text:
# Implications of texture 4 zero lepton mass matrices for 𝑈_{𝑒3}

## Abstract

Lepton mass matrices similar to texture 4 zero quark mass matrices, known to be quite successful in explaining the CKM phenomenology, have been considered for finding the mixing matrix element $`U_{e3}(s_{13})`$ respecting the CHOOZ constraint, with $`s_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ constrained by SNP and $`s_{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ constrained by ANP. Taking charged lepton mass matrix $`M_l`$ to be diagonal, we find that the ranges of $`s_{13}`$ corresponding to different SNP solutions very well include the corresponding values of $`s_{13}`$ found by Akhmedov et al. by considering neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$ with no texture zeros. Considering $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ both to be real and non-diagonal, $`s_{13}`$ ranges for the four SNP solutions come out to be: $`00.19(\mathrm{LMA}),0.0380.093(\mathrm{SMA}),0.0420.095(\mathrm{LOW}),0.0380.096(\mathrm{VO}),`$ which remain of the same order when $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ are considered to be complex and non-diagonal.

The observation of neutrino oscillations by Super-Kamiokande (SK)  as well as by Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO)  has provided unambiguous signal for physics beyond the Standard Model (SM). This essentially implies that the neutrinos are massive non-degenerate particles and the observed flavor eigenstates are linear combinations of mass eigenstates, in parallel to the quark mixing phenomenon. In this context, an intense amount of activity, both at the experimental as well as at the phenomenological level, is being carried out to fix the parameters of the neutrino oscillations as well as the underlying textures of the neutrino mass matrices -.

Several detailed and exhaustive analyses have been carried out in the case of the solar neutrino data as well as in the case of the atmospheric neutrino data . These analyses along with the results from several other experiments have provided valuable information about the masses and the mixing parameters. The constraints on masses and mixings are presented in terms of the mixing angles $`(\theta _{12},\theta _{23},\theta _{13})`$, defined analogous to the quark mixing angles, and the mass square differences defined as $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{sol}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=m_2^2m_1^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=m_3^2m_2^2`$. The relationship between the mass eigenstates $`(\nu _1,\nu _2,\nu _3)`$ and the flavor eigenstates $`(\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ is expressed through the mixing matrix, for example

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _e\\ \nu _\mu \\ \nu _\tau \end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}U_{e1}& U_{e2}& U_{e3}\\ U_{\mu 1}& U_{\mu 2}& U_{\mu 3}\\ U_{\tau 1}& U_{\tau 2}& U_{\tau 3}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\nu _1\\ \nu _2\\ \nu _3\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
In the PDG representation , the mixing matrix $`U`$ is given as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}c_{12}c_{13}& s_{12}c_{13}& s_{13}e^{i\delta }\hfill \\ s_{12}c_{23}c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}c_{23}s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& s_{23}c_{13}\hfill \\ s_{12}s_{23}c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{12}s_{23}s_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta }& c_{23}c_{13}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(2)
where $`c_{ij}=\mathrm{cos}\theta _{ij}`$ and $`s_{ij}=\mathrm{sin}\theta _{ij}`$ for $`i,j=1,2,3`$ and $`\delta `$ represents the CP violating phase.

The best fit oscillation parameters for the Atmospheric Neutrino Problem (ANP) are  :

$$\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2=3.010^3\mathrm{eV}^2,\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}=0.71.$$
(3)
Similarly the global analysis incorporating the SNO data , implies the following “best fit” parameters for the various solutions of Solar Neutrino Problem (SNP) :

$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=8.010^{10}\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=0.61,`$ $`\mathrm{VO},`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=4.210^5\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=0.54,`$ $`\mathrm{LMA},`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=5.010^6\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=0.025,`$ $`\mathrm{SMA},`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2=9.010^8\mathrm{eV}^2,`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}=0.61,`$ $`\mathrm{LOW}.`$ (7)
Although the above mentioned constraints are for two flavor oscillations, however, in view of the CHOOZ constraint

$$\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}|U_{e3}|^2(0.060.018)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2=(1.55)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV}^2,$$
(8)
these remain largely valid in the case of three flavor oscillations also.

Among the several issues which need to be thoroughly examined to enhance our understanding regarding the phenomenology of neutrino oscillations is the issue of finding the lower limit of $`|U_{e3}|`$, which in PDG representation corresponds to $`s_{13}`$. Because of the sensitive dependence on $`s_{13}`$ of the probabilities of the long baseline (LBL) experiments and sub-dominant $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu (\tau )}`$ oscillations of atmospheric neutrinos, a knowledge of its value would be very helpful in furthering our understanding of the neutrino oscillation phenomenology. Besides this, a knowledge of $`s_{13}`$ will be very important in distinguishing various models of mass matrices and mixing schemes, as recently emphasized by Barr and Dorsner .

The knowledge of mixing angles naturally leads to the question of finding the underlying mass matrices. This motivates one to go into specific schemes of these for leptons as the mixing matrix can be related to the mass matrices. In this context, texture specific mass matrices have been considered in the literature - which are able to explain several general features of the neutrino oscillation data with good deal of success. However, the investigations do not go into the details of the implications of the texture structure on $`U_{e3}`$. In view of the fact that see-saw mechanism respects the texture structure  as well as that texture specific matrices can be obtained in the context of SO(10) grand unified theories , it is desirable to carry out a detailed analysis of such structures.

A particular type of texture 4 zero quark mass matrices of the form

$$M_U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_U& 0\\ A_U^{}& D_U& B_U\\ 0& B_U^{}& C_U\end{array}\right),M_D=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_D& 0\\ A_D^{}& D_D& B_D\\ 0& B_D^{}& C_D\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
have shown a good deal of success in accommodating the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) phenomenology . Further, it has also been shown that such mass matrices could be generated from grand unified theories (GUTs)  as well as that these are “natural” in the sense of Peccei and Wang . Apriori there is no reason why the lepton mass texture and quark mass texture should be of the similar kind, nevertheless, it is interesting to see the consequences of a similar structure which may serve as guiding stone for the theories of neutrino mass matrices.

The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the implications of the texture 4 zero lepton mass matrices, similar to the ones defined in equation (9), for the neutrino oscillation parameters. In particular, we intend to examine the implications of these matrices for $`s_{13}`$, keeping in mind the constraints posed by the atmospheric neutrino data, various solutions of the SNP as well as the results from CHOOZ. As a special case we have also investigated the implications of the mass matrices wherein charged lepton mass matrix is taken as diagonal, primarily for the sake of comparison of our results with those of Akhmedov et al.  as well as because of the recent interest in such a case -. Further, it would be interesting to estimate the CP violating Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter , even in the absence of observation of CP violation in the leptonic sector.

Therefore, to begin with, we consider lepton mass matrices which are similar to those given by equation (9). Unlike quark mass matrices where the $`V_{\mathrm{CKM}}`$ matrix requires the elements of any of the mass matrices to satisfy the hierarchy, $`|A||B|D<C`$ , no such restriction is imposed on the lepton mass matrices. Therefore, for the leptonic sector, mass matrices $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ for the charged leptons and neutrinos respectively are :

$$M_l=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_l& 0\\ A_l^{}& D_l& B_l\\ 0& B_l^{}& C_l\end{array}\right),M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& A_\nu & 0\\ A_\nu ^{}& D_\nu & B_\nu \\ 0& B_\nu ^{}& C_\nu \end{array}\right),$$
(10)
where $`A_{l(\nu )}=|A_{l(\nu )}|e^{i\alpha _{l(\nu )}}`$ and $`B_{l(\nu )}=|B_{l(\nu )}|e^{i\beta _{l(\nu )}}`$. As $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ are hermitian, these can be exactly diagonalized by using the unitary matrices $`V_l`$ and $`V_\nu `$, for example

$`V_l^{}M_lV_l`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_e,m_\mu ,m_\tau ),`$ (11)
$`V_\nu ^{}M_\nu V_\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{diag}(m_1,m_2,m_3).`$ (12)
The corresponding lepton mixing matrix is given as

$$U=V_l^{}V_\nu .$$
(13)
For details of the diagonalizing transformations we refer the reader to reference . Using the hierarchy of charged lepton masses, the diagonalizing transformation $`V_l`$ for $`M_l`$ can be simplified as

$$V_l\left(\begin{array}{ccc}e^{i\alpha _l}& \sqrt{\frac{m_e}{m_\mu }}e^{i\alpha _l}& \sqrt{\frac{m_em_\mu (m_\mu +D_l)}{m_\tau ^2(m_\tau D_l)}}e^{i\alpha _l}\\ \sqrt{\frac{m_e(m_\tau D_l)}{m_\mu m_\tau }}& \sqrt{\frac{m_\tau D_l}{m_\tau }}& \sqrt{\frac{m_\mu +D_l}{m_\tau }}\\ \sqrt{\frac{m_e(m_\mu +D_l)}{m_\mu m_\tau }}e^{i\beta _l}& \sqrt{\frac{m_\mu +D_l}{m_\tau }}e^{i\beta _l}& \sqrt{\frac{m_\tau D_l}{m_\tau }}e^{i\beta _l}\end{array}\right).$$
(14)
In the absence of knowledge about absolute neutrino masses, $`V_\nu `$ can not be simplified in the same manner. However, some simplification can be achieved by noting that texture 4 zero mass matrices considered here are not able to reproduce inverted mass hierarchy, primarily because of (1,1) elements in $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ being zero. Therefore, considering natural hierarchy, we can consider $`m_3m_2,m_1`$. Hence the diagonalizing matrix $`V_\nu `$ for $`M_\nu `$ can be simplified as

$$V_\nu \left(\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{\frac{m_2}{m_1+m_2}}e^{i\alpha _\nu }& \sqrt{\frac{m_1}{m_1+m_2}}e^{i\alpha _\nu }& \sqrt{\frac{m_1m_2(m_2m_1+D_\nu )}{m_3^2(m_3D_\nu )}}e^{i\alpha _\nu }\\ \sqrt{\frac{m_1(m_3D_\nu )}{m_3(m_1+m_2)}}& \sqrt{\frac{m_2(m_3D_\nu )}{m_3(m_1+m_2)}}& \sqrt{\frac{m_2m_1+D_\nu }{m_3}}\\ \sqrt{\frac{m_1(m_2m_1+D_\nu )}{m_3(m_2+m_1)}}e^{i\beta _\nu }& \sqrt{\frac{m_2(m_2m_1+D_\nu )}{m_3(m_2+m_1)}}e^{i\beta _\nu }& \sqrt{\frac{m_3D_\nu }{m_3}}e^{i\beta _\nu }\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
Using equation (13) and the exact diagonalizing transformations given in reference , one can easily construct the corresponding lepton mixing matrix in terms of the charged lepton masses, neutrino masses, $`D_l`$, $`D_\nu `$ and phases $`\varphi _1(=\alpha _l\alpha _\nu )`$ and $`\varphi _2(=\beta _l\beta _\nu )`$. For the purpose of calculations we have used the exact expressions, however to facilitate the understanding of the dependence of the elements of the mixing matrix on various parameters, the simplified expressions for $`U_{e3}`$, $`U_{e2}`$ and $`U_{\mu 3}`$, the elements of the mixing matrix directly related to the mixing angles $`\theta _{13}`$, $`\theta _{12}`$ and $`\theta _{23}`$, are as follows:

$`U_{e3}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1m_2\left(m_2m_1+D_\nu \right)}{m_3^2\left(m_3D_\nu \right)}}}e^{i\varphi _1}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_e\left(m_\tau D_l\right)\left(m_2m_1+D_\nu \right)}{m_\mu m_\tau m_3}}}`$ (16)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_e\left(m_\mu +D_l\right)\left(m_3D_\nu \right)}{m_\mu m_\tau m_3}}}e^{i\varphi _2},`$
$`U_{e2}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1}{m_1+m_2}}}e^{i\varphi _1}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_2\left(m_\tau D_l\right)\left(m_3D_\nu \right)}{m_\mu m_\tau m_3\left(m_1+m_2\right)}}}`$ (17)
$`+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_2\left(m_\mu +D_l\right)\left(m_2m_1+D_\nu \right)}{m_\mu m_\tau m_3\left(m_2+m_1\right)}}}e^{i\varphi _2},`$
$`U_{\mu 3}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_em_1m_2\left(m_2m_1+D_\nu \right)}{m_\mu m_3^2\left(m_3D_\nu \right)}}}e^{i\varphi _1}+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_\tau D_l\right)\left(m_2m_1+D_\nu \right)}{m_\tau m_3}}}`$ (18)
$`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\left(m_\mu +D_l\right)\left(m_3D_\nu \right)}{m_\tau m_3}}}e^{i\varphi _2}.`$
The calculations have been carried out for the following cases: $`(i)`$ both $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ real, $`M_l`$ being diagonal, $`(ii)`$ both $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ real and non-diagonal, and $`(iii)`$ Both $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ being complex and non-diagonal. To begin with, we consider the simplest case, wherein $`M_l`$ is diagonal and $`M_\nu `$ is real, and calculate $`s_{13}`$ corresponding to the different SNP solutions and the constraints implied by ANP data. For this case, the mixing matrix $`U`$ corresponds to the diagonalizing matrix $`V_\nu `$, given in equation (15) with $`\alpha _\nu =\beta _\nu =0`$. Before discussing the results, it is perhaps desirable to discuss some of the specific details pertaining to various inputs. While considering the ANP and SNP constraints, we have taken the best fit values corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ given in equations (3)$``$(7), however in the case of mixing angles we have considered the ranges  :

