[ [ general - context . ] ] general context .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    linear boundary problems are a crucial concern of applied mathematics  @xcite .
one might thus expect a rich _ algebraic theory _ with _ symbolic algorithms _ , so as to support the exact solution and manipulation of a suitable class of boundary problems .
alas , this is not the case yet
.    there may be two reasons for this .
one is that the classical algebraic theory of ( nonlinear ) differential equations , the _ differential algebra _ built up by ritt  @xcite and kolchin  @xcite , does not lend itself easily to boundary conditions : the elements of a differential ring or field are not functions but abstract objects that can not be evaluated at a boundary point .
the other reason is of a pragmatic nature .
if a differential equation can be solved at all , one tends to delegate boundary conditions to _ adhoc postprocessing _ steps that would adapt the integration constants / functions of the `` general solution '' .
while this may be viable for linear ordinary differential equations ( lodes ) , the notion of general solution is much less useful in the case of partial differential equations ( lpdes ) : for example , there is not much point in solving the @xmath0 per se , but there are useful representations of those solutions that satisfy dirichlet boundary conditions on the unit disc ( poisson kernel ) .
so even though we will be dealing only with lodes in this paper , the larger context of lpdes should be kept in mind .    in the admittedly modest case of _
boundary problems for lodes _ , an algebraic theory was set up in  @xcite .
the decisive step was to expand the well - known structure of a differential ring , complementing its derivation by a compatible baxter operator ( integral operator ) .
this solves at once two problems : it provides the algebraic structure needed for expressing green s operators ( solution operators for boundary problems ) , and it yields an evaluation ( a multiplicative functional ) .
the notion of evaluation is the key for imposing boundary conditions on the otherwise abstract objects of a differential ring ; one supplies as many evaluation as needed ( in addition to the one coming from the baxter operator ) .    in  @xcite ,
the basic theory of  @xcite was refined and generalized .
moreover , the authors have introduced a multiplicative structure on boundary problems that will also be crucial for our buildup of the heaviside calculus .
the multiplication of boundary problems corresponds to the composition of their green s operators in reverse order ; see equation  .
the framework of boundary problems of  @xcite was _ implemented _ several times : the first implementation was coded in mathematica / th@xmath1orem@xmath2  as an external package for boundary problems with constant coefficients .
this version was superseded by a new implementation as an internal th@xmath1orem@xmath2  functor for generic integro - differential algebras in  @xcite .
now in the third generation , the most recent implementation is the maple package  _ intdiffop _
@xcite , which provides additional support for singular boundary problems ( all previous packages being restricted to regular boundary problems ) .
[ [ heaviside - calculus . ] ] heaviside calculus .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    our main concern in this paper is to build a bridge from the framework of symbolic boundary problems to the classical heaviside calculus  @xcite . since o.  heaviside s main idea , subsequently made rigorous by j.  mikusiski , was to treat the differential operator as a _ symbolic multiplier _
, it is perhaps natural to reflect on possible connections to contemporary symbolic methods for differential equations . but why to symbolic boundary problems ?
the answer lies in heaviside s so - called _ fundamental formula _
, the algebraic analog of a well - known relation for the laplace transform . if  @xmath3 is the `` symbolic multiplier '' representing the differential operator and  @xmath4 is a suitable function , then one has  @xmath5 .
the point is that  @xmath3 , which is supposed to be invertible in this calculus , must somehow `` remember '' the integration constant that is lost in differentiation .
we will come back to this point in more detail ( section  [ sec : methorious - functions ] ) .
at this point it suffices to say that an appropriate action of  @xmath3 on functions involves an evaluation operator .
it is used in the heaviside - mikusinski calculus for incorporating the initial values associated to a differential equation , thus yielding at once the solution of the whole initial value problem .
it is thus natural  staying in the frame of lodes  to ask if one can build up a more general calculus that would allow to incorporate multiple boundary values , given by several evaluation operators .
the basic ideas of heaviside and mikusiski have been vastly extended , specifically by l. berg  @xcite and i. dimovski  @xcite .
the latter has also broached a question closely related to the one raised above , namely the setup of _ nonlocal convolutions _
@xcite and _ custom - tailored convolutions _ for boundary problems  @xcite . as far as we know , however , there are no direct generalizations of the fundamental formula from one to more evaluation operators acting on univariate functions .
[ [ basic - setup . ] ] basic setup .
+ + + + + + + + + + + +    our own approach is different in many respects . it does not qualify as an _ operational calculus _ in dimovski s understanding  @xcite , for whom its crucial feature is that `` operators '' and `` operands '' are merged in a single data structure , whereas algebraic analysis keeps the module of operand functions separate from the ring of operators . in this sense , we follow the line of algebraic analysis since we distinguish the ring of methorious operators ( section  [ sec : localization ] ) from the module of methorious functions ( section  [ sec : methorious - functions ] ) .
moreover , our approach is genuinly algebraic while the hallmark of the heaviside - mikusiski tradition is an ingenious mix of algebra and analysis .
nevertheless , we believe that our setup is close in spirit to the original heaviside - mikusiski setup , enjoying the following attractive features :    * its _ basic philosophy _ follows closely in heaviside s footsteps , making the differential operator invertible by `` remembering '' suitable boundary data . *
it provides an algebraic structure that accommodates boundary problems for an _ arbitrary number of evaluation points _ as well as _
nonlocal conditions_. * all boundary problems are covered _ uniformly _ , so one need not set up custom - tailored multiplications ( convolutions ) for each type of boundary conditions one wants to consider . *
it illuminates the passage from one to several evaluations algebraically : localization takes place in a _
noncommutative ring_. in contrast , convolution algebras are commutative by definition  @xcite . *
the construction is _ generic in the coefficient algebra _ ( it works for the class of umbral integro - differential algebras ) .    from the viewpoint of analysis , however
, the class of umbral coefficient algebras is rather limited compared to mikusiski s setup ( continuous or even @xmath6 functions on the positive half - axis ) . while this might be relaxed by suitable limit considerations ,
this is not in the interest of the present paper , where we want to focus on the algebraic aspects .
our goal in this paper is to build a _ first bridge _ between the algebraic theory of boundary problems  @xcite and heaviside s tactic of using `` symbolic fractions '' ( localization in a suitable convolution ring ) for integrating differential equations with initial / boundary data .
in fact , it gives a new justification ( see after proposition  [ prop : greensop - localization ] ) for a notational device initiated in  @xcite : since then we have written  @xmath7 for the green s operator associated to a boundary problem  @xmath8 , originally chosen in view of the anti - isomorphism   mentioned above .
the work in this paper may also be seen as an answer to an ( implicit ) question originating from  @xcite .
the setting there was restricted to @xmath9 $ ] coefficients and treated via ore algebras .
the object of central interest was the _ integro - differential weyl algebra _ , which has shown to have two important quotient algebras : the ring of localized differential operators  @xmath10[x]$ ] and the usual ring of integro - differential operators  @xmath9[{\partial } , { { \textstyle \varint}}]$ ] .
the former has @xmath11 as a two - sided inverse , but no action on  @xmath9 $ ] ; the latter has the action , but  @xmath12 is only a right inverse of  @xmath11 . now the question arises : can one build up a structure , with an action on  @xmath9 $ ] or other coefficient algebras , such that the derivation has a two - sided inverse ?
we show in this paper that the answer is affirmative , provided the derivation is enhanced in a way similar to heaviside s symbolic multiplier  @xmath3 .    as always in algebra
, localizing a ring sheds new light on its structure , especially in the noncommutative setting ( here the theory of fraction rings is somewhat more delicate due to the ore condition , see section  [ sec : localization ] ) .
we hope this will also be the case for our present construction .
but one must bear in mind that the subject has only been touched and various issues remain in a preliminary and unsatisfactory state ( see the conclusion ) .
nevertheless , a wealth of new relations has been uncovered , and we are confident that they will allow interesting generalizations and refinements .
[ [ structure - of - the - paper . ] ] structure of the paper .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    we start out by summarizing the basic theory of symbolic boundary problems , giving special emphasis to their monoid structure ( section  [ sec : monoid - bp ] ) .
our construction is based on a certain kind of boundary conditions , which we have called `` umbral '' because of certain relations to the umbral calculus ( section  [ sec : umbral - bc ] ) .
after this preparation , we tackle the task of localization for an integro - differential algebra with an umbral character set ( section  [ sec : localization ] ) . for the resulting ring of fractions ,
we construct a module of functions on which it acts naturally ( section  [ sec : methorious - functions ] ) .
we conclude with some remarks about possible extensions and generalizations ( section  [ sec : conclusion ] ) .
[ [ notation . ] ] notation .
+ + + + + + + + +    all rings are with unit but not necessarily commutative .
a domain is a ( commutative or noncommutative ) ring without zero divisors .
the zero vector space of any dimension will be denoted by  @xmath13 .
we use the notation @xmath14 for indicating that a vector space  @xmath15 is a subspace of a vector space  @xmath16 .
our basic setting is that of  @xcite .
we review the main results here for making our present treatment more self - contained and for introducing various pieces of notation and terminology in their proper places .
we start from the notion of _ integro - differential algebra _ , a natural generalization of differential algebras that permits the algebraic formulation of linear boundary problems .
[ def : intdiffalg ] we call @xmath17 an _ integro - differential algebra _ over @xmath18 if @xmath19 is a commutative @xmath18-algebra with @xmath18-linear operations @xmath11 and @xmath12 such that the three axioms @xmath20 are satisfied , where @xmath21 is the usual shorthand notation for @xmath11 .
this definition differs from definition  4 in  @xcite as it uses   as the _ differential baxter axiom _ rather than the variant @xmath22 used earlier .
in fact , one checks immediately that for commutative  @xmath19 both axioms are equivalent ( assuming the other axioms ) .
the advantage of   is that it is more symmetric and that it also sufficient for the noncommutative case , where   must be supplemented by the corresponding dual axiom .
nevertheless , _ we will from now on tacitly assume that all integro - differential algebras are commutative , as in  @xcite .
