text:
# An X–ray selected sample of radio–loud quasars

## 1 Introduction

The selection energy band in the construction of complete samples constitutes one of the main biases and a source of confusion in the understanding of the Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) phenomenology, which has often led to useful but somehow unphysical classifications.

Among radio–loud objects, a specific and instructive example – which will constitute a reference in the following – is given by the case of BL Lac objects. Samples of BL Lacs selected in the radio and X–ray bands revealed systematic differences in their spectral energy distributions (SED), polarization, variability properties and evolution (e.g. Urry & Padovani 1995). Different models have been proposed to account for this apparent “dichotomy” (Stocke et al. 1985; Ghisellini & Maraschi 1989; Celotti et al. 1993), and only recently it has been explicitly recognized that an intrinsic continuous distribution in the position of the peak of the broad band SED of these sources might naturally lead to the detection of different types of objects depending on the selection band (Padovani & Giommi 1995). This new perspective has allowed us to have a better view of the intrinsic, physical properties of BL Lacs and speculate on their origin.

The SED of all blazars can be well represented by two main spectral components, believed to be produced as synchrotron and inverse Compton emission, respectively. One suggested possibility then is that the broad band spectral distributions of ‘X–ray selected’ (XBL) and ‘radio–selected’ (RBL) objects are simply distinguished by the energy location of the peak of the synchrotron emission: at UV/X–ray in the former ones (High peak BL Lacs, HBL) and around the optical in the latter ones (Low peak BL Lacs, LBL; Padovani & Giommi 1995), while the Compton peak is located in the $`\gamma `$–ray band (from MeV to TeV energies).

Furthermore, the entire blazar population, ranging from HBL, to LBL to Flat Spectrum Radio Quasars (FSRQ) can be interpreted, so far, as a sequence from lineless, low power sources, to broad lined, powerful quasars characterized by the (decreasing) peak energies of the two spectral components, the increasing source radio power and the increasing ratio between the Compton and synchrotron luminosities (Fossati et al. 1998). This trend in the SED can be physically accounted for by an increase in an external soft photon field along the sequence, in agreement with the observed behavior (Ghisellini et al. 1998). Clearly, this scenario makes definite predictions on the relationship between (radio) source power and spectral shape.

In order to understand the properties of a population it appears therefore crucial to select sources in different spectral bands, and compare their characteristics. To this aim, i.e. disentangling the intrinsic features from the selection induced ones, we have considered radio–loud quasars – which so far have been extracted from radio surveys – and studied their broad band and cosmological properties when selected in X–rays.

The sample comprises the radio–loud quasars (i.e. broad line AGN) detected in the Einstein Medium Sensitivity Survey (EMSS; Gioia et al. 1990, Stocke et al. 1991). More specifically, we have constructed the first statistically complete X–ray selected sample of (39) radio–loud quasars, in order to: a) determine whether their spectral properties differ from those of the radio–selected quasars and other classes of radio–loud objects; b) discuss the properties of these objects in the context of the beaming scenario and emission mechanisms for blazars; c) determine the statistical properties of this new sample, in the light of the unification scheme for powerful radio–loud objects (e.g. Urry & Padovani 1995 and references therein), where flat spectrum radio quasars are high power (FR II) radio galaxies in which the relativistically beamed component dominates.

With the selection criteria adopted, the sample comprises both Flat Spectrum (FS, blazar–like) and Steep Spectrum (SS) radio quasars 111Note that the sample is not selected on the point–like optical appearance, and thus the SS sources possibly include Broad Line Radio Galaxies.. It should be reminded that the radio emission in the latter ones is believed to originate from the extended radio components. In these sense the SS quasars will be not directly included in the comparison of blazar properties, but we will study and examine their optical, X–ray spectral characteristics and their statistical properties with respect to the FS quasars in this sample.

After discussing the sample selection (Sect. 2), we present the broad band spectral properties of the objects, distinguishing between flat and steep radio sources (Sect. 3) and compare them with those of other blazars (Sect. 4). The statistical and evolutionary properties of the new sample are derived in Sect. 5, while in the final Sect. 6 we discuss our results.

Hereafter we adopt cosmological parameters $`H_0=50`$ km s-1 Mpc-1 and $`q_0=0`$.

## 2 The sample

The EMSS provides us with well defined X-ray selected samples of extragalactic sources. The virtually complete identification status makes it a very powerful tool to study statistical properties of classes and sub-classes of astronomical sources.

Radio information for all the (extragalactic) EMSS objects is available from VLA snapshots at 6 cm taken during the identification process (e.g. Maccacaro et al. 1994), with a flux limit of about 1 mJy, corresponding to 5 times the rms of the observations. Since we intend to compute the radio spectrum using the recently released data at 20cm from the NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS; Condon et al. 1998), we cut the EMSS sample at $`\delta 40^{}`$. With this cut, that excludes only 5% of all the AGNs and only one radio–loud, the EMSS contains 79 radio detected AGN, of which 43 have a two-point spectral index222 While the original EMSS two point spectral indices $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$ were estimated at 5 GHz, 2500 Å and 2 keV, comoving energies, here we recompute them at 5 GHz, 5500 Å and 1 keV, comoving energies, in order to compare with values for other samples. For the K-correction in the optical and X–ray bands it is assumed $`\alpha _\mathrm{o}=\alpha _\mathrm{x}=1`$ (see e.g. Della Ceca et al. 1994), where the spectral indices $`\alpha `$ are defined by $`F_\nu \nu ^\alpha `$. between radio and optical ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$) larger than 0.35 (Della Ceca et al. 1994) and are therefore classified as radio–loud. We exclude another four objects for the reasons detailed in the Appendix, thus constructing a complete sample of 39 radio-loud quasars, that we dub the EMSS Radio-Loud quasar sample (ERL).

In the following we will refer to FS and SS spectrum radio–loud objects, where the division is formally considered to be at $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}`$=0.7 (see e.g. Perlman et al. 1998) which leads to a similar statistics for the two sub–classes (20 FS and 19 SS). As the distribution of $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}`$ does not show any suggestion of being the sum of two different (bimodal) distributions (see Fig. 1), the choice of a dividing value is somewhat arbitrary. In any case, the results of this work are not affected by a different choice (the case $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}`$=0.5 has been also explored).

The list of sources and information is presented in Table 1. Columns are as follows: (1) Name of the source in the EMSS catalog – numbers refer to notes to the Table, indicating either other names from literature or the source radio morphology; (2) Redshift; (3) 5 GHz flux from EMSS, unless otherwise stated, in mJy; (4) 1.4 GHz flux from NVSS; (5) Radio spectral index; (6) Magnitude, from EMSS; (7) unabsorbed X-ray flux (0.3-3.5 keV band), from EMSS; (8) Galactic $`N_\mathrm{H}`$, from Stark et al. (1992); (9) X-ray spectral index from EMSS data; (10) X-ray spectral index from ROSAT data (Brinkmann et al. 1997); (11-13) $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$.

The distributions of radio spectral indices and luminosities in the three bands are plotted in Fig. 1 for FS and SS, respectively.

## 3 Spectral properties

### 3.1 X-ray spectral indices

The X–ray spectral indices for the sample have been estimated from the IPC hardness ratios (see e.g. Maccacaro et al. 1988), assuming a power law spectral shape and Galactic line of sight absorbing columns, and compared with those determined by ROSAT. The former ones span a large interval $`2.2<\alpha _\mathrm{x}<2.4`$, and within the uncertainties significantly correlate with the ROSAT values (see Fig. 2). Unfortunately the large errors do not allow either to detect any difference between FS and SS sources, or to infer the origin of the X–ray component (e.g. steep synchrotron dominated versus flat Compton dominated emission).

No relationship has been found between the X–ray and radio spectral indices, the source fluxes or redshifts.

### 3.2 Broad band properties

In order to quantify the total power and SED properties of the sources and compare them with those of other samples, we compute the luminosities in the radio, optical and X–ray bands ($`L_\mathrm{r}`$, $`L_\mathrm{o}`$, $`L_\mathrm{x}`$) and the corresponding broad band spectral indices ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$, $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$).

Significant linear correlations are found between the luminosities in the three bands. However, since a possible culprit for this kind of correlation is the common redshift dependence, we test its influence by using a partial correlation analysis (e.g. Kendall & Stuart 1979). The partial correlation coefficients are defined as:

$$r_{12\mathrm{\_}3}=\frac{(r_{12}r_{13}\times r_{23})}{\sqrt{(1r_{13}^2)\times (1r_{23}^2)}},$$
(1)
where $`r_{12}`$, $`r_{13}`$, and $`r_{23}`$ are the Spearman rank test coefficients for two variables at a time. By assigning to index “3” the redshift variable and interchanging $`L_\mathrm{x}`$, $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{o}`$ as variables “1” and “2” we obtain the following results: $`r_{rx\mathrm{\_}z}`$ = 0.441; $`r_{ox\mathrm{\_}z}`$ = 0.325; $`r_{ro\mathrm{\_}z}`$ = 0.381. The null hypothesis is rejected at the 95% level for the last two occurrences, while the radio and X-ray luminosity seem to be correlated at the 99% level.

