’’ +cl Dn-l+. ..+cn, (2)
(i.e. with coefficients cl constructed from indefinite ~i(~)
and their derivatives) as well as solutions q(z) of such oper-
ator equations L+ = O, for example solutions of the station-
ary one-dimensional Schrodinger equation (D2 – u(z)) p = O
with indefinite potential U(Z).
We will discuss here the problem of handling arbitrary
expressions involving arbitrary (finite) number of indefinite
functions ui (z), z s N, their derivatives, given rational func-
tions, operations +, –, *, D, D– 1, exponentiation and (for-
mal) inverses L – 1 of several operators (2) aa well as solutions
of several equations
LW=(Dn+ ClD”-l+... +Cn)p=O, c,~K. (3)
The problem of checking identities involving also /in similar
expressions will be touched in the last section.
The case IV = O (no indefinite functions appear) was
studied in many papers, see [16, 6] and references therein.
We introduce the notion of a “subnormal form” (which
is “close” in its properties to a normal form) for expressions
where formal inverses L-1 and solutions of (3) do not appear
in denominators.
2 Theoretical background
We will sketch here the basic facts of Loewy-Ore formal the-
ory of LODO, see [11, 12, 13, 14, 15], and some results on
factorization L = P1 o P, 0 ...0 P~ of a given LODO (2)
into composition of lower order irreducible operators with
coefficients in the same differential field, see [5, 17, 20, 21].
Let us denote the non-commutative ring of LODO (2) by
K[D]. For simplicity and without loss of generality we sup-
pose that operators are reduced (i.e. co s 1) unless other-
wise stated explicitly. For any two LODO L and M from
the existence of the Euclid algorithm one can determine
their (right) greatest common divisor GCD(L, M) = G, i.e.
L = L1 o G, M = Ml o G (the order of G is maximal) and
their (right) lowest common multiple LCM(L, M) = K, i.e.
310
K = ~ o L = ~ o M (the order of K is minimal). The so-
lution space {~) of L CM(L, AI) (in a proper Picard-Vessiot
extension of K) is spanned by sums (p + @) of solutions of
Lq = O, &f@ = 0. We say that operator L is (right) trans-
formed into L1 by an operator (not necessary reduced) B,
andwrite L~Ll, if K= LCA4(L, B)= LIo B= BIo L.
In this case any solution of Ly = O is mapped by B into a
solution BY of Lly = O. L1 will also be denoted as LB. If
GCD(L, B) = 1 one may find with rational algebraic opera-
tions an operator Bz such that LB ~ L, &.oB = 1(modL).
Operators L, LB in this case will be also called similar or oj
the same kind (in the given differential field K ). So for sim-
ilar operators the problem of solution of the corresponding
equations Ly = O, LB z = O are equivalent.
A (reduced) LODO is called prime or irreducible (in the
given differential field K) if it has no nontrivial factors aside
from itself and 1. Every LODO similar to a prime LODO is
also prime. Two (prime for simplicity) LODO P and Q are
called mterclmngeable m the product P o Q and this product
will be called mterchartgeable if P o Q = Q1 o PI, Q1 # P,
P’l # Q. In this case P is similar to PI, Q is similar to Ql
and P, 4 P.
Theorem 1 Any two diflerent decompositions of a given
~(?DO L @to products of prime LODO L = PI o o Pk =
PI o ..0 PP have the same number of factors (k = p) and
the factors are simdar in pairs (m some transposed order,),
One decomposition may be obtained from the other through
interchanges of contiguous factors (in the pairs P, o P,+l ).
If P and Q are interchangeable then P o Q = Q1 o P1 =
LCM (Q, PI) and vice versa. It is useful to study de-
compositions of operators which are LCk4 of prime oper-
ators Such operators will be called completely reducible.
If L = LCM(PI, . . . PP) where P,, are prime, —oral(L) =
—
ord(Pl) + + ord(P~,), then L = P] o o PP-] o PP,
F,< iirl, similar to P.,.
Theorem 2 If L = LCM(P,, . . . . PP) has an irreducible
