text:
# The Continuum Spectrum of the 4N System. Results and Challenges

## 1 INTRODUCTION

The theoretical description of the A=4 scattering states constitutes a serious challenge for the existing NN interaction models. The reason for that is not purely technical, but lies rather in the richness of the continuum spectrum itself. Though far from the heavy nuclei imbroglio, it is the simplest system which presents the main characteristics – thresholds and resonances – of the nuclear complexity. Furthermore, they appear already in the low energy region which can be unlikely affected by the three nucleon forces, a keystone in the success encountered when describing the A=3 states and A=4 bound state .

Solutions of the 4N scattering states have been recently obtained by different groups , solving Schrödinger, Faddeev-Yakubovsky or AGS equations, with realistic NN potentials.

The aim of this contribution is to give an overview of the main theoretical results existing for the A=4 scattering, specially those obtained since the last Groningen Few-Body Conference. A more detailed review including references can be found in .

## 2 n-3H

The first topic concerns n+3H, the simplest A=4 system after the $`\alpha `$ particle. It is a pure T=1 isospin state free from the Coulomb problems. A simple look into its cross section and its comparison with the n-d case (Figures 2 and 2) illustrate well the qualitative difference with respect the A=3 case.

The n-3H scattering lengths with realistic potentials (AV14 , AV18 , Nijm II ) were presented in the last Few-Body Groningen Conference . The singlet $`a_0`$ and triplet $`a_1`$ values (in fm) are summarized in the upper half part of Table 1 together with the deduced coherent scattering length $`a_c=\frac{1}{4}a_0+\frac{3}{4}a_1`$ and the zero energy cross section $`\sigma (0)=\pi (a_0^2+3a_1^2)`$ in fm2.

One can see on one hand similar ($`<1\%`$) values for different realistic potentials and on another hand a very good agreement using different methods. In  the Faddeev-Yakubovsky (FY) equations in configuration space were solved whereas authors of  used the Correlated Hyperspherical Method (CHH). The comparison with the experimental cross section – $`\sigma (0)=170\pm 3`$ mb from  – shows that NN realistic potentials fail in describing the zero energy cross section as they fail in reproducing the three- ($`B_3`$) and four-nucleon ($`B_4`$) binding energies. Unlike the n-d case, the 4N scattering states call for three nucleon interaction (TNI) from the very beginning. Indeed in the n-3H case the singlet and triplet contribution are of the same size (Figure 2) whereas the doublet n-d value - directly correlated to $`B_3`$ and so affected by TNI - turns to be one order of magnitude smaller than the quartet and has no visible effect in the total cross section (Figure 2). This smartness of nature made the inclusion of TNI unnecessary to reproduce the low energy n-d cross section, thought they play an important role at higher energies and could explain some anomalies in polarization observables ($`A_y`$) .

The failure in the zero energy region can be corrected by including TNI. In  an hyperadial TNI was added with parameters adjusted to ensure B3=8.48 and B4=29.0 MeV, a value which takes into account the Coulomb correction in 4He. In  the much more elaborate Urbana VIII and IX forces were included leading to $`B_3=8.48`$, $`B_4=28.3`$ MeV. The scattering length obtained in this way are displayed in lower part of Table 1. The small differences come essentially from the slighlty different $`B_4`$ values to which they were adjusted. The values for the MT I-III model potential  are also given and found to be very close to the realistic NN+NNN interactions. In view of that it seems – at least in what concerns bound and zero energy states – that the only role of TNI is to ensure the physical values for $`B_3`$ and $`B_4`$. If they lead to very close results despite their severe analytical differences one can hardly pretend to learn something about them in such kind of calculations alone. In practice they provide enough parameters to fit one number.

Figure 2 shows the n-3H cross section calculated including only the $`J^\pi =0^+`$ and $`1^+`$ sates. Experimental values are taken from . Results obtained with the NN forces alone are in dot-dashed curve. Those including TNI are in solid line (separate contributions in long- and short-dashed lines) and provide an accurate cross section until $`T_{lab}0.5`$ MeV.

If the very low energy cross section is accurately measured and reproduced, the situation with scattering lengths – summarized in Table 2 – looks more precarious. These values are displayed in Figure 3 together with the theoretical ones previously discussed (horizontal lines).

The best agreement is found with the results of ; in fact they contain a theoretical input, the ratio $`a_1/a_0`$, which turns to be very close to the one given by the realistic potentials from Table 1. The other compatible results are those of . However, apart from the quite comfortable error bars in $`a_0`$, they have been obtained using a value of $`a_c=3.82`$ which is not compatible with the more recent and precise values of . The values given in  are quite close to the theoretical ones but they are extracted from a p-3He R-matrix analysis in which the Coulomb interaction has been removed. Finally, as it was pointed out in , the experimental values did not lie on the theoretical curves relying $`a_i`$ to $`B_3`$.

The usual way to get $`a_i`$ is by reversing the relations giving $`\sigma (0)`$ and $`a_c`$. This procedure is numerically quite unstable. Indeed by assuming an exact value $`a_c=3.60`$, the small existing error in $`\sigma (0)`$ leads to a range of values $`a_0=4.605.16`$ and $`a_1=3.083.27`$. A more precise measurement of $`\sigma (0)`$ could be helpful to improve the present situation and in this respect the CERN TOF  neutron facility could offer interesting possibilities.

The preceding results show that the resonance peak requires the inclusion of negative parity $`J^\pi =0^{},1^{},2^{}`$ n-3H states, which become dominante already at $`T_{cm}2.5`$ MeV.

A first attempt was done in  using FY equations in configuration space. The interation was limited to $`V_{NN}^{j1}`$+3PF2 and the partial wave expansion of FY amplitudes to $`l_{y,z}2`$. Results obtained with AV14 interaction are shown in Figure 5. It was found that the peak region was poorly described by the NN forces alone and that the inclusion of hyperadial TNI still lowered the cross section. The calculations show a high sensitivity to the inclusion of P-waves in $`V_{NN}`$, a fact also pointed out by Fonseca in dd-dd and dd-p3H polarization observables . Their effect is shown in Figure 5 with a zoom at $`T_{cm}`$=3.5 MeV: including $`V_{{}_{}{}^{1}P_{1}^{},^3P_0,^3P_1}`$ still reduces the cross section and the $`V_{{}_{}{}^{3}PF_2}`$ rises substantially the value to compensate this reduction but not enough to fit the experimental points. This failure was attributed either to a lack of convergence in the partial wave expansion of FY amplitudes or to a failure in NN current models .

A more recent calculation was done by Fonseca using AGS equations in momentum space . This calculation is restricted to 1-rank separable expansion in the TNN-matrix but the partial wave expansion of AGS amplitudes was pushed until $`l_{y,z}3`$, what represent a sizeable increase in the number of FY amplitudes, specially those describing the internal structure of triton. Using AV14 and Bonn-B $`V_{NN}`$ models, this author found a reasonable description of the total and differential cross section data. The $`V_{NN}`$ P-waves – essentially 3PF2 – make all the difference.

This interesting result deserves some comments. First to remark the unusually high sensitivity to NN P-waves in the low energy cross section. Whereas it has almost no effect in the Nd scattering and triton binding energy, the only contribution of the $`V_{NN}^{{}_{}{}^{3}P_{2}^{}}`$ accounts at $`T_{cm}`$=3.5 MeV for half of the n-3H P-waves cross section, which in its turn represents half of the total cross section . Second to notice that the analyzing power $`A_y`$ shows the same kind of discrepancy than for n-d but not solved by small changes in the $`{}_{}{}^{3}P_{j}^{}`$ NN phaseshifts, as done in . Similar disagreements are also found in the dd-p3H reaction.

It is worth noticing that – despite its a priori crude approximation – the 1-rank T-matrix expansion provides very close results to those obtained by solving FY equations for the same number of amplitudes . If the result concerning the n-3H resonant cross section is confirmed by independent methods or by increasing the number of terms in the T-matrix, it would speak very much in favour of low rank separable expansions.

It could have some interest to notice the ability of a trivial NN model like MT I-III in describing such a non trivial thing. This potential acts only in $`V_{NN}^{L=0}`$ waves, has no tensor, nor spin-orbit forces, even not pion tail and triton wavefunction contains only S-wave Faddeev components. It provides however a very good agreement with experimental results, specially in the resonance peak  and even for differential cross sections, as can be seen in Figure 6. Only the zero energy is slightly overestimated due to small differences in binding energies: $`B_3=8.53`$ MeV instead of $`8.48`$ and $`B_4=30.3`$ MeV instead of $`29.0`$, once removed Coulomb corrections. In this model the n-3H resonant cross section has nothing to do with NN P-waves: it is created by the exchange mechanism between the incoming and target nucleons, what results into an effective 1+3 potential generated only by S-wave NN interactions. This shows that nothing is trivial beyond A=2 and the difficulty to disentangle the NN from the N-A interaction.

