text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Moonshine Module , whose automorphism group is the Monster finite sporadic group $`𝐌`$, is an orbifold Meromorphic Conformal Field Theory (MCFT) constructed by orbifolding the Leech lattice MCFT with respect to the group generated by a reflection involution. The Moonshine Module partition function is the classical elliptic $`J`$ function which is a hauptmodul for the genus zero modular group $`SL(2,𝐙)`$. The Moonshine Module is believed to be the unique MCFT with this partition function . Orbifolding the Moonshine Module with respect to the group generated by an element $`g`$ $`𝐌`$ leads naturally to the notion of the orbifold partition function known as the Thompson series $`T_g`$. Monstrous Moonshine is mainly concerned with the property, conjectured by Conway and Norton  and subsequently proved by Borcherds , that each Thompson series $`T_g`$ is a hauptmodul for some genus zero fixing modular group. Assuming the uniqueness of the Moonshine Module, this genus zero property is also believed to be equivalent to the following statement : the only orbifold MCFT that can arise by orbifolding with respect to $`g`$ is either the Moonshine Module itself (for $`g`$ belonging to a so-called Fricke Monster conjugacy class) or the Leech lattice MCFT (for $`g`$ belonging to a non-Fricke Monster conjugacy class).

The Generalised Moonshine conjecture of Norton  is concerned with modular functions associated with a commuting pair $`g,h`$ $`𝐌`$ and asserts that each such modular function known as a Generalised Moonshine Function (GMF) is either constant or is a hauptmodul for some genus zero fixing group. No extension of the Borcherds’ approach to Monstrous Moonshine has yet been shown to be possible for Generalised Moonshine. The most natural setting for these conjectures is to consider orbifoldings of the Moonshine Module with respect to the abelian group $`g,h`$ generated by $`g,h`$ ,. In  we considered the case where $`g`$ is of prime order $`p=2,3,5`$ and $`7`$ and is of Fricke type and $`h`$ is of order $`pk`$ for $`k=1`$ or $`k`$ prime. There we confirm Norton’s conjecture for modular functions with rational coefficients in these cases by considering orbifold modular properties and some consistency conditions arising from the orbifolding procedure leading to constraints on the possible Monster conjugacy classes to which the elements of $`g,h`$ may belong. In the present paper we extend the approach based on the restrictions coming from the orbifolding of the Moonshine Module and demonstrate the hauptmodul property for GMFs with irrational coefficients where $`g`$ and $`h`$ are of the same prime order.

We begin in Section 2 with a brief review of some properties of Meromorphic Conformal Field Theory (MCFT), the Moonshine Module and Generalised Moonshine Functions. In Section 3 we discuss the general properties for GMFs with irrational coefficients when $`g`$ is of prime order. We then state two theorems about the conjugation properties of the centraliser elements, and one theorem concerning constraints that arise from the consistency of orbifolding the Moonshine Module with respect to $`g,h`$ under specific choices of generators. We then analyse the GMFs with irrational coefficients in the cases where $`g`$ is Fricke of prime order $`p=5,7,11`$ and $`13`$ and $`h`$ is of same order $`p`$. This analysis in part relies on properties of the characters of the centralisers of the Monster related to the Harada-Norton, Held, Mathieu and $`\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ simple groups. We give a comprehensive analysis of the possible singularity structure of GMFs for the cases under consideration. In each case we demonstrate that all singularities of the GMF can be identified under some genus zero fixing group for which the GMF is a hauptmodul. Thus we verify the Generalised Moonshine conjecture in these cases.

## 2 Generalised Moonshine

### 2.1 Self-Dual Meromorphic Conformal Field Theories

Let $``$ denote the Hilbert space of a Self-Dual Meromorphic Conformal Field Theory (MCFT)  of central charge $`24`$. The characteristic function (or genus one partition function) for $``$ is given by $`Z(\tau )=Tr_{}(q^{L_01}),`$ $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, where $`\tau 𝐇`$, the upper half complex plane, is the usual elliptic modular parameter. $``$ has integral grading (the conformal weight) with respect to $`L_0`$, the Virasoro level operator so that $`Z(\tau )`$ is invariant under $`T:\tau \tau +1`$. Furthermore, self-duality of the MCFT implies invariance under $`S:\tau 1/\tau `$ so that $`Z(\tau )`$ is invariant under the modular group $`SL(2,𝐙)`$ generated by $`S,T`$. Hence $`Z(\tau )`$ is given up to an additive constant by $`J(\tau )`$, the hauptmodul for $`SL(2,𝐙)`$  i.e. $`Z(\tau )=J(\tau )+N_0`$, where $`J`$ has $`q`$ expansion

$$J(\tau )=\frac{E_4^3(\tau )}{\eta ^{24}(\tau )}744=\frac{1}{q}+0+196884q+21493760q^2+\mathrm{}$$
(1)
and where $`\eta (\tau )=q^{1/24}_{n>0}(1q^n)`$ is the Dedekind eta function, $`E_n(\tau )`$ is the Eisenstein modular form of weight $`n`$ , $`N_0`$ is the number of conformal weight 1 operators in $``$. For the Leech lattice MCFT $`N_0=24`$ and for the FLM Moonshine Module $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ with Hilbert space $`^{\mathrm{}}`$  $`N_0=0`$. This means that the latter does not contain conformal dimension 1 operators i.e. there is an absence of the usual Kac-Moody symmetry.

### 2.2 The Moonshine Module and Monstrous Moonshine

The Monster group $`𝐌`$, the largest finite sporadic simple group, is the automorphism group of the Moonshine Module . The Thompson series $`T_g(\tau )`$ for each $`g𝐌`$ is defined by

$$T_g(\tau )\mathrm{Tr}_{^{\mathrm{}}}(gq^{L_01})$$
(2)
with $`q`$ expansion with coefficients determined by (reducible) characters of $`𝐌`$. The Thompson series for the identity element is $`J(\tau )`$of (1), which is the hauptmodul for the genus zero modular group $`\mathrm{SL}(2,𝐙)`$ as already stated.

Conway and Norton  conjectured and Borcherds  proved that $`T_g(\tau )`$ is the hauptmodul for some genus zero fixing modular group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g`$. This remarkable property is known as Monstrous Moonshine. In general, for $`o(g)=n`$, $`T_g(\tau )`$ is found to be $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(n)`$ invariant up to $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ roots of unity where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(n)\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma },c=0\mathrm{mod}n\right\},$$

and where $`m`$ is an integer with $`m|n`$ and $`m|24`$. $`g`$ is said to be a normal element of $`𝐌`$ if and only if $`m=1`$, otherwise $`g`$ is said to be anomalous. $`T_g(\tau )`$ is fixed by some $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_g\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ which is contained in the normalizer of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(N)`$ in $`SL(2,𝐑)`$ where $`N=nm`$ . This normalizer contains the Fricke involution $`W_N:\tau 1/N\tau `$. All classes of $`𝐌`$ can therefore be divided into Fricke and non-Fricke type according to whether or not $`T_g(\tau )`$ is invariant under the Fricke involution. There are a total of 51 non-Fricke classes of which 38 are normal and there are a total of 120 Fricke classes of which 82 are normal. The genus zero properties of Monstrous Moonshine can also be understood using constraints arising from the possible orbifolding of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ with respect to the group generated by $`g`$ , .

### 2.3 Properties of Generalised Moonshine Functions

We now consider Generalised Moonshine Functions (GMFs) which are generalised Thompson series depending on two commuting Monster elements of the form

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )\mathrm{Tr}__g^{\mathrm{}}(hq^{L_01}),$$
(3)
for $`hC_g`$, the centralizer of $`g`$ in $`𝐌`$. $`_g^{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the Hilbert space for a so called $`g`$-twisted sector of $`𝒱^{\mathrm{}}`$ ,. The original Thompson series (2) then corresponds to the untwisted sector, i.e.

$$T_g(\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ 1\end{array}\right](\tau ).$$

Each $`hC_g`$ has a central extension, acting on $`_g^{\mathrm{}}`$, which we also denote by $`h`$ . Norton has conjectured that :

Generalised Moonshine.The GMF (3) is either constant or is a hauptmodul for some genus zero fixing group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$.

If $`g,h=u`$ for some $`u𝐌`$ then (3) can always be transformed to a regular Thompson series (2) ,,. In particular this is always possible when $`o(g)`$and $`o(h)`$ are coprime. In these cases, the genus zero property for the GMF therefore follows from that for a regular Thompson series (2). The GMFs with non-trivial genus zero behaviour then occur for $`hC_g`$ where $`o(h)`$ and $`o(g)`$ are not coprime.

In Section 3 we analyse GMFs with irrational coefficients in their $`q`$-expansion for $`o(g)=o(h)=p`$, prime, where $`g,h𝐙_{p^2}`$ (then $`g,h`$ are independent, i.e. $`g^Ah^B`$ for all $`A,B=1,\mathrm{},p1`$). We denote the fixing group for $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](p\tau )`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ which is obviously conjugate to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\left\{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\right|\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\theta _p\gamma \theta _p^1,\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g},\theta _p\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& p\end{array}\right)\}.$$

Various properties of (3) arising from orbifold considerations can be summarised as follows :

(i) When all elements of $`g,h`$ are normal elements of $`𝐌`$ then for $`\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }SL(2,𝐙)`$

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\gamma \tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^dg^b\\ h^cg^a\end{array}\right](\tau ),\gamma \tau =\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d}$$
(4)
Hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$, (in fact $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$) with

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma },\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\mathrm{mod}p& 0\mathrm{mod}p\\ 0\mathrm{mod}p& 1\mathrm{mod}p\end{array}\right)\right\}$$

In particular, since $`\gamma `$ and $`\gamma `$ act equally we have

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g^1\end{array}\right],$$
(5)
which property is known as charge conjugation invariance.

(ii) For a normal non-Fricke element $`g`$ of order $`p`$

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=\text{const}+O(q^{1/p}).$$
(6)
i.e. $`_g^{\mathrm{}}`$ has zero vacuum energy and the GMF is nonsingular at $`q=0`$ ,.

The value of (3) at any parabolic cusp $`a/c`$ with $`(a,c)=1`$ is determined by the vacuum energy of the $`g^ah^c`$ twisted sector from (4). If all elements of $`g,h`$ are non-Fricke then there are no singular cusps so that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ is holomorphic on $`𝐇/\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ and hence is constant. This accounts for the constant GMFs referred to in the Generalised Moonshine Conjecture above. We therefore assume from now on that at least one element of $`g,h`$ is Fricke which we chose to be $`g`$ without loss of generality.

(iii) For a normal Fricke element $`g`$ of order $`p`$ the vacuum energy of $`_g^{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`1/p`$ and the GMF is singular at $`q=0`$ :

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=\varphi _g(h)[q^{1/p}+0+\underset{s=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_{g,s}(h)q^{s/p}].$$
(7)
Here $`\varphi _g(h)`$ is a $`p`$-th root of unity describing the central extension of the action of $`hC_g`$ on $`_g^{\mathrm{}}`$ . It is further assumed that $`\varphi _g`$ can be chosen so that

$$\varphi _g(g^ah^b)=\varphi _g(g)^a\varphi _g(h)^b,\varphi _g(1)=1.$$
(8)
Then by considering a $`T`$ transformation in (4) with $`h=1`$ we have

$$\varphi _g(g)=\omega _p\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/p)$$
(9)
Let $`G_gC_g/g`$. If $`C_g=g\times G_g`$ then $`h`$ and $`gh`$ are not elements of the same $`C_g`$ conjugacy class and we assume that $`\varphi _g`$ can be chosen so that

$$\varphi _g(xhx^1)=\varphi _g(h)$$
(10)
for all $`xC_g`$ . By inspection from the ATLAS  $`hG_g`$ is conjugate to $`h^a`$, for some $`a0\mathrm{mod}p`$, so that (8) implies

$$\varphi _g(h)=1.$$
(11)
The coefficient $`a_{f,s}(h)`$ is called a head character for the given GMF and is a reducible character of $`G_g`$ ,. If $`g^ah^c`$is Fricke then due to (7) and (4) the GMF is singular at $`a/c`$ with residue $`\varphi _{g^ah^c}(h^dg^b)`$. The GMF (3) is holomorphic at all other points on $`𝐇`$. Once these singularities are known, then (3) can be analysed to check whether it is constant or is a hauptmodul for an appropriate genus zero modular group. The singularities and residues of $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ are restricted by certain orbifolding constraints discussed in .

