text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we consider unitary representations of an infinite symplectic group. The group $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$ we deal with here is the set of invertible operators $`g=1+A`$ where $`g`$ preserves a symplectic form on an infinite dimensional vector space and $`A`$ is of finite rank. This group is essentially same as the inductive limit of the classical symplectic group in the sense that the latter group is dense in operator norm topology.

First, we present a class of unitary representations of the Lie algebra $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ on GNS spaces of quasifree states of the CCR (canonical commutation relations) algebra (= the infinite dimensional Heisenberg algebra). The construction of the representation is done in the same fashion as the metaplectic representation (Weil representation) of finite dimensional groups. (c.f. ) The representation constructed here is refered to as quasifree represetation. As in the finite dimensional case, our infinitesimal representations give rise to unitary representations of the double covering of $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$. The infinite dimensional CCR algebra has infinitely many mutually non-equivalent representations, and we obtain a huge number of metaplectic representations of $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$. This class of representations contains uncountably many irreducible representations as well as non type I factor representations.

The theory of unitary representation for infinite dimensional groups is a field of interplay between Ergodic Theory, the measure theory of infinite dimensional space, operators algebras, and mathematical physics, in particular, quantum field theory. So far two classes of infinite dimensional groups are considered. (1) groups whose matrix elements are functions: Examples are loop groups and the diffeomorphism group of the circle (See ,  and the references therein), and their higher dimensional analogue. (2) inductive limit of classical groups, $`O(\mathrm{})`$ or $`U(\mathrm{})`$. See ,  and .

So far the construction of unitary representations has been carried out in two ways. One way is to construct measures on an infinite dimensional space quasi-invariant under the group in question (). Another method is to use Fock spaces of the quantum field theory and unitary implementors of Bogoliubov automorphisms. (c.f.  and ).

Turning into inductive limit $`O(\mathrm{})`$ and $`U(\mathrm{})`$ certain representations of these groups are closely connected with the gauge invariant part of CAR (canonical anticommutation relations) algebra. In general the inductive limit procedure of compact groups yields an inductive limit of group $`C^{}`$-algebras which are approximately finite dimensional. Then there is a one to one correspondence of primitive ideals of the AF algebra and factor representations of the group. The factor representation of $`U(\mathrm{})`$ constructed on GNS spaces of quasifree states of the CAR algebra corresponds to the U(1) gauge invariant part of the CAR algebra as the quotient by the primitive ideal. (c.f. ) In the same manner, spin representations of $`O(\mathrm{})`$ corresponds to the $`Z_2`$ invariant of the CAR algebra. Quasi-equivalence of quasifree states for gauge invariant CAR algebras was investigated in ,  and  and these results leads to classification of representations of $`O(\mathrm{})`$ and $`U(\mathrm{})`$ on GNS spaces of quasifree states on CAR algebras.

In the same spirit, we can introduce quasifree representation (= Metaplectic or Weil representation) for $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$ with the aid of quasifree states of the CCR algebra. However, there is a crucial difference. The symplectic group $`Sp(N)`$ is non compact on one hand, and the CCR algebra is an unbounded operator algebra. The unitary representative of $`O(\mathrm{})`$ or $`U(\mathrm{})`$ is an element of the gauge invariant CAR algebra while this is not the case for $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$. In this sense, it is not correct that classification Metaplectic representations reduces to the representation theory of the $`Z_2`$ gauge invariant part of the CCR algebra. Nevertheless we succeeded complete classification of generalized Metaplectic representations on GNS spaces associated with quasifree states of the CCR algebra.

The main result of this paper is Theorem 7.1 where we obtained the complete classification of quasifree representation constructed in the GNS representations associated with quasifree states of the CCR algebra. To achieve our object we found it necessary to use Modular theory of von Neumann algebra for quasifree states of CCR algebras. This machinery was established by H.Araki in , ,  and .

Next we mention the organization of this paper. In Section 2 and 3 we introduce quasifree states of CCR algebras and Fock spaces in an abstract way.

The infinitesimal quasifree representation of the Lie algebra $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ is defined in Section4.

If the quasifree state of the CCR algebra is pure, the associated representation of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ decomposes into two mutually non-equivalent irreducible representations. This fact is proved in Section 5.

Section 6 is devoted to an analysis of von Neumann algebras generated by $`sp(\mathrm{})`$. Using results of Section 6 our main result Theorem 7.1 is proved in Section 7.

In the final section we show that our irreducible quasifree representation is extendible to a projective unitary representation of a larger symplectic group $`Sp(P,\mathrm{})`$ where $`Sp(P,\mathrm{})`$ is a symplectic transformation commuting with a fixed projection $`P`$ modulo Hilbert Schimidt class operators. This result is closely connected with another result of D.Pickrell in  where he introduced the notion of spherical representations and examined the same extension property.

## 2 Quasifree Representations of CCR algebra

We briefly sketch GNS representations of CCR algebra associated to quasifree states.

###### 2.1 Definition.

Let *$`K`$* be a complex vector space and $`\gamma (f,g)`$ be a non-degenerate hermitian form for $`f,gK`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an antilinear involution satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1,\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }f,\mathrm{\Gamma }g)=\gamma (g,f)`$. A self-dual CCR algebra *$`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$* is a complex *\*-*algebra generated by identity $`1`$ and $`\{B(f)|fK\}`$ where $`B(f)`$ is complex linear in $`fK`$ and satisfies $`B(f)^{}=B(\mathrm{\Gamma }f)`$, $`B(f)^{}B(g)B(g)B(f)^{}=\gamma (f,g)`$.

###### 2.2 Definition.

A state $`\phi `$ on *$`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$* is a called quasifree state if

$$\phi (B(f_1)\mathrm{}B(f_{2n1}))=0,$$

$$\phi (B(f_1)\mathrm{}B(f_{2n}))=\underset{\sigma 𝔖}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (B(f_{\sigma (j)})B(f_{\sigma (n+j)})).$$

$`𝔖`$ is the set of all permutations of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ satisfying

$$\sigma (1)<\sigma (2)<\mathrm{}<\sigma (n),\sigma (j)<\sigma (j+n),j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$

The cardinal number of $`𝔖`$ equals $`(2n)!2^n(n!)^1`$.

For any quasifree state $`\phi `$, let

$$S(f,g):=\phi (B(f)^{}B(g)).$$

Then a positive semi-definite hermitian form $`S(,)`$ satisfies

$$S(f,g)S(\mathrm{\Gamma }g,\mathrm{\Gamma }f)=\gamma (f,g).$$
( 2.1)
Conversely, a positive semi-definite hermitian form $`S:K\times K𝐂`$ satisfying (2.1) is given. Then there exists an unique quasifree state $`\phi _S`$ on *$`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$* such that

$$\phi _S(B(f)^{}B(g))=S(f,g)$$

for all $`f,gK`$. That is to say, a quasifree state is completely specified by a positive semi-definite hermitian form satisfying (2.1). (See .)

We define a bounded operator “$`S`$” induced by a positive semi-definite hermitian form $`S`$ satisfying (2.1). Due to the non-degeneracy of $`\gamma `$, a hermitian form

$$(f,g)_S:=S(f,g)+S(\mathrm{\Gamma }g,\mathrm{\Gamma }f)$$

is positive definite. In other words $`(,)_S`$ is an inner product. Let $`K_S`$ be the completion of $`K`$ with respect to $`(,)_S`$. Then there exists a bounded operator $`S`$ on $`K_S`$ such that

$$S(f,g)=(f,Sg)_S$$

for all $`f,gK`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ be an antiunitary involution on $`K_S`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_Sf=\mathrm{\Gamma }f`$ for all $`fK`$. The bounded operator $`S`$ satisfies $`S^{}=S`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_SS\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=1S`$ and $`0S1`$. $`\gamma _S:=2S1`$ satisfies $`\gamma (f,g)=(f,\gamma _Sg)_S`$ for all $`f,gK`$.

If the bounded operator $`S`$ on $`K_S`$ induced by a positive semi-definite hermitian form satisfying (2.1) is a projection, we call $`S`$ a *basis projection*.

Let $`(_S,\pi _S,\mathrm{\Omega }_S)`$ be a GNS representation of CCR algebra $`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ associated to $`\phi _S`$. The Hilbert space given by GNS construction is abstract, however in case that $`S`$ is a basis projection, it can be written concretely.

Let $`L`$ be a Hilbert space and consider the Boson Fock space :

$$_\mathrm{b}(L):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_\mathrm{s}^nL,_\mathrm{s}^0L:=𝐂,\mathrm{\Psi }=1,$$

$$f_1_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}f_n,g_1_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}g_m=\delta _{mn}\frac{1}{n!}\underset{\sigma 𝔖_n}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(f_{\sigma (j)},g_{\sigma (j)}).$$

$`_\mathrm{s}`$ is the symmetric tensor product and $`𝔖_n`$ is the set of all permutations of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Now we define annihilation operators $`b(f),fL`$ on $`_\mathrm{b}(L)`$ as follows :

$$b(f)f_1_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}f_n:=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(f,f_j)f_1_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}f_{j1}_\mathrm{s}f_{j+1}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}f_n,$$

$$b(f)\mathrm{\Psi }:=0$$

and creation operators $`b^{}(f),fL`$ on $`_\mathrm{b}(L)`$ as follows :

$$b^{}(f_1)f_2_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}f_{n+1}:=\sqrt{n+1}f_1_\mathrm{s}\mathrm{}_\mathrm{s}f_{n+1},$$

$$b^{}(f)\mathrm{\Psi }:=f.$$

###### 2.3 Lemma.

*Suppose that* $`S:K_SK_S`$ *is a basis projection*.

1. *$`b^{}(f),b(g),f,gSK_S`$ are closable operators*. *Let $`\overline{A}`$ be the closure of operator $`A`$*. *The finite particle vector subspace of $`_\mathrm{b}(SK_S)`$ is a core for all $`\overline{b^{}(f)},\overline{b(g)},f,gSK_S`$*.
2. *Due to* (1), *we can define the addition and multiplication of creation and annihilation operators on the finite particle vector subspace of $`_\mathrm{b}(SK_S)`$. Let $`𝔄_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂𝐑}}(SK_S)`$ be a* \*-*algebra* *generated by all annihilation and creation operators*. *Let* *$`\alpha (S):𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })𝔄_{\mathrm{𝐂𝐂𝐑}}(SK_S)`$ be a* \*-*homomorphism* *satisfying the following relation* :

$$\alpha (S)(B(f)):=b^{}(Sf)+b(S\mathrm{\Gamma }f),fK.$$

*Then $`(_\mathrm{b}(SK_S),\alpha (S),\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is a* \*-*representation of CCR algebra $`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Moreover*, *it is unitary equivalent to the GNS representation* $`(_S,\pi _S,\mathrm{\Omega }_S).`$

###### Proof.

(1) See chapter X section 7 of . (2) An unitary operator $`u:_S_\mathrm{b}(SK_S),`$ $`\pi _S(X)\mathrm{\Omega }_S\alpha (S)(X)\mathrm{\Psi }`$ satisfies $`u^{}\alpha (S)(X)u=\pi _S(X)`$ for all $`X𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

By Lemma 2.3, we call $`\pi _S`$ a *Fock representation* and $`\phi _S`$ a *Fock state* if $`S`$ is a basis projection. In case that $`\phi _S`$ is a Fock state, we have the following important lemma. (See Lemma 5.4 and 5.5 of .)

###### 2.4 Lemma.

*Suppose that* $`S:K_SK_S`$ *is a basis projection*.

