text:
# Växjö Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we present some critical arguments against individual understanding of Bohr’s complementarity and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principles. It is argued the only possible interpretation of these principles is the statistical contextual one. In particular, in the opposite to orthodox Copenhagen views such interpretation does not imply the impossibility to assign to elementary particles111The reader may protest against the use of the notion ‘particle’. It might be better to use e.g. ‘quantum system.’ But I dislike to use ‘quantum’ regarding to real physical objects. ‘Quantum’ has become merely the symbol of a rather special mathematical formalism. objective properties; including position and momentum. Of course, such ontic description of physical reality might not be provided by quantum formalism. In particular, it is clear that quantum formalism does not provide the complete description of physical reality.

We argue that the most natural interpretation of physical theories (in particular, quantum formalism) is Statistical Contextual Realist Interpretation.

## 2 Contextual statistical realist interpretation of physical theories

Quantum theory as well as classical physics is used to describe properties of pairs

$$\pi =(\text{physical system},\text{measuring device}).$$
(1)
I do not think that understanding of this fact, contextual structure of physical theories, really was Bohr’s invention. It was clear to everybody that physical observables are related to properties of physical systems as well as measuring devices. The main invention of N. Bohr was not contextuality, but complementarity. Bohr’s greatest contribution was the recognition of the fact that there exist complementary experimental arrangements and hence complementary, incompatible, pairs $`\pi _1,\pi _2`$ of form (1). I think nobody can be against the recognition of such a possibility. Why not? Why must all contexts, complexes of physical conditions, be coexisting? Contextuality and complementarity are two well understandable principles (not only of quantum physics, but physics in general).

The real problem was that N. Bohr as well as W. Heisenberg (but merely further generations of their adherents) did not pay attention that quantum complementarity is the experimental fact concerning pairs

$$\pi =(\text{elementary particle},\text{macroscopic measuring device})$$
(2)
and not elementary particles by their self. It is a pity that the greatest promoters of contextualism forgot about contextual basis of complementarity.

If we remember about contextuality discussing complementarity we see that complementarity of contexts in quantum physics does not imply complementarity of corresponding objective properties (of elementary particles) contributing into such observables. In particular, contextual complementarity does not imply that elementary particles do not have objective properties at all. In particular, there are no reasons to suppose that it is impossible to provide a kind of hidden variable, HV, description (ontic description, see e.g. ) for these objective properties. Mathematically the pair $`\pi `$ can be described by two variables $`\lambda _s`$ and $`\lambda _d`$ representing objective states of a physical system and measuring device. So a physical observable is represented as a function

$$A=A(\lambda _s;\lambda _d).$$
(3)
In general, $`\lambda _s`$ can be represented as a vector with numerical coordinates. Numerical does not mean ‘real number’. It can be as well e.g. $`p`$-adic number, see . So the possibility of HV-description does not imply continuous infinitely divisible representation of physical reality. In principle, classical physical description is often identified with the description based on the real-number ‘continuous’ model. We would not like to use such a restrictive, XVIIIth, XIXth century and the first half of XXth century, interpretation of classical physics. A classical physical model is every model that provides objective description of phenomena – representation of physical observables in form (3). I think that mixing of ‘classical’ and ‘continuous’ was one of main roots of vague interpreting of results of experiments with elementary particles. Thus the development of alternative (nonreal, noncontinuous) classical models, e.g. $`p`$-adic , , might play important role in clarification of foundations of quantum theory.

On the other hand, an adherent of N. Bohr would argue that ”Such a separation and, hence, the description of (properties of) quantum objects and processes themselves (as opposed to certain effects of their interaction with measuring instruments upon latter) are impossible in Bohr’s interpretation,” .

I think that the origin of such an interpretation of complementarity by N. Bohr was the individual interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }p\frac{h}{2}.$$
(4)
Close relation between Bohr’s complementarity principle and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is well know. For two years (1926-1927) N. Bohr could not present any model that could explain both corpuscular behaviour (black body radiation, photoelectric effect) and wavelike behaviour (two slit experiment, diffraction) of elementary particles. You can read e.g. in the book  how heavy this thinking process was for N. Bohr - really a kind of mental disaster. Only after the derivation by W. Heisenberg of the uncertainty principle, N. Bohr proposed a new model of physical reality based on the principle of complementarity. Unfortunately, Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation was interpreted as the relation for an individual elementary particle. The main problem was mixing by W. Heisenberg of individual and statistical uncertainty. For example, in his famous book  he discussed the uncertainty principle as a relation for an individual system, but derived this principle by using statistical methods!

The roots of such individual complementarity can be found already in the first work of W. Heisenberg . At the beginning Heisenberg’s quantization procedure was not statistical one. It seems, see , that W. Heisenberg was sure that he found equations for observables related to individual physical systems. It was a rather common point view: in classical mechanics the position and momentum of an individual (!) system are described by real numbers, in quantum mechanics – by matrices. W. Heisenberg rightly underlined that matrice-description could not be used for describing objective position and momentum of electron. There (as everywhere in XVIIIth – XXth centuries physics) objective reality was, in fact, identified with the continuous (real number) mathematical model of physical reality. Impossibility to create a continuous real number model for motion of electron in Bohr’s model of atom was considered by Heisenberg (and many others) as impossibility to assign objective properties to electrons. It was a rather strange passage. But we understand that it was the beginning of XXth century and W. Heisenberg used the standard mathematical image of physical reality. However, we would like to remark that even at that time there were attempts to modify continuous mathematical model to reproduce quantum effects, see e.g. Bohr, Kramers, Slater  on classical-like quantization based on difference equations (instead of differential). In fact, this model stimulated M. Born to introduce the term quantum mechanics. In any case the absence of continuous classical model for motion of electron in Bohr’s atom does not imply impossibility to create other, noncontinuous, classical (causal deterministic) models. Moreover, considerations of W. Heisenberg in  even did not imply impossibility to create continuous classical model – as it was claimed by W. Heisenberg and then by N. Bohr. The story is much simpler: first Bohr tried to create such a thing, but could not; then Heisenberg, with the same result. After this it was claimed that such a model did not exist. And what is the most interesting: not only for Bohr’s model of atom (well it might be), but for any other model… I cannot understand this kind of ‘quantum logic’.

Really W. Heisenberg proposed some mathematical model for some class of observations of position and momentum of electron. These observations satisfy to the uncertainty relation. It is not clear why we cannot present other mathematical models for some other observations of position and momentum of electron that would violate this relation? Of course, if we relate Heisenberg’s position and momentum to individual electron, then such individualization plays the role of objectification of these quantities. It is rather strange logical circle, but it seems that it was done by W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr. Finally, this objectification in combination with the uncertainty relation implies (for W. Heisenberg and N. Bohr) impossibility to consider other position and momentum variables, distinct from Heisenberg’s ones. On the other hand, if we use statistical interpretation of uncertainty relation, then there are no reasons for such NO-GO conclusions. Well, we could not prepare statistical ensembles with small dispersions for two variables introduced by W. Heisenberg. But we should have great imagination to make Heisenberg-Bohr conclusions.

Unfortunately, many clear mind scientists used and still use Heisenberg-Bohr’s ‘quantum logic’. For instance, the fundamental paper of A. Zeilinger \[\] gives us an excelent example of the modern representation of this logic. In principle, A. Zeilinger is looking for a new quantum paradigm. He correctly underlines that the situation in quantum theory, especially large diversity of interpretations, is not so natural. That in the opposite to e.g. theory of relativity, there is no quantum analogue of the principle of relativity. However, it seems that, for Zeilinger as well as for many other scientists looking for reconsideration of quantum foundations, such a reconsideration could (and moreover should) be performed as some addition to the orthodox Copenhagen. A. Zeilinger started (as always in this story) with the correct statement that we are dealing with a quantum phenomenon as the whole entity which comprises both the observed quantum system and the classical measuring apparata. No doubts! The formalism of quantum mechanics (statistical formalism) deals with such a phenomenon. However, then he continued: It is especially impossible in principle to predict with certainty both through which slit an elementary particle will go and where it will appear in the interference pattern. Well, we still can interpret this statement in the correct way: quantum formalism does not give us such a possibility. Unfortunately, the latter understanding was impossible to orthdox Copenhagen, since (by unclear reasons) it was supposed quantum theory provided the complete description of physical reality.222I think that the paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen, Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, \[\], was directed precisely against Heisenberg-Bohr ‘quantum logic’ that was, in fact, based on the idea that quantum theory is complete. So, Zeilinger continued: I propose that this impossibility to describe the random individual process within quantum mechanics in a complete way is a fundamental limitation of the program of modern science to arrive at a description of the world in every detail. This is the great manifistation of Copenhagen NO-GO.

Another important story that stimulated Bohr’s complementarity thinking was Shrödinger’s quantum story. It is important to recall that E. Shrödinger was sure that he discovered totally new method of quantization , ”Quantization as the problem for eigenvalues.” In his first paper  he did not refer to Heisenberg’s paper ; in the second paper  he made a short reference in the sense that W. Heisenberg proposed some other method of quantization that was totally different from Shrödinger’s one. It is well known that many famous physicists had the great prejudice against Heisenberg’s approach to quantization. So Shrödinger’s wave mechanics was considered by many of them as the end of quantum mechanics; as the possibility to describe ‘quantum experiments’ by using classical theory of partial differential equations (especially strong anti Heisenberg-Bohr comments were done by Einstein and Wien).

Hence, Heisenberg and Bohr must find some strong arguments in favour of Heisenberg approach or disappear from quantum scene. Moreover, the whole quantum spectacle could be ended with quite trivial final: instead great mystery — simply a part of well established theory of partial differential equations. If all those circumstances be taken into account, it would be clear how N. Bohr created complementarity principle with all its NO-GO consequences.

