arXiv:1601.07109v1 [math.NT] 26 Jan 2016

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION
AND DEFORMATIONS OF THE DILOGARITHM FUNCTION
TOBIAS HARTNICK AND ANDREAS OTT

A BSTRACT. We analyze existence, uniqueness and regularity of solutions for perturbations of the
Spence-Abel equation for the Rogers’ dilogarithm. As an application we deduce a version of HyersUlam stability for the Spence-Abel equation. Our analysis makes use of a well-known cohomological
interpretation of the Spence-Abel equation and is based on our recent results on continuous bounded
cohomology of SL2 (R).

1. I NTRODUCTION
Given a system of functional equations, it is natural to investigate whether solutions to small
perturbations of the equations remain close to solutions of the original system. This type of
stability analysis is often referred to as the (generalized) Hyers-Ulam problem since it was
popularized by Ulam [35, Chapter 6], and the first major results (concerning the linear functional
equation) were obtained by Hyers [19]. The investigation of generalized Hyers-Ulam stability
has branched out into several different directions. In the case of of the linear functional equation on general groups it has led to the study of real-valued quasimorphisms (a notion closely
related to bounded cohomology in the sense of [14]) and more generally perturbations of unitary
representations [7] and quasimorphisms with non-commutative target [16, 12]. There is also a
wide literature concerning Hyers-Ulam stability of non-linear functional equations, whose development up to the late 90’s is summarized in the monograph [20]. For more recent developments
and applications see also [22, 24].
The present article is concerned with Hyers-Ulam stability of the Spence-Abel equation,
the functional equation of the Rogers’ dilogarithm. This functional equation is substantially more
involved than the equations whose Hyers-Ulam stability was considered previously. Before we
state our stability result, let us briefly recall some background concerning the Rogers’ dilogarithm
and its functional equation.
Rogers’ dilogarithm arises as a certain symmetrizations of the restriction of the dilogarithm
Li2 to (0, 1). On this interval the dilogarithm can be given either by an integral or a convergent
power series [26, 11]:
ˆ x
∞ xn
X
log(1 − t)
Li2 (x) = −
dt =
.
2
t
0
n=1 n
As Zagier has pointed out [36], “[t]oday one needs no apology for devoting a paper to this function”.
This is partly due to the applications that the dilogarithm has found in conformal field theory
[9, 10, 23, 31], but also due to its ubiquity in different areas of mathematics including (but not
limited to) hyperbolic geometry [4], cohomology of Lie groups [2, 8], algebraic K-theory [3, 13,
27] and modular forms [30]. Numerous mysterious identities involve the dilogarithm [36], most
notably the 5-term equation, which was discovered independently by Spence [17], Abel [1], Hill
1

2

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

[18], Kummer [25] and Schaeffer [34]. For 0 < x < y < 1 it can be stated as
µ
µ
¶
¶
1− x
1− y
Li2 (x) + Li2 (y) + Li2
+ Li2 (1 − x y) + Li2
1− xy
1− xy
µ
¶
µ
¶
2
1− x
1− y
π
− log(x) log(1 − x) − log(y) log(1 − y) + log
log
.
=
6
1− xy
1− xy
A century after Spence and Abel, Rogers [33] observed that a certain symmetrization of the dilogarithm obeys a much simpler 5-term equation. He introduced the function L 2 : (0, 1) → R given
by
ˆ xµ
¶
1
log(t) log(1 − t)
1
L 2 (x) := − ·
+
dt = (Li2 (x) − Li2 (1 − x) + ζ(2)),
2 0 1− t
t
2
which is nowadays referred to as Rogers’ dilogarithm, and pointed out that for this function
the 5-term equation for the Euler dilogarithm simplifies to
µ ¶
¶
¶
µ
µ
x
y−1
x(y − 1)
L 2 (x) − L 2 (y) − L 2
− L2
+ L2
=0
(1.1)
y
x−1
y(x − 1)
for all 0 < x < y < 1. This equation is often referred to as the Spence-Abel functional equation
for L 2 . By construction, Rogers’ dilogarithm also has the reflection symmetry
L 2 (1 − x) = ζ(2) − L 2 (x).

(1.2)

It is an amusing exercise in differentiation to prove that L 2 is in fact the only three-times differntiable function on the interval (0, 1) satisfying (1.1) and (1.2) (see [8, Appendix A]). Proving
uniqueness under lower regularity assumptions is a much harder problem. It was only established relatively recently by Burger and Monod [6] that any measurable solution of (1.1) and (1.2)
has to agree with Rogers’ dilogarithm almost everywhere. This implies in particular, that Rogers’
dilogarithm is the unique continuous solution. Concerning Hyers-Ulam stability of the system
(1.1) – (1.2) we have the following main result:
Theorem 1.1 (Stability of the Spence-Abel system). Let L : (0, 1) → R be a measurable function
such that
¯
µ
¶
µ
¶¯
µ ¶
¯
y−1
x(y − 1) ¯¯
x
¯
≤²
−L
+L
sup ¯L(x) − L(y) − L
y
x−1
y(x − 1) ¯
x,y∈(0,1)
and L(1 − x) = C − L(x) for some ² > 0 and C ∈ R. Then
kL − L 2 k∞ ≤ 11 · ² + 6 · |C − ζ(2)|.

This stability result is a consequence of a detailed study of the perturbed Spence-Abel system
µ ¶
µ
¶
µ
¶
x
y−1
x(y − 1)
L(x) − L(y) − L
−L
+L
= R(x, y), ((x, y) ∈ P 2 )
(1.3)
y
x−1
y(x − 1)
L(1 − x) = C − L(x), (x ∈ (0, 1))
(1.4)
for an arbitrary choice of constant C ∈ R and right hand side R. Here, R is supposed to be a realvalued function on P 2 := { g : {(x, y) ∈ (0, 1)2 | x < y}, and L is a real-valued function on the open
interval (0, 1). We refer to (1.3) as the perturbed Spence-Abel equation and to (1.4) as the
perturbed reflection symmetry.
We establish the following results concerning existence, uniqueness, boundedness and regularity of solutions. Here L0 denotes the space of all measurable functions modulo almost everywhere
vanishing functions, C ω denotes the space of all real-analytic functions and P 3 := {(x, y, z) ∈ (0, 1)3 |
x < y < z}.

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

3

Theorem 1.2. The perturbed Spence-Abel system (1.3) – (1.4) has the following properties.
(Uniqueness) For every R ∈ L0 (P 2 ) and C ∈ R the system (1.3) – (1.4) has at most one
solution L(R,C ) ∈ L0 ((0, 1)).
(Existence) Given R ∈ L0 (P 2 ) and C ∈ R, the system (1.3) – (1.4) admits a solution if and
only if R satisfies the following equations for almost all (x, y, z) ∈ P 3 :
µ
¶
µ
¶
³ x y´
z−1 z−1
x(z − 1) y(z − 1)
R(x, y) − R(x, z) + R(y, z) − R , − R
,
+R
,
= 0,
(1.5)
z z
x−1 y−1
z(x − 1) z(y − 1)
µ
¶
1− y
R 1 − y,
− R(x, y) = 0.
(1.6)
1− x
(Boundedness) Given R ∈ L0 (P 2 ) satisfying (1.5) and C ∈ R, the function L(R,C ) is essentially bounded if and only if R is essentially bounded.
(Regularity) Assume that R ∈ L∞ (P 2 ) is essentially bounded and satisfies (1.5) and let
C ∈ R and k ∈ N ∪ {0, ∞, ω}. Then L(R,C ) is of class C k if and only if R is of class C k .
(Continuity) Assume that R 1 , R 2 ∈ L∞ (P 2 ) are essentially bounded and satisfy (1.5) and
let C 1 , C 2 ∈ R. Then
kL(R1 ,C1 ) − L(R2 ,C2 ) k∞ ≤ 11 · kR 1 − R 2 k∞ + 6 · |C 1 − C 2 |.

Equation (1.5) is called the 6-term equation for R. Both the Spence-Abel equation and the
6-term equation admit a cohomological interpretation. We learned about the cohomological interpretation of the Spence-Abel equation from [6], and although the idea seems to have been around
for some time, this is the only explicit reference we know. Developing this idea further, we provide
in the present article a dictionary between functional equations such as (1.3) – (1.4) and corresponding cohomological statements. This dictionary is really at the heart of our approach, and
although the statements of Theorem 1.2 do not involve any cohomology, our proofs are entirely
cohomological.
It follows from our dictionary that the existence and uniqueness statements in Theorem 1.2
can be reinterpreted as vanishing results in measurable cohomology in degrees 3 and 4 for the
PSL2 (R)-action on the circle. These vanishing results can be obtained by identifying the measurable cohomology of the boundary action of PSL2 (R) with the measurable group cohomology of
PSL2 (R). To put this last result into perspective, let us mention that the measurable cohomology of any semisimple Lie group is expected to be realizable over the Furstenberg boundary. For
PSL2 (C) this conjecture was established by Bloch [2], but there are major technical difficulties in
generalizing his argument to wider classes of groups. Recently, a breakthrough in this direction
was achieved by Pieters [32], who established the conjecture for all real-hyperbolic groups. This
includes in particular the case of PSL2 (R) which we need here (and which is by far the simplest
case).
Our contribution lies mainly in establishing boundedness of the solution for a given bounded
right-hand side. In cohomological terms, this amounts to proving vanishing theorems for the
continuous bounded cohomology of PSL2 (R) in degree 3 and 4. (Here, (continuous) bounded cohomology is understood in the sense of [14, 21, 5, 29].) In degree 3, the relevant vanishing theorem
is due to Burger and Monod [6], whereas the vanishing theorem in degree 4 was established in
[15]. The boundedness part of Theorem 1.2 is essentially a straightforward application of these
two theorems.

