text:
# Sub-representation of posets

## 1. Introduction

###### Definition 1.1.

Given an ordered set $`E`$ and a topological space $`X`$, we say that $`E`$ can be realised within $`X`$ \[see \] if there is an injection $`j`$ from $`E`$ into the class of (homeomorphism classes of) subspaces of $`X`$ such that, for $`x,y`$ in $`E`$, $`xy`$ if and only if $`j(x)`$ is homeomorphically embeddable into $`j(y)`$.

The question of which spaces have the ‘converse’ of this property of realisability appears difficult in general, but we are able to handle the principal $`T_0`$ case. What we shall now do therefore is to try to represent the family of sub-posets of a partially ordered set $`P`$, ordered by embeddability, within that family ordered by inclusion. However, we additionally want the representation to be such that each sub-poset is represented by an embeddability-wise equivalent poset. That is, we wish to sub-represent the poset.

###### Definition 1.2.

Whenever $`P_1`$ and $`P_2`$ are posets, we shall say that $`P_1P_2`$ if and only if $`P_1`$ is isomorphic to a subset of $`P_2`$.

###### Definition 1.3.

We shall say that $`P`$ is sub-representable if and only if there exists a map $`g`$ from $`(P)`$ to $`(P)`$ such that for all $`P_1,P_2(P)`$:

* $`P_1P_2`$ if and only if $`g(P_1)g(P_2)`$, and
* $`P_1g(P_1)P_1`$.

###### Example 1.4.

Figure 1 details a sub-representation of a four-point poset.

Figure 1

###### Theorem 1.5.

Suppose that $`P_1P`$. If $`P_1`$ is not sub-representable, then $`P`$ is not sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P`$ was sub-representable and $`g`$ is as in Definition 1.3. Now $`g(P_1)`$ embeds into $`P_1`$ by a map $`h`$. Then it is clear that if $`g^{}=g_{|P_1}`$, then $`hg^{}`$ will sub-represent $`P_1`$. ∎

###### Definition 1.6.

The posets whose Hasse diagrams are given in Figure 2 shall be known as a vee, a wedge, and a diamond, respectively.

Figure 2

###### Example 1.7.

* All two-point posets are (trivially) sub-representable.
* All three-point posets are (trivially) sub-representable.
* Not all four-point posets are sub-representable: see Example 1.8.

###### Example 1.8.

The poset $`P`$ in Figure 3 is not sub-representable for the following reasons. Suppose that $`P`$ were sub-representable. Since $`P`$ contains a wedge, the wedge must be sub-represented by either $`\{1,3,4\}`$ or $`\{2,3,4\}`$. A two-point chain must then be mapped to $`\{1,3\}`$, $`\{3,4\}`$ or $`\{2,3\}`$; not to $`\{1,2\}`$. However, in all three cases we see that there is no other point incomparable with the chain, and hence the disjoint union $`\{1,2,4\}`$ of a two-point chain and a single point cannot be sub-represented: a contradiction.

Figure 3

Figure 4 gives all four-point posets that cannot be sub-represented, as may be verified by simple arguments like that of above.

Figure 4

Figure 5 gives all four-point posets (likewise identified) that can be sub-represented.

Figure 5

Example 1.8 shows that we do not have universal sub-representability, even among finite posets. We seek to identify which posets are sub-representable.

###### Note 1.9.

Let $`xP`$. We shall use the following notation (note the strictness of the inequalities):

* $`U(x)=\{yP:y>x\}`$
* $`D(x)=\{yP:y<x\}`$.

###### Definition 1.10.

A linear ordering $`A`$ is called a

* well-ordering if every non-empty subset $`B`$ of $`A`$ has a least element,
* well-ordering\* if every non-empty subset $`B`$ of $`A`$ has a greatest element.

###### Definition 1.11.

We shall call $`P`$ a

* flower if and only if there exists $`xP`$ such that $`D(x)`$ is a well-ordered\* chain, $`U(x)`$ is an antichain (with $`|U(x)|>1`$) and $`D(x)U(x)\{x\}=P`$
* co-flower if and only if there exists $`xP`$ such that $`U(x)`$ is a well-ordered chain, $`D(x)`$ is an antichain (with $`|D(x)|>1`$) and $`D(x)U(x)\{x\}=P`$.

###### Note 1.12.

Note that the dual of a flower is a co-flower and vice versa. Also every flower contains a vee and every co-flower contains a wedge.

###### Theorem 1.13.

Suppose that $`P`$ contains both a vee and a wedge. Then $`P`$ is not sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P`$ is sub-representable but contains both a vee and a wedge. Suppose that a vee, $`\{1,2,3:1<2,1<3\}`$, is represented by $`\{a,b,c:b<a,b<c\}`$. Then we must have the two-point antichain embedded as $`\{a,c\}`$. The wedge $`\{4,5,6:4<6,5<6\}`$ would then partially embed as follows: $`\{4,5\}\{a,c\}`$, and hence we would have a diamond $`\{a,b,c,d:b<a,b<c,a<d,c<d\}`$ contained in $`P`$. By Example 1.8, any space containing a diamond is not sub-representable: a contradiction. ∎

###### Theorem 1.14.

Suppose that $`P`$ contains one of the posets in Figure 6. Then $`P`$ is not sub-representable.

Figure 6

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P`$ contains poset $`A`$ but that $`P`$ is sub-representable. Notice that $`A`$ contains a copy of $``$. Then a two-point antichain must be represented by $`\{x,y\}`$ and hence a singleton must be represented by either $`\{x\}`$ or $`\{y\}`$. In either case we have that the representative of $``$ would have a maximal element: a contradiction, and hence $`P`$ is not sub-representable. A similar contradiction arises if $`P`$ contains $`B`$. ∎

###### Theorem 1.15.

If $`P`$ is sub-representable then $`P`$ is a flower or a co-flower or a disjoint union of chains.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P`$ is neither a flower nor a co-flower nor a disjoint union of chains. Since it is not a disjoint union of chains it contains a vee or a wedge. By Theorem 1.13 if it contains both then it is not sub-representable. Suppose then that $`P`$ contains a vee but not a wedge. Since it is not a flower it must contain one of the following:

Figure 7

However, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are not sub-representable by Example 1.8 and $`C`$ is not sub-representable by Theorem 1.14. Hence $`P`$ is not sub-representable either. Dually, suppose that $`P`$ contains a wedge but not a vee. Since it is not a co-flower it must contain one of the following:

Figure 8

However, $`D`$ and $`E`$ are not sub-representable by Example 1.8 and $`F`$ is not sub-representable by Theorem 1.14. Hence neither is $`P`$. ∎

###### Example 1.16.

Let $`P=_k\{P_k\}`$ where $`P_k`$ is the $`k`$-point chain. Then $`P`$ is not sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that this poset is sub-representable. Then there exist values of $`k`$ and $`m`$ such that $`P_k`$ is represented by being mapped into $`P_m(mk)`$. We then have that $`P_{m+1}`$ must map into more than one $`P_k`$, since it must contain the image of $`P_k`$ whereas $`P_m`$ contains only $`m`$ points: this yields the desired contradiction. ∎

###### Note 1.17.

Let $`P`$ be a finite poset. Recall that the height of $`P`$, denoted by $`ht(P)`$, is the largest cardinality of a chain in $`P`$, and that the width of $`P`$, denoted by $`wd(P)`$, is the largest cardinality of an antichain in $`P`$.

###### Theorem 1.18.

Suppose that $`P`$ is finite. If $`P`$ is either a flower or a co-flower or a disjoint union of chains then $`P`$ is sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P`$ is a flower with $`ht(P)=n`$ and $`wd(P)=k`$. The family of subsets of $`P`$ consists of flowers of height $`m`$ and width $`r`$ for all $`1<mn,1<rk`$, together with chains of size $`n`$ and antichains of size $`k`$. Label the points of $`P`$ in the maximal antichain as $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k`$. There exists a point $`x`$ such that $`P=D(x)U(x)\{x\}`$. Label $`x`$ as $`x_{k+1}`$ and the points of $`D(x)`$ as $`x_{k+2},x_{k+3},\mathrm{},x_{k+n1}`$ where $`x_{k+2}>x_{k+3}>\mathrm{}>x_{k+n1}`$ as in Figure 9. Our isomorphism is defined as follows: map a singleton to $`x_1`$; map each chain of size $`m>1`$ to $`\{x_1,x_{k+1},\mathrm{},x_{k+m1}\}`$; map each antichain of size $`r>1`$ to $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_r\}`$; map each flower of height $`m`$ and width $`r`$ to $`\{x_j:k<jk+m1\}\{x_j:1jr\}`$. It is clear that $`P`$ has been sub-represented.

Figure 9

The case where $`P`$ is a co-flower is precisely dual to the preceding discussion. Now suppose that $`P`$ is a disjoint union of chains. Arrange the chains in descending order of cardinality. That is, denote $`P`$ as $`\{P_k:kn\}`$ where $`ht(P_k)ht(P_{k+1})`$. Label the points of each $`P_k`$ as $`\{x_m^k:1mht(P_k)\}`$ as in Figure 10.

Figure 10

Let $`S`$ be a subset of $`P`$, and suppose that $`S`$ intersects each of the posets $`\{P_{k_1},P_{k_2},\mathrm{},P_{k_t}\}`$ where $`|SP_{k_q}||SP_{k_{q+1}}|`$ for all $`1qt1`$. For each $`rt`$ map $`SP_{k_r}`$ to $`\{x_m^r:m|SP_{k_r}|\}`$. The poset $`P`$ has now been sub-represented. ∎

###### Corollary 1.19.

Let $`P`$ be a finite poset. Then $`P`$ is sub-representable if and only if $`P`$ is either a flower or a co-flower or a disjoint union of chains.

