text:
# Thompson’s group 𝐹 is not almost convex

## 1. Introduction

Cannon  introduced the notion of almost convexity for a group $`G`$ with respect to a finite generating set $`X`$. This finite generating set $`X`$ determines a word metric $`d_X`$ for $`G`$ and its Cayley graph. $`G`$ is almost convex $`(k)`$ or $`AC(k)`$ with respect to $`X`$ if there is a number $`N(k)`$ so that for all positive integers $`n`$, given two elements $`y`$ and $`z`$ in the ball $`B(n)`$ of radius $`n`$ with $`d_X(y,z)k`$, there is a path $`\gamma `$ from $`y`$ to $`z`$ of length at most $`N(k)`$ which lies entirely in $`B(n)`$. Cannon showed that if a group $`G`$ is $`AC(2)`$ with respect to a finite generating set then $`G`$ is $`AC(k)`$ for $`k2`$ and thus a group satisfying $`AC(2)`$ is called almost convex. Almost convexity allows algorithmic construction of $`B(n+1)`$ from $`B(n)`$ by making it sufficient to consider only a finite set of possible ways that an element in $`B(n+1)`$ can be obtained from different elements of $`B(n)`$.

A number of families of groups have been shown to be almost convex. Cannon  showed that hyperbolic groups are almost convex and that amalgamated products of almost convex groups are almost convex. Stein and Shapiro  showed that fundamental groups of closed three manifolds whose geometry is not modelled on $`Sol`$ are almost convex. Other families of groups have been shown not to be almost convex. Cannon, Floyd, Grayson and Thurston  showed that fundamental groups of manifolds with $`Sol`$ geometry  are not almost convex, and Miller and Shapiro showed that the solvable Baumslag-Solitar groups $`BS(1,n)`$  are not almost convex. Unfortunately, the property of almost convexity can depend upon presentation. Thiel  showed that generalized Heisenberg groups are not almost convex with respect to their standard presentations, but are almost convex with respect to some alternate presentations.

Although Thompson’s group $`F`$ has been studied extensively in many branches of mathematics, the metric properties of $`F`$ were poorly-understood until recently. Burillo  and Burrilo, Cleary and Stein  developed estimates for measuring distance in $`F`$, and Fordham  developed a remarkable method for computing distance in $`F`$.

We prove below that $`F`$ does not satisfy Cannon’s $`AC(2)`$ property in its standard finite generating set, and thus is not almost convex with respect to that generating set.

Thompson’s group $`F`$ has a number of different manifestations. Originally discovered in logic as the group of automorphisms of a free algebra by Thompson , $`F`$ also has connections with homotopy theory developed by Freyd and Heller , groups of homeomorphisms of the interval studied by Brin and Squier  and Brown and Geoghegan  and diagram groups defined by Guba and Sapir . Cannon, Floyd and Parry  give an introduction and summarize many of the remarkable properties of $`F`$.

Thompson’s group $`F`$ has the infinite presentation $`𝒫`$ given by

$$𝒫=x_k,k0|x_i^1x_jx_i=x_{j+1}\text{ if }i<j.$$

We can see that the lower index generators conjugate the higher-index generators by incrementing their indices. Since $`x_0`$ conjugates $`x_1`$ to $`x_2`$ and successively to all higher index generators, it is clear that $`F`$ is finitely generated. In fact, all of the infinitely many relators in $`𝒫`$ are consequences of a basic set of two relators. Thus, there is the following standard finite presentation $``$ for $`F`$:

$$=x_0,x_1|[x_0x_1^1,x_0^1x_1x_0],[x_0x_1^1,x_0^2x_1x_0^2].$$

We prove the following theorem:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Thompson’s group $`F`$ does not satisfy Cannon’s almost convexity condition $`AC(2)`$ in the finite presentation $``$.

We immediately obtain the corollary:

###### Corollary 1.2.

Thompson’s group $`F`$ does not satisfy Cannon’s almost convexity condition $`AC(n)`$ for any positive integer $`n>2`$ in the finite presentation $``$.

## 2. Background on $`F`$

Analytically, we define $`F`$ as the group of orientation-preserving piecewise-linear homeomorphisms from $`[0,1]`$ to itself where each homeomorphism has only finitely many singularities of slope, all such singularities lie in the dyadic rationals $`𝐙[\frac{1}{2}]`$, and, away from the singularities, the slopes are powers of $`2`$.

Combinatorially, $`F`$ has the infinite and finite presentations given above. There is a convenient set of normal forms for elements of $`F`$ in the infinite presentation $`𝒫`$ given by $`x_{i_1}^{r_1}x_{i_2}^{r_2}\mathrm{}x_{i_k}^{r_k}x_{j_l}^{s_l}\mathrm{}x_{j_2}^{s_2}x_{j_1}^{s_1}`$ with $`r_i,s_i>0`$, $`i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_k`$ and $`j_1<j_2\mathrm{}<j_l`$. This normal form is unique if we further require that when both $`x_i`$ and $`x_i^1`$ occur, so does $`x_{i+1}`$ or $`x_{i+1}^1`$, as discussed by Brown and Geoghegan . In what follows, when we refer to a word in normal form, we always mean the unique normal form.

The geometric description of $`F`$ is in terms of tree pair diagrams. A tree pair diagram is a pair of rooted binary trees with the same number of leaves, as described in . We number the leaves of each tree from left to right, beginning with 0. We refer to an interior node together with the two downward-directed edges from the node as a caret. We define the right (respectively left) child of a caret $`C`$ to be the caret $`C_R`$ (respectively $`C_L`$) which is attached to the right (left) downward edge of caret $`C`$.

Each tree in a tree pair can be regarded as a set of instructions for successive subdivision of the unit interval: the root caret subdivides the interval in half, a right child of the root subdivides $`[\frac{1}{2},1]`$ in half, and so on. This gives a correspondence between elements of $`F`$ in the geometric description and the analytic description as follows. Let $`(T_{},T_+)`$ be a pair of trees each with $`n`$ leaves. Each tree determines a subdivision of $`[0,1]`$ into $`n`$ subintervals. The tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$ corresponds to the piecewise linear homomorphism which maps the subintervals of the $`T_{}`$ subdivision to the subintervals of the $`T_+`$ subdivision, in order. This equivalence and the group operation are described in . We refer to $`T_{}`$ as the negative tree and $`T_+`$ as the positive tree of the pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$.

A tree pair diagram is unreduced if each of $`T_{}`$ and $`T_+`$ contain a caret with leaves numbered $`m`$ and $`m+1`$, and it is reduced otherwise. Note that there are many tree pair diagrams representing the same element of $`F`$ but there is a unique reduced tree pair diagram for each element of $`F`$. When we write $`(T_{},T_+)`$ to represent an element of $`F`$, we are assuming that the tree pair is reduced.

If $`x=(T_{},T_+)`$ is a reduced pair of trees representing $`x`$, the normal form for $`x`$ can be constructed by the following process, described in . Beginning with the tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$, we number the leaves of $`T_{}`$ and $`T_+`$ from left to right, beginning with $`0`$. The exponent of the leaf labelled $`n`$, written $`E(n)`$, is defined as the length of the maximal path consisting entirely of left edges from $`n`$ which does not reach the right side of the tree. Note that $`E(n)=0`$ for a leaf labelled $`n`$ which is a right child of a caret, as there is no path consisting entirely of left edges originating from $`n`$.

We compute $`E(n)`$ for all leaves in $`T_{}`$, numbered $`0`$ through $`m`$. The negative part of the normal form for $`x`$ is then $`x_m^{E(m)}x_{m1}^{E(m1)}\mathrm{}x_1^{E(1)}x_0^{E(0)}`$. We compute the exponents for the leaves of the positive tree and thus obtain the positive part of the normal form as $`x_0^{E(0)}x_1^{E(1)}\mathrm{}x_m^{E(m)}`$. Many of the exponents may be $`0`$, and after deleting these, we can index the remaining terms to correspond to the normal form given above, as detailed in .

In the tree pair diagram in Figure 1, the exponent $`E(0)`$ of the leaf labelled $`0`$ of $`T_{}`$ is 2 since there is a path of two left edges from leaf 0 which does not reach the right hand side of the tree. The third left edge emanating from leaf 0 touches the right-hand side of the tree and thus does not contribute to the exponent. The exponents of all the leaves of $`T_{}`$ are, in order, $`2,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,0,0`$, and the exponents of the leaves of $`T_+`$ are, in order, $`2,1,1,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0`$. Using these exponents, and omitting any which are $`0`$, we see that the tree pair diagram of Figure 1 represents the word $`x_0^2x_1x_2x_4x_5x_7x_8x_9^1x_7^1x_3^1x_2^1x_0^2`$, in normal form.

If $`R`$ is a caret on the right side side of the tree with a single left leaf labelled $`k`$, then $`E(k)=0`$ by definition. Thus, right carets with no left subtrees can be added to the rightmost carets of either $`T_{}`$ or $`T_+`$ without affecting the normal form to ensure that both trees have the same number of carets.

Similarly, given an element $`x`$ in normal form with respect to the infinite generating set, it is possible to construct a tree pair diagram ($`T_{},T_+`$) so that each leaf has the correct exponent. In particular, the number of left edges of $`T_{}`$ emanating from the root caret is one more than the exponent of $`x_0^1`$ in the normal form and the number of left edges of $`T_+`$ emanating from the root caret is one more than the exponent of $`x_0`$ in the normal form for $`x`$.