r~ghtfactor L, which does not coincide with Pi, . . . . PP, then
among P., one can find at least two operators similur to L,.
corollary 1 If all PI, , Pk are of d~flerent kinds then L
have only them as rtght factors (i.e. there are no parameters
m the right factors).
Theorem 3 The necessary and suficient conditions that a
L ODO be completely reducible is that two arbitrary factors
in ang arb~trury decomposttton be interchangeable.
Now let us suppose that some P, are similar, namely P1,
. . . . P,,,, m ~ k are similar to some Lo, and Pk, k > m
are not similar to Lo, and the subfield of constants of K is
algebraically closed.
Theorem 4 Let Lo %_Pl , . . . . Lo % P,,,. Then the
most general right factor P of L = LCM(P], . . . . Pk) similar
to Lo is the result of transiorrnation of LO by ~ = >1Bl +
AzB, ++ A,, Brn, A EQ.
For first-order operators the following simple criterions
of similarity hold, First, (D – J(I)) ~(*ld (D – ~(z)) iff
l(~) = /(r) – D log f. The product L, o L2 is interchangeable,
311
i.e. L] o L2 = ~z o ~1 iff lI(z) = 12(z) – Dlog R – R,
R = 12(z) – ~1(z) E K. In particular if L1, L2 are similar,
11(z) = 12(z) – D log Q, then they are interchangeable iff
~Qdz~K.
The notion of symmett-tc product L @ M of two operators
plays an important role in the differential Galois theory (cf.
[18, 19]). We define L @ M to be the lowest order operator
annihilating all products (~ti) of solutions of Lp = O, MO =
0. The algorithm of computation of coefficients of L @ M
(which also lie in K) is straighforward. For example D @
D = D, and if L = D2 – u(z) (the Schrodinger operator)
L @ L = D3 + 8uD + 2u’D — the well-known in solitonics
Magri operator.
Completely factorable operators (i.e. operators which are
decomposable into products of first order operators)
L=(D–fl (z)) oo(D-jn (z)), f,~K, (4)
and solutions
p=pn D-l
(%’D-’(””’D-’:)
”””)“)
p~/p, = f,, of equations Lp = O were studied in [1, 4, 2, 3]
in the more restricted case N = O (i.e. K = Q(z)). Obvi-
ously (5) is a generalization of the studied in [7] expressions
t~D-lt”_l . .. D-ltl. t, 6 Q[ul(z), . ..)u~(z). Dul]. ..]
(i.e. polynomial t,)while p, in (5) may have the form
exp (~ fa dz). As one can show using the techniques of
[1, 4, 2, 3] in this general case sums and products of several
different functions of the form (5) may be again rendered
into the same form (called d’.Alembert functions). This cor-
responds to the fact that LCM(LI, Lz) and LI @ Lz are
also completely factorable. The former also follows from
the Loewy-Ore theory:
Theorem 5 Let L = LCM(A)B) and A = A1 o ~~~o .4k,
B = Bl o o B~ be decompositions of A, B into prime
factors. Then m any prime decomposition L = L, o o L“
one may put all L, into correspondence to a subset of
{.41) . ..4~}~} U {B], ... ,B~}, in such a way that the cor-
responding operators will be similar.
The complete factorizability of L] @Lz may be proved recur-
sively using (1) and LCM of operators annihilating the right
hand terms. This propert,v will be (partially) generalized in
section 4.
3 Combinations of d’Alembertian expressions (5)
Such expressions are often used in solitonics. We give in this
section their separate treatment in order to give a ready to
use technique for possible applications and explain typical
complexity problems arising in computations with integrod-
ifferential expressions. Most of the results are easily gener-
alizable, see sections 4, 5.
As we have mentioned above any expression formed with
(5) and operations +, –, *, D-1 again is reducible to the
same form. For example u = D–lp + gD– 1h (with nota-
tions p = u1(z), g = u2(z), h = us(z) for brevity) has the
(minimal) annihilator (i.e. the lowerst order LODO L such
that Lu = O)
“=(D-:)O(D-50D“)
with w =p’ + 2g’h+gh’ – $(p+gh) so ~k of the sum ~i<k Vi does not annihilate Pk+ ~ then ~ is
subnormaf, otherw%e simplified.
The important simplification of our approach is based

