text:
# Geometry of reduced sextics of torus type

## 1. Introduction and statement of the result

In our previous paper , we have classified the configurations of the singularities on irreducible sextics of torus type. In this note, we classify the configuration of the singularities of reducible sextics of torus type. We use the same notations as in .

We denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{out}`$ the configurations of the inner singularities and of the outer singularities respectively. For the classification of the configurations of the reduced sextics of torus type, it is less important to distinguish inner or outer singularities but what is more important is to know the singularities of the irreducible components and their intersections. We put $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{out}`$, and we call it the reduced configuration. Let $`B_{i_1},\mathrm{},B_{i_k}`$ be the irreducible components of $`C`$. We call $`\{\mathrm{deg}B_{i_1},\mathrm{}\mathrm{deg}B_{i_k}\}`$ the component type of a reducible sextics $`C`$. In this note, we assume that the curves $`B_i,B_i^{},\mathrm{}`$ are irreducible and their degrees are the same with the indices. Thus, for example, $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$ implies that $`C`$ has three components of degree 1, 1, 4. The configurations of the singularities of $`B_i`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_i)`$. We say that $`C`$ has the maximal rank if $`C`$ has only simple singularities and the total Milnor number is 19. We denote configurations with maximal rank by upper suffix $`mr`$, like $`[A_{11},2A_2,D_4]^{mr}`$. The classification of reduced sextics of torus type with only simple singularities is given in Theorem 1 and the classification for the other case is given in Theorem 2.

### 1.1. Reduced sextics with simple singularities

We first classify the reduced sextics with simple singularities.

###### Theorem 1.

The classifications of singularities on reducible sextics of torus type with only simple singularities are given as follows.

1. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_5,4A_2]:`$ $`C=B_5+B_1`$ and $`[A_5,4A_2,2A_1]_2,[A_5,4A_2,3A_1]_2`$, $`[A_5,5A_2,2A_1]_2`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,4A_1]`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3]_2`$,$`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,A_1]_2,[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_3`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,D_4]_2,[A_5,4A_2,D_5]_2`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[2A_5,2A_2]`$:

1. $`C=B_1+B_5`$: $`[2A_5,2A_2,2A_1]_2,[2A_5,2A_2,3A_1]_1,[2A_5,3A_2,2A_1]_1,[2A_5,2A_2,A_3]_2`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,A_3,A_1]_1`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,D_4]_1`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,D_5]_1^{mr}`$.
    2. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$: $`[2A_5,2A_2,3A_1]_2,[2A_5,2A_2,4A_1]`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,D_4]_2`$.
    3. $`C=B_2+B_4`$: $`[2A_5,2A_2,2A_1]_3`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,3A_1]_3`$, $`[2A_5,3A_2,2A_1]_2`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,A_3]_3`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,A_3,A_1]_2`$, $`[2A_5,2A_2,D_4]_3,[2A_5,2A_2,D_5]_2^{mr}`$.
    4. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$: $`[2A_5,2A_2,3A_1]_4,[2A_5,2A_2,A_3,A_1]_3,[3A_5,2A_2]^{mr}`$.
3. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[E_6,A_5,2A_2]`$: $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,2A_1]_2`$, $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,3A_1]`$, $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,A_3]_2`$, $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,A_3,A_1]^{mr}`$.
4. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_5]`$:

1. $`C=B_1+B_5`$: $`[3A_5,2A_1]_1`$, $`[3A_5,A_3]_1`$.
    2. $`C=B_2+B_4`$: $`[3A_5,2A_1]_2`$, $`[3A_5,A_3]_2`$.
    3. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$: $`[3A_5,3A_1]_1`$, $`[3A_5,D_4]_1^{mr}`$.
    4. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$: $`[3A_5]_2`$, $`[3A_5,A_1]_2`$, $`[3A_5,A_2]_2`$, $`[3A_5,2A_1]_3`$, $`[3A_5,A_1,A_2]`$, $`[3A_5,2A_2]^{mr}`$.
    5. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$: $`[3A_5,2A_1],[3A_5,3A_1]_1,[3A_5,A_2,2A_1]^{mr},[3A_5,A_3]_3`$, $`[3A_5,A_3,A_1]^{mr}`$.
    6. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_1^{\prime \prime }+B_3`$: $`[3A_5,3A_1]_2`$, $`[3A_5,4A_1]^{mr}`$, $`[3A_5,D_4]_2^{mr}`$.
    7. $`C=B_2+B_2^{}+B_2^{\prime \prime }`$: $`[3A_5,3A_1]_3`$, $`[3A_5,D_4]_3^{mr}`$.
5. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[2A_5,E_6]`$:

1. $`C=B_1+B_5`$: $`[E_6,2A_5,2A_1]_1`$, $`[E_6,2A_5,A_3]_1^{mr}`$.
    2. $`C=B_2+B_4`$: $`[E_6,2A_5,2A_1]_2`$, $`[E_6,2A_5,A_3]_2^{mr}`$.
    3. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$: $`[E_6,2A_5,3A_1]^{mr}`$.
6. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_8,A_5,A_2]`$: $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`[A_8,A_5,A_2,2A_1]_2`$, $`[A_8,A_5,A_2,3A_1]`$, $`[A_8,A_5,A_2,A_3]_2`$, $`[A_8,A_5,A_2,A_3,A_1]^{mr}`$, $`[A_8,A_5,A_2,D_4]^{mr}`$.
7. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{11},2A_2]`$:

1. $`C=B_2+B_4`$: $`[A_{11},2A_2,2A_1]_2`$, $`[A_{11},2A_2,3A_1]_1`$, $`[A_{11},3A_2,2A_1]^{mr}`$, $`[A_{11},2A_2,A_3]_2`$, $`[A_{11},2A_2,D_4]^{mr}`$.
    2. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$: $`[A_{11},2A_2,3A_1]_2`$, $`[A_{11},2A_2,A_3,A_1]`$.
8. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{11},A_5]`$:

1. $`C=B_1+B_5`$: $`[A_{11},A_5,2A_1]_1`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,A_3]_1^{mr}`$.
    2. $`C=B_2+B_4`$: $`[A_{11},A_5,2A_1]_2,[A_{11},A_5,A_3]_2^{mr}`$.
    3. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$: $`[A_{11},A_5]_2`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,A_1]_2`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,A_2]_2`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,2A_1]_3`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,A_2,A_1]^{mr}`$.
    4. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$: $`[A_{11},A_5,2A_1]`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,3A_1]^{mr}`$, $`[A_{11},A_5,A_3]_3^{mr}`$.
9. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{17}]`$: $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$, $`[A_{17}]_2`$, $`[A_{17},A_1]_2`$, $`[A_{17},2A_1]^{mr}`$, $`[A_{17},A_2]_2^{mr}`$.

Further geometrical informations are explained in the proof in Section 3. In the above theorem, the lower index, like $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$, is to distinguish other component with the same weak Zariski configuration. The index 1 is reserved for the irreducible case if there exists an irreducible sextics. Thus the configuration which start from index 2, like $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$, implies that there is an irreducible sextics with the same configuration.

###### Theorem 2.

The reduced configurations with at least one non-simple singularities are given by the following.

1. $`B_{3,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. $`C=B_1+B_5:`$ $`[B_{3,6},3A_2,A_1]_2`$, $`[B_{3,6},3A_2,2A_1]`$, $`[B_{3,6},4A_2,A_1]`$, $`[B_{3,6},A_5,A_2,A_1]_1`$, $`[B_{3,6},E_6,A_2,A_1]`$, $`[B_{3,6},A_8,A_1]`$.
    2. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4:`$ $`[B_{3,6},A_5,A_2,2A_1]_1`$.
    3. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3:`$ $`[B_{3,6},A_5,A_2,2A_1]_2`$.
    4. $`C=B_2+B_4:`$ $`[B_{3,6},A_5,A_2,A_1]_2`$.
    5. $`C=B_2+B_2^{}+B_2^{\prime \prime }:`$ $`[2B_{3,6}]`$.
2. $`C_{3,7}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. $`C=B_1+B_5:`$ $`[C_{3,7},3A_2,A_1]_2`$, $`[C_{3,7},3A_2,2A_1]`$, $`[C_{3,7},A_5,A_2,A_1]_1`$, $`[C_{3,7},E_6,A_2,A_1]`$, $`[C_{3,7},A_8,A_1]`$.
    2. $`C=B_2+B_4:`$ $`[A_2,A_5,C_{3,7},A_1]_2`$.
    3. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4:`$ $`[C_{3,7},A_5,A_2,2A_1]`$.
3. $`C_{3,8}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. (a-1) $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`(B_5,O)=A_3`$: $`[C_{3,8},3A_2]_2`$, $`[C_{3,8},3A_2,A_1]_1`$, $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2]`$, $`[C_{3,8},E_6,A_2]`$, $`[C_{3,8},A_8]`$.

    (a-2) $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`(B_5,O)=A_5:`$ $`[C_{3,8},3A_2,A_1]_2`$.
    2. $`C=B_2+B_4:`$ $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2]`$.
    3. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3:`$ $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_1`$, $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_2`$.
4. $`C_{3,9}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$ $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`[C_{3,9},2A_2,A_1]_2`$, $`[C_{3,9},2A_2,2A_1]`$, $`[C_{3,9},3A_2,A_1]`$, $`[C_{3,9},A_5,A_1]`$, $`[C_{3,9},E_6,A_1]`$.
5. $`C_{3,12}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. $`C=B_1+B_5:`$ $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_1`$.
    2. $`C=B_2+B_4:`$ $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_2`$.
    3. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3:`$ $`[C_{3,12},A_2,2A_1]`$.
6. $`C_{6,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. $`C=B_1+B_5:`$ $`[C_{6,6},2A_2,A_1]`$.
    2. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4:`$ $`[C_{6,6},2A_2,2A_1]_1`$.
    3. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$: $`[C_{6,6},A_5]`$.
    4. $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$: $`[C_{6,6},A_5,A_1]`$
    5. $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_2+B_2^{}:`$ $`[C_{6,6},A_5,2A_1]_2`$.
7. $`C_{6,9}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$ $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`[C_{6,9},A_2,A_1]`$.
8. $`C_{3,15}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$ $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`[C_{3,15},A_1]`$.
9. $`B_{3,12}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$: $`C=B_2+B_2^{}+B_2^{\prime \prime }`$, $`[B_{3,12}]`$.
10. $`C_{6,12}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}:`$ $`[C_{6,12}]`$.
    2. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3:`$ $`[C_{6,12},A_1]`$.
11. $`B_{4,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$ $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ and $`[B_{4,6},A_5]`$.
12. $`D_{47}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$

1. $`C=B_1+B_5:`$ $`[D_{4,7},2A_2]`$.
    2. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3:`$ $`[D_{4,7},A_5]`$.
13. $`Sp_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$ $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ and $`[Sp_2]`$.
14. $`B_{6,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}:`$ $`[B_{6,6}]`$.

## 2. Preliminaries

### 2.1. Genus formula and the class formula

Let $`C`$ be an irreducible curve of a given degree $`d`$. Then the genus formula is given as

$$\begin{array}{c}g(C)=\frac{(d1)(d2)}{2}\underset{P\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}\delta (P)0,\delta (P)=\frac{\mu (C,P)+r(C,P)1}{2}\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\mu (C,P)`$ and $`r(C,P)`$is the Milnor number and the number of local irreducible components (). Let $`\delta ^{}(C)=_{P\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}\delta (P)`$. Using this criterion, we have $`\delta ^{}(C)6,3,1,0`$ respectively for $`d=5,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}`$ for an irreducible curve $`C`$. Now assume that $`C`$ is not irreducible. Let $`C=B_{i_1}+\mathrm{}B_{i_k}`$ be the irreducible decomposition of $`C`$ with $`\text{degree}(B_{i_k})=i_k`$. We define $`\delta ^{}(C)=_{j=1}^k\delta ^{}(B_{i_j})`$.

###### Corollary 3.

Assume that $`C=B_{i_1}+\mathrm{}B_{i_k}`$ is the irreducible decomposition and $`k2`$. Then

$$\delta ^{}(C)\{\begin{array}{cc}6\hfill & C=B_5+B_1\hfill \\ 3\hfill & C=B_4+B_2,B_4+B_1+B_1^{}\hfill \\ 2\hfill & C=B_3+B_3^{}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & C=B_3+B_2+B_1,B_3+B_1+B_1^{}+B_1^{\prime \prime }\hfill \\ 0\hfill & otherwise\hfill \end{array}$$

The class formula describes the degree $`n^{}(C)`$ of the dual curve and it is given by the following formula().

$$n^{}(C)=d(d1)\underset{P\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}(\mu (C,P)+m(C,P)1)$$

The number of flex points $`i(C)`$ counted with multiplicity is given by

$$i(C)=3d(d2)\underset{P\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}{}\text{flex defext(C,P)}$$

For the definition of flex defect, we refer Oka

### 2.2. Intersection singularities

Let $`C`$ be a plane curve and let $`C^1,\mathrm{},C^k`$ be the irreducible components. Let $`P`$ be a singular point of $`C`$. We say that $`P`$ is a proper singularity if $`PC^i_{ji}C^j`$ for some component $`C^i`$. Otherwise we say that $`(C,P)`$ an intersection singularity. Assume that $`C=C^1C^2`$, for example, and $`PC^1C^2`$ and $`C^1,C^2`$ are non-singular at $`P`$ and let $`\iota `$ be the local intersection number. Then $`(C,P)A_{2\iota 1}`$. Assume further that $`C^1`$ is a line and $`\iota 3`$. Then we say that $`C^1`$ is a flex tangent line of $`C^2`$.

###### Proposition 4.

Assume that $`C`$ is defined by $`f(x,y)=0`$ and assume that the Newton boundary is non-degenerate. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_k`$ be the faces of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)`$ and assume that $`f_{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}(x,y)=_{j=1}^{\nu _i}(y^{a_i}\alpha _jx^{b_i})`$ with $`\mathrm{gcd}(a_i,b_i)=1`$ and $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{\nu _i}`$ are mutually distinct. Then $`C`$ has $`_{i=1}^k\nu _i`$ local irreducible components which are defined $`(y^{a_i}\alpha _jx^{b_i})+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$.

See for example .

