text:
# Twisted duality of the CAR-Algebra

## 1 Introduction

Twisted duality is a structural property of the von Neumann algebra obtained from the CAR-Algebra (which is an abstract C\*-algebra) in any Fock representation. The (self-dual) CAR-Algebra is uniquely given once a separable Hilbert space $`𝔥`$ and an anti-unitary involution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are specified . Now for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace $`𝔮`$ of $`𝔥`$ and any Fock state characterized by a so-called basis projection $`P`$ we can canonically construct a von Neumann algebra $`(𝔮)`$. Twisted duality means that the equation

$$(𝔮)^{}=\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}$$
(1)
holds, where $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is a certain unitary twist operator to be introduced in the following section and $`𝔮𝔮^{}=𝔥`$. Thus in order to formulate duality in the context of the (self-dual) CAR-algebra one needs to distinguish two closed subspaces $`𝔮`$ and $`𝔭:=P𝔥`$ in the reference Hilbert space $`𝔥`$. The study of two closed subspaces of a Hilbert space has a long and interesting history in functional analysis (e.g. ) as well as applications in mathematical physics .

We will see how the analysis of the relative position of these subspaces will naturally suggest the strategy of the complete proof of eq. (1) that we present in this paper. Concretely, given $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ as before we can canonically consider the Halmos decomposition $`𝔥=𝔥_0𝔥_1`$ (cf. ), where $`𝔥_0`$ is the maximal subspace on which the orthoprojections corresponding to the closed subspaces commute \[11, Section III\]. Our proof of (1) in the general case is based on the corresponding property for the generic position situation where $`𝔥_0=\{0\}`$. The case where $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position allows to use modular theory  as well as results of Kato  for pairs of projections. In this context we will characterize the bicontinuity of different mappings that naturally appear here, e.g. the Tomita operator restricted to the one-particle Hilbert space. Further, we discuss systematically the relation of an important mapping $`\phi `$ (and the components of its polar decomposition) used by Araki and Dell’Antonio , to the modular objects given in our case. The mapping $`\phi `$ is introduced by these authors to study the type of certain local von Neumann algebras.

The equation (1) appears naturally in the context of algebraic quantum field theory, in particular in relation with Haag duality, which is one of its central concepts (see e.g. ). Haag duality is a strengthening of Einstein causality for a net of von Neumann algebras indexed by suitable regions in $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. In the context of the CCR-Algebra (bosonic systems), one usually proceeds in two steps in order to prove this property : first one shows the so-called abstract duality

$$(𝔪^_\sigma )=(𝔪)^{},$$

where $`(𝔪)^{}`$ is the commutant of the von Neumann algebra $`(𝔪)`$ which is generated by the Weyl operators associated to a closed real subspace $`𝔪`$ of the one-particle Hilbert space and $`𝔪^_\sigma `$ denotes the symplectic complement of $`𝔪`$. This result is then crucially used in a second step in order to reduce the proof of Haag duality to the discussion of certain real subspaces $`𝔪(𝒪)`$ associated to sufficiently regular regions $`𝒪`$ in $`\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$. In the context of the CAR-Algebra (fermionic systems), and taking into account that now the generators of the algebra will anti-commute if the corresponding elements of the reference space are mutually orthogonal, one can adapt the notions of duality (cf. (1)) and Haag duality. (In the following we will avoid the use of the adjective ‘abstract’). Twisted duality (1) is mentioned (without proof) in \[3, Remark 4.9\] and proved in . For the special case of the generic position situation see also \[32, p. 496\]. An important difference between the proof we present here and those in  is that we will use the self-dual approach to the CAR-Algebra  and will consistently work with complex Hilbert subspaces (for further details about the relation between our proof and those in  we refer to Remark 5.7 and to Section 6). This is not only a matter of elegance, but only the explicit use of a basis projection $`P`$ in order to specify the Fock states of the CAR-Algebra will allow to consider the natural Halmos decomposition of the reference Hilbert space. Therefore the whole strategy of the proof as well as various formulas we prove in Section 4 (e.g. a simple and explicit expression for the graph of the modular operator as well as a formula for the modular conjugation, cf. Theorem 4.12 and Remark 5.7) will depend on this choice. Finally, the twisted duality property (1) of the CAR-Algebra can be applied to the fermionic free nets defined in  in order to prove Haag duality for these models. In the mentioned references the authors present a direct way to construct nets of local C\*- or von Neumann-algebras associated to massive (resp. massless) models for any half-integer spin (resp. helicity) value. The nets for these models are naturally characterized by a net of local $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant linear subspaces $`𝒪𝔮(𝒪)`$ of the corresponding reference Hilbert space. Now the formulas for the graph of the modular operator and modular conjugation (cf. Theorem 4.12 and Remark 5.7) can also be applied to the localized CAR-algebras associated with $`𝔮(𝒪)`$, where $`𝒪`$ is a double cone. We will give in Theorem 5.10 the corresponding formulas for the localized modular objects.

The paper is structured in 7 sections: In Section 2 we will state basic results concerning the CAR-Algebra that will be used later on. In the following section we will consider the Halmos decomposition of a Hilbert space and state necessary and sufficient conditions on the subspaces $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ in order that the modular theory is well defined for $`(𝔮)`$ and its Fock vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In Section 4 we will systematically analyze the context defined by two projections: the first one being the orthoprojection $`Q`$ onto $`𝔮`$ and the other one being the basis projection $`P`$. The main goal here is to relate the objects that appear in the polar decomposition of the mapping $`\phi `$ and of the Tomita operator $`S`$ corresponding to $`((𝔮),\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and restricted to the one-particle space $`𝔭`$. On the way to this goal we will give simple formulas for the graphs of $`\phi ^{}\phi `$ and the modular operator which show a beautiful symmetry w.r.t. the interchange $`PQ`$ (cf. Theorem 4.12 and Proposition 4.13). These results will be applied in the next section where (1) is proved in the case where $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position. In Section 6 the relation of the self-dual approach to the real subspace approaches in  are pointed out. In the last section we give a complete proof of (1) in the most general situation, i.e. for any $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant closed subspace $`𝔮`$ and any Fock state. The proof is based on the results of the previous two sections.

## 2 Basic structure of the CAR-Algebra

In order to establish our notation we will begin this section collecting some standard results concerning the CAR-Algebra that will be needed later on. For proofs and further results we refer to . In the following subsections we will also consider additional structure of this algebra necessary for our proof of twisted duality.

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`𝔥`$ be a complex Hilbert space with scalar product $`,`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be an anti-unitary involution on it, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }f,\mathrm{\Gamma }h=h,f`$, for all $`f,h𝔥`$. Then CAR$`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ denotes the algebraically unique C\*-algebra generated by $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$ and $`a(f)`$, $`f𝔥`$, such that the following relations hold:

1. The mapping $`𝔥fa(f)`$ is antilinear.
2. For any $`f𝔥`$ one has $`a(f)^{}=a(\mathrm{\Gamma }f)`$.
3. For any $`f,h𝔥`$ the equation $`a(f)a(h)^{}+a(h)^{}a(f)=f,h\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}`$ holds.

Next we define a class of pure states of the preceding C\*-algebra. An orthoprojection $`P`$ of $`𝔥`$ is called a basis projection if it satisfies the relation $`P+\mathrm{\Gamma }P\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{𝟙}`$. These projections uniquely characterize so-called Fock states $`\omega _P`$ by means of the equation

$$\omega _P\left(a(f)^{}a(f)\right):=0\text{for any}f𝔥\text{with}Pf=f.$$
(2)
The antisymmetric Fock space is given by

$$𝔉:=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\stackrel{n}{}P𝔥\right).$$
(3)
In order to specify the Fock representation $`\pi (a(f))`$ of the generators $`a(f)`$ we need to introduce the usual annihilation and creation operators on $`𝔉`$.

$`c(p)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`:=`$ $`0,`$
$`c(p)(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{r1}p,p_r_𝔥p_1\mathrm{}\widehat{p}_r\mathrm{}p_n,`$
$`c(p)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $`:=`$ $`p,`$
$`c(p)^{}(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)`$ $`:=`$ $`pp_1\mathrm{}p_n,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Fock vacuum in the subspace corresponding to $`n=0`$ in the definition (3) and $`p,p_1,\mathrm{},p_nP𝔥`$. $`\widehat{p}_r`$ means that the vector $`p_r`$ is omitted in the wedge product. Finally, the Fock representation $`\pi `$ is defined by

$$\pi (a(f)):=c(P\mathrm{\Gamma }f)^{}+c(Pf),f𝔥.$$

In the rest of the paper we assume that a basis projection $`P`$ is given and when no confusion arises we will also simply write $`a(f)`$ instead of $`\pi (a(f))`$. To prove twisted duality in Section 5 we will need an explicit formula for the vector $`a(f_n)\mathrm{}a(f_1)\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let $`n,k,p`$ be natural numbers with $`2p+k=n`$ and define the following subset of the symmetric group $`𝔖_n`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}𝔖_{n,p}:=\{\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}n& n1& \mathrm{}& n2p+2& n2p+1& k& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \alpha _1& \beta _1& \mathrm{}& \alpha _p& \beta _p& j_1& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right)𝔖_n\hfill \\ |\alpha _1>\mathrm{}>\alpha _p,\alpha _l>\beta _l,l=1,\mathrm{},p\text{and}nj_1>j_2>\mathrm{}j_k1\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`𝔖_{n,p}`$ contains $`\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p\end{array}\right){\displaystyle \frac{(2p)!}{p!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p}}`$ elements.

###### Proposition 2.2

For $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n𝔥`$ the equation

$$\left(a(f_n)\mathrm{}a(f_1)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n,p}\\ 02pn\end{array}}{}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi )\underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}Pf_{\alpha _l},P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{\beta _l}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_1}\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_k}$$

holds, where the indices $`\alpha _l,\beta _l,j_1,\mathrm{},j_k`$ are given in the definition of $`𝔖_{n,p}`$ and where for $`n=2p`$ in the preceding sum one replaces the wedge product by the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

Proof: See appendix.

