text:
# References

hep-th/0204015

SNBNCBS-2002

Superfield approach to topological features of
non-Abelian gauge theory

R.P.Malik *** E-mail address: malik@boson.bose.res.in

S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,

Block-JD, Sector-III, Salt Lake, Calcutta-700 098, India

Abstract: We discuss some of the key topological aspects of a two $`(1+1)`$-dimensional (2D) self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory (having no interaction with matter fields) in the framework of chiral superfield formalism. We provide the geometrical interpretation for the Lagrangian density, symmetric energy momentum tensor, topological invariants, etc., by exploiting the on-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST symmetries that emerge after the application of (dual) horizontality conditions. We show that the above physically interesting quantities geometrically correspond to the translation of some local (but composite) chiral superfields along one of the two independent Grassmannian directions of a four ($`2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. This translation is generated by the conserved and on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST charges that are present in the theory.

PACS numbers: 11.10.-z; 11.30.Ph; 02.40.-k; 02.20.+b; 11.15.-q

1 Introduction

The modern developments in the subject of topological field theories (TFTs) have encompassed in their ever-widening horizons a host of diverse and distinct areas of research in theoretical physics and mathematics. In this context, mention can be made of such interesting topics as Chern-Simon theories, topological string theories and matrix models, 2D topological gravity, Morse theory, Donaldson and Jones polynomials, etc. (see, e.g., Ref.  and references therein for details). Without going into the subtleties and intricacies, TFTs can be broadly classified into two types. The Witten type TFTs  are the ones where the Lagrangian density turns out to be the Becchi-Rouet-Stora-Tyutin (BRST) (anti-)commutator. The conserved and nilpotent BRST charge for such a class of TFTs generates a symmetry that is a combination of a topological shift symmetry and some types of local gauge symmetry. On the other hand, the Schwarz type of TFTs  are characterized by the existence of a conserved and nilpotent BRST charge that generates only some local gauge type of symmetries for a Lagrangian density that cannot be totally expressed as the BRST (anti-)commutator (see, e.g., Ref.  for details). For both types of TFT, there are no energy excitations in the physical sector of the theory because the energy-momentum tensor turns out to be a BRST (anti-)commutator and all the physical states (including the vacuum) of this theory are supposed to be invariant w.r.t. the conserved, nilpotent, metric independent and hermitian BRST charge $`Q_b`$ (i.e. $`Q_b|vac>=0,Q_b|phys>=0`$).

Recently, in a set of papers \[4-7\], the free 2D Abelian- and self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theories (without any kind of interaction with matter fields) have been shown to belong to a new class of TFTs because the Lagrangian density of the theory turns out to bear an appearance similar to the Witten type theories but the local symmetries of the theory are that of Schwarz type. Furthermore, these non-interacting as well as self-interacting 2D theories \[4-7\], interacting 2D Abelian gauge theory (where there is an interaction between Dirac fields and 2D photon)  and $`(3+1)`$-dimensional (4D) free Abelian two-form gauge theory  have been shown to provide a set of tractable field theoretical models for the Hodge theory where the local, covariant and continuous symmetries of the Lagrangian density and corresponding conserved charges (as generators) are identified with all the three de Rham cohomology operators of differential geometry  On a compact manifold without a boundary, the set of operators $`(d,\delta ,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (with $`d=dx^\mu _\mu ,\delta =\pm d,\mathrm{\Delta }=d\delta +\delta d)`$ define the de Rham cohomological properties of the differential forms. They are called the exterior derivative, co-exterior derivative and Laplacian operator respectively and obey: $`d^2=\delta ^2=0,[\mathrm{\Delta },d]=[\mathrm{\Delta },\delta ]=0,\mathrm{\Delta }=\{d,\delta \}=(d+\delta )^2`$. Here $``$ stands for the Hodge duality operation \[11-14\].. The geometrical interpretation for these charges as the translation generators along some specific directions of a four $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold has also been established for the 2D free- and self-interacting (non-)Abelian gauge theories \[15-17\]. In a recent paper , some of the key features of the topological nature of a 2D free Abelian gauge theory have been captured in the superfield formulation \[19-23\] and their geometrical interpretations have been provided in the language of translations along some specific directions of the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. One of the central themes of our present paper is to extend our work on the free 2D Abelian gauge theory  to the more general case  of self-interacting 2D non-Abelian gauge theory and provide the geometrical interpretation for some key topological properties associated with this theory in the framework of (geometrical) superfield formulation \[19-23\]. Such studies are important because they provide geometrical origin for some of the key topological quantities of physical interest (e.g. Lagrangian density, symmetric energy momentum tensor, topological invariants, etc.) for the (non-)Abelian gauge theories. In particular, our results on the geometrical origin and interpretation for the Lagrangian density and corresponding symmetric energy momentum tensor are completely novel in nature vis-à-vis the key results of Refs. \[20-22,17\] where the geometrical interpretation for only the nilpotent (anti-)BRST charges \[20-22,17\] (and (anti-)co-BRST charges ) has been provided. The key observations of our present paper are, however, similar to .

The self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory (having no interaction with matter fields) is described by a singular Lagrangian density that happens to be endowed with first-class constraints in the language of Dirac’s classification scheme . For the BRST quantization of such a theory, the original Lagrangian density is extended to include the gauge-fixing- and Faddeev-Popov ghost terms so that the theory can maintain unitarity and “quantum” gauge symmetry (i.e. nilpotent BRST symmetry) together at any arbitrary order of perturbation theory. The ensuing Lagrangian density that respects the on-shell nilpotent BRST symmetry, however, does not respect corresponding on-shell nilpotent anti-BRST symmetry. To the best of our familiarity with the relevant literature, the on-shell nilpotent version of the anti-BRST symmetry does not exist for the self-interacting and/or interacting non-Abelian gauge theory in any arbitrary spacetime dimension. This feature of the self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory is drastically different from its Abelian counterpart where both the on-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetries are respected by the one and the same Lagrangian density (see, e.g.,). A possible explanation for this discrepancy has been provided in a recent paper  by resorting to the geometrical superfield approach to BRST formalism. In our present paper, we obtain the on-shell nilpotent version of the BRST- and co-BRST symmetries for the 2D self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory by exploiting the generalized versions of horizontality condition  This condition is referred to as the “soul-flatness” condition by Nakanishi and Ojima . w.r.t. the (super) cohomological operators $`(\stackrel{~}{d})d`$ (together with the Maurer-Cartan equation) and $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$ defined on the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. In this endeavour, the choice of the superfields to be chiral plays a very decisive role as the (dual) horizontality conditions (w.r.t. $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{d})d`$) lead to the derivation of the on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST symmetries only. The off-shell version of these symmetries has been already obtained in Ref.  where the ideas of Refs. \[20-22\] on the (anti-)BRST symmetries have been expanded and new (anti-)co-BRST symmetries have been introduced and derived in the superfield formalism by exploiting the above (super) cohomological operators together with the imposition of (dual) horizontality conditions. In contrast to the choice of chiral superfields for the derivation of the on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST symmetries, the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST- and (anti-) co-BRST symmetries have been derived by taking into account the most general superfield expansion along the $`\theta `$, $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`\theta \overline{\theta }`$-directions of the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold .

In our present discussion, we concentrate only on the on-shell version of nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST symmetries (avoiding any discussion about anti-BRST- and anti-co-BRST symmetries) because the basic Lagrangian density (see, e.g., (2.1) below) respects only these symmetries. The derivation of these symmetries and corresponding generators are good enough to shed some light on the topological nature of the 2D self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory. In fact, the topological nature of this theory is encoded in the form of the Lagrangian density and the symmetric energy-momentum tensor which can be thought of as the translation of some local (but composite) chiral superfields along one of the two Grassmannian directions of the supermanifold. This translation is generated by the on-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST charges which turn out to geometrically correspond to the translation generators along one of the two Grassmannian directions of the four $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. In mathematical terms, the Lagrangian density and symmetric energy momentum tensor for the present theory turn out to be the total derivative of some local (but composite) chiral superfields w.r.t. one of the two Grassmannian variables (cf. (5.1) and (5.5) below). In these derivations, the chiral superfield expansions are taken to be the ones that are obtained after the application of (dual) horizontality conditions. Thus, the (super) cohomological operators $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{d})d`$ play very important and pivotal roles for our present discussions through the (dual) horizontality restrictions.

Our present investigation is essential primarily on three counts. First of all, to the best of our knowledge, the full potential of (super) co-exterior derivatives $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$ has not yet been thoroughly exploited in the context of superfield approach to BRST formalism except in some of our recent works \[15-18\]. Thus, besides whatever have been achieved and understood in \[15-18,26\], it is important to explore the utility of these (super) cohomological operators in their diverse, distinct and multiple forms. Second, our present paper explains the reason behind the existence of on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST symmetries for the Lagrangian density (cf. (2.1) below) that does not respect on-shell nilpotent anti-BRST and anti-co-BRST symmetries. In fact, the choice of the chiral superfields (along with the idea of (dual) horizontality conditions) plays an important role in proving the existence of on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST symmetries. The choice of the anti-chiral superfields does not lead to the derivation of anti-BRST and anti-co-BRST symmetries for this theory as explained in our recent work . Finally, the geometrical understanding of the Lagrangian density and the symmetric energy momentum tensor for the present theory might turn out to be useful in the understanding of topological 2D gravity and topological string theories where a non-trivial metric is chosen for the theoretical discussions of such kind of gauge theories in the background of curved spacetime.

The contents of our present paper are organized as follows. In section 2, we set up the notations and briefly recapitulate the bare essentials of the BRST- and co-BRST symmetries for the 2D self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory in the Lagrangian formulation. Sections 3 and 4 are devoted to the derivation of the above on-shell nilpotent symmetries in the framework of superfield formalism. In section 5, we discuss topological aspects and provide their geometrical interpretations in the language of translations on the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. Finally, in section 6, we make some concluding remarks and point out a few directions that can be pursued later.

