text:
# Mobility edge scaling at semiclassical and dissipative Hall transitions

## Abstract

The universal anomalous diffusion scaling is obtained for the semiclassical quantum Hall transition, which has been argued to describe samples with dissipation or correlated impurities. The results explain a discrepancy between existing numerics and the expected scaling $`\eta =2x_1=\frac{1}{2}`$, which is violated because of a cancellation in the scaling function. The crossover with increasing observation time from semiclassical to quantum scaling is shown to explain a recent experiment which finds different scaling laws depending on how the localization length is extracted.

The electronic eigenstates of disordered systems at critical points such as the quantum Hall plateau transition Chalker and Daniell (1988) or metal-insulator transition Mirlin (2000) are believed to have fractal structure described by universal scaling laws, but analytic results for such scaling laws are quite scarce. This paper finds the exact anomalous diffusion scaling in a standard semiclassical model for the quantum Hall transition, extending previous numerical studies Evers (1997). Several authors Shimshoni et al. (1998); Kapitulnik et al. (2001); Avishai and Meir  have argued that this semiclassical limit is relevant to various experimental situations, and it also shares some features with the spin quantum Hall transition Senthil et al. (1999); Gruzberg et al. (1999) in disordered superconductors. Here the semiclassical model is compared to recent experiments Hohls et al. (2002) which appear to show both “quantum” and ”classical” localization scaling laws in the same sample, depending on how the localization length is extracted.

The semiclassical model has recently appeared in studies of how dissipative effects can modify the quantum Hall transition Shimshoni et al. (1998); Kapitulnik et al. (2001). Many experiments observe localization length scaling more consistent with the classical value $`\nu =\frac{4}{3}`$ than the expected quantum value $`\nu 2.35\pm 0.05`$ Wei et al. (1988); Huckestein (1995). By suppressing tunneling and introducing a finite dephasing length, dissipation increases the range of chemical potentials where a semiclassical description applies, but causes simple diffusion over a nonzero range around the critical chemical potential. The main experimental results can be understood in a simple picture incorporating dissipation, without requiring a new dissipation-dominated critical point other than diffusion.

The starting point of the analysis is a standard lattice model for classical motion on percolation hulls or random level surfaces; quantum mechanics only enters this model in properties like the density of states and conductivity Evers (1997); Gurarie and Zee (2001) which count the number of trajectories. The random level surface problem was first introduced in the quantum Hall context as a useful but quantitatively incorrect model for the integer transition Trugman (1983); Isichenko (1992). Our approach uses a mapping to a class of lattice polymers Moore (2002) to find time-dependent correlations in the semiclassical random level surface problem and resolve a disagreement between existing numerics and analytical work.

The results improve upon Monte Carlo calculations of Evers Evers (1997) on the random level surface problem, which correctly found a deviation from simple scaling but did not reach the extremely long paths ($`10^4`$ disorder correlation lengths) where the true asymptotic scaling sets in. There is a universal anomalous diffusion exponent $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$ which characterizes the non-Gaussian correlation of critical states. This result differs from the value $`\eta =\frac{1}{2}`$ predicted by a simple scaling argument because the leading scaling term vanishes. The restricted “open-walk” version of the problem, which is more convenient for numerics Evers (1997), is shown analytically to have $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$ with divergent logarithmic corrections resulting from a short-distance singularity in the associated polymer ensemble. Monte Carlo simulations are used to verify some of the predicted scaling behavior. Aside from their direct relevance to quantum Hall transitions, the results suggest possible features of other disordered electronic transitions: cancellations in scaling functions, logarithmic corrections, and slow decay of finite-size effects.

The existence of anomalous scaling (nonzero $`\eta `$) for the ordinary integer transition was shown by Chalker and Daniell Chalker and Daniell (1988): in the scaling regime $`q,\omega 1`$, the spectral function has two distinct universal limits:

$`S(𝐪;E_c,\omega )\{\begin{array}{cc}q^2\omega ^2\hfill & \text{if }q^2\omega \hfill \\ \omega ^{\eta /2}q^{\eta 2}\hfill & \text{if }q^2\omega \hfill \end{array}.`$ (1)
This form satisfies the scaling law $`S(q;E_c,\omega )=\omega ^1f(q^2/\omega )`$ which follows from a homogeneity assumption. $`S(q;E_c,\omega )`$ is defined as the Fourier transform of

$`S(𝐫;E_c,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\delta (E_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}E_c)\delta (E_j{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{2}}E_c)`$ (3)
$`\times \psi _i(0)\psi _i^{}(𝐫)\psi _j(𝐫)\psi _j^{}(0).`$
We now define the density-density correlation $`\rho (0,0)\rho (r,t)`$ at $`E=E_c`$ in the random level surface model, with scaling analogous to (3).

Consider a classical charged particle moving in the $`𝐱`$-$`𝐲`$ plane in a magnetic field $`B\widehat{𝐳}`$ and random potential $`V(x)`$. For a smoothly varying potential, the particle velocity averaged over the fast cyclotron motion is $`𝐯=(𝐄\times 𝐁)/B^2`$. The particle velocity is perpendicular to the potential gradient, and the particle moves along constant energy surfaces of the random potential. For a uniformly distributed potential $`V(x)[1,1]`$, the typical size of level surfaces at energy $`E`$ diverges as $`E0`$. The connection to percolation comes about because a level surface at energy $`E`$ separates regions with $`V>E`$ from those with $`V<E`$. The level surfaces are closed non-self-intersecting loops, whose statistical properties are exactly the same as percolation hulls Trugman (1983), or self-interacting ring polymers at the critical $`\theta `$-point Duplantier and Saleur (1987).

The results from percolation and polymers used to study this problem require discretizing the motion so that the particle moves on a regular lattice. From numerics Evers (1997); Gurarie and Zee (2001) it is known that the particle has nonzero mean velocity at the critical energy, so time can be discretized as well: the particle takes one step on the lattice per time unit. The resulting model on the hexagonal lattice Moore (2002); Gurarie and Zee (2001) is depicted in Fig. 1. There is an independent random potential $`V_i`$ on each face of the lattice. A particle of energy $`E`$ moves so that the potential of faces to its left (right) is always greater (less) than $`E`$.

Averaging over disorder, the probability to be at $`b`$ after $`N`$ steps starting from $`a`$ can be written as a weighted sum over self-avoiding walks (SAWs) or loops (SAPs) Moore (2002). The result is ($`H`$ is the number of different hexagons visited by the SAW or SAP)

$`f(r,N)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{SAPs}i\mathrm{through}a\mathrm{and}b,}{l=\mathrm{length}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{SAP},}}{q=\mathrm{steps}\mathrm{from}a\mathrm{to}b}}{}}\delta _{N\mathrm{mod}l,q}2^H`$ (5)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{SAWs}j\mathrm{of}\mathrm{length}N}{\mathrm{from}a\mathrm{to}b}}{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{self}\mathrm{contacts}}}{}}2^H.`$
Here each SAP should be summed twice, once with distance $`q`$ and once with distance $`lq`$. The classical analogue of the spectral function $`S(q,\omega )`$ is the imaginary part of (passing to continuous time)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega )i𝑑𝐫_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i(𝐪𝐫+\omega t)}f(r,t).$$
(6)
For random walks $`\mathrm{\Pi }(q,\omega )(\omega iDq^2)^1`$ and $`\omega \mathrm{\Pi }`$ is a function of $`q^2/\omega `$ (diffusive scaling); such scaling is violated at the semiclassical Hall transition, as seen below.

The weight $`2^H`$ in (5) is exactly that of the $`\theta ^{}`$ model studied by Duplantier and Saleur Duplantier and Saleur (1987), which is in the same universality class as the ordinary $`\theta `$-point. The critical exponents $`\gamma `$ and $`\nu _\theta `$, defined through

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{SAWs}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{length}\mathrm{N}}{}}2^H`$ $``$ $`\mu ^NN^{\gamma 1}`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\underset{\mathrm{SAWs}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{length}\mathrm{N}}{}R^22^H}{_{\mathrm{SAWs}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{length}\mathrm{N}}2^H}}`$ $`=`$ $`R^2_{\mathrm{SAW}}N^{2\nu _\theta },`$ (8)
take values $`\gamma =\frac{6}{7}`$, $`\nu _\theta =\frac{4}{7}`$ for this class, and $`\mu =1`$ on the hexagonal lattice Duplantier and Saleur (1987). Here and in the following $`_{\mathrm{SAW}}`$ denotes an average over self-avoiding walks, while $``$ denotes an average over disorder configurations in the random level surface problem.

The linear increase with time of the mean squared particle displacement at $`E_c`$ follows from the values of polymer exponents $`\nu _\theta `$ and $`\gamma `$: $`R^2(N)N^{\gamma 1+2\nu _\theta }=N.`$ Higher moments of the particle distribution function show nontrivial scaling laws:

$$R^{2n}(N)N^{\gamma 1}N^{2n\nu _\theta }=N^{(8n1)/7},n1.$$
(9)
For random walks $`R^{2n}(N)N^n`$. The higher moment laws (9) reflect the non-intersection and memory properties of random level surfaces, which lead to a non-Gaussian distribution of $`f(r,N)`$.

The expression (5) for the particle distribution function after $`N`$ steps includes both SAWs and SAPs. Since the sum over SAPs contains not just loops of length $`N`$ but of all shorter lengths, this term contributes a large constant background which is difficult to subtract numerically. The most comprehensive numerics have been performed on a reduced problem including only the average over self-avoiding walks. It follows from simple properties of a polymer scaling function that Monte Carlo numerics suggesting $`\eta 0`$ for the reduced problem are not reaching the asymptotic regime: the actual value is $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$ with a logarithmic prefactor. Then a similar argument gives $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$ for the full problem (open and closed polymers), with no logarithmic corrections.

The basic scaling law for polymers predicts that the particle distribution function $`f_0`$ for the reduced problem has the form

$$f_0(𝐫,t)=t^{d\nu _\theta }H(rt^{\nu _\theta })$$
(10)
where $`H`$ is normalized as $`H(x)d^dx=1.`$ $`H`$ is positive, falls off rapidly as $`x\mathrm{}`$, and is smooth except for the origin, where $`H(x)x^{(\gamma 1)/\nu _\theta }=x^{1/4}`$. This behavior at small $`x`$ is the simplest example of a polymer contact exponent: a new critical exponent describes the scaling as the two ends of the polymer approach each other. The value $`(\gamma 1)/\nu _\theta `$ can be derived from noting that as the ends approach each other, a SAW becomes a SAP. This divergence at small $`x`$ is the source of the logarithmic corrections in the reduced problem.

