text:
# Lower bounds for quasianalytic functions, I. How to control smooth functions?

## Abstract

Let $``$ be a class of functions with the uniqueness property: if $`f`$ vanishes on a set $`E`$ of positive measure, then $`f`$ is the zero function. In many instances, we would like to have a quantitative version of this property, e.g. the estimate from below for the norm of the restriction operator $`ff|_E`$ or, equivalently, a lower bound for $`|f|`$ outside a small exceptional set. Such estimates are well-known and useful for polynomials, complex- and real-analytic functions, exponential polynomials. In this work we prove similar results for the Denjoy-Carleman and the Bernstein classes of quasianalytic functions.

In the first part, we consider quasianalytically smooth functions. This part relies upon Bang’s approach and includes the proofs of relevant results of Bang. In the second part, which is to be published separately, we deal with classes of functions characterized by exponentially fast approximation by polynomials whose degrees belong to a given very lacunar sequence.

The proofs are based on the elementary calculus technique.

In memory of Thøger Bang (1917–1997)

§1. Motivation and the results

Let $`P`$ be a polynomial. Its degree $`d`$ governs the behaviour of $`P`$ on any interval $`I`$, for instance, $`P`$ has at most $`d`$ zeroes on $`I`$ and for any measurable subset $`EI`$

$$P_I\left(\frac{4|I|}{|E|}\right)^dP_E.$$
$`(1.1)`$
Here and everywhere below, $`f_K=sup_K|f|`$ denotes the supremum norm on $`K`$, and $`|E|`$ denotes the length of a set $`E`$.

The first fact hardly needs any comments. The second one is a rough version of the classical Remez inequality  (cf.  and ). Different proofs of (1.1) are known. The simplest one uses the Lagrange interpolation formula for $`P`$ with $`d+1`$ nodes on $`E`$ spaced by at least $`|E|/d`$, though this gives us (1.1) with a worse constant $`2e`$ instead of $`4`$ on the right hand side . The Remez inequality has a plenty of applications and extensions, some of them can be found in , , , ; by no means is this list complete. The inequality is sufficiently sharp to capture that $`P`$ cannot have zeroes of multiplicity larger than $`d`$.

Turning to analytic functions, we encounter another quantity which controls their behaviour. Let $`G^1`$ be a bounded domain, $`KG`$ be a compact subset, and let $`f`$ be a bounded analytic function in $`G`$. Then the logarithm of the ratio

$$𝔅_f(K,G)=\mathrm{log}\frac{f_G}{f_K}$$

is called the Bernstein degree of $`f`$ on $`(K,G)`$. If $`P`$ is polynomial of degree $`d`$, and $`G_R^1`$ is the ellipse with the foci at $`1,+1`$ and the semiaxes $`R`$, then by the classical Bernstein inequality

$$𝔅_P([1,1],G_R)d\mathrm{log}R.$$

The Bernstein degree controls the number of zeroes of $`f`$ on $`K`$ as well as the local oscillations of $`f`$. By the Jensen formula the number of zeroes of $`f`$ on $`K`$ counting with multiplicities does not exceed $`\gamma (K,G)𝔅_f(K,G)`$ where $`\gamma (K,G)`$ depends only on the geometry of the couple $`(K,G)`$. The Cartan lemma yields local estimates on $`K`$ similar to (1.1) with the exponent $`\gamma (K,G)𝔅_f(K,G)`$. The interest to this classical theme was recently revived (cf. , , , ,  and the references therein).

In this work we shall exhibit a new index which controls in a similar fashion the behaviour of quasianalytically smooth functions.

Given closed interval $`J`$ and given a sequence of positive numbers $`\{M_j\}`$, introduce the class $`𝒞_{\{M_j\}}(J)`$ of $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J)`$-functions such that

$$f^{(j)}_JM_j,j_+.$$
$`(1.2)`$
We assume that the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ is logarithmically convex, that is

$$M_j^2M_{j1}M_{j+1},j.$$
$`(1.3)`$
A convenient way to generate logarithmically convex sequences is to fix a non-decreasing function $`A:[1,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ and set

$$M_j=M_{j1}A(j),j1.$$
$`(1.4)`$
Rescaling the argument of $`f`$ and multiplying $`f`$ by a constant, we can always assume that $`f`$ is defined on the interval $`J=[0,1]`$ and that $`M_0=1`$. Usually, we shall keep this normalization and denote the normalized Denjoy-Carleman classes by $`𝒞_A([0,1])`$.

According to the classical Denjoy-Carleman theorem  divergence of the series

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}=+\mathrm{}$$
$`(1.5)`$
(or equivalently of the integral

$$_1^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dt}{A(t)}=+\mathrm{})$$

is a necessary and sufficient condition for quasianalyticity of the class $`𝒞_{\{M_j\}}(J)`$  (that is, $`𝒞_{\{M_j\}}(J)`$ contains no non-trivial function which vanishes at a point with all derivatives). In the paper  published 50 years ago, Bang gave an intrinsic and elementary real variable proof of the uniqueness part of the Denjoy-Carleman theorem. Strangely enough, this concise paper left no trace in the vast literature devoted to quasianalytic functions, unlike Bang’s thesis  which appeared to be more influential (cf. \[14, Chapter IV\], , \[12, Section 1.3\]). For this reason, we took a liberty to reproduce (with minor variations) some results from  with their proofs.

Definition. The Bang degree $`𝔫_f`$ of the function $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$ is the largest integer $`N`$ such that

$$\underset{\mathrm{log}f_{[0,1]}^1<jN}{}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}<e$$
$`(1.6)`$
If the set of positive integers $`N`$ satisfying (1.6) is unbounded, then we set formally $`𝔫_f=+\mathrm{}`$.

After a minute reflection, one can see a certain similarity between the Bernstein and the Bang degrees. The latter depends on the growth of the sequence $`\{M_{j1}/M_j\}`$ (that is, on the a priori smoothness of $`f`$), and on the lower bound for $`f_{[0,1]}`$ (the closer is $`f_{[0,1]}`$ to its a priori upper bound $`M_0=1`$, the smaller is the degree $`𝔫_f`$). If the series (1.5) diverges, that is the class $`𝒞_A([0,1])`$ is quasianalytic, then the degree $`𝔫_f`$ is always finite. In the non-quasianalytic case, the degree can be infinite. In fact, we can allow the function $`f`$ to have only finite smoothness: if $`fC^m([0,1])`$, then we simply put $`A(j)=+\mathrm{}`$ starting with $`j=m+1`$.

Theorem A (Bang ). The total number of zeroes (counting with multiplicities) of any function $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$ does not exceed its Bang degree $`𝔫_f`$.

The first result of that type was conjectured by Borel and proved by Carleman in \[6, p.24–27\]. Carleman based the proof on the Fourier transform and harmonic estimation. The theorem says that if $`fC^n([0,1])`$ and satisfies

$$f^{(j)}(0)=0,0jn1,\text{and}f(1)=1,$$

then

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{M_j^{1/j}}<8\left(\frac{1}{2}+\pi e+2\sqrt{\pi e}\right)$$

where $`M_j=f^{(j)}_{[0,1]}`$.

This estimate cannot be deduced directly from Theorem A since the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ we deal with is assumed to be logarithmically convex whereas Borel and Carleman did not impose any condition on that sequence. Nevertheless, as we shall see in subsection 5.4, there is a more general version of Bang’s result which contains the result of Carleman.

One can probably extract from Hirschman’s paper  a result similar to Theorem A (even with $`\frac{2}{\pi }`$ instead of $`e`$ on the right hand side of (1.6) ), however with some additional regularity of the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$. Hirschman used the Carleman technique combined with the Cartan-Gorny estimates of derivatives of smooth functions.

In the second theorem it will be convenient to assume that the function $`A`$ which defines according to (1.4) the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ is a $`C^1`$-function (if $`A`$ is a piecewise linear function, then one can use the left derivative). We set

$$\gamma (n):=\underset{1sn}{sup}\frac{sA^{}(s)}{A(s)}$$
$`(1.7)`$
and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)=4e^{4+\gamma (n)}.$$

Theorem B. Suppose $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$. Then for any interval $`I[0,1]`$ and any measurable subset $`EI`$

$$f_I\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2𝔫_f)|I|}{|E|}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_E.$$
$`(1.8)`$
We say that the class $`𝒞_A([0,1])`$ is regular if the supremum

$$\gamma :=\underset{s1}{sup}\frac{sA^{}(s)}{A(s)}$$

is finite. For example, the real analytic class ($`A(s)=s`$) and the logarithmic classes ($`A(s)=s\mathrm{log}^\alpha (s+e)`$) are regular. For regular classes, estimate (1.8) holds with the factor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=4e^{4+\gamma }`$ on the right hand side.

