format: text

text:
# Number Operator Algebras

## 1 Introduction

In \[Bes1\] we have proposed a new way of looking at quantization. In this point of view, one should quantize the equations of evolution rather than the canonical commutation relations, the latter being a consequence of the former. In the case of a system of harmonic oscillators, which is crucial for field theory, we want to find algebras (over $`𝐂`$) of q-numbers generated by a set $`\{a_i|i\}`$ of so-called destruction operators, and a set $`\{a_i^+|i\}`$ of creation operators, conjugate to the former by an anti-involution which we denote by $`J`$. Our algebras will then have the structure of $``$-algebras. It should be stressed that the word “operator” is just a convention here, since no Hilbert space is a priori fixed. We require the existence of elements $`N_i`$, for all $`i`$, so that the following equations hold :

$$[N_i,a_j]=\delta _{ij}a_i$$
(1)
$$[N_i,a_j^+]=\delta _{ij}a_i^+$$
(2)
Since the base field $`𝐂`$ does not play a particular role, we will replace it by any field of characteristic 0.

In this article we propose to give a detailed account of the results obtained in our thesis, as well as a few novelties concerning Fock algebras. We will begin in the second section by defining precisely what we call a number operator algebra, and work out the first consequences of the definition. In the third section we will restrict to the case of quadratically confluent number operator algebras of finite type, and state the classification theorem. The proof is quite long, so we will not give it here in full. However we give an account of the demonstration, as detailed as we can, in section four. Then, we will tackle to the problem of n.o.a. of infinite type in section five. In particular we will show that we can do without the confluence hypothesis. Furthermore, only four out of the six different kinds of algebras we have found in the finite case remain. These algebras are precisely those which can be obtained as deformations of $`ϵ`$-Poisson algebras (a generalization of Super-Poisson algebras about which one can consult \[Sch\] or \[Bes2\]). In section six, we will prove a generalization of the classification theorem for n.o.a. of infinite type, in which we let the number operators belong to a certain completion of the algebra. We will see that this completion operation is natural in order to have a Fock representation. In this case, we will find two more solutions, namely $`q`$-bosonic and pseudo-$`q`$-bosonic algebras.

## 2 Definitions and first consequences

### 2.1 Definitions

We fix once for all $`K`$ a field of characteristic 0, $`\tau `$ an involution of $`K`$ (possibly the identity), and $`R`$ the sub-field of elements of $`K`$ fixed by $`\tau `$. For each cardinal number $`\alpha `$ we choose a representative set $`_\alpha `$. In particular if $`\alpha =n`$ is finite, we take $`_n=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}𝐍`$. All algebras are unital $`K`$-algebras and all morphisms preserve units. If $`A`$ is an algebra, we say that it is trivial iff $`A=0`$ or $`A=K`$. We denote by $`Z(A)`$ the center of $`A`$.

###### Definition 1

Let $`\alpha `$ be a cardinal number and $`B`$ be a non-trivial $`K`$-algebra. Let $`X_A=\{a_i|i_\alpha \}`$, $`X_{A^+}=\{a_i^+|i_\alpha \}`$, $`N=\{N_i|i_\alpha \}`$ be 3 sets indexed by $`_\alpha `$, with the $`a_i`$’s and $`a_i^+`$’s in $`B`$, and $`N_i`$’s in $`B/Z(B)`$. We call $`(B,X_A,X_{A^+},N)`$ a number operator algebra of type $`\alpha `$ if, and only if :

(i) $`B`$ is generated by $`X_AX_{A^+}`$ as an algebra.

(ii) One uniquely defines an anti-involution $`J`$ on $`B`$ by setting $`J(a_i)=a_i^+`$.

(iii) Equations (1) and (2) are fulfilled.

Remark : $`N_i`$ belongs to $`B/Z(B)`$ which is only a vector space, nevertheless the commutator of such an element with any element of $`B`$ is well defined, so that equations (1) and (2) make sense.

We have to define morphisms between two n.o.a. : we will only need to do so for n.o.a. of the same type. For a more general definition, see \[Bes1\].

###### Definition 2

Let $`(B,X_A,X_{A^+},N)`$ and $`(B^{},X_A^{},X_{A^+}^{},N^{})`$ be two n.o.a. of type $`\alpha `$, and let $`f`$ be an algebra homomorphism from $`B`$ to $`B^{}`$. We will say that $`f`$ is a morphism of n.o.a. iff :

(i) $`fJ=J^{}f`$

(ii) $`f(Z(B))Z(B^{})`$

(iii) There exists a bijection $`\varphi :_\alpha _\alpha `$ such that $`f(N_i)N_{\varphi (i)}^{}+Z(B^{})`$

It is easy to see that n.o.a. of type $`\alpha `$ and their morphisms form a category.

We are now going to define another category, in which all creation (resp. destruction) operators play a symmetric role. We will denote by $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$ the group of permutations of $`_\alpha `$ that leave all but a finite number of elements invariant.

###### Definition 3

Let $`B`$ be a n.o.a. of type $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$ be the group of permutations of $`_\alpha `$ with finite support. We will say that $`B`$ is symmetric iff for all $`\sigma \mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$ the prescription $`a_ia_{\sigma (i)}`$ uniquely defines an automorphism $`\sigma ^{}`$ of $`B`$ commuting with $`J`$.

###### Definition 4

A n.o.a. morphism $`f`$ between two symmetric n.o.a. of type $`\alpha `$ will be called symmetric iff it commutes with $`\sigma ^{}`$, $`\sigma \mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$.

Let $`(B,X_A,X_{A^+},N)`$ be a n.o.a. of type $`\alpha `$, set $`X=X_AX_{A^+}`$, and let $`X`$ be the free monoid, $`L_\alpha =KX`$ the free algebra, generated by $`X`$. Thus, the elements of $`L_\alpha `$ are of the form $`x=_i\lambda _ix_i`$, with $`\lambda _iK`$, $`x_iX`$. The set of those monomials $`x_i`$ such that $`\lambda _i0`$ is called the support of $`x`$, it is a finite set. The $`\lambda _ix_i`$’s are called the terms of $`x`$.

We call $`\pi `$ the canonical projection from $`L_\alpha `$ onto $`B`$, and $`I`$ the kernel of $`\pi `$.

There is an anti-involution on $`L_\alpha `$ sending $`a_i`$ to $`a_i^+`$. We also denote it by $`J`$. The symmetric group $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$ also acts on $`L_\alpha `$ in an obvious way. If $`B`$ is symmetric this action commutes with $`\pi `$. Since everything is commuting with $`\pi `$ we will often drop it from the notations : whether an element belongs to $`L_\alpha `$ or $`B`$ should be clear from the context.

###### Definition 5

If $`I`$ is generated by quadratic elements we say that $`B`$ is a quadratic n.o.a.

Remark : What we call a quadratic element is an element of degree $`2`$. If it has no term of degree $`1`$ we call it homogenous quadratic.

### 2.2 A few lemmas

We denote by $`𝐙^{(\alpha )}`$ the direct sum $`_{i_\alpha }𝐙`$. Its elements are mappings $`p:_\alpha 𝐙`$ with a finite support.

For all $`i_\alpha `$ we define the derivation $`𝒩_i:L_\alpha L_\alpha `$ on the generators by $`𝒩_i(a_j)=\delta _{ij}a_i`$ and $`𝒩_i(a_j^+)=\delta _{ij}a_i^+`$. The following trivial lemma has important consequences :

###### Lemma 1

If $`B`$ is a n.o.a. then the diagram of vector spaces :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_\alpha & \stackrel{𝒩_i}{}& L_\alpha \\ \pi & & \pi \\ B& \stackrel{ad(N_i)}{}& B\end{array}$$

commutes for all $`i_\alpha `$.

###### Corollary 1

$`B`$ is a $`𝐙^{(\alpha )}`$-graded algebra. More precisely : $`L_\alpha ={\displaystyle \underset{p𝐙^{(\alpha )}}{}}L_\alpha ^p`$, $`B={\displaystyle \underset{p𝐙^{(\alpha )}}{}}B^p`$, $`I={\displaystyle \underset{p𝐙^{(\alpha )}}{}}(IL_\alpha ^p)`$, with $`L_\alpha ^p=\{xL_\alpha |i𝒩_i(x)=p(i)x\}`$, and $`B^p=\{yB|ad(N_i)(y)=p(i)y\}`$.

###### Corollary 2

$$i,j[N_i,N_j]=0$$

Proof :
To prove the lemma, one just has to verify that $`\pi (𝒩_i(x))=[N_i,\pi (x)]`$ for $`xX`$ since ad$`(N_i)=[N_i,.]`$ is a (inner) derivation.

For the corollary 1 just notice that $`𝒩_i𝒩_j=𝒩_j𝒩_i`$ for all $`i,j`$. Then according to lemma 1 we also have $`[`$ad$`(N_i),`$ad$`(N_j)]=0`$, where $`[,]`$ is the commutator in End$`(B)`$. Thus we can decompose each space into common eigenspaces for the appropriate family of commuting endomorphisms.

Let us prove corollary 2 : $`xB`$, $`0=[`$ad$`(N_i),`$ad$`(N_j)](x)=`$ad$`([N_i,N_j])(x)`$. Thus $`[N_i,N_j]Z(B)`$. But the central elements commute with all $`N_i`$, thus $`Z(B)B^0`$. Now, if $`N_j=_{p𝐙^\alpha }N_j^p`$, then $`i`$ :

$$[N_i,N_j]=\underset{p𝐙^\alpha }{}p(i)N_j^pB^0$$

$$i,p0,p(i)N_j^p=0$$

$$N_jB^0[N_i,N_j]=0$$

QED.

Let us notice that the action of the derivations $`𝒩_i`$ (resp. $`[N_i,.]`$) on a monomial $`x`$ is to multiply it by the integer $`n_i(x)`$, which is the number of $`a_i^+`$ minus the number of $`a_i`$ appearing in $`x`$. We will call $`n_i(x)`$ the i-number of $`x`$. More generally if $`x`$ belongs to an eigenspace of $`𝒩_i`$ or ad$`(N_i)`$ we call the corresponding eigenvalue the $`i`$-number of $`x`$.

###### Lemma 2

If $`B`$ is symmetric, $`B^0`$ is a sub-representation space for $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$.

Proof :
Indeed, if $`xB^0`$ it is a linear combination of monomials of zero $`i`$-number for all $`i`$, and for $`\sigma \mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$, $`\sigma (x)`$ shares the same property. QED.

## 3 Number Operator Algebras of Finite Type

### 3.1 The confluence hypothesis

In order to state the fundamental confluence hypothesis, we have to introduce some combinatorial terminology. In this subsection we do not have to suppose yet that $`\alpha `$ is finite, although we will only need the confluence hypothesis in this case. We refer the reader to \[Berg\] or \[Ufn\] for a more formal presentation. In the sequel by a reduction system we mean a subset of $`X\times L_\alpha `$. Its elements are called reductions : they are couples $`(m,f)`$ for which we will use the notation $`mf`$.

Given a presentation of an ideal $`I`$ (i.e. a set of generators) and a monoid ordering $`<`$, that is an ordering on $`X`$ which is compatible with multiplication, it is sometimes possible (always if $`<`$ is total) to construct a reduction system by isolating the leading monomial of every element of the presentation. We say that this reduction system is associated with the presentation and $`<`$. More precisely, if $`P`$ is the presentation, then the reduction system associated with $`P`$ and $`<`$ is $`S_{I,<}=\{`$lm$`(g)\frac{1}{\mathrm{lc}(g)}(g`$lt$`(g))|gP\}`$ where we used the following notations : lm stands for “leading monomial”, lc stands for “leading coefficient” and lt stands for “leading term”.

A reduction system is useful if it gives a way of rewritting elements of $`B`$ so as to give them a unique normal form. Indeed, let $`x=_i\lambda x_i`$ be an element of $`L_\alpha `$. If $`mf`$ is a reduction of $`S_{I,<}`$, then every occurence of $`m`$ as a subword of any monomial $`x_i`$ may be replaced by $`f`$ without changing the class of $`x`$ modulo $`I`$. The aim is then to apply every possible reduction to $`x`$ until we get an irreducible element, that is to say an element we cannot reduce any further.

Of course this is not always a well defined procedure. First if we have two reductions $`mf`$ and $`m^{}f^{}`$ it can happen that the same monomial $`x_i`$ can be written $`x_i=abc`$ with $`ab=m`$ and $`bc=m^{}`$. In this case we say that there is an overlap ambiguity. It is called solvable if there are two sequences of reductions, $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$, such that applying $`s_1`$ on $`fc`$ and $`s_2`$ on $`af^{}`$ gives the same result. This can be visualized on the following diagram :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& abc& \\ & & \\ fc& & af^{}\\ s_1& & s_2\\ & \text{same result}& \end{array}$$

There can also be inclusion ambiguities : $`x_i=abc`$ with $`abc=m`$ and $`b=m^{}`$. It is said to be solvable if there are two sequences of reductions $`s_1`$ and $`s_2`$ such that $`s_1`$ applied on $`f`$ is equal to $`s_2`$ applied on $`af^{}b`$.

When all ambiguities are solvable, the reduction system is said to be confluent.

There is one last problem to solve : we must be sure that the procedure will stop, and will not give an infinite cycle of reductions. This is achieved by using orderings satisfying the descending chain condition (DCC) : all decreasing sequences are stationnary. Among such orderings, the most natural ones are the so-called “deglex” (degree-lexicographic) orderings, obtained from a total ordering $`<_0`$ on the generators, that is : $`x<y`$ iff $`d^{}(x)<d^{}(y)`$ or ($`d^{}(x)=d^{}(y)`$ and $`x`$ is before $`y`$ in the lexicographic order induced by $`<_0`$).

So, if $`S_{I,<}`$ is confluent and if $`<`$ is a monoid ordering satisfying DCC, Bergman’s diamond lemma \[Berg\] states that the set of irreducible monomials is a $`K`$-basis for $`B`$.

For instance take $`\alpha =1`$, $`X_A=\{a\}`$, $`X_{A^+}=\{a^+\}`$, so that $`L_1=Ka,a^+`$, and denote by $`<`$ the deglex-ordering coming from $`a^+<_0a`$. Let us consider the ideal $`I`$ generated by $`P=\{a^2,a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},aa^++a^+a1\}`$. The reduction system associated to $`P`$ and $`<`$ is $`S=\{a^20,a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,aa^+1a^+a\}`$. This system is easily seen to be confluent. For instance the overlap ambiguity coming from $`a^2a^+`$ is solvable because $`(a^2)a^+0`$ and $`a(aa^+)a(1a^+a)=a(aa^+)aa(1a^+a)a=a^+(a^2)0`$. By Bergman’s lemma we find that the irreducible monomials ($`1`$, $`a`$, $`a^+`$ and $`a^+a`$) form a $`K`$-basis of $`B=L_1/I`$.

Remark : It is always possible to avoid inclusion ambiguities in a reduction system (see \[Berg\] or \[Bes1\]). In this case we say that the reduction system is simplified. It is also always possible to assume that every element of a confluent reduction system is of the form $`mr`$ with $`r`$ irreducible. We shall say that such a reduction system is reduced.

###### Definition 6

We say that a presentation $`P`$ of an ideal $`I`$ is quadratically confluent (resp. deglex-quadratically confluent) iff the elements of $`P`$ are at most of degree two, and there exists a monoid ordering $`<`$ satisfying DCC (resp. a deglex ordering), such that the reduction system associated with $`P`$ and $`<`$ is confluent.

### 3.2 The Main Theorem

We can now state our main result for n.o.a. of finite type :

###### Theorem 1

Let $`n`$ be a finite number and let $`B=L_n/I`$ be a symmetric deglex-quadratically confluent n.o.a., i.e. $`I`$ satisfies the following properties

$`(P_0)`$ $`IL_n`$, $`IX`$.

$`(P_1)`$ $`J(I)I`$.

$`(P_2)`$ $`\sigma 𝒮_n`$, $`\sigma ^{}(I)I`$.

$`(P_3)`$ $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_nB`$ s.t. (1) and (2) hold.

$`(P_4)`$ : $`<_0`$, a total ordering on $`X`$ s.t. $`I`$ admits a quadratic and confluent reduction system, adapted to the deglex ordering coming from $`<_0`$.

then, if $`n=1`$, there exists $`hR\{0\}`$ such that $`I`$ is generated by one of the following sets :

(a) $`\{a^2,a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},aa^++a^+ah\}`$

(b) $`\{aa^+a^+ah\}`$

if $`n2`$ there exists $`hR\{0\}`$ such that $`I`$ is generated by one of the following sets :

(a) $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^++a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^++a_i^+a_ih|1ijn\}`$

(a’) $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^+a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^++a_i^+a_ih|1ijn\}`$

(b) $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},a_ia_j,a_i^+a_j^+,a_ia_j^+,a_ia_i^++_ka_k^+a_kh|1ijn\}`$

(b’) $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},a_ia_j,a_i^+a_j^+,a_i^+a_j,a_i^+a_i+_ka_ka_k^+h|1ijn\}`$

(c) $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^+a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+a_i^+a_ih|1ijn\}`$

(c’) $`\{a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^++a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+a_i^+a_ih|1ijn\}`$

Remark 1 : In the case $`n=1`$, the hypothesis $`(P_4)`$ can be loosened to :

$`I`$ is generated by elements of degree $`2`$ $`(P_4^{})`$

It is also true for $`n`$ infinite that we can replace $`(P_4)`$ with $`(P_4^{})`$, as we shall see later. However, in the case $`2n<\mathrm{}`$ there exist ideals $`I`$ satisfying $`(P_0),\mathrm{},(P_3)`$ and $`(P_4^{})`$ but not $`(P_4)`$ (see \[Bes1\]).

Remark 2 : In the physical case, $`h`$ is a positive real number and we can set $`h`$ to $`1`$ by rescaling the units, which amounts to the symmetric n.o.a. isomorphism $`\varphi _\lambda :a_i\lambda a_i`$, with $`\lambda 𝐑`$. Then, we get :

* (a) The tensor product of $`n`$ Weyl algebras (boson case), $`A_n=A_1\mathrm{}A_1`$, with $`A_1=L_1/aa^+a^+a1`$.
* (a’) The graded tensor product of $`n`$ Weyl algebras (we call it the pseudo-boson case), $`\widehat{A}_n=A_1\widehat{}\mathrm{}\widehat{}A_1`$.
* (b) The matrix algebra $`_{n+1}(K)`$.
* (b’) The same as above but with the creation and destruction operators exchanged.
* (c) The graded tensor product of $`n`$ Clifford algebras (the fermion case), $`\widehat{C}_n=C_1\widehat{}\mathrm{}\widehat{}C_1`$, with $`C_1=L_1/a^2,a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},aa^++a^+a1`$.
* (c’) The tensor product of $`n`$ Clifford algebras (the pseudo-fermion case), $`C_n=C_1\mathrm{}C_1`$.

Particles whose creation and destruction operators form the algebra $`(c)`$ or $`(c^{})`$ satisfy Pauli’s exclusion principle : only one particle of that kind can be found in a given state ($`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$). Particles of type $`(b)`$ or $`(b^{})`$ follow a more extreme exclusion principle : only one such particle can be found, regardless of its state ($`a_ia_j=a_i^+a_j^+=0`$).

Remark 3 : We see that all these algebras depend only on a single constant $`h`$. Thanks to this fact we can see them as deformations of the “classical” algebras obtained by taking $`h=0`$. This point of view is developped in \[Bes2\].

## 4 Sketch of proof of theorem 1

We do not have the space here to give the full proof. Nevertheless, we will give enough indications (we hope) for the reader to fill in the blanks. For a detailed proof, see \[Bes1\].