$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`0.550.84,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0.420.71\mathrm{VO},`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0.420.65\mathrm{LMA},`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0150.05\mathrm{SMA},`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`0.420.61\mathrm{LOW},`$ (23)
which include the the best fit values given in equations (3)-(7). In this case, we have $`D_\nu `$ and one of the neutrino masses as the unknown parameters, the other two masses can be deduced from $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$. In principle, the parameter $`D_\nu `$ can take any value, however, in accordance with the similar analysis in the quark sector , we have restricted its variation within $`0<D_\nu <m_3`$. We choose $`m_1`$ to be the free parameter and find a range of $`s_{13}`$ for different values of $`m_1`$ and $`D_\nu `$, such that $`s_{12}`$ and $`s_{23}`$ are reproduced within the SNP and ANP constraints. In the Table (1), we have presented our results regarding $`s_{13}`$ for different values of $`m_1`$ and $`D_\nu `$ for the LMA solution of SNP. For the sake of completeness, we have also presented in the table the corresponding values of $`s_{12}`$ and $`s_{23}`$. A general survey of the table reveals the following range of $`s_{13}`$

$$s_{13}=0.040.13,$$
(24)
which is in agreement with the range of $`s_{13}`$ found by Akhmedov et al. , for example

$$s_{13}=0.050.15.$$
(25)
It is interesting to mention the ranges of the neutrino masses corresponding to the equation (24), for example

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`(15)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV},`$ (26)
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`(68)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV},`$ (27)
$`m_3`$ $``$ $`5\times 10^2\mathrm{eV},`$ (28)
suggesting the mass hierarchy $`m_1m_2<m_3`$ for neutrinos. In the same vein, it is interesting to examine the hierarchy pattern of the elements of the neutrino mass matrix $`M_\nu `$. In this context, it may be noted that while carrying out the analysis, we have varied $`D_\nu `$ between 0 and $`m_3`$, however the allowed range of $`D_\nu `$ is given as $`0.24<\frac{D_\nu }{m_3}<0.6`$. This range of $`D_\nu `$ helps determining the hierarchy pattern of mass matrix elements. As an example, when the solution corresponding to the row I of the Table (1) is used to construct $`A_\nu `$, $`B_\nu `$, $`C_\nu `$ and $`D_\nu `$, we obtain the following mass matrix

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0.0041& 0\\ 0.0041& 0.022& 0.028\\ 0& 0.028& 0.029\end{array}\right).$$
(29)
The above matrix corresponds to hierarchy $`A_\nu <B_\nu D_\nu C_\nu `$, which looks to be somewhat different compared to the hierarchy pattern of quark mass matrix elements. The mixing matrix corresponding to the above neutrino mass matrix is given as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.903& 0.426& 0.050\\ 0.284& 0.682& 0.673\\ 0.321& 0.594& 0.737\end{array}\right).$$
(30)
The above mixing matrix is well within the mixing matrix derived recently by Fukugita and Tanimoto , by including the SNO data also.

In a similar manner, one can carry out the analysis for the SMA, LOW and VO solutions of SNP. Without presenting the details of results, we summarize the $`s_{13}`$ ranges evaluated in these cases as

$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.42.5)\times 10^3\mathrm{SMA},`$ (31)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(1.76.7)\times 10^3\mathrm{LOW},`$ (32)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`(0.212.0)\times 10^3\mathrm{VO},`$ (33)
which very well include the corresponding values given by Akhmedov et al., for example

$$s_{13}10^3(\mathrm{SMA}),s_{13}10^2(\mathrm{LOW}),s_{13}10^410^3(\mathrm{VO}).$$
(34)
The $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ ranges corresponding to $`s_{13}`$, given in equations (31)$``$(33), are

$`m_110^810^6\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_210^3\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_30.055\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{SMA},`$ (35)
$`m_110^510^4\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_210^4\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_30.055\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{LOW},`$ (36)
$`m_110^510^3\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_210^4\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_30.055\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{VO}.`$ (37)
In case of LOW and VO solutions, our conclusions regarding the mass hierarchy as well as the hierarchy of mass matrix elements remain the same as that for the LMA case discussed above, however for the SMA case, we find that the allowed values of $`m_1`$ are such that the corresponding mass hierarchy is $`m_1m_2<m_3.`$

Having discussed the case with diagonal $`M_l`$, it is interesting to examine the implications of non-diagonal $`M_l`$ for $`s_{13}`$. With non-diagonal and real $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$, the $`U_{e2},U_{e3}`$ and $`U_{\mu 3}`$ are given by equations (16)-(18) with $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0`$. In this case, apart from $`m_1`$ and $`D_\nu `$, we have $`D_l`$ as another free parameter. Again, we find a range of $`s_{13}`$ by varying $`D_\nu `$ within $`0<D_\nu <m_3`$ and $`D_l`$ within $`0<D_l<m_\tau `$, as well as by scanning a suitable range of $`m_1`$ so that $`s_{23}`$ and $`s_{12}`$ are within the limits given by ANP and SNP solutions. In the Table (2), we have presented our results regarding $`s_{12}`$, $`s_{23}`$ and $`s_{13}`$ for different values of $`m_1`$, $`D_\nu `$ and $`D_l`$ for the LMA solution. The range of $`s_{13}`$ for the LMA solution is given as

$$s_{13}=00.19.$$
(38)
The corresponding allowed ranges of $`m_1`$, $`m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ are

$`m_1`$ $`=`$ $`(0.710.0)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV},`$ (39)
$`m_2`$ $`=`$ $`(6.511.9)\times 10^3\mathrm{eV},`$ (40)
$`m_3`$ $`=`$ $`(5.55.6)\times 10^2\mathrm{eV},`$ (41)
which are within the ranges found recently by Osland and Wu  by considering similar texture for neutrino mass matrix.

Following a similar procedure as discussed above for LMA case, the ranges of $`s_{13}`$ obtained with the SMA, LOW and VO solutions are given as

$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0380.093\mathrm{SMA},`$ (42)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0420.095\mathrm{LOW},`$ (43)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0380.096\mathrm{VO}.`$ (44)
The corresponding allowed ranges of $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`m_3`$ in each case are

$`m_110^810^5\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_210^3\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_30.055\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{SMA},`$ (45)
$`m_110^510^4\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_210^4\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_30.055\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{LOW},`$ (46)
$`m_110^510^3\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_210^4\mathrm{eV},`$ $`m_30.055\mathrm{eV},\mathrm{VO}.`$ (47)
The ranges of $`s_{13}`$ given in equations (38), (42)$``$(44) look to be vastly different from the ranges given in equations (24), (31)$``$(33) evaluated using diagonal $`M_l`$. This warrants a more detailed comparison of the two cases. One finds that in the case of LMA solution, the values of $`s_{13}`$ obtained are in the same range as obtained with diagonal $`M_l`$, however the spread is larger. While, in the case of solutions pertaining to SMA, LOW and VO solutions of SNP, $`s_{13}`$ is much higher compared to that of the case with diagonal $`M_l`$. Further, the three solutions more or less have same range of values. This can be easily understood by analyzing the expression for $`s_{13}`$, which can be written as

$$s_{13}=s_{13}^d+\sqrt{\frac{m_e(m_\tau D_l)(m_2m_1+D_\nu )}{m_\mu m_\tau m_3}}\sqrt{\frac{m_e(m_\mu +D_l)(m_3D_\nu )}{m_\mu m_\tau m_3}},$$
(48)
where $`s_{13}^d`$ is the expression for $`s_{13}`$ with diagonal $`M_l`$ and is given as

$$s_{13}^d=\sqrt{\frac{m_1m_2(m_2m_1+D_\nu )}{m_3^2(m_3D_\nu )}}.$$

A closer scrutiny of (48) reveals that for LMA solution all the three terms are of the same order leading to wider spread for $`s_{13}`$. For the SMA, LOW and VO solutions, we find that the contribution of $`s_{13}^d`$ is very small compared to the other two terms which are two orders of magnitude larger pushing $`s_{13}`$ up compared to the case with diagonal $`M_l`$.

Important conclusions can be derived from above results regarding $`s_{13}`$. For example, in case $`s_{13}`$ is found to be outside the range (0.01-0.1), then the solutions SMA, LOW and VO look to be ruled out for texture 4 zero mass matrices. Further, it is interesting to emphasize that several present analyses, excluding as well as including SNO, favor LMA and LOW solution of SNP, LMA being the preferred solution. The present calculations look to be favoring LMA solution as it is able to encompass the entire possible range of $`s_{13}`$.

The hierarchy pattern of the neutrino masses and of the mass matrix elements remains more or less similar to the case with diagonal $`M_l`$. For example, for LMA solution the mass matrix corresponding to the first row of Table (2) is given as

$$M_\nu =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0.0069& 0\\ 0.0069& 0.006& 0.021\\ 0& 0.021& 0.047\end{array}\right).$$
(49)
The corresponding mixing matrix is given as

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.816& 0.578& 0.0002\\ 0.473& 0.668& 0.574\\ 0.332& 0.468& 0.818\end{array}\right).$$
(50)
The above mixing matrix is again within the mixing matrix derived by Fukugita and Tanimoto .

Recently several authors have discussed the possibility of observing CP violation in the leptonic sector -,. To include CP violation, the corresponding mass matrices $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ have to be complex. This necessitates non-zero phases $`\alpha _{l(\nu )}`$ and $`\beta _{l(\nu )}`$ in the mass matrices given in equation (10) and the corresponding simplified expressions for $`U_{e3}`$, $`U_{e2}`$ and $`U_{\mu 3}`$ are given by the equations (16)-(18). Again, following the same procedure as detailed in the previous sections, and by scanning the range of phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ from 0 to $`\pi `$, we have evaluated the $`s_{13}`$ ranges corresponding to the four SNP solutions and satisfying ANP and CHOOZ constraints, for example

$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`00.20\mathrm{LMA}`$ (51)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0380.094\mathrm{SMA}`$ (52)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0280.099\mathrm{LOW}`$ (53)
$`s_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`0.0350.098\mathrm{VO}`$ (54)
Comparing with the corresponding results obtained in the last section without CP violation, we find that the range of $`s_{13}`$ is more or less similar to the case with real and non-diagonal $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$. For a given values of neutrino masses, $`D_\nu `$ and $`D_l`$, the $`s_{13}`$ ranges for SMA, LOW and VO solutions show marginal increase with the introduction of phases compared to the previous case, however for LMA $`s_{13}`$ goes up significantly, as is evident from the results presented in the Table (3).

As a rough measure of the CP violating phase in the leptonic sector, several authors have estimated the maximum value of J$`{}_{CP}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}`$ , the Jarlskog’s rephasing invariant parameter in the leptonic sector. In this context, we have also calculated J$`{}_{CP}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}`$ from the mass matrices using the following expression:

$`\mathrm{Det}[M_lM_l^{},M_\nu M_\nu ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`2i\mathrm{J}_{CP}^l(m_\tau ^2m_\mu ^2)(m_\mu ^2m_e^2)(m_e^2m_\tau ^2)`$ (55)
$`\times (m_3^2m_2^2)(m_2^2m_1^2)(m_1^2m_3^2).`$
Varying phases $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ from 0 to $`\pi `$, with other inputs being the same as used in previous sections, we obtain for LMA, SMA, LOW and VO cases

$`\mathrm{J}_{CP}^l`$ $`<`$ $`0.099\mathrm{LMA},`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{J}_{CP}^l`$ $`<`$ $`0.0012\mathrm{SMA},`$ (57)
$`\mathrm{J}_{CP}^l`$ $`<`$ $`0.043\mathrm{LOW},`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{J}_{CP}^l`$ $`<`$ $`0.045\mathrm{VO},`$ (59)
which are in agreement with most of the contemporary analyses .

To summarize the conclusions, we have considered lepton mass matrices similar to the texture 4 zero mass matrices, known to be quite successful in explaining the CKM phenomenology, for finding the mixing matrix element $`U_{e3}`$ respecting the CHOOZ constraint with $`s_{12}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{12}^2`$ constrained by SNP and $`s_{23}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{23}^2`$ constrained by ANP. Interestingly, when the charged lepton mass matrix is taken to be diagonal, the ranges of $`s_{13}`$ corresponding to different SNP solutions very well include the corresponding ranges found by Akhmedov et al. by considering neutrino mass matrices with no texture zeros. Taking $`M_l`$ and $`M_\nu `$ both to be real and non-diagonal, $`s_{13}`$ ranges for the four SNP solutions come out to be: $`00.19(\mathrm{LMA}),0.0380.093(\mathrm{SMA}),0.0420.095(\mathrm{LOW}),0.0380.096(\mathrm{VO}).`$ Except for LMA case, the other ranges show marked difference compared to the case with diagonal $`M_l`$. These conclusions remain largely valid when the effects of phases are included. In fact, in case $`s_{13}`$ is found to be outside the range (0.01-0.1), then the solutions SMA, LOW and VO look to be ruled out for texture 4 zero mass matrices. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank S.D. Sharma for useful discussions. M.R. would like to thank CSIR, Govt. of India for financial support. G.A. and M.R. would like to thank the Chairman, Department of Physics for providing facilities to work in the department. M.G. would like to acknowledge the university grant No. 3427/A/8.3.2001.


format: text

text:
# Differential and complex geometry of two-dimensional noncommutative tori

## 1 Introduction

Differential geometry of noncommutative spaces, in particular, of noncommutative tori was developed by A. Connes , . More detailed analysis of differential geometry of noncommutative tori was performed in , ,, , , ,.