###### Example 5.

1. Consider $`D_4:y^2x+x^3=0`$. Then $`D_4`$ can be an intersection singularity of three smooth components, $`x=0,y\pm x=0`$ where each two of them intersect transversely. Similarly $`D_5:y^2x+x^4=0`$ can be interpreted as an intersection singularity of a line $`x=0`$ and a cusp $`y^2+x^3=0`$.
2. Consider the singularity $`C_{3,p}:y^3+y^2x^2x^p=0`$.
Case 1. Assume that $`p`$ is odd. Then $`C_{3,p}`$ has two local irreducible components. One component is smooth and defined by $`L:y+x^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and another component $`M`$ is defined by $`y^2x^{p2}+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and it is an $`A_{p3}`$-singularity and $`I(L,M;O)=4`$.
Case 2. Assume that $`p`$ is even and put $`p=2m,m4`$. Then $`C_{3,2m}`$ has three smooth components $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$ where $`L_1:y+x^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and $`L_2,L_3`$ are defined by $`y\pm x^{m1}+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$. Note that $`(L_2L_3,O)A_{2m3}`$ and $`(L_1L_2,O)A_3`$.

We use the following notations for the non-simple singularities as in .

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}B_{p,q}:y^p+x^q=0(\text{Brieskorn-Pham type})\hfill & \\ C_{p,q}:y^p+x^q+x^2y^2=0,\frac{2}{p}+\frac{2}{q}<\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\hfill & \\ D_{4,7}:y^4+x^3y^2+ax^5y+bx^7=0,a^24b0\hfill & \\ Sp_1:(y^2x^3)^2+(xy)^3=0\hfill & \\ Sp_2:(y^2x^3)^2y^6=0\hfill & \end{array}`$
Hereafter we only consider sextics of torus type

$$C:f_2(x,y)^3+f_3(x,y)^2=0$$

The notation $`C_2:f_2(x,y)=0`$ and $`C_3:f_3(x,y)=0`$ is used throughout the paper.

### 2.3. Weak Zariski k-ple

A $`k`$-ple of reduced plane curves $`\{C^1,\mathrm{},C^k\}`$ is called a weak Zariski $`k`$-ple if $`\text{degree}(C^1)=\mathrm{}=\text{degree}(C^k)`$ and they have same reduced configuration of singularities and the topology of the complement $`\text{P}^2C^j`$ are all different. We call $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C^j)`$ a weak Zariski configuration. Note that $`C^1,\mathrm{},C^k`$ may have different component types. Artal has first observed such a pair for $`[A_{17}]`$ or some others in sextics . It is obvious that a Zariski pair is a weak Zariski pair.

### 2.4. Sextics of linear torus

A sextics $`C`$ of torus type is called of linear torus type  if $`C`$ can be defined by $`f(x,y)=f_2(x,y)^3+f_3(x,y)^2`$ where $`f_2(x,y)=(ax+by+c)^2`$. We may assume that $`f_2=y^2`$ by a linear change of coordinates so that $`f`$ is a product of linear forms $`f(x,y)=(f_3(x,y)+y^3)(f_3(x,y)y^3)`$. It is easy to observe that the inner singularities are on $`y=f_3(x,0)=0`$.

###### Proposition 6.

The possibility of inner configuration of sextics of linear torus type is either $`[3A_5]`$, or $`[A_{11},A_5]`$ or $`[A_{17}]`$ for simple singularities and for non-simple singularities, we have $`[C_{6,6},A_5]`$, $`[B_{4,6},A_5]`$, $`[D_{4,7},A_5]`$, $`[C_{6,12}]`$, $`[Sp_2]`$ and $`[B_{6,6}]`$.

Proof. Assume that $`f_3(\alpha ,0)=0`$. Assume that $`\alpha `$ is a simple solution of $`f_3(x,0)=0`$ (respectively a solution of multiplicity 2 or 3). Put $`P=(\alpha ,0).`$ Then $`I(y^2,C_3;P)=2`$ (resp. 4 or 6). Let $`C^1,C_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ be the cubic defined by $`f_3(x,y)\pm y^3=0`$. If $`C^1,C_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$ are non-singular at $`P`$, then $`PC`$ is an intersection singularity, and $`(C,P)`$ is isomorphic to $`A_5,A_{11}`$ or $`A_{17}`$ depending to the multiplicity.

Assume that $`P`$ is an singular point of $`C^1`$ and $`C_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}`$. Then $`(C,P)`$ can not be $`E_6`$ as $`(C,P)`$ is not irreducible and the assertion follows from the classification of  and Theorem 2.∎

Assume that $`C`$ is a sextics with $`3A_5`$ or $`A_{11}+A_5`$ or $`A_{17}`$. We denote the location of these singularities by $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ which we assume to be mutually distinct. We say that $`C`$ is of linear type if there is a line $`L\text{P}^2`$ such that

$$LC=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{P_1,P_2,P_3\},I(C,L;P_i)=2\hfill & (C,P_i)A_5\hfill \\ \{P_1,P_2\},I(C,L;P_1)=2,I(C,L;P_2)=4\hfill & (C,P_1)A_5,(C.P_2)A_{11}\hfill \\ \{P_1\},I(C,L;P_1)=6,\hfill & (C,P_1)A_{17}\hfill \end{array}$$

The following is the converse of Proposition 7.

###### Proposition 7.

Assume that $`C`$ is a reduced sextics with $`3A_5`$ or $`A_{11}+A_5`$ or $`A_{17}`$. Assume that

1. $`C`$ is a sextics of linear type or

2. $`C`$ is a sextics of torus type which is a union of two cubics.

Then $`C`$ is of linear torus type.

We give an computational proof in Appendix.

###### Remark 8.

There exists sextics of non-torus type which has the decomposition type $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ with $`3A_5`$ or $`A_{11}+A_5`$ or $`A_{17}`$ which are not colinear. In fact, in the space of sextics, the moduli of sextics with configuration $`[3A_5]`$, $`[A_{11},A_5]`$ or $`[A_{17}]`$ consists of 4 components: irreducible non-torus sextics, irreducible sextics of torus type, non-torus sextics with two cubics components, sextics of linear torus type. The assertion is shown by Artal  for the configuration $`[A_{17}]`$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

### 3.1. Elimination of other configurations

Main step to the proof is to list the possible configurations, eliminating other configurations. This process can be done by fixing the inner configuration. The proof of the existence for the survived configurations for the maximal configurations is checked by constructing explicit examples (in next subsection), and for other configurations, we leave it to the reader. In the following, $`B_i,B_i^{},\mathrm{}`$ are assumed to be an irreducible component of degree $`i`$. By , the possible inner configurations are the combinations of $`A_2,A_5,A_8,A_{11},A_{14},A_{17},E_6`$.

First consider the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[6A_2]`$. This implies $`\delta ^{}(C)6`$. Assume that $`C`$ is not irreducible. As $`A_2`$ is an irreducible singularity, it is not possible unless $`C=B_5+B_1`$. However there is no quintic $`B_5`$ with 6 $`A_2`$, as $`n^{}(B_5)=2`$. (The conics are self-dual.)

The configurations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[4A_2,E_6],[2A_2,2E_6],[3A_2,A_8],[A_2,A_{14}]`$ are impossible to be on a reducible sextic curve as $`\delta ^{}7`$. Now we consider the other cases.

1. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[4A_2,A_5]`$. Then $`\delta ^{}(C)5`$ and the only possibility is $`C=B_1+B_5`$. If this is the case, $`B_1`$ must be a flex tangent of $`B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2]`$ generically.

Note also $`B_1B_5=A_5+2A_1`$ or $`A_5+A_3`$ if the intersections are on their smooth points. Here we mean by $`B_1B_5=A_5+2A_1`$, the intersection of $`B_1`$ and $`B_5`$ are three points, and the equivalence classes of the intersection singularities are $`A_5`$ and two $`A_1`$ respectively. Under the assumption $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[4A_2,A_5]`$, $`B_5`$ can take further $`A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4`$, $`2A_1`$ by the genus formula. There are no quintic with $`4A_2+A_4`$ or $`5A_2+A_1`$. In fact, if there is such a quintic, $`n^{}(B_5)=3`$ in both cases. However this is impossible by the following well-known fact.

Fact1. The dual of an irreducible smooth (resp. nodal, or cuspidal) cubic $`B_3`$ is a 9 cuspidal sextic (respectively 3 cuspidal quartic or cuspidal cubic).

Note that $`A_5`$ mus be on $`B_1B_5`$. Assume first $`B_1B_5`$ is $`A_5+2A_1`$. The configurations corresponding to the degeneration of the quintic is: $`[A_5,4A_2,2A_1]`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,3A_1]`$,$`[A_5,5A_2,2A_1]_2`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_1`$ and $`A_5,4A_2,4A_1]`$.

Assume that $`B_1B_5=A_5+A_3`$. Then we can insert to $`B_5`$ either $`A_1`$ or $`2A_1`$ but we can not insert any other singularity. Thus we have $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3]_2`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,A_1]_2`$ and $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$. In fact, assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[5A_2]`$. Then $`n^{}(B_5)=5`$ and $`i(B_5)=5`$. Thus 5 cuspidal quintics are self dual. However if $`B_1B_5=A_5+A_3`$, $`B_1`$ is a flex tangent which is also tangent at another point. This implies one $`A_2`$ of $`B_5^{}`$ has to be replaced by $`D_5`$ (= the dual singularity of $`(B_5,B_1B_5)^{}`$) which is impossible.

The exceptional cases $`[4A_2,A_5,D_4]`$ and $`[4A_2,A_5,D_5]`$ are given when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=4A_2+A_1`$ or $`5A_2`$ respectively and the line component $`B_1`$ passes through the last outer $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$. Note that the sextics with one of the above configurations can be degenerated into one of $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_1`$ or $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$ or $`[A_5,4A_2,D_5]`$.

There are further degenerations $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_1[A_5,C_{3,7},A_2,A_1]`$ ( 5.3-1), $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_3`$ $`[A_5,E_6,A_3,2A_2,A_1]_2^{mr}`$ (5.3-2) and $`[4A_2,A_5,D_5]_2[2A_5,2A_2,D_5]_1^{mr}`$ ( 5.3-3) . We will give later explicit examples of these degenerations in 5.3. So the existence of the above configurations follows from the existence of these three configurations $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_1`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_3`$ and $`[A_5,4A_2,D_5]_2`$.

Note that $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_i,i=1,2`$ is an interesting weak Zariski configuration: Both has the same decomposition type $`B_1+B_5`$ but $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2,A_3]`$ and $`B_1+B_5=A_5+2A_1`$ (respectively $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2,2A_1]`$ and $`B_1+B_5=A_5+A_3`$) for $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_1`$ (resp. for $`[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$). (To distinguish them, we put the index 1 or 2.) The configurations $`[A_5,4A_2,2A_1]`$, $`[A_5,4A_2,3A_1]`$ are also weak Zariski configurations as there exist irreducible sextics with these configurations. See . Hereafter we do not list up the weak Zariski configurations. They can be read from the indices.

2. Now we consider the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[2A_2,2A_5]`$.
(a) Consider the component type $`C=B_1+B_5`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[2A_2,A_5]`$ and $`B_1B_5=A_5+2A_1`$ or $`A_5+A_3`$. We can put at most one $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ in $`B_5`$. In the case $`B_1B_5=A_5+A_3`$, we assert that $`A_2`$ can not be inserted in $`B_5`$. In fact, assume that $`B_5`$ is a quintic with $`3A_2+A_5`$. Then $`n^{}(B_5)=5`$ and the dual curve $`B_5^{}`$ has the same singularities, as $`i(C)=3`$ and $`A_5`$ is self-dual (). If $`B_1B_5=A_5+A_3`$, $`B_1`$ is a flex tangent and the dual singularity is $`D_5`$ which is impossible as the dual curve $`B_5^{}`$ can not have $`A_5+2A_2+D_5`$. However the configurations $`[A_5,2A_2,D_4]`$ and $`[A_5,2A_2,D_5]_1^{mr}`$ (see 5.1-3) are possible by putting the above extra $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ on $`B_1B_5`$. Note that we have a degeneration $`[2A_5,3A_2,2A_1][2A_5,2A_2,D_5]_1^{mr}`$
(b) Assume that $`C=B_4+B_1+B_1^{}`$. Then to have $`2A_5+2A_2`$, $`B_4`$ must have two cusps and $`B_1,B_1^{}`$ must be flex tangents. Thus generically $`[2A_5,2A_2,3A_1]`$. The configuration $`[2A_5,2A_2,D_4]`$ is given when two lines $`B_1,B_1^{}`$ intersect on $`B_4`$. Furthermore $`B_4`$ can have one more node ( so $`[2A_5,2A_2,4A_1]`$, see 5.3-4) but it can not have three cusp. In fact, if $`B_4`$ has three cusps, $`B_4^{}`$ is a nodal cubic. This is impossible as $`B_4^{}`$ have at least two cusps.
(c) Assume that $`C=B_2+B_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[2A_2]`$ and $`B_2B_4=2A_5+2A_1`$ generically. We can put either $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ on $`B_4`$. See 5.3-5. Consider the case $`B_2B_4=2A_5+A_3`$. Then we can only insert $`A_1`$ into $`B_4`$. We can put $`A_2`$ into $`B_4`$ only on $`B_2B_4`$ so that we get $`[2A_5,2A_2,D_5]_2^{mr}`$ (see 5.1-3). The case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[3A_2]`$ and $`B_2B_4=2A_5+A_3`$ does not occur. In fact, assume that $`B_2B_4=2A_5+A_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[3A_2]`$. Note that the dual $`B_2^{}`$ is a conic and the dual $`B_4^{}`$ is cubic. Now the assumption implies that $`B_2^{}B_4^{}=2A_5+A_3`$ which is impossible by Bezout theorem.
(d) Assume that $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$. Then the cubics are cuspidal and $`B_3B_3^{}=2A_5+3A_1`$ (generic) or $`2A_5+A_3+A_1`$ or $`3A_5`$. This is the most difficult case to find explicit examples. See the next section for explicit examples (see 5.1-1). The case $`[[2A_5,2A_2],[A_5]]`$ coincides with $`[[3A_5],[2A_2]]`$. This corresponds to the fact that this configuration has two torus expressions (see 5.1-6). Note that every configurations with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[2A_5,2A_2]`$ except $`[2A_5,2A_2,4A_1]`$ is a weak Zariski configuration. For example, $`[2A_5,2A_2,3A_1]`$ has 4 different cases.

3. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[E_6,A_5,2A_2]`$. Then $`\delta ^{}5`$ and the possibility is $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[E_6,2A_2]`$ and $`B_1B_5=A_5+2A_1`$ or $`A_5+A_3`$. As there is no quintic with $`[E_6,3A_2]`$ by the dual curve discussion, we can put at most one $`A_1`$. This gives the configurations in the list. The added $`A_1`$ can not be on $`B_1`$. This has to be checked by a direct computation or it also follows from Yang, , as $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,D_4]`$ does not exist. Note that $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,2A_1]`$ and $`[E_6,A_5,2A_2,A_3]`$ are weak Zariski configurations.

4. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_5]`$. In the case of (a)$``$ (c) of No.4 in Theorem 1, $`B_5`$ in (a), $`B_4`$ in (b) or (c) are rational. Thus the assertion is obvious except the existence. The case (a) is given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[2A_5]`$ and $`B_1B_5=A_5+2A_1`$ or $`[A_5+A_3]`$. See 5.3-6. The case (b) is given by $`C=B_2+B_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[A_5]`$ and $`B_2B_4=2A_5+2A_1`$ or $`2A_5+A_3`$. See 5.3-7. The case (d), three $`A_5`$ are colinear by Proposition 7 and assuming they are on $`y=0`$, the generic form is given by $`f_3(x,y)^2y^6`$, where $`f_2=y^2`$. Thus every configurations in (d) can be obtained by putting either $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ in the cubics. The cases (e,f) are special cases of (d). In case (e), we can put only $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ in $`B_3`$. However we need to show that if $`B_1B_2=A_3`$, $`B_3`$ can not be cuspidal. In fact, if such a sextics exists, it gives rank 20 configuration $`[3A_5,A_3,A_2]`$ which is known to be impossible (). The assertion of (f) is also easy to see as three line components are flex tangents and a nodal (respectively cuspidal) cubic has three flex points(resp. one flex point). The last configuration $`[3A_5,D_4]`$ is given when three line components intersect at a point.

The case $`(g)`$ is the only non-trivial case. By Proposition 7, three $`A_5`$ can not be colinear. The normal form is given in 5.1. In this family the intersection of any two conic components gives $`A_5+A_1`$. The maximal configuration $`[3A_5,D_5]`$ is given by $`u=1/4`$ where three conics intersect at a point.

5. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[2A_5,E_6]`$. Assume that $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_5,E_6]`$ and therefore $`B_5`$ is rational. In the case $`C=B_2+B_4`$ or $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B4)=[E_6]`$. In any case, $`B_4`$ is rational and the configurations have maximal ranks. Thus there are no further possibility. See 5.1-4,5.

6. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[A_8,A_5,A_2]`$. Then $`C=B_1+B_5`$. The non-existence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=A_8+2A_2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_8,A_5,2A_2,2A_1]`$ is checked by a direct computation. This is also a result of Yang , as this is not in his table of maximal rank configuration. The $`[A_8,A_5,2A_2,A_3]`$ does not exists as the rank is 20.

7. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[A_{11},2A_2]`$. It is easy to see that $`A_{11}`$ must be an intersection singularity.
(a) Assume first $`C=B_2+B_4`$. As $`B_4`$ has $`2A_2`$, it can take only $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$. The case $`B_2B_4=A_{11}+A_3`$, it can be checked by computation that $`B_4`$ can not have further singularity. Namely $`[A_{11},A_3,2A_2,A_1]`$ does not appear from this series. This also follows from the connectedness of the moduli space of the sextics with the configuration $`[2A_2,A_{11},A_3,A_1]^{mr}`$ (see ), as it exists for the component type $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$. See 5.3-8.
(b) Assume that $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$. Then two cubics are cuspidal and $`B_3B_3^{}=A_{11}+3A_1`$ or $`A_{11}+A_3+A_1`$. As $`[A_{11},2A_2,A_3,A_1]^{mr}`$ (see 5.1-10) has rank 19, there are no possibility of $`[A_{11},A_5,2A_2]`$.

8. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{11},A_5]`$.
(a) Assume that $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_{11}]`$. Then $`B_4`$ is rational and we can not put any further singularity in $`B_5`$. As $`B_1B_5=A_5+2A_1`$ or $`A_5+A_3`$, the assertion is clear.

Assume that $`A_{11}`$ is an intersection singularity. Then it implies either $`C=B_2+B_4`$, $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ or $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$.
(b) Assume that $`C=B_2+B_4`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[A_5]`$ and $`B_2B_4=A_{11}+2A_1`$ or $`A_{11}+A_3`$ and the assertion is clear.
(c) Assume that $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$. We can make two cubics are tangent at two points with multiplicity 6 and 3 so that $`B_3B_3^{}=A_{11}+A_5`$. Now the assertion follows by putting $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$ in the cubics. As the rank is 19 for $`[A_{11},A_5,A_2,A_1]`$, we can not put $`A_2`$ in both cubics simultaneously.
(d) Assume that $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$. We can make them so that $`B_3B_2=A_{11}`$, $`B_1B_3=A_5`$ and $`B_1B_2`$ is either $`2A_1`$ or $`A_3`$ and $`B_3`$ is either smooth or nodal.

9. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{17}]`$. Then th only possibility is $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ with $`B_3B_3^{}=A_{17}`$. The assertion is clear. See 5.1-17,18.

## 4. Proof of Theorem 2

In this section, we prove Theorem 2. As in the proof of Theorem 1, the proof of existence after eliminating non-existing configurations, is due to direct computations and we give some non-trivial examples later. We first fix a non-simple inner singularity at the origin $`O`$ and then we consider the possibility of inner configurations and component types.

1. Assume that $`B_{3,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. Recall that $`(C_2,O)`$ is smooth, $`(C_3,O)A_1`$ and $`\iota :=I(C_2,C_3;O)=3`$. Possible inner configurations are $`[3A_2,B_{3,6}],[A_2,A_5,B_{3,6}]`$, $`[A_2,E_6,B_{3,6}]`$, $`[A_8,B_{3,6}]`$, $`[2B_{3,6}]`$. We assume that $`B_{3,6}`$ is at $`O`$. First observe that has locally three smooth components $`C^1,C^2,C^3`$ with $`I(C^i,C^j;O)=2`$ for $`ij`$. Thus if $`B_{3,6}`$ is an intersection singularity of two global components, say $`C^1,C^2C^2`$, $`(C^2C^3;O)A_3`$ and $`I(C^1,C^2C^3;O)=4`$.
(a) Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_2,B_{3,6}]`$. If $`C`$has two components, the singularities $`3A_2,A_3`$ must be in a component. Then the unique possibility is the case $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`B_{3,6}`$ is an intersection singularity of $`B_1`$ and $`B_5`$ and $`B_5`$ has $`A_3+3A_2`$ as singularities. Thus $`I(B_1,B_5;O)=4`$, $`B_1B_5=B_{3,6}+A_1`$ and $`B_5`$ can take further at most either one $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$. It is easy to observe that $`C`$ can not have three irreducible components (see 5.2-1).
(b) Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[B_{3,6},E_6,A_2]`$ or $`[B_{3,6},A_8]`$. Then by an easy consideration about $`\delta ^{}`$-genus, $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{B_5}`$ is $`[A_2,E_6,A_3]`$ or $`[A_8,A_3]`$ and $`B_5`$is already rational. We get $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[B_{3,6},E_6,A_2,A_1],[B_{3,6},A_8,A_1]`$. See 5.2-4.
(c) Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_2,A_5,B_{3,6}]`$. In this case, we have more possibilities of component types.
(1) Assume that $`C=B_1+B_5`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_2,A_5,A_3]`$ and $`B_5`$ is rational.
(2) Assume that $`C=B_2+B_4`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=A_3+A_2`$ and $`B_4`$ is thus rational and $`B_2B_4=B_{3,6}+A_5+A_1`$.
(3) Assume that $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$. $`B_4`$ is as above and $`B_1B_4=B_{3,6}`$ and $`B_1^{}B_4=A_5+A_1`$. See 5.2-2.
(4) Assume that $`C`$ has a cubic component $`B_3`$. Then $`B_3`$ has to take $`A_2`$ and smooth at $`O`$. To make $`B_{3,6}`$, the other components can not be three lines, As an irreducible cubic can not have $`A_3`$, the only possibility is $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$, $`B_2B_3=A_3+A_5+A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ is tangent to $`B_2`$ and $`B_3`$ at $`O`$ so that altogether we get $`B_{3,6}`$ and $`B_1B_3`$ has one transverse intersection to make $`A_1`$. See 5.2-3.
(5) Finally for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[2B_{3,6}]`$, it is already observed in  that $`C=B_2+B_2^{}+B_2^{\prime \prime }`$.

2. Assume that $`C_{3,7}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. By the classification , $`C_2`$ is smooth, $`C_3`$ is nodal at $`O`$ and $`\iota =3`$. Recall that $`C_{3,7}`$ is an intersection singularity of a smooth component and a component with $`A_4`$. This implies that $`C`$ must have a component of degree $`4`$. The possibilities of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$ are $`[3A_2,C_{3,7}]`$, $`[A_2,A_5,C_{3,7}]`$, $`[A_2,E_6,C_{3,7}]`$, $`[A_8,C_{3,7}]`$ (). In any case, as $`\delta (C_{3,7})=6`$, $`C_{3,7}`$ must be an intersection singularity. We assume that $`O`$ is $`C_{3,7}`$-singularity.
(a) Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_2,C_{3,7}]`$. Then $`C=B_1+B_5`$. Note that $`I(B_1,B_5;O)=4`$ by Example 5 in the section 2 and $`B_1B_5=C_{3,7}+A_1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)3A_2+A_4`$, we can put $`A_1`$ in $`B_5`$. Note that a quintic $`B_5`$ can not have $`4A_2+A_4`$ as, if so, we get $`n^{}(B_5)=3`$ which is a contradiction.
(b) Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_2,E_6,C_{3,7}]`$ or $`[A_8,C_{3,7}]`$. Then the possibility is $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=A_2+E_6+A_4`$ or $`A_2+E_6+A_4`$. In any case $`B_5`$ is rational and $`B_1B_5=C_{3,7}+A_1`$ and we get $`[C_{3,7},E_6,A_2,A_1]`$ and $`[C_{3,7},A_8,A_1]`$. See 5.2-5.
(c)Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_2,A_5,C_{3,7}]`$.
(1) If $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=A_2+A_5+A_4`$ and thus $`B_5`$ is rational. Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,7},A_5,A_2,A_1]`$.
(2) Assume that $`C=B_2+B_4`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=A_4+A_2`$ and thus $`B_4`$ is rational and $`B_2B_4=A_5+C_{3,7}+A_1`$ as $`I(B_2,B_4;O)=4`$. Assume that $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$. Then $`B_4`$ is as above and $`B_1B_4=C_{3,7}`$ and $`B_1^{}B_4=A_5+A_1`$ and the corresponding configuration is $`[C_{3,7},A_5,A_2,2A_1]`$. See 5.2-6.

3. Assume that $`C_{3,8}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. Then $`C_2`$ is smooth, $`C_3`$ is nodal at $`O`$ and $`\iota =3`$. Assume that $`O`$ is $`C_{3,8}`$ singularity defined by $`y^3+y^2x^2x^8+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ for simplicity. Recall that it has three smooth components $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$ where $`L_1:y+x^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and $`L_2,L_3:y\pm x^3+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$. To consider it as an intersection singularity of two components, there are two ways.
(a-1) Assume that $`L_2`$ is a smooth component of $`C`$ and $`L_1L_3`$ is another component. Then $`I(L_2,L_1L_3;O)=5`$ and $`(L_1L_3;O)=A_3`$.
(a-2) Assume that $`L_1`$ is a smooth component of $`C`$ and $`L_2L_3`$ is another component. Then $`I(L_1,L_2L_3;O)=4`$ and $`(L_2L_3;O)=A_5`$.

Possible inner configurations are $`[3A_2,C_{3,8}]`$, $`[A_2,A_5,C_{3,8}]`$, $`[A_2,E_6,C_{3,8}]`$, $`[A_8,C_{3,8}]`$.
(1) Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_2,C_{3,8}]`$ or $`[A_2,E_6,C_{3,8}]`$ or $`[A_8,C_{3,8}]`$. Then $`C=B_1+B_5`$.
1. Assume first that $`B_1`$ corresponds to $`L_2`$ and $`B_5`$ corresponds to $`L_1L_3`$. Then $`(B_5,O)A_3`$, $`B_1B_5=C_{3,8}`$ and generically we have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_3]`$, $`[A_2,E_6,A_3]`$,$`[A_8,A_3]`$ respectively. In the last two cases, $`B_5`$ is rational and it is easy to see that (a-2) does not occur. We get $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},E_6,A_2]`$ and $`[C_{3,8},A_8]`$.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_2,C_{3,8}]`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_3]`$ and we can put further $`A_1`$. Thus we get $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},3A_2],[C_{3,8},3A_2,A_1]`$. See 5.2-7. We assert that we can not put $`A_2`$ in $`B_5`$:

###### Assertion 9.

Such a quintic $`B_5`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2,A_3]`$ does not exist.