Let $`Z`$ be the implementation on $`𝔉`$ of the even-oddness automorphism associated to the Bogoljubov unitarity $`\mathrm{𝟙}`$ \[4, p. 76\]. It satisfies $`Z=Z^{}=Z^1`$ and therefore its spectral decomposition is simply given by

$$Z=E^+E^{}.$$
(4)
Let further $`X=X_{\text{even}}+X_{\text{odd}}`$ be the unique decomposition of any $`X\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ into its even and odd parts. The following result will be used in Section 7.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`\pi `$ be a Fock representation of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`Z=E^+E^{}`$ as before. Then for any $`X\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ we have

$`E^+\pi (X_{\text{even}})E^{}`$ $`=`$ $`E^{}\pi (X_{\text{even}})E^+=0`$
$`E^+\pi (X_{\text{odd}})E^+`$ $`=`$ $`E^{}\pi (X_{\text{odd}})E^{}=0.`$
Proof: Recall that $`Z_0\pi (X_{\text{even}})=\pi (X_{\text{even}})Z_0`$. Multiplying from the left by $`E^+`$ and from the right by $`E^{}`$ we get

$$E^+\pi (X_{\text{even}})E^{}=E^+\pi (X_{\text{even}})E^{},$$

which implies the first two equations. Similarly we obtain the equations corresponding to the odd part.

### 2.1 Direct sums and tensor products

Let $`(𝔥_k,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$, $`k=0,1`$, be two Hilbert spaces with anti-unitary involutions and let $`P_k`$ be two basis projections for the corresponding spaces. We denote by $`\pi _k`$ the Fock representations of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥_k,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$ on the antisymmetric Fock spaces $`𝔉_k`$. $`Z_k`$ are the implementers of the respective even-oddness automorphisms, $`k=0,1`$. Motivated by \[14, p. 82\] (cf. also \[19, p. 219\]) we consider:

###### Proposition 2.4

With the preceding notation put $`𝔥:=𝔥_0𝔥_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ and consider $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The representations defined on $`𝔉_0𝔉_1`$ by

$`\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)`$ $`:=`$ $`\pi _0\left(a(f_0)\right)\mathrm{𝟙}+Z_0\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right)`$ (5)
$`\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)`$ $`:=`$ $`\pi _0\left(a(f_0)\right)Z_1+\mathrm{𝟙}\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right),f_k𝔥_k,k=0,1,`$ (6)
are the Fock representations of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ w.r.t. the basis projection $`P:=P_0P_1`$ on $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Further, the even-oddness automorphism of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ is implemented on $`𝔉_0𝔉_1`$ by $`Z:=Z_0Z_1`$.

Proof: We check first that the definition (5) is compatible with the algebraic structure of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. Indeed, for any $`f_k,h_k𝔥_k`$, $`k=0,1`$,

$$\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)^{}=\pi _0\left(a(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0f_0)\right)\mathrm{𝟙}+Z_0\pi _1\left(a(\mathrm{\Gamma }_1f_1)\right)=\pi \left(a(\mathrm{\Gamma }(f_0f_1))\right)$$

and

$`\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)\pi \left(a(h_0h_1)\right)^{}+\pi \left(a(h_0h_1)\right)^{}\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\pi _0\left(a(f_0)a(h_0)^{}\right)\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{𝟙}\pi _1\left(a(f_1)a(h_1)^{}\right)`$
$`+\pi _0\left(a(h_0)^{}a(f_0)\right)\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{𝟙}\pi _1\left(a(h_1)^{}a(f_1)\right)`$
$`+\underset{=0}{\underset{}{Z_0\pi _0\left(a(h_0)^{}\right)\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right)+\pi _0\left(a(h_0)^{}\right)Z_0\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right)}}`$
$`+\underset{=0}{\underset{}{Z_0\pi _0\left(a(f_0)\right)\pi _1\left(a(h_1)^{}\right)+\pi _0\left(a(f_0)\right)Z_0\pi _1\left(a(h_1)^{}\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`f_0f_1,h_0h_1\mathbb{\hspace{0.17em}1}\mathrm{𝟙}.`$
Consider next the vector state associated to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ are the Fock vacua in $`𝔉_k`$, $`k=0,1`$. In this case we have

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1,\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)^{}\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$
$`=`$ $`\pi _0\left(a(f_0)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_0\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_1^2`$
$`=`$ $`P_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_0f_0^2+P_1\mathrm{\Gamma }_1f_1^2=(\mathrm{𝟙}P)(f_0f_1)^2.`$
Thus by the uniqueness of the characterizing condition (2) of a Fock state, together with the fact that the vectors $`\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, $`f_k𝔥_k`$, generate the whole space $`𝔉_0𝔉_1`$, we have that $`\pi `$ is actually the Fock representation of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ w.r.t. the basis projection $`P`$ with Fock vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$.

We still need to show that $`Z_0Z_1`$ implements the even-oddness automorphism of $`\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on $`𝔉_0𝔉_1`$. Note that $`\alpha :=\mathrm{ad}(Z_0Z_1)`$ satisfies $`\alpha ^2=\mathrm{id}`$ and it is enough to consider the action of $`\alpha `$ on the generators:

$$(Z_0Z_1)\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right)(Z_0Z_1)=Z_0\pi _0\left(a(f_0)\right)Z_0Z_1^2+Z_0^3Z_1\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right)Z_1=\pi \left(a(f_0f_1)\right).$$

Eq. (6) is shown similarly.

###### Corollary 2.5

For $`X_0\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥_0,\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)`$ and $`X_1=X_{1,\text{even}}+X_{1,\text{odd}}\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥_1,\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)`$ we have

$`\pi (X_0)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi _0(X_0)\mathrm{𝟙}\mathrm{and}`$
$`\pi (X_1)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟙}\pi _1(X_{1,\text{even}})+Z_0\pi _1(X_{1,\text{odd}})`$
$`=`$ $`E_0^+\pi _1(X_1)+E_0^{}Z_1\pi _1(X_{1,\text{odd}})Z_1,`$
where $`Z_0=E_0^+E_0^{}`$.

### 2.2 The subspace $`𝔮`$ and twisted causality

Let $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be as in Theorem 2.1 and denote by $`𝔮`$ a closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace of $`𝔥`$. We can naturally associate with the subspace $`𝔮`$ a von Neumann algebra that acts on the antisymmetric Fock space characterized by the basis projection $`P`$:

$$(𝔮):=\left(\{a(q)q𝔮\}\right)^{\prime \prime }(𝔉).$$
(7)
In order to be able to formulate causality or duality in the context of the CAR-Algebra it is necessary to introduce a so-called twist operator $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ on $`𝔉`$. Indeed, this operator allows to express orthogonality relations of subspaces of $`𝔥`$ in terms of the commutant of a suitable von Neumann algebra. Recalling the definition of $`Z`$ before Eq. (4) we define the twist operator as usual \[10, Eq. (26)\]

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}:=\frac{1}{1+i}(\mathrm{𝟙}+iZ)\mathrm{and}\stackrel{~}{Z}a(f)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}=iZa(f),f𝔥.$$
(8)
Putting

$$\eta (n):=\{\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1,& \text{if}\hfill & n& \text{even},\hfill \\ \hfill i,& \text{if}\hfill & n& \text{odd},\hfill \end{array}$$

we may describe the action of $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ on $`𝔉`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)=\eta (n)p_1\mathrm{}p_n`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)=\overline{\eta (n)}p_1\mathrm{}p_n`$. Further, considering the spectral projections $`E^\pm `$ of $`Z`$ we also have the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{Z}=E^+iE^{}.$$
(9)
The algebra $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ is usually called ‘twisted’ algebra. It is now immediate to check the following inclusion, which expresses the twisted causality property in the present context.

###### Proposition 2.6

Let $`𝔮`$ be a closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace of $`𝔥`$ as before. Then the inclusion $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}(𝔮)^{}`$ holds.

###### Remark 2.7

Twisted duality strengthens this relation by turning the preceding inclusion into an equality for any closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace $`𝔮`$ of $`𝔥`$.

###### Remark 2.8

Writing now explicitly the Fock representation and considering Eq. (8) as well as the even-odd grading of the CAR-Algebra we have the following ways of generating the twisted von Neumann algebra:

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{Z\pi (a(q^{}))q^{}𝔮^{}\}^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=`$ $`\{\pi (Y_{\text{even}})+iZ\pi (Y_{\text{odd}}))Y=Y_{\text{even}}+Y_{\text{odd}}\mathrm{CAR}(𝔮^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }𝔮^{})\}^{\prime \prime }.`$
## 3 The Halmos decomposition of a Hilbert space

From the preceding subsection we see that to formulate the duality property in the present context one needs to distinguish two closed subspaces of the reference space $`𝔥`$: the subspace $`𝔭`$ (one-particle Hilbert space) which is given by the basis projection $`P`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace $`𝔮`$ to which we associate the orthoprojection $`Q`$. Therefore it is natural to consider the Halmos decomposition  of $`𝔥`$ w.r.t. $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$, which is given by

$$𝔥=𝔥_0𝔥_1,$$
(10)
where $`𝔥_0=(𝔭𝔮)(𝔭𝔮^{})(𝔭^{}𝔮)(𝔭^{}𝔮^{})`$ and $`𝔥_1=𝔥𝔥_0`$. $`𝔥_0`$ is actually the maximal subspace where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ commute \[11, Section III\]. In $`𝔥_1`$ the subspaces $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are said to be in generic position , in the sense that the preceding four mutual intersections of the subspaces $`𝔭`$, $`𝔮`$, $`𝔭^{}`$ and $`𝔮^{}`$ are equal to $`\{0\}`$.