It is convenient to isolate the divergence in $`H(x)`$:

$$H(x)=cx^{1/4}e^{x^2/2}+H_{\mathrm{reg}}(x),$$
(11)
where $`c`$ is a positive constant and $`H_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ is some smooth function (no longer necessarily positive). The cutoff on the singular part is arbitrary; a Gaussian is chosen for simplicity. The distribution function in momentum space is

$`\widehat{f}_0`$ $`(𝐪`$ $`,t)={\displaystyle }e^{i𝐪𝐫}f_0(𝐫,t)d^2𝐫`$ (12)
$`=`$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}J_0(qr)H(rt^{4/7})t^{8/7}r𝑑r\widehat{f}_0(qt^{4/7}).`$ (13)
The contribution of the regular part $`H_{\mathrm{reg}}`$ to $`f(q,\omega )`$ is finite (possibly zero) as $`\omega 0`$:

$`f_{\mathrm{reg}}(q,0)`$ $``$ $`2\pi {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}J_0(uqt^{4/7})H_{\mathrm{reg}}(u)u𝑑u𝑑t`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{7\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/8)^2\sqrt{\sqrt{2}1}}{2q^{7/4}}}\left({\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{reg}}(u)}{u^{3/4}}}𝑑u\right).`$ (15)
The singular part of $`H(x)`$ gives a logarithmically divergent contribution $`C`$ as $`\omega 0`$:

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi c{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\omega t}J_0(uqt^{4/7})u^{1/4}e^{u^2/2}u𝑑u𝑑t`$ (16)
$`=`$ $`2\pi c\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/8)2^{1/8}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\omega t}F(7/8,1,q^2t^{8/7}/2)𝑑t`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2c\mathrm{\Gamma }(7/8)^2\sqrt{\sqrt{2}1}}{q^{7/4}}}\left(\mathrm{log}(q^{7/4}/\omega )+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (18)
where the omitted terms are finite as $`\omega 0`$ and $`F`$ is the confluent hypergeometric function.

From (18) $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ scales as $`q^{7/4}=q^{2+\eta }`$ with $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$, with a logarithmically divergent prefactor resulting from the polymer contact singularity $`H(x)x^{1/4}`$. The singularity is easily missed numerically since it only starts to dominate the scaling function for small values of $`x`$ in dimensionless units, so extremely long walks with $`N10^4`$ are required for its observation. We have performed Monte Carlo simulations of walks up to $`N=10^5`$ to verify the predicted increase of $`H(x)`$ at small $`x`$.

Now consider the average over all (closed and open) paths which gives $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }`$. After a long time $`t`$, only a fraction $`t^{\frac{1}{7}}`$ of paths are open, and most particles move on closed loops. Naïve scaling predicts that $`\eta =2x_1=\frac{1}{2}`$, but the scaling function is shown below to vanish in the limit $`\omega 0`$. The next term is nonvanishing and gives $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }\omega ^{1/7}q^{7/4}`$, so $`\eta =1/4`$. There are no logarithmic corrections, unlike in the open-walk case, because of the $`t^{\frac{1}{7}}`$ damping of open walks.

As $`t\mathrm{}`$ the particle distribution function goes to a nonzero limit

$$f(r,\mathrm{})\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{closed}\mathrm{paths}}{\mathrm{including}0\mathrm{and}r}}{}2^HL^1,$$
(19)
with $`_rf(r,\mathrm{})=1`$ and $`L`$ is the path length. The background contributes a $`\delta (\omega )`$ part which is henceforth ignored (difficulty in separating $`\delta (\omega )`$ is the reason why Monte Carlo calculations are often performed on the reduced open-walk problem). Defining $`\stackrel{~}{f}(r,N)f(r,N)f(r,\mathrm{})`$, some straightforward cancellations show that $`_N\stackrel{~}{f}(r,N)=0`$ for all $`r`$, so for all $`q`$, in the continuum limit $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{f}(q,t)𝑑t=0`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }0`$ as $`\omega 0`$.

For nonzero $`\omega q^{7/4}`$ the contribution of paths shorter than $`\omega ^1`$ is nearly zero from the same cancellations; long paths determine

$$\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\omega ^1}^{\mathrm{}}t^{1/7}\mathrm{cos}(\omega t1)g(qt^{4/7})𝑑t\frac{\omega ^{1/7}}{q^{7/4}}.$$
(20)
The upshot of the above results is that for neither the open-walk case nor the full problem is the scaling trivial: logarithmic corrections appear in the open-walk case, and the scaling function in the full problem vanishes for small argument, leading to the emergence of a new power-law and $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$ instead of $`\eta =2x_1=\frac{1}{2}`$. A similar discrepancy between $`\eta `$ and the value of $`2x_1`$ obtained from finite-size scaling for the integer Hall transition was noted in the original paper Chalker and Daniell (1988).

An interesting question is whether the spin quantum Hall transition (SQHT), which has the same $`\sigma `$ and $`\nu `$ as the semiclassical transition (Table I) assuming a simple relation between Landauer and Einstein conductances Gurarie and Zee (2001), also has the same $`\eta `$. Some sums over paths in the SQHT network model are exactly equal to sums over percolation hulls Gruzberg et al. (1999); Beamond et al. , but individual paths are not directly related to individual hulls, so it is not clear that $`\eta `$ need be the same.

Several authors Shimshoni et al. (1998); Kapitulnik et al. (2001) have proposed that the semiclassical limit discussed above may be relevant to the many experimental samples which fail to show simple $`\nu 2.3`$ scaling down to low temperatures. The exponent $`\nu `$ is traditionally obtained by measuring two different combinations of $`\nu `$ and $`z`$, where the dynamical exponent $`z`$ is typically equal to 1 within experimental error. The scaling of the width of the transition region with temperature measures the product $`\nu z`$: experimental results on such scaling show variously scaling down to low temperature with $`\nu z2.3`$ Wei et al. (1988), scaling down to low temperature with $`\nu z1.5`$ Hohls et al. (2002), and a breakdown of scaling at low temperature with high-temperature scaling $`\nu z1.5`$ Shahar et al. (1998).

An alternate way to determine the localization length and hence $`\nu `$ directly, without measuring $`z`$, is via variable-range hopping in the localized regime far from the transition. Recent experiments Hohls et al. (2002) found for three samples one scaling law for the plateau width, corresponding to $`\nu 1.5`$ if $`z=1`$, and another corresponding to $`\nu 2.3`$ for the localization length obtained from variable-range hopping at finite temperature. Other samples had plateau width $`\nu `$ values ranging from 1.3 to 2.2. This surprising appearance of different power laws in the same samples suggests either a nontrivial value for $`z1`$ or that the two measurements are probing different physics. The remainder of this paper discusses an interpretation of these experiments based on quantum-mechanical tunneling between semiclassical states and a loss of phase coherence near the critical energy. Note that the single-particle motion on percolation hulls discussed below is distinct from percolation of macroscopic quantum Hall “puddles” Shimshoni et al. (1998).

A possible explanation for the existence of two scaling laws in the same samples is that the plateau width measurements, taken at high current so that each electron state is only briefly occupied, do not see the effects of the relatively slow quantum tunneling processes, which cause $`\nu 2.3`$ for the true zero-temperature, infinite-time localization length. The effective localization length on short time scales should then be described by the classical percolation exponent $`\nu =\frac{4}{3}`$. In Hohls et al. (2002) the plateau width measurements are taken at conductivity $`\sigma `$ of order $`10^4e^2/h`$, while the variable-range-hopping localization length is taken from data over the range $`10^{13}\sigma h/e^210^5`$. This argument predicts is that the localization length extracted from plateau width scaling should be shorter than that from variable-range hopping at low current.

An area of current interest is how dissipation via coupling to low-energy excitations, such as weakly localized electrons, can modify quantum phase transitions Kapitulnik et al. (2001). Such low-energy excitations of unknown origin seem experimentally to generate a finite dephasing length down to the lowest measured temperatures in some samples. As the chemical potential nears the critical energy, power-law scaling of the localization length requires phase coherence on increasing length and time scales. The physics of the quantum Hall fixed point depends on both tunneling and phase coherence, which keeps the states from being truly extended except at the critical energy. Once the localization length is larger than the dephasing length, the transport should be diffusive (finite $`\sigma _{xx}`$), as seen in some samples in a finite range around the critical energy.

Another explanation for classical percolation scaling is that a smooth disorder potential (disorder correlation length larger than the magnetic length) shows a larger crossover region where classical percolation applies than a sharp potential, because tunneling is reduced. However, this would not explain the breakdown in scaling of the plateau width at low temperature observed in many samples, and would require samples from similar growth runs to have very different impurity distributions. A possible direct test of whether changes in dephasing length are indeed correlated with the sample-dependent behavior would be the addition of a controllable coupling to dissipation, as done for low $`B`$ in Rimberg et al. (1997).

Our main conclusion is that the semiclassical limit of the quantum Hall transition has nontrivial mobility edge scaling which can be found exactly using results from the theory of polymers or percolation. This limit can be experimentally observed in samples with dissipation or smooth potential fluctuations and is closely related to the spin quantum Hall transition.

Note added: After this paper was submitted, a preprint Evers et al.  appeared which examines the anomalous scaling exponent at the spin quantum Hall transition and also finds $`\eta =\frac{1}{4}`$.

The author thanks I. Affleck, A. Green, I. Gruzberg, V. Gurarie, and A. Vishwanath for useful conversations.


format: text

text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

The standard model gives highly successful descriptions of hadronic physics in terms of the basic force. Yet its key parameters, the masses of the quarks and leptons are specified by the coupling of the Higgs bosons, which is undetermined. It is possible that the dynamics of the fundamental gauge theories themselves generate the masses of all the matter fields, or in other word, dynamical chiral symmetry breaking (for quarks), which corresponding to the absence of the low mass scalar partners of the $`\pi `$ . Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the appropriate theory for describing the strong interaction at high energy. However, the lack of observation of free quarks and gluons leads to the assumption of colour confinement that only quantities which transform as colour singlets can be physical observable. One may expect that the nonperturbative infrared behaviour of gluon propagator which may lead to a linear or oscillator potential implements confinement, however, till now, all theoretical studies based on QCD can not give satisfactory explanation. Hence we take an equivalent statement that the propagator of a colored state should have no singularities on the real time-like $`p^2`$ axial, the absence of Kallen-Lehmann spectral representation precludes the existence of free quarks .