_    incidentally we note the following _ convention on precedence _ : the scope of an integral sign @xmath12 covers all factors to its right , unless otherwise specified .
therefore the above term  @xmath23 is to be parsed as  @xmath24 .
this helps avoiding the proliferation of parentheses in nested integrals .
the differential baxter axiom is in general stronger than the following _ pure baxter axiom _ @xmath25 which is the defining axiom for the so - called rota - baxter algebras  @xcite .
( in fact , one may relax the conditions on  @xmath19 to include noncommutative algebras over arbitrary commutative rings with one .
moreover , one may add a so - called weight term for incorporating the discrete setting where  @xmath12 is , for example , the operator of partial summation .
in that case , one must of course also adapt   to account for the weight .
remarkably , the differential baxter axiom   is the same with or without weight . )
every integro - differential algebra comes with a multiplicative projector , namely the _ evaluation _  @xmath26 .
in fact , the strong baxter axiom is equivalent to the weak one combined with the multiplicativity of  @xmath27 .
the presence of the character  @xmath27 leads to the direct sum decomposition @xmath28 where  @xmath29 is the usual _ ring of constants _ while  @xmath30 is called the _ ideal of initialized functions _
( one checks immediately that the multiplicativity of  @xmath27 is equivalent to  @xmath31 being an ideal ) .
so  @xmath27 is the projector onto  @xmath32 along  @xmath31 .
moreover , both  @xmath11 and  @xmath12 are  @xmath32-linear rather than just  @xmath18-linear ( for  @xmath11 this is of course trivial , but for  @xmath12 this is again equivalent to the multiplicativity of  @xmath27 ) .    in this paper , we want to restrict ourselves to boundary problems for lodes . for reflecting this property in the ( integro ) differential structure , in  @xcite
we have called a differential algebra  @xmath33 ordinary if  @xmath34 .
_ we will henceforth assume that all integro - differential algebras are ordinary in this sense .
_    restricting ourselves to ordinary integro - differential algebras has a number of pleasant implications .
first of all , the evaluation is now a multiplicative linear operator  @xmath35 , meaning a _ character _ ( in the sense `` multiplicative linear functional on an algebra '' ) .
another consequencence , which will be of some importance later , is that the polynomials behave as usual . for any integro - differential algebra  @xmath19
, we set  @xmath36 .
now the pure baxer axiom   ensures that  @xmath37 , and so on .
it turns out that the elements of  @xmath9 $ ] are `` really '' polynomials , and they satisfy the usual differential equations ( see before eq .
( 6 ) and also eq .
( 8) in  @xcite for more details ) .
[ prop : pol - ring ] let  @xmath19 be an integro - differential algebra over  @xmath18 , and let  @xmath9 $ ] be the subalgebra generated by  @xmath38 .
then  @xmath9 $ ] is isomorphic to the univariate polynomial ring over  @xmath18 .
if  @xmath19 is an ordinary integro - differential algebra , we have moreover @xmath39,\ ] ] and  @xmath9 \le { \mathcal{f}}$ ] is an integro - differential subalgebra .
[ ex : standard ] the _ standard example _ of an ( ordinary ) integro - differential algebra is  @xmath40 with  @xmath41 in the usual sense and @xmath42 .
this integro - differential algebra contains many important integro - differential subalgebras , for example the analytic functions  @xmath43 , the exponential polynomials , and of course the polynomial ring  @xmath44 $ ]
. an important integro - differential subalgebra of  @xmath43 is formed by the holonomic power series  @xcite .
given a differential algebra  @xmath33 , one may form the ring of differential operators  @xmath45}$ ] .
it is therefore natural to expect a similar ring of _ integro - differential operators _
@xmath46}$ ] , which contains differential operators ( needed for specifying differential equations ) as well as integral operators ( needed for specifying green s operators ) .
the evaluation  @xmath27 can be used for writing a condition like  @xmath47 in the form  @xmath48 .
but for boundary problems one usually needs more than one evaluation ( see example  [ ex : second - order ] below ) .    for algebraizing general boundary conditions ,
we start from a _ character set _
@xmath49 , meaning each  @xmath50 is a multiplicative linear functional just as  @xmath27 is .
in fact , we will always assume  @xmath51 .
based on the characters of  @xmath49 , we can from arbitrary _ stieltjes conditions _  ( * ? ? ?
14 ) ; their normal form is @xmath52 with @xmath53 and @xmath54 almost all zero .
the summands with  @xmath12 make up the so - called global part , those without the local part .
the _ order _ of a boundary condition is the largest  @xmath55 such that  @xmath56 in the normal form  . in the standard
setting of example  [ ex : standard ] , a typical stieltjes condition like @xmath57 is encoded as  @xmath58 with  @xmath59 , where we have written  @xmath60 for the standard character  @xmath61 .
henceforth we shall always consider example  [ ex : standard ] with the character set  @xmath62 .    for each character set  @xmath49 one may then build up the corresponding _ operator ring _
@xmath63}$ ] .
the details are given in  @xcite ; at this point it suffices to note that the operator ring is given by the quotient of a free algebra modulo a certain ideal of relations like the leibniz rule , and also   as well as  .
the resulting operator ring decomposes nicely into a direct sum ; see  ( * ? ? ?
17 ) for a proof .
[ prop : intdiffop - direct - sum ] for any integro - differential algebra  @xmath17 and character set  @xmath49 , we have the decomposition  @xmath63 } =    { { \mathcal{f}}[{\partial}]}{\dotplus}{{\mathcal{f}}[{{\textstyle \varint}}]}{\dotplus}(\phi)$ ] .    here
@xmath64 is the two - sided ideal generated by  @xmath49 in the operator ring  @xmath65}$ ] .
we refer to its elements as _ boundary operators _ since they may also be described in terms of stieltjes conditions : one checks first that the collection of stieltjes conditions can be characterized as the right ideal  @xmath66 .
it turns out that  @xmath64 is then the left  @xmath19-module generated by  @xmath67 , so every boundary operator can be written as  @xmath68 for some functions  @xmath69 and stieljes conditions  @xmath70 . in particular , every stieltjes condition is also a boundary operator .
the decomposition  @xmath63 } = { { \mathcal{f}}[{\partial}]}{\dotplus}{{\mathcal{f}}[{{\textstyle \varint}}]}{\dotplus}(\phi)$ ] reflects the basic needs for an _ algebraic formulation of boundary problems _ : we need  @xmath45}$ ] for the differential equation , @xmath64 for the boundary conditions , and  @xmath71}$ ] for the solution ( green s operators ) .
let us see how these ingredients look like for the simplest possible boundary problem in the standard setting of example  [ ex : standard ] .
[ ex : second - order ] the boundary problem @xmath72 can be encoded in the standard setting  @xmath40 by the differential operator  @xmath73}$ ] and the boundary conditions  @xmath74 . here
we can choose  @xmath75 or any character set containing that .
the green s operator can be written as  @xmath76}$ ] , where we use the standard abbreviations  @xmath77 and  @xmath78 .
note that  @xmath79 is the integral from  @xmath80 to  @xmath81 , and  @xmath82 the integral from  @xmath81 to  @xmath83 . in the @xmath6 setting ,
@xmath79 and  @xmath82 are adjoint operators .
the algebraic description in terms of the two functionals  @xmath84 and  @xmath85 contains some arbitrariness since we can clearly form any linear combination of the two functionals without changing the solution operator  @xmath86 . in general
, a _ boundary space _ is a finite - dimensional subspace of  @xmath87 generated by stieltjes conditions .
so the boundary space of example  [ ex : second - order ] is  @xmath88 $ ] .
the lattice of all boundary spaces will be denoted by  @xmath89 .
we will usually restrict the coefficient functions of the differential operators to a differential subalgebra  @xmath90 so as to ensure solutions in the ambient algebra  @xmath19 .
this means we require that  @xmath91 be _ saturated _ for  @xmath19 in the sense of  ( * ? ? ?
_ whenever an integro - differential algebra  @xmath17 is specified , it is understood that a saturated coefficient algebra  @xmath91 is set aside .
_    [ def : boundary - problem ] a _ boundary problem _ is a pair  @xmath92 consisting of a monic differential operator  @xmath93 $ ] and a boundary space  @xmath94 .
so the boundary problem in example  [ ex : second - order ] is given by  @xmath95)$ ] .
conversely , we can think of a boundary problem  @xmath92 as finding a solution  @xmath96 such that @xmath97 for an arbitrary forcing function  @xmath98 .
of course it suffices that  @xmath99 ranges over any @xmath18-basis of  @xmath100 ; this is how the boundary conditions are normally given in the first place .
the _ traditional formulation _ in terms of  @xmath101 and  @xmath4 is more intuitive , but it conceals the fact that we are really working in the operator ring  @xmath63}$ ] .
clearly every differential operator  @xmath102 has a certain order written as  @xmath103 , which as in example  [ ex : second - order ] usually coincides with the number of given boundary conditions ( the dimension of  @xmath100 ) . in fact , this a necessary  but in general not sufficient  condition for the boundary problem to be _ regular _ in the sense that there is a unique solution  @xmath96 for every given forcing function  @xmath98 .
in turns out that this is equivalent to the following formulation in terms of the relevant spaces .
[ def : regular - bp ] a boundary problem  @xmath92 is called _ regular _ if  @xmath104 , and _ singular _ otherwise .
here we have written  @xmath105 for the _ orthogonal _ , meaning the space of all  @xmath98 such that  @xmath106 for all  @xmath107 .
in other words , @xmath105 is the space of admissible functions : those that satisfy the given boundary conditions .
the orthogonal , together with the analogous notion  @xmath108 for subspaces  @xmath109 , establishes a galois connection between  @xmath19 and its dual  @xmath87 .
this is similar to the situation in algebraic geometry with its galois connection between affine varieties and radical ideals .
see  @xcite for more details .
the above definition of regularity is not suitable for algorithmic purposes .
however , it turns out to be equivalent to the following explicit _ regularity test _
6.1 ) , which is well - known in the special case of local boundary conditions  @xcite .