Theorems A and B show that Bang’s degree is an important characteristics of smooth functions. However, we do not know much about its basic properties. For example, if $`f`$ is a polynomial, how to bound from above the Bang degree $`𝔫_f`$ by the usual degree? If $`f`$ is real analytic, the same question can be asked about the upper bound of the Bang degree by the Bernstein degree. Recently, N. Roytvarf  and D. Novikov and S. Yakovenko  obtained useful estimates for the Bernstein degree of linear combinations, products, (analytic) quotients and derivatives of given functions. It seems to be interesting to get results in that spirit for the Bang degree. At last, it looks probable, that Bang’s degree has a certain invariance under real analytic diffeomorphisms of the interval $`[0,1]`$.

Acknowledgment.  The authors thank Alexander Borichev for numerous useful remarks.

§2. Bang’s fundamental inequality

Given a function $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$ and a point $`x[0,1]`$, we define the norm of $`f`$ at $`x`$ as

$$B_f(x):=\underset{j0}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{|f^{(j)}(x)|}{e^jM_j}.$$

A small norm means that a large section of the sequence $`\left\{\frac{|f^{(j)}(x)|}{M_j}\right\}_{j0}`$ consists of small numbers. For example, $`B_f(x)e^q`$ for some $`q_+`$ if and only if $`|f^{(j)}(x)|e^{jq}M_j`$ for $`0jq`$.

Lemma 2.1 (Bang). For any $`q`$ and any $`x,x+h[0,1]`$,

$$B_f(x+h)<\mathrm{max}\{B_f(x),e^q\}e^{e|h|A(q)}.$$
$`(2.2)`$
Proof of the lemma: We fix $`j`$ in the range $`0jq1`$ and find $`\xi `$ between $`x`$ and $`x+h`$ such that

$$f^{(j)}(x+h)=\underset{l=0}{\overset{qj1}{}}\frac{f^{(j+l)}(x)h^l}{l!}+\frac{f^{(q)}(\xi )h^{qj}}{(qj)!}.$$

Then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(j)}(x+h)|}{e^jM_j}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{qj1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(j+l)}(x)||h|^l}{e^jM_jl!}}+{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(q)}(\xi )||h|^{qj}}{e^jM_j(qj)!}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{qj1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(j+l)}(x)|}{e^{j+l}M_{j+l}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{j+l}}{M_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^l|h|^l}{l!}}+e^q{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(q)}(\xi )|}{M_q}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_q}{M_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{|h|^{qj}e^{qj}}{(qj)!}}`$
$`\stackrel{(1.3)}{}`$ $`B_f(x){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{qj1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_q}{M_{q1}}}\right)^l{\displaystyle \frac{e^l|h|^l}{l!}}+e^q\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_q}{M_{q1}}}\right)^{qj}{\displaystyle \frac{|h|^{qj}e^{qj}}{(qj)!}}`$
$`<`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{B_f(x),e^q\}\mathrm{exp}\left(e|h|{\displaystyle \frac{M_q}{M_{q1}}}\right).`$
If $`jq`$, the same estimate holds for a trivial reason:

$$\frac{|f^{(j)}(x+h)|}{e^jM_j}e^q<\mathrm{max}(B_f(x),e^q)e^{e|h|A(q)},$$

completing the argument. $`\mathrm{}`$

Corollary 2.3 Suppose $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$. If

$$\underset{[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}B_fe^L,$$
$`(2.4)`$
and

$$\underset{[0,1]}{\mathrm{min}}B_fe^N,$$
$`(2.5)`$
then

$$\underset{L+1jN}{}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}<e.$$
$`(2.6)`$
Proof of the corollary: Let $`B_f(x_N)=e^N`$ and $`B_f(x_L)=e^L`$. By (2.2), the function $`xB_f(x)`$ is continuous on $`[0,1]`$. Therefore, we can choose a monotonic sequence $`\{x_j\}_{LjN}J`$ such that $`B_f(x_j)=e^j`$ for $`LjN`$. By Lemma 2.1,

$$|x_jx_{j1}|>\frac{1}{e}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j},$$

so that

$$1\underset{L+1jN}{}|x_jx_{j1}|>\frac{1}{e}\underset{L+1jN}{}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j},$$

proving the corollary. $`\mathrm{}`$

If the function $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$ has a zero of order at least $`N`$ at some point $`x_0[0,1]`$ (that is, $`f(x_0)=f^{}(x_0)=\mathrm{}=f^{(N1)}(x_0)=0`$), then $`B_f(x_0)e^N`$. On the other hand,

$$\underset{[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}B_ff_{[0,1]}.$$

Then the corollary says that the order $`N`$ of any zero of $`f`$ is bounded from above by the Bang degree $`𝔫_f`$. This is a version of a theorem of Borel and Carleman mentioned above. In particular, the uniqueness part of the Denjoy-Carleman theorem follows at once: non-trivial functions $`f`$ from the quasianalytic Denjoy-Carleman class $`𝒞_A([0,1])`$ cannot have a zero of infinite order.

In the non-quasianalytic case, when

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}<\mathrm{},$$

rescaling estimate (2.6), we get an upper bound for the function $`f`$ near its zeroes of infinite order.

Corollary 2.7 Suppose $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$. Let

$$f^{(j)}(0)=0,j.$$

Then

$$\underset{j\mathrm{log}𝔐_f^1(c)+1}{}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}<ec$$

where

$$𝔐_f(c)=\underset{x[0,c]}{\mathrm{max}}|f(x)|.$$

Under additional regularity assumptions on the function $`A`$, Matsaev and Sodin recently found in  the sharp asymptotics for

$$\mathrm{log}\underset{f}{sup}𝔐_f(c),c0,$$

where the supremum is taken over all functions $`f𝒞_{\{M_j\}}()`$ with $`M_0=1`$, having the zero of infinite order at the origin.

§3. Proof of Theorem A

Now, we consider a sequence of “norms” obtained from the remainders:

$$b_{f,n}(x)=\underset{jn}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{|f^{(j)}(x)|}{e^jM_j}=e^nB_{f^{(n)}}(x),$$

here $`f^{(n)}`$ is considered in the class $`𝒞_{\{M_n,M_{n+1},\mathrm{}\}}([0,1])`$. List some properties of this sequence:

* $`b_{f,n}(x)e^n`$;
* $`B_f(x)=b_{f,0}(x)b_{f,1}(x)\mathrm{}b_{f,n}(x)\mathrm{}`$;
* if $`f^{(n)}(x^{})=0`$, then $`b_{f,n}(x^{})=b_{f,n+1}(x^{})`$;
* the function $`b_{f,n}`$ satisfies the estimate

$$b_{f,n}(x+h)\mathrm{max}\{b_{f,n}(x),e^{qn}\}e^{e|h|A(q)},$$

for every $`q`$ and every $`x,x+h[0,1]`$.

From the last property we conclude that

* the function $`xb_{f,n}(x)`$ is continuous on $`[0,1]`$;
* $`b_{f,n}(x+h)<e^{j+1}`$ provided $`b_{f,n}(x)e^j`$ and $`e|h|A(j)1`$.

The latter is interesting only for $`j>n`$.

After these preliminaries we start the proof. Let $`x_{}[0,1]`$ be the maximum point of $`B_f`$:

$$\underset{[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}B_f=B_f(x_{}).$$

First, we consider a special case, when $`x_{}`$ is one of the end-points of $`[0,1]`$. Without loss of generalities, suppose that $`x_{}=0`$. Let

$$0<\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _N$$

be the zeroes of $`f`$ on $`[0,1]`$ counted with their multiplicities. Applying Rolle’s theorem, we find another $`N`$-point set $`\{x_j\}_{0jN1}`$, such that

$$f^{(j)}(x_j)=0,\text{for}0jN1,$$

$`x_0=\xi _1`$, and $`x_j\xi _{j+1}`$. Then we can paste together the functions $`b_{f,j}`$ with different $`j`$ and define the new function

$$b_f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}b_{f,0}(x),\hfill & 0x<x_0\hfill \\ b_{f,1}(x),\hfill & x_0x<x_1\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \mathrm{}\hfill \\ b_{f,N1}(x),\hfill & x_{N2}x<x_{N1}\hfill \\ b_{f,N}(x),\hfill & xx_{N1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

This is a continuous function with the following properties:

$$b_f(0)=B_f(0)f_{[0,1]},$$

$$b_f(x)e^N,\text{for}xx_{N1},$$

and $`b_f(x+h)<e^{j+1}`$ provided that $`b_f(x)e^j`$ and $`ehA(j)1`$, $`h>0`$.