###### Example 1.20.

Consider $`=\{\mathrm{},3,2,1,0,1,2,3,\mathrm{}\}`$, the set of integers with their usual ordering. Then $``$ is not sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $``$ is sub-representable. Let the image of the equivalence class of the natural numbers, i.e. $`\theta ([])`$, be the set $`\{0^{},1^{},2^{},3^{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Let $`\theta ([])`$ be the set $`\{(0)^{},(1)^{},(2)^{},(3)^{},\mathrm{}\}`$. Since a singleton must be mapped into both $`\theta ([])`$ and $`\theta ([])`$, we know that $`|\theta ([])\theta ([])|>0`$. Suppose that $`p^{}`$ is the least point of $`\theta ([])\theta ([])`$, that is, $`p^{}=(q)^{},`$ which implies that $`|\theta ([])\theta ([])|q+1`$. Then $`\theta ([\{0,1,2,3\mathrm{},q,q+1\}])`$ must be a subset of $`\theta ([])`$ and also a subset of $`\theta ([])`$. This is a contradiction, since $`|\theta ([])\theta ([])|q+1`$. ∎

###### Corollary 1.21.

By Corollary 1.5 we then have that $`,`$ and $``$ (as ordered sets) cannot be sub-represented.

###### Corollary 1.22.

If $`P`$ contains a copy of $``$ and a copy of $``$ then it cannot be sub-represented.

###### Note 1.23.

If $`P`$ is a chain which is not well-ordered then it contains a copy of $``$, and if $`P`$ is a chain which is not well-ordered\* then it contains a copy of $``$.

###### Corollary 1.24.

If $`P`$ is a chain which is not well-ordered and not well-ordered\* then it cannot be sub-represented.

###### Theorem 1.25.

Every well-ordered set can be sub-represented.

###### Proof.

Let $`P`$ be a well-ordered chain of order-type $`\alpha `$. It suffices to show that $`\alpha `$ itself is sub-representable. Let $`S\alpha `$ and suppose that $`S`$ is order-isomorphic to $`\beta <\alpha `$. We map $`[S]`$ to $`\beta `$ where $`\beta `$ is a proper initial segment of $`\alpha `$. On the other hand, if $`S`$ is order-isomorphic to $`\alpha `$, map $`[S]`$ to $`\alpha `$ itself. ∎

###### Theorem 1.26.

Every well-ordered\* set can be sub-represented.

###### Proof.

Let $`P`$ be a well-ordered\* chain. Let $`P^{}`$ denote the dual of $`P`$. Then $`P^{}`$ is, without loss of generality, an ordinal $`\alpha `$. If $`SP`$ then $`S^{}`$ is order-isomorphic to some $`\beta \alpha `$, and so map $`[S]`$ to the final segment of $`\alpha ^{}`$ of order-type $`\beta ^{}`$. ∎

###### Theorem 1.27.

Let $`P`$ be a flower or a co-flower. Then $`P`$ is sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P`$ is a flower. Then $`P=D(x)U(x)\{x\}`$. Suppose that $`|U(x)|=\delta `$. Label the points of $`U(x)`$ as $`\{x_\beta :\beta <\delta \}`$. By definition, $`D(x)\{x\}\{x_0\}`$ is a well-ordered\* chain. Label the points of $`U(x)\{x_0\}`$ as $`\{x_\beta ^{}:\beta <\delta ^{}\}`$. Let $`SP`$. If $`S`$ is a copy of $`\alpha ^{}`$ for some ordinal $`\alpha `$, map $`S`$ to the final segment $`\alpha ^{}`$ of $`D(x)\{x\}\{x_0\}`$. Otherwise $`S`$ contains a copy of $`\alpha ^{}`$ for some ordinal $`\alpha `$ (such that it does not contain a copy of $`\gamma ^{}`$ for some $`\gamma >\alpha `$) together with an antichain of cardinality $`\zeta `$. Map $`S`$ to $`\{x_\beta ^{}:\beta <\zeta \}`$ together with the final segment $`\alpha ^{}`$ of $`D(x)\{x\}\{x_0\}`$. We have now sub-represented $`P`$. The case where $`P`$ is a co-flower is similar. ∎

###### Theorem 1.28.

Let $`P`$ be the disjoint union of finitely many well-ordered sets. Then $`P`$ is sub-representable.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`P=_{kn}_{sm_k}\{^s\omega ^k\}`$ where $`{}_{}{}^{s}\omega _{}^{k}`$ is a copy of an ordinal $`\omega ^k`$. Then (up to order-isomorphism) $`P`$ is a copy of $`n^{}=_km_k`$ many ordinals. So let us consider $`P`$ as $`_{nn^{}}\{\omega ^n\}`$ where $`\omega ^n\omega ^{n+1}`$ for all $`nn^{}`$. Let $`YP`$ meet each of $`\omega ^{n_1},\omega ^{n_2},\mathrm{},\omega ^{n_t}`$ where $`|Y\omega ^{n_p}||Y\omega ^{n_{p+1}}|`$ for all $`1pt1`$. Now $`Y\omega ^{n_p}`$ is a copy of an ordinal $`\alpha _p`$. So map $`Y\omega ^{n_p}`$ to $`\alpha _p\omega ^p`$ and hence $`P`$ has been sub-represented. ∎

###### Corollary 1.29.

A similar proof gives the result that a disjoint union of finitely many well-ordered\* sets is sub-representable.

Let us examine further the question of which disjoint unions of ordinals can be sub-represented. Let $`P`$ be a disjoint union of ordinals. If $`P`$ contains a copy of the disjoint union of the family of ordinals $`\{1,2,3,4,\mathrm{}\}`$ then by Example 1.16 and Corollary 1.5, $`P`$ cannot be sub-represented. Hence $`P`$ must contain copies of only finitely many distinct ordinals and only finitely many copies of each relevant infinite ordinal. If we have only finitely many copies of each ordinal then by Theorem 1.28, $`P`$ is sub-representable. So all that remains to consider is the case where there are infinitely many copies of one or more finite ordinals. It will be seen — although the demonstration requires considerably more effort than earlier proofs in this paper — that this case also is sub-representable.

## 2. Sub-representation of pinboards

###### Definition 2.1.

A pinboard is a finite set of ordered pairs

$$\{(h_i,f_i):1ik\}$$

in which, for each value of $`i`$, $`h_i`$ (the height) is an ordinal, $`f_i`$ (the frequency) is a cardinal, and not both $`h_i,f_i`$ can be infinite. We recall that a cardinal is merely an initial ordinal (or equivalently, the least one of a given cardinality).

###### Definition 2.2.

A simple pinboard is a pinboard of the form

$$\{(\beta ,n),(m,\gamma )\}$$

where $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$ are infinite cardinals, and $`m`$ and $`n`$ are finite cardinals.

###### Definition 2.3.

The poset of a pinboard $`\{(h_i,f_i):1ik\}`$ is the disjoint union of $`f_i`$-many copies of $`h_i`$ for $`1ik`$. For example, if the pinboard was $`\{(\omega _2,5),(\omega _1,2),(6,\omega ),(3,1)\}`$, then the poset is as suggested by Figure 11.

Figure 11

Our aim is to sub-represent the poset of an arbitrary pinboard. However, it is easy to see that the poset of any pinboard is a subset of the poset of a simple pinboard. Hence, by Theorem 1.5, if every simple pinboard’s poset is sub-representable, then every pinboard’s poset is sub-representable.

Let $`P`$ be the poset of a simple pinboard $`\{(\beta ,n),(m,\gamma )\}`$. We shall represent $`P`$ by the set

$$X=\{(\beta ,i,\alpha ):\alpha <\beta ,i<n\}\{(m,\alpha ,j):j<m,\alpha <\gamma \},$$

that is, an isomorphic copy of $`\beta `$ over each $`(\beta ,i)`$ and an isomorphic copy of $`m`$ over each $`(m,\alpha )`$. We note that the ordinal $`_m\gamma `$ has the same cardinality as the set

$$F=\{(\beta ,i):i<n\}\{(m,\alpha ):\alpha <\gamma \}$$

which underlies $`X`$. We can therefore choose an injection $`\lambda :_m\gamma F`$ such that the first $`n`$ terms of its domain map onto $`\{(\beta ,i):i<n\}`$. We now have labelled the columns of $`X`$ in a $`_m\gamma `$-sequence such that the first $`n`$ columns are those of the infinite ordinals.

Let $`Y`$ be a subset of the simple pinboard above. Then $`Y`$ consists of at most $`n`$ ordinals that exceed $`m`$ and at most $`\gamma `$-many copies of each of the ordinals $`m,m1,\mathrm{},2,1`$. We can assume that for each term $`(h,f)`$ in $`Y`$ there does not exist a term $`(h^{},f^{})`$ in $`Y`$, where $`f^{}`$ is infinite, such that $`h^{}<h`$ and $`f^{}<f`$: for, if there was such a term $`(h^{},f^{})`$, the elimination of $`(h^{},f^{})`$ would not affect the embeddability class of $`Y`$. Therefore we can consider $`Y`$ to be of the following form:

$$Y=\{(\beta _1,n_1),(\beta _2,n_2),\mathrm{},(\beta _k,n_k),(m,\gamma _m),(m1,\gamma _{m1}),\mathrm{},(1,\gamma _1)\},$$

where $`\beta _1>\beta _2>\mathrm{}>m`$.

