text:
# I introduction

## I introduction

The use of smeared or fat links in staggered fermion actions has gained popularity in recent years due to the improved flavor symmetry these actions possess Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2001); Orginos et al. (1999); Lepage (1999). Smeared links are naturally part of most systematic improvement programs and many overlap fermion formulations as well Hasenfratz et al. (2001); DeGrand (2001). The main difficulty that limits the use of smeared link fermions is their potential complexity in dynamical simulations. Unless the smeared links are linear combinations of the original thin links the explicit form of the fermionic force needed for standard molecular dynamics simulations is very complicated, making the HMC or R algorithms impractical or even impossible. A recently proposed update for smeared link dynamical fermionsKnechtli and Hasenfratz (2001); Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2002) avoids this problem by creating a sequence of configurations by updating a subset of the gauge links by a pure gauge heat bath or over relaxation step. The proposed configuration is accepted or rejected according to the change in the fermionic determinant. In fact one does not even have to evaluate the change in the determinant, a stochastic estimator can be used instead. That requires no more than the evaluation of the inverse fermion matrix on a Gaussian random source vector.

The above outlined algorithm can fail in two ways. First, if the ratio of the fermionic determinants is small, the acceptance rate is small. The algorithm can also fail if the stochastic estimator gives a poor approximation of the determinant, making the autocorrelation time of the simulation (i.e. the number of independent Gaussian random sources needed to get a good estimate for the determinant) very large. In this paper we discuss systematic ways to improve the stochastic estimator. With the improved estimator we calculate the ratio of fermionic determinants as the function of the number of links updated with a heat bath step, and show that it remains close to one even if the updated volume is large. We illustrate and test the method using staggered fermions with HYP smeared gauge links though the generalization to any other smeared link action is straightforward.

## II The HYP action and its dynamical update

In this section we define the HYP action and briefly summarize the partial-global updating technique. We consider a smeared link action of the form

$$S=S_g(U)+\overline{S}_g(V)+S_f(V)$$
(1)
where $`S_g(U)`$ and $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ are gauge actions depending on the thin links $`\{U\}`$ and smeared links $`\{V\}`$, respectively, and $`S_f`$ is the fermionic action depending on the smeared links only. The updating method and all its improvements that we discuss in this paper would work with any kind of smeared links $`\{V\}`$, though the efficiency suffers if the smeared links are not smooth enough. In our work we use HYP smeared links with staggered fermions. The HYP links are optimized non-perturbatively to be maximally smooth. The construction and properties of HYP smearing are discussed in detail in Ref. Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2001).

We use a plaquette gauge action for $`S_g(U)`$

$$S_g(U)=\frac{\beta }{3}\underset{p}{}\text{Re}\text{Tr}(U_p).$$
(2)
We choose $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ to improve computational efficiency and we will discuss our specific choice in Sect. III.C. The staggered fermionic matrix is defined in the usual way

$$M(V)_{i,j}=2m\delta _{ij}+\underset{\mu }{}\eta _{i,\mu }(V_{i,\mu }\delta _{i,j\widehat{\mu }}V_{i\widehat{\mu }\mu }^{}\delta _{i,j+\widehat{\mu }}).$$
(3)
The matrix $`M^{}(V)M(V)`$ is block diagonal on even and odd lattice sites. In the following we will denote the even block by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(V)=(M^{}(V)M(V))_{even,even}$$
(4)
and define the fermionic action as

$$S_f(V)=\frac{n_f}{4}\text{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }(V)$$
(5)
to describe $`n_f`$ flavors of staggered fermions. In the following we consider $`n_f=4`$ flavors but we will briefly describe the generalization to arbitrary flavors at the end of Sect. III.B.

In Refs. Knechtli and Hasenfratz (2001); Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2002) a partial-global heat bath and over relaxation updating method was proposed to simulate the system described by Eq. 1. In this paper we are not concerned about the update itself, but to motivate our interest in calculating the fermionic determinant ratios we briefly summarize the main points of the method. In the first step of the update one changes a subset of the thin links $`\{U\}`$ to propose a new thin gauge link configuration $`\{U^{}\}`$. The new links are chosen with a heat bath or over relaxed update that satisfies the detailed balance condition with the thin link gauge action $`S_g(U)`$. The smeared links $`\{V\}`$ and $`\{V^{}\}`$ are unique once the thin links are defined. Next the proposed configuration is accepted with the probability

$$P_{\mathrm{acc}}=\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{exp}(\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}(\mathrm{V}^{})+\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}(\mathrm{V}))\frac{det(\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{V}^{}))}{det(\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{V}))}\}.$$
(6)
The ratio of the determinants can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{det(\mathrm{\Omega }(V^{}))}{det(\mathrm{\Omega }(V))}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝑑\xi \xi ^{}\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(V^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(V)\xi )}{𝑑\xi \xi ^{}\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}\xi )}}`$
$`=`$ $`<\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }^1(V^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(V)1]\xi )>_{\xi ^{}\xi }`$ . (7)
The expectation value can be evaluated stochastically where on every gauge configuration pair $`\{U\}`$ and $`\{U^{}\}`$ only one random source $`\xi `$ is used to estimate the determinant ratio and the expectation value is taken together with the configuration ensemble average. That leads to the stochastic acceptance probability

$$P_{\mathrm{stoch}}=min\{1,e^{\overline{S}_g(V^{})+\overline{S}_g(V)}e^{\xi ^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }^1(V^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(V)1]\xi }\}.$$
(8)
## III Improving the partial-global update

The success of the partial-global updating algorithm depends on two things. First, on the ratio of the determinants of the new and old links, and next on the effectiveness of the stochastic estimator. If the stochastic estimator fluctuates wildly, it can reduce the acceptance rate to practically zero even if the change in the determinant is actually small. In the following we will discuss improving the stochastic estimator first.

### III.1 Improving the stochastic estimator

To calculate the acceptance probability we have to calculate the ratio of the determinants

$$\stackrel{1}{det}(A)=\frac{det\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{det\mathrm{\Omega }}=<\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}[A1]\xi )>_{\xi ^{}\xi }=<\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }S_f)>$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }(V)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }(V^{})`$ denote the old and new fermionic matrix, $`A=\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\xi `$ is a Gaussian random source vector. The standard deviation of this stochastic estimation can be written as

$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`<\mathrm{exp}(2\xi ^{}[A1]\xi )>_{\xi ^{}\xi }<\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}[A1]\xi )>_{\xi ^{}\xi }^2`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{1}{det}(2A1)\stackrel{2}{det}(A).`$
Eq. 10 is valid only if the matrix $`2A1`$ is positive definite. If the matrix $`A`$ has even one eigenvalue that is less than or equal to 1/2, the formula in Eq. 10 is not valid, the standard deviation is infinite. There is no a priori reason to assume that the matrix $`A`$ has no small eigenvalues. This is a very serious problem that could make the stochastic estimator useless in dynamical calculations. If the fermionic matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ are close, i.e. only a few links are changed in the update, $`A=\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{\Omega }1`$ and consequently $`det(A)1`$ and $`det(2A1)1`$ as well. However for an effective updating method we would like to change the configuration at as many links as possible, which makes the occurrence of a small eigenvalue likely. In the following we propose a 2-step solution that can always be used to handle the small eigenvalues in $`A.`$

First we follow the program of Refs.Knechtli and Hasenfratz (2001); Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2002); Hasenbusch (1999) and replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ by reduced matrices

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_r=\mathrm{\Omega }e^{2f(\mathrm{\Omega })},\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}e^{2f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}$$
(11)
with $`f`$ a yet to be determined polynomial . We can rewrite eq. 9 as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{det\mathrm{\Omega }^{}}{det\mathrm{\Omega }}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{det\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{}}{det\mathrm{\Omega }_r}}\mathrm{exp}(2\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})f(\mathrm{\Omega })))`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`<\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_r^1\mathrm{\Omega }_r1]\xi )>_{\xi ^{}\xi }\mathrm{exp}(2\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})f(\mathrm{\Omega }))).`$
Since $`Trf`$ can be calculated exactly, only the first factor of the last expression is evaluated stochastically. Its fluctuations are minimized if $`A_r=\mathrm{\Omega }_r^1\mathrm{\Omega }_r1`$. It is difficult to optimize the polynomial $`f`$ both for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ at the same time, instead we choose $`f`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^11`$. That also guarantees $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r1`$. Since for staggered fermions the eigenvalues of the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ can vary between $`4m^2`$ and $`16+4m^2`$, we choose the polynomial $`f`$ such the the function $`e^{2f(x)}/x`$ is close to one in that range. In practice we use a third order polynomial

$$f(x)=\alpha _0+\alpha _2x+\alpha _4x^2+\alpha _6x^3$$
(13)
and choose the coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ by minimizing the function

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=_{4m^2}^{16+4m^2}(\frac{1}{x}e^{2f(x)}1)^2\rho (x)𝑑x.$$
(14)
The weight function $`\rho (x)`$ should approximate the eigenvalue density distribution of the fermionic matrix. We used a linear approximation for $`\rho `$

$`\rho (x)`$ $`=`$ $`x,x(4m^2,8+4m^2)`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`16+8m^2x,x(8+4m^2,16+4m^2)`$
and considered mass values $`m=0.010.1`$. We have also tried more complex forms for the eigenvalue density that included higher order terms, all motivated by free field calculations. The results were not very sensitive to the specific choice of $`\rho `$. We do not want to change the $`\alpha `$ parameters depending on the quark mass of the simulation so we decided to use the following values in all cases

$`\alpha _0`$ $`=`$ $`0.34017`$
$`\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.35645}`$
$`\alpha _4`$ $`=`$ $`0.030379`$
$`\alpha _6`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0.000957}.`$ (16)
The eigenvalues of the reduced matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ span a smaller range than the original fermionic matrix. At mass $`am=0.1`$ the smallest eigenvalue is increased from $`4m^2=0.04`$ to about $`0.08`$, while the ratio of the largest to smallest eigenvalue is reduced from $`(16+4m^2)/4m^2400`$ to about 14. At $`am=0.04`$ the increase in the smallest eigenvalue is from $`0.0064`$ to $`0.0125`$, while the reduction in the ratio of the largest to smallest eigenvalue is from 2,500 to about 95.

When expressed in terms of the reduced matrices the acceptance probabilities of Eqs. 6,8 contain a new gauge-action like term

$`P_{\mathrm{acc}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}+2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{f})<\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{r}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{r}1]\xi )>_{\xi ^{}\xi }\}`$
$`P_{\mathrm{stoch}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}+2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{f})\mathrm{exp}(\xi ^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{r}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{r}1]\xi )\}`$ (17)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{S}_g=\overline{S}_g(V^{})\overline{S}_g(V)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }f=\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})f(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$. To calculate the expression $`\xi ^{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_r^1\mathrm{\Omega }_r1]\xi `$ requires multiplications with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$, and with the reduction factors $`\mathrm{exp}(2f(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(2f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}))`$. The exponentials can be expanded in a Taylor series and approximated with a few terms. In Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2002) we found that it was sufficient to keep only 15 terms. Later we will argue that it is better to replace $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^1`$ themselves with a finite order polynomial.