[ lem : regularity - test ] let  @xmath92 be a boundary problem over  @xmath19 and choose bases  @xmath110 for  @xmath100 and  @xmath111 for  @xmath112 .
then  @xmath92 is regular iff  @xmath113 and the _ evaluation matrix _
@xmath114 \in k^{n \times n}$ ] is regular .
regular boundary problems are exactly those that have a _ green s operator _ in the classical sense ( see  @xcite on generalized green s operators for singular boundary problems ) . in our algebraic setting , green s operators can be defined within the operator ring  @xmath63}$ ] .
[ def : greens - operator ] let  @xmath92 be a regular boundary problem over an integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 . then  @xmath115}$ ] is called its _ green s operator _ if  @xmath116 and  @xmath117 .
the two conditions for green s operators are just that @xmath118 satisfies the differential equation  @xmath119 as well as all boundary conditions  @xmath58 for  @xmath120 . since we have assumed a coefficient algebra  @xmath91 saturated for  @xmath19
, one can prove  ( * ? ? ?
26 ) that _ every regular boundary problem _ has a green s operator in  @xmath63}$ ] . in a leap of faith , we write  @xmath121 just as in  @xcite .
the relation to actual inverses will become clear in proposition  [ prop : greensop - localization ] .
apart from the localization , there is another good reason for the notation  @xmath122 .
it turns out that boundary problems can be multiplied in such a way that @xmath123 is satisfied .
for that purpose , we have defined the multiplication of boundary problems in the fashion of a semi - direct product by @xmath124 it is easy to check that one obtains a _ monoid _  @xmath125 \ltimes k\phi}$ ] in this way , with  @xmath126 as the neutral element .
furthermore , it turns out that the regular boundary problems form a submonoid  @xmath125_{\phi}}\subset { { \mathcal{e}}[{\partial } ] \ltimes k\phi}$ ] , and   means that  @xmath127 is an anti - isomorphism from  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] to the multiplicative monoid of green s operators . for a proof of these facts
, we refer to  ( * ? ? ?
the monoid algebra  @xmath128_{\phi}}$ ] will be called the _ ring of boundary problems _ ( we suppress the qualification `` regular '' since we will not investigate the singular case in the frame of this paper ) .
its elements will supply the numerators in the localization to be constructed below ( section  [ sec : localization ] ) .    at this point
we should also note that a regular boundary problem  @xmath129 need not be _ well - posed _ in the sense that its green s operator  @xmath86 is continuous in the standard setting of example  [ ex : standard ] .
for example , consider the regular boundary problem  @xmath130 or @xmath131 in traditional notation .
one checks immediately that  @xmath132}$ ] is its green s operator , meaning the general solution is given by @xmath133 clearly , this green s operator  @xmath86 is not continuous , at least not if one endows  @xmath134 with the usual topology induced by  @xmath135 .
following hadamard , a well - posed boundary problem  @xcite must be regular ( meaning the solution @xmath101 exists and is unique for each given  @xmath4 ) as well as stable ( meaning the solution @xmath101 depends continuously on @xmath4 ) . in the example above , the source of the instability is clear  we have imposed a second - order condition for a first - order differential equation .
going back to the algebraic setting then , we call a boundary problem  @xmath129 well - posed if it is regular and  @xmath100 can be generated by stieltjes conditions whose order is smaller than that of  @xmath102 ; otherwise  @xmath92 is called _ ill - posed_. as one easily checks , the well - posed boundary problems form a submonoid of  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] .
the green s operator  @xmath86 of a regular boundary problem  @xmath92 of order  @xmath136 factors naturally as @xmath137 where @xmath138 is the so - called _ fundamental right inverse _ of  @xmath102 , defined as the green s operator of the initial value problem  @xmath139 $ ] , and  @xmath140 is the projector onto  @xmath112 along  @xmath105 . the fundamental right inverse  @xmath138 exists since initial value problems are always solvable  ( * ? ? ? * prop .
we may thus think of   as a two step process : using  @xmath138 one solves first the initial value problem ( which is usually much easier ) , then one incorporates the boundary conditions via the projector  @xmath140 .
the submonoid relation  @xmath125_{\phi}}\subset { { \mathcal{e}}[{\partial } ] \ltimes k\phi}$ ] means that multiplying regular problems leads to regular problems again .
it is interesting to note that the converse is also true , provided the order condition of lemma  [ lem : regularity - test ] holds .
[ lem : reg - factors ] let @xmath141 be boundary problems over an integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 with @xmath142 and @xmath143 . then  @xmath144 and  @xmath145 are regular whenever @xmath146 is .
let us write  @xmath147 and @xmath148 .
choose fundamental systems  @xmath149 for  @xmath150 and  @xmath151 for  @xmath152 .
take  @xmath18-bases  @xmath153 of  @xmath154 and  @xmath155 of  @xmath156 .
then  @xmath157 is a fundamental system for  @xmath158 , and a  @xmath18-basis of  @xmath159 is given by @xmath160 , @xmath155 .
the latter fact follows since the sum  @xmath161 in   is always direct  ( * ? ? ? * prop .
3.2 ) . by lemma  [ lem : regularity - test ]
the regularity of the boundary problem  @xmath162 means that its evaluation matrix @xmath163 is regular .
but this is only possible if both diagonal blocks  @xmath164 and  @xmath165 are regular , and these are just the evaluation matrices of  @xmath144 and  @xmath166 .    for practical applications ,
one is not so much interested in multiplying boundary problems  thus increasing their order  as to factor them into lower - order problems .
interestingly , factorization will also be instrumental in the localization process ( lemma  [ lem : regularization ] ) .
we repeat here as the main result the so - called _ factorization theorem _
[ thm : fact - bp ] given a regular boundary problem  @xmath167_{\phi}}$ ] , every factorization  @xmath168 of the differential operator lifts to a factorization  @xmath169 with  @xmath141 regular and  @xmath170 .
we note that the right factor may be chosen to be an arbitrary subspace of  @xmath100 as long as regularity holds for  @xmath166 ; in particular one can always choose initial conditions for  @xmath171 to ensure regularity .
in contrast , @xmath172 is determined by the choice of  @xmath150 and  @xmath152 alone .
this is the content of the following uniqueness result  ( * ? ? ?
31 ) , called the _ division lemma _ for boundary problems ( see below for the notion of subproblem ) .
[ lem : division ] given a regular boundary problem  @xmath167_{\phi}}$ ] and any factorization @xmath168 of the differential operator , there is a unique boundary problem  @xmath144 such that for any regular subproblem  @xmath173 we have the lifted factorization  @xmath174 .
the _ notion of subproblem _ was defined ( under the name `` right factor '' , which is avoided here due to the ambiguity in cases like example  [ ex : embed - single - cond ] ) for regular boundary problems in  ( * ? ? ?
29 ) , but it can be extended naturally to all boundary problems .
hence a subproblem of a boundary problem  @xmath167 \ltimes k\phi}$ ] is any  @xmath175 \ltimes k\phi}$ ] with  @xmath152 a right divisor of  @xmath102 and @xmath171 a subspace of  @xmath100 .
we denote this relation by  @xmath176 .
we conclude this section with a few remarks on _ algorithmic issues_. while at the present stage of our work we do not aim at a computational realization of the localization , we see this nevertheless as a mid - term goal .
in fact , most of the results in this paper are algorithmic , with two exceptions : ( 1 ) the ore condition is needed in  @xmath177 $ ] for monic operators ; this is not supported by customary packages but appears to be adaptable ( see the remarks after proposition  [ prop : left - ext ] ) .
( 2 ) one would need an algorithm for determining the monomials required in definition  [ def : umbral - characters ] .
once these two gaps are filled , one should be able to compute in the localization since all the constructions reviewed in this section are themselves algorithmic  @xcite :    * the _ operator ring _
@xmath63}$ ] is defined as a quotient by a certain ideal of relations .
this ideal is described by a noncommutative grbner basis for an ideal with infinitely many generators ( on another view : a noetherian and confluent rewrite system ) . * if the _ ground algebra _  @xmath19 and the _ character set _
@xmath49 are computable , the normal forms of  @xmath63}$ ] are computable as well .
typically , @xmath19 is an algorithmic fragment of  @xmath134 like the exponential polynomials  @xcite , while  @xmath49 consists of finitely many point evaluations  @xmath178 . *
the _ green s operator _ of a regular boundary problem ( and hence the solutions for arbitrary forcing functions up to quadratures ) can be computed as long as one has a fundamental system for the underlying homogenous differential equation . for the latter
, one can in principle rely on the vast body of results from differential galois theory  @xcite .
