text:
# THE EVOLUTION OF BALMER ABSORPTION LINE STRENGTHSIN E/S0 GALAXIES FROM 𝑧=0 TO 𝑧=0.831

## 1. Introduction

The star-formation histories of early-type galaxies in distant clusters have been the focus of many recent studies (e.g., van Dokkum & Franx (1996); Bender, Ziegler, & Bruzual (1996); Ellis et al. (1997); Kelson et al. (1997); Ziegler & Bender (1997); van Dokkum et al. (1998); Pahre, de Carvalho, & Djorgovski (1998); Kelson et al. 2000c ; Ziegler et al. (2000)). While there is broad consensus is that E/S0 galaxies in distant clusters generally have old stellar populations, these results depend on the initial mass function (IMF), the cosmology, and the assumption that morphological evolution can be ignored. Whereas some of these effects can be taken into account using detailed models (see, e.g., van Dokkum & Franx (2001); Diaferio et al. (2000)), the interpretation is ultimately limited by the accuracy of the population synthesis models upon which any conclusion is based.

These assumptions can now be tested by measuring absorption line strengths as a function of redshift (time) in early-type cluster galaxies, The ”line strength” results can be compared to the evolution of colors and $`M/L`$ ratios, and the correlations between various age indicators can be compared to predictions of stellar population synthesis models. Together they can significantly increase our confidence in the deduced star-formation histories, and in the models themselves.

In this Letter we present first results on a new study of galaxy absorption line strengths to redshifts approaching unity, and compare the measured evolution with the evolution of the galaxy $`M/L`$ ratios, as derived from the fundamental plane (see van Dokkum et al. (1998); Kelson et al. 2000c  and references therein). With this sample, we extend similar work by Bender et al. (1998) by a factor of two in redshift. Here we present the first results using E/S0 galaxies in the clusters Abell 2256 ($`z`$=0.06), CL1358+62 ($`z`$=0.33), MS2053–04 ($`z`$=0.58), and MS1054–03 ($`z`$=0.83), and discuss the resulting constraints on the star-formation histories, IMF, cosmological parameters, and the stellar population synthesis models themselves.

## 2. The Data

The CL1358+62, MS2053–04, and MS1054–03 spectroscopic data presented in this paper were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory using the Low Resolution Imaging Spectrograph (Oke et al. (1995)). The initial sample selection for the deep spectroscopy was based only on magnitude and preference for high-resolution spectroscopic follow-up was given to spectroscopically confirmed members (Fisher et al. (1998); Tran et al. (1999); van Dokkum et al. (2000); Tran et al. 2001, in prep. ). Hubble Space Telescope WFPC2 images in F814W were used to determine morphological classifications (Fabricant, Franx, & van Dokkum (2000); van Dokkum et al. (2000); Fabricant et al. 2001, in prep. ). In this paper we limit the discussion to the E/S0 galaxies, with more thorough discussion of the general cluster populations being prepared for a later paper.

The CL1358+62 spectroscopic data and their reduction were published in Kelson et al. (2000b). The MS2053–04 and MS1054–03 data were similarly processed. The spectroscopic reductions described in Kelson et al. (2000b) provided data of the quality required for measurement of absorption line strengths, with one additional step for removing atmospheric H2O absorption at 6800 Å, 7600 Å, and 8200 Å. In each slit-mask we had included bright blue stars in order to accurately determine the telluric absorption in each exposure. The galaxy spectra presented in this paper have $`S/N`$ ratios ranging from 20-100 per Å (in the continuum). The resolution was typically $`\sigma _{inst}40\text{-}60`$ km/s. The data for the local comparison sample of 9 early-type galaxies in Abell 2256 were obtained at the KPNO 4m and these data were processed and analyzed using the same procedures as were used with the high-$`z`$ data in an effort to minimize possible systematic errors. By doing so, we avoid any systematic effects between our distant samples and those published in the literature (e.g., Terlevich et al. (1999); Kuntschner (2000)). Figure 1 shows example spectra from each of the four clusters.

Velocity dispersions were measured using the direct fitting method of Kelson et al. (2000b). The raw velocity dispersions were corrected for aperture size to values equivalent to a $`D=3\text{′′}\text{.}4`$ aperture at the distance of Coma using the prescription of Jørgensen et al. (1995). The corrections were +2.3%, +4.7%, +5.6% and +6.0% for the galaxies in A2256, CL1358+62, MS2053–04, and MS1054–03, respectively.

Absorption line strengths were measured using the Trager et al. (1998) definitions for the Lick/IDS indices. For this letter, we use the indices of the Balmer lines H$`\delta `$ and H$`\gamma `$ defined by Worthey & Ottavianni (1997), and will discuss the other indices in a later paper. The raw indices were corrected for both the instrumental broadening using the Worthey & Ottavianni (1997) estimates for the resolution of the Lick/IDS data, and for Doppler broadening.

Accurate estimation of the errors in absorption line strengths requires knowledge of the variance in the data due to noise (see, e.g., González (1993); Cardiel et al. (1998)). In work on distant (i.e., highly redshifted) galaxies, the photon statistics and electronics noise is supplemented by localized sources of noise, such as sharp residuals from the subtraction of the bright OH emission lines of the background, and residual fringing not removed by the flat-fields. Therefore, we estimate the variances using the residuals between the observed spectra and the high-resolution model SED from Vazdekis (1999), suitably broadened to match the instrumental resolution and Doppler broadening of the galaxy spectrum, which provides the lowest $`\chi ^2`$ (as a function of age and \[Fe/H\]). We assume the square of the residuals between the observed and model SEDs in each index and continuum bandpass accurately reflects the variance due to noise in the data, and the errors in the absorption line strengths are derived by propagating these variances. Monte Carlo simulations have verified that this method provides accurate error estimates.

Because the metric apertures from which the galaxy spectra were extracted are systematically larger at high redshift than at low redshift, the Balmer line strengths needed to be corrected to a consistent aperture size. Unfortunately no published set of aperture corrections exist yet for the H$`\gamma _A`$ and H$`\delta _A`$ line strengths. However, one can estimate the corrections by integrating the published mean major-axis H$`\gamma _A`$ gradients of the E/S0 galaxies in Fornax (Kuntschner (1999)), weighted by an $`r^{1/4}`$-law surface brightness profile, over a circular aperture. Utilizing the Worthey (1994) and Vazdekis et al. (1996) model prediction that H$`\delta _A+`$H$`\gamma _A=1.9\times `$H$`\gamma _A`$, we find that the required aperture corrections scale with effective aperture diameter as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(`$H$`\delta _A+`$H$`\gamma _A)=(1.78\pm 0.16)\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}D_{ap}`$. One can also scale the Mg2 aperture correction prescription of Jørgensen et al. (1995) by the ratio of the gradients in (H$`\delta _A`$+H$`\gamma _A`$) and Mg2 and recover the same scaling. Using the above scaling of line strength with aperture size, we correct the line strengths to a nominal aperture of size $`D=1\text{′′}\text{.}23`$ at the distance of CL1358+62 ($`z`$=0.33). The resulting corrections were $`0.57_{+0.05}^{0.05}`$Å, $`0.17_{0.01}^{+0.01}`$Å, $`0.20_{0.02}^{+0.02}`$Å, for A2256, MS2053–04, and MS1054–03, respectively.

## 3. Evolution of the Balmer Line Strengths

In Figure 2 we show the correlation between (H$`\delta _A`$+H$`\gamma _A`$) (Worthey & Ottaviani (1997)) and velocity dispersion for E/S0 galaxies in A2256, CL1358+62, MS2053–04, and MS1054–03. For the large sample of early-type galaxies in CL1358+62, there is a well-defined correlation. This correlation spans a wide range of velocity dispersion and Balmer line strengths, from positive values (strong Balmer absorption) to negative values (weak Balmer absorption) which occur when the mean flux levels in the continuum side-bands are lower than the mean flux level within the index passbands.

The form of the best-fit linear relation in CL1358+62, shown with its $`\pm 1`$-$`\sigma `$ zero-point uncertainties, is $`(\mathrm{H}\delta _A+\mathrm{H}\gamma _A)=(9.1\pm 1.0)\mathrm{log}[\sigma /(150\mathrm{km}/\mathrm{s})](4.9\pm 0.1)`$. The CL1358+62 E/S0s exhibit a remarkably low scatter of 0.50Å, equivalent to 13% in velocity dispersion. When expressed in velocity dispersion, this scatter is as low as that in the fundamental plane (Kelson et al. 2000c ). We have also derived the CL1358+62 H$`\gamma _A`$-$`\sigma `$ relation and have compared it to the relation for Fornax E/S0s (using the published data of Kuntschner (2000)). We find H$`\gamma _A(3.6\pm 1.4)\mathrm{log}\sigma `$ at $`z`$=0.33 compared to H$`\gamma _A(4.0\pm 1.5)\mathrm{log}\sigma `$ in Fornax, with similarly low scatter. The lack of strong evolution in the slope of this correlation suggests that stellar population ages do not vary strongly along the sequence of early-type galaxies (similar to the conclusions drawn by Stanford, Eisenhardt, & Dickinson (1998); Kelson et al. 2000c ).

As can be seen in Figure 2, the moderately large observational uncertainties and/or the small sample sizes in the current dataset prevent an accurate measurement of the slope of the correlation between Balmer absorption and central velocity dispersion in A2256, MS2053–04 and MS1054–03.

