text:
# Electromagnetic Properties of the Δ in the Large 𝑁_𝑐 and Chiral Limits

DOE/ER/40762-269
UM PP 03-023

## Abstract

Relations between nucleon, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electromagnetic properties associated with chiral physics which have been derived in a pure large-$`N_c`$ limit are greatly modified in a combined large $`N_c`$ and chiral limits; the large $`N_c`$ relations are valid for $`(M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N)/m_\pi <<1`$. The E2/M1 ratio for the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition is shown to scale as $`ϵ^1`$ (with $`ϵ1/N_c`$ , $`ϵm_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a typical hadronic scale) in the combined large $`N_c`$ and chiral expansions as opposed to $`N_c^2`$ in the pure large $`N_c`$ expansion.

It has been known for some time that contracted $`\mathrm{SU}(2\mathrm{N}_\mathrm{f})`$ spin-flavor symmetry of baryons GerSak83 ; GerSak84 ; DasMan93a ; DasMan93b ; DasJenMan93 ; DasJenMan94 ; Jen93  which follows from large $`N_c`$ QCDHoo74 ; Wit79  relates various $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-nucleon transition matrix elements to nucleon properties. These relations are model independent in the large $`N_c`$ limit; they are fixed entirely from the symmetry. Subleading effects in $`1/N_c`$ are not generally fixed. However for certain properties the leading $`1/N_c`$ correction vanishes. For example, the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition magnetic moment DasJenMan94  is fixed relative to the nucleon isovector moment up to relative order $`1/N_c^2`$.

Recently the contracted $`\mathrm{SU}(2N_f)`$ symmetry was used in an elegant way to relate other electromagnetic properties of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the N-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transitionBucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02 ; BucLeb02 , including the electric charge radius of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$BucLeb00 ; BucLeb02 , the quadrupole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$BucHesLeb02  and the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ quadrupole transition momentBucHesLeb02 ; BucLeb02 . In a related work, the small value in E2/M1 electromagnetic decays of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ quadrupole transition moment to the magnetic transition moment) is explained qualitatively due to large $`N_c`$ scaling behavior (which is shown to go as $`1/N_c^2`$) JenJiMan02 . The scaling rules in ref. JenJiMan02  and the relations in refs. BucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02 ; BucLeb02  are all model independent in the large $`N_c`$ limit of QCD. To the extent that the physical world is close to the large $`N_c`$ limit, one might expect the relations in refs. BucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02 ; BucLeb02  to hold to reasonable approximation in the real world and the qualitative explanation in ref. JenJiMan02  to be valid.

However, while the $`1/N_c`$ expansion may work well for generic nucleon or $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ properties, it is certainly possible that for certain observables, the model-dependent correction terms may be so large as to render the $`1/N_c`$ expansion invalid. The present work argues on the basis of chiral considerations that one expects the electromagnetic quantities discussed in refs. BucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02 ; BucLeb02 ; JenJiMan02  to have large corrections (excepting those relations which depend solely on isospin). These corrections are large enough in the real world to overwhelm the large $`N_c`$ suppression factors for the Delta charge radius and quadrupole moment. The issue of the quadrupole transition moment is more subtle: the ratio E2/M1 is of order $`1/N_c^2`$; however, the coefficient multiplying the $`1/N_c^2`$ is chirally enhanced and, hence, is parametrically large. Thus, the empirical smallness of this ratio depends in large part on fortuitous numerical factors.

One expects correction terms to the leading large $`N_c`$ relations to be anomalously large if the quantity in question is dominated by large distances. The longest distance contributions to baryon structure comes from virtual pions which are anomalously light because the pions are pseudo-Goldstone bosons. Chiral perturbation theory BerKiaMei95  explains why such quantities are singular in the chiral limit. The singular behavior occurs due to infrared enhancements in pion loops which dominate the infrared because the pion is the only small excitation scale in the problem. As noted in refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b , however, this no longer true in the large $`N_c`$ limit since the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ mass splitting scales as $`1/N_c`$ DasMan93a ; DasJenMan93 .

The results of refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b  may be summarized as follows: i) Static nucleon properties which are singular in the chiral limit do not have a uniform combined chiral and large $`N_c`$ limit, i.e. the chiral limit and large $`N_c`$ limits do not commute. ii) There exists a well-defined limiting procedure for these quantities in which $`m_\pi 0N_c\mathrm{}`$ with $`N_cm_\pi `$ fixed. iii) The leading singular behavior for these properties in this combined limit can be calculated from a one pion loop calculation in a generalization of chiral perturbation theory in which the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is kept as an explicit light degree of freedom and in which the pion-baryon coupling respect the contracted SU(4) symmetry of refs. GerSak83 ; GerSak84 ; DasMan93a ; DasMan93b ; DasJenMan93 ; DasJenMan94 ; Jen93 . iv) The Skyrme modelBroZah86  and other hedgehog soliton models Bir90  when treated using semiclassical quantization reproduce all of the results for these chirally singular quantities provided that these quantities are computed with the large $`N_c`$ limit taken prior to the chiral limit.

These results imply that a typical static nucleon quantity in this category (which will be denoted here as $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$) can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Theta }=\frac{ag_A^2}{f_\pi ^2m_\pi }f_\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi \right)+\mathrm{subleading}\mathrm{terms}$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is a numerical constant and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_\mathrm{\Delta }M_N`$; the functional form of $`f_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ depends on the quantum numbers of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and the number of pion propagators which contribute explain ; the subleading terms are less singular than the first term in the limit $`m_\pi 0N_c\mathrm{}`$ with $`N_cm_\pi `$ fixed. The function $`f_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ has the property,

$$f_\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=1\mathrm{while}f_\mathrm{\Theta }(x)<1\mathrm{for}x>0.$$
(2)
The various parameters scale with $`N_c`$ as $`g_A^2/f_\pi ^2N_c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }1/N_c`$. The large $`N_c`$ limit taken prior to the chiral limit yields $`f_\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=1`$ while the opposite ordering of limits give $`f_\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{})<1`$, clearly demonstrating the noncommutation of the limits. The coefficient $`a`$ can be found directly from the Skyrme model by matching the Skyrme model prediction for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ with eq. (1) while setting $`f_\theta `$ to unity.

It is useful to establish a power counting scheme around the combined limit. This can be done in a manner analogous to that in the “small scale” expansion scheme which generalizes chiral perturbation theory to include explicit $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degrees of freedom HemHolKam98 ; JenMan91 . In the present context if one denotes the small counting parameter as $`ϵ`$ then

$$1/N_cϵ\mathrm{and}m_\pi /\mathrm{\Lambda }ϵ$$
(3)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a typical hadronic scale. This power counting was constructed so that the leading power of a divergence in $`ϵ^1`$ does not depend on how one approaches the combined large $`N_c`$ and chiral limits. For example $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ in eq. (1) will scale as $`ϵ^2`$ regardless of the value of the ratio of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to $`m_\pi `$. This property allows one to extract the leading divergence with $`ϵ`$ directly from the Skyrme model (which gives the correct behavior in the pure large $`N_c`$ limit).