No differences (according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test) are found between the distributions relative to FS and SS, neither in luminosities (probability $`p20\%`$; see Fig. 1) nor in broad band spectral indices ($`p47\%`$; see Fig. 3) nor in the trends, suggesting a behavior of the compact beamed component independent of the large scale radio flux dominance.

The shape of the SED appears however to be clearly related to the radio luminosity: in fact, the only statistically significant trends found are of both $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$ with $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ (see Fig. 3). Although the correlation might be due to the common dependence of the two spectral indices on $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ itself, its relevance is supported by two facts: a) $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ does not correlate with $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$; b) $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ spans the largest interval in luminosity (about five decades compared to the three covered by $`L_\mathrm{o}`$ and $`L_\mathrm{x}`$). In any case, the presence of such a trend is indicative of the fact that through X–ray selection we detect objects with a rather limited range in optical luminosity but a large span in the radio one, extending the range of sampled $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ towards faint sources compared to radio–selected quasars (see Sect. 4).

On the other hand, it is interesting to consider the relative behavior of the broad band spectral indices, as shown in Fig. 4. $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$, which spans the smallest interval, and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$, which spans the largest one, do not show a strong correlation (98% level, according to the Student’s-t test), while (a part for a conspicuous object, the weak lined MS0815.7+5233 – see also Sect. 4) $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$ decreases for increasing $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ (at $`>`$ 99% level). Interestingly, this trend is qualitatively consistent with a change in the frequency position of the peak of the synchrotron spectral component. Furthermore, by comparing Figs. 3 and 4, it is clear that this spectral behavior is connected with the source radio luminosity, as the flatter is $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$, the lower is $`L_\mathrm{r}`$. Notice also that the trend does not simply relate to the optical and X–ray luminosities, which therefore appear to be worse tracers of systematic behaviors in the SED shape.

We conclude that: a) the ERL sample (and the FS and SS subsamples) significantly extends the radio luminosity range (but not the optical one) of radio–loud quasars; b) the broad band spectral indices behavior is consistent with being caused by a change in the synchrotron peak energy; c) the trend in the SED shape correlates with the radio luminosity.

## 4 Comparison with other samples

We now compare the spectral properties of the ERL sample with those of radio–selected quasars (FSRQ and Steep Spectrum radio–loud quasars, SSQ) and (radio and X–ray selected) BL Lac objects and examine our findings in the light of the blazar spectral sequence scenario already described and the unification of powerful radio sources. Does the X–ray selection allow us to discover powerful lined sources whose synchrotron emission peaks at high (UV-X–rays) energies, analogously to X–ray selected BL Lac objects? Does the detection of ERL force us to re–consider the above scenario? Do the nuclear properties of steep spectrum objects differ from those of the flat spectrum sources or their nuclear properties are independent of the extended emission?

Let us first examine the former issue.

The plane $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ versus $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$ has been often used to characterize the SED of the above classes of sources. As mentioned in the introduction, the position of the different objects in this diagram can be accounted for by the different location of the synchrotron peak in their energy distribution.

In Fig. 5a we show the ERL and other samples (see the figure caption) of both FSRQ and radio and X–ray selected BL Lacs. For clarity, we also plot in Fig 5b a schematic representation of the loci occupied by the different samples, in which the mean and the 1$`\sigma `$ width of the distribution in the two variables are plotted. The ERL occupy the transition region (in the “boomerang” shaped blazar distribution) between FSRQ and X–ray selected ($``$ HBL) BL Lac objects, roughly overlapping with radio–selected ($``$ LBL) ones. Note that the location of LBL and FSRQ in the spectral index plane is due to the dominance in the X–ray band of a flat Compton component.

Within the spread of the above quantities, this indicates that even X–ray selection is unable to detect radio–loud broad–lined objects with high peaked synchrotron components. Intriguingly, the object in the left-bottom corner, in the “HBL region”, is the already mentioned MS0815.7+5233, a weak lined AGN, BL Lac-like (see Stocke et al. 1991, Tables 11 & 13 and notes therein).

Furthermore, the broad band spectral indices $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$ of the ERL tend to be lower ($`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha 0.10.2`$) than those of the FSRQ, with the flattest sources coinciding with the very same objects which have lower $`L_\mathrm{r}`$. In other words ERL resemble radio selected quasars in the optical and X–ray bands, while are comparatively weaker in the radio one, indeed suggesting a larger contribution (peak) to the SED at higher energies. This result is fully consistent with the high energy/X–ray selection of the sample.

It is also interesting to explore the relationship among the luminosities of sources belonging to different samples, as the lack of ERL with SED resembling those of HBL might be due, within the above scenario, to their relatively higher luminosity. In Fig. 6 the above samples are plotted in the $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ vs $`L_\mathrm{r}`$ plane (luminosities uncorrected for evolution). While in the X–ray band the ERL are on average a factor of $``$ 10 weaker than the FSRQ and similarly the SSQ, in the radio (core) luminosities they are of the order of 100 (10) times weaker than the FSRQ (SSQ) (e.g. Fossati et al. 1998; Maraschi & Rovetti 1994). The comparison also shows that the $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ of ERL covers the same range spun by HBL, although it extends at even higher $`L_\mathrm{x}`$. Nevertheless there is no indication of a trend for the weakest ERL to have SEDs more resembling highly peaked sources, as their radio luminosity range is above that of HBL. We stress that in the very same EMSS sample HBL are indeed found in large number (Morris et al. 1991, Wolter et al. 1991), excluding observational biases against detection of ERL peaking in the X–ray band.

These findings are therefore in global agreement with the expectation of the blazars sequence scenario described in the introduction, thus re-enforcing the view of a strong connection between the spectral energy distribution and the radio luminosity and suggesting again that the latter might be a good indicator of the source power.

However, it should be noted that ERL and LBL span a similar range of three decades in $`L_\mathrm{r}`$. While one would expect some overlapping along the sequence – as also suggested by the existence of sources changing from being BL Lac–like to quasar–like and vice versa, and RBL with FR II extended morphology – the extent of the common luminosity range seems to suggest more of a parallel behavior, rather than a continuous trend, of lined and lineless sources. However, it appears that at lower $`L_\mathrm{x}`$ the ERL might be filling the intermediate region between LBL and HBL. These two facts, and thus the overall distribution of radio and X–ray luminosities of ERL, might be be ascribed to the increasing dominance of a quasi–thermal optically–UV component in quasars of increasingly lower (non–thermal) radio power. Indeed the typical $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ox}}`$ of the low radio power ERL (see Fig. 3) corresponds to SED whose peak is located in the optical–UV region. The presence of a quasi-thermal component would indeed flatten $`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$ and steepen $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$ in sources with decreasing non–thermal continuum. This ‘excess’ contribution could be identified with both/either ‘blue bump’ emission in quasars (FS) and/or contamination from the host galaxy in SS (possibly Broad Line radio galaxies).

## 5 Statistical and evolutionary properties

Let us now examine the statistical properties of the sample within the framework of the unification scheme for powerful radio sources. More specifically, do the steep radio sources evolve consistently with the postulate of the unification scheme (i.e. similarly to flat sources)?

### 5.1 Number counts

The number counts of radio–loud AGN of the EMSS have been presented by Della Ceca et al. (1994). Here we consider any possible distinction related to the radio spectral index (FS vs SS), and compare the ERL counts to those of other samples of radio–loud objects.

The (integral) $`\mathrm{log}N\mathrm{log}S`$ distributions for FS, SS, all ERL and BL Lacs are shown in Fig. 7, and the parametric results derived from their linear fits are reported in Table 2. (The fit to the counts is done by using the individual points in a differential form, see e.g. Gioia et al. 1991 for a description of the procedure).

The first point to be noticed is the marginal (though it extends over the whole range in flux) evidence for flatter counts of FS, which dominate at the highest flux levels. The count distributions of FS is in complete agreement with what found for all AGN – mostly radio quiet– in the EMSS ($`1.61\pm 0.06`$, Della Ceca et al. 1992), while the slopes of SS and all ERL are marginally steeper (but only at 1 $`\sigma `$ level) than those of all AGN. Clearly the statistics does not allow us to perform more complex fits, although a single power law might be inadequate to represent the distributions.

How do the ERL counts compare with those of FSRQ and SSQ? Padovani & Urry (1992, hereafter PU92) examined the statistical properties of the best defined radio sample, namely the 2 Jy (Wall & Peacock 1985). This comprises 34 SSQ and 50 FSRQ 333We note here that the average radio spectral indices of the two subsamples of FS and SS are fully consistent with those of FSRQ and SSQ once the same definition is adopted (more precisely we obtain: FS: 0.32 $`\pm `$ 0.36 (0.15$`\pm `$ 0.34), SS: 0.96 $`\pm `$ 0.14 (0.85 $`\pm `$ 0.20), for a dividing $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}=0.7(0.5)`$. The (poorly defined) count distribution in the radio band is consistent with being Euclidean and also with those of FS and SS (at 90%) and of ERL (at 95%) in the X–ray band.