(( ))
p’+2fJ%+gl+AP+9h)
U=D–’ g’D–l (7) on the fact that actual checking of annihilation of ~k+l by
9’ ~k (and computation of ~k itself) is NOT necessary if at
least one of the first order factors of the minimal annihilator
The fist obvious disadvantage of (6) and (7) compared to Lk+l of ~k+l is not similar to any of factors of the minimal
the initial simple u consists in their complexity. Moreover annihilators of Pi, i ~ k or if the number of similar factors
due to non-unique factorization of L1: in Lk+ 1 of certain kind is greater than their number in ~,k.
This is obvious from Thgmems 1, 5. In the contrary case

“=(D-aO(D-($-@)O(D-~) ‘8)
the actual verification of Lk~k+l = O does not require com-
plete computation of ~k and may be greatly simplified. The
details will be covered elsewhere. Note that the minimal an-
} E ~ (which is its general form) we afso have
nihilators of individual p. of the form (5) are readily given
by (4), the algorithm of checking similarity of first order
g’ ~_l W(g + A)
71=(g+A)D-1— (9) operators is given in section 2; in the case of higher order
g+A 9’ factors (see [14, 10]) it requires finding rational (i.e. in K)
solutions of some LODES.
Another problem of (7), (9) concerns their initial data: the
usuaf D-l* = ~~m. dz fails in presence of denominators.
4 Expressions with non-d’Alembert ian elements
One shall properly choose the initial point and the integra-
tion constants in order to make (7), (9) correct. Let us consider expressions involving elements of K, solu-
The left hand side of (1) has as its minimal annihilator tions of e uations (3), operations +, –, * and (formal) in-
verses L-Y of mreducible operators of various orders. We
“=[(D-+)”D18[(D+
”D1= (10)
=( D-dl)o(D -dj)o(D-$)o D,
need some new results from the formal theory of LODO.

Proposition 1 If for two LODO A, B ~ K[D] the order of

A @ B is mazimal, i.e. ord(A @ B) = oral(A) . oral(B), then
dl = D(lOg WI , dz = D(logwz), W1 = (zg’’g~z – 3(g’)2~2 – for any C, E 6 K[D] one can find an operator F E K[D]
@“g2p + s(p’) i g2)/(g’p – p’g), w = (g’p - p’g)/p. The two such that (Ac) B (BE) = (A 8 B)F.
right hand side terms in (1) have Ml = D_ $_: “
( ) Proof The solution space of (Ac) @ (BE) is spanned by

(D-$)
DM2=(D-$-$)O(Di$
)D=their
minimal annihilators, and their sum should be annihilated
ti(z) ~~(z), E = Ga, ~ = Eb, a(z), b(z) being solutions of

Aa=(Dn+ ..+ctn(z))a=O,
by (12)
Bb=(Dm+ ..+ fl~(z))b=O.
La = LCM(M1, M2) = (D–el)O(D–ez)O
(11) Let us fix
( ‘-$+) ”(D-fOOD
ao = a(th), al = Da(zo), . . . ,an_l = Dn-la(zo),
(13)
(with some very complicated el, ez) which is obviously not bo = b(zo), bl = Db(Zo),. . . . bm_l = Dm-lb(xo),
the minimal annihilator (10). As one can check La is di-
visible by Lz. So in order to make a one-to-one corre- then
spondence between d’Alembert expressions (5) and com-
pletely factorable LODO one shall tind minimal annihilat- a(n) (ssO)= – ~ cllai, a(n+l) = ~ K;(~:, a~)a~, . . . ~14)
ing LODO. This problem was solved (for the case IV = O, b(m)(~o) = – ~@ibi, btm+’) = ~S,(~i,@~)bi,. .
K = Q(z)) in [3, 2]. In section 5 we will give another solu-
tion for the more general case.
and (Ca)(Eb) 1===0= xi j Ci,jaibj where Ci,j are some ex-
Provided the minimal annihilator of some particular
d’Alembert expression (with hyperexponential pi, i.e. P: = pressions built from the coefficients of A, B, C, E. Since
exp(~– 1ji), ~i E K) is found we may think of this operator F(ab) = ~i,j Fi,j(. . .)aib, , Fi,j being expressions built
(with attached proper initial data for its solution in ques- from the coefficients of A, B, F which are linear alge-
tion) as a “normal form” of such expression encoding the braic w.r.t. the coefficients of F (no derivatives!) then
complete (independent of any particular representation) in- from F(ab) 1===0= (Ca)(E~) 1===0we have a system of mn
formation about this expression. The obvious complexity of
linem algebraic (not differential!) equations for rnn coef-
this approach urges for another solution. Partially imitat-
ficients of F. This system is non-degenerate since in the
ing [7] we will recursively use (1) for representation of any
contrary case we could find an operator F E K[D] of or-
polynomial combination of (5) to a linear combination of
der < mn annihilating any product ab which contradicts to
(5). Further reduction to a “subnormal” form is performed
the fact that A @ B (the minimal annihilator of such prod-
induct ively on the number of terms in thk linear combinw
ucts) has order mn. Thus we can find F ● K[D] such that
tion. One (5) is subnormal by definition. Two of them are
F(ab) = (Ca) (Eb) in any generic point zo for any a, b, which
subnormal if their minimal annihilators do not coincide oth- means that the solution spaces of (A@B)~ and (At)@ (BE)
erwise the sum is just one (5) with another initiaf data. If coincide.
we have p = ~i<~ Wi + $Ok+land the minimal annihilator