The analysis of refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b  can be extended to the study of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ properties and properties of the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition in a rather straightforward manner as the arguments apply to all baryons in the $`I=J`$ tower. The function $`f_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ which controls the interpolation between the two limits now can depend on the quantum numbers of the baryons (i.e. nucleon vs. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$) and is not restricted to be less than unity. Again, the scaling behavior of an observable in the combined limit can be extracted from the Skyrme model. Here we foucus on the electric charge radii of the nucleon and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electric quadrupole transition moment and the electric quadrupole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. These are easily computed in any Skyrme type model with semiclassical quantization at leading order in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion CohBro92 :

$`r^2_{\mathrm{\Delta };m_I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2_{I=0}+m_Ir^2_{I=1}`$ (4)
$`r^2_{N;m_I}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}r^2_{I=0}+m_Ir^2_{I=1}`$ (5)
$`Jmm_I|Q_\mu |J^{}m^{}m_{}^{}{}_{I}{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`JQJ^{}m_I\delta _{m,m_{}^{}{}_{I}{}^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Jm2\mu |J^{}m^{}}{\sqrt{2J^{}+1}}}`$ (6)
$`3/2Q1/2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{50}}{8}}3/2Q3/2=\sqrt{125}Q`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{with}Q`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{8}}{5}}\mathrm{\Delta }^+m=1/2|Q_0|\mathrm{p}m=1/2`$ (8)
where the results hold to leading order in the $`1/N_c`$ expansion. The values of $`Q`$, $`r^2_{I=1}`$ and $`r^2_{I=0}`$ all depend on the details of the model but all scale as $`N_c^0`$. Equation (6) simply reflects the structure of the Wigner-Eckert theorem along with the large $`N_c`$ result that the quadrupole operator at leading order is purely isovector. Note that eq. (7) relates the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electric quadrupole transition to the static quadrupole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The relations in eqs. (7) and (8) are equivalent to the leading order model independent results of refs. BucHesLeb02  while eqs. (4) and(5) encode the leading order relations of ref. BucLeb00 . Note also, that the conclusion of ref. JenJiMan02  that the E2/M1 ratio scales as $`N_c^2`$ depends on the fact that the the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electric quadruole matrix element scales as $`N_c^0`$; a result seen in Skyrme type models as seen above.

As $`m_\pi 0`$, the classical pion tail in the Skyrme profile becomes increasingly long-ranged and dominates the contributions to both the isovector charge radius and the electric quadrupole properties. As has long been knownCohBro86 , the leading chiral behavior for both sets of quantities in these models can be directly related to the strength of the pion tail and thus to $`g_A`$ leading to additional relations:

$$r^2_{I=1}=\sqrt{500\pi }Q=\frac{5g_A^2\mathrm{\Delta }}{16\pi f_\pi ^2m_\pi }.$$
(9)
Note that both quantities diverge as $`1/m_\pi `$ in the chiral limit and the arguments of refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b  apply. In terms of the power counting of eq. (3) they scale as,

$$Qϵ^1r^2_{I=1}ϵ^1.$$
(10)
Since the scaling with $`ϵ`$ does not depend on the ordering of limits, the scaling in eq. (10) holds even away from the pure large $`N_c`$ limit.

Equation (10) is significant in the context of E2/M1 in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decays. This ratio was shown to go as $`N_c^2`$ in ref. JenJiMan02  with one factor of $`1/N_c`$ coming from kinematics while the other came from the fact that $`QN_c^0`$ and the magnetic transition moment, $`\mu `$, scaled as $`N_c^1`$. However, in the combined chiral and large $`N_c`$ counting scheme, $`Qϵ^1`$ and $`\mu ϵ^1`$. Thus, in the combined counting E2/M1 $`ϵ`$. There is one less power of suppression in the combined counting than in the pure $`1/N_c`$ counting due to a chiral enhancement. Thus it is hard to argue that one understands the very small empirical E2/M1 ratio purely from scaling arguments. It is plausible that smallness is associated with the large numerical coefficients in the proportionality constant relating the electric quadrupole transition to the isovector charge radius in eq. (9). These coefficients come from the detailed structure of the group theory and not from scaling behavior with $`m_\pi `$ or $`N_c`$.

The quantities of interest diverge in the chiral limit and so the relations in eqs. (4),(5) and (7). are modified as one approaches the combined large $`N_c`$ and chiral limits along the lines noted in refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b . They can be expressed as:

$`r^2_{\mathrm{\Delta };m_I}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Ir^2_{I=1}^{\mathrm{LN}}f_{\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta },r^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )+𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ (11)
$`r^2_{N;m_I}`$ $`=`$ $`m_Ir^2_{I=1}^{\mathrm{LN}}f_{N,N,r^2}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )+𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ (12)
$`3/2Q1/2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{125}Q^{\mathrm{LN}}f_{\mathrm{\Delta },N,Q}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )+𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ (13)
$`3/2Q3/2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{20}Q^{\mathrm{LN}}f_{\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta },Q}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )+𝒪(ϵ^0)`$ (14)
$`r^2_{I=1}^{\mathrm{LN}}`$ and $`Q^{\mathrm{LN}}`$ are the expressions for $`r^2_{I=1}`$ and $`Q`$ when the large $`N_c`$ limit is taken prior to the chiral limit. As such they are calculable in the Skyrme model and are given in eq. (9). The functions are $`f_{B,B^{},\mathrm{\Theta }}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )`$ where $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ are the initial and final baryon states and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ denotes the quantity in question. These functions are calculable from one loop pion graphs. The detailed form of these will be given in a subsequent publication.

Equations (11), (12), (13) and (14) imply large corrections to the model-independent large $`N_c`$ predictions of refs. BucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02  due to chiral enhancements. In the large $`N_c`$ limit, the $`f`$ functions are unity while for generic values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi `$ they differ from one another by amounts of order unity . This spoils the large $`N_c`$ proportionality rules of refs. BucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02  relating $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ charge radii to nucleon charge radii and the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ quadrupole moments to the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition moment. The relations depending solely on isospin are, of course, still valid.

In fact, the situation may be worse than this for the real world value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi 2`$. The analytic structure of the functions $`f_{B,B^{},\mathrm{\Theta }}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )`$ is nontrivial. When $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ are nucleons, the functions are analytic for all values $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi `$ as can been from their explicit forms as given in refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b . This reflects the lack of open channels. Similarly, when $`B`$ and $`B^{}`$ are either both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ states or one nucleon and one $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, they will be analytic for values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi <1`$ as there are no open channels. However, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi 1`$ the pion-nucleon channel is open. This raises a conceptual problem in the analysis since the analysis in refs. CohBro92 ; Coh95a ; Coh95b  is strictly valid for only static quantities and it is unclear how to define static quantities of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ when it is coupled to an open channel. Mathematically, this will be reflected by nonanalytic behavior in $`f_{B,B^{},\mathrm{\Theta }}(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )(\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi )`$. If one continues the forms of the $`f_{B,B^{},\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ to the regime where $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi <1`$, one will encounter imaginary parts. These represent the ambiguity in defining the values of the quantity for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance given the need to separate the resonance contribution from a continuum background. Such a separation is always model dependent. Provided the imaginary part is small, however, this ambiguity will be small and meaningful extraction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ properties are possible. For the case of the electric quadrupole transition from nucleon to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ there will be an imaginary part, but there is no reason to expect it to dominate. Calculations of E2/M1 for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ nucleon transition have significan imaginary parts but they do not dominate ButSavSpring93 .