The most interesting aspect is the extension to a factor 100 lower fluxes provided by the X–ray selection of the ERL. Indeed assuming typical $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$ ($`0.8`$), $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}`$, an X–ray flux level of $`10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ corresponds to $`0.3`$ Jy in the radio band (both for FS and SS). At these levels, the counts of FS exceed the prediction of the beaming model proposed by PU92. Furthermore if one extrapolates to lower radio fluxes (say by a factor $`10`$ as in the X–ray band), the radio counts of X–ray selected objects are marginally consistent with the Euclidean extrapolation from higher fluxes and thus largely exceed (factor $`>`$10 for FS and $``$3 for SS) those predicted by the beaming model, which drop below $``$ 0.1 Jy. Note that because of the X–ray threshold the radio counts of ERL can be only a lower limit to the actual surface density of radio–loud quasars.

It is also relevant to compare the ERL counts with those of BL Lacs extracted from the EMSS. As shown in Fig. 7, the BL Lac distribution is flatter, dominating by a factor $`10`$ at $`10^{12}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$, and an ‘inversion’ of the two populations occurs just above $``$3 $`\times 10^{13}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. Therefore while at high X-ray fluxes RL quasars are as rare, or rarer, than BL Lacs, deep, small area surveys are bound to find large numbers of them.

### 5.2 Redshift distribution

All sources are below redshift of $`2`$, with a broad peak around $`z1`$. This is due to the sky coverage of the EMSS, combined with the LF of the AGN. There is only marginal evidence for SS to be at redshifts lower than FS (See Table 2. Further, the probability of getting by chance a larger KS value is 19.6%).

The typical $`z`$ are globally similar (within 1 $`\sigma `$) to the average redshifts of FSRQ and SSQ selected in the radio band (2Jy), while they are significantly larger than those of FR II radio galaxies, as already noted by PU92.

### 5.3 $`V_\mathrm{e}/V_\mathrm{a}`$

In order to quantify the evolutionary properties of the sample, we estimated, again subdividing it into FS and SS, the $`V_\mathrm{e}/V_\mathrm{a}`$ parameter (Avni & Bachall, 1980), a generalization of the $`V/V_{\mathrm{max}}`$ statistics (Schmidt 1968) when complete samples at different flux limits are combined. The results are shown in Table 2. Positive evolution is required for the subsamples and the whole population at $`>4\sigma `$ level, while no statistical difference can be found between the FS and SS behavior.

A systematically lower $`V_\mathrm{e}/V_\mathrm{a}`$ (though consistent within $`2\sigma `$) is found for the quasars of the 2 Jy sample (PU92), possibly indicating a tendency of faster evolution of the X–ray selected objects. 444As this behavior is opposite to that of BL Lacs derived from the EMSS, this indirectly (re)confirms the reality of the uncommon negative evolution found for XBL.

In order to compare the results with those relative to the 2Jy objects, we characterize the evolution in terms of an exponential pure luminosity function of the form $`L(z)=L_{(\mathrm{z}=0)}e^{Ct}`$, where $`1/C`$ is the look–back time in units of the Hubble time. Note however that for the whole AGN sample in the EMSS, this form was found to be adequate only if a luminosity dependent value for C was introduced (Della Ceca et al. 1992). The derived evolution rate is consistent (at $``$ 2$`\sigma `$, see Table 2) with that inferred for FSRQ (and once again it is indistinguishable between FS and SS). As our sample is limited to $`z<2`$ nothing can be deduced on a possible decline in the number density of sources at high redshifts (e.g. Dunlop & Peacock 1990).

Also a power law luminosity evolution $`L(z)=L_{(\mathrm{z}=0)}(1+z)^\gamma `$ can well represent the cosmological changes. The required dependence on $`z`$ is similar to what is found for radio–quiet objects (Table 2). The results for the FS sources are again consistent with the whole EMSS AGN behavior, while SS require a slightly higher value of $`\gamma `$ (at 1$`\sigma `$).

For computing fluxes and luminosities we have assumed that $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}=1`$ – supported by the fact that $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}1`$ in the ERL sample and by a study of the IPC Hardness Ratio for the EMSS AGN (Maccacaro et al. 1988). Note however that for X-ray spectra with a slope different from 1 the effect of the cosmological evolution has the same functional form of the K-correction factor and, in first approximation, the best-fit value of $`\gamma `$ is lower (if $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}>1`$) or higher (if $`\alpha _\mathrm{x}<1`$) by an amount $`|1\alpha _\mathrm{x}|`$ (for $`|1\alpha _\mathrm{x}|<1`$).

### 5.4 Luminosity function

Finally, we built the luminosity functions (LF) of FS and SS, both as observed and applying the two evolutionary models to de-evolve luminosities at $`z=0`$ (Figure 9a, b). As expected, no difference is found between flat and steep spectrum objects (the extension of FS a factor of $`10`$ more in luminosity is due to only one source). The distributions have been fitted with power-laws (see results in Table 2), as the large uncertainties do not allow to better characterize their shape.

At odds with these results, a significant difference in the number density of flat and steep spectrum objects is found in radio selected samples (2 Jy), with FSRQ numerically dominating above $`10^{43}`$ erg s-1. Converted into the X–ray band, this luminosity corresponds to $`10^{45}`$ erg s-1, where however a smaller number of SS, within the volume explored, are found.

The slope of the local LF of ERL is significantly steeper than that of FSRQ, revealing a first clear difference between the population of radio selected and X–ray selected flat spectrum quasars. This discrepancy is of course present also with respect to the X–ray LF computed by Maraschi & Rovetti (1994) from the radio LF of FSRQ and SSQ over the common range in X–ray luminosity.

The total number densities of FSRQ is predicted to be $`2.2`$ Gpc-3 above $`L_\mathrm{x}5\times 10^{43}`$ erg s-1 (PU92) with a parent population of 81 FR II Gpc-3. Locally we find twice this density. Also, SS are $`7`$ times those predicted by extrapolating below the cutoff the PU92’s model predictions: in other words we do not find evidence for either a cut off or a flattening of the LF below X–ray powers of $`3\times 10^{44}`$ erg s-1. XBL have a slope slightly flatter than the ERL one and a local number density (at say $`10^{44}`$ erg s-1) about 50 times larger.

Also the ratio of FS/SS found in the EMSS significantly differ from that estimated by Maraschi & Rovetti (1994), i.e. a ratio of 30 between the two populations, while - at the corresponding X–ray luminosity - we find similar numbers of FS and SS. In particular the density of FS is about one tenth than their predictions. 555Note that for a flat spectral index $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}0`$ the threshold flux would be comparable at higher selection radio frequencies, therefore implying that the discrepancy is likely not due to the (radio) selection band.

The same ‘excess’ of SS with respect to FS in the X–ray selected sample clearly reflects in the relative ratio of SS/FS=19/20 found in the EMSS, compared to 34/50 found in radio selected survey at higher flux levels (2 Jy) – despite SS do not dominate at low radio luminosities. This seem to imply that the radio selection is more biased than the X–ray one in finding FSRQ with respect to SSQ.

### 5.5 Predictions: number counts and redshift distributions

Finally, let us consider the number counts and redshift distributions predicted by the above findings. In Fig. 10a the number counts extrapolated at flux levels observable by Chandra and Newton-XMM are reported. These have been derived by the integration of the evolving LF (of FS and SS) up to redshift $`z_{\mathrm{max}}5`$ (between $`L_\mathrm{x}=10^{41}10^{47}`$ erg s-1). The limits of the proposed Newton-XMM surveys are plotted in Fig. 10a. Given the areas that will be probably covered at each flux limit ($``$ 1 , 5, and 150 sq. deg. respectively in the faint, medium and bright survey), we expect about 2000 (300), 150 (50), 100 (45) SS (FS) quasars in each, if the measured evolution is taken at face value and the extrapolation holds at the faint fluxes. These samples will be large enough to allow refined prediction on the radio-loud quasars properties. The corresponding redshift distributions at different flux limits are shown in Fig. 10b, where SS can be seen to dominate at lower $`z`$ at all flux thresholds.

## 6 Summary and discussion

We have constructed the first complete X–ray selected sample of radio–loud quasars. This has allowed us to investigate both the spectral properties and possible trends among blazars and the statistics of such sources in the frame of unification models for radio–loud objects.

Through X–ray selection (at the level of $``$ 10-13 erg cm-1 s-1) we explore the same range of redshifts and X–ray and optical luminosities of radio–selected objects, but we find quasars significantly fainter in the radio band.

As far as the spectral properties of blazars are concerned, FS ERL do not differ significantly from radio selected sources. However, the decrease in radio luminosity correlates with the increasing frequency of the spectral peak, as indicated by the trend of the broad band spectral indices. This supports the existence of a sequence in the blazar family, where the peak decreases in energy with increasing source radio power (Fossati et al. 1998; Ghisellini et al. 1998).

Furthermore, although ERL are selected at X–ray luminosities comparable to those of HBL, we find no evidence for the existence of quasars whose synchrotron emission component peaks at X–ray frequencies. This is also indicated by the similarity of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{rx}}`$ of ERL and FSRQ, which suggests that the synchrotron component does not dominate the X–ray band luminosity (see e.g. Fossati et al. 1998; see also Padovani 2000).