1. $`\pi _S(B(f)),f\mathrm{Re}K`$ *is an essentially self-adjoint operator and set*

$$W_S(f):=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\overline{\pi _S(B(f)}\right).$$

*Then $`W_S(f)`$ satisfies the following relations* :

$$W_S(f_1)W_S(f_2)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\gamma (f_1,f_2)\right)W_S(f_1+f_2).$$
2. *If $`f\mathrm{Re}K_S`$*, *we define $`W_S(f)`$ via the following limit*

$$W_S(f):=\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}W_S(f_n)$$
( 2.2)
*where* $`\{f_n\}`$ *is a sequence in* $`\mathrm{Re}K`$ *satisfying* $`ff_n0`$. *Note that the limit* (2.2) *does not depend on the choice of* $`\{f_n\}`$.
3. *Let* $`\mathrm{Re}K_S:=\{fK_S|\mathrm{\Gamma }_Sf=f\}`$*. The restriction of* $`(,)_S`$ *to $`\mathrm{Re}K_S`$ is an inner product of $`\mathrm{Re}K_S`$.* $`fW_S(f)`$ *is continuous with respect to the norm on* $`\mathrm{Re}K_S`$ *and the strong operator topology of bounded operators on* $`_S`$.
4. *Let $`L`$ be a subspace of $`\mathrm{Re}K_S`$. Let $`L^{}`$ be the set of vectors $`f\mathrm{Re}K_S`$ such that $`(f,\gamma _Sg)_S=0`$ for all $`gL`$ and let $`\overline{L}`$ be the closure of $`L`$ in* $`\mathrm{Re}K_S`$. *Let $`_S(L)`$ be a von Neumann algebra generated by* $`W_S(f),fL.`$ *Then we obtain the following relations* :

1. $`_S(L)=(\overline{L}),`$
    2. $`_S(L)^{}=_S(L^{}),`$
    3. $`\{_S(L_1)_S(L_2)\}^{\prime \prime }=_S(L_1+L_2),`$
    4. $`_S(L_1)_S(L_2)=_S(\overline{L_1}\overline{L_2}).`$

We introduce an another hermitian form $`\widehat{\gamma }_S`$ on $`K_SK_S`$ via the following relation :

$$\widehat{\gamma }_S(f_1g_1,f_2g_2):=(f_1,\gamma _Sf_2)_S(g_1,\gamma _Sg_2)_S$$

for all $`f_i,g_iK_S`$. Set $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_S\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$. Then $`\widehat{\gamma }_S`$ satisfies $`\widehat{\gamma }_S(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Sh_1,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Sh_2)=\widehat{\gamma }_S(h_1,h_2)`$ for all $`h_iK_SK_S`$.

$$P_S(f_1f_2,g_1g_2):=(f_1,Sf_2+\sqrt{S(1S)}g_2)_S+(g_1,\sqrt{S(1S)}f_2+(1S)g_2)_S$$

is a positive semi-definite hermitian form on $`K_SK_S`$ satisfying

$$P_S(h_1,h_2)P_S(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Sh_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Sh_1)=\widehat{\gamma }_S(h_1,h_2).$$

We denote the completion of $`K_SK_S`$ with respect to the inner product $`(h_1,h_2)_{P_S}:=P_S(h_1,h_2)+P_S(\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Sh_2,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_Sh_1)`$ by $`K_{P_S}`$.

###### 2.5 Lemma.

*The bounded operator* *$`P_S`$ on* $`K_{P_S}`$ *satisfying* $`P_S(h_1,h_2)=(h_1,P_Sh_2)_{P_S}`$ *for all* $`h_iK_SK_S`$ *is a basis projection*.

###### Proof.

Let $`D(\gamma _S^1)`$ be a domain of $`\gamma _S^1`$. By the non-degeneracy of $`\gamma `$, $`D(\gamma _S^1)`$ is a dense set of $`K_S`$. Let $`\widehat{\gamma }_S(f_1g_1,f_2g_2)=(f_1g_1,hk)_{P_S}`$. Then $`\gamma _Sf_2=h+2\sqrt{S(1S)}k`$, $`\gamma _Sg_2=2\sqrt{S(1S)}h+k`$. If $`f_2,g_2D(\gamma _S^1)`$, we have

$$\gamma _{P_S}(f_2g_2)=hk=\gamma _S^1(f_2+2\sqrt{S(1S)}g_2)\gamma _S^1(2\sqrt{S(1S)}f_2+g_2).$$

By $`P_S=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _{P_S}+1)`$, $`P_S`$ is written explicitly on $`D(\gamma _S^1)D(\gamma _S^1)`$ as follows :

$$P_S(fg)=\gamma _S^1(Sf+\sqrt{S(1S)}g)\gamma _S^1(\sqrt{S(1S)}f+(1S)g).$$

It is easily checked that $`P_S`$ is a projection on $`K_{P_S}`$.

*Remark*. Let $`L`$ be a dense set of $`K_S`$ with respect to $`(,)_S`$, then $`LL`$ is a dense set of $`K_SK_S`$ with respect to $`(,)_{P_S}`$. Indeed, for any $`fgK_SK_S`$, there exist $`f_n,g_nL`$ such that $`f_nf_S,g_ng_S0(n\mathrm{})`$. By the following equation

$$fg_{P_S}^2=\sqrt{S}f+\sqrt{1S}g_S^2+\sqrt{1S}f+\sqrt{S}g_S^2,$$
( 2.3)
we have $`(f_ng_n)(fg)_{P_S}0(n\mathrm{})`$.

By Lemma 2.5, $`\phi _{P_S}`$ is a Fock state on CCR algebra $`𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S).`$ We denote a GNS representation of CCR algebra $`𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S)`$ associated to $`\phi _{P_S}`$ by $`(_{P_S},\pi _{P_S},\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S})`$ . The following corollary is a consequence of the direct application of lemma 2.4 to Fock representation $`(_{P_S},\pi _{P_S},\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S})`$.

###### 2.6 Corollary.

$`_{P_S}(\mathrm{Re}K_S0)^{}=_{P_S}(0\mathrm{Re}K_S)`$ *and* $`_{P_S}(\mathrm{Re}K_S0)`$ *is a factor*.

###### 2.7 Remark.

Let $`\alpha :𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S)`$ be a \*-homomorphism defined by $`\alpha (B(f))=B(f0)`$ and $`u_\alpha :_S_{P_S}`$ be a linear operator defined by $`u_\alpha (\pi _S(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_S)=\pi _{P_S}(\alpha (A))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ for all $`A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$ Then $`u_\alpha `$ preserves the inner product. In fact, since $`\phi _{P_S}`$ and $`\phi _S`$ are quasifree states and

$$\phi _{P_S}(B(f0)^{}B(g0))=P_S(f0,g0)=S(f,g)=\phi _S(B(f)^{}B(g))$$

for all $`f,gK`$, we have $`\phi _{P_S}(\alpha (A))=\phi _S(A)`$ for all $`A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$ If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are elements of $`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and set $`A:=X^{}Y`$, then

$$u_\alpha \pi _S(X)\mathrm{\Omega }_S,u_\alpha \pi _S(Y)\mathrm{\Omega }_S=\phi _{P_S}(\alpha (X^{}Y))=\phi _S(X^{}Y)=\pi _S(X)\mathrm{\Omega }_S,\pi _S(Y)\mathrm{\Omega }_S.$$

If we identify $`u_\alpha _S`$ with $`_S`$, $`_S`$ is a closed subspace of $`_{P_S}`$ and $`_S=_\mathrm{b}(P_S(K_S0))`$. Moreover, since $`u_\alpha \pi _S(A)=\pi _{P_S}(\alpha (A))u_\alpha `$ on $`D(\pi _S):=\pi _S(𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$, we can identify $`\pi _S(A)`$ with $`\pi _{P_S}(\alpha (A))|D(\pi _S)`$ for all $`A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).`$

## 3 Fock Space and Exponential Vectors

In Remark 2.7, $`_S`$ is regarded as a closed subspace of $`_{P_S}`$. We explain the point in detail.

Let $`L_1,L_2`$ be Hilbert spaces and $`L:=L_1L_2`$ and $`e(u):=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}(\sqrt{n!})^1_\mathrm{s}^nu`$ for all $`uL`$. We call $`e(u)`$ an *exponential vector*.

###### 3.1 Lemma.

If $`u_1L_1`$ and $`u_2L_2`$, then there exists an unique unitary operator $`U:_\mathrm{b}(L)_\mathrm{b}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}(L_2)`$ such that $`Ue(u_1+u_2)=e(u_1)e(u_2)`$. This shows

$$_\mathrm{b}(L)=_\mathrm{b}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}(L_2).$$

(See chapter II section 19 of .)

###### 3.2 Lemma.

$`P_SK_{P_S}=[P_S(K_S0)][0E_S(\{0\})K_S]=[P_S(0K_S)][E_S(\{1\})K_S0]`$ *where* $`E_S(B)`$ *is the spectral projection of $`S`$ for a Borel set* $`B𝐑`$.

###### Proof.

The restriction of $`(,)_{P_S}`$ to $`P_SK_{P_S}`$ is an inner product of $`P_SK_{P_S}`$. Let $`[P_S(K_S0)]^{}`$ be the orthogonal complement of $`P_S(K_S0)`$ in $`P_SK_S`$. Let $`uv[P_S(K_S0)]^{}`$, then we have

$$0=(uv,P_S(f0))_{P_S}=(Su+\sqrt{S(1S)}v,f)_S$$

for all $`fK_S`$. This implies $`\sqrt{S}(\sqrt{S}u+\sqrt{1S}v)=0`$, i.e. $`Su+\sqrt{1S}vE_S(\{0\})K_S`$. By $`P_S(uv)=uv`$ and $`\gamma _S^1=1,\sqrt{1S}=1,\sqrt{S}=0`$ on $`E_S(\{0\})K_S`$, we have

$$uv=P(uv)=0(\sqrt{S}u+\sqrt{1S}v).$$

Thus $`u=0`$, $`vE_S(\{0\})K_S`$. We obtain $`[P_S(K_S0)]^{}0E_S(\{0\})K_S.`$ Converse relation is seen from direct computation.

From Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.2 and Remark 2.7, we obtain the factorization of the Fock space :

$$_{P_S}=_S_S,$$
( 3.1)
$`_S:=_\mathrm{b}(0E_S(\{0\})K_S)`$. In particular, if $`0<S<1`$, then $`_{P_S}=_S.`$

Let $`L`$ be a Hilbert space and

$$_\mathrm{b}^+(L):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_\mathrm{s}^{2n}L,_\mathrm{b}^{}(L):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_\mathrm{s}^{2n+1}L.$$

We call $`_\mathrm{b}^+(L)`$ the *even part of the Boson Fock space* $`_\mathrm{b}(L)`$ and $`_\mathrm{b}^{}(L)`$ the *odd part of the Boson Fock space* $`_\mathrm{b}(L)`$.

###### 3.3 Lemma.

*Let*

$$e^+(u):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2n)!}}_\mathrm{s}^{2n}u,e^{}(u):=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{(2n+1)!}}_\mathrm{s}^{2n+1}u$$

*for all $`uL`$*. *Let $`u_jL`$, $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$, $`N𝐍`$ satisfy $`u_i\pm u_j(ij)`$. Then $`\{e^\sigma (u_j)\}_{j=1}^N`$ is linearly independent. Moreover, $`\{e^\sigma (u)|uL\}`$ generates $`_\mathrm{b}^\sigma (L)`$ where $`\sigma =+`$ or $``$*.

###### Proof.

First, we prove the linear independence of *$`\{e^+(u_j)\}_{j=1}^N`$*. Let $`_{j=1}^N\alpha _je^+(u_j)=0,\alpha _j𝐂`$. We have $`0=e^+(x),_{j=1}^N\alpha _je^+(u_j)=_{j=1}^N\alpha _j\mathrm{cosh}(x,u_j)`$ for all $`xL`$. If there exist $`i,j(ij)`$ such that $`(x,u_i)^2=(x,u_j)^2`$ for all $`xL`$, then $`u_i=u_j`$ or $`u_i=u_j`$. Thus there exists $`x_0L`$ such that $`(x_0,u_i)^2(x_0,u_j)^2`$ for all $`i,j(ij)`$. Let $`x=\overline{z}x_0,z𝐂,\beta _j:=(x_0,u_j)`$, then we have $`_{j=1}^N\alpha _j\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _jz)=0`$ for all $`z𝐂`$. By the $`2k`$ th differential $`_{j=1}^N\alpha _j\beta _j^{2k}\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _jz)=0`$, $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},N1`$, we have

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 1& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \beta _1^2& \beta _2^2& \mathrm{}& \beta _N^2\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \beta _1^{2(N1)}& \beta _2^{(N1)}& \mathrm{}& \beta _N^{2(N1)}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha _1\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _1z)\\ \alpha _2\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _2z)\\ \mathrm{}\\ \alpha _N\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _Nz)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$
( 3.2)
for all $`z𝐂`$. Since the matrix of the left hand side of (3.2) is a Vandermonde matrix and $`\beta _i^2\beta _j^2(ij)`$, its determinant does not vanish and we obtain $`\alpha _j\mathrm{cosh}(\beta _jz)=0`$ for all $`z𝐂`$ and $`j.`$ Therefore, $`\alpha _j=0`$ for all $`j`$. Linear independence of $`\{e^{}(u_j)\}_{j=1}^N`$ is verified by putting “$`\mathrm{sinh}`$” to the place of “$`\mathrm{cosh}`$” in the above proof.

We prove the second part of this lemma. The case of $`\{e^+(u)|uL\}`$ is the same as the proof of Proposition 19.4 of . Since $`_\mathrm{b}(L)`$ is generated by exponential vectors $`e(u),uL`$ and $`e(u)=e^+(u)e^{}(u)`$, $`\{e^{}(u)|uL\}`$ generates $`_\mathrm{b}^{}(L)`$.

###### 3.4 Lemma.

*Let $`L_1,L_2`$ be Hilbert spaces. Then there exist unitary operators $`U_+,U_{}`$ such that*

$$U_+:_\mathrm{b}^+(L_1L_2)[_\mathrm{b}^+(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^+(L_2)][_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_2)],$$
( 3.3)
$$U_+e^+(x_1x_2):=[e^+(x_1)e^+(x_2)][e^{}(x_1)e^{}(x_2)]$$
( 3.4)
*and*

$$U_{}:_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1L_2)[_\mathrm{b}^+(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_2)][_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^+(L_2)],$$
( 3.5)
$$U_{}e^+(x_1x_2):=[e^+(x_1)e^{}(x_2)][e^{}(x_1)e^+(x_2)].$$
( 3.6)
###### Proof.