Proof. Suppose that such a quintic exists. Then $`n^{}(B_5)=4`$. By the assumption, $`(C,O)`$ has locally three components $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$ $`B_5`$ has locally two components $`L_1,L_3`$. Recall that $`I(L_2,L_3;O)=3`$. As we have assumed that $`B_1=L_2`$, this implies that $`L_3`$ has a flex point at $`O`$. Other component $`L_1`$ has $`I(L_2,L_1;O)=2`$. Assuming $`(x,y)`$ is an affine coordinate system so that $`y=0`$ be the equation of $`L_2`$, $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ are defined by $`h_1(x,y)=(y+ax^2+\text{(higher terms)})`$ and $`h_3(x,y)=(y+bx^3+\text{(higher terms)})=0`$ for some $`a,b0`$. Here $`h_1,h_2`$ are analytic functions defined in a neighborhood of $`O`$, though $`(x,y)`$ are affine coordinates. This implies by the following lemma that the dual singularity of $`(B_5,O)`$ is a union of a cusp $`L_3^{}`$ and a smooth curve $`L_1^{}`$ which has the same tangent with the cusp. Thus the Milnor number of $`(B_5^{},O^{})`$ is 7. (This implies $`A_3`$ is not generic in the sense of Puiseux order ). However a quartic can have at most 6 as the total Milnor number, which is a contradiction.∎

###### Lemma 10.

Let $`B_5`$ be a projective curve with a singularity at the origin whose defining function takes the form $`h_1(x,y)h_3(x,y)`$. Then the dual singularity $`(B^{},O^{})`$ is locally defined by $`g(u,v)=0`$ where

$`g(u,v)=(v+a^{}u^2+\text{(higher terms)})(v^2+b^{}u^3+\text{(higher terms)}),a^{},b^{}0`$
$`=v^3+b^{}vu^3+a^{}b^{}u^5+\text{(higher term)}=0`$
Thus the dual singularity is $`E_7`$ and the Milnor number is 7.

Proof. We use the parametrization $`L_1:x(t)=t,y(t)=at^2+\text{(higher terms))}`$ and $`L_3:x(t)=t,y(t)=bt^3+\text{(higher terms)}`$. Then the equation of the Gauss map images can be obtained by an easy computation (see ) and the assertion follows.∎

2. Now we consider the case $`C=B_1+B_5`$ which corresponds to (a-2): $`(B_5,O)A_5`$ and $`B_1B_5=C_{3,8}+A_1`$. Then the unique possible inner configuration is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[C_{3,8},3A_2]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_5]`$ and $`B_5`$ is rational. This gives the configuration $`[C_{3,8},3A_2,A_1]_2`$. See 5.2-8.
(2) Now assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2]`$.
1. Assume that $`C=B_1+B_5`$. As $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)\{A_5,A_2\}`$, $`B_5`$ can not take another $`A_5`$. Thus the case (a-1) is the unique possibility and $`B_5`$ is rational with $`[A_5,A_3,A_2]`$. This gives the configuration $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2]`$.
2. Assume $`C=B_2+B_4`$. As we have seen in (a-1) and (a-2), we need either $`A_3`$ or $`A_5`$ on $`B_4`$ to make $`C_{3,8}`$. Thus the only possibility is the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[A_3,A_2]`$ ((a-1)) and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_2,A_5,C_{3,8}]`$. In fact, this case is possible and $`B_2B_4=C_{3,8}+A_5`$ as $`I(B_2,B_4;O)=5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,A_5,C_{3,8}]`$.
3. Now we consider the case $`C`$ does not have any component of degree greater than 3. Only possible inner configuration is $`[A_2,A_5,C_{3,8}]`$ and the component type must be $`\{1,2,3\}`$ and the cubic component must be cuspidal. To make $`C_{3,8}`$, we need either $`A_3`$ or $`A_5`$ in the other union of components. We can make the components $`B_1,B_2,B_3`$ in two ways.
(a-1) $`I(B_1,B_2;O)=2`$, $`I(B_1,B_3;O)=3`$ and $`I(B_2,B_3;O)=2`$ and $`(B_2B_3,O)A_3`$: The corresponding configuration is denoted by $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_1`$. This is a degeneration of $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2]_1`$. See 5.2-9.
(a-2) $`I(B_1,B_2;O)=2`$, $`I(B_1,B_3;O)=2`$ and $`I(B_2,B_3;O)=3`$ and $`(B_2B_3,O)A_5`$: The corresponding configuration is denoted by $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_2`$. This is a degeneration of $`[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2]_2`$. See 5.2-10.

4. $`C_{3,9}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. Then $`C_2`$ is smooth and $`C_3`$ is nodal at $`O`$ and $`\iota =3`$ or $`4`$. We assume that $`O`$ is $`C_{3,9}`$-singularity as before. First we observe that $`\mu (C_{3,9})=13`$ and it must be an intersection singularity of a smooth component $`L`$ and a component $`M`$ with $`A_6`$. Note that $`I(L,M;O)=4`$. There are two $`C_{3,9}`$ with different $`\iota `$ (=the intersection number $`I(C_2,C_3;O)`$).
1. The case $`\iota =3`$, the only possibility of the inner configuration is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[3A_2,C_{3,9}]`$ by  which is given by $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=3A_2+A_6`$ and $`B_1B_5=C_{3,9}+A_1`$, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[3A_2,C_{3,9},A_1]`$.
2. The other case is $`\iota =4`$ and the possible inner configurations are $`[2A_2,C_{3,9}]`$, $`[A_5,C_{3,9}]`$, $`[E_6,C_{3,9}]`$.
a. Assume $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[C_{3,9},2A_2]`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=2A_2+A_6`$ and we can put $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$. This gives $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,9},2A_2,A_1],[C_{3,9},2A_2,2A_1],[C_{3,9},3A_2,A_1]`$.
b. In the cases $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_5,C_{3,9}]`$ or $`[E_6,C_{3,9}]`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=A_5+A_6`$ or $`E_6+A_6`$ and therefore $`B_5`$ is already rational. Note that $`I(B_1,B_5;O)=4`$ and thus $`B_1B_5=C_{3,9}+A_1`$. Thus the possibilities for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}`$ are $`[2A_2,C_{3,9},A_1]`$, $`[2A_2,C_{3,9},2A_1]`$, $`[3A_2,C_{3,9},A_1]`$, $`[A_5,C_{3,9},A_1]`$, $`[E_6,C_{3,9},A_1]`$. See 5.2-12.

###### Remark 11.

We get the reduced configuration $`[C_{39},3A_2,A_1]`$ from two inner configurations $`[C_{3,9},3A_2]`$ and $`[C_{3,9},2A_2]`$ In fact, the moduli is the same and it has two different torus decompositions. An example is the following.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{16}{3}x+1)y^2+(6x^2+3x)y+x^3)^2\hfill \\ \hfill =\frac{343}{27}(y^2+\frac{15}{7}yx+\frac{3}{7}y+\frac{9}{7}x^2)^3\frac{1}{27}(27x^3+9yx+60yx^2+9y^2+54y^2x+17y^3)^2\end{array}$$

5. $`C_{3,12}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. In this case, $`C_2`$ is smooth, $`C_3`$ is nodal at $`O`$ and $`\iota =5`$. Possible inner configuration is $`[A_2,C_{3,12}]`$. First note that $`C_{3,12}`$ has locally three smooth components $`L_1,L_2,L_3`$ which satisfies

$`I(L_1,L_2;O)=I(L_1,L_3;O)=2,I(L_2,L_3;O)=5`$
$`(L_1L_2;O),(L_1L_3;O)A_3,(L_2L_3;O)A_9`$
If $`C`$ has two components, it can be either $`L_1+(L_2L_3)`$ or $`L_2+(L_1L_3)`$.

Assume that $`C=B_1+B_5`$. As $`I(B_1,B_5;O)5`$, we must have $`B_5=L_2L_3`$. Then $`B_1B_5=C_{3,12}+A_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_2,A_9]`$ and $`B_5`$ is rational. This gives the configuration $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_1`$. See 5.2-13.

Assume that $`C=B_2+B_4`$. Then as $`B_4`$ can not have $`A_9`$, we must have $`B_4=L_1L_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[A_3,A_2]`$ and $`B_2B_4=C_{3,12}+A_1`$ as $`I(L_2,L_1L_3;O)=7`$. Thus $`B_4`$ is rational and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,C_{3,12},A_1]_2`$. See 5.2-13.

Assume that $`C_{3,12}`$ is an intersection singularity of three global components. The intersection singularity of two of them have to make $`A_9`$. To make $`A_9`$, we need the intersection multiplicity 5. Thus the unique possibility is the case: $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$ with $`(B_2B_3,O)A_9`$. Thus we may assume that $`B_1=L_1,B_2=L_2,B_3=L_3`$, $`B_2B_3=A_9+A_1`$ and $`B_1`$ is tangent to $`B_2`$ at $`O`$ so that $`(B_1B_2B_3,O)C_{3,12}`$. The corresponding configuration is $`[C_{3,12},A_2,2A_1]`$. This is a degeneration of $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_i,i=1,2`$.

6. $`C_{6,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. In this case, both of $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are nodal at $`O`$ and $`\iota =4`$. Possible inner configurations are $`[2A_2,C_{6,6}]`$ and $`[A_5,C_{6,6}]`$. We assume $`C_{6,6}`$ singularity is at $`O`$ and is locally defined by $`y^6x^2y^2+x^6+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ for simplicity. First note that $`C_{6,6}`$ has locally 4 smooth components $`L_1,L_2,K_1,K_2`$ such that $`L_1,L_2:x\pm y^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and $`K_1,K_2:y\pm x^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and $`I(K_1,K_2;O)=I(L_1,L_2;O)=2`$ and $`I(L_i,K_j;O)=1`$. Note also that $`(L_1L_2K_1,O)D_6`$ (same for any three components) and $`(L_1L_2,O)`$,
$`(K_1K_2,O)A_3`$.
1. Assume that $`C=B_1+B_5`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=2A_2+D_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[2A_2,C_{6,6},A_1]`$. As $`B_5`$ is already rational, the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[C_{6,6},A_5]`$ does not occur.
The case $`C=B_2+B_4`$ does not exist because $`B_4`$ can not support $`D_6`$.
2. Assume that $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$. Then this case is possible only if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_5,C_{6,6}]`$ and two cubics are nodal at $`O`$ with the same tangent cone so that $`B_3B_3^{}=A_5+C_{6,6}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,C_{6,6}]`$. Note that $`I(L_1K_1,L_2K_2;O)=6`$. Another decomposition possibilities:
3. Assume $`C=B_4+B_1+B_1^{}`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_4)=[2A_2,A_1]`$ and $`B_1`$ and $`B_1^{}`$ are tangent to branches of $`A_1`$ of $`B_4`$ so that $`(B_1B_1^{}B_4,O)=C_{6,6}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[2A_2,C_{6,6},2A_1]`$. Two $`A_1`$ are the transverse intersection of $`B_1`$ or $`B_1^{}`$ and $`B_4`$ outside of $`O`$. See 5.2-14. As $`I(B_1,B_4;O)=3`$, the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[C_{6,6},A_5]`$ does not exist.
4. Assume $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$: $`B_3`$ is nodal and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_5,C_{6,6}]`$. $`B_1B_2B_3=C_{6,6}`$ and $`B_2B_3=A_5+D_6`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,6},A_5]`$.
5. $`C=B_2+B_2^{}+B_1+B_1^{}`$: This can be understood as a degeneration of $`B_3+B_3^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,C_{6,6},2A_1]`$. See 5.2-15. The case $`C=B_3+B_1+B_1^{}+B_1^{\prime \prime }`$ can not make $`C_{6,6}`$.

7. $`C_{6,9}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. Possible inner configuration is $`[A_2,C_{6,9}]`$. Note that $`C_{6,9}`$ has two smooth components $`L_1,L_2`$ defined by $`L_i:y+a_ix^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$, $`a_i0,a_1a_2`$, and one component $`K`$ defined by $`y^2+bx^7+\text{(higher terms)}=0,b0`$ with $`A_6`$ singularity and $`I(L_1,L_2;O)=2`$ and $`I(L_i,K;O)=2`$. Note that $`(L_2K;O)D_9`$. Thus the unique possibility is the case $`C=B_1+B_5`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_2,D_9]`$, $`B_1B_5=C_{6,9}+A_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,C_{6,9},A_1]`$.

8. $`C_{3,15}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. Then $`C_2`$ is smooth and $`C_3`$ is nodal at $`O`$. Note that $`C_{3,15}`$ has two components: a smooth component $`L`$ and another component $`K`$ with $`A_{12}`$ singularity and $`I(L,K;O)=4`$. Thus the unique possibility is the case $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_{12}]`$ and $`B_1B_5=C_{3,15}+A_1`$. This case gives $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,15},A_1]`$. See 5.2-17.

9. $`B_{3,12}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$: This case is unique and $`C=B_2+B_2^{}+B_2^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[B_{3,12}]`$. See 5.2-18 and .

10. $`C_{6,12}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. In this case, $`C_2`$ is a multiple line and $`C_3`$ is nodal at $`O`$. Note that $`C_{6,12}`$ has 4 smooth components $`L_1,L_2,K_1,K_2`$ with $`I(L_1,L_2;O)=2`$, $`I(K_1,K_2;O)=5`$ and $`I(L_i,K_j;O)=1`$. Note also that

$`(L_1K_1;O)A_1,(L_1L_2;O)A_3,K_1K_2;O)A_9`$
$`(L_1L_2K_1;O)D_6,(L_2K_1K_2,O)=D_{12}`$
Thus $`C=B_2+B_4`$ is not possible. If $`C=B_1+B_5`$ is the case, $`(B_5,O)D_6`$ and $`B_5=L_1L_2K_1`$. But this is impossible as $`5I(B_1,B_5;O)=7`$.

Assume that $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$. Then the cubics are nodal and they correspond to $`L_iK_i,i=1,2`$ respectively and $`I(B_3,B_3;O)=9`$. This case exists and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,12}]`$.

Suppose that $`B_3^{}`$ degenerate into $`B_1+B_2`$. Then $`B_1B_3=D_6`$ and $`B_2B_3=D_{12}`$ and $`B_1B_2=2A_1`$. This also exists and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,12},A_1]`$. See 5.2-16.

There are no other possibility of three components case. Note also that $`C`$ can not have two line components. In fact, if it has two line components, we may assume that $`L_1,K_1`$ are the lines components. Put $`C=L_1+K_1+J`$, where $`J`$ is the union of other components, $`\text{degree}(J)=4`$ and $`J=L_2K_2`$. Then we have a contradiction $`8I(L_1K_1,J;O)=I(L_1K_1,L_2K_2;O)=9`$.

11. $`B_{4,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. In this case, $`C_2`$ is a multiple line and $`C_3`$ has a cusp ( or $`A_3`$). The possible inner configurations are $`[2A_2,B_{4,6}]`$ and $`[A_5,B_{4,6}]`$. Note that $`B_{4,6}`$ can be intersection singularity of two cuspidal components with intersection number 6. Thus the only possibility is that $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ and it is easy to see that $`[2A_2,B_{4,6}]`$ does not exist as a reducible sextics. For $`[A_5,B_{4,6}]`$, we can take two cuspidal cubic $`B_3,B_3^{}`$ such that $`B_3B_3^{}=B_{4,6}+A_5`$. There are no other possibility.