From the strong interaction point of view, the natural partner of n-3H is p-3He which differs only by Coulomb force. The p-3He reactions are however much more accessible experimentally though the resonant behaviour is somehow hidden due to the absence of total cross section. The situation concerning the low energy parameters is summarized in Table 3. One can remark a much bigger theoretical ”dispersion” than for the n-3H case and a need for precise experimental values of $`a_0`$ and $`a_1`$. Triplet scattering length is a relevant quantity in calculating the weak proton capture p+3He$`^4`$He+e++$`\overline{\nu }`$ cross section. A firmly established $`a_1`$ value is needed but here – as in many other radiative processes – the main uncertainties come from the transition operators. The MEC contribution can modify the result by a factor 5 . There exists also some preliminary calculations at non zero energy . The differential cross sections at $`E_{cm}=3`$ MeV shows some lack at backward scattering angles and a rather large underprediction in the analyzing power $`A_y`$.

## 3 The 4He continuum

Next in complexity is the continuum spectrum of the 4He represented in Figure 8. Calculations of p-3H scattering are complicated by the existence of the first $`J^\pi =0^+`$ excitation of 4He in its threshold vicinity. This resonance located at $`E_R`$=0.40 MeV above p-3H covers with its $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$=0.5 MeV width the scattering region below n-3He.

It turns out that most of the calculations performed until now find this state below the p-3H threshold, that is as a second 4He bound state, probably because they did not include Coulomb corrections. Due to that, the sign of the strong p-3H scattering length is wrong and the interference with the Coulomb amplitude leads to senseless results in the interthreshold region.

Among the few data existing in this energy range, we found the differential cross section at $`\theta _{cm}=120^{}`$ as a function of the energy in . An attempt to describe this cross section can be done using the low energy scattering parameters given in  and summarized in Table 4. One infers from them, in the isospin approximation, the strong p-3H scattering lengths $`a^{S=0}=9.44`$ and $`a^{S=1}=3.49`$ fm. The p-3H amplitude reads $`f(\theta )=f_c(\theta )+f_{sc}(\theta )`$ where $`f_c`$ is the pure Coulomb term and $`f_{sc}`$ the strong amplitude in a Coulomb field . Limiting $`f_{sc}`$ to S-wave and using the Coulomb corrected effective range approximation, one can estimate the low energy p-3H differential cross section. The results obtained with the values of Table 4 and an effective range $`r_0=2`$ fm for both spin states are displayed in Figure 8 (dashed line) and fail to reproduce the observed structure. A good fit (solid lines) is obtained with large and negative values $`a^{S=0}20`$ fm. indicating the above threshold position of the first 4He excitation. In terms of isospin components, this corresponds to a value $`a_{T=0}^{S=0}40`$. The precise location of this state is a very strong requirement for the NN models. Without it, there is no hope to have a good description of the low energy p-3H and also n-3He reaction. We remark that a direct CRM calculation was presented in . These authors found $`a^{S=0}=22.6`$ fm, $`a^{S=1}=4.6`$ fm and extracted from the p-3H phaseshifts the position $`E_R=0.15`$ MeV and width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.23`$ MeV of the resonance.

There exists some calculation for the n-3He scattering length. Using MT I-III and CRM,  found $`a_0=7.5+4.2i`$ and $`a_1=3.0+0.0i`$. Using AV14 and Urbana VII TNI,  found $`a_1=3.5\pm 0.25`$, in agreement with the experimental value although the coupling to p-3H was neglected. The zero energy wavefunction was used to obtain the n+3He$`^4`$He+$`\gamma `$ cross section which was found overpredicted by a factor 2 and 1.5 in  where the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ degree of freedom was included. Results for the n-3He elastic cross section at higher energy have been presented in this conference . None of these calculations have been performed taking into account the full complexity required.

Several d-d calculations have been performed at different levels of approximation. Using VMC authors of  calculate the d+d$`^4`$He+$`\gamma `$ cross section with a dd wavefunction decoupled from n-3He and p-3H channels and conclude that the optimal variational wavefunction does not explain the data. FY equations in momentum space and separable potential were used in  to calculate total and differential $`\stackrel{}{d}+\stackrel{}{d}`$p+3H cross sections at 20-120 keV and found very good agreement with data. Also at threshold energies, FY equation in configuration space have been solved using simple MT I-III model and isospin approximation for the N+NNN thresholds. A strong J=$`0^+`$ T=0 dd scattering length $`a_0=4.910.011i`$ fm was found. Using CRM with the same interaction and Coulomb taken into account authors of  found $`a_0=10.20.2i`$ and $`a_2=7.5`$ fm. At higher dd energies, there exists AGS calculations of polarization observables indicating large disagreement with data . Finally we would like to mention the extensive RGM calculations of 4He bound and scattering states done by  in which the phase shifts of different two-fragment channels were obtained.

## 4 SUMMARY

The continuum of A=4 is an open door to a higher degree in the nuclear complexity and offers an enormous field of work for a generation of motivated researchers.

The n-3H resonant peak acts as a zoom for the internal structure of triton as well as for the NN P-waves. A first task is to clarify with independent calculations the ability of NN models in describing the elastic total and differential cross section in the resonance region. The position and width of the underlying resonances could be then calculated. The results obtained using the complex rotation method in A=3 system seems very promising .

A major point is the description of the p-3H and n-3He thresholds, dominated by the first excitation of 4He. This calculations imply coupled channel four-body equations with Coulomb interaction taken into account. This structure completed with the d-d channel constitutes the formal skeleton to be acquainted with in order to access the A=4 continuum.

The calculation of the numerous weak and electromagnetic capture processes is a redoubtable challenge. The access to a high quality of nuclear wavefunction would allow to test and fix the many ambiguities in the transition operators.

The last remark concerns relativity. The increasing complexity of the three nucleon forces requires a numerical investment which becomes comparable to a relativistic description. An effort, conceptual and numerical, in this direction should be of highest interest. The pioneering result using Gross equation  shows the possibility to reach a consistent description of the three nucleons system using only NN forces. The description of a nuclear system will probably remain always phenomenological – nucleons are already very complicated objects – but the relativistic approach could provide a simpler framework.

Acknowledgments: The author is deeply grateful to A. Fonseca, H. Hofmman, A. Kievsky, S. Oryu, E. Uzu, B. Pfitzinger and M. Viviani for helpful discussions and remarks during the preparation of this contribution and to M. Mangin-Brinet for a carefull reading of the manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Definition 1

ON TOTAL INCOMPARABILITY OF

MIXED TSIRELSON SPACES

Julio Bernués**Partially supported by DGES grant (Spain) and Javier Pascual.

University of Zaragoza (Spain)

ABSTRACT

We give criteria of total incomparability for certain classes of mixed Tsirelson spaces. We show that spaces of the form $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ with index $`i(_k)`$ finite are either $`c_0`$ or $`\mathrm{}_p`$ saturated for some $`p`$ and we characterize when any two spaces of such a form are totally incomparable in terms of the index $`i(_k)`$ and the parameter $`\theta _k`$. Also, we give sufficient conditions of total incomparability for a particular class of spaces of the form $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ in terms of the asymptotic behaviour of the sequence $`_{i=1}^ne_i`$ where $`(e_i)`$ is the canonical basis.

Key words and phrases, Mixed Tsirelson spaces, totally incomparable spaces.

1991 Mathematics Subject Classification: 46B03, 46B20

0. Introduction

Denote by $`c_{00}`$ the vector space of all real valued sequences which are eventually zero and by $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ its usual unit vector basis. For $`E\mathrm{}`$ and $`x={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ie_ic_{00}`$ we denote $`Ex={\displaystyle \underset{iE}{}}a_ie_i`$. Also, for finite subsets $`E,F\mathrm{}`$, we write $`E<F`$ (or $`EF`$) if $`\mathrm{max}E<\mathrm{min}E`$ ($`\mathrm{max}E\mathrm{min}E`$). For simplicity, we write $`nE`$ instead of $`\{n\}E`$.