Partly, the interest to this subject was motivated by the applications to string/M-theory found in  (see  for review). Complex geometry of noncommutative tori and of projective modules over them was studied in  in connection with noncommutative generalization of theta-functions.

The goal of present paper is to illustrate general results of  using the example of two-dimensional noncommutative tori, where all calculations can be performed explicitly. We repeat all basic definitions, starting with the definition of noncommutative torus. Therefore, the paper can be read independently of  and of other papers about noncommutative tori. However, in the rest of the introduction, we assume some knowledge of preceding work.

In Sec. 2 we describe projective modules over two-dimensional noncommutative torus and their tensor products. The results of this section are closely related to some results proved in multidimensional case in . We will formulate these general results restricting ourselves to basic $`T_\theta `$\- modules (modules with constant curvature connection where the endomorphism algebra is another noncommutative torus $`T_\theta ^{}`$). Instead of basic modules we can work with corresponding $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodules. Tensor product of $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule $`_1`$ and $`(T_\theta ,T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule $`_2`$ is a $`(T_\theta ^{},T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule $`.`$ We can find the bimodule $``$ using the fact that basic bimodules $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ can be described by means of elements $`g_1,g_2SO(d,d,)`$ obeying $`\theta ^{}=g_1\theta ,\theta ^{\prime \prime }=g_2\theta `$. Here $`g_1,g_2`$ act on the parameter of noncommutativity - antisymmetric matrix $`\theta `$ \- by means of fractional linear transformation. The description of $``$ follows from the relation $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }=g_2g_1^1\theta ^{}`$. In two-dimensional case all basic right $`T_\theta `$–modules can be represented as modules $`E_{n,m}`$ (see Sec. 2) where $`m`$ and $`n`$ are relatively prime. The space $`E_{n,m}`$ can be considered also as a left $`T_\theta ^{}`$-module $`E_{a,m}^{}`$ where $`anbm=1,a,b,\theta ^{}=(a\theta +b)(m\theta +n)^1`$, or as $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule that will be denoted by $`_1`$. One can use general results to calculate the tensor product $`_1\underset{T_\theta }{}_2`$ where $`_2`$ is a $`(T_\theta ,T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule, corresponding to the basic left $`T_\theta `$-module $`E_{k,l}^{}`$. It follows from these results that this tensor product considered as a left $`T_\theta ^{}`$-module is isomorphic to $`E_{ak+bl,nl+mk}^{}`$. We give a direct proof of this relation constructing an explicit isomorphism. This construction is used essentially in Sec. 3, devoted to complex geometry of projective modules over two-dimensional noncommutative tori. We calculate holomorphic vectors (theta-vectors) in basic modules and tensor products of these vectors. The relations we obtain generalize well known relations for theta-functions. The appendix contains a very detailed calculation of the tensor product (we did not include the appendix into the journal version). We did not try to analyze the connection of our results to Manin’s version of the theory of noncommutative theta–functions . This is an interesting problem.

## 2  <br>Projective modules and their tensor products.

One can define the algebra $`T_\theta ^d`$ of smooth functions on $`d`$-dimensional noncommutative torus as an algebra of formal linear combinations $`f=C_\stackrel{}{n}U_\stackrel{}{n}`$ where $`\stackrel{}{n}^d`$ and $`C_\stackrel{}{n}`$ are complex numbers tending to zero at infinity faster then any power and the multiplication is governed by the rule

$$U_\stackrel{}{n}U_\stackrel{}{m}=e^{\pi i\stackrel{}{n}\theta \stackrel{}{m}}U_{\stackrel{}{n}+\stackrel{}{m}}$$

where $`\theta =\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is a real antisymmetric matrix. An antilinear involution on $`T_\theta ^d`$ is defined by the requirement $`U_\stackrel{}{n}^{}=U_\stackrel{}{n}`$. These operations together with the standard structure of vector space permit us to consider $`T_\theta ^d`$ as involutive associative algebra with unit element $`1=U_\stackrel{}{0}`$ and with trace Tr$`f=C_\stackrel{}{0}`$. We will fix our attention on the case $`d=2;`$ in this case the matrix $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ can be specified by means of one number $`\theta ^{12}=\theta `$ and the multiplication is specified by the relation

$$U_1U_2=e^{2\pi i\theta }U_2U_1$$

where $`U_\alpha =U_{\stackrel{}{e_\alpha }}`$ are elements $`U_\stackrel{}{n}`$ corresponding to vectors of standard basis $`\stackrel{}{e}_1=(1,0)`$, $`\stackrel{}{e}_2=(0,1)`$.

In the case when $`\theta `$ is a natural number $`T_\theta ^2`$ is isomorphic to the algebra of smooth functions on the commutative two-dimensional torus. We will consider projective modules over $`T_\theta ^2`$ (we always assume that our modules are finitely generated; a projective module is by definition a direct summand in a free module $`(T_\theta ^2)^k`$). We assume that the number $`\theta `$ is irrational; in this case every projective right module over $`T_\theta ^2`$ is isomorphic to one of the modules $`E_{n,m}`$ defined in the following way (see , , ). The elements of $`E_{n,m}`$ are functions on the Schwartz space $`𝒮(\times _m)`$ and the action of the generators $`U_1,U_2`$ of $`T_\theta ^2`$ is given by:

$$U_1f(x,\mu )=f(x\frac{n+m\theta }{m},\mu 1)$$

$$U_2f(x,\mu )=e^{2\pi i(x\mu n/m)}f(x,\mu )$$

We can define also left modules over $`T_\theta ^2`$ replacing $`\theta `$ by $`\theta `$ in the above formulas; we will use the notation $`E_{n,m}^{}`$ for left modules. If it is necessary to emphasize that we consider $`E_{n,m}`$ or $`E_{n,m}^{}`$ as a $`T_\theta `$–modules we will use the notation $`E_{n,m}(\theta )`$ or $`E_{n,m}^{}(\theta )`$. We will assume that the numbers $`m`$ and $`n`$ are relatively prime. Corresponding modules $`E_{n,m}`$ are called basic modules. Every module over $`T_\theta ^2`$ can be represented as a direct sum of isomorphic basic modules. In this case the algebra of endomorphisms of the module $`E=E_{n,m}`$ is again a noncommutative torus $`T_\theta ^{}`$ generated by operators

$$Z_1f(x,\mu )=f(x\frac{1}{m},\mu a)$$

$$Z_2f(x,\mu )=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left(\frac{x}{n+m\theta }\frac{\mu }{m}\right)\right]f(x,\mu )$$

where $`a,b`$ are integers obeying $`anbm=1`$. This fact follows from relation

$$Z_1Z_2=e^{2\pi i\theta ^{}}Z_2Z_1$$

where $`\theta ^{}=\frac{b+a\theta }{n+m\theta }.`$ One can consider $`E`$ as a left $`T_\theta ^{}`$-module; this module is isomorphic to $`E_{a,m}^{}.`$

We can regard $`E`$ also as $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule, since the action of $`T_\theta ^{}`$ commutes with the action of $`T_\theta `$. Notice that the bimodule $`E`$ depends on the choice of $`a`$ and $`b`$. The tori $`T_\theta `$ and $`T_\theta ^{}`$ are Morita equivalent and the bimodule $`E`$ is a Morita equivalence bimodule (, , ).

Recall that two associative algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ are Morita equivalent if corresponding categories of modules are equivalent. Having an $`(A,B)`$-bimodule $`P`$ we can assign to every right $`A`$-module $`E`$ a right $`B`$-module $`E^{}=E\underset{𝐴}{}P`$ where tensor product over $`A`$ is obtained from the standard tensor product over $``$ by means of identification $`eapeap`$. If this correspondence is invertible we say that $`P`$ is a Morita equivalence bimodule.

Let us calculate now the tensor product $`E_{n,m}\underset{T_\theta }{}E_{k,l}^{}`$ where $`E_{n,m}`$ is a right $`T_\theta ^2`$-module and $`E_{k,l}^{}`$ is a left $`T_\theta ^2`$-module. We will see that this product can be considered a vector space $`=𝒮(\times _{nl+mk})`$. Namely, the formula:

$`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[f((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta },q+a\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`g((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta },q)]`$ (1)
where $`0\mathrm{\Delta }nl+mk1`$, specifies a map of tensor product over $`E_{n,m}\underset{T_\theta }{}E_{k,l}^{}`$ onto $``$, so that, with the usual notation, $`fE_{n,m}(\theta )`$ , $`gE_{k,l}^{}(\theta )`$ and $`hE_{ak+bl,nl+mk}^{}(\theta ^{})`$. This map is an isomorphism between the tensor product and $``$. The formula (1) determines a bilinear map that is compatible with identification $`eapeap`$ (see Appendix for details). We can consider $`E_{n,m}`$ as a $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule where $`\theta ^{}=\frac{b+a\theta }{n+m\theta },anbm=1`$ and $`E_{k,l}`$ as a $`(T_\theta ,T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule where $`\theta ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{dc\theta }{kl\theta }`$, $`ckdl=1`$. Then $``$ can be regarded as $`(T_\theta ^{},T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule. It follows from (1) that $``$ considered as a left $`T_\theta ^{}`$-module is isomorphic to $`E_{N^{},M}^{}`$ where $`M=nl+mk,N^{}=ak+bl`$ and $``$ considered as a right $`T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }}`$-module is isomorphic to $`E_{N^{\prime \prime },M}`$ where $`N^{\prime \prime }=(cn+md)`$ for $`ckdl=1`$. This result can be obtained also from general considerations (see Introduction).

Let us apply (1) to the special case when:

$$f(x,\mu )=e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma __1x^2c__1x}\delta _\alpha ^\mu $$

$$g(y,\nu )=e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma __2y^2c__2x}\delta _\beta ^\nu $$

where

$$\sigma __1=i\tau _1\frac{m}{n+m\theta },\mu _m$$

$$\sigma __2=i\tau _2\frac{l}{kl\theta },\nu _l$$

and $`\delta _j^i`$ is the usual Kronecker–delta. It is straightforward to check that in this case:

$`h_{\alpha \beta }(z,\mathrm{\Delta })={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __1}{2}}((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$
$`c__1((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta })\}\delta ^{qa\mathrm{\Delta }}_\alpha `$
$`\mathrm{exp}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __2}{2}}((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$
$`c__2((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta })\}\delta _\beta ^q]`$ (2)
Notice that the right hand side of (2) can be expressed in terms of theta–functions; first note that the set of solutions to the system of congruences:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}q=a\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha (\mathrm{m}odm)\hfill & \\ q=\beta (\mathrm{m}odl)\hfill & \end{array}$$

can be written as $`q_o+u\frac{ml}{r}`$ for some integer $`q_o`$, $`r=\mathrm{gcd}(m,l)`$, and $`u`$. Hence we can substitute $`q_o+u\frac{ml}{r}`$ in for $`q`$ in (2), do away with Kronecker deltas, and sum over $`u`$ instead of $`q`$. We obtain:

$$h_{\alpha \beta }(z,\mathrm{\Delta })=\mathrm{\Theta }(s,t)\xi (z,\mathrm{\Delta })$$

where

$`\xi _{\alpha \beta }(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __1}{2}}((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }}{m(nl+mk)}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __2}{2}}((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{(kl\theta )\mathrm{\Delta }}{nl+mk}})^2`$
$`(c__1+c__2)(n+m\theta )z\left(c__1{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}c__2{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\right)\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`(\sigma __1\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}\right)^2+\sigma __2\left({\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}\right)^2){\displaystyle \frac{q_o^2}{2}}]`$
$$s=\frac{\sigma __1l^2(n+m\theta )^2+\sigma __2m^2(kl\theta )^2}{2\pi ir^2}$$

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __1(n+m\theta )^2}{2\pi im}}\left(z+{\displaystyle \frac{l\mathrm{\Delta }}{m(nl+mk)}}{\displaystyle \frac{lq_o}{r}}\right)+c__1{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{2\pi im}}c__2{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{2\pi il}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma __2(kl\theta )^2}{2\pi il}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{kl\theta }}z+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{nl+mk}}{\displaystyle \frac{mq_o}{r}}\right)`$
and $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s,t)`$ a classical theta–function. We recall that classical–theta functions are defined as:

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(s,t)=\underset{u}{}e^{\pi isu^2+2\pi itu},\text{Im }s>0$$

## 3  Connections and complex structures.

One can define a connection on a right $`T_\theta ^d`$-module $`E`$ as a set of $``$-linear operators $`_1,\mathrm{},_d`$ obeying Leibniz rule:

$$_\alpha (ea)=_\alpha ea+e\delta _\alpha a$$
(3)
where $`eE,aT_\theta ^d`$ and the derivatives $`\delta _\alpha a`$ are specified by the formula $`\delta _\alpha U_\stackrel{}{n}=2\pi niU_\stackrel{}{n}`$ (see). It will be convenient for us to generalize the notion of connection replacing $`\delta _\alpha `$ in (3) by $`\delta _\alpha ^{}=a_\alpha ^\beta \delta _\beta `$ where $`a_\alpha ^\beta `$ is a non-degenerate matrix. A connection $`_1,\mathrm{},_d`$ is a constant curvature connection if

$$[_\alpha ,_\beta ]=if_{\alpha \beta }1$$

where $`f_{\alpha \beta }`$ are numbers and $`1`$ stands for identity operator. Similar definitions can be given for left modules. We always consider unitary connections (i.e. operators $`_\alpha `$ should be anti Hermitian). It is easy to check that operators

$$_1=2\pi i\frac{m}{n+m\theta }x,\text{ }_2=2\pi \frac{d}{dx}$$
(4)
specify a constant curvature connection of right $`T_\theta `$-module $`E_{m,n}.`$ The same operators determine a connection (in generalized sense) on $`E_{n,m}`$ considered as a left $`T_\theta ^{}`$-module. This follows from relations $`[_i,_j]=\frac{2\pi im}{n+m\theta }`$. We see that $`_1,_2`$ can be considered as a constant curvature connection on $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule.