312
 Remark. If orci(.4 R B) < ord(A)ord(f3) then the state- everywhere we will suppose that they are chosen in such a
ment of Proposition 1 may be wrong: take A = (D – 1) o way that that the formulas below hold. We will generalize
(D – 2), B = (D + 1) o (D + 2), then A @ B annihilates (1) fist.
(Llb, = err–’ = 1 = a2b2, alb2 = eZr-2T = e-’, a2b2 =
~,?.r(,-r —
_ P’, so .4@B = Do(D–l)o(D+I). But .4(D+Z)8B Proposition 3 For arbitrary functions f, 9 and opemtors
A, B E K[D]
has the solution space tilbl = ((D+ .r)ez) e-r = z + 1,
?i1b2 = (z+l)e-’, Z2fJ1= x+2, ?i2b2 = e2rc–r =ez, so has
(A-l~) (B-’g) = (A QB)-10
order 4.
rOrdL – I
Proposition 2 Ij L = L] o Lz then for operators M such
that the order ojLl @ Itf is rnazimal, LB M = (LI @ M)B o
[2,=0 (.4~t)-’(Djj) P,(g) +
(16)
(L2 @ Af) for some operator B E K[D]. ordM-I 1

Proof Let p and # be arbitrary solutions of Lp = , TO 1 J

(L, o L2)9 = 0, Afrj = 0, orcI(L, ) = n,, orri(M) = m,
L2W = ~, p{} = p(zo). pl = Dp(xo), . . .. pn2-1 = for some P,. Q,, R,)S, ● K[D].
D“2-l W(ZO). lo = ~(~o), ~] = DX(*O), . . . @O = ~(~0),
$1 =D@(xm), . . ..$.n_l = D ‘-l@(xo). Then a prior-i (L2@ Proof. As in the proof of Propositions 1,2 let us fix p =
a-’(~), @ = ~-](g) and the initial data of v, @ at m. SO
JW!djx=,.{, =
ZTLO f“ (Z~lO( )Pi + ~j~o( .)XP) , for h = @ we have (A@ f3)h =
where (. ,) are some combinations of coefficients of L,, M.
on the other hand if ~ = (), then L2p = O and by definition
(Lz M M)(p;l,) = O so in fact (Or~’Fl,
Or~’P1
,=0
@j+~pzrk 9,)+
, =0 k
/ordB–l \ (17)
(L, x ,if)(pt) = ~(...)(q)(DpX)x). (15)
,1,