To complete the evaluation of the determinant and acceptance probabilities we still have to calculate the trace of $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. $`\text{Tr}f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be expressed as the combination of the plaquette and the three 6-link loops of the smeared links $`V.`$ It is a fairly straightforward calculation giving

$`\text{Tr}f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ $`=`$ $`(8\beta _4+336\beta _6){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n+`$ (18)
$`12\beta _6[{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n+`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n\delta _{N_t,6}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}P_n]+\mathrm{const},`$
where the summation is over all distinct objects in the lattice. $`P_n`$ is the Polyakov line that gives a contribution on lattices of size $`N=6`$. Lattices that are smaller than 5 in any direction would have additional contribution of length-6 overlapping loops. Eq. 18 is not valid in that case. The coefficients $`\beta `$ are related to the quark mass and the optimized $`\alpha `$ parameters of Eq. 16 as

$`\beta _0`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _0+\alpha _24m^2+\alpha _4(4m^2)^2+\alpha _6(4m^2)^3`$
$`\beta _2`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _2\alpha _424m^2\alpha _63(4m^2)^2`$
$`\beta _4`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _4+\alpha _634m^2`$
$`\beta _6`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _6.`$ (19)
In Ref. Knechtli and Hasenfratz (2001) we used a similar reduction using a second order polynomial for $`f.`$ There we determined the $`\alpha _2`$ and $`\alpha _4`$ coefficients by trial and error attempting to maximize the acceptance rate in Eq. 6. The values we obtained there are consistent with what we would determine now with the minimization procedure. Increasing the order of the reduction polynomial further gives only slight improvement but would require the evaluation of $`\text{Tr}\mathrm{\Omega }^4`$ and higher order terms in $`\text{Tr}f`$, a considerable computational task.

The polynomial reduction of the fermionic matrix results in considerable improvement in the evaluation of the determinant ratio but it is not sufficient to guarantee that the standard deviation of the stochastic estimator is finite or small. To achieve that we now proceed to rewrite the reduced fermionic determinant ratio as

$`\stackrel{1}{det}A_r`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{n}{det}A_r^{1/n}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`<\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{j}=1}{\overset{\mathrm{n}}{}}}\xi _\mathrm{j}^{}[\mathrm{A}_\mathrm{r}^{1/\mathrm{n}}1]\xi _\mathrm{j})>_{\xi _\mathrm{j}^{}\xi _\mathrm{j}}`$
with n an arbitrary positive integer. The expectation value is evaluated with n independent $`\xi _j`$ random vectors and the standard deviation becomes

$$\sigma ^2=\stackrel{n}{det}(2A_r^{1/n}1)\stackrel{2}{det}(A_r).$$
(21)
$`\sigma ^2`$ is finite if none of the eigenvalues of the matrix $`A_r`$ is smaller than or equal to $`2^n`$. This is a much easier condition to satisfy then the one before. With the reduced matrix, assuming that the smallest eigenvalue of $`A_r`$ is not smaller than the product of the smallest eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^1`$, $`n=4`$ is sufficient to guarantee the finiteness of the standard deviation at $`am=0.1,`$ and $`n=8`$ is sufficient at $`am=0.04`$. For small standard deviation one might need to use larger $`n`$ values, but with any mass $`am0`$ and matrix $`A_r`$ it is possible to choose $`n`$ such that the standard deviation is finite and small. The cost of this improvement is that we have to evaluate the expression $`\xi ^{}(A_r^{1/n}1)\xi `$ n times for one estimate of the determinant.

The nth root of the matrix $`A_r`$ can be approximated with polynomials to arbitrary precision Montvay (1996, 1998). Since the order of the matrices in the determinant are irrelevant, we write the nth root of the matrix as

$$A_r^{1/n}=\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2n}\mathrm{\Omega }_{r}^{1/n}\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2n}.$$
(22)
We found that breaking up $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{}^{1/n}`$ to two identical terms and separating them with the less singular $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{1/n}`$ improves the stochastic estimator. The terms $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{1/n}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{}^{1/2n}`$ are approximated with polynomials

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}_r^{1/2n}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}{}_{}{}^{1/2n}\mathrm{exp}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})/n)=`$ $`P_l^{(2n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{}),`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^{1/n}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/n}\mathrm{exp}(2f(\mathrm{\Omega })/n)=`$ $`Q_k^{(n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (23)
where $`P_l^{(2n)}`$ and $`Q_k^{(n)}`$ are $`l`$ and $`k`$ order polynomials of the fermionic matrices $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. To reduce the errors of the polynomial approximation we write the exponent in the stochastic estimator as

$$\xi ^{}[A_r^{1/n}1]\xi =\xi ^{}P_l^{(2n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})Q_k^{(n)}(\mathrm{\Omega })P_l^{(2n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\xi \xi ^{}P_l^{(2n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})Q_k^{(n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})P_l^{(2n)}(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\xi .$$
(24)
The necessary order for the polynomials $`P`$ and Q vary with the quark mass but we found that in most cases fairly low orders are sufficient.

At this point the generalization of the partial-global updating method to arbitrary flavor number is straightforward. To describe $`n_f`$ flavors we have to replace the determinant ratio in Eq. 6 by its $`n_f/4`$th power. That can be easily done by summing up to $`\frac{n_f}{4}n`$ only in Eq. 20. The polynomials $`P`$ and Q do not have to be changed and smaller $`n`$ will be sufficient for the same standard deviation of the determinant.

### III.2 Calculating the determinant ratio

To illustrate the improved estimator, in this section we calculate the ratio $`det(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})/det(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ for a specific configuration pair. We chose $`\{U\}`$ from a configuration set that was generated with the HYP dynamical action at $`\beta =5.2`$, $`am=0.1`$, and $`\overline{S}_g(V)=0`$. The scale at these parameter values is $`r_0/a=3.0(1)`$ and $`m_\pi /m_\rho 0.8`$ Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2002). We updated 300 random links of $`\{U\}`$ with a heat bath step corresponding to a $`\beta =5.2`$ plaquette gauge action to create the $`\{U^{}\}`$ configuration. To calculate the determinant ratio we use Eq. 12 with $`f=0`$, with the improved $`f`$ given in Eqs. 13, 16, and also using the formula of Eq. 20 with $`n=8`$ and the improved $`f.`$ We calculate the expectation value using 500-1500 random vectors.

Figure 1 shows the stochastic estimator for the three cases. One could not guess from the figure that the three estimators describe the same quantity. The naive $`f=0`$ estimator is 15 orders of magnitude smaller than the improved ones. How is that possible? The average $`<e^{\mathrm{\Delta }S_f}>`$ will be the same for all three estimators, but for the naive one the average will come from many almost zero values and an occasional large one. That occasional large value is so rare that we did not even encounter it in 500 samples. The improved estimator with $`n=1`$ looks much more reliable and it predicts

$$\frac{det(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{det(\mathrm{\Omega })}=0.81(12),n=1.$$
(25)
The estimator with $`n=8`$ is even better. With only a third of the statistics of the $`n=1`$ case it predicts the determinant ratio as

$$\frac{det(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})}{det(\mathrm{\Omega })}=0.77(2),n=8.$$
(26)
That does not mean that the acceptance rate of the partial-global update is close to 80% if we update 300 links at a time. The acceptance rate is better described by the expectation value

$`<\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{S}_\mathrm{f}}\}>_{\xi ^{}\xi }=`$ $`0.32(1),`$ $`n=1,`$
$`=`$ $`0.65(1),`$ $`n=8.`$ (27)
One should remember that the above values correspond to a specific pair of configurations. Before calculating the determinant ratio on an ensemble of configurations we first discuss a modification of the gauge action.

### III.3 Choosing the gauge action $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$

In the previous chapter we showed how to remove the most singular part of the inverse fermion matrix by multiplying it with a factor $`\mathrm{exp}(2f(\mathrm{\Omega }))`$. The change in the fermion determinant is compensated by the additional term $`\mathrm{exp}(2\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})f(\mathrm{\Omega })))`$ in the stochastic estimator that can be calculated exactly. With $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ a third order polynomial $`\text{Tr}f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a combination of the plaquette and 6-link loops of the smeared links as given in Eq. 18. While it is straightforward to evaluate $`f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$, it is not a completely negligible computational cost. On the smeared link lattice the plaquette and the 6-link loops are very correlated and $`\text{Tr}f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be approximated by the plaquette term only, thus reducing the computational overhead. In general we choose the gauge action $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ as

$$\overline{S}_g(V)=2\text{Tr}f(\mathrm{\Omega })12\beta _6\delta _{N_t,6}\underset{n}{}\text{Re}\text{Tr}P_n\frac{\gamma }{3}\underset{n}{}\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n.$$
(28)
Here we have included the Polyakov line term explicitly, i.e. $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ is the combination of the 4 and 6-link gauge loops only, it contains no loops closed because of the periodicity of the lattice. Like before, this action should not be used if in any direction the lattice is smaller than 5. With this choice for $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ the gauge term in the acceptance probability in Eq. 17 simplifies to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{S}_g+2\mathrm{\Delta }f=12\beta _6\delta _{N_t,6}\underset{n}{}(\text{Re}\text{Tr}P_n^{}\text{Re}\text{Tr}P_n)+\frac{\gamma }{3}\underset{n}{}(\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}_n^{}).$$
(29)
We can choose the coefficient $`\gamma `$ to account for the $`2\text{Tr}f(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ term, or even better, we can choose it to maximize the determinant ratios and the acceptance rate. Then we not only avoid the computation of the term $`\mathrm{exp}(2\text{Tr}(f(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})f(\mathrm{\Omega })))`$ in Eq. 17 but can also increase the efficiency of the updating algorithm.