So Bohr’s complementarity was a kind of individual complementarity. Complementary features were regarded to individual physical systems. It is a pity that contextualists N. Bohr and W. Heisenberg related the uncertainty relation not to some special class of measurement procedures of the position and momentum described by quantum formalism, but to the position and momentum of an individual elementary particle. This imply the prejudice that the position and momentum even in principle could not be determined simultaneously and, moreover, that it is even in principle impossible to assign such a physical property, e.g. position or momentum, to e.g. electron: ”electron does not have trajectory.”

In fact, the only possible conscious interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is the statistical contextual interpretation, see e.g. , . It is impossible to prepare such an ensemble of elementary particles that dispersions of both position and momentum observables would be arbitrary small. Everybody would agree that only this statement can be verified experimentally. Contextualism has to be statistical contextualism and, consequently, complementarity has to be statistical contextual complementarity. Such contextualism and complementarity do not contradict to the possibility of finer description of reality than given by quantum theory.

The complex of experimental physical conditions must be split into two complexes – a preparation procedure and a measurement procedure, see e.g. , . A preparation procedure produces a statistical ensemble of physical system. Then a measurement device produces results – values of a physical observable. Nonzero dispersion of this random variable does not imply that individual physical system does not have objective properties that produce values of the observable via (3). Thus contextual statistical interpretation can be, in principle, extended to contextual statistical realist interpretation.

Of course, individual complementarity can be used as an argument against the possibility to create finer description of physical reality than given by quantum mechanics. But statistical complementarity cannot be used as such an argument. By contextual statistical interpretation it is not forbidden in principle to create such preparation and measurement procedures that position and momentum would be measured with dispersions $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }q\mathrm{\Delta }p<\frac{h}{2}.`$ Of course, such a statement should immediately induce a storm of protests with reference to the principle of complementarity. However, we again recall that the right complementarity principle is contextual and statistical. It is about some class of measurement and preparation contexts described by quantum formalism. In particular, we do not consider quantum formalism as a kind of complete physical theory.

However, as far as we cannot perform such experiments for elementary particles, it is really impossible to reject Bohr’s principle of individual complementarity. 333Well, we may produce various realistic models underlying quantum formalism, for example, Bohmian mechanics, stochastic electrodynamics. However, it seems that all such models would be more or less automatically rejected by quantum community. What can we do?

We can study consequences of the general statistical contextuality and try to demonstrate that some distinguishing features of quantum theory that are typically associated with individual complementarity, NO-GO complementarity, are, in fact, simple consequences of statistical complementarity, GO-DEEPER complementarity. I did this in a series of papers, see e.g. , . The main consequence of these investigations is that ‘waves of probability’ can be produced in the general situation (including macroscopic systems) due to combination of a few preparation contexts.444In the two slit experiment we consider the screen with slits as a part of an ensemble-preparation device and the screen with photoemulsion as a measurement device. Thus such ‘waves’ are not directly related to some wave features of objects participating in an experiments. Moreover, our investigation demonstrated that in some experiments there can be created other types of probabilistic waves, namely hyperbolic waves of probability.

In particular, our contextual probabilistic investigations demonstrated that contextual complementarity, wave-particle dualism, is not rigidly coupled to microworld. Thus we can, in principle, perform experiments with macro systems that would demonstrate ‘wave-particle duality’, but not of macro objects, but contexts.

Such a numerical experiment, a classical analogue of the well known quantum two-slit experiment, was performed in . Charged particles are scattered on flat screen with two slits and hit the second screen. We show that the probability distribution on the second screen when both slits are open is not given by the sum of distributions for each slit separately, but has an extra interference term that is given with the quantum rule of the addition of probabilistic alternatives. We have two theoretical descriptions of this experiment: 1) quantum-like statistical description; 2) Newtonian classical description. Both theories give the same statistical distribution of spots on the registration screen. Quantum-like theory operates with complex waves of probability; there is uncertainty, Heisenberg-like, relation for position and momentum. Of course, this relation is the statistical one.

Suppose now that some observer could not provide the verification of Newtonian description, e.g. such an observer is a star-size observer and its measuring device produces nonnegligible perturbations of our macroscopic charged balls. Such an observer might speculate on impossibility to find objective phase-space description and even about waves features of macroscopic balls. This experiment might be used as (at least indirect) argument against the orthodox Copenhagen NO-GO in experiments.

We recognize that at the moment there is one (and seems just one) argument supporting individual complementarity, namely Bell’s inequality.555Some people use this framework to support quantum nonlocality. However, I have great doubts that the experimental violation of Bell’s inequality can be interpreted as an argument against the possibility of HV ontic description (or even against realism) or locality, see e.g. my works , (see also papers of L.Accardi, L. Ballentine, W. De Myunck in ; see also  on contextual statistical realist interpretation of GHZ-paradox.

Finally, we remark that the possibility of (3)–description implies that ‘quantum randomness’ does not differ essentially from ‘classical randomness’ Of course, this contradict to orthodox quantum views to randomness as fundamental or irreducible randomness. Unfortunately, I could not understand the latter ideas. Instead of fundamental irreducible quantum randomness, I prefer to consider well understandable theory of context (complex of experimental physical conditions) depending probabilities.

A new fundamental principle that we propose can be called:

The principle of contextual relativity of probabilities.

Contextuality means that all probabilities depend on complexes of physical conditions, $`𝒮,`$ – contexts: $`𝐏(E)𝐏_𝒮(E).`$ It is meaningless to speak about probability without to determine complex of physical conditions. This is clear idea looks even trivial after it has been formulated. However, we remark that the conventional probability theory based on Kolmogorov measure theoretical axiomatics, 1933, \[\], is not contextual. In Kolmogorov’s theory the probability space can be fixed once for ever. We need not remember that probabilities depend on complexes of physical conditons and can use just the symbol of abstract probability $`𝐏.`$

666We remark that A. Kolmogorov by himself understood well contextual dependence of probabilities, see section 2 on experimental applications of his theory in \[\]. However, this contextuality was not present in his mathematical formalism. It was the terrible mistake of Kolmogorov. In fact, he tried to improve the situation and published paper \[\] in that he noticed that probabilities are contextual probabilities and even used corresponding symbol. However, the paper was published only in Russian and even in Soviet Union it was forgotten. Recently the pupil of Kolmogorov, A. Shiryaev, paid my attention to this paper.

## 3 Citation with comments

In this section we shall present some citations on orthodox quantum theory and our contextual statistical realist comments. We use, in particular, collections of Bohr’s views presented in papers of H. Folse and A. Plotnitsky, see , .

(S1)”In contrast to ordinary mechanics, the new quantum mechanics does not deal with a space-time description of the motion of atomic particles. It operates with manifolds of quantities which replace the harmonic oscillating components of the motion and symbolize the possibilities of transition between stationary states in conformity with the correspondence principle”, N. Bohr.

This is simply the recognition of the restrictiveness of the domain of applications of quantum theory. I would like to interpret this as the recognition of incompleteness of quantum theory. However, it was not so for N. Bohr:

(S2) ” … the quantum postulate implies that any observation of atomic phenomena will involve an interaction with the agency of observation not be neglected. Accordingly, an independent reality in the ordinary physical sense can neither be ascribed to the phenomena nor to the agencies of observation,” N. Bohr.

The first part of this citation is the manifestation of contextuality. However, I cannot understand what kind of logic N. Bohr used to proceed to the second part. The second part can be interpreted as the declaration of the impossibility of objective, ontic description of reality.

(S3) ”… to reserve the word phenomenon for comprehension of effects observed under given experimental conditions… These conditions, which include the account of the properties and manipulation of all measuring instruments essentially concerned, constitute in fact the only basis for the definition of the concepts by which the phenomenon is described,” N. Bohr.

I would agree if the last sentence would be continued as ”is described in quantum formalism.”

(S4) ”…by the very nature of the situation prevented from differentiating sharply between an independent behaviour of atomic objects and their interaction with the means of observation indispensable for the definition of the phenomena,” N. Bohr.

I would agree if the last sentence would be continued as ”of the phenomena described by quantum formalism.”

(S5) ”There are two forms in which quantum mechanics may be expressed, based on Heisenberg’s matrices and Schrödinger’s wave function respectively. The second of these is not connected directly with classical mechanics. The first is in close analogy with classical mechanics, as it may be obtained from classical mechanics simply by making the variables of classical mechanics into non-commuting quantities satisfying the correct commutation relations.” P.Dirac, .

No Comment…

## 4 On romantic interpretation of quantum mechanics

Finally, we ask: ”Why the realistic interpretation is not so popular in quantum community?”

The common opinion: this is the direct consequence of experiments with elementary particles. Well, I do not think so. Of course, interference experiments with massive particles should induce reconsideration of methods of classical statistical mechanics. As well as discreteness of energy levels should induce reconsideration of classical continuous real model of physics. However, such reconsiderations would be merely mathematical. And it seems (at least for me) that they were merely mathematical. Observables take only discrete values – consider ‘discrete’ number systems instead of ‘continuous’. The standard probability calculus (created for one fixed sample space prepared under stable physical conditions) does not work – create the new one. And this was done and very successfully. However, there were no reasons to create new quantum philosophy, based on Bohr’s principle of complementarity and the individual interpretation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations. Nevertheless, such a new philosophy was invented (merely by N. Bohr) and, moreover, it was recognized as philosophy of modern physics. Since this recognition, all realistic models for experiments with elementary particles were more or less automatically rejected, see e.g. A. Lande’s statistical contextual realistic model for diffraction . Lande’s model looks quite natural; here we need not apply to wave-particle dualism, collapse and so on… It was simply rejected. Bohmian mechanics, see e.g. , – well, it has its disadvantages, but merely, mathematical.

Finally, Bell’s inequality arguments were interpreted as they should be interpreted in the orthodox quantum framework, despite very strong counter-arguments. If all these counter-arguments be taken into account, Bell’s inequality activity would look very strange, as a kind of mystification.

