text:
# 1 The net electric flux extracted from each quark is equivalent in a baryon (a) and a meson (b). The D0-brane–quark correspondence suggests the string-like shape for flux inside a baryon (a).

hep-ph/0203115

On Relevance Of Matrix Coordinates

For The Inside Of Baryons

Amir H. Fatollahi

Institute for Advanced Studies in Basic Sciences (IASBS),
P.O.Box 45195-159, Zanjan, Iran

fath@iasbs.ac.ir

## Abstract

It is argued that one natural choice for coordinates of constituents of a baryonic state in a SU($`N`$) gauge theory are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices. It is discussed that the relevance of matrix coordinates is supported at least by the restricted form of the color symmetry. Based on the previous investigations in this direction, the consequences of the idea are reviewed. The model has been considered is originated by the D0-branes of String Theory.

PACS: 12.38.Aw, 02.40.Gh, 14.65.-q

Keywords: QCD, Noncommutative Geometry, Quark Dynamics

One of the main themes in quantum mechanics is to found our physical theories exclusively upon relationships between quantities which in principle are observable . At the present status, it is commonly believed that a hadron has quarks as part of its ingredients, though they cannot be detected directly. From the pure theoretical point of view, one quark on its own is like the other particles, and has some observable quantities, such as position, momentum, spin or charge. In practice, seemingly we are always faced with hadrons that the properties of quarks are hidden inside them. Although, it does not seem natural to assume that quarks do not carry any of the usual degrees of freedom or their degrees of freedom can be completely ignored, it may be a desirable framework if it is possible that the degrees of freedom can become “unreachable” due to some kind of symmetry. In other words, due to a symmetry it would not be expected that, for example, the position of an individual quark can be measured, or even the question about “the position of an individual quark with a specific color” become meaningless.

In , a model was considered which shares the feature we mentioned in above. The model has been considered is originated by the D0-branes  of String Theory, for which it is known that their degrees of freedom are captured by matrices, rather than numbers . The concerned model in - has shown its ability to reproduce or cover some features and expectations in hadron physics. Some of these features and expectations are: phenomenological inter-quark potentials, the behavior of total scattering amplitudes, rich polology of scattering amplitude, behavior in large-$`N`$ limit, and the whiteness of baryons with respect to the SU($`N`$) sector of the external fields.

As mentioned, the internal dynamics of the D0-brane bound state is described by a matrix model of coordinates, and if the matrix coordinates of D0-branes have something to do with hadron physics, it is very logical to ask “Is it possible to extract or derive these matrices from some first principles of quantum chromodynamics (QCD)?” In fact the answer to this question has been the motivation for the present work, and as we will see, it appears that the appearance of matrix coordinates in the theory of quarks is as natural as the appearance in the theory of D0-branes. Before presentation the much more formal derivation, let us present the heuristic argument. Reminding the procedure of reasoning in D0-brane theory, we recall that the matrix coordinates are the result of some states, to be specific some open string states, which are equipped with two more labels than the usual ones, the so-called Chan-Paton labels . In the open string picture these labels are attached to the ends of string. On the other side, D0-branes are defined as point-like objects to whom the open strings end. By this picture, each D0-brane is accompanied with some more degrees of freedom than the usual ones of an ordinary particle. In other words, each D0-brane has some more degrees of freedom which express to which other D0-branes and in what places is connected, i.e., has made a bound state with which others. Eventually it appears that in a bound state of $`N`$ D0-branes, the relevant degrees of freedom in each direction of space, rather than $`N`$, are $`N^2`$ which may be represented by a matrix belonging to the U($`N`$) algebra. Now as we shall recognize in a moment, this reasoning is applicable for the case of quarks, in which the states have the additional degrees of freedom as “color”.

In the constituent quark picture of a SU($`N`$) gauge theory, a baryon is made by $`N`$ quarks in different colors, and besides, to bring the baryon state as a singlet in color space, an anti-symmetrization in the color labels is understood. Let us for the moment forget about the rotation in the color space, and assume that the baryon is just made by $`N`$ quarks in different colors, represented by the states and wave functions $`|\psi _a(t)`$ and $`𝐱_a|\psi _a(t)=\psi _a(𝐱_a,t)`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$, respectively; in this work we also do not care about the fermionic or bosonic nature of quarks. Though the wave functions depend on different arguments $`𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_N`$, while keeping the right form of each function $`\psi _a`$, we may present them by one argument $`𝐱`$, as $`\psi _a(𝐱,t)`$. By this we can define the $`N\times N`$ matrix $`𝐗`$ via its elements $`𝐗_{ab}(t)𝑑𝐱\psi _b^{}(𝐱,t)𝐱\psi _a(𝐱,t)`$. Here we assume that the states are normalized properly, to yield the length dimension for the elements of $`𝐗`$, accompanied with the value one for the total probability. It is easily seen that $`𝐗`$ is $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix, and its elements are characterized by the color labels $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

Let us take the case for which we have well separated quarks, may be represented by wave functions $`\psi _a(𝐱,t)\delta (𝐱𝐱_a)`$ with $`|𝐱_a𝐱_b|\mathrm{}`$, ($`ab`$), for some characteristic length $`\mathrm{}`$. For this case, the matrix $`𝐗(t)`$ is almost, or even in the case, exactly diagonal. Suppose we take the length scale $`\mathrm{}`$ to be the order of the baryon size. From our experience, we know that the situation we have considered above is never seen in practice! The most expected situation is that, due to confinement, the $`N`$ quarks find considerable overlap between their wave-functions and form a baryon. Correspondingly, we have learnt to face always with permanently ‘connected’ quarks, for which the matrix $`𝐗(t)`$ appears always in non-diagonal form, and this may cause one believes in the essence of more degrees of freedom as representatives and also to describe the permanent connectivity of quarks. We note that in fact the huge amount of information about the inside of a baryon is encoded in the wave functions of its constituents, or equivalently in the matrix coordinate $`𝐗`$ and its generalizations to higher moments as $`𝐗_{ab}^{(n)}(t)𝑑𝐱\psi _b^{}(𝐱,t)𝐱^n\psi _a(𝐱,t)`$, $`n=0,2,3,4,\mathrm{}`$. The above simple observation may suggest that the matrix coordinate $`𝐗`$ and its generalizations to higher moments can present the criteria for the identification the confined phase of a theory. Besides, the matrix coordinate $`𝐗`$ and its higher moments may be taken as a set of very powerful tools for characterization and study of the observable states in a confined theory. Therefore, it will be very tempting to see that by considering the matrix $`𝐗(t)`$ as the dynamical variable relevant for the inside of a baryon, what kind of information and conceptual insights come out.

Before to proceed further, it is useful to mention that the matrix coordinate can also be constructed from the original quark field in the Lagrangian. We take a SU($`N`$) gauge theory, consisting one kind of flavor in the fundamental representation as matter. We treat this example as a quantum mechanics, rather than a field theory. The states of matter in this quantum mechanical problem are represented by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=(\begin{array}{c}|\psi _1(t)\\ |\psi _2(t)\\ \mathrm{}\\ |\psi _N(t)\end{array}).`$ (5)
So we have the expansion $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)=𝑑𝐱_{a=1}^N\psi _a(𝐱,t)|𝐱|a`$, in which the index $`a`$ is labelling the isospin, and $`\psi _a(𝐱,t)𝐱|\psi _a(t)`$. We define the density matrix operator $`\widehat{\rho }(t)`$ as

$`\widehat{\rho }(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|,`$ (6)
which is an $`N\times N`$ matrix with the general element as $`\widehat{\rho }_{ab}(t)=|\psi _a(t)\psi _b(t)|`$. By the density operator $`\widehat{\rho }_{ab}(t)`$, we can evaluate a particular expectation value for the position operator simply by:

$`𝐗(t)\mathrm{tr}_𝐱(\widehat{𝐱}\widehat{\rho }(t))=(\begin{array}{cccc}\psi _1(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _1(t)& \psi _2(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _1(t)& \mathrm{}& \psi _N(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _1(t)\\ \psi _1(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _2(t)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \psi _1(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _N(t)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \psi _N(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _N(t)\end{array}),`$ (11)
in which $`\widehat{𝐱}`$ is the usual position operator, and $`\mathrm{tr}_𝐱`$ means the integration on the volume of space, yielding $`\psi _a(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _b(t)=𝑑𝐱\psi _a^{}(𝐱,t)𝐱\psi _b(𝐱,t)`$. The general element is defined by $`𝐗_{ab}(t)=\psi _b(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\psi _a(t)=𝐗_{ba}^{}(t)`$, and so the matrix coordinate $`𝐗(t)`$ is $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrix with the usual expansion in color (isospin) space as $`𝐗(t)=_{a,b=1}^N𝐗_{ab}(t)|ab|`$. Again as is recognized easily, the elements of the matrix coordinate $`𝐗`$ are characterized by the color labels $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

As usual, it is natural to assume that the expectation values satisfy some classical equations of motion. Also, we expect that via the quantization of the out-come classical theory, we end up with the original quantum theory. In general case, one expects the classical equations can be derived from the quantized theory, in particular by the equations of motion for the states or wave functions. Since in the problem at hand the quantum theory, specially in the non-perturbative regime, is too hard to solve one may try to formulate the classical theory on some general grounds. In our specific case naturally we are faced with a matrix model. So a general classical action for the coordinates $`𝐗(t)`$ may be taken as

$`S[𝐗]={\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}m\dot{𝐗}\dot{𝐗}𝒱(𝐗,\dot{𝐗},𝐗_{ab},\dot{𝐗}_{ab})\right)},`$ (12)
where $`\mathrm{Tr}`$acts on the matrix structure, and “$`𝒱(\mathrm{})`$” is for the possible potential term, depending on matrix coordinate or velocity, or probably some of their individual elements $`𝐗_{ab}`$ and $`\dot{𝐗}_{ab}`$. For the well separated quarks, as is mentioned the coordinate matrix $`𝐗(t)`$ is almost, or even in the case, exactly diagonal and the action (12) becomes

$`S[𝐗]S[𝐱_1,\mathrm{},𝐱_N]={\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}m\dot{𝐱}_a\dot{𝐱}_a\mathrm{}\right)},`$ (13)
in which $`𝐱_a=𝐗_{aa}`$. The kinetic term of the action (13) may be interpreted as the kinetic term of $`N`$ quarks. This shows that our new tool, matrix coordinates, consists the information we usually realize, in particular the positions and velocities of individual quarks.

The issue of gauge symmetry of original quantum mechanical problem should be considered. The theory we start with is invariant under the transformations:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $``$ $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t)=\widehat{V}(\widehat{𝐱},t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t),`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t)|=\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\widehat{V}^{}(\widehat{𝐱},t),`$
$`\widehat{𝒪}(\widehat{𝐱},\widehat{𝐩},t,_t)`$ $``$ $`\widehat{𝒪}^{}(\widehat{𝐱},\widehat{𝐩},t,_t)=\widehat{V}(\widehat{𝐱},t)\widehat{𝒪}(\widehat{𝐱},\widehat{𝐩},t,_t)\widehat{V}^{}(\widehat{𝐱},t),`$ (14)
for the Hamiltonian of the form $`=\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\widehat{𝒪}(\widehat{𝐱},\widehat{𝐩},t,_t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$, and $`\widehat{V}(\widehat{𝐱},t)`$ is an $`N\times N`$ unitary operator, i.e., $`\widehat{V}\widehat{V}^{}=\widehat{V}^{}\widehat{V}=\mathrm{𝟏}_N`$. Due to integration on space $`𝑑𝐱`$, it might not be expected that in a simple way all of the large symmetry above can be recovered in the theory for matrix coordinates. Instead we assume that the position dependence of the $`\widehat{V}`$ matrix is in the form of $`\widehat{V}(\widehat{𝐱},t)=\stackrel{~}{U}(\widehat{𝐱})U(t)`$, where $`U(t)`$ is an $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix, and $`\stackrel{~}{U}(\widehat{𝐱})`$ is a phase depending on the position operator $`\widehat{𝐱}`$, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{U}\stackrel{~}{U}^{}=1`$. By this kind of transformations we are treating the position dependence of matrix $`\widehat{V}`$ as a U(1) group, rather than a non-Abelian one. Later we try to present some kind of justification for the restriction on the transformations. It can be seen that the matrix coordinate transforms as $`𝐗(t)𝐗^{}(t)=U(t)𝐗(t)U^{}(t)`$. So our matrix theory, at least, should be invariant under this kind of transformations, 111The invariance under the global transformations by $`\widehat{V}(\widehat{𝐱},t)=V_0`$, with $`V_0`$ as a constant $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix, requires that the action should not consist the individual elements of $`𝐗`$, as we assumed in (12), in the first step. and as usual this can be done by introducing a covariant derivative. So the action (12) can be rewritten as

$`S[a_t,𝐗]={\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}mD_t𝐗D_t𝐗𝒱(𝐗,D_t𝐗)\right)},`$ (15)
in which $`D_t𝐗=\dot{𝐗}+i[a_t,𝐗]`$, with $`a_t(t)`$ as the one dimensional $`N\times N`$ hermitian gauge field. We see that the action is now invariant under the transformations:

$`𝐗`$ $``$ $`𝐗^{}=U𝐗U^{},`$
$`a_t`$ $``$ $`a_t^{}=Ua_tU^{}iU_tU^{},`$ (16)
with $`UU(t)`$ as an arbitrary $`N\times N`$ unitary matrix; in fact under these transformations one obtains