* the _ multiplication and factorization _ of boundary problems can be computed as long as the same is true for the constituent differential operators . in this way
one can often solve higher - order boundary problems by decomposing them into smaller factors such as in a recent application to actuarial mathematics  @xcite .
for the algorithmic theory of factoring linear differential operators , we refer to  @xcite .
as detailed in the introduction , the algorithms addressed above are _ implemented _ in mathematica  and maple  packages .
we have seen that for a given integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 and character set  @xmath49 , the natural choice of boundary conditions is the _ stieltjes conditions _ , defined in  @xcite as the right ideal  @xmath67 of  @xmath63}$ ] and characterized by their normal forms  .
the choice of  @xmath67 is vindicated by theorem  [ thm : fact - bp ] , which asserts that stieltjes conditions are sufficient for describing arbitrary factor problems ( and they are clearly also sufficient for multiplying boundary problems ) .
in fact , stieltjes conditions with nonzero global part appear in the left factor problem even if the original boundary problem has only local conditions ; see e.g. example  33 in  @xcite .    for the purpose of localization we must isolate a subclass of stieltjes conditions .
first of all , we must distinguish carefully between the zero condition  @xmath179 and degenerate boundary conditions that only _ act _ as zero : we call a stieltjes condition  @xmath99 _ degenerate _ if  @xmath180 for all  @xmath181 . in the standard
setting of example  [ ex : standard ] , there are plenty of degenerate boundary conditions
. if  @xmath4 is a bump function supported , say , on an interval disjoint from  @xmath182 $ ] , the stieltjes condition  @xmath183 is clearly degenerate .
in contrast , the integro - differential subalgebra of analytic functions  @xmath43 does not have degenerate global conditions of this form as we shall see below ( example  [ ex : complete ] ) .
the subclass of stieltjes conditions to be chosen must be so as to ensure a sufficient supply of regular boundary problems .
in particular , we shall find ourselves in the situation of embedding a singular boundary problem  @xmath92 into a surrounding regular problem ( lemma  [ lem : regularization ] ) .
hence we must enlarge  @xmath184}$ ] by a suitable differential operator  @xmath185}$ ] and the boundary space  @xmath100 by _ new boundary conditions _
@xmath186 in such a manner that the resulting evaluation matrix is regular ( lemma  [ lem : regularity - test ] ) .
the key for solving this problem is found in the fortunate fact every integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 contains the polynomial ring ( proposition  [ prop : pol - ring ] ) , so the _ initial value problem _ @xmath187)\ ] ] is a natural choice for extending the given boundary problem  @xmath129 .
then the monomials  @xmath188 are a fundamental system by proposition  [ prop : pol - ring ] , and the corresponding evaluation matrix is  @xmath189 . but
this is not enough for embedding singular problems since the evaluation matrix of the surrounding problem involves combining the _ given _ boundary conditions  @xmath120 with the monomials of the fundamental system  .
indeed , the crucial step in the proof of lemma  [ lem : regularization ] needs that  @xmath190 for  _ some _ monomial @xmath191 $ ] .
this is the motivation for the following definition .
[ def : umbral - characters ] a stieltjes condition  @xmath192}$ ] is called _ umbral _ if  @xmath190 for some monomial  @xmath193 $ ] .
furthermore , we call  @xmath49 an _ umbral character set _ if every nondegenerate stieltjes condition is umbral .    the reason for our terminology
is that there is an interesting link between stieljes conditions  @xmath192}$ ] with  @xmath190 and the _
umbral calculus_. indeed , every umbral condition defines a nontrivial shift - invariant operator ( proposition  [ prop : umbral - cond ] ) .
this is clear for the local parts  @xmath194 but needs some justification for global terms  @xmath195 with arbitrary  @xmath196 $ ] .
the point is that one may apply the following special case of the well - known `` antiderivative leibniz rule '' .
( in the general setting of analytic functions one writes  @xmath197 as an infinite series of iterated integrals of  @xmath4 times iterated derivatives of  @xmath198 .
here we have  @xmath199 so that only finitely many derivatives are nonzero and the series terminates . )    [ lem : int - part - pol ] in any integro - differential algebra  @xmath17 , we have the formula @xmath200 for all @xmath98 . here
@xmath201 is defined by @xmath202 and @xmath203 .
this is essentially the special case  @xmath204 of equation  ( 14 ) in  @xcite , but the proof is short enough to present here .
we use induction over  @xmath136 .
the base case  @xmath205 is clear , so assume   for  @xmath206 ; we prove it for  @xmath207 .
since @xmath208 we have @xmath209 by the pure baxter axiom  .
using the induction hypothesis , the right summand becomes @xmath210 after an index transformation .
adding the extra term  @xmath211 means extending the summation to  @xmath212 , which yields   for  @xmath207 .
[ lem : umbral - global - cond ] let  @xmath213 be a global condition in  @xmath63}$ ]
. then we have  @xmath214 as a functional  @xmath9 \rightarrow k$ ] , where @xmath215 \rightarrow k[x]\ ] ] is a shift - invariant operator with expansion coefficients  @xmath216 .    by a well - known result of the umbral calculus  (
2.1.7 ) , incidentally also presented in  ( * ? ? ?
92 ) , the operator  @xmath217 is shift - invariant . for seeing that  @xmath218 , we apply lemma  [ lem : int - part - pol ] to obtain @xmath219 .    the _ operator expansion _   allows us to associate a shift invariant operator with a stieltjes condition of the special form  @xmath213 . but
this association generalizes immediately to arbitrary stieltjes conditions since the local conditions are unproblematic .
[ prop : umbral - cond ] let  @xmath99 be a stieltjes condition in  @xmath63}$ ] .
then there is an _ associated shift - invariant operator _
@xmath220 \rightarrow k[x]\ ] ] with coefficients  @xmath221 such that  @xmath222 . clearly , the associated operator  @xmath217 is nonzero iff  @xmath99 is an umbral condition .
let  @xmath223 \rightarrow k[x]$ ] be the shift operator  @xmath224 with  @xmath225 . using the normal form   we can write the given boundary condition as @xmath226 where  @xmath227 is clearly shift - invariant while  @xmath228 is the shift - invariant operator corresponding to  @xmath229 according to lemma  [ lem : umbral - global - cond ] .
then the terms  @xmath230 in the second sum are shift - invariant , hence we have  @xmath231 with the shift - invariant operator @xmath232 and the formula  @xmath233 for its expansion coefficients follows from the general result referred to in the proof of lemma  [ lem : umbral - global - cond ] .
umbral boundary conditions appear to be _ abundant _ , at least in the cases most crucial to us , especially in the  @xmath234 setting ( containing many important integro - differential subalgebras  notably the analytic and holonomic functions as well as the exponential polynomials ) .
[ prop : cinf - weierstrass ] in the standard setting of example  [ ex : standard ] , the point evaluations form an umbral character set .
consider an arbitrary nondegenerate stieltjes condition @xmath235 so that there is a function  @xmath96 with  @xmath236 .
let  @xmath237 be the maximum of @xmath238 for all  @xmath239 with @xmath240 or @xmath241 .
we consider now the banach space  @xmath242 on the compact interval  @xmath243 $ ] .
its norm  @xmath244 is given by @xmath245 for all  @xmath246 .
there is a little known generalization of the weierstrass approximation theorem due to nachbin  @xcite , which asserts ( in a simple special case ) that  @xmath44 $ ] is dense in  @xmath242 .
hence we may choose a polynomial sequence  @xmath247 that converges to  @xmath248 in the @xmath249 topology .
one checks immediately that  @xmath250 is a continous functional with respect to the @xmath249  norm . in detail
, one has  @xmath251 with operator - norm bound @xmath252 therefore we have  @xmath253 .
this is impossible if  @xmath99 vanishes on all of  @xmath44 $ ] .
hence there is some  @xmath254 $ ] with  @xmath255 .
clearly there exists a smallest monomial  @xmath256 in  @xmath257 with  @xmath190 .
not every character set is umbral , though .
it is natural to introduce the following _ necessary conditions _ for a character set  @xmath49 to be umbral ( we write  @xmath258 for the canonical value @xmath259 of a character @xmath50 ) :    1 .
the character set  @xmath49 must clearly be _ separative _ in the sense that  @xmath260 implies  @xmath261 .
otherwise  @xmath262 is a nonzero stieltjes condition with  @xmath263 ) = 0 $ ] .
2 .   every character @xmath50 must be  _ complete _ in the sense that every global condition of the form  @xmath213 is umbral whenever it is nondegenerate .
this may also be expressed as  @xmath264 \rightarrow f = 0 $ ] . here
orthogonality refers to the nondegenerate bilinear form  @xmath265 .
if this bilinear form is positive definite with  @xmath266 or  @xmath267 , we have a pre - hilbert space  @xmath268 . following the terminology of  (
* v.24 ) , completeness of  @xmath239 then means that any @xmath239-orthonormal basis of  @xmath9 $ ] is complete in  @xmath268 .
these conditions are most likely not sufficient . at the moment
we can not give a counterexample for corroborating this claim .
but it is intuitively clear that the completeness properties associated with each  @xmath239 separately can not prevent linear dependencies between the actions of distinct global conditions  @xmath195 .
it remains an interesting task to formulate stronger conditions on  @xmath49 that ensure an umbral character set in a natural way .
[ ex : separative ] as an example of a _ nonseparative character set _ , consider the exponential polynomials  @xmath269}$ ] with the nonstandard character  @xmath239 defined by  @xmath270 and  @xmath271 for all  @xmath136 , effectively mixing evaluation at  @xmath272 for monomials with evaluation at  @xmath273 for the exponential .
choosing  @xmath266 for simplicity , let  @xmath27 be the honest evaluation  @xmath274 .
then clearly  @xmath239 and  @xmath27 coincide on  @xmath9 $ ] while they are in fact distinct characters on  @xmath269}$ ] since  @xmath275 .
this shows that separativity is necessary but not sufficient .
nevertheless , it ensures that all _ local boundary conditions _ are indeed umbral .
[ prop : local - bc - umbral ] let  @xmath49 be a separative character set for an integro - differential algebra  @xmath17
. then every local boundary condition is umbral .
using  , every local boundary condition can be written in the form @xmath276 assuming  @xmath263 ) = 0 $ ] , we show that all coefficients  @xmath277 are zero .
collecting them in the vector @xmath278 we obtain  @xmath279 linear homogeneous equations for the unkowns  @xmath277 by applying  @xmath99 to the monomials  @xmath280 .
the matrix of the corresponding system  @xmath281 is given by  @xmath282 with blocks @xmath283^{n \times s } \ ; .\ ] ] since  @xmath49 is separative , the values  @xmath284 are mutually distinct .
then we may apply the subsequent lemma  [ lem : det ] to obtain  @xmath285 , hence  @xmath286 has the unique solution  @xmath287 .    [
lem : det ] the determinant of  @xmath288^{n \times n}$ ] , with @xmath279 and blocks  , is given by @xmath289 where  @xmath290 is the  @xmath291 vandermonde determinant and  @xmath292 denotes the superfactorial .
the determinant is a special case of ( * ? ? ?
1.1 ) or ( * ? ? ?