On one hand in any unifying scenario some overlapping between objects of different characteristics might be naturally expected (likely corresponding to nuclei changing character or mismatching the extended radio morphologies). On the other hand the ERL spectral distributions appear to strongly resemble those of LBL over a large range of powers ($`L_\mathrm{r}`$ spans three decades), where both broad lined and lineless objects co–exist. This suggests that the line typology might not be univocally related to the source power and broad band spectral shape. Indeed, one might envisage that the (occasional) appearance of broad line components in BL Lacs is related to a change occurring in the nuclear source – but at such low luminosity levels that the lines never become quasar–like – while the blazar sequence of power vs continuum spectral behavior would be a separate effect and the resemblance of the broad band spectral indices of LBL and ERL might be indeed attributed to a similar trend of the synchrotron peak position with (radio) luminosity.

However, from the paucity of information we have on ERL, this similarity can be due to the progressive dominance of a broad thermal component (blue bump or contribution from the host galaxy in FS and SS, respectively) over the non–thermal emission in objects of lower non–thermal radio luminosity. Accounting for this effect in fact reduces the intrinsic overlapping of the two populations: decreasing the optical luminosity by considering only the (actual) non–thermal emission corresponds to move ERL towards FSRQ in the spectral index plane. If so, the tighter relation between source power and SED shape (and line strength) would be re–enforced by the ERL sample. Clearly this ambiguity can be solved by the estimate of the optical and X–ray spectra of ERL. Support to this view also comes from the findings of the REX survey (Caccianiga et al. 2000), where a significant number of sources are found with clear optical excesses with respect to FSRQ and LBL (see their Fig. 6), while the radio and X–ray luminosities are simply linearly correlated.

We stress here that also the strong difference in the statistical properties of lineless and lined samples indicates that the two populations are not simply analogous manifestations of the same phenomenon, where only the line intensities are different.

We find no indication of any dependence of the spectral properties on redshift, nor any difference between the nuclear properties of flat and steep spectrum radio quasars, when selected in the X–ray band, except possibly flatter counts for the FS. In other words the nuclear component seems not to be directly dependent on the extended (radio) properties.

From the statistical point of view, the radio and X–ray selection sample the same population at the brightest fluxes. The main new information we obtain is that at the lower flux levels sampled through the X–ray selection the radio source counts do not drop – and not even flatten – as predicted by some beaming models (e.g. PU92). Surveys at low radio flux levels ($``$ mJy) will be able to establish the presence or absence of such a decline in the population.

The ERL sample has provided also with the possibility of directly comparing the X–ray evolution of quasars with that of BL Lacs. This is particularly relevant both for understanding the reason of the negative evolution of BL Lacs in this band and in particular as a direct test of models postulating a physical evolution of radio–loud quasars into BL Lacs (e.g. Cavaliere & Malquori 1999).

The ERL population significantly evolves, at a rate indistinguishable from that of FSRQ. With respect to the radio selection, the X–ray one provides also with a different number ratio of flat and steep radio sources, with the latter comparable to the former ones. This number ratio does not appear to depend on the radio luminosity, but significantly depends on the radio – and possibly on the X-ray – flux, being the X–ray selection less biased at low radio fluxes. Both deeper radio surveys and the definition and study of optically selected blazars – as that which will be provided by the EIS surveys (e.g. Cagnoni & Celotti 2001) – should confirm this trend.

Due to the dramatic effect of beaming in altering the shape of the luminosity functions, it is not possible to simply use the above ratio as an indicator of the beaming angles subtended by FS and SS. Recent indications of the existence of a slower moving ‘layer’ jet component dominating the observed emission in radio galaxies (e.g. Laing 1993, Chiaberge et al. 2000) further modify the expected number ratio of beamed and parent population sources. Furthermore as the luminosity functions do not show a turn over at low powers it is not even possible to provide model independent estimates on the total number of objects of the two populations. Nevertheless it is clear that the beaming parameters and number density of the parent and beamed populations have to be revised in the light of the new and less biased information provided by the ERL, affecting the predictions on the radio-activity in AGN and galaxies as well as the contribution of these objects to the $`\gamma `$–ray background.

## Appendix A Sample selection: notes on individual objects

Two of the 43 radio–loud objects of the EMSS have been classified as Narrow Emission Line objects (MS1252.4-0457 as a Seyfert 2 galaxy, and MS1414.8-1247 as an HII region; Boyle et al. 1995) and therefore we remove them from the sample under study.

MS0234.8+0655 is detected at 6cm, but not at 20cm. By using the EMSS radio flux the source is radio–loud ($`\alpha _{\mathrm{ro}}`$=0.43), but with the NVSS flux limit (= 2.5 mJy) $`\alpha _\mathrm{r}0.81`$. Therefore both MS0234.8+0655 and MS2134.0+0028 ($`\alpha _\mathrm{r}=0.88`$) have a highly inverted spectrum and are removed from the sample.

We examined also the case of MS1253.6-0539 that has a very high upper limit from the EMSS data (5.5 mJy at 5 GHz) and therefore in principle could be a radio source. However, the object is also not detected at 1.4 GHz by the NVSS at a limit of 2.5 mJy. Furthermore, it appears in Table 10 of Stocke et al. (1991) as having an ambiguous spectrum due to the poor signal to noise. We therefore do not include it in the sample.

Note that MS0833.3+6523 (a.k.a. 3C204) has F$`{}_{\mathrm{core}}{}^{6\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}}30`$ mJy (from the EMSS VLA data) while F$`{}_{\mathrm{tot}}{}^{}=369`$ mJy: the extended flux dominates the emission and we use the latter to compute the radio spectral index. The same applies to MS1623.4+2712, for which the EMSS F$`{}_{\mathrm{core}}{}^{6\mathrm{c}\mathrm{m}}=43`$ mJy while Ftot = 240 mJy.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Alessandro Caccianiga, Roberto Della Ceca and Laura Maraschi for useful comments and discussions. The Italian MURST is acknowledged for financial support - partly under the Program Cofinanziamento 1999.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a previous paper $`[1]`$ a particular class of inhomogeneous, modified, braid equations $`(MBE)`$ was shown to correspond to general solutions of $`\widehat{R}TT`$ relations. Fundamental $`2\times 2`$ $`T`$ matrices and the corresponding $`4\times 4`$ $`\widehat{R}(=PR)`$ matrices for $`GL_{p,q}(2)`$, $`GL_{g,h}(2)`$ and $`GL_{q,h}(1/1)`$ were used as examples. The inputs were the known group relations of the elements $`(a,b,c,d)`$ for each of the above cases. Then the most general solution ( without imposing the Yang Baxter equation for $`R`$ or, equivalently, the braid equation for $`\widehat{R}`$) was sought, for each case, of the relation

$$\widehat{R}T_1T_2=T_1T_2\widehat{R}$$
(1.1)
where

$$T_1=TI_2,T_2=I_2T$$

The only constraint on $`\widehat{R}`$ was the conservation of the given group relations for $`(a,b,c,d)`$. In each case $`\widehat{R}`$ was found to depend, , apart from the two parameters $`((p,q),(g,h),(q,h))`$ linearly on a third one $`(K)`$ such that, for a suitable normalisation, one obtains

$$\widehat{R}_{(12)}\widehat{R}_{(23)}\widehat{R}_{(12)}\widehat{R}_{(23)}\widehat{R}_{(12)}\widehat{R}_{(23)}=\left(\frac{K}{K_1}1\right)\left(\frac{K}{K_2}1\right)\left(\widehat{R}_{(23)}\widehat{R}_{(12)}\right)$$
(1.2)
This is the $`MBE`$ with

$$(K_1,K_2)=(1,p/q),(1,1),(1,1/q)$$
(1.3)
respectively for the above-mentioned cases.

It was pointed out in $`[1]`$ that $`(1.2)`$ reexpressed in terms of $`R`$, provides a particular, interesting class of modified quantum $`YB`$ equations $`(MQYBE)`$ of Gerstenhaber,Giaquinto and Schack ( see  and sources cited therein ).

The special features of $`(1.2)`$, as indicated in $`[1]`$ are as follows.

$`(1)`$: The explicit stucture on the right carries interesting information. After obtaining the general solution of $`(1.1)`$ and the $`MBE`$ it corresponds to one obtains the unmodified,standard braid or $`YB`$ matrices as byproducts. One just sets $`K=K_1`$ or $`K=K_2`$, the two solutions being related through

$$\widehat{R}(K_2)=\widehat{R}(K_1)^1$$
(1.4)
$`(2)`$: Setting, as explained in $`[1]`$,

$$K=2K_1K_2(K_1+K_2)^1$$
(1.5)
one obtains

$$(\widehat{R}(K))^2=I$$
(1.6)
Hence the construction of ”triangular” ( or ”unitary” or ”coboundary”) $`R`$ matrices is again reduced to the choice of a particular value of $`K`$ in the general solution. This aspect will be studied further below.

$`(3)`$: It was pointed out in $`[1]`$ that $`MBE`$ and Baxterization are complementary facets of the same basic construction , namely, the general solution of $`(1.1)`$. This links $`MBE`$ to integrable models. This aspect will be taken up in $`Sec.4`$ with new examples.

$`(4)`$: The parameter $`K`$ plays an interesting role in noncommutative spaces obtained by implementing the general $`\widehat{R}(K)`$. The detailed discussion in $`[1]`$ of this aspect will be generalized to higher dimensions in $`Sec.(3)`$.