If $`_1,_2`$ is a constant curvature connection on a module $`E`$ we can introduce a complex structure on $`E`$ fixing $`\overline{\text{-}}`$connection $`\overline{}=\lambda _1_1+\lambda _2_2,`$where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are complex numbers and the quotient $`\tau =\lambda _1/\lambda _2`$ is not real . This complex structure on a $`T_\theta `$-module corresponds to complex structure on $`T_\theta ,`$ specified by means of $`\overline{}`$-derivative $`\lambda _1\delta _1+\lambda _2\delta _2`$. By definition, vector $`\mathrm{\Theta }E`$ is holomorphic if:

$$\overline{}\mathrm{\Theta }=0$$

Notice that the notion of holomorphicity depends only on $`\tau =\lambda _1/\lambda _2`$, therefore we say that $`\overline{}`$ and $`\rho \overline{}`$ where $`\rho 0`$ determine the same complex structure on $`E.`$ Holomorphic vectors are closely related to theta-functions, hence we call holomorphic vectors in basic modules theta-vectors.

Let us consider holomorphic vectors in $`T_\theta `$-modules $`E_{n,m},`$ assuming that $`n`$ and $`m`$ are relatively prime. In this case all constant curvature connections have the form $`_\alpha =_\alpha ^0+c_\alpha `$, where $`_\alpha ^0`$ stand for the connection (4) and $`c__1,c__2`$ are constants. The equation $`\overline{}\mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ takes the form

$$(i\tau \frac{m}{n+m\theta }x+\frac{}{x}+c)\phi (x,\mu )=0$$

If $`\mathrm{I}m\tau <0`$ it has $`m`$ linearly independent solutions

$$\phi _\alpha (x,\mu )=e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma x^2cx}\delta _\alpha ^\mu $$
(5)
where

$$\sigma =i\tau \frac{m}{n+m\theta },\mu _m$$

The functions (5) belong to $`𝒮`$ only if $`\mathrm{R}e\sigma >0`$. We assumed that $`n+m\theta >0`$; in the case $`n+m\theta <0`$, the condition of existence of holomorphic vectors is that $`\mathrm{I}m\tau >0`$. We see that in the case when holomorphic vectors exist the space $`_{n,m}`$ of holomorphic vectors in $`E_{n,m}`$ is $`m`$-dimensional; the functions (5) constitute a basis of $`_{n,m}`$. Considering $`E_{n,m}`$ as a $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule and taking into account that a constant curvature connection on $`E_{n,m}`$ is a constant curvature connection on the bimodule, one can define a notion of complex structure and of holomorphic vector for a bimodule. More precisely, complex structure on $`T_\theta `$-module $`E_{n,m}`$ induces a complex structure on same space considered as left $`T_\theta ^{}`$-module in such a way that the notion of holomorphic vector remains the same. These two complex structures specify a complex structure on a bimodule; the notion of holomorphic vector in a bimodule coincides with corresponding notion for both modules. If $`^{}`$ is a complex $`(T_\theta ^{},T_\theta )`$-bimodule, $`^{\prime \prime }`$ is a complex $`(T_\theta ,T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule, then the $`(T_\theta ^{},T_{\theta ^{\prime \prime }})`$-bimodule $`=^{}\underset{T_\theta }{}^{\prime \prime }`$ can be equipped with complex structure. We assume that complex structure on the right $`T_\theta `$-module $`^{}`$ and on the left $`T_\theta `$-module $`^{\prime \prime }`$ correspond to the same complex structure on $`T_\theta `$. One can prove  that tensor product of two holomorphic vectors is again a holomorphic vector (i.e. we have a natural map $`^{}^{\prime \prime }`$ into $``$ where $`^{},^{\prime \prime }`$ and $``$ stand for spaces of holomorphic vectors in $`^{},^{\prime \prime }`$ and $``$ correspondingly). Let the basis of $`^{}`$ consist of:

$$\phi _\alpha ^{}=e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma __1x^2c__1x}\delta _\alpha ^\mu $$

where

$$\sigma __1=i\tau _1\frac{m}{n+m\theta },\mu _m,\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},m\}$$

and the basis of $`^{\prime \prime }`$ consist of:

$$\phi _\beta ^{\prime \prime }=e^{\frac{1}{2}\sigma __2y^2c__2x}\delta _\beta ^\nu $$

where

$$\sigma __2=i\tau _2\frac{l}{kl\theta },\nu _l,\alpha \{1,\mathrm{},l\}$$

We assume that $`^{}`$, considered as a right $`T_\theta `$–module, is isomorphic to $`E_{n,m}`$ , and that $`^{\prime \prime }`$, considered as a left $`T_\theta `$–module, is isomorphic to $`E_{k,l}^{}`$. We can use (2) to calculate $`\phi _\alpha ^{}\underset{T_\theta }{}\phi _\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$. The condition that complex structures on $`^{}`$ and $`^{\prime \prime }`$ correspond to the same complex structure on $``$ implies $`\tau _1=\tau _2`$. Using this, we can check that the theta–functions that appear in (2) do not depend on $`z`$ in our case. Applying (2), we obtain that, $`\phi _\alpha ^{}\underset{T_\theta }{}\phi _\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$ maps to $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{\alpha \beta }(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ which is of the form:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{\alpha \beta }(z,\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{\gamma }{}c_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma \phi _\gamma (z,\mathrm{\Delta })$$

where

$`\phi _\gamma (z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\pi i\tau (nl+mk)(n+m\theta )}{kl\theta }}z^2(c__1+c__2)(n+m\theta )z\right]\delta _\gamma ^\mathrm{\Delta }`$
constitute a basis of $``$ and the constants $`c_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma `$ are given by:

$`c_{\alpha \beta }^\gamma =\mathrm{\Theta }(s,t)e^K`$
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(s,t)`$ a classical theta–function,

$$K=\frac{\pi i\tau l}{m(nl+mk)}\gamma ^2\frac{\left(l(n+m\theta )c__1m(kl\theta )c__2\right)}{m(nl+mk)}\gamma +\pi isq_o^2+2\pi itq_o$$

and:

$$s=ml(nl+mk)$$

$$t=\frac{l\tau \mathrm{\Delta }q_o(nl+mk)}{r}+\frac{c__1l(n+m\theta )c__2m(kl\theta )}{2\pi ir}$$

### Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Yu. Manin for his interest in our work, and for information that our results could be useful in number theory (Yu. Manin has explained the relation of our results to number theory in his recent preprint ). One of authors (A. Sch.) appreciates the hospitality of IHES and ESI where a part of this work was done.

## 4 Appendix

Our candidate function $`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for the map (1) is given by :

$`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[f((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta },q+a\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`g((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta },q)]`$
For reference, let us recall all the actions we will need. If $`f(x,\mu )E_{n,m}(\theta )`$, and $`g(y,\nu )E_{k,l}^{}(\theta )`$, then:

$$U_1f(x,\mu )=f(x\frac{n+m\theta }{m},\mu 1)$$

$$U_2f(x,\mu )=e^{2\pi i(x\mu n/m)}f(x,\mu )$$

$$U_1g(y,\nu )=g(y\frac{kl\theta }{l},\nu 1)$$

$$U_2g(y,\nu )=e^{2\pi i(y\nu k/l)}g(y,\nu )$$

$$Z_1f(x,\mu )=f(x\frac{1}{m},\mu a)$$

$$Z_2f(x,\mu )=e^{2\pi i(x/(n+m\theta )\mu /m)}f(x,\mu )$$

Let us start by checking the identifications. Replacing $`f`$ with $`U_1f`$ in the definition of $`h`$ we obtain:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}`$ $`[f((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}},q+a\mathrm{\Delta }1)`$
$`g((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta },q)]`$
Letting $`qq1`$ gives:
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[f((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta },q+a\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`g((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}},q1)]`$
This means that the map (1) is compatible with the identification

$$\left(U_1f\right)gf\left(U_1g\right)$$

Similarly, replacing $`f`$ with $`U_2f`$ in (1) we get:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{n(q+a\mathrm{\Delta })}{m}}\right)\right]fg`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left((n+m\theta )z\theta q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{an\mathrm{\Delta }}{m}}\right)\right]fg`$
using the relation $`an=1+bm`$ gives:
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{k}{l}}q\right)\right]fg`$
This means that the map (1) is compatible with the identification

$$\left(U_2f\right)gf\left(U_2g\right)$$

So the map (1) that was defined originally as a map of the tensor product $`E_{n,m}_{}E_{k,l}^{}`$ descends to a map of $`E_{n,m}_{T_\theta }E_{k,l}^{}`$.

Next, we need to check that the new product module is in fact $`E_{ak+bl,nl+mk}^{}(\theta ^{})`$. That is, we first need to show that the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }+nl+mk`$ leaves $`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ invariant; therefore we can consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as an element of $`_{nl+mk}`$:

$`h`$ $`(z,\mathrm{\Delta }+nl+mk)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[f((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}(\mathrm{\Delta }+nl+mk),q+a(\mathrm{\Delta }+nl+mk))`$
$`g((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}(\mathrm{\Delta }+nl+mk),q)]`$
Let $`qq+l`$. Then the extra terms in the first argument of $`f`$ are:

$$\frac{n+m\theta }{m}l+\frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}(nl+mk)=0$$

The extra terms in the second argument of $`f`$ are:

$`l+anl+amk`$ $`lanl(\mathrm{m}odm)`$
$`l(an1)(\mathrm{m}odm)`$
$`lbm(\mathrm{m}odm)`$
$`0(\mathrm{m}odm)`$
Similarly, the extra terms in the arguments of $`g`$ are respectively:

$$(kl\theta )(kl\theta )=0$$

and

$$l0(\mathrm{m}odl)$$

It follows that:

$$h(z,\mathrm{\Delta }+nl+mk)=h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })$$

as required. Finally we need to check that the action of the endomorphism algebra generators $`Z_1,Z_2`$ on $`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ induced by the action of $`Z_1`$ and $`Z_2`$ on $`f`$ describe the standard module $`E_{ak+bl,nl+mk}^{}(\theta ^{})`$:

$`Z_1`$ $`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[f((n+m\theta )z{\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}},q+a\mathrm{\Delta }a)`$
$`g((n+m\theta )z+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta },q)]`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}[f((n+m\theta )(z+\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{n+m\theta }{m}}q+{\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}(\mathrm{\Delta }1),q+a(\mathrm{\Delta }1))`$
$`g((n+m\theta )(z+\beta )+{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{l}}q{\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{nl+mk}}(\mathrm{\Delta }1),q)]`$
where

$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n+m\theta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l(n+m\theta )}{m(nl+mk)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{kl\theta }{(n+m\theta )(nl+mk)}}`$
$`=\beta `$
and can be rewritten in a simpler way using the relation $`anbm=1`$:
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ak+bl}{nl+mk}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b+a\theta }{n+m\theta }}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{ak+bl}{nl+mk}}+\widehat{\theta }`$
Therefore:

$`Z_1`$ $`h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })=Z_1h(z{\displaystyle \frac{ak+bl}{nl+mk}}+\widehat{\theta },\mathrm{\Delta }1)`$
as required for $`E_{ak+bl,nl+mk}^{}(\theta ^{})`$. Similarly:

$`Z_2h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left(z{\displaystyle \frac{q}{m}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}(q+a\mathrm{\Delta })\right)\right]fg`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left(z+{\displaystyle \frac{l(1an)amk}{m(nl+mk)}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\right]fg`$
substituting $`bm`$ in for $`1an`$ gives:
$`={\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left(z{\displaystyle \frac{ak+bl}{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\right]fg`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}\left[2\pi i\left(z{\displaystyle \frac{ak+bl}{nl+mk}}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)\right]h(z,\mathrm{\Delta })`$
also as required.

Our considerations prove that the formula (1) specifies a map from $`E_{n,m}(\theta )\underset{T_\theta }{}E_{k,l}^{}(\theta )`$ into $`E_{a,k+bl,nl+mk}^{}(\theta ^{})`$ and this map is compatible with the structure of $`T_\theta ^{}`$ right modules on these objects. It is easy to check that this map is an isomorphism (either directly or using the general result about tensor products of modules over noncommutative tori).

