format: text

text:
# On the Entanglement Properties of Two-Rebits Systems.

## I Introduction

It has been recently pointed out by Caves, Fuchs, and Rungta  that real quantum mechanics (that is, quantum mechanics defined over real vector spaces ) provides an interesting foil theory whose study may shed some light on which aspects of quantum entanglement are unique to standard quantum theory, and which ones are more generic over other physical theories endowed with the phenomenon of entanglement.

Nowadays there is general consensus on the fact that the phenomenon of entanglement is one of the most fundamental and non-classical features exhibited by quantum systems . Quantum entanglement is the basic resource required to implement several of the most important processes studied by quantum information theory , such as quantum teleportation , and superdense coding . A state of a composite quantum system constituted by subsystems $`A`$ and $`B`$ is called “entangled” if it can not be represented as a convex linear combination of product states. In other words, the density matrix $`\rho ^{AB}`$ represents an entangled state if it can not be expressed as

$$\rho ^{AB}=\underset{k}{}p_k\rho _k^A\rho _k^B,$$
(1)
with $`0p_k1`$ and $`_kp_k=1`$. On the contrary, states of the form (1) are called separable. The above definition is physically meaningful because entangled states (unlike separable states) cannot be prepared locally by acting on each subsystem individually . The entanglement of formation provides a natural quantitative measure of entanglement with a clear physical motivation .

In standard quantum mechanics the simplest systems exhibiting the phenomenon of entanglement are two-qubits systems. They play a fundamental role in Quantum Information Theory. It should be stressed that the concomitant space of (mixed) two-qubits states is $`15`$-dimensional and its properties are not trivial. An explicit expression for the entanglement of formation of a two-qubits state $`\rho `$ has been found by Wootters . Wootters’ celebrated formula has allowed for a systematic survey of the entanglement properties of the space of two-qubits states .

Within quantum mechanics defined over real vector spaces, the most basic kind of composite systems are two-rebits systems. Rebits are systems whose (pure) states are described by normalized vectors in a two dimensional real vector space. A rebit may be regarded as the simplest possible quantum object . An explicit expression for the entanglement of formation of arbitrary states of two-rebits has been obtained by Caves, Fuchs and Rungta .

The aim of the present work is to explore numerically the entanglement properties of two-rebits systems. We pay particular attention to the relationship between entanglement and purity.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II we review the CFR expression for the entanglement of formation of arbitrary two-rebits states, and discuss some of its immediate consequences. The relationships, for two-rebits systems, between the amount of entanglement and the degree of mixture are investigated in sections III. Finally, some conclusions are drawn in section IV.

## II The CFR Formula and Some of its Consequences

Caves, Fuchs, and Rungta formula for the entanglement of formation of a two-rebits state $`\rho `$ reads

$$E[\rho ]=h\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}\right),$$
(2)
where

$$h(x)=x\mathrm{log}_2x(1x)\mathrm{log}_2(1x),$$
(3)
and the concurrence $`C`$ is given by

$$C[\rho ]=\mathrm{tr}(\tau )=\mathrm{tr}(\rho \sigma _y\sigma _y).$$
(4)
The above expression has to be evaluated by recourse to the matrix elements of $`\rho `$ computed with respect to the product basis, $`i,j=ij,i,j=0,1`$.

We are also going to need a quantitative measure of mixedness. There are several measures of the degree of mixture that can be useful within the present context. The von Neumann measure

$$S=Tr\left(\rho \mathrm{ln}\rho \right),$$
(5)
is important because of its relationship with the thermodynamic entropy. On the other hand, the so called participation ratio,

$$R(\rho )=\frac{1}{Tr(\rho ^2)},$$
(6)
is particularly convenient for calculations .

A remarkable property of two-rebits states, which transpires immediately from the CFR expressions (2-4), is that their square concurrence (and, consequently, their entanglement of formation) are completely determined by the expectation value of one single observable, namely, $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$. On the contrary, it has been recently proved that there is no observable (not even for pure states) whose sole expectation value constitutes enough information to determine the entanglement of a two-qubits state . The operator $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ has eigenvalues $`1`$ and $`1`$, both two-fold degenerated. Let us denote by $`\varphi _{1,2}`$ the pair of eigenvectors with eigenvalue $`1`$, and $`\varphi _{3,4}`$ the eigenvectors with eigenvalue $`1`$, so that

$$\sigma _y\sigma _y=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\varphi _i\varphi _i\underset{i=3}{\overset{4}{}}\varphi _i\varphi _i.$$
(7)
A notable consequence of the CFR expressions (2-4) is that there are mixed states of two rebits with maximum entanglement (that is, with $`C^2=1`$). For instance all states of the form

$$\rho =p\varphi _1\varphi _1+(1p)\varphi _2\varphi _2,$$
(8)
with $`0p1`$, are maximally entangled. Hence, for any participation rate within the range $`1R2`$ there exist two-rebits states with maximum entanglement. We shall return to this point later, when we discuss the distribution of general two-rebits states in the $`(R,C^2)`$-plane.

## III Entanglement vs. Purity for Arbitrary Two-Rebits States.

### A Measure on the Two-Rebits State Space

In order to explore numerically the properties of arbitrary two-rebits states, it is necessary to introduce an appropriate measure $`\mu `$ on the space $`𝒮_R`$ of general two-rebits states. Such a measure is needed to compute volumes within the space $`𝒮_R`$, as well as to determine what is to be understood by a uniform distribution of states on $`𝒮_R`$. In order to find a natural measure on $`𝒮`$ we are going to follow a line of reasoning akin to the one pursued by Zyczkowski et al.  in the case of two-qubits states.

An arbitrary (pure and mixed) state $`\rho `$ of a (real) quantum system described by an $`N`$-dimensional real Hilbert space can always be expressed as the product of three matrices,

$$\rho =RD[\{\lambda _i\}]R^T.$$
(9)
Here $`R`$ is an $`N\times N`$ orthogonal matrix and $`D[\{\lambda _i\}]`$ is an $`N\times N`$ diagonal matrix whose diagonal elements are $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N\}`$, with $`1\lambda _i0`$, and $`_i\lambda _i=1`$. The group of orthogonal matrices $`O(N)`$ is endowed with a unique, uniform measure $`\nu `$ . On the other hand, the simplex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, consisting of all the real $`N`$-uples $`\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _N\}`$ appearing in (9), is a subset of a $`(N1)`$-dimensional hyperplane of $`^N`$. Consequently, the standard normalized Lebesgue measure $`_{N1}`$ on $`^{N1}`$ provides a natural measure for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The aforementioned measures on $`O(N)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lead then to a natural measure $`\mu `$ on the set $`𝒮_R`$ of all the states of our (real) quantum system, namely,

$$\mu =\nu \times _{N1}.$$
(10)
We are going to consider the set of states of a two-rebits system. Consequently, our system will have $`N=4`$. All our present considerations are based on the assumption that the uniform distribution of states of a two-rebit system is the one determined by the measure (10). Thus, in our numerical computations we are going to randomly generate states of a two-qubits system according to the measure (10).

### B Entanglement and Degree of Mixture.

The relationship between the amount of entanglement and the purity of quantum states of composite systems has been recently discussed in the literature . The amount of entanglement and the purity of quantum states of composite systems exhibit a dualistic relationship. As the degree of mixture increases, quantum states tend to have a smaller amount of entanglement. In the case of two-qubits systems, states with a large enough degree of mixture are always separable . To study the relationship between entanglement and mixture we need quantitative measures for these two quantities. As already mentioned, the entanglement of formation provides a natural quantitative measure of entanglement with a clear physical motivation .