In fact, dynamical symmetry breaking and confinement are two crucial features of QCD, however, they correspond to two very different energy scales. The possible interplay of the two dynamics lies in the following two facts, the first one is that on large energy scale the chiral massive quark interacts with antiquark via a confining potential and creates a new quark mass, constituent quark mass; while the second one can be attributed to the double role of the $`\pi `$, as both Nambu-Goldstone boson and $`q\overline{q}`$ bound state.

The Schwinger-Dyson equation, in effect the functional Euler-Lagrange equation of quantum field theory, provides a natural framework for investigating the nonperturbative properties of quark and gluon Green’s functions. By studying the evolution behaviour and analytic structure of the dressed quark propagator, one can obtain valuable information about the dynamical symmetry breaking phenomenon and confinement.

Although lattice calculations are rigorous in view of QCD, they suffer from lattice artifacts and uncertainties, such as Gribov copies, boundary conditions and so on. Furthermore, current technique can not give reliable result below $`1GeV`$, where the most interesting and novel behaviour is expected to lie.

It would seem therefore that at the present time Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equation is the most reliable tool for studying the infrared behaviour of the quarks and gluons propagators in the continuum limit, while it has its own shortcomings.

The flat-bottom potential (FBP) is a sum of Yukawa potentials, which not only satisfies gauge invariance, chiral invariance and fully relativistic covariance, but also suppresses the singular point which the Yukawa potential has. It works well in understanding the meson structure, such as electromagnetic form factor, radius, decay constant .

Therefore, it is interesting to examine dynamical chiral symmetry breaking and quark confinement with the FBP.

The article is arranged as follows: in section 1, introduction; in section 2, infrared behaviour of the gluon propagator; in section 3, dynamical chiral symmetry breaking; in section 4, quark confinement; in section 5, flat bottom potential and Schwinger-Dyson equation; in section 6, conclusion and discussion.

## II Infrared behaviour of gluon propagator

The infrared structure of the gluon propagator has important implication for quark confinement. One might expect that the behaviour of the quark interaction in region of small spacelike $`p^2`$ determines the long range properties of the $`q\overline{q}`$ potential and hence implements confinement.

From the discussion of previous section, we can see that the SD equation is the ideal tool for studying the infrared behaviour of the gluon propagator. Here we make a brief skeleton of the results based on Landau gauge and axial gauge studies.

It is impossible to solve an infinity series of coupled SD equations for gluons and quarks (ghosts), so the authors have to make truncations both in Landau gauge and axial gauge. In those studies, the quark loop contributions are neglected and higher order vertexes are taken as bare or dressed based on the analysis of corresponding Ward-Takahashi Identity.

In axial gauge studies, one makes further assumption that the dressed gluon propagator has the same tensor structure as the free one. That is in the following equations let $`F_2=0`$ ,

$`D_{\mu \nu }(p,\gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(p,\gamma )M_{\mu \nu }(p,n)+F_2(p,\gamma )N_{\mu \nu }(p,n),`$ (1)
$`M_{\mu \nu }(p,n)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu n_\nu +p_\nu n_\mu }{pn}}+n^2{\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{(pn)^2}},`$ (2)
$`N_{\mu \nu }(p,n)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{n_\mu n_\nu }{n^2}},`$ (3)
here $`\gamma `$ is gauge parameter and n is an arbitrary four vector. After solving gluon SD equation one get the conclusion that the gluon propagator may have a double pole at the origin, implying an area law behaviour of the Wilson loop, which is often regarded as a signal of confinement . Further more , the Fourier transform of the time-time component of the gluon propagator is related to the one-gluon exchange contribution to the potential between static colour charge and a $`\frac{1}{p^4}`$ infrared behaviour does generate a linearly rising potential at large distance . However, a general studies of the properties of the spectral representation of the gluon propagator in axial gauge show that the coefficient of the $`\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ term cannot be more singular then $`\frac{1}{q^2}`$ . This suggests that neglecting the $`F_2`$ term is a poor approximation because there maybe cancellation in the infrared between $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$.

In Landau gauge studies . Suppose neglecting ghost loop will not remove the dominant infrared contributions in QCD also leads to a $`\frac{1}{p^4}`$ behaviour for the gluon propagator in the origin. Other studies suggest that fermion loop may suppress the infrared singularity in the gluon propagator, the double pole found in the pure-gauge sector may be removed by the nonperturbative fermion loop corrections . Recently, the gluon SD equation studies including ghost loop result in a infrared vanished gluon propagator and a strong infrared enhanced ghost propagator  while lattice calculations support this type conclusion . In fact, the truncations applied in these studies may impair their persuasion. Furthermore, in some studies of this type, unphysical particle-like singularities occur in the dressed ghost-gluon and 3-gluon vertices and the infrared vanished gluon propagator can neither produce dynamical chiral symmetry breaking nor compliment confinement .

We can take a simple example by analyzing the renormalization group equation for the coupling constant. There exists a competing mechanism between the self-interaction of gauge boson and the interaction of boson-fermion, which accounts for the different evolution behaviours of the coupling constants with momentum for QCD and QED . So neglecting one another may lead to very different results.

All theoretical studies based on QCD are suffered from shortcomings in one or another way , so they can not give satisfactory infrared behaviour for gluon propagator which may lead to a linear or oscillator potential implements confinement.

Here we take an alternate description of confinement based on the analytic structure of the dressed quark propagator, if the quark Green’s function is free of singularities on the real timelike $`p^2`$ axial , then denies the existence of a single particle spectrum and precludes free quarks. Although by no means a sufficient condition for the formulation of finite size $`q\overline{q}`$ states, it is an essential ingredient in describing of confinement based on a bold assumption that interaction between dressed quarks which does not rise to infinity at large distance. The interaction between dressed quarks may diminish at separation beyond the characteristic length scale at which point the quark Green’s function approaches its vacuum values, but the vacuum’s repulsive force due to the absence of a mass pole in the dressed quark propagator again compresses the quarks together.

So the traditional model of confinement based on an effective rising potential can be interpreted as the result of combination of the repulsive interaction between quark-vacuum and the attraction of dressed quark-quark with increasing separation. Although there maybe a long way to go before the repulsive quark-vacuum interaction can be quantified, this description has proven successful in the formulation of a confining nontopological soliton model for baryons . In this article, the quark propagator calculated with the FBP does free singularities on the real timelike $`p^2`$ axial and implements quark confinement.

## III Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking

The ultraviolet stability of QCD at large spacelike momentum makes a straightforward definition of the chiral limit possible, in a manifest contrast to strong coupling QED, whose rigorous definition remains an instructive challenge. The $`\pi `$ decay constant $`f_\pi `$ is an important parameter in describing the interplay between dynamical symmetry breaking and confinement, while the quark condensate serves as an order parameter for dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. In the chiral limit, the $`\pi `$ plays a double role both as Nambu-Goldstone boson and $`q\overline{q}`$ bound state, which lead to the result that the scalar part of the inverse dressed quark propagator coincides with the approximated $`\pi `$’s Bethe-Salpeter function. In the following, we calculate the $`\pi `$ decay constant , the quark condensate and examine the dynamical chiral symmetry breaking phenomenon.

### A $`\pi `$ Decay Constant

Neglecting ghost, the Ward-Takahashi Identity (WTI) for quark-gluon vertex in the presence explicit quark masses can be written as :

$`k_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_5^\mu (p^{},p)={\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{2}}[S^1(p^{})\gamma _5+\gamma _5S^1(p)]+2im\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p^{},p).`$ (4)
In the limit of exact chiral symmetry, the WTI reduces to

$`k_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_5^\mu (p^{},p)\stackrel{k0}{}\tau \gamma _5B(p^2).`$ (5)
Note that the usual perturbative isovector axial vector vertex is $`\frac{\tau }{2}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5`$.

In the chiral limit and take $`k0`$, the axial vector quark vertex becomes completely dominated by the pseudoscalar coupling of a massless $`\pi `$ to the quark and the subsequent weak decay of the $`\pi `$ into an axial vector current. In fact, the mass shell residue of the axial vector quark vertex ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^5`$) is the $`\pi `$ Bethe-Salpeter $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )`$ amplitude, in the chiral limit can provide a direct connection to the quark propagator . The function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu ^5(p+\frac{k}{2},p\frac{k}{2})(\mathrm{\Gamma }^5)`$ contains many Dirac structures, such as $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu `$ $`(\gamma _5)`$, $`\gamma _5\gamma _\mu \gamma k`$ $`(\gamma _5\gamma k)`$, $`\gamma _5\gamma pp_\mu `$ $`(\gamma _5\gamma ppk)`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and regular term, singular term. Exclude the singular term $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi )`$ , the other terms are supposed to give small contributions and neglected. If we solve the Schwinger-Dyson equation for the vertex, we can see their relative weights. In the chiral limit, the $`\gamma _5`$ component of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pi `$ makes a good approximation, though it has many Dirac structures, such as $`\gamma _5`$, $`\gamma _5\gamma k`$ and so on. The $`\pi `$ decay constant $`f_\pi `$ is defined by the axial transition amplitude for the on-shell $`\pi `$,

$$0|A_5^{m\mu }(0)|\pi ^n(k)=if_\pi k^\mu \delta ^{mn}.$$
(6)
When $`k0`$, we obtain

$`i\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^\mu (p^{},p)\stackrel{k0}{}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^m(p^{},p){\displaystyle \frac{i}{k^2}}i0|A_5^\mu |\pi ^m(k)\stackrel{k0}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p^{},p)f_\pi {\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu }{k^2}}.`$ (7)
Multiplying Eq.(5) with $`k_\mu `$ on both sides,

$$k_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_5^\mu (p^{},p)=if_\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p^{},p).$$
(8)
When combined with Eq.(3), we obtain the Goldberger-Treiman relation for the quark-pseudoscalar vertex,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p,p)=i\tau \gamma _5\frac{B(p^2)}{f_\pi }=i\tau \gamma _5\frac{A(p^2)m(p^2)}{f_\pi }.$$
(9)
The simplest generalization of Eq.(7) is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_5(p^{},p)=i\tau \gamma _5\frac{B(p^2)+B(p^2)}{2f_\pi }.$$
(10)
Based on above discussion, it is possible to obtain an expression for $`f_\pi ^2`$ from the integral equation for the $`\pi `$ decay constant.