2 BRST- and co-BRST symmetries: Lagrangian formulation

Let us begin with the BRST invariant Lagrangian density $`_B`$ for the self-interacting two ($`1+1)`$-dimensional §§§We adopt here the conventions and notations such that the 2D flat Minkowski metric is: $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=`$ diag $`(+1,1)`$ and $`\mathrm{}=\eta ^{\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu =(_0)^2(_1)^2,F_{01}=F^{10}=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(_\mu A_\nu +\frac{1}{2}A_\mu \times A_\nu )=E=_0A_1_1A_0+A_0\times A_1,\epsilon _{01}=\epsilon ^{10}=+1,D_\mu C=_\mu C+A_\mu \times C,\alpha \beta =\alpha ^a\beta ^a,(\alpha \times \beta )^a=f^{abc}\alpha ^b\beta ^c`$ for non-null vectors $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in the group space. Here Greek indices: $`\mu ,\nu \mathrm{}=0,1`$ correspond to the spacetime directions on the 2D manifold and Latin indices: $`a,b,c..=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$ stand for the Lie group “colour” values. non-Abelian gauge theory in the Feynman gauge \[27-30\]

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_B\hfill & =& \frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}(_\mu A^\mu )(_\rho A^\rho )i_\mu \overline{C}D^\mu C\hfill \\ & & \frac{1}{2}EE\frac{1}{2}(_\mu A^\mu )(_\rho A^\rho )i_\mu \overline{C}D^\mu C\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.1)`$
where $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +A_\mu \times A_\nu `$ is the field strength tensor derived from the connection one-form $`A=dx^\mu A_\mu ^aT^a`$ (with $`A_\mu =A_\mu ^aT^a`$ as the vector potential) by application of the Maurer-Cartan equation $`F=dA+AA`$ where $`d=dx^\mu _\mu `$ is the exterior derivative (with $`d^2=0)`$ and the two-form $`F=\frac{1}{2}(dx^\mu dx^\nu )F_{\mu \nu }^aT^a`$. In 2D spacetime, only the electric field component ($`F_{01}=E=E^aT^a`$) of the field strength tensor $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ exists. Here $`T^a`$ form the compact Lie algebra: $`[T^a,T^b]=f^{abc}T^c`$ with structure constants $`f^{abc}`$ which can be chosen to be totally antisymmetric in $`a,b,c`$ (see, e.g., Ref.  for details). The gauge-fixing term is derived as $`\delta A=(_\rho A^{\rho a}T^a)`$ where $`\delta =d`$ (with $`\delta ^2=0`$) is the co-exterior derivative and $``$ is the Hodge duality operation. The (anti-)commuting ($`C^a\overline{C}^b+\overline{C}^bC^a=0,(C^a)^2=(\overline{C}^a)^2=0)`$ (anti-)ghost fields $`(\overline{C}^a)C^a`$ are required in the BRST invariant theory to maintain unitarity and “quantum” gauge (i.e. BRST) invariance together at any arbitrary order of perturbative calculations. In fact, these (anti-)ghost fields (which are not matter fields) interact with the self-interacting non-Abelian gauge fields ($`A_\mu =A_\mu ^aT^a`$) only in the loop diagrams of perturbation theory (see, e.g., Ref.  for details). The above Lagrangian density (2.1) respects ($`s_b_B=_\mu [(_\rho A^\rho )D^\mu C],s_d_B=_\mu [E^\mu \overline{C}]`$) the following on-shell ($`_\mu D^\mu C=D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C}=0`$) nilpotent $`(s_b^2=0,s_d^2=0)`$ BRST ($`s_b`$) We follow here the notations and conventions of Ref. . In fact, in its full glory, a nilpotent ($`\delta _{(D)B}^2=0`$) (co-)BRST transformation $`(\delta _{(D)B})`$ is equivalent to the product of an anti-commuting ($`\eta C=C\eta ,\eta \overline{C}=\overline{C}\eta `$) spacetime independent parameter $`\eta `$ and $`(s_d)s_b`$ (i.e. $`\delta _{(D)B}=\eta s_{(d)b}`$) where $`s_{(d)b}^2=0`$. -and dual(co)-BRST ($`s_d`$) symmetry transformations :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_bA_\mu \hfill & =& D_\mu Cs_bC=\frac{1}{2}C\times Cs_b\overline{C}=i(_\mu A^\mu )s_bE=E\times C\hfill \\ s_dA_\mu \hfill & =& \epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \overline{C}s_d\overline{C}=0s_dC=iEs_dE=D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.2)`$
The above continuous symmetries, according to Noether’s theorem, lead to the following expressions for the conserved and on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST charges $`(Q_d)Q_b`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Q_b\hfill & =& 𝑑x\left[_0(_\rho A^\rho )C(_\rho A^\rho )D_0C+\frac{i}{2}\dot{\overline{C}}C\times C\right]\hfill \\ Q_d\hfill & =& 𝑑x\left[E\dot{\overline{C}}D_0E\overline{C}i\overline{C}_1\overline{C}\times C\right]\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.3)`$
which turn out to be the generator for the transformations (2.2). This latter statement can be succinctly expressed in the mathematical form (for the generic field $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }^aT^a`$) as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_r\mathrm{\Psi }=i[\mathrm{\Psi },Q_r]_\pm r=b,d\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.4)`$
where brackets $`[,]_\pm `$ stand for the (anti-)commutators for any arbitrary generic field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(A_\mu ,C,\overline{C})`$ being (fermionic)bosonic in nature. Left to itself, the Lagrangian density (2.1) does not respect any anti-BRST- and anti-co-BRST symmetries. These symmetries can be brought in, however, by modifying (2.1) to incorporate a specific set of auxiliary fields (see, e.g., Refs. ). It is interesting to note that only the off-shell nilpotent version of these symmetries exist for the modified Lagrangian density (see, e.g., Ref. \[27-30\] for details). With the help of equations (2.3) and (2.4), the Lagrangian density (2.1) can be expressed, modulo some total derivatives, as the sum of on-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST anti-commutators:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_B\hfill & =& \{Q_d,\frac{1}{2}EC\}\{Q_b,\frac{1}{2}(_\rho A^\rho )\overline{C}\}s_d[\frac{i}{2}EC]s_b[\frac{i}{2}(_\rho A^\rho )\overline{C}].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.5)`$
The appearance of the above Lagrangian density is that of Witten type TFTs when the physical states (and vacuum) of the theory are supposed to be annihilated by $`Q_b`$ and $`Q_d`$. Such situation does arise if we invoke harmonic state of the Hodge decomposed state to correspond to the physical state in the total quantum Hilbert space \[5-7\]. The expression for the symmetric energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ for the Lagrangian density ($`_B`$) is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}(_\rho A^\rho )(_\mu A_\nu +_\nu A_\mu )\frac{1}{2}E(\epsilon _{\nu \rho }_\mu A^\rho +\epsilon _{\mu \rho }_\nu A^\rho )\hfill \\ & & \frac{i}{2}(_\mu \overline{C})(D_\nu C+_\nu C)\frac{i}{2}(_\nu \overline{C})(D_\mu C+_\mu C)\eta _{\mu \nu }_B.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.6)`$
This also turns out, modulo some total derivatives, to be the sum of BRST and co-BRST anti-commutators as given below

$$\begin{array}{ccc}T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}\hfill & =& \{Q_b,L_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\}+\{Q_d,L_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\}s_b(iL_{\mu \nu }^{(1)})+s_d(iL_{\mu \nu }^{(2)})\hfill \\ L_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu \overline{C}A_\nu +_\nu \overline{C}A_\mu +\eta _{\mu \nu }(_\rho A^\rho )\overline{C}\right]\hfill \\ L_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}\left[_\mu C\epsilon _{\nu \rho }A^\rho +_\nu C\epsilon _{\mu \rho }A^\rho \eta _{\mu \nu }EC\right].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.7)`$
The generic form of the topological invariants ($`I_k`$ and $`J_k`$) with respect to the conserved and on-shell ($`_\mu D^\mu C=D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C}=0`$) nilpotent ($`Q_b^2=Q_d^2=0`$) BRST ($`Q_b`$) - and co-BRST ($`Q_d`$) charges, on the 2D manifold, are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}I_k=_{C_k}V_kJ_k=_{C_k}W_k(k=0,1,2)\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(2.8)`$
where $`C_k`$ are the $`k`$-dimensional homology cycles in the 2D manifold and $`V_k`$ and $`W_k`$ are the $`k`$-forms w.r.t. $`Q_b`$ and $`Q_d`$ respectively It will be noted that we have chosen a 2D Minkowskian manifold where metric has opposite signs in the diagonal entries. To be very precise, this manifold is not a compact manifold. To have the accurate meaning of the topological invariants, homology cycles, etc., (and their connections with the notions in the algebraic geometry), one has to consider the Euclidean version of the 2D Minkowskian manifold which turns out to be the 2D closed Riemann surface. In this case, the 2D metric will have the same signs in the diagonal entries and $`\mu ,\nu ,\rho \mathrm{}=1,2`$. In fact, on these lines, a detailed analysis for the 2D (non-)Abelian gauge theories has been performed in Ref. . For the sake of brevity, however, we shall continue with our Minkowskian notations but we shall keep in mind this crucial point and decisive argument.. These forms are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}V_0\hfill & =& (_\rho A^\rho )C\frac{i}{2}\overline{C}C\times CV_1=[(_\rho A^\rho )A_\mu +iCD_\mu \overline{C}]dx^\mu \hfill \\ V_2\hfill & =& i[A_\mu D_\nu \overline{C}\overline{C}D_\mu A_\nu ]dx^\mu dx^\nu \hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.9)`$
$$\begin{array}{ccc}W_0\hfill & =& E\overline{C}W_1=[\overline{C}\epsilon _{\mu \rho }^\rho CiEA_\mu ]dx^\mu \hfill \\ W_2\hfill & =& i[\epsilon _{\mu \rho }^\rho CA_\nu +\frac{1}{2}C\epsilon _{\mu \nu }(_\rho A^\rho )]dx^\mu dx^\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(2.10)`$
These topological invariants obey certain specific kind of recursion relations  which primarily shed some light on the connection between (co-)BRST transformations- and operation of (co-)exterior derivatives on these invariants (cf. (5.4) below). Equations (2.5)-(2.10) establish the topological nature of the above self-interacting 2D non-Abelian gauge theory. For the case of this theory with off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST and (anti-)co-BRST symmetries and corresponding conserved and off-shell nilpotent charges, a set of four topological invariants has been computed in . In what follows hereafter, we shall concentrate, however, only on the Lagrangian density (2.1), its on-shell nilpotent symmetry generators (i.e. (co-)BRST charges) and corresponding topological invariants.

