text:
# On Tychonoff-type hypertopologies

## 1. Introduction

In 1975, M. M. Choban  introduced a new topology on the set of all closed subsets of a topological space for obtaining a generalization of the famous Kolmogoroff Theorem on operations on sets. This new topology is similar to the Tychonoff topology (known also as upper Vietoris topology, or upper semi-finite topology (), or kappa-topology) but is weaker than it. In 1998, G. Dimov and D. Vakarelov  used a generalized version of this new topology for proving an isomorphism theorem for the category of all Tarski consequence systems. This generalized version was called Tychonoff-type topology.

The present paper is devoted to a detailed study of Tychonoff-type topologies on an arbitrary family $``$ of subsets of a set $`X`$. When $``$ is a natural family, i.e. it contains all singletons, a description of all Tychonoff-type topologies $`𝒪`$ on $``$ is given (see Proposition 2.32). For doing this, the notion of T-space is introduced. The natural morphisms for T-spaces are not enough to describe all continuous maps between spaces of the type $`(,𝒪)`$, where $``$ is a natural family and $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff-type topology on it; we obtain a characterization of those continuous maps which correspond to the morphisms between T-spaces. This is done by defining suitable categories and by proving that these categories are isomorphic (see Theorem 2.37). In such a way we extend to any natural family $``$ on $`X`$ the corresponding result obtained in  for the family $`in(X)`$ of all finite subsets of $`X`$. We investigate also the problem of commutability between hyperspaces and subspaces with respect to a Tychonoff-type topology, i.e. when the hyperspace of any subspace $`A`$ of a topological space $`Y`$ is canonically representable as a subspace of the hyperspace of $`Y`$. Such investigations were done previously by H.-J. Schmidt  for the lower Vietoris topology, by G. Dimov  for the Tychonoff topology and for the Vietoris topology, and by B. Karaivanov  for other hypertopologies. We study also such a problem for a fixed subspace $`A`$ of $`Y`$. Some results of  are generalized. Finally, we study briefly some topological properties (separation axioms, compactness, weight, density, isolated points, $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$) of the hyperspaces $`(,𝒪)`$ with Tychonoff-type topologies $`𝒪`$. Some results of  are generalized.

Let us fix the notations.

###### Notations 1.1.

We denote by $`\omega `$ the set of all positive natural numbers, by $``$ — the real line, and by $``$ — the set of all integers. We put $`=\omega \{0\}`$.

Let $`X`$ be a set. We denote by $`𝒫(X)`$ the set of all subsets of $`X`$. Let $`,𝒜𝒫(X)`$ and $`AX`$. We will use the following notations:

* $`A_{}^+:=\{M:MA\};`$
* $`𝒜_{}^+:=\{A_{}^+:A𝒜\};`$
* $`in(X):=\{MX:|M|<\mathrm{}_0\}`$;
* $`in_n(X):=\{MX:|M|n\}`$, where $`n\omega `$.

We will denote by $`𝒜^{}`$ (respectively by $`𝒜^{}`$) the closure under finite intersections (unions) of the family $`𝒜`$. In other words,

* $`𝒜^{}:=\{_{i=1}^kA_i:k\omega ,A_i𝒜\}`$ and
* $`𝒜^{}:=\{_{i=1}^kA_i:k\omega ,A_i𝒜\}.`$

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space. We put

* $`𝒞L(X):=\{MX:M`$ is closed in $`X,M\mathrm{}\}`$ and
* $`𝒞omp(X):=\{MX:M\mathrm{is}\mathrm{compact}\}`$.

The closure of a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ in $`(X,𝒯)`$ will be denoted by $`cl_XA`$ or $`\overline{A}^X`$; as usual, for $`UAX`$, we put

* $`Ex_{A,X}U:=Xcl_X(AU)`$.

By a base of $`(X,𝒯)`$ we will always mean an open base. The weight (resp., the density) of $`(X,𝒯)`$ will be denoted by $`w(X,𝒯)`$ (resp., $`d(X,𝒯)`$).

If $`𝒞`$ denotes a category, we write $`X|𝒞|`$ if $`X`$ is an object of the category $`𝒞`$.

For all undefined here notions and notations, see  and .

## 2. Hypertopologies of Tychonoff-type

###### Fact 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`,𝒜𝒫(X)`$. Then:

* $`𝒜_{}^+=\left(𝒜\right)_{}^+;`$
* $`AB`$ implies that $`A_{}^+B_{}^+`$ for all $`A`$, $`BX`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and let $`𝒫(X)`$. The topology $`𝒪_𝒯`$ on $``$, having as a base the family $`𝒯_{}^+`$, will be called Tychonoff topology on $``$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$. When $`=𝒞L(X)`$, then $`𝒪_𝒯`$ is just the classical Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`𝒫(X)`$. A topology $`𝒪`$ on $``$ is called a Tychonoff topology on $``$ if there exists a topology $`𝒯`$ on $`X`$ such that $`𝒯_{}^+`$ is a base of $`𝒪`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`𝒫(X)`$. A topology $`𝒪`$ on the set $``$ is called a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$ if the family $`𝒪𝒫(X)_{}^+`$ is a base for $`𝒪`$.

Clearly, a Tychonoff topology on $``$ is always a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$, but not viceversa (see Example 2.42).

###### Fact 2.4.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Then the family $`_𝒪:=\{AX:A_{}^+𝒪\}`$ is closed under finite intersections, $`X_𝒪`$, and, hence, $`_𝒪`$ is a base for a topology $`𝒯_𝒪`$ on $`X`$. The family $`\left(_𝒪\right)_{}^+`$ is a base of $`𝒪`$.

###### Definition 2.5.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. We will say that the topology $`𝒯_𝒪`$ on $`X`$, introduced in Fact 2.4, is induced by the topological space $`(,𝒪)`$.

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`𝒫(X)`$. A topology $`𝒪`$ on $``$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type if and only if there exists a topology $`𝒯`$ on $`X`$ and a base $``$ for $`𝒯`$ (which contains $`X`$ and is closed under finite intersections) such that $`_{}^+`$ is a base for $`𝒪`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`𝒪`$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Then the topology $`𝒯_𝒪`$ induced by the topological space $`(,𝒪)`$ (see Fact 2.4 and Definition 2.5) and the base $`_𝒪`$ have the required property.

Conversely, suppose $`𝒯`$ and $``$ are given as in the statement. Then $`_{}^+`$ is a base for $`𝒪`$, and therefore also $`𝒪𝒫(X)_{}^+`$ is a base for $`𝒪`$. ∎

###### Definition 2.7.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`,𝒫(X)`$. When $`_{}^+`$ is a base for a topology $`𝒪_{}`$ on $``$, we will say that $``$ generates a topology on $``$. (Obviously, the topology $`𝒪_{}`$ is of Tychonoff-type.

###### Proposition 2.8.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$ and $`𝒫(X)`$. The family $``$ generates a topology $`𝒪_{}`$ on $``$ if and only if the family $``$ satisfies the following conditions:

* For any $`M`$ there exists a $`U`$ such that $`MU`$;
* For any $`U_1`$, $`U_2`$ and any $`M`$ with $`MU_1U_2`$ there exists a $`U_3`$ such that $`MU_3U_1U_2`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 1.2.1 . ∎

###### Corollary 2.9.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`,𝒫(X)`$. If $`=^{}`$ and $`X`$, then $``$ generates a Tychonoff-type topology on $``$.

###### Definition 2.10.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`𝒫(X)`$. We say that $``$ is a natural family in $`X`$ if $`\{x\}`$ for all $`xX`$.

###### Corollary 2.11.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$. If $`𝒫(X)`$ generates a topology on $``$ (see Definition 2.7), then $``$ is a base for a topology on $`X`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.8, $``$ satisfies the conditions (MB1) and (MB2). Since $``$ is natural, this clearly implies that $``$ satisfies the hypotesis of Proposition 1.2.1 . So $``$ is a base for a topology on $`X`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.12.

Trivial examples show that there exist sets $`X`$ and (non-natural) families $``$,$`𝒫(X)`$ such that $`_{}^+`$ is a base for a topology on $``$ but

* $`X`$, so that $``$ cannot serve even as subbase of a topology on $`X`$ (take $`X=\{0,1\}`$, $`==\{\{0\}\}`$);
* $``$ is not a base of a topology of $`X`$, although $`=X`$ (take $`X=\{0,1,2\}`$, $`==\{\{0,1\},\{0,2\}\}`$).

The example of (b) shows also that if we substitute in 2.11 naturality of $``$ with the condition “$`=X`$” then we cannot prove that $``$ is a base of a topology on $`X`$; however, it is easy to show that the condition “$`=X`$” implies that $`=X`$, i.e. $``$ can serve as a subbase of a topology on $`X`$.

Of course, as it follows from Fact 2.1, if $`_{}^+`$ is a base of a topology $`𝒪`$ on $``$, then $`\stackrel{~}{}=^{}\{X\}`$ is a base for a topology on $`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}^+`$ is a base of $`𝒪`$.

###### Corollary 2.13.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and let $`𝒯`$ be a base of $`(X,𝒯)`$, closed under finite unions. Then $``$ generates a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`in(X)`$ and $`𝒞omp(X)`$.

###### Proof.

It follows easily from Proposition 2.8. ∎

###### Proposition 2.14.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $``$,$`_1`$,$`_2𝒫(X)`$, and suppose that $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ generate, respectively, some topologies (of Tychonoff-type) $`𝒪__1`$ and $`𝒪__2`$ on $``$. Then $`𝒪__1=𝒪__2`$ if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:

* For any $`M`$ and any $`U_1_1`$ such that $`MU_1`$ there exists $`U_2_2`$ with $`MU_2U_1`$;
* For any $`M`$ and any $`U_2_2`$ such that $`MU_2`$ there exists $`U_1_1`$ with $`MU_1U_2`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from 1.2.B . ∎

###### Corollary 2.15.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and $`_1`$, $`_2`$ be bases of $`(X,𝒯)`$, closed under finite unions. Then they generate (see Corollary 2.13) equal topologies on $`in(X)`$ and $`𝒞omp(X)`$. In particular, every topology of Tychonoff-type on $`in(X)`$ or on $`𝒞omp(X)`$, generated by a base of $`(X,𝒯)`$ which is closed under finite unions, coincides with the Tychonoff topology generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$ on the corresponding set.

###### Proof.

Check that conditions (CO1) and (CO2) of Proposition 2.14 are satisfied. ∎

###### Corollary 2.16.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space, $`𝒫(X)`$, $`𝒯`$, and suppose that $``$ generates a topology of Tychonoff-type $`𝒪`$ on $``$. Then $`𝒪`$ is the Tychonoff topology on $``$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$ if and only if for all $`M`$ and for all $`V𝒯`$ such that $`MV`$, there exists $`U`$ with $`MUV`$. In this case we will say that $``$ is an $``$-base for $`(X,𝒯)`$. Clearly, if $``$ is a natural family, then every $``$-base of $`(X,𝒯)`$ is also a base of $`(X,𝒯)`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`_1:=𝒯`$ and $`_2:=`$. Then condition (CO2) of Proposition 2.14 is trivially satisfied. The condition required in the statement is exactly condition (CO1). ∎

###### Definition 2.17.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$ and $`AX`$. A family $`𝒰𝒫(X)`$ will be called an $``$-cover of $`A`$ if $`A=𝒰`$ and for all $`M`$ with $`MA`$ there exists some $`U𝒰`$ such that $`MU`$.

###### Proposition 2.18.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`,𝒜𝒫(X)`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

* For all $`U𝒜`$ and for all $`xU`$, there exists an $`M`$ with $`xMU`$.
* For any $`U𝒜`$ and for any subfamily $`\{U_\delta :\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ of $`𝒜`$, the equality $`U_{}^+=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$ holds if and only if the family $`\{U_\delta \}_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is an $``$-cover of $`U`$.

###### Proof.

Observe that, trivially, in condition (U1) we can replace the requirement ‘for all $`U𝒜`$” with “for all $`U𝒜`$”.

(U1)$``$(U2). Let $`U_{}^+=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$, with $`U`$,$`U_\delta 𝒜`$ for all $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. We will prove first that $`_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}U_\delta =U`$.

Let $`x_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}U_\delta `$. Then there exists a $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`xU_\delta `$. By assumption, there exists an $`M`$ with $`xMU_\delta `$. Hence $`M\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$. Since $`U_{}^+=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$, we obtain that $`MU`$. Thus $`xU`$. Therefore, $`_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}U_\delta U`$.

Conversely, let $`xU`$. By assumption, there exists an $`M`$ such that $`xMU`$. Hence $`MU_{}^+=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$. Therefore there exists a $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`M\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$, i.e. $`MU_\delta `$ and $`xU_\delta _{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}U_\delta `$.

We have verified that $`_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}U_\delta =U`$.

Suppose $`M`$ and $`MU`$. Then $`MU_{}^+`$ and therefore there exists some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`M\left(U_\gamma \right)_{}^+`$. Hence $`MU_\gamma `$.

This shows that the family $`\{U_\delta \}_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is an $``$-cover of $`U`$.

The other implication can be easily proved. (Let’s remark that condition (U1) is not used in the proof of this last implication.)

(U2)$``$(U1). Suppose $`U𝒜`$ and $`xU`$. Clearly, we have

$$U_{}^+=\{M_{}^+:M,MU\}.$$

Then, by assumption, the family $`\{M:MU\}`$ is an $``$-cover of $`U`$. Therefore $`U=\{M:M,MU\}`$. Hence there exists an $`M`$ with $`xMU`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.19.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`𝒫(X)`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

* $``$ is a natural family;
* For any $`UX`$ and for any subfamily $`\{U_\delta :\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ of $`𝒫(X)`$, the equality $`U_{}^+=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$ holds if and only if the family $`\{U_\delta \}_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ is an $``$-cover of $`U`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`𝒜=𝒫(X)`$ in Proposition 2.18. ∎

###### Proposition 2.20.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$, $`𝒪`$ be a Tychonoff topology on $``$ generated by a topology $`𝒯`$ on $`X`$ and $``$ be a network in the sense of Arhangelskiĭ for $`𝒯_𝒪`$. Then $`𝒯=_𝒪`$ and $`𝒪`$ is generated by a unique topology on $`X`$, namely by $`𝒯_𝒪`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_𝒪`$).

