text:
# The gradient of a polynomial at infinity

## 1. Introduction

Let $`f:^n`$ be a non-constant polynomial and let $`f:^n^n`$ be its gradient. There exists a finite set $`B(f)`$ such that $`f`$ is a locally trivial $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-bundle over $`B(f).`$ The set $`B(f)`$ is the union of the set of critical values $`C(f)`$ of $`f`$ and critical values $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ corresponding to the singularities of $`f`$ at infinity. The set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ is defined to be the set of all $`\lambda `$ for which there are no neighbourhood $`U`$ of $`\lambda `$ and a compact set $`K^n`$ such that $`f:f^1(U)KU`$ is a trivial $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-bundle. It is known that the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ is finite (\[Ph\], Appendix A1, \[V\], Corollary 5.1). It turns out that for $`\lambda `$ the property of being in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ depends on the behaviour of the gradient $`f`$ near the fiber $`f^1(\lambda ).`$

Ha in \[H2\] defined the notion of the Łojasiewicz exponent $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ of the gradient $`f`$ at infinity near a fibre $`f^1(\lambda _0)`$ in the following way

(1.1)
$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f):=\underset{\delta 0^+}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(D_\delta )),$$

where $`D_\delta :=\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|<\delta \}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(D_\delta ))`$ is the Łojasiewicz exponent at infinity of the mapping $`f`$ on the set $`f^1(D_\delta )`$ (see the definition in Section 3) and gave, without a proof, a characterization of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ for $`n=2`$ in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).`$ Namely, $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<0`$ (or equivalently $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<1`$). A generalization of this result was given by Parusiński in \[P\]. Moreover, Ha also gave a formula for $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ in terms of Puiseux expansions of roots of the polynomial $`f\lambda _0`$ at infinity for $`\lambda _0`$ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ (this formula is analogous to the formula for the local Łojasiewicz exponent of the gradient $`f`$, given in \[KL\]).

The aim of this paper is to give in the case $`n=2`$ a complete description of the behaviour of the gradient $`f`$ near any fibre $`f^1(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda .`$ To achieve this we define a more convenient Łojasiewicz exponent at infinity of $`f`$ near a fibre $`f^1(\lambda )`$ (it will turns out in Section 5 to be equivalent to the above one) as the infimum of the Łojasiewicz exponents at infinity of $`f`$ on meromorphic curves ”approximating” $`f^1(\lambda )`$ at infinity. Precisely, for a non-constant polynomial $`f:^n`$ we define $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ by

(1.2)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f):=\underset{\mathrm{\Phi }}{inf}\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _n)`$ is a meromorphic mapping defined in a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{}`$ in $`\overline{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }<0.`$ Here $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }:=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{deg}\phi _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}\phi _n)`$. We shall also call such mappings meromorphic curves.

The main results of the paper are effective formulas for $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ for each $`\lambda `$ and properties of the function $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ for $`n=2.`$ To describe them we outline the contents of the sections.

Section 2 has an auxiliary character and contains technical results on relations between roots of a polynomial and its derivatives.

In Section 3 we investigate $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(f).`$ In particular we obtain the all results of Ha with full proofs.

The main theorems are given in Section 4. They are Theorems 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 which give effective formulas for $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ for each $`\lambda `$ in terms of the resultant $`\underset{y}{Res}(f(x,y)\lambda ,f_y^{}(x,y)u),`$ where $`\lambda ,u`$ are new variables and $`(x,y)`$ is a generic system of coordinates in $`^2`$. As a consequence we obtain (Theorem 4.6) a basic property of the function $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f).`$ Namely,

$`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ $`=const.0\text{for}\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(f),`$
$`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ $`[\mathrm{},1)\text{ for}\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$
Technical problems in proofs of Theorems 4.4 and 4.5 are caused by the fact that the exponent $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ does not have to be attained on a meromorphic curve i.e. it may happen that there is no meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0,`$ $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ and

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$

At the end of this section we compare the functions $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\lambda ))`$ (Theorem $`\text{4.8}).`$ It turns out they differ only in a finite set of points, containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$.

In Section 5 we show the equivalence (only in case $`n=2`$) of the two above notions of the Łojasiewicz exponent at infinity of $`f`$ near a fibre $`f^1(\lambda )`$ i.e. the equality

(1.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)\text{for }\lambda .$$

In Section 6 some partial results on $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ in $`n`$ dimensional case are given. Here a complete characterization (in terms of the exponents $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f))`$ of the values of $`f`$ for which the Malgrange condition does not hold is given. Some open problems on $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ are also posed.

In the end we explain some technical assumptions occured in Sections 2-5. Since one can easily show that the exponent $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ does not depend on linear change of coordinates in $`^n`$ we shall assume in Sections 2-5 that the polynomial $`f[x,y]`$ is monic with respect to $`y`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}f=\mathrm{deg}_yf.`$ Then we have a simple characterization of the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ which will be used in the paper. Namely, in \[H1\] and \[K\] there was proved that

(1.4)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)=\{\lambda :c_0(\lambda )=0\},$$

where the polynomial $`c_0(\lambda )x^N+\mathrm{}+c_N(\lambda )`$ is the resultant of the polynomials $`f(x,y)\lambda ,`$ $`f_y^{}(x,y)`$ with respect to the variable $`y.`$

## 2. Auxiliary results

Let $`f`$ be a non-constant polynomial in two complex variables of the form

(2.1)
$$f(x,y)=y^n+a_1(x)y^{n1}+\mathrm{}+a_n(x),\mathrm{deg}a_ii,i=1,\mathrm{},n.$$

It can be easily showed (see \[CK1\]).

###### Lemma 2.1.

If $`n>1,`$ then for every $`\lambda _0`$ there exist an $`D`$ and functions $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n,`$ $`\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _{n1}`$, meromorphic at infinity, such that

(a) $`\mathrm{deg}\beta _iD,\mathrm{deg}\gamma _jD,`$

(b) $`f(t^D,y)\lambda _0=_{i=1}^n(y\beta _i(t)),`$

(c) $`f_y^{}(t^D,y)=n_{j=1}^{n1}(y\gamma _j(t)).`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

We shall now give a lemma which directly follows from the property B.3 in \[GP\]. Local version of this lemma was proved in \[KL\].

###### Lemma 2.2.

(\[GP\], B.3) Under notation and assumptions of Lemma 2.1 for every $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},n\},`$ $`ij,`$ there exists $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ such that

(2.2)
$$\mathrm{deg}(\beta _i\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _i\gamma _k)$$

and inversly for every $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ there exists $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that (2.2) holds.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Now we prove a proposition useful in the sequel. A local version of it is given in \[P2\] and \[Ro\]. We put $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l(t):=(t^D,\gamma _l(t)),`$ $`l\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}.`$

###### Proposition 2.3.

Under notations and assumptions of Lemma 2.1 we have

(2.3)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\left(\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _i\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _i\beta _j)\right)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{\mathrm{min}}}(\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l).$$

###### Proof.

(after \[Ro\]). There exists $`i_0\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that the left hand side in (2.3) is equal to

$$\underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)$$

and $`j_0\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that

(2.4)
$$\underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0}).$$

By Lemma 2.2 there exists $`k_0\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$

(2.5)
$$\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0})=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\gamma _{k_0}).$$

We shall lead the further part of the proof in four steps.

A. We first show that for each $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we have

(2.6)
$$\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0}).$$

Take any $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and consider two cases:

(a) $`\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0})\mathrm{min}_{\begin{array}{c}s=1\\ sj\end{array}}^n\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j),`$

(b) $`\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0})>\mathrm{min}_{\begin{array}{c}s=1\\ sj\end{array}}^n\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j).`$

In case (a) by Lemma 2.2 there exists $`p\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _p\beta _j)\underset{\begin{array}{c}s=1\\ sj\end{array}}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j)\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0}).$$

which gives (2.6).

In case (b) by definition of $`i_0`$ and (2.4) we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1,si_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _s\beta _{i_0}\right)+\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{j_0}\beta _{i_0})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1,sj}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j)+\underset{s=1,sj}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j).`$
Hence and from (b) we get

$$\underset{s=1,si_0}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _s\beta _{i_0}\right)<\underset{s=1,sj}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j).$$

Then there exists $`si_0`$, $`sj`$ such that

$$\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _s\beta _{i_0}\right)<\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _j).$$

Hence and from (2.5) we get

$`\mathrm{deg}(\beta _j\beta _{i_0})`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _j\beta _s+\beta _s\beta _{i_0})>\mathrm{deg}(\beta _s\beta _{i_0})`$
$`\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{j_0}\beta _{i_0})=\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _{i_0})`$
In consequence

$$\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _{i_0}+\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)>\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _{i_0})=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{j_0}\beta _{i_0}).$$

This gives (2.6) in case (b).

B. We shall now show that for each $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`ji_0,`$ we have

(2.7)
$$\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j).$$

Take $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, $`ji_0,`$ and consider two cases:

(a) $`\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)>\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _{i_0}),`$

(b) $`\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _{i_0}).`$

By (2.5) and (2.6) there are no more cases. In case (a) we have

$$\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\gamma _{k_0}+\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j),$$

which gives (2.7).

In case (b) by (2.4) and (2.5) we have

$`\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\gamma _{k_0}+\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j)\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\gamma _{k_0})`$
$`=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _{j_0})\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j),`$
which gives (2.7) in case (b).

