format: text

text:
# Molecular Elasticity and the Geometric Phase

\[

## Abstract

We present a method for solving the Worm Like Chain (WLC) model for twisting semiflexible polymers to any desired accuracy. We show that the WLC free energy is a periodic function of the applied twist with period $`4\pi `$. We develop an analogy between WLC elasticity and the geometric phase of a spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ system. These analogies are used to predict elastic properties of twist-storing polymers. We graphically display the elastic response of a single molecule to an applied torque. This study is relevant to mechanical properties of biopolymers like DNA.

\]

Some long molecules are as stiff as needles, others as flexible as thread. The elasticity of a stiff molecule is dominated by energy, while the elasticity of a flexible molecule is dominated by its configurational entropy. It has lately become feasible  to stretch, bend and twist single molecules to study their elastic properties. The subject of this paper is the elasticity of semiflexible polymers in which there is competition between energetic and entropic effects. We consider a polymer which can bend as well as twist . The flexibility of such a molecule is characterized by two dimensionless parameters $`\alpha =L_{BP}/L_{TP}`$ and $`\beta =L/L_{BP}`$, where $`L`$ is the length of the molecule and $`L_{BP}`$ and $`L_{TP}`$ are the bend and twist persistence lengths. For example DNA has a bend persistence length of about $`53nm`$ and a twist persistence length of about $`70nm`$.

The main purpose of this letter is to draw attention to an experimentally relevant topological subtlety which has not been discussed in previous theoretical treatments of the elasticity of twisting polymers. To appreciate the point, take a strip of paper (a ribbon or belt will do as well) and tape one end of the strip to a table. Pull the strip taut by its other end and twist it by four half-turns ($`4\pi `$ rotation). If you now slacken the strip, you will find that it is possible, keeping the end fixed, to pass the strip around the end. Pulling the strip taut will reveal that the $`4\pi `$ twist has been released. This demonstration shows that a polymer can release twist, two turns at a time by going around its end. A twist of $`2\pi `$ cannot be so released but can be transformed to $`2\pi `$. This of course, merely illustrates the well known mathematical fact that the rotation group is doubly connected. We will now see that this mathematical fact has concrete experimental consequences for the elastic properties of twist-storing polymers. Mentally replace the table with a translation stage, the strip with DNA molecule with a micron sized magnetic bead at its free end and let the twisting be done with a magnetic field. If the DNA molecule is about $`16\mu `$ long, and not pulled taut, it can release $`4\pi `$ worth of twist by passing around the bead. One will find that twisting the bead by $`4\pi `$ is equivalent to not twisting it at all! Under the influence of thermal agitation, the molecule will explore all configurations which it can reach by continuous deformation. As we have shown, a configuration with a $`4\pi `$ twist can be continuously deformed to a configuration with $`0`$ twist. It follows that the free energies for these two situations are the same. If one were to measure the free energy $`G(\psi )`$ of the molecule as a function of applied twist $`\psi `$ (by say measuring the torque-twist relation), one would find that $`G(\psi )`$ is a periodic function of $`\psi `$ with period $`4\pi `$. From the $`4\pi `$ periodicity of the free energy, it follows that the torque-twist relation and other measurable elastic properties have the same periodicity.

The above discussion is even more relevant to theoretical models of polymers which do not incorporate self avoidance. Such a polymer is a ‘phantom chain’  and can pass through itself. In the absence of self avoidance, a polymer does not even need to pass around its end: it can pass through itself and so release twist two turns at a time. Indeed, such effects have been seen in recent single molecule experiments and even earlier : the enzyme topoisomerase II converts a real DNA into a ‘phantom chain’  and in the presence of this enzyme (which plays a crucial role in replication), the DNA molecule releases twist two turns at a time. The release of twist through bending modes (geometric untwisting) has also been discussed in .

It is thus clear that in theoretical models which do not have self avoidance, the free energy is a periodic function of applied twist with period $`4\pi `$. Bearing this in mind, we will now explore the Worm Like Chain (WLC)  model for twisting polymers, which ignores self avoidance. As was emphasized recently in a review of single molecule experiments, “the precision of control and quantitative measurement and simple interpretation of these experiments make detailed theoretical analyses appropriate”. While there has been some theoretical progress on the WLC for twisting polymers, interest has been confined primarily to the high tension regime, which is theoretically more tractable because the molecule has only small perturbations about a linear configuration. Experiments of Bensimon  have also explored this regime. In contrast the present letter theoretically explores the non linear regime of small forces, where the perturbative methods described in  are inapplicable. In this regime we find that the WLC free energy has a $`4\pi `$ periodicity in contrast to the aperiodic free energy of the high tension regime.

We first describe the WLC model and summarize the existing theoretical analyses of this model. We then point out a physically relevant mathematical subtlety without which the solution of the WLC model is incorrect. We then correctly solve the WLC model by a combination of analytical and numerical techniques and elucidate some of the elastic properties that emerge from the model in graphical form. A concluding discussion interprets the results.

WLC Model: The WLC model ignores self avoidance and views the polymer as a framed space curve $`𝒞=\{\stackrel{}{x}(s),\widehat{e}_i(s)\},i=1,2,3,`$ $`0sL`$ of contour length $`L`$, with an energy cost $`(𝒞)`$ for bending and twisting. We suppose that one end of the polymer is tethered to the origin $`\stackrel{}{x}(0)=0`$ and the other end at $`\stackrel{}{x}(L)=\stackrel{}{r}`$ is tagged. The unit tangent vector $`\widehat{e}_3=d\stackrel{}{x}/ds`$ to the curve describes the bending of the polymer while the twisting is captured by a unit vector $`\widehat{e}_1`$ normal to $`\widehat{e}_3`$. $`\widehat{e}_2`$ is then fixed by $`\widehat{e}_2=\widehat{e}_3\times \widehat{e}_1`$ to complete the right handed moving frame $`\widehat{e}_i(s),i=1,2,3`$. The rate of change of the moving frame $`\widehat{e}_i(s)`$ along the curve can be measured by its “angular velocity vector” $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ defined by

$$\frac{d}{ds}\widehat{e}_i(s)=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\times \widehat{e}_i(s).$$
(1)
The components of $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ in the moving frame are $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.\widehat{e}_i`$ and the energy $`(𝒞)`$ of a configuration $`𝒞`$ is given by

$$[𝒞]=1/2_0^L[A((\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^2+(\mathrm{\Omega }_2)^2)+C(\mathrm{\Omega }_3)^2]𝑑s,$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is the bending modulus and $`C`$ the twist modulus.

Imagine that the ends of the polymer and the frames at these ends $`(\widehat{e}_i(0),\widehat{e}_i(L))`$ are held fixed. We wish to compute the number of configurations

$$Q(\stackrel{}{r},\widehat{e}_i(0),\widehat{e}_i(L))=\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝒞\mathrm{exp}([𝒞]/kT),$$
(3)
counted with Boltzmann weight $`\mathrm{exp}([𝒞]/kT)`$, which start at the origin with initial frame $`\widehat{e}_i(0)`$ and end at $`\stackrel{}{r}`$ with final frame $`\widehat{e}_i(L)`$. The function $`Q`$ is related to the free energy of the molecule and its measurable elastic properties like the force-extension relation (FER) and the torque-twist relation (TTR). An overall multiplicative constant is not important in the calculation of $`Q`$. This only leads to an additive constant in the free energy, which drops out on differentiation and does not affect elastic properties.

Let us fix a “lab frame” $`\stackrel{~}{e}_i^b`$ and write $`e_i^a(s)=R^a{}_{b}{}^{}(s)\stackrel{~}{e}_i^b`$, where $`a=1,2,3`$ is a vector index (as opposed to the frame index $`i`$) and $`R(s)SO(3)`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ rotation matrix. There is a clear analogy between the elastic properties of the WLC and the motion of a top. Indeed as Mezard and Bouchiat and Moroz and Nelson point out, the WLC problem can be mapped to the quantum mechanics of a symmetric top. From this mapping, one may naively conclude  that the periodicity of the free energy is $`2\pi `$. We now show that a careful treatment of the path integral (3) gives the correct $`4\pi `$ periodicity.

Each configuration $`𝒞`$ in (3) is characterized by a curve $`\{R(s)\}`$ in the rotation group with fixed end points $`R(0)`$ and $`R(L)`$. The sum is over all configurations which are sampled under the influence of thermal agitation. It is evident that we should only sum over configurations $`\{R(s)\}`$ in a single homotopy class: thermal agitation only causes continuous deformations and therefore cannot knock the polymer out of its homotopy class. $`Q`$ thus depends not only on ($`\stackrel{}{r},R(0),R(L)`$) , but also on the homotopy class $`[\{R(s)\}]`$ of the paths $`\{R(s)\}`$ being summed over. This information is exactly captured by going to the covering space $`SU(2)`$ of the rotation group $`SO(3)`$. This step is essential to correctly describe the elastic properties of the twisting polymer. (If we do not take this step but remain on $`SO(3)`$, we are effectively summing over both homotopy classes, which is a physically incorrect procedure.) The result is that while the WLC Hamiltonian is the same as that of the top, the WLC configuration space is not the configuration space $`SO(3)`$ of the top, but its double cover $`SU(2)`$ . As we will see below, this results in a $`4\pi `$ periodicity for the free energy. $`SU(2)`$ is the same as $`S^3`$, the four dimensional sphere defined by $`\{x^\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,3,4,\},\mathrm{\Sigma }_\alpha (x^\alpha )^2=1`$. In fact, $`x^\alpha `$ are the Cayley-Klein parameters  traditionally used in describing tops.

Let $`\{g(s)\}`$ be a continuous curve in $`SU(2)`$ which maps down to the curve $`\{R(s)\}`$. $`g(s)`$ satisfies the differential equation $`\frac{dg(s)}{ds}=i/2(\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.\stackrel{}{\sigma })g(s),`$ whose solution is a path ordered exponential: $`g(s)=P[exp_0^si\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}(s^{}).\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2ds^{}]g(0).`$ $`𝒞`$ is now described by a curve $`\{g(s\}`$ in $`SU(2)`$, with fixed end points $`g(0)`$ and $`g(L)`$. The standard Euler angles $`(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ on the rotation group can be used as co-ordinates on $`SU(2)=S^3`$ if the range of $`\psi `$ is extended to $`4\pi `$ . $`SU(2)`$ acts on itself by right and left action generated  by space fixed $`(J_x,J_y,J_z)`$ and body fixed $`(J_1,J_2,J_3)`$ angular momenta.