$`D_t𝐗D_t^{}𝐗^{}=U(D_t𝐗)U^{},D_tD_t𝐗D_t^{}D_t^{}𝐗^{}=U(D_tD_t𝐗)U^{}.`$ (17)
One may go a little more in details of the potential term. First, we assume that the potential is linear in velocity $`D_t𝐗`$, appearing in the potential as $`D_t𝐗𝐀(𝐗,t)`$. Second, since here we have matrices as coordinates, we can decompose the velocity independent term to completely symmetric and non-symmetric parts in components of $`𝐗=(X^1,X^2,\mathrm{},X^d)`$. We note that each component $`X^i`$ is a matrix. The non-symmetric part can be expanded as

$`𝒱_{\frac{\mathrm{veloc}.\mathrm{indepen}.}{\mathrm{non}\mathrm{symm}.}}(𝐗)=\underset{}{X^i+[X^i,X^j]+X^i[X^j,X^k]}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4l^4}}[X^i,X^j][X_i,X_j]+O(X^6),`$ (18)
in which the terms “$`\underset{}{\mathrm{}}`$” consist free space indices or traceless parts. So the first surviving term is “$`m[X^i,X^j]^2/4l^4`$”, with $`l`$ as a proper length scale. Finally we require that the vector potential $`𝐀(𝐗,t)`$ is also symmetric in the components $`X^i`$’s. Putting these all for the potential term, we end up with the action

$`S[a_t,𝐗]={\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}mD_t𝐗D_t𝐗+qD_t𝐗𝐀(𝐗,t)qA_0(𝐗,t)+\frac{m}{4l^4}[X^i,X^j]^2\right)},`$ (19)
in which $`A_0(𝐗,t)`$ is the symmetric part of velocity independent term of potential, and $`q`$ plays the role of the charge. We note that the fields $`(A_0(𝐗,t),𝐀(𝐗,t))`$ appear as $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices due to their functional dependence on the matrix coordinate $`𝐗`$. It is interesting to study the gauge symmetry of this action. One can check easily that action (19) is invariant under the symmetry transformations :

$`𝐗`$ $``$ $`𝐗^{}=U𝐗U^{},`$
$`a_t(t)`$ $``$ $`a_t^{}(t)=Ua_t(t)U^{}iU{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}U^{},`$
$`A_i(𝐗,t)`$ $``$ $`A_i^{}(𝐗^{},t)=UA_i(𝐗,t)U^{}+iU\delta _iU^{},`$
$`A_0(𝐗,t)`$ $``$ $`A_0^{}(𝐗^{},t)=UA_0(𝐗,t)U^{}iU_tU^{},`$ (20)
where $`UU(𝐗,t)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ is arbitrary up to the condition that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐗,t)`$ is hermitian and totally symmetrized in the $`X^i`$’s. In above, $`\delta _i`$ is the functional derivative $`\frac{\delta }{\delta X^i}`$. 222We note that though $`U(𝐗,t)`$ depends on $`𝐗(t)`$, due to the total derivative $`\frac{d}{dt}`$, $`a_t^{}(t)`$ still only depends on time. In this sense the transformations in  are interpreted incorrectly. We recall that, in approving the invariance of the action, the symmetrization prescription on the matrix coordinates plays an essential role . It is by this symmetry transformation that we expect no distinguished role should be identified to the (diagonal or off-diagonal) elements of matrix coordinate. In other words, since each of the matrix elements are not gauge invariant quantities, they are not expected to appear as an observable final state.

The above transformations on the gauge potentials are similar to those of non-Abelian gauge theories, and we mention that it is just the consequence of enhancement of degrees of freedom from numbers ($`𝐱`$) to matrices ($`𝐗`$). In other words, we are faced with a situation in which “the rotation of fields” is generated by “the rotation of coordinates” . In addition, the case we see here may be considered as finite-$`N`$ version of the relation between gauge symmetry transformations and transformations of matrix coordinates . Despite the non-Abelian behavior of the gauge transformations, we should note that the symmetry is still not equivalent to a non-Abelian one. To see this, we should recall that the symmetry transformations of, for example a U($`N`$) gauge theory, is generated by $`N^2`$ functions of space-time, say $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha (𝐱,t)`$ ($`\alpha =0,\mathrm{},N^21`$), in the group element $`\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha T^\alpha ))`$, where $`T^\alpha `$’s are U($`N`$) generators. Now although $`U(𝐗,t)=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐗,t))`$ in (S0.Ex4) is a unitary matrix due to its dependence on matrix coordinate, it is constructed by just one function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐱,t)`$, after replacing coordinates by matrices i.e. $`𝐱𝐗`$, under the condition of symmetrization. After all, it is quite natural to interpret the fields $`(A_0,𝐀)`$ as the external gauge fields that the constituents, whose degrees of freedom are included in the matrix coordinate, interact with them.

The action (19) is known to be the action of $`N`$ D0-branes of String Theory, in the background of (RR) gauge field $`(A_0(𝐱,t),𝐀(𝐱,t))`$, for $`𝐱`$ as the ordinary coordinates . As mentioned before, from the String Theory point of view, D0-branes are point particles to which ends of strings are attached . In a bound state of $`N`$ D0-branes, they are connected to each other by strings stretched between them, and it can be shown that, by counting the degrees of freedom for the oriented strings, the correct dynamical variables describing the positions of D0-branes are $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices . By comparison, we find out that $`m`$ is the mass of D0-branes and $`l`$ is the order of the string length. In  the possibility for the identification of dynamics of D0-branes and quarks are investigated. Here we recall some of the aspects mentioned in these papers. First of all, we see that by the gauge transformation (S0.Ex4), the elements of the position matrix mix with each other, and so the interpretation of the positions for D0-branes remains obscure. Nevertheless, we note that the concept of center-of-mass (c.m.), here presented by the trace of the matrix coordinate is meaningful. So the ambiguity of the positions only remains for the degrees of freedom counting the relative positions of D0-branes and the strings stretched between them. The equations of motion for $`X^i`$’s and $`a_t`$ by action (19), ignoring the commutator potential $`[X_i,X_j]^2`$, is found to be

$`mD_tD_tX_i=q\left(E_i(𝐗,t)+\underset{}{D_tX^jB_{ji}(𝐗,t)}\right),`$ (21)
$`m[X_i,D_tX^i]=q[A_i(𝐗,t),X^i],`$ (22)
with the following definitions

$`E_i(𝐗,t)`$ $``$ $`\delta _iA_0(𝐗,t)_tA_i(𝐗,t),`$ (23)
$`B_{ji}(𝐗,t)`$ $``$ $`\delta _jA_i(𝐗,t)+\delta _iA_j(𝐗,t).`$ (24)
In (21), the symbol $`\underset{}{D_tX^jB_{ji}(𝐗,t)}`$ denotes the average over all of positions of $`D_tX^j`$ between the $`X`$’s of $`B_{ji}(𝐗,t)`$. The above equations for the $`X`$’s are like the Lorentz equations of motion, with the exceptions that two sides are $`N\times N`$ matrices, and the time derivative $`_t`$ is replaced by its covariant counterpart $`D_t`$.

The behavior of eqs. (21) and (22) under gauge transformation (S0.Ex4) can be checked. Since the action is invariant under (S0.Ex4), it is expected that the equations of motion change covariantly. The left-hand side of (21) changes to $`U^{}D_tD_tXU`$ by (17), and therefore we should find the same change for the right-hand side. One can check that in fact this is the case , and consequently one finds that Eq. (24) leads to

$`E_i(𝐗,t)`$ $``$ $`E_i^{}(𝐗^{},t)=UE_i(𝐗,t)U^{},`$
$`B_{ji}(𝐗,t)`$ $``$ $`B_{ji}^{}(𝐗^{},t)=UB_{ji}(𝐗,t)U^{}`$ (25)
This result is consistent with the fact that $`E_i`$ and $`B_{ji}`$ are functionals of $`X`$’s. We thus see that, in spite of the absence of the usual commutator term $`i[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]`$ of non-Abelian gauge theories, in our case the field strengths transform like non-Abelian ones. We recall that these are all consequences of the matrix coordinates of D0-branes. Finally by the similar reason for vanishing the second term of (19), both sides of (22) transform identically.

An equation of motion similar to (21) is considered in  as a part of similarities between the dynamics of D0-branes and bound states of quarks–QCD strings in a baryonic state . The point is that, the dynamics of the bound state c.m. is not affected directly by the non-Abelian sector of the background, i.e., the c.m. is “white” with respect to SU($`N`$) sector of matrices. The c.m. coordinates and momenta are defined by:

$`𝐱_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{Tr}𝐗,𝐩_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}\mathrm{Tr}𝐏,`$ (26)
where we are using the convention $`\mathrm{Tr}\mathbf{\hspace{0.33em}1}_N=N`$. To specify the net charge of a bound state (which is an extended object) its dynamics should be studied in zero magnetic and uniform electric fields, i.e., $`B_{ji}=0`$ and $`E_i(𝐗,t)=E_{0i}`$. 333In a non-Abelian gauge theory a uniform electric field can be defined up to a gauge transformation, which sufficient for identification of white (singlet) states. Since the fields are uniform, they do not involve the $`X^i`$ matrices, and contain just the U(1) part. In other words, under gauge transformations $`E_{0i}`$ and $`B_{ji}=0`$ transform to $`E_i^{}(𝐗,t)=U(𝐗,t)E_{0i}U^{}(𝐗,t)=E_{0i}`$ and $`B_{ji}^{}=0`$. Thus the action (19) yields the following equation of motion:

$`(Nm)\ddot{𝐱}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}=Nq𝐄_{0(1)},`$ (27)
in which the subscript (1) emphasizes the U(1) electric field. So the c.m. interacts directly only with the U(1) of U($`N`$). From the String Theory point of view, this observation is based on the simple fact that the SU($`N`$) structure of D0-branes arises just from the internal degrees of freedom inside the bound state. In other words, the matrix behavior of the coordinates, and the resulted non-commutativity, is just restricted to the relative positions of D0-branes. By this picture, we may call this situation as ‘confined non-commutativity’ . This behavior of D0-brane bound states is the same as that of baryons. It means that each D0-brane feels the net effect of other D0-branes as the white-complement of its color. In other words, the field flux extracted from one D0-brane to the other ones are the same as the flux between a color and an anti-color, Fig.1. This shape for the electric flux are in agreement with the result of field theory correlator method . It was pointed that the gauge symmetry associated to gauge field $`(A_0(𝐗,t),𝐀(𝐗,t))`$, though looking similar to the non-Abelian gauge theories, is in intrinsic U(1). Based on the observation we have made here about whiteness of the bound state, we may argue in the phase that all of the observable states should have equivalent amount of U($`N`$) sectors, the symmetry appears to be restricted, and equivalently as U(1). In fact it is the case that we expect to see when we are faced with matrix coordinates as relevant degrees of freedom.

It is desirable to assign a net charge different from $`Nq`$ to the c.m. It can be done simply by modifying the action (19)

$`S^{}[a_t,𝐗]=S[a_t,𝐗]+{\displaystyle 𝑑t\left(Nq^{}\dot{𝐱}_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}𝐀(𝐱_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.},t)Nq^{}A_0(𝐱_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.},t)\right)},`$ (28)
in which $`S[a_t,𝐗]`$ is the action (19). By this action the charge of c.m. is equal to $`N(q+q^{})`$, rather than $`Nq`$.

Now, let us ignore for the moment the external gauge field $`(A_0,𝐀)`$. The equations of motion can be solved by diagonal configurations, such as:

$`𝐗(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}.(𝐱_1(t),\mathrm{},𝐱_N(t)),`$
$`a_t(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}.(a_{t1}(t),\mathrm{},a_{tN}(t)),`$ (29)
with $`𝐱_a=𝐱_{a0}+𝐯_at`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},N`$. By this configuration, we restrict the U($`N`$) generators to the $`N`$ dimensional Cartan sub-algebra. This configuration describes the “classical” free motion of $`N`$ D0-branes, neglecting the effects of the strings (and the symmetry supported by them). Of course the situation is different when we consider quantum effects, and consequently it will be realized that the dynamics of the off-diagonal elements affect the dynamics of D0-branes significantly. Concerning the effect of the strings, one may try to extract the effective theory for D0-branes, i.e., for the diagonal configurations. In particular, it will be found out that the commutator potential is responsible for the formation of the bound state, and by a simple dimensional analysis we understand that the size of the bound state, $`\mathrm{}`$, is $`m^{1/3}l^{2/3}`$. As in  (see also ), let us take the example of static D0-branes. For this configuration one can easily calculate one-loop effective potential between the quarks, getting :

$`V_{\mathrm{one}\mathrm{loop}}4\pi {\displaystyle \frac{d1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{a>b=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|𝐱_a𝐱_b|}{l^2}}.`$ (30)
This result shows the linear potential between each pair of D0-branes. Previously we mentioned that, by qualitative considerations, what should be the shape of the electric flux (Fig.1). Now, by interpretation of (30) as the effective potential of a constituent quark model, we are enable to know something more about the bound state and more quantitative details. One can trace supports for the linear behavior of the potential in the literature, namely results by lattice calculations , and things we expect from the spin-mass Regge trajectories. In  by taking the linear potential between quarks of a baryonic state in transverse direction of the light cone frame, the structure functions are obtained in good agreement with the observed ones. Since the original theory is invariant under the rotation among the color indices $`1,\mathrm{},N`$, we mention that only the states which are singlets under the (global) rotation among the indices can be accepted as the physical states of effective theory for diagonal elements.