Let $`U`$ be the unitary operator determined by Lemma 3.1. Let $`U_\sigma :=U|_\mathrm{b}^\sigma (L_1L_2)`$ where $`\sigma =+`$ or $``$. For all $`x_1,y_1L_1`$ and $`x_2,y_2L_2`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill U_+e^+(x_1+x_2),U_+e^+(y_1+y_2)& =Ue^+(x_1+x_2),Ue^+(y_1+y_2)\hfill \\ & =e^+(x_1+x_2),e^+(y_1+y_2)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{cosh}((x_1,y_1)+(x_2,y_2))\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{cosh}(x_1,y_1)\mathrm{cosh}(x_2,y_2)+\mathrm{sinh}(x_1,y_1)\mathrm{sinh}(x_2,y_2)\hfill \\ & =e^+(x_1),e^+(y_1)e^+(x_2),e^+(y_2)\hfill \\ & +e^{}(x_1),e^{}(y_1)e^{}(x_2),e^{}(y_2)\hfill \\ & =[e^+(x_1)e^+(x_2)][e^{}(x_1)e^{}(x_2)],\hfill \\ & [e^+(y_1)e^+(y_2)][e^{}(y_1)e^{}(y_2)]\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill _\mathrm{b}^+(L_1L_2)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1L_2)& =_\mathrm{b}(L_1L_2)\hfill \\ & =_\mathrm{b}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}(L_2)\hfill \\ & =[_\mathrm{b}^+(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1)][_\mathrm{b}^+(L_2)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_2)]\hfill \\ & =[_\mathrm{b}^+(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^+(L_2)][_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_2)]\hfill \\ & [_\mathrm{b}^+(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_2)][_\mathrm{b}^{}(L_1)_\mathrm{b}^+(L_2)].\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`U_+`$ is the unitary operator satisfying (3.4). It is proved similarly that $`U_{}`$ is the unitary operator satisfying (3.6).

Let $`_S^\sigma :=_\mathrm{b}^\sigma (P_S(K_S0)),`$ $`_S^\sigma :=_\mathrm{b}^\sigma (0E_S(\{0\})K_S),`$ $`_{P_S}^\sigma :=_\mathrm{b}^\sigma (P_SK_{P_S})`$ where $`\sigma =+`$ or $``$. From the argument to the above, we obtain the following relations.

$$_{P_S}^+=(_S^+_S^+)(_S^{}_S^{}),_{P_S}^{}=(_S^+_S^{})(_S^{}_S^+).$$
( 3.7)
## 4 Quasifree Representations of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$

Let *$`K`$* be a complex vector space and $`\gamma (f,g)`$ be a non-degenerate hermitian form for $`f,gK`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an antilinear involution satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1`$, $`\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }f,\mathrm{\Gamma }g)=\gamma (g,f)`$. Then we denote finite rank operators on $`K`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H\mathrm{\Gamma }=H`$ and $`H^{}=H`$ by $`sp(\mathrm{})`$. $`H^{}`$ is defined by $`\gamma (H^{}f,g)=\gamma (f,Hg)`$ for all $`f,gK`$. By the non-degeneracy of $`\gamma `$, $`H^{}`$ is well-defined. We call $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$ a Hamiltonian. $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ is a Lie algebra endowed with the Lie bracket $`i[H,H^{}]:=i(HH^{}H^{}H)`$.

###### 4.1 Lemma.

*Let $`K_1`$ be a finite dimensional subspace of* $`K`$. *Then there exists a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant finite dimensional subspace $`K_1^\mathrm{\#}`$ such that $`K_1K_1^\mathrm{\#}`$ and the restriction of $`\gamma `$ to $`K_1^\mathrm{\#}`$ is non-degenerate*.

###### Proof.

By the existence of the basis $`\{e_j\}_{j=1}^{2k}`$ of $`K_1^\mathrm{\#}`$ satisfying

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }e_j=e_j,j=1,2,\mathrm{},2k,$$

$$\gamma (e_{2j1},e_{2j})=i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},k,$$

$$\gamma (e_l,e_l^{})=0,(l,l^{})(2j1,2j),(2j,2j1),j=1,2,\mathrm{},k,$$

this lemma is proved.(See Lemma 4.1 of .)

###### 4.2 Lemma.

For any Hamiltonian $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$*,* there exists $`f_j,g_j(HK)^\mathrm{\#}`$ such that $`Hf=_{j=1}^N\gamma (g_j,f)f_j`$ for all $`fK`$.

Lemma 4.2 is verified immediately by using linearly independent vectors $`\{e_j\}_{j=1}^{2k}`$ of $`(HK)^\mathrm{\#}`$ given by the proof of Lemma 4.1. In fact

$$Hf=i\underset{j=1}{\overset{2k}{}}\{\gamma (He_{2j},f)e_{2j1}\gamma (He_{2j1},f)e_{2j}\}$$

for all $`fK`$.

For any $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$, we can define a second quantization of Hamiltonian, called a bilinear Hamiltonian, $`q(H)`$ as follows.

###### 4.3 Definition.

$`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$ satisfies $`Hf=_{j=1}^N\gamma (g_j,f)f_j`$ for all $`fK`$. Then $`q(H):=\frac{1}{2}_{j=1}^NB(f_j)B(g_j)^{}`$.

Note that the choice of $`f_j,g_j`$ is not unique for $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. However, $`q(H)`$ is independent of the choice of $`f_j,g_j`$, only depends on $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$(Lemma 4.4 of ).

$`q`$ is the map from Hamiltonians to bilinear Hamiltonians and satisfies $`i[q(H),q(H^{})]=q(i[H,H^{}])`$. Thus $`q_S:=\pi _Sq`$ is a representation of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ on $`_S`$. $`\widehat{q}`$, the map from Hamiltonians on $`K_SK_S`$ to bilinear Hamiltonians in $`𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S)`$, is defined as well as $`q:sp(\mathrm{})𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Let $`\widehat{q}_{P_S}:=\pi _{P_S}\widehat{q}`$, $`q_{P_S}(H):=\widehat{q}_{P_S}(H0)`$, then $`q_{P_S}`$ is a representation of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ on $`_{P_S}`$.

###### 4.4 Definition.

1. *A* \*-*representation $`(,\pi )`$ of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ is called a regular representation if the following two conditions hold* :

1. *$`i[\pi (H),\pi (H^{})]=\pi (i[H,H^{}])`$ on a dense set $`_0`$ of Hilbert space $``$ for all $`H,H^{}sp(\mathrm{})`$*.
    2. *$`\pi (H)`$ is an essentially self-adjoint operator on $`_0`$ for all* $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$.
2. *Let $`(_j,\pi _j)`$, $`j=1,2`$ be regular representations of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ and $`_j`$ denotes a von Neumann algebra generated by $`\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{\pi _j(H)}),Hsp(\mathrm{})`$*. *Then two representations*, *$`(_1,\pi _1)`$ and $`(_2,\pi _2)`$*, *are quasi-equivalent if there exists a* \*-*isomorphism of von Neumann algebras $`\iota :_1_2`$ such that $`\iota (\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{\pi _1(H))})=\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{\pi _2(H)})`$ for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$*. *Then we write $`\pi _1_q\pi _2`$*. *Moreover*, *if* $`\pi _1`$ *and $`\pi _2`$ are unitary equivalent*, *then we write $`\pi _1\pi _2`$ simply*.

Since all $`q_S(H)`$ are essentially self-adjoint operators on $`D(\pi _S):=\pi _S(𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }))\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$, $`(_S,q_S)`$ is a regular representation of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$. Similarly, since all $`q_{P_S}(H)`$ are essentially self-adjoint operators on $`D(\pi _{P_S}):=\pi _{P_S}(𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$, $`(_{P_S},q_{P_S})`$ is a regular representation of of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$. Let

$$Q_S(H):=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\overline{q_S(H)}\right),\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(\widehat{H}):=\mathrm{exp}\left(i\overline{\widehat{q}_{P_S}(\widehat{H})}\right),Q_{P_S}(H):=\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(H0)$$

and

$$_S:=\{Q_S(H)|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}^{\prime \prime },_{P_S}:=\{Q_{P_S}(H)|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}^{\prime \prime }.$$

###### 4.5 Lemma.

$`Q_{P_S}(H)=Q_S(H)1__S`$ *where* $`1__S`$ *is the identity operator on* $`_S`$.

###### Proof.

Due to Remark 2.7, we obtain

$$u_\alpha Q_S(H)=Q_{P_S}(H)u_\alpha $$
( 4.1)
for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. By (3.1) and (4.1), this lemma has been verified.

*Remark*. The following relation is verified quite similar to Lemma 4.5 :

$$W_{P_S}(f0)=W_S(f)1__S$$
( 4.2)
where $`W_S(f):=W_{P_S}(f0)|_S`$ for all $`f\mathrm{Re}K_S`$ and $`1__S`$ is the identity operator on $`_S`$.

In Lemma 5.1 of , the following relation has been proved : If $`P`$ is a basis projection on $`K`$, then

$$Q_P(H)W_P(f)Q_P(H)^{}=W_P(e^{iH}f)$$
( 4.3)
for all $`f\mathrm{Re}K`$ and $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. Due to Lemma 4.5 and (4.2), the relation (4.3) implies the following result : For the general $`S`$, we have

$$Q_S(H)W_S(f)Q_S(H)^{}=W_S(e^{iH}f)$$
( 4.4)
for all $`f\mathrm{Re}K`$ and $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$.

Since $`Q_S(H)_S^\sigma _S^\sigma `$ and $`Q_{P_S}(H)_{P_S}^\sigma _{P_S}^\sigma `$ where $`\sigma =+`$ or $``$,

$$Q_S^\sigma (H):=Q_S(H)|_S^\sigma ,Q_{P_S}^\sigma (H):=Q_{P_S}(H)|_{P_S}^\sigma $$

are bounded operators on $`_S^\sigma `$ and $`_{P_S}^\sigma `$. We denote the restriction of $`q_S`$ (resp. $`q_{P_S}`$) to $`_S^\sigma `$ (resp. $`_{P_S}^\sigma `$) by $`q_S^\sigma `$ (resp. $`q_{P_S}^\sigma `$) and let

$$_S^\sigma :=\{Q_S^\sigma (H)|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}^{\prime \prime },_{P_S}^\sigma :=\{Q_{P_S}^\sigma (H)|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}^{\prime \prime }.$$

Let $`_1,_2`$ be Hilbert spaces. Then a bounded operator $`A`$ on $`_1_2`$ is written in the form of matrix like this :

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A_{11}& A_{12}\\ A_{21}& A_{22}\end{array}\right),A_{ij}:_j_i.$$

We can verify the next lemma immediately.

###### 4.6 Lemma.

*For all* $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$,

$$Q_{P_S}^+(H)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_S^+(H)1_+& 0\\ 0& Q_S^{}(H)1_{}\end{array}\right),$$

$$Q_{P_S}^{}(H)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}Q_S^+(H)1_{}& 0\\ 0& Q_S^{}(H)1_+\end{array}\right)$$

*where* $`1_\sigma `$ *is the identity operator on* $`_S^\sigma `$ .

If $`S`$ is a basis projection, we call $`q_S^\sigma `$ a Fock representation of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ on $`_S^\sigma `$.

## 5 Structure of Fock Representations of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$

In this section, we assume that $`S`$ is a basis projection.

###### 5.1 Lemma.

*Assume that $`K_S=K`$. Let $`_S`$ be the set of all C.O.N.S. of $`SK`$*.

