text:
# Central configurations, symmetries and fixed points

### 1. Planar central configurations

Consider the complex plane $``$ and $`n`$ real positive numbers $`m_1`$ , $`m_2`$ , $`\mathrm{}`$ , $`m_n`$, with $`n3`$. We denote by $`𝒳`$ the hyperplane in $`^n`$ defined by the equation $`_im_iz_i=0`$, where $`z=(z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_n)`$ denotes a point in $`^n`$. Let $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ be the open subset of $`𝒳`$ defined by the condition $`ijz_iz_j`$. That is, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ denotes the subspace of equation $`z_i=z_j`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=_{i<j}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ the collision set, it is $`\widehat{𝒳}=𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$. It is the configuration space of $`n`$ point particles in $``$ and center of mass in $`0`$. An element in $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ is called a configuration. Consider some real coefficients $`m_{ij}`$, for $`ij`$, $`i`$, $`j\{1,\mathrm{}n\}`$ and a regular function $`\varphi :_+`$ defined on the positive semiline of $``$. Without loss of generality we can assume $`m_{ij}=m_{ji}`$ for all $`ji`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a real number and let $`U:\widehat{𝒳}`$ be a potential function be of type

$$U=\underset{i<j}{}m_{ij}\varphi (z_iz_j),$$

where $`\varphi (z)=|z|^{\alpha +2}`$ or $`\varphi (z)=\mathrm{log}|z|`$ (in case $`\alpha =2`$). For example if $`m_{ij}=m_im_j`$ and $`\alpha =3`$ then this is the potential of the Newtonian $`n`$-body problem with $`\varphi (z)=|z|^1`$ or the Thompson vortex problem if $`\alpha =2`$ and then $`\varphi (z)=\mathrm{log}|z|`$. The charged $`n`$-body problem is obtained by setting $`\alpha =3`$ and $`m_{ij}=m_im_jq_iq_j`$ where $`q_i`$ are the electrostatic charges of the masses.

The $`n`$-body problem concerns the motion of $`n`$ particles of masses $`m_i`$ and potential $`U`$; the Newton equations are therefore $`m_i\ddot{z}_i=\frac{U}{z_i}`$. A *central configuration* is a configuration $`z\widehat{𝒳}`$ such that there exists a non-zero real scalar $`k`$ such that for $`i=1,\mathrm{}n`$

$$km_iz_i=\frac{U}{z_i}.$$

Central configurations can be seen as critical points of the restriction of $`U`$ to the ellipsoid in $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ of equations $`_im_i|z_i|^2=1`$. Furthermore, they play an important role in the theory of periodic orbits in $`n`$-body problems because they yield homographic solution and are topological bifurcations of the energy and angular momentum level sets in $`\widehat{𝒳}`$. Details and further reading on the topic can be found for example in .

Let $`\widehat{f}:\widehat{𝒳}𝒳`$ be the map defined by $`\widehat{f}(z)=w𝒳`$, where

$$w_i=\underset{ji}{}m_i^1m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha (z_iz_j).$$

It is not difficult to see $`{\displaystyle \frac{U}{z_i}}=(\alpha +2)m_iw_i`$, so that a configuration $`z\widehat{𝒳}`$ is central if and only if there is a real number $`\lambda 0`$ such that $`\widehat{f}(z)=\lambda z`$, where $`\lambda =(\alpha +2)^1k`$. Let $`\mathrm{CC}`$ denote the space of all the central configurations in $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ and $`\mathrm{CC}_1`$ its intersection with the ellipsoid $`E𝒳`$ of equation $`_im_i|z_i|^2=1`$. By the $`O(2)`$-invariance of $`U`$, $`\mathrm{CC}_1`$ is $`O(2)`$-invariant in $`\widehat{𝒳}`$, where $`O(2)`$ is the orthogonal group of the plane $``$. We are interested in the quotient spaces $`\mathrm{CC}_1/O(2)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{CC}}=\mathrm{CC}_1/SO(2)`$.

Consider the projection $`p:^n\{0\}^{n1}`$ onto the complex projective space. A point of $`^{n1}`$ of homogeneous coordinates $`z_i`$ is denoted by $`[z]=[z_1:z_2:\mathrm{}:z_n]`$. Then $`p`$ projects $`𝒳\{0\}`$ onto the hyperplane in $`^{n1}`$ of equation $`_im_iz_i`$, which we denote simply by $`^{n2}`$. Let $`X`$ be the image of $`\widehat{𝒳}`$ in $`^{n2}`$. With an abuse of terminology we will consider maps defined on open dense subsets of their domains. Such a subset of points in which the map is properly defined will be clear from the context. The map $`\widehat{f}`$ induces a map $`f:X^{n2}`$. It is clear that a central configuration projects to a fixed point of $`f`$.

###### Lemma 1.

The projection $`p`$ induces a homeomorphism $`p:\overline{\mathrm{CC}}=\mathrm{CC}_1/SO(2)\mathrm{Fix}(f)`$.

###### Proof.

The map $`p`$ induces a continuous map $`\mathrm{CC}_1\mathrm{Fix}(f)`$, and a injective continuous map $`\overline{p}:\mathrm{CC}_1/SO(2)\mathrm{Fix}(f)`$. To see that it is surjective, consider a configuration $`z`$ such that $`[z]=f[z]`$, i.e. a configuration $`z=[z_1:z_2:\mathrm{}:z_n]`$ such that there exists $`\lambda ^{}`$ and for every $`i=1\mathrm{}n`$

$$\lambda z_i=\underset{ji}{}m_i^1m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha (z_iz_j).$$

This implies

$$\lambda m_i|z_i|^2=\underset{ji}{}m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha (|z_i|^2z_j\overline{z}_i)$$

$$\lambda \underset{i}{}m_i|z_i|^2=\underset{ji}{}m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^{2+\alpha },$$

and therefore $`\lambda `$ is real, i.e. $`[z]`$ is a projection of a central configuration. Moreover, $`\overline{p}`$ is a closed map and hence a homeomorphism. ∎

Let $`I=_im_i|z_i|^2`$ the inertia of $`z`$. In case $`\alpha 2`$ (not the logarithmic case), the proof of the previous lemma implies that

(1)
$$\lambda =2\frac{U}{I}$$

and hence, if $`m_{ij}>0`$ for all $`i`$, $`j`$ that $`\lambda >0`$. If $`\alpha =2`$ the the same holds, since

(2)
$$\lambda =\frac{_{ji}m_{ij}}{I}.$$

###### Lemma 2.

If for every $`ij`$ the coefficient $`m_{ij}`$ is not zero, and $`\alpha <1`$, then $`\mathrm{CC}_1`$ is compact.

###### Proof.

Because $`p:E^{n2}`$ is a proper map, it suffices to show that $`\overline{\mathrm{CC}}`$ is compact, hence that $`\mathrm{Fix}(f)`$ is compact. First, let $`X_2^{n2}`$ be the subset of $`^{n2}`$ consisting of all the points such that there is at most one pair of particles colliding $`z_i=z_j`$. The map $`f`$ can be extended continuously to $`X_2`$: If $`z`$ tends to a point $`z^{}`$ in $`X_2X`$ with a collision in $`i`$ and $`j`$, then the image of $`z`$ tends to the point $`[w]=[w_1:\mathrm{}:w_n]`$ with $`w_i=m_jm_{ij}`$ and $`w_j=m_im_{ij}`$ and otherwise $`0`$. Let $`W_{ij}`$ denote such point. Provided that $`m_{ij}0`$ such a point $`W_{ij}`$ is in $`^{n2}`$ and it is different from $`z^{}`$ (we assume that the masses $`m_i`$ are positive and hence it cannot be that $`m_i=m_j`$):

$$W_{ij}=[0:\mathrm{}:0:\underset{𝑖}{m_j}:0:\mathrm{}:0:\underset{𝑗}{m_i}:0:\mathrm{}:0].$$

Now suppose that $`[z]`$ tends to a multiple collision $`[c]`$ in $`^{n2}X_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the set of indexes $`(i,j)`$ such that the $`i`$-th particle collides with the $`j`$-th particle in $`[c]`$. It is not difficult to show as above that $`f(z)`$ tends to a subset of the projective subspace $`\widehat{c}^{n2}`$ spanned by the points $`W_{ij}`$ with $`(i,j)\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But $`\widehat{c}`$ is a closed subspace which does not contain $`[c]`$, hence by continuity there is a neighborhood of $`[c]`$ in $`^{n2}`$ without fixed points of $`f`$. Therefore the collision set is contained in a fixed point free neighborhood, and hence $`\overline{\mathrm{CC}}`$ is closed in $`^{n2}`$. Being a closed in a compact, it is compact (compare with the proof of Shub, for the Newtonian case , and with the estimates of Buck ). ∎

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`u:X`$ be the map defined by $`u[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n]=UI^{1\alpha /2}`$ if $`\alpha 2`$, or $`u[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n]=e^UI^{1/2_{i<j}m_{ij}}`$ if $`\alpha =2`$. Then $`\overline{\mathrm{CC}}=\mathrm{Crit}(u)`$, where $`\mathrm{Crit}(u)`$ denotes the set of critical points of $`u`$.

###### Proof.

In both cases $`u`$ is well-defined on $`X`$. Furthermore, $`\mathrm{CC}_1`$ is the set of critical points of $`U`$ restricted to $`E`$; hence it is the set of critical points of $`u\pi `$, where $`\pi :EX`$ is the projection, restricted to $`E`$. The projection $`\pi `$ is a submersion, hence $`\overline{\mathrm{CC}}=\mathrm{Crit}(u)`$. ∎

Let $`C`$ be the group of order $`2`$ acting on $`^{n2}`$ by conjugation on coordinates. The space fixed by $`C`$ is the space of collinear configurations, and it is homeomorphic to $`^{n2}`$. Let $`X^C`$ be its intersection with $`X`$. The map $`f`$ is equivariant with respect to the action of $`C`$, therefore it induces a map $`f^C:X^C^{n2}`$; its fixed points, by lemma 1 are the collinear central configurations.

We list some known results. Some of them were proved in the Newtonian case ($`m_{ij}=m_im_j`$ and $`\alpha =3`$), but the techniques worked in the same way in the general case. We understand that central configurations are counted in $`\mathrm{CC}_1/O(2)`$: For every $`n3`$ there are exactly $`n!/2`$ collinear configurations (Moulton; see Smale  for a proof using critical point theory). If $`n=3`$ then there is just one non-collinear central configuration. If the masses are equal, then there are exactly $`19`$ non-collinear central configurations for $`n=4`$ (Albouy ). For every $`n`$ there are at least $`n2`$ non-collinear central configurations (McCord ). If the potential $`U`$ is a Morse function, there are at least $`n!h(n)/2`$ central configurations, where $`h(n)=_{i=3}^n1/i`$ (McCord ). The Euler characteristic $`\chi (X)`$ is $`(1)^n(n2)!`$, hence by Morse theory in this case the alternating sum $`_k(1)^k\nu _k=(1)^n(n2)!`$, where $`\nu _k`$ denotes the number of critical points of index $`k`$.

### 2. Collinear configurations

We have seen that the collinear central configurations are the fixed points of $`f^C:X^C^{n2}`$. We show a proof of Moulton theorem using fixed point theory, instead of critical point theory. In some sense it is closer to the original proof of Moulton.

