text:
# On the relevance of percolation theory to the vulcanization transition

## I Introduction

Vulcanization goldbart\_castillo\_zippelius\_96&zippelius\_goldbart\_98  has a vast array of technological and commercial applications. The vulcanization process transforms a macromolecular liquid into an amorphous solid by randomly introducing permanent (chemical) crosslinks. In the liquid state all macromolecules are delocalized. In the amorphous solid state a non-zero fraction of macromolecules forms a macroscopic network. The constituents of this network are localized at random positions about which they execute thermal motion characterized by a distribution of finite localization lengths. The vulcanization transition (VT) between the two states (occurring at a critical density of crosslinks) represents a continuous phase transition.

Due to the work of Goldbart, Zippelius, and coworkers (GZ) goldbart&co\_87to94  a rather comprehensive theoretical description of the VT exists to date on the level of a mean field approximation. The mean field theory gave a first glance on the relation between the VT and the percolation transition, and the critical exponents describing the VT were shown to be consistent with the mean field critical exponents for percolation. Peng et alpeng&co\_98  introduced a minimal model for the VT and discussed it under the aspects of universality as a common theoretical formulation of general amorphous solidification transitions (of which the VT is a prime example). Recently Peng and Goldbart (PG) peng\_goldbart\_2000a  carried out a renormalization group improved one-loop calculation based on the minimal model peng&co\_98 . Their calculation showed that the critical exponents of vulcanization and percolation are in conformity to one-loop level.

In the past, the VT has often been addressed directly from the perspective of percolation theories Perc . In contrast to the work of GZ this perspective takes into account only a single ensemble of random connections, and therefore does not incorporate the effects of both quenched randomness and thermal fluctuations. Given that an essential aspect of the VT is the impact of the quenched random constraints on the thermal motion of the constituents, the a priori identification of the VT with percolation is a nontrivial matter and one may ask: What is the relevance of percolation theory to the VT?

The purpose of this paper here is to explore the connection between vulcanization and percolation in depth. We compare the minimal model peng&co\_98  to a field theoretic model for the random resistor network (RRN) which we recently studied stenull\_janssen\_oerding\_99&stenull\_2000 . Such a RRN is nothing more than a percolation model where randomly occupied bonds are assigned a finite nonzero conductance. In contrast to PG, which implement a “momentum shell” renormalization group, we use the powerful methods of renormalized local field theory. The momentum shell procedure, although physically intuitive, mixes scaling properties with features of other universal quantities like scaling functions. Therefore it is extremely difficult to extend the procedure beyond first order in perturbation theory. Renormalized field theory goes the other direction. Instead of the elimination of fluctuating degrees of freedom near the upper momentum cutoff and a rescaling of the momenta, the momentum cutoff is send to infinity at the beginning. The ultraviolet (UV) infinities resulting from this limiting procedure are eliminated by the so called renormalization factors. These renormalization factors then determine the Gell–Mann-Low renormalization group equation (RGE) which encodes all the scaling properties of the theory. This RGE represents the cleanest way to analyze the full scaling structure and its critical exponents. Physical properties beyond the scaling structure, however, cannot be inferred from the RGE. Indeed, these may be distinct for different theories like vulcanization and percolation. A further advantage of renormalized field theory is that it allows to find out general properties of the renormalization factors (and hence the RGE) to all orders of perturbation theory because they result solely from so called superficially divergent Feynman diagrams. Our analysis presented in this paper thrives on this advantage. We show rigorously that vulcanization and percolation involve the same primitive divergences and hence are governed by the same critical exponents. Furthermore, we compare the order parameters of the VT and the RRN.

## II Modelling vulcanization and percolation

The theory of GZ and PG is based on the order parameter field

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})=_{\widehat{k}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{k})\mathrm{e}^{i\widehat{k}\widehat{r}}$$
(1)
defined on the replicated $`d`$-dimensional real space with coordinates $`\widehat{r}=(𝐫_1,\mathrm{},𝐫_n)`$. The corresponding replicated wave vectors are $`\widehat{k}=(𝐤_1,\mathrm{},𝐤_n)`$. Note that our $`n`$ corresponds to $`(n+1)`$ in the theory by GZ. The replica limit $`n1`$ has to be taken before any other limit. The volume $`V`$ of the real space is considered as being finite. Thus, $`\widehat{k}`$ is a discrete vector. $`_{\widehat{k}}\mathrm{}`$ is an abbreviation for $`_{\widehat{k}}\mathrm{}`$ which is in the infinite volume limit equivalent to $`(2\pi )^{nd}d^{nd}\widehat{k}\mathrm{}`$. Microscopically, the order parameter is a $`n`$-fold correlation function of density fluctuations and characterizes the amorphous state. The fluctuations about the average density them-self represent a non-critical stochastic variable which is excluded by the constraints

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\alpha \left(𝐫^{(\alpha )}\right)=\underset{\beta \alpha }{}d^dr^{(\beta )}\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})=0,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(2)
Hence, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{k})`$ is only non-zero if $`\widehat{k}`$ belongs to the “higher replica sector” (HRS), that means if at least two distinct wave vectors $`𝐤^{(\alpha )},𝐤^{(\beta )}`$ of $`\widehat{k}`$ are non-zero. The minimal model for the vulcanization transition peng&co\_98  is defined by

$$_{\text{VT}}=d^{nd}\widehat{r}\left\{\frac{\tau }{2}\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})^2+\frac{1}{2}\left[\widehat{}\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})\right]^2\frac{g}{6}\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})^3\right\}$$
(3)
where $`\tau \tau _c`$ measures the distance to the critical crosslink density at $`\tau _c`$. In a mean field approximation $`\tau `$ is positive in the liquid phase and the VT occurs at $`\tau =\tau _c=0`$. By virtue of the usual identification of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})`$ with the microscopic density correlation, $`g`$ is a positive coupling constant. The Hamiltonian $`_{\text{VT}}`$ is complete in the renormalization group sense, i.e., it contains all relevant couplings and neglects all irrelevant ones.

We are going to compare the perturbation theory based on the minimal model $`_{\text{VT}}`$ to the perturbation theory of the field theoretic model for the RRN stephen\_78 ; harris\_lubensky\_87 ; stenull\_janssen\_oerding\_99&stenull\_2000 . This field theoretic model is based on an order parameter field $`\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ which lives on the $`d`$-dimensional real space denoted by the coordinates $`𝐱`$. The variable $`\stackrel{}{\theta }`$ denotes the $`D`$-fold replicated voltage at position $`𝐱`$. For regularization purposes, $`\stackrel{}{\theta }=\stackrel{}{\nu }\mathrm{\Delta }\theta `$ takes discrete values on a $`D`$-dimensional torus, the replica space, i.e., $`\stackrel{}{\nu }`$ is chosen to be a $`D`$-dimensional vector with integer components $`\nu ^{(\alpha )}`$ satisfying $`M<\nu _\alpha M`$ and $`\nu ^{(\alpha )}=\nu ^{(\alpha )}mod(2M)`$. The order parameter field is restricted by the condition

$$\underset{\stackrel{}{\theta }}{}\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })=0.$$
(4)
It follows that the replica space Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝐱,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ of the order parameter field, defined by $`\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })=(2M)^D_\stackrel{}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝐱,\stackrel{}{\lambda })\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{\lambda }\stackrel{}{\theta })`$, satisfies $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝐱,\stackrel{}{\lambda }=\stackrel{}{0})=0`$. Without exception we study the limit $`D0`$, $`M\mathrm{}`$ of the replica space with $`(2M)^D1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\theta =\theta _0/\sqrt{M}0`$. Here $`\theta _0`$ is a constant which sets the width of the voltage interval such that $`[\theta _0\sqrt{M}<\theta ^{(\alpha )}\theta _0\sqrt{M}]`$. In the limit $`D0`$, $`M\mathrm{}`$ the constant $`\theta _0`$ plays the role of a redundant scaling parameter, i.e., the theory is independent of its value. In the following we write $`_\stackrel{}{\theta }\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }\theta )^D_\stackrel{}{\theta }\mathrm{}d^D\theta \mathrm{}=:_\stackrel{}{\theta }\mathrm{}`$, where the approximations become exact in the limit studied.

The field theoretic Hamiltonian for the RRN reads

$`_{\text{RRN}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^dx{\displaystyle _\stackrel{}{\theta }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })]^2`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{w}{2}}\left[_\theta \varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })\right]^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{6}}\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })^3\}.`$
The parameter $`\tau \tau _c(p_cp)`$ specifies the deviation of the occupation probability $`p`$ from the critical probability $`p_c`$. In mean field theory the percolation transition happens at $`\tau =\tau _c=0`$. $`w`$ is proportional to the resistance of the individual random bonds.

In the percolating phase, $`\tau <\tau _c`$, the mean order parameter is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(𝐱,\stackrel{}{\lambda })_{_{\text{RRN}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2}{4}}R_{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)\right)_C`$ (6)
$`=`$ $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2}{4}}R_{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)\right)_C`$
$`=`$ $`P_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2}{4}}R_{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)\right)_C^{}.`$
Here $`R_{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)`$ is the (random) resistance between an arbitrary point $`𝐱`$ and infinity. $`\chi _{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)`$ is an indicator function which is one if $`𝐱`$ is connected to infinity, i.e., if $`𝐱`$ belongs to a percolating infinite cluster, and zero otherwise. $`\mathrm{}_C`$ denotes the disorder average over all configurations of the diluted lattice. $`\mathrm{}_C^{}`$ stands for disorder averaging conditional to the constraint that $`𝐱`$ belongs to an infinite cluster. Note that $`P_{\mathrm{}}=\chi _{\mathrm{}}(𝐱)_C`$ is the percolation probability, i.e., the order parameter for usual (purely geometric) percolation.

$`_{\text{RRN}}`$ reduces for $`w0`$ to the Hamiltonian for the $`n=(2M)^D`$-state Potts model with $`n1`$ for $`D0`$. This is important because the Potts model is known to describe percolation in this limit kasteleyn\_fortuin\_69 . The connection between $`_{\text{RRN}}`$ and the Potts Hamiltonian becomes evident by relabeling the $`n`$ fields $`\varphi `$ by an index $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$: $`\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })\varphi _\alpha (𝐱)`$. The constraint (4) then reads $`_\alpha \varphi _\alpha (𝐱)=0`$. Taking the usual base $`e_i^{(\alpha )}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$, with $`_\alpha e_i^{(\alpha )}=0`$, $`_\alpha e_i^{(\alpha )}e_j^{(\alpha )}=\delta _{i,j}`$, $`_ie_i^{(\alpha )}e_i^{(\beta )}=\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }1/n`$, and upon defining $`(n1)`$ independent fields $`s`$ by $`\varphi _\alpha (𝐱)=_ie_i^{(\alpha )}s_i(𝐱)`$, we get the Potts-Hamiltonian in the form

$`_{\text{Potts}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^dx\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}s_i(𝐱)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[s_i(𝐱)]^2]`$ (7)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k}{}}\lambda _{ijk}s_i(𝐱)s_j(𝐱)s_k(𝐱)\},`$
where $`\lambda _{ijk}=_\alpha e_i^{(\alpha )}e_j^{(\alpha )}e_k^{(\alpha )}`$ is the usual “Potts tensor”. Note that the introduction of the finite bond resistance $`w0`$ reduces the Potts symmetry, i.e., the full permutation symmetry of the $`n`$ fields $`s`$ belonging to the basic representation of the symmetry group $`S_n`$, to translation and rotation symmetry in the $`D`$-dimensional replica space.

## III Renormalization and scaling

We proceed with a renormalization group analysis of the VT by employing standard methods of renormalized field theory amit\_zinn-justin . The principal diagrammatic elements are easily gathered from $`_{\text{VT}}`$. First, we have the three-leg vertex $`g`$. Because the corresponding interaction is cubic, $`d_c=6`$ is found to be the upper critical dimension of the VT. Second, it follows from the quadratic part of $`_{\text{VT}}`$ that the principal Gaussian propagator is given by

$`G^{\text{bold}}\left(\widehat{k}\right)=G\left(\widehat{k}\right)\left\{1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}\delta _{\widehat{k},𝐤^{(\alpha )}\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}}+(n1)\delta _{\widehat{k},\widehat{0}}\right\},`$ (8)
where $`G\left(\widehat{k}\right)=(\tau +\widehat{k}^2)^1`$. $`\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}`$ is a $`n`$-dimensional vector whose $`\alpha `$-th component is one and all other components are zero. Accordingly, $`𝐤^{(\alpha )}=\widehat{k}\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}`$ is the component of $`\widehat{k}`$ containing replica $`\alpha `$. The part of $`G^{\text{bold}}\left(\widehat{k}\right)`$ embraced by the curly brackets ensures the constraint $`\widehat{k}\text{HRS}`$. Equation (8) can be interpreted so that $`G^{\text{bold}}\left(\widehat{k}\right)`$ decomposes into three generic parts one of which is proportional to $`(n1)`$ and hence can be discarded from the onset. We call the remaining propagators $`G^{\text{am}}(\widehat{k})=G(\widehat{k})`$ and $`G^{\text{liq}}(𝐤^{(\alpha )})=G(\widehat{k})\delta _{\widehat{k},𝐤^{(\alpha )}\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}}`$ amorphous and liquid propagators, respectively, because the HRS fields entering $`G^{\text{am}}(\widehat{k})`$ are capable of diagnosing amorphous solidification in contrast to 1RS fields constituting the $`G^{\text{liq}}(𝐤^{(\alpha )})`$. Moreover, we refer to $`G^{\text{liq}}(𝐤^{(\alpha )})`$ as having color $`\alpha `$. Due to the propagator decomposition each principal diagram decomposes into a sum of amorphous diagrams consisting of amorphous and liquid propagators. Note that such an amorphous diagram may feature liquid propagators of just one or of several colors.