4

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

In order to establish the final two parts of the theorem we capitalize on the fact that the proof of
the vanishing theorem for the 4th continuous bounded cohomology of PSL2 (R) provided in [15] is
constructive. Namely, in [15] we construct for every 4-cocycle an explicit primitive by integration.
This means that for a given bounded measurable right-hand side R we solve the system (1.3)
–(1.4) explicitly. The result is as follows:
Theorem 1.3. Assume that R ∈ L∞ (P 2 ) satisfies (1.5) – (1.6), and let C ∈ R. Then the unique
solution L(R,C ) of (1.3) – (1.4) is of the form
L

(R,C )

1
(x) = C/2 −
2π

ˆ

ˆ

2π

³
´
c(R,C ) e iψ , 1, −1, C (x), − i d ψ

0

− x−1
2x

¶
µ
¶¶
µ
µ
1− x
1− x
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
F([R,C ) 2 · arccot − t +
2x
2x
0
ˆ x+1
µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
2
1− x
1− x
+
F([R,C ) 2 · arccot − t +
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2
2
0
ˆ 1
µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
2
1
1
[
F(R,C ) 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
−
dt
2
2
0
ˆ x
³
³
³
2
x´
x ´´
+
F([R,C ) 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
dt,
2
2
0

−

where c(R,C ) ∈ L∞ ((S 1 )5 ) and F([R,C ) ∈ L∞ ((0, 2π)2 ) are certain explicit functions constructed from
the function R − C/2 as explained in Subsection 4.4.
Both regularity of the solution and continuous dependence on initial conditions are consequences of these explicit formulas. In particular, applying our integration formulas to the original
Spence-Abel system we obtain a new formula for Rogers’ dilogarithm.
Theorem 1.4. The Rogers’ dilogarithm L 2 is given by the formula
¶
µ
µ
¶
π
2x
ζ(2) ζ(2)
+
−
arctan
L 2 (x) =
2
2π
2
1 − x2
ˆ −x−1 µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
2x
1− x
1− x
[
−
F c 2 · arccot − t +
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2x
2x
0
ˆ x+1 µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
2
1− x
1− x
[
+
F c 2 · arccot − t +
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2
2
0
ˆ 1 µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
2
1
1
[
−
F c 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2
2
0
ˆ x ³
³
³
2
x´
x ´´
+
F c[ 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
dt,
2
2
0
where
F c[ (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) =

¢
ζ(2) ¡
· (3ϕ1 − 2π)(cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) − (3ϕ2 − 4π)(cos(ϕ1 ) − 1)
2
4π
µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
3ζ(2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
+
· sin(ϕ1 ) · log
− sin(ϕ2 ) · log
.
sin(ϕ1 /2)
sin(ϕ2 /2)
8π 2

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

5

This article is organized as follows: In Section 2 we provide a dictionary between cohomologies
of certain complexes of PSL2 (R)-invariant functions on tori and solutions of certain functional
equations. Existence and uniqueness for the perturbed Spence-Abel system are then deduced in
Section 3 from the cohomological vanishing results mentioned above. Section 4 is concerned with
explicit integral formulas for solutions of the perturbed Spence-Abel system. In particular, we
derive the desired regularity and continuity results. Finally, in Section 5 we derive the above
formula for Rogers’ dilogarithm.
Acknowledgement: The authors thank Nicolas Monod and Hester Pieters for their patient
explanations concerning [6] and [32] respectively. They are indepted to Marc Burger, Simeon Reich and Themistocles Rassias for pointing out various references concerning Hyers-Ulam stability.
T.H. was partially supported by ISF grant 2021372. A.O. was supported by the European Research
Council under ERC-Consolidator grant 614733 “Deformation Spaces of Geometric Structures".
2. C OHOMOLOGICAL

FORMULATION OF THE

5-

AND

6- TERM

EQUATIONS

2.1. The boundary action of PU(1, 1) and the cross ratio. We consider the action of the group
b = C ∪ {∞} by Möbius transformations
PSL2 (C) on the extended complex plane C
µ
¶
az + b
a b
.
.z =
c d
cz + d
Given a space X we denote by X (n) ⊂ X n the subset of n-tuples of pairwise distinct points.
b (4) → C is the function given by
Definition 2.1. The cross ratio [− : − : − : −] : C

[z1 : z2 : z3 : z4 ] :=

(z1 − z3 )(z2 − z4 )
(z2 − z3 )(z1 − z4 )

b (4) ).
((z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 ) ∈ C

b (4) subject to the
The cross ratio as defined above is the unique PSL2 (C)-invariant function on C
normalisation
z = [z : 1 : 0 : ∞] = [∞ : 0 : 1 : z].
(2.1)

We warn the reader that there exist several other normalization conventions for the cross ratio in
the literature. We will always stick to the normalization above. With this normalization we then
b \ { z1 , . . . , z4 }:
have the following cocycle identities for all z ∈ C
[z1 : z2 : z3 : z4 ] = [z1 : z : z3 : z4 ][z : z2 : z3 : z4 ] = [z1 : z2 : z3 : z][z1 : z2 : z : z4 ].

(2.2)

We will be interested in the subgroup G := PU(1, 1) < PSL2 (C), whose elements are represented by
matrices of the form
µ
¶
a b
g a,b :=
,
b̄ ā
b preserves the unit disc
with a, b ∈ C subject to the condition |a|2 − | b|2 = 1. The action of G on C
1
1
b
D ⊂ C and its boundary, the circle S . We refer to the action of G on S as the boundary action
of G.

2.2. Orbits of cyclically oriented points and cross ratio coordinates. The boundary action
of G = PU(1, 1) on S 1 induces a diagonal action of G on (S 1 )k for every k ∈ N, which commutes
with the natural action of the symmetric group Sk by permuting the coordinates. Both actions
preserve the open subset (S 1 )(k) ⊂ (S 1 )k , and we are interested in the G × Sk orbits in (S 1 )(k) .

6

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

The G-action on (S 1 )(3) is free and has exactly two orbits (S 1 )(3,±) given by positively and negatively oriented triples respectively. Indeed, this follows from the fact that PGL2 (R) acts sharply
b (3) and that the index 2 subgroup PSL2 (R) preserves the subset R
b (3,+) . Even
3-transitively on R
permutations in S3 preserve these two orbits, whereas odd permutations exchange them.
Definition 2.2. Let k ≥ 3. A k-tuple (z1 , . . . , z k ) ∈ (S 1 )(k) is called cyclically oriented if there
exist (θ1 , . . . , θk ) ∈ R such that z j = e iθ j for all j = 1, . . . , k and
θ 1 < θ 2 < · · · < θ k < θ 1 + 2π .

We denote by (S 1 )(k,+) ⊂ (S 1 )(k) the set of cyclically oriented k-tuples.
For k = 3, cyclically oriented triples are the same as positively oriented triples, hence the notation is compatible with the previous one. Note that every ordered subtuple of a cyclically oriented
k-tuple is cyclically oriented, and that a k-tuple is cyclically oriented if and only if every ordered
4-subtuple is cyclically oriented. We can use these facts to characterize cyclically oriented k-tuples
by means of cross ratios.
Lemma 2.3. Let (z1 , . . . , z k ) ∈ (S 1 )k . Then (z1 , . . . , z k ) is cyclically oriented if and only if (z1 , z2 , z3 )
is cyclically oriented and
0 < [z2 : z3 : z1 : z4 ] < [z2 : z3 : z1 : z5 ] < [z2 : z3 : z1 : z6 ] < · · · < [z2 : z3 : z1 : z k ] < 1.
Proof. Consider the function f 0 : S 1 \ { z1 , z2 , z3 } → R given by f 0 (z) = [z2 : z3 : z1 : z]. It follows from
b such that
the explicit formula for the cross ratio that f 0 extends to a homeomorphism f : S 1 → R
f (z1 ) = 1, f (z2 ) = ∞ and f (z3 ) = 0. In particular, z lies between z3 and z1 if and only if f (z) ∈ (0, 1)
and z j lies before z j+1 if and only if f (z j ) < f (z j+1 ).

The lemma motivates the following definition.
Definition 2.4. Let k ≥ 4 and (z1 , . . . , z k ) ∈ (S 1 )(k,+) . Then the numbers λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ∈ (0, 1) given
by
λ j := [z2 : z3 : z1 : z j+3 ]

are called the cross ratio coordinates of (z1 , . . . , z k ).
If we abbreviate by P n the parameter space
P n := {(x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ (0, 1)n | x1 < x2 < · · · < xn } ⊂ (0, 1)n ,

then by Lemma 2.3 cross ratio coordinates define a map

Λ : (S 1 )(k,+) → P k−3 ,

(z1 , . . . , z k ) 7→ (λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ).

b→C
b is the Möbius
To see that this map is onto we recall that the Cayley transform C : C
transformation given by
z−i
1+w
C (z) =
, C −1 (w) = i
.
z+i
1−w
b → S 1 and intertwines the PSL2 (R)-action on R
b
The Cayley transform restricts to a bijection C : R
1
and the G-action on S . Since C (∞, 0, 1) = (1, −1, − i) we can reformulate the identity (2.1) as

C −1 (z) = [∞ : 0 : 1 : C −1 (z)] = [C (∞) : C (0) : C (1) : C (C −1 (z))] = [1 : −1 : − i : z] ∈ R \ {0, 1}.

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

7

Lemma 2.5. Let (λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ) ∈ P k−3 . Then
(z1 , . . . , z k ) := (− i, 1, −1, C (λ1 ), . . . , C (λk−3 )) ∈ (S 1 )(k,+)
and (λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ) = Λ(z1 , . . . , z k ). In particular, Λ is onto.
Proof. By definition, (z1 , z2 , z3 ) = (− i, 1, −1) is cyclically oriented and for every j = 4, . . . , k we have
[z2 : z3 : z1 : z j ] = [1 : −1 : − i : z j ] = C −1 (z j ) = λ j−3 .



Thus the lemma follows from Lemma 2.3.