###### Proposition 4.

If $`m_{ij}>0`$ for every $`i`$, $`j`$ and $`\alpha <1`$ then every fixed point of $`f`$ is isolated and its fixed point index is $`1`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`E^C𝒳^C`$ be the ellipsoid of equation $`_im_iz_i`$. Because $`E^C^{n2}`$ is a covering map and $`\lambda >0`$ (by equations 1 and 2), the map $`f^{}:E^C\mathrm{\Delta }E^C`$ defined by $`wp`$, with $`p_i=\frac{w_i}{\sqrt{I}}`$, where as above $`I=_jm_jw_j^2`$ and $`w_j`$ is defined in equation 12, is a lifting of $`f`$. Hence the Jacobian of $`f`$ at a point $`[c]X^C`$ is the same as the jacobian of $`f^{}`$ at a pre-image of $`[c]`$ in $`E^C`$. We are going to show that if $`xE^C`$ is a central configuration (that is, a fixed point for $`f^{}`$), then for every vector $`v`$ of the tangent space of $`E^C`$ in $`x`$ (endowed with the kinetic scalar product: $`vv^{}=_im_iv_iv_i^{}`$) the inequality $`vD(f^{})v<0`$ holds, where $`D(f^{})`$ denotes the differential of $`f^{}`$ at $`x`$. From this the claim follows, since all the eigenvalues of $`D(f^{})`$ need be negative. The map $`f^{}`$ is the composition of $`\widehat{f}`$ and the projection $`p`$, hence $`D(f^{})=D(p)D(\widehat{f})`$. The derivatives of $`w_i`$ are

(3)
$$\frac{w_i}{z_k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\alpha +1)_{ji}m_i^1m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha \hfill & \text{if }i=k\hfill \\ (\alpha +1)m_i^1m_{ik}|z_iz_k|^\alpha \hfill & \text{if }ik.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence

(4)
$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{w_i}{z_k}=(\alpha +1)\underset{ji}{}m_1^1m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha (v_iv_j).$$

The derivatives of $`p`$ are

(5)
$$\frac{p_i}{w_k}=\{\begin{array}{cc}I^{3/2}_{ji}m_jw_j^2\hfill & \text{if }i=k\hfill \\ I^{3/2}m_kw_iw_k\hfill & \text{ if }ik\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence

(6)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_iv_i\frac{p_i}{w_k}=m_kv_k\frac{p_k}{w_k}+\underset{ik}{}m_iv_i\frac{p_i}{w_k}.$$

Now, $`v`$ belongs to the tangent space at $`x`$ and if $`x`$ is a central configuration then $`_im_iw_iv_i=0`$, therefore

(7)
$$\underset{jk}{}m_iv_iw_i=m_kv_kw_k,$$

hence

(8)
$$\underset{ik}{}m_iv_i\frac{p_i}{w_k}=I^{3/2}\underset{ik}{}m_iv_iw_im_kw_k=I^{3/2}m_kw_k.$$

Therefore

(9)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}m_iv_i\frac{p_i}{w_k}=m_kv_kI^{1/2}.$$

Now, this implies that the claim is true if and only if for every $`v`$ in the tangent space of $`x`$ the inequality

(10)
$$\underset{i,k}{}m_iv_i\frac{w_i}{z_k}v_k<0$$

is true. But by equation 4 the latter is equal to

(11)
$$(\alpha +1)\underset{ji}{}m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha (v_iv_j)v_i=(\alpha +1)\underset{i<j}{}m_{ij}|z_iz_j|^\alpha (v_iv_j)^2,$$

which is negative because by assumption $`\alpha +1<0`$ and $`m_{ij}>0`$. This finishes the proof. ∎

###### Proposition 5.

If $`m_{ij}>0`$ for every $`i<j`$ and if $`\alpha <1`$ then the fixed point index of $`f^C`$ in each of the $`n!/2`$ components of $`X^C`$ is $`1`$.

###### Proof.

The space $`X^C`$ has $`n!/2`$ connected components (see for example Smale ). Consider, for every $`tI`$, the map defined by $`f_t(z)=w`$, with

(12)
$$w_i=\underset{ji}{}m_i^1(tm_{ij}+(1t)m_im_j)|z_iz_j|^{t\alpha 2+2t}(z_iz_j)$$

It is the self-map corresponding to the collinear $`n`$-body problem with parameters $`\alpha ^{}=t\alpha 2+2t`$ and $`m_{ij^{}}=tm_{ij}+(1t)m_im_j`$ and masses $`m_i`$. By lemma 2, $`\mathrm{Fix}(f_t)`$ is compact for every $`tI`$. Therefore $`f_t`$ yields a compactly fixed homotopy from $`f_1=f`$ to a map $`f_0:X^C^{n2}`$. The map $`f_0`$ is the self-map arising from the logarithmic potential collinear problem with masses $`m_i`$. Now we are going to define a compactly fixed homotopy $`g_t`$ from $`f_0=g_0`$ to a map $`g_1`$ corresponding to the self-map of the problem with all the masses equal to $`1`$ and the last mass equal to $`m`$. Let $`m_i^{}=(1t)m_i+t`$ and $`m_n^{}=(1t)m_i+tm`$; and let the hyperplane $`_t^{n2}`$ be defined by the equation $`_im_i^{}z_i=0`$ in $`^{n1}`$ with homogeneous real coordinates $`z_i`$. By definition $`X^{n2}=^{n2}=_0^{n2}`$. Then there is a family of homeomorphisms $`\phi _t:_0^{n2}_t^{n2}`$. Let $`G_t:_t^{n2}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_t^{n2}`$ be the self-map yielded by the $`n`$-body problem with masses $`m_i^{}`$, $`m_{ij}=m_im_j`$ and $`\alpha =2`$. The composition $`g_t=\phi _tG_t\phi _t^1`$ is a compactly fixed homotopy from $`g_0=f_0`$ to a self-map conjugated to the self-map $`h_m`$ of the problem with logarithmic potential and masses $`1`$, $`1`$, …, $`m`$. Now we prove, somehow as in the proof of Moulton , that the fixed point index of $`h_m`$ in each component of $`X^C`$ is $`1`$ for every $`m`$. By induction on the number of bodies $`n`$. If $`n=3`$, then this is true. Otherwise, consider the map $`h_m`$. It is possible to let $`m`$ be equal to zero (the case of the infinitesimal mass), and everything that we have done in the previous section can be carried out literally. By looking at the proof of lemma 2, it is easy to see that if $`m=0`$ then $`h_0`$ is compactly fixed, like in the case $`m>0`$. Therefore $`h_m`$ is compactly fixed homotopic to $`h_0`$, and the fixed point indexes of $`h_0`$ coincide with the fixed point indexes of $`h_m`$. So consider the projection $`\pi :^{n2}^{n3}`$ which sends $`[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_n]`$ to $`[z_1:\mathrm{}:z_{n1}]`$. It is well-defined, because if $`m_n=0`$ then $`_im_iz_i=0m_1+\mathrm{}+m_{n1}=0`$. The map $`h_0`$ induces a map $`h^{}`$ arising from the $`(n1)`$-body problem with masses $`1`$, …, $`1`$ like in the following diagram.

By the induction hypothesis the fixed point indexes of $`h^{}`$ in the $`(n1)!/2`$ components of $`X`$’ are $`1`$. There are a finite number of fixed point, being isolated and contained in a compact. Moreover $`\pi :XX^{}`$ is a fiber bundle with fibers equal to $``$ minus $`n1`$ points (the collisions). Consider a fixed point $`[z_1:\mathrm{},z_{n1}]`$ of $`h^{}`$. Let $`F`$ be its pre-image under $`\pi `$. By equation 2, we have $`w_i=\lambda z_i`$, with $`\lambda =n(n1)/I`$. Hence the induced map $`h_0|F`$ is

(13)
$$x\frac{I}{n1}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(xz_j)^1.$$

It is easy to see that $`h_0|F`$ has just one fixed point of index $`1`$ in each of the $`n`$ components of $`F`$. By the product formula for the fixed point index , this means that the fixed point index of $`h_0`$ in each of the $`n(n1)!/2=n!/2`$ components of $`X`$ is $`1`$. This completes the proof. ∎

###### Theorem 6.

If $`\alpha <1`$ and the coefficients $`m_{ij}`$ are non-zero and have the same sign for every $`i`$, $`j`$, then there are exactly $`n!/2`$ collinear central configurations.

###### Proof.

Assume $`m_{ij}>0`$ for every $`i`$, $`j`$. Proposition 5 implies that the fixed point index of $`f`$ in every component $`V`$ of $`X`$ is $`1`$. By proposition 4 and 2, in each component $`V`$ there are a finite number of fixed points of index $`1`$. By the additivity property of the fixed point index, this implies that there is exactly one fixed point in each component, henceforth that there are exactly $`n!/2`$ collinear central configurations. If $`m_{ij}<0`$ for every $`i`$, $`j`$, then apply the same argument to the map $`f`$ obtained by taking $`U`$ instead of $`U`$. Since $`f=f`$, $`\mathrm{Fix}(f)=\mathrm{Fix}(f)`$ hence the claim. ∎

### 3. Three bodies

The central configurations in the Newtonian $`3`$-body problem are the three Euler collinear configurations and the equilateral Lagrange configuration. More generally, the case of three charged bodies has been done in  in case $`\alpha =3`$. Here we give some bounds on the number of solutions, assuming as above that $`\alpha <1`$ (that is, the collisions are singularities for the field). The space $`X`$ is homeomorphic to $`^1=S^2`$ minus three points (the three double collisions). The map $`f`$ can be extended to $`S^2`$, since there are no triple collisions (apply the same argument in the proof of lemma 2). The action of the conjugation group $`C`$ yields the reflection along the equator of $`S^2`$. A configuration is non-collinear if and only if it is not fixed by $`C`$.

#### 3.1. Collinear solutions

By the generalization of Moulton theorem 6 if the coefficients $`m_{ij}`$ have the same sign for every $`i`$, $`j`$ then there are exactly $`3`$ collinear central configurations. Otherwise, assume that some $`m_{ij}`$ are positive and some negative and none is zero. Up to rearranging indexes and changing sign, we can suppose $`m_{12}>0`$, $`m_{13}>0`$ and $`m_{23}<0`$, thus that $`f^C`$ is compactly fixed homotopic to the map $`\phi `$ corresponding to the problem with $`m_1=m_2=m_3=1`$, $`m_{12}=1`$, $`m_{13}=1`$ and $`m_{23}=1`$ and $`\alpha =2`$. In real projective coordinates, we have

$$\phi [z_1:z_2:z_3]=[3z_1(z_2z_3):(z_1z_3)^2:(z_1z_2)^2];$$

in the affine chart $`[t:1:1t]`$ the map $`\phi `$ can be written as a map $``$

$$t3\frac{t(2+t)}{(2t+1)^2},$$

which has degree $`0`$. Thus the degree of $`f^C`$ is equal to $`0`$. This means that there is always at least one collinear central configuration. In this case, opposite to the case $`m_{ij}>0`$, the number of fixed points might be greater than $`1`$ (the fixed point index of $`f^C`$). According to , for $`\alpha =3`$ the fixed points can be any number from 1 to 5, depending on the coefficients.