C. We notice that by (2.7) we have

$`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Psi }_{k_0}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _j\right)+\mathrm{deg}\left(\gamma _{k_0}\beta _{i_0}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j\right)+\underset{_{\begin{array}{c}j=1\\ ji_0\end{array}}}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j\right).`$
Thus we have shown

(2.8)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\left(\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _i\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _i\beta _j)\right)\underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{\mathrm{min}}}(\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l).$$

D. We shall now show the inequality opposite to (2.8). There exist $`l_0\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ and $`j_0\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that

(2.9) $`\underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{\mathrm{min}}}(\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l)`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_0},`$
(2.10) $`\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{l_0}\beta _j)`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{l_0}\beta _{j_0}).`$
Observe first that for any $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\},`$ $`jj_0,`$ we have by (2.10)

(2.11)
$$\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _j\beta _{j_0}\right)=\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _j\gamma _{l_0}+\gamma _{l_0}\beta _{j_0}\right)\mathrm{deg}(\beta _j\gamma _{l_0}).$$

By Lemma 2.2 there exists $`k_0\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{l_0}\beta _{j_0})=\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{k_0}\beta _{j_0}\right).`$ Hence using Lemma 2.1 and (2.11) we get

$`\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_0}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\gamma _{l_0}\beta _j\right){\displaystyle \underset{j=1,jj_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{j_0}\beta _j\right)+\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{l_0}\beta _{j_0})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,jj_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{j_0}\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,jj_0}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _j\beta _{j_0}),`$
which gives the inequality opposite to (2.8).

This ends the proof. ∎

## 3. Critical values at infinity

We start with definitions and notation needed in the sequel.

Let $`F:^n^m`$, $`n2`$, be a polynomial mapping and let $`S^n`$ be an unbounded set. We define

$$N(F|S):=\{\nu :A,B>0zS(\left|z\right|>B\left|F(z)\right|A\left|z\right|^\nu )\},$$

where $`||`$ is the polycylindric norm. If $`S=^n`$ we put $`N(F):=N(F|^n).`$

By the Łojasiewicz exponent at infinity of $`F|S`$ we shall mean $`_{\mathrm{}}(F|S):=supN(F|S)`$ when $`N(F|S)\mathrm{},`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ when $`N(F|S)=\mathrm{}`$. Analogously $`_{\mathrm{}}(F):=supN(F)`$ when $`N(F)\mathrm{},`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ when $`N(F)=\mathrm{}`$.

We give now a lemma needed in the sequel, which gives known formulas for the Łojasiewicz exponent at infinity of a polynomial on the zero set of the another one. Let $`g,h`$ be polynomials in two complex variables $`(x,y)`$ and

$$0<\mathrm{deg}h=\mathrm{deg}_yh.$$

Let $`\tau `$ and $`R(x,\tau ):=\underset{y}{Res}(g(x,y)\tau ,h(x,y))`$ be the resultant of $`g(x,y)\tau `$ and $`h(x,y)`$ with respect to $`y.`$ We put

$$R(x,\tau )=R_0(\tau )x^K+\mathrm{}+R_K(\tau ),R_00,$$

$$T:=h^1(0).$$

###### Lemma 3.1.

(\[P1\], Proposition 2.4) Under above notation and assumptions there is:

$`_{\mathrm{}}(g|T)>0`$ if and only if $`R_0=const.,`$

$`_{\mathrm{}}(g|T)=0`$ if and only if $`R_0const.`$ and $`R_0(0)0,`$

$`\mathrm{}<_{\mathrm{}}(g|T)<0`$ if and only if there exists $`r`$ such that $`R_0(0)=\mathrm{}=R_r(0)=0`$ and $`R_{r+1}(0)0,`$

$`L_{\mathrm{}}(g|T)=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`R_0(0)=\mathrm{}=R_K(0)=0.`$

Moreover, in case (i)

$$_{\mathrm{}}(g|T)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{K}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}R_i}{i}\right]^1$$

and in case (iii)

$$_{\mathrm{}}(g|T)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{\mathrm{min}}}\frac{\underset{0}{ord}R_i}{r+1i}\right]^1.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`f`$ be a polynomial in two complex variables of the form (2.1) and $`\mathrm{deg}f>1.`$. Fix $`\lambda _0`$, denote $`z:=(x,y)`$ and define

$`S_{\lambda _0}`$ $`:=\{z^2:f(z)=\lambda _0\},`$
$`S_y`$ $`:=\{z^2:f_y^{}(z)=0\}.`$
In notation of Lemma 2.1 we put $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i(t):=(t^D,\beta _i(t))`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and as previously $`\mathrm{\Psi }_j(t):=(t^D,\gamma _j(t))`$ for $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}.`$

Under these notation we give, without a proof, a simple lemma which follows easily from Lemma 2.1.

###### Lemma 3.2.

We have

(i) $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=D,i=1,\mathrm{},n,\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Psi }_j=D,j=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$

(ii) $`_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0})=\frac{1}{D}\mathrm{min}_{i=1}^n\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i,`$

(iii) $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)=\frac{1}{D}\mathrm{min}_{j=1}^{n1}\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_j.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Now, we give a theorem important in the sequel.

###### Theorem 3.3.

If $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0`$, then

$`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})=_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y),`$

$`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f).`$

Moreover, if additionally $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})\mathrm{}`$ then

(3.1)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)<_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0}).$$

###### Proof.

Let us start from (i). In the case $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})=\mathrm{}`$ we get easily (cf. \[CK3\], Theorem 3.1(iv)) that $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)=\mathrm{},`$ which gives (i) in this case.

Let us assume now that $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})\mathrm{}.`$ In this case by the Main Theorem in \[CK1\], (cf. \[CK4\], Theorem 1) we have

(3.2)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})=\mathrm{min}(_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y),_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0})).$$

Hence to prove (i) in this case it suffices to show (3.1).

Assume to the contrary that (3.1) does not hold. Then by (3.2) and the assumption of the theorem we have $`_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0})<0.`$ On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2(ii) there exists $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that

(3.3)
$$\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=D_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0}).$$

By the above we get $`\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i<0.`$ Hence and by Lemma 2.1(c) we have

$`\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _i\beta _j\right)`$
$`>{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _i\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _i\beta _j).`$
In consequence we get

$$\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i>\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\left(\underset{j=1,jk}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _k\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,jk}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _k\beta _j)\right).$$

Hence by Proposition 2.3, Lemma 3.2(iii) and (3.3)

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)<_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0}),$$

which gives a contradiction. Then (3.1) holds.

Assertion (ii) is a simple consequence of the facts $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)<0,`$ Lemma 3.1 and (1.4).

This ends the proof. ∎

Let us fix the same notation as in Theorem 3.3.

###### Theorem 3.4.

If $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0`$, then

(3.4)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})1.$$

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may assume, as before, that $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})>\mathrm{}.`$ By Theorem 3.3(i) it suffices to show that

(3.5)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1.$$

We shall first show the inequality

(3.6)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1.$$

According to definition (1.2) of $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ it suffices to show that for any meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=(\phi _1(t),\phi _2(t))`$ satisfying

(3.7)
$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0,$$

(3.8)
$$\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Phi }<0,$$

we have

(3.9)
$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1.$$

From (3.7) and (3.8) it easily follows $`\mathrm{deg}\phi _1>0.`$ So, without loss of generality we may assume that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=(t^{\mathrm{deg}\phi _1},\phi (t)).`$ Then by (3.8) we also get easily that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{deg}\phi _1.`$ On the other hand, by Lemma 3.2(iii) it follows that there exists $`l_{}\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ such that

(3.10)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)=\frac{\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}}.$$

Hence we get that inequality (3.9) can be replaced by the inequality

(3.11)
$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}}1.$$

At the cost of superpositions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}`$, if necessary, with appropriate powers of $`t^\alpha `$ and $`t^\beta ,`$ which does not change the value of fraction in (3.11), we may assume that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}.`$ Moreover, increasing $`D`$ in Lemma 2.1 we may also assume that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }=D.`$ Summing up, to show (3.6) it suffices to prove

(3.12)
$$\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}D.$$

Before the proof of this we notice that inequality (3.8) implies easily the following

(3.13)
$$\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }+D.$$

Consider now two cases:

(a) there exists $`l_0\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(\phi \gamma _{l_0})<\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\phi \beta _i),$$

(b) for each $`l\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$

$$\mathrm{deg}(\phi \gamma _l)\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\phi \beta _i).$$

In the case (a) for each $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we have

$$\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{l_0}\beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\gamma _{l_0}\phi +\phi \beta _j)=\mathrm{deg}(\phi \beta _j).$$

Then

$$\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_0}\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

Hence, from (3.10) and Lemma 3.2(iii) we get

(3.14)
$$\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

By (3.13) and (3.14) we get (3.12) in case (a).

We shall now show (3.12) in the case (b). Let $`\mathrm{min}_{i=1}^n\mathrm{deg}(\phi \beta _i)=\mathrm{deg}(\phi \beta _{i_0})`$ for some $`i_0\{1,\mathrm{},n\}.`$ Then for each $`l\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$

$$\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\gamma _l)=\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\phi +\phi \gamma _l)\mathrm{deg}(\phi \gamma _l).$$

Hence

(3.15)
$$\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0}\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

On the other hand, by Proposition 2.3, Lemma 3.2(iii), and (3.10)

$`\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{i_0}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)\underset{j=1,ji_0}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _{i_0}\beta _j)`$
$`\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1,jk}{\overset{n}{}}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _k\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,jk}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _k\beta _j)\right)D`$
$`=D_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)D=\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_1}D.`$
Hence and by (3.15) we get

(3.16)
$$\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{l_1_{}}D.$$

By (3.16) and the obvious inequality $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ we get inequality (3.12) in case (b). Then we have proved (3.12) and in consequence (3.6).