### 4.1 A few more lemmas

###### Lemma 3

If $`(P_3)`$ and $`(P_4^{})`$ are satisfied, then $`I`$ can be generated by a set of elements of the form : $`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (1), $`a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (1’), $`\alpha a_ia_j+\beta a_ja_i`$ (2), $`\alpha a_i^+a_j^++\beta a_j^+a_i^+`$ (2’), $`\alpha a_ia_j^++\beta a_j^+a_i`$ (3), $`_{1in}\alpha _ia_ia_i^++_{1in}\beta _ia_i^+a_i\lambda `$ (4), $`a_i`$ (5), or $`a_i^+`$ (5’).

Proof :
Let $`P`$ be a quadratic presentation of $`I`$ and let $`rP`$. We can write $`r=_{p𝐙^n}r^p`$, where $`p`$, seen as a function of $`i`$, must be $`\pm 2\delta _{ij}`$, or $`\pm (\delta _{ij}+\delta _{ik})`$, or $`0`$, or $`\pm \delta _{ij}`$. Now, from lemma 1, $`rIr^pI`$, $`p`$, and the forms $`(1)`$ to $`(5^{})`$ correspond to the different possibilities for the $`p`$’s. QED.

###### Lemma 4

If $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_0)`$, $`(P_3)`$, and $`(P_4^{})`$, then it must contain at least one set of generators of type (4) with $`\lambda 0`$.

Proof :
Let us suppose that it is not so. Then, by lemma 3 and $`(P_4^{})`$, $`I`$ must be generated by elements of the form : $`a_i`$, $`a_i^+`$, or $`r`$, with $`r`$ homogenous quadratic. Now by $`(P_0)`$, $`i`$ such that $`a_i`$ or $`a_i^+`$ is not in $`I`$. Suppose $`a_iI`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i`$ belong to $`\pi ^1(N_i)`$. By $`(P_3)`$, $`I`$ must contain $`\stackrel{~}{N}_ia_ia_i\stackrel{~}{N}_i+a_i`$, whose only term of degree one is $`a_i`$. But every element of $`I`$ can be written as $`xry+s_ja_jt_j+u_ka_k^+v_k`$, $`r`$ being homogenous quadratic, and the second sum running over $`ji`$. This is a contradiction. QED.

###### Lemma 5

If $`B=L_n/I`$ satisfies $`(P_0)`$, $`(P_3)`$ and $`(P_4^{})`$, and if $`C`$ is a commutative algebra, then $`\text{Hom}_{Kalg}(B,C)=\{0\}`$.

Proof :
We have $`i`$, $`\varphi ([N_i,\pi (a_i^+)])=\varphi (\pi (a_i^+))=0`$, since $`C`$ is commutative. For the same reason, $`\varphi (\pi (a_i))=0`$. Now, by lemma 4, $`I`$ contains an element of the form $`x+\lambda .1`$, $`\lambda 0`$, $`x`$ homogenous quadratic. We have : $`0=\varphi (\pi (x+\lambda .1))=\varphi (\pi (x))+\lambda \varphi (1)=0+\lambda .\varphi (1)`$. Therefore $`\varphi (1)=0`$, and $`\varphi =0`$. QED.

###### Lemma 6

Let $`B=L_n/I`$, $`B^{}=L_n/I^{}`$, $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ the respective projections. If $`\varphi `$: $`BB^{}`$, an algebra homomorphism such that $`\varphi (\pi (a_i))=\pi ^{}(a_i)`$ and $`\varphi (\pi (a_i^+))=\pi ^{}(a_i^+)`$, then : $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_3)`$ $``$ $`I^{}`$ fulfils $`(P_3)`$.
(In particular, this is the case if $`II^{}`$ and if $`\varphi `$ is induced by the identity map of $`L_n`$)

Proof :
It is easily verified that the images by $`\varphi `$ of the number operators of $`B`$ are number operators for $`B^{}`$. QED.

###### Lemma 7

Let $`B=L_n/I`$ such that $`(P_3)`$ holds, let $`B^{}`$ be any algebra, and $`\varphi \mathrm{Hom}_{K\mathrm{alg}}(B,B^{})`$ such that $`i`$, $`\varphi (a_i)=\varphi (a_i^+)`$. Then, $`i`$ $`\varphi (a_i)=0`$.

Proof :
Set $`x_i:=\varphi (a_i)=\varphi (a_i^+)`$. In one hand $`[N_i,a_i]=a_i[\varphi (N_i),x_i]=x_i`$, and in the other hand $`[N_i,a_i^+]=a_i^+[\varphi (N_i),x_i]=x_i`$. So $`x_i=0`$. QED.

###### Lemma 8

Let $`n2`$, $`B=L_n/I`$ such that $`(P_3)`$ holds, $`B^{}`$ any algebra, and $`\varphi \mathrm{Hom}_{K\mathrm{alg}}(B,B^{})`$ such that $`i,j`$, $`\varphi (a_i)=\varphi (a_j)`$ (resp. $`\varphi (a_i^+)=\varphi (a_j^+)`$). Then, $`i`$ $`\varphi (a_i)=0`$ (resp. $`\varphi (a_i^+)=0`$).

Proof :
Let us examine the first case, the other one being similar. Let $`ij`$ and let $`x:=\varphi (a_i)=\varphi (a_j)`$. Then $`[N_i,a_i]=a_i[\varphi (N_i),x]=x`$, and $`[N_i,a_j]=0[\varphi (N_i),x]=0`$. Thus $`x=0`$. QED.

We now have to work out the consequences of $`(P_2)`$. It is a bit long, but very easy. We only state the results, leaving the details to the reader (one could also see \[Bes1\]).

In what follows, we suppose $`n2`$, $`V`$ is a $`n`$ dimensional vector space with basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_n`$ and coordinates $`ϵ_1,\mathrm{},ϵ_n`$. Let $`\rho :𝒮_n\mathrm{End}(V)`$ be the representation given by $`\rho (\sigma )(e_i):=\sigma .e_i:=e_{\sigma (i)}`$, let $`H`$ be the hyperplane of equation $`ϵ_1+\mathrm{}+ϵ_n=0`$. $`W`$ is the vector space $`W=VV\mathrm{𝟏}`$, where $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is the trivial representation of $`𝒮_n`$ of dimension 1. $`W`$ bears the representation $`\rho \rho 1`$. Finally, we set $`x_i=e_i00`$, $`y_i=0e_i0`$, and let $`1`$ be a non-zero vector of $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

###### Lemma 9

Let $`wW`$, $`w0`$, and let $`O(w)`$ be the linear span of the orbit of $`w`$ under the action of $`\mathrm{SS}_n`$. Then $`O(w)`$ is isomorphic as a representation space to : $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`H`$, $`H\mathrm{𝟏}`$, $`HH`$ or $`HH\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Furthermore $`O(w)`$ has a basis of the form :

* in the 1st case : $`\{\mu _x.1_x+\mu _y1_y+\mu _1.1\}`$, with $`1_x=x_1+\mathrm{}+x_n`$, $`1_y=y_1+\mathrm{}+y_n`$, and $`\mu _x,\mu _y,\mu _1K`$, not all zero.
* in the 2nd case : $`\{\lambda _x(x_ix_1)+\lambda _y(y_iy_1)|i>1\}`$, $`(\lambda _x,\lambda _y)(0,0)`$.
* in the 3rd case : $`\{\mu _x1_x+\mu _y1_y+\mu _11,\lambda _x(x_ix_1)+\lambda _y(y_iy_1)|i>1\}`$ $`(\mu _x,\mu _y,\mu _1)(0,0,0)`$, $`(\lambda _x,\lambda _y)(0,0)`$.
* in the 4th case : $`\{x_ix_1,y_iy_1|i>1\}`$.
* in the 5th case : $`\{\mu _x1_x+\mu _y1_y+\mu _11,x_ix_1,y_iy_1|i>1\}`$, $`(\mu _x,\mu _y,\mu _1)(0,0,0)`$.

If we take an element $`x`$ of $`I`$, we can make $`\mathrm{SS}_n`$ act upon it to get others, so that the whole orbit of $`x`$ belongs to $`I`$, and of course, so does its linear span. Using this and noticing that the last lemma apply to our situation if we set $`x_i=a_ia_i^+`$, $`y_i=a_i^+a_i`$, and $`1=1`$, we arrive at the following result :

###### Lemma 10

If $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_0)`$, $`(P_1)`$, $`(P_2)`$, $`(P_3)`$ and $`(P_4^{})`$, then $`I`$ can be generated by a union of sets, each having one of the following forms :

* form $`(2,0)`$ : $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}|1in\}`$
* form $`(1,1)_a`$ : $`\{a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+|i<j\}`$
* form $`(1,1)_b`$ : $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+|i<j\}`$
* form $`(1,1)_c`$ : $`\{a_ia_j,a_i^+a_j^+|ij\}`$
* form $`(1,1)_a`$ : $`\{ra_ia_j^++sa_j^+a_i|ij\}`$, with $`(r,s)(0,0)`$, $`r,sR`$.
* form $`(1,1)_b`$ : $`\{a_ia_j^+,a_j^+a_i|ij\}`$
* form $`(0,0)`$ : $`\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _ia_ia_i^++{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\beta _ia_i^+a_i\lambda \}`$

Furthermore, each set of the form (0,0) can be replaced by a union of sets of the form :

* form $`A_1`$ : $`\{a_ia_i^+a_1a_1^+|i>1\}`$
* form $`B_1`$ : $`\{a_i^+a_ia_1^+a_1|i>1\}`$
* form $`A_2`$ : $`\{a_ia_i^+\lambda |1in\}`$
* form $`B_2`$ : $`\{a_i^+a_i\mu |1in\}`$
* form $`C`$ : $`\{{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}a_ia_i^+\lambda \}`$
* form $`D`$ : $`\{{\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}a_i^+a_i\mu \}`$
* form $`E_1`$ : $`\{\alpha (a_ia_i^+a_1a_1^+)+\beta (a_i^+a_ia_1^+a_1)|i>1\}`$, $`\alpha \beta 0`$
* form $`F`$ : $`\{\alpha {\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}a_ia_i^++\beta {\displaystyle \underset{1in}{}}a_i^+a_i\lambda \}`$, $`\alpha \beta 0`$

In every case, we can assume that $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ belong to $`R`$.

The next step is to combine the different sets of generators enumerated by lemma 10. For instance, if we are given the set $`A_1C`$, we can replace it with a set of the form $`A_2`$. Obviously, some combinations, such as the union of two sets of the form $`A_2`$ with different values of lambda, give a trivial result and we can get rid of them. The next proposition sum up the different results.

###### Proposition 1

Let $`I_2=\{xI|d^{}(x)2\}`$, $`I_2^{(2,0)}=I\mathrm{Span}\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}|1in\}`$, $`I_2^{(1,1)}=I\mathrm{Span}\{a_ia_j,a_i^+a_j^+|ij\}`$, $`I_2^{(1,1)}=I\mathrm{Span}\{a_ia_j^+,a_i^+a_j|ij\}`$, $`I_2^{(0,0)}=I_2L_n^{(0,\mathrm{},0)}`$.
Under the hypotheses of lemma 10, there exists a presentation $`R`$ for $`I`$, of the form $`R=R^{(2,0)}R^{(1,1)}R^{(1,1)}R^{(0,0)}`$, such that $`R^{(i,j)}`$ is a basis of $`I_2^{(i,j)}`$. Furthermore :

* $`R^{(2,0)}=(2,0)`$ or the empty set.
* $`R^{(1,1)}=(1,1)_a`$ or $`(1,1)_b`$ or $`(1,1)_c`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.
* $`R^{(1,1)}=(1,1)_a`$ or $`(1,1)_b`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.

and $`R^{(0,0)}`$ is one of the following sets :

$`A_2=\{a_1a_1^+\lambda ,\mathrm{},a_na_n^+\lambda \}`$

$`A_2B_1=\{a_1a_1^+\lambda ,\mathrm{},a_na_n^+\lambda ,a_2^+a_2a_1^+a_1,\mathrm{},a_n^+a_na_1^+a_1\}`$

$`A_2B_2=\{a_1a_1^+\lambda ,\mathrm{},a_na_n^+\lambda ,a_1^+a_1\lambda ,\mathrm{},a_n^+a_n\lambda \}`$

$`A_2D=\{a_1a_1^+\lambda ,\mathrm{},a_na_n^+\lambda ,_ia_i^+a_i\mu \}`$

$`A_3=\{a_ia_i^++\beta _ja_j^+a_j\lambda |1in\}`$

$`A_1D=\{a_2a_2^+a_1a_1^+,\mathrm{},a_na_n^+a_1a_1^+,_ia_i^+a_i\lambda \}`$

$`C=\{_ia_ia_i^+\lambda \}`$

$`CD=\{_ia_ia_i^+\lambda ,_ia_i^+a_i\mu \}`$

$`E_2=\{a_ia_i^++\beta _1a_i^+a_i+\beta _2_{ji}a_j^+a_j\lambda |1in\},\beta _1\beta _2,\beta _1+(n1)\beta _20`$ or $`\{a_i^+a_i+\alpha _1a_ia_i^++\alpha _2_{ji}a_ja_j^+\mu |1in\},\alpha _1\alpha _2,\alpha _1+(n1)\alpha _20`$

$`E_2^{}=\{a_ia_i^++\beta _1a_i^+a_i+\frac{\beta _1}{1n}_{ji}a_j^+a_j\lambda |1in\},\beta _10`$ or
$`\{_ia_ia_i^+\lambda ,\alpha (a_ia_i^+a_1a_1^+)+\beta (a_i^+a_ia_1^+a_1)|i>1\}`$

$`E_1CD=\{_ja_ja_j^+\lambda ,_ja_j^+a_j\mu ,\alpha a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i\nu |i>1\}`$, with $`\nu =(\alpha \lambda +\beta \mu )/n`$

$`F=\{\alpha _ia_ia_i^++\beta _ia_i^+a_i\lambda \}`$

$`A_1B_1F=\{a_ia_i^+a_1a_1^+,a_i^+a_ia_1^+a_1,\alpha a_1a_1^++\beta a_1^+a_1\lambda |i>1\}`$ and also : $`B_2`$, $`A_1B_2`$, $`B_2C`$, $`D`$, $`B_3`$, $`B_1C`$, or $`E_2^{\prime \prime }`$, which are respectively symmetrical to $`A_2`$, $`A_2B_1`$, $`A_2D`$, $`C`$, $`A_3`$, $`A_1D`$, $`E_2^{}`$, by the exchange of $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^+`$. Moreover, in each case, at least one of the constants $`\lambda `$, $`\mu `$ or $`\nu `$ is non-zero, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are non-zero, and all the constants belong to $`R`$.

Such a presentation is unique, except in the cases $`E_2`$, $`E_2^{}`$ and $`E_2^{\prime \prime }`$ for which we give two forms, and is called “standard”.

Even if a standard presentation is given and if the hypothesis $`(P_4)`$ is satisfied, the standard presentation could happen to be non-confluent for any ordering. The next proposition shows that it is not so. Indeed, if a confluent reduction system exists for some deglex-ordering $`<`$, then this system is associated with a standard presentation. Furthermore, all orderings are not allowed.

###### Proposition 2

Let $`I`$ be an ideal such that $`(P_0)`$,…,$`(P_4)`$ hold, and let $`S`$ be a quadratic confluent reduction system, which is adapted to some deglex ordering $`<`$, and associated with $`I`$. We also assume that $`S`$ is simplified and reduced. Let $`R=R^{(2,0)}R^{(1,1)}R^{(1,1)}`$ $`R^{(0,0)}`$ be a standard presentation of $`I`$, and $`R_S`$ the presentation associated with $`S`$ and $`<`$.
Then, $`R_S=R_S^{(2,0)}R_S^{(1,1)}R_S^{(1,1)}R_S^{(0,0)}`$, $`S=S^{(2,0)}S^{(1,1)}S^{(1,1)}`$ $`S^{(0,0)}`$, where $`S^{(i,j)}`$ is the reduction system associated with $`R^{(i,j)}`$, and $`R_S^{(2,0)}=R^{(2,0)}`$, $`R_S^{(1,1)}=\{x/\mathrm{lc}(x)|xR^{(1,1)}\}`$, $`R_S^{(1,1)}=\{x/\mathrm{lc}(x)|xR^{(1,1)}\}`$. Moreover, depending on $`R^{(0,0)}`$, the $`S^{(0,0)}`$ part is :

$`A_2`$ : $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda |1in\}`$.

$`A_1B_2`$ : $`i_0`$ s.t. $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+,a_j^+a_j\mu |ii_0,1jn\}`$

$`A_2B_2`$ : $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda ,a_i^+a_i\mu \}`$.

$`A_3`$ : there are two possibilities (a) : $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda \beta _ja_j^+a_j)\}`$, or
(b) : $`i_0,j_0`$ s.t. $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+,a_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\frac{1}{\beta }a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+_{jj_0}a_j^+a_j|ii_0\}`$

$`C`$ : $`i_0`$ s.t. $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+\lambda _{ii_0}a_ia_i^+\}`$

$`CD`$ : $`i_0,j_0`$ s.t. $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+\lambda _{ii_0}a_ia_i^+,a_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}\mu _{jj_0}a_j^+a_j\}`$

$`A_1D`$ : $`i_0,j_0`$ s.t. $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+,a_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}\mu _{jj_0}a_j^+a_j|ii_0\}`$

$`A_2D`$ : $`i_0`$ s.t. $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda ,a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}\mu _{ji_0}a_j^+a_j|1in\}`$

$`E_2`$, with $`n3`$ : (a) $`\{a_ia_i^+\lambda \beta _1a_i^+a_i\beta _2_{ji}a_j^+a_j|1in\}`$, or
(b) $`\{a_i^+a_i\mu \alpha _1a_ia_i^+\alpha _2_{ji}a_ja_j^+|1in\}`$

$`E_2`$ with $`n=2`$ : (a), or (b) as in the previous case, or
(c) $`\{a_j^+a_j\frac{1}{\beta _2}(\lambda \beta _1a_i^+a_ia_ia_i^+),a_ja_j^+\lambda (1\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2})+(\frac{\beta _1^2}{\beta _2}\beta _2)a_i^+a_i+\frac{\beta _1}{\beta _2}a_ia_i^+\}`$, with $`\{i,j\}=\{1,2\}`$, or
(d) $`\{a_i^+a_i\frac{1}{\beta _1}(\lambda \beta _2a_j^+a_ja_ia_i^+),a_ja_j^+\lambda (1\frac{\beta _2}{\beta _1})+(\frac{\beta _2^2}{\beta _1}\beta _1)a_j^+a_j+\frac{\beta _2}{\beta _1}a_ia_i^+\}`$, with $`\{i,j\}=\{1,2\}`$

$`E_2^{}`$ : (a) $`\{a_ia_i^+\lambda \beta _1a_i^+a_i+\frac{\beta _1}{n1}_{ji}a_j^+a_j|1in\}`$, or
(b) $`\{a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+\lambda _{ji_0}a_ja_j^+,a_i^+a_i\alpha \lambda +a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}+2\alpha a_ia_i^++\alpha _{ji,i_0}a_ja_j^+|ii_0\}`$, for $`i_0[1..n]`$, or
(c) $`\{a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+\lambda _{ji_0}a_ja_j^+,a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}\alpha \lambda +a_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}+2\alpha a_{j_0}a_{j_0}^++\alpha _{ji_0,j_0}a_ja_j^+,a_i^+a_ia_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}+\alpha a_{j_0}a_{j_0}^+\alpha a_ia_i^+|ii_0,j_0\}`$ for some $`i_0`$, and with $`\alpha =(1n)/\beta _1`$

$`F`$ : (a) $`\{a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+\frac{\lambda }{\alpha }_{ii_0}a_ia_i^+\frac{\beta }{\alpha }_{1jn}a_j^+a_j\}`$, for some $`i_0`$, or
(b) $`\{a_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\frac{\alpha }{\beta }_{1in}a_ia_i^+_{jj_0}a_j^+a_j\}`$ for some $`j_0`$.