20 ) , apart from the linear factor @xmath293 in @xmath294-th row of @xmath295 .
thus we have @xmath296 which is  .
let us now turn to _ completeness_. in the analysis setting , every  @xmath239 is complete since we know already the stronger result that every stieltjes condition is umbral ( proposition  [ prop : cinf - weierstrass ] ) .
it is nevertheless instructive to have a closer look at this case .
[ ex : complete ] consider the point evaluation  @xmath297 in the _ standard setting _ of example  [ ex : standard ] . here
we get an inner product @xmath298 which can be extended to all continuous functions  @xmath299 on  @xmath300 $ ] and so gives rise to the pre - hilbert hausdorff space  @xmath301 ,    { \langle \cdot | \cdot \rangle}_\phi)$ ] .
it is well - known that  @xmath302 is a complete sequence in this space  ( * ? ? ?
we may assume  @xmath303 by a scale transformation . by the usual gram - schmidt process
, the monomials  @xmath256 can be transformed to an orthonormal basis  @xmath304 of  @xmath305 $ ] , which consists in this case of the legendre polynomials @xmath306 in every pre - hilbert hausdorff space  @xmath307 , an orthonormal basis  @xmath308 has the following well - known property  ( * ? ? ?
v.2.5 ) : if  @xmath309 is nonzero , we have  @xmath310 for some  @xmath311 . applying this to  @xmath312 \supset c^\infty[0,1]$ ] and fixing any  @xmath313 \subset c^\infty({\mathbb{r}})$ ] , we see that  @xmath239 is complete in the sense defined above . for
if  @xmath314 for all  @xmath311 , then  @xmath4 vanishes on  @xmath315 $ ] and hence  @xmath195 is degenerate .
the above argument shows in fact that every global condition  @xmath316 over  @xmath134 is umbral or degenerate . working over  @xmath43
, we can exclude the degenerate case .
indeed , the identity theorem of complex analysis ensures that  @xmath317 whenever  @xmath4 vanishes on  @xmath315 $ ] .
this is in stark contrast to the  @xmath234 case , which has plenty of degenerate global conditions  @xmath195 as we have observed at the beginning of section  [ sec : umbral - bc ] .
it becomes clear from the above example that completeness is really an _ analytic property _ of some sort .
it is therefore not surprising that one can construct `` purely algebraic '' examples lacking this property .
[ ex : incomplete ] to give an example of an _ incomplete character _ on  @xmath318}$ ] with  @xmath266 , we proceed similar to example  [ ex : separative ] .
define  @xmath319 for  @xmath320 and  @xmath321 , @xmath322 .
then clearly  @xmath323 is nondegenerate since  @xmath324 .
but we have  @xmath325 for all  @xmath311 .    as noted above , separativity and completeness
are most likely not strong enough to ensure an umbral character set .
note that umbrality of  @xmath49 implies that two stieltjes conditions in  @xmath63}$ ] are _ linearly independent _ on  @xmath9 $ ] whenever they are linearly independent on  @xmath19 .
if one of the two conditions is local and the other global , it is reasonable to expect this property to follow from completeness .
this expections is fulfilled .
[ lem : global - not - local ] let  @xmath17 be an integro - differential algebra with a complete character  @xmath239 . then a nondegenerate global condition  @xmath195 never coincides on  @xmath9 $ ] with any local condition based on  @xmath239 .
assume  @xmath213 coincides on  @xmath9 $ ] with @xmath326 , where  @xmath3 is chosen minimal .
then the umbral expansion   breaks off at  @xmath327 , and we have  @xmath328 for  @xmath329 . for  @xmath330 , we get  @xmath331 for all  @xmath332 , so the condition  @xmath333 is degenerate since  @xmath239 is complete . for showing that this can not happen , it suffices to prove that all  @xmath334 are nondegenerate whenever  @xmath195 is .
we use induction on  @xmath332 .
the base case  @xmath335 is trivial , so assume the claim for fixed  @xmath294 . by the induction hypothesis we can choose  @xmath336 with  @xmath337 . using   with  @xmath198 in place of  @xmath4 and  @xmath338 in place of  @xmath198 , we have @xmath339 so our choice of  @xmath198 entails  @xmath340 . if the first summand on the right - hand side is different from  @xmath83 , then @xmath341 witnesses to  @xmath342 being nondegenerate , and the induction is complete . otherwise  @xmath343 must be nonzero , and we may use the special case  @xmath344 of the pure baxter axiom   to derive @xmath345 and again the induction is complete .
let us start by reviewing the general setting for localization in a noncommutative unital ring  @xmath237 , following  @xcite .
as in the commutative case , the denominator set  @xmath346 ( the elements that should become invertible ) must clearly form a _ multiplicative set _
@xmath346 , meaning a submonoid of  @xmath347 .
clearly we must stipulate @xmath348 , otherwise the localization is the zero ring . if  @xmath237 is a domain , one might want to take  @xmath349 . while this is always possible in the commutative setting , one needs an additional condition if  @xmath237 is not commutative .    indeed , let us strive for a localization  @xmath350 on the left , meaning all elements have the form  @xmath351 with  @xmath352 and  @xmath353 . since  @xmath354 this must also be possible for the reverse product so that  @xmath355 for some  @xmath356 and  @xmath357 . multiplying out , we get the necessary condition @xmath358 known as the _ left ore condition _ ; the set  @xmath346
is then called _ left permutable_.
if  @xmath237 is a domain , this condition is actually sufficient for guaranteeing the existence of a unique localization  @xmath359 , which can be constructed essentially as in the commutative case .
however , if  @xmath237 has _
zero divisors _ , in general one does not get an embedding  @xmath360 . in this case , the _ extension _
@xmath361 is a ring homomorphism that is not injective ( and of course not surjective ) .
its kernel contains at least those  @xmath362 that yield  @xmath363 for some  @xmath352 since this implies  @xmath364 and hence  @xmath365 , due to  @xmath366 being invertible in  @xmath350 . in the classical localization
@xmath350 , the kernel should be optimal in the sense that it contains no other elements than these necessary ones .
[ def : localization ] let  @xmath237 be an arbitrary ring with  @xmath367
. then  @xmath361 is called a left _ ring of fractions _ if    1 .
all elements  @xmath366 with  @xmath352 are invertible in  @xmath350 , 2 .
every element of  @xmath350 has the form  @xmath368 for some  @xmath352 , @xmath369 , 3 .   and the kernel of  @xmath370 is given by @xmath371 .
the ring homomorphism  @xmath370 is called the _ extension_.    the missing condition is now easy to establish .
assume  @xmath352 is a right zero divisor so that  @xmath372 for some  @xmath362 .
then also  @xmath373 and hence  @xmath365 since  @xmath366 is invertible in  @xmath350 . but
this implies  @xmath374 for some  @xmath356 by item  ( c ) of definition  [ def : localization ] .
accordingly , one calls a set
@xmath346 with the property @xmath375 _ left reversible_. together with the left ore condition  , this turns out to be sufficient for the existence of a left ring of fractions .
[ thm : ore - localization ] let  @xmath237 be an arbitrary ring . then for any  @xmath376 , the left ring of fractions  @xmath350 exists iff  @xmath346 is multiplicative , left permutable and left reversible .    see  ( * ? ?
10.6 ) .
the setting would become much nicer when the extension  @xmath377 is injective so that we can regard  @xmath378 as an _
embedding_. unfortunately , the localization of  @xmath63}$ ] that we will work out in the sequel is not of this type .
in fact , one can easily show that the injectivity of  @xmath370 is equivalent to having only regular elements in  @xmath346 .
following  @xcite , we call an element @xmath352 regular if it is both left and right regular , where left regular means @xmath372 implies @xmath379 for all  @xmath362 while right regular means @xmath380 implies @xmath379 for all  @xmath362 . as  @xmath63}$ ]
contains plenty of zero divisors , it is hard to achieve a regular denominator set  @xmath346 .
of course there are analogous definitions for the _ right ring of fractions _
@xmath381 , but in general the existence of  @xmath350 does not imply the existence of  @xmath381 or vice versa , and even when both exist they need not be isomorphic . in fact
, we shall be dealing with a case that is left permutable ( lemma  [ lem : prob - left - permutable ] ) but not right permutable ( proposition  [ prop : not - right - permutable ] ) .    the localization that we shall construct is based on the monoid  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] of regular boundary problems over an integro - differential algebra  @xmath17 with umbral character set  @xmath49 .
the ring  @xmath237 to be localized is the _ ring of boundary problems _
@xmath128_{\phi}}$ ] , which is a monoid algebra . for such cases , the above setting
can be somewhat simplified .
a monoid  @xmath346 is called _ left permutable _ if it satisfies the ore condition   with respect to itself , meaning  @xmath382 for all  @xmath383 . in the absence of addition , the analog of condition   says that for all  @xmath384 with @xmath385 there must exist  @xmath356 with  @xmath386 ; in this case we call  @xmath346 _ left reversible _ ( as a monoid ) .
we call  @xmath346 a _ left ore monoid _ if  @xmath346 is both left permutable and left reversible ; cf .
also  ( * ? ? ?
the following lemma is a special case of  ( * ? ? ?
* lem .  6.6 ) but we include its proof since it dispenses with the technical machinery used there .
it tells us that we can _ transfer left permutability _ from  @xmath346 to the monoid algebra @xmath387 .
[ lem : per - from - mon ] if @xmath346 is a left permutable monoid , then  @xmath346 is a left permutable subset of  @xmath387 .
similarly , if @xmath346 is a left reversible monoid , then  @xmath346 is a left reversible subset of  @xmath387 .    given @xmath388 , @xmath389 and @xmath352 , we have to find @xmath390 , @xmath391 and @xmath356 such that @xmath392 using the ore condition in @xmath346 , we can successively find @xmath393 and @xmath394 such that @xmath395 is fulfilled .
multiplying these equations by @xmath396 , @xmath397 , @xmath398 , @xmath399 on the left yields the system @xmath400 if we set @xmath401 and @xmath402 with coefficients @xmath403 .
summing these equations gives the desired ore condition  .
the proof of the second statement follows immediately by induction on the number of terms .
