format: text

text:
# UCB-PTH-02/37 LBNL-51431 FERMILAB-Pub-02/300 hep-ph/0208276 Supergravity Inflation Free from Harmful Relics

## I Introduction

There exist generic and well known problems in constructing supergravity inflation models with broken local supersymmetry in vacuum. First, one must carefully choose the superpotential and Kähler potential such that non-renormalizable terms do not spoil the flatness of the inflaton potential, which is also essential to obtain the observed CMB spectrum. Second, most supergravity inflation models run into cosmological problems at late times due to an over-abundance of harmful relics such as moduli and gravitinos, and we need to check that a model is free from these problems to be consistent with the data of baryon asymmetry and nucleosynthesis predictions.

Several supergravity inflation models free from abundant moduli have been proposed , and we give a brief review for this moduli problem with emphasis on the importance of the radiative corrections. Especially when the supersymmetry breaking field has flat direction at tree level, radiative correction has a significant effect on its potential to lead to the necessity for the modification of minimal Kähler potential.

More recently, the nonthermal production of gravitinos has been drawn attention . These problems on gravitino production during preheating era, however, have been analyzed only using the minimal Kähler potential so far. The gravitino interactions depend on the form of Kähler potential and consequently the non-thermal production of gravitinos can depend on its form as well. Our treatment is the first analysis of gravitino non-thermal production taking account of the non-minimal Kähler potential obtained from the loop correction of supersymmetry breaking field.

The detailed analysis for nonthermal production of gravitinos in a system of coupled fields has been done only for models with non-renormalizable hidden sector supersymmetry breaking, and only the Polonyi model in particular. It was shown, in this model, that dominant fermion fields which are created efficiently through preheating mechanism are inflatinos rather than gravitinos (thus free from gravitino problem). This type of supergravity inflation model is a good toy model to investigate the nonthermal particle production in preheating era, but is not a realistic inflation model in that it sill suffers from Polonyi problem which is as serious a problem as gravitino problem. We give the first realistic supergravity inflation model in this sense where nonthermal production of gravitinos as well as moduli problem were explicitly analyzed.

The paper is structured as follows. In section II, we explain our choice of superpotential and discuss how inflation develops in our model. We then discuss how supersymmetry breaking field evolves and calculate its radiative correction and its modification to minimal Kähler potential arising from this loop correction. In section III, we see if our model leads to any cosmological crisis, namely, moduli and gravitino problems. We give the conclusion and discussion at the end.

## II Setup

We consider the superpotential  consisting of the inflaton sector and hidden sector of O’Raifeartaigh type  which are gravitationally coupled to each other.

$$W=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)^2}{M_p}+\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\mu ^2\right)+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3+C,$$
(1)
where superfield $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ includes inflaton scalar component $`\sigma `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ includes O’Raifeartaigh scalar field $`\varphi _1`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }10^4M_p`$ from COBE normalization and $`M`$ is set to $`M_p(=2.43610^{18}\mathrm{GeV})`$ so that the inflaton potential keeps the flatness around the origin (i.e. for $`\frac{}{\sigma }V(0)0,\frac{^2}{\sigma ^2}V(0)0`$ ). The dimensionless parameter $`\kappa `$ is of order unity while the other mass parameters $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ are of intermediate scale ( $`10^8M_p`$ ). $`C`$ is the constant term to cancel the cosmological constant at the vacuum. We start with the discussion for the evolution of scalar fields in inflaton sector and hidden sector which are only gravitationally coupled to each other and, for the sake of clarity, we first treat each sector separately followed by the discussion including the coupling with non-minimal Kähler potential arising from the radiative correction. We assume gauge singlets in the potential for simplicity in the following.

### A Inflaton Sector

The superpotential of inflaton sector is given as

$$W_{inflaton}=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{(\mathrm{\Sigma }M_p)^2}{M_p}.$$
(2)
The general expression for supergravity potential becomes, for Kähler potential, $`K`$, and superpotential, $`W`$,

$$V=m_iK_{}^{1}{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}m_{}^{j}3M_p^2|m|^2$$
(3)
with

$`K^i{}_{j}{}^{}{\displaystyle \frac{^2K}{\varphi _i\varphi ^j}},m\mathrm{e}^{\frac{K}{2M_p^2}}W`$ (4)
$`m^iD^im^im+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_p^2}}(^iK)m.`$ (5)
If we consider, for the moment, the minimal form of Kähler potential, $`K=\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the effective supergravity potential from $`W_{inflaton}`$ for the real part of scalar component, $`\sigma `$, becomes ( in natural units )

$`V_{inflaton}=\mathrm{e}^K\left(\left|{\displaystyle \frac{W}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}}+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}W\right|^23|W|^2\right)`$ (6)
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }^4\mathrm{e}^{\sigma ^2/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^2}{2}}\sqrt{2}\sigma ^3+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{4}}\sigma ^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\sigma ^5+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^6}{8}}\right).`$ (7)
We here point out the absence of linear and quadratic terms which enables the potential to keep the flatness around the origin. We can obtain the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }10^4M_p`$ from COBE normalization condition ***  gives an order of estimates $`10^4M_p\mathrm{\Delta }10^{3.5}M_p`$ from the constraints on gravitino abundance and proton decay.,

$$\left(\frac{V}{ϵ}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}0.027M_p(13.2ϵ+0.5\eta ),$$
(8)
which should be evaluated at the horizon exit. Scale of inflaton field when the inflation ends and the cosmological scales leave the horizon are obtained from slow-roll conditions, $`ϵ1`$, $`\eta 1`$, and 60 e-folding condition,

$$N(\sigma _{exit})\underset{\sigma _{end}}{\overset{\sigma _{exit}}{}}\frac{V}{V^{}}𝑑\sigma 60.$$
(9)
We also note the scale of inflation is of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }^4`$ and the mass of the inflaton is of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/M_p`$ with its decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma m_\sigma ^3/M_p^2=\mathrm{\Delta }^6/M_p^5`$ assuming gravitational strength coupling to ordinary fields.

### B Hidden Sector

The supersymmetry breaking sector is that of O’Raifeartaigh model,

$$W_{hidden}=\mathrm{\Phi }_1\left(\kappa \mathrm{\Phi }_2^2\mu ^2\right)+\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_3+C.$$
(10)
This is a familiar example of supersymmetry breaking due to non-vanishing $`F`$-term from $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$, $`|F|=\mu ^2`$, in the vacuum. Therefore we add $`C=\frac{\mu ^2}{\sqrt{3}}M_p`$ (compare with $`\frac{3|W|^2}{M_P}`$ term in eqn(7) ) for the vanishing cosmological constant at the vacuum. This additional constant term $`C`$, strictly speaking, should be modified if we include the radiative correction and the coupling between inflaton and hidden sectors. We, however, stick to this value of $`C`$ for simplicity because this modification essentially does not change our discussion. We should, however, expect that, when the fields are far away from the vacuum during the inflation, there are additional $`F`$-terms from other fields in the effective scalar potential and these $`F`$-terms lead to additional ‘cosmological constant’ $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ . Adding $`e^K\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ in the potential indicates us that this cosmological constant term during the inflation gives an additional effective mass of order $`\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{M_p^2}`$ to each field in the model. Fields $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ do not posses the linear terms and these two fields quickly roll down to the origin ( i.e. to their minimum) during the inflation. The scalar field $`\varphi _1`$, however, has a liner term and its minimum shifts according to the evolution of inflaton field as we shall see in the next section. Because we are interested in the particle production after the inflation, we focus on the evolution of O’Raifeartaigh field $`\varphi _1`$ among the fields in this supersymmetry breaking sector. Moreover, the $`F`$-term at the vacuum has the contribution only from the scalar field $`\varphi _1`$ which turns out to have flat direction at the tree level. Because of this flat potential with respect to $`\varphi _1`$ at the tree level, the global supersymmetry radiative corrections have a significant effect on the effective potential and consequently give non-negligible modification to the minimal Kähler potential. The radiative corrections of local supersymmetry are always Planck mass suppressed and we do not consider them here. We calculated this non-minimal Kähler potential from the calculation of loop correction . Setting the parameter range to be $`2\kappa \mu ^2<\lambda ^2`$ to make $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ stay at the origin in the vacuum leads to the following one-loop correction due to $`\varphi _1`$,

$`V_{oneloop}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{64\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}}(M_i^2)^2[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_i^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}]`$ (11)
$`2{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}(N_i^2)^2[\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{N_i^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}]),`$ (12)
where we have defined

$`M_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_1A_2),M_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_1+A_2),`$ (14)
$`M_3^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_3A_4),M_4^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(A_3+A_4),`$ (15)
$`N_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(B_1B_2),N_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(B_1+B_2),`$ (16)
$`A_1=2\lambda ^22\kappa \mu ^2+4\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^2,A_3=2\lambda ^2+2\kappa \mu ^2+4\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^2,`$ (17)
$`A_2=\sqrt{4\kappa ^2\mu ^4+16\lambda ^2\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^216\kappa ^3\mu ^2|\varphi _1|^2+16\kappa ^4|\varphi _1|^4},`$ (18)
$`A_4=\sqrt{4\kappa ^2\mu ^4+16\lambda ^2\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^2+16\kappa ^3\mu ^2|\varphi _1|^2+16\kappa ^4|\varphi _1|^4},`$ (19)
$`B_1=2\lambda ^2+4\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^2,B_2=\sqrt{16\lambda ^2\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^2+16\kappa ^4|\varphi _1|^4}.`$ (20)
We have used the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and taken the renormalization scale to be $`\lambda `$. We are concerned with the regime $`|\varphi _1|\lambda /\kappa `$, as we shall show in the next section. In this case, and for $`2\kappa \mu ^2\lambda ^2`$, we can approximate the one loop potential as

$$V_{oneloop}=C_1+\frac{\kappa ^2\mu ^4}{8\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2|\varphi _1|^2}{\lambda ^2}+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ are terms of order $`\kappa ^4|\varphi _1|^4/\lambda ^4`$ and higher and $`C_1`$ is a small constant term ($`\mu ^4`$) which can be absorbed into the constant part of the superpotential. We can find the following one loop correction to the Kähler potential ($`K=K_{minimal}+K_{correction}`$), by comparing eqn(22) with eqn(3),

$$K_{correction}=\frac{\kappa ^2}{32\pi ^2}\left(\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2}{\lambda ^2}\right).$$
(23)
We shall use this non-minimal Kähler potential in our analysis for non-thermal production of gravitinos. We note that this radiative correction enhances the coupling to the longitudinal component of gravitino and raises the mass of $`\varphi _1`$ which was massless at the tree level to the intermediate scale

$$m_{\varphi _1}^2=\frac{\kappa ^4\mu ^4}{4\pi ^2\lambda ^2}=\frac{\alpha _\kappa ^2\mu ^4}{\lambda ^2}\text{with}\alpha _\kappa \frac{\kappa ^2}{4\pi },$$
(24)
which turns out to be crucial to evade the moduli problem.

## III Harmful Relics

We are now in a position to discuss the fate of inflaton and O’Raifeartaigh fields in the coupled effective potential with non-minimal Kähler potential to see if our model leads to any cosmological crisis. We first briefly review the resolutions of so-called Polonyi or moduli problem and we further discuss the non-thermal production of gravitinos.