12. $`D_{4,7}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. Then the possible inner configurations are $`[2A_2,D_{4,7}]`$ and $`[A_5,D_{4,7}]`$. Recall that $`D_{4,7}`$ is defined by $`y^4+x^3y^2+ayx^5+bx^7=0`$ with $`a^24b0`$ and $`\mu (D_{4,7})=16`$. It has three components $`L_1,L_2,K`$ where $`K`$ is cuspidal component of type $`x^3+y^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and $`L_1,L_2`$ are smooth components of type $`y+\alpha x^2+\text{(higher terms)}=0`$ and thus $`I(L_1,L_2;O)=2`$ and $`I(L_i,K;O)=3`$. Thus $`(L_1L_2;O)A_3`$ and $`(L_1K,O)E_7`$. For $`[2A_2,D_{4,7}]`$, as an component have to support $`2A_2`$ and $`E_7`$, the only possibility is the case $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=2A_2+E_7`$ and so $`B_5`$ is rational and $`B_1B_5=D_{4,7}`$.

Consider the case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{A_5}=[A_5,D_{4,7}]`$. If $`D_{4,7}`$ is an intersection singularity of two components, this is only possible for $`C=B_1+B_5`$, but then we can not make $`A_5`$. Thus $`C`$ has three components and the unique possibility is $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$. In fact, this is possible if $`B_3`$ is cuspidal and $`B_2B_3=E_7+A_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,D_{4,7}]`$. See 5.2-19 and .

13. $`Sp_2\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$. This case is studied by  and given by $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$, where both cubics are cuspidal with the same tangent cone and $`I(B_3,B_3^{};O)=9`$.

14. $`B_{6,6}`$ is possible only when $`f_2(x,y),f_3(x,y)`$ are homogeneous polynomials of degree 2 and 3 in $`x,y`$.

### 4.1. Examples II, Non-simple singularities

We give explicit examples for some configurations. The normal form of $`B_{3,6}`$-singulaity at $`O`$ with $`y=0`$ a linear component is given as

$`f_\mathit{2}:=a_{\mathit{02}}y^2+(a_{\mathit{11}}x+a_{\mathit{01}})yt^2x^2`$
$`f_\mathit{3}:=b_{\mathit{03}}y^3+(\mathit{b12}x+b_{\mathit{02}})y^2+(b_{\mathit{21}}x^2+b_{\mathit{11}}x)y+t^3x^3`$
The normal form of torus decomposition with $`C=B_2+B_4`$ and $`B_{3,6}`$ at $`O`$ where $`B_2`$ is defined by $`yx^2=0`$ is given

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(t^2y^2+(a_{\mathit{11}}x+a_{\mathit{01}})y\frac{1}{4}\frac{(4t^2a_{\mathit{01}}+a_{\mathit{11}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})x^2}{t^2})^3+\frac{1}{64}(8t^6y^3\hfill \\ \hfill +12y^2t^4a_{\mathit{11}}x8y^2t^3b_{\mathit{02}}6x^2yt^2a_{\mathit{11}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8x^2yt^3b_{\mathit{02}}8xyt^3b_{\mathit{11}}\\ \hfill +x^3a_{\mathit{11}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+8x^3t^3b_{\mathit{11}})^2/t^6\end{array}$$

In the following examples, those with a line or conic component can be easily derived from the above normal forms.

1. $`B_{3,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[4A_2,B_{36},A_1]`$, $`C=B_1+B_5,\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2,A_3]`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+(5x+1)yx^2)^3+(\frac{3}{4}y^3+(\frac{15}{4}x+\frac{3}{4})y^2+(15x^2+\frac{9}{4}x)y+x^3)^2\hfill \end{array}$$
2. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,A_5,B_{3,6},2A_1]`$, $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+y4x^2)^3+(y^3+(4x1)y^2+4yx8x^3)^2$$
3. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,A_5,B_{3,6},2A_1]`$, $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+(3x+1)yx^2)^3+(\frac{2}{3}y^3+(\frac{13}{3}x\frac{2}{3})y^2+(5x^2\frac{7}{3}x)y+x^3)^2$$
4. $`[A_8,B_{3,6},A_1]`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_8,A_3]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+(3x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{2}{3}x+1)y^2+(10x^2\frac{11}{3}x)y+x^3)^2$$
5. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,7},A_8,A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(2y^3+(3x+2)y^2+(2x^2+3x)y+x^3)^2$$
6. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,7},A_5,A_2,2A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(\frac{9}{2}y^3+(3x+\frac{9}{2})y^23xyx^3)^2$$
7. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[3A_2,C_{3,8},A_1]_1`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_3,A_1]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(2x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{3}{2}x+3)y^2+(3x^2\frac{3}{2}x)y+x^3)^2$$
8. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[3A_2,C_{3,8},A_1]_2`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_5]`$:

$$\mathrm{fff}(x,y):=(y^2+(x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+3xy+x^3)^2$$
9. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$, $`B_2B_3=A_3+A_5+A_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_1`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(x+\frac{3}{4})yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{3}{2}x+\frac{3}{4})y^2\frac{9}{8}yx+x^3)^2$$
10. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$, $`B_2B_3=A_5+A_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_2`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(\frac{1}{16}y^2+(x3)yx^2)^3+(\frac{1}{64}y^3\frac{3}{8}xy^2+(3x^29x)y+x^3)^2$$
11. $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_8,A_3]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_8,C_{3,8}]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(3x+1)yx^2)^3+(\frac{27}{8}y^3+(\frac{69}{8}x+\frac{27}{8})y^2+(\frac{9}{8}x^2\frac{3}{2}x)y+x^3)^2$$
12. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,9},E_6,A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(y^2x+(2x^2x)y+x^3)^2$$
13. $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_1\stackrel{u1}{}[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_3`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(uy^2+yx^2)^3+(y^3+y^2+(x^2+x)yx^3)^2$$

and $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_2\stackrel{u1}{}[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_3`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+uyux^2)^3+(y^3+y^2+(x^2+x)yx^3)^2$$
14. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,6},2A_2,A_1]_1`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$ $`\stackrel{s=0}{}`$ $`[C_{6,6},2A_2,2A_1]_1`$ with $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+xyx^2)^3+(y^3+((7+s)x+2)y^2+(x^2x)y+x^3)^2$$
15. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,6},A_5,2A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_2+B_2^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=y^6+(y^3+xy^2+(x^2+x)y+2x^3+x^2)^2$$
16. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ with $`[C_{6,12}]`$ for $`s1`$ and $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$ with $`[C_{6,12},A_1]`$ for $`s=1`$ are given by:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=y^6+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+(x^2+x)y+2sx^3)^2$$
17. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,15},A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=((x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+xyx^3)^2$$
18. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[B_{3,12}]`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(y^33y^2+3yx^2)^2\hfill \\ \hfill =(x^2+3y^2+2y^2\sqrt{3}+y)(x^2y3y^2+2y^2\sqrt{3})(x^2y)\end{array}$$
19. $`C=B_1+B_5,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[D_{4,7},2A_2]\stackrel{s=0}{}C=B_1+B_2+B_3,[D_{4,7},A_5]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(sxyx^2)^3+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+yx^2+x^3)^2$$

### 4.2. Examples II, Non-simple singularities

We give explicit examples for some configurations. The normal form of $`B_{3,6}`$-singulaity at $`O`$ with $`y=0`$ a linear component is given as

$`f_\mathit{2}:=a_{\mathit{02}}y^2+(a_{\mathit{11}}x+a_{\mathit{01}})yt^2x^2`$
$`f_\mathit{3}:=b_{\mathit{03}}y^3+(\mathit{b12}x+b_{\mathit{02}})y^2+(b_{\mathit{21}}x^2+b_{\mathit{11}}x)y+t^3x^3`$
The normal form of torus decomposition with $`C=B_2+B_4`$ and $`B_{3,6}`$ at $`O`$ where $`B_2`$ is defined by $`yx^2=0`$ is given

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(t^2y^2+(a_{\mathit{11}}x+a_{\mathit{01}})y\frac{1}{4}\frac{(4t^2a_{\mathit{01}}+a_{\mathit{11}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})x^2}{t^2})^3+\frac{1}{64}(8t^6y^3\hfill \\ \hfill +12y^2t^4a_{\mathit{11}}x8y^2t^3b_{\mathit{02}}6x^2yt^2a_{\mathit{11}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8x^2yt^3b_{\mathit{02}}8xyt^3b_{\mathit{11}}\\ \hfill +x^3a_{\mathit{11}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+8x^3t^3b_{\mathit{11}})^2/t^6\end{array}$$

In the following examples, those with a line or conic component can be easily derived from the above normal forms.

1. $`B_{3,6}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}`$: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[4A_2,B_{36},A_1]`$, $`C=B_1+B_5,\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2,A_3]`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+(5x+1)yx^2)^3+(\frac{3}{4}y^3+(\frac{15}{4}x+\frac{3}{4})y^2+(15x^2+\frac{9}{4}x)y+x^3)^2\hfill \end{array}$$
2. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,A_5,B_{3,6},2A_1]`$, $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+y4x^2)^3+(y^3+(4x1)y^2+4yx8x^3)^2$$
3. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_2,A_5,B_{3,6},2A_1]`$, $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+(3x+1)yx^2)^3+(\frac{2}{3}y^3+(\frac{13}{3}x\frac{2}{3})y^2+(5x^2\frac{7}{3}x)y+x^3)^2$$
4. $`[A_8,B_{3,6},A_1]`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_8,A_3]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=(y^2+(3x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{2}{3}x+1)y^2+(10x^2\frac{11}{3}x)y+x^3)^2$$
5. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,7},A_8,A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(2y^3+(3x+2)y^2+(2x^2+3x)y+x^3)^2$$
6. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,7},A_5,A_2,2A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(\frac{9}{2}y^3+(3x+\frac{9}{2})y^23xyx^3)^2$$
7. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[3A_2,C_{3,8},A_1]_1`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_3,A_1]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(2x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{3}{2}x+3)y^2+(3x^2\frac{3}{2}x)y+x^3)^2$$
8. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[3A_2,C_{3,8},A_1]_2`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[3A_2,A_5]`$:

$$\mathrm{fff}(x,y):=(y^2+(x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+3xy+x^3)^2$$
9. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$, $`B_2B_3=A_3+A_5+A_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_1`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(x+\frac{3}{4})yx^2)^3+(y^3+(\frac{3}{2}x+\frac{3}{4})y^2\frac{9}{8}yx+x^3)^2$$
10. $`C=B_1+B_2+B_3`$, $`B_2B_3=A_5+A_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,8},A_5,A_2,A_1]_2`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(\frac{1}{16}y^2+(x3)yx^2)^3+(\frac{1}{64}y^3\frac{3}{8}xy^2+(3x^29x)y+x^3)^2$$
11. $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[A_8,A_3]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_8,C_{3,8}]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+(3x+1)yx^2)^3+(\frac{27}{8}y^3+(\frac{69}{8}x+\frac{27}{8})y^2+(\frac{9}{8}x^2\frac{3}{2}x)y+x^3)^2$$
12. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,9},E_6,A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(y^2x+(2x^2x)y+x^3)^2$$
13. $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_1\stackrel{u1}{}[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_3`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(uy^2+yx^2)^3+(y^3+y^2+(x^2+x)yx^3)^2$$

and $`[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_2\stackrel{u1}{}[C_{3,12},A_2,A_1]_3`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+uyux^2)^3+(y^3+y^2+(x^2+x)yx^3)^2$$
14. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,6},2A_2,A_1]_1`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$ $`\stackrel{s=0}{}`$ $`[C_{6,6},2A_2,2A_1]_1`$ with $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+xyx^2)^3+(y^3+((7+s)x+2)y^2+(x^2x)y+x^3)^2$$
15. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{6,6},A_5,2A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_1^{}+B_2+B_2^{}`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=y^6+(y^3+xy^2+(x^2+x)y+2x^3+x^2)^2$$
16. $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ with $`[C_{6,12}]`$ for $`s1`$ and $`C=B_3+B_2+B_1`$ with $`[C_{6,12},A_1]`$ for $`s=1`$ are given by:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=y^6+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+(x^2+x)y+2sx^3)^2$$
17. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[C_{3,15},A_1]`$ with $`C=B_1+B_5`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=((x+1)yx^2)^3+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+xyx^3)^2$$
18. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[B_{3,12}]`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+yx^2)^3+(y^33y^2+3yx^2)^2\hfill \\ \hfill =(x^2+3y^2+2y^2\sqrt{3}+y)(x^2y3y^2+2y^2\sqrt{3})(x^2y)\end{array}$$
19. $`C=B_1+B_5,\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[D_{4,7},2A_2]\stackrel{s=0}{}C=B_1+B_2+B_3,[D_{4,7},A_5]`$:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(sxyx^2)^3+(y^3+(x+1)y^2+yx^2+x^3)^2$$

### 4.3. Non-trivial degenerations

We give some non-trivial degenerations. We do not give the whole moduli description but it can be computed as in .