Computing as above, in the proof of Corollary 2.3, the number of level crossings of the function $`b_f`$ we obtain

$$1>\frac{1}{e}\underset{j=K_f+1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}$$

where $`K_f=|\mathrm{log}||f||_{[0,1]}`$. Thereby $`N𝔫_f`$, completing the proof in the special case.

Now, consider the general case. If $`x_{}`$ is not the end-point of $`[0,1]`$, then $`x_{}`$ splits $`[0,1]`$ into two subintervals $`J_1`$ and $`J_2`$ on which $`f`$ has $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ zeroes respectively, $`N_1+N_2=N`$. By the special case proven above (rescaling the argument of $`f`$) we have

$$|J_l|>\frac{1}{e}\underset{j=K_f+1}{\overset{N_l}{}}\frac{M_{j1}}{M_j},l=1,2.$$

At last, making use of the logarithmic convexity of the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ we obtain

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`|J_1|+|J_2|>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=K_f+1}{\overset{N_1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=K_f+1}{\overset{N_2}{}}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{j=K_f+1}{\overset{N_1}{}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{j=N_1+1}{\overset{N_1+N_2}{}}}\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=K_f+1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}}`$
whence $`N𝔫_f`$. This completes the proof of Theorem A. $`\mathrm{}`$

§4. Proof of Theorem B

We put $`m_0=M_0=1`$ and

$$m_j=\frac{M_j}{j!},j.$$

We shall prove Theorem B in three steps. First, we prove a preliminary version of estimate (1.8) with a remainder term:

$$f_I\left(\frac{2e|I|}{|E|}\right)^nf_E+m_{n+1}|I|^{n+1}$$
$`(4.1)`$
for each $`n`$. Then we shall show that if the interval $`I`$ is sufficiently short, then the remainder $`m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}`$ is smaller than the norm $`f_I`$ we are estimating. Combined with (4.1) this gives us estimate (1.8) for short intervals $`I`$. At the last step, we shall extend estimate (1.8) to arbitrary intervals $`I[0,1]`$.

Proof of estimate (4.1): We choose well-spaced points $`\{x_j\}_{j=1}^{n+1}E`$,

$$x_1<x_2<\mathrm{}<x_{n+1},\underset{j}{\mathrm{min}}(x_{j+1}x_j)\frac{|E|}{n},$$

and set

$$Q(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}(xx_j).$$

Then for $`xI`$

$$f(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{f(x_j)Q(x)}{Q^{}(x_j)(xx_j)}+\frac{f^{(n+1)}(\xi )Q(x)}{(n+1)!},\xi =\xi _xI.$$
$`(4.2)`$
This is a well-known version of the Lagrange interpolation formula. The proof goes as follows: fix $`xI`$ and consider the function

$$G(t)=Q(t)R(x)Q(x)R(t)$$

where $`R(t)`$ is the remainder; i.e. the difference between $`f`$ and the Lagrange interpolation polynomial of degree $`n`$ with the nodes at $`\{x_j\}`$. The function $`G(t)`$ has at least $`n+2`$ zeroes on $`I`$: it vanishes at $`n+1`$ points: $`t=x_j`$ and also at $`t=x`$. Therefore, the derivative $`G^{(n+1)}(t)`$ vanishes at least once on $`I`$:

$`0=G^{(n+1)}(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`Q^{(n+1)}(\xi )R(x)Q(x)R^{(n+1)}(\xi )`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)!R(x)Q(x)f^{(n+1)}(\xi ),`$
proving (4.2).

Then using the estimates $`Q_I|I|^{n+1}`$ and

$$\frac{Q(x)}{xx_j}_I|I|^n,$$

we get

$$f_I\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{1}{|Q^{}(x_j)|}\right)|I|^nf_E+m_{n+1}|I|^{n+1}.$$

Further,

$`|Q^{}(x_j)|`$ $`=`$ $`(x_jx_{j1})\mathrm{}(x_jx_1)(x_{j+1}x_j)\mathrm{}(x_{n+1}x_j)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(j1)!(n+1j)!}{n^n}}|E|^n>{\displaystyle \frac{(j1)!(n+1j)!}{n!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|E|}{e}}\right)^n,`$
so that

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\frac{1}{|Q^{}(x_j)|}<\left(\frac{2e}{|E|}\right)^n,$$

and (4.1) follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

We shall use estimate (4.1) with $`n=2𝔫_f1`$.

Lemma 4.3. Suppose

$$m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}e^{2𝔫_f(3+\gamma (2𝔫_f))}$$
$`(4.4)`$
Then

$$m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}<\frac{1}{2}||f||_I.$$
$`(4.5)`$
Now, combining estimates (4.1) and (4.5) we get

Corollary 4.6. Suppose the interval $`I`$ is short; i.e. estimate (4.4) is valid. Then

$$f_I\left(\frac{2e|I|}{|E|}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_E.$$
$`(4.7)`$
Proof of Lemma 4.3 follows from two claims:

Claim 4.8 Estimate (4.4) yields

$$m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}e^{4𝔫_f}m_k|I|^k$$
$`(4.9)`$
for each $`k`$, $`0k𝔫_f`$.

Claim 4.10 There exists $`k`$, $`0k𝔫_f`$, such that

$$m_k\left(\frac{|I|}{2}\right)^ke^{(2+\frac{1}{e})𝔫_f}\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left(\frac{|I|}{2}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right].$$
$`(4.11)`$
First, we finish off the proof of Lemma 4.3 and then will prove the claims. Putting the claims together, we get

$`m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}`$ $`e^{4𝔫_f}2^{𝔫_f}e^{(2+\frac{1}{e})𝔫_f}\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right]`$
$`e^{0.9𝔫_f}\left[f_I+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}\right]`$
whence

$$2m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}<\left(e^{0.9}\frac{1}{4}\right)m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}\left(e^{0.9𝔫_f}\frac{1}{4}\right)m_{2𝔫_f}|I|^{2𝔫_f}f_I,$$

proving the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Claim 4.8: is straightforward. We have

$$\frac{m_{2𝔫_f}}{m_k}|I|^{2𝔫_fk}\stackrel{(4.4)}{}e^{(2𝔫_fk)(3+\gamma (2𝔫_f))}\frac{m_{2𝔫_f}^{k/2𝔫_f}}{m_k}.$$

Therefore, we need to estimate the expression

$$\left(\frac{m_{2𝔫_f}^{k/(2𝔫_f)}}{m_k}\right)^{\frac{1}{2𝔫_fk}}=\frac{m_{2𝔫_f}^{\frac{1}{2𝔫_fk}\frac{1}{2𝔫_f}}}{m_k^{\frac{1}{2𝔫_fk}}}$$

Taking the logarithm and setting $`a(s)=\frac{A(s)}{s}`$, that is $`m(k)=a(1)a(2)\mathrm{}a(k)`$, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{2𝔫_fk}\underset{j=k+1}{\overset{2𝔫_f}{}}\mathrm{log}a(j)\frac{1}{2𝔫_f}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2𝔫_f}{}}\mathrm{log}a(j)$$

$$=\frac{1}{2𝔫_fk}\underset{j=k+1}{\overset{2𝔫_f}{}}[\mathrm{log}a(j)\mathrm{log}a(1)]\frac{1}{2𝔫_f}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2𝔫_f}{}}[\mathrm{log}a(j)\mathrm{log}a(1)]$$

$$=_1^{2𝔫_f}\frac{a^{}}{a}\left(s\right)\left\{\frac{1}{2𝔫_fk}\underset{j=k+1}{\overset{2𝔫_f}{}}\chi _{[1,j]}\frac{1}{2𝔫_f}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2𝔫_f}{}}\chi _{[1,j]}\right\}\left(s\right)𝑑s$$
$`(4.12)`$
where $`\chi _{[a,b]}(s)`$ is the indicator function of the interval $`[a,b]`$. Since

$$0\left\{\mathrm{}\right\}\left(s\right)<\frac{s}{2𝔫_f},$$

then we get

$$\text{the RHS of }(4.12)<\frac{1}{2𝔫_f}_1^{2𝔫_f}\frac{sa^{}(s)}{a(s)}𝑑s\underset{s1}{sup}\frac{sa^{}(s)}{a(s)}\stackrel{(1.7)}{=}\gamma (2𝔫_f)1.$$