### A  Moduli Problem

We here start with the discussion on well-known potentially dangerous problems, Polonyi problem or, in general, moduli problem. There are two aspects which we should worry about before our discussion on decay of moduli into gravitinos. One is the case when the moduli decay very late ( i.e. during or after the nucleosynthesis) which can jeopardize nucleosynthesis predictions because of ultra-relativistic decay products directly from moduli fields destroying the light elements, in particular, 4He and D nuclei. The other is when the entropy release due to its decay is so big that it can over-dilute the baryon asymmetry well below its acceptable amounts (so-called ‘entropy crisis’). Our model does not have either of these problems because the radiative correction raises its mass to as much as intermediate scale. Its decay width is indeed enhanced up to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi _1}m_{\varphi _1}^5/|F|^2\frac{\left(\mu ^2\alpha _\kappa /\lambda \right)^5}{\mu ^4}\alpha _\kappa ^5\mu `$ with $`\alpha _\kappa \kappa ^2/4\pi O(10^1)`$ and this is of order$`10^{13}M_p`$. So O’Raifeartaigh field decays around $`10^{13}M_p^1`$ in our model which is much before the nucleosynthesis starts around $`10^{40}M_p^1`$ and even well before the reheating starts due to the inflaton decay around $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma M_p^5/\mathrm{\Delta }^610^{25}M_p^1`$. We however need a great care about the possibility of decay products with long life-time, especially gravitinos. Gravitino decay rate is of order $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{m_{3/2}}m_{3/2}^3/M_p^2\mu ^6/M_p^510^{48}M_p`$ and its relativistic decay products, especially ultra-relativistic photon/photino, can destroy the light elements in nucleosynthesis (photo-dissociation process) as we just mentioned. The possible abundant gravitino production from O’Raifeartaigh fields can be caused by the energy release stored during the inflation by the shift of the minimum of SUSY breaking field potential as inflaton evolves. If this energy release is too big, it could lead to large amount of gravitinos and upset the nucleosynthesis predictions. We can see this is not the case for our model as follows . During the inflation, due to the coupling to the inflaton ($`\sigma M_p`$), O’Raifeartaigh field amplitude is around the intermediate scale of order $`\varphi _1\frac{\mu ^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}M_p`$ at the minimum of its potential. Therefore we can estimate the energy stored in this O’Raifeartaigh field when it starts oscillation ( i.e. $`t_{\varphi _1}m_{\varphi _1}^1`$) to be at most of order

$$\rho (t_{\varphi _1})m_{\varphi _1}^2\frac{\mu ^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }^4}M_p^2$$
(25)
and its number density $`n_{\varphi _1}`$ in this coherently oscillating O’Raifeartaigh field is at most

$$n_{\varphi _1}(t_{\varphi _1})m_{\varphi _1}\frac{\mu ^4}{\mathrm{\Delta }^4}M_p^2.$$
(26)
We can now estimate its number density to entropy ratio at the time of reheating for the gravitinos through the decay of $`\varphi _1`$ ( at $`t=t_r`$, say ) in an adiabatically expanding universe. Assuming, for the upper bound, $`\varphi _1`$ solely decays into gravitinos with 100$`\%`$ branching ratio and using $`s\frac{2\pi ^2}{45}g_{}T^3`$ (with $`g_{}`$ effective degree of freedom) and $`a^3t^2`$ for matter domination  due to the coherently oscillating inflaton field which dominates the energy in the universe,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{3/2}(t_r)}{s(t_r)}}{\displaystyle \frac{n_{\varphi _1}(t_{\varphi _1})\left(\frac{a(t_{\varphi _1})}{a(t_r)}\right)^3}{0.44g_{}T_{RH}^3}}`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_{\varphi _1}(t_{\varphi _1})\left(\frac{t_{\varphi _1}}{t_r}\right)^2}{0.44g_{}T_{RH}^3}}.`$ (28)
This can lead to the estimate of $`n_{3/2}/s`$ after reheating by substituting $`1.66T_{RH}^2\sqrt{g_{}}/M_pHt_r^1`$ for $`t_r`$,

$$\frac{n_{3/2}}{s}\frac{n_{\varphi _1}(t_{\varphi _1})t_{\varphi _1}^2T_{RH}(1.66)^2}{0.44M_p^2}\frac{(1.66)^2\mu ^4T_{RH}}{0.44m_{\varphi _1}\mathrm{\Delta }^4}.$$
(29)
We can now compare this value with one corresponding to the gravitinos produced by the scattering in the thermal bath in reheating era obtained in MSSM,

$$n/n_{rad}(T1\text{MeV})1.110^{11}\left(\frac{T_{RH}}{10^{10}\text{GeV}}\right).$$
(30)
Using $`s=1.8g_{}n_{rad}`$ and $`g_{}(MeV)3.36`$, we obtain

$$n/s1.810^{12}\left(\frac{T_{RH}}{10^{10}\text{GeV }}\right).$$
(31)
flow of the gauge coupling. We can now transform eqn(29) by substituting (24) to the following form,

$$n/s3.510^{14}\left(\frac{T_{RH}}{10^{10}\text{GeV}}\right).$$
(32)
This is smaller than the thermal production of gravitino (31) by two orders of magnitude. The radiative correction therefore induces intermediate mass scale for O’Raifeartaigh field and it consequently makes the O’Raifeartaigh field energy released through the decay into gravitinos after the inflation small enough to evade the abundant gravitinos. Hence our model does not suffer from moduli problem as far as the constraint from thermal gravitino production is satisfied.

We mention that non-adiabatic production of moduli fields in pre-heating era could lead to abundant gravitinos. We are, however, not concerned about the parametric resonance effects for moduli fields because scalar coupling terms in Lagrangian in our model are trilinear in hidden sector fields, and those couplings to inflaton field have always Planck mass suppression .

The exception where this Planck mass suppression does not occur and preheating effects could be important is the coupling involving longitudinal components of gravitino, which is the subject in the following section.

### B Non-thermal Production of Gravitino

It has been argued recently that parametric resonance mechanism in preheating era for the creation of gravitino can be much more efficient than the thermal one . In this nonperturbative mechanism, the gravitinos can be created non-adiabatically through the amplification of vacuum fluctuation via rapid energy transfer from coherently oscillating inflaton field which still dominates the energy density in the universe just after inflation and before the reheating era.

In analyzing the gravitino field equations in the following, we see that the equations for transverse and longitudinal components of gravitino decouple. While transverse component equation has a Planck mass suppressed coupling and thus gravitationally suppressed particle creation, longitudinal component equation is free from Planck mass suppression and it could lead to the abundant gravitino production well above the constraint from thermal production of gravitino. Indeed, gravitino-goldstino equivalence theorem states that the equation for gravitino longitudinal component can be reduced to the equation of goldstino in global supersymmetry in the limit of weak gravitational coupling. This warns us that gravitino longitudinal components could lead to its efficient copious production without Planck mass suppression. Our model however has a Planck scale amplitude for inflaton field after inflation, and it is not obvious if this naive intuitive picture analogous to the goldstinos in global SUSY applies here. Therefore we apply here the formalism developed in  to calculate the number density of gravitinos created through the nonthermal process.

We first need to describe the evolution of scalar fields and fermion fields and their interactions. It is convenient to work with, among other possible choices, the following rescaled quantities in our numerical analysis,

$`\widehat{\varphi }_1{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1}{M_p}},\widehat{\varphi }_2{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2}{M_p}},\widehat{\varphi }_3{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _3}{\mathrm{\Delta }}},\widehat{\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{M_p}},\widehat{\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }}},`$ (34)
$`\widehat{\lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }}},\widehat{t}t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{M_P}},\widehat{H}H{\displaystyle \frac{M_p}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}},\widehat{V}{\displaystyle \frac{V}{\mathrm{\Delta }^4}},`$
where $`H`$ is Hubble constant, $`V`$ is a scalar potential from eqn (3) with non-minimal Kähler potential obtained in (23),

$`K=\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_2\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_3\mathrm{\Phi }_3^{}`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{32\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1^2}{\lambda ^2}}\right).`$ (36)
In terms of these rescaled quantities, the equations of motion for coherently oscillating scalar fields $`\varphi `$($`=\sigma ,\varphi _i`$) read

$$\frac{d^2\widehat{\varphi }}{d\widehat{t}^2}+3\widehat{H}\frac{d\widehat{\varphi }}{d\widehat{t}}+\frac{d\widehat{V}}{d\widehat{\varphi }}=0.$$
(37)
We omit $`\widehat{}`$ in the following discussion as long as it is clear from the contexts. We can concentrate on the field equations for $`\sigma `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ because the other fields in supersymmetry breaking sector quickly roll down to the origin during the inflaton and stay there Once these fields roll down to the origin, they stay at the origin to any higher order because of R-symmetry.. So we can let the amplitudes of $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ vanish after obtaining the equation of motion for $`\sigma `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ to see the field evolutions after the inflation.

The Fermion equation follows from the supergravity Lagrangian

$`e^1L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_p^2RK_i{}_{}{}^{j}\left(_\mu \varphi ^i\right)\left(^\mu \varphi _j\right)V`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_p^2\overline{\psi }_\mu R^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m\overline{\psi }_{\mu R}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _{\nu R}`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^{}\overline{\psi }_{\mu L}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }\psi _{\nu L}K_i{}_{}{}^{j}[\overline{\chi }_j\overline{)}D\overline{\chi }^i+\overline{\chi }^i\overline{)}D\overline{\chi }_j]`$ (40)
$`m^{ij}\overline{\chi }_i\chi _jm_{ij}\overline{\chi }^i\chi ^j`$ (41)
$`+\left(2K_j{}_{}{}^{i}\overline{\psi }_{\mu R}^{}\gamma ^{\nu \mu }\chi ^j_\nu \varphi _i+\overline{\psi }_R\gamma \upsilon _L+\text{h.c.}\right)`$ (42)
$`+\text{( four fermion and gauge interaction terms )}.`$ (43)
This Lagrangian includes chiral complex multiplets $`(\varphi _i,\chi _i)`$ and the Ricci scalar $`R`$. Subscript $`L`$ and $`R`$ denote its projection through operators $`P_L(1+\gamma _5)/2,P_R(1\gamma _5)/2`$. Gravitino kinetic term shows up in the form of

$$R^\mu =e^1ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\gamma _5\gamma _\nu D_\rho \psi _\sigma ,$$
(44)
with covariant derivative

$$D_\mu \psi _\nu =\left(\left(_\mu +\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{mn}\gamma _{mn}\right)\delta _\nu ^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu }^\lambda \right)\psi _\lambda .$$
(45)
The kinetic term for chiral fermion is

$`D_\mu \chi _i\left(_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _\mu ^{mn}\gamma _{mn}\right)\chi _i`$ (47)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4M_p^2}}\left[_jK_\mu \varphi ^j^jK_\mu \varphi _j\right]\chi _i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{jk}\chi _j_\mu \varphi _k`$
with Kähler connection $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{jk}K_{}^{1}{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{l}_{}^{j}K_l^k`$ and $`\gamma _{mn}[\gamma _m,\gamma _n]/2`$ . Its mass term reads

$$m^{ij}D^iD^jm=\left(^i+\frac{1}{2M_p^2}(^iK)\right)m^j\mathrm{\Gamma }_k^{ij}m^k.$$
(48)
The combination of matter fields gives left-handed component of goldstino

$$\upsilon _Lm^i\chi _i+(\overline{)}\varphi _i)\chi ^jK_j{}_{}{}^{i}.$$
(49)
The supersymmetry transformation of goldstino

$$\delta \upsilon =\frac{3M_p^2}{2}(m_{3/2}^2+H^2)ϵ,m_{3/2}\frac{|m|}{M_p^2}$$
(50)
indicates that gravitino mass and Hubble parameter signal supersymmetry breaking. We can obtain the gravitino equation from this Lagrangian,

$$\overline{)}D\psi _\mu +m\psi _\mu =\left(D_\mu \frac{m}{2}\gamma _\mu \right)\gamma ^\nu \psi _\nu .$$
(51)
In solving this gravitino equation of motion, we gauge away the goldstino( unitary gauge ) and use plane-wave ansatz for the spatial dependence of $`\psi _\mu e^{ikx}`$. Moreover it is convenient to decompose the space component of gravitino field into the transverse part $`\psi _i^T`$ and trace parts $`\theta \gamma ^i\psi _i`$ and $`k_i\psi _i`$ as

$$\psi _i=\psi _i^T+\left(P_\gamma \right)_i\theta +\left(P_k\right)_ik_i\psi _i,$$
(52)
where

$`\left(P_\gamma \right)_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\gamma ^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{}{k}^2}}k_i\left(k_j\gamma ^j\right)\right),`$ (53)
$`\left(P_k\right)_i`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\stackrel{}{k}^2}}\left(3k_i\gamma _i\left(k_j\gamma ^j\right)\right).`$ (54)
This leads to the the following succinct form of dynamical field equations which describe the degree of freedom corresponding to transverse and longitudinal components,

$`[\gamma ^0_0+i\gamma ^ik_i+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}\gamma ^0}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a\underset{¯}{m}}{M_p^2}}]\psi _i{}_{}{}^{T}=0,`$ (55)
$`\left(_0+\widehat{B}+i\gamma ^ik_i\gamma ^0\widehat{A}\right)\theta {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\alpha a}}k^2\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=0,`$ (56)
where

$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=K_j{}_{}{}^{i}(\chi _i_0\varphi ^j+\chi ^j_0\varphi _i)`$ (57)
$`\underset{¯}{m}=P_Rm+P_Lm^{},|m|^2=\underset{¯}{m}^{}\underset{¯}{m}`$ (58)
$`\widehat{A}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\left(\alpha _1\gamma ^0\alpha _2\right)`$ (59)
$`\widehat{B}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\dot{a}\widehat{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M_p^2}}a\underset{¯}{m}\gamma ^0\left(1+3\widehat{A}\right)`$ (60)
$`\alpha =3M_p^2\left(H^2+{\displaystyle \frac{|m|^2}{M_p^4}}\right)`$ (61)
$`\alpha _1=M_p^2\left(3H^2+2\dot{H}\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{M_p^2}}|m|^2,\alpha _2=2\dot{\underset{¯}{m}^{}}.`$ (62)
We can easily see, reducing the equation into this form, eqn(55) describing the transverse component of gravitino $`\psi _i^T`$ is decoupled from the longitudinal gravitino component, and its coupling to the other fields are Planck mass suppressed. So we hereafter pay our attention to the equation which describes the longitudinal component of gravitino, eqn(56). The form of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in (62) tells us that, in the absence of Kähler terms which mix the various left chiral superfields, we need only worry about the fermionic partners of dynamical scalar fields. Furthermore, for our superpotential, there is no mixing between the fermion associated with $`\varphi _1`$ and those of $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$, as long as $`\varphi _2=\varphi _3=0`$ which is true because they stay at the origin due to R-symmetry once they roll down to the origin during the inflation. Thus, even though the effective masses of the fermions corresponding to $`\varphi _2`$ and $`\varphi _3`$ are changing, those fermions do not contribute to the goldstino and we can concentrate on the evolution of the other fields for the purpose of our calculation.

