text:
# Quantum torsors

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1. General overview

The aim of our work is to give a meaning and to develop a general theory for quantum torsors, starting from the principle that most of the objects of “traditional” commutative geometry should have a counterpart in the framework of non-commutative geometry. In algebraic geometry, torsors are familiar objects. Indeed, we know that they are linked with the problem of inner forms of algebraic groups and classified with the help of Galois cohomology groups : modulo an equivalence relation, torsors over an algebraic group $`G`$ defined over a field $`k`$ are in correspondence with a pointed cohomology set $`H^1(\text{Gal}(\overline{k}/k),G(\overline{k}))`$ where $`k`$ is an algebraic closure of $`k`$, such that the trivial torsors $`X`$ on $`k`$ (the ones with $`X(k)\mathrm{})`$ correspond to the trivial cocyle. Therefore, it seems natural to develop a similar theory in the framework of quantum groups or Hopf algebras. On the other hand, in the category of Poisson manifolds, torsors are well-known objects and have been classified by Dazord and Sondaz \[DS\] under the name of “affine Poisson groups” (for a precursor, see \[S\]) and quantized by Parmentier \[P\]. However, the two definitions of torsors in algebraic geometry and in Poisson geometry do not coincide. In algebraic geometry, a torsor is a scheme $`X`$ equipped with a group-action $`m:G\times XX`$ where $`G`$ is a group-scheme such that the map $`(m\times \text{pr}_X):G\times XX\times X`$ is an isomorphism of schemes, whereas in the category of Poisson manifolds, a torsor $`X`$ is (still) the data of a Poisson-Lie group $`G`$ and a group-action $`m:G\times XX`$ plus certain conditions saying that the stabilizers of the action are all trivial, but in that case, the bijective map $`(m\times \text{pr}_X):G\times XX\times X`$ is not a Poisson map.

Thus, we are looking for unifying in a same theory the results of algebraic geometry about torsors and Parmentier’s quantization results. Our starting point is an old intrinsic reformulation of affine structures originally suggested by Baer \[B\] and developed later on by Certaine \[C\], Vagner \[V\], Kock \[Koc\], Weinstein \[W\] and recalled recently by Kontsevich \[Kon\]. One of the corollaries of our work is the definition of a non trivial group-invariant $`\text{Tor}(H)`$ associated with any Hopf algebra $`H`$ (Theorem 3.3).

### 1.2. Definition of a torsor

In the category of sets, affine algebraic manifolds over an algebraically closed field or Poisson manifolds, a torsor is a $`G`$-principal homogeneous space where $`G`$ is a group in the category. Even though the axioms asserting that $`G`$ acts transitively can be quantized without any problem, the axiom saying that all stabilizers are trivial is not so easy to quantize, especially when the quantum manifolds have no point (i.e., when the algebras of functions have no character). According to the point of view originally developed by Baer \[B\], a (classical) torsor is the data of an object $`X`$ and a composition law $`\mu _X:X^3X`$ satisfying some associativity relations, called parallelogram relations and analogous to the ones we would get by taking $`X=G`$ a group and

(1)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mu _G:& G^3& & G\\ & (g,h,k)& & gh^1k\end{array}$$

By reversing the arrows, Kontsevich noted that it was possible to define in this way all the torsors of the algebraic geometry \[Kon\]. We will see that it is also possible to extend this idea in non-commutative geometry.

### 1.3. Classical torsors

In pointed categories such as the category of sets, affine algebraic manifolds over an algebraically closed field or Poisson manifolds, it is easy to see that the map $`\mu _X:X^3X`$ should verify the following relations :

(2) $`a,b,c,d,eX,\mu _X(a,a,b)`$ $`=`$ $`b`$
(3) $`\mu _X(a,b,b)`$ $`=`$ $`a`$
(4) $`\mu _X(\mu _X(a,b,c),d,e)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _X(a,b,\mu _X(c,d,e))`$
(5) $`=`$ $`\mu _X(a,\mu _X(d,c,b),e)`$
Conversely, if an object $`X`$ is equipped with a law $`\mu _X`$ satisfying these equalities, then we can easily find two groups of the category $`G_l(X)`$ and $`G_r(X)`$ acting simply and transitively on $`X`$, the first one from the left and the second one from the right and $`X`$ is a principal homogeneous space on $`G_l(X)`$ or $`G_r(X)`$. Furthermore, we are able to classify all the classical torsors. In the category of sets, as well as in the category of affine algebraic manifolds over an algebraically closed field, any torsor is isomorphic to the trivial torsor $`(G,\mu _G)`$ on a group $`G`$. In the category of Poisson manifolds, it can be shown that any torsor is isomorphic to an “affine Poisson group” according to the terminology introduced by Dazord and Sondaz \[DS\] and thus is identified with a triple $`(𝔤,\delta ,f)`$ where $`(𝔤,\delta )`$ is a Lie bialgebra and $`f\mathrm{\Lambda }^2(𝔤)`$ is a “classical Drinfeld twist” for $`\delta `$. The affine Poisson group associated with this triple is defined in the following way : denoting by $`(G,P_G)`$ the connected, simply connected Poisson-Lie group associated with the bialgebra $`(𝔤,\delta )`$, the affine Poisson group is $`G`$ as a manifold equipped with the affine Poisson structure given by the Poisson bivector $`\pi :=P_G+f^L`$ where $`f^L`$ is the left translation of $`f`$ on $`G`$. On this Poisson manifold, the Poisson-Lie groups acting simply and transitively are $`(G,P_G)`$ by translation from the left and $`(G,P_G+f^Lf^R)`$ by translation from the right ($`f^R`$ being the right translation of $`f`$ on $`G`$).

## 2. Quantum torsors

### 2.1. Non-commutative torsors

Let us consider now a commutative field $`k`$ and a commutative $`k`$-algebra $`A`$ without any zero divisor. For example, $`A=k`$ or $`A=k[[\mathrm{}]]`$. We will work in the category of $`A`$-(unitary associative) algebras.

###### Definition 2.1.

An $`A`$-torsor is a quintuple $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ where $`(T,m_T,1_T)`$ is an $`A`$-algebra, $`\mu _T:TT_AT^{\text{op}}_AT`$ is an $`A`$-algebra morphism and $`\theta _T:TT`$ is an $`A`$-algebra automorphism satisfying the following axioms :

(6) $`xT,(\text{Id}_Tm_T)\mu _T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x1_T`$
(7) $`(m_T\text{Id}_T)\mu _T(x)`$ $`=`$ $`1_Tx`$
(8) $`(\text{Id}_T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\mu _T)\mu _T`$ $`=`$ $`(\mu _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\text{Id}_T)\mu _T`$
(9) $`\theta _T^{(3)}(\mu _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\text{Id}_T)\mu _T`$ $`=`$ $`(\text{Id}_T\mu _T^{\text{op}}\text{Id}_T)\mu _T`$
(10) $`(\theta _T\theta _T\theta _T)\mu _T`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _T\theta _T`$
with $`\mu _T^{\text{op}}:=\tau _{(13)}\mu _T`$ and $`\theta _T^{(3)}:=(\text{Id}_T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\theta _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\text{Id}_T)`$. If $`m_T=m_T^{\text{op}}`$, the torsor is said to be commutative. If $`\mu _T=\mu _T^{\text{op}}`$, the torsor is said to be endowed with a commutative law.

###### Note 1.

If $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor, then $`\theta _T`$ is fully determined by $`m_T`$ and $`\mu _T`$. For instance, if the torsor is either commutative or endowed with a commutative law, then $`\theta _T=\text{Id}_T.`$

###### Remark 1.

Of course, a given algebra needs not carry a torsor structure. For example, if $`\text{char}(k)2`$, then there is no $`k`$-torsor structure on the $`k`$-algebra $`k[X]/(X^2)`$.

###### Remark 2.

If $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor, then $`(T^{\text{op}},m_T^{\text{op}},1_T,\mu _T^{\text{op}},\theta _T)`$ is also an $`A`$-torsor, called its opposite torsor.

###### Notation .

We will use generalized Sweedler notations. If $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor, then for all $`xT`$, forgetting the symbol $`,`$we denote $`\mu _T(x)=x^{(1)}x^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$ and$`\mu _T^{(n)}(x)=x^{(1)}\mathrm{}x^{(2n+1)},n`$, where $`\mu _T^{(n)}`$ satisfies the induction $`\mu _T^{(0)}:=\text{Id}_T`$ and $`\mu _T^{(n)}=(\mu _T^{(n1)}\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\text{Id}_T)\mu _T`$.

Then, the torsor axioms show that for any odd integer $`i`$, we have :

$$x^{(1)}\mathrm{}x^{(i1)}x^{(i)^{(1)}}x^{(i)^{(2)}}x^{(i)^{(3)}}x^{(i+1)}\mathrm{}x^{(2n1)}=\mu _T^{(n)}(x)$$

and, for any even integer $`i`$,

$`x^{(1)}\mathrm{}x^{(i1)}x^{(i)^{(1)}}x^{(i)^{(2)}}x^{(i)^{(3)}}x^{(i+1)}\mathrm{}x^{(2n1)}`$
$`=x^{(1)}\mathrm{}x^{(i1)}x^{(i+2)}\theta _T(x^{(i+1)})x^{(i)}x^{(i+3)}\mathrm{}x^{(2n+1)}`$
In particular, we see that for all $`xT,\theta _T(x)=x^{(1)}x^{(2)^{(3)}}x^{(2)^{(2)}}x^{(2)^{(1)}}x^{(3)}`$.

As apparent with the study of Example 1 below which shows that $`\theta _T`$ is an analogue of the square of the antipode in a Hopf algebra, it seems necessary to introduce $`\theta _T`$ in the definition of a non-commutative torsor.

###### Example 1.

The trivial torsor of a Hopf algebra

Let $`(H,m_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\eta _H,\epsilon _H,S_H)`$ be an $`A`$-Hopf algebra. Then, $`(H,m_H,1_H,\mu _H,\theta _H)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor with $`1_H=\eta _H(1),\mu _H:=(\text{Id}_HS_H\text{Id}_H)\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{(2)}`$ and $`\theta _H:=S_H^2.`$

###### Example 2.

Affine torsors in algebraic geometry

As said in introduction, in algebraic geometry, a torsor is the data of a scheme $`X`$, a group-scheme $`G`$ and an action $`m:G\times XX`$ such that the map :

(11)  $`(m\times \text{pr}_X):G\times XX\times X`$
is an isomorphism of schemes. As noted by Kontsevich \[Kon\], in the language of affine scheme, $`X`$ correspond to a comodule-algebra $`A`$ over an Hopf algebra $`H`$ and the map $`\mu _X:X^3X`$ obtained by composition :

(12)
$$X^3=X^2\times X\stackrel{~}{}G\times X\times XG\times XX$$

where the second map is obtained by forgetting the second factor in $`G\times X\times X`$ gives rise to a torsor-structure on $`A`$ (with of course $`\theta _A=\text{Id}_A)`$. In other terms, the torsors of algebraic geometry are the commutative torsors for the definition 2.1. A good example of torsor without any point that we should keep in mind is $`X=\text{Isom}(M(n),A)`$ where $`A`$ is a simple central algebra. In this case, the left group (i.e., the group acting simply transitively from the left on the torsor) is $`\text{PGL}(n)`$ and the right group is $`A^\times /k^\times `$ if $`k`$ denotes the ground field.