In the present context the decomposition (10) is also natural because it allows to separate the general situation into simpler ‘pieces’ on $`𝔥_0`$ and $`𝔥_1`$:

###### Lemma 3.1

Consider $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ and $`P`$,$`Q`$ as before. Let further $`R_0`$ be the orthoprojection onto the subspace $`𝔥_0`$ in (10). Then we have

$$R_0P=PR_0,R_0Q=QR_0\mathrm{and}R_0\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0.$$

Proof: The first two equations are clear from the form of $`𝔥_0`$ given after (10) and recall that $`R_0`$ is the maximal orthoprojection with the property $`R_0PQ=R_0QP`$. Now from

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0\mathrm{\Gamma }PQ=\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0(\mathrm{𝟙}P)Q\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0\mathrm{\Gamma }QP$$

and the maximality of $`R_0`$ we must have $`\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0`$. Finally, from the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariance of $`𝔥`$ and since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\mathrm{𝟙}`$ we get $`R_0\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }R_0`$.

###### Remark 3.2

The preceding result allows to consider the following restrictions:

$$P_k:=P𝔥_k,Q_k:=Q𝔥_k,\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_k:=\mathrm{\Gamma }𝔥_k,k=0,1.$$

Further, $`P_k`$ is a basis projection on $`(𝔥_k,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$ characterizing the Fock representation $`\pi _k`$ of CAR$`(𝔥_k,\mathrm{\Gamma }_k)`$, $`k=0,1`$. This possibility to split off the general situation in an abelian piece and a generic position piece will be essential for the proof of our main theorem in Section 7. In this context we will need to split again the abelian part as $`𝔥_0=𝔥_{01}𝔥_{02}`$, where $`𝔥_{01}:=(𝔭𝔮^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔭𝔮^{})`$ and $`𝔥_{02}:=(𝔭𝔮)\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔭𝔮)`$.

### 3.1 Modular theory

Let $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`P`$ and $`𝔮`$ be given as in Subsection 2.2 and denote by $`𝔭:=P𝔥`$ the corresponding one-particle Hilbert space. We will give in this subsection necessary and sufficient conditions on the subspaces $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ in order that the Fock vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ becomes a cyclic and separating vector for the von Neumann algebra $`(𝔮)`$ (cf. \[19, p. 234\]). We will see that in the case where the subspaces $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position we can use the results in modular theory  for the pair $`((𝔮),\mathrm{\Omega })`$. These techniques will be essentially used in the next two sections for the proof of the twisted duality property in the generic position context.

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $`𝔮𝔥`$ be a closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

* $`q𝔮`$ and $`Pq=0`$ implies $`q=0`$.
* $`P(𝔮^{})`$ is a dense submanifold of $`𝔭`$.
* $`𝔮𝔭=\{0\}`$.

Proof: To show (iii)$``$(i) take $`q𝔮`$ with $`Pq=0`$. From $`\mathrm{\Gamma }P\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{𝟙}P`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariance of $`𝔮`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }q𝔮𝔭=\{0\}`$, thus $`q=0`$. The other implications (i)$``$(ii)$``$(iii) are checked similarly.

###### Proposition 3.4

Let $`𝔮`$ be a closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace of $`𝔥`$ as before. Then we have:

* The vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝔮)`$ iff $`P𝔮`$ is a dense submanifold of $`𝔭`$.
* The vacuum vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is separating for $`(𝔮)`$ iff $`P(𝔮^{})`$ is a dense submanifold of $`𝔭`$.

Proof: (i) We assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝔮)`$ and let $`p𝔭`$ be a vector satisfying $`pP𝔮`$. From this, from Proposition 2.2 and from the structure of the Fock space $`𝔉`$ (recall Eq. (3)) we have

$`p`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{span}\{a(q_1)\mathrm{}a(q_n)\mathrm{\Omega }q_1,\mathrm{}q_n𝔮,n\mathrm{}\}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$
$`p`$ $``$ $`\{A\mathrm{\Omega }A(𝔮)\}.`$
Now since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝔮)`$ we must have $`p=0`$.

Assume now that $`P𝔮𝔭`$ is a dense submanifold, so that $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\stackrel{n}{}P𝔮\right)𝔉`$ is also dense (here $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}`$ denotes the algebraic direct sum). From Proposition 2.2 we obtain the inclusions

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\stackrel{n}{}P𝔮\right)(𝔮)\mathrm{\Omega }𝔉,$$

which imply that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝔮)`$.

(ii) Suppose now that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a separating vector for $`(𝔮)`$. We show that this implies part (i) of Lemma 3.3. So, let $`q𝔮`$ satisfy $`Pq=0`$. Since $`0=Pq=a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q)\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is separating for $`(𝔮)`$ we must have $`a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q)=0`$, which implies $`q=0`$.

Finally, assume that $`P(𝔮^{})`$ is a dense submanifold of $`𝔭`$. By part (i) of the present theorem applied to $`𝔮^{}`$, which is also $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant, we know that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is cyclic for $`(𝔮^{})`$. Further, since $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }`$ we have that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is also cyclic for $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ and consequently by Proposition 2.6 also for $`(𝔮)^{}\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$. This shows that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is separating for $`(𝔮)`$.

By the preceding result we know that if $`𝔮`$ is a closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace of $`𝔥`$ where $`P𝔮`$ as well as $`P(𝔮^{})`$ are dense submanifolds of $`𝔭`$, then the modular theory is well-defined for the pairs $`((𝔮),\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`((𝔮^{}),\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Denote by $`S`$ and $`T`$ the Tomita operators corresponding to these pairs respectively. We will next study their action on the submanifolds $`P𝔮`$ and $`P(𝔮^{})`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

With the preceding notation we have for $`q𝔮`$ and $`q^{}𝔮^{}`$:

* $`S(Pq)=P\mathrm{\Gamma }q`$.
* $`T(Pq^{})=P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{}=S^{}(Pq^{})`$.

Proof: The first two equations follow by direct computation:

$$S(Pq)=S\left(a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q)\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q)^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=a(q)\mathrm{\Omega }=P\mathrm{\Gamma }q,$$

and similarly for $`T`$. To prove the last equation recall that $`S^{}`$ is actually the Tomita operator of $`(𝔮)^{}\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$. Note further that

$$i\left(\stackrel{~}{Z}a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }=i\stackrel{~}{Z}a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})\mathrm{\Omega }=i\left(\frac{1i}{1+i}\right)Pq^{}=Pq^{}.$$

From this we can finally check,

$$S^{}(Pq^{})=iS^{}\left(\stackrel{~}{Z}a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }\right)=i\stackrel{~}{Z}a(q^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }=P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{}=T(Pq^{}),$$

and the proof is concluded.

## 4 Pairs of projections in generic position and the mapping $`\phi `$

In this section we will consider the mathematically richest situation which appears when the closed subspaces $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position. Let $`P`$ and $`Q`$ be the corresponding orthoprojections satisfying as usual the relations $`\mathrm{\Gamma }P\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{𝟙}P=P^{}`$ and $`Q\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }Q`$. Motivated by Proposition 3.4 we will also assume here that

$$𝔭𝔮=\{0\}=𝔭𝔮^{},\text{where}𝔭:=P𝔥,$$
(11)
which directly implies using the basis projection property:

$$𝔭^{}𝔮=\{0\}=𝔭^{}𝔮^{},\text{where}𝔭^{}=P^{}𝔥.$$
(12)
Thus in the notation of Section 3 we have the extremal case where $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are already in generic position and the Halmos decomposition (10) is trivial in the sense that $`𝔥_0=\{0\}`$.

Note that the properties like $`𝔭𝔮=\{0\}`$ can be also expressed by the corresponding projections $`P`$ and $`Q`$, because the orthoprojection onto the intersection $`𝔭𝔮`$ is given by

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}lim}(PQ)^n=\underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}lim}(QP)^n.$$

Note further that by Lemma 3.3 the intersection assumptions in (11) are equivalent to the density conditions in Proposition 3.4.

###### Remark 4.1

The following useful density statements are immediate consequences of the assumption that $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position. If $`𝔯𝔮`$ (or $`𝔯𝔮^{}`$) is a dense linear submanifold in $`𝔮`$ (resp. in $`𝔮^{}`$), then $`P𝔯`$ is dense in $`𝔭`$ and $`P^{}𝔯`$ is dense in $`𝔭^{}`$. The same holds if $`Q`$ and $`P`$ are interchanged. Thus we have for example that $`Q𝔭^{}`$ is dense in $`𝔮`$, $`PQ𝔭`$ is dense in $`𝔭`$ etc.

We will begin next a systematic analysis of a mapping $`\phi `$ that can be naturally defined in the present context. Put

$`_\phi `$ $`:=`$ $`\{(q,q^{})𝔮\times 𝔮^{}P^{}(q+q^{})=0\}`$
$`_\rho `$ $`:=`$ $`\{(q,q^{})𝔮\times 𝔮^{}Pq=Pq^{}\}.`$
###### Lemma 4.2

The sets $`_\phi `$ and $`_\rho `$ are graphs of linear, injective and closed mappings $`\phi ,\rho :𝔮𝔮^{}`$ with dense domains and dense images. The graphs $`\mathrm{gra}\phi =_\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{gra}\rho =_\rho `$ can be parametrized by $`𝔭`$ resp. $`𝔭^{}`$ as

$`\mathrm{gra}\phi `$ $`:=`$ $`\{(Qp,Q^{}p)p𝔭\}`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{gra}\rho `$ $`:=`$ $`\{(Qp^{},Q^{}p^{})p^{}𝔭^{}\},`$
where the domains and images are given explicitly. Moreover, the equation $`\rho ^1=\phi ^{}`$ holds.

Proof: We consider first the mapping $`\phi `$ and one can similarly argue for $`\rho `$. First note that the assignment $`\phi (q):=q^{}`$ if $`P^{}(q+q^{})=0`$ is a well-defined linear map. Indeed, if $`(q,q_1^{})_\phi (q,q_2^{})`$, then $`q_1^{}=q_2^{}`$, because in this case $`q_1^{}q_2^{}𝔮^{}𝔭=\{0\}`$. Injectivity is proved analogously.