Based on the form of equation of motion involving two chiral superfields, we can infer the terms in the Lagrangian which describe the interactions of the two fields of our interests, namely, $`\theta `$ ( longitudinal component of gravitino) and $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ ( combination of chiral fermions orthogonal to goldstino $`\upsilon `$). Those interaction terms lead to the equation of motion in the following matrix form,

$$\left(\gamma ^0_0+i\gamma ^ik_iN+M\right)X=0,$$
(63)
with vector $`X\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\theta }}{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}}\right)`$ consisting of canonically normalized fields

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2i\gamma ^ik_i}{\left(\alpha a^3\right)^{1/2}}}\stackrel{~}{\theta },`$ (64)
$`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{a}}\right)^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}},`$ (65)
and diagonal mass matrix $`M`$ is given by

$`M=\text{diag}({\displaystyle \frac{ma}{2M_p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{ma}{M_p^2}}\alpha _1+\dot{a}\alpha _2),`$ (66)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{2M_p^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{ma}{M_p^2}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha _1}+\dot{a}\stackrel{~}{\alpha _2}+a(m_{11}+m_{22}))`$ (67)
and matrix $`N`$

$$N\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\alpha _1}& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{\alpha _1}\end{array}\right)+\gamma ^0\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\alpha _2}& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }& \stackrel{~}{\alpha _2}\end{array}\right)$$
(68)
for $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_i\alpha _i/\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\sqrt{1\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$. The existence of off-diagonal terms warns us the non-trivial mixing of fermion eigenstates.

Once we can reduce the Lagrangian into this form of matrix expression, we can obtain the evolution equations for the mode functions ( the function multiplying the creation/annihilation operator) $`U_r^{ij}`$ and $`V_r^{ij}`$ ( i,j runs over 1 and 2 for two field case and $`r`$ for helicity $`\pm `$) and calculate the occupation number of gravitino created from vacuum through these mode functions. In general, one is interested in the physical mass eigenstates ($`\psi _1,\psi _2`$) which are non-trivial combinations ( with matrix coefficients) of gravitino $`\theta `$ and matter chiral fermions $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. So, strictly speaking, one would need to diagonalize the Hamiltonian at each moment of field evolution to keep track of the mass eigenstates and their abundance. This diagonalization process is rather involved§§§ We refer the readers to  for the general discussion.. Here we use a further simplification for our numerical analysis because we are only interested in the asymptotic value of these abundances. Indeed, since the mixing is small at such late times, we can simply follow the fields of interest ($`\theta ,\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$). That is, at late times, these fields are approximate mass eigenstates and, therefore, their occupation numbers correspond to those of ($`\psi _1,\psi _2`$). The validity of this approximation will be confirmed if we find that our occupation numbers cease to evolve at the time scales of interest.

With this simplification, we may represent the mode decomposition in the following familiar form,

$`X^i\left(x\right)=`$ (70)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^3𝐤}{\left(2\pi \right)^{3/2}}e^{i𝐤𝐱}\left[U_r^{ij}(k,\eta )a_j^r\left(k\right)+V_r^{ij}(k,\eta )b_j^r\left(k\right)\right]}.`$
We then define the spinor matrix $`U_{}`$ and $`U_+`$

$$U_r^{ij}[\frac{U_+^{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}\psi _r,\frac{U_{}^{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}\psi _r]^T,V_r^{ij}[\frac{V_+^{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}\psi _r,\frac{V_{}^{ij}}{\sqrt{2}}\psi _r]^T$$
(72)
with eigenvectors of the helicity operator $`\sigma 𝐯/|𝐯|`$, $`\psi _+=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\psi _{}=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$. Using these spinor matrices, the field equation of motion (63) has a following simple form in terms of the matrices $`U_+`$ and $`U_{}`$,

$$a(t)\dot{U_\pm }=ikU_{}iMU_\pm .$$
(73)
We can then expand $`U_\pm `$ in terms of positive and negative frequency solutions,

$`U_+(t)\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{i^t\omega 𝑑t^{}}A`$ (74)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{i^t\omega 𝑑t^{}}B`$ (75)
$`\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\alpha \left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\beta ,`$ (76)
$`U_{}(t)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{i^t\omega 𝑑t^{}}A`$ (77)
$`+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{i^t\omega 𝑑t^{}}B`$ (78)
$`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\alpha +\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\omega }}\right)^{1/2}\beta ,`$ (79)
where diagonal matrix $`\omega \sqrt{k^2+M^2}`$. $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are precisely the generalization of Bogolubov coefficients. Indeed, in the same way as Bogolubov coefficients, we can calculate the occupation number of ith fermion eigenstates from $`\beta `$ as

$$N_i\left(t\right)=\left(\beta ^{}\beta ^T\right)_{ii}\text{ ( no summation for }i\text{ )}.$$
(80)
We also keep in our mind that, because of nontrivial mixing of fermion mass eigenstates for the case of coupled field system, we need an extra care about the identification of inflatinos and gravitinos.

We solved the coupled mode equations (73) numerically to obtain the occupation numbers for $`N_\theta `$ and $`N_\upsilon `$. These are plotted in Figure (1) as a function of comoving momentum at time 1000 in units of inflaton mass $`m_\sigma \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{M_p}`$ which gives a typical time scale for inflaton oscillations. We have used the typical parameter values $`\widehat{\mu }=0.0001,\widehat{\lambda }=0.001`$ with an initial inflaton amplitude $`0.2M_p`$. The O’Raifeartaigh field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ has an initial amplitude $`\widehat{\mu }^2M_p`$ and we normalized $`a(t)`$ to be one at the start of our calculation.

$`N_\theta `$ in our plot corresponds to the field abundance whose mass converges asymptotically to gravitino mass $`|m|/M_p^2`$ which shows up in the first element of the mass matrix $`M`$ in eqn(67), and it gives an estimate of gravitino abundances produced in preheating era. We point out that, in the presence of time dependent background as usually the case in dealing with cosmological problems, kinetic term of scalar fields can cause the supersymmetry breaking as we can easily see from the supersymmetry transformation of chiral fermion, $`f_\chi `$( superpartner of scalar $`\chi `$, say),

$$\delta f_\chi =\frac{1}{2}P_L\left[m_\chi \frac{\gamma ^0}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{d\chi }{dt}\right]ϵ,$$
(81)
where $`m_\chi `$ is defined in eqn(5). Therefore we should be aware that the values for $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ at intermediate time ( i.e. the time when $`\sigma `$ and $`\varphi _1`$ are still far from its settlement in the vacuum) does not represent either of the inflatino or gravitino abundance because there exist non-negligible contributions of supersymmetry breaking from both inflaton and hidden sectors.

The time when this SUSY breaking contribution of $`\dot{\sigma }`$ and $`m_\sigma `$ becomes comparable with that of supersymmetry breaking sector is beyond the range of our numerical integration. We checked, however, that in such a small parameter range with so small initial amplitude for $`\varphi _1`$ as in our model, $`N_1`$ and $`N_2`$ converge to asymptotic values and do not change anymore at relatively early stage even when $`\sigma `$ still keeps its oscillation. This verifies that Fig.1 should represent a good asymptotic behavior for gravitino abundance. Especially, the cut-off scale $`(km_\sigma )`$ of the comoving momentum for the number density does not change anymore. This reflects the fact that the oscillation scale of high momentum mode $`(km_\sigma )`$ is much larger than that of the background field $`(m_{3/2})`$, so high momentum modes behave adiabatically and do not result in the non-adiabatic amplification anymore in pre-heating era.

We further comment on the subtle problems in identification of gravitinos and inflatinos in terms of mass eigenstates. Whatever field which dominates the local supersymmetry breaking is considered to be longitudinal components of gravitinos via super Higgs mechanism. The non-thermal production of fermionic fields is efficient just after inflation when the kinetic term of inflaton field governs the supersymmetry breaking in our model. This is nothing but the non-adiabatic field amplifications of longitudinal components of gravitinos which ’eats’ the fermionic partner of inflaton field, i.e. inflatino. Hence when the fermion preheating is robust just after inflation, it is to-be inflatino, not to-be gravitino of our interests, that is amplified via parametric resonance effects as longitudinal components of gravitinos free from Planck suppression.

We also should mention that, because of the couplings, hidden sector may not be the sole cause for supersymmetry breaking even in the vacuum, and in fact, there could be still supersymmetry breaking from inflaton sector in the vacuum at a later time. It, however, can be shown that in the vacuum the supersymmetry contribution from inflaton sector is at most of order $`|F|^4`$ compared with $`|F|^2(\mu ^4)`$ due to hidden sector , and we still observe the dominant contribution of local supersymmetry breaking from the O’Raifeartaigh field at a later time. We thus expect our plot of $`N_\theta `$ still represents a fairly good overall behavior of gravitino abundance in asymptotic regime.

For the comparison with the gravitino number density constraints from photo-dissociation process in nucleosynthesis for the case of thermal production of gravitinos in thermal bath (31), we need to integrate $`N_\theta (k)`$ over the comoving momentum space. As usually the case with the preheating of fermions, our plot also indicates that occupation number as a function of comoving momentum k can be as large as of order unity at most up to the order of inflaton mass scale, $`k_{cutoff}m_\sigma `$ and decreases exponentially for bigger k. So the number density for longitudinal components,

$$n_{3/2}=\frac{1}{\pi ^2}\frac{1}{a^3}_0^{k_{max}}|\beta _k|^2k^2𝑑k$$
(82)
during the preheating is at most

$$n_{3/2}(t_{pre})k_{cutoff}^3m_\sigma ^3\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^6}{M_p^3}10^{25}M_p{}_{}{}^{3}.$$
(83)
We can now estimate the upper bound of the ratio of gravitino number density $`n_{3/2}`$ to entropy density in analogy with ( 29 ).

$$\frac{n_{3/2}(t_r)}{s(t_r)}\frac{n_{3/2}(t_{pre})\left(\frac{a(t_{pre})}{a(t_r)}\right)^3}{0.44g_{}T_{RH}^3}\frac{n_{3/2}(t_{pre})\left(\frac{t_{pre}}{t_r}\right)^2}{0.44g_{}T_{RH}^3},$$
(84)
and substitution of $`1.66T_{RH}^2\sqrt{g_{}}/M_pHt_r^1`$ for $`t_r`$ gives us the estimate of $`n_{3/2}/s`$ after reheating,

$$\frac{n_{3/2}}{s}\frac{n_{3/2}(t_{pre})t_{pre}^2T_{RH}(1.66)^2}{0.44M_p^2}.$$
(85)
We expect this efficient gravitino production occurs well within the time range of typical oscillation of supersymmetry breaking field and we can substitute $`t_{pre}1/m_{\varphi _1}(\alpha _\kappa \mu )^110^9M_p^1`$ and eqn (83) in above equation to obtain the upper bound,

$$\frac{n_{3/2}}{s}6.310^{15}\left(\frac{T_{RH}}{10^{10}\text{GeV}}\right).$$
(86)
This upper bound of $`n/s`$ for the gravitinos from nonthermal production in our model is thus smaller than eqn(31) of thermal scattering by at least two orders of magnitude.

We therefore find that our model does not lead to the overproduction of gravitinos due to nonthermal process in preheating period, and reheating temperature constraint due to this effect is less severe than that of gravitinos produced by the scattering in thermal bath during the reheating period. We also point out that the expression given by eqn(85) was derived in a general setting and it can be used to obtain, in combination with eqn(31), the estimate for the relative significance of the gravitino production in thermal and non-thermal processes once the model of supergravity inflation is given.