3 On-shell nilpotent BRST symmtery: superfield formulation

To provide the geometrical interpretation for the conserved and on-shell nilpotent BRST charge $`Q_b`$ (cf. (2.3)) as the translation generator in the framework of the superfield formulation \[19-23\], we first generalize the basic generic local field $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=(A_\mu (x),C(x),\overline{C}(x))`$ of the Lagrangian density (2.1) to a chiral ($`_\theta V_s(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })=0`$) supervector superfield $`V_s=(B_\mu (x,\overline{\theta }),\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\overline{\theta }),\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\overline{\theta }))`$ defined on the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold with the following super expansions along the Grassmannian direction $`\overline{\theta }`$ of the supermanifold

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(B_\mu ^aT^a)(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& (A_\mu ^aT^a)(x)+\overline{\theta }(R_\mu ^aT^a)(x)\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Phi }^aT^a)(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& (C^aT^a)(x)i\overline{\theta }(^aT^a)(x)\hfill \\ (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^aT^a)(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& (\overline{C}^aT^a)(x)+i\overline{\theta }(B^aT^a)(x)\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.1)`$
where the signs in the above expansions have been chosen for the later algebraic convenience only. Some of the salient and relevant points at this juncture are: (i) in general, the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold is parametrized by the superspace coordinates $`Z^M=(x^\mu ,\theta ,\overline{\theta })`$ where $`x^\mu (\mu =0,1)`$ are the even spacetime coordinates and $`\theta ,\overline{\theta }`$ are the odd Grassmannian variables ($`\theta ^2=\overline{\theta }^2=0,\theta \overline{\theta }+\overline{\theta }\theta =0`$). However, here we choose only the chiral superfields which depend only on the superspace variables $`Z^M=(x^\mu ,\overline{\theta })`$. (ii) The most general expansions for the even superfield $`B_\mu `$ and odd superfields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, along $`\theta `$, $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`\theta \overline{\theta }`$ directions of the supermanifold, are  \**\**\** All the signs in the analogue of the super expansions (3.2) have been taken to be only positive in Refs. . We invoke here some negative signs for the sake of later algebraic convenience without changing the physical contents of the theory.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(B_\mu ^aT^a)(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& (A_\mu ^aT^a)(x)+\overline{\theta }(R_\mu ^aT^a)(x)+\theta (\overline{R}_\mu ^aT^a)(x)+i\theta \overline{\theta }(S_\mu ^aT^a)(x)\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Phi }^aT^a)(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& (C^aT^a)(x)i\overline{\theta }(^aT^a)(x)+i\theta (\overline{B}^aT^a)(x)+i\theta \overline{\theta }(s^aT^a)(x)\hfill \\ (\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^aT^a)(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& (\overline{C}^aT^a)(x)+i\overline{\theta }(B^aT^a)(x)i\theta (\overline{}^aT^a)(x)+i\theta \overline{\theta }(\overline{s}^aT^a)(x).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.2)`$
The chiral limit (i.e. $`\theta 0`$) of the above expansion have been taken into (3.1). (iii) The horizontality condition (see, e.g., Refs. ) on (3.2) leads to the derivation of the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetries. We shall see later that the same condition on (3.1) yields the on-shell nilpotent BRST symmetry alone. (iv) The auxiliary fields in (3.1) are the fermionic (odd) fields $`R_\mu `$ and bosonic (even) fields $`B`$ and $``$. The corresponding fields in (3.2) are: $`R_\mu ,\overline{R}_\mu ,s,\overline{s}`$ and $`B,\overline{B},,\overline{},S_\mu `$. (v) In the above expansions (3.1) and (3.2), all the local fields on the r.h.s. are functions of the spacetime variables $`x^\mu `$ alone.

Now we invoke the horizontality condition ($`\stackrel{~}{F}=\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{A}=DA=F`$) on the super curvature two-form $`\stackrel{~}{F}=\frac{1}{2}(dZ^MdZ^N)\stackrel{~}{F}_{MN}`$ by exploiting the Maurer-Cartan equation, as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{F}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{A}+\stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}dA+AA=F\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.3)`$
where the super one-form connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ (in terms of the chiral superfields) and super exterior derivative $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ (in terms of the chiral superspace variables $`(x^\mu ,\overline{\theta })`$), are defined as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{A}\hfill & =& dZ^M\stackrel{~}{A}_M=dx^\mu B_\mu (x,\overline{\theta })+d\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{d}\hfill & =& dZ^M_M=dx^\mu _\mu +d\overline{\theta }_{\overline{\theta }}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.4)`$
The above definitions lead to the following expressions for

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{A}\hfill & =& (dx^\mu dx^\nu )(_\mu B_\nu )+(dx^\mu d\overline{\theta })(_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\theta }}B_\mu )(d\overline{\theta }d\overline{\theta })(_{\overline{\theta }}\mathrm{\Phi })\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{A}\stackrel{~}{A}\hfill & =& (dx^\mu dx^\nu )(B_\mu B_\nu )+(dx^\mu d\overline{\theta })([B_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }])\frac{1}{2}(d\overline{\theta }d\overline{\theta })(\{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }\}).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.5)`$
Now the horizontality restrictions in (3.3) imply the following

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\overline{\theta }}B_\mu +[B_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]=0,_{\overline{\theta }}\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Phi }\}=0\hfill \\ & & _\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu +[B_\mu ,B_\nu ]=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.6)`$
The first two relations in the above equation lead to the following expressions for the auxiliary fields in terms of the basic fields of the Lagrangian density (2.1)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_\mu (x)\hfill & =& D_\mu C(x)(x)=\frac{i}{2}(C\times C)(x)[(x),C(x)]=0\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.7)`$
and the l.h.s. of the last relationship (with $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu B_\nu _\nu B_\mu +[B_\mu ,B_\nu ]`$) yields

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }=F_{\mu \nu }+\overline{\theta }(D_\mu R_\nu D_\nu R_\mu )F_{\mu \nu }+\overline{\theta }F_{\mu \nu }\times C\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.8)`$
where we have used $`D_\mu R_\nu =_\mu R_\nu +[A_\mu ,R_\nu ],R_\mu =D_\mu C,[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]C=F_{\mu \nu }\times C`$. The total antisymmetric property of $`f^{abc}`$ in $`a,b,c`$ allows one to trivially check that the kinetic energy term of the Lagrangian density (2.1) remains invariant under transformation (3.8) (i.e. $`\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu })`$. Thus, physically, the horizontality condition implies that the kinetic energy term of the Lagrangian density remains invariant (and equal to the square of the ordinary curvature tensor). In other words, the supersymmetric contribution coming from the $`\overline{\theta }`$-component of the super curvature tensor $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }`$ does not lead to any additional changes to the usual kinetic energy term ($`\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$) which is defined on the ordinary 2D spacetime manifold. It is obvious from equation (3.7) that the horizontality restriction (3.3) does not fix the auxiliary field $`B(x)=(B^aT^a)(x)`$ in terms of the basic fields of the Lagrangian density (2.1). However, it has been shown  that the off-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST symmetries can be derived if we linearize the kinetic- and gauge-fixing terms of (2.1) by invoking two auxiliary fields $``$ and $`B`$ in the following way