When we write the gauge action as $`S_g(U)+\overline{S}_g(V)`$, we break up the gauge term into two pieces. We use the first term $`S_g(U)`$ in the heat bath update and include the second one, $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$, in the accept-reject term. Such a break-up usually lowers the acceptance rate, especially if the second term fluctuates considerably. With the choice of Eq. 28 $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ actually cancels an other fluctuating term, $`2\mathrm{\Delta }f`$, and the algorithm should get more efficient. The introduction of the plaquette term proportional to $`\gamma `$ could compromise the efficiency. Since the smeared plaquette term does not fluctuate much, a small $`\gamma `$ coefficient does not harm the acceptance rate much. How should we choose the coefficient $`\gamma `$? According to Ref. Hasenfratz and Knechtli (2002) the HYP action with $`\overline{S}_g(V)=0`$ at $`\beta =5.2`$, $`am=0.1`$ has lattice spacing $`a0.17`$fm. In the global heat bath update the links of the configurations are updated with a pure gauge action of gauge coupling $`\beta =5.2`$. The pure gauge configurations at this coupling are very different form the dynamical configurations. The correlation length that characterizes the large distance behavior is much smaller on the pure gauge configurations. At short distances the average plaquette on the dynamical configurations is $`<\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}>_{dyn}=1.45`$ while on the pure gauge configurations the average plaquette is much smaller, $`<\text{Re}\text{Tr}\text{}>_{\beta =5.2}=1.30`$. The gauge action that we use to create new configurations does not match the dynamical action neither at long nor at short distances. One would expect that the partial-global update is most effective when the pure gauge configurations of the heat bath step are close to the dynamical configurations. This suggests that in order to maximize the efficiency of the partial-global update we can try to match the short and/or long distance fluctuations of the heat bath and dynamical actions. To match the short distance fluctuations we can require that the average plaquette of the heat bath update action and the dynamical action are close. This condition requires different $`\gamma `$ coupling at different quark masses and gauge coupling values but choosing

$$\gamma =0.1$$
(30)
offers a good compromise. The choice $`\gamma =0.0`$ is not much worse and leads to a somewhat simpler action, but in the following we will use $`\gamma =0.1`$. By construction now the small scale fluctuations of the pure gauge heat bath action and of the dynamical action are about the same. The modification also improves the matching of the large distance correlations. With the new action, in order to reproduce the lattice spacing $`a=0.17`$fm of the $`\beta =5.2,`$ $`am=0.1`$, $`\overline{S}_g(V)=0`$ action, we have to choose the gauge coupling $`\beta =5.65`$ while keeping $`am=0.1`$. The lattice spacing of the pure gauge model at $`\beta =5.65`$ is almost $`0.17`$fm, a very good agreement. At smaller quark masses the same lattice spacing requires a smaller gauge coupling $`\beta `$ suggesting that a slightly larger $`\gamma `$ value would be the optimal one. At this point we feel that the difference is not significant to justify a quark mass dependent coupling.

By choosing the gauge action $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ according to Eq. 28 we modify the dynamical action. This modification will not affect the perturbative properties of the smeared link action as the terms in $`\overline{S}_g(V)`$ are independent of the thin link gauge coupling and will become negligible in the continuum limit. At finite lattice spacing the new terms could change the scaling behavior of the system and their effect should be investigated.

## IV Determinant ratios with the modified action

In this chapter we investigate the fermionic determinant ratios on configurations generated with the modified action of Eqs. 28, 30. We will use two sets of configurations. Both sets contain about 100 $`8^324`$ lattices. The first one was created at $`\beta =5.65`$, $`am=0.1`$ and has lattice spacing $`a=0.17`$fm ($`r_0/a=2.95(5)`$) and $`m_\pi /m_\rho 0.70`$. The second set is at couplings $`\beta =5.55`$, $`am=0.04`$ with lattice spacing $`a=0.17`$fm ($`r_0/a=2.88(6)`$) and $`m_\pi /m_\rho 0.55`$. On both sets we created pairs of configurations by updating a random subset of the original thin links with a heat bath step corresponding to the thin link pure gauge couplings, i.e. $`\beta =5.65`$ and $`\beta =5.55`$. On each pair we calculated the modified determinant ratio $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{S}_g)det^1(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)`$ using Eqs. 7,20,24 with 400(800) random source vectors with $`n=4`$(8) break-up of the determinant, i.e. we estimated the determinant value from 100 independent measurements on each configuration pair.

We calculated the determinant both with relatively small order polynomials (order 16 to 32) and higher order polynomials (order 64 to 128) to monitor possible systematical errors. The difference between the small and higher order approximations is small and well within the errors of the final results. The numbers we present here were obtained with the higher order polynomials.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the modified determinant ratios on 80 configuration pairs from set I. The histogram of figure 2/a corresponds to determinant ratios on configuration pairs that differ at 3000 links. The solid lines shows the distribution measured with $`n=8`$, the dotted lines with $`n=4`$ determinant break-up. The two measurements are consistent predicting

$$<e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{S}_g}\stackrel{1}{det}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)>_{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{I}}=0.80(13),t_{HB}=3000$$
(31)
for the determinant and

$$<\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{1}{det}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)\}>_{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{I}}=0.54(5),\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{HB}}=3000$$
(32)
for the acceptance rate as defined in Eq. 6. While the $`n=4`$ and $`n=8`$ measurements agree in their prediction of the determinant ratios, they differ considerably in their standard deviation. The average standard deviation as defined in Eq. 21 of the $`n=4`$ calculation is $`\sigma _{n=4}=3.5(8)`$ while for $`n=8`$ it is $`\sigma _{n=8}=1.8(3)`$. The standard deviation of the determinant measurement can influence the autocorrelation time of a simulation as that depends both on the effectiveness of the gauge update and on the error of the stochastic estimator. A factor of two increase in the standard deviation of the determinant could require up to a factor of four increase in the number of stochastic estimators, increasing the autocorrelation time accordingly. The extra computational cost of breaking the determinant up to $`n=8`$ instead of $`n=4`$ parts could be easily compensated with the reduced autocorrelation time. Whether it is worth using even larger number of terms should be investigated at different quark masses separately.

With the heat bath update we change a random set of links of given direction and parity. On an $`8^324`$ configuration a maximum of 6144 links can be changed at once. In figure 2/b we show the modified determinant ratio distribution when we update all 6144 links of a randomly chosen direction and parity. This result was obtained with $`n=8`$ break-up. The average of the determinant ratios

$$<e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{S}_g}\stackrel{1}{det}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)>_{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{I}}=0.71(10),t_{HB}=6144,$$
(33)
and the acceptance rate as defined in Eq. 6

$$<\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{1}{det}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)\}>_{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{I}}=0.44(4),\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{HB}}=6144$$
(34)
are not much different from the previous $`t_{HB}=3000`$ values, though the average standard deviation is worse, $`\sigma _{n=8}=2.7(6)`$. To us this is a surprising result: on a 10fm<sup>4</sup>, $`8^324`$ lattice we can perform a heat bath update on all the links in a given direction and parity, the maximum that can be updated on this volume simultaneously, and accept this change with close to 50% probability. The configuration average of the stochastic acceptance rate $`<P_{\mathrm{stoch}}>_U`$ of Eq. 8 is not that high. Figure 3 compares the average stochastic acceptance rate as the function of the links touched in the heat bath update both for $`n=4`$ and $`n=8`$ determinant break-up and the acceptance rate from the determinant as defined in Eq. 6. With $`n=8`$ the stochastic acceptance rate is close to 20% if $`t_{HB}=6144`$ and about 30% if $`t_{HB}=3000`$. The stochastic acceptance rate with $`n=4`$ is somewhat lower. Even though these values are smaller than the maximal ones predicted by the determinants themselves, they are still quite large. What parameters would provide the best choice in an actual simulation depends on many things: the number of links that effectively change in an update step, the cost of increasing the breakup of the determinant, and on the autocorrelation time of the simulation. The study of these questions is beyond the scope of the present paper and we will return to them in a future publication.

Figures 4 and 5 are the same as figures 2/a and 3 but for configuration set II. Most fermionic methods lose some efficiency at smaller quark masses and the stochastic estimator is no exception. While the average of the determinant ratios

$$<e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{S}_g}\stackrel{1}{det}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)>_{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{II}}=0.8(2),t_{HB}=3000,$$
(35)
is not much different from the set I configurations, the acceptance rate as defined in Eq. 6 is smaller

$$<\mathrm{min}\{1,\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{S}}_\mathrm{g}}\stackrel{1}{det}(\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }^1)\}>_{\mathrm{set}\mathrm{II}}=0.35(7),\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{HB}}=3000.$$
(36)
Whether this decrease is due to the smaller quark mass or reflects the fact that the pure gauge heat bath action does not match the dynamical action well is worth further investigation. To match the stochastic acceptance rate of set I with $`n=4`$ determinant break-up we have to use $`n=8`$ on set II as figure 5 shows.

## V Conclusion

In this paper we proposed an improved method to calculate the fermionic determinant of dynamical configurations. The method is very general but relies on the smoothness of smeared gauge links. To test the method we considered dynamical configurations, updated a large subset of their links with a pure gauge heat bath step, and calculated the ratios of the fermionic determinants on the old and new configurations. We found that even if all the links of a given direction and parity of an $`8^324`$, 10fm<sup>4</sup>, $`m_\rho /m_\pi =0.7`$ configuration are updated at once, (6144 links in all), the fermionic determinant ratio is still fairly large and such a change would be accepted by a Metropolis accept-reject step with about 50% probability. Using only a single stochastic estimator for the determinant reduces the acceptance rate to 20% but still offers an effective update. On configurations with smaller quark masses the stochastic estimator loses some efficiency. When $`m_\rho /m_\pi =0.55`$ only about half that many links can be updated at one time with 20% stochastic acceptance rate though the determinants stay about the same as with larger quark masses.

We have not used the fully improved method in dynamical simulations yet, nor did we optimize all its parameters. The optimization requires tuning the parameters of the action and calculating autocorrelation times with different determinant break-up and updating steps. This work is in progress and the results will be reported in a forthcoming publication.

###### Acknowledgements.

A. H. would like to thank the hospitality of the Institute of Nuclear Theory, University of Washington at Seattle, where part of this work was carried out. She is particularly indebted to Prof. I. Montvay who not only shared his polynomial fitting code but gave valuable help and advice in modifying it for this project. We received useful comments regarding this manuscript from Profs. T. DeGrand and P. Hasenfratz. A.H. benefited from many inspiring conversations with Francesco Knechtli.


format: text

text:
# Möbius transformations, the Carathéodory metric, and the objects of complex analysis and potential theory in multiply connected domains

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f_b`$ denote the Riemann mapping function associated to a point $`b`$ in a simply connected planar domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Everyone knows that $`f_b`$ is the solution to an extremal problem; it is the holomorphic map $`h`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the unit disc such that $`h^{}(b)`$ is real and as large as possible. Everyone also knows that all the maps $`f_b`$ can be expressed in terms of a single Riemann map $`f_a`$ associated to a point $`a\mathrm{\Omega }`$ via

$$f_b(z)=\lambda \frac{f_a(z)f_a(b)}{1f_a(z)\overline{f_a(b)}}$$

where the unimodular constant $`\lambda `$ is given by

$$\lambda =\frac{\overline{f_a^{}(b)}}{|f_a^{}(b)|}.$$

In this paper, I shall prove that the solutions to the analogous extremal problems on a finitely multiply connected domain in the plane, the Ahlfors mappings, can be expressed in terms of just two fixed Ahlfors mappings. Many similarities with the formula above in the simply connected case will become apparent and I will explore some of the algebraic objects that present themselves. A byproduct of these considerations will be that the infinitesimal Carathéodory metric on a multiply connected domain is simply a rational combination of two Ahlfors maps times one of their derivatives. I will explain an outlook which reveals a natural way to view the extremal functions involved in the definition of the Carathéodory metric “off the diagonal” in such a way that they extend to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

I will also investigate the complexity of the classical Green’s function and Bergman kernel associated to a multiply connected domain. In particular, it is proved in §6 that if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a finitely connected domain in the plane such that no boundary component is a point, then there exist two Ahlfors maps $`f_a`$ and $`f_b`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the Bergman kernel for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$$K(w,z)=\frac{f_a^{}(w)\overline{f_a^{}(z)}}{(1f_a(w)\overline{f_a(z)})^2}\left(\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_j(w)\overline{H_k(z)}\right),$$

where the functions $`H_j`$ are rational combinations of the two Ahlfors maps $`f_a`$ and $`f_b`$. Future avenues of research include the problem of extending these results to finite Riemann surfaces and the problem to determine the way the rational functions that arise in these formulas depend on the domain.