Given the similarity in the slopes of the Balmer Balmer line-velocity dispersion relations for Fornax and CL1358+62, we adopt the slope of the CL1358+62 relation for the remainder of the analysis and assume that only the zero-point evolves with redshift. We determined the mean zero-points in the four clusters giving all points uniform weight, using the bi-weight location estimator (Beers, Flynn, & Gebhardt (1990)).

The zero-points for the four clusters, normalized to galaxies with a dispersion of $`\sigma =150`$ km/s, are $`5.94\pm 0.20`$, $`4.86\pm 0.13`$, $`3.76\pm 0.38`$, and $`2.72\pm 0.41`$ (in units of Å). The A2256, MS2053–04 and MS1054–03 early-type galaxies are offset in zero-point from CL1358+62 by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{H}\delta _A+\mathrm{H}\gamma _A)=1.08\pm 0.24`$ Å $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{H}\delta _A+\mathrm{H}\gamma _A)=1.10\pm 0.40`$ Å and $`2.14\pm 0.43`$ Å, respectively. The offsets (see Figure 2) are significant, 4-, 3- and 5-$`\sigma `$, and correspond to larger absorption at earlier epochs (i.e., younger ages), as expected.

Figure 3 shows the evolution of the $`(\mathrm{H}\delta _A+\mathrm{H}\gamma _A)`$ zero-point as a function of redshift. Assuming the galaxy populations in all three clusters can be compared directly, we show the predictions of single burst stellar population models from Worthey (1994; updated in Trager et al. (2000)) (shaded) and Vazdekis et al. (1996) (dashed lines). Models with star-formation redshifts of $`2z_f10`$ are shown.

Because the model predictions can be simplified to functions of the form, e.g., H$`\gamma _A=A+B\delta x+(C\delta x+D)\mathrm{log}t+E\mathrm{log}Z+F(\mathrm{log}Z)^2`$, to a high degree of accuracy, we can decouple the time-evolution of the indices from the metallicity of a given model (while also rendering the adoption of $`H_0=75`$ km/s/Mpc unimportant). We find lower-limits of $`z_f>2.9`$ and $`z_f>2.4`$ (95% confidence limit) using the Worthey and Vazdekis models respectively, for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m=0.3,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, similar to conclusions drawn by past work (e.g., van Dokkum & Franx (1996); Bender, Ziegler, & Bruzual (1996); Kelson et al. (1997); van Dokkum et al. (1998)). As is always the case in this type of study, the conclusions depend on the assumptions that the individual cluster samples are co-eval, and that morphological evolution can be ignored (see, e.g., van Dokkum & Franx (2001)). Furthermore, we also remind the reader that early-type cluster galaxies may settle into their final configurations well after their last major epochs of star-formation leaving their morphological evolution decoupled from their star-formation histories (e.g., van Dokkum et al. (1999)).

## 4. Comparison with the Evolution of $`M/L`$ Ratios

In past work we have established the evolution of the $`M/L_B`$ ratio for the same clusters using the fundamental plane relation (Kelson et al. (1997); van Dokkum et al. (1998); Kelson et al. 2000c ) and we now compare the mean $`M/L_B`$ evolution with that of the Balmer lines. The results are shown in Figure 4. Since the $`M/L`$ ratios are sensitive to cosmological parameters, we show the results for several values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

The models agree very well with the observed correlation between the evolution of the Balmer line strengths and the $`M/L_B`$ ratios. The slope of the predicted relation depends on the slope of the IMF through the $`M/L`$ ratio evolution (e.g., Tinsley & Gunn (1976)). Therefore, we show the Worthey (shaded) and Vazdekis (dashed lines) model predictions for a range of IMF slopes ($`0.85x1.85`$) about the Salpeter (1955) value. For standard IMFs and low values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_m`$, the models are consistent with our data (and the results of Bender et al. (1998)).

While late-time star-bursts and/or morphological evolution can bias the observed redshift evolution of the various age indicators (e.g., van Dokkum & Franx (2001)), each age-sensitive observable is affected similarly. Thus, comparisons like that in in Figure 4 provide tests of the population synthesis models which are free from any assumption of coevality, and are more powerful than simple examinations of galaxy properties as functions of redshift alone.

By extending our analysis to more spectral indices and galaxies of later morphological type, we will better constrain the stellar and morphological histories of cluster galaxies (see, e.g., Kelson et al. 2000c ). By doing so, we expect to quantitatively constrain the formation histories of distant galaxies, and better understand the evolution of cluster populations as a whole.

We thank I. Jørgensen for assistance in providing the Abell 2256 data, and G. Worthey for kindly making the most recently updated versions of the Worthey (1994) model programs available. We appreciate the effort of those at the W.M.Keck observatory who developed and supported the facility and the instruments that made this program possible. Lastly we acknowledge the anonymous referee, whose comments served to greatly improve the paper. Support from STScI grants GO05989.01-94A, GO05991.01-94A, and AR05798.01-94A, and NSF grant AST-9529098 is gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Thermal relaxation of very small solar magnetic structures in intergranules: a process that produces kG magnetic field strengths

## 1 Introduction and rationale

Except for sunspots and pores, the solar magnetic features are not spatially resolved. These unresolved structures tend to have highly concentrated kG magnetic fields, a fact which was already acknowledged by the early seventies (Beckers & Schöter 1968; Harvey et al. 1972; Stenflo 1973; Wiehr 1978). Although such extreme concentration of the fields was never anticipated from basic physical principles, a mechanism that explains them came up soon after the discovery. The so-called Convective Collapse (hereafter CC; Parker 1978; Spruit 1979) is a modification of the convective instability that drives the transport of energy in the envelopes of cool stars. The hydrostatic equilibrium stratification is unstable against vertical displacements, a factor that amplifies adiabatic vertical motions (e.g., Cox & Giuli 1968). The same phenomenon takes place in magnetized plasmas and favors down-drafts along vertical field lines. These down-drafts evacuate the magnetic structures which seek a new stable equilibrium by increasing the magnetic field strength. (For details on the CC see, e.g., Parker 1979; Spruit 1981.) Although there is no conclusive observation proving that the CC causes the formation of the intense photospheric fields, it is systematically invoked to explain them.

As any other process to concentrate magnetic fields, the CC does not modify the magnetic flux of the region whose field strength is being increased. Precursor regions having large magnetic flux are required to yield regions of concentrated magnetic fields with large flux. However, the observations show an embarrassing lack of precursors having the fluxes of typical network magnetic concentrations111 The limit set by Howard & Stenflo (1972) that at least 90% of the flux observed in the traditional magnetograms is in the strong field regime expresses the same idea., i.e., between $`10^{17}`$ Mx and $`10^{18}`$Mx (see Fig. 1). One may attribute the absence of precursors to the speed of the CC process, so that the chances of detecting a feature in its pre-collapse phase are negligible. This argument is difficult to maintain since the growth time of the CC instability is at least several minutes (e.g., Hasan 1986; Takeuchi 1999; Rajaguru & Hasan 1999), which represents a sizeable fraction of the observed lifetimes of the magnetic concentrations (some 10-20 minutes, e.g., Muller 1994; Berger & Title 1996). This shortage of large flux but weak field strength features suggests that the concentration of quiet Sun magnetic fields proceeds in a hierarchical way, starting from the reservoir of unstable weak flux regions that are indeed observed (see the lower left corner in Fig. 1). These weak fluxes are first amplified to kG field strengths and the subsequent coalescence of many features renders structures with the observed flux. The concentration of weak fluxes poses a problem to the CC, though. Weak fluxes correspond to small structures for which the radiative exchange of heat with the surroundings is very efficient, hampering an adiabatic evolution of the magnetized plasma. This heat leakage frustrates the full development of the CC instability (e.g., Venkatakrishnan 1986; Hasan 1986; Schüssler 1986). Despite the fact that the observed weak field features are still liable for the CC (Fig. 1), it would be desirable having an alternative physical mechanism that is efficient even for limited magnetic fluxes. The purpose of the paper is to point out that such a mechanism emerges in a natural way from the numerical simulations of the solar granulation: the equilibrium configuration of a km-wide flux concentration standing in an intergranular environment automatically produces kG field strengths. For lack of a better term it will be denoted as TRIP, an acronym for Thermal Relaxation within Intergranule Process. A detailed theoretical study of the mechanism goes beyond the scope of the paper. We just point out that it can operate in the Sun, which opens up new possibilities to be explored elsewhere, both by numerical experiments and from an observational point of view. Some of the possibilities are gathered in §5.

## 2 Physical scenario

Intense quiet Sun magnetic concentrations222The term quiet Sun magnetic fields is used throughout the text in a broad sense, implying everything but sunspots and pores. are found in the intergranular lanes (Sheeley 1967; Dunn & Zirker 1973; Mehltretter 1974; Muller 1985). The intergranules are cooler than the mean photosphere, yet maintain a high pressure. This extra pressure arises to slow down the horizontal motions of the plasma that, eventually, sinks back to the sub-photosphere following intergranular down-drafts. As it is described by Stein & Nordlund (1998), the convergence of the flows towards the intergranular lanes is responsible for an augment of dynamic pressure that balances the deficit of temperature. Firts, outflows from adjacent granules collide at the intergranular lanes. Second, the shear of these colliding flows produces whirls which generate turbulent motions and therefore turbulent pressure. .