$`A_1B_1F`$ : (a) $`\{a_ia_i^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+,a_j^+a_j\frac{\lambda }{\beta }\frac{\alpha }{\beta }a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+|ii_0,1jn\}`$, or
(b) $`\{a_i^+a_ia_{i_0}^+a_{i_0},a_ja_j^+\frac{\lambda }{\alpha }\frac{\beta }{\alpha }a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}|ii_0,1jn\}`$

$`E_1CD`$ : $`𝒦,[1,..,n]`$, $`𝒦=\mathrm{}`$, $`i_0𝒦`$, $`𝒦\{i_0\}=[1..n]`$ such that $`S^{(0,0)}=\{a_ia_i^+\frac{\nu }{\alpha }\frac{\beta }{\alpha }a_i^+a_i,a_j^+a_j\frac{\nu }{\beta }\frac{\alpha }{\beta }a_ja_j^+,a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+\lambda ^{}_𝒦a_ka_k^++\frac{\beta }{\alpha }_{}a_k^+a_k,a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}\mu ^{}_{}a_k^+a_k+\frac{\alpha }{\beta }_𝒦a_ka_k^+|i,j𝒦\}`$, $`\lambda ^{}=\lambda `$Card$`()\frac{\nu }{\alpha }`$, $`\mu ^{}=\mu `$Card$`(𝒦)\frac{\nu }{\beta }`$.

By the exchange of $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^+`$ we also find the forms corresponding to $`B_2`$, $`A_2B_1`$, $`B_3`$, and $`E_2^{\prime \prime }`$.

For the proof, see \[Bes1\].

The next proposition will allow us to use symmetry between $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^+`$ and fix the value of some constant when needed.

###### Proposition 3

Let $`\varphi `$ be one of the following automorphisms of $`L_n`$ :

$`\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ:L_n& & L_n\\ a_i& & a_i^+\\ a_i^+& & a_i\end{array}`$ $`\begin{array}{ccc}\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }:L_n& & L_n\\ a_i& & \lambda a_i\\ a_i^+& & \mu a_i^+\end{array}`$
with $`\lambda \mu R\{0\}`$. Then if $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_0)`$,…,$`(P_4)`$, so does $`\varphi (I)`$.

Proof :
We do it for $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }`$ the case of $`ϵ`$ is even easier and is left to the reader.

For $`(P_0)`$, it is obvious. Let us show that $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I)`$ fulfils $`(P_1)`$ : it is only needed to verify that the image under $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }`$ of a standard presentation of $`I`$, which is a presentation of $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I)`$, is sent into $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I)`$ by $`J`$.

If $`x`$ is a homogenous quadratic element of a standard presentation of $`I`$, $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(x)`$ is proportional to $`x`$, so $`J(\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(x))`$ is proportional to $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(J(x))`$ and therefore belongs to $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I)`$. Now if $`x=\alpha _ia_ia_i^++\beta _ia_i^+a_i\nu .1`$, with $`\alpha _i`$, $`\beta _i`$, $`\nu `$ $`R`$, is a generator of $`I`$, then $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(x)=\lambda \mu (\alpha _ia_ia_i^++\beta _ia_i^+a_i)\nu .1`$ is stable under $`J`$, because $`\lambda \mu R`$.

It is clear by its definition that $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }`$ commutes with the action of $`\mathrm{SS}_n`$. Thus, $`\sigma ^{}(\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I))=\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(\sigma ^{}(I))=\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I)`$

Lastly, let $`S`$, whose elements we denote by $`m_sf_s`$, be a quadratic confluent reduction system, adapted to $`<`$ and associated with $`I`$, and let $`W`$ be the vector space spanned by the irreducible monomials relatively to $`S`$. If we set $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(S)=\{m_s\frac{1}{\lambda ^k\mu ^l}\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(f_s)|sS,`$ $`m_s`$ of degree $`k`$ in $`a_i`$ and $`l`$ in $`a_i^+\}`$, then $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(W)=W`$ is also the linear span of monomials that are irreducible under $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(S)`$. Moreover $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(S)`$ is clearly adapted to $`<`$ and $`IW=L_n\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(I)\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(W)=L_n`$. Thus, by Bergman’s lemma, $`\varphi _{\lambda ,\mu }(S)`$ is confluent. QED.

The last of our lemmas will help us to reduce the number of cases.

###### Lemma 11

If $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_0)`$,…,$`(P_4)`$, and if $`n2`$, then $`I`$ must contain a set of generators of type (1,1) or (1,-1).

Proof :
Let $`S`$ be a quadratic confluent reduction system for $`I`$, associated with some deglex-ordering $`<`$, $`R`$ be the associated presentation, $`T`$ the basis of irreducible monomials, and $`W=`$ Span$`(T)`$. Let us denote by $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{N}_n`$ the representatives of $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_n`$ in $`W`$, and write $`\stackrel{~}{N}_1=\lambda _1\xi _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _k\xi _k+u`$, with $`d^{}(\xi _1)=\mathrm{}=d^{}(\xi _k)>d^{}u`$ and $`\xi _1>\mathrm{}>\xi _k`$, $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _kK\{0\}`$.

We first need to show the following formula :

$$i,j,𝒩_i\stackrel{~}{N}_j=0$$
(3)
This is true because $`[N_i,N_j]=0𝒩_i\stackrel{~}{N}_jI`$. But $`T`$ is made of eigenvectors for $`𝒩_i`$, so $`W`$ is stable under $`𝒩_i`$, consequently $`𝒩_i\stackrel{~}{N}_jWI=\{0\}`$.

Obviously, we also have :

$$i,j,𝒩_i\xi _j=0$$
(4)
Write $`\xi _1=x\eta y`$, with $`x,yX`$. There are two cases :

* There exists $`bX`$ with an index different from the indices of $`x`$ and $`y`$. Suppose first that $`b>x`$. Then $`b\xi _1>\xi _1b`$, and since $`b\xi _1>b\xi _2>\mathrm{}`$ and $`\xi _1b>\xi _2b>\mathrm{}`$ we have lm$`([\stackrel{~}{N}_1,b])=b\xi _1`$. Thus $`b\xi _1=bx\eta y`$ must be reducible, but since $`\xi _1=x\eta y`$ is not and the reduction system is quadratic, it is only possible if $`bx`$ is reducible. We then have relations of type $`(1,1)`$ or $`(1,1)`$ in $`R`$. Now if $`b<x`$, we have lm$`([\stackrel{~}{N}_1,b])=\xi _1b=x\eta yb`$, and we deduce that $`yb`$ is reducible. Therefore the relations $`(1,1)`$ or $`(1,1)`$ are in $`R`$.
* There is no such $`b`$. Then $`n=2`$ and $`X=\{x,x^+,y,y^+\}`$. If $`xy`$ or $`yx`$ are reducible we have relations $`(1,1)`$ or $`(1,1)`$, so we suppose they are irreducible. For $`k`$ large enough, we have $`(xy)^k\xi _1\xi _1(xy)^k`$. Indeed, if not we would conclude that $`\xi _1`$ divides $`(xy)^k`$ but it is impossible since $`\xi _1`$ must contain $`x^+`$ or $`y^+`$ by the formula (4). So we deduce that lm$`([\stackrel{~}{N}_1,(xy)^k])=\xi _1(xy)^k`$ or $`(xy)^k\xi _1`$. In both cases it is irreducible, so this is a contradiction. QED.

### 4.2 The main calculations

If $`I`$ is such that $`(P_0),\mathrm{},(P_4)`$ hold, it has a standard presentation by proposition 1. We have to study every such presentation that is not yet ruled out by lemma 11. In most cases, it is possible to show that $`(P_0)`$, $`(P_3)`$, or $`(P_4)`$ cannot hold by making use of our different lemmas. Nonetheless, it is sometimes necessary to call upon a reduction system and calculate in a basis of irreducible monomials.

For convenience, we will deal with relations in $`B`$ rather than with generators of the ideal $`I`$.

When the relations $`(0,0)`$ depend on a single constant term $`\lambda `$ (which must be non-zero) we assume that $`\lambda =1`$.

In cases containing $`(1,1)_a`$, and if $`r0`$, we set $`q={\displaystyle \frac{s}{r}}`$. If $`s0`$, we set $`q^{}={\displaystyle \frac{r}{s}}`$.

From now on we assume $`n2`$. We will look at the case $`n=1`$ afterwards.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ :
So $`I`$ is generated by the relations $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ together with some relations of type $`(0,0)`$. If relations of type $`A_2`$, $`C`$, $`B_2`$ or $`D`$ with $`\lambda `$ or $`\mu 0`$ are present, it is easily seen by multiplying them on the left or on the right by $`a_i`$ that $`a_i=0`$. Thus $`(P_0)`$ is not satisfied. Let us see the other cases :

* $`A_3`$ : In $`B`$ we have :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}a_1a_1^++\beta a_i^+a_i=1& (l_1)\\ \mathrm{}& \\ a_na_n^++\beta a_i^+a_i=1& (l_n)\end{array}$$

Let’s multiply $`(l_1)`$ on the right by $`a_n`$, we get $`a_n=0`$, thus $`B=0`$. This also rules out the case $`A_1B_1F=A_3B_1`$.
* $`E_2`$ :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}a_1a_1^++\beta _1a_1^+a_1+\beta _2_{i1}a_i^+a_i=1& (l_1)\\ \mathrm{}& \\ a_na_n^++\beta _1a_n^+a_n+\beta _2_{in}a_i^+a_i=1& (l_n)\end{array}$$

We do as above.
* $`F`$ :

$$\alpha a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i=1$$

We first multiply the relation $`F`$ by $`a_i`$ on the left, then on the right, and we get :

$$\beta a_ia_i^+a_i=\alpha a_ia_i^+a_i=a_i$$

If $`\alpha \beta `$, we have $`B=0`$. Thus we can assume that $`\alpha =\beta =1`$.

We have $`a_ia_i^+a_i=a_i`$, $`i`$. But if there exists a quadratic confluent reduction system for $`I`$, it is of type (a) or (b) (see proposition 2). In both cases, there exists $`i`$ such that $`a_ia_i^+`$ and $`a_i^+a_i`$ are irreducible, so $`a_ia_i^+a_i`$ must be irreducible, and this is a contradiction.

$`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ :
Making use of either $`(1,1)_{a,b}`$ or $`(2,0)`$, we see that $`A_2`$ or $`B_2`$ with $`\lambda 0`$ leads to $`B=0`$.

* $`C`$ : Multiplying the relation $`(C)`$ by $`a_1`$ on the left we get :

$$a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^++\underset{i>1}{}a_1a_ia_i^+=a_1$$

$$\underset{i>1}{}\pm a_ia_1a_i^+=a_1$$

$$0=a_1B=0$$

This also rules out all other presentations containing relations of type $`C`$ (in particular $`E_2^{}=E_1C`$).
* $`F`$ : We have

$$\alpha \underset{1in}{}a_1a_ia_i^++\beta \underset{1in}{}a_1a_i^+a_i=a_1$$

$$\alpha \underset{i>1}{}\pm a_ia_1a_i^++\beta a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1$$

$$\beta a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1$$

Multiplying by $`a_1`$ on the right we would obtain in the same way :

$$\alpha a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1$$
(5)
thus $`\alpha =\beta `$. Furthermore, multiplying (5) by $`a_i`$, $`i1`$ we get :

$$a_1a_i=\alpha a_1a_1^+a_1a_i=\pm \alpha a_1a_1^+a_ia_1=0$$

But, the presentation being standard, $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+|i<j\}`$ is a basis of $`I_2^{(1,1)}`$. Now $`a_1a_i`$ Span$`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+\}`$, a contradiction.
We can do the same for $`F`$, and thus for $`A_3`$, $`B_3`$ and $`E_2`$.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`A_3`$ : Let’s multiply $`(l_1)`$ on the right by $`a_1`$ :

$$a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1$$
(6)
Now $`a_1a_1^+=a_ia_i^+a_1=a_ia_i^+a_1`$, $`i`$. Then if $`s0`$, we have $`a_1=q^{}a_ia_1a_i^+=0`$, for $`i1`$, and $`B=0`$. We can thus assume that $`s=0`$.
Now $`a_ia_j^+=0`$, and multiplying $`(l_1)`$ to the left by $`a_1`$, we find $`a_1=\beta a_1a_1^+a_1`$, consequently we have $`\beta =1`$, by (6).
We are then in the case (b) of the theorem. It is easily seen that the reduction system $`\{a_ia_j0,a_i^+a_j^+0,a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_ia_j^+0,a_ia_i^+1a_k^+a_k|1ijn\}`$ is confluent and adapted to the deglex-ordering coming from $`a_1^+<\mathrm{}<a_n^+<a_1<\mathrm{}<a_n`$, which we will denote by $`<_n`$ in the rest of the section. We let the reader verify that $`(P_3)`$ holds, with $`N_i=a_i^+a_i+\lambda _i.1`$, $`\lambda _iK`$.
* $`F`$ : Let’s multiply $`F`$ by $`a_1`$ on the right, then on the left :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\beta a_1(_{1in}a_i^+a_i)=a_1\\ \alpha (_{1in}a_ia_i^+)a_1=a_1\end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ra_1=r\beta a_1a_1^+a_1+\beta _{i>1}(sa_i^+a_1)a_i\\ sa_1=s\alpha a_1a_1^+a_1+\alpha _{i>1}a_i(ra_1a_i^+)\end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ra_1=r\beta a_1a_1^+a_1\\ sa_1=s\alpha a_1a_1^+a_1\end{array}$$

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ra_1a_2^+=s\beta a_1a_1^+a_2^+a_1=0\\ sa_2^+a_1=r\alpha a_1a_2^+a_1^+a_1=0\end{array}$$

Thus $`r=0`$ or $`s=0`$ (the presentation is standard). If $`r=0`$, $`a_j^+(\alpha _ia_ia_i^+)+a_j^+\beta (a_i^+a_i)=\alpha a_j^+a_ja_j^+=a_j^+`$. Now $`j`$ such that $`a_j^+a_ja_j^+`$ is irreducible, and we come to a contradiction. The case $`s=0`$ is symmetrical.
* $`A_1B_1F`$ : From case $`F`$ we know that we can assume that $`r=0`$, then we have $`a_n=\alpha a_1a_1^+a_n+\beta a_1^+a_1a_n=0`$. Consequently $`B=0`$.
* $`E_2`$ : By $`F`$, we have $`rs=0`$. In each case it is easy to show that $`B=0`$.

$`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`C`$ : Let’s show that $`B=0`$ :

$$a_ia_i^+=1$$

$$a_1\mathrm{}a_na_ia_i^+=a_1\mathrm{}a_n$$

$$a_1\mathrm{}a_{i1}a_{i+1}\mathrm{}a_na_ia_ia_i^+=a_1\mathrm{}a_n$$

$$0=a_1\mathrm{}a_n$$

Suppose that every product $`a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_k}`$ of length $`k`$ is zero. This is true for $`k=n`$. Then :

$$a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_{k1}}=a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_{k1}}a_ia_i^+$$

and the sum is zero, since all terms $`a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_{k1}}a_i`$ vanish. Thus, by induction, we see that $`B=0`$.

Since we made no use of relations $`(1,1)_a`$, we can get rid of the case $`(1,1)_b(2,0)C`$ by the same method.
* $`F`$ : Thanks to all the relations we have, one can show that

$$(\alpha \beta )(r+s)a_1\mathrm{}a_n=0$$

Then, if $`(\alpha \beta )(r+s)0`$, it can be proved by induction that $`B=0`$. If only one of the factors $`\alpha \beta `$ or $`r+s`$ vanishes then it is possible to show that $`a_1a_n=0`$. Let’s see the case $`\alpha =\beta `$ and $`r+s=0`$ in more details. We can assume $`\alpha =1`$.

If $`n2`$, it is easily verified that the natural projection $`L_nL_2`$ gives a surjective homomorphism from $`B_n`$ onto $`B_2`$. Therefore, if $`(P_3)`$ does not hold for $`n=2`$, it will not hold for any $`n2`$.

Let $`<`$ be the only deglex-ordering such that $`a_1^+<a_1<a_2^+<a_2`$. The reduction system $`S=\{a_2a_1a_1a_2,a_2^+a_1^+a_1^+a_2^+,a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,`$ $`a_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_2a_1^+a_1^+a_2,a_2^+a_1a_1a_2^+,a_2a_2^+1a_1a_1^+a_2^+a_2a_1^+a_1\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<`$. If we call $`T`$ the basis of irreducible monomials and $`T_0:=TB_2^0`$, then it is clear that $`T_0=\{1,a_2^+a_2,(a_1^+a_1)^k,(a_1^+a_1)^ka_2^+a_2,(a_1a_1^+)^k,(a_1a_1^+)^ka_2^+a_2)|k1\}`$. Indeed, no $`a_2`$ can be on the left of another term, an $`a_2^+`$ can only be on the left of an $`a_2`$, etc…Now, for $`k1`$ : $`[(a_1^+a_1)^k,a_1^+]=(a_1^+a_1)^ka_1^+`$, $`[(a_1^+a_1)^ka_2^+a_2,a_1^+]=(a_1^+a_1)^ka_1^+a_2^+a_2`$, $`[(a_1a_1^+)^ka_2^+a_2,a_1^+]=a_1^+(a_1a_1^+)^ka_2^+a_2`$, $`[(a_1a_1^+)^k,a_1^+]=a_1^+(a_1a_1^+)^k`$ and $`[a_2^+a_2,a_1^+]=0`$.
We see that $`a_1^+`$ never appears in these commutators. Consequently, $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.
* $`A_3`$ : From $`F`$ we have $`r+s=0`$, then :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_1\mathrm{}a_n& =& a_1a_1^+a_1\mathrm{}a_n+\beta _{i1}a_i^+a_ia_1\mathrm{}a_n\\ & =& a_1a_1^+a_1\mathrm{}a_n\\ & =& a_2a_2^+a_1\mathrm{}a_n\\ & =& a_1a_2a_2^+a_2\mathrm{}a_n\\ & =& a_1(a_1a_1^+)a_2\mathrm{}a_n\\ & =& 0\end{array}$$

So by induction $`B=0`$.
* $`E_2`$ : From $`F`$, we can assume that $`r+s=0`$ and $`\beta _1+(n1)\beta _2=n`$ (which corresponds to $`\beta =1`$ in the case $`F`$).
$`a_1(l_1)(l_1)a_1`$ gives :

$$(\beta _11)a_1a_1^+a_1+\beta _2\underset{i1}{}(a_1a_i^+a_i^+a_1)a_i=0$$

$$(\beta _11)a_1a_1^+a_1=0$$
(7)
But we also have :

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }a_1(l_n)(l_n)a_1=a_1a_na_n^++\beta _1a_1a_n^+a_n+\beta _2\underset{1<i<n}{}a_1a_i^+a_ia_na_n^+a_1\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }+\beta _2a_1a_1^+a_1\beta _1a_n^+a_na_1\beta _2\underset{1<i<n}{}a_i^+a_1a_i\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

$$0=\beta _2a_1a_1^+a_1$$
(8)
+ if $`\beta _20`$, $`(\text{8})a_1a_1^+a_1=0`$. Thanks to $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n(l_i)`$ we get $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n=0`$ and by induction $`B=0`$.
    + if $`\beta _2=0`$, we can assume $`\beta _1=1`$, or else $`B=0`$ by (7). We get the reduction system $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_ja_ia_ia_j,a_j^+a_i^+a_i^+a_j^+,a_ia_j^+`$ $`a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+1a_i^+a_i|1i<jn\}`$. It is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$. $`B`$ is a solution to our problem, with $`N_i=a_i^+a_i+\lambda _i.1`$, $`\lambda _iK`$, and we are in case $`(a)`$ of theorem 1.