The formulation we presented above is in the non-relativistic limit. Though it is expected this limit produces good results for heavy quarks, for light or massless quarks we should change our approach. One way can be starting by a covariant theory; treating time and space equivalently. In this way, although the terms responsible for kinetic energy and interaction with external gauge fields find reasonable forms (see ), the main problem will appear to be with potentials as $`[X^\mu ,X^\nu ]^2`$. Instead one may follow another approach to say something about the covariant theory. The world-line formulation we have here is that of the M(atrix) model conjecture, accompanied with the interaction terms with external gauge fields. For the case of the dynamics of a massless charged particle with ordinary coordinates, we can see easily that the light-cone dynamics have a form similar to that we have in action (19); see Appendix of . To approach the covariant formulation, following finite-$`N`$ interpretation of , it is reasonable to interpret things in the DLCQ framework . In this way of interpretation, the mass parameter $`m`$ is the longitudinal momentum, and the spatial directions present the transverse coordinates in the light-cone frame. In addition, according to the specific form of action (19) the rest mass of quraks is assumed to be zero (see ).

In  and  the problem of scattering of 1) a D0-brane off another one and, 2) a D0-brane bound state off an external gauge field probe, were considered. As we mentioned above, both of the scattering processes can be interpreted in the light-cone frame. For the case of scattering of a D0-brane off another one, the expectations for the well known Regge behavior are satisfied. As for the problem of interaction between D0-brane bound state and ‘photons’ of gauge field, the interesting observations is expected for the regime in which the details of the bound state can be probed. Here we just present the general expected features; see  for more details. As argued in before, the external field depend on the internal coordinates of the bound state under the symmetrization condition in matrix coordinates. One way to cover the symmetrization is to use the so-called ‘non-Abelian Fourier expansion’ . For an arbitrary function $`f(𝐗,t)`$ the non-Abelian Fourier expansion will be found to be:

$`f(𝐗,t)={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐤\overline{f}(𝐤,t)\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐗}},`$ (31)
in which $`\overline{f}(𝐤,t)`$ are the Fourier components of the function $`f(𝐱,t)`$ (i.e., function by ordinary coordinates) which is defined by the known expression:

$`\overline{f}(𝐤,t){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}}{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐱f(𝐱,t)\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐱}}.`$ (32)
Since the momentum numbers $`k_i`$’s are ordinary numbers, and so commute with each other, the symmetrization prescription is automatically recovered in the expansion of the momentum eigen-functions $`\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐗}`$. Now, by using the symmetric expansion (31), we can imagine some general aspects of the interaction between D0-brane bound states and RR photons. As we mentioned in before the size of the bound state, for finite number $`N`$ of D0-branes is finite and is of order of $`\mathrm{}m^{1/3}l^{2/3}`$.

Before proceeding further, we should distinguish the dynamics of the c.m. from the internal degrees of freedom of the bound state. As mentioned in before, the c.m. position and momentum of the bound state are presented by the $`U(1)`$ sector of the $`U(N)=SU(N)\times U(1)`$, and thus the information related to the c.m. can be gained simply by the $`\mathrm{Tr}`$operation. So, the internal degrees of freedom of the bound state, which consist the relative positions of $`N`$ D0-branes together with the dynamics of strings stretched between D0-branes, are described by the $`SU(N)`$ sector of the matrix coordinates. It is easy to see that the commutator potential in the action has some flat directions, along which the eigen-values can take arbitrary large values. But it is understood that, by considering the quantum effects and in the case that we expect formation of the bound state, we should expect suppression the large values of the internal degrees of freedom . Consequently, it is expected that the $`SU(N)`$ sector of matrix coordinates take mean values like $`X_\alpha ^i\mathrm{}`$ ($`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N^21`$, not $`\alpha =0`$ as c.m.), with $`\mathrm{}`$ as the bound state size scale mentioned in above. We should mention that, though the c.m. is represented by the $`U(1)`$ sector, but its dynamics is affected by the interaction of the ingredients of bound state with the $`SU(N)`$ sector of external fields, similar to the situation we imagine in the case of the Van der Waals force.

The important question about the interaction of a bound state (as an extended object) with an external field, is about ‘the regime in which the substructure of bound state is probed’. As we mentioned in introduction, in our case the quanta of RR fields are the representatives of the external field. The quanta are coming from a ‘source’ and so, as it makes easier things, we ignore its dynamics. The source is introduced to our problem by the gauge field $`A_\mu (𝐱,t)`$. These fields appear in the action by functional dependence on matrix coordinates $`𝐗`$’s. In fact this is the key of how we can probe the substructure of the bound state. According to the non-Abelian Fourier expansion we mentioned in above, we have

$`A_\mu (𝐗,t)={\displaystyle 𝑑𝐤\overline{A}_\mu (𝐤,t)\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐗}},`$ (33)
in which $`\overline{A}_\mu (𝐤,t)`$ is the Fourier components of the fields $`A_\mu (𝐱,t)`$ (i.e., fields by ordinary coordinates). One can imagine the scattering processes which are designed to probe inside the bound state. Such as every other scattering process two limits of momentum modes, corresponding to long and short wave-lengths, behave differently.

In the limit $`\mathrm{}|𝐤|0`$ (long wave-length regime), the field $`A_\mu `$ is not involved by $`𝐗`$ matrices mainly. It means that the fields appear to be nearly constant inside the bound state, and in rough estimation we have

$`\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐗}\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐗_{\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{m}.}}.`$ (34)
So in this limit we expect that the substructure and consequently non-commutativity will not be seen; Fig.-2a. As the consequence, after interaction with a long wave-length mode, it is not expected that the bound state jump to another energy level different from the first one. It should be noted that the c.m. dynamics can be affected as well in this case.

In the limit $`\mathrm{}|𝐤|=`$finite (short wave-length regime), the fields depend on coordinates $`𝐗`$ inside the bound state, and so the substructure responsible for non-commutativity should be probed; Fig.-2b. In fact, we know that the non-commutativity of D0-brane coordinates is the consequence of the strings which are stretched between D0-branes. In this case, it is completely expectable that the energy level of the incoming and outgoing bound states will be different, since the ingredients of bound state substructure can absorb quanta of energy from the incident wave. In this case the c.m. dynamics can be affected in a novel way by the interaction of the substructure with the external fields (the Van der Waals effect). In general case, one can gain more information about the substructure of a bound state by analysing the ‘recoil’ effect on the source. To do this, one should be able to include the dynamics of the source in the formulation. Considering the dynamics of source, in the terms of quantized field theory, means that we consider the processes in which the source and the target exchange ‘one quanta of gauge field’ with definite wave-length and frequency, though off-shell, as $`A_\mu (𝐱,t)ϵ_\mu \mathrm{e}^{i𝐤𝐱i\omega t}`$.

Up to now, we have considered things for the theory with one kind of flavor. It is interesting to think about the case with more than one flavor. One suggestion can be as follows: assume the flavor $`A`$ with mass $`m_A`$ is represented by the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_A(t)`$. We may re-scale the states as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_A|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_A=(m_A)^{1/4}|\mathrm{\Psi }_A`$. For a baryon consisting $`N`$ heavy flavors we define the matrix coordinate as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}(t)(\begin{array}{cccc}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(t)& \stackrel{~}{\psi }_2(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(t)& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{~}{\psi }_N(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(t)\\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2(t)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_1(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_N(t)& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{~}{\psi }_N(t)|\widehat{𝐱}|\stackrel{~}{\psi }_N(t)\end{array}).`$ (39)
For this coordinate we take the action

$`S[\stackrel{~}{𝐗}]={\displaystyle 𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}\dot{\stackrel{~}{𝐗}}\dot{\stackrel{~}{𝐗}}\mathrm{}\right)}.`$ (40)
Now, for the well separated states, for which we have diagonal coordinates, the action in terms of original coordinates (i.e., before re-scaling) becomes

$`S[𝐱_A]={\displaystyle 𝑑t\underset{A=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}m_A\dot{𝐱}_A\dot{𝐱}_A\mathrm{}\right)},`$ (41)
in which we see that each flavor has the expected kinetic term. It is worth recalling that due to the color symmetry we expect, the coordinate to which the symmetry transformation should apply is $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$.

In  a conceptual relation between use of matrix coordinate for non-Abelian gauge theory purposes and the ideas concerned in special relativity is mentioned; see also . According to an interpretation of the special relativity, it is meaningful if the ‘coordinates’ and the ‘fields’ in a theory have some kinds of similar characters. As an example, we observe that both the space-time coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and the electro-magnetic potentials $`A^\mu (x)`$ transform equivalently (i.e., as a $`(d+1)`$-vector) under the boost transformations. Also by this way of interpretation, the super-space formulations of supersymmetric field and superstring theories are the natural continuation of the special relativity program. In the case of use of matrix coordinates, it may be argued that the relation between ‘matrix coordinates’ and ‘matrix fields’ (gauge fields of a non-Abelian gauge theory) is one of the expectations which is supported by the spirit of the special relativity. From the previous discussion we recall, 1) the matrix character of gauge fields is the result of dependence of them on matrix coordinates , 2) the symmetry transformations of gauge fields is induced by the transformations of matrix coordinates , 3) the transformations of fields in the theory on matrix space appeared to be similar to those of non-Abelian gauge theories, relations (S0.Ex4) and (S0.Ex7). This way of interpretation leads us to conclude that the non-Abelian gauge fields in a confined theory do not have an independent character, and they are introduced to the formalism due to functional dependence on the matrix coordinates of ‘bounded quarks’. It seems very interesting when we note that by the present situation of experimental data, the existence of pure gluonic states, the so-called glueballs, is quite doubtful. This lack of detection may be taken as a support for the interpretation presented above.

Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to A. Shariati, and specially to M. Khorrami for helpful discussions. The comments on the manuscript by Gh. Exirifard, and specially by S. Parvizi and M.M. Sheikh-Jabbari are acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Bimetric Gravitation and Cosmology in Five Dimension

## 1  Introduction

Most recent efforts have been diverted at studying theories in which the dimensions of space-time are greater than (3+1) of the order which we observe. This idea is particularly important in the field of cosmology since one knows that our universe was much smaller in its early stage than it is today. Chados and Detweiler (1980) proposed the cosmological dimensional reduction process. They pointed out that the poor description of the universe is obtained from Kasner’s four-dimensional vacuum solutions since at least one-dimension contracts, whereas the other expands. This difficulty can be resolved with the introduction of the fifth dimension because the choice of the solution in this case is such that the five dimensional universes naturally evolves into an effect four dimensional one as a consequence of dimensional reduction. Higher dimensional space- time is particularly important in the domain of cosmology, in view of the underlying idea, that at its early stage of evolution our cosmos might have had a higher dimensional era such that with the passage of time the extra space reduced to volume beyond the ability of our experimental detection at the moment.

The bimetric general theory of relativity is a modification of Einstein’s general relativity theory involving a background metric in addition to the usual physical metric. This theory is based on the assumption that at each point of the space-time there are a Riemannian metric tensor and a flat space metric tensor, satisfies the covariance and equivalence principles, as does general theory of relativity. The theory differs from general theory of relativity in that it does not appear to predict the existence of black holes and it gives a larger limit for the mass of a neutron star (Rosen & Rosen 1975). PPN parameter of Rosen theory of gravitation is evaluated by Lee et. al (1976) and they showed that the post Newtonian limit of the theory is identical to that of general theory of relativity, except for the PPN parameter $`\alpha _2`$ . It follows that, in general, $`\alpha _2`$ is different from zero. However, according to them, for a particular choice of cosmological boundary values, Newtonian parameter assumes its current value $`\alpha _2`$ = 0, as in the case of general theory of relativity, and then the two theories are in complete agreement in the post Newtonian limit.

The present work is concerned with the cosmological considerations, which are doubtful in five dimensional (5D) Rosen theory of gravitation. Some examples are given for 5D cosmological model, which leads to conclusions that are different from those of Lee et.al (1976).

### 1.1 An extreme example

In bimetric theory there exit two metric tensors a Reimannian tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ describing the gravitational field (together with inertial forces) and a flat-space tensor $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ describing the inertial field, the two tensors being equal in the absence of gravitation. Accordingly, two kinds of covariant derivatives are defined : that involving $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, denoted by semicolon (;) , and that involving $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ , denoted by $`()`$. The tensor $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is denoted by the choice of the co-ordinate system ; the tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ , by the field equations are derived from the variational principle (Rosen 1973) and have the form (in the units of general relativity)

$$K_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }.$$
(1)
Here $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ is the energy momentum density of matter or other non-gravitational fields, and $`K_{\mu \nu }`$ is given by

$$\kappa K_{\mu \nu }=N_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }N,$$
(2)
where

$$\kappa =(\frac{g}{\gamma })^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(3)
$$N_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }g_{\mu \nu _{\alpha \beta }}\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\alpha \beta }g^{\lambda \sigma }g_{\lambda \mu _\alpha }g_{\sigma \nu _\beta },$$
(4)
and

$$N=g^{\lambda \sigma }N_{\lambda \sigma }.$$
(5)
From variational principal one obtains relations

$$K_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0,$$
(6)
$$T_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(7)
Unless otherwise indicated, indices are raised and lowered with $`g_{\mu \nu }`$.