## IV Conclusion and Discussion

We showed in this letter a realistic supergravity inflation model which breaks local supersymmetry in the vacuum dominantly via $`F`$-term coming from O’Raifeartaigh field in the hidden sector. We emphasized the significance of radiative correction in supersymmetry breaking sector to evade the moduli problem, and subsequently obtained the non-minimal Kähler potential arising from this loop correction. Using this non-minimal form of Kähler potential, we analyzed the possible non-thermal production of gravitinos in preheating era. The emphasis in our analysis was on the longitudinal components of gravitinos which do not suffer from Planck suppression and hence potentially could lead to robust amplification via parametric resonance effects. We showed that the comoving number density of fermionic mass eigenstate converges to its asymptotic value at an early stage of preheating era which is well before the time when the supersymmetry contribution comes from hidden sector fields. Physically, this indicates that the large comoving modes ($`km_\sigma `$) is much larger than the typical coherent oscillation of background fields at later times ($`km_{3/2}`$ ). Hence comoving number density for big modes behave adiabatically and we do not expect the parametric amplifications at later times. We also discussed the subtle problems in identification of gravitinos and inflatinos due to the non-trivial mixing of fermionic mass eigenstates. To-be inflatinos are longitudinal components of gravitinos just after inflation, and its role is replaced by fermionic partner of O’Raifeartaigh fields at later times.

We estimated the upper bound of number density of non-thermally produced gravitinos by integrating out its comoving occupation number over momentum space. Because of the small mass scale of inflaton field, the typical momentum scale of produced gravitinos and consequently the momentum space over which occupation number is integrated out turns out to be small as well. This leads to the relatively small number density of gravitinos and we showed that it gives less significant constraint than that of gravitinos which are produced by thermal scattering.

We point out that the cases involving three and more superchiral fields are rather involved. We can basically follow the formalism discussed in section III B, but we need additional care in interpreting the fermion fields as a superposition of mass eigenstates because we cannot completely gauge away one of fermion fields via unitary gauge as we can do in the two field case . The case including the gauge interaction terms and the model of other supersymmetry breaking mechanism besides hidden sector supersymmetry breaking are also to be examined.

###### Acknowledgements.

We wish to thank L. Kofman for helpful comments and insights and S. Sarkar for providing us with useful references. We also thank J. Cohn, M. Peloso and A. Pierce for fruitful discussions. H.M. was supported by NSF under grant PHY-0098840 and DOE contract DE-AC03-76SF00098. PBG was supported by the DOE and the NASA grant NAG 5-10842 at Fermilab.


text:
# On Twisted Subgroups and Bol Loops of Odd Order

## 1. Introduction

A *magma* $`(,)`$ consists of a set $``$ together with a binary operation $``$ on $``$. For $`x`$, define the left (resp., right) translation by $`x`$ by $`L(x)y=xy`$ (resp., $`R(x)y=yx`$) for all $`y`$. A magma with a two-sided neutral element $`1`$ such that all left translations bijective is called a *left loop*. A left loop in which all right translations are bijective is called a *loop*. For basic facts about loops, we refer the reader to . A loop satisfying the left Bol identity

$$(x(yx))z=x(y(xz))$$

or equivalently

$$L(x(yx))=L(x)L(y)L(x)$$

for all $`x,y,z`$, is called a *left Bol loop*. A loop satisfying the mirror identity $`((xy)z)y=x((yz)y)`$ for all $`x,y,z`$ is called a *right Bol loop*, and a loop which is both left and right Bol is a *Moufang loop*. For the balance of this paper, the term “Bol loop” will refer to left Bol loop; all statements about left Bol loops dualize trivially to right Bol loops. For basic facts about Bol loops, we refer the reader to  and IV.6 in . (In both cases translating from right Bol to left Bol). A Bruck loop is a Bol loop with the automorphic inverse property, i.e., $`x^1y^1=(xy)^1`$. (These are also known as K-loops  and gyrocommutative gyrogroups .) A loop is said to be *uniquely* $`2`$-*divisible* if the squaring map $`xxx`$ is a bijection; we will abuse terminology a bit and drop the “uniquely”. A $`2`$-divisible Bruck loop is called a B-loop . (Glauberman’s original definition was restricted to the finite case.)

In the fundamental papers , Glauberman studied finite B-loops and finite Moufang loops of odd order. In , he proved Hall, Sylow, Cauchy and Lagrange theorems for finite B-loops. In , he used the B-loop results to establish similar results for Moufang loops. He also proved Feit-Thompson theorems for both finite B-loops and finite Moufang loops of odd order. This naturally raises the question as to how far these results extend to the general case of finite Bol loops of odd order. In this paper, we begin examining this question. We make use of the notion of a *twisted subgroup* of a group, adopting the terminology of Aschbacher . This same idea can be found in Glauberman’s papers , and we use his results to establish Cauchy and strong Lagrange theorems for Bol loops of odd order. We also start an attack on a Feit-Thompson theorem for Bol loops of odd order. We were not able to prove a complete Feit-Thompson result, but we present some conditions that a simple Bol loop of odd order must satisfy which we think will be crucial in a proof, if there is indeed such a theorem. We also observe that certain varieties of Bol loops of odd order, such as those in which every left inner mapping is an automorphism, are necessarily solvable.

In the next section, we present a few preliminaries from loop theory. This can be safely skipped by those who are more interested in groups than in loops. Such readers will find §3 and §4 to their taste. A minimal amount of loop theory is present in §4, so as not to abandon completely the spirit of , although it is possible in principle to avoid loops completely. In §5 and §6, we apply the results of §3 and §4, respectively, to Bol loops of odd order.

Throughout this paper, we state several open problems in the hope of stimulating research into Bol loops of odd order. In the Feit-Thompson direction, the existence of *any* finite simple (non-Moufang) Bol loop is widely considered to be the most important open problem in loop theory , and we think that focusing on Bol loops of odd order is a reasonable place to start.

## 2. Preliminaries

In this section, we review a few necessary notions from loop theory, and establish some notation conventions. Binary operations in left loops will be explicitly denoted, while group operations in groups will be denoted by juxtaposition. Permutations, such as left and right translations, will act on the left of their arguments.

For a set $`S`$, we let $`S!`$ denote the group of all permutations of $`S`$. The *multiplication group*, $`\mathrm{Mlt}()`$, of a loop $``$ is the subgroup of $`!`$ generated by all right and left translations. The *left multiplication group*, $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, of a left loop $``$ is the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Mlt}()`$ generated by left translations. The subgroup $`\mathrm{LMlt}_1()=\{\varphi \mathrm{LMlt}():\varphi 1=1\}`$ is called the *left inner mapping group* of $``$. This subgroup has trivial core (recall that the core $`\mathrm{ker}_H(G)=_{gG}gHg^1`$ of a subgroup $`H`$ in a group $`G`$ is the largest normal subgroup of $`G`$ contained in $`H`$). The set $`L()=\{L(x):x\}`$ of left translations is a left transversal (complete set of coset representatives) to each conjugate of $`\mathrm{LMlt}_1()`$ in $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$.

These observations lead us to the following construction (; see also ). Let $`G`$ be a group, $`HG`$, and $`TG`$ a left transversal of $`H`$. There is a natural $`G`$-action on $`T`$, which we denote by $``$, defined by the equation $`(gx)H=gxH`$, that is, $`gx`$ is the unique representative in $`T`$ of the coset $`gxH`$. This action restricted to $`T`$ itself endows $`T`$ with a binary operation. If $`1T`$, then $`(T,)`$ turns out to be a left loop, which we call the induced left loop. If $`T`$ is also a left transversal of each conjugate $`gHg^1`$, $`gG`$, then $`(T,)`$ is a loop. All of the induced left loops we discuss in this paper turn out to be loops.

###### Proposition 2.1.

 Let $`G`$ be a group with subgroup $`HG`$ and a left transversal $`TG`$ of $`H`$ such that $`T=G`$. The permutation representation $`GT!`$ defined by $`(gx)H=gxH`$ ($`gG`$, $`xT`$) gives an epimorphism from $`G`$ onto $`\mathrm{LMlt}(T,)`$. The sequence $`1\mathrm{ker}_H(G)G\mathrm{LMlt}(T,)1`$ is exact.

If $``$ is a Bol loop, then $``$ is *power-associative*, that is, if $`x^0:=1`$, $`x^{n+1}:=xx^n`$, $`x^{n1}:=x^1x^n`$, $`n0`$, then $`x^mx^n=x^{m+n}`$ for all $`x`$ and all integers $`m,n`$. Moreover, $``$ is *left power-alternative*, which means that $`L(x^n)=L(x)^n`$ for all $`x`$ and all integers $`n`$. Taking $`n=1`$ and $`n=2`$, we obtain, respectively, the *left inverse property* (LIP) $`L(x)^1=L(x^1)`$ and the *left alternative property* (LAP) $`L(x)^2=L(x^2)`$.

The *left nucleus*, *middle nucleus*, *right nucleus*, and *nucleus* of a loop $``$ are defined, respectively, by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{Nuc}_l()& :=& \{x:x(yz)=(xy)zy,z\}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Nuc}_m()& :=& \{y:x(yz)=(xy)zx,z\}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Nuc}_r()& :=& \{z:x(yz)=(xy)zx,y\}\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{Nuc}()& :=& \mathrm{Nuc}_l()\mathrm{Nuc}_m()\mathrm{Nuc}_r()\hfill \end{array}$$

Each of these is an associative subloop of $``$.

###### Lemma 2.2.

If $``$ is a left loop, then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill L(\mathrm{Nuc}_l())& =& _xL()L(x)^1\hfill \\ \hfill L(\mathrm{Nuc}_m()& =& _xL(x)^1L().\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

If $`g_xL()L(x)^1`$, then $`g=L(a)`$ for some $`a`$, and for each $`x`$, there exists $`y`$ such that $`L(y)=L(a)L(x)`$. Applying both sides to $`1`$ gives $`y=ax`$, and thus $`L(a)L(x)=L(ax)`$ for all $`x`$, i.e., $`a\mathrm{Nuc}_l()`$. Reversing the argument yields the other inclusion, and the argument for $`\mathrm{Nuc}_m()`$ is similar. ∎

Given a loop $``$, a subloop $`𝒦`$ is said to be *normal* if, for all $`x,y`$, $`x(y𝒦)=(xy)𝒦`$, $`x𝒦=𝒦x`$, and $`(𝒦x)y=𝒦(xy)`$ (, p. 60, IV.1). These three conditions are clearly equivalent to the pair

(2.1)
$$x(𝒦y)=𝒦(xy)\text{and}x(𝒦y)=(x𝒦)y$$

for all $`x,y𝒦`$.

## 3. Twisted Subgroups

Although the notion of a twisted subgroup of a group has been around for some time (see Remark 5.19), we follow here the terminology of Aschbacher , who proved one of the main structural results about twisted subgroups (our Proposition 3.9 below). Our definition is a trivial modification of his.

For a subset $`T`$ of a group $`G`$, we use the notation $`T^1:=\{x^1:xT\}`$ and $`xTx:=\{xyx:yT\}`$ for $`xT`$.

###### Definition 3.1.

 A subset $`T`$ of a group $`G`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`G`$ if

(i) $`1T`$,

(ii) $`T^1=T`$, and

(iii) $`xTxT`$ for all $`xT`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

One can replace (ii) and (iii) with the equivalent assertion(ii) $`xy^1xT`$ for all $`x,yT`$.

A twisted subgroup $`T`$ of a group $`G`$ is said to be *uniquely* $`2`$-*divisible* if each $`xT`$ has a unique square root in $`T`$, that is, a unique element $`x^{1/2}T`$ such that $`(x^{1/2})^2=x`$. As we do with loops, we will abuse terminology slightly and drop the adverb “uniquely”.

An easy induction argument shows the following

###### Proposition 3.3.

(, Lem. 1.2(1)) Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`TG`$ be a twisted subgroup. Then for each $`xT`$, $`xT`$.

###### Remark 3.4.

In some cases, portions of Definition 3.1 are redundant.

1. For finite groups, the proof of Proposition 3.3 shows that a subset satisfying (i) and (iii) necessarily satisfies (ii) (, Lemma 1.2(1)).
2. If $`TG`$ is a left transversal of a subgroup $`HG`$ such that (iii) holds, then (ii) holds. Indeed, for $`xT`$, let $`x^{}T`$ denote the representative of $`x^1H`$. Then $`x^{}xx^{}T`$ and $`x^{}xx^{}H=x^{}H`$, which implies $`x^{}xx^{}=x^{}`$. Thus $`x^{}=x^1`$. In this case, the induced left loop $`(T,)`$ is a Bol loop; see Proposition 5.2.
3. Glauberman showed that in the finite $`2`$-divisible case, both (i) and (ii) are redundant (, Lemma 3; , Remark 7). More precisely, he showed that if $`T`$ is a subset of a group $`G`$ satisfying (iii) and such that every element of $`T`$ has finite odd order, then (i) and (ii) hold, and every element of $`T`$ has a unique square root.

Of course, any subgroup is a twisted subgroup, but the notion of twisted subgroup is modeled on the following example which is not a subgroup.