One can use also the technique suggested in ; the latter approach has the advantage that it gives a regular way to obtain (1). Namely we can start with the description of the linear space that is dual to the tensor product $`E_{n,m}(\theta )\underset{T_\theta }{}E_{k,l}^{}(\theta )`$. We notice that a continuous linear functional on the tensor product of $`E_{n,m}(\theta )`$ and $`E_{k,l}^{}(\theta )`$ over $``$ is specified by a generalized function (a distribution) $`\phi (x,\mu ,y,\nu )`$ where $`x,y,\mu _m,\nu _l`$; it transforms $`fg`$ into:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu _m}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu _l}{}}{\displaystyle f(x,\mu )g(y,\nu )\phi (x,\mu ,y,\nu )𝑑x𝑑y}`$
This functional descends to the tensor product over $`T_\theta `$ if:

$`\phi (x,\mu ,y,\nu )e^{2\pi i(x\mu n/m)}=\phi (x,\mu ,y,\nu )e^{2\pi i(y\nu k/l)}`$
and
$`\phi (x+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{m}}+\theta ,\mu +1,y,\nu )=\phi (x,\mu ,y+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{l}}\theta ,\nu +1)`$
Solving this system of equations for $`\phi `$, we arrive at a description of the space that is dual to the tensor product we are interested in. Using this description, it is easy to obtain (1).


text:
# New polynomial analogues of Jacobi’s triple product and Lebesgue’s identities

## 1. Introduction

Jacobi’s celebrated triple product identity

$$\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^jq^{\frac{j(j1)}{2}}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1+zq^{i1})(1+z^1q^i)(1q^i)$$
(1.1)
is one of the most fundamental results in the theory of theta functions. Employing standard $`q`$-hypergeometric notations

$$(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_r;q)_N=(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_r)_N=(a_1;q)_N(a_2;q)_N(a_r;q)_N,$$
(1.2)
where

$$(a;q)_N=(a)_N=\{\begin{array}{cc}_{j=0}^{N1}(1aq^j),\hfill & \text{ if }N>0,\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & \text{ if }N=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.3)
and

$$(a)_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}(a)_N,\text{ for }|q|<1,$$
(1.4)
we can rewrite (1.1) in the equivalent form as

$$\underset{j0}{}q^{T_j}\frac{z^j+z^{1+j}}{1+z}=(qz,qz^1,q;q)_{\mathrm{}},$$
(1.5)
with

$$T_j=\frac{j(j+1)}{2}.$$
(1.6)
Performing changes $`qq^2`$ and $`zzq`$ in (1.1), it is easy to obtain

$$\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^jq^{j^2}=(q^2,qz,qz^1;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(1.7)
A polynomial generalization of (1.7) due to MacMahon in  is

$$\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}z^jq^{j^2}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2L}{L+j}\right]_{q^2}=(qz,qz^1;q^2)_L,$$
(1.8)
where the $`q`$-binomial coefficients are defined as

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+m}{n}\right]_q=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{(q)_{n+m}}{(q)_n(q)_m},\hfill & \text{ if }n,m0,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.9)
Thanks to

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2L}{L+j}\right]_{q^2}=\frac{1}{(q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(1.10)
(1.8) reduces to (1.7) as $`L`$ tends to infinity.

Andrews  pointed out that the proof of (1.8) requires only Euler’s identity

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{T_j}z^j\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{j}\right]_q=(qz;q)_L.$$
(1.11)
In this sense, (1.8) is a very simple identity. In contrast, in  we stated a rather nontrivial polynomial analogue of (1.5), namely

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{T_n}\frac{z^n+z^{1+n}}{1+z}=\underset{i,j,k0}{}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}z^{ij}(1)^k\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q.$$
(1.12)
In  we indicated that (1.12) can be deduced from a special case of the bounded version of Göllnitz’s (big) partition theorem. However, no details were given there. Berkovich and Riese  used the computer algebra package qMultiSum  to prove (1.12) by showing that both sides there satisfy identical recurrences of order 4, namely

$$zS_{L+4}(z)+(zq^{L+4}+zq^{L+4}z^2q^{L+4})S_{L+3}(z)+(1z+z^2)q^{L+4}(1q^{L+3})$$

$$S_{L+2}(z)+q^{2L+7}(1z+z^2+zq^{L+2})S_{L+1}(z)zq^{3L+9}S_L(z)=0,$$
(1.13)
and by verifying initial conditions for $`L\{0,1,2,3\}`$.

One of our primary goals here is to understand precisely the $`q`$-hypergeometric status of (1.12). In fact, in the next section we will show that (1.12) is a consequence of the somewhat mysterious Sears–Carlitz transformation of a terminating well-poised $`{}_{3}{}^{}\varphi _{2}^{}`$-series. In §3 we will briefly review the refinement of the Göllnitz’s theorem due to Alladi, Andrews and Gordon  and its bounded version recently discovered by Alladi and Berkovich . In §4 we will reinterpret the generalized Göllnitz theorem in  and  as a weighted partition identity. As a fallout of this reinterpretation we will immediately obtain (1.12) in §4, and then derive in §5 a two-parameter extension of (1.1) in a form of a double series.

One of the fundamental results in the theory of partitions and $`q`$-series is Lebesgue’s identity , which we state in the following form:

$$\underset{i0}{}q^{T_i}\frac{(z^2q)_i}{(q)_i}=(z^2q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}(q)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(1.14)
Section 6 is devoted to the proof of the following new polynomial analogue of (1.14):

$$\underset{i,j0}{}q^{T_i+T_j}(z^2)^j\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]_q=$$

$$\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^jz^{i+j}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q.$$
(1.15)
In §7 we briefly describe prospects for future work. Finally, some technical details pertaining to the determination of the weights in Theorem 4 can be found in the Appendix.

We conclude this section by recalling some standard $`q`$-hypergeometric definitions along with selected summation and transformation formulas .

The generalized basic hypergeometric function $`{}_{r+1}{}^{}\varphi _{r}^{}`$ is defined as

$${}_{r+1}{}^{}\varphi _{r}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r+1};q,z\hfill \\ b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_r\hfill \end{array}\right)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{r+1})_j}{(b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_r,q)_j}z^j.$$
(1.16)
The $`q`$-binomial theorem (Cauchy’s identity) states that

$${}_{1}{}^{}\varphi _{0}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a;q,z\\ \end{array}\right)=\underset{n0}{}\frac{(a)_n}{(q)_n}z^n=\frac{(az)_{\mathrm{}}}{(z)_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(1.17)
The identities

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a,q^n;q,q\hfill \\ c\hfill \end{array}\right)=a^n\frac{(\frac{c}{a})}{(c)_n},$$
(1.18)
and

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a,b;q,\frac{q}{b}\hfill \\ \frac{aq}{b}\hfill \end{array}\right)=(q)_{\mathrm{}}\frac{(aq,\frac{aq^2}{b^2};q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(\frac{q}{b},\frac{aq}{b};q)_{\mathrm{}}}$$
(1.19)
are known as $`q`$-Chu–Vandermonde sum and $`q`$-Kummer (Bailey–Daum) sum, respectively. Heine’s third transformation for $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}`$ can be written as

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a,b;q,z\hfill \\ c\hfill \end{array}\right)=\frac{(\frac{abz}{c})_{\mathrm{}}}{(z)_{\mathrm{}}}{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{c}{a},\frac{c}{b};q,\frac{abz}{c}\hfill \\ c\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(1.20)
Finally, the Sears–Carlitz transformation of a terminating $`{}_{3}{}^{}\varphi _{2}^{}`$ series is

$${}_{3}{}^{}\varphi _{2}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}a,b,c;q,\frac{aqz}{bc}\hfill \\ \frac{aq}{b},\frac{aq}{c}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\frac{(az)_{\mathrm{}}}{(z)_{\mathrm{}}}{}_{5}{}^{}\varphi _{4}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{a},\sqrt{a},\sqrt{aq},\sqrt{aq},\frac{aq}{bc};q,q\hfill \\ \frac{aq}{b},\frac{aq}{c},az,\frac{q}{z}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(1.21)
provided that $`a=q^n`$ and $`n`$ is a nonnegative integer.

## 2. $`q`$-hypergeometric approach to (1.12)

We begin by rewriting the right hand side (RHS) of (1.12) as

$$\underset{i,j,k0}{}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}z^{ij}(1)^k\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q=$$

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j0\\ i+jL\end{array}}{}q^{T_i+T_j}z^{ij}\frac{(q)_L}{(q)_i(q)_j(q)_{Lij}}{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{iL},q^{jL};q,q^{1+Lij}\hfill \\ q^L\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(2.1)
Remarkably, $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}`$ with the choices of parameters given above can be evaluated to be a product. To see this we first make use of (1.20) to transform $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}`$ as

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{iL},q^{jL};q,q^{1+Lij}\hfill \\ q^L\hfill \end{array}\right)=(q)_{Lij}{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^i,q^j;q,q\hfill \\ q^L\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(2.2)
and then employ (1.18) to obtain

$${}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{iL},q^{jL};q,q^{1+Lij}\hfill \\ q^L\hfill \end{array}\right)=(q)_{Lij}\frac{(q^{iL})_j}{(q^L)_j},$$
(2.3)
where it is understood that $`0iL`$, $`0jL`$, $`i+jL`$ in (2.2) and (2.3). So, the RHS of (1.12) becomes

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j0\\ i+jL\end{array}}{}q^{T_i+T_j}z^{ij}\frac{(q)_L(q^{iL})_j}{(q)_i(q)_j(q^L)_j}.$$
(2.4)
Now, since

$$T_i+T_jij=T_{ij}+j,$$
(2.5)
we can perform a change of the summation variables in (2.4) to put it in the form

$$\text{RHS }(\text{1.12})=\underset{\begin{array}{c}LiL\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}q^{T_i+j}z^i\frac{(q)_L(q^{i+jL})_j}{(q)_{i+j}(q)_j(q^L)_j}.$$
(2.6)
Next, we split the sum in (2.6) as

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}LiL\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}0iL\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}+\underset{\begin{array}{c}Li0\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}i=0\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}.$$

Performing the change $`ii`$ in the second sum we get

$$\text{RHS }(\text{1.12})=\underset{\begin{array}{c}0iL\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}q^{T_i+j}z^i\frac{(q)_L(q^{i+jL})_j}{(q)_{i+j}(q)_j(q^L)_j}+$$

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}0iL\\ 0jL\end{array}}{}q^{T_i+j}z^i\frac{(q)_L(q^{i+jL})_j}{(q)_{i+j}(q)_j(q^L)_j}\underset{j=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^j\frac{(q)_L(q^{jL})_j}{(q)_j^2(q^L)_j}.$$
(2.7)
We deal with the last sum in (2.7) first. To this end we use

$$(q^{jL})_j=\frac{(q^L)_{2j}}{(q^L)_j}=\frac{(q^{\frac{L}{2}},q^{\frac{L}{2}},q^{\frac{1L}{2}},q^{\frac{1L}{2}})_j}{(q^L)_j},$$
(2.8)
with $`jL`$ to derive

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^j\frac{(q)_L(q^{jL})_j}{(q)_j^2(q^L)_j}=(q)_L\underset{\begin{array}{c}z1\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}{}_{4}{}^{}\varphi _{3}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{\frac{L}{2}},q^{\frac{L}{2}},q^{\frac{1L}{2}},q^{\frac{1L}{2}};q,q\hfill \\ q^L\frac{q}{b},q^Lz,\frac{q}{z}\hfill \end{array}\right)=$$

$$(q)_L\underset{\begin{array}{c}c\mathrm{}\\ z1\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}_5\varphi _4\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{\frac{L}{2}},q^{\frac{L}{2}},q^{\frac{1L}{2}},q^{\frac{1L}{2}},\frac{q^{1L}}{bc};q,q\hfill \\ q^L\frac{q}{b},q^L\frac{q}{c},q^Lz,\frac{q}{z}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(2.9)
Fortunately, $`{}_{5}{}^{}\varphi _{4}^{}`$ in the above equation can be transformed with the aid of Sears–Carlitz formula (1.21) as

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}c\mathrm{}\\ z1\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}_5\varphi _4=\underset{\begin{array}{c}c\mathrm{}\\ z1\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}\frac{(z)_{\mathrm{}}}{(zq^L)_{\mathrm{}}}_3\varphi _2\left(\begin{array}{c}q^L,b,c;q,\frac{q^{1L}z}{bc}\hfill \\ q^L\frac{q}{b},q^L\frac{q}{c}\hfill \end{array}\right)=\frac{1}{(q^L)_L}\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^nq^{T_{n1}Ln}.$$
(2.10)
We remark that the limiting procedure in (2.10) is quite delicate. In particular, observe that

$$\underset{bq}{lim}\frac{(q^L)_n}{(\frac{q}{b}q^L)_n}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{ if }0nL,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{ if }n>L.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.11)
Now equations (2.9), (2.10) along with

$$(q^L)_L=(q)_L(1)^Lq^{T_L}$$
(2.12)
imply that

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^j\frac{(q)_L(q^{jL})_j}{(q)_j^2(q^L)_j}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^{Ln}q^{T_L+T_{n1}Ln}=$$

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^{Ln}q^{T_{Ln}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^nq^{T_n}.$$
(2.13)
That concludes our treatment of the last sum in (2.7).