Now we are in the position to address the renormalization of the VT Hamiltonian. For this task it is sufficient to consider those Feynman diagrams contributing to the superficially divergent vertex functions for $`n1`$. Thus, we restrict ourselves to one-particle irreducible diagrams with two or three amputated external legs. In the following we denote generic diagrams of this type by $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ and $`𝔇_3(\{\widehat{K}\})`$, respectively. $`\widehat{K}`$ stands for an external wave vector and $`\{\widehat{K}\}`$ is an abbreviation for $`\{\widehat{K}_1,\widehat{K}_2,\widehat{K}_3=\widehat{K}_1\widehat{K}_2\}`$. Once the decomposition of the bold diagrams into amorphous diagrams has been accomplished (i.e., the constraint $`\widehat{k}\text{HRS}`$ is implemented) it is save to take the continuum limit in $`\widehat{k}`$-space. Then we extract the divergences of these diagrams by expanding in a Taylor series in the external wave vectors, $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})=𝔇_2(\widehat{0})+𝔇_2^{}(\widehat{0})\widehat{K}^2`$ and $`𝔇_3(\{\widehat{K}\})=𝔇_3(\{\widehat{0}\})`$, where higher order terms are discarded since they are superficially convergent.

In the following we use without exception dimensional regularization. Thus, UV-divergencies appear as poles in the deviation $`\epsilon =6d`$ from $`d_c`$. These poles are eliminated from superficially divergent vertex functions by using the renormalization scheme

$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Omega }}=Z^{1/2}\mathrm{\Omega },\tau \stackrel{˚}{\tau }=\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c+Z^1Z_\tau \tau ,`$
$`g^2`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{g}^2=A_\epsilon Z^{3/2}Z_uu\mu ^\epsilon ,`$ (9)
where $`A_\epsilon `$ is a suitably chosen amplitude, $`\mu ^1`$ is a convenient length scale, and $`u`$ is a dimensionless version of the coupling constant. In the minimal renormalization procedure, i.e., dimensional regularization in conjunction with minimal subtraction, $`\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c`$ is zero and the $`\epsilon `$-poles are eliminated by $`Z`$-factors of the form

$$Z_{\mathrm{}}=1+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{Y_{\mathrm{}}^{(m)}(u)}{\epsilon ^m}.$$
(10)
The $`Y_{\mathrm{}}^{(m)}(u)`$ are expansions in the coupling constant $`u`$ beginning with the power $`u^m`$. A central theorem of renormalization theory, cf. Ref. amit\_zinn-justin , ensures that this procedure is suitable to eliminate the UV-divergencies from any vertex function order by order in perturbation theory. The $`Y_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)`$ resulting from the primitive divergences determine the RGE entirely.

First we analyze $`𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\})`$, $`l`$ being any positive integer, under the assumption that it contains, apart from amorphous propagators, liquid propagators of just a single color, say $`\alpha `$. Obviously there are $`n`$ different realizations of the generic type represented by $`𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\})`$ corresponding to the $`n`$ different colors the liquid propagators can have. The sum over all these realizations appears in the decomposition of the pertaining bold diagram. However, all these realizations symbolize equivalent mathematical expressions since the internal wave vectors labeled by the colors are merely integration variables. Hence the overall contribution of this generic type to the primitive divergence of its bold diagram is

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\})=n𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\})\stackrel{n1}{}𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\}).`$ (11)
Next we assume that $`𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\})`$ contains liquid propagators of several colors $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$. Then the sum over the realizations of this generic type is given by

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta (\alpha )=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{}𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\})`$
$`=n(n1)\mathrm{}𝔇_l(\{\widehat{0}\}),`$ (12)
i.e., it vanishes for $`n1`$.

Now we turn to $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ and assume that all featured liquid propagators are of the same color, $`\alpha `$ for sake. Since this color is distinguished, it is convenient to isolate it by setting $`\widehat{K}=\widehat{K}_\alpha +\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}𝐤^{(\alpha )}`$ with $`\widehat{K}_\alpha =\widehat{K}\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}𝐤^{(\alpha )}`$. Then $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ has the expansion $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})=𝔇_2(\widehat{0})+D_0\widehat{K}_\alpha ^2+D_1𝐤^{(\alpha )2}+\mathrm{}`$. It is important to realize that the expansion coefficients $`D_{\mathrm{}}`$ are independent of the choice of the color. Thus, the summation over all realizations of the generic type represented by $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}𝔇_2(\widehat{K})\stackrel{n1}{}𝔇_2(\widehat{0})+D_1\widehat{K}^2+\mathrm{},`$ (13)
where we have exploited that $`_\alpha \widehat{K}_\alpha ^2=(n1)\widehat{K}^2`$ vanishes for $`n1`$. The case of several colors $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ can be analyzed as above by isolating the distinguished colors. $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ has the expansion $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})=𝔇_2(\widehat{0})+D_0\widehat{K}_{\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}}^2+D_1𝐤^{(\alpha )2}+D_2𝐤^{(\beta )2}+\mathrm{}`$ with $`\widehat{K}_{\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}}=\widehat{K}\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}𝐤^{(\alpha )}\widehat{e}^{(\beta )}𝐤^{(\beta )}\mathrm{}`$. Then it is straightforward to check that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\beta (\alpha )=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{}𝔇_2(\widehat{K})(n1),`$ (14)
i.e., the contribution of the two-leg diagrams featuring liquid propagators of several colors vanishes for $`n1`$.

To analyze the single color diagrams further, we write $`G(\widehat{k})`$ in Schwinger parameterization, $`G(\widehat{k})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^{(\tau +\widehat{k}^2)t}`$. Suppose that $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ comprises $`P`$ propagators, $`P^{\text{am}}`$ being amorphous and $`P^{\text{liq}}`$ being liquid with color $`\alpha `$. Assume that the diagram has $`L`$ loops, i.e., we have to integrate over $`L`$ independent combinations $`\{\widehat{q}_i\}^{}`$ of internal wave vectors $`\{\widehat{q}_{1,}\mathrm{},\widehat{q}_P\}`$. This integration is of the form

$`{\displaystyle _{\{\widehat{q}_i\}^{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{iP^{\text{am}}}{}}t_i\widehat{Q}_{\alpha ,i}^2{\displaystyle \underset{iP}{}}t_i𝐪_i^{(\alpha )2}\right\}`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\left[F(\{t\}_{P^{\text{am}}})\right]^{n1}\mathrm{exp}\left\{C(\{t\}_{P^{\text{am}}})\widehat{K}_\alpha ^2\right\}`$
$`\times `$ $`A(\{t\})\mathrm{exp}\left\{B(\{t\})𝐤^{(\alpha )2}\right\},`$
where $`\widehat{Q}_{\alpha ,i}=\widehat{Q}_i\widehat{e}^{(\alpha )}𝐪^{(\alpha )}`$. $`\{t\}_{P^{am}}`$ denotes the subset of the $`\{t_{1,}\mathrm{},t_P\}`$ belonging to the amorphous propagators. By comparing Eqs. (13) and (15) in the limit $`n1`$ we see that $`𝔇_2(0)`$ results from the integral $`d\{t\}A(\{t\})\mathrm{exp}(\tau _it_i)`$ and $`D_1`$ from $`d\{t\}A(\{t\})B(\{t\})\mathrm{exp}(\tau _it_i)`$. We conclude from Eq. (15) that these parts can be extracted directly by replacing all amorphous and liquid propagators by elementary propagators of the type $`(\tau +𝐪^2)^1`$. Moreover, we can simplify $`\widehat{K}^2`$ to $`𝐤^2`$ once the wave vector integration has been carried out. An analogous, yet simpler, reasoning applies to $`𝔇_3(\{0\})`$ containing a single color $`\alpha `$. The case that $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ and $`𝔇_3(\{0\})`$ contain solely amorphous propagators, i.e., no colors at all, can be analyzed in a similar fashion.

The quint-essence of our considerations is that primitive divergences steaming from diagrams with multiple colors drop out in the limit $`n0`$. Hence it is sufficient for calculating the critical exponents of the VT to work with an arbitrary single color. Further, after the decomposition into amorphous diagrams all the propagators can be identified with elementary propagators of the type $`(\tau +𝐪^2)^1`$. We will see in the following that the perturbation series resulting from this effective decomposition coincides with the diagrammatic expansion of the field theory of RRN based on the Hamiltonian $`_{\text{RRN}}`$ in the limits $`D,w0`$.

The cubic interaction term in $`_{\text{RRN}}`$ leads to the three-leg vertex $`g`$. The principal propagator for the RRN is given by

$`G^{\text{bold}}(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })=G(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })\{1\delta _{\stackrel{}{\lambda },\stackrel{}{0}}\},`$ (16)
where $`G(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })=(\tau +𝐤^2+w\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2)^1`$. Due to the factor $`\{1\delta _{\stackrel{}{\lambda },\stackrel{}{0}}\}`$ which enforces the constraint $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }\stackrel{}{0}`$ the principal propagator decomposes in a conducting part $`G^{\text{cond}}(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })=G(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ carrying replica currents and an insulating part $`G^{\text{ins}}(𝐤)=G(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })\delta _{\stackrel{}{\lambda },\stackrel{}{0}}`$ not carrying replica currents. Each principal diagram decomposes into a sum of conducting diagrams consisting of conducting and insulating propagators. As soon as this decomposition is accomplished it is save to switch to continuous replica currents.

Now it is important to realize the one-to-one correspondence between conducting and amorphous propagators as well as the one-to-one correspondence between insulating propagators and liquid propagators for $`n1`$. As far as primitive divergencies are concerned, these one-to-one correspondences lead identical diagrammatic expansions (including the combinatorial fore-factors of the diagrams) for the VT and the RRN up to apparent distinctions in the propagators. Due to these distinctions a diagram $`𝔇_2(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })`$ analogous to $`𝔇_2(\widehat{K})`$ (with $`P^{\text{cond}}P^{\text{am}})`$ involves instead of Eq. (15) the integrations

$`{\displaystyle _{\{𝐪_i,\stackrel{}{\kappa }_i\}^{}}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{w{\displaystyle \underset{iP^{cond}}{}}t_i\stackrel{}{\kappa }_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{iP}{}}t_i𝐪_i^2\right\}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`\left[F(\{wt\}_{P^{\text{cond}}})\right]^D\mathrm{exp}\left\{C(\{t\}_{P^{\text{cond}}})w\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2\right\}`$
$`\times `$ $`A(\{t\})\mathrm{exp}\left\{B(\{t\})𝐤^2\right\},`$
with the same functions $`A,B,C,F`$ as in Eq. (15). Equation (17) leads for $`D0`$ to

$$𝔇_2(𝐤,\stackrel{}{\lambda })\stackrel{D0}{}𝔇_2(0)+D_0w\stackrel{}{\lambda }^2+D_1𝐤^2+\mathrm{},$$
(18)
where the divergent coefficients $`𝔇_2(0)`$ and $`D_1`$ are identical to those appearing in Eq. (13). Here in the RRN, however, a further divergent coefficient $`D_0`$ arises. Thus, the renormalization scheme

$`s`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{s}=Z^{1/2}s,g^2\stackrel{˚}{g}^2=A_\epsilon Z^3Z_uu\mu ^\epsilon ,`$
$`w`$ $``$ $`\stackrel{˚}{w}=Z^1Z_ww,\tau \stackrel{˚}{\tau }=\stackrel{˚}{\tau }_c+Z^1Z_\tau \tau `$ (19)
involves a further renormalization factor $`Z_w`$. The other factors, $`Z,Z_\tau ,Z_u`$, are identical to those in the renormalization scheme (9) because the superficially divergent parts of the two diagrammatic expansions coincide to any order for $`w0`$. This leads to the conclusion that the renormalization factors appearing in the renormalization scheme for the VT are identical to those for percolation.

Due to the independence of the unrenormalized theory of the arbitrary length scale $`\mu ^1`$ introduced by renormalization the correlation functions

$`\stackrel{˚}{G}_N^{(\text{VT})}(\{\widehat{r}\},\stackrel{˚}{\tau },\stackrel{˚}{g})=\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{r}_1)\mathrm{}\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\widehat{r}_N)_{_{\text{VT}}}`$ (20)
of the VT order parameter satisfy the identity

$$\mu \frac{}{\mu }\stackrel{˚}{G}_N^{(\text{VT})}=0.$$
(21)
This identity translates with the help of the renormalization scheme (9) via the Gell–Mann-Low-Wilson functions

$`\beta (u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{u}{\mu }}|_0,`$
$`\kappa (u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}\tau }{\mu }}|_0,`$
$`\gamma (u)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{\mu }}|_0,`$ (22)
where the bare quantities are kept fixed while taking the derivatives, into the RGE

$$\left[\mu \frac{}{\mu }+\beta \frac{}{u}+\kappa \tau \frac{}{\tau }+\frac{N}{2}\gamma \right]G_N^{(\text{VT})}(\{\widehat{r}\},\tau ,u,\mu )=0.$$
(23)
Since the functions $`\beta ,\kappa ,\gamma `$ are entirely determined by the renormalization factors, im particular by the $`Y_{\mathrm{}}^{(1)}(u)`$, the RGE (23) is exactly equal to the RGE for the correlation functions of percolation theory. The RGE determines the scaling structure of a field theory. Thus, the VT has the same critical exponents as percolation,

$$\nu =\left[2\kappa (u_{})\right]^1,\eta =\gamma (u_{}),$$
(24)
where $`u_{}`$ is the infrared stable fixed point determined by $`\beta (u_{})=0`$. The percolation exponents are known to third order $`\epsilon `$ alcantara\_80 . Introducing the correlation length $`\xi \left|\tau \right|^\nu `$ and the order parameter exponent $`\beta =\nu (d2+\eta )/2`$, the asymptotic solution of the RGE (23) can be written as

$$G_N^{(\text{VT})}(\{\widehat{r}\},\tau )=\xi ^{N\beta /\nu }F_N^{(\text{VT})}(\{\widehat{r}/\xi \}).$$
(25)
The RRN differs from percolation as long as the bond-resistance $`w`$ is finite. The bond-resistance constitutes a further scaling variable and leads to an additional derivative $`\zeta w/w`$, where $`\zeta (u)=\mu \frac{\mathrm{ln}w}{\mu }|_0`$, in the corresponding RGE stenull\_janssen\_oerding\_99&stenull\_2000 . Defining the resistance crossover exponent by $`\varphi =\nu [2\zeta (u_{})]`$, the asymptotic solution for the correlation functions of RRN can be written as

$`G_N^{(\text{RRN})}(\{𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta }\},\tau ,w)`$
$`=\xi ^{N\beta /\nu }F_N^{(\text{RRN})}(\{𝐱/\xi ,\stackrel{}{\theta }/\sqrt{w\xi ^{\varphi /\nu }}\}).`$ (26)
Although the VT and percolation are showing the same scaling behavior, the universal scaling functions $`F_N^{(\text{VT})}`$ and $`lim_{w0}F_N^{(\text{RRN})}`$ may be different for both theories. This is due to the fact that these functions are not entirely determined by the superficially divergent parts of the corresponding vertex functions. The universal scaling functions cannot be calculated from the RGE.

