I would like to provide a somewhat more in depth answer.
I think part of the confusion is due to the choice of notation, so here I'll introduce the setup with new (though compatible) notation. First let $M$ be a smooth manifold (see e.g. the description in What is Riemannian Manifold intuitively? ). $M$ models the closed system that will evolve under a certain time evolution; let's call it the configuration space. Any point in $M$ represents a position. $M$ looks locally like a Euclidean space, but globally it's shape is typically much more complicated (e.g. consider the surface of an actual donut with the bumps and dents as can be seen with the human eye, or the cornea of a human eye). In particular it might well be that we are a priori unaware of what $M$ globally looks like. (For technical reasons below I'm assuming $M$ is compact ($\ast$) and $C^\infty$.)
There are many ways of introducing a time evolution on $M$; a classical way to do it is to consider an ordinary differential equation on it. To any smooth manifold $M$ one can associate another smooth manifold $TM$, called the tangent bundle of $M$. Any point in $TM$ is of the form $(p,v)$, where $p\in M$ is a position and $v$ is a velocity. Let's call $TM$ the state space. To define an ODE on $M$ is to define a vector field on $M$; which formally is a continuously differentiable function $F:M\to TM$ that is of the form $F(p)=(p,?)$. So $F$ attaches to each point $p$ of $M$ some velocity vector. Then the ODE on $M$ defined by $F$ is of the form
$$x'=F(x),$$
where $x:\mathbb{R}\to M$ is the unknown function. The classical Existence and Uniqueness Theorem in ODE applies in this situation, and says that for any initial condition $p\in M$, there is a unique path $\gamma:\mathbb{R}\to M$ with the property that
$$\gamma(0)=p, \forall t\in\mathbb{R}:\dfrac{\partial \gamma}{\partial t}(t)=F(\gamma(t)).$$
In words, $\gamma$ is at position $p$ at time $0$, and it's velocity at time $t$ is precisely the vector $F(\gamma(t))$, so that $F$ is tangent to $\gamma$. Now note that to produce this path $\gamma$ we had to fix the initial condition, but we had no restriction on which initial condition to choose. Thus more precisely we also have that $\gamma$ is a function of $p$:
$$\gamma(t)=\gamma(t,p).$$
Thus we have that $\gamma: \mathbb{R}\times M\to M$. Further, again by the Existence and Uniqueness Theorem we have that $\gamma$ satisfies the group property:
$$\forall p\in M,\forall t_1,t_2\in \mathbb{R}: \gamma(t_1+t_2,p)=\gamma(t_1,\gamma(t_2,p)).$$
In words, starting at an anonymous $p$ and flowing along $F$ for $t_1+t_2$ time is the same as starting at the same $p$, first flowing along $F$ for $t_2$ time to reach some (possibly different) point $q=\gamma(t_2,p)\in M$ and then flowing along $F$ for $t_1$ time starting from $q$. Let's call $\gamma$ the flow of the vector field $F$.
Another way to think of $\gamma: \mathbb{R}\times M\to M$ is to think of it as an association, to each time $t$, a map of $M$ into itself:
$$\gamma_\bullet:\mathbb{R}\to [M\to M], t\mapsto [p\mapsto \gamma(t,p)].$$
This perspective is useful e.g. when one has a specific time parameter $t^\ast$ and wants to consider where an anonymous point $p$ went in $t^\ast$ time. Now the group property can be reformulated by saying that $\gamma_\bullet:\mathbb{R}\to\operatorname{Diff}^1(M)$ is a group homomorphism ($\dagger$). One can thus think of $\gamma_\bullet$ a non-linear representation of the time space $\mathbb{R}$.