The continuous line in Fig. 1 depicts the behavior of the mean entanglement of formation $`E`$ of real density matrices, as given by the CFR formula, as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$. The dashed line in Fig. 1 corresponds to the mean entanglement of the same matrices, as given by Wootters’ formula. In other words, in Fig. 1 the continuous line describes the mean entanglement of formation of the real density matrices when regarded as defined on a real vector space, while the dashed line describes the entanglement of formation of these same matrices when they are considered in the context of the standard complex vector space. We see that the CFR formula always gives, for the mean entanglement of formation, a value larger than the one obtained by recourse of the Wootters’ expression. In this respect, our numerical results are fully consistent with the general arguments provided in .

The continuous line in Fig. 2 illustrates the behavior of the mean entanglement of formation $`E`$ of real density matrices (given by the CFR expression) as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$. The dashed line in Fig. 2 shows the behavior of the mean entanglement of formation $`E`$ of complex density matrices (given by Wootters’ formula) as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$.

The largest eigenvalue $`\lambda _m`$ of the density matrix constitutes a legitimate measure of mixture, in the sense that states with larger values of $`\lambda _m`$ can be regarded as less mixed. Its extreme values correspond to (i) pure states (with $`\lambda _m=1`$) and (ii) the density matrix $`\frac{1}{4}\widehat{I}`$ (with $`\lambda _m=1/4`$). In Fig. 3 we depict the mean entanglement $`E`$ of all the two-rebits states with a given value of their maximum eigenvalue $`\lambda _m`$, as a function of this last quantity. The upper line corresponds to the CFR expression and the lower line to Wootters formula. Notice that, in the case of Wootters formula, the mean entanglement vanishes for $`\lambda _m1/3`$.

We have also computed numerically the probability $`P(E)`$ of finding a two-rebits state endowed with an amount of entanglement $`E`$. In Fig. 4 we compare (i) the distributions associated with two-rebits states with (ii) the distributions associated with two-qubits states which were recently obtained by Zyczkowski et al. . Fig. 4a depicts the probability $`P(E)`$ of finding two-qubits states endowed with a given entanglement $`E`$ (as computed with Wootters’ expression). The solid line correspond to arbitrary states and the dashed line to pure states. In a similar way, Fig. 4b exhibits a plot of the probability $`P(E)`$ of finding two-rebits states endowed with a given entanglement $`E`$ (as computed with the CFR formula). The solid line correspond to arbitrary states and the dashed line to pure states. Comparing Figs 4a and 4b we find that the distributions $`P(E)`$ describing arbitrary states (that is, both pure and mixed states) exhibit the same qualitative shape for both two-qubits and two-rebits states: in the two cases the distribution $`P(E)`$ is a decreasing function of $`E`$. On the contrary, the distribution $`P(E)`$ corresponding to pure two-rebits states differs considerably from the one associated with pure two-qubits states. The probability distribution $`P(E)`$ for pure states of two-rebits reaches its maximum value for separable states ($`E=0`$), and it is a monotonous decreasing function of the entanglement of formation $`E`$. On the contrary, the distribution corresponding to pure states of two-qubits is an increasing function of $`E`$ for low values of the entanglement, and decreases with $`E`$ for large enough values of this variable. It adopts its maximum value for an intermediate value of $`E`$. The general conclusion that we may draw from Fig. 4 is that the two curves representing the distributions $`P(E)`$ associated with (i) pure states and (ii) arbitrary states do not differ, in the case of two-rebits states, as much as they do in the case of two-qubits states.

The distribution $`P(E)`$ for pure two-rebits states can be obtained analytically. Let us write a pure two-rebits state in the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_i\varphi _i,$$
(11)
where

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}c_i^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1},c_i.$$
(12)
The states $`(\varphi _i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$) are the eigenstates of the operator $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$, in the same order as in equation (7). The four real numbers $`c_i`$ constitute the coordinates of a point lying in the three dimensional unitary hyper-sphere $`S_3`$ (which is embedded in $`^4`$). We now introduce on $`S_3`$ three angular coordinates, $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, and $`\theta `$, defined by

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _1,`$ (13)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _1,`$ (14)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _2,`$ (15)
$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi _2,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\theta <{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}\varphi _1,\varphi _2<2\pi .`$ (16)
In terms of the above angular coordinates, the concurrence of the pure state $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is given by

$$C=\sigma _y\sigma _y=\mathrm{cos}2\theta .$$
(17)
The element of volume on the three dimensional hyper-sphere is $`\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta d\theta d\varphi _1d\varphi _2`$. Thus, the total volume associated with a small interval $`d\theta `$ is

$$dv=4\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta d\theta .$$
(18)
Inspection of equations (17) and (18) allows one to deduce that the probability density $`P(C)`$ of finding a pure two-rebits state with concurrence $`C`$ is

$$P(C)=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\left|\frac{dv}{d\theta }\right|\left|\frac{d\theta }{dC}\right|=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}.$$
(19)
The concomitant probability density $`P(E)`$ of finding a pure state with entanglement of formation $`E`$ is then equal to

$$P(E)=\left|\frac{dE}{dC}\right|^1,$$
(20)
where $`dE/dC`$ is to be computed from expressions (2) and (3). It can be verified from equation (20) that the limit value of $`P(E)`$ associated with states of maximum entanglement is $`P(E=1)=\mathrm{ln}2`$. This value corresponds to the horizontal line in Figure 4b.

### C Maximum Entanglement Compatible with a Given Degree of Mixture.

We are now going to determine which is the maximum entanglement $`E_m`$ that a two-rebits state with a given participation radio $`R`$ may have. Since $`E`$ is a monotonic increasing function of the concurrence $`C`$, we shall find the maximum value of $`C`$ compatible with a given value of $`R`$. In order to solve the concomitant variational problem (and bearing in mind that $`C=\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ ), let us first find the state that extremizes $`\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^2)`$ under the constraints associated with a given value of $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$, and the normalization of $`\rho `$. This variational problem can be cast as

$$\delta \left[\mathrm{Tr}(\rho ^2)+\beta \sigma _y\sigma _y\alpha \mathrm{Tr}(\rho )\right]=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},$$
(21)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are appropriate Lagrange multipliers. The solution of the above variational equation is given by the density matrix

$$\rho _m=\frac{1}{2}\left[\alpha I\beta (\sigma _y\sigma _y)\right].$$
(22)
The value of the Lagrange multiplier $`\alpha `$ is immediately determined by the normalization requirement,

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\rho )=1\alpha =\frac{1}{2}.$$
(23)
Consequently, those two-rebits states yielding the extremum values of $`Tr(\rho ^2)`$ (and also the extremum values of $`R=1/Tr(\rho ^2`$)) compatible both with normalization and a given value of $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$ are described by the density matrix

$$\rho _m=\frac{1}{4}I\frac{1}{2}\beta (\sigma _y\sigma _y),$$
(24)
with the Lagrange multiplier $`\beta `$ lying in the interval

$$\beta [\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}].$$
(25)
Density matrices of the form (24), corresponding to negative values of $`\beta `$, have been considered in , although not in connection with the variational problem that we are discussing here.

In terms of the parameter $`\beta `$, the expectation value $`\sigma _y\sigma _y`$, the concurrence squared $`C^2`$, and the participation ratio of the statistical operator $`\rho _m`$ are given by

$`\sigma _y`$ $``$ $`\sigma _y=2\beta ,`$ (26)
$`C^2`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _y\sigma _y^2=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\beta ^2,`$ (27)
$`R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1+4\beta ^2}},`$ (28)
Hence, the maximum value of $`R`$ compatible with a given value of $`C^2`$ is given by

$$R_m(C^2)=\frac{4}{1+C^2}.$$
(29)
$`R_m(C^2)`$ is a monotonic decreasing function of $`C^2`$ and adopts its values in the interval $`2R4`$. This implies that, within this range of $`R`$-values, the maximum value of $`C^2`$ compatible with a given value of $`R`$ is the one obtained when solving Eq. (29) for $`C^2`$, namely,

$$C^2=\frac{4}{R}1.$$
(30)
On the other hand, for $`1R2`$ there always exist density matrices of maximum entanglement (that is, with $`C^2=1`$). As a consequence, the maximum value of $`C^2`$ compatible with a given value of $`R`$ is given by

$$C_m^2=\{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}R2}{\frac{4}{R}1;\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}2}R4}$$
(31)
In Fig. 5 we plot (in the $`(R,C^2)`$-plane) one million numerically generated random two-rebits states. The solid line corresponds to the maximum concurrence squared $`C_m^2`$, for a given value of the participation radio $`R`$, as given by Eq. (31).