## IV Order parameters

To explore the relation between VT and percolation further we now revisit the order parameters. We start with the order parameter for the RRN, Eq. (6). Above the percolation point we deduce from Eq. (III) and the constraint (4) that

$`M^{(\text{RRN})}(\stackrel{}{\theta },\tau ,w)=\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })_{_{\text{RRN}}}=P_{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dx`$
$`\times p^{(\text{RRN})}(x)\mathrm{exp}(x{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{\theta }^2}{w\xi ^{\varphi /\nu }}})1\}.`$ (27)
Here $`P_{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\left|\tau \right|^\beta `$ is the percolation probability and $`w\xi ^{\varphi /\nu }p^{(\text{RRN})}(w\xi ^{\varphi /\nu }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}})`$ is the probability distribution of the conductance $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}=1/R_{\mathrm{}}`$ from an arbitrary point on the percolating cluster to infinity. The digit $`1`$ in the bracket denotes the limit of $`1/n=(2M)^D`$ for $`D0`$. In the $`n`$-state Potts model limit $`w0`$, we retrieve from Eq. (27) the Potts order parameter $`M^{(\text{Potts})}(\stackrel{}{\theta },\tau )=P_{\mathrm{}}(\tau )(\delta _{\stackrel{}{\theta },0}1)`$.

The order parameter for the VT has an analogous form goldbart\_castillo\_zippelius\_96&zippelius\_goldbart\_98 ; goldbart&co\_87to94 ; peng&co\_98

$`M^{(\text{VT})}(\widehat{r},\tau )=\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{r})_{_{\text{VT}}}=P_{\mathrm{}}(\tau )\{{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dx`$
$`\times p^{(\text{VT})}(x)\mathrm{exp}(x{\displaystyle \frac{𝐑^2}{\xi ^2}})1\},`$ (28)
where $`𝐑^2=_{\alpha =1}^n(𝐫^{(\alpha )}\stackrel{~}{𝐫})^2`$ corresponds to the radius of gyration of the replicas about a center of mass at $`\stackrel{~}{𝐫}=\frac{1}{n}_{\alpha =1}^n𝐫^{(\alpha )}`$. $`\xi ^2p^{(\text{VT})}(\xi ^2\sigma )`$ is the probability distribution of the inverse squares $`\sigma `$ of the localization lengths. Here, the digit $`1`$ in the bracket denotes the limit of $`V^{(n1)}`$ for $`n1`$. In general the two distributions $`p^{(\text{VT})}(x)`$ and $`p^{(\text{RRN})}(x)`$ are different but universal. A mean field calculation leads in both cases (for the RRN see Appendix A) to $`P_{\mathrm{}}(\tau )=2\left|\tau \right|/g`$ and to the same integro-differential equation goldbart\_castillo\_zippelius\_96&zippelius\_goldbart\_98 ; goldbart&co\_87to94 ; peng&co\_98

$$4\frac{d}{dx}\left(x^2p(x)\right)=p(x)_0^x𝑑x^{}p(xx^{})p(x^{}),$$
(29)
with $`p(0)=p(\mathrm{})=0`$. It is interesting that the Laplace transform $`\stackrel{~}{p}(z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑xp(x)\mathrm{exp}(zx)`$ and the differential equation that follows from Eq. (29),

$$4z\stackrel{~}{p}^{\prime \prime }(z)=\left(1\stackrel{~}{p}(z)\right)\stackrel{~}{p}(z),$$
(30)
with $`\stackrel{~}{p}(0)=1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}(\mathrm{})=0`$, was already introduced many years ago by Stephen stephen\_78  and Stinchcombe Sti74  in their mean field theory of RRN and determination of the conductivity of a Bethe lattice, respectively.

## V Concluding remarks

We showed that the primitive divergences occurring in percolation and vulcanization are identical to arbitrary order in perturbation theory. Consequently both transitions are governed by the same Gell–Mann-Low RGE. This RGE determines entirely the scaling structure of both transitions. Hence, the scaling behavior of physically analogous quantities in both transitions is identical. In particular, the VT is governed by the critical exponents of the percolation universality class. Quantities which are not completely determined by superficial divergences cannot be calculated from the Gell–Mann-Low RGE. These quantities, e.g. scaling functions, may be different in both theories.

Moreover, we compared the order parameter for the RRN and the VT. These two have an analogous form. The order parameter for the RRN involves a scaling function which incorporates the distribution of the conductance to infinity whereas the order parameter for the VT features the distribution of the inverse squares of localization length. In mean field approximation, the corresponding distribution functions turn out to be identical. To determine these distribution functions beyond mean field level is an interesting issue for future work.

We would like to emphasize that the analysis of scaling properties presented in Sec. III is hardly feasible without employing the methods of renormalized local field theory. These methods provide a clear cut discrimination between scaling properties and other universal quantities like scaling functions. Furthermore, these methods allow to restrict attention to superficially divergent diagrams which simplifies the analysis tremendously.

The intimate relationship between vulcanization and percolation seems plausible because macroscopic connectivity is the central issue in both systems. There are, on the other hand, striking distinctions between vulcanization and percolation. For example, common percolation models like the RRN live on some underlying lattice whereas vulcanization involves no lattice. Vulcanization as considered in this paper features an excluded volume interaction which is extraneous to percolation. A similarity between the excluded volume interaction and the lattice is, however, that both prevent overlap of the network constituents, monomers and bonds, respectively. Another obvious distinction is that the usual percolation involves a single ensemble, viz. the ensemble of the diluted lattice configurations, whereas vulcanization features two ensembles: one pertaining to the thermal degrees of freedom and one to the crosslink distribution. It turns out, though, that fluctuations of the crosslink distribution play a more important role than thermal fluctuations do, at least as far as the connectivity aspects of the VT are concerned.

###### Acknowledgements.

We acknowledge support by the Sonderforschungsbereich 237 “Unordnung und große Fluktuationen” of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

## Appendix A Reduction of superficially divergent diagrams

In this appendix we demonstrate the simplicity of determining the one-loop contributions to the renormalization of the VT model. Consider the self-energy diagram constructed of the HRS (bold) propagators, Fig. 1.

After decomposition in amorphous (thin) and liquid (dashed) propagators, we get the second line in Fig. 1, where summation over the colors $`\alpha ,\beta `$ is implied. We have shown that diagrams with different colors do not contribute to the primitive divergencies. Hence, we can set $`\alpha =\beta `$ in the third diagram. However, then the third diagram can be discarded because the wave vectors of the two propagators of the same color can not add to a HRS external wave vector at the vertices. Now we can replace all the propagators by the simple one $`(\tau +𝐪_i^2)^1`$ which results in the simple diagram appearing in the third line of Fig. 1. Therefore we get in dimensional regularization, after including the combinatorial factor $`1/2`$, the following one-loop contribution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{1\text{loop}}`$ to the two-leg vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ (note that the vertex functions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ are defined as the negative of the corresponding diagrams):

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{1\text{loop}}(𝐤)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _𝐪}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(\tau +𝐪^2\right)\left(\tau +(𝐪+𝐤)^2\right)}}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{A_\epsilon \epsilon }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{1\epsilon /2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤^2}{6}}+O(𝐤^4)\right],`$
where $`\epsilon =6d`$ and $`A_\epsilon =(4\pi )^{d/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\epsilon /2)`$. Renormalization, Eq.(9), with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\stackrel{˚}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_N=Z^{N/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and the identification $`𝐤^2=\widehat{K}^2`$ leads to the $`1`$-loop result

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(\widehat{K},\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[Z_\tau {\displaystyle \frac{u}{\epsilon (1\epsilon /2)}}\left(\mu ^2/\tau \right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]\tau `$ (32)
$`+`$ $`\left[Z{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6\epsilon }}\left(\mu ^2/\tau \right)^{\epsilon /2}\right]\widehat{K}^2+O(u^2,\widehat{K}^4).`$
The $`\epsilon `$-poles are eliminated by choosing minimally

$$Z=1+\frac{u}{6\epsilon }+O(u^2),Z_\tau =1+\frac{u}{\epsilon }+O(u^2).$$
(33)
Now we consider the first order correction $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{1\text{loop}}`$ to the vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3`$.

The three-leg diagram constructed of the HRS (bold) propagators, Fig. 2, decomposes in amorphous and liquid (dashed) propagators shown in the second line of Fig. 2. Once more the summation over the colors $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, and $`\gamma `$ is implied. We can set $`\alpha =\beta =\gamma `$ in the diagrams to extract the primitive divergencies. However, then the third and fourth diagram can be discarded because the wave vectors of the propagators of the same color cannot add to a HRS external wave vector at all the vertices. We are left the third line of Fig. 2 where the propagators are replaced by $`(\tau +𝐪_i^2)^1`$. Thus, we find

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_3(\{\mathrm{𝟎}\})=2g^3_𝐪\frac{1}{\left(\tau +𝐪^2\right)^3}=\frac{2g^3\tau ^{\epsilon /2}}{A_\epsilon \epsilon }.$$
(34)
After renormalization we get

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{1\text{loop}}(\{0\},\tau )=g\left[Z_u^{1/2}\frac{2u}{\epsilon }\left(\mu ^2/\tau \right)^{\epsilon /2}+O(u^2)\right].$$
(35)
It follows the remaining renormalization factor

$$Z_u=1+\frac{4u}{\epsilon }+O(u^2).$$
(36)
All the renormalization factors, Eqs.(33,36) are known since a long time as the factors that renormalize the Potts model in the one state limit alcantara\_80 . Denoting the logarithmic derivatives of the renormalization factors by $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}=\mu \mathrm{ln}Z_{\mathrm{}}/\mu |_0`$, one derives easily the Gell–Mann-Low-Wilson functions of the RGE as

$`\beta (u)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\epsilon +3\gamma \gamma _u\right)u`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`\left(\epsilon +{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}u+O(u^2)\right)u,`$
$`\gamma (u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{6}}+O(u^2),`$ (38)
$`\kappa _\tau (u)`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \gamma _\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{5u}{6}}+O(u^2).`$ (39)
The fixed point $`u_{}`$ as the asymptotic solution of the flow equation $`ldu(l)/dl=\beta (u)`$ is found to be $`u_{}=2\epsilon /7+O(\epsilon ^2)`$. The critical exponents follow as $`\eta =\gamma (u_{})=\epsilon /21+O(\epsilon ^2)`$ and $`\nu ^1=2\kappa _\tau (u_{})=25\epsilon /21+O(\epsilon ^2)`$. These are the known percolation exponents.

## Appendix B The order parameter of the RRN

In this appendix we discuss some properties of the order parameter $`M(\stackrel{}{\theta },\tau ,w)`$ of the random resistor network above the percolation point. We begin with a mean field consideration based on the saddle point equation steaming from Eq. (5):

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{\text{RRN}}}{\delta \varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })}}=\left(\tau ^2w_\theta ^2\right)\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })`$ (40)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}\left(\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle _\stackrel{}{\theta }^{}}\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta }^{})^2\right).`$
The last term in this equation follows from the condition that the variation must be done subject to the constraint (4). We seek a spatially homogeneous solution, rotational invariant about $`\stackrel{}{\theta }=0`$ in replica space. Thus, we make the ansatz $`\varphi (𝐱,\stackrel{}{\theta })=M(\stackrel{}{\theta })=m(f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)1)`$. Here denotes $`f`$ a localized function with $`_\stackrel{}{\theta }^{}f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)=_\stackrel{}{\theta }^{}1=n`$. From Eq. (40) we get, assuming $`m0`$ for $`\tau <0`$,

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\tau w_\theta ^2\right)f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)\tau `$ (41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{gm}{2}}\left(f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)^22f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle _\stackrel{}{\theta }^{}}f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)^2\right).`$
We separate this equation in its localized and its delocalized parts:

$`\left(\tau w_\theta ^2\right)f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2){\displaystyle \frac{gm}{2}}\left(f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)^22f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (42)
$`\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{gm}{2}}\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}{\displaystyle _\stackrel{}{\theta }^{}}f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)^2\right)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (43)
Now we write the function $`f`$ as a Laplace integral

$$f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\overline{p}(t)\mathrm{exp}(t\stackrel{}{\theta }^2).$$
(44)
Then we have for the term containing the replica space derivative

$`_\theta ^2f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\overline{p}(t)\left(4t^2\stackrel{}{\theta }^22tD\right)\mathrm{exp}(t\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)`$ (45)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{exp}(t\stackrel{}{\theta }^2){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\left(t^2\overline{p}(t)\right),`$
where the last equality holds in the limit $`D0`$, i.e., $`n1`$. Furthermore we can deduce in this limit from the normalization of $`f`$ that $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t\overline{p}(t)=1`$ which leads in the limit $`n1`$ to $`_\stackrel{}{\theta }f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)^2=(_\stackrel{}{\theta }f(\stackrel{}{\theta }^2))^2=1`$. Thus, we obtain from Eq. (43) that the mean field percolation order parameter is given for $`\tau <0`$ by $`m=2\tau /g=2\left|\tau \right|/g`$. Using this result and equating the coefficients of $`\mathrm{exp}(t\stackrel{}{\theta }^2)`$ we get finally from Eq. (42)

$$\frac{4w}{\left|\tau \right|}\frac{d}{dt}\left(t^2\overline{p}(t)\right)=\overline{p}(t)_0^t𝑑t^{}\overline{p}(t^{})\overline{p}(tt^{}),$$
(46)
which constitutes, after a rescaling, the integro-differential equation (29). A very good approximative solution of this equation is given by $`p(x)=ax^2\mathrm{exp}(1/4x)`$ for $`x1`$ and $`p(x)=24(bx3/5)\mathrm{exp}(bx)`$ for $`x1`$ with $`a=0.56925`$ and $`b=13.424`$ goldbart\_castillo\_zippelius\_96&zippelius\_goldbart\_98 . These asymptotic forms yield also very good approximations in the overlapping region $`x1`$.