$`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :
This case is similar to the preceding one. In the case $`E_2`$, we find the solution $`(a^{})`$.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b`$ :

* $`C`$ : Let $`\varphi `$ : $`L_nC`$, with $`C={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}K[x_i,y_i]/x_iy_i1`$, defined by :$`\varphi (a_i)=x_i`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+)=y_i`$. $`\varphi `$ goes to the quotient, indeed : $`ij`$, $`\varphi (a_ia_j)=x_ix_j=0`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+a_j^+)=y_iy_j=0`$, $`\varphi (a_ia_j^+)=\varphi (a_j^+a_i)=x_iy_j=0`$, $`\varphi (a_ia_i^+1)=(x_iy_i)1=0`$. But $`\varphi 0`$ then by lemma 5, $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
* $`CD`$ : We have $`(C)a_1a_1a_1^+a_1=\lambda a_1`$ and $`a_1(D)a_1a_1^+a_1=\mu a_1`$, then if $`\lambda \mu `$, $`B=0`$. If $`\lambda =\mu `$, we do as above, using the same $`\varphi `$.
* $`A_2`$, $`\lambda =0`$, $`D`$ : Computing $`(D)a_1`$ we are led to $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$.
* $`A_3`$ or $`A_1D`$ : With $`\alpha =1`$ or $`0`$ :

$$\alpha a_1a_1^++\beta a_i^+a_i=1$$

$$\alpha a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^++\beta a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1$$

$$\alpha a_1a_2a_2^++\beta a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1$$

$$\beta a_1a_1^+a_1a_1^+=a_1a_1^+$$

$$\beta a_1a_1^+a_2a_2^+=0=a_1a_1^+$$

This is impossible in both cases. We can do the same for $`A_1B_1F`$.
* $`E_2`$ or $`E_2^{}`$ : Let’s calculate $`a_1(l_1)`$, $`(l_1)a_1`$, $`a_1(l_n)`$, and $`(l_n)a_1`$. We get :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^++\beta _1a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1& (i)\\ a_1a_1^+a_1+\beta _1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_1& (ii)\\ \beta _2a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1& (iii)\\ \beta _2a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_1& (iv)\end{array}$$

Thanks to the three last formulas we get $`(\beta _2\beta _11)a_1=0`$.

So, if $`\beta _2\beta _110`$, i.e. $`\beta _1\frac{n1}{n}`$ in the case $`E_2^{}`$, $`B=0`$.
Moreover, $`(iii)`$ and $`(iv)`$ $`\beta _20`$, or else $`B=0`$.
The only remaining case is $`\beta _2=\beta _1+10`$. We define $`\varphi :B{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}K[x_i,y_i]/x_iy_i1/\beta _2`$ by $`\varphi (a_i)=x_i`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+)=y_i`$. $`\varphi `$ is well defined since $`\varphi (a_ia_i^++\beta _1a_i^+a_i+\beta _2_{ji}a_j^+a_j)=(1+\beta _1)x_iy_i+\beta _2_{ji}x_jy_j=1`$. Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.
* $`E_1CD`$ :

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}a_1a_1^++\mathrm{}+a_na_n^+=\lambda & (l_1)\\ a_1^+a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n^+a_n=\mu & (l_2)\\ \alpha a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i=\nu & (l_{3,i})\end{array}$$

We must have $`\lambda =\mu `$ by $`CD`$. Now, if we multiply $`(l_{3,i})`$ by $`a_j`$ with $`ji`$, we find $`\nu a_j=0`$, therefore $`\nu =0`$. But $`\lambda (\alpha +\beta )=n\nu =0`$ and $`\lambda `$ must be non-zero by lemma 4, then $`\alpha +\beta =0`$. We can assume that $`\lambda =1`$ and $`\alpha =\beta =1`$. We then use the same $`\varphi `$ as in case $`E_2`$.
* $`F`$ :

$$\alpha a_ia_i^+\beta a_i^+a_i=1$$

$$\alpha a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_i^+\beta a_ia_i^+a_i=a_i$$

Now $`(P_4)`$ implies that there must always exist $`i`$ s.t. $`a_ia_i^+`$ and $`a_i^+a_i`$ are irreducible. A contradiction.

$`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(1,1)_b`$ : Such a presentation is never standard. Indeed, we always have relations of the form :

$$\underset{1in}{}\alpha _ia_ia_i^++\underset{1in}{}\beta _ia_i^+a_i+\lambda =0$$

with $`\lambda 0`$. Therefore :

$$a_1\underset{1in}{}\alpha _ia_ia_i^++\beta _1a_1a_1^+a_1+\lambda a_1=0$$

$$\alpha _2a_1a_2a_2^+a_2+\beta _1a_1a_1^+a_1a_2+\lambda a_1a_2=0$$

$$\pm \alpha _2a_2(a_1a_2^+)a_2\pm \beta _1a_1(a_1^+a_2)a_2+\lambda a_1a_2=0$$

$$\lambda a_1a_2=0$$

$$a_1a_2=0$$

This is impossible.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_a`$ : This case is very easy, and we only state the results.

* $`C`$, $`CD`$, $`A_1D`$ : Multiplying the relation $`C`$ or $`D`$ by $`a_i`$, one can prove that the presentation is not standard.
* $`A_3`$ or $`A_1B_1F`$ : It can be proven that $`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, thus the presentation is not standard.
* $`E_2`$ or $`E_2^{}`$ : It can be shown that :

$$rs(\beta _2\beta _11)a_1=0$$

Therefore we have $`rs(\beta _2\beta _11)=0`$. If $`\beta _2\beta _11=0`$ the homomorphism $`\varphi `$ of $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_bE_2`$ can be used to exclude this case. If $`rs=0`$ and $`\beta _2\beta _110`$, the presentation is shown to be non-standard.
* $`F`$ : We have, $`i`$ : $`\alpha a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_i^+a_i+\beta a_ia_i^+a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, so we conclude that the presentation is not standard.

$`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$ :

$$ra_2=ra_2a_1a_1^+=ra_1a_2a_1^+$$

$$sa_1a_1^+a_2=ra_2$$

$$(r+s)a_2=0$$

Thus $`r+s0B=0`$. If $`r+s=0`$ an homomorphism $`\delta :BC`$, with $`C=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,\mathrm{},y_n]/x_1y_11,\mathrm{},x_ny_n1`$, is defined by setting $`\delta (a_i)=x_i`$, $`\delta (a_i^+)=y_i`$. Therefore $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold, by lemma 5. We do the same for $`A_2B_1`$ and $`A_2B_2`$.
* $`A_3`$, $`A_1D`$ and $`A_2D`$ : In these 3 cases we have :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}a_ia_i^+=a_ja_j^+\\ \alpha a_ia_i^++\beta _ja_j^+a_j=1\end{array}$$

with $`\alpha =0`$ for $`A_2D`$ and $`A_1D`$, and $`\alpha =1`$ for $`A_3`$.
If we set $`x=a_1a_1^+=\mathrm{}=a_na_n^+`$, we easily show that $`i`$, $`ra_ix+sxa_i=0`$, and $`i1`$, $`ra_1a_i^+a_i+sa_i^+a_ia_1=0`$. Then :

$$\beta (ra_1a_1^+a_1+sa_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=(r+s)a_1$$

$$\beta (ra_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^+a_1+sa_1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=(r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$

$$\beta (ra_1x+sxa_1)a_1=(r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$

$$0=(r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$

Therefore $`r+s=0`$. Let’s show that $`x:=a_ia_i^+`$ and $`y_i:=a_i^+a_i`$ are central elements of $`B`$. For $`x`$ it is trivial : we calculate the commutator of $`x`$ with $`a_k`$ or $`a_k^+`$ by writing $`x=a_ia_i^+`$ with $`ik`$. Now $`y_i`$ clearly commutes with $`a_j`$ and $`a_j^+`$ for $`ji`$. As for $`j=i`$, we just need to write

$$y_i=\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{1}{\beta }x\underset{ki}{}a_k^+a_k$$

Now we show that $`B^0Z(B)`$. Let $`mB^0`$ be a monomial, and write $`m`$ as $`m=b_1\mathrm{}b_{2l}`$, with $`b_i=a_i`$ or $`a_i^+`$. There must exists $`i<j`$ such that $`b_j=b_i^+`$ ($`:=J(b_i)`$) and $`k`$, $`i<k<j`$, $`b_kb_i`$ and $`b_kb_i^+`$. Then $`b_i`$ commutes with every $`b_k`$ s.t. $`i<k<j`$, and we can write :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}m& =& b_1\mathrm{}b_{i1}b_ib_{i+1}\mathrm{}b_{j1}b_jb_{j+1}\mathrm{}b_{2l}\\ & =& b_1\mathrm{}b_{i1}b_{i+1}\mathrm{}b_{j1}(b_ib_j)b_{j+1}\mathrm{}b_{2l}\end{array}$$

Now $`b_ib_j=b_ib_i^+=x`$ or $`y_i`$, thus $`b_ib_i^+Z(B)`$. Consequently $`m=b_1\mathrm{}b_{i1}b_{i+1}\mathrm{}b_{j1}b_{j+1}\mathrm{}b_{2l}(b_ib_i^+)`$. Let $`m=m^{}(b_ib_i^+)`$, with $`b_ib_i^+Z(B)`$ and $`m^{}B^0`$. By an easy induction, we find $`mZ(B)`$. Then $`B^0Z(B)`$ (the other inclusion is always true). As a consequence, $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold (unless $`B=0`$).
* $`A_1B_1F`$ : As above, we must have $`r+s=0`$. If $`\alpha +\beta 0`$, lemma 5 can be used, with the help of $`\gamma :BK[x,y]/xy1/(\alpha +\beta )`$, defined by $`\gamma (a_i)=x`$, $`\gamma (a_i^+)=y`$. If $`\alpha +\beta =0`$ we have (with $`\alpha =1`$):

$$a_1a_1^+a_1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_1$$

$$a_1a_i^+a_ia_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_1,i1$$

$$a_i^+a_ia_1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_1$$

$$a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0=a_1$$

$$B=0$$
* $`C`$ : We do as in case $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_bC`$.
* $`CD`$ :

$$ra_1(C)+s(C)a_1ra_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^++sa_1a_1^+a_1=\lambda (r+s)a_1$$
(9)
$$ra_1(D)+s(D)a_1ra_1a_1^+a_1+sa_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mu (r+s)a_1$$
(10)
From these two relations we get :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}ra_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^+a_1+sa_1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\lambda (r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ ra_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^+a_1+sa_1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\mu (r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\end{array}$$

$$(r+s)(\lambda \mu )a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0$$

This shows that $`(r+s)(\lambda \mu )=0`$.

+ $`\lambda =\mu `$ : We can use $`\varphi `$ as in case $`C`$.
    + $`\lambda \mu ,r+s=0`$ then (9) and (10) $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^+=a_1a_1^+a_1=a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$. Thus :

    $$\begin{array}{ccc}\lambda a_1\mathrm{}a_n& =& a_1\mathrm{}a_na_ia_i^+\\ & =& a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_i^+a_1\mathrm{}a_{i1}a_{i+1}\mathrm{}a_n\\ & =& a_i^+a_i(a_1\mathrm{}a_n)\\ & =& \mu a_1\mathrm{}a_n\end{array}$$

    Therefore $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n=0`$, and, by induction : $`B=0`$.
* $`E_2`$ or $`E_2^{}`$ : On one hand $`ra_1(l_1)+s(l_1)a_1`$ gives

$$(r+s)a_1=s\beta _1a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+ra_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^++(s+r\beta _1)a_1a_1^+a_1$$
(11)
on the other hand $`ra_1(l_2)+s(l_2)a_1`$ gives :

$$s\beta _2a_1^+a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+r\beta _2a_1a_1^+a_1=(r+s)a_1$$
(12)
From (12) we get :

$$\beta _2=0r+s=0$$

Furthermore :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\beta _2(\text{11})\beta _1(\text{12})\\ (\text{12})\end{array}(S):\{\begin{array}{c}\beta _2a_1(ra_1a_1^++sa_1^+a_1)=(\beta _2\beta _1)(r+s)a_1\\ \beta _2(ra_1a_1^++sa_1^+a_1)a_1=(r+s)a_1\end{array}$$

Now :

$$(S)\{\begin{array}{c}\beta _2a_1(ra_1a_1^++sa_1^+a_1)a_1=(\beta _2\beta _1)(r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \beta _2a_1(ra_1a_1^++sa_1^+a_1)a_1=(r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\end{array}$$

$$(\beta _2\beta _11)(r+s)a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0$$

Then we must have $`(r+s)(\beta _2\beta _11)=0`$.

+ $`\beta _2\beta _11=0`$ :

    - $`\beta _20`$, we define $`\rho :L_nC`$, with $`C=K[x,y]/xy\frac{1}{\beta _2}`$, such that $`\rho (a_1)=x`$, $`\rho (a_1^+)=y`$, and $`\rho (a_i)=\rho (a_i^+)=0`$, $`i>1`$. We then see that $`\rho `$ is well defined non-zero homomorphism to $`C`$.
        - $`\beta _2=0`$ (which entails $`r+s=0`$); $`\beta _1=1`$. We then have the presentation $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^+a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+a_i^+a_i1\}`$. We recognize the Weyl algebra $`A_n`$, which is a well known solution to our problem, with $`N_i=a_i^+a_i+\lambda _i.1`$, $`\lambda _iK`$.
    + $`1+\beta _1\beta _20`$, $`r+s=0`$

    $$(S)\{\begin{array}{c}\beta _2a_1[a_1,a_1^+]=0\\ \beta _2[a_1,a_1^+]a_1=0\end{array}$$

    where $`[.,.]`$ denotes the commutator.

    - $`1+\beta _1+(n1)\beta _20`$ (always true in the case $`E_2^{}`$) : We can then define a homomorphism $`\xi `$ from $`B`$ to $`C=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]/x_i^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\beta _1+(n1)\beta _2}}`$ by setting : $`\xi (a_i)=\xi (a_i^+)=x_i`$.
        - $`1+\beta _1+(n1)\beta _2=0`$

        $$(l_1)+\mathrm{}+(l_n)a_ia_i^++\beta _1a_i^+a_i+(n1)\beta _2a_i^+a_i=n$$

        $$a_i^+a_ia_ia_i^+=n$$

        $$[a_i,a_i^+]=n$$

        But $`\beta _20`$, (or else $`1+\beta _1\beta _2=0`$), then from $`(S)`$ we get :

        $$na_1\mathrm{}a_n=[a_i,a_i^+]a_1\mathrm{}a_n$$

        $$na_1\mathrm{}a_n=\underset{i}{}([a_i,a_i^+]a_ia_1\mathrm{}a_{i1}a_{i+1}\mathrm{}a_n)=0$$

        $$a_1\mathrm{}a_n=0$$

        And we can iterate to get $`B=0`$.
* $`E_1CD`$ : From $`CD`$, the only remaining case to study is $`\lambda =\mu `$, that is to say $`n\nu =(\alpha +\beta )\lambda `$. Moreover (by the case $`E_2`$), $`\beta _2=0`$, we must have $`r+s=0`$. Then we see that we can use $`\xi `$ as in the case $`E_2`$, setting $`\xi (a_i)=\xi (a_i^+)=x_i`$, with $`x_i^2={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{n}}`$.
* $`F`$ : We have :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(r+s)a_j& =& ra_j(\alpha a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i)+s(\alpha a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i)a_j\\ & =& \alpha _{ij}a_i(ra_ja_i^++sa_i^+a_j)+\beta _{ij}(ra_ja_i^++sa_i^+a_j)a_i\\ & & +(r\beta +s\alpha )a_ja_j^+a_j+r\alpha a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_j^++s\beta a_j^+a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ & =& (r\beta +s\alpha )a_ja_j^+a_j+r\alpha a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_j^++s\beta a_j^+a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\end{array}$$

Since there always exists $`j`$ such that the monomials in the last expression are irreducible, we must have $`r\alpha =s\beta =0`$ and $`r\beta +s\alpha =0`$, that entails that either $`r`$ and $`s`$ or $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ must be zero, which is impossible.

$`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a`$ : This case is quite similar to the previous one, and we leave it to the reader. In the case $`E_2`$ we find the pseudo-boson solution.

$`(1,1)_c(2,0)`$ :

* $`A_3`$ : Let us distinguish between the different forms of $`S^{(0,0)}`$.

+ (a) On one hand we have $`a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_j^+0`$, and on the other hand we find $`a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_j^+(1\beta )a_j\beta _{ij}a_ja_i^+a_i`$, which is irreducible. This system cannot be confluent.
    + (b) : We can use the same argument by reducing $`a_{j_0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{j_0}^+`$ in two different ways.
* $`A_1B_1F`$ : From $`(l_3)a_i`$ and $`a_i(l_3)`$ we get $`\alpha =\beta `$. We set $`\alpha `$ to $`1`$, and we define $`\delta :L_nL_1=Ka,a^+`$ by $`\delta (a_i)=a`$, $`\delta (a_i^+)=a^+`$. This $`\delta `$ induces a non-zero morphism from $`B`$ to the Clifford algebra Cl$`(1,1):=Ka,a^+/a^2,a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},aa^++a^+a1`$. Indeed, $`\delta (a_ia_i^+a_ja_j^+)=0=\delta (a_i^+a_ia_j^+a_j)`$, $`\delta (a_ia_j)=a^2=0`$, $`\delta (a_i^+a_j^+)=a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, $`\delta (a_ia_i^++a_i^+a_i)=aa^++a^+a=1`$. We conclude by lemma 8.
* $`E_2`$ : $`(l_1)a_2a_2^+a_1a_1^+a_2a_2^+=\lambda a_2a_2^+`$. Moreover, $`a_1a_1^+(l_2)a_1a_1^+a_2a_2^+=\lambda a_1a_1^+`$. Thus $`a_ia_i^+=a_ja_j^+`$, which is not possible.
* $`E_1CD`$ : From $`C`$ and $`D`$ we have $`\lambda =\mu =0`$. Then $`n\nu =\alpha \lambda +\beta \mu =0`$, which is impossible.
* $`F`$ : We have $`\alpha _ia_ia_i^+a_ja_j=0`$ and $`\beta _ia_ja_i^+a_ia_j=0`$, but at least one one of these two expressions is irreducible.