I suspect that the main reason for this rather strange situation in modern physics is the great attraction of romantic spirit of orthodox quantum philosophy. All these nonreal things, wave-particle dualism, collapse, nonlocality, irreducible randomness, were attractive for some of creators as well as further quantum generations. These are different stories to discuss merely mathematical modification of real-continuous model of classical statistical mechanics or to declare scientific revolution. So orthodox Copenhagen interpretation was a kind of romantic stage in the development of physics. It is always not easy argue against romanticism. Probably we need not do this. I hope that realism (as the history of literature shows us) would (sooner or later) come to physics.

I would like to thank J. Bub, P. Lahti, W. De Baere, A. Plotnitsky and I. Pitowsky for extended discussions on the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Despite their critisism, these discussions were very important for me; in particular, to understand better Copenhagen Interpretation (or it would be better to say Copenhagen Interpretations) of quantum mechanics. Especially important role played discussions with A. Plotnitsky including deep analysis of Bohr’s and Heisenberg’s views. I would like to thank him for his long ‘private lectures’ on Bohr’s complementarity. On the other hand, it is important to underline that my views presented in this paper strongly differ from his views (that are presented e.g. in ).

We underline that our analysis of views of N. Bohr and H. Heisenberg demonstrated that by using the statistical interpretation of the principle of complementarity and uncertainty relations we escape the contradiction between the quantum formalism and realism. Statistical approach to Bohr’s contextualism does not contradict to the possibility to construct a realist prequantum model. And recently I, finally, constructed such a model (in spite of all no-go theorems – e.g., von Neumann, Kochen and Specker,…, Bell,…), see . In our model both classical and quantum spaces are rough images of the fundamental prespace. Quantum mechanics cannot be reduced to classical one. But the realist prespace model (inducing both classical and quantum representations of reality) can be constructed. In such a model both classical and quantum representations induce reductions of prespace information.

References

1. H. Atmanspacher, R. C. Bishop and A. Amann, Extrinsic and intrinsic irreversibility in probabilistic dyanamical laws. Proc. Conf. ”Foundations of Probability and Physics”, Växjö-2000, Sweden; editor A. Khrennikov, WSP, Singapore, p. 50-70, 2001.

2. A.Yu. Khrennikov, Non-Archimedean analysis: quantum paradoxes, dynamical systems and biological models. Kluwer Acad. Publishers, Dordreht, 1997.

3. V. S. Vladimirov, I. V. Volovich, and E. I. Zelenov, $`p`$-adic Analysis and Mathematical Physics, WSP, Singapore, 1994.

4. A. Yu. Khrennikov, p-adic valued distributions and their applications to the mathematical physics, Kluwer Acad. Publishers, Dordreht, 1994.

5. A. Plotnitsky, Reading Bohr: Complementarity, Epistemology, Entanglement, and Decoherence. Proc. NATO Workshop ”Decoherence and its Implications for Quantum Computations”, eds. A. Gonis and P. Turchi, p.3-37, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 2001.

6. B. L. Cline, The questioners: physicists and the quantum theory. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New-York, 1965.

7. W. Heisenberg, Physical principles of quantum theory. Chicago Univ. Press, 1930.

8. W. Heisenberg, Zeits. für Physik, 33, 879 (1925).

9. N. Bohr, Kramers, Slater, Philosophical Magazin, 47, 485 (1924); Zeits. für Physik, 24, 69 (1924).

10. E. Schrödinger, Ann. Physik, 79, 361 (1926).

11. E. Schrödinger, Ann. Physik, 79, 489 (1926).

12. H. Margenau, Phil. Sci., 25, 23 (1958).

13. L. E. Ballentine, The statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys., 42, 358–381 (1970).

14. P. Busch, M. Grabowski, P. Lahti, Operational Quantum Physics. Springer Verlag, 1995.

15. L. E. Ballentine, Quantum mechanics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989.

16. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Linear representations of probabilistic transformations induced by context transitions. J. Phys.A: Math. Gen., 34, 9965-9981 (2001).

17. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Origin of quantum probabilities. Proc. Conf. ”Foundations of Probability and Physics”, Växjö-2000, Sweden; editor A. Khrennikov, p. 180-200, WSP, Singapore (2001).

18. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Ya. I. Volovich, Numerical experiment on interference for macroscopic particles. Preprint quant-ph/0111159, 2000.

19. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Interpretations of Probability. VSP Int. Sc. Publishers, Utrecht/Tokyo, 1999.

20. A. Yu. Khrennikov, A perturbation of CHSH inequality induced by fluctuations of ensemble distributions. J. of Math. Physics, 41, N.9, 5934-5944, (2000).

21. Proc. Conf. ”Foundations of Probability and Physics”, Växjö-2000, Sweden; editor A. Khrennikov, WSP, Singapore, 2001.

22. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Contextualist viewpoint to Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger paradox. Phys. Lett., A, 278, 307-314 (2001).

23. H. Folse, Bohr’s best bits. Preprint, 2001.

24. P. Dirac, On the analogy between classical and quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 17, 195- 199 (1945).

25. A. Lande, New Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1965.

26. D. Bohm and B. Hiley, The undivided universe: an ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1993.

27. A. Yu. Khrennikov, Contextual approach to quantum mechanics and the theory of fundamental prespace. quant-ph/0306003.

A. Yu. Khrennikov, Classical and quantum spaces and rough images of teh fundamental prespace. quant-ph/0306069.


format: text

text:
# Comment on “Singularity-free Cosmological Solutions with Non-rotating Perfect Fluids”

\]http://debin.etsin.upm.es/lfj.htm

## Abstract

A theorem stated by Raychaudhuri which claims that the only physical non-singular cosmological models are comprised in the Ruiz-Senovilla family is shown to be incorrect. An explicit counterexample is provided and the failure of the argument leading to the theorem is explicitly pointed out.

Since the publication of the first non-singular cosmological model with a realistic equation of state seno , much effort has been devoted to either produce new regular models or to prove that they were a set of measure zero in some sense. Raychaudhuri ray  attempts to settle the issue by proving the following theorem:

Theorem: The only solutions to Einstein equations that fulfil the following conditions,

1. Non-singularity: The curvature and physical scalars are regular in the whole spacetime and do not blow up at infinity.
2. Perfect fluid: The matter content of the spacetime is a perfect fluid. Therefore the energy-momentum is $`T=(p+\rho )uu+pg`$, where $`u`$ is the velocity of the fluid, $`p`$ is the pressure, $`\rho `$ is the density and $`g`$ is the metric.
3. Non-rotating: The vorticity of the cosmological fluid is zero.
4. Cosmological: There is fluid throughout the space which fulfils the energy conditions $`0<p\rho `$. Discontinuities are excluded.
5. Changes of $`p`$ and $`\rho `$ are in the same direction for any change of the coordinates,

are those included in the Ruiz-Senovilla family ruiz .

A counter example for this claim is supported by the model leo ,

$$\text{d}s^2=\text{e}^K(\text{d}t^2+\text{d}r^2)+\text{e}^U\text{d}z^2+\text{e}^Ur^2\text{d}\varphi ^2,$$
(1)
which corresponds to a cylindrical cosmological model with matter content due to a stiff perfect fluid, $`\rho =p`$,

$$\rho (r,t)=\alpha \mathrm{e}^{K(t,r)},$$
(2)
$$K(t,r)=\frac{1}{2}\beta ^2r^4+(\alpha +\beta )r^2+2\beta t^2+4\beta ^2t^2r^2,$$
(3)
$$U(t,r)=\beta (r^2+2t^2),$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are positive constants. The coordinates are comoving since the velocity of the fluid is just,

$$u=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}K}_t.$$
(5)
The fluid invariants,

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(r,t)=2\beta t(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+2\beta r^2)\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}K(t,r)},\omega 0,$$
(6)
$$a^2(r,t)=r^2\left(\beta ^2r^2+\alpha +\beta +4\beta ^2t^2\right)^2\mathrm{e}^{K(t,r)},$$
(7)
$$a(r,t)=3\beta ^2r^2\text{e}^{K(r,t)},$$
(8)
$$\sigma ^2(t,r)=\frac{32}{3}\beta ^2t^2(1+\beta r^2+\beta ^2r^4)\text{e}^{K(t,r)},$$
(9)
are all regular and vanish at spatial and time infinity.

The same happens with the curvature invariants leo , which are also products of polynomials and decreasing exponentials.

It is obvious that this simple model fulfils Raychaudhuri’s requirements: It is non-singular and non-rotating, the pressure and the density are positive at every point of the spacetime and they are related by a state of equation.

However, it cannot belong to the Ruiz-Senovilla family, since it is non-separable in comoving coordinates.

What is wrong then in Raychaudhuri’s theorem? The most obvious failure in the reasoning leading to his claim lies in the decomposition of the pressure that appears in section IV,

$$p(r,t)=\underset{iI}{}R_i(r)T_i(t)Q_i(r,t),$$
(10)
where $`R_i`$, $`T_i`$ vanish at infinity and have null derivatives at respectively $`r=0`$, $`t=0`$, where the maximum of the pressure is reached.

The author claims that the partial derivatives of the pressure do not have any additional zero different from those of $`R_i`$ and $`T_i`$ and therefore $`Q_i`$ cannot have any zero. This is obviously false and can be illustrated by our model,

$$p(r,t)=R(r)T(t)Q(r,t),$$
(11)
$$R(r)=\alpha \text{e}^{\{(\alpha +\beta )r^2+\beta ^2r^4/2\}},$$
(12)
$$T(t)=\text{e}^{2\beta t^2},$$
(13)
$$Q(r,t)=\text{e}^{4\beta ^2t^2r^2},$$
(14)
which has a $`Q`$ with derivatives that vanish *also* at the zeros of the derivatives of $`R`$ and $`T`$, respectively $`r=0`$, $`t=0`$.

The author further concludes that $`Q`$ must be constant, since it is bounded everywhere. This would be the case just if analyticity were imposed, but this would be a too restrictive requirement. Our model shows again that this claim can be circumvented.

Summarizing, the author’s claim clearly leaves aside models that are non-separable in comoving coordinates and therefore the issue of the existence of further non-singular cosmological models is still open within this realm.