Mixed Tsirelson spaces were introduced in full generality in . We can define those spaces, denoted by $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}]`$, as the completion of $`c_{00}`$ under a norm which satisfies an implicit equation of the following kind:

$$x=\mathrm{max}\{x_{\mathrm{}},\underset{kI}{sup}\left\{\theta _k\underset{n\mathrm{}}{sup}\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_ix|(E_i)_{i=1}^n_kadmissible\right\}\right\}\},xc_{00}$$

where the $`_k`$’s are certain (see Definition 4 below) families of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta _k(0,1]`$ for all $`kI\mathrm{}`$ and $`(E_i)_{i=1}^n`$ is $`_k`$-admissible if there exists $`\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_n\}_k`$ such that $`m_1E_1<m_2E_2<\mathrm{}<m_nE_n`$.

The first remarkable space in this class is the so called Tsirelson space, introduced by Figiel and Johnson  in 1974. (It is actually the dual of the space originally constructed by Tsirelson in .) In our notation this space is $`T[𝒮,1/2]`$, where $`𝒮`$ is Schreier’s class, that is, the set of subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$ of cardinality smaller than their first element. Since its construction it was usually considered a “pathological space”, a place to look for counterexamples to statements in the Banach space theory. In fact, the reason why it was constructed was to provide a counterexample to the assertion “every Banach space contains $`c_0`$ or $`\mathrm{}_p`$ for some $`1p<\mathrm{}`$”.

The second space of the class is Tzafriri space, introduced in 1979 in  ($`T[(𝒜_k,\gamma /\sqrt{k})_k\mathrm{}],0<\gamma <1`$ in our notation where $`𝒜_k`$ is the set of subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$ of at most $`k`$ elements), also constructed as a counterexample to a statement in the Banach space theory. In 1991 a third example, namely the Schlumprecht space $`T[(𝒜_k,1/\mathrm{log}_2(1+k))_k\mathrm{}]`$, was considered, see , and with its help a fruitful period started when many “classical” problems in the infinite dimensional Banach space theory were solved, such as the distortion problem or the unconditional basic sequence problem.

A common feature of the three Banach spaces mentioned above is that they do not contain any $`\mathrm{}_p,1p<\mathrm{}`$ or $`c_0`$. (Actually, in the case of Tzafriri spaces this has been proved, as far as we know, only for $`0<\gamma <10^6`$, see .) Moreover, since $`\mathrm{}_p,1p<\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_0`$ are minimal (recall that a Banach space $`X`$ is minimal if every subspace of $`X`$ contains a further subspace isomorphic to $`X`$) it easily follows that they are totally incomparable to any of the three examples above (recall that two Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are totally incomparable if no subspace of $`X`$ is isomorphic to any of $`Y`$). We use the word “subspace” here and throughout the paper for “closed infinite dimensional subspace”.

In 1986 Bellenot  showed that $`\mathrm{}_p,1p<\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_0`$ are isomorphic to mixed Tsirelson spaces of the form $`T[(𝒜_n,\theta )],\theta (0,1]`$. This was somewhat surprising as it showed that $`\mathrm{}_p,1p<\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_0`$ belong to a class of spaces up to then considered pathological.

It is well known that $`\mathrm{}_p,1p<\mathrm{}`$ and $`c_0`$ are totally incomparable to each other. Moreover, $`\mathrm{}_p`$ and $`c_0`$ and the three examples, with $`0<\gamma <10^6`$ in the case of Tzafriri space, are all totally incomparable to each other (see  for the details and also use the minimality of the Schlumprecht space). This shows that, at least in the examples considered, the modification of the $`\theta _k^{}s`$ or the $`_k^{}s`$ produce totally incomparable spaces.

In the first section we discuss in full generality the case when $`\theta _k=1`$ for some $`k`$. In this case, the spaces $`c_0`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1`$ will play a crucial role.

In the second section we consider mixed Tsirelson spaces of the form $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}],\theta _k(0,1),`$ with index $`i(_k)`$, as defined in , finite and we characterize when any two spaces of such a form are totally incomparable. This is done by following the ideas in  and showing that every such space is either $`c_0`$ or $`\mathrm{}_p`$ saturated for some $`p`$. Recall that given a Banach space $`Y`$, a Banach space $`X`$ is $`Y`$ saturated if every subspace of $`X`$ contains a further subspace isomorphic to $`Y`$.

In the third section we focus on spaces of the form $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}],\theta _k(0,1],`$ such that $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is finitely block represented in every block subspace. We give sufficient conditions of total incomparability in terms of the asymptotic behaviour of the sequence $`_{i=1}^ne_i`$ where $`(e_i)`$ is the canonical basis. These conditions apply to cases different from those considered in .

Notation. If $`K`$ is a subset of a Banach space $`X`$, $`\overline{Span}\{K\}`$ denotes the closure of the algebraic linear span of $`K`$. If $`x=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_ie_ic_{00}`$, the support of $`x`$ is the set $`supp(x)=\{i\mathrm{}|a_i0\}`$. For $`x,yc_{00}`$ we write $`x<y`$ if $`supp(x)<supp(y)`$. We say that $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_n\mathrm{}`$ are successive if $`E_1<E_2<\mathrm{}<E_n`$. The vectors $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ are successive if their supports are. A block sequence $`(x_i)`$ is a sequence of successive vectors. The cardinality of a set $`E`$ is denoted by $`\left|E\right|`$. The standard norm of $`\mathrm{}_p,1p\mathrm{}`$ is denoted by $`_p`$. Other unexplained notation is standard and can be found for instance in .

###### Definition 1

Let $``$ be a family of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$. We say that $``$ is compact if the set $`\{\mathrm{}_E|E\}`$ is a compact subset of the Cantor set $`\{0,1\}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with the product topology.

###### Remark 1

In Definition 1, $`\{0,1\}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is identified with the space of all mappings $`f:\mathrm{}\{0,1\}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_E`$ is the characteristic function of $`E`$. In $`\{0,1\}^{\mathrm{}}`$, the convergence under the product topology is the pointwise convergence. Therefore if $`E\mathrm{}`$ is a finite set and $`\mathrm{}_{E_k}`$ converges to $`\mathrm{}_E`$ pointwise, there exists $`N\mathrm{}`$ such that $`EE_k`$ for all $`kN`$.

###### Definition 2

Let $``$ be a family of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$. We say that $``$ is hereditary if $`E`$ and $`FE`$ implies that $`F`$.

###### Definition 3

Let $``$ be a compact family of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$. We define a transfinite sequence$`(^{(\lambda )})`$ of subsets of $``$ as follows:

1. $`^{(0)}=`$.

2. $`^{(\lambda +1)}=\{E|\mathrm{}_E`$ is a limit point of the set $`\{\mathrm{}_E|E^{(\lambda )}\}\}`$.

3. If $`\lambda `$ is a limit ordinal then $`^{(\lambda )}={\displaystyle \underset{\mu <\lambda }{}}^{(\mu )}`$. We call the least $`\lambda `$ for which $`^{(\lambda )}\{\mathrm{}\}`$ the index of $``$ and denote it by $`i()`$.

###### Definition 4

Let $`I\mathrm{}`$. Let $`(_k)_{kI}`$ be a sequence of compact hereditary families of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$ and let $`(\theta _k)_{kI}(0,1]`$. We denote by $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ the completion of $`c_{00}`$ with respect to the norm defined by

$$x=\mathrm{max}\{x_{\mathrm{}},\underset{kI}{sup}\left\{\theta _k\underset{n\mathrm{}}{sup}\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_ix|(E_i)_{i=1}^n_kadmissible\right\}\right\}\}$$

and we call it the mixed Tsirelson space defined by the sequence $`(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}`$.

###### Remark 2

The existence of such a norm is shown, for instance, in . It follows from the definition of the norm that the sequence $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a normalized 1-unconditional basis for $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$.

###### Remark 3

There are two useful alternative ways to define the norm. Given $`x={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ne_nc_{00}`$,

(i) define a non decreasing sequence of norms on $`c_{00}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \left|x\right|_0=& \underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{max}}\left|a_n\right|\hfill \\ \hfill \left|x\right|_{s+1}=& \mathrm{max}\{\left|x\right|_s,\underset{kI}{sup}\left\{\theta _k\underset{n\mathrm{}}{sup}\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\right|E_ix|_s|(E_i)_{i=1}^n_kadmissible\}\right\}\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`x=\underset{s\mathrm{}\{0\}}{sup}\left|x\right|_s`$.

(ii) Let $`K_0=\{\pm e_n|n\mathrm{}\}`$. Given $`K_s,s\mathrm{}\{0\}`$, let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill K_{s+1}=K_s\{\theta _k& (f_1+\mathrm{}+f_d)|kI,d\mathrm{},f_iK_s,i=1,\mathrm{},d\hfill \\ & \text{ are successive and }(supp(f_1),\mathrm{},supp(f_d))_kadmissible\}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`K={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}K_s`$. Then $`x=sup\{f(x)|fK\}`$.