1. *Fix $`e=\{e_n\}_{n𝐍}_S`$*. *Then $`\{e_n,\mathrm{\Gamma }e_n\}_{n𝐍}`$ is a C.O.N.S. of $`K`$*.
2. *For $`g,hK`$*,

$$H_{gh}f:=\gamma (g,f)h+\gamma (h,f)g+\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }g,f)\mathrm{\Gamma }h+\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }h,f)\mathrm{\Gamma }g,fK.$$

$`H_{gh}`$ *satisfies* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H_{gh}\mathrm{\Gamma }=H_{gh}`$, $`H_{gh}^{}=H_{gh}`$. *Let*

$$H(e;1,k,l):=H_{e_k,e_l},H(e;2,k,l):=H_{e_k,\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l},$$

$$H(e;3,k,l):=H_{ie_k,e_l},H(e;4,k,l):=H_{ie_k,\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l}.$$

*Then $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ is real-linearly spanned by $`H(e;j,k,l)`$, $`1j4`$, $`k,l𝐍`$*, $`e_S`$. *Moreover*,

$$q(H(e;1,k,l))=B(e_k)B(e_l)^{}+B(e_l)B(e_k)^{}+\delta _{kl},$$
( 5.1)
$$q(H(e;2,k,l))=B(e_k)^{}B(e_l)^{}+B(e_k)B(e_l),$$
( 5.2)
$$q(H(e;3,k,l))=i[B(e_k)B(e_l)^{}B(e_l)B(e_k)^{}],$$
( 5.3)
$$q(H(e;4,k,l))=i[B(e_k)B(e_l)B(e_k)^{}B(e_l)^{}],$$
( 5.4)

###### Proof.

(1) obvious. (2) For all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$, there exist $`f_j,g_j(HK)^\mathrm{\#}`$ such that $`Hf=_{j=1}^N\gamma (g_j,f)f_j`$. Let $`\{e_n\}_{n=1}^M`$ be a C.O.N.S. of $`S(HK)^\mathrm{\#}`$. Then

$$x=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}(e_n,x)_Se_n+(\mathrm{\Gamma }e_n,x)_S\mathrm{\Gamma }e_n=\underset{n=1}{\overset{M}{}}\gamma (e_n,x)e_n\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_n,x)\mathrm{\Gamma }e_n$$

for all $`x(HK)^\mathrm{\#}`$. In particular, let $`x=f_j,g_j`$, then we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Hf& =\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\gamma (g_j,f)f_j\hfill \\ & =\underset{k,l=1}{\overset{M}{}}\{\alpha (1,k,l)\gamma (e_k,f)e_l\alpha (2,k,l)\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_k,f)e_l\hfill \\ & +\alpha (3,k,l)\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_k,f)\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l\alpha (4,k,l)\gamma (e_k,f)\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\alpha (j,k,l)`$ is defined as follows :

$`\alpha (1,k,l):={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{\gamma (e_k,g_j)}\gamma (e_l,f_j),`$
$`\alpha (2,k,l):={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_k,g_j)}\gamma (e_l,f_j),`$
$`\alpha (3,k,l):={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_k,g_j)}\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l,f_j),`$
$`\alpha (4,k,l):={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\overline{\gamma (e_k,g_j)}\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l,f_j).`$
By $`\gamma (Hf,g)=\gamma (f,Hg)`$ for all $`f,gK`$, $`\alpha (j,k,l)`$ satisfies

$$\overline{\alpha (4,k,l)}=\alpha (2,l,k),$$
( 5.5)
$$\overline{\alpha (1,k,l)}=\alpha (1,l,k),$$
( 5.6)
$$\overline{\alpha (3,k,l)}=\alpha (3,l,k).$$
( 5.7)
In fact, if $`f=e_k`$ and $`g=\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l`$, then we have (5.5), if $`f=e_k`$ and $`g=e_l`$, we have (5.6), if $`f=\mathrm{\Gamma }e_k`$ and $`g=\mathrm{\Gamma }e_l`$, we have (5.7).

On the other hand, by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }H\mathrm{\Gamma }=H`$, $`\alpha (i,j,k)`$ satisfies

$$\overline{\alpha (3,k,l)}=\alpha (1,k,l),$$
( 5.8)
$$\overline{\alpha (4,k,l)}=\alpha (2,k,l).$$
( 5.9)
Now let $`e`$ denote a C.O.N.S. of $`SK`$ satisfying $`e\{e_n\}_{n=1}^M`$. By (5.5) $``$ (5.9), we have

$$H=\underset{1k<lM}{}H(e;k,l)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{1kM}{}H(e;k,k),$$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H(e;k,l):& =\mathrm{Re}[\alpha (1,k,l)]H(e;1,k,l)\mathrm{Im}[\alpha (1,k,l)]H(e;3,k,l)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Re}[\alpha (2,k,l)]H(e;2,k,l)\mathrm{Im}[\alpha (2,k,l)]H(e;4,k,l).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ is real-linearly spanned by all $`H(e;j,k,l)`$.

###### 5.2 Lemma.

1. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ *is a cyclic vector for* $`_S^+`$.
2. *For any* $`e_1SK`$, $`\pi _S(B(e_1))\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ *is a cyclic vector for* $`_S^{}`$*.*

###### Proof.

(1) Fix $`e=\{e_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_S`$. By (5.2) and (5.4), we have

$$q_S(H(e;2,k,l))+i^1q_S(H(e;4,k,l))=2\pi _S(B(e_k)B(e_l))$$

for all $`k,l`$. Since $`_S^+`$ is linearly spanned by elements $`_{k,l}\pi _S(B(e_k)B(e_l))\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ is a cyclic vector for $`_S^+`$.

(2) Fix $`e:=\{e_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}_S`$. By (5.1) and (5.3), we have

$$q_S(H(e;1,k,l))+i^1q_S(H(e;3,k,l))=2\pi _S(B(e_k)B(e_l)^{}),kl.$$

Since

$$\{q_S(H(e;1,k,1))+i^1q_S(H(e;3,k,1))\}\pi _S(B(e_1))\mathrm{\Omega }_S=\pi _S(B(e_k))\mathrm{\Omega }_S(k2),$$

$`SK`$ is generated by $`\pi _S(B(e_1))\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ and all $`q_S(H(e;1,k,1))`$, $`q_S(H(e;3,k,1))`$. Therefore $`\pi _S(B(e_1))\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ is a cyclic vector for $`_S^{}`$.

###### 5.3 Lemma.

1. *Let*

$$D(N_S):=\{\xi =_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\xi ^{(n)}_S|\xi ^{(n)}_\mathrm{s}^nSK_S,\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n^2\xi ^{(n)}^2<\mathrm{}\},$$

$$(N_S\xi )^{(n)}:=n\xi ^{(n)},\xi D(N_S).$$

*Then the number operator $`N_S`$ is an essentially self-adjoint operator on the finite particle vector subspace of* $`_S`$.
2. $`\sigma (N_S)=\sigma _\mathrm{p}(N_S)=𝐍\{0\}`$.
3. $`e^{i\overline{N_S}}_S`$.

###### Proof.

(1) and (2) are well-known facts.

(3) Fix $`e=\{e_n\}_S`$. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐍`$, $`\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }<\mathrm{}`$, we define $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }:=_{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}\pi _S(B(e_j)B(e_j)^{})`$. Since $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{1}{2}_{k\mathrm{\Lambda }}q_S(H(e;1,k,k))`$, $`N_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an essentially self-adjoint operator on the finite particle vector subspace of $`_S`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{N_\mathrm{\Lambda }})_S`$. Since

$$N_\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n}))\mathrm{\Omega }_S=\underset{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mathrm{\#}\{k|e_{\lambda _k}=e_j\}\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n}))\mathrm{\Omega }_S,$$

we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{exp}& (i\overline{N_\mathrm{\Lambda }})\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n}))\mathrm{\Omega }_S\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{exp}\left(i\underset{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}\mathrm{\#}\{k|e_{\lambda _k}=e_j\}\right)\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n})\mathrm{\Omega }_S.\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐍\{0\}`$, then $`_{j\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\#}\{k|e_{\lambda _k}=e_j\}n`$. Thus

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐍\{0\}}{lim}\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{N_\mathrm{\Lambda }})\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n}))\mathrm{\Omega }_S& =\mathrm{exp}(in)\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n}))\mathrm{\Omega }_S\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{N_S})\pi _S(B(e_{\lambda _1})\mathrm{}B(e_{\lambda _n}))\mathrm{\Omega }_S.\hfill \end{array}$$

This shows that $`\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{N_S})=\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}lim_{\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐍\{0\}}\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{N_\mathrm{\Lambda }})_S`$.

###### 5.4 Lemma.

$`_S^\sigma `$ *acts irreducibly on* $`_S^\sigma `$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`_0`$ is a non-zero intersection of $`_S^+`$-invariant closed subspace of $`_S^+`$ and the finite particle vector subspace of $`_S^+`$. The spectrum $`\sigma (N_S|_0)`$ is contained in $`\sigma (N_S|_S^+)=2𝐍\{0\}`$ due to the invariance of $`_0`$ under $`_S^+`$. Let $`\lambda _0:=\mathrm{min}\sigma (N_S|_0)`$.

If $`\lambda _0=0`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S_0`$. Thus $`\overline{_0}_S^+\overline{_0}_S^+\mathrm{\Omega }_S=_S^+`$. This shows that $`_S^+`$ acts irreducibly on $`_S^+`$.

If $`\lambda _0=2`$, there exists $`\xi _0`$ such that $`N_S\xi =2\xi `$, $`\xi _\mathrm{s}^2SK`$. Then we can show that there exist $`j,k𝐍`$ such that $`\pi _S(B(e_j)^{})\pi _S(B(e_k)^{})\xi `$ is a non-zero element of $`_0`$. Since

$$\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})N_S=N_S\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})+2\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{}),$$

we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill N_S\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})\xi & =\{\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})N_S2\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})\}\xi \hfill \\ & =\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})2\xi 2\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{}\xi \hfill \\ & =0.\hfill \end{array}$$

This shows $`\pi _S(B(e_j)^{}B(e_k)^{})\xi 𝐂\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ and we have $`\lambda _0=0`$. This is contradiction. Thus $`\lambda _02`$. Moreover, $`\lambda _02n,n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is proved by induction.

The case of $`_S^{}`$ is quite similar.

###### 5.5 Lemma.

*Two representations* $`q_S^+`$ *and* $`q_S^{}`$ *are not quasi-equivalent*.

###### Proof.

By the irreducibility of $`_S^\sigma `$, it suffices that $`q_S^+`$ and $`q_S^{}`$ are not unitary equivalent. Suppose that there exists an unitary operator $`V:_S^+_S^{}`$ such that $`VQ_S^+(H)=Q_S^{}(H)V`$ for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. Since the left hand side of $`VQ_S^+(tH)\mathrm{\Omega }_S=Q_S^{}(tH)V\mathrm{\Omega }_S,t𝐑`$ is differentiable at $`t𝐑`$, the differential of the right hand side make sense and the domain of $`\overline{q_S^{}(H)}`$ contains $`V\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$. Now let $`H=H(e;1,k,l)`$ and $`H(e;3,k,l)`$, then we have $`\overline{\pi _S(B(e_k)B(e_l)^{})}V\mathrm{\Omega }_S=V\pi _S(B(e_k)B(e_l)^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_S=0`$ for all $`k,l`$. Therefore, since $`\overline{\pi _S(B(e_l)^{})}V\mathrm{\Omega }_S=0`$ for all $`l`$, we obtain $`V\mathrm{\Omega }_S=0`$. This is contradiction.

## 6 Structure of non-Fock Representations of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$

In this section, we assume that $`S`$ is not a basis projection.

Lemma 6.1 is a well-known fact.

###### 6.1 Lemma.

*Let* $``$ *be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space of* $``$ *and* $`E^{}`$ *be a projection*. *Let* $`C():=^{}`$ *and* $`_E=\{Q_E|Q\}`$, $`Q_E:=Q|E`$. *Then the map* $`\iota :QQ_E_E`$ *is a* \*-*homomorphism and continuous with respect to the strong operator topologies*. *Moreover* $`\iota `$ *is a* \*-*isomorphism if and only if* $`C(E):=\mathrm{min}\{FC()|FE,F^2=F^{}=F\}=1`$.

###### 6.2 Lemma.

*Let* $`E_+`$ *be a projection of* $`_S`$ *on* $`_S^+`$. ($`E_+`$ *is a element of* $`_S^{}.)`$ *Then* $`C(E_+)=1`$. *Therefore*, $`q_S`$, $`q_S^+`$ *and* $`q_S^{}`$ *are all quasi-equivalent*.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 6.1, we prove that $`C(E_+)`$ is the identity operator on $`_S`$. Since $`C(E_+)|_S^+`$ is the identity operator on $`_S^+`$, we have only to show that $`C(E_+)|_S^{}`$ is the identity operator on $`_S^{}`$. We claim that

$$C(E_+)\pi _{P_S}(B(g0))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\pi _{P_S}(B(g0))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}$$
( 6.1)
for all $`gK_S`$.

(i) The case of $`gE_S((0,1))K_S`$.

Let $`g^{}:=\sqrt{(1S)^1S}g`$ for $`gE_S((0,1))K_SD((1S)^1)`$. ($`D(A)`$ is the domain of operator $`A`$.) $`g^{}`$ is an element of $`E_S((0,1))K_S`$ and satisfies $`P_S(g0)=P_S(0g^{})`$ and $`\pi _{P_S}(B(g0))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\pi _{P_S}(B(0g^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$. Thus it suffices that

$$C(E_+)\pi _{P_S}(B(0g^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\pi _{P_S}(B(0g^{}))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}$$
( 6.2)
for all $`g^{}E_S((0,1))K_S`$. Now since $`[q(H0),B(0g^{})]=0`$ for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$, $`C(E_+)_S`$*commutes*” with $`\pi _{P_S}(B(0g^{}))|_SD(\pi _{P_S})`$. (If a bounded operator $`Q`$ on a Hilbert space $``$ and (unbounded) operator $`A`$ on a Hilbert space $``$ with a dense domain $`D(A)`$ satisfy $`QA\eta ,\xi =Q\eta ,A^{}\xi `$ for all $`\eta ,\xi D(A)`$, it is said that $`A`$ commutes with $`Q`$.) Thus we obtain (6.2).

(ii) The case of $`gE_S(\{1\})K_S`$.