Since G acts sharply 3-transitively on (S 1 )(3,+) , it follows from Lemma 2.3 that Λ induces a
bijection G \(S 1 )k → P k−3 . In particular, G-invariant functions on (S 1 )(k,+) correspond bijectively
to functions on P k−3 via Λ.
Lemma 2.6. If (z1 , . . . , z k ) ∈ (S 1 )(k,+) has cross ratio coordinates (λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ), then (z k , z1 , . . . , z k−1 )
f1 , . . . , λ

f
has cross ratio coordinates (λ
k−3 ) given by λ1 = 1 − λ k−3 and
1 − λk−3
fj =
( j = 2, . . . , k − 3).
λ
1 − λ j−1
Proof. By the standard symmetries of the cross ratio we have
f1 = [z1 : z2 : z k : z3 ] = 1 − [z2 : z3 : z1 : z k ] = 1 − λk−3 ,
λ
and for j = 2, . . . , k − 3 we deduce from the cocycle identity (2.2) that
fj = [z1 : z2 : z k : z j+2 ] = [z1 : z2 : z k : z3 ][z1 : z2 : z3 : z j+2 ]
λ
= (1 − [z2 : z3 : z1 : z k ]) ·

1
1 − λk−3
=
.
1 − [z2 : z3 : z1 : z j+2 ] 1 − λ j−1



2.3. Alternating functions in cross ratio coordinates. Our next goal is to single out the
alternating G-invariant functions on (S 1 )(k) in terms of their cross ratio coordinates. Here a
function f : (S 1 )(k) → R is called alternating provided
f (zσ(1) , . . . , zσ(k) ) = (−1)σ f (z1 , . . . , z k )

(σ ∈ Sk , (z1 , . . . , z k ) ∈ (S 1 )(k) ),

and we denote by Falt ((S 1 )(k) ) the space of all such functions.
We observe that every (x1 , . . . , xk ) ∈ (S 1 )(k) can be permuted into a cyclically oriented k-tuple. If
we denote by C k ⊂ Sk the cyclic group generated by the cycle σk := (1 2 . . . k), then this induces a
bijection
(S 1 )(k) /Sk ∼
(2.3)
= (S 1 )(k,+) /C k .
Proposition 2.7. For k ≥ 4 the following spaces are in bijection:
(1) the space Falt ((S 1 )(k) )G of G-invariant alternating functions c : (S 1 )(k) → R;
(2) the space Falt ((S 1 )(k,+) )G of G-invariant functions c 0 : (S 1 )(k,+) → R satsfying
c 0 (z k , z1 , . . . , z k−1 ) = (−1)k+1 c 0 (z1 , . . . , z k ).
(3) the space Falt (P k−3 ) of functions f : P k−3 → R satisfying
µ
¶
1 − λk−3
1 − λk−3
k+1
f (λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ) = (−1)
· f 1 − λk−3 ,
,...,
.
1 − λ1
1 − λk−4

(2.4)

(2.5)

The bijection (1) ↔ (2) is given by restriction, while the bijection (2) ↔ (3) is induced by the cross
ratio coordinates Λ.

8

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

Proof. By (2.3), Sk -equivariant functions on (S 1 )(k) correspond via restriction to C k -equivariant
functions on (S 1 )(k,+) . Now C k -equivariance is equivalent to (2.4) since C k is generated by the kcycle σk . This shows that restriction defines a G-equivariant bijection Falt ((S 1 )(k) ) → Falt ((S 1 )(k,+) ).
Moreover, we know from the previous subsection that cross ratio coordinates induce a bijection
F ((S 1 )(k,+) )G → F (P n ), and by Lemma 2.6 this bijection translates the alternating condition (2.4)
into (2.5).

Proposition 2.7 and Lemma 2.5 yield for every k ≥ 4 mutually inverse bijections given by
extk : Falt (P k−3 ) → Falt ((S 1 )(k) )G ,

extk ( f )(z1 , . . . , z k ) = f (Λ(z1 , . . . , z k ))

((z1 , . . . , z k ) ∈ (S 1 )(k,+) ),

resk : Falt ((S 1 )(k) )G → Falt (P k−3 ),

resk (c)(λ1 , . . . , λk−3 ) = c(− i, 1, −1, C (λ1 ), . . . , C (λk−3 )),

which we refer to as extension and restriction maps respectively. When k is clear from the
context we simply write ext and res for extk and resk .
We will be specifically interested in the space Falt (P k ) for k ≤ 3 and the corresponding extension and restriction maps. Explicitly, these are given by
Falt (P 1 ) = { f : (0, 1) → R | f (x) = − f (1 − x)},
(2.6)
¶¾
½
µ
1
−
y
,
(2.7)
Falt (P 2 ) =
g : {(x, y) ∈ (0, 1)2 | x < y} → R | g(x, y) = g 1 − y,
1− x
½
µ
¶¾
1− z 1− z
Falt (P 3 ) =
h : {(x, y, z) ∈ (0, 1)3 | x < y < z} → R | h(x, y, z) = − h 1 − z,
,
. (2.8)
1− x 1− y

Note in particular that L : (0, 1) → R satisfies the perturbed reflection symmetry
L(x) = −L(1 − x)

(2.9)

with constant C = 0 if and only if L ∈ Falt (P 1 ).
2.4. The homogeneous differential in cross ratio coordinates. Denote by F ((S 1 )(k) ) the
space of real-valued functions on (S 1 )(k) . Recall that the homogeneous differential is given by
δn : F ((S 1 )(n+1) ) → F ((S 1 )(n+2) ),

(δn c)(z0 , . . . , z n+1 ) =

nX
+1
j =0

(−1) j c(z0 , . . . , zbj , . . . , z n+1 ).

It is G-invariant, satisfies δn ◦δn−1 = 0 and intertwines the corresponding subspaces of alternating
functions. For k ≥ 4 we define the reduced differential
τk : Falt (P k−2 ) → Falt (P k−1 ),

f 7→ resk+2 ◦ δk ◦ extk+1 ( f )

and obtain the following commuting diagram in which vertical arrows are isomorphisms:
...

0

/ Falt ((S 1 )(4) )G

δ3

δ4

res5

res4


Falt (P 1 )

/ Falt ((S 1 )(5) )G

τ

3


/ Falt (P 2 )

/ Falt ((S 1 )(6) )G

δ5

/ ...

τ5

/ ...
(2.10)

res6

τ

4


/ Falt (P 3 )

Remark 2.8. Instead of considering arbitrary real-valued functions, we could as well consider
bounded functions, or functions of a given regularity (measurable, continuous, C k , smooth). In
each of these cases we obtain a similar diagram as in (2.10). In the case of measurable (bounded)

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

9

functions we can also pass to the respective quotients by identifying functions which agree almost
everywhere. The following complex will be of particular importance for us later on.
/ L∞ ((S 1 )(4) )G
alt

0

...

δ3

/ L∞ ((S 1 )(5) )G
alt

δ4

/ L∞ ((S 1 )(6) )G
alt

res5

res4


(
P 1)
L∞
alt

τ

3


/ L∞ (P 2 )
alt

δ5

/ ...

τ5

/ ...

res6
τ

4


/ L ∞ (P 3 )
alt

(2.11)
Proposition 2.9. For k = 3, 4 the reduced differential τk is given as follows.
(i) Let f ∈ Falt (P 1 ). Then
µ ¶
µ
¶
µ
¶
x
y−1
x(y − 1)
τ ( f )(x, y) = f (x) − f (y) − f
−f
+f
.
y
x−1
y(x − 1)
3

(ii) Let g ∈ Falt (P 2 ). Then
τ4 (g)(x, y, z) = − g(x, y) + g(x, z) − g(y, z) + g

¶
µ
¶
µ
³ x y´
x(z − 1) y(z − 1)
z−1 z−1
−g
.
, +g
,
,
z z
x−1 y−1
z(x − 1) z(y − 1)

Proof. (i) Since for cyclically oriented (z0 , . . . , z4 ) we have
(δ ◦ ext)( f )(z0 , . . . , z4 ) = ext( f )(z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 ) − ext( f )(z0 , z2 , z3 , z4 ) + ext( f )(z0 , z1 , z3 , z4 )
−ext( f )(z0 , z1 , z2 , z4 ) + ext( f )(z0 , z1 , z2 , z3 )
=

f ([z2 : z3 : z1 : z4 ]) − f ([z2 : z3 : z0 : z4 ]) + f ([z1 : z3 : z0 : z4 ])
− f ([z1 : z2 : z0 : z4 ]) + f ([z1 : z2 : z0 : z3 ]).

Using (2.6) we deduce that
τ3 ( f )(x, y)

= (δ ◦ ext)( f )(− i, 1, −1, C (x), C (y))
=

f ([−1 : C (x) : 1 : C (y)]) − f ([−1 : C (x) : − i : C (y)]) + f ([1 : C (x) : − i : C (y)])
− f ([1 : −1 : − i : C (y)]) + f ([1 : −1 : − i : C (x)])

f ([0 : x : ∞ : y]) − f ([0 : x : 1 : y]) + f ([∞ : x : 1 : y]) − f (y) + f (x)
µ
¶
µ
¶
µ
¶
x
x(y − 1)
y−1
= f 1−
− f 1−
+ f 1−
− f (y) + f (x)
y
y(x − 1)
x−1
µ ¶
µ
¶
µ
¶
x
x(y − 1)
y−1
= −f
+f
−f
− f (y) + f (x).
y
y(x − 1)
x−1
=

(ii) For cyclically oriented (z0 , . . . , z5 ) we have
(δ ◦ ext)(g)(z0 , . . . , z5 ) = ext(g)(z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 , z5 ) − ext(g)(z0 , z2 , z3 , z4 , z5 ) + ext(g)(z0 , z1 , z3 , z4 , z5 )
−ext(g)(z0 , z1 , z2 , z4 , z5 ) + ext(g)(z0 , z1 , z2 , z3 , z5 ) − ext(g)(z0 , z1 , z2 , z3 , z4 )
=

g([z2 : z3 : z1 : z4 ], [z2 : z3 : z1 : z5 ]) − g([z2 : z3 : z0 : z4 ], [z2 : z3 : z0 : z5 ])
+ g([z1 : z3 : z0 : z4 ], [z1 : z3 : z0 : z5 ]) − g([z1 : z2 : z0 : z4 ], [z1 : z2 : z0 : z5 ])
+ g([z1 : z2 : z0 : z3 ], [z1 : z2 : z0 : z5 ]) − g([z1 : z2 : z0 : z3 ], [z1 : z2 : z0 : z4 ]),

and thus, using (2.7),
τ4 (g)(x, y, z)