Therefore

$$\frac{m_{2𝔫_f}^{k/(2𝔫_f)}}{m_k}<e^{(2𝔫_fk)(\gamma (2𝔫_f)1)}$$

and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_{2𝔫_f}}{m_k}}|I|^{2𝔫_fk}`$ $`<`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{(2𝔫_fk)\left(3+\gamma (2𝔫_f)\gamma (2𝔫_f)+1\right)\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{4(2𝔫_fk)\right\}\mathrm{exp}\left\{4𝔫_f\right\},`$
proving the claim. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Claim 4.10:  Let $`c_I`$ be the centre of the interval $`I`$, and let

$$P_{2𝔫_f1}(x)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{2𝔫_f1}{}}\frac{f^{(j)}(c_I)}{j!}(xc_I)^j$$

be the Taylor polynomial of $`f`$ at $`c_I`$. Then for $`xI`$

$$f(x)=P_{2𝔫_f1}(x)+\frac{f^{(2𝔫_f)}(\xi )}{(2𝔫_f)!}(x\xi )^{2𝔫_f},\xi =\xi _xI,$$

so that

$$P_{2𝔫_f1}_If_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left(\frac{|I|}{2}\right)^{2𝔫_f}.$$

For an arbitrary polynomial $`S`$ we have

$$|S^{(k)}(0)|(\mathrm{deg}S)^kS_{[1,1]}.$$

This is a relatively simple special case of V. Markov’s inequalities see e.g. \[14, Chapter VI, Sections 4.II and 4.III\]). Using this inequality, we get

$`|f^{(k)}(c_I)|`$ $`=`$ $`|P_{2𝔫_f1}^{(k)}(c_I)|`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{|I|}}\right)^k(2𝔫_f1)^kP_{2𝔫_f1}_I`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{|I|}}\right)^k(2𝔫_f1)^k\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right]`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(k)}(c_I)|}{e^kM_k}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{|I|}}\right)^k\left({\displaystyle \frac{2𝔫_f1}{k}}\right)^k\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right]`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{|I|}}\right)^k\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2𝔫_f1}{e}}\right)\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right].`$
Then using Corollary 2.3 from Bang’s fundamental lemma and the definition of the Bang degree $`𝔫_f`$, we obtain that

$$B_f(c_I)\underset{[0,1]}{\mathrm{min}}B_f>e^{𝔫_f1}.$$

Hence, for at least one $`k`$, $`0k𝔫_f`$,

$`e^{𝔫_f1}`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|f^{(k)}(c_I)|}{e^kM_k}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_k}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{|I|}}\right)^k\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2𝔫_f1}{e}}\right)\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right],`$
whence

$`m_k\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^k`$ $``$ $`e^{(2+\frac{1}{e})𝔫_f}\left[f_I+m_{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{2}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\right],`$
proving the claim. $`\mathrm{}`$

It remains to spread estimate (4.7) from short to arbitrary sub-intervals $`I[0,1]`$. We shall prove a bit more: we show that if the interval $`I[0,1]`$ is not short, then

$$\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2𝔫_f)|I|}{|E|}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_E1$$
$`(4.13)`$
for any measurable subset $`EI`$. Since $`f_If_{[0,1]}1`$, this does the job.

We fix a measurable subset $`EI`$ where $`I`$ is not short, and choose a short sub-interval $`I_1I`$ such that

$$|EI_1||E|\frac{|I_1|}{|I|},$$
$`(4.14)`$
and

$$m_{2𝔫_f}|I_1|^{2𝔫_f}2^{2𝔫_f}e^{2𝔫_f\left(3+\gamma (2𝔫_f)\right)}.$$
$`(4.15)`$
Existence of such $`I_1`$ follows by a straightforward dyadic argument. Then

$`1`$ $`\stackrel{(4.15)}{}`$ $`\left(2e^{3+\gamma (2𝔫_f)}\right)^{2𝔫_f}m_{2𝔫_f}|I_1|^{2𝔫_f}`$
$`\stackrel{(4.5)}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2e^{3+\gamma (2𝔫_f)}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_{I_1}`$
$`\stackrel{(4.7)}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(2e^{3+\gamma (2𝔫_f)}\right)^{2𝔫_f}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2e|I_1|}{|EI_1|}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_{EI_1}`$
$`\stackrel{(4.14)}{<}`$ $`\left(4e^{4+\gamma (2𝔫_f)}{\displaystyle \frac{|I|}{|E|}}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_E`$
proving (4.13) and completing the proof of Theorem B. $`\mathrm{}`$

§5. Variations on Bang’s theme

5.1 Bang’s differential inequality. One can rewrite the fundamental inequality (2.2) as the differential inequality for the function

$$L_f(x)=\mathrm{log}\frac{1}{B_f(x)}.$$

If $`B_f(x)`$ is positive, then taking the logarithms in (2.2) and choosing there $`q=[L_f(x)]+1`$, we obtain

$$L_f(x+h)>L_f(x)e|h|A(L_f(x)+1).$$

Interchanging $`x`$ and $`x+h`$, we arrive at

Corollary 5.1.1 Suppose $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$. Then the function $`L_f:[0,1][0,\mathrm{}]`$ is continuous and

$$|L_f(x+h)L_f(x)|<e|h|A(L_f(x)+1)$$

whenever $`x,x+h[0,1]`$ and the values $`L_f(x)`$, $`L_f(x+h)`$ are finite. In particular, if $`L_f^{}(x)`$ exists, then

$$|L_f^{}(x)|<eA(L_f(x)+1).$$
$`(\mathrm{5.1.2})`$
It is remarkable that the function $`L_f`$ satisfies a simple differential inequality. Integrating this inequality, we get a reformulation of Corollary 2.3:

Corollary 5.1.3 Suppose $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$. Then

$$_{L_{}+1}^{L^{}+1}\frac{ds}{A(s)}<e$$

where

$$L_{}=\underset{x[0,1]}{\mathrm{min}}L_f(x),\text{and}L^{}=\underset{x[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}L_f(x).$$

5.2 One-sided version of the Denjoy-Carleman theorem.

Theorem 5.2.1 Suppose $`fC^{\mathrm{}}([0,1])`$ and

$$\underset{[0,1]}{\mathrm{min}}f^{(j)}M_jj_+,$$

where the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ satisfies the quasianalyticity condition (1.5). If all derivatives of $`f`$ are non-negative at the origin, then they are non-negative everywhere on $`[0,1]`$.

Recall that $`C^{\mathrm{}}([0,1))`$-functions with all derivatives positive everywhere on $`[0,1)`$ are called absolutely monotonic. By the classical Bernstein theorem, every absolutely monotonic function on $`[0,1)`$ has an analytic extension to the unit complex disc.

Under a somewhat stronger assumption $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$, this result was conjectured by Borel (see \[6, p.74\]) and proved by Tacklind  and Bang .

For the proof of Theorem 5.2.1, we set

$$B_f^{}(x)=\underset{j0}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{\mathrm{max}\{f^{(j)}(x),0\}}{e^jM_j}.$$

Repeating verbatim the proof of Lemma 2.1, we obtain that

$$B_f^{}(x+h)<\mathrm{max}\{B_f^{}(x),e^q\}e^{ehA(q)}$$

for every $`q`$, every $`x,x+h[0,1]`$, $`h>0`$. Then Theorem 5.2.1 readily follows from this estimate. $`\mathrm{}`$

5.3 Non-extendable quasianalytic functions.  If $`f`$ is a real analytic function on a closed interval $`J`$ (that is $`f𝒞_{\{K^jj!\}}(J)`$ with some constant $`K`$), then $`f`$ always has a real analytic extension on a larger interval $`J^{}J`$. In contrast, the Tacklind-Bang theorem combined with the Bernstein theorem give us examples of quasianalytically smooth functions defined on a closed interval which do not have a quasianalytically smooth extension; i.e. a smooth extension which belongs to a (probably, different) Denjoy-Carleman quasianalytic class on a larger interval.