###### Proof.

We only need to show that $`_𝒪𝒯`$. Assume $`A_O`$. Then $`A_{}^+𝒪`$. Since $`𝒯`$ generates $`𝒪`$, we have $`A_{}^+=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}\left(U_\delta \right)_{}^+`$, where $`U_\delta 𝒯`$ for all $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Clearly $`U_\delta _O`$ for all $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. By Proposition 2.18, we obtain that $`A=_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}U_\delta `$ and therefore $`A𝒯`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.21.

Trivial examples show that there exist sets $`X`$, families $`𝒫(X)`$ and Tychonoff topologies on $``$ which are generated by more than one topology on $`X`$.

###### Corollary 2.22.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$, $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$ and $``$ be a network in the sense of Arhangelskiĭ for $`𝒯_𝒪`$. Then $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff topology on $``$ if and only if $`_𝒪=𝒯_𝒪`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notations $`_𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_𝒪`$).

###### Proof.

Suppose $`_𝒪=𝒯_𝒪`$. Then the topology $`𝒪`$ is generated by the topology $`𝒯_𝒪`$ on $`X`$ and hence, by definition, $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff topology on $``$.

Suppose $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff topology on $``$. Then $`𝒪`$ is generated by some topology $`𝒯`$ on $`X`$. By Proposition 2.20, we get $`𝒯=_𝒪`$. Hence $`𝒯_𝒪=_𝒪`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.23.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Then $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff topology on $``$ if and only if $`_𝒪=𝒯_𝒪`$.

###### Proof.

A natural family $``$ satisfies the hypothesis of Corollary 2.22. ∎

###### Proposition 2.24.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space, $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$, $`𝒯`$ and suppose that $``$ generates a topology $`𝒪_{}`$ on $``$. Then

$$_𝒪_{}=\{AX:A\text{ is }\text{-covered  by a  subfamily  of }\},$$

$`_𝒪_{}𝒯`$ and $`^{}_𝒪_{}`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪_{}`$).

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 2.19 and Fact 2.4. ∎

###### Proposition 2.25.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space, $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$, $``$ be a base for $`(X,𝒯)`$ and suppose that $``$ generates a topology $`𝒪_{}`$ on $``$. Let $`𝒯_𝒪_{}`$ be the topology on $`X`$ induced by $`(,𝒪_{})`$. Then $`𝒯_𝒪_{}=𝒯`$.

###### Proof.

We have, by Proposition 2.24, that $`_𝒪_{}𝒯_𝒪_{}`$. Thus $`𝒯𝒯_𝒪_{}`$. As it is shown in Proposition 2.24, $`_𝒪_{}𝒯`$ and hence $`𝒯_𝒪_{}𝒯`$. So, $`𝒯=𝒯_𝒪_{}`$. ∎

###### Example 2.26.

Let us show that in Proposition 2.25 the requirement “$``$ is a natural family” is essential.

Let $`X=(0,1)`$ be the open unit interval with the usual topology, $`=\{[a,b]:0<a<b<1\}`$, $`=\{(a,b):0<a<b<1\}`$. Then the family $``$ satisfies conditions (MB1) and (MB2). Consider the set $`A=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4})\{\frac{1}{4}\}`$. We have $`A_{}^+=(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4})_{}^+_{}^+`$ and therefore $`A_𝒪_{}`$ even though $`A`$ is not open in $`X`$.

###### Definition 2.27.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`,𝒰𝒫(X)`$. We will say that $`𝒰`$ is an $``$-closed family if for all $`AX`$ such that $`A`$ is $``$-covered by some subfamily of $`𝒰`$, we have that $`A𝒰`$.

###### Proposition 2.28.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $``$, $`^{}`$, $`𝒰`$ $`𝒫(X)`$, $`^{}`$. Suppose that $`𝒰`$ is an $``$-closed family. Then $`𝒰`$ is an $`^{}`$-closed family too.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`AX`$ is $`^{}`$-covered by some subfamily $`𝒰^{}`$ of $`𝒰`$. Since $`^{}`$, the set $`A`$ is also $``$-covered by $`𝒰^{}`$. By the hypothesis, $`𝒰`$ is an $``$-closed family. Hence $`A𝒰`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.29.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Then $`_𝒪`$ is an $``$-closed family (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪`$).

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 2.19. ∎

###### Proposition 2.30.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space, $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$ and $`𝒯`$ be an $``$-closed base of $`(X,𝒯)`$. Suppose that $``$ generates a topology $`𝒪_{}`$ on $``$. Then $`_𝒪_{}=`$, $`X`$ and $`^{}=`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪_{}`$).

###### Proof.

Obviously, $`_𝒪_{}`$. Let us show that $`_𝒪_{}`$.

Let $`A_𝒪_{}`$. Then, by Proposition 2.24, $`A`$ is $``$-covered by some subfamily of $``$ and, since $``$ is $``$-closed, we conclude that $`A`$. So, $`_𝒪_{}=`$. Now Fact 2.4 implies that $`X`$ and $`^{}=`$. ∎

###### Definition 2.31.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $`,𝒫(X)`$. The ordered triple $`(X,,)`$ will be called a $`T`$-space if $``$ is an $``$-closed family, $`X`$ and $`^{}=`$.

Note that if $`(X,,)`$ is a $`T`$-space, then $``$ is a base for a topology on $`X`$.

###### Proposition 2.32.

Let $`X`$ be a set and $``$ be a natural family in $`X`$. Let $`TTT(X,)`$ be the set of all topologies of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Denote by $`TSp(X,)`$ the set of all $`T`$-spaces of the form $`(X,,)`$. Then there is a bijective correspondence between the sets $`TTT(X,)`$ and $`TSp(X,)`$. Namely, consider the function $`\alpha :TTT(X,)TSp(X,)`$, defined by $`\alpha (𝒪)=(X,_𝒪,)`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪`$), and the function $`\beta :TSp(X,)TTT(X,)`$, defined by $`\beta \left((X,,)\right)=𝒪_{}`$ (see Corollary 2.9 and Definition 2.7); then $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are bijections and each one is the inverse of the other one.

###### Proof.

Let us show that the function $`\alpha `$ is well-defined. Let $`𝒪TTT(X,)`$. By Fact 2.4, the family $`_𝒪`$ is closed under finite intersections and $`X_𝒪`$. By Proposition 2.29, $`_𝒪`$ is $``$-closed. Hence $`(X,_𝒪,)TSp(X,)`$.

We will prove now that the function $`\beta `$ is well defined. Let $`𝒫(X)`$ be an $``$-closed family, closed under finite intersections and such that $`X`$. Then, by Corollary 2.9, $`𝒪_{}`$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$.

Proposition 2.30 gives that $`_𝒪_{}=`$, i.e. $`\alpha \beta =\mathrm{id}_{TSp(X,)}`$.

To show that $`\beta \alpha =\mathrm{id}_{TTT(X,)}`$, let $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Then $`\beta (\alpha (𝒪))=𝒪__𝒪`$. Since $`𝒪`$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type, $`\left(_𝒪\right)_{}^+`$ is a base of $`𝒪`$. On the other hand, $`\left(_𝒪\right)_{}^+`$ is, by definition, a base of $`𝒪__𝒪`$. Hence $`𝒪=𝒪__𝒪`$. ∎

###### Definition 2.33.

We denote by $`𝒯`$ (Hypertopologies of Tychonoff-type) the category defined as follows: its objects are all ordered triples $`(X,,𝒪)`$ where $`X`$ is a set, $``$ is a natural family in $`X`$ and $`𝒪`$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. To define the morphisms of $`𝒯`$, let $`(X,,𝒪)`$, $`(X^{},^{},𝒪^{})`$ be objects of $`𝒯`$ and $`f:XX^{}`$ be a function between the sets $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$. We will say that $`f`$ generates a morphism $`f_H`$ of $`𝒯`$ between $`(X,,𝒪)`$ and $`(X^{},^{},𝒪^{})`$ if $`f()^{}`$ and the induced function on $``$, $`f_m:(,𝒪)(^{},𝒪^{})`$, defined by $`f_m(M):=f(M)`$ (where the $`M`$ on the left-handside is regarded as an element of $``$ and the $`M`$ on the right-handside is regarded as a subset of $`X`$) is continuous. The morphisms of $`𝒯`$ are defined to be all $`f_H`$ generated in this way.

###### Remark 2.34.

It is easy to see that not any continuous map between spaces of the type $`(,𝒪)`$ appears as some $`f_H`$ (see Definition 2.33 for the notations). Indeed, let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a discrete space having more than one point; then the constant function $`c:(𝒞L(X),𝒪_𝒯)(𝒞L(X),𝒪_𝒯)`$, defined by $`c(F)=X`$ for all $`F𝒞L(X)`$, is continuous but is not of the type $`f_H`$ (here $`𝒪_𝒯`$ is the classical Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$ (see Definition 2.2)).

###### Definition 2.35.

We denote by $`𝒯`$ the category defined as follows: its objects are all $`T`$-spaces $`(X,,)`$ (see Definition 2.31). To define the morphisms of $`𝒯`$, let $`(X,,)`$, $`(X^{},^{},^{})`$ be objects of $`𝒯`$ and $`f:XX^{}`$ be a function between the sets $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$. We will say that $`f`$ generates a morphism $`f^T`$ of $`𝒯`$ between $`(X,,)`$ and $`(X^{},^{},^{})`$ if $`f()^{}`$ and $`f^1(^{})`$. The morphisms of $`𝒯`$ are defined to be all $`f^T`$ generated in this way.

###### Lemma 2.36.

Let $`X`$, $`X^{}`$ be sets, $`𝒫(X)`$ and $`^{}𝒫(X^{})`$. Let $`f:XX^{}`$ be a function such that $`f()^{}`$ and let $`f_m:^{}`$ be defined by $`f_m(M):=f(M)`$. Then, for all $`A^{}X^{}`$, we have

$$f_m^1\left((A^{})_{^{}}^+\right)=\left(f^1(A^{})\right)_{}^+.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`Mf_m^1\left((A^{})_{^{}}^+\right)`$. Then $`f_m(M)(A^{})_{^{}}^+`$, i.e. $`f(M)A^{}`$. Since $`Mf^1\left(f(M)\right)f^1(A^{})`$, we obtain $`M\left(f^1(A^{})\right)_{}^+`$.

Let $`M\left(f^1(A^{})\right)_{}^+`$. Then $`Mf^1(A^{})`$ and hence $`f(M)A^{}`$. Therefore $`f_m(M)(A^{})_{^{}}^+`$, i.e. $`Mf_m^1\left((A^{})_{^{}}^+\right)`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.37.

The categories $`𝒯`$ and $`𝒯`$ are isomorphic.

###### Proof.

We define a functor $`F:𝒯𝒯`$ as follows: for all $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$, we put $`F\left((X,,𝒪)\right):=(X,_𝒪,)`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪`$); for all morphisms $`f_H:(X,,𝒪)(X^{},^{},𝒪^{})`$, we put $`F(f_H):=f^T`$ (see Definitions 2.33 and 2.35 for the notations $`f_H`$ and $`f^T`$).

We define a functor $`G:𝒯𝒯`$ as follows: for all $`(X,,)|𝒯|`$, we put $`G\left((X,,)\right):=(X,,𝒪_{})`$ (see Definition 2.7 for the notation $`𝒪_{}`$); for all morphisms $`f^T:(X,,)(X^{},^{},^{})`$, we put $`G(f^T):=f_H`$.

Let us check that $`F`$ and $`G`$ are well-defined.

Let $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. By Proposition 2.32, the triple $`(X,_O,)`$ is a $`T`$-space, so that $`F(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$.

Let $`f_H:(X,,𝒪)(X^{},^{},𝒪^{})`$ be a morphism in $`𝒯`$. Then $`f()^{}`$ and the induced function on $``$, $`f_m:(,𝒪)(^{},𝒪^{})`$, defined by $`f_m(M)=f(M)`$, is continuous. To check that

$$f^T:F(X,,𝒪)F(X^{},^{},𝒪^{})$$

(i.e. $`f^T:(X,_𝒪,)(X^{},_𝒪^{},^{}`$)) is a morphism in $`𝒯`$, we need to show that $`f^1(_𝒪^{})_𝒪`$. Let $`B^{}_𝒪^{}`$. Then $`(B^{})_{^{}}^+𝒪^{}`$. By the continuity of $`f_m`$, we have that $`f_m^1\left((B^{})_{^{}}^+\right)𝒪`$. By Lemma 2.36, $`f_m^1\left((B^{})_{^{}}^+\right)=\left(f^1(B^{})\right)_{}^+`$. Hence $`\left(f^1(B^{})\right)_{}^+𝒪`$, i.e. $`f^1(B^{})_𝒪`$. So, we have proved that $`F`$ is well-defined. Clearly, $`F`$ is a functor.

Let now $`(X,,)|𝒯|`$. Then, by Proposition 2.32, the topology $`𝒪_{}`$ is a Tychonoff-type topology on $``$. Hence, $`G((X,,))|𝒯|`$.