###### Example 3.5.

Let $`G`$ be a group, and fix $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$. Define

$$K(\tau ):=\{gG:g^\tau =g^1\}.$$

Then $`K(\tau )`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`G`$. If $`\tau ^2=1`$, define

$$B(\tau ):=\{gg^\tau :gG\}$$

Then $`B(\tau )`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`G`$ and $`B(\tau )K(\tau )`$.

###### Example 3.6.

Let $`T`$ be a twisted subgroup of a group $`G`$. For $`xT`$, define $`\theta _xT!`$ by $`\theta _xy=xyx`$ for all $`yT`$. Then $`\theta _1=1_{T!}`$, $`\theta _{x^1}=\theta _x^1`$, and $`\theta _x\theta _y\theta _x=\theta _{xyx}`$ for all $`x,yT`$. Thus $`\widehat{T}=\{\theta _x:xT\}`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`T!`$. For later reference, we will denote by $`\widehat{G}`$ the subgroup of $`T!`$ generated by $`\widehat{T}`$.

The *associates* of a twisted subgroup $`T`$ of a group $`G`$ are the translates $`aT=Ta^1`$, $`aT`$.

###### Proposition 3.7.

(, Lemma 1.5(1)) Every associate of a twisted subgroup is a twisted subgroup.

Most interesting results about twisted subgroups are predicated upon the assumption that a twisted subgroup $`T`$ generates its group $`G`$. In this case we will just say that $`T`$ is a generating twisted subgroup of $`G`$. Contained in such $`T`$ are important normal subgroups of $`G`$. First we consider the intersection of all associates.

###### Theorem 3.8.

Let $`G`$ be a group with generating twisted subgroup $`T`$, and let

$$T^\mathrm{\#}=\underset{xT}{}xT.$$

Then $`T^\mathrm{\#}T`$, $`T^\mathrm{\#}=_{xT}Tx`$, and $`T^\mathrm{\#}G`$.

###### Proof.

$`T^\mathrm{\#}T`$ is clear since $`1T`$, while $`T^\mathrm{\#}=_{xT}Tx`$ follows from $`xT=Tx^1`$ for $`xT`$. Now fix $`a,bT^\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`xT`$. There exists $`u,vT`$ such that $`a=xuxT`$ and $`b=u^1vu^1T`$ (using $`T^1=T`$). Hence $`ab=xvxT`$, and since $`xT`$ is arbitrary, $`abT^\mathrm{\#}`$. Thus $`T^\mathrm{\#}`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$. For each $`yT`$,

$$yT^\mathrm{\#}y^1=\underset{xT}{}yxTy^1=\underset{xT}{}(yxy)T=\underset{xT}{}\theta _yxT=T^\mathrm{\#}.$$

Since $`T`$ generates $`G`$, $`T^\mathrm{\#}`$ is normal in $`G`$. ∎

A more important normal subgroup sitting inside a twisted subgroup was introduced by Aschbacher (, p. 117). Our motivating discussion is a simplified version of his. Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`TG`$ be a generating twisted subgroup $`G`$. Consider the group $`G_0=(x,x^1):xT<G\times G`$ generated by the graph $`\{(x,x^1):xT\}`$ of the inversion mapping $`xx^1`$ on $`T`$. Let $`\pi _i:G\times GG`$ denote the projection onto the $`i`$th factor. As a subgroup of $`G\times G`$, $`G_0`$ is invariant under the action of the swapping automorphism $`(x,y)(y,x)`$. This automorphism restricts to an isomorphism of the kernels $`\mathrm{Ker}(\pi _i|_{G_0})`$. Each kernel is obviously isomorphic to the following subgroup of $`G`$:

$`(1)`$
$$T^{}=\{x_1\mathrm{}x_n:x_1^1\mathrm{}x_n^1=1,x_iT\}.$$

We have $`T^{}=\pi _1(\mathrm{Ker}(\pi _2|_{G_0}))\pi _1(G_0)=G`$, since $`T`$ generates $`G`$. From the preceding discussion, we see that $`G_0`$ is the graph of an automorphism $`\tau `$ of $`G`$ if and only if $`T^{}=1`$. In other words, $`T`$ is a subset of some $`K(\tau )`$ if and only if $`T^{}=1`$. This proves almost all of the following result.

###### Proposition 3.9.

(, Theorem 2.2) Let $`G`$ be a group with generating twisted subgroup $`T`$. There exists $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ with $`\tau ^2=1`$ such that $`TK(\tau )`$ if and only if $`T^{}=1`$. In this case the automorphism $`\tau `$ uniquely determined.

###### Proof.

All that remains is the uniqueness and the order. If $`TK(\sigma )`$ for some $`\sigma \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$, then $`\tau \sigma ^1`$ centralizes $`T`$, but then $`\sigma =\tau `$ since $`T`$ generates $`G`$. Since $`TK(\sigma )`$ implies $`TK(\sigma ^1)`$, it follows that $`\tau ^2=1`$. ∎

For a twisted subgroup $`T`$ (whether it generates $`G`$ or not), we define its (Aschbacher) radical to be the normal subgroup $`T^{}`$ given by (1) (, p.117). If $`T^{}=1`$, then we say that $`T`$ is radical-free.

If $`T`$ is radical-free and generates $`G`$, we will refer to the uniquely determined $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ of order $`2`$ such that $`TK(\tau )`$ as being the corresponding Aschbacher automorphism.

###### Proposition 3.10.

Let $`G`$ be a group with generating twisted subgroup $`T`$. Then $`T^{}`$ is contained in every associate of $`T`$, and hence $`T^{}T^\mathrm{\#}`$.

###### Proof.

The principal assertion is (, Theorem 2.1(3)), and the rest follows from the definition of $`T^\mathrm{\#}`$. ∎

###### Remarks 3.11.

1. If $`T`$ is a *proper* generating twisted subgroup of $`G`$, then $`T^{}`$ and $`T^\mathrm{\#}`$ are proper normal subgroups of $`G`$. Thus twisted subgroups of simple groups are radical-free and the intersection of all their associates is trivial.
2. If $`T`$ is actually a subgroup of $`G`$, then the radical $`T^{}`$ is the derived subgroup of $`T`$. This motivates our choice of notation, which is different from that of .

Besides the canonical projection of the previous proposition, there is another radical-free twisted subgroup associated with any twisted subgroup. Here we use the definitions and notation of Example 3.6.

###### Theorem 3.12.

Let $`G`$ be a group, let $`TG`$ be a twisted subgroup, and let $`\widehat{T}=\{\theta _x:xT\}`$ and $`\widehat{G}=\widehat{T}`$. Then $`\widehat{T}`$ is a radical-free twisted subgroup of $`\widehat{G}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}\widehat{T}^{}`$ for some $`x_iT`$, $`1in`$, then $`1=\theta _{x_n}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_1}1=x_n\mathrm{}x_1^2\mathrm{}x_n`$, and rearranging gives $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n^2\mathrm{}x_1=1`$. But then for all $`yT`$,

$$\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}y=\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}\theta _{x_n}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_1}y=\theta _{x_1\mathrm{}x_n^2\mathrm{}x_1}y=y.$$

Thus $`\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}=1_{\widehat{G}}`$, and therefore $`\widehat{T}^{}=1`$. ∎

In view of the preceding theorem, it is not surprising that the radical is exactly the obstruction to a natural permutation representation of a group $`G`$ on a generating twisted subgroup $`T`$.

###### Theorem 3.13.

Let $`G`$ be a group with generating twisted subgroup $`T`$. The mapping $`\theta :T\widehat{T}`$ defined by $`\theta _xy=xyx`$ ($`x,yT`$) extends to a homomorphism $`\theta :G\widehat{G}`$ if and only if $`T^{}=1`$. In this case, $`\mathrm{ker}(\theta )=Z(G)C_G(\tau )`$ where $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is the Aschbacher automorphism.

###### Proof.

The subgroup $`(x,\theta _x):xT`$ of $`G\times T!`$ is the graph of a homomorphism from $`G`$ into $`T!`$ if and only if the group $`K=\{\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}:x_1\mathrm{}x_n=1,x_iT\}=1`$. The mapping $`KT;\varphi \varphi 1`$ is a homomorphism with image in $`T^{}`$. Indeed, if $`\varphi =\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}`$ for $`x_iT`$ with $`x_1\mathrm{}x_n=1`$, then $`\varphi 1=x_n\mathrm{}x_1T^{}`$. This homomorphism is clearly onto, and if $`\varphi 1=1`$, then $`x_n\mathrm{}x_1=1`$, whence $`\varphi =\theta _{x_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{x_n}=1_{\widehat{G}}`$. Therefore $`K`$ is isomorphic to $`T^{}`$. This establishes the first assertion. Assume now that $`T^{}=1`$ and let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ denote the Aschbacher automorphism. Fix $`g=x_1\mathrm{}x_n\mathrm{ker}(\theta )`$ for $`x_iT`$. Then $`gyx_n\mathrm{}x_1=y`$ for all $`yT`$. Taking $`y=1`$, we have $`x_n\mathrm{}x_1=g^1`$. Thus $`g`$ centralizes $`T`$. Since $`T`$ generates $`G`$, $`gZ(G)`$. Also, $`g^\tau =x_1^\tau \mathrm{}x_n^\tau =(x_n\mathrm{}x_1)^1=g`$. Conversely, if $`g=x_1\mathrm{}x_nZ(G)C_G(\tau )`$ for $`x_iT`$, then $`g^1=g^\tau =x_n^\tau \mathrm{}x_1^\tau =x_n\mathrm{}x_1`$, and so $`g\mathrm{ker}(\theta )`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.14.

Let $`G`$ be a simple group with generating twisted subgroup $`T`$. The mapping $`\theta :T\widehat{T}`$ defined by $`\theta _xy=xyx`$ ($`x,yT`$) extends to an isomorphism $`\theta :G\widehat{G}`$.

## 4. $`2`$-Divisible Twisted Subgroups and B-loops

We now focus our attention on $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroups and their associated B-loops. Much (though not all) of this section is an adumbration of Glauberman’s fundamental results . We give (often simpler) proofs of some of his results to make the exposition self-contained.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`G`$ be a group, and let $`TG`$ be a twisted subgroup in which every element has finite order. The following are equivalent: (i) $`T`$ is $`2`$-divisible; (ii) every element of $`T`$ has odd order; (iii) no element of $`T`$ has order $`2`$. If, in addition, $`T`$ has finite order, then these conditions imply: (iv) $`|T|`$ is odd.

###### Proof.

If $`T`$ is $`2`$-divisible, then obviously no elements of $`T`$ have even order, and so (i) implies (ii) and (iii). The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) is trivial. Now assume (ii) and let $`zT`$ be given with order $`2k+1`$. Then $`z^{k+1}`$ is a square root of $`z`$ in $`T`$. If $`yT`$ were another square root of $`z`$, then $`y^{2(2k+1)}=1`$, and so $`y^{2k+1}=1`$. But then $`z^{2k+1}=y^{2k+1}=z^ky`$ so that $`y=z^{k+1}`$. Thus (i) holds. For the remaining assertion, note that the inversion mapping $`xx^1`$ is a permutation of the set $`T\backslash \{1\}`$. If $`T`$ had even order, then this mapping would necessarily fix some $`a1`$. But then $`a^2=1`$, whence $`T`$ is not $`2`$-divisible. Thus (i) implies (iv). ∎

###### Example 4.2.

In general, condition (iv) of Lemma 4.1 does not imply the other conditions. Indeed, let $`G=S_3`$, the symmetric group on $`3`$ letters and let $`T`$ be the set of transpositions. Then $`|T|=3`$, but every element of $`T`$ has order $`2`$.

Radical-free, generating, $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroups are “rigid” in the sense that they are uniquely determined by the Aschbacher automorphism. For a subset $`S`$ of a group $`G`$, we denote $`S^2=\{x^2:xS\}`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Let $`G`$ be a group, let $`TG`$ be a radical-free, generating twisted subgroup, and let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the corresponding Aschbacher automorphism. Then

$$K(\tau )^2B(\tau )TK(\tau ).$$

In particular, if $`T`$ is $`2`$-divisible, then $`B(\tau )=T=K(\tau )`$, and $`T`$ is a left transversal of $`C_G(\tau )`$ in $`G`$.

###### Proof.

For $`gK(\tau )`$, $`g^2=gg^\tau B(\tau )`$, and so $`K(\tau )^2B(\tau )`$. For $`gG`$, $`g=x_1\mathrm{}x_n`$ for some $`x_iT`$. Thus $`gg^\tau =x_1\mathrm{}x_nx_n\mathrm{}x_1T`$, since $`T`$ is a twisted subgroup. Thus $`B(\tau )T`$. The equality in the $`2`$-divisible case follows immediately. Now for $`gG`$, we have $`a:=(gg^\tau )^{1/2}T`$, and it is easy to check that $`h:=a^1gC_G(\tau )`$. The uniqueness of the decomposition $`g=ah`$ is obvious. ∎

###### Definition 4.4.

Let $`G`$ be a group with a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup $`T`$. Define a binary operation $`:T\times TT`$ by

$$xy:=(xy^2x)^{1/2}$$

for $`x,yT`$. We follow Glauberman’s notation  and denote the magma $`(T,)`$ by $`T(1/2)`$. We denote the left multiplication maps for $`T(1/2)`$ by $`b_xy:=(xy^2x)^{1/2}`$ for $`x,yT`$.