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{}=E\frac{1}{2}+(_\rho A^\rho )B+\frac{1}{2}BBi_\mu \overline{C}D^\mu C\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.9)`$
which shows that $`B=(_\rho A^\rho )`$ †††††† It is clarifying to note that the off-shell nilpotent BRST ($`\stackrel{~}{s}_b`$)- and co-BRST ($`\stackrel{~}{s}_d`$) symmetry transformations: $`\stackrel{~}{s}_bA_\mu =D_\mu C,\stackrel{~}{s}_b\overline{C}=iB,\stackrel{~}{s}_bB=0,\stackrel{~}{s}_bC=\frac{1}{2}C\times C,\stackrel{~}{s}_b=\times C,\stackrel{~}{s}_bE=E\times C,\stackrel{~}{s}_b(_\rho A^\rho )=_\rho D^\rho C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{s}_dA_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \overline{C},\stackrel{~}{s}_dC=i,\stackrel{~}{s}_dB=0,\stackrel{~}{s}_d\overline{C}=0,\stackrel{~}{s}_d=0,\stackrel{~}{s}_d(_\rho A^\rho )=0,\stackrel{~}{s}_dE=D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C},\stackrel{~}{s}_d(D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C})=0`$ leave the Lagrangian density (3.9) invariant (up to a total derivative).. Thus, the super expansion in (3.1) can be re-expressed, in terms of the expressions for the auxiliary fields in (3.7) and $`B=(_\rho A^\rho )`$, as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_\mu (x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& A_\mu (x)+\overline{\theta }(D_\mu C)(x)A_\mu (x)+\overline{\theta }(s_bA_\mu (x))\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& C(x)\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }(C\times C)(x)C(x)+\overline{\theta }(s_bC(x))\hfill \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& \overline{C}(x)i\overline{\theta }(_\rho A^\rho )(x)\overline{C}(x)+\overline{\theta }(s_b\overline{C}(x)).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(3.10)`$
With the above expansions as inputs, the on-shell nilpotent BRST symmetries in (2.2) can be concisely expressed in the language of superfields as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_bB_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+(B_\mu \times \mathrm{\Phi })s_b\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Phi }\times \mathrm{\Phi })s_b\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=i(_\mu B^\mu ).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.11)`$
In fact, in the above three transformations, the first one yields $`s_bA_\mu =D_\mu C,s_bC=\frac{1}{2}C\times C`$; the second produces $`s_bC=\frac{1}{2}C\times C`$ and the third leads to $`s_b\overline{C}=i(_\mu A^\mu ),s_b(_\mu A^\mu )=_\mu D^\mu C`$ in terms of the basic fields of (2.1). Comparing with (2.4), it is clear that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}i\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}B_\mu (x,\overline{\theta })=[Q_b,A_\mu ]i\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\overline{\theta })=\{Q_b,C\}i\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\overline{\theta })=\{Q_b,\overline{C}\}\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(3.12)`$
which shows that the conserved and on-shell nilpotent BRST charge $`Q_b`$ (that generates the BRST transformations (2.2)) can be geometrically  interpreted as the generator of translation ($`\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}`$) along the Grassmannian direction $`\overline{\theta }`$ of the supermanifold. This clearly establishes the fact that the horizontality condition w.r.t. the super covariant derivative $`\stackrel{~}{D}=\stackrel{~}{d}+\stackrel{~}{A}`$ (in $`\stackrel{~}{F}=\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{A}=DA=F`$) leads to the derivation of the on-shell nilpotent BRST symmetries for the non-Abelian gauge theory and it plays an important role in providing the geometrical interpretation for the BRST charge $`Q_b`$ on the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold.

4 On-shell nilpotent co-BRST symmetry: superfield approach

It is evident from our earlier discussions that $`F=DA=dA+AA`$ defines the two-form curvature tensor on an ordinary compact manifold. The operation of an ordinary co-exterior derivative $`\delta =d`$ on the one-form $`A=dx^\mu A_\mu ^aT^a`$ leads to the definition of the gauge-fixing term (i.e. $`\delta A=_\mu A^{\mu a}T^a`$). Interestingly, the operation of the covariant co-exterior derivative $`\mathrm{\Omega }=D`$ on the one-form $`A`$ leads to the same gauge-fixing term. This can be seen (with $`(dx^\mu )=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(dx_\nu ),(dx^\mu dx^\nu )=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu },A=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(dx_\nu )A_\mu `$) as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Omega }A=(d+A)A=d(A)(AA)=_\mu A^{\mu a}T^a\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.1)`$
where the total antisymmetry property of the $`f^{abc}`$ plays an important role in proving $`A_\mu \times A^\mu =0`$. In the simplest way, this statement can be verified by noting that: $`D_\mu A^\mu =_\mu A^\mu +A_\mu \times A^\mu =_\mu A^\mu `$ which is, in essence, the reflection of (4.1).

Now we shall generalize the horizontality condition ($`\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{A}=DA`$) of equation (3.3) (where (super) exterior derivatives $`(\stackrel{~}{d})d`$ and (super) one-forms $`(\stackrel{~}{A})A`$ play an important role) to the case where the (super) co-exterior derivatives $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$ operate on (super) one-forms $`(\stackrel{~}{A})A`$ to define a (super-)scalar. Thus, the analogue of the horizontality condition ‡‡‡‡‡‡ This condition has been christened as the dual horizontality condition in Refs.  because the (super) co-exterior derivatives $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$ are Hodge dual to (super) exterior derivatives $`(\stackrel{~}{d})d`$ on the (super) manifolds with (super) Hodge operations $`()`$ as defined in (4.2) and (4.4). is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\delta }\stackrel{~}{A}=\delta A\delta A=(_\mu A^\mu )\delta =d\stackrel{~}{\delta }=\stackrel{~}{d}A=dx^\mu A_\mu \hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.2)`$
where, in the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\stackrel{~}{A}=\stackrel{~}{d}\stackrel{~}{A}`$, we have to take into account

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{d}=dx^\mu _\mu +d\overline{\theta }_{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{A}=\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(dx_\nu )B_\mu (x,\overline{\theta })+d\overline{\theta }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.3)`$
so that the operation of $`\stackrel{~}{d}`$ on the one-form $`(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ can exist in the chiral space. Here the Hodge duality $``$ operation is defined on the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. In its most general form, this operation on the super differentials and their wedge products, are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(dx^\mu )\hfill & =& \epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(dx_\nu )(d\theta )=(d\overline{\theta })(d\overline{\theta })=(d\theta )\hfill \\ (dx^\mu dx^\nu )\hfill & =& \epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(dx^\mu d\theta )=\epsilon ^{\mu \theta }(dx^\mu d\overline{\theta })=\epsilon ^{\mu \overline{\theta }}\hfill \\ (d\theta d\theta )\hfill & =& s^{\theta \theta }(d\theta d\overline{\theta })=s^{\theta \overline{\theta }}(d\overline{\theta }d\overline{\theta })=s^{\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }}\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.4)`$
where $`\epsilon ^{\mu \theta }=\epsilon ^{\theta \mu },\epsilon ^{\mu \overline{\theta }}=\epsilon ^{\overline{\theta }\mu },s^{\theta \overline{\theta }}=s^{\overline{\theta }\theta }`$ etc. The choice of $`(\stackrel{~}{A}`$) in (4.3) is derived from the following general expression for the super one-form $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ and the application of the $``$ operation (4.4) on it, in the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{A}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& dx^\mu B_\mu (x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })+d\theta \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })+d\overline{\theta }\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{A}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& \epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(dx_\nu )B_\mu (x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })+d\overline{\theta }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })+d\theta \mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta }).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.5)`$
Taking the chiral limit ($`\theta 0,d\theta 0`$) of the above equation leads to the proof for the choice of $`(\stackrel{~}{A})`$ in (4.3). With the help of (4.4) and (4.3), the l.h.s. of the dual horizontality condition (4.2), can be explicitly written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{\delta }\stackrel{~}{A}=(_\mu B^\mu )+s^{\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }}(_{\overline{\theta }}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})\epsilon ^{\mu \overline{\theta }}(_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}+\epsilon _{\mu \nu }_{\overline{\theta }}B^\nu ).\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.6)`$
Application of the requirement in (4.2) allows us to set the coefficients of $`\epsilon ^{\mu \overline{\theta }}`$ and $`s^{\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }}`$ equal to zero. This restriction leads to the following relationships

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_\mu (x)=\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \overline{C}(x)B(x)=0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.7)`$
The other restriction, ensuing from (4.2), is $`_\mu B^\mu =_\mu A^\mu `$ which leads to $`_\mu R^\mu =0`$. It is evident that (4.7) automatically satisfies this condition. Physically, the dual horizontality condition amounts to the restriction that the ordinary gauge-fixing term $`(A)`$ defined on the ordinary 2D spacetime manifold remains intact and unchanged. In other words, the supersymmetric contribution emerging from the coefficients $`\epsilon ^{\mu \overline{\theta }},s^{\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }}`$ in (4.6) do not alter the original value of the gauge-fixing term defined on the 2D ordinary spacetime manifold (i.e. $`\delta A=(A)`$). It will be noticed that the auxiliary field $`(x)`$ is not fixed by the dual horizontality condition in (4.2). However, our argument in the context of choice of the Lagrangian density (3.9) for the off-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST symmetries, comes to our rescue as we have: $`(x)=E(x)`$. Thus, the expansion (3.1), with the results in (4.7), can be expressed as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_\mu (x,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& A_\mu (x)\overline{\theta }\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \overline{C}(x)A_\mu (x)+\overline{\theta }(s_dA_\mu (x))\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Phi }(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& C(x)i\overline{\theta }E(x)C(x)+\overline{\theta }(s_dC(x))\hfill \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}(x,\theta ,\overline{\theta })\hfill & =& \overline{C}(x)+i\overline{\theta }(B(x)=0)\overline{C}(x)+\overline{\theta }(s_d\overline{C}(x)).\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(4.8)`$
The above expansions (due to the dual horizontality condition in (4.2)) allow one to express the on-shell nilpotent co-BRST symmetry transformations of (2.2), in terms of the chiral superfields (4.8), as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_dB_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}s_d\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=0s_d\mathrm{\Phi }=+i\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(_\mu B_\nu +\frac{1}{2}B_\mu \times B_\nu )\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.9)`$
where the first transformation in the above equation leads to $`s_dA_\mu =\epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu \overline{C},s_d\overline{C}=0`$; the second one yields $`s_d\overline{C}=0`$ and third one produces $`s_dC=iE,s_dE=D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C}`$ in the language of the basic fields of the Lagrangian density (2.1). The equation (4.8) establishes that the on-shell nilpotent co-BRST charge $`Q_d`$ geometrically corresponds to the translation generator $`(\frac{}{\overline{\theta }})`$ along the Grassmannian direction $`\overline{\theta }`$ of the supermanifold as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}\mathrm{\Sigma }(x,\overline{\theta })=i[\mathrm{\Lambda }(x),Q_d]_\pm \mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Phi },\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }},B_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }=C,\overline{C},A_\mu \hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(4.10)`$
where the bracket $`[,]_\pm `$ stands for the (anti-)commutator for the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (or corresponding $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) being (fermionic)bosonic in nature and we have exploited the defining relationship (2.4).