We now turn our attention to the first sum in (2.7). We start by rewriting it in the form

$$(q)_L\underset{i=0}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{z^iq^{T_i}}{(q)_i}\underset{\begin{array}{c}zq^i\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}_4\varphi _3\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{\frac{iL}{2}},q^{\frac{iL}{2}},q^{\frac{1+iL}{2}},q^{\frac{1+iL}{2}};q,q\hfill \\ q^{iL}\frac{q}{b},q^{iL}z,\frac{q}{z}\hfill \end{array}\right).$$
(2.14)
As before, we will treat $`{}_{4}{}^{}\varphi _{3}^{}`$ in (2.14) as a limiting case of $`{}_{5}{}^{}\varphi _{4}^{}`$

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}zq^i\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}_4\varphi _3=\underset{\begin{array}{c}c\mathrm{}\\ zq^i\\ bq\end{array}}{lim}_5\varphi _4\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{\frac{iL}{2}},q^{\frac{iL}{2}},q^{\frac{1+iL}{2}},q^{\frac{1+iL}{2}},\frac{q^{1+iL}}{bc};q,q\hfill \\ q^{iL}\frac{q}{b},q^{iL}\frac{q}{c},q^{iL}z,\frac{q}{z}\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(2.15)
to which the Sears–Carlitz formula (1.21) can be applied. This way after simplification we have for the first sum in (2.7)

$$\underset{i0}{}z^iq^{T_L}(1)^{Li}\underset{n=0}{\overset{Li}{}}(1)^nq^{T_{n1}Ln}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^{Ln}q^{T_{Ln}}\underset{i=0}{\overset{Ln}{}}(z)^i=$$

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^nq^{T_n}\frac{1+(1)^nz^{n+1}}{1+z}.$$
(2.16)
Thus, we have established that

$$\underset{Li,j0}{}z^iq^{T_i+j}\frac{(q)_L(q^{i+jL})_j}{(q)_{i+j}(q)_j(q^L)_j}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^nq^{T_n}\frac{1+(1)^nz^{n+1}}{1+z}.$$
(2.17)
We now note that the penultimate sum in (2.7) can be easily obtained from the first one there by $`z\frac{1}{z}`$. Hence,

$$\underset{0i,jL}{}z^iq^{T_i+j}\frac{(q)_L(q^{i+jL})_j}{(q)_{i+j}(q)_j(q^L)_j}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^nq^{T_n}\frac{z+(1)^nz^n}{1+z}.$$
(2.18)
Finally, combining (2.7), (2.13), (2.17) and (2.18) we see that

$$\text{RHS }(\text{1.12})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(1)^nq^{T_n}\left\{\frac{1+(1)^nz^{n+1}}{1+z}+\frac{z+(1)^nz^n}{1+z}\frac{1+z}{1+z}\right\}=$$

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{T_n}\frac{z^n+z^{n+1}}{1+z}=\text{ LHS }(\text{1.12}),$$
(2.19)
as desired.

It is to be noted that when $`L\mathrm{}`$ the right hand side of (1.12) becomes

$$\underset{i,j,k0}{}\frac{q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}}{(q)_i(q)_j(q)_k}z^{ij}(1)^k=(qz,qz^1,q;q)_{\mathrm{}},$$
(2.20)
thanks to a limiting case of (1.11):

$$\underset{i0}{}\frac{q^{T_i}}{(q)_i}z^i=(qz)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(2.21)
## 3. Göllnitz’s Partition Theorem and its refinements

In 1967, Göllnitz  proved the following deep result:

###### Theorem 1.

(Göllnitz)
Let $`A(N)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`N`$ in the form $`N=n_1+n_2+n_3+`$, such that no part is $`=`$ $`1`$ or $`3`$, and $`n_in_{i+1}6`$ with strict inequality if $`n_i0,1,3(mod6)`$.
Let $`B(N)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`N`$ into distinct parts $`2,4,5(mod6)`$. Then

$$A(N)=B(N).$$

Alladi, Andrews, and Gordon  reformulated and refined the above theorem using the language of colored integers. To state their results, we will need a few definitions.

Let $`P(N,i,j,k)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`N`$ into parts occurring in three (primary) colors ordered as

$$𝐀<𝐁<𝐂,$$
(3.1)
such that parts in the same color are distinct and the number of parts in colors $`𝐀,𝐁,𝐂`$ is equal to $`i,j,k`$, respectively.

Next, consider partitions $`\pi `$, such that parts $`=`$ $`1`$ may occur in three primary colors, namely (3.1), but parts $`2`$ may occur in six colors: the three primary colors, and the three secondary colors $`\mathrm{𝐀𝐁},\mathrm{𝐀𝐂},\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$ ordered as

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝐁}<\mathrm{𝐀𝐂}<𝐀<\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}<𝐁<𝐂.$$
(3.2)
We also require that the gap between adjacent parts of $`\pi `$ be $`1`$, where the gap may equal $`1`$ only if both parts are either of the same primary color or the larger part is in a color of higher order according to (3.2). These partitions $`\pi `$ were termed Type–$`1`$ partitions in . We can now state

###### Theorem 2.

(Alladi, Andrews, Gordon)
Let $`G(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)`$ denote the number of Type–$`1`$ partitions of $`N`$ with $`a`$ parts in color $`𝐀,\mathrm{},bc`$ parts in color $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$. (Note that $`bc`$ is a parameter and is not equal to $`b`$ times $`c`$ with similar interpretations for $`ab`$ and $`ac`$). Then

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}G(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)=P(N,i,j,k),$$
(3.3)
where the sum on the left is over the variables $`a,b,c,ab,ac,bc`$ subject to the “$`i,j,k`$-constraints”, which here and everywhere are

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}i=a+ab+ac,\hfill & \\ j=b+ab+bc,\hfill & \\ k=c+ac+bc.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(3.4)
To see the relation between Theorem 1 and Theorem 3.4, we denote the integer $`n`$ in color $`𝐀`$ as $`𝐀_n,\mathrm{}`$ and the integer $`n`$ in color $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$ as $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n`$. Next, we replace the colored integers by the regular integers as follows:

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝐀_n6n4,& n1,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐁_n6n2,& n1,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝐂_n6n1,& n1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐀𝐁}_n6n6,& n>1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐀𝐂}_n6n5,& n>1,\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n6n3,& n>1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.5)
Observe that under replacement (3.5) the ordering

$$\mathrm{𝐀𝐁}_n<\mathrm{𝐀𝐂}_n<𝐀_n<\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}_n<𝐁_n<𝐂_n,n>1$$

becomes the conventional ordering

$$6n6<6n5<6n4<6n3<6n2<6n1,n>1.$$

Since part $`1`$ can occur only as $`𝐀_1,𝐁_1,𝐂_1`$, we conclude that no conventional (uncolored) part equals $`1`$ or $`3`$. In addition, it is easy to verify that under (3.5) the gap conditions on the colored parts of Type–$`1`$ partitions become identical with the gap conditions governing $`A(N)`$ in Theorem 1. Therefore, summing over $`i,j,k`$ one immediately obtains Theorem 1 from Theorem 3.4.

To prove Theorem 3.4, Alladi, Andrews, Gordon stated it in the following form, which they termed as a Key Identity:

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}\frac{q^{T_t+T_{ab}+T_{ac}+T_{bc1}}(1q^a+q^{a+bc})}{(q)_a(q)_b(q)_c(q)_{ab}(q)_{ac}(q)_{bc}}=\frac{q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}}{(q)_i(q)_j(q)_k},$$
(3.6)
where

$$t=a+b+c+ab+ac+bc.$$

Alladi and Berkovich  proved the following polynomial version of (3.6)

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}}q^{T_t+T_{ab}+T_{ac}+T_{bc1}}`$
$`\times \{q^{bc}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+a}{a}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{bc}}\right]_q`$
$`+\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+a1}{a1}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+b}{b}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt+c}{c}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ab}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{ac}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lt}{bc1}}\right]_q\}`$
$`=q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}}\right]_q.`$ (3.7)
Actually in , a doubly bounded version of (3.6) was established. Subsequently, the full triply bounded refinement of (3.6) was found and proven by Berkovich and Riese in . However, for our purposes here, only the singly bounded refinement (3.7) is required. A partition theoretic interpretation of (3.7), given in  is as follows:

###### Theorem 3.

(Alladi, Berkovich)
Let $`G_L(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)`$ be defined as $`G(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)`$ with the additional constraint that no part exceeds $`𝐂_L`$. Let $`P_L(N,i,j,k)`$ be defined as $`P(N,i,j,k)`$ with the additional constraints

$$\lambda (𝐀)𝐀_{Lk},\lambda (𝐁)𝐁_{Li},\lambda (𝐂)𝐂_{Lj},$$

where $`\lambda (𝐀)`$ denotes the largest part in color $`𝐀`$, and $`\lambda (𝐁),\lambda (𝐂)`$ have the analogous interpretation. Then

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}i,j,k\\ \text{constraints}\end{array}}{}G_L(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)=P_L(N,i,j,k).$$
(3.8)
## 4. Theorem 3.8 as a weighted partition identity

Considering transformations similar to (3.5), Alladi , , and more recently Alladi and Berkovich , obtained weighted partition reformulations of Göllnitz’s theorem. We will now follow the well-trodden path in ,  and , and reformulate Theorem 3.8 as a weighted partition identity.

To this end we will multiply both sides in (3.8) by $`A^iB^jC^kq^N`$ and sum over $`i,j,k,N`$ to obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}a,b,\mathrm{},bc0\\ N0\end{array}}{}}A^{a+ab+ac}B^{b+ab+bc}C^{c+ac+bc}q^NG_L(N,a,b,c,ab,ac,bc)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k0}{}}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}A^iB^jC^k\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}}\right]_q\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}}\right]_q.`$ (4.1)
Actually, the combinatorial meaning of the above operation is quite natural. Our emphasis now is to count a part occuring in color $`𝐀`$, or $`𝐁,\mathrm{}`$, or $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$ with weight $`A`$, or $`B,\mathrm{}`$, or $`BC`$, respectively. For purposes of brevity and convenience we denote by $`𝐗`$ one of the six colors above and by $`X`$ its corresponding weight. For example, if $`𝐗=\mathrm{𝐀𝐁}`$, then $`X=AB`$. Here, $`AB`$ actually means $`A`$ times $`B`$, as do $`AC`$ and $`BC`$.

Next, we make the following crucial observation. In Type–$`1`$ partitions, if two parts differ by $`2`$, then colors could be assigned to these parts in any way we please. Thus, there is total “independence” in assigning these colors. So, we may proceed as follows.

Consider a partition $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ into distinct (uncolored) parts. Decompose $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ into chains $`\chi `$, where a chain is a maximal run of consecutive integers. Owing to the “independence” mentioned above, the weight $`\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ may be defined multiplicatively as

$$\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })=\underset{\chi }{}\omega (\chi ),$$
(4.2)
where the product is over all chains $`\chi \stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. In the Appendix, we will determine the weights of these chains as polynomials in $`A,B,C`$ such that the resulting weight $`\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ will be the same as the one we obtain if we attach all possible colors from the set $`\{𝐀,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}\}`$ to the parts of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ in a manner consistent with the color-gap conditions for Type–$`1`$ partitions and then sum over all allowed color assignments counting each part in color $`𝐗`$ with weight $`X`$. In other words, the resulting weight will be

$$\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })=\underset{i=1}{\overset{l(\stackrel{~}{\pi })}{}}X_i,$$
(4.3)
where $`l(\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ is the number of parts of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, $`X_i`$ is the weight of $`i`$-th part of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ in a certain color assignment, and sum is over all allowed color assignments. For example, if $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_1`$ represents partition $`2+4`$, then $`\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi }_1)=(A+B+C+AB+AC+BC)^2`$, and if $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_2`$ represents partition $`1+2`$, then $`\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi }_2)=A(BC+B+C)+B(B+C)+C^2`$. This way we will now establish the following

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`D_L`$ denote the set of all partitions $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ into distinct parts $`L`$ with weights $`\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$, as in (4.2), (8.14) and (8.15). Then

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{\pi }D_L}{}\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })q^{|\stackrel{~}{\pi }|}=\underset{i,j,k0}{}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}A^iB^jC^k\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q,$$
(4.4)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{\pi }|`$ is the sum of parts of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$.