The previous mean field consideration is valid in an exact sense only for dimensions $`d6`$. To get information about the behavior of the distribution $`p(x)`$ on the spatial dimension $`d`$ below $`6`$, we calculate the mean macroscopic conductance to infinity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$. We consider spatial length scales large in comparison to the correlation length $`\xi `$. In this regime the RRN above the percolation point, $`\tau <0`$, can be considered as a homogeneous material of conductivity $`\sigma (\tau )`$. Instead of addressing $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ directly we determine the resistance $`R_L`$ of the RRN between in inner sphere of radius $`a\xi `$ and an outer one of radius $`La`$. The solution to this simple problem may be gleaned from many textbooks on electricity and magnetism. One finds that the voltage $`V`$ behaves as a function of the current $`I`$ as

$`V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{I}{\sigma (d2)S_d}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{a^{d2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{L^{d2}}}\right)=R_LI,`$ (47)
where $`S_d`$ is the surface of the unit sphere in $`d`$ dimensions. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ can now be obtained by taking the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. The leading terms in this limit are

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ $`=`$ $`R_L^1\sigma S_d\{\begin{array}{cc}(d2)a^{d2}& \text{for }d>2,\\ \left(\mathrm{ln}(L/a)\right)^1& \text{for }d=2,\\ (2d)L^{(2d)}& \text{for }d<2.\end{array}`$ (51)
Hence, the macroscopic conductance to infinity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mathrm{}}`$ is finite in the case of $`d>2`$ and vanishes for $`d2`$. We conclude that the distribution of the conductance to infinity $`p(x)`$ must develop a $`\delta `$-peak at $`x=0`$ if $`d2`$ and the order parameter of the RRN vanishes. If we make a scaling ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_L(\tau )=\left|\tau \right|^\varphi F(L/\xi ,a/\xi )$$
(52)
and compare with Eq.(51), we find the well known exponent $`t`$ for the macroscopic conductivity $`\sigma (\tau )=\left|\tau \right|^t`$

$$t=(d2)\nu +\varphi $$
(53)
in all cases.


format: text

text:
# HOMOTOPY DIAGRAMS OF ALGEBRAS

## Plan of the paper. (in place of Introduction)

Section 1: Notation and terminology. We recall standard facts concerning (colored) operads and their (minimal) models.

Section 2: Minimal model for a homomorphism. We describe the minimal model $`𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}`$ of the colored operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ describing a homomorphism $`f`$ of $`𝒜`$-algebras. The minimal operad $`𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}`$ encapsulates strongly homotopy homomorphisms of strongly homotopy algebras. The main result is Theorem 7, the rest of this section is occupied by its proof.

Section 3: Some applications of Theorem 7 are given. We prove a theorem about extensions of strongly homotopy algebra structures (Theorem 15). We also prove that the abelization of a homotopy associative multiplication can be extended to a balanced strongly homotopy associative algebra (Corollary 16). The remaining part of the paper is independent on this section.

Section 4: Homotopy through homomorphisms. We construct, in Theorem 18, another model $`𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ of $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ with two independent generators for $`f`$. Representations of $`𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ describe homotopies of homomorphisms of homotopy algebras.

Section 5: Strong homotopy equivalences of algebras. In Theorem 24 we describe a model $`𝔐_{so}`$ of the colored operad $`𝒜_{so}`$ for two mutually inverse homomorphism of $`𝒜`$-algebras. We call colored algebras over $`𝔐_{so}`$ strong homotopy equivalences of strongly homotopy algebras (Definition 27).

Section 6: Final remarks and challenges. We discuss possible applications and generalizations of the methods developed in this paper. Namely, we discuss the ‘category’ of strongly homotopy algebras, ‘good’ homotopy equivalences and the ideal homological perturbation lemma, and homotopies through homomorphisms. Then we propose a possible generalization of the main results of the paper.

## 1 Notation and terminology

As a reference for standard terminology concerning operads, collections, ideals, presentations etc. we recommend  and . Algebraic models of colored operads were studied in . If not said otherwise, all algebraic object will be defined over a field $`𝐤`$ of characteristic zero. A map will be called a quasi-isomorphism or a quism if it induces an isomorphism of cohomology.

Let us recall colored operads describing diagrams of algebras. Fix a (finite) set of colors $``$ and consider an operad $`𝒫=\{𝒫(n)\}_{n1}`$ such that each $`𝒫(n)`$ decomposes to the direct sum

$$𝒫(n)=𝒫\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}c\\ c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\end{array}\text{}\right),$$
(1)
where the summation runs over all colors $`c,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n`$. We require the decomposition (1) to be, in the obvious sense, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$-equivariant. We also demand the following.

Let $`x𝒫\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}c\\ c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\end{array}\text{}\right)`$ and $`x_i𝒫\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}d_i\\ d_1^i,\mathrm{},d_{k_i}^i\end{array}\text{}\right)`$, $`1in`$. Then we require that the non-triviality of the composition $`x(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ implies that

$$d_i=c_i,\text{for }1in,$$
(2)
in which case

$$x(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)𝒫\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}c\\ d_1^1,\mathrm{},d_{k_1}^1,\mathrm{},d_1^n,\mathrm{},d_{k_n}^n\end{array}\text{}\right).$$

The intuitive meaning of (2) is that one may plug the element $`x_i`$ into the $`i`$-th slot of the element $`x`$ if and only if the color of the output of $`x_i`$ is the same as the color of the $`i`$-th input of $`x`$, otherwise the composition is defined to be zero.

An example is provided by the colored endomorphism operad $`\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_𝐔`$ on a ‘colored’ chain complex $`𝐔=_{c𝐂}𝐔_c`$ where we put, in (1),

$$\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_𝐔\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}c\\ c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\end{array}\text{}\right):=\mathrm{Hom}(U_{c_1}\mathrm{}U_{c_n},U_c).$$

A colored algebra over a colored operad $`𝒫`$ is then a map of operads $`A:𝒫\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_𝐔`$. We also sometimes say that $`A`$ is a representation of $`𝒫`$.

###### Example 1

For an ordinary dg (= differential graded) operad $`𝒜=(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$, define the $`\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$-colored operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ as

$$𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}:=\frac{𝒜_𝙱𝒜_𝚆(f)}{(fa_𝙱=a_𝚆f^n,a𝒜(n),n1)}.$$
(3)
In this formula, $`𝒜_𝙱`$ (resp. $`𝒜_𝚆`$) denotes the copy of $`𝒜`$ ‘concentrated’ in the color $`𝙱`$ (resp. $`𝚆`$). The symbol $`f`$ is a new generator, $`f:𝙱𝚆`$, and $`(f)`$ denotes the free colored operad generated by $`f`$. In fact, $`(f)`$ consist only of $`f`$, since there is no way to compose $`f`$ with itself. The asterix $``$ denotes the free product of colored operads and the equation $`fa_𝙱=a_𝚆f^n`$ generating the ideal in the denominator of (3) expresses the fact that $`f`$ commutes with all operations of the operad $`𝒜`$.

There exists a differential on $`𝒜_𝙱𝒜_𝚆(f)`$ induced by $`d_𝒜`$ on $`𝒜_𝙱`$, $`𝒜_𝚆`$ and trivial on $`(f)`$ which descends to a differential $`d=d_{𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}}`$ on $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$. It is clear that an algebra over $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ consists of two $`𝒜`$-algebras $`U`$ and $`V`$ and a chain map $`f:UV`$ which is also a $`𝒜`$-homomorphism.

The following definition, introduced for ordinary operads in , is crucial.

###### Definition 2

Let $`𝒜=(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$ be an (ordinary or colored) dg operad. A minimal model of $`𝒜`$ is a differential graded operad $`𝔐_𝒜=((E),d_𝔐)`$, where $`(E)`$ is the free operad on a collection $`E`$, together with a map $`\alpha _𝒜:𝔐_𝒜𝒜`$ of dg operads such that

* $`\alpha _𝒜:𝔐_𝒜𝒜`$ is a quasi-isomorphism, and
* $`d_𝔐(E)`$ consists of decomposable elements of the free operad $`(E)`$ (the minimality).

In \[6, Theorem 2.1\] we proved the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`𝒜=(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$ be an (ordinary) operad with

$$H_{}(𝒜(1),d_𝒜)𝐤.$$
(4)
Then there exists a minimal model $`\rho :((X),d_𝔐)(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$, unique up to isomorphism.

In fact, in \[6, Theorem 2.1\] we assumed that $`𝒜(1)𝐤`$, but it is immediate to see that each $`𝒜`$ satisfying (4) is quasi-isomorphic to some $`\overline{𝒜}`$ with $`\overline{𝒜}(1)𝐤`$. The lifting property of minimal models guarantee that the minimal model of $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is also a minimal model of $`𝒜`$.

It can be immediately seen that the generators of the minimal model from Theorem 3 satisfy $`X(1)=0`$, that is, there are no generators of arity $`1`$.

As we explained in , the minimal model of the operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ (unique up to an isomorphism, by an easy modification of \[6, Theorem 2.1\]) describes strongly homotopy $`𝒜`$-algebras and their strongly homotopy maps. This is illustrated in the following example, taken again from .

###### Example 4

Let $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}:=(\mu )/(\mu (\mu 11)\mu (11\mu ))`$ be the operad for associative (non-unital) algebras. Then the minimal model of the operad

$$\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}_{𝙱𝚆}=(\mu ,\nu ,f)/(\mu (\mu 11)=\mu (11\mu ),\nu (\nu 11)=\nu (11\nu ),f\mu =\nu f^2)$$

is given by

$$\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}_{𝙱𝚆}\stackrel{\alpha }{}((\text{}\mu _2,\mu _3,\mu _4,\mathrm{},f_1,f_2,f_3,\mathrm{},\nu _2,\nu _3,\nu _4,\mathrm{}\text{}),),$$
(5)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\mu _n:𝙱^n𝙱\text{ is a generator of degree }n2\text{}n2\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{ }f_n:𝙱^n𝚆\text{ is a generator of degree }n1\text{}n1\text{, and}\hfill \\ \text{ }\nu _n:𝚆^n𝚆\text{ is a generator of degree }n2\text{}n2\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
The map $`\alpha `$ is defined by $`\alpha (\mu _2)=\mu `$, $`\alpha (\nu _2)=\nu `$, $`\alpha (f_1)=f`$, while $`\alpha `$ is trivial on remaining generators. The differential is given by

$`(\mu _n)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j=n+1\\ i,j2\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{nj}{}}}(1)^{i+s(j+1)}\mu _i(11^s\mu _j11^{is1}),`$ (9)
$`(f_n)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{r_1+\mathrm{}+r_k=n}{}}(1)^{_{1i<jk}r_i(r_j+1)}\nu _k(f_{r_1}\mathrm{}f_{r_k})+`$ (13)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j=n+1\\ i1,j2\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{nj}{}}}(1)^{i+s(j+1)}f_i(11^s\mu _j11^{is1}),`$
$`(\nu _n)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j=n+1\\ i,j2\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{nj}{}}}(1)^{i+s(j+1)}\nu _i(11^s\nu _j11^{is1}),`$ (16)
Let us denote the operad on the right hand side of (5) by $`A(\mathrm{})_{𝙱𝚆}`$. Algebras over $`A(\mathrm{})_{𝙱𝚆}`$ are clearly $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras and their $`A(\mathrm{})`$-homomorphisms in the sense of .

The fact that the above object is indeed a minimal model of the bi-colored operad $`A(\mathrm{})_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is a fairly nontrivial. While it is clear that all the objects above are well-defined, we need Proposition 11 to show that $`\alpha `$ is a quism. See also Example 12.

## 2 Minimal model for a homomorphism

The aim of this section is to generalize Example 4 and describe the minimal model of the $`\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$-colored operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ for an arbitrary operad $`𝒜`$ satisfying (4) in terms of the minimal model of $`𝒜`$. We need to introduce some notation first.

Let $`j_c:𝒜𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ be, for $`c\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$, the map induced by the identification of $`𝒜`$ with $`𝒜_c𝒜_𝙱𝒜_𝚆(f)`$. It is easy to see that the map $`j_c`$ is an inclusion. Construction (3) is clearly functorial, that is, every map $`\beta :𝒜`$ induces a natural map $`\beta _{𝙱𝚆}:𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}_{𝙱𝚆}`$ of colored dg operads with the property that $`\beta _{𝙱𝚆}(j_c(a))=j_c(\beta (a))`$, for $`a𝒜`$ and $`c\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$. The following proposition describes the structure of $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$.

###### Proposition 5

Let $`c,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$ be a sequence of colors. The component

$$𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}c\\ c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\end{array}\text{}\right)$$
(17)
of the operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is trivial for $`c=𝙱`$ and $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)(𝙱,\mathrm{},𝙱)`$, while it is canonically isomorphic to $`𝒜(n)`$ for all other choices of colors. These canonical isomorphisms are functorial and commute with the differentials.