In my opinion, separability is too restrictive, since $`K`$ is obtained as a quadrature after the equations for $`U`$ have been solved manolo . Even if we impose separability to $`U`$, integration of $`K`$ will generally lead to cross-terms in $`t`$ and $`r`$, breaking the separability requirement, as it happens in our model. It is then not surprising that non-separable regular models come out if they appear too under the restriction of separability.

###### Acknowledgements.

The present work has been supported by Dirección General de Enseñanza Superior Project PB98-0772. L.F.J. wishes to thank F.J. Chinea, L.M. González-Romero, F. Navarro-Lérida and M.J. Pareja for valuable discussions.


text:
# A compactification and the Euler characteristic of the spaces of real meromorphic functions

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. Defenition of a RMF

Recall, that a *real meromorphic function (RMF)* is a triple $`(P,\tau ,f)`$, where $`P`$ is a compact Riemann surface, $`\tau :PP`$ is an antiholomorphic involution, and $`f:P\widehat{}`$ is a holomorphic map to the Riemann sphere $`\widehat{}=\{\mathrm{}\}`$, s. t. $`f(\tau (z))=\overline{(f(z))}`$.

Each polynomial $`p(z)=a_0+a_1z+\mathrm{}+a_nz^n`$ with real coefficients ($`a_i`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},n`$) can be considered, for example, as a real meromorphic function $`(\widehat{},\eta ,p)`$, where $`\eta :z\overline{z}`$ is a standart involution on the Riemann sphere.

### 1.2. Space of RMFs

Denote by $`H`$ the set of all real meromorphic functions, i. e. the set of all possible triples $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. The set $`H`$ posseses a natural structure of topological space. We recall it’s definition later. The space $`H`$ consists of the countable number of (arcwise) connected components. Each component is a non-closed real manifold.

In  one can find the full topological classification of real meromorphic functions. There are defined some integer topological invariants of RMFs, s. t. each connected component of the space $`H`$ is uniquely defined by assignment of these invariants.

Consider a real meromorphic function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. The simplest examples of such invariants are degree $`n`$ of the map $`f`$ and genus $`g`$ of the curve $`P`$.

### 1.3. Compactification

For each connected component $`H_0`$ of the space $`H`$ we build a compactification $`N(H_0)`$. Our construction is a real analogue of the Natanzon-Turaev compactification .

The main idea is to represent a typical limit point of $`H_0`$ by a simple branched RMF endowed with a family of disjoint disks in the image. It is just the idea of Natanzon and Turaev, but some refinements of the real case make our definitions a little bit unwieldy.

The space $`N(H_0)`$ has a natural structure of CW-complex. A *real decorated function* is a term that we use to call an element of the space $`N(H_0)`$.

Although there are many constructions of compactifications of the spaces of non-real meromorphic functions (see ), our work seems to be the first one that contains compactifications of the spaces of RMFs.

### 1.4. Expressions for topological characteristics

Consider a real meromorphic function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. Let $`H_0`$ be a connected component contains the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. The space $`N(H_0)`$ is a compactification of $`H_0`$.

Let us know all topological invariants of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. Then there is a Riemann-Hurwitz formula for dimension: $`dimH_0=dimN(H_0)=2g+2n2`$.

In this paper we express the Euler characteristics $`\chi (H_0)`$ and $`\chi (N(H_0))`$ of the spaces $`H_0`$ and $`N(H_0)`$ in topological inveriants of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. Under the Euler characteristic of a non-compact manifold $`H_0`$ we understand the difference $`\chi (H_0)=\chi (N(H_0))\chi (N(H_0)H_0)`$ (the complement $`N(H_0)H_0`$ is also a CW-comlex).

### 1.5. A way to compute the Euler characteristic

We compute the Euler characteristics in two steps.

First we relate the Euler characteristics of the spaces $`H_0`$ and $`N(H_0)`$ with the multiplicity of the *Lyashko-Looijenga map*.

Recall, that the *Lyashko-Looijenga map ($`LL`$)*, as it was called in , associates to a real meromorphic function the unorder sequence of it’s critical values. A concept of the set of critical values can be naturally defined also for real decorated functions.

Then, roughly speaking, the Euler characterisic of the manifold $`H_0`$ (or of the CW-complex $`N(H_0)`$) is equal to the number of real meromorphic (resp., real decorated) functions from $`H_0`$ (resp., from $`N(H_0)`$) with the set of critical values equals to $`\{i,i\}`$.

The second step is to express the obtained multiplicity as a number.

### 1.6. Calculation of the Euler characteristics

The Euler characteristic of a connected component is equal $`0`$ or $`1`$. We explain, how it depends on topological invariants of RMFs.

For the Euler characteristic of a compactification we don’t have a direct combinatorial formula. We express it as a number of certain graphs. The structure of these graphs depends on topological invariants of RMFs from the corresponding connected component.

### 1.7. Organization of the paper

The paper is organized as it follows:

We briefly formulate the results of  about topological invariants of RMFs (as it was done in  for some other purposes).

We define a construction of the compactification.

We define and study the Lyashko-Looijenga map.

We formulate and prove compactification theorems.

We represent the Euler characteristic as the multiplicity of the Lyashko-Looijenga map.

We calculate the Euler characteristics.

At the end of the almost all sections (except sections 5, 7 and 9) there is a subsection contains an example. As a way of example we always use one and the same connected component.

### 1.8. Acknowledgements

The author is grateful to S. M. Natanzon for numerous helpful remarks and discussions.

## 2. Real meromorphic functions

### 2.1. Definition of a RMF

As we have already said, a *real meromorphic function (RMF)* is a triple $`(P,\tau ,f)`$, where $`P`$ is a compact Riemann surface, $`\tau :PP`$ is an antiholomorphic involution (i. e., $`(P,\tau )`$ is a real algebraic curve), and $`f:P\widehat{}`$ is a holomorphic map to the Riemann sphere $`\widehat{}=\{\mathrm{}\}`$, s. t. $`f(\tau (z))=\overline{(f(z))}`$.

Functions $`(P_1,\tau _1,f_1)`$ and $`(P_2,\tau _2,f_2)`$ are identified, iff there is a biholomorphic map $`\phi :P_1P_2`$, s. t. $`f_1=f_2\phi `$ and $`\phi \tau _1=\tau _2\phi `$.

### 2.2. Real algebraic curves

Consider a real algebraic curve $`(P,\tau )`$. The set of real points of the curve $`(P,\tau )`$ is the set $`P^\tau `$ of fixed points of the involution $`\tau `$. It consists of pairwise disjoint simple closed contours, called *ovals*.

If $`PP^\tau `$ is a disconnected (connected) set, then the curve is said to be *separating* (resp., *non-separating*).

The *topological type of a curve $`(P,\tau )`$* is a triple of numbers $`(g,k,\epsilon )`$, where $`g`$ is the genus of $`P`$, $`k`$ is the number of ovals, and $`\epsilon `$ is equal to $`1`$ for separating curves and to $`0`$ for non-separeting ones.

### 2.3. Functions on non-separating curves

Consider a function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. Let $`c`$ be an oval of the curve $`(P,\tau )`$. We can choose orientations on the oval $`c`$ and on the contour $`\widehat{}=\{\mathrm{}\}\widehat{}`$. Then, since $`f(c)\widehat{}`$, one can define the degree of the map $`f|_c:c\widehat{}`$.

The *index of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ on the oval $`c`$* is an absolute value of the degree of the map $`f|_c:c\widehat{}`$. Evidently, the index doesn’t depends on the choice of orientations.

The *topological type of a real meromorphic function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ defined on a non-separting curve* is a tuple of numbers $`(g,n,0|I)`$, where $`(g,k,0)`$ is the topological type of the curve $`(P,\tau )`$, $`n`$ is the number of sheets of the covering $`f`$, and $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ are the indices of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ on the ovals of the curve $`(P,\tau )`$.

We denote by $`H(g,n,0|I)`$ the set of all RMFs of topological type $`(g,n,0|I)`$.

###### Theorem A.

 The set $`H(g,n,0|I)`$ is not empty, iff $`0kg`$; $`_{j=1}^ki_jn2`$; and $`_{j=1}^ki_jn(mod2)`$. In this case $`H(g,n,0|I)`$ is a connected real manifold of dimension $`2(g+n1)`$.

### 2.4. Functions on separating curves

Consider a function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ defined on a separating curve.

We fix orientation on the sphere $`\widehat{}`$ and on the surface $`P`$ as on a complex manifold. Also we fix orientation on the contour $`\widehat{}`$ as on the boundary of the upper hemisphere ($`\widehat{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{z\widehat{},\mathrm{Im}z>0\}`$).

Then we can choose a connected component $`P_1`$ of the complement $`PP^\tau `$. The orientation of the surface $`P_1`$ induces an orientation on it’s boundary $`P^\tau =P_1`$.

Since $`f(P^\tau )\widehat{}`$, it is possible to define the *degrees* $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ on the ovals of the real curve $`(P,\tau )`$.

The tuple of degrees is defined up to the simultaneous change of the signs of all degrees, i. e. up to the substitution $`II`$, $`(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. It is related to the arbitrariness of the choise of a connected component of $`PP^\tau `$

The *topological type of a real meromorphic function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ defined on a separting curve* is a tuple of numbers $`(g,n,1|I)`$, where $`(g,k,1)`$ is the topological type of the curve $`(P,\tau )`$, $`n`$ is the number of sheets of the covering $`f`$, and $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$ is the tuple of degrees of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ on the ovals of the curve $`(P,\tau )`$.

The topological type is defined up to the substitution $`(g,n,1|I)(g,n,1|I)`$. The topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$ is said to *admit extension*, if $`|_{j=1}^ki_j|<_{j=1}^k|i_j|=n2.`$

We denote by $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ the set of all RMFs of topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$. It follows from our definitions, that $`H(g,n,1|I)=H(g,n,1|I)`$.