We note that the ordinal sum

$$n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_k\gamma _m\mathrm{}\gamma _1n(_m\gamma )=_m\gamma $$

and hence we can find a ‘remainder’ ordinal $`\gamma _0`$ such that

$$n_1n_2\mathrm{}n_k\gamma _m\mathrm{}\gamma _1\gamma _0=_m\gamma .$$

We now apply our injection $`\lambda `$ and hence associate a copy of $`\beta _1`$ with the first $`n_1`$-many columns of $`X`$, a copy of $`\beta _2`$ with the next $`n_2`$-many columns and so on. Our subset $`\theta (Y)`$ of $`X`$ associated with $`Y`$ is now formed by taking the desired initial segments of the associated columns, and it is clear that $`\theta (Y)`$ is an isomorphic copy of $`Y`$.

###### Theorem 2.4.

Let $`Y,Y^{}`$ be subsets of $`X`$. Then $`YY^{}`$ if and only if $`\theta (Y)\theta (Y^{})`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`YY^{}`$. Let us denote $`Y^{}`$ as

$$\{\beta _1^{},n_1^{}),(\beta _2^{},n_2^{}),\mathrm{},(\beta _l^{},n_l^{}),(m,\gamma _m^{}),(m1,\gamma _{m1}^{}),\mathrm{},(1,\gamma _1^{})\},$$

where $`\beta _1^{}>\beta _2^{}>\mathrm{}>\beta _l^{}>m`$. Let $`\theta (Y^{})`$ be generated as above. We proceed to show that $`\theta (Y)\theta (Y^{})`$. Consider the ordinals (without repetitions) comprising $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$, and denote this set arranged in decreasing order as

$$\{\zeta _1,\zeta _2,\mathrm{},\zeta _q,m,m1,\mathrm{},1\}.$$

It is clear that a single column of $`Y`$ must embed into a single column of $`Y^{}`$ and hence the ordinal $`\zeta _1`$ is in fact $`\beta _1^{}`$. We can now assume that $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ are of the following form where some of the frequencies may be zero:

$$Y=\{\zeta _1,r_1),(\zeta _2,r_2),\mathrm{},(\zeta _q,r_q),(m,\gamma _m),(m1,\gamma _{m1}),\mathrm{},(1,\gamma _1)\},$$

$$Y^{}=\{\zeta _1,r_1^{}),(\zeta _2,r_2^{}),\mathrm{},(\zeta _q,r_q^{}),(m,\gamma _m^{}),(m1,\gamma _{m1}^{}),\mathrm{},(1,\gamma _1^{})\}.$$

The proof now proceeds as follows:

Stage 1: Any column of $`Y`$ of height $`\zeta _1`$ must embed into a column of $`Y^{}`$ of that height, and so it follows that $`r_1r_1^{}`$. That is to say, the columns of $`\theta (Y)`$ of height $`\zeta _1`$ are contained in $`\theta (Y^{})`$.

Stage 2: Any column of height $`\zeta _1`$ or $`\zeta _2`$ must embed into a column of $`Y^{}`$ of height $`\zeta _1`$ or $`\zeta _2`$, and hence $`r_1+r_2r_1^{}+r_2^{}`$. It follows that the columns of $`Y`$ of height $`\zeta _2`$ are contained in $`\theta (Y^{})`$.

The obvious iteration process will now yield, in a finite number of stages, $`\theta (Y)\theta (Y^{})`$. ∎

###### Example 2.5.

Suppose that $`P`$ is the poset of the simple pinboard $`\{`$$`(\mathrm{}_2,12)`$, $`(7,\mathrm{}_3)`$$`\}`$ and we have a labelling map $`\lambda :_7\mathrm{}_3F`$ where $`F=\{(\mathrm{}_2,i):i<12\}\{(7,\alpha ):\alpha <\mathrm{}_3\}`$, such that $`\{\lambda (0),..,\lambda (11)\}`$ are the base points of the infinite columns. Let $`Y`$ be a subset of $`P`$ whose columns have the following ordinalities: $`\{\omega _11,\omega _1,\omega _05,\omega _05,\omega _0,30,30,20\}`$ together with $`\mathrm{}_0`$ copies of $`5`$ and $`\mathrm{}_0`$ copies of $`3`$. As before, we can disregard the $`\mathrm{}_0`$ copies of $`3`$ since these do not affect the embeddability class of $`Y`$. The remaining frequencies (in decreasing order of corresponding height) are as follows: $`\{1,1,2,1,2,1,\mathrm{}_0\}`$. We then have that $`\theta (Y)`$ consists of the following initial segments:

$$\theta (Y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _11\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (0),\hfill \\ \omega _1\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (1),\hfill \\ \omega _05\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{columns}\lambda (2)\mathrm{and}\lambda (3),\hfill \\ \omega _0\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (4),\hfill \\ 30\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{columns}\lambda (5)\mathrm{and}\lambda (6),\hfill \\ 20\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (7),\hfill \\ 5\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{columns}\lambda (8t)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}t<\mathrm{}_0,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`Y^{}`$ be another subset of $`P`$ whose columns have the following ordinalities: $`\{\omega _2,\omega _2,\omega _110,\omega _1,\omega _0,60,40,30,20\}`$ together with $`\mathrm{}_1`$ copies of $`6`$. We note that $`YY^{}`$. The frequencies (in decreasing order of corresponding height) are as follows: $`\{2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,\mathrm{}_1\}`$. We then have that $`\theta (Y^{})`$ consists of the following initial segments:

$$\theta (Y^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\omega _2\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{columns}\lambda (0)\mathrm{and}\lambda (1),\hfill \\ \omega _110\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (2),\hfill \\ \omega _1\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (3),\hfill \\ \omega _0\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (4),\hfill \\ 60\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (5),\hfill \\ 40\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (6),\hfill \\ 30\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (7),\hfill \\ 20\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{column}\lambda (8),\hfill \\ 6\hfill & \mathrm{of}\mathrm{columns}\lambda (9t)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}t<\mathrm{}_1,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \mathrm{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

and we observe that $`\theta (Y)\theta (Y^{})`$.

###### Definition 2.6.

A co-pinboard is a finite set of ordered pairs $`\{(h_i,f_i):1ik\}`$ such that $`\{(h_i^{},f_i):1ik\}`$ is a pinboard.

###### Result 2.7.

Let $`P`$ be a poset. Then $`P`$ is sub-representable if and only if $`P`$ is either:

* a flower, or
* a co-flower, or
* the poset of a pinboard, or
* the poset of a co-pinboard.

###### Note 2.8.

We could similarly define sub-representation of an arbitrary topological space as follows: Let $`(X,𝒯)`$ be a topological space. We shall say that $`(X,𝒯)`$ is sub-representable if and only if there exists a map $`g`$ from $`(X)`$ to $`(X)`$ such that for all $`Y`$, $`Z(X)`$:

* $`(Y,𝒯_{|Y})(Z,𝒯_{|Z})`$ if and only if $`g(Y)g(Z)`$, and
* $`(Y,𝒯_{|Y})(g(Y),𝒯_{|g(Y)})(Y,𝒯_{|Y})`$.

It then follows that we have already characterised all principal $`T_0`$ spaces which are sub-representable. The question of which other topological spaces are sub-representable remains open.


format: text

text:
# Quantify entanglement by concurrence hierarchy

## I Introduction

Entanglement plays a central role in quantum computation and quantum information. One of the main goals of theory of entanglement is to develope measures of entanglement. Several measures of entanglement are proposed and studied according to different aims, including entanglement of formation, entanglement of distillation, entanglement cost etc..

Perhaps one of the most widely accepted measures of entanglement is entanglement of formation $`E_f`$ which provides a very good measurement of entanglement asymptotically. For a pure bipartite quantum state $`\rho =|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|`$ shared by A and B, entanglement of formation is defeined by von Neumann entropy of reduced density matrix $`E_f(\rho )=Tr\rho _A\mathrm{log}\rho _A`$, where $`\rho _A=Tr_B\rho `$. For mixed state, the entanglement of formation takes the form

$`E_f(\rho )=\mathrm{inf}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}p_jE_f(\mathrm{\Phi }_j),`$ (1)
where the infimum is taken over all pure-state decompositions of $`\rho =_jp_j|\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j|`$. For mixed state, this definition is operational difficult because it requires finding the minimum average entanglement over all possible pure-state decompositions of the given mixed state. In d-dimension, the explicit expression of entanglement of formation is only found for several special types of mixed state, for example, the isotropic states  and Werner states . However, the explicit formulas have been found for the 2-level quantum system by Wootters et al. Here we briefly introduce the results by Wootters et al. The entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state $`\rho `$ is related to a quantity called concurrence $`C(\rho )`$ by a function

$`E_f(\rho )=ϵ(C(\rho ))=h\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2(\rho )}}{2}}\right),`$ (2)
where $`h(x)=x\mathrm{log}x(1x)\mathrm{log}(1x)`$ is the binary entropy function. The entanglement of formation is monotonically increasing with respect to the increasing concurrence. The concurrence is defined by an almost magic formula,

$`C(\rho )=max\{0,\lambda _1\lambda _2\lambda _3\lambda _4\}`$ (3)
where the $`\lambda _i`$’s are the square root of the eigenvalues of $`\rho \stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ in descending order. And $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }=(\sigma _y\sigma _y)\rho ^{}(\sigma _y\sigma _y)`$, where $`\sigma _y`$ is the Pauli matrix. For pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha _{00}|00+\alpha _{01}|01+\alpha _{10}|10+\alpha _{11}|11`$, the concurrence takes the form

$`C(\mathrm{\Phi })=|\mathrm{\Phi }|\sigma _y\sigma _y|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|=2|\alpha _{00}\alpha _{11}\alpha _{01}\alpha _{10}|.`$ (4)
Because of the relation between concurrence and entanglement of formation, we can use directly the concurrence as the measure of entanglemnet.