## 2. The smooth case

To get started, we shall assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bounded $`n`$-connected domain in the plane with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth boundary consisting of $`n`$ non-intersecting curves. (Later, we shall consider general $`n`$-connected domains such that no boundary component is a point.) Let $`S(z,w)`$ denote the Szegő kernel associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see  or  for definitions and standard terminology in what follows).

Fix a point $`a`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ so that the $`n1`$ zeroes $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}`$ of $`S(z,a)`$ in the $`z`$-variable are distinct simple zeroes. (That such points $`a`$ form an open dense subset of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ was proved in .) Let $`a_0`$ be equal to $`a`$. I proved in \[4, Theorem 3.1\] that the Szegő kernel can be expressed in terms of the $`n+1`$ functions of one variable, $`S(z,a)`$, $`f_a(z)`$, and $`S(z,a_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ via the formula

(2.1)
$$S(z,w)=\frac{1}{1f_a(z)\overline{f_a(w)}}\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}c_{ij}S(z,a_i)\overline{S(w,a_j)}$$

where $`f_a(z)`$ denotes the Ahlfors map associated to $`(\mathrm{\Omega },a)`$ and the coefficients $`c_{ij}`$ are given as the coefficients of the inverse matrix to the $`n\times n`$ matrix $`\left[S(a_j,a_k)\right]`$. A similar formula for the Garabedian kernel was proved in ,

(2.2)
$$L(z,w)=\frac{f_a(w)}{f_a(z)f_a(w)}\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}c_{ij}S(z,a_i)L(w,a_j),$$

where the constants $`c_{ij}`$ are the same as the constants in (2.1).

Given a point $`w\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the Ahlfors map $`f_w`$ associated to the pair $`(\mathrm{\Omega },w)`$ is a proper holomorphic mapping of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the unit disc. It is an $`n`$-to-one mapping (counting multiplicities), it extends to be in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$, and it maps each boundary curve of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one-to-one onto the unit circle. Furthermore, $`f_w(w)=0`$, and $`f_w`$ is the unique function mapping $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the unit disc maximizing the quantity $`|f_w^{}(w)|`$ with $`f_w^{}(w)>0`$. The Ahlfors map is related to the Szegő kernel and Garabedian kernel via (see \[2, page 49\])

(2.3)
$$f_w(z)=\frac{S(z,w)}{L(z,w)}.$$

When equations (2.1) and (2.2) are substituted into (2.3), we obtain the monstrosity

$$f_w(z)=\frac{f_a(z)f_a(w)}{f_a(w)(1f_a(z)\overline{f_a(w)})}\frac{_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(z,a_i)\overline{S(w,a_j)}}{_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(z,a_i)L(w,a_j)}.$$

Next, divide the numerator and the denominator of the second quotient in this expression by $`S(z,a)S(w,a)`$ and multiply the whole thing by one in the form of $`\overline{S(w,a)}/\overline{S(w,a)}`$ to obtain

$$f_w(z)=\frac{f_a(z)f_a(w)}{f_a(w)(1f_a(z)\overline{f_a(w)})}\left(\frac{_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}\frac{S(z,a_i)}{S(z,a)}\overline{S(w,a_j)}/\overline{S(w,a)}}{_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}\frac{S(z,a_i)}{S(z,a)}L(w,a_j)/S(w,a)}\right)\frac{\overline{S(w,a)}}{S(w,a)}.$$

It is not hard to show that $`f_a(z)`$ and quotients of the form $`S(z,a_i)/S(z,a)`$ and $`L(z,a_i)/S(z,a)`$ extend to the double $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ as meromorphic functions (see \[6, p. 6\]). Since the argument is quick and simple, we give it here. Let $`R(z)`$ denote the antiholomorphic reflection function on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ which maps $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ into the reflected copy of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Note that $`f_a(z)`$ is equal to $`1/\overline{f_a(z)}`$ on $`b\mathrm{\Omega }`$, which is equal to $`1/\overline{f_a(R(z))}`$ there. Hence, the holomorphic function $`f_a(z)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the meromorphic function $`1/\overline{f_a(R(z))}`$ on the complement of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ both extend continuously up to $`b\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and have the same values there. Hence $`f_a`$ extends meromorphically to the double. Similar reasoning can be applied to the quotients as follows. The Garabedian kernel is related to the Szegő kernel via the identity

(2.4)
$$\frac{1}{i}L(z,a)T(z)=S(a,z)\text{for }zb\mathrm{\Omega }\text{ and }a\mathrm{\Omega }\text{,}$$

where $`T(z)`$ denotes the complex number of unit modulus pointing in the tangent direction at $`zb\mathrm{\Omega }`$ chosen so that $`iT(z)`$ represents an inward pointing normal vector to the boundary. Hence, $`S(z,a_i)/S(z,a)`$ is equal to the conjugate of $`L(z,a_i)/L(z,a)`$ on the boundary and the same reasoning used above for $`f_a`$ shows that $`S(z,a_i)/S(z,a)`$ extends to the double meromorphically. Similarly $`L(z,a_i)/S(z,a)`$ is equal to the conjugate of $`S(z,a_i)/L(z,a)`$ on the boundary and this shows that $`L(z,a_i)/S(z,a)`$ extends to the double meromorphically.

It is proved in  that it is possible to choose a second Ahlfors map $`f_b`$ so that $`f_a`$ and $`f_b`$ generate the field of meromorphic functions on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. (Such a pair is called a primitive pair, see  and ). Hence, we have now shown that there exists a rational function on $`^6`$ such that

(2.5)
$$f_w(z)=\lambda (w)R(f_a(z),f_b(z),f_a(w),f_b(w),\overline{f_a(w)},\overline{f_b(w)})$$

where $`\lambda (w)`$ is the unimodular function given by

$$\lambda (w)=\overline{S(w,a)}/S(w,a).$$

This formula is very reminiscent of the formula for the Riemann maps mentioned at the beginning of this paper. It now becomes irresistible to drop the factor $`\lambda (w)`$ from equation (2.5) and to define a function $`F(z,w)`$ via

$$F(z,w)=f_w(z)/\lambda (w).$$

Let us call this function the alternatively normalized Ahlfors map. Under this normalization, the map $`zF(z,w)`$ has a derivative at $`w`$ with extremal modulus, however the argument of the derivative is $`\mathrm{arg}\lambda (w)`$ there instead of zero. This family of extremal maps has the astonishing feature that it extends in a unique way to $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ as a complex rational function of $`f_a(z)`$, $`f_b(z)`$, and $`f_a(w)`$, $`f_b(w)`$, $`\overline{f_a(w)}`$, $`\overline{f_b(w)}`$. Furthermore, this extension is meromorphic in $`z`$ and real analytic in $`w`$. One might also glimpse some semblance of an analogue of a Möbius function in these deliberations and we shall come back to this point later in the paper.

Another important consequence of formula (2.5) is that the infinitesimal Carathéodory metric can be expressed in terms of two Ahlfors maps. In fact, it is shown in \[7, p. 344\] that the quotient $`f_b^{}(z)/f_a^{}(z)`$ extends to be meromorphic on the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and is therefore a rational combination of $`f_a(z)`$ and $`f_b(z)`$. Hence, if we differentiate (2.5) with respect to $`z`$ and take the modulus of the expression, we obtain that $`|f_w^{}(z)|`$ is given by $`|f_a^{}(z)|`$ times the modulus of a rational function of $`f_a(z)`$, $`f_b(z)`$, $`f_a(w)`$, $`f_b(w)`$, $`\overline{f_a(w)}`$, and $`\overline{f_b(w)}`$. Now, if we set $`w=z`$, we may conclude that the infinitesimal Carathéodory metric is given by $`\rho (z)|dz|`$ where

$$\rho (z)=|f_a^{}(z)|\left|Q(f_a(z),f_b(z),\overline{f_a(z)},\overline{f_b(z)})\right|,$$

where $`Q`$ is a rational function on $`^4`$.

Many questions present themselves at this point. The formula above for the infinitesimal Carathéodory metric almost looks exact. Might there exist special multiply connected domains where the Carathéodory metric could be computed as easily as it is in the unit disk? Another natural question to ask is whether or not similar formulas hold for finite Riemann surfaces. Ahlfors mappings are available in this setting, but the relationship between these maps and the kernel functions used in the proof in the planar case are not as straightforward. New methods of proof would have to be discovered.

## 3. The nonsmooth case

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is merely an $`n`$-connected domain in the plane such that no boundary component is a point. It is well known that there is a biholomorphic mapping $`\varphi `$ mapping $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ one-to-one onto a bounded domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$ in the plane with smooth real analytic boundary. The standard construction yields a domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$ that is a bounded $`n`$-connected domain with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth boundary whose boundary consists of $`n`$ non-intersecting simple closed real analytic curves. Let subscript or superscript $`a`$’s indicate that a kernel function or mapping is associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a`$. Kernels without sub or superscripts are associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is well known that the function $`\varphi ^{}`$ has a single valued holomorphic square root on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (see \[2, p. 43\]). We define the Szegő kernel and Garabedian kernel associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ via the natural transformation formulas,

$$S(z,w)=\sqrt{\varphi ^{}(z)}S_a(\varphi (z),\varphi (w))\overline{\sqrt{\varphi ^{}(w)}}$$

and

$$L(z,w)=\sqrt{\varphi ^{}(z)}L_a(\varphi (z),\varphi (w))\sqrt{\varphi ^{}(w)}.$$

The Ahlfors map associated to a point $`b\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is defined to be the solution to the extremal problem, $`f_b:\mathrm{\Omega }D_1(0)`$ with $`f_b^{}(b)>0`$ and maximal. It is easy to see that Ahlfors maps satisfy

$$f_b(z)=\lambda f_{\varphi (b)}^a(\varphi (z))$$

for some unimodular constant $`\lambda `$ and it follows that $`f_b(z)`$ is a proper holomorphic mapping of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto $`D_1(0)`$. It also follows that $`f_b(z)`$ is given by $`S(z,b)/L(z,b)`$ just as in the smooth case. Now it is easy to see that all the quotients that appeared in the proofs of the results of §2 are invariant under $`\varphi `$ and the proofs carry over line for line. We may now state the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an $`n`$-connected domain in the plane such that no boundary component is a point. There exist two points $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the alternatively normalized Ahlfors map $`F(z,w)`$ associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a complex rational function of $`f_a(z)`$, $`f_b(z)`$, and $`f_a(w)`$, $`f_b(w)`$, $`\overline{f_a(w)}`$, $`\overline{f_b(w)}`$. Furthermore, the family of Ahlfors mappings is given by formula (2.5) and the infinitesimal Carathéodory metric is given by $`\rho (z)|dz|`$ where

$$\rho (z)=|f_a^{}(z)|\left|Q(f_a(z),f_b(z),\overline{f_a(z)},\overline{f_b(z)})\right|,$$

where $`Q`$ is a rational function on $`^4`$.