The latter definition of the norm provides information about the dual space. Looking at the set $`K`$ as a set of functionals it is not difficult to see that $`B_X^{}`$ is the closed convex hull of $`K`$, where the closure is taken either in the weak-$``$ topology or in the pointwise convergence topology.

1. The case $`\theta _k=1`$

Let $`J=\{kI|\theta _k=1\}`$. If $`J`$ is not empty, we give information about the structure of $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ depending on the index $`i(_k),kJ.`$ It is known that if $`i(_k)2`$ for some $`kJ`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ contains an isomorphic copy of $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Actually it is possible to say much more as our next proposition shows.

###### Proposition 1

If $`i(_{k_0})2`$ for some $`k_0J`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$saturated.

Proof: By the Bessaga-Pelczynski principle (see e.g. , pg. 10), it suffices to show that every block subspace contains a further subspace isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Recall that a block subspace is a space of the form $`\overline{Span}\{u_i,i\mathrm{}\}`$, with $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ a block sequence.

Let $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a block sequence. We are going to construct a subsequence $`(u_{i_k})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ equivalent to the $`\mathrm{}_1`$ basis.

Let $`\{p\}_{k_0}^{(1)}`$. We can choose $`u_{i_1}`$ such that $`p<u_{i_1}`$. Now, since $`\{p\}_{k_0}^{(1)}`$, there exists $`n_1\mathrm{}`$ such that $`n_1>u_{i_1}`$ and $`\{p,n_1\}_{k_0}`$, so we can take $`u_{i_2}`$ such that $`n_1<u_{i_2}`$. Continuing in this manner, we can construct a subsequence $`(u_{i_k})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that for every $`k\mathrm{}`$ there exists $`n_k\mathrm{}`$ such that $`u_{i_k}<n_k<u_{i_{k+1}}`$ and $`\{p,n_k\}_{k_0}`$. It is now easy to see that $`(u_{i_k})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is equivalent to the $`\mathrm{}_1`$ basis.

The following example shows a Tsirelson type space $`\mathrm{}_1`$-saturated but not isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$. It was shown to us by I. Deliyanni.

###### Example 1

Let $`=\{F\mathrm{}|i\mathrm{}\text{ such that }F\{1,2^i\}\}`$ and $`\theta =1`$.

It is clear that $`i()=2`$. If $`T[,\theta ]`$ were isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$ then since $`\mathrm{}_1`$ has a unique – up to equivalence – normalized unconditional basis, there would exist a constant $`C>0`$ such that for all $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{C}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|a_i\right|\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_ie_iC\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|a_i\right|.$$

Now taking $`x={\displaystyle \underset{i=2^k+1}{\overset{2^{k+1}}{}}}e_i`$ we would obtain $`2^k1C`$ for all $`k\mathrm{}`$.

We now examine $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ with $`i(_k)=1,kJ`$. We will find different subspaces depending on whether the set $`{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}_k`$ contains only a finite number of non singleton sets or not.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`I^{}I`$ be such that $`{\displaystyle \underset{kI^{}}{}}_k`$ contains only a finite number of non singleton sets.

(1) If $`I^{}I`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ is isomorphic to $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kII^{}}\right]`$.

(2) If $`I^{}=I`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ is isomorphic to $`c_0`$.

Proof: $`(1).`$ Let $``$ and $`^{}`$ be the norms of the spaces $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ and $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kII^{}}\right]`$, respectively. We will see that they are equivalent. Clearly, $`^{}`$.

For the other inequality let $`M=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{max}E|E{\displaystyle \underset{kI^{}}{}}_k,\text{non singleton}\}`$ and write $`x={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ie_i={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}a_ie_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i=M+1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ie_i:=x_1+x_2`$.

We have $`x_1Mx^{}`$ since $`x_1={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}a_ie_i{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\left|a_i\right|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{M}{}}}x_{\mathrm{}}Mx^{}.`$

On the other hand, we show first by induction over $`s`$ that $`\left|x_2\right|_s\left|x_2\right|_s^{}`$. For $`s=0`$ it is clear. Suppose now that it is true for $`s`$ and let $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_n`$ be a sequence of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`_k`$ admissible for some $`k`$. There are two possibilities, either $`kII^{}`$ and then $`\theta _k{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|E_ix_2\right|_s\theta _k{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|E_ix_2\right|_s^{}\left|x_2\right|_{s+1}^{}`$, or $`kI^{}`$ and then, by hypothesis, $`n=1`$, $`E_1`$ is $`_k`$admissible and $`\theta _k\left|E_1x_2\right|_s\theta _k\left|x_2\right|_s\left|x_2\right|_s^{}\left|x_2\right|_{s+1}^{}`$.

Therefore, $`x_2x_2^{}`$ and by $`1`$unconditionality, $`x_2^{}x^{}`$. Thus, $`x^{}x(M+1)x^{}`$.

For $`(2)`$, it is easy to see that $`T(_0,\theta _0)`$ is isomorphic to $`c_0`$, where $`_0=\{\{i\}|i\mathrm{}\}`$, and $`\theta _0=1`$. Now use (1) to get that $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ is isomorphic to $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI\{0\}}\right]`$ and once again to see that the latter is isomorphic to $`T(_0,\theta _0).`$

Proposition 2 for $`I^{}=J`$ yields

###### Proposition 3

Let $`J=\{kI|\theta _k=1\}`$.

(1) Let $`{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}_k`$ contain only a finite number of non singleton sets.

1.1. If $`J=I`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ is isomorphic to $`c_0`$.

1.2. If $`JI`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ is isomorphic to $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kIJ}\right]`$.

(2) Let $`{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}_k`$ contain an infinite number of non singleton sets. Then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

Proof: $`(1)`$ follows from Proposition 2. For $`(2)`$, we will construct a subsequence $`(e_{n_i})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ equivalent to the $`\mathrm{}_1`$ basis.

Let $`M_1{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}_k`$ be a non singleton. Let $`n_1=\mathrm{min}M_1`$. Having chosen $`n_i`$, we can take $`M_{i+1}{\displaystyle \underset{kJ}{}}_k`$ a non singleton such that $`\mathrm{min}M_{i+1}>\mathrm{max}M_i`$, and take $`n_{i+1}=\mathrm{min}M_{i+1}`$.

Consider the sequence $`(e_{n_i})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and let’s show that it is equivalent to the $`\mathrm{}_1`$ basis.

Let $`x={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ie_{n_i}`$. By the definition of the norm and the fact that for every $`N\mathrm{}`$ and $`i<N`$, $`(\{n_i\},[n_{i+1},n_N]\mathrm{}\})`$ is $`_k`$admissible for some $`kJ`$ we have

$$x\left|a_1\right|+\underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}a_ie_{n_i}\mathrm{}\left|a_1\right|+\left|a_2\right|+\mathrm{}+\left|a_N\right|.$$

The proof is complete since always $`xx_1`$.

Observe that in statement (2) of Proposition 3 we do not ensure $`\mathrm{}_1`$ saturation. Actually, in some cases we can also find $`c_0`$ as a subspace. This is a consequence of the following general result.

###### Proposition 4

Let $`_k`$ be compact and hereditary for all $`kI\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta _k(0,1]`$ for all $`kI`$. If for all $`N\mathrm{}`$ there exists $`nN`$ such that for all $`M{\displaystyle \underset{kI}{}}_k`$ either $`n<\mathrm{min}M`$ or $`n\mathrm{max}M`$, then $`T\left[(_k,\theta _k)_{kI}\right]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`c_0`$. Moreover, if $`\theta _k=1`$ for all $`kI`$, the converse is true.

Proof: We will construct a subsequence $`(e_{n_i})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the basis $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ equivalent to the basis of $`c_0`$.

Let $`N_1=1`$. By hypothesis there exists $`n_1N_1`$ such that for all $`M{\displaystyle \underset{kI}{}}_k`$, $`n_1<\mathrm{min}M`$ or $`n_1\mathrm{max}M`$.

Suppose that $`n_i`$ is chosen and write $`N_{i+1}=n_i+1`$. Then there exists $`n_{i+1}N_{i+1}`$ verifying the hypothesis. Now, consider the sequence $`(e_{n_i})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

Let $`x={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ie_{n_i}c_{00}`$ and write $`\left|x\right|_0=x_{\mathrm{}}`$ as in Remark 3.