###### Example 3.

Quadratic extensions of a field

The following examples of torsor structures on algebras (without character if $`d(k^\times )^2`$) are nothing but subcases of the previous example. If $`k`$ is a commutative field and if $`dk^\times ,`$then the $`k`$-algebra $`A=k[X]/(X^2d)`$ can be equipped with a $`k`$-torsor structure by $`\mu _A(x)=xx^1x,x=\text{cl}(X)`$ and $`\theta _A=\text{Id}_A`$. If $`\text{char}(k)=2`$ and $`A=k[X]/(X^2d)`$ or $`A=k[X]/(X^2Xd)`$ with $`dk`$, the law $`\mu _A`$ defined on $`A`$ by $`\mu _A(x)=11x+1x1+x11`$ and $`x=\text{cl}(X)`$ gives to $`A`$ a $`k`$-torsor structure with $`\theta _A=\text{Id}_A`$.

###### Example 4.

Generalization : Galois extension of a field

Let $`K=k[T]/(P)`$ be a Galois extension of a field $`k,t:=\text{cl}(T)`$ a primitive element in $`K,G:=\text{Gal}(K/k)`$ the Galois group of the extension and $`H:=k^G:=(kG)^{}`$ the natural Hopf algebra of functions on $`G`$ with values in $`k`$. First, note that there is a natural structure of $`H^{\text{cop}}`$-left comodule algebra on $`K`$ given by a morphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K:KH_kK`$. Second, note that we can identify $`K_kK`$ with $`K[T]/(P)`$ such that $`t_1:=t1K_kK`$ is identified to $`\text{cl}(T)K[T]/(P)`$ and $`t_2:=1t`$ is identified to $`tKK[T]/(P)`$. Third, note that there is a natural isomorphism between $`K^G:=H_kK`$ (the algebra of functions on $`G`$ with values in $`K`$) and $`K_kKK[T]/(P)`$. Under this isomorphism, $`xyK_kK`$ is associated to $`_{\sigma G}1_\sigma \sigma (x)yHK`$ where $`1_\sigma `$ denotes the natural idempotent in $`H`$ associated to $`\sigma `$ by $`<1_\sigma ,\tau >=\delta _{\sigma ,\tau }`$ for all $`\tau G`$ and $`1_\sigma xK^G`$ is associated to $`P_\sigma \times (1x)`$ with $`P_\sigma =_{\tau \sigma }\frac{t_1\tau (t_2)}{\sigma (t_2)\tau (t_2)}`$ . Therefore, by composing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_K`$ with the embedding of $`H`$ in $`K^G=H_kKK_kK`$, we get an algebra morphism :

(13)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mu _K:K& & K_kK_kK\hfill \\ \hfill x& & _{\sigma G}P_\sigma \sigma (x)\hfill \end{array}$$

We have $`\mu _K^{\text{op}}(x):=\tau _{(13)}\mu _K(x)=_\sigma \sigma (x)P_{\sigma ^1}`$ for all $`xK`$ and $`(g\text{Id})(P_h)=P_{hg^1}`$ and $`(\text{Id}g)(P_h)=P_{gh}`$ for any elements $`g,hG`$. From this, it can be shown that $`(K,m_K,1_K,\mu _K,\text{Id}_K)`$ is a $`k`$-torsor and that $`G`$ is a group of automorphisms for the torsor $`(K,m_K,1_K,\mu _K,\text{Id}_K)`$. In others terms, Galois doesn’t classify only torsors of the algebraic geometry; Galois is also a torsor !

###### Example 5.

Non-commutative torsors without character

Let $`k`$ be a field and $`n`$ be a non-negative integer. Suppose that $`k`$ contains an element $`q`$ which is a $`n`$-th primitive root of $`1`$. For any $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ in $`k^\times `$, we denote by $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ the non-commutative algebra with unit and without character given by generators : $`x,y`$ and relations : $`x^n=\alpha ,y^n=\beta `$ and $`xy=qyx`$. The algebra $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is a non-trivial cyclic algebra and $`dim_kA_{\alpha ,\beta }=n^2`$. If $`n=2,`$then $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ is an algebra of quaternions. There is a natural structure of non-commutative torsor endowed with a commutative law on $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ given by $`\mu (x)=xx^1`$$`x,`$$`\mu (y)=yy^1y`$ and $`\theta =\text{Id}`$.

### 2.2. Poisson torsors

###### Definition 2.2.

A $`k`$-Poisson torsor is a sextuple $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T,\{,\}_T)`$ such that 1) $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is a commutative $`k`$-torsor, 2) $`(T,m_T,1_T,\{,\}_T)`$ is a $`k`$-Poisson algebra and 3) the maps $`\mu _T`$and $`\theta _T`$ are Poisson maps where the Poisson structure on $`T_kT_kT`$ is given by the bracket : $`\{xyz,x^{}y^{}z^{}\}=\{x,x^{}\}yy^{}zz^{}xx^{}\{y,y^{}\}zz^{}+xx^{}yy^{}\{z,z^{}\}`$ for any elements $`x,x^{},y,y^{},z,z^{}`$ belonging to $`T`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

If $`G`$ is a Poisson affine group, then $`(G,\mu _G)`$ is a classical Poisson torsor and $`(𝒪_G,m_{𝒪_G},1_{𝒪_G})`$ can be naturally endowed with a Poisson torsor structure. Conversely, if $`X`$ is a smooth manifold and if $`(𝒪_X,m{}_{𝒪}{}^{}{}_{_X}{}^{},1_{𝒪_X})`$ can be endowed with a Poisson torsor structure then $`X`$ is isomorphic to a Poisson affine group.

However, Poisson torsor structures on commutative algebras without character should exist (?), even if we are unable to give a single example. A way to get such a torsor should be to consider an affine torsor $`X`$ without any point on a field $`k`$ (cf Example 2) and two $`r`$-matrices $`r_l`$ and $`r_r`$ of $`𝔤_l:=\text{Lie}_k(G_l(X))`$ and $`𝔤_r:=\text{Lie}_k(G_r(X))`$ such that the Schouten algebraic brackets $`[r_l,r_l]`$ and $`[r_r,r_r]`$ are equal as elements of $`𝔤_l_kk𝔤_r_kk`$ where $`k`$ is an algebraic closure of $`k`$. Indeed, in this case, the bivector field $`r_l^Lr_r^R`$ is a Poisson bivector on $`X`$, where $`r_l^L`$ (resp. $`r_r^R`$) is the left action of $`r_l`$ (resp. $`r_r`$) on $`X`$. Therefore, this problem is intimely linked with the problem of classification of $`r`$-matrices in Lie algebras over a non-algebraically closed field.

###### Definition 2.3.

A quantization of a $`k`$-Poisson torsor $`(T_{\text{cl}},m_{T_{\text{cl}}},1_{T_{\text{cl}}},\mu _{T_{\text{cl}}},\theta _{T_{\text{cl}}},\{,\}_{\text{cl}})`$ is the data of a $`k[[\mathrm{}]]`$-torsor $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T`$$`,\theta _T)`$ such that the $`k[[\mathrm{}]]`$-algebra $`(T,m_T,1_T)`$ is a quantization of the $`k`$-Poisson algebra $`(T_{\text{cl}},m_{T_{\text{cl}}},1_{T_{\text{cl}}},\{,\}_{\text{cl}})`$ and such that $`\mu _T=\mu _{T_{\text{cl}}}`$ $`(\text{mod}\mathrm{})`$ and $`\theta _T=\theta _{T_{\text{cl}}}`$ (mod $`\mathrm{})`$.

In the future, our goal is to classify all torsors corresponding to certain classes of Hopf algebras. The problem seems to be difficult. Indeed, when the ground field $`k`$ is not (necessarily) algebraically closed, affine torsors of the algebraic geometry are classified by means of non-abelian cohomology. On the other hand, when $`k`$ is algebraically closed, the study of classical torsors in the category of Poisson manifolds \[DS\] shows that the Drinfeld twists should play a role in the classification.

## 3. The results

We present below our main results about torsors. As before, in all this section, $`k`$ stands for a commutative field and $`A`$ for a commutative $`k`$-algebra without any zero divisor.

### 3.1. The Hopf algebras $`H_l(T)`$ and $`H_r(T)`$

In the classical case, on any torsor, there are two groups acting simply and transitively. In the non-commutative setting, we can also find two Hopf algebras co-acting on a given torsor.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ be an A-torsor. We denote by $`H_l(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ or shortly $`H_l(T)`$ or $`H_l(\mu _T)`$ if there is no confusion, the subset of $`T_AT^{\text{op}}`$ defined as $`\left\{xT_AT^{\text{op}}/(\text{Id}_T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\theta _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}})(\mu _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}})(x)=(\text{Id}_T\mu _T^{\text{op}})(x)\right\}`$. Then,

1. if $`xH_l(T),m_T(x)`$ is a scalar denoted by $`\epsilon _{H_l(T)}(x)1_T`$;
2. if $`xH_l(T),\mathrm{\Delta }_{H_l(T)}(x):=(\mu _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}})(x)H_l(T)_AH_l(T)`$;
3. if $`xH_l(T),S_{H_l(T)}(x):=\tau _{(12)}(\text{Id}_T\theta _T)(x)H_l(T)`$;
4. By defining $`m_{H_l(T)}`$ as the restriction of $`m_Tm_T^{\text{op}}`$ to $`H_l(T)`$ and $`\eta _{H_l(T)}:AH_l(T)`$ as given by $`\eta _{H_l(T)}(1)=1_T1_T`$, then the following sextuple $`(H_l(T),m_{H_l(T)},\mathrm{\Delta }_{H_l(T)},\eta _{H_l(T)},\epsilon _{H_l(T)},S_{H_l(T)})`$ is an $`A`$-Hopf-algebra.
5. $`\text{Im}\mu _TH_l(T)_AT`$ and $`\mu _T:TH_l(T)_AT`$ gives to $`T`$ a left $`H_l(T)`$–comodule-algebra structure.

Likewise, we denote by $`H_r(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ or shortly $`H_r(T)`$ or $`H_r(\mu _T)`$ if there is no confusion, the subset of $`T^{\text{op}}_AT`$ defined as

$$H_r(T):=\left\{xT^{\text{op}}_AT/(\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\theta _T\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\text{Id}_T)(\text{Id}_{T^{\text{op}}}\mu _T)(x)=(\mu _T^{\text{op}}\text{Id}_T)(x)\right\}.$$

Then, $`H_r(T)`$ can be equipped with a natural structure of $`A`$-Hopf algebra, $`\text{Im}\mu _TT_AH_r(T)`$ and the map $`\mu _T:TT_AH_r(T)`$ defines a right $`H_r(T)`$-comodule-algebra structure on $`T`$. Moreover, the two co-actions of $`H_l(T)`$ and $`H_r(T)`$ on $`T`$ commute.