= (δ ◦ ext)(g)(− i, 1, −1, C (x), C (y), C (z))
=

g([−1 : C (x) : 1 : C (y)], [−1 : C (x) : 1 : C (z)]) − g([−1 : C (x) : − i : C (y)], [−1 : C (x) : − i : C (z)])

10

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

+ g([1 : C (x) : − i : C (y)], [1 : C (x) : − i : C (z)]) − g([1 : −1 : − i : C (y)], [1 : −1 : − i : C (z)])
+ g([1 : −1 : − i : C (x)], [1 : −1 : − i : C (z)]) − g([1 : −1 : − i : C (x)], [1 : −1 : − i : C (y)])
µ
¶
µ
¶
µ
¶
x
x
x(y − 1)
x(z − 1)
y−1
z−1
= g 1− ,1−
− g 1−
,1−
+ g 1−
,1−
y
z
y(x − 1)
z(x − 1)
x−1
x−1
− g(y, z) + g(x, z) − g(x, y)
µ
¶
µ
¶
³ x y´
x(z − 1) y(z − 1)
z−1 z−1
+g
− g(y, z) + g(x, z) − g(x, y).
= g , −g
,
,
z z
z(x − 1) z(y − 1)
x−1 y−1


Comparing these formulas to the formulas appearing in the introduction we deduce:
Corollary 2.10. The perturbed Spence-Abel equation (1.3) and the 6-term equation (1.5) can respectively be written as
τ3 L = R and τ4 R = 0.
and are thus respectively equivalent to the cohomological equations
δ3 ext4 (L) = ext5 (R)

and δ4 ext5 (R) = 0.


As a first consequence we see that (1.5) is a necessary condition for the solvability of (1.3).
3. E XISTENCE ,

UNIQUENESS AND BOUNDEDNESS

3.1. Measurable group cohomology of PU(1, 1), existence and uniqueness. The following
theorem appears explicitly first in [32], where it is generalized to arbitrary real-hyperbolic groups.
Note that the proof for PU(1, 1) does not require the more sophisticated tools developed in [32] to
deal with cohomology with coefficients in non-Fréchet modules, but only the basic version of the
Bloch spectral sequence [2].
Theorem 3.1. The cohomology of the complex (L0alt ((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) is isomorphic to the measurable
(equivalently, continuous) group cohomology of G. In particular, it vanishes in degrees ≥ 3.

Corollary 3.2 (Existence and Uniqueness).
(i) For every R ∈ L0 (P 2 ) and C ∈ R the system (1.3) – (1.4) has at most one solution L(R,C ) ∈
L0 ((0, 1)).
(ii) Given R ∈ L0 (P 2 ) and C ∈ R, the system (1.3) – (1.4) has a solution in L0 ((0, 1)) if and only
if R satisfies (1.5) and (1.6) for almost all (x, y, z) ∈ P 3 .
(iii) In this case, L(R,C ) = L(R −C /2,0) + C/2.
Proof. Observe first that L satisfies the system (1.3)-(1.4) with right-hand side R and constant C
e := L − C/2 satisfies the same system with right-hand side R
e := R − C/2 and C = 0.
if and only if L
Indeed we have
e − x) = L(1 − x) − C/2 = (C − L(x)) − C/2 = C/2 − L(x) = −L(x)
e
L(1

and
e − L(y)
e −L
e
L(x)

µ ¶
µ
¶
µ
¶
x
y−1
x(y − 1)
e
e
−L
+L
= R(x, y) − C/2.
y
x−1
y(x − 1)

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

11

e iff they hold for R. Replacing L and R by L
e and R
e we
Also observe that (1.5) and (1.6) hold for R
may thus assume that C = 0 and that L satisfies (2.9).

By (2.6), the function L satisfies (2.9) if and only if L ∈ L0alt (P 1 ). Similarly, (1.6) amounts to
R ∈ L0alt (P 2 ). Combining this observation with Corollary 2.10 we see that the corollary amounts
to showing that every 4-cocycle c in the complex (L0alt ((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) has a unique primitive. Existence of a primitive is immediate from the vanishing of the 4th cohomology of this complex,
as implied by Theorem 3.1. Assume now that p 1 , p 2 are two primitives of c; then the difference
p 1 − p 2 is a 3-cocycle, hence a 3-coboundary by applying Theorem 3.1 again. However, since G
acts transitively on (S 1 )(3,+) , every 2-cochain and consequently every 3-coboundary, is trivial. 
3.2. Continuous bounded cohomology of PU(1, 1) and boundedness. We have the following
counterparts to Theorem 3.1 in bounded cohomology.
Theorem 3.3 (Burger–Monod, [6]). The cohomology of the complex (L∞
((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) vanishes in
alt
degree 3.

Theorem 3.4 ([15]). The cohomology of the complex (L∞
((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) vanishes in degree 4.
alt



As in the unbounded case, the cohomology of the complex (L∞
((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) coincides with the
alt
continuous bounded cohomology of G (see [29]). However, this cohomology is not known beyond
degree 4. Arguing as in the proof of Corollary 3.2 we obtain:
Corollary 3.5 (Boundedness). Assume that R ∈ L0 (P 2 ) satisfies (1.5) and (1.6) for almost all
(x, y, z) ∈ P 3 and let C ∈ R. Then
L(R,C ) ∈ L∞ ((0, 1))

⇔

R ∈ L∞ (P 2 ).

Proof. Boundedness of L(R,C ) implies boundedness of R by (1.3). Conversely, if R ∈ L∞
(P 2 ), then
alt
∞
1 5 G
ext(R) ∈ L alt ((S ) ) has a bounded primitive by Theorem 3.4.

3.3. On measurable lifting and pointwise identities. Both the existence and the uniqueness
statement in Corollary 3.2 concern function classes in L0 rather than actual functions. In the
bounded case, the existence statement can actually be refined from an almost everywhere identity
to a strict pointwise identity. More precisely, let us denote by L ∞ the space of bounded measurable functions on a given space. Then the complex (L∞
((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) is a quotient of the complex
alt
∞
(L alt
((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ), and by [28] every cocycle in the latter complex can be lifted to a cocycle in the
former complex. In [15] we actually established the following refinement of Theorem 3.4.
∞
Theorem 3.6 ([15]). The cohomology of the complex (L alt
((S 1 )•+1 )G , δ• ) vanishes in degree 4.



We thus get the following refinement of Corollary 3.2.
Corollary 3.7. Assume that R ∈ L ∞ (P 2 ) satisfies (1.5) and (1.6) for all (rather than almost all)
∞
(x, y, z) ∈ P 3 and let C ∈ R. Then there exists L ∈ L alt
((0, 1)) which satisfies the system (1.3)-(1.4)
pointwise (rather than almost everywhere).

We do not know whether the uniqueness part of Corollary 3.2 remains true in the pointwise
sense, even for bounded right-hand side.

12

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

4. E XPLICIT

FORMULAS, REGULARITY AND CONTINUITY

4.1. The function F c[ . The proof of Theorem 3.6 is constructive, i.e., there is an explicit integral
∞
∞
((S 1 )5 )G . We
((S 1 )4 ) of a given cocycle c ∈ L alt
formula for the essentially unique primitive p ∈ L alt
now recall this construction in order to establish regularity and continuity of solutions.
The first step is to construct, out of a given cocycle c, a function F c[ : Ω → R, where Ω is the
complement of the diagonal in (0, 2π)2 . This construction proceeds in several steps. We fix a
∞
b the complements of the respective diagonals in
cocycle c ∈ L alt
((S 1 )5 )G and denote by Ω and Ω
(0, 2π)2 and [0, 2π)2 .
(i) Define r c : (0, 2π) → R by
1
r c (ϕ) := − (1 − e iϕ ) ·
2

ˆ

ϕ

π

1
1 − cos(ζ)

sin(η − φ)c(e iη , e iφ , e iψ , 1, e iζ )d η d φ d ψ d ζ

(ii) Given θ1 , θ2 ∈ [0, 2π) we denote by θ1 ª θ2 the unique representative of θ1 − θ2 modulo 2π in
the interval [0, 2π). This defines a measurable function on [0, 2π)2 , which is real-analytic
b.
on Ω
b → R by
(iii) We define v[c : Ω
³
´
v[c (θ1 , θ2 ) := Im e iθ1 r c (θ2 ª θ1 ) .
(iv) Finally we define F c[ : Ω → R by
F c[ (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) :=

sin(φ)c(e iη , e iφ , 1, e iϕ1 , e iϕ2 )d η d φ + v[c (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v[c (0, ϕ2 ) + v[c (0, ϕ1 ).

Lemma 4.1. The above construction has the following properties:
∞
(i) If the cocycle c ∈ L alt
((S 1 )5 )G is of class C k for some k ∈ N ∪ {0, ∞, ω}, then so is F c[ .
∞
1 5 G
(ii) If c 1 , c 2 ∈ L alt ((S ) ) are cocycles, then

kF c[1 − F c[2 k∞ ≤ 4 · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ .

Proof. (i) We first show that if c is of class C k , then so is r c . If k = ω then after exchange of
integration and summation this is an immediate consequence of the fundamental theorem of
calculus. Thus assume k 6= ω and observe that both the integrand of r and the bounds of the
integral are C k -functions on (0, 2π). In particular, the integrand is bounded on every compact
interval [a, b] ⊂ (0, 2π). It then follows from the Leibniz integral rule, that r is of class C k in the
b →Ω
interior of each such interval [a, b], hence is of class C k at every point of (0, 2π). Since ª : Ω
[
k
[
k
is real-analytic, we deduce that also v is of class C , and consequently F c is of class C .
(ii) If we denote by I c j the integrand of r c j , i.e.,
I c j (ζ) :=

1
1 − cos(ζ)

sin(η − φ)c j (e iη , e iφ , e iψ , 1, e iζ )d η d φ d ψ,

then
| I c1 (ζ) − I c2 (ζ)| ≤ k c 1 − c 2 k∞ · (1 − cos(ζ))−1 ,

hence
kv[c1 − v[c2 k∞

≤ k r c1 − r c2 k∞

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

13

ˆ ϕ
¯
¯
¯
1 ¯¯
iϕ
−1
≤
sup k c 1 − c 2 k∞ · ¯(1 − e ) ·
(1 − cos(ζ)) d ζ¯¯
2
ϕ∈(0,2π)
π
=

sup k c 1 − c 2 k∞ · | cos(ϕ/2)|

ϕ∈(0,2π)

= k c 1 − c 2 k∞ .