[ cor : ore - from - mon ] if @xmath346 is a left ore monoid , the left ring of fractions  @xmath404 exists .
immediate from lemma  [ lem : per - from - mon ] and theorem  [ thm : ore - localization ] .
we shall now prove that  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is a left ore monoid .
the multiplication of boundary problems is realized by the semi - direct product   of the multiplicative monoid @xmath177 $ ] acting on the additive monoid of boundary spaces .
projecting onto the first factor , it is then clear that the monic differential operators of  @xmath177 $ ] must form a left ore monoid .
a coefficient algebra with this property shall be called _ left extensible_.    [ ex : gcd - diffop ] left permutability requires _ some _ common left multiple for given differential operators  @xmath405 $ ] .
hence it may seem tempting to restrict ourselves to those coefficient algebras  @xmath406 that even have a _ least common left multiple
_  @xmath407 . but
this setting is not suitable for our purposes : as far as we know , there are only two natural examples : the rational functions  @xmath408 allow an adaption of the euclidean algorithm  @xcite , and of course one may always take  @xmath409 .
the first case yields a differential field , which excludes the existence of an integro - differential structure  @xcite .
the second case restricts us to differential operators with constant coefficients , which is excessively restrive .
fortunately it turns out that we do not need least common left multiples since left extensible coefficient algebras are easy to come by , as the next lemma shows .
in particular , any integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 allows  @xmath410 $ ] so that  @xmath177 = a_1(k)$ ] is the _
weyl algebra_. as another example , consider the standard setting of example  [ ex : standard ] , where for  @xmath91 one may take the larger ring of _ analytic functions _  @xmath43 .
[ prop : left - ext ] any left noetherian differential domain  @xmath406 is left extensible .
if  @xmath91 is a left noetherian domain , it satisfies left permutability by  ( * ? ? ?
5.4 ) and is therefore a left ore domain .
but  @xmath177 $ ] is a special case of a skew - polynomial algebra and therefore inherits the property of being a left ore domain by  ( * ? ? ?
but this is not enough since we need the _ monic _ differential operators of  @xmath177 $ ] to form a left ore monoid .
hence assume  @xmath411 for some monic differential operators  @xmath412 $ ] .
since  @xmath177 $ ] is a domain , @xmath413 implies  @xmath414 because  @xmath415 is not possible .
hence the monic differential operators from  @xmath177 $ ] form a left reversible monoid .
but this monoid is indeed a left ore monoid : according to  ( * ? ? ?
1.5.1 ) , the set of all monic polynomials in the skew polynomial ring  @xmath177 $ ] is left permutable whenever  @xmath91 is a left noetherian domain .
let us remark that the generalization from _ least _ common left multiples to common left multiples is crucial even for the basic case @xmath410 $ ] .
for example when  @xmath416 and  @xmath417 , the least common left multiple of  @xmath150 and  @xmath152 in  @xmath418 $ ] is @xmath419 and so gives  @xmath420 when taken in  @xmath177 $ ] .
this shows that the least common left multiple of two monic operators in  @xmath177 $ ] need not be monic .
the conventional computation tools for the weyl algebra are therefore not directly applicable for computing monic common left multiples in  @xmath177 $ ] , but some recent methods  @xcite can be adapted to this purpose [ a.  bostan , private communication ] .
as explained at the beginning of section  [ sec : umbral - bc ] , the main tool for ensuring the left ore condition in  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is the embedding of singular boundary problems into regular ones .
this will be achieved in the regularization lemma  [ lem : regularization ] , by successively embedding the stieltjes conditions generating a given boundary space .
hence the crucial step is to embed a _
single stieltjes condition _
, which we require to be umbral so that we can build up a polynomial fundamental system .
[ lem : one - cond - high ] let  @xmath192}$ ] be an umbral stieltjes condition over a given integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 . then there is a  @xmath332 such that  @xmath421)$ ] is a regular boundary problem
since  @xmath99 is umbral , there is a minimal mononomial  @xmath422 with  @xmath423 .
clearly , @xmath424 is a fundamental system for  @xmath425 . using the boundary conditions  @xmath426
, we obtain the @xmath427 evaluation matrix @xmath428 where the off - diagonal bottom entries vanish by the assumption on  @xmath422 .
note that  @xmath294 in lemma  [ lem : one - cond - high ] can also be _
zero _ , for example if  @xmath429 . in that case , it is not necessary to add any initial conditions since the first - order problem  @xmath430)$ ] is already regular .
[ ex : embed - single - cond ] as a more or less typical case consider  @xmath431 . here
the minimal mononomial is  @xmath81 , which leads back to our standard example  [ ex : second - order ] , the regular boundary problem  @xmath432 ) = ( { \partial}^2 , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 ,    { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1])$ ] . as mentioned earlier , we can not split off the first - order subproblem  @xmath433)$ ] since it is singular ( this is an example of a _ subproblem that is not a right factor _ ) : if it were not , we would know from the division lemma  [ lem : division ] that the corresponding unique left factor is  @xmath434)$ ] , as shown in  ( * ? ? ?
28 ) and also below ( example  [ ex : ore - quad ] ) .
but of course multiplying out just gives the degenerate problem @xmath435 ) \cdot ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1-{\text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 ] = ( { \partial}^2 ,      [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1-{\text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0])\ ] ] and not the desired regularized problem  @xmath95)$ ] .    based on the case of a single boundary condition , we can now embed an arbitrary boundary problem into a regular one  provided we work with an umbral character set .
this is the subject of the following _ regularization lemma_.    [ lem : regularization ] let  @xmath49 be an umbral character set for an integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 .
then for an arbitrary boundary problem  @xmath436 \ltimes k\phi}$ ] there is a regular boundary problem  @xmath437_{\phi}}$ ] that has  @xmath92 as a subproblem .
let  @xmath167 \ltimes k\phi}$ ] be an arbitrary but fixed boundary problem with  @xmath102 a differential operator of order  @xmath320 and  @xmath438 \le { \mathcal{f}}^*$ ] of dimension  @xmath439 .
we write  @xmath440 for the space of initial conditions  @xmath441 $ ] and  @xmath442 for the partial boundary space  @xmath443 $ ] with the convention that  @xmath444 .
we will now prove that for each  @xmath445 there is a regular boundary problem  @xmath446 that has  @xmath447 as a subproblem .
taking  @xmath448 , the theorem follows .
we use induction on  @xmath294 .
the base case follows by setting  @xmath449 . for the induction step ,
assume  @xmath450 is a regular boundary problem that has  @xmath451 as a subproblem .
we have to construct a regular problem  @xmath446 that has  @xmath452 as a subproblem .
letting  @xmath453 be the green s operator of  @xmath450 , assume first that  @xmath454 is degenerate .
since  @xmath454 vanishes on  @xmath19 , we obtain @xmath455^\perp }      \qquad\text{and hence}\qquad      [ \beta_k ] \le \tilde{\mathcal{a}},\ ] ] so we may set  @xmath456 in that case .
now assume @xmath454 is nondegenerate and hence umbral .
lemma  [ lem : one - cond - high ] yields a regular problem  @xmath457)$ ] .
we define the boundary problem @xmath458 + \tilde{\mathcal{a}})\\      & = ( \tilde{t } \tilde{s } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}\tilde{s } , \dots , { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}{\partial}^{r-1 } \tilde{s } , \beta_k ] + \tilde{\mathcal{a } } ) ,    \end{aligned}\ ] ] where the last equality follows since the conditions  @xmath459 and  @xmath460 are equivalent for  @xmath461 .
the boundary problem @xmath446 is clearly regular since it is the product of two regular problems , and it has  @xmath447 as a subproblem because  @xmath462 by the induction hypothesis .
we are now ready to prove _ left permutability _ for the monoid  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] by merging the given factors into a singular problem that is subsequently embedded into a regular problem by virtue of lemma  [ lem : regularization ] .
[ lem : prob - left - permutable ] let  @xmath49 be an umbral character set for an integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 with left extensible coefficient algebra  @xmath91 .
then  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is a left permutable monoid .
given  @xmath463_{\phi}}$ ] , we must find  @xmath464_{\phi}}$ ] such that  @xmath465 .
since  @xmath91 is left extensible , proposition  [ prop : left - ext ] yields a common left multiple  @xmath102 and cofactors  @xmath466 and  @xmath467 such that  @xmath468 .
now set  @xmath469 . by lemma  [ lem : regularization ]
there is a regular boundary problem  @xmath446 that has  @xmath92 as a subproblem .
but then the boundary problem  @xmath446 has  @xmath144 and  @xmath166 as regular subproblems , and lemma  [ lem : division ] yields regular boundary problems  @xmath470 and  @xmath471 such that @xmath472 as claimed .
lemma  [ lem : prob - left - permutable ] is also true if one replaces  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] by the monoid of well - posed boundary problems defined before eq .
this can be seen readily by inspecting the above proof ( and the proofs of lemma  [ lem : division ] and  [ lem : regularization ] ) .
let us give a simple example of a nontrivial _ ore quadruple _
@xmath144 , @xmath166 , @xmath473 , @xmath474 that will also serve a good purpose later on .
[ ex : ore - quad ] in the standard setting of example  [ ex : standard ] , consider the two simplest first - order problems on  @xmath315 $ ] , namely @xmath475 )      \qquad\text{and}\qquad      ( t_2 , { \mathcal{b}}_2 ) = ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1]).\ ] ] in that case , we have of course  @xmath476 , and we apply lemma  [ lem : regularization ] to the boundary problem  @xmath477)$ ] .
we end up with @xmath435 ) \cdot ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 ] ) = ( { \partial}^2 , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 ,      { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1]),\ ] ] which is already regular .
the corresponding cofactors are then @xmath478 )      \qquad\text{and also}\qquad      ( \tilde{t}_2 , \tilde{{\mathcal{b}}}_2 ) = ( { \partial } , [ { { \textstyle \varint}}_0 ^ 1])\ ] ] since clearly  @xmath479 ) = ( { \partial}^2 ,    [ { { \textstyle \varint}}_0 ^ 1 { \partial } , { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1 ] ) = ( { \partial}^2 , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 , { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1])$ ] .    as mentioned before , @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is left permutable but _ not right permutable_. this means there are boundary problems that do not have a common right factor .
actually , more is true : even if we start from two distinct problems with the same differential operator , _ any _ common right multiple comes from a singular factor .