(iv) Given the uniqueness of the twisted sectors for $`^{\mathrm{}}`$, under conjugation by any element $`x𝐌`$ then $`x(_g^{\mathrm{}})x^1`$ is isomorphic to $`_{xgx^1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ so that if $`C_g=g\times G_g`$ with $`hG_g`$

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}xhx^1\\ xgx^1\end{array}\right].$$
(12)
## 3 Irrational GMFs for $`g=p+`$

### 3.1 Monster centralisers and irrational characters

We now briefly describe all irrational GMFs (3) where $`g`$ is Fricke of prime order $`p`$ i.e. $`g=p+`$ in Conway-Norton notation  and $`h`$ of order $`p`$. A GMF is said to be irrational if it has at least one irrational head character (7). A character is said to be irrational if it is irrational for at least one conjugacy class. Otherwise, it is said to be rational. Rational cases are discussed in .

From the ATLAS  we see that irrational characters occur for $`p=2`$, $`3`$, $`5`$, $`7`$, $`11`$ and $`13`$. From the explicit calculations for the head characters of $`C_{2+}=2.\mathrm{B}`$ ($`p=2`$) and $`C_{3+}=3.\mathrm{Fi}`$ ($`p=3`$)  we observe that there are no irrational head characters for $`p=2`$ and that there is only one pair of conjugate irrational head characters for $`p=3`$, with $`h`$ of order $`54`$. For $`p=5`$, $`7`$, $`11`$ and $`13`$ the centraliser $`C_{p+}=p+\times G_{p+}`$ for simple group $`G_{p+}`$ is as follows:

| $`g=p+`$ | $`C_{p+}`$ | $`G_{p+}`$ | Name |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`5+`$ | $`5\times \mathrm{HN}`$ | $`\mathrm{HN}`$ | Harada-Norton |
| $`7+`$ | $`7\times \mathrm{He}`$ | $`\mathrm{He}`$ | Held |
| $`11+`$ | $`11\times \mathrm{M}_{12}`$ | $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ | Mathieu |
| $`13+`$ | $`13\times \mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ | $`\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ |  |

Table 1. $`p+`$ centralisers for $`p=5,7,11,13`$

We will focus now our analysis on the groups from Table 1. For $`hG_g`$ from (11) the GMF (7) has leading $`q`$ expansion in so-called Normalised Function Form :

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=\frac{1}{q^{1/p}}+0+O(q^{1/p}).$$
(13)
This is sufficient to ensure that $`g,h`$ are independent generators of $`g,h`$ since otherwise $`h^B=g^A`$ for some $`A0\mathrm{mod}p`$ implies the contradictory relation $`(\varphi _g(h))^B=(\varphi _g(g))^A=\omega _p^A`$ from (9). We make the following useful observations concerning the irreducible characters for the groups from Table 1, which can be checked by inspecting the appropriate ATLAS character tables . In all cases irrational characters can only occur when $`o(h)`$ is divisible by $`p`$. When $`p=5,7,11`$ any irrationality for an irreducible character $`\chi `$ is quadratic i.e. for $`hG_{p+}`$, $`\chi (h)=a\pm \sqrt{b}`$, $`\overline{\chi }(h)\chi (h^d)=a\sqrt{b}`$ ($`d=2`$ when $`p=5`$ and $`d=1`$ when $`p=7,11`$, see below), for some $`a,b𝐐`$ where $`b=0`$ for rational $`\chi (h)`$. The HN group contains one pair of conjugate irrational classes of orders $`5`$, $`15`$, $`20`$, $`25`$ and $`30`$, and two pairs of conjugate irrational classes of order $`10`$. The He group contains one pair of conjugate irrational classes of orders $`21`$ and $`28`$, and two pairs of conjugate irrational classes of orders $`7`$ and $`14`$. The $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ group contains only one pair of conjugate irrational classes of order $`11`$. The only non-quadratic irrationalities occur when $`p=13`$ for $`\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ which has four conjugate irrational classes of order $`13`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Consider $`g=p+`$ and $`hG_{p+}`$ with $`o(h)`$ divisible by $`p`$ for $`p=5,7,11,13`$. Then for integers $`a`$, $`b0`$ $`\mathrm{mod}p`$, $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^a\\ g^b\end{array}\right]`$ is either equal to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ or one of its algebraic conjugates.

Proof. For $`g=p+`$ we have $`xgx^1=g^b`$ for some $`x𝐌`$. For any irreducible character $`\chi `$ of $`G_g`$ and for all $`hG_g`$, $`\chi ^x(h)\chi (xhx^1)`$ is also an irreducible character of the same dimension. Furthermore $`xG_gx^1=G_{g^b}=G_g`$ implies that the number of elements in the conjugacy classes in $`G_g`$ for $`h`$ and $`xhx^1`$ are equal. Since $`h`$ $`G_g`$, $`h`$ is conjugate to $`h^a`$ for some $`a1\mathrm{mod}o(h)`$ from an inspection of the ATLAS character tables . Hence $`xhx^1`$ is conjugate to $`(xhx^1)^a`$ and is also member of a $`G_g`$ class. Therefore $`\varphi _{g^b}(xhx^1)=1`$ also. For $`p=5,7,11`$ one can show that if $`\chi ^x\chi `$, then $`\chi ^x=\overline{\chi }`$, the algebraic conjugate . Thus $`xhx^1`$ is conjugate to a power of $`h`$ in $`G_g`$. When $`p=13`$ there are four irrational characters that are algebraically conjugate. Then $`\chi ^x=\chi 2^r`$, $`r=0,1,2`$ or $`3`$, where by definition $`(\chi k)(h)\chi (h^k)`$ i.e. the operation $`k`$ replaces every root of unity in the character value, prime to $`k`$ by its $`k^{\text{th}}`$ power (see below). This implies that $`xhx^1`$ is either an element of the same class of $`G_g`$ as $`h`$, or of a class algebraically conjugate to $`h`$ i.e. there exists $`A`$ such that $`xhx^1\stackrel{G_g}{}h^A`$. Therefore from (12) in all cases there exists $`A`$ such that

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^A\\ g^b\end{array}\right].$$
(14)
The latter is either equal to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^a\\ g^b\end{array}\right]`$ or to one of its algebraic conjugates and hence the result follows.

From now on we will assume that $`o(h)=p`$, prime. Then the set of elements

$$𝒮\{h^aG_g\text{}a=1,2,\mathrm{},p1\},$$
(15)
with irrational characters can be divided into classes characterized by the so-called Dirichlet character of $`a`$ as follows. Let $`C_{p1}m`$ be the cyclic group of order $`p1`$ acting on $`𝒮`$ generated by

$$m:hh^m\text{ }$$

i.e. the Galois group for the polynomial $`(x^p1)/(x1)`$. All irrational characters $`\chi `$ of $`G_g`$ are fixed by a cyclic subgroup $`(mN)`$ of $`C_{p1}`$, for some $`N`$. Then $`𝒮`$ can be divided into classes with representatives

$$\{h^a𝒮|aC_{p1}/(mN)C_N\},$$
(16)
characterised uniquely by a Dirichlet character of order $`N`$ defined as follows. A Dirichlet character $`\chi _D`$ of the Galois group $`C_{p1}`$ is a homomorphism:

$$\chi _D:C_{p1}𝐂^{}.$$
(17)
Then these characters form a group under pointwise multiplication which is isomorphic to $`C_{p1}`$, but not under any canonical map. The character of order $`N`$, $`\chi _D^{(N)}`$ then gives an isomorphism

$$\chi _D^{(N)}:C_{p1}/(mN)\omega _N$$

and thus characterises uniquely the representatives (16).

For $`p`$ odd, the character group (17) is cyclic of even order $`p1`$, hence it has an element of order $`2`$, $`\chi _D^{(2)}`$. This is the Legendre symbol: $`\chi _D^{(2)}(a)\left(\frac{a}{p}\right)a^{(p1)/2}`$ mod $`p=\pm 1`$ which characterises (16) in the case of quadratically irrational characters for which $`N=2`$. This applies to the characters of $`G_{p+}`$ for $`p=5,7,11`$.

There is a character of order $`N=4`$ precisely when $`4|`$ $`(p1)`$ (e.g. $`p=13`$). There are then exactly two characters of order $`4`$, because a cyclic group of order divisible by $`4`$ has exactly two elements of order $`4`$. These two characters are inverse to each other and hence are complex conjugates of each other. Their quotient will be the Legendre symbol. For $`p=13`$, we may take $`m=2`$ as a generator of the Galois group $`C_{12}`$. The fixing group for the irrational characters of $`G_{13+}=\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ is then $`3`$ . We get a Dirichlet character $`\chi _D^{(4)}`$ of order $`4`$ by mapping $`2`$ to $`\omega _4=i=\mathrm{exp}(\pi i/2)`$. The other element of order $`4`$ obtains by mapping $`2`$ to $`i`$. If $`a`$ is in $`C_{12}`$ with $`a=2^r`$ mod 13 then $`\chi _D^{(4)}(a)=\mathrm{exp}(r\pi i/2)`$. Thus

χD(4):
1,3,9112,10,4-15,2,6i8,11,7-i :superscriptsubscript𝜒𝐷4
1,3,9112,10,4-15,2,6i8,11,7-i \chi_{D}^{(4)}:\text{\begin{tabular}[]{l}$1,3,9\rightarrow 1$\\
$12,10,4\rightarrow-1$\\
$5,2,6\rightarrow i$\\
$8,11,7\rightarrow-i$\end{tabular}
}
So $`1,12,5,8`$ are representatives of $`C_{12}/3`$ which map to the four different $`4^{\text{th}}`$ roots of unity. Thus the value of $`\chi _D^{(4)}`$ characterises each of the four conjugate irrational classes of order $`13`$ in $`\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$.

### 3.2 The Genus Zero Property for Irrational GMFs for $`g=p+`$ and $`o(h)=p`$

We now come to the main purpose of this paper which is to demonstrate the genus zero property for Generalised Moonshine Functions (GMFs) (3) in the irrational cases where $`g=p+`$ and $`o(h)=p`$. Such cases occur when $`p=5,7,11,13.`$ Our aim is to show that the fixing group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ permutes all of the singular points of the GMF. In each case we find that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=SL(2,𝐙)`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ is a subgroup of $`L_2(p)=\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$, the group permuting all $`𝐇/\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ inequivalent cusps. Then all possible singularities of the GMF at the cusps $`\tau =a/c`$ with $`(a,c)=1`$ (related to the $`g^ah^c`$ Fricke-twisted sector) are identified under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ and the corresponding GMF is a hauptmodul for a genus zero group.