Next we show Eq. (13). Let $`𝔭p=Qp+Q^{}p`$, so that $`P^{}(Qp+Q^{}p)=0`$ and we have $`Q𝔭\mathrm{dom}\phi `$ as well as $`Q^{}𝔭\mathrm{ima}\phi `$. To show the reverse inclusions take $`q_0\mathrm{dom}\phi `$, i.e. $`P^{}(q_0+q_0^{})=0`$ for some $`q_0^{}𝔮^{}`$. But this implies that $`q_0=Q(q_0+q_0^{})Q𝔭`$ and $`q_0^{}=Q^{}(q_0+q_0^{})Q^{}𝔭`$ and Eq. (13) is proved. Note that by the preceding remark the domain and image of $`\phi `$ are dense in $`𝔮`$ resp. $`𝔮^{}`$ and it is easy to see that $`\mathrm{gra}\phi `$ is closed.

Finally, it remains to show that $`\rho ^1=\phi ^{}`$. Recall first that

$$\mathrm{gra}\rho ^1=\{(Q^{}p^{},Qp^{})p^{}𝔭^{}\}.$$

Using the isometric mapping $`U:𝔮\times 𝔮^{}𝔮^{}\times 𝔮`$ given by $`U(q,q^{}):=(q^{},q)`$ we may use the well known formula (see \[1, p. 124\])

$$\mathrm{gra}\phi ^{}=(𝔮^{}\times 𝔮)U(\mathrm{gra}\phi ).$$

Therefore $`(q^{},q)\mathrm{gra}\phi ^{}`$ iff $`(q^{},q),(Q^{}p,Qp)=0`$ for all $`p𝔭`$ iff $`q^{},p=q,p`$ for all $`p𝔭`$ iff $`p^{}:=q^{}q𝔭^{}`$ iff $`(q^{},q)\mathrm{gra}\rho ^1`$.

###### Remark 4.3

Note that the preceding lemma depends only on the assumption that $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are in generic position (the different role of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ w.r.t. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, i.e. $`Q\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }Q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }P\mathrm{\Gamma }=P^{}`$, is not used). This means that the preceding lemma remains true if we do the following replacements

$$QP\mathrm{and}PQ^{}.$$

Then we obtain:

###### Corollary 4.4

Put

$$_\lambda :=\{(p,p^{})𝔭\times 𝔭^{}Q^{}p=Q^{}p^{}\}.$$

Then $`_\lambda `$ is the graph of a linear injective closed mapping $`\lambda :𝔭𝔭^{}`$ with dense domain and image. $`\mathrm{gra}\lambda `$ can be parametrized by $`𝔮`$:

$$\mathrm{gra}\lambda =\{(Pq,P^{}q)q𝔮\}.$$

The parametrization of $`\phi `$ and $`\rho `$ in terms of $`𝔭`$ resp. $`𝔭^{}`$ suggests to consider the following mappings:

$`Q:`$ $`𝔭^{}𝔮`$ (14)
$`Q^{}:`$ $`𝔭^{}𝔮^{}`$ (15)
$`Q:`$ $`𝔭𝔮`$ (16)
$`Q^{}:`$ $`𝔭𝔮^{},`$ (17)
where the first two are related to $`\rho `$ and the last two are related to $`\phi `$. For example, the parametrization of $`\rho `$ in terms of $`𝔭^{}`$ means that $`\rho `$ can be seen as the composition of the following mappings:

$$QP^{}𝔥P^{}𝔥Q^{}P^{}𝔥.$$

Later we will also need to consider the mappings

$`P:`$ $`𝔮^{}𝔭`$ (18)
$`P:`$ $`𝔮𝔭.`$ (19)
Due to the fact that $`𝔮`$ and $`𝔭`$ are in generic position the mappings (14)-(19) are bounded, injective and their images are dense in the corresponding final subspaces.

We will next give a criterion for the bicontinuity of the mappings (14)-(19). First note that because $`P`$ is a basis projection

$$PQ=QP=(\mathrm{𝟙}P)Q=Q(\mathrm{𝟙}P)=:\delta $$

and $`0<\delta 1`$. So we can distinguish between the two cases: $`\delta <1`$ and $`\delta =1`$.

###### Proposition 4.5

Let $`P,Q`$ and $`\delta `$ given as before. If $`\delta <1`$, then the mappings (14)-(19) are bicontinuous, in particular their images coincide with the corresponding final spaces. Moreover, the relations

$$PQ=(\mathrm{𝟙}Q)P=(\mathrm{𝟙}Q)(\mathrm{𝟙}P)=\delta $$

hold.

Proof: This result is a special case of Theorem 6.34 in \[26, p. 56\]. Note that the second alternative stated in Kato’s result cannot appear in the present situation, as a consequence of the fact that $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position.

###### Remark 4.6

This situation corresponds to the case where the index of $`P`$ and $`Q`$ is 0 (cf. \[6, Theorem 3.3\]).

###### Proposition 4.7

Let $`P,Q`$ and $`\delta `$ given as before. If $`\delta =1`$, then the inverse mappings of (14)-(19) are unbounded and densely defined, i.e. the images of (14)-(19) are nontrivial proper dense sets in the corresponding final subspaces.

Proof: We will only show the assertion for the mapping (19), since one can easily adapt the following arguments to the other cases. Put $`A:=QP^{}Q𝔮(𝔮)`$, so that $`A=A^{}`$ and $`A0`$. From

$$\mathrm{spr}A=A=QP^{}P^{}Q=P^{}Q^2=\delta ^2=1$$

we obtain $`1\mathrm{spec}A`$. However, $`1`$ is not an eigenvalue of $`A`$, because $`Aq=q`$, $`q𝔮`$, implies $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{s}lim}(QP)^nq=q`$ and this means $`q𝔮𝔭^{}=\{0\}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{𝟙}_𝔮A)=\{0\}`$ or $`(\mathrm{𝟙}_𝔮A)^1`$ exists and is unbounded since $`1\mathrm{res}A`$. Therefore $`\vartheta :=\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{𝟙}_𝔮A)^1`$ is a proper dense subset in $`𝔮`$ and this means $`\mathrm{ima}(\mathrm{𝟙}_𝔮A)=\vartheta =\mathrm{ima}(QQP^{}Q)=\mathrm{ima}(QPQ)`$. Finally, from the polar decomposition of $`PQ`$,

$$PQ=\mathrm{sgn}(PQ)(QPQ)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$

we have that $`\mathrm{sgn}(PQ)`$ maps $`\mathrm{ima}(QPQ)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ isometrically onto $`\mathrm{ima}(PQ)=P𝔮`$. Thus $`P𝔮`$ is a proper dense set in $`𝔭`$, i.e. $`P:𝔮𝔭`$ is unbounded invertible.

###### Remark 4.8

(i) Note that if $`\mathrm{dim}𝔥<\mathrm{}`$, then the case $`PQ=1`$ is not possible, since the corresponding operators can not have continuous spectrum. It is easy to show that in this case $`𝔭𝔮=\{0\}`$ iff $`PQ<1`$.

(ii) Note also that $`(\mathrm{𝟙}P)Q=1`$ implies $`(\mathrm{𝟙}Q)P=1`$, because otherwise by Proposition 4.5 $`(\mathrm{𝟙}Q)P<1`$ implies $`(\mathrm{𝟙}P)Q<1`$.

###### Proposition 4.9

Let the projections $`P,Q`$ and the mappings $`\phi ,\rho `$ be given as before. Then $`\phi ,\rho :𝔮𝔮^{}`$ are bicontinuous iff $`PQ<1`$.

Proof: Suppose that $`PQ<1`$, so that by Proposition 4.5 we have that the mappings (14)-(19) are bicontinuous. But as mentioned before we know that $`\phi `$ as well as $`\rho `$ can be seen as composition of the mappings

$`\phi :`$ $`QP𝔥P𝔥Q^{}P𝔥`$
$`\rho :`$ $`QP^{}𝔥P^{}𝔥Q^{}P^{}𝔥,`$
hence they must be bicontinuous.

In the case that $`\rho `$ and $`\phi `$ are bicontinuous, then $`\mathrm{dom}\rho =\mathrm{dom}\phi =𝔮`$ and $`\mathrm{ima}\rho =\mathrm{ima}\phi =𝔮^{}`$. Finally, Proposition 4.7 implies $`PQ<1`$.

Motivated by Lemma 3.5 we will analyze next the antilinear mappings defined by the following graphs:

$`\mathrm{gra}\beta `$ $`:=`$ $`\{(Pq,P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)𝔭\times 𝔭q𝔮\}`$
$`\mathrm{gra}\alpha `$ $`:=`$ $`\{(Pq^{},P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})𝔭\times 𝔭q^{}𝔮^{}\}.`$
(Note that the r.h.s. of the preceding equations define indeed graphs of antilinear mappings, because the assignments $`qPq`$ and $`q^{}Pq^{}`$ are injective.)

###### Lemma 4.10

The mappings $`\alpha ,\beta `$ defined by the preceding graphs are anti-linear, injective and closed with dense domains and images $`\mathrm{dom}\alpha =\mathrm{ima}\alpha =P(𝔮^{})`$, $`\mathrm{dom}\beta =\mathrm{ima}\beta =P𝔮`$. Further, we have $`\alpha ^2=\mathrm{id}`$, $`\beta ^2=\mathrm{id}`$ on $`P(𝔮^{})`$ resp. $`P𝔮`$ and $`\alpha =\beta ^{}`$.

Proof: We will only prove the last equation, because the other statements follow immediately from the definition. Now by definition we have $`(p_0,p_1)\mathrm{gra}\beta ^{}`$ iff $`p_0,P\mathrm{\Gamma }q=Pq,p_1`$ for all $`q𝔮`$ iff $`q^{}:=p_0\mathrm{\Gamma }p_1𝔮^{}`$ iff $`(p_0,p_1)\mathrm{gra}\alpha `$.

###### Remark 4.11

(i) Recall Subsection 3.1 and denote by $`S`$ the Tomita operator associated to $`((𝔮),\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then from the preceding result we have $`S𝔭\beta `$ and $`S^{}𝔭\alpha `$.