## 4. What is a Möbius transformation?

Here is one way to “invent” Möbius transformations. Let $`p(z)`$ denote an irreducible polynomial of one variable with no zeroes in the unit disc, i.e., let $`p(z)=zb`$ where $`|b|>1`$. Notice that $`p(1/\overline{z})`$ is equal to $`p(z)`$ on the unit circle. Let $`q(z)`$ denote the polynomial obtained by multiplying the conjugate of $`p(1/\overline{z})`$ by the power of $`z`$ needed to clear the poles in the unit disc, i.e., $`q(z)=1z\overline{b}`$. Since $`|q(z)|=|\overline{z}p(1/\overline{z})|`$, it follows that $`|q(z)|=|p(z)|`$ on the unit circle. Notice that $`q(z)/p(z)`$ is a Möbius transformation (let $`b=1/\overline{a}`$ to make it look more standard).

It is shown in  that every proper holomorphic mapping of a smooth $`n`$-connected domain $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the unit disk can be expressed as a rational combination of two Ahlfors maps $`f_a`$ and $`f_b`$ associated to points $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. It is an interesting problem to determine just exactly which rational functions arise in this manner, and it is tempting to call some of these rational functions Möbius transformations. Here is one way to construct such a rational function. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$ denote the unit bidisc. Let $`p(z,w)`$ denote an irreducible polynomial of two variables with no zeroes in the closure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Notice that $`p(1/\overline{z},1/\overline{w})`$ is equal to $`p(z,w)`$ on the distinguished boundary of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Suppose $`N`$ is the degree of $`p(z,w)`$ in $`z`$ and $`M`$ is the degree in $`w`$. Let $`q(z,w)`$ be the polynomial given by $`z^Nw^M`$ times the conjugate of $`p(1/\overline{z},1/\overline{w})`$. Since $`q(z,w)`$ and $`p(z,w)`$ have the same modulus on the distinguished boundary of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$, and since $`|z^Nw^M|=1`$ there, it follows that the modulus of $`q(z,w)/p(z,w)`$ is also one there. It follows that, if it is not constant, $`q(f_a(z),f_b(w))/p(f_a(z),f_b(w))`$ is a proper holomorphic mapping of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ onto the unit disc.

More generally, the same construction can be carried out if $`p(z,w)`$ is an irreducible polynomial on $`^2`$ which does not vanish on the portion of the curve $`z(f_a(z),f_b(z))`$ inside the closed unit bidisc. Can any proper map from $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to the unit disc be expressed in a similar manner, perhaps as some kind of combination of these basic maps?

## 5. The Poisson kernel extends nicely to the double

Of course the Poisson kernel extends to the double by simple reflection. Here we show that it extends nicely in both variables and in terms of some special functions with geometric meaning.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bounded $`n`$-connected domain in the plane with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth boundary consisting of $`n`$ non-intersecting curves. Let $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{n1}`$ denote the inner curves and let $`\gamma _n`$ denote the outer curve.

The classical Poisson kernel for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is related to the normal derivative of the Green’s function via

$$p(z,w)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{}{n_w}G(z,w)z\mathrm{\Omega },wb\mathrm{\Omega },$$

where $`(/n_w)`$ denotes the normal derivative in the $`w`$ variable. It is a standard fact that we may rewrite this last formula (see \[2, pages 134-136\]) in the form

$$p(z,w)=\frac{i}{\pi }\frac{}{w}G(z,w)T(w).$$

It is proved in \[4, p. 1367\] (see also \[6, p. 12\] for an easier proof) that the derivative of the Green’s function $`G_w(z,w):=\frac{}{w}G(z,w)`$ is given by

(5.1)
$$G_w(z,w)=\pi \frac{S(w,z)L(w,z)}{S(z,z)}+i\pi \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\omega _j(z)\lambda _j(z)\right)u_j(w),$$

where the functions $`\lambda _j(z)`$ are given by

$$\lambda _j(z)=_{w\gamma _j}\frac{|S(w,z)|^2}{S(z,z)}𝑑s,$$

the functions $`\omega _j(z)`$ are the harmonic measure functions, and the functions $`u_j`$ are a basis for the linear span $`^{}`$ of the functions $`F_j^{}:=2(\omega _j/z)`$ normalized so that

$$\delta _{kj}=_{\gamma _k}u_j(w)𝑑w.$$

We now show that the principal term $`\frac{S(w,z)L(w,z)}{S(z,z)}`$ in the expression for $`G_w(z,w)`$ has the interesting property that it extends to the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in the $`z`$ variable as a real analytic function that is a rational combination of two Ahlfors maps $`f_a(z)`$ and $`f_b(z)`$ and their conjugates. Indeed, if we substitute equations (2.1) and (2.2) into this expression, we obtain that

(5.2)
$$\frac{S(w,z)L(w,z)}{S(z,z)}=T_1(z,w)T_2(z,w)$$

where

$$T_1(z,w)=\frac{(1|f_a(z)|^2)f_a(z)}{(f_a(w)f_a(z))(1f_a(w)\overline{f_a(z)})}$$

and

$$T_2(z,w)=\frac{\left(_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(w,a_i)\overline{S(z,a_j)}\right)(_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(w,a_i)L(z,a_j),)}{_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(z,a_i)\overline{S(z,a_j)}}.$$

The first term extends to the double as a real analytic function because $`f_a`$ does. If we divide the numerator and denominator of the second term by $`|S(z,a)|^2`$, we observe that the numerator is a linear combination of functions which are given as products of $`L(z,a_n)/S(z,a)`$ times the conjugate of $`S(z,a_m)/S(z,a)`$ times $`S(w,a_q)S(w,a_k)`$. As mentioned previously, the functions $`S(z,a_m)/S(z,a)`$ and $`L(z,a_n)/S(z,a)`$ extend meromorphically to the double, and hence can be expressed as rational functions of two Ahlfors maps $`f_a(z)`$ and $`f_b(z)`$. The denominator is a linear combination of functions given as the product of $`L(z,a_n)/S(z,a)`$ times the conjugate of $`S(z,a_m)/S(z,a)`$. Hence, it has these properties, too, in the $`z`$ variable.

We have shown that, for fixed $`w`$, the function of $`z`$ given by $`S(w,z)L(w,z)/S(z,z)`$ is a rational combination of two Ahlfors maps $`f_a(z)`$ and $`f_b(z)`$ and their conjugates.

We now claim that functions of the form

$$S(w,a_q)S(w,a_k)/f_a^{}(w)$$

extend meromorphically to the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Indeed, since identity (2.4) yields that $`S(w,a_q)S(w,a_k)T(w)`$ is equal to the conjugate of $`L(w,a_q)L(w,a_k)T(w)`$ for $`w`$ in the boundary and since $`T(w)f_a^{}(w)/f_a(w)`$ is equal to the conjugate of $`T(w)f_a^{}(w)/f_a(w)`$, we may use similar reasoning to that in \[5, p. 202\] and divide these two expressions to see that $`S(w,a_q)S(w,a_k)f_a(w)/f_a^{}(w)`$ extends meromorphically to the double. Since $`f_a(w)`$ extends to the double, the claim is proved. Now, if we were to divide the large expression for $`S(w,z)L(w,z)/S(z,z)`$ above by $`f_a^{}(w)`$, we would deduce that

$$\frac{S(w,z)L(w,z)}{f_a^{}(w)S(z,z)}$$

is a rational combination of the two functions $`f_a(w)`$ and $`f_b(w)`$, and the four functions $`f_a(z)`$ and $`f_b(z)`$ and their conjugates.

It is proved in  that there exist $`n1`$ points $`w_j`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the functions

$$(\omega _k(z)\lambda _k(z))$$

are linear combinations of functions of $`z`$ of the form

$$G_w(z,w_j)\pi \frac{S(w_j,z)L(w_j,z)}{S(z,z)}.$$

The function $`G_w(z,w_j)`$ is harmonic in $`z`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }\{w_j\}`$ and vanishes on the boundary. Hence, it extends to the double as a harmonic function with two singular points. The function $`S(w_j,z)L(w_j,z)/S(z,z)`$ has been shown to extend to the double. Since $`F_j^{}(w)T(w)`$ is equal to the conjugate of $`F_j^{}(w)T(w)`$ on the boundary, the same reasoning used above yields that functions of the form

$$F_j^{}(w)/f_a^{}(w)$$

extend meromorphically to the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We may now state that $`G_w(z,w)`$ is given as $`f_a^{}(w)`$ times a rational combination of the two functions $`f_a(w)`$ and $`f_b(w)`$, and the four functions $`f_a(z)`$ and $`f_b(z)`$ and their conjugates plus a linear combination of the functions $`G_w(z,w_j)`$ times rational combinations of $`f_a(w)`$ and $`f_b(w)`$. In symbols,

$`G_w(z,w)`$ $`=`$ $`f_a^{}(w)R_0(f_a(w),f_b(w),f_a(z),f_b(z),\overline{f_a(z)},\overline{f_b(z)})`$
$`+f_a^{}(w){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}G_w(z,w_j)R_j(f_a(w),f_b(w))`$
where the functions $`R_0`$ and $`R_j`$ are rational. All the functions that comprise $`G_w(z,w)`$ extend nicely to the double except $`f_a^{}(w)`$.

The results of this section can be generalized to $`n`$-connected domains with non-smooth boundaries in the same way as in §3, but we shall not do this here.

## 6. Linearizing the Green’s function and Bergman kernel

In the simply connected case, the Green’s function is related to a Riemann map $`f(z)`$ by the very simple formula

$$G(z,w)=\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{f(z)f(w)}{1f(z)\overline{f(w)}}\right|.$$

In the multiply connected setting, the Green’s function is also related to Ahlfors maps, but it is not clear if the Green’s function can be expressed naturally in terms of maps. We saw some tantalizing evidence in the last section that there might be such an expression. In this section, I give some further evidence which leads me to believe that maybe such an expression exits. This evidence fits nicely into the subject matter of this paper because a genuine Möbius transformation is a key ingredient.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a multiply connected domain with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-smooth boundary and let $`f(z)`$ denote an Ahlfors map associated to $`(\mathrm{\Omega },a)`$ that has simple zeroes. Let $`(z,w)`$ denote the function

$$\mathrm{ln}\left|\frac{f(z)f(w)}{1\overline{f(z)}f(w)}\right|.$$

We want to investigate the boundary behavior of the quotient $`G(z,w)/(z,w)`$ as $`z`$ and $`w`$ are both allowed to approach the boundary. First assume that $`z`$ is a fixed point in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and let $`w`$ approach the boundary. Both the numerator and the denominator extend $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smoothly in $`w`$ to the boundary and the Hopf Lemma reveals that both terms vanish to first order along the boundary. Hence, the quotient extends $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-smoothly up to the boundary in $`w`$ and the limit is given (by L’Hôpital’s rule) as the quotient of the normal derivatives $`(/n_w)`$ in the $`w`$ variable. Recall that

$$\frac{}{n_w}G(z,w)=2iG_w(z,w)T(w).$$

Since $``$ is also a real valued harmonic function that vanishes on the boundary, the same reasoning that yields this identity can be applied to the normal derivative of $`(z,w)`$ to obtain

$$\frac{}{n_w}(z,w)=2i_w(z,w)T(w)=\frac{f^{}(w)(1|f(z)|^2)T(w)}{i(f(w)f(z))(1\overline{f(z)}f(w))}.$$