$`(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ :

* $`C`$ : $`B=0`$ (see case $`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a(2,0)`$).
* $`E_2`$ :

+ (a) : We have $`(a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})a_i^+0`$, and on the other hand $`a_i(a_ia_i^+)\lambda (1\beta _1)a_i+\beta _1\beta _2_{}a_j^+a_ja_i+\beta _1\beta _2_𝒥a_j^+a_ia_j\beta _2_{ji}a_ia_j^+a_j`$ where $``$ is the set of indices $`j`$ s.t. $`a_j<a_i`$ and $`𝒥`$ the set of all $`j`$’s s.t. $`a_j>a_i`$. The last expression being irreducible, we come to a contradiction.
    + (b) : We do the same with $`a_ia_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}`$.
    + (c) : ($`n=2`$) We have $`a_j^+a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0`$, and also $`(a_j^+a_j)a_j\frac{1}{\beta _2}(\lambda a_j\beta _1a_i^+a_ia_ja_ia_i^+a_j)`$. The term $`a_i^+a_ia_j`$ may be reduced to $`a_i^+a_ja_i`$, but the whole expression cannot reduce to $`0`$.
    + (d) : We have $`a_i^+a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0`$ and $`a_i^+a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{\beta _1}(\lambda (1\frac{1}{\beta _1})a_i\beta _2a_j^+a_ja_i+\frac{\beta _2}{\beta _1}a_ia_j^+a_j)`$. Confluence implies that $`\beta _1=1`$, $`\beta _2=0`$. In this case, $`I`$ is generated by the relations $`a_1a_1^++a_1^+a_1=\lambda `$, $`a_2a_2^++a_2^+a_2=\lambda `$, $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, $`a_ia_ja_ja_i=a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+=0`$, $`ij`$. We can thus send $`B`$ onto $`\mathrm{Cl}(1,1)`$ by $`a_ia`$, $`a_i^+a^+`$. We then use lemma 8.
* $`E_2^{}`$ :

+ (a) : Same method as in (a) of case $`E_2`$.
    + (b) or (c) : We have $`0a_{i_0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{i_0}^+\lambda a_{i_0}_{}a_{i_0}a_ia_i^+_𝒥a_ia_{i_0}a_i^+`$ with $`=\{i|a_{i_0}<a_i\}`$ and $`𝒥=\{i|a_{i_0}>a_i\}`$. This contradicts confluence.
* $`F`$ :

+ (a) : We can assume without loss of generality that $`i_0=n`$, so that $`a_na_ia_ia_n`$. One can then show that $`0a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_n^+\frac{\lambda }{\alpha }(1\frac{\beta }{\alpha })a_n+`$ $`\frac{\beta }{\alpha }_{i<n}a_ia_i^+a_n+\frac{\beta ^2}{\alpha ^2}_{i<n}a_i^+a_ia_n_{i<n}a_ia_na_i^+\frac{\beta }{\alpha }_{i<n}a_na_i^+a_i`$, which is irreducible.
    + (b) : Symmetrical computation with $`a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}a_n`$.
* $`A_3`$ or $`A_1B_1F`$ : It is easy to show that $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n=0`$. In any case the normal form of $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n`$ looks like $`a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_n}0`$. Therefore, $`(P_4)`$ does not hold.

$`(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ : This case is similar to the previous one.

$`(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ :

* $`A_3`$ : By multiplying $`a_1a_1^++\beta _ia_i^+a_i=1`$ to the left by $`a_1`$, we find $`\beta a_2a_2^+a_1=a_1`$, thus $`B=0`$. We use a similar method in cases $`A_1D`$, $`A_2D`$, and $`A_1B_1F`$.
* $`C`$ or $`CD`$ : We can assume that $`i_0=n`$. We have $`0a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_n^+\lambda a_na_na_1a_1^+\mathrm{}a_na_{n1}a_{n1}^+`$, consequently the reduction system cannot be confluent.
* $`E_2`$ :

+ $`n3`$ : From $`a_1(l_1)a_2`$ we find $`a_1a_2=\beta _1a_1a_1^+a_1a_2`$, and from $`a_1(l_3)a_2`$, $`a_1a_2=\beta _2a_1a_1^+a_1a_2`$, thus $`a_1a_2=0`$.
    + $`n=2`$ : In every case we can easily prove that the reduction system is not confluent.
* $`E_2^{}`$ : Same methods as above.
* $`F`$ : Let’s assume we have a reduction system of type (a) (the case (b) is symmetrical), and suppose $`i_0=n`$. We have $`0a_na_n^+a_1a_1a_1^+a_1\frac{\beta }{\alpha }_{i>1}a_i^+a_ia_1+\frac{1}{\alpha }a_1`$, which is irreducible.
* $`E_1CD`$ : $`i`$, $`0a_ia_i^+a_{i_0}\frac{1}{\alpha }(\nu a_{i_0}\beta a_i^+a_ia_{i_0})`$, which is irreducible, and $`i𝒦`$, $`0a_{i_0}a_j^+a_j\frac{1}{\beta }(\nu a_{i_0}\alpha a_{i_0}a_ja_j^+)`$, irreducible too. Since at least one of two sets of indices is not empty, we conclude that the reduction system is not confluent.

$`(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`A_2D`$, $`\lambda =0`$ : If $`a_k^+=sup\{a_i^+\}`$, we have $`0a_k^+a_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mu a_k_{ik}a_i^+a_ia_k`$, which is irreducible.
* $`C`$ or $`CD`$ : see $`(1,1)_b(2,0)C`$.
* $`A_3`$ : We know from proposition 2 that at most one of the $`a_i^+a_i`$’s is reducible. But we have $`0a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_i^+(1\beta )a_i+\beta ^2_{ji}a_j^+a_ja_i\beta _{ji}a_ia_j^+a_j`$. Now we can choose $`i`$ such that $`ji`$, $`a_j^+a_j`$ is irreducible. Then if $`r=0`$, the last expression is irreducible. If $`r0`$, some of the $`a_ia_j^+a_j`$’s can be reduced to $`qa_j^+a_ia_j`$, but in any case we get a non-zero irreducible quantity.
* $`A_1B_1F`$ : $`a_i(l_{3,1})a_j`$ gives $`a_i(\alpha a_1a_1^++\beta a_1^+a_1)a_j=\alpha a_i(a_ia_i^+)a_j+\beta a_i(a_j^+a_j)a_j`$, but this is excluded.
* $`A_1D`$ : We have, $`i`$, $`a_ia_1a_1^+=a_ia_ia_i^+=0\mu a_1a_1^+=a_i^+a_ia_1a_1^+=0`$. A contradiction.
* $`E_2`$ :

+ (a) : By reducing $`a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_1^+`$ in two different ways, one can prove that we must have $`r0`$, $`\beta _2=0`$ and $`\beta _1=1`$ for the system to be confluent. Thus we get $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+1a_i^+a_i|1ijn\}`$ which is a confluent reduction system adapted to $`<_n`$. Let $`=(i_1,\mathrm{},i_k)[1..n]^k`$ be a k-uple of indices. $`a_{}`$ will stand for $`a_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_k}`$, and $`a_{}^+`$ for $`a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+`$, $`||=k`$. If $`=\mathrm{}`$, we set $`a_{\mathrm{}}=a_{\mathrm{}}^+=1`$. With these notations, the basis of irreducible monomials for our reduction system is the set of all $`a_{}^+a_𝒥`$, $``$ and $`𝒥`$ running over all possible t-uple of indices such that $`i_mi_{m+1}`$, $`j_mj_{m+1}`$, $`m`$. It is then possible to use this basis to explicitly calculate the commutator of an element of $`B^0`$ with an $`a_i`$ and an $`a_i^+`$ (see \[Bes1\]). Doing this, one sees that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
    + (b) : This case is symmetrical to the latter.
    + (c) : $`0a_j^+a_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{\beta _2}(\lambda a_j\beta _1a_i^+a_ia_jq^{}a_ia_ja_i^+)`$, thus the reduction system is not confluent.
    + (d) : $`a_i^+a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{\beta _1}(\lambda (1\frac{1}{\beta _1})a_i\beta _2a_j^+a_ja_i+\frac{\beta _2}{\beta _1}a_ia_j^+a_j)`$. Now this last expression is irreducible, except for the term $`a_ia_j^+a_j`$, which can possibly be reduced to $`qa_j^+a_ia_j`$. So, we must have $`\beta _1=1`$ and $`\beta _2=0`$ and then $`rs0`$. Indeed, if $`r=0`$ we have $`0a_ja_j^+a_i\lambda a_ia_j^+a_ja_i`$, and if $`s=0`$ we have $`0a_ja_i^+a_i\lambda a_ja_ja_ia_i^+`$ both being impossible. There are two cases :

    - If $`a_ia_j^+`$ is reducible, then $`qa_i^+a_j^+a_ia_i^+a_ia_j^+\lambda a_j^+a_ia_i^+a_j^+`$. Since both expressions are irreducible, we conclude that the system is not confluent.
        - If $`a_j^+a_i`$ is reducible, then we have $`q^{}a_ja_ia_j^+a_ja_j^+a_i\lambda a_ia_j^+a_ja_i`$, and arrive at the same conclusion.
* $`E_2^{}`$ : Case (b) or (c) $`0a_{i_0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{i_0}^+\lambda a_{i_0}{\displaystyle \underset{ji_0}{}}a_{i_0}a_ja_j^+`$, which is irreducible.
* $`E_1CD`$ : $`\lambda ^{}a_{i_0}+\frac{\beta }{\alpha }_{}a_k^+a_ka_{i_0}_𝒦a_ka_k^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}\mu ^{}a_{i_0}+\frac{\alpha }{\beta }_𝒦a_{i_0}a_ka_k^+_{}a_{i_0}a_k^+a_k`$ and the only further reductions we can possibly do are : $`a_ka_k^+a_{i_0}q^{}a_ka_{i_0}a_k^+`$ and $`a_{i_0}a_k^+a_kqa_k^+a_{i_0}a_k`$. This shows that the two expressions cannot be reduced to a common normal form.
* $`F`$ : Let’s do the case $`(a)`$, the other one being symmetrical. Suppose $`a_n`$ is the largest of the $`a_i`$’s, then $`0a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_n^+a_n(1\alpha _{i<n}a_ia_i^+\beta _{in}a_i^+a_i)`$. If $`r=0`$ we see that confluence is impossible. And if $`r0`$, we have $`0=a_n\alpha _{i<n}a_na_ia_i^+q\beta _{i<n}a_i^+a_ia_n`$ and we come to the same conclusion.

$`(1,1)_b`$ :

* $`A_3`$ : From $`a_1a_n=a_1(\alpha a_1a_1^++\beta _ia_i^+a_i)a_n`$ we are led to $`a_1a_n=0`$. Thus, the presentation is not standard. The same method can be used for the cases $`A_1D`$, $`A_2D`$, $`\lambda =0`$ and $`A_1B_1F`$.
* $`C`$, $`CD`$, $`E_2`$, $`E_2^{}`$, $`E_1CD`$, $`F`$ : These rather easy cases are left to the reader (it can be shown each time that the systems cannot be confluent).

$`(1,1)_a`$ : Let us first notice that in all cases containing $`A_2`$ we have $`ra_ia_j^++sa_j^+a_i=0ra_ja_ia_j^++s\lambda a_i=0`$. Then, if $`r=0`$, $`a_i=0`$, and $`(P_0)`$ is not fulfilled. So $`r0`$, and $`a_ia_j^+`$ must be reducible.

* $`A_2`$ : According the remark, we must have $`r0`$. Then we see that $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i|ij\}`$ is confluent (there are no ambiguities) and adapted to $`<_n`$. The basis of irreducible monomials is $`T:=\{a_{}^+a_𝒥|,𝒥`$ run over all tuples of indices$`\}`$. If we write $`p`$ for the projection on $`W=`$Span$`(T)`$ in the direction of $`I`$, then $`p(x)=`$nf$`(x)`$. If the lenghts of $``$ and $`𝒥`$ are at least 2, and if $`n`$ belongs to $`𝒥`$, we have $`p([a_{}^+a_𝒥,a_n^+])=q^{n_𝒥}a_{}^+a_𝒥^{}a_n^+a_{}^+a_𝒥`$, where $`n_𝒥`$ is the number of $`a_i`$’s in $`a_𝒥`$ that are to the right of the $`a_n`$ which is the most to the right, and $`𝒥^{}=𝒥`$ where the $`n`$ the most to the right has been left out. If $`n`$ does not appear in $`𝒥`$, $`p([a_{}^+a_𝒥,a_n^+])=q^{|𝒥|}a_{}^+a_n^+a_𝒥a_n^+a_{}^+a_𝒥`$. In both cases, if $`(n,\mathrm{},n)`$, we have lm$`(p([a_{}^+a_𝒥,a_n^+]))=a_n^+a_{}^+a_𝒥`$. Now if $`a_{}^+a_𝒥L_n^0`$, $`=(n,\mathrm{},n)𝒥=(n,\mathrm{},n)`$, then if $`a_{}^+a_𝒥L_n^0`$ we always have lm$`(p([a_{}^+a_𝒥,a_n^+]))=a_n^+a_{}^+a_𝒥`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{N_1}`$ be a representative of $`N_1`$ in $`W`$, and let $`a_{}^+a_𝒥`$ be the leading term of $`\stackrel{~}{N_1}`$. Then we see that $`a_n^+a_{}^+a_𝒥`$ is bigger than any other term of $`p([\stackrel{~}{N_1},a_n^+])`$, thus lm$`(p([\stackrel{~}{N_1},a_n^+]))=a_n^+a_{}^+a_𝒥`$, which proves that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
* $`A_2B_1`$, $`A_2B_2`$ : As before, we have $`r0`$. For $`ii_0`$, we get $`a_i=(a_ia_i^+)a_i=a_i(a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0})=qa_{i_0}^+a_ia_{i_0}`$. Then $`a_iqa_{i_0}^+a_ia_{i_0}=0`$, which is irreducible.
* $`A_2D`$ : It can readily be seen that we need $`\lambda =\mu `$ and $`q=0`$ in order to have a confluent system. In this case, an argument like the one we used in case $`A_2`$ allows us to prove that $`(P_3)`$ is not satisfied.
* $`A_3`$ :

+ If $`r0`$ : $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1\beta a_j^+a_j,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i|ij\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$ (no ambiguities). Using the basis $`T=\{a_{}^+a_𝒥\}`$ it can be shown that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold (see \[Bes1\]).
    + si $`r=0`$ : Let’s look at the two possible reduction systems :

    - (a) : we have $`0a_na_n^+a_1a_1\beta _ia_i^+a_ia_1`$, and there is no confluence.
        - (b) : For $`ii_0`$, $`0a_ia_i^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}`$, which is irreducible.
* $`A_1B_1F`$ :

+ (a) We have $`a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_ia_ia_i^+a_i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}(a_i\alpha a_ia_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+)`$. The term on the left may be reducible to $`q^{}a_{i_0}a_ia_{i_0}^+`$. In any case, the ambiguity is not solvable.
    + (b) : With $`ii_0`$ we have $`\frac{1}{\alpha }(a_i\beta a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}a_i)a_ia_i^+a_ia_ia_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}`$. We conclude as before.
* $`A_1D`$ : If $`a_ia_{j_0}^+`$ is reducible then $`qa_{j_0}^+a_ia_{j_0}a_ia_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}a_i_{jj_0}a_ia_j^+a_j`$. Now these two expressions cannot be reduced to a common form, so $`ij_0`$, $`a_ia_{j_0}^+`$ is irreducible. Consequently $`a_{j_0}^+a_i`$ is reducible.

+ If $`n3`$, or $`n=2`$ and $`i_0=j_0`$, we can take $`ii_0,j_0`$. We have $`q^{}a_ia_{j_0}^+a_i^+a_{j_0}^+a_ia_i^+a_{j_0}^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+`$. Then if $`i_0j_0`$, $`a_{j_0}^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+q^{}a_{i_0}a_{j_0}^+a_{i_0}^+`$ and the reduction system is not confluent. If $`i_0=j_0`$, $`a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}^+_{ji_0}a_j^+a_ja_{i_0}^+`$, which is irreducible.
    We leave the case $`n=2`$ and $`i_0j_0`$ to the reader (the system is not confluent).
* $`C`$ : As in case $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b`$ the homomorphism $`\varphi `$ can be defined and used to rule out this case.
* $`CD`$ :

+ If $`kj_0`$ such that $`a_ka_{j_0}^+`$ is reducible, then $`qa_{j_0}^+a_ka_{j_0}a_ka_{j_0}^+a_{j_0}`$ $`\mu a_kq_{j𝒦}a_j^+a_ka_j_ja_ka_j^+a_ja_ka_k^+a_k`$, with $`𝒦=\{jj_0|a_ka_j^+`$ reducible$`\}`$, and $`=\{jj_0|a_ka_j^+`$irreducible$`\}`$. We see that the expression is irreducible if $`ki_0`$. If $`k=i_0`$, it can be reduced to $`(\mu \lambda )a_kq_{j𝒦}a_j^+a_ka_j_ja_ka_j^+a_j+_{j𝒦^{}}a_ja_j^+a_k+q^{}_j^{}a_ja_ka_j^+`$. Therefore we must have $`\mu =\lambda `$. But in this case we can use $`\varphi `$, as in case $`(C)`$, and $`(P_3)`$ is not satisfied. Thus we must have $`kj_0`$, $`a_ka_{j_0}^+`$ is irreducible, which entails $`a_{j_0}^+a_k`$ is reducible.
    + If $`ki_0`$ such that $`a_{i_0}^+a_k`$ is reducible, we can reduce $`a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_k`$ in two different ways, and come to a contradiction.
    + If $`n>2`$, or $`n=2`$ and $`i_0=j_0`$.
    Let $`ki_0,j_0`$, then $`q^{}a_ka_{j_0}^+a_{i_0}^+a_{j_0}^+a_ka_{i_0}^+qa_{j_0}^+a_{i_0}^+a_k`$. Since these two expressions are irreducible, this case is ruled out.
    + $`n=2`$, $`i_0=1`$, $`j_0=2`$. We leave this case to the reader (reduce $`a_2^+a_2a_1^+`$ in two different ways).
* $`E_2`$ or $`E_2^{}`$

+ If $`r0`$, $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1\beta _1a_i^+a_i\beta _2a_j^+a_j,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i|ij\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$. $`T=\{a_{}^+a_𝒥\}`$ is the corresponding basis of irreducible monomials. By using the same method as in case $`A_3`$, we find that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
    + If $`r=0`$, $`S=\{a_i^+a_j0,a_i^+a_i1\alpha _1a_ia_i^+\alpha _2_{kj}a_ka_k^+\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$. The corresponding basis is $`T=\{a_{}a_𝒥^+\}`$. If $``$ does not begin with $`n`$, we have $`[a_{}a_𝒥^+,a_n^+]=a_{}a_𝒥^+a_n^+`$. Moreover, $`[a_na_{}a_𝒥^+,a_n^+]=a_na_{}a_𝒥^+a_n^+a_{}a_𝒥^++\alpha _1a_na_n^+a_{}a_𝒥^++\alpha _2_{i<n}a_ia_i^+a_{}a_𝒥^+`$. Thus we see that if $``$ does not begin with $`n`$, lm$`([a_na_{}a_𝒥^+,a_n^+])=a_na_{}a_𝒥^+a_n^+`$, and we get by induction : if $`(n,\mathrm{},n)`$, lm$`([a_na_{}a_𝒥^+,`$ $`a_n^+])=a_na_{}a^+_𝒥a^+_n`$, and $`[a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k},a_n^+]=(1(1)^k\alpha _1^k)a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k+1}+u`$, with $`u<a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k+1}`$. Then if lm$`(N_1)a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}`$, lm$`([N_1,a_n^+])=`$lm$`(N_1)a_n^+`$, which is irreducible : a contradiction. And if lm$`(N_1)=a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}`$, we show that lm$`([N_1,a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}])=a_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{n}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}`$, which is irreducible as well. Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.
* $`E_1CD`$ :

+ $`r=0`$ : If $`i`$, $`0=a_ia_i^+a_j=\frac{1}{\alpha }(\nu a_j\beta a_i^+a_ia_j)`$, contradiction. Thus $`=\mathrm{}`$. But now, with $`ji_0`$, $`a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_j=\lambda a_j_{ji_0}a_ia_i^+a_j=\lambda a_ja_ja_j^+a_j`$, which also contradicts the confluence.
    + $`s=0`$ : Symmetrical case.
    + $`rs0`$ : We have $`a_{i_0}>a_j^+`$, $`j`$, and $`a_{i_0}^+>a_j`$, $`j𝒦`$. The reader can then easily verify that $`a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}a_j^+`$ can be reduced in two different ways which lead to distinct irreducible expressions.
* $`F`$ :

+ $`\alpha \beta `$ : We define an homomorphism $`\varphi :K[x_i,y_i]/\{x_iy_i\frac{1}{\alpha +\beta }\}`$, and we use lemma 5.
    + $`\alpha =\beta `$ : Suppose $`\alpha =1`$. We have $`a_ia_i^+a_i^+a_i=1`$
    If $`r=0`$ then $`a_ia_i^+a_i_ja_j^+a_ja_i=a_i`$, and $`a_i_ja_ja_j^+a_ia_i^+a_i=a_i`$. But both expressions are irreducible. This is impossible.
    Now if $`r0`$, $`S=\{a_na_n^+1+a_i^+a_i_{i<n}a_ia_i^+,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i|ij\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$. The basis $`T`$ is made of monomials of the form $`a__1^+a_{𝒥_1}a_{i_1}a_{i_1}^+a__2^+a_{𝒥_2}a_{i_2}a_{i_2}^+\mathrm{}`$, with $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}n`$. If $`t`$ is such a monomial we have $`[t,a_n^+]=a__1^+a_{𝒥_1}\mathrm{}(a_{i_j}a_{i_j}^+)\mathrm{}a__k^+a_{𝒥_k}a_n^+a_n^+a__1^+a_{𝒥_1}\mathrm{}`$ Set $`t=`$lm$`(\stackrel{~}{N}_1)`$.