5 Topological aspects: superfield formalism

We have derived in section 2 some of the key topological features in the Lagrangian formulation and have shown that, modulo some total derivatives, the Lagrangian density (2.1) can be expressed as the sum of BRST- and co-BRST anti-commutator (cf. (2.5)). In the language of the chiral superfields, the same can be expressed, modulo total derivative $`_\mu X^\mu `$, as:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_B=\frac{i}{2}\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}\left([\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(_\mu B_\nu +\frac{1}{2}B_\mu \times B_\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }]|_{\text{co-BRST}}+[(_\mu B^\mu )\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}]|_{\text{BRST}}\right)\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(5.1)`$
where the subscripts BRST- and co-BRST stand for the insertion of the chiral super expansions given in (3.10) and (4.8) respectively and $`X^\mu =\frac{i}{2}(\overline{C}D^\mu C+^\mu \overline{C}C)`$. In the above computation, we have used

$$[\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(_\mu B_\nu +\frac{1}{2}B_\mu \times B_\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }]|_{\text{co-BRST}}=(EC+\overline{\theta }D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C}C)+i\overline{\theta }EE.$$

Mathematically, the above Lagrangian density is nothing but the $`\overline{\theta }`$-component of the composite fields $`(_\mu B^\mu )\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }(_\mu B_\nu +\frac{1}{2}B_\mu \times B_\nu )\mathrm{\Phi }`$ when we substitute the chiral expansions (3.10) and (4.8) that have been obtained after the application of (dual) horizontality conditions. Incorporating the geometrical interpretation for the on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST charges, it can seen that the Lagrangian density (2.1) corresponds to the translation of some local (but composite) chiral superfields along the $`\overline{\theta }`$-direction of the $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold where the generators of translation on the suprmanifold are conserved and on-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST charges ($`Q_b`$ and $`Q_d`$).

Let us now concentrate on the topological invariants of the theory. We can provide the geometrical origin for the zero-forms $`W_0`$ and $`V_0`$ of equations (2.10) and (2.9) which are (co-)BRST invariants. To this end in mind, we note the following

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})|_{\text{BRST}}\hfill & =& C\overline{C}+i\overline{\theta }C(_\mu A^\mu )\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }(C\times C)\overline{C}\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})|_{\text{co-BRST}}\hfill & =& C\overline{C}i\overline{\theta }E\overline{C}.\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.2)`$
It obvious now that zero-forms in (2.9) and (2.10) are as follows

$$\begin{array}{ccc}i\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})|_{\text{BRST}}=V_0i\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})|_{\text{co-BRST}}=W_0.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(5.3)`$
Mathematically, it means that the on-shell ($`_\mu D^\mu C=0`$) BRST invariant quantity $`V_0`$ is nothing but the $`\overline{\theta }`$-component of the local (but composite) chiral superfield $`(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ when we substitute for them the super expansions (3.10) that are obtained after the imposition of the horizontality condition (3.3). In the language of the geometry on the supermanifold, $`V_0`$ is equivalent to a translation of the chiral superfield $`(\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})`$ along the $`\overline{\theta }`$-direction which is generated by the on-shell nilpotent BRST charge $`Q_b`$. In a similar fashion, we can provide a geometrical interpretation to the on-shell ($`D_\mu ^\mu \overline{C}=0`$) co-BRST invariant zero-form $`W_0`$. The rest of the topological invariants $`(V_k,W_k,k=1,2)`$ can be computed by the following recursion relations  that characterize the topological nature of this theory:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}s_bV_k=dV_{k1}s_dW_k=\delta W_{k1}d=dx^\mu _\mu ,\delta =idx^\mu \epsilon _{\mu \nu }^\nu .\hfill & & \end{array}$$
$`(5.4)`$
Now we wish to provide the geometrical interpretation for the symmetric energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ of the theory in the language of the translation on the four $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. In fact, it can be checked that the $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ of (2.6), modulo some total derivatives $`X_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$, can be expressed as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}+X_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}=\frac{i}{2}\frac{}{\overline{\theta }}\left([Y_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}]|_{\text{BRST}}+[Z_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}]|_{\text{co-BRST}}\right)\hfill \\ & & Y_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}=_\mu \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}B_\nu +_\nu \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}B_\mu +\eta _{\mu \nu }(_\rho A^\rho )\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\hfill \\ & & Z_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}=\epsilon _{\mu \rho }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }B^\rho +\epsilon _{\nu \rho }_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }B^\rho +\eta _{\mu \nu }\epsilon ^{\rho \sigma }(_\rho B_\sigma +\frac{1}{2}B_\rho \times B_\sigma )\mathrm{\Phi }\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.5)`$
where the explicit form of the total derivative term $`X_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}_\mu [(_\rho A^\rho )A_\nu +E\epsilon _{\nu \rho }A^\rho ]+\frac{1}{2}_\nu [(_\rho A^\rho )A_\mu +E\epsilon _{\mu \rho }A^\rho ]\hfill \\ & & \frac{i}{2}\eta _{\mu \nu }_\rho [^\rho \overline{C}C+\overline{C}D^\rho C].\hfill \end{array}$$
$`(5.6)`$
It is obvious from (5.5) that $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ geometrically corresponds to the translations of the local (but composite) chiral superfields $`Y_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ and $`Z_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ along the $`\overline{\theta }`$-direction of the four $`(2+2)`$-dimensional supermanifold. These translations are generated by the on-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST charges $`Q_b`$ and $`Q_d`$ respectively. Mathematically, the expression for $`T_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$, modulo some total derivatives, is nothing but the $`\overline{\theta }`$-component of the composite chiral superfields $`Y_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ and $`Z_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ where the expansions (4.8) and (3.10) for the chiral superfields are taken into account. Of course, these expansions are obtained after the imposition of (dual) horizontality conditions which play a very significant role here.

6 Conclusions

In our present investigation, we have concentrated on the key topological properties of the 2D self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory in the framework of the chiral superfield formulation. Our key observations are: (i) it is the existence of the novel on-shell nilpotent co-BRST symmetry (together with the familiar on-shell nilpotent BRST symmetry) that enables us to furnish a convincing proof for the topological nature of the 2D self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theory in the Lagrangian formulation because the Lagrangian density and symmetric energy momentum tensor for the theory turn out to be the sum of BRST- and co-BRST invariant parts (cf. (2.5) and (2.7)). (ii) In the framework of superfield formulation, this fact is reflected in the appearance of the Lagrangian density and the symmetric energy momentum tensor which turn out to be the total derivative w.r.t. Grassmannian variable $`\overline{\theta }`$ (cf. (5.1) and (5.5)). Geometrically, this is equivalent to the translation of some local (but composite) chiral superfields along the $`\overline{\theta }`$-direction of the supermanifold. These translations are basically generated by the conserved and on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST charges. (iii) Our claim is that whenever a Lagrangian density and corresponding symmetric energy-momentum tensor turn out to be a total derivative w.r.t. Grassmannian variable, the theory is a topological field theory and it owes its origin to the (super) cohomological operators $`(\stackrel{~}{d})d`$ and/or $`(\stackrel{~}{\delta })\delta `$. (iv) It is important for our whole discussion (in our present paper) to derive the on-shell nilpotent (co-)BRST symmetries in the superfield formulation because the Lagrangian density (2.1) is endowed with only these symmetries and it does not respect anti-BRST- and anti-co-BRST symmetries. (v) The choice of the chiral superfields and imposition of the (dual) horizontality conditions enable us to derive the on-shell nilpotent BRST- and co-BRST symmetries. This feature of our present investigation is different from the earlier attempts to derive the off-shell nilpotent (anti-)BRST symmetries \[20-22,17\] (and (anti-)co-BRST symmetries ) in the framework of superfield formulation where the most general super expansion for the superfields were considered. (vi) In our present analyses, the Lagrangian density (2.1) and corresponding symmetric energy momentum tensor (2.6) play key roles. Thus, the geometrical understanding of these physically relevant and interesting quantities might turn out to play an important role in the context of 2D gravity where a non-trivial (spacetime dependent) metric is chosen for the discussion of such gauge theories in the background of the curved spacetime (super)manifolds.

It is a well-known fact that the 2D Abelian as well as non-Abelian (Yang-Mills) gauge theories possess no physical degrees of freedom when they are defined on an ordinary 2D spacetime manifold without any non-trivial topology at the boundary. In other words, for all such manifolds, the fields of the theory are assumed to fall-off rapidly at infinity. Thus, our present 2D gauge theory, according to the standard definition of a TFT on a flat spacetime manifold with a spacetime independent metric (see, e.g.  for details), turns out to be a new type of TFT because the (co-)BRST symmetries of the theory gauge out the propagating degrees of freedom. In our chiral superfield formulation, this fact is reflected in (5.1) and (5.5) where we have been able to show that the Lagrangian density and symmetric energy momentum tensor of the theory are total Grassmannian derivatives modulo some total spacetime derivatives. These latter derivatives do not contribute anything substantial in our present discussion. This will not be the case, however, if this 2D gauge theory is defined, say, on a circle where the boundary terms will contribute. In fact for this case, there will be physical degrees of freedom associated with the gauge field. Furthermore, it is clear that all the physical fields of the theory will not go to zero at the boundary. Consequently, this theory will not be a TFT. In mathematical terms, now the total derivatives $`_\mu X^\mu `$ and $`X_{\mu \nu }^{(s)}`$ of (5.1) and (5.5) cannot be neglected. As a result, the Lagrangian density and symmetric energy momentum tensor will not be able to be expressed as the sum of (co-) BRST anti-commutators (in contrast to what we have shown in (2.5) and (2.7)). In the language of our present chiral superfield formulation, we shall not be able to express the above quantities as a total derivative w.r.t. the Grassmannian variable.