Since

$$\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{i}\right]_q=\frac{1}{(q)_i},$$
(4.5)
we see that (4.4) together with (2.21) yields the following

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`D`$ denote the set of all partitions $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ into distinct parts with weights as in (4.2), (8.14) and (8.15). Then

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{\pi }D}{}\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })q^{|\stackrel{~}{\pi }|}=(Aq,Bq,Cq;q)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(4.6)
As can be seen from the formulas (8.14), (8.15) derived in the Appendix, weights $`\omega (\chi )`$, in general, are somewhat unwieldy, although there is a certain pattern as indicated in (8.15). However, if one sets $`C=1`$ in these formulas, it turns out that there is a dramatic collapse. More precisely, with $`C=1`$ we have (see Appendix for derivation)

$$\omega (\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{l(\chi )}(1AB),\hfill & \text{ if }s(\chi )>1,\hfill \\ (1)^{l(\chi )}\left\{1+_{i=1}^{l(\chi )}((A)^i+(B)^i)\right\},\hfill & \text{ if }s(\chi )=1,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.7)
where $`l(\chi )`$ is the length (number of parts) of the chain $`\chi `$ and $`s(\chi )`$ is the least part of $`\chi `$. Furthermore, setting $`A=\frac{1}{B}=z,C=1`$ in (4.7) yields

$$\omega (\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{z^{l(\chi )}+z^{1+l(\chi )}}{1+z},\hfill & \text{ if }s(\chi )=1,\hfill \\ 0,\hfill & \text{ otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.8)
Now, since

$$|\chi |=1+2+\mathrm{}+l(\chi )=T_{l(\chi )},\text{ if }s(\chi )=1,$$
(4.9)
we obtain with the aid of (4.4) and (4.8)

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{T_l}\frac{z^l+z^{1+l}}{1+z}=\underset{i,j,k0}{}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}z^{ij}(1)^k\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q,$$
(4.10)
which is (1.12). Note that with $`z=1`$ (4.10) becomes

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{T_l}=\underset{i,j,k0}{}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}(1)^k\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q,$$
(4.11)
a polynomial version of a well-known formula of Gauss

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{T_l}=(q)_{\mathrm{}}^2(q)_{\mathrm{}}=(q)_{\mathrm{}}(q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{(q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}.$$
(4.12)
It is instructive to compare (4.11) with two formulas of Shanks

$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{2L1}{}}q^{T_l}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{L1}{}}q^{i(2L+1)}\frac{(q^{2i+2};q^2)_{Li}}{(q^{2i+1};q^2)_{Li}},$$
(4.13)
$$\underset{l=0}{\overset{2L}{}}q^{T_l}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{L}{}}q^{i(2L+1)}\frac{(q^{2i+2};q^2)_{Li}}{(q^{2i+1};q^2)_{Li}}.$$
(4.14)
There is another case that leads to dramatic simplifications in weights $`\omega (\chi )`$ namely,

$$A=B=z,C=1.$$

Here, we deduce from (8.14) and (8.15) that

$$\omega (\chi )=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,\hfill & \text{ if }s(\chi )=1,\hfill \\ 1z^2,\hfill & \text{ if }s(\chi )>1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.15)
In addition, for $`A=B=z,C=1`$ the product in (4.6) can be interpreted as

$$(zq,zq,q;q)_{\mathrm{}}=(z^2q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}(q)_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{(z^2q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}}=\underset{n,j0}{}E(n,j)q^n(z^2)^j,$$
(4.16)
where $`E(n,j)`$ denotes the number of partitions of $`n`$ with exactly $`j`$ distinct even parts (all other parts being odd). And so, combining (4.6), (4.15), and (4.16) we arrive at

$$\underset{k0}{}V(n,k)(1z^2)^k=\underset{j0}{}E(n,j)(z^2)^j,$$
(4.17)
where $`V(n,k)`$ is the number of partitions of $`n`$ into distinct parts with exactly $`k`$ chains of consecutive integers $`1`$. Comparing coefficients in (4.17) we rediscover Andrews’s generalization of Euler’s partition theorem

$$E(n,j)=\underset{kj}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}k\\ j\end{array}\right)V(n,k),$$
(4.18)
also discussed in .

We remark that (4.18) with $`j=0`$ becomes Euler’s theorem:

$$p_o(n)=p_d(n),$$
(4.19)
where $`p_o(n)`$ and $`p_d(n)`$ denote the number of partitions of $`n`$ into odd and distinct parts, respectively. It will be seen in the next section that $`q`$-version of (4.8) is Lebesgue’s identity as stated in (1.14).

## 5. Two-parameter extension of Jacobi’s triple product identity

In this section we will employ Corollary 4.6 with $`C=1`$ and weights given in (4.2) and (4.7) to derive the following generalization of Jacobi’s identity (1.5):

$$\underset{i,j0}{}(1)^iq^{T_{i+j}+i}\frac{(AB)_i}{(q)_i}\left\{\frac{A^{1+j}}{1+A}+\frac{B^{1+j}}{1+B}\right\}+$$

$$\frac{(1AB)}{(1+A)(1+B)}\underset{i,j0}{}(1)^{i+j}q^{T_{i+j}+i}\frac{(AB)_i}{(q)_i}=(Aq,Bq,q;q)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(5.1)
Note that if we set $`A=\frac{1}{B}=z`$, then $`1AB=0`$, and, therefore, we may disregard the second double on the LHS of (5.1). In addition, the first double sum in (5.1) becomes single-fold sum because $`(AB)_i=(1)_i0`$ only if $`i=0`$. Thus, (5.1) reduces in this case to (1.5). To establish (5.1) we begin by proving the following

###### Lemma 1.

Let $`g_i(y,q)`$ denote the generating function of unrestricted partitions $`\pi `$ into exactly $`i`$ parts such that $`\pi `$ is counted with weight $`(1y)^{\nu _d(\pi )}(1)^i`$, where $`\nu _d(\pi )`$ is the number of different parts of $`\pi `$. Then

$$g_i(y,q)=(q)^i\frac{(y;q)_i}{(q)_i}.$$
(5.2)
To prove (5.2) we first consider partitions where all parts are equal to $`j`$, and $`j`$ occurs with frequency $`f_j0`$. Clearly, the generating function for these partitions is

$$1+\underset{f_j1}{}(1y)(\stackrel{~}{t})^{f_j}q^{jf_j}=\frac{1+y\stackrel{~}{t}q^j}{1+\stackrel{~}{t}q^j},$$
(5.3)
where we introduced the additional parameter $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ to keep track of the total number of parts. And so,

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1+y\stackrel{~}{t}q^j)}{(1+\stackrel{~}{t}q^j)}=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{t}yq;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(\stackrel{~}{t}q;q)_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(5.4)
is the generating function for unrestricted partitions such that each part is counted with the weight $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and each different part is counted with the weight $`1y`$. Obviously,

$$\left[\stackrel{~}{t}^i\right]\frac{(\stackrel{~}{t}yq)_{\mathrm{}}}{(\stackrel{~}{t}q)_{\mathrm{}}}=g_i(y,q),$$
(5.5)
where $`\left[\stackrel{~}{t}^i\right]f(\stackrel{~}{t})`$ is the coefficient of $`\stackrel{~}{t}^i`$ in the expansion of $`f(\stackrel{~}{t})`$ in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$. If we now expand (5.4) with the aid of Cauchy’s identity (1.17), we get

$$\frac{(\stackrel{~}{t}yq)_{\mathrm{}}}{(\stackrel{~}{t}q)_{\mathrm{}}}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{t}^i(q)^i\frac{(y)_i}{(q)_i},$$
(5.6)
from which (5.2) follows, as desired.

Analogously, expanding the product

$$\frac{1}{1\stackrel{~}{t}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1\stackrel{~}{t}yq^j}{1\stackrel{~}{t}q^j}=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{t}yq)_{\mathrm{}}}{(\stackrel{~}{t})_{\mathrm{}}},$$
(5.7)
in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, we can prove the following

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`h_i(y,q)`$ denote the generating function of unrestricted partitions $`\pi `$ into exactly $`i`$ nonnegative parts such that $`\pi `$ is counted with weight $`(1y)^{\nu _d^{}(\pi )}`$, where $`\nu _d^{}(\pi )`$ is the number of different positive parts of $`\pi `$. Then

$$h_i(y,q)=\frac{(yq)_i}{(q)_i}.$$
(5.8)
Let us now consider partition $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_tD^t`$, where $`D^t`$ denotes the set of all partitions into distinct parts such that total number of parts equals $`t`$. Let us further assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t`$ can be decomposed into chains of consecutive integers as

$$\chi _0\chi _1\chi _2\chi _3\mathrm{},$$
(5.9)
such that $`s(\chi _0)=1,l(\chi _0)=j0`$ and $`s(\chi _{m>0})1`$. Now if $`i0`$ denotes the total number of parts of $`\chi _1\chi _2\chi _3\mathrm{}`$, then it is obvious that

$$t=i+j.$$
(5.10)
We now subtract $`1`$ from the smallest part of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t`$, $`2`$ from the second smallest part of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t,\mathrm{}`$, $`t`$ from the largest part of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t`$. We call this process the Euler subtraction. Since the Euler subtraction can be easily reversed, it is a bijective process. Note that the Euler subtraction accounts for the factor $`q^{T_{i+j}}`$, which appears on the LHS of (5.1).

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t^{}`$ denote the image of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t`$ after the Euler subtraction, and $`\chi _0^{},\chi _1^{},\chi _2^{},\mathrm{}`$ all have analogous meaning. Then it is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_t^{}P_t`$, where $`P_t`$ stands for the set of all unrestricted partitions into exactly $`t`$ nonnegative parts. Also, it is clear that $`\chi _0^{}`$ represents the part $`0`$, which occurs with frequency $`j=l(\chi _0)0`$, and $`\chi _{m>0}^{}`$ represents a positive part $`s(\chi _m)1_{r=0}^{m1}l(\chi _r)`$, which has frequency $`l(\chi _m)`$.

According to (4.7), $`\chi _0^{}`$ has the weight

$$(1)^j\left\{1+\underset{s=0}{\overset{j}{}}(1)^s(A^s+B^s)\right\}=(1)^j\frac{1AB}{(1+A)(1+B)}+\frac{A^{1+j}}{1+A}+\frac{B^{1+j}}{1+B},$$
(5.11)
while $`\chi _{m>0}^{}`$ has the weight

$$(1)^{l(\chi _{m>0})}(1AB).$$
(5.12)
Hence, we may rewrite the LHS of (4.6) with $`C=1`$ and $`\omega (\stackrel{~}{\pi })`$ as given in (4.2), (4.7) as

$$\underset{t0}{}\underset{i+j=t}{}q^{T_{i+j}}g_i(AB,q)\left\{(1)^j\frac{1AB}{(1+A)(1+B)}+\frac{A^{1+j}}{1+A}+\frac{B^{1+j}}{1+B}\right\}.$$
(5.13)
Finally, using (5.2) we derive for (4.6) with $`C=1`$

$$\underset{i,j0}{}(1)^iq^{T_{i+j}+i}\frac{(AB)_i}{(q)_i}\left\{(1)^j\frac{1AB}{(1+A)(1+B)}+\frac{A^{1+j}}{1+A}+\frac{B^{1+j}}{1+B}\right\}=$$

$$(Aq,Bq,q;q)_{\mathrm{}},$$
(5.14)
which is essentially (5.1), as desired.

If we repeat the above analysis for the Corollary 4.6 with $`A=B=z,C=1`$ and weights as in (4.2) and (4.15) we get, with the aid of Lemma 5.8

$$\underset{t0}{}q^{T_t}h_t(z^2,q)=\underset{t0}{}q^{T_t}\frac{(z^2q)_t}{(q)_t}=(z^2q^2;q^2)_{\mathrm{}}(q)_{\mathrm{}},$$
(5.15)
which is Lebesgue’s identity, as promised at the end of §4.

## 6. Polynomial analogues of Lebesgue’s identity

It is well known that Lebesgue’s identity (1.14) is a special case of the $`q`$-Kummer sum (1.19). Indeed, if in (1.19) we set $`a=z^2q`$ and let $`b\mathrm{}`$, we obtain (1.14) thanks to

$$\underset{b\mathrm{}}{lim}(b;q)_nb^n=(1)^nq^{T_{n1}}.$$
(6.1)
On the other hand, if in (1.19) we set $`a=z^2q,b=q^L`$, then we derive the following polynomial version of Lebesgue’s identity:

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{L}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{j}\right]_qq^{T_j}(z^2q)_j(z^2q^{2+L+j})_{Lj}=(q)_L(z^2q^2;q^2)_L.$$
(6.2)
Comparing (6.2) and (1.15) we see that these polynomial versions of (1.14) are radically different.

As a first step towards (1.15) we extend Lemma 5.8 in §5 as follows.

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`h_{L,i}(y,q)`$ be defined as $`h_i(y,q)`$ in Lemma 5.8 with an additional constraint that no part exceeds $`L`$. Then

$$h_{L,i}(y,q)=\underset{j0}{}q^{T_j}(y)^j\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L+ij}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]_q.$$
(6.3)
To prove (6.3) we observe that

$$h_{L,i}(y,q)=\left[\stackrel{~}{t}^i\right]\frac{(qy\stackrel{~}{t})_L}{(\stackrel{~}{t})_{L1}}.$$
(6.4)
To expand the ratio $`\frac{(qy\stackrel{~}{t})_L}{(\stackrel{~}{t})_{L1}}`$ in powers of $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ we can employ formula (1.11) along with another identity of Euler

$$\frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{t})_{L+1}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{t}^n\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+L}{n}\right]_q$$
(6.5)
to get

$$\frac{(qy\stackrel{~}{t})_L}{(\stackrel{~}{t})_{L+1}}=\underset{n,m0}{}(y)^n\stackrel{~}{t}^{n+m}q^{T_n}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{n}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{m+L}{m}\right]_q.$$
(6.6)
Using (6.4) and (6.6) it is straightforward to verify (6.3). We are now ready to deduce the identity (1.15) from Theorem 4 with $`A=B=z,C=1`$ and weights as given in (4.2), (4.15). Since our analysis will be very similar to that carried in §5, we will only sketch it here.