The case of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ charge radius and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ quadrupole moment are different; one expects very large imaginary parts in the open-channel regime and thus it may be difficult to relate these quantities to experimental observables. To see this, consider the regime very close to threshold, i.e. where $`|1\mathrm{\Delta }^2/m_\pi ^2|<<1`$. One can develop an effective theory valid for this regime. The central physical idea is that below threshold in this regime, the pion is effectively nonrelativistic at long distances. Thus, the long distance part of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be visualized as a nonrelativistic p-wave between a pion and a nucleon and as such it is described by a wave function which goes as $`e^{m_\pi \sqrt{1\mathrm{\Delta }^2/m_\pi ^2}r}/r^2`$ at asymptotic distances. From this it is easy to deduce that in the vicinity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi =1`$ the functions scale as

$$f_{\mathrm{\Delta },N,r^2}=\frac{a}{\sqrt{1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}}+\mathrm{nonsingular}\mathrm{terms}f_{\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta },Q}=\frac{b}{\sqrt{1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{m_\pi ^2}}}+\mathrm{nonsingular}\mathrm{terms}$$
(15)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constants.

As one approaches the threshold from the bound region, the charge radius and the quadrupole moment both diverge. As one moves into the unbound region the functions are totally dominated by their imaginary parts and as such the quantity becomes ambiguous. One way to understand this ambiguity is in terms of contributions from the background. The background is a p-wave nucleon-pion continuum state which extends out to spatial infinity. Thus, changes in the model-dependent separation between resonance and background can move arbitrarily large contributions to these quantites from the continuum into the resonance. In this circumstance it is not clear how to extract the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ resonance contribution for these quantities. As one continues well above threshold and outside the region of this effective theory it is remains unclear exactly how one should interpret the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ charge radius and quadrupole moment. Reference BucHesLeb02  notes the practical difficulties in extracting the static quadrupole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from experiment. It remains an open question as to whether there exists continuations of the expressions for these quantities which is both valid above threshold and is meaningful in the sense that they can be related to experimentally measurable quantities. Thus the interplay between the chiral and large $`N_c`$ limits not only alters the relations of refs. BucLeb00 ; BucHesLeb02 , it also makes the interpretation of the charge radius and quadrupole moment of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ problematic in the real world where $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi >1`$.

In summary, the interplay between the chiral and large $`N_c`$ limits implies that taking a combined limit greatly alters relations between chirally sensitive nucleon, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ electromagnetic properties such as charge radii and quadrupole matrix elements from those which have been derived previously in a pure large-$`N_c`$ limit. The pure large $`N_c`$ relations become accurate when $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi <<1`$ while in the real world $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi 2`$. Moreover, the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ charge radius and electric quadrupole moment become ambiguous for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/m_\pi >1`$. The E2/M1 ratio for the nucleon-$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ transition is shown to scale as $`ϵ`$ in the combined large $`N_c`$ and chiral expansions as opposed to $`N_c^2`$ in the pure large $`N_c`$ expansion. It is less suppressed in the combined limit making it more difficult to understand why the ratio is so small.

This work is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy grant DE-FG02-93ER-40762. The author gratefully acknowledges useful discussions with X. Ji, A Manohar, R. Lebed, and A. Buchmann.


format: text

text:
# The Group of Symmetries of the shorter Moonshine Module

## 1 Introduction

The shorter Moonshine module or Baby Monster vertex operator superalgebra denoted by $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ was constructed in \[Höh95\]. It is a vertex operator superalgebra of central charge $`23\frac{1}{2}`$ on which a direct product of the cyclic group of order $`2`$ and Fischer’s Baby Monster $`𝔹`$ acts by automorphisms (\[Höh95\], Th. 2.4.7). Furthermore, it was shown loc. cit. that the complete automorphism group $`\mathrm{Aut}(VB^{\mathrm{}})`$ of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ is finite. It was conjectured that this is already the full automorphism group, i.e. $`\mathrm{Aut}(VB^{\mathrm{}})=2\times 𝔹`$. The purpose of this note is to present a proof for this conjecture.

###### Theorem 1

The automorphism group of the shorter Moonshine module $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the direct product of the Baby Monster $`𝔹`$ and a cyclic group of order $`2`$.

The Baby Monster was discovered by Bernd Fischer in 1973 (unpublished) and a computer proof of its existence and uniqueness was given by J. S. Leon and C. C. Sims in 1977 (for an announcement see \[LS77\]). An independent computer-free construction was given by R. Griess during his construction of the Monster (see \[Gri82\]). The Baby Monster is the second largest sporadic simple group and has order $`2^{41}3^{13}5^67^211131719233147`$.

The paper is organized as follows. In the rest of the introduction we will recall the definition of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ from \[Höh95\] and discuss the original proof of the corresponding theorem for the Moonshine module:

###### Theorem 2

The automorphism group of the Moonshine module $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the Monster $`𝕄`$.

The second section contains the proof of Theorem 1 which is divided into two steps. In the first step, we show that $`𝔹`$ equals the automorphism group of the algebra $`𝔅^{}`$, the subspace of the shorter Moonshine module $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ spanned by the vectors of conformal weight $`2`$. This is done by identifying certain idempotents in $`𝔅`$ and $`𝔅^{}`$ with certain conjugacy classes of involutions in $`𝕄`$ resp. $`𝔹`$. The second step consists in showing that the vertex operator subalgebra $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of even vectors in $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated as a vertex operator algebra by the conformal weight $`2`$ component $`𝔅^{}`$. For this, we use the theory of framed vertex operator algebras as developed in \[DGH98\].

The Moonshine module $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a vertex operator algebra of central charge $`24`$ having as conformal character $`\chi _V^{\mathrm{}}=q^1_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{dim}V_n^{\mathrm{}}q^n`$ the elliptic modular function $`j744=q^1+196884q+21493760q^2+\mathrm{}`$. It was constructed in \[FLM88\] (see also \[Bor86\]) as a $`𝐙_2`$-orbifold of the lattice vertex operator algebra $`V_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ associated to the Leech lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The algebra induced on the conformal weight $`2`$ part $`V_2^{\mathrm{}}`$ can be identified with the Griess algebra $`𝔅`$ (see \[FLM88\], Prop. 10.3.6).

We outline the proof of Theorem 2: From the construction of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ one can find a subgroup of type $`2_+^{1+24}.\mathrm{Co}_1`$ as well as an extra triality involution $`\sigma `$ inside $`\mathrm{Aut}(V^{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅)`$ (see \[FLM88\], Th. 10.4.12 and Prop. 12.2.9). It was shown in \[Gri82\] that $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅)`$ is finite and certain theorems from finite group theory (\[Smi79, GMS89\]) were invoked to conclude that the subgroup $`2_+^{1+24}.\mathrm{Co}_1,\sigma `$ of $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅)`$ must be the finite simple group called the Monster. The finiteness proof for $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅)`$ was simplified in \[Con84, Tit84\]. Furthermore, Tits showed in \[Tit84\] that the Monster is the full automorphism group of $`𝔅`$. The proof of Theorem 2 is completed by showing that $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated as a vertex operator algebra by $`𝔅`$ (see \[FLM88\], Th. 12.3.1 (g)). An independent proof of Theorem 2 was given by Miyamoto \[Miy04\].

The Monster group has two conjugacy classes of involutions, denoted by $`2A`$ and $`2B`$ in the notation of the Atlas of finite groups (cf. \[CCN+85\]). For any involution in class $`2A`$ there exists an associated idempotent $`e`$ in the Griess algebra $`𝔅`$ called the transposition axis of that involution in \[Con84\]. (In \[Con84\], $`64e`$ was used, but we prefer to work with the idempotents.) The vertex operator subalgebra of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ generated by $`e`$ is isomorphic to the simple Virasoro vertex operator algebra $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ of central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and has the Virasoro element $`2e`$ (cf. \[DMZ94\], see also \[Höh95\], Th. 4.1.2 or \[Miy96\]).