###### Example 6.

Let $`(H,m_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\eta _H,\epsilon _H,S_H)`$ be a Hopf algebra equipped with its trivial torsor structure $`(H,m_H,1_H,\mu _H,\theta _H)`$. Then, $`H_l(H)=(\text{Id}_HS_H)\mathrm{\Delta }(H),H_r(H)=(S_H\text{Id}_H)\mathrm{\Delta }_H(H)`$ and $`i_{l,H}:=(\text{Id}_H\epsilon _H)`$ (resp. $`i_{r,H}:=(\epsilon _H\text{Id}_H)`$) establishes a Hopf algebra isomorphism between $`H_l(H)`$ and $`H`$ (resp. $`H_r(H)`$ and $`H`$).

###### Example 7.

If $`K/k`$ is a Galois extension of a field $`k`$ equipped with its torsor structure seen in 4, then $`H_l(T)(kG^{\text{op}})^{}`$ and $`H_r(T)(kG)^{}`$ as Hopf algebras.

###### Example 8.

Let $`A_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ be the non-commutative algebra-torsor considered in Example 5. Then, $`H_l(A_{\alpha ,\beta })=H_r(A_{\alpha ,\beta })`$ is generated by the elements $`xx^1`$ and $`yy^1`$ and thus is isomorphic to the algebra of functions on $`/n\times /n.`$

###### Note 2.

If $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor, then the map $`(\theta _T\text{Id}_T)`$ (resp. $`(\text{Id}_T\theta _T)`$) is a Hopf algebra isomorphism from $`H_l(\mu _T)`$ to $`H_r(\mu _T^{\text{op}})`$ (resp. $`H_r(\mu _T)`$ to $`H_l(\mu _T^{\text{op}})`$).

###### Note 3.

If $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor endowed with a commutative law, then $`H_l(T)=H_r(T)`$ (in $`T_AT`$).

###### Note 4.

Let $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ be an $`A`$-torsor and $`\epsilon :TA`$ a character. If $`dim_kT<\mathrm{}`$ or $`\epsilon \theta _T=\epsilon `$, then $`T`$ is isomorphic as an algebra to its left or right Hopf algebra with an identification between $`\epsilon `$ and the co-unity of the Hopf algebra.

### 3.2. Torsors and Hopf-Galois extensions

The notion of Hopf-Galois extension was introduced by Chase and Sweedler in 1969 in the commutative case \[CS\] and later by Kreimer and Takeuchi in the non-commutative case \[KT\] as a generalization of the Galois theory where the Galois groups are replaced by Hopf algebras. Let $`k`$ be a (commutative) field and $`H`$ an Hopf algebra. The axioms for a left $`H`$-Galois extension $`A`$ of $`k`$ are the ones we would get by taking formula (11) as a reference for defining torsors over Hopf algebras \[Schn\]. By definition, a left $`H`$-Galois extension $`A`$ of $`k`$ is a $`H`$-left comodule-algebra $`A`$ given by a morphism $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A:AHA`$ such that 1) $`\left\{xA/\mathrm{\Delta }_A(x)=1x\right\}=k`$ and 2) the natural map $`\text{can}:AAHA`$ given by $`\text{can}=(\text{Id}_Hm_A)(\mathrm{\Delta }_A\text{Id}_A)`$ is a linear isomorphism. In the classical case, if $`X`$ is a torsor, then the natural map

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}G_l(X)\times X& & & & X\times X\\ (g,x)& & & & (g.x,x)\end{array}$$

is bijective. The following proposition generalizes this fact to the non-commutative case.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ be a $`k`$-torsor. Then, $`T`$ is a left $`H_l(T)`$–Galois extension of $`k`$ and a right $`H_r(T)`$-Galois-extension of $`k`$. In particular, in the finite dimensional case, we have $`dim_kT=dim_kH_l(T)=dim_kH_r(T)`$.

### 3.3. Composition of torsors

The $`A`$-torsors form a category. We can naturally define the notion of torsors morphism, sub-torsors, quotient torsors and tensor product of two torsors. If $`(T_i,m_{T_i},1_{T_i},\mu _{T_i},\theta _{T_i}),i=1,2`$ are two torsors with a Hopf algebra isomorphism between $`H_l(T_1)`$ and $`H_r(T_2)`$, then the following theorem shows that we can compose the two torsors to get a third torsor whose Hopf algebra co-acting from the left (resp. from the right) is isomorphic to $`H_l(T_1)`$ (resp. $`H_r(T_2)`$).

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`(T_i,m_{T_i},1_{T_i},\mu _{T_i},\theta _{T_i}),i=1,2`$ be two $`A`$-torsors where $`A`$ is as above. Let us assume that there is an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:H_r(T_1)H_l(T_2)`$ of $`A`$-Hopf algebra and set

$$T_\mathrm{\Phi }:=T_1_\mathrm{\Phi }T_2:=\left\{xT_1_AT_2/(\text{Id}_{T_1}\mathrm{\Phi }\text{Id}_{T_2})(\mu _{T_1}\text{Id}_{T_2})(x)=(\text{Id}_{T_1}\mu _{T_2})(x)\right\}.$$

Let $`m_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\theta _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the restrictions of $`m_{T_1}m_{T_2}`$ and $`\theta _{T_1}\theta _{T_2}`$ to $`T_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and let $`\mu _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the map defined on $`T_\mathrm{\Phi }T_1_AT_2`$ with the help of the generalized Sweedler notations by :

(14)
$$\mu _\mathrm{\Phi }(x_iy_i)=\tau _{(34)}(x_i^{(1)}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_i^{(2)}x_i^{(3)})x_i^{(4)}x_i^{(5)}y_i)$$

where $`\tau _{(34)}:T_1_AT_2_AT_2^{\text{op}}_AT_1_AT_1_AT_2T_1_AT_2_AT_1_AT_2^{\text{op}}_AT_1_AT_2`$ denotes the permutation morphism of the third and fourth factors, $`H_l(T_2)`$ being imbedded in $`T_2_AT_2^{\text{op}}`$. Then,

1. $`(T_\mathrm{\Phi },m_\mathrm{\Phi },1_{T_1}1_{T_2})`$ is an $`A`$-algebra, $`\text{Im}\mu _\mathrm{\Phi }T_\mathrm{\Phi }T_\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{op}}T_\mathrm{\Phi },\text{Im}\theta _\mathrm{\Phi }T_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`(T_\mathrm{\Phi },m_\mathrm{\Phi },1_{T_1}1_{T_2}`$$`,\mu _\mathrm{\Phi },\theta _\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is an $`A`$-torsor.
2. The restriction of the map $`\tau _{(34)}(\text{Id}_{T_1}\mathrm{\Phi }\text{Id}_{T_1^{\text{op}}})(\mu _{T_1}\text{Id}_{T_1^{\text{op}}})`$ to $`H_l(T_1)T_1_AT_1^{\text{op}}`$ gives rise to an $`A`$-Hopf algebra isomorphism between $`H_l(T_1)`$ and $`H_l(T_\mathrm{\Phi })`$, whose inverse map is $`(\text{Id}_{T_1}\epsilon _{H_l(T_2)}\text{Id}_{T_1^{\text{op}}}`$$`)\tau _{(34)}`$.
3. The restriction of the map $`\tau _{(12)}(\text{Id}_{T_2^{\text{op}}}\mathrm{\Phi }^1\text{Id}_{T_2})(\text{Id}_{T_2^{\text{op}}}\mu _{T_2})`$ to $`H_r(T_2)T_2^{\text{op}}_AT_2`$ gives rise to an $`A`$-Hopf algebra isomorphism between $`H_r(T_2)`$ and $`H_r(T_\mathrm{\Phi })`$, whose inverse map is $`(\text{Id}_{T_2^{\text{op}}}\epsilon _{H_r(T_1)}\text{Id}_{T_2})\tau _{(12)}`$.

### 3.4. The group $`\text{Tor}(H)`$

If $`f:(T_1,m_{T_1},1_{T_1},\mu _{T_1},\theta _{T_1})(T_2,m_{T_2},1_{T_2},\mu _{T_2},\theta _{T_2})`$ is an $`A`$-torsor morphism, then it can be shown that $`(ff^{\text{op}})(H_l(T_1))H_l(T_2)`$ and that $`f_l:=(ff^{\text{op}})_{|H_l(T_1)}:H_{l(T_1)}H_l(T_2)`$ is an $`A`$-Hopf algebra morphism. Likewise, we define a Hopf morphism $`f_r:H_r(T_1)H_r(T_2)`$. Consequently, if $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are two $`A`$-Hopf algebras, on the set $`\widehat{\text{Tor}}(H,H^{})`$ of the septuples $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T,i_{l,T},i_{r,T})`$where $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor and where $`i_{l,T}:H_l(A)H`$ and $`i_{r,T}:H_r(A)H^{}`$ are two $`A`$-Hopf algebra isomorphisms, we can define a relation $`_{H,H^{}}`$ by $`(T_1,m_{T_1},1_{T_1},\mu _{T_1},\theta _{T_1},i_{l,T_1},i_{r,T_1})_{H,H^{}}(T_2,m_{T_2},1_{T_2},\mu _{T_2},\theta _{T_2},i_{l,T_2},i_{r,T_2})`$ if and only if there exists an $`A`$-torsor isomorphism $`f:(T_1,m_{T_1},1_{T_1},\mu _{T_1},\theta _{T_1})(T_2,m_{T_2},1_{T_2},\mu _{T_2},\theta _{T_2})`$ such that $`i_{l,T_1}=i_{l,T_2}f_l`$ and $`i_{r,T_1}=i_{r,T_2}f_r`$. This relation is an equivalence relation. The quotient set is denoted by $`\text{Tor}(H,H^{})`$. Moreover, if $`H`$, $`H^{}`$, $`H^{\prime \prime }`$ are three $`A`$-Hopf algebras, we have a natural map :

(15)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{\text{Tor}}(H,H^{})\times \widehat{\text{Tor}}(H^{},H^{\prime \prime })& & \widehat{\text{Tor}}(H,H^{\prime \prime })\\ (T_1,\mathrm{},i_{r,T_1})\times (T_2,\mathrm{}i_{r,T_2})& & (T,\mathrm{}i_{r,T})\end{array}$$

where $`T:=T_1_\mathrm{\Phi }T_2`$ is by Theorem 3.2 an $`A`$-torsor and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:=i_{l,T_2}^1i_{l,T_1}`$, $`i_{l,T}:=i_{l,T_1}(\text{Id}_{T_1}\epsilon _{H_l(T_2)}\text{Id}_{T_1^{\text{op}}})\tau _{(34)}`$ and $`i_{r,T}:=i_{r,T_2}(\text{Id}_{T_2^{\text{op}}}\epsilon _{H_r(T_1)}\text{Id}_{T_2})\tau _{(12)}`$. It can be shown that the map defined in (15) is associative and compatible with the equivalence relation $`_{H,H^{}}`$. Thus, we define a composition law on $`\text{Tor}(H):=\text{Tor}(H,H)`$ which is denoted by $``$.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`(H,m_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\eta _H,\epsilon _H,S_H)`$ be a Hopf algebra over a commutative field $`k`$. The set $`\text{Tor}(H)`$ equipped with the law $``$ is a group whose unit element is the class of the trivial torsor $`(H,m_H,1_H,\mu _H,\theta _H,i_{l,H},i_{r,H})`$ (the notations are the same as those of Examples 1 and 6). The inverse of the class of $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T,i_{l,T},i_{r,T})`$ is equal to the class of the opposite torsor of $`T`$ : $`(T^{\text{op}},m_T^{\text{op}},1_T,\mu _T^{\text{op}},\theta _T,i_{l,T^{\text{op}}},i_{r,T^{\text{op}}})`$ with $`i_{l,T^{\text{op}}}:=i_{r,T}(\text{Id}_T\theta _T)^1`$ and $`i_{r,T^{\text{op}}}:=i_{l,T}(\theta _T\text{Id}_T)^1`$ (see Remark 2 and Note 2).