Spectral decomposition and generalization to higher dimensions:

Our construction can be generalized to higher dimensional cases most conveniently by introducing arbitrary constant coefficients in the spectral decomposition of $`R`$ matrices for vector representations. The standard solutions ( not ”modified” in our sense ) are well-known $`[3,4]`$. Instead of wading through larger and large number of group relations ( $`n^2(n^21)/2`$ for $`n^2`$ elements of $`T`$) one starts with the following results for vector representations.

For $`GL_q(N)`$ one has, in terms of the projectors $`P^{(\pm )}`$,

$$\widehat{R}=qP^{(+)}q^1P^{()}$$
(1.7)
where

$$P^{(+)}P^{()}=0,\left(P^{(\pm )}\right)^2=P^{(\pm )},P^{(+)}+P^{()}=I$$
(1.8)
Here $`\widehat{R}`$ satisfies the braid equation and

$$\left(\widehat{R}qI\right)\left(\widehat{R}+q^1I\right)=0$$
(1.9)
One has also

$$P^{(+)}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}+q^1I\right)}{\left(q+q^1\right)},P^{()}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}qI\right)}{\left(q+q^1\right)}$$
(1.10)
If one sets, with the same projectors,

$$\widehat{R}(u,v)=uP^{(+)}+vP^{()}$$
(1.11)
where $`(u,v)`$ are non-zero, unequal but otherwise arbitrary parameters, one obtains

$$\left(\widehat{R}(u,v)uI\right)\left(\widehat{R}(u,v)vI\right)=0$$
(1.12)
$$P^{(+)}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}(u,v)vI\right)}{\left(uv\right)},P^{()}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}(u,v)uI\right)}{\left(vu\right)}$$
(1.13)
Of the two parameters $`(u,v)`$ one can be fixed by choosing a suitable normalisation, leading effectively to one independent, arbitrary parameter. Apart form differences in notations our construction of $`\widehat{R}(K)`$ in $`[1]`$ ( see Sec.3.2 in $`[1]`$ ), namely

$$\widehat{R}(K)=(1(K/K_1+K/K_2))P_1+P_2$$
(1.14)
corresponds directly to $`(1.11)`$ above. This and certain other aspects of our previous formalism can be directly generalised to $`GL_q(N)`$, though the noncommutative spaces will now be of $`N`$ dimensions.

For $`SO_q(N)`$ ( and for $`Sp_q(N)`$ which we do not consider here ) there is a major change. One has now three projectors in the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{R}`$ matrices for vector representations. The consequences for $`MBE`$ will be seen to be important.

For $`\widehat{R}`$ satisfying the braid equation one obtains $`([3],[4])`$

$$\left(\widehat{R}qI\right)\left(\widehat{R}+q^1I\right)\left(\widehat{R}q^{1N}I\right)=0$$
(1.15)
and

$$\widehat{R}=qP^{(+)}q^1P^{()}+q^{1N}P^{(0)}$$
(1.16)
where ( with $`(i,j)`$ denoting a pair from $`(+,,0)`$ )

$$P^{(i)}P^{(j)}=P^{(i)}\delta _{ij},P^{(+)}+P^{()}+P^{(0)}=I$$
(1.17)
Generalising as before we introduce ( with non-zero and unequal $`(u,v,w)`$ and the projectors being the same as before, independent of $`(u,v,w)`$ )

$$\widehat{R}(u,v,w)=uP^{(+)}+vP^{()}+wP^{(0)}$$
(1.18)
Now ( denoting $`\widehat{R}(u,v,w)`$ as $`\widehat{R}`$ ),

$$\left(\widehat{R}uI\right)\left(\widehat{R}vI\right)\left(\widehat{R}wI\right)=0$$
(1.19)
and

$$P^{(+)}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}vI\right)\left(\widehat{R}wI\right)}{\left(uv\right)\left(uw\right)}$$

$$P^{()}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}uI\right)\left(\widehat{R}wI\right)}{\left(vu\right)\left(vw\right)}$$
(1.20)
$$P^{(0)}=\frac{\left(\widehat{R}uI\right)\left(\widehat{R}vI\right)}{\left(wu\right)\left(wv\right)}$$

Here, fixing the normalisation, two independent parameters are left.

In the next section we will study the $`MBE`$ corresponding to $`(1.18)`$. We will set $`N=3`$. This will permit us to display explicitly matrices of managaeble size. The essential new features will, however, be present already for $`N=3`$.

Let us now note how the number of coboundary (or unitary) solutions for vector representations changes with the number of projectors.

For $`GL_q(N)`$ it is seen from $`(1.8)`$ and $`(1.11)`$ that

$$\left(\widehat{R}(u,v)\right)^2=u^2P^{(+)}+v^2P^{()}=P^{(+)}+P^{()}$$
(1.21)
for

$$u^2=v^2=1.$$

Hence, apart from an overall $`(\pm )`$ sign, the only nontrivial solution is

$$\widehat{R}_c=P^{(+)}P^{()}=I2P^{()}=(I2P^{(+)});\widehat{R}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=I$$
(1.22)
For $`SO_q(n)`$, from $`(1.17)`$ and $`(1.18)`$ apart from an overall sign one obtains analogously three solutions

$$\widehat{R}_c=(I2P^{(+)});(I2P^{()});(I2P^{(0)})$$
(1.23)
Each satisfies

$$\widehat{R}_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=I$$

and the product of any two gives the third one with a change of sign. Thus, for example

$$(I2P^{(+)})(I2P^{()})=(I2P^{(0)})$$
(1.24)
If the coefficient $`(2)`$ in $`(1.23)`$ is replaced by an arbitrary number $`\widehat{R}`$ still satifies as is easily seen a quadratic equation, not the cubic $`(1.19)`$.

If complex solutions are considered for real $`q`$ but with complex coefficients in $`(1.18)`$ , one obtains the unitarity relation when $`(u,v,w)`$ are phases in $`(1.18)`$. Thus ( with real deltas )

$$\widehat{R}=e^{i\delta _1}P^{(+)}+e^{i\delta _2}P^{()}+e^{i\delta _3}P^{(0)}$$
(1.25)
gives, since the projectors are symmetric for the orhogonal case,

$$\widehat{R}^{}\widehat{R}=I$$

In $`(1.18)`$, $`(u,v,w)`$ were postulated to be unequal. This permits one to express all the three projectors in terms of $`\widehat{R}`$ as in $`(1.20)`$. But this is not obligatory. As noted in $`(1.23)`$ other cases ( with $`u=v=w=1`$ and so on ) can indeed be of special interest. For $`(1.23)`$ in each case one has two mutually orthogonal combinations. Selecting the second case, for example, one obtains

$$P^{()}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{R}_cI),P^{(+)}+P^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{R}_c+I)$$
(1.26)
We conclude with a fully explicit statement of our approach. If one has

$$\widehat{R}T_1T_2=T_1T_2\widehat{R}$$

then any function $`f(\widehat{R})`$ of $`\widehat{R}`$ satisfies

$$f(\widehat{R})T_1T_2=T_1T_2f(\widehat{R})$$
(1.27)
To start with let us suppose ( for definiteness, such a starting point not being essential ) that $`\widehat{R}`$ satifies $`BE`$.

For $`GL_q(N)`$, $`\widehat{R}`$ satisfies a quadratic constraint $`(1.9)`$. Hence any power series in $`\widehat{R}`$ can be reduced to a linear function in $`\widehat{R}`$. Hence, apart from an overall normalisation factor, the most general solution of $`(1.27)`$, for a given set of group relations, becomes effectively $`(1.14)`$ as studied in $`[1]`$. ( It is easy to see from $`(1.7)`$ and $`(1.10)`$ that even fractional powers of $`\widehat{R}`$ can be obtained as a linear funtion of $`\widehat{R}`$ but, in general, with complex coefficients. Having noted this, we will usually implicitly consider real coefficients. An analogous situation will hold for the orthogonal case considered below. Complex coefficients, such as in $`(1.25)`$ will not be introduced explicitly. Except when roots of unity are involved, complexification of our formalism is however straightforward.)

For $`SO_q(N)`$, $`\widehat{R}`$ satisfies the a cubic constraint $`(1.15)`$. Hence the general solution, using analogous arguments, is seen effectively to be, with constant coefficients $`c_i`$,

$$f(\widehat{R})=c_1(\widehat{R})^2+c_2\widehat{R}+c_3I$$
(1.28)
Using the spectral decomposition $`(1.16)`$ along with $`(1.17)`$,

$$f(\widehat{R})=c_1(q^2P^{(+)}+q^2P^{()}+q^{2(1N)}P(0))$$

$$+c_2(qP^{(+)}q^1P^{()}+q^{(1N)}P(0))$$

$$+c_3(P^{(+)}+P^{()}+P^{(0)})$$

Hence, collecting together the coefficients one obtains the form

$$f(\widehat{R})=uP^{(+)}+vP^{()}+wP^{(0)}$$
(1.29)
This is the motivation for $`(1.18)`$. The starting point is the most general solution, for a given set of group relations, as given by $`(1.29)`$. The right hand side of the $`MBE`$ will be a consequence ( see App.A). In this larger space one then looks for points with particularly attractive properties ( for example, those corresponding to $`\widehat{R}_c`$ ) and, more generally, explores the consequences of the free parameters in $`(1.29)`$ such as in related noncommutative geometries (Sec.3).