We can now write (3) more correctly as $`Q(\stackrel{}{r},q_0,q_L)`$ where $`q_0=g(0)`$ and $`q_L=g(L)`$, to explicitly display the homotopy class dependence of $`Q`$. $`Q(\stackrel{}{r},q_0,q_L)`$ has the path integral representation:

$$𝒩D[g(s)]e^{[(𝒞)/k_BT]}\delta (\stackrel{}{x}(L)\stackrel{}{r}).$$
(4)
$`𝒩`$ is a normalisation constant and the path integral is over all paths that go from $`q_0`$ to $`q_L`$ on $`S^3`$. We now pass from $`Q(\stackrel{}{r},q_0,q_L)`$ to its Laplace transform defined as $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(f,q_0,q_L)=d\stackrel{}{r}exp[\stackrel{}{f}.\stackrel{}{r}/L_{BP}]Q(\stackrel{}{r},q_0,q_L)`$, where $`L_{BP}=A/kT`$. Performing the elementary integrations and changing variables to $`\tau =s/L_{BP}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\omega }=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}L_{BP}`$, we see that $`\stackrel{~}{Q}(f,q_0,q_L)`$ can be represented as $`𝒩Z(f,q_0,q_L)`$, where $`Z`$ has the path integral representation

$$D[g(\tau )]e^{[_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \frac{1}{2}(\omega _1^2+\omega _2^2+\alpha ^1\omega _3^2)\stackrel{}{f}.\widehat{e}_3]},$$
(5)
where $`\alpha =A/C=L_{BP}/L_{TP}`$. This is clearly the quantum amplitude $`<q_L|exp[\beta H_f]|q_0>`$ for a particle on the surface of a $`3`$-sphere to go from an initial position $`q_0`$ on $`S^3`$ to a final position $`q_L`$ in imaginary time $`\beta `$ in the presence of an external force field. The Hamiltonian is $`H_f=H_0f\mathrm{cos}\theta `$, where $`H_0=1/2(J_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+J_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\alpha J_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$, which is the Hamiltonian of a symmetric top. If the exact eigenstates of $`H_f`$ were known, we could write:

$$Z=\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\mathrm{exp}[\beta E_n]u_n^{}(q_0)u_n(q_L),$$
(6)
where $`\{u_n(q)\}`$ is a complete set of normalised eigenstates of the Hamiltonian $`H_f`$ and $`E_n`$ are the corresponding eigenvalues. Even though $`H_f`$ cannot be diagonalised analytically, we can exploit its symmetries to reduce the problem to a numerically tractable form. $`J_z`$ and $`J_3`$ commute with the Hamiltonian $`H_f`$, reflecting the symmetry under space-fixed and body fixed rotations about the third axis. As a result, $`Z`$ depends only on the differences $`\varphi =\varphi _L\varphi _0`$ and $`\psi =\psi _L\psi _0`$ and we write $`Z(f,\theta _0,\theta _L,\varphi ,\psi )`$. Consider the dependence of $`Z`$ on $`\psi `$. Since all the wave functions in (6) are single valued functions on $`S^3`$, it follows that $`Z(\psi )`$ is periodic in $`\psi `$ with period $`4\pi `$: $`Z(\psi +4\pi )=Z(\psi )`$. This means that the free energy $`G=1/\beta Log[Z]`$ and all elastic properties have the same period. This is the first main result of this letter. The fact that the periodicity is $`4\pi `$ and not $`2\pi `$ can be traced to the fact the sum in (6) extends not only over tensorial states but also over spinorial ones. The variation of $`G`$ with respect to the variables $`(f,\theta _0,\theta _L,\varphi ,\psi )`$ gives the elastic response to stretch ($`f`$), bend ($`\theta ,\varphi `$) and twist ($`\psi `$). $`G`$ can be computed numerically for any value of its arguments using mathematica programs  that run for a few minutes on a PC, using methods similar to those of . From $`G`$ we can extract all possible information regarding the elasticity of a polymer with bend and twist degrees of freedom. For instance one can predict the form of extension versus twist curves for various values of the stretching force.

The $`4\pi `$ periodicity of the free energy strongly motivates the use of spinorial methods. In fact, the WLC configuration space $`S^3`$ is the same as the set of normalised states of a spin-$`1/2`$ quantum system. We will now show that there is a mapping between a configuration of a twisting polymer and the quantum evolution of a spin-$`1/2`$ system. This brings out an interesting connection between $`WLC`$ elasticity and the Geometric Phase. Let us introduce a $`2`$ component complex vector (a spinor) $`\xi ^1=x^1+ix^2,\xi ^2=x^3+ix^4`$, which is normalised ($`\xi ^{}\xi =1`$). We can write $`\xi ^1=\mathrm{cos}\theta /2\mathrm{exp}^{i\varphi /2}\mathrm{exp}^{i\psi /2}`$, $`\xi ^2=\mathrm{sin}\theta /2\mathrm{exp}^{i\varphi /2}\mathrm{exp}^{i\psi /2}`$ and thus introduce co-ordinates $`(\theta ,\varphi ,\psi )`$ ranging from $`0`$ to $`(\pi ,2\pi ,4\pi )`$ respectively. These are similar to Euler angles on the rotation group and differ only in the range of $`\psi `$. The frame $`\widehat{e}_i`$ can be expressed as $`\widehat{e}_3=\xi ^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi `$, $`\widehat{e}_1+i\widehat{e}_2=\xi ^T(i\sigma _2)\stackrel{}{\sigma }\xi `$, where the $`\sigma `$s are the usual Pauli matrices. Notice that altering $`\psi `$ by $`2\pi `$ flips only the sign of $`\xi `$ and therefore does not affect the frame. Using this mapping between $`2`$ component spinors and frames, we can import ideas from the geometric phase to understand WLC elasticity. The information in the spinor $`\xi `$ can be decomposed into an overall phase $`\psi /2`$ describing twist and a ray $`\widehat{e}_3`$ describing bend. Fix a configuration $`𝒞`$ and note that $`\xi (s)=g(s)\xi (0)`$ satisfies the Schrödinger differential equation $`i\frac{d\xi (s)}{ds}=\widehat{h}\xi (s)`$, where $`\widehat{h}=\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}.\stackrel{}{\sigma }/2`$ is the “Hamiltonian” of a spin half particle in an external magnetic field $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. We can now decompose the difference $`\psi /2=\psi (L)/2\psi (0)/2`$ between the final and initial phases into a geometric phase and a dynamical phase. The dynamical phase is given by the integral of the expectation value of the “Hamiltonian” $`_0^L𝑑s\xi ^{}\widehat{h}\xi `$, which, using the definition of $`\widehat{e}_3`$ above is seen to be $`_0^L𝑑s\mathrm{\Omega }_3/2`$, half the twist $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3`$ integrated along the polymer. The geometric phase is given by half the solid angle swept out by the ray $`\widehat{e}_3(s)`$. If the initial and final rays are distinct (but not antipodal), one can join them by the unique shorter geodesic  to enclose a solid angle. The total twist difference $`\psi `$ is the sum of the “dynamical twist”-the integrated local twist- $`\mathrm{\Omega }_3𝑑s`$ and the “geometric twist”- the solid angle swept out by the tangent vector- which depends on the bending of the polymer. In the literature, the distribution of applied twist between twisting and bending is compared with the decomposition of link into twist and writhe. This result is referred to as White’s theorem  (though an earlier reference is ). The discussion  applies to closed, self-avoiding polymers which have been twisted an integral number of times. In contrast, our treatment applies also to open polymers which have been twisted a fractional number of times. However, since the WLC model does not take into account self avoidance, a twist of $`4\pi `$ is equivalent to no twist and the integral part of the twist is only measured modulo two. Our treatment captures the fractional part of the applied twist (which is geometrical) and the earlier treatment captures its integral part (which is topological). In this sense, the two discussions are complementary. The analogy between twist elasticity and the geometric phase is the second main result of this letter. The analogy has also been noted in Ref, which, however, uses a vectorial correspondence rather than a spinorial one. The decomposition of applied twist into a geometrical and a dynamical part leads to a coupling between the bend and the twist degrees of freedom and has a direct bearing on the elastic properties of the WLC polymer. As a specific illustration we give the results for the special case of pure twist elasticity.

Pure twist elasticity: We suppose that the tagged end is not constrained in position, but only in orientation. Integrating $`Q(\stackrel{}{r},q_0,q_L)`$ over $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, we see that the applied force $`f`$ vanishes. We also suppose that the initial $`\widehat{e}_3(0)`$ and final $`\widehat{e}_3(L)`$ tangent vectors are both in the same direction (which we take to be the $`z`$ direction). We compute the distribution $`Z(\psi )`$ of $`\psi `$. In this case only states for which $`m=g`$ contribute  and $`Z`$ takes the form $`Z=\mathrm{\Sigma }_g𝒵_{gg}`$. Using standard techniques from angular momentum theory, we can express $`Z`$ as $`Z=\mathrm{\Sigma }_ge^{ig\psi }Q_g`$ where $`Q_g=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{j=|g|}^{\mathrm{}}(2j+1)exp[\beta /2(j(j+1)+(\alpha 1)g^2)]`$, where $`j`$ runs in integer steps. By an inverse Fourier transform, we compute $`P(\psi )`$ and the free energy $`G(\psi )=1/\beta Log[P(\psi )]`$. By differentiating with respect to $`\psi `$, we compute the torque $`\mathrm{\Theta }=F/\psi `$ needed to twist the molecule by an angle $`\psi `$. The torque-twist relation is plotted in Fig.1. This graph, which is the third main result of this letter, describes the pure twist elastic properties of a molecule in the WLC model. These graphs are easily interpreted in terms of the geometric phase ideas described earlier. For large $`\alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$ is the ratio of the bend to the twist persistence length), twist costs very little energy, the molecule twists without bending, and as it takes hardly any torque to twist the molecule, the TTR is almost flat. As $`\alpha `$ decreases, the applied twist is shared between the twist and the bend. When $`\alpha `$ is zero twisting is prohibitively expensive and the applied twist is all taken up by the bend. This causes the molecule to buckle just as a towel does when it is wrung. When $`\alpha =0`$, the “polarisation vector” $`\widehat{e}_1`$ is parallel transported along the polymer. The distribution $`Z(\psi )`$ then reduces to the distribution of solid angles (Berry Phases) enclosed by closed Brownian paths on the (Poincare) sphere, which was calculated in  in the context of depolarised light scattering.

In this letter we have solved the WLC model with bend and twist degrees of freedom and noticed analogies to spin$`1/2`$ systems and the geometric phase. These analogies lead to a description in terms of a particle on a sphere in external gravitational and magnetic fields. Such analogies, apart from giving us analytic tools to solve the problem virtually exactly for the first time, also provide simple physical pictures: Imposing a twist on a molecule is like applying a magnetic field. The helical shape of a towel when it is wrung is similar to the helical trajectory of a particle in a magnetic field. We hope this letter will encourage experimental work on twisting polymers in the nonlinear low tension regime and set up a dialog between the theory and experiments on molecular elasticity.