###### Theorem B.

 The set $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ is not empty, iff $`1kg+1`$; $`kg+1(mod2)`$; $`_{j=1}^ki_jn(mod2)`$; and one of the following conditions is valid:

1. $`n=1`$, $`g=0`$, $`i_1=\pm 1`$;
2. $`n=2`$, $`k=g+1`$, $`i_1=\mathrm{}=i_k=0`$;
3. $`n2`$, $`|_{j=1}^ki_j|=_{j=1}^k|i_j|=n`$, $`i_j0`$;
4. $`n3`$, $`_{j=1}^k|i_j|n2`$.

If the set $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ is non-empty and the topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$ admits no extension, then $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ is a connected real manifold of dimension $`2(g+n1)`$.

### 2.5. Extended topological type

Now suppose that the topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$ admits extension and $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ is a non-empty set. For every function $`(P,\tau ,f)H(g,n,1|I)`$ we consider the connected component $`H_0`$ of $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ containing $`(P,\tau ,f)`$. Then there is a function $`(P^{},\tau ^{},f^{})H_0`$ s. t. $`P^{}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is a connected surface. Here $`P^{}`$ is a connected component of $`P^{}(P^{})^\tau ^{}`$ used to define the topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{}`$ is the upper hemisphere.

The extended topological type of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)H(g,n,1|I)`$ is defined as the tuple of numbers $`(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$, where $`\xi `$ is the genus of $`P^{}f_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. It can be proved that the extended topological type is well defined to within the change $`(g,n,1|I,\xi )(g,n,1|I,\frac{gk+1}{2}\xi )`$.

We denote by $`H(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$ the subset of $`H(g,n,1|I)`$ consisting of all RMFs of extended topological type $`(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$. It follows from our definitions, that $`H(g,n,1|I,\xi )=H(g,n,1|I,\frac{gk+1}{2}\xi )`$.

###### Theorem C.

 The set $`H(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$ is non-empty, iff $`0\xi (gk+1)/2`$. In this case $`H(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$ is a connected manifold of dimension $`2(g+n1)`$.

### 2.6. Example

Now we show an expamle of a connected component.

Consider real meromorphic functions $`(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda )`$, $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{z\widehat{},\mathrm{Im}z>0\}`$. Here $`\eta :z\overline{z}`$ is a standart involution, and $`f_\lambda `$ is a two-sheets real covering of $`\widehat{}`$ by $`\widehat{}`$ with two simple critical values, $`\lambda `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }`$.

The set of such RMFs is a connected component of the space of real meromorphic functions. It’s easy to see, that in our notations this set is denoted as $`H(0,2,1|(2))`$.

The map $`(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda )\lambda `$ is a homeomorphism $`H(0,2,1|(2))\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. So the space $`H(0,2,1|(2))`$ is homeomorphic to an open disk.

## 3. Construction of compactification

### 3.1. Introduction

Suppose that $`H_0`$ is one of connected components we discribe in section 2, i. e. either $`H_0=H(g,n,0|I)`$, or $`H_0=H(g,n,1|I)`$ and the topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$ admits no extension, or $`H_0=H(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$.

In this section we build a space $`N_0`$ compactifying $`H_0`$.

Below, in the section 5, we prove that $`N_0`$ is a compact and Hausdorff space. Also we prove there that $`N_0`$ is a compactification of $`H_0`$.

### 3.2. Real decorated functions

A real decorated function is a quintuple $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$, where

1. $`(P,\tau ,f)H_0`$ is a real meromorphic function with $`2(g+n1)`$ critical values (i. e. all critical values of the covering $`f`$ are simple).
2. $`E`$ is a finite subset of $`\widehat{}`$, s. t.

1. $`\eta (E)=E`$, $`\eta :z\overline{z}`$,
    2. the set $`E`$ contains no critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$.
3. $`\{D_e\}`$ is a set of pairwise disjoint closed disks, numerated by the elements $`e`$ of the set $`E`$, s. t.

1. $`e\mathrm{Int}D_e`$,
    2. each disk $`D_e`$ contains at least two critical values of the function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$,
    3. there are no critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ on the boundaries of the disks $`D_e`$, $`eE`$,
    4. if $`\eta (e)=e^{}`$, then $`\eta (D_e)=D_e^{}`$.

No that the set $`E`$ in the definition of a real decorated function can be empty. In this case one can understand a real decorated function as just a RMF with simple critical values.

Informally, a decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$ should be thought of as a limit of real meromorphic functions obtained from $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ by making all the critical values inside every disk $`D_e`$ tend to the point $`e`$.

### 3.3. Revision of the definition of a RMF

We want to define some equivalence relations for real meromorphic functions. For this purpose we need to specify our notations.

Now we consider a real meromorphic function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ as a covering $`f:S_g\widehat{}`$ where $`S_g`$ is a fixed genus $`g`$ two-dimensional closed real manifold.

By $`P`$ we understand a complex structure on $`S_g`$. The involution $`\tau `$ is an involution of $`S_g`$, antiholomorphic w. r. t. the complex structure $`P`$. The covering $`f`$ satisfies the condition $`f\tau =\eta f`$. The complex structure $`P`$ is uniquely defined by the covering $`f`$ .

We reformulate the coinsiding condition. Two functions, $`(P_1,\tau _1,f_1)`$ and $`(P_2,\tau _2,f_2)`$, are coinside, if there is a homeomorphism $`\phi :S_gS_g`$, s. t. $`f_1=f_2\phi `$ and $`\phi \tau _1=\tau _2\phi `$.

### 3.4. Equivalence relations

Two real decorated functions are equivalent if one of them is obtained from the other using a composition of the maps $`A_\alpha `$ and $`B_\beta `$ that we describe below.

The map $`A_\alpha :(P_0,\tau _0,f_0,E,\{D_e\})(P_1,\tau _1,f_1,E,\{D_e\})`$ is defined by a path $`\alpha :[0,1]H_0`$, $`\alpha :t(P_t,\tau _t,f_t)`$, s. t. on the set $`f_0^1(\widehat{}_{eE}D_e)S_g`$ the complex structure, the involution and the covering are fixed.

The map $`B_\beta :(P_0,\tau _0,f_0,E,\{D_e^0\})(P_1,\tau _1,f_1,E,\{D_e^1\})`$ is defined by an isotopy $`\{\beta _t:\widehat{}\widehat{}\}_{t[0,1]}`$ of the identity homemorphism of the sphere $`\widehat{}`$ (i. e., $`\beta _0=\mathrm{id}_\widehat{}`$). All $`\beta _t`$, $`t[0,1]`$, satisfy the following conditions:

1. $`\eta \beta _t=\beta _t\eta `$,
2. points of the set $`E`$ are fixed points of $`\beta _t`$,
3. critical values of $`(P_0,\tau _0,f_0)`$ belong to $`\widehat{}_{eE}D_e^0`$ are fized points of $`\beta _t`$,
4. $`D_e^t=\beta _t(D_e^0)`$ for all $`eE`$,
5. the covering $`f_t:S_g\widehat{}`$ is coinside with $`\beta _tf_0`$,
6. $`P_t`$ is just a deformation of the complex structure defined by the deformation of the covering,
7. the involution $`\tau _t:S_gS_g`$ is coinside with $`\tau _0`$.

### 3.5. The topology of the space of RMFs

Now we recall the topology of the space of real meromorphic functions defined on genus $`g`$ curves.

A sequence $`(P_n,\tau _n,f_n)`$ tends to a point $`(P,\tau ,f)`$, if there are a sequence $`(P_n^{},\tau _n^{},f_n^{})`$ and a point $`(P^{},\tau ^{},f^{})`$, coinsiding (in the sense of our definitions) with $`(P_n,\tau _n,f_n)`$ and $`(P,\tau ,f1)`$ resp., s. t. $`f_n^{}f^{}`$ as coverings $`S_g\widehat{}`$ and $`\tau _n^{}\tau ^{}`$ as involutions of $`S_g`$.

### 3.6. The topology of the space of real decorated functions

Denote by $`N_0`$ the set of all equivalence classes of real decorated functions. Now we define a topology of the space $`N_0`$.

An open neighbourhood of a point $`xN_0`$ can be defined by the following data:

1. a decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$ from the equivalence class $`x`$;
2. a set of pairwise disjoint closed disks $`\{B_l\widehat{}_{eE}D_e\}`$ s. t.

1. each disk $`B_l`$ contains exactly one critical value of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$,
    2. if critical value of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ lies in $`\widehat{}_{eE}D_e`$, then it belongs to a disk $`B_l`$,
    3. the real condition for the disks $`B_l`$ is valid: $`\eta (B_l)=B_l`$.

The corresponding neighbourhood of the point $`xN_0`$ consists of equivalence classes of real decorated functions $`(P^{},\tau ^{},f^{},E^{},\{D_e^{}\})`$ s. t.

1. $`_{e^{}E^{}}D_e^{}_{eE}D_e`$;
2. the covering $`f^{}`$ can be represented as a composite $`f^{}=\psi f_\alpha `$, where

1. $`\psi `$ is a homeomorphism of the sphere $`\widehat{}`$,
    2. $`\eta \psi =\psi \eta `$,
    3. $`\psi `$ is identity outside of $`B_l_{eE}D_e`$,
    4. $`(P_\alpha ,\tau _\alpha ,f_\alpha ,E,\{D_e\})=A_\alpha ((P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\}))`$ for some (arbitrary) $`\alpha `$.

Here $`P^{}`$ is defined by the covering $`f^{}`$. The involutions $`\tau ^{}`$ and $`\tau _\alpha `$ are coinside as involutions of $`S_g`$.

A subset $`XN_0`$ is open, if for any point $`xX`$ there is an open neighbourhood $`U(x)`$ of $`x`$ s.t. $`U(x)X`$.

Using the same arguments as in , one can prove that open subsets define a topology on the space $`N_0`$.