(ii) Using the mappings (18) and (19) we can now state similarly as in Proposition 4.9 a criterion for the bicontinuity of $`\alpha ,\beta `$: the mappings $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are bicontinuous iff $`PQ<1`$.

We introduce next the notation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭:=\beta ^{}\beta ,$$

since it will later turn out that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$ is actually the modular operator restricted to the one-particle Hilbert space $`𝔭`$.

###### Theorem 4.12

The mapping $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭:𝔭𝔭`$ is a densely defined linear positive self-adjoint operator on $`𝔭`$ with graph

$$\mathrm{gra}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭=\{(PQp,PQ^{}p)p𝔭\}.$$

Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^1=\beta \beta ^{}=\alpha ^{}\alpha `$.

Proof: We will compute first the domain of $`\beta ^{}\beta `$. Recalling that $`\beta ^{}=\alpha `$ we have

$`\mathrm{dom}(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)`$ $`=`$ $`\{Pqq𝔮\mathrm{and}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q\mathrm{dom}\alpha =P(𝔮^{})\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{Pqq𝔮\mathrm{and}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q=Pq^{}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}q^{}𝔮^{}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{Pqq𝔮\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }q\mathrm{dom}\rho =Q(𝔭^{})\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{Pqq𝔮\mathrm{and}q\mathrm{\Gamma }Q(𝔭^{})=Q(\mathrm{\Gamma }𝔭^{})=Q𝔭\}`$
$`=`$ $`PQ𝔭=PQP𝔥,`$
which is dense in $`𝔭`$. Furthermore, since $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }Qp=PQ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }p`$, $`p𝔭`$ (recall $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }p=0`$, $`p𝔭`$), we have

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQp)=\alpha \left(P\mathrm{\Gamma }Qp\right)=\alpha \left(PQ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }p\right)=P\mathrm{\Gamma }Q^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }p=PQ^{}p,p𝔭.$$

The last equations concerning the inverse of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$ follow from the preceding computation and from the fact that $`\alpha ^2=\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\beta ^2=\mathrm{id}`$ on the corresponding domains (recall Lemma 4.10).

Note that $`\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭=PQ𝔭`$ is dense in $`𝔭`$ and that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}=|\alpha |`$ hence $`\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}=P(𝔮^{})`$. Next we will calculate the graph of the positive self-adjoint operator $`\phi ^{}\phi :𝔮𝔮`$.

###### Proposition 4.13

The graph of $`\phi ^{}\phi `$ is given by

$$\mathrm{gra}\phi ^{}\phi =\{(QPq,QP^{}q)q𝔮\}.$$

Proof: We begin computing $`\mathrm{dom}(\phi ^{}\phi )`$. Since by Lemma 4.2 $`\phi ^{}=\rho ^1`$ we have

$`\mathrm{dom}(\phi ^{}\phi )`$ $`=`$ $`\{Qpp𝔭\mathrm{and}Q^{}p\mathrm{dom}\rho ^1=Q^{}𝔭^{}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{Qpp𝔭\mathrm{and}Q^{}p=Q^{}p^{}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}p^{}𝔭^{}\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{Qpp=Pq\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}q𝔮\}`$
$`=`$ $`QP𝔮=QPQ𝔥,`$
where for the third equation we have used Corollary 4.4. Using again this corollary we can calculate

$$\rho ^1\left(\phi (QPq)\right)=\rho ^1(Q^{}Pq)=\rho ^1\left(Q^{}(P^{}q)\right)=QP^{}q,q𝔮,$$

and the proof is concluded.

Now we can relate $`\phi `$ and $`\phi ^{}\phi `$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$ just computing the orthogonal decomposition of $`\phi (q)`$, $`q\mathrm{dom}\phi `$, resp. $`\phi ^{}\phi (q)`$, $`q\mathrm{dom}\phi ^{}\phi `$, w.r.t. $`𝔥=𝔭𝔭^{}`$.

###### Corollary 4.14

Using the notation before we have the following formulas:

$`\phi (Qp)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQp)P^{}Qp,p𝔭,`$ (20)
$`\left(\phi ^{}\phi \right)(QPq)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQPq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^1(P\mathrm{\Gamma }QPq),q𝔮.`$
Proof: From Lemma 4.2 as well as Theorem 4.12 we have

$$\phi (Qp)=Q^{}p=PQ^{}p+P^{}Q^{}p=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQp)P^{}Qp,p𝔭.$$

Further, from the preceding proposition we also have for any $`q𝔮`$

$`\left(\phi ^{}\phi \right)(QPq)`$ $`=`$ $`QP^{}q=PQP^{}q+P^{}QP^{}q`$
$`=`$ $`PQ^{}Pq+\mathrm{\Gamma }PQP\mathrm{\Gamma }q`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQPq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^1(PQ^{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQPq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^1(PQP^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }q)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(PQPq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^1(P\mathrm{\Gamma }QPq),`$
which proves the second formula.

We will give next two formulas in terms of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ for the components of the polar decomposition of $`\phi `$. Denote $`\phi =\mathrm{sgn}\phi |\phi |`$, where as usual $`|\phi |:=(\phi ^{}\phi )^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Recall from the results in this section that

$`\mathrm{dom}\phi =\mathrm{dom}|\phi |=Q𝔭`$ $``$ $`QP𝔮=\mathrm{dom}(\phi ^{}\phi )`$
$`\mathrm{dom}\beta =\mathrm{dom}|\beta |=P𝔮`$ $``$ $`PQ𝔭=\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭.`$
###### Theorem 4.15

With the notation above we have:

$`|\phi |(q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(Pq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q),q\mathrm{dom}\phi ^{}\phi =QP𝔮,`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{sgn}\phi (q)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(Pq)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q),q𝔮.`$ (22)
Moreover $`\mathrm{sgn}\phi `$ is an isometry of $`𝔮`$ onto $`𝔮^{}`$, i.e. $`(\mathrm{sgn}\phi )^{}\mathrm{sgn}\phi =Q`$ and $`\mathrm{sgn}\phi (\mathrm{sgn}\phi )^{}=Q^{}`$.

Proof: From the explicit knowledge of all the domains of the mappings used before it is easily seen that the formulas are well-defined. Further, recall Proposition 4.13 and Corollary 4.14 and the fact that the two terms of the r.h.s. of the above formulas correspond to the decomposition of $`𝔥`$ in terms of $`P𝔥`$ and $`P^{}𝔥`$. Applying now for $`q\mathrm{dom}\phi ^{}\phi `$ twice the r.h.s. of (21) we get

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(Pq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)\right)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(Pq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(Pq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^1(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)=\left(\phi ^{}\phi \right)(q),`$
which shows the first formula. To prove the second one note first that for $`q^{}=|\phi |(q)`$, $`q\mathrm{dom}\phi ^{}\phi `$, and using Eq. (21) as well as Corollary 4.14 we obtain from a similar calculation as before that

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }\right)|\phi |(q^{})=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭PP^{}\right)(q^{})=\phi (q^{}).$$

Thus the r.h.s. and the l.h.s. of (22) coincide on the dense subspace $`\mathrm{ima}\phi ^{}\phi `$. Finally, the fact that the r.h.s. is also well defined for all $`q𝔮`$ (recall that $`\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}=\mathrm{dom}\beta =P𝔮`$) and that $`\mathrm{sgn}\phi `$ maps isometrically the dense subspace $`\mathrm{ima}|\phi |𝔮`$ onto the dense subspace $`\mathrm{ima}\phi =Q^{}𝔭𝔮^{}`$ proves formula (22). Therefore $`Q`$ is the initial projection of $`\mathrm{sgn}\phi `$ and $`Q^{}`$ is the corresponding final projection.

###### Remark 4.16

Recall that $`\mathrm{dom}\phi ^{}\phi `$ is a core for $`|\phi |`$ and note that the r.h.s. of formula (21) can not be extended to the whole $`\mathrm{dom}|\phi |`$.

Finally, we consider the mapping

$$𝔮qWq:=(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq𝔭.$$
(23)
###### Lemma 4.17

$`W`$ is an isometry from $`𝔮`$ onto $`𝔭`$.

Proof: First choose $`q_1,q_2Q𝔭`$ which is dense in $`𝔮`$. Now using

$$Pq_1,\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭(Pq_2)=Pq_1,\beta ^{}\beta (Pq_2)=\beta (Pq_2),\beta (Pq_1)=P^{}q_1,P^{}q_2$$

we obtain

$$(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq_1,(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq_2=Pq_1,(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)Pq_2=q_1,q_2,q_1,q_2Q𝔭.$$

Further, for any $`p𝔭`$ we have from Theorem 4.12 that $`(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)(PQp)=PQp+PQ^{}p=p`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{ima}(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}=𝔭`$, since

$$𝔭=\mathrm{ima}(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)\mathrm{ima}(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}𝔭.$$

Therefore (23) is the isometric extension of $`WQ𝔭`$.

Using now the isometry $`W`$ we conclude this section showing the unitary equivalence of $`|\phi |`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

###### Theorem 4.18

With the preceding notation we have

$$W|\phi |(q)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}W(q),q\mathrm{dom}|\phi |.$$

Proof: For any $`q\mathrm{dom}\phi ^{}\phi `$, which is a core of $`|\phi |`$, we may use (21) and in this case

$$W|\phi |(q)=(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}P\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(Pq)+\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)\right)=(\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(Pq)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}W(q).$$

But this implies that $`W|\phi |W^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and since the l.h.s. as well as the r.h.s. of the preceding inclusion are self-adjoint operators, we must actually have the equality $`W|\phi |W^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

## 5 Twisted duality. The generic position case

We begin the proof of twisted duality considering first one of the extremal cases that may appear in the Halmos decomposition (10). For this assume that $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are given as in the preceding section. In particular $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔮`$ are in generic position, so that by Proposition 3.4 the modular theory is well defined for the pair $`((𝔮),\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Denote as usual by $`S=J\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ the polar decomposition of the Tomita operator.

We prove first that the different modular objects leave the $`n`$-particle submanifolds $`\stackrel{n}{}(P𝔮)`$ invariant. This fact is well known in the context of CCR-algebras , where one can use the so-called exponential vectors which are specially well-adapted to the Weyl operators.