The shorter Moonshine module $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a vertex operator superalgebra of central charge $`23\frac{1}{2}`$ with conformal character

$$\chi _{VB^{\mathrm{}}}=q^{47/48}(1+4371q^{3/2}+96256q^2+1143745q^{5/2}+\mathrm{}).$$

We recall its definition from \[Höh95\], Sec. 3.1 and 4.2: Let $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ be the vertex operator subalgebra of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ generated by a transposition axis $`e`$. The Virasoro vertex operator algebra $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ has three irreducible modules $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$, $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})`$ and $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})`$ of conformal weights $`0`$, $`\frac{1}{2}`$ and $`\frac{1}{16}`$ (cf. \[DMZ94\]). Let $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the commutant of $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ in $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$. One has a decomposition

$$V^{\mathrm{}}=VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})VB_{(2)}^{\mathrm{}}L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})$$

with $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$-modules $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`VB_{(2)}^{\mathrm{}}`$. The shorter Moonshine module is defined as $`VB^{\mathrm{}}=VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}`$. A vertex operator superalgebra structure on $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ resp. $`VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the even resp. odd part can be constructed from the vertex operator algebra structure of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ (see \[Höh95\], Th. 3.1.3). The centralizer of the class $`2A`$ involution associated to the idempotent $`e`$ is $`2.𝔹`$, a $`2`$-fold cover of the Baby Monster. There is an induced action of $`2.𝔹`$ on $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ respecting the vertex operator superalgebra structure such that the central involution acts trivially (see \[Höh95\], Th. 4.2.6). An extra automorphism of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ commuting with the $`𝔹`$-action is the involution which acts as the identity on $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and by multiplication with $`1`$ on $`VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

A construction of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ using the $`2A`$-twisted module of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ was explained in \[Yam02\].

Remarks: The shorter Moonshine module can be understood as the vertex operator algebra analog of the shorter Leech lattice (which has $`2.\mathrm{Co}_2`$ as automorphism group, where $`\mathrm{Co}_2`$ is the second Conway group) and the shorter Golay code (which has $`M_{22}:2`$ as automorphism group, where $`M_{22}`$ is a Mathieu group) (cf. \[CCN+85\]).

As a framed vertex operator superalgebra (for the definition see the next section), $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ can in principle be constructed without reference to $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$. This suggests that a natural way to define the Baby Monster would be to use the symmetry group of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Acknowledgment: The author likes to thank the referees for carefully reading the manuscript and the suggestion of the first referee for simplifying the proof of Proposition 5.

## 2 Proof of Theorem

Let $`V`$ be a nonnegatively graded rational vertex operator algebra having a Virasoro vertex operator algebra $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ as subalgebra. It was shown in \[Miy96\], Sect. 4, that in this situation a nontrivial automorphism of $`V`$ can often be constructed: There is the decomposition $`V=W(0)W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})`$, where $`W(h)`$ is the subspace of $`V`$ generated by all $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$-modules isomorphic to $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},h)`$. If $`W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})0`$, one defines an involution $`\tau `$ as the identity on $`W(0)W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})`$ and the multiplication with $`1`$ on $`W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})`$. If $`W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})=0`$ but $`W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})0`$, an involution $`\sigma `$ is defined as the identity on $`W(0)`$ and the multiplication with $`1`$ on $`W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})`$. The nontrivial fusion rules of the fusion algebra for $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ are $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})\times L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})=L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$, $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})\times L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})=L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})`$ and $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})\times L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})=L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)+L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})`$ (cf. \[DMZ94\]). This is the reason that $`\tau `$ resp. $`\sigma `$ are indeed automorphisms of $`V`$. The following result was mentioned in \[Miy96\], p. 547, but no explicit proof was given.

###### Lemma 3

Every idempotent of $`𝔅`$ generating a simple Virasoro vertex operator algebra of central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is a transposition axis. In particular, the map which associates to such an idempotent its Miyamoto involution defines a bijection between the set of such idempotents and the class $`2A`$ involutions of the Monster.

Proof. Let $`e`$ be an idempotent of $`𝔅`$ as in the lemma, let $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)V^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the simple Virasoro vertex operator algebra of central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ it generates, and let $`V^{\mathrm{}}=W(0)W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})`$ be the decomposition of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ into $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$-modules as described above.

First we observe that the case $`W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})=W(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})=0`$ cannot occur. In this case, the algebra $`𝔅`$ would be the direct orthogonal sum of the one dimensional algebra $`𝐂e`$ and a complementary subalgebra. Let $`e^{}=xe+u`$ be another element in the Monster orbit of $`e`$ where $`u`$ is in the complementary subalgebra. We get $`e^2=x^2e+u^2=xe+u=e^{}`$ and thus either $`x=1`$ or $`x=0`$. In the first case, we would have $`e^{},e^{}=e,e+u,u`$ and thus $`u=0`$ and $`e^{}=e`$. It follows that $`x=0`$ and $`e^{},e=0`$. Thus the Monster orbit of $`e`$ would consist of pairwise orthogonal idempotents generating simple Virasoro vertex operator algebras of central charge $`1/2`$. Since the central charge of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`24`$, there can be at most $`48`$ such idempotents. However, no non-trivial factor group of the Monster is a subgroup of any symmetric group of degree $`n48`$. Hence the Monster fixes $`e`$ and thus also $`1e`$ where $`1`$ is the identity element of $`𝔅`$. Since the trivial Monster representation occurs only with multiplicity one, this is impossible. Therefore this case cannot occur and the idempotent $`e`$ defines an involution $`t\mathrm{Aut}(V^{\mathrm{}})=𝕄`$.

Let $`𝔅=X^+X^{}`$ be the decomposition of $`𝔅`$ into the $`+1`$ and $`1`$ eigenspaces of $`t`$ and let $`C`$ be the centralizer of $`t`$ in the Monster. The fusion rules for $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ imply that the algebra multiplication restricts to a $`C`$-equivariant map $`\mu :X^+\mathrm{End}(X^{})`$ defined by $`\mu (a)x=a_{(1)}x`$ for $`aX^+`$ and $`xX^{}`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{Ker}\mu =0`$. For, consider a $`C`$-irreducible component of $`\mathrm{Ker}\mu `$. There are two cases:

(1) The involution $`t`$ is in class $`2B`$ and $`C2_+^{1+24}.\mathrm{Co}_1`$. The irreducible $`C`$-components of $`X^+`$ have dimensions $`1`$, $`299`$ and $`98280`$. By the construction of the Griess algebra \[Gri82\], the $`1`$-, $`299`$\- and $`98280`$-dimensional component of $`X^+`$ act nontrivially on the $`98304`$-dimensional component $`X^{}`$. This proves the claim in the $`2B`$ case.