One important aim in formulating the measures of entanglement is to find whether a bipartite state is separable or not because the entanglement state has some useful applications, for example, teleportation  quantum cryptography by using EPR pairs. In 2-level quantum system, the Peres-Horodeckis criterion is a convenient method. And the concurrence provide another method. If the concurrence is zero, the quantum state is separable, otherwise it is entangled. For general mixed state in d-dimension, we need yet to find an operational method to distinguish separability and entanglement.

For pure state in d-dimension, the measure of entanglement is largely solved by entanglement of formation. We can use it to distinguish whether a pure state is separable or not and to find the amount of entanglement. However, to complete characterizing the entanglement, one quantity seems not enough. A simple example is:

$`|\psi `$ $`=`$ $`1/\sqrt{2}(|00+|11),`$ (5)
$`|\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{x}/\sqrt{2}(|00+|11)+\sqrt{1x}|22,`$ (6)
When $`x0.2271`$ is a root of equation $`x^x[2(1x)]^{1x}=1`$, the entanglement of formation equal to 1 for both $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$. However, they can not be transformed to each other by local operations and classical communication (LOCC).

Because concurrence provide a measure of entanglement in 2-level system, it is worth generalizing concurrence to higher dimension. There are several proposals for the case of pure states. Uhlmann generalized the concurrence by considering arbitrary conjugations acting on arbitrary Hilbert spaces. Rungta et al generalized the spin flip operator $`\sigma _y`$ to a universal inverter $`S_d`$ defined as $`S_d(\rho )=1\rho `$, so the pure state concurrence in any dimension takes the form

$`C^{}(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }|S_{d_1}S_{d_2}(|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|)|\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{2[1Tr(\rho _A^2)]}.`$ (8)
There is a simple relation between these two generalizations pointed out by Wootters. Another generalization proposed by Albeverio and Fei by using an invariants under local unitary transformations turns out to be the same as that of Rungta et al up to a whole factor. They define the concurrence as

$`C(\mathrm{\Phi })=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d1}}[1Tr(\rho _A^2)]}.`$ (9)
Let’s analyze the example (6) again by the generalized concurrence. When $`x=1/3`$ is a root of equation $`(3x1)(x1)=0`$, the concurrence of $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ are equal. But still $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ can not be transformed to each other by LOCC.

As already noticed and conjectured by many researchers, one quantity perhaps is not enough to measure all aspects of entanglement, see  for a review, and the geometric properties of entanglement was investigated in . As the question of separability, Peres-Horodeckis  criterion is enough for bipartite 2-level quantum system. For higher dimension, if we want to find whether a bipartite state is entangled, besides partial transposition operation proposed by Peres, we need to find other positive but not completely positive maps. Presently, how to find whether a bipartite state in $`C^{d_1}\times C^{d_2}`$ is entangled is still an open problem.

## II Definition of concurrence hierarchy

In this paper, we propose to use the concurrence hierarchy to quantify the entanglement for d-dimension. We restrict ourself to $`C^dC^d`$ bipartite pure state. A general bipartite pure state in $`C^dC^d`$ can be written as

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{d1}{}}}\alpha _{ij}|ij,`$ (10)
with normalization $`_{ij}\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ij}^{}=1`$. We define a matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with entries $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ij}=\alpha _{ij}`$. The reduced density matrix can be denoted as $`\rho _A=Tr_B\rho =\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}.`$ Under a local unitary transformation $`UV`$, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is changed to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }U^t\mathrm{\Lambda }V`$, where the superindex $`t`$ represents transposition. And the redeced density operator thus is transformed to

$`\rho _A(U^t\mathrm{\Lambda }V)(V^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}U^t)=U^t\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}U^t.`$ (11)
In 2-dimension, it was point out by Linden and Popescu , there is one no-trivial invariant under local unitary transformations $`I=Tr(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^2`$. In general d-dimension, it was pointed out by Albeverio and Fei that there are $`d1`$ independent invariants under local unitary transformations $`I_k=Tr(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^{k+1}`$. When $`k=0`$, it is just the normalization equation $`I_0=_{ij}\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ij}^{}=1`$. For $`k=1,\mathrm{},d1`$, $`I_k`$ are $`d1`$ independent invariants under local unitary transformations. Then they generalize the concurrence as the formula (9) and one relation be calculated as

$`1Tr\rho _A^2=I_0I_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,m}{\overset{d}{}}}|\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{jm}\alpha _{im}\alpha _{jk}|^2.`$ (12)
When $`C(\mathrm{\Phi })=0`$, it is separable; when $`C(\mathrm{\Phi })0`$, it is entangled; when $`C(\mathrm{\Phi })=1`$, it is maximally entangled state. For a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as in (10), when $`\alpha _{ik}\alpha _{jm}=\alpha _{im}\alpha _{jk}`$ for all $`i,j,k,m`$, it can be written as a product form and thus separable. It is a rather intuitive idea to use quantity (12) as the measure of entanglement. And all proposals of generalization of concurrence actually lead to this result. And also when $`C(\mathrm{\Phi })0`$, state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is entangled. However, our opinion is that this quantity is necessary but not enough. In quantifying the entanglement, the entanglement is dealed independently by restricted to every 2-level system. For example, suppose $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ takes the form

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\alpha _{00}|00+\alpha _{11}|11+\alpha _{22}|22.`$ (13)
Actually we can always change a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to this form by Schmidt decomposition. The states $`\alpha _{00}|00+\alpha _{11}|11`$, $`\alpha _{00}|00+\alpha _{22}|22`$ and $`\alpha _{11}|11+\alpha _{22}|22`$ are considered independently in (12) and the entanglement in every 2-level system is sumed together $`C(\mathrm{\Phi })=|\alpha _{00}\alpha _{11}|^2+|\alpha _{00}\alpha _{22}|^2+|\alpha _{11}\alpha _{22}|^2`$. As already pointed out previously, when $`x=1/3`$, the concurrence of $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ in (6) are equal but they can not be transformed to each other by LOCC. Our idea here is that besides the concurrence in the form (12), we should also quantify it by other quantities. For example, the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ in (13), we can quantify the entanglement by

$`C_3(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=|\alpha _{00}\alpha _{11}\alpha _{22}|^2,`$ (14)
up to a normalized factor. In this quantity we just consider the entanglement in all 3 levels. Apparently, $`C_3(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=0`$ does not mean the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ is separable. So both this quantity and (12) are necessary in quantifying the entanglement in 3-level quantum system. We call these two quantities as concurrence hierarchy for 3-level system. The example (6) thus can be distinguished as follows. If you let both $`C(\psi )=C(\varphi )`$ and $`C_3(\psi )=C_3(\varphi )`$, we can find just one solution $`x=1`$, i.e. $`|\psi =|\varphi `$. In case $`x=1/3`$, though the two level concurrences defined in (9) for $`|\psi `$ and $`|\varphi `$ are equal, their 3-level concurrences are different, $`C_3(\psi )=0`$ while $`C_3(\varphi )=1/54`$. The structure of their concurrence hierarchy is different. So, they can not be transformed to each other by LOCC.

Next, we give our precise definition of concurrence hierarchy. Suppose a bipartite pure state (10) shared by A and B, $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\lambda _0^{},\mathrm{},\lambda _{d1}^{}\}`$ denotes the vector of eigenvalues of the reduced density operator $`\rho _A=Tr_B(|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }|)`$ in decreasing order. In other words $`\lambda _j^{},j=0,\mathrm{},d1`$ are square of singular values of matrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Definition: The concurrence hierarchy of the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined as

$`C_k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i_0<i_1<\mathrm{}<i_k(d1)}{}}\lambda _{i_0}^{}\lambda _{i_1}^{}\mathrm{}\lambda _{i_k}^{},`$ (16)
$`k=1,2,\mathrm{},d1.`$
We propose to use this concurrence hierarchy to quantify the entanglement of the state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

The first level concurrence is trivial since it is just the normalization condition $`C_1(\mathrm{\Phi })=_{i=0}^{d1}\lambda _i^{}=1`$. The two level concurrence is the d-dimension generalization of concurrence proposed by Rungta et al  and Albeverio et al up to a whole factor. In 2-dimension, there are just one non-trivial concurrence which is the original concurrence proposed by Wootters et al. In d-dimension, the concurrence hierarchy consists of $`d1`$ independent non-trivial concurrences. The result of 3 level concurrence in 3-dimension is already presented in (14). This concurrence hierarchy is invariant under local unitary transformations and can be represented in terms of invariants $`I_k=Tr(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^{k+1}`$ . It should be noted that a similar idea as this paper was also proposed by Sinolecka, Zyczkowski and Kus . We give an example to show one relation for 3 level concurrence of state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (10),

$`C_3(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{0i_0<i_1<i_2(d1)}{}}\lambda _{i_0}^{}\lambda _{i_1}^{}\lambda _{i_2}^{}`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`1+2I_23I_1`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{ijklmr}{}}|\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{kl}\alpha _{mr}+\alpha _{kj}\alpha _{ml}\alpha _{ir}+\alpha _{mj}\alpha _{il}\alpha _{kr}`$ (20)
$`\alpha _{mj}\alpha _{kl}\alpha _{ir}\alpha _{il}\alpha _{kj}\alpha _{mr}\alpha _{ij}\alpha _{ml}\alpha _{kr}|^2,`$
where terms inside $`||`$ correspond to determinants of the $`3\times 3`$ submatrix of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with row indices $`i,k,m`$ and column indices $`j,l,r`$. When $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is separable, all concurrences in the hierarchy are zeros except the trivial one. If the Schmidt number (rank) of $`\rho _A`$ for state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (10) is $`k,1kd`$, all higher level concurrences $`C_j(\mathrm{\Phi })=0,j>k`$. This is simple because all eigenvalues of $`\rho _A`$ are non-negative.