We fix a logarithmically convex sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ satisfying (1.5) and such that

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\frac{M_j}{j!}\right)^{1/j}=+\mathrm{},$$

and choose a positive sequence $`\{c_j\}`$ such that

$$\underset{j\mathrm{}}{lim}c_j^{1/j}=1,$$

and

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}j^nc_jM_n$$

for all $`n_+`$. For example, if $`M_n=n!(\mathrm{log}n)^n`$, then one can take

$$c_j=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{Cj}{\mathrm{log}(j+e)}\right]$$

with a proper choice of a positive constant $`C`$.

Then consider an even function

$$f(x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_{2k}x^{2k}$$

which is is analytic in $`(1,1)`$ and belongs to the quasianalytic class $`𝒞_{\{M_j\}}`$ on the segment $`[1,1]`$. This function has no quasianalytically smooth extension on a larger interval. Otherwise, the extension would be an even function (by the Denjoy-Carleman theorem), and by the theorems of Tacklind-Bang and Bernstein it would have an analytic extension to a disk of radius larger than one. Clearly, this is impossible since the radius of convergence of the Taylor series which represents $`f`$ equals one.

This construction answers the question raised by P. Milman <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1A. Borichev indicated another construction of a non-extendable quasianalytic function. He considers the absolutely convergent series
$$f(z)=\underset{n}{}\frac{\delta _n}{z\lambda _n},\lambda _n=1+ϵ_ni\delta _n,$$
with
$$ϵ_n0,ϵ_{n+1}/ϵ_n0,\delta _n0,\delta _{n+1}/\delta _n0,\delta _n/ϵ_n0$$
and using some results from  shows that under a special choice of these sequences the function has no quasianalytic extension to any larger interval $`[1\gamma ,1+\gamma ]`$. .

5.4 Bang’s original version of the fundamental inequality.  Mention that Bang proved his results without assumption of the logarithmic convexity of the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$. He assumed that $`M_j`$ is the upper bound for the $`|f^{(j)}(x)|`$ on the closed interval $`J`$ and the sequence $`\{M_j\}`$ increases so rapidly that $`M_j^{1/j}\mathrm{}`$. Then there exists a unique largest logarithmically convex minorant $`M_j^cM_j`$. The equation $`M_j^c=M_j`$ is satisfied for infinitely many integers $`j`$, in particular for $`j=0`$ (see e.g. \[14, Chapter 1\]). This set of integers is denoted by $``$. Then Bang defines the “norm”

$$B_f(x)=\underset{p}{inf}\mathrm{max}\{e^p,\underset{0jp}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{|f^{(j)}(x)|}{e^jM_j^c}\}$$

and proves that if $`B_f(x)e^q`$, $`q`$, then

$$B_f(x+h)<B_f(x)e^{e|h|A^c(q)}$$

where

$$A^c(q)=\frac{M_q^c}{M_{q1}^c}.$$

From here he deduces a more general version of Corollary 2.3 which already contains the result of Borel and Carleman formulated in the Introduction.

5.5 Propagation of smallness for quasianalytically smooth functions. Here, we give a simple “global corollary” to Theorem B excluding the degree $`𝔫_f`$ from estimate (1.8). We assume that $`𝒞_A([0,1])`$ is a regular quasianalytic Denjoy-Carleman class of functions, that is $`A:[1,\mathrm{})(0,\mathrm{})`$ is a non-decreasing $`C^1`$-function such that the integral $`^{\mathrm{}}A^1(s)𝑑s`$ is divergent and

$$\gamma =\underset{s1}{sup}\frac{sA^{}(s)}{A(s)}<\mathrm{}.$$

We set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{e}_1^{\mathrm{log}(e/t)}\frac{ds}{A(s)}\right],0t1.$$

The function $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ steadily increases on the interval $`[0,1]`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(0)=0`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(1)=1`$.

A relative smallness of the set $`E[0,1]`$ will be measured in the logarithmic scale by the quantity

$$\alpha (E)=\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{log}^1\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{|E|}\right)$$

where as above $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=4e^{4+\frac{2}{e}\gamma }`$.

Corollary 5.5.1 Suppose $`𝒞_A([0,1])`$ is a regular Denjoy-Carleman quasianalytic class, and suppose that $`f𝒞_A([0,1])`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\left(f_{[0,1]}\right)e\mathrm{\Omega }\left(f_E^{\alpha (E)}\right).$$
$`(\mathrm{5.5.2})`$
In the real analytic case when $`A(s)=Cs`$, $`C`$ is a positive constant, we have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{1}{eC}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}\frac{e}{t}\right]=\left(\mathrm{log}\frac{e}{t}\right)^{1/(eC)}.$$

Suppose that $`f_Eϵ`$. Then estimate (5.5.2) gives us

$$f_{[0,1]}eϵ^{\alpha (E)e^{eC}}.$$
$`(\mathrm{5.5.3})`$
Certainly, estimate (5.5.3) can be obtained by classical means using a complex extension with control over the uniform norm and the two-constants-theorem , , or by an elementary real variable technique .

However, already in the logarithmic Denjoy-Carleman class when $`A(s)=Cs\mathrm{log}(s+e)`$, the Corollary gives a new result.

Proof of Corollary 5.5.1:  We have

$$f_{[0,1]}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{|E|}\right)^{2𝔫_f}f_E$$

or

$`1`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{2𝔫_f\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{|E|}}\right)+\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_{[0,1]}}}\right\}f_E`$
$`<`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{3𝔫_f\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{|E|}}\right)\right\}f_E=\mathrm{exp}\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{𝔫_f}{\alpha (E)}}\right\}f_E,`$
that is

$$e^{𝔫_f}f_E^{\alpha (E)}.$$

Since

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }\left(f_{[0,1]}\right)\mathrm{log}\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{𝔫_f})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{log}f_{[0,1]}^1+1}^{𝔫_f+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{ds}{A(s)}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{log}f_{[0,1]}^1<j𝔫_f}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_{j1}}{M_j}}<1,`$
we finally get

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\left(f_{[0,1]}\right)<e\mathrm{\Omega }(e^{𝔫_f})<e\mathrm{\Omega }\left(f_E^{\alpha (E)}\right),$$

completing the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

(F.N.:) Department of Mathematics,

Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI 48824,

U.S.A.

E-mail: fedja@math.msu.edu

(M.S.:) School of Mathematical Sciences,

Tel Aviv University,

Ramat Aviv, 69978,

Israel

E-mail: sodin@post.tau.ac.il

(A.V.:) Department of Mathematics,

Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI 48824,

U.S.A.

E-mail: volberg@math.msu.edu


format: text

text:
# Lanczos Methods for UV-Suppressed Fermions

## 1 INTRODUCTION

There has been recent interest in the so-called ‘Ultraviolet slowing down’ of fermionic simulations in lattice QCD . These studies try to address algortmically large fluctuations of the high end modes of the fermion determinant. The goal is to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of the infrared modes and to accelerate fermion simulations as well.

In fact, all the computational effort needed to treat UV-modes by above algorithms can be reduced to zero by suppressing them in the first place . The lattice Dirac operator of this fermion theory is given by:

$$D=\frac{\mu }{a}\mathrm{\Gamma }_5\mathrm{tanh}\frac{a\mathrm{\Gamma }_5D_{W/S/O}}{\mu }$$
(1)
where $`D_{W/s/o}`$ is the input lattice Dirac operator, $`a`$ the lattice spacing and $`\mu >0`$ is a dimensionless parameter. For Wilson (W) and overlap (o) fermions as the input theory one has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5=\gamma _5`$. For staggered fermions $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5`$ is a diagonal matrix with entries $`+1/1`$ on even/odd lattice sites. The theory converges to the input theory in the contimuum limit and is local and unitary as shown in detail in . The input theory is also recovered in the limit $`\mu \mathrm{}`$. For $`\mu 0`$ one has $`D\mu `$, i.e. a quenched theory.