$`i0|A_\mu ^m(0)|\pi ^n(k)={\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}tr\{iS(p+k)i\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^m(p+k,p)iS(p)i\frac{\tau ^n}{2}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5\}}.`$ (11)
As usual, the factor $`1`$ on the right hand side arises from the quark loop. We need to take the axial-vector vertex as a perturbative one in order to avoid double counting. The expression for $`f_\pi ^2`$ can be written as

$$f_\pi ^2=12i\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{B(p^2)}{(A(p^2)p^2B^2(p^2))^2}\{A(p^2)B(p^2)+\frac{p^2}{2}(B\frac{dA(p^2)}{dp^2}A\frac{dB(p^2)}{dp^2})\}.$$
(12)
In the limit $`A1`$, we can recover the Pagels and Stokar formula . Our numerical results based on the quark propagator obtained from the SD equation studies with the FBP do give satisfactory result $`f_\pi =94MeV`$, we can thus fit the parameters in the FBP.

There is another expression for the $`\pi `$ decay constant which determined from global colour model .

$$f_\pi ^2=\frac{3}{8\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ssB(s)^2\{\sigma _v^22[\sigma _s\sigma _s^{}+s\sigma _v\sigma _v^{}]s[\sigma _s\sigma _s^{\prime \prime }\sigma _s^2]s^2[\sigma _v\sigma _v^{\prime \prime }\sigma _v^2]\}$$
(13)
where

$`\sigma _v={\displaystyle \frac{A(s)}{sA(s)^2+B(s)^2}},\sigma _s={\displaystyle \frac{B(s)}{sA(s)^2+B(s)^2}}.`$ (14)
In our calculation. the value of $`A(p)`$ is far from 1, we prefer Eq.(10) rather than Eq.(11), as Eq.(11) is exact only in the limit $`A(p)1`$ .

### B Quark Condensate

The quark propagator is defined as

$$S(x)=0|T[q(x)\overline{q}(0)]|0.$$
(15)
where q(x) is the quark field and T the time-ordering operator. For the physical vacuum consists of both perturbative and nonperturbative parts, so the quark propagator S(x) can be divided into a perturbative and a nonperturbative part as the following:

$`S(x)=S_{PT}(x)+S_{NP}(x).`$ (16)
In the nonperturbative vacuum, the normal-ordered product $`S_{NP}(x)`$ does not vanish. The widely used nonlocal quark condensate $`0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0`$ is given by the scalar part of the Fourier transformed inverse quark propagator,

$`0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`(4N_c){\displaystyle _0^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(p^2)}{p^2A^2(p^2)+B^2(p^2)}}e^{ipx}.`$ (17)
In the limit $`x0`$, we can obtain the expression for the local quark condensate,

$$0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0_\mu =\frac{12}{16\pi ^2}_0^\mu 𝑑ss\frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}.$$
(18)
In Ref. the nonlocal condensate is put in the following form :

$$0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0=g(x^2)0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0,$$
(19)
where $`g(x^2)`$ is the vacuum non-locality of the nonlocal quark condensate. The nonlocal properties of the vacuum condensates are of principal importance in the study of the distributions of quarks and gluons in hadrons . Physically, it means that the vacuum condensates of quark and gluon can flow through the vacuum with nonzero momentum.

The effects from hard gluonic radiative corrections to the quark propagator are connected to a possible change of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ at which the condensates are defined. Those effects are of minor importance for the nonperturbative effects in the low and medium energy regions, and neglected in our studies . In this article, we take the rain-bow SD equation, so it is not a renormalizable interaction. As isolated closed quark loop integral, the quark condensate has only one energy scale, the momentum cut off, $`\mu `$, at which the quark condensate is defined. In our studies, the energy scale $`\mu `$ is implicitly determined by the effective gluon propagator, we can use Eq.(16) as the definition for the quark condensate. However, presently, the nonperturbative technique can not prove the relation

$$_0^\mu 𝑑ss\frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}(Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2))^d,$$
(20)
at low energy scale. Here $`d`$ is the anomalous dimension and takes the value $`d=\frac{12}{332n_f}`$.

If we take the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ and assume ultraviolet dominating, the above relation $`\overline{q}q_\mu (Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2))^d`$ is indeed the case, although the quark condensate is only defined at low energy scale.

Operator product expansion has proven that at large Euclidean momentum, the effective quark mass evolves as

$$m(Q^2)_{Q^2\mathrm{}}=\frac{c}{Q^2}\{Log(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)\}^{d1}+m(\mu )\{\frac{Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}{Log(Q^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}\}^d,$$
(21)
here $`c=\frac{4\pi d}{3}\frac{0|:\overline{q}q:|0}{[Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)]^d}`$ is some constant independent of $`\mu `$ , this implies that $`0|:\overline{q}q:|0_\mu [Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)]^d`$, but not the definition of Eq.(16) .

On the other hand, the evolution of quark condensate with $`\mu `$ can be determined from Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation and renormalization group equation,

$$0|:\overline{q}q:|0_\mu =\{\frac{Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}{Log(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}\}^d0|:\overline{q}q:|0_\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(22)
If we take into account the hard radiative corrections to the quark propagator , there is a more nature definition for the quark condensate (in Euclidean space time) :

$$0|:\overline{q}q:|0_\mu =\{\frac{Log(\mu ^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}{Log(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)}\}^d\frac{12}{16\pi ^4}_0^\mathrm{\Lambda }d^4p\frac{B(p^2)}{A(p^2)^2p^2+B(p^2)^2},$$
(23)
In the second definition, we can take the cut off be $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$, however, at large momentum, the quark propagator approximates its asymptotic free form which should be subtracted. From Fig.1, we can see that the cut off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2GeV`$ makes a sound approximation.

In this article, $`\mu `$ is taken to be 1 $`GeV`$. If we ignore the hard radiative corrections to the quark propagator, from Eq.(16), the numerical result gives the quark condensate $`0|\overline{q}q|0^{\frac{1}{3}}=218MeV`$. If we take into account the hard radiative corrections, from Eq.(21), we obtain:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=150MeV,\overline{q}(0)q(0)^{\frac{1}{3}}=255MeV;`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=200MeV,\overline{q}(0)q(0)^{\frac{1}{3}}=253MeV;`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=250MeV,\overline{q}(0)q(0)^{\frac{1}{3}}=251MeV.`$ (26)
All our numerical results are compatible with the results of the QCD sum rule approach, and large enough to give dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. The definition of Eq.(21) is better.

## IV quark Confinement

To demonstrate that quark confinement arises from the absence of singularities on the real timelike $`p^2`$ axial, let us first make an observation on the large Euclidean time behaviour of the free fermion propagator .

$`S(x)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ikx}\frac{mi\gamma k}{k^2+m^2}},`$ (27)
The spatially averaged Schwinger function is a particularly insightful tool. Consider the fermion propagator and let $`T=ix_4`$ represent Euclidean time, then

$`\sigma _s(T)={\displaystyle d^3x\frac{1}{4}tr_DS(x,T)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{mT}.`$ (28)
Hence the free fermion’s mass can easily be obtained from the large T behaviour of the spatial average:

$$\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}\sigma _s(T)=mT.$$
(29)
This is just the approach used to determine the bound state masses in simulations of Lattice QCD.

In order to demonstrate that the confinement of quarks, we have to study the mass function of the quark and prove that there no poles on the real timelike like $`p^2`$ axial. So it is necessary to perform an analytic continuation of the dressed quark propagator from Euclidean space into Minkowski space $`p_4ip_0`$. However, we have no knowledge of the singularity structure of quark propagator in the whole complex plane. One can take an alternative safe procedure and stay completely in Euclidean space avoiding analytic continuations of the dressed propagators . Again we take the Fourier transform with respect to the Euclidean time T. It is sufficient to consider the scalar part $`S_s`$,

$`S_s^{}(T)`$ $`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_4}{2\pi }}e^{iq_4T}S_s,`$ (31)
$`={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq_4}{2\pi }}e^{iq_4T}{\displaystyle \frac{B(q^2)}{q^2A^2(q^2)+B^2(p^2)}}.`$
If S(p) had a pole at $`p^2=m^2`$, the Fourier transformed $`S_s^{}(T)`$ would fall off as $`e^{mT}`$ for large T or $`\mathrm{log}S_s^{}=mT`$.

In our calculation, for large $`T`$, the values of $`S_s^{}`$ is negative, except occasionally a very very small fraction positive values which can be safely neglected. We can express $`S_s^{}`$ as $`|S_s^{}|e^{in\pi }`$, $`n`$ is an odd integer. $`\mathrm{log}S_s^{}=\mathrm{log}|S_s^{}|+in\pi =mT`$. If we neglect the imaginary part, we find that when the Euclidean time T is large, there indeed exists a crudely approximated linear function with respect to T, which is shown in Fig.2. However, such a behaviour is hard to acquire physical explanation. Here the word ’crudely’ should be understand in the linearly fitted sense, to be exact, there is not linear function. This precludes the existence of free quarks.

## V Flat Bottom Potential and Schwinger-Dyson Equation

The FBP is a sum of Yukawa potentials which is an analogous to the exchange of a series of particles and ghosts with different masses (Euclidean Form),

$$G(k^2)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{a_j}{k^2+(N+j\rho )^2},$$
(32)
where $`N`$ stands for the minimum value of the mass, $`\rho `$ is their mass difference, and $`a_j`$ is their relative coupling constant. In Fig.3, we can see the curve of $`G(p^2)`$ is a gauss-like distribution. Due to the particular condition we take for the FBP, there is no divergence in solving the SD equation. In its three dimensional form, the FBP takes the following form:

$$V(r)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_j\frac{\mathrm{e}^{(N+j\rho )r}}{r}.$$
(33)
In order to suppress the singular point at $`r=0`$, we take the following conditions:

$`V(0)=constant,`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV(0)}{dr}}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2V(0)}{dr^2}}=\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{d^nV(0)}{dr^n}}=0.`$ (35)
So we can determine $`a_j`$ by solve the following equations, inferred from the flat bottom condition Eq.(29),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j=0,`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j(N+j\rho )=V(0),`$ (37)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j(N+j\rho )^2=0,`$ (38)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j(N+j\rho )^n=0.`$ (40)
As in previous literature , $`n`$ is set to b 9.

In the rainbow approximation, the SD equation takes the following form:

$$S^1(p)=\gamma p\widehat{m}+\frac{16\pi i}{3}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\gamma _\mu S(k)\gamma _\nu G^{\mu \nu }(kp),$$
(41)
where

$`S^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`A(p^2)\gamma pB(p^2)A(p^2)[\gamma pm(p^2)],`$ (42)
$`G^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`(g^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k^\mu k^\nu }{k^2}})G(k^2),`$ (43)
and $`\widehat{m}`$ stands for an explicit quark mass-breaking term. With the explicit small mass term, we can preclude the zero solution for $`B(p)`$ and in fact there indeed exist a bare current quark mass. Here we take Landau gauge. This dressing comprises the notation of constituent quarks by providing a mass $`m(p^2)=B(p^2)/A(p^2)`$, which is corresponding to dynamical symmetry breaking. Because the form of the gluon propagator $`g^2G(p)`$ in the infrared region is unknown (as we have discussed in section 2), one often uses model forms as input in the previous studies of the rainbow SD equation .