This implies
kF c[1 − F c[2 k∞ ≤ 4 · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ .


∞
4.2. An integration formula for primitives of bounded cocycle. Let c ∈ L alt
((S 1 )5 )G be a
cocycle. Following [15] we are going to construct a primitive p of f by integration, using the
function F c[ defined in the previous subsection. Let us denote by n t the element of G represented
by the matrix
¶
µ
1 + 2i t − 2i t
,
i
1 − 2i t
2t
and let N = { n t } be the corresponding one-parameter subgroup of G. Note that the group N acts
freely on Ω and the N-orbits intersect the anti-diagonal
¯
©
ª
∆op := (φ, 2π − φ) ¯ φ ∈ (0, 2π) \ {π} ⊂ Ω

transversally. Thus every (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) ∈ Ω can be written uniquely as
(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) = n T (ϕ1 ,ϕ2 ) .(Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ), 2π − Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ))
with T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) ∈ R and Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) ∈ (0, 2π) \ {π}. Since
n t .ϕ = 2 · arccot(− t + cot(ϕ/2)),
we have
µ ³ ³ ´
³ ϕ ´´
³ ϕ ´´¶
1 ³ ³ ϕ1 ´
1
ϕ1
2
2
.
cot
+ cot
and Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) = 2 · arccot
cot
− cot
2
2
2
2
2
2
Now the construction of p is as follows.

T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) = −

(4.1)

(i) Define f 0( c) : Ω → R as the integral

ˆ

f 0( c) (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) :=

T (ϕ1 ,ϕ2 )

0

¡
¢
F c[ n t .Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ), n t .(2π − Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )) dt.

(4.2)

(ii) Finally, define p c : (S 1 )(4) → R as
p c (e iθ0 , . . . , e iθ3 ) :=

c(e iθ , e iθ0 , . . . , e iθ3 )d θ + f 0( c) (θ2 − θ1 , θ3 − θ1 ) − f 0( c) (θ2 − θ0 , θ3 − θ0 )
+ f 0( c) (θ1 − θ0 , θ3 − θ0 ) − f 0( c) (θ1 − θ0 , θ2 − θ0 ).

It was established in [15] that p c is indeed bounded and a primitive of c. Here we observe:
Lemma 4.2. The above construction has the following properties:
∞
(i) If the cocycle c ∈ L alt
((S 1 )5 )G is of class C k for some k ∈ N ∪ {0, ∞, ω}, then so is p c .
∞
(ii) If c 1 , c 2 ∈ L alt
((S 1 )5 )G are cocycles, then
µ
¶
16
k p c1 − p c2 k∞ ≤ 1 + p · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ .
3

(4.3)

14

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

Proof. (i) If c is of class C k , then F c[ is of class C k by Lemma 4.1. Also, T and Φ are real analytic
by the explicit formulas, in particular of class C k . It then follows from the Leibniz integral rule
(respectively the fundamental theorem of calculus if k = ω) that f 0( c) , and hence also p c is of class
Ck.
(ii) Observe, firstly, that 3-transitivity of G on S 1 together with G-invariance of p c1 and p c2
implies
k p c1 − p c2 k∞ = sup | p c1 (1, e2π i/3 , e4π i/3 , z) − p c2 (1, e2π i/3 , e4π i/3 , z)|
z∈S 1

Since
p c j (1, e2π i/3 , e4π i/3 , e iξ ) =

c(e iθ , 1, e2π i/3 , e4π i/3 , e iξ )d θ
(c )

(c )

(c )

(c )

+ f 0 j (2π/3, ξ − 2π/3) − f 0 j (4π/3, ξ) + f 0 j (2π/3, ξ) − f 0 j (2π/3, 4π/3),

this implies
k p c1 − p c2 k∞

≤ k c 1 − c 2 k∞ + 3 ·
+

Since
(c )
f 0 j (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) =

and, by Lemma 4.1,

kF c[1 − F c[2 k∞

T (ϕ1 ,ϕ2 )

0

ξ∈(0,2π)\{2π/3}

( c1 )

sup
ξ∈(0,2π)\{4π/3}

ˆ

sup

| f0

( c1 )

| f0

( c2 )

(4π/3, ξ) − f 0

( c2 )

(2π/3, ξ) − f 0

(2π/3, ξ)|

(4.4)

(4π/3, ξ)|.

¡
¢
F c[ j n t .Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ), n t .(2π − Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )) dt

≤ 4 · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ , we have

¯ ³ϕ ´
³ ϕ ´¯
¯
1
2 ¯
(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )| ≤ 4 · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ · |T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )| = 2 · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ · ¯cot
+ cot
¯.
2
2
Note, however, that this does not yield any useful bound, since cot is unbounded. To circumvent
(c )
this problem we recall from [15] that the functions f 0 j are invariant under the action of the
symmetric group S3 on Ω in which the generators s 1 and s 2 act by
( c1 )

| f0

( c2 )

(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − f 0

s 1 .(φ1 , φ2 ) = (−φ1 , φ2 − φ1 ),

s 2 .(φ1 , φ2 ) = (φ2 , φ1 ).

Under this action, every point on either of the lines (2π/3, ξ) and (4π/3, ξ) is equivalent to a point
inside the box [2π/3, 5π/3] × [π/3, 4π/3]. Inserting everything into (4.4) we thus obtain
µ
µ
¯ ³ ϕ ¯´¯¯¶
¯ ³ ϕ ´¯
¯
¯
1¯ ¯
1 ¯
k p c1 − p c2 k∞ ≤ k c 1 − c 2 k∞ · 1 + 8 ·
max
¯cot
¯ + max ¯cot
¯
ϕ2 ∈[π/3,4π/3]
ϕ1 ∈[2π/3,5π/3]
2
2 ¯
p
Since both maxima are equal to 1/ 3 we obtain
µ
¶
16
k p c1 − p c2 k∞ ≤ 1 + p · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ .

3
4.3. Regularity and continuity. We are now in a position to deduce the remaining two parts
of Theorem 1.2.
Corollary 4.3 (Regularity and Continuity).
(i) Assume that R ∈ L∞ (P 2 ) is essentially bounded and satisfies (1.5), and let C ∈ R and
k ∈ N ∪ {0, ∞, ω}. Then L(R,C ) is of class C k if and only if R is of class C k .

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

15

(ii) Assume that R 1 , R 2 ∈ L∞ (P 2 ) are essentially bounded and satisfy (1.5), and let C 1 , C 2 ∈ R.
Then
µ
¶
µ
¶
16
8
(R 1 ,C 1 )
(R 2 ,C 2 )
kL
−L
k∞ ≤ 1 + p · kR 1 − R 2 k∞ + 1 + p · |C 1 − C 2 |.
3
3
Proof. (i) If L(R,C ) is of class C k , then R is of class C k by (1.3). Conversely, assume that R is of class
C k . Since cross ratio coordinates are real-analytic, it follows that c := ext(R − C/2) is of class C k ,
and thus Lemma 4.2 shows that its unique primitive p c is of class C k . Note that by Corollary 2.10
we have L(R −C /2,0) = res(p c ). It thus follows from the explicit formula for res and real-analyticity
of the Cayley transform that L(R −C /2,0) is of class C k . We then deduce with Corollary 3.2 that
L(R,C ) = L(R −C /2,0) + C/2 is of class C k .
(ii) Assume first that C = 0 and let c j := ext(R j ) and p j := ext(L(R j ,0) ) We then deduce from
Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 2.10 that
µ
¶
µ
¶
16
16
(R 1 ,0)
(R 2 ,0)
kL
−L
k∞ ≤ k p 1 − p 2 k∞ ≤ 1 + p · k c 1 − c 2 k∞ = 1 + p · kR 1 − R 2 k∞ .
3
3
In the general case we obtain
kL(R1 ,C1 ) − L(R2 ,C2 ) k∞

= kL(R1 −C1 /2,0) + C 1 /2 − L(R2 −C2 /2,0) − C 2 /2k∞
1
≤ kL(R1 +C1 /2,0) − L(R2 +C2 /2,0) k∞ + · |C 1 − C 2 |
2
µ
¶
16
1
≤ 1 + p · kR 1 + C 1 /2 − R 2 − C 2 /2k∞ + · |C 1 − C 2 |
2
3
¶
µ
¶
µ
8
16
≤ 1 + p · kR 1 − R 2 k∞ + 1 + p · |C 1 − C 2 |.
3
3


16
Numerically the constants 1 + p
and 1 + p8 are given by 10.2376... and 5.6188... respectively.
3

3

4.4. A formula for L(R,C ) . We have seen that regularity and continuity of the functions L(R,C )
are consequences of the above integration formula. We can actually make this formula more
explicit. Although this was not necessary for the above proofs, it may be helpful towards a better
understanding of these functions. In the sequel we fix an arbitrary constant C ∈ R and a right
hand side R ∈ L∞ (P 2 ) satisfying (1.5). Define
c := c(R,C ) := ext(R − C/2)

and

F([R,C ) := F c[ .

By Corollary 2.10, c ∈ L∞
((S 1 )5 )G is a cocycle and hence c = d p c for some unique primitive
alt
∞
1 4 G
p c ∈ L alt ((S ) ) . Note that an explicit formula for p c was given in (4.3) in terms of the various auxiliary functions defined in Subsections 4.1 and 4.2 above.
Once the function p c has been determined, another application of Corollary 2.10 yields
L(R −C /2,0) = res(p c ),
and hence L(R,C ) = res(p c ) + C/2 by Corollary 3.2. Explicitly this means that for x ∈ (0, 1) we have
L(R,C ) (x) = p c (− i, 1, −1, C (x)) + C/2.