In our analysis we use the following two theorems. The first one gives some constraints following from the orbifolding of the Moonshine Module with respect to the abelian group $`g,h`$. See  for details:

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`g,h𝐌`$ be independent commuting elements where both $`g`$ and $`h`$ are Fricke such that $`\varphi _g(h)=1`$ and where all elements of $`g,h`$ are normal. Let $`u`$, $`v`$ be any independent generators for $`g,h`$. If $`u`$ is Fricke then there is a unique $`A\mathrm{mod}o(u)`$ such that $`u^Av`$ is Fricke with $`\varphi _{u^Av}(u)=1`$ and $`o(u^Av)=o(v)`$.

The next theorem gives the relation between the fixing groups of hauptmoduls with algebraically conjugate coefficients ,:

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`G`$ be a fixing group of a hauptmodul such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)G`$. Let $`k`$ be any integer, coprime to $`p`$. Choose coset representatives of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$ in $`G`$, $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_i& b_i\\ c_i& d_i\end{array}\right)`$, such that $`k|c_i`$. Then the operation $`k`$, which replaces every $`p^{\text{th}}`$ root of unity by its $`k^{\text{th}}`$ power yields a Hauptmodul with a fixing group

$$Gk=\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_i& kb_i\\ c_i/k& d_i\end{array}\right)\right\}$$

which is independent of choices made.

In terms of Generalised Moonshine the action of $`k`$ on the GMF $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ is to map it to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^k\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ because $`k`$ takes a character of $`h`$ to that of $`h^k`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h^k,g}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g})k$$
(18)
We begin with a preliminary Lemma.

###### Lemma 3.4.

For $`p=5,7,11,13`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(p)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p),\delta _p`$ for $`\delta _p`$ of order $`(p1)/2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(p)`$, where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(p)\left\{\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma },b=c=0\mathrm{mod}p\right\}$$

and $`\delta _5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 5\\ 5& 13\end{array}\right)`$, $`\delta _7=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 7\\ 7& 25\end{array}\right)`$, $`\delta _{11}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}40& 11\\ 11& 3\end{array}\right)`$, $`\delta _{13}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}85& 13\\ 13& 2\end{array}\right)`$.

Proof: By inspection of the possible solutions for $`a,d`$ mod $`p`$ of $`adbc=1`$ where $`b`$, $`c=0`$ mod $`p`$ one can check the validity of the statement.

Note that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p^2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(p)`$ are conjugate where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p^2)=`$ $`\theta _p\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(p)\theta _p^1`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p^2)`$ invariance follows from invariance under $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(p)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_p`$.

#### 3.2.1 Irrational GMFs for $`g=5+`$ and $`o(h)=5`$

The HN group has one pair of quadratically irrational classes of order $`5`$. Then $`m=2`$, $`N=2`$ in (16). The two subsets of $`𝒮`$ (15) conjugate in $`G_{5+}\mathrm{HN}`$ are characterised by the Legendre symbol $`\left(\frac{a}{5}\right)`$: $`h\stackrel{G_{5+}}{}h^4`$ (i.e. $`h^a`$ where $`\left(\frac{a}{5}\right)=1`$) and $`h^2\stackrel{G_{5+}}{}h^3`$ ($`h^a`$ where $`\left(\frac{a}{5}\right)=1`$) . Therefore $`gh\stackrel{𝐌}{}gh^4`$ and $`gh^2\stackrel{𝐌}{}gh^3`$. Since $`g_0\stackrel{𝐌}{}g_0^s`$ for $`s0`$ mod $`5`$ for any Monster element $`g_0`$ of order $`5`$ we have the following two disjoint sets $`𝒮_1,𝒮_2`$ of conjugate elements in $`𝐌`$ defined by

$`𝒮_1`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{5}}\right)=1,s0\mathrm{mod}5\}`$
$`𝒮_2`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{5}}\right)=1,s0\mathrm{mod}5\}`$
i.e. $`𝒮_1`$ consists of the elements $`ghg^2h^2g^3h^3g^4h^4gh^4g^2h^3g^3h^2g^4h`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ consists of $`gh^2g^2h^4g^3hg^4h^3gh^3g^2hg^3h^4g^4h^2`$ where $`𝒮_1𝒮_2=\{g^Ah^B|A,B0\mathrm{mod}5\}`$. The irrational GMFs occur when the elements of the two sets $`𝒮_1,𝒮_2`$ are of different Fricke type, e.g. $`𝒮_1`$ is Fricke but $`𝒮_2`$ is non-Fricke. Indeed, otherwise we have some of the cases, analysed previously in  which lead to rational GMFs.

###### Proposition 1.

For $`g=5+`$ and $`hG_g\mathrm{HN}`$ of order $`5`$, the following class structures give rise to a genus zero fixing group $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ for irrational GMFs $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](5\tau )`$ as follows:

$`g`$ Fricke, $`h`$ non-Fricke, $`𝒮_1`$ Fricke, $`𝒮_2`$ non-Fricke,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(25),T^{1/5}W_{25}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_5T^{1/5}.$$

$`g`$ Fricke, $`h`$ non-Fricke, $`𝒮_1`$ non-Fricke, $`𝒮_2`$ Fricke,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(25),T^{2/5}W_{25}T^{2/5}$$

where $`T^{r/5}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& r/5\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}2& 1\\ 25& 13\end{array}\right)`$ and $`W_{25}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 25& 0\end{array}\right)`$, the Fricke involution.

Proof: Firstly we will prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(25)`$. Due to Lemma 3.4 it is sufficient to demonstrate invariance with respect to $`\delta _5`$.

According to (14) we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^d\\ g^2\end{array}\right]`$ for some $`d`$. Clearly $`h^dG_g`$ is of order $`5`$ and has irrational characters. From inspection of the ATLAS  we have only two such classes with algebraically conjugate irreducible characters distinguished by $`\left(\frac{d}{5}\right)=\pm 1`$. Therefore there are two possibilities: either $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g^2\end{array}\right]`$ or $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^3\\ g^2\end{array}\right]`$. The first possibility can be ruled out since it implies after an $`ST^{1\text{ }}`$transformation that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^1\\ gh\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^2\\ g^2h\end{array}\right]`$. This is impossible since $`gh𝒮_1`$ and $`g^2h𝒮_2`$ and $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ are of different Fricke/non-Fricke type for both cases (i) and (ii) above. Therefore the second possibility remains which implies $`\delta _5`$ invariance and the result follows.

Case (i): From the analysis in , where all rational cases with $`o(g)=o(h)=5`$ are analysed, it follows that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^2h^3\end{array}\right]`$ cannot be rational for $`(a,b)(0,0)\mathrm{mod}5`$. If we choose $`a`$,$`b`$ such that $`g^ah^bG_{g^2h^3}`$ ($`\varphi _{g^2h^3}(g^ah^b)=1`$), this GMF must be quadratically irrational. Since the Harada-Norton group has only one pair of irrational classes of order $`5`$ so that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^2h^3\end{array}\right]`$ is either equal to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ or its algebraic conjugate. We may then further restrict the choice of $`a,b`$ so that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^2h^3\end{array}\right]`$.

Firstly we observe that $`b0`$ mod $`5`$ since $`g^ah^b`$ should be non-Fricke since $`h`$ is. If $`a=0`$ mod $`5`$ then $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^b\\ g^2h^3\end{array}\right]`$ and after a $`T^{1\text{ }}`$transformation $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}gh\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^2h^{3+b}\\ g^2h^3\end{array}\right]`$ and therefore $`g^2h^{3+b}`$ is also Fricke and hence $`b1,3`$ mod $`5`$. Applying a $`T^\text{ }`$transformation we can also see that $`g^3h^{2+b}`$ is Fricke and hence $`b2,4`$ mod $`5`$. Thus $`a0`$ mod $`5`$.

Since $`g^ah^b`$ is non-Fricke we conclude that $`(a,b)\{(s,ns)|`$ $`\left(\frac{n}{5}\right)=1,`$ $`s0`$ mod $`5\}`$. Applying a $`T^{\pm 1\text{ }}`$transformation we also conclude that $`(a,b)\{(\pm 2,s),(s\pm 2,ns\pm 3)|\left(\frac{n}{5}\right)=1,s0`$ mod 5. Thus either $`(a,b)=`$ $`(1,2)`$ or $`(4,3)`$ both leading to the same GMF since $`(gh^2)^1=g^4h^3`$ and all characters are real.

Thus we have shown that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}gh^2\\ g^2h^3\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\alpha \tau )`$ with $`\alpha TS\delta _5T`$ . Furthermore we find that all the singular cusps of the GMF are identified under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(5),\alpha `$ which is therefore a genus zero fixing group. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ where $`\alpha ^3=`$ $`\delta _5^2=(\alpha \delta _5)^2=1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(5)`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(5)=D_3`$ which is a (maximal) subgroup of $`L_2(5)`$. The corresponding hauptmodul for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(25),\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ can be explicitly expressed as

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](5\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )\eta (\tau +2/5)\eta (\tau +3/5)}{\eta (\tau +1/5)\eta (\tau +4/5)\eta (25\tau )}}+1\sqrt{5}=`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`q^1+0+({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{5\sqrt{5}}{2}})q10q^2+5q^3`$
$`+(21+5\sqrt{5})q^4+({\displaystyle \frac{25}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{25\sqrt{5}}{2}})q^5+\mathrm{}`$
which is known as the $`25\mathrm{~}b`$ series .

Assuming that the GMF is replicable and based on numerical matching L. Queen conjectures that the head characters for $`hG_{5+}\mathrm{HN}`$ can be expanded in terms of the irreducible characters $`\chi _i(h)`$ of HN (in ATLAS notation ) to give ,

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](5\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}+0+(\chi _1(h)+\chi _3(h))q+\chi _4(h)q^2+(\chi _1(h)+\chi _5(h))q^3+`$ (26)
$`(\chi _1(h)+\chi _2(h)+\chi _5(h)+\chi _6(h))q^4+`$
$`(\chi _1(h)+\chi _2(h)+\chi _4(h)+\chi _5(h)+\chi _{11}(h))q^5+\mathrm{}`$
and therefore (22) corresponds to the head character expansion (26) for the $`5C`$ class of $`\mathrm{HN}`$ .

Case (ii). This class structure is obtained from that in Case (i) by replacing $`h`$ by $`h^2`$. Therefore the fixing group given by (18) with $`k=2`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(25),T^{2/5}W_{25}T^{2/5}`$. Its hauptmodul is then $`\frac{\eta (\tau )\eta (\tau +1/5)\eta (\tau +4/5)}{\eta (\tau +2/5)\eta (\tau +3/5)\eta (25\tau )}+1+\sqrt{5}`$. This is known as the $`25\mathrm{~}a`$ series  and has algebraically conjugate coefficients to those of case (i). The head character expansion corresponds to the $`5D`$ class of $`\mathrm{HN}`$ (26).

#### 3.2.2 Irrational GMFs for $`g=7+`$ and $`o(h)=7`$

The Held group has two pairs of quadratically irrational classes of order $`7`$. In (16) $`m=3`$, $`N=2`$. The two subsets of powers for each $`h`$ of order $`7`$ (15), conjugate in $`G_{7+}=\mathrm{He}`$ are: $`\left\{h^a\right\}`$ for $`\left(\frac{a}{7}\right)=1`$ and $`\left\{h^a\right\}`$ for $`\left(\frac{a}{7}\right)=1`$ . Therefore $`gh\stackrel{𝐌}{}gh^2\stackrel{𝐌}{}gh^4`$ and $`gh^3\stackrel{𝐌}{}gh^5\stackrel{𝐌}{}gh^6`$. Since $`g_0\stackrel{𝐌}{}g_0^s`$ ($`s=1`$,$`2`$,…,$`p1`$) for any Monster element $`g_0`$, we have the following two disjoint sets $`𝒮_1,𝒮_2`$ of conjugate elements in $`𝐌`$ defined by

$`𝒮_1`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{7}}\right)=1,s0\mathrm{mod}7\}`$
$`𝒮_2`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{7}}\right)=1,s0\mathrm{mod}7\}`$
where $`𝒮_1𝒮_2=\{g^Ah^B|A,B0\mathrm{mod}7\}`$.