To finish the proof we have to show

(3.17)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1.$$

By assumption, Theorem 3.3(i) and (3.10) we have

(3.18)
$$\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}<0.$$

Hence

(3.19)
$$\mathrm{deg}\left(f\lambda _0\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}=\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}+D.$$

Hence and from (3.10) we get

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1=\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Psi }_l_{}}.$$

Hence taking into account (3.18) and (1.2) we obtain (3.17).

This ends the proof of the theorem. ∎

We shall now give three simple corollaries of Theorems 3.3 and 3.4.

###### Corollary 3.5.

The following conditions are equivalent:

(i) $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0,`$

(ii) $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<1,`$

(iii) $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<0,`$

(iv) $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f),`$

(v) $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)<0.`$

###### Proof.

(i)$``$(ii). Theorem 3.4.

(ii)$``$(iii). Obvious.

(iii)$``$(i). Obvious.

(i)$``$(iv). Theorem 3.3(ii).

(iv)$``$(i). \[CK3\], Theorem 3.1.

(i)$``$(v). Theorem 3.3(i).

(v)$``$(i). Obvious.

This ends the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 3.6.

If $`_{\mathrm{}}(f)1,`$ then

there exists $`\lambda _0`$ such that $`_{\mathrm{}}(f)=_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f),`$

$`_{\mathrm{}}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_y).`$

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0,`$ be a meromorphic curve on which the Łojasiewicz exponent $`_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ is attained. Then

(3.20)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$

We shall show

(3.21)
$$\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }0.$$

Indeed, it suffices to consider the case $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }0.`$ Then

$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}+1=_{\mathrm{}}(f)+10,$$

which gives (3.21).

Inequality (3.21) implies that there exists $`\lambda _0`$ such that

(3.22)
$$\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }<0.$$

Then by (3.20), (3.22) and (1.2) we get $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)_{\mathrm{}}(f).`$ The opposite inequality is obvious. This gives (i).

From (3.22), the assumption and (3.20) we get $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0.`$ Hence according to (i) and Theorems 3.4 and 3.3(i) we get

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1.$$

Hence and from the obvious inequality

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)1_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_y)$$

we obtain

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f)_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_y).$$

The opposite inequality is obvious, which gives (ii).

This ends the proof. ∎

###### Corollary 3.7.

If $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0`$ and functions $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _n,`$ meromorphic at infinity, are as in Lemma 2.1 then

(3.23)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)+1=\frac{1}{D}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\left(\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{deg}\left(\beta _i\beta _j\right)+\underset{j=1,ji}{\overset{n}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(\beta _i\beta _j)\right).$$

###### Proof.

By Theorems 3.4 and 3.3 (i) we get

(3.24)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)+1=_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y).$$

According to Lemma 3.2

(3.25)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)=\frac{1}{D}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Psi }_l.$$

Now, (3.24), (3.25) and Proposition 2.3 implies (3.23).

This ends the proof. ∎

At the end of this section we notice that from Corollary 3.5 it follows that all results of this section concern critical values of $`f`$ at infinity. Indeed, by Corollary 3.5 one can always replace the assumption $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0`$ with the assumption $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f).`$

We shall now discuss the connection of the above three corollaries with the results by Ha \[H2\]. It shall be shown in Section 5 that the above Łojasiewicz exponent $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f),`$ defined by (1.2), coincides with the Łojasiewicz exponent $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$, defined by (1.1), introduced by Ha in \[H2\]. Thus Corollary 3.5 is a changed and extended version of Theorems 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 in \[H2\]. In turn, Corollaries 3.6(i) and 3.7 correspond exactly to Theorems 1.4.3 and 1.4.1 in \[H2\], respectively.

## 4. Effective formulas for $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$

In this section $`f`$ is a polynomial in two complex variables of the form (2.1). Let $`(\lambda ,u)^2`$ and $`Q(x,\lambda ,u):=\underset{y}{Res}(f\lambda ,f_y^{}u)`$ be the resultant of the polynomials $`f\lambda `$ and $`f_y^{}u`$ with respect to the variable $`y.`$ By the definition of the resultant we get easily that $`Q(0,\lambda ,0)=\pm n^n\lambda ^{n1}+`$ terms of lower degrees. Hence $`Q0.`$ We put

(4.1)
$$Q(x,\lambda ,u)=Q_0(\lambda ,u)x^N+\mathrm{}+Q_N(\lambda ,u),Q_00.$$

Let us pass now to the effective calculations of $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f).`$ We start with the first main theorem conerning the case when $`\lambda _0`$ is a critical value of $`f`$ at infinity.

###### Theorem 4.1.

A point $`\lambda _0`$ is a critical value of $`f`$ at infinity if and only if $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)=0.`$ Moreover

$`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)=\mathrm{}=Q_N(\lambda _0,0)=0,`$

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=1\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{\mathrm{min}}}\frac{\underset{(\lambda _0,0)}{ord}Q_i(\lambda ,u)}{r+1i}\right]^1$$

if and only if there exists $`r\{0,\mathrm{},N1\}`$ such that $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)=\mathrm{}=Q_r(\lambda _0,0)=0,`$ $`Q_{r+1}(\lambda _0,0)0.`$

###### Proof.

By Corollary 3.5 (iv)$``$(i) and Theorem 3.1 in \[CK3\] we get the first assertion of the theorem. The second one follows from Theorems 3.1 and 3.3 in \[CK3\] which give formulas for $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})`$ in the case $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)=0`$ and Theorem 3.4. ∎

Now let us pass to the more complicated case when $`\lambda _0`$ is not a critical value of $`f`$ at infinity. Similarly as previously we shall use resultant (4.1). We shall now prove two theorems on dependence of $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ for $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ on the coefficient $`Q_0(\lambda ,u)`$ of the resultant (4.1).

Directly from the first assertion of the above theorem we have.

###### Corollary 4.2.

A point $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ if and only if $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)0.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

The first theorem shall be preceded by a lemma, well known in local case. First we introduce notations.

Let $`(t)`$ be the field of germs of meromorphic functions at infinity i.e. the field of all Laurent series of the form $`_{n=k}^{\mathrm{}}a_nt^n,`$ $`k,`$ convergent in a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{}\overline{}`$. Let $`(t)^{}:=_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}(t^{1/k})`$ be the field of convergent Puiseux series at infinity. Similarly as in the local case $`(t)^{}`$ is an algebraically closed field. If $`\phi (t)^{}`$ and $`\phi (t)=\psi (t^{1/k})`$ for $`\psi (t)`$, then we define $`\mathrm{deg}\phi :=(1/k)\mathrm{deg}\psi .`$

Using simple properties of the function $`\mathrm{deg}`$ and the Vieta formulae we obtain

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let

$$P(x,t)=c_0(t)x^N+c_1(t)x^{N1}+\mathrm{}+c_N(t)=c_0(t)(x\phi _1(t))\mathrm{}(x\phi _N(t)),$$

where $`c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_N(t),`$ $`c_00,`$ $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _N(t)^{}.`$ Then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\mathrm{deg}\phi _i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}c_i\mathrm{deg}c_0}{i}.$$

We shall now prove the second main theorem of the paper.

###### Theorem 4.4.

If $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ_0(\lambda ,u)=0`$ then $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)>0`$ and

(4.2)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}_uQ_i(\lambda ,u)}{i}\right]^1.$$

###### Proof.

Put $`\delta :=\left[\mathrm{max}_{i=1}^N\frac{\mathrm{deg}_uQ_i(\lambda ,u)}{i}\right]^1`$. By an elementary property of the resultant $`Q`$ it follows that $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ(\lambda ,u)>0.`$ Hence $`\delta >0.`$

We first show that

(4.3)
$$\delta _{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).$$

Take an arbitrary meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=(x(t),y(t))`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }<0.`$ To show (4.3) it suffices to prove

(4.4)
$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}\delta .$$

Notice that inequality $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ and (2.1) implies immediately $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{deg}x.`$ Put $`\lambda (t):=f\mathrm{\Phi }(t),`$ $`u(t):=f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(t).`$ Then (4.4) takes the form

(4.5)
$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}u}{\mathrm{deg}x}\delta .$$

By a property of the resultant we have

(4.6)
$$Q(x(t),\lambda (t),u(t))0.$$

By Corollary 4.2 and the assumption of the theorem we have $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)0`$ and $`Q_0`$ does not depend on $`u.`$ Since $`\mathrm{deg}(\lambda (t)\lambda _0)<0`$ then

(4.7)
$$\mathrm{deg}Q_0(\lambda (t),u(t))=0.$$

By (4.7) and (4.6) taking into account $`\mathrm{deg}x>0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}\lambda 0`$ we get easily

(4.8)
$$\mathrm{deg}u>0.$$

Consider the polynomial in variable $`x`$

$$Q(x,\lambda (t),u(t))=Q_0(\lambda (t),u(t))x^N+\mathrm{}+Q_N(\lambda (t),u(t))$$

with coefficients meromorphic at infinity. Identifying meromorphic functions at infinity with with their germs in $`(t)`$ and using (4.6), (4.7) and Lemma 4.3 we get

$$\mathrm{deg}x(t)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}Q_i(\lambda (t),u(t))}{i}.$$

Hence and from the inequality $`\mathrm{deg}\lambda (t)0`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{deg}x(t)\mathrm{deg}u(t)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}_uQ_i(\lambda ,u)}{i}=\frac{1}{\delta }\mathrm{deg}u(t).$$

This gives (4.5) and in consequence (4.4) and then (4.3).