For describing homogeneous isotropic cosmological model let us take, in the rest frame of the universe, $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu },`$ the metric tensor of special relativity, $`(diag.+1,1,1,1,1),`$ and let us write the five dimensional line element associated with $`g_{\mu \nu },`$

$$ds^2=e^{2\varphi }dt^2e^{2\psi }(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2+dx_4^2),$$
(8)
where $`(t,x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4),`$ and $`\varphi =\varphi (t),\psi =\psi (t).`$ We are dealing with model of zero spatial curvature $`(k=0)`$. If we take $`T_\mu ^\nu `$ as having non- vanishing components

$$T_0^0=\rho ,T_1^1=T_2^2=T_3^3=T_4^4=P,$$
(9)
with $`\rho =\rho (t)`$ and $`P=P(t)`$, the density and the pressure, the field equations can be written as

$$\ddot{\varphi }=(\frac{16\pi }{3})e^{(4\psi +\varphi )}(\rho +2P),$$
(10)
$$\ddot{\psi }=(\frac{8\pi }{3})e^{(4\psi +\varphi )}(\rho P),$$
(11)
where dot denotes a time derivative. In additions to these equations, from equation (7) are obtains a relation

$$\dot{\rho }+4(\rho +P)\dot{\psi }=0.$$
(12)
Consider the equation of state as

$$P=(\gamma 1)\rho (\gamma =const.).$$
(13)
Let us take a case of pressureless dust $`(\gamma =1)`$. Then equation (12) can be written as

$$\rho =\rho _0e^{4\psi }(\rho _0=const.),$$
(14)
and the field equation become

$$\ddot{\varphi }=(\frac{16}{3})\pi \rho _0e^\varphi ,$$
(15)
$$\ddot{\psi }=(\frac{8}{3})\pi \rho _0e^\varphi .$$
(16)
The solution is given by

$$e^\varphi =(\frac{3\delta ^2}{8\pi \rho _0})cosh^2\delta (tt_0),$$
(17)
$$e^\psi =(\frac{8\pi \rho _0}{3\delta ^2})^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{At+B}{2}}cosh\delta (tt_0),$$
(18)
where $`A,B,\rho _0,\delta `$ and $`t_0`$ are arbitrary constants. For simplicity let us take $`A=B=0`$ and let us introduce the cosmic time $`\tau `$ (Babala 1975),

$$\tau =\underset{t_0}{\overset{t}{}}e^\varphi 𝑑t,$$
(19)
so that,

$$ds^2=d\tau ^2e^{2\psi }(dx_1^2+dx_2^2+dx_3^2+dx_4^2),$$
(20)
we finds that,

$$\tau =(\frac{3\delta }{8\pi \rho _0})tanh\delta (tt_0),$$
(21)
$$e^\psi =\left[\frac{3}{8\pi \rho _0(\tau _{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\tau ^2)}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau _0\tau \tau _0),$$
(22)
with $`\tau _0=(\frac{3\delta }{8\pi \rho _0})`$. The density is given by

$$\rho =(\frac{3\delta ^2}{8\pi })^2\frac{1}{\rho _0cosh^4\delta (tt_0)}=(\frac{8\pi }{3})^2\rho _0^3(t_0^2t^2)^2.$$
(23)
We see that this model describes a universe which contracts from a state with $`\rho =0`$ to one of maximum density $`(\frac{3\delta ^2}{8\pi })^2\frac{1}{\rho _0}`$ and then expands again to the state with $`\rho =0`$. It should be remarked that the transformation from $`t`$ to $`t_0`$ which gives the line element (20) also changes the form of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$. The above represents an example of the kind of cosmological model. One can take the tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ for an isolated physical system as going over at infinity to the form corresponding to equation (8)

$$g_{00}=e^{2\varphi }=c_0,g_{jk}=e^{2\psi }\delta _{jk}=c_1\delta _{jk}.$$
(24)
We assume that one of the no-zero PPN parameter in five dimensional bimetric theory of relativity in given by

$$\alpha _2=(\frac{c_0}{c_1})1.$$
(25)
Lee.et.al. pointed out that, for a four dimensional cosmological model one can choose the boundary or (initial) conditions, so that $`\alpha _2=0`$ (This can been seen in the above example, where one can make the expression (17) and (18) equal for an arbitrary valve of $`t`$ by a suitable choice of integration constant). Hence their consideration do not rule out the bimetric theory.

For example, let us suppose that in the homogenous isotropic model we have a unit vector $`S_\mu `$ that points in the direction of flow of the cosmic time,

$$S_\mu =\frac{\tau }{dx_\mu },S_\mu S^\mu =1,$$
(26)
so that, in the co-ordinate system associated with equation (8)

$$S_0=e^\varphi ,S^0=e^\varphi ,S_k=S^k=0(k=1,2,3,4).$$
(27)
Let us now assume that, in addition $`T_{\mu \nu }`$ which characterizes the matter, there also exist a “cosmological” tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ which enters into the field equations, so that equation (1) is to be replaced by

$$K_{\mu \nu }=8\pi \tau _{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }.$$
(28)
The tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is to be regarded as given a prior. Let us assume that it has the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=8\pi (\rho +P)(S_\mu S_\nu \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is constant. One of then finds that the equations (10) and (11) takes the form

$$\ddot{\psi }=\ddot{\varphi }=\frac{8\pi \kappa }{3}(\rho P)+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }\kappa .$$
(30)
With suitable initial conditions one has $`\varphi =\psi `$. In this case equation (8) describes a conformly flat space-time and from (25) we see that $`\alpha _2=0`$ for all time, as in general relativity. Let us again consider a case of dust $`(P=0)`$, so that equation (14) holds. With $`\varphi =\psi `$ equation (30) gives

$$\ddot{\psi }=\frac{8\pi }{3}\rho _0e^\psi +\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{5\psi }.$$
(31)
Multiplying by $`\dot{\psi }`$ and integrating , we gets

$$\frac{1}{2}\dot{\psi }^2=\frac{8\pi }{3}\rho _0e^\psi +\frac{2}{15}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{5\psi }+const.$$
(32)
We see that, for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ and a suitable value of the integration constant $`(<0)`$ , there will be two values of $`\psi `$ for which $`\dot{\psi }=0`$. Hence there will be solutions of equation (32) for which $`\psi `$ will oscillate with time between these values. We thus obtain an oscillating model of the universe.

However, it is possible to introduce other cosmic fields which will not violate the basic assumption of the theory and which can lead to models that are conformally flat over long periods of time. These will be considered in the next section.

### 1.2  Cosmic Fields

Rosen (1969) pointed out that, within the framework of general relativity theory, there may exist cosmic fields, which can influence the behaviour of the universe. These can be thought of as stress fields characterizing space-time. A similar possibility exists in the framework of the bimetric theory. With the help of $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and the cosmic tensor vector $`S_\mu `$ given by (26), let us form a new tensor $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ which is to appear on the right of equation (28). Now however, in view of equation (6) and (7), let us require that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0.$$
(33)
One can take

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }=\sigma (S_\mu S_\nu \alpha g_{\mu \nu })\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },$$
(34)
where $`\sigma `$ is a function of coordinates and $`\alpha `$ a constant. From (26) we get

$$S_{\mu ;\nu }S^\nu =0,$$
(35)
so that equation (33) gives

$$(\sigma S^\nu )_{;\nu }S_\mu \alpha \sigma _{,\mu }=0,$$
(36)
where comma denotes an ordinary partial derivative. Multiplying by $`S^\mu `$ we gets

$$[\sigma ^{(1\alpha )}S^\nu ]_{;\nu }=0$$

, or

$$[((1)^4g)^{\frac{1}{2}}\sigma ^{(1\alpha )}S^\nu ]_{,\nu }=0.$$
(37)
From equation (36) we also see that, if $`\alpha 0`$,

$$\sigma =\sigma (\tau ).$$
(38)
We can assume this also for $`\alpha =0`$. In our coordinate system equation (37), with the help of (8), gives

$$\sigma =\sigma _0e^{\frac{4\psi }{(1\alpha )}}(\sigma _0=const.).$$
(39)
If, formally, we write

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu }=(\rho _c+P_c)S_\mu S_\nu P_cg_{\mu \nu },$$
(40)
as if we were dealing with a material medium having a velocity $`S^\mu `$ ( $`\rho _c`$ and $`P_c`$ might be thought of something like density and pressure associated with empty space), them comparison with (34) gives

$$P_c=(\frac{\alpha }{1\alpha })\rho _c.$$
(41)
The most interesting cases are : (1) $`\alpha =0,P_c=0,\sigma =\sigma _0e^{4\psi }`$, as in case of dust; (2) $`\alpha =\frac{1}{4},P_c=\frac{1}{3}\rho _c,\sigma =\sigma _0e^{\frac{16}{3\psi }}`$, as for isotropic radiation, and (3) $`\alpha =\frac{1}{2},P_c=\rho _c,\sigma =\sigma _0e^{8\psi }`$ , the limiting case, corresponding to a medium with acoustic velocity equal to light velocity.
One can assume that any of the above fields (or those with other values of $`\alpha `$ )are present, either singly or combination. As an example, let us take as case $`\alpha =0`$.Then equation (28) take the form

$$K_{\mu \nu }=8\pi T_{\mu \nu }+\sigma S_\mu S_\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }g_{\mu \nu },$$
(42)
which gives

$$\ddot{\varphi }=\frac{16}{3}\pi e^{4\psi +\varphi }(\rho +2P)+\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{4\psi +\varphi }+\frac{2}{3}\sigma _0e^\varphi ,$$
(43)
$$\ddot{\psi }=\frac{8\pi }{3}e^{4\psi +\varphi }(\rho P)+\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{4\psi +\varphi }\frac{\sigma _0}{3}e^\varphi .$$
(44)
Let us again consider a case of dust-filled universe $`(P=0)`$. Making use of equation (14), we now get

$$\ddot{\varphi }=(\frac{2}{3})(8\pi \rho _0\sigma _0)e^\varphi +\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{(4\psi +\varphi )},$$
(45)
$$\ddot{\psi }=(\frac{1}{3})(8\pi \rho _0\sigma _0)e^\varphi +\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{(4\psi +\varphi )}.$$
(46)
Here $`\rho _0`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ are integration constants. With suitable boundary condition we can have

$`\sigma _0=8\pi \rho _0`$.

This value is similar to the value obtained earlier by Rosen (1977) for four dimensional space-time. From equations (45) and (46) gives

$$\ddot{\varphi }=\ddot{\psi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{\varphi +4\psi }.$$
(47)
Again, with suitable boundary conditions, we can have $`\varphi =\psi `$, so that space-time is conformally flat, and our field equations becomes

$$\ddot{\psi }=\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{5\psi }.$$
(48)
Taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ and choosing the integration constants appropriately, we get a solution of the form

$$e^\varphi =e^\psi =(\frac{2\delta ^2}{5\mathrm{\Lambda }})^{\frac{1}{5}}cosech^{\frac{2}{5}}(\delta t).$$
(49)
We see that in the above example we again have a cosmological model which leads to $`\alpha _2=0`$, as in general relativity. The assumption that $`P=0`$, made above, is valid for the present and the future state of the universe; so if $`\alpha _2=0`$ , at the present time, this will continue to hold for all time to come.

### 1.3 Conclusion

If one assumes that the universe is unique and is governed by a special law one can arrive at many different cosmological models, some examples of which are discussed above.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Let $`\pi S_n`$ be a permutation of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ written in one-line notation. Let $`\alpha S_m`$. We say that $`\pi `$ contains the pattern $`\alpha `$ if there exist indices $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_m`$ such that $`\pi _{i_1}\pi _{i_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{i_m}`$ is equivalent to $`\alpha `$, where we define equivalence as follows. Define $`\overline{\pi }_{i_j}=|\{x:\pi _{i_x}\pi _{i_j},1xm\}|`$. If $`\alpha =\overline{\pi }_{i_1}\overline{\pi }_{i_2}\mathrm{}\overline{\pi }_{i_m}`$ then we say that $`\alpha `$ and $`\pi _{i_1}\pi _{i_2}\mathrm{}\pi _{i_m}`$ are equivalent. For example, if $`\tau =124635`$ then $`\tau `$ contains the pattern $`132`$ by noting that $`\tau _2\tau _4\tau _5=263`$ is equivalent to $`132`$. We say that $`\pi `$ is $`\alpha `$-avoiding if $`\pi `$ does not contain the pattern $`\alpha `$. In our above example, $`\tau `$ is $`321`$-avoiding.

Define $`S_n(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha S_m`$, to the the set of $`\alpha `$-avoiding permutations in $`S_n`$. Let $`s_n(\alpha )`$ be the size of $`S_n(\alpha )`$. Knuth (\[Knu\]) showed that, regardless of the pattern $`\alpha S_3`$, $`s_n(\alpha )=C_n=\frac{1}{n+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}\right)`$, the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Catalan number. Bijective results are given in \[Kra\], \[Ric\], \[SS\], and \[Wes\].

We refine the investigation of $`S_n(\alpha )`$ in the following fashion. Let $`\alpha S_m`$. Define $`S_n^k(\alpha )`$ to be the set of $`\alpha `$-avoiding permutations of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, with exactly $`k`$ fixed points. Let $`s_n^k(\alpha )`$ be the size of $`S_n^k(\alpha )`$. We may write $`D_n(\alpha )`$ and $`d_n(\alpha )`$ for $`S_n^0(\alpha )`$ and $`s_n^0(\alpha )`$, respectively, since we are dealing with derangements.

## 2 Similarity Relations, Catalan Sequences, and Fine’s Sequence

We begin our investigation with similarity relations. A similarity relation, $`R`$, is a binary relation on an ordered set which is reflexive, symmetric, but not necessarily transitive, with the condition that if $`iRk`$ and $`i<j<k`$ then $`iRj`$ and $`jRk`$. Furthermore, we have the following definition about the structure of a similarity relation.

###### Definition 2.1

A similarity relation, $`R`$, is said to have $`k`$ isolated points if $`k`$ is the number of $`i\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that there does not exists $`ji`$ with $`iRj`$. If $`k=0`$, we say that the similarity relation is nonsingular. We denote by $`SR_n(k)`$ the set of similarity relations on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`k`$ isolated points.