Now consider the case in which some $`m_{ij}`$ vanish. If all the $`m_{ij}`$ vanish, then the map $`f`$ is even not defined and the problem is totally degenerate. If two of the $`m_{ij}`$’s vanish, then the map $`f`$ is equal to a constant, so that there is exactly one fixed point. In this case the three body problem reduces to a Kepler problem with a third mass which does not interact with the first two and there is not much physical relevance. So assume that only one of the $`m_{ij}`$ vanishes: without loss of generality it is $`m_{23}`$. The homotopies yielded by the variation of the coefficients now need not to be compactly fixed away from the collisions, but are defined also on the collision set. There are two cases: either $`m_{12}`$ and $`m_{13}`$ have the same sign, or not. If they have the same sign, then the map $`f^C`$ up to sign is homotopic to the map $`f_3^C`$ obtained by setting $`m_i=1`$ and $`m_{12}=m_{13}=1`$ and $`\alpha =2`$. In coordinates, it is

$$f_3=[3z_1:z_3z_1:z_2z_1],$$

which has affine form

$$t3\frac{t}{2t+1}.$$

This map has degree $`1`$, therefore there are at least $`2`$ fixed points. The only collision fixed by $`f_3`$ is the collision of the particle $`2`$ with the particle $`3`$, therefore there is always $`1`$ fixed point of $`f^C`$ corresponding to a central configuration. In case $`m_{12}`$ and $`m_{13}`$ have different signs, then $`f^C`$ is homotopic to the map $`f_4^C`$ obtained by setting $`m_i=1`$ and $`m_{12}=m_{13}=1`$ and $`\alpha =2`$. In coordinates, it is

$$f_4=[z_2z_3:z_3z_1:z_1z_2].$$

This map has degree $`1`$, and does not fix any collision; therefore the fixed point index is $`0`$. Actually, what happens is that for some values of the coefficients there are no fixed points, for some other values there are.

#### 3.2. Non-collinear solution

Let $`x_1=|z_2z_3|`$, $`x_2=|z_1z_3|`$ and $`x_3=|z_1z_2|`$. We have

$$U=m_{12}\varphi (|z_1z_2|)+m_{13}\varphi (|z_1z_3|)+m_{23}\varphi (|z_2z_3|),$$

that is

$$U=m_{12}\varphi (x_3)+m_{13}\varphi (x_2)+m_{23}\varphi (x_1),$$

while

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`m_1|z_1|^2+m_2|z_2|^2+m_3|z_3|^2=`$
$`=`$ $`(m_1+m_2+m_3)^1(m_1m_2x_3^2+m_1m_3x_2^2+m_2m_3x_1^2).`$
The function $`u:X`$ therefore induces function $`\overline{u}:X/CS^1`$ such that $`\overline{u}\pi =u`$, where $`\pi :X^2`$ denotes the map which sends $`[z_1:z_2:z_3]X]`$ to $`[x_1:x_2:x_3]^2`$. Let $`X_1`$ denote the set of non-collinear configurations in $`X`$. The image $`\pi (X_1)^2`$ is homeomorphic to the quotient $`X_1/C`$. Now, we can apply the same argument as in lemma 1 and show that the critical points of $`\overline{u}`$ correspond to fixed points of the self-map $`X_1/C^2`$ given by

$$\overline{f}[x_1:x_2:x_3]=[\frac{m_{23}}{m_2m_3}x_1^{\alpha +1}:\frac{m_{13}}{m_1m_3}x_2^{\alpha +1}:\frac{m_{12}}{m_1m_2}x_3^{\alpha +1}].$$

Clearly, if any one of the $`m_{ij}`$ vanishes then there are no such fixed points in $`X_1`$ (a configuration of type $`[z:z:0]`$ is always collinear). So in the affine chart the fixed points are the compatible solutions of the system of equations

$`x^{|\alpha |}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{23}m_1}{m_{12}m_3}}`$
$`y^{|\alpha |}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{13}m_2}{m_{12}m_3}}`$
If the $`m_{ij}`$ do not have the same sign, then there are no solutions. In case of the Newtonian case we have $`m_{ij}=m_im_j`$, and hence the solution is given as expected by the equilateral triangle ($`x_1=x_2=x_3=1`$). Otherwise the solutions are either one (if the compatibility conditions on the sides of a triangle are fulfilled: $`x_i+x_j>x_k`$ for each permutation $`(i,j,k)`$), or none.

We can summarize the results in the following proposition.

###### Proposition 7.

Given the coefficients $`m_{12}`$, $`m_{13}`$ and $`m_{23}`$, masses $`m_i>0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ and $`\alpha <1`$, if we define $`\stackrel{~}{m}_1=m_1m_{23}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{m}_2=m_2m_{13}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_3=m_3m_{12}`$, the number of planar non-collinear central configurations $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{CC}_1/O(2)`$ is:

1. $`1`$, if $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ do not vanish, have the same sign, and for every permutation $`(i,j,k)`$

$$(\stackrel{~}{m}_i)^{\frac{1}{|\alpha |}}+(\stackrel{~}{m}_j)^{\frac{1}{|\alpha |}}>(\stackrel{~}{m}_k)^{\frac{1}{|\alpha |}}$$
2. $`0`$, otherwise.

The number of collinear central configurations is:

1. If two of the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ vanish: $`1`$.
2. If one of the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ vanishes and the sign of the left $`\stackrel{~}{m}_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_k`$ is the same: at least $`1`$.
3. If $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i0`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ have the same sign: $`3`$. Otherwise, if the sign of the $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i`$ changes: at least $`1`$.

### 4. Computing central configurations

As a consequence of lemma 1, the central configurations are the solutions of the system of $`2(n2)`$ equations in $`2(n2)`$ unknown variables. Let $`A`$ be the affine chart in $`^{n2}`$ of $`z_{n1}0`$. Let $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n2})`$ be the affine coordinates. In the chart $`A`$ the map $`f`$ is of the form $`xw_i/w_{n1}`$, where $`w_i`$ is the $`i`$-th component of $`f`$ and it is evaluated on the point

$$[x_1:x_2:\mathrm{}:x_{n2}:1:1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n2}{}}x_i].$$

Thus the $`n2`$ equations are

$$w_{n1}x_i=w_i,(i=1,\mathrm{},n2).$$

I have computed the approximate solutions of such system for $`n=3,\mathrm{},10`$. Unfortunately, only in the case of $`n=4`$ Albouy  proved that these are indeed solutions and the only solutions (actually, Morse equality 14 below gives an alternate proof of the fact that a non-collinear solution with symmetry different from $`3`$ and $`4`$ exists). For $`n5`$ the fact that the system is solved up to the machine precision (in this case $`10^{15}`$) does not imply that the solutions actually exists. A computer-assisted proof was shown by Kotsireas  for $`n=4,5`$.

A few words on the implementation: the program which computed the configurations in the appendix is written in FORTRAN 95, using the SLATEC F77 library, and partially in the language of MAPLE for post-processing. The algorithm is simple: a central configuration of equal masses can be ordered in a way that $`|z_1||z_2|\mathrm{}|z_n|`$. Therefore without loss of generality we can compute the configurations in the affine chart above. The root-finding subroutine starts by a random point until reaches a solution or a failure (there are different reasons for the failure, like approaching a collision or too many steps without progress). Since the norms of $`z_i`$ are ordered, we can assume that and such that $`|x_i|1`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n2`$. Therefore the random starting point can be chosen in the cube $`[1,1]^{2(n2)}`$. After a solution is found, the program stores it in a list, and computes the monic polynomial

$$p(z)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(zz_i)=z^n+a_{n2}z^{n2}+\mathrm{}+a_1z+a_0.$$

Given two solutions, they coincide up to permuting the particles, scaling, rotation or conjugation if and only if the coefficients $`a_i`$ and $`a_i^{}`$ of the corresponding polynomials are related by the equations

$$b^ia_i=a_i^{}$$

or

$$b^ia_i=\overline{a}_i^{},$$

where $`b`$ is a suitable complex number. Then, if the configuration is not in the list of known configurations, it is added to it. After the program cannot find any new configuration for a long enough time (depending on the number of masses), the list of configurations found is piped to a MAPLE filter that cross-checks the solutions, computes the reduced potential $`U\sqrt{I}`$, the critical point index, the fixed point index and the order of the isotropy group of the configuration (the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ acts on $`X`$, therefore each solution has a isotropy group with respect to this action: in the tables we count this isotropy, in general; for a few configurations which are not symmetric with respect to a reflection, we denote the isotropy $`1/2`$).

The time spent by the program in computing the solutions is a tiny part, whenever compared to the time spent in searching for solutions once the list is complete. Unfortunately, not only these numerical experiments do not imply that the approximate solutions are solutions, but there is no proof of the fact that there are no extra solutions. Some hope that the list, at least for small $`n`$, is complete, comes from the Morse equality

(14)
$$\underset{k}{}(1)^k\nu _k=\chi (X)=(1)^n(n2)!.$$

Let $`i(z)`$ denote the size of the isotropy group of the central configuration $`z\mathrm{CC}_1/SO(2)`$ with respect to the action of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, and $`h(z)`$ its Morse index. A consequence of equation 14 is the following equation.

(15)
$$\underset{z\mathrm{CC}_1/SO(2)}{}\frac{(1)^{h(z)}}{i(z)}=\frac{(1)^n}{n(n1)}.$$

Therefore we can test equation 15 against the collected data, keeping in mind that in the tables the configurations are listed in $`\mathrm{CC}_1/O(2)`$, hence if there is no axis of symmetry the configuration contributes to the sum twice. For example, for $`n=4`$ we have

$$\frac{1}{4}1+\frac{1}{3}+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{12};$$

for $`n=5`$,

$$\frac{1}{5}+\frac{1}{4}1+1\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{20};$$

for $`n=6`$,

$$\frac{1}{5}+\frac{1}{3}\frac{1}{6}1+\frac{1}{2}+1\frac{1}{3}1+\frac{1}{2}=\frac{1}{30};$$

for $`n=7`$ analogously we obtain $`\frac{1}{42}`$; for $`n=8`$ we have the first examples of configurations without an axis of symmetry: they contribute with $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1/2}}=2`$ instead of $`1`$, and the sum gives $`\frac{1}{56}`$. For $`n=9`$, it gives the expected $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}`$. Unfortunately, for $`n=10`$ the sum is $`{\displaystyle \frac{269}{90}}`$, thus there is a missing term $`+3`$. It is likely that the computation of the isotropy was broken somewhere or simply that there are some configurations missing.

### 5. Remarks

###### Remark 1.

In case of the logarithmic potential, the collinear central configurations are the zeroes of the Hermite polynomials (, Theorem 6.7.3 pag. 141). This result can be in some sense extended to the planar central configurations as follows: the planar central configurations of $`n`$ bodies are the zeroes of degree $`n`$ polynomials $`p(x)`$ with complex coefficients such that $`p(x)=0`$ $``$ $`p^{\prime \prime }(x)+\lambda \overline{x}p^{}(x)=0`$, with $`\lambda `$ real non-zero parameter. That is, $`p(x)`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n`$ satisfying the differential equation $`p^{\prime \prime }+\lambda \overline{x}p^{}+cp=0`$, where $`c`$ is a suitable function of $`x`$.

###### Remark 2.

It is apparent from the data shown below that the fixed point index of a central configuration is likely to be equal to minus one to the power the critical point index. This is certainly true for the gradient map, but $`f`$ is not equal (nor homotopic) to the gradient map. This relation is true for collinear configurations (embedded in the plane), and it is likely that it is true for all the central configurations. Unfortunately I do not know any proof of it.

###### Remark 3.

We see from the examples in the tables that if a central configuration has a rotational symmetry, then it has a symmetry axis. Thus the symmetry group of the configuration is either trivial or a dihedral group. In the tables there are no central configurations with a pure rotation symmetry. Is it true in general?

## Appendix

### Tables of central configurations


format: text

text:
# Phase Transitions in Quantum Pattern Recognition

## Abstract

With the help of quantum mechanics one can formulate a model of associative memory with optimal storage capacity. I generalize this model by introducing a parameter playing the role of an effective temperature. The corresponding thermodynamics provides criteria to tune the efficiency of quantum pattern recognition. I show that the associative memory undergoes a phase transition from a disordered, high-temperature phase with no correlation between input and output to an ordered, low-temperature phase with minimal input-output Hamming distance.