1. (i) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_2`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_2,A_3]`$ can not degenerate into any further simple configuration, but it degenerates into $`C_0=B_1+B_1^{}+B_4`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,C_{3,7},A2,2A_1]`$ as $`t0`$. For $`t=0`$, $`A_5`$ and $`C_{3,7}`$ are at $`O`$ and $`(0,1)`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}_t(x,y)=((1t^2)y^2+(4tx+1)yx^2)^3\hfill \\ \hfill +((t^3\frac{3}{2}t+1)y^3+((36t^2)x+\frac{3}{2}t2)y^2+(\frac{15}{2}tx^2+3x+1)y+x^3)^2\end{array}$$
2. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,4A_2,A_3,2A_1]_3`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(B_5)=[4A_4,2A_1]`$ degenerates into $`C_0=B_1+B_5`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,E_6,A_3,2A_2,A_1]^{mr}`$ when $`t0`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}_t(x,y)=(y^2y^2t^23yx4yxt+yx^2)^3+\frac{1}{64}(8y^3t^4+48y^2xt^3+8y^3t^3+60yx^2t^2\hfill \\ \hfill 12y^2t^2+84y^2xt^2+12y^3t^212y^2t+12y^3t+132yx^2t+60y^2xt24yxt\\ \hfill 8x^3t6y^28x^324yx+72yx^2+24y^2x+3y+3y^3)^2/(1+t)^2\end{array}$$
3. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[A_5,4A_2,D_5]_2`$, $`C=B_1+B_5`$ degenerates into $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[2A_5,2A_2,D_5]_1^{mr}`$: For $`t=0`$, two $`A_5`$’s are at $`\{(0,0),(0,1)\}`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}_2(x,y)=y^2+((\frac{25}{16}+\frac{1}{16}t)x+1)yx^2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{f}_3(x,y)=(y^2+((\frac{25}{16}+\frac{1}{16}t)x+1)yx^2)^3+\frac{1}{4294967296}(6428160y^3+65536x^3t^2\\ \hfill +65536yt^21179648yt11736576y^2+1552896y^2t41472y^2t^2\\ \hfill +1536y^2t^336y^3t^42586y^3t^3+y^3t^5491103y^3t+66204y^3t^2+5308416y\\ \hfill +4128768yxt229376yxt^26144yx^2t^3+329728yx^2t^24442112yx^2t\\ \hfill +96y^2xt^44992y^2xt^3+186432y^2xt^23602304y^2xt18579456yx\\ \hfill +5308416x^3+20329056y^2x1179648x^3t+17750016x^2y)^2/(9+t)^4\end{array}$$
4. $`[2A_5,2A_2,4A_1],C=B_4+B_1+B_1^{}[3A_5,4A_1]^{mr},B_3+B_1+B_1^{}+B_1^{\prime \prime }`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y,a)=(yxa^2x^2a+ax4yxay^2)^3+(\frac{1}{2}y^2xa^3\frac{1}{2}a^3x^2y\frac{1}{2}x^2a^2+\frac{3}{2}yx^2a^2\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{7}{2}y^2xa^2+\frac{1}{2}x^3a^2+yxa^2\frac{1}{2}x^2a+2yx^2a3yxa+\frac{1}{2}ax+7y^2xa4y^2x\\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}x3yx^2yxy^3\frac{1}{2}x^3)^2\end{array}$$

The curve $`f(x,y,0)`$ has three line components and a nodal cubic component.

$$f(x,y,0)=\frac{1}{4}x(x+1+2y)(x1+4y)(4y^3+8y^2x+6yx^2+2yx+x^3x)$$
5. $`C_u=B_2+B_4`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{red}=[2A_5,3A_2,2A_1]_2`$ $`[3A_5,A_2,2A_1]^{mr}`$ with $`C_0=B_1+B_2+B_3`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}_2(x,y,u)=y^2+y^2t_\mathit{1}u\frac{1}{2}y^2u^2xyt_\mathit{1}+xyu\frac{1}{4}x^2t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}x^2t_\mathit{1}u\frac{1}{4}x^2u^2xt_\mathit{1}u+\frac{1}{2}xu^2\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{f}_3(x,y,u)=y^3+\frac{3}{8}x^3t_\mathit{1}u^2+\frac{3}{2}y^3u^2+\frac{9}{4}x^2t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u\frac{1}{2}y^2xu^3+\frac{3}{4}x^2yu^2\frac{3}{2}xyu^2\frac{9}{2}y^3t_\mathit{1}u\\ \hfill \frac{3}{2}x^2yt_\mathit{1}u+\frac{9}{2}xyt_\mathit{1}u+\frac{15}{8}y^2xt_\mathit{1}u^2\frac{9}{4}y^2xt_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u\frac{9}{4}u^2y^2t_\mathit{1}+3uy^2t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}3uxt_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \hfill \frac{1}{2}xu^3\frac{1}{8}x^3u^3+\frac{1}{2}x^2u^3+\frac{1}{2}y^2u^3\frac{3}{8}x^3t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u+\frac{9}{4}u^2xt_\mathit{1}\frac{15}{8}x^2t_\mathit{1}u^2y^2t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}\\ \hfill +y^2xt_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+xt_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+\frac{1}{8}x^3t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+3y^3t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}x^2t_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+\frac{3}{2}y^2xt_\mathit{1}3xyt_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{3}{4}x^2yt_{\mathit{1}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \hfill \frac{3}{2}y^2xu\end{array}$$

with $`t_\mathit{1}:=u+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{u^26}`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}f(x,y,0)=\frac{3}{32}(9x^336x^2+36x18x^2y\sqrt{6}+36xy\sqrt{6}36y^2x36y^220y^3\sqrt{6})\hfill \\ \hfill (x1\sqrt{6}y)(xy^2)\end{array}$$
6. $`[3A_5,A_3]_1,C=B_1+B_5\stackrel{u1}{}[3A_5,D_4],C=B_1+B_1+B_4`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^23xyx^2+x)^3+\frac{1}{16}(4y^3u14xy^2u+xy^2+4xy^2u^210x^2yu\hfill \\ \hfill +3x^2y+4x^2yu^2+4xyu4xyu^22ux^3+x^3+u^2x^3+2x^2ux^22x^2u^2\\ \hfill +xu^2)^2/u^2\end{array}$$
7. $`[3A_5,A_3]_2,C=B_2+B_4[3A_5,D_4]_1^{mr}(a=1/4),[3A_5,D_4]_2^{mr}(a=1/12)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2a\frac{1}{2}y^2+\frac{1}{2}yax^2+a)^3\hfill \\ \hfill +(\frac{5}{4}y^3a+\frac{3}{8}y^3\frac{1}{4}y^2a\frac{1}{2}y^2+\frac{5}{4}yax^2\frac{5}{4}ya+\frac{1}{8}y\frac{1}{4}ax^2+\frac{1}{4}a)^2\end{array}$$
8. A degeneration $`[A_{11},2A_2,A_3]s1[A_{11},2A_2,D_4],s=1`$ with $`C=B_2+B_4`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=(y^2+y\frac{8}{3}\frac{x^2}{s})^3+(y^3\frac{5}{4}y^2+(\frac{10}{3}\frac{x^2}{s}+x+\frac{3}{8}s)y\frac{8}{3}\frac{x^3}{s}x^2)^2\hfill \end{array}$$

## 5. Appendix

Proof of Proposition 7. The proof is computational.
1. Assume that $`C`$ is a sextics of linear type with $`3A_5`$. This is a special case of the result of Tokunaga, . We assume that $`L`$ is defined by $`y=0`$. We start from the generic polynomial of degree 6:

$$\mathrm{f}(x,y)=\underset{i+j6}{}a_{i,j}x^iy^j$$

By the action of $`PGL(3,\text{C})`$, we may assume that three $`A_5`$’s are at $`\{P_1=(1,0),P_2=(0,0),P_3=(1,0)\}`$ and the tangent cones at $`P_1,P_3`$ are given by $`x=\pm 1`$. These condition says

(1) $`f(x,0)=x^2(x^21)^2`$ and

(2) $`f_x(P_i)=f_y(P_i)=0`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and

(3) $`f_{x,y}(P_i)=f_{y,y}(P_i)=0,i=1,3`$.

Eliminating coefficients from $`f(x,y)`$ using these equations, then we elliminate further coefficients using the assumptions $`(C,P_i)A_5`$. Then we get a normal form of sextics with four parameters $`a_{04},a_{06},t,s`$. Then we apply the degeneration method to the family $`fu:=fuy^6`$ (see ). Finally we find that $`f(x,y)`$ has a torus expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y)=\tau y^6+(ty^2sy^2yx^2+xty^2\hfill \\ \hfill +yxsy^2+x^3xy^3st+\frac{1}{2}y^3a_{\mathit{04}}\frac{1}{2}y^3s^2\frac{1}{2}y^3t^2)^2\\ \hfill \tau =(a_{\mathit{06}}+\frac{1}{2}s^2a_{\mathit{04}}t^3ss^3t\frac{3}{2}s^2t^2\frac{1}{4}t^4+ta_{\mathit{04}}s\frac{1}{4}s^4\frac{1}{4}a_{\mathit{04}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{1}{2}a_{\mathit{04}}t^2)\end{array}$$

The proof for the cases $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)A_{11}+A_5,A_{17}`$ are similar. In the case of $`A_{11}+A_5`$, we assume that $`A_{11}`$ is at $`O`$ and $`A_5`$ is at $`(1,0)`$. We assume that the tangent cone at $`(1,0)`$ is $`x=1`$. In the case $`A_{17}`$, we assume that $`A_{17}`$ is at $`O`$. For the condition of $`(C,O)A_{11}`$ (respectively for $`A_{17}`$) at the origin, we assume that the normal form is given by the change of coordinates $`y_1:=y+_{i=2}^5t_ix^i`$ (resp. $`y_1:=y+_{i=2}^8t_ix^i`$). Let $`f^{}(x,y)=f(x,y_1)`$ and let $`c_0=f^{}(x,0)`$ and $`c_1`$ be the coefficients of $`y`$ in $`f^{}(x,y)`$. As we assume that $`f^{}(x,y)=ay^2+byx^6+cx^{12}+\text{(higher terms)s}`$ (resp. $`f^{}(x,y)=ay^2+byx^9+cx^{18}+\text{(higher terms)s}`$), normal forms are obtained by solving the equalities: $`Coeff(c_0,x,j)=0`$ for $`j11`$ and $`Coeff(c_1,x,k)=0`$ for $`k5`$ (resp. $`Coeff(c_0,x,j)=0`$ for $`j17`$ and $`Coeff(c_1,x,k)=0`$ for $`k8`$). Then we find the torus expressions by the degeneration method. For the case $`A_{11}+A_5`$, $`f(x,y)=u_{11}y^6+f_3(x,y)^2`$ where

$$\begin{array}{c}u_{\mathit{11}}=\frac{1}{4}(4a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}t_\mathit{4}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}2a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+6t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\hfill \\ \hfill 4t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}t_\mathit{4}t_\mathit{2}+a_{\mathit{04}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{16}+t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}4a_{\mathit{06}}t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{14})/t_\mathit{2}^{14}\\ \hfill \mathrm{f}_3(x,y)=\frac{1}{2}(6t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}y^2t_\mathit{3}xt_\mathit{4}2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}x^22t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}y^2t_\mathit{4}2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}yx+2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}y^2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \hfill 2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}y^2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}x+2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}y^2xt_\mathit{4}4t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}y^2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}x+2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}y2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}y^2xt_\mathit{5}y^3t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \hfill +2t_\mathit{2}y^3t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_\mathit{4}y^3t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}x^3+t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}y^3a_{\mathit{04}}2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}yt_\mathit{3}x+2t_{\mathit{2}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}yt_\mathit{3}x^2)/t_\mathit{2}^7\end{array}$$

and $`f(x,y)=u_{17}y^6+h_3(x,y)^2`$ for the case $`A_{17}`$ where

$$\begin{array}{c}u_{\mathit{17}}=\frac{1}{4}(24t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}24t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}t_\mathit{5}+8a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{13}t_\mathit{4}t_\mathit{6}t_\mathit{5}8t_\mathit{4}t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}t_\mathit{5}\hfill \\ \hfill 8a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{11}t_\mathit{5}+a_{\mathit{04}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{20}2a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}2a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{14}t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \hfill +4t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}+6t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}4a_{\mathit{04}}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_\mathit{6}+t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+4t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4a_{\mathit{06}}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{18}\\ \hfill +24t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}8t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}t_\mathit{5}t_\mathit{3}+48t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}24t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_\mathit{5}+t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{12}\\ \hfill 32t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+16t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}32t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3})/t_\mathit{3}^{18}\\ \hfill \mathrm{h}_3(x,y):=\frac{1}{2}(4t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}y^3t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2t_{\mathit{5}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}y^2x+4t_\mathit{6}t_\mathit{5}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}y^3t_\mathit{4}10t_\mathit{5}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}y^2xt_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\\ \hfill +4t_\mathit{5}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}y^2t_\mathit{4}+4t_\mathit{5}t_\mathit{3}y^3t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}2t_\mathit{5}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}yx^22t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{9}x^3+2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}x^2t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}y\\ \hfill 2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}y^2xt_\mathit{7}+6t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{5}y^2xt_\mathit{4}+4t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}xy^2t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{7}xyt_\mathit{4}y^3t_{\mathit{6}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\\ \hfill 2t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}y^3t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}y^3t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}2t_\mathit{6}t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{6}y^22t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}y^2t_{\mathit{4}}^{}{}_{}{}^{3}+2t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{8}y+y^3t_{\mathit{3}}^{}{}_{}{}^{10}a_{\mathit{04}})/t_\mathit{3}^9\end{array}$$

2. Next we consider the case $`C=B_3+B_3^{}`$ and $`C`$ is a sextics of torus type and assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}(C)=[3A_5]`$ or $`[A_{11},A_5]`$ or $`[A_{17}]`$ and let $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ be the corresponding singular points. (In the case of $`[A_{11},A_5]`$ or $`[A_{17}]`$, $`P_2=P_3`$ and $`P_1=P_2=P_3`$ respectively.) We show that three $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ must be colinear. We start from the expression:

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{f}(x,y):=f_{31}(x,y)f_{32}(x,y)\hfill \\ \hfill =(a_{\mathit{03}}y^3+(a_{\mathit{12}}x+a_{\mathit{02}})y^2+(a_{\mathit{21}}x^2+a_{\mathit{11}}x+a_{\mathit{01}})y+a_{\mathit{30}}x^3+a_{\mathit{20}}x^2+a_{\mathit{10}}x+a_{\mathit{00}})\\ \hfill (b_{\mathit{03}}y^3+(b_{\mathit{12}}x+b_{\mathit{02}})y^2+(b_{\mathit{21}}x^2+b_{\mathit{11}}x+b_{\mathit{01}})y+b_{\mathit{30}}x^3+b_{\mathit{20}}x^2+b_{\mathit{10}}x+b_{\mathit{00}})\end{array}$$

Assume that $`C`$ is defined by $`f_2(x,y)^3+f_3(x,y)^2=0`$ and let $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ be the conic and the cubic defined by $`f_2=0`$ and $`f_3=0`$. Let $`P_iC`$ be an inner singularity. Recall that by  we have the equivalence

($`()`$ $`(C,P_i)A_{6j1}I(C_2,C_3;P_i)=2j`$ and $`C_3`$ is smooth at $`P_i`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$.