## IV Conclusions

We have explored numerically the entanglement properties of two-rebits systems. We paid particular attention to the relationship between entanglement and purity. We have computed numerically the mean entanglement of formation of two-rebits systems (as determined by the CFR formula (2)) as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$. We have also determined numerically the probability densities $`P(E)`$ of finding (i) pure two-rebits states and (ii) arbitrary two-rebits states, endowed with a given amount of entanglement $`E`$. Furthermore, we surveyed the distribution of general two-rebits states in the $`(R,C^2)`$-plane. In particular, we determined analytically the maximum possible value of the concurrence squared $`C^2`$ of two-rebits states compatible with a given value of the participation ratio. An interesting feature that deserves special mention is that, with regards to the probability of finding states with a given amount of entanglement, the difference between mixed states and pure states is much larger for qubits than for rebits.

It would be interesting to perform, for quaternionic quantum mechanics , an analysis similar as the one done here.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was partially supported by the DGES grants PB98-0124 (Spain), and by CONICET (Argentine Agency).

FIGURE CAPTIONS

Fig. 1- Mean entanglement of formation $`E`$ of real density matrices as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$. The continuous line corresponds to the CFR formula. The dashed line corresponds to the mean entanglement of the same matrices, as given by Wootters’ formula.

Fig. 2- The continuous line shows the behavior of the mean entanglement of formation $`E`$ of real density matrices (given by the CFR expression) as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$. The dashed line shows the behavior of the mean entanglement of formation $`E`$ of complex density matrices (given by Wootters formula) as a function of the participation ratio $`R`$.

Fig. 3- Mean entanglement $`E`$ of all the two-rebits states with a given value of their maximum eigenvalue $`\lambda _m`$, as a function of this last quantity. The upper line corresponds to the CFR expression and the lower line to Wootters formula. Notice that, in the case of Wootters formula, the mean entanglement vanishes for $`\lambda _m1/3`$.

Fig. 4a- Plot of the probability $`P(E)`$ of finding two-qubits states endowed with a given entanglement $`E`$. The solid line correspond to arbitrary states and the dashed line to pure states.

Fig. 4b- Plot of the probability $`P(E)`$ of finding two-rebits states endowed with a given entanglement $`E`$. The solid line correspond to arbitrary states and the dashed line to pure states. The horizontal line corresponds to the limit value $`P(E=1)=\mathrm{ln}2`$ of the probability density associated with pure two-rebits states.

Fig. 5- Plot of in the $`(R,E)`$-plane of one million random numerically generated two-rebits states. The solid line corresponds to the maximum entanglement $`E_m`$, for a given value of the participation radio $`R`$.


text:
# A functional equation arising from multiplication of quantum integers11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 30B12, 81R50. Secondary 11B13. Key words and phrases. Quantum integers, quantum polynomial, polynomial functional equation, 𝑞-series, additive bases.

## 1 A polynomial functional equation

Let $`𝐍`$$`=\{1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$ denote the set of natural numbers, and $`𝐍_0=𝐍\{0\}`$ the set of nonnegative integers. For $`n𝐍`$, the polynomial

$$[n]_q=1+q+q^2+\mathrm{}+q^{n1}$$

is called the quantum integer $`n.`$ With the usual multiplication of polynomials, however, we observe that $`[m]_q[n]_q[mn]_q`$ for all $`m1`$ and $`n1`$. We would like to define a polynomial multiplication such that the product of the quantum integers $`[m]_q`$ and $`[n]_q`$ is $`[mn]_q`$.

Consider polynomials with coefficients in a field. Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials. We define a multiplication operation on the polynomials in $``$ by

$$f_m(q)_qf_n(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m).$$

We want to determine all sequences $``$ that satisfy the functional equation

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)_qf_n(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)$$
(1)
for all $`m,n𝐍`$. If the sequence $``$ is a solution of (1), then the operation $`_q`$ is commutative on $``$ since

$$f_m(q)_qf_n(q)=f_{mn}(q)=f_{nm}(q)=f_n(q)_qf_m(q).$$

Equivalently,

$$f_m(q)f_n(q^m)=f_n(q)f_m(q^n)$$
(2)
for all natural numbers $`m`$ and $`n`$.222Note that (1) implies (2), but not conversely, since the sequence $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`f_n(q)=2`$ for all $`n𝐍`$ satisfies (2) but not (1).

Here are three examples of solutions of the functional equation (1). First, the constant sequence defined by $`f_n(q)=1`$ for all $`n𝐍`$ satisfies (1).

Second, let

$$f_n(q)=q^{n1}$$

for all $`n𝐍.`$ Then

$$f_{mn}(q)=q^{mn1}=q^{m1}q^{m(n1)}=f_m(q)f_n\left(q^m\right),$$

and so the polynomial sequence $`\{q^{n1}\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ also satisfies (1).

Third, let $`f_n(q)=[n]_q`$ for all $`n𝐍`$. Then

$`[m]_q_q[n]_q`$ $`=`$ $`f_m(q)_qf_n(q)`$
$`=`$ $`f_m(q)f_n(q^m)`$
$`=`$ $`(1+q+q^2+\mathrm{}+q^{m1})(1+q^m+q^{2m}+\mathrm{}+q^{m(n1)})`$
$`=`$ $`1+q+\mathrm{}+q^{m1}+q^m+q^{m+1}\mathrm{}+q^{mn1}`$
$`=`$ $`[mn]_q,`$
and so the polynomial sequence $`\{[n]_q\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of quantum integers satisfies the functional equation (1).

The identity

$$[m]_q_q[n]_q=[mn]_q$$

is the $`q`$-series expression of the following additive number theoretic identity for sumsets:

$$\{0,1,2,\mathrm{},mn1\}=\{0,1,\mathrm{},m1\}+\{0,m,2m,\mathrm{},(n1)m\}$$

This paper investigates the following problem:

###### Problem 1

Determine all polynomial sequences $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ that satisfy the functional equation (1).

## 2 Prime semigroups

A multiplicative subsemigroup of the natural numbers, or, simply, a semigroup, is a set $`S𝐍`$ such that $`1S`$ and if $`mS`$ and $`nS`$, then $`mnS.`$ For example, for any positive integer $`n_0,`$ the set $`\{1\}\{nn_0\}`$ is a semigroup. If $`P`$ is a set of prime numbers, then the set $`S(P)`$ consisting of the positive integers all of whose prime factors belong to $`P`$ is a multiplicative subsemigroup of $`𝐍`$. If $`P=\mathrm{},`$ then $`S(P)=\{1\}.`$ If $`P=\{p\}`$ contains only one prime, then $`S(P)=\{p^k:k𝐍_0\}.`$ A semigroup of the form $`S(P)`$, where $`P`$ is a set of primes, will be called a prime semigroup.

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation (1). Since

$$f_1(q)=f_1(q)_qf_1(q)=f_1(q)f_1(q),$$

it follows that $`f_1(q)=1`$ or $`f_1(q)=0`$. If $`f_1(q)=0`$, then

$$f_n(q)=f_1(q)_qf_n(q)=f_1(q)f_n(q)=0$$

for all $`n𝐍`$, and $``$ is the sequence of zero polynomials. If $`f_n(q)0`$ for some $`n`$, then $`f_1(q)=1`$.