The final piece is to introduce an observable $\Phi$ on $M$, which for our purposes will be a function $\Phi: M\to \mathbb{C}$ (with typically certain regularity properties). Introducing observables is useful, e.g. because instead of tracking the time evolution of $p$ in $M$ it is easier to track the time evolution of the complex number $\Phi(\gamma(t,p))$ as $t$ varies. It might also be the case that even though $M$ is unknown a certain "1D aspect" of the configuration space is known. Denote by $\mathcal{O}(M)$ the space of all observables on $M$; it's straightfoward that $\mathcal{O}(M)$ is a vector space. Further, for any observable $\Phi \in\mathcal{O}(M)$, we can think of $t\mapsto \Phi\circ \gamma(t,\bullet)$ as a time evolution on $\mathcal{O}(M)$; so that $\mathcal{O}(M)$ becomes a configuration space in its own right. Here the observable $\Phi\circ \gamma(t,\bullet)\in\mathcal{O}(M)$ is defined like so: first take an anonymous point $p\in M$, then flow along $F$ for $t$ time, then read off the value $\Phi$ gives to $\gamma(t,p)$. Let us use the abbreviation $U(t,\Phi)=\Phi\circ \gamma(t,\bullet)$ to emphasize that we have a new configuration space and a time evolution (both uniquely determined by $\gamma$, which in turn is uniquely determined by $F$):
$$U:\mathbb{R}\times\mathcal{O}(M)\to\mathcal{O}(M).$$
The group property of $\gamma$ translates to a group property of $U$. Further, for each $t\in \mathbb{R}$, $U(t,\bullet)$ is a linear operator $\mathcal{O}(M)$. Thus in analogy with ($\dagger$) above, we have a group homomorphism $U_\bullet: \mathbb{R}\to \operatorname{GL}(\mathcal{O}(M))$, which we can think of as a linear representation of the time space $\mathbb{R}$. $U_\bullet$ is called the Koopman flow of $F$.
On to the answers to the listed questions.
-
- In the vector field formalism the time evolution is not explicit; it is implied.
- The flow $\gamma$ of a vector field $F$ is the solution to the ODE defined by $x'=F(x)$, as such at times using the solution is better than using the question, even when they are not explicit. (E.g. flows work better with coordinate changes, compared to vector fields, see What is the relationship between the vector fields of conjugate flows?)
- The vector field $F$, or the ODE $x'=F(x)$ is indeed sufficient, as it defines a unique flow. However for multiple reasons at times it is more convenient to use the flows (see e.g. Dynamics on the torus).
- The time evolution is more general than the ones than can be defined by vector fields. For instance the time space can be different than $\mathbb{R}$, or the time evolution may lack any differentiability properties (e.g. see How a group represents the passage of time?, What are some interesting examples of non-classical dynamical systems? (Group action other than $\mathbb{Z}$ or $\mathbb{R}$)).
- Especially for qualitative approaches, using flows are more convenient at times. (e.g. see Vector field tangent to a meridian)
- The Koopman flow is uniquely determined by the vector field $F$, but there is no direct transition from the vector field on $M$ to a time evolution on $\mathcal{O}(M)$.
- In my terminology, for $x'=1/x$, $M=\{p\in\mathbb{R}\,|\, p\neq0\}$ is the configuration space, as it parameterizes only positions, and $TM\cong M\times\mathbb{R}$ is the state space. The vector field is $F:x\mapsto (x,1/x)$ (the reason I've restricted the configuration space, which is what you call the state space, is to make $F$ well-defined everywhere). Sending the $x$ on the RHS we get $xx'=1$. The LHS is equal to $(x^2/2)'$, so that by integrating both sides we get $x^2/2=t+C$, where $C$ is a constant. Plugging in $t=0$ we get $(x(0))^2/2=C$, so that for any time $t\in\mathbb{R}$ and for any initial position $p=x(0)\in M$, the (local) flow $\gamma$ of $F$ is:
$$\gamma(t,p)=\operatorname{sign}(p)\sqrt{2t+p^2}.$$
(Note that in this case $M$ is not compact (nor is $F$ compactly supported), whence the flow of $F$ is not defined for all $t\in\mathbb{R}$; indeed the domain of definition of $\gamma$ is $\{(t,p)\in\mathbb{R}\times M\,|\, t>-p^2/2\}$; see also ($\ast$) above.)
(See also Basic question about finding flow given eigenvalues for another example.)
- Yes.