The processes described above relate the normal form of words in $`F`$ in the infinite presentation $`𝒫`$ to the tree pair representation. For many questions involving the geometry of $`F`$, we must consider the length of words in $`F`$ with respect to a metric arising from a finite generating set. Burillo  presented a way of estimating the word length $`|x|_{}`$ in the finite generating set $``$ from the normal form, which was refined by Burillo, Cleary and Stein in .

###### Theorem 2.1 (Burillo , Prop. 2 ; Burillo, Cleary and Stein , Theorem 1).

Let $`wF`$ have normal form $`w=x_{i_1}^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1}`$, and let $`D(w)=r_1+r_2+\mathrm{}+r_n+s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_m+i_n+j_m`$. Then

$$\frac{D(w)}{3}|x|_{}3D(w).$$

Burillo, Cleary and Stein  also estimated of the length $`|x|_{}`$ of a word $`x`$ given by a tree pair diagram in terms of the number of carets $`N(x)`$ in either tree.

### 2.1. Fordham’s method of calculating word length

Fordham  presents a method of calculating the exact word length in $`F`$ given a reduced pair of trees representing an element $`xF`$. We make some preliminary definitions before explaining Fordham’s technique.

Let $`T`$ be a finite rooted binary tree. The left side of $`T`$ is the maximal path of left edges beginning at the root of $`T`$. Similarly, we have the right side of $`T`$. A caret in $`T`$ is a left caret if its left edge is on the left side of the tree, a right caret if it is not the root and its right edge is on the right side of the tree, and an interior caret otherwise. The carets in $`T`$ are numbered according to the infix ordering of nodes. We begin numbering with leaf $`0`$ as the leftmost leaf and caret $`0`$ the left caret whose left child is leaf $`0`$. We number the left children of a caret before the caret itself, and number the right children after numbering the caret. The trees in Figure 1 have their carets numbered according to this method.

Fordham classifies carets into seven disjoint types:

1. $`L_0`$. The first caret on the left side of the tree, with caret number $`0`$. Every tree has exactly one caret of type $`L_0`$.
2. $`L_L`$. Any left caret other than the one numbered $`0`$.
3. $`I_0`$. An interior caret which has no right child.
4. $`I_R`$. An interior caret which has a right child.
5. $`R_I`$. Any right caret numbered $`k`$ with the property that caret $`k+1`$ is an interior caret.
6. $`R_{NI}`$. A right caret which is not an $`R_I`$ but for which there is a higher numbered interior caret.
7. $`R_0`$. A right caret with no higher-numbered interior carets.

The root caret is always considered to be a left caret of type $`L_L`$ unless it has no left children, in which case it is the $`L_0`$ caret.

Working from caret 0 to caret 10, in infix order, in the tree $`T_{}`$ from Figure 1, we see that the carets are of types

$$L_0,L_L,I_R,I_0,L_L,R_{NI},R_I,I_0,R_I,I_0\text{ and }R_0.$$

The carets in the tree $`T_+`$ of Figure 1, in infix order, are of types

$$L_0,I_R,I_0,L_L,I_R,I_0,L_L,I_R,I_0,R_0\text{ and }R_0.$$

The main result of Fordham  is that the word length $`|x|_F`$ of $`x=(T_{},T_+)`$ can be computed from knowing the caret types of the carets in the two trees, as long as they form a reduced pair, via the following process. We number the $`k+1`$ carets according to the infix method described above, and for each $`i`$ with $`0ik`$ we form the pair of caret types consisting of the type of caret number $`i`$ in $`T_{}`$ and the type of caret number $`i`$ in $`T_+`$. The single caret of type $`L_0`$ in $`T_{}`$ will be paired with the single caret of type $`L_0`$ in $`T_+`$, and for that pairing we assign a weight of 0. For all other caret pairings, we assign weights according to the following symmetric table:

|  | $`R_0`$ | $`R_{NI}`$ | $`R_I`$ | $`L_L`$ | $`I_0`$ | $`I_R`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`R_0`$ | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| $`R_{NI}`$ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| $`R_I`$ | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| $`L_L`$ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| $`I_0`$ | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| $`I_R`$ | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 |

Fordham’s remarkable result is that the sum of these weights is exactly the length of the word in the word metric arising from the finite generating set.

###### Theorem 2.2 (Fordham , Theorem 2.5.1).

Given a word $`wF`$ described by the reduced tree pair diagram $`(T_{},T_+)`$, the length $`|w|_{}`$ of the word with respect to the generating set $``$ is the sum of the weights of the caret pairings in $`(T_{},T_+)`$.

Considering the word $`w`$ in Figure 1, we see that the carets numbered zero have type pairing $`(L_0,L_0)`$, which has weight $`0`$. The carets numbered $`1`$ have types $`(L_L,I_R)`$ which contributes 2 to the weight of the word. The total weight of the word is easily computed to be 0+2+4+2+2+1+1+4+3+1+0=20. Thus, the length of $`w`$ in the word metric $`|w|_{}`$ is $`20`$.

The proofs in §4 rely heavily on this technique of Fordham. Namely, we use the fact that we can apply a generator to a given word, whose length we know, and the change in caret types, which is easily seen, exactly determines the change in word length.

### 2.2. Action of the generators on an element of $`F`$

We begin with a lemma from Fordham  which states under fairly broad conditions, that when applying a generator to a tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$ exactly one pair of caret types will change. In §3, we construct a special family of elements which will provide the counterexamples to almost convexity for $`F`$. These elements are constructed to satisfy the conditions of the lemma below.

###### Lemma 2.3 (Fordham , Lemma 2.3.1).

Let $`(T_{},T_+)`$ be a reduced pair of trees, each having $`m+1`$ carets, representing an element $`x`$, and $`\alpha `$ any generator of $``$.

1. If $`\alpha =x_0`$, we require that the left subtree of the root of $`T_{}`$ is nonempty.
2. If $`\alpha =x_0^1`$, we require that the right subtree of the root of $`T_{}`$ is nonempty.
3. If $`\alpha =x_1`$, we require that the left subtree of the right child of the root of $`T_{}`$ is nonempty.
4. If $`\alpha =x_1^1`$, we require that the right subtree of the right child of the root of $`T_{}`$ is nonempty.

If the reduced tree pair diagram for $`x\alpha `$ also has $`m+1`$ carets, then there is exactly one $`i`$ with $`0im`$ so that the pair of caret types of caret $`i`$ changes when $`\alpha `$ is applied to $`x`$.

We now begin to understand geometrically the action of a generator of $``$ on a reduced tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$, and the corresponding change in normal form. We will generally assume that the conditions of lemma 2.3 are met by the generic elements with which we begin.

Let $`C_R`$ denote the caret which is the right child of the root caret $`R`$ of $`T_{}`$, and $`C_{RR}`$ and $`C_{RL}`$ the right and left carets, respectively, of $`C_R`$. Similarly, let $`C_L`$ denote the left child of the root caret of $`T_{}`$, and $`C_{LL}`$ and $`C_{LR}`$ its left and right children. Figures $`2,3`$ and $`4`$ will be useful in understanding the geometric interpretation of the action of the generators on an element of $`F`$. In all of these figures, the letters $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ represent (possibly empty) subtrees of the given tree.

We first understand the action of the generator $`x_0^1`$ on a tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$ representing an element $`wF`$. Consider $`w`$ written in normal form as $`w=x_{i_1}^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1}`$. Then the element $`wx_0^1`$ is still in normal form (unless we are in the degenerate case where $`x=x_0^m`$.) Recall from §2 that the exponent of $`x_0^1`$ in the normal form is one less than the number of left edges of the tree $`T_{}`$. Thus, increasing the exponent of $`x_0^1`$ by $`1`$ adds a left edge to $`T_{}`$.

The numbering of the leaves and carets after this new edge is added must remain the same, since the normal form (and hence the exponents of the leaves) changes in a single place. Thus, with the extra edge in $`T_{}`$, $`C_R`$ becomes the new root caret. The left subtree $`C_{RL}`$ of $`C_R`$, which contains carets with smaller numbers than $`C_R`$, must become the right subtree of the old root caret, which is now at position formerly occupied by $`C_L`$. The left caret $`C_L`$ is moved down and to the left and remains a left caret, now in the position formerly occupied by $`C_{LL}`$ and so on. This tree transformation is also called a counterclockwise rotation or left rotation based at the root. Figure 2 shows the negative trees $`T_{}`$ for the elements $`w`$ and $`wx_0^1`$ and illustrates a counterclockwise rotation based at the root.

When we consider the action of $`x_0`$ on $`w=(T_{},T_+)`$, we can assume, according to lemma 2.3, that $`T_{}`$ has at least two left edges, equivalently, that the exponent of $`x_0^1`$ in the normal form of $`w`$ is at least $`1`$. Applying the generator $`x_0`$ cancels one $`x_0^1`$ in the normal form. This corresponds to the tree $`T_{}`$ losing a left edge, and thus the caret $`C_L`$ becomes the root caret and the former root caret $`R`$ moves to the position of $`C_R`$. The initial right subtree $`C_{LR}`$ of $`C_L`$ becomes the left subtree of $`R`$ in order to preserve the numbering of the carets. This is a clockwise (or right) rotation based at the root of $`T_{}`$ and is illustrated in Figure 3 .

It is more difficult to visually understand the action of $`x_1`$ and $`x_1^1`$ on the pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$ corresponding to $`w`$, as it is more difficult to see how these generators change the normal form. Using the terminology given above, the following lemmas show that the generators $`x_1`$ and $`x_1^1`$ perform counterclockwise and clockwise rotations around the node $`C_R`$.