The group $`\text{Tor}(H)`$ is called the torsor invariant of the $`A`$-Hopf algebra $`H`$. As we saw with the study of Example 5 together with Example 8, this group is far from trivial. Given the link with the Hopf-Galois extensions theory, it should be seen as a subgroup of $`\text{Bigal}(H)`$ introduced earlier by Schauenburg \[Scha\] and also as a generalization of the Harisson group in Galois theory.

### 3.5. Cotorsors “ la Parmentier”

We show that Parmentier’s formalism which allows to quantize affine Poisson groups \[DS\] can be subsumed in our theory of torsors or cotorsors whose definition is given below.

###### Definition 3.1.

An $`A`$-cotorsor is a quintuple $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C,\nu _C,\theta _C)`$ where $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C)`$ is an $`A`$-coalgebra, $`\nu _C:C_AC^{\text{cop}}_ACC`$ an $`A`$-coalgebra morphism and $`\theta _C:CC`$ a coalgebra automorphism satisfying the following axioms :

(16) $`\nu _C(\mathrm{\Delta }_C\text{Id}_C)`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _C\text{Id}_C`$
(17) $`\nu _C(\text{Id}_C\mathrm{\Delta }_C)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Id}_C\epsilon _C`$
(18) $`\nu _C(\nu _C\text{Id}_{C^{\text{cop}}}\text{Id}_C)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _C(\text{Id}_C\text{Id}_{C^{\text{cop}}}\nu _C)`$
(19) $`\nu _C(\nu _C\text{Id}_{C^{\text{cop}}}\text{Id}_C)\theta _C^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _C(\text{Id}_C\nu _C^{\text{op}}\text{Id}_C)`$
(20) $`\nu _C(\theta _C\theta _C\theta _C)`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _C\theta _C`$
with $`\nu _C^{\text{op}}:=\nu _C\tau _{(13)}`$ and $`\theta _C^{(3)}:=(\text{Id}_C\text{Id}_{C^{\text{cop}}}\theta _C\text{Id}_{C^{\text{cop}}}\text{Id}_C)`$.

The cotorsors theory can be developed in the same way as the torsors one. In particular, any cotorsor can be equipped with two coalgebra-module structures over Hopf algebras and the two actions commute. If $`(T,m_T,1_T,\mu _T,\theta _T)`$ is an $`A`$-torsor, then $`(T^{},m_T^{},\eta _T^{},\mu _T^{},\theta _T^{})`$ is an $`A`$-cotorsor, where $`\eta _T:AT`$ is defined by $`\eta _T(1)=1_T`$. The converse is true in the finite dimentional case.

Now, let $`(H,m_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\eta _H,\epsilon _H,S_H)`$ be an $`A`$-Hopf algebra and let $`FH_AH`$ be a Drinfeld twist \[D\], i.e., an element $`F`$ satisfying the equations :

(21)
$$(F1)(\mathrm{\Delta }\text{Id}_H)(F)=(1F)(\text{Id}_H\mathrm{\Delta }_H)(F)$$

(22)
$$(\epsilon _H\text{Id}_H)(F)=(\text{Id}_H\epsilon _H)(F)=1$$

Then, it is known that $`u_F:=m_H(\text{Id}_HS_H)(F)`$ is an invertible element of $`H`$ whose inverse is $`u_F^1=m_H(S_H\text{Id}_H)(F^1)`$ and that if we set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F:=F\mathrm{\Delta }_HF^1`$ and $`S_F:=u_FS_Hu_F^1`$, then the sextuple $`(H,m_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_F,\eta _H,\epsilon _H,S_F)`$ denoted shortly by $`H_F`$ is an $`A`$-Hopf algebra. Moreover, if $`H=U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤)`$ is a QUE algebra, $`\delta :=lim_\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_H\mathrm{\Delta }_H^{\text{op}})`$ and $`f:=lim_\mathrm{}0\mathrm{}^1(F11)`$, then the triple $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta }_HF^1,\epsilon _H)`$ is a $`k`$-coalgebra which is a quantization of the affine Poisson group given by the triple $`(𝔤,\delta ,f)`$ \[P\].

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`(H,m_H,\mathrm{\Delta }_H,\eta _H,\epsilon _H,S_H)`$ be an $`A`$-Hopf algebra and let $`FH_AH`$ be a Drinfeld twist. Set $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C):=(H,\mathrm{\Delta }_HF^1,\epsilon _H)`$ and let $`\theta _C`$ be the $`A`$-linear map defined on $`C`$ by $`xC,\theta _C(x)=S_H^2(x)S_H(u_F)u_F^1`$ with $`u_F:=m_H(\text{Id}_HS_H)(F)`$ and

(23)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _C:& C_AC^{\text{cop}}_AC& & C\\ & xyz& & xu_FS_H(y)z\end{array}$$

Then $`\theta _C`$ is an $`A`$-coalgebra automorphism for the $`A`$-coalgebra $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C),\nu _C`$ is a $`A`$-coalgebra morphism, and the quintuple $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C,\nu _C,\theta _C)`$ is an $`A`$-cotorsor whose Hopf algebra acting from the left (resp. from the right) on $`C`$ is isomorphic to $`H`$ (resp. $`H_F`$).

In particular, if we denote by $`i_{l,C}`$ and $`i_{r,C}`$ two isomorphisms from $`H`$ and $`H_F`$ to $`H_l(C)`$ and $`H_r(C)`$, we see that, in the case where $`A=k`$ and $`C`$ is a finite dimensional $`k`$-vector space, then the septuple $`(C^{},\mathrm{\Delta }_C^{},\epsilon _C^{}(1),\nu _C^{},\theta _C^{},i_{l,C}^{}\text{,}i_{r,C}^{})\widehat{\text{Tor}}(H,H_F)`$. Moreover, if $`F`$ commutes with the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }_H`$, then $`H_F=H`$. Therefore, we see that $`\widehat{\text{Tor}}(H)`$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to $`\text{Aut}(H)^2\times \{F(HH)^\times /F`$ is a Drinfeld twist and $`F`$ commutes with $`\text{Im}(\mathrm{\Delta }_H)\}`$. On the other hand, according to Note 3, to get a torsor which is not of the Parmentier type, it is enough to consider torsors endowed with a commutative law whose underlying algebra does not possess any character. This is the case of torsors of Example 3 or Example 5. This last example gives also torsors which are neither “Parmentier type” torsors nor torsors arising from algebraic geometry.

## 4. Open problems

1. Find a non-trivial Poisson torsor structure on a commutative algebra without any character and try to quantize it. Classify all Poisson torsors.
2. Find $`\text{Tor}(H)`$ in simple cases.
3. Study $`\text{Tor}(H)`$ when the Hopf algebra $`H`$ is a quantized enveloping algebra.
4. In particular, if $`(𝔤,\delta )`$ a $`k`$-Lie bialgebra, if $`f`$ is a classical Drinfeld twist and if $`(U_{\mathrm{}}(𝔤),\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a quantization of $`(𝔤,\delta )`$, is it true or not that every quantization of the Poisson torsor given by the triple $`(𝔤,\delta ,f)`$ is a “Parmentier” type torsor, that is to say given by a quantization $`F`$ of $`f`$ ?
5. Study the case where $`H=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$is equipped with its natural Hopf algebra structure, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a finite group, by using some results due to Movshev \[Mo\] or to Etingof-Gelaki \[EG\] about twists in this Hopf algebra.
6. Find and classify all “low dimensional” torsors.
7. Generally speaking, classify all torsors and cotorsors for a large class of Hopf algebras.
8. A classical torsor together with its opposite torsors can be seen as a groupo d on a basis with two elements. Are our axioms compatible with the notion of a quantum groupo d \[Ma\] ?
9. Is it possible to find an Hopf-Galois extension which is not a torsor in our sense ?
10. Establih a link with the Galois cohomology which classifies torsors in algebraic geometry.


format: text

text:
# Structure of Rule Table and Phase Diagram of One Dimensional Cellular Automata

## 1 Introduction

The study of the cellular automata(CA) has been one of the most important fields for the understanding of the complex systems. And many efforts have been carried out for the understanding of it. Various patterns had been generated by choosing the transition rules, and the patterns have been classified by Wolfram roughly into four classes. Langton has introduced parameter $`\lambda `$ and showed that as $`\lambda `$ is increased the pattern changes from class I(homogeneous),class II(periodic) to class III(chaotic). And at some cases, the class IV(edge of chaos) is realized between the two.

The $`\lambda `$ parameter could classify the qualitative behavior of the CA, but it is not enough. It is well known that at the same $`\lambda `$ the time evolution of the configuration shows periodic pattern(class II), chaotic one(class III) or edge of the chaos pattern(class IV) depending on the initial seed of the random number generator. The reason or mechanism for it has not been known yet; we have no way to control the pattern classes at fixed $`\lambda `$. And the transition of periodic to chaotic pattern is taken place at rather wide range of $`\lambda `$. Therefore it is a natural anticipation that more parameters are necessary to get the quantitative understanding of the pattern classes of the CA. In this article we report another parameter which classifies the pattern classes more quantitatively. If the capacity to support computation is realized at the edge of the chaos, we have acquired a method to reach there more effectively.

In the section 2, we will briefly summarize our notations and explain the key discovery which leads us to the understanding of the structure of the rule table. It strongly indicates that the rules which destroy the schema of the quiescent state play an important role to distinguish the pattern classes.

In the section 3, guided by the discovery of the section 2, we classify the rule table according to the destruction and construction of the schema of the quiescent states. The rule which destroys the longest schema of the quiescent state plays strongest effects for the patterns. Then we introduce a new parameter force for each rules which destroy the schema. With this parameter, we determine the phase diagram in the $`\lambda `$ and the force plane. It clearly explains why at fixed $`\lambda `$ the different patterns are generated and we could control the pattern classes more quantitatively.

Section 4 is devoted to the discussions and the conclusions, where effects of the structure of the rule table will further be discussed.

## 2 Discovery of the Key Rules

### 2.1 Summary of the Notation

In order to make the argument concrete, in this article we focus on the one dimensional cellular automata with 5-neighbors and 4-states. But the qualitative results are independent of the details of the models. This point will be discussed in section 4. We follow the definitions of Langton but for the self consistentness we will briefly summarize them.