Assume for the moment that the magnetic structures live long enough to reach both, thermal equilibrium with the surroundings, and mechanical equilibrium within their intergranular environment. We will see that this configuration automatically demands a strong concentration of the magnetic fields with increasing height in the atmosphere. Let us condense the equations that describe the equilibrium. They can be found elsewhere (e.g. Parker 1979; Chapter 8), but we list them here to introduce the notation. Assume vertical fluxtubes embedded in an intergranular environment. The mechanical equilibrium requires that the gas pressure within the concentration $`P`$, plus the magnetic pressure due to the magnetic field strength $`B`$, balance the mean external pressure $`P_e`$. This balance occurs at every height in the atmosphere $`z`$,

$$P_e(z)=P(z)+B^2(z)/(8\pi ).$$
(1)
Together with this mechanical balance across field lines, there should be hydrostatic equilibrium along field lines where Lorentz forces play no role. Then the drop of pressure from a reference height $`z_0`$ follows an exponential law,

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[P(z)/P(z_0)\right]=_{z_0}^zH(z^{})^1𝑑z^{}.$$
(2)
The pressure scale height $`H(z)`$ is roughly proportional to the temperature. Combining equation (1) with the definition

$$B_m^2(z)=8\pi P_e(z),$$
(3)
one ends up with

$$\left[B(z)/B_m(z)\right]^2=1\left\{1\left[B(z_0)/B_m(z_0)\right]^2\right\}\left\{\left[P(z)/P(z_0)\right]/\left[P_e(z)/P_e(z_0)\right]\right\},$$
(4)
where $`B_m(z)`$ represents for the maximum possible field strength at every height. The fact that the temperature of the intergranule is smaller than that of the mean photosphere implies that $`H<H_e`$, where $`H_e`$ is the pressure scale height ascribed to a $`P_e`$ that also satisfies equation (2). Since $`H<H_e`$, $`P`$ drops with height faster than $`P_e`$ (eq. ). No matter the initial magnetic field strength, equation (4) predicts

$$B(z)/B_m(z)1\mathrm{when}zz_0.$$
(5)
The magnetic field strength always tend to reach its maximum possible value set by the external gas pressure.

Is this mechanism of relevance for the concentration of quiet Sun magnetic fields? One can advance a positive answer to the question using the analytic expressions corresponding to isothermal atmospheres. Under this hypothesis $`H`$ and $`H_e`$ are constant, therefore,

$$\mathrm{ln}\left[P(z)/P(z_0)\right]=(zz_0)/H,$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{ln}\left[P_e(z)/P_e(z_0)\right]=(zz_0)H_e,$$

which transform equation (4) into

$$\left[B(z)/B_m(z)\right]^2=1\left\{1\left[B(z_0)/B_m(z_0)\right]^2\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left[(zz_0)/<H>\right],$$
(7)
$$<H>=HH_e/(H_eH).$$

Considering that deep down in the atmosphere the magnetic fields are not dynamically important ($`B[z_0]/B_m[z_0]1`$), the solution (7) becomes independent of $`B(z_0)`$,

$$\left[B(z)/B_m(z)\right]^2=1\mathrm{exp}\left[(zz_0)/<H>\right].$$
(8)
The scale height $`<H>`$ turns out to be about 225 km, a figure which comes out from the pressure scale height $`H_e150`$ km and intergranular lanes 40% cooler than the mean photosphere ($`H/H_e`$ temperature intergranule/mean temperature $`0.6`$). The values for $`B/B_m`$ observed in the photosphere (some 0.9; e.g. Rüedi et al. 1992; Sánchez Almeida & Lites 2000) are reached if the imbalance of temperatures extends for at least 400 km, which is sound according to the numerical simulations of solar granulation (see, Stein & Nordlund 1998, and the forthcoming §2.1). In short, magnetic concentrations in equilibrium in an intergranule automatically demand kG fields at photospheric levels.

### 2.1 More realistic estimate

The order of magnitude estimate described above has been refined using realistic model atmospheres from the numerical simulations of solar granulation by Stein & Nordlund (1998). Figure 2, left, shows the temperatures of two intergranules and the mean temperature of the atmosphere. Figure 2, right, includes the mean pressure of the atmosphere, as well as the gas pressure to be expected if the intergranules were in hydrostatic equilibrium. The hydrostatic equilibrium pressures were computed from the temperatures by integration of equation (2) with $`z_0`$=-1.5 Mm. First note the large deficit of hydrostatic equilibrium pressure with respect to the mean pressure. Since the total pressure within intergranules has to be high (refer to §2), the mean pressure of the atmosphere is a reasonable guess to describe $`P_e(z)`$. Consequently, there is a large difference between $`P_e`$ and $`P`$ which a magnetic structure will tend to balance by increasing the magnetic pressure333 Incidentally, this imbalance between the hydrostatic equilibrium pressure and the effective pressure is responsible for the negative buoyancy forces that drive the down-drafts in the intergranular lanes. . Figure 3 shows the magnetic field strengths that guarantee mechanical equilibrium within the two intergranular environments. We have just employed equations (3) and (4), combined with the pressures in Figure 2. The resulting field strengths are well within kG regime at the base of the photosphere ($`z=0`$). Figure 3 includes $`B/B_m`$, which turns out to be about 0.9 in the photosphere. This figure is also in good agreement with observations (Rüedi et al. 1992; Sánchez Almeida & Lites 2000). We have not mentioned the magnetic field strength at the bottom of the atmosphere $`B(z_0)`$ since it does not affect the final field strength; see appendix A. The intergranular temperature is more important to produce kG fields. However, appendix A points out that a 1200 K temperature change modifies the final field strength by only 10%.

van Ballegooijen (1984), and later Hassan & van Ballegooijen (1998), investigated the field strength of magnetic concentrations trapped in intergranules that are not in hydrostatic equilibrium. Specifically, they consider the modifications of pressure due to the vertical gradient of the vertical convective velocity. Magnetic field strengths of the order of $`B(0)/B_m(0)0.6`$ balance the extra pressure that arises (Hassan & van Ballegooijen 1998). Although these field strengths are smaller than the values that we get, they already indicate that kG are needed to compensate deviations from hydrostatic equilibrium in intergranules.

## 3 Time scales to reach equilibrium

The arguments in the previous section rely on a magnetic concentration which has reached equilibrium within an intergranule. Here we aim at showing whether the assumption is reasonable or, more precisely, at investigating the conditions that make it reasonable. We compare the observed life times of solar structures with the time scales of various physical processes required to achieve equilibrium: the time to reach the temperature stratification of the environment, the time to set hydrostatic equilibrium along field lines, the ohmic diffusion time scale, the viscous time scale, and the ambipolar diffusion relaxation time scale.

Thermal relaxation time scale, or the time scale to cool down to intergranular temperatures. We neglect the convective transport so that the transfer of heat is solely carried by radiation444 Convection speeds up the heat transfer, therefore, the real relaxation times will be even shorter than the ones estimated here.. The time to attain the temperature of the environment is approximately given by the radiative relaxation time $`t_{th}`$,

$$t_{th}=\frac{C_V}{16\kappa _R\sigma T^3}\left[1\tau \mathrm{arctan}(1/\tau )\right]^1,$$
(9)
$$\tau =\kappa _R\rho a,$$
(10)
where the new symbols stand for the Stefan-Boltzmann constant $`\sigma `$, the Rosseland mean absorption coefficient $`\kappa _R`$, the specific heat at constant volume $`C_V`$, and the density $`\rho `$ (Spiegel 1957; Hasan 1986; Stix 1991). The time $`t_{th}`$ depends on the horizontal thickness of the magnetic concentration, which is parameterized in equation (10) as the radius of the tube $`a`$. Let us denote by $`r(z)`$ the radius of a fluxtube in equilibrium within an intergranule; it varies with height to satisfy the conservation of magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\pi r^2(0)B(0)=\pi r^2(z)B(z).$$
(11)
Assume that this fluxtube was initially in hydrostatic equilibrium with the mean photosphere. We try to evaluate the relaxation time for this structure to reach the intergranular temperature. The initial magnetic field strength is therefore given by equations (2) and (4) with $`H(z)=H_e(z)`$,

$$B_i(z)=B_i(0)B_m(z)/B_m(0).$$
(12)
The evolution from the initial values $`B_i,r_i`$ to $`B,r`$ conserves the magnetic flux, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also $`\pi r_i^2B_i`$. Using equations (11) and (12), the radius required to evaluate $`t_{th}`$ can be given as a function of the magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and the initial field at the base of the photosphere $`B_i(0)`$,

$$r_i(z)=\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }B_m(0)}{\pi B_i(0)B_m(z)}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(13)
Figure 4 shows $`t_{th}`$ for a fluxtube with the radius given by equation (13) and embedded in the coolest model intergranule of Figure 2. (No significant difference is found when employing the other intergranule.) The Rosseland mean opacity required to evaluate $`t_{th}`$ was obtained from Seaton et al. (1994), whereas the specific heat has been computed following Mihalas (1967). Figure 4 shows the cooling time for a structure having $`\mathrm{\Phi }5\times 10^{13}`$ Mx and $`B_i(0)=200`$ G, which will finish with a radius $`r(0)=1`$ km. The effective time scale is set by largest cooling time within the 400 km region below the photosphere (where the TRIP operates; see §2). This particular structure cools down in a tenth of a minute, therefore, it easily reaches the temperature of the intergranular environment. As structures of larger sizes are considered, the cooling time increases. The dependence can be worked out taking into account that the largest cooling time occurs at the bottom of the region of interest, where the fluxtube is optically thick. In this case $`t_{th}`$ scales with the square of the radius (e.g., Stix 1991), that is to say, with $`\mathrm{\Phi }/B_i(0)`$ (eq.). With the multiplying constant obtained from Figure 4 at $`z=400`$ km, one finds that