###### Lemma 4.5.

Let $`G`$ be a group with a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup $`T`$.

1. $`T(1/2)`$ is a B-loop.
2. Integer powers of elements in $`T`$ formed in $`G`$ agree with those in $`T(1/2)`$. Thus an element has finite order in $`T`$ if and only if it has the same order in $`T(1/2)`$.
3. If $`T`$ is radical-free and generates $`G`$, then $`T(1/2)`$ agrees with the left loop structure induced on $`T`$ as a left transversal.

###### Proof.

(1) and (2) follow from Lemma 3 in  and the following remark. For (3), let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Aschbacher automorphism, and note that for $`x,yT`$, $`xy=((xy)(xy)^\tau )^{1/2}`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.6.

It is slightly more common in the loop theory literature to use the operation

$$x^{}y:=x^{1/2}yx^{1/2}$$

for $`x,yT`$. Clearly the squaring map $`xx^2`$ is an isomorphism of $`(T,)`$ onto $`(T,^{})`$. That some authors prefer $`^{}`$ is partly because the B-loop $`(T,^{})`$ is isotopic to a quasigroup structure on $`T`$ given by $`(x,y)xy^1x`$. (For the notion of isotopy, see any of the standard references .) With different terminology than that used here, the preceding construction on $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroups (using either $``$ or $`^{}`$) can be found in Foguel and Ungar , Glauberman (, Lemma 3), Kikkawa (, Theorem 5), Kreuzer , and Kiechle (, Chap. 6D). There is a related construction in uniquely $`2`$-divisible loops $``$ which goes as follows: for $`x,y`$, define $`x^{\prime \prime }y=x^{1/2}(yx^{1/2})`$. For certain loops $`(,)`$, the new magma $`(,^{\prime \prime })`$ turns out to be a B-loop. For $`2`$-divisible Moufang loops, this construction is due to Bruck (, VII.5.2, p. 121). For uniquely $`2`$-divisible Bol loops, it is implicit in the work of Belousov (, ), and is spelled out in work of P.T. Nagy and K. Strambach (, p. 301, Thm. 7) as well as the recent dissertation of G. Nagy (, Tétel 2.3.6). As it turns out, these loop-based constructions are no more general than the construction for twisted subgroups, because they all depend on the fact that the loop in question can be identified in a natural way with a twisted subgroup. The B-loop structure is then transferred from the twisted subgroup to the loop. We will see how this works for Bol loops in §6.

The following is clear from the definitions.

###### Lemma 4.7.

Let $`G`$ be a group with $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup $`T`$, and let $`sT!`$ denote the squaring map on T: $`s(x)=x^2`$. Then $`b_x=s^1\theta _xs`$ for all $`xT`$. Thus $`\mathrm{LMlt}(T(1/2))`$ is conjugate in $`T!`$ to $`\widehat{G}=\theta _x:xT`$.

###### Theorem 4.8.

Let $`G`$ be a group with a generating, $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup $`T`$. The mapping $`b:TT!`$ defined by $`b_xy=(xy^2x)^{1/2}`$ ($`x,yT`$) extends to a homomorphism $`b:GT!`$ if and only if $`T^{}=1`$. In this case, there is an exact sequence

$$1Z(G)C_G(\tau )G\mathrm{LMlt}(T(1/2))1$$

where $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is the Aschbacher automorphism, and $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )`$ is the core of $`C_G(\tau )`$ in $`G`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Lemma 4.7, Theorem 3.13 and Proposition 2.1. ∎

One reason it is particularly convenient to work with the B-loop associated with a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup is the following.

###### Lemma 4.9.

(cf. , p. 379, Lemma 4) Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup. Then $`KT`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`G`$ if and only if $`K(1/2):=(K,)`$ is a subloop of $`T(1/2)`$.

###### Proof.

This is immediate from the definition of $``$. ∎

The second corollary to the following result is (, p. 384, Corollary 3).

###### Theorem 4.10.

Let $`G`$ be a finite group, let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup, and let $`AT`$ be a subgroup of $`G`$.

1. If $`A`$ is normal in $`G`$, then $`|A|`$ divides $`|T|`$.
2. If $`A`$ is abelian, then $`|A|`$ divides $`|T|`$.

###### Proof.

(1) For each $`xT`$, note that $`xA=x^{1/2}Ax^{1/2}T`$, and thus $`\{xA:xT\}`$ partitions $`T`$ into subsets of equal cardinality.

(2) $`A(1/2)`$ is an abelian group isomorphic to $`A`$. The restriction of

$$b:T\mathrm{LMlt}(T(1/2));x(yxy)$$

to $`A`$ is a homomorphism of $`A(1/2)`$ onto its image. The orbits $`\{\{b_xy:xA\}:yT\}`$ clearly partition $`T`$, and the orbit through $`1T`$ is $`A`$ itself since $`A`$ is $`2`$-divisible. The action of $`A`$ on any orbit is regular since $`T(1/2)`$ is a loop. ∎

###### Corollary 4.11.

Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`TG`$ be a finite $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup. Then $`|T^\mathrm{\#}|`$ and $`|T^{}|`$ divide $`|T|`$.

###### Corollary 4.12.

(Lagrange’s Theorem) Let $`G`$ be a group and let $`TG`$ be a finite $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup. Then for every $`xT`$, the order of $`x`$ divides $`|T|`$.

###### Proof.

Apply Theorem 4.10(1) to the subgroup $`xT`$. ∎

###### Remark 4.13.

As Example 4.2 indicates, Lagrange’s theorem does not hold for all twisted subgroups.

The following is a distilled version of (, Theorem 14).

###### Theorem 4.14.

Let $`G`$ be a finite group, and let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible, generating twisted subgroup. Then $`G`$ has odd order.

###### Proof.

Assume first that $`T`$ is radical-free and let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ denote the Aschbacher automorphism. By Theorem 4.3, $`T=B(\tau )`$. By Glauberman’s $`Z^{}`$ Theorem (, Theorem 1), there exists a normal subgroup $`N`$ of $`G\tau `$ such that $`|N|`$ is odd and $`\tau NZ(G\tau /N)`$. But then for all $`gG`$, $`g\tau g^1\tau =gg^\tau N`$. Thus $`TN`$. Since $`T`$ generates $`G`$, $`G=N`$. For the general case, $`G/T^{}`$ must have odd order, and thus by Corollary 4.11, $`|G|=|G/T^{}||T^{}|`$ is odd. ∎

###### Definition 4.15.

Let $`\pi `$ be a set of primes. A positive integer $`n`$ is a $`\pi `$-*number* if $`n=1`$ or if $`n`$ is a product of primes in $`\pi `$. For every positive integer $`n`$, let $`n_\pi `$ denote the largest $`\pi `$-number that divides $`n`$. As usual, a finite group $`G`$ is a $`\pi `$-*group* if $`|G|=|G|_\pi `$. If $`TG`$ is a twisted subgroup, then we say that $`T`$ is a *twisted* $`\pi `$-*subgroup* of $`G`$ if $`|T|=|T|_\pi `$. We say that $`T`$ satisfies the *Hall* $`\pi `$-*condition* if there exists a twisted $`\pi `$-subgroup $`S`$ of $`G`$ such that $`ST`$ and $`|S|=|T|_\pi `$. If $`\pi =\{p\}`$, we say that $`T`$ satisfies the *Sylow* $`p`$-*condition* if $`T`$ satisfies the Hall $`\{p\}`$-condition.

###### Lemma 4.16.

Let $`G`$ be a finite group of odd order, let $`\pi `$ be a set of primes, and let $`\beta \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ have order $`2`$. Then every $`\pi `$-subgroup of $`G`$ fixed by $`\beta `$ is contained in a Hall $`\pi `$-subgroup of $`G`$ fixed by $`\beta `$.

###### Proof.

Since $`G`$ is solvable , this is just (, p. 391, Lemma 11). ∎

Glauberman remarked that the following result can be established by purely group-theoretical means (, p. 413, Remark 7).

###### Theorem 4.17.

(, Theorem 15) Let $`G`$ be a finite group, let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible, generating twisted subgroup, and let $`\pi `$ be a set of odd primes. Then $`T`$ is a twisted $`\pi `$-subgroup if and only if $`G`$ is a $`\pi `$-group.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 4.3, $`|T|`$ divides $`|G|`$, and so if $`G`$ is a $`\pi `$-group, then $`T`$ is certainly a twisted $`\pi `$-subgroup. For the converse, assume first that $`T`$ is radical-free, let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ denote the Aschbacher automorphism, and set $`H:=C_G(\tau )`$. Let $`P_0`$ be a Hall $`\pi `$-subgroup of $`H`$. By Theorem 4.14, $`|G|`$ is odd, and so by Lemma 4.16, $`P_0`$ is contained in some Hall $`\pi `$-subgroup $`P`$ of $`G`$ which is fixed by $`\tau `$. By Theorem 4.3, $`S:=PT`$ is a left transversal of $`P_0=PH`$ in $`P`$, and hence $`|S|=|P|/|P_0|=|G|_\pi /|H|_\pi =[G:H]_\pi =|T|_\pi =|T|`$. Thus $`TP`$, and since $`T`$ generates $`G`$, we have $`G=P`$. In the general case, $`G/T^{}`$ is a $`\pi `$-group, and so by Corollary 4.11, $`|G|=|G/T^{}||T^{}|`$ is a $`\pi `$-number. ∎

###### Theorem 4.18.

(Hall’s Theorem, cf. , p. 392, Theorem 8) Let $`G`$ be a finite group, and let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup. For every set $`\pi `$ of primes, $`T`$ satisfies the Hall $`\pi `$-condition, and thus $`T(1/2)`$ has a Hall $`\pi `$-subloop.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality, assume $`T`$ generates $`G`$. Since $`T`$ can be identified with its radical-free image $`b(T)\mathrm{LMlt}(T(1/2))`$, there is no loss of generality in assuming that $`T`$ is radical-free. Repeating the proof of Theorem 4.17, we obtain a Hall $`\pi `$-subgroup $`P`$ of $`G`$ fixed by $`\tau `$ such that $`S:=PT`$ satisfies $`|S|=|T|_\pi `$. $`S(1/2)`$ is a Hall $`\pi `$-subloop of $`T(1/2)`$ by Lemma 4.9. ∎

###### Remark 4.19.

Using Theorem 4.17 (i.e., , Theorem 15), Glauberman showed that the Hall $`\pi `$-subloops of $`T(1/2)`$ are all conjugate under $`C_G(\tau )`$, that every prime dividing the number of such subloops also divides $`|T|`$ and is not in $`\pi `$, and that every $`\pi `$-subloop of $`T(1/2)`$ (that is, every twisted $`\pi `$-subgroup of $`G`$ contained in $`T`$) is contained in a Hall $`\pi `$-subloop; see (, Theorem 8).

###### Corollary 4.20.

(Sylow’s Theorem, , p. 394, Corollary 3) Let $`G`$ be a finite group with a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup $`T`$. For every prime $`p`$, $`T`$ satisfies the Sylow $`p`$-condition, and thus $`T(1/2)`$ has a Sylow $`p`$-subloop.

###### Remark 4.21.

In , Glauberman originally gave separate proofs under different hypotheses of the Sylow and Hall theorems for B-loops, because at the time it was not known that the group generated by a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup must have odd order. In light of his later result (, Theorem 14), our Theorem 4.14, the Sylow result easily follows from the Hall result. The additional properties mentioned in Remark 4.19 obviously hold in the Sylow case as well.

###### Corollary 4.22.

(Cauchy’s Theorem, cf. , p. 394, Corollary 1) Let $`G`$ be a finite group, and let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup. If a prime $`p|T|`$, then $`T`$ contains an element of order $`p`$.

###### Proof.

By Corollary 4.20, there is a twisted $`p`$-subgroup $`S`$ of $`G`$ such that $`ST`$ and $`|S|=|T|_p`$. The rest follows from Lagrange’s theorem (Corollary 4.12). ∎

###### Remark 4.23.

There is no hope of extending Cauchy’s theorem to all twisted subgroups. There exists a twisted subgroup of order $`180`$ which does not have an element of order $`5`$. We will discuss this further in Remark 6.3

###### Proposition 4.24.

(Strong Lagrange Theorem) Let $`G`$ be a finite group, and let $`TG`$ be a $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup. If $`ABT`$ are twisted subgroups of $`G`$, then $`|A|`$ divides $`|B|`$.