Proof. It is clear that (17) is trivial for $`c=𝙱`$ and $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)(𝙱,\mathrm{},𝙱)`$, because there is no way to create a ‘map’ $`(c_1,\mathrm{},c_n)𝙱`$ in (17) from the generators. The only nontrivial possibility with $`c=𝙱`$ is

$$𝒜_𝙱(n)𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}𝙱\\ 𝙱,\mathrm{},𝙱\end{array}\text{}\right),$$

which is clearly isomorphic to $`𝒜(n)`$.

It follows from relations in the denominator of (3) that, for $`c=𝚆`$, any element $`a`$ of (17) can be naturally and uniquely presented as

$$a=\overline{a}(\xi (c_1)\mathrm{}\xi (c_n)),$$

where $`\overline{a}𝒜_𝚆(n)𝒜(n)`$ and

$$\xi (c_i):=\{\begin{array}{cc}f,\hfill & \text{if }c_i=𝙱\text{, and}\hfill \\ 11_𝙱,\hfill & \text{if }c_i=𝚆\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`d(f)=0`$, the functorial correspondence $`a\overline{a}`$ commutes with the differentials. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

Proposition 5 has the following important corollary.

###### Corollary 6

Suppose that $`\beta :𝒜`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Then the induced map $`\beta _{𝙱𝚆}:𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is a quasi-isomorphism, too.

Let $`𝒜=(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$ be a dg operad satisfying (4) and let $`\rho :((X),d_𝔐)(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$ be its minimal model (see Definition 2). Let $`X_c`$ be, for $`c\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$, another copy of the space of generators $`X`$ and let $`i_c:X\stackrel{}{}X_c`$ be the identification. Let $`\overline{X}:=X`$ be the suspension of $`X`$ and let $`:X\stackrel{}{}\overline{X}`$ be the canonical map. For $`xX`$, let $`x_c:=i_c(x)`$, $`c\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$, and $`\overline{x}:=x`$.

We will be working with the free operad $`(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆)`$ generated by the collections $`X_𝙱`$, $`X_𝚆`$, $`\overline{X}`$ and a generator $`f:𝙱𝚆`$. Generators $`X_c`$ will be considered ‘concentrated’ in a color $`c\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$ and $`\overline{X}`$ as a collection of ‘maps’ $`𝙱\mathrm{}𝙱𝚆`$. We will again have canonical inclusions $`j_c:(X)(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆)`$, $`c\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$. We will denote, for $`n1`$, by

$$^{<n}(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆)$$
(18)
the ideal generated by $`\overline{X}(<n):=_{k<n}\overline{X}(k)`$. The main theorem of this section reads:

###### Theorem 7

Let be an (ordinary) operad satisfying (4) and let $`\rho :𝔐(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$, $`𝔐=((X),d_𝔐)`$, be its minimal model. Then the minimal model $`𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}`$ for $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is of the form

$$\alpha :((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),D)(𝒜_{𝙱𝚆},d)$$
(19)
such that, for each $`n2`$ and $`xX(n)`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}D(x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(d_𝔐(x)),D(x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(d_𝔐(x)),& \\ D(f)=0\text{ and }D(\overline{x})=fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n+\omega ,& \end{array}$$
(20)
for some $`\omega =\omega _x^{<n}`$ which linearly depends on $`x`$. The map $`\alpha `$ is given by

$`\alpha (x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(\rho (x))`$, $`\alpha (x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(\rho (x))`$, $`\alpha (f)=f`$ and $`\alpha (\overline{x})=0`$,  for $`xX`$.  (21)
We call $`fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n`$ the principal part and $`\omega `$ the tail of $`D(\overline{x})`$.

###### Remark 8

It is well-known that if the operad $`𝒜`$ is quadratic Koszul , its minimal model $`((X),d_𝔐)`$ is the cobar construction over the quadratic dual $`𝒜^!`$ of the operad $`𝒜`$ \[6, Proposition 2.6\]. Something similar is true also here – it can be shown that for $`𝒜`$ quadratic Koszul, there exists a ‘closed’ formula for the tail $`\omega `$. An example is provided by the minimal model $`A(\mathrm{})_{𝙱𝚆}`$ of $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}_{𝙱𝚆}`$ described in Example 4, compare also Example 12. We are lead to:

###### Problem 9

Is there a notion of (quadratic) duality, Koszulness and of the cobar construction for colored operads such that colored operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is Koszul if $`𝒜`$ is and the minimal model of $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is the cobar construction on the dual $`(𝒜_{𝙱𝚆})^!`$?

Note that the differential $`D`$ described in Theorem 7 is not quadratic, so one cannot expect the solution of Problem 9 to be a straightforward one.

The proof of Theorem 7 will occupy the rest of this section. We show first that conditions (20) and (21) of Theorem 7 already guarantee that both $`\alpha `$ and $`D`$ are well defined (Lemma 10) and that $`\alpha `$ is a quasi-isomorphism (Proposition 11). We then show that the differential $`D`$ indeed exists.

###### Lemma 10

For any differential $`D`$ as in (20), the map $`\alpha `$ defined by (21) commutes with the differentials, that is

$$d_𝒜\alpha (a)=\alpha (Da),a(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆).$$
(22)
Proof of the lemma. It is enough to verify (22) on generators. It obviously holds for $`aX_𝙱`$, $`aX_𝚆`$ or $`a=f`$. For $`a=\overline{x}\overline{X}`$, equation (22) reduces to $`0=\alpha (D(\overline{x}))`$. We have

$$\alpha (D(\overline{x}))=\alpha (fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n+\omega )=fj_𝙱(\rho (x))j_𝚆(\rho (x))f^n+\alpha (\omega ),$$

because $`\alpha `$ is a homomorphism. It follows from the definition of $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ that $`fj_𝙱(\rho (x))j_𝚆(\rho (x))f^n=0`$. Moreover, $`\alpha (\omega )=0`$, since $`\omega ^{<n}`$ and $`\alpha `$ is trivial on the generators $`\overline{X}(<n)`$ of $`^{<n}`$. Thus $`\alpha (D(\overline{x}))=0`$ which finishes the proof. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 11

Suppose that the differential $`D`$ is as in (20). Then the map $`\alpha `$ defined by (21) is a quasi-isomorphism.

###### Example 12

The minimal model of the operad $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}`$ for associative algebras is $`((X),d_𝔐)`$ with $`X`$ generated by $`\mu _2,\mu _3,\mathrm{}`$ as in (6) and the differential $`d_𝔐`$ given by (9). Equation (13) is clearly of the form

$$f_n=f_1\mu _n\nu _nf_1^n+\omega $$

where $`\omega `$ belongs to the ideal generated by $`f_2,f_3,\mathrm{},f_{n1}`$. Therefore the model for $`\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}_{𝙱𝚆}`$ described in Example 4 is of the type predicted by Theorem 7, with $`X_𝙱=\mathrm{Span}(\mu _2,\mu _3,\mathrm{})`$, $`X_𝚆=\mathrm{Span}(\nu _2,\nu _3,\mathrm{})`$ and $`\overline{X}=\mathrm{Span}(f_2,f_3,\mathrm{})`$. In particular, the map $`\alpha `$ constructed in this example is a quasi-isomorphism.

To prove Proposition 11, observe that the map $`\alpha `$ of (19) decomposes as

$$((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),D)\stackrel{\gamma }{}(\frac{(X_𝙱;f;X_𝚆)}{(fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n)},d)=𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}\stackrel{\rho _{𝙱𝚆}}{}𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}.$$
(23)
Since the map $`\rho _{𝙱𝚆}`$ is a quism by Corollary 6, it is enough to prove that the map $`\gamma `$ is also a quism:

###### Lemma 13

For each minimal operad $`((X),d_𝔐)`$ is the map

$$\gamma :((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),D)((X),d_𝔐)_{𝙱𝚆}$$

given by $`\gamma (x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(x)`$, $`\gamma (x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(x)`$, $`\gamma (f)=f`$ and $`\gamma (\overline{x})=0`$, a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof the lemma is based on a repeated spectral sequence argument. Let us define an ascending filtration of $`(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆)`$,

$$𝔉_1:\mathrm{}F_2F_1F_0=F_1=F_2=\mathrm{}=(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),$$
(24)
by postulating $`F_p`$ to be the subspace spanned by expressions having at least $`p`$ occurrences of generators from $`X_𝙱,X_𝚆`$ or $`\overline{X}`$. Since clearly $`D(F_p)F_p`$, we can consider the related spectral sequence $`𝐄=(E_{pq}^r,d^r)`$. This spectral sequence converges because, for any fixed arity $`n`$, $`F_p(n)=0`$ for $`p`$ sufficiently small. The initial term of $`𝐄`$ is easy to describe,

$$(E^0,d^0)((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),d^0),$$

with $`d^0`$ denoting the ‘linear part’ of $`d`$, namely

$$d^0(x_𝙱)=d^0(x_𝚆)=d^0(f)=0\text{ and }d^0(\overline{x})=fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n,\text{ for }xX(n).$$
(25)
We claim that

$$H_{}(E^0,d^0)\frac{(X_𝙱;f;X_𝚆)}{(fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n)}.$$
(26)
Let us denote, just for the purpose of this proof, $`:=(X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆)`$. The colored operad $``$ has also another ‘upper’ grading, $`=_{s0}^s`$, induced by the number of generators from $`\overline{X}`$. The differential $`d^0`$ lowers this upper degree by $`1`$. It is immediate to see that

$$H_{}^0(_{}^{},d^0)\frac{(X_𝙱;f;X_𝚆)}{(fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n)},$$

equation (26) will thus follow from $`H_{}^{>0}(_{}^{},d^0)=0`$. To prove this, observe that there is yet another ascending filtration of $``$ induced by the number of occurrences of the generator $`f`$, i.e. $`=G_p`$, where $`G_p`$ is spanned by expressions having at least $`p`$ occurrences of the generator $`f`$. The first term of the related spectral sequence is $`(_{}^{},\overline{d}_0)`$, where

$$\overline{d}_0(x_𝙱)=\overline{d}_0(x_𝚆)=\overline{d}_0(f)=0\text{ and }\overline{d}_0(\overline{x})=fx_𝙱,\text{ for }xX.$$

We shall prove that $`(_{}^{},\overline{d}_0)`$ is acyclic in positive ‘upper’ gradings. This means that

$$(_{}^{>0}\left(\text{}\begin{array}{c}c\\ c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\end{array}\text{}\right),\overline{d}_0)$$
(27)
is acyclic for each choice of colors $`c,c_1,\mathrm{},c_n\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$. If $`c=𝙱`$ then, as in the proof of Proposition 5, we conclude that (27) cannot contain a generator from $`\overline{X}`$, thus it is not only acyclic, but even trivial in positive upper dimensions.

If $`c=𝚆`$, each element $`a`$ of (27) can be expanded as

$$a=\underset{m2}{}(fe_𝙱^{m,i}r_{m,i}^𝙱+\overline{e}^{m,i}\underset{¯}{r}_{m,i}+e_𝚆^{m,i}r_{m,i}^𝚆)$$
(28)
where $`\{e^{m,i}\}`$ is a basis of $`X(m)`$ and $`r_{m,i}^𝙱,r_{m,i}^𝚆,\underset{¯}{r}_{m,i}^m`$, $`m2`$ (the summation convention assumed). We prove, by induction on the arity $`n`$, that

if $`a`$ is of a positive upper grading and $`\overline{d}_0(a)=0`$, then $`a`$ is a $`\overline{d}_0`$-boundary. (29)
For $`n=2`$, equation (28) reduces to $`a=_i\underset{¯}{\alpha }_i\overline{e}^{2,i}`$ for some $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }_i𝐤`$, thus $`\overline{d}_0(a)=_i\underset{¯}{\alpha }_ife_𝙱^{2,i}=f(_i\underset{¯}{\alpha }_ie_𝙱^{2,i})`$. The condition $`\overline{d}_0(a)=0`$ then implies that $`\underset{¯}{\alpha }_i=0`$ for each $`i`$, thus $`a=0`$.

Suppose we have proved (29) for all arities $`<n`$ and suppose that $`a`$ has arity $`n`$. If $`\overline{d}_0(a)=0`$, then

$$0=\underset{m2}{}((1)^{e^{m,i}}fe_𝙱^{m,i}\overline{d}_0(r_{m,i}^𝙱)+fe_𝙱^{m,i}\underset{¯}{r}_{m,i}(1)^{e^{m,i}}\overline{e}^{m,i}\overline{d}_0(\underset{¯}{r}_{m,i})+(1)^{e^{m,i}}e_𝚆^{m,i}\overline{d}_0(r_{m,i}^𝚆)),$$

which implies that, for all $`m2`$,

$$\overline{d}_0(\underset{¯}{r}_{m,i})=0,\overline{d}_0(r_{m,i}^𝙱)=(1)^{e^{m,i}}\underset{¯}{r}_{m,i}\text{ and }\overline{d}_0(r_{m,i}^𝚆)=0.$$

Since each $`r_{m,i}^𝚆`$ is a product of elements of arity $`<n`$, by induction assumption there exists $`b_{m,i}^𝚆`$ such that $`r_{m,i}^𝚆=\overline{d}_0(b_{m,i}^𝚆)`$. It is easy to verify that then

$$a=\overline{d}_0\left\{\underset{m2}{}(\overline{e}^{m,i}r_{m,i}^𝙱+(1)^{e^{m,i}}e_𝚆^{m,i}b_{m,i}^𝚆)\right\},$$

which proves (29) for arity $`n`$. Thus $`(_{}^{},\overline{d}_0)`$ is acyclic in positive upper dimensions, and so is, by a spectral sequence argument, also $`(_{}^{},d^0)`$. This proves (26).