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be any sequence of functions. The support of $``$ is the set

$$\text{supp}()=\{n𝐍:f_n(q)0\}.$$

The sequence $``$ is called nonzero if $`f_n(q)0`$ for some $`n𝐍`$, or, equivalently, if $`\text{supp}()\mathrm{}.`$ If $``$ satisfies the functional equation (1), then $``$ is nonzero if and only if $`f_1(q)=1.`$

For every positive integer $`n`$, let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ denote the number of not necessarily distinct prime factors of $`n`$. If $`n=p_1^{r_1}\mathrm{}p_k^{r_k},`$ then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)=r_1+\mathrm{}+r_k.`$

###### Theorem 1

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a nonzero sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation (1). The support of $``$ is a prime semigroup. If

$$\text{supp}()=S(P),$$

where $`P`$ is a set of prime numbers, then the sequence $``$ is completely determined by the set of polynomials $`_P=\{f_p(q)\}_{pP}.`$

Proof. Since $``$ is nonzero, we have $`f_1(q)=1`$ and so $`1\text{supp}().`$ If $`m\text{supp}()`$ and $`n\text{supp}()`$, then $`f_m(q)0`$ and $`f_n(q)0,`$ hence

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)0$$

and $`mn\text{supp}().`$ Therefore, $`\text{supp}()`$ is a semigroup.

Let $`P`$ be the set of prime numbers contained in $`\text{supp}()`$. Then $`S(P)\text{supp}().`$ If $`n\text{supp}()`$ and the prime number $`p`$ divides $`n`$, then $`n=pm`$ for some positive integer $`m`$. Since $``$ satisfies the functional equation (1), we have

$$f_n(q)=f_{pm}(q)=f_p(q)f_m(q^p)0,$$

and so $`f_p(q)0`$, hence $`p\text{supp}()`$ and $`pP.`$ Since every prime divisor of $`n`$ belongs to $`\text{supp}()`$, it follows that $`nS(P),`$ and so $`\text{supp}()S(P).`$ Therefore, $`\text{supp}()=S(P)`$ is a prime semigroup.

We use induction on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)`$ for $`n\text{supp}()`$ to show that the sequence $`_P=\{f_p(q)\}_{pP}`$ determines $``$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)=1,`$ then $`n=pP`$ and $`f_p(q)_P.`$ Suppose that $`_P`$ determines $`f_m(q)`$ for all $`m\text{supp}()`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }(m)k`$. If $`n\text{supp}()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(n)=k+1,`$ then $`n=pm,`$ where $`pP`$, $`m\text{supp}()`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(m)=k.`$ It follows that the polynomial $`f_n(q)=f_p(q)f_m(q^p)`$ is determined by $`_P.`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`P`$ be a set of prime numbers, and let $`S(P)`$ be the semigroup generated by $`P`$. Define the sequence $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ by

$$f_n(q)=\{\begin{array}{cc}[n]_q\hfill & \text{if }nS(P),\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }nS(P)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $``$ satisfies (1) and $`\text{supp}()=S(P).`$ Thus, every semigroup of the form $`S(P)`$ is the support of some sequence of polynomials satisfying the functional equation (1).

The following theorem provides a general method to construct solutions of the functional equation (1) with support $`S(P)`$ for any set $`P`$ of prime numbers.

###### Theorem 2

Let $`P`$ be a set of prime numbers. For each $`pP,`$ let $`h_p(q)`$ be a nonzero polynomial such that

$$h_{p_1}(q)h_{p_2}(q^{p_1})=h_{p_2}(q)h_{p_1}(q^{p_2})\text{for all }p_1,p_2P\text{.}$$
(3)
Then there exists a unique sequence $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\text{supp}()=S(P)`$ such that $``$ satisfies the functional equation (1) and $`f_p(q)=h_p(q)`$ for all $`pP.`$

The proof uses three lemmas.

###### Lemma 1

Let $`p`$ be a prime number and $`h_p(q)`$ a nonzero polynomial. There exists a unique sequence of polynomials $`\{f_{p^k}(q)\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`f_p(q)=h_p(q)`$ and

$$f_{p^k}(q)=f_{p^i}(q)f_{p^j}(q^{p^i})$$
(4)
for all nonnegative integers $`i,j`$ and $`k`$ such that $`i+j=k`$.

Proof. We define $`f_1(q)=1,`$ $`f_p(q)=h_p(q),`$ and, by induction on $`k`$,

$$f_{p^k}(q)=f_p(q)f_{p^{k1}}(q^p)$$
(5)
for $`k2.`$ The proof of (4) is by induction on $`k.`$ Identity (4) holds for $`k=0,1,`$ and 2, and also for $`i=0`$ and all $`j.`$ Assume that (4) is true for some $`k1`$, and let $`k+1=i+j,`$ where $`i1.`$ From the construction of the sequence $`\{f_{p^k}(q)\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and the induction hypothesis we have

$`f_{p^{k+1}}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`f_p(q)f_{p^k}(q^p)`$
$`=`$ $`f_p(q)f_{p^{(i1)+j}}(q^p)`$
$`=`$ $`f_p(q)f_{p^{i1}}(q^p)f_{p^j}((q^p)^{p^{i1}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p^i}(q)f_{p^j}(q^{p^i}).`$
Conversely, if the sequence $`\{f_{p^k}(q)\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies (4), then, setting $`i=1,`$ we obtain (5), and so the sequence $`\{f_{p^k}(q)\}_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is unique. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2

Let $`P=\{p_1,p_2\},`$ where $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ are distinct prime numbers, and let $`S(P)`$ be the semigroup generated by $`P.`$ Let $`h_{p_1}(q)`$ and $`h_{p_2}(q)`$ be nonzero polynomials such that

$$h_{p_1}(q)h_{p_2}(q^{p_1})=h_{p_2}(q)h_{p_1}(q^{p_2}).$$
(6)
There exists a unique sequence of polynomials $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}`$ such that $`f_{p_1}(q)=h_{p_1}(q),`$ $`f_{p_2}(q)=h_{p_2}(q),`$ and

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)\text{for all }m,nS(P)\text{.}$$
(7)
Proof. Every integer $`nS(P)`$ can be written uniquely in the form $`n=p_1^ip_2^j`$ for some nonnegative integers $`i`$ and $`j`$. We apply Lemma 1 to construct the sets of polynomials $`\{f_{p_1^i}(q)\}_{i=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{f_{p_2^j}(q)\}_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}`$. If $`n=p_1^ip_2^j`$ for positive integers $`i`$ and $`j`$, then we define

$$f_n(q)=f_{p_1^i}(q)f_{p_2^j}(q^{p^i}).$$
(8)
This determines the set $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}`$ .

We shall show that

$$f_{p_1^i}(q)f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^i})=f_{p_2^j}(q)f_{p_1^i}(q^{p_2^j})$$
(9)
for all nonnegative integers $`i`$ and $`j`$. This is true if $`i=0`$ or $`j=0,`$ so we can assume that $`i1`$ and $`j1`$.

The proof is by induction on $`k=i+j`$. If $`k=2,`$ then $`i=j=1`$ and the result follows from (6). Let $`k2,`$ and assume that equation (9) is true for all positive integers $`i`$ and $`j`$ such that $`i+jk.`$ Let $`i+j+1=k+1.`$ By Lemma 1 and the induction assumption,

$`f_{p_1^i}(q)f_{p_2^{j+1}}(q^{p_1^i})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{p_1^i}(q)f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^i})f_{p_2}(q^{p_1^ip_2^j})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_2^j}(q)f_{p_1^i}(q^{p_2^j})f_{p_2}(q^{p_2^jp_1^i})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_2^j}(q)f_{p_2}(q^{p_2^j})f_{p_1^i}(q^{p_2^{j+1}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_2^{j+1}}(q)f_{p_1^i}(q^{p_2^{j+1}}).`$
Similarly,

$$f_{p_1^{i+1}}(q)f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^{i+1}})=f_{p_2^j}(q)f_{p_1^{i+1}}(q^{p_2^j}).$$

This proves (9).