We begin with a lemma relating the action of $`x_1^1`$ on $`(T_{},T_+)`$ to the normal form of the corresponding element $`w`$.

###### Lemma 2.4 (The normal form of $`wx_1^1`$).

Let $`wF`$ be represented by the tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$, and have normal form $`x_1^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1}`$. Then $`wx_1^1`$ has normal form

(1)
$$x_{i_1}^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_{q+1}}^{s_{q+1}}x_\alpha ^1x_{j_q}^{s_q}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1},$$

where we might have $`\alpha =j_{q+1}`$. If the root of $`T_{}`$ has right and left subtrees $`T_R`$ and $`T_L`$ respectively, then $`\alpha `$ is smallest leaf number in $`T_R`$.

###### Proof.

We consider the proof in two cases. In the first case, if $`j_10`$ then $`\alpha =1`$ and the expression $`x_1^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1}x_1^1`$ is in normal form. In this case, $`T_{}`$ has a single left edge, with leaf labelled $`0`$, and the first left leaf of the first right subtree will be labelled $`1`$.

In the second case we assume that $`j_1=0`$. Then the relators in $`𝒫`$ imply that $`\alpha =1+s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_l`$, where $`l`$ is the first index satisfying $`j_{l+1}1+s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_l`$. It remains to show that this is the label of the leftmost leaf of the first right subtree of $`T_{}`$.

Let $`T_L`$ and $`T_R`$ be the left and right subtrees of the root caret of $`T_{}`$. We consider the number of interior carets in $`T_L`$. If $`T_L`$ is empty, then we are in the first case discussed above.

If $`T_L`$ has no interior carets, but is not empty, then the number of left edges in $`T_L`$ is $`n`$, for some $`n`$, and thus the last leaf number in $`T_L`$ is $`n`$ as well. So the first leaf number in $`T_R`$ is $`n+1`$. Given this form of $`T_{}`$, we see that the normal form of $`x`$ must end with $`x_{j_2}^{s_2}x_0^n`$ where $`j_2n+1`$. Thus, using the relators to put $`x_1^1`$ into its proper position in the normal form, we see that it becomes $`x_{1+n}^1`$, agreeing with the statement of the lemma.

If $`T_L`$ has a single interior caret, then the total number of left edges of $`T_L`$ is $`n+1`$, where $`n`$ again represents the length of the left side of $`T_L`$. The interior caret also adds an additional leaf, and thus the highest numbered leaf of $`T_L`$ is $`n+1`$. We know that $`x_1^1`$ becomes $`x_{n+1}^1`$ when it is moved left past the $`x_0^n`$. However, $`n+1`$ is now the highest numbered leaf in $`T_L`$. The extra left leaf added by the single interior caret corresponds to a letter in the normal form of $`x`$ whose index is smaller than $`n+1`$, thus when the $`x_{n+1}^1`$ is moved left past this letter, it becomes an $`x_{n+2}^1`$. Since there are no other interior carets in $`T_L`$, the next possible index of a letter in the normal form of $`x`$ is $`n+2`$. Thus $`x_{n+2}^1`$ is now in place in the normal form, so $`\alpha =n+2`$, and $`n+2`$ is the first leaf number of $`T_R`$, as required.

If $`T_L`$ has two interior carets, then there are $`n+2`$ left edges in $`T_L`$ and the highest leaf number in $`T_L`$ is $`n+2`$. Moving left past $`x_0^n`$, the $`x_1^1`$ first becomes $`x_{n+1}^1`$, as in the previous case. Again, we see that $`n+1`$ is a leaf number in $`T_L`$. Then, since there is a single leaf numbered higher than $`n+1`$, the are not enough leaves to have the remaining two carets have leaves numbered higher than $`n+1`$. So the first interior caret must have a leaf with a lower number than $`n+1`$, corresponding to a letter in the normal form of $`x`$ with index smaller than $`n+1`$. Thus $`x_{n+1}^1`$ must be moved left past this element as well, making it $`x_{n+2}^1`$. Now, $`n+2`$ is the highest leaf number in $`T_L`$, so the second interior caret must again appear before leaf number $`n+2`$; that is, it corresponds to a letter in the normal form of $`x`$ with index smaller than $`n+2`$. Moving the $`x_{n+2}^1`$ past left this letter, we get $`x_{n+3}^1`$. Since there are no more interior carets in $`T_L`$, there are no other letters in the normal form with index less than $`n+3`$, so we must have $`x_{n+3}^1`$ in its place in the normal form. Again, we see that $`n+3`$ is the first leaf number in $`T_R`$.

In summary, each additional interior caret adds a letter to the normal form with smaller index than $`n+1`$; thus the $`x_1^1`$ must be moved left past these letters to obtain the normal form. We can continue this method to apply to an arbitrary number of interior carets in $`T_L`$, proving the lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 2.5 (The normal form of $`wx_1`$).

Let $`w`$ satisfy the conditions of lemma 2.3 and have normal form $`x_1^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1}`$. Then $`wx_1`$ has normal form:

(2)
$$x_1^{r_1}\mathrm{}x_{i_n}^{r_n}x_{j_m}^{s_m}\mathrm{}x_{j_l}^{(s_l1)}\mathrm{}x_{j_1}^{s_1},$$

for some index $`j_l`$, in which case $`j_l`$ is the smallest leaf number in the right subtree of $`T_{}`$.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of lemma 2.4, we use the relators of $`𝒫`$ to move $`x_1`$ to the generator $`x_\alpha `$ where $`\alpha =1+s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_l`$, and $`l`$ is the first index satisfying the inequality $`j_{l+1}1+s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_l`$, or $`\alpha =1+s_1+s_2+\mathrm{}+s_m`$. From the proof of lemma 2.4 we again know that $`\alpha `$ is the number of the leftmost leaf of the first right subtree of $`T_{}`$.

According to lemma 2.3, the left subtree of $`C_L`$ is nonempty, so there is a leaf labelled $`\alpha `$ with exponent at least $`2`$, i.e. there is an index $`j_k=\alpha `$ in the normal form of $`w`$. Thus the exponent of $`x_{j_k}`$ decreases by $`1`$ because the $`x_\alpha `$ cancels one $`x_{j_k}^1`$ letter giving the normal form (2).

###### Lemma 2.6 (The action of $`x_1^1`$ on $`T_{}`$).

The generator $`x_1^1`$ when applied to an element $`w`$ of $`F`$ represented by a tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$ which satisfies the conditions of lemma 2.3 leaves $`T_+`$ unchanged, and affects $`T_{}`$ as follows: $`C_{RR}`$ becomes the right child of the root caret, and $`C_R`$ becomes the left child of $`C_{RR}`$. All other carets remain unchanged.

###### Proof.

Let $`\alpha `$ be the number of the leftmost leaf in the right subtree of the root of $`T_{}`$. It follows from lemma 2.5 that the exponent of $`x_\alpha `$ in the normal form of $`x`$ is increased by $`1`$; that is, the exponent $`E(\alpha )`$ of the leaf $`\alpha `$ is increased by $`1`$, which means there is one more left edge emanating from $`C_R`$ in $`T_{}`$ and terminating at $`\alpha `$. Since the numbering of the carets is preserved, because the normal form changes in a single letter, and begins at the far left of the right subtree of the root caret, we see that $`C_R`$ is now an interior caret. To preserve the numbering of the leaves and carets, the left subtree of $`C_{RR}`$ must become the right subtree of $`C_R`$, because these carets are numbered higher than $`C_R`$ but lower than $`C_{RR}`$. This leaves $`C_{RR}`$ as the right child of the root caret. All remaining subtrees are left unchanged. ∎

###### Lemma 2.7 (The action of $`x_1`$ on $`T_{}`$).

The generator $`x_1`$ when applied to an element $`wF`$ represented by a tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$ satisfying the conditions of lemma 2.3 leaves $`T_+`$ unchanged, and in $`T_{}`$, causes $`C_{RL}`$ to become the right child of the root and $`C_R`$ to become the right child of $`C_{RL}`$. All other carets remain unchanged.

###### Proof.

The normal form of $`wx_1`$ is of the form (2) given in lemma 2.5. From lemma 2.4 we know that the index $`j_l`$ is the number of the leftmost leaf in the left subtree of $`C_R`$ in $`T_{}`$. From the change in normal form we see that the exponent of $`x_{j_l}`$ decreases by $`1`$ and thus in $`T_{}`$ the exponent $`E(j_l)`$ decreases by $`1`$. Thus, there is one fewer left edge emanating from $`C_R`$ ending in the leaf numbered $`j_l`$. Accordingly, the right subtree of $`C_{RL}`$ is moved to the right side of $`T_{}`$, without changing the numbering of the carets. Thus $`C_{RL}`$ is now the right child of the root, and $`C_R`$ is the left child of $`C_{RL}`$.

Notice that in all of the descriptions above, the tree $`T_+`$ is not affected by the action of a generator. This is not true in general for reduced tree pair diagrams not satisfying the conditions of lemma 2.3. In general, $`T_+`$ can be affected in exactly three ways:

1. when $`T_{}`$ has a single left edge, and the generator is $`x_0`$,
2. when the left subtree of $`C_R`$ of $`T_{}`$ is empty, and the generator is $`x_1`$, or
3. if the generator is $`\alpha `$ and the pair of trees corresponding to $`x\alpha `$ is not reduced.

We choose the family of words which will provide the counterexamples to almost convexity so that the conditions of lemma 2.3 are always satisfied.