We shall now prove that

(4.9)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)\delta .$$

Let us introduce notations. Let

(4.10) $`Q_i(\lambda ,u)`$ $`=Q_0^i(\lambda )u^{k_i}+\mathrm{}+Q_{k_i}^i(\lambda ),`$
(4.11) $`\alpha _i`$ $`:=\underset{\lambda _0}{ord}Q_0^i(\lambda )`$
for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N.`$ Take now an arbitrary $`M`$ and put

(4.12)
$$u_M(t):=t^M,\lambda (t):=\lambda _0+\frac{1}{t}.$$

Since $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)0`$ and $`Q_0`$ does not depend on $`u`$ then

(4.13)
$$\mathrm{deg}Q_0(\lambda (t),u_M(t))=0.$$

On the other hand by (4.10), (4.11) and (4.12) for almost all $`M`$ we have

(4.14)
$$\mathrm{deg}Q_i(\lambda (t),u_M(t))=Mk_i\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$

Define $`\alpha :=\mathrm{min}\{\alpha _i:\frac{k_i}{i}=\delta ^1\}.`$ Then from (4.14) and definition of $`\delta `$ it follows that for almost all $`M`$ we have

(4.15)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}Q_i(\lambda (t),u_M(t))}{i}=M\delta ^1\alpha .$$

Consider the polynomial in variable $`x`$

$$Q(x,\lambda (t),u_M(t))=Q_0(\lambda (t),u_M(t))x^N+\mathrm{}+Q_N(\lambda (t),u_M(t))$$

with coefficients meromorphic at infinity. Identifying meromorphic functions at infinity with their germs in $`(t),`$ applying Lemma 4.3 and taking into account (4.13), we obtain that there exists $`\phi _M(t)^{}`$ such that

(4.16)
$$Q(\phi _M(t),\lambda (t),u_M(t))=0\text{in }(t)^{}$$

and

$$\mathrm{deg}\phi _M(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}Q_i(\lambda (t),u_M(t))}{i}.$$

Taking into account (4.15) for almost all $`M`$ we have

(4.17)
$$\mathrm{deg}\phi _M(t)=M\delta ^1\alpha .$$

Consider polynomials $`f(\phi _M(t),y)\lambda (t)`$ and $`f_y^{}(\phi _M(t),y)u_M(t)`$ in variable $`y`$ with coefficients in $`(t)^{}.`$ By (4.16) their resultant is equal to zero in $`(t)^{}.`$ Then there exists a function $`\psi _M(t)(t)^{}`$ such that

(4.18) $`f(\phi _M(t),\psi _M(t))`$ $`=\lambda (t),`$
(4.19) $`f_y^{}(\phi _M(t),\psi _M(t))`$ $`=u_M(t).`$
By (4.18) and (2.1) we get

(4.20)
$$\mathrm{deg}\phi _M\mathrm{deg}\psi _M.$$

By definition of $`(t)^{}`$ there exists $`D`$ such that $`\phi _M(t^D),\psi _M(t^D)(t).`$ Then there exists a meromorphic mapping at infinity $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(t)=(x_M(t),y_M(t))`$ such that the germs of $`x_M(t)`$ and $`y_M(t)`$ at infinity are equal $`\phi _M(t^D)`$ and $`\psi _M(t^D),`$ respectively. By (4.20) and (4.17) we obtain

(4.21)
$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\mathrm{deg}x_M=D(M\delta ^1\alpha ).$$

By (4.18) and (4.19) we have

(4.22) $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}(\lambda (t^D)\lambda _0)=D<0,`$
(4.23) $`\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M`$ $`=\mathrm{deg}u_M(t^D)=MD.`$
By (4.21) for almost all $`M`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M>0.`$ Hence, from (4.22) and the first equality in (4.21) we easily get $`\mathrm{deg}f_x^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M,`$ that is

(4.24)
$$\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M.$$

By (4.21), (4.23) and (4.24) for almost all $`M`$ we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M}=\frac{M}{M\delta ^1\alpha }.$$

Summing up, we have found a sequence $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_M\}`$ of mappings meromorphic at infinity, such that for almost all $`M`$, $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M>0,`$ (4.22) holds and

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M}=\delta ,$$

which in according with (1.2) gives (4.9).

This ends the proof. ∎

We shall now prove the third main theorem of the paper.

###### Theorem 4.5.

If $`\lambda _0\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ_0(\lambda ,u)>0`$ then $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=0.`$

###### Proof.

If $`\mathrm{deg}f=1`$ then we easily check that $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=0.`$ Assume that $`\mathrm{deg}f>1.`$ Let us notice first that by assumption and Corollary 3.5 (iii)$``$(iv)

(4.25)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)0.$$

On the other hand, by assumption and Corollary 4.2 we have

(4.26)
$$Q_0(\lambda _0,0)0.$$

To show the inequality opposite to (4.25) we consider two cases:

(a) $`\mathrm{deg}Q_0(\lambda _0,u)>0,`$

(b) $`\mathrm{deg}Q_0(\lambda _0,u)=0.`$

In case (a) taking into account (4.26) and Lemma 3.1 we get $`_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|f^1(\lambda _0))=0.`$ Hence and by Lemma 3.2 (ii) it follows that there exists $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i=0.`$ On the other hand, from the form of $`f`$ we easily conclude that $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_i.`$ Summing up, $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_i>0`$ and

(4.27)
$$\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }_i=\mathrm{},\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_i=0.$$

Then definition (1.2) of $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ implies $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)0,`$ which together with (4.25) gives the assertion of the theorem in case (a).

Let us pass to case (b).

We first show that there exist functions $`\lambda (t),u(t),`$ meromorphic at infinity, such that

(4.28) $`\mathrm{deg}(\lambda (t)\lambda _0)<0,`$
(4.29) $`\mathrm{deg}u(t)>0,`$
(4.30) $`Q_0(\lambda (t),u(t))0.`$
Let

$$Q_0(\lambda ,u)=Q_0^0(\lambda )u^{k_0}+\mathrm{}+Q_{k_0}^0(\lambda ),Q_0^00.$$

In this case taking into account (4.26) we have

(4.31)
$$\underset{\lambda _0}{ord}Q_{k_0}^0=0,\underset{\lambda _0}{ord}Q_i^0>0\text{for }i=0,\mathrm{},k_01.$$

Put $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t):=\lambda _0+\frac{1}{t}`$ and consider the polynomial in variable $`u`$

(4.32)
$$Q_0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t),u)=Q_0^0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t))u^{k_0}+\mathrm{}+Q_{k_0}^0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t))$$

with coefficients meromorphic at infinity. Notice first that by (4.31) and definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$

(4.33) $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k_0}{\mathrm{max}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{deg}Q_i^0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t))\mathrm{deg}Q_0^0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t))}{i}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{deg}Q_{k_0}^0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t))\mathrm{deg}Q_0^0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t))}{k_0}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_0}}\underset{\lambda _0}{ord}Q_0^0>0.`$
Identifying meromorphic functions at infinity with their germs in $`(t)`$ and using Lemma 4.3 to polynomial (4.32) and taking into account (4.33) we get that there exists $`\phi (t)^{}`$ such that

(4.34)
$$Q_0(\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t),\phi (t))=0\text{in }(t)^{},$$

(4.35)
$$\mathrm{deg}\phi >0.$$

By definition of $`(t)^{}`$ there exists $`D`$ such that $`\phi (t^D)(t).`$ Then there exists a function $`u(t)`$ meromorphic at infinity which germs at infinity is equal to $`\phi (t^D).`$ Put $`\lambda (t):=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }(t^D).`$ By definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda },`$ (4.35) and (4.34) we obtain that the functions $`\lambda (t),u(t)`$ satisfy (4.28), (4.29) and (4.30).

Now we consider two subcases:

(b<sub>1</sub>) for every $`i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ $`Q_i(\lambda (t),u(t))0,`$

(b<sub>2</sub>) there exists $`i\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ such that $`Q_i(\lambda (t),u(t))0.`$

Consider case (b<sub>1</sub>). Then for every $`M`$ we have

(4.36)
$$Q(t^M,\lambda (t),u(t))0.$$

Consider polynomials in variable $`y`$,

$$f(t^M,y)\lambda (t),f_y^{}(t^M,y)u(t)$$

with coefficients meromorphic at infinity. According to (4.36) their resultant vanishes identically. Then there exist a function $`y_M(t),`$ meromorphic at infinity, and an integer $`D`$ such that

(4.37) $`f(t^{MD},y_M(t))`$ $`=\lambda (t^D),`$
(4.38) $`f_y^{}(t^{MD},y_M(t))`$ $`=u(t^D).`$
Define $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(t):=(t^{MD},y_M(t)).`$ By (4.37) and (4.28) we get

(4.39)
$$\mathrm{deg}(f\mathrm{\Phi }_M\lambda _0)<0.$$

Hence and from (2.1) we obtain

(4.40)
$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M=MD.$$

By (4.39) and (4.40) we easily get $`\mathrm{deg}f_x^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M,`$ which means $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M.`$ Hence by (4.38) we obtain

(4.41)
$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M}=\frac{\mathrm{deg}u}{M}.$$

Summing up, we have found a sequence $`\{\mathrm{\Phi }_M\}`$ of mappings meromorphic at infinity, such that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M>0`$ and (4.39) holds. Moreover, by (4.41)

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M}=0,$$

which according to definition (1.2) gives $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)0.`$ Hence and by (4.25) we get the assertion of the theorem in case (b<sub>1</sub>).