[ prop : not - right - permutable ] let  @xmath49 be an arbitrary character set for an integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 with coefficient algebra  @xmath91 .
assume  @xmath480_{\phi}}$ ] have a common right multiple @xmath481 for some right factors  @xmath482 \ltimes k\phi}$ ] .
then both  @xmath483 and  @xmath484 are singular whenever  @xmath485 .
assume  @xmath485 . projecting onto the boundary spaces , we have  @xmath486 . if  @xmath487 or  @xmath488 , we have  @xmath489 , so in fact  @xmath490 . choosing  @xmath491
we have @xmath492 but  @xmath493 .
hence we can write  @xmath494 for some  @xmath495 and nonzero  @xmath496 .
but then  @xmath497 implies that  @xmath484 is singular . by symmetry
, we see that  @xmath484 is singular as well .    having established that  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is left permutable , the only thing missing for the localization is left reversibility , which is very easy in our case . hence we obtain the desired _ left ring of fractions_.    [ thm : localization ] let  @xmath49 be an umbral character set for the integro - differential algebra @xmath17 with left extensible coefficient algebra  @xmath91 . then there exists a left ring of fractions  @xmath498_{\phi}^\star}$ ] of the ring of boundary problems  @xmath128_{\phi}}$ ] with denominator set  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] .    by corollary  [ cor : ore - from - mon ] it suffices to check that  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is an ore monoid . since
left permutability of  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] has been shown in lemma  [ lem : prob - left - permutable ] , it remains to show that  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is a left reversible monoid .
so assume we have  @xmath499 for some regular problems  @xmath500 .
by left extensibility of  @xmath91 we have  @xmath501 for some monic  @xmath502 $ ] of order  @xmath136 .
let  @xmath503 $ ] be the corresponding space of initial conditions so that  @xmath504 is a regular problem .
then we obtain the regular product problem @xmath505 where the two parenthesized factors have the same differential operator by the choice of  @xmath506 .
since  @xmath92 is a regular right factor of this problem , the division lemma  [ lem : division ] implies that  @xmath507 .
we conclude that the monic differential operators of  @xmath177 $ ] are indeed left reversible .
the fraction ring  @xmath498_{\phi}^\star}$ ] shall be called the _ ring of methorious operators _ ( from the greek word  meaning `` making up a boundary '' ) .
note that it exists in particular in the smooth setting : if one chooses  @xmath40 , every character is umbral ( proposition  [ prop : cinf - weierstrass ] ) , and any noetherian domain can be used for the coefficient algebra ( proposition  [ prop : left - ext ] ) , in particular  @xmath410 $ ] or  @xmath508 . in the sequel , we shall confine ourselves to the latter setting .    as already observed after theorem  [ thm : ore - localization ]
, we must expect that  @xmath509_{\phi}}\rightarrow { k{\mathcal{e}}[{\partial}]_{\phi}^\star}$ ] _ is not an embedding_. for example , we have @xmath510 ) - ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1 ] ) \in { \operatorname{ker}(\epsilon)}$ ] in the standard setting of  @xmath40 . for checking this
, we use the characterization of  @xmath511 given in definition  [ def : localization ] : it suffices to find a regular problem that annihilates  @xmath512 from the left .
indeed , we have  @xmath434 ) n = 0 $ ] since we know from example  [ ex : ore - quad ] that @xmath435 ) ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 ] ) = ( { \partial}^2 , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 , { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1 ] ) =    ( { \partial } , [ { { \textstyle \varint}}_0 ^ 1 ] ) ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1 ] ) .\ ] ] at the moment we do not know  @xmath511 in explicit form
. however , we have the following conjecture .
[ conj : extension - kernel ] let  @xmath49 be an umbral character set for an integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 with left extensible coefficient algebra  @xmath91 , and let  @xmath509_{\phi}}\rightarrow { k{\mathcal{e}}[{\partial}]_{\phi}^\star}$ ] be the extension into the ring of methorious operators .
then we have @xmath513 iff @xmath514 , where @xmath515 is the green s operator of  @xmath516 .
the previous example is a case in point .
the _ intuitive reason _ for our conjecture is this : generically , a linear combination of green s operators has a finite - dimensional cokernel ( meaning its image is annihilated by just finitely many functionals  in the case of a single operator these functionals are the given boundary conditions ) .
such an operator is in some sense `` almost invertible '' .
but if a linear combination degenerates into an element of  @xmath64 , its image becomes one - dimensional , and we can not expect to invert such an `` operator '' .
extending an operator ring is much more useful if its elements may still be viewed as _ operating _ on some  presumably extended
domain of `` functions '' .
as explained in the introduction , the operational calculus of mikusiski avoids this problem by merging `` operators '' and `` operands '' in the mikusiski field .
in contrast , we shall follow the algebraic analysis approach of keeping operators and operands in separate structures .    to this end
we construct a suitable _ module of fractions _ that extends a given integro - differential algebra  @xmath17 . in analogy to the mikusiski approach we would have to start from a ring  @xmath237 of integral operators acting on  @xmath19 , construct its localization  @xmath517 and let it act on the corresponding localization  @xmath518 . however
, this does not work for the following reason : the natural candidate for  @xmath237 would be the @xmath18-algebra of green s operators for regular boundary problems ( since this is the only ring over which we have sufficient control ) .
but this monoid / ring is dual to the regular boundary problems , as we know from  .
since  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] is a left ore monoid but not a right ore monoid , @xmath237 is a right but not a left ore ring .
hence we can only create a _
right _ ring of fractions  @xmath517 and correspondigly only a _ right _ module of fractions that should extend  @xmath19 .
but the given integro - differential algebra  @xmath19 only has a natural _ left _ action of  @xmath519}$ ] .
in fact , it is not quite true that one can not construct a left module of fractions from a given left module  @xmath520 over a right ore ring  @xmath237
. if @xmath521 is the right ring of fractions , one may of course construct the _ usual scalar extension _
. one may then refer to  @xmath523 as a left module of fractions  ( * ? ? ?
but the problem with this construction is that we do not know anything about its structure .
for example , there is no useful characterization of the kernel of  @xmath524 as in the ore construction of theorem  [ thm : fraction - module ] below .
we must therefore take the _
differential operators _ as our starting point , and this is why we have constructed the localization  @xmath498_{\phi}^\star}$ ] of the ring of boundary problems  @xmath525_{\phi}}$ ] .
one might be tempted to take just the simpler ring  @xmath177 $ ] instead of the unwieldy monoid ring  @xmath525_{\phi}}$ ] . but this would be too simplistic : in that case one gets a two - sided inverse  @xmath526 of the differential operator , no new functions are generated , and of course we can not tackle boundary problems in such a setting .
it is essential to work with the richer structure  @xmath525_{\phi}}$ ] , for which we will have to set up a suitable left action on  @xmath19 .    but first let us briefly review the general setting for the _ localization of modules_. as in theorem  [ thm : ore - localization ] , we go back to the setting of general rings  @xmath237 . in this case we can construct the module of fractions in pretty much the same way as the ring of fractions  ( * ? ? ?
ii.3.3 ) .
[ thm : fraction - module ] let  @xmath520 be a left @xmath237-module , and let  @xmath376 be a multiplicative , right permutable and right reversible denominator set  @xmath376 . then there exists a left @xmath350-module  @xmath527 , and the kernel of the extension  @xmath528 consists of those @xmath529 for which there exists an  @xmath352 with  @xmath530 .
now let  @xmath17 be an integro - differential algebra and  @xmath63}$ ] its ring of operators . for setting up a suitable left action of  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] on  @xmath19 , we recall the _ fundamental formula _
@xcite of the mikusiski calculus @xmath531 where  @xmath3 denotes the inverse of the standard convolution operator  @xmath532 , defined by  @xmath533 , and  @xmath534 is simply the multiplicative identity generated by the construction of the mikusiski field .
of course one may write  @xmath535 but we keep the explicit notation for intuitive reasons since we can interpret   as the distributional derivative of a function  @xmath536 that is continuous except for a jump at  @xmath80 . in that case , @xmath534 is the dirac distribution concentrated at  @xmath80 . at any rate ,
the intuitive content of   is that  @xmath3 is a kind of enhanced differential operator that memorizes the function value at  @xmath80 that is otherwise lost . taking this clue
, we define the action of  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] on  @xmath19 by @xmath537 where  @xmath140 is the projector onto  @xmath112 along  @xmath105 . in the special case of  @xmath476 , this recovers   if we think of  @xmath538)$ ] as some kind of algebraic representation of the dirac distribution  @xmath534 .
the definition   has the consequence that we must extend  @xmath19 so that it contains the new elements  @xmath92 , prior to the extension effected by the localization .
this is somewhat _ unsatisfying _ but appears to be inevitable in view of the facts pointed out at the opening of the section .
perhaps in the future one can find a more powerful localization that generates at once the extension objects needed in the fundamental formula  . at any rate
, we must now also define the action of  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] on the new elements , but this is clearly @xmath539 where the boundary problem on the right side is the usual product   in the problem monoid  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] .
this will ensure that the action is well - defined .
the _ intuitive meaning _ of the ideal element  @xmath540 is that it records various integration constants that were lost under differentation .
when the element is created by  , it encodes all the boundary values  @xmath164 for  @xmath120 , and the function @xmath4 is confined to the kernel of  @xmath102 .
further action by a boundary problem  @xmath541 according to   leads to a new differential operator  @xmath542 while leaving  @xmath4 intact .
hence we see that the function inside an ideal element is always in the kernel of the associated differential operator .
we may therefore restrict the ideal elements  @xmath540 to those with  @xmath543 .
after the action of  , the new boundary space is  @xmath544 , so the old boundary conditions  @xmath107 are retained ( the ones for which we have boundary values ) .
the new boundary conditions  @xmath545 for  @xmath546 give zero on  @xmath4 since actually @xmath543 .
in some sense , we have added redundant boundary data .
we must therefore _ regulate redundancy _ in the ideal elements .
this can be achieved by declaring that  @xmath540 should be the same as  @xmath547 for any  @xmath548_{\phi}}$ ] with green s operator  @xmath453 .
this can be understood as follows .
the boundary conditions in  @xmath547 are  @xmath546 and  @xmath549 with  @xmath120 .
the former yield zero on  @xmath550 since  @xmath453 is the green s operator of  @xmath541 , the latter give back  @xmath551 just as for the ideal element  @xmath552 .
this leads to the following definition .
let  @xmath553 be the subspace of  @xmath554_{\phi}}$ ] generated by the ideal elements  @xmath555 with  @xmath543 .
furthermore , let  @xmath556 be the subspace of  @xmath553 generated by the elements @xmath557 then we define the _ module of methorious functions _ to be  @xmath558 .
let us now check that  @xmath559 is indeed a module .