## III A simple method to calculate the concurrence hierarchy and entanglement can be quantified by concurrence hierarchy

The concurrence hierarchy can be calculated by its definition (16). The 2,3-level concurrences can be calculated directly by relations (12,20). Here we show all concurrences in the hierarchy can be calculated similarly. According to some results in linear algebra, see for example Ref., the concurrence hierarchy $`C_k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ equal to the sums of the $`k`$-by-$`k`$ principal minors of reduced density operator $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$. And it is known that these quantities are invariant under unitary transformations $`U\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}U^{}`$. This leads straightforward to the result that for a bipartite pure state (10), the concurrence hierarchy $`C_k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are invariant under local unitary transformations. For convenience, we adopt the same notations as that of Ref.. Let $`\beta ,\gamma \{0,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ be index sets, each of cardinality $`k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},d`$. According to Cauchy-Binet formula, we have the following relations:

$`C_k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}det\rho _A(\beta ,\beta )`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}det\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta ,\gamma )det\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}(\gamma ,\beta )`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\gamma }{}}|det\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta ,\gamma )|^2,`$ (23)
where we use the relation $`\rho _A=\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$, and the notation $`det\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta ,\gamma )`$ means the determinant of submatrix $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with row and column index sets $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma `$. When the cardinality $`k=2,3`$, we recover the previous results (12,20). So, we do not need to calculate the eigenvalues of the reduced density operator to find the concurrence hierarchy, we can calculate the concurrence hierarchy directly by summing the determinants of all $`k`$-by-$`k`$ submatrices of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

Next, we show the concurrence hierarchy cannot increase under LOCC. We use the theorem proposed by Nielsen by majorization scheme . For convenience, we use the same notations as that of Ref. and Nielsen. The elements of vectors $`x=\{x_0^{},\mathrm{},x_{d1}^{}\}`$ and $`y=\{y_0^{},\mathrm{},y_{d1}^{}\}`$ are ordered in decreasing order. We say that $`x`$ is majorized by $`y`$, $`xy`$, if $`_{j=0}^kx_j^{}_{j=0}^ky_j^{},k=0,\mathrm{},d1`$ and the equality holds when $`k=d1`$.

Theorem 1 by Nielsen : $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ transforms to $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ using LOCC if and only if $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is majorized by $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }`$,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{iff}\lambda _\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }.`$ (24)
Now we propose our theorem by directly using Nielsen theorem.

Theorem 2: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ transforms to $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ using LOCC, the concurrence hierarchy of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is no less than that of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. And explicitly, if $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$, then $`C_k(\mathrm{\Psi })C_k(\mathrm{\Phi }),k=1,\mathrm{},d`$.

The proof of this theorem is as follows. Because of Nielsen theorem, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ then we have $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Because $`C_k,k=1,\mathrm{},d`$ are isotone functions , i.e. if $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Psi }\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ then $`C_k(\mathrm{\Psi })C_k(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. Thus we have $`C_k(\mathrm{\Psi })C_k(\mathrm{\Phi }),k=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Here we mainly use the fact that each $`C_k`$ are Schur-concave functions, see .

It is well known that minus entropy function is isotone, so the entanglement of formation cannot increase under LOCC. Here we show the concurrence hirerarchy cannot increase under LOCC.

## IV Applications of concurrence hierarchy

According to the theorem 2, if some of the relations $`C_k(\mathrm{\Psi })C_k(\mathrm{\Phi }),k=1,\mathrm{},d`$ do not hold, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can not be transformed to each other by LOCC. Here we analyze an example raised by Nielsen ,

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }=\sqrt{0.5}|00+\sqrt{0.4}|11+\sqrt{0.1}|22,`$ (25)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }=\sqrt{0.6}|00+\sqrt{0.2}|11+\sqrt{0.2}|22.`$ (26)
According to Nielsen theorem, neither $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ nor $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Here we analyze this example by calculating their concurrence hierarchy. We can find

$`C_2(\mathrm{\Psi })=0.29>C_2(\mathrm{\Phi })=0.28,`$ (27)
$`C_3(\mathrm{\Psi })=0.020<C_3(\mathrm{\Phi })=0.024.`$ (28)
It follows from theorem 2 that neither $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ nor $`|\mathrm{\Phi }|\mathrm{\Psi }`$. We can roughly interprete the reason as that the 2-level entanglement of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is larger than that of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (27), but the 3-level entanglement of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is less than that of $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (28). So we cannot transform them to each other by LOCC.

It should be noted that the inverse of theorem 2 is not ture. That means even we have $`C_k(\mathrm{\Psi })C_k(\mathrm{\Phi }),k=1,\mathrm{},d`$, we are not sure $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Here we give an example

$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\sqrt{0.5}|00+\sqrt{0.4}|11+\sqrt{0.1}|22,`$ (29)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=\sqrt{0.55}|00+\sqrt{0.3}|11+\sqrt{0.15}|22.`$ (30)
One can find the following relations

$`C_2(\mathrm{\Psi }^{})=0.2925>C_2(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=0.29,`$ (31)
$`C_3(\mathrm{\Psi }^{})=0.02475>C_3(\mathrm{\Phi }^{})=0.020.`$ (32)
According to Nielsen theorem neither $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ nor $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$. That means the concurrence hierarchy is not complete. In the sense of classification pure bipartite states by LOCC, Nielsen theorem is more powerful. However, our result is mainly to quantify the entanglement by concurrence hierarchy.

## V Summuary and discussions

The drawback of the concurrence hierarchy is that it is not complete though the hierarchy consists of $`d1`$ independent invariants. We shoud note that Vidal, Jonathan and Plenio and Hardy found a complete set of entanglement measures consists of $`d1`$ independent entanglement monotones. In concurrence hierarchy, each level of concurrence involves all parameters of a given pure state. So, we can say that each concurrence in the hierarchy describes the entanglement globally. For example, $`C_2(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ describes all 2 level entanglement in a pure state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. If two eigenvalues between $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ are different, the concurrences in the hierarchy generally will be different.

In summary, we give the definition of concurrence hierarchy. And we propose to use the concurrence hierarchy as measures of entanglement. All concurrences in the hierarchy are zeros for separable states except the normalizaiton one. The concurrence hierarchy is invariant under local unitary transformations. The concurrence hierarchy cannot increase by using LOCC. A simple and direct formula (23) is obtained for concurrence hierarchy. We also analyze some interesting examples by using concurrence hierarchy.

Our result in this paper is a small step toward completely quantifying the entanglement. And we find some interesting applications of concurrence hierarchy. There are a lot of works need to be done along the direction of this paper. We just consider the case of pure states. To study the concurrence hierarchy for mixed state is difficult presently. Because even the first non-trivial concurrence of a general mixed state in d-dimension has not been obtained. We even do not have a widely accepted operational way to find whether a state is entangled. However, our result has potential applications for mixed states. In particular, we give the definition of concurrence hierarchy (16), it could shed light on how we should formulate them for mixed states. We should note that the definition of concurrence hierarchy (16) is just for pure state. To calculate the concurrence hierarchy for mixed states, we need some formulas like the form of Wootters in 2-dimension (3). Because we can not characterize separability only by the eigenvalues of density matrix and reduced density matrices .

As we already mentioned, even in classification of pure states by LOCC, the theorem 2 is weaker than Nielsen theorem though it has interesting applications. But we actually raise an interesting question, both $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (26) and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ in (30) are incomparable by Nielsen theorem. However, by using concurrence hierarchy, we show case (26) and case (30) are belong to different groups. Then what’s the essential differences between the case (26) and the case (30)?

It is also interesting to consider other series of quantities to quantify entanglement, for example, we can use invariants $`I_k=Tr(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^{k+1}`$ as measures of entanglement. And quantum Rényi entropies defined as $`S_j=\frac{1}{1j}log_2Tr(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^j`$, see for example , also provide measures of entanglement. Hopefully, quantum Rényi entropies can constitute a complete set of measures of entanglement. And these measures of entanglement work very well for the examples appeared in this paper, i.e., they can determine whether a pure state can be transformed to another by LOCC. However, a proof of whether quantum Rényi entropies is complete or not is necessary. It’s also interesting to study whether we can use concurrence hierarchy to study the mixed states, the result in Ref. may be useful to this problem. Some results about invariants for multipartite states are already available, it is worth to study the corresponding concurrence hierarchy for multipartite states.