Let $`m,nS(P).`$ There exist nonnegative integers $`i,j,k`$, and $`\mathrm{}`$ such that

$$m=p_1^ip_2^j\text{and}n=p_1^kp_2^{\mathrm{}}.$$

Then

$`f_m(q)f_n(q^m)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{p_1^i}(q)f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^i})f_{p_1^k}(q^{p_1^ip_2^j})f_{p_2^{\mathrm{}}}(q^{p_1^{i+k}p_2^j})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_1^i}(q)f_{p_1^k}(q^{p_1^i})f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^{i+k}})f_{p_2^{\mathrm{}}}(q^{p_1^{i+k}p_2^j})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_1^k}(q)f_{p_1^i}(q^{p_1^k})f_{p_2^{\mathrm{}}}(q^{p_1^{i+k}})f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^{i+k}p_2^{\mathrm{}}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_1^k}(q)f_{p_2^{\mathrm{}}}(q^{p_1^k})f_{p_1^i}(q^{p_1^kp_2^{\mathrm{}}})f_{p_2^j}(q^{p_1^{i+k}p_2^{\mathrm{}}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_n(q)f_m(q^n).`$
Setting $`m=p_1^i`$ and $`n=p_2^j`$ in (7) gives (8), and so the sequence of polynomials $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}`$ is unique. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3

Let $`P=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_r\}`$ be a set consisting of $`r`$ prime numbers, and let $`S(P)`$ be the semigroup generated by $`P.`$ Let $`h_{p_1}(q),\mathrm{},h_{p_r}(q)`$ be nonzero polynomials such that

$$h_{p_i}(q)h_{p_j}(q^{p_i})=h_{p_j}(q)h_{p_i}(q^{p_j})$$
(10)
for $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},r.`$ There exists a unique sequence of polynomials $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}`$ such that $`f_{p_i}(q)=h_{p_i}(q)`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r`$, and

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)\text{for all }m,nS(P)\text{.}$$
(11)
Proof. The proof is by induction on $`r`$. The result holds for $`r=1`$ by Lemma 1 and for $`r=2`$ by Lemma 2. Let $`r3,`$ and assume that the Lemma holds for every set of $`r1`$ primes. Let $`P^{}=P\{p_r\}=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{r1}\}`$. By the induction hypothesis, there exists a unique sequence of polynomials $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P^{})}`$ such that $`f_{p_i}(q)=h_{p_i}(q)`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r1`$, and

$$f_{m^{}n^{}}(q)=f_m^{}(q)f_n^{}(q^m^{})\text{for all }m^{},n^{}S(P^{})\text{.}$$

Every $`nS(P)S(P^{})`$ can be written uniquely in the form $`n=n^{}p_r^{a_r}`$, where $`n^{}S(P^{})`$ and $`a_r`$ is a positive integer. We define $`f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q)`$ by Lemma 1 and

$$f_{n^{}p_r^{a_r}}(q)=f_n^{}(q)f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^n^{})$$
(12)
We begin by proving that

$$f_n^{}(q)f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^n^{})=f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q)f_n^{}(q^{p_r^{a_r}})$$
(13)
for all $`n^{}S(P^{})`$ and $`a_r𝐍.`$

By Lemma 2, equation (13) is true if $`n^{}=p_s^{a_s}`$ for some prime $`p_sP^{}`$. Let $`n^{}=n^{\prime \prime }p_s^{a_s},`$ where $`n^{\prime \prime }S\left(P\{p_s,p_r\}\right).`$ By the induction assumption,

$$f_{n^{\prime \prime }}(q)f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^{n^{\prime \prime }})=f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q)f_{n^{\prime \prime }}(q^{p_r^{a_r}}),$$

and so

$`f_n^{}(q)f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^n^{})`$ $`=`$ $`f_{n^{\prime \prime }}(q)f_{p_s^{a_s}}(q^{n^{\prime \prime }})f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^{n^{\prime \prime }p_s^{a_s}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{n^{\prime \prime }}(q)f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^{n^{\prime \prime }})f_{p_s^{a_s}}(q^{n^{\prime \prime }p_r^{a_r}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q)f_{n^{\prime \prime }}(q^{p_r^{a_r}})f_{p_s^{a_s}}(q^{n^{\prime \prime }p_r^{a_r}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q)f_n^{}(q^{p_r^{a_r}}).`$
This proves (13).

Let $`m,nS(P).`$ We write $`n=n^{}p_r^{a_r}`$ and $`m=m^{}p_r^{b_r}`$, where $`m^{},n^{}S(P^{})`$ and $`a_r,b_r`$ are nonnegative integers. Applying (13) and the induction assumption, we obtain

$`f_m(q)f_n(q^m)`$ $`=`$ $`f_m^{}(q)f_{p_r^{b_r}}(q^m^{})f_n^{}(q^{m^{}p_r^{b_r}})f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^{m^{}n^{}p_r^{b_r}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_m^{}(q)f_n^{}(q^m^{})f_{p_r^{b_r}}(q^{m^{}n^{}})f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^{m^{}n^{}p_r^{b_r}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_n^{}(q)f_m^{}(q^n^{})f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^{m^{}n^{}})f_{p_r^{b_r}}(q^{m^{}n^{}p_r^{a_r}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_n^{}(q)f_{p_r^{a_r}}(q^n^{})f_m^{}(q^{n^{}p_r^{a_r}})f_{p_r^{b_r}}(q^{m^{}n^{}p_r^{a_r}})`$
$`=`$ $`f_n(q)f_m(q^n).`$
This proves (11).

Applying (11) with $`m=n^{}`$ and $`n=p_r^{a_r},`$ we obtain (12). This shows that the sequence $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}`$ is unique, and completes the proof of the Lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

We can now prove Theorem 2.

Proof. If $`P`$ is a finite set of prime numbers, then we construct the set of polynomials $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}`$ by Lemma 3, and we define $`f_n(q)=0`$ for $`nS(P).`$ This determines the sequence $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ uniquely.

If $`P`$ is infinite, we write $`P=\{p_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}.`$ For every positive integer $`r`$, let $`P_r=\{p_i\}_{i=1}^r`$ and apply Lemma 3 to construct the set of polynomials $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P_r)}`$. Since

$$P_1\mathrm{}P_rP_{r+1}\mathrm{}P$$

and

$$S(P_1)\mathrm{}S(P_r)S(P_{r+1})\mathrm{}S(P),$$

we have

$$\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P_1)}\mathrm{}\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P_r)}\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P_{r+1})}\mathrm{}.$$

Define

$$\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P)}=\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{f_n(q)\}_{nS(P_r)}$$

Setting $`f_n(q)=0`$ for all $`nS(P)`$ uniquely determines a sequence $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ that satisfies the functional equation (1) and $`f_p(q)=h_p(q)`$ for all $`pP.`$ This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, for the set $`P=\{2,5,7\}`$, the reciprocal polynomials

$`h_2(q)`$ $`=`$ $`1q+q^2`$
$`h_5(q)`$ $`=`$ $`1q+q^3q^4+q^5q^7+q^8`$
$`h_7(q)`$ $`=`$ $`1q+q^3q^4+q^6q^8+q^9q^{11}+q^{12}.`$
satisfy the commutativity condition (3). There is a unique sequence of polynomials $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ constructed from $`\{h_2(q),h_5(q),h_7(q)\}`$ by Theorem 2. Since

$$f_p(q)=h_p(q)=\frac{[p]_{q^3}}{[p]_q}\text{for }pP=\{2,5,7\}\text{,}$$

it follows that

$$f_n(q)=\frac{[n]_{q^3}}{[n]_q}\text{for all }nS(P)\text{.}$$

We have $`\mathrm{deg}(f_n)=2(n1)`$ for all $`nS(P).`$

We can refine Problem 1 as follows.