$$t_{th}15\mathrm{min}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }/1.2\times 10^{17}\mathrm{Mx}\right]\left[B_i(0)/1800\mathrm{G}\right]^1.$$
(14)
For the cooling to be effective, $`t_{th}`$ has to be shorter than the observed lifetimes (some 15 min, e.g., Muller 1994; Berger & Title 1996). The condition $`t_{th}<15`$ min and equation (14) render

$$\mathrm{\Phi }<1.2\times 10^{17}\mathrm{Mx}[B_i(0)/1800\mathrm{G}],$$
(15)
or, using equation (11) with $`B(0)`$ given by the model intergranule,

$$r(0)<49\mathrm{km}[B_i(0)/1800\mathrm{G}]^{1/2}.$$
(16)
Taking into account that $`B_i(0)<B_m(0)1800`$ G, the two equations (15) and (16) set absolute upper limits to the magnetic flux and size that can be concentrated, explicitly, $`\mathrm{\Phi }<1.2\times 10^{17}`$ Mx, and $`r(0)<49`$ km. For structures well below the kG regime, say $`B_i(0)`$ 500 G, the limits are tighter,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }<`$ $`3.3\times 10^{16}\mathrm{Mx},`$ (17)
$`r(0)<`$ $`26\mathrm{km}.`$ (18)
Time scale to reach mechanical equilibrium. Think of a precursor fluxtube in hydrostatic equilibrium having the mean photospheric temperature. It is now moved to an intergranular space so that it rapidly cools down to the new temperature. This intermediate structure is no longer in equilibrium and requires a time to adjust pressure and magnetic field according to the new situation. This time scale, $`þ`$, is the one that we try to estimate. The new equilibrium will be set within the time required for pressure and magnetic field perturbations to propagate throughout the structure. Given a characteristic propagation speed $`U`$, $`þ`$ scales with the extent of the region $`l`$, namely,

$$þl/U.$$
(19)
Since we deal with thin structures, the overall time scale will be set by the length of the structure rather than the radius. The speed $`U`$ can be estimated as the propagation speed of magneto-acoustic waves in magnetic fluxtubes. Different magneto-acoustic modes are characterized by different velocities, but there is always a plane wave mode which propagates at the sound speed of the external medium (see Spruit 1982 and references therein). The speeds of other modes are combinations of Alfven speeds and sound speeds. When the magnetic field strength is weak, Alfven speeds are smaller than the sound speeds and the fastest mode travels at the sound speed. On the contrary, strong field implies modes faster than the sound speed. Consequently, $`Uc`$, $`c`$ being the sound speed of the external medium. An estimate of the time to reach hydrostatic equilibrium results $`þl/c`$, with $`l`$ 400 km, i.e., the range of heights producing the increase of field strength (see §2). $`þ`$ is represented in Figure 4, where the adiabatic exponent required to evaluate $`c`$ has been computed according to Mihalas (1967). The largest time scale within the 400 km below the photosphere is about one minute. This time interval is reasonable and similar (although shorter) than the time needed for the CC to operate (Hasan 1986; Takeuchi 1999; Rajaguru & Hasan 1999). In any case, the fluxtubes have enough time to reach hydrostatic equilibrium during their lifetimes.

Magnetic diffusion time scale. Since we are dealing with very narrow structures (see eqs.  and ), they quickly diffuse away in a plasma with finite electrical conductivity. Should this diffusion be fast enough, it may frustrate the concentration process. The induction equation predicts the smear of magnetic structures in a diffusion time scale $`t_{md}`$. It is set by the square of the characteristic length scale over the magnetic diffusivity $`\eta `$ (e.g., Parker 1979). Using $`\eta 10^9`$ cm2 s-1 and the radius in equation (13), the fluxtube in Figure 4 has $`t_{md}t_{th}`$. Since the scaling with the tube radius is the same for both $`t_{md}`$ and $`t_{th}`$, the fact that $`t_{md}t_{th}`$ holds independently of the tube size. In short, the magnetic diffusion cannot counteract the thermal relaxation. On the other hand, ohmic diffusion may frustrate the concentration if it becomes faster than the time to reach hydrostatic equilibrium. The process requires $`t_{md}r_i^2(z)/\eta >þ`$. This inequality sets a lower bound to the sizes and fluxes that can be concentrated, namely,

$$r(0)>3\mathrm{km}[B_i(0)/1800\mathrm{G}]^{1/2},$$
(20)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }>4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{Mx}[B_i(0)/1800\mathrm{G}].$$
(21)
The limits were deduced from the fluxtube in Figure 4, that borders on $`t_{md}=þ`$ at $`z=0.5`$ Mm. Two comments on the magnetic diffusivity that we have used to estimate $`t_{md}`$ are in order. First, the figure $`10^9`$ cm2 s-1 represents the maximum value at photospheric levels and, consequently, an upper limit for the diffusivity in the layers of interest (Kovitya & Cram 1983). Second, we consider ohmic diffusion, but we may as well employ turbulent diffusion. Both diffusivities are similar for the range of very narrow fluxtubes that we study (see Schüssler 1986).

Viscous time scale. The concentration of magnetic fields require the motions within the fluxtubes to be spatially disconnected from the motions of the external non-magnetic medium. This horizontal gradient of velocity represents a large shear that may be impeded by viscous stresses. The time scale for viscous stresses to operate, $`t_{vs}`$, is formally identical to the magnetic diffusion time scale, except that the diffusivity $`\eta `$ has to be replaced with the kinematic viscosity $`\nu `$. Since $`\nu \eta `$ (Kovitya & Cram 1983), $`t_{vs}>t_{md}`$ and viscosity does not hamper the concentration process. One can also consider turbulent viscosity without changing this conclusion since it is similar to the magnetic diffusivity (Schüssler 1986).

Ambipolar diffusion time scale. If collisions between ions and neutrals are not frequent, the neutrals are allowed to drift across field lines. In our case, driven by the gradient of gas pressure between the external medium and the fluxtube, this ambipolar diffusion produces a flow of neutrals tending to fill up the magnetic concentration (Giovanelli 1977). The characteristic time for ambipolar diffusion to operate is,

$$t_{ad}r_i(z)/u_d,$$
(22)
with $`u_d`$ the velocity of the drift (e.g., Parker 1963; Giovanelli 1977). According to Parker (1979; §4.6),

$$u_d0.4\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1\left[\frac{r_i(z)}{1\mathrm{km}}\right]^1\left[\frac{B(z)}{1500\mathrm{G}}\right]^2\left[\frac{n(z)}{10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^3}\right]^2\left[\frac{\chi (z)}{10^2}\right]^1,$$
(23)
where the symbols $`\chi `$ and $`n`$ stand for the degree of ionization and the number of neutrals per unit volume, respectively. According to equation (23), ambipolar diffusion becomes important in low density weakly ionized media, properties that do not characterize the sub-photosphere where the TRIP takes place. The normalization factors for $`\chi `$, $`n`$ and $`B`$ in equation (23) correspond to the typical values in the sub-photospheric layers (e.g., Stein & Nordlund 1998, and Fig. 3). Under these conditions, the tiny drifts predicted by equation (23) imply time scales of days even for the smallest fluxtubes considered here. For example,

$$t_{ad}3\mathrm{days},$$
(24)
when $`r_i(z)=1`$ km. Since the TRIP occurs in minutes (Fig. 4), ambipolar diffusion cannot impede it.

According to the estimates carried out in the preceding paragraphs, the TRIP operates as soon as the magnetic flux is within the bounds set by equations (15) and (21). Then the process is not damped by ohmic diffusion, and it evolves faster than the observed life time of the magnetic concentrations. Under such conditions, the equilibrium demands kG magnetic field strengths at photospheric levels.

## 4 Detection of weak flux yet concentrated magnetic fields

As part of the discussion on the interest of the work (§1), we argued that the seemingly empty upper left corner in Figure 1 is actually filled. It corresponds to magnetic fields which could have been concentrated by the TRIP and whose weak flux precursors are observed (the data in the lower left corner of the same figure). We pointed out that the sensitivity of the current measurement hinders the detection. To support this claim, the point represented by the black spot with error bars was added to Figure 1. It stands for a feature with $`B(0)1450`$ G and $`\mathrm{\Phi }2.8\times 10^{16}`$ Mx, whose properties have been deduced from polarized spectra in the limit of sensitivity of the present solar polarimeters. This section aims at explaining how the existence of this weak flux but concentrated field was deduced, which illustrates the observational difficulties to sample the region of interest.