## 3. A special family of elements

We define a family $`𝒞(k)`$, with integral $`k2`$, of elements of $`F`$ which we will use to prove that $`F`$ is not $`AC(2)`$, and thus not $`AC(n)`$. We first define what the negative tree $`T_{}`$ of an element $`w𝒞(k)`$ must be, and then define the positive tree $`T_+`$ so that the $`w`$ is given by the reduced tree pair $`(T_{},T_+)`$.

Let $`T_k`$ be the balanced rooted binary tree with $`2^k`$ leaves; that is, the tree with every node on the first $`k`$ levels having two children, as in Figure 6.

For $`w=(T_{},T_+)`$ in the family $`𝒞(k)`$, we define $`T_{}`$ to be the tree $`T_{4k}`$. Note that this is a very bushy tree, and has at least $`2k`$ carets on the left side. Each of these left carets has a right subtree which is a complete tree with at least $`k+2`$ levels. Similarly, $`T_{}`$ has at least $`2k`$ right carets, each of which has a left subtree which is a complete tree with at least $`k+2`$ levels. There are a total of $`2^{4k}`$ leaves.

We construct the positive tree $`T_+`$ to have almost all carets of type $`L_L`$ and $`R_{NI}`$, paired in a particular way with with carets of $`T_{}`$. Let $`r=2^{k1}+2^{k2}1`$ be the caret number of the first caret on the right side of $`T_{}`$. Now let the tree $`T_+`$ correspond to the word $`x_0^{r2}x_1x_s`$, where $`s`$ is $`2^{4k}3`$. Then $`T_+`$ will have $`2^{4k}`$ leaves, the same number as in $`T_{}`$.

We now check that with these definitions, $`(T_{},T_+)`$ forms a reduced tree pair diagram. As pictured in Figure 7, there are only two carets in $`T_+`$ with two leaves: one with leaves numbered $`1`$ and $`2`$, and the other with leaves numbered $`s=2^{4k}3`$ and $`s+1=2^{4k}2`$. In $`T_{}`$, it is easy to see that because it is a complete tree, caret number $`0`$ has leaves numbered $`0`$ and $`1`$. Also in $`T_{}`$, the highest numbered caret has leaves numbered $`s+1`$ and $`s+2`$. Thus, no reduction of carets occurs, and $`(T_{},T_+)`$ is a reduced tree pair diagram.

In §2.2 above, the action of the generators of $`F`$ on a generic element is discussed. We now describe the action of a generator on an element $`w`$ of $`𝒞(k)`$, and more generally, the action of a sequence of generators on $`w`$. Let $`\eta `$ be a word in the generators of $`F`$ which has length strictly less than $`k`$, and let $`w=(T_{},T_+)𝒞(k)`$. We want to make sure that $`w\eta `$ still satisfies the conditions of lemma 2.3. Because $`\eta `$ is not longer than $`k`$, it can only affect a limited number of carets near the root of $`T_{}`$. For example, if $`\eta `$ is a power of $`x_1`$, then each application of $`x_1`$ will rotate at the right child $`C_R`$ of the root. The left subtree of $`C_R`$ is, by construction, a complete tree with at least $`k+2`$ levels. Thus, after performing $`k`$ clockwise rotations at the right child of the root, the resulting tree still satisfies the conditions of lemma 2.3.

More generally, no matter what the sequence of generators in $`\eta `$ is, the composition of rotations that $`\eta `$ performs on $`T_{}`$ affects carets only within distance $`k`$ of the root. Because of the fullness of the subtrees near the root of $`T_{}`$, the resulting tree will still have carets in the appropriate locations to satisfy the conditions of lemma 2.3. Because the exposed carets in $`T_+`$ are so far away from the root, we know that no reductions can happen during the course of applying $`\eta `$ to $`w`$. Thus, lemma 2.3 guarantees that only one caret is affected by each application of the generator,

In the following chart we summarize the possible change in word length when a generator of $``$ acts on an element $`w\eta `$ with $`|\eta |<k`$ and $`w𝒞(k)`$. The positive tree $`T_+`$ has been chosen carefully so that a caret in $`w\eta `$ affected by a generator is paired with one of only two possible types of carets in $`T_+`$, an $`L_L`$ or an $`R_{NI}`$.

| Generator | Original | New | Change in word | Change in word |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | caret | caret | length when paired | length when paired |
|  | type | type | with $`L_L`$ | with $`R_{NI}`$ |
| $`x_0`$ | $`L_L`$ | $`R_I`$ | -1 | 1 |
| $`x_0^1`$ | $`R_I`$ | $`L_L`$ | 1 | -1 |
| $`x_1`$ | $`I_R`$ | $`R_I`$ | -1 | -1 |
| $`x_1^1`$ | $`R_I`$ | $`I_R`$ | 1 | 1 |

We see immediately from this chart that $`x_0`$ and $`x_0^1`$ will reduce the word length of $`w𝒞(k)`$ because of the caret pairings in $`w`$. It is also true from the chart that $`x_1`$ will reduce the length of the original word $`w`$. The two elements we will consider to contradict almost convexity will be $`wx_0`$ and $`wx_0^1`$ for $`w𝒞(k)`$. If the length $`|w|=n+1`$, then the length of $`wx_0^1`$ and $`wx_0`$ will each be $`n`$. Furthermore, those two elements are distance 2 apart since there is an obvious path from $`wx_0`$ to $`w`$ to $`wx_0^1`$ of length 2. That path, however, does not lie in the ball of radius $`n`$. In the proof of theorem 1.1, we will show that there is no short path from $`wx_0`$ to $`wx_0^1`$ which lies in the ball of radius $`n`$.

## 4. Almost convexity and $`F`$

We now prove that $`F`$ does not satisfy Cannon’s $`AC(2)`$ condition, and obtain as a corollary that $`F`$ does not satisfy $`AC(n)`$ for any integral $`n2`$.

The idea of the proof of theorem 1.1 is the following. Assuming $`F`$ satisfies the $`AC(2)`$ condition, we would obtain a constant $`k`$ so that any two points in $`B(n)`$ at distance $`2`$ from each other would be connected by a path of length at most $`k`$ which remains in $`B(n)`$. Using this constant $`k`$, consider a point $`w=(T_{},T_+)𝒞(k+2)`$. The points $`wx_0`$ and $`wx_0^1`$ are both in $`B(n)`$ for $`n=|w|1`$ and are distance two apart. Thus, there would be a path $`\gamma `$ of length at most $`k`$ connecting them. We assume this path is oriented to go from $`wx_0`$ to $`wx_0^1`$ and we follow the position of the root caret $`R`$ of $`T_{}`$ as it moves under the letters in the path $`\gamma `$. We know that in $`wx_0`$ the caret $`R`$ has moved to the right side of the new negative tree. The main lemma to the proof of this theorem says that if at any time along the path $`\gamma `$ the caret $`R`$ becomes a left or an interior caret, then the path $`\gamma `$ leaves $`B(n)`$ at that point.

Let $`\gamma ^{}=x_0\gamma x_0`$ denote the loop based at $`w`$. The contradiction to almost convexity arises from the following: Since the word $`wx_0`$ has $`R`$ as the right child of the root, and the word $`wx_0^1`$ has $`R`$ as the left child of the root, the final $`x_0`$ in the path $`\gamma ^{}`$ would return $`R`$ to the root position from the left. Thus, at some point along $`\gamma `$, the caret $`R`$ would have changed from a right caret to a left or interior caret and at that point, the path $`\gamma `$ would have left the ball $`B(n)`$.

We begin with the proof of the necessary lemma.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`w=(T_{},T_+)𝒞(k)`$ with $`|w|=n+1`$, and $`\gamma ^{}=x_0^m\gamma ^{\prime \prime }x_0`$ be a loop based at $`w`$ of length at most $`k`$, with $`m`$ maximal. Let $`R`$ be the root caret of $`T_{}`$, and $`\eta `$ the shortest prefix of $`\gamma ^{\prime \prime }`$ so that in $`wx_0^m\eta `$ the caret $`R`$ is not a right caret. Then the element $`wx_0^m\eta `$ is not in $`B(n)`$.

###### Proof.

First, note that the negative tree of the element $`wx_0^m`$ has exactly $`m`$ right carets which are paired with $`L_L`$ carets, and we can number them as we move away from the root as $`c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_m=R`$, with $`c_1<c_2<\mathrm{}<c_m`$. Since the numbering of the carets does not change when generators are applied, at the first point where $`R`$ is not a right caret, then neither are any of the carets $`c_i`$.

In the statement of the lemma, we are not distinguishing between $`R`$ becoming a left caret and $`R`$ becoming an interior caret. This will not matter either for this proof or for the proof of theorem 1.1 below.

The idea of the proof is to follow the path of each caret $`c_i`$ as it is affected by different letters in the word $`\eta `$, and note the net change in word length. Note that when we apply a generator of $`F`$ to a word of the form $`w\chi `$, where $`\chi `$ is a word in the generators of $`F`$ of length at most $`k`$, only a single caret in the negative tree of $`w\chi `$ is affected. In general, there are times when this action can also affect a caret in the positive tree, but we have chosen the form of elements of $`𝒞(k)`$ carefully so that this is not the case, when applying strings of generators of length less than $`k`$.

Each caret $`c_i`$ is originally paired with an $`L_L`$ caret in the positive tree by construction, and since the positive tree will be unchanged, the positive part of these pairing types will not change. Consider all the letters in $`\eta `$ which change the caret type of $`c_i`$. The last of these letters is either an $`x_0^1`$ changing $`c_i`$ from a right caret to a left caret, or an $`x_1^1`$ changing $`c_i`$ from a right caret to an interior caret. According to the chart in §3, this is a net change in word length of $`+1`$.