###### Problem 2

Let $`P`$ be a set of prime numbers. Determine all polynomial sequences $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with support $`S(P)`$ that satisfy the functional equation (1).

###### Problem 3

Let $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ be sets of prime numbers with $`PP^{}`$, and let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials with support $`S(P)`$ that satisfies the functional equation (1). Under what conditions does there exist a sequence $`^{}=\{f_n^{}(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with support $`S(P^{})`$ such that $`^{}`$ satisfies (1) and $`f_p^{}(q)=f_p(q)`$ for all primes $`pP`$?

###### Problem 4

Let $`S`$ be a multiplicative subsemigroup of the positive integers. Determine all sequences $`\{f_n(q)\}_{nS}`$ of polynomials such that

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)\text{for all }m,nS.$$

This formulation of the problem of classifying solutions of the functional equation does not assume that $`S`$ is a semigroup of the form $`S=S(P)`$ for some set $`P`$ of prime numbers.

## 3 An arithmetic functional equation

An arithmetic function is a function whose domain is the set $`𝐍`$ of natural numbers. The support of the arithmetic function $`\delta `$ is

$$\text{supp}(\delta )=\{n𝐍:\delta (n)0\}.$$

###### Lemma 4

Let $`S`$ be a semigroup of the natural numbers, and $`\delta (n)`$ a complex-valued arithmetic function that satisfies the functional equation

$$\delta (mn)=\delta (m)+m\delta (n)\text{for all }m,nS.$$
(14)
Then there exists a complex number $`t`$ such that

$$\delta (n)=t(n1)\text{for all }nS\text{.}$$

Proof. Let $`\delta (n)`$ be a solution of the functional equation (14) on $`S`$. Setting $`m=n=1`$ in (14), we obtain $`\delta (1)=0`$. For all $`m,nS\{1\}`$ we have

$$\delta (m)+m\delta (n)=\delta (mn)=\delta (nm)=\delta (n)+n\delta (m),$$

and so

$$\frac{\delta (m)}{m1}=\frac{\delta (n)}{n1}.$$

It follows that there exists a number $`t`$ such that $`\delta (n)=t(n1)`$ for all $`nS`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that if $`\delta (n)=0`$ for some $`nS\{1\},`$ then $`\delta (n)=0`$ for all $`nS.`$

Let $`\mathrm{deg}(f)`$ denote the degree of the polynomial $`f(q)`$.

###### Lemma 5

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a nonzero sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation (1). There exists a nonnegative rational number $`t`$ such that

$$\mathrm{deg}(f_n)=t(n1)\text{for all }n\text{supp}()\text{.}$$
(15)
Proof. Let $`S=\text{supp}().`$ The functional equation (1) implies that

$$\mathrm{deg}(f_{mn})=\mathrm{deg}(f_m)+m\mathrm{deg}(f_n)\text{for all }m,nS,$$

and so $`\mathrm{deg}(f_n)`$ is an arithmetic function on the semigroup $`S`$ that satisfies the arithmetic functional equation (14). Statement (15) follows immediately from Lemma 4. $`\mathrm{}`$

We note that, in Lemma 5, the number $`t`$ is rational but not necessarily integral. For example, if $`\text{supp}()=\{7^k:k𝐍_0\}`$ and

$$f_{7^k}(q)=q^{2(1+7+7^2+\mathrm{}+7^{k1})}=q^{(7^k1)/3},$$

then $`t_1=1/3.`$

An arithmetic function $`\lambda (n)`$ is completely multiplicative if $`\lambda (mn)=\lambda (m)\lambda (n)`$ for all $`m,n𝐍.`$ A function $`\lambda (n)`$ is completely multiplicative on a semigroup $`S`$ if $`\lambda (n)`$ is a function defined on $`S`$ and $`\lambda (mn)=\lambda (m)\lambda (n)`$ for all $`m,nS.`$

###### Theorem 3

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a nonzero sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m).$$

Then there exist a completely multiplicative arithmetic function $`\lambda (n)`$, a nonnegative rational number $`t`$, and a nonzero sequence $`𝒢=\{g_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of polynomials such that

$$f_n(q)=\lambda (n)q^{t(n1)}g_n(q)\text{for all }n𝐍\text{,}$$

where

1. the sequence $`𝒢`$ satisfies the functional equation (1),
2. $$\text{supp}()=\text{supp}(𝒢)=\text{supp}(\lambda ),$$
3. $$g_n(0)=1\text{for all }n\text{supp}(𝒢).$$

The number $`t,`$ the arithmetic function $`\lambda (n)`$, and the sequence $`𝒢`$ are unique.

Proof. For every $`n\text{supp}()`$ there exist a unique nonnegative integer $`\delta (n)`$ and polynomial $`g_n^{}(q)`$ such that $`g_n^{}(0)0`$ and

$$f_n(q)=q^{\delta (n)}g_n^{}(q).$$

Let $`\lambda (n)=g_n^{}(0)`$ be the constant term of $`g_n^{}(q).`$ Dividing $`g_n^{}(q)`$ by $`\lambda (n),`$ we can write

$$g_n^{}(q)=\lambda (n)g_n(q),$$

where $`g_n(q)`$ is a polynomial with constant term $`g_n(0)=1.`$ Define $`g_n(q)=0`$ and $`\lambda (n)=0`$ for every positive integer $`n\text{supp}(),`$ and let $`𝒢=\{g_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$. Then $`\text{supp}()=\text{supp}(𝒢)=\text{supp}(\lambda ).`$ Since the sequence

$$\{\lambda (n)q^{\delta (n)}g_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}$$

satisfies the functional equation, we have, for all $`m,n\text{supp}()`$,

$`\lambda (mn)q^{\delta (mn)}g_{mn}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (m)q^{\delta (m)}g_m(q)\lambda (n)q^{m\delta (n)}g_n(q^m)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda (m)\lambda (n)q^{\delta (m)+m\delta (n)}g_m(q)g_n(q^m).`$
The polynomials $`g_m(q),g_n(q),`$ and $`g_{mn}(q)`$ have constant term 1, hence for all $`m,n\text{supp}()`$ we have

$$q^{\delta (mn)}=q^{\delta (m)+m\delta (n)},$$

$$\lambda (mn)=\lambda (m)\lambda (n),$$

and

$$g_{mn}(q)=g_m(q)g_n(q^m).$$

It follows that $`\lambda (n)`$ is a completely multiplicative arithmetic function with $`\text{supp}(),`$ and the sequence $`\{g_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ also satisfies the functional equation (1). Moreover,

$$\delta (mn)=\delta (m)+m\delta (n)\text{for all }m,n\text{supp}()\text{.}$$

By Lemma 4, there exists a nonnegative rational number $`t`$ such that $`\delta (n)=t(n1)`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Classification problems

Theorem 3 reduces the classification of solutions of the functional equation (1) to the classification of sequences of polynomials $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with constant term $`f_n(0)=1`$ for all $`n\text{supp}().`$

###### Theorem 4

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a nonzero sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation (1).

1. Let $`\psi (q)`$ be a polynomial such that $`\psi (q)^m=\psi (q^m)`$ for every integer $`m\text{supp}().`$ Then the sequence $`\{f_n(\psi (q))\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies (1).
2. For every positive integer $`t`$, the sequence $`\{f_n(q^t)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies (1).
3. The sequence of reciprocal polynomials $`\{q^{\mathrm{deg}(f_n)}f_n(q^1)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ satisfies (1).