Notice the similarity of this expression with $`T_1(z,w)`$ in formula (5.2). We may now divide these two normal derivatives and use (5.1) and (5.2) to obtain that

$$\frac{(/n_w)G(z,w)}{(/n_w)(z,w)}=\frac{if(z)}{f^{}(w)}T_2(z,w)+T_3(z,w)$$

where

$$T_2(z,w)=\frac{\left(_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(w,a_i)\overline{S(z,a_j)}\right)(_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(w,a_i)L(z,a_j),)}{_{i,j=0}^{n1}c_{ij}S(z,a_i)\overline{S(z,a_j)}}.$$

and

$$T_3(z,w)=\frac{i(f(w)f(z))(1\overline{f(z)}f(w))}{f^{}(w)(1|f(z)|^2)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}i\pi \left(\omega _j(z)\lambda _j(z)\right)u_j(w).$$

Although this formula is painful to look at, a moment of suffering reveals that the right hand side can be written as a sum of simple terms to yield that

(6.1)
$$\frac{(/n_w)G(z,w)}{(/n_w)(z,w)}=\underset{j}{}\mu _j(z)h_j(w)$$

where each of the functions $`\mu _j`$ extend to the double as real analytic functions and each of the functions $`h_j(w)`$ extend to the double as meromorphic functions. (Note that here we have used the fact proved earlier that $`u_j/f^{}`$ extends to the double as a meromorphic function.) I view this formula as a linearization or polarization of the Poisson kernel. I take this opportunity to state a theorem.

###### Theorem 6.1.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bounded finitely connected domain in the plane with $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ smooth boundary. The Green’s function associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ satisfies an identity of the form

$$\frac{}{w}G(z,w)=\frac{}{w}(z,w)\underset{j}{}\mu _j(z)h_j(w)$$

where each $`\mu _j`$ extends to be real analytic on the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and each $`h_j`$ extends to be meromorphic on the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

We note that we have proved this identity when $`z`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`w`$ is in the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, but since the functions of $`w`$ in the expression are all meromorphic, the identity extends to hold for all $`w`$ in $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

We now continue to deal with equation (6.1) and we assume that $`w`$ is back in the boundary and we let the $`z`$ variable tend to a boundary point other than $`w`$ to obtain

$$\frac{(^2/n_zn_w)G(z,w)}{(^2/n_zn_w)(z,w)}=\frac{(^2/\overline{z}w)G(z,w)}{(^2/\overline{z}w)(z,w)}=\frac{if(z)}{f^{}(w)}T_2(z,w)+T_4(z,w),$$

where $`T_2(z,w)`$ is as above, but $`T_4(z,w)`$ is given by

$$T_4(z,w)=\frac{i(f(w)f(z))(1\overline{f(z)}f(w))}{f^{}(w)}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\nu _j(z)u_j(w),$$

where $`\nu _j(z)`$ is equal to the limit of $`i\pi \left(\omega _j(z)\lambda _j(z)\right)/(1|f(z)|^2)`$ as $`z`$ tends to the boundary. Since $`(^2/\overline{z}w)G(z,w)`$ is equal to $`K(w,z)`$ and since $`(^2/\overline{z}w)(z,w)`$ is equal to

$$\frac{f^{}(w)\overline{f^{}(z)}}{(1f(w)\overline{f(z)})^2},$$

we deduce that

$$K(w,z)=\frac{f^{}(w)\overline{f^{}(z)}}{(1f(w)\overline{f(z)})^2}\left(\underset{j}{}\sigma _j(z)H_j(w)\right)$$

where the sum is finite and each function $`H_j(w)`$ extends to be meromorphic on the double of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We may assume that this sum has been collapsed so that the functions $`H_j(w)`$ are linearly independent on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We can now exploit the hermitian property of the Bergman kernel to easily deduce that the $`\sigma _j`$ functions are actually linear combinations of the conjugates of the $`H_j`$. Hence, we have proved that

$$K(w,z)=\frac{f^{}(w)\overline{f^{}(z)}}{(1f(w)\overline{f(z)})^2}\left(\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_j(w)\overline{H_k(z)}\right).$$

We have only shown that this identity holds on the boundary, but it is clear that it extends to the inside of the domain because all the functions that appear in the identity are meromorphic. We can now use the fact proved in  that the field of meromorphic functions on the double is generated by two Ahlfors maps to be able to state that the functions $`H_j`$ are rational combinations of two Ahlfors maps. We have operated under the assumption that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has smooth boundary. Finally, if $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does not have smooth boundary, we can map to a domain with smooth boundary and use the fact that the terms in the expression for $`K(z,w)`$ transform under biholomorphic mappings to obtain the following theorem.

###### Theorem 6.2.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a finitely connected domain in the plane such that no boundary component is a point. There exist two points $`a`$ and $`b`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that the Bergman kernel associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by

$$K(w,z)=\frac{f_a^{}(w)\overline{f_a^{}(z)}}{(1f_a(w)\overline{f_a(z)})^2}\left(\underset{j,k=1}{\overset{N}{}}H_j(w)\overline{H_k(z)}\right),$$

where the functions $`H_j`$ are rational combinations of the two Ahlfors maps $`f_a`$ and $`f_b`$.

There are many interesting questions that present themselves at this point. The rational functions that appear in the formula in Theorem 6.2 most likely satisfy an invariance property under biholomorphic mappings and have algebraic geometric significance. The functions $`\lambda _j`$ have many interesting properties. I wonder if they might be expressible as rational combinations of two Ahlfors maps and their conjugates. I also wonder if the Green’s function can be shown to have similar finite complexity to all the other kernel functions that have been studied in this paper, modulo some logarithmic expressions. It is also a safe bet that many of the results in this paper extend to the case of finite Riemann surfaces. I leave these investigations for the future.


text:
# GRADED LIE ALGEBRAS AND DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS

## Introduction

We consider a class of infinite-dimensional Lie algebras which is associated to dynamical systems with invariant measures. There are two constructions of the algebras – one based on the associative cross product algebra which considered as Lie algebra and then extended with nontrivial scalar two-cocycle; the second description is the specification of the construction of the graded Lie algebras with continuum root system in spirit of the papers of Saveliev-Vershik \[SV1, SV2, V\] which is a generalization of the definition of classical Cartan finite-dimensional algebras as well as Kac–Moody algebras. In the last paragraph we present the third construction for the special case of dynamical systems with discrete spectrum. The first example of such algebras was so called sine-algebras which was discovered independently in \[SV1\] and \[FFZ\] and had been studied later in \[GKL\] from point of view Kac–Moody Lie algebras. In the last paragraph of this paper we also suggest a new examples of such type algebras appeared from arithmetics: adding of $`1`$ in the additive group $`Z_p`$ as a transformation of the group of $`p`$-adic integers. The set of positive simple roots in this case is $`Z_p`$; Cartan subalgebra is the algebra of continuous functions on the group $`Z_p`$ and Weyl group of this Lie algebra contains the infinite symmetric group. Remarkably this algebra is the inductive limit of Kac–Moody affine algebras of type $`A_{p^n}^1`$.

## 1. Lie algebra generated by automorphism

### 1.1. Associative algebra $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$

Let $`(𝒳,\mu )`$ be a separable compactum with Borel probability measure $`\mu `$ which is positive for any open set $`A𝒳`$ and $`T`$ is a measure preserving homeomorphism of $`𝒳`$.

It is old and well-known construction of $`W^{}`$-algebra (von Neumann) and $`C^{}`$-algebra (Gel’fand) generated by $`(𝒳,\mu ,T)`$, see for example \[D, ZM\]. Algebraically this is an associative algebra $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ which is semidirect product of $`C(𝒳)`$ and $`C()`$ with the action of $``$ on $`𝒳`$ and consequently on $`C(𝒳)`$. As a linear space this is direct sum

$$𝒜(𝒳,T)=\underset{n}{}C(𝒳)U^n$$

where $`C(𝒳)`$ is Banach space of all continuous functions on $`𝒳`$, and $`U=U_T`$ is linear operator $`(U_Tf)(x)=f(Tx)`$, $`fC(𝒳)`$. The multiplication of the monomials is defined by formula

$$(\phi U^n)(\psi U^m)=(\phi U^n\psi )U^{n+m},n,m,\phi ,\psi C(𝒳).$$

Involution on $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ is the following:

$$(\phi U^n)^{}=(U^n\overline{\phi })U^n.$$

Completion of $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ with respect to the appropriate $`C^{}`$-norm gives a corresponding $`C^{}`$-algebra.

It is possible to include to this construction a 2-cocycle of the action of $``$ with values in $`C(𝒳)`$ to obtain another $`C^{}`$-algebra which are unsplittable extensions (see \[ZM, VSh\]), but we restrict ourself to the case of the trivial cocycle.

If we use a measure $`\mu `$ as a state on $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ and construct $``$-representation corresponding to this state then $`W^{}`$-closure of image of $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ gives us $`W^{}`$-algebra generated by triple $`(𝒳,\mu ,T)`$.

There are two classical representations of the algebra $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ — Koopmans representation (in $`L_\mu ^2(𝒳)`$) and von Neumann one in $`L_{\mu \times m}^2(𝒳\times )`$ ($`m`$ is Haar measure on $``$). This area called “algebraic theory of dynamical systems” and there are many papers on this. Extremally popular is so called rotation algebras (also called as ”quantum torus”) which is associative $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by irrational rotation of the unit circle.

We want to point out that there is another remarkable algebraic object which is associated with dynamical systems—some Lie algebras which are similar to the classical Cartan Lie algebras and to affine Kac-Moody algebras. Some nontrivial central extension included in the definition plays very imporatant role in the whole theory. Upto now only the Lie algebras corresponing to rotation algebras were considered; it was discovered independently in \[SV1\] and \[FFZ\] (see also \[GKL\] were the shift on d-dimensional torus was considered) and called by physisits ”sine algebras” - all those dynamical systems have a discrete spectrum,

In whole generality the Lie algebras generated by an arbitrary dynamical system with invariant measure was briefly defined in \[SV2\] and more systematically in \[V\]. It is interesting that we started not form the generaltheory of dynamical systems as in the first definition below but from the notions presented in our series of papers with M. Saveliev \[SV1, SV2\] were we had defined so called “$``$-graded Lie algebras with continuous root systems”. Those algebras which we will discuss here were one of the type of the examples and a special case of $``$-graded Lie algebras with general root systems. Below we will describe explicitly the modern and detailed version of the construction of Lie algerbas generated by an arbitrary discrete dynamical systems with invariant measure and then will give the link between various definitions. One can hope that this type of algebras can give a new type of invariants of the dynamical systems as well as new examples of calssical and quantum integrable systems.