### 3.7. Notations

If $`H_0=H(g,n,0|I)`$ ($`H(g,n,1|I)`$, $`H(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$, then we denote $`N_0`$ as $`N(g,n,0|I)`$ (resp. $`N(g,n,1|I)`$, $`N(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$.

### 3.8. Example

A natural compactifications of the open disk $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{z\widehat{},\mathrm{Im}z>0\}`$ is the closed disk $`(\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{z\widehat{},\mathrm{Im}z0\}`$.

We show, that there is a homeomorphism $`N(0,2,1|(2))C(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

Really, when $`H_0=H(0,2,1|(2))`$, then a real decorated function with a non-empty set $`E`$ is just a function $`(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda ,\{\mu \},\{D_\mu \})`$, where $`\mu \widehat{}`$ and $`\lambda D_\mu `$. Two such functions are equivalent, iff the point $`\mu `$ is the same for both of them.

A homeomorphism $`N(0,2,1|(2))C(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is defined by the formulas:

$$(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda ,\{\mu \},\{D_\mu \})\mu ,(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})\lambda .$$

## 4. Lyashko-Looijenga map

### 4.1. Stratification of $`\mathrm{P}^m`$

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m`$ the space of real tuples of $`m`$ unordered not necessary distinct points of $`\widehat{}`$. A tuple $`(r_1,\mathrm{},r_m)`$ is real, if $`(\eta (r_1),\mathrm{},\eta (r_m))`$ is the same tuple, $`\eta :z\overline{z}`$. An example of a real tuple of four points is $`(i,i,i,i)`$. Obviously, one can identify $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m\mathrm{P}^m`$.

We represent $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m`$ as a union of disjoint submanifolds. Let $`P=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_r)`$ and $`Q=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)`$ be non-decreasing positive integer sequences, possibly empty, s. t. $`m=_{j=1}^rp_j+2_{j=1}^sq_j`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$ the set of tuples consist of $`r0`$ pairwise distinct points of $`\widehat{}`$, $`s0`$ pairwise distinct points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{z\widehat{},\mathrm{Im}z>0\}`$ and also $`s`$ points of $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, conjugated to those of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Here we get points of $`\widehat{}`$ with multiplicities $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_r`$ and points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ with multiplicities $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_s`$.

A set $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$ is a submanifold of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m`$. Dimension of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$ is equal to $`r+2s`$. $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$ is not necessary connected.

Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Pi }^m=\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$.

### 4.2. Lyashko-Looijenga map on $`N_0`$

Consider a connected component $`H_0`$, that contains $`n`$-sheeted functions on genus $`g`$ curves. Let $`N_0`$ be the corresponding space of equivalence classes of real decorated functions

The *Lyashko-Looijenga map* $`ll:N_0\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(n+g1)}`$ associates to a real decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$ the tuple of points, consists of critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ lie in $`\widehat{}_{eE}D_e`$ and of points $`eE`$ with multiplicities equal to the number of critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ lie in $`D_e`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

The Lyashko-Looijenga map is continuous.

###### Lemma 4.2.

The restriction of the Lyashko-Looijenga map to the preimage of any connected component of any submanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$ is a finite-sheeted non-ramified covering.

### 4.3. Lyashko-Looijenga map on $`H_0`$

A map $`ll_H:H_0\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$ associates to a real meromorphic function the tuple of it’s critical values (w. r. t. multiplicities) is also called the *Lyashko-Looijenga map*.

###### Lemma 4.3.

The map $`ll_H`$ is continuous.

###### Lemma 4.4.

The restriction of the map $`ll_H`$ to the preimage of any connected component of any submanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$ is a finite-sheeted non-ramified covering.

### 4.4. Some words about proves

All lemmas of this section are evidently follow from our defenitions.

### 4.5. Example

Let $`H_0=H(0,2,1|(2))`$. Then the Lyashko-Looijenga map $`ll:N(0,2,1|(2))\mathrm{\Pi }^2`$ is as follow:

$$(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda ,\{\mu \},\{D_\mu \})(\mu ,\mu ),(\widehat{},\eta ,f_\lambda ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})(\lambda ,\overline{\lambda }).$$

We represent $`\mathrm{\Pi }^2`$ as a union of submanifolds $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^2=\mathrm{\Pi }(2|\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Pi }(1,1|\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{}|1).$$

In our case the map $`ll`$ is a one-sheeted covering over $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{}|1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }(2|\mathrm{})`$ and a zero-sheeted covering $`\mathrm{\Pi }(1,1|\mathrm{})`$.

## 5. Compactification theorems

### 5.1. Properties of $`N_0`$

The following theorem is proved using the same arguments as it’s complex analogue in .

###### Theorem 5.1.

$`N_0`$ is a compact and a Hausdorff space.

###### The sketch of the proof..

To proof that $`N_0`$ is a Hausdorff space we just need to build disjoint neighbourhoods of two arbitrary points $`x,yN_0`$ s. t. $`ll(x)=ll(y)`$. It’s easy to do it using lemmas 4.1 – 4.2.

Compactness is proved by selection a convergent subsequence in an arbitrary sequence of points of $`N_0`$. Using lemma 4.1 and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$is a compact space, we find an $`ll`$-image of a limit point. Then from the lemma 4.2 it follows the existence of the limit point. ∎

### 5.2. Embedding $`H_0N_0`$

Now we discribe an embedding of $`H_0`$ to $`N_0`$. Denote by $`H_0^{}`$ a subspace of $`H_0`$, consists of all functions with simple critical values. Obviously, $`H_0^{}`$ is an open and an everywhere dense subspace of $`H_0`$. The map $`C^{}:H_0^{}N_0`$ associate to a function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ the decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

1. The map $`C^{}`$ is a continuous embedding $`H_0^{}N_0`$.
2. There is a continuous extension of the map $`C^{}`$ to the map $`C:H_0N_0`$.
3. The map $`C`$ is a continuous embedding $`H_0N_0`$.
4. The image $`C(H_0)`$ is an open and an everywhere dense subspace of $`N_0`$.

###### The sketch of the proof.

From our definitions it follows that $`C^{}`$ is a continuous map.

Now we construct the map $`C:H_0N_0`$ – the continuous extension of the map $`C^{}`$.

Let $`(P_0,\tau _0,f_0)H_0`$ be a function with non-simple critical values. Denote by $`E`$ the set of it’s non-simple critical values. Evidently, $`\eta (E)=E`$. Let us choose pairwise disjoint closed disks $`\{D_e\}_{eE}`$ s. t. $`eD_e`$, $`D_e`$ doesn’t contain any other critical values of $`(P_0,\tau _0,f_0)`$ and if $`\eta (e)=e^{}`$, then $`\eta (D_e)=D_e^{}`$.

We define $`:(P_0,\tau _0,f_0)(P_1,\tau _1,f_1,E,\{D_e\})`$, where $`(P_t,\tau _t,f_t)`$, $`t[0,1]`$, is an arbitrary path in the space $`H_0`$ s. t. on the set $`f^1(\widehat{}_{eE}D_e)S_g`$ complex structure, involution and covering are fixed and all critical values of $`(P_1,\tau _1,f_1)`$ are simple.

From the definition of equvalence relations of decorated functions it follows, that the map $`C`$ is well defined. It is also obvious that $`C`$ is a continuous map and $`C|_{H_0^{}}=C^{}`$. The statement, that the image $`C(H_0)`$ is an open and an everywhere dense subspace of $`N_0`$ one can obtain just from the definition of the topology of $`N_0`$. ∎

### 5.3. Two Lyashko-Looijenga maps.

Now we have two Lyashko-Looijenga maps on $`H_0`$: the map $`ll_H`$ and the map $`llC`$. Obviously, these maps are coinside, $`ll_HllC`$.

## 6. The Euler characteristic via $`LL`$-multiplicity – I

### 6.1. A theorem on the Euler characteristic

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ the submanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P_0|Q_0)`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$, where $`P_0=\mathrm{}`$, $`Q_0=(g+n1)`$. It means that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is a submanifold of tuples consist of two conjugated points with multiplicity $`g+n1`$. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ is homeomorphic to an open disk.

Consider a connected component $`H_0`$ containing $`n`$-sheeted functions on genus $`g`$ curves. Let $`N_0`$ be it’s compactification.

###### Theorem 6.1.

The Euler characteristic $`\chi (N_0)`$ of the space $`N_0`$ is equal to the multiplisity of the Lyashko-Looijenga map $`ll:N_0\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$ restricted to the preimage of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$.

The Euler characteristic $`\chi (H_0)`$ of the space $`H_0`$ is equal to the multiplisity of the Lyashko-Looijenga map $`ll_H:H_0\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$ restricted to the preimage of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$.

A proof of this theorem one can find in the next section.

### 6.2. Some corollaries

The following corollaries of the Theorem 6.1 are obvious.

###### Corollary 6.1.

Let $`g+n1>1`$. Then the Euler characteristic of the space $`N_0`$ is equal to the number of non-equivalent decorated functions $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})N_0`$ s. t. $`E=\{i,i\}`$, $`D_{\pm i}=\{z||zi|1/2\}`$ and all critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ lie in $`D_iD_i`$.

The conditions $`g+n1>1`$ is related with our requirement (in the definition of a decorated function) for each disk $`D_e`$ to contain at least two critical values.

###### Corollary 6.2.

The Euler characteristic of the space $`H_0`$ is equal to the number of RMFs $`(P,\tau ,f)H_0`$ with only two critical values: $`i`$ and $`i`$.

It’s obvious, that such real meromorphic functions exist only if genus is equal to zero. But we discuss it later.

### 6.3. Example

The example is the space $`H(0,2,1|(2))`$. We know that this space is homeomorphic to an open disk. It’s compactification is homeomorphic to a closed disk. Hence, $`\chi (H(0,2,1|(2)))=\chi (H(0,2,1|(2)))=1`$.

The corresponding multiplicities of the Lyshko-Looijenga map we calculate in the subsection 4.5, and they also are equal to $`1`$.

## 7. The Euler characteristic via $`LL`$-multiplicity – II

In this section we prove the Theorem 6.1.