Let $`f^T:(X,,)(X^{},^{},^{})`$ be a morphism in $`𝒯`$. Then $`f()^{}`$ and $`f^1(^{})`$. To check that

$$f_H:(X,,𝒪_{})(X^{},^{},𝒪_{^{}})$$

is a morphism in $`𝒯`$, we need to check that the function $`f_m:(,𝒪_{})(^{},𝒪_{^{}})`$, defined by $`f_m(M):=f(M)`$, is continuous. By definition (see 2.7), $`(^{})_{^{}}^+`$ is a base of the topology $`𝒪_{^{}}`$. Let $`B^{}^{}`$. Then $`(B^{})_{^{}}^+(^{})_{^{}}^+`$. By assumption, $`f^1(B^{})`$. Hence $`\left(f^1(B^{})\right)_{}^+𝒪_{}`$. Since, by Lemma 2.36, $`\left(f^1(B^{})\right)_{}^+=f_m^1\left((B^{})_{^{}}^+\right)`$, we obtain that $`f_m^1\left((B^{})_{^{}}^+\right)𝒪_{}`$. Therefore, the function $`f_m`$ is continuous. So, $`G`$ is well-defined. Obviously, $`G`$ is a functor.

By Proposition 2.32, we have $`FG=\mathrm{id}_𝒯`$ and $`GF=\mathrm{id}_𝒯`$ on the objects. The equalities are clearly true for the morphisms. Hence $`F`$ and $`G`$ are isomorphisms. ∎

We recall that a topological space $`(X,𝒯)`$ is called a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space (see ) if $`𝒯`$ is closed under arbitrary intersections.

###### Lemma 2.38.

A space $`(X,𝒯)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space if and only it it has a base $``$ closed under arbitrary intersections.

###### Proof.

Assume $`𝒯`$ has a base $``$ closed under arbitrary intersections. Let $`𝒰𝒯`$. Since $`\mathrm{}`$ is an open set, we can assume that $`𝒰\mathrm{}`$. Let $`x𝒰`$. For any $`U𝒰`$, let $`B_U`$ be such that $`xB_UU`$. Then

$$x\{B_U:U𝒰\}𝒰$$

and, by assumption, $`\{B_U:U𝒰\}`$. Hence, $`𝒰𝒯`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.39.

Let $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$. The topological space $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space if and only if the family $`_𝒪`$ is closed under arbitrary intersections. If $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space then $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space. If $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff topology on $``$, then $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space if and only if $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space (see Fact 2.4 for the notations $`_𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_𝒪`$).

###### Proof.

The first two assertions follow from Lemma 2.38, Fact 2.1(a) and the definitions of $`_𝒪`$ and $`𝒯_𝒪`$. The last assertion follows now from Corollary 2.22. ∎

###### Corollary 2.40.

Let $`𝒯_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the full subcategory of $`𝒯`$ having as objects all triples $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$ for which the space $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space. Let $`𝒯_{\mathrm{}}`$ be the full subcategory of $`𝒯`$ whose objects are all $`(X,,)|𝒯|`$ such that the family $``$ is closed under arbitrary intersections. Then $`𝒯_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`𝒯_{\mathrm{}}`$ are isomorphic.

###### Proof.

It follows from (the proof of) Theorem 2.37 and Proposition 2.39. ∎

###### Example 2.41.

We will show that there exists $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$ such that $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space but $`(,𝒪)`$ is not a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space.

Let $`X=\omega `$,

$$=\{\{n\}:n\omega \}\{A\omega :|\omega A|<\mathrm{}_0\}\{\mathrm{}\},$$

and $`𝒫(\omega )in_2(\omega )\{\mathrm{}\}`$. The family $``$ is a base of the discrete topology $`𝒯`$ on $`\omega `$, it is closed under finite intersections (but not under infinite intersections) and $`X`$. Let us show that $``$ is $``$-closed.

Let $`\{B_\delta \}_{\delta \mathrm{\Delta }}`$ be a subfamily of $`\{\mathrm{}\}`$ which is an $``$-cover of a subset $`B`$ of $`X`$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that there exist at least two indices $`\delta _1`$ and $`\delta _2`$ such that $`B_{\delta _1}B_{\delta _2}`$. Then there is at least one $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`|\omega B_\delta |<\mathrm{}_0`$; otherwise we would have $`B_{\delta _1}=\{n_{\delta _1}\}`$, $`B_{\delta _2}=\{n_{\delta _2}\}`$ and the set $`F=\{n_{\delta _1},n_{d_2}\}`$, which belongs to $``$, would be contained in $`B`$ without being contained in $`B_\delta `$ for any $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Therefore $`|\omega B|<\mathrm{}_0`$ and, hence, $`B`$.

Put $`𝒪:=𝒪_{}`$. Then, by Proposition 2.30, $`=_𝒪`$ and hence $`𝒯=𝒯_𝒪`$. Since $``$ is not closed under arbitrary intersections, we obtain, by Proposition 2.39, that $`(,𝒪)`$ is not a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space. Clearly, the space $`(X,𝒯)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space because it is discrete. Observe that $`𝒪`$ is not a Tychonoff topology since $`_𝒪𝒯_𝒪`$.

###### Example 2.42.

Two more examples of Tychonoff-type, non Tychonoff topologies on some families $`𝒫(X)`$.

Let $`X`$ be a set with more than two elements. Let $`=in(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and let $`𝒪=\{\{\{x\}:xA\}:AX\}\{\}\{\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`𝒪`$ is a topology on $``$.

$`𝒪`$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type since

$$𝒪𝒫(X)_{}^+=\{\{x\}:xX\}\{X_{}^+\}\{\mathrm{}\}$$

is a base for $`𝒪`$. Clearly $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$-space.

We have $`_𝒪=\{\{x\}:xX\}\{X\}\{\mathrm{}\}`$, and therefore $`𝒯_𝒪`$ is the discrete topology. By Proposition 2.22, since $`_𝒪𝒯_𝒪`$, $`𝒪`$ is not a Tychonoff topology on $``$.

Observe that $`(,𝒪)`$ is not a T<sub>0</sub>-space. In fact, the only neighbourhood of any $`F`$ such that $`|F|2`$ is $``$, and we are assuming $`|X|>2`$.

We consider now the natural family $`^{}=𝒫(X)\{\mathrm{}\}`$ and we define $`𝒪`$ as above. $`𝒪`$ is a Tychonoff-type topology on $`^{}`$ but it is not a Tychonoff topology. Again $`𝒯_𝒪`$ is the discrete topology on $`X`$. Hence $`^{}=𝒞L((X,𝒯_𝒪))`$. We observe as before that $`(^{},𝒪)`$ is not a T<sub>0</sub>-space. Note also that the family $`_𝒪`$ is $`^{\prime \prime }`$-closed for every natural family $`^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`X`$ which contains all two-points subsets of $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{}^{\prime \prime }`$.

We will briefly discuss now some topological properties of the hyperspaces $`(,𝒪)`$ with Tychonoff-type topologies $`𝒪`$.

###### Fact 2.43.

Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$ generated by a subfamily $``$ of $`𝒫(X)`$. Then:

* the topological space $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`T_0`$-space (resp., $`T_1`$-space) if and only if for any $`F,G`$ with $`FG`$, there exists a $`B`$ such that either $`FB`$ and $`GB`$, or $`GB`$ and $`FB`$ (resp., $`FB`$ and $`GB`$).
* if for any $`xX`$ and for any $`F`$ with $`xF`$, there exists a $`B`$ such that $`FB`$ and $`xB`$, then $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`T_0`$-space.

###### Remark 2.44.

Let us note that Fact 2.43(b) implies the following assertion, which was mentioned in , section 2 (after Lemma 3) (the requirement that $`X\mathrm{\Omega }`$ has to be added there): if $`(X,𝒯)`$ is a regular $`T_1`$-space, $``$ is a family consisting of closed subsets of $`(X,𝒯)`$ and $``$ is a base of $`(X,𝒯)`$ such that $`=^{}`$ and $`U`$ implies that $`X\overline{U}`$, then $`(,𝒪_{})`$ is a $`T_0`$-space.

###### Fact 2.45.

Let $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$. Then the correspondence $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)(,𝒪)`$, $`x\{x\}`$, is a homeomorphic embedding. Hence, we have, in particular, that:

* $`w(X,𝒯_𝒪)w(,𝒪)`$;
* if $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`T_0`$-space then $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ is a $`T_0`$-space.

###### Fact 2.46.

* Let $`X`$ be a set, $`𝒫(X)`$ be a family such that there exist $`F,G`$ with $`FG`$ and $`FG`$, and let $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$. Then $`(,𝒪)`$ is not a $`T_1`$-space.
* If $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$ then $`(,𝒪)`$ is a $`T_1`$-space if and only if $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ is a $`T_1`$-space and $`=\{\{x\}:xX\}`$.

###### Fact 2.47.

Let $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$. Then $`(,𝒪)`$ is a compact space if and only if any $``$-cover of $`X`$, consisting of elements of $`_𝒪`$, has a finite $``$-subcover.

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 2.19. ∎

###### Examples 2.48.

There are many examples of “very nice” spaces $`X`$ with non-$`T_0`$-hyperspaces $`(,𝒪_{})`$ (see Examples 2.42 and 3.19). As an example of a non-$`T_0`$-space $`(X,𝒯)`$ with a $`T_0`$-hyperspace $`(,𝒪_𝒯)`$, consider the two-points space $`X=\{0,1\}`$, with $`𝒯==\{\mathrm{},X\}`$.

There exist non-compact spaces $`X`$ such that $`(𝒞L(X),𝒪_{})`$ is a compact non-$`T_0`$-space (e.g., the space $`(𝒞L(),𝒪_{})`$, described in Example 3.19).

To get an example of a non-compact space $`X`$ and a natural family $``$ such that $`(,𝒪_{})`$ is a compact $`T_0`$-space, consider $`X:=`$ with its natural topology, $`:=in_2()\{\}`$ and take $``$ as in Example 3.19.

As an example of a compact space $`(X,𝒯)`$ with a non-compact hyperspace $`(,𝒪_𝒯)`$, consider the unit interval $`X=[0,1]`$ with its natural topology and put $`=\{\{x\}:x(0,1]\}`$.

The next three propositions are generalizations of, respectively, Propositions 1, 2 and 3 of , and have proofs similar to those given in . (Let us note that in Proposition 2 of  the requirement “$`\mathrm{}𝒞`$” has to be added.)

###### Proposition 2.49.

Let $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$, $`w(,𝒪)=\mathrm{}_0`$, $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ be a $`T_1`$-space, $`_𝒪`$ be closed under countable unions and $``$ contain all infinite countable closed subsets of $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$. Then $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ is a compact space.

###### Proposition 2.50.

Let $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Then $`d(,𝒪)=d(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$.

###### Proposition 2.51.

Let $`(X,,𝒪)|𝒯|`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. Then $`(,𝒪)`$ has isolated points if and only if $`(X,𝒯_𝒪)`$ has isolated points.

## 3. On $`𝒪`$-commutative spaces

###### 3.1.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and $`AX`$. Recall that $`A`$ is said to be 2-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$ (see ) if the closures in $`X`$ of any two disjoint closed in $`A`$ subsets of $`A`$ are disjoint.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space, $`AX`$ and $`𝒫(X)`$. We will say that $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$ if for any $`F𝒞L(A)`$ and for any $`U`$ with $`FU`$, there exists a $`V`$ such that $`\overline{F}^XV`$ and $`VAU`$.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and $`AX`$. Then $`A`$ is 2-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$ if and only if $`A`$ is $`2_𝒯`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

($``$) Let $`H𝒞L(A)`$, $`V𝒯`$ and $`HV`$. We put $`U=VA`$ and $`F=AU`$. Then $`F`$ and $`H`$ are two disjoint closed subsets of $`A`$. Hence, by assumption, they have disjoint closures in $`X`$, i.e. $`\overline{F}^X\overline{H}^X=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`W=X\overline{F}^X`$. Then $`W`$ is open in $`X`$, $`WA=U=VA`$ and $`\overline{H}^XW`$.

($``$) Let $`F`$ and $`G`$ be two disjoint closed subsets of $`A`$. Put $`V=X\overline{G}^X`$. Then $`V`$ is open in $`X`$ and $`FV`$. Hence, by assumption, there exists an open set $`W`$ such that $`\overline{F}^XW`$ and $`WAVA`$. Let $`U=AG`$. Then $`Ex_{A,X}U=V`$. Hence $`VA=U`$ and $`WV`$. We conclude that $`\overline{F}^XWV=X\overline{G}^X`$, i.e. $`\overline{F}^X\overline{G}^X=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.4.

In Example 3.22 below we will show that there exist spaces $`(X,𝒯)`$, subspaces $`A`$ of $`X`$ and bases $``$ of $`𝒯`$ such that $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$ but $`A`$ is not 2-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

###### Proposition 3.5.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a T<sub>1</sub>-space, $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$ and $`AX`$. Put $`_A=\{UA:U_𝒪\}`$ (see Fact 2.4 for the notation $`_𝒪`$). The family $`_A`$ generates a topology of Tychonoff-type $`𝒪_A`$ on $`𝒞L(A)`$. The function $`i_{A,X}:(𝒞L(A),𝒪_A)(𝒞L(X),𝒪)`$, defined by $`i_{A,X}(F):=\overline{F}^X`$, is inversely continuous (i.e. it is injective and its inverse, defined on $`i_{A,X}\left(𝒞L(A)\right)`$, is a continuous function) if and only if the set $`A`$ is $`2__𝒪`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

The family $`:=_𝒪`$ is closed under finite intersections and $`X`$ (see Fact 2.4). Hence the family $`_A`$ is closed under finite intersections and $`A_A`$. Therefore, by Corollary 2.9, $`_A`$ generates a topology of Tychonoff-type $`𝒪_A`$ on $`𝒞L(A)`$.