Perturbative calculations with this theory are straightforward. In the following Wilson fermions are used as input. The inverse fermion propagator is given by:

$$\stackrel{~}{D}(p)=\frac{\mu }{a}\gamma _5\mathrm{tanh}\frac{a\stackrel{~}{H}_W(p)}{\mu }$$
(2)
with $`p=\{p_\nu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{},4\}`$ being the four-momentum vector. As usual, gauge fields are parametrized by $`su(3)`$ elements, $`U(x)_\nu =e^{iagA(x)_\nu }`$ with $`A(x)_\nu su(3)`$ algebra, and the Wilson operator is written as a sum of the free and interaction terms: $`D_W=D_W^0+D_W^I`$. The splitting of the lattice Dirac operator is written in the same form:

$$D=D^0+D^I,D^0=\frac{\mu }{a}\gamma _5\mathrm{tanh}\frac{aH_W^0}{\mu }$$

where the interaction term has to be determined. This can be done by expanding $`D`$ in terms of $`a/\mu `$:

$$D=D_W[\text{1l}+c_1(\frac{aH_W}{\mu })^2+c_2(\frac{aH_W}{\mu })^4+\mathrm{}]$$
(3)
where $`c_1,c_2,\mathrm{}`$ are real expansion coefficients. Calculation of $`D^I`$ is an easy task if one stays with a finite number of terms in the right hand side of (3). Also, the number of terms can be minimized using a Chebyshev approximation for the hyperbolic tangent. 111I would like to thank Joachim Hein for discussions related to lattice perturbation theory.

## 2 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS

The effective action of the theory defined above can be written as:

$$S_{\text{eff}}=\text{tr}f(A)$$
(4)
where $`A^{N\times N}`$ and $`f(s)`$ is a real and smooth function of $`s^+`$. The matrix $`A`$ is assumed to be Hermitian and positive definite. Since the trace is dificult to obtain one can use the stochastic method of . The method is based on evaluations of many bilinear forms of the type:

$$(b,A)=b^Tf(A)b$$
(5)
where $`b^N`$ is a random vector. The trace is estimated as an average over many bilinear forms. A confidence interval can be computed as described in detail in . Here I will describe an alternative derivation of the Lanczos algorithm , which is used in  and in  as well. The full details of this study can be found at . It uses familiar tools (in lattice simulations) such as sparse matrix invertions and Padé approximats.

The Padé approximation of a smooth and bounded function $`f(.)`$ in an interval can be expressed as a partial fraction expansion:

$$f(s)\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}\frac{c_k}{s+d_k}$$
(6)
with $`c_k,d_k0,k=1,\mathrm{},m`$. It is assumed that the right hand side converges to the left hand side when the number of partial fractions becomes large enough. For the bilinear form I obtain:

$$(b,A)\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}b^T\frac{c_k}{A+d_k\text{1l}}b$$
(7)
A first algorithm may be derived at this point. Having computed the partial fraction coefficients one can use a multi-shift iterative solver of  to evaluate the right hand side (7). The problem with this method is that one needs to store a large number of vectors that is proportional to $`m`$. This could be prohibitive if $`m`$ is say larger than $`10`$. However, it is easy to save memory if only the bilinear form (5) is needed (see  for details).

If a Padé approximation is not sufficient or difficult to obtain, the Lanczos method is the only alternative to evaluate exactly the bilinear forms of type (5). To see how this is realized I assume that the linear system $`Ax=b`$ is solved to the desired accuracy using the Lanczos algorithm. The algorithm produces the coefficients of the Lanczos matrix $`T_n`$, which is symmetric and tridiagonal. Its eigenvalues, the so called Ritz values, tend to approximate the extreme eigenvalues of the original matrix $`A`$. In the application considered here one can show that :

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}b^T\frac{c_k}{A+d_k\text{1l}}b=b^2\underset{k=1}{\overset{m}{}}e_1^T\frac{c_k}{T_n+d_k\text{1l}_n}e_1$$
(8)
where $`\text{1l}_n^{n\times n}`$ is the identity matrix and $`e_1`$ is its first column. From this result and the convergence of the partial fractions to the matrix function $`f(.)`$, it is clear that:

$$(b,A)\widehat{}_n(b,A)=b^2e_1^Tf(T_n)e_1$$
(9)
Note that the evaluation of the right hand side is a much easier task than the evaluation of the right hand side of (5). A straightforward method is the spectral decomposition of the symmetric and tridiagonal matrix $`T_n=Z_n\mathrm{\Omega }_nZ_n^T`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n^{n\times n}`$ is a diagonal matrix of eigenvalues $`\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n`$ of $`T_n`$ and $`Z_n^{n\times n}`$ is the corrsponding matrix of eigenvectors, i.e. $`Z_n=[z_1,\mathrm{},z_n]`$. From (9) and the spectral form $`T_n=Z_n\mathrm{\Omega }_nZ_n^T`$ it is easy to show that:

$$\widehat{}_n(b,A)=b^2e_1^TZ_nf(\mathrm{\Omega }_n)Z_n^Te_1$$
(10)
where the function $`f(.)`$ is now evaluated at individual eigenvalues of the tridiagonal matrix $`T_n`$. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a symmetric and tridiagonal matrix can be computed by the QL method with implicit shifts . The method has an $`O(n^3)`$ complexity. Fortunately, one can compute (10) with only an $`O(n^2)`$ complexity. Closer inspection of eq. (10) shows that besides the eigenvalues, only the first elements of the eigenvectors are needed:

$$\widehat{}_n(b,A)=b^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{1i}^2f(\omega _i)$$
(11)
It is easy to see that the QL method delivers the eigenvalues and first elements of the eigenvectors with $`O(n^2)`$ complexity. 222I thank Alan Irving for the related comment on the QL implementation in . A similar formula (11) is suggested by  based on quadrature rules and Lanczos polynomials.

Clearly, the Lanczos algorithm, Algorithm 1 has $`O(nN)+O(n^2)`$ complexity, but it delivers an exact evaluation of (5) and for typical applications in lattice QCD the $`O(n/N)`$ overhead is small. The method of  computes the relative differences of (11) between two successive Lanczos steps and stops if they don’t decrease below a given accuracy. In order to perform the test their algorithm needs to compute the eigenvalues of $`T_i`$ at each Lanczos step $`i`$. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 where the convergence of the bilinear form (5) and extreme eigenvalues of $`A`$ are plotted.

The figure sugests that one can compute the bilinear form less frequently than proposed by .

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank Philippe de Forcrand, Alan Irving and Tony Kennedy for discussions related to this talk.


text:
# Neutron Stars, Pulsars and Supernova Remnants: concluding remarks

## 1 Introduction

More than 30 years have elapsed since the discovery of pulsars (Hewish et al. ) and the realization that they are connected with rotating magnetized neutron stars (Gold ; Pacini , ). It became soon clear that these objects are responsible for the production of the relativistic wind observed in some Supernovae remnants such as the Crab Nebula.

For many years, the study of pulsars has been carried out mostly in the radio band. However, many recent results have come from observations at much higher frequencies (optical, X-rays, gamma rays). These observations have been decisive in order to establish a realistic demography and have brought a better understanding of the relationship between neutron stars and SN remnants.

The Proceedings of this Conference cover many aspects of this relationship (see also previous Conference Proceedings such as Bandiera et al. ; Slane and Gaensler, ). Because of this reason, my summary will not review all the very interesting results which have been presented here and I shall address briefly just a few issues. The choice of these issues is largely personal: other colleagues may have made a different selection.

## 2 Demography of Neutron Stars: the role of the magnetic field

For a long time it has been believed that only Crab-like remnants (plerions) contain a neutron star and that the typical field strength of neutron stars is $`10^{12}`$ Gauss. The basis of this belief was the lack of pulsars associated with shell-type remnants or other manifestations of a relativistic wind. The justification given is that some SN explosions may blow apart the entire star. Alternatively, the central object may become a black hole. However, the number of shell remnants greatly exceeds that of plerions: it becomes then difficult to invoke the formation of black holes, an event much more rare than the formation of neutron stars.