In this article, we assume that a Wick rotation to Euclidean variables is allowed, and perform a rotation analytically continuing $`p`$ and $`k`$ into the Euclidean region where them can be denoted by $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\overline{k}`$, respectively. Alternatively, one can derive the SD equation from the Euclidean path-integral formulation of the theory, thus avoiding possible difficulties in performing the Wick rotation  . As far as only numerical results are concerned, the two procedures are equal.

The Euclidean SD equation can be projected into two coupled integral equations for $`A(\overline{p}^2)`$ and $`B(\overline{p}^2)`$. For simplicity, here ignore the bar on $`p`$ and $`k`$. Numerical values for $`A(p^2)`$, $`B(p^2)`$ and $`m(p^2)`$ are shown in Fig. .

## VI Conclusion and Discussion

In this article, we calculate the dressed quark propagator with the FBP in the framework of the rain-bow SD equation. The dressed quark propagator exhibits a dynamical symmetry breaking phenomenon and gives a constituent quark mass about 490 MeV ($`m(m^2)`$), which is larger then the value of commonly used constituent quark mass 350 MeV in the chiral quark model. Then based on dressed quark propagator, we obtain the quark condensate $`0|\overline{q}q|0`$, the $`\pi `$ decay constant. The calculated $`f_\pi `$ and $`0|\overline{q}q|0`$ are compatible with experimental and theoretical works respectively. Though the value of $`f_\pi `$, we can fit the parameters: $`N=1.0\times 200MeV`$, $`V(0)=27.0\times 200MeV`$, $`\rho =5.0\times 200MeV`$, $`m_u=m_d=8MeV`$ and the large momentum cut-off $`L=630\times 200MeV`$ in solving the SD equation.

The $`\pi `$ decay constant $`f_\pi `$ is an important parameter in describing the interplay between dynamical symmetry breaking and confinement, while the quark condensate serves as an order parameter for dynamical chiral symmetry breaking. In the chiral limit, the $`\pi `$ plays a double role both as Nambu-Goldstone boson and $`q\overline{q}`$ bound state, which lead to the result that the scalar part of the inverse dressed quark propagator coincides with the approximated $`\pi `$’s Bethe-Salpeter function.

Till now, all theoretical studies based on QCD are suffered from shortcomings in one or another way , so they can not give satisfactory infrared behaviour for gluon propagator which may lead to a linear or oscillator potential implements confinement. In this article, we take an alternative description by studying the analytic structure of the quark propagator. If the dressed quark propagator is free singularities on the real timelike $`p^2`$ axial, although the attraction between quarks may diminish at a characteristic distance, but the vacuum repulsive force due to the absence of mass poles compresses the quarks together. The traditional confinement based on the arising potential between quarks as the separation becomes long can be realized as combination of both the attractive and repulsive forces. In our calculation, we take a Fourier transform with respect Euclidean time T, which is often used in lattice calculation to extrapolate physical masses, and find that at large time T, there does not exist a physical quark mass, which may preclude the existence of physical free quark spectrum.

In calculation, the coupled integral equations for the quark propagator functions $`A(p^2)`$ and $`B(p^2)`$ are solved numerically by simultaneous iterations. The iterations converge rapidly to a unique stable solution of propagator functions and independent the initial guesses. The propagator functions $`A(p^2)`$ and $`B(p^2)`$ are shown in Fig. , at small $`p^2`$ , $`A(p^2)`$ differs from the value 1 appreciably, while it tends to 1 for large $`p^2`$. We find that at small $`p^2`$ , $`m(p^2)`$ is greatly re-normalized, while at large $`p^2`$, it takes asymptotic behaviour. For $`u`$ and $`d`$ quark, $`m(0)=632MeV`$, the connection of $`m(p)`$ to constituent masses is somewhat less direct and is precise only for heavy quarks. For heavy quarks, $`m_{constituent}(p)=m(p=2m_{constituent}(p))`$ , for light quarks , it only makes a crude estimation . At about $`p=1GeV`$, the mass function grows rapidly as the momentum decreases, that is an indication of dynamical symmetry breaking. There is a popularly used constituent quark definition, $`m(p^2)^2=p^2`$ . Here $`p^2`$ is Euclidean momentum square and $`m(m^2)=490MeV`$. Our result is larger than the usually used constituent quark mass $`m=350MeV`$, however, it gives a good description of dynamical symmetry breaking.

The phenomenological FBP can be extended to other system, such as $`q`$$`\overline{q}`$ system, $`\overline{q}`$$`Q`$ system, vector meson and $`qqq`$ system or by applying the results to the calculation of quantities and processes requiring detailed knowledge of the quark propagator .


text:
# Subvarieties of general type on a general projective hypersurface

## 1 Introduction

Let $`X_d𝐏^n`$ be a general (in the countable Zariski topology) complex projective hypersurface of degree $`d`$. The study of the geometry of $`k`$-dimensional subvarieties of $`X_d`$ in terms of $`k,n`$ and $`d`$ has received much attention in the last 15 years (see \[C1\], \[E1\] and \[E2\], \[X1\] and \[X2\], \[V1\] and \[V2\], \[CL\], \[CLR\], \[P\], \[C2\], \[CR\]). In particular this study is related to the hyperbolicity of the hypersurface $`X_d𝐏^n`$. Recall that a compact complex manifold $`M`$ is said to be hyperbolic (in the sense of Brody or Kobayashi) if there are no nonconstant entire holomorphic maps $`f:M`$. S. Lang conjectured (cf. \[L\], Conjecture 5.6) that, in the case of a projective variety $`V`$, the notion of hyperbolicity has an algebraic characterization, namely $`V`$ is hyperbolic if and only if any subvariety $`Y`$ of $`V`$ is of general type (that is, if $`Y`$ is smooth, some multiple of the canonical bundle of $`Y`$ gives a projective embedding of a non-empty Zariski open subset of $`Y`$. If $`Y`$ is singular, then it is said to be of general type if some desingularization of $`Y`$ has this property). Notice that if any subvariety $`Y`$ of $`V`$ is of general type, then in particular $`V`$ does not contain rational curves or abelian subvarieties - a condition which is of course implied by the hyperbolicity. In this paper we focus our attention on the case of a general projective hypersurface $`X_d𝐏^n`$, and give a sharp bound on its degree $`d`$ in order to satisfy the algebraic property above that, conjecturally, should be equivalent to the hyperbolicity of $`X_d`$.

This problem has been studied by L. Ein in \[E1\] and \[E2\], where, generalizing a previous result by H. Clemens \[C1\], he proves in particular that whenever $`d2nk`$, for $`n3`$, then any $`k`$-dimensional subvariety $`Y`$ of the general $`X_d𝐏^n`$ has nonzero geometric genus, and if the inequality is strict then $`Y`$ is of general type. Ein’s result, which concerns more generally subvarieties of general complete intersections in an arbitrary smooth projective variety, has been improved by one, in the case of projective hypersurfaces, by C. Voisin (\[V1\], \[V2\]), who proves the following

Theorem (Voisin). Let $`X_d𝐏^n`$ be a general hypersurface of degree $`d2nk1`$, where $`k`$ is an integer such that $`1kn3`$. Then any $`k`$-dimensional subvariety $`Y`$ of $`X`$ has nonzero geometric genus, and if the inequality is strict then $`Y`$ is of general type.

Our main result is the following

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`X_d𝐏^n`$ be a general complex projective hypersurface of degree $`d`$. Let $`YX_d`$ be a $`k`$-dimensional subvariety with a desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{Y}\stackrel{j}{}Y`$ such that $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1))=0`$. If the inequalities

$$d1\mathrm{max}\{\frac{7n3k3}{4},\frac{3nk+1}{2}\}$$
(1)
and

$$\frac{d(d3)}{2}2nk3$$
(2)
are satisfied, then $`Y`$ is contained in the locus covered by the lines of $`X`$.

Since the dimension of the locus spanned by the lines on a general hypersurface $`X_d`$ is equal to $`(2n2)d`$, it follows from Theorem 1.1 that for any subvariety $`Y`$ of $`X_d𝐏^n`$, whenever $`d2n2`$ and $`n6`$, the canonical bundle of a desingularization $`j:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ is the sum of the effective divisor $`K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1)`$ and of $`j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1)`$, which is very ample on an open subset, so we obtain

###### Corollary 1.2.

Any subvariety of a general hypersurface $`X_d𝐏^n`$, with $`d2n2`$ and $`n6`$, is of general type.

Corollary 1.2 is sharp, since general hypersurfaces of degree $`2n3`$ contain a finite number of lines (and, by \[P\], lines are the only rational curves allowed on the general $`X_{2n3}𝐏^n`$, for $`n6`$).

The weird looking numerical hypotheses (1) and (2) of Theorem 1.1 are needed in order to control the positivity of the twisted exterior powers of the bundle $`M_{𝐏^n}^d`$ (resp. $`M_G^d`$) over $`𝐏^n`$ (resp. over the Grassmannian of lines in $`𝐏^n`$), that are defined in §2. This control will appear to be a crucial point along the proof (cf. Lemmas 3.1, 4.1 and 4.3). The proof of Theorem 1.1 makes use of the powerful variational approach introduced by C. Voisin in \[V1\] and \[V2\], and adopted by the author in \[P\] to study the geometry of subvarieties having geometric genus zero on a general hypersurface. These methods have been strengthten more recently by H. Clemens and Z. Ran (see \[C2\] and \[CR\]) to study in greater generality subvarieties $`Y`$ of $`X`$ with desingularizations $`j:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ verifying $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(a))=0`$, for some integer $`a0`$.

The proof is naturally divided in two parts. First, following an idea that goes back to Voisin \[V2\], under a technical numerical hypothesis, it is possible to see that through each point of $`Y`$ there is a line which intersects set-theoretically $`X`$ in at most two points. Precisely we prove

###### Proposition 1.3.

Let $`X_d𝐏^n`$ be a general hypersurface, whose degree $`d`$ verifies the numerical condition (1) of Theorem 1.1, and $`YX_d`$ a subvariety of dimension $`k`$ such that $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1))=0`$, where $`j:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ is a desingularization. Then, for some $`r1`$, $`Y`$ is contained in the sublocus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X}`$ of $`X_d`$ defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X}:=\{xX_d:aline\mathrm{}s.t.\mathrm{}X_d=rx+(dr)x^{},x^{}X_d\}.$$

(This result, under different numerical hypothesis, can also be found in \[CR\]).