###### Proposition 2.

For $`g=7+`$ and $`h`$ of order $`7`$, $`hG_{7+}\mathrm{He}`$ the following class structures give rise to a genus zero fixing group $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ for irrational GMFs $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](7\tau )`$:

$`g`$ Fricke, $`h`$ non-Fricke, the set $`𝒮_1`$ Fricke, $`𝒮_2`$ non-Fricke,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(49),\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\text{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2/7\\ 35& 3\end{array}\right)$$

$`g`$ Fricke, $`h`$ non-Fricke, $`𝒮_1`$ non-Fricke, $`𝒮_2`$ Fricke,

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(49),\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}\text{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2/7\\ 35& 3\end{array}\right)$$

$`g`$ Fricke, $`h`$ Fricke, $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ sets Fricke. There are two possible fixing groups, which are isomorphic and usually both denoted by $`7||7+`$.

Proof: Firstly we will prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(49)`$. Due to Lemma 3.4 it is sufficient to demonstrate invariance with respect to $`\delta _7`$.

According to (14) we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^d\\ g^2\end{array}\right]`$ for some $`d`$. We need to show that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^4\\ g^2\end{array}\right](\tau )Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\delta _7\tau )`$. Assume that $`\left(\frac{d}{7}\right)=1`$. Then we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g^2\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g^4\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g^8\end{array}\right]Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ which is impossible since $`h`$ and $`h^1`$ are not conjugate in $`G_g`$. Therefore $`\left(\frac{d}{7}\right)=1`$ and the statement follows.

When $`p=7`$ there are two pairs of conjugate irrational characters in $`G_{7+}\mathrm{He}`$ . If we consider a GMF on another Fricke twisted sector, for convenience, a $`g^3h^5`$ twisted sector, then for a pair $`(a,b)(0,0)`$ mod $`7`$ and $`g^ah^bG_{g^3h^5}`$ ($`\varphi _{g^3h^5}(g^ah^b)=1`$), $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]`$ must be quadratically irrational and $`g,h=g^3h^5,g^ah^b`$, so that it is either equal to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ or its algebraic conjugate. By choosing an appropriate multiple of $`(a,b)`$ we may further restrict the choice of $`a,b`$ so that

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]$$
(27)
Case (i) Suppose $`a=0`$ mod $`7`$. Then $`T^1`$ transformation gives $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}gh\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^3h^{5+b}\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]`$ and since $`gh`$ is Fricke, so is $`g^3h^{5+b}`$ i.e. it is in the $`𝒮_1`$ Fricke set and therefore $`b4,3,6`$ mod $`7`$. Since $`h^4\stackrel{}{}h^2\stackrel{}{}h`$ and $`h^3\stackrel{}{}h^5`$ in the corresponding centraliser, $`b1,2,5`$ mod $`7`$. Thus $`a0`$ mod $`7`$.

Since $`g^ah^b𝒮_2`$ is non-Fricke, $`b0`$ mod $`7`$, $`(a,b)\{(s,ns)|`$ $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1`$, $`s0`$ mod $`7\}`$. Furthermore, a $`T^1`$ transformation of (27) gives $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}gh\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{3+a}h^{5+b}\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]`$, and since $`gh`$ is Fricke, so is $`g^{3+a}h^{5+b}`$ thus $`(a,b)\{(s3,ns5)`$, $`(4,s)|`$ $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1,`$ $`s0`$ mod $`7\}`$. If a given pair $`(a,b)`$ is inadmissible, (i.e. does not satisfy (27)) so are the pairs leading to conjugates in the same set: $`(na,nb)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1`$. Therefore $`(a,b)=`$ $`(5n,4n)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1`$. Hence $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^5h^4\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\alpha \tau )`$ where $`\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2\\ 5& 3\end{array}\right)`$ and thus the GMF is $`\alpha `$ modular invariant. Furthermore we find that all the singular cusps of the GMF are identified under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(7),\alpha `$ which is therefore a genus zero fixing group. Introducing $`\beta =\delta _7\alpha ^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 3\\ 1& 2\end{array}\right)`$, one can check that $`\beta ^3=`$ $`\alpha ^2=(\beta \alpha )^3=1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(7),\delta _7,\alpha /\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)A_4`$, a subgroup of $`L_2(7)`$. The hauptmodul for the genus zero fixing group $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(49),\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ is

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](7\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )\eta (\tau +3/7)\eta (\tau +5/7)\eta (\tau +6/7)}{\eta ^4(7\tau )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}}=`$ (31)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}+0+({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}})q+({\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}i{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{7}}{2}})q^2+2q^3+`$
$`(3i\sqrt{7})q^43q^5+\mathrm{}`$
known as the $`49\mathrm{~}a`$ series .

Assuming that the GMF is replicable and based on numerical matching L. Queen conjectures that the head characters for $`hG_{7+}\mathrm{He}`$ can be expanded in terms of the irreducible characters $`\chi _i(h)`$ of $`\mathrm{He}`$ (in ATLAS notation ) to give ,

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](7\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}+0+\chi _2(h)q+(\chi _3(h)+\chi _4(h))q^2+(\chi _1(h)+\chi _6(h))q^3+`$ (35)
$`(\chi _1(h)+\chi _6(h)+\chi _{11}(h))q^4+`$
$`(\chi _1(h)+\chi _2(h)+\chi _3(h)+\chi _6(h)+\chi _{14}(h))q^5+\mathrm{}`$
Thus the expansion (31) is associated with the $`7E`$ class of $`\mathrm{He}.`$

Case (ii). This class structure is obtained from that in Case (i) by replacing $`h`$ by $`h^1`$. Therefore the fixing group is given by (18) with $`k=1`$ mod $`7`$. The fixing group contains $`\alpha ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2\\ 5& 3\end{array}\right)`$ i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(7),\alpha ^{}`$. $`h`$ is in $`7D`$ class of $`\mathrm{He}`$, with algebraically conjugate characters to those of $`7E`$. The GMF $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](7\tau )=\frac{\eta (\tau )\eta (\tau +1/7)\eta (\tau +2/7)\eta (\tau +4/7)}{\eta ^4(7\tau )}`$ $`+\frac{1}{2}+i\frac{\sqrt{7}}{2}`$ corresponding to the $`49\mathrm{~}b`$ series , is a hauptmodul for the genus zero fixing group $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(49),\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}`$. This hauptmodul has algebraically conjugate coefficients compared to (31).

Case (iii) From earlier remarks there are two algebraically conjugate order $`7`$ classes of $`\mathrm{He}`$ remaining. We will demonstrate $`S`$-invariance. Since $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g^2\end{array}\right]`$, after an $`S`$-transformation $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^1\\ h\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^2\\ h\end{array}\right]`$ and thus $`\varphi _h(g^1)=\varphi _h(g^2)`$ i.e. $`\varphi _h(g)=1`$. So $`gG_hG_g`$. We have only one pair of irrational classes left, hence $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ h\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$, or $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ h\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g\end{array}\right]`$, its conjugate. Assume that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ h\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$, then after an $`ST^1`$ transformation $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^1\\ gh\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ gh\end{array}\right]`$, which implies that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^A\\ gh\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^A\\ gh\end{array}\right]`$ for any $`A`$. Taking $`A=2`$, after a $`T^1`$ transformation we obtain $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^1h\\ gh\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}(g^1h)^1\\ gh\end{array}\right]`$. This is impossible since the irrational characters of $`\mathrm{He}`$ are complex. Hence $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^1\\ h\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](S\tau )`$.

Consider the GMF $`Z^{}`$, algebraically conjugate to $`Z`$

$$Z^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g\end{array}\right].$$
(36)
From (27) and $`S`$ invariance we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^2\\ g\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ h^2\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^bh^{2a}\\ g^5h^6\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^bh^{2a}\\ (g^5h^6)^2\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^bh^{2a}\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}g^bh^{2a}\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]`$ i.e. if $`Z`$ satisfies (27) for a pair $`(a,b)`$ then $`Z^{}`$ satisfies (27) for the pair $`(b,2a)`$ (and therefore $`(nb,2na)`$ with $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1`$).

We can show that $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ cannot satify (27) for one and the same pair $`(a,b)`$ (otherwise they would have the same fixing group and possibly hauptmodul). Let us assume that it is possible and therefore $`(a,b)=(2b,4a)`$ mod $`7`$ ($`n=2`$): i.e. $`(a,b)=`$ $`(s,3s)`$, $`s0`$ mod $`7`$. For $`s=1`$ we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}gh^3\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]`$. Since $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^3\\ g^5\end{array}\right]`$ it follows that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^5h^2\\ gh\end{array}\right]`$. Applying two times the last transformation we get $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^4h^5\\ h^5\end{array}\right]`$ which is a contradiction since clearly $`\varphi _{h^5}(g^4h^5)1`$. Thus $`(a,b)`$ $`(s,3s)`$ for $`\left(\frac{s}{7}\right)=1`$. For $`s=3`$ we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^3h^2\\ g^3h^5\end{array}\right]`$. Applying two times this transformation we get $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^4h\\ h^2\end{array}\right]`$ which is a contradiction since clearly $`\varphi _{h^2}(g^4h)1`$. Thus $`(a,b)`$ $`(s,3s)`$ for $`\left(\frac{s}{7}\right)=1`$ and finally $`(a,b)`$ $`(s,3s)`$ in general.

Suppose $`a=0`$ mod $`7`$. Then $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g\\ h\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^3h^5\\ h^b\end{array}\right]`$ which is impossible, because $`\varphi _h(g)=1`$, $`\varphi _{h^b}(g)=1`$, $`\varphi _{h^b}(h^b)=\omega _7`$ . Thus $`a0`$ mod $`7`$ and similarly $`b0`$ mod $`7`$.