Let $`f`$ be an unit vector in $`E_S((0,1))K_S`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \pi _{P_S}& (B(g0))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}\hfill \\ & =\pi _{P_S}(B(g0))\pi _{P_S}(B(P_S(f0))^{}B(P_S(f0)))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}\hfill \\ & =\pi _{P_S}(B(g0))\pi _{P_S}(B(P_S(f0))^{}B(f0))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}\hfill \\ & =\pi _{P_S}(B(g0)B(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S\gamma _S^1Sf0)\pi _{P_S}(B(f0))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}\hfill \\ & +\pi _{P_S}(B(g0)B(f0))\pi _{P_S}(B(0\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(\gamma _S^1)2\sqrt{S(1S)}f))\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\pi _{P_S}(B(g0)B(\mathrm{\Gamma }_S\gamma _S^1Sf0))|_SD(\pi _{P_S})`$ and $`\pi _S(B(g0)B(f0))|_SD(\pi _{P_S})`$ commute with $`C(E_+)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S(\gamma _S^1)\sqrt{S(1S)}f`$ is an element of $`E_S((0,1))K_S`$, we can use the case (i) and obtain (6.1).

###### 6.3 Corollary.

$`q_S^\sigma `$ *and* $`q_{P_S}^\sigma `$ *are quasi-equivalent*.

###### Proof.

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ is a separating vector for $`C(_{P_S}^+)`$. Indeed, let

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_+1_+& 0\\ 0& a_{}1_{}\end{array}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=0,a_\sigma C(_S^\sigma ),$$

then $`a_+\mathrm{\Omega }_S=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }_S`$ is a separating vector for $`C(_S^+)`$, we have $`a_+=0`$. Moreover, by $`q_S^+_qq_S^{}`$(Lemma 6.2), we have $`a_{}=0`$ as well.

Let $`\widehat{E}_+:_{P_S}^+_S^+`$ be a projection and $`C(\widehat{E}_+):=\mathrm{min}\{EC(_{P_S}^+)|E^2=E^{}=E,E\widehat{E}_+\}`$. Since $`C(\widehat{E}_+)\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ is a separating vector for $`C(_{P_S}^+)`$, we have $`C(\widehat{E}_+)=1`$, that is, $`q_S^+_qq_{P_S}^+`$. By Lemma 6.2, we obtain

$$q_S^+_qq_{P_S}^+_qq_S^{}_qq_{P_S}^{}.$$

If $`0<S<1`$, the commutant $`(_{P_S}^+)^{}`$ is written explicitly by using Tomita-Takesaki theory and we can show that $`_{P_S}^+`$ is a factor.

###### 6.4 Lemma.

*Let* $`0<S<1`$. *Then* $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ *is a cyclic and separating vector for* $`_{P_S}^+`$.

###### Proof.

If $`0<S<1`$, we have already got $`_{P_S}^+=_S^+`$ and $`Q_{P_S}(H)=Q_S(H)`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ is cyclic for $`_{P_S}^+`$. Since $`\{\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}`$ generate $`_{P_S}^+`$ and $`\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)(_{P_S}^+)^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ is cyclic for $`(_{P_S}^+)^{}`$ i.e. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ is separating for $`_{P_S}^+`$.

We define the modular conjugation $`J_{_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}}`$ and the modular operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ for $`_{P_S}^+`$.

For a bijective linear (resp. conjugate linear) operator $`U`$ on $`K_SK_S`$, we define a \*-automorphism (resp. conjugate \*-automorphism) $`\tau (U)`$ of $`𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S)`$ satisfying $`\tau (U)B(h)=B(Uh)`$.

Let $`\omega (fg):=\mathrm{\Gamma }_Sg\mathrm{\Gamma }_Sf`$. The conjugate linear map $`J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ is defined by

$$J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}\pi _{P_S}(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\pi _{P_S}(\tau (\omega )A)\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S},A𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S).$$

Let $`0<S<1`$ and $`H_S:=\mathrm{log}(S(1S)^1)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_S`$ be an infinitesimal generator defined by

$$\mathrm{exp}(it\mathrm{\Theta }_S)\pi _S(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_S=\pi _S(\tau (e^{itH_S})A)\mathrm{\Omega }_S,A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

$`\alpha `$ is defined in Remark 2.7. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}:=e^{\mathrm{\Theta }_S}`$. Due to $`0<S<1`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ is defined on a dense set of $`_{P_S}=_S`$. (See Remark 2.7.)

###### 6.5 Lemma.

*Let* $`0<S<1`$.

1. *The restriction of $`J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ on $`_{P_S}^+`$ is the modular conjugation associated with the pair $`(_{P_S}^+,\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S})`$ and the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$on $`_{P_S}^+`$ is the modular operator*.
2. $`_{P_S}^+`$ *is a factor*.

###### Proof.

(1) We obtain $`J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}Q_{P_S}(H)\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}^{1/2}Q_{P_S}(H)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. For any $`A_{P_S}^+`$, there exists a net $`\{A_\nu \}`$ in the linear hull of $`\{Q_{P_S}(H)|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}`$ such that $`A_\nu A`$ $`(\nu \mathrm{})`$ with respect to the strong * operator topology :

$$(A_\nu A)x^2+(A_\nu ^{}A^{})x^20$$

for all $`x_{P_S}^+`$. Therefore we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{P_S}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi },A^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }_{P_S}^{1/2}\mathrm{\Psi },A_\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Psi },J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}A_\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\mathrm{\Psi },J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}A\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}$$

for all $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in the domain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$. This shows that all $`A^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ are elements of the domain of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$. Let $`T_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}:=J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}^{1/2}`$, then $`T_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}A\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=A^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$ for all $`A_{P_S}^+`$. Thus $`J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ is the modular conjugation associated with the pair $`(_{P_S}^+,\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ is the modular operator.

(2) $`Q_{P_S}(H)`$ satisfies $`[W_{P_S}(0f),Q_{P_S}(H)]=0`$ from the direct computation and this shows

$$_{P_S}(\mathrm{Re}K_S0)=_{P_S}(0\mathrm{Re}K_S)^{}_{P_S}=_{P_S}^+_{P_S}^{}.$$
( 6.3)
By Tomita-Takesaki theory we have

$$(_{P_S}^+)^{}=J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}_{P_S}^+J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}=\{\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)|_{P_S}^+|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}^{\prime \prime }.$$
( 6.4)
From the quasi-equivalence of representations $`q_{P_S}^+`$ and $`q_{P_S}^{}`$, (6.4) implies that $`(_{P_S}^{})^{}`$ is generated by all $`\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)|_{P_S}^{}`$, $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. Thus $`(_{P_S}^+)^{}(_{P_S}^{})^{}`$ is generated by all $`\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)`$, $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. Since $`[W_{P_S}(f0),\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)]=0`$, we have

$$_{P_S}(\mathrm{Re}K_S0)^{}=_{P_S}(0\mathrm{Re}K_S)(_{P_S}^+)^{}(_{P_S}^{})^{}.$$
( 6.5)
From Corollary 2.6 and (6.3) and (6.5), we have

$$C(_{P_S}^+)C(_{P_S}^{})C(_{P_S}(\mathrm{Re}K_S0))=𝐂1.$$

Thus $`C(_{P_S}^+)=𝐂1_+`$.(And $`C(_{P_S}^{})=𝐂1_{}`$.)

## 7 Quasi-equivalence of <br>Quasifree Representations of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$

Let $`𝔖`$ be the set of all positive semi-definite hermitian forms $`S`$ on $`K`$ satisfying (2.1). Now we give the main result of this paper.

###### 7.1 Theorem.

Assume that $`K`$ is separable*.* Let $`S,S^{}𝔖`$. Two quasifree representations $`q_S^\sigma `$ and $`q_S^{}^\sigma `$ of $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ are quasi-equivalent if and only if the following two conditions hold *:*

1. The topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent*,* i*.*e*.* there exists $`\beta >\alpha >0`$ such that $`\alpha f_Sf_S^{}\beta f_S`$ for all $`fK`$.
2. $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator on $`K_S`$ where $`\chi (S):=\mathrm{tanh}^12\sqrt{S(1S)}`$ and $`\rho (S):=(2S1)^1|2S1|`$.

By the equivalence of norms $`_S`$ and $`_S^{}`$, we can see a bounded operator $`S^{}`$ on $`K_S^{}`$ as a bounded operator on $`K_S`$.

###### 7.2 Lemma.

*If* $`\alpha _S_S^{}\beta _S`$, *there exists* $`0<\alpha ^{}<\beta ^{}`$ *such that* $`\alpha ^{}_{P_S}_{P_S^{}}\beta ^{}_{P_S}`$.

###### Proof.

Immediate from (2.3).

###### 7.3 Lemma.

*Let* $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ *and* the topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent. *Then the following conditions are equivalent*.

1. $`P_SP_S^{}`$ *is a Hilbert-Schimdt class operator*,
2. $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*,
3. $`1\rho (S^{})e^{\chi (S^{})}e^{\chi (S)}\rho (S)`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*.

###### Proof.

See Lemma 6.5 of .

###### 7.4 Lemma.

*Let* $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ *be basis projections and assume that* $`K=K_S=K_S^{}`$.

1. *Let* $`\theta (S,S^{})`$ *be a non-negative hermitian operator on* $`K`$ *satisfying* $`\mathrm{sinh}^2\theta (S,S^{})=(SS^{})^2`$. *Let*

$$u_{12}(S/S^{}):=(\mathrm{sinh}\theta (S,S^{})\mathrm{cosh}\theta (S,S^{}))^1SS^{}(1S),$$

$$u_{21}(S/S^{}):=(\mathrm{sinh}\theta (S,S^{})\mathrm{cosh}\theta (S,S^{}))^1(1S)S^{}S,$$

$$H(S/S^{}):=i\theta (S,S^{})\{u_{12}(S/S^{})+u_{21}(S/S^{})\}.$$

*Then $`u_{ij}(S/S^{})^{}=u_{ji}(S/S^{})`$* *and* $`H(S/S^{})`$ *satisfies*

$$H(S/S^{})^{}=H(S/S^{}),\mathrm{\Gamma }H(S/S^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }=H(S/S^{}),$$

$$(iH(S/S^{}))^{}=iH(S/S^{}).$$

(\* *is relative to $`(,)_S`$*.) *Let*

$$U(S/S^{}):=\mathrm{exp}(iH(S/S^{})).$$

$`U(S/S^{})`$ *satisfies*

$$U(S/S^{})^{}U(S/S^{})=U(S/S^{})U(S/S^{})^{}=1,[\mathrm{\Gamma },U(S/S^{})]=0,$$

$$U(S/S^{})^{}SU(S/S^{})=S^{}.$$
2. $`SS^{}`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator if and only if* $`\theta (S,S^{})`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*.
3. *Let $`\theta (S,S^{})`$ be a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator. Then there exists an unique unitary operator* $`T(S,S^{})_S`$ *such that*

$$T(S,S^{})^{}\overline{\pi _S(A)}T(S,S^{})=\pi _S[\tau (U(S/S^{}))A]$$

*on* $`D(\pi _S)`$ *and*

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_S,T(S,S^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_S=\mathrm{det}_{SK}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}\theta (S,S^{})}}\right)$$
( 7.1)
*where* $`\mathrm{det}_{SK}`$ *is the determinant of* $`SK`$.(*Since* $`\theta (S,S^{})`$ *commutes with* $`S`$, *the right hand side of* (7.1) *is well-defined*.)

###### Proof.

(1) See Lemma 5.4 of . (3) See Lemma 5.5 of .

###### 7.5 Lemma.

*Assume that* $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ *are basis projections and* the topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent. *If* $`SS^{}`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*, *then* $`q_S^\sigma `$ *and* $`q_S^{}^\sigma `$ *are unitary equivalent*.

###### Proof.

Let

$$V\pi _S^{}(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_S^{}=\overline{\pi _S(A)}T(S,S^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_S,A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

Since $`U(S/S^{})^{}SU(S/S^{})=S^{}`$, we have $`\phi _S^{}=\phi _S\tau (U(S/S^{}))`$. This shows that $`V`$ is an unitary operator from $`_S^{}`$ to $`_S`$ and satisfies $`V\pi _S^{}(A)=\overline{\pi _S(A)}V`$ on $`D(\pi _S^{})`$ for all $`A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. By $`V_S^{}^\sigma _S^\sigma `$, the restriction of $`V`$ to $`_S^{}^\sigma `$ is an unitary operator from $`_S^{}^\sigma `$ to $`_S^\sigma `$ and we have $`VQ_S^{}^\sigma (H)=Q_S^\sigma (H)V`$ for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. Thus $`q_S^\sigma `$ is unitary equivalent to $`q_S^{}^\sigma `$.

The next corollary is directly seen from the above lemma.

###### 7.6 Corollary.

*If* the topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent *and* $`P_SP_S^{}`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*, *then* $`q_{P_S}^\sigma `$ *and* $`q_{P_S^{}}^\sigma `$ *are unitary equivalent*.