PACS: 03.67.L

The power of quantum computation  is mostly associated with the speed-up in computing time it can provide with respect to its classical counterpart. Recently, however, I showed  that this new paradigm of information processing opens the possibility for another improvement upon classical computation, represented by associative memories with exponential, and thus optimal, storage capacity. Subsequent further studies  are turning quantum pattern recognition into a completely new application of quantum information theory.

In traditional computers the storage of information is address-oriented. Retrieval of information requires a precise knowledge of the memory address and, therefore, incomplete or noisy inputs are not permitted. In order to address this shortcoming, models of associative (or content-addressable) memories  were introduced. Here, recall of information is possible on the basis of partial knowledge of their content, without knowing the storage location. The best known examples are the Hopfield model and its generalizations .

While these models solve the problem of recalling incomplete or noisy inputs, they suffer from a severe capacity shortage. Due to the phenomenon of crosstalk, which is essentially a manifestation of the spin glass transition  in the corresponding spin system, the maximum number of binary patterns that can be stored in a Hopfield network of $`n`$ neurons is linear in the number of neurons, $`p_{max}=O(n)`$ .

The probabilistic associative quantum memory proposed in  solves both problems. It is content-addressable and can thus recognize corrupted or incomplete inputs and it can store $`2^n`$ binary patterns on $`n`$ qbits. Contrary to its classical counterpart, which matches any input onto a stored pattern, the quantum associative memory is characterized by both a recognition process and an identification process. An input pattern can be rejected as non-recognized even before an identification is attempted. For its simplest version, described in , the identification efficiency cannot be tuned; only the recognition efficiency can be influenced.

In this paper I propose a generalization of my previous model with a new parameter $`t`$ playing the role of an effective temperature, which can be tuned by adding a number $`b=[1/t]_{\mathrm{integer}}`$ of certain control qbits. A proper thermodynamics corresponding to this parameter $`t`$ can be defined. In particular, the free energy $`F(t)`$ describes the average behaviour of the recognition mechanism at temperature $`t`$ and provides criteria to tune the efficiency of the associative memory. I show that, by increasing $`b`$ (lowering $`t`$), the associative memory undergoes a phase transition from a disordered phase with no correlation between input and output to an ordered phase with minimal Hamming distance bewteen the input and the output. This extends to quantum information theory the relation with Ising spin systems known in error-correcting codes and in public key cryptography .

The memory model proposed in  consists of three registers: one for the input, one for the memory $`|m`$ proper and one for a control qbit $`|c`$. The memory $`|m`$ consists of a coherent superposition of the $`p`$ binary patterns $`|p^i`$ on $`n`$ entangled qbits:

$$|m=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}|p^k.$$
(1)
I do not discuss here the algorithm for generating this superposition starting from the $`p`$ individual patterns, since it is described in detail in . Also, the usual error-correcting infrastructure  is assumed in order to protect the memory from decoherence.

The information retrieval algorithm entails repeating a set of operations and measurements of the control qbit $`|c`$ until this is found in state $`|0`$ or a threshold $`T`$ of repetitions is reached. When $`|c=|0`$ is measured one can proceed to a measurement of the memory register that yields the output; if $`T`$ is reached before obtaining $`|c=|0`$ the input is classified as “non-recognized”.

I propose here to generalize this device by increasing to $`b`$ the number of control qbits and repeating sequentially all operations for each of them before measuring the control register. The full initial quantum state is thus:

$$|\psi _0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}|i;p^k;0_1,\mathrm{},0_b$$
(2)
where $`|i=|i_1,\mathrm{},i_n`$ denotes the input qbits, the second register, $`m`$, contains the memory (1) and all $`b`$ control qbits are in state $`|0`$. Applying the Hadamard gate  $`H=\left(\sigma _1+\sigma _3\right)/\sqrt{2}`$ ($`\sigma _i`$ being the Pauli matrices) to the first control qbit one obtains

$`|\psi _1`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|i;p^k;0_1,\mathrm{},0_b`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|i;p^k;1_1,\mathrm{},0_b.`$
I now apply to this state the following combination of quantum gates:

$$|\psi _2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}NOT_{m_j}XOR_{i_jm_j}|\psi _1,$$
(5)
where the single-qbit gate NOT is represented by the first Pauli matrix $`\sigma _1`$, while the two-qbit exclusive OR (XOR) has the matrix representation XOR = diag(1,$`\sigma _1`$) and performs thus a NOT on the second qbit if and only if the first one is in state $`|1`$. Subscripts indicate the qbits on which these gates are applied, $`m`$ denoting the memory register.

As a result of the above operation the memory register qbits are in state $`|1`$ if $`i_j`$ and $`p_j^k`$ are identical and $`|0`$ otherwise:

$`|\psi _2`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|i;d^k;0_1,\mathrm{},0_b`$ (7)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}|i;d^k;1_1,\mathrm{},0_b,`$
where $`d_j^k=1`$ if and only if $`i_j=p_j^k`$ and $`d_j^k=0`$ otherwise.

Consider now the following Hamiltonian:

$``$ $`=\left(d_H\right)_m\left(\sigma _3\right)_{c_1},`$ (8)
$`\left(d_H\right)_m`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _3+1}{2}}\right)_{m_j},`$ (9)
where $`\sigma _3`$ is the third Pauli matrix. $``$ measures the number of 0’s in register $`m`$, with a plus sign if $`c_1`$ is in state $`|0`$ and a minus sign if $`c_1`$ is in state $`|1`$. Given how I have prepared the state $`|\psi _2`$, this is nothing else than the number of qbits which are different in the input and memory registers $`i`$ and $`m`$. This quantity is called the Hamming distance and represents the (squared) Euclidean distance between two binary patterns.

Every term in the superposition (7) is an eigenstate of $``$ with a different eigenvalue. Applying thus the unitary operator $`\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /2n)`$ to $`|\psi _2`$ one obtains

$`|\psi _3`$ $`=\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{\pi }{2n}}|\psi _2,`$ (10)
$`|\psi _3`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{\pi }{2n}d_H(i,p^k)}|i;d^k;0_1,\mathrm{},0_b`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\mathrm{e}^{i\frac{\pi }{2n}d_H(i,p^k)}|i;d^k;1_1,\mathrm{},0_b,`$
where $`d_H(i,p^k)`$ denotes the Hamming distance bewteen the input $`i`$ and the stored pattern $`p^k`$.

In the final step I restore the memory gate to the state $`|m`$ by applying the inverse transformation to eq. (5) and I apply the Hadamard gate to the control qbit $`c_1`$, thereby obtaining

$`|\psi _4`$ $`=H_{c_1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=n}{\overset{1}{}}}XOR_{i_jm_j}NOT_{m_j}|\psi _3,`$ (13)
$`|\psi _4`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2n}}d_H(i,p^k)|i;p^k;0_1,\mathrm{},0_b`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2n}}d_H(i,p^k)|i;p^k;1_1,\mathrm{},0_b.`$
The idea is now to repeat the above operations sequentially for all $`b`$ control qbits $`c_1`$ to $`c_b`$. This gives

$`|\psi _{\mathrm{fin}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{p}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{b}{}}}\mathrm{cos}^{bl}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2n}}d_H(i,p^k)\right)\times `$ (17)
$`\mathrm{sin}^l\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2n}}d_H(i,p^k)\right){\displaystyle \underset{\left\{J^l\right\}}{}}|i;p^k;J^l,`$
where $`\left\{J^l\right\}`$ denotes the set of all binary numbers of $`b`$ bits with exactly $`l`$ bits 1 and $`(bl)`$ bits 0. This concludes the deterministic part of the information retrieval process.

At this point one needs a measurement of the control register. Note that the overall effect obtained by the deterministic operations is an overall amplitude concentration on memory states similar to the input if there is a large number of $`|0`$ control qbits and an amplitude concentration on states different to the input if there is a large number of $`|1`$ control qbits. One is thus interested in retaining the projected state after the measurement only if all control qbits are measured in state $`|0`$. This will generically entail repeating the deterministic part of the algorithm several times, until exactly the desired state for the control register is obtained. If the number of such repetitions exceeds a preset threshold $`T`$ the input if classified as ”non-recognized” and the algorithm is stopped. Otherwise, once $`|c_1,\mathrm{},c_b=|0_1,\mathrm{},0_b`$ is obtained, one proceeds to a measurement of the memory register $`m`$, which yields the output pattern of the memory.

Since the expected number of repetitions needed to measure the desired control register state is $`1/P_b^{\mathrm{rec}}`$, with

$$P_b^{\mathrm{rec}}=\frac{1}{p}\underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}\mathrm{cos}^{2b}\left(\frac{\pi }{2n}d_H(i;p^k)\right),$$
(18)
the probability of measuring $`|c_1,\mathrm{},c_n=|0_1,\mathrm{},0_n`$, the threshold $`T`$ governs the recognition efficiency of the input patterns.

Once the input pattern $`i`$ is recognized, the measurement of the memory register yields the stored pattern $`p^k`$ with probability

$`P_b\left(p^k\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{Z}}\mathrm{cos}^{2b}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2n}}d_H(i,p^k)\right),`$ (19)
$`Z`$ $`=pP_b^{\mathrm{rec}}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{p}{}}}\mathrm{cos}^{2b}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2n}}d_H(i,p^k)\right).`$ (20)
Clearly, this probability is peaked around those patterns which have the smallest Hamming distance to the input. The highest probability of retrieval is thus realized for that pattern which is most similar to the input..

Contrary to the simplest version of this model presented in , however, here there is a second tunable parameter, namely the number $`b`$ of control qbits. This new parameter $`b`$ controls the identification efficiency of the quantum memory since, increasing $`b`$, the probability distribution $`P_b\left(p^k\right)`$ becomes more and more peaked on the low $`d_H(i,p^k)`$ states, until $`lim_b\mathrm{}P_b\left(p^k\right)=\delta _{kk_{\mathrm{min}}},`$ where $`k_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is the index of the pattern (assumed unique for convenience) with the smallest Hamming distance to the input.

The role of the parameter $`b`$ becomes familiar upon a closer examination of eq.( 19). Indeed, the quantum distribution described by this equation is equivalent to a canonical Boltzmann distribution with (dimensionless) temperature $`t=1/b`$ and (dimensionless) energy levels

$$E^k=2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{\pi }{2n}d_H(i,p^k)\right),$$
(21)
with $`Z`$ playing the role of the partition function.

The appearance of an effective thermal distribution suggests studying the average behaviour of quantum associative memories via the corresponding thermodynamic potentials. Before this can be done, however, one must deal with the different distributions of stored patterns characterizing each individual memory. To this end I propose to average also over this distribution, by keeping as a tunable parameter only the minimal Hamming distance $`d`$ between the input and the stored patterns. In doing so, one obtains an average description of the average memory.

As a first step it is useful to normalize the pattern representation by adding (modulo 2) to all patterns, input included, the input pattern $`i`$. This clearly preserves all Hamming distances and has the effect of normalizing the input to be the state with all qbits in state $`|0`$. The Hamming distance $`d_H(i,p^k)`$ becomes thus simply the number of qbits in pattern $`p^k`$ with value $`|1`$. For loading factors $`p/n0`$ in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ the partition function for the average memory takes a particularly simple form:

$$Z_{\mathrm{av}}=\frac{p}{N_\lambda }\underset{\{\lambda \}}{}\underset{j=d}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _j\mathrm{cos}^{2b}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\frac{j}{n}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\lambda _j`$ describes an unconstrained probability distribution such that $`_{j=d}^n\lambda _j=1`$, $`\{\lambda \}`$ is the set of such distributions and $`N_\lambda `$ the corresponding normalization factor.