Acknowlegements: We would like to thank J.Gruska, M.Hamada, W.Y.Hwang, T.Shimono, X.B.Wang, A.Winter and H.Yura for numerous useful discussions, and stimulating talks in ERATO internal seminars. We also thank M.M.Sinolecka, K.Zyczkowski, M.Kus for kind communications.


text:
# I Introduction

## I Introduction

To investigate the long distance properties of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), many approaches are proposed, such as lattice gauge theory, QCD sum rules, chiral perturbation theory and phenomenological quark models. Each of these approaches has both advantages and disadvantages. For example, lattice calculations are rigorous from the point of view of QCD, but they suffer from lattice artifacts and uncertainties connected with the necessary extrapolation to the physical quark masses. The QCD sum rules approach, introduced by Shifman, Vainshtein and Zakharov  in 1979, tries to incorporate nonperturbative elements of full QCD. As the starting point, operator product expansion (OPE) method was used to expand the time ordered currents into a series of quark and gluon condensates which parameterize the long distance properties, while the short distance effects are incorporated in the Wilson coefficients. However, these elements (condensates) can not yet be calculated rigorously in QCD, and they are determined from experimental data in the one or other way (For example, the quark condensate can be determined from experimental data with the help of Gell-Mann-Oakes-Renner relation .); moreover, although for medium and asymptotic momentum transfers the OPE method can be applied for form factors and the moments of wave functions , at low momentum transfer, the standard OPE method cannot be consistently applied The OPE (Wilson expansion) is valid as long as there is a clear distinction between short distances ($`\frac{1}{Q^2}`$) which determine the Wilson coefficients and long distances ($`\frac{1}{\mu ^2}`$, $`\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) which govern the condensates. When the transformed momentum $`Q^2`$ is small, the standard expansion in $`\frac{1}{Q^2}`$ would lead to a divergent result., as pointed out in the early work on photon couplings at low momentum for the nucleon magnetic moments . In Ref., the problem was solved by using a two point correlator in an external electromagnetic field, with vacuum susceptibilities introduced as parameters for nonperturbative propagation in the external field. In fact, the existence and magnitude of the vacuum susceptibilities are by themselves an important physical information about the structure of the vacuum and have many applications . As nonperturbative vacuum properties, the susceptibilities can be introduced for both small and large momentum transfers in the external fields . In Ref., with the long distance effects treated by bilocal power corrections and assumption of $`\rho `$ meson dominance, the authors circumvent the problem using a three point formulation. For detailed discussion of the relationship between three point and two point external field treatments and the origin of the susceptibilities, one can see Ref. . The two point method, however, has two main problems: it cannot be used to extend the coupling to medium and high momentum transfer and there are additional parameters to be determined, the vacuum susceptibilities. In Ref., by comparing terms appearing in the two point external field expression with those in hybrid expansion of the three point function, the authors obtain a relationship between the nonperturbative elements in the two methods. From these relationships, one can express the induced susceptibilities of the two point method in terms of well-defined four quark vacuum matrix elements. These susceptibilities may play an important role in the QCD sum rules approach. In particular, the strong and parity-violating pion-nucleon coupling depends crucially on the $`\pi `$ vacuum susceptibility ($`\chi ^\pi a`$), while the tensor vacuum susceptibilities are relevant for the determination of the tensor charge of the nucleon, which is connected through deep-inelastic sum rules to the leading-twist nucleon structure functions and transversity distribution . Although in principle the pion susceptibility can be estimated using PCAC, in practice there are inconsistencies with the values needed phenomenologically . On the other hand, as it has been pointed out in Ref., that treatment of the vacuum tensor susceptibility is subtle and different treatments can lead to very different results for the tensor charge. Therefore, it is interesting to calculate these vacuum condensates and vacuum susceptibilities within the framework of coupled flat-bottom potential (FBP) model  and global colour model (GCM) .

The global colour model (GCM), a NJL-like theory , has provided a lot of successful descriptions of the long distance properties of strong interaction and the QCD vacuum as well as hadronic phenomena at low energy based on the theoretical foundation that the quark propagator contains valuable information about the nonperturbative properties of QCD . The flat-bottom potential 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 .

In this article, we combine the GCM with the FBP to calculate the quark condensate, $`g_s0|\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q|0`$, $`0|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q|0`$ , tensor, pion vacuum susceptibilities in the framework of the rain-bow Schwinger-Dyson (SD) equation. The article is arranged as follows: in section 2, we brief out line the GCM and in section 3, introduce the FBP, SD equation; in section 4, we calculate the vacuum condensates and vacuum susceptibilities; in section 5, conclusion and discussion.

## II Global Colour Model

Here we brief out line the main skeleton of the GCM. The global colour model, based upon an effective quark-quark interaction which is approximated by the effective flat bottom potential in this article, is defined through a truncation of QCD lagrangian while maintaining all global symmetries.

The generating function for QCD in Euclidean space can be written as

$$Z[\overline{\eta },\eta ]=𝒟\overline{q}𝒟q𝒟A\mathrm{exp}\left\{S+d^4x(\overline{\eta }q+\overline{q}\eta )\right\}$$
(1)
where

$$S=d^4x\left\{\overline{q}\left[\gamma _\mu \left(_\mu ig\frac{\lambda ^a}{2}A_\mu ^a\right)+m\right]q+\frac{1}{4}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a\right\},$$

and $`G_{\mu \nu }^a=_\mu A_\nu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^a+gf^{abc}A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c`$. We leave the gauge fixing term, the ghost field term and its integration measure to be understood. Here we introduce

$$e^{W[J]}=𝒟Ae^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{4}}G_{\mu \nu }^aG_{\mu \nu }^a+J_\mu ^aA_\mu ^a)}}.$$
(2)
So the generating function can be written as

$$Z[\overline{\eta },\eta ]=𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x[\overline{q}(\gamma +m)q\overline{\eta }q\overline{q}\eta ]}}e^{W[J]}.$$
(3)
The functional $`W[J]`$ can be formally expanded in the current $`J_\mu ^a`$:

$$W[J]=\frac{1}{2}d^4xd^4yJ_\mu ^a(x)D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(x,y)J_\nu ^b(y)+\frac{1}{3!}J_\mu ^aJ_\nu ^bJ_\rho ^cD_{\mu \nu \rho }^{abc}+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
The GCM is defined through a truncation of the functional $`W[J]`$ in which the higher order $`n(3)`$-point functions are neglected, and only the gluon 2-point function $`D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(x,y)`$ is retained. This model maintains all global symmetries of QCD and permits a $`1/N_c`$ expansion, however local SU(3) gauge invariance is lost by the truncation.

Using the functional integration approach, the generating function of the truncation is given by

$`Z[\overline{\eta },\eta ]_{\mathrm{GCM}}={\displaystyle 𝒟q𝒟\overline{q}\mathrm{exp}(d^4x\overline{q}(\gamma +m)q\frac{g^2}{2}d^4xd^4yj_\mu ^a(x)D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(xy)j_\nu ^b(y)+d^4x(\overline{\eta }q+\overline{q}\eta ))},`$ (5)
where $`j_\mu ^a(x)=\overline{q}(x)\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^a}{2}q(x)`$ is the quark color current. For simplicity we use a Feynman-like gauge $`D_{\mu \nu }^{ab}(xy)=\delta _{\mu \nu }\delta ^{ab}D(xy)`$. Performing the standard bosonization procedure, (For detailed discussion of this topic, see Ref. ) we obtain the resulting expression for the generating function in terms of the bilocal field integration

$$Z_{\mathrm{GCM}}=𝒟e^{S[]},$$
(6)
where the action is given by

$$S[]=\mathrm{TrLn}[G^1]+d^4xd^4y\frac{^\theta (x,y)^\theta (y,x)}{2g^2D(xy)}+d^4xd^4y\overline{\eta }(x)G(x,y;[^\theta ])\eta (y),$$
(7)
and the inverse quark’s Green function $`G^1`$ is defined as

$$G^1(x,y)=\gamma \delta (xy)+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\theta ^\theta (x,y).$$
(8)
Here the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\theta `$ arises from Fierz reordering of the current-current interaction term in Eq.(5),

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{in}^\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_{mj}^\theta =(\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^a}{2})_{ij}(\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda ^a}{2})_{mn}$$
(9)
and is the direct product of Dirac, flavor SU(3) and color matrices,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^\theta =\frac{1}{2}(1_D,i\gamma _5,\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma _\mu ,\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}\gamma _\mu \gamma _5)(\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}1_F,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\lambda _F^a)(\frac{4}{3}1_c,\frac{i}{\sqrt{3}}\lambda _c^a).$$
(10)
The vacuum configurations are defined by minimizing the bilocal action: $`\frac{\delta S[]}{\delta }|_{\overline{\eta },\eta =0}=0,`$ following this mean field approximation, we obtain

$$_0^\theta (xy)=g^2D(xy)\mathrm{tr}[\mathrm{\Lambda }^\theta G_0(xy)].$$
(11)
These configurations provide self-energy dressing of the quarks through the definition $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(p)\mathrm{\Lambda }^\theta _0^\theta (p)=i\gamma p[A(p^2)1]+B(p^2)`$. In fact, equation (11) is the rain-bow SD equation. In terms of $`A`$ and $`B`$, the quark’s Green function at $`_0^\theta `$ is given by

$$G_0(x,y)=G_0(xy)=\frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i\gamma pA(p^2)+B(p^2)}{p^2A^2(p^2)+B^2(p^2)}e^{ip(xy)}.$$
(12)
With the GCM generating function Eq.(6), it is straightforward to calculate the vacuum expectation value of any quark operator of the form

$$O_n(\overline{q}_{i_1}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i_1j_1}^{(1)}q_{j_1})(\overline{q}_{i_2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i_2j_2}^{(2)}q_{j_2})\mathrm{}(\overline{q}_{i_n}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i_nj_n}^{(n)}q_{j_n}),$$
(13)
in the mean field vacuum. Here the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(i)}`$ represents an operator in Dirac, flavor and color space.