Proof. Suppose that $`\psi (q)^m=\psi (q^m)`$ for every integer $`m\text{supp}().`$ Replacing $`q`$ by $`\psi (q)`$ in the polynomial identity (1), we obtain

$$f_{mn}(\psi (q))=f_m(\psi (q))f_n(\psi (q)^m)=f_m(\psi (q))f_n(\psi (q^m))$$

for all $`m,n\text{supp}().`$ This proves (i).

Since $`(q^t)^m=(q^m)^t`$ for all integers $`t`$, we obtain (ii) from (i) by choosing $`\psi (q)=q^t.`$

The reciprocal polynomial of $`f(q)`$ is

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(q)=q^{\mathrm{deg}(f)}f(q^1).$$

Then

$`\stackrel{~}{f}_{mn}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\mathrm{deg}(f_{mn})}f_{mn}(q^1)`$
$`=`$ $`q^{\mathrm{deg}(f_m)+m\mathrm{deg}(f_n)}f_m(q^1)f_n(q^m)`$
$`=`$ $`q^{\mathrm{deg}(f_m)}f_m(q^1)q^{m\mathrm{deg}(f_n)}f_n\left(\left(q^m\right)^1\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{f}_m(q)\stackrel{~}{f}_n(q^m).`$
This proves (iii). $`\mathrm{}`$

For example, setting

$$[n]_{q^t}=1+q^t+q^{2t}+\mathrm{}+q^{(n1)t},$$

we see that $`\{[n]_{q^t}\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a solution of (1) with support $`𝐍`$.

The quantum integer $`[n]_q`$ is a self-reciprocal polynomial of $`q`$, and $`[n]_{q^t}`$ is self-reciprocal for all positive integers $`t`$. The reciprocal polynomial of the polynomial $`q^{n1}`$ is 1.

The polynomials $`\psi (q)=q^t`$ are not the only polynomials that generate solutions of the functional equation (1). For example, let $`p`$ be a prime number, and consider polynomials with coefficients in the finite field $`𝐙/p𝐙`$ and solutions $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of the functional equation with $`\text{supp}()=S(\{p\})=\{p^k:k𝐍_0\}.`$ Applying the Frobenius automorphism $`zz^p`$, we see that $`\psi (q)^m=\psi (q^m)`$ for every polynomial $`\psi (q)`$ and every $`m\text{supp}().`$

Here is another example of solutions of (1) generated by polynomials satisfying $`\psi (q)^m=\psi (q^m)`$ for $`m\text{supp}().`$

###### Theorem 5

Let $`P`$ be a nonempty set of prime numbers, and $`S(P)`$ the multiplicative semigroup generated by $`P`$. Let $`d`$ be the greatest common divisor of the set $`\{p1:pP\}.`$ For $`\zeta 0,`$ let

$$f_n(q)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\zeta ^iq^i=[n]_{\zeta q}\text{for }nS(P),$$

and let $`f_n(q)=0`$ for $`nS(P).`$ If $`\zeta `$ is a $`d`$th root of unity, then the sequence of polynomials

$$=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}$$

satisfies the functional equation (1). Conversely, if $``$ satisfies (1), then $`\zeta `$ is a $`d`$th root of unity.

Proof. Let $`\zeta `$ be a $`d`$th root of unity, and $`\psi (q)=\zeta q.`$ Since $`p1(modd)`$ for all $`pP,`$ it follows that $`m1(modd)`$ for all $`mS(P).`$ Therefore, if $`mS(P),`$ then

$$\psi (q)^m=(\zeta q)^m=\zeta ^mq^m=\zeta q^m=\psi (q^m).$$

It follows from Theorem 4 that the sequence of polynomials $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, where

$$f_n(q)=[n]_{\zeta q}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\zeta ^iq^i\text{for }nS(P)$$

and $`f_n(q)=0`$ for $`nS(P)`$, satisfies the functional equation (1).

Conversely, suppose that $``$ satisfies (1). Let $`m,nS(P)\{1\}`$. Since

$$f_m(q)f_n(q^m)=\left(\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\zeta ^iq^i\right)\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\zeta ^jq^{mj}\right)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\zeta ^{i+j}q^{i+mj},$$

$$f_{mn}(q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{mn1}{}}\zeta ^kq^k=\underset{i=0}{\overset{m1}{}}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\zeta ^{i+mj}q^{i+mj},$$

and

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m),$$

it follows that

$$\zeta ^{i+j}=\zeta ^{i+mj}$$

for $`0im1`$ and $`0jn1.`$ Then

$$\zeta ^{j(m1)}=1$$

and

$$\zeta ^{m1}=1\text{for all }mS(P).$$

Thus, $`\zeta `$ is a primitive $`\mathrm{}`$th root of unity for some positive integer $`\mathrm{},`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ divides $`m1`$ for all $`mS(P).`$ Therefore, $`\mathrm{}`$ divides $`d,`$ the greatest common divisor of the integers $`m1,`$ and so $`\zeta `$ is a $`d`$th root of unity. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒢=\{g_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be sequences of polynomials. Define the product sequence

$$𝒢=\{f_ng_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}$$

by $`f_ng_n(q)=f_n(q)g_n(q).`$

###### Theorem 6

Let $``$ and $`𝒢`$ be nonzero sequences of polynomials that satisfy the functional equation (1). The product sequence $``$$`𝒢`$ also satisfies (1). Conversely, if $`\text{supp}()=\text{supp}(𝒢)`$ and if $``$ and $``$$`𝒢`$ satisfy (1), then $`𝒢`$ also satisfies (1). The set of all solutions of the functional equation (1) is an abelian semigroup, and, for every prime semigroup $`S(P)`$, the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ of all solutions $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of (1) with $`\text{supp}()=S(P)`$ is an abelian cancellation semigroup.

Proof. If $``$ and $`𝒢`$ both satisfy (1), then

$`f_{mn}g_{mn}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{mn}(q)g_{mn}(q)`$
$`=`$ $`f_m(q)f_n(q^m)g_m(q)g_n(q^m)`$
$`=`$ $`f_mg_m(q)f_ng_n(q^m),`$
and so $``$$`𝒢`$ satisfies (1). Conversely, if $`m,n\text{supp}()=\text{supp}(𝒢),`$

$$f_{mn}(q)g_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)g_m(q)f_n(q^m)g_n(q^m),$$

and

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m),$$

then

$$g_{mn}(q)=g_m(q)g_n(q^m).$$

Multiplication of sequences that satisfy (1) is associative and commutative. For every prime semigroup $`S(P)`$, we define the sequence $`_P=\{I_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ by $`I_n(q)=1`$ for $`nS(P)`$ and $`I_n(q)=0`$ for $`nS(P)`$. Then $`_P\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`_P=`$ for every $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$. If $`,𝒢,\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ and $`𝒢=,`$ then $`𝒢=.`$ Thus, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ is a cancellation semigroup. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`S(P)`$ be a prime semigroup, and let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒢=\{g_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be sequences of polynomials with support $`S(P)`$. We define the sequence of rational functions $`/𝒢`$ by

$$\frac{}{𝒢}=\left\{\frac{f_n}{g_n}(q)\right\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}},$$

where

$$\frac{f_n}{g_n}(q)=\frac{f_n(q)}{g_n(q)}\text{if }nS(P)\text{,}$$

and

$$\frac{f_n}{g_n}(q)=0\text{if }nS(P)\text{.}$$

Then $`/𝒢`$ has support $`S(P)`$. If $``$ and $`𝒢`$ satisfy the functional equation (1), then the sequence $`/𝒢`$ of rational functions also satisfies (1).