###### 7.7 Lemma.

*Assume that* $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ *are not projection*. *If* $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*, *then* $`q_S^\sigma `$ *and* $`q_S^{}^\sigma `$ *are quasi-equivalent*.

###### Proof.

Immediate from Corollary 6.3, Lemma 7.3 and Corollary 7.6.

###### 7.8 Lemma.

*Let* $`S𝔖`$ *be a projection and* $`S^{}𝔖`$ *be not a projection*. *Then* $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ *is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`q_S^+_qq_S^{}^+`$ and $`q_S^{}_qq_S^{}^{}`$. Then since $`q_S^+_qq_S^{}`$ and the irreducibility of $`q_S^\sigma `$, we have $`q_S^+q_S^{}`$. However, since $`S`$ is a projection, $`q_S^+\sim ̸q_S^{}`$. This is contradiction. So $`q_S^+\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^+`$ or $`q_S^{}\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^{}`$. If $`q_S^+_qq_S^{}^+`$ and $`q_S^{}\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^{}`$, then $`P_SP_S^{}`$ is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator from $`q_{P_S^{}}^+_qq_S^{}^+_qq_S^+\sim ̸_qq_{P_S}^+`$. Thus $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator. The case of $`q_S^{}_qq_S^{}^{}`$ and $`q_S^+\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^+`$ is quite similar. If $`q_S^+_qq_S^{}^{}`$ and $`q_S^+\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^+`$ and $`q_S^{}\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^{}`$, we have $`q_{P_S^{}}^+_qq_{P_S^{}}^{}_qq_S^{}^{}_qq_S^+\sim ̸_qq_{P_S}^+`$. Thus $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator. The case of $`q_S^+\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^{}`$ and $`q_S^+\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^+`$ and $`q_S^{}\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^{}`$ is trivial. Therefore, $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator.

From the above lemmas, we have the necessary condition of Theorem 7.1.

###### 7.9 Lemma (Necessity of Theorem 7.1).

*Suppose that* $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ *satisfy the following two conditions*.

1. The topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent,
2. $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator.

*Then two representations* $`q_S^\sigma `$ *and* $`q_S^{}^\sigma `$ *are quasi-equivalent*.

Next, we prove the sufficiency of Theorem 7.1.

A state $`\phi _{P_S}`$ on CCR algebra $`𝔄(K_SK_S,\widehat{\gamma }_S,\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S)`$ can be viewed as a state on $`_S^+`$ satisfying $`\phi _{P_S}(Q):=\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S},Q\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$, $`Q_{P_S}^+`$.

Now let $`dimK<\mathrm{}`$. Since $`P_SP_S^{}`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator, $`q_{P_S}^+`$ and $`q_{P_S^{}}^+`$ are unitary equivalent and we can identify $`_{P_S}^+`$ with $`_{P_S^{}}^+`$. Therefore, a state $`\phi _{P_S^{}}`$ on CCR algebra $`𝔄(K_S^{}K_S^{},\widehat{\gamma }_S^{},\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_S^{})`$ is regarded as a state on $`_{P_S}^+`$ satisfying $`\phi _{P_S^{}}(Q):=\mathrm{\Omega }^{},Q\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}:=T(P_S,P_S^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}`$, $`Q_{P_S^{}}^+=_{P_S}^+`$ where $`T(P_S,P_S^{})`$ is an unitary operator determined by (3) of Lemma 7.4.

We quote the following two results to prove the sufficiency of the main theorem.

###### 7.10 Lemma.

*Let* $``$ *be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $``$ with a cyclic and separating vector* $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. *Let* $`V_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ *be a natural positive corn associated with the pair* $`(,\mathrm{\Psi })`$. *If* $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ *is an another cyclic and separating vector for* $``$, *then* $`\mathrm{\Phi }V_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ *if and only if the following 2 conditions hold* :

1. $`J_\mathrm{\Phi }=J_\mathrm{\Psi }`$,
2. $`\mathrm{\Phi },Q_+\mathrm{\Psi }0`$ *for all* $`Q_+^{},Q_+0`$.

###### Proof.

See THEOREM 4 (5) of .

###### 7.11 Lemma.

*Let* $``$ *be a von Neumann algebra on a Hilbert space $``$ with a cyclic and separating vector* $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ *and let $`V_\mathrm{\Psi }`$ be the natural positive corn for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_iV_\mathrm{\Psi }(i=1,2)`$ and $`\phi _{\mathrm{\Phi }_i}`$ be a vector state for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$. Then*

$$\phi _{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}\phi _{\mathrm{\Phi }_2}\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2^2.$$

###### Proof.

See THEOREM 4 (8) of .

###### 7.12 Lemma.

*Let $`dimK<\mathrm{}`$ and $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ be* $`0<S<1`$, $`0<S^{}<1`$. *Then*

$$(\phi _{P_S}\phi _{P_S^{}})|_{P_S}^+2\{1\mathrm{det}_{P_SK_{P_S}}\left(\frac{1}{{}_{}{}^{4}\sqrt{P_SP_S^{}P_S}}\right)\}$$
( 7.2)
###### Proof.

Let $`J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ be the modular conjugation and modular operator associated with the pair $`(_{P_S}^+,\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ and let $`V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ be the natural positive corn associated with the pair $`(_{P_S}^+,\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S})`$. We show $`J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{},Q\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}0`$ for all $`QC(_{P_S}^+),Q0`$ with help of Lemma 7.10 to prove $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$ .

We prove the first part, $`J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$. Since we have

$$[J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}},T(P_S,P_S^{})]=0$$

(See (6.2) of ), the following relation holds :

$$J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}.$$
( 7.3)
We remark that we have already obtained the following relations :

$$V^{}Q_{P_S}(H)V=Q_{P_S^{}}(H),$$
( 7.4)
$$J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=VJ_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S^{}}}V^{},$$
( 7.5)
$$J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}Q_{P_S}(H)J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}=\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)^{},$$
( 7.6)
$$J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S^{}}}Q_{P_S^{}}(H)J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S^{}}}=\widehat{Q}_{P_S^{}}(0H)^{}$$
( 7.7)
where $`V`$ is the unitary operator defined in Lemma 7.5. We have

$$J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}Q_{P_S}(H)J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)^{}$$
( 7.8)
from (7.4), (7.5) and (7.7). It follows

$$[J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}},Q_{P_S}(H)]=0,$$

$$[J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}},\widehat{Q}_{P_S}(0H)]=0$$

for all $`Hsp(\mathrm{})`$ from (7.6) and (7.8). Now the center $`C(_{P_S})`$ of $`_{P_S}`$ is trivial :

$$C(_{P_S})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_{P_S}^+& 0\\ 0& _{P_S}^{}\end{array}\right)_{P_S}^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C(_{P_S}^+)& 0\\ 0& C(_{P_S}^{})\end{array}\right)=𝐂1.$$

Thus $`J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}C(_{P_S})=𝐂1`$, that is,

$$J_\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\lambda J_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}},\lambda S^1:=\{\lambda 𝐂||\lambda |=1\}.$$
( 7.9)
Due to (7.3) and (7.9), $`\lambda =1`$.

The second part is verified by (7.1) and the factoriality of $`_{P_S}^+`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^{},\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S},T(P_S,P_S^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}=\underset{\lambda \sigma (\theta (P_S,P_S^{}))}{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}\lambda }}0.$$

Therefore $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}V_{\mathrm{\Omega }_{P_S}}`$. Now from (7.1) and Lemma 7.11 and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_S\mathrm{cosh}\theta (P_S,P_S^{})& =P_S\sqrt{1[\mathrm{sinh}\theta (P_S,P_S^{})]^2}\hfill \\ & =\sqrt{P_S\{1(P_SP_S^{})^2\}}\hfill \\ & =\sqrt{P_SP_S^{}P_S},\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain (7.2).

###### 7.13 Lemma.

*Assume that $`K`$ is separable. Let* $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ *be* $`0<S<1`$, $`0<S^{}<1`$ *an*d the topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent. *If* $`P_SP_S^{}`$ *is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*, *then there exists $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant finite dimensional subspaces $`K_n`$ of $`K`$ such that*

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(\phi _{S_n}\phi _{S_n^{}})|_{P_{S_n}}^+=2.$$

*$`S_n(f,g)`$ is the restriction of $`S(f,g)`$ to $`K_n`$*.

###### Proof.

Since we have the inequality (7.2), we can verify this lemma as the proof of Lemma 6.7 of .

###### 7.14 Lemma (Sufficiency of Theorem 7.1).

*Assume that $`K`$ is separable*. $`S,S^{}𝔖`$ and the topologies induced by $`f_S`$ and $`f_S^{}`$ on $`K`$ are equivalent. *If $`1\rho (S)e^{\chi (S)}e^{\chi (S^{})}\rho (S^{})`$ is not a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*, *then $`q_S^\sigma `$ and $`q_S^{}^\sigma `$ are not quasi-equivalent*.

###### Proof.

First suppose that $`0<S<1`$ and $`0<S^{}<1`$. Then we can show $`q_S^+\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^+`$ from Lemma 7.13 as the proof of Lemma 6.8 of . Since $`q_S^{}_qq_S^+`$ and $`q_S^{}^{}_qq_S^{}^+`$ by Lemma 6.2, we have $`q_S^{}\sim ̸_qq_S^{}^{}`$ as well.

For general $`S`$ and $`S^{}`$, this proof is quite similar to Lemma 6.8 of .

## 8 Metaplectic Representations of $`Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$

###### 8.1 Definition.

*A bijective linear map* $`U`$ *on* $`K`$ *satisfies* $`\gamma (Uf,Ug)=\gamma (f,g)`$ *and* $`\mathrm{\Gamma }U=U\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. *Let* $`\tau (U)`$ *be a* \*-*automorphism of CCR algebra* $`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ *satisfying* $`\tau (U)B(f)=B(Uf)`$. *Then we call* $`U`$ *a Bogoliubov transformation for $`(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and* *$`\tau (U)`$* *a Bogoliubov* \*-*automorphism*. *The set of all Bogoliubov transformations is called the* *symplectic group* *and we denote the symplectic group for* $`(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ *by* $`Sp(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

We define some subgroups of $`Sp(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Let $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$ be the group generated by $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ :

$$Sp(\mathrm{}):=\{e^{iH}|Hsp(\mathrm{})\}.$$

Suppose that $`P`$ is a basis projection for $`(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ satisfying $`K_P=K`$.

Let $`Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$ be the set of all $`USp(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ satisfying

$$PU(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}<\mathrm{}$$
( 8.1)
where $`_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}`$ is the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of operators on $`K`$. (8.1) is the sufficient condition of the existence of unitary representation of $`U`$.

###### 8.2 Lemma.

*Let*

$$d_P(A,B):=AB+P(AB)(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}$$

*for all* $`A,BSp(\mathrm{},P)`$. *Then* $`Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$ *is a topological group with respect to* $`d_P`$.

###### Proof.

We have to show the continuity of multiplication and inverse. Suppose that $`A,A_\nu ,B,B_\nu Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$ satisfy

$$d_P(A_\nu ,A)0,d_P(B_\nu ,B)0.$$
( 8.2)
(8.2) says that for any $`\epsilon >0`$, if $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, then

$$PB_\nu (1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}PB(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}+\epsilon ,$$
( 8.3)
$$B_\nu B+\epsilon .$$
( 8.4)
First we claim

$$P(A_\nu A)B(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}0.$$
( 8.5)
(8.5) follows from (8.3) and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(& A_\nu A)B(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\hfill \\ & P(A_\nu A)(1P)B(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}+P(A_\nu A)PB(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\hfill \\ & P(A_\nu A)(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}B+A_\nu APB(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Due to (8.5), we have $`d_P(A_\nu B_\nu ,AB)0`$ as $`\nu \mathrm{}`$.

On the other hand, Since (8.3), (8.4) and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P(& A_\nu ^1A^1(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\hfill \\ & =PA_\nu ^1(A_\nu A)A^1(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\hfill \\ & PA_\nu ^1(1P)(A_\nu A)A^1(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}+PA_\nu ^1P(A_\nu A)A^1(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\hfill \\ & PA_\nu ^1(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}A_\nu AA^1+A_\nu ^1P(A_\nu A)A^1(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.},\hfill \end{array}$$

we have $`d_P(A_\nu ^1,A^1)0`$ as $`\nu \mathrm{}`$.

###### 8.3 Lemma.

*Assume that* $`P_1`$ *and* $`P_2`$ *are basis projections and there exist* $`\beta >\alpha >0`$ *such that* $`\alpha f_{P_1}f_{P_2}\beta f_{P_1}`$ *for all* $`fK`$ *and* $`P_1P_2`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*. *Then* $`Sp(\mathrm{},P_1)=Sp(\mathrm{},P_2)`$ *as a topological group*.