Since $`\varphi _{g^3h^5}(g^3h^5)=\omega _7`$, $`g^ah^b`$ must not be a power of $`g^3h^5`$, $`(a,b)`$ $`(3s,5s)`$. Applying once again (27) we have

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{a(3+b)}h^{5a+b^2}\\ g^{22a}h^{12b}\end{array}\right].$$

Let $`a=4b^2`$ mod $`7`$ and $`b=\pm 1`$ or $`\pm 2`$ mod $`7`$. Then $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{5b^2+4b^3}\\ g^{2b^2}h^{12b}\end{array}\right]`$ is possible only if $`\varphi _{g^{2b^2}h^{12b}}(g)=1`$. However according to Theorem 3.2, since $`\varphi _h(g)=1`$ it is not possible to have $`\varphi _{g^{2b^2}h^{12b}}(g)=1`$ unless $`2b^2=0`$ mod $`7`$ which is not the case. Therefore $`(a,b)`$ $`(4,\pm 1)`$, $`(2,\pm 2)`$, and we exclude also their conjugates of the form $`(na,nb)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1`$: $`(a,b)\{(4n,\pm n)`$, $`(2n,\pm 2n)|`$ $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1\}`$. Finally we exclude all pairs, which can be represented as $`(b,2a)`$ from an already excluded pair $`(a,b)`$. It is due to the fact that if $`(a,b)`$ satisfies (27), $`(b,2a)`$ must satisfy the same relation for $`Z^{}`$ (36). The remaining pairs are $`(a,b)=(5n,4n)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{7}\right)=1`$ ($`(5,4)`$, $`(3,1)`$ and $`(6,2)`$); their $`Z^{}`$-partners of the form $`(b,2a)`$: $`(3,4)`$, $`(6,1)`$, $`(5,2)`$. This leads to modular invariance under $`\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 2\\ 5& 3\end{array}\right)`$ for $`Z`$ (for $`(a,b)=(5,4)`$), and $`\alpha ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}4& 1\\ 5& 1\end{array}\right)`$ for $`Z^{}`$ (for $`(b,2a)=(3,4)`$). Note that $`\alpha `$ is of order $`2`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)`$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is of order $`4`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)`$ i.e. the mapping to $`g^3h^5`$ Fricke twisted sector (27) requires modular transformations of different order in each case. Each of the two fixing groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(7),\alpha ,S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(7),\alpha ^{},S`$ matches all the singular cusps of the GMF and therefore each group is of genus zero. These two fixing groups are isomorphic. Indeed, introducing $`\alpha _1=\alpha S`$, $`\alpha _2=\delta _7S`$, $`\alpha _3=S`$, we have $`\alpha _1^2=\alpha _2^2=\alpha _3^2=`$ $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^3=(\alpha _2\alpha _3)^3=(\alpha _3\alpha _1)^2=`$ $`1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)`$, the defining relations of the group $`S_4`$. Introducing $`\beta _1=S`$, $`\beta _2=S\alpha ^{}`$, we have $`\beta _1^2=\beta _2^3=(\beta _1\beta _2)^4=1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)`$, also defining the group $`S_4`$, a maximal subgroup of $`L_2(7)`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(7),\delta _7,\alpha ,S/\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)S_4`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(7),\alpha ^{},S/\mathrm{\Gamma }(7)S_4`$. According to the definition in  for both groups we use the same notation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=7||7+`$. The GMFs represents the hauptmoduls for these groups and can be found from those of Case (i) with symmetrization:

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](7\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )\eta (\tau +3/7)\eta (\tau +5/7)\eta (\tau +6/7)}{\eta ^4(7\tau )}}+`$
$`i\sqrt{7}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (49\tau )\eta (\tau +1/7)\eta (\tau +2/7)\eta (\tau +4/7)}{\eta ^4(7\tau )}}`$
$`=`$ $`q^1+0+({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+i{\displaystyle \frac{3\sqrt{7}}{2}})q+(1i\sqrt{7})q^2+9q^3+`$
$`3(1i\sqrt{7})q^4+4q^5+\mathrm{}`$
$`Z^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](7\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (\tau )\eta (\tau +1/7)\eta (\tau +2/7)\eta (\tau +4/7)}{\eta ^4(7\tau )}}+`$
$`i\sqrt{7}{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (49\tau )\eta (\tau +3/7)\eta (\tau +5/7)\eta (\tau +6/7)}{\eta ^4(7\tau )}}`$
$`Z^{}`$ has a series expansion with complex conjugate coefficients to $`Z`$. According to (35) $`Z`$ is the GMF when $`h`$ is an element of $`7A`$ class of $`\mathrm{He}`$, $`Z^{}`$ \- when $`h`$ is an element of $`7B`$ class of $`\mathrm{He}`$.

#### 3.2.3 Irrational GMFs for $`g=11+`$ and $`o(h)=11`$

The M<sub>12</sub> group has one pair of quadratically irrational classes of order $`11`$. In (16) $`m=2`$, $`N=2`$. There are two subsets of powers of $`h`$ (15) conjugate in $`G_{11+}`$M<sub>12</sub>: $`\left\{h^a\right\}`$ for $`\left(\frac{a}{11}\right)=1`$ and $`\left\{h^a\right\}`$ for $`\left(\frac{a}{11}\right)=1`$ .

###### Proposition 3.

For $`g=11+`$, $`hG_{11+}\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ and $`o(h)=11`$, the class structure where all elements of the group $`g,h`$ are Fricke gives rise to a pair of irrational GMFs with isomorphic genus zero fixing groups (usually both denoted by $`11||11+`$).

Proof: Firstly we will prove that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(121)`$. Due to Lemma 3.4 it is sufficient to demonstrate invariance with respect to $`\delta _{11}`$.

According to (14) $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^d\\ g^4\end{array}\right]`$ for some $`d`$. We need to show that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^3\\ g^4\end{array}\right](\tau )Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\delta _{11}\tau )`$. Clearly $`h^dG_g`$ is of order $`11`$ and has irrational characters. From inspection of the ATLAS  we have only two such classes with algebraically conjugate irreducible characters distinguished by $`\left(\frac{d}{11}\right)=\pm 1`$. Assume that $`\left(\frac{d}{11}\right)=1`$. Then we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g^4\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^{(1)^5}\\ g^{4^5}\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ which is impossible since $`h`$ and $`h^1`$ are not conjugate in $`G_g`$. Therefore $`\left(\frac{d}{11}\right)=1`$, and the statement follows. One can demonstrate also that $`\varphi _h(g)=1`$ and hence $`S`$ invariance follows as in Proposition 2(iii).

Let us now consider a GMF related to another Fricke twisted sector, for convenience, say a $`gh^2`$ twisted sector. When $`o(h)=11`$ there is only one pair of elements in $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ with irrational characters . So $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ gh^2\end{array}\right]`$ cannot be rational for $`(a,b)(0,0)`$ mod $`11.`$ If we choose $`a`$,$`b`$ such that $`g^ah^bG_{gh^2}`$ ($`\varphi _{gh^2}(g^ah^b)=1`$), this GMF must be quadratically irrational. Since $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ has only one pair of irrational classes of order $`11`$ (and no rational ones), then $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ gh^2\end{array}\right]`$ is either equal to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ or its algebraic conjugate. We may then further restrict the choice of $`a,b`$ so that

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ gh^2\end{array}\right].$$
(39)
Using (39) and $`S`$ invariance we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^1\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^4\\ g\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^{4.(5)}\\ g^5\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^5\\ h^2\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{5b}h^{2a}\\ h^2g^{5.2}\end{array}\right]=`$ $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}(g^{5b}h^{2a})^1\\ gh^2\end{array}\right]`$ and hence

$$Z^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]Z^{}\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{5b}h^{2a}\\ gh^2\end{array}\right]$$

where the definition of $`Z^{}`$ is as in (36). Thus if $`(a,b)`$ is an invariance for $`Z`$ as in (39) then $`(5b,2a)`$ is an invariance for $`Z^{}`$. Using similar techniques as in Proposition 2(iii) we can prove that $`(a,b)(5b,2a)`$ mod $`11`$ i.e. $`(a,b)`$ $`(s,9s)`$. Furthermore, since $`\varphi _{gh^2}(gh^2)=\omega _{11}`$, $`(a,b)`$ $`(s,2s)`$.

As in Proposition 2(iii) one can show that $`a,b0`$ mod $`11`$. Applying once again the transformation (39) we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{a(1+b)}h^{2a+b^2}\\ g^{2a+1}h^{2b+2}\end{array}\right]`$. Let $`a=5b^2`$ mod $`11`$ with $`b^21\mathrm{mod}`$ $`11`$. Then $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{5b^2(1+b)}\\ g^{1b^2}h^{2b+2}\end{array}\right]`$ is possible only if $`\varphi _{g^{1b^2}h^{2b+2}}(g)=1`$. However according to theorem (3.2), since $`\varphi _h(g)=1`$ it is not possible to have $`\varphi _{g^{1b^2}h^{2b+2}}(g)=1`$ unless $`b^2=1`$ mod $`11`$ which is not the case. Therefore $`(a,b)`$ $`(5b^2,b)`$ for $`b=\pm 2`$, $`\pm 3`$, $`\pm 4`$, $`\pm 5`$ mod $`11`$, and we exclude also their conjugates of the form $`(5b^2n,bn)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{11}\right)=1`$, $`b0`$, $`\pm 1`$ mod $`11`$. Finally we exclude all pairs which can be represented as $`(5b,2a)`$ from an already excluded pair $`(a,b)`$. It is due to the fact that if $`(a,b)`$ satisfies (39), $`(5b,2a)`$ must satisfy the same relation for $`Z^{}`$.

The remaining pairs are $`(a,b)=(10n,10n)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{11}\right)=1`$ and their $`Z^{}`$-partners of the form $`(5b,2a)`$: $`(6n,2n)`$, $`\left(\frac{n}{11}\right)=1`$. This leads to modular invariance under $`\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ 2& 1\end{array}\right)`$ for $`(a,b)=(10,10)`$ -say for $`Z`$, and $`\alpha ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 5\\ 2& 9\end{array}\right)`$ for $`(a,b)=(6,2)`$ for $`Z^{}`$. The two fixing groups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(11),\alpha ,S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0^0(11),\alpha ^{},S`$ are conjugate and isomorphic to $`A_5`$ $`\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(11)`$ (generated by $`\alpha _1=\delta _{11}S\alpha `$, $`\alpha _2=S`$, $`\alpha _3=\alpha `$, which satisfy $`\alpha _1^2=\alpha _2^2=\alpha _3^2=`$ $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)^3=(\alpha _1\alpha _3)^2=(\alpha _2\alpha _3)^5=`$ $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3)^5=`$ $`1\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(11)`$, the defining relations of $`A_5`$). $`A_5`$ is a (maximal) subgroup of $`L_2(11)`$. For both fixing groups we use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=11||11+`$ . All the singular cusps of the GMF are identified under the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ which is therefore a genus zero fixing group.

The $`q`$ expansions to $`O(q^5)`$ of the hauptmoduls for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}=11||11+`$ are ,:

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](11\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}+0+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{11}}{2}})q+2q^2+({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{11}}{2}})q^3`$ (43)
$`(1\pm i\sqrt{11})q^4({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\pm i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{11}}{2}})q^5+\mathrm{}`$
Assuming that the GMF is replicable the head character expansion for $`hG_{11+}\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ in terms of the irreducible characters $`\chi _i(h)`$ of $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$ (in ATLAS notation ) is ,

$`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](11\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q}}+0+(\chi _1(h)+\chi _4(h))q+(\chi _1(h)+\chi _6(h))q^2+`$ (47)
$`(\chi _1(h)+\chi _4(h)+\chi _6(h)+\chi _7(h))q^3+`$
$`(\chi _1(h)+2\chi _5(h)+\chi _6(h)+\chi _7(h)+\chi _{13}(h))q^4+`$
$`(2\chi _1(h)+2\chi _4(h)+\chi _5(h)+2\chi _6(h)+2\chi _7(h)+`$
$`\chi _{11}(h)+\chi _{12}(h)+\chi _{13}(h))q^5+\mathrm{}`$
The upper signs in (43) according to (47) are for $`h`$ an element of $`11A`$ class of $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$, the lower - for $`h`$ an element of $`11B`$ class of $`\mathrm{M}_{12}`$.

Propositions 1-3 lead us to the following statement:

###### Corollary 3.5.

For $`g=p+`$, $`o(h)=p`$ and $`p=5,7,11`$ the irrational GMFs obey

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^d\\ g^a\end{array}\right]\text{ iff }\left(\frac{ad}{p}\right)=1\text{,}$$

where the fixing group $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ contains $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(p^2)`$.

#### 3.2.4 Irrational GMFs for $`g=13+`$ and $`o(h)=13`$

The $`\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ group has four conjugate irrational classes of order $`13`$. There are four subsets of powers of $`h`$ (15) conjugate in $`G_{13+}=\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ determined by $`\chi _D^{(4)}\left(a\right)\{\pm 1,\pm i\}`$. Since $`g_0\stackrel{𝐌}{}g_0^s`$ ($`s=1`$,$`2`$,…,$`p1`$) for any Monster element $`g_0`$, we have the following four disjoint sets of conjugate elements in $`𝐌`$ defined by:

$`𝒮_0`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\chi _D^{(4)}\left(n\right)=i,\text{ }s0\mathrm{mod}13\}`$
$`𝒮_1`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\chi _D^{(4)}\left(n\right)=1,\text{ }s0\mathrm{mod}13\}`$
$`𝒮_2`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\chi _D^{(4)}\left(n\right)=i,\text{ }s0\mathrm{mod}13\}`$
$`𝒮_3`$ $``$ $`\{(gh^n)^s|\chi _D^{(4)}\left(n\right)=1,\text{ }s0\mathrm{mod}13\}`$
where $`_{r=0}^3𝒮_r=\{g^Ah^B|A,B0\mathrm{mod}13\}`$.