### 7.1. Represetation of $`N_0`$ as a union of cells – I

First we represent the space $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$ as a union of disjoint open balls.

Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a connected component of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$, $`P=(p_1,\mathrm{},p_r)`$, $`Q=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)`$.

Obviously, there is a finite-sheeted non-ramified covering $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{})\mathrm{\Pi }^{r+2s}`$, $`P^{}=(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ ($`r`$ times ”$`1`$”), $`Q^{}=(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ ($`s`$ times ”$`1`$”).

Let us build a cell decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{})`$. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{})`$ is homeomorphic to $`W^r(\widehat{})\times W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Here we denote by $`W^k(X)`$ the space of $`k`$-tuples of pairwise disjoint points of $`X`$. Hence we must build only cell decompositions of $`W^r(\widehat{})`$ and $`W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$.

### 7.2. Cell decompositions of $`W^r(\widehat{})`$ and $`W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$

The space $`W^k(\widehat{})`$ we represent as a union of two cells. One of them has dimension $`k`$ and consists of tuples $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ s. t. $`x_i\mathrm{}`$, $`i=1,dots,k`$. One can consider numbers $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k`$ with relation $`x_1<\mathrm{}<x_k`$ as coordinates on this cell. The second cell has dimension $`k1`$ and consists of tuples $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{k1},\mathrm{})`$. One can consider numbers $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{k1}`$ with relation $`x_1<\mathrm{}<x_{k1}`$ as coordinates on this cell.

To build the cell decomposition of $`W^k(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ we need some new notations. Let $`z_1,z_2\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The record $`z_1z_2`$ means, that $`\mathrm{Re}z_1<\mathrm{Re}z_2`$. The record $`z_1z_2`$ means, that $`\mathrm{Re}z_1=\mathrm{Re}z_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}z_1<\mathrm{Im}z_2`$.

Each cell consists of tuples $`(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)`$ s. t. coordinates on the cell are the numbers $`(\mathrm{Re}z_1,\mathrm{Im}z_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{Re}z_k,\mathrm{Im}z_k)`$ with a relation of the type $`z_1z_2\mathrm{}z_k`$, where the sign ”$``$” is either $``$ or $``$.

So, $`W^k(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is represented as a union of $`2^{k1}`$ cells.

### 7.3. Represetation of $`N_0`$ as a union of cells – II

We have the cell decompositions of the spaces $`W^r(\widehat{})`$ and $`W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Their product give us the cell decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{})`$. We can lift this cell decomposition to $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$. We obtain the cell decomposition of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$. Then, using Lemma 4.2, we represent the space $`N_0`$ as a union of disjoint cells.

The cell decompositions we build doesn’t give us the CW-copmlex structure on the spaces $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{2(g+n1)}`$ and $`N_0`$. But to compute the Euler characteristic we need onle an arbitrary representation of the space as a union of disjoint open balls.

An example of the cell decomposition of such space in a particular case one can find in .

The next Lemma is evident:

###### Lemma 7.1.

Each cell of the cell decomposition we have build is either a subset of $`C(H_0)`$ or a subset of $`N_0C(H_0)`$. No cell intersects both $`C(H_0)`$ and $`N_0C(H_0)`$.

### 7.4. A proof of Theorem 6.1

###### A proof of Theorem 6.1.

To prove Theorem 6.1 we just must show (here we use Lemma 4.2), that the Euler characteristics of all connected components of all submanifolds $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P|Q)`$, except $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$, are equal to zero.

By the Euler characteristic we understand here the alternated sum of the numbers of cells we have build.

Hence we need only to prove that the Euler characteristic of any submanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{})`$, except $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0\mathrm{\Pi }^2`$, is equal to zero. Really, if $`P^{}\mathrm{}`$ (i. e., $`r>0`$), then $`\chi (\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{}))=0`$, since $`\chi (W^k(\widehat{}))=0`$. So we consider the case $`r=0`$ and $`s2`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Pi }(P^{}|Q^{})=W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. There are $`2^{s1}`$ cells in the cell decomposition of $`W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. The dimension of a cell one can compute using formula $`dim=2+2()+()`$, where $`()`$ and $`()`$ are the numbers of corresponding signs in the relation that defines the cell. So, the Euler characteristic $`\chi (W^s(\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$ is equal to $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c1}{0}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c1}{1}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c1}{2}\right)\mathrm{}\pm \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{c1}{c1}\right)=(11)^{c1}=0`$.

From the foregoing we obtain our theorem, since $`\chi (\mathrm{\Pi }_0)=1`$. ∎

## 8. The Euler characteristic of connected components

### 8.1. Theorems

Denote by $`H_1`$ a connected component $`H(g,n,0|I)`$.

###### Theorem 8.1.

If $`g=0`$, then $`\chi (H_1)=1`$. If $`g0`$, then $`\chi (H_1)=0`$.

Consider a connected component $`H_2=H(g,n,1|I)`$ (the topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$, $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$, doesn’t admit extension). Recall, that if $`g=0`$, then $`k=1`$ and $`I=(i_1)`$.

###### Theorem 8.2.

If $`g=0`$ and $`|i_1|=n`$, then $`\chi (H_2)=1`$. In any other case $`\chi (H_2)=0`$.

Denote by $`H_3`$ a connected component $`H(g,k,1|I,\xi )`$.

###### Theorem 8.3.

Independently of topological invariants $`\chi (H_3)=0`$.

###### Proofs of Theorems 8.1-8.3.

Consider a connected component $`H_0`$ of the space of real meromorphic functions.

From the construction of the map $`K`$ (Theorem 5.2) and Corollary 6.2 it follows, that the Euler characteristic of the space $`H_0`$ is equal to the number of functions $`(P,\tau ,f)H_0`$ with only two critical values, $`i`$ and $`i`$.

Consider such function. Since it has only one critical value in the disk $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{z|\mathrm{Im}z>0\}`$, any connected component of the preimage of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a disk. The same is true for $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })=\{z|\mathrm{Im}z<0\}`$. Hence, the genus of the surface $`P`$ is equal to zero. Also it means, that the preimage of the contour $`\widehat{}`$ is connected.

Obviously, each connected component $`H_0`$ contains at least one such function. $`H_0`$ contains exactly one such function, iff $`g=0`$, and either $`\epsilon =0`$, or $`|i_1|=n`$. From this our Theorems follow. ∎

### 8.2. Example

We use Theorem 8.2 to study our usual example, the space $`H(0,2,1|(2))`$. We obtain, that $`\chi (H(0,2,1|(2)))=1`$.

## 9. The Euler characteristic in non-separating case

Denote by $`N_1`$ the compactification $`N(g,n,0|I)`$, $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. To express the Euler characteristic $`\chi (N_1)`$ of the space $`N_1`$ in general case we need *non-sparating graphs*. In the definition of a non-separating graph we suppose that all indices $`i_j`$ are non-zero (or there are no of them, i. e. $`k=0`$, $`I=()`$).

A *non-separating graph* consists of the following data:

1. A bipartited graph with signs on vertexes and edges:

1. The set of vertexes $`V=V_wV_b`$. This set is a disjoint union of two subsets with the same cardinalities ($`|V_w|=|V_b|`$). Vertexes from $`V_w`$ (from $`V_b`$) we suppose to be painted in white (resp., black) color.
    2. The set of edges $`E`$. Each edge connects vertexes of different colors. The graph $`(V,E)`$ is connected.
    3. A function $`\zeta _V:V\{0\}`$. We require the following: $`g=k+|E||V|+1+_{vV}\zeta _V(v)`$.
    4. A function $`\zeta _E:E`$. The following must be valid: $`n=_{eE}\zeta _E(e)_{j=1}^ki_j`$.
2. A structure of root vertexes and edges:

There are fixed subsets of root vertexes $`V_w^rV_w`$, $`V_b^rV_b`$. There are exactly $`k`$ root vertexes of each color. The function $`\zeta _V`$ vanishes on all root vertexes.

Each root vertex has exactly one edge outgoing from it. We denote by $`E_w^r`$ ($`E_b^r`$) the set of edges outgoing of root vertexes of the white (resp., black) color. The function $`\zeta _E`$ restricted to $`E_w^r`$ and $`E_b^r`$ give us isomorphisms $`E_w^rI`$ and $`E_b^rI`$ of the sets $`E_w^r`$ and $`E_b^r`$ and the tuple of indices $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$.
3. An automotphism $`\gamma `$ of the graph $`(V,E)`$:

1. The automorphism $`\gamma `$ change colors of all vertexes.
    2. $`\zeta _V\gamma =\zeta _V`$, $`\zeta _E\gamma =\zeta _E`$.
    3. On the edges that are fixed w. r. t. the automorphism $`\gamma `$, the function $`\zeta _E`$ gets even values.
    4. The automorphism $`\gamma `$ sends root vertexes to root vertexes.

As a way of example to this definiton we discribe the unique non-separating graph for the space $`N(1,3,0|(1))`$: $`V=\{v_2,v_1,v_1,v_2\}`$, $`V_w=\{v_2,v_1\}`$, $`V_b=\{v_1,v_2\}`$, $`V_w^r=\{v_2\}`$, $`V_b^r=\{v_2\}`$, $`E=\{(v_2,v_1),(v_1,v_1),(v_1,v_2)\}`$, $`E_w^r=\{(v_2,v_1)\}`$, $`E_b^r=\{(v_1,v_2)\}`$, $`\zeta _V0`$, $`\zeta _E(E_{w,b}^r)=1`$, $`\zeta _E((v_1,v_1))=2`$, $`\gamma (v_i)=v_i`$.

###### Theorem 9.1.

If $`k>0`$ and at least one of the indices $`i_j`$ is equal to zero, then $`\chi (N_1)=0`$. In any othe case the Euler characteristic $`\chi (N_1)`$ is equal to the number of different non-separating graphs.