###### Proof.

We have only to show the equivalence of the distance $`d_{P_1}`$ and $`d_{P_2}`$. In this proof, we denote the operator norm with respect to $`P`$ by $`_P`$ and the Hilbert-Schmidt norm with respect to $`P`$ by $`_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P}`$. (In this proof, the Hilbert space norm of $`K`$ and the operator norm of bounded operators on $`K`$ is same notation, however we probably does not confuse the two meanings.)

$$A_{P_2}:=\underset{xK}{sup}\frac{Ax_{P_2}}{x_{P_2}}\underset{xK}{sup}\frac{\beta Ax_{P_1}}{\alpha x_{P_1}}=\frac{\beta }{\alpha }A_{P_1}.$$

In the same way, we have $`A_{P_1}\frac{\beta }{\alpha }A_{P_2}`$.

On the other hand,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_2& A(1P_2)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_2}\hfill \\ & \beta P_2U(P_1/P_2)^{}U(P_1/P_2)AU(P_1/P_2)^{}U(P_1/P_2)(1P_2)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \\ & \beta U(P_1/P_2)^{}P_1U(P_1/P_2)AU(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)U(P_1/P_2)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \\ & \beta U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1}U(P_1/P_2)_{P_1}\hfill \\ & \times P_1U(P_1/P_2)AU(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_1& U(P_1/P_2)AU(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \\ & P_1U(P_1/P_2)\{P_1+(1P_1)\}AU(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \\ & U(P_1/P_2)_{P_1}P_1AU(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \\ & +P_1U(P_1/P_2)(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1}A_{P_1}\hfill \\ & U(P_1/P_2)_{P_1}\{A_{P_1}P_1U(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}\hfill \\ & +P_1A(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1}\}\hfill \\ & +P_1U(P_1/P_2)(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1}A_{P_1}\hfill \\ & M^{\prime \prime }(A_{P_1}+P_1A(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1})\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ is the maximum value of

$$P_1U(P_1/P_2)(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1},$$

$$P_1U(P_1/P_2)^{}(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1}U(P_1/P_2)_{P_1},$$

$$U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1}U(P_1/P_2)_{P_1}.$$

Since $`P_1U(P_1/P_2)(1P_1)=\mathrm{sinh}\theta (P_1,P_2)u_{12}(P_1/P_2)`$, $`P_1U(P_1/P_2)(1P_1)`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator and $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ is not infinity. From the above argument,

$$P_2A(1P_2)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_2}M^{}(A_{P_1}+P_1A(1P_1)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.,P_1})$$

where $`M^{}:=\beta U(P_1/P_2)^{}_{P_1}U(P_1/P_2)_{P_1}M^{\prime \prime }`$.

Let $`M:=M^{}+\beta \alpha ^1`$. Then $`d_{P_2}(U_1,U_2)Md_{P_1}(U_1,U_2)`$. In the same way, we can show that there exists a positive number $`m>0`$ such that $`d_{P_1}(U_1,U_2)\frac{1}{m}d_{P_2}(U_1,U_2)`$. Therefore

$$md_{P_1}(U_1,U_2)d_{P_2}(U_1,U_2)Md_{P_1}(U_1,U_2).$$

###### 8.4 Lemma.

*Let* $`USp(\mathrm{},P)`$ *and* $`P^{}:=UPU^{}`$.

1. *Let* $`R(U):=U(P/P^{})U`$. *Then* $`R(U)`$ *commutes with* $`P`$ *and* $`R(U)`$ *is an unitary operator on* $`K`$.
2. $`U(P/P^{})^{}`$ *is a positive and* 1 + *Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*.

###### Proof.

(1) Since $`P^{}=UPU^{}`$ and $`PU(P/P^{})=U(P/P^{})P^{}`$, we have

$$PR(U)=U(P/P^{})P^{}U=U(P/P^{})UPU^{}U=R(U)P.$$

Thus $`R(U)`$ commutes with $`P`$. Due to $`\gamma (R(U)f,R(U)g)=\gamma (f,g)`$, we have

$$\gamma _P=R(U)^{}\gamma _PR(U)=\gamma _PR(U)^{}R(U).$$

(\* is relative to $`(,)_P`$.) Since $`P`$ is a projection and $`\gamma _P^2=1`$, we obtain

$$1=\gamma _P^2=\gamma _P\gamma _PR(U)^{}R(U)=R(U)^{}R(U).$$

This implies $`R(U)R(U)^{}=1`$. Thus $`R(U)`$ is an unitary operator on $`K`$.

(2) Due to (8.1), $`\theta (P,P^{})`$ defined in Lemma 7.4 is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator. Indeed, we have

$$PU(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}^2=\mathrm{tr}(PU(1P)U^{}P)$$
( 8.6)
and

$$PU(1P)U^{}P=[\mathrm{sinh}\theta (P,P^{})]^2P,$$
( 8.7)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }PU(1P)U^{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }=[\mathrm{sinh}\theta (P,P^{})]^2(1P)$$
( 8.8)
from the direct computation. ((8.8) follows from $`[\mathrm{sinh}\theta (P,P^{}),\mathrm{\Gamma }]=0.`$) (8.6), (8.7) and (8.8) say that $`\mathrm{sinh}\theta (P,P^{})`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator, i.e. $`\theta (P,P^{})`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator. We obtain immediately that $`H(P/P^{})`$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator.

Since $`iH(P/P^{})`$ is a hermitian operator, the positivity of $`U(P/P^{})`$ is obvious.

From the above lemma, $`USp(\mathrm{},P)`$ is written as $`U=U(P/P^{})^{}R(U)`$ and this is the polar decomposition of $`U`$.

We introduce some notations to define the metaplectic representations of $`Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$.

Let $`P`$ be a basis projection and $`U`$ be the element of $`Sp(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ satisfying $`[P,U]=0`$. (Since $`[P,U]=0`$, $`U`$ is an unitary operator.) Then the operator $`T_P(U)`$ on $`_P`$ is defined by

$$T_P(U)\pi _P(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_P:=\pi _P(\tau (U)A)\mathrm{\Omega }_P,A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

$`T_P(U)`$ is the second quantization of $`U`$. Since $`\tau (U)`$ is a \*-automorphism of CCR algebra $`𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`\phi _P`$ is a quasifree state satisfying

$$\phi _P(\tau (U)[B(f)^{}B(g)])=(Uf,PUg)_P=(f,Pg)_P=\phi _P(B(f)^{}B(g)),$$

$`T_P(U)`$ is an unitary operator on $`_P`$.

Let $`T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be an antiunitary operator on $`_P`$ defined by

$$T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma })\pi _P(A)\mathrm{\Omega }_P=\pi _P(\tau (\mathrm{\Gamma })A)\mathrm{\Omega }_P,A𝔄(K,\gamma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

###### 8.5 Lemma.

*Let* $`USp(\mathrm{},P)`$. *Then the unitary operator* $`Q_P(U)`$ *satisfying*

$$Q_P(U)W_P(f)Q_P(U)^{}=W_P(Uf)$$
( 8.9)
*for all* $`f\mathrm{Re}K`$ *exists uniquely up to* $`S^1:=\{\lambda 𝐂||\lambda |=1\}`$.

###### Proof.

Let

$$Q_P(U):=T(P,P^{})T_P(R(U)).$$

Then $`Q_P(U)`$ satisfies (8.9).

The uniqueness of $`Q_P(U)`$ follows from the irreducibility of the von Neumann algebra $`_P(\mathrm{Re}K)`$. In fact, if $`Q_P^{}(U)`$ is an another unitary operator satisfying (8.9), then we have

$$Q_P^{}(U)^{}Q_P(U)W_P(f)Q_P(U)^{}Q_P^{}(U)=W_P(f)$$

for all $`f\mathrm{Re}K`$ and this shows

$$Q_P^{}(U)^{}Q_P(U)_P(\mathrm{Re}K)^{}=𝐂1.$$

Therefore $`Q_P(U)`$ is unique up to the phase factor.

*Remark*. Since $`Q_P(H)`$ defined in the section 4 satisfies (4.3) and $`Q_P(U)`$ is unique up to the phase factor, we have $`Q_P(e^{iH})=\lambda Q_P(H)`$, $`\lambda S^1`$.

Let

$$Q_P(\lambda ,U):=\lambda Q_P(U)$$

for all $`USp(\mathrm{},P)`$ and $`\lambda S^1`$.

###### 8.6 Definition.

*We denote the group generated by all* $`Q_P(\lambda ,U)`$ *satisfying*

$$[T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma }),Q_P(\lambda ,U)]=0$$
( 8.10)
*by* $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)`$. *We call* $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)`$ *the metaplectic group of* $`Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$.

The elements $`\lambda `$ in $`S^1`$ satisfying (8.10) are $`1`$ and $`1`$. In fact, by $`[\mathrm{\Gamma },U(P/P^{})]=0`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Gamma },R(U)]=0`$, we have $`[T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma }),T(P,P^{})]=0`$ and $`[T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma }),T_P(R(U))]=0`$. This shows $`[T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma }),Q_P(1,U)]=0`$. Thus

$$T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma })Q_P(\lambda ,U)=\overline{\lambda }T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma })Q_P(1,U)=\overline{\lambda }\lambda ^1Q_P(\lambda ,U)T_P(\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

Due to (8.10), $`\overline{\lambda }\lambda ^1=1`$. Therefore $`\lambda S^1𝐑=\{\pm 1\}.`$

###### 8.7 Proposition.

1. *The metaplectic representation $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)`$ is a topological group with respect to the strong operator topology*.
2. *The metaplectic representation is continuous projective representation with respect to the topology induced by the distance $`d_P`$ and the strong operator topology*, *i*.*e*. *if* $`d_P(U_\nu ,U)0`$ *as* $`\nu \mathrm{}`$, *then* $`Q_P(\lambda ,U_\nu )Q_P(\lambda ,U)`$ *strongly*.
3. $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)`$ *is double covering of* $`Sp(\mathrm{},P).`$

###### Proof.

(1) This claim is easily checked.

(2) We prove that $`\{Q_P(1,U)1\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P^20`$ if $`d_P(U,1)0`$. Since

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{det}_P(\mathrm{cosh}\theta (P,P^{}))^2& \mathrm{exp}\left((\mathrm{cosh}\theta (P,P^{}))^2_{\mathrm{tr}}\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{exp}\left(P(PP^{})^2P_{\mathrm{tr}}\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{exp}\left(PU(1P)U^{}P_{\mathrm{tr}}\right)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{exp}\left(PU(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$

we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{Q_P(1,U)1\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P^2& =2(1\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_P,T(P,P^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_P)\hfill \\ & =2\left\{1\mathrm{det}_{PK}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cosh}\theta (P,P^{})}}\right)\right\}\hfill \\ & =2\left\{1\frac{1}{{}_{}{}^{4}\sqrt{\mathrm{det}_P(\mathrm{cosh}\theta (P,P^{}))^2}}\right\}\hfill \\ & 2\left\{1\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}PU(1P)_{\mathrm{H}.\mathrm{S}.}\right)\right\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the first claim has been proved.

Moreover, for any $`f\mathrm{Re}K`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{& Q_P(1,U)1\}W_P(f)\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \\ & =\{W_P(U^{}f)Q_P(1,U)W_P(f)\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \\ & \{W_P(U^{}f)Q_P(1,U)W_P(U^{}f)\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P+\{W_P(U^{}f)W_P(f)\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \\ & \{Q_P(1,U)1\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P+\{W_P(U^{}f)W_P(f)\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \end{array}$$

From Lemma 2.4(3), if $`U10`$, we have $`\{W_P(U^{}f)W_P(f)\}\mathrm{\Omega }_P0`$. We obtain the relation $`\{Q_P(1,U)1\}x0`$ for all $`x_P`$ if $`d_P(U,1)0`$. Thus we have

$$\{Q_P(1,U_\nu )Q_P(1,U)\}x0$$

for all $`x_P`$ if $`d_P(U_\nu ,U)0`$.

(3) Let $`f_P:Mp(\mathrm{},P)Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$ be a group homomorphism defined by

$$f_P(Q_P(\lambda ,U))=U,USp(\mathrm{},P),\lambda \{\pm 1\}.$$

Then $`f_P`$ is a covering map and $`\mathrm{ker}(f_P)=\{Q_P(1,1),Q_P(1,1)\}`$. Thus

$$Mp(\mathrm{},P)/\mathrm{ker}(f_P)Sp(\mathrm{},P),$$

that is, $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)`$ is a double covering of $`Sp(\mathrm{},P)`$.

###### 8.8 Lemma.

*Let $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ be the group generated by $`Q_P(\lambda ,e^{iH}),Hsp(\mathrm{})`$. Then the closure of $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)_{\mathrm{fin}}`$ with respect to the strong operator topology is $`Mp(\mathrm{},P)`$. That is*, *for any* $`USp(\mathrm{},P)`$*,* *there exists a net* $`\{U_\mu \}`$ *in* $`Sp(\mathrm{})`$ *such that*

$$\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}Q_P(\lambda ,U_\mu )=Q_P(\lambda ,U).$$

###### Proof.

$`T(P,P^{})`$ is written as

$$T(P,P^{})=\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_P(H(P/P^{})F_n)=\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}Q_P(1,U(P/P^{})F_n)$$

where $`F_n`$ is the spectral projection of a positive Hilbert-Schmidt class operator $`\theta (P,P^{})`$ for the open interval $`(\frac{1}{n},\mathrm{})`$. (See the proof of Lemma 5.5 of .)