The fixing group for the irreducible characters of $`\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ is $`3`$, so we expect invariance under $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta _{13}^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}3& 0\\ 0& 9\end{array}\right)\mathrm{mod}\mathrm{\Gamma }(13)`$, which is of order $`3`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(13)`$, and therefore the order of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(13)`$ is divisible by $`3`$. The only possibility is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(13)=A_4`$, a maximal subgroup of $`L_2(13)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ contains an element $`\alpha `$, such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^3=\alpha ^2=(\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )^3=1`$ mod $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(13)`$. There are four solutions of the above relation, $`\alpha (r)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}11& 2^{3r}\\ 92.2^r& 67\end{array}\right)`$, $`r=0,1,2,3`$, corresponding to the fixing groups related to the four irrational classes. The result can be rigorously formulated in the following

###### Proposition 4.

For $`g=13+`$ and $`h`$ of order $`13`$, $`hG_{13+}\mathrm{L}_3(3)`$ the class structure with $`g`$ Fricke, $`h`$ non-Fricke, one of the sets $`𝒮_r`$ ($`r=0,1,2,3`$) Fricke and the others non-Fricke gives rise to an irrational GMF with a genus zero fixing group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(13),\mathrm{\Delta },\alpha (r)`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(13)=A_4`$.

Proof: Let us assume that the elements of $`𝒮_1`$ are Fricke, the others are non-Fricke. Firstly we show invariance under $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. According to (14) for some $`d`$, $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^d\\ g^3\end{array}\right]`$. A $`T^1`$ transformation gives us $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}gh\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^3h^d\\ g^3\end{array}\right]`$ and hence $`g^3h^d𝒮_1`$ since $`gh𝒮_1`$ is Fricke. Hence $`\chi _D^{(4)}(d)=1`$ so $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\tau )=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h^9\\ g^3\end{array}\right](\tau )Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right](\mathrm{\Delta }\tau )`$.

Now we demonstrate $`\alpha (1)`$ invariance. To this end, as before, we consider a general transformation to the $`(gh)^{11}`$ Fricke twisted sector. It is clear that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^{11}h^{11}\end{array}\right]`$ cannot be rational for $`(a,b)(0,0)`$ mod $`13`$. If we choose $`a`$,$`b`$ such that $`g^ah^bG_{g^{11}h^{11}}`$ ($`\varphi _{g^{11}h^{11}}(g^ah^b)=1`$), this GMF must be still irrational, since there are no rational characters of order $`13`$. So that $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^{11}h^{11}\end{array}\right]`$ is either equal to $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]`$ or one of its algebraic conjugates. We may then further restrict the choice of $`a,b`$ so that

$$Z\left[\begin{array}{c}h\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^ah^b\\ g^{11}h^{11}\end{array}\right].$$

Taking a $`T^n`$ transformation we have $`Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^nh\\ g\end{array}\right]=Z\left[\begin{array}{c}g^{a2n}h^{b2n}\\ g^{11}h^{11}\end{array}\right]`$. For $`\chi _D^{(4)}(n)=1`$, $`g^nh𝒮_1`$ is Fricke and hence $`g^{a2n}h^{b2n}𝒮_1`$ also, which leads to $`(a,b)=(3,5)`$, $`(9,2)`$, $`(1,6)`$. The solution $`(9,2)`$ provides the modular transformation $`\alpha (1)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(11),\mathrm{\Delta },\alpha (1)`$. All the singular cusps of the GMF are identified under $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{h,g}`$ which is therefore a genus zero fixing group. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{h,g}`$ does not contain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(169)`$. The fixing groups for the other cases follow from (18).

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown how Irrational Generalised Moonshine can be understood from the analysis of the class structure for a pair of Monster elements of prime order $`p`$. This follows from constraints originating from the abelian orbifolding of the Moonshine Module and properties of centraliser irreducible characters. We have explicitly demonstrated the genus zero property for Irrational Generalised Moonshine Functions (GMFs) in all cases. The methods developed in this paper and in  can in principle be extended to analyse other GMFs towards proving the genus zero property in general.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to S. Norton for providing us with information on replicable series and to G. Mason for many valuable discussions. We acknowledge funding from Enterprise Ireland under the Basic Research Grant Scheme.


format: text

text:
# Resistivity extrema in double exchange ferromagnetic nondegenerate semiconductors

## I Introduction

The colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) arises in ferromagnetic materials as a result of the suppression of the resistivity peak by the magnetic field in the vicinity of the Curie point $`T_C`$. Usually this phenomenon is related to the manganites, though not only they but also all conventional degenerate ferromagnetic semiconductors display a similar resistivity peak and CMR (see ). Still more unusual is the behavior of the nondegenerate ferromagnetic semiconductors, in which a resistivity minimum precedes the resistivity peak in the vicinity of $`T_C`$ (Fig. 1). It is natural to assume that the origin of this peak is similar for all ferromagnetic semiconductors and manganites. One believes that the manganites are the double exchange systems, i.e., the exchange energy between the localized spins and charge carriers far exceeds the bandwidth in them. Hence the physical nature of the nonmonotonic temperature dependence of the conductivity in doped manganites should be especially close to that in the double exchange ferromagnetic semiconductors.

The resistivity peak in degenerate ferromagnetic semiconductors can be explained within the framework of the magnetoimpurity theory . It is based on the fact that, due to the screening, the charge carrier density in the vicinity of the ionized donors (acceptors) is higher than far from them. The charge carriers give rise to the indirect exchange, which tends to support the ferromagnetic ordering. For this reason, at finite temperatures the local magnetization in the vicinity of impurities is higher than far from them. But the charge carrier energy is the lower the higher is the magnetization. For this reason, in addition to the Coulomb force, at $`T0`$ a ”magnetic” force appears, which attracts the electron to the donor. If the Coulomb force alone is insufficient for the electron localization, the total Coulomb + ”magnetic” force can cause the temperature-induced electron localization of electrons, i.e., the transition of the crystal from the highly-conductive state to the insulating one.

On further increase in temperature, the excess local magnetization around the donors decreases. Depending on the impurity density, two scenarios are possible.
(1) The crystal becomes again highly-conductive. This manifests itself as a high resistivity peak in the vicinity of $`T_C`$. (2) The crystal remains insulating up to the highest temperatures.

The magnetoimpurity theory is valid for all doped ferromagnetic semiconductors, independent of their being or not being double exchange and of the existence or nonexistence of the Jahn-Teller effect in them. It predicts the colossal magnetoresistance in the cases when the impurity density is sufficiently close to that, at which the Mott transition takes place .

Some sort of the magnetoimpurity theory should also be valid for the nondegenerate ferromagnetic semiconductors but certainly its specific manifestation in the nondegenerate semiconductors should be different from that in the degenerate ones. Here the magnetoimpurity theory will be formulated for the double exchange semiconductors.

In addition to the fact that this theory makes it possible to explain the properties of some specific ferromagnetic semiconductors, it allows one to understand more deeply the processes in such double exchange systems as manganites. (Let us remind that many of them behave as the degenerate semiconductors below $`T_C`$ and as the nondegenerate ones above $`T_C`$).

The main results of the present paper can be explained qualitatively as follows. The drastic difference in the temperature dependence of the resistivity for the ferromagnetic and nonmagnetic semiconductors is attributed to the giant red shift of the optical absorption edge specific for the ferromagnetic semiconductors. It implies the decrease of the optical gap width with decreasing temperature. To explain this phenomenon, it is sufficient to note that the electron energy is the lower the higher is the magnetization .

At very low temperatures, the nondegenerate ferromagnetic semiconductor behaves like the nonmagnetic one: the charge carrier density increases exponentially with temperature. But the activation energy also increases with temperature (Fig. 2). The reason for it is the fact that the local magnetization in the vicinity of an unionized donor is higher than that averaged over the crystal. This is related to the indirect ferromagnetic exchange, which is realized by the donor electron. It increases the local magnetization close to the donor impurity as compared with its mean value over the crystal. Hence the rate of the temperature-induced rise of the donor level is considerably less than that of the conduction band bottom. This means that the donor level depth first increases with temperature, and this process is determined by the band bottom shift toward higher energies.

As the position of the band bottom determines the optical gap, one can say that the temperature-induced increase in the donor level depth is equal to the temperature increase of the optical gap. One calls this shift of the optical gap in the ferromagnetic semiconductors ”the giant red shift of the optical absorption edge”. The term ”red” is a consequence of the fact that, experimentally, this optical shift was observed on decrease in temperature. The term ”giant” follows from the fact that total optical shift amounts to several tens eV, which is by many orders of magnitude larger than in nonmagnetic semiconductors.

The temperature-induced increase in the activation energy first slows down the rate of the temperature-induced increase in the charge carrier density. On further increase in temperature, a temperature-induced rise in the charge carrier density gives place to by a decrease in it. This means that the density passes a maximum and then decreases (Fig. 1). But, on further increase in temperature, the long-range ferromagnetic ordering becomes destroyed, and destruction of the local ordering in the vicinity of the donors begins. Then the position of the band bottom becomes virtually temperature independent, and the donor level depth decreases with increasing temperature. Respectively, after passing a minimum, the charge carrier density increases again.

In reality, this simple physical explanation is valid only qualitatively since the density is expressed not in terms of the electron energy averaged over the magnetic state of the crystal but in terms of the change in the free energy of the magnetic subsystem caused by the impurity ionization. This is the basis for calculations carried out below.

One can point out CdCr2Se4 as an example of the standard ferromagnetic semiconductors with the double exchange. This material can be transferred in the degenerate state only by a very heavy doping. This implies a large electron effective mass in CdCr2Se4, which is a necessary condition for the double exchange. The double exchange scenario for it corresponds to the appearance of the Cr2+ ions instead of the regular Cr3+. The former play the role of the conduction electrons. CdCr2Se4 displays a giant red optical shift  of about 0.15 eV and a nonmonotonic temperature dependence of the resistivity of the type described above, i.e. with a minimum and a maximum . Figure 1 in the present paper is taken from .

## II Quantum double-exchange Hamiltonian in the spin-wave region

Usually in magnetic semiconductors only one type of the charge carriers is sensitive to the magnetic ordering (only the charge carriers of one sign move over the magnetic cations. The charge carriers of the opposite sign move over the nonmagnetic ions . For example, in CdCr2Se4 the electrons interact strongly and the holes very weakly with the magnetic subsystem. For this reason, it is sufficient to take only the former into account.