The second part of the proof of Theorem 1.1 deals with the study of the locus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X}`$. For this, I use two explicit desingularizations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X}`$, whose canonical bundles are easily computable. Then, in both cases, the key point is the construction of a globally generated subbundle contained in the exterior powers of the (twisted) tangent bundle of the family of the desingularizations. This fact will allow us to obtain the following proposition which concludes the proof of Theorem 1.1:

###### Proposition 1.4.

Let $`X_d𝐏^n`$ be a general hypersurface of degree $`d`$ verifying the numerical condition (2) of Theorem 1.1. Let $`Y\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X}`$ be a subvariety of dimension $`k`$, and $`j:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ a desingularization such that $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1))=0`$ . Then $`Y`$ is contained in the locus of lines of $`X_d`$.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank M. Zaidenberg and L. Manivel, who invited me, respectively on February 2001 and March 2002, at the Institut Fourier in Grenoble, where the preliminary version of this work was started and brought to end. My sincerest thanks to H. Clemens, who sent me the manuscript \[C2\] and kindly encouraged me when I communicated to him the idea of adapting some arguments contained in \[C2\] to strengthten my work. Finally, it is a pleasure to acknowledge the great influence of C. Voisin’s articles \[V1\] and \[V2\] on my work.

## 2 Preliminaries

We will follow the notation already used in \[P\], which we recall below.

Notation.

$`S^d:=H^0(𝐏^n,𝒪_{𝐏^n}(d))`$;
$`S_x^d:=H^0(𝐏^n,_x𝒪_{𝐏^n}(d))`$;
$`N:=h^0(𝐏^n,𝒪_{𝐏^n}(d))=dimS^d`$;
$`𝒳𝐏^n\times S^d`$ will denote the universal hypersurface of degree $`d`$;
$`X_F𝐏^n`$ the fiber of the family $`𝒳`$ over $`FS^d`$, i.e. the hypersurface defined by $`F`$.

Let $`US^d`$ be an étale map and $`𝒴𝒳_U`$ a reduced and irreducible subscheme of relative dimension $`k`$ (in the following, by abuse of notation, we will often omit the étale base change). Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}𝒴`$ be a desingularization and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\stackrel{j}{}𝒳_U`$ the natural induced map. We may obviously assume $`𝒴`$ invariant under some lift of the action of $`GL(n+1)`$ (recall that $`gGL(n+1)`$ acts on the product $`𝐏^n\times S^d`$ as follows: $`g(x,F)=(g(x),(g^1)^{}F)).`$ Let $`\pi :𝒳𝐏^n`$ be the projection on the first component and $`T_𝒳^{vert}`$ (resp. $`T_𝒴^{vert}`$) the vertical part of $`T_𝒳`$ (resp. $`T_𝒴`$) w.r.t. $`\pi `$, i.e. $`T_𝒳^{vert}`$ (resp. $`T_𝒴^{vert}`$) is the sheaf defined by

$$0T_𝒳^{vert}T𝒳\stackrel{\pi _{}}{}T𝐏^n0$$

$$(\mathrm{𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝}\mathrm{.\; 0}T_𝒴^{vert}T𝒴\stackrel{\pi _{}}{}T𝐏^n).$$

Remark 2.0.1. Let $`𝒴`$ be a subscheme of $`𝒳𝐏^n\times S^d`$ of relative dimension $`k`$ and invariant under the action of $`GL(n+1)`$. Then:

the map $`T𝒴\stackrel{\pi _{}}{}T𝐏^n`$ is surjective and hence

$$codim_{T_{𝒳,(y,F)}^{vert}}T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}=codim_𝒳𝒴=nk1.$$

$`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ contains the vertical part of the tangent space to the orbit of the point $`(y,F)`$ under the action of $`GL(n+1)`$, i.e.

$$T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}<S_y^1J_F^{d1},F>,$$

where $`J_F^{d1}`$ is the Jacobian ideal of $`F`$.

Let $`d`$ be a positive integer. Consider the bundle $`M_{𝐏^n}^d`$ defined by the exact sequence

$`0M_{𝐏^n}^dS^d𝒪_{𝐏^n}\stackrel{ev}{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(d)0,`$ (3)
whose fiber at a point $`x`$ identifies by definition to $`S_x^d`$. From the inclusion $`𝒳𝐏^n\times S^d`$ we get the exact sequence

$$0T𝒳_{|X_F}T𝐏_{}^{n}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}(S^d𝒪_{X_F})𝒪_{X_F}(d)0,$$

which combined with (3) gives us

$`0M_{𝐏^n}^{d}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}T𝒳_{|X_F}T𝐏_{}^{n}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}0.`$ (4)
In other words $`M_{𝐏^n}^{d}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}`$ identifies to the vertical part of $`T_𝒳𝒪_{X_F}`$ with respect to the projection to $`𝐏^n`$.

Let $`G:=Grass(1,n)`$ be the Grassmannian of lines in $`𝐏^n`$, $`𝒪_G(1)`$ the line bundle on $`G`$ giving its Plücker polarization, and $`_d`$ be the $`d^{th}`$-symmetric power of the dual of the tautological subbundle on $`G`$. Recall that the fibre of $`_d`$ at a point $`[\mathrm{}]`$ is, by definition, given by $`H^0(\mathrm{},𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(d))`$.

Let $`M_G^d`$ be the vector bundle on $`G`$ defined as the kernel of the evaluation map:

$$0M_G^dS^d𝒪_G_d0.$$

Notice that the fiber of $`M_G^d`$ at a point $`[\mathrm{}]`$ is equal to $`H^0(_{\mathrm{}}(d))`$.

The bundles $`M_{𝐏^n}^d`$ and $`M_G^d`$ verify the following positivity properties, that will be often used in what follows:

###### Lemma 2.1.

(i) $`M_{𝐏^n}^d𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1)`$ is generated by its global sections;
(ii) $`M_G^d𝒪_G(1)`$ is generated be its global sections.

###### Proof.

See, for instance, \[P\].

## 3 A first reduction

Let $`Y_FX_F`$ be a general ($`k`$-dimensional) fiber of the subfamily $`𝒴𝒳_U`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}_F\stackrel{j}{}Y_F`$ its desingularization. By abuse of notation, we will often write $`K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(1)`$ instead of $`K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}j^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1))`$.

Recall now the isomorphisims:

(i) $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}^{N+k}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}`$;

(ii) $`(^{n1k}T𝒳_{U}^{}{}_{|X_F}{}^{})K_{X_F}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳_U}^{N+k}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}`$.

Set $`c:=n1k=codim_{X_F}Y_F`$. Using (i) and (ii), from the natural morphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳_U}^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}^1`$, we get a map

$$(^cT𝒳_{U}^{}{}_{|X_F}{}^{})K_{X_F}\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒳_U}^{N+k}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}^{N+k}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F},$$
(5)
and hence, after tensoring by $`𝒪_{X_F}(1)`$,

$$(^cT𝒳_{U}^{}{}_{|X_F}{}^{})K_{X_F}(1)K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(1).$$
(6)
Now taking global sections in (6) and using (4) we have the following commutative diagram

$`H^0(^cT𝒳_{U}^{}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}K_{X_F}(1))`$ $`H^0(K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(1))`$ (7)
$``$ $``$
$`H^0(^cM_{𝐏^n}^{d}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}K_{X_F}(1))`$
By hypothesis, we have that the composite map in (7) is identically zero. This, by the $`GL(n+1)`$-invariance of $`𝒴`$, implies that $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ is then contained in the base locus of $`H^0(^cM_{𝐏^n}^{d}{}_{|X_F}{}^{}K_{X_F}(1))`$, considered as the space of sections of a line bundle on the Grassmannian of codimension $`c`$ subspaces of $`T^{vert}𝒳_{|X_F}`$.

The generalization presented in \[C2\] of the variational approach introduced by C. Voisin in \[V1\] and \[V2\], and applied by the author in \[P\], starts with a sharp algebraic study of the base locus of the bundles $`^cM_{𝐏^n}^d(b)`$. Precisely, we will use the following

###### Lemma 3.1.

(\[C2\]). Suppose $`d`$ verifies the numerical condition (1) of Theorem 1.1. Let $`A`$ be a codimension $`c`$ subspace of $`S_x^d=(T_{𝒳,(x,F)})^{vert}`$ which is in the base locus of $`H^0(^cM_{𝐏^n}^d(dn2))`$. Then there exists a line $`\mathrm{}_A`$ passing through $`x`$ such that

$`rk{\displaystyle \frac{A}{AH^0(_\mathrm{}_A(d))}}n+1.`$ (8)
###### Proof.

In \[C2\] there is the study of the base locus of $`H^0(^cM_{𝐏^n}^d(dn1+a))`$, for $`a0`$ (this is the point where Lemma 2.1, (i) is used). Here we simply remark that the arguments presented in \[C2\] also apply to the $`a=1`$ case. For the reader’s convenience we outline the idea of the proof (for the details see \[C2\]). The main point in \[V2\] and \[P\] was to produce, by Koszul complexes’ techniques, explicit global sections of the bundle $`^cM_{𝐏^n}^d(b)`$, for the integers $`b,c,d`$ considered there. This was used to deduce that, for a generic polynomial $`PS^{d1}`$, the multiplication map

$`m_{P,A}:`$ $`S_x^1`$ $`S_x^d/A`$
$`L`$ $`LPmodA`$
has rank one. H. Clemens considers more generally in \[C2\] the smallest integer $`s0`$ such that rank of the multiplication map

$`m_{P,A,s}:`$ $`S_x^1`$ $`S_x^d/(A+Q_1S_x^1+\mathrm{}+Q_sS_x^1)`$
$`L`$ $`LPmod(A+Q_1S_x^1+\mathrm{}+Q_sS_x^1)`$
$`P,Q_1,\mathrm{},Q_saregenericpolynomialsinS^{d1}`$
is one. Then, as in \[V2\] and \[P\], an infinitesimal argument applies. Namely, recall that if $`V`$ and $`W`$ are vector spaces, and $`Z_k:=\{\varphi Hom(V,W):rank\varphi k\}`$, then

$$T_{Z_k,\varphi }=\{\psi Hom(V,W):\psi (ker\varphi )Im\varphi \}.$$
(9)
Applying this to the map $`m_{P,A,s}`$, we obtain that, for any $`RS^{d1}`$,

$$RKerm_{P,A,s}mod(A+Q_1S_x^1+\mathrm{}+Q_sS_x^1)Imm_{P,A,s}$$

i.e.

$$H^0(_\mathrm{}_A(d))A+Q_1S_x^1+\mathrm{}+Q_sS_x^1+PS_x^1,$$

where $`\mathrm{}_A`$ is the line determined by $`Kerm_{P,A,s}`$. To complete the proof it remains to verify that the line is independent of the choice of the polynomials, and that, under the hypothesis (1), the integer $`s`$ is such that $`A`$ and $`H^0(_\mathrm{}_A(d))`$ satisfy (8). ∎

Since the map (7) vanishes, Lemma 3.1 applies to the tangent space $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$. Then, at a generic point $`(y,F)𝒴`$, the tangent space $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ contains a subspace $`TH^0(_{\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}}(d))`$, where $`\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}`$ is a line through $`y`$ and $`T`$ satisfies

$`rk{\displaystyle \frac{T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}}{T}}n+1.`$ (10)
We now verify an easy fact:

###### Lemma 3.2.

The tangent space $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ cannot contain two subspaces $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$ of ideals of different lines $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}`$ and verifying (10).