Let us pass to case (b<sub>2</sub>). Put $`\lambda _M(t):=\lambda (t)+\frac{1}{t^M}`$ for $`M`$ and $`M>\mathrm{deg}(\lambda (t)\lambda _0).`$ It is easy to see that for every $`i\{0,1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ there exists an integer $`\alpha _i`$ such that for any $`M`$

(4.42)
$$\mathrm{deg}(Q_i(\lambda (t),u(t))Q_i(\lambda _M(t),u(t)))M+\alpha _i.$$

Indeed, let $`Q_i(\lambda ,u(t))=R_0^i(t)\lambda ^{l_i}+\mathrm{}+R_{l_i}^i(t).`$ Then it suffices to take $`\alpha _i:=\mathrm{max}_{j=0}^{l_i}\mathrm{deg}R_j^i(t).`$ By (4.42) we also easily obtain that for almost all $`M`$ there exists an integer $`d_M`$ such that

(4.43)
$$\mathrm{deg}Q_0(\lambda _M(t),u(t)))=d_M,$$

(4.44)
$$d_MM+\alpha _0.$$

Indeed, in our case (b) by (4.26) and (4.30) we see that the polynomial $`Q_0(\lambda ,u(t))`$ in variable $`\lambda `$ is not constant i.e. $`\mathrm{deg}_\lambda Q_0(\lambda ,u(t))>0`$. Then for almost all $`M`$ there exists an integer $`d_M`$ such that (4.43) holds. Inequality (4.44) is a conequence of (4.42) and (4.43).

Consider now for sufficiently large $`M`$ the following polynomial in variable $`x`$

(4.45)
$$Q(x,\lambda _M(t),u(t)))=Q_0(\lambda _M(t),u(t))x^N+\mathrm{}+Q_N(\lambda _M(t),u(t)),$$

with coefficients meromorphic at infinity.

Let us notice there exists $`i_0\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ such that

(4.46)
$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}(\mathrm{deg}Q_{i_0}(\lambda _M(t),u(t))\mathrm{deg}Q_0(\lambda _M(t),u(t)))=\mathrm{}.$$

In fact, by assumption (b<sub>2</sub>) there exists $`i_0`$ such that $`Q_{i_0}(\lambda (t),u(t)))0.`$ Put $`d_{i_0}:=\mathrm{deg}Q_{i_0}(\lambda (t),u(t))).`$ Then $`d_{i_0}`$ and by (4.42) for $`M<d_{i_0}\alpha _{i_0}`$ we have $`\mathrm{deg}Q_{i_0}(\lambda _M(t),u(t))=d_{i_0}.`$ Hence by (4.43) and (4.44) we get (4.46).

Let us return to polynomial (4.45). Identifying meromorphic functions at infinity with their germs in $`(t)`$ and using Lemma 4.3 to polynomial (4.45) we get that there exists $`\phi _M(t)^{}`$ such that

(4.47) $`Q(\phi _M(t),\lambda _M(t),u(t))=0\text{in }(t)^{},`$
(4.48) $`\mathrm{deg}\phi _M(t)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{deg}Q_i(\lambda _M(t),u(t))\mathrm{deg}(Q_0(\lambda _M(t),u(t))}{i}}.`$
By (4.47), similarly as in the proof of Theorem 4.4, there exists $`\psi _M(t)(t)^{}`$ such that

(4.49) $`f(\phi _M(t),\psi _M(t))`$ $`=\lambda _M(t),`$
(4.50) $`f_y^{}(\phi _M(t),\psi _M(t))`$ $`=u(t).`$
Then there exist an integer $`D_M`$ and functions $`x_M(t),y_M(t)`$ meromorphic at infinity which germs at infinity are equal to $`\phi _M(t^{D_M}),\psi _M(t^{D_M}),`$ respectively. Put $`\mathrm{\Phi }_M(t):=(x_M(t),y_M(t)).`$ By (4.49) and the definition of $`\lambda _M(t)`$ we have

(4.51)
$$\mathrm{deg}(f\mathrm{\Phi }_M\lambda _0)<0.$$

Hence and by (2.1) we get

(4.52)
$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M(t)=D_M\mathrm{deg}\phi _M(t).$$

By (4.51) and (4.52) we get $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M=\mathrm{deg}f_y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_M.`$ Hence according to (4.50) and (4.52) we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M}=\frac{\mathrm{deg}u(t)}{\mathrm{deg}\phi _M(t)}.$$

This, together with (4.46) and (4.48), gives for almost all $`M`$

$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M>0$$

and

$$\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_M}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_M}=0.$$

Hence and (4.51), taking into account definition (2.1), we get $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)0.`$ Hence and by (4.25) we get the assertion of the theorem in case (b<sub>2</sub>).

This ends the proof of the theorem. ∎

As a corollary of Theorems 4.1, 4.4 and 4.5 we obtain a theorem on the function $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)\{\mathrm{}\}.`$

###### Theorem 4.6.

The function $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$takes the values in $`[\mathrm{},1)`$ for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(f).`$ Outside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ this function is constant and non-negative. Moreover,

if $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ_0(\lambda ,u)=0,`$ then $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=const.>0`$ for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(f),`$

if $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ_0(\lambda ,u)>0,`$ then $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=const.=0`$ for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }(f).`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

At the end we illustrate Theorem 4.6 with three simple examples.

###### Example 4.7.

For $`f(x,y):=y^2+x`$ we have $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)1.`$

For $`f(x,y):=y^{n+1}+xy^n+y,`$ $`n>1,`$ we have

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{n}& \text{for}& \lambda 0,\\ 1\frac{1}{n1}& \text{for}& \lambda =0.\end{array}$$

For $`f(x,y):=y^2`$ we have

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}0& \text{for}& \lambda 0,\\ \mathrm{}& \text{for}& \lambda =0.\end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

At the end of this section we compare the Łojasiewicz exponent of $`f`$ at infinity near a fibre and on the fibre. Precisely, we shall compare the function $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$to the function $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\lambda ))`$ for a fixed polynomial $`f`$ of the form (2.1). For simplicity we put

$$S_\lambda :=f^1(\lambda )\text{for }\lambda .$$

###### Theorem 4.8.

The functions $`\lambda _{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$and $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}(f|S_\lambda )`$ are identical besides a finite set of points $`\lambda _0`$, in which $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_{\lambda _0}).`$ This inequality holds if and only if when $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)(\mathrm{},1)`$ or when $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)>0`$ and

(4.53)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}_uQ_i(\lambda ,u)}{i}>\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}_uQ_i(\lambda _0,u)}{i}.$$

###### Proof.

Notice first that by the form (2.1) of $`f`$ and Lemma 3.2 we easily get

(4.54)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_\lambda )=_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_\lambda )\text{for }\lambda .$$

Let $`Q(x,\lambda ,u)=Q_0(\lambda ,u)x^N+\mathrm{}+Q_N(\lambda ,u),Q_00,`$ be, as before, the resultant of $`f(x,y)\lambda `$ and $`f_y^{}(x,y)u`$ with respect to $`y.`$ Fix $`\lambda _0`$ and consider four cases:

(a) $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ_0(\lambda ,u)=0.`$ Then by Lemma 3.1 and (4.54) we have

$$_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_{\lambda _0})=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{\mathrm{max}}}\frac{\mathrm{deg}_uQ_i(\lambda _0,u)}{i}\right]^1.$$

Hence and by Corollary 4.2 and Theorem 4.4 we get $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_{\lambda _0})>_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ if and only if (4.53) holds. Obviously, the set of such points is finite.

(b) $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}_uQ_0(\lambda ,u)>0.`$ Then by Lemma 3.1, (4.54) and Theorem 4.5 we have $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_{\lambda _0})=_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=0.`$

(c) There exists $`r\{0,\mathrm{},N1\}`$ such that $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)=\mathrm{}=Q_r(\lambda _0,0)=0`$ $`Q_{r+1}(\lambda _0,0)0.`$ Then by Theorem 4.1 $`\mathrm{}<_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<0.`$ Hence and by Corollary 3.5, $`_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})<0.`$ Then by Theorems 3.4, 3.3 and (4.54) we obtain

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0,f_y^{})=_{\mathrm{}}(f\lambda _0|S_y)<_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0})=_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_{\lambda _0}).$$

Obviously, the set of $`\lambda _0`$ for which (c) holds is contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ and thus finite.

(d) $`Q_0(\lambda _0,0)=\mathrm{}=Q_N(\lambda _0,0)=0.`$ Then by Theorem 4.1, Lemma 3.1 and (4.54) we have $`\mathrm{}=_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f_y^{}|S_{\lambda _0})=_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_{\lambda _0}).`$

This ends the proof. ∎

We illustrate the above theorem with the same polynomials as in Example (a).

###### Example 4.9.

For $`f(x,y):=y^2+x`$ we have $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_\lambda )=1`$ for $`\lambda .`$

For $`f(x,y):=y^{n+1}+xy^n+y`$ we have $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_\lambda )=\frac{1}{n}`$ for $`\lambda 0`$ and $`1\frac{1}{n1}=_{\mathrm{},0}(f)<_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_0)=0.`$

For $`f(x,y):=y^2`$ we have $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f|S_\lambda )`$ for any $`\lambda .`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 5. Equivalence of the definitions of $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$

In the Introduction we have defined $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ by formulas (1.1) and (1.2), respectively. We notice that the limit in (1.1) always exists (it may happen to be $`\mathrm{}`$) because by definition of $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(D_\delta ))`$ the function $`\delta _{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(D_\delta ))`$ is non-increasing.