In our study, the sites consist of 150 cells with the periodic boundary condition, which are denoted as $`s(t,i)`$. The $`t`$ represents the time step which take integer value, and the $`i`$ is the position of site which range from $`0`$ to $`149`$. The $`s(t,i)`$ takes the value $`0,1,2`$ and $`3`$, and the state $`0`$ is taken to be quiescent state. The set of the states $`s(t,i)`$ at fixed $`t`$ is called the configuration at time $`t`$.

The configuration at time $`t+1`$ is determined by that of time $`t`$ by the following local relation,

$$s(t+1,i)=T(s(t,i2),s(t,i1),s(t,i),s(t,i+1),s(t,i+2))$$
(1)
The set of the mappings

$$T(\mu ,\nu ,\kappa ,\rho ,\sigma )=\eta ,(\mu ,\nu ,etc=0,1,2,3)$$
(2)
is called rule table. The rule table consists of $`4^5`$ mappings, which are selected from the totally $`4^{1024}`$ elements.

The $`\lambda `$ parameter is defined as follows,

$$\lambda =\frac{N_h}{1024}$$
(3)
where $`N_h`$ is the number that $`\eta `$ in Eq.2 is not equal to $`0`$. In other word the $`\lambda `$ is a probability that the rules do not select the quiescent state in next time step. In the following we set the rule tables randomly according to the probability $`\lambda `$, and the initial configurations are also set randomly.

The time history of the configurations is called pattern. The patterns are classified by Wolfram roughly into four classes. It has been known that as the $`\lambda `$ increases the most frequently generated patterns change from homogeneous(class I), periodic(class II) to chaotic(class III) and at the region between class II and class III, the edge of chaos is located(class IV).

### 2.2 Experiments at $`\lambda =0.44`$ and Discovery of the Key Rule

In order to find the reason why the different patterns are generated at the same $`\lambda `$, we had started to collect a lot of rule tables with different pattern classes. And by studying them, we had tried to find the differences between rule tables. We had fixed $`N_h=455`$, which correspond to $`\lambda =0.44`$. We had chosen this $`\lambda `$ because at this point the chaotic, edge of chaos and periodic patterns are generated in the similar ratio. By changing the random number, we have gathered a few tens of the rule tables and classified them into chaotic, edge of chaos and periodic ones.

First we studied whether the pattern classes are sensitive to the initial configurations or not. We fixed the rule table and changed the initial configurations. The details of the patterns depend on the initial configurations but the pattern classes are not changed. Then the difference of the pattern classes is due to that of the rule tables and our target is addressed to the study of them.

After some trial and error, we have found the fact that for rule tables which generate the edge of the chaos and periodic patterns, the transition table $`T(0,0,0,0,0)`$ was almost always equal to $`0`$, while for that of the chaotic pattern, it was not equal to $`0`$ in majority of cases. For about 10 rule tables of each pattern classes, we get following results for the probability that the rule tables have $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=0`$.

$$Prob(T(0,0,0,0,0)=0)1$$
(4)
for periodic plus edge of chaos rule tables,

$$Prob(T(0,0,0,0,0)=0)0.2$$
(5)
for chaotic rule tables.

In this article, we call the pattern as edge of chaos when its transient length is longer than $`3000`$ time steps.

These difference given by Eq.4 and Eq.5 has lead us the following idea. Let us think of the schemas of quiescent state $`0`$ with length longer than five. If the rule $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=h,(h0)`$ is included in the rule table, they are necessarily broken 111Similar idea has been pointed out by Wolfram and Suzudo with the arguments of the unbounded growth and expandability.. Then it pushes the pattern to that of chaos.

If our idea is correct, we could artificially change the rule tables of the chaos to that of periodic by replacing $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=h`$ to $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=0`$. We have tried the replacements for about 10 rule tables. In all cases we have succeeded to change the rule tables from chaotic to periodic or periodic to chaotic by a replacements of the $`T(0,0,0,0,0)`$. An example is shown in the Figure 1. The change in the pattern is dramatical but the differences in the rule table are only two, which has been quite exciting for us.

This discovery was a key hint to lead us to the hypothesis that the rules which breaks the schema of the quiescent state will determine the pattern classes.

## 3 Structure of Rule Table and Phase Diagram

### 3.1 Classification of the Rule Table

In order to test the hypothesis of the previous section, we group the rule table into the four types according to the operation on the schema of quiescent state.

In the following, Greek characters in the rule table represent $`0,1,2`$ and $`3`$ while Roman ones $`1,2`$ and $`3`$.

Type 1: $`T(\mu ,\nu ,0,\rho ,\sigma )=h`$.
The rules in this type destroy the schemas of quiescent state.

Type 2: $`T(\mu ,\nu ,0,\rho ,\sigma )=0`$.
The rules of this type conserve them.

Type 3: $`T(\mu ,\nu ,k,\rho ,\sigma )=0`$.
The rules of this type develop the schema.

Type 4: $`T(\mu ,\nu ,k,\rho ,\sigma )=l`$.
The rules in this type do not affect the schema in next time step.

The sum of the number of the type 1 and type 2 rules is 256, while that of type 3 and type 4 rules is 768. How many numbers of each type of rules are included in the rule table is determined randomly according to the probability $`\lambda `$.

The type 1 rules are further classified into five groups according to the length of the schema which breaks. They are shown in the Table 1.

Our hypothesis presented at the end of the previous section is expressed more quantitatively as follows; what groups of rules and how many of them shown in the table 1 are included in the rule table will determine whether the resulting patterns become chaotic, edge of chaos, or periodic.

In order to test this hypothesis we have artificially replaced some of the rules in the table 1 while keeping the $`\lambda `$ fixed. For the D5, it is a set of the replacements given by the following equations, which are already carried out in obtaining Fig.1.

$$\begin{array}{cc}T(0,0,0,0,0)=hT(0,0,0,0,0)=0\hfill & \\ T(\mu ,\nu ,k,\rho ,\sigma )=0T(\mu ,\nu ,k,\rho ,\sigma )=l\hfill & \end{array}$$
(6)
where except for $`h`$, the $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$, $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$, $`k`$ and $`l`$ are selected randomly.

Similarly the replacements are generalized for D4 to D1 in the table 1, which are named by RP5 to RP1 there. They change the rules in type 1 to that of the type 2 and push the rule table toward periodic one.

The reverse replacements for D5 are,

$$\begin{array}{cc}T(0,0,0,0,0)=0T(0,0,0,0,0)=h\hfill & \\ T(\mu ,\nu ,k,\rho ,\sigma )=lT(\mu ,\nu ,k,\rho ,\sigma )=0\hfill & \end{array}$$
(7)
which push the rule table toward chaotic one. In this case $`h`$ is selected randomly, while $`l`$ is fixed in rule table. Similarly we define the replacements for D4 to D1, which will be called RC5 to RC1 in the followings.

We have made replacements RP5 to RP1 if the initial rule table generates chaotic pattern and RC5 to RC1 if it belongs to the periodic rules. These replacement experiments are carried out for $`\lambda =0.6`$,$`0.5`$ and $`0.4`$.

When the replacements include RP5, a few additional replacements RP4s together with D5 make the chaotic pattern to periodic ones and converse is true for the RC5. The numbers of the replacements needed to change the pattern are alway less than the $`1\%`$ of the $`1024`$ elements of the rule tables.

When the replacement does not include RP5 or RC5 the number of the replacement needed to change the pattern classes increases. This means that the effects to push the rule table toward periodic are different for the replacements in table 1. From a few tens of the replacements experiments the following order for the effects are observed.

$$RP5>RP4>RP3>RP2>RP1$$
(8)
### 3.2 Phase Diagram in Term of Force of Type 1 Rules

In order to make the relation given by Eq. 8 more quantitative we introduce a new parameter force for type 1 rules.

We assume that each rule in the table 1 have their own force to push the rule tables toward the chaos. The force may be a complicated function of the numbers of type 1 to type 4 rules, or it may even depend on the detailed contents of the 1024 rules. But as a first approximation, we take that it depends only on numbers of the rules D5, D4, D3, D2 and D1 in table 1, which are denoted as $`N_5`$, $`N_4`$, $`N_3`$, $`N_2`$ and $`N_1`$ respectively.

Second we assume that the forces are represented by the simple weighted sum of the number $`N_5`$ to $`N_1`$. The weight represents the strength of the force and expressed by the coefficients $`c_5`$ to $`c_1`$.

In the study of the replacement of the rule tables, we found that the D1 has quite small force to change the rule table. In some cases the replacement RP1 pushes the rules to chaotic one. In these cases it is close to the random walk in the rule table space and the determination of $`c_1`$ needs much statistics222 The schemas of state $`0`$ with length 1 are easily created by the type 3 rules by one time step. Then the force of D1 rule may easily be compensated by them. This may be a reason that the replacement RP1 some times looks like random walk.
. In the following we neglect the contribution from D1 rule and set $`c_1=0`$ as a first approximation. Then the force is given as follows 333 This equation is interpreted in the following way. The total number of the D5 rule is rather large that the fluctuations from them are small. We replace them as the average background force and measure the force from this background..

$$f(N_5,N_4,N_3,N_2)=c_5N_5+c_4N_4+c_3N_3+c_2N_2$$
(9)
The ansatz given in Eq. 9 is a first step to the more detailed study of the structure of rule tables of the CA. The fine forces of D2 or even by the D3 may depend on the fine structure of the type 3 and type 4 rules. In this article these details are neglected.

By artificially carrying out the replacements of RP5 to RP2 or RC5 to RC2 we look for the critical combinations of the $`N_5`$ to $`N_2`$, where the change of the patterns is observed. We have collected about 60 to 85 sets of critical combinations for each $`\lambda `$. We assume that the transition occurs when the force given by Eq.9 exceeds at some fixed threshold value. The threshold value is not known a priori and it may depend on the individual rule table, but as a first approximation, we assume that it is common for a given $`\lambda `$. With this condition, we proceed to determine the coefficients.

However in this condition the scale for the force is arbitrary. We measure it in the unit where force from D5 is equal to one, which correspond to divide the force in Eq. 9 by $`c_5`$ and express it as the ratio $`r_4`$, $`r_3`$ and $`r_2`$, where $`r_4=\frac{c_4}{c_5}`$, similarly for $`r_3`$ and $`r_2`$. Then our problem is to find the $`r_4`$, $`r_3`$ and $`r_2`$, which minimize the following quantity,

$$s(r_4,r_3,r_2)=\frac{1}{c_5^2}\underset{i,j}{}(f^i(N_5^i,N_4^i,N_3^i,N_2^i)f^j(N_5^j,N_4^j,N_3^j,N_2^j))^2$$
(10)
The results for $`r_4`$, $`r_3`$ and $`r_2`$ are given in the table 2, where the errors are estimated by jackknife method. They satisfy the order given by the Eq.8. This shows a hierarchy in the forces of the rules in table 1.