There are other letters in $`\eta `$ which can affect the caret $`c_i`$. However, they must come in pairs, each pair leaving $`c_i`$ as a right caret so that the final letter in $`\eta `$ which affects it can change it to a left or interior caret. These pairs can be in one of two forms:

1. an $`x_0^1`$ which makes $`c_i`$ a left caret followed later in $`\eta `$ by an $`x_0`$ making it again a right caret, or
2. an $`x_1^1`$ making $`c_i`$ an interior caret and an $`x_1`$ later in $`\eta `$ making it again a right caret.

In either case, $`c_i`$ is always paired with an $`L_L`$ caret, and we see from the chart in §3 that the net change to the total word length corresponding to either of these pairs is always $`0`$. Thus, as we consider the letters of $`\eta `$ which change the caret type of all $`m`$ of the $`c_i`$’s, we see that they contribute a total of $`+m`$ to the overall change in word length.

There may be letters in $`\eta `$ which affect the types of carets other than the $`c_i`$. Suppose caret $`dc_i`$ is a caret affected by a letter in $`\eta `$. We claim that we must have $`d<c_i`$ for some $`i`$, and thus $`d`$ is also paired with an $`L_L`$ caret. If $`d>c_i`$ for all $`i`$, then $`d`$ would be a caret which appears after $`R`$. In order for $`\eta `$ to affect a caret after $`R`$, the caret $`R`$ would have had to have already moved from a right caret to a left or interior caret, contradicting our assumption about $`\eta `$. Thus, we have established the claim that $`d<c_i`$ for some $`i`$.

Given the initial form of $`w𝒞(k)`$, we see that $`d`$ may begin as an interior caret, and be initially moved to a right caret by an element $`x_1`$. From the chart in §3 we see that this changes word length by $`1`$. Since $`d<c_i`$ for at least one value of $`i`$, and all the $`c_i`$ must be changed from right carets to non-right carets by the end of the path $`\eta `$, we must also have $`d`$ changed from a right caret to a non-right caret. Thus the last letter in $`\eta `$ affecting $`d`$ is either an $`x_0^1`$ which changes $`d`$ to a left caret or an $`x_1^1`$ which changes $`d`$ back to an interior caret. From the chart in §3 we see that in either case, the change to the word length is $`+1`$ making the total contribution of these two letters in $`\eta `$ zero.

There may be other letters in $`\eta `$ which affect the caret $`d`$. They must form the same pairs as listed above of “intermediate” letters which can affect the $`c_i`$, and thus contribute a total word length change of zero.

The only other possibility for $`d`$ is that it begins as a left caret, paired with an $`L_L`$ caret for the same reasons as above. Then the initial letter in $`\eta `$ affecting $`d`$ must be an $`x_0`$, making it a right caret. The final letter in $`\eta `$ affecting $`d`$ again is either an $`x_0^1`$ or an $`x_1^1`$. Again, we see from the chart in §3 that the net change in word length coming from these two elements is $`0`$. There can also again be intermediate pairs of elements affecting $`d`$ of the same forms as given above, which also contribute $`0`$ to the net change in word length.

Since every letter of $`\eta `$ affects a single caret of $`w`$, each letter of $`\eta `$ is one of the types listed above. So the total change in word length from $`wx_0`$ to $`wx_0^m\eta `$ is $`m`$. Given the initial form of $`w`$, it is easy to see from the chart that $`|wx_0^m|=|w|m`$. Thus $`|wx_0^m\eta |=|w|m+m=|w|=n+1`$ and $`wx_0^m\eta `$ is not in $`B(n)`$. ∎

We are now ready to prove theorem 1.1 using the lemma 4.1

Proof of theorem 1.1. Assume that $`F`$ satisfies the $`AC(2)`$ condition. Then there would be a constant $`k`$ so that for every two points $`x,yB(n)`$ with $`d(x,y)=2`$, there would a be a path between them of length at most $`k`$ lying completely inside $`B(n)`$.

Consider a point $`w=(T_{},T_+)𝒞(k+2)`$ with $`|w|=n+1`$. By construction, $`|wx_0|=|wx_0^1|=n`$ and $`d(wx_0,wx_0^1)=2`$. The assumption of almost convexity guarantees a path $`\gamma `$ from $`wx_0`$ to $`wx_0^1`$ whose length is bounded by $`k`$. Let $`\gamma ^{}=x_0\gamma x_0`$ be the loop based at $`w`$ containing the path $`\gamma `$.

Let $`R`$ be the root caret in $`T_{}`$. The word $`wx_0`$ has $`R`$ as the right child of the root, so the initial $`x_0`$ in the path $`\gamma ^{}`$ moves $`R`$ to a right caret. The word $`wx_0^1`$ has $`R`$ as the left child of the root, so the final $`x_0`$ in the path $`\gamma ^{}`$ must return $`R`$ to the root position from the left. Thus, at some point along the path $`\gamma `$, the caret $`R`$ must change from being a right caret to a left caret. So there is a minimal prefix $`\eta `$ of $`\gamma `$ so that in $`wx_0\eta `$, the caret $`R`$ is not a right caret. It then follows from lemma 4.1 that $`wx_0\eta `$ is not in $`B(n)`$, contradicting the assumption that $`F`$ is $`AC(2)`$. ∎

We immediately obtain the proof of corollary 1.2.

Sean Cleary
Department of Mathematics
City College of New York
City University of New York
New York, NY 10031
E-mail: cleary@sci.ccny.cuny.edu

Jennifer Taback
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Albany
Albany, NY 12222
E-mail: jtaback@math.albany.edu


format: text

text:
# QUANTUM MECHANICS AS A SIMPLE GENERALIZATION OF CLASSICAL MECHANICS Alberta-Thy-06-02, quant-ph/0204015

## 1 Perception Probabilities in a Classical Model

The meeting near Princeton, March 15-18, 2002, “Science & Ultimate Reality: Celebrating the Vision of John Archibald Wheeler and Taking It Forward into a New Century of Discovery,” reminded us of Wheeler’s key question, “Why the quantum?” Two answers given at the meeting, expressing rather opposite motivations, were that nature is quantum because information is quantized , and that nature is quantized because it abhors “damn classical jumps” .

Here a more modest approach is taken, simply showing how one way of formulating classical mechanics allows quantum mechanics to be obtained by a very simple generalization.

This approach introduces probabilities by postulating a perceiver who has access only to part of the information in the dynamical system, so that what it perceives can be interpreted probabilistically in a certain sense, even though the complete description is completely deterministic. The rules for the probabilities can then be naturally formulated in a way that allows a simple generalization of the classical system to get a quantum system for the probability rules.

For simplicity, consider a classical system with a time $`t`$ and a discrete set of $`n`$ states, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Suppose that the state is a unique function of the time, so $`i=i(t)`$, and that the evolution is periodic, with period $`T`$, endlessly cycling through each of the $`n`$ states in turn, so that in each period the state $`i`$ occurs for a time duration $`f_iT`$. Then each state occurs for a fraction of the time given by $`f_i`$, assuming that one takes a total time that is an integer multiple of $`T`$ or else takes the limit of an infinite total time. This is then taken to be a model of the underlying classical system, which is completely deterministic ($`i(t)`$ uniquely given).

Now suppose there is also a perceiver that has no direct perception of the time $`t`$ but can only perceive the state $`i`$ without knowing what $`t`$ is, getting the corresponding perception $`p_i`$. For simplicity, assume that the perception of each distinct state is distinct, so $`p_i=p_j`$ if and only if $`i=j`$. In the full theory, with $`i=i(t)`$, we thus have $`p_i=p_i(t)`$, a unique function of $`t`$. But because the perceiver has no direct perception of $`t`$, for the perceiver only the perceptions $`p_i`$ and their time fractions $`f_i`$ are relevant. The perceiver does not even have a direct perception of any of the time fractions, but if one assumes that the measure for each perception is proportional to the relative time spent on it, over an infinite total time (or over any integer multiple of $`T`$), the normalized measure for each perception is simply the fraction $`f_i`$.

(A perceiver is a postulated being somewhat analogous to an observer, except that it is not part of the dynamical physical system and has no effect upon it, which is allowed even in quantum mechanics. For example, a perceiver might be a nonphysical mind in a dualist view in which the mind and its perceptions are epiphenomena that supervene upon the dynamical physical system without having any action back upon it. Such a perceiver is not really necessary for my argument, but it provides a convenient way to divide properties of the dynamical system into three classes, those that are putatively directly perceptible, like the state $`i`$, those that are not directly perceptible but still are relevant for the perceiver, like the fraction $`f_i`$, and those that are neither perceptible nor relevant to the perceiver, like the time $`t`$.)

Although all of this is completely deterministic, for the perceiver it can be interpreted as if it has the perception $`p_i`$ with probability $`f_i`$. To put it another way, though the dynamical system and the corresponding perceptions occur deterministically, with no uncertainty with respect to a global viewpoint in which $`i(t)`$ and hence $`p_i(t)`$ are known, if one imagines randomly sampling the perceptions with a sampling measure being proportional to the time that the perceptions occur, one will get that the perception $`p_i`$ occurs with probability $`f_i`$. Thus probabilities enter this deterministic system only with a random sampling. If the sampling is purely hypothetical, then so is the interpretation of the fractions $`f_i`$ as probabilities, but interpreting these time fractions as probabilities can be highly useful and so will be done here.