The suggestion that shell remnants such as Cas A could be associated with neutron stars which have rapidly lost their initial rotational energy because of an ultra-strong magnetic field $`B10^{14}10^{15}`$ Gauss (Cavaliere & Pacini, ) did receive little attention. The observational situation has now changed: a compact thermal X-ray source has been discovered close to the center of Cas A (Tananbaum, ) and it could be the predicted object. Similar sources have been found in association with other remnants and are likely to be neutron stars. We have also heard during this Conference that some shell-type remnants (including Cas A) show evidence for a weak non-thermal X-ray emission superimposed on the thermal one: this may indicate the presence of a residual relativistic wind produced in the center. Another important result has been the discovery of neutron stars with ultra-strong magnetic fields, up to $`10^{14}10^{15}`$ G. In this case the total magnetic energy could be larger than the rotational energy (”magnetars”). This possibility had been suggested long time ago (Woltjer, ). It should be noticed, however, that the slowing down rate determines the strength of the field at the speed of light cylinder and that the usually quoted surface fields assume a dipolar geometry corresponding to a braking index $`n=3`$. Unfortunately the value of $`n`$ has been measured only in a few cases and it ranges between $`1.42.8`$ (Lyne et al., ).

The present evidence indicates that neutron stars manifest themselves in different ways:

* Classical radio pulsars (with or without emission at higher frequencies) where the rotation is the energy source.
* Compact X-ray sources where the energy is supplied by accretion (products of the evolution in binary systems).
* Compact X-ray sources due to the residual thermal emission from a hot surface.
* Anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXP) with long periods and ultra strong fields (up to $`10^{15}`$ Gauss). The power emitted by AXPs exceeds the energy loss inferred from the slowing down rate. It is possible that AXPs are associated with magnetized white dwarfs, rotating close to the shortest possible period ($`510`$ s) or, alternatively, they could be neutron stars whose magnetic energy is dissipated by flares.
* Soft gamma-ray repeaters.

In addition it is possible that some of the unidentified gamma ray sources are related to neutron stars. The present picture solves some previous inconsistencies. For instance, the estimate for the rate of core-collapse Supernovae (roughly one every 30-50 years) was about a factor of two larger than the birth-rate of radio pulsars, suggesting already that a large fraction of neutron stars does not appear as radio pulsars.

The observational evidence supports the notion of a large spread in the magnetic strength of neutron stars and the hypothesis that this spread is an important factor in determining the morphology of Supernova remnants. A very strong field would lead to the release of the bulk of the rotational energy during a short initial period (say, days up to a few years): at later times the remnant would appear as a shell-type. A more moderate field (say $`10^{12}`$ Gauss or so) would entail a long lasting energy loss and produce a plerion.

## 3 Where are the pulses emitted ?

Despite the great wealth of data available, there is no general consensus about the radiation mechanism for pulsars. The location of the region where the pulses are emitted is also controversial: it could be located close to the stellar surface or, alternatively, in the proximity of the speed of light cylinder.

The radio emission is certainly due to a coherent process because of the very high brightness temperatures ($`T_b`$ up to and above $`10^{30}`$ K have been observed). A possible model invokes the motion of bunches of charges sliding along the curved field lines with a relativistic Lorentz factor $`\gamma `$ such that the critical frequency $`\nu _c\frac{c}{\rho }\gamma ^3`$ reaches or exceeds the radio band. Typically, this would entail $`\gamma \stackrel{>}{}10^2`$.

If we assume $`T_b10^{30}`$ K and $`\gamma 10^210^3`$, the thermodynamical limitation $`kT_bmc^2\gamma F`$ requires a coherence factor $`F`$ (number of electrons in the bunch) of order $`10^{17}`$. At least one of the sizes of the bunch must be smaller than the emitted wavelength. The radio spectrum is determined by the distribution in size of the bunches and the effect of coherence is gradually lost at very high radio frequencies (Aloisio & Blasi ). This may possibly explain the up-turn of the spectrum observed in some sources in the millimeter range, as reported here by Sieber.

Unfortunately the radio emission does not give sufficient information about the parameters of the source since many of them are affected by the degree of coherence. The situation is different if we consider pulsars which emit at higher frequencies (optical and X-ray bands), where the observed brightness is compatible with an incoherent process.

A striking aspect of the optical pulses is the very strong dependency of the power upon the period (they are emitted only from a few sources).

A possible scenario assumes that the optical radiation is normal synchrotron radiation, emitted from particles which gyrate with a small pitch angle $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ around the field lines. Such a model, applied to the Crab pulsar, PSR 0531, can explain the observations with parameters compatible with those expected at the speed of light cylinder distance $`R_L=\frac{cP}{2\pi }`$: $`\mathrm{\Psi }10^2`$; $`B_{}10^4`$ G; $`\gamma 10^210^3`$.

The model leads to the expectation of a very fast decrease of the synchrotron intensity with period because of the combination of two factors: a) the reduced particles flux when the period increases; b) the reduced efficiency of synchrotron losses (which scale $`B^2R_L^6P^6`$) at the speed of light cylinder (Pacini, ; Pacini & Salvati , ). The prediction fits the observed secular decrease of the optical emission from the Crab Nebula and the magnitude of the Vela pulsar. A recent re-examination of all available optical data confirms that this model can account for the luminosity of the known optical pulsars (Shearer and Golden, ).

If so, the optical radiation supports strongly the notion that the emitting region is located close to the speed of light cylinder.

## 4 A speculation: can the thermal radiation from young neutron stars quench the relativistic wind?

My final remarks concern the possible effect of the thermal radiation coming from the neutron star surface upon the acceleration of particles. This problem has been investigated for the near magnetosphere (Supper & Truemper, ) and it has been found that the Inverse Compton Scattering (ICS) against the thermal photons is important only in marginal cases. However, if we assume that the acceleration of the relativistic wind and the radiation of pulses occur close to the speed of light cylinder, the situation becomes different and the ICS can dominate over synchrotron losses for a variety of parameters.

The basic reason is that the importance of ICS at the speed of light distance $`R_L`$ scales like the energy density of the thermal photons $`u_\gamma R_L^2P^2`$; on the other hand, the synchrotron losses are proportional to the magnetic energy density in the same region $`u_BR_L^6P^6`$.

Numerically, one finds that ICS losses dominate over synchrotron losses if

$$T_6>0.4\frac{B_{12}^{1/2}}{P_s}$$

where $`T_6`$ is the temperature in units $`10^6`$ K; $`B_{12}=\frac{B}{10^{12}\mathrm{G}}`$; $`P_s`$ is the pulsar period in seconds).

The corresponding upper limit for the energy of the electrons, assuming that the acceleration takes place for a length of order of the speed of light distance and that the gains are equal to the losses is given by:

$$E_{\mathrm{max}}1.2\times 10^3T_{6}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}P_s\mathrm{GeV}.$$

Provided that the particles are accelerated and radiate in proximity of the speed of light cylinder distance, we conclude that the thermal photons can limit the acceleration of particles, especially in the case of young and hot neutron stars. It becomes tempting to speculate that this may postpone the beginning of the pulsar activity until the temperature of the star is sufficiently low. The main manifestation of neutron stars in this phase would be a flux of high energy photons in the gamma-ray band, due to the interaction of the quenched wind with the thermal photons from the stellar surface. This model and its observational consequences are currently under investigation (Amato, Blasi, Pacini, work in progress).


text:
# The Thermal Width of the Glueball at Non-Zero Temperature

## 1 INTRODUCTION

At finite temperature/density, the vacuum properties of QCD are expected to change such as the reduction of the string tension, the partial chiral restoration, etc. Such changes of the vacuum properties should be followed by the changes of the hadron properties, since hadrons are composite particles consisting of quarks and gluons. The hadronic pole-mass shifts are thus considered to serve as the important precritical phenomena of the QCD phase transition near the critical temperature $`T_c`$, and were extensively studied by using various QCD-motivated low-energy effective theories . These studies suggested the pole-mass reductions of charmoniums, light $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons and the glueball near the critical temperature. Recently, the accurate pole-masses measurement at finite temperature with the lattice QCD became possible by means of the anisotropic lattice . Quenched-level Monte Carlo calculations showed that the pole-masses of the $`q\overline{q}`$ mesons are almost unchanged from their zero-temperature values in the confinement phase , while the pole-mass of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball shows the $`300`$ MeV reduction near the critical temperature . These tendencies are consistent with the recent lattice studies on the screening mass at finte temperature . In these analysis, the bound-state peaks are assumed to be sufficiently narrow. However, each bound-state acquires the thermal width through the interaction with the heat bath, and the thermal width is expected to grow up with temperature, which may leads to a possible collapse of the narrow-peak assumption in some cases. In this paper, we first discuss what is the expected consequence of the thermal width broadening. Then, we propose the Breit-Wigner ansatz for the fit-function for the temporal correlator at finite temperature. We finally show the results of the Breit-Wigner analysis of the $`0^{++}`$ glueball correlator at finite temperature .