Let $`(E_i)_{i=1}^n`$ be a sequence of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$, $`_k`$ admissible for some $`kI`$. Then we have $`\theta _k{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|E_ix\right|_0=\theta _k\left|E_{i_0}x\right|_0\left|x\right|_0`$ and so $`\left|x\right|_1\left|x\right|_0`$. Indeed, the first equality is true since by the construction of $`(n_i)`$, there exists at most one $`E_i`$ such that $`supp(x)E_i\mathrm{}`$ and the inequality is straightforward by 1-unconditionality. So we have proved that $`\left|x\right|_1=\left|x\right|_0`$ and therefore $`\left|x\right|_n=\left|x\right|_{n+1}`$ and $`x=x_{\mathrm{}}`$.

The converse is a consequence of the following

CLAIM: If there is an $`N_0`$ such that for all $`nN_0`$, there exists $`M{\displaystyle \underset{kI}{}}_k`$ such that $`\mathrm{min}Mn<\mathrm{max}M`$, then every normalized block sequence in $`T[(_k,1)_{kI}]`$ has a subsequence equivalent to the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and in particular, $`T[(_k,1)_{kI}]`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$saturated.

Proof of CLAIM: Let $`(x_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a normalized block sequence. Let $`i_1`$ be such that $`N_0\mathrm{min}x_{i_1}`$. We split $`x_{i_1}={\displaystyle \underset{k=p_1+1}{\overset{p_2}{}}}a_ke_k`$ in the following manner:

Let $`A^{(1)}(x_{i_1})=\left\{j>\mathrm{min}x_{i_1}\right|\{t,j\}{\displaystyle \underset{kI}{}}_k,t\mathrm{min}x_{i_1}\}`$. By hypothesis $`A^{(1)}(x_{i_1})`$ is not empty and $`j^{(1)}(x_{i_1}):=\mathrm{min}A^{(1)}(x_{i_1})>\mathrm{min}x_{i_1}`$.

Therefore,

$$x_{i_1}=\underset{k=p_1+1}{\overset{p_2}{}}a_ke_k=\underset{k=p_1+1}{\overset{j^{(1)}(x_{i_1})1}{}}a_ke_k+\underset{k=j^{(1)}(x_{i_1})}{\overset{p_2}{}}a_ke_k:=x_{i_1}^{(1)}+u^{(1)}.$$

Let $`y_{i_1}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{x_{i_1}^{(1)}}{x_{i_1}^{(1)}}}`$. Suppose $`y_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is defined and we have $`x_{i_1}=x_{i_1}^{(1)}+\mathrm{}+x_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{})}+u^{(\mathrm{})}`$. If $`u^{(\mathrm{})}0`$, define $`x_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{}+1)}=\left(u^{(\mathrm{})}\right)^{(1)}`$ and $`y_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{}+1)}={\displaystyle \frac{x_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{}+1)}}{x_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{}+1)}}}`$ and keep going until we have $`u^{(d_1)}=0`$ for some $`d_1\mathrm{}`$. Then we have $`x_{i_1}={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d_1}{}}}x_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{})}y_{i_1}^{(\mathrm{})}.`$

Now, take $`i_2`$ such that $`supp(x_{i_2})>j^{(d_1)}(x_{i_1})`$ and split it as before. Continuing in this manner, we obtain a sequence

$$(y_{i_1}^{(1)},y_{i_1}^{(2)},\mathrm{},y_{i_1}^{(d_1)},y_{i_2}^{(1)},\mathrm{},y_{i_2}^{(d_2)},\mathrm{},y_{i_n}^{(1)},\mathrm{},y_{i_n}^{(d_n)},\mathrm{}):=(u_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}.$$

For this sequence we have

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_ku_k=\left|a_1\right|+\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}a_ku_k=\mathrm{}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left|a_k\right|,$$

that is, $`(u_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is equivalent to the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{}_1`$. But $`(x_{i_k})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a block sequence of $`(u_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and therefore it is also equivalent to the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

###### Remark 4

1. Observe that, in particular, the hypothesis of Proposition 4 implies that $`i(_k)=1`$ for all $`kI`$.

2. The proof of the converse of Proposition 4 states that either $`T[(_k,1)_{kI}]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`c_0`$ or $`T[(_k,1)_{kI}]`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$saturated.

We now give an example of a Tsirelson type space which contains $`\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`c_0`$.

###### Example 2

Let $`=\{F\mathrm{}|i\mathrm{}\text{ such that }F\{2i1,2i\}\}`$. $`T(,1)`$ contains $`\mathrm{}_1`$ by Proposition 3 and $`c_0`$ by Proposition 4. Moreover, it is easy to see that the space is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1c_0`$.

2. The case $`(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ In view of the previous results, in this section we will consider Tsirelson type spaces defined by finite sequences $`(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`\theta _k(0,1)`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. The main result of the section is

###### Theorem 1

Let $`i(_k)=n_k\mathrm{}`$ and $`\theta _k(0,1)`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$.

1. If $`\theta _k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}`$ for all $`k`$ then $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is $`c_0`$saturated.

2. If $`\theta _k>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}`$ for some $`k`$ then $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is $`\mathrm{}_p`$saturated for some $`p(1,+\mathrm{})`$.

Our proof of this theorem is based on Theorem 2 below, proved in . In order to state it we first need some definitions.

###### Definition 5

Let $`m\mathrm{}`$ and $`\varphi K_mK_{m1}`$. An analysis of $`\varphi `$ is any sequence $`\{K^s(\varphi )\}_{s=0}^m`$ of subsets of $`K`$ such that for every $`s`$,

1. $`K^s(\varphi )`$ consists of successive elements of $`K_s`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{fK^s(\varphi )}{}}supp(f)=supp(\varphi )`$.

2. If $`fK^{s+1}(\varphi )`$ then either $`fK^s(\varphi )`$ or there exists $`k`$ and successive $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_dK^s(\varphi )`$ with $`(supp(f_1),\mathrm{},supp(f_d))`$ $`_k\mathrm{admissible}`$ and $`f=\theta _k(f_1+\mathrm{}+f_d)`$.

3. $`K^m(\varphi )=\{\varphi \}`$.

###### Definition 6

1. Let $`\varphi K_mK_{m1}`$ and let $`\{K^s(\varphi )\}_{s=0}^m`$ be a fixed analysis of $`\varphi `$. Then for a given finite block sequence $`(x_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ we set for every $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$

$$s_k=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{max}\{s|0s<m\text{, and there are at least two }f_1,f_2K^s(\varphi )\hfill & \\ \text{ such that }|supp(f_i)supp(x_k)|>0,i=1,2\},\hfill & \\ \text{when this set is non - empty}\hfill & \\ & \\ 0\text{if }\left|supp(x_k)supp(\varphi )\right|1.\hfill & \end{array}$$

2. For $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ we define the initial part and the final part of $`x_k`$ with respect to $`\{K^s(\varphi )\}_{s=0}^m`$, and denote them respectively by $`x_k^{}`$ and $`x_k^{\prime \prime },`$ as follows: If $`\{fK^{s_k}(\varphi )|supp(f)supp(x_k)\mathrm{}\}:=\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_d\}`$ with $`f_1<\mathrm{}<f_d`$, we set $`x_k^{}=(supp(f_1))x_k`$ and $`x_k^{\prime \prime }=\left(_{i=2}^dsupp(f_i)\right)x_k`$.

###### Notation

Let $`m\mathrm{},\varphi K^mK^{m1}`$, let $`\{K^s(\varphi )\}_{s=0}^m`$ be an analysis of $`\varphi `$, $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ a block sequence and $`(x_j)_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ a block sequence with $`x_jSpan\{v_ii\mathrm{}\}`$. Suppose that there exists $`n_\varphi `$ such that $`supp(\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n_\varphi }{}}}supp(x_j)`$ and denote by $`x_j^{}`$ and $`x_j^{\prime \prime }`$ the initial and the final part of $`x_j`$, $`jn_\varphi `$. For all $`f=\theta _k(f_1+\mathrm{}+f_d)K^s(\varphi )`$ and $`J\{1,\mathrm{},n_\varphi \}`$ we define the following sets for $`(x_j^{})`$:

$$I^{}=\{i|1id\text{ and }supp(f_i)supp(x_j^{})\mathrm{}\text{ for at least two different }jJ\}$$

and for every $`iI`$,

$$D_{f_i}^{}=\{jJ|supp(f_i)supp(x_j^{})\mathrm{}\text{ and }(supp(f)supp(x_j^{}))supp(f_i)supp(v_t)\text{ for some }t\}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill T^{}=\{jJ& |j\underset{iI^{}}{}D_{f_i}^{}\text{ and }t_1t_2\hfill \\ & \text{ such that }supp(x_j^{})(_{iI^{}}supp(f_i))supp(v_{t_i})\mathrm{},i=1,2\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In the same manner we define sets $`I^{\prime \prime },D_{f_i}^{\prime \prime },T^{\prime \prime }`$ exchanging $`x_j^{}`$ for $`x_j^{\prime \prime }`$.