The results in table 2 are natural in the following sense. If six D4 rules are present for the rule table, then the presence of D5 has no effects, because the length 5 schema of quiescent state could not be made. They have roughly similar effects as one D5 rule, then the strength of the D4 will approximately be equal to $`1/6`$ of that of D5. Similarly the strength of the D3 and D2 will be about $`1/33`$ and $`1/72`$ respectively. The results given in the table 2 are not very different from these naive expectations.

With these results for the coefficients of Eq.9, we determine the transition points by means of the force. We call it as critical force($`f_{critical}`$). The results are shown in the Fig.2. In the Fig.2, we have added $`f_{critical}/c_5`$ calculated from the naive expectations for the relative strengths. In this case too, errors are estimated by the jackknife method. The difference between them are not large.

This figure distinguishes the pattern classes more quantitatively, and visualizes why at the fixed $`\lambda `$ the three patterns chaos, edge of the chaos and periodic coexist.

The impressive point is that the transition occurs about $`f/c_51.141.2`$. This means that in many cases the replacements of D5 will change the pattern classes, which is consistent with the experiments at section 2.

We should like to notice that the phase diagram shown in Fig. 2 is an average over about 60 to 85 sets of the critical combinations, which belong to different rule tables.

## 4 Discussions and Conclusions

$``$ Difference of Patterns with $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=h`$ and $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=0`$

By carrying out the replacements RP4s and RP3s, we could artificially obtain the rule table of periodic pattern with $`T(0,0,0,0,0)=h`$. In this case the length of the schema of quiescent state could not develop longer than 4, then the patterns will have thin stripes in the time direction. While for the patterns generated by the rule table without D5, there is very small probability that the thin stripes are created. Then there will be clear difference between the two patterns. An example is shown in the Fig.3. The differences in patterns is again dramatical while those in rule table are only 2.

Similarly for the patterns of an edge of the chaos, when the rule tables have D5, the patterns are drawn on the background of the thin stripes as shown in the Fig.3a, while if they do not include D5, patterns are drawn essentially on the quiescent states. The differences between these two patterns are impressive. Similar situation is observed for the pattern when six D4s are included in the rule table. In this case, the maximum length of the schema of quiescent state is 3, that the width of the stripe becomes more narrow. The existence of the rules of the table 1 has strong effects for the details of the patterns.

$``$ Fluctuation of Rule Tables around $`\lambda 0.5`$

When the rule tables are generated randomly, how many type 1 rules are included, is determined randomly by the probability $`\lambda `$. The largest fluctuation is realized for D5, because it has only one element. Next is D4 and so on. And the transition is taken place about $`1.14`$ to $`1.2`$ of the force expressed in the unit of $`c_5`$. Then the change of the pattern classes are easily realized by the fluctuation of $`N_5`$ and $`N_4`$ at fixed $`\lambda `$. This fact explains why the transition and edge of chaos is scattered rather wide range in $`\lambda `$.

Also the fluctuation is largest at $`\lambda =0.5`$. Then the coexistence of the periodic pattern and chaotic pattern is most likely to be realized around this region. As the edge of chaos is located at the boundary of these two pattern classes, it is also realized most frequently around $`\lambda 0.5`$. Especially when the number of the states in cell is equal to two.

$``$ Edge of Chaos and Order of Transition

When the replacements of RP3 or RP2 are carried out, we find the edge of chaos(very long transient lengths) in many cases. Sometimes they are observed rather wide range in $`N_3`$ or $`N_2`$. This seems to indicate that in many cases, the transition is second order like. But the widths in the ranges of $`N_3`$ or $`N_2`$ are different from each other and there are cases where the widths are less than one unit in the replacement of D2 rules(first order like). What is the origin of the difference in the width is an open problem and may be studied by taking into account the effects of the type 3 rules. It is a very interesting problem under what condition, the transition becomes first order like or second order like.

$``$ Special Cases of the Rule Table

The relative strength of the force given by the table 2 could not be applied for some special cases. When the rule table contains all the 33 D3 rules, the schemas of the quiescent state with length 4 could not develop, then the presence of the D4 have no chance to work. In this case, the force from the D4 and D5 are equal to zero. The results given in the table 2 do not include in these special cases. But these special rule tables are very hard to be realized as far as they are determined randomly. The results for the table 2 are the average over the rule tables which are typically obtained randomly according to the probability $`\lambda `$.

We have made a few replacements experiments at more extreme $`\lambda `$. At $`\lambda =0.75`$, in most cases, a randomly generated rule tables belong to chaotic pattern. We have succeeded to change them to the rule table of periodic pattern by the replacements of RP5, RP4s and RP3s. On the other hand at $`\lambda =0.2`$, most of the generated rule tables were periodic ones. In this case too, the replacements RC5 and a few RC4s make the rule table to that of chaotic pattern classes. Then the conclusion that the number and combination of the type 1 rule determine the pattern classes is correct for more wider space of rule tables. However when $`\lambda `$ exceed $`0.75`$, the state $`0`$ lost its role as a quiescent state. Then the analysis in this article will not be applied there.

$``$ Other One Dimensional Cellular Automata

The similar study has been carried out for the one dimensional 3-neighbors and 16-states CA. In this case there are 3 groups of rules which destroy the schemas of quiescent state; $`T(0,0,0)`$ and $`T(0,0,i)`$, $`T(i,0,0)`$ and $`T(i,0,j)`$. The results are very preliminary, but we have succeeded to change the chaotic patterns to periodic one by making only one set of replacements at $`\lambda =\frac{2648}{16^3}`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}T(0,0,0)=hT(0,0,0)=0\hfill & \\ T(\mu ,k,\nu )=0T(\mu ,k,\nu )=l\hfill & \end{array}$$
(11)
It needs some more studies to obtain the quantitative results. But the result that the rules which breaks the schemas of quiescent state play main role for the determination of the pattern classes and the qualitative phase diagram will be common for all CA including two dimensional ones.

$``$ Conclusions

The pattern in the CA is strongly affected by the type 1 rules, which are classified in the table 1. Around $`0.4<\lambda <0.6`$ region, the replacements of D5 and a few D4s change the pattern classes. The number of the replacements has been always less than $`1\%`$ if RP5 and RP4 or RC5 and RC4 are included.

The type 1 rules have a hierarchy in their effect to push the rule table toward chaotic one as shown in Eq. 8. This property is studied more quantitatively by introducing force for the rules in table 1. Then we have obtained the phase diagram of CA. It is determined by many approximations and assumptions. But it tell us how to control the pattern classes at fixed $`\lambda `$.

The edge of the chaos of the CA is realized as the result of the delicate balance between the creation of the schemas of quiescent state by type 3 rules and the destruction of them by the type 1 rules. By making replacements defined by the Eq.LABEL:toperio or Eq. LABEL:tochaos, we could control the pattern classes more efficiently than using only the parameter $`\lambda `$.

The results obtained in this article is a beginning of the more quantitative study of the rule tables and pattern classes. The analysis of the structure of the rule table including the effects of the type 3 rules will be necessary to understand the order of the transition and the detailed properties of the edge of chaos, which will be reported elsewhere.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recently an interesting class of $`\frac{1}{4}`$ BPS brane configurations, supertube, super D-helix and supercurve, have been studied . The supertube is a tubular D2-brane with an arbitrary cross-section in 10-dimensional flat space-time and is supported against collapse by the existence of both electric and magnetic fluxes on it. The super D-helix and supercurve are constructed by making T-duality and T-S-T-duality on the supertube, respectively.111The original super D-helix is a helical D-string, but here we include configurations with an arbitrary curve. One of the interesting aspects of the supertube is that it can be deformed into a pair of D2-anti-D2 system, which still preserves quarter supersymmetry . In fact, open strings ending on both D2 and anti-D2 do not contain tachyonic modes and hence the configuration is stable . It is also possible to extend such supersymmetric D-anti-D system to higher-dimensional D-branes .

The electric and magnetic fluxes on the D2-brane correspond to the charges of fundamental strings and D0-branes dissolved into the D2-brane world-volume. Therefore the supertube is a bound state of D2-brane, fundamental strings and D0-branes, which is regarded as a variant of M2-brane in the context of M-theory. In view of the above connections of those various configurations under duality transformations, it is interesting to give a unified view of those in the M-theory perspective. In this paper, we construct classical $`\frac{1}{4}`$ BPS configurations of an M2-brane in M-theory compactified on $`T^2`$, say 9th and 11th directions, and show that our configurations give the above supertube and supercurve in type IIA theory upon dimensional reduction.222Similar method was applied to obtain classical configurations of M2-brane in the background of M5-branes in ref. , some of which are regarded as expanded strings in the background of NS5-branes in type IIA theory. We call these M2-brane configurations M-ribbons from their shapes in 11 dimensions.

Moreover we generalize the M-ribbons so as to be consistent with the $`SL(2,)`$ modular transformation on $`T^2`$. After T-duality transformation in the 9th direction, these configurations are interpreted as $`(p,q)`$-strings which wind and move at light velocity in the 9th direction with an arbitrary profile in type IIB theory. These configurations can be interpreted as an $`SL(2,)`$ duality family of the super D-helix.

The M-ribbons constructed in this paper are configurations which are straight in one direction. It is an interesting question whether it is possible to deform the configuration in that direction. Here we also examine the problem and show that such deformation does not give BPS solutions.

## 2 Supertubes and Supercurves via M-Ribbon

We start with the construction of classical configurations of an M2-brane, which would correspond to supertubes and supercurves in type IIA theory.

Let us consider M-theory on $`^{1,8}\times T^2`$ with radii $`R_9`$ and $`R_{11}`$, and choose the space-time coordinates such that the line element becomes

$`ds^2=dt^2+d\stackrel{}{x}d\stackrel{}{x}+R_9^2d\varphi _9^2+R_{11}^2d\varphi _{11}^2,`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}^8`$ and $`0\varphi _9,\varphi _{11}2\pi `$. The radius of the 11th direction is related to the parameters of type IIA theory, string length $`\mathrm{}_s`$ and string coupling constant $`g_s`$, as $`R_{11}=g_s\mathrm{}_s`$. The usual uncompactified case can be recovered by sending $`R_9\mathrm{}`$.

The bosonic part of M2-brane action is described by the sum of the Nambu-Goto and Wess-Zumino terms. Throughout this paper, the relevant part to our analyses is only the Nambu-Goto term:

$`S=T_2{\displaystyle d^3\xi \sqrt{detP[G]_{ab}}},`$ (2)
where $`\xi ^a(a,b=0,1,2)`$ are the world-volume coordinates of M2-brane. Especially we take the parameter region for $`\xi ^1`$ and $`\xi ^2`$ from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$. $`P[G]_{ab}`$ denotes the induced metric on the M2-brane, and $`T_2`$ is the tension of M2-brane given as $`T_2=1/(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}_p^3=1/(2\pi )^2\mathrm{}_s^3g_s`$ in terms of the 11-dimensional Planck length $`\mathrm{}_p`$ and parameters of type IIA theory.