###### Proof.

(, p. 395, Corollary 4). ∎

###### Remark 4.25.

Feder  recently extended Proposition 4.24 to *strong near subgroups*, which include twisted subgroups of odd order as a special case. Roughly speaking, strong near subgroups are twisted subgroups in which the $`2`$-elements are well-behaved.

## 5. Bol loops

We now apply the results of §3 to Bol loops. In fact, Bol loops are related to twisted subgroups in more than one way.

###### Example 5.1.

Let $``$ be a loop, and let $`L()=\{L(x):x\}`$ denote its set of left translations. Then $``$ is a Bol loop if and only $`L()`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$. Also, if $`𝒦`$ is a subloop of $``$, then $`L(𝒦)`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$.

More generally, we have the following.

###### Proposition 5.2.

(, Remark 4.4(2)) Let $`G`$ be a group, $`HG`$, and $`TG`$ a transversal of $`H`$. If $`T`$ is a twisted subgroup, then $`(T,)`$ is a Bol loop. Conversely, if $`H`$ is core-free and $`(T,)`$ is a Bol loop, then $`T`$ is a twisted subgroup.

###### Example 5.3.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop. For each $`x`$, set $`P(x)=L(x)R(x)`$, and let $`P()=\{P(x):x\}`$. Then $`P()`$ is a twisted subgroup of the group $`\mathrm{PMlt}():=P(x):x`$. This is really just a special case of Example 3.6. Indeed, for $`x,y`$, we have

(5.1)
$$\theta _{L(x)}L(y)=L(P(x)y).$$

Thus for $`x,y,z`$, we compute

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill L(P(x(yx))z)& =& \theta _{L(x(yx))}L(z)=\theta _{L(x)L(y)L(x)}L(z)\hfill \\ & =& \theta _{L(x)}\theta _{L(y)}\theta _{L(x)}L(z)=L(P(x)P(y)P(x)z).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`P(x(yx))=P(x)P(y)P(x)`$ as claimed. The other properties of twisted subgroups follow similarly.

###### Example 5.4.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop. Then for each $`x`$, the triple

$$B(x)=(P(x),L(x^1),L(x))$$

is an autotopism of $``$. (For the notion of autotopism, see any of the standard references .) Conversely, if $``$ is a loop in which each $`B(x)`$ is an autotopism, then $``$ is a Bol loop. Let $`\mathrm{Btp}()=B(x):x`$ denote the group of all Bol autotopisms of $``$. Then from Examples 5.1 and 5.3, we see that the set $`B()=\{B(x):x\}`$ is a twisted subgroup of $`\mathrm{Btp}()`$ (or of the entire autotopism group of $``$). Geometrically, the Bol autotopism group $`\mathrm{Btp}()`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the collineation group of the associated $`3`$-net, namely the direction-preserving collineation group generated by Bol reflections .

Recall that for a group $`G`$ with twisted subgroup $`T`$, the group $`\widehat{G}T!`$ is defined by $`\widehat{G}=\theta _x:xT`$; see Example 3.6.

###### Lemma 5.5.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop. Then $`\mathrm{PMlt}()\widehat{\mathrm{LMlt}}()`$. The isomorphism is defined on generators by $`P(x)\theta (L(x))`$. In case $``$ is $`2`$-divisible, we also have $`\mathrm{PMlt}()\mathrm{LMlt}((1/2))`$

###### Proof.

The first assertion follows from (5.1) in Example 5.3. The second follows from Lemma 4.7. ∎

The distinction, therefore, between $`\mathrm{PMlt}()`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{LMlt}}()`$ is that the former acts directly on the loop $``$, while the latter acts on the transversal $`L()`$.

###### Corollary 5.6.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop. Then $`P()`$ is a radical-free twisted subgroup of $`\mathrm{PMlt}()`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Lemma 5.5 and Theorem 3.12. ∎

First we consider the interpretation in $``$ of the normal subgroup $`T^\mathrm{\#}`$ for $`T=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$.

###### Theorem 5.7.

If $``$ is a Bol loop, then $`L()^\mathrm{\#}=L(\mathrm{Nuc}_l())=L(\mathrm{Nuc}_m())`$.

###### Proof.

$``$ has LIP, and so by Lemma 2.2, $`L(\mathrm{Nuc}_m())=_xL(x^1)L()=L()^\mathrm{\#}`$. The other equality follows Theorem 3.8. ∎

###### Remark 5.8.

The equality $`\mathrm{Nuc}_l()=\mathrm{Nuc}_m()`$ for left loops with LIP is well-known (e.g., , p. 62, (5.7)). Expressed in terms of a subset $`T`$ (such as $`L()`$) of a group (such as $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$), this just says that the equality $`_{xT}xT=_{xT}Tx`$ holds provided that $`T^1=T`$.

###### Corollary 5.9.

(, p. 405, Lemma 1) Let $``$ be a Bol loop. Then $`\mathrm{Nuc}_l()`$ is a normal subloop.

###### Proof.

Using Theorems 5.7 and 3.8, the conditions of (2.1) are easily checked. ∎

Next we turn to the radical.

###### Definition 5.10.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop. The *radical* of $``$ is the set $`^{}:=\{x:L(x)L()^{}\}`$. In case $`^{}=\{1\}`$ (i.e., $`L()^{}=1`$), we will say that $``$ is radical-free.

###### Corollary 5.11.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop with radical $`^{}`$. Then $`^{}`$ is an associative normal subloop of $``$ contained in $`\mathrm{Nuc}_l()`$.

###### Proof.

That $`^{}\mathrm{Nuc}_l()`$ follows from $`L()^{}L()^\mathrm{\#}`$ and Theorem 5.7. Thus $`^{}`$ is associative and the conditions of (2.1) follow easily. ∎

###### Remarks 5.12.

1. As isomorphic abstract groups, there is, of course, no meaningful distinction between the radical $`^{}`$ of a Bol loop $``$ and the radical $`L()^{}`$ of the twisted subgroup $`L()`$ of left translations, particularly if one identifies the loop $``$ with the induced loop structure on the transversal $`L()`$. However, the distinction does help clarify the normality of $`^{}`$ as a subloop of $``$ versus the normality of $`L()^{}`$ as a subgroup of $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$.
2. Let $``$ be a Bruck loop, and let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{LMlt}())`$ denote conjugation by the inversion mapping $`xx^1`$. Then the automorphic inverse property is equivalent to $`L(x)^\tau =L(x^1)`$ for all $`x`$. Thus $`\tau `$ is the Aschbacher automorphism of $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, and hence $``$ is a radical-free Bol loop.

###### Theorem 5.13.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop, and let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$. The mapping $`L()P();L(x)P(x)`$ extends to a homomorphism from $`G`$ onto $`\mathrm{PMlt}()`$ if and only if $`^{}=\{1\}`$. In this case, the kernel of the homomorphism is $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )`$ where $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is the Aschbacher automorphism.

###### Proof.

This follows from Lemma 5.5 and Theorem 3.13. ∎

Next we consider the Bol autotopism group $`\mathrm{Btp}()`$ of a Bol loop $``$. Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_i:\mathrm{Btp}()\mathrm{Mlt}();(f_1,f_2,f_3)f_i`$ denote the projection onto the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ component. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is an epimorphism onto $`\mathrm{PMlt}()`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3`$ are epimorphisms onto $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$.

In the Bol loop context, the subloop we call the radical made its first appearance in work of M. Funk and P. Nagy (, p. 67, Theorem 1). The following is the algebraic version of their geometric result.

###### Theorem 5.14.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop, and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_3:\mathrm{Btp}()\mathrm{LMlt}()`$ be the projection onto the third factor. Then $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }_3)^{}`$.

###### Proof.

$`(f,g,1)\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }_3)`$ if and only if $`g`$ can be written as $`g=L(x_1^1)\mathrm{}L(x_n^1)`$ for some $`x_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that $`L(x_1)\mathrm{}L(x_n)=I`$. Thus $`(f,g,1)\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }_3)`$ if and only if $`gL()^{}`$, and so the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ to $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }_3)`$ is an isomorphism onto $`L()^{}`$. ∎

###### Remark 5.15.

In particular, if $``$ is a radical-free Bol loop, then the group $`\mathrm{Btp}()`$ simultaneously encodes both the graph of the Aschbacher automorphism $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(\mathrm{LMlt}())`$ and the graph of the homomorphism $`\mathrm{LMlt}()\mathrm{PMlt}()`$ described in Theorem 5.13. These are given by, respectively, $`f_3f_2`$ and $`f_3f_1`$ for $`(f_1,f_2,f_3)\mathrm{Btp}()`$.

###### Lemma 5.16.

Let $``$ be a loop and set $`G:=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$. Then $`Z(G)=G\{R(x):x\mathrm{Nuc}_r()\}`$. Therefore the set $`:=\{x\mathrm{Nuc}_r():R(x)G\}`$ is an abelian group.

###### Proof.

An element $`a`$ is in $`\mathrm{Nuc}_r()`$ if and only if $`R(a)`$ centralizes $`G`$ in the full multiplication group $`\mathrm{Mlt}()`$. So if some such $`R(a)G`$, then $`R(a)Z(G)`$. Conversely, if $`gZ(G)`$, then setting $`a=g1`$, we have $`xa=L(x)g1=gL(x)1=gx`$, and so $`g=R(a)`$ and $`a\mathrm{Nuc}_r()`$. The rest follows because the mapping $`R:Z(G);xR(x)`$ is an anti-isomorphism. ∎

###### Theorem 5.17.

Let $``$ be a Bol loop, let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1:\mathrm{Btp}()\mathrm{PMlt}()`$ be the projection onto the first factor. Then $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)Z(G)\{g:g=L(x_1)\mathrm{}L(x_n)=L(x_1^1)\mathrm{}L(x_n^1),x_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. If $``$ is radical-free, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Phi }_1)Z(G)C_G(\tau )`$ where $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is the Aschbacher automorphism.

###### Proof.

A triple $`(1,f_2,f_3)`$ of permutations is an autotopism if and only if $`f_2=f_3=R(a)`$ where $`a=f_2(1)\mathrm{Nuc}_r()`$. As in the proof of Lemma 5.16, this holds if and only if $`R(a)`$ centralizes $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$ in $`\mathrm{Mlt}()`$, and so $`(1,R(a),R(a))\mathrm{Btp}()`$ if and only if $`R(a)Z(\mathrm{LMlt}())`$ and $`R(a)=L(x_1)\mathrm{}L(x_n)=L(x_1^1)\mathrm{}L(x_n^1)`$ for some $`x_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. The remaining assertion follows immediately. ∎

###### Corollary 5.18.

Let $``$ be a radical-free Bol loop, let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, and let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Aschbacher automorphism. If $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )=1`$, then $`\mathrm{Btp}()\mathrm{LMlt}()\mathrm{PMlt}()`$.

###### Remark 5.19.

Before proceeding on to $`2`$-divisible Bol loops, it is probably worthwhile to insert a few historical remarks. The concept of twisted subgroup (though obviously not the terminology we have adopted), and its relationship with quasigroup and loop theory, has been around for some time, and is not limited to the connection with Bol loops. For example, a Fischer group is a group $`G`$ and a subset $`TG`$ of involutions which generate $`G`$ such that for all $`x,yT`$, $`(xy)^3=1`$, and $`xyxT`$. If $`1T`$, then $`T`$ is a twisted subgroup. Fischer groups arise in the study of distributive, symmetric quasigroups and commutative Moufang loops of exponent 3 (; , p.133). In a different, but related direction, if we give a twisted subgroup $`T`$ of a group $`G`$ the binary operation $`xy:=xy^1x`$, $`x,yT`$, then $`(T,)`$ is a left quasigroup which is balanced ($`xy=y`$ iff $`yx=x`$), left distributive ($`x(yz)=(xy)(xz)`$), left key ($`x(xy)=y`$), and idempotent ($`xx=x`$). (Other subsets of groups can also be given this structure, such any conjugacy class with the operation $`(x,y)xyx^1`$.) If $`T=G`$, $`(T,)`$ is called the “core” of $`G`$ (this is not the same usage as in group theory), and the same properties hold even if $`G`$ is a Moufang loop . Studies of these structures, with twisted subgroups as a principal example, can be found in the work of Nobusawa and his collaborators (see  and the references therein), who were in turn influenced by the work of Loos  in symmetric spaces. See also Pierce   and Umaya . Doro  used these structures in his study of simple Moufang loops. Nowadays the structure $`(T,)`$ is known as an *involutory quandle*, thanks largely to Joyce’s applications of the idea to knot theory . As far as we have been able to determine, Aschbacher’s paper  (which was motivated by work of Feder and Vardi ) seems to be the first in which twisted subgroups are used for a purpose other than the study of quasigroups and loops.