    - If $`t=a_j^+u`$, $`jn`$, then lm$`(p([t,a_j]))=a_jt`$, thus $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
        - If $`t=a_n^+u`$, then lm$`(p([t,a_n]))=a_{n1}a_{n1}^+u`$, $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
        - If $`t=a_ju`$, lm$`(p([t,a_n]))=a_nt`$, $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.

$`(1,1)_c`$ : This case is rather easy, and we only state the results.

* $`A_3`$, $`A_3B_1`$, $`A_1D`$, and $`A_2D`$ : It is easily shown that $`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}=0`$, but since $`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}`$ is irreducible, this contradicts $`(P_4)`$.
* $`C`$ : Use the same $`\varphi `$ as in case $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b`$.
* $`CD`$ : If $`\lambda =\mu `$, we can do the same as above. If $`\lambda \mu `$, it can be shown that $`a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}=0`$.
* $`E_2`$, $`E_2^{}`$, $`F`$, $`E_1CD`$ : $`(P_4)`$ does not hold.

$`(1,1)_b`$ :

* $`A_2`$, $`A_2B_1`$, $`A_2B_2`$ : Let $`\varphi :BC`$, $`C:=K[x,y]/xy1`$, be the only homomorphism such that $`\varphi (a_i)=x`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+)=y`$. $`\varphi `$ is clearly well defined and we conclude by lemma 5.
* $`A_2D`$ : With $`i_0=n`$, we have $`\lambda a_na_na_n^+a_n\mu a_n+_{i<n}a_na_i^+a_i`$. Thus $`(P_4)`$ cannot hold.
* $`A_3`$ :

+ $`\beta 1/n`$ : As in $`A_2`$ we can define $`\varphi :BC:=K[x,y]/xy1/(1+n\beta )`$.
    + $`\beta =1/n`$ : We define $`\varphi :BA_1=Ka,a^+/aa^+a^+a1`$ by setting $`\varphi (a_i)=a`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+)=a^+`$. We then use lemma 8.
* $`A_1B_1F`$ : Same method as above.
* $`A_1D`$ : We send $`B`$ to $`K[x,y]/xy1/n`$ by $`a_ix`$, $`a_i^+y`$, and we use lemma 5.
* $`C`$ : Here we send $`B`$ to $`_iK[x_i,y_i]/x_iy_i1`$, as in case $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b`$.
* $`CD`$ : We are going to show that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold if $`n=2`$. We will then be able to deduce that $`(P_3)`$ never holds with the help of lemma 6, since the projection $`L_nL_2`$ goes over to the quotient.
$`S=\{a_1a_1^+\lambda a_2a_2^+,a_2^+a_2\mu a_1^+a_1,a_1a_2a_2a_1,a_2^+a_1^+a_1^+a_2^+\}`$ is confluent (no ambiguity) and adapted to the deglex ordering coming from $`a_2<a_1<a_1^+<a_2^+`$. The corresponding basis is $`T=\{a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_1}a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{l_1}\mathrm{}a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_r}a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{l_r}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_1}a_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{n_1}\mathrm{}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_s}a_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{n_s}\}`$, with $`k_i,l_i,m_i,n_i0`$.
Let $`xTL_2^{(0,0)}`$, $`x1`$. Then $`x`$ begins with an $`a_2`$ or an $`a_1^+`$, and ends with an $`a_1`$ or an $`a_2^+`$, therefore $`xa_1^+`$ is reducible, meanwhile $`a_1^+x`$ is irreducible. Moreover $`a_1^+x>xa_1^+`$, so lm$`(p([N_1,a_1^+]))=a_1^+`$lm$`(N_1)`$. This is absurd : $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.
* $`E_2`$ or $`E_2^{}`$ : This case looks like $`A_3`$. We have to use different kinds of morphisms depending on whether $`\beta _1+(n1)\beta _2+1`$ vanishes or not. We leave the details to the reader.
* $`E_1CD`$ : Let’s deal with the case $`𝒦\mathrm{}`$, the case $`\mathrm{}`$ being symmetrical. Let $`i`$ be such that $`a_i=`$min$`\{a_j|1jn\}`$. We must have $`ii_0`$. We get $`a_{i_0}^+a_ia_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}a_i\mu ^{}a_i_{}a_j^+a_ia_j+\frac{\alpha }{\beta }_𝒦a_ja_j^+a_i`$ and this contradicts $`(P_4)`$.
* $`F`$ : Quotienting out by the ideal generated by $`a_ia_i^+\lambda _1`$ and $`a_i^+a_i\lambda _2`$, with $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2=\lambda 0`$, we are brought back to case $`CD`$, and we conclude by lemma 6.

$`(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$, $`A_2B_1`$, $`A_2B_2`$ : Let $`i,j`$ be s.t. $`a_i>a_j`$. Then $`a_ja_ia_j^+a_ia_ja_j^+a_i`$ and $`(P_4)`$ cannot hold.
* $`A_2D`$ : We have $`\lambda a_{i_0}a_{i_0}a_{i_0}^+a_{i_0}\mu a_{i_0}_{ii_0}a_{i_0}a_i^+a_i`$ and $`(P_4)`$ cannot hold.
* $`A_1D`$ : We define $`\delta :B\mathrm{Cl}(n,0):=Kx_1,\mathrm{},x_n/x_ix_j+x_jx_i\delta _{ij}`$ by $`\delta (a_i)=\delta (a_i^+)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}x_i`$, we then use lemma 7.
* $`A_3`$ :

+ (a) : Suppose that $`a_i`$ is the sup of the $`a_k`$’s, and choose $`ji`$. We find : $`a_ja_ia_j^+a_ia_ja_j^+(1\beta )a_i+\beta ^2a_k^+a_ka_i\beta _{ki}a_ia_k^+a_k`$. This contradicts $`(P_4)`$.
    + (b) : If $`n3`$, let $`i,ji_0`$ be s.t. $`a_i<a_j`$. Then $`a_ia_ja_i^+a_ja_ia_i^+`$ $`a_{i_0}a_ja_{i_0}^+`$, which contradicts $`(P_4)`$. If $`n=2`$, one can easily show that $`i_0j_0`$ leads to a contradiction. We can then assume that $`i_0=j_0=2`$. If we define $`<`$ by $`a_2<a_1<a_1^+<a_2^+`$, we see that $`S=\{a_1a_2a_2a_1,a_2^+a_1^+a_1^+a_2^+,a_1a_1^+a_2a_2^+,a_2^+a_2\lambda \alpha a_2a_2^+a_1^+a_1\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<`$.
    $`T=\{a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_1}a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{l_1}\mathrm{}a_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{k_r}a_{1}^{+}{}_{}{}^{l_r}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_1}a_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{n_1}\mathrm{}a_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_s}a_{2}^{+}{}_{}{}^{n_s}\}`$. We proceed exactly as in case $`(1,1)_bCD`$.
* $`A_1B_1F`$ : It can easily be shown that neither the system (a) nor the system (b) is confluent.
* $`C`$ or $`CD`$ : We do as in case $`(1,1)_b`$.
* $`E_2`$ or $`E_2^{}`$ : Once again, if $`n3`$, we can easily show that $`(P_4)`$ does not hold. If $`n=2`$, we find a confluent reduction system, and we show that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold.
* $`E_1CD`$ : See $`(1,1)_b`$ ($`(P_4)`$ does not hold).
* $`F`$ : See $`(1,1)_b`$ ($`(P_3)`$ does not hold).

This is the end of the demonstration for the case $`n2`$. Let us know look at the case $`n=1`$.

The only relations we can have are : $`(2,0)`$, $`(A_2)`$, $`(B_2)`$, and $`(F)`$ (by lemma 1).

$`(2,0)`$ :

* $`A_2`$ : $`a^2a^+=0=aB=0`$
* $`B_2`$ : Symmetrical to the above case.
* $`F`$ : Multiplying $`\alpha aa^++\beta a^+a=1`$ to the right, then to the left by $`a`$ we get $`\alpha =\beta `$, and we recongnize the Clifford algebra $`C_1`$ which is a solution to our problem.

$`A_2`$ or $`B_2`$ : We can send $`B`$ to $`C=K[x,y]/xy1`$, by a non-zero isomorphism, and we conclude by lemma 5.

$`F`$ : If $`\alpha +\beta 0`$, we can send $`B`$ to $`K[x,y]/xy(1/\alpha +\beta )`$ and use lemma 5.
If $`\beta =\alpha `$, we find the Weyl algebra $`A_1`$, which is the bosonic solution.

QED.

## 5 Number Operator Algebras of Infinite Type

### 5.1 The Classification Theorem

###### Theorem 2

Let $`\alpha `$ be an infinite cardinal number and let $`B=L_\alpha /I`$ be a symmetric n.o.a. of quadratic presentation, i.e. $`I`$ satisfies the following properties

$`(P_0)`$ $`IL_\alpha `$, $`IX`$.

$`(P_1)`$ $`J(I)I`$.

$`(P_2)`$ $`\sigma 𝒮_\alpha `$, $`\sigma ^{}(I)I`$.

$`(P_3)`$ $`i_\alpha `$, $`N_iB`$ s.t. (1) and (2) hold.

$`(P_4^{})`$ : $`I`$ is generated by elements of degree two or less.

Then there exists $`hR\{0\}`$ such that $`I`$ is generated by one of the following sets :

(a) $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^++a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^++a_i^+a_ih|ij\}`$

(a’) $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^+a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^++a_i^+a_ih|ij\}`$

(c) $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^+a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+a_i^+a_ih|ij\}`$

(c’) $`\{a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^++a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+a_i^+a_ih|ij\}`$

The algebras of case $`(a)`$ (resp. $`(a^{})`$, $`(c)`$, $`(c^{})`$) are called fermionic (resp. pseudo-fermionic, bosonic, pseudo-bosonic) algebras, and are denoted by $`\widehat{C}_\alpha `$ (resp. $`C_\alpha `$, $`A_\alpha `$, $`\widehat{A}_\alpha `$).

### 5.2 The Lemmas

The lemmas 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are valid both in the finite and infinite cases.

Due to the action of the symmetric group, the terms with a sum cannot survive in the infinite case, or else the sum should be infinite, which is meaningless in our purely algebraic setting. For this reason, the lemma 10 gets replaced by :

###### Lemma 12

If $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_0)`$, $`(P_1)`$, $`(P_2)`$, $`(P_3)`$ and $`(P_4^{})`$ then it is generated by a union of sets, each being of one of the forms (with $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\lambda `$, $`r`$, $`sR`$) :

* $`(2,0)`$ : $`\{a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}|i_\alpha \}`$
* $`(1,1)_a`$ : $`\{a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+|i,j_\alpha ,ij\}`$
* $`(1,1)_b`$ : $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+|i,j_\alpha ,ij\}`$
* $`(1,1)_c`$ : $`\{a_ia_j,a_i^+a_j^+|i,j_\alpha ,ij\}`$
* $`(1,1)_a`$ : $`\{ra_ia_j^++sa_j^+a_i|i,j_\alpha ,ij\}`$, $`(r,s)(0,0)`$, $`r,sR`$.
* $`(1,1)_b`$ : $`\{a_ia_j^+,a_j^+a_i|i,j_\alpha ,ij\}`$
* $`A_1`$ : $`\{a_ia_i^+a_ja_j^+|i,j_\alpha ,i>j\}`$
* $`A_2`$ : $`\{a_ia_i^+\lambda |i_\alpha \}`$
* $`E`$ : $`\{\alpha a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i\lambda |i_\alpha \}`$
* $`E_1`$ : $`\{\alpha (a_ia_i^+a_ja_j^+)+\beta (a_i^+a_ia_j^+a_j)|i,j_\alpha ,ij\}`$

and the forms $`B_1`$, $`B_2`$ symmetric to $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, by the exchange of $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^+`$.

We must combine these different sets of generators to enumerate all possible presentations. The equivalent of the proposition 1 is the following :

###### Proposition 4

If $`I`$ fulfils $`(P_0)`$, $`(P_1)`$, $`(P_2)`$, $`(P_3)`$ and $`(P_4^{})`$ then there exists a presentation $`R`$ of $`I`$, of the form $`R=R^{(2,0)}R^{(1,1)}R^{(1,1)}R^{(0,0)}`$, such that :

* $`R^{(2,0)}=(2,0)`$ or the empty set.
* $`R^{(1,1)}=(1,1)_a`$ or $`(1,1)_b`$ or $`(1,1)_c`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.
* $`R^{(1,1)}=(1,1)_a`$ or $`(1,1)_b`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$.

and $`R^{(0,0)}`$ is one of the following sets :

$`A_2=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda |i_\alpha \}`$

$`A_2B_1=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda ,a_j^+a_ja_0^+a_0|i,j_\alpha ,j>0\}`$

$`A_2B_2=\{a_ia_i^+\lambda ,a_i^+a_i\lambda |i_\alpha \}`$

$`E=\{a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i\lambda |i_\alpha \}`$

$`A_1B_1E=\{a_ia_i^+a_0a_0^+,a_i^+a_ia_0^+a_0,a_0a_0^++\beta a_0^+a_0\lambda |i>0\}`$

as well as $`B_2`$, $`B_2B_1`$. In each case $`\lambda `$ and $`\beta `$ are non-zero, and belong to $`R`$.

### 5.3 Sketch of Proof of Theorem 2

We define a well-ordering $`<`$ on $`X`$ by $`a_i<a_ja_i^+<a_j^+i<j`$ and $`a_i^+<a_j`$ for all $`i,j_\alpha `$. We call $`<_n`$ the deglex-ordering defined by $`<`$.

As we did in the finite case, we can easily get rid of the ideals that contain relations $`(1,1)_c`$, $`(1,1)_b`$ or $`(2,0)`$, on the one hand, and $`A_2`$, on the other hand. Furthermore, the relations $`(2,0)`$ together with $`E`$ or $`A_1B_1E`$ imply $`\beta =1`$, as is easily seen by multiplying $`a_0a_0^++\beta a_0^+a_0=1`$ on the left, then on the right, by $`a_0`$.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ : The only case to study is $`E`$. If we multiply the relation $`E`$ on the left by $`a_j`$, with $`ij`$, we get $`\lambda a_j=0`$. Thus $`B=0`$, in contradiction with $`(P_0)`$.

$`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$ or $`A_1B_1E`$ : Let us multiply $`a_ka_k^++\beta a_k^+a_k=\lambda `$ on the left by $`a_i`$ and on the right by $`a_j`$, with $`i,j,k`$ distinct. We get $`a_ia_j=0`$, and we are back to the previous case.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$, $`EA_1B_1`$ : We have $`rs=0`$ (see the finite case $`F`$). Now if $`s=0`$, we see that $`\lambda a_i=a_ia_ja_j^++\beta a_ia_j^+a_j`$ vanishes if $`ij`$. The case $`r=0`$ is symmetrical.

$`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$: We have (with $`i,j,k`$ distinct) :

$$\lambda ra_ia_j^+=r(a_ia_ka_k^+a_j^++\beta a_ia_k^+a_ka_j^+)=s\lambda a_ia_j^+$$

$$(rs)a_ia_j^+=0$$

If $`a_ia_j^+=0`$, we easily find that $`B=0`$, thus we can assume $`rs=0`$. We also have :

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\lambda a_i=a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_i^++\beta a_ia_i^+a_i=\beta a_ia_i^+a_i\\ \lambda a_i=a_ia_i^+a_i+\beta a_i^+a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=a_ia_i^+a_i\end{array}$$

So $`\beta =1`$ by $`(P_0)`$. Thus $`B`$ is a fermionic algebra $`\widehat{C}_\alpha `$.
* $`EA_1B_1`$: Thanks to the previous case we have $`rs=0`$ and $`\beta =1`$. We let the reader use the relations $`A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ to show that $`B=0`$.

$`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ : This case is similar to the preceding one, except that we find pseudo-fermionic instead of fermionic algebras.

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b`$ : We can do as in case $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b(2,0)`$.

$`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(1,1)_b`$ : We must have $`a_ia_j=0`$ (see the finite case).

$`(1,1)_c(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`E`$ : We have : $`ra_ia_j^+=r(a_ia_ka_k^+a_j^++\beta a_ia_k^+a_ka_j^+)=s\beta a_ia_k^+a_j^+a_k=0`$. It entails that $`sa_j^+a_i=0`$. If $`a_ia_j^+=0`$, we get $`\lambda a_i=a_ia_ja_j^++\beta a_ia_j^+a_j=0`$, thus $`B=0`$. This is the same if $`a_j^+a_i=0`$.

$`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$, $`A_2B_1`$, $`A_2B_2`$ : If $`r+s0`$, we find $`B=0`$ (see the finite case). If $`r+s=0`$, we define $`\delta :BC:=K[(x_i)_{i_\alpha },(y_i)_{i_\alpha }]/x_iy_i1`$ by $`a_ix_i`$ and $`a_i^+y_i`$. Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold, by lemma 5.
* $`E`$ : According to the finite case, we must have $`r+s=0`$.

+ If $`\beta +1=0`$ : We find a bosonic algebra $`A_\alpha `$.
    + If $`\beta +10`$ : We can non-trivially map $`B`$ onto $`K[(x_i)_{i_\alpha }]/x_i^21/(1+\beta )`$ by $`a_i,a_i^+x_i`$. Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : Of course we must also have $`r+s=0`$. If $`\beta +1=0`$, we have a quotient of a bosonic (Weyl) algebra, which is simple. Thus $`B=0`$. If $`\beta +10`$, one shows that $`Z(B)=B^0`$ (see the finite case). Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.

$`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$, etc…: If $`r=0`$ we have $`a_ia_i^+a_j=a_j=0B=0`$. So $`r0`$, and we have :

$$a_ja_ia_i^+=qa_ia_i^+a_j$$

$$a_j=qa_j$$

Thus $`q=1`$ or else $`B=0`$. Now, we can define $`\varphi :BC`$, with $`C=K(x_i)_{i_\alpha }/x_ix_j+x_jx_i2\delta _{ij}`$, by $`a_i,a_i^+x_i`$, and we conclude by lemma 7.
* $`E`$ : $`r=0a_j=a_ia_i^+a_j+\beta a_i^+a_ia_j=0\beta a_i^+a_ja_i=0B=0`$.
We can then assume $`r0`$. We have :

$$a_j(a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i)=a_j$$

$$q(a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i)a_j=a_j$$

$$(1+q)a_j=0$$

Therefore $`q=1`$.

+ $`\beta 1`$ : We define $`\varphi :BK(x_i)_{i_\alpha }/x_ix_j+x_jx_i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\beta }}\delta _{ij}`$. We conclude as in case $`A_2`$.
    + $`\beta =1`$ : We have a pseudo-bosonic algebra $`\widehat{A}_\alpha `$.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : One can easily show that $`r=s`$ and $`1+\beta 0`$. We can then map $`B`$ onto $`C=Kx_i|i_\alpha /x_ix_j+x_jx_i2\delta _{ij}`$ and use lemma 7.

$`(1,1)_c(2,0)`$ : The only case to study is $`E`$. In this case $`B=0`$ (see $`(1,1)_c(1,1)_b(2,0)`$).