(2) The involution $`t`$ is in class $`2A`$ and $`C2.𝔹`$. The decomposition of the Griess algebra $`𝔅`$ into irreducible components for the centralizer $`2.𝔹`$ is shown in table 1 (cf. \[Gri82, MN93\]). The components of $`X^+`$ have dimensions $`1`$, $`1`$, $`4371`$ and $`96255`$. Again, it can easily been seen that the $`4371`$\- and the $`96255`$-dimensional component act nontrivially on $`X^{}`$. For example, one can use the Virasoro frame decomposition of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ given in \[DGH98\] (for the notation, see the discussion before Proposition 6): Let $`F=\{\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _{48}\}`$ be the Virasoro frame for $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ as in \[DGH98\]. We can choose $`\omega _1=2e`$. As seen from table 1, $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _1+\mathrm{}+\omega _{48}`$ generate the trivial isotypical $`2.𝔹`$-module component of $`X^{}`$ and act by multiplication with $`1/16`$ resp. $`2`$ on $`X^{}`$. The element $`\omega _2`$ which is contained in the direct sum of the trivial with the $`96255`$-dimensional component acts on $`X^{}`$. On the Viraroso submodule $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})(L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0))^{23}`$ generated by a vector $`v`$ in $`X^{}`$ the action of $`\omega _2`$ is multiplication with $`1/2`$, on the Viraroso submodule $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})(L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0))^{22}`$ generated by a vector $`v^{}`$ in $`X^{}`$ the action of $`\omega _2`$ is multiplication with $`0`$. Thus $`\mu (\omega _2)𝐂\mathrm{id}_X^{}`$ and we see that the action of the $`96255`$-dimensional component must be nontrivial. For the $`4371`$-dimensional component of $`X^+`$, choose again a Viraroso submodule $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})^3L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)^{44}`$ which is generated by a highest weight vector $`w`$ in this component. For $`X^{}`$, choose a Viraroso submodule $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2})(L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0))^{23}`$ which is generated by a vector $`w^{}`$ in $`X^{}`$. One sees from the fusion rules that the algebra product $`ww^{}`$ is nontrivial. This finishes the proof of the claim in the $`2A`$ case.

Let $`U=Ce`$ be the $`C`$-submodule of $`X^+`$ generated by $`e`$. Since $`e`$ acts by multiplication with a non-zero scalar $`\lambda `$ on $`X^+`$ (one has $`\lambda =\frac{1}{32}`$ if $`t`$ is of type $`\tau `$ and $`\lambda =\frac{1}{4}`$ if $`t`$ is of type $`\sigma `$), all elements of $`U`$ are mapped by $`\mu `$ to $`𝐂\mathrm{id}_X^{}\mathrm{End}(X^{})`$, and $`\mu (e)=\lambda \mathrm{id}_X^{}`$ with $`\lambda 0`$. It follows that $`U`$ must be a trivial representation of $`C`$. In case (1), this implies that $`e`$ must be the identity of $`𝔅`$. Since the identity corresponds to the Virasoro element of central charge $`24`$, this case is impossible. In case (2), we see that $`e`$ is contained in the $`2`$-dimensional trivial $`C`$-component $`𝐂𝐂`$, and this implies that $`e`$ must be an axis since this component is spanned by $`e`$ and the identity of $`𝔅`$. x

Denote with $`𝔅^{}`$ the subspace of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ spanned by the vectors of conformal weight $`2`$. The vertex operator algebra structure on $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ induces an algebra structure on $`𝔅^{}`$.

###### Lemma 4

The map which associates to an idempotent of $`𝔅^{}`$ generating a simple Virasoro vertex operator algebra of central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ its Miyamoto involution defines a bijection between the set of transposition axis contained in $`𝔅^{}`$ and the class $`2B`$ involutions of the Baby Monster.

Proof. Since, by construction, $`𝔅^{}`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝔅`$, every idempotent of $`𝔅^{}`$ is also an idempotent of $`𝔅`$. By Lemma 3, the idempotents which generate a simple Virasoro vertex operator algebra of central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ must be transposition axes.

The set of $`2A`$ involutions of $`𝕄`$ decomposes under the conjugation action of the centralizer $`2.𝔹`$ of a fixed $`2A`$-involution $`\tau `$ into nine orbits \[Nor82, GMS89\]. These orbits can be labeled by the Monster conjugacy class of the product of an involution in an orbit with the fixed $`2A`$-involution $`\tau `$ corresponding to an axis $`e`$. The orbit for the class $`2B`$ corresponds to the axis of $`𝔅`$ contained in the $`𝔅^{}`$ component of $`𝔅`$ (see \[MN93\], Th. 5). The stabilizer in $`𝔹`$ of an involution in this orbit (the central element $`2`$ in $`2.𝔹`$ acts trivial) is $`2_+^{1+22}.\mathrm{Co}_2`$ (cf. \[GMS89\]) and the action of $`𝔹`$ on the orbit can be identified with the conjugation action of $`𝔹`$ on the class of $`2B`$ involutions of $`𝔹`$.

Using the map $`2.𝔹=\mathrm{Cent}(\tau )=\mathrm{Stab}_𝕄(e)\mathrm{Aut}(VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}})`$, $`gg|_{\mathrm{Aut}(VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}})}`$, with kernel $`\tau `$, we see that the involution $`\tau ^{}`$ on $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ associated to an idempotent $`e`$ in $`𝔅^{}𝔅`$ is the restriction to $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the associated involution $`\tau `$ of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$. xxxxxxxxxx x

###### Proposition 5

The automorphism group of the algebra $`𝔅^{}`$ is the Baby Monster.

Proof. Let $`G=\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅^{})𝔹`$. Since all the idempotents $`e`$ of $`𝔅^{}`$ generating a central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ Virasoro algebra correspond to the class $`2B`$ involutions of $`𝔹`$, the conjugation action of $`G`$ leaves the set of $`2B`$ involutions invariant. Since $`𝔹`$ is generated by its $`2B`$ involutions it is a normal subgroup of $`G`$. Since $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔹)=𝔹`$ (cf. \[CCN+85\]), we see $`G=A.𝔹`$ and $`A`$ centralizes $`𝔹`$. Recall from Table 1 that $`𝔅^{}=\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟏}}\underset{¯}{\mathrm{𝟗𝟔𝟐𝟓𝟓}}`$ as $`𝔹`$-module. Since $`G`$ fixes the Virasoro element $`\omega `$ of $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ this is also a decomposition of $`G`$-modules. Let $`aA`$. Then $`a`$ must act by a scalar $`\lambda `$ on the $`96255`$-dimensional component. We write an idempotent $`e`$ as above in the form $`e=x\omega +u`$ where $`\omega `$ is the Virasoro element and $`u`$ is in the $`96255`$-dimensional component. Clearly, $`u0`$. We obtain $`a(e)=x\omega +\lambda u`$ since $`a`$ fixes $`\omega `$. As $`e=a(e)`$ it follows that $`\lambda =1`$. Thus $`a=1`$ and $`A`$ is trivial. xxxxxxxx x

Remark: In a similar way, one could prove that $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅)=𝕄`$. However, the proof of Lemma 3 already assumes that the Monster is the whole automorphism group of $`\mathrm{Aut}(𝔅)`$.

For proving that $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by the subspace $`𝔅^{}`$, we recall some results about framed vertex operator algebras from \[DGH98\]. A subset $`F=\{\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _r\}`$ of a simple vertex operator algebra $`V`$ is called a Virasoro frame if the $`\omega _i`$ for $`i=1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`r`$ generate mutually commuting simple Virasoro vertex operator algebras $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ of central charge $`1/2`$ and $`\omega _1+\mathrm{}+\omega _r`$ is the Virasoro element of $`V`$. Such a vertex operator algebra $`V`$ is called a framed vertex operator algebra. Under $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)^r`$, the vertex operator subalgebra spanned by the Virasoro frame, $`V`$ decomposes as

$$V=\underset{h_1,\mathrm{},h_r\{0,\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16}\}}{}n_{h_1,\mathrm{},h_r}L(h_1,\mathrm{},h_r),$$

into isotypical components of modules $`L(h_1,\mathrm{},h_r)=L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},h_1)\mathrm{}L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},h_r)`$. Using this decomposition, one defines the two binary codes

$$𝒞=\{c𝐅_2^rn_{c_1/2,\mathrm{},c_r/2}0\}\text{and}𝒟=\{d𝐅_2^r\underset{h_1,\mathrm{},h_r}{}n_{h_1,\mathrm{},h_r}0\},$$

where the sum in the definition of $`𝒟`$ runs over those $`h_i`$ with $`h_i\{0,\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2}\}`$ if $`d_i=0`$ and $`h_i=\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16}`$ if $`d_i=1`$. It was shown in \[DGH98\] that both codes are linear, $`𝒟𝒞^{}`$ ($`C^{}`$ denotes the code orthogonal to $`C`$), $`𝒞`$ is even, and all weights of vectors in $`𝒟`$ are divisible by $`8`$. For $`c𝒞`$, we denote the sum of all irreducible modules isomorphic to $`L(c_1/2,\mathrm{},c_r/2)`$ by $`V(c)`$; for $`I𝒟`$, we denote the sum of all irreducible modules isomorphic to $`L(h_1,\mathrm{},h_r)`$ such that $`h_i\{0,\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2}\}`$ if $`I_i=0`$ and $`h_i=\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16}`$ if $`I_i=1`$ for $`i=1`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`r`$ by $`V^I`$.

###### Proposition 6

The even part $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the shorter Moonshine module $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by $`𝔅^{}`$, the subspace of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ consisting vectors of conformal weight $`2`$.

Proof. The Moonshine module $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a framed vertex operator algebra of central charge $`24`$ (cf. \[DMZ94\]). To any Virasoro frame in $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ there are the two associated binary codes $`𝒞`$ and $`𝒟`$ of length $`48`$. For the construction of the shorter Moonshine module, one has to fix a simple central charge $`\frac{1}{2}`$ Virasoro vertex operator subalgebra generated by an axis. It follows from Lemma 3 that all such vertex operator subalgebras are equivalent, one can choose an arbitrary $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ of a given Virasoro frame in $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the remaining $`47`$ factors $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ define a Virasoro frame of $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$. The associated binary codes $`𝒞^{}`$ and $`𝒟^{}`$ for the framed vertex operator algebra $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are obtained from the codes $`𝒞`$ resp. $`𝒟`$ by taking those vectors of $`𝒞`$ resp. $`𝒟`$ which have the value $`0`$ at the coordinate corresponding to the first chosen $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0)`$ and then omitting this coordinate.

We fix now the Virasoro frame of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ studied in \[DGH98\], Sect. 5, Example II. The code $`𝒟`$ has in this case the generator matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1111111111111111& 0000000000000000& 0000000000000000\\ 0000000000000000& 1111111111111111& 0000000000000000\\ 0000000000000000& 0000000000000000& 1111111111111111\\ 0000000011111111& 0000000011111111& 0000000011111111\\ 0000111100001111& 0000111100001111& 0000111100001111\\ 0011001100110011& 0011001100110011& 0011001100110011\\ 0101010101010101& 0101010101010101& 0101010101010101\end{array}\right)$$

and $`𝒞`$ is the dual code of $`𝒟`$, i.e., $`𝒞=\{c𝐅_2^{48}_{i=1}^{48}c_id_i=0\text{for all}d𝒟\}`$ (Theorem 5.8 of \[DGH98\]). In particular, $`𝒞`$ is even. It was shown in \[DGH98\] that $`𝒞`$ has minimal weight $`4`$.

We claim that the codewords of weight $`4`$ in $`𝒞`$ span the code: The $`48`$ coordinates of $`𝒞`$ are naturally partitioned into three blocks of $`16`$ coordinates by the first three rows of the above matrix. Let $`c`$ be a codeword of $`𝒞`$ of weight $`6`$ or larger. By the pigeon hole principle, we can find two blocks such that the support of $`c`$ has at least four coordinates at the $`32`$ coordinates of these two blocks. The codewords of $`𝒞`$ having the value $`0`$ at the remaining third block can be identified with the extended Hamming code $`_{32}`$ of length $`32`$ since its dual code is the extended simplex code of that length whose generator matrix equals the restriction of $`𝒟`$ to the two blocks. The code $`_{32}`$ has the property that for any set of three of its $`32`$ coordinates there is a codeword $`v`$ of weight $`4`$ in $`_{32}𝒞`$ containing this set of coordinates in its support, i.e., the codewords of weight $`4`$ define a Steiner system $`S(3,4,32)`$ (cf. \[McS77\], Ch. 2, Thm. 15). By choosing the three coordinates from the support of $`c`$ contained in the two selected blocks, we see that $`c+v`$ is a codeword of $`𝒞`$ of smaller weight then the weight of $`c`$. This implies the claim.

Now we claim that the codewords of weight $`4`$ in $`𝒞^{}`$ span $`𝒞^{}`$: By using the claim for $`𝒞`$, we see that a codeword $`c`$ of $`𝒞`$ with value $`0`$ at a fixed coordinate is the sum of codewords in $`𝒞`$ of weight $`4`$ such that in the sum an even number of the codewords have the value $`1`$ at the fixed coordinate. The sum $`d`$ of two different weight $`4`$ codewords having the value $`1`$ at the fixed coordinate is a codeword of weight $`4`$ or $`6`$. We must show that $`d`$ is the sum of weight $`4`$ codewords of $`𝒞^{}`$. So if $`d`$ has weight $`4`$ we are done. If $`d`$ has weight $`6`$, let $`i\{0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}\}`$ be the number of coordinates of the support of $`d`$ which are in the same block as the fixed coordinate used in the definition of $`𝒞^{}`$.

For $`i3`$, the support of $`d`$ contains $`6i3`$ coordinates in the two other blocks. In this case we can choose a weight $`4`$ vector $`v`$ as above with support in these two blocks and obtain with $`v`$ and $`d+v`$ two weight $`4`$ vectors in $`𝒞^{}`$ with sum $`d`$.

For $`i4`$, one observes from the definition of $`𝒞`$ that the codewords of $`𝒞`$ having the value $`0`$ at the two other block can be identified with the extended Hamming code $`_{16}`$ of length 16: its dual code is the extended simplex code of that length whose generator matrix equals the restriction of $`𝒟`$ to the remaining block. We choose now in two different ways $`3`$ coordinates out of a set of $`4`$ coordinates contained in the $`i4`$ coordinates which form the intersection of the support of $`d`$ with the block containing the distinguished coordinate. Since the weight $`4`$ codewords of $`_{16}`$ form a Steiner system $`S(3,4,16)`$, there are two codewords $`v`$ and $`v^{}`$ of weight $`4`$ in $`_{16}`$ containing these two sets of $`3`$ coordinates in their support. Not both of them can have the value $`1`$ at the distinguished coordinate since otherwise their sum would have weight $`2`$. So we have found with $`v`$ and $`d+v`$ or with $`v^{}`$ and $`d+v^{}`$ two vectors of weight $`4`$ in $`𝒞^{}`$ with sum $`d`$ and we are done again.

It is clear that $`𝒟`$ and $`𝒟^{}`$ are both generated by their codewords of weight $`16`$ and $`24`$.

In \[DGH98\], Prop. 2.5. (5) and (6), it was shown that for a framed vertex operator algebra $`V`$ the module $`V(c)`$ generated by the isotypical component corresponding to a codeword $`c`$ in the associated binary code $`𝒞`$ is irreducible and the span of the images of the maps from $`V(c)\times V(c^{})`$ to $`V(c+c^{})`$, $`c`$, $`c^{}𝒞`$, defined by the components of the vertex operator generate $`V(c+c^{})`$. Since the Virasoro frame is contained in $`V_2`$ and the conformal weight of a Virasoro highest weight vector in $`V(c)`$ for $`c𝒞`$ is half the weight of $`c`$, it follows from the above discussion that the vertex operator subalgebra $`V^0=_{c𝒞}V(c)`$ for $`V`$ equal to $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ resp. $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by $`𝔅`$ resp. $`𝔅^{}`$.

Similarly, using \[DGH98\], Prop. 2.5. (1) and (2), one has: $`V=_{I𝒟}V^I`$, the $`V^I`$ are irreducible $`V^0`$-modules, and the span of the images of the maps from $`V^I\times V^I^{}`$ to $`V^{I+I^{}}`$, $`I`$, $`I^{}𝒟`$, defined by the components of the vertex operator generate $`V^{I+I^{}}`$. By direct inspection of the Virasoro decomposition of the moonshine module given explicitly in \[DGH98\], one finds for any codeword $`I`$ of weight $`16`$ or $`24`$ in $`𝒟`$ a Virasoro highest weight vector in $`(V^{\mathrm{}})_2^I`$. For example, there is the Virasoro highest weight module $`L(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0^{15},\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm2},0^{15},(\text{“sevenrm1}/\text{“sevenrm16})^{16})`$. (In more detail, one can use the decomposition polynomial given in \[DGH98\], Cor. 5.9 and observe that the situation is symmetric for all codewords in $`𝒟`$ of fixed weight.) For $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$, one observes that for all $`I𝒟^{}`$ the Virasoro highest weight module can be chosen to have conformal weight $`0`$ at the fixed coordinate. (Again, this can be seen from the decomposition polynomial.)

Putting the above arguments together, we have proven that $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by $`𝔅^{}`$. x

Remark: The proof of Prop. 6 also shows that the Moonshine module $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is generated by the Griess algebra $`𝔅`$, a result first proven in \[FLM88\], Prop. 12.3.1 (g) by using similar ideas.

Theorem 1 follows now from Prop. 5 and Prop. 6 as explained in \[Höh95\], Th. 4.2.7: Any automorphism $`g`$ of $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ must fix the even and odd components $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e., can be written in the form $`g=g_0g_1`$ and one has $`g_0\mathrm{Aut}(VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}})=𝔹`$. Let $`g^{}=g_0^{}g_1^{}`$ be another automorphism with $`g_0=g_0^{}`$. Since $`VB_{(1)}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an irreducible $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$-module (\[Höh95\], Th. 4.2.2) and $`g^1g^{}=\mathrm{id}g_1^1g_1^{}`$ is a $`VB_{(0)}^{\mathrm{}}`$-module homomorphism, there is a scalar $`s`$ such that $`g^{}=g_0sg_1`$. Since $`VB^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a vertex operator superalgebra, one gets $`s=\pm 1`$. x


text:
# A model of memory, learning and recognition

## 1 Introduction

For years I have been thinking about how conscience emerges from the underlying neuron clatter (by conscience I mean awareness, i.e. the difference between being awake and asleep). Last night the inspiration came all at once, just as visitors were arriving. I put my thoughts aside due to the visitors, but today I hasten to write them down. The model explains a lot and in hindsight is almost “obvious” (why did I not think of it before?) I mention these details because they illustrate how the mind works.

For the sake of simplicity I will be very specific, almost telegraphic. I will mention only the essential points. The reader should not take seriously the specific details. I have no pretense that the brain works with exactly the implementation I will describe below. However I do believe that many of the ideas discussed here are in fact implemented by the brain in some equivalent way.

To make this article self-contained I list in Section 2 characteristics of the brain that are relevant to our model.\[1-6\] Some of these characteristics have been obtained directly from experiments or observations and some have been inferred indirectly and are therefore only educated guesses. Our model is presented in Section 3. Estimates of the number of memory neurons are obtained in Section 4. Finally, conclusions are collected in Section 5.

## 2 Characteristics of the brain

The human brain has approximately $`10^{10}`$ “neurons”. A neuron is a cell with a central body (the “soma”) and up to $`10^5`$ ramifications. One of these ramifications, called “axon”, is long and carries the output electrical pulse of the neuron. These pulses have an amplitude of 145mV and a duration of about 0.2 milliseconds. The remaining ramifications, called “dendrites”, carry the input electrical pulses to the neuron. The axon is connected to dendrites of other neurons (or to muscle cells). These connections, or “synapses”, are of a chemical nature. Each synapse carries a “weight” that can be excitatory or inhibitory. The neuron “fires”, i.e. sends an output impulse along its axon, if the weighted sum of inputs is above a threshold. A schematic diagram of a neuron is shown in Figure 1.

“There are roughly a quarter of a million nerve cells and two billion synapses below one square millimeter of cerebral-cortex surface.”

The programing of the brain consists of the making or breaking of synapses (or more generally of the modification of the weights of the synapses). Certain programing occurs at critical periods (such as the breaking of synapses to obtain registration of the images seen by the right and left eyes) and programing that occurs throughout the lifetime (such as storing information in the long-term memory).

Many brain processes occur at the same time: parallel computation is widespread.

Let us describe “sensory registers”, “short-term memory” and “long-term memory” from the point of view of a psychologist. A block diagram is shown in Figure 2. The stimuli from the environment arrive at our sense organs where they are transformed into electro-chemical impulses in neurons. This information is processed and analyzed hierarchically in the sensory registers, and in the lapse of about one quarter of a second are either discarded (if they are not interesting) or passed on to the short-term memory. This is the “cocktail effect”: at a party we can pay attention to one conversation, unaware of other conversations until our name (or some gossip of interest) is mentioned.

The short-term memory can store a limited amount of information: about seven random letters, or five random words, or four random phrases, or one low resolution image. After up to eight to twenty seconds this information is discarded (forgotten) unless it is of our interest and we refresh the memory by repetition (as when we are given a new telephone number).

We can transfer information from the short-term memory to the long-term memory. This transfer requires that the information be classified and related to other information in the long-term memory. This is the learning process. As more relations are established the easier it becomes to find and recover information from the long-term memory and “re-live” it in the short-term memory. The long-term memory can store practically an unlimited amount of information which lasts for a life time (it seems that the information is lost only by disease or death).

We are aware of, or can pay attention to, a limited amount of information. Therefore we associate conscience with the short-term memory. Conscious perception takes hundreds of milliseconds.

“Neurobiologists believe that memories are encoded in the synapses, and two billion synapses per square millimeter of cortex can hold a lot of memories.”

Most brain processes are unconscious. We have perception and knowledge with and without awareness.

“Long-term memory enriches our lives incredibly, but you don’t need it to be aware. All that’s necessary for base-level awareness is short-term memory and attention.”

“When you superimpose a PET image on an MRI image, you can see which brain structures are active in a particular task.” With this technique it is discovered that different brain areas are active when, for example, we hear a word, see the word, speak the word or write the word.

Let us quote Christof Koch again: “So every time I see an event, that event corresponds to electrical activity all over the brain. If I look at my friend Bill, say, his face is represented in the brain area where my face neurons are located, the hue of his face is processed in V4, the fact that he’s moving around is represented in MT, my memories of him correspond to activity in the temporal lobes, and if he talks, his speech activates my auditory cortex.” “Yet if I look at Bill I see a coherent whole.” “How come I don’t get Bill’s voice coming from the man behind him?”