Let us consider partition $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{L,i}D_{L,i}`$, where $`D_{L,i}`$ denoted the set of all partitions into $`i`$ distinct parts, each $`L`$. As before we decompose $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{L,i}`$ into chains of consecutive integers (none exceeding $`L`$) as

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{L,i}=\chi _0\chi _1\chi _2\mathrm{},$$

where $`s(\chi _0)=1,l(\chi _0)0,s(\chi _{m>0})>1`$ and

$$i=l(\chi _0)+l(\chi _1)+l(\chi _2)+\mathrm{}\text{ .}$$
(6.7)
We now perform the Euler subtraction, explained in §5. Note that this subtraction gives rise to the factor $`q^{T_i}`$ in the LHS of (1.15). Let us introduce symbols $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{L,i}^{},\chi _m^{}`$, which denote image of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{L,i}`$ and $`\chi _m`$, respectively, after the Euler subtraction. It is clear that

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{L,i}^{}P_{Li,i},$$
(6.8)
where $`P_{L,i}`$ denotes the set of all unrestricted partitions into $`i`$ nonnegative parts, each $`L`$. In addition, $`\chi _0^{}`$ represents part $`=0`$, which occurs with the frequency $`l(\chi _0)0`$, and $`\chi _m^{}>0`$ represents positive part $`s(\chi _{m>0})1_{r=0}^{m1}l(\chi _r)`$, whose frequency is $`l(\chi _{m>0})`$.

Now, according to (4.15) we need to count $`\chi _0^{}`$ with weight $`=1`$, and $`\chi _{m>0}^{}`$ with the weight $`=(1z^2)`$. Thus, we can rewrite the LHS of (4.4) as

$$\underset{i0}{}q^{T_i}h_{Li,i}(z^2,q).$$
(6.9)
Recalling (6.3), we have with $`A=B=z,C=1`$ and weights as given in (4.2) and (4.15), the following specialization of (4.4),

$$\underset{i0}{}q^{T_i}\underset{j0}{}q^{T_j}(z^2)^j\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]_q=$$

$$\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^jq^{T_i+T_j+T_k}z^{i+j}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q,$$
(6.10)
which is (1.15), as desired.

When $`L\mathrm{}`$, (6.10) reduces to (1.14), because (1.11) can be used to evaluate the inner sum on the left of (6.10), and (2.21) can be utilized to show that the right hand side of (6.10) has the desired product representation.

This is not the end of the story, however. Recently, George Andrews communicated to us the following polynomial version of Lebesgue’s identity

$$\underset{i,j0}{}q^{T_i+T_j}(z^2)^j\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]_q=\underset{j0}{}(z^2q^2;q^2)_jq^{T_{L2j1}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L+1}{2j+1}\right]_q.$$
(6.11)
Identity (6.11) can be proven by showing that both sides in (6.11) satisfy the same second order recurrences:

$$F_L(z,q)=(1+q^L)F_{L1}(z,q)z^2q^LF_{L2}(z,q),$$
(6.12)
and the same initial conditions

$$F_0(z,q)=1,F_1(z,q)=1+q.$$
(6.13)
Comparing (6.10) and (6.11) we infer that

$$\underset{j0}{}(z^2q^2;q^2)_jq^{T_{L2j1}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L+1}{2j+1}\right]_q=$$

$$\underset{i,j,k0}{}(1)^jz^{i+j}q^{T_i+T_j+T_k}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}\right]_q.$$
(6.14)
It would be worthwhile to determine the precise $`q`$-hypergeometric status of (6.14).

In a recent paper , Santos and Sills discussed two polynomial analogues of Lebesgue’s identity (1.14) with $`z^2=1,q^1`$. Their results can be stated as

$$\underset{i,j0}{}q^{T_i+T_j}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]_q=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^jq^{2j^2+j}𝐓_1\left(\begin{array}{c}L+1\\ 4j+1\end{array}\right),$$
(6.15)
and

$$\underset{i,j0}{}q^{T_i+T_{j1}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{i}{j}\right]_q=\underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^jq^{2j^2}𝐓_1\left(\begin{array}{c}L+1\\ 4j+1\end{array}\right),$$
(6.16)
where $`q`$-trinomial coefficients $`𝐓_1\left(\begin{array}{c}L\\ A\end{array}\right)`$ of Andrews and Baxter  are defined as

$$𝐓_1\left(\begin{array}{c}L\\ A\end{array}\right)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}r=0\\ rL+A(mod2)\end{array}}{\overset{L|A|}{}}q^{T_r}\frac{(q)_L}{(q)_{\frac{LAr}{2}}(q)_{\frac{L+Ar}{2}}(q)_r}.$$
(6.17)
We remark that (6.15), (6.16) are special cases of generalized Gordon-Göllnitz identities found by Berkovich, McCoy, Orrick  (see (2.33) with $`\nu =2,r^{}=s^{}=0`$ and (2.34) with $`\nu =2,r^{}=0,s^{}=1`$). It appears that polynomial identities (6.15), (6.16) can not be generalized in a simple fashion to deal with all values of $`z`$ in Lebesgue’s identity (1.14). Nevertheless, it would be interesting to understand the relations between (6.10) with $`z^2=1,q^1`$ and (6.15), (6.16).

## 7. Outlook

One of the objects of this paper has been to illustrate how the bounded Key Identity (3.7) introduced in  can be used to discover and prove unexpected polynomial versions of certain $`q`$-series identities. This account is by no means exhaustive. In our subsequent publications we will explore further implications of the bounded Göllnitz partition theorem. In particular, we will prove among other things the following new identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n,i0}{}}q^{\frac{3n^2n}{2}+T_i}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li2n+2}{i,ni}}\right]_qz^{n+i}{\displaystyle \underset{n,i0}{}}q^{\frac{3n^2+n}{2}+T_i}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li2n}{i,n1i}}\right]_qz^{n+1+i}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,i,k0}{}}q^{3(T_i+T_j+T_k)2ij}z^{i+j+k}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}}\right]_{q^3}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lj}{k}}\right]_{q^3}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Lk}{i}}\right]_{q^3}`$
$`zq^{3L}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k0}{}}q^{3(T_i+T_j+T_k)2ij}z^{i+j+k}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L1i}{j}}\right]_{q^3}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L1j}{k}}\right]_{q^3}\left[{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L1k}{i}}\right]_{q^3},`$ (7.1)
where

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{i,j}\right]_q=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{L}{i}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{Li}{j}\right]_q.$$
(7.2)
It is easy to verify that as $`L\mathrm{}`$ (7.1) reduces to the famous result of Sylvester

$$\underset{n0}{}q^{\frac{3n^2n}{2}}\frac{(1+zq^{2n})(zq)_{n1}}{(q)_n}=(zq)_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(7.3)
## 8. Appendix

Here we derive formulas (8.14) and (8.15) for weights $`\omega (\chi )`$ in (4.2), and formula (4.7).
Let $`\omega _l(𝐗)`$ denote weight of the chain $`\chi `$ of length $`l`$ with smallest part $`s(\chi )`$ in color $`𝐗\{𝐀,𝐁,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}\}`$. Then using the color-gap conditions (see paragraph following (3.2)) and keeping in mind that each part in color $`𝐗`$ is counted with the weight $`X`$, it is straightforward to derive the following recurrences.

$`\omega _l(𝐂)=C\omega _{l1}(𝐂),`$ (8.1)
$`\omega _l(𝐁)=B(\omega _{l1}(𝐁)+\omega _{l1}(𝐂)),`$ (8.2)
$`\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐁𝐂})=BC(\omega _{l1}(𝐁)+\omega _{l1}(𝐂)),`$ (8.3)
$`\omega _l(𝐀)=A(\omega _{l1}(𝐀)+\omega _{l1}(\mathrm{𝐁𝐂})+\omega _{l1}(𝐁)+\omega _{l1}(𝐂)),`$ (8.4)
$`\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐀𝐂})=AC(\omega _{l1}(𝐀)+\omega _{l1}(\mathrm{𝐁𝐂})+\omega _{l1}(𝐁)+\omega _{l1}(𝐂)),`$ (8.5)
$`\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐀𝐁})=AB(\omega _{l1}(\mathrm{𝐀𝐂})+\omega _{l1}(𝐀)+\omega _{l1}(\mathrm{𝐁𝐂})+\omega _{l1}(𝐁)+\omega _{l1}(𝐂)).`$ (8.6)
For instance, to derive (8.3) we note that if we remove the smallest part in color $`\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}`$ from the chain $`\chi `$, then the new chain will have length $`l1`$ and its smallest part will be in color $`𝐁`$ or $`𝐂`$, according to the color-gap conditions for the Type–$`1`$ partitions. Clearly, recurrences (8.1)–(8.6) along with the obvious initial conditions

$$\omega _1(𝐗)=X,\text{ with }𝐗\{𝐀,\mathrm{},\mathrm{𝐁𝐂}\}$$
(8.7)
determine $`\omega _l(𝐗)`$ uniquely. It is easy to solve (8.1)–(8.6) together with (8.7) in sequential fashion starting with (8.1). This way we get

$`\omega _l(𝐂)=C^l,`$ (8.8)
$`\omega _l(𝐁)={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+k=l\\ j1\end{array}}{}}B^jC^k,`$ (8.9)
$`\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐁𝐂})=BC{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=l1}{}}B^jC^k,`$ (8.10)
$`\omega _l(𝐀)={\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j+k=l\\ i1\end{array}}{}}A^iB^jC^k+ABC{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l2}{}}A^iB^jC^k,`$ (8.11)
$`\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐀𝐂})=AC\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l1}{}}A^iB^jC^k+ABC{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l3}{}}A^iB^jC^k\right\}+`$
$`ABC^2{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=l2}{}}B^jC^k,`$ (8.12)
$`\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐀𝐁})=`$ (8.13)
$`AB\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l1}{}}A^iB^jC^k+ABC{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l3}{}}A^iB^jC^k+BC{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=l2}{}}B^jC^k\right\}+`$
$`A^2BC\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l2}{}}A^iB^jC^k+ABC{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l4}{}}A^iB^jC^k+BC{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=l3}{}}B^jC^k\right\},`$
where we used the convention that all summation variables are $`0`$, unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Next, if $`s(\chi )=1`$, then according to the initial conditions for the Type–$`1`$ partitions the smallest part of $`\chi `$ may occur only in colors $`𝐀,𝐁,𝐂`$. Hence,

$$\omega (\chi )=\omega _l(𝐀)+\omega _l(𝐁)+\omega _l(𝐂)=$$

$$\underset{i+j+k=l}{}A^iB^jC^k+ABC\underset{i+j+k=l2}{}A^iB^jC^k,\text{if }s(\chi )=1,$$
(8.14)
where $`l`$ is the length of chain $`\chi `$. On the other hand, if $`s(\chi )1`$, then the smallest part of $`\chi `$ may occur in all six colors and, as a result, we have

$$\omega (\chi )=\omega _l(𝐀)+\omega _l(𝐁)+\mathrm{}+\omega _l(\mathrm{𝐁𝐂})=$$
(8.15)
$$F_l(A,B,C)+A(B+C)F_{l1}(A,B,C)+A^2BCF_{l2}(A,B,C),\text{if }s(\chi )>1,$$

where $`l`$ is the length of $`\chi `$ as before, and

$$F_l(A,B,C)=\underset{i+j+k=l}{}A^iB^jC^k+ABC\underset{i+j+k=l2}{}A^iB^jC^k+BC\underset{j+k=l1}{}B^jC^k.$$
(8.16)
We now move on to derive (4.7). To this end we rewrite $`F_l(A,B,1)`$ as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l}{}}A^iB^j(1)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j+k=l,\\ i1,j1\end{array}}{}}A^iB^j(1)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+k=l,\\ j1\end{array}}{}}B^j(1)^k=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i+k=l}{}}A^i(1)^k+{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=l}{}}B^j(1)^k(1)^l{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+k=l\\ j1\end{array}}{}}B^j(1)^k=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i+k=l}{}}A^i(1)^k+(1)^l(1)^l=(1)^l{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^i.`$ (8.17)
Now, (8.15) with $`C=1`$ becomes

$`\omega (\chi )=`$ $`(1)^l\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^i+(B1){\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^iB{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^i\right\}=`$
$`(1)^l\left\{1+B{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^iB{\displaystyle \underset{i=2}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^i\right\}=(1)^l(1AB),`$ (8.18)
which is the first case in (4.7). Formula (8.14) with $`C=1`$ yields

$`\omega (\chi )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=l}{}}A^iB^j(1)^k{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i+j+k=l,\\ i1,j1\end{array}}{}}A^iB^j(1)^k=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i+k=l}{}}A^i(1)^k+{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=l}{}}B^j(1)^k(1)^l=`$ (8.19)
$`(1)^l`$ $`\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{l}{}}}(A)^i+{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{l}{}}}(B)^j1\right\}=(1)^l\left\{1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{l}{}}}((A)^i+(B)^i)\right\},`$
which is the second case in (4.7).

Similarly, if one sets $`A=B,C=1`$ in (8.14) and (8.15), there is a collapse as indicated in (4.15). This can be shown in a manner similar to the case $`C=1`$ discussed above.

### Acknowledgement

We would like to thank George E. Andrews and Axel Riese for stimulating discussions.