### 1.2. Lie algebras $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$

Most interesting case is the case when $`T`$ is minimal (= each orbit of $`T`$ is dense in $`𝒳`$) and ergodic with respect to measure $`\mu `$ (= there are no nonconstant $`T`$-invariant measurable functions). We assume this in further considerations. It is known that if $`T`$ is minimal (=each $`T`$-orbit is dense in $`𝒳`$) then $`C^{}`$-algebra is simple (= has no proper two-sided ideals), see \[ZM\]. Algebra $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ with brackets

$$[a,b]=abba$$

will be denoted as $`\mathrm{Lie}𝒜(𝒳,T)`$; it is still $``$-graded Lie algebra and the brackets of monomials are

$$[\phi U^n,\psi U^m]=(\phi U^n\psi \psi U^m\phi )U^{n+m}.$$

This algebra has a center.

###### Lemma 1.

The center of $`\mathrm{Lie}𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ is the set of constants functions in zero component subspace: $`=cU^0`$, $`c`$. The complement linear subspace

$$𝒜_0(𝒳,T)=\underset{n<0}{}C(𝒳)U^nC_0(𝒳)U^0\underset{n>0}{}C(𝒳)U^n,$$

where $`C_0(𝒳)=\{\phi C_(𝒳):_𝒳\phi (x)d\mu =0\}`$, is Lie subalgebra which is isomorphic to quotient $`𝒜(𝒳,T)/`$ over center $``$.

###### Remark.

The center is not ideal of associative algebra consequently there is no “associative” analogue of this lemma and $`𝒜_0(𝒳,T)`$ is not a subalgebra of $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$.

Now we define a 2-cocycle on $`𝒜_0(𝒳,T)`$ with the scalar values and one-dimensional central expansion of it.

###### Lemma 2.

The following formula defines 2-cocycle on $`𝒜_0(𝒳,T)`$:

$$\alpha (\phi U^n,\psi U^m)=n_𝒳\phi U^n\psi 𝑑\mu \delta _{n+m},$$

so

$$\alpha (\phi U^n,\psi U^m)=\{\begin{array}{cc}n_𝒳\phi U^n\psi 𝑑\mu \hfill & \text{if }m=n,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }mn.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We need to check that $`\alpha ([x,y],z)+\alpha ([y,z],x)+\alpha ([z,x],y)=0`$. Let $`k+l+n=0`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha ([\phi U^k,\psi U^l],\gamma U^n)+\mathrm{}=\alpha ((\phi U^k\psi \psi U^l\phi )U^{k+l},\gamma U^{kl})+\mathrm{}=(k+l)_𝒳\left(\phi U^k\psi U^nU^n\gamma \psi U^l\phi U^n\gamma \right)𝑑\mu +\mathrm{}=0\hfill \end{array}$$

(Dots mean cyclic permutation of indices, we used here the invariance of measure $`\mu `$ under $`T`$.) ∎

###### Remark.

Cocycle $`\alpha `$ is not cohomologous to zero because it is easy to check that $`\alpha (x,y)`$ can not be represented as $`f([x,y])`$, with any linear functional $`f`$. of $`C(𝒳)`$.

Let us identify scalars $`c`$ which are extensions of $`𝒜_0(𝒳,T)`$ with scalars $`cC(𝒳)U^0𝒜(𝒳,T)`$. So we can consider again linear space $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ as one dimensional nontrivial extension of Lie algebra $`𝒜_0(𝒳,T)`$. Denote a new Lie algebra by $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$. So, Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ as linear space is the same as $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$ but the brackets in $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ differ from the brackets in $`𝒜(𝒳,T)`$:

(1)
$$[\phi U^n,\psi U^m]=(\phi U^n\psi \psi U^m\phi )U^{n+m}+_𝒳\phi U^n\psi 𝑑\mu \delta _{n+m}$$

It means that the center of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ is again scalars $`1C(𝒳)U^0\mathrm{Lie}𝒜(𝒳,T)`$, but now subspace $`𝒜_0(𝒳,T)`$ is not Lie subalgebra and the central extension is not trivial.

Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ is $``$-graded Lie algebra. We will give a new definition of it in a framework of Lie algebras with continuous root systems. We will call the subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ which consists of $`\mathrm{Span}\{\gamma U^1\}\mathrm{Span}\{\phi U^0\}\mathrm{Span}\{\psi U^1\}`$, $`\phi ,\psi ,\gamma C(𝒳)`$, a “local subalgebra”. Here are the brackets for local part of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ are

(2)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [\phi _1U^0,\phi _2U^0]& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill [\phi U^0,\psi U^{\pm 1}]& =\pm \left((\phi U\phi )\psi \right)U^{\pm 1}=\left((IU)\phi \psi \right)U^{\pm 1},\hfill \\ \hfill [\phi U^{+1},\psi U^1]& =(\phi U\psi \psi U\phi )U^0+_𝒳(\phi U\psi )𝑑\mu c.\hfill \end{array}$$

The middle term of local algebra ($`\{\phi U^0;\phi C(𝒳)\}`$) is by definition Cartan subalgebra.

This gives the first—“dynamical”—description of the Lie algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$.

### 1.3. Lie algebras with root system $`(𝒳,T)`$

Definition of Lie algebra will be followed to Kac–Moody pattern but with important changes. First of all we define a *local algebra*. Let $`\phi C(𝒳)`$; we consider three types of uncountably many generators: $`X_1(\phi )`$, $`X_0(\phi )`$, $`X_{+1}(\phi )`$ where $`\phi `$ runs over $`C(𝒳)`$. The list of relations is as follows:

(3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X_0(\phi ),X_0(\psi )]& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill [X_0(\phi ),X_{\pm 1}(\psi )]& =\pm X_{\pm 1}(K\phi \psi ),\hfill \\ \hfill [X_{+1}(\phi ),X_1(\psi )]& =X_0(\phi \psi ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where product ($``$) is the product in associative algebra $`C(𝒳)`$ and $`K`$ is a linear operator in $`C(𝒳)`$ which is called Cartan operator:

(4)
$$(K\phi )(x)=2\phi (x)\phi (Tx)\phi (T^1x).$$

It is evident that Jacobi identity is true (if it makes sense) in the local algebra

$$𝔄_1𝔄_0𝔄_{+1},$$

where $`𝔄_i=\mathrm{Span}\{X_i(\phi ),\phi C(𝒳)\}`$, $`i=1,0,+1`$. ($`𝔄_0C(𝒳)`$ is Cartan subalgebra.) The further steps are the same as in Kac–Moody theory \[K\].

We define free Lie algebra which is generated by the local algebra and factorize it over the maximal ideal which has zero intersection with $`𝔄_0`$. The resulting Lie algebra is denoted by $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$. The fact is that this algebra is the same as $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ of subsection 2.

We omit the verification that $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ is the graded Lie algebra with the graded structure (as a linear space) as follow

$$\underset{n}{}𝔄_n$$

and each $`𝔄_nC(𝒳)`$ (see \[V\]). So we can denote the elements of $`𝔄_n`$ as $`X_n(\phi )`$, $`\phi C(𝒳)`$.

###### Theorem 1.

The following formulas give the canonical isomorphism $`\tau `$ between $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ and dense part of $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \tau (\phi U^n)& =\{\begin{array}{cc}X_n(U^n\phi ),\hfill & (n>0)\hfill \\ X_0(\phi U^1\phi ),\hfill & n=0,_𝒳\phi 𝑑\mu =0\hfill \\ X_n(\phi )\hfill & (n>0)\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \hfill \tau (\mathrm{𝟏}U^0)& =X_0(\mathrm{𝟏}).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The kernel of $`\tau `$ is $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$. Let us check that $`\tau ([a,b])=[\tau a,\tau b]`$. It is enough to test monomials only.

$$\begin{array}{c}[\tau (\phi U^0),\tau (\psi U)]=[\phi U^1\phi )U^0,\psi U]\hfill \\ \hfill =\psi \left(\phi U^1\phi U(\phi U^1\phi )\right)U=(\psi K\phi )U\\ \hfill =X_{+1}(K\phi \psi )=\tau \left([\phi U^0,\psi U]\right);\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}[X_0(\phi ),X_1(\psi )]=[(\phi U^1\phi )U^0,U^1\psi U^1]\hfill \\ \hfill =\left(U^1\psi (\phi U^1\phi U^1\phi +U^2\phi )\right)U^1=\left(U^1(\psi (U\phi 2\phi +U^1\phi ))\right)U^1\\ \hfill =U^1(\psi K\phi )U^1=X_1(K\phi \psi );\end{array}$$

$$\begin{array}{c}[X_{+1}(\psi ),X_1(\gamma )]=[\psi U,U^1\gamma U^1]\hfill \\ \hfill =(\psi \gamma U^1\gamma U^1\psi )U^0=\left(\psi \gamma U^1(\psi \gamma )\right)U^0=X_0(\psi \gamma );\end{array}$$

$$[X_{+1}(\mathrm{𝟏}),X_1(\mathrm{𝟏})]=cX_0(\mathrm{𝟏})=c\mathrm{𝟏}.$$

###### Remark.

1. We calculated the bracket only for elements of local algebra, but this is enough because it generates all algebra.

2. The $`\tau `$-image of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ is not all $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ but dense part of $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$, for example, the set of functions $`\phi U\phi `$ is dense in $`C_0(𝒳)`$ only, but $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ is the extension of the image of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$ and we can consider $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ as some kind of completion of $`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$. 3. Using isomorphisms $`\tau `$ we can rewrite the definition of cocycle of $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ ($`\tau (\phi U^n)=X_n(U^n\phi )`$, $`n>0`$) so

$$\alpha (X_n(\phi ),X_m(\psi ))=\{\begin{array}{cc}0,\hfill & \text{if }n+m0\text{,}\hfill \\ n_𝒳\phi \psi 𝑑\mu ,\hfill & n+m=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Lie algebra $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ defined above is our main object.

###### Proof.

If $`n>0`$ then $`\alpha (X_n(\phi ),X_n(\psi ))=n_𝒳\phi U^n(U^n\psi )𝑑\mu =n_𝒳\phi \psi 𝑑\mu `$. If $`n<0`$ the $`\alpha (X_n(\phi ),X_n(\psi ))=n_𝒳U^n\phi U^n\psi 𝑑\mu =n_𝒳\phi \psi 𝑑\mu `$ ($`U`$ is an unitary operator). ∎

This consists with the initial formula

$$[X_{+1}\left(\phi \right),X_1\left((\phi )^1\right)]=X_0(\mathrm{𝟏})=\mathrm{𝟏}c$$

for $`n=\pm 1`$.

Now we can rewrite the brackets for all monomials (not only for local part). Assume $`n,m>0`$.