Acknowledgements: It is a pleasure to thank A. Dhar, Y. Hatwalne B. R. Iyer, V.A. Raghunathan and M. Rao for their comments and R. Goldstein for his constructive suggestions which improved the paper and for drawing attention to related work.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In a construction of the unitary and analytic model \[1-6\] of the electromagnetic (EM) structure of an arbitrary hadron, the vector-meson-dominant (VMD) pole parametrization of EM form factors (FF’s)

$$F_h(t)=\underset{v=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{m_v^2}{m_v^2t}(f_{vhh}/f_v)$$
(1)
is the starting point. The FF in this form is a pure real function in the whole physical region $`\mathrm{}<t<+\mathrm{}`$, where $`t=Q^2`$ is the squared momentum transfer of the virtual photon, $`m_v`$ are the masses of vector mesons and $`f_{vhh}`$ and $`f_v`$ are the coupling constants of vector-meson to hadron and vector-meson-photon transition, respectively. The expression (1) provides the basis for a consistent unification of all other FF properties, like asymptotics, analytic properties, unitarity, normalization etc, into an advanced unitary and analytic model.

Based on the so-called quark counting rules (QCR), the asymptotic behaviour of EM FF of a hadron is directly related  to the number of constituent quarks $`n_q`$ by the expression

$$F_h(t)_{|t|\mathrm{}}t^{1n_q},$$
(2)
From Eq.(2) one can see immediately that for hadrons with $`n_q>2`$ the asymptotic behaviour of their EM FF’s is different from the asymptotic behaviour of (1) and so, in the construction of an unitary and analytic model it has to be suitably adopted.

First, one transforms the VMD parametrization (1) into common denominator. As a result a rational function with a polynomial of $`(n1)`$ degree in the numerator is obtained. Then a required asymptotic behaviour $`t^m(mn)`$ of the considered FF is achieved by setting $`(m1)`$ coefficients of the highest powers of the variable $`t`$ in the numerator to be zero.

In this manner the first system of $`(m1)`$ linear homogeneous algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios with coefficients to be rather complicated sums of products of vector-meson masses squared is formulated.

On the other hand, let us assume that FF is analytic in the whole complex plane of its variable besides the cut on the positive real axis from $`t_0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$ and possesses the asymptotic behaviour $`1/t^m`$. Then one can apply the Cauchy theorem to the FF with an integration path being a circle of the radius $`R\mathrm{}`$, but avoiding the cut on the positive real axis. Because the integral along the circle with the infinity radius is zero, only integrals on the upper and lower boundary of the cut will contribute. By using the reality condition of FF they lead to the integral superconvergent sum rule for the imaginary part of FF.

The same procedure can be applied to the functions $`tF_h(t)`$, $`t^2F_h(t)`$,$`\mathrm{}`$,$`t^{m2}F_h(t)`$ which lead to another $`(m2)`$ superconvergent sum rules for $`tImF_h(t)`$, $`t^2ImF_h(t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$,$`t^{m2}ImF_h(t)`$, respectively. Then approximating FF imaginary part by $`\delta `$\- function appropriately one obtains another system of $`(m1)`$ linear algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios with coefficients that are simply even powers of the corresponding vector-meson masses.

In this paper we demonstrate that both systems of $`(m1)`$ equations are equivalent.

The paper is organized as follows. In the next section we derive two systems of $`(m1)`$ linear algebraic equations starting from different properties of electromagnetic FF of a hadron. Section 3 is devoted to an explicit proof of their equivalence. In the last section we present conclusions and discussion.

## 2 Algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios

Generally, let us assume that the FF in (1) is saturated by $`n`$ different vector meson pole terms and it has the asymptotic behaviour

$$F_{h_{|t|\mathrm{}}}t^m,$$
(3)
where $`mn`$.

Transforming the VMD pole representation (1) into a common denominator one obtains FF in the form of a rational function with a polynomial of $`(m1)`$ degree

$$P_{n1}(t)=A_0+A_1t+A_2t^2+\mathrm{}+A_{n1}t^{n1}$$
(4)
in the numerator, where

$`A_{n1}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$`A_{n2}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n2}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=1}{ij}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$`A_{n3}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n3}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2,i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$`A_{n4}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{n4}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3,i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2m_{i_3}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
………

$`A_{n(m1)}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{nm+1}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{m2}=1}{i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_{m2},i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{m2}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$ (5)
$`A_{nm}`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^{nm}{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{m1}=1}{i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_{m1},i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{m2}}^2m_{i_{m1}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
………

$`A_2`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{n3}=1}{i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_{n3},i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{n3}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1){\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{n2}=1}{i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_{n2},i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{n3}}^2m_{i_{n2}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{n1}=1}{i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_{n1},i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{n2}}^2m_{i_{n1}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
and $`a_j=(f_{jhh}/f_j)`$.

In order to achieve the assumed asymptotic behaviour (3) one requires in (4) the first $`(m1)`$ coefficients from the highest powers of $`t`$ to be zero and as a result the following first system of linear homogeneous algebraic equations for the coupling constant ratios is obtained

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=1}{ij}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j=0`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2,i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3,i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2m_{i_3}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j=0`$
………

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}i_{m2}=1}{i_1<i_2\mathrm{}<i_{m2},i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{m2}}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^2a_j=0.$$

As one can see from (6) with increased $`m`$ the coefficients become sums of more and more complicated products of squared vector-meson masses.

For a derivation of the second system we employ the assumed analytic properties of EM FF’s of hadrons, consisting of infinite number of branch points on the positive real axis, i.e. cuts. The first cut extends from the lowest branch point $`t_0`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. Then one can apply the Cauchy theorem to FF in $`t`$\- plane

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}F_h(t)𝑑t=0$$
(7)
where the closed integration path consists of the circle $`C_R`$ of the radius $`R\mathrm{}`$ and the path avoiding the cut on the positive real axis. As a result (7) can be rewritten into a sum of the following four integrals

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\left\{_{C_R}F_h(t)𝑑t+_+\mathrm{}^{t_0}F_h(tiϵ)𝑑t+_{C_r/2}F_h(t)𝑑t+_{t_0}^+\mathrm{}F_h(t+iϵ)𝑑t\right\}=0$$
(8)
where $`ϵ1`$ and $`C_r/2`$ is the half-circle joining the upper boundary of the cut with the lower-boundary of the cut around the lowest branch point $`t_0`$. The contribution of the first integral in (8) is zero as $`F_h(t)`$ for $`R\mathrm{}`$ is vanishing. One can prove also that the third integral in (8) for $`r0`$ is zero. As a result one gets

$$\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}[F_h(t+iϵ)F_h(tiϵ)]𝑑t=0.$$
(9)
Then, taking into account the reality condition of FF

$$F_h^{}(t)=F_h(t^{})$$
(10)
following from the general Schwarz reflection principle in the theory of analytic functions, one arrives at the integral superconvergent sum rule

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}ImF_h(t)𝑑t=0$$
(11)
for the imaginary part of the FF under consideration.

Repeating the same procedure for the functions $`tF_h(t)`$, $`t^2F_h(t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`t^{m2}F_h(t)`$ which possess the same analytic properties in the complex $`t`$-plane as $`F_h(t)`$, one gets another $`(m2)`$ superconvergent sum rules

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}}tImF_h(t)𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle _{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}}t^2ImF_h(t)𝑑t`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (12)
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$

$$\frac{1}{\pi }_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}t^{m2}ImF_h(t)𝑑t=0.$$

Now, approximating the FF imaginary part by $`\delta `$\- function in the following form

$$ImF(t)=\pi \underset{i}{\overset{n}{}}a_i\delta (tm_i^2)m_i^2$$
(13)
and substituting it into (11) and (12) one obtains the second system of $`(m1)`$ linear homogeneous algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios $`a_i=(f_{ihh}/f_i)`$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^2a_i=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^4a_i=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^6a_i=0`$ (14)
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^{2(m2)}a_i=0`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^{2(m1)}a_i=0,`$
where coefficients are simply even powers of the vector-meson masses.

In the next section we demonstrate explicitly that both systems of the algebraic equations, (6) and (14), are equivalent.

## 3 Equivalence of systems of algebraic equations for coupling constants ratios

In this section we show step by step that the systems of linear algebraic equations (14) and (6), despite the fact that they have been derived starting from different properties of the EM FF, and thus they appear to be different, are equivalent. As a consequence, in a constructing the unitary and analytic model of the EM structure of any hadron compound of more than two quarks one can employ instead of equations (6) the simpler set given by (14).

We start with the equations (6). From a direct comparison of systems (6) and (14) one can see immediately the identity of the first equations in them.

The second equation in (6) can be written explicitly as follows

$$(m_2^2+m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_n^2)m_1^2a_1+(m_1^2+m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_n^2)m_2^2a_2+\mathrm{}+(m_1^2+m_2^2+\mathrm{}+m_{n1}^2)m_n^2a_n=0.$$
(15)
Adding and substracting $`m_1^4a_1`$ to the first term of the sum, $`m_2^4a_2`$ to the second term of the sum $`\mathrm{}`$ etc. and finally $`m_n^4a_n`$ to the last term of the sum, the equation (15) can be modified into the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_i^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^2a_j\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^4a_j=0,$$
(16)
from where one can see immediately that the second equation in (14) is fulfilled

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^4a_j=0$$
(17)
as $`_{j=1}^nm_j^2a_j=0`$ is just the first equation in (6) and (14) as well.