The problem of the energy spectrum in the double exchange systems is treated as a single-electron problem. The treatment is based on the $`sd`$ model with the $`s`$-electrons modeling the conduction electrons or holes moving over the crystal and exhibiting a strong exchange interaction with the localized $`d`$-spins. With accounting for the donor (acceptor) impurities the total Hamiltonian of the system is written in the form

$$H=H_{sd}+H_I.$$
(1)
The quantum $`sd`$ exchange Hamiltonian $`H_{sd}`$ for double-exchange case was deduced by the present author as early as in 1969 (See Refs. ). Unlike corresponding Hamltonians deduced by other authors, this Hamiltonian for the antiferromagnetic $`sd`$ exchange is exact to the first order in $`AS/W`$, and no additional approximations (the mean field etc.) were used. To construct it, an effective spin $`𝐒_𝐠`$ of the magnitude $`S`$ is ascribed to each magnetic atom g, independently of its being free or occupied by a $`s`$-electron (in the former case it is the true spin). In the last case, it formally increases the number of spin degrees of freedom by 1 as compared with its actual number. However, the structure of the effective Hamiltonian is such that the contribution from the extra degree of freedom vanishes. As for the charge carriers, they are treated as spinless fermions with the operators $`c_𝐠^{},c_𝐠`$. This effective Hamiltonian is:

$`H_{sd}^{ef}={\displaystyle \frac{A(S+1)}{2}}{\displaystyle c_𝐠^{}c_𝐠}`$ (2)
$`t_0{\displaystyle F(𝐒_𝐠,𝐒_{𝐠+𝚫})c_𝐠^{}c_{𝐠+𝚫}}{\displaystyle \frac{I}{2}}{\displaystyle 𝐒_𝐠𝐒_{𝐠+𝚫}},`$ (3)
$`(2S+1)F(𝐒_𝐠,𝐒_{𝐠+𝚫})=\sqrt{(S+S_𝐠^z)(S+S_{𝐠+𝚫}^z)}`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{S+S_𝐠^z}}}S_𝐠^+S_{𝐠+𝚫}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{S+S_{𝐠+𝚫}^z}}}`$ ()
where $`𝚫`$ is the vector connecting the nearest neighbors in a simple cubic lattice of the magnetic atoms, $`A`$ is the $`sd`$ exchange integral assumed to be negative here (see below), $`I`$ is the $`dd`$ exchange integral which is assumed to be positive, $`t_0`$ is the hopping integral, which would have been realized if the crystal would have been nonmagnetic. The corresponding band width $`W`$ is equal to 12$`t_0`$. In Eq.(2), small terms of the order of $`IS^2/t`$, which describe a change in the $`dd`$ exchange of the atom bearing the charge carrier, are disregarded (they are presented in the original papers). The first term in Eq.(2) is an additive constant and for this reason can be omitted.

As usually, the inequality $`t_0IS^2`$ must be met as the hopping integral $`t_0`$ is of the first order of magnitude, and the $`dd`$ exchange integral $`I`$ of the second order in the small $`d`$-orbital overlapping. In what follows, the condition of the double exchange $`W|A|S`$ will be also assumed to be met, with the $`sd`$ exchange integral $`A`$ being negative. Under these conditions, to a zero approximation in $`W/AS`$, the charge carrier is fixed at one of the magnetic atoms, their total spin being $`S1/2`$. This just corresponds to the situation in the manganites, where appearance of a hole at a regular ion Mn3+ reduces its spin by 1/2.

It should be pointed out that the case $`A<0`$ can be also applied to the conduction electrons if the occupancy of the $`d`$-shell exceeds 5/2. Then, due to the Pauli’s exclusion principle, the spin of the atom bearing a conduction electron should be equal to $`S1/2`$. In this case, the quantity $`A`$ looses the meaning of the Hund’s exchange integral and expresses only the Pauli’s principle. But, as the quantity $`A`$ enters Eq.(2) only through an additive constant in the electron energy, this fact is nonessential.

In the case of smaller $`d`$-shell occupancies, the quantity $`A`$ for the conduction electron is directly related to the Hund’s integral and hence is positive. One can construct a similar effective Hamiltonian also for $`A>0`$ by introducing an effective spin $`S`$ for each atom. But in this case one of the states of an atom with the total spin $`S+1/2`$ remains unaccounted for, and this restricts the applicability of this effective Hamiltonian. Nevertheless, it can be used, for example, for $`2S1`$ or for any spin magnitude in the spin-wave region. Then the quantity $`F(𝐒_𝐠,𝐒_{𝐠+𝚫})`$ in Eq.(2) should be replaced by its conjugate . As the spin-wave region will be considered below, both Hamiltonians for $`A>0`$ and $`A<0`$ lead to the same results.

In the classical limit $`S\mathrm{}`$, introducing the polar angles $`\theta _𝐠,\varphi _𝐠`$ and carrying out a canonical transformation of the spinless operators shifting their phases one arrives to the classical Hamiltonian ”with the Berry phases” deduced for the first time in Refs. .

The term $`H_I`$ in Eq.(1) describes the interaction between the $`s`$-electrons and impurities,

$$H_I=\underset{𝐣}{}V(𝐠𝐑_𝐣)c_𝐠^{}c_𝐠,$$
(5)
where $`𝐑_𝐣`$ are the coordinates of impurity $`𝐣`$.

Now the quantum double exchange Hamiltonian (2) will be specified for the spin-wave region. Introducing the magnon operators $`b_𝐠^{},b_𝐠`$ and performing the Holstein–Primakoff transformation in the Hamiltonian (2)

$$S_𝐠^z=Sb_𝐠^{}b_𝐠,S_𝐠^+=(2S)^{1/2}b_𝐠,S_𝐠^{}=(2S)^{1/2}b_𝐠^{}$$

one obtains the $`sd`$ Hamiltonian in the spin-wave region:

$`H_{sd}^{sw}=t{\displaystyle a_𝐠^{}a_{𝐠+𝚫}}+`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{2S}}{\displaystyle \left[\frac{1}{2}(m_𝐠+m_{𝐠+𝚫})b_{𝐠+𝚫}^{}b_𝐠\right]a_𝐠^{}a_{𝐠+𝚫}}`$ (7)
$`+IS{\displaystyle }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_𝐠+m_{𝐠+𝚫})b_{𝐠+𝚫}^{}b_𝐠)],`$ ()
or in the quasimomentum representation

$`H_{sd}^{sw}=zt{\displaystyle \gamma _𝐤c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤}`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{zt}{4SN}}{\displaystyle \stackrel{}{}}(\gamma _𝐤^{}+\gamma _{𝐪𝐪^{}𝐤^{}}2\gamma _{𝐪^{}+𝐤^{}})c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤^{}b_𝐪^{}b_𝐪^{}`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪b_𝐪^{}b_𝐪}`$ ()
$$t=\frac{2St_0}{2S+1},\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪=zIS(1\gamma _𝐪),$$
(10)
$$\gamma _𝐤=\frac{1}{z}\underset{𝚫}{}\mathrm{exp}(i𝚫𝐤)(z=6)$$

where $`z`$ is the coordination number, the primed sum denotes conservation of the total quasimomentum.

As is seen from Eq.(5), for $`A<0`$ even with the complete ferromagnetic ordering, the $`sd`$ interaction reduces the effective hopping integral by a factor of $`1+1/2S`$. For $`A>0`$ this reduction is absent, and $`t=t_0`$.

## III Temperature dependence of the conduction band bottom

In order to calculate the charge carrier density, first the temperature dependence of the conduction band bottom in the spin-wave region will be investigated. The further consideration will be carried out under assumption that $`1/2S1`$ . One should keep in mind that in the theory of the magnetism the formal expansion in $`1/2S`$ powers usually gives reasonable results even for small spins. Then the total Hamiltonian of a perfect crystal can be represented in the form

$$H_{sd}^{sw}=E_𝐤n_𝐤+B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}n_𝐤m_𝐪+\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪m_𝐪$$
(11)
$`n_𝐤=c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤,m_𝐪=b_𝐪^{}b_𝐪,`$ (12)
$`E_𝐤=zt\gamma _𝐤,B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}={\displaystyle \frac{zt}{2SN}}(\gamma _𝐤\gamma _{𝐤+𝐪})`$ ()
Introducing the chemical potential $`\mu `$, one can write for the average number of the $`s`$ electrons with the quasimomentum k:

$$<n_𝐤>=\frac{F}{E_𝐤},F=T\mathrm{ln}Z_{de}$$
(13)
$`Z_{de}={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{n,m\}}{}}\mathrm{exp}\{\beta [(E_𝐤\mu )n_𝐤+`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪m_𝐪+B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}n_𝐤m_𝐪]\}`$ (15)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐪}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪)}}+`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mu E_𝐤)]}{1\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪+B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪})]}}\},\beta ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}.`$ ()
One obtains from Eqs.(8) and (9):

$`<n_𝐤>=`$ (17)
$`\left\{1+\mathrm{exp}[\beta (E_𝐤\mu )]{\displaystyle \frac{_𝐪\{1\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪+B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪})]\}}{_𝐪[1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪)]}}\right\}^1`$ ()
It should be noted that

$$\underset{𝐪}{}[1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪)]=\mathrm{exp}(\beta F_m^0),$$

where

$$F_m^0=T\underset{𝐪}{}\mathrm{ln}[1\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪)]Nf(J,T)$$
(18)
is the magnon free energy in the absence of the conduction electrons.

Similarly, introducing the magnon free energy $`F_m^𝐤`$ in the presence of the $`s`$-electron with the quasimomentum $`𝐤`$,

$$F_m^𝐤=T\underset{𝐪}{}\mathrm{ln}\{1\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪+B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪})]\}$$
(19)
one can rewrite Eq.(10) :

$$<n_𝐤>=\left\{1+\mathrm{exp}[\beta (E_𝐤^r\mu )]\right\}^1,$$
(20)
$$E_𝐤^r=E_𝐤+F_𝐤^mF_0^m,$$
(21)
or, using Eq.(11) and keeping in mind the fact that $`B1/N`$:

$`E_𝐤^r=E_𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{zt}{2SN}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}\gamma _𝐤(1\gamma _𝐪)<m_𝐪>,`$ (22)
$`<m_𝐪>={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{exp}(\beta \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪)1}}.`$ ()
This corresponds to the temperature renormalization of the hopping integral:

$$t_{ef}(T)=t\left[1\frac{1}{2SN}(1\gamma _𝐪)<m_𝐪>\right],$$
(23)
Obviously, the quantity $`E_𝐤^r`$ represents the $`s`$-electron energy renormalized due to the electron-magnon interaction. As is seen from Eq.(15), the electron energy increases with temperature. As the energy of the holes is assumed to be temperature independent, this means that gap $`G(T)`$ becomes wider. On the contrary, the temperature decrease causes its narrowing. Using the standard terminology, the temperature shift of the conduction band bottom represents the red shift of the optical absorption edge $`\delta G(T)`$. This shift is proportional to $`T^{5/2}`$ for $`T<J=ISz`$ and to $`T`$ for $`T>J`$ (for the applicability of the spin-wave approximation in the latter case, spins should be large, $`2S1`$). With $`z`$ = 6, we have

$`\delta G(T)=G(T)G(0)=F_𝐤^mF_0^m`$ (24)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{t\zeta (3/2)}{16\pi ^{3/2}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{6T}{J}}\right)^{5/2},\mathrm{for}T<J,`$ ()
$$\delta G(T)=\frac{ztT}{2SJ}\mathrm{for}T>J.$$
(25)
where $`\zeta (x)`$ is the Riemann zeta-function.

As is seen from Eqs.(17), (18), the giant magnitude of the shift is a consequence of the fact that it is proportional to the $`s`$-electron bandwidth.

Comparing Eqs.(17) and (15), one sees that two different interpretations of the temperature dependence of the optical absorption edge are possible. The first of them is traditional and corresponds to the temperature dependence of the electron energy, which is obtained from Eq.(6) by averaging it over the magnons. Thereby an intuitive approach adopted in  is confirmed for the band electrons here. But the red shift can also be attributed to the change in the magnon free energy due to the electron excitation. In considering the impurity conductivity, one will see that only the latter approach is correct as it makes it possible to describe the temperature dependence of the electron discrete level correctly (see the paragraph after Eq.(27)).