## 2 MBE for $`SO_q(3)`$:

We fix the normalisation by choosing the top left element (row $`1`$, col.$`1`$) to be unity. In order to simplify the explicit form of $`\widehat{R}`$ we denote the remaining parameters in $`(1.18)`$ as follows

$$\widehat{R}=P^{(+)}+(1+a(1+q^2))P^{()}+(1+b(1+q+q^2))P^{(0)}$$
(2.30)
$$=I+a(1+q^2)P^{()}+b(1+q+q^2)P^{(0)}$$

The projectors are given explicitly at the end of $`App.A`$. The $`9\times 9`$ symmetric $`\widehat{R}`$ is now

$$\widehat{R}(a,b;q)=$$

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \left(1+a\right)& 0& aq& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \left(1+aq+b\right)& 0& \left(b+a\left(q1\right)\right)\sqrt{q}& 0& \left(ba\right)q& 0& 0\\ 0& aq& 0& \left(1+aq^2\right)& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \left(b+a\left(q1\right)\right)\sqrt{q}& 0& \left(1+a\left(q1\right)^2+bq\right)& 0& \left(bqa\left(q1\right)\right)\sqrt{q}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& \left(1+a\right)& 0& aq& 0\\ 0& 0& \left(ba\right)q& 0& \left(bqa\left(q1\right)\right)\sqrt{q}& 0& \left(1+aq+bq^2\right)& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& aq& 0& \left(1+aq^2\right)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(2.31)
This $`\widehat{R}(a,b;q)`$ satisfies the braid equation for

$$(1):a=q^2,b=q^2+q^3$$

$$(2):a=1,b=1+q$$
(2.32)
the two sets giving mutually inverse matrices.

For this $`\widehat{R}`$ ( the parameters $`(a,b)`$ being implicit and $`I`$ being the $`3\times 3`$ unit matrix ) we define

$$\widehat{R}_{12}=\widehat{R}I,\widehat{R}_{23}=I\widehat{R}$$
(2.33)
The general srtucture of the $`MBE`$ is presented in $`App.A`$. We present here three cases obtained for particular constraints on $`(a,b)`$. One has

$$\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}=l_1(\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23})+l_2(\widehat{R}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{R}_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})$$
(2.34)
where for

$`Case1`$: $`a=0`$ and arbitrary $`b`$,

$$l_2=0;l_1=(1+b(1+q+q^2)+b^2q^2)$$
(2.35)
$`Case2`$: $`b=(1q)a`$

$$l_2=(1+a);l_1=(3+2(2+q^2)a+(1+2q^2)a^2)$$
(2.36)
Setting $`a=1`$ one obtains the case $`(2)`$ of $`(2.32)`$ with

$$l_1=0,l_2=0$$

$`Case3`$: $`b=(1q^1)a`$

$$l_2=(1+q^2a);l_1=(3+2(1+2q^2)a+q^2(2+q^2)a^2)$$
(2.37)
Setting $`a=q^2`$ one obtains the case $`(1)`$ of $`(2.32)`$ with

$$l_1=0,l_2=0$$

Let us note the following features:

Thr right hand side of $`(2.34)`$ is linear only for $`a=0`$ (Case $`1`$). This is evidently not included in the standard cases $`(2.32)`$.Yet the braid equation is satisfied for

$$a=0,(b^2q^2+b(1+q+q^2)+1)=0$$

hence ( when $`q0`$ ) for

$$b=\frac{1}{2q^2}(1+q+q^2)\pm \frac{1}{2q^2}\left((1+3q+q^2)(1q+q^2)\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}$$
(2.38)
This gives real $`b`$ for $`q>0`$. (See $`App.B`$ for further discussion.)

To complete the picture,we note that the braid matrix becomes for

$$q=0,a=0,b=1$$

$$\widehat{R}(0,1;0)=diag(1,1,0,1,1,1,1,1,1)$$
(2.39)
When $`a`$ and $`b`$ are independent and arbitrary even the quadratic terms of the r.h.s. of $`(2.34)`$ do not suffice ($`App.A`$).

## 3 Noncommutative $`3`$-space from $`\widehat{R}(a,b;q)`$:

When $`\widehat{R}`$ satisfies the braid equation (for $`(2.32)`$) the quantum vector space is discussed in $`[3,4,5]`$. (See in particular $`Sec.(\mathrm{9.3.2})`$ of $`[4]`$ and $`Ex.(\mathrm{4.1.22})`$ of $`[5]`$. Our results below are to be compared to these treatments.) We will treat the more general case with parameters $`(a,b)`$. The explicit form of the r.h.s. of the $`MBE`$ ($`Sec.2`$) is not directly relevant here. We treat $`(a,b)`$ as free parameters to start with. With a slight change of notation ( with respect to $`Sec.1`$ ) we set in $`(2.30)`$

$$v=a(1+q^2);w=b(1+q+q^2)$$

giving

$$\widehat{R}=I+vP^{()}+wP^{(0)}=P^++(1+v)P^{()}+(1+w)P^{(0)}$$
(3.40)
The coordinates are denoted $`(x_{},x_0,x_+)`$. Let $`(xx)`$ ( without ”tilde” for simplicity) denote the $`9`$-component column obtained from the tensor product. Let $`(\xi _{},\xi _0,\xi _+)`$ denote the differentials $`(dx_{},dx_0,dx_+)`$. Let the columns for the other tensor products be denoted, in evident notations, as $`(\xi \xi )`$, $`(x\xi )`$, $`(\xi x)`$.

As in $`[1]`$ we will adopt prescriptions that give commutators of $`(x_i,x_j)`$ and of $`(\xi _i,\xi _j)`$ independent of $`(v,w)`$ while those of $`(x_i,\xi _j)`$ do depend on them.

Let

$$(\widehat{R}I)(\widehat{R}(1+w)I)(xx)=0$$

or

$$P^{()}(xx)=0$$
(3.41)
This agrees with $`[3,4,5]`$. Now set

$$(x\xi )=M(\xi x)$$
(3.42)
Exterior derivation gives

$$(\xi \xi )=M(\xi \xi )$$
(3.43)
or

$$(M+I)(\xi \xi )=0$$

.

Now exterior derivation of $`(3.41)`$ along with $`(3.42)`$ gives the typical constraint

$$(\widehat{R}I)(\widehat{R}(1+w)I)(M+I)=0$$
(3.44)
Hence one can choose ($`k`$ being an arbitrary constant parameter)

$$(M+I)=k(\widehat{R}(1+v)I)=k(vP^{(+)}+(wv)P^{(0)})$$
(3.45)
From $`(3.43)`$ and $`(3.45)`$, due to the orthogonality of the projectors, one obtains ( in agreement with $`[4]`$ and $`[5]`$ )

$$P^{(+)}(\xi \xi )=0,P^{(0)}(\xi \xi )=0$$
(3.46)
From $`(3.41)`$ and $`(3.46)`$ one obtains ( as in the standard treatments cited above )

$$x_{}x_0=qx_0x_{},x_0x_+=qx_+x_0$$

$$x_+x_{}x_{}x_+=hx_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$
(3.47)
with

$$h\left(\sqrt{q}\frac{1}{\sqrt{q}}\right)$$

and

$$\xi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0,\xi _{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0,\xi _{}\xi _++\xi _+\xi _{}=0$$

$$q\xi _{}\xi _0+\xi _0\xi _{}=0,q\xi _0\xi _++\xi _+\xi _0=0$$

$$\xi _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=h\xi _{}\xi _+$$
(3.48)
Now we come to the part specific to our formalism. We define

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{}=(\xi _{}x_0q\xi _0x_{}),\mathrm{\Phi }_+=(\xi _0x_+q\xi _+x_0)$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0=(\xi _{}x_++\sqrt{q}\xi _0x_0+q\xi _+x_{}),\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}=(\xi _{}x_++h\xi _0x_0\xi _+x_{})$$
(3.49)
Then, implementing the definition of $`M`$ in terms of $`\widehat{R}(a,b)`$ and the explicit form of the latter one obtains from $`(3.42)`$, denoting

$$k_1=(kv+1)=(ka(q^2+1)+1),$$

the module srtucture

$$x_{}\xi _{}=k_1\xi _{}x_{};x_{}\xi _0=k_1\xi _{}x_0+ka\mathrm{\Phi }_{}$$

$$x_{}\xi _+=k_1\xi _{}x_++kaq\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}+kb\mathrm{\Phi }_0;x_0\xi _{}=k_1\xi _0x_{}kaq\mathrm{\Phi }_{}$$

$$x_0\xi _0=k_1\xi _0x_0+ka(q1)\sqrt{q}\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}+kb\sqrt{q}\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$

$$x_0\xi _+=k_1\xi _0x_++ka\mathrm{\Phi }_+;x_+\xi _{}=k_1\xi _+x_{}kaq\mathrm{\Phi }_0^{}+kbq\mathrm{\Phi }_0$$

$$x_+\xi _0=k_1\xi _+x_0kaq\mathrm{\Phi }_+;x_+\xi _+=k_1\xi _+x_+$$
(3.50)
One can verify that one obtains the relations given in $`Ex\mathrm{.4.1.22}`$ of $`[5]`$ ( page $`133`$) on setting

$$k=q^2,a=q^2,b=q^2+q^3$$
(3.51)
For

$$k=1,a=2(1+q^2)^1,b=0$$
(3.52)
one obtains the case $`(1.26)`$ of $`\widehat{R}_{(c)}`$ ( with $`\widehat{R}_{(c)}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=I`$) where

$$P^{()}=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{R}_{(c)}1);(M+I)=2(P^{(+)}+P^{(0)})$$
(3.53)
Hence $`(3.47)`$ and $`(3.48)`$ are conserved along with a particularly simple form of $`(3.50)`$. Here one moves out of the restricted space of solutions of $`BE`$ ( or $`YBE)`$ ) to implement the particular simpicity of $`\widehat{R}_{(c)}`$. (See the relevant remarks in $`Sec.5)`$.)