The function $`i_{A,X}:(𝒞L(A),𝒪_A)(𝒞L(X),𝒪)`$ is clearly injective. Denote by $`g`$ its inverse defined on $`i_{A,X}(𝒞L(A))`$, i.e. $`g:i_{A,X}(𝒞L(A))𝒞L(A)`$.

($``$) Let $`H𝒞L(A)`$, $`U`$ and $`HU`$. Then $`H\left(UA\right)_{𝒞L(A)}^+𝒪_A`$. Since $`g(\overline{H}^X)=H`$, the continuity of $`g`$ implies that there exists a $`V`$ such that

$$\overline{H}^XV\text{ and }g(V_{𝒞L(X)}^+i_{A,X}(𝒞L(A)))(UA)_{𝒞L(A)}^+.$$

Then $`VAUA`$. Indeed, let $`xVA`$. Since $`X`$ is a $`T_1`$-space, we obtain that

$$\{x\}V_{𝒞L(X)}^+i_{A,X}(𝒞L(A))\text{ and }g(\{x\})=\{x\}.$$

Hence $`xUA`$. So, $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

($``$) Let $`Fi_{A,X}(𝒞L(A))`$ and $`g(F)=H`$. Then $`F=\overline{H}^X`$ and $`H𝒞L(A)`$. Let $`U_A`$ be such that $`HU`$. Then there exists a $`V`$ with $`VA=U`$. Hence $`HV`$. Since $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$, there exists a $`W`$ such that $`F=\overline{H}^XW`$ and $`WAVA=U`$. Then $`FW_{𝒞L(X)}^+𝒪`$. We will show that

$$g(W_{𝒞L(X)}^+i_{A,X}(𝒞L(A)))U_{𝒞L(A)}^+.$$

Indeed, let $`K𝒞L(A)`$, $`G=\overline{K}^X`$ and $`GW`$. Then $`g(G)=K`$ and

$$K=GAWAVA=U,$$

i.e. $`KU_{𝒞L(A)}^+`$, as we have to show. Hence, $`g`$ is a continuous function. ∎

###### Corollary 3.6 (, Theorem 2.1).

If in Proposition 3.5 we take $`𝒪`$ to be the Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$ then the function $`i_{A,X}`$ is inversely continuous if and only if $`A`$ is 2-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Propositions 3.5, 2.20 and 3.3. ∎

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a T<sub>2</sub>-space, $`AX`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by a subfamily of $`𝒯`$. Let $`i_{A,X}`$ be inversely continuous (see Proposition 3.5 for the notation $`i_{A,X}`$). Assume that the following condition is satisfied:

* For any $`U𝒯`$ and for all countable $`F𝒞L(A)`$ such that $`|AF|\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`FU`$, there exists a $`V_𝒪`$ with $`FVU`$.

Then the set $`A`$ is sequentially closed.

###### Proof.

Put $`:=_𝒪`$. Then, by Proposition 2.24, $`𝒯`$. Assume that the set $`A`$ is not sequentially closed. Then there exists a sequence $`(x_n)_{n\omega }`$ in $`A`$ and a point $`xXA`$ such that $`lim_n\mathrm{}x_n=x`$. Without loss of generality we can assume $`x_nx_m`$ for all $`nm`$.

Let us consider the sets $`F=\{x_{2n}:n\omega \}`$ and $`G=\{x_{2n1}:n\omega \}`$. Put $`U=X\overline{G}^X`$. Then $`F`$ is a countable closed subset of $`A`$, $`|AF|\mathrm{}_0`$, $`FU`$ and $`U𝒯`$. By (\*), there exists a $`V`$ such that $`FVU`$. Since we are assuming that the function $`i_{A,X}`$ is inversely continuous, we obtain, by Proposition 3.5, that the set $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$. Hence there exists a $`W`$ such that $`\overline{F}^XW`$ and $`WAVA`$. Then $`xW`$, because $`x\overline{F}^X`$. Since $`W𝒯`$ and $`x`$ is a limit point of $`G`$, we have $`GW\mathrm{}`$. However this is a contradiction because

$$WAVAU=X\overline{G}^X,$$

and hence $`GW=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore, $`A`$ is sequentially closed. ∎

###### Remark 3.8.

In Example 3.22 below we will show that condition (\*) of Corollary 3.7 is essential, i.e., if we omit it, then the set $`A`$ could fail to be sequentially closed.

###### Corollary 3.9 (, Corollary 2.3).

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a T<sub>2</sub>-space, $`AX`$, $`𝒪`$ be the Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$ and $`i_{A,X}`$ be inversely continuous (see Proposition 3.5 for the notation $`i_{A,X}`$). Then the set $`A`$ is sequentially closed.

###### Proof.

We have, by Proposition 2.20, that $`_𝒪=𝒯`$. Then condition (\*) of Corollary 3.7 is trivially satisfied. Hence, by Corollary 3.7, $`A`$ is sequentially closed. ∎

###### Corollary 3.10.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a sequential T<sub>2</sub>-space, $`AX`$ and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by a subfamily of $`𝒯`$. Assume that condition (\*) of Corollary 3.7 is satisfied. Then the following conditions are equivalent (see Proposition 3.5 for the notation $`i_{A,X}`$):

* $`i_{A,X}`$ is a homeomorphic embedding;
* $`i_{A,X}`$ is inversely continuous;
* $`A`$ is closed in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that (a) implies (b). The implication (c)$``$(a) is true for any $`X`$, because if $`A`$ is a closed subset of $`X`$ then $`i_{A,X}`$ is the inclusion map. Let us show that (b) implies (c). By Corollary 3.7, $`A`$ is sequentially closed. Since $`X`$ is a sequential space, we obtain that the set $`A`$ is closed. ∎

###### Corollary 3.11 (, Corollary 2.4).

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a sequential T<sub>2</sub>-space, $`AX`$ and $`𝒪`$ be the Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent (see Proposition 3.5 for the notation $`i_{A,X}`$):

* $`i_{A,X}`$ is a homeomorphic embedding;
* $`i_{A,X}`$ is inversely continuous;
* $`A`$ is closed in $`X`$.

###### Definition 3.12.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and let $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$. The space $`(X,𝒯)`$ is called $`𝒪`$-commutative  if for any $`AX`$ the function $`i_{A,X}`$, defined in Proposition 3.5, is a homeomorphic embedding.

When $`𝒪`$ is the Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$, the notion of “$`𝒪`$-commutative space” coincides with the notion of “commutative space”, introduced in .

###### Corollary 3.13.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a sequential T<sub>2</sub>-space, $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by a subfamily of $`𝒯`$ and let condition (\*) of Corollary 3.7 be satisfied for every subspace $`A`$ of $`X`$. Then $`X`$ is $`𝒪`$-commutative if and only if $`X`$ is discrete.

###### Proof.

It follows from Corollary 3.10. ∎

###### Corollary 3.14 (, Corollary 2.5).

If $`X`$ is a sequential T<sub>2</sub>-space then $`X`$ is commutative if and only if $`X`$ is discrete.

###### Example 3.15.

Let us show that there exist spaces $`X`$ and topologies $`𝒪`$ of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$ that are not Tychonoff topologies and that satisfy all hypothesis of Corollary 3.13.

Let $`X=D(\mathrm{}_1)`$ be the discrete space of cardinality $`\mathrm{}_1`$. Let

$$=\{AX:|A|\mathrm{}_0\}\{X\}$$

and $`=𝒞L(X)`$. Then $``$ is a natural family on $`X`$, $``$ is $``$-closed, $`^{}=`$, $`X`$ and $``$ is a base for the discrete topology on $`X`$. Let $`𝒪_{}`$ be the topology on $``$ generated by $``$. Then $`𝒪_{}`$ is a topology of Tychonoff-type on $``$, however it is not a Tychonoff topology. In fact, by Proposition 2.30, $`=_𝒪_{}`$. Hence $`_𝒪_{}𝒯_𝒪_{}`$ and, by Corollary 2.23, $`𝒪`$ cannot be a Tychonoff topology. Obviously, $`=_𝒪_{}`$ satisfies condition (\*) of Corollary 3.7 for any subspace $`A`$ of $`X`$.

###### Definition 3.16.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$. The space $`(X,𝒯)`$ is called $`𝒪`$-HS-space if, for any $`AX`$, the function $`i_{A,X}`$, defined in Proposition 3.5, is continuous.

When $`𝒪`$ is the Tychonoff topology on $`𝒞L(X)`$ generated by $`(X,𝒯)`$, the notion of “$`𝒪`$-HS-space” coincides with the notion of “HS-space”, introduced in .

###### Corollary 3.17.

Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a T<sub>1</sub>-space and $`𝒪`$ be a topology of Tychonoff-type on $`𝒞L(X)`$. Then $`X`$ is an $`𝒪`$-commutative space if and only if $`X`$ is an $`𝒪`$-HS-space and every subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ is $`2__𝒪`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 3.5. ∎

###### Corollary 3.18 (,Corollary 2.2).

A $`T_1`$-space $`X`$ is commutative if and only if $`X`$ is an HS-space and every subspace of $`X`$ is 2-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from Corollary 3.17 and Proposition 3.3. ∎

###### Example 3.19.

We will describe two Tychonoff-type, non Tychonoff topologies on two different subfamilies of $`𝒫()`$ generated by the family $``$ of all open intervals of $``$. One of the resulting spaces will be $`T_0`$ and the other one will not.

Let $`𝒯`$ be the natural topology on $`X:=`$. Then the family $``$ of all open intervals in $`X`$ is a base for $`𝒯`$, it is closed under finite intersections and $`X`$. Put $`:=𝒞L(X,𝒯)`$ and $`^{}:=in_2(X)`$. They are natural families. The family $``$ is both $`^{}`$-closed and $``$-closed. Indeed, let $`UX`$ be $`^{}`$-covered by a subfamily $`_U`$ of $``$. Then $`U𝒯`$ and for every $`x,yU`$ there exists an open interval $`(\alpha ,\beta )_U`$ containing the points $`x`$ and $`y`$. Hence $`U`$ is a connected open set in $``$, i.e. $`U`$. Therefore, $``$ is an $`^{}`$-closed family. Since $`^{}`$, we obtain, by Proposition 2.28, that $``$ is an $``$-closed family as well.

By Corollary 2.9, $``$ generates Tychonoff-type topologies $`𝒪_{}`$ on $``$ and $`𝒪_{}^{}`$ on $`^{}`$. As it follows from Proposition 2.30, $`_𝒪_{}=_𝒪_{}^{}=𝒯`$. Hence, by Corollary 2.23, $`𝒪_{}`$ and $`𝒪_{}^{}`$ are not Tychonoff topologies on $``$, respectively $`^{}`$.

It is easy to see that $`(^{},𝒪_{}^{})`$ is a T<sub>0</sub>-space. Indeed, let $`\{x,y\}`$ and $`\{u,v\}`$ be two distinct elements in $`^{}`$. We can assume $`x<x+\epsilon <uv`$ for some $`\epsilon >0`$. Consider the interval $`B=(x+\epsilon ,+\mathrm{})`$. Then $`\{u,v\}B_{^{}}^+`$ but $`\{x,y\}B_{^{}}^+`$.

Let’s prove that $`(,𝒪_{})`$ is not a T<sub>0</sub>-space. Put $`F=\{2k:k\}`$ and $`G=\{2k+1:k\}`$. Then $`F,G`$ and $`FG`$ but the only neighbourhood of both $`F`$ and $`G`$ in $``$ is $`X_{}^+=`$.

###### Example 3.20.

In the notations of Example 3.19, we will show that $`(,𝒯)`$ is an $`𝒪_{}`$-HS-space.

We are working now with the space $`(,𝒪_{})`$ from Example 3.19. We will write simply $`𝒪`$ instead of $`𝒪_{}`$.

Let $`AX`$. We have to show that the function

$$i_{A,X}:(𝒞L(A),𝒪_A)(𝒞L(X),𝒪),$$

where the topology $`𝒪_A`$ on $`𝒞L(A)`$ is generated by the family

$$_A=\{AU:U\},$$

is continuous (see Proposition 3.5 for the notation $`i_{A,X}`$). Let $`B`$. We will show that $`i_{A,X}^1(B_{}^+)`$ is an open set. Take an $`Fi_{A,X}^1(B_{}^+)`$. Then $`F𝒞L(A)`$ and $`\overline{F}^XB`$. There exists an $`E`$ such that

$$\overline{F}^XE\overline{E}^XB$$

(this is clear if $`F`$ is bounded, since in this case $`\overline{F}^X`$ is compact; if $`F`$ is unbounded below, but is bounded above, then $`B=(\mathrm{},\beta )`$, for some $`\beta `$, and we can pick $`E=(\mathrm{},\gamma )`$ with $`supF<\gamma <\beta `$; similarly if $`F`$ is unbounded above but not below; if $`F`$ is unbounded both above and below then we have $`B=`$ and we put $`E:=B`$). Then

$$F\left(EA\right)_{𝒞L(A)}^+i_{A,X}^1(B_{}^+).$$

Indeed, let $`G\left(EA\right)_{𝒞L(A)}^+`$. Then

$$\overline{G}^X\overline{E}^XB,$$

i.e. $`i_{A,X}(G)B_{}^+`$.

###### Remark 3.21.

Let us note that a similar proof shows that every subspace $`Y`$ of $`(,𝒯)`$ is an $`𝒪__Y`$-HS-space (see Examples 3.19 and 3.20 for the notations).

More generally, let $`Y`$ be a topological space and $`𝒟`$ be a base of $`Y`$. We will say that $`Y`$ is $`𝒟`$-normal if for every $`F𝒞L(Y)`$ and for every $`D𝒟`$ such that $`FD`$ there exists an $`E𝒟`$ with $`FE\overline{E}^YD`$. Now, arguing as in Example 3.20, we can prove that if $`Y`$ is a $`𝒟`$-normal space, $`𝒟=𝒟^{}`$ and $`Y𝒟`$, then $`Y`$ is an $`𝒪`$-HS-space, where $`𝒪`$ is the Tychonoff-type topology on $`𝒞L(Y)`$ generated by $`𝒟`$. This generalizes the result of M. Sekanina  that any normal space is a HS-space.