###### Theorem 2 ()

Given $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ with $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta _k(0,1)`$ and $`i(_k)=n_k\mathrm{}`$, for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$, let $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a normalized block sequence. If there exists a sequence $`x_j={\displaystyle \underset{iI_j}{}}a_iv_i`$ with $`(a_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ and $`(I_j)_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ successive such that

(a) $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{j+1}}}\left|a_j\right|<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^j}}`$ and

(b) for all $`m\mathrm{},\varphi K^mK^{m1}`$, each analysis $`\{K^s(\varphi )\}_{s=1}^m`$ of $`\varphi `$, all $`f=\theta _k(f_1+\mathrm{}+f_d)K^s(\varphi )`$, and all $`J\{1,\mathrm{},n_\varphi \}`$, the inequalities $`\left|I^{}\right|+\left|T^{}\right|n_k`$ and $`\left|I^{\prime \prime }\right|+\left|T^{\prime \prime }\right|n_k`$ hold,then $`(x_j)_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is equivalent to the canonical basis of $`T[(𝒜_{n_k},\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$.

Recall, see , that the space $`T[(𝒜_{n_k},\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is either isometrically isomorphic to $`c_0`$, when $`n_k\theta _k1`$ for all $`k`$, or isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_p`$, where $`p=min\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mathrm{log}_{n_k}\frac{1}{\theta _k}}}\right|n_k\theta _k>1\}.`$ So, to prove Theorem 1 we need to find the sequence $`(x_j)_{j=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the next lemma will be useful for constructing it.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta _k(0,1)`$ and $`_k`$ be such that $`i(_k)=n_k\mathrm{}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Then for every block sequence $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ there exists an infinite subset $`𝒫=\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ and a subsequence $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ having the following properties:

(a) $`p_1supp(v_1)<p_2supp(v_2)<\mathrm{}<p_isupp(v_i)<p_{i+1}\mathrm{}`$

(b) For every sequence $`E_1<E_2\mathrm{}<E_{n_k}`$ of finite subsets of $`𝒫`$, where $`E_i=\{p_{\mathrm{}_1^i},\mathrm{},p_{\mathrm{}_{t_i}^i}\},i=1,\mathrm{},n_k`$, the family

$$(\underset{j=\mathrm{}_1^1}{\overset{\mathrm{}_{t_1}^1}{}}supp(v_j),\mathrm{},\underset{j=\mathrm{}_1^{n_k}}{\overset{\mathrm{}_{t_{n_k}}^{n_k}}{}}supp(v_j))$$

is $`_k`$admissible.

(c) If $`rn_k+1,S=\{s_1,\mathrm{}s_r\}\mathrm{}`$ is such that

$$\left|\{j\mathrm{}|[s_i,s_{i+1}]supp(v_j)\mathrm{}\}\right|2$$

for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$, then $`S_k`$.

Proof: The proof is based on the following result from :

###### Lemma 2

Let $`\mathrm{},n_1,\mathrm{},n_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$. Let $`_k,k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ be such that $`i(_k)=n_k`$. Then there exists an infinite subset $`Q`$ of $`\mathrm{}`$ having the following properties:

1. Let $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Every sequence $`E_1<E_2\mathrm{}<E_{n_k}`$ of length $`n_k`$ of finite subsets of $`Q`$ is $`_k`$admissible.

2. Let $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$. If $`rn_k+1`$, then no sequence $`E_1<E_2\mathrm{}<E_r`$ of finite subsets of $`Q`$ with $`\left|E_i\right|2`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, is $`_K`$admissible.

Now, let $`Q=\{k_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the sequence in Lemma 2. Take $`p_1=k_1`$, and $`v_1=u_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`p_1supp(u_{\mathrm{}})`$. Having chosen $`p_i`$ and $`v_i`$ with $`p_isupp(v_i)`$, since $`\{k_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is increasing, let $`k_{j_i}`$ be such that $`p_isupp(v_i)<k_{j_i}`$, and take $`p_{i+1}=k_{j_i+1}`$ and $`v_{i+1}=u_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`p_{i+1}supp(u_{\mathrm{}})`$.

The sequences $`\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfy the assertions of Lemma 1:

(a) By construction.

(b) It is sufficient to see that $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}_1^i}{\overset{\mathrm{}_{t_i}^i}{}}}supp(v_j)[p_{\mathrm{}_1^i},p_{\mathrm{}_{t_i}^i}]`$ and, since the family $`\left\{\{p_{\mathrm{}_1^i},p_{\mathrm{}_{t_i}^i}\}\right\}_{i=1}^{n_k}`$ is $`_k`$admissible by Lemma 2, $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}_1^i}{\overset{\mathrm{}_{t_i}^i}{}}}supp(v_j)\right)_{i=1}^{n_k}`$ is also $`_k`$admissible.

(c) Let $`S=\{s_1,\mathrm{},s_r\}`$ be such that $`\left|\{j\mathrm{}|[s_i,s_{i+1}]supp(v_j)\mathrm{}\}\right|2`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$, let $`d_i=\mathrm{min}\{j\mathrm{}|[s_i,s_{i+1}]supp(v_j)\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`k_{j_{d_i}}`$ and $`p_{d_i+1}[s_i,s_{i+1}]Q`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$, and by the property (2) of Lemma 2, $`S_k`$.

Proof: (of Theorem 1). It suffices to show that $`c_0`$ or $`\mathrm{}_p`$ is included in every block subspace of $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$.

Let $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a normalized block sequence. Let $`𝒫=\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the sequences associated to $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ from Lemma 1.

If $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{sup}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}v_i`$ is finite, then $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is equivalent to the canonical basis of $`c_0`$, and from Corollary 1 of  we have $`n_k\theta _k1`$.

Suppose now that $`\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}}v_i=\mathrm{}`$. Then we can construct a sequence $`(y_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ supported by the subsequence $`(v_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with the following properties: For every $`j,y_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{j+1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{iI_j}{}}v_i`$, where

(i) $`I_j`$ are successive intervals of $`\mathrm{}`$, and

(ii) $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{j+1}}}y_j1`$.

If $`x_j={\displaystyle \frac{y_j}{y_j}}`$, the sequence $`x_j`$ satisfies condition (a) of Theorem 2.

We prove condition (b) of Theorem 2 for the initial parts of $`(x_j)`$ since for the final parts the proof is analogous. Suppose that $`\varphi ,f`$ and $`J`$ are fixed. Let $`m_1supp(f_1)<m_2supp(f_2)<\mathrm{}<m_dsupp(f_d)`$. We define $`B\{m_1,\mathrm{},m_d\}`$ as follows:

$$m_{i_s}B\{\begin{array}{cc}i_sI^{},\hfill & \\ i_s=\mathrm{min}\{iI^{}|supp(x_j^{})supp(f_i)\mathrm{}\}\text{ for some }jT^{}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let $`m_{i_1}<\mathrm{}<m_{i_r}`$ be the elements of $`B`$. Observing that

$$\left|\left\{t\mathrm{}\right|[m_{i_s},m_{i_{s+1}}]supp(v_t)\}\right|2,1sr1$$

and using property (c) of Lemma 1 we get that $`r=\left|B\right|n_k`$. So $`\left|I^{}\right|+\left|T^{}\right|n_k`$.

The proof of the next two corollaries easily follows from Theorem 1 from this paper and Corollaries 1 and 2 from .

###### Corollary 1

Let $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$, $`1<p<\mathrm{}`$, $`n_k=i(_k)`$ and $`\theta _k(0,1)`$. The following conditions are equivalent:

i) $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_p`$.

ii) $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is $`\mathrm{}_p`$saturated.

iii) $`i(_k)`$ is finite, $`\theta _k>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}`$ for some $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ and $`p=\mathrm{min}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mathrm{log}_{n_k}\frac{1}{\theta _k}}}|n_k\theta _k>1\right\}`$.

###### Corollary 2

Let $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$, $`\theta _k(0,1)`$. The following conditions are equivalent:

i) $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`c_0`$.

ii) $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is $`c_0`$saturated.

iii) $`i(_k)`$ is finite and $`\theta _k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i(_k)}}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$.