We now prove

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`f:^2`$ be a non-constant polynomial and $`\lambda _0.`$ Then

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)$$

holds.

###### Proof.

Obviously

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).$$

We shall now prove the opposite inequality. Since the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)`$ is finite then there exists $`D=\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|<\delta _0\}`$ such that $`(D\{\lambda _0\})\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)=\mathrm{}.`$ According to Theorem 4.6 we have

(5.1)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)\text{ for }\lambda D.$$

Take an arbitrary $`0<\delta <\delta _0`$ and put $`D_\delta :=\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|<\delta \}.`$ Since the set $`f^1(\overline{D}_\delta )`$ is semi-algebraic in $`^2`$ by the Curve Selection Lemma the exponent $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}_\delta ))`$ is attained on a meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta ,`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta >0,`$ lying in this set (see \[CK4\], Proposition 1). It is easy to see that there exists $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\overline{D}_\delta D`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(f\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta <0.`$ By definition of $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ and (5.1) we get $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}_\delta ))_{\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}(f)_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).`$ Hence

$$\underset{\delta 0^+}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(D_\delta ))=\underset{\delta 0^+}{lim}_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}_\delta ))_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).$$

This ends the proof. ∎

## 6. $`n`$-dimensional case

Let us start with definitions. A non-constant polynomial $`f:^n,`$ $`n2,`$ is said to satisfy the Malgrange condition for a value $`\lambda _0`$ if

(6.1)
$$_{\eta _0,\delta _0,R_0>0}_{p^n}(\left|p\right|>R_0\left|f(p)\lambda _0\right|<\delta _0\left|p\right|\left|f(p)\right|>\eta _0).$$

By $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ we denote the set of $`\lambda `$ for which the Malgrange condition does not hold. It is easy to check that $`\lambda K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ if and only if there exists a sequence $`\{p_k\}^n`$ such that

(6.2)
$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|p_k\right|=\mathrm{},\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}f(p_k)=\lambda ,\text{and }\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|p_k\right|\left|f(p_k)\right|=0.$$

It is known (see \[JK\], cf. \[S\]) that

(6.3)
$$\mathrm{\#}K_{\mathrm{}}(f)<+\mathrm{}.$$

We now give a characterization of $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ in terms of the exponents $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f).`$

###### Theorem 6.1.

For $`\lambda _0`$ the following conditions are equivalent:

$`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f),`$

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<1,`$

$`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<1.`$

###### Proof.

(iii)$``$(ii)$``$(i). Take $`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f).`$ Then $`\lambda _0`$ satisfies (6.1). Without loss of generality, by (6.3), we may assume that $`\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|<\delta _0\}K_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\mathrm{}.`$ Take $`\delta ,`$ $`0<\delta <\delta _0,`$ and put $`D_\delta :=\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|<\delta \}.`$ Then by (6.1) we have $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(D_\delta ))1.`$ Hence by definition (1.1) we get $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)1.`$ From an obvious inequality

(6.4)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)\text{for }\lambda $$

we also get $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)1.`$ This gives the required sequence of implications.

We now show the implication (i)$``$(iii). Let $`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ and $`\{p_k\}^n`$ be a sequence satisfying (6.2). By (6.3) there exists a closed disc $`\overline{D}:=\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|\delta _0\}`$ such that $`\overline{D}K_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\mathrm{}.`$ Since $`f^1(\overline{D})`$ is a semialgebraic set in $`^n,`$ then by the Curve Selection Lemma the exponent $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}))`$ is attained on a meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0,`$ lying in this set (cf. \[CK4\], Proposition 1). Thus there exists a $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\overline{D}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(f\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\mathrm{\Phi }<0.`$ On the other hand almost all elements of the sequence $`\{p_k\}`$ lie in $`f^1(\overline{D}).`$ Then (6.2) implies $`_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}))<1.`$ In consequence $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }=_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}))<1.`$ Hence we get $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ and thus $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda _0.`$ Summing up, there exists a meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0,`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }/\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }<1.`$ Then by definition (1.2) we have

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<1.$$

This gives the desired implication and ends the proof. ∎

To illustrate the usefulness of $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ we show how with the help of this exponent one can find the set $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ in an example. We consider the Rabier’s example (see \[R\], Remark 9.1).

###### Example 6.2.

Let $`f^R:^3,`$ $`f^R(x,y,z):=(xy1)yz`$. Then $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f^R)=\{0\}`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},0}(f^R)=\mathrm{}.`$

Indeed, we first show $`0K_{\mathrm{}}(f^R)`$. Taking $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(t):=(t,1/t,0),`$ we have $`\mathrm{deg}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}>0,`$ $`f^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}(t)0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}f^R\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\mathrm{}.`$ Hence according to (1.2) we get $`_{\mathrm{},0}(f^R)=\mathrm{}`$ and thus $`0K_{\mathrm{}}(f^R)`$. To prove the opposite inclusion assume that there exists $`\lambda 0`$ such that $`\lambda K_{\mathrm{}}(f^R)`$. Then by Theorem 6.1 $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f^R)<1.`$ Then there exists a meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\phi _1,\phi _2,\phi _3)`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$ and

(6.5) $`\mathrm{deg}(f^R\lambda )\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`<0,`$
(6.6) $`\mathrm{deg}f^R\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`<\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }.`$
From (6.5)

(6.7)
$$\mathrm{deg}((\phi _1\phi _21)\phi _2\phi _3)=0,$$

whereas from (6.6) we get $`\mathrm{deg}f_z^{}\mathrm{\Phi }<\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and thus

(6.8)
$$\mathrm{deg}(\phi _1\phi _21)\phi _2)<\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

By (6.7) and (6.8) we get $`\mathrm{deg}\phi _3<\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi },`$ which is impossible.

$`\mathrm{}`$

Using $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ we shall prove one more theorem

###### Theorem 6.3.

Let $`f:^n`$, $`n2,`$ be a non-constant polynomial. If $`_{\mathrm{}}(f)1,`$ then there exists $`\lambda _0`$ such that

(6.9)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f)=_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi },`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }>0,`$ be a meromorphic curve on which the Łojasiewicz exponent $`_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ is attained. Then

(6.10)
$$_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}.$$

We shall show

(6.11)
$$\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }0.$$

Indeed, it suffices to consider the case $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }0.`$ Then

$$\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }}{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }}+1=_{\mathrm{}}(f)+10,$$

which gives (6.11).

Inequality (6.11) implies that there exists $`\lambda _0`$ such that

(6.12)
$$\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }<0.$$

Then by (6.10), (6.12) and (1.2) we get

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)_{\mathrm{}}(f).$$

The opposite inequality is obvious.

This ends the proof. ∎

Directly from the above theorem we obtain

###### Theorem 6.4.

Let $`f:^n`$, $`n2,`$ be a non-constant polynomial. The following conditions are equivalent:

$`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)\mathrm{},`$

$`_{\mathrm{}}(f)<1.`$

###### Proof.

(i)$``$(ii). Take $`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f).`$ Then by Theorem 6.1 we have $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<1.`$ Then $`_{\mathrm{}}(f)<1.`$

(ii)$``$(i). By Theorem 6.3 there exists $`\lambda _0`$ such that $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=_{\mathrm{}}(f)<1.`$ Hence by Theorem 6.1 $`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f).`$

This ends the proof. ∎

###### Theorem 6.5.

We have

(6.13)
$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)\text{for }\lambda K_{\mathrm{}}(f).$$

###### Proof.

Take any $`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f).`$ Since the inequality $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)`$ is obvious it suffices to show

(6.14)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f).$$

Similarly as in the second part of the proof of Theorem 6.1 we take a closed disc $`\overline{D}_\delta :=\{\lambda :\left|\lambda \lambda _0\right|\delta \}`$ such that $`\overline{D}_\delta K_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\mathrm{}.`$ Then analogously as previously we show that there exists a meromorphic curve $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta `$ lying in $`f^1(\overline{D}_\delta )`$ such that,

(6.15)
$$\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta >0,\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta <0,_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}_\delta ))=\frac{\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta }{\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_\delta }.$$

Hence and from (1.2) we get

(6.16)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)_{\mathrm{}}(f|f^1(\overline{D}_\delta ))$$

Then taking $`\delta 0^+`$ we get (6.14).

This ends the proof. ∎

We give now a complement of Theorem 6.5, which follows immediately from Theorem 6.1.

###### Proposition 6.6.

If $`\lambda _0K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ and there exists a meromorphic curve such that $`\mathrm{deg}(f\lambda _0)\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ then

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)=1.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Before we pose questions concerning $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ for $`n>2`$ we return to the Rabier’s example.

###### Example 6.7.

For the Rabier’s polynomial we have

(6.17)
$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f^R)=\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f^R)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{}& \text{for}& \lambda =0,\\ 1& \text{for}& \lambda 0.\end{array}$$

Indeed, for any $`\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (t):=(t,1/2t,4\lambda t)`$ we have $`f^R\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda (t)\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{deg}f\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda =\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Phi }_\lambda .`$ Hence and from Proposition 6.6 we get (6.17).

$`\mathrm{}`$

This example gives rise to the question: can one generalize Theorems 5.1 and 4.6 to the $`n`$ dimensional case? Precisely

###### Question 6.8.

Does the equality

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)$$

hold for any non-constant polynomial $`f:^n,`$ $`n>2,`$ and $`\lambda \mathrm{?}`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Question 6.9.