###### Example 3.22.

In the notations of Examples 3.19 and 3.20, we will show that the function $`i_{A,}`$ is a homeomorphic embedding for any open interval $`A`$.

We will argue for $`A=(0,1)`$; the proof for any other open interval is similar. We know, by Example 3.20, that the function $`i_{A,X}`$ is continuous. Therefore we only need to prove that $`i_{A,X}`$ is inversely continuous. By Proposition 3.5, it is enough to show that the set $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`X`$. So, let $`H`$ be a closed subset of $`(0,1)`$ and let $`B=(\alpha ,\beta )`$ be such that $`HB`$. We have to find a $`D`$ such that $`\overline{H}^XD`$ and $`D(0,1)B`$. Clearly, $`\overline{H}^X[0,1]`$. If $`\overline{H}^X(0,1)`$, we can take $`D=B`$. If $`0\overline{H}^X`$ but $`1\overline{H}^X`$ then $`\alpha 0`$ and we can put $`D=(1,\beta )`$. If $`1\overline{H}^X`$ but $`0\overline{H}^X`$ then $`\beta 1`$ and we can put $`D=(\alpha ,2)`$. If $`0,1\overline{H}^X`$ then $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\beta 1`$ and we put $`D=(1,2)`$. Therefore, $`A`$ is $`2_{}`$-combinatorially embedded in $`(,𝒯)`$.

Note that $`A`$ is not 2-combinatorially embedded in $`(,𝒯)`$.

Observe that the triple $`((,𝒯),A,𝒪)`$ satisfies all hypothesis of Corollary 3.7 except for condition (\*), but $`A`$ is not sequentially closed.

###### Example 3.23.

Let $`Y`$. We will say, as usual, that a point $`xY`$ is isolated from the right (left) (in $`Y`$) if there exists an $`\epsilon >0`$ such that if we put $`U=(x,x+\epsilon )`$ ($`U=(x\epsilon ,x)`$) then $`UY=\mathrm{}`$. Now, in the notations of Examples 3.19 and 3.20, we have: a subspace $`Y`$ of $`(,𝒯)`$ is $`𝒪__Y`$-commutative if and only if every point of $`Y`$ is either isolated from the right or from the left.

We first show that a space $`Y`$ that has a point $`y_0`$ which is non-isolated both from the left and from the right cannot be $`𝒪__Y`$-commutative. Indeed, put $`A=Y\{y_0\}`$. We will prove that $`A`$ is not $`2__Y`$-combinatorially embedded in $`Y`$. By Proposition 3.5, this will imply that the function $`i_{A,Y}`$ is not inversely continuous and hence the space $`Y`$ will be not $`𝒪__Y`$-commutative. Let $`H=\{y_n:n\omega \}`$ be a decreasing sequence in $`Y`$ converging to $`y_0`$. Then $`H`$ is a closed subset of $`A`$ and $`H(y_0,+\mathrm{})Y`$. Suppose that there exists $`B`$ such that $`cl_YHB`$ and $`BA(y_0,+\mathrm{})`$. Since $`y_0cl_YHB`$ and $`y_0`$ is not isolated from the left, we have that $`(BA)(y_0,+\mathrm{})\mathrm{}`$, which is a contradiction. Hence, $`A`$ is not $`2__Y`$-combinatorially embedded in $`Y`$.

Now we will show that a space $`Y`$ having only points which are isolated either from the left or from the right is $`𝒪__Y`$-commutative. Let $`AY`$. We know, by Remark 3.21, that the function $`i_{A,Y}`$ is continuous. Hence it is enough to show that it is inversely continuous, i.e., according to Proposition 3.5, that $`A`$ is $`2__Y`$-combinatorially embedded in $`Y`$. So, let $`H𝒞L(A)`$ and let $`HBY`$ for some $`B=(\alpha ,\beta )`$. We have to find a $`D`$ such that $`\overline{H}^YDY`$ and $`DAB`$. We have $`cl_YH\overline{B}^X=[\alpha ,\beta ]`$. If $`cl_YHB`$, we can take $`D=B`$ and we are done. If $`\alpha cl_YH`$ and $`\beta cl_YH`$ then $`\alpha Y`$ and $`\alpha `$ is not isolated from the right, being a limit point of $`H`$. Hence, by the assumption, $`\alpha `$ is isolated from the left. Thus there exists a $`\gamma <\alpha `$ such that $`(\gamma ,\alpha )Y=\mathrm{}`$. Then $`D=(\gamma ,\beta )`$ is the required interval. The other two possible cases are treated analogously.


format: text

text:
# Generation of new classes of integrable quantum and statistical models

## 1 Introduction

Integrable quantum systems in $`1+1`$-dimensions and statistical models in $`2`$-dimensions belong to an exclusive and important class of models giving exact results. However there seems to be no established scheme for generating all such models along with their Lax operators and $`R`$-matrices in a unified way. Our aim therefore is an effort in that direction for constructing a wide range of known as well as new classes of models putting particular emphasis on statistical models.

The integrable systems may be defined by the property that they possess N-number of conserved quantities, which are independent and commute among themselves: $`[c_n,c_m]=0`$, where N is to the degree of freedom of the system. Such integrability also leads to the exact solvability of the model, since taking conserved quantities as action variables one can adopt the action-angle variable description. For managing conveniently such a rich structure we introduce first a generating function $`\tau (\lambda )`$ depending on some extra parameter $`\lambda `$, known as the spectral parameter, such that one can recover the infinite number of conserved quantities including the Hamiltonian as the expansion coefficients of $`\mathrm{ln}\tau (\lambda )=_jc_j\lambda ^j`$. The crucial integrability condition may then be defined in a compact form as $`[\tau (\lambda ),\tau (\mu )]=0`$, from which the commutativity of $`c_j`$’s follows immediately by comparing the coefficients of different powers of $`\lambda ,\mu `$. The partition function $`Z`$ of the related statistical model on the other hand can be constructed from $`\tau (\lambda )`$ as $`Z=tr(\tau (\lambda )^M)`$.

To be convinced of the amazingly wide variety and range of the integrable models, let us name a few of them , which allow both classical and quantum variants. They are field and lattice models of relativistic or anisotropic type such as sine-Gordon field and exact lattice  model and similarly Liouville model, quantum derivative nonlinear Schrödinger (DNLS) equation  together with their exact lattice versions, quantum spin model like $`XXZ`$ chain , relativistic quantum Toda chain  etc. Models can also be of nonrelativistic or isotropic type such as NLS model  and its lattice variant, $`XXX`$ spin chain , Toda chain  etc. Among the statistical integrable models the most simple and well known is the 6-vertex model . This model is defined on a square lattice with a random direction on each bond ( left or right on horizontal, up or down on vertical) (FIG.1a)) constrained by the ice rule, that the number of incoming and outgoing arrows at each vertex are the same. This leaves only $`6`$ possible configurations giving that many Boltzmann weights (BW) $`\omega _{i,j;k,l}`$ at each vertex point, coining the name of the model. These $`6`$ weights may be given by the nontrivial matrix elements of the $`R`$-matrix (2.2) and the partition function is expressed as $`Z=_{config}_{a,b,j,k}\omega _{a,j;b,k}(\lambda ).`$

## 2 Lax operator approach

For describing the intricate integrable structures mentioned above one can not however start just from the Hamiltonian of the model as conventional in physics, since now the Hamiltonian is merely one among many commuting conserved charges. We on the other hand have to allow certain abstractions and start with an unusual type of matrix called the Lax operator $`L_j(\lambda )`$ defined at each site $`j`$ of a 1-dimensional discretized lattice. The matrix elements of the Lax operator, unlike in an usual matrix, are themselves operators acting on some Hilbert space. For ensuring the integrability of a system the related $`L_j(\lambda )`$ generally should satisfy certain commutation relations given by the ultralocality condition $`L_j(\lambda )L_k(\mu )=(IL_k(\mu ))(L_j(\lambda )I)`$ at different lattice points and the Yang-Baxter equation

$$R(\lambda \mu )L_j(\lambda )L_j(\mu )=(IL_j(\mu ))(L_j(\lambda )I)R(\lambda \mu ).$$
(2.1)
at the same points $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N.`$ The $`R(\lambda \mu )`$-matrix has spectral parameter dependent c-number elements, which we take as a $`4\times 4`$ matrix with

$$R_{11}^{11}=R_{22}^{22}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha (\lambda +1),R_{12}^{12}=R_{21}^{21}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha (\lambda ),R_{21}^{12}=R_{12}^{21}=\mathrm{sin}\alpha .$$
(2.2)
Since our intension is to establish the integrability which is a global property, we have to switch from this local picture at each site $`j`$ to some global one by defining a matrix $`T(\lambda )=_{j=1}^NL_J(\lambda )`$. Multiplying therefore the YBE (2.1) for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},N`$ and thanks to the ultralocality condition one arrives at the global YBE: $`R_{12}(\lambda \mu )T(\lambda )T(\mu )=(IT(\mu )TI(\lambda )R_{12}(\lambda \mu )`$ having exactly the same structural form. Invariance of the same algebraic form also for the tensor product of the algebras as revealed here exhibits an underlying deep Hopf algebra structure. Defining further $`\tau (\lambda )=trT(\lambda )`$, taking $`trace`$ from both sides of the global YBE and canceling the $`R`$-matrices due to the cyclic rotation of matrices under the trace we arrive finally at the trace identity through $`\tau (\lambda )`$ defining the quantum integrability of the system.

Therefore we see that the integrable systems may be defined by their Lax operators satisfying the ultralocality condition and the YBE together with the associated $`R`$-matrix. Note that all the varied integrable models listed above have their representative $`L`$ operators as $`2\times 2`$ matrices, but with diverse forms expressed through different basic operators like spins $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$, bosons $`\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ or real canonical operators $`u,p`$ etc. However surprisingly, the $`R`$-matrix associated with all of them appears to be the same and given by the known trigonometric solution (2.2) as for the 6-vertex model (or its $`q=e^{i\alpha }1`$ , i.e rational limit). Therefore a natural question arises asking whether there can be a unified model associated with (2.2) such that all above models can be derived from it in a systematic way.

## 3 Unified model

We show that it is indeed possible to find such an integrable unified model and justify consequently the sharing of the same $`R`$-matrix by all other integrable models, which will be obtained through various reductions and realizations of this single model. Such a general model must be a quantum, lattice model, which is relativistic or anisotropic and extendible to be inhomogeneous with inbuilt quantum parameter $`\mathrm{}`$, lattice constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, deformation parameter $`q`$ and the inhomogeneity parameters $`\{c\}`$), such that it can generate lattice/ field models, quantum/ classical models, relativistic (anisotropic)/ nonrelativistic (isotropic) variants and similarly inhomogeneous/homogeneous models at the corresponding limits of these parameters.

Since the integrable models can be represented by their Lax operators, we propose the defining form for our unified model as

$$L_t^{(anc)}(\xi )=\left(\begin{array}{c}\xi c_1^+q^{S^3}+\xi ^1c_1^{}q^{S^3}ϵS^{}\\ ϵS^+\xi c_2^+q^{S^3}+\xi ^1c_2^{}q^{S^3}\end{array}\right),q=e^{i\alpha },\xi =e^{i\alpha \lambda },ϵ=2\mathrm{sin}\alpha .$$
(3.3)
with the basic operators satisfying the quadratic algebra

$$[S^3,S^\pm ]=\pm S^\pm ,[S^+,S^{}]=\left(M^+\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha S^3)+M^{}\mathrm{cos}(2\alpha S^3)\right)\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}\alpha },[M^\pm ,]=0,$$
(3.4)
where $`M^\pm `$ are the central elements expressed as $`M^\pm =\pm \sqrt{\pm 1}(c_1^+c_2^{}\pm c_1^{}c_2^+)`$ through the commuting set of elements $`c_a^\pm `$. The algebra (3.4) is a novel q-deformed algebra and includes known q-spin as well as q-boson algebras as particular reductions. The quantum integrability of this model and hence all other models derived below from it is guaranteed, since (3.3) with (3.4) associated with $`R`$-matrix (2.2) satisfy YBE (2.1).

It is crucial to note that we would define the Boltzmann weights (BW) of our vertex models not by the $`R`$-matrix as conventional, but through the elements of the Lax operator (3.3) as $`L_{ab}^{j,k}(\lambda )=\omega _{a,j;b,k}(\lambda )`$ by using matrix representations of the unifying q-deformed algebra (3.4).

We may find an important representation of this algebra through canonical fields as

$$S^3=u,S^+=e^{ip}g_s(u),S^{}=g_s(u)e^{ip}.$$
(3.5)
with operator function

$$g_s(u)=\left(\kappa +\mathrm{sin}\alpha (su)(M^+\mathrm{sin}\alpha (u+s+1)+M^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha (u+s+1))\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }$$
(3.6)
containing extra free parameters $`\kappa `$ and $`s`$. The unified model represented by (3.3) is a quantum integrable model and may be considered as a generalized lattice SG model through realization (3.5),( 3.6). We are now in a position to generate the whole range of integrable models, known as well as new, through various choices of the central elements $`M^\pm `$ as well as by mapping into different realizations. In fact (3.5) can be directly mapped through the spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ operators $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ or realized further in bosonic operators $`\psi ,\psi ^{}`$ as $`\psi =e^{ip}((su))^{\frac{1}{2}},N=su,`$ etc. We may repeat similarly the whole construction at limit $`\alpha 0`$ for generating the rational cases, or consider $`q`$ as roots of unity to get the restricted models. On the other hand at $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ we recover the field models, while $`\mathrm{}0`$ yields as usual the corresponding classical dynamical systems. As we show below, the choice for the inhomogeneity parameters $`c_a^\pm `$ can be of two types: either as constant parameters reproducing generally known models or as site $`j`$ dependent functions, which generates new classes of inhomogeneous or hybrid integrable models.