Taking the appropriate number of derivatives with respect to the external sources $`\eta _i`$ and $`\overline{\eta _j}`$ of Eq.(6) and putting $`\eta _i=\overline{\eta }_j=0`$ , we obtain

$$0|:O_n:|0=()^n\underset{p}{}[()^p\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i_1j_1}^{(1)}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i_nj_n}^{(n)}(G_0)_{j_1i_{p(1)}}\mathrm{}(G_0)_{j_ni_{p(n)}}],$$
(14)
where p stands for a permutation of the n indices. From Eq.(14), we can easily obtain the expression for the nonlocal four quark condensate, which is another important vacuum condensate in the QCD sum rules approach beside quark condensate.

$`0|:\overline{q}(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}q(x)\overline{q}(y)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}q(y):|0=tr_{\gamma C}[G_0(y,x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}G_0(x,y)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}]+tr_{\gamma C}[G_0(x,x)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}]tr_{\gamma C}[G_0(y,y)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}].`$ (15)
## III Flat Bottom Potential and Schwinger-Dyson Equation

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

$$G(k^2)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{a_j}{k^2+(N+j\rho )^2},$$
(16)
where $`N`$ stands for the minimum value of the mass, $`\rho `$ is their mass difference, and $`a_j`$ is their relative coupling constant. In its three dimensional form, the FBP takes the following form:

$$V(r)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}a_j\frac{\mathrm{e}^{(N+j\rho )r}}{r}.$$
(17)
In order to suppress the singular point at $`r=0`$, we take the following conditions:

$`V(0)=constant,`$ (18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dV(0)}{dr}}={\displaystyle \frac{d^2V(0)}{dr^2}}=\mathrm{}={\displaystyle \frac{d^nV(0)}{dr^n}}=0.`$ (19)
So we can determine $`a_j`$ by solve the following equations, inferred from the flat bottom condition Eq.(18),

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j=0,{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j(N+j\rho )=V(0),{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j(N+j\rho )^2=0,\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}a_j(N+j\rho )^n=0.`$ (20)
As in previous literature , $`n`$ is set to be 9. In Ref.  (Phys. Rev. D47 (1993) 2098), the authors solve the Bethe-Salpeter equation based on expansion in terms of Gegenbauer polynomials with FBP, then use the Bethe-Salpeter amplitudes as input to calculate the $`\pi `$ meson electromagnetic form factor. Among many other values, the phenomenological value 9 can give stable solution and best fit to experimental dataPrivate communication..

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

$$S^1(p)=\gamma p\widehat{m}+\frac{16\pi i}{3}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\gamma _\mu S(k)\gamma _\nu G^{\mu \nu }(kp),$$
(21)
where

$`S^1(p)`$ $`=`$ $`A(p^2)\gamma pB(p^2)A(p^2)[\gamma pm(p^2)],`$ (22)
$`G^{\mu \nu }(k)`$ $`=`$ $`g^{\mu \nu }G(k^2),`$ (23)
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. In order to keep consistently with section two, here we take Feynman 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, one often uses model forms as input in the previous studies of the rainbow SD equation .

As a nonperturbative phenomenological potential, the FBP may have intrinsic connections with other nonperturbative phenomena, such as confinement, instanton, vacuum condensate and renormalon, glueball. In this article, we concern mainly the quark condensates, while the vacuum condensates play an important role in determining the properties of the mesons, glueballs and their mixing as indicated by the low energy theorem . However, the realization of gluonic freedom in hadronic models is more ambiguous and difficulty then that for quarks, the glueball spectra obtained from two main nonperturbative methods (lattice QCD and QCD sum rules ) have some contradictions . Here we just replace the gluon propagator with FBP and suppose the nonperturbative effects are incorporated in it, the possible effects on glueball will be our next work. §§§ For example, we can obtain the gluon condensate from the nonperturbative gluon propagator (the effective potential), then based on the gluon condensate and low energy theorem, we can study the lowest lying glueball mass, their mixing, and so on. There is another way to study the flat bottom potential to glueball spectrum through the Bethe-Salpeter equation. Although there may be debates against doing that, the quark propagator obtained with the FBP does lead to satisfactory dynamical symmetry breaking phenomenon and quark confinement based on the theoretical foundation that there no singularities on the real timelike $`p^2`$ axial .

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. 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. .

## IV Vacuum Condensates and Vacuum Susceptibilities

In this section, we calculate the quark condensate $`0|\overline{q}q|0`$, the mixed quark gluon condensate $`g_s0|\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q|0`$, the four quark condensate $`0|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q|0`$ and tensor, pion vacuum susceptibilities. The numerical results are compared with other theoretical works.

Here we take a short digression to discussing gauge invariance. The propagation of a colored quark in the background gluon field results in a phase factor given by the exponential of a line integral,

$$\widehat{P}(x,y;A,C)=Pexp\{ig_CA_\mu (z)𝑑z^\mu \},$$
(24)
where $`P`$ is a path order operator, stands for that the color matrices should be ordered along the path $`C`$ connecting the point $`x`$ and $`y`$. The gauge dependence of the quark propagator can be factored out as an ”A-dependent” phase before taking the vacuum expectation value. In operator expanding of the correlators of colorless currents, these phase factors can be canceled out with each other, one can facilitate the calculation by imposing Fock-Schwinger gauge condition ,

$$(x^\mu x_0^\mu )A_\mu (x)=0,$$
(25)
or in the other word, let $`\widehat{P}=1`$. To gauge dependent quantities, (for example, $`0|\overline{q}(x)q(0)|0`$), we can insert phase factors $`\widehat{P}`$ to produce the corresponding gauge invariant ones ( $`0|\overline{q}(x)\widehat{P}(x,0;A,C)q(0)|0`$). The gauge invariant quantity $`0|:\overline{q}(x)\widehat{P}(x,0;A,C)q(0):|0`$ calculated in a special gauge, for example, Fock-Schwinger gauge, will not change its value. In the following, the gauge dependent quantities can be taken as their corresponding invariant ones in the special gauge, Fock-Schwinger gauge. Furthermore, although the gauge dependent quantities, such as $`0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0`$, are dependent on the special gauge we choose, they are important imformations in describing the nonperturbative QCD vacuum. In a sense, the gauge dependence is fictitious, since the vacuum field, after averaging, is clearly invariant under transformations.

### A Vacuum Condensates

The quark propagator is defined as

$$S(x)=0|T[q(x)\overline{q}(0)]|0.$$
(26)
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:

$`S(x)=S_{PT}(x)+S_{NP}(x).`$ (27)
In the nonperturbative vacuum, the normal-ordered product $`S_{NP}(x)`$ does not vanish. For short distance, the OPE for the scalar part of $`S_{NP}(x)`$ gives

$$0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0=0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0\frac{x^2}{4}(0|:\overline{q}(0)\sigma G(0)q(0):|0+\mathrm{}$$
(28)
in which the local operators of the expansion are the quark condensate, the mixed condensate, and so forth. In Ref. the nonlocal condensate is put in the following form:

$$0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0=g(x^2)0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0,$$
(29)
where $`g(x^2)`$ is the vacuum non-locality of the nonlocal quark condensate. The nonlocal quark condensate $`0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0`$ is given then by the scalar part of the Fourier transformed inverse quark propagator, which can be inferred from Eq.(14).

$`0|:\overline{q}(x)q(0):|0`$ $`=`$ $`()tr_{\gamma C}[G_0(x,0)]`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`(4N_c){\displaystyle _0^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(p^2)}{p^2A^2(p^2)+B^2(p^2)}}e^{ipx}`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`(){\displaystyle \frac{12}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\mu }𝑑ss{\displaystyle \frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}}[2{\displaystyle \frac{J_1(\sqrt{sx^2})}{\sqrt{sx^2}}}].`$ (32)
At x=0 the expression for the local condensate $`0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0`$ is recovered,

$$0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0=\frac{12}{16\pi ^2}_0^\mu 𝑑ss\frac{B(s)}{sA^2(s)+B^2(s)}.$$
(33)
The non-locality $`g(x^2)`$ can be obtained immediately by dividing Eq.(29) through Eq.(30). Our analysis ignores effects from hard gluonic radiative correction to the condensates which are connected to a possible change of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$ at which the condensates are defined. As in Ref., $`\mu `$ is taken to be 1 $`GeV^2`$. Final we obtain the nonlocal quark condensate which shown in Fig. and local quark condensate which shown in Table 1. From Fig., we can see that the nonlocality is compatible with other theoretical calculations, including instanton liquid model , effective quark-quark interaction model , GCM  , dipole fit approach , and other potential model . The curves obtained in Ref. and in Ref.  are similar to each other, here we choose the curve in Ref. to compare with our result. For simplicity, in Fig.2, we list three curves.

In , we calculate the nonlocality of the quark condensate; in calculation, we find that there are other parameters can give correct nonlocality curve. In the present work, we re-fit the parameters to incorporate the mixed condensate and the vacuum susceptibilities. Furthermore, in the present work, we change the coefficient of FBP inserted in the SD equation by a factor $`\pi `$, the present formulation is better than the old one .