## 2 THE BREIT-WIGNER ANSATZ

We consider the temporal correlator $`G(\tau )Z(\beta )^1\text{Tr}\left(e^{\beta H}\varphi (\tau )\varphi (0)\right)`$. Its spectral representation is given as

$`G(\tau )={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\omega (\beta /2\tau )\right)}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \omega /2)}}\rho (\omega ),`$ (1)
where $`H`$ denotes the QCD Hamiltonian, $`Z(\beta )\text{Tr}(e^{\beta H})`$ the partition function, $`\varphi (\tau )`$ is the zero-momentum projected glueball operator  represented in the imaginary-time Heisenberg picture as $`\varphi (\tau )e^{\tau H}\varphi (0)e^{\tau H}`$. Here, $`\rho (\omega )`$ denotes the spectral function

$`\rho (\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|n|\varphi |m|^2}{Z(\beta )}}e^{\beta E_m}`$
$`\times 2\pi \left(\text{}\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta }E_{nm})\delta (\omega \mathrm{\Delta }E_{mn})\right),`$
where $`E_n`$ denotes the energy of $`n`$th excited states, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{mn}E_mE_m`$. Note that $`\rho (\omega )`$ is odd in $`\omega `$ reflecting the bosonic nature of the glueball. By adopting the appropriate ansatz for $`\rho (\omega )`$, we can extract various physical quantities such as the pole-mass and the width through the spectral representation Eq. (1).

We first consider the case where the bound-state peak is narrow . In this case, by introducing the temperature-dependent pole-mass $`m(T)`$, $`\rho (\omega )`$ can be parameterized as

$$\rho (\omega )2\pi A\left(\text{}\delta (\omega m(T))\delta (\omega +m(T))\right),$$
(3)
where $`A`$ represents the strength. The second delta-function is introduced to respect the odd-function nature of $`\rho (\omega )`$. Since the corresponding $`G(\tau )`$ reduces to a single hyperbolic cosine, the pole-mass measurement at finite temperature can be performed in the same way as the standard mass measurement at zero temperature .

We next consider the case where the thermal width is wide. In this case, the peak center $`\omega _0`$ of $`\rho (\omega )`$ represents the observed “mass” of the thermal hadron. What follows the narrow-peak assumption now ? To consider this, we notice that $`G(\tau )`$ can be thought of as a weighted average of hyperbolic cosines with the weight as

$$W(\omega )\frac{\rho (\omega )}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \omega /2)}.$$
(4)
Here, $`2\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \omega /2)`$ in the denominator works as the biased factor, which enhances the smaller $`\omega `$ region while suppressing the larger $`\omega `$ region. Consequently, the pole-mass $`m(T)`$, which is approximated with the peak position of $`W(\omega )`$, is smaller than the peak center $`\omega _0`$ of the spectral function $`\rho (\omega )`$, i.e., the observed hadron “mass” .

What is the appropriate functional form of the fit-function ? To find this, we consider the retarded Green function $`G_\mathrm{R}(\omega )`$. At $`T=0`$, bound-state poles of $`G_\mathrm{R}(\omega )`$ are located on the real $`\omega `$-axis. At $`T>0`$, bound-state poles are moving into the complex $`\omega `$-plane with increasing temperature. Suppose that a bound-state pole is located at $`\omega =\omega _0i\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as

$$G_\mathrm{R}(\omega )=\frac{A}{\omega \omega _0+i\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where $`A`$ represents the residue at the pole, and “$`\mathrm{}`$” the non-singular terms around the pole. Since the spectral function is the imaginary part of the retarded Green function, the contribution of this complex pole is expressed in the form of Lorentzian as

$`\rho (\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`2\text{Im}\left(\text{}G_\mathrm{R}(\omega )\right).`$
$``$ $`2\pi A\left(\text{}\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \omega _0)\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega +\omega _0)\right),`$
where $`\delta _ϵ(x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\text{Im}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xiϵ}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{x^2+ϵ^2}}`$ is a smeared delta-function with the width $`ϵ>0`$. The second term in Eq. (2) is introduced to respect the odd-function nature of $`\rho (\omega )`$. In the limit $`\mathrm{\Gamma }+0`$, Eq. (2) reduces to Eq. (3). We thus see that the appropriate fit-function, which takes into account the effect of the non-zero thermal width, is the following Breit-Wigner type as

$$g(\tau )\begin{array}{c}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\left(\omega (\beta /2\tau )\right)}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\beta \omega /2)}\hfill \\ \times 2\pi \stackrel{~}{A}\left(\text{}\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega \omega _0)\delta _\mathrm{\Gamma }(\omega +\omega _0)\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\omega _0`$ are understood as fit-parameters, corresponding to the residue, the thermal width and the peak center, respectively. Note that $`g(\tau )`$ is a generalization of the ordinary single hyperbolic cosine fit-function. In order to use Eqs.(3) and (2), it is essential to suppress the higher spectral contributions. This is usually achieved by appropriate choices of the fit-ranges and also by improving the glueball operator, for instance, with the smearing method .

## 3 NUMERICAL RESULT

We use the SU(3) anisotropic lattice plaquette action as $`S_\mathrm{G}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{lat}}}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _\mathrm{G}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s,i<j3}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}(1P_{ij}(s))+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{\mathrm{lat}}}{N_c}}\gamma _\mathrm{G}{\displaystyle \underset{i,j3}{}}\text{Re}\text{Tr}(1P_{i4}(s))`$, where $`P_{\mu \nu }(s)\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ denotes the plaquette operator in the $`\mu `$-$`\nu `$-plane. The lattice parameter and the bare anisotropic parameter are fixed as $`\beta _{\mathrm{lat}}2N_c/g^2=6.25`$ and $`\gamma _\mathrm{G}=3.2552`$, respectively, so as to reproduce renormalized anisotropy $`\xi a_s/a_t=4`$ . These parameter set reproduces $`a_s^1=2.341(16)`$ GeV and $`a_t^1=9.365(66)`$ GeV, where the scale unit is introduced from the on-axis data of the static inter-quark potential with the string tension $`\sqrt{\sigma }=440`$ MeV. Numerical calculations are performed on the lattice of the size $`20^3\times N_t`$ with various $`N_t`$. The critical temperature $`T_c`$ on this lattice is estimated from the behavior of the Polyakov-loop susceptibility as $`T_c280`$ MeV. The pseudo-heat-bath algorithm is adopted for the update of the gauge configurations. In order to construct the temporal glueball correlators, we use 5,500 to 9,900 gauge configurations. The statistical data are divided into bins of the size 100 to reduce the possible auto-correlations near the critical temperature. The smearing method is used to obtain the improved glueball operator, which is determined by examining its behavior at the lowest temperature, i.e., $`T=130`$ MeV.

The peak center and the thermal width of thermal glueball are obtained by the best-fit analysis of the suitably smeared glueball correlator $`G(\tau )/G(0)`$ with Eq. (7) at various temperatures. In Fig.1, the peak center $`\omega _0`$ and the thermal width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are plotted against temperature. While narrow-peak ansatz leads to the pole-mass reduction of 300 MeV near $`T_c`$ in Ref., the Breit-Wigner analysis indicates a small reduction in the peak center as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0(T_c)100`$ MeV. Instead, we observe a significant thermal width broadening as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T_c)300`$ MeV.

## 4 SUMMARY

We have studied the temporal $`0^{++}`$ glueball correlator at finite temperature using SU(3) anisotropic lattice QCD at quenched level with 5,500 to 9,900 gauge configurations at each temperature. We have proposed the Breit-Wigner ansatz for the fit-function to take into account the effect of the non-zero thermal width at finite temperature. We have applied the Breit-Wigner analysis to the temporal glueball correlator at finite temperature, and have observed a slight reduction of the peak center as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega _0(T_c)100`$ MeV and the significant broadening of the thermal width as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(T_c)300`$ MeV in the vicinity of the critical temperature $`T_c`$.