Motivated by the form of (3.5) we find also a matrix representation of the unifying algebra (3.4) as

$$<s,\overline{m}|S^3|m,s>=m\delta _{m,\overline{m}},<s,\overline{m}|S^\pm |m,s>=f_s^\pm (m)\delta _{m\pm 1,\overline{m}},$$
(3.7)
with $`f_s^+(m)=f_s^{}(m+1)g_s(m)`$ and using it construct the BW for our unified vertex model as

$$\omega _{\pm ,k;\pm ,k}(\lambda )=c_\pm ^+e^{i\alpha (\lambda \pm m)}+c_\pm ^{}e^{i\alpha (\lambda \pm m)},\omega _{+,k;,k1}=\omega _{,k1;+,k}=2g_s(k1)\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,m=s+1k,$$
(3.8)
where $`k[1,D]`$, depends on the dimension $`D`$ of the matrix-representation of the q-algebras. Possible reductions of this unified model (3.8) would yield new series of vertex models (see FIG.1) with the familiar ice-rule is generalized here as the color conservation $`a+j=b+k`$ for determining the nonzero BW.

The eigenvalue solution of the transfer matrix related to the unified model can be found exactly through the algebraic Bethe ansatz, which therefore would give also exact solutions for all other quantum and statistical models we construct here in a unifying way.

## 4 Construction of integrable models

### 4.1 Trigonometric class with generic q

1. The simplest constant choice $`c_a^\pm =i`$ giving $`M^{}=0,M^+=2,`$ reduces (3.4) to the well known $`U_q(su(2))`$ q-spin algebra  $`[S^3,S^\pm ]=\pm S^\pm ,[S^+,S^{}]=[2S^3]_q\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha S^3}{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }.`$ and (3.3) to the corresponding Lax operator

$$L_{qspin}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{c}[\lambda +S^3]_qS^{}\\ S^+[\lambda S^3]_q\end{array}\right),$$
(4.9)
expressed through the q-spin. The simplest representation $`\stackrel{}{S}=\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{}{\sigma }`$ reduces (4.9) further to (2.2) and recovers the well known $`XXZ`$ spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ chain and also the 6-vertex model as the related statistical system.

On the other hand, for canonical representation (3.5) the form (3.6) reduces to
$`g(u)=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}\alpha }\left[1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha (2u+1)\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ recovering the known integrable lattice sine-Gordon model. However for the corresponding statistical model the BW reduced from (3.8) takes the form $`\omega _{\pm ,j;\pm ,j}(u)=[u\pm m]_q,\omega _{+,j;,j1}=\omega _{,j1;+,j}=f_s^+(m)`$ with $`f_s^\pm (m)=([sm]_q[s\pm m+1]_q)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, yielding a new series of integrable models, namely q-spin $`(4s+2)`$-vertex model, for different values of s (FIG.1b)).

2. Another constant but different set of choices: $`c_1^+=c_2^{}=1,c_2^+=c_1^{}=0`$ giving $`M^\pm =\pm \sqrt{\pm 1}`$ yield an exponentially deformed Lie algebra $`[S^+,S^{}]=\frac{e^{2i\alpha S^3}}{2i\mathrm{sin}\alpha }`$ The representation (3.5) is valid now with $`g(u)=\frac{(1+e^{i\alpha (2u+1)})^{\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sin}\alpha }`$ and reproduces the lattice version of the quantum Liouville  model. One can as well construct the related vertex model with the BW obtained as particular reductions of (3.8) similar to the above case.

3. On the other hand another constant choice $`c_1^+=c_2^+=1,c_1^{}=iq,c_2^{}=\frac{i}{q}`$ leading to $`M^+=2\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,M^{}=2\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ reproduces the well known $`q`$-boson algebra  $`[A,N]=A,[A^{},N]=A^{},[A,A^{}]=\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\alpha (2N+1))}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha }`$ from (3.4) by denoting $`S^+=\rho A,S^{}=\rho A^{},S^3=N,\rho =(\mathrm{cot}\alpha )^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and corresponds to a new quantum integrable $`q`$-bosonic model with the Lax operator reduced from (3.3) as

$$L_{qboson}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\alpha \varphi }[\lambda (\widehat{N}+\varphi )]_q\kappa A^{}\\ \kappa Ae^{i\alpha \varphi }[\lambda +(\widehat{N}+\varphi )]_q\end{array}\right),$$
(4.10)
Realizing the $`q`$-boson through standard boson one may construct an integrable quantum model, representing a lattice version of the quantum derivative nonlinear Schrödinger equation (QDNLS) and at the continuum limit the corresponding field model. Fusing two such models one can build further a quantum integrable massive Thirring model . The QDNLS is also related to the exactly solvable interacting bose gas model with derivative $`\delta `$-function potential.

For constructing the related vertex model we require matrix representation of the q-bosonic operators, which with the present choice of the central elements and assuming $`\kappa =s=0,n=m`$, may be derived from (3.7) as $`<\overline{n}|N|n>=n\delta _{n,\overline{n}},<\overline{n}|A^{}|n>=f_0^{}(n)\delta _{n+1,\overline{n}},<\overline{n}|A|n>=f_0^+(n)\delta _{n1,\overline{n}}`$ with $`f_0^{}(n)=([1+n]_q[[n1]]_q)^{\frac{1}{2}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[1+n]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}},f_0^+(n)=f^{}(n1)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[n]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Consequently the BW of the related statistical model reduced from (3.8) take the form as

$$\omega _{\pm ,j;\pm ,j}(u)=ie^{\pm i\alpha \varphi }[u(j+\varphi 1)]_q,\omega _{+,j;,j1}=\omega _{,j1;+,j}=f^+(j1)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}[j1]_{q^2}^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(4.11)
with $`\varphi =\frac{1}{2}(1+\frac{\pi }{2\alpha })`$ which generates new q-boson $`(4n+2)`$-vertex model (FIG.1c)).

4. It is easy to see that for all the following parameter choices: $`i)c_a^+=1,a=1,2,\text{or}ii)c_1^{}=\pm 1,\text{or}iii)c_1^+=1,`$ with rest of the $`c^{}`$s being zero, we get $`M^\pm =0`$ with the underlying algebra reducing to $`[S^+,S^{}]=0,[S^3,S^\pm ]=\pm S^\pm `$ and (3.5) simply to $`S^3=ip,S^\pm =\alpha e^u.`$ This yields the relativistic quantum Toda chain recovering also its different Lax operator constructions.

The statistical systems related to this case however seem to be give uninteresting vertex models with infinite matrix traces.

### 4.2 Models with q roots of unity

It is obvious that the integrability of a system remains intact even if $`q`$ is chosen as solutions of $`q^p=1`$. with parameter $`\alpha `$ taking discrete values $`\alpha _a=2\pi \frac{a}{p},a=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$ .However this opens up an excellent possibility for regulating the dimension of the representation of the underlying algebra. All quantum models constructed above will yield their restricted versions when q is taken as the roots of unity. Among these models only a few appear to have been studied earlier, which include restricted sine-Gordon model connected with the q-spin and restricted DNLS associated with the q-boson.

The related vertex models generate now completely new series, since the number of the possible configurations can be regulated through integer p. To analyze this fact we focus on the action of $`S^{}`$ in (3.7) assuming $`\kappa =0`$ : and observe that due to $`[p]_q=\mathrm{sin}\alpha _ap=0,`$ unlike generic q we can get now $`S^{}|\overline{s},s>=0`$ at $`\overline{s}=p(s+1)`$, which reduces matrix (3.7) to a finite dimensional representation. As a consequence, for q-spin with fixed $`p,0<p<2s+1,`$ we get now $`p1`$ number of different $`(4p2)`$-vertex models for different discrete values of $`\alpha _a`$.

The situation becomes more interesting when applied to the q-boson with finite $`p`$, since now in place of its unbounded representation we obtain a finite dimensional matrix representation leading to an intriguing series of $`(2p2)`$-vertex models with BW described by the same form (4.11) as for the generic q-boson case, but now with different possible discrete parameter values $`q=e^{i\alpha _a},a=1,2,\mathrm{},p1`$.

### 4.3 Rational class

At the limit $`\alpha 0`$ or $`q1`$ the Lax operator (3.3) , the BM (3.8) as well as the $`R`$-matrix reduce to their corresponding rational limits with the underlying algebra becoming

$$[s^+,s^{}]=2m^+s^3+m^{},[s^3,s^\pm ]=\pm s^\pm ,[m^\pm ,]=0,$$
(4.12)
with the central elements $`M^\pm m^\pm `$. We can find as before various realization of this algebra directly from (3.5) using however a limiting form of (3.6) as $`g_0(u)=i((su)(m^+(u+s+1)+m^{}))^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and construct in the similar way as above different integrable quantum and statistical models belonging to this rational class.

1.Thus at $`m^+=1,m^{}=0`$, when one gets the standard $`su(2)`$ algebra, the quantum models produced are the $`XXX`$ spin chain and the lattice NLS model, while the corresponding integrable vertex models related to the spin-s operators recover those obtained earlier through fusion technique .

2.A complementary choice $`m^+=0,m^{}=1,`$ on the other hand yields the bosonic algebra generates another quantum simple lattice NLS model . The corresponding bosonic vertex model represents a nontrivial integrable statistical model, apparently never studied before.

3.A trivial choice $`m^\pm =0`$ reproduces the algebra related to the relativistic Toda chain considered above, which however in the rational limit gives its well known nonrelativistic variant. The corresponding vertex model as before seem to be not physically interesting.

## 5 Inhomogeneous and hybrid models

An immediate generalization of all the above models is possible by considering the central elements $`c^{}`$s appearing in the Lax operator (3.3) to be site dependent functions. This would lead to a new class of integrable inhomogeneous extensions of the above models and may be interpreted as models with impurities, varying external fields, incommensuration etc.

Thus we can construct for example variable mass sine-Gordon, Liouville models, variable coefficient NLS , Toda chain models etc similarly the corresponding integrable q-spin and q-boson vertex models in varying external field.

Another intriguing class of models can be formed by regulating the inhomogeneity such that the Lax operators of different models are arranged to sit at different lattice sites along the chain defining the transfer matrix of the model as $`\tau (u)=tr\left(_\beta _{j=1}^{N^{(\beta )}}L_j^{(\beta )}(u)\right),`$ where $`L_j^{(\beta )}(u)`$ indicates Lax operators of different models belonging to the same class with the same $`R`$-matrix and occurring $`N^{(\beta )}`$ times in the total number of sites $`N=_\beta N^{(\beta )}`$.

Thus one can construct new series of exotic integrable models like hybrid sine-Gordon-Liouville model, hybrid NLS-Toda chain or spin-boson model, describing different types of nonlinear interactions at different domains of the coordinate space. Similarly one obtains hybrid integrable statistical models like (un-)deformed spin-boson models etc. combining different types of vertex models belonging to the same class (FIG.1).

Considering the continuum limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ we recover the quantum field models from their respective lattice versions constructed above, while their field Lax operator $`(x,\lambda )`$ takes the form $`L_j(\lambda )I+i\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\lambda )+O(\mathrm{\Delta }^2).`$ The associated $`R`$-matrix however remains the same as its discrete counterpart. At the limit $`\mathrm{}0`$ one obtains the corresponding classical models with the $`R`$-matrix reducing also to its classical form $`R(\lambda )=I+\mathrm{}r(\lambda )+O(\mathrm{}^2)`$. For statistical models on the other hand the most relevant is the thermodynamic limit: $`N\mathrm{}`$, with $`\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{}`$ fixed.

## 6  Unified solutions

: There is a well formulated algebraic Bethe ansatz method for exactly solving the eigenvalue problem of the transfer matrix $`\tau (u)=tr(_l^NL_l(u))`$, when the $`L,R`$ matrices are given . Therefore for our unified model represented by the generalized Lax operator (3.3) and the $`R`$-matrix (2.2) we get

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(\lambda )=(<0|\widehat{L}^{11}(u)|0>)^N(u)\underset{k}{\overset{n}{}}f(u_ku)+(<0|\widehat{L}^{22}(u)|0>)^N(u)\underset{k}{\overset{n}{}}f(uu_k),f(u)=\frac{[u+1]_q}{[u]_q}.$$
(6.13)
with all possible solutions of $`\{u_k\}`$ to be determined from the Bethe equations

$$\left(\frac{(<0|\widehat{L}^{11}(u_j)|0>)}{(<0|\widehat{L}^{22}(u_j)|0>)}\right)^N=\underset{kj}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{[u_ju_k+1]_q}{[u_ju_k1]_q},j=1,2,\mathrm{},n.$$
(6.14)
Here $`|0>`$ is the pseudo-vacuum and the only model dependent parts in both the above equations are given by the actions of the upper and lower diagonal operator elements $`L^{11},L^{22}`$ of the Lax operator. Note that since in our scheme the $`R`$-matrix is the same for all models and their $`L`$-operators are given through various reductions of (3.3), the eigenvalue form (6.13) together with the Bethe equation (6.14) give a unifying scheme for exactly solving all the integrable quantum as well as statistical models constructed here.