N{nv W(Ishall find an operator B E K[D] such that (L] @

coefficients F,,, jj being built from the coefficients of A, B.
Af)B annihilates (15)1 i.c El(p@) is equal to the r.h.s, of
Since in the case when ~ = O, g = O, (A@ f3)(~~) s O the
( 15). This is proved following the guidelines oft he proof of
coefficients F1,,,j in (17) vanish. The rest of (17) gives h =
Proposition 1.
p~=(A-’j). (B”’g)= (A@ B)-’o[~D: o(f)(P, (g)(g)
Corollary 2 lfL=L1oo Lk, M =MIo, oMP and the + ~D’B-’ (g) Q,(f) + ~, R,(f) S,(g)]. In order to get
orders fJfL, N hf, are maximal then L N Al is decomposable (16) we use the formal operator ore identity
Into product of operator-s (L, C?A4J)B,,
Bo A-l =( A~)-l oB~ (18)
Note that dur to Proposition 2 (Ll o L2) @ (Afl o Af2) =
(L, R (A4, 0Af2))Bl o (L2 @(kf] oAIz)) = (L] @ M1)B2 O valid for arbitrary LODO A, B E K[D] (in fact ( 18) should
(L, @Af2)~30(L2@lf,) 13,0( L2c9Af2) = (Af, 8 (L, o L2))~50 be read as the trivial LCA4(A, 1?) = AB o B = BA o .4) for
(Afz E (Ll o L2)) = (Ll C$M, )B20(L2@/tfl )B70(Ll@M~)EX80 D’o A-l = (A~, )-l o(D’)~, D’o B-I =(~D, )-lo (D’)B,
(L2 @j Af2) so the two inner factors are always interchange-
able. The outer factors (L 1@AfI )B, and (L2 B M2) are not in Proposition 4 If the orders of all symmetrxc products are
general interchangeable with the others. For the same rea- mazimal then (L] OLZ) @(Ml o Mz) = (L I @A’f])B2 o(L1 @
son in the genera] case of marry factors L,, Af3 two factors M2)B,0(Lz@Ml )B, 0( Lz@M2) diuldes the LCA4 of operators
(L, @Af, ) ~,, and (L. @Af, )B,,, are necessary interchangeable ((L* o Lz) @ M,)~, , ((Ml o M2) @ Lr)~, and (L] @ M])T,
if either (i < r_)A (s < j) or (i > r) A (s > j).
muitip[ied on the right by (L2 @ Mz) for some Ti G K[D].
Example. Even in the case when orders of L1 @ M and
Proof. Using .4 = Lz, B = Afz, f = L~l(0), g = MI-l(0) in
L2 @ Af are maximal, (Ll o L2 ) @ Af may degenerate: for
L,= D-+, L2=D2-:D+$=LCM(D –:, D–; ) (16) and the method of the proof of Proposition 1 we can find
some T, ● K[D] such that ~ D’ o .L~l(f) P,(g) = T] (pg),
W(I have L = L, o L2 = LC7A4(D – $,D – ~,D – ~) (so
2 ~D’M~l(g) Q,(f) = T2(rJf), ~, R,(f) S,(g) = Ts(fg),
its solutions are x , .C:],X4), Af = D2 (solutions 1, Z2) and
which are annihilated respectively by ((L] o L2 ) @ Ml )~, ,
(L, o L,) c.; .lI = L2 w ,lf, that is (Ll @ Af)B = 1!.
As we notrd abme. the decomposition (1) implies that ((M, o M2) @ L] )2-,, (L I @ M] )~,. This completes the proof.
the annihilator (10) L2 (of order 4) of its I,h,s. divides the Using (16) we can transform an arbitrary expression de-
(11) L:, = LcA4(Jf1, M2) (of order 5). This falls into the fined in the beginning of this section to a “unratified form”
— a sum of terms of the form
general pattern of Theorems 1, 4, 5. obviously the imbed-
ding of the solution space of the complicated L2 into the
L~1(e1L~1(e2 . .. L~lek) ...), e, CK, Li EK[D], (19)
sun~ (althou~b not ii direct, sum) of the solution spaces of
much simpler Ml, Af2 suggests a similar way in the case of (an analog of (5)) with “moderately sized” elements. Fur-
symmetric products of higher order operators in order to re- ther simplification may be achieved using Proposition 4
duce the complexity of the resulting “subnormal form”. As or generally speaking if some L, are L CM of several
the following propositions show this is really possible. operators: since the solution space of L C’M (A, B) is
Let us formally denote ly+ L-1 f = p a solution of spanned by solution spaces of A and B, we can decom-
Lp = f. Jt’e will not, indicate the initial data for p although pose LC’M(A, B)-’(0) into sum of simpler .4- 1(0), B-l(0).