- Here are some examples of observables in $\mathcal{O}(M)$ for the example in item 2:
- $f_1(p)=e^{ip}$ (which is your example)
- $f_2(p)=0$ (this is the trivial observable)
- $f_3(p)= |p-1|$ (this observable reads the distance to $1\in M$)
- $f_4(p)=\begin{cases} 1, &\text{ if }1\leq p\leq 2\\ 0, &\text{ otherwise }\end{cases}$ (this observable is a sensor; it detects if $p$ is in $[1,2]\subseteq M$).
Looking the time evolutions of these observables on $M$ (i.e. points of $\mathcal{O}(M)$) under the Koopman flow, we get the following:
- $U(t,f_1)(p)=f_1(\gamma(t,p))=e^{i\operatorname{sign}(p)\sqrt{2t+p^2}}$
- $U(t,f_2)(p)=f_2(\gamma(t,p))=0$
- $U(t,f_3)(p)=f_3(\gamma(t,p))= |\operatorname{sign}(p)\sqrt{2t+p^2}-1|$
- $U(t,f_4)(p)=f_4(\gamma(t,p))=\begin{cases} 1, &\text{ if }1\leq \operatorname{sign}(p)\sqrt{2t+p^2}\leq 2\\ 0, &\text{ otherwise }\end{cases}$.
Each one of these ought to be interpreted accordingly; e.g. the time evolution of the observable $f_4$ describes the trajectories of which point hit the interval $[1,2]$ and how long.
The notation $U_t(f)$ makes sense without any reference to a point on the original configuration space $M$; though $U_t(f)$ is a function on $M$ and the only way to describe what a function is is to describe what it does to an anonymous $p$:
$$U_\bullet: \mathbb{R}\to\operatorname{GL}(\mathcal{O}(M)), t\mapsto [f\mapsto [p\mapsto f(\gamma(t,p))]].$$
There is a final question that the OP didn't ask but is relevant; which is the benefit of switching to the Koopman flow. For instance $M$ is often finite dimensional but non-linear with a non-linear time evolution $\gamma$. Koopmanizing we get the space $\mathcal{O}(M)$ (which has different versions; see e.g. Constructing unitary representations using quasi-invariant measures, Ergodicity of surjective continuous endomorphism of compact abelian group (confused about a step)) is (often) infinite-dimensional but linear with a linear time evolution $U$. Thus we trade finite-dimensionality for linearity. If $\mathcal{O}(M)$ can be efficiently truncated to a finite-dimensional subspace in a way adapted to $U$, then one obtains a linearization of the original time evolution with no finite dimensionality cost.
See also the discussions at Mathematical framework of the Koopman operator, Importance of Group Representation theory, What is Representation Theory?, Importance of Representation Theory (where by "representation" a linear (to say the least) representation is meant).
Best Answer
I do ergodic theory, so I will speak from my experience in that area, using the notation of that area. As such, we tend to look at things through the perspective of a measure. So we suppose that $m$ is a natural measure on your space (normally just Lebesgue) which is non-singular with respect to your dynamical system. I will assume for simplicity that your dynamics have discrete indices, that is, we just iterate a single map $T\colon X \to X$. The non-singularity means that $m(T^{-1} A) =0$ if and only if $m(A)=0$. Note that this is much weaker than invariance. We assume this for technical reasons, although it is reasonable to think that for a natural measure, the transformation doesn't turn sets of measure zero into sets of positive measure.
The Koopman operator $U$ is defined then as an operator acting on $L^\infty(\mu) $, that is, the set of essentially bounded functions. It is defined as composition with $T$, that is, $U(f) = f\circ T$. It seems like we have not achieved anything, but some interesting things happen with this operator. Some dynamical properties of $T$ are translated to spectral properties of $U$. For instance, ergodicity means that the only fixed points of $U$ are the constant functions (see Walters book). You can go further and look at the 'dual' operator $P$ of $U$, acting on $L^1(\mu)$ and defined by the duality relationship
$$ \int_X Uf g dm = \int_X f Pg dm $$
for all $f\in L^\infty$ and $g\in L^1$. Here things get really interesting, as more dynamical properties of $T$ are translated into spectral properties of $P$. For instances, you can construct absolutely continuous invariant measures densities by looking at the fixed points of $P$, you can characterize mixing in terms of the spectrum of $P$ and many other things. There is a lot of spectral theory you can use to gain dynamycal insights using these operators.