Define an ascending filtration $`𝔉_2`$ of the operad

$$((X),d_𝔐)_{𝙱𝚆}=(\frac{(X_𝙱;f;X_𝚆)}{(fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n)},d),$$

by the number of generators from $`X_𝙱`$ and $`X_𝚆`$. The differential induced on the first term of the related spectral sequence is trivial. The map $`\gamma `$ is clearly a morphism of $`𝔉_1`$-$`𝔉_2`$ filtered operads. It follows from (26) that $`\gamma `$ induces a quism of the initial terms of the spectral sequences, thus $`\gamma `$ is a quism as well. This finishes the proof of the lemma. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

To finish the proof of Theorem 7, we will need also a ‘restricted’ version of Lemma 13:

###### Lemma 14

Let $`K2`$ and let $`d_𝔐^{<K}`$ be the restriction of $`d_𝔐`$ to $`X(<K)`$. Let $`D^{<K}`$ be the similar obvious restriction of the differential $`D`$. Then the map

$$\gamma _{<K}:((X_𝙱(<K);f,\overline{X}(<K);X_𝚆(<K)),D^{<K})((X(<K)),d_𝔐^{<K})_{𝙱𝚆}$$
(30)
given by $`\gamma _{<K}(x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(x)`$, $`\gamma _{<K}(x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(x)`$, $`\gamma _{<K}(f)=0`$ and $`\gamma _{<K}(\overline{x})=0`$ is a quasi-isomorphism.

Proof of the lemma. Since all objects in the lemma are well-defined and the restricted differential $`D^{<K}`$ has the form (20), the map $`\gamma _{<K}`$ is a quism by Lemma 13 applied to the minimal operad $`((X(<K)),d_𝔐^{<K})`$. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 7. In the light of Lemma 10 and Proposition 11, it suffices to construct a differential $`D`$ satisfying (20). We proceed by induction on the arity $`n`$. For $`\overline{x}\overline{X}(2)`$, let $`D(\overline{x}):=fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^2`$. Suppose we have already defined $`D`$ on $`\overline{X}(<n)`$. If we put, for $`\overline{x}\overline{X}(n)`$ and for some $`\omega ^{<n}`$,

$$D(\overline{x}):=fx_𝙱x_𝚆f^n+\omega ,$$

then $`(DD)(\overline{x})=0`$ implies that $`\omega `$ must satisfy

$$D(x_𝚆)f^nfD(x_𝙱)=D(\omega ).$$
(31)
Let us denote the left hand side of the above equation by $`\phi `$,

$$\phi :=D(x_𝚆)f^nfD(x_𝙱)=j_𝚆(d_𝔐(x))f^nfj_𝙱(d_𝔐(x)).$$

We need to solve the equation

$$\phi =D(\omega )$$
(32)
with some $`\omega ^{<n}`$. We are going to apply Lemma 14. To simplify the notation, denote

$$𝒢_{<n}:=((X_𝙱(<n);f,\overline{X}(<n);X_𝚆(<n)),D^{<n}).$$

Observe that $`^{<n}𝒢_{<n}`$. It is also evident that $`\phi 𝒢_{<n}`$ and that $`D^{<n}(\phi )=0`$. Since $`\varphi \mathrm{Ker}(\gamma _{<n})`$, by Lemma 14 with $`K=n`$ there exits $`\alpha _1𝒢_{<n}`$ such that $`\phi =D^{<n}\alpha _1`$. Clearly $`\alpha _1`$ decomposes as $`\alpha _1=u_1+\omega _1`$, where $`\omega _1^{<n}`$ and $`u_1`$ does not contain generators from $`\overline{X}`$.

Let us apply the map $`\gamma _{<n}`$ to the equation $`\phi =D^{<n}u_1+D^{<n}\omega _1`$. Since $`\gamma _{<n}(\phi )=\gamma _{<n}(D^{<n}\omega _1)=0`$, $`D^{<n}u_1\mathrm{Ker}(\gamma _{<n})`$ as well. Because $`u_1`$ does not contain elements of $`\overline{X}`$, $`D^{<n}u_1𝒢_{<n1}`$ thus, in fact, $`D^{<n}u_1\mathrm{Ker}(\gamma _{<n1})`$.

Lemma 14 with $`K=n1`$ gives some $`\omega _2^{<n1}`$ and some $`u_2𝒢_{<n1}`$ which does not contain generators from $`\overline{X}`$ such that $`D^{<n}u_1=D^{<n1}u_2+D^{<n1}\omega _2`$. Repeating this process $`n2`$ times, we end up with $`D^{<4}u_{n3}=D^{<3}u_{n2}+D^{<3}\omega _{n2}`$, where $`\omega _{n2}^{<3}`$ and $`u_{n2}𝒢_{<3}`$ does not contain generators from $`\overline{X}`$. Thus $`D^{<3}u_{n2}=0`$ and $`\omega :=\omega _1+\omega _2+\mathrm{}+\omega _{n2}`$ solves (32). mm$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Some applications

In this section we present a couple of applications of the model studied in Section 2. Though the results are formulated for very specific examples of homotopy algebras, as we will see below, only the principal parts of the differential matter. Therefore similar statements can be formulated for any type of strongly homotopy algebras.

Recall that, for each $`K1`$, an $`A(K)`$-algebra is an object $`𝐖=(W,,n_2,n_3,\mathrm{},n_K)`$ such that the multilinear maps $`n_i:W^iW`$, $`2iK`$, satisfy all axioms of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras in arities $`K`$. Similarly, a morphism $`𝐅`$ of two $`A(K)`$-algebras,

$$𝐅:𝐕=(V,,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{},m_K)𝐖=(W,,n_2,n_3,\mathrm{},n_K)$$

is a sequence of multilinear maps $`F_i:V^iW`$, $`1iK`$, that satisfies all axioms of a homomorphism of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras in arities $`K`$. This notion slightly differs from the one of \[5, p. 147\].

Each $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra $`𝐕`$ determines, by forgetting all structure operations of arities $`>K`$, an $`A(K)`$-algebra $`𝐕_K`$.

###### Theorem 15

Suppose we are given, for some fixed $`K1`$, the following data:

* An $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra $`𝐕=(V,,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{})`$,
* an $`A(K)`$-algebra $`𝐖=(W,,n_2,n_3,\mathrm{},n_K)`$ and
* a morphism $`\{F_n:V^iW\}_{nK}:𝐕_K𝐖`$ of $`A(K)`$-algebras.

Suppose that the chain map $`F_1:(V,)(W,)`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Then the above data can be extended to an $`A(\mathrm{})`$-structure $`𝐖`$ on $`(W,)`$ and to an $`A(\mathrm{})`$-homomorphism $`𝐅:𝐕𝐖`$. A similar statement holds also for balanced sh associative ($`C(\mathrm{})`$) and sh Lie ($`L(\mathrm{})`$) algebras (see \[5, p. 148\] and  for the definitions of these objects).

Proof. Let us assume the notation of Example 4. The data of the theorem can be encoded by a map

$$\varphi :(\mu _2,\mu _3,\mathrm{};f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_K;\nu _2,\nu _3,\mathrm{},\nu _K)\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{V,W}$$

with $`\varphi (\mu _i):=m_i`$, $`2i`$, $`\varphi (\nu _j):=n_j`$, $`2jK`$ and $`\varphi (f_i):=F_i`$, $`1iK`$. We need some $`n_{K+1}\mathrm{Hom}(W^{(K+1)},W)`$ and $`F_{K+1}\mathrm{Hom}(V^{(K+1)},W)`$ such that

$`n_{K+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (\nu _{K+1})\text{ and}`$ (33)
$`F_{K+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (\nu _{K+1}f_1^{(K+1)}f_1\mu _{K+1}+\omega ),`$ (34)
$`\varphi (\nu _{K+1}):=n_{K+1}`$ and $`\varphi (f_{K+1}):=F_{K+1}`$ will then extend our data one step up. We start by (33). Applying $`\varphi `$ to

$$0=^2f_{K+1}=\nu _{K+1}f_1^{(K+1)}f_1\mu _{K+1}+\omega $$

we obtain

$$\varphi (\nu _{K+1})F_1^{(K+1)}=F_1\varphi (\mu _{K+1})\varphi (\omega )=(F_1\varphi (\mu _{K+1}\omega )),$$

so $`\varphi (\mu _{K+1})F_1^{(K+1)}`$ is homologous to zero in $`\mathrm{Hom}(V^{(K+1)},W)`$ . Since $`F_1`$ is a quism, $`\varphi (\nu _{K+1})`$ is homologous to zero in $`\mathrm{Hom}(W^{(K+1)},W)`$ and the existence of $`n_{K+1}`$ satisfying (33) easily follows.

We solve (34) invoking a very useful trick of an ‘additive renormalization.’ Observe that if $`\theta _{K+1}\mathrm{Hom}(W^{(K+1)},V)`$ is closed, then changing $`n_{K+1}`$ to $`n_{K+1}+\theta _{K+1}`$ does not violate (33). For such a renormalized $`n_{K+1}`$, the right hand side of (34) reads

$$\chi :=n_{K+1}F_1^{(K+1)}F_1m_{K+1}+\varphi (\omega )+\theta _{K+1}F_1^{(K+1)}.$$

The first three terms of $`\chi `$ are closed. Since $`F_1`$ a quism, there exists $`\theta _{K+1}`$ such that $`\chi `$ homologous to zero, and the existence of $`F_{K+1}`$ solving (34) follows. The induction may go on. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

For $`K=1`$ the data of Theorem 15 consists of an $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebra $`𝐕=(V,,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{})`$ and a chain equivalence $`F_1:(V,)(W,)`$. For $`K=2`$ we have also a bilinear product $`n_2:WWW`$ and a homotopy $`F_2:VVW`$ between $`F_1m_2`$ and $`n_2(F_1,F_1)`$.

A statement similar to Theorem 15 can be clearly formulated for any type of strongly homotopy algebras, since all we needed was that the minimal model was of the form of Theorem 7.

###### Corollary 16

Suppose that $`(U,\mu ,)`$ is a differential graded associative algebra and let $`\nu :UUU`$ be a bilinear multiplication chain homotopic to $`\mu `$. Then $`\nu `$ can be extended to a strongly homotopically associative structure on $`(U,)`$.

Proof. The corollary immediately follows from Theorem 15 with $`𝐕=(V,,\mu ,0,0\mathrm{})`$, $`(W,):=(U,)`$, $`F_1:=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`F_2`$ the homotopy between $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

As observed by Jim Stasheff, the above corollary must be ‘spiritually’ true if one believes that $`A(\mathrm{})`$-structures are homotopically invariant versions of associative algebras. And indeed, it is very easy to prove that the multiplication $`\nu `$, homotopic to an associative one, is associative up to a homotopy; it is even possible to give an explicit formula for the homotopy. But it is not clear whether this homotopy extends to a coherent hierarchy of higher homotopies, and this the hard part of Corollary 16. In the following corollary, the characteristic $`0`$ assumption is very crucial.

###### Corollary 17

Suppose that $`(U,,\mu )`$ is an associative, homotopy commutative algebra. Let $`\overline{\mu }(u,v):=\frac{1}{2}(\mu (u,v)+\mu (v,u))`$ be the symmetrization. Then $`\overline{\mu }`$ can be extended to a balanced $`A(\mathrm{})`$-structure on $`(U,)`$.

Proof. Let $`H:=H_{}(U,)`$ and let $``$ be the multiplication induced by $`\mu `$ on $`H`$. It is immediate to see that it is commutative associative and that it coincides with that induced by $`\overline{\mu }`$. Now choose a monomorphism $`(H,0)\stackrel{\iota }{}(U,)`$ inducing the identity map on homology. It can always be done, since we are in characteristic zero. Then $`\iota ():HHU`$ and $`\overline{\mu }(\iota ,\iota ):HHU`$ induce the same map in cohomology, thus (again the characteristics zero argument) there exists a homotopy $`h`$ between $`\iota ()`$ and $`\overline{\mu }(\iota ,\iota )`$.

The corollary now follows from Theorem 15 with $`𝐕:=(H,0,,0,\mathrm{})`$, $`(W,,\nu _2):=(U,,\overline{\mu })`$, $`F_1=\iota `$ and $`F_2:=h`$. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Homotopy through homomorphisms

In Section 2 we described the minimal model for the operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ and observed that it describes strongly homotopy homomorphisms of strongly homotopy algebras. The aim of this section is to understand homotopies between these homomorphisms. By our philosophy, we need to resolve the operad

$$𝒜_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}:=\frac{𝒜_𝙱𝒜_𝚆(p,q)}{(pa_𝙱=a_𝚆p^n,qa_𝙱=a_𝚆q^n,p=q)}.$$

where $`p,q:𝙱𝚆`$ are generators of degree $`0`$ and the first two relations in the denominator are satisfied for all $`a𝒜(n)`$ and $`n1`$. This operad describes two identical homomorphisms of $`𝒜`$-algebras and its resolution should replace the strict equality $`p=q`$ by a homotopy.

Since the operad $`𝒜_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ is clearly isomorphic to $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$, its minimal model will not give what we want and we shall consider a resolution which has two different generators for the same map $`p=q`$ instead. This resolution will not be minimal, but it will still be cofibrant in a suitable sense . A toy model for this resolution is the $`\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$-colored operad

$$𝒟=((p,q,h),d),d(p)=d(q):=0\text{ and }d(h):=pq$$
(35)
($`𝒟`$ from dull), where $`p,q:𝙱𝚆`$ are generators of degree $`0`$ and $`h:𝙱𝚆`$ has degree $`1`$. Operad (35) clearly resolves the free operad $`((f),d=0)`$ on one degree $`0`$ generator $`f:𝙱𝚆`$. An algebra over $`𝒟`$ consists of two chain maps and a chain homotopy between them. For each $`m1`$ the space $`𝒟(𝙱^m,𝚆^m)`$ contains a special degree $`1`$ morphism $`[[h]]_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ defined by

$$[[h]]_{\mathrm{ns}}:=hq^{m1}+phq^{m2}+\mathrm{}+p^{m2}hq+p^{m1}h$$

and, since $`\mathrm{char}(𝐤)=0`$, also its symmetrization

$$[[h]]:=\frac{1}{m!}\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_m}{}[[h]]\sigma $$

($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m`$ is the symmetric group on $`m`$ symbols). The above morphisms satisfy the following differential equation in $`𝒟`$

$$d([[h]]_{\mathrm{ns}})=d([[h]])=p^mq^n$$

and the morphism $`[[h]]`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$-equivariant. The maps $`[[h]]`$ and $`[[h]]_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ are very simple examples of a polarization which we introduce in Definition 23.