Does for a non-constant polynomial $`f:^n,`$ $`n>2,`$ there exists a number $`c_f[1,\mathrm{})`$ such that

$$_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)=c_f\text{ for any }\lambda K_{\mathrm{}}(f)\mathrm{?}$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6.10.

It is known for $`n=2`$ (see i.e. \[S\]) that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)=K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$. Then the answers to both Problems 6.8 and 6.9 are positive. Moreover, by Theorem 4.6 the constant $`c_f`$ belongs to the interval $`[0,\mathrm{}).`$

For $`n>2`$ we have only the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f)K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ (see \[P\]). In general the equality does not hold. One can show that for the polynomial $`f^{PZ}(x,y,z):=x3x^5y^2+2x^7y^3+yz`$ (see \[PZ\]) we have

$$\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(f^{PZ})K_{\mathrm{}}(f^{PZ})\mathrm{}.$$

Therefore by (6.3) it seems to be more natural in the case $`n>2`$ to consider the dependence of the exponents $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ and $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)`$ on $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ and not on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(f).`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

Let us introduce one more definition. A non-constant polynomial $`f:^n,`$ $`n2,`$ is said to satisfy the Fedorjuk condition for a value $`\lambda _0`$ if

(6.18)
$$_{\eta _0,\delta _0,R_0>0}_{p^n}(\left|p\right|>R_0\left|f(p)\lambda _0\right|<\delta _0|f(p)|>\eta _0).$$

By $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ we denote the set of $`\lambda `$ for which the Fedorjuk condition does not hold. It is easy to check that $`\lambda \stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ if and only if there exists a sequence $`\{p_k\}^n`$ such that

(6.19)
$$\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|p_k\right|=\mathrm{},\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}f(p_k)=\lambda ,\text{and }\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|f(p_k)\right|=0.$$

It is known (see \[S\]) that $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ is algebraic. Then we have two excluded possibilities

(6.20)
$$\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)<+\mathrm{}\text{or}\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)=.$$

Analogously to Theorem 6.1 we show

###### Theorem 6.11.

If $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ then for $`\lambda _0`$ the following conditions are equivalent:

$`\lambda _0\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f),`$

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<0,`$

$`_{\mathrm{},\lambda _0}(f)<0.`$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 6.12.

The inclusion $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ is obvious. For $`n=2`$ we have $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ and thus $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ is finite. For $`n>2`$ the equality $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f)=\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)`$ does not have to hold. Namely, from Example 6.7 and Theorem 6.11 we have $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f^R)=`$ whereas $`K_{\mathrm{}}(f^R)`$ is finite.

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Question 6.13.

Does the equality $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{\mathrm{}}(f)=`$ imply that $`_{\mathrm{},\lambda }(f)<0`$ for each $`\lambda `$ ?

$`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# REFERENCES

Theory of angular correlation for double photoionization in a rare gas atom due to linearly polarized light

Chiranjib Sur and Dipankar Chattarji

*Department of Physics, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan 731 235, INDIA*

In this paper we have tried to establish a theory for angular correlation between the photo- and Auger electrons in the two-step double photoionization of a rare gas atom. The basic finding of this paper is that a general theoretical expression for the angular correlation function is established in the problem of double photoionization of atoms in the presence of linearly polarized monochromatic light. We consider the case of a xenon atom and the incident light is of $`94.5eV`$ with arbitrary linear polarization. The theoretical results are compared with the experiments done by K$`\ddot{a}`$mmerling and Schmidt \[J.Phys.B, 26, 1141(1993)\].

PACS : 32.80, 32.80.H, 32.80.F

In a recent paper we gave a theory for angular correlation in the double photoionization (DPI) of a rare gas atom \[REFERENCES\]. We took DPI to be a two step process \[REFERENCES\]. The atom is irradiated by a beam of unpolarized photons and emits a photo-electron. This is the first step. After a finite time interval the singly ionized atom de-excites by emitting an Auger electron. The time delay between the two steps decouples them energetically. However, the angular momenta of the photo-electron and the Auger electron interact to yield their final angular correlation. We defined the angular correlation $`W`$ as a function of $`\theta `$, the angle between the directions of emission of the two electrons.

The object of the present paper is to obtain a general expression for the angular correlation function for DPI of a rare gas atom due to a linearly polarized photon beam described by Stokes parameters $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`S_3`$ \[REFERENCES\]. The atom is initially randomly oriented, but becomes aligned after the absorption of a photon. It is also energetically excited, and emits a photo-electron from one of its inner shells. The photo-electron leaves the interaction region in $`10^{18}`$ sec. The singly ionized atom with an inner shell vacancy will now tend to de-excite by emitting an Auger electron from one of the outer shells \[REFERENCES\]. A typical Auger lifetime of say the xenon ($`Z=54`$) $`O`$-shell is $`10^{15}`$ sec. The photo- and Auger ionizations are thus widely separated in time.

We now come to the basic problem of calculating the angular correlation between the photo-electron and the Auger electron. In a natural way, we can define the angular correlation function $`W(\theta )`$ to be the probability that the angle between their directions of emission is $`\theta `$. On what factors should it depend, and how can we formulate a general approach to its investigation? The following points may be noted.
(i) Obviously, $`W(\theta )`$ should be independent of the choice of coordinates, because basically it is a function of the angle $`\theta `$. This calls for a tensor formalism.
(ii) Since $`W`$ has the nature of a probability, we can only evaluate it by counting the number of coincident events in which the angle between the directions of emission has a particular value $`\theta `$, and so on. Thus the question arises of a set of detectors which can concurrently detect the photo-electron and the Auger electron. In other words, we have to define a detection operator to describe such operations quantum mechanically.
(iii) The detectors may or may not be completely dependable in actual practice. This raises the question of efficiency of a particular detector.
(iv) Thus we can think of two kinds of quantum mechanical operators to describe our problem: (a) a density operator $`\rho `$ which describes the probability of occurrence of an electron in a particular state, and (b) an efficiency operator $`\epsilon `$ which describes the probability that our detector will actually detect the electron in that state.

We can thus visualize the angular correlation function as a scaler which is simply related to the product of the two tensor operators $`\rho `$ and $`\epsilon `$ as defined above. Evidently a contraction of these tensor operators will be called for to give the scaler $`W(\theta )`$. One virtue of this theory is that we are invoking the statistical properties of a complete ensemble and no perturbation series of any kind is involved.

Let us now look a little more carefully at the angular correlation function $`W(\theta )`$. When we say that it is the probability that the angle between the directions of emission of the two electrons is $`\theta `$, we actually mean two things. (i) The two electrons are in states which are compatible with their directions of emission making an angle $`\theta `$ with each other, and (ii) the efficiencies of the two electron detectors are such that the angle between the directions of emission may be inferred to be $`\theta `$. Taking these two factors into account we define

$$\overline{\epsilon }=\underset{J_aJ_a^{}\alpha _a\alpha _a^{}k_a\kappa _a}{}\rho _{k_a\kappa _a}(J_a\alpha _a,J_a^{}\alpha _a^{})\epsilon _{k_a\kappa _a}^{}(J_a\alpha _a,J_a^{}\alpha _a^{}),$$
(1)
$`W(\theta )`$ being the angular part of $`\overline{\epsilon }`$.

As before \[REFERENCES\], we denote the initial state (photon+atom) by the set of quantum numbers $`(J_aM_a\alpha _a)`$, or by virtual quantum numbers $`(J_a^{}M_a^{}\alpha _a^{})`$. $`(J_a,M_a)`$ or $`(J_a^{}M_a^{})`$ are angular momentum quantum numbers, and $`\alpha _a`$,$`\alpha _a^{}`$ stand for the set of remaining quantum numbers. Similarly for the intermediate and final states.

In DPI experiments, a Cylindrical Mirror Analyser (CMA) is used for detection and energy analysis of the electrons. It imparts to the electron a cylindrical symmetry regardless of its angle of incidence with respect to the axis.

As for the orbital angular momentum of the incident photo- or Auger electron, this is fixed by arranging to receive only those incident electrons which have the characteristic energy. This implies that the detector is receiving all the photo- or Auger electrons, as the case may be, having the characteristic energy and orbital angular momentum. In other words, the CMA is acting not only as a differential energy analyser, but also as an angle-integrated device. For a given orbital angular momentum which labels a photo- or Auger electron, the conjugate angle of incidence becomes completely indeterminate. It is this indeterminacy which gives a statistical character to the distribution of the two electrons. That in its turn manifests itself in their angular correlation.