The third equation in (6) can be written explicitly as follows

$`(m_2^2m_3^2+m_2^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_2^2m_n^2+m_3^2m_4^2+m_3^2m_5^2+\mathrm{}+m_3^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+m_{n1}^2m_n^2)m_1^2a_1+`$
$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_3^2+m_1^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_n^2+m_3^2m_4^2+m_3^2m_5^2+\mathrm{}+m_3^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+m_{n1}^2m_n^2)m_2^2a_2+`$
$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_2^2+m_1^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_n^2+m_2^2m_4^2+m_2^2m_5^2+\mathrm{}+m_2^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+m_{n1}^2m_n^2)m_3^2a_3+`$
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$

$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_2^2+m_1^2m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_{n2}^2+m_1^2m_n^2+m_2^2m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_2^2m_{n2}^2+m_2^2m_n^2\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`m_{n2}^2m_n^2)m_{n1}^2a_{n1}+`$
$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_2^2+m_1^2m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_{n2}^2+m_1^2m_{n1}^2+m_2^2m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_2^2m_{n2}^2+m_2^2m_{n1}^2+`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+m_{n2}^2m_{n1}^2)m_n^2a_n=0.`$
Now adding and substracting all missing terms in (3) from $`_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2}}^nm_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2_{j=1}^nm_j^2a_j`$ which in the substraction form can be written explicitly as follows

$``$ $`(m_2^2+m_3^2+m_4^2+\mathrm{}m_n^2)m_1^4a_1`$ (19)
$``$ $`(m_1^2+m_3^2+m_4^2+\mathrm{}m_n^2)m_2^4a_2`$
$``$ $`(m_1^2+m_2^2+m_4^2+\mathrm{}m_n^2)m_3^4a_3`$
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$

$``$ $`(m_1^2+m_2^2+\mathrm{}+m_{n2}^2+m_n^2)m_{n1}^4a_{n1}`$
$``$ $`(m_1^2+m_2^2+\mathrm{}+m_{n2}^2+m_{n1}^2)m_n^4a_n`$
and again substracting and adding $`m_1^6a_1`$ in the first line of (19), $`m_2^6a_2`$ in the second line of (19)…etc., and finally $`m_n^6a_n`$ in the last line of (19), one can rewrite (3) into the form

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2}}{\overset{n}{}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^2a_j\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_i^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^4a_j+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^6a_j=0.$$
(20)
From this expression, taking into account the first two equations in (14), the third equation of (14)

$$\underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^6a_j=0$$
(21)
follows.

The fourth equation in (6) takes the following explicit form

$`(m_2^2m_3^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_2^2m_3^2m_n^2+m_2^2m_4^2m_5^2+\mathrm{}+m_2^2m_4^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`m_{n2}^2m_{n1}^2m_n^2)m_1^2a_1+`$
$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_3^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_3^2m_n^2+m_1^2m_4^2m_5^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_4^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`m_{n2}^2m_{n1}^2m_n^2)m_2^2a_2+`$
$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_2^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_2^2m_n^2+m_1^2m_4^2m_5^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_4^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`m_{n2}^2m_{n1}^2m_n^2)m_3^2a_3+`$
$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$

$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_2^2m_n^2+m_1^2m_3^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_3^2m_n^2+\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`m_{n3}^2m_{n2}^2m_n^2)m_{n1}^2a_{n1}+`$
$`+`$ $`(m_1^2m_2^2m_3^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_2^2m_{n1}^2+m_1^2m_3^2m_4^2+\mathrm{}+m_1^2m_3^2m_{n1}^2+\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`m_{n3}^2m_{n2}^2m_{n1}^2)m_2^na_n=0.`$
First, adding and substracting all missing terms in (3) from

$$\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3}}{\overset{n}{}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2m_{i_3}^2\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^2a_j,$$

the equation (3) takes the form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2m_{i_3}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$ (23)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2,i_rj}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^4a_j=0.`$
Second, substracting and adding of all missing terms in (23) from $`_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2}}^nm_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2_{j=1}^nm_j^4a_j`$ one gets the equation

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2m_{i_3}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^4a_j+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=1}{ij}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^6a_j=0.`$
Finally, additions and substractions of all missing terms in (3) from $`_{i=1}^nm_i^2_{j=1}^nm_j^6a_j`$ lead to the definitive form of the fourth equation in (6)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2m_{i_3}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2=1}{i_1<i_2}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^4a_j+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^6a_j{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^8a_j=0.`$
From here, taking into account the first three equations in (14), the fourth equation in (14)

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^8a_j=0$$
(26)
follows.

It is now easy to give a straightforward generalization of the above procedures:

* the q-th equation in (6) can be decomposed into q-terms (see (16), (20) and (3)) consisting of the product of two parts, where the first part is just the sum of decreasing numbers of products of different vector-meson masses squared, starting from (q-1) coefficients and ending with the constant 1. The second term takes the form $`_{j=1}^nm_j^\alpha a_j`$ with increasing even power $`\alpha `$ starting from $`\alpha =2`$ up to 2q.
* there is an alternating sign in front of every term in that decomposition, while the first term is always positive.

Now, in order to carry out a general proof of the equivalence of the two systems of algebraic equations under consideration, let us assume an equivalence of $`(m2)`$ equations in (6) and (14). Then, taking into account a generalization of our procedure defined by rules $`i)`$ and $`ii)`$ above, one can decompose the $`(m1)`$-equation in (6) into the following form

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_{m2}=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3<\mathrm{}<i_{m2}}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{m2}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^2a_j`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_{m3}=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3<\mathrm{}<i_{m3}}}{}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{m3}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^4a_j+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i_1,i_2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_{m4}=1}{i_1<i_2<i_3<\mathrm{}<i_{m4}}}{\overset{n}{}}}m_{i_1}^2m_{i_2}^2\mathrm{}m_{i_{m4}}^2{\displaystyle \underset{j}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^6a_j+\mathrm{}+`$
$`+`$ $`(1)^{m3}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i^2{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^{2(m2)}a_j+(1)^{m2}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_j^{2(m1)}a_j=0,`$
from where one can see immediately that the $`(m1)`$ equation in (14) is satisfied

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_j^{2(m1)}a_j=0$$
(28)
as $`_{j=1}^nm_j^2a_j=0`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^4a_j=0`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^{2(m2)}a_j=0`$ are just the first $`(m2)`$ equations in (14) assumed to be valid.

At the end we would like to draw an attention to the proof of the equivalence of the systems of algebraic equations (6) and (14) from the other point of view.

If the sums $`_{j=1}^nm_j^2a_j`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^4a_j`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^6a_j`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^{2(m3)}a_j`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^{2(m2)}a_j`$, $`_{j=1}^nm_j^{2(m1)}a_j`$ are considered to be independent variables, then the first equation in (6) together with the modified forms (16), (20), (3),..,(3) form a system of $`(m1)`$ homogeneous algebraic equations for these variables and the equations (14) are just its trivial solutions.

## 4 Conclusions and discussion

Starting from different properties of the EM FF of hadron we have derived two apparently distinct systems of linear homogeneous algebraic equations for the coupling constant ratios of vector-mesons to the hadron under consideration.

For a derivation of the first system of equations we have assumed that EM FF of hadron is well approximated by a finite number of vector-meson exchange tree Feynman diagrams leading to the VMD pole parametrization of FF. A subsequent requirement of a true asymptotics of EM FF gives the system of linear homogeneous algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios with coefficients that are rather complicated sums of products of squared vector-meson masses.

For a derivation of the second system of equations analytic properties together with the asymptotic behaviour of EM FF have been utilized. The application of Cauchy theorem to $`F_h(t)`$, $`tF_h(t)`$, $`t^2F_h(t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`t^{m2}F_h(t)`$ leads to $`(m1)`$ integral superconvergent sum rules for $`ImF_h(t)`$, $`tImF_h(t)`$, $`t^2ImF_h(t)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, $`t^{m2}ImF_h(t)`$. Then an appropriate approximation of FF imaginary part by $`\delta `$ -function gives another system of linear homogeneous algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios with coefficients to be simply even powers of the vector-meson masses.

By using a sequence of algebraic manipulations it has been proved step by step that both systems of equations for coupling constant ratios are equivalent.

Finally a natural question arises about a practical application of such systems of equations for coupling constant ratios. The latter was already indicated to some extent in the introduction, but in relation to this issue some peculiarities have to be mentioned. The asymptotic behaviour of EM FF is given by a number $`n_q`$ of the constituent quarks in the hadron and so, the system of algebraic equations for coupling constant ratios can be derived only in the case if $`n_q>2`$. However, a necessary condition for the latter is saturation of the sum in (1) by a number of vector-meson resonances $`n`$ to be greater or equal to $`n_q1`$ .

If $`n>n_q1`$, then the derived system of equations leads in a constructed unitary and analytic model of EM structure of the hadron to a remarkable reduction of a number of free coupling constant ratios.

If $`n=n_q1`$, then adding to $`(n1)`$ algebraic equations the equation following from a normalization of $`F_h(t)`$ at $`t=0`$ that typically has a non-zero value, one obtains inhomogeneous system of $`n`$ linear algebraic equations with $`n`$ variables that can be non-trivially solved for. Then solutions are just numerical values of coupling constant ratios, which appear to be in very good approximation to the physical reality (for the case of nucleons see ).

The inhomogeneous system of $`nn_q1`$ linear algebraic equations is a very natural tool for a successful simultaneous incorporation of the normalization and the true asymptotics of $`F_h(t)`$ into the unitary and analytic model of EM structure of any hadron with $`n_q>2`$.

The work was in part supported in by Slovak Grant Agency for Sciences, Grant No. 2/5085/20 (S.D.) and Grant No. 1/7068/20 (A.Z.D)


text:
# A Splitting Criterion for Galois Representations Associated to Exceptional Modular Forms (mod 𝑝)

## 1 Introduction

Let $`f=a_nq^n`$ be a newform of type $`(k,ϵ)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$ defined over a field $`E`$ of characteristic $`p`$ with $`(p,N)=1`$. Then there is a construction due to Deligne \[De\] which attaches to $`f`$ a continuous semi-simple Galois representation

$$\rho _f:Gal(\overline{}/)GL_2(E).$$

The representation is unramified outside of $`Np`$ where for any Frobenius element $`\sigma _l`$ the characteristic polynomial of $`\rho _f(\sigma _l)`$ is simply $`x^2a_lx+ϵ(l)l^{k1}`$. At the special prime $`p`$, however, the representation can be ramified, and the behavior of $`\rho _f`$ at this prime has been a topic of great interest for many years.

In the ordinary case ($`a_p0`$) and when $`2kp+1`$, Deligne has shown that the restriction to a decomposition group at $`p`$ has the form

$$\rho _{f,p}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\chi ^{k1}\lambda (ϵ(p)/a_p)& \\ 0& \lambda (a_p)\end{array}\right).$$

Here $`\chi `$ is the cyclotomic character and $`\lambda (\alpha )`$ is the unramified character which takes $`\sigma _p`$ to $`\alpha `$. By definition, a Galois representation is unramified if it is trivial on the inertia group and tamely ramified if it is at least trivial on the wild inertia group. Since $`\chi `$ is of exponent $`p1`$ on the inertia group, we see immediately that $`\rho _{f,p}`$ can at best be tamely ramified if $`kp`$. When $`k=p`$, it is easily seen that $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is tamely ramified if and only if it is unramified. In 1979, Serre conjectured the following purely modular criterion for when these things happen.