One might be interested not merely in the probabilities of the individual perceptions $`p_i`$, but also in various sets of them, say $`S`$. The probability for each set of perceptions, say $`f(S)`$, can of course be formed in the usual way, by adding up the probabilities of the individual perceptions in the set,

$$f(S)=\chi 𝐟\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\chi _if_i,$$
(1)
where $`\chi _i`$ is the characteristic function that is $`\chi _i=0`$ if $`p_i`$ is not in the set $`S`$ and is $`\chi _i=1`$ if $`p_i`$ is in the set $`S`$, where $`\chi `$ is the characteristic vector with $`n`$ components $`\chi _i`$, where $`𝐟`$ is the probability vector with $`n`$ components $`f_i`$, and where $``$ denotes the dot product with the Euclidean metric in $`n`$ dimensions.

One can combine sets of perceptions by the AND ($``$) and OR ($``$) operations. For example, if $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ are two sets, with characteristic functions $`\chi _i`$ and $`\chi _i^{}`$ respectively, then the set $`\widehat{S}=SS^{}`$ has the members common to both $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$ and hence the characteristic function $`\widehat{\chi }_i=\chi _i\chi _i^{}`$, and the set $`\stackrel{ˇ}{S}=SS^{}`$ has the members that occur in either $`S`$ or $`S^{}`$ (or in both) and hence the characteristic function $`\stackrel{ˇ}{\chi }_i=\chi _i+\chi _i^{}\chi _i\chi _i^{}`$. Then, for example,

$$f(\widehat{S})f(SS^{})=\widehat{\chi }𝐟=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\chi _i\chi _i^{}f_i.$$
(2)
The vector $`\widehat{\chi }`$ thus has the components $`\widehat{\chi }_i=\chi _i\chi _i^{}`$ and so is determined by the vectors $`\chi `$ and $`\chi ^{}`$, but the determination is not simply a usual product of the vectors as it is for the components.

This awkwardness in expressing $`\widehat{\chi }(\chi ,\chi ^{})`$ can be taken as a motivation to replace the characteristic vectors by diagonal projection matrices, whose diagonal elements are the components of the characteristic vectors. E.g., let the projection matrix for the set $`S`$ be

$$P(S)=\mathrm{diag}(\chi _1,\chi _2,\mathrm{},\chi _n),$$
(3)
with components

$$P_{ij}(S)=\chi _i\delta _{ij},$$
(4)
where $`\delta _{ij}`$ is the Kronecker delta symbol that is 0 if $`ij`$ and 1 if $`i=j`$, and where the Einstein summation convention is not being used. Then one can express the projection matrix for $`SS^{}`$ simply as

$$P(SS^{})=P(S)P(S^{}).$$
(5)
The simplicity of Eq. (5) will be taken as the main motivation for going to the matrix form of the characteristic values.

Now to express the probability of a set $`S`$, one also needs to replace the probability vector $`𝐟`$ by a diagonal probability matrix or density matrix

$$\rho =\mathrm{diag}(f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n),$$
(6)
with components

$$\rho _{ij}(S)=f_i\delta _{ij},$$
(7)
again with no sum over $`i`$.

One may get this density matrix directly from the imperceptible time evolution of the dynamical system if we define the time-dependent matrix

$$R(t)=\mathrm{diag}(r_1(t),r_2(t),\mathrm{},r_n(t)),$$
(8)
where $`r_j(t)=0`$ during the time that $`i(t)j`$, and $`r_j(t)=1`$ during the time that $`i(t)=j`$. In other words, at each time $`t`$, $`R`$ is the matrix with all 0 entries, except for a single 1 on the diagonal at the position of $`i(t)`$, the state of the dynamical system at the time $`t`$. Thus the components of $`R(t)`$ are

$$R_{ij}(t)=\delta _{ij}\delta _{ji(t)}.$$
(9)
Then the density matrix $`\rho `$ is simply the time average of $`R(t)`$ (over an integer number of periods $`T`$ or else over an infinite time).

Although $`i(t)`$, and hence also $`R(t)`$, which just encodes the information in $`i(t)`$ in a different form, is not directly relevant to the perceiver, which has no access to the time $`t`$, the time-average of $`R(t)`$, namely $`\rho `$, is relevant to the perceiver by giving the measure of the various perceptions that the perceiver has. Thus we can say that it is $`\rho `$ that encodes the properties of the dynamical system that are relevant for the perceiver. If we simply call these the relevant properties of the dynamical system, we can, if we desire, dispense with the perceiver that was invoked to motivate the distinction between “relevant” time averages and the “irrelevant” detailed time dependence of the dynamical system.

Having thus defined the density matrix $`\rho `$ of the classical system to give the fractions of time that the system spends in its various states, the only “relevant” properties of the state of the dynamical system, we can see that the probability that a randomly-selected perception is in the set $`S`$ is simply

$$f(S)=\mathrm{tr}(P(S)\rho )\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}P_{ij}(S)\rho _{ji}.$$
(10)
Thus we have expressed the hypothetical probabilities (actually fractions of an unperceived time), for a set $`S`$ of perceptions in this classical model, by Eq. (10), the trace of the product of a diagonal projection matrix and a diagonal density matrix.

## 2 Generalization to Quantum Mechanics

Now it is straightforward to generalize this algorithm for the probabilities in a classical model to obtain the rule for the probabilities in a quantum model: Simply let $`P(S)`$ be replaced by any Hermitian projection matrix, not necessarily diagonal or real, and let $`\rho `$ be replaced by any positive Hermitian matrix with unit trace, also not necessarily diagonal or real. (The trace condition is so that one gets unit probability for the complete set of perceptions, which is represented by the projection matrix that is the unit matrix.) Then $`\rho `$ represents the density matrix of the quantum system (itself a projection matrix if the quantum state is pure, though there is no need to restrict to this special case), $`P(S)`$ is the matrix representation of the projection operator onto a set of orthogonal states that corresponds to a set $`S`$ of perceptions, and Eq. (10) gives the probability for that set of perceptions in the given quantum state.

The right hand side of Eq. (10) is invariant under a unitary transformation of both the projection operator and the density matrix,

$$\mathrm{tr}(P(S)\rho )=\mathrm{tr}(\stackrel{~}{P}(S)\stackrel{~}{\rho }),$$
(11)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{P}(S)=UP(S)U^{},\stackrel{~}{\rho }=U\rho U^{},$$
(12)
with $`U`$ being a unitary matrix, $`U^{}=U^1`$. Applying this unitary transformation is equivalent to choosing a new basis of pure states for the quantum system.

If one chooses the unitary transformation so that $`\stackrel{~}{P}(S)`$ is diagonal, then in the corresponding basis $`\stackrel{~}{P}(S)`$ is the projection operator onto a subset of these basis states, the subset being those pure states that are eigenvectors of $`\stackrel{~}{P}(S)`$ with unit eigenvalue. In this basis the projection operator looks classical, but if in this basis the density matrix $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is not diagonal, then the quantum state does not look classical.

Conversely, if one chooses the unitary transformation so that $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ is diagonal, then the elements of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ represent the probabilities for the corresponding pure basis states. In this basis the quantum state looks classical, but if in this basis the projection operator $`\stackrel{~}{P}(S)`$ is not diagonal, then it is not a classical projection operator simply onto a subset of these basis states.

If we consider two generic projection operators, say $`P(S)`$ and $`P(S^{})`$, that cannot be diagonalized in the same basis and hence do not commute, then $`P(S)P(S^{})`$ will not be a projection operator, so in the generic quantum case we lose Eq. (5) that was our original motivation (in the classical case) for considering the projectors as matrices. Hence the procedure used above, to get to quantum mechanics and its Eq. (10) for probabilities from classical mechanics, is somewhat paradoxical in that the motivation that led to Eq. (10) in the classical case no longer applies in the quantum case.

But this situation is not without parallel in previous physical arguments. For example, there was the motivation, from knowledge of the medium (with a preferred rest frame) for sound waves, to consider an ether (with its postulated preferred rest frame) as a medium that could oscillate to give electromagnetic waves. But then once Maxwell’s equations for these latter waves were known, one could show (admittedly, after several decades had elapsed) that the equations have the symmetry of the Lorentz transformations, so there is no effect of any postulated preferred rest frame for an ether. Thus although an ether may have had some motivational value in leading to Maxwell’s equations for electromagnetic waves, once these equations were found and understood, one lost the motivation for an ether with a preferred rest frame.

Somewhat analogously, here Eq. (5) was the motivation from an analysis of classical mechanics for getting Eq. (10), but after Eq. (10) was generalized from the real diagonal matrices applicable to classical mechanics to the more general Hermitian matrices that give quantum mechanics, one loses Eq. (5).

Just as we argued above that the real diagonal $`n\times n`$ matrix $`\rho `$ for a classical system with $`n`$ states represented the full relevant properties of the deterministic dynamical state of that system, so we can postulate that the Hermitian $`n\times n`$ matrix $`\rho `$ for a quantum system with $`n`$ basis states represents the full relevant properties of the dynamical state of that system. Thus one can postulate that the relevant properties of a quantum system are completely described by its density matrix, with no fundamental uncertainty or probabilities. It is only when one hypothesizes a random sample of a set $`S`$ of perceptions, here represented by the projection operator $`P(S)`$, that one gets by Eq. (10) the probability $`f(S)=\mathrm{tr}(P(S)\rho )`$, the measure of the set $`S`$ represented by $`P(S)`$.