(4.5)

Since the formula for p c involves the arguments of its entries, we need to determine the argument
of C (x). Since |C (x)| = 1 we have C (x) = e iθ( x) for some θ (x) ∈ [0, 2π). In fact, since x ∈ (0, 1) and the

16

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

Cayley transform maps (0, 1, ∞) to (−1, − i, 1), the point C (x) lies on the circle segment between
−1 and − i. It follows that (1, −1, C (x), − i) is positively oriented and that
0 < π < θ (x) < 3π/2.
We have
cos(θ (x)) + i sin(θ (x)) = e iθ( x) = C (x) =
hence

−2x
x − i (x − i)2 x2 − 1
= 2
= 2
+i 2
,
x+i
x +1
x +1
x +1

2x
sin(θ (x))
=
.
cos(θ (x)) 1 − x2
Since θ (x) ∈ (π, 3π/2) and the main branch of arctan takes value in (−π/2, π/2), we have
µ
¶
2x
θ (x) = arctan
+ π = 2 · arctan(x) + π.
1 − x2
By (4.5) and (4.3) we now have
tan(θ (x)) =

(4.6)

3π

L(R,C ) (x) = p c (− i, 1, −1, C (x)) + C/2 = − p c (e i·0 , e i·π , e iθ( x) , e i· 2 ) + C/2
³
´
3π
= − c e iψ , e i·0 , e i·π , e iθ( x) , e i· 2 d ψ − f 0( c) (θ (x) − π, π/2)
+ f 0( c) (θ (x), 3π/2) − f 0( c) (π, 3π/2) + f 0( c) (π, θ (x)) + C/2,

where, by (4.2),

ˆ
f 0( c) (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) :=

0

T (ϕ1 ,ϕ2 )

¡
¢
F c[ n t .Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ), n t .(2π − Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )) dt.

Here T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) and Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) are given by (4.1) and F c[ is defined in terms of c in Subsection 4.1.
It remains to compute the numbers T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) and Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) for
(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) ∈ F := {(θ (x) − π, π/2) , (θ (x), 3π/2) , (π, 3π/2) , (π, θ (x))} .
Lemma 4.4. The following table provides the values of T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ), Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ), n t .Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) and
n t .(2π − Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )) for (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) ∈ F .
¡ϕ ¢
¡ϕ ¢
ϕ1
ϕ2
cot 21
cot 22
T(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )
Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )
n t .Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 )
n t .(2π − Φ(ϕ1 , ϕ2 ))
¡ 1− x ¢
¡
¢
¡
¢
1+ x
1− x
1
θ (x) − π π/2
1
−
2
·
arccot
2
·
arccot
−
t
+
2
· arccot − t − 12−xx
x
2x
2x
2x
¡
¢
¡
¢
¡
¢
x+1
θ (x)
3π/2
−x
−1
2 · arccot 1−2 x
2 · arccot − t + 1−2 x 2 · arccot − t − 1−2 x
2
¡ ¢
¡
¢
¡
¢
1
π
3π/2
0
−1
2 · arccot 21
2 · arccot − t + 12
2 · arccot − t − 21
2
¡ ¢
¡
¢
¡
¢
x
π
θ (x)
0
−x
2 · arccot 2x
2 · arccot − t + 2x
2 · arccot − t − 2x
2
Proof. Concerning the third and fourth column we observe that cot(π/4) = 1, cot(π/2) = 0 and
cot(3π/4) = −1 and deduce from (4.6) that
cot(θ (x)/2) = cot(arctan(x) + π/2) = − tan(arctan(x)) = − x,
whereas
cot((θ (x) − π)/2) = cot(arctan(x)) = tan(arctan(x))−1 = 1/x.
Then the 5th and 6th column are immediate consequences of (4.1), and the final two columns then
follow from the fomulas
n t .(2 · arccot(θ )) = 2 · arccot(− t + θ ),
and
n t .(2π − 2 · arccot(θ )) = 2 · arccot(− t + cot(π − arccot(θ ))) = 2 · arccot(−t − θ ).

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

17


We can summarize our computations as follows:
Proposition 4.5. For all x ∈ (0, 1) we have
L

(R,C )

1
(x) = C/2 −
2π

ˆ

ˆ

2π

³
´
c(R,C ) e iψ , 1, −1, C (x), − i d ψ

0

− x−1
2x

µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
1− x
1− x
F([R,C ) 2 · arccot − t +
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2x
2x
0
ˆ x+1
µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
2
1− x
1− x
+
F([R,C ) 2 · arccot − t +
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2
2
0
ˆ 1
¶
µ
¶¶
µ
µ
2
1
1
[
−
F(R,C ) 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
dt
2
2
0
ˆ x
³
³
³
2
x ´´
x´
+
dt.
F([R,C ) 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
2
2
0

−


We observe for later use that
©
ª
F ⊂ Ω+ := (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) ∈ (0, 2π)2 | ϕ1 < ϕ2 ,

hence in order to compute L(R,C ) (x) we only need to know F([R,C ) on Ω+ . Similarly, we only need to
compute the integral
ˆ 2π
³
´
1
c(R,C ) e iψ , e iφ0 , e iφ1 , e iφ2 , e iφ3 d ψ
2π 0
for 0 ≤ φ0 < φ1 < φ2 < φ3 < 2π. This will allow us to avoid some technical case distinctions later
on.
5. R OGERS ’

DILOGARITHM REVISITED

5.1. The cocycle associated with L 2 and the general strategy. By definition, Rogers’ dilogarithm L 2 satisfies the Spence-Abel equation with right-hand side R ≡ 0 and the reflection symmetry with constant C = ζ(2). In our previous notation this means that L 2 = L(0,ζ(2)) . Thus the
relevant cocycle entering into the formula for L 2 in Proposition 4.5 is c := c(0,ζ(2)) . By definition,
the cocycle c is constant on (S 1 )(5,+) where it takes the value −ζ(2)/2. Given z = (z0 , . . . , z4 ) ∈ (S 1 )(5)
let σ be a permutation of {0, . . . , 5} such that (zσ(0) , . . . , zσ(4) ) ∈ (S 1 )(5,+) . Then σ is determined up to
a cyclic (hence even) permutation, and thus the sign (−1)σ depends only on z. If we denote this
sign by (−1) z , then
ζ(2)
c(z) = −
· (−1) z .
2
In particular, c is a multiple of or ∪ or, where or is the orientation cocycle. Our goal for the rest of
this section is to make the formula in Proposition 4.5 more explicit for this specific cocycle. Our
computation proceeds in three stages: Firstly, we compute in Subsection 5.2 some basic integrals
of c. Using these basic integrals we derive in Subsection 5.3 the integrand appearing in Proposition 4.5 for our specific c. Finally, in Subsection 5.4 we put everything together and derive the
formula for L 2 stated in the introduction.

18

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

5.2. Basic integrals. We now turn to the first step of the outline given in the previous subsection
z
and compute some basic integrals related to the cocycle c(z) = − ζ(2)
2 · (−1) .
Lemma 5.1. If 0 ≤ θ0 < · · · < θ3 < 2π, then
I 1 (e iθ0 , . . . , e iθ3 ) :=

c(e iψ , e iθ0 , . . . , e iθ3 )d ψ = −

ζ(2)

2π

(θ0 − θ1 + θ2 − θ3 + π) .

Proof. Let z := (e iψ , e iθ0 , . . . , e iθ3 ). If ψ ∈ (0, θ0 ) ∪ (θ1 , θ2 ) ∪ (θ3 , 2π), then (−1) z = 1, and if ψ ∈ (θ0 , θ1 ) ∪
(θ2 , θ3 ) then (−1) z = −1. We thus obtain
Ãˆ
ˆ θ1
ˆ θ2
ˆ θ3
ˆ 2π !
θ0
ζ(2)
i θ0
i θ3
I 1 (e , . . . , e ) = −
dψ −
dψ +
dψ −
dψ +
dψ
4π
0
θ0
θ1
θ2
θ3
ζ(2)

(θ0 − (θ1 − θ0 ) + (θ2 − θ1 ) − (θ3 − θ2 ) + (2π − θ3 ))
4π
ζ(2)
= −
(θ0 − θ1 + θ2 − θ3 + π) .
2π

= −


Lemma 5.2. If 0 < θ1 < θ2 < 2π, then
I 2 (e iθ1 , e iθ2 ) :=

e iη c(e iψ , e iη , 1, e iθ1 , e iθ2 )d η d ψ = − i ·

ζ(2)

2π2

· ((e iθ2 − 1)(θ1 − π) − (e iθ1 − 1)(θ2 − π) − π).

Proof. By Lemma 5.1 we have
¢
 ¡
− ¡0 − η + θ1 − θ2 + π¢ , η ∈ (0, θ1 )

2π
+ 0 − θ 1 + η − θ 2 + π ¢ , η ∈ (θ 1 , θ 2 )
−
· I 1 (e iη , 1, e iθ1 , e iθ2 ) =
 ¡
ζ(2)
− 0 − θ1 + θ2 − η + π , η ∈ (θ2 , 2π),

hence
−

4π2
· I 2 (e iθ1 , e iθ2 ) = 2π ·
ζ(2)

ˆ

e iη ·
θ1

= −

2π
· I 1 (e iη , 1, e iθ1 , e iθ2 )d η
ζ(2)

e iη (−η + θ1 − θ2 + π)d η +

0

ˆ
−

ˆ
=

2π

θ2
2π

ˆ

θ2

θ1

e iη (−θ1 + η − θ2 + π)d η

e iη (−θ1 + θ2 − η + π)d η

ˆ

iη

η e d η − (θ1 − θ2 + π)

0

−(−θ1 + θ2 + π)

ˆ

θ1

ˆ

iη

e d η + (−θ1 − θ2 + π)

0
2π

θ2

θ2

θ1

e iη d η

= −2π i + i(θ1 − θ2 + π)(e iθ1 − 1) − i(−θ1 − θ2 + π)(e iθ2 − e iθ1 )
+ i(−θ1 + θ2 + π)(1 − e iθ2 )
= 2i(−π + θ1 e iθ2 − θ2 e iθ1 − θ1 + π e iθ1 + θ2 − π e iθ2 )
= 2i((e iθ2 − 1)(θ1 − π) − (e iθ1 − 1)(θ2 − π) − π).



e iη d η

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

19

Lemma 5.3. For all θ ∈ (0, 2π) we have
I 3 (e iθ ) :=

e i(η−φ) c(e iη , e iφ , e iψ , 1, e iθ )d η d φ d ψ = − i ·

ζ(2)

2π 2

· (2 sin(θ ) + θ − π).