###### Conjecture (Serre).

Suppose $`f`$ is ordinary ($`a_p0`$) and $`2kp`$. The representation $`\rho _{f,p}`$ will be tamely ramified ($`kp`$) or unramified ($`k=p`$) iff there exists an eigenform form $`g=b_nq^n`$ of type $`(k^{},ϵ)`$ satifying $`\theta g=\theta ^k^{}f`$ for $`k^{}=p+1k`$ (called a “companion form”).

In 1990, this conjecture was proven by B. Gross \[Gr\] except in the case where the characters along the diagonal of $`\rho _{f,p}`$ are not distinct. In other words, the “exceptional case” where $`k=p`$ and $`ϵ(p)=a_p^2`$ was left unproven. Gross also proved that in these non-exceptional cases the existence of a companion form for $`f`$ is actually equivalent to the representation being split, i.e. the sum of two characters with respect to some basis. In 1992 Coleman and Voloch \[CV\] gave a different proof of the conjecture when $`2<kp`$. This proof did not depend on certain unproven compatibilities between cohomology theories which Gross had needed (see the introduction to \[Gr\]), and it did not exclude the exceptional case. However, in the exceptional case it is no longer clear what the relationship is between the ramification of $`\rho _{f,p}`$ and whether or not it is split. While the exceptional case with $`p=2`$ remained an open problem even for the conjecture, in all exceptional cases the question of when $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split remained open.

The goal of this paper will be to begin to answer the question of when $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split in the exceptional case. In particular, we will prove a splitting criterion in the case that $`H_m`$, the completion of the Hecke algebra at the maximal ideal $`m=m_f`$, is actually equal to $`_p`$. In terms of modular forms, this condition is equivalent to saying that $`f`$ has a unique lifting to a newform $`F`$ of weight $`2`$ and level $`Np`$, and that this newform has coefficients in $`_p`$. One reason for this assumption is that it makes it possible to define a $`p`$-divisible subgroup $`G=G_f`$ of $`J_1(Np)`$ for which $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is just a twist of the representation on $`G[p]`$. As in \[Gr\] we will attach a splitting invariant $`q_p`$ to $`G[p]`$ as well as a characteristic $`0`$ refinement $`q`$ to $`G`$. The triviality of $`q_p`$ will determine whether $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split, but one very important result of the paper will show how to explicitly calculate $`q_p`$ from $`q`$ in the cases under consideration. The proof of the main theorem then boils down to two formulas for approximating $`q`$. The first is the same formula for $`d\mathrm{log}q`$ which was used in \[CV\], involving the cup product on $`H_{DR}^1(I_1(N))`$. The second is a formula for $`\mathrm{log}q`$ involving an inner product on a subspace of $`H^0(X_1(Np),\mathrm{\Omega })`$ introduced in \[C1\]. This inner product can also be interpreted as the cup product on the De Rham cohomology of an algebraic curve which reduces to $`I_1(N)`$. With this cohomological interpretation, the main result of this paper is equivalent to the assertion following \[C1, Prop. 5.5\], that when $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is unramified its splitting is determined by the vanishing of the class $`\overline{[\pi ^pF|w]}`$ in $`H_{DR}^1(I_1(N))`$.

## 2 $`\rho _f`$ and the $`p`$-divisible Group $`G`$

In this section we will recall how the newform $`f`$ gives rise to a Galois representation $`\rho _f`$ as well as a $`p`$-divisible group $`G`$. As always we begin with an ordinary newform $`f`$ of type $`(k,ϵ)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$ over a finite field $`E`$ of characteristic $`p`$ with $`(N,p)=1`$. Furthermore, we assume $`p>2`$. Then there is a lifting of $`f`$ to a newform $`F`$ of type $`(2,ϵ_F)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(Np)`$ over the integral closure $`R`$ of $`_p`$ in $`\overline{}_p`$ \[Gr, Prop. 9.3\].

###### Note.

If $`F(q)=A_nq^n`$ and $`f(q)=a_nq^n`$ this means that $`A_na_n(modm_R)`$. Also, if $`ϵ_F=ϵ_Nϵ_p`$ we must have $`ϵ_N(d)ϵ(d)(modm_R)`$. By necessity the guaranteed lifting must also satisfy $`ϵ_p=(\chi __T)^{k2}`$, where $`\chi __T:(/p)^{}_p^{}`$ is the Teichmüller character.

Now, let $`K`$ be the finite extension of $`_p`$ over which $`F`$ is defined. Let $`H`$ be the commutative subring of $`End(J_1(Np))`$ generated by the Hecke operators $`T_l`$ for $`l`$ prime to $`Np`$ and $`d_{Np}`$. By the multiplicity one theorem \[DI, Thm. 6.2.3\] and the fact that $`F`$ is a newform, the subspace $`W`$ of $`T_p(J_1(Np))K`$ on which $`HK`$ acts via the character associated to $`F`$ is a $`2`$-dimensional $`K`$-vector space. Therefore from $`W`$ we obtain a representation

$$r_F:Gal(\overline{}/)GL_2(K)$$

One can then use the Eichler-Shimura congruence, $`T_ll/\sigma _l+l_{Np}\sigma _l`$, to calculate the characteristic polynomial of $`r_F`$ at a Frobenius element $`\sigma _l`$ with $`lNp`$. We define $`\rho _F=r_Fϵ_F`$ so that the characteristic polynomial of $`\rho _F(\sigma _l)`$ is simply $`x^2A_lx+lϵ_F(l)`$. Finally, since $`\rho _F`$ stabilizes an $`𝒪_K`$-lattice we may reduce modulo $`m_K`$ and define $`\rho _f`$ to be the semisimplification of this reduction. It is then easy to show that the characteristic polynomial of $`\rho _f(\sigma _l)`$ is $`x^2a_lx+ϵ(l)l^{k1}`$ for $`l`$ prime to $`Np`$.

###### Note.

It is almost possible to construct the representation $`\rho _f`$ without first lifting $`f`$. Let $`V_f`$ be the subspace of $`J_1(Np)[p](\overline{})E`$ on which $`T_l`$ acts like $`a_l`$ for $`l`$ prime to $`Np`$, $`d_N`$ acts like $`ϵ(d)`$, and $`d_p`$ acts like $`d^{k2}`$. \[Gr, Prop. 11.8\] states that when $`\rho _f`$ is irreducible, the semi-simplification of $`V_fϵ\chi ^{k2}`$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of $`\rho _f`$. The problem is that $`f`$ can have multiple liftings. So even if we consider the full Hecke algebra, $`V_f`$ can still have dimension greater than $`2`$. Again this is one of the reasons why we will make the assumption that $`H_m=_p`$ which implies that the lifting $`F`$ is unique.

For the definition of $`G`$ then we begin by enlarging $`H`$ to include also the operators $`U_l`$ for $`l|Np`$. Following \[Gr\] there is a maximal ideal $`m`$ of $`H`$ with $`H/m=E`$ such that modulo $`m`$ we have the following congruences.

$`T_l`$ $`a_l`$
$`U_l`$ $`a_l`$
$`<d>_N`$ $`ϵ(d)`$
$`<d>_p`$ $`d^{k2}`$
Let $`H_m`$ and $`H_p`$ be the completions of $`H`$ at $`m`$ and $`p`$, and let $`ϵ_m`$ be the idempotent of $`H_p`$ satisfying $`H_m=ϵ_mH_p`$.

The Tate module of $`J_1(Np)`$ is a module for $`H_p`$ and the submodule $`ϵ_mT_p(J_1(Np))`$ is both free over $`_p`$ and stable under $`Gal(\overline{}/)`$. Therefore it defines a $`p`$-divisible group $`G`$ over $``$ with $`T_p(G)=ϵ_mT_p(J_1(Np))`$ which is acted on by $`H_m`$. In fact, in many cases $`T_p(G)`$ is free over $`H_m`$ which gives $`G`$ the structure of an $`m`$-divisible group. At this point, however, we will make the assumption that $`H_m=_p`$ so that the two notions are equivalent. The following theorem, almost a direct quote of \[Gr, Prop. 12.9\], tells us what the Galois structures of $`G`$ and $`G[m]=G[p]`$ are in that case.

###### Theorem 2.1.

In the case where $`H_m=_p`$, the $`p`$-divisible group $`G`$ satisfies the following:
1. $`G`$ has height $`2`$ and good reduction over $`_p[\zeta _p]`$. In the canonical exact sequence $`0G^0GG^e0`$ over $`_p[\zeta _p]`$, $`G^0`$ and $`G^e`$ both have height $`1`$.
2. The filtration $`0T_p(G^0)T_p(G)T_p(G^e)0`$ is stable under all of $`𝒢_p=Gal(\overline{}_p/_p)`$. $`𝒢_p`$ acts on $`T_p(G^0)`$ via the character $`\lambda (U_p^1)\chi _p`$ (where $`\chi _p`$ is the $`p`$-adic character of $`\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}`$) and on $`T_p(G^e)`$ via the character $`\lambda (U_pp_N^1)\chi ^{2k}`$ (where this $`\chi `$ really means $`\chi __T\chi `$).
3. From 1) we have an exact sequence of $`𝔽_p`$-vector space schemes $`0G^0[p]G[p]G^e[p]0`$ over $`_p`$ with flat extensions to $`_p[\zeta _p]`$.
4. $`G^0[p]`$ and $`G^e[p]`$ both have dimension $`1`$ and the action of $`𝒢_p`$ is given by $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$ and $`\lambda (a_p/ϵ(p))\chi ^{2k}`$ respectively.

###### Proof.

Gross proves that $`G`$ has good reduction over $`_p[\zeta _p]`$. It then follows from the theory of $`p`$-divisible groups \[Ta\] that we have the exact sequences in 1 and 3. He also proves that the action of Galois is as given, that the height of $`G`$ is $`2`$, and that the dimensions of $`G^0[p]`$ and $`G^e[p]`$ are each at least $`1`$. But by definition the $`p`$-torsion of any $`p`$-divisible group of height $`h`$ always has order $`p^h`$. So we see immediately that $`G[p]`$ has dimension $`2`$ and consequently that the connected and étale components each have dimension exactly $`1`$. By applying the same reasoning in reverse we see that $`G^0`$ and $`G^e`$ must then have height $`1`$. ∎

###### Note.

The reason why one can go back and forth between heights and dimensions as we have is that $`G`$ always has a $`p`$-divisible structure. To be more precise, $`T_p(G)`$ is always free over $`_p`$. More generally, one would like to know that $`T_p(G)`$ is free over $`H_m`$. Unfortunately $`G`$ does not always have an $`m`$-divisible structure, although it does in many more cases than simply when $`H_m=_p`$.