###### Proof.

Consider a non-empty space $`H_1=H(g,k,0|I)`$

Let the topological type $`(g,k,0|I)`$ contain zero index. Then for any decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})N_1=N(H_1)`$ we obtain the following: either function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ has a real critical value in $`\widehat{}D_e`$, or the set $`E`$ contains a real point, or both statements are true. Hence, the image of the Lyashko-Looijenga map doesn’t contains the submanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$. Then, using Theorem 6.1, we conclude that $`\chi (N_1)=0`$.

Now we suppose that all indices $`i_j`$ of the topological type $`(g,k,0|I)`$ are non-zero (or there are no of them, i. e. $`k=0`$, $`I=()`$). Then the space $`N_1`$ contains functions that described in Corollary 6.1.

To each decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$ s. t. $`E=\{i,i\}`$, $`D_{\pm i}=\{z||zi|1/2\}`$ and all critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ are in the disks $`D_{\pm i}`$, we associate a non-separating graph.

We choose an arbitrary function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ that defines an equvalence class of $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$. We cut the surface $`P`$ along ovals. Then we glue all holes we obtain using disk coverings of the disks $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, s. t. the result is a real meromorphic function $`(P^{},\tau ^{},f^{})`$. Obviously, the topological type of $`(P^{},\tau ^{},f^{})`$ is equal to $`(gk,n+_{j=1}^ki_j,0|I^{})`$, $`I^{}=()`$.

To each connected component of $`f^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ ($`f^1(\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))`$) we associate a white (resp., black) vertex with the value of $`\zeta _V`$ equals to the genus of this component. The root vertexes are obtaind from the glueing disks. To each component of $`f^1(\widehat{})`$ we associate an edge with the value of $`\zeta _E`$ equals to the number of sheetes of the covering of the contour $`\widehat{}`$ by this component. An edge outgoes from a vertex if the corresponding components of the surface $`P^{}`$ are bounded.

The automorphism of the graph is generated by the involution $`\tau ^{}`$. It’s easy to see that the graph we build is non-separating.

###### Lemma 9.1.

We associate to non-equivalent decorated functions different non-separating graphs. Each non-separating graph can be obtained as the graph of a function.

###### Proof.

The second statement of the Lemma one can prove by direct construction. The first statement of the Lemma is an obvious corollary of Lemma 9.2 which you can see below.

See also . There are the standart arguments that allow one to prove this Lemma are written in details. ∎

Consider two $`n`$-sheeted coverings $`f_1,f_2:UD`$ of a disk $`D`$ by a connected surface $`U`$ with only simple critical values. Let $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ be topologically equvalent over the boundary of $`D`$.

###### Lemma 9.2.

There are homeomorphisms $`\phi :UU`$ and $`\psi :DD`$ s. t. $`\psi f_1=f_2\phi `$.

This Lemma is a corollary of results  on the topological classification of coverings of the sphere $`\widehat{}`$ with one non-simple critical value.

Let us finish the proof of the Theorem. From Lemma 9.1 it follows, that the number of functions discribed in Corollary 6.1 is equal to the number of non-separating graphs. Hence the Euler characteristic of the space $`N(g,k,0|I)`$ is equal to the number of non-separating graphs. ∎

## 10. The Euler characteristic in separating case

### 10.1. The topological type doesn’t admit extension

Denote by $`N_2`$ a compactification $`N(g,n,1|I)`$ (the topological type $`(g,n,1|I)`$, $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$, doesn’t admit extension). To express the Euler characteristic $`\chi (N_2)`$ of the space $`N_2`$ in general case we need *separating graphs*. In the definition of the separating graph we suppose that all degrees $`i_j`$ are non-zero.

A *separating graph* consists of the following data:

1. A bipartite graph with signs on vertexes and edges:

1. The set of vertexes $`V=V_wV_b`$. This set is a disjoint union of two subsets (not necessary with the same cardinalities). Vertexes from $`V_w`$ (from $`V_b`$) we suppose to be painted in white (resp., black) color.
    2. The set of edges $`E`$. Each edge connects vertexes of different colors. The graph $`(V,E)`$ is connected.
    3. The function $`\zeta _V:V\{0\}`$. We require the following: $`g=(k1)+2(|E||V|+1)+2_{vV}\zeta _V(v)`$.
    4. The function $`\zeta _E:E`$. The following must be valid: $`n=2_{eE}\zeta _E(e)_{j=1}^k|i_j|`$.
2. The structure of root vertexes and edges:

There are fixed subsets of root vertexes $`V_w^rV_w`$, $`V_b^rV_b`$. We have exactly $`k`$ root vertexes at all. The number of root vertexes of white (black) color is equal to the number of negative (resp., positive) degrees $`i_j`$ in the tuple $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$. The functions $`\zeta _V`$ vanishes on all root vertexes.

Each root vertex has exactly one edge outgoing from it. We denote by $`E^r`$ the set of edges outgoing from root vertexes. We define the function $`\zeta _R`$ on the set $`E_r`$: in an edge $`eE^r`$ outgoes from the root vertex of white (black) color, then we put $`\zeta _R(e)=\zeta _E(e)`$ (resp., $`\zeta _R(e)=\zeta _E(e)`$). The function $`\zeta _R`$ must be an isomorphism of the set $`E^r`$ and the tuple of degrees $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$.

As a way of example to this definition we discribe the unique separating graph for the space $`N(1,3,1|(1,2))`$: $`V=\{v_0,v_1,v_2\}`$, $`V_w=\{v_1\}`$, $`V^r=V_b=\{v_0,v_2\}`$, $`E=E^r=\{(v_0,v_1),(v_1,v_2)\}`$, $`\zeta _V0`$.

###### Theorem 10.1.

If $`|_{j=1}^ki_j|=n`$, then $`\chi (N_2)=1`$. If at least one of the degrees $`i_j`$ is equal to zero, then $`\chi (N_2)=0`$. If $`_{j=1}^k|i_j|n2`$ and $`i_j0`$, then the Euler characteristic of the space $`\chi (N_2)`$ is equal to the number of separating graphs.

###### Proof.

If one of the degrees $`i_j`$ is equal to zero, then $`\chi (N_2)=0`$ by the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 9.1.

Let all degrees $`i_j`$ be non-zero. Then we associate a separating graph to each decorated function $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})N_2`$ s. t. $`E=\{i,i\}`$, $`D_{\pm i}=\{z||zi|1/2\}`$ and all critical values of $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ are in the disks $`D_{\pm i}`$.

We choose an arbitrary function $`(P,\tau ,f)`$ that defines an equvalence class of $`(P,\tau ,f,E,\{D_e\})`$. Let $`P_1`$ be the connected component of the complement $`PP^\tau `$ that we used to define the topological type $`(g,k,1|I)`$. We cut out along ovals the other part of the curve $`P`$. Then we glue all holes in $`P_1`$ using disk coverings of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$. Thus we obtain a meromorphic function, now not a real one. Denote by $`P_1^{}`$ the surface that we obtain.

To each connected component of $`f^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })P_1`$ ($`f^1(\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))P_1`$) we associate a white (black) vertex with the value of $`\zeta _V`$ equals to the genus of the component. Root vertexes we obtain from the glueing disks. To each component of $`f^1(\widehat{})P_1`$ we associate an edge with the value of $`\zeta _E`$ equals to the number of sheets of the covering of the contour $`\widehat{}`$ by this component. An edge outgoes from the vertex, iff the corresponding components of the surface $`P_1^{}`$ are bounded. Root edges and the isomorphism $`\zeta _R`$ we obtain from the tracks of oval on $`P_1^{}`$.

It’s easy to see that the graph we have build is separating.

###### Lemma 10.1.

To non-equvalent decorated functions we associate non-equivalent separating graphs. Each separating graph can be obtained as the graph of a function.

###### Proof.

The first statement is a corollary of Lemma 9.2. The second statement one can prove by direct constructon. ∎

Now we prove the third statement of the Theorem. From Lemma 10.1 it follow, that the number of functions discribed in Corollary 6.1 is equal to the number of separating graphs. Hence the Euler characteristic of the space $`N_2`$ is equal to the number of separating graphs.

If $`|_{j=1}^ki_j|=n`$, then it’s easy to see that there is a unique separating graph. ∎

### 10.2. The topological type admits extension

Denote by $`N_3`$ the compactification $`N(g,n,1|I,\xi )`$, $`I=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)`$.

###### Theorem 10.2.

If one of the degrees $`i_j`$ is equal to zero, then $`\chi (N_3)=0`$. In any other case $`\chi (N_3)=1`$.

###### Proof.

If one of the degrees $`i_j`$ is equal to zero, then $`\chi (N_3)=0`$ by the same arguments as in the proof of Theorem 9.1. In any other case we just must show, that there is a unique decorated function in $`N_3=N(g,k,1|I,\xi )`$ satisfying conditions of Corollary 6.1.

Consider a function $`(P,\tau ,f)H(g,k,1|I,\xi )`$. Suppose that it has no critical values on the contour $`\widehat{}`$. Let $`P_1`$ be the component of the complement $`PP^\tau `$, that we used to define the topological type $`(g,k,1|I,\xi )`$.

###### Lemma 10.2.

$`f^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })P_1`$ and $`f^1(\eta (\mathrm{\Lambda }))P_1`$ are connected surfaces.

Is lemma is proved in  as a little bit different statement.

From Lemmas 9.2 and 10.2 it follows, that there is a unique function in $`N_3=N(g,k,1|I,\xi )`$ satisfying conditions of Corollary 6.1. ∎

### 10.3. Example

We apply Theorem 10.1 to our usual example, the space $`N(0,2,1|(2))`$. It’s easy to see, that the separating graph is exactly one: $`V=\{v_0,v_1\}`$, $`V_w=\{v_1\}`$, $`V^r=V_b=\{v_0\}`$, $`E=E^r=\{(v_0,v_1)\}`$, $`\zeta _V0`$.

Independent University of Moscow
Bolshoi Vlasjevskii pereulok 11,
Moscow 121002, Russia

e-mail: shadrin@mccme.ru