In view of Proposition 1 and the previous corollaries we can include the case $`\mathrm{}_1`$ in the discussion.

###### Corollary 3

Let $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$, $`2i(_k)\mathrm{}`$ and $`\theta _k(0,1]`$. The following conditions are equivalent:

i) $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

ii) $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is $`\mathrm{}_1`$saturated.

iii) $`\theta _k=1`$ for some $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$

So in particular we have proved the following criterion, which is useful to show when two Tsirelson type Banach spaces are totally incomparable.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}`$, $`\theta _k(0,1)`$ and $`i(_k)=n_k\mathrm{}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ and $`\theta _k^{}(0,1)`$ and $`i(_k^{})=n_k^{}\mathrm{}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}`$. Then $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ and $`T[(_k^{},\theta _k^{})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}^{}}]`$ are totally incomparable if and only if one of the following situations occurs:

1. $`\theta _k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ and $`\theta _k^{}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k^{}}}`$ for some $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}\}`$, or

2. $`\theta _k^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k^{}}}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`\theta _k>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}`$ for some $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$, or

3. $`\theta _k>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k}}`$ for some $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`\theta _k^{}>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n_k^{}}}`$ for some $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^{}\}`$ and

$$\mathrm{min}\left\{\frac{1}{1\mathrm{log}_{n_k}\frac{1}{\theta _k}}|n_k\theta _k>1\right\}\mathrm{min}\left\{\frac{1}{1\mathrm{log}_{n_k^{}}\frac{1}{\theta _k^{}}}|n_k^{}\theta _k^{}>1\right\}.$$

Also we obtain a characterization of the reflexivity of this kind of spaces as in .

###### Proposition 5

Let $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\theta _k(0,1)`$ and $`i(_k)=n_k\mathrm{}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`T[(_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is reflexive.

2. $`\theta _k>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i(_k)}}`$ for some $`k\{1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}\}`$.

3. A criterion of total incomparability for spaces of the form $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ We will suppose throughout the section that $`(\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}(0,1]`$ is a non increasing null sequence since $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is easily seen to be isometric to $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k^{})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ where $`\theta _k^{}=sup\{\theta _jjk\}`$ and $`inf\{\theta _k\}>0`$ implies that $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

The following properties of such spaces, stated as lemmas, are known.

###### Lemma 3

Let $`(u_i)_{i=1}^n`$ be a normalized block sequence in $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$. Then for all $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_ie_i\underset{i=i}{\overset{n}{}}a_iu_i.$$

Proof: It is easy to prove by induction on $`s`$ that $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}a_ie_i\right|_s{\displaystyle \underset{i=i}{\overset{n}{}}}a_iu_i`$.

The following lemma was proved in  with $`\theta _k=(\mathrm{log}_2(1+k))^1`$, but the same proof works for any $`\theta _k`$ converging to zero.

###### Lemma 4 ()

Let $`T\left[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\right]`$, let $`\theta _k`$ converge to $`0`$. Let $`(y_n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a block sequence, let a strictly decreasing null sequence $`(\epsilon _n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^+`$ and a strictly increasing sequence $`(k_n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ be such that for each $`n`$ there is a normalized block sequence $`(y(n,i))_{i=1}^{k_n},(1+\epsilon _n)`$equivalent to the $`\mathrm{}_1^{k_n}`$ basis and $`y_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k_n}{}}}y(n,i)`$. Then for all $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{n_1\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n_2\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{}\underset{n_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_{n_i}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_i.$$

We will consider spaces such that $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is finitely block represented in every block subspace of the space but not containing $`\mathrm{}_1`$. The role of $`\mathrm{}_1`$ in this context, as well as that of $`c_0`$, can be easily described:

###### Proposition 6

The following conditions are equivalent:

i) The identity is an isometric isomorphism from $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ onto $`c_0`$.

ii) $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`c_0`$.

iii) For all $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`_{i=1}^ne_i=1`$.

iv) $`\theta _k1/k`$ for all $`k\mathrm{}`$.

Proof: $`ii)iii)`$: By the Bessaga-Pelcynski Principle and a theorem of R.C. James (see e.g. , pg. 97), for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists a normalized block sequence $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that for all $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$,

$$\mathrm{max}|a_i|\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_iu_i(1+\epsilon )\mathrm{max}|a_i|a_1\mathrm{}a_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}$$

and so by Lemma 3, $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e_i(1+\epsilon )`$ and iii) follows. $`iii)iv)`$: This is clear since $`\theta \mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e_i`$. $`iv)i)`$: By induction on $`m\mathrm{}`$ it easily follows that $`||_m=||_0`$ on $`c_{00}`$.

###### Proposition 7

Let $`T\left[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\right]`$, let $`\theta _k`$ converge to $`0`$ . The following conditions are equivalent:

i) The identity is an isometric isomorphism from $`T\left[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\right]`$ onto $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

ii) $`T\left[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\right]`$ contains a subspace isomorphic to $`\mathrm{}_1`$.

iii) For all $`n\mathrm{}`$, $`_{i=1}^ne_i=n`$.

iv) $`\theta _2=1`$.

Proof: $`ii)iii)`$. Choose a strictly decreasing sequence $`(\epsilon _n))_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}_+`$ converging to $`0`$ and $`k_n=n`$. We will construct a block sequence $`(y_n)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ as in Lemma 4 above.

By James’ Theorem let $`(u_i))_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a normalized block sequence $`(1+\epsilon _1)`$equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Let $`y_1=u_1`$. Again by James’ theorem there exist a normalized block sequence $`(u_i^{}))_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`u_i^{}Span\{u_ii\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`y_1<u_1^{}`$, $`(1+\epsilon _2)`$equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Let $`y_2=\frac{1}{2}(u_1^{}+u_2^{})`$. We continue in the same way.

Let $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Since any block sequence $`(y_{n_i})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`(1+\epsilon _1)`$equivalent to the unit vector basis of $`\mathrm{}_1^{\mathrm{}}`$, by Lemma 4 we have

$$(1\epsilon _1)\mathrm{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_i\mathrm{}$$

and the result follows. $`iii)iv):`$ Just notice that $`2=e_1+e_2=2\theta _2`$. $`iv)i):`$ This follows by induction on $`|supp(x)|`$.

We now give sufficient conditions, in terms of the behaviour of $`\lambda _n:={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}e_i`$, guaranteeing that in a space of this kind $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is finitely block represented in every block subspace.

###### Proposition 8 ()

Let $`n,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},0<\epsilon <1`$. Let $`(X,)`$ be a normed space with a normalized 1-unconditional normalized basis $`(e_i)_{i=1}^n^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$(n\epsilon )^{\mathrm{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n^{\mathrm{}}}{}}e_in^{\mathrm{}}.$$

Then there exists a normalized block sequence $`(y_i)_{i=1}^n`$ of $`(e_i)_{i=1}^n^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$n\epsilon \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}y_in.$$

Moreover, $`(y_i)_{i=1}^n`$ is $`\frac{1}{1\epsilon }`$-equivalent to the canonical basis of $`\mathrm{}_1^n`$.

###### Proposition 9

Let $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$, let $`\theta _k`$ converge to $`0`$. If there exists $`(n_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ unbounded and $`(\mathrm{}_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that

$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[n_k\left(\lambda _{n_k^\mathrm{}_k}\right)^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_k}}\right]=0,$$

then $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is finitely block represented in every block subspace of $`T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$.

Proof: Given $`n\mathrm{}`$ and $`0<\epsilon <1`$, take $`k\mathrm{}`$ such that $`n_k>n`$ and $`n_k\left(\lambda _{n_k^\mathrm{}_k}\right)^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_k}}<\epsilon `$. Let $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a normalized block sequence. Then

$$n_k^\mathrm{}_k\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_k^\mathrm{}_k}{}}u_i\underset{i=1}{\overset{n_k^\mathrm{}_k}{}}e_i=\lambda _{n_k^\mathrm{}_k}(n_k\epsilon )^\mathrm{}_k$$

and, by Proposition 8, $`\mathrm{}_1^{n_k}`$ is finitely block represented in blocks of $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Remark 5

By similar arguments it is easy to prove that the following condition is also sufficient:

1. There exits $`m2`$ such that $`\underset{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{lim}(\lambda _m^{\mathrm{}})^\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}=m`$.