There are two common structures which can be used to view similarity relations: graphs and sequences. We will be using the sequence interpretation of a similarity relation as given by Strehl in \[Str\]: Let $`R`$ be a similarity relation on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Then $`R`$ corresponds to an integer sequence $`r_1r_2\mathrm{}r_n`$ defined for any $`1in`$ by $`r_i=ij`$, where $`j`$ is the smallest element of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`iRj`$. Throughout this paper we assume that similarity relations are defined on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. To this end, we make the following definition.

###### Definition 2.2

The set of similarity relations (on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$) is given by

$$SR_n=\{r_1r_2\mathrm{}r_n:r_i,r_1=0\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}r_{i+1}r_i+1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}in1\}.$$

For example $`SR_3=\{000,001,010,011,012\}`$.

It is known (\[Rog\], \[Str\]) that for $`n1`$, $`|SR_n(0)|=F_n`$, where $`F_n`$ is the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Fine number. The first few values of Fine’s sequence are $`0,1,2,6,18,57,186,622,2120,\mathrm{}`$, a sequence first discovered in \[Fin\].

Looking at $`SR_n(0)`$ a little more closely, we see that $`sSR_n(0)`$ if and only if $`s`$ has no occurrence of $`00`$ and does not end with $`0`$. Hence, we say that a nonsingular similarity relation has no double zero, where we consider an ending $`0`$ to be a double zero.

We now state some of the results concerning Fine’s sequence as given in \[Rog\], \[Sha\], and \[Str\].

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`C_n=\frac{1}{n+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n}{n}\right)`$ and $`F_n`$ be the $`n^{th}`$ Catalan number and Fine number, respectively. We have the following for $`n2`$.

1. $`|SR_n(0)|=F_n`$
2. $`C_n=2F_n+F_{n1}`$
3. $`F_n=_{1kn/2}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n2k1}{n1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2n2k1}{n}\right)`$
4. $`F_n=\frac{1}{2}_{i=0}^{n2}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^iC_{ni}`$

As we can see, the Catalan and Fine numbers are related. This becomes more evident in light of the following definition.

###### Definition 2.3

The set of Catalan sequences of length $`n`$ is given by

$$Cat(n)=\{c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_n:c_i,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_n,\mathrm{and}c_ii\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}in\}$$

For example: $`Cat(3)=\{111,112,113,122,123\}`$. It is well-known and easy to see that the cardinality of $`Cat(n)`$ is the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Catalan number. It is also well-known and easy to see that the generating function for the Catalan numbers, $`\psi (t)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}C_nt^n`$, satisfies the quadratic equation $`\psi (t)=1+t\psi ^2(t)`$, and hence that $`\psi (t)=\frac{1\sqrt{14t}}{2t}`$.

## 3 321-Avoiding Derangements and Dyck Paths

The aim of this section is to show that the $`321`$-avoiding derangements are enumerated by Fine’s sequence. We will investigate two bijections, the main one due to Krattenthaler \[Kra\]. First, we must introduce a few definitions.

###### Definition 3.1

We say that a permutation $`\pi S_n`$ is a backward derangement if $`\pi _{n+1i}i`$ for all $`1in`$.

Consequently, a $`123`$-avoiding backward derangement when read from right to left is a $`321`$-avoiding derangement.

We will be using a bijection due to Krattenthaler \[Kra\] from $`S_n(123)`$ to the set of Dyck paths of length $`2n`$, so for completeness we define a Dyck path.

###### Definition 3.2

A Dyck path is a path in $`^2`$ from $`(0,0)`$ to $`(2n,0)`$ consisting of a sequence of steps of length $`\sqrt{2}`$ and slope $`\pm 1`$. We denote these two types of steps by $`(1,1)`$ and $`(1,1)`$, called up-steps and down-steps, respectively. We say that the length of such a Dyck path is $`2n`$ (its horizontal length) and denote the set of Dyck paths of length $`2n`$ by $`Dyck(2n)`$.

We also have the following definition about certain Dyck paths.

###### Definition 3.3

We say that a Dyck path contains a hill if it has a peak at height $`1`$. We say that a Dyck path is hill-free is it contains no hill. We denote the set of hill-free Dyck paths of length $`2n`$ by $`Dyck^{hf}(2n)`$.

We now describe a natural bijection from $`SR_n`$ to Dyck paths of length $`2n`$. Let $`s=s_1s_2\mathrm{}s_nSR_n`$. This bijection is very similar to one given by Krattenthaler \[Kra\] from $`S_n(132)`$ to $`Dyck(2n)`$.

Each $`s_i`$, $`1in`$, corresponds to the starting height of an up-step. Proceeding from $`s_i`$ to $`s_{i+1}`$, if $`s_{i+1}>s_i`$ then we continue with up-steps. If $`s_{i+1}s_i`$ we append $`s_is_{i+1}+1`$ down-steps followed by a single up-step. This assures us that $`s_{i+1}`$ corresponds to a starting height of $`s_{i+1}`$ for an up-step. After $`s_n`$ we use as many down-steps as necessary to end at $`(2n,0)`$. The inverse bijection is obvious. An example is in order.

Let $`s=0120121SR_7(0)`$. This nonsingular similarity relation corresponds to the following Dyck path, with the entries of $`s`$ marked on the Dyck path.

Dyck path corresponding to $`\mathrm{𝟎𝟏𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟐𝟏}\mathrm{𝐒𝐑}_\mathrm{𝟕}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ and to $`\mathrm{𝟔𝟓𝟕𝟑𝟏𝟒𝟐}𝐒_\mathrm{𝟕}(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟑})`$

Using the above bijection and the fact that $`|Dyck(2n)|=C_n`$, we easily obtain $`|SR_n|=C_n`$ (which was shown in \[Rog\] and \[Str\]). Furthermore, we get the following theorem ($`SR_n(0)=F_n`$ was shown in \[Rog\] and \[Str\] while $`|Dyck^{hf}(2n)|=F_n`$ was shown in \[Deu\] ).

###### Theorem 3.1

For $`n1`$, $`|SR_n(0)|=|Dyck^{hf}(2n)|=F_n`$, where $`F_n`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ Fine number

Proof. Clearly, a hill occurs in a Dyck path if and only if the corresponding similarity relation contains a double zero. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are now ready to use Krattenthaler’s bijection (\[Kra\]), described as follows. Let $`\pi =\pi _1\pi _2\mathrm{}\pi _nS_n(123)`$. Determine the right-to-left maxima of $`\pi `$, i.e. $`m=\pi _i`$ is a right-to-left maximum if $`m>\pi _j`$ for all $`j>i`$. For example, the right-to-left maxima of $`65\mathrm{𝟕}31\mathrm{𝟒𝟐}`$ are in bold type.

Let $`\pi `$ have right-to-left maxima $`m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_s`$, so that we may write

$$\pi =w_sm_sw_{s1}m_{s1}\mathrm{}w_1m_1.$$

So, for example, in $`6573142`$ we have $`w_3=65`$, $`m_3=7`$, $`w_2=31`$, $`m_2=4`$, $`w_1=\mathrm{}`$, $`m_1=2`$.

We now generate a Dyck path from $`(2n,0)`$ to $`(0,0)`$ (generate it backwards) using backward up-steps $`((1,1))`$ and backward down-steps $`((1,1))`$.

Read $`\pi `$ from right to left. For each $`m_i`$ do $`m_im_{i1}`$ up-steps (where we define $`m_0=0)`$. For each $`w_i`$ do $`|w_i|+1`$ down-steps. So, for example, $`\pi =6573142`$ generates the Dyck path shown above.

We now state the main theorem of this section.

###### Theorem 3.2

Let $`\pi S_n(123)`$ and let $`D_\pi `$ be the associated Dyck path provided by Krattenthaler’s bijection. Then $`\pi `$ is a backward derangement if and only if $`D_\pi `$ is hill-free.

Proof. We first demonstrate the “only-if” direction. Assume, for a contradiction, that $`D_\pi `$ has a hill. Notice that the hill cannot be at either end of the Dyck path for otherwise $`\pi _1=n`$ or $`\pi _n=1`$, both contradicting the fact that $`\pi `$ is a backward derangement. Hence, any hill must be an “interior” hill. Let $`\pi =\pi (1)\pi (2)`$ and $`D_\pi =D_{\pi (1)}D_{\pi (2)}`$ where $`D_{\pi (1)}`$ contains a hill on the right end and $`D_{\pi (2)}`$ contains no hill. Let $`D_{\pi (2)}`$ consist of $`2y`$ steps. By construction, $`\pi (2)`$ contains the elements $`1,2,\mathrm{},y`$. Thus, in order for $`D_{\pi (1)}`$ to end with a hill, we must have $`\pi _{ny}(1)=y+1`$, i.e. $`\pi _{n+1(y+1)}=y+1`$, contradicting the fact that $`\pi `$ is a backward derangement.

We now give the “if” direction; we prove the contrapositive. Assume, for a contradiction, that $`D_\pi `$ has no hill. Let $`x`$ be the smallest integer such that $`\pi _{n+1x}=x`$. Write $`\pi =\pi (1)x\pi (2)`$. From the above argument, we see that $`\pi (2)`$ cannot consist of the elements $`1,2,\mathrm{},x1`$ only, for otherwise we would have a hill. Hence, there exists $`y\pi (2)`$ such that $`y>x`$. Consequently, there exists $`w\pi (1)`$ such that $`w<x`$. But then $`wxy`$ is a $`123`$-pattern, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Coupling this theorem with Theorem 3.1, we immediately obtain the following corollary.

###### Corollary 3.3

For $`n1`$, $`d_n(321)=F_n`$, where $`F_n`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ Fine number.

We can now investigate the relationship between $`S_n^k(321)`$ and similarity relations. To this end, we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 3.4

For $`n0`$, $`s_n^k(321)=|SR_n(k)|`$.

Proof. We prove this by induction on $`k`$. The case $`k=0`$ is given by Corollary 3.3. Hence, we assume that there exists a bijection $`\gamma _n^k:S_n^k(321)SR_n(k)`$.

Let $`\pi S_n^{k+1}(321)`$ and let $`f`$ be the smallest fixed point. Write $`\pi =\pi (1)f\pi (2)`$ so that $`\pi (2)`$ contains $`k`$ fixed points. Note that since $`\pi `$ must be $`321`$-avoiding we must have $`\pi (1)S_{f1}^0(321)`$ on the elements $`1,2,\mathrm{},f1`$ and $`\pi (2)S_{nk}^k(321)`$ on the elements $`f+1,f+2,\mathrm{},n`$. Let $`\gamma _{f1}^0(\pi (1))=tSR_f(0)`$ and $`\gamma _{nf}^k(\pi (2))=rSR_{nf}(k)`$. Then define $`\gamma _n^{k+1}(\pi )=t0rSR_n(k+1)`$. To show this is a bijection, it is enough to give the inverse. This is obtained by noting that the position of the first $`0`$ in the first occurrence of a double zero in an element of $`SR_n(k+1)`$ corresponds to the minimal fixed point. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Weighted-Counting of 321-Avoiding Permutations

In order to achieve one of our goals we must enumerate $`S_n^k(321)`$ via another approach. Before delving into our approach, we make the following definition.

###### Definition 4.1

Let $`S`$ be a finite set with each element $`sS`$ having a unique characteristic from $`C=\{c_1,c_2,\mathrm{},c_k\}`$, written as $`char(s)`$. The weight-enumerator of $`S`$ with respect to $`weight(s)=x^{char(s)}`$ is given by

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}s_ix^{c_i},$$

where $`s_i=|\{sS:char(s)=c_i\}|`$.

Applying this to our situation, let $`𝒜_n=S_n(321)`$ and let $`A_n(x)`$ be its weight-enumerator with respect to $`weight(\pi )=x^{f(\pi )}`$, where $`f(\pi )`$ is the number of fixed points of $`\pi S_n(321)`$.

Recall that $`Cat(n)`$ is the set of Catalan sequences, defined in Section 2. We will define a bijection $`T:𝒜(n)Cat(n)`$ as follows. If $`n=1`$, then $`T(1)=1`$. For $`n2`$ we define $`c=T(\pi )`$ recursively as follows.

Given a $`321`$-avoiding permutation $`\pi `$ of length $`n`$, let $`i`$ be the place where $`n`$ is (i.e. $`\pi _i=n`$). If $`\pi _n=n1`$ then let $`\pi ^{}`$ be $`\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _{i1},n1,\pi _{i+1},\mathrm{},\pi _{n2}`$, otherwise let $`\pi ^{}`$ be $`\pi `$ with $`n`$ removed, i.e. $`\pi ^{}=\pi _1,\mathrm{},\pi _{i1},\pi _{i+1},\mathrm{},\pi _n`$. Then $`c=T(\pi )`$ is defined to be $`c^{}=T(\pi ^{})`$ with $`i`$ appended at the end.

The inverse bijection $`S:Cat(n)𝒜(n)`$ is defined as follows. If $`n=1`$ then $`S(1)=1`$. If $`n2`$ and $`c=c_1\mathrm{}c_n`$ is a Catalan sequence then $`\pi =S(c)`$ is defined recursively as follows. Let $`c_n=i`$, $`c_{n1}=j`$, and let $`c^{}=c_1\mathrm{}c_{n2}c_{n1}`$ be $`c`$ with its last component removed. Let $`\pi ^{}=S(c^{})`$. If $`ij`$ then let $`\pi `$ be the permutation obtained from $`\pi ^{}`$ by changing the $`n1`$ into $`n`$ and appending $`n1`$ to the end, while if $`j<i`$ then let $`\pi `$ be the permutation obtained from $`\pi ^{}`$ by inserting $`n`$ at the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ place i.e. $`\pi =\pi _1^{},\mathrm{},\pi _{i1}^{},n,\pi _i^{},\mathrm{},\pi _{n1}^{}`$.