For our vertex models the Lax operator elements in the above equations should be replaced by their matrix representations expressed through the BW (3.8) as $`(<0|\widehat{L}^{11}(u)|0>)=\omega _{+,1;+,1}(<0|\widehat{L}^{22}(u)|0>)=\omega _{,1;,1}`$. The total number of independent solutions for the eigenstates should be equal to the dimension of the vector space on which the transfer matrix acts. For the vertex models in our construction this is $`K=D^N`$ and the partition function should be given through exact eigenvalue solutions as $`Z=lim_{M,N\mathrm{}}tr_v(\tau ^M)=lim_{M,N\mathrm{}}_k^K\mathrm{\Lambda }_k^M`$, in the thermodynamic limit. Note that though in general the dimension of the transfer matrix may even be infinite (including degeneracies), the corresponding partition function must be well defined. The Hamiltonian of the quantum models related to such statistical systems would generally involve nonlocal interactions which however are not relevant for the associated vertex models we are concerned with. Though the Bethe equation gives the form for deriving exact solutions, only in the thermodynamic limit one usually expects to find such solutions by converting this algebraic equation into an integral equation . For our unified model assuming $`c_2^\pm =\frac{r_2}{r_1}(c_1^\pm )^{}`$, for physical reasons we can similarly derive from (6.14)

$$V(c_1^\pm ,u)=2\pi \rho (u)𝑑v\rho (v)\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\alpha s}{\mathrm{cos}2\alpha scosh(uv)}.$$
(6.15)
It is important to note that the rhs of the above equation totally coincides with that for the 6-vertex model , while the lhs represents the model-dependent part and is expressed through BM $`\omega _{+,1;+,1}=c_1^+e^{u+is\alpha }+c_1^{}e^{(u+is\alpha )}r_1\omega (u)`$ given by (3.8) as $`V(c_1^\pm ,u)=\frac{\omega ^{^{}}\omega ^{}\omega \omega ^{^{}}}{|\omega |^2}`$. Therefore the integral equations related to all vertex models including the q-spin and q-boson vertex models can be obtained from the single equation (6.15) at proper choices of $`c_1^\pm `$, which should also naturally include the well known case of $`6`$-vertex model . Hybrid models, models with q roots of unity or at $`q1`$ can also be covered by the above unifying scheme or its extensions.

## 7 Concluding remarks

Thus we have prescribed an unifying scheme for constructing as well as solving integrable quantum and vertex models of certain classes , which covers lattice and field models of (non-)relativistic and (isotropic)anisotropic types as well as the corresponding integrable statistical models. Along with the known models one can construct new models, including a novel series of q-spin and q-boson vertex models related to q at roots of unity. Inhomogeneous and hybrid models constitute new exotic classes of integrable models. Using algebraic Bethe ansatz we can also find exact solutions for all these models in a unifying way. For some other details concerning our unified scheme the readers may consult the related works .

Acknowledgment:

I thank Profs. Bernard Nienhuis, Doochul Kim, Deepak dhar and Ashok Chatterjee for stimulating discussions.
FIG. 1. Integrable vertex models with horizontal (h) links taking $`2`$ values, while the vertical (v) ones may have $`D`$ possible values. a) 6-vertex b) q-spin vertex and c) q-boson vertex models. Combining a,b,c) an integrable hybrid model may be formed. $`q^p=1`$ gives $`D=p`$ in b) and c)


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent astronomical observations of supernovae and cosmic microwave background - indicate that the universe is accelerating and can be well approximated by a world with a positive cosmological constant. If the universe would accelerate indefinitely, the standard cosmology leads to an asymptotic de Sitter (dS) universe. De Sitter space expands so rapidly that inertial observers see an event horizon. Like the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a black hole, the dS entropy - can be written as

$$S=\frac{A}{4G},$$

where $`G`$ is Newton’s constant, and $`A`$ is area of the event horizon. The holographic principle then implies that the Hilbert space of quantum gravity in dS is finite dimensional. As pointed out by Witten, if the Hilbert space of quantum gravity really has a finite dimension this gives a strong hint that the general relativity cannot be quantized and must be derived from a more fundamental theory. However, persistent efforts by many researchers have so far all failed to find any clear-cut way to get dS from superstring theory or $`M`$-theory. In fact, there is no positive conserved energy and there cannot be unbroken supersymmetry in dS space. Thus, a universe with an positive cosmological constant poses serious challenges for superstring theory and $`M`$-theory. However, string theory may not be the only route to understanding of dS space. In fact, the AdS/CFT correspondence was first discussed from a general analysis of the asymptotic symmetries of AdS. One can suspect that the AdS/CFT correspondence is a manifestation of the more fundamental holographic principle. Along this direction, in the similar sense of the AdS/CFT duality, Strominger  has suggested dS/CFT correspondence to relates quantum gravity on dS space with boundary conformal field theory-.

In this paper, we study dynamics for massive scalar fields in dS by solving exactly the equations of motion. Global geometric properties of dS is presented in various coordinates. A Robertson-Walker like metric is deduced from the familiar $`SO(1,n+1)`$ invariant one in an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional embedding space. Singularities of wavefunctions at the boundary are demonstrated explicitly. A bulk-boundary propagator is constructed explicitly by making use of the solutions of equations of motion for massive scalar fields. The dS/CFT correspondence and the Strominger’s mass bound is shown.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, global geometric properties of dS in various coordinates are presented. The Penrose diagram is drawn. Relations between the explicit $`SO(1,n+1)`$ invariant metric and the Hua’s metric are shown. In Section 3, We solve exactly the equations of motion for massive scalar fields by making use of the variable-separating method. A bulk-boundary propagator is constructed in section 4. The dS/CFT correspondence and the Strominger’s mass bound is discussed.

## 2 Penrose diagram and global geometric properties

In an $`(n+2)`$-dimensional embedding space, the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional dS space can be written as

$$\xi ^0\xi ^0\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\xi ^i\xi ^i\xi ^{n+1}\xi ^{n+1}=1,$$
(1)
with induced metric

$$ds^2=d\xi ^0d\xi ^0\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}d\xi ^id\xi ^id\xi ^{n+1}d\xi ^{n+1}.$$
(2)
It is easy to check that the isometric symmetry of dSn+1 is $`SO(1,n+1)`$. It is not difficult to see that, at least, $`(n+1)`$ charts of coordinates $`𝒰_\alpha `$ ($`\xi ^\alpha 0`$, $`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},n+1`$) should be needed to describe dSn+1 globally.
In the chart dS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_\alpha `$, we introduce a coordinate

$$x^\mu =\frac{\xi ^\mu }{\xi ^\alpha },(\mu \alpha ;\xi ^\alpha 0).$$
(3)
for both the parts $`𝒰_\alpha ^+(\xi ^\alpha >0)`$ and $`𝒰_\alpha ^{}(\xi ^\alpha <0)`$ .
The chart dS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_\alpha `$, in the coordinate $`(x^\mu )`$, is described by

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{dS}_{n+1}𝒰_\alpha :\sigma (x^\mu ,x^\nu )>0,\hfill \\ \sigma (x^\mu ,x^\nu )1+\underset{\mu ,\nu \alpha }{}\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu ,\eta =\mathrm{diag}(1,\underset{n+1}{\underset{}{1,1,\mathrm{},1}}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
At the overlap region dS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_\alpha 𝒰_\beta `$ of the two charts $`𝒰_\alpha `$ and $`𝒰_\beta `$, we have relations between the coordinates $`(x^\mu )𝒰_\alpha `$ and $`(y^\nu )𝒰_\beta `$

$$y^\alpha =\frac{1}{x^\beta },y^\nu =\frac{x^\nu }{x^\beta }(\nu \alpha ).$$
(5)
This shows clearly a differential structure of dS space.
The boundary $`\overline{M}^n`$ of the slice dS$`{}_{n+1}{}^{}𝒰_\alpha ^+`$ of dS is

$$\overline{M}^n:1+\eta _{\mu \nu }x^\mu x^\nu =0.$$
(6)
In the coordinate $`(x^\mu )`$, the metric is reduced as

$$ds^2=\frac{dxJ(Ix^{}xJ)^1dx^{}}{1xJx^{}},$$
(7)
where $`J\mathrm{diag}(1,\underset{n}{\underset{}{1,1,\mathrm{},1}})`$, $`x(x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^{\alpha 1},x^{\alpha +1},\mathrm{},x^n)`$, and $`x^{}`$ the transport of the vector $`x`$. This is obviously a generalization of the Hua’s metric for manifolds with Lorentz signature.

It should be noticed that the transformations $`𝒟`$ among the coordinate variables $`(x^\mu ,\mu 0)`$ form a group $`𝒟SO(n)`$ as subgroup of $`SO(1,n+1)`$. Thus, we can refer to these transformations as space-like ones. The $`x^0`$ element of $`(x^\mu )`$ is not invariant under the so-called space-like transformations. We can not got a time-like Killing vector using of the $`x^0`$. To draw explicitly time-like geodesics, one should investigate space-like transformation invariance variables. In fact, we find that under the transformations $`𝒟`$, $`\xi ^0(\sigma ^{\frac{1}{2}}(x^\mu ,x^\nu )x^0)`$ is invariant. Therefore, it is convenient to use the coordinate $`(\xi ^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$.

By making use of the relations between the coordinates $`(x^\mu )`$ and $`(\xi ^0,x^i)`$

$$\begin{array}{c}\sigma (x^\mu ,x^\nu )=\frac{1+\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}^{}}{1+\xi ^0\xi ^0},\hfill \\ x^0x^0=\frac{\xi ^0\xi ^0}{1+\xi ^0\xi ^0}(1+\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}^{}),\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
we get a deduced Robertson-Walker like metric in terms of the coordinate $`(\xi ^0,x^i)`$

$$ds^2=\frac{d\xi ^0d\xi ^0}{1+\xi ^0\xi ^0}(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)\frac{d𝐱(I+𝐱^{}𝐱)^1d𝐱^{}}{1+\mathrm{𝐱𝐱}^{}},$$
(9)
where the vector $`𝐱`$ denotes $`(x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^{\alpha 1},x^{\alpha +1},\mathrm{},x^{n+1})`$ and $`𝐱^{}`$ the transport of the vector $`𝐱`$.
In the spherical coordinate $`(x^1,x^2,\mathrm{},x^{\alpha 1},x^{\alpha +1},\mathrm{},x^{n+1})(\rho ,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{n1})`$, the Robertson-Walker like metric is of the form

$$ds^2=\frac{d\xi ^0d\xi ^0}{1+\xi ^0\xi ^0}(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)\left[(1+\rho ^2)^2d\rho ^2+(1+\rho ^2)^1\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n1)}^2\right],$$
(10)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n1)}^2`$ is the metric on $`(n1)`$-sphere.
The boundary $`\sigma (x^\mu ,x^\nu )=0`$ of dS space is represented by $`\xi ^0=\pm \mathrm{}`$ in the coordinate $`(\xi ^0,𝐱)`$, and so called future and past boundary, respectively.

To further investigate global geometric properties of dS space, we would like to introduce other sets of coordinates.
A global coordinate can be introduced by relations

$$\begin{array}{c}\xi ^0=\mathrm{sinh}t,\hfill \\ \xi ^i=\mathrm{cosh}tu^i,(i=1,2,\mathrm{},n+1),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`u^i`$ are coordinates of $`n`$-sphere. It is easy to see that dS space is topologically equivalent to $`𝐑\times 𝐒^n`$. With this global coordinate, the metric deduced from the $`SO(1,n+1)`$ invariant one is of the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`d\xi ^0d\xi ^0{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}d\xi ^id\xi ^id\xi ^{n+1}d\xi ^{n+1}`$
$`=`$ $`dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2td\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n)}^2.`$
Generally, the metric on $`n`$-sphere can be written as

$$d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n)}^2=dr^2+\mathrm{sin}^2rd\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n1)}^2,$$

with $`u^{n+1}=\mathrm{cos}r`$ and $`0r\pi `$ , thus, we have

$$ds^2=dt^2\mathrm{cosh}^2tdr^2\mathrm{cosh}^2t\mathrm{sin}^2rd\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n1)}^2.$$

Suppressing the dimension of $`𝐒^{n1}`$ and using the diffeomorphism transformation

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\eta =2\mathrm{tan}^1(e^t),\hfill & (0<\eta <\pi ),\hfill \\ \theta =r\hfill & (0\theta \pi ),\hfill \end{array}$$

we obtain

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f(\eta )(d\eta ^2d\theta ^2),`$ (12)
$`f(\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^2\eta }}=\mathrm{cosh}^2t.`$
The Penrose diagram of dS space is shown in figure 1.

Let

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\xi ^0+\xi ^{n+1}=e^t,\hfill & (>0),\hfill \\ \xi ^i=e^tx^i,\hfill & (i=1,2,\mathrm{},n),\hfill \\ \xi ^0\xi ^{n+1}=r^2e^te^t,\hfill & (r^2=x^ix^i),\hfill \end{array}$$

the metric can be written as

$$ds^2=dt^2e^{2t}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}dx^idx^i,$$
(13)
where the subspace of $`(x^i)`$ or $`(t=\mathrm{constant})`$ is Euclidean.
With relation

$$e^t=\xi ^0+\xi ^{n+1}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta }>0,$$

we can see clearly that this coordinate describes upper-left half of dS space as shown in figure 2.

Let

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\xi ^0+\xi ^{n+1}\hfill & =(1r^2)^{1/2}e^t,\hfill & (>0),\hfill \\ \xi ^0\xi ^{n+1}\hfill & =(1r^2)^{1/2}e^t,\hfill & (<0),\hfill \\ \xi ^i\xi ^i\hfill & =r^2,\hfill & (<1),(i=1,2,\mathrm{},n),\hfill \end{array}$$

then, we get

$$ds^2=(1r^2)dt^2\frac{dr^2}{1r^2}r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{(n1)}^2.$$
(14)
With relations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\xi ^0+\xi ^{n+1}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{cos}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta }>0,\hfill \\ \xi ^0\xi ^{n+1}=\frac{\mathrm{cos}\theta +\mathrm{cos}\eta }{\mathrm{sin}\eta }<0,\hfill \end{array}$$

we can see that this coordinate describes a quarter of dS space as shown in figure 3.