I now introduce the free energy $`F(b,d)`$ by the usual definition

$$Z_{\mathrm{av}}=p\mathrm{e}^{bF(b,d)}=Z_{\mathrm{av}}(b=0)\mathrm{e}^{bF(b,d)},$$
(23)
where I have chosen a normalization such that $`\mathrm{exp}(bF)`$ describes the deviation of the partition function from its value for $`b=0`$ (high effective temperature). Since $`Z/p`$, and consequently also $`Z_{\mathrm{av}}/p`$ posses a finite, non-vanishing large-$`n`$ limit, this normalization ensures that $`F(b,d)`$ is intensive, exactly like the energy levels (21), and scales as a constant for large $`n`$. This is the only difference with respect to the familiar situation in statistical mechanics.

The free energy describes the equilibrium of the system at effective temperature $`t=1/b`$ and has the usual expression in terms of the internal energy $`U`$ and the entropy $`S`$:

$`F(t,d)`$ $`=U(t,d)tS(t,d),`$ (24)
$`U(t,d)`$ $`=E_t,S(t,d)={\displaystyle \frac{F(t,d)}{t}}.`$ (25)
Note that, with the normalization I have chosen in (23), the entropy $`S`$ is always a negative quantity describing the deviation from its maximal value $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$ at $`t=\mathrm{}`$.

By inverting eq.(21) with $`F`$ substituting $`E`$ one can also define an effective (relative) input/output Hamming distance $`𝒟`$ at temperature $`t`$:

$$𝒟(t,d)=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arccos}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{F(t,d)}{2}}.$$
(26)
This corresponds exactly to representing the recognition probability of the average memory as

$$\left(P_b^{\mathrm{rec}}\right)_{\mathrm{av}}=\mathrm{cos}^{2b}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}𝒟(b,d)\right),$$
(27)
which can also be taken as the primary definition of the effective Hamming distance.

The function $`𝒟(b,d)`$ provides a complete description of the behaviour of quantum associative memories, which can be used to tune their performance. Indeed, suppose that one wants the memory to recognize and identify inputs with up to $`ϵn`$ corrupted inputs with an efficiency of $`\nu `$ $`(0\nu 1)`$. Then one must choose a number $`b`$ of control qbits sufficiently large that $`\left(𝒟(b,ϵn)ϵ\right)\left(1\nu \right)`$ and a threshold $`T`$ of repetitions satisfying $`T1/\mathrm{cos}^{2b}\left(\frac{\pi }{2}𝒟(b,ϵn)\right)`$, as illustrated in Fig. 1 below.

A first hint about the general behaviour of the effective distance function $`𝒟(b,d)`$ can be obtained by examining closer the energy eigenvalues (21). For small Hamming distance to the input these reduce to

$$E^k\frac{\pi ^2}{4}\left(\frac{d_H(i,p^k)}{n}\right)^2,\frac{d_H(i,p^k)}{n}1.$$
(28)
Choosing again the normalization in which $`|i=|0\mathrm{}0`$ and introducing a “spin” $`s_i^k`$ with value $`s_i^k=1/2`$ if qbit $`i`$ in pattern $`p^k`$ has value $`|0`$ and $`s_i^k=+1/2`$ if qbit $`i`$ in pattern $`p^k`$ has value $`|1`$, one can express the energy levels for $`d_H/n1`$ as

$$E^k=\frac{\pi ^2}{16}+\frac{\pi ^2}{4n^2}\underset{i,j}{}s_i^ks_j^k+\frac{\pi ^2}{4n}\underset{i}{}s_i^k.$$
(29)
Apart from a constant, this is the Hamiltonian of an infinite-range antiferromagnetic Ising model in presence of a magnetic field. The antiferromagnetic term favours configurations $`k`$ with half the spins up and half down, so that $`s_{\mathrm{tot}}^k=_is_i^k=0`$, giving $`E^k=\pi ^2/16`$.The magnetic field, however, tends to align the spins so that $`s^k\mathrm{tot}=n/2`$, giving $`E^k=0`$. Since this is lower than $`\pi ^2/16`$, the ground state configuration is ferromagnetic, with all qbits having value $`|0`$. At very low temperature (high $`b`$), where the energy term dominates the free energy, one expects thus an ordered phase of the quantum associative memory with $`𝒟(t,d)=d/n`$. This corresponds to a perfect identification of the presented input. As the temperature is raised ($`b`$ decreased) however, the thermal energy embodied by the entropy term in the free energy begins to counteract the magnetic field. At very high temperatures (low $`b`$) the entropy approaches its maximal value $`S(t=\mathrm{})=0`$ (with the normalization chosen here). If this value is approached faster than $`1/t`$, the free energy will again be dominated by the internal energy . In this case, however, this is not any more determined by the ground state but rather equally distributed on all possible states, giving

$`F(t=\mathrm{})`$ $`=U(t=\mathrm{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\frac{d}{n}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{d}{n}}^1}𝑑x2\mathrm{log}\mathrm{cos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}x\right)`$ (31)
$`=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{n}}\right)2\mathrm{log2}+O\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{d}{n}}\right)^2\right),`$
and leading to an effective distance

$$𝒟(t=\mathrm{},d)=\frac{2}{3}\frac{2\mathrm{log2}}{\pi \sqrt{3}}\frac{d}{n}+O\left(\left(\frac{d}{n}\right)^2\right).$$
(32)
This value corresponds to a disordered phase with no correlation between input and output of the memory.

A numerical study of the thermodynamic potentials in (25) and (26) indeed confirms a phase transition from the ordered to the disordered phase as the effective temperature is raised. In Fig. 1 I show the effective distance $`𝒟`$ and the entropy $`S`$ for 1 Mb ($`n=8\times 10^6`$) patterns and $`d/n=1\%`$ as a function of the inverse temperature $`b`$ (the entropy is rescaled to the interval  for ease of presentation). At high temperature there is indeed a disordered phase with $`S=S_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$ and $`𝒟=2/3`$. At low temperatures, instead, one is in the ordered phase with $`S=S_{\mathrm{min}}`$ and $`𝒟=d/n=0.01`$. The effective Hamming distance plays thus the role of the order parameter for the phase transition.

The phase transition occurs at $`b_{\mathrm{cr}}10^1`$. The physical regime of the quantum associative memory ($`b`$ = positive integer) begins thus just above this transition. For a good accuracy of pattern recognition one should choose a temperature low enough to be well into the ordered phase. As is clear from Fig. 1, this can be achieved already with a number of control qbits $`b=O(10^4)`$. Note that this number becomes independent of the dimension $`n`$ of the patterns for large $`n`$. The computational load of quantum pattern recognition is thus determined uniquely by the accuracy requirements.


text:
# On finite 𝑇₀ topological spaces

## 1. Introduction and Preliminaries

Finite spaces were first studied by P.A. Alexandroff in 1937 in . Actually, finite spaces had been more earlier investigated by many authors under the name of simplicial complexes. There were several other contributions by Flachsmeyer in 1961 , Stong in 1966  and L. Lotz in 1970 . Rinow  in his book discussed some properties of finite spaces. However, the subject has never been considered as a main field of topology.

With the progress of computer technology, finite spaces have become more important. Herman in 1990 , Khalimsky and et. al. in 1990 , Kong and Kopperman in 1991  have been applied them to model the computer screen. In this paper we focus on finite spaces with order. The main importance of our study is to offer a new formulations for some topological operators in general topology such as interior, closure, boundary and exterior operators. We present and study comparisons between some topological properties in the case of finite spaces. In what follows, by $`X`$ we mean always mean a finite $`T_0`$ space. For each $`AX`$, the closure (resp. interior, exterior, boundary) of $`A`$ will be denoted by $`\overline{A}`$ (resp. $`\text{ int }(A)`$, $`\text{ ext }(A)`$, $`A`$).

For each point $`x`$ in a space $`X`$, there is a smallest neighborhood which is contained in each other neighborhood of $`x`$. For each $`xX`$, let

$$U_x=\{V:V\text{ is an open set containing }x\}$$

Clearly $`U_x`$ is the smallest open set containing $`x`$ since $`X`$ is finite.

Alexandroff spaces are the topological spaces in which each element is contained in a smallest open set or equivalently the spaces where arbitrary intersections of open sets are open. It is clear that all finite spaces are locally finite and all locally finite spaces are Alexandroff.

###### Lemma 1.1.

The class $`𝒰=\{U_x:xX\}`$ is a base for a finite space $`(X,\tau )`$. Each base of $`\tau `$ contains $`𝒰`$.

Notice that if $`X`$ is Alexandroff, then $`X`$ is $`T_1`$ if and only if $`U_x=\{x\}`$. It follows that $`X`$ is discrete and so every point is an isolated point.

###### Remark 1.2.

Observe that if $`x`$ and $`y`$ are two points in a space $`X`$, then $`yU_x`$ if and only if $`U_yU_x`$.

###### Definition 1.3.

 For two points $`x,yX`$, $`yx`$ if $`U_yU_x`$.

###### Remark 1.4.

From Definition 1.3, the relation $``$ is reflexive and transitive since $``$ is so.

###### Proposition 1.5.

In a space $`X`$, $`yx`$ if and only if $`x\overline{\{y\}}`$. In such case, $`x`$ is said to be identified with $`y`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`yx`$ and $`yx`$. Then $`yU_x`$ which is the smallest open set containing $`x`$. Then for any open set $`G`$ containing $`x`$, we have $`(G\{x\})\{y\}\varphi `$. This means $`x`$ is an accumulation point of $`y`$. Therefore $`x\overline{\{y\}}`$. Conversely, let $`x\overline{\{y\}}`$. Then $`G\{y\}\varphi `$ for every open sets $`G`$ containing $`x`$. So $`yG`$ for every open set $`G`$. Take $`G=U_x`$. By Remark 1.2, we get $`U_yU_x`$. This shows that $`yx`$. ∎

The following example will be used throughout the paper.

###### Example 1.6 (The class of topologies on a set with three points).

We give a list of all topologies on the set $`X=\{x,y,z\}`$ up to homeomorphic topologies. There are 9 topologies, with the following $`U_x`$, $`U_y`$ and $`U_z`$:

* All three points are isolated. This is the discrete topology and $`U_x=\{x\}`$, $`U_y=\{y\}`$, $`U_z=\{z\}`$.

Now, we assume that the topology has only two isolated points , say, $`U_x=\{x\}`$ and $`U_y=\{y\}`$. We have two cases concerning $`U_z`$:

* The neighborhood of $`U_z`$ has two points. We can assume $`U_z=\{x,z\}`$.
* The neighborhood of $`U_z`$ has three points, $`U_z=X`$.

Next, we consider the case that the topology has only one isolated point, say, $`U_x=\{x\}`$. Again, we have to distinguish between different cases concerning $`U_y`$ and $`U_z`$:

* Both $`U_y`$ and $`U_z`$ have three points. Then $`U_y=U_z=X`$.
* One neighborhood, say $`U_z`$, has three points and $`U_y`$ has two points. Then $`U_y=\{y,z\}`$ is not possible, so $`U_y=\{x,y\}`$.
* Both neighborhoods have two points and are equal $`U_y=U_z=\{y,z\}`$.
* $`U_x`$ and $`U_y`$ have two points and are different. Then they can not be $`\{y,z\}`$. Thus $`U_y=\{x,y\}`$ and $`U_z=\{x,z\}`$.

Finally, we have two cases without isolated points:

* There is a neighborhood with two points, say, $`U_x=\{x,y\}`$. Then the neighborhood of $`z`$ must have three points. Thus $`U_x=U_y=\{x,y\}`$ and $`U_z=X`$.
* All neighborhoods have three points, then $`U_x=U_y=U_z=X`$.

Figure 1 shows this class of topologies with its minimal neighborhoods. The smallest ellipse refers to a singleton, the middle is a two points neighborhood and the biggest one is the whole space $`X`$.