It would be nice to generalize our present work to 4D two-form free Abelian gauge theory where the existence of (co-)BRST symmetries has been shown . On its face value, however, it appears that there will be difficulty in such a generalization because of the fact that there is a single physical degree of freedom associated with the gauge field of the theory. But, we feel, it is important to try such a generalization so that we can learn more about some aspects of the two-form gauge theory which plays such a significant role in the context of string theory as well as field theory. In fact, some steps have already been taken in this direction . The superfield formulation of the 2D interacting (non-)Abelian gauge theories is another direction that can be pursued later. It might be interesting to follow the approach adopted in  to discuss the 2D free Abelian- and self-interacting non-Abelian gauge theories on the 2D closed Riemann surface (i.e. the Euclidean version of the 2D Minkowski manifold) of genus-one (and/or higher genus Riemann surfaces) and study the topological invariants of this theory. It would be gratifying to find their connection with the pertinent notions in the domain of algebraic geometry. These are some of the issues that are under investigation and our results will be reported elsewhere.

Acknowledgements: Clarifying comments by the referees are gratefully acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# An analogue of a conjecture of Mazur: a question in Diophantine approximation on tori

## 1 The conjecture about tori

In this section we propose the following analogue of Mazur’s conjecture for tori. We begin by recalling certain standard definitions.

Let $`S`$ be a torus defined over $``$, i.e., let $`S`$ be a commutative linear algebraic group over $``$ which becomes isomorphic to $`𝔾_m^n`$ over the algebraic closure $`\overline{}`$ of $``$ for a certain integer $`n0`$. The torus $`S`$ is called isotropic over $``$ if there exists a homomorphism of algebraic groups $`S𝔾_m`$ defined over $``$. If $`S`$ is not isotropic over $``$, it is called anisotropic.

Given a linear algebraic group over $``$ such as $`S`$, it makes sense to talk of arithmetic subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`S()`$. Any two arithmetic subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ are commensurable, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is of finite index in both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. It is a consequence of Dirichlet unit theorem (or the general theorem due to Borel and Harish-Chandra) that if $`S`$ is an anisotropic torus over $``$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S()`$ is a compact abelian group for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ any arithmetic subgroup of $`S()`$. The connected component of identity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S()`$ is a torus in the usual sense of the word, i.e., a topological group isomorphic to $`(S^1)^n`$.

Unlike most other algebraic groups, tori have the property that there is a unique maximal arithmetic group. This unique maximal arithmetic subgroup is the subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`T()`$ defined as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\{\gamma T()|\begin{array}{c}\chi (\gamma )=\mathrm{a}\mathrm{unit}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{ring}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{integers}\mathrm{of}\overline{}^{}\hfill \\ \mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\mathrm{characters}\chi :T𝔾_m\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

We now make the following analogue of Mazur’s conjecture for tori.

###### Conjecture 2

Let $`S`$ be an algebraic anisotropic torus defined over $``$. Let $`F`$ be a finitely generated subgroup of $`S()`$. For $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ any arithmetic subgroup of $`S()`$, the connected component of identity of the closure of the image of $`F`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S()`$ equals connected component of identity of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T\backslash T()`$ for a certain subtorus $`T`$ of $`S`$ defined over $``$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_T=\mathrm{\Gamma }T()`$. Equivalently, the closure of the image of $`F`$ is dense in the Euclidean topology in the identity component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S()`$ if and only if any subgroup $`G`$ of $`S()`$ surjecting on the image of $`F`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S()`$ is Zariski dense in $`S`$.

Remark 1: To any finitely generated subgroup $`F`$ of $`S()`$, there is a natural subtorus $`T`$ of $`S`$ over $``$ defined as the (connected component of the identity of the) kernel of the group of characters

$$X_F=\{\chi :S𝔾_m|\chi (a)=\mathrm{a}\mathrm{unit}\mathrm{in}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{ring}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{integers}\mathrm{of}\overline{}^{}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}aF\}.$$

By embedding an anisotropic torus in a product of norm 1 tori (as in Lemma 3 below), it is easy to see that the torus $`T`$ defined here is the same as that which appears in the conjecture above. We are sloppy here, as well as other places in the paper, about making such assertions only up to connected components.

Remark 2: Let the finitely generated group $`F`$ be generated by $`\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n\}`$. Since product of compact subgroups is compact, it is clear that the closure of the image of $`F`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash S()`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ an arithmetic subgroup of $`S()`$, is the product of the closures of cyclic groups generated by $`a_i`$. Hence it suffices to prove the conjecture for cyclic groups $`F`$. By embedding an anisotropic torus in a product of norm 1 tori (as in Lemma 3 below), we are further reduced to proving the conjecture for a cyclic subgroup in a product of norm 1 tori.

Remark 3: The conjecture above can also be formulated as the closure of a finitely generated subgroup in $`S()`$ containing an arithmetic subgroup in $`S()`$. We note that since an arithmetic group in an anisotropic torus over $``$ which is split over $``$ is Zariski dense, so will this finitely generated subgroup. Thus in this sense, our conjecture has a different flavor than Mazur’s conjecture. We note that there is also a conjecture, different from the one formulated here, due to Waldschmidt \[W3, Conjecture 3.5 of Chapter 3\] about the closure in the Euclidean topology of a finitely generated subgroup of $`S()`$.

Remark 4: In this paper we will often be using without explicit mention the trivial remark that the connected component of identity of the closure in either Euclidean or Zariski topology of a finitely generated subgroup $`F`$ (of a topological group or an Algebraic group) or a subgroup $`G`$ of $`F`$ of finite index is the same.

Example 1: The simplest case of our conjecture is when $`T`$ is a torus over $``$ such that $`T()`$ itself is compact. In this case we can take $`T()`$ to be the trivial subgroup of $`T()`$. We will thus be comparing the closures in Euclidean topology and Zariski topology of a finitely generated subgroup of $`T()`$. That the two closures are the same follows from the easily proven assertion that any continuous homomorphism from the compact group $`T()`$ to $`S^1`$ is the restriction to $`T()`$ of an algebraic character (defined over $``$) from $`T()`$ to $`^{}`$.

Example 2: Let $`k`$ be a totally real cubic extension of $``$. Let $`T=k^1`$ denote the group of Norm 1 elements of $`k`$. So $`T()=k^1`$, and the group of units of (the ring of integers of) $`k`$ of norm 1 can be taken to be an arithmetic subgroup of $`T()`$. We have,

$`T()`$ $`=`$ $`\left[k\right]^1`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\right]^1`$
$``$ $`^{}\times ^{}.`$
We note that $`(x,y)(\mathrm{log}x,\mathrm{log}y)`$ gives an isomorphism of the product of two copies of positive reals (under multiplication) with real numbers (under addition). We have thus a homomorphism from $`T()`$ to $`\times `$ such that the image of the group of units of norm 1 is a discrete cocompact subgroup with quotient $`S^1\times S^1`$.

It is easy to see that the torus $`T`$ of norm 1 elements of a cubic field has no nontrivial subtorus defined over $``$. Our conjecture in this case will therefore say that any element of $`T()`$ which is not of finite order will generate a dense subgroup of $`T()\backslash T()`$. We make this more concrete.

Observe that if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ is a lattice in $`^2`$ and $`v`$ is a vector in $`^2`$, then integral multiples of $`v`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\backslash ^2`$ if and only if there does not exist a nonzero integer $`q`$, and a lattice point $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`qv+\lambda `$ is real multiple of a vector in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Suppose if possible, $`qv+\lambda =r\lambda _1`$ for an integer $`q`$, and a real number $`r`$. By looking at the co-ordinates of the vectors on the two sides of the equality, it is easily seen that it suffices to prove that if $`(\mathrm{log}|x_1|,\mathrm{log}|x_2|)`$ is a real multiple of $`(\mathrm{log}|ϵ_1|,\mathrm{log}|ϵ_2|)`$ then it is a rational multiple of $`(\mathrm{log}|ϵ_1|,\mathrm{log}|ϵ_2|)`$. Here $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are the images of an element (corresponding to $`qv+r`$) in $`k^1`$ under two fixed embeddings into the reals, and $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ are the images of a unit element in $`k^1`$ under the same embeddings into the reals.

This will be a consequence of the following well-known conjecture, cf. \[W2\].

###### Conjecture 3

(4 Exponential Conjecture due to Schneider, Lang and Ramachandra) Let $`M`$ be a $`2\times 2`$ matrix consisting of logarithm of algebraic numbers. Assume that the rows of the matrix are linearly independent over $``$, and also that the columns of the matrix are linearly independent over $``$, then the determinant of $`M`$ is non-zero.

The following theorem is a step towards the proof of the 4 exponential conjecture.

###### Theorem 2

(Lang and Ramachandra) Let $`M`$ be a $`2\times 3`$ matrix consisting of logarithm of algebraic numbers. Assume that the rows of the matrix are linearly independent over $``$, and also that the columns of the matrix are linearly independent over $``$. Then the rank of $`M`$ is 2.

## 2 Some lemmas about Tori

In this section we collect together some elementary lemmas about tori. We will be considering closures of finitely generated subgroups in the Euclidean and Zariski topologies.

###### Lemma 1

(a) For a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^n`$ with $`^n/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ compact, the integral multiples of a point $`x^n`$ are dense inside $`^n/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if and only if no non-trivial continuous homomorphism of $`^n/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to $`S^1`$ takes $`x`$ to the identity element of $`S^1`$.

(b) The integral multiples of $`x^n`$ are dense inside $`^n/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if and only if $`rx+\lambda `$ does not belong to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1_{}`$ for any subgroup $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with rank$`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1}^{}<n`$, any nonzero integer $`r`$, and any element $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

(c) The integral multiples of $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)^n`$ are dense inside $`^n/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if and only if for $`\mathrm{}_1=(\mathrm{}_{11},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{1n}),\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{n1}=(\mathrm{}_{n1,1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{n1,n})`$, belonging to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and generating a rank $`(n1)`$ subgroup of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}rx_1+\lambda _1& rx_2+\lambda _2& & & & rx_n+\lambda _n\\ \mathrm{}_{11}& \mathrm{}_{12}& & & & \mathrm{}_{1n}\\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ & & & & & \\ \mathrm{}_{n1,1}& \mathrm{}_{n1,2}& & & & \mathrm{}_{n1,n}\end{array}\right)$$

is non-singular, i.e., the determinant is non-zero, for any nonzero integer $`r`$, and any $`\lambda =(\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _n)\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Now we have a lemma about density of the abelian group generated by a point on a torus in the Zariski topology. In this lemma for a number field $`K`$, we will be looking at the torus $`T=R_{K/}𝔾_m`$ defined over $``$ to be the algebraic group whose group of rational points over any $``$-algebra $`A`$ is $`T(A)=(K_{}A)^{}`$; in particular $`T()=K^{}`$.