Let $`X`$ be a collection. We will work with the free operad $`(X_𝙱;p,q,h;X^p,X^q,X^h;X_𝚆)`$ generated by

* two copies $`X_𝙱`$ and $`X_𝚆`$ of $`X`$ interpreted as in Theorem 7,
* the generators $`p,q,h`$ as in (35),
* two copies of $`X^p`$ and $`X^g`$ of the suspension $`X`$ interpreted as collections of multilinear maps from $`𝙱`$ to $`𝚆`$ and
* a copy $`X^h`$ of the double suspension $`^2X`$, again interpreted as a collection of multilinear maps from $`𝙱`$ to $`𝚆`$.

The notation used below is paralell to that of Theorem 7 and we believe its meaning is clear.

###### Theorem 18

Let $`𝒜`$ be an (ordinary) operad satisfying (4) and let $`\rho :𝔐(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$, $`𝔐=((X),d_𝔐)`$, be the minimal model of $`𝒜`$. Then there exists a cofibrant model $`𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ of the colored operad $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ of the form

$$\psi :((X_𝙱;p,q,h;X^p,X^q,X^h;X_𝚆),D)(𝒜_{𝙱𝚆},d)$$

where the tails $`\psi (x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(\rho (x))`$ and $`\psi (x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(\rho (x))`$ for $`xX`$, $`\psi (p)=\psi (q)=f`$ and $`\psi `$ is trivial on remaining generators. The differential is given by $`D(p)=D(q)=0`$, $`D(h)=pq`$ and, for $`xX(n)`$, $`n2`$, $`D(x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(d_𝔐(x))`$, $`D(x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(d_𝔐(x))`$. Moreover,

$$\begin{array}{c}D(x^p)=px_𝙱x_𝚆p^n+\omega _p,D(x^q)=qx_𝙱x_𝚆q^n+\omega _q,\text{ and}\\ D(x^h)=x^px^qhx_𝙱+(1)^xx_𝚆[[h]]+\omega _h,\end{array}$$

where the tails $`\omega _p`$, $`\omega _q`$ and $`\omega _h`$ depend linearly on $`x`$ and

* $`\omega _p`$ belongs to the ideal of the suboperad $`(x_𝙱;p,X^p;x_𝚆)`$ generated by $`X^p(<n)`$,
* $`\omega _q`$ belongs to the ideal of the suboperad $`(x_𝙱;q,X^q;x_𝚆)`$ generated by $`X^q(<n)`$, and
* $`\omega _h`$ belongs to the ideal generated by $`X^p(<n),X^q(<n)`$ and $`X^h(<n)`$.

Proof. The tails $`\omega _p`$ and $`\omega _q`$ can be constructed as follows. Let $`((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),D)`$ be as in Theorem 7 and consider two homomorphisms

(36)
defined by

$`\theta _p(f)=p,\theta _p(x_𝙱)=\theta _q(x_𝙱):=x_𝙱,\theta _q(f)=q,`$
$`\theta _p(x_𝚆)=\theta _q(x_𝚆):=x_𝚆,\theta _p(\overline{x}):=x^p\text{ and }\theta _q(\overline{x}):=x^q`$
for $`xX`$. We put then $`\omega _p:=\theta _p(\omega )\text{ and }\omega _q:=\theta _q(\omega )`$, where $`\omega `$ is as in (20). The construction of the differential $`D`$ will be completed by proving the existence of some $`\omega _h`$ belonging to the ideal defined in (iii) and satisfying

$$D(\omega _h)=D(\omega _q\omega _p).$$
(37)
Assume, as in the proof of Theorem 7, that the differential $`D`$ exists and prove that the map $`\psi :𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$ is a quism. Since $`\alpha =\psi \theta _p=\psi \theta _q`$, where $`\alpha `$ is the quism of (19), it suffices to prove that $`\theta _p`$ (or $`\theta _q`$) is a quism.

Let $`𝔉_3`$ be the filtration of $`𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ given by the number of generators from $`X^p`$, $`X^q`$ and $`X^h`$. The differential $`d^0`$ of the first term of the corresponding spectral sequence is given by

$`d^0(h)=pq,d^0(x_𝙱)=d^0(x_𝚆)=0,d^0(p)=d^0(q)=0,`$
$`d^0(x^p)=px_𝙱x_𝚆p^n,d^0(x^q)=qx_𝙱x_𝚆q^n\text{ and}`$
$`d^0(x^h)=x^px^qhx_𝙱+(1)^xx_𝚆[[h]],`$
for $`xX`$. The substitution

$`pp,hh,qq+p,x_𝙱x_B,x_𝚆x_𝚆,`$
$`x^px^p,x^hx^h\text{ and }x^qx^px^qhx_𝙱+(1)^xx_𝚆[[h]]`$
converts $`d^0`$ to the differential $`\underset{¯}{d}^0`$ with

$`\underset{¯}{d}^0(p)=\underset{¯}{d}^0(q)=0,\underset{¯}{d}^0(h)=q,\underset{¯}{d}^0(x_𝙱)=\underset{¯}{d}^0(x_𝚆)=0,`$
$`\underset{¯}{d}^0(x^p)=px_𝙱x_𝚆p^n,\underset{¯}{d}^0(x^q)=0\text{ and }\underset{¯}{d}^0(x^h)=x^q.`$
The dg operad $`((X_𝙱;p,q,h;X^p,X^q,X^h;X_𝚆),\underset{¯}{d}^0)`$ is clearly isomorphic to the free product

$$((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),d^0)((q,h,;X^q,X^h),dh=q,dx^h=x^q),$$
(38)
where the differential $`d^0`$ of the first factor is as in (25) and the second factor is acyclic.

Recall that in (24) we defined filtration $`𝔉_1`$ of $`((X_𝙱;f,\overline{X};X_𝚆),D)`$. The map $`\theta _p`$ is clearly an $`𝔉_1`$-$`𝔉_3`$ homomorphism of filtered operads. On the initial stages of the related spectral sequences it induces precisely the inclusion of the first factor of (38), which is a quism. Thus $`\theta _p`$ is a quism, by a standard spectral sequence argument.

The existence the tail $`\omega _h`$ satisfying (37) follows, as in the proof of Theorem 7, from a general nonsense. We leave the details to the reader. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

In the proof of Theorem 18 we in fact proved:

###### Corollary 19

The maps $`\theta _p`$ and $`\theta _q`$ of (36) fit to the following commutative diagram of quasi-isomorphisms of colored operads:

###### Remark 20

If $`𝒜`$ is a non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-operad, Theorem 18 holds with $`[[]]_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ instead of $`[[]]`$. Since $`[[]]_{\mathrm{ns}}`$ has integral coefficients, the model $`𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ might, as in Example 21, in principle exists over the integers.

###### Example 21

Let us consider the free operad $`(\{\mu _n,\nu _n\}_{n2},\{p_n,q_n\}_{n1})`$ generated by

* generators $`\mu _n`$ and $`\nu _n`$, $`n2`$, as in Example 4,
* generators $`p_n,q_n:𝙱^n𝚆`$ of degree $`n1`$, $`n1`$, and
* generators $`h_n:𝙱^n𝚆`$ of degree $`n`$, $`n1`$.

The differential of $`\mu _n`$ and $`\nu _n`$ is given by formulas (9) and (16), the differential of $`p_n`$ and $`q_n`$ by formula (13) (with $`f_i`$ replaced by $`p_i`$ resp. $`q_i`$, $`i1`$) and

$`(h_n)`$ $`:=`$ $`p_nq_n+{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}r_1+\mathrm{}+r_k=n\\ 0sk1\end{array}}{}}(1)^ϵ\nu _k(p_{r_1}\mathrm{}p_{r_s}h_{r_{s+1}}q_{r_{s+2}}\mathrm{}q_{r_k})+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j=n+1\\ i1,j2\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{nj}{}}}(1)^{i+s(j+1)}h_i(11^s\mu _j11^{is1}),`$
where

$$ϵ:=\underset{1i<jk}{}r_i(r_j+1)+(r_1+\mathrm{}+r_s)+k+s.$$

An algebra over the colored operad $`A(\mathrm{})_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}`$ described above consists of two $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras $`𝐕=(V,,m_2,m_3,\mathrm{})`$ and $`𝐖=(V,,n_2,n_3,\mathrm{})`$, two strongly homotopy homomorphisms $`\text{P},\text{Q}:𝐕𝐖`$, $`\text{P}=(P_1,P_2,\mathrm{})`$, $`\text{Q}=(Q_1,Q_2,\mathrm{})`$, and a sequence $`\text{H}=(H_1,H_2,\mathrm{})`$ which should be interpreted as a homotopy through strongly homotopy homomorphisms between P and Q. This notion coincides with the homotopy structure considered by M. Grandis in \[3, 5.4\]. Observe that $`H_1=P_1Q_1`$ and that, for $`a,bV`$,

$$(H_2)(a,b)=(1)^an_2(P_1(a),H_1(b))+n_2(H_1(a),Q_1(b))H_1m_2(a,b).$$

Writing $`m_2`$ and $`n_2`$ as multiplications, we can translate the above equation to

$$(H_2)(a,b)=(1)^aP_1(a)H_1(b)+H_1(a)Q_1(b)H_1(ab),$$

thus $`H_1`$ is ‘derivation homotopy up to homotopy’ between $`P_1`$ and $`Q_1`$.

###### Remark 22

It is well-known that $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras are the same as differentials on cofree coconnected coalgebras (that is, coderivations with square zero). In this language, strong homotopy homomorphisms are homomorphisms of these coalgebras commuting with the differentials. It can be shown that the homotopies of Example 21 are translated to ordinary (co)derivation homotopies of these maps of coalgebras.

## 5 Strong homotopy equivalences of algebras

Let $`𝒜`$ be an ordinary operad and $`f:𝙱𝚆`$ and $`g:𝚆𝙱`$ be two degree zero generators. Consider the operad

$$𝒜_{so}:=\frac{𝒜_𝙱𝒜_𝚆(f,g)}{(fa_𝙱=a_𝚆f^n,ga_𝚆=a_𝙱g^n,fg=11_W,gf=11_𝙱)}$$
(41)
describing two mutually inverse homomorphisms of $`𝒜`$-algebras. By our general philosophy, cofibrant resolutions of this operad will describe homotopy equivalences of strongly homotopy $`𝒜`$-algebras. If $`𝒜`$ is the operad $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ for trivial algebras, construction (41) gives the operad

$$so:=\mathrm{𝟏}_{so}=\frac{(f,g)}{(fg=11_𝚆,gf=11_𝙱)}$$

describing two mutually inverse chain maps. Operad $`so`$ was studied in great details in  where we described its minimal cofibrant resolution as a graded colored differential operad

$$_{\mathrm{iso}}:=((f_0,f_1,\mathrm{};g_0,g_1,\mathrm{}),d),$$
(42)
with two types of generators,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{(i)}& \text{generators }\{f_k\}_{k0}\text{}\mathrm{deg}(f_k)=k\text{,}\{\begin{array}{c}f_k:𝙱𝚆\text{ if }k\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ f_k:𝙱𝙱\text{ if }k\text{ is odd,}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{(ii)}& \text{generators }\{g_k\}_{k0}\text{}\mathrm{deg}(g_k)=k\text{,}\{\begin{array}{c}g_k:𝚆𝙱\text{ if }k\text{ is even,}\hfill \\ g_k:𝚆𝚆\text{ if }k\text{ is odd.}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(43)
The differential $`d`$ was given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}df_0:=0,\hfill & dg_0:=0,\hfill \\ df_1:=g_0f_01,\hfill & dg_1:=f_0g_01\hfill \end{array}$$
(44)
and, on remaining generators, by the formula

$`df_{2m}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i<m}{}}(f_{2i}f_{2(mi)1}g_{2(mi)1}f_{2i}),m0,`$
$`df_{2m+1}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0jm}{}}g_{2j}f_{2(mj)}{\displaystyle \underset{0j<m}{}}f_{2j+1}f_{2(mj)1},m1,`$ (45)
$`dg_{2m}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i<m}{}}(g_{2i}g_{2(mi)1}f_{2(mi)1}g_{2i}),m0,`$
$`dg_{2m+1}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0jm}{}}f_{2j}g_{2(mj)}{\displaystyle \underset{0j<m}{}}g_{2j+1}g_{2(mj)1},m1.`$
The above formulas can be written in a shorter form by introducing ‘formal generators’

$$\begin{array}{cc}f_{}:=f_0+f_2+f_4+\mathrm{}:𝙱𝚆,\hfill & h_{}:=f_1+f_3+f_5+\mathrm{}:𝙱𝙱,\hfill \\ g_{}:=g_0+g_2+g_4+\mathrm{}:𝚆𝙱,\hfill & l_{}:=g_1+g_3+g_5+\mathrm{}:𝚆𝚆.\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Then $`_{\mathrm{iso}}=(f_{},g_{},h_{},l_{})`$ with the differential

$$df_{}=f_{}h_{}l_{}f_{},dh_{}=g_{}f_{}h_{}h_{}1_𝙱,dg_{}=g_{}l_{}h_{}g_{}\text{ and }dl_{}=f_{}g_{}l_{}l_{}1_𝚆.$$

Warning. We will use the above abbreviation very often, but we shall always keep in mind that each formula of this type in fact represents infinitely many formulas for homogeneous parts. Observe also that in this section the symbols $`f_0,f_1,\mathrm{}`$ have different meaning than in Example 4 and related examples and applications.