It is easy to prove, by induction on $`n`$, that $`TS`$ and $`ST`$ are identity mappings, and hence that $`T`$ is indeed a bijection. It is also easy to see that if $`c_1\mathrm{}c_n=T(\pi )`$ then for $`1i<n`$, $`\pi _i=i`$ if and only if $`c_i=i`$ and $`c_{i+1}=i+1`$, and $`\pi _n=n`$ if and only if $`c_n=n`$. Hence $`A_n(x)`$ is equal to the weight-enumerator of Catalan sequences with respect to $`weight(c)=x^{g(c)}`$, where $`g(c)`$ is the number of $`i`$’s such that $`c_i=i`$ and $`c_{i+1}=i+1`$ ($`i<n`$) plus 1 if $`c_n=n`$.

Given a Catalan sequence $`c`$, let

$$D(c)=\{i:1i<n,c_i=i,c_{i+1}=i+1\mathrm{or}i=n\mathrm{and}c_n=n\}.$$

For example, $`D(11345558)=\{3,4,8\}`$, $`D(11111111)=\mathrm{}`$, and $`D(112346)=\{6\}`$. Note the weight of a Catalan sequence $`c`$ is $`x^{|D(c)|}`$.

In order to weight-enumerate the set of Catalan sequences it would be easier to use the inclusion-exclusion philosophy and consider the larger sets of marked Catalan sequences, which are the sets of pairs $`(c,S)`$ with $`SD(c)`$ and weight defined by $`weight(c,S)=(x1)^{|S|}`$. For example $`weight(11345558,\{3,8\})=(x1)^2`$ and $`weight(11345558,\{\})=(x1)^0=1`$. Since $`x^{|D(c)|}=((x1)+1)^{|D(c)|}`$= $`_{SD(c)}(x1)^{|S|}`$, it follows that $`A_n(x)`$ is the weight-enumerator of marked Catalan sequences.

We now derive a recurrence. Given a marked Catalan sequence $`(c_1\mathrm{}c_n,S)`$, if $`1S`$ (i.e. $`1`$ is marked) then we can get a smaller marked word by deleting $`c_1=1`$ and diminishing all indices and elements of $`S`$ by $`1`$. The weight-enumerator of this case is $`(x1)A_{n1}(x)`$.

If $`1S`$ (i.e. $`1`$ is not marked), let $`i`$ be the smallest $`i>1`$ such that $`c_i=i`$, if it exists. Then $`c_2\mathrm{}c_{i1}`$ is a run-of-the-mill Catalan sequence of length $`i2`$, while

$$(c_i(i1)c_{i+1}(i1)\mathrm{}c_n(i1),S(i1))$$

(by $`S(i1)`$ we mean the set $`S`$ with all of its elements reduced by $`i1`$) is a marked Catalan sequence of length $`ni+1`$. The weight-enumerator of this, for a given $`i`$, is $`C_{i2}A_{ni+1}(x)`$ $`(2in)`$. Finally, if $`c_i<i`$ for all $`2in`$ then $`c_2\mathrm{}c_n`$ is a typical Catalan sequence of length $`n1`$. Hence we get that

$$A_n(x)=(x1)A_{n1}(x)+\left(\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}C_{i2}A_{ni+1}(x)\right)+C_{n1},$$

which can be rewritten as

$$A_n(x)=(x1)A_{n1}(x)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{i1}A_{ni}(x).$$
(4.1)
Introducing the generating function

$$\varphi (x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_n(x)t^n,$$

and recalling the generating function for the Catalan numbers $`\psi (t)=\frac{1\sqrt{14t}}{2t}`$, $`(4.1)`$ translates to

$$\varphi (x,t)=1+(x1)t\varphi (x,t)+t\varphi (x,t)\psi (t).$$

Solving for $`\varphi (x,t)`$ yields the explicit expression

$$\varphi (x,t)=\frac{2}{12(x1)t+\sqrt{14t}}$$

which, in turn, implies (by multiplying the top and the bottom by $`12(x1)t\sqrt{14t}`$) that

$$\varphi (x,t)=\frac{1x+\psi (t)}{2x+t(x1)^2}.$$

To sum up we have the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.1

Let $`a_n(x)`$ be the coefficient of $`t^n`$ in the Maclaurin expansion with respect to $`t`$ of

$$\frac{1x+\psi (t)}{2x+t(x1)^2}.$$

Then $`A_n(x)=a_n(x)`$.

We now investigate an interesting property of $`a_n(x)`$ that will be used in the next section. Expanding $`a_n(x)`$ in powers of $`(x1)`$ and using (4.1), we may write

$$a_n(x)=(x1)^n+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni}{}}C_{j1}a_{nij}(x)(x1)^i.$$
(4.2)
Using (4.2) we prove the following crucial lemma.

###### Lemma 4.2

Let $`a_n(x)=_{k=0}^nb(n,k)(x1)^k`$ and define $`b(x,y)=0`$ if $`y>x,x<0`$, or $`y<0`$. Then, for $`n1`$ and $`k1`$,

$$b(n,k)=b(n,k+1)+b(n1,k1)$$
(4.3)
where $`b(0,0)=1`$.

Proof. Note that to render (4.3) valid when $`n=k=0`$, we would have to add a correction term of $`1`$ to the right side, and to render (4.3) valid when $`n0`$ and $`k=1`$ we would have to add $`b(n,0)=C_n`$ to the left side.

We now prove (4.3) for $`n1`$ and $`k1`$ by induction on $`n`$. Since $`a_0(x)=1`$ and $`a_1(x)=x`$, the case $`n=1`$ is true. We now assume that $`b(ni,k)=b(ni,k+1)+b(ni1,k1)`$ for all $`1in1`$ and $`k1`$.

To establish (4.3) for $`n`$ and all $`k1`$ we first note that this is clear if $`k<1`$ or $`k>n`$. It is also clear for $`k=n`$ since $`b(n,n)=b(n1,n1)=1`$ by (4.2). To deal with $`0kn1`$ we use the fact that (4.2) yields

$$b(n,k)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni}{}}C_{j1}b(nij,ki)$$
(4.4)
for $`0kn1`$.

In particular, for $`k=n1`$ this says that $`b(n,n1)=n`$, so $`b(n,n1)=b(n,n)+b(n1,n2)`$ and (4.3) holds for $`k=n1`$.

For $`0kn2`$ we take (4.4) and apply (4.3) to each term on the right side, adding a correction term of $`C_{nk1}`$ when $`i=k`$ and $`j=nk`$ (note that this case occurs since $`k1`$), and correction term $`_{i=1}^{nk1}C_{i1}C_{nki1}`$ when $`i=k+1`$ (note that this case occurs since $`kn1`$). Since the correction terms cancel, we have

$$b(n,k)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni}{}}C_{j1}b(nij,ki+1)+\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni}{}}C_{j1}b(nij1,ki1).$$

Since $`k+1n1`$, the first term on the right is $`b(n,k+1)`$ by (4.4). By (4.4) again, the second term on the right is $`b(n1,k1)`$ except for the terms in the double sum where $`i=n1`$ or $`j=ni`$. But these terms are all $`0`$ because they involve values of $`b(x,y)`$ with $`x<0`$. This concludes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

In \[Str\], Strehl defines $`a(n,k)`$, for $`n1`$ and $`1kn`$, as the number of similarity relations on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ that have $`k`$ zeros. He proves that $`a(n,k)=a(n,k+1)+a(n1,k1)`$ for $`n2`$, with $`a(n,1)=a(n,2)=C_{n1}`$. It follows from Lemma 4.2 that $`b(n,k)=a(n+1,k1)`$.

Using Lemma 4.2 we see that the beginning of the $`b(n,k)`$ table is as follows, where $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to row $`n`$ and $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ term in from the left. This generates the so-called Catalan Triangle (\[Slo\]).

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}& & & & & & 1& & & & & & \\ & & & & & 1& & 1& & & & & \\ & & & & 2& & 2& & 1& & & & \\ & & & 5& & 5& & 3& & 1& & & \\ & & 14& & 14& & 9& & 4& & 1& & \\ & 42& & 42& & 28& & 14& & 5& & 1& \\ 132& & 132& & 90& & 48& & 20& & 6& & 1\end{array}$$

Beginning of the Catalan triangle; values of $`𝐛(𝐧,𝐤)`$

We also use Lemma 4.2 to prove the next lemma, which will be a crucial step in one of our main proofs.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`a_n(x)=_{k=0}^nb(n,k)(x1)^k`$. Then, for all $`n,k1`$,

$$b(n,k)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{i1}b(ni,k1)$$

where $`b(n,0)=C_n`$, and $`b(x,y)=0`$ if $`y>x`$.

Proof. We use double induction; forward on $`n`$ and backward on $`k`$. We start with induction on $`n`$. From the table above, this clearly holds for $`n=2`$ and $`1k2`$. Hence, we assume that it holds for $`n1`$ and $`1kn1`$ to show that it holds for $`n`$ and $`1kn`$. We now perform backward induction on $`k`$. The base case $`b(n,n)`$ holds since $`b(n,n)=b(n1,n1)=1`$. Hence, we assume that the case $`b(n,k+1)`$ holds to show that the case $`b(n,k)`$ holds.

We must do the case $`k=1`$ seperately. This holds by the identity $`C_n=_{i=1}^nC_{i1}C_{ni}`$ and the fact that $`b(n,1)=b(n,0)=C_n`$.

Now, from Lemma 4.2, we have $`b(n,k)=b(n,k+1)+b(n1,k1)`$ rendering the induction straightforward for $`k2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Weighted-Counting of 132-Avoiding Permutations

Recall that $`𝒜_n=S_n(321)`$ and $`A_n(x)`$ is its weight-enumerator with respect to $`weight(\pi )=x^{f(\pi )}`$, where $`f(\pi )`$ is the number of fixed points of $`\pi S_n(321)`$. Let $`_n=S_n(132)`$ and let $`B_n(x)`$ be its weight-enumerator with respect to the same weight. Our goal is to show that for $`n0`$, $`A_n(x)=B_n(x)`$.

We have that $`_n`$ is the set of $`132`$-avoiding bijections on $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. However, in order to weight-enumerate them, we must consider, more generally, the set $`_{n,r}`$ of bijections

$$\pi :\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}\{r+1,r+2,\mathrm{},r+n\}$$

that avoid $`132`$. Let $`E_{n,r}(x)`$ be the weight-enumerator of these bijections, with respect to the same weight. It is easy to see that $`E_{n,r}(x)=E_{n,r}(x)`$, and that $`E_{n,r}(x)=C_n`$ if $`rn`$, since in this situation no fixed point can occur. Of course $`B_n(x)=E_{n,0}(x)`$.

We will now establish a recurrence for the $`E_{n,r}(x)`$. Consider $`\pi _{n,r}`$. Let $`i`$ be the location of $`n+r`$, i.e. the index $`i`$ for which $`\pi _i=n+r`$. Now the set of entries before the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ place must consist of the $`i1`$ largest elements of the range, and the entries after the $`i^{\mathrm{th}}`$ place must consist of the $`ni`$ smallest elements, since otherwise a delinquent $`132`$ will be formed. Hence, every member $`\pi _{n,r}`$ gives rise to a pair $`(\pi ^{},\pi ^{\prime \prime })`$ where $`\pi ^{}_{i1,ni+r}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }_{ni,ri}`$ . Furthermore, the weight of $`\pi `$ is the product of the weights of $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi ^{\prime \prime }`$, except when $`r=0`$ and $`i=n`$ in which case we removed a fixed point, and we have an extra factor of $`x`$. Let $`I_S`$ be the characteristic function, i.e. $`I_S=1`$ if $`S`$ is true, and $`0`$ otherwise. The above argument gives the following non-linear recurrence.

$$E_{n,r}(x)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}E_{i1,ni+r}(x)E_{ni,ri}(x)+(x1)E_{n1,0}(x)I_{\{r=0\}}.$$

Changing $`E_{ni,ri}(x)`$ to $`E_{ni,ir}(x)`$ when $`i>r`$ and using the fact that $`E_{i1,ni+r}(x)=C_{i1}`$ when $`ni+ri1`$, i.e. $`i\frac{n+r+1}{2}`$, and $`E_{ni,ir}(x)=C_{ni}`$ when $`irni`$, i.e. $`i\frac{n+r}{2}`$, we get a simplified recurrence, which is linear in $`E_{n,r}`$:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E_{n,r}(x)& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}E_{ni,ri}(x)+\underset{i=r+1}{\overset{\frac{n+r+1}{2}}{}}C_{i1}E_{ni,ir}(x)\hfill \\ \\ & +\underset{i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}+1}{\overset{n}{}}E_{i1,ni+r}(x)C_{ni}+(x1)E_{n1,0}(x)I_{\{r=0\}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

We are now able to prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 5.1

Let $`a_n(x)`$ be the weight-enumerator of $`321`$-avoiding permutations with respect to $`weight(\pi )=x^{f(\pi )}`$, where $`f(\pi )`$ is the number of fixed points in $`\pi S_n(321)`$. Let $`E_{n,r}(x)`$ be the weight-enumerator of $`132`$-avoiding bijections from $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ to $`\{r+1,r+2,\mathrm{},r+n\}`$ with respect to the same weight.

Then, for $`r0`$,

$$E_{n,r}(x)=a_n(x)+(1x)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}a_{ni}(x),$$
(5.1)
where we define $`a_j(x)=0`$ for $`j<0`$.