###### Lemma 2

(a) An element $`xT()=K^{}`$ generates $`K`$ (i.e., $`K`$ is the smallest field extension of $``$ containing $`x`$) if and only if all its conjugates (i.e., the image of $`x`$ under all the distinct embeddings of $`K`$ in $``$) $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ are distinct.

(b) An element $`xT()=K^{}`$ lies in no proper algebraic subgroup defined over $``$ if and only if the abelian subgroup generated by $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ is free abelian of rank $`n`$.

Proof : Part $`(a)`$ is clear. For part $`(b)`$ note that any algebraic character of $`T()=K^{}`$ (defined over the algebraic closure) is defined by $`zz_1^{d_1}z_2^{d_2}\mathrm{}z_n^{d_n}`$, where $`z_i`$ denotes the image of $`z`$ under the various embeddings of $`K`$ into $``$. Since for an element belonging to a proper algebraic subgroup of $`T`$, there is a character of $`T`$ trivial on that element, therefore if $`x`$ belongs to a proper algebraic subgroup, the subgroup generated by $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ will not be free.

Conversely, if the subgroup generated by $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ is not free abelian, $`x`$ belongs to the kernel of a non-trivial character $`\chi `$ of $`T`$ defined over $`\overline{}`$. Hence $`xT()`$ lies in $`S(\overline{})`$ for an algebraic subgroup $`S`$ of $`T`$. By Galois conjugation, $`xS^\sigma (\overline{})`$ for all Galois conjugates of $`S`$. Hence $`x(S^\sigma )(\overline{})`$. However, $`A=(S^\sigma )`$ is an algebraic group defined over $``$. Hence $`x`$ belongs to $`A()`$ for $`A`$ a proper algebraic subgroup of $`T`$.

###### Lemma 3

For any anisotropic torus $`T`$ over $``$, there are field extensions $`K_1,\mathrm{},`$ $`K_d`$ of $``$, such that if $`S`$ denotes the product of the norm 1 tori associated to $`K_i`$, then there is an embedding of $`T`$ into $`S`$.

Proof : As is well-known, there is an equivalence of categories between tori over $``$ and finitely generated free $``$-module with an action of the Galois group Gal$`(\overline{}/)`$ of the algebraic closure $`\overline{}`$ of $``$. The equivalence is given by associating to any torus $`T`$, its character group $`X^{}(T)`$. Choose a $``$-basis, say $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_d\}`$ of the character group of $`T`$. Suppose that $`H_i`$ is the subgroup of Gal$`(\overline{}/)`$ which stabilises the vector $`e_i`$. The mapping $`gge_i`$ from Gal$`(\overline{}/)`$ to $`X^{}(T)`$ gives a mapping from $`[G/H_i]`$ to $`X^{}(T)`$. Summing over $`i`$, we get a surjective map from $`_i[G/H_i]`$ to $`X^{}(T)`$. This gives an embedding from $`T`$ to $`_iR_{K_i/}𝔾_m`$ where $`K_i`$ is the fixed field of $`H_i`$. Since $`T`$ is anisotropic, the image of $`T`$ lands inside the product of norm 1 tori.

## 3  Schanuel’s conjecture implies conjecture 2

In this section we prove that our conjecture 2 about closures in Euclidean topology of finitely generated subgroups in general tori is a consequence of Schanuel’s conjecture.

We should however add that although our approach in this paper is via Schanuel’s conjecture, there is a possibility that there may be a simpler proof for conjecture 2, just using the more primitive methods of Geometry of Numbers, as we are dealing with a rather specific number theoretic context.

We begin with the statement of Schanuel’s conjecture which is one of the most outstanding problems in transcendental number theory. In the statement of this conjecture as well as everywhere else in the paper, one means by $`\mathrm{log}A`$, for a complex number $`A`$ to be any complex number $`B`$ such that $`\mathrm{exp}(B)=A`$.

###### Conjecture 4

(Schanuel’s Conjecture) If $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n`$ are algebraic numbers such that $`\mathrm{log}\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}\alpha _n`$ are linearly independent over $``$, then $`\mathrm{log}\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}\alpha _n`$ are algebraically independent over $``$.

We will need the following lemma about number fields.

###### Lemma 4

Let $`L`$ be a number field which is Galois over $``$. Enumerate the elements of the Galois group $`G`$ of $`L`$ over $``$ as $`\sigma _1=1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{},\sigma _d`$. For an element $`z`$ of $`L^{}`$, denote the various (not necessarily distinct) Galois conjugates of $`z`$ by $`z_1=z,z_2=\sigma _2(z),\mathrm{},z_d=\sigma _d(z)`$. Let $`x`$ be an element $`L^{}`$. Then there is a nonzero integer $`m`$ and a unit $`ϵ`$ in (the ring of integers of) $`L`$, such that whenever $`x_1^{n_1}x_2^{n_2}\mathrm{}x_d^{n_d}`$ is a unit in (the ring of integers of) $`L`$ for a $`d`$-tuple $`(n_1,n_2,\mathrm{},n_d)`$ inside $`^d`$, $`(x^mϵ)_1^{n_1}(x^mϵ)_2^{n_2}\mathrm{}(x^mϵ)_d^{n_d}=1.`$ The integer $`m`$ can be taken to be the order of the class group of $`L`$ times the degree of $`L`$ over $``$, hence can be chosen to be independent of $`x`$.

Proof : Write the (fractional) ideal generated by $`x`$ as a product of prime ideals:

$$(x)=\mathrm{}_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_r^{m_r}.$$

(We will assume that if a certain prime $`\mathrm{}_i`$ occurs in the above decomposition, so does any Galois conjugate of it, with exponent perhaps 0.) Let $`k`$ be an integer such that each of the ideals $`\mathrm{}_i^k`$ is a principal ideal generated by, say $`\varpi _i`$. If $`H_i`$ denotes the subgroup of the Galois group which fixes the prime ideal $`\mathrm{}_i`$, then the elements of $`H_i`$ will take $`\varpi _i`$ into itself up to a unit: $`h(\varpi _i)=h_i\varpi _i`$. Clearly $`hh_i`$ is a 1-cocycle on $`H_i`$ with values in the group of units of $`L^{}`$. Since $`H_i`$ is a finite group, a finite power of the cocycle becomes a coboundary, i.e., there is a positive integer $`r`$, and a unit $`\nu _i`$ such that

$$h(\varpi _i^r)=h_i^r\varpi _i^r=h(\nu _i)\nu _i^1\varpi _i^r.$$

It follows that $`\nu _i^1\varpi _i^r`$ is invariant under $`H_i`$. Thus we can choose generators $`\pi _i`$ of the principal ideals $`\mathrm{}_i^{rk}`$ in such a way that if an element of the Galois group takes one such ideal into another such, then the same holds for the generators (and not just only up to units). From the equality of ideals, $`(x^{rk})=(\pi _1^{m_1}\pi _2^{m_2}\mathrm{}\pi _r^{m_r})`$, there is a unit $`ϵ`$ with, $`x^{rk}ϵ=\pi _1^{m_1}\pi _2^{m_2}\mathrm{}\pi _r^{m_r}`$. Now observe that if a product of certain elements of $`L^{}`$ with any two distinct elements coprime (such as $`\pi _i`$’s) is a unit, then the product is in fact 1 (and is in some sense the ‘empty product’). From this it follows that $`(x^{kr}ϵ)_1^{n_1}(x^{kr}ϵ)_2^{n_2}\mathrm{}(x^{kr}ϵ)_d^{n_d}=1.`$ Finally, the proof given here works with the choice of $`m=rk`$ to be the product of the order of the class group of $`L`$ and the degree of $`L`$ over $``$.

###### Corollary 1

(of the proof): With the notation as in the lemma, given elements $`\{x^{(1)},x^{(2)},\mathrm{},x^{(n)}\}`$ in $`L^{}`$, there is an integer $`m`$ and units $`ϵ_i`$ in the ring of integers of $`L`$ such that for $`y^{(i)}=(x^{(i)})^mϵ_i`$, the subgroup of $`L^{}`$ generated by $`\sigma _j(y^{(i)})`$ does not contain any unit of the ring of integers of $`L`$ other than 1.

###### Theorem 3

Schanuel’s conjecture implies conjecture 2.

Proof : As already noted in remark 2, it suffices to prove conjecture 2 for cyclic subgroups. Furthermore, because of lemma 3, we can assume that the anisotropic torus $`S`$ is the product of the norm 1 tori: $`S=_{i=1}^m(R_{K_i/}𝔾_m)^1`$. We will further assume (by enlarging the anisotropic torus which does not affect the conclusion regarding closures) that the fields $`K_i`$ are Galois over $``$, and by taking the compositum, we assume that the fields $`K_i`$ are the same, say $`L`$, a Galois extension of degree $`d+1`$ over $``$ which we will assume to be totally real. The case when $`L`$ has complex places is very similar, although notationally more cumbersome.

For an element $`x^{(i)}L`$, we let $`x_j^{(i)}`$, $`j\{1,2,\mathrm{},d+1\}`$, denote the various Galois conjugates of $`x^{(i)}`$.