## 3 Superselection rules in quantum mechanics

If the quantum system and the perceptions of it are restricted by superselection rules for some conserved quantity, then in a basis of eigenstates of this quantity, the relevant density matrix $`\rho `$ is restricted to have all off-diagonal terms zero that connect different values of the conserved quantity. In other words, $`\rho `$ must be block-diagonal, with each component within a block representing the same value of the conserved quantity.

For example, consider the case in which the quantum system has a time $`t`$ and an evolution with respect to this time that is given by a time-independent Hamiltonian, but assume the perceiver has no access to this time. From a viewpoint in which the time can be seen, the quantum system can have a time-dependent density matrix. However, the perceiver has no access to this, and therefore what is relevant to it is only the time average of the time-dependent density matrix, which is the time-independent density matrix $`\rho `$ given above.

One can then easily see that if one goes to a basis of eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy eigenstates), the time-independent density matrix $`\rho `$ must be block-diagonal, having no off-diagonal terms connecting eigenstates of different energies, since these terms would have an oscillatory time dependence that is washed out whan one does the time average to get the time-independent density matrix $`\rho `$.

Thus when there are superselection rules, the relevant density matrix $`\rho `$ of a quantum system cannot be a generic positive Hermitian matrix of unit trace but has further superselection restrictions.

Alternatively, if one allows the quantum state density matrix $`\rho `$ to have “irrelevant” properties, such as a time-dependence, one can restrict to purely relevant probabilities $`f(S)`$ in Eq. (10) in the presence of superselection rules by restricting the projection operators $`P(S)`$ to obey the superselection rules. For example, in the case above in which the time $`t`$ is imperceptible, one can restrict each $`P(S)`$ to be block-diagonal in a basis of eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (i.e., in the energy representation). Then the probabilities will not depend upon the irrelevant properties, even if the density matrix is allowed to depend upon them.

However, for a discussion of the purely relevant properties of the system and of the perceptions of it, it may be cleaner to restrict both the density matrix and the projection operators by the superselection rules so that they do not have irrelevant properties.

## 4 Generalizations other than ordinary quantum mechanics

We have seen that Eq. (10) represents a probability, under a certain random sampling, in classical mechanics when one has diagonal projection operators and diagonal density matrices, and that one can generalize this to quantum mechanics by allowing generic Hermitian projection operators and generic positive unit-trace Hermitian density matrices, subject only to superselection constraints. However, there are other ways in which one might consider generalizing the quantities in Eq. (10).

For example, one might generalize the real diagonal matrices to nondiagonal matrices that are still real and othogonal rather than being Hermitian. This would then give real quantum mechanics rather than ordinary complex quantum mechanics, a restriction on quantum mechanics that would be an intermediate case between classical mechanics and ordinary quantum mechanics.

A generalization that would be more general than ordinary quantum mechanics as given above would be simply to require that $`P(S)`$ and $`\rho `$ be positive Hermitian matrices, but not requiring that $`P(S)`$ be a projection operator or that $`\rho `$ have unit trace. Then $`f(S)=\mathrm{tr}(P(S)\rho )`$ given by Eq. (10) would no longer directly be a probability but could be reinterpreted to be the measure for the set $`S`$ of perceptions. This generalization is what I have elsewhere called Sensible Quantum Mechanics .

With the positive operator $`P(S)`$ no longer being restricted to be a projection operator, one could define it to have the additivity property that for two disjoint sets $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$, the positive operator for the union of the sets is the sum of the positive operators for the individual disjoint sets,

$$P(SS^{})=P(S)+P(S^{})\mathrm{if}SS^{}=0,$$
(13)
the null set. With this property and an analogous one that would apply in the case of infinite unions, the positive operator $`P(S)`$ would become a positive-operator-valued (POV) function .

If the set of all possible perceptions is $`M`$, and if $`f(M)=\mathrm{tr}(P(M)\rho )`$ is finite (a nontrivial restriction), then one could take $`f(S)/f(M)`$ to be the probability of the set $`S`$, the probability that a perception in that set would be chosen if one made a random sample from the set of all possible perceptions with measure given by $`f(S^{})`$ for each set $`S^{}`$. Thus in this case one can say that a density matrix $`\rho `$ for the quantum system induces, by the normalized form of Eq. (10), a probability distribution over the space of sets of perceptions.

If $`f(M)`$ is not finite, one cannot define a normalized probability distribution over the full set $`M`$ of perceptions, but one can still do it over some subset, say $`M^{}`$, if $`f(M^{})`$ is finite. Then one could calculate the conditional probability $`f(S^{})/f(M^{})`$ that a perception is in the subset $`S^{}`$ of $`M^{}`$, given that it is in the normalizable set $`M^{}`$.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful for lectures by, and discussions with, Lucien Hardy and Anton Zeilinger at the Science & Ultimate Reality meeting, which motivated my consideration of this subject. I am also grateful to the hospitality of Flushing Meadows Corona Park, Queens, New York, for providing diversions for my daughters while I formulated the basic ideas for this paper. Financial support has been provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.


text:
# On the Phase Space Partition in High Energy Collisions

thanks: This work is supported in part by NSFC under project 19975021.

## Abstract

In high energy hadron-hadron and e+e- collisions, to isolate a part of the phase space in multi-hadron final states is necessary for exploring the underlying dynamics. It is shown that the partition of phase space according to the value of rapidity, popularly used in hadron-hadron collisions, is inappropriate for the study of e+e- collisions. The proper way in the latter case is to identify the visible jets and take them as objects for detailed study, forming an extended phase space. The value $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}^{(0)}`$ of the distance-measure for the identification of visible jets is determined. A new variable $`r`$ is introduced to further partition the phase space inside jets, which possesses a very good anomalous scaling property, showing that the $`r`$-distribution inside jets is a self-similar fractal.

The dynamics of multi-hadron final states in high energy collisions is an idea laboratory for the study of the perturbative and nonperturbative properties of the basic theory of strong interaction — quantumchromo dynamicsqcd. This study, starting from the sixties of last century, has a long history. The multiplicity as well as the phase space volume have increased for orders of magnitude since then. It becomes necessary to take a part of the phase space for detailed analysis instead of to merely study it as a whole.

In hadron-hadron collisions, already in the 1970 s the isr experiments started to study the “central rapidity region” $`|y|<Y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ ISR , where the rapidity $`y`$ is defined as

$`y={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{E+p_{}}{Ep_{}}},`$ (1)
with $`E`$ the energy and $`p_{}`$ the longitudinal momentum of the particle in the c.m. frame, $`Y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is a specially chosen cut smaller than the maximum rapidity reached in the collisions. The longitudinal direction is taken to be the direction of the momenta of the two incident particles.

Later, the successful operation of the p-$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$ collider sp$`\overline{\mathrm{p}}`$s at cern raised the c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}`$ for an order of magnitude. It enabled the ua5 UA5  and other collaborations to carry on their study in various rapidity windows.

More recently, this approach has been extended to e+e- collisions. For example, delphi DELPHI  and opal OPAL  Collaborations have studied the intermittency and correlations in hadronic Z0 decay in a restricted rapidity region $`|y|<2`$, with the thrust or sphericity axis taken as the longitudinal direction.

However, the dynamics of e+e- collisions is different from that of hadron-hadron collisions. In hadron-hadron collisions the central rapidity region has a special physical meaning. Particle production occurs mainly in this region. The regions outside of the central one are the fragmentation regions, where the leading particle effect is present. On the other hand, in e+e- collisions the final-state system comes from a point source (virtual photon or Z0). There is no leading particle effect, or, if some similar effect exists in the individual jets, it is not directed along the thrust (or sphericity) axis in multi-jet events, see e.g. Fig.1 and Fig.2. In this case, to study the “central rapidity region” with thrust or (sphericity) axis as longitudinal direction is doubtful.

In 1994 J. D. Bjorken Bj  proposed to isolate the gluon jets for the study of the crucial features of the underlying dynamics and put forward the idea of “extended phase-space”, cf. figure 1 of Ref.Bj . In this approach gluon jets produced in e+e- collisions are first identified and then taken out as a part of the extended phase-space. Further partition of phase space is done inside the jets.

Different ways of cutting phase-space, as e.g. those done in Ref. DELPHI OPAL  and those proposed in Ref. Bj , will apparently result in different physics. What is the proper way for the partition of phase-space? How to realize it? are urgent problems not only for the study of e+e- collisions but also for the study of the ultra-high energy hadron-hadron and/or relativistic heavy ion collisions at fermilab-tevatron, brookhaven-rhic and cern-lhc, where a vast amount of jets are being or will be produced.

In this letter we will try to give an answer to these questions. For illustration, we will use lund monte carlo jetset7.4 to generate a sample of 1.5 million e+e-collision events at $`\sqrt{s}=91.2`$ GeV.

Let us first analyse the usefulness of “central rapidity region” in e+e- collisions. As already pointed out, the final state hadrons in these collisions are produced from a point source. There is no leading particle effect, or in multi-jet events such effect is not along the “longitudinal” (thrust or sphericity) direction. In these collisions there are 2-jet, 3-jet, 4-jet, … events. A cut in rapidity (with the thrust or sphericity axis as ”longitudinal”) will have very different effect on different-number-of-jet events. For example, in a 2-jet event a $`y`$ cut will cut out the most energetic particles in both jets; while in a 3-jet event a $`y`$ cut will only cut out the most energetic particles of one jet but retain almost all the particles of the other two jets. Two typical examples are given in Fig.1, where the dotted lines denote the rapidity cut $`|y|<2`$. It cuts out a large part of the left-hand-side jet but retains almost all the particles of the other two jets. The results from such an asymmetric cut is hard to be interpreted.