By means of Eq.(15), one can calculate all kinds of nonlocal four quark condensates . If we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}`$ =$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}`$=$`\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}`$ then

$`0|:\overline{q}(x)\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}}q(x)\overline{q}(0)\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}}q(0):|0`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`(){\displaystyle _0^\mu }{\displaystyle _0^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{ix(pq)}[4^3{\displaystyle \frac{B(p^2)}{A^2(p^2)p^2+B^2(p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(q^2)}{A^2(q^2)q^2+B^2(q^2)}}`$ (36)
$`+2\times 4^2{\displaystyle \frac{A(p^2)}{A^2(p^2)p^2+B^2(p^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{A(q^2)}{A^2(q^2)q^2+B^2(q^2)}}pq].`$
Similarly, at x=0 we obtain the expression for the local four quark condensate $`0|:\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}q\overline{q}\gamma _\mu \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}q:|0`$,

$`0|:\overline{q}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}}q\overline{q}\gamma _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _C^a}{2}}q:|0=(4^3)[{\displaystyle _0^\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{B(p^2)}{A^2(p^2)p^2+B^2(p^2)}}]^2=(){\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}0|:\overline{q}q:|0^2.`$ (37)
As far as the mixed condensate $`g_s\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q`$ is concerned , the evaluation is somewhat lengthy, one can use the method described by Ref. to obtain the mixed condensate in Euclidean space,

$`g_s0|\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q|0=()({\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{16\pi ^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{27}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^\mu }𝑑ss{\displaystyle \frac{B[2A(A1)s+B^2]}{A^2s+B^2}}+12{\displaystyle _0^\mu }𝑑ss^2{\displaystyle \frac{B(2A)}{A^2s+B^2}}).`$ (38)
In Table 1. we display our results for $`\overline{q}q`$ and $`g_s\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q`$ and compare them with the corresponding values obtained from other theoretical approaches, such as QCD sum rules , quenched lattice QCD , the instanton liquid model  , the model of confining gluon propagator for GCM  and other potential model  . From Table 1, we can see that the values are compatible with other theoretical works.

### B Vacuum Susceptibilities

In the external field of QCD sum rule two–point method, one often encounters the quark propagator in the presence of a external current $`J^\mathrm{\Gamma }(y)=\overline{q}(y)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(y)`$($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ stands for the appropriate combination of Dirac , flavor and colour matrices).

$`S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(x)=0|T[q_\alpha ^c(x)\overline{q}_\beta ^c^{}(o)]0_{J^\mathrm{\Gamma }}=S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },PT}(x)+S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },NP}(x),`$ (39)
where $`S_q^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },PT}(x)`$ is the quark propagator coupled perturbatively to the current and $`S_q^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },NP}(x)`$ is the nonperturbative quark propagator in the presence of the external current $`J^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (To be explicitly, here we keep all the indexes).

The vacuum susceptibility $`\chi ^\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the QCD sum rule two–point external field treatment can be defined as

$`S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },NP}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0|:q_\alpha ^c(x)\overline{q}_\beta ^c^{}(0):|0_{J^\mathrm{\Gamma }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }\delta _{cc^{}}\chi ^\mathrm{\Gamma }H(x)0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0,`$ (40)
where the phenomenological function $`H(x)`$ represents the nonlocality of the two quark nonlocal condensate. Obviously H(0)=1.

By comparing terms appearing in the two point external field expression with those in hybrid expansion of the three point function, one can obtain a relationship between the nonperturbative elements in the two methods. From these relationship, one can express the induced susceptibilities of the two point method in terms of well-defined four quark vacuum matrix element .

The presence of external field implies that $`S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }}(x)`$ is evaluated with an additional term $`\mathrm{\Delta }LJ^\mathrm{\Gamma }\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ added to the usual QCD Lagrangian, where $`\varphi _\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the value of external field. In three point method of QCD sum rule, if one takes only a linear external field approximation, the $`S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },NP}(x)`$ in Euclidean space is given by

$$S_{\alpha \beta }^{cc^{}\mathrm{\Gamma },NP}(x)=d^4ye^{iqy}0|:q_\alpha ^c(x)\overline{q}(y)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(y)\overline{q}_\beta ^c^{}(0):|0.$$
(41)
Using Eq.(35) and Eq.(36) we obtain

$$\frac{1}{12}\delta _{cc^{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }\chi ^\mathrm{\Gamma }0|:\overline{q}(0)q(0):|0=d^4ye^{iqy}0|:q_\alpha ^c(0)\overline{q}(y)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(y)\overline{q}_\beta ^c^{}(0):|0.$$
(42)
Multiplying Eq.(37) by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \alpha }\delta _{cc^{}}`$, we get the result:

$$\chi ^\mathrm{\Gamma }a=\frac{16\pi ^2}{tr_\gamma (\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma })}d^4ye^{iqy}0|:\overline{q}(0)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(0)\overline{q}(y)\mathrm{\Gamma }q(y):|0.$$
(43)
In the case of tensor current($`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$), according to Eq.(14), we calculate the tensor matrix element explicitly,

$`0|\overline{q}(0)\sigma _{\mu \nu }q(0)\overline{q}(y)\sigma _{\mu \nu }q(y)|0`$ (44)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}_{\gamma c}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{i\gamma pA(p^2)+B(p^2)}{A(p^2)p^2+B(p^2)}\mathrm{tr}_{\gamma c}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{i\gamma kA(k^2)+B(k^2)}{A(k^2)k^2+B(k^2)}}`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i(pk)y}\mathrm{tr}_{\gamma c}\left[\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{i\gamma pA(p^2)+B(p^2)}{A(p^2)p^2+B(p^2)}\sigma _{\mu \nu }\frac{i\gamma kA(k^2)+B(k^2)}{A(k^2)k^2+B(k^2)}\right]}`$
$`=`$ $`48N_c{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{\mathrm{d}^4k}{(2\pi )^4}e^{i(pk)y}\frac{B(p^2)}{A(p^2)p^2+B(p^2)}\frac{B(k^2)}{A(k^2)k^2+B(k^2)}},`$ (47)
where $`N_c=3`$ is the number of colors.

In the limit $`q0`$, we obtain

$`\chi ^Ta=3{\displaystyle _0^\mu }s𝑑s\left[{\displaystyle \frac{B(s)}{A^2s+B^2(s)}}\right]^2=0.0757GeV^2.`$ (48)
From Eq.(36) we can see that the vacuum susceptibility originates from the nonlocal four quark condensate contribution. In Ref., the authors get the same conclusion based on completely different viewpoint of duality.

The vacuum susceptibility $`\chi ^Ta`$ defined in Eq.(38) (same as Ref. ) has an opposite sign and a factor $`4\pi ^2`$ larger than the definition in Refs.. In order to compare with those estimations, we make a redefinition

$$\chi ^Ta\frac{\chi ^Ta}{4\pi ^2}=0.0019GeV^2.$$
(49)
In Table 2, we compare the result with the values of other theoretical estimations of the vacuum tensor susceptibility.

In the following, we calculate the $`\pi `$ vacuum susceptibility which is crucial to determine the strong and party-violating pion-nucleon coupling. In the case of pseudoscalar current, we take $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(2)}=\gamma ^5`$ in Eq.(15), and get the $`\pi `$ vacuum susceptibility $`\chi ^\pi a`$:

$`\chi ^\pi a=12\pi ^2{\displaystyle d^4ytr_\gamma \left[\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i\gamma pA+B(p^2)}{A^2p^2+B^2(p^2)}e^{ipy}\gamma _5\frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{i\gamma qA+B(q^2)}{A^2q^2+B^2(q^2)}e^{iqy}\gamma _5\right]}`$ (50)
$`=3{\displaystyle _0^\mu }s𝑑s{\displaystyle \frac{1}{A^2s+B^2(s)}}=1.06GeV^2,`$ (51)
which is below the range $`\chi ^\pi a(1.73.0)GeV^2`$ obtained within a phenomenological approach . In Ref., the author made a simple estimation of the value based on the space time structure of the nonlocal quark condensate extracted from experimental data on sea-quark distributions but with a crude assumption of vacuum saturation for the intermediate states.

## V Conclusion and Discussion

In this article, we calculate the dressed quark propagator with the FBP in the framework of the rain-bow SD equation, which is determined by mean field approximation of the GCM lagrangian. The dressed quark propagator exhibits a dynamical symmetry breaking phenomenon and gives a constituent quark mass about 392 MeV, which is close to the value of commonly used constituent quark mass 350 MeV in the chiral quark model. Then based on the dressed quark propagator, we obtain the quark condensate $`0|\overline{q}q|0`$, the mixed quark gluon condensate $`g_s0|\overline{q}G_{\mu \nu }\sigma ^{\mu \nu }q|0`$, the four quark condensate $`0|\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q\overline{q}\mathrm{\Gamma }q|0`$ and tensor, pion vacuum susceptibilities at the mean field level, which are compared with other theoretical calculations. The values of the nonlocality of quark condensate, local quark condensate, mixed quark condensate are compatible with other theoretical results. While the value of $`\pi `$ susceptibility is below that estimated in Ref., which is based on the space-time structure of the nonlocal quark condensate and a crude assumption of vacuum saturation for the intermediate states. In Table 3, we also compare with other theoretical results. In Table 2, we can see that the numerical value of the tensor vacuum susceptibility varies with theoretical approach. It has been pointed out in Ref. that experimental measurement of the tensor charge of the nucleon is possible, and one might be able to test the theoretical predictions of the tensor susceptibility in the future.

In solving the rain-bow SD equation, the parameters are taken as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}=200MeV`$,$`N=3.0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, $`V(0)=12.0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, $`\rho =2.0\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$, $`m_u=m_d=8MeV`$ and the large momentum cut-off $`L=630(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD})`$.

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, $`m(0)=392MeV`$, which is close to the constituent quark masses, 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.

The results show that the phenomenological FBP works well with the rainbow SD equation in calculating nonlocal quark vacuum condensate, mixed condensate and vacuum susceptibilities. This can be extend 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 .

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank Prof. T.Huang for his helpful discussion.