313
The case LCM(A, B)- 1(f) for arbitrary ~ may be studied
analogously. At this point it is useful to study decompo-
sitions of symmetric products A @ B of prime operators.
As the example (communicated to the author by M. Sosnin)
A= B= D2–~D–z, A@ B= LCM(D, D2– ~D–2x)
shows, symmetric products of irreducible operators may be
reducible and moreover may decompose as L CM ‘s. One can
check that the following is true at least for symmetric prod-
ucts of some second order prime operators.
Conjecture. If the symmetric product of two prime op-
emtors is not prime then their symmetric product decom-
poses as LCM of several prime operators, so in fact the so-
lutions of the opemtors are Liouvillian.
Solutions with algebraic logarithmic derivatives play a
very important role in the modern theory of LODO (cf. [18,
19]).
After construction of the “unratified sum” for a given
expression and simplification using L CM decomposable op-
erators, one shall check inductively that each term of this
sum is not annihilated by the minimal annihilator of the
sum of previous terms. This may be sometimes verified fast
using the method indicated in the end of section 3. In the
contrary case one should “include” such term into the pre-
vious ones changing appropriately their coefficients and/or
initial data. The problem of construction of the minimal an-
nihilator is addressed in the next section. After all described
transformations we get a particular form of the given initial
expression which bears many features of the normal form
treated in the simple denominator-free d’Alembertian case
in [7]. We will call such form “subnormal” due to its obvious
non-uniqueness.
5 Minimal annihilating operators
Here we solve (answering a question by B. Salvy) the prob-
lem of construction of the LODO which arminilates a given
expression u and has the minimal possible order. Such min-
imal annihilator is obviously unique. Using the techniques
of LCM and symmetric products we can always tlnd some
annihilating operator. As the example (10), (11) shows this
may result in an operator whose order is greater than nec-
essary.
Remark. Although the LCM(L1, Lz) of order 5 in (11)
gives the minimal operator which annihilates all linear com-
binations u = AID-I (~D-19) + AzD-l(gD-l~) one can
easily prove that any particular such combination is an-
nihilated by some 4-th order operator: u’ = Al f D– 1g +
A~?D-l f , U“ = Al f’D-lg + Azg’D-lf + (h -t &)fg,
u = &f’’D-1g+A2g’’1f +( Al+&) (}g)g+Alflg+A2g2 j’j
UIV _—.. .
are obviously linearly dependent over K. On the
other hand for two solutions of two prime operators any par-
ticular sum is annihilated only by the LCM of the operators
(cf. Theorem 5).
Let L = L1 0...0 Lk be some (not minimal) annihilating
operator decomposed into prime fact ors using the techniques
of [5, 17, 20] (applicable over K). If all Li have order 1 then
the construction of the minimal annihilator (a divisor of L)
ww given in [3] using the techniques of adjoint operators and
“accurate integration” of [2] (in the more general case of Ore
rings). In the case of arbitrary ord(Li) ~ 1 we shall apply
the technique of section 2. Namely, all possible right factors
of the adjoint operator L* = L; 0 ...0 L; are either “is@
lated” factors PI, . . . . P, (each similar to some L;), s < k,
or parametric “sheaves” Qi(Al, . . . . A*i) = QXIBl+.. +A~i Bgi
314
(similar to several of L; of the same kind, cf. Theorems 1, 4).
Splitting each Pa off L*: L* = ~P; in turn we check if the
given expression u is annihilated by ~. The same should
be done for Qi (Al,. . . . A~i), in this case we get a set of equa-
tions for Ai aa the criterion of annihilation.
Lemma 1 If L* = R; A = R; B and both R1, R2 annilti-
late u then u is annihilated by R3 obtained by splitting off
LCM(A, B): L“ = W3LCM(A, B).
Proof. LCM(A, B) =Bo A=/io B, Lu=KB”u =
B“~v for ~ = Rsu. We have B*v = ~“v = O. Since
GCD(~”, B“ ) = 1 (otherwise LCM(A, B) should have
lower order) there exist operators F, G E K[D] such that
FB” + GA* = 1. Thus R3U = V = (~~” +G~”)v = O.
Using this Lemma we see (cf. Theorem 4) that the set of
solutions of the equations for the parameters Ai should form
.
a linear subspace. Let Ai,j = (~1, i,j, . , Aqi,,,j ~) be the basis
of this subspace. Then we may split off the operator P =
LCM(Pil, . . . . P~~,Qjl (~jl,l), . . .): L* = R*P, where Pi-
are such that for splittings L* = R~i o Pji , I?ji u = O. Due
to Lemma 1 Ru = O. As the obvious examples of products
of non-interchangeable operators show, the constructed h
may still be not minimal. So the above process should be
continued. It obviously terminates producing the desired
minimal annihilator.
6 Conclusion
We discussed in the above sections only manipulation of
expressions whose (intermediate) denominators are only el-
ements of K, for example (D2 + D– 1 0
( *D-1 (i))
But it is obviously possible to prove or disprove identities of
the more general form namely with arbitrary denominators
(including solutions of (3) and operator inverses). Using the
Ore identity (18) we may transform the given expression
into a sum of the form L:l(. . .) + . . . + L~l(. . .). Applying
LCit4(Ll,.. ,, L~ ) (also checking beforehand that the initial
data vanish) and removing the obtained denominator we
will decrease the “denominator embedding depth” (i.e. the
maximal level of embedding of denominators cent aining op-
erator inverses and solutions of (3)) probably incre~ing the
total comlexity of the expression. After removing all denom-
inat ors we may precede further as described in section 4.
Many solitonic problems include also inverses of matrix
LODO. A proper treatment of this case as well as the case
of partial linear differential operators deserves furthur study.
Complexity estimates of the above algorithms are still high
and should be reduced.
7 Acknowledgement
Several ideaa described here appeared after fruitful discus-
sions with Prof. S.A. Abramov, to whom the author wishes
to express his special gratitude. I like to thank Professor
B. Salvy for the correct reference to [16].
References
[1] ABRAMOV, S.A. On d’Alembert Substitution. Proc.
ZSSAC’93, pp. 169-174.
 [2] ABRAMOV, S. A., AND VAN HOEIJ, M. Ore Rings: Ad- [19] SINGER, M. F., AND ULMER, F. Linear Differential
joint Polynomials, Operators, Equations. submitted to Equations and Products of Linear Forms. Preprint
ISSAC’97. (1996), 13p.