## 2. $`T_0`$ Properties and Associated Partial Order

In this section, we investigate some properties of $`T_0`$ spaces such that for two distinct points $`x`$, $`y`$ in $`X`$, $`xy`$ and $`yx`$ only true if $`U_x=U_y`$. If $`𝒰(x)`$ denote the neighborhood system of $`x`$. Recall that a space is $`T_0`$ if and only if $`𝒰(x)𝒰(y)`$ for $`xy`$.

###### Remark 2.1.

The topologies $`\tau _i`$ for $`i\{1,2,3,5,7\}`$, in Example 1.6, are $`T_0`$. Any two elements in Figure 1 with the same neighborhood is not $`T_0`$ such as $`\tau _j`$ for $`j\{4,6,8,9\}`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

For points $`x,y`$ in a topological space $`X`$, $`yx`$ if $`𝒰(y)𝒰(x)`$. Notice that $``$ means more numbers of neighborhoods.

###### Remark 2.3.

The relation $``$ is reflexive and transitive, since this is true for $``$. In a $`T_0`$ space, it is also antisymmetric. Then $``$ is a partial order in $`T_0`$ spaces.

###### Definition 2.4.

Let $`(X,)`$ be a partially ordered set and $`UX`$. We say that $`U`$ is open if whenever $`xU`$ and $`yx`$ it is also the case that $`yU`$.

In the following result we denote by the set of open subsets of $`X`$ by $`𝒰_{}`$.

###### Proposition 2.5.

If $`(X,)`$ is a partially ordered set, then $`(X,𝒰_{})`$ is a finite $`T_0`$ space.

###### Proof.

Clearly, $`X`$ and $`\varphi `$ are elements in $`𝒰_{}`$. Let $`U_i𝒰_{}\text{ for every }iI`$. For any $`x\underset{iI}{}U_i`$ and $`yx`$, there is $`i_0I`$ such that $`xU_{i_0}`$. By openness of $`U_{i_0}`$, we have $`yU_{i_0}`$ and $`y\underset{iI}{}U_i`$. Therefore $`\underset{iI}{}U_i𝒰_{}`$. Also, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are elements in $`𝒰_{}`$, then $`AB𝒰_{}`$. To show $`T_0`$, consider two distinct elements $`x,yX`$. Clearly, $`xU_x`$ and $`yU_y`$. If $`yU_x`$, the proof is complete. If $`yU_x`$, $`yx`$, by the antisymmetry of $``$, $`xy`$ and so $`xU_y`$ which also completes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 2.6.

The closure of any singleton $`p`$ of a finite $`T_0`$ space $`(X,𝒰_{})`$ has the form $`\overline{\{p\}}=\{x:xp\}`$.

###### Remark 2.7.

The order relation $``$ is not useful in $`T_1`$ spaces, because there are no comparable elements. In other words, since for every two distinct points $`x`$ and $`y`$ in a $`T_1`$ space, $`\overline{\{x\}}\overline{\{y\}}`$, then the relation $`xy`$ is never satisfied. Thus $``$ is a good tool only for $`T_0`$ spaces which are not $`T_1`$.

###### Proposition 2.8.

A finite $`T_0`$ space contains an isolated point.

###### Proof.

Obvious. ∎

###### Remark 2.9.

Finite spaces with isolated points need not be $`T_0`$. Each of $`\tau _4`$ and $`\tau _6`$ in figure 1 of example 1.6 has an isolated points, but not $`T_0`$.

###### Proposition 2.10.

Every open set in a finite $`T_0`$ space contains an isolated point.

###### Proof.

Let $`G`$ be an arbitrary open set in $`X`$. Then $`G`$ is a finite open $`T_0`$ subspace. By Proposition 2.8, there is an isolated point $`x`$ in $`G`$. Since $`G`$ is open in $`X`$, then $`x`$ must be isolated point in $`X`$. ∎

## 3. Some Topological Properties

In this paper, some of topological operators which are well known for topologists have new forms with respect to the Alexandroff’s notion of order.

###### Proposition 3.1.

In any finite space, the open (closed) points are the maximal (minimal) elements. Therefore $`U`$ is an open set if it contains its upper bounds. By the complement, $`F`$ is closed if it contains its lower bounds.

###### Proof.

By Definition 1.3 and Proposition 1.5, the partial order $`xy`$ for points $`x,y`$ in a finite $`T_0`$ space $`X`$ was defined by $`yU_x`$ or $`x\overline{\{y\}}`$. This means that for open points $`\{x\}=U_x`$, there is no strictly larger $`y`$. Thus the open points are the maximal elements in $`X`$. Similarly, for a closed point $`y`$, if $`U_x=\{x\}`$, then $`xy`$ implies $`y=x`$. Hence the closed points are the minimal elements. ∎

###### Proposition 3.2.

In a finite topological space $`X`$, the interior of a subset $`AX`$, $`\text{ int }A`$, is the set of all points $`aA`$ such that for every $`ba`$ it is also true that $`bA`$. In other words, the elements of $`\text{ int }A`$ are all upper bounds of $`X`$ belonging to $`A`$.

###### Proof.

We prove that $`\text{ int }A=\{aA:ba\text{ implies }bA\}`$. For $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}^{\prime \prime }`$, let $`a\text{int}(A)`$ that is $`U_aA`$ for $`\text{ int }A`$ is the greatest open set contained in $`A`$. But $`U_a=\{b:ba\}`$. For $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}^{\prime \prime }`$, if $`bA`$ for all $`ba`$. That means $`U_aA`$, then $`a\text{ int }A`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.3.

For a subset $`A`$ in a finite topological space $`X`$, the closure of $`A`$, $`\overline{A}`$, is the set of points $`bX`$ such that $`ba`$ for some $`aA`$. In other words, $`\overline{A}`$ is the set of all lower bounds of points of $`A`$.

###### Proof.

In a finite topological space $`X`$, $`\overline{A}=\underset{aA}{}\overline{\{a\}}`$. By the definition of $``$, we have $`\overline{\{a\}}=\{b:ba\}`$ and the claim. ∎

###### Proposition 3.4.

For a finite topological space $`X`$, the closure of an interior of a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$, $`\overline{\text{ int }A}`$, is the set of all $`x`$ in $`X`$ such that there exists a maximal element $`aA`$ with $`ax`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 3.3, $`\overline{\text{ int }A}=\{b:ba\text{ for some }a\text{ int }A\}`$. Since $`a\text{int }A`$, then all $`ca`$ are also in $`A`$. Therefore $`\overline{\text{ int }A}=\{b:ba\text{ for }aA\}`$. Since we have a finite ordered set, there is a maximal $`ca`$. Hence $`\overline{\text{ int }A}`$ is the lower bounds of maximal elements in $`A`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.5.

In a finite topological space $`X`$, the interior of a closure of $`AX`$,$`\text{ int }\overline{A}`$, is the points $`xX`$ such that all maximal elements $`yx`$ belong to $`A`$.

###### Proof.

From 3.2 and 3.3, we have

$`\text{int }\overline{A}`$ $`=`$ $`\{a\overline{A}:ba\text{ implies }b\overline{A}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{a\overline{A}:ba\text{ implies that there is }cA,cb\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{a\overline{A}:\text{ all maximal elements }ba\text{ must belong to }A\}`$
To prove the equality, if $`b`$ is maximal, then $`bA`$ since there is no other $`c`$ in $`A`$. Hence $`b\text{int}\overline{A}`$. On the other hand, if all elements in $`A`$ are maximal and $`ba`$, then there is a maximal $`cb`$ with $`cA`$. ∎

In finite topological spaces, From Propositions 3.4 and 3.5, we have $`\text{int}\overline{A}\overline{\text{ int }A}`$. The following example shows that the inverse inclusion is not always true.

###### Example 3.6.

Consider the topology $`\tau _3`$ in Example 1.6. If $`A=\{y,z\}`$, we get $`\text{ int }\overline{A}=\{y\}`$ and $`\overline{\text{ int }A}=\{y,z\}`$. Therefore $`\text{int}\overline{A}\overline{\text{ int }A}`$.

In 1961, Levine  introduced the notion of semi-open set in any topological space. A subset $`A`$ in a topological space $`X`$ is called semi-open if and only if $`A\overline{\text{ int }A}`$. In 1982, Mashhour et. al.  defined the concept of preopen set. A subset $`A`$ is preopen in $`X`$ if and only if $`A\text{ int }\overline{A}`$. There are no implications between these two concepts. This means that semiopen sets need not be preopen and conversely. In 1997, Abd El-Monsef et. al.  defined the concept of $`\gamma `$-open set as a union of semi-open and preopen sets which is equivalent to $`A\text{ int }\overline{A}\overline{\text{ int }A}`$, for any subset $`A`$ of $`X`$. From the relation $`\text{int}\overline{A}\overline{\text{ int }A}`$, we obtain a new implication between types of near openness in finite topological spaces.

###### Remark 3.7.

In a finite topological space $`X`$, the following are true:

1. Every preopen set in $`X`$ is semi-open. The converse may not be true as it is shown in Example 3.6
2. Semiopen sets coincide with $`\gamma `$-open sets. The following diagram shows the relation between these notions in a finite case.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{openness}& \hfill & \text{preopenness}& & \\ & & & & \\ \gamma \text{-openness }& \hfill & \text{semi-openness}& & \end{array}$$

The axiom $`T_0`$ is necessary for satisfying the previous implications. The following examples show this fact.

###### Example 3.8.

Any subset of an indiscrete space is preopen but not semi-open, since the indiscrete spaces are not $`T_0`$.

###### Proposition 3.9.

In a finite space $`X`$, the boundary of a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ is the set $`bX`$ such that $`ba`$ for some $`aA`$ and $`bc`$ for some $`cA`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from the definition, $`A=\overline{A}\overline{XA}`$, and Proposition 3.3. ∎

###### Proposition 3.10.

In a finite space $`X`$, the exterior of $`AX`$ is the set of points $`xX`$ such that for $`bx`$ implies $`bA`$.

###### Proof.

Since for any topological space $`\text{ ext (A)}=X\overline{A}=\text{ int }(XA)`$. By Proposition 3.2, we have

ext (A) $`=`$ $`\{xX:bx\text{ implies }bXA\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{xX:bx\text{ implies }bA\}`$
## 4. The Dimension for Finite Spaces

The notion of a topological dimension has a sense for finite spaces. Although we have only a finite number of points, all finite dimensions are possible. We use the notion of inductive dimension as stated by Engelking (, Chapter 7). A discrete space $`X`$ has dimension zero denoted by $`dimX=1`$, since the neighborhoods have no boundaries. On the real line $`R`$, the open intervals form a basis. The boundary of an interval consist of two points which is a discrete space. Analogously, the plane has dimension $`2`$ since a circumference has dimension $`1`$. This is the typical situation in three-dimensional spaces. This leads to the following definition.

###### Definition 4.1.

(, p.195) Let $`X`$ be a topological space. $`dimX=1`$ if and only if $`X=\varphi `$. Let $`n`$ be a positive integer and $`dimXk`$ be defined for each $`kn1`$. Then $`dimXn`$ if $`X`$ has a base $`\beta `$ such that $`dimBn1`$ for all $`B\beta `$.

A base $`\beta `$ of any finite space will be replaced by the set of all minimal neighborhoods for each of its points.

###### Proposition 4.2.

For a finite space $`X`$, $`dimXn`$ if and only if the minimal base $`𝒰`$ fulfils $`dimU_xn1`$ for each $`U_x𝒰`$.