Now, we want to relate the splitting of $`\rho _{f,p}`$ to the extension class of the exact sequence

$$0G^0[p]G[p]G^e[p]0$$

so first we need to relate the representation on $`G[p]`$ with $`\rho _f`$. $`G[p]`$ is precisely the $`𝔽_p`$-subspace of $`J_1(Np)[p]`$ on which Hecke acts according to the eigenvalues and character of $`f`$. Indeed, this was the action which defined the maximal ideal $`m`$. This was how we also defined the subspace $`V_f`$ so one might expect that the two representations are the same. However, we had enlarged Hecke slightly. Therefore, $`G[p]`$ is in fact a $`2`$-dimensional subspace of $`V_f`$ fixed by Galois. Now, assume $`\rho _f`$ is irreducible so that the semisimplification of $`V_fϵ\chi ^{k2}`$ is the direct sum of copies of $`\rho _f`$. Then we must have that $`G[p]`$ is also irreducible and furthermore that the representation on $`G[p]`$ is simply $`\rho _f(ϵ\chi ^{k2})^1`$. This leads us to the following theorem relating the splitting of $`\rho _{f,p}`$ and the splitting of the exact sequence involving $`G[p]`$.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Suppose $`H_m=_p`$ and that we are in the exceptional case. Then the following are equivalent:
1) The canonical exact sequence involving $`G[p]`$ is split.
2) $`G[p]`$ is split.
3) $`𝒢_p`$ acts on $`G[p]`$ via the scalar $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$.
4) $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split.
5) $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is the scalar $`\lambda (a_p)`$.

###### Proof.

We have already seen that $`G[p]`$ and $`\rho _f`$ are actually twists of each other by the character $`(ϵ\chi ^{k2})^1`$, which restricts to $`\lambda (1/a_p^2)\chi `$ in the exceptional case. So going back and forth between the two representations is trivial. The nontrivial part of this theorem is showing that $`G[p]`$ is split, meaning that there is some split exact sequence involving $`G[p]`$, if and only if the particular exact sequence under consideration is split.

Essentially this follows from the fact that the characters on $`G^0[p]`$ and $`G^e[p]`$ are not distinct. To be more precise, from Theorem 2.1 we know that $`𝒢_p`$ acts on $`G^0[p]`$ and $`G^e[p]`$ via the characters $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$ and $`\lambda (a_p/ϵ(p))\chi ^{2k}`$. These characters are actually identical in the exceptional case since $`ϵ(p)=a_p^2`$ and $`\chi ^{2k}=\chi ^{1(p1)}=\chi `$. So $`𝒢_p`$ acts on the semisimplification of $`G[p]`$ via the scalar $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$. This means that if any exact sequence extending $`G[p]`$ is split, the representation is in fact that scalar, which in turn implies that every exact sequence is split. ∎

## 3 Splitting Invariants $`q_p`$ and $`q`$

$`G^0[p]`$ is a connected one dimensional $`𝔽_p`$-vector space scheme and $`G^e[p]`$ an étale one dimensional $`𝔽_p`$-vector space scheme. Therefore by Theorem 2.1 they are simply twists of $`\mu _p`$ and $`/p`$ by the characters $`\lambda (1/a_p)`$ and $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$ respectively. If we base extend up to a suitable field, this twisting becomes trivial and we can characterize the splitting of the exact sequence by looking at the invariant of the sequence in the group $`Ext^1(/p,\mu _p)`$. We must choose the extension field to be large enough to trivialize the twisting and yet hopefully small enough so that the splitting status does not change. Fortunately there is such a field $`L_0`$ which we will now describe.

Let $`n`$ be the order of $`a_p`$ in $`𝔽_p^{}`$ and consider the following homomorphisms of groups:

$$Gal(\overline{}_p/_p(\zeta _p))Gal(\overline{𝔽}_p/𝔽_p)/n$$

The first map is the usual reduction map and the second is simply modding out by $`\varphi ^n`$ where $`\varphi `$ is the Frobenius automorphism. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ be the kernel of the composition and define $`L_0`$ to be the fixed field of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ is a normal subgroup, $`L_0`$ is a normal extension of $`_p(\zeta _p)`$ and we have $`Gal(L_0/_p(\zeta _p))/n`$. Also, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ contains the kernel of reduction, $`L_0/_p(\zeta _p)`$ is unramified. Finally, while $`\chi `$ becomes trivial upon extending up to $`_p(\zeta _p)`$, the unramified character $`\lambda (1/a_p)`$ becomes trivial upon extending up to $`L_0`$ since it maps $`\varphi ^na_p^n=1`$. Now, we want to show that the splitting of the exact sequence remains invariant under this base extension, ie. the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The exact sequence of vector space schemes is split over $`_p`$ iff it is split over $`L_0`$.

###### Proof.

To prove this we first note that $`L_0/_p`$ is a finite Galois extension of degree $`n(p1)`$. Therefore for any element $`\gamma Gal(\overline{}_p/_p)`$, $`\gamma ^{n(p1)}`$ must fix $`L_0`$. Now suppose the sequence is split over $`L_0`$ and that $`\gamma `$ acts on $`G[p]`$ via the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ 0& a\end{array}\right]$$

with respect to any basis compatible with the exact sequence of vector space schemes. Recall that the characters of $`G^0[p]`$ and $`G^e[p]`$ were equal in the exceptional case, so $`\gamma `$ must act via such a matrix. Then $`\gamma ^{n(p1)}`$ must act via the matrix:

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}a^{n(p1)}& n(p1)a^{n(p1)1}b\\ 0& a^{n(p1)}\end{array}\right]$$

But this matrix must be diagonal since $`\gamma ^{n(p1)}`$ fixes $`L_0`$ over which the sequence is split (and the representation is a scalar). Since $`n(p1)`$ is prime to $`p`$ this implies $`b=0`$ and the theorem is proved. ∎

Since $`\chi `$ and $`\lambda (1/a_p)`$ are both trivial over $`L_0`$, we have isomorphisms $`\alpha :G^0[p]\mu _p`$ and $`\beta :/pG^e[p]`$ over $`L_0`$. Therefore via $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ the exact sequence of vector space schemes defines a class in $`Ext_{L_0}^1(/p,\mu _p)=L_0^{}/L_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$. But the vector space schemes actually had flat extensions over $`_p[\zeta _p]`$. Therefore if we let $`R_0L_0`$ be the ring of integers, we can extend $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ to $`R_0`$. This gives us a class $`q_p(\alpha ,\beta )Ext_{R_0}^1(/p,\mu _p)=R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$. Since any element of $`R_0`$ which is a $`p`$th power in $`L_0`$ must be a $`p`$th power in $`R_0`$, we see that we could add a third equivalent condition to the theorem.

###### Theorem 3.2.

The following are equivalent:
1) The exact sequence is split over $`_p`$
2) The exact sequence is split over $`L_0`$
3) The exact sequence is split over $`R_0`$, ie. $`q_p(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is trivial.

It is interesting and useful to note what values in particular are possible for $`q_p`$. To do this we first consider how $`Gal(L_0/_p)`$ acts on the various vector space schemes. On $`G^0[p]`$ and $`G^e[p]`$ the action is given by $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$, and on $`\mu _p`$ and $`/p`$ the action is given by $`\chi `$ and the identity. Therefore on $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ the actions are $`\lambda (a_p)`$ and $`\lambda (1/a_p)\chi `$. Since push-out and pull-back commute with scalar multiplication, Galois acts on the class $`q_pExt_{R_0}^1(/p,\mu _p)`$ via the product $`\lambda (a_p)\lambda (1/a_p)\chi =\chi `$. In other words, the values of $`q_p`$ must lie in the $`\chi `$-eigenspace. This gives us a very useful starting point when we attempt to calculate $`q_p`$ and prove the main theorem.

So far the focus has been on the exact sequence of vector space schemes. It is possible to do the analogous construction with the exact sequence of $`p`$-divisible groups. In particular, $`G^0`$ and $`G^e`$ become simply $`\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`_p/_p`$ upon base extension to the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $`_p(\zeta _p)`$. Let $`L`$ denote this field, and $`R`$ its ring of integers. Then for any isomorphisms $`\alpha :G^0\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\beta :_p/_pG^e`$ over $`R`$ we get a class $`qExt_R^1(_p/_p,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}})=1+\pi R`$, where we choose $`\pi `$ to be the uniformizer $`1\zeta _p`$. Furthermore, if these isomorphisms are chosen to be compatible with the isomorphisms of vector space schemes in the obvious sense, the reduction of $`q`$ (mod $`R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$) is simply the image of $`q_p`$ under the map $`R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}R^{}/R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$. Therefore by the same argument this class must still be in the $`\chi `$-eigenspace. However, calculating $`q_p`$ over $`R`$ would not tell us about the splitting of the exact sequence of vector space schemes over $`R_0`$. It is possible, though, to calculate $`q_p`$ over $`R_0`$ from $`q`$, using a result of Coleman. This will be a key element in the proof of the main theorem, along with the two inner product formulas for approximating $`q`$.

## 4 Computing $`q_p`$ from $`q`$

It is natural to ask what relationship exists between the splitting invariants $`q`$ and $`q_p`$ attached to the $`p`$-divisible group $`G`$. As was already pointed out, it is clear that the images of $`q`$ and $`q_p`$ are equal in $`R^{}/R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$ under the obvious maps whenever the isomorhisms $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are chosen compatibly. But $`R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}R^{}/R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$ is far from an injection. So it would be impossible to determine $`q_p`$ from $`q`$ using this fact alone. However, the two invariants are much more closely related, and in fact we can calculate $`q_p`$ from $`q`$. The following theorem does exactly that. Although originally proven by Coleman, here we follow the general line of reasoning of a proof by De Shalit.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\gamma :Gal(L/L_0)_p^{}`$ be the character $`\lambda (U_p^2/p_N)`$. Choose $`wR^{}`$ satisfying $`w^{\sigma 1}=q^{(\gamma (\sigma )1)/p}\sigma Gal(L/L_0)`$. Then $`q/w^p`$ is in $`R_0^{}`$ and $`q_pq/w^p`$ in $`R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$.