(+,+)
$$[X_n(\phi ),X_m(\psi )]=[\phi U^n,\psi U^m]=X_{n+m}(\phi U^n\psi \psi U^m\phi );$$

(+,$``$)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X_n(\phi )& ,X_m\psi ]=[\phi U^n,U^m\psi U^m]\hfill \\ & =\left(\phi U^{nm}\psi U^m(\phi \psi )\right)U^{nm}\hfill \\ & =\{\begin{array}{cc}X_{nm}\left(\phi U^{nm}\psi U^m(\phi \psi )\right),\hfill & n>m>0,\hfill \\ X_0\left((1U^m)(1U^1)^1\phi \psi \right),\hfill & n=m,\hfill \\ X_{nm}\left(U^n\phi (\psi U^m\phi U^n\psi )\right),\hfill & 0<n<m;\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

($``$,$``$)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X_n(\phi )& ,X_m\psi ]=[U^n\phi U^n,U^m\psi U^m]\hfill \\ & =(U^n\phi U^{nm}\psi U^m\psi U^{nm}\phi )U^{nm}\hfill \\ & =X_{nm}(\psi U^m\phi \phi U^n\psi )\hfill \\ & =X_{nm}(\phi U^n\psi \psi U^m\phi )\hfill \end{array}$$

(0,+)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X_0(\phi ),& X_n(\psi )]=[(\phi U^1\phi )U^0,\psi U^n]\hfill \\ & =\left(\psi (\phi U^1\phi +U^{n1}\phi U^n\phi )\right)U^n=X_n(K_n\phi \psi ),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`K_n=IU^1+U^{n1}U^n=(IU^1)(IU^n)`$;

(0,$``$)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill [X_0(\phi ),& X_n\psi ]=[(\phi U^1\phi )U^0,U^n\psi U^n\hfill \\ & =\left(U^n\psi (\phi U^1\phi U^n\phi +U^{n1}\phi )\right)U^n\hfill \\ & =X_n((U^n\psi )(U^n\phi U^{n1}\phi \phi +U^1\phi )=X_n(K_n\phi \psi )\hfill \end{array}$$

We can now observe that the formulas (+,+) and ($``$,$``$) are the same, as well as (0,+) and (0,$``$).

###### Theorem 2.

The formulas for the brackets of monomials in the subalgebra $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ are the following:

*1)* $`[X_n(\phi ),X_m(\psi )]=\pm X_{n+m}(\phi U^{\pm n}\psi \psi U^{\pm m}\phi )`$,
where the sign is “$`+`$” if $`n,m>0`$ and “$``$” if $`n,m<0`$.

*2)* $`[X_0(\phi ),X_{\pm n}(\psi )]=\pm X_n(K_n\phi \psi )`$.

*3)* $`[X_n(\phi ),X_m(\psi )]=\{\begin{array}{cc}X_{n+m}\left(U^m\psi (\phi U^n\psi U^m\phi )\right),\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}m<0,\hfill & \\ n+m>0\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \\ X_0\left(\frac{1U^m}{1U^1}(\phi \psi )\right)+n_𝒳\phi \psi 𝑑\mu \hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}n+m=0,\hfill & \\ n0\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \\ X_{n+m}\left(U^n\phi (\psi U^m\phi U^n\psi )\right),\hfill & \{\begin{array}{cc}m<0,\hfill & \\ n+m<0\hfill & \end{array}\hfill \end{array}`$

*4)* $`[X_0(\phi ),X_0(\psi )]=0`$.∎

Lie algebra $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ does not associate with associative algebra; cocycle $`\alpha `$ has nothing to do with associated crossproduct of subsection 1.1. The role of central extension is very important.

We defined Lie algebra $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{𝔄}(𝒳,T)`$) in a new terms, compare with (3). This manner gives us the formulas for local part (1–2) which are similar to classical ones (Cartan simple algebras and Kac–Moody algebras). But the formulas for general monomials are more complicated than dynamical (see subsection 1.1) description.

## 2. General Lie algebras with continuous root systems and new examples of $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$

### 2.1. General definition

We recall \[SV1, SV2, V\] the definition of graded Lie algebras with continuous root system.

Suppose $``$ is a commutative associative Lie $``$-algebra with unity (Cartan subalgebra) and $`K:`$ is a linear operator (Cartan operator). The local algebra $`[K]`$ is, as a linear space, a direct sum

$$_1_0_{+1},_i,i=0,\pm 1$$

with brackets:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill X_i(\phi )_i,i=0,& \pm 1,\phi ,\psi \hfill \\ \hfill [X_0(\phi ),X_0(\psi )]& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill [X_0(\phi ),X_{\pm 1}(\psi )]& =\pm X_{\pm 1}(K\phi \psi )\hfill \\ \hfill [X_{+1}(\phi ),X_1(\psi )]& =X_0(\phi \psi )\hfill \end{array}$$

The local algebra $`_1_0_{+1}`$ generates graded Lie algebra $`𝔄(,K)`$. in the same spirit as in Subsection 1.2 (and as in the theory of LKM-algebras). Then we obtain $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ from Section 1.

The spectrum of commutative algebra $``$ (if it exists) is root system of $`𝔄(,K)`$ by definition (see \[V\]), more exactly the set of simple positive roots. But it could be no spectra (say, $``$ is the algebra of rational functions) so we have Lie algebras without simple roots but with Cartan operator.

The condition of constant or polynomial growth of the dimension (in an appropriate sense) puts essential restriction on the operator $`K`$.

###### Remark.

Let $`E`$ is an invariant under $`K`$ subalgebra of $``$. Then $`𝔄(E,K)`$ is Lie subalgebra of $`𝔄(,K)`$. In particular, if $`E_1E_2\mathrm{}`$, $`_iE_i=`$, is a sequence of $`K`$-invariant subalgebras of $``$ then $`𝔄(,K)=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝔄(E_i,K)`$.

### 2.2. New examples of algebras of type $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$

The first nontrivial example of algebras of type $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ was so called sine-algebra. We will not consider it because it was done before from different point of view (see \[SV2, FFZ, GKL, V\]). It was defined independently in \[SV2\] and \[FFZ\]. We give now general example of similar type.

Let $`(𝒳,T,\mu )`$ be an ergodic system with discrete spectrum. It means that operator $`U=U_T`$ has spectral decomposition

$$Uf=\underset{\lambda }{}\lambda f_\lambda \chi _\lambda ,\text{ where }f=\underset{\lambda }{}f_\lambda \chi _\lambda ,$$

sum is over eigenvalues of $`U`$ ($`\lambda 𝕋^1`$), and $`\chi _\lambda `$ is the eigenfunction corresponding to $`\lambda `$. It is well-known (von Neumann theorem) that such system can be realized on the compact abelian group $`G=𝒳`$ with Haar measure $`m=\mu `$ and $`T`$ is translation on some element $`g_0G`$, then $`\chi _\lambda `$ is a character of $`G`$ ($`\chi _\lambda G^{}`$) and

$$\lambda =\chi _\lambda (g_0)𝕋^1.$$

Sine-algebra corresponds to the case $`𝒳=𝕋^1`$ and $`T`$ is translation on irrational number $`\theta S^1=/BZ`$. In \[GKL\] was considered also the case $`𝒳=𝕋^d\theta `$.

The case

$$𝒳=Z_p,Tx=x+1,$$

where $`Z_p`$ is additive group of $`p`$-adic integers, $`p`$ is a prime, and $`T`$ is adding of unity, is more interesting from our point of view. The measure $`\mu =m`$ is Haar (additive) measure on $`Z_p`$.

The group of characters $`Z_p^{}=Q_p\mathrm{}`$ is a group of all roots of unity of the degree $`p^n`$, $`n`$, and the characters $`\mu Q_p\mathrm{}`$ (as function on $`Z_p`$ with values in $`𝕋^1`$) are eigenfunctions of operator $`U=U_T`$.

We give the description of the general case when operator $`U=U_T`$ has discrete spectrum. The specific property of algebra $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ in this case is existence of the natural *linear basis* in $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$.

Suppose $`G`$ is abelian (additive) compact group and $`G^{}`$ is a countable group of the (multiplicative) characters on $`G`$. We fix the element $`\lambda G`$ with dense set of powers: $`\mathrm{Cl}\{\lambda ^n,n\}=G`$. Then $`T_\lambda g=Tg=g+\lambda `$, $`U_T=U`$, $`(Uf)(g)=f(g+\lambda )`$, $`fC(G)`$. Each character $`\chi G^{}`$ is an eigenfunction of $`U`$ with eigenvalue $`\chi (\lambda )𝕋^1`$.

###### Theorem 3.

Linear basis in the Lie algebra $`𝔄(G,T)`$ is the set $`\{Y_{\chi ,n}:\chi G^{},n\}`$ with the following brackets

(5)
$$[Y_{\chi ,n},Y_{\chi _1,n_1}]=\left(\chi _1(\lambda )^n\chi (\lambda )^{n_1}\right)Y_{\chi \chi _1,n+n_1}+\delta _{n+n_1}\stackrel{~}{\delta }_{\chi \chi _1}nc,$$

where $`\delta _n=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & n=0\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & n0\hfill \end{array}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }_\chi =\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \chi =\mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \chi \mathrm{𝟏}\hfill \end{array}`$.

Algebra $`𝔄(G,T)`$ is $`\times G^{}`$-graded algebra; the subalgebra $`\{c1:c\}`$ in Cartan subalgebra $`𝔄_0=C(G)`$ is the center of $`𝔄(G,T)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume $`Y_{\chi ,n}=\chi U^n`$ as an element of $`𝔄_n`$, where $`\chi `$ is the character of $`G`$ as a function $`G𝕋^1`$. It is easy to check that the brackets (see formula (1) in Section 1) give us formula (5). Note that the center is not direct summand, so we have

$$[Y_{\chi ,n},Y_{\chi ^1,n}]=nc.\mathit{}$$

This is the third description of our algebra $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ with linear basis; this description is valid for discrete spectrum only.

The group $`G`$ is the set of simple roots for $`𝔄(G,T)`$ and “Dynkin” diagram is the set of arrows $`Ggg+\lambda G`$. In opposite to Kac–Moody case our algebras $`𝔄(𝒳,T)`$ have no imaginary roots.

### 2.3. The case of $`p`$-adic integers

Return back to the case $`G=Z_p`$, $`Tx=x+1`$. In this case $`𝔄(Z_p,T)`$ is $`\times Q_p\mathrm{}`$-graded algebra. Cartan subalgebra is space $`C(Z_p)`$. Consider finite dimensional subspaces $`L_nC(Z_p)`$ of functions depending on the points of the quotient $`Z_p/p^n`$; it is clear that subspace $`L_n`$ is $`U_T`$-invariant, so $`_n=_mL_nU^m`$

is a subalgebra of $`𝔄`$.

###### Theorem 4.

The Lie algebra $`_n`$ is canonically isomorphic to the algebra $`𝒜_{p^n}^{(1)}`$. Consequently, $`𝔄(Z_p,T)`$ is (completion) of the inductive limit of Kac–Moody Lie algebras<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1More exactly, inductive limit contains only linear combinations of monomials of type $`\phi U^n`$, where $`\phi `$ are cylindric functions; so it is enough to extend the set of $`\phi `$ onto arbitrary continuous functions which means to make a completion.

$$𝔄(Z_p,T)\underset{n}{\mathrm{lim}\mathrm{ind}}_n.\mathit{}$$

###### Remark.

It is possible to define Weyl group $`W`$ for this algebra. Group $`W`$ contains the group of permutations of the coordinates in $`Z_p`$.

It is very instructive to study the link between theory of Kac–Moody affine algebras and our theory looking on this example.