Different qualities (form, movement, color, depth information from binocular vision, sound, smell, …) are processed in parallel and in hierarchical form in different parts of the brain. Presumably at the highest level of these hierarchies “all of the neurons responding to the stimulus fire at roughly the same time.”

Christof Koch and Francis Crick (yes, the same Crick of the double helix) “think that if you are aware of an event, all the nerve cells involved in the perception of that event anywhere in the brain fire at the same time” at about 40 pulses per second. They also argue that “to be aware of something you need to attend to it, and you need to put it into short-term memory”.

There does not appear to be a specific place in the brain where consciousness resides. A model of distributed processing appears to best describe brain activity.

Conscience of the environment emerges in the child as he or she acquires experience. According to Piaget, before the first month of age the reflexes lack will. From one to eight months of age the child successively learns to repeat voluntarily actions that cause him pleasure, acquires the intention of his actions, searches for hidden objects, and acquires long-term goals. Self-consciousness emerges around the eighteenth month of age when the child recognizes himself in the mirror (seeing in the mirror that he has a spot painted on the nose he reaches his nose). At about the age of twenty four months the child distinguishes the words “I” and “you”. So the brain is in constant development.

## 3 A model of memory and recognition

The following is a simplified model of memory and recognition that fits the observations described in Section 2.

The model distinguishes two types of neurons according to their different connections and hence different functions. I will call these neurons “image neurons” and “memory neurons”.

When I see an event, each quality of the event (shape, movement, color, distance, sound, smell…) is processed in parallel, each in hierarchical form. At the top level of these hierarchies are image neurons.

When I see the event, image neurons all over the cerebral cortex fire. In Figure 3 are shown three image neurons that fire in response to a particular external stimulus. The sub-set of image neurons that fires will be called an “image”.

The crucial question is this one: How can image neurons that fire all over the cerebral cortex synchronize their pulses?

To answer this question we introduce a memory neuron as shown in Figure 4. The unprogramed memory neuron has its dendrites and its axon connected to many image neurons.

The memory neuron becomes programed and encodes an image as follows. The memory neuron breaks the synapses of its dendrites and axon to the image neurons that are not firing. See Figure 5. This breaking of synapses is the storage of the image into the long-term memory. Each memory neuron can store one image. (It is important to mention that similar programing of neurons has been studied in kittens before the age of three months when the excess of synapses are broken to obtain registered binocular vision.) From the experiments we speculate that the programing of a memory neuron takes of order $`1`$ second.

The memory neuron serves three functions: recognition, short-term memory, and long-term memory as we now explain.

If I see the same event again, most of the same image neurons fire. This will cause the “memory neuron” to “recognize” the image and fire. This is how we recognize events. The firing of the memory neuron in turn reinforces, synchronizes and completes the firing of the image neurons involved in the perception. Thus a positive feedback loop is established. Even when the stimulus is removed the neurons keep firing in synchronism (at about $`40`$ pulses per second) due to the positive feedback loop of the memory neuron. The threshold of the memory neuron raises (or, equivalently, the coupling weight of the synapses is reduced) so that after up to eight to twenty seconds the oscillation ceases. According to the model, this is the mechanism of short-term memory.

Examples of the brain completing images are the filling in of the blind spot, the coloring of periferal vision and the completion of a square.

If, for some reason, the memory neuron is excited, then the image neurons involved in the perception of the event fire in synchronism. The memory neuron “recognizes” this event, fires, and establishes a positive feedback loop. Self sustaining synchronized pulses occur for a few seconds. This is how the event is retrieved from the long-term memory and is “re-created” or “re-lived” in the short-term memory.

There is a hierarchy of memory neurons, so that if I see a dog coming towards me I first recognize a dog in general, and then I recognize the special dog Snoopy. The dog in general corresponds to a particular set of image neurons firing in synchronism. Snoopy corresponds to those same image neurons plus additional image neurons all firing in synchronism. A simple hierarchy is shown in Figure 6.

In Section 2 we mentioned that to transfer information from the short-term memory to the long-term memory it is necessary to classify it and relate it to other information already in the long-term memory. This classification and relation is the construction of the hierarchy of memory neurons such as the case shown in Figure 6. According to the model, this is the learning process.

We propose that there are memory neurons that recognize parts of images, e.g. a square, a face, the visual image of a letter, the sound of a word, the smell of a rose…

Consider Figure 3 again. I see an external event through my senses. As a result, image neurons all over my cerebral cortex fire. This firing is not in synchronism (yet). The qualities of the event (shape, movement, color, sound…) have not been related with each other. No memory neuron has recognized the image yet.

After a few hundred milliseconds memory neurons recognize the image, these memory neurons fire and synchronize the pulses of the image neurons all over the cerebral cortex. Positive feedback loops have been closed. The qualities of the event have been related with each other. The perception of the image no longer needs input from the senses since the positive feedback is self-sustaining for the next few seconds. Because the memory neurons form part of a hierarchy, the information of the image has been related to other knowledge in the long-term memory. The image may now become conscious.

If the feedback loops are prevented from oscillating we loose consciousness. General anesthesia “shuts off” consciousness by acting on the synapses. Likewise, the “center of sleep”, located near the hypothalamus, regulates the couplings at the synapses.

When a feedback loop oscillates we may become conscious of the corresponding image. The threshold of the memory neuron rises (or equivalently the coupling at the synapses is weekend) so that after a few seconds the oscillation is no longer self-sustaining. Then another memory neuron that codes a related image (and is therefore close to threshold) can begin oscillating, perhaps with the aid of input from the senses or noise. Thus one image in conscience leads to a related image. This is the “stream of consciousness”.

## 4 Estimates

The following are rough order-of-magnitude estimates. We humans have about $`10^{10}`$ neurons. Our eyes have $`10^8`$ rods and cones. The retina, which is part of the brain, processes the visual information so that “only” $`10^6`$ axons connect the retina to the (rest of the) brain. Further processing will reduce this number. So a rough estimate of the number of image neurons (including all senses) is of order $`10^5`$. This number is of the same order as the maximum number of dendrites of a neuron. A very rough estimate of the number of memory neurons is obtained as follows: assume a memory neuron is programed, i.e. an image is stored into long-term memory, every $`10`$ seconds (the duration of short-term memory) for a lifetime. The corresponding number of memory neurons is of order $`10^8`$.

Let us now consider a bee. It has of order $`10^6`$ neurons. The bee has eyes with a total of $`27000`$ facets. After processing, we will need perhaps $`3000`$ image neurons for all senses. If $`10\%`$ of the bees neurons are memory neurons then they can store up to $`10^5`$ images in long-term memory. So a worker bee that lives, say, six months, can store into memory about one image every minute or so. The bee will have some degree of consciousness.

## 5 Conclusions

The feedback loops shown in Figure 6 account for many observations on recognition, short-term memory, long-term memory and the learning process, and shed some light on consciousness. We propose that some implementation of those feed back loops is wide spread in the cerebral cortex.

We have not touched on the difficult questions: How does feeling (such as pain) arise from the firing of neurons? How do I become aware? Can a silicon neural network feel pain and become aware of itself? Does our attention wander randomly from one image to a related one, or do we have some control on our point of attention? How?

I hope the model serves as a point of departure for further experimental and theoretical research on the brain.