The point comes from the same data leading to the shadowed region in Figure 1 (Sánchez Almeida & Lites 2000). Since we seek fluxes weaker than the weakest analyzed in the previous work, the portion of the solar surface discarded in the original analysis is used here. In particular, we selected those pixels with polarization signals of the order of the noise of the individual spectra (below $`10^3`$, in units of the continuum intensity). The corresponding Stokes $`V`$ profiles555The term Stokes $`V`$ profile denotes the variation with wavelength of the degree of circular polarization. It corresponds to the customary representation of the line polarization used to measure solar magnetic fields. of the Fe i lines at 6301.5 Å and 6302.5 Å were classified with a cluster analysis algorithm (see Sánchez Almeida & Lites 2000 for details). The resulting mean profiles corresponding to different classes were visually inspected for Stokes $`V`$ signals with the characteristic shape of strong fields (i.e., with the classical shape observed in plage regions; Baur et al. 1981; Stenflo et al. 1984). Note that the noise of these mean profiles is greatly reduced by the averaging of several hundred individual profiles, so that extremely weak polarization signals are now detectable. Several mean profiles with the right shape were reproduced using the inversion code by Sánchez Almeida (1997) which, among other physical parameters, assigns magnetic field strengths. The example used to set the point in Figure 1 is shown in Figure 5. The figure includes a magnetogram of the region pointing out the pixels from which mean profile was constructed. This inset proves that our mean profile is not an instrumental artifact produced by leakage of network polarization (note that the selected points bear no obvious spatial coincidence with the network). The observed Stokes $`I`$ and $`V`$ profiles as well as the synthetic counterparts used to infer the physical properties are in Figure 5. In addition, we include best fitting synthetic profiles deduced by the inversion code when the magnetic field strength at z=0 is forced to be some 500 G. Obviously the fit worsens or, in other words, despite the weakness of the flux, our data correspond to regions having field strengths well above 500 G. The error bar of the magnetic field strength in Figure 1 corresponds to the standard of error of the non-linear $`\chi ^2`$-minimization algorithm used to carry out the fits (e.g., Bevington 1969). The error of the flux is just the difference of flux between the two fits in Figure 5.

The Stokes $`V`$ spectra from which the magnetic field was deduced have an extremely small noise (some 10-4 in units of the continuum intensity). Improving this level represents a challenge, but it mandatory to sample the (still) empty region in the upper left corner of Figure 1. Note that using the highly split near IR lines from which the weak fluxes in Figure 1 were deduced does not help. For reasons explained in Sánchez Almeida & Lites (2000), the IR lines are good for weak field strengths but their signals weaken for strong fields. For example, the synthesis of Fe i $`\lambda `$15648 in the model atmosphere that reproduces the polarization in Figure 5 yields a peak polarization 4 times weaker than that observed with Fe i $`\lambda `$6302.5. The region would be undetectable if observed in the IR.

In addition to the limited sensitivity of the current polarimeters, there are basic conceptual difficulties to interpret the polarization observed at these weak fluxes: extreme line asymmetries, mixed polarities within the resolution elements, etc. These problems are discussed elsewhere (e.g., Sánchez Almeida 1998), but one have to keep in mind that they also handicap precise determinations of field strength and flux.

## 5 Discussion and conclusions

Structures having weak magnetic fluxes ($`3\times 10^{16}`$ Mx) and standing in an intergranular environment develop kG field strengths in a few minutes. We argue that this concentrated state represents the equilibrium configuration of such structures and their natural endpoint. This new mechanism for magnetic field concentration complements the traditional Convective Collapse (CC) in the sense that it works for very weak fluxes, a factor that hinders the CC. However, the mechanism is reminiscent of the CC in many respects. In both cases the temperature of the magnetic concentration becomes smaller than the one required to balance the pressure stratification of the environment. The difference has to do with the physical effect responsible for this temperature deficit. In the case of the CC, it is produced by adiabatic displacements of plasma blobs in a superadiabatic temperature stratification. In the TRIP (Thermal Relaxation within Intergranule Process), it is produced by the radiative cooling to reach the temperatures of the high pressure but cool intergranular environment. These special physical conditions that trigger the TRIP automatically appear in the numerical simulations of solar granulation (Stein & Nordlund 1998, and references therein). The motions towards and within intergranules yield the surplus of dynamic pressure (§2). On the other hand, the global pattern of the convective motions provides another key ingredient of the process. As we pointed out in the introduction, the formation of typical network magnetic concentrations ($`10^{17}`$$`10^{18}`$ Mx) requires gathering many TRIP fluxtubes. This step of the process has to be hypothesized since a direct observation remains beyond our technical capabilities (see §4). The granular motions offer a gathering mechanism. They tend to drag all magnetic concentrations towards the vertices where several intergranules meet, thus inducing the formation of conglomerates of magnetic structures (e.g., Cattaneo 1999). The hypothesis of formation by coalescence has an independent observational support. It is observed among the smallest magnetic structures presently detected. The so-called G-band bright points, which we believe to trace magnetic concentrations, continuously split and merge, changing shape, and presumably magnetic flux, in less than a minute (Berger & Title 1996). Moreover, they are swept towards the vertices by the granular flow (e.g. Berger & Title 1996; van Ballegooijen et al. 1998). The extrapolation of such observed behavior to our much smaller elements results very reasonable. In particular, because the importance of the drag force that couple the fluxtube motions to the granular flows augments as the structure becomes thinner (e.g., Meyer et al. 1979; Schüssler 1986). Two additional features of the granular flow may also be relevant for the concentration process. First, the continuous advection of fresh magnetized plasma replenishes that part of the concentrations lost by ohmic diffusion, sucked by the down-drafts, etc. Second, the rather common intergranular whirls provide stabilizing effects upon the magnetic concentrations that get caught within them (Schüssler 1986).

A sign that the TRIP operates in the Sun would be finding a population of solar magnetic structures having 1.5 kG field strength and $`10^{16}`$ Mx (radius of some 14 km). Although it still functions, the CC tends to produce field strengths of 1 kG rather than 1.5 kG (e.g., Takeuchi 1999). Such difference offers a real chance for distinguishing the outcomes of the two processes. These hypothetical features should occupy the empty upper left corner of Figure 1, where exploration with the present means is full of technical difficulties (see §4). Fortunately, they may be detected pushing the current instruments to their limits, therefore, devoted observations are possible and eagerly awaited.

We have offered order of magnitude arguments to support the TRIP. They have to be corroborated by numerical simulations showing the formation of kG magnetic structures in intergranules. One should use a self-consistent model of the solar granulation and follow the evolution of a tiny magnetic patch. Two basic physical ingredients are mandatory, namely, the close thermal coupling with a cool environment and the existence of islands of high pressure in the intergranules. The current simulations of the CC lack of the first ingredient, which explains why they have not shown the effect that we advocate. All CC simulations begin with a tube in hydrostatic equilibrium with the temperature of the mean photosphere. The fluxtubes are already in the final state that the TRIP pursues which frustrates any additional concentration.

Having a fast and effective way of concentrating very weak magnetic fluxes results attractive. It may help understanding several observations whose interpretation is otherwise difficult. We will comment on some of them to illustrate the possibilities, acknowledging the speculative character of the connections.

* Recent observations have shown a reservoir of weak flux not yet concentrated magnetic features666The turbulent fields diagnosed using Hanle effect techniques may also be included in this category; see Stenflo et al. (1998). (the work by Lin & Rimmele repeatedly mentioned along the paper). They form the natural starting materials for any concentration process, since regions of diluted fields and larger fluxes are not observed. Consequently, any pathway to generate the network magnetic elements necessarily needs of a first concentration of weak flux precursors (§1). This poses a problem to the CC since it cannot produce the observed 1.5 kG network field strengths. As mentioned above, the operation of the CC upon features of the reservoir (say, elements having a few times $`10^{16}`$ Mx) yields field strengths of some 1 kG. The merging of many 1 kG features renders a 1 kG stable structure that cannot undergo a further concentration by CC (it is above the solid lines in Fig. 1). Such difficulty is automatically overcome by the TRIP that leads to 1.5 kG (§2).
* Quiet Sun magnetic concentrations suffer the continuous rattle of a dynamic environment, which stimulates the onset of instabilities. In particular, it excites interchange instabilities tending to split the structures into smaller pieces (see Schüssler 1986 and references therein). This process threaten the CC, since the tube sizes may become below the threshold where the required quasi-adiabatic evolution of the magnetized plasma is no longer easy. On the contrary, splitting into smaller fluxtubes facilitates the radiative cooling and therefore the operation of the TRIP.
* The line polarization observed in the quiet Sun indicates a magnetic photosphere of very complex topology (Sánchez Almeida et al. 1996; Sigwarth et al. 1999; Sánchez Almeida & Lites 2000). This puzzling polarization can be generated by a collection of optically thin magnetic fluxtubes having dissimilar properties (Sánchez Almeida & Lites 2000). Such semi-empirical scenario gets strong support if the formation of most observed structures results from the gathering of many independent tiny sub-structures.

We do not want to finish without a clear statement on the complementarity between the CC and the TRIP. They complete each other rather than compete. Following convective motions, magnetic structures having a variety of magnetic field strengths and sizes reach the intergranular lanes. Then both mechanisms operate, the horizontal size of the structure being the factor that favors one or the other.

Thanks are due to an anonymous referee whose criticisms led to the development of some of the arguments in the paper. This work has been partly funded by the Spanish DGYCIT under project 95-0028-C. It was carried out within the EC-TMR European Solar Magnetometry Network.