On the other hand, since $`R(U)`$ is an unitary operator on $`K`$, there exists a hermitian operator $`H`$ on $`K`$ such that $`R(U)=e^{iH}`$. Since the set of all finite rank operators on $`K`$ is dense set of all bounded operators with respect to the strong * operator topology, there exists a net $`\{A_\nu ^{}\}`$ such that $`A_\nu ^{}`$ is a finite rank operator and $`A_\nu ^{}H`$ (strong * operator topology) as $`\nu \mathrm{}`$. Let $`A_\nu :=\frac{1}{2}(A_\nu ^{}+(A_\nu ^{})^{})`$. Then $`A_\nu `$ is a finite rank hermitian operator and $`A_\nu H`$ (strong operator topology) as $`\nu \mathrm{}`$. Let $`H_\nu ^{}:=PA_\nu P+(1P)A_\nu (1P)`$. Then $`H_\nu ^{}`$ is a finite rank hermitian operator and commutes with $`P`$. Moreover, $`H_\nu ^{}H`$ (strong operator topology) as $`\nu \mathrm{}`$. In fact, for any $`xK`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (& H_\nu ^{}H)x_P\hfill \\ & (PA_\nu PPHP)x_P+((1P)A_\nu (1P)(1P)H(1P))x_P\hfill \\ & (A_\nu H)Px_P+(A_\nu H)(1P)x_P\hfill \\ & 0(\nu \mathrm{}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`H_\nu :=\frac{1}{2}(H_\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }H_\nu ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Then $`H_\nu `$ is contained in $`sp(\mathrm{})`$ and satisfies $`[P,H_\nu ]=0`$ and $`H_\nu H`$ (strong operator topology) as $`\nu \mathrm{}`$. This shows $`e^{iH_\nu }Sp(\mathrm{})`$ and $`\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}lim_\nu \mathrm{}e^{iH_\nu }=R(U)`$. Moreover,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}T_P(e^{iH_\nu })W_P(f)\mathrm{\Omega }_P& =\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}W_P(e^{iH_\nu }f)\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \\ & =W_P(R(U)f)\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \\ & =T_P(R(U))W_P(f)\mathrm{\Omega }_P\hfill \end{array}$$

for all $`f\mathrm{Re}K`$. Thus

$$\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Q}_P(1,e^{iH_\nu })=\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\nu \mathrm{}}{lim}T_P(e^{iH_\nu })=T_P(R(U))=Q_P(1,R(U)).$$

Now let $`U_\mu :=U(P/P^{})^{}F_ne^{iH_\nu }`$ where $`\mu =(\nu ,n)`$. Then

$$Q_P(1,U_\mu )=Q_P(1,U(P/P^{})^{}F_n)Q_P(1,e^{iH_\nu })$$

and

$$\mathrm{s}\frac{}{}\underset{\mu \mathrm{}}{lim}Q_P(1,U_\mu )=Q_P(1,U).$$

Let $`Q_P^\sigma (\lambda ,U)`$ be the restriction of $`Q_P(\lambda ,U)`$ to $`_P^\sigma `$ where $`\sigma =+`$ or $``$.

We obtain the following proposition immediately from Lemma 7.5 and Lemma 8.8.

###### 8.9 Proposition.

*Suppose that $`K`$ is separable. Let* $`P_1`$ *and* $`P_2`$ *be basis projections satisfying* $`\alpha f_{P_1}f_{P_2}\beta f_{P_1}`$ *for all* $`fK`$, $`K=K_{P_1}=K_{P_2}`$ *and* $`P_1P_2`$ *is a Hilbert-Schmidt class operator*. *Then the metaplectic representations* $`Q_{P_1}^\sigma (\lambda ,)`$ *and* $`Q_{P_2}^\sigma (\lambda ,)`$ ( *resp . $`Q_{P_1}^\sigma (\lambda ,)`$ and $`Q_{P_2}^\sigma ^{}(\lambda ,)(\sigma \sigma ^{}))`$* *of* $`Sp(\mathrm{},P_1)=Sp(\mathrm{},P_2)`$ *are unitary equivalent*. (*resp. not unitary equivalent*.)


format: text

text:
# Disorder and interactions in quantum Hall ferromagnets: effects of disorder in Skyrmion physics

## I Introduction

At Landau level filling factor $`\nu =1`$ in the clean limit the ground state of a two-dimensional electron system (2DES) is a ferromagnet with a charge gap . Away from $`\nu =1`$ the ground state is populated by the elementary charge excitations which are topologically charged spin textures (Skyrmions) containing more than one single spin flip. The existence and stability of such excitations has been verified experimentally through nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) experiments . Recent experiments have indicated that disorder (even in the weak limit) also plays a role in the observed behavior in a more detailed study of the NMR spectra at low temperatures . The competition between interactions and disorder in the study of quantum Hall ferromagnets has often, but not always , been neglected partially because of the lack of easily manageable techniques which can deal with both at the same level.

Such competition can be studied using the Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation which has the advantage of being exact in both the non-interacting and the non-disordered limits . We can summarize the results of our model calculations as follows (shown in Fig. 1). As the interaction strength is increased relative to disorder at $`\nu =1`$, the 2DES ground state suffers a phase transition from a paramagnetic to a ferromagnetic state. For the disorder models we use, the fully polarized state is reached when the Coulomb energy scale is approximately twice the Landau-level-broadening disorder energy scale. Away from $`\nu =1`$, screening by mobile charges reduces the importance of disorder and the system reaches maximal spin-polarization at smaller interaction strengths. The maximally polarized ground state at moderate interaction strengths is best described as a glass of localized conventional (Laughlin) quasiparticles formed in the $`\nu =1`$ fully polarized vacuum. Only for stronger interactions do we find a phase transition to a state with non-collinear magnetization in which the localized particles have Skyrmionic character. We also present NMR spectra calculations at $`\nu =1`$ in the different disorder regimes observed.

## II Formalism

The HF approximation allows the interplay between disorder and interactions to be addressed in an equal footing while retaining a simple independent-particle picture of the many-body ground state. In this section, we outline the basic formalism of HF approximation calculations in the LLL limit. Further details on this formalism can be found elsewhere .

Here we only consider lowest Landau level (LLL) states in expanding the HF Hamiltonian. Neglecting the frozen kinetic-energy degree of freedom, the Hamiltonian in second quantization is written as

$$H=H_I+H_{dis}+H_Z,$$
(1)
where $`H_I`$ is the normal Coulomb part of the Hamiltonian, $`H_{dis}`$ is the external disorder part of the Hamiltonian

$`H_{dis}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\underset{\sigma }{}v_E(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^{}(𝐫)\widehat{\psi }_\sigma (𝐫)},`$
and $`H_Z`$ is the Zeeman term

$`H_Z={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g\mu _B{\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\underset{\sigma \sigma ^{}}{}\widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^{}^{}(𝐫^{})\widehat{\psi }_\sigma (𝐫^{})\stackrel{}{\tau }_{\sigma ^{}\sigma }\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{r})},`$

with $`\sigma =,`$, $`v_E`$ being disorder potential, and $`\tau _i`$ being the Pauli matrices. The Zeeman coupling strength is given by $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g\mu _BB/(e^2/ϵl)`$. For $`v_E(𝐫)`$ we use a white noise distribution so $`v_E(𝐫)v_E(𝐫^{})=\sigma ^2\delta (𝐫𝐫^{})`$. We define the parameter $`\gamma e^2/(\sigma )`$ as the ratio of the relative strength of interactions and disorder broadening. We chose the commonly used Landau gauge elliptic theta functions as our LLL basis to perform Hartree-Fock calculations in this system.

## III Results

At $`\nu =1`$ the ground state, in the disorder free limit, becomes a strong ferromagnet. Such collective behavior has been observed  in NMR Knight shift experiments in high quality samples. In figure 2 we present the HF theory results obtained for the dependence of the average magnitude of the spin polarization (insert) as a function of interaction strength and its corresponding NMR spectra at the lowest temperatures where there is no motional narrowing of the spectral line shape . The Zeeman coupling strength $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.015`$ is chosen to match the experimental values. Such NMR intensity spectrum is given by

$`I(f,\gamma ){\displaystyle 𝑑𝐫\rho _N(z)e^{\frac{1}{2\sigma ^2}(2\pi f2\pi K_s\rho _e(z)\stackrel{}{S}(𝐫;\gamma ))}},`$
with $`\sigma =9.34\mathrm{ms}^1`$ and $`K_s25\mathrm{K}\mathrm{H}\mathrm{z}`$. Here $`\rho _N(z)`$ is the nuclear polarization density and $`\rho _e(z)`$ is the electron density envelope function in the quantum well. The evaluation of such spectra has been outlined elsewhere . The partially polarized region shows a very distinct spectra which may explain the existence of anomalous spectra line shapes in certain samples where estimates of the disorder broadening through mobility measurements  indicate the possibility of being in such regime.

The partially polarized regime can also be studied experimentally by measuring the transport activation gap. Provided that weak Zeeman coupling can be ignored the Hall conductivity should jump from $`0`$ to $`2e^2/h`$ at $`\nu =1`$. In the ferromagnetic state, the majority-spin extended quasiparticle state will be below the Fermi level and the Hall conductivity at $`\nu =1`$ should be quantized at $`\sigma _{xy}=e^2/h`$. This spontaneous splitting is experimentally accessible and should exhibit interesting non-trivial power law critical behavior as the ferromagnetic state is entered. One important feature that our calculations demonstrate is that charge-density fluctuations at $`\nu =1`$ do not necessarily require the presence of well-defined Skyrmion quasiparticles.

In the strong disorder limit spontaneous spin polarization does not occur at any filling factor near $`\nu =1`$. However, in the large $`\gamma `$ (clean) limit, where full polarization is observed at $`\nu =1`$, the global polarization decays rapidly with $`|1\nu |`$ as observed experimentally . The global polarization results for $`\nu 1`$ in Fig. 3, illustrate how the system interpolates between these two extrema. As the interaction strength $`\gamma `$ is increased from 0 to 2, the behavior mirrors the $`\nu =1`$ case. For strong disorder charge fluctuations dominate, and small spin polarizations occur primarily because many single particle orbitals are simultaneously occupied by both up and down spin electrons. In this regime charge variation is the main response to disorder and continues to play an important role at all interaction strengths. At sufficiently large $`\gamma `$, our finite size systems reach a state with the maximum spin polarization allowed by the Pauli exclusion principle. This maximally polarized state is reached earlier than in the case at $`\nu =1`$ ($`\gamma 1.41.6`$) because, we believe, a larger number of charged quasiparticles are available to screen the random potential. At this point the system forms what we refer to as a conventional quasiparticle glass (CQG). The conventional Laughlin quasiparticles are initially localized in the deepest minima (or maxima for $`\nu <1`$) of the effective disorder potential and as the interaction strength increases, the charged quasiparticles rearrange themselves locally into a quasi-triangular Wigner crystal pinned by the strongest of the disorder potential extrema. At larger $`\gamma `$ there is a marked reduction of the global polarization from its maximally polarized value. This indicates a transition from a CQG to a Skyrmion glass (here glass is meant as a non-Bravis lattice arrangement of the Skyrminos). The point of cross over from the CQG to the Skyrmion glass, as illustrated in Fig. 3, depends on filling factor and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$. We approximate the dependence of the transition point on $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ in this regime by considering a simple model for a single Skyrmion trapped at a disorder potential extrema. We approximate its energy by

$$E(K)=U(KK_0)^2+g^{}\mu _BBK+\sigma AK,$$
(2)
where $`K`$ is the number of spin flips per Skyrmion, and $`A`$ is a phenomenological parameter. The first two terms pin the optimal Skyrmion size in the clean limit . The third term favors the stronger localization of reduced (small $`K`$) Skyrminos close to the potential extrema. This simple model gives an estimate of the interaction strength at which $`K>0`$ Skyrmions first become stable

$$\gamma ^{}=\frac{A}{2K_0U/(e^2/ϵ\mathrm{})\stackrel{~}{g}}.$$
(3)
At factor $`\nu =1.25`$, $`U/(e^2/ϵ\mathrm{})0.014`$ and $`K_01`$, $`A0.1`$ . From this, one obtains an estimate of $`\gamma ^{}7`$ for the cross over point from conventional quasiparticles to Skyrmions at $`\stackrel{~}{g}=0.015`$. This is in reasonable agreement with the actual cross over point $`\gamma ^{}10`$ (see Fig. 3. In the clean limit, the Skyrmion system crystallizes in a square lattice for the filling factors considered here. (The Skyrmion crystal is triangular  for $`\nu `$ very close to 1.) These estimates of the maximum disorder strength at which Skyrmion physics is realized could be checked by performing NMR experiments in samples where electron density can be adjusted through gate voltages.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Welch Foundation, and NSF grants DMR-9714055 and DMR-9820816.