###### Proposition 5.1

Let $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n𝔮`$ and $`q_1^{},\mathrm{},q_n^{}𝔮^{}`$. Then the following equations hold

$`S(Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n)`$ $`=`$ $`P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_n\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_1=S(Pq_n)\mathrm{}S(Pq_1)`$
$`S^{}(Pq_1^{}\mathrm{}Pq_n^{})`$ $`=`$ $`S^{}(Pq_n^{})\mathrm{}S^{}(Pq_1^{})`$
Proof: The proof is done by induction on the number of vectors in the wedge product. For $`n=1`$ the above equations are trivially satisfied (cf. Lemma 3.5). We will now concentrate on the first formula since one can argue similarly for $`S^{}`$. Suppose that the first expression holds for a number of vectors $`n1`$. Then applying this induction hypothesis as well as Proposition 2.2 we get

$`S(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_n\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_1)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`S\left(a(q_n)\mathrm{}a(q_1)\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n,p}\\ p1\end{array}}{}}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}}Pq_{\alpha _l},P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_{\beta _l}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_{j_1}\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_{j_k}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q_1)\mathrm{}a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q_n)\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n,p}\\ p1\end{array}}{}}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_{\beta _l},Pq_{\alpha _l}Pq_{j_k}\mathrm{}Pq_{j_1}`$ (29)
and recall that the indices specified by $`\pi 𝔖_{n,p}`$ satisfy $`\alpha _1>\mathrm{}>\alpha _p`$, $`\alpha _l>\beta _l`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`nj_1>j_2>\mathrm{}>j_k1`$. But we can now apply again Proposition 2.2 to the first term of the preceding sum and we get

$$a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q_1)\mathrm{}a(\mathrm{\Gamma }q_n)\mathrm{\Omega }=Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n+\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi ^{}\\ p1\end{array}}{}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi ^{})\underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_{\alpha _l^{}},Pq_{\beta _l^{}}Pq_{j_1^{}}\mathrm{}Pq_{j_k^{}},$$
(30)
where now $`\pi ^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}1& 2& \mathrm{}& 2p1& 2p& nk+1& \mathrm{}& n\\ \alpha _1^{}& \beta _1^{}& \mathrm{}& \alpha _p^{}& \beta _p^{}& j_1^{}& \mathrm{}& j_k^{}\end{array}\right)`$ with $`\alpha _l^{}<\beta _l^{}`$, $`l=1,\mathrm{},p`$, $`1j_1^{}<j_2^{}<\mathrm{}<j_k^{}n`$ and we may reorganize the scalar products such that $`\beta _1^{}<\mathrm{}<\beta _p^{}`$. We can next associate bijectively these permutations with elements in $`𝔖_{n,p}`$ by means of

$$\pi ^{}\pi _0=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}n& n1& \mathrm{}& n2p+2& n2p+1& k& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \beta _p^{}& \alpha _p^{}& \mathrm{}& \beta _1^{}& \alpha _1^{}& j_k^{}& \mathrm{}& j_1^{}\end{array}\right)𝔖_{n,p}.$$

Since $`\mathrm{sgn}\pi ^{}=\mathrm{sgn}\pi _0^{}`$ we have inserting (30) in (29) that all vectors with particle number less than $`n`$ cancel so that

$$S(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_n\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q_1)=Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n$$

and the proof is concluded.

Recall from Remark 4.11 (i) $`S𝔭\beta `$ and $`S^{}𝔭\alpha `$. We will show next that actually the equality holds. Let $`P_n`$ denote the projection of $`𝔉`$ onto the $`n`$-particle subspace $`\stackrel{n}{}𝔭`$. Then the family of orthoprojections $`\{P_n\}_n\mathrm{}`$ is mutually orthogonal and $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}P_n=\mathrm{𝟙}_𝔉`$. Further we define the operator $`S_{\text{fin}}`$ by

$`\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ $`:=`$ $`\mathrm{span}\{a(q_1)\mathrm{}a(q_n)\mathrm{\Omega }q_1,\mathrm{},q_n𝔮,n\mathrm{}\{\mathrm{}\}\}`$
$`S_{\text{fin}}x`$ $`:=`$ $`Sx,x\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}.`$
###### Lemma 5.2

$`\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ is a core for the Tomita operator $`S`$.

Proof: Put $`𝒞:=\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ and denote by $`𝒜(𝔮)`$ the \*-algebra generated by $`\{a(q)q𝔮\}`$, so that $`(𝔮)=𝒜(𝔮)^{\prime \prime }`$. Further recall that if $`S_0(M\mathrm{\Omega }):=M^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`M(𝔮)`$, then the graph of the Tomita operator $`S=\mathrm{clo}S_0`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{gra}S=\mathrm{clo}_w(\mathrm{gra}S_0)=\mathrm{clo}_w\{(M\mathrm{\Omega },M^{}\mathrm{\Omega })M(𝔮)\},$$

where $`\mathrm{clo}_w`$ denotes the closure in the weak operator topology. Thus to prove the core property of $`𝒞`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{clo}(S𝒞)=S`$, we need to show that

$$\mathrm{clo}_w\{(M\mathrm{\Omega },M^{}\mathrm{\Omega })M(𝔮)\}=\mathrm{clo}_w\{(A\mathrm{\Omega },A^{}\mathrm{\Omega })A𝒜(𝔮)\}.$$

Now for each $`M(𝔮)`$ there exists a sequence $`\{A_n\}_n\mathrm{}𝒜(𝔮)`$ with $`|x,(MA_n)y|<ϵ`$ for all $`x,y𝔉`$ if $`n`$ is sufficiently large. This implies that for all $`(x,y)𝔉\times 𝔉`$, we have

$$\left|(M\mathrm{\Omega },M^{}\mathrm{\Omega }),(x,y)(A_n\mathrm{\Omega },A_n^{}\mathrm{\Omega }),(x,y)\right|=\left|(MA_n)\mathrm{\Omega },x(M^{}A_n^{})\mathrm{\Omega },y\right|2ϵ,$$

where we have used that in the weak operator topology if $`A_nM`$, then $`A_n^{}M^{}`$. Therefore if $`(M_l\mathrm{\Omega },M_l^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{l}{}(x_0,y_0)`$ weakly, then for each $`l`$ there exists a sequence $`\{A_{(n,l)}\}_n\mathrm{}𝒜(𝔮)`$ such that $`(A_{(n,l)}\mathrm{\Omega },A_{(n,l)}^{}\mathrm{\Omega })\stackrel{n}{}(M_l\mathrm{\Omega },M_l^{}\mathrm{\Omega })`$ weakly. Finally, the estimate

$`\left|(A_{(n,l)}\mathrm{\Omega },A_{(n,l)}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }),(x,y)(x_0,y_0),(x,y)\right|`$
$``$ $`\left|(A_{(n,l)}\mathrm{\Omega },A_{(n,l)}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }),(x,y)(M_l\mathrm{\Omega },M_l^{}\mathrm{\Omega }),(x,y)\right|`$
$`+\left|(M_l\mathrm{\Omega },M_l^{}\mathrm{\Omega }),(x,y)(x_0,y_0),(x,y)\right|`$
completes the proof.

From Propositions 5.1 and 2.2 we obtain further

$`P_n\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}},n=0,1,\mathrm{},`$
$`P_n\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ $``$ $`P_n𝔉\mathrm{is}\mathrm{dense},n=0,1,\mathrm{},`$
$`P_nS_{\text{fin}}P_n`$ $`=`$ $`S_{\text{fin}}P_n,n=0,1,\mathrm{}.`$
Note that for $`x\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ the series $`x=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}P_nx`$ is a finite sum. Further we consider the operators $`S_{\text{fin}}(n):P_n𝔉P_n𝔉`$ by $`\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}(n):=P_n\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}`$ and $`S_{\text{fin}}(n)x:=S_{\text{fin}}x,x\mathrm{dom}S_{\text{fin}}(n)`$. Recall from Lemma 4.10 that $`S_{\text{fin}}(1)=\beta `$ is a closed densely defined operator from $`𝔭=P_1𝔉`$ into $`𝔭`$ and by the preceding arguments we have

$$S_{\text{fin}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}S_{\text{fin}}(n)(\mathrm{algebraic}\mathrm{direct}\mathrm{sum}).$$
(31)
We can now state:

###### Proposition 5.3

The Tomita operator $`S`$ and its adjoint $`S^{}`$ can be restricted to the $`n`$-particles subspaces $`P_n𝔉`$. We have

$$SP_n𝔉=\mathrm{clo}S_{\text{fin}}(n)\mathrm{and}S^{}P_n𝔉=\mathrm{clo}S_{\text{fin}}^{}(n),n=0,1,\mathrm{}.$$

In particular $`S𝔭=\beta `$ and $`S^{}𝔭=\alpha `$.

Proof: From (31) we obtain immediately that

$$\mathrm{gra}S=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{clo}\mathrm{gra}S_{\text{fin}}(n)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{ð}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝕊}_{\text{fin}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\underset{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{ð}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝕊}_{\text{fin}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}$$
(32)
Note that $`\mathrm{clo}\mathrm{gra}S_{\text{fin}}(n)=\mathrm{gra}\mathrm{clo}S_{\text{fin}}(n)`$, $`n2`$ and that now the direct sum (32), in contrast to (31), is the Hilbert sum of these subspaces. Eq. (32) implies immediately the assertion that $`S`$ can be restricted to $`P_n𝔉`$ and that the restriction coincides with $`\mathrm{clo}S_{\text{fin}}(n)`$, in particular $`S𝔭=\beta `$. The statements concerning $`S^{}`$ are shown analogously.