We will need the following definition.

###### Definition 23

Let $`m1`$. A polarization is a choice of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_m`$-equivariant morphisms $`[[f_{}]]_{\mathrm{iso}}(𝙱^m,𝚆^m)`$, $`[[g_{}]]_{\mathrm{iso}}(𝚆^m,𝙱^m)`$, $`[[h_{}]]_{\mathrm{iso}}(𝙱^m,𝙱^m)`$ and $`[[l_{}]]_{\mathrm{iso}}(𝚆^m,𝚆^m)`$ such that

* $`[[f_{}]]_0=f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$ and $`[[g_{}]]_0=g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}`$ (the subscript $`0`$ denotes the degree zero part), and
* the following differential equations in $`_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ are satisfied:

$$\begin{array}{cc}d[[f_{}]]=[[f_{}]][[h_{}]][[l_{}]][[f_{}]],\hfill & d[[h_{}]]=[[g_{}]][[f_{}]][[h_{}]][[h_{}]]1_𝙱,\hfill \\ d[[g_{}]]=[[g_{}]][[l_{}]][[h_{}]][[g_{}]],\hfill & d[[l_{}]]=[[f_{}]][[g_{}]][[l_{}]][[l_{}]]1_𝚆.\hfill \end{array}$$

The existence of a polarization easily follows from the acyclicity of the resolution $`_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ proved in . See also Remark 25.

Let $`X`$ be a collection. In the main theorem of this section we consider the free operad

$$((X_𝙱;X_𝚆;\{f_k\}_{k0};\{g_k\}_{k0},\{X^{f_k}\}_{k0};\{X^{g_k}\}_{k0}),$$

generated by

* two copies $`X_𝙱`$ and $`X_𝚆`$ of $`X`$ interpreted as in Theorem 7,
* the generators $`f_k`$ and $`g_k`$, $`k0`$, as in (43) and
* two copies $`X^{f_k}`$ and $`X^{g_k}`$ of the suspension $`^{k+1}X`$, $`k0`$.

A generator $`x^{f_k}X^{f_k}`$ is, for $`xX(n)`$, interpreted as a morphism $`𝙱^n𝚆`$ if $`k`$ is even and as a morphism $`𝙱^n𝙱`$ if $`k`$ is odd. Similarly, $`x^{g_k}X^{g_k}`$ is interpreted as a morphism $`𝚆^n𝙱`$ if $`k`$ is even and as a morphism $`𝚆^n𝚆`$ if $`k`$ is odd.

###### Theorem 24

Let $`(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$ be an (ordinary) operad satisfying (4) and let $`\rho :𝔐(𝒜,d_𝒜)`$, $`𝔐=((X),d_𝔐)`$, be its minimal model. Then the minimal model $`𝔐_{so}`$ of the colored operad $`𝒜_{so}`$ is of the form

$$\beta :((X_𝙱;X_𝚆;\{f_k\}_{k0};\{g_k\}_{k0},\{X^{f_k}\}_{k0};\{X^{g_k}\}_{k0}),D)(𝒜_{so},d)$$

with $`\beta `$ given by $`\beta (x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(\rho (x))`$, $`\beta (x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(\rho (x))`$ for $`xX`$, $`\beta (f_0)=f`$, $`\beta (g_0)=g`$, while $`\beta `$ is trivial on the remaining generators.

The differential $`D`$ is on $`f_k`$ and $`g_k`$, $`k0`$, given by formulas (44) and (45). For $`n2`$ and $`xX(n)`$, $`D(x_𝙱)=j_𝙱(d_𝔐(x))`$, $`D(x_𝚆)=j_𝚆(d_𝔐(x))`$ and, in the shorthand of (46),

$`D(x^f_{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{}x_𝙱x_𝚆[[f_{}]]+f_{}x^h_{}(1)^xx^f_{}[[h_{}]]l_{}x^f_{}x^l_{}[[f_{}]]+\omega _f_{},`$
$`D(x^g_{})`$ $`=`$ $`g_{}x_𝚆x_𝙱[[g_{}]]+f_{}x^l_{}(1)^xx^g_{}[[l_{}]]h_{}x^g_{}x^h_{}[[g_{}]]+\omega _g_{},`$
$`D(x^h_{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^xx_𝙱[[h_{}]]h_{}x_𝙱h_{}x^h_{}+(1)^xx^h_{}[[h_{}]]g_{}x^f_{}+x^g_{}[[f_{}]]+\omega _h_{},`$
$`D(x^l_{})`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^xx_𝚆[[l_{}]]l_{}x_𝚆l_{}x^l_{}+(1)^xx^l_{}[[l_{}]]f_{}x^g_{}+x^f_{}[[g_{}]]+\omega _l_{}.`$
where $`\omega _f_{}`$, $`\omega _g_{}`$, $`\omega _h_{}`$ and $`\omega _l_{}`$ depend linearly on $`x`$ and are elements of the ideal generated by $`X^{f_k}(<n)`$, $`X^{g_k}(<n)`$, $`k0`$.

Proof. Assume that the differential $`D`$ exists. The map $`\beta `$ then decomposes as

$$𝔐_{so}\stackrel{\beta _1}{}(\frac{(X_𝙱;X_𝚆;f_{},g_{},h_{},l_{})}{I},d)\stackrel{\beta _2}{}𝒜_{so},$$

where the ideal $`I`$ is generated by

$$f_{}x_𝙱x_𝚆[[f_{}]],g_{}x_𝚆x_𝙱[[g_{}]],(1)^xx_𝙱[[h_{}]]h_{}x_𝙱,\text{ and }(1)^xx_𝚆[[l_{}]]l_{}x_𝚆,xX.$$

The definitions of $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ is obvious. To prove that $`\beta _1`$ is a quism, consider the filtration of $`𝔐_{so}`$ given by the number of generators from $`X^{f_k}`$, $`X^{g_k}`$, $`k0`$ and use a standard spectral sequence argument. The nature of $`\beta _2`$ is similar to that of the map $`\beta _{𝙱𝚆}`$ in Corollary 6 and the same arguments as in its proof show that $`\beta _2`$ is a quism. The tails can be constructed by a general nonsense. We leave the details to the reader. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 25

There is a very explicit, though rather involved, formula for the polarization of Definition 23. If we do not demand the equivariance, there exists (in fact many) a polarization with integral coefficients. An example is given, for $`m=2`$, by

$$\begin{array}{cc}[[f_{}]]:=_{i0}f_{}(g_{}f_{})^if_{2i},\hfill & [[g_{}]]:=_{i0}g_{}(f_{}g_{})^ig_{2i},\hfill \\ [[h_{}]]:=h_{}11+_{i1}(g_{}f_{})^ih_{2i1},\hfill & [[l_{}]]:=l_{}11+_{i1}(f_{}g_{})^il_{2i1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

and by similar formulas for $`m>2`$. These formulas may be used for integral minimal models of $`𝒜_{so}`$ for non-$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ operads.

We believe that, for $`𝒜`$ quadratic Koszul, there exists a closed formula for the ‘tails’ of the differential $`D`$. It might be a challenging, though very involved, exercise to write this formula when $`𝒜=\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}`$, the operad describing associative algebras.

## 6 Final remarks and challenges

In this section, “sh” will abbreviate “strongly (or strong) homotopy.”

The ‘category’ of sh algebras. Let $`𝒜`$ be an ordinary operad. Recall that a sh $`𝒜`$-algebra is an algebra over the minimal model $`𝔐=((X),d_𝔐)`$ of $`𝒜`$. A sh homomorphism of sh $`𝒜`$-algebras is then a colored algebra over the minimal model $`𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}`$ of $`𝒜_{𝙱𝚆}`$. See Example 4 for the case $`𝒜=\mathrm{𝐴𝑠𝑠}`$.

Let $`\text{P}:𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}`$ and $`\text{Q}:𝔐_{𝚆𝚃}\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{V,W}`$, where $`𝚃`$ is a Third color, be two sh homomorphisms. Their ‘composition’ $`\text{Q}\text{P}:𝔐_{𝙱𝚃}\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,W}`$ is given by an appropriate map

$$\mathrm{\Xi }:𝔐_{𝙱𝚃}𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}𝔐_{𝚆𝚃}$$
(47)
($``$ denotes the free product), whose existence is guaranteed by a general nonsense.

A topological counterpart of this situation was studied by Boardman and Vogt. It turned out that the composition above need not be associative, thus topological sh-algebras do not form a honest category, but only a hazier object called weak Kan category \[1, Theorem 4.9\].

We are sure that the situation in algebra is much better, because minimal models are ‘reasonably’ functorial. So we believe that the following problem has an affirmative answer.

###### Problem 26

The map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in (47) can be constructed in such a way that the composition $``$ is associative, that is, sh algebras and their sh homomorphisms form a honest category.

Since sh algebras over quadratic Koszul operads may be interpreted as certain dg cofree coconnected coalgebras and their maps as homomorphisms of these coalgebras, for these operads the map $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ inducing an associative composition clearly exists.

Ideal perturbation lemma. In  we proved that a proper formulation of the homological perturbation lemma needs a good notion of chain homotopy equivalences. These ‘good homotopy equivalences’ were defined as representations of the colored operad $`_{\mathrm{iso}}`$ of (42) and called strong homotopy equivalences. Our theory was, however, tailored for chain complexes with no additional algebraic structure.

Constructions of Section 5 provide a similar notion for chain complexes with an additional algebraic structure:

###### Definition 27

Let $`A:𝔐\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_U`$ and $`B:𝔐\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_V`$ be two sh $`𝒜`$-algebras. A strong homotopy equivalence between $`A`$ and $`B`$ is given by an operad action $`S:𝔐_{so}\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}`$ such that $`Sj_𝙱=A`$ and $`Sj_𝚆=B`$, where

$$j_𝙱:𝔐𝔐_{so}𝔐:j_𝚆$$

are obvious inclusions.

###### Problem 28

Formulate an ‘ideal perturbation lemma’ for chain complexes with an additional algebraic structure, using sh equivalences of Definition 27.

Homotopies through homomorphisms. While it is quite obvious what a “homotopy through homomorphisms” for maps of topological monoids should be, the situation in algebra is much subtler.

Suppose we have two sh $`𝒜`$-algebras $`A:𝔐\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_U`$, $`B:𝔐\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_V`$ and two sh homomorphisms $`\text{P},\text{Q}:AB`$ given by actions $`\text{P},\text{Q}:𝔐_{𝙱𝚆}\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}`$. These data clearly define a representation of the outer square of the diamond

###### Definition 29

A homotopy through sh homomorphisms between P and Q is an operad action $`𝔐_{𝙱\text{}\text{ }𝚆}\mathrm{𝑛𝑑}_{U,V}`$ extending the data above. We write $`\text{P}\text{Q}`$ if there exists a sh homotopy between P and Q.

As we saw in Example 21, this notion generalizes the homotopy structure on the category of $`A(\mathrm{})`$-algebras considered in \[3, 5.4\]. The relation $``$ is indeed an equivalence:

###### Proposition 30

The relation $``$ is an equivalence on the set of sh homomorphisms of sh $`𝒜`$-algebras.

Proof. The reflexivity ($`\text{P}\text{P}`$) and symmetry ($`\text{P}\text{Q}\text{P}\text{Q}`$) is obvious. If $`\text{P}\text{Q}`$ and $`\text{Q}\text{T}`$ then the homotopy between P and T can be constructed by standard homological methods (general nonsense). We leave the details to the reader. mm$`\mathrm{}`$

Possible generalizations. The main results of the paper (Theorems 718 and 24) seem to admit a generalization to resolutions of colored operads $`𝒜_𝔇`$ describing $`𝔇`$-diagrams of $`𝒜`$-algebras for arbitrary $`𝔇`$.

We start with a cofibrant resolution $`_𝔇=((F),d_𝔇)`$ of the diagram $`𝔇`$ considered as a $`V`$-colored operad, where $`V`$ is the set of vertices of $`𝔇`$. The second ingredient is the minimal model $`𝔐=((X),d_𝔐)`$ of $`𝒜`$. We believe that it is possible to prove:

###### Conjecture 31

There exists a cofibrant model $`𝔐_𝔇`$ of the colored operad $`𝒜_𝔇`$ of the form

$$𝔐_𝔇=((X\times VFX^F),D),$$

where $`X\times \{v\}X\times V`$ is, for $`vV`$, a copy of $`X`$ “concentrated” in the color $`v`$ and elements of $`X^f`$ are considered as multilinear maps with the same source and the same target as $`fF`$. The differential $`D`$ on $`X\times V`$ and on $`F`$ is given by the inclusions

$$j_𝔇:_𝔇𝔐_𝔇\text{ and }j_v:𝔐𝔐_𝔇,vV,$$

while the differential of $`x^f`$, for $`fF`$ and $`xX(n)`$, $`n2`$, decomposes as

$$D(x^f)=\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}+\omega _x.$$

The principal part $`\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}`$ further decomposes as $`\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}=\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}_1+\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}_2`$, where $`\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}_1`$ is ‘ideologically’ the commutator of $`x`$ and $`f`$ and $`\mathrm{𝑃𝑟}_2`$ is given by a polarization of $`d_𝔇(f)`$. The tail $`\omega _x`$ belongs to the ideal generated by $`X^f(<n)`$, $`fF`$. The model $`𝔐_𝔇`$ is minimal if and only if $`_𝔇`$ is.

We leave as an exercise to check that all models described in this paper are of the above form (in all cases $`V=\{𝙱,𝚆\}`$).

Mathematical Institute of the Academy, Žitná 25, 115 67 Praha 1, The Czech Republic, email: markl@math.cas.cz

math0103052.tex