Proof. Denote by $`e_{n,r}(x)`$ the right side of (5.1). We must show for all $`n`$ (keeping $`r`$ as a parameter) that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill e_{n,r}(x)& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}e_{ni,ri}(x)+\underset{i=r+1}{\overset{\frac{n+r+1}{2}}{}}C_{i1}e_{ni,ir}(x)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}+1}{\overset{n}{}}e_{i1,ni+r}(x)C_{ni}+(x1)e_{n1,0}(x)I_{\{r=0\}}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In other words, we have to prove

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_n(x)+(1x)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}a_{ni}(x)& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}\left(a_{ni}(x)+(1x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{ri}{}}C_{j1}a_{nij}(x)\right)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=r+1}{\overset{\frac{n+r+1}{2}}{}}C_{i1}\left(a_{ni}(x)+(1x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{ir}{}}C_{j1}a_{nij}(x)\right)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}+1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{ni}\left(a_{i1}(x)+(1x)\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni+r}{}}C_{j1}a_{ij1}(x)\right)\hfill \\ & +(x1)a_{n1}(x)I_{\{r=0\}},\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.2)
which has been checked by the Maple package AARON for $`n50`$. AARON was written by the third author (with additions by the first author) and is available at each of these author’s website (given on the first page).

Let the left side of (5.2) be $`l_n(x)`$ and the right side be $`r_n(x)`$. Write

$$l_n(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}s(n,k)(x1)^k\mathrm{and}r_n(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}t(n,k)(x1)^k.$$

If we can show that for any $`n`$, $`s(n,k)=t(n,k)`$ for all $`0kn`$, then we will be done.

We must take care of the case $`k=0`$ seperately. This case holds since $`b(n,0)=C_n`$ and $`C_n=_{i=1}^nC_{i1}C_{ni}`$.

We now use double induction on $`n2`$ and $`k0`$; forward induction on $`n`$ and backward induction on $`k`$.

We start by inducting on $`n`$. Since Maple has given us the base case, i.e. $`s(2,k)=t(2,k)`$ for $`0k2`$, we may assume that $`s(n1,k)=t(n1,k)`$ for all $`0kn1`$. We must show that $`s(n,k)=t(n,k)`$ for all $`0kn`$.

We proceed via backward induction on $`k`$. For our base case we must show that $`s(n,n)=t(n,n)`$. Gathering the $`(x1)^n`$ terms in (5.2) we have $`(x1)^n(x1)^nI_{\{r0\}}`$ on the left side of (5.2), and $`(x1)^nI_{\{r=0\}}`$ on the right side of (5.2). Since $`(x1)^n=(x1)^nI_{\{r0\}}+(x1)^nI_{\{r=0\}}`$, we have $`s(n,n)=t(n,n)`$

We now assume that $`s(n,k+1)=t(n,k+1)`$ to show that $`s(n,k)=t(n,k)`$ for $`k1`$. Letting $`a_n(x)=_{k=0}^nb(n,k)(x1)^k`$, with $`b(0,0)=1`$ and $`b(x,y)=0`$ if $`y>x`$, $`x<0`$, or $`y<0`$, we must show that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b(n,k)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}b(ni,k1)& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}\left(b(ni,k)\underset{j=1}{\overset{ri}{}}C_{j1}b(nij,k1)\right)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=r+1}{\overset{\frac{n+r+1}{2}}{}}C_{i1}\left(b(ni,k)\underset{j=1}{\overset{ir}{}}C_{j1}b(nij,k1)\right)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}+1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{ni}\left(b(i1,k)\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni+r}{}}C_{j1}b(ij1,k1)\right)\hfill \\ & +b(n1,k1)I_{\{r=0\}}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(5.3)
The cases $`rn`$ are straightforward and are left to the reader. Below, we assume that $`r<n`$.

Using Lemma 4.2, and the inductive hypothesis for $`b(n,k+1)`$ we must show that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill b(n1,k1)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}b(ni1,k2)& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}C_{i1}b(ni1,k1)\hfill \\ & \underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ri}{}}C_{i1}C_{j1}b(nij1,k2)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=r+1}{\overset{\frac{n+r+1}{2}}{}}C_{i1}b(ni1,k1)\hfill \\ & \underset{i=r+1}{\overset{\frac{n+r+1}{2}}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ir}{}}C_{i1}C_{j1}b(nij1,k2)\hfill \\ & +\underset{i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}+1}{\overset{n}{}}C_{ni}b(i2,k1)\hfill \\ & \underset{i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}+1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{ni+r}{}}C_{ni}C_{j1}b(ij2,k2)\hfill \\ & C_{\frac{n+r+1}{2}1}C_{n\frac{n+r+1}{2}1}I_{\{k=1\}}\hfill \\ & +b(n2,k2)I_{\{r=0\}},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the second to last term occurs for $`i=\frac{n+r+1}{2}`$ and $`j=ni`$ in the second double sum of (5.3) (as this gives $`b(0,0)`$ which is equal to $`1`$ and not $`0`$ as would be given by the recurrence in Lemma 4.2).

We must consider two cases: $`n+r`$ even and $`n+r`$ odd. Assume that $`n+r`$ is even; the case where $`n+r`$ is odd is similiar. For $`n+r`$ even we have $`\frac{n+r+1}{2}=\frac{n+r}{2}`$. Using the inductive hypothesis for $`b(n1,k1)`$ we are reduced to showing that

$$C_{n\frac{n+r}{2}1}b(\frac{n+r}{2}1,k1)=C_{\frac{n+r}{2}1}C_{n\frac{n+r}{2}1}$$

if $`k=1`$, which holds since $`b(n,0)=C_n`$, or

$$C_{n\frac{n+r}{2}1}b(\frac{n+r}{2}1,k1)=C_{n\frac{n+r}{2}1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{\frac{n+r}{2}1}{}}C_{i1}b(\frac{n+r}{2}i1,k2),$$

if $`k2`$, which holds by Lemma 4.3, thereby completing the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 D-Wilf Classes and $`𝐡`$-Wilf Classes

No discussion of restricted permutations is complete without the discussion of Wilf classes, defined below, where $`S_n(T)`$, $`TS_m`$, is the set of $`\pi S_n`$ which avoid all patterns in $`T`$ and where $`s_n(T)=|S_n(T)|`$.

###### Definition 6.1

Let $`S_1,S_2S_m`$. If $`s_n(S_1)=s_n(S_2)`$ for all $`nm`$ then we say that $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are in the same Wilf class, or are Wilf equivalent.

Since we have refined the investigation of restricted permutations, we refine the notion of Wilf class with the following definition, where $`S_n^k(T)`$, $`TS_m`$, is the set of $`\pi S_n`$ with exactly $`k`$ fixed points which avoid all patterns in $`T`$ and where $`s_n^k(T)=|S_n^k(T)|`$. We use $`D_n(T)`$ and $`d_n(T)`$ to represent $`S_n^0(T)`$ and $`s_n^0(T)`$, respectively.

###### Definition 6.2

Let $`S_1,S_2S_m`$. If $`d_n(S_1)=d_n(S_2)`$ for all $`nm`$ we say that $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are in the same $`D`$-Wilf class, or are $`D`$-Wilf equivalent. If $`s_n^h(S_1)=s_n^h(S_2)`$ for $`h>0`$, for all $`nm,h`$ we say that $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ are in the same $`h`$-Wilf class, or are $`h`$-Wilf equivalent.

We will have need of the following lemma in the proofs below.

###### Lemma 6.1

Let $`\gamma S_n`$ be given by $`\gamma _i=n+1i`$ for $`1in`$. For $`\pi S_n`$, let $`\pi ^{}=\gamma \pi \gamma ^1`$. Then, for all $`\pi `$, $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ have the same number of fixed points. Furthermore, the number of occurrences of the pattern $`213`$ (respectively $`312`$) in $`\pi `$ equals the number of occurrences of the pattern $`132`$ (respectively $`231`$) in $`\pi ^{}`$.

Proof. Since $`\pi ^{}`$ is obtained from $`\pi `$ by conjugation, $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ have the same number of fixed points. If $`i<j<k`$ are such that $`\pi _i\pi _j\pi _k`$ is an occurrence of $`213`$ (resp. $`312`$), then $`\gamma _k<\gamma _j<\gamma _i`$ are such that $`\pi _{\gamma _k}^{}\pi _{\gamma _j}^{}\pi _{\gamma _i}^{}`$ is an occurrence of $`132`$ (resp. $`231`$). $`\mathrm{}`$

We now state some results about refined Wilf classes.

###### Theorem 6.2

There are exactly three $`D`$-Wilf classes of patterns of length $`3`$.

Proof. Applying Theorem 5.1 with $`r=0`$ we see that, in particular, $`d_n(321)=d_n(132)`$. Lemma 6.1 gives us $`d_n(132)=d_n(213)`$ and $`d_n(231)=d_n(312)`$.

Lastly, we note that $`d_4(123)=7`$, $`d_4(132)=6`$, and $`d_4(231)=4`$, thereby giving three $`D`$-Wilf classes. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 6.3

For any $`h>0`$, there are exactly three $`h`$-Wilf classes of patterns of length $`3`$.

Proof. We already have $`s_n^h(132)=s_n^h(213)=s_n^h(321)`$ and $`s_n^h(231)=s_n^h(312)`$ for all $`1hn`$. We now show that for $`h>0`$, $`\{s_n^h(132)\}_{n3}`$, $`\{s_n^h(231)\}_{n3}`$, and $`\{s_n^h(123)\}_{n3}`$ are different sequences, thereby showing that there are three $`h`$-Wilf classes for $`h>0`$.

First, since $`s_5^1(123)=20`$, $`s_5^1(231)=16`$, $`s_5^1(132)=13`$, $`s_5^2(123)=2`$, $`s_5^2(231)=8`$, and $`s_5^2(132)=6`$ we have exactly three $`h`$-Wilf classes for $`h=1,2`$. Next, note that for $`h3`$, $`s_n^h(123)=0`$ since with three fixed points we have a $`123`$ pattern. We conclude by showing that $`s_{h+2}^h(132)=h+1`$ and $`s_{h+2}^h(312)2h+1`$, thereby giving exactly three $`h`$-Wilf classes for all $`h3`$.

Let $`\pi S_{h+2}^h(132)`$. To show that $`s_{h+2}^h(132)=h+1`$, note that we can only have two entries of $`\pi `$ which are not fixed points. Furthermore, $`1`$ cannot be a fixed point, for otherwise all other entries must be fixed in order to avoid the $`132`$ pattern. Hence, we have the freedom to pick exactly one of $`2,3\mathrm{},h+2`$ to be a non-fixed point. This gives $`h+1`$ choices.

Next, we show that $`s_{h+2}^h(312)s_{h+1}^{h1}(312)+2`$, which gives $`s_{h+2}^h(312)2h+1`$ since $`s_3^1(312)=3`$. Consider the following procedure. Let $`\pi S_{h+1}^{h1}(312)`$. Let $`\widehat{\pi }_i=\pi _i+1`$ for $`1ih+1`$. Construct $`X=\{1\widehat{\pi }_1\widehat{\pi }_2\mathrm{}\widehat{\pi }_{h+1}\}\{\pi _1\pi _2\mathrm{}\pi _{h+1}(h+2):\pi _11\}`$. It is clear that these sets are disjoint and that $`XS_{h+2}^h(312)`$. All that remains to be shown is that $`\{\pi _1\pi _2\mathrm{}\pi _{h+1}(h+2):\pi _11\}=2`$. To see this, note that $`S_3^1(312)=\{132,321,213\}`$ contains two elements with $`\pi _11`$. By construction of the above procedure, these two elements beget two elements in $`S_4^2(312)`$ such that $`\pi _11`$. This concludes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

We may further show, using Lemma 6.1, another result concerning Wilf classes. First, we remind the reader of the following definition from \[Rob\].

###### Definition 6.3

Let $`SS_m`$ and let $`T`$ be a multiset of $`S_m`$. Define $`S_n(S;T)`$ to be the set of $`\pi S_n`$ which avoid all patterns in $`S`$ and contain each element, including multiplicities, in $`T`$ exactly once. Let $`s_n(S;T)=|S_n(S;T)|`$. Let $`S_1,S_2S_m`$ and let $`T_1,T_2`$ be multisets of $`S_m`$. If $`s_n(S_1;T_1)=s_n(S_2;T_2)`$ for all $`nm`$ we say that $`(S_1;T_1)`$ and $`(S_2;T_2)`$ are in the same almost-Wilf class, or are almost-Wilf equivalent. We drop the set notation for a singleton set.

Next, we refine this definition.

###### Definition 6.4

Define $`S_n^k(S;T)`$ to be those permutations in $`S_n(S;T)`$ with exactly $`k`$ fixed points. Let $`s_n^k(S;T)=|S_n^k(S;T)|`$. When $`k=0`$ we write $`D_n(S;T)`$, and $`d_n(S;T)`$, respectively. If $`d_n(S_1;T_1)=d_n(S_2;T_2)`$ for all $`nm`$ we say that $`(S_1;T_1)`$ and $`(S_2;T_2)`$ are in the same almost-$`D`$-Wilf class, or are almost-$`D`$-Wilf equivalent. If $`s_n^h(S_1;T_1)=s_n^h(S_2;T_2)`$ for $`h>0`$ for all $`nm,h`$ we say that $`(S_1;T_1)`$ and $`(S_2;T_2)`$ are in the same almost-$`h`$-Wilf class, or are almost-$`h`$-Wilf equivalent.