###### Corollary 5.4

Let $`S=J\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ be the polar decomposition of the Tomita operator. The modular operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }=S^{}S`$ and the modular conjugation $`J`$ can be restricted to the respective $`n`$-particle subspaces. In particular we have:

* Modular operator: $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝔭=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$ (recall from the preceding section that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭=\beta ^{}\beta `$), $`\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }P_n𝔉=\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭p_1)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭p_n),p_1,\mathrm{},p_n\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭=PQ𝔭.$$
(33)
* Modular conjugation:

$$J(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)=(Jp_n)\mathrm{}(Jp_1),p_1,\mathrm{},p_n𝔭.$$
(34)

Proof: Note first that from Proposition 5.3 and Lemma 4.10 we have $`S^{}S𝔭=\alpha \beta =\beta ^{}\beta `$. Further Eq. (33) follows from Propositions 5.1 and 5.3. Next, applying formula (34) to the $`n`$-particle vectors $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)`$, where $`p_k:=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}p_k^{}`$, $`p_k^{}\mathrm{dom}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, we obtain $`S(p_1\mathrm{}p_n)`$. Thus Eq. (34) coincides with $`JP_n𝔉`$ on the dense set $`(\mathrm{ima}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{ima}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭)`$, which concludes the proof.

For the next definition recall the formulas concerning $`\mathrm{sgn}\phi `$ in Theorem 4.15.

###### Definition 5.5

Define the following anti-linear isometry from $`𝔮`$ onto $`𝔮^{}`$:

$$Vq:=i(\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{sgn}\phi )(q)=i\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq\right),q𝔮.$$

###### Theorem 5.6

With the preceding definition we have for any $`q𝔮`$

$$Ja(q)J=\stackrel{~}{Z}a(Vq)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}.$$
(35)
Proof: Since $`\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{n}{}P𝔮`$ (algebraic direct sum) is dense in $`𝔉`$ and the operators on both sides of Eq. (35) are bounded it is enough to show the preceding relation for the $`n`$-particle vectors in $`\stackrel{n}{}P𝔮`$. For $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_n𝔮`$ and using Corollary 5.4 (ii) the l.h.s. of the equation reads

$`\left(Ja(q)J\right)(Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n)`$
$`=`$ $`Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_nJP\mathrm{\Gamma }q+{\displaystyle \underset{r=n}{\overset{1}{}}}(1)^{nr}JPq,Pq_rPq_1\mathrm{}\widehat{Pq_r}\mathrm{}Pq_n.`$
To compute the r.h.s. recall the definition of the function $`\eta `$ in Subsection 2.2.

$`\left(\stackrel{~}{Z}a(Vq)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}\right)(Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n)`$
$`=`$ $`i\overline{\eta (n)}\stackrel{~}{Z}\left(c(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq)^{}Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n+c(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n\right)`$
$`=`$ $`Pq_1\mathrm{}Pq_n\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq+{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{nr}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}P\mathrm{\Gamma }q,Pq_rPq_1\mathrm{}\widehat{Pq_r}\mathrm{}Pq_n,`$
where for the last equation we have used that $`i\overline{\eta (n)}\eta (n+1)=i\overline{\eta (n)}\eta (n1)=(1)^{n+1}`$. Finally, the equality of both sides follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}Pq=JSPq=JP\mathrm{\Gamma }q`$, $`q𝔮`$.

###### Remark 5.7

As expected we can relate the mapping $`V`$ defined before with the mapping $`j`$ (the modular conjugation restricted to the one-particle Hilbert space) used in \[20, p. 738\]. Indeed, considering the projection onto the one-particle Hilbert space we have the relation

$$J(Pq)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}S(Pq)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q)=iPV(q),q𝔮.$$

###### Theorem 5.8

(Twisted Duality) Let $`(𝔮)`$ be the von Neumann algebra given at the beginning of this section. Then

$$(𝔮)^{}=\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}.$$

Proof: From the last theorem and using standard results in modular theory we have

$`(𝔮)^{}`$ $`=`$ $`J(𝔮)J=J\{a(q)q𝔮\}^{\prime \prime }J`$
$`=`$ $`\{Ja(q)Jq𝔮\}^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=`$ $`\{\stackrel{~}{Z}a(Vq)\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}q𝔮\}^{\prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{Z}\{a(Vq)q𝔮\}^{\prime \prime }\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{},`$
where we have used that $`V`$ is an anti-linear isometry from $`𝔮`$ onto $`𝔮^{}`$.

###### Remark 5.9

If one does not want to bother about domain questions, there is possibly an alternative way to show the preceding result. Indeed, one can first prove the statements in this section for finite dimensional subspaces $`𝔮_n`$ of $`𝔮`$ and then apply the AFD-property of $`(𝔮)`$ as in the proof of \[9, Theorem 15.1.3\].

We will finally show that the formulas established in the previous and present sections also apply to the localized algebras that appear in the context of fermionic free nets (cf. ). Let $`𝒪\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a double cone in Minkowski space and denote by $`\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}`$ the closure of the subspaces $`𝔮(𝒪)`$ of the reference Hilbert space $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$. The subspaces $`𝔮(𝒪)`$ are defined in terms of the embeddings that characterize the free nets (essentially Fourier transformation of $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions with compact support restricted to the positive mass shell/light cone). It is easily shown that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝔮(𝒪)=𝔮(𝒪)`$, hence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}=\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}`$. Further the localized C\*-algebras are again CAR-algebras, i.e.

$$𝒜(𝒪):=\mathrm{C}^{}\left(\{a(\phi )\phi 𝔮(𝒪)\}\right)=\mathrm{CAR}(𝔮(𝒪),\mathrm{\Gamma }𝔮(𝒪))=\mathrm{CAR}(\overline{𝔮(𝒪)},\mathrm{\Gamma }\overline{𝔮(𝒪)})\mathrm{CAR}(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$

For the canonical basis projection $`P`$ given in the context of free nets (see e.g. \[28, p. 1157\]) it is also immediate to check that for double cones

$$𝔭\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}=𝔭\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}^{}=\{0\},\mathrm{where}𝔭=P𝔥.$$

This means that $`𝔭`$ and $`\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}`$ are in generic position and we can apply the results and formulas of the previous and present sections to the corresponding localized von Neumann algebras

$$(𝒪):=\{\pi (a(\phi ))\phi \overline{𝔮(𝒪)}\}^{\prime \prime }.$$

In particular from Proposition 5.3 and Corollary 5.4 we have that the modular operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the modular conjugation $`J`$ are already characterized by their action on the one-particle Hilbert space. Finally, Theorem 4.12 and Remark 5.7 imply:

###### Theorem 5.10

Let $`𝒪\mathrm{}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be a double cone in Minkowski space. Denote by $`Q_𝒪`$ the orthoprojection onto $`\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}`$ and by $`P`$ the canonical basis projection given in the context of fermionic free nets. Then the following formulas hold for the modular operator and modular conjugation on the one-particle Hilbert space $`𝔭`$:

$`\mathrm{gra}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭`$ $`=`$ $`\{(PQ_𝒪(p),PQ_𝒪^{}(p))p𝔭\}.`$
$`J(Pq)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔭^{\frac{1}{2}}(P\mathrm{\Gamma }q),q\overline{𝔮(𝒪)}.`$
## 6 Relation to the real subspace approach

In the present section we will make explicit the relation of the real subspace approach in  to our consistent use of complex subspaces in the self-dual approach.

The projection $`𝒫`$ on the complex Hilbert space $`H`$ with conjugation $`\gamma `$ in  corresponds in the self-dual approach (where $`𝔥:=HH`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \gamma \\ \gamma & 0\end{array}\right)`$) to a diagonal basis projection $`𝔓:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}𝒫& 0\\ 0& \gamma 𝒫^{}\gamma \end{array}\right)`$. Nondiagonal basis projections are not considered in . Further, in this paper the author extends by second quantization certain mappings on the one-particle Hilbert space. He has then to verify that these second quantized operators are the modular objects by checking the KMS condition. (In contrast to that we construct the modular objects on the whole antisymmetric Fock space and show that they restrict to the $`n`$-particle space.)

The following aspect is that in  (and ) real-linear closed manifolds $`M`$ (resp. $`K`$) of the one-particle (complex) space $`H`$ ($`𝔭`$ in our paper) are used, whereas here the subalgebras of the ‘big’ fermion algebra CAR$`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are characterized by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant complex subspaces of the reference space $`𝔥`$. The relation between the two approaches is given by the following observations: first, the counterpart of the real $`M`$ in our approach is given by $`P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮))`$, where $`q\mathrm{Re}(𝔮)`$ if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }q=q`$. Note that $`P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮))`$ is a real-linear submanifold of $`𝔭`$ and in general it is not closed (see the foregoing considerations). Now we still need to check that $`P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮^{}))`$ corresponds in the real subspace approach of  to $`iM^{}`$. (Recall that in  one defines $`M^{}`$ as the symplectic complement, i.e. $`M^{}:=\{xH\mathrm{Im}x,m=0,mM\}M^{}`$). The next result shows that indeed $`P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮^{}))`$ and $`iM^{}`$ generate the same von Neumann algebra.

###### Lemma 6.1

Put $`M:=P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮))`$. Then $`P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮^{}))`$ is dense in $`(iM^{})`$.

Proof: We show first that $`P(\mathrm{Re}(𝔮^{}))(iM^{})`$. For any $`(q^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})\mathrm{Re}(𝔮^{})`$, $`q^{}𝔮^{}`$, and since

$$iM^{}:=\{p𝔭q+\mathrm{\Gamma }q,p+p,q+\mathrm{\Gamma }q=0,q𝔮\}$$

the inclusion follows from

$`q+\mathrm{\Gamma }q,P(q^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})+P(q^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{}),q+\mathrm{\Gamma }q`$ $`=`$ $`\left(q,Pq^{}+P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }q\right)`$
$`+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }q,Pq^{}+P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{},q\right)`$
$`+\left(q,P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{}+Pq^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }q\right)`$
$`+\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }q,P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{}+P\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{},q\right)`$
$`=`$ $`0,`$
where for the last equation we have used $`\mathrm{\Gamma }P+P\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Finally, to show the density statement consider $`p_0iM^{}`$, i.e.

$$q+\mathrm{\Gamma }q,p_0+p_0,q+\mathrm{\Gamma }q=0,q𝔮,$$
(36)
such that $`p_0P(q^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})`$ for all $`q^{}𝔮^{}`$. Thus $`p_0,P(q^{}+\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})=0`$, $`q^{}𝔮^{}`$, and replacing $`q^{}`$ by $`iq^{}`$ we also obtain $`p_0,P(q^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }q^{})=0`$, $`q^{}𝔮^{}`$. Hence $`p_0,Pq^{}=0`$, $`q^{}𝔮^{}`$, and $`p_0𝔮𝔭`$. But according to Eq. (36) we must also have $`p_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }p_0,p_0+p_0,p_0+\mathrm{\Gamma }p_0=0`$, which implies $`p_0=0`$.