Physically, a more appropriate approach is not to select a group of particles with rapidity in some range but to isolate the individual jets. The corresponding cut condition is then $`r<R_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ Bj  instead of $`y<Y_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, where ftnt01

$`r=\sqrt{(\eta \eta _{\mathrm{jet}})^2+(\phi \phi _{\mathrm{jet}})^2},`$ (2)
$`\eta `$ and $`\phi `$ are the pseudo-rapidity and azimuthal angle of a final state particle in a jet, respectively, while $`\eta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ and $`\phi _{\mathrm{jet}}`$ are those of the jet. $`R_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ is a number around unity. For the dashed circles in Fig.1 this number has been chosen to be $`R_{\mathrm{cut}}=0.7`$ Bj . Note that in Eq.(2) we have used pseudo-rapidity $`\eta `$ defined as

$`\eta =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{tan}(\theta /2)`$ (3)
instead of the rapidity defined in Eq.(1). At high energy, $`\eta y`$. For the study of phase space partition, $`\eta `$-$`\phi `$ is a natural choise, which are directly connected with the corresponding variables in a space-time description Bj . Note also that, when a jet has its axis (the total momentum of the particles inside it) nearly collinear with the thrust (or sphericity) axis, which is used as longitudinal to define the variables $`\eta `$ and $`\phi `$, the azimuthal angle $`\phi `$ of the particles inside the jet will be spreading and the jet will not be visible in the $`\eta `$-$`\phi `$ lego-plot, cf. the left-hand-side jets of Fig.1 and Fig’s.2 ($`a`$), ($`c`$). Therefore, in the following we will restrict ourself to consider only those jets whose axes have an angle greater than 15 and less than 165 with the thrust (or sphericity) axis. Note that the gluon jets, coming from hard gluon radiation, will most probably satisfy this condition.

In this approach the basic questions are: How to identify the jets? How to partition the phase space further after isolating out the individual jets? Let us try to answer these questions.

The identification of jets from the final-state multiparticle system can be done using some algorithm, e.g. the jade Jade  or the durham Durham  ones. In these schemes a distance measure is defined for counting the separation between two jets (or two particles). For example, in the durham algorithm this measure is defined as

$`d_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{min}(E_i^2,E_j^2)}{s}}(1\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}),`$ (4)
which is related to the relative transverse momentum $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ as kt

$`(k_\mathrm{t})_{ij}=\sqrt{d_{ij}}\sqrt{s}.`$ (5)
In Eq.(4) $`E_i`$ and $`E_j`$ are the energies of the two jets (or two particles), $`\theta _{ij}`$ is the angle between them and $`s`$ is the square of c.m. energy of the event. Note that we have used the notation $`d_{ij}`$ instead of $`y_{ij}`$, currently used in the literature, to avoid confusion with the rapidity cut. Jets or particles with $`d_{ij}d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ are combined into a single jet. This procedure is repeated until all pairs of jets $`i`$ and $`j`$ satisfy $`d_{ij}>d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$.

In principle, $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ could be chosen arbitrarily. The resulting “jets” are, however, very different for different values of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$. For our present purpose, we want to cut the phase-space according to jets, so the “jets” should be directly observable, cf. Fig’s.1 and 2. Such directly observable jets will be referred to as “visible jets”.

It has been shown in Ref. LCHPrd  that the scale for visible jets is $`5k_\mathrm{t}10`$ GeV. For the case of $`\sqrt{s}=91.2`$ GeV, which we are taking as example, this range of $`k_\mathrm{t}`$ corresponds to $`10^{2.5}d_{\mathrm{cut}}10^{1.9}`$.

In order to be more apparent, we plot in Fig’s.2 ($`a`$)–($`c`$) the view in momentum space of the same event, shown in Fig.1($`b`$) as lego-plot. The number of jets $`N_{\mathrm{jet}}`$ versus log $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ in this event is given in Fig.2($`d`$). It can be seen from the figure that if we were using a value of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ as small as $`10^4`$ (or $`10^3`$) then we would conclude that this is a 10-jet (or 5-jet) event; while if we used a value of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ greater than $`10^1`$ then we would take this event as a 2-jet one. Although all these values of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ are equally possible in principle, it is very unlikely that there are 10 (or 5) jets or only 2 jets in this event, cf. Fig’s.1 and 2. For our present purpose of constructing extended phase space through plotting sub-lego plots of individual jets, this event should certainly be considered as a 3-jet event. It can be seen from Fig.2($`d`$) that a value of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ about equal to or a little smaller than $`10^2`$ will combine the wrongly identified five jets into three. This is the $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ value corresponding to visible jets.

A further check of this statement could be obtained from the rapidity distributions of 2-jet events for four different values of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$, shown in Fig.3 as histograms. In the same figures, the full triangles (open circles) are the distributions for those events in which the bigger jet is at the right (left). It can be seen from the figures that for log $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}=2.52.0`$ the full triangles manifest a shoulder at about $`y=1.8`$, showing that at this value of $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ a third jet starts to appear inside the big jet. This confirms the assertion that log $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}=2.51.9`$ is the appropriate distance-measure for identifying the visible jets in e+e- collisions at $`\sqrt{s}=91.2`$ GeV. For convenience, we will in the following refer to this measure as $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}^{(0)}`$ and use a value $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}^{(0)}=10^{2.2}`$.

Now let us turn to the second question: How to partition the phase space further inside the identified jets?

The first step is to take out the identified jets and draw sub-lego plots for them, forming an extended phase space together with the mother lego plot. In these sub-lego plots the jet axes are taken as the center to define new variables

$`\eta ^{}=\eta \eta _{\mathrm{jet}},\phi ^{}=\phi \phi _{\mathrm{jet}}.`$ (6)
As example, the sub-lego plots of the two identified jets in Fig.1($`b`$) are shown in Fig.4.

The pair of variables ($`\eta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, $`\phi _{\mathrm{jet}}`$) determine the direction of jet axis. A circular symmetry is expected to exist around this point in the $`\eta `$-$`\phi `$ plane. Therefore, a natural variable for the description of the phase space region inside a jet is the distance $`r`$ in $`\eta `$-$`\phi `$ plane from the particle inside the jet to the jet axis ($`\eta _{\mathrm{jet}}`$, $`\phi _{\mathrm{jet}}`$), cf. Eq.(2).

The distribution of $`r`$ is shown in Fig.5($`a`$). It has a pick at about $`r=0.3`$ and tends to zero when $`r`$ increases. Choosing a certain value of $`R_0`$, e.g. $`R_0=1.5`$, shown as solid circle in Fig’s.4, a phase space region can be defined as $`0<rR_0`$. A partition of this region using different values of $`r`$ results in a series of rings, cf. the dashed circles in Fig’s.4. The distance $`\delta r`$ between the neighboring rings is the scale of the partition.

It is interesting to check whether there is a scale independence or anomalous scaling in the 1-dimensional $`r`$ space, or in other words, whether the $`r`$-distribution is a self-similar fractal. This can be done using the standard technique kittel .

The first step is to change the variable $`r`$ into the corresponding cumulant variable $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ defined as cumulant

$`r_\mathrm{c}={\displaystyle _0^r}\rho (r)dr/{\displaystyle _0^{R_0}}\rho (r)dr`$ (7)
to eliminate the influence of nonflat distribution. The resulting distribution of $`r_\mathrm{c}`$ is shown in Fig.5($`b`$).

The second step is to divide the region $`0<rR_0`$ ($`0<r_\mathrm{c}1`$) into $`M`$ bins and define the $`q`$th order normalized factorial moments nfm as BP

$`F_q(M)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_m(n_m1)\mathrm{}(n_mq+1)}{n_m^q}},`$ (8)
where $`n_m`$ is the number of particles in the $`m`$th bin, $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the average over the sample of identified jets. The advantage of nfm is that it can eliminate the statistical fluctuations provided the latter is of the Poinsonian type BP . The anomalous scaling of nfm

$`F_q(M)M^{\varphi _q}M\mathrm{}`$ (9)
as the increasing of the partition number $`M`$ or as the decreasing of the phase space scale $`\delta r=R_0/M`$, will signal the existence of fractal property — self-similarity.

In Fig.6 is shown the log $`F_q`$ versus log $`M`$ plot in the region $`0<r\pi `$ ftnt02  for $`q=2,3,4,5`$. It can be seen that very good scaling is obtained for $`M=2`$ – 40. This astonishing phenomenon is closely related to the color coherence — angular ordering in parton fragmentation and is worthwhile further investigation, both experimentally and theoretically.

In this letter the proper way for the phase space partition in high energy e+e- collisions is analysed in some detail. It is shown that the partition of phase space according to the value of rapidity, popularly used in hadron-hadron collisions, is inappropriate for the study of e+e- collisions. The proper way in the latter case is to identify the visible jets and take them as objects for detailed study, forming an extended phase space. The value of the distance-parameter $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}`$ of the durham algorithm, which is able to identify the visible jets, is discussed in detail and is found to be about $`d_{\mathrm{cut}}^{(0)}=10^{2.2}`$ (at c.m. energy $`\sqrt{s}=91.2`$ GeV).

A new variable $`r`$ is introduced to further partition the phase space inside jets, which possesses a very good anomalous scaling property, showing that the $`r`$-distribution inside jets is a self-similar fractal. This spectacular phenomenon, being connected with the underlying dynamics, is worthwhile further theoretical and experimental investigations.

###### Acknowledgements.

The author thanks Wu Yuanfang, Wolfram Kittel, Yu Meiling and Chen Gang for helpful discussions.