###### Proof.

Indeed, if this were the case, by the surjectivity of

$$H^0(_{\mathrm{}}(d))H^0(_{\mathrm{}^{}}(d))S_y^d,$$

and the numerical condition (10), then $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ would contain a subspace of $`S_y^d`$ of codimension at most $`2(n+c+1d)`$. Now, by remark 2.0.1, (i), we have

$$c=codim_{T_{𝒳,(y,F)}^{vert}}T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}=codim_𝒳𝒴2(n+c+1d)$$

which is equivalent to

$$d\frac{3nk}{2},$$

and the last inequality is impossible because of (1). ∎

Then, we can consider the distribution $`𝒯T_𝒴^{vert}`$, pointwise given by the $`T`$’s. This distribution turns out to have the following properties

###### Proposition 3.3.

The distribution $`𝒯T_𝒴^{vert}`$ is integrable and the natural map $`\varphi :𝒴G(1,n)`$, associating to $`(y,F)`$ the line determined by $`TH^0(_{\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}}(d))`$, is constant along the leaves of the corresponding foliation.

###### Proof.

The proof goes along the lines of \[V2\], lemma 3 and 4, and of \[P\], lemma 3.3. For the detailed proof in the general case, see \[C2\]. Again, for the reader’s convenience, we sketch it below. Consider the bracket map

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:\stackrel{2}{}𝒯T_𝒴^{vert}/𝒯T_{𝒳}^{vert}{}_{|𝒴}{}^{}/𝒯,$$

which is given at the point $`(y,F)`$ by

$$\psi :^2T_{\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}}T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}/T_{\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}}H^0(𝒪_{\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}}(d)(y)).$$

Now, choose coordinates on $`𝐏^n`$ such that $`\mathrm{}:=\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}=\{X_2=\mathrm{}=X_n=0\}`$ and $`y=[1,0,\mathrm{},0]`$. Note that, since $`y\mathrm{}`$, $`\varphi _{}(T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert})`$ is contained in $`H^0(N_{\mathrm{}/𝐏^n}(y))`$ ($`\varphi _{}`$ is the differential of $`\varphi `$ at $`(y,F)`$). One verifies that

$`\psi (AB)=A\varphi _{}(B)B\varphi _{}(A),A,BT_{\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}},`$ (11)
where the bilinear map $`(a,b)ab`$ is explicitely given by

$$P(X_1\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}b_i\frac{}{X_i})=\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}b_iX_1(\frac{P}{X_i})_|\mathrm{}H^0(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(d)(y)).$$

A key linear algebra lemma allows to prove that $`\varphi _{}`$ is zero, so the proposition follows from (11) and from the Frobenius theorem. ∎

Using this we will prove, via the $`GL(n+1)`$-invariance of $`𝒴`$, that $`F_{|\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}}`$ has, set-theoretically, at most two zeroes.

Proof of Proposition 1.3. Let $`(y,F)`$ be a general point of $`𝒴`$. Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be the line through $`y`$ and $`T`$ the subspace of $`H^0(_{\mathrm{}}(d))`$ contained in $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ and verifying (10). Consider the following diagram

(12)
By (10) we have

$`dimIm(T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}H^0(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(d)(y)))n+1`$ (13)
On the other hand, by remark 2.0.1, (ii), the vertical tangent space $`T_{𝒴,(y,F)}^{vert}`$ contains $`S_y^1J_F^{d1}`$ and $`F`$ itself. Take coordinates $`X_0,\mathrm{},X_n`$ on $`𝐏^n`$ such that $`y=[1,0,\mathrm{},0]`$, and $`\mathrm{}:=\mathrm{}_{(y,F)}=\{X_2=\mathrm{}=X_n=0\}`$. Since $`\varphi `$ is constant along the leaves of the foliation, we can generically choose a polynomial $`G`$ in the leaf integrating $`T`$ so that the $`(n1)`$-elements $`X_1\frac{G}{X_i},i2,`$ are independent modulo the subpace

$$K:=<G_|\mathrm{},X_1(\frac{G}{X_0})_|\mathrm{},X_1(\frac{G}{X_1})_|\mathrm{}>H^0(\mathrm{},𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(d)_y),$$

which is uniquely determined by $`F_|\mathrm{}`$ and hence is constant along the leaf integrating $`T`$. By (13), this implies $`dimK2`$, that is

$$F_|\mathrm{}=\alpha X_1^rL^{dr},$$

for some $`r1`$, and some linear form $`L`$ on $`\mathrm{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We are then led to study the locus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$. This will be done in the last section.

## 4 The bicontact locus $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$

Let $`X_F𝐏^n`$ be a general hypersurface of degree $`d`$ verifying (1), and $`Y_FX_F`$ a $`k`$-dimensional subvariety whose desingularization $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is such that $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y},K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}(1))=0`$. Then, by Proposition 1.3, we know that $`Y_F`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X_F}X_F`$, the $`(2nd)`$-dimensional subvariety of points $`x`$ of $`X_F`$ through which there is an osculating line $`\mathrm{}`$ intersecting $`X_F`$ at most at another point, $`i.e.`$ $`\mathrm{}X_F=rx+(dr)x^{},x^{}X_F`$. In what follows we will write $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$ instead of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),X_F}`$. To prove our theorem, we study two explicit desingularizations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$, which have been used in \[V2\], that are both given in terms of the zero locus of a section of a vector bundle. Thus we compute, by adjunction, the canonical bundle of such a desingularization. Then, again, we adopt a variational approach and construct, in both cases, a subbundle contained in the exterior powers of the (twisted) tangent bundle to the family of the desingularizations. A positivity result, namely the global generation of this subbundle, allows us to conclude the proof.

Case 1: $`r2`$ and $`dr2`$.

Let $`G:=Gr(1,n)`$ be the Grassmannian of lines in $`𝐏^n`$. Let $`𝒪_G(1)`$ be the line bundle on $`G`$ which gives the Plücker embedding. Let $`Z`$ be the blow-up along the diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the product $`𝐏^n\times 𝐏^n`$ with projections:

(14)
Consider the map

$$f:ZGr(1,n),$$
(15)
$$z\mathrm{}_z$$

where $`\mathrm{}_z`$ is the line determined by $`z`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{p_i}:=p_ib`$, for $`i=1,2`$, and consider the line bundles on $`Z`$ defined as follows: $`H_i:=\stackrel{~}{p_i}^{}𝒪_{𝐏^n}(1)`$ and $`L:=f^{}𝒪_G(1)`$. The variety $`Z`$ comes together with a projective bundle: $`𝐏\stackrel{\pi }{}Z`$, and we define $`_d:=\pi _{}𝒪_𝐏(d)`$. Notice that the fibre of $`_d`$ at $`z`$ is equal to $`H^0(\mathrm{}_z,𝒪_\mathrm{}_z(d))`$. Consider the line bundle $`_{r,dr}_d`$, whose fibre at $`zZ`$ is given by the one dimensional space of polynomials $`PH^0(\mathrm{}_z,𝒪_\mathrm{}_z(d))`$ vanishing at $`x`$ to the order $`r`$ and at $`y`$ to the order $`dr`$, where $`(x,y)=b(z)𝐏^n\times 𝐏^n`$. Define $`_{r,dr}:=_d/_{r,dr}`$. To any polynomial $`FS^d`$ we can associate a section $`\sigma _FH^0(Z,_d)`$, whose value at a point $`z`$ is exactly the polynomial $`F_{|\mathrm{}_z}_{d}^{}{}_{|z}{}^{}`$, and we will denote by $`\overline{\sigma }_F`$ its image in $`H^0(Z,_{r,dr})`$. Then we define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}:=V(\overline{\sigma }_F)`$. By construction, we have $`\stackrel{~}{p_1}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F})=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$. Since $`_{r,dr}`$ is generated by its global sections, the variety $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$ is smooth and of the right dimension. Moreover, since in the degree considered through a generic point of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$ there is just one $`r`$-osculating line, the map $`\stackrel{~}{p_1}`$ is a desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$ . We will now recall how to compute the canonical bundle of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$. As remarked in \[V2\], the Picard group of $`Z`$ is generated by $`H_1,H_2`$ and $`L`$, the canonical class of $`Z`$ is $`K_Z=2H_12H_2+(n+1)L`$, and the class of $`_{(r,dr),F}`$ is given by $`rH_1+(dr)H_2`$. Therefore, by adjunction, we have

$$K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}=K_Z+c_1(_{r,dr})=(r2)H_1+(dr2)H_2+(\frac{d(d1)}{2}n+1)L.$$

Consider now the bundles $`𝒩_Z^{r,dr}`$ and $`_Z^d`$ on $`Z`$ respectively defined by the two following exact sequences :

$`0𝒩_Z^{r,dr}S^d𝒪_Z_{r,dr}0,`$ (16)
$`0_Z^dS^d𝒪_Z_d0.`$ (17)
By definition we have

$`0_Z^d𝒩_Z^{r,dr}_{r,dr}0.`$ (18)
The needed positivity result is the following

###### Lemma 4.1.

If $`r3`$, $`dr2`$ and

$$\frac{d\left(d1\right)}{2}nc1,$$
(19)
then the bundle $`^c_{Z}^{d}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}(H_1)`$ is generated by its global sections.