## 3 Dynamics of massive scalar fields

The equation of motion for massive scalar fields is of the form

$$(\mathrm{}+m_0^2)\varphi (x)=0,$$
(15)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes the Laplace operator in dS space

$`\mathrm{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_i(\sqrt{g}g^{ij}_j)`$
$`=`$ $`(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)_{\xi ^0}^2+(n+1)\xi ^0_{\xi ^0}`$
$`(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)^1\left[(1+\rho ^2)^2_\rho ^2+\rho ^1(1+\rho ^2)(n1+2\rho ^2)_\rho \right]`$
$`(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)^1(1+\rho ^2)\rho ^2\mathrm{\Delta }_{(n1)},`$
here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(n1)}`$ is the Laplace operator on $`𝐒^{n1}`$.
Rewriting the scalar field $`\varphi `$ into variable-separating form

$$\varphi (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝚯)=𝒯(\xi ^0)(\rho )Y_{l𝐦}(𝚯),$$

we can transform the equation (15) as

$`(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)^2𝒯^{\prime \prime }(\xi ^0)+(n+1)\xi ^0(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)𝒯^{}(\xi ^0)+[m_0^2(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)+(ϵm_0^2)]𝒯(\xi ^0)=0,`$
$`\rho ^2(1+\rho ^2)^{\prime \prime }(\rho )+(n1+2\rho ^2)\rho ^{}(\rho )+[\rho ^2(1+\rho ^2)^1(ϵm_0^2)l(l+n2)](\rho )=0,`$
$`[\mathrm{\Delta }_{(n1)}+l(l+n2)]Y_{l𝐦}(𝚯)=0,`$ (17)
where $`Y_{l𝐦}(𝚯)`$ is the spherical harmonic function on $`𝐒^{n1}`$ and $`ϵ`$ an arbitrary constant.
Solutions for the time and radial parts are, respectively,

$`𝒯(\xi ^0)`$ $`=(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)^{(1n)/4}\{\begin{array}{c}P_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)\hfill \\ \hfill \\ Q_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)\hfill \end{array},`$ (21)
$`(\rho )`$ $`=\rho ^l(1+\rho ^2)^{k/2}F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(l+k+1),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(l+k),l+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};\rho ^2),`$ (22)
where we have used the notations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\mu ^2=\frac{1}{4}(n1)^2+(ϵm_0^2),\hfill \\ \nu (\nu +1)=\frac{1}{4}(n^21)m_0^2,\hfill \\ k^2(n1)k(ϵm_0^2)=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
Now we consider properties of $`𝒯(\xi ^0)`$ near the boundary $`\xi ^0\xi ^0=\mathrm{}`$.
For the first kind of associative Legendre function $`P_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)`$, by making use of the formula

$`P_\nu ^\mu (z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^\nu \mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\frac{1}{2})z^{\nu +\mu }(z^21)^{\mu /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu \mu )}}`$
$`\times F({\displaystyle \frac{1\nu \mu }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\nu +\mu }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\nu ,z^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2^{\nu 1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \frac{1}{2})z^{\nu +\mu 1}(z^21)^{\mu /2}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu \mu )}}`$
$`\times F({\displaystyle \frac{2+\nu \mu }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1+\nu \mu }{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}+\nu ,z^2),`$
we know that $`P_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)`$ is divergent near boundary as

$$P_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)(\xi ^0)^\nu +(\xi ^0)^{\nu 1}.$$
(25)
For the second kind of associative Legendre function $`Q_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)`$, by making use of the formula

$`Q_\nu ^\mu (z)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\mu \pi i}}{2^{\nu +1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\mu +1)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu +\frac{3}{2})}}(z^21)^{\mu /2}z^{\nu \mu 1}`$ (26)
$`\times F({\displaystyle \frac{\nu +\mu +1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{\nu +\mu +2}{2}},\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},z^2),`$
we know that $`Q_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)`$ is divergent near boundary as

$$Q_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)(\xi ^0)^{\nu 1}.$$
(27)
## 4 The dS/CFT correspondence

One of the keystones of the dS/CFT duality is the bulk-boundary propagator. To discuss the dS/CFT correspondence explicitly, we have to construct a bulk-boundary propagator for dS space. Here, by making use of the exact solutions of the equations of motion for massive scalar fields obtained in the last section, we write down a bulk-boundary propagator,

$`G_B^\pm (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮;\varrho ,𝐯)`$

$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑ϵ\underset{l}{}\underset{𝐦}{}Y_{l𝐦}(𝐮𝐯)(1+\xi ^0\xi ^0)^{(1n)/4}(\rho \varrho )^l(1+(\rho \varrho )^2)^{k/2}}`$
$`\times P_\nu ^\mu (i\xi ^0)F({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(l+k+1),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(l+k),l+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}};(\rho \varrho )^2),`$
where $`\mu `$, $`\nu `$ and $`k`$ take the same values as in the equation (23). It is not difficult to see that this bulk-boundary propagator satisfies the equations of motion for a scalar field with mass $`m_0`$,

$$\left(\mathrm{}+m_0^2\right)G_B^\pm (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮;\varrho ,𝐯)=0.$$
(29)
The bulk field can be determined from a field living on the boundary by making use of the bulk-boundary propagator $`G_B^\pm (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮;\varrho ,𝐯)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮)=\frac{1}{\omega _n}𝑑𝐯𝑑\varrho G_B^\pm (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮;\varrho ,𝐯)\varphi (\varrho ,𝐯),$$
(30)
where $`\omega _n`$ denotes the normalization constant. This shows that $`G_B^\pm (\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮;\varrho ,𝐯)`$ is really a bulk-boundary propagator in dS space for massive scalar fields. The bulk field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi ^0,\rho ,𝐮)`$ got from this way does not approach to $`\varphi (\varrho ,𝐯)`$ when limited on the boundary, but goes divergent at boundary with dimension

$$d=\frac{n}{2}\left(1\sqrt{1\frac{4m_0^2}{n^2}}\right).$$
(31)
This is in agreement with the mass bound given by Strominger.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank H. Y. Guo and C. G. Huang for enlightening discussions. The work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.


text:
# 1 Model Independent Analysis

## 1 Model Independent Analysis

For the general case of $`\nu _e`$ transition into a combination of $`\nu _{active}`$ ($`\nu _a`$) and $`\nu _{sterile}`$ ($`\nu _s`$) states one can write the SK, SNO CC and SNO NC rates as

$`R_{SK}^{el}`$ $`=`$ $`f_BP_{ee}+f_BrP_{ea},`$ (3)
$`R_{SNO}^{CC}`$ $`=`$ $`f_BP_{ee},`$ (4)
$`R_{SNO}^{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`f_B(P_{ee}+P_{ea}),`$ (5)
where $`P_{ee}`$ and $`P_{ea}`$ denote the probabilities folded with the detector response function  and averaged over energy. To extract a model independent bound on $`P_{ee}`$ one has to ensure an equality of the response functions which amounts to slight adjustment of the SK threshold energy and the rate . Our approach is slightly different. We treat $`P_{ee}`$ to be effectively energy independent. The SK spectrum data indicates a flat probability down to 5 MeV . This is corroborated by SNO  which now has a threshold of 5 MeV for kinetic energy of the observed electron. Hence we consider this assumption as justified and expect the results to be insensitive to the differences in the response functions. It should be noted here that in cotrast to the SNO CC events their NC events correspond to a neutrino energy threshold of 2.2 MeV. However it is clear from eq. (5) that for a $`\nu _e`$ to $`\nu _a`$ transition there is no reason to expect any energy dependence in $`R_{SNO}^{NC}`$. On the other hand for the general case of $`\nu _e`$ transition into a combination of $`\nu _a`$ and $`\nu _s`$ our approach effectively assumes $`P_{es}`$ to be energy independent down to 2.2 MeV. A comparison of the current values $`R_{SNO}^{CC}`$ with $`R_{SNO}^{NC}`$ is shown in fig. 1. It constitutes a 5.3$`\sigma `$ signal for transition to a state containing an active neutrino component or alternatively a 5.3$`\sigma `$ signal against a pure sterile solution.

Next we consider the general case where $`\nu _e`$ goes to a mixed state = $`\nu _a\mathrm{sin}\alpha +\nu _s\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$. Then one can write $`P_{ea}=\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha (1P_{ee}`$). Substituting this in the equations (3) and (5) and eliminating $`P_{ee}`$ using equation (4) one gets the following set of equations for $`f_B`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha (f_BR_{SNO}^{CC})`$ $`=`$ $`(R_{SK}^{el}R_{SNC}^{CC})/r,`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha (f_BR_{SNO}^{CC})`$ $`=`$ $`R_{SNO}^{NC}R_{SNO}^{CC}.`$ (7)
We treat $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ as a model parameter. And for different input values of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ we determine the central value and the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ ranges of $`f_B`$ by taking a weighted average of the equations (6) and (7). The corresponding curves are presented in fig. 2. Combining the 2 $`\sigma `$ lower limit of $`f_B`$ from this fit with the $`2\sigma `$ upper limit from the SSM (vertical lines) gives a lower limit of $`\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha `$ $`>`$ 0.45 i.e. the probability of the active component is $`>`$ 45%. Note that there is no upper limit on this quantity - i.e. the data is perfectly compatible with $`\nu _e`$ transition into purely active neutrinos.

Assuming transition into purely active neutrinos ($`P_{ea}=1P_{ee}`$ ) we show in fig. 3 the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ contours in the $`f_BP_{ee}`$ plane from the combinations SK+SNOCC and SK+SNOCC+SNONC. The inclusion of the NC rate narrows down the ranges of $`f_B`$ and $`P_{ee}`$. The error in $`f_B`$ after the inclusion of NC data is about half the size of the corresponding error from SSM as is seen from fig. 3.

## 2 Model dependent analysis

In this section we present the results of our $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of solar neutrino rates and SK spectrum data in the framework of two flavour oscillation of $`\nu _e`$ to an active flavour. We use the standard techniques described in our earlier papers  excepting for the fact that instead of the quantities $`R_{SK}^{el}`$ and $`R_{SNO}^{CC}`$ we now fit the ratios $`R_{SK}^{el}/R_{SNO}^{NC}`$ and $`R_{SNO}^{CC}/R_{SNO}^{NC}`$. The $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ flux normalisation gets cancelled from these ratios and the analysis becomes independent of the large (16-20%) SSM uncertainty associated with this. We include in our global analyses the 1496 day SK zenith angle spectra . Since we use both SK rate and SK spectrum data we keep a free normalisation factor for the SK spectrum. This amounts to taking the information on total rates from the SK rates data and the information of the spectral shape from the SK spectrum data. The SNO CC and NC rates have a large anticorrelation. We have taken into account this correlation between the measured SNO rates in our global analyses. Further details of this fitting method can be found in . In Table 2 we present the best-fit parameters, $`\chi _{min}^2`$ and goodness of fit (GOF). The best-fit comes in the HIGH(LMA) region as before . However as is seen from fig. 4a the incorporation of the NC data narrows down the allowed regions, and in particular the LOW region becomes much smaller.

We have also performed an alternative $`\chi ^2`$ fit to the rates of Table 1  along with the 1496 day SK spectra , keeping $`f_B`$ as a free parameter. Even though we allow $`f_B`$ to vary freely the NC data serves to control $`f_B`$ within a range determined by its error. As we see from Table 2 and fig. 4b the results of this fit are very similar to the previous case. The best fit comes from the HIGH(LMA) region, while no allowed region is obtained for the LOW solution at the 99% CL level. Maximal mixing is seen to be disallowed at the $`3\sigma `$ level. To illustrate the impact of the NC rate on the oscillation solutions we have repeated the free $`f_B`$ fit without this rate. The results are shown in fig 4c. Evidently the NC data plays a pivotal role in constraining the oscillation solutions, particularly in the LOW/QVO region, which is allowed only at the $`3\sigma `$ level. It puts an upper bound on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }m^2`$ in the LMA region and rules out maximal mixing.

## 3 Summary and Conclusions

The first SNO NC data constitutes a 5.3$`\sigma `$ signal for transition into a state containing an active neutrino component. The inclusion of this data puts much tighter constraints on $`f_B`$ and $`P_{ee}`$ from a model independent analysis involving active neutrinos as compared to the SNO CC/SK combination. In this paper we have discussed two useful strategies, of incorporating the NC data in the global $`\chi ^2`$ analysis of rates and spectrum data, by which one can avoid the large $`{}_{}{}^{8}B`$ flux uncertainty from the SSM.
$``$ We fit the ratios of the SK elastic and SNO CC rates w.r.t the NC rate, from which the $`f_B`$ cancels out.
$``$ We fit the rates by keeping $`f_B`$ as a free parameter, where the inclusion of the SNO NC rate (= $`f_B`$) serves to control this parameter.

Both the analyses give very similar results. They clearly favour the HIGH(LMA) solution, while a limited region of the LOW solution is also acceptable at the $`3\sigma `$ level. The maximal mixing solution is disfavoured at the $`3\sigma `$ level. As more data accumulate one expects a substantial reduction in the error bar of the SNO NC rate, resulting in further tightening of the allowed regions of neutrino mass and mixing.
Note Added: The paper  appeared on the net after completion of our work. In the region of overlap our results agree with theirs as well as with the updated version of . It may be added here that the SNO CC and NC rates given in Table 1 are obtained assuming undistorted energy spectra above 5 MeV, which for transitions to active neutrinos has good empirical justification as mentioned above. We thank Prof. Mark Chen of SNO collaboration for communication on this point.