$`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(2,0)`$:

* $`E`$ : As we said at the beginning of this section, we have $`\beta =1`$. Therefore, we can define $`\varphi :BC_1:=Ka,a^+/a^2,a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2},aa^++a^+a1`$, by setting $`a_ia`$, $`a_i^+a^+`$. We then use lemma 8.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : $`a_ia_j=a_i(a_ia_i^++\beta a_j^+a_j)a_j=0`$, so we are back to the case $`(1,1)_c`$.

$`(1,1)_b(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$ or $`EA_1B_1`$ : $`\beta =1`$, and if $`ikj`$, $`a_i(a_ka_k^++a_k^+a_k)a_j=\lambda a_ia_j=0`$, and we are back to a previous case.

$`(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$ : $`\beta =1`$. We can assume $`r0`$, the case $`s0`$ being symmetrical. $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1a_i^+a_i,a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i\}`$ is a confluent reduction system, which is adapted to $`<_n`$. Let $`𝒥=(j_1,\mathrm{},j_r)`$ and $`𝒦=(k_1,\mathrm{},k_s)`$ be two tuples of indices. We write $`a_𝒥^+=a_{j_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{j_r}^+`$ and $`a_𝒦=a_{k_1}\mathrm{}a_{k_s}`$. By convention, $`a_{\mathrm{}}=a_{\mathrm{}}^+=1`$. With these notations, the basis of irreducible monomials is $`T=\{a_𝒥^+a_𝒦\}`$, with $`𝒥`$, $`𝒦`$ running over all tuples such that $`j_mj_{m+1}`$, $`k_mk_{m+1}`$. The notation $`k>𝒥`$ shall mean that $`k`$ is greater than all indices appearing in $`𝒥`$. So let $`k>𝒥,𝒦`$. We have :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[a_𝒥^+a_𝒦,a_k]& =& a_𝒥^+a_𝒦a_ka_ka_𝒥^+a_𝒦\\ & =& a_𝒥^+a_𝒦a_kq^{|𝒥|}a_𝒥^+a_ka_𝒦\end{array}$$

Then if lm$`(N_i)`$=$`a_𝒥^+a_𝒦`$, we see that for $`k`$ big enough : lm$`([N_i,a_k])=a_𝒥^+a_ka_𝒦`$, which is different from $`a_k`$ and from $`0`$. Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : We have :

$$\lambda a_ia_j=a_i(a_0a_0^++\beta a_0^+a_0)a_j$$

$$\lambda a_ia_j=a_ia_ia_i^+a_j+\beta a_ia_j^+a_ja_j$$

$$a_ia_j=0$$

$`(1,1)_b`$ :

* $`E`$,$`EA_1B_1`$ : With $`kil`$, we have $`a_k(a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i)a_l=0`$.

$`(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$ : If $`r=0`$ then $`B=0`$ (see $`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a`$). If $`r0`$ then $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$. $`T=\{a_𝒥^+a_𝒦\}`$, where $`𝒥`$ and $`𝒦`$ run over all tuples of indices, is the corresponding basis, and if $`k>𝒥`$, $`𝒦`$ we have : $`[a_𝒥^+a_𝒦,a_k]=a_𝒥^+a_𝒦a_kq^{|𝒥|}a_𝒥^+a_ka_𝒦`$. Thus, we see that $`(P_3)`$ does not hold, as in case $`(1,1)_a(2,0)E`$.
* $`A_2B_1`$, $`A_2B_2`$ : $`r0`$ by the above. We have, with $`ij`$ :

$$a_ja_j^+a_ja_j^+=1$$

$$a_j(a_i^+a_i)a_j^+=q^2a_i^+a_ja_j^+a_i=q^2a_i^+a_i=1$$

therefore $`q^2a_ia_i^+a_i=q^2a_i=a_i`$, thus $`q^2=1`$ or else $`B=0`$.

+ If $`q=1`$ : We define $`\varphi :BK[x,y]/xy1`$, by $`\varphi (a_i)=x`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+)=y`$. We then use lemma 4.
    + If $`q=1`$ : We define $`\varphi :BK(x_i)_{i_\alpha }/x_ix_j+x_jx_i2\delta _{ij}`$, and we use lemma 7.
* $`E`$ : We can assume $`r0`$ (the case $`s0`$ is symmetrical). $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1\beta a_i^+a_i,a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i\}`$ is confluent and adapted to $`<_n`$, and $`T=\{a_𝒥^+a_𝒦\}`$. We find $`[a_𝒥^+a_𝒦,a_k^+]=q^{|𝒦|}a_𝒥^+a_k^+a_𝒦a_k^+a_𝒥^+a_𝒦`$, and we can do as above.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : Let us assume $`r0`$, the case $`s=0`$ being symmetrical. We have :

$$(a_ia_i^+)a_i=a_i(a_i^+a_i)$$

$$a_i\beta a_0^+a_0a_i=a_ia_0^+a_0=qa_0^+a_ia_0$$

$$a_ia_i^+\beta a_0^+a_0a_ia_i^+=qa_0^+a_ia_0a_i^+$$

$$1\beta a_0^+a_0\beta a_0^+a_0(1\beta a_0^+a_0)=q^2a_0^+(1\beta a_0^+a_0)a_0$$

$$1+(2\beta q^2)a_0^+a_0+\beta ^2a_0^+(1\beta a_0^+a_0)a_0=\beta q^2a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}$$

$$1+(\beta ^22\beta q^2)a_0^+a_0+(\beta ^3+\beta q^2)a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0$$
(13)
Now we can define an homomorphism $`\varphi `$ from the Weyl algebra $`A_1:=Ka,a^+/aa^+a^+a1`$ to $`B`$ by $`\varphi (a)=a_0`$, and $`\varphi (a^+)=a_0^+`$. Since $`A_1`$ is simple, either $`\varphi =0`$ or $`\varphi `$ is injective. But from (13), Ker$`(\varphi )0`$. Then $`\varphi =0`$, therefore $`B=0`$.

$`(1,1)_c`$ :

* $`E`$, $`EA_1B_1`$ : With $`ji`$, we have $`a_j(a_ia_i^++\beta a_i^+a_i)a_ja_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, and we find a case already studied.

$`(1,1)_b`$ :

* $`A_2`$, etc… : We define $`\varphi :BK[x,y]/xy1`$ by $`\varphi (a_i)=x`$, $`\varphi (a_i^+)=y`$, and we use lemma 5.
* $`E`$ or $`EA_1B_1`$ :

+ $`\beta 1`$ : We define $`\varphi :BK[x,y]/xy1/(1+\beta )`$
    + $`\beta =1`$ : We define $`\psi :BA_1`$, by $`\psi (a_i)=a`$, $`\psi (a_i^+)=a^+`$, and we use lemma 8.

$`(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$, etc… : We define $`\varphi :BK(x_i)_{i_\alpha }/x_ix_j+x_jx_i2\delta _{ij}`$, as in case $`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a`$.
* $`E`$ :

+ $`\beta 1`$ : We define $`\varphi `$ as in case $`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a`$.
    + $`\beta =1`$ : We quotient out $`B`$ by the ideal generated by $`a_ia_i^+a_0a_0^+`$ and $`a_i^+a_ia_0^+a_0`$, we thus obtain the algebra $`B^{}`$ of case $`EA_1B_1`$. Now this algebra is non-zero and does not contain number operators (see below), so neither does $`B`$.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : If $`\beta 1`$ we do as above. If $`\beta =1`$ we see that the reduction system $`S_0=\{a_ia_i^+1+a_0^+a_0,a_j^+a_ja_0^+a_0,a_ja_ia_ia_j,a_j^+a_i^+a_i^+a_j^+|i,j_\alpha ,i<j\}`$, adapted to $`<_n`$ is not confluent. Let us call $`S`$ the confluent reduction system that we get from $`S_0`$ by the non-commutative Buchberger algorithm (i.e. we inductively reduce every ambiguity. See \[Berg\], \[Ufn\] or \[Bes1\] for details on this algorithm). After three iterations (this can be calculated by hand, or preferably with a computer program, such as bergman, available at http://www.matematik.su.se/research/bergman/, or the one in \[Bes1\], available at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/fabien.besnard/), one sees that $`i,j,k`$, $`a_ia_ja_k^+`$ and $`a_ia_j^+a_k^+`$ are reducible with respect to $`S`$ (all the details are in \[Bes1\]).

Now let $`T`$ be the basis of irreducible monomials corresponding to $`S`$, and let $`x`$ belong to $`B^{(0,\mathrm{},0)}:=\{xB|`$ $`i_\alpha ,[N_i,x]=0\}`$. According to what we have just said, $`x`$ is of the form :

+ (1) $`a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+a_{j_1}a_{i_{k+1}}^+\mathrm{}a_{j_r}a_{i_{k+r}}^+a_{j_{r+1}}\mathrm{}a_{j_{r+k}}`$, or
    + (2) $`a_{i_1}a_{j_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}a_{j_k}^+`$, or
    + (3) $`a_{i_1}^+a_{j_1}\mathrm{}a_{j_k}^+a_{i_k}`$

In each case, the tuple of indices $`i`$ and the tuple of indices $`j`$ are equal up to the order.

Since for all $`i,j,k`$, $`a_ia_ja_k^+`$ and $`a_ia_j^+a_k^+`$ are reducible, one can see that the three cases reduce to : $`x=a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$. Thus :

$$B^{(0,\mathrm{},0)}=\{a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}|k𝐍\}$$

As a consequence, we find that $`i,j`$, $`N_iB^{(0,\mathrm{},0)}`$ is stable under the action of the transposition automorphism $`\tau _{ij}^{}`$. Now :

$$\tau _{ij}^{}[N_i,a_i^+]=[\tau _{ij}^{}N_i,\tau _{ij}^{}a_i^+]$$

$$\tau _{ij}^{}a_i^+=[N_i,a_j^+]$$

$$a_j^+=0$$

Thus $`(P_3)`$ cannot hold. We must now prove that $`B0`$.

We first note that the algebra $`A`$, generated by the $`\xi _i`$’s and $`\xi _i^+`$’s, satisfying $`\xi _i\xi _j+\xi _j\xi _i=\xi _i^+\xi _j^++\xi _j^+\xi _i^+=0`$, for $`ij`$, and $`\xi _i\xi _i^+=\xi _i^+\xi _i=1`$, is non-zero (we can for instance quotient it by the ideal generated by the $`\xi _i\xi _i^+`$, thus obtaining a Clifford algebra which is clearly non-zero). Let us then consider $`\overline{B}_1:=AA_1`$, and set $`b_i:=\xi _ia`$, $`b_i^+:=\xi _i^+a^+`$. We have, for $`ij`$ :

$$b_ib_j+b_jb_i=\xi _i\xi _ja^2+\xi _j\xi _ia^2=(\xi _i\xi _j+\xi _j\xi _i)a^2=0$$

$$b_i^+b_j^++b_j^+b_i^+=\xi _i^+\xi _j^+a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}+\xi _j^+\xi _i^+a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=(\xi _i^+\xi _j^++\xi _j^+\xi _i^+)a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}=0$$

$$b_i^+b_ib_j^+b_j=(\xi _i^+\xi _i)a^+a(\xi _j^+\xi _j)a^+a=1a^+a1a^+a=0$$

$$b_ib_i^+b_jb_j^+=(\xi _i\xi _i^+)aa^+(\xi _j\xi _j^+)aa^+=1aa^+1aa^+=0$$

and :

$$b_ib_i^+b_i^+b_i=(\xi _i\xi _i^+)aa^+(\xi _i^+\xi _i)a^+a=1(aa^+a^+a)=11=1$$

We thus see that $`B`$ can be non-trivialy mapped to $`\overline{B}_1`$ by $`\psi (a_i):=b_i`$ and $`\psi (a_i^+)=b_i^+`$, which proves that $`B0`$.

$`(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$ or $`EA_1B_1`$ : We already know that $`\beta =1`$. We can thus define $`\varphi `$ as in case $`(1,1)_b(2,0)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$ : In each sub-case, we can define an homomorphism $`\varphi `$ as in one of the cases above.

* $`A_2`$, etc… : $`BK[x,y]/xy1`$
* $`E`$, $`EA_1B_1`$

+ $`\beta 1`$ : $`BK[x,y]/xy1/(1+\beta )`$
    + $`\beta =1`$ : $`BA_1`$

So we see that the only possibilities were (pseudo)-fermions and (pseudo)-bosons, that we have respectively found in cases $`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(1,1)_a(2,0)E`$, and $`(1,1)_{a\text{ or }b}(1,1)_aE`$.

## 6 Topological Number Operator Algebras

### 6.1 Definitions

In order to emcompass the case of $`q`$-bosons, we must relax the conditions we impose on number operator algebras so as to let the number operators belong to some completion of the algebra. We are led to the following definition :

###### Definition 7

Let $`B`$ be a non-trivial $`K`$-algebra. Let $`X_A=\{a_i|i_\alpha \}`$ and $`X_{A^+}=\{a_i^+|i_\alpha \}`$ be 2 sets of distinct elements of $`B`$. Let $`V_n:=BX_A^n`$ be the left ideal of $`B`$ generated by $`X_A^n`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{B}:=\underset{n𝐍^{}}{\begin{array}{c}\text{lim}\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}}B/V_n`$. If the following conditions hold :

($`H_1`$) : $`{\displaystyle \underset{n𝐍^{}}{}}V_n=\{0\}`$

($`H_2`$) : $`bX_A^+,n𝐍,N𝐍`$ such that $`V_NbV_n`$

then the canonical morphism $`B\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is an embedding of algebras. If, in addition to this, we have :

(i) $`B`$ is generated by $`X_AX_{A^+}`$ as an algebra.

(ii) One uniquely defines an anti-involution $`J`$ on $`B`$ by setting $`J(a_i)=a_i^+`$.

(iii) For all $`i_\alpha `$, there exists $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i\stackrel{~}{B}`$ such that for all $`j_\alpha `$ :

$$[\stackrel{~}{N}_i,a_j]=\delta _{ij}a_j$$
(14)
$$[\stackrel{~}{N}_i,a_j^+]=\delta _{ij}a_j^+$$
(15)
then $`(B,X_A,X_{A^+},(N_i)_{i_\alpha })`$ is called a topological number operator algebra, and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is the completion of $`B`$ for the topology generated by the neighbourhoods $`V_n`$ of the origin.

In order for this definition to make sense, we must prove a few things. First, since the $`V_n`$’s are left ideals of $`B`$ satisfying $`V_mV_n`$ whenever $`mn`$ they form a projective system of left ideals and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is a left $`B`$-module. We also know that they form a basis of neighbourhoods of zero of a topology for which the sum and the left mulitplication are continuous. The property $`(H_1)`$ shows that the canonical map is into and that the topology is separated. We still have to show that the multiplication is a continuous mapping from $`B\times B`$ to $`B`$. For this, it is easy to see that we only need to show the continuity of right multiplication. This is assured by the property $`(H_2)`$ for multiplication by elements of $`X_{A^+}`$. Since it is obviously true for elements of $`X_A`$, we can show that it is true for any monomial, and then for any element of $`B`$.

With this definition we can expect the elements of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ to be expressed as normal ordered series, that is to say with the creations to the left.

In the next lemmas, $`B`$ is a topological n.o.a.

###### Lemma 13

Let $`S_0=\{0\}`$ and $`k𝐍^{}`$, $`S_kS_{k1}`$ a subspace of $`B`$ supplementary to $`V_k`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is isomorphic to the set of power series of the type

$$S=\underset{k𝐍}{}u_k\text{ with }u_kS_{k+1}V_k$$

endowed with the obvious laws.

Proof :
Let us define the natural projections $`\pi _k:BB/V_k`$, and $`\pi _{k,j}:B/V_kB/V_j`$, for $`jk`$. Every $`x\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is given by a sequence $`(x_k)_{k𝐍^{}}`$ such that $`x_kB/V_k`$ and $`jk`$, $`\pi _{k,j}(x_k)=x_j`$. Let $`s_k`$ be the linear section of $`\pi _k`$ associated with $`S_k`$. We set $`u_k=s_{k+1}(x_{k+1})s_k(x_k)`$, and $`S(x)=_{k𝐍}u_k`$. Conversely if $`S=_ku_k`$ we set $`x_k=\pi _k(_{j=0}^{k1}u_j)`$.

In it trivial to verify that we have defined two linear maps, inverse to each other. Indeed, the lemma is just a restatement of the definition of the projective limit, with in addition the condition $`(H_2)`$ assuring that the product of two series is well defined. QED.

Remark : If it happens that $`V_n=V_{n+1}`$ for some $`n`$, then $`V_m=V_n`$ for every $`mn`$. We have $`S_m=S_n`$ and the series are just finite sums. Thus, in this case $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is embedded in $`B`$. From $`(H_1)`$ we finally get $`B=\stackrel{~}{B}`$, and $`V_n=\{0\}`$.

Let us see now a particular case.

###### Lemma 14

Set $`T=\{a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+a_{j_1}\mathrm{}a_{j_l}|k,l0\}`$ and $`T_l=\{a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+a_{j_1}\mathrm{}a_{j_l}|k0\}`$. Suppose that $`T`$ generates $`B`$ as a $`K`$-space. Then there exist $`T_0^{}T_0`$, $`T_1^{}T_1`$, …such that for all $`k`$, $`T_0\mathrm{}T_k^{}`$ is a basis of $`B/V_{k+1}`$.

Moreover, every $`x\stackrel{~}{B}`$ can be written in a unique way :

$$x=\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{tT_l^{}}{}\lambda _{t,l}t$$

with the condition that $`l`$, the set $`\{tT_l^{}|\lambda _{t,l}0\}`$ is finite.

Proof :
Since $`V_k=BX_A^k`$ and $`T`$ is a generating family for $`B`$, we have $`V_k=`$Span$`\{T_j|jk\}`$. We choose for $`T_0^{}T_0`$ a basis of $`B/V_1`$. Then we choose $`T_1^{}`$ so that $`T_0^{}T_1^{}`$ is a basis of $`B/V_2`$, and so on. Then we set $`S_k=`$Span$`\{T_j^{}|j<k\}`$ and apply the previous lemma. QED.

Remark : It is not assumed that $`T^{}=_{n𝐍}T_n^{}`$ is a basis of $`B`$. In fact this assumption implies $`(H_1)`$ and seems to be strictly stronger.

Of course a topological n.o.a. $`B`$ is $`𝐙^_\alpha `$-graded, and so will be its completion $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. For every $`n𝐙^_\alpha `$, we write $`\stackrel{~}{B}^n=\{x\stackrel{~}{B}|i_\alpha `$ $`[N_i,x]=n(i)x\}`$.

###### Lemma 15

Let $`n𝐙^_\alpha `$. Then $`x\stackrel{~}{B}^n`$, $`(x_k)B^𝐍^{}`$ such that for all $`k`$ $`x_kB^n`$ and $`x=lim_kx_k`$.

Proof :
Let $`B^{}:=_{p𝐙^_\alpha ,pn}B^p`$. $`k𝐍^{}`$, $`z_kB`$ such that $`xz_kV_k`$. Now $`z_k=x_k+y_k`$ with $`x_kB^n`$ and $`y_kB^{}`$. Since $`V_k`$ is stable under ad$`(N_i)`$ for all $`i`$, we have $`xx_kV_k`$ and $`y_kV_k`$. QED.

To give another motivation for the definition 7, let us introduce a new kind of algebra, that would seem more natural in a physicist’s point of view :

###### Definition 8

Let $`B`$ be a non-trivial $`K`$-algebra satisfying $`(i)`$ and $`(ii)`$ of definition 7. Let us call $`F`$ the left module $`F=B/BV_1`$ and let us define $`\rho :B`$End$`(F)`$ such that $`\rho (x)(u)=x.u`$. If the following properties are satisfied :

(a) Ker$`(\rho )=\{0\}`$.