[ prop : prob - action ] let  @xmath17 be an integro - differential algebra with character set  @xmath49 . the definitions   and   induce a monoid action of  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] on  @xmath559 such that it becomes a @xmath525_{\phi}}$]-module .
any monoid  @xmath307 acting on a  @xmath18-algebra  @xmath79 extends to an action of the monoid ring  @xmath560 $ ] that makes  @xmath79 into a @xmath560$]-module .
hence it suffices to verify the statement about the monoid action .
first of all we must check that   does not depend on the representative  @xmath561 , meaning it maps the subspace  @xmath556 into itself .
this follows immediately from the associativity of the multiplication   in  @xmath125_{\phi}}$ ] .
clearly we have  @xmath562 and @xmath563 , so the unit element is respected .
associativity is immediate in the case of  , so it remains to check that  @xmath564 and  @xmath565 are equal .
the former is @xmath566 where  @xmath140 is the projector onto  @xmath112 along  @xmath105 and  @xmath567 is correspondingly the projector onto  @xmath568 along  @xmath569 .
if  @xmath86 and  @xmath453 are the green s operators of  @xmath92 and  @xmath541 , respectively , one can easily check that the projector associated with the composite problem @xmath570 is  @xmath571 , meaning it projects onto  @xmath572 along  @xmath573 .
hence we obtain for the other side of the prospective equality @xmath574 where the first and the last term is identical to the corresponding terms on the left hand side while the middle terms are equal since their difference is in  @xmath556 .
since  @xmath559 is a  @xmath525_{\phi}}$]-module , we obtain the  @xmath498_{\phi}^\star}$]-module  @xmath575 of _ methorious hyperfunctions _ by localization via theorem  [ thm : fraction - module ] .
we can not expect the extension  @xmath576 to be injective since its kernel @xmath577_{\phi}}\colon ( t , { \mathcal{b } } ) \cdot \phi = 0 \}\ ] ] contains elements like  @xmath578 ) - ( { \partial } , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0])$ ] , which is annihilated upon multiplying with  @xmath434)$ ] from the left ( see the example before conjecture  [ conj : extension - kernel ] ) .
but fortunately no elements of  @xmath19 are lost .
[ prop : hypfun - extension ] let  @xmath17 be an integro - differential algebra with character set  @xmath49 .
then we have an embedding  @xmath579 .
assume  @xmath580 for some  @xmath98 and  @xmath581_{\phi}}$ ] .
then  @xmath582 implies that @xmath543 and  @xmath583 .
but the former means that  @xmath584 and the latter that  @xmath585 .
since  @xmath92 is a regular problem , we have a direct sum  @xmath586 and so  @xmath317 .    in the module of methorious hyperfunctions
, we can finally justify our earlier notation  @xmath587 for the _ green s operator _ of a regular boundary problem  @xmath167_{\phi}}$ ] . to avoid confusion with  @xmath588_{\phi}^\star}$ ]
we refrain from the reciprocal notation for green s operators in the scope of the following theorem .
but the result of the theorem is of course that it anyway does not matter how we interpret  @xmath589 since it amounts to the same .
[ prop : greensop - localization ] we have  @xmath590 for all  @xmath591 . moreover , if  @xmath543 then  @xmath592 .
we have  @xmath593 since  @xmath594 and  @xmath595 .
multiplying by  @xmath596_{\phi}^\star}$ ] yields the first result claimed .
now assume  @xmath543 .
we obtain  @xmath597 since  @xmath598 for  @xmath584 .
again we multiply by  @xmath599 to gain the result .
we conclude with an example that hints at possible applications of our noncommutative mikusiski calculus .
the classical mikusiski calculus has only one _ fundamental formula _ since boundary values ( or rather : initial values ) are only processed at  @xmath80 . in contrast , there are plenty of fundamental formulae in the noncommutative mikusiski calculus .
[ ex : fundamental - formulae ] let us write  @xmath600 and  @xmath601 as abbreviations for the problems  @xmath602 ) \in { k{\mathcal{e}}[{\partial}]_{\phi}^\star}$ ] and  @xmath602 )    \in { { \mathcal{f}}_{\phi}^\star}$ ] , respectively .
then we have  @xmath603 by the definition of the action  .
so we have algebraic representations for all the dirac distributions .
but there are other methorious functions that do not have any distributional counterpart .
for example , let us consider  @xmath604 ) \in { k{\mathcal{e}}[{\partial}]_{\phi}^\star}$ ] and  @xmath605 ) \in    { { \mathcal{f}}_{\phi}^\star}$ ] .
this yields the fundamental formula @xmath606 so  @xmath370 is a kind of `` smeared out '' distribution that keeps the mean value of a given function  @xmath4 .
[ ex : inhom - bp ] finally let us see how one solves _
inhomogeneous boundary problems _ in the noncommutative mikusiski calculus .
we use the standard setting of  @xmath40 and consider the problem @xmath607 for given boundary values  @xmath608 . we know how to compute the green s operator  @xmath86 of the homogeneous problem  @xmath609)$ ] as mentioned at the end of section  [ sec : monoid - bp ] . in this case
the projector  @xmath140 onto  @xmath610 $ ] along  @xmath611^\perp}$ ] is given by  @xmath612 .
hence we have @xmath613 ) \ , u & = u '' + \big ( u(0 ) \ , ( 1-x ) +      u(1 ) \ , x \big ) \ , ( { \partial}^2 , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 , { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1])\\      & = f + \big ( a \ , ( 1-x ) + b \ , x \big ) ( { \partial}^2 , [ { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_0 ,      { \text{\scshape\texttt e}}_1]),\\[0.5ex ]      u & = gf + a \ , ( 1-x ) + b \ , x    \end{aligned}\ ] ] by proposition  [ prop : greensop - localization ] .
as already indicated at various points above , our construction has several _
loose ends_. to begin with , it would be preferrable to localize in a subring ( or even all ) of  @xmath63}$ ] rather than the monoid ring  @xmath525_{\phi}}$ ] .
this would have the advantage that one has a natural action on the underlying integro - differential algebra  @xmath17 , and the somewhat artificial action on the module of methorious functions  @xmath559 would be unnecessary . regarding the latter ,
we have already remarked in section  [ sec : methorious - functions ] that the current two - stage process of creating the localization  @xmath575 is unsatisfactory : in mikusiski s setup , all the `` ideal elements '' like  @xmath3 and  @xmath534 are an immediate result of the localization while we have to supply them offhand , prior to localization .
we would like to find a better formulation in the future that will avoid this kind of inadequacy .
one possible path towards such an improved localization is suggested by the prominent appearance of _ singular problems _ in the proof of lemma  [ lem : prob - left - permutable ] .
it may be worthwhile to expand the ring  @xmath525_{\phi}}$ ] to include ( all or some ) singular boundary problems .
of course this will also increase the kernel of the corresponding extension ( we can not expect to invert singular problems ) , but perhaps the resulting ring of fractions is more natural . in particular , it may be possible to interpret the sum of two ( singular ) boundary problems in some useful way , in contrast to the formal sums of  @xmath525_{\phi}}$ ] .
the results of  @xcite will be useful for the work in this direction .    staying with the current construction , there are some obvious open questions : fist of all , the _ kernel of the extension _
@xmath370 into the methorious operators should be determined , possibly by proving cojecture  [ conj : extension - kernel ] .
likewise , the kernel  [ eq : kernel - hypfun ] of the extension  @xmath614 into the methorious hyperfunctions is to be computed .
finally , we would like to draw attention to the interesting link between integro - differential algebras and the umbral calculus ( section  [ sec : umbral - bc ] ) , which deserves to be studied in more depth .
there is also an intriguing relation  @xcite between the umbral calculus and the rota - baxter algebras ( both of these being favourite topic of g .-
rota ) , which might benefit from the new perspective afforded by boundary problems in integro - differential algebras ( since the latter are special cases of differential rota - baxter algebras and hence of plain rota - baxter algebras ) . as a more mundane goal
, it would also be important to find a better characterization of umbral character sets that strengthens the separativity and completeness conditions given before example  [ ex : separative ] .
first of all we would like to acknowledge georg regensburger , who has worked with the first author on an earlier ( much more specialized and mathematically flawed ) version of localization .
we thank him also for his insight about monic common left multiples and the corresponding reference ( last paragraph of proposition  [ prop : left - ext ] ) .
we express our gratitude also to a.  bostan for his pertinent remarks on left common multiples in the weyl algebra ( see the remark after the proof of proposition  [ prop : left - ext ] ) .
furthermore , we are grateful for illuminating discussions with i.  dimovski and m.  spiridonova .