We recall the definition of the Grothendieck group of a semigroup. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an abelian cancellation semigroup, then there exists an abelian group $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and an injective semigroup homomorphism $`j:\mathrm{\Gamma }K(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ such that if $`G`$ is any abelian group and $`\alpha `$ a semigroup homomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ into $`G`$, then there there exists a unique group homomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ from $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ into $`G`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }j=\alpha .`$ The group $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is called the Grothendieck group of the semigroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

###### Theorem 7

Let $`S(P)`$ be a prime semigroup, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ be the cancellation semigroup of polynomial solutions of the functional equation (1) with support $`S(P)`$. The Grothendieck group of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ is the group of all sequences of rational functions $`/𝒢,`$ where $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P).`$

Proof. The set $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma }(P))`$ of all sequences of rational functions of the form $`/𝒢,`$ where $``$ and $`𝒢`$ are in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P),`$ is an abelian group, and $`/_P`$ is an imbedding of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ into $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma }(P))`$. Let $`\alpha :\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)G`$ be a homomorphism from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(P)`$ into a group $`G`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:K(\mathrm{\Gamma }(P))G`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\left(\frac{}{𝒢}\right)=\frac{\alpha ()}{\alpha (𝒢)}.$$

If $`/𝒢=_1/𝒢_1,`$ then $`𝒢_1=_1𝒢.`$ Since $`\alpha `$ is a semigroup homomorphism, we have $`\alpha ()\alpha (𝒢_1)=\alpha (_1)\alpha (𝒢),`$ and so

$$\frac{\alpha ()}{\alpha (𝒢)}=\frac{\alpha (_1)}{\alpha (𝒢_1)}.$$

This proves that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }:K(\mathrm{\Gamma }(P))G`$ is a well-defined group homomorphism, and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }j=\alpha .`$ $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Problem 5

Does every sequence of rational functions that satisfies the functional equation (1) and has support $`S(P)`$ belong to the group $`K(\mathrm{\Gamma }(P))`$?

We recall that if $``$ is a sequence of nonconstant polynomials that satisfies (1), then there exists a positive rational number $`t`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(f_n)=t(n1)`$ is a positive integer for all $`n\text{supp}().`$ In particular, if $`\text{supp}()=𝐍`$, or if $`2\text{supp}()`$, or, more generally, if $`\{n1:n\text{supp}()\}`$ is a set of relatively prime integers, then $`t`$ is a positive integer.

The result below shows that the quantum integers are the unique solution of the functional equation (1) in the following important case.

###### Theorem 8

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)$$

for all positive integers $`m`$ and $`n`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(f_n)=n1`$ and $`f_n(0)=1`$ for all positive integers $`n`$, then $`f_n(q)=[n]_q`$ for all $`n`$.

Theorem 8 is a consequence of the following more general result.

###### Theorem 9

Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials that satisfies the functional equation

$$f_{mn}(q)=f_m(q)f_n(q^m)$$

for all positive integers $`m`$ and $`n`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}(f_n)=n1`$ and $`f_n(0)=1`$ for all $`n\text{supp}(),`$ and if $`\text{supp}()`$ contains 2 and some odd integer greater than 1, then $`f_n(q)=[n]_q`$ for all $`n\text{supp}()`$.

Proof. Since $`2\text{supp}()`$, we have $`\mathrm{deg}(f_2)=1`$ and $`f_2(0)=1`$, hence

$$f_2(q)=1+aq$$

for some $`a0.`$ If $`n=2r+13`$ is an odd integer in $`\text{supp}()`$, then

$$f_n(q)=1+\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}b_jq^j,\text{with }b_{n1}0.$$

We have

$`f_n(q)f_2(q^n)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}b_jq^j\right)\left(1+aq^n\right)`$
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}b_jq^j+aq^n+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}ab_jq^{n+j}`$
$`=`$ $`1+b_1q+b_2q^2+\mathrm{}+ab_1q^{n+1}+ab_2q^{n+2}+\mathrm{}`$
and

$`f_2(q)f_n(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`(1+aq)\left(1+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}b_jq^{2j}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`1+aq+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2r}{}}}b_jq^{2j}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{2r}{}}}ab_jq^{2j+1}`$
$`=`$ $`1+aq+b_1q^2+\mathrm{}+b_{r+1}q^{n+1}+ab_{r+1}q^{n+2}+\mathrm{}.`$
The functional equation with $`m=2`$ gives

$$f_n(q)f_2(q^n)=f_2(q)f_n(q^2).$$
(16)
Equating coefficients in these polynomials, we obtain

$$a=b_1=b_2,$$

$$b_{r+1}=ab_1=a^2,$$

and

$$ab_{r+1}=ab_2=a^2.$$

Since $`a0,`$ it follows that

$$a=1$$

and

$$f_2(q)=1+q=[2]_q.$$

By the functional equation, if $`f_{2^{k1}}(q)=[2^{k1}]_q`$ for some integer $`k2,`$ then

$`f_{2^k}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{2^{k1}}(q)f_2\left(q^{2^{k1}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1+q+q^2+\mathrm{}+q^{2^{k1}1}\right)\left(1+q^{2^{k1}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`1+q+q^2+\mathrm{}+q^{2^k1}`$
$`=`$ $`[2^k]_q.`$
It follows by induction that $`f_{2^k}(q)=[2^k]_q`$ for all $`k𝐍.`$

Let $`n=2r+1`$ be an odd integer in $`\text{supp}()`$, $`n3.`$ Equation (16) implies that

$$1+b_1q+\underset{j=2}{\overset{n1}{}}b_jq^j+q^n=1+q+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}b_i\left(q^{2i}+q^{2i+1}\right),$$

and so $`1=b_1=b_r=b_{n1}`$ and

$$b_i=b_{2i}=b_{2i+1}\text{for }i=1,\mathrm{},r1.$$

If $`n=3,`$ then $`b_1=b_2=1`$ and $`f_3(q)=[3]_q.`$ If $`n=5,`$ then $`r=2`$ and $`b_1=b_2=b_3=b_4=1,`$ hence $`f_5(q)=[5]_q.`$

For $`n7`$ we have $`r3.`$ If $`1kr2`$ and $`b_i=1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},2k1,`$ then $`k2k1`$ and so

$$1=b_k=b_{2k}=b_{2k+1}.$$

It follows by induction on $`k`$ that $`b_i=1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$ and $`f_n(q)=[n]_q`$ for every odd integer $`n\text{supp}()`$.

If $`2^kn\text{supp}()`$, where $`n`$ is odd, then

$$f_{2^kn}(q)=f_{2^k}(q)f_n(q^{2^k})=[2^k]_q[n]_{q^{2^k}}=[2^kn]_q.$$

This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Problem 6

Let $`t2`$, and let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials satisfying the functional equation (1) such that $`f_n(q)`$ has degree $`t(n1)`$ and $`f_n(0)=1`$ for all $`n𝐍`$. Is $``$ constructed from the quantum integers? More precisely, do there exist positive integers $`t_1,u_1,\mathrm{},t_k,u_k`$ such that

$$t=t_1u_1+\mathrm{}+t_ku_k$$

and, for all $`n𝐍,`$

$$f_n(q)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\left([n]_{q^{t_i}}\right)^{u_i}\mathrm{?}$$

## 5 Addition of quantum integers

It is natural to consider the analogous problem of addition of quantum integers. With the usual rule for addition of polynomials, $`[m]_q+[n]_q[m+n]_q`$ for all positive integers $`m`$ and $`n`$. However, we observe that

$$[m]_q+q^m[n]_q=[m+n]_q\text{for all }m,n𝐍.$$

This suggests the following definition. Let $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a sequence of polynomials. We define

$$f_m(q)_qf_n(q)=f_m(q)+q^mf_n(q).$$
(17)
If $`h(q)`$ is any polynomial, then the sequence $`=\{f_n(q)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by $`f_n(q)=h(q)[n]_q`$ is a solution of the additive functional equation (17), and, conversely, every solution of (17) is of this form. This is discussed in Nathanson .