(b) $`F`$ is generated by the monoid $`X_{A^+}^{}`$ as a $`K`$-space.

(c) $`i_\alpha `$, $`N_i\mathrm{End}(F)`$ s.t.

$$[N_i,\rho (a_j)]=\delta _{ij}\rho (a_j)$$
(16)
$$[N_i,\rho (a_j^+)]=\delta _{ij}\rho (a_j^+)$$
(17)
(d) $`N_i(|1)=0`$, where $`|1=1[V_1]`$.

then $`(B,X_A,X_{A^+},(N_i)_{i_\alpha })`$ is called a Fock algebra and we call $`\rho `$ the Fock representation of $`B`$.

Thanks to (16) and (17), a Fock algebra is graded in exactly the same way as a n.o.a., and we can define $`B^p`$ and the $`i`$-numbers for $`i`$-homogenous elements.

In the next lemmas, $`B`$ is a Fock algebra.

###### Lemma 16

Let $`i_\alpha `$ and $`xB`$ such that $`x`$ is $`i`$-homogenous and $`n_i(x)0`$. Then $`\lambda K`$ such that $`x=\lambda `$ $`[V_1]`$. Furthermore, if $`n_i(x)<0`$, $`\lambda =0`$.

Proof :
By $`(b)`$ of definition (8), there exists a linear combination of elements of $`X_{A^+}^{}`$, let us say $`\lambda +\xi `$, where $`\lambda `$ is the scalar part, such that $`x\lambda \xi V_1`$. The result is then clear using the fact that $`V_1`$ is graded. QED.

###### Lemma 17

$`i,j_\alpha `$, $`k𝐍^{}`$, $``$ $`y_{ij}^1,\mathrm{},y_{ij}^{k1}`$ such that $`y_{ij}^nX_{A^+}^nX_A^n`$, $`y_{ij}^n`$ has the same numbers as $`a_ia_j^+`$ and $`a_ia_j^+=_{n=0}^{k1}y_{ij}^n`$ $`[V_k]`$.

Proof :
By the previous lemma the result holds for $`k=1`$. If it holds for $`k`$, then $`a_ia_j^+=_{n=0}^{k1}y_{ij}^n+v_k`$, with $`v_kV_k`$. Write $`v_k=w_tz_t`$ $`[V_{k+1}]`$ with $`w_tB`$ and $`z_tX_A^k`$. Then each $`w_t`$ can be decomposed as a linear combination of some elements in $`X_{A^+}^{}`$ modulo $`V_1`$. Thus we can write $`v_k=w_t^{}z_t`$ $`[V_{k+1}]`$ with $`w_t^{}X_{A^+}^{}`$. Now the numbers of $`w_t^{}z_t`$ are the same as those of $`a_ia_j^+`$. Thus $`z_t`$ must contain $`a_i`$ and $`w_t^{}`$ must contain $`a_j^+`$, at least once. If we remove one copy of these two generators in $`z_t`$ and $`w_t^{}`$ respectively, we find that the numbers of the remaining two monomials must cancel. Since one consists of generators only, and the other of destructions only, they must be of the same length. So $`w_t^{}X_{A^+}^k`$. QED.

###### Proposition 5

If $`B`$ is a Fock algebra, then $`B`$ fulfills $`(H_1)`$ and $`(H_2)`$.

Proof :
Let $`x_{n𝐍^{}}V_n`$ and $`m`$ be a monomial. Take $`n`$ larger than the length of $`m`$, and any $`n`$-uple $``$. Then $`n_i(a_{}m)<0`$, so $`a_{}m=0`$ $`[V_1]`$ by lemma 16. Thus $`V_nm=0[V_1]`$ and $`\rho (x)(m)=0`$, consequently $`x`$Ker$`(\rho )=\{0\}`$, and $`(H_1)`$ is fulfilled.

Let us show that $`V_ka_i^+V_{k1}`$ for all $`i`$, which clearly entails $`(H_2)`$. This is true for $`k=1`$. If it is true for $`k`$, then $`pk1`$, $`V_kX_{A^+}^pV_{kp}`$. Let $`x`$ be a monomial in $`V_{k+1}`$. Write $`x=x^{}a_j`$. We have $`a_ja_i^+=_{p=0}^{k1}\lambda _{k,p}v_{k,p}w_{k,p}+n_k`$, with $`n_kV_k`$, $`v_{k,p}X_{A^+}^p`$ and $`w_{k,p}X_A^p`$, by lemma 17. Thus $`x^{}v_{k,p}V_{kp}`$ and $`xV_k`$. So by induction, we find the claimed result. QED.

Remark : Let $`B`$ be a topological n.o.a. and a Fock algebra, and put the discrete topology on $`F`$. Then the topology of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is stronger than the topology of pointwise convergence on End$`(F)`$. In all the cases we will investigate, these topologies are in fact the same.

### 6.2 The classification theorem

###### Theorem 3

If $`B=L_\alpha /I`$ is a topological n.o.a. of type $`\alpha `$ that is symmetric and quadratically presented, then either $`I`$ is one of the ideals enumerated in theorem 2 or there exist $`hR\{0\}`$, $`qR\{1,1\}`$ such that $`I`$ is generated by

* (d) $`\{a_ia_ja_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^+a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^+a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+qa_i^+a_i1|ij\}`$
* (d’) $`\{a_ia_j+a_ja_i,a_i^+a_j^++a_j^+a_i^+,a_ia_j^++a_j^+a_i,a_ia_i^+qa_i^+a_i1|ij\}`$

In the case $`(d)`$, the algebra is called a $`q`$-boson algebra, and denoted by $`A_\alpha ^q`$. In the case $`(d^{})`$ it is called a pseudo-$`q`$-boson algebra, and denoted by $`\widehat{A}_\alpha ^q`$. In both cases we have $`N_i={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1q)^k}{1q^k}}a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}+\lambda _i`$, $`\lambda _iK`$, the algebras $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ are central and the number operators are unique up to an additive constant.

### 6.3 Sketch of proof of theorem 3

Let $`B`$ be an algebra fulfilling the hypotheses of theorem 3. This algebra will also fulfill the hypotheses of theorem 2, except $`(P_3)`$, which is replaced by $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_3)`$ which is the same as $`(P_3)`$ except that the $`N_i`$ are allowed to belong to $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ instead of $`B`$. One can verify that proposition 4 still holds in this context, since it only depends on the gradation of $`B`$ by the $`i`$-numbers. Thus all we have to do is to re-examine the cases of section 5.3 which have been eliminated by the hypothesis $`(P_3)`$. We will have then to verify whether they fulfill $`(H_1)`$, $`(H_2)`$, and $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_3)`$.

First of all, let us note that in the cases containing $`B_2`$ we have $`a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{n}a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}=1`$, thus $`(H_1)`$ cannot be true.

Let us look at the remaining cases.

$`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ :

* $`E`$, $`\beta =1`$ : We have the pseudo-fermionic algebra $`B=C_\alpha `$. The hypotheses of lemma 14 are fulfilled, $`(H_1)`$ and $`(H_2)`$ are easily seen to be satisfied. The elements of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ can be written

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k}{j_1<\mathrm{}<j_l}}{}\lambda _{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{j_1,\mathrm{},j_l}a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+a_{j_1}\mathrm{}a_{j_l}$$

the second sum being finite for each $`l`$.
If $`xZ(\stackrel{~}{B})`$, $`x=lim_kx_k`$, with $`x_kB^0`$, by lemma 15, so that we must have $`i_\alpha `$, $`lim[x_k,a_i]=0`$.

Thus $`n`$, $`p`$, $`kp[x_k,a_i]V_n`$. Now $`[a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+a_{j_1}\mathrm{}a_{j_k},a_i]`$ equals $`a_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_{s1}}^+a_{i_{s+1}}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+a_{j_1}\mathrm{}a_{j_k}`$, if $`i=i_s`$, and $`0`$ if $`i\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}`$.

We thus have $`x_kK+V_n+V_{\{i\}}`$, where $`V_{\{i\}}`$ is the left ideal generated by $`\{a_j^+|ji\}`$. So we see that $`xK+V_n+V_{\{i\}}`$, for all $`n`$ and for all $`i`$. This shows that $`xK`$.

$`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a(2,0)`$ : This case is similar to the previous one, except that for $`E`$, $`\beta =1`$, we get $`B=\widehat{C}_{}`$.

$`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$ : See $`E`$, with $`\beta =0`$.
* $`A_2B_1`$ : We must have $`r+s=0`$. As in the finite case one shows that $`a_i^+a_i=1`$. Thus $`(H_1)`$ cannot be fulfilled.
* $`E`$ : $`r+s=0`$. We are in the bosonic and $`q`$-bosonic ($`q=\beta `$) cases. We can use lemma 14 with $`T=\{a_{}^+a_𝒥|i_1\mathrm{}i_k,j_1\mathrm{}j_l\}`$. $`(H_2)`$ is clearly true. One shows that $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is central exactly as we did in case $`(1,1)_b(1,1)_a(2,0)`$. For $`q\pm 1`$, one sees that the number operators are given by

$$N_i=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1q)^k}{1q^k}a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}+\lambda _i.1$$

(this had been shown in \[CS\]).
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : $`r+s=0`$. As we have already seen, we have $`Z(B)=B^0`$. Then if $`(H_1)`$, $`(H_2)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_3)`$ were true, we would have $`Z(\stackrel{~}{B})=\stackrel{~}{B}^0`$, which entails that $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_3)`$ cannot be true, a contradiction.

$`(1,1)_a(1,1)_a`$: This case is similar to the previous one. We find the pseudo-$`q`$-bosons in case $`E`$.

$`(1,1)_c(2,0)`$ : Since $`k2`$, $`V_k=\{0\}`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{B}B`$.

$`(1,1)_{aorb}(2,0)`$

* $`E`$: $`\beta =1`$. We define $`\varphi :`$ $`BC_1`$ as in 2.4. Suppose that there exist number operators $`\stackrel{~}{N}_i\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Then let $`u_nB`$ be such that $`N_i=lim_nu_n`$. Take $`ji`$. We must have $`lim_n([u_n,a_i]+a_i)=0`$ and $`lim_n[u_n,a_j]=0`$. Thus $`n`$ such that $`[u_n,a_i]+a_iV_2`$ and $`[u_n,a_j]V_2`$. But $`\varphi (V_2)=0`$. Thus $`[\varphi (u_n),a]+a=0`$ and $`[\varphi (u_n),a]=0`$, which is absurd.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : same as above.

$`(1,1)_a(2,0)`$

* $`E`$: $`\beta =1`$.

+ $`r0`$: The reduction system $`S=\{a_ia_i^+1a_i^+a_i,a_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0,a_{i}^{+}{}_{}{}^{2}0,`$ $`a_ia_j^+qa_j^+a_i|ij\}`$ is confluent. The basis of irreducible monomials is $`T=\{a_{}^+a_𝒥|i_ri_{r+1}`$ and $`j_sj_{s+1}\}`$. Let us define the degree of a monomial in $`B`$ to be the degree of its normal form. Then $`d^{}(a_𝒥^+)=k`$, and $`a_ia_𝒥^+`$ is a linear combination of monomials of degree $`k`$. More precisely, they are of degree $`k+1`$ whenever $`i𝒥`$.
    Suppose there exists a number operator $`N_i`$. Then $`N_i=_kN_i^k`$, with $`d^{}(N_i^k)=2k`$. Now let $`j`$ be such that $`ji`$ and $`j`$ does not appear in any monomial of the support of $`N_i^1`$ or $`N_i^2`$ (there is a finite number of such monomials). Then $`[N_i,a_j]=0[N_i^1,a_j]=0`$. Now $`N_i^1=_k\lambda _ka_k^+a_k`$ (finite sum). Thus $`[N_i^1,a_j]=_k\lambda _k(a_k^+a_ka_jqa_k^+a_ja_k)=0`$, so $`\lambda _k=0`$ and $`N_i^1=0`$.
    Now only $`[N_i^1,a_i]`$ can provide terms of degree $`1`$ in $`[N_i,a_i]`$. Consequently, $`N_i`$ cannot exists.
    + $`r=0`$: Let us multiply $`a_{i_1}^+`$ to the right by $`a_{i_2}a_{i_2}^++a_{i_2}^+a_{i_2}`$, with $`i_1i_2`$. We get : $`a_{i_1}^+=a_{i_1}^+a_{i_2}^+a_{i_2}`$. In the same way we have $`a_{i_2}^+=a_{i_2}^+a_{i_3}^+a_{i_3}`$, with $`i_3i_2`$, thus $`a_{i_1}^+=a_{i_1}^+a_{i_2}^+a_{i_3}^+a_{i_3}a_{i_2}`$. By induction we see that $`a_{i_1}^+_{k𝐍^{}}V_k`$, so $`(H_1)`$ cannot be fulfilled.

$`(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$, $`r=0`$ : We do as in the case $`(1,1)_a(2,0)E`$.
* $`A_2B_1`$, $`r0`$ : we find $`a_i^+a_i=1`$.
* $`E`$ :

+ $`r0`$ : We have a confluent reduction system and we can use the same argument as in case $`(1,1)_a(2,0)`$.
    + $`r=0`$ : Since $`a_j^+a_i^+a_i=a_j^+`$, we can do as in case $`(1,1)_a(2,0)`$.

$`(1,1)_b`$ :

* $`A_2`$ : See $`E`$, $`\beta =0`$.
* $`A_2B_1`$ : The following relations hold in $`B`$ :

$$\begin{array}{cc}a_0^+a_0a_j^+=a_j^+,& j0\\ a_j^+a_ka_i^+=a_i^+a_ka_j^+,& j>i,ki,j\\ a_ia_ja_i^+=a_j,& i<j\\ a_ia_ja_k^+=a_ia_k^+a_j,& ij,ki,j\\ a_ka_i^+a_j^+=a_i^+a_ka_j^+,& ij,ki,j\\ a_ja_i^+a_j^+=a_i^+,& i<j\\ a_ja_k^+a_i=a_ia_k^+a_j,& j>i,ki,j\\ a_ja_0^+a_0=a_j,& j0\end{array}$$

To see it, one should use the non-commutative Buchberger algorithm on the initial reduction system. This can be done with the computer programs already cited. See also \[Bes1\] for a detailed account of the calculations. So, as in 2.4, $`(1,1)_aEA_1B_1`$, we can prove that $`B^0=`$Span$`\{a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}|k𝐍\}`$. Now take $`i`$ and $`j`$, two distinct indices, and set $`N_i=lim_nx_n`$. We have : $`n𝐍`$, $`k`$ such that $`[x_k,a_i]+a_iV_n`$ and $`[x_k,a_j]V_n`$. Now if $`\tau _{i,j}^{}`$ is the automorphism induced by the $`(i,j)`$-transposition, we have : $`\tau _{i,j}^{}x_k=x_k`$, and $`\tau _{i,j}^{}V_n=V_n`$, so that $`\tau _{i,j}^{}[x_k,a_j]=[x_k,a_i]V_n`$, thus $`a_iV_n`$, and this is true for all $`n`$. So if $`(H_1)`$ is satisfied, $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_3)`$ is not.
* $`E`$ or $`EA_1B_1`$:

+ $`\beta =1`$ : We can send $`B`$ onto $`A_1`$ by $`\psi `$, as in the finite case. Suppose that $`N_i`$ is a number operator, and take $`ji`$. If $`u_n`$ is a sequence in $`B`$ that converges towards $`N_i`$, we must have for $`n`$ large enough : $`[u_n,a_i]+a_iV_1`$ and $`[u_n,a_j]V_1`$, so that $`[\varphi (u_n),a]+aa^+A_1`$ and $`[\varphi (u_n),a]a^+A_1`$. Now $`(a+a^+A_1)a^+A_1=\mathrm{}`$, a contradiction.
    + $`\beta 1`$ : We can use the same method if we send $`B`$ onto the $`q`$-bosonic algebra ($`q=\beta `$) $`A_1^q`$. Since $`(a+a^+A_1^q)A_1^q=\mathrm{}`$, we arrive at the same conclusion.

$`(1,1)_a`$ :

* $`A_2`$ : Let us prove the following relations by induction :

$$a_ia_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_j}a_i^+=(1)^ja_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_j}$$

$$a_ka_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_j}^+a_k^+=(1)^ja_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_j}^+$$

for all $`i<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_j<k`$. They are true for $`j=0`$, so let us suppose they are true for $`j`$. It suffices to multiply on the left by $`a_{i_{j+1}}`$ in the first relation, and on the right by $`a_{i_{j+1}}^+`$ in the second one, to see that they are still true for $`j+1`$. It is then easy to see that the reduction system formed by $`a_ia_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_j}a_i^+(1)^ja_{i_1}\mathrm{}a_{i_j}`$, $`a_ka_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_j}^+a_k^+(1)^ja_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_j}^+`$, and $`a_ja_ia_ia_j`$, $`a_j^+a_i^+a_i^+a_j^+`$ for all $`j>i`$, is confluent. So $`(H_2)`$ is not satisfied, indeed : $`i_1\mathrm{}i_k`$ and $`i\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}`$, $`a_ia_{i_1}^+\mathrm{}a_{i_k}^+`$ is irreducible and $`V_n=`$Span$`\{a_𝒥^+x|`$ $`|𝒥|=n`$ and $`a_𝒥^+x`$ irreducible$`\}`$.
* $`A_2B_1`$ : We can use the same method as in $`(1,1)_b`$ (see \[Bes1\] for the computer calculations).
* $`E`$ : Let us call $`p`$ the quotient map $`p:`$ $`BB^{}:=B/\{a_ia_i^+a_0a_0^+,a_i^+a_ia_0^+a_0|i\}`$. Suppose $`B`$ satisfies $`(\stackrel{~}{P}_3)`$ and set $`N_i=lim_nx_n`$, $`i0`$, with $`x_nB^0`$. Then $`p(x_n)B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ but we know that $`B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{0}`$ is generated by the $`a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}`$’s. Thus $`p(x_n)`$ is invariant by any transposition $`\tau _{ij}^{}`$. For all $`k`$ there exists an $`n`$ such that $`[x_n,a_i]+a_iV_k`$, and $`[x_n,a_j]V_k`$. Thus $`[p(x_n),p(a_i)]+p(a_i)p(V_k)`$ and $`[p(x_n),p(a_j)]p(V_k)`$. Using $`\tau _{ij}^{}`$ on the second equation, and substracting from the first, we find $`p(a_i)p(V_k)`$. Then, using $`\psi :B^{}\overline{B}_\beta `$, defined in the paragraph 5.3 :

$$a\xi _i(a^+1)\overline{B}_\beta $$

but this is false, as we can see by using the basis $`\{a_{}^{+}{}_{}{}^{r}a^s\xi _t\}`$, where $`\{\xi _t\}`$ is a basis of $`A`$ containing $`\xi _i`$.
* $`EA_1B_1`$ : We know that $`B^0=`$Span$`\{a_{0}^{+}{}_{}{}^{k}a_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}\}`$, thus we can do as in case $`(1,1)_bA_2B_1`$.

## 7 Concluding Remarks

In this article, we have tried to explore the algebraic constraints that a free field theory must abide by. Of course this approach have raised as many questions as it has answered. Imposing quadratic relations (and confluence in the finite case) seems to be just as restrictive as needed in order to state a classification theorem. In this way we have recovered all the known cases, plus a new one if the number of degrees of freedom is finite. The virtue of this method is also to put on an equal footing bosons, fermions, pseudo-bosons and pseudo-fermions, which shows that $`ϵ`$-symmetry (see \[Bes2\]) appears in a natural way.

There are at least two directions towards which we can try to go further : incorporating infinite sums in the defining relations and allowing cubic relations in order to recover para-statistics. These subjects are under investigations but what we have done so far indicates that other algebraic hypotheses must be imposed to keep the problem feasible.