Finally, the conditions $`MiM=\{0\}`$ and $`M+iM`$ dense in $`H`$ in  are equivalent to our conditions $`𝔮𝔭=\{0\}=𝔮^{}𝔭`$ and the projections $`P_1`$,$`P_2`$,$`P_3`$ in \[20, Proposition 1.5\] correspond in the self-dual approach to the orthoprojections onto $`𝔭𝔮^{}`$,$`𝔭𝔮`$, $`𝔭(𝔭𝔮^{}𝔭𝔮)`$, respectively.

## 7 Twisted duality. The general case

We are now in a position to give the proof of twisted duality in the most general situation. Let $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be a Hilbert space with anti-unitary involution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`P`$ any basis projection and $`𝔮`$ any closed $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-invariant subspace in $`𝔥`$, to which we associate the orthoprojection $`Q`$. We adapt the arguments in \[20, p. 735\] to the self-dual approach.

Recall the Halmos decompostion $`𝔥=𝔥_0𝔥_1`$ given in Eq. (10), where $`𝔥_0=(𝔭𝔮)(𝔭𝔮^{})(𝔭^{}𝔮)(𝔭^{}𝔮^{})`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔭𝔮^{})=(𝔭^{}𝔮^{})`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔭𝔮)=(𝔭^{}𝔮)`$ it is also natural to consider the previous decomposition as

$$𝔥=𝔥_{01}𝔥_{02}𝔥_1,$$
(37)
where $`𝔥_{01}:=(𝔭𝔮^{})\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔭𝔮^{})`$ and $`𝔥_{02}:=(𝔭𝔮)\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔭𝔮)`$. In particular we have

$`Q𝔥_{01}=\{0\}`$ , $`Q𝔥_{02}=𝔥_{02}`$ (38)
$`Q^{}𝔥_{01}=𝔥_{01}`$ , $`Q^{}𝔥_{02}=\{0\}`$ (39)
as well as

$$𝔮=\{0\}𝔥_{02}Q𝔥_1\mathrm{and}𝔮^{}=𝔥_{01}\{0\}Q^{}𝔥_1.$$

###### Theorem 7.1

(Twisted Duality) Let $`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, $`P`$ and $`𝔮`$ be given as in the beginning of this section. Then

$$(𝔮)^{}=\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}.$$

Proof: From Proposition 2.6 it is enough to show the inclusion

$$(𝔮)^{}\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}.$$
(40)
We can apply now the formulas (5) and (6) in Proposition 2.4 to the 3 space decomposition in Eq. (37). Indeed, adapting in the obvious way the notation from Proposition 2.4 we get that

$`\pi \left(a(f_{01}f_{02}f_1)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\pi _{01}\left(a(f_{01})\right)Z_{02}Z_1+\mathrm{𝟙}\pi _{02}\left(a(f_{02})\right)\mathrm{𝟙}+\mathrm{𝟙}Z_{02}\pi _1\left(a(f_1)\right),`$
$`f_1𝔥_1`$,$`f_{0k}𝔥_{0k}`$, $`k=1,2`$, specifies a representation of CAR$`(𝔥,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ on the corresponding tensor product of antisymmetric Fock spaces $`𝔉=𝔉_{01}𝔉_{02}𝔉_1`$. Now using (38) we obtain

$$(𝔮)=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝕃}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝔽}_{\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝕄}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}$$

hence

$$(𝔮)^{}=(𝔉_{01})\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝕄}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}$$

From (39) we also obtain

$`(𝔮^{})`$ $`=`$ $`(𝔉_{01})\{Z_{02}\}^{\prime \prime }(Q^{}𝔥_1)`$
$`=`$ $`\{L_{01}Z_{02}\pi _1(a(f_1))L_{01}(𝔉_{01}),f_1Q^{}𝔥_1\}^{\prime \prime }.`$
Using now the result stated in Remark 2.8 we have for the twisted von Neumann algebra

$`\stackrel{~}{Z}(𝔮^{})\stackrel{~}{Z}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\{iZ\pi (a(q^{}))q^{}𝔮^{}\}^{\prime \prime }`$
$`=`$ $`\{(Z_{01}Z_{02}Z_1)(L_{01}Z_{02}\pi _1(a(f_1)))L_{01}(𝔉_{01}),f_1Q^{}𝔥_1\}^{\prime \prime },`$
which immediately implies (40), since we have already proved twisted duality in the generic position case (cf. Theorem 5.8).

## Appendix

We will give in this appendix the proof of Proposition 2.2. Recall the notation and results of Section 2.
Proposition For $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_n𝔥`$ the equation

$$\left(a(f_n)\mathrm{}a(f_1)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n,p}\\ 02pn\end{array}}{}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi )\underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}Pf_{\alpha _l},P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{\beta _l}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_1}\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_k}$$

holds, where the indices $`\alpha _l,\beta _l,j_1,\mathrm{},j_k`$ are given in the definition of $`𝔖_{n,p}`$ and where for $`n=2p`$ in the preceding sum one replaces the wedge product by the vacuum $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
Proof: The proof is done by induction on the number of generators of the CAR-Algebra. For $`n=1`$ the above formula is immediately verified using the definition of creation and annihilation operators. Assume that it holds for $`n`$ generators and we prove that it is also true for $`n+1`$ generators. Take $`f_{n+1},f_n,\mathrm{},f_1𝔥`$ and from the preceding assumption as well as the results stated in Section 2 we have

$`a(f_{n+1})\left(a(f_n)\mathrm{}a(f_1)\mathrm{\Omega }\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(c(P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{n+1})^{}+c(Pf_{n+1}))((a(f_n)\mathrm{}a(f_1)\mathrm{\Omega })`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n,p}\\ 02pn\end{array}}{}}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi ){\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}}Pf_{\alpha _l},P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{\beta _l}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{n+1}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_1}\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_k}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n,p}\\ 02pn\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{k}{}}}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi )(1)^{r1}Pf_{n+1},P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_r}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{p}{}}}Pf_{\alpha _l},P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{\beta _l}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_1}\mathrm{}\widehat{P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_r}}\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_k}.`$
We will determine how many terms with particle number $`k^{}`$ appear in the preceding sum. For this let $`p^{}\mathrm{}`$ be such that $`2p^{}+k^{}=n+1`$. Now the first term in the above formula contributes by means of expressions where $`k=k^{}1`$ (hence $`p=p^{}`$) and there are

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p)!}{p!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p}=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p^{}\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p^{})!}{p^{}!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p^{}}$$

such summands. Further, the second term contributes by means of expressions where $`k=k^{}+1`$ (hence $`p=p^{}1`$) and there are now

$$k\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p)!}{p!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p}=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p^{}+1\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p^{})!}{p^{}!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p^{}}$$

such summands. Altogether we obtain

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p^{}\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p^{})!}{p^{}!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p^{}}+\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ n2p^{}+1\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p^{})!}{p^{}!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p^{}}=\left(\begin{array}{c}n+1\\ n+12p^{}\end{array}\right)\frac{(2p^{})!}{p^{}!\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^p^{}}$$

terms with particle number $`k^{}`$ and this coincides with the number of elements in $`𝔖_{n+1,p^{}}`$. To conclude the proof we still need to show that each term in the sum carries the correct sign. For the summands in (Appendix) this follows from

$`\mathrm{sgn}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}n& n1& \mathrm{}& n2p+2& n2p+1& k& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \alpha _1& \beta _1& \mathrm{}& \alpha _p& \beta _p& j_1& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sgn}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}n+1& n& \mathrm{}& 1\\ n+1& \alpha _1& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sgn}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccc}n+1& n& \mathrm{}& n2p+3& n2p+2& k+1& k& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \alpha _1& \beta _1& \mathrm{}& \alpha _p& \beta _p& n+1& j_1& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right).`$
For the remaining terms we have

$`(1)^{r1}\mathrm{sgn}\left(\begin{array}{cccccccccc}n& n1& \mathrm{}& k& \mathrm{}& k+2r& k+1r& kr& \mathrm{}& 1\\ \alpha _1& \beta _1& \mathrm{}& j_1& \mathrm{}& j_{r1}& j_r& j_{r+1}& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(1)^{r1}\mathrm{sgn}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}n+1& n& \mathrm{}& 1\\ n+1& \alpha _1& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{sgn}\left(\begin{array}{ccccccccccc}n+1& n& n1& n2& \mathrm{}& k& \mathrm{}& k+1r& kr& \mathrm{}& 1\\ n+1& j_r& \alpha _1& \beta _1& \mathrm{}& j_1& \mathrm{}& j_{r1}& j_{r+1}& \mathrm{}& j_k\end{array}\right).`$
Therefore we have shown that

$$\left(a(f_{n+1})\mathrm{}a(f_1)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\begin{array}{c}\pi 𝔖_{n+1,p^{}}\\ 02p^{}n+1\end{array}}{}(\mathrm{sgn}\pi )\underset{l=1}{\overset{p^{}}{}}Pf_{\alpha _l},P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{\beta _l}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_1}\mathrm{}P\mathrm{\Gamma }f_{j_k}$$

which concludes the proof.

#### Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank Dr. H. Neidhardt for discussions on the subject, in particular on Proposition 4.7 and Theorem 4.18. We would also like to acknowledge the remark of a referee (concerning Section 7) that pointed at the arguments in \[20, p.735\]. Finally, one of us (F.Ll.) wants to thank Dr. C. Binnenhei for a useful conversation in Göttingen.