In particular, if $`C_2`$ is smooth at $`P_i`$, $`()`$ implies that $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are tangent at $`P_i`$. Again by an easy computation, we can see that there are no cases when $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ are not colinear. We give a recipe of the computation. Assuming that $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ are not colinear. To each $`P_i`$, we associate its tangent cone direction $`\mathrm{}_i`$ and we identify $`\mathrm{}_i`$ and a line in $`\text{P}^2`$.

There are two cases.

(a) $`C_2`$ is a smooth conic, or

(b) $`C_2`$ is a union of two distinct lines $`L_1,L_2`$.

In the case of (a), we may assume that $`P_1=(1,1)`$, $`P_2=O=(0,0)`$ and $`P_3=(1,1)`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1=\{y+2x+1=0\},\mathrm{}_3=\{y2x+1=0\}`$. Then the conic must be defined by $`yx^2=0`$. Thus $`\mathrm{}_2=\{y=0\}`$. Here we used the next easy lemma.

###### Lemma 12.

Let $`(C,\{P_1,P_2,P_3\})`$ and $`(C^{},\{P_1^{},P_2^{},P_3^{}\})`$ two smooth conics with three points on the respective conic. Then there are isomorphic by an action of a matrix $`APGL(3,\text{C})`$.

Thus we need to have the equations

$$():\{\begin{array}{cc}& f_{31}(P_i)=f_{32}(P_i)=0,i=1,2,3\hfill \\ & (f_{3j,x}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f_{3j,y})(P_1)=0,(f_{3j,x}+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f_{3j,y})(P_3)=0,f_{3j,y}(O)=0,j=1,2\hfill \end{array}$$

The last condition says that two cubic are tangent to $`y=x^2`$ at $`P_1,P_3`$. Let $`R(x)`$ and $`S(y)`$ be the resultant of $`f_{31}`$ and $`f_{32}`$ in $`x`$-variable and $`y`$-variable respectively. The above equality implies that $`(x^21)^2x^2|R(x)`$ and $`y^2(y^21)^2|S(y)`$. Elliminating coefficients using these equalities, we consider the further condition for $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ to be $`A_5`$-singularities. This is given by the condition $`x^3(x^21)^3|R(x)`$ and $`y^3(y^21)^3|S(y)`$. At the end of calculation, we find that there are no such $`f_{31},f_{32}`$ which corresponds to a reducible sextics.

We consider the case (b). Assume that $`C_2`$ is a union of two lines $`L_1,L_2`$. Then we can see that $`L_i`$ are tangent to the cubic $`C_3`$ and the intersection $`L_1L_2`$ is also on $`C_3`$ so that this makes the third $`A_5`$. In this case, we may assume that $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ be as above but $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is $`y=x`$ and $`\mathrm{}_3`$ is $`y=x`$. The $``$ should be replaced by

$$():\{\begin{array}{cc}& f_{31}(P_i)=f_{32}(P_i)=0,i=1,2,3\hfill \\ & (f_{3j,x}f_{3j,y})(P_1)=0,(f_{3j,x}+f_{3j,y})(P_3)=0,j=1,2\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we consider the $`A_5`$-condition to see that there exists no such sextics.

The case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{11},A_5]`$, we take $`A_5`$ at $`P_1`$ and $`A_{11}`$ at $`O`$ and the $`()`$-condition is repaleced by

$$():\{\begin{array}{cc}& f_{31}(P_i)=f_{32}(P_i)=0,i=1,2,(f_{3j,x}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}f_{3j,y})(P_1)=0,j=1,2\hfill \\ & x^4|f_{3j}(x,x^2),j=1,2\hfill \end{array}$$

The last condition says that the intersection multiplicity of each cubic and the conic $`yx^2=0`$ at $`O`$ is 4. The reason that we have chosen the conic $`yx^2=0`$ is to make the last condition to be easier to be used.

The case $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{in}=[A_{17}]`$, we take $`A_{17}`$ at $`P_2`$, and the the torus type condition is

$$():f_{31}(0,0)=f_{32}(0,0)=0,x^6|f_{3j}(x,x^2),j=1,2$$

In any cases, one conclude that there does not exist any solution which corresponds to a reduced sextics.


format: text

text:
# Lattice quark propagator with staggered quarks in Landau and Laplacian gauges

## I Introduction

The quark propagator lies at the heart of most QCD physics. In the low momentum region it exhibits dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (which cannot be seen from perturbation theory) and at high momentum can be used to extract the running quark mass Aok99 ; Bec00b  (which cannot be extracted directly from experiment). In lattice QCD, quark propagators are tied together to extract hadron masses. Lattice gauge theory provides a way to study the quark propagator nonperturbatively, possibly as a way of calculating the chiral condensate and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$, and in turn, such a study can provide technical insight into lattice gauge theory.

We study the quark propagator using the Kogut-Susskind (KS) fermion action, which has $`𝒪(a^2)`$ errors, and an improved staggered action, Asqtad Org99 , which has errors of $`𝒪(a^4)`$, $`𝒪(a^2g^2)`$. These choices complement other studies using Clover Sku01a ; Sku01b  and Overlap overlap  quarks. We are required to gauge fix and we choose the ever popular Landau gauge and the interesting Laplacian gauge Vin92 ; Vin95 . Laplacian gauge fixing is an unambiguous gauge fixing and, although it is difficult to understand perturbatively, it is equivalent to Landau gauge in the asymptotic region. It has been used to study the gluon propagator Ale01 ; Ale02 ; lapglu .

In $`SU(N)`$ there are various ways to implement a Laplacian gauge fixing. Three varieties of Laplacian gauge fixing are used, and these form three different, but related gauges. This is briefly discussed in section III. For a more detailed discussion, see Ref. lapglu .

The quark propagator was calculated on 80, $`16^3\times 32`$ configurations generated with the standard Wilson gluon action at $`\beta =5.85`$ ($`a=0.130`$ fm)111Some of numbers in this report differ slightly from those published elsewhere proc\_quark01  due to a revised value for the lattice spacing.. We have used six quark masses: $`am=0.075`$, 0.0625, 0.05, 0.0375, 0.025 and 0.0125 (114 to 19 MeV).

## II Lattice Quark Propagator

In the continuum, Lorentz invariance allows us to decompose the full propagator into Dirac vector and scalar pieces

$$S^1(p^2)=iA(p^2)\gamma p+B(p^2)$$
(1)
or, alternatively,

$$S^1(p^2)=Z^1(p^2)[i\gamma p+M(p^2)].$$
(2)
This is the bare propagator which, once regularized, is related to the renormalized propagator through the renormalization constant

$$S(a;p^2)=Z_2(a;\mu )S^{\text{ren}}(\mu ;p^2),$$
(3)
where $`a`$ is some regularization parameter, e.g. lattice spacing. Asymptotic freedom implies that, as $`p^2\mathrm{}`$, $`S(p^2)`$ reduces to the free propagator

$$S^1(p^2)i\gamma p+m_0,$$
(4)
where $`m_0`$ is the bare quark mass.

The tadpole improved, tree-level form of the KS quark propagator is

$$S_{\alpha \beta }^1(p;m)=u_0i\underset{\mu }{}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )+m\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }$$
(5)
where $`p_\mu `$ is the discrete lattice momentum given by

$$p_\mu =\frac{2\pi n_\mu }{aL_\mu }n_\mu [\frac{L_\mu }{4},\frac{L_\mu }{4}).$$
(6)
For the tadpole factor, we employ the plaquette measure,

$$u_0=\left(\frac{1}{3}\text{Re}\text{Tr}P_{\mu \nu }\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}.$$
(7)
We give a detailed discussion of the notation used for the staggered quark actions in an appendix. As a convienient short-hand we define a new momentum variable for the KS quark propagator,

$$q_\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_\mu ).$$
(8)
We can then decompose the inverse propagator222This is intended to be merely illustrative; in practice we never actually invert the propagator. See appendix for details.

$$Z^1(q)=\frac{1}{16N_ciq^2}\text{Tr}\{\overline{\gamma }qS^1\}$$
(9)
$$M(q)=\frac{1}{16N_c}\text{Tr}\{S^1\},$$
(10)
where the factor of 16 comes from the trace over the spin-flavor indices of the staggered quarks and $`N_c`$ from the trace over color. Comparing Eqs. (4) and (5) we see that dividing out $`q^2`$ in Eq. (9) is analagous to dividing out $`p^2`$ in the continuum and ensures that that $`Z`$ has the correct asymptotic behavior. So by considering the propagator as a function of $`q_\mu `$, we ensure that the lattice quark propagator has the correct tree-level form, i.e.,

$$S^{\text{tree}}(q_\mu )=\frac{1}{i\overline{\gamma }q+m}$$
(11)
and hopefully better approximates its continuum behavior. This is the same philosophy that has been used in studies of the gluon propagator gluon  and Eq. (8) was used to define the momentum in Ref. Bec00b .

The Asqtad quark action Org99  is a fat-link Staggered action using three-link, five-link and seven-link staples to minimize flavor changing interactions along with the three-link Naik term Nai89  (to correct the dispersion relation) and planar five-link Lepage term Lep99  (to correct the IR). The coefficients are tadpole improved and tuned to remove all tree-level $`𝒪(a^2)`$ errors. This action was motivated by the desire to improve flavor symmetry, but has also been reported to have good rotational properties.

The quark propagator with this action has the tree-level form

$$S_{\alpha \beta }^1(p;m)=u_0i\underset{\mu }{}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )\left[1+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{sin}^2(p_\mu )\right]+m\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta },$$
(12)
so we repeat the above analysis, this time defining

$$q_\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )\left[1+\frac{1}{6}\mathrm{sin}^2(p_\mu )\right].$$
(13)
Finally, it should be noted that both actions get contributions from tadpoles, which can be seen in the tree-level behaviors of the two invariants

$`Z^{\text{tree}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{u_0}}`$ (14)
$`M^{\text{tree}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{m_0}{u_0}}`$ (15)
so inserting the tadpole factors provides the correct normalization.

## III Gauge Fixing

We consider the quark propagator in Landau and Laplacian gauges. Landau gauge fixing is performed by enforcing the Lorentz gauge condition, $`_\mu _\mu A_\mu (x)=0`$ on a configuration by configuration basis. This is achieved by maximizing the functional,

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}\left\{U_\mu (x)+U_\mu ^{}(x)\right\},$$
(16)
by, in this case, a Fourier accelerated, steepest-descents algorithm Dav88 . There are, in general, many such maxima and these are called lattice Gribov copies. While this ambiguity has produced no identified artefacts in QCD, in principle it remains a source of uncontrolled systematic error.

Laplacian gauge is a nonlinear gauge fixing that respects rotational invariance, has been seen to be smooth, yet is free of Gribov ambiguity. It is also computationally cheaper then Landau gauge. There is, however, more than one way of obtaining such a gauge fixing in $`SU(N)`$. The three implementations of Laplacian gauge fixing employed here are (in our notation):

1. $`^2`$(I) gauge (QR decomposition), used by Alexandrou *et al.* Ale01 .
2. $`^2`$(II) gauge, where the Laplacian gauge transformation is projected onto $`SU(3)`$ by maximising its trace lapglu .
3. $`^2`$(III) gauge (Polar decomposition), the original prescription described in Ref. Vin92  and tested in Ref. Vin95 .

All three versions reduce to the same gauge in SU(2). For a more detailed discussion, see Ref. lapglu .

## IV Analysis of Lattice Artefacts

### IV.1 Tree-level Correction

As mentioned above, the idea of “kinematic” or “tree-level” correction has been used widely in studies of the gluon propagator gluon  and the quark propagator Sku01a ; Sku01b ; overlap  and we investigate its application to our quark propagators. For the moment we shall restrict ourselves to Landau gauge. To help us understand the lattice artefacts, we separate the data into momenta lying entirely on a spatial cartesian direction (squares), along the temporal direction (triangles), the four-diagonal (diamonds) or some other combination of directions (circles).

The $`Z`$ function is plotted for the KS action in Fig. 1, comparing the results using $`p`$ and $`q`$. In the top of Fig. 1 we see substantial hypercubic artefacts (in particular look at the difference between the diamond and the triangle at around 2.5 GeV). We can suggest that this is caused by violation of rotational symmetry because the agreement between triangles and squares suggests that finite volume effects are small in the region of interest. In the plot below, where $`q`$ has been used, we see some restoration of rotational symmetry.

The same study is made for the Asqtad action in Fig. 2. In both cases this action shows a substantial improvement over the KS action, and when we plot using $`q`$, the momentum defined by the action, rotational asymmetry is reduced to the level of the statistical errors.

It is less clear which momentum variable should be used for the mass function, so for consistency we use $`q`$, as for the $`Z`$ function. The effect of this is shown in Fig. 3. For ease of comparison, both sets of data have been cylinder cut gluon . In the case of the mass function, the choice of momentum will actually make little difference to our results.

### IV.2 Comparison of the actions

In Fig. 4 the mass function is plotted, in Landau gauge, for both actions with quark mass $`ma=0.05`$. This time there have been no data cuts. We see that the KS action gives a much larger value for M(0) than the Asqtad action and is slower to approach asymptotic behavior. Asqtad also shows slightly better rotational symmetry.

Looking back at Figs. 1 and 2 we see that the Asqtad action displays clearly better rotational symmetry in the quark $`Z`$ function and, curiously, improved infrared behavior as well. The Asqtad action also displays a better approach to asymptotic behavior, approaching one in the ultraviolet. The relative improvement increases as the quark mass decreases. In Fig. 5 we compare the mass function for the two actions at $`ma=0.0125`$, the lowest mass studied here. The low quark mass has introduced less noise into the propagator with the Asqtad action than with the KS action.

### IV.3 Comparitive performance of Landau and Laplacian gauges

Fig. 6 shows the mass function for the Asqtad action in $`^2`$(I) and $`^2`$(II) gauges and it should be compared with the equivalent Landau gauge result in Fig. 4. We see firstly that these three gauges give very similar results (we shall investigate this in more detail later) and secondly that they give similar performance in terms of rotational symmetry and statistical noise. Looking more closely, we can see that the Landau gauge gives a slightly cleaner signal at this lattice spacing.