###### Theorem 6.4

Consider $`D_n(\mathrm{},\alpha )`$, $`\alpha S_3`$. For these permutations there are exactly four almost-$`D`$-Wilf classes.

Proof. We first prove that $`d_n(\mathrm{};321)=0`$ for all $`n3`$. Let $`cba`$ be a $`321`$ pattern in $`\pi S_n`$. Write $`\pi =WcXbYaZ`$. In order to avoid another $`321`$ pattern we see that for $`wW`$ and $`xX`$ we must have $`w,x<b`$. Furthurmore, for $`yY`$ and $`zZ`$ we must have $`y,z>b`$. Hence, $`b`$ is a fixed point. Thus, the restriction of having exactly one $`321`$ pattern implies a fixed point must be present.

Next, using Lemma 6.1, we see that $`d_n(\mathrm{};132)=d_n(\mathrm{};213)`$ and $`d_n(\mathrm{};231)=d_n(\mathrm{};312)`$. Lastly, since $`d_5(\mathrm{};123)=14,d_5(\mathrm{};132)=8`$, and $`d_5(\mathrm{};231)=6`$, we have exactly four almost-$`D`$-Wilf classes. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 7 Enumeration and Other Results

We start this section by tabulating $`s_n^k(\alpha )`$ for $`n8`$ and $`0k8`$ for all $`\alpha S_3`$ using the fact that there are only three $`D`$-Wilf classes.

In the following tables let $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ correspond to row $`n`$ and $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$ correspond to the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ term in from the left.

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & 1& & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & 0& & 1& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & 1& & 0& & 1& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & 2& & 2& & 0& & 1& & & & & \\ & & & & & 6& & 4& & 3& & 0& & 1& & & & \\ & & & & 18& & 13& & 6& & 4& & 0& & 1& & & \\ & & & 57& & 40& & 21& & 8& & 5& & 0& & 1& & \\ & & 186& & 130& & 66& & 30& & 10& & 6& & 0& & 1& \\ & 622& & 432& & 220& & 96& & 40& & 12& & 7& & 0& & 1\end{array}$$

Values of $`𝐬_𝐧^𝐤(\mathrm{𝟏𝟑𝟐})=𝐬_𝐧^𝐤(\mathrm{𝟑𝟐𝟏})=𝐬_𝐧^𝐤(\mathrm{𝟐𝟏𝟑})`$

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & 1& & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & 0& & 1& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & 1& & 0& & 1& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & 1& & 3& & 0& & 1& & & & & \\ & & & & & 4& & 4& & 5& & 0& & 1& & & & \\ & & & & 10& & 16& & 8& & 7& & 0& & 1& & & \\ & & & 31& & 44& & 35& & 12& & 9& & 0& & 1& & \\ & & 94& & 146& & 102& & 59& & 16& & 11& & 0& & 1& \\ & 303& & 464& & 362& & 180& & 87& & 20& & 13& & 0& & 1\end{array}$$

Values of $`𝐬_𝐧^𝐤(\mathrm{𝟐𝟑𝟏})=𝐬_𝐧^𝐤(\mathrm{𝟑𝟏𝟐})`$

$$\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc}& & & & & & & & & 1& & & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & & 0& & 1& & & & & & & \\ & & & & & & & 1& & 0& & 1& & & & & & \\ & & & & & & 2& & 3& & 0& & 0& & & & & \\ & & & & & 7& & 4& & 3& & 0& & 0& & & & \\ & & & & 20& & 20& & 2& & 0& & 0& & 0& & & \\ & & & 66& & 48& & 18& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& & \\ & & 218& & 183& & 28& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& \\ & 725& & 552& & 153& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0& & 0\end{array}$$

Values of $`𝐬_𝐧^𝐤(\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟑})`$

From Corollary 3.3, Theorem 5.1, and Lemma 6.1 we have $`d_n(132)=d_n(321)=d_n(213)=F_n`$ for $`n1`$, where $`F_n`$ is the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ Fine number.

From the above triangles it appears that $`d_n(231)<F_n`$ and $`d_n(123)>F_n`$ for $`n3`$. Unfortunately, we were unable to prove the latter assertion. However, we can prove the former via a bijection similar to one found in \[Kra\].

###### Theorem 7.1

Let $`F_n`$ be the $`n^{th}`$ Fine number. For all $`n3`$, $`d_n(231)<F_n`$.

Proof. We first consider the following bijection $`\gamma :S_n(132)SR_n`$. Let $`\pi S_n(132)`$, $`\pi =\pi _1\pi _2\mathrm{}\pi _n`$. Let $`s=s_ns_{n1}\mathrm{}s_1=\gamma (\pi )`$ where $`s_i`$ is the number of entries in $`\pi _{i+1}\pi _{i+2}\mathrm{}\pi _n`$ which are larger than $`\pi _i`$. For example, $`\gamma (456312)=010012`$.

The fact that $`\pi `$ is $`132`$-avoiding guarantees that $`s_{i1}s_i+1`$. Hence, $`sSR_n`$. The inverse bijection is obvious.

We now prove that if $`sSR_n(0)`$ then $`\gamma ^1(s)`$ is not a backward derangement. By observing that if $`\pi S_n(132)`$ is a backward derangement then when $`\pi `$ is read from right to left it becomes a member of $`D_n(231)`$, we can conclude that $`D_n(231)|SR_n(0)|=F_n`$.

We must first take care of the case where $`\gamma (\pi )`$ produces $`s_1=0`$. In this case, it is obvious that $`\pi _1=n`$ and hence $`\pi `$ is not a backward derangement. We now assume that the first case of a double zero starts with $`s_{i+1}`$, $`i0`$, so that $`s_{i+1}=s_i=0`$. The bijection implies that $`\pi _i>\pi _{i+1}`$ If there exists $`\pi _k`$, $`k<i`$, with $`\pi _k<\pi _{i+1}`$ then $`\pi _k\pi _{i+1}\pi _i`$ is an occurrence of the pattern $`132`$, and hence is not allowed. Thus, all elements less than $`\pi _{i+1}`$ are to the right of $`\pi _{i+1}`$. This implies that $`\pi _{n+1\pi _{i+1}}=\pi _{i+1}`$.

We must now prove that the inequality is strict. We do this by giving $`\pi S_n(132)`$ which is not a backward derangement for which $`\gamma (\pi )`$ is nonsingular. For $`n`$ odd $`\gamma (123\mathrm{}n)=012\mathrm{}n1`$ and for $`n`$ even $`\gamma (234\mathrm{}(n1)1n)=01123\mathrm{}n2`$. Noting that both of the similarity relations produced by $`\gamma `$ are nonsingular and correspond to permutations of $`S_n(132)`$ which are not backward derangements completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now turn our attention to the patterns $`132,321`$, and $`213`$ (all of which are in the same $`D`$-Wilf class). Using Theorem 5.1, we are able to derive some formulas (recursive and “closed” form) for $`s_n^k(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$. First, we rederive items 2 and 4 of Theorem 2.1.

Let $`r=n`$ in Theorem 5.1. Since $`E_{n,n}=C_n`$ we have, using (4.1),

$$C_n=2a_n(x)xa_n(x)+(1x)^2a_{n1}(x)$$
(7.1)
Equating the constant terms gives us $`C_n=2d_n(\alpha )+d_{n1}(\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$. Hence, $`C_n=2F_n+F_{n1}`$ is rederived. From here the derivation of item 4 in Theorem 2.1 uses either a straightforward induction or telescoping sum.

We can, of course, use (7.1) to derive recurrences for $`s_n^k(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$, for $`k0`$. To this end, we have the following.

###### Theorem 7.2

For $`0kn`$, let $`F_n^k=s_n^k(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$. Define $`F_n^1=0`$. For $`n2`$, we have for $`0kn`$,

$$2F_n^k+F_{n1}^k=F_n^{k1}+2F_{n1}^{k1}F_{n1}^{k2}.$$

Proof. Equate the coefficients of $`x^k`$ in (7.1). $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now use a telescoping sum to show the following.

###### Theorem 7.3

Let $`C_n`$ and $`F_n`$ be the $`n^{th}`$ Catalan and Fine number, respectively. Let $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$. For $`n1`$,

$$s_n^1(\alpha )=\frac{1}{4}\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^i(C_{ni}+3F_{ni1}).$$

Proof. Routine. $`\mathrm{}`$

Other formulas for $`s_n^k(\alpha )`$, $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$, $`k2`$, similar to the one in Theorem 7.3 (which are based on Catalan and Fine numbers) can be derived using Theorem 7.2. However, these formulas are rather cumbersome. Instead, we present some nicer formulas. First, we have the following lemma, which introduces a generalization of the Catalan numbers.

###### Lemma 7.4

Let $`n1`$. Write $`a_n(x)=_{k=0}^nb(n,k)(x1)^k`$. Then

$$b(n,k)=\frac{k+1}{n+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2nk}{n}\right).$$

Proof. Using Lemma 4.2 it is routine to verify the stated formula. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since Lemma 7.4 gives us a natural generalization of the Catalan numbers, we define

$$C_n^{(k)}=\frac{k+1}{n+1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2nk}{n}\right).$$
(7.2)
Using Lemma 7.4 it is easy to prove the following formulas.

###### Theorem 7.5

Let $`\alpha \{132,321,213\}`$. For $`n1`$, $`0kn`$, we have

$$s_n^k(\alpha )=\underset{j=0}{\overset{nk}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+k}{k}\right)C_n^{(k+j)},$$

i.e.

$$s_n^k(\alpha )=\underset{j=0}{\overset{nk}{}}(1)^j\left(\frac{j+k+1}{n+1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2nkj}{n}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+k}{k}\right).$$

Proof. We have $`a_n(x)=_{j=0}^nC_n^{(j)}(x1)^j`$. Expanding $`(x1)^j`$ we get

$$a_n(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}(1)^{ji}C_n^{(j)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{i}\right)x^i.$$

Equating the coefficients of $`x^k`$, we get

$$s_n^k(\alpha )=\underset{j=k}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{jk}C_n^{(j)}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{k}\right),$$

which, after a change of variable, gives the desired result. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now harvest some other interesting results.

From Theorem 7.5 we have the following corollary which relates $`C_n^{(k)}`$ and $`C_n`$.

###### Corollary 7.6

Let $`C_n`$ be the $`n^{th}`$ Catalan number and let $`C_n^{(k)}`$ be as defined in (7.2). Then, for $`n0`$,

$$C_n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{nk}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j+k}{k}\right)C_n^{(k+j)}$$

Proof. Since $`_{k=0}^ns_n^k(\alpha )=C_n`$ for any $`\alpha S_3`$, the result is immediate. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can also use Theorem 7.5 to rederive a formula for the Fine numbers given in \[Deu\].

###### Corollary 7.7

Let $`F_n`$ be the $`n^{th}`$ Fine number. For $`n1`$,

$$F_n=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^jC_n^{(j)}.$$

As a consequence of $`C_n=2F_n+F_{n1}`$ and the fact that $`F_n=d_n(\alpha )`$ for $`\alpha \{132,213,321\}`$ we get the following theorem.

###### Theorem 7.8

Let $`\alpha \{132,213,321\}`$ and let $`F(\pi )`$ be the set of fixed points of $`\pi S_n(\alpha )`$. Define

$$T_n(\alpha )=\{\pi S_n(\alpha ):F(\pi )\{1,2,\mathrm{},n1\}\mathrm{}\}.$$

Then $`|T_n(\alpha )|=F_n`$, where $`F_n`$ is the $`n^{th}`$ Fine number.

Proof. We have $`C_n=s_n(\alpha )`$ and $`F_n=d_n(\alpha )`$. If $`U_n(\alpha )=\{\pi _1\mathrm{}\pi _{n1}n:\pi D_{n1}(\alpha )\}`$ then $`S_n(\alpha )`$ is the disjoint union $`S_n(\alpha )=D_n(\alpha )T_n(\alpha )U_n(\alpha )`$. Since $`C_n=2F_n+F_{n1}`$, the result follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

## References

\[Deu\] E. Deutsch, Dyck Path Enumeration, Discrete Math. 204 (1999), 167-202.

\[Fin\] T. Fine, Extrapolation when Very Little is Known, Information and Control 16 (1970), 331-359.

\[Kra\] C. Krattenthaler, Permutations with Restricted Patterns and Dyck Paths, Advances in Applied Math. 27 (2001), 510-530.

\[Knu\] D. Knuth, The Art of Computer Programming, vol. 3, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1973.

\[Ric\] D. Richards, Ballot Sequences and Restricted Permutations, Ars Combinatoria, 25 (1988), 83-86.

\[Rob\] A. Robertson, Permutations Restricted by Two Distinct Patterns of Length Three, Advance in Applied Math. 27, 548-561.

\[Rog\] D. G. Rogers, Similarity Relations on Finite Ordered Sets, Journal of Combinatorial Theory (A) 23 (1977), 88-98.

\[Sha\] L. W. Shapiro, A Catalan Triangle, Discrete Math. 14 (1976), 83-90.

\[Slo\] Sloane, N. J. A., The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences, http://www.research.att.com/ $``$njas/sequences, A009766.

\[SS\] R. Simion and F. Schmidt, Restricted Permutations, European Journal of Combinatorics 6 (1985), 383-406.

\[SS2\] F. Schmidt and R. Simion, Card Shuffling and a Transformation in $`S_n`$, Aeq. Math 44 (1992), 11-34.

\[Str\] V. Strehl, A Note on Similarity Relations, Discrete Math. 19 (1977), 99-101.

\[Wes\] J. West, Permutations with Forbidden Subsequences and Stack Sortable Permutations, Ph.D. Thesis, MIT, 1990.