## 4 MBE and Baxterization:

In $`[1]`$ we briefly pointed out that $`MBE`$ and Baxterization are two complementary aspects of the same basic construction: the general solution of $`\widehat{R}TT`$ equation for a given set of group relations of the elements of $`T`$. For the cases considered in $`[1]`$ ( generalisable to $`GL_q(N)`$ ) the correspondance is relatively simple. In $`(1.2)`$ the same, single parameter $`K`$ appears in each member on the left leading to the non-zero r.h.s. ( thus modifying the $`BE`$ ) as shown in $`(1.2)`$. In a complementary approach, one can vary $`K`$ in different members on the left in a prescribed fashion (indicated in $`[1]`$ ) so that the r.h.s. remains zero. This is Baxterization. The same parameter that leads to $`MBE`$ thus leads also to integrable systems in a complementary fashion.

One can make a parallel study for $`SO_q(3)`$ ( generalisable to $`SO_q(N)`$ and $`Sp_q(N)`$ ). But the presence of three projectors and hence ( apart from a normalisation factor ) of two arbitrary parameters leads to a more complex situation. Even restricted cases give the $`MBE`$ of $`(2.34)`$ with quadratic terms on the right, the general structure being given in $`App.A`$. Let us now look at the complementary situation, namely, Baxterization.

In $`[4]`$ a solution is given ( p.$`295297`$ ) of

$$\widehat{R}_{12}(x)\widehat{R}_{23}(z)\widehat{R}_{12}(y)\widehat{R}_{23}(y)\widehat{R}_{12}(z)\widehat{R}_{23}(x)=0$$
(4.54)
for the restricted case where

$$z=xy$$
(4.55)
In our notations the solution of $`[4]`$ reads

$$\widehat{R}(x)=I+\frac{x1}{qq^1}\left(qI(q+q^1)P^{()}(qq^2)P^{(0)}\right)+\frac{x+1}{x\alpha _{(\pm )}+1}\left(1\frac{q^4q^4}{qq^1}\right)P^{(0)}$$
(4.56)
where for $`SO_q(3)\alpha _{(\pm )}=\pm q^{(2\pm 1)}`$.

( We have suppressed an overall factor $`h(x)`$ which cancels out in $`(4.54)`$. We have used $`(81)`$ of $`p.275`$ of $`[4]`$ to express $`K`$ of this reference by $`P^{(0)}`$. Finally we have written $`x`$ for $`x^\gamma `$ of $`[4]`$. One can rewrite $`(4.55)`$ as $`z^\gamma =x^\gamma y^\gamma `$ and then redefine again absorbing $`\gamma `$. Our notation displays the single parameter that is effectively implemented. Adjusting the normalisation one finds a particular case of $`(3.40)`$.)

The restriction $`(4.55)`$ is however not essential in Baxter’s criterion for commuting tansfer matrices. One can ask whether for given $`(x,y)`$ a $`z`$ can be found assuring $`(4.54)`$. We present a relatively simple solution providing the complementary facet of the $`MBE`$ of $`(2.35)`$. Let

$$\widehat{R}(w)=I+wP^{(0)}$$
(4.57)
Then

$$\widehat{R}_{12}(w)\widehat{R}_{23}(w^{})\widehat{R}_{12}(w^{\prime \prime })\widehat{R}_{23}(w^{\prime \prime })\widehat{R}_{12}(w^{})\widehat{R}_{23}(w)=0$$
(4.58)
for

$$w^{}=\frac{w+w^{\prime \prime }+ww^{\prime \prime }}{1q^2(1+q+q^2)^2ww^{\prime \prime }}$$
(4.59)
We have used results in $`App.A`$ ( in particular $`(6.74)`$ ) to derive $`(4.59)`$, but it can be verified directly. Generalisations are not evident. But a systematic study of possibilities in this context is desirable.

## 5 Remarks:

We conclude by noting the following points.

$`(1):`$ After the introductory remarks $`(Sec.1)`$ on the spectral decomposition of $`\widehat{R}`$ for vector representations of $`GL_q(N)`$, $`SO_q(N)`$ and $`Sp_q(N)`$, from $`Sec.2`$ onwards we restricted our study to $`SO_q(3)`$. But a substantial part of our results are evidently generalisable to $`SO_q(N)`$ with $`N>3`$. The crucial feature is the number of projectors in the spectral decomposition. The $`MBE`$ for $`GL_q(2)`$ with two projectors and that for $`SO_q(3)`$ with three exhibit major differences, made explicit here. But in $`SO_q(N)`$ the number of projectors does not vary with $`N`$. Still a careful stdy of of the case of $`SO_q(4)`$ and comparison of the results with those for $`SO_q(3)`$ would be of real interest. This is beyond the scope of this paper.

$`(2):`$ In $`[1]`$ we started with the criterion of using the most general solution $`\widehat{R}`$ of the $`\widehat{R}TT`$ relations for a given set of group relations of the elements of $`T`$. This, being implemented in the standard trilinear structure of the braid equation, modified the right hand making it non-zero but linear in the $`R`$’s as shown in $`(1.2)`$. No apriori postulate was was made concerning the r.h.s. of the equation. The explicit form was a consequence of the free parameter $`K`$ in $`\widehat{R}`$. It was then noted in $`[1]`$ that the $`MBE`$ thus obtained ( eqn.$`(1.2)`$ of this paper ) coincided with that introduced in $`[2]`$ ( and sources cited there ). Now this is seen to be a coincidence valid for the cases studied in $`[1]`$ ( generalisable to $`GL_q(N)`$ ). All those cases involved two projectors ( the sum being $`I`$ ). As soon as this number increases ( such as already for $`SO_q(3)`$ ) the r.h.s. has a more complex structure. Our starting point ( the general solution of $`\widehat{R}TT`$ ) is exactly the same here. But only in the very particular case $`(2.35)`$ one has a linear srtucture on the right.

$`(3):`$ In $`Sec.3`$ we present all the relations involving the coordinates and the differentials. But much remains to be done to better understand the noncommutative space thus obtained. The properties of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s introduced in $`(3.49)`$ deserve study. To render the geometry more transparent one should construct the ”frame basis” in terms of operators commuting with the algebra. ( See $`[5],[6]`$ and sources cited there.) Thus equipped, one can study possible attractive consequences concerning the metric of implementing $`\widehat{R}_c`$ as in $`(3.53)`$. We hope to explore these aspects elsewhere.

$`(4):`$ After $`[1]`$ we emphasise here again the complementary nature of $`MBE`$ and Baxterization. We provide a simple new example of the latter in $`(4.57)`$. Let us repeat another point made in $`[1]`$. The standard braid equation can be made to correspond to the third Reidemeister move in knot theory. Hence $`(4.54)`$ can be viewed as a parametrisation of this move. It would be worth exploring in the context of knot theory whether this provides access to a richer class of invariants.

$`(5):`$ Here we have studied coboundary $`\widehat{R}`$ martices in vector representations in terms of projectors. An approach using Drinfeld’s transformation can be found in $`[7]`$.

$`(6):`$ Finally let us recapitulate the remarkable properties of the solution provided by $`(2.38)`$. It satifies the $`\widehat{R}TT`$ equation for the standard group relations of $`SO_q(3)`$. It satisfies the standard braid equation ($`(2.34)`$ with zero r.h.s.). It continues ( as shown in $`App.B`$) to be nontrivial even for $`q=1`$. It can be relatively simply Baxterized as shown at the end of $`Sec.4`$. This sets the stage for a full study of the corresponding integrable model. This also suggests a search of analogous new solutions, more generally, for $`SO_q(N)`$ and $`Sp_q(N)`$ and also for higher dimensional representations of $`SO_q(3)`$. We hope to explore such possibilities elsewhere.

## 6 APPENDIX A : General structure of MBE

In the notation of $`(2.30)`$ or $`(3.40)`$

$$\widehat{R}=I+vP^{()}+wP^{(0)}$$
(6.60)
For elucidating the sructure of the consequent $`MBE`$ we start with a number of definitions and auxiliary relations .