## Appendix A Appendix A

Reaching kG fields at photospheric levels does not depend on the field strength existing in the deep sub-photosphere. A perturbation of the magnetic field at the bottom of the atmosphere $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(z_0)`$ induces a change of the photospheric field $`\mathrm{\Delta }B(z)`$. The relationship between them is approximately given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }B(z)/B(z)\frac{\mathrm{ln}B(z)}{\mathrm{ln}B(z_0)}\mathrm{\Delta }B(z_0)/B(z_0).$$
(A1)
Using equation (7) to evaluate the derivative, one ends up with

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}B(z)}{\mathrm{ln}B(z_0)}=\frac{\beta (z)}{\beta (z_0)},$$
(A2)
where $`\beta `$ stands the familiar plasma beta,

$$\beta (z)=8\pi P(z)/B(z)^2=1/[B(z)/B_m(z)]^21.$$
(A3)
For a diluted field in the sub-photosphere (say, $`B[z_0]/B_m[z_0]0.1`$) and the typical photospheric enhancement ($`B[z]/B_m[z]0.9`$), equations (A2) and (A3) yield

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}B(z)}{\mathrm{ln}B(z_0)}2\times 10^3.$$
(A4)
Equations (A1) and (A4) point out that $`B(z_0)`$ has to vary by more than two orders of magnitude to produce a variation of the field strength in the observable layers. The dependence of $`B(z)`$ on the temperature of the intergranules $`T`$ can be evaluated in a similar way. It yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}B(z)}{\mathrm{ln}T}\beta (z)(zz_0)/(2H)0.5.$$
(A5)
The dependence on the temperature is much larger, although a 1200 K temperature variation modifies the field strength by only 10%.


text:
# Growth rates of small cancellation groups.

## 1 Introduction

Let $`G`$ be a group with some fixed set of generators and let $`d`$ denote the word metric corresponding to this set of generators.

Let $`B_G(n)`$ denote the ball $`\{gG:d(g,e)n\}`$ and $`v(G)`$ denote the (exponential) growth rate

$$v(G)=lim\sqrt[n]{\mathrm{\#}B_G(n)}.$$

The group $`G`$ has exponential growth, if for some (and hence for all) set of generators of $`G`$ $`v(G)>1`$. There are many examples of groups of exponential growth (e.g. free groups and more generally any hyperbolic, any non-amenable group; any solvable but not virtually nilpotent group ,  ). Moreover, all known examples of finitely presented groups of non-exponential growth have polynomial growth (and hence are virtually nilpotent by a theorem of Gromov ). We remind that there exist groups of intermediate growth, but all known examples are not finitely presented. The existence of such groups was first discovered by R.Grigorchuk .

Yet not much is known about values of exponential growth rates. Set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^G=\{v[1,\mathrm{})|v=v(G)\text{ for some set of generators of }G\}.$$

A well known question  which remains open for more than 20 years asks if there exists a group $`G`$ of exponential growth such that

$$infv_{v\mathrm{\Omega }^G}=1.$$

That is if there exists a group of exponential, but not uniformly exponential growth. Recently some partial results for this question were obtained (see references in ). Namely it was proved for some classes of groups that exponential growth implies uniformly exponential growth.

Another series of questions about growth rates is which number can appear as the growth rate of some group (or for some group in the given class of groups).

If we fix the number $`n`$ of generators of $`G`$ then there are obvious estimates

$$1v2n1,$$

where the equality in the last inequality is achieved only if the group is free on the $`2n1`$ given generators. There are no other known general restrictions for $`v`$. But for some classes of groups there exist such restrictions. For example any growth rate of any hyperbolic group is an interger algebraic number , .

The groups we consider in this paper are close to hyperbolic ones. We consider not finitely presented groups with small cancellation law. We remind that having a finite presentation would imply hyperbolicity. Still the situation for these groups differs from the hyperbolic case.

In this paper we study the set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{v[1,\mathrm{})|v=v(G)\text{ for some }G\}.$$

It is known (, ) that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is everywhere dence in $`[1,\mathrm{}]`$. It was asked in  whether $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has the cardinality of continuum.

The following theorem answers this question.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\{v[1,\mathrm{})|v=v(G)`$ for some two generated group $`G\}`$. Then

$`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Omega }_2=2^\mathrm{}_0`$.

This theorem follows from the following proposition

###### Proposition 1

There exists $`E:`$ with the following property. Let $`r_i=(a^{E(i)}b^{E(i)})^{100}`$. For any $`J`$ define $`G_J`$ by

$$G_J=a,b|r_j=e,jJ.$$

Then $`IJ`$ implies that $`v(G_I)v(G_J)`$.

###### Remark 1

Similar groups were first introduced by B.H.Bowditch. He used them to construct continuously many quasi-isometry classes of groups . Similar groups provide also examples of a group with non-homeomorphic asymptotic cones .

## 2 Definitions and preliminary observations

Let $`w`$ be a word and $`|w|`$ denote its length in the corresponding free group.

For a non-negative matrix $`A`$ it is known () that there exists a non-negative eigenvalue $`v`$ of $`A`$ such that for any other eigenvalue $`v^{}`$ $`v^{}v`$. Let $`v(A)`$ denote this maximal eigenvalue and $`(A)`$ denote the sum of elements of $`A`$.

Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`S,R`$ be a presentation of $`G`$. Symmetrization $`R_{}`$ consists of all distinct cyclic permutations of the defining relators $`r`$ and their inverses. A word $`u`$ is a piece relative to $`R`$, if $`R_{}`$ contains two distinct elements of the form $`uv^{}`$ and $`uv^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Definition 1

(See, for example, ) Let $`\lambda >0`$. We say that $`S,R`$ satisfy condition $`C^{}(\lambda )`$ if for any $`rR_{}`$ and any piece $`u`$ of it

$$|u|<\lambda |r|.$$

If some finite presentation of a group satisfies $`C^{}(1/6)`$, then this group is hyperbolic . Hence there is a Markov grammar corresponding to $`G`$ (and preserving the word length) , .

###### Lemma 1

Let

$$H=S|w_i=e,i$$

and

$$H_k=S|w_i=e,ik.$$

Then $`limv(H_k)=v(H)`$.

Proof. It is clear that $`v(H_k)v(H_j)`$ for $`k<j`$. Hence there exists a limit $`v=limv(H_k)`$. Then $`v(H)v`$, since $`v(H)v(H_k)`$ for any $`k`$.

On the other hand

$$\mathrm{\#}B_{H_k}(r)v(H_k)^rv^r$$

and for each $`r`$ there exists $`k`$ such that

$$\mathrm{\#}B_H(r)=\mathrm{\#}B_{H_k}.$$

Hence for any $`r`$ $`\mathrm{\#}B_H(r)v^r`$ and $`v(H)v`$.

###### Definition 2

Consider a Markov grammar with states $`1,2,\mathrm{},N`$. Adjacency matrix of this grammar $`M`$ is the matrix such that $`M(i,j)`$ is the number of oriented edges from state $`i`$ to state $`j`$.

If we say that a Markov grammar corresponds to some group we assume that the correspondence preserves word length.

###### Lemma 2

Consider a language given by some Markov grammar and let $`M`$ be the adjacency matrix of this grammar. Then growth rate of the language is equal to $`v(M)`$.

Proof. It is clear that growth rate is not greater than $`v(M)`$. On the other hand we know that there is a non-negative eigenvector corresponding to $`v(M)`$ (). This implies that $`(M^r)Cv(M)^r`$ and so the growth rate is not less than $`v(M)`$.

## 3 Estimate from below

###### Lemma 3

Consider a Markov grammar with $`s`$ states and $`k`$ labels. Let $`v`$ be the growth rate of the corresponding language. Suppose that $`sN`$ and fix some $`p`$ words of length $`4N`$. We call them long forbidden words. Consider the following new language. It consists of the words of the old language that do not contain any of the long forbidden words. Let $`v_{new}`$ be the growth rate of the new language. Then

$$v_{new}^N(v^N/s^24Np)/k^s$$

Proof. Let $`M`$ be the adjacency matrix of the Markov grammar. Then $`p_{i,j}^L=M^L(i,j)`$ is the number of paths of length $`L`$ starting from the state $`i`$ and ending in the state $`j`$.

Note that there exists $`\stackrel{~}{s}s`$ such that for some $`i`$

$$p_{i,i}^{N+\stackrel{~}{s}}v^N/s^2.$$

In fact, let $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}A_f`$ be irreducible blocks of $`M`$. Then there exists $`g`$ such that $`v(A_g)=v(M)=v`$. Since $`(A_g^N)v(A_g)^N=v^N`$ we see that there exist $`i`$ and $`j`$ in the block $`A_g`$ such that

$$p_{i,j}^N=M^N(i,j)=A_g^N(i,j)v^N/s^2.$$

There exists $`\stackrel{~}{s}s`$ such that we can go from the state $`i`$ to the state $`j`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{s}`$ steps. This implies that

$$p_{i,i}^{N+\stackrel{~}{s}}v^N/s^2.$$

Let $`N^{}=N+\stackrel{~}{s}`$. Note that $`N^{}2N`$. Consider all subwords of length $`N^{}`$ of long forbidden words. We will call them short forbidden words. Note that there are at most $`4Np`$ short forbidden words. Take some word $`w`$. Suppose that

$$w=a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_l$$

and that $`|a_m|=N^{}`$ for any $`m<l`$, $`|a_l|N^{}`$. Note that if none of $`a_m`$ is a short forbidden word, then $`w`$ does not contain any of long forbidden words.