## IV Charge carrier density in an impurity semiconductor

Now our task is to calculate the charge carrier density in an impurity semiconductor. The calculation begins with the magnon energy spectrum in the presence of an unionized donors. The main feature of the impurity samples is the fact that the electron of a unionized donor realizes an indirect exchange between $`d`$-spins. As the electron density diminishes exponentially with increasing distance from the impurity, the intensity of the indirect exchange diminishes in a similar manner.

For $`T=0`$ the electronic wave function can be found exactly in the effective mass approximation when the impurity has is the Coulomb potential. At higher temperatures the increased exchange will increase the magnetization in the vicinity of the impurity. The electron energy is the lower the higher the local magnetization. Hence an additional force appears which attracts the electron to the donor. Respectively, the effective Bohr radius should decrease, on increase in temperature. The problem can be solved by using a variational procedure for the free energy under condition that the donor electron be in the ground state with the hydrogen-like wave function

$$\psi (r)=\left(\frac{x^3}{\pi a_B^3}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{xr}{a_B}\right),a_B=\frac{2a^2tϵ}{e^2},$$
(26)
where $`x`$ is the variational parameter and $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant. The effective Bohr radius $`a_B/x`$ is assumed to be large comparing with the lattice constant $`a`$.

As is seen from the structure of the electron-magnon Hamiltonian (4) and from the form of the wave function (19), an exact treatment of the problem is impossible in this case. To obtain semiqualitative results, it is convenient to replace the nonuniform electron density distribution (19) by an uniform that with an average density $`3/4\pi \rho ^3`$ inside of the sphere of the radius $`\rho `$:

$$\rho =g\psi ^2(g)=\frac{3a_B}{2x},$$
(27)
Let us separate such a region from the totality of the magnetic atoms, and choose $`V`$ = const in the Hamiltonian $`H_I`$ (3) in such a way as to ensure the minimal $`s`$-electron energy $`E_I`$ to be equal to that value, which is obtained from the Hamiltonian $`H_I`$ with $`V(g)=e^2/ϵg`$ with the use of the trial wave function (19). At $`T0`$, when $`x=1`$,

$$E_IE_B=e^2/2ϵa_B$$
(28)
The relative number of the donors $`\nu `$ is assumed to be small. We can divide all regular magnetic atoms into those which enter spheres of radius $`\rho `$ surrounding donors and those which are outside these spheres (the number of the latter greatly exceeds the total number of the former).

Now the canonical transformation of the electron operators corresponding to sites inside the impurity region will be carried out:

$`a_𝐠={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_I}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐩𝐠})a_𝐩},`$ (29)
$`b_𝐠={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N_I}}}{\displaystyle \mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{𝐪𝐠})b_𝐪},`$ ()
$$N_I=\frac{4\pi \rho ^3}{3a^3}=\frac{9\pi }{2}\left(\frac{a_B}{xa}\right)^3.$$

We will use the expression for the conduction-electron-magnon Hamiltonian (6) and retain only terms corresponding to the lowest discrete levels in the Hamiltonian $`H_{sd}+H_I`$ (1), (3) with the donor potential $`V`$ = const. Then we arrive to the following Hamiltonian:

$`H=(E_I\mu ){\displaystyle n_{Ii}}+{\displaystyle (E_𝐤\mu )n_𝐤}+`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle B_{I𝐩}n_{Ii}m_{𝐩i}}+{\displaystyle B_{𝐤,𝐤+𝐪}n_𝐤m_𝐪}`$ (31)
$`+{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪m_𝐪}+{\displaystyle \mathrm{\Omega }_𝐩m_{𝐩i}},`$ ()
$$B_{I𝐩}=\frac{zt}{2SN_I}(1\gamma _𝐩),$$
(32)
where $`m_{𝐪,i}`$ and $`m_𝐪`$ are the magnon operators for the $`i`$-th sphere and outside the spheres, which surround donors, respectively. Since the magnon number operators for different donor regions and outside them are constructed of magnon operators $`b_𝐠^{}`$ and $`b_𝐠`$ with different $`𝐠`$, all the operators $`m_{𝐪,i}`$ and $`m_𝐪`$ are independent.

Further, $`n_{I,i}`$ and $`n_𝐤`$ are the operators for an electron in the localized state at the donor $`i`$ and for the delocalized electrons outside the spheres with the quasimomentum $`𝐤`$, respectively.

It should be noted that Eq.(23) is also valid for degenerate semiconductors and leads to the well-known equation for the magnon frequencies in them

$$\omega _𝐪=\mathrm{\Omega }_𝐪+\frac{zt}{2SN}\underset{𝐤}{}\gamma _𝐤(1\gamma _𝐪).$$

One ascribes usually this equation to Furukawa , though in reality it was first obtained by the present author .

The mean number of electrons at a donor is calculated in the same manner as in Eqs.(8) to (14). It is given by the expression (the index of the donor is omitted):

$$<n_I>=\{1+\mathrm{exp}[(E_I+\delta F_{mI}(T)\mu )/T]\}^1,$$
(33)
$$\delta F_{mI}(T)=F_{mI}F_{mI}^0=N_I[f(J_I,T)f(J,T)]$$
(34)
where $`F_{mI}`$ and $`F_{mI}^0`$ are the magnon free energies for a region of radius $`\rho `$ containing an unionized and ionized donor, respectively. The magnon free energy $`f(J,T)`$ is given by Eq.(11) and the quantity $`f(J_I,T)`$ differs from it by the replacement of the $`dd`$ superexchange integral $`J`$ by the total impurity exchange integral $`J_I`$. The latter includes the contribution from both $`dd`$ superexchange and indirect exchange via the $`s`$-electron (24):

$$J_I=J+\frac{zta^3x^3}{9\pi Sa_B^3}.$$
(35)
Obviously, the quantity $`\delta F_{mI}`$ describes the temperature shift of the donor level. This shift differs strongly from that obtained from a Hamiltonian of the electron-magnon interaction similar to Eq.(6) by its averaging over the magnons. Really, as the quantity $`B_{I𝐩}`$ (24) is not asymptotically small, one cannot restrict oneself to a linear approximation in it. Hence, a generally correct interpretation of the temperature shift of the donor level is as follows: it is the difference between the magnon free energies resulting from the donor ionization. This resolves the dilemma formulated in the end of Section 3.

Equating the number of ionized donors determined from Eq.(25) to the total number of the conduction electrons (13), we find an expression for the charge carrier density $`n_{cc}`$ for the quadratic dispersion relation $`E_𝐤=tk^2a^2=k^2/2m`$:

$$n_{cc}=(nn_{eff})^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}[E_A(T)/2T],n_{eff}=\frac{(mT)^{3/2}}{2\sqrt{2\pi }}$$
(36)
$$E_A(T)=E_I+\delta (T),\delta (T)=\delta F_{mI}(T)\delta G(T),$$

where $`n_{eff}`$ is the effective density of states in the conduction band, and $`n=\nu /a^3`$ is the donor density. It should be recalled that $`E_I(0)=E_B`$ is negative.

It can be ascertained that the activation energy for the charge carrier density $`[E_A(T)/2]`$ in Eq.(28) increases with temperature in the spin-wave region (Fig. 2). First, it should be noted that for very large $`a_B`$ the temperature dependence of $`E_A`$ disappears since the expansion of $`f(J_I,T)`$ in the powers of $`1/a_B^3`$ gives an expression for $`\delta F_{mI}`$, which coincides with $`\delta G(T)`$. For smaller $`a_B`$, if the second term in Eq.(26) dominates, then one can neglect $`F_{mI}`$ in Eq.(26), i.e. $`\delta (T)=N_If(J)\delta G(T)`$.

According to Eq.(11), the first term, which describes the temperature shift of the donor level, is positive and has a value of order $`N_IJ(T/J)^y`$. The quantity $`y(T)`$ decreases from 5/2 to 1 with increasing temperature. According to Eqs.(17), (18), the second term, which describes the optical gap shift, is negative and of the order of $`(W/S)(T/J)^y`$.

As $`WJS`$, the quantity $`\delta (T)`$ should be negative with its absolute value increasing with temperature. This means that the activation energy in Eq.(28) increases with temperature. In this case, its temperature dependence is almost completely determined by the shift of the optical absorption gap $`\delta G(T)`$.

Physically, this effect can be explained as follows. The donor electron realizes the ferromagnetic indirect exchange in the vicinity of the impurity. For this reason the ferromagnetic coupling there is stronger than on the average over the crystal. Hence, with increasing temperature, the local ferromagnetic ordering degree in the donor vicinity decreases more slowly than on the average over the crystal. But the electron energy is the lower the higher is the degree of the ferromagnetic ordering. As a result, the donor level depth increases with the temperature in the spin-wave region. This fact can cause appearance of a maximum in the charge carrier density at a certain temperature $`T_m`$. According to Eq.(28), its condition is

$$E_I+\delta (T_m)=T_m\frac{d\delta (T_m)}{dT}.$$
(37)
It should be noted that some experimentalists  pointed out that the activation energy in the ferromagnetic semiconductors must be temperature-dependent, and a condition of the type of Eq.(29) was proposed for the density maximum. But no expression for the quantity $`\delta `$ was obtained by them.

Below the explicit formula for this quantity will be used. If, in accordance with Eqs.(17), (18), in the low temperature range one puts $`\delta WT^y/SJ^y`$ with $`y=5/2`$, then

$$T_mJ\left[\frac{E_BS}{W}\right]^{2/5},$$
(38)
where $`E_B`$ is given by Eq.(21). As $`WE_B`$, this means that the maximum charge carrier density is reached still in the spin-wave region below $`T=J`$ in accordance with the choice of $`n`$ made above. It manifests itself as a resistivity minimum.

This maximum assumes existence the subsequent charge carrier density minimum, as at elevated temperatures the ferromagnetic ordering is destroyed, and $`<n_{cc}(T)>`$ should increase with temperature exponentially (Fig. 1). This is nothing else as a qualitative proof of the existence of the resistivity peak at temperatures higher than the resistivity minimum. Physically, such a nonmonotonic behavior of $`<n_{cc}(T)>`$ can be explained by the fact that, on increase in temperature, after destruction of the ferromagnetic ordering far from impurities, its destruction close to the impurities begins. Hence the donor level rises. As the conduction band bottom band remains fixed at such temperatures, the donor level depth decreases, and the rate of the temperature growth for the $`<n_{cc}(T)>`$ increases (Fig. 2). But, as these processes take place at temperatures of order of the Curie point, their analytical treatment is hardly possible at present.

In particular, at temperatures comparable with the Curie point, one should take the ferron effect into account: the electron is dragged in by the region of the enhanced magnetization and simultaneously supports it, realizing the ferromagnetic indirect exchange inside it. This process decreases the donor free energy and hence the charge carrier density. In the paramagnetic region, such a state of a donor was investigated in  for non-double exchange systems. For the double exchange systems it is not investigated yet. But in the spin-wave region one can take the ferron effect into account if one considers temperatures sufficiently low, when the term $`\delta F_{mI}`$ in the total free energy can be considered as a perturbation. As follows from Eqs.(3), (19), (26), the free energy of a system containing a donor has the form

$$F_I(x)=E_B(x^22x)+\delta F_{mI}.$$
(39)
Then the optimum value of $`x`$ is

$$x=1\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\delta F_{mI}(1)}{dx}.$$
(40)
The free energy coincides with the quantity $`F_I(1)`$ virtually used above up to the second order in ($`x1`$). The parameter $`x`$ increases with temperature, and the electron orbital radius $`a_B/x`$ decreases as should be the case.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Grant No. 01-02-97010 of the Moscow Region Government - Russian Foundation for Basic Research, by Grant INTAS-97-open-30253, and by the agreement with the Russian Ministry of Science and Industry.