Now we consider the M2-brane embedded in the target space as follows:

$`t=\xi ^0,\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^1),\varphi _9=\xi ^2,\varphi _{11}=\varphi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1).`$ (3)
This assumption means that M2-brane is straight in the 9th direction and spreads in an arbitrary curve in $`^8`$, if the 11th direction is neglected. We also impose the condition

$`\varphi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1+2\pi )=\varphi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+2\pi q,`$ (4)
where the integer $`q`$ is the winding number around the 11th direction. The induced metric on the M2-brane becomes

$`P[G]_{ab}d\xi ^ad\xi ^b=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d\xi ^0& d\xi ^1& d\xi ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+R_{11}^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}^2& R_{11}^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& 0\\ R_{11}^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& |\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_{11}^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}& 0\\ 0& 0& R_9^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\xi ^0\\ d\xi ^1\\ d\xi ^2\end{array}\right),`$ (5)
and the M2-brane action can be evaluated to be

$`S`$ $`=T_2{\displaystyle d^3\xi \sqrt{X}},`$
$`X`$ $`detP[G]_{ab}=R_9^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_9^2R_{11}^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}R_9^2R_{11}^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}^2,`$ (6)
where partial derivatives $`_{\xi ^0}`$ and $`_{\xi ^1}`$ are denoted as $`\dot{}`$ and $`^{}`$, respectively.

Before solving the equations of motion obtained from the above action, let us examine the energy of M2-brane in the Hamiltonian formalism. The momentum conjugate to $`\varphi _{11}`$ is

$`p_{11}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{\delta \dot{\varphi }_{11}}}=T_2{\displaystyle \frac{R_9^2R_{11}^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}}{\sqrt{X}}},`$ (7)
and we obtain the Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2T_2\frac{R_9^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_9^2R_{11}^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}}{\sqrt{X}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{R_{11}^2}+\frac{\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}}{|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2}\right)p_{11}^2+T_2^2R_9^2\left(|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_{11}^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}\right)}}.`$
The integrand represents the energy of M2-brane per unit area, which is given by the square root of the sum of momentum squared and mass squared. If $`p_{11}=0`$, the energy of M2-brane attains its minimum when $`|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|=0`$, that is, M2-brane shrinks to zero size in $`^8`$ and becomes a fundamental string in type IIA perspective. Also if $`\varphi _{11}^{}=0`$, the energy of M2-brane takes its minimum for $`|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|=0`$, that is, M2-brane again shrinks to zero size in $`^8`$ and becomes D0-branes in type IIA theory. If $`\varphi _{11}^{}p_{11}0`$, however, the momentum term prevents $`|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|`$ from being zero.333In type IIA theory, $`\varphi _{11}^{}`$ and $`p_{11}`$ correspond to the electric and magnetic fluxes on D2-brane, respectively. It is interesting to note that by comparing the action (6) and that of supertube, which is obtained by replacing $`X`$ in (6) as $`X=R_9^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|+(2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2F_{12})^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}|(2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2F_{02})^2`$, $`\dot{\varphi }_{11}`$ and $`\varphi _{11}^{}`$ play the roles of the electric field $`F_{02}`$ and magnetic field $`F_{12}`$, respectively. We are now going to show that in fact there exists expanded BPS M-ribbon with an arbitrary shape in $`^8`$.

Let us first note that the Hamiltonian (8) can be rewritten as

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\sqrt{\left(\frac{\varphi _{11}^{}}{|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}p_{11}T_2R_9|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|\right)^2+\left(\frac{p_{11}}{R_{11}}+T_2R_9R_{11}\varphi _{11}^{}\right)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\left(\frac{p_{11}}{R_{11}}+T_2R_9R_{11}\varphi _{11}^{}\right)}.`$ (9)
Here for simplicity we have assumed $`p_{11}>0`$ and $`\varphi _{11}^{}>0`$, but we can also consider other cases similarly. The inequality in the above equation is saturated for

$`p_{11}=T_2{\displaystyle \frac{R_9|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2}{\varphi _{11}^{}}}.`$ (10)
Together with eqs. (6) and (7), we find

$`\dot{\varphi }_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_{11}}},\sqrt{X}=R_9R_{11}\varphi _{11}^{}.`$ (11)
The former equation shows that the M-ribbon is moving in the 11th direction at the speed of light, as can be seen from the line element (1). With the condition (4), the energy for this configuration can be written as

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{N}{R_{11}}}+2\pi R_9Tq,`$ (12)
where $`T=1/2\pi \mathrm{}_s^2`$ is the string tension and $`N=𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2p_{11}`$ represents the total 11th momentum. It should be noticed that the energy (12) is derived by assuming $`p_{11}>0`$ and $`\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}>0`$, i.e., $`N>0`$ and $`q>0`$. Energy for general cases is obtained by replacing $`N`$ and $`q`$ with their absolute values. Thus we see that the energy (12) is just the sum of the masses of $`|N|`$ D0-branes and $`|q|`$ strings, which matches exactly that of supertubes. As a further confirmation, let us consider the M2-brane which is embeded in $`^8`$ with circular cross-section. From eq. (10), we see that the radius of M2-brane is given by

$`|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_2}}\sqrt{q_0q_s},q_0{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\pi R_9R_{11}}},q_sTq,`$ (13)
where $`q_0`$ is the D0-brane charge per unit length and $`q_s`$ is the string charge, respectively. This correctly reproduces the radius of supertube with circular cross-section .

Now let us show that the M2-brane configuration with an arbitary cross-section solves the field equations following from the action (6):

$`_{\xi ^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1R_{11}^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}^2)\stackrel{}{x}^{}}{\sqrt{X}}}\right)=0,`$
$`_{\xi ^0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{11}^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2\dot{\varphi }_{11}}{\sqrt{X}}}\right)+_{\xi ^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_{11}^2\varphi _{11}^{}}{\sqrt{X}}}\right)=0.`$ (14)
It is easy to see that both of these equations are satisfied by (11) for an arbitrary function $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^1)`$ as long as $`\varphi _{11}^{}`$ does not depend on $`\xi ^0`$. This configuration is depicted in Fig. 1(a).

When the 11th direction is reduced, this ribbon-shaped configuration produces a closed curve in $`^8`$ which is extended in the 9th direction $`R_9\varphi _9`$. This M-ribbon can thus be interpreted as a D2-brane which is straight in the 9th direction and spreads in an arbitrary curve in $`^8`$. Furthermore, this D2-brane carries charges of D0-branes and fundamental strings along the 9th direction, as can be seen from eq. (12). We thus conclude that we have reproduced supertubes with an arbitrary cross-section via M-ribbon.444Supertubes are constructed originally in the flat space $`^{1,9}`$ in type IIA theory. Our configurations reproduce those in the limit $`R_9\mathrm{}`$.

On the other hand, the above discussions can be repeated with the roles of 9th and 11th directions interchanged (see Fig. 1(b)). Then the Hamiltonian is given by

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{N}{R_9}}+2\pi R_9Tq.`$ (15)
Upon reducing the 11th direction, the M-ribbon configuration gives a wrapped curve, and is interpreted as a fundamental string extending arbitrarily in $`S\times ^8`$ and wound $`q`$ times around the circle in the 9th direction. Furthermore, this fundamental string carries momentum in the 9th direction, as can be seen from eq. (15). This energy matches precisely with that of supercurve, which is originally obtained by making T-S-T-duality transformation to the supertube . In fact, what we have produced here is equivalent to the supercurve because such duality map corresponds to 9-11 flip in the context of M-theory.

In this way, our configuration in M-theory gives a unified picture of the supertubes and supercurves.

## 3 $`SL(2,)`$ Family of M-Ribbons

It is well known that the $`SL(2,)`$ modular transformation on $`T^2`$ is exactly related to the $`SL(2,)`$ duality transformation on type IIB theory, which includes the S-duality. Therefore it is interesting to generalize the supertube and supercurve configurations in a way consistent with that duality.

Our line element of the flat space-time is again taken as eq. (1), but the M2-brane is embedded into the target space as

$`t=\xi ^0,\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^1),\varphi _9=\phi _9(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+m\xi ^2,\varphi _{11}=\phi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+n\xi ^2,`$ (16)
with the conditions

$`\phi _9(\xi ^0,\xi ^1+2\pi )=\phi _9(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+2\pi p,\phi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1+2\pi )=\phi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+2\pi q.`$ (17)
When $`\xi ^1`$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, one direction of the M2-brane makes an arbitrary curve in $`^8`$ and simultaneously winds $`p`$ times around the 9th direction and $`q`$ times around the 11th direction. Similarly when $`\xi ^2`$ goes from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, another direction of the M2-brane winds $`m`$ times around the 9th direction and $`n`$ times around the 11th direction. For example, the supertube corresponds to the choice $`(p,m;q,n)=(0,1;q,0)`$ and the supercurve to $`(p,m;q,n)=(p,0;0,1)`$. The $`SL(2,)`$ matrix acts on $`T^2`$ as

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _9\\ \varphi _{11}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}\varphi _9\\ \varphi _{11}\end{array}\right),`$ (18)
where $`adbc=1`$ and $`mqnp`$ is invariant under this transformation.

The induced metric becomes

$`P[G]_{ab}d\xi ^a\xi ^b`$
$`=(d\xi ^0)^2+|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2(d\xi ^1)^2+R_9^2(\dot{\phi }_9d\xi ^0+\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{}d\xi ^1+md\xi ^2)^2+R_{11}^2(\dot{\phi }_{11}d\xi ^0+\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}d\xi ^1+nd\xi ^2)^2`$ (19)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}d\xi ^0& d\xi ^1& d\xi ^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1+R_9^2\dot{\phi }_9^2+R_{11}^2\dot{\phi }_{11}^2& R_9^2\dot{\phi }_9\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{}+R_{11}^2\dot{\phi }_{11}\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& mR_9^2\dot{\phi }_9+nR_{11}^2\dot{\phi }_{11}\\ R_9^2\dot{\phi }_9\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{}+R_{11}^2\dot{\phi }_{11}\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& |\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_9^2\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{2}+R_{11}^2\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}& mR_9^2\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{}+nR_{11}^2\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}\\ mR_9^2\dot{\phi }_9+nR_{11}^2\dot{\phi }_{11}& mR_9^2\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{}+nR_{11}^2\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{}& m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\xi ^0\\ d\xi ^1\\ d\xi ^2\end{array}\right),`$
and the volume factor is calculated as

$`\sqrt{detP[G]_{ab}}`$
$`=\sqrt{(m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2)|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_9^2R_{11}^2(n\phi _{}^{}{}_{9}{}^{}m\phi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{})^2R_9^2R_{11}^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2(n\dot{\phi }_9m\dot{\phi }_{11})^2},`$ (20)
where $`\dot{}=_{\xi ^0}`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}=_{\xi ^1}`$ as before. It is useful to introduce new coordinates

$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\psi =n\varphi _9+m\varphi _{11}=n\phi _9(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+m\phi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1),\hfill & \\ \chi ={\displaystyle \frac{mR_9^2\varphi _9+nR_{11}^2\varphi _{11}}{\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}}}={\displaystyle \frac{mR_9^2\phi _9(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)+nR_{11}^2\phi _{11}(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)}{\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}}}+\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}\xi ^2.\hfill & \end{array}`$ (21)
Note that $`\psi `$ does not depend on $`\xi ^2`$ and $`_{\xi ^2}\chi =\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}`$. The relevant part of the line element is rewritten as