Proof. We have
iθ

I 3 (e ) =

e

− iφ

µ

¶
e c(e , e , 1, e , e )d η d ψ d φ =
iη

iψ

iη

iθ

iφ

e− iφ I 2 (e iθ , e iφ )d φ,

where by Lemma 5.2,
2π 2
−
· I 2 (e iθ , e iφ ) =
ζ(2) · i
Using that

ˆ

θ

0

½

−(e iθ − 1)(φ − π) + (e iφ − 1)(θ − π) + π, φ ∈ (0, θ )
(e iφ − 1)(θ − π) − (e iθ − 1)(φ − π) − π,
φ ∈ (θ , 2π).

φ e− iφ d φ = −1 + e− iθ (1 + i θ ),

ˆ

θ

e

− iφ

d φ = ie

− iθ

−i

ˆ
θ

2π

φ e− iφ d φ = 2π i + 1 − e− iθ (1 + i θ ),

ˆ

and
θ

0

2π

e− iφ d φ = i − ie− iθ ,

we conclude that
−

4π 3
· I 3 (e iθ ) = 2π ·
ζ(2) · i

ˆ

θ

=

2π 2
· I 2 (e iθ , e iφ )d φ =
ζ(2) · i

e− iφ ·

ˆ

2π

e− iφ ·

0

2π2
· I 2 (e iθ , e iφ )d φ
ζ(2) · i

− e− iφ (e iθ − 1)(φ − π) + e− iφ (e iφ − 1)(θ − π) + e− iφ π d φ

0

ˆ

+

2π

θ

e− iφ (e iφ − 1)(θ − π) − e− iφ (e iθ − 1)(φ − π) − e− iφ π d φ

ˆ

iθ

= −(e − 1) ·

θ

φe

− iφ

iθ

ˆ

d φ + (e π − θ + π) ·

0

−(e iθ − 1) ·

ˆ

θ

θ

e

− iφ

ˆ

0

2π

φ e− iφ d φ + (e iθ π − θ − π) ·

ˆ
θ

θ

d φ + (θ − π) ·

dφ

0
2π

e− iφ d φ + (θ − π) ·

ˆ

2π

θ

dφ

= 2π(θ − π) − (e iθ − 1) · 2π i + [(e iθ π − θ + π) − (e iθ π − θ − π)](ie− iθ − i)
= 2π · (θ − π − (ie iθ − i) + (ie− iθ − i)) = 2π · (2 sin(θ ) + θ − π).


5.3. The integrand. We now turn to the second step of our outline, the computation of the intez
[
grand F c[ appearing in Proposition 4.5 for our specific cocycle c(z) = − ζ(2)
2 · (−1) . We recall that F c
was defined in Subsection 4.1, and in the sequel we will use the notation of that subsection. In
particular, the functions r c and v[c are defined as there.
Lemma 5.4. If 0 ≤ θ1 < θ2 < 2π, then v[c (θ1 , θ2 ) = v1 (θ1 , θ2 ) + v2 (θ1 , θ2 ), where
v1 (θ1 , θ2 ) :=
v2 (θ1 , θ2 ) :=

ζ(2)

· (cos(θ1 ) + cos(θ2 )) · (θ2 − θ1 − π),
4π 2
3 · ζ(2)
· (sin(θ1 ) − sin(θ2 )) · log(sin((θ2 − θ1 )/2)).
2π 2

20

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

Proof. Using the fact that − i · cos(η − ϕ) is symmetric in η and ϕ and hence integrates to 0 against
c(e iη , e iφ , e iψ , 1, e iϕ ) we can write the function r c as

ˆ

r c (ϕ) =
=
=
=
=
=

ϕ
1
1
− (1 − e iϕ ) ·
sin(η − ϕ)c(e iη , e iφ , e iψ , 1, e iζ )d η d φ d ψ d ζ
2
1
−
cos(
ζ
)
ˆ ϕπ
1
1
iϕ
(1 − e ) ·
ie i(η−ϕ) c(e iη , e iφ , e iψ , 1, e iζ )d η d φ d ψ d ζ
2
1
−
cos(
ζ
)
ˆπϕ
1
i
(1 − e iϕ ) ·
I 3 (e iζ )d ζ
2
π 1 − cos(ζ)
ˆ ϕ
ζ(2)
2 sin(ζ) + ζ − π
iϕ
dζ
·
(1
−
e
)
·
2
1 − cos(ζ)
4π
π
µ
µ ¶¶¶¯ϕ
µ
µ ¶
¯
ζ(2)
ζ
ζ
iϕ
¯
+
6
log
sin
·
(1
−
e
)
·
(
π
−
ζ
)
·
cot
2
2 ¯ζ=π
4π2
ζ(2)
· (1 − e iϕ ) · ((π − ϕ) · cot(ϕ/2) + 6 log(sin(ϕ/2))).
4π2

We deduce that
v[c (θ1 , θ2 )

µ
ζ(2)
= Im − 2 · e iθ1 · (1 − e i(θ2 ªθ1 ) ) · (θ2 ª θ1 − π) · cot((θ2 ª θ1 )/2)
4π
¶
3 · ζ(2) iθ1
i θ2 ªθ1
· e · (1 − e
) · log(sin((θ2 ª θ1 )/2))
+
2π 2
µ
ζ(2)
= −Im
· (e iθ1 − e iθ2 ) · (θ2 ª θ1 − π) · cot((θ2 ª θ1 )/2)
4π2
¶
3 · ζ(2)
i θ1
i θ2
· (e − e ) · log(sin((θ2 ª θ1 )/2))
+
2π 2
ζ(2)
= − 2 · (sin(θ1 ) − sin(θ2 )) · (θ2 ª θ1 − π) · cot((θ2 ª θ1 )/2)
4π
3 · ζ(2)
+
· (sin(θ1 ) − sin(θ2 )) · log(sin((θ2 ª θ1 )/2)).
2π2

If 0 ≤ θ1 < θ2 < 2π we may replace ª by − in this formula. Then the second summand is just
v2 (θ1 , θ2 ). To see that the first summand equals v1 (θ1 , θ2 ) we use the trigonometric identity
−(sin(θ1 ) − sin(θ2 )) · cot((θ2 − θ1 )/2) = −2 · sin((θ1 − θ2 )/2) · cos((θ1 + θ2 )/2) · cot((θ2 − θ1 )/2)
= 2 · cos((θ2 + θ1 )/2) · cos((θ2 − θ1 )/2)
= 2 · (cos2 (θ2 /2) − sin2 (θ1 /2))
= 2 · (1/2 + 1/2 cos(θ2 ) − (1/2 − 1/2 cos(θ1 )))
= cos(θ1 ) + cos(θ2 ).

This finishes the proof.
z
Corollary 5.5. If c(z) = − ζ(2)
2 · (−1) and 0 < ϕ1 < ϕ2 < 2π, then

¢
ζ(2) ¡
· (3ϕ1 − 2π)(cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) − (3ϕ2 − 4π)(cos(ϕ1 ) − 1)
2
4π
µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
3ζ(2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
+
· sin(ϕ1 ) · log
− sin(ϕ2 ) · log
.
sin(ϕ1 /2)
sin(ϕ2 /2)
2π 2

F c[ (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) = −



PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

21

Proof. We recall that
F c[ (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) =

sin(φ)c(e iη , e iφ , 1, e iϕ1 , e iϕ2 )d η d φ + v[c (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v[c (0, ϕ2 ) + v[c (0, ϕ1 ).

If 0 ≤ ϕ1 < ϕ2 < 2π, then the first summand is given by
sin(φ)c(e iη , e iφ , 1, e iϕ1 , e iϕ2 )d η d φ = Re(− i · I 2 (e iϕ1 , e iϕ2 ))
= −

ζ(2)

2π 2

· ((cos(ϕ2 ) − 1)(ϕ1 − π) − (cos(ϕ1 ) − 1)(ϕ2 − π) − π).

We regroup the remaining terms as
v[c (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v[c (0, ϕ2 ) + v[c (0, ϕ1 ) = (v1 (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v1 (0, ϕ2 ) + v1 (0, ϕ1 )) + (v2 (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v2 (0, ϕ2 ) + v2 (0, ϕ1 )).
The v1 -terms then sum up to
4π2
· (v1 (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v1 (0, ϕ2 ) + v1 (0, ϕ1 ))
ζ(2)
= (cos(ϕ1 ) + cos(ϕ2 )) · (ϕ2 − ϕ1 − π) − (1 + cos(ϕ2 )) · (ϕ2 − π) + (1 + cos(ϕ1 )) · (ϕ1 − π)
= cos(ϕ1 )ϕ2 − cos(ϕ1 )ϕ1 − cos(ϕ1 )π + cos(ϕ2 )ϕ2 − cos(ϕ2 )ϕ1 − cos(ϕ2 )π
−ϕ2 + π − cos(ϕ2 )ϕ2 + cos(ϕ2 )π + ϕ1 − π + cos(ϕ1 )ϕ1 − cos(ϕ1 )π
= cos(ϕ1 )ϕ2 − 2 cos(ϕ1 )π − cos(ϕ2 )ϕ1 − ϕ2 + ϕ1 ,

whereas the v2 -terms sum up to
2π 2
· (v2 (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) − v2 (0, ϕ2 ) + v2 (0, ϕ1 ))
3 · ζ(2)
= (sin(ϕ1 ) − sin(ϕ2 )) · log(sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)) + sin(ϕ2 ) · log(sin(ϕ2 /2)) − sin(ϕ1 ) · log(sin(ϕ1 /2))
= sin(ϕ1 ) · (log(sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)) − log(sin(ϕ1 /2))) − sin(ϕ2 ) · (log(sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)) − log(sin(ϕ2 /2)))
¶
µ
¶
µ
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
− sin(ϕ2 ) · log
= sin(ϕ1 ) · log
sin(ϕ1 /2)
sin(ϕ2 /2)

We thus obtain
4π 2 [
· F (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) = −2 · (cos(ϕ2 ) − 1)(ϕ1 − π) + 2 · (cos(ϕ1 ) − 1)(ϕ2 − π) + 2π
ζ(2) c
+ cos(ϕ1 )ϕ2 − 2 cos(ϕ1 )π − cos(ϕ2 )ϕ1 − ϕ2 + ϕ1
µ
¶
µ
¶
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
+6 sin(ϕ1 ) · log
− 6 sin(ϕ2 ) · log
sin(ϕ1 /2)
sin(ϕ2 /2)
= −3ϕ1 (cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) + 3ϕ2 (cos(ϕ1 ) − 1) − 2π(2 cos(ϕ1 ) + cos(ϕ2 ) − 1)
µ
¶
µ
¶
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
− 6 sin(ϕ2 ) · log
.
+6 sin(ϕ1 ) · log
sin(ϕ1 /2)
sin(ϕ2 /2)
Finally note that
−3ϕ1 (cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) + 3ϕ2 (cos(ϕ1 ) − 1) − 2π(2 cos(ϕ1 ) + cos(ϕ2 ) − 1)
= −3ϕ1 (cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) + 3ϕ2 (cos(ϕ1 ) − 1) − 4π(cos(ϕ1 ) − 1) + 2π(cos(ϕ2 ) − 1)
= −(3ϕ1 − 2π)(cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) + (3ϕ2 − 4π)(cos(ϕ1 ) − 1).



22

T. HARTNICK AND A. OTT

5.4. The final formula. Combining Proposition 4.5, Lemma 5.1 and Corollary 5.5 we finally
obtain:
Theorem 5.6. The Rogers dilogarithm L 2 is given by the formula
¶
µ
µ
¶
π
ζ(2) ζ(2)
2x
−
L 2 (x) =
arctan
+
2
2π
2
1 − x2
ˆ −x−1 µ
¶
µ
¶¶
µ
2x
1− x
1− x
[
−
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
F c 2 · arccot − t +
2x
2x
0
ˆ x+1 µ
¶
µ
¶¶
µ
2
1− x
1− x
[
, 2 · arccot − t −
dt
+
F c 2 · arccot − t +
2
2
0
ˆ 1 µ
¶
µ
¶¶
µ
2
1
1
[
−
dt
F c 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
2
2
0
ˆ x ³
³
³
2
x ´´
x´
+
dt,
F c[ 2 · arccot − t + , 2 · arccot − t −
2
2
0
where
¢
ζ(2) ¡
· (3ϕ1 − 2π)(cos(ϕ2 ) − 1) − (3ϕ2 − 4π)(cos(ϕ1 ) − 1)
2
4π
µ
µ
¶
µ
¶¶
3ζ(2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
sin((ϕ2 − ϕ1 )/2)
+
· sin(ϕ1 ) · log
− sin(ϕ2 ) · log
.
sin(ϕ1 /2)
sin(ϕ2 /2)
2π 2

F c[ (ϕ1 , ϕ2 ) = −


R EFERENCES
2

3

n

1. N. H. Abel, Note sur la fonction ψ(x) = x + x2 + x2 + · · · + x 2 + . . . , unpublished manuscript, 1826, published
2
3
n
poshumously in: L. Sylow and S. Lie, Oeuvres complètes de Niels Henrik Abel, Grøndahl & Søn, Christiania
[Oslo], 1881, 189–193.
2. S. J. Bloch, Higher regulators, algebraic K-theory, and zeta functions of elliptic curves, CRM Monograph
Series, vol. 11, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2000.
3.
, Applications of the dilogarithm function in algebraic K-theory and algebraic geometry, in:
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Algebraic Geometry (Kyoto Univ., Kyoto, 1977), Kinokuniya Book
Store, Tokyo, 1978, 103–114.
4. A. Borel, Commensurability classes and volumes of hyperbolic 3-manifolds, Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa
Cl. Sci. (4) 8 (1981), no. 1, 1–33.
5. M. Burger and N. Monod, Bounded cohomology of lattices in higher rank Lie groups, J. Eur. Math. Soc.
(JEMS) 1 (1999), no. 2, 199–235.
6.
, On and around the bounded cohomology of SL 2 , in: Rigidity in Dynamics and Geometry, Proceedings
of the Programme on Ergodic Theory, Geometric Rigidity and Number Theory held in Cambridge, January 5–July
7, 2000, edited by M. Burger and A. Iozzi, Springer, 2002, 19–37.
7. M. Burger, N. Ozawa, A. Thom, On Ulam stability, Israel Journal of Mathematics, 2013 (1), Vol. 193, 109–129.
8. J. L. Dupont, The dilogarithm as a characteristic class for flat bundles, in: Proceedings of the Northwestern
conference on cohomology of groups (Evanston, Ill., 1985). J. Pure Appl. Algebra 44 (1987), no. 1-3, 137–164.
9.
, Dilogarithm identities in conformal field theory and group homology, in: Geometry and global
analysis (Sendai, 1993), Tohoku Univ., Sendai, 1993, 191–195.
10. J. L. Dupont and C.-H. Sah, Dilogarithm identities in conformal field theory and group homology, Comm.
Math. Phys. 161 (1994), no. 2, 265–282.
11. L. Euler, Institutionum calculi differentialis, Impensis Academiae Imperialis Scientiarum, Petropolis, 1768.
12. K. Fujiwara and M. Kapovich, On quasihomomorphisms with noncommutative targets, Preprint, 2013.
13. A. B. Goncharov, The classical polylogarithms, algebraic K-theory and ζF (n) The Gel’fand Mathematical
Seminars, 1990–1992, Birkhäuser Boston, 1993, 113–135.

PERTURBATIONS OF THE SPENCE-ABEL EQUATION

23

14. M. Gromov, Volume and bounded cohomology, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1982), no. 56, 5–99 (1983).
15. T. Hartnick and A. Ott, Bounded cohomology via partial differential equations, I, Geom. Top. 19-6 (2015),
3603–3643.
16. T. Hartnick and P. Schweitzer, On quasioutomorphism groups of free groups and their transitivity properties, J. Algebra 450 (2016), 242–281.
17. J. F. W. Herschel, Mathematical Essays by the late William Spence, Esq., Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh,1819.
18. C. J. Hill, Über die Integration logarithmisch-rationaler Differentiale, J. Reine Angew. Math. 3 (1828),
101–159.
19. D. H. Hyers, On the stability of the linear functional equation, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 27(1941), 222–224.
20. D. H. Hyers, G. Isac and T. Rassias, Stability of functional equations in several variables, Progress in Nonlinear Differential Equations and their Applications, 34, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1998.
21. N. V. Ivanov, Foundations of the theory of bounded cohomology, Journal of Soviet Mathematics, 1987, vol.
37, no. 3, 1090–1115.
22. S.-M. Jung, Hyers-Ulam-Rassias stability of functional equations in nonlinear analysis, Springer Optimization and Its Applications 48, Springer, New York, 2011.
23. A. N. Kirillov, Dilogarithm identities, partitions, and spectra in conformal field theory, St. Petersburg
Math. J. 6 (1995), no. 2, 327–348.
24. P. Kannappan, Functional equations and inequalities with applications, Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2009.
25. E. E. Kummer, Über die Transcendenten, welche aus wiederholten Integrationen rationaler Formeln
entstehen. J. Reine Angew. Math. 21 (1840), 74–90.
26. G. W. Leibniz, Letter to J. Bernoulli from November 9th, 1696, in: Sämtliche Brief und Schriten, Reihe III,
Band 7 (ed. J.G O’Hara, C. Wahl, R. Krömer, H. Sefrin-Weis), Akademie-Verlag, Berlin 2011, 178–179.
27. S. Lichtenbaum,Values of zeta-functions, étale cohomology, and algebraic K-theory, in: Algebraic K-theory,
II: "Classical” algebraic K-theory and connections with arithmetic (Proc. Conf., Battelle Memorial Inst., Seattle,
Wash., 1972), Springer Lecture Notes in Math. 342, Springer, Berlin, 1973, 489–501.
28. N. Monod, Equivariant measurable lifting, arXiv:1312.1495 [math.FA].
29.
, Continuous bounded cohomology of locally compact groups, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol.
1758, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2001.
30. W. Nahm, Conformal field theory and torsion elements of the Bloch group, in: Frontiers in number theory,
physics, and geometry. II, Springer, Berlin, 2007, 67–132.
31. W. Nahm, A. Recknagel and M. Terhoeven, M., Dilogarithm identities in conformal field theory Modern
Phys. Lett. A 8 (1993), no. 19, 1835 – 1847.
32. H. Pieters, Continuous cohomology of the isometry group of hyperbolic space realizable on the boundary, arXiv preprint, 2015.
P
33. L. J. Rogers, On function sum theorems connected with the series ∞
x n /n2 , Proc. London Math. Soc. 4,
n=1
1907, 169–189.
´ x log(1−α)
d α, J. Reine Angew Math. 30 (1846), 277 – 295.
34. W. Schaeffer, De integrali − 0
α
35. S. M. Ulam, A collection of mathematical problems, Interscience Tracts in Pure and Applied Mathematics,
no. 8, Interscience Publishers, New York-London, 1960.
36. D. Zagier, The dilogarithm function, in: Frontiers in number theory, physics, and geometry. II, Springer, Berlin,
2007, 3–65.
M ATHEMATICS D EPARTMENT, T ECHNION, H AIFA 32000, I SRAEL
E-mail address: hartnick@tx.technion.ac.il
M ATHEMATISCHES I NSTITUT, R UPRECHT-K ARLS -U NIVERSITÄT H EIDELBERG, I M N EUENHEIMER F ELD 288, 69120
H EIDELBERG, G ERMANY
E-mail address: aott@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de