[3] ABRAMOV, S. A., AND ZIMA, E.V. Completely Fac- [20] TSAREV, S. P. Onsomeproblems in factorization of
torabe Annihilators. submitted to LSSAC’97. Iinearordinary differential operators. Programming 8
Gomputer Software 2’0, 1 (1994), pp. 27-29.
141
., ABRAMO\’, S. A., AND PETKOVSEK,M. D’Alembertian
Solutions of Linear Differential and Difference Equa- [21] TSAREV, S. P. An algorithm for complete enumeration
tions. PTOC.ISSAC’94, pp. 169-174. of afl factorization of a linear ordinary differential op-
erator. Proceedings of ISSA C ’96 (1996), ACM Press,
[5] BRONST~I~, Itf, An improved algorithm for factoring pp. 226-231.
linear ordinary differential operators. In Proceedings of
ISSA C ’94 (Ozford, U.K.) (1994), ACM Press, pp. 336-
340.

[6] CHYZAK, F. Holonomic systems and automatic proofs

of identities. I%eprmt.

[7] TEN E] KELDER,H. M. M., AND WILMONT, J. CF. Nor-

mal Form for a Class of Formul~. J. Symb. Computa-
tion ~2, (1991), pp. 143-160.

[8] FUCHSSTEtNER,B., OEVEL, W., AND WIWIANKA, W.

Computer-algebra methods for investigation of heredi-
tary operators of higher order soliton equations. Com-
puter Physics Comm. 44, 1 (1987), pp. 47-55.

[9] FUCHSSTEINER,B., IVANOV, S., AND WIWIANKA, W.

Algorithmic determination of infinite dimensional sym-
metry groups for integrable systems in 1+1 dimensions.
Preprint, (1995), 13 p.

[10] VAN HOEIJ, M. Rational solutions of the mixed differ-

ential equation and its application to factorization of
differential operators. Proceedings of L9SAC’96 (1996),
ACM Press, pp. 219-225.

[1I] LOEW~, A. Uber reduzible Iineare homogene Differen-

tialgleichungen. Math. Annalen 56 (1903), pp. 549-584.

[12] LOEW~, A. Uber vollstandig reduzible Iineare homo-

gene Differentialgleichungen. Math. Annalen 62 (1906),
pp. 89-117.

[13] ORE, O. Formale Theorie der linearen Differentialgle-

ichungen (Erster Teil). J. ~tir die reine und angewandte
Mathematik 167 (1932), pp. 221-234.

[14] ORE, O. Formale Theorie der linearen Differential-

gleichungen (Zweiter Teil). J. fir die reine and ange-
wandte Mathematik 168 (1932), pp. 233–252.

[15] ORE, O. Theory of non-commutative polynomials. An-

nals of Mathematics 34 (1933), pp. 480–508.

[16] SALV~, B., AND ZIMMERMAN, P. Gfun: a Maple

package for manipulation of generating and holonomic
functions in one variable. ACM Transactions on Math-
ematical Software 20, 2 (1994), pp. 163–177.

[17] SCHWARZ, F. Efficient factorization of liner ODE’S

SIGSAM Bulletin 28, 1 (1994), pp. 9-17.

[18] SINGER, M. F., AND ULMER, F. Gafois groups of sec-

ond and third order linear differential equations. Jour-
nal of Symbolic Computation 16 (1993), pp. 9–36.

315