$`R_9^2d\varphi _9^2+R_{11}^2d\varphi _{11}^2=R_\psi ^2d\psi ^2+d\chi ^2,`$ (22)
where $`R_\psi `$, which represents the radius of the $`\psi `$ direction, is defined by

$`R_\psi {\displaystyle \frac{R_9R_{11}}{\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}}}.`$ (23)
Then the M2-brane action is given by

$`S`$ $`=T_2{\displaystyle d^3\xi \sqrt{X}},`$
$`X`$ $`(m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2)|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_9^2R_{11}^2\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}R_9^2R_{11}^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2\dot{\psi }^2.`$ (24)
We use the Hamiltonian formalism to estimate the energy of M2-brane. The momentum conjugate to $`\psi `$ is defined as

$`p_\psi `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta L}{\delta \dot{\psi }}}=T_2{\displaystyle \frac{R_9^2R_{11}^2|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2\dot{\psi }}{\sqrt{X}}},`$ (25)
and the Hamiltonian takes the form

$`H={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\sqrt{(\frac{1}{R_\psi ^2}+\frac{\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2})p_\psi ^2+T_2^2(m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2)\left(|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2+R_\psi ^2\psi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right)}}.`$ (26)
The integrand represents the energy of M2-brane per unit area, which is given by the square root of the sum of momentum in the $`\psi `$ direction squared and mass squared. If $`\psi ^{}p_\psi =0`$, the energy of M2-brane becomes minimal when $`|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|=0`$, that is, M2-brane collapses to zero size in $`^8`$. If $`\psi ^{}p_\psi 0`$, however, the M2-brane will be stable against collapse with some shape in $`^8`$.

To see this, we rewrite the Hamiltonian as

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\sqrt{\left(\frac{\psi ^{}}{|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|}p_\psi T_2\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|\right)^2+\left(\frac{p_\psi }{R_\psi }+T_2\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}R_\psi \psi ^{}\right)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\left(\frac{p_\psi }{R_\psi }+T_2\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}R_\psi \psi ^{}\right)}.`$ (27)
The inequality of the above equation is saturated for

$`p_\psi =T_2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{m^2R_9^2+n^2R_{11}^2}|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2}{\psi ^{}}}.`$ (28)
Together with eqs. (24) and (25), we find

$`\dot{\psi }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_\psi }},\sqrt{X}=R_9R_{11}\psi ^{}.`$ (29)
The former equation shows that the M2-brane is moving in the $`\psi `$ direction at the speed of light. With the help of the condition (17), the energy for this configuration can be written as

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{N}{R_\psi }}+(mqnp)T2\pi R_9,`$ (30)
where $`N=𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2p_\psi `$ represents the total momentum in the $`\psi `$ direction. The energy (30) is for $`p_\psi >0`$ and $`\psi ^{}>0`$, i.e., $`N>0`$ and $`(mqnp)>0`$, but for general cases it is given by replacing $`N`$ and $`(mqnp)`$ with their absolute values.

It is also easy to see that the field equations following from the action (24):

$`_{\xi ^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(1R_\psi ^2\dot{\psi }^2)\stackrel{}{x}^{}}{\sqrt{X}}}\right)=0,`$
$`_{\xi ^0}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\stackrel{}{x}^{}|^2\dot{\psi }}{\sqrt{X}}}\right)+_{\xi ^1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\psi ^{}}{\sqrt{X}}}\right)=0,`$ (31)
are satisfied by (29) for an arbitrary function $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^1)`$ as long as $`\psi ^{}`$ does not depend on $`\xi ^0`$.

In this way we have generalized the configurations of M-ribbons to be consistent with $`SL(2,)`$ duality. This fact can be seen more easily in the context of type IIB theory. By using the T-duality relations,

$`R_9={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_s^2}{R_9^{}}},g_s={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_s}{R_9^{}}}g_s^{},`$ (32)
the energy (30) can be written as

$`H=N\sqrt{(nT2\pi R_9^{})^2+(mT_12\pi R_9^{})^2}+{\displaystyle \frac{mqnp}{R_9^{}}},`$ (33)
where $`g_s^{}`$ and $`R_9^{}`$ are the string coupling constant and the radius of the 9th direction in type IIB theory, and $`T_1`$ is the tension of D-string. This energy precisely agrees with that of a configuration of $`(n,m)`$-string, which is wrapped $`N`$ times around 9th direction with an arbitrary profile and moves in that direction with $`(mqnp)`$ units of momentum. The super D-helix, which is a helical D-string with momentum along the 9th direction, is realized for $`N=1`$ and $`(p,m;q,n)=(0,1;q,0)`$. These numbers are the same as those of supertube and it is consistent with the fact that the supertube and the super D-helix transform into each other simply under the T-duality.

## 4 Quarter Supersymmetry

Let us check whether the configurations considered so far are supersymmetric or not. The background is the 11-dim. flat space-time, so there are 32 supercharges. We denote the constant Majorana spinor which parametrizes the supersymmetric transformation as $`ϵ`$. The supersymmetric transformation of fermion $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ on the M2-brane is given by

$`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }=ϵ+(1+\mathrm{\Gamma })\kappa ,`$ (34)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is defined by

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!\sqrt{detP[G]_{ab}}}}ϵ^{abc}_aX^L_bX^M_cX^N\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LMN},`$ (35)
and satisfies the relation $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=1`$. We then see that the condition $`\delta \mathrm{\Theta }=0`$ is written as

$`(1\mathrm{\Gamma })ϵ=0.`$ (36)
Noting eq. (22), we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{X}}}\left(\psi ^{}_{\xi ^2}\chi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{t\psi \chi }+_{\xi ^2}\chi \stackrel{}{x}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{t\stackrel{}{x}\chi }+\dot{\psi }_{\xi ^2}\chi \stackrel{}{x}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\psi \stackrel{}{x}\chi }\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{R_9R_{11}\psi ^{}}{\sqrt{X}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\chi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{R_9R_{11}}{R_\psi \sqrt{X}}}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}}\widehat{\chi }}\left(1R_\psi \dot{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\psi }}\right),`$ (37)
where $`X`$ is given by (24) and $`\stackrel{}{x}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\stackrel{}{x}=_{i=1}^8(x^i)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{x^i}`$. Here we introduced $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{M}}`$ which satisfy $`SO(1,10)`$ Clifford algebra and represented by constant matrices. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{M}}`$ are equivalent but $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi =R_\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{\psi }}`$. Then eq. (36) is cast into

$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{R_9R_{11}\psi ^{}}{\sqrt{X}}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\chi }}\right)ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{R_9R_{11}}{R_\psi \sqrt{X}}}\stackrel{}{x}^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\stackrel{}{x}}\widehat{\chi }}\left(1R_\psi \dot{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\psi }}\right)ϵ=0.`$ (38)
¿From this, we see that the BPS equation has nontrivial solution when the relation $`R_\psi \dot{\psi }=1`$ holds, and then $`ϵ`$ is explicitly written as

$`ϵ={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\psi }\widehat{\chi }}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\widehat{t}\widehat{\psi }}}{2}}ϵ_0,`$ (39)
for an arbitrary constant Majorana spinor $`ϵ_0`$. As explained in the previous section, the relation $`R_\psi \dot{\psi }=1`$ is the solution of field equations (31).

Thus all configurations of M-ribbons preserve $`\frac{1}{4}`$ supersymmetry. Our results generalize those for supertubes and supercurves .

## 5 Discussions

In this paper, we have obtained the $`\frac{1}{4}`$ BPS configurations of M-ribbons on $`^{1,8}\times T^2`$, which reduce to the supertubes and supercurves in type IIA theory upon dimensional reduction. In the context of M-theory, the supertubes are related to the supercurve under 9-11 flip. Furthermore, those configurations are generalized so as to be consistent with the $`SL(2,)`$ modular transformation on $`T^2`$. Thus our configurations give a unified picture of all these configurations.

Let us consider if our M-ribbon configurations (3) can be generalized to have dependence on $`\xi ^2`$. To be explicit, consider $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{x}(\xi ^1,\xi ^2)`$, giving the configurations of supertubes whose cross-sections depend on $`\xi ^2`$. After straightforward calculation similar to section 2, we obtain the following BPS bound on the Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\sqrt{\left(\frac{1}{R_{11}^2}+\frac{\left(\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2\right)\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}}{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2\left(\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2\right)\left|ab\right|^2}\right)p_{11}^2+T_2^2\left(\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2\left(\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2\right)\left|ab\right|^2+\left(\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2\right)R_{11}^2\varphi _{}^{}{}_{11}{}^{2}\right)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\sqrt{\left(\frac{\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2}\varphi _{11}^{}p_{11}}{\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2\left(\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2\right)\left|ab\right|^2}}T_2\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{a}\right|^2\left(\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2\right)\left|ab\right|^2}\right)^2+\left(\frac{p_{11}}{R_{11}}+T_2\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2}R_{11}\varphi _{11}^{}\right)^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle 𝑑\xi ^1𝑑\xi ^2\left(\frac{p_{11}}{R_{11}}+T_2\sqrt{\left|\stackrel{}{b}\right|^2+R_9^2}R_{11}\varphi _{11}^{}\right)},`$ (40)
where $`\stackrel{}{a}=_{\xi ^1}\stackrel{}{x}`$, $`\stackrel{}{b}=_{\xi ^2}\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`ab=_{\xi ^1}\stackrel{}{x}_{\xi ^2}\stackrel{}{x}`$. The inequality is saturated for

$`\dot{\varphi }_{11}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{R_{11}}}.`$ (41)
We can check that the field equations and the $`\frac{1}{4}`$ BPS (Killing spinor) equation are also satisfied only for (41) and constant $`\stackrel{}{b}`$. This means that the dependence of $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ on $`\xi ^2`$ is at most linear and the embedding of M2-brane into the target space should be straight line in $`\xi ^2`$. We can even erase the apparent dependence by appropriate rotation of the coordinates. We thus conclude that the M-ribbons whose cross-sections depend on the extending direction are not BPS solutions.

We can also draw the same conclusion from the viewpoint of Matrix theory. Let us consider tubular configuration in $`(x,y,z)`$ space, which extends in the $`z`$ direction. In the context of Matrix theory, one of the BPS conditions is given by

$`[X,Y]=0,`$ (42)
where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are collective coordinates of D0-branes in $`(x,y)`$-plane. In ref. , various configurations of tubular D2-branes, whose cross-sections are dependent on $`z`$, are considered. There, by comparing with the analytical results for D2-brane, it was numerically shown that $`[X,Y]`$ can be zero only when the radius of tubular configuration is constant, consistent with our above result.

Recently it has been argued that the supertubes can end on a D4-brane . It is interesting to understand these situations by lifting to M-theory. It is also interesting to reconstruct the configurations of BPS M-ribbons from the viewpoint of Matrix theory.

## Acknowledgements

YH would like to thank S. Sugimoto, K. Hosomichi, S. Ogushi and M. Ninomiya for discussions and encouragements. NO thanks D. Bak for discussions. The work of NO was supported in part by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No. 12640270.