Landau gauge seems to respond somewhat better than $`^2`$(II) gauge to vanishing quark mass; compare Fig. 7 with Fig. 5. In Fig. 7 we see large errors in the infrared region and points along the temporal axis lying below the bulk of the data. These are indicators of finite volume effects, an unexpected result given that earlier gluon propagator studies Ale01 ; Ale02  appear to conclude that Laplacian gauge is less sensitive to volume than Landau gauge.

$`^2`$(III) performs very poorly: see Figs. 8 and 9. The gauge fixing procedure failed for four of the configurations and eight of the remaining configurations produced $`Z`$ and M functions with pathological negative values. We have seen that this type of gauge fixing fails to produce a gluon propagator that has the correct asymptotic behavior lapglu . It seems likely that we are dealing with matrices with vanishing determinants, which are destroying the projection onto $`SU(3)`$. We expect the degree to which this problem occurs to be dependent on the simulation parameters and the numerical precision used (in this work the gauge transformations were calculated in single precision).

## V Gauge Dependence

Now we investigate the quark mass and $`Z`$ functions in Landau, $`^2`$(I) and $`^2`$(II) gauges. Fig. 10 shows the $`Z`$ function for the Asqtad action in Landau and $`^2`$(I) gauges. They are in excellent agreement in the ultraviolet - as they ought - but differ significantly in the infrared. The $`Z`$ function in the Laplacian gauges is more strongly infrared suppressed than in the Landau gauge. There may be a small difference in $`Z(q^2)`$ between $`^2`$(I) and $`^2`$(II) gauges.

In all cases the quark $`Z`$ function demonstrates little mass dependence. Deviation of $`Z`$ from its asymptotic value of 1 is a sign of dynamical symmetry breaking, so we expect the infrared suppression to go away in the limit of an infinitely heavy quark. In Fig. 11 we show the $`Z`$ function in Landau gauge for the lightest and the heaviest quark masses in this study. The two are the same, to within errors, although if we look at the lowest momentum data we see that the point for the low mass lies below the high mass one. Fig. 12 shows $`Z`$ in $`^2`$(II) gauge for three quark masses. Again, the data are consistent, to within errors, but there is a systematic ordering of lightest to heaviest. We conclude from this that behavior is consistent with expectations, dependence on the quark mass \- if any - is very weak. One possible explanation is that all the masses studied are light - less than or approximately equal to the stange quark mass - and that heavier masses will affect the $`Z`$ function more clearly.

The mass functions in Landau and $`^2`$(I) gauges - shown in Fig. 13 \- agree to within errors. The data for $`^2`$(I) gauge seems to sit a little higher than the Landau gauge through most of the momentum range, so with greater statistics we may resolve a small difference. The mass functions are nearly identical in $`^2`$(I) and $`^2`$(II) gauges: see Fig. 14.

## VI Modelling the Mass function

The Asqtad quark mass function at each value of the mass has been cylinder cut and extrapolated - by a quadratic fit - to zero mass. The quadratic fit was chosen on purely practical grounds and a linear fit worked almost as well. A fit to each of the mass functions was then done, using the ansatz

$$M(q)=\frac{c\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1+2\alpha }}{q^{2\alpha }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\alpha }}+m_0,$$
(17)
which is a generalization of the one used in Ref. Sku01a . As we have seen, the quark mass function in the Laplacian gauge is almost indistinguishable from that in the Landau gauge, except that it is somewhat noisier (this may change at smaller lattice spacing). For this reason, we only show fits in the Landau gauge. Table I shows a sample of the fits. The table is divided into two sections, one in which the parameter $`\alpha `$ was held fixed, one in which it was allowed to vary. We see that for the heaviest mass, $`\alpha =1.0`$ provides an excellent fit, but in the chiral limit, $`\alpha >1.0`$ is somewhat favored. The rôle of $`\alpha `$ may be seen if Fig. 15. At $`\alpha =1.5`$, the infrared and ultraviolet are significantly flatter, while the mass generation at around one GeV is made steeper.

In this model, $`\alpha `$ is acting as a function of the bare mass, controlling the dynamical symmetry breaking. Unfortunately, the paucity of data points in the infrared leaves $`\alpha `$ poorly determined in the chiral limit. Furthermore, the degree to which our infrared data may be affected by the finite volume and by the chiral extrapolation is not really known. Finally, this ansatz is still crude in that it does not provide the correct asymptotic behavior.

As was explained is Section II, the quark mass function approaches the renormalised quark mass in the ultraviolet, which itself becomes the bare mass in the $`q\mathrm{}`$ limit. It is a general feature of this study that the ultraviolet tail of $`M(q)`$ sits somewhat higher than the bare mass. The situation is summarised in Table 2. This deviation from the correct asymptotic behavior is probably the consequence of an insufficiently small lattice spacing.

## VII Conclusions

We have seen that the Asqtad action provides a quark propagtor with improved rotational symmetry compared to the standard Kogut-Susskind action and that the difference between them increases as we go to lighter quark masses. Furthermore, we have seen that the Asqtad action has smaller mass renormalization and better asymptotic behavior.

Our results for the quark propagator show that the quark mass function is the same, to within statistics in $`^2`$(I) and $`^2`$(II) gauges, while the $`Z`$ function is slightly different. There is little difference between the quark mass function in Landau gauge and in Laplacian gauge, but the $`Z`$ function dips more strongly in the infrared in Laplacian gauge than in Landau gauge. The infrared region of the Laplacian gauge mass function seems to be particularly badly affected by decreasing quark mass. We have seen that the $`^2`$(III) gauge gives very poor results in $`SU(3)`$, in calculations of the quark propagator, consistent with results for the gluon propagator lapglu . Overall the Landau gauge results of this work for the Asqtad appear to be consistent within errors with the results of ealier Landau gauge studies of the quark propagator . Our results suggest that the $`M`$ function is insensitive to whether we use Landau or Laplacian gauge, whereas the $`Z`$ function has an enhanced infrared dip in Laplacian gauge.

As we have simulated on only one lattice, it remains to do a thorough examination of discretization and finite volume effects. The chiral limit was obtained by extrapolation, which may provide another source of systematic error. It will also be interesting to investigate the $`𝒪(a^4)`$ errors by using an improved gluon action. Further work may allow the development of a more sophisticated ansatz which has the correct asymptotic behavior. Finally, studies on finer lattices could be used to calculate the chiral condensate, light quark masses and potentially $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{QCD}}`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors wish to thank Derek Leinweber and Jonivar Skullerud for useful discussions. The work of UMH and POB was supported in part by DOE contract DE-FG02-97ER41022. The work of AGW was supported by the Australian Research Council.

*

## Appendix A Staggered quark propagators

In this appendix we give details of the quark propagator calculation using the Kogut-Susskind and Asqtad actions. The free KS action is

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x,\mu }{}\overline{\chi }(x)\eta _\mu (x)\left(\chi (x+\mu )\chi (x\mu )\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +m\underset{x}{}\overline{\chi }(x)\chi (x)\end{array}$$
(18)
where the staggered phases are: $`\eta _\mu (x)=(1)^{\zeta ^{(\mu )}x}`$ and

$$\zeta _\nu ^{(\mu )}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }\nu <\mu \hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
To Fourier transform, write

$$k_\mu =\frac{2\pi n_\mu }{L_\mu }|n_\mu =0,\mathrm{},L_\mu 1$$
(20)
as $`k_\mu =p_\mu +\pi \alpha _\mu `$, where

$$p_\mu =\frac{2\pi m_\mu }{L_\mu }|m_\mu =0,\mathrm{},\frac{L_\mu }{2}1$$
(21)
$$\alpha _\mu =0,1,$$
(22)
and define $`_k\frac{1}{V}_k`$. Then

$$_k=_p\underset{\alpha _\mu =0}{\overset{1}{}}$$
(23)
$$\chi (x)=_ke^{ikx}\chi (k)=_p\underset{\alpha }{}e^{i(p+\pi \alpha )x}\chi _\alpha (p).$$
(24)
Defining

$`\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=\mathrm{\Pi }_\mu \delta _{\alpha _\mu \beta _\mu |mod2}`$ (25)
$`(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=(1)^{\alpha _\mu }\overline{\delta }_{\alpha +\zeta ^{(\mu )},\beta }`$ (26)
where the $`\overline{\gamma }_\mu `$ satisfy

$$\{\overline{\gamma }_\mu ,\overline{\gamma }_\nu \}=2\delta _{\mu \nu }\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }$$
(27)
$$\overline{\gamma }_\mu ^{}=\overline{\gamma }_\mu ^T=\overline{\gamma }_\mu ^{}=\overline{\gamma }_\mu ,$$
(28)
forming a “staggered” Dirac algebra. Putting all this together, we can derive a momentum space expression for the KS action,

$$S=_p\underset{\alpha \beta }{}\overline{\chi }_\alpha (p)\left[i\underset{\mu }{}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )+m\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }\right]\chi _\beta (p).$$
(29)
From this we can see that, in momentum space, the tadpole improved, tree-level form of the quark propagator is

$$S_{\alpha \beta }^1(p;m)=u_0i\underset{\mu }{}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )+m\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }$$
(30)
where $`p_\mu `$ is the discrete lattice momentum given by Eq. (21). Assuming that the full propagator retains this form (in analogy to the continuum case) we write

$`S_{\alpha \beta }^1(p)`$ $`=i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )A(p)+B(p)\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ (31)
$`=Z^1(p)\left[i{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )+M(p)\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }\right].`$ (32)
For the KS action, it is convenient to define

$$q_\mu \mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )$$
(33)
as a shorthand.

Numerically, we calculate the quark propagator in coordinate space,

$`G(x,y)`$ $`=\chi (x)\overline{\chi }(y)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle _{p,r}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(p+\pi \alpha )xi(r+\pi \beta )y\right\}`$
$`\times \chi _\alpha (p)\overline{\chi }_\beta (r)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle _{p,r}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(p+\pi \alpha )xi(r+\pi \beta )y\right\}`$
$`\times \delta _{pr}S_{\alpha \beta }(p)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle _p}\mathrm{exp}\left\{ip(xy)\right\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i\pi (\alpha x\beta y)\right\}S_{\alpha \beta }(p).`$ (34)
To obtain the quark propagator in momentum space, we take the Fourier transform of $`G(x,0)`$ and, decomposing the momenta as $`k_\mu =r_\mu +\pi \delta _\mu |0r_\mu <\pi `$, get

$`G(k)`$ $`=G(r+\pi \delta )G_\delta (r)={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}e^{ikx}G(x,0)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle _p}{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{i(r+\pi \delta )x\right\}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left\{i(p+\pi \alpha )x\right\}S_{\alpha \beta }(p)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle _p}\delta _{pr}\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \delta }S_{\alpha \beta }(p).`$ (35)
Thus, in terms of the KS momenta, $`q`$,

$$G_\delta (q)=\underset{\beta }{}S_{\delta \beta }(q)=Z(q)\frac{i_\mu (1)^{\delta _\mu }q_\mu +M(q)}{q^2+M^2(q)},$$
(36)
from which we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}\text{Tr}G_\delta (q)`$ $`=16N_c{\displaystyle \frac{Z(q)M(q)}{q^2+M^2(q)}}`$
$`=16N_c(q),`$ (37)
and

$`i{\displaystyle \underset{\delta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}(1)^{\delta _\rho }q_\rho \text{Tr}[G_\delta (q)]`$ $`=16N_cq^2{\displaystyle \frac{Z(q)}{q^2+M^2(q)}}`$
$`=16N_cq^2𝒜(q).`$ (38)
Note: we could determine

$`A(p)`$ $`=Z^1(p)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{i}{16N_c_\nu \mathrm{sin}^2(p_\nu )}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\rho }{}}(\overline{\gamma }_\rho )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\rho )\text{Tr}\left[S_{\beta \alpha }^1(p)\right]`$ (39)
$`B(p)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M(p)}{Z(p)}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16N_c}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\text{Tr}\left[S_{\alpha \alpha }^1(p)\right],`$ (40)
but we would rather avoid inverting $`S_{\alpha \beta }(p)`$.

Putting it all together we get

$`A(q)`$ $`=Z^1(q)={\displaystyle \frac{𝒜(q)}{𝒜^2(q)q^2+^2(q_\mu )}}`$ (41)
$`B(q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{M(q)}{Z(q)}}={\displaystyle \frac{(p)}{𝒜^2(q)q^2+^2(p)}}`$ (42)
$`M(q)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(q)}{𝒜(q)}}.`$ (43)
The tadpole improved, tree-level behavior of the $`Z`$ and mass functions are simply

$$Z^0=\frac{1}{u_0}$$
(44)
and

$$M^0=\frac{m}{u_0}$$
(45)
respectively.

The Asqtad quark action Org99  is a fat-link Staggered action using three-link, five-link and seven-link staples along with the three-link Naik term Nai89  and five-link Lepage term Lep99 , with tadpole improved coefficients tuned to remove all tree-level $`𝒪(a^2)`$ errors. This action was motivated by the desire to minimize quark flavour changing interactions, but has also been reported to have good rotational symmetry.

At tree-level (i.e. no interations, links set to the identity), the staples in this action make no contribution, so the action reduces to the Naik action.

$$\begin{array}{c}S=\frac{1}{2}\underset{x,\mu }{}\overline{\chi }(x)\eta _\mu (x)[\frac{9}{8}(\chi (x+\mu )\chi (x\mu ))\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{24}(\chi (x+3\mu )\chi (x3\mu ))]+m_x\overline{\chi }(x)\chi (x)\end{array}$$
(46)
The quark propagator with this action has the tree-level form

$$\begin{array}{c}S_{\alpha \beta }^1(p;m)=u_0i\underset{\mu }{}(\overline{\gamma }_\mu )_{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )[\frac{9}{8}\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{24}\mathrm{sin}(3p_\mu )]+m\overline{\delta }_{\alpha \beta }\end{array}$$
(47)
so we choose

$`q_\mu (p_\mu )`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\mathrm{sin}(3p_\mu )`$ (48)
$`=\mathrm{sin}(p_\mu )\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{sin}^2(p_\mu )\right].`$ (49)
Having identified the correct momentum for this action, we can calculate the invariant functions as before. No further tree-level correction is required.