###### Proof.

Remark that $`_Z^d=f^{}M_G^d`$. Hence, by lemma 2.1, (ii), the bundle

$`^c_Z^ddet_{r,dr}K_Z(H_1)=`$
$`=`$ $`f^{}(^cM_G^d)𝒪_Z((r3)H_1+(dr2)H_2+({\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2}}n+1)L)`$
$`=`$ $`f^{}(^cM_G^d(c))𝒪_Z((r3)H_1+(dr2)H_2+({\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2}}nc+1)L),`$
is globally generated under our numerical hypothesis, and the same holds for its restriction to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$. ∎

Let now $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{r,dr}𝐏^n\times S^d`$ be the family of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(r,dr),F}`$’s, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}Z\times S^d`$ the family of the desingularizations. Let $`𝒴\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}`$ be a subscheme of relative dimension $`k`$, invariant under the action of $`GL(n+1)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}𝒴`$ a desingularization. Assume $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y}_F,K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(H_1))=0`$ and set $`c=n1k`$. Recall the isomorphisms

$`^cT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}^{}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}}^{N+k}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}`$ (20)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}^{N+k}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}`$ (21)
and consider the natural map

$`^cT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}^{}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,d}}^{N+k}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{𝒴}}^{N+k}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}{}^{}`$ $``$ $`K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}.`$ (22)
If we twist (22) by $`H_1`$, then, by assumption, the induced map in cohomology

$$H^0(^cT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}^{}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}(H_1))H^0(K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(H_1))$$
(23)
is zero. Let $`T_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}}^{vert}`$ be the sheaf defined by

$$0T_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}}^{vert}T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}TZ0.$$

Its restriction to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$ coincides with $`𝒩_{Z}^{r,dr}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}`$. Therefore, by (18) and lemma 4.1, we have constructed a sub-bundle

$$^c_{Z}^{d}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}(H_1)^cT^{vert}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}^{}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}}(H_1),$$

which is generated by its global sections, under the numerical hypothesis of the lemma 4.1.

We conclude the case 1 with the following

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`F`$ be a general polynomial of degree $`d`$ verifying (19), with $`c=n1k`$. Suppose $`r2`$ and $`dr2`$. Let $`Y_F\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$ be a subvariety of dimension $`k`$, and $`j:\stackrel{~}{Y}_FY_F`$ a desingularization such that $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y}_F,K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(j^{}H_1))=0`$. Then $`Y_F`$ is contained in the locus of lines of $`X_F`$.

###### Proof.

When no confusion is possible, we will omit in what follows the index $`(r,dr)`$ and simply set $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_{r,dr}`$. Suppose first $`r3`$. Let $`WT_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}^{}{}_{,(z,F)}{}^{}`$ be a codimension $`c`$ subspace contained in the base locus of $`H^0(^cT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}(H_1))`$, considered as the space of sections of a line bundle on the Grassmannian of codimension $`c`$ subspaces of $`T\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}`$. Then we must have

$`W^{vert}:=W𝒩_Z^{r,dr}|_z_Z^d|_z.`$ (24)
Indeed, if this were not the case, we would have $`codim_{_Z^d|_z}\overline{W}=c`$, where $`\overline{W}:=W_Z^d|_z`$. Then consider the following commutative diagram:

(25)
($`ev`$ is the evaluation of the sections at the point $`z`$, and $`<,W>`$ is the contraction defined by the subspace $`W`$). Since $`W`$ belongs to the base locus of $`H^0(^cT\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}(H_1))`$, then the composite map $`<,W>ev`$ is zero, and so would be $`<,\overline{W}>ev`$. But this is absurd, because, by Lemma 4.1, the bundle $`^c_{Z}^{d}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_F}(H_1)`$ is generated by its global sections.

Let then $`𝒴\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ be a subvariety, which is stable under the action of $`GL(n+1)`$ and of relative codimension $`c`$. Assume moreover that the restriction map (23) is zero. By (24), $`T_{𝒴,(z,F)}^{vert}`$ is contained in

$$_{Z}^{d}{}_{|z}{}^{}=\{GS^d:G_{|\mathrm{}_z}=0\}.$$
(26)
On the other hand, by Remark 2.0.1, (ii), $`T_{𝒴,(z,F)}^{vert}`$ contains $`F`$ itself. So by (26) we have that $`F_{|\mathrm{}_z}=0`$ for every point $`zY_F`$, i.e. $`Y_F`$ is contained in the subvariety covered by the lines contained in $`X_F`$.

If $`r=2`$, we can consider the natural isomorphism

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(dr,r),F}$$
(27)
sending a point $`z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$, with $`b(z)=(x,x^{})`$, to a point $`w\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(dr,r),F}`$ with $`b(w)=(x^{},x)`$, where $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$ are points on $`X_F`$ linked by the condition

$$aline\mathrm{}s.t.\mathrm{}X_F=rx+(dr)x^{}.$$

Since $`r=2`$ implies $`dr3`$, from what we have done before it follows that the conclusion is true for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(dr,r),F}`$, and so, by (27), the same holds for $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(r,dr),F}`$. ∎

Case 2: $`r=1`$ or $`dr=1`$.

Suppose for instance $`dr=1`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝐏^n\times Gr(1,n)`$ be the incidence variety, and $`p`$ and $`q`$ the projections on the two factors. Let $`\pi :𝐏\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the pull-back of the universal $`𝐏^1`$-bundle over $`Gr(1,n)`$ and $`\tau `$ the natural section of $`\pi `$. Consider the bundle $`_d:=\pi _{}𝒪_𝐏(d)`$ over $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and its rank $`2`$ subbbundle $`𝒦_d`$ such that its fiber at a point $`(x,\mathrm{})`$ is given by the polynomials $`PH^0(𝒪_{\mathrm{}}(d))`$ vanishing to the order at least $`(d1)`$ at $`x`$. Consider the line bundle $`_1`$ defined by

$$0_1_1\tau ^{}𝒪_𝐏(1)=:H0.$$

Then $`𝒦_1^{d1}_1`$. Let $`_d`$ be the quotient $`_d/𝒦`$. As in Case 1, to any $`FS^d`$ we can associate a global section $`\sigma _F`$ of $`_d`$. By definition $`p(V(\sigma _F))=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(d1,1),F}`$. As before, since the bundle $`_d`$ is generated by the sections $`\sigma _F`$, we have that $`V(\sigma _F)`$ is smooth of the right dimension, for a general $`F`$, and it is easy to verify that $`p:V(\sigma _F)\mathrm{\Delta }_{(d1,1),F}`$ is a desingularization. Then we define $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}:=V(\sigma _F)`$. Hence, using the adjunction formula, we can compute the canonical bundle of $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}`$ as the restriction to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}`$ of the following line bundle:

$$K_{Gr(1,n)}+c_1(_d)=(2d4)H+(\frac{d(d+1)}{2}n12(d1))L.$$
(28)
Consider the bundles $`𝒩_\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$ and $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }^d`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ respectively defined by the two following exact sequences :

$`0𝒩_\mathrm{\Gamma }^dS^d𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }_d0,`$ (29)
$`0_\mathrm{\Gamma }^dS^d𝒪_\mathrm{\Gamma }_d0.`$ (30)
From the definitions it follows that we have

$`0_\mathrm{\Gamma }^d𝒩_\mathrm{\Gamma }^d𝒦0.`$ (31)
The positivity result we will need this time is the following

###### Lemma 4.3.

If

$$\frac{d(d+1)}{2}n12(d1)c1,$$
(32)
then the bundle $`^c_{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{d}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}}(H)`$ is generated by its global sections.

###### Proof.

Use (28) and lemma 2.1, (ii). ∎

Let now $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{d1,1}𝐏^n\times S^d`$ be the family of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(d1,1),F}`$’s, and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{d1,1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\times S^d`$ the family of the desingularizations. Let $`𝒴\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}`$ be a subscheme of relative dimension $`k`$, invariant under the action of $`GL(n+1)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}𝒴`$ a desingularization. Consider the sheaf $`T_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{d1,1}}^{vert}`$ defined by

$$0T_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{d1,1}}^{vert}T_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{r,dr}}T_\mathrm{\Gamma }0,$$

and remark that its restriction to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}`$ coincides with $`𝒩_{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{d}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}}{}^{}`$. If we assume $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Y}_F,K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(H))=0`$ and set $`c=n1k`$, we have that the natural adjunction map,

$$H^0(^c_{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{d}{}_{|\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}}{}^{}K_{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}}(H))H^0(\stackrel{~}{Y}_F,K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}_F}(H)),$$
(33)
that we can construct thanks to (31), is obviously zero.

The last step will be the proof of the following

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`F`$ be a general polynomial of degree $`d`$ verifying (32). Let $`Y_F\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{(d1,1),F}`$ be a subvariety of dimension $`k`$, and $`j:\stackrel{~}{Y}_FY_F`$ a desingularization such that (33) vanishes. Then $`Y_F`$ is contained in the locus of lines of $`X_F`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`FT^{vert}𝒴_{|(x,\mathrm{},F)}`$. We claim that

$$F_{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{d}{}_{|(x,\mathrm{})}{}^{}.$$

Indeed if $`F𝒦_{|(x,\mathrm{})}`$, then we have the surjection

$$T^{vert}𝒴_{|(x,\mathrm{},F)}𝒦_{|(x,\mathrm{})}.$$
(34)
(This follows from the fact that if $`F𝒦_{|(x,\mathrm{})}`$ then

$$<S_x^1J_F^{d1},F>𝒦_{|(x,\mathrm{})},$$

plus Remark 2.0.1, (ii)). Then, by (34), we have that

$$codim_{_\mathrm{\Gamma }^d{}_{|}{}^{}(x,\mathrm{})}T^{vert}𝒴_{|(x,\mathrm{},F)}=codim_{X_F}Y_F=c.$$

As in Proposition 4.2, we can now use the commutative diagram

(35)
and deduce from it, together with Lemma 4.3 and Remark 2.0.1, (ii), that what we claim holds, i.e.

$$F_|\mathrm{}=0.$$

The numerical condition (32), which, for $`c=n1k`$, becomes

$$\frac{d(d3)}{2}2nk3,$$

implies (19). Thus, combining the two propositions 4.2 and 4.4, the proof of our main theorem is completed. $`\mathrm{}`$

Gianluca PACIENZA
Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu
Université Pierre et Marie Curie
4, Place Jussieu, F-75252 Paris CEDEX 05 - FRANCE
e-mail: pacienza@math.jussieu.fr

current address:
Department of Mathematics
Ohio State University
100 Mathematics Building
231 West 18th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210-1174 - U.S.A.
e-mail: pacienza@math.ohio-state.edu