We define

$$X_1=P_{(12)}^{()},X_2=P_{(23)}^{()};Y_1=P_{(12)}^{(0)},Y_2=P_{(23)}^{(0)}$$
(6.61)
The orthonormal properties of the projectors imply ( for $`i=(1,2)`$ )

$$X_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=X_i,Y_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=Y_i;X_iY_i=Y_iX_i=0$$
(6.62)
We also define

$$S_1=X_1X_2,S_2=Y_1Y_2$$
(6.63)
$$S_3=(X_1X_2Y_1+X_1Y_2X_1+Y_1X_2X_1)(X_2X_1Y_2+X_2Y_1X_2+Y_2X_1X_2)$$
(6.64)
$$S_4=(Y_1Y_2X_1+Y_1X_2Y_1+X_1Y_2Y_1)(Y_2Y_1X_2+Y_2X_1Y_2+X_2Y_1Y_2)$$
(6.65)
$$S_5=(X_1X_2X_1X_2X_1X_2),S_6=(Y_1Y_2Y_1Y_2Y_1Y_2)$$
(6.66)
Using these definitions and the properties $`(6.62)`$ one obtains quite generally,

$$\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}=(v+v^2)S_1+(w+w^2)S_2+v^2wS_3+vw^2S_4+v^3S_5+w^3S_6$$
(6.67)
The $`S`$’s depend on $`q`$ only. The dependence on $`(v,w)`$ are explicitly displayed in the coefficients of $`(6.67)`$.

Now we exploit systematically the constraints on the $`S`$’s provided by the known solutions, namely, $`(2.32),(2.34),(2,35),(2.36)`$ and $`(2.37)`$.

The r.h.s. of $`(6.67)`$ must vanish for the braid solutions $`(2.32)`$, namely, for

$$v=(1+q^2)w=(1q^3)$$
(6.68)
and also for

$$v=(1+q^2)w=(1q^3)$$
(6.69)
Implementing these (for $`q1`$) we choose to express $`(S_3,S_4)`$ as

$$S_3=\frac{q^2}{(q^2+1)(q^2+q+1)}S_1\frac{q^2}{(q^2+1)^2}S_2\frac{(q^2+1)}{(q^2+q+1)}S_5\frac{(q^31)^2}{q(q^2+1)^2}S_6$$
(6.70)
$$S_4=\frac{q^3}{(q^31)^2}S_1+\frac{q^2}{(q^2+1)(q^2+q+1)}S_2q\frac{(q^2+1)^2}{(q^31)^2}S_5+\frac{(q^31)(q1)}{q(q^2+1)}S_6$$
(6.71)
Now note that implementing $`(6.62)`$ one can express the r.h.s. of $`(2.34)`$ as

$$l_1(\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23})+l_2(\widehat{R}_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{R}_{23}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=(l_1v+l_2(2v+v^2))S_1+(l_1w+l_2(2w+w^2))S_2$$
(6.72)
Combining this result with $`(Case.1)`$ or $`(2.35)`$ one obtains ( since $`v=0`$, $`l_2=0`$ )

$$l_1wS_2=\left((w+w^2)+\frac{q^2w^3}{(q^2+q+1)^2}\right)S_2$$

$$=\left(w+w^2\right)S_2+w^3S_6$$
(6.73)
Hence

$$S_6=q^2(q^2+q+1)^2S_2$$
(6.74)
From $`(6.70),(6.71)`$ and $`(6.74)`$ one obtains

$$S_3=\frac{q^2}{(q^2+1)(q^2+q+1)}S_1\frac{q(q^2q+1)}{(q^2+1)^2}S_2\frac{(q^2+1)}{(q^2+q+1)}S_5$$
(6.75)
$$S_4=\frac{q^3}{(q^31)^2}S_1+\frac{q(q^2q+1)}{(q^2+1)(q^2+q+1)}S_2q\frac{(q^2+1)^2}{(q^31)^2}S_5$$
(6.76)
Combining all the preceding results one finally obtains

$$\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}\widehat{R}_{12}\widehat{R}_{23}=c_1S_1+c_2S_2+c_5S_5$$
(6.77)
$$=c_1(P_{(12)}^{()}P_{(23)}^{()})+c_2(P_{(12)}^{(0)}P_{(23)}^{(0)})$$

$$+c_5(P_{(12)}^{()}P_{(23)}^{()}P_{(12)}^{()}P_{(23)}^{()}P_{(12)}^{()}P_{(23)}^{()})$$

Here

$$c_1=v+v^2+\frac{v^2wq^2}{(q^2+1)(q^2+q+1)}+vw^2\frac{q^3}{(q^31)^2}$$

$$c_2=w+w^2+\frac{w^2vq(q^2q+1)}{(q^2+1)(q^2+q+1)}wv^2\frac{q(q^2q+1)}{(q^2+1)^2}+\frac{w^3q^2}{(q^2+q+1)^2}$$

$$c_5=\frac{v}{(q^31)^2}((q^31)v+(q^2+1)w)\left)\right((q^31)vq(q^2+1)w)$$
(6.78)
As checks one verifies that $`c_1=c_2=c_5=0`$ for $`(6.68)`$ and $`(6.69)`$. Moreover, $`c_5=0`$ for

$$(q^2+1)w=(q^31)v$$

and

$$q(q^2+1)w=(q^31)v$$

Thus one gets back, respectively, $`Case2`$ of $`(2.36)`$ and $`Case3`$ of $`(2.37)`$.

The form $`(6.77)`$ makes the dependence on $`(v,w)`$ entirely explicit, the $`c`$’s being given by $`(6.78)`$ and the $`S`$’s depending only on $`q`$. This is particularly suitable for our purpose. The $`P`$’s can be reexpressed in terms of $`\widehat{R}(v,w)`$ using $`(1.20)`$. But only for $`c_5=0`$ ( cases $`(1,2,3)`$ of $`(2.35),(2.36),(2.37)`$ respectively ) one obtains a relatively simple form as in $`(2.34)`$. For $`S_5`$ there is no crucial simplification as for $`S_6`$ in $`(6.74)`$. Setting $`w=0`$ in $`(6.77)`$ one gets no new simplification but an identity.

Throughout this paper the projectors $`P^{()}`$ and $`P^{(0)}`$ have served as the essential building blocks. They can be easily extracted comparing $`(2.30)`$ and $`(2.31)`$. But for completeness and convenience they are presented below explicitly.

$$(q^2+1)P^{()}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& q& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& q& 0& (q1)\sqrt{q}& 0& q& 0& 0\\ 0& q& 0& q^2& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& (q1)\sqrt{q}& 0& (q1)^2& 0& (q1))\sqrt{q}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& q& 0\\ 0& 0& q& 0& (q1)\sqrt{q}& 0& q& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& q& 0& q^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(6.79)
$$(q^2+q+1)P^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& \sqrt{q}& 0& q& 0& 0\\ 0& & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{q}& 0& q& 0& q\sqrt{q}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& q& 0& q\sqrt{q}& 0& q^2& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(6.80)
## 7 APPENDIX B: Nontrivial BE for q=1

We pointed out in $`Sec.2`$ that for $`a=0`$ and $`b`$ satisfying $`(2.38)`$ one obtains two solutions of $`BE`$ (not modified, with vanishing r.h.s.). Setting

$$q=1$$

in $`(2.38)`$ one obtains

$$b^2+3b+1=0$$

or

$$b=\frac{1}{2}(3\pm \sqrt{5})e^m$$
(7.81)
( It is amusing to note the relation of $`b`$, or rather that of $`(b+1)`$ with the famous Golden Mean i.e. $`\frac{1}{2}(\sqrt{5}1)`$. )

Now one obtains

$$\widehat{R}(m)=I3e^m\widehat{P}^{(0)}$$
(7.82)
Where the projector $`\widehat{P}^{(0)}`$ is obtained from $`P^{(0)}`$ by setting $`q=1`$. Thus

$$3\widehat{P}^{(0)}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$

From $`(7.82)`$ one easily obtains the nontrivial Hecke condition

$$(\widehat{R}(m)I)(\widehat{R}(m)+(3e^m1)I)=0$$
(7.83)
Thus $`\widehat{R}(m)`$ are not coboundary matrices. They cannot be obtained by twisting $`I`$ since

$$\left(\widehat{R}(m)\right)^2I$$

For

$$q=1,b=0,a=1$$
(7.84)
again ( from $`(2.30),(2.36),(2.37)`$ ) one obtains $`\widehat{R}`$ satifying $`BE`$ given by

$$\widehat{R}=I2\widehat{P}^{()}$$
(7.85)
where $`\widehat{P}^{()}`$ is obtained from $`P^{()}`$ setting $`q=1`$ in $`(6.79)`$.

But now, in contrast to $`(7.83)`$, one has

$$\widehat{R}^2=I$$

The $`R(m)`$ satisfying $`YB`$ ( Yang-Baxter equation) can be obtained from $`(7.82)`$ as

$$R(m)=P\widehat{R}(m)=P3e^m\widehat{P}^{(0)}$$
(7.86)
where the matrix $`P`$ ( permuting the rows $`(2,4),(3,7),(6,8)`$ ) leaves $`\widehat{P}^{(0)}`$ invariant.

In Hieterinta’s classification $`[8]`$ of $`4\times 4`$ $`R`$ matrices appear examples without free parameters. Such a case has been studied $`[9]`$ in the context of ”exotic bialgebras”. Here we have obtained $`9\times 9`$ examples of such matrices.

I discussed many aspects of this paper with M.A.Sokolov. He also provided, using a program, the explicit expressions of the coefficients in the solutions in $`Sec.2`$. It is a pleasure to thank him . I also thank John Madore for instructive discussions concerning the noncommutative geometric aspects.