This implies that

$$v_{new}^N^{}v^N/s^24Np.$$

Since $`v_{new}vk`$ we deduce that

$$v_{new}^N(v^N/s^24Np)/k^s.$$

###### Lemma 4

Let

$$G=S|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_{n+1}=e$$

and

$$H=S|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_n=e.$$

Suppose that these presentations satisfy $`C^{}(1/6)`$ and that $`|w_i|>6`$ for any $`i`$. We call a word $`w`$ $`1/12`$-reduced with respect to $`w_{n+1}`$ if it contains no subword of length $`1/12|w_{n+1}|`$ of $`w_{n+1}`$ and if it is freely reduced.

1. If $`w`$ be $`1/12`$-reduced with respect to $`w_{n+1}`$ and $`w`$ is geodesic in $`H`$, then it is geodesic in $`G`$.
2. Let $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ be $`1/12`$-reduced with respect to $`w_{n+1}`$. If $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are geodesic in $`H`$ and $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ in $`H`$ then $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ in $`G`$.

Proof.

1. Let us use induction on $`|w|`$.

Base. Note that if $`|w|=1`$, then the $`C^{}(1/6)`$ condition implies that $`we`$ in $`G`$ and hence it is geodesic in $`G`$.

Induction step. Suppose that $`w=w_1w_2`$ and that $`|w_2|=1`$. Since $`|w_1|=|w|1`$ and $`w_1`$ is geodesic in $`H`$, we know already that $`w_1`$ is geodesic in $`G`$. Suppose that $`w=w_3`$ in $`G`$ and that $`|w_3|<|w|`$. Consider a triangle in $`G`$ with sides $`w_1,w_2,w_3`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that this is a simple reduced triangle, that is that its sides intersect only in its vertices. In fact, otherwise we can replace $`w_1`$ and $`w_3`$ with some of its end subwords. Consider a reduced diagram of this triangle and its tiling. Note that the tiling contains at most 2 distinguished tiles. (A tile is said to be distinguished, if it contains a vertex of a triangle inside some of its open exterior edges (see )). Then part 3 of theorem 35 of  implies that the tiling looks like one on the picture.

Note that if some tile corresponds to $`w_{n+1}`$, then it has at least 3 interior edges. So no tile can be labelled with $`w_{n+1}`$. This means that we have this triangle not only in $`G`$ but also in $`H`$. So $`w=w_3`$ in $`H`$, but this is impossible.
2. By the first part of the lemma we know that $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$ are geodesic in $`G`$. Suppose that $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2`$ in $`G`$. Consider a digon with sides $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$. Again without loss of generality we can assume that the digon is reduced and apply part 3 of theorem 35 of . No tile can be labeled with $`w_{n+1}`$ and this implies that $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2`$ in $`H`$.

Two previous lemmas imply the following corollary.

###### Corollary 1

Let

$$G=S|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_{n+1}=e$$

and

$$H=A|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_n=e.$$

Suppose that these presentations satisfy $`C^{}(1/6)`$ and that there is a Markov grammar for $`H`$ that consists of $`s`$ states. There exists $`\gamma (s,k)`$ such that if

$$|w_{n+1}|>\gamma (s,k),$$

then

$$v(G)v(H)200/\sqrt{|w_{n+1}|}$$

Proof. Let $`N`$ be the integer part of $`|w_{n+1}|/52`$. We can assume that $`N>1000s^2(2k)^{s+6}`$.

Consider all subwords of length $`4N`$ of $`w_{n+1}`$. There are at most $`52(N+1)`$ such subwords. By the previous lemma we can estimate the growth rate of $`G`$ by the growth rate of the grammar corresponding to $`H`$ where these words of length $`4N`$ are forbidden. Then we apply lemma 3 and get that

$$v(G)^N(v(H)^N/s^24N52(N+1))/(2k)^s(v(H)^NN^4)N.$$

Note that without loss of generality we can assume that $`v(H)>N^4+1`$, since otherwise

$$v(H)<\sqrt[N]{1+N^4}1+1/\sqrt{N}$$

(note that $`N>1000`$).

But if $`v(H)>N^4+1`$ then

$$\sqrt[N]{v(H)^NN}v1/\sqrt{N}$$

and

$$\sqrt[N]{N}1+1/N^{\frac{2}{3}}.$$

Hence

$$v(G)\frac{v(H)1/\sqrt{N}}{1+1/N^{\frac{2}{3}}}(v(H)1/\sqrt{N})(v(H)1/N^{\frac{2}{3}}).$$

But since $`\sqrt[6]{N}2kv(H)`$

$$(v(H)1/\sqrt{N})(v(H)1/N^{\frac{2}{3}}v(H)2/\sqrt{N}v(H)200/\sqrt{|w_{n+1}|}$$

The previous corollary implies another corollary:

###### Corollary 2

Let

$$H=S|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_n=e$$

and

$$H_k=S|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_n=\stackrel{~}{w}_k=e.$$

Suppose that these presentations satisfy $`C^{}(1/6)`$ and that $`|\stackrel{~}{w}_k|\mathrm{}`$ when $`k\mathrm{}`$. Then $`limv(H_k)=v(H)`$

This generalizes a corollary from  where a free group was taken for $`H`$.

## 4 Estimate from above. Decrease of growth rate.

###### Notation 1

1. Choose $`\alpha :`$ such that if

$$H_1=a,b|r_i^1=e,iI,$$

$$H_2=a,b|r_j^2=e,jJ$$

and $`|r_i^1|,|r_j^2|N`$ then either $`v(H_1)=v(H_2)`$ or $`v(H_1)v(H_2)1/\alpha (N)`$.
2. Choose $`\beta :`$ such that if

$$H=a,b|r_i=e,iI,$$

$`|r_i|N`$ for any $`i`$ and there is a Markov grammar for $`H`$ (and for these generators $`a,b`$), then one of such Markov grammars contains at most $`\beta (N)`$ states (note that for example we can take any $`C^{}(1/6)`$ group for $`H`$).

Note that $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are well defined, since there are finitely many groups $`H`$ such that

$$H=a,b|r_i=e,iI,$$

and $`|r_i|N`$ for any $`i`$.

Just the existence of $`\alpha `$ will be sufficient for our estimate from above if we know that $`v(H_1)v(H_2)`$. So the main thing we have to show is that for certain $`H_1,H_2`$ the growth rates are not equal. Namely we will prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 2

Let

$$G=S|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_n=(a^Nb^N)^{100}=e$$

and

$$H=A|w_1=w_2=\mathrm{}=w_n=e.$$

Suppose that $`N>|w_i|`$ for any $`i`$.

Suppose also that these presentations satisfy $`C^{}(1/50)`$ and that none of $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}a^1`$ and $`b^{\pm 1}a^{\pm 1}b^1`$ (for any choice of signs) is a piece for these presentations. Then $`v(G)<v(H)`$.

###### Remark 2

It is conjectured in  that the growth rate decreases by taking a quotient of any hyperbolic group over any infinite subgroup . The proposition 2 would have followed from this conjecture.

First we prove the following lemma.

###### Lemma 5

Suppose the assumptions of the proposition hold. In this lemma we consider the group $`H`$, so all equalities and statements about words correspond to $`H`$.

1. Let $`\gamma `$ be a geodesic word ending with $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}`$ (for some choice of signs), that is $`\gamma =\gamma ^{}a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}`$. Then $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$ is geodesic for any positive $`k`$. Moreover, any geodesic from $`e`$ to $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$ passes through $`\gamma `$ and coincides from this point with $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$.
2. Suppose that $`\gamma _1=\gamma _1^{}b^k`$ is geodesic and $`kN`$. Let $`\gamma _2`$ be geodesic that begins with $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}`$, that is $`\gamma _2=a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}\gamma _2^{}`$. Then $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ is geodesic. Moreover, any geodesic from $`e`$ to $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ passes through $`\gamma _1`$.

Proof of the lemma. Take $`\alpha >0`$. We say that some word $`u`$ is $`>\alpha W`$ if it is a piece of some $`w_i`$ and $`|u|/|w_i|>\alpha `$.

First note that from Greendlinger lemma  it follows that $`(a^Nb^N)^k`$ and $`b^k`$ are geodesic for any $`k`$ and that this is the unique geodesic from identity to corresponding words.

1. Suppose that there is a geodesic from $`e`$ to $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$ that does not pass through $`\gamma `$. Let $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ be the closest to $`\gamma `$ intersection points of $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$ with this geodesic. Let $`P_2=\gamma `$. Consider a triangle $`P_1P_2P_3`$ ($`P_1P_2`$ is some end subword$`w`$ of $`\gamma `$ and $`P_2P_3`$ is a beginning of $`(a^Nb^N)^k`$. Let $`w`$ be the word that corresponds to the boundary of this triangle. Note that $`w`$ is freely reduced and that $`w`$ (and any word that we can get by symmetrization out of $`w`$ ) contains at most 2 non-overlapping words which are $`>3/6W`$ and at most one which is $`>5/6W`$. This is a contradiction to Greendlinger lemma  .
2. First we see that by Greendlinger lemma that $`b^k\gamma _2`$ is geodesic and that any geodesic from $`e`$ to $`b^k\gamma _2`$ passes through $`b^k`$ (Similary to 1.).