We can also give sufficient conditions for the sequence $`(\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$:

2. There exists $`(n_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ unbounded and $`(\mathrm{}_k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}n_k\left[1\left(\theta _{n_k^\mathrm{}_k}\right)^{\frac{1}{\mathrm{}_k}}\right]=0`$ or

3. There exists $`m2`$ such that $`\underset{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{lim}(\theta _m^{\mathrm{}})^\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}=1`$ or, equivalently, $`\underset{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{lim}(\theta _m^{\mathrm{}})^\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}=1`$ for all $`m2`$.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`(X,)`$ and $`(X^{},^{})`$ be Banach spaces not totally incomparable with Schauder bases $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(e_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is shrinking, there exist block sequences $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(u_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(e_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ respectively such that the application $`T:\overline{Span}\{u_i|i\mathrm{}\}\overline{Span}\{u_i^{}|i\mathrm{}\}`$, given by $`T(u_i)=u_i^{}`$ for all $`i\mathrm{}`$ is an isomorphism.

Proof: There exist subspaces $`YX`$ and $`Y^{}X^{}`$ and an isomorphism $`S:YY^{}`$. We will see that for all $`\epsilon >0`$ we can find block sequences $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(u_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`(1\epsilon )SS^1TT^1(1+\epsilon )SS^1`$.

Let $`\epsilon >0`$. There exists a normalized block sequence $`(x_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\overline{Span}\{y_i|i\mathrm{}\}Y`$ such that the linear isomorphism defined by $`U(x_i)=y_i`$ verifies $`UU^11+\epsilon `$. Let $`y_i^{}:=S(y_i)`$ for all $`i\mathrm{}`$.

Since $`inf_i\mathrm{}y_i^{}>0`$ and $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a shrinking basis, $`y_i^{}`$ tends to $`0`$ weakly. So, by the Bessaga-Pelcynski principle, there is a subsequence $`(y_{i_k}^{})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and a block sequence $`(u_k^{})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(e_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that the isomorphism defined by $`V(y_{i_k}^{})=u_k^{}`$ verifies $`VV^11+\epsilon `$. Take $`u_k=x_{i_k}`$ and $`T=VSU`$.

###### Remark 6

Let $`X=T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}],\theta _k(0,1)`$. Since its canonical basis $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is unconditional, hence being shrinking is equivalent to $`\mathrm{}_1`$ not being isomorphic to any subspace of $`X`$ and this is the case by Proposition 7.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`X=T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k)_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ and $`X^{}=T[(𝒜_k,\theta _k^{})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}]`$ with $`\theta _k,\theta _k^{}(0,1)`$ be such that $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is finitely block represented in every block subspace of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$. If $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are not totally incomparable, then there exists $`C0`$ such that for all $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{C}\frac{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}}{\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}}C.$$
$`()`$
Proof: Denote by $``$ and $`^{}`$ the norms of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$, respectively. By Lemma 5, there exist block sequences $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}X`$ and $`(u_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}X^{}`$ of their respective bases denoted by $`(e_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`(e_i^{})_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that $`T:\overline{Span}\{u_i|i\mathrm{}\}\overline{Span}\{u_i^{}|i\mathrm{}\}`$, given by $`T(u_i)=u_i^{}`$ for all $`i\mathrm{}`$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, for all $`(a_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}`$ and $`n\mathrm{}`$,

$$\frac{1}{T}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iu_i^{}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iu_iT^1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_iu_i^{}^{}.$$

By Lemma 4, given $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$, there exists a normalized block sequence $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{\mathrm{}}`$ of $`(u_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, such that

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{}}\epsilon \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_i\lambda _{\mathrm{}}+\epsilon .$$

Let $`y_i^{}:=T(y_i)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _{\mathrm{}}+\epsilon & \underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_i\frac{1}{T}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_i^{}^{}=\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{T}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}y_i^{}^{}\frac{y_i^{}}{y_i^{}^{}}^{}\frac{1}{T}\underset{1i\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{min}}y_i^{}^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{y_i^{}}{y_i^{}^{}}^{}\hfill \\ & \frac{1}{TT^1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e_i^{}^{}=\frac{1}{TT^1}\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}\hfill \end{array}$$

(note that in the last inequality we use Lemma 3). Since the inequality is true for all $`\epsilon >0`$, we have proved that $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{TT^1}}\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}.`$

Now we reverse the roles of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ to obtain $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{TT^1}}\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}\lambda _{\mathrm{}}TT^1\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}.`$

###### Remark 7

If $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ contain isometric subspaces $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ , then $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}=\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ for all $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Actually, the same equality holds if for every $`\epsilon >0`$, $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ contain $`(1+\epsilon )`$isomorphic subspaces.

###### Remark 8

There are special cases when the calculus of $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ is easy. For instance when $`(\theta _k),(\theta _k^{})`$ belong to the so called class $``$ defined in  we have $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{}\theta _{\mathrm{}}`$ and the condition $`()`$ of Theorem 4 yields $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{C}}{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _{\mathrm{}}}{\theta _{\mathrm{}}^{}}}C`$ for all $`\mathrm{}`$ or $`\theta _{\mathrm{}}=\theta _{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ if we can find isometric subspaces or $`(1+\epsilon )`$isomorphic subspaces for all $`\epsilon >0.`$

###### Example 3

Let $`f_r(x)=\mathrm{log}_2^r(1+x)`$ with $`0<r<3\mathrm{log}21`$. Then $`(f_r^1(k))`$ and if $`0<r<s<3\mathrm{log}21`$, the spaces $`T\left[(𝒜_k,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_r(k)}})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\right]`$ and $`T\left[(𝒜_k,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_s(k)}})_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}\right]`$ are, by Theorem 4, totally incomparable. Moreover, it is easy to check that these spaces are also totally incomparable to $`\mathrm{}_p`$, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$ or $`c_0`$.

References

 S. A. Argyros and I. Deliyanni, Banach spaces of the type of Tsirelson, Preprint,1992.

 S. A. Argyros and I. Deliyanni, Examples of asymptotic $`\mathrm{}^1`$ Banach spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, 349 (1997), 973-995.

 Bellenot, Tsirelson superspaces and $`\mathrm{}_p`$, Journal of Functional Analysis, 69 (1986) 207-228.

 J. Bernués and I. Deliyanni, Families of finite subsets of $`\mathrm{}`$ of low complexity and Tsirelson type spaces, To appear in Math. Nach.

 J. Bernués and Th. Schlumprecht, El problema de la distorsión y el problema de la base incondicional, Colloquium del departamento de análisis. Universidad Complutense. Sección 1, 33 (1995).

 P.G. Casazza and T. Shura, Tsirelson’s Space, LNM 1363, Springer-Verlag, Berlín, 1989.

 T. Figiel and W.B. Johnson, A uniformly convex Banach space which contains no $`\mathrm{}_p`$, Compositio Math. 29 (1974), 179-190.

 J. Lindenstrauss and L. Tzafriri, Classical Banach Spaces I, II, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977.

 A. Manoussakis, On the structure of a certain class of mixed Tsirelson spaces, Preprint, 1999.

 E. Odell and T. Schlumprecht, A Banach space block finitely universal for monotone basis. To appear in Transactions of the Amer. Math. Soc.

 Th. Schlumprecht, An arbitrarily distortable Banach space, Israel Journal of Math. 76 (1991), 81-95.

 B.S. Tsirelson, Not every Banach space contains an embedding of $`\mathrm{}_p`$ or $`c_0`$, Funct. Analysis and Appl. 8 (1974), 138-141.

 L. Tzafriri, On the type and cotype of Banach spaces, Israel Journal of Math. 32 (1979), 32-38.

Julio Bernués and Javier Pascual

Departamento de Matemáticas

Universidad de Zaragoza.

50009-Zaragoza (España)

e-mail: bernues@posta.unizar.es


text:
# Acknowledgement

## Acknowledgement

SPD acknowledges the support from grant INT9615212 from NSF. UH acknowledges financial support from University Grant Commission, India.

## Figure Captions

Fig. 1 : nonergodicity parameters $`f_{11}(q^{})`$(solid line) and $`f_{22}(q^{})`$ (broken line) at $`\eta _c=.59`$, x=.8 and $`\alpha =.7`$. $`q^{}`$=q$`\sigma _2`$ is plotted along x axis. Inset shows $`q_m^{}`$(see text) Vs x plot for $`\alpha =.8`$ and $`\eta =.59`$

Fig. 2 : critical value of $`\eta _c`$ is plotted with $`x`$ for $`\alpha =0.8`$. Regions ”a” and ”b” represent liquid and glass phases respectively.

Fig. 3 : speed of shear mode $`c_T`$ is plotted as a function of x for two values of $`\alpha `$=0.85 (solid) and 0.90 (broken) at $`\eta =.57`$.