Let $`x=(x^{(1)},x^{(2)},\mathrm{},x^{(m)})S=_{i=1}^m(R_{L/}𝔾_m)^1`$. Replacing $`x^{(i)}`$ by $`y^{(i)}=(x^{(i)})^mϵ_i`$ as in corollary 1, we can assume that $`y=(y^{(1)},y^{(2)},\mathrm{},y^{(m)})`$ is such that the group generated by the various Galois conjugates $`y_j^{(i)}`$ intersects the units in the ring of integers of $`L`$ in identity alone.

We note that a general algebraic character of $`L^{}`$ is given by $`z_j(z_j)^{n_j}.`$ Denote by $`A`$ the group of characters $`\chi `$ of $`S=_{i=1}^m(R_{L/}𝔾_m)^1`$ such that $`\chi (y)=1`$. Let the rank of the abelian group $`A`$ be $`dmk`$. Therefore the subgroup of $`L^{}`$ generated by $`\{y_j^{(i)}\}`$ is a free abelian group of rank $`k`$.

We will use the homomorphism with finite kernel:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left[L\right]^1& & ^d\\ (x_1,\mathrm{},x_{d+1})& & (\mathrm{log}|x_1|,\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}|x_d|)\end{array}$$

under which (by Dirichlet unit theorem) the group of units of the ring of integers of $`L`$ of norm 1, $`𝒪_L^1`$ goes to a lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`^d`$ with $`^d/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ compact.

Taking the direct sum of this homomorphism $`m`$ number of times, we get a homomorphism from $`S()`$ to $`^{dm}/\mathrm{\Lambda }^m`$, whose kernel is an arithmetic group in $`S()`$, to be denoted by $`S()`$. We will denote the image of $`y=(y^{(1)},y^{(2)},\mathrm{},y^{(m)})`$ in $`^{dm}`$ as $`(\mathrm{log}(|y_1^{(1)}|),\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}(|y_d^{(1)}|),\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}(|y_1^{(m)}|),\mathrm{},\mathrm{log}(|y_d^{(m)}|)).`$ By lemma $`1(c)`$, to prove this theorem it suffices to prove that the rank of the matrix

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}a_{11}& \mathrm{}& a_{1d}& \mathrm{}& a_{m1}& \mathrm{}& a_{md}\\ \mathrm{}(1)_{11}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(1)_{1d}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(1)_{m1}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(1)_{md}\\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}(k1)_{11}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(k1)_{1d}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(k1)_{m1}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(k1)_{md}\end{array}\right)$$

is $`k`$ where $`(a_{11},\mathrm{},a_{1d},\mathrm{},a_{m1},\mathrm{},a_{md})=(r\mathrm{log}(|y_1^{(1)}|)+\mathrm{}_{11},\mathrm{},r\mathrm{log}(|y_d^{(1)}|)+\mathrm{}_{1d},\mathrm{},r\mathrm{log}(|y_1^{(m)}|)+\mathrm{}_{m1},\mathrm{},r\mathrm{log}(|y_d^{(m)}|))+\mathrm{}_{md})`$, $`r`$ is a nonzero integer, $`(\mathrm{}_{11},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{1,d},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{m1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{md})`$ is a vector in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^m`$, and where the 2nd to $`k`$th rows of this matrix represent $`(k1)`$ $``$-linearly independent vectors in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^m`$.

Since the rank of the matrix

$$B=\left(\begin{array}{ccccccc}\mathrm{}(1)_{11}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(1)_{1d}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(1)_{m1}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(1)_{md}\\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ & \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& & & \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}(k1)_{11}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(k1)_{1d}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(k1)_{m1}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}(k1)_{md}\end{array}\right)$$

is $`(k1)`$, there is a $`(k1)\times (k1)`$ submatrix with nonzero determinant. After re-indexing the co-ordinates in $`^{dm}`$, we assume that the first $`(k1)\times (k1)`$ submatrix of $`B`$ has rank $`(k1)`$, i.e., has nonzero determinant.

Since the rank of the group generated by $`\{y_j^{(i)}\}`$ is $`k`$, there is at least one index, say $`y_{j_0}^{(i_0)}`$, such that no power of it belongs to the group generated by the $`y^{}s`$ corresponding to the first $`(k1)`$ entries in the first row of $`A`$ (after re-indexing introduced above). Denote these $`y^{}s`$ as $`y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_{k1}`$, and the corresponding $`\mathrm{}`$’s as $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_{k1}`$. Also, denote $`y_{j_0}^{(i_0)}`$ as $`y_k`$.

Let $`C`$ be the $`k\times k`$ submatrix of $`A`$ comprising of the first $`(k1)`$ columns of $`A`$, and the $`k`$-th column corresponding to $`y_{j_0}^{(i_0)}`$. We want to prove that $`det(C)0`$.

Clearly $`det(C)=_{i=1}^k[r\mathrm{log}(|y_i|)+\mathrm{}_i]det(L_i)`$ where $`L_i`$ is a $`(k1)\times (k1)`$ matrix consisting of log of units in $`L`$, and $`\mathrm{}_i`$ are also log of units in $`L`$.

It follows from Schanuel’s conjecture and our hypothesis that no (nonzero) power of $`y_k`$ belongs to the group generated by $`y_i,i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$, that $`\mathrm{log}(|y_k|)`$ is algebraically independent over the subfield of $``$ generated by log of algebraic units and the $`\mathrm{log}(|y_i|),i=1,\mathrm{},k1`$.

By our assumption, the first $`(k1)\times (k1)`$ submatrix of $`B`$ has nonzero determinant which is $`det(L_k)`$, hence $`det(C)=[r\mathrm{log}(|y_i|)+\mathrm{}_i]det(L_i)`$ is non-zero (by algebraic independence of the $`k`$th term from the rest).

## 4 Counter-example to a more general question

It is natural to ask if an analogue of conjecture 2 can be made more generally. The general question is about the algebraicity of the connected component of identity of the closure in Euclidean topology of a finitely generated subgroup of $`^n`$ with algebraic co-ordinates where $`^n`$ is considered as the $`2n`$-dimensional torus defined over $``$ as the Weil restriction of scalars $`R_/𝔾_m^n`$. For example, can one drop the condition on the torus $`S`$ in conjecture 2 being anisotropic over $``$, and instead of taking $`S()`$ which is a cocompact discrete subgroup of $`S()`$ if $`S`$ is anisotropic, take any cocompact discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`S()`$ contained in $`S()`$? A simple counter-example shows that this is not possible, shattering any hope for a simple answer to the general question above.

To construct the counter-example, take $`S=𝔾_m^3`$, the 3 dimensional split torus over $``$. The principle behind the counter-example is the well-known observation that although the determinant of a skew-symmetric $`n\times n`$ matrix consisting of logarithm of algebraic numbers is 0 if $`n`$ is odd, the rows and columns could be linearly independent over $``$, such as for the matrix:

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{log}2& \mathrm{log}3\\ \mathrm{log}2& 0& \mathrm{log}5\\ \mathrm{log}3& \mathrm{log}5& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Since the determinant of the following matrix is nonzero,

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{log}2& \mathrm{log}3\\ \mathrm{log}2& 0& \mathrm{log}5\\ \mathrm{log}7& 0& \mathrm{log}2\end{array}\right),$$

it follows that the subgroup of $`^3`$ generated by the elements, $`x=(1,2,3),y=(1/2,1,5),z=(7,1,2)`$, is a discrete cocompact subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`^3`$. However, the closure of the image of the cyclic group generated by the image of $`w=(3,5,1)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\backslash ^3`$ is a 2 dimensional topological torus (this follows from lemma 2(b)) which does not arise from an algebraic subtorus of $`^3`$ as is easy to see.

Remark:  The connected component of identity of the closure of a finitely generated subgroup of algebraic numbers of $`^{}`$ is $`\{1,^+,𝕊^1,^{}\}`$. We refer to theorem 1.10, page 56 of \[W3\] for a proof of this assuming Schanuel’s conjecture. (The subtlety lies in proving that algebraic points cannot be dense on a closed connected subgroup of $`^{}`$ besides the above ones.)

## 5 Non-abelian analogue

It seems very natural to extend the scope of the conjecture 2 by replacing the anisotropic torus $`T`$ by a general algebraic group $`G`$ over $``$.

We recall that by a theorem due to Borel and Harish-Chandra, for a reductive algebraic group $`G`$ over $``$ which is anisotropic over $``$, $`G()\backslash G()`$ is compact. We would like to suggest the analogue of conjecture 2 to assert that the closure of the image in $`G()\backslash G()`$ of a finitely generated subgroup $`F`$ of $`G(\overline{}_{})`$ (where $`\overline{}_{}`$ is the subfield of algebraic numbers in $``$) is of the form $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H\backslash H()`$ for an algebraic subgroup $`H`$ of $`G`$ defined over $``$ with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H=H()G()`$. (Note that if the image of a subgroup $`H()`$ in $`G()\backslash G()`$ is closed, hence compact, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_H=H()G()`$ is a co-compact lattice in $`H()`$, and hence if $`H`$ is algebraic, it is defined over $``$ by the Borel density theorem.) Notice that we have not proved even for a torus (even after assuming Schanuel’s conjecture), a theorem in this generality as we have always restricted ourselves to finitely generated subgroups $`F`$ of the torus which are contained in the group of $``$-rational points. This seems to have been necessary for the proof of conjecture 2 given here.

We remark that our suggested analogue contains a consequence of M. Ratner’s theorem (the proof of the so-called Raghunathan conjecture) as observed by Dani and Raghunathan, cf. Cor. 4.9 in \[V\] in a very special case. It states that if a semi-simple group G over $``$ (with $`G()`$ non-compact) has two distinct $``$ structures, with corresponding lattices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ is dense in $`G()`$ (in the Euclidean topology).

Acknowledgement: This note was conceived several years back. It is being published now in the hope of stimulating further research. The author thanks B. Mazur, Gopal Prasad, T.N.Venkataramana and M. Waldschmidt for encouragement and helpful remarks.

Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Chhatnag Road, Jhusi, Allahabad 211019, INDIA

Email: dprasad@mri.ernet.in