###### Proof.

If $`dimXn`$, then by definition 4.1 it has a base $`\beta `$ such that $`dimBn1`$ for all $`B\beta `$. By Lemma 1.1, each $`\beta `$ contains $`𝒰`$. Then $`dimU_xn1`$. The converse is obvious. ∎

###### Proposition 4.3.

A topological space $`X`$ has dimension zero if and only if $`X`$ has a base of clopen sets.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`B=\varphi `$ if and only if $`B`$ is clopen. Dimension zero means existence of a base with $`B=\varphi `$. This condition is equivalent to $`B`$ being clopen. Since $`B`$ is containing those $`x`$ which are accumulation points of $`B`$ and its complement. For clopen sets $`B`$, we have $`B=\varphi `$. On the other hand, if $`B=(XB)=\varphi `$, then $`B`$ and $`XB`$ are closed and so $`B`$ is clopen. ∎

###### Proposition 4.4.

Every finite $`T_0`$ space with base $`\beta `$ of clopen sets is discrete.

###### Proof.

Since every zero dimensional $`T_0`$ space is $`T_1`$. then it is closed as a consequence of the finiteness of the space. ∎

Finiteness and $`T_0`$ axiom are necessary. It can be satisfied from the following examples.

###### Example 4.5.

The Cantor set $`\{0,1\}^{\mathrm{}}`$ with product topology has a base of clopen sets, but this space is not discrete.

###### Example 4.6.

In Example 1.6, the topology $`\tau _6`$ has a base $`\{\{x\},\{y,z\}\}`$ with clopen sets. $`X`$ is not discrete, because $`X`$ is not $`T_0`$.

###### Lemma 4.7.

Let $`X=CV`$ such that every $`cC`$ is closed and $`vV`$ is open. Then each of $`C`$ and $`V`$ is a discrete subspace of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`C`$ is a finite closed subspace of $`X`$, then each $`cC`$ is a closed point in $`C`$. Then $`C\{c\}`$ is a finite closed subset in $`C`$. So $`\{c\}`$ is an open point in $`C`$. This means that $`C`$ is a discrete set. It is clear that $`V`$ is discrete. ∎

The following Proposition describes the finite one-dimensional $`T_0`$ space.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Let $`X`$ be a finite $`T_0`$ space. Then $`dimX1`$ if and only if every singleton in $`X`$ is either open or closed.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be a finite $`T_0`$ space. By Proposition 2.8, $`X`$ has an open point say $`x_0`$ and $`U_{x_0}=\{x_0\}`$. Since $`dimX1`$, then $`dim(\{x_0\})=0`$ and so $`(\{x_0\})`$ is discrete. This means that each $`y_0(\{x_0\})`$ is closed in $`(\{x_0\})`$. Since $`(\{x_0\})`$ is closed in $`X`$, then $`\{y_0\}`$ is also closed in $`X`$. Take $`X^{^{}}=X\text{cl}(\{x_0\})`$ which is an open finite $`T_0`$ subspace of $`X`$. By Proposition 2.10, $`X^{^{}}`$ has an open point set $`x_1`$ and $`U_{x_1}=\{x_1\}`$ which is also open in $`X`$. Also $`dim(\{x_1\})=0`$, then $`(\{x_1\})`$ is discrete. So, each $`y_1(\{x_1\})`$ is closed in $`(\{x_1\})`$. Then $`\{y_1\}`$ is closed in $`X`$. Take $`X^{^{\prime \prime }}=X\text{cl}(\{x_0,x_1\})`$. By continuing, the proof is completed in one direction. Conversely, Suppose that singletons are open or closed. By Lemma 4.7, we have in either cases discrete subspaces of $`X`$. Therefore the dimension of each subspace is $`X1`$. Hence $`dimX1`$. ∎

###### Definition 4.9.

The height of a partially ordered set $`(X,)`$ is the degree of a longest element of the increasing sequence $`x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}.<x_n`$ of elements of $`X`$.

###### Example 4.10.

The discrete space has a height 1, since there are no comparable elements i.e. no $`x<y`$. The space in which each point is either open or closed of height 2, for $`x<y`$ is satisfied only for a closed point $`x`$ and an open point $`y`$.

Theorem 4.8 can be reformulate as follows: The dimension of a finite space $`X`$ is the height of a partially ordered set $`(X,)`$ minus 1.

###### Remark 4.11.

Recall that a space $`(X,\tau )`$ is called $`T_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ if every generalized closed subset of $`X`$ is closed  or equivalently if every singleton is either open or closed .
Observe that by Theorem 4.8, every finite $`T_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ space is a one dimensional $`T_0`$. It is also clear that a space $`X`$ is $`T_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ if its non-closed singletons are isolated.

## 5. Density in Finite Spaces

In this section, we introduce some characterizations of density in finite spaces.

###### Proposition 5.1.

In finite $`T_0`$ spaces, the set of all open points is dense.

###### Proof.

Let $`X`$ be a finite $`T_0`$. By Proposition 2.8, $`X`$ contains an isolated point. If $`O=\{x:\{x\}\text{ is open }\}`$. Then by Proposition 2.10, every open set $`G`$ containing $`x`$ must intersect $`O`$. This means that $`x\overline{O}`$. Hence $`O`$ is dense. ∎

###### Remark 5.2.

The condition $`T_0`$ is necessary in Proposition 5.1. The singleton $`\{x\}`$ in $`\tau _6`$ of example 1.6 is open but not dense.

###### Proposition 5.3.

A subset $`A`$ is dense in a finite $`T_0`$ space $`X`$ if and only if it contains all open points of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`O=\{x:\{x\}=U_x\}`$ be the set of open points in $`X`$. If $`A`$ is a dense subset of $`X`$, by density, then $`A`$ must intersect $`U_x`$. So, it must contain $`x`$. The converse case follows readily from Proposition 5.1. ∎

###### Corollary 5.4.

In finite $`T_0`$ spaces, each dense set contains an open dense set.

###### Proof.

Obvious from Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 5.3. ∎

In Corollary 5.4, The condition $`T_0`$ is necessary.

###### Example 5.5.

Consider the topology $`\tau _6`$ in Example 1.6. A subset $`\{a,c\}`$ is dense. But it does not contain an open dense subset.

Some topological concepts induced by density. Recall that $`A`$ is said to be codense (resp. nowhere dense, dense-in-itself) if $`\text{ int }(A)=\varphi `$ (resp. $`\text{ int }\overline{A}=\varphi `$, $`A=\text{ d}(A)`$), where $`\text{ d}(A)`$ denotes the set of accumulation points of $`A`$. Dense-in-itself of any $`AX`$, equivalently that $`A`$ does not have any isolated points. We state these notions in the finite spaces.

###### Proposition 5.6.

For arbitrary finite topological space $`X`$, the following are true for any subset $`A`$ of $`X`$,

1. It is co-dense if there is no upper bounds belongs to $`A`$.
2. It is nowhere dense if there is no element has a maximal element in $`A`$.
3. It is dense in-itself if $`A`$ contains all of its lower bounds.

###### Proof.

(i) and (ii) are obvious from Proposition 3.2 and Proposition 3.5 respectively.
(iii) Clear by Proposition 3.3 and using the equality $`A=\overline{A}`$. ∎

Recall that a topological space $`(X,\tau )`$ is said to be a submaximal if each of its dense subsets is open.

###### Proposition 5.7.

Any finite $`T_0`$ space $`X`$ is submaximal if and only if it contains at most a non-isolated point.

###### Proof.

The set of open points is dense by Proposition 5.1. Also by the submaximality of $`X`$, every dense subset is open. Then for every points $`x,y,zX`$ such that $`xyz`$, $`X\{y\}`$ is not open. Therefore $`y`$ is not isolated. Conversely, if all the points of $`X`$ are isolated, then the only dense set is $`X`$ itself. This means that $`X`$ is submaximal. Otherwise, if $`X`$ contains only non-isolated point $`y`$. Let $`A`$ be any dense subset of $`X`$. By Proposition 5.3, $`A`$ contains all isolated points of $`X`$. ∎

###### Corollary 5.8.

Every finite $`T_0`$ submaximal spaces is $`T_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. It is also one-dimensional space.

###### Proof.

It is a consequence Theorem 4.8. ∎

## 6. Some Weaker Forms of Continuity in Finite Spaces

Continuous functions play an important role in topology. The following proposition shows a corresponding definition of continuity between finite spaces using the minimal neighborhood of each point and its image.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be finite topological spaces, then the function $`f:XY`$ is continuous at $`x`$ if and only if $`f(U_x)U_{f(x)}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a continuous function. Fix a point $`xX`$. Since $`U_{f(x)}`$ is an open neighborhood of $`f(x)`$, then by the continuity of $`f`$, $`f^1(U_{f(x)})`$ is an open neighborhood of $`x`$ and so $`f(U_x)U_{f(x)}`$. Conversely, let $`W`$ be an open set containing $`f(x)`$. By assumption, $`f(U_x)U_{f(x)}W`$. Take $`U_x=U`$, then $`f(U)W`$ which shows that $`f`$ is continuous at $`x`$. ∎

Recall that a function $`f:XY`$ from a topological space $`X`$ into a topological space $`Y`$ is precontinuous  (resp. semicontinuous , $`\gamma `$-continuous ) if the inverse image of each open set in $`Y`$ is preopen (resp. semiopen, $`\gamma `$-open) in $`X`$.

In an arbitrary topological space, there is no connection between precontinuity and semicontinuity. Each of them implies $`\gamma `$-continuity. In the finite case, by Remark 3.7, every precontinuous function is semicontinuous which coincides with $`\gamma `$-continuous. The following implications show a new connection between continuity and some kinds of near continuity.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{Continuity}& \hfill & \text{Precontinuity}& & \\ & & & & \\ \gamma \text{-continuity }& \hfill & \text{Semicontinuity}& & \end{array}$$

The following example shows that the converse is not always true.

###### Example 6.2.

Let $`X=Y=\{x,y,z\}`$ as in Example 1.6. The mapping $`f:(X,\tau _3)(Y,\tau _5)`$ which defined by $`f(x)=x`$, $`f(y)=z`$ and $`f(z)=y`$ is $`\gamma `$-continuous, but not precontinuous.

A function $`f:XY`$ from a topological space $`X`$ into a topological space $`Y`$ is called preopen  (resp. semiopen, $`\gamma `$-open) if the image of each open set in $`X`$ is preopen (resp. semiopen, $`\gamma `$-open).

In arbitrary topological space, there is no connection between preopen and semiopen functions. In a finite case, by Remark 3.7, a preopen function is semiopen which coincides with $`\gamma `$-open. Each of them belongs to $`\gamma `$-open function. The implications between these types of functions and other corresponding ones are given by the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\text{Open function}& \hfill & \text{Preopen function}& & \\ & & & & \\ \gamma \text{-open function}& \hfill & \text{Semiopen function}& & \end{array}$$

The converse of these implications are not true, in general, as the following example illustrates.

###### Example 6.3.

Let $`X=\{x,y,z\}`$ with a topology $`\tau _5`$ as in Example 1.6 and $`Y=\{a,b,c,d\}`$ with the topology of minimal neighborhoods $`U_a=\{a\}`$, $`U_b=\{b\}`$, $`U_c=U_d=Y`$. The function $`f:XY`$ is $`\gamma `$-open but not preopen.

## 7. Continuity of Multifunctions in Finite Topological Spaces

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be two nonempty sets and $`P(Y)`$ be the collection of all subsets of $`Y`$. Recall that the function $`F:XP(Y)`$ is called a multifunction (, p.186).

###### Definition 7.1.

A function $`F:XP(Y)`$ from a topological space $`X`$ into a topological space $`Y`$ is called:

1. upper semicontinuous mulitifunction (abb.U.S.C) at a point $`x_0X`$ if for every open set $`V`$ in $`Y`$ such that $`F(x_0)V`$, there exists an open set $`U`$ containing $`x_0`$ such that $`F(U)V`$.
2. lower semicontinuous multifunction (abb.L.S.C)at a point $`x_0X`$ if for every open set $`V`$ in $`Y`$ such that $`F(x_0)V\varphi `$, there exists an open set containing $`x_0`$ such that $`F(x)V\varphi `$ for each $`xU`$.

###### Remark 7.2.

U.S.C is not necessarily L.S.C, and L.S.C is not necessarily U.S.C.

Now, the following theorems and examples give the relation beteen the usual definition of continuity for single valued functions and upper and lower semicontinuity for multifunctions.

###### Definition 7.3.

 A space $`X`$ is said to be a connected ordered topological space (abb. COTS) if for every three points subset $`Y`$ in $`X`$, there exists $`yY`$ such that $`Y`$ meets two connected components of $`X\{y\}`$. In other words, for any three points one of them separates the other two.

###### Remark 7.4.

Let $`X=[0,1]`$ with usual topology and $`f`$ be a continuous function from $`X`$ into itself. $`\pi :XY`$ is a quotient function from $`X`$ into a finite COTS $`Y`$. The function $`g`$ from $`Y`$ into itself is defined by $`g(y)=\pi f\pi ^1\{y\}`$ is continuous. The following examples discuss the continuity of $`g`$ in the case of single valued functions.

###### Example 7.5.

Let $`X=[0,1]`$ and $`f:XX`$ be a continuous function defined by

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill x+1/2:& 0x1/2\hfill \\ \hfill 1:& 1/2x1\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`Y=\{a,b,c,d,e\}`$ is a COTS. $`\pi `$ is a quotient function defined by

$$\pi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a:& x=0\hfill \\ \hfill b:& 0<x<1/2\hfill \\ \hfill c:& x=1/2\hfill \\ \hfill d:& 1/2<x<1\hfill \\ \hfill e:& x=1\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`g(y)=\pi f\pi ^1(y)`$ for each $`yY`$, so $`g(a)=c`$, $`g(b)=d`$, $`g(c)=e`$, $`g(d)=e`$, $`g(e)=e`$. Then $`g`$ is continuous at each point $`yY`$.

The following theorem is considered as an equivalent definition for U.S.C and L.S.C in finite topological spaces with respect to the minimal neighborhood of each point.

###### Theorem 7.6.

For finite topological spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$ and multifunction $`F:XP(Y)`$, we have:

1. $`F`$ is U.S.C at $`x`$ if and only if $`F(𝒰_x)\underset{yF(x)}{}𝒰_y`$.
2. $`F`$ is L.S.C at $`x`$ if and only if $`F(x^{})𝒰_y\varphi `$ for all $`x^{}𝒰_x`$ and $`yF(x)`$.

###### Proof.

(i). Let $`F`$ be U.S.C at $`xX`$. Then for every open set $`V`$such that $`F(x)V`$. There exits an open set $`U`$ with $`xU`$ such that $`F(U)V`$. Since $`xU`$, then $`𝒰_x𝒰`$. By assumption, we obtain $`F(𝒰_x)V`$. Take $`V=\underset{yF(x)}{}𝒰_y`$, then $`F(𝒰_x)\underset{yF(x)}{}𝒰_y`$. Conversely, let $`F(𝒰_x)\underset{yF(x)}{}𝒰_y`$. For $`x𝒰_x`$, take any $`VF(x)`$. As $`𝒰`$, we choose $`𝒰_x`$, then $`F(𝒰_x)\underset{yF(x)}{}𝒰_yV`$. Therefore $`F(𝒰_x)V`$ shows that $`F`$ is U.S.C.

(ii). Let $`F`$ be L.S.C at $`xX`$. That means for every open set $`V`$ such that $`F(x)V\varphi `$, there is an open set $`U`$ with $`xU`$ such that $`F(x^{})V\varphi `$ for all $`x^{}U`$. Applying for a special $`V`$, take $`V=𝒰_y`$ and $`yF(x)`$. Since $`𝒰_x𝒰`$, then $`F(x^{})𝒰_y\varphi `$ for all $`x^{}𝒰_x`$ and $`yF(x)`$. Conversely, let $`V`$ be an arbitrary open set with $`F(x)V\varphi `$. Take $`yF(x)V`$, then $`𝒰yV`$. As $`𝒰`$, we choose $`𝒰_x`$ and by assumption $`\varphi F(x^{})𝒰_yF(x^{})V`$. Then $`F(x^{})V\varphi `$ for all $`x^{}𝒰_x`$ and $`F`$ is L.S.C. ∎

U.S.C may not be L.S.C. It can be satisfied from the following example.

###### Example 7.7.

Let $`X=Y=\{a,b\}`$. Their minimal neighborhoods are $`𝒰_a=\{a\}`$ and $`𝒰_b=\{a,b\}`$. The multifunction $`F:XP(Y)`$ is defined by $`F(a)=\{a,b\},F(b)=\{a\}`$. Then $`F`$ is L.S.C. It is not U.S.C since we have $`F(𝒰_b)=\{a,b\}\underset{yF(b)}{}𝒰_y=\{a\}`$ by Theorem 7.6(i), $`𝒰_b=\{a,b\},F(b)=\{a\}`$. Therefore $`F`$ is not U.S.C. If the multifunction $`G:XP(Y)`$ is defined by $`G(a)=\{a\},G(b)=\{a,b\}`$, then $`G`$ is U.S.C. It is not L.S.C at the point $`b`$. Since by Theorem 7.6(ii), we have $`𝒰_b=\{a,b\},F(b)=\{a,b\}`$ and $`F(a)𝒰_a=\{b\}\{a\}=\varphi `$.

The following examples discuss the upper and lower semi-continuity of $`g`$.

###### Example 7.8.

Let $`X=[0,1]`$ with usual topology. The function $`f`$ from $`X`$ into itself defined by

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 3/42x:& 0x<1/4\hfill \\ \hfill 1/3x+1/6:& 1/4x1\hfill \end{array}$$

and the quotient function $`\pi :XY`$, where $`Y`$ is a finite COTS with five points defined by

$$\pi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a:& x=0\hfill \\ \hfill b:& x=0<x<1/2\hfill \\ \hfill c:& x=1/2\hfill \\ \hfill d:& 1/2<x<1\hfill \\ \hfill e:& x=1\hfill \end{array}$$

The multifunction $`g:YP(Y)`$ is defined by $`g(y)=\pi f\pi ^1y`$. Then $`g(a)=d,g(b)=\{b,c,d\},g(c)=b,g(d)=b,g(e)=c`$. $`g`$ is L.S.C, but not U.S.C since the point $`y=a`$, $`𝒰_a=\{a,b\}`$, $`g(a)=\{d\}`$ and $`g(𝒰_a)=\{b,c,d\}\underset{yg(a)}{}𝒰_y)=\{d\}`$.

Now, we consider some properties of U.S.C and L.S.C for multifunctions. These make a connection between multifunctions and dimension theory.

###### Theorem 7.9.

Let $`\pi :XY`$ be a continuous function from a topological space $`X`$ into a one-dimensional $`T_0`$ space $`Y`$. For any closed point in $`Y`$, $`\pi ^1(y)`$ is only one point and for any open point $`z𝒰_y`$, $`\pi ^1(y)cl(\pi ^1(z))`$, then $`\pi `$ is an open function.

###### Proof.

Let $`W`$ be an open set in $`X`$. Our aim is to prove that $`\pi (W)=\underset{y\pi (W)}{}𝒰_y`$. It is clear that $`\pi (W)\underset{y\pi (W)}{}𝒰_y`$. So, it is enough to prove that $`𝒰_y\pi (W)`$ for each $`y\pi (W)`$. There are two cases: If $`y`$ is an open point, then $`𝒰_y=\{y\}\pi (W)`$ and we are done. If $`y`$ is a closed point, by the assumption, $`\pi ^1(y)=x`$. Let $`z`$ be an open point such that $`z𝒰_(y)`$, by hypothesis, $`xcl(\pi ^1(z))`$. Since $`W`$ is an open neighborhood of $`x`$, then $`\pi ^1(z)W\varphi `$. For a point $`v\pi ^1(z)W\varphi `$, we have $`z=\pi (v)\pi (W)`$. Therefore, $`𝒰_y\pi (W)`$. This completes the proof. ∎

Under the previous assumptions of Theorem 7.9, $`\pi `$ is not a closed function.

###### Example 7.10.

Let $`X=[0,1]`$ with usual topology and $`Y`$ is a COTS with three points. The function $`\pi :XY`$ is defined by

$$\pi (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a:& x=0\hfill \\ \hfill b:& 0<x<1\hfill \\ \hfill c:& x=1\hfill \end{array}$$

The assumption of Theorem 7.9 hold. $`\pi `$ is not closed because if we take a closed set $`F(0,1)`$, then $`\pi (F)=\{b\}`$ is not closed.

###### Proposition 7.11.

For a topological space $`X`$ and one-dimensional $`T_0`$-space $`Y`$, consider a continuous function $`f`$ and a quotient a function $`\pi `$ from $`X`$ into $`Y`$. If the multifunction $`g:YP(Y)`$ is defined by $`g=\pi f\pi ^1`$, then $`g(y)`$ is a singleton for each closed point $`yY`$.

###### Proof.

Obvious, since $`f`$ and $`\pi `$ are single -valued functions. ∎

###### Theorem 7.12.

For a space $`X`$ and one-dimensional $`T_0`$-space $`Y`$, assume the following assumptions hold.

1. The function $`\pi :XY`$ is continuous.
2. For every closed point $`y`$, $`\pi ^1(y)`$ is one point.
3. For every open point $`z𝒰_y`$, $`\pi ^1(z)=x`$.
4. A multifunction $`g:YP(Y)`$ defined by $`g=\pi f\pi ^1`$.

Then $`g`$ is L.S.C.

###### Proof.

Let $`y_0Y`$ and $`V`$ be an open set in $`Y`$ such that $`g(y_0)V\varphi `$. If $`y_0`$ is an open point, then we can take $`𝒰_{y_0}=\{y_0\}`$ and so $`g`$ is L.S.C. If $`y_0`$ is a closed point, by assumption, for any open point $`y𝒰_{y_0}`$, $`\pi ^1(y_0)=xcl(\pi ^1(y))`$. By Proposition 30, $`g(y_0)`$ is a singleton and so $`f^1\pi ^1(V)`$ is an open neighborhood of $`x`$. Therefore $`\pi 1(V)W\varphi `$ for all $`y𝒰_{y_0}`$ and $`W=f^1\pi ^1(V)`$. This shows that $`g`$ is L.S.C. ∎

Under the conditions of Theorem 7.12, the multifunction is not necessarily to be U.S.C.

###### Example 7.13.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ and the quotient function as in Example 7.8. The function $`f`$ is defined by

$$f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 2x1:& 0<x<1/2\hfill \\ \hfill 12x:& 1/2<x<1\hfill \\ \hfill 1:& x\{0,1\}\hfill \end{array}$$

We have $`g(a)=e,g(b)=\{b,c,d\},g(c)=a,g(d)=\{b,c,d\},g(e)=e`$. $`g`$ is not U.S.C since at the point $`y_0=a`$, $`𝒰_a=\{a,b\}`$, $`g(a)=\{e\}`$, we have $`g(𝒰_a)=\{b,c,d,e\}\underset{yg(a)}{}𝒰_y)=\{d,e\}`$.

### Acknowledgment

The results of this paper were obtained during my Ph.D. studies at Tanta University and are also contained in my thesis.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1A short version of the thesis, supervised by C. Bandt, was distributed as a preprint at Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald . I would like to express my deep gratitude to my supervisors whose guidance and support were crucial for the successful completion of this paper.