Before proving the theorem we should first note why there is such a $`w`$. From \[Gr, Prop. 14.4\] we know that $`q^\sigma =q^{\gamma (\sigma )}`$, and we know that $`p|\gamma (\sigma )1`$ because $`ϵ(p)=a_p^2`$ in the exceptional case. Therefore we have the equation

$$q^{(\gamma (\sigma )1)/p}\left(q^{(\gamma (\tau )1)/p)}\right)^\sigma =q^{(\gamma (\sigma )1)/p}q^{(\gamma (\sigma )\gamma (\tau )\gamma (\sigma ))/p}=q^{(\gamma (\sigma \tau )1)/p}$$

This shows that $`q^{(\gamma (\sigma )1)/p}`$ is a cocycle of $`Gal(L/L_0)`$ acting on $`L^{}`$. Therefore it must be a coboundary, which implies that $`w`$ exists and can in fact be taken to be a unit. Furthermore, raising $`w^\sigma /w`$ to the $`p`$th power we see that

$$\left(\frac{w^\sigma }{w}\right)^p=\left(q^{(\gamma (\sigma )1)/p}\right)^p\frac{(w^p)^\sigma }{w^p}=\frac{q^\sigma }{q}\left(\frac{q}{w^p}\right)^\sigma =\frac{q}{w^p}$$

But this means $`q/w^p`$ is in $`L_0`$ and hence in $`R_0^{}`$. Now we will show that $`q/w^p`$ does in fact reduce to $`q_p`$ in $`R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that we have an exact sequence of $`p`$-divisible groups over $`R_0`$, namely

$$0G^0GG^e0$$

which gives us via $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ a class in $`Ext_{R_0}^1(_p/_p(\lambda (U_p/p_N)),\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}(\lambda (U_p^1)))`$. By base extending to $`R`$ we obtain the class $`q`$ and by restricting to the $`p`$-torsion we obtain the class $`q_p`$. Twisting everything by the character $`\lambda (p_N/U_p)`$ of $`Gal(L/L_0)`$ changes neither the $`p`$-torsion (by choice of $`L_0`$) nor the base extension. A small advantage of doing this is that $`\lambda (U_p^1)\lambda (p_N/U_p)=\gamma ^1`$. However, there is also the greater advantage that $`Ext_{R_0}^1(_p/_p,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^1)=H^1(R_0,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^1)`$, so we may now phrase the problem in the language of cohomology. We have a class $`\eta =\eta _qH^1(R_0,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^1)`$ which becomes (by $`res`$) $`q`$ in $`H^1(R,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}})=1+\pi R`$ and reduces to $`q_p`$ in $`H^1(R_0,\mu _p)=R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$. Because $`\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}(L)`$ is finite, $`res`$ is an injection. Therefore, all we need to do is find a class which restricts to $`q`$ (which must be $`\eta `$) and show that it reduces to $`q/w^p`$.

To define $`\eta `$ we first pick a compatible system of roots of $`q`$ in $`\overline{}_p`$. By compatible, we simply mean that

$$\left(q^{1/p^{k+1}}\right)^p=q^{1/p^k}$$

In $`H^1(R_0,\mu _{p^k}\gamma ^1)`$ we define

$$\eta _k(\sigma )=\frac{\left(q^{1/p^k}\right)^{\sigma \gamma ^1(\sigma )}}{q^{1/p^k}}$$

Since $`q`$ is fixed by $`\sigma \gamma ^1(\sigma )`$, we know $`\eta _k`$ must be a $`p^k`$th root of unity. To show $`\eta _k`$ is a cocycle (of $`\mu _{p^k}\gamma ^1`$) we simply calculate

$$\eta _k(\sigma )\eta _k(\tau )^\sigma =\frac{\left(q^{1/p^k}\right)^{\sigma \gamma ^1(\sigma )}}{q^{1/p^k}}\frac{\left(q^{1/p^k}\right)^{\sigma \gamma ^1(\sigma )\tau \gamma ^1(\tau )}}{\left(q^{1/p^k}\right)^{\sigma \gamma ^1(\sigma )}}=\frac{\left(q^{1/p^k}\right)^{\sigma \tau \gamma ^1(\sigma \tau )}}{q^{1/p^k}}=\eta _k(\sigma \tau )$$

By the compatibility condition, the map $`H^1(R_0,\mu _{p^{k+1}}\gamma ^1)\stackrel{𝑝}{}H^1(R_0,\mu _{p^k}\gamma ^1)`$ takes $`\eta _{k+1}`$ to $`\eta _k`$. Therefore by taking the inverse limit we obtain a class $`\eta H^1(R_0,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^1)`$. It is important to note that a different compatible family of roots of $`q`$ would define a different cocycle $`\eta ^{}`$ but that $`\eta /\eta ^{}`$ is actually a coboundary determined by a compatible system of roots of unity. Therefore the class of $`\eta `$ is uniquely determined.

The only task remaining is to calculate the image of $`\eta `$ in $`H^1(R,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}})`$ under $`res`$ and the class of $`\eta _1`$ in $`H^1(R_0,\mu _p)`$. Since $`\gamma `$ is trivial over $`L`$, we have

$$res(\eta )(\sigma )=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\frac{\left(q^{1/p^k}\right)^\sigma }{q^{1/p^k}}$$

But this is precisely the class corresponding to $`q`$ in $`1+\pi R`$. On the other hand, since $`\eta _1(\sigma )`$ is a $`p`$th root of unity and hence is fixed by $`\gamma `$, in $`H^1(R_0,\mu _p)`$ we have

$$\eta _1(\sigma )=\frac{(q^{1/p})^{\sigma \gamma ^1(\sigma )}}{q^{1/p}}=\frac{(q^{1/p})^\sigma }{(q^{1/p})^{\gamma (\sigma )}}=\frac{(q^{1/p})^\sigma }{q^{1/p}}q^{(1\gamma (\sigma ))/p}=$$

$$\frac{(q^{1/p})^\sigma }{q^{1/p}}\frac{w}{w^\sigma }=\frac{\left(\frac{q^{1/p}}{w}\right)^\sigma }{\left(\frac{q^{1/p}}{w}\right)}=\frac{((q/w^p)^{1/p})^\sigma }{(q/w^p)^{1/p}}$$

But this is precisely the class corresponding to $`q/w^p`$ in $`H^1(R_0,\mu _p)=R_0^{}/R_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}`$. Therefore we have proved the theorem. ∎

## 5 Formulas for $`\mathrm{log}q`$ and $`d\mathrm{log}q`$

At this point we know that we could (in theory) determine whether $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split by choosing isomorphisms $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ and then determining the splitting invariant $`q(\alpha ,\beta )1+\pi R`$. We still do not have a practical criterion, however, which can be checked by straightforward calculations. In this section we will introduce two formulas which can be evaluated by straightforward calculations. The first formula, taken directly from \[CV, Thm. 4.4\], uses the cup product on $`H_{DR}^1(I)`$ (where $`I=I_1(N)`$ is the Igusa curve of level $`N`$ in characteristic $`p`$) to compute $`d\mathrm{log}q`$. The second formula, taken directly from \[C1, Thm. 2.1\], uses an inner product defined on a subspace of $`H^0(X_1(Np),\mathrm{\Omega })`$ to compute $`\mathrm{log}q`$. The main theorem will then be a statement of how the splitting of $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is precisely related to the triviality of these inner products.

The first step to understanding the formulas is to give a different but equivalent interpretation of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. The choice of any homomorphism from $`_p/_p`$ to $`G^e`$ over $`R`$ is equivalent to choosing an element of $`T_pG^e=T_p\overline{G}`$. When $`H_m=_p`$, we have seen that this is a free $`_p`$-module of rank $`1`$. Therefore, $`\beta `$ is an isomorphism exactly when it corresponds to a generator of $`T_p\overline{G}`$. Similarly, a choice of homomorphism from $`G^0`$ to $`\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}`$ over $`R`$ is equivalent to choosing an element of $`T_p\overline{G}^{}`$, where $`G^{}=Hom(G,\mu _p^{\mathrm{}})`$ is the Cartier dual of $`G`$. Again, since this is a free $`_p`$-module of rank $`1`$, an isomorphism $`\alpha `$ corresponds to a generator of $`T_p\overline{G}^{}`$. With this interpretation of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, $`q(\alpha ,\beta )`$ is just the usual Serre-Tate invariant.

$$q:T_p\overline{G}\times T_p\overline{G}^{}1+\pi R$$

If we follow this by the $`p`$-adic logarithm and extend by scalars to $`R`$, this is what is meant by the map

$$\mathrm{log}q:(T_p\overline{G}__pR)\times (T_p\overline{G}^{}__pR)R$$

If instead we follow it by the map $`d\mathrm{log}:ada/a`$ and extend by scalars, this is what is meant by the map

$$d\mathrm{log}q:(T_p\overline{G}__pR)\times (T_p\overline{G}^{}__pR)\mathrm{\Omega }_{R/_p^{\text{unr}}}$$

Here $`_p^{\text{unr}}`$ is the ring of integers in the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $`_p`$.

Now, one has to be a little careful in that the $`p`$-divisible group $`G=G_f`$ which we have defined and the $`p`$-divisible group referred to as $`G`$ in \[CV, Thm. 4.4\] and \[C1, Thm. 2.1\] are not the same. While our $`G`$ was defined by $`T_pG=ϵ_mT_p(J_1(Np))`$, the other is defined by

$$T_pG=\underset{n}{}U_p^n\left(T_p(J_1(Np))^Z\right)$$

By the definition of $`m`$, though, the operator $`U_pa_p`$ (mod $`m`$) on $`G_f`$, which means in particular $`U_p`$ is invertible. Also, by the proof of \[Gr, Prop. 12.9\], the points of $`G_f`$ are indeed killed by the correspondence $`Z=_{d𝔽_p^{}}d_p`$. So our $`G=G_f`$ is simply the subgroup of the larger $`G`$ which is cut out by the idempotent $`ϵ_m`$. In \[CV, Thm. 4.4\] and \[C1, Thm. 2.1\] it is also stated that

$$T_pG^{}=\underset{n}{}U_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{n}\left(T_p(J_1(Np))^Z\right)$$

Although this is not stated explicitly, it is clear that the canonical pairing of $`T_pG`$ and $`T_pG^{}`$ into $`_p(1)`$ in that case simply comes from the Weil pairing on the Tate module of $`J_1(Np)`$. This means that when we apply the theorems we are implicitly also identifying our $`T_pG^{}`$ with $`ϵ_m^{}T_p(J_1(Np))`$ where $`m^{}=ros(m)`$ is the image of $`m`$ under the Rosati involution of $`End(J_1(Np))`$.