Suppose that some geodesic from $`e`$ to $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ does not pass through $`\gamma _1`$. Let $`P_1`$ and $`P_3`$ be the closest to $`\gamma _1`$ intersection points of this geodesic with $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$. Let $`P_2=\gamma _1`$. Consider the triangle $`P_1P_2P_3`$. Note that this triangle is reduced (that is intersection points of its sides are at $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ only. Note also that $`P_1P_2`$ contains $`b^k`$ as a subword.

Consider a reduced diagram of this triangle and its tiling.

First case. Suppose that its tiling contains at most 2 distinguished tiles. Then we can apply part 3 of theorem 35  and see that each tile that is not distinguished has 2 interior edges and 2 exterior edges (see the picture in the proof of lemma 4). Note that there is a non-distinguished tile $`B`$ such that one of its exterior tiles lies within $`b^k`$. Let $`l`$ be the length of the boundary of $`B`$. Note that each of 2 interior edges of $`B`$ have length at most $`1/50l`$. The exterior tile that lies within $`b^k`$ has length at most $`1/50l`$ and the other exterior tile has length $`<1/2l`$. We come to a contradiction.

Second case. Suppose that the tiling has 3 distinguished tiles. Consider $`P_2^{}=P_2a^{\pm 1}`$. By Greendlinger lemma we see that $`P_1P_2^{}`$ is geodesic. Consider the triangle $`P_1P_2^{}P_3`$. It is a reduced triangle. Consider a reduced diagram of this triangle and its tiling. The tiling contains at most 2 distinguished tiles, since none of $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}a^{\pm 1}`$ is a piece. In the same way as in the first case we come to a contradiction.

Proof of the proposition. Let $`M`$ be the adjacency matrix of Markov grammar of $`H`$.

Let $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{}A_f`$ be irreducible blocks of $`M`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $`M`$ is equal to

$$\begin{array}{cccc}A_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & A_2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & \mathrm{}& A_f\end{array}$$

The part of the Markov grammar that corresponds to $`A_i`$ will be called $`A_i`$. We say that $`A_i`$ is important if $`v(A_i)=v(M)`$.

We say that $`A_i`$ is good if we can generate $`(a^Nb^N)^{100}`$ inside this block (starting at some state $`a`$ and ending at some state $`b`$ of $`A_i`$).

Consider the language generated by $`A_i`$ with the word $`(a^Nb^N)^{100}`$ forbidden. Let $`\stackrel{~}{v}(A_i)`$ be the exponential growth rate of this language.

If $`A_i`$ is good and $`v(A_i)>0`$ then $`\stackrel{~}{v}(A_i)<v(A_i)`$. In fact, $`A_i^{200N}`$ is irreducible. Consider a matrix $`A`$ such that

$$A(x,y)=A_i^{200N}(x,y)$$

for $`xa`$ or $`yb`$ and

$$A(a,b)=A_i^{200N}(a,b)1.$$

Since $`A_i`$ and $`A`$ are both non-negative we can deduce from lemma 2.3.2 of the chapter XIII  that

$$v(A)<v(A_i^{200N}).$$

Hence

$$\stackrel{~}{v}(A_i)^{200N}v(A)<v(A_i^{200N})=v(A_i)^{200N}.$$

So we have shown that $`\stackrel{~}{v}(A_i)<v(A_i)^{200N}`$.

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{v}(M)=\mathrm{max}\stackrel{~}{v}(A_i)`$. Hence it suffices to show that all important blocks are good. Suppose there exist blocks that are important but not good. Consider maximal $`i`$ such that $`A_i`$ is important but not good. Let us prove that

1. There exist $`j>i`$ such that $`A_j`$ is good.
2. Let $`j`$ ($`j>i`$) be the maximal $`j`$ such that $`A_j`$ is good. Then $`\stackrel{~}{v}(A_j)v(A_i)`$.

Note that 1 and 2 are sufficient for contradiction, since 2 implies that

$$v(A_j)>\stackrel{~}{v}(A_j)v(A_i)$$

and this means that $`A_i`$ is not important.

Proof of 1. Since $`v(A_i)>0`$ there exist two edges $`O_1O_2`$ and $`O_2O_3`$ inside $`A_i`$ such that $`\stackrel{}{O_1O_2}`$ is marked with $`a`$ or $`a^1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{O_2O_3}`$ is marked with $`b`$ or $`b^1`$. Hence there exists a word $`\gamma `$ starting at the initial state of $`M`$ and ending in $`A_i`$ with $`\stackrel{}{O_1O_2}`$, $`\stackrel{}{O_2O_3}`$ (and hence ending with $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}`$). By first part of the lemma we see that $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$ is geodesic for any positive $`k`$ and that any geodesic from $`e`$ to $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$ passes through $`\gamma `$ and coincides from this point with $`\gamma (a^Nb^N)^k`$. This means that we can generate $`(a^Nb^N)^k`$ starting from $`O_3`$. Then for some $`ji`$ we can generate $`(a^Nb^N)^{100}`$ inside $`A_j`$ and so $`A_j`$ is good. (Note that we can never get from $`A_k`$ to $`A_m`$ if $`k>m`$.)

Proof of 2. Take maximal $`j>i`$ such that $`A_j`$ is good. Then there exist $`O_1,O_2,..,O_s^{}`$ inside $`A_j`$ such that all the edges $`\stackrel{}{O_1O_2},\stackrel{}{O_2O_3},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{O_s^{}O_1}`$ are marked with $`b`$. (Note, that $`N`$ is greater than the number of states in the grammar).

Then there exists a word $`\gamma _1`$ starting at the initial state of $`M`$ and ending with $`b^k`$ in $`O_1`$ (for some $`k>N`$). Consider some word $`\gamma _2`$ generating inside $`A_i`$ and starting with $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}`$. Applying the second part of the lemma we get that we can generate $`\gamma _2`$ starting from $`O_1`$.

Note that for any word $`\gamma _3`$ generated by $`A_i`$ there exists a word $`\gamma _2`$ generated by $`A_i`$ such that $`\gamma _2`$ begins with $`a^{\pm 1}b^{\pm 1}`$, $`\gamma _3`$ is a subword of $`\gamma _2`$ and

$$|\gamma _2||\gamma _3|s.$$

Let $`M^{}`$ be the matrix corresponding to the union of blocks $`A_j,A_{j+1},\mathrm{}A_f`$. That is $`M^{}`$ is equal to

$$\begin{array}{cccc}A_j& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ & A_{j+1}& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & \mathrm{}& A_f\end{array}$$

We proved that

$$\stackrel{~}{v}(M^{})v(A_i).$$

Hence there exists $`j^{}j`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{v}(A_j^{})v(A_i).$$

Note that $`j^{}=j`$ since otherwise $`j^{}>j`$ and $`A_j^{}`$ is important. This is impossible. In fact, if $`A_j^{}`$ is good, then $`j`$ is not maximal among those for which $`A_j`$ is good. And if $`A_j^{}`$ is not good, then $`i`$ is not maximal among those for which $`A_i`$ is important but not good.

## 5 Proof of the Proposition 1

Consider $`E:`$ such that

$$E(i+1)>400E(i),$$

$$400/\sqrt{E(i+1)}<\alpha (200E(i))$$

and

$$E(i+1)>\gamma (\beta (200E(i)),2)$$

Suppose that $`JM`$ are subsets of $``$. Let

$$J=\{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_k,\mathrm{}\},$$

$$M=\{m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_k,\mathrm{}\},$$

$`j_1<j_2<\mathrm{}<j_k<\mathrm{}`$ and $`m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_k<\mathrm{}`$.

Suppose that $`j_i=m_i`$ for $`ik`$ and that $`j_{k+1}m_{k+1}`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that $`j_{k+1}>m_{k+1}`$. Let

$$L=\{j_1,j_2,\mathrm{},j_k^\}.$$

Let $`v=v(G_L)`$, $`v_1=v(G_J)`$ and $`v_2=v(G_M)`$. From the estimate from below and from lemma 1 we conclude that

$$v_1v200/\sqrt{E(j_{k+1})}200/\sqrt{E(j_{k+2})}200/\sqrt{E(j_{k+3})}\mathrm{}$$

$$v400/\sqrt{E(j_{k+1})}>v\alpha (200E(j_{k+1}1))v\alpha (200E(m_{k+1})).$$

Let

$$L^{}=\{m_1,m_2,\mathrm{},m_k^{(2)},m_{k+1}\}$$

and let $`v^{}=v_{G_L^{}}`$. From the estimate from above (proposition and definition of $`\alpha `$) we get

$$v^{}v\alpha (200E(m_{k+1}))$$

and hence

$$v_2v^{}<v_1.$$

So we have proved that $`v_1v_2`$.

###### Remark 3

In fact one can construct $`E(i)`$ described in proposition 1 explicitly. To do that one should estimate $`\alpha (x)`$ and $`\beta (x)`$ for the case of small cancellation groups. This can be done (for the example from the proof of the main theorem of  one can estimate the number of states of Markov grammar in terms of the hyperbolicity constant). Ultimately one can see that one can take

$$E(i)=\underset{10i\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{1000^{1000^{\mathrm{}1000}}}}.$$

We do not give the proof of this fact, since this $`E(i)`$ grows very fast and because of that it seems to be of no practical use.

I would like to thank Pierre de la Harpe for the encouragement and many helpful comments on this paper. A part of this paper was written during the author’s stay at the University of Geneva. The author gratefully aknowledges the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation.