text:
# Complexity of nilpotent orbits and the Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence

## 1. Introduction

The Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence is a vital tool in the study of infinite dimensional representations of semisimple Lie groups. Let us recall some facts about this correspondence in case $`G`$ is a connected real, linear semisimple Lie group with maximal compact subgroup $`K`$. We obtain the corresponding Cartan decomposition $`𝔤=𝔨𝔭`$ where $`𝔤`$ (resp. $`𝔨`$) is the Lie algebra of $`G`$ (resp., $`K`$). The vector spaces $`𝔤`$, $`𝔨`$ and $`𝔭`$ are then complexified to give a vector space decomposition of $`𝔤__𝐂`$, the Lie algebra of $`G__𝐂`$ (the complexification of $`G`$), as $`𝔤__𝐂=𝔨__𝐂𝔭__𝐂`$. The Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence is a bijection between the nilpotent $`G`$ orbits in $`𝔤`$ and the nilpotent $`K__𝐂`$ orbits in $`𝔭__𝐂`$. (For the precise definition of the correspondence we refer the reader to .)

If $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a nilpotent $`G`$-orbit in $`𝔤`$ and $`𝒪`$ is the nilpotent $`K__𝐂`$-orbit in $`𝔭__𝐂`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by the Kostant-Sekiguchi correspondence, then $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$ is said to be a Kostant-Sekiguchi pair. Among the nice elementary properties of such a pair are: (1) $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝒪`$ lie in the same $`G__𝐂`$ orbit which we denote by $`𝒪_𝐂`$ and (2) $`𝒪`$ is a Lagrangian submanifold of $`𝒪_𝐂`$ (relative to the Kostant-Souriau symplectic form on $`𝒪_𝐂`$.) Moreover, Vergne  has established a much deeper relationship between $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝒪`$, namely that there is a $`K`$-equivariant diffeomorphism which maps $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto $`𝒪`$.

Recently, the author proved that if $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$ form a Kostant-Sekiguchi pair then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is multiplicity free as a Hamiltonian $`K`$-space if and only if $`𝒪`$ is a spherical $`K__𝐂`$ variety . (The definition of multiplicity free is given below in Remark 2.1. Spherical $`K__𝐂`$-varieties are defined below in Remark 2.3.) The goal of this paper is to prove a generalization of that result to all Kostant-Sekiguchi pairs. That generalization is contained in Theorem 3.1. In essence our theorem shows that the complexity of the $`K__𝐂`$ action on $`𝒪`$ measures the failure of the Poisson algebra of smooth $`K`$-invariant functions on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to be commutative.

The author wishes to thank A. T. Huckleberry for his proof of the density result in Proposition 2.1 and Maxim Braverman for some useful discussions.

## 2. Notation and key definitions

We now introduce some further concepts and notations. Unless otherwise indicated, in this section $`K`$ will denote an arbitrary compact group. We assume that $`K`$ is contained in its complexification $`K__𝐂`$. Our basic reference for symplectic manifolds with Hamiltonian $`K`$-actions is .

If $`AG__𝐂`$ is a Lie subgroup and $`S𝔤__𝐂`$ then $`A^S`$ denotes the subgroup of $`A`$ that fixes each element of $`S`$ under the adjoint action of $`G__𝐂`$ on $`𝔤__𝐂`$. If $`𝔞𝔤__𝐂`$ is a Lie subalgebra, then $`𝔞^S`$ is defined similarly.

For the remainder of this section $`𝐗`$ will denote a connected symplectic manifold which is a Hamiltonian $`K`$-space. Let the $`K`$-invariant symplectic form be $`w_𝐗`$ and the moment map be $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝐗𝔨^{}`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`𝔄=C^{\mathrm{}}(𝐗)^K`$ be the algebra (with respect to Poisson bracket) of $`K`$ invariant smooth functions on $`𝐗`$. $``$ denotes the center of $`𝔄`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

$`𝐗`$ is said to be multiplicity free if $`𝔄=`$ i.e., $`𝔄`$ is a commutative Poisson algebra.

In addition, we need to recall some facts about the symplectic structure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the action of $`K`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. ($`K`$ is a maximal compact subgroup of $`G`$.) Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }=GE`$. For each $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, we identify $`T_E^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, the tangent space of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ at $`E^{}`$, with the quotient $`𝔤/𝔤^E^{}`$. The Kostant-Souriau form $`w_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined by setting

$$w_\mathrm{\Omega }|_E^{}(\overline{Y},\overline{Z})=\kappa (E^{},[Y,Z])$$

, for all $`Y,Z𝔤`$ where $`\kappa `$ denotes the Killing form of $`𝔤`$. ($`\overline{Y}`$ and $`\overline{Z}`$ are the cosets of $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ in $`𝔤/𝔤^E^{}`$.) $`w_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a symplectic form on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The action of $`K`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the left action. If $`\xi 𝔨`$, then $`\xi `$ determines a global vector field $`\xi _\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ according to the following definition:

$$\xi _\mathrm{\Omega }f(E^{})=\frac{df(exp(t\xi )E^{})}{dt}|_{t=0}$$

where $`f`$ is any smooth function on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. If $`Y`$ is any smooth vector field on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`Y(E^{})`$ is the vector in $`T_E^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ obtained by evaluating $`Y`$ at $`E^{}`$.

Since $`w_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is invariant under $`G`$, it is invariant under $`K`$. The $`K`$ action on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is Hamiltonian in the following sense. For each $`\xi 𝔨`$, there is a function $`\varphi ^\xi C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ such that $`\iota (\xi _\mathrm{\Omega })w_\mathrm{\Omega }=d\varphi ^\xi `$, where $`\iota (\xi _\mathrm{\Omega })`$ denotes interior multiplication by $`\xi _\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We may take $`\varphi ^\xi =\kappa (\xi ,)`$. We obtain the moment mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{\Omega }𝔨^{}`$ by setting $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Omega }(E^{})(\xi )=\varphi ^\xi (E^{})=\kappa (E^{},\xi )=\kappa (E_k^{},\xi )`$ for all $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\xi 𝔨`$. $`E_k^{}`$ denotes the component of $`E^{}`$ in $`𝔨`$.

Thus, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a Hamiltonian $`K`$-space, with moment mapping $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{\Omega }𝔨`$ defined by sending an element $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to its component in $`𝔨`$. (We have identified $`𝔨`$ with its real dual space $`𝔨^{}`$ using the restriction of $`\kappa `$ to $`𝔨`$.) Each function $`f`$ in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ gives rise to a smooth vector field $`X_f`$ satisfying $`df(Y)=w_\mathrm{\Omega }(Y,X_f)`$ for all smooth vector fields $`Y`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. $`X_f`$ is said to be the Hamiltonian vector field associated to $`f`$. (If $`\xi 𝔨`$, then $`X_{\varphi ^\xi }=\xi _\mathrm{\Omega }`$.) $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a Poisson algebra under the Poisson bracket $`\{,\}`$ defined as follows: for $`f,gC^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`\{f,g\}=w_\mathrm{\Omega }(X_f,X_g)`$. One checks that the linear mapping $`\xi \varphi ^\xi `$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism $`𝔨C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ when $`\{,\}`$ is taken as the Lie bracket on $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`E^{}𝐗`$. Set $`W=W_E^{}=T_E^{}(KE^{})`$ and $`W^{}`$ equal to the orthogonal complement (with respect to $`\zeta =w_𝐗|_E^{}`$) of $`W`$ inside $`T_E^{}(𝐗)`$, then we have the following orthogonal decomposition of $`T_E^{}(𝐗)`$ into (real) symplectic vector spaces:

$$T_E^{}(𝐗)=\frac{W}{WW^{}}\left((WW^{})(WW^{})^{}\right)\frac{W^{}}{WW^{}}.$$

The restriction of $`\zeta `$ to $`(WW^{})(WW^{})^{}`$ is given by $`\zeta ((Y_1,\lambda _1),(Y_2,\lambda _2))=\lambda _1(Y_2)\lambda _2(Y_1)`$ for all $`Y_i(WW^{})`$, $`\lambda _i(WW^{})^{}`$. Moreover, (1) $`𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}/𝔨^E^{}`$ and $`WW^{}`$ are isomorphic (as $`𝔨^E^{}`$ modules) and (2) $`𝔨/𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{W}{WW^{}}}`$ are isomorphic (as $`𝔨^E^{}`$ modules).

###### Proof.

See Corollary 9.10 and Lemma 9.11 of . These results are steps in the proof of the normal slice theorem of Guillemin, Sternberg and Marle. ∎

###### Definition 2.2.

If $`E^{\prime \prime }𝐗`$ (or $`𝔨`$), set $`d(E^{\prime \prime })=dimKE^{\prime \prime }`$. Let $`d=d_𝐗`$ be the maximum dimension of a $`K`$-orbit in $`𝐗`$ and let $`m=m_𝐗`$ denote the minimal codimension of a $`K`$-orbit in $`𝐗`$. $`d_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ will denote the maximum dimension of a $`K`$ orbit in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐗)`$. We define three important subsets of $`𝐗`$.

(1)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& 𝐗_d=\{E^{}𝐗|dimKE^{}=d\}\hfill \\ & 𝐗_0=\{E^{}𝐗|\text{ an open set }U𝐗\text{ such that }E^{}U\text{ and }d()\text{ is constant on }U\}\hfill \\ & 𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }=\{E^{}𝐗|dimK\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})=d_\mathrm{\Phi }\}=\{E^{}𝐗|dim𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}\text{ is minimum}\}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Remark 2.2.

From Proposition 27.1 in  we know that $`𝐗_0`$ is open and dense in $`𝐗`$. In addition, $`𝐗_0𝐗_d`$. Otherwise there is a point in $`𝐗_0`$ whose $`K`$ orbit has dimension $`d^{}<d`$. But, then there must be an open subset of points whose $`K`$ orbits have dimension $`d^{}`$ which is impossible.

###### Proposition 2.1.

$`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is open and dense in $`𝐗`$.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is open is Lemma 1 in section 3 of . The following proof (unpublished) that $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is dense in $`𝐗`$ is due to A. T. Huckleberry.

It suffices to show that $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, the complement of $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, has codimension at least 2 in $`𝐗`$. We use induction on the dimension of $`K`$. If $`dimK=0`$, then $`K`$ is finite. Then $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }=𝐗`$ since all $`K`$ orbits in $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐗)`$ are zero dimensional. Suppose $`dimK>0`$. If $`x𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$, we need to show that there is an open neighborhood of $`x`$ whose intersection with $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$ has codimension at least 2. Let $`K_0`$ denote the identity component of $`K`$. First consider $`𝐗^{K_0}`$, the set of fixed points of $`K_0`$ on $`𝐗`$, and its intersection with $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$. If $`K_0x=x`$, we use the slice theorem to construct an open neighborhood $`U=K\times _{K^x}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`x`$. Define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ relative to the action of $`(K^x)_0`$ in the obvious way. The argument for Proposition 27.3 in  shows that either (a) $`K_0`$ (which equals $`(K^x)_0`$) acts trivially on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, or (b) $`U^{K_0}`$ has codimension $``$ 2 in $`U`$. In case (a) $`K`$ acts as a finite group on $`U`$ so that $`U=U_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In case (b) $`U^{K_0}(U_\mathrm{\Phi })^c`$ has codimension $``$ 2 in $`U`$. This argument takes care of the points in $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }^c𝐗^{K_0}`$. If $`x𝐗^{K_0}`$, then the slice neighborhood $`U=K\times _{K^x}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has the property that $`dimK^x<dimK`$. By induction $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Phi })^c`$ has codimension at least 2 in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus $`(U_\mathrm{\Phi })^c=K\times _{K^x}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mathrm{\Phi })^c`$ has codimension at least 2 in $`U`$. ∎

Since $`𝐗_d`$ and $`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are each open and dense in $`𝐗`$, we have the following result.

###### Corollary 2.1.

$`𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }𝐗_d`$ is open and dense in $`𝐗`$.

We know recall the notion of a coisotropic submanifold of $`𝐗`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

The orbit $`KE^{}`$ in $`𝐗`$ is said to be coisotropic if $`W_E^{}^{}W_E^{}`$.

By results of Guillemin and Sternberg , $`𝐗`$ is multiplicity free as a Hamiltonian $`K`$-space if and only if there is an open dense subset $`U`$ of $`𝐗`$ such that for $`E^{}U`$ the orbit $`KE^{}`$ is coisotropic in $`𝐗`$. Therefore, it is reasonable to use the size of the quotient $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}{T_E^{}(KE^{})T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}}`$ for generic $`K`$ orbits to measure the failure of $`𝐗`$ to be multiplicity free.

###### Proposition 2.2.

There is an open dense subset $`U`$ of $`𝐗`$ such that for all $`E^{}U`$, the non-negative integer

(2)
$$dim\frac{T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}{T_E^{}(KE^{})T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}},$$

has a constant value. We denote this value by $`2ϵ(𝐗)`$.

###### Proof.

Choose $`U=𝐗_d𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then for all $`E^{}U`$, the decomposition of $`T_E^{}(𝐗)`$ in Lemma 2.1 implies that

(3)
$$dim\frac{T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}{T_E^{}(KE^{})T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}=dim𝐗2d+d_\mathrm{\Phi }$$

Note that if there is another dense open set $`U^{}`$ on which the dimension function in (2) is constant, then $`U^{}`$ must have non-empty intersection with $`𝐗_d𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Thus, $`ϵ(𝐗)`$ is well defined. ∎

As a corollary of the preceding proof we have

###### Corollary 2.2.

Suppose that $`E^{}𝐗_d𝐗_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then

$$dim\frac{T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}{T_E^{}(KE^{})T_E^{}(KE^{})^{}}=2ϵ(𝐗).$$

We recall from  or  the definition of the rank of the action of $`K`$ on $`X`$.

###### Definition 2.4.

The rank of the $`K`$-action on $`X`$, denoted by $`r_K(X)`$, is equal to rank $`K`$ \- rank $`K^E^{}`$, where $`E^{}X`$ and the orbit $`KE^{}`$ has maximum dimension among the $`K`$ orbits in $`X`$.

Finally, we recall from , the notions of rank and complexity of algebraic $`K__𝐂`$ actions.

###### Definition 2.5.

Suppose that $`Y`$ is a variety with $`K__𝐂`$ action and $`B_k`$ is a Borel subgroup of $`K__𝐂`$. The complex codimension of a generic $`B_k`$ orbit is called the complexity of $`Y`$, denoted $`c_{K__𝐂}(Y)`$ or $`c(Y)`$ (when the reductive group $`K__𝐂`$ is understood). If $`U_k`$ is the nilpotent radical of $`B_k`$ and $`B_kz`$ is a generic $`B_k`$ orbit, then the codimension of $`U_kz`$ in $`B_kz`$ is called the rank of $`Y`$. It is denoted $`r_{K__𝐂}(Y)`$.

###### Remark 2.3.

$`c(Y)`$ is also the transcendence degree (over $`𝐂`$) of the $`B_k`$ invariant functions in the field of rational functions (with complex coefficients) on $`Y`$. $`Y`$ is spherical for $`K__𝐂`$ if and only if $`c(Y)=0`$. The rank of $`Y`$ is also the transcendence degree of the $`U_k`$ invariants in the field of rational functions on $`Y`$.

## 3. Main Theorem

Our main result is:

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`(𝒪,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be a Kostant-Sekiguchi pair, then

(a) $`r_{K__𝐂}(𝒪)=r_K(\mathrm{\Omega })`$;

(b) $`c(𝒪)=ϵ(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

This result was inspired by the main result of .

We assume from now on that $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒪)`$ is a Kostant-Sekiguchi pair. The proof of Theorem 3.1 requires two important facts about $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`𝒪`$. The first is the existence of a $`K`$ invariant diffeomorphism

(4)
$$𝒱_\mathrm{\Omega }:\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪$$

that was mentioned above. The second fact is the existence of a $`K`$-invariant diffeomorphism

(5)
$$_𝒪:𝒪K\times _{K^𝔰}V_𝒪(𝔰)$$

established in the proof of Proposition 5.2 of . To describe the vector bundle $`K\times _{K^𝔰}V_𝒪(𝔰)`$ in (5), we recall the notation of .

There is a Kostant-Sekiguchi $`sl(2)`$-triple $`\{x,e,f\}`$ such that $`𝒪=K__𝐂e`$. The Kostant-Sekiguchi property means that (1) $`xi𝔨`$, $`e,f𝔭__𝐂`$, (2) $`e=\sigma (f)`$, where $`\sigma `$ is conjugation on $`𝔤__𝐂`$ relative to the real form $`𝔤`$, and (3) the following Lie bracket relations hold: $`[x,e]=2e`$, $`[x,f]=2f`$, and $`[e,f]=x`$. It follows that the Lie algebra $`𝐂x𝐂e𝐂f`$ is the complexification of a Lie subalgebra $`𝔰`$ of $`𝔤`$, where $`𝔰`$ is isomorphic to $`sl(2,𝐑)`$. $`V_𝒪(𝔰)`$ is the quotient $`[𝔨__𝐂,e]/[𝔨,e]`$. In  it is shown that $`K\times _{K^𝔰}V_𝒪(𝔰)`$ is diffeomorphic to the conormal bundle of $`Ke`$ inside the cotangent bundle of $`𝒪`$. In addition, there is an isomorphism of $`K^𝔰`$ modules over $`𝐑`$:

(6)
$$V_𝒪(𝔰)𝔨^x/𝔨^𝔰Z.$$

where $`Z`$ is the sum (over $`𝐂`$) of the positive eigenspaces of $`ad(x)`$ on $`𝔨__𝐂`$ that do not lie in $`𝔨__𝐂^e`$.

We now establish the main result, Theorem 3.1.

###### Proof.

We first establish part (a).

By composing the $`K`$-invariant diffeomorphisms in (4) and (5), we have the assignment: $`E^{}𝒱(E^{})`$. So we can identify $`E^{}`$ with an equivalence class $`[k_0,y+z]`$ in $`K\times _{K^𝔰}V_𝒪(𝔰)`$ where $`y𝔨^x/𝔨^𝔰`$ and $`zZ`$. (See equation (6).) It is more convenient to consider the equivalence class $`𝒱(k_0^1E^{})=[\mathrm{𝟏},y+z]`$ where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ denotes the identity in $`K`$. Assume that $`dimKE^{}=d`$. Since $`dimKE^{}`$ is maximum, (1) $`(𝔨^𝔰)^{y+z}`$ has minimum dimension among the subalgebras $`(𝔨^𝔰)^v`$ for $`vV_𝒪(𝔰)`$ and (2) $`(𝔨^𝔰)^y`$ has minimum dimension among the subalgebras $`(𝔨^𝔰)^y^{}`$ for $`y^{}𝔨^x/𝔨^𝔰`$. (See Lemma 6.2 of .)

Set $`𝐬_𝐑=(𝔨^𝔰)^y`$ and $`𝐬_𝐂=(𝔨__𝐂^𝔰)^y`$. Set $`𝐒`$ equal to the connected subgroup of $`K__𝐂^𝔰`$ with Lie algebra $`𝐬_𝐂`$ and $`𝐒_𝐑`$ equal to the connected subgroup of $`𝐒`$ with Lie algebra $`𝐬_𝐑`$. Then $`𝐒`$ (resp., $`𝐒_𝐑`$) is a stabilizer of general position for the action of $`K__𝐂^𝔰`$ on $`𝔨__𝐂^x/𝔨_{_𝐂}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝔰}`$ (resp., $`𝔨^x/𝔨^𝔰`$). Also, $`𝔨^{[\mathrm{𝟏},y+z]}`$, the centralizer of $`[\mathrm{𝟏},y+z]`$ in $`𝔨`$ is equal to $`𝐬_{𝐑}^{}{}_{}{}^{z}`$. Since $`𝒱`$ is $`K`$-equivariant, $`𝔨^{k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}E^{}}=𝔨^{[\mathrm{𝟏},y+z]}`$. Hence, since $`𝔨^E^{}=Ad(k_0)(𝔨^{k_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}E^{}})`$, $`𝔨^E^{}`$ and $`𝐬_{𝐑}^{}{}_{}{}^{z}`$ are isomorphic Lie algebras. Therefore,

(7)
$$r_K(\mathrm{\Omega }):=\text{rank}𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}\text{rank}𝔨^E^{}=\text{rank}K\text{rank}𝐒_{𝐑}^{}{}_{}{}^{z}.$$

From Panyushev (Theorem 2.3 in ) $`r_{K__𝐂}(𝒪)=r_{K__𝐂^x}(K__𝐂^x/K__𝐂^𝔰)+r_𝐒(Z)`$. By Corollary 2(i) of Theorem 1 in , $`r_{K__𝐂^x}(K__𝐂^x/K__𝐂^𝔰)=\text{rank}K^x\text{rank}𝐒_𝐑`$. By the observation following equation (6.7) in , $`r_𝐒(Z)=\text{rank}𝐒_𝐑\text{rank}𝐒_{𝐑}^{}{}_{}{}^{z}`$. Hence, by equation(7),

(8)
$$r_{K__𝐂}(𝒪)=\text{rank}K\text{rank}𝐒_{𝐑}^{}{}_{}{}^{z},$$

which is the same as $`r_K(\mathrm{\Omega })`$.

The argument for part (b) of the theorem starts by noting that for all $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, Lemma 2.1 implies that if $`W=T_E^{}(KE^{})`$, then

(9)
$$dim\mathrm{\Omega }=dimT_E^{}(\mathrm{\Omega })=2dim\left(𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}/𝔨^E^{}\right)+dim\left(𝔨/𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}\right)+dim\frac{W^{}}{WW^{}}.$$

Therefore,

(10)
$$dim\mathrm{\Omega }=2(dim𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}dim𝔨^E^{})+dim𝔨dim𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}+dim\frac{W^{}}{WW^{}}.$$

Choose $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. By Lemma 2 in section 3 of , we have $`[𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})},𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}]𝔨^E^{}`$. Since $`𝔨^E^{}𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}`$, $`[𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})},𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}]=[𝔨^E^{},𝔨^E^{}]`$.

Since $`𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}`$ and $`𝔨^E^{}`$ have the same maximum semisimple ideal,

(11)
$$dim𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}dim𝔨^E^{}=\text{rank}𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}\text{rank}𝔨^E^{}.$$

Applying Corollary 2.2, equation (10) becomes

(12)
$$dim\mathrm{\Omega }=dim𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}dim𝔨^E^{}+dim𝔨dim𝔨^E^{}+2ϵ(\mathrm{\Omega }).$$

Since $`E^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_d\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Phi }`$, equation (11) implies

$$dim\mathrm{\Omega }=\text{rank}𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}\text{rank}𝔨^E^{}+dim𝔨dim𝔨^E^{}+2ϵ(\mathrm{\Omega }),$$

where $`dim𝔨dim𝔨^E^{}`$ is the maximal dimension of a $`K`$ orbit in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We have just shown that the codimension of the largest $`K`$ orbit in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by the expression

(13)
$$\begin{array}{cc}& \text{rank}𝔨^{\mathrm{\Phi }(E^{})}\text{rank}𝔨^E^{}+2ϵ(\mathrm{\Omega })\hfill \\ & =r_{K__𝐂}(𝒪)+2ϵ(\mathrm{\Omega }).\hfill \end{array}$$

The last assertion follows from part (a). On the other hand, by equation (6.8) in , taking into account equation (8) and the fact that $`c(𝒪)=c_{K__𝐂^x}(K__𝐂^x/K__𝐂^𝔰)+c_𝐒(Z)`$ (Theorem 2.3 in ), the codimension of the largest $`K`$ orbit in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is also given by the expression:

(14)
$$r_{K__𝐂}(𝒪)+2c(𝒪).$$

Part (b) of the theorem follows from equating (13) and (14).


format: text

text:
# IFUP-TH 2003/15 SUSY 3D Georgi - Glashow model at finite temperature

## Acknowledgments

This work was initiated during the visit of D.A. to the Particle Theory Group at the University of Plymouth, and he is grateful to this Group for a warm hospitality extended to him during this visit. He is also grateful for the permanently cordial hospitality to the Theory Group of the Physics Department of the Pisa University. The work of D.A. was supported by INFN and partially by the INTAS grant Open Call 2000, project No. 110. The work of A.K. is supported by PPARC advanced fellowship. A.K. thanks David McMullan for a useful conversation.


text:
# Polynomial deformations of 𝑠𝑙(2,ℝ) in a three-dimensional invariant subspace of monomials

## I Introduction

Quasi-exactly solvable (Q.E.S.) one-dimensional equations have attracted much attention for the past twenty-five years. For a review, see f.i. Ref1 . They are related to quasi-exact operators, i.e., those which possess a finite-dimensional invariant subspace coinciding with a representation space of a finite-dimensional representation of the Lie algebra $`sl(2,)`$ following Turbiner’s statement Ref2 . Such a feature implies that quasi-exact operators can be presented in a block-diagonal matricial form. Consequently, all polynomials of quasi-exact differentials operators, including some Schrödinger Hamiltonians, are such that a finite number of their eigenvalues can be analytically determined.

As already stated, the Lie algebra $`sl(2,)`$ seems to be the cornerstone of Q.E.S. differential operators when one variable only is under consideration Ref3 . For completeness, let us recall that this algebra is generated by $`j_0,j_\pm `$ such that

$`[j_0,j_\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm j_\pm ,`$ (1)
$`[j_+,j_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2j_0.`$ (2)
The $`(2j+1)`$-dimensional ($`j=0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}`$) representations are characterized by

$`j_0|j,m`$ $`=`$ $`m|j,m,`$ (3)
$`j_\pm |j,m`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(jm)(j\pm m+1)}|j,m\pm 1.`$ (4)
The basis $`|j,m,m=j,\mathrm{},+j`$ can be explicitly realized through monomials

$$|j,m=\sqrt{\frac{(2j)!}{(j+m)!(jm)!}}x^{j+m}$$
(5)
associated with the quasi-exact operators

$`j_0`$ $`=`$ $`x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}j,`$ (6)
$`j_+`$ $`=`$ $`x^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+2jx,`$ (7)
$`j_{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}.`$ (8)
Ad-hoc linear and quadratic combinations of these three operators lead to the Q.E.S. Schrödinger potentials indexed in Ref2 .

However, Post and Turbiner asked in Ref4  for the possibility of another Lie algebra playing a similar role to the one of $`sl(2,)`$in the context of quasi-exact operators, without obtaining a satisfactory answer. Even the simplest subspace

$$V_3=\{1,x,x^3\}$$
(9)
is not meaningful being preserved by 11 generators (of first-, second- and third- order) which do not close under the Lie bracket.

We want to take back the question of Post and Turbiner and prove that such an algebra does exist, but that it requires to go to nonlinear structures (up to and included cubic terms). This is due to the fact that polynomial algebras are characterized by a wide class of irreductible finite dimensional representations. In particular, it is known Ref5  that such representations of the cubic deformations of $`sl(2,)`$, which we name $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$, can be labeled by two supplementary ”quantum numbers” with respect to the ones of $`sl(2,)`$. In Section II, we still enlarge the number of these finite-dimensional representations by introducing a third supplementary label. We devote a particular interest to the case of three-dimensional representations having in mind the space $`V_3`$. We turn to the corresponding differential realizations in Section III. We conclude in Section IV.

## II Finite-dimensional representations of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$

First, we recall that the cubic deformation of $`sl(2,)`$, i.e. $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$, is generated by three operators $`J_0,J_\pm `$ such that (compare with Eqs. (1) and (2))

$`[J_0,J_\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm J_\pm ,`$ (10)
$`[J_+,J_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha J_0^3+\beta J_0^2+\gamma J_0+\delta `$ (11)
with $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$. The Casimir operator associated with this nonlinear algebra is

$$𝒞=J_+J_{}+\frac{\alpha }{4}J_0^4+\left(\frac{\beta }{3}\frac{\alpha }{2}\right)J_0^3+\left(\frac{\alpha }{4}\frac{\beta }{2}+\frac{\gamma }{2}\right)J_0^2+\left(\frac{\beta }{6}\frac{\gamma }{2}+\delta \right)J_0.$$
(12)
Some finite-dimensional representations of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ have already been pointed out Ref5 . They are characterized by

$`J_0|J,M`$ $`=`$ $`(M/q+c)|J,M,`$ (13)
$`J_+|J,M`$ $`=`$ $`F(M)|J,M+q,`$ (14)
$`J_{}|J,M`$ $`=`$ $`G(M)|J,Mq,`$ (15)
with $`M=J,\mathrm{},+J`$ and $`J=0,1/2,1,\mathrm{}`$. The positive integer $`q`$ as well as the real constant $`c`$ are the supplementary labels mentioned in the Introduction. They are constrained according to the dimension of the representations as well as to the algebra itself. More details on that point and on the forms of the functions $`F(M)`$ and $`G(M)`$ can be found in Ref5 .

We now point out a supplementary class of $`(2J+1)`$-dimensional representations of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$. They are such

$`J_0|J,M`$ $`=`$ $`\left[aM^2+(1/qaq2aM_1)M+c\right]|J,M,`$ (16)
$`J_+|J,M`$ $`=`$ $`f(M_1)|J,M+q\delta _{M,M_1},`$ (17)
$`J_{}|J,M`$ $`=`$ $`g(M_1+q)|J,Mq\delta _{M,(M_1+q)}.`$ (18)
While $`M=J,\mathrm{},+J`$, the integer $`M_1`$ is a fixed value in the range $`M_1[J,J]`$. For instance, Eq. (17) means that $`J_+|J,MM_1=0`$ and $`J_+|J,M=M_1=f(M_1)|J,M_1+q`$, i.e., $`J_+|J,M`$ is vanishing for the $`2J`$ values $`MM_1`$ and is nonvanishing only for $`M=M_1`$. A similar conclusion holds for (18). Relations (16) to (18) have been found in order to fulfill (10) as the reader can be convinced starting from $`J_0|J,M=(aM^2+bM+c)|J,M`$ and acting both sides of (10) on $`|J,M`$, thus giving the constant $`b`$. Then, acting with $`|J,M_1+q,|J,M_1`$ and $`|J,\stackrel{~}{M}`$ on both sides of (11), where $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is neither equal to $`M_1+q`$ nor $`M_1`$, it turns out that Eq. (11) is satisfied if

$`f(M_1)g(M_1+q)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \left(c+M_1/q+1aqM_1aM_1^2\right)^3+\beta \left(c+M_1/q+1aqM_1aM_1^2\right)^2`$ (19)
$`+\gamma \left(c+M_1/q+1aqM_1aM_1^2\right)+\delta ,`$
$`f(M_1)g(M_1+q)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \left(c+M_1/qaqM_1aM_1^2\right)^3\beta \left(c+M_1/qaqM_1aM_1^2\right)^2`$ (20)
$`\gamma \left(c+M_1/qaqM_1aM_1^2\right)\delta ,`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \left[c+\left(1/qaq2aM_1\right)\stackrel{~}{M}+a\stackrel{~}{M}^2\right]^3+\beta \left[c+\left(1/qaq2aM_1\right)\stackrel{~}{M}+a\stackrel{~}{M}^2\right]^2`$ (21)
$`+\gamma \left[c+\left(1/qaq2aM_1\right)\stackrel{~}{M}+a\stackrel{~}{M}^2\right]^3+\delta ,`$
respectively. The constraint (19) or (20) fixes the action of the ladder operator $`J_\pm `$ on the basis while Eqs. (20) or (19) and (21) are $`2J`$ constraints on the labels of the representations as well as the algebra itself111 Eq. (21) is an ensemble of $`(2J+1)2`$ constraints. The elimination of $`f(M_1)g(M_1+q)`$ between Eqs. (19) and (20) gives a supplementary condition, hence the mentioned $`2J`$ constraints..

## III Three-dimensional differential realization of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$

We now turn to a three-dimensional space by fixing $`J=1`$. According to Eqs. (17)–(18), we have three possibilities

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`1,M_1=1,`$ (22)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`1,M_1=0,`$ (23)
$`q`$ $`=`$ $`2,M_1=1.`$ (24)
The fact that we have only these three possibilities is because $`M=1,0,1`$, hence $`M_1`$ can only be fixed to $`M_1=1,M_1=0`$ or $`M_1=1`$. Since $`J_+`$ is a raising operator and we span a space of three states, $`q`$ can only be chosen to be $`q=1`$ or $`q=2`$. This immediately forbids the choice $`M_1=1`$ because the state $`|J,M_1+q=|J,1+q`$ is not in the basis. With this reasoning with a ladder operator, it is easy to see that for $`q=1`$ we can only have $`M_1=1`$ and $`M_1=0`$, while with $`q=2`$, only the choice $`M_1=1`$ is allowed.

In this Section we are interested in the three-dimensional differential realizations of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ and more specifically on those acting in a space of monomials. As already discussed in Ref1 , two states of the space can be fixed to $`1`$ and $`x`$ without loosing generality. The justification lies on the freedom of performing a change of variable and a change of eigenfunction, two modifications leaving the eigenvalues unchanged. For simplification, we shall concentrate on $`V_3`$.

Due to the relation (10), $`J_0`$ can be realized with a first order operator only. We then have

$$J_0=\frac{1}{p}x\frac{d}{dx}+C$$
(25)
while we can make the following identifications

$$|1,11,|1,0x,|1,1x^3.$$
(26)
Together with Eq. (16), we obtain

$$a=\frac{1}{2p},C=c\frac{1}{p}$$
(27)
with

$$p=\frac{1}{2}q^2+q\left(M_1+3/2\right).$$
(28)
So far, each of the three possibilities (22)–(24) is characterized by one label $`c`$ (see (16), with $`a`$ now fixed according to (27)). The parameters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta `$ being not yet fixed, the algebra is thus still arbitrary at that stage. In other words, every $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ admits three-dimensional representations of the type (16)–(18).

Let us discuss the three cases (22)–(24) in details.

### III.1 The case $`\left(q=1,M_1=1\right)`$

Such a case implies $`p=1`$, thus $`a=1/2`$. Eq. (19) is then

$$f(1)g(0)=\alpha c^3+\beta c^2+\gamma c+\delta ,$$
(29)
while Eqs. (20)–(21) give rise to the two constraints

$`2\alpha c^3+(2\beta 3\alpha )c^2+(2\gamma +3\alpha 2\beta )c+2\delta \gamma +\beta \alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (30)
$`\alpha (2+c)^3+\beta (2+c)^2+\gamma (2+c)+\delta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (31)
Two quantities are thus fixed. We choose them to be the label $`c`$ and the parameter $`\delta `$:

$$c=\frac{7}{10}\frac{\gamma }{2\beta },\delta =\frac{\gamma ^2}{4\beta }\frac{169}{100}\beta ,\text{if }\alpha =0,$$
(32)
and

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7}{10}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3\alpha }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{30\alpha }}\sqrt{579\alpha ^2+100\beta ^2300\alpha \gamma },`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{39}{125}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^3}{\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \gamma }{3\alpha }}\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{135\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{45\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{166}{1125}}\right)\sqrt{579\alpha ^2+100\beta ^2300\alpha \gamma },\text{if }\alpha 0.`$ (33)
The case $`(\alpha ,\beta )=(0,0)`$ has been excluded because leading to $`\gamma =\delta =0`$ and thus to a triviality.

The diagonal operator (25) with $`c`$ arbitrary just obeys (16). Moreover, if we request it to realize the diagonal operator $`J_0`$ of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$, this fixes $`c`$ (and $`\delta `$) according to (32) or (33). We still have to analyse the ladder operators. Relations (17)–(18) are satisfied on the basis (26) with

$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`f(1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x^3{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}x^2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+x\right),`$ (34)
$`J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`g(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right).`$ (35)
For the moment, the coefficients are arbitrary. However, if the relation (29) is taken into account, these realizations are such that the algebra $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ with $`\delta `$ fixed by (32) or (33) is actually generated by the operators (34)–(35) on the space $`V_3`$. However, nothing says that it is still the case in an intrinsic way. In fact, one can easily be convinced that it is effectively true if

$$\gamma =\frac{31}{16}\alpha +\frac{\beta ^2}{3\alpha }$$
(36)
and $`\alpha <0`$ $`(\alpha >0)`$ for the upper (lower) sign of Eq. (33).

We conclude that the operators (34) and (35) with

$$f(1)g(0)=\frac{3}{2}\alpha $$
(37)
and the operator

$$J_0=x\frac{d}{dx}\frac{7}{4}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }$$
(38)
not only preserve $`V_3`$, but also generate the $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ algebra characterized by Eqs. (10) and

$$[J_+,J_{}]=\alpha J_0^3+\beta J_0^2+\left(\frac{\beta ^2}{3\alpha }\frac{31}{16}\alpha \right)J_0+\frac{15}{32}\alpha \frac{31}{48}\beta +\frac{\beta ^3}{27\alpha ^2}.$$
(39)
The Casimir operator (12) reduces to a multiple of the identity operator:

$$𝒞=\left(\frac{315}{1024}\alpha \frac{23}{48}\beta +\frac{23}{288}\frac{\beta ^2}{\alpha }+\frac{\beta ^3}{54\alpha ^2}\frac{\beta ^4}{324\alpha ^3}\right)11.$$
(40)
We also notice that the three-dimensional representation of the $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ algebra in Eqs. (10) and (39) and subtended by the operators (34)-(35) and (38) is reducible. It actually reduces to a direct sum of two irreducible representations of this algebra: One one-dimensional representation (corresponding to $`J=0`$) and one two-dimensional representation (corresponding to $`J=1/2`$). We summarize this situation by

$$\left(J=1,c=\frac{3}{4}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right)=\left(J=0,c=\frac{5}{4}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right)\left(J=\frac{1}{2},c=\frac{a}{4}\frac{5}{4}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right).$$
(41)
It corresponds to the fact that within the space $`V_3`$, the element $`x^3`$ is separated from the two others.

### III.2 The case $`\left(q=1,M_1=0\right)`$

This case leads to $`p=2`$ and $`a=1/4`$. Eq. (19) is

$$f(0)g(1)=\alpha (c+1)^3+\beta (c+1)^2+\gamma (c+1)+\delta ,$$
(42)
and the corresponding two constraints are

$`2\alpha c^3+(2\beta +3\alpha )c^2+(2\gamma +3\alpha +2\beta )c+2\delta +\gamma +\beta +\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (43)
$`\alpha (c1/2)^3+\beta (c1/2)^2+\gamma (c1/2)+\delta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (44)
The label $`c`$ and the parameter $`\delta `$ are fixed according to

$$c=\frac{1}{8}\frac{\gamma }{2\beta },\delta =\frac{\gamma ^2}{4\beta }\frac{25}{64}\beta ,\text{if }\alpha =0,$$
(45)
and

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3\alpha }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\alpha }}\sqrt{111\alpha ^2+64\beta ^2192\alpha \gamma },`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{128}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^3}{\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \gamma }{3\alpha }}\pm \left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{108\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{36\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{47}{1152}}\right)\sqrt{111\alpha ^2+64\beta ^2192\alpha \gamma },\text{if }\alpha 0.`$ (46)
Relations (17)–(18) on the basis (26) lead to

$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`f(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}x^4{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}+x^3{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\right),`$ (47)
$`J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`g(1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}\right).`$ (48)
These operators, together with $`J_0`$ of Eqs.(25), (27) and (28), realize $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ on the space $`V_3`$ if Eqs. (42) and (46) or (47) are taken into account. Moreover, they realize $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ independently of the space iff

$$\gamma =\frac{5}{8}\alpha +\frac{\beta ^2}{3\alpha }$$
(49)
with $`\alpha >0`$ $`(\alpha <0)`$ for the upper (lower) sign of Eq. (46).

Summarizing, the operators (47) and (48) with

$$f(0)g(1)=\frac{3}{16}\alpha $$
(50)
together with the operator

$$J_0=\frac{1}{2}x\frac{d}{dx}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }$$
(51)
not only stabilize $`V_3`$ but also generate $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ with

$$[J_+,J_{}]=\alpha J_0^3+\beta J_0^2+\left(\frac{\beta ^2}{3\alpha }\frac{5}{8}\alpha \right)J_0\frac{3}{16}\alpha \frac{5}{24}\beta +\frac{\beta ^3}{27\alpha ^2}.$$
(52)
The Casimir operator (12) reduces again to the identity operator up to a prefactor:

$$𝒞=\left(\frac{\beta }{24}+\frac{\beta ^2}{144\alpha }+\frac{\beta ^3}{54\alpha ^2}\frac{\beta ^4}{324\alpha ^3}\right)11.$$
(53)
We point out once again the reducibility of the three-dimensional representation subtended by these developments. More precisely we have

$$\left(J=1,c=\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right)=\left(J=0,c=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right)\left(J=\frac{1}{2},c=\frac{a}{4}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right),$$
(54)
and the element $`1`$ is separated from the two others in $`V_3`$.

### III.3 The case $`\left(q=2,M_1=1\right)`$

We have $`p=3`$ and $`a=1/6`$. The constraint on the ladder operator is

$$f(1)g(1)=\alpha (c+2/3)^3+\beta (c+2/3)^2+\gamma (c+2/3)+\delta ,$$
(55)
while those on $`c`$ and $`\delta `$ read

$`2\alpha c^3+(2\beta +\alpha )c^2+(2\gamma +5\alpha /3+2\beta /3)c+2\delta +\gamma /3+5\beta /9+7\alpha /27`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (56)
$`\alpha c^3+\beta c^2+\gamma c+\delta `$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (57)
The two last equations imply

$$c=\frac{5}{6}\frac{\gamma }{2\beta },\delta =\frac{\gamma ^2}{4\beta }\frac{25}{36}\beta ,\text{if }\alpha =0,$$
(58)
and

$`c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{3\alpha }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{18\alpha }}\sqrt{47\alpha ^2+12\beta ^236\alpha \gamma },`$
$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{2}{27}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^3}{\alpha ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \gamma }{3\alpha }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{27\alpha ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{9\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{34}{81}}\right)\sqrt{47\alpha ^2+12\beta ^236\alpha \gamma },\text{if }\alpha 0.`$ (59)
From Eqs. (17)–(18) and the basis (26), we obtain

$`J_+`$ $`=`$ $`f(1)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x^5{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}x^4{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}+x^3\right),`$ (60)
$`J_{}`$ $`=`$ $`g(0)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{6x}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dx^2}}\right).`$ (61)
These operators, together with $`J_0`$ of Eqs.(25), (27) and (28), realize $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ on the space $`V_3`$ if Eqs. (55) and (58) or (59) are taken into account. They satisfy the commutation relations of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ independently of the space for

$$\gamma =\frac{55}{144}\alpha +\frac{\beta ^2}{3\alpha }$$
(62)
and $`\alpha >0`$ $`(\alpha <0)`$ for the upper (lower) sign of Eq. (59).

In conclusion, the operators (60) and (61) with

$$f(1)g(1)=\frac{\alpha }{18}$$
(63)
and the operator

$$J_0=\frac{1}{3}x\frac{d}{dx}\frac{5}{12}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }$$
(64)
not only preserve $`V_3`$ but also generate $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ with

$$[J_+,J_{}]=\alpha J_0^3+\beta J_0^2+\left(\frac{\beta ^2}{3\alpha }\frac{55}{144}\alpha \right)J_0\frac{\alpha }{32}\frac{55}{432}\beta +\frac{\beta ^3}{27\alpha ^2}.$$
(65)
The associated Casimir operator still reduces to the identity operator up to a prefactor:

$$𝒞=\left(\frac{23}{432}\beta \frac{17}{2592}\frac{\beta ^2}{\alpha }+\frac{\beta ^3}{54\alpha ^2}\frac{\beta ^4}{324\alpha ^3}\frac{1045}{82944}\alpha \right)11.$$
(66)
Like in the two previous cases, the three-dimensional representation is reducible following

$$\left(J=1,c=\frac{1}{6}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right)=\left(J=0,c=\frac{1}{12}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right)\left(J=\frac{1}{2},c=\frac{a}{4}+\frac{1}{12}\frac{\beta }{3\alpha }\right),$$
(67)
and corresponding in $`V_3`$ to the separation of $`x`$ from the two other elements.

## IV Conclusions

We have answered the Post and Turbiner question asking for an algebra generated by the differential operators preserving $`V_3`$. This algebra is not a Lie structure but a polynomial deformation of it. The representation of these nonlinear algebras are however available and can be used as the ones of the Lie algebra are. In particular, it is thinkable to go to higher-dimensional representations of $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ and ask for a differential realization associated with a space of specific interest. Anyway, it is the main advantage of having recognized an algebraic structure behind these quasi exact operators.

We have also, using this algebraic approach, recovered the Post-Turbiner operators (34)–(35), (47)–(48), (60) while the operator (61) is new. They are in fact separated in three pairs generating a specific $`sl^{(3)}(2,)`$ together with an ad-hoc diagonal operator. We however note that the complete set of these six operators does not close under the Lie bracket even if a nonlinear deformation is considered. The explanation is simple: Acting on $`V_3`$ these six operators together with two adequate diagonal ones generate $`sl(3,)`$. This latest Lie algebra being realized with differential operators in terms of two variables, it is not conceivable to hope a closure of the nonlinear deformation of $`sl(3,)`$ with one variable only. The extension of the developments contained in this letter to a space of arbitrary finite dimensions is left for future work.


text:
# About compression of vocabulary in computer oriented languages

## Abstract

The author uses the entropy of the ideal Bose-Einstein gas to minimize losses in computer-oriented languages.

Natural languages have the property of being excessive, and this excessiveness is important from the viewpoint of reliability of information transmission. The excessiveness manifests itself in doubling the grammatical or lexical tools in transmission of the sense of statements. So, at lexical level, the synonymy in natural languages is highly developed, i.e., the language contains many words and word-combinations with closely related meanings. At grammar level, the meanings are doubled in grammatical forms of different parts of the statement. For instance, in Russian, the person is given by both a pronoun and the ending of a verb in the Present tense, the spatial meaning of a noun is given by both the case ending and a preposition, etc. The excessiveness is especially typical of natural languages of synthetic type where a single word combines several morphological units expressing one or other meaning (i.e., the root, suffices, prefices, endings; all these parts of the word bear definite meanings). Such languages comprise, for instance, Russian, Hungarian, Baltic languages. Usually, in languages of this type, the system of cases is highly developed, for instance, there are 6 cases in Russian and more than 20 cases in Hungarian. The case endings allow one to express delicate spatial meanings such as: position in some place, entering some place, position near some place, direction of motion, etc.

In languages of analytic type, complicated meanings are expressed by combining separate words with minimal changes (inflection); this is the simplest and most transparent (motivated) nomination method. Examples of such languages are the English language, which contains only one case, the possessive case, and the South-East Asia languages without any inflection at all.

The property of being excessive is to be contrasted with the economy or minimality of the expression tools. The excessiveness of a code makes the recognition more reliable. However, in some situations, the economy of language tools is most important. In particular, such situations appear under natural conditions of constructing tools for inter-ethnic communication in districts with mixed population, i.e., of constructing the so-called Pidgin languages. The Pidgin languages are usually formed by significantly simplifying the structure of the original language. In Pidgin languages, first of all, the complicated grammatical models of the original language are significantly simplified and new analytic forms are developed. The Pidgin languages are widely used in the South-East Asia, Oceania, Africa. Several Pidgin languages on the Russian basis are also known. For instance, in the 19th century, on the Russian–Chinese frontier, a kjachta-chinese dialect was made up in the trade settlement “Maimachin” (bordering on Kjachta). This dialect was used by chinese merchants coming to trade in Russia. This Pidgin language got the name of the place where it was born – the “maimachin”. A special manual of the “maimachin” language was printed in China. The chinese people going to Russia must pass exams in the “maimachin” language. The Russian people also used this language as a means of intercourse with chinese merchants (e.g., see ). The Russian grammar in this dialect was simplified to the maximal extent so that it approached the Chinese grammar: declinations, conjugations, cases and numbers, etc. were “abolished.” The synthetic forms were also absent. For instance, the verbal grammatical meanings were expressed by using forms of the indefinite mood, which usually coincide with the form of the imperative mood in Russian, and by using “auxiliary” verbs for expressing the Present tense. All inflexional forms of pronouns were replaced by a single form. The dictionary was also significantly simplified, i.e., it included several thousands of words, which must roughly express all necessary meanings.

The problem to economize and minimize the language tools preserving the reliability of information transmission was a pressing problem in computer science. In designing various automated systems working with information given in natural languages (information-search systems, systems of automated annotating and reviewing, systems of automated translation, etc.), the problem of “compressing” and economical coding of texts arises first of all. In all these cases, special semantic dictionaries are constructed, which separate words and word-combinations close in meaning into classes. In this case, delicate semantic distinctions of elements are ignored within a class, and the name of the class becomes a new code of some meaning. In information-search languages, the so-called descriptors are taken to be such artificial words.

This roughening inevitably leads to losses in information and to additional noises. Therefore, the problem of optimal choice of the language properties, such as the excessiveness and the economy, is very important for work with computers, which become an integral part of modern life.

If we compare a Pidgin language with a natural language, then we see that the Pidgin vocabulary is a set of descriptors, i.e., of sets including words and forms of words of the natural language, which are either close in meaning or express the same meaning. To express this meaning in the Pidgin language, only one word is necessary. Since a highly developed dictionary is not necessary for everyday communications and semantic nuances can be ignored, the number of such words in a descriptor can be rather large, of order of several hundreds and even thousands, and a vocabulary of many thousands, for instance, that of the Russian language, can be separated in a significantly lesser number of descriptors.

Similarly to the problem of universal coding, the language corresponding to a set of descriptors (e.g., to the “maimachin”) is associated with some entropy other than the Shannon entropy.

Let us consider the simplest example. Suppose that a “maimachin” word $`\alpha `$ corresponds to a descriptor containing two words of the Russian language: a word $`a`$ and a word $`b`$. Now we assume that the word $`\alpha `$ was used two times in the translation of a book from the Russian into the “maimachin” language. Which Russian words and how many times were replaced by the word $`\alpha `$? The following versions are possible:

1. the word $`a`$ was replaced two times;

2. the word $`b`$ was replaced two times;

3. the word $`a`$ was replaced once, and the word $`b`$ was replaced once.

In the general case, if the “maimachin” word $`\alpha `$ was used $`N`$ times in the translation of the book, and the number of different Russian words replaced by this word is equal to $`G`$, then the number of all possible versions is equal to

$$C_N^{N+G1}=\frac{(N+G1)!}{N!(G1)!}.$$

A similar formula is encountered in problems of universal coding .

Let $`k`$ be the number of “maimachin” words $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k`$, and let the word $`\alpha _i`$ be used $`N_i`$ times in the translation. Then the total number of possible combinations is equal to

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(N_i+G_i1)!}{N_i!(G_i1)!}.$$

Hence (by the Stirling formula), for $`N_i1`$ and $`G_i1`$, the entropy is equal to

$$S=\mathrm{ln}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(N_i+G_i1)!}{N_i!(G_i1)!}\underset{j=i}{\overset{k}{}}G_j\{(1+\overline{n}_j)\mathrm{ln}(1+\overline{n}_j)\overline{n}_j\mathrm{ln}\overline{n}_j\}$$
$`(a),`$
where $`\overline{n}_j=\frac{N_i}{G_i}`$.

Suppose that $`M=G_i`$, $`M\mathrm{}`$, $`N\mathrm{}`$, and $`N/M\rho `$.

In this case, it the frequency probabilities of $`N`$ particles are defined as $`N_i/N`$, then for $`p_i=lim\frac{N_i}{N}`$ and $`g_i=lim\frac{G_i}{M}`$, we obtain the following value of the specific entropy:

$$S=\underset{i}{}(p_i+q_i\rho ^1)\mathrm{ln}(p_i+q_i\rho ^1)p_i\mathrm{ln}p_iq_i\rho ^1\mathrm{ln}q_i\rho ^1.$$
$`(1)`$
This entropy coincides with the Shannon entropy only if $`N_iG_i`$.

We introduce the notion of information price corresponding to each “maimachin” word $`\alpha _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ . We will minimize the entropy $`S`$ under the assumption that the general energy satisfies the relation $`E=N_i\epsilon _i=\epsilon _iG_i\overline{n}_i`$, $`N_i=N`$. Constructing the Lagrange function $`F=E\theta S+\alpha G_i\overline{n}_i`$ and finding its extremum, we obtain

$$\overline{n}_j=\frac{1}{(\alpha +\epsilon _i)\beta 1},\beta =\frac{1}{\theta }.$$
$`(2)`$
Hence, calculating $`F/\theta =S_0`$ as a function of $`\theta `$ and $`\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _k`$, we obtain

$$\epsilon _i(E_0,\overline{n}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{n}_k,N).$$
$`(3).`$
The argument variables are given in advance, the informatibility $`\epsilon _i`$ of the $`i`$th dictionary can be found from implicit equations whose solvability can be proved easily.

Precisely as the Shannon entropy coincides with the Boltzmann entropy (e.g., see , p. 36), the entropy $`S`$ considered above coincides with the entropy of the ideal Bose-Einstein gas and the distribution (1) coincides with the Bose-Einstein distribution (, p. 184). However, in physics, the “energies” $`\epsilon _i`$ are given, while here they must be determined as the informatibility of words from a dictionary still unstudied by the linguist.

Words in natural languages are not equivalent in the frequency of their use. An index of a word function in speech, namely, its frequency of use, depends on the semantics, grammatical properties, the contents of texts, and the social-professional characteristics of those who speak. In an entire language, the frequency of use of words is not uniform. Calculations show that 1000 of the most common words cover 85% of any text. To fix the frequency of use of words, various frequency dictionaries are composed on the basis of different text samples. For instance, the following dictionaries are known: “The frequency dictionary of the modern Russian literature language” (E. Shteinfeldt, 1973), “The frequency dictionary of the Russian language” (1977), “The frequency dictionary of M. Yu. Lermontov’s language” (1981), etc.

In natural languages, the syntactic words (prepositions, conjunctions, particles) are of the highest ranks in the frequency of use. Next, there is a rather wide stratum of meaningful commonly used vocabulary, which is mainly characterized by the same (rather high) frequency of use in texts. This vocabulary is usually sufficient for practical communication. Therefore, this vocabulary forms, as a rule, the basis of two-language minimal dictionaries, which are used to adopt texts for educational purposes.

The following experience of adopting the fiction texts in Russian. The famous writer, M. Evstigneev, specializing in writing cheap popular fiction, told that he had “rewritten Gogol’s works in a different style for people.” This was cheap popular fiction. Later on, in the first half of the eighties of the 19th century, L. N. Tolstoi was seriously occupied with the program of rewriting fiction in the popular language. His follower, V. G. Chertkov, worked on this program for more than 15 years. Adopted fiction was also published by I. D. Sytin as the library called “Intermediary” .

In modern practice, such an adopted language is required by computers. The problem for linguists is to adopt the literature language for different purposes and to create simplified Pidgin languages. But to estimate and choose artificial languages characterized by minimal losses is a problem for specialists in information theory.

In this paper, we consider a hypothetical Pidgin language, i.e., the next step in simplifying an adopted common language, which is constructed by using the basic lexicon including widely used words of the same frequency rank (i.e., the words mainly used with the same frequency) and semantically covering the entire semantic space. This is a Pidgin language, which can serve as a computer oriented language and whose vocabulary is significantly simplified (the number of words is essentially decreased). However, the dictionary can further be compressed by excluding the words with small $`N_i\epsilon _i`$.

The assumption that elements of the original dictionary are used with the same frequency coincides, in fact, with the quantum statistical assumption that the eigenvalues of the $`n`$-particle Schrödinger equation for the ideal bose-gas are in general position and the additional multiplicities, which can appear when the eigenvalues of the one-particle operator are commensurable, are not taken into account (see ). Moreover, the stable situation for a dictionary, and hence for $`N_i`$, is equivalent to the equilibrium distribution of particles in the bose-gas.

The author wishes to express his deep gratitude to Professor L. A. Bossalygo for fruitful discussions and several valuable remarks of both mathematical and liguistical character.


text:
# Some methods to evaluate complicated Feynman integrals

## 1  Introduction

Last years there was an essential progress in calculations of Feynman integrals. It seems that most important results have been obtained for two-loop four-point massless Feynman diagrams: in on-shall case (see ) and for a class of off-shall legs (see ). A review of the results can be found in . Moreover, very recently results for a class of these diagrams have been obtained  in the case when some propagators have a nonzero mass.

In the letter, I review very shortly results obtained with help of two methods for calculations of Feynman diagrams (for details, see ): the Gegenbauer Polynomial Technique  (see also ) and the Differential Equation Method (DEM) . The additional information about a modern progress in calculations of Feynman integrals can be found, for example, also in recent articles .

## 2 Applications of the Gegenbauer Polynomial Technique

The Gegenbauer Polynomial Technique has been used for evaluation of very complicated Feynman diagrams (see also ) which contribute mostly in calculations based on various type of $`1/N`$ expansions:

* In the calculation (in ) of the next-to-leading (NLO) corrections to the value of dynamical mass generation (see ) in the framework of three-dimensional Quantum Electrodynamics.
* In the evaluation (in ) of the correct value of of the leading order contribution to the $`\beta `$-function of the $`\theta `$-term in Chern-Simons theory. The $`\beta `$-function is zero in the framework of usual perturbation theory but it takes nonzero values in $`1/N`$ expansion (see ).
* In the evaluation (in ) of NLO corrections to the value of gluon Regge trajectory (see discussions in  and references therein).
* In the calculation (in ) of the next-to-leading corrections to the BFKL intercept of spin-dependent part of high-energy asymptotics of hadron-hadron cross-sections.
* In the calculation (in ) of the next-to-leading corrections to the BFKL equation at arbitrary conformal spin.
* In the evaluation (in ) of the most complicated parts of $`\mathrm{O}(1/N^3)`$ contributions to critical exponents of $`\varphi ^4`$-theory, for any spacetime dimensionality $`D`$.

## 3 The recent progress in calculation of Feynman integrals by the DEM.

* The articles  and :

a) The set of two-point two-loop Feynman diagrams with one- and two-mass thresholds has been evaluated by DEM (see Fig.1). The results are presented in Ref  and in the review . Some of them have been known before (see ). The check of the results has been done by Veretin programs (see discussions in  and references therein).

b) The set of three-point two-loop Feynman integrals with one- and two-mass thresholds has been evaluated (the results of some of them has been known before (see )) by a combination of DEM and Veretin programs for calculation of first terms in small-moment expansion of Feynman diagrams (see discussions in  and references therein).
* The article : The full set of two-point two-loop on-shell master diagrams has been evaluated by DEM. The check of the results has been done by Kalmykov programs (see discussions in  and references therein).
* The article : The set of three-point and four-point two-loop massless Feynman diagrams has been evaluated.

Acknowledgments. Author would like to express his sincerely thanks to the Organizing Committee of ACAT 2002 for the kind invitation. He was supported in part by INTAS grant N366.