We decompose the density matrix \[REFERENCES\] of the photo-absorbed rare gas atom in terms of the density matrix of the unobserved doubly ionized state and of the two continuum electrons. The choice of detectors is discussed in detail in reference \[REFERENCES\]. The expression for the efficiency tensor component is

$$\epsilon _{k_i\kappa _i}^{}(j_ij_i^{})=\underset{\kappa _i^{}}{}z_{k_i}(i)c_{k_i\kappa _i^{}}(j_ij_i^{})D_{\kappa _i^{}\kappa _i}^{k_i}(\mathrm{}_i).$$
(2)
Since the residual doubly ionized state is unobserved we can write

$$\epsilon _{k_c\kappa _c}^{}(J_cJ_c^{})=\sqrt{2J_c+1}\delta _{k_c0}\delta _{\kappa _c0}\delta _{J_cJ_c^{}}.$$
(3)
Some simplification yields the result

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\epsilon }& =\rho _{k_a\kappa _a}(J_a,J_a^{})\sqrt{2J_c+1}C_{\kappa _b\kappa _1\kappa _a}^{k_bk_1k_a}C_{0\kappa _2\kappa _b}^{0k_2k_b}\sqrt{2J_a+1}\sqrt{2J_a^{}+1}\\ & \times \sqrt{2k_b+1}\sqrt{2k_1+1}\sqrt{2J_b+1}\sqrt{2J_b^{}+1}\sqrt{2k_c+1}\sqrt{2k_2+1}\\ & \times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_c& j_2& J_b\\ J_c^{}& j_2^{}& J_b^{}\\ 0& k_2& k_b\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_b& j_1& J_a\\ J_b^{}& j_1^{}& J_a^{}\\ k_b& k_1& k_a\end{array}\right\}\\ & \times z_{k_1}(1)c_{k_1\kappa _1}(j_1j_1^{})z_{k_2}(2)c_{k_2\kappa _2}(j_2j_2^{})D_{\kappa _1^{}\kappa _1}^{k_1}(\mathrm{}_1)D_{\kappa _2^{}\kappa _2}^{k_2}(\mathrm{}_2).\end{array}$$
(4)
In experiments for measuring the angular correlation one usually chooses detectors insensitive to the spin polarization of electrons. Then Eq.(4) turns out to be

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\epsilon (\theta )}& (1)^{J_a}\zeta \xi \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_c& j_2& J_b\\ J_c^{}& j_2^{}& J_b^{}\\ 0& k_2& k_b\end{array}\right\}\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_b& j_1& J_a\\ J_b^{}& j_1^{}& J_a^{}\\ k_b& k_1& k_a\end{array}\right\}z_{k_1}(1)z_{k_2}(2)\rho _{k_a\kappa _a}^\gamma (1,1)\\ & \times C_{000}^{k_bk_1k_a}C_{000}^{0k_2k_b}c_{k_10}(j_1j_1^{})c_{k_20}(j_2j_2^{})P_k(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),\end{array}$$
(5)
where $`\rho _{k_a\kappa _a}^\gamma (1,1)`$ is the density matrix describing the photon, and

$$\zeta =\sqrt{2J_c+1}\sqrt{2k_a+1}\sqrt{2k_1+1}\sqrt{2J_b+1}\sqrt{2J_b^{}+1}\sqrt{2k_2+1}$$
(6)
and

$$\xi =J_bj_1J_aJ_bj_1^{}J_a^{}J_cj_2J_bJ_cj_2^{}J_b^{}.$$
(7)
Now consider a randomly oriented $`{}_{}{}^{1}S_{0}^{}`$ xenon atom which is irradiated by a $`94.5eV`$ photon beam of arbitrary linear polarization. This leads to photoionization in the $`4d_{5/2}`$ shell followed by a subsequent $`N_5O_{23}O_{23}^1S_0`$ Auger decay \[REFERENCES\]. We use the dipole approximation, and the letters $`e,f`$ and $`g`$ for the three possible photoionization channels: $`e)4d_{5/2}\epsilon _pf_{7/2}`$, $`f)4d_{5/2}\epsilon _pf_{5/2}`$ and $`g)4d_{5/2}\epsilon _pp_{3/2}`$ respectively. The Auger transition is characterised by the partial wave $`\epsilon _Ad_{5/2}`$. The same selection rules for photoionization and Auger transitions hold good as in reference\[REFERENCES\]. Since the photoionization process is described by three possible channels, Eq.(5) will be modified by the addition of interference terms. The total intensity will, however, remain unchanged, as we have discussed in reference \[REFERENCES\]. Then the expectation value of the efficiency operator turns out to be

$$\overline{\epsilon (\theta )}=\overline{\epsilon _e(\theta )}+\overline{\epsilon _f(\theta )}+\overline{\epsilon _g(\theta )}+\overline{\epsilon _{ef}(\theta )}+\overline{\epsilon _{fg}(\theta )}+\overline{\epsilon _{ge}(\theta )}.$$
(8)
Here

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\epsilon _e(\theta )}& z_{k_1}(1)z_{k_2}(2)\rho _{k_a\kappa _a}^\gamma (1,1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_c& j_2& J_b\\ J_c& j_2& J_b\\ 0& k_2& k_b\end{array}\right\}\\ & \times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_b& j_1^e& J_a\\ J_b& j_1^e& J_a\\ k_b& k_1& k_a\end{array}\right\}C_{000}^{k_bk_1k_a}C_{000}^{0k_2k_b}\\ & \times \left|J_bj_1^eJ_a\right|^2\left|J_cj_2J_b\right|^2c_{k_10}(j_1^ej_1^e)\\ & \times c_{k_20}(j_2j_2)P_k(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),\end{array}$$
(9)
and the summation extends over $`k_a,k_1,k_2`$ and $`k`$. The expectation values $`\overline{\epsilon _f(\theta )}`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon _g(\theta )}`$ have the same form with $`\left\{j_i^ej_1^f,k_1^ek_1^f\right\}`$ and $`\left\{j_i^ej_1^f,k_1^gk_1^g\right\}`$ respectively. The quantity $`\overline{\epsilon _{ij}(\theta )}`$ is an interference term arising from interaction between different photoionization channels $`i`$ and $`j`$ ($`i,j=e,f,g`$ with $`ij`$).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\epsilon _{ij}(\theta )}& z_{k_1}(1)z_{k_2}(2)\rho _{k_a\kappa _a}^\gamma (1,1)\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_c& j_2& J_b\\ J_c& j_2& J_b\\ 0& k_2& k_b\end{array}\right\}\\ & \times \left\{\begin{array}{ccc}J_b& j_1^i& J_a\\ J_b& j_1^j& J_a\\ k_b& k_1& k_a\end{array}\right\}C_{000}^{k_bk_1k_a}C_{000}^{0k_2k_b}\\ & \times \left|J_cj_2J_b\right|^2\left|J_bj_1^iJ_a\right|\left|J_bj_1^jJ_a\right|c_{k_20}(j_2j_2)\\ & \times \left[(1)^{j_1^i}c_{k_10}(j_1^ij_1^j)+(1)^{j_1^j}c_{k_10}(j_1^jj_1^i)\right]P_k(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).\end{array}$$
(10)
The coefficient $`k`$ is even and satisfies the triangle rule $`𝐤=𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$.

We have calculated the theoretical values of the angular correlation function for two possible cases. The electric field vector is along the $`x`$ axis and a perpendicular plane geometry is used to describe the process. We choose the collision frame $`x,y,z`$ attached to the sample and the $`z`$ axis coincides with the direction of incident the photon beam. Since the Stokes parameters $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ refer to the same quantity, but with differently oriented axes, one can take $`S_2=0`$. This is done by selecting the $`x`$ axis of the collision frame to coincide with the direction of maximum linear polarization, i.e. the major axis of the polarization ellipse. The same polar and azimuthal angles are chosen in the experiment. Here $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ are the directions of propagation of the photo-electron and the Auger electron respectively. (i) The photo-electron is observed in a fixed direction and the Auger electron spectrometer is turned around to get the angular distribution of the Auger electron with respect to the photo-electron. Here the maximum allowed value of $`k`$ is $`2j_2`$. This is our first case. (ii) The second case is the complementary case i.e. the Auger electron is observed in a fixed direction and the photo-electron spectrometer is turned around to get the angular distribution of the photo-electron with respect to the Auger electron. Here the maximum allowed value of $`k`$ is $`2j_{1,\mathrm{max}}`$. This value gives the highest order of the Legendre polynomials occurring in the correlation function.

The angular correlation function in DPI due to polarized photons now becomes
i) Case 1 : the photo-electron is observed in a fixed direction and the Auger electron spectrometer is turned around to get the angular distribution of the Auger electron with respect to the photo-electron,

$$W(\theta )1+1.314P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta )+1.100P_4(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(11)
ii) Case 2 : the Auger electron is observed in a fixed direction and the photo-electron spectrometer is turned around to get the angular distribution of the photo-electron with respect to the Auger electron,

$$W(\theta )1+0.817P_2(\mathrm{cos}\theta )+0.602P_4(\mathrm{cos}\theta )+0.570P_6(\mathrm{cos}\theta ).$$
(12)
If the incident photon is unpolarized Eq.(5) reduces to Eq.(25) of reference \[REFERENCES\].

The solid line in the figures represents the theoretical curve and the dotted points are experimental values of $`W(\theta )`$. Fig 1 gives the polar plot of the angular correlation function for unpolarized photons. Figures 2 and 3 for linearly polarized photons.

Fig.1: Polar plot of angular correlation function $`W(\theta )`$for 2-step double photoionization of xenon due to unpolarized photon beam of $`94.5eV`$ ($`4d_{5/2}`$ photoionization followed by $`N_5O_{2,3}O_{2,3}^1S_0`$ Auger decay). The photo-electron is observed in a fixed direction.

Fig.2: Angular correlation pattern for 2-step double photoionization of xenon due to a linearly polarized photon beam of $`94.5eV`$ ($`4d_{5/2}`$ photoionization followed by $`N_5O_{2,3}O_{2,3}^1S_0`$ Auger decay). The photo-electron is observed in a fixed direction.

Fig.3 : Angular correlation pattern for 2-step double photoionization of xenon due to a linearly polarized photon beam of $`94.5eV`$ ($`4d_{5/2}`$ photoionization followed by $`N_5O_{2,3}O_{2,3}^1S_0`$ Auger decay). The Auger electron is observed in a fixed direction.

Acknowledgement : One of the author (CS) would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by the University Grants Commission of India.