The last point which is essential for understanding the two formulas is that there is a correspondence between elements of $`T_p\overline{G}R`$ (or $`T_p\overline{G}^{}R`$) and differentials on $`X`$, the canonical model for $`X_1(Np)`$, over $`R`$. In particular, applying \[CV, Lemma 4.3\] to our $`G`$ and $`G^{}`$, we see that there are natural isomorphisms

$$T_p\overline{G}^{}__pRϵ_mH^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/R})=\mathrm{\Omega }_G$$

$$T_p\overline{G}__pRϵ_m^{}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/R})=\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}$$

The subtlety and the power of these isomorphisms is really in the integral structures over $`R`$. When $`H_m=_p`$ and the lifting $`F`$ of $`f`$ is unique, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G`$ is generated over $`R`$ by the regular differential $`\omega _F`$. Likewise $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}`$ is generated by $`\omega _{F|w}`$ for the automorphism $`w=w_{\zeta _p}`$ of $`X_1(Np)`$ (see \[Gr, Prop. 8.4, 6.14\]). Therefore, by these identifications, the original isomorphisms $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ correspond up to units in $`R^{}`$ to $`\omega _F`$ and $`\omega _{F|w}`$. The integral structure also makes it possible to reduce a differential on $`X`$ (mod $`\pi `$) to obtain a differential on the Igusa curve $`I=I_1(N)`$ by \[Gr, Prop 7.1\]. Aside from respecting the integral structures, these isomorphisms are also nice in that they commute with Hecke in the only possible sense, namely $`h\beta =ros(h)\omega _\beta `$ and $`ros(h)\alpha =h\omega _\alpha `$. With these identifications in mind then, it now makes sense to state the first formula.

###### Theorem 5.1.

If $`\beta T_p\overline{G}__pR`$, $`\alpha T_p\overline{G}^{}__pR`$, and $`\omega _\alpha |_I=\omega _f`$, then

$$d\mathrm{log}q(\alpha ,\beta )=a_p<w^{}\omega _\beta |_I,[f^{}]>_Id\pi +\mathrm{}$$

###### Corollary 5.1.1.

If $`\beta T_p\overline{G}__pR`$, $`\alpha T_p\overline{G}^{}__pR`$, and $`\omega _\alpha |_I=\omega _f`$, then

$$d\mathrm{log}q0(mod\pi d\pi )\text{iff}<w^{}\omega _\beta |_I,[f^{}]>_I=0$$

This is almost an exact restatement of \[CV, Thm. 4.4\]. The simplifications come from the fact that we are in the exceptional case, and that our group $`G`$ is less general. We should note that in the exceptional case, $`f^{}`$ refers to the form $`\theta f`$ on $`X_1(N)`$. While $`f`$ actually defines a holomorphic differential on $`I`$ (the reduction of $`\omega _F`$), both $`f`$ and $`f^{}`$ are shown in \[Gr, Sect. 13\] to define classes in $`H_{DR}^1(I)`$. Also, it should be noted that while our choice of uniformizer $`\pi `$ is not the same as the one in the theorem, the corollary is independent of that choice and is all that we will actually need.

The second formula makes use of an inner product, denoted $`(,)_{\mathrm{}}`$ and introduced in \[C1\], on a subspace $`M_0`$ of $`H^0(X_1(Np),\mathrm{\Omega })`$. The subspace actually contains the $`W^{\text{ord}}`$ and $`W^{\text{anti-ord}}`$ of \[CV\] and \[C1\] so in particular it certainly contains our $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_G^{}`$. This time the statement which we need is a precise quote of \[C1, Theorem 2.1\].

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`\alpha T_p\overline{G}^{}__pR`$ and $`\beta T_p\overline{G}__pR`$. Then

$$(\omega _\alpha ,\omega _\beta )_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{log}q(\alpha ,\beta )$$

## 6 The Main Theorem

###### Theorem 6.1.

Suppose $`H_m=_p`$ and we are are in the exceptional case. Then $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split iff $`(\omega _F,\omega _{F|w})_{\mathrm{}}0(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$ and $`<[f],[f^{}]>_I=0`$.

###### Proof.

We begin by choosing any isomorphisms

$$\alpha :G^0\mu _p^{\mathrm{}}\text{and}\beta :_p/_pG^e$$

over $`R`$, compatible with a fixed choice of isomorphisms

$$\alpha :G^0[p]\mu _p\text{and}\beta :/pG^e[p]$$

over $`R_0`$. By Theorems 2.2 and 3.2 we know $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split iff $`q_p(\alpha ,\beta )=0`$. On the other hand, Theorem 4.1 gives us a way to calculate $`q_p`$ from $`q`$, and we have inner product formulas for $`d\mathrm{log}q`$ and $`\mathrm{log}q`$ from the previous section. This line of reasoning gives the proof of the main theorem its overall structure.

To obtain a starting point for $`q`$ then, we first use the fact that the reduction of $`q`$ must be in the $`\chi `$-eigenspace of the Galois module

$$R^{}/R_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{p}=(1+\pi R)/(1+\pi R)^p=(1+\pi R)/(1+\pi ^pR)$$

This last equality follows from the fact that $`R`$ is the ring of integers in the completion of the maximal unramified extension of $`Q_p(\zeta _p)`$. Using the triviality of Frobenius and solving for the $`\pi ^i`$ coefficients iteratively one can show that the $`\chi `$-eigenspace is precisely the $`p`$th roots of unity. So we could take as our starting point $`q=\zeta ^s(1+r\pi ^p)`$, for some $`s/p`$, and $`rR`$. It is possible to be more precise, though, about the $`r`$ in the expression. Recall that $`q`$ is actually in the $`\lambda (A_p^2/ϵ(p))\chi `$-eigenspace of the Galois module $`1+\pi R`$, and $`A_p^2/ϵ(p)1`$. So acting on $`q`$ by any Frobenius automorphism $`\varphi `$ we have

$`q^\varphi `$ $`=q\left(q^p\right)^{(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}`$
$`(\zeta ^s(1+r\pi ^p))^\varphi `$ $`=\zeta ^s(1+r\pi ^p)\left((\zeta ^s(1+r\pi ^p))^p\right)^{(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}`$
$`\zeta ^s(1+r^\varphi \pi ^p)`$ $`=\zeta ^s(1+r\pi ^p)((1+r\pi ^p)^p)^{(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}`$
$`\zeta ^s(1+r^p\pi ^p)`$ $`\zeta ^s(1+r\pi ^p)(\text{mod}\pi ^{p+1})`$
But this means that the reduction of $`r`$ (mod $`\pi `$) is actually in $`𝔽_p`$. So we may actually start with the congruence

$$q\zeta ^s(1+\pi ^p)^t(mod\pi ^{p+1})$$

with both $`s`$ and $`t`$ in $`/p`$.

To calculate $`q_p`$ from $`q`$ using Theorem 4.1 we need to find a $`wR^{}`$ satisfying $`w^{\sigma 1}=q^{(\gamma (\sigma )1)/p}`$ for all $`\sigma Gal(L/L_0)`$. Since this Galois group is generated by a power of $`\varphi `$, it suffices to find $`w`$ such that $`w^{\varphi 1}=q^{(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}`$. The map $`\varphi 1`$ from $`1+\pi R`$ to itself is surjective, so we can do this in pieces by choosing $`u,v1+\pi R`$ which satisfy

$$u^{\varphi 1}=\zeta =1\pi v^{\varphi 1}=1+\pi ^p$$

Then we can simply let $`w=(u^sv^t)^{(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}`$. Immediately we see that

$`u=1+u_0\pi `$ $`u_0^pu_01(mod\pi )`$
$`v=1+v_0\pi `$ $`v_0^pv_0(mod\pi )`$
Since $`(1+r\pi )^p1+(r^pr)\pi ^p(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$ for any $`r`$, this implies

$`u^p`$ $`(1\pi ^p)(1+\pi ^p)^1(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$
$`v^p`$ $`1(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$
Plugging in for $`w^p`$ and then for $`q`$ using Theorem 4.1 we get

$`w^p`$ $`(1+\pi ^p)^{s(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$
$`q_p`$ $`\zeta ^s(1+\pi ^p)^{t+s(A_p^2/ϵ(p)1)/p}(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$
###### Lemma 6.1.1.

$`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split iff $`s=t=0`$.

###### Proof (of lemma).

If $`s=t=0`$, $`q_p`$ is in $`1+\pi ^{p+1}R`$ and is therefore a $`p`$th power. By Theorems 2.2 and 3.2 this means $`\rho _{f,p}`$ is split. Conversely, we know that $`(1+\pi R)^p(1+\pi ^pR)`$, so if $`q_p`$ is a $`p`$th power it follows immediately that $`s=0`$. Furthermore, it is easily shown that a $`p`$th root of $`1+t\pi ^p+\mathrm{}`$ for $`t/p`$ generates a degree $`p`$ extension of $`_p(\zeta _p)`$ unless $`t=0`$. But the degree of $`L_0/_p(\zeta _p)`$ was prime to $`p`$. Therefore, once $`s=0`$, it is clear that $`t`$ must also be $`0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.1.2.

$`s=t=0`$ iff $`d\mathrm{log}q0(mod\pi d\pi )`$ and $`\mathrm{log}q0(mod\pi ^{p+1})`$.

###### Proof (of lemma).

Regardless of $`t`$, it is always true that

$$d\mathrm{log}q(s/\zeta )d\pi (mod\pi d\pi )$$

While the $`\mathrm{log}q`$ congruence is not independent of $`s`$ in general, in the case that $`s=0`$ we have simply

$$\mathrm{log}qt\pi ^p(mod\pi ^{p+1})$$

This is actually all we need to know logically to prove the lemma. First, suppose $`s=0`$ and $`t=0`$. The above calculations clearly imply the lemma in that case. Conversely, suppose that $`d\mathrm{log}q`$ and $`\mathrm{log}q`$ are sufficiently trivial. It follows immediately from the first calculation that $`s=0`$. This in turn validates the second calculation which implies $`t=0`$ and we are done. ∎

The proof of the main theorem now comes down to a relatively simple application of the two inner product formulas. Since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ correspond to generators of $`T_p\overline{G}^{}`$ and $`T_p\overline{G}`$ respectively, we must have

$$\omega _\alpha =r_1\omega _F,\omega _\beta =r_2\omega _{F|w}$$

for units $`r_1,r_2R^{}`$. Since multiplication by units does not affect the triviality of either inner product we have by Corollary 5.1.1 and Theorem 5.2

$$d\mathrm{log}q0(mod\pi d\pi )<[f],[f^{}]>_I$$

$$\mathrm{log}q0(mod\pi ^{p+1})(\omega _F,\omega _{F|w})_{\mathrm{}}0(mod\pi ^{p+1})$$

Combining these last equivalences with the two lemmas, the Main Theorem follows. ∎

###### Remark.

In \[Mc\] these inner products are explicitly calculated for two examples. The first begins with a weight $`5`$ form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(4)`$ and the second with a weight $`7`$ form for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(3)`$. Unfortunately, however, both associated representations are in fact reducible and come from companion forms which are weight $`1`$ Eisenstein series. So while the calculations illustrate methods for computing the splitting criterion, the necessary hypotheses of the criterion are not satisfied.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Robert Coleman and Benedict Gross whose cited works provided both essential results and helpful exposition of the subject. To Robert Coleman, especially, we are deeply indebted for countless helpful conversations and truly exceptional advising.

.