## 6. Bol loops of odd order

We saw from Example 4.2 that a twisted subgroup of odd order need not be $`2`$-divisible. However, a twisted subgroup of odd order which has a compatible Bol loop structure is indeed $`2`$-divisible. This is, in fact, a well-known consequence of the left power-alternative property for Bol loops.

###### Proposition 6.1.

(e.g., ) The order of any element of a finite Bol loop divides the order of the loop.

In particular, instead of stating results for finite, $`2`$-divisible Bol loops, we may simply state them for Bol loops of odd order.

For Bol loops of odd order, the Cauchy and Strong Lagrange theorems for twisted subgroups immediately transfer to the loop level.

###### Theorem 6.2.

(Cauchy’s Theorem) Let $``$ be a Bol loop of odd order. For every prime $`p`$ dividing $``$, there exists $`x`$ of order $`p`$.

###### Proof.

By Corollary 4.22, there exists $`L(x)L()`$ of order $`p`$. Since $`L(x^n)=L(x)^n`$ for all $`n`$, $`x`$ has order $`p`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.3.

As mentioned in Remark 4.23 on the twisted subgroup level, Cauchy’s theorem does not extend to all Bol loops, because the simple Moufang loop of order $`180`$ does not have an element of order $`5`$.

###### Theorem 6.4.

(Strong Lagrange Theorem) Let $``$ be a Bol loop of odd order. If $`𝒦_1𝒦_2`$ are subloops, then $`|𝒦_1|`$ divides $`|𝒦_2|`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 4.24, $`|L(𝒦_1)|`$ divides $`|L(𝒦_2)|`$. ∎

###### Problem 6.5.

Does the strong Lagrange property hold for all Bol loops?

###### Remark 6.6.

If a classification of finite, simple Bol loops were known, then it would be enough to verify the strong Lagrange property for such loops . However, this observation merely reduces one hard problem to another.

###### Theorem 6.7.

Let $`\pi `$ be a set of odd primes, and let $``$ be a finite Bol $`\pi `$-loop. Then $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$ is a $`\pi `$-group.

###### Proof.

This is Theorem 4.17 interpreted on the loop level. ∎

By the Feit-Thompson theorem , we conclude the following.

###### Corollary 6.8.

If $``$ is a finite Bol loop of odd order, then $`\mathrm{LMlt}()`$ is a solvable group.

The status of the Sylow and Hall theorems for Bol loops is unclear even for Bol loops of odd order. For Moufang loops we have the following results of Glauberman.

###### Proposition 6.9.

(Hall’s Theorem, , p. 413, Theorem 16 and p. 409, Theorem 12) Let $``$ be a Moufang loop of odd order and let $`\pi `$ be a set of primes. Then $``$ contains a Hall $`\pi `$-subloop.

The Sylow theorem for Moufang loops of odd order follows immediately, although Glauberman also gave a separate proof (, p. 410, Theorem 13). Glauberman also proved other Hall-like properties of $`\pi `$-subloops (, p. 413, Theorem 16).

###### Problem 6.10.

1. For a given set $`\pi `$ of primes, does every Bol loop of odd order have a Hall $`\pi `$-subloop?
2. If the answer to (1) is no, then for a given odd prime $`p`$, does every Bol loop of odd order have a Sylow $`p`$-subloop?

Finally, we turn to some preliminary investigations of simple Bol loops of odd order. This is motivated by Glauberman’s Feit-Thompson theorems for B-loops and Moufang loops.

###### Proposition 6.11.

(, p. 412, Theorem 14 and p. 413, Theorem 16) Let $``$ be a Bol loop of odd order. If $``$ is a B-loop or a Moufang loop, then $``$ is solvable.

###### Corollary 6.12.

Let $`X`$ be the class consisting of all Moufang loops of odd order and all finite B-loops. Let $`V`$ be any variety of Bol loops of odd order such that every loop in $`V`$ is an extension of two loops in $`X`$. Then every loop in $`V`$ is solvable.

A left loop is said to have the $`A_l`$-*property* if every left inner mapping is an automorphism (, p. 35).

###### Corollary 6.13.

If $``$ is an $`A_l`$ Bol loop of odd order, then $``$ is solvable.

###### Proof.

By , Theorem 4.11, $``$ is an extension of a group by a B-loop. ∎

These considerations pave the way to the following problem. We will not give a complete answer, but we will present some results which we think will play a role in its solution.

###### Problem 6.14.

Do there exist any finite simple Bol loops of odd order? That is, is every finite Bol loop of odd order solvable?

Let $``$ be a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop. Since $``$ is left power-alternative, that is, $`L(x^n)=L(x)^n`$ for all $`x`$, we may use the $`2`$-divisible twisted subgroup $`L()`$ to define a B-loop operation on $``$. For $`x,y`$, we have $`L(x)L(y)=(L(x)L(y)^2L(x))^{1/2}=L((x(yx))^{1/2})`$. This us leads us to the following.

###### Definition 6.15.

Let $``$ be a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop. The *B-loop associated to* $``$ is $`(,)`$ with the binary operation $`:\times `$ given by $`xy=(x((yy)x))^{1/2}`$. We will denote the B-loop $`(,)`$ by $`(1/2)`$, and we follow a similar convention for subloops. Left multiplication maps for $`(1/2)`$ will be denoted by $`M(x)y:=xy`$.

###### Remark 6.16.

In case $``$ is already a B-loop, $`(,)`$ is just $``$ itself. This is because every Bruck loop satisfies the identity $`(xy)^2=x(y^2x)`$ (, p. 73, 6.8(1)).

The B-loop associated to a Moufang loop of odd order was the key component in Glauberman’s proofs of the Hall, Sylow, and Feit-Thompson theorems in . The idea was to “pull back” the results from the associated B-loop to the Moufang loop. Since arbitrary Bol loops are not as structured as Moufang loops, one cannot expect this idea to work quite so well. Nevertheless, we can make some progress.

###### Lemma 6.17.

Let $``$ be a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop. Then the squaring map $`s:;xxx`$ conjugates $`\mathrm{LMlt}((1/2))`$ to $`\mathrm{PMlt}()`$ in $`!`$.

###### Proof.

For each $`x`$, $`M(x)=s^1P(x)s`$. ∎

###### Theorem 6.18.

Let $``$ be a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop, and let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$. The mapping $`L()M((1/2));L(x)M(x)`$ extends to a homomorphism from $`G`$ onto $`\mathrm{LMlt}((1/2))`$ if and only if $`^{}=\{1\}`$. The kernel of the homomorphism is $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )`$ where $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ is the Aschbacher automorphism.

###### Proof.

This follows from Lemma 6.17 and Theorem 5.13. ∎

###### Lemma 6.19.

A subloop $`𝒦`$ of a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop $``$ is normal if and only if, for all $`x,y`$, $`x(𝒦y)=𝒦(xy)`$.

###### Proof.

Referring to the conditions in (2.1), we see that only one direction requires proof. Thus assume $`x(𝒦y)=𝒦(xy)`$ for all $`x,y`$. Fix $`x`$ and set $`u=x^{1/2}`$. Using LAP and the left Bol identity,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill x(𝒦y)& =& u(u(𝒦y))=u(𝒦(uy))\hfill \\ & =& (u(𝒦u))y=(u(u𝒦))y=(x𝒦)y.\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the other condition of (2.1) holds, and so $`𝒦`$ is normal. ∎

Our next result is inspired by Aschbacher’s normality condition for subloops (, condition (NC)). It enables us to express normality directly in terms of the left multiplication group.

###### Lemma 6.20.

A subloop $`𝒦`$ of a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop $``$ is normal if and only if, for each $`x`$, $`y𝒦`$, $`g\mathrm{LMlt}()`$,

(6.1)
$$L(x)L(y)L(x^1)=L(z)ghg^1$$

for some $`z𝒦`$, $`h\mathrm{LMlt}_1()`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, $`H=\mathrm{LMlt}_1()`$. Fix $`x`$, $`y𝒦`$. Since $`L()`$ is a transversal of each conjugate $`gHg^1`$, $`gG`$, we have $`L(x)L(y)L(x^1)=L(z)ghg^1`$ for some $`z`$, $`hH`$. Applying both sides to $`w=g1`$, we have $`x(y(x^1w))=zw`$. Now if $`𝒦`$ is normal, then by Lemma 6.19 (or just (2.1)), $`x(y(x^1w))=uw`$ for some $`u𝒦`$. Thus $`z=u`$ and so $`z𝒦`$ so that (6.1) holds. Conversely, if (6.1) holds, then fix $`v`$ and set $`g=L(v)`$. Let $`z𝒦`$, which depends on $`g`$, be given as in (6.1). Apply both sides of (6.1) to $`z`$ to get $`x(y(x^1v))=zv`$. By Lemma 6.19, $`𝒦`$ is normal. ∎

In the Moufang case, the following result is (, p. 401, Lemma 7(b)). The proof in the general case is essentially the same, but with care in the parenthesization.

###### Lemma 6.21.

Let $``$ be a $`2`$-divisible Bol loop and suppose $`𝒦`$ is a subloop of $`(1/2)`$. Then $`𝒦`$ is a subloop of $``$ if and only if $`x^1(𝒦x)=𝒦`$ for all $`x𝒦`$.

###### Proof.

The “only if” is obvious, so assume $`x^1(𝒦x)=𝒦`$ for all $`x𝒦`$. If $`x𝒦`$, then $`x𝒦`$, because powers in $``$ agree with powers in $`(1/2)`$. Now fix $`x,y𝒦`$ and set $`u=x^{1/2}`$, $`v=y^{1/2}`$. Then using the definition of $``$, the Bol identity, and LAP, $`𝒦`$ contains $`u((uv)^2u^1)=u((u(v^2u))u^1)=u^2v^2=xy`$. A subset of a Bol loop closed under inversion and multiplication is a subloop (see, e.g., , p. 50, 3.10(4)). ∎

###### Lemma 6.22.

Let $``$ be a radical-free, $`2`$-divisible Bol loop, let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ be the Aschbacher automorphism, and assume that $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )=1`$. If $`𝒦(1/2)`$ is a normal subloop of $`(1/2)`$, then $`𝒦`$ is a normal subloop of $``$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`x`$, $`y𝒦`$, $`gG`$. As in the proof of Lemma 6.20, there exists $`z`$, $`h\mathrm{LMlt}_1()`$ such that

(\*) $`L(x)L(y)L(x^1)=L(z)ghg^1`$
The hypotheses and Theorem 6.18 imply $`\mathrm{LMlt}((1/2))G`$, and that on generators, the isomorphism sends each $`L(x)`$ to $`M(x)`$. Applying this to (\*), we have $`M(x)M(y)M(x^1)=M(z)\stackrel{~}{g}\stackrel{~}{h}\stackrel{~}{g}^1`$ for some $`\stackrel{~}{g}\mathrm{LMlt}((1/2))`$, $`\stackrel{~}{h}\mathrm{LMlt}_1((1/2))`$. If $`𝒦(1/2)`$ is normal, then by Lemma 6.20, $`z𝒦`$. Thus by (\*), the condition of Lemma 6.20 is satisfied for the sub*set* $`𝒦`$ of $``$, and all that remains is to show that $`𝒦`$ is a subloop. Taking $`x𝒦`$ and $`g=1`$ in (\*), and applying both sides to $`1`$, we have that for each $`x,y𝒦`$, there exists $`z𝒦`$ such that $`x(yx^1)=z`$. Now apply Lemma 6.21. ∎

###### Theorem 6.23.

Let $``$ be a simple Bol loop of odd order, let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$, and (since $``$ is radical-free), let $`\tau \mathrm{Aut}(G)`$ denote the Aschbacher automorphism. Then $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )1`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 6.11, $`(1/2)`$ has a nontrivial normal subloop $`𝒦(1/2)`$. If $`Z(G)C_G(\tau )=1`$, then Lemma 6.22 implies that $`𝒦`$ is a nontrivial normal subloop of $``$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.24.

Let $``$ be a simple Bol loop of odd order, and let $`G=\mathrm{LMlt}()`$. Then $`G`$ has nontrivial center, and $`\mathrm{Nuc}_r()`$ contains an abelian subgroup $`=\{x\mathrm{Nuc}_r():R(x)G\}1`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from Theorem 6.23 and Lemma 5.16. ∎

###### Remark 6.25.

As a corollary, we obtain a new proof of the Moufang part of Proposition 6.11. In a Moufang loop, the three nuclei agree and the nucleus is normal (, p. 90, Corollary IV.1.5). Thus a simple Moufang loop has trivial nucleus, and so by Corollary 6.24, cannot have odd order.

In general, the right nucleus of a left Bol loop need not be a normal subloop. This follows from a construction of D. Robinson and K. Robinson , translated from right Bol loops to left Bol loops. However, their construction gives a Bol loop of even order. Thus the following problem still seems to be open, even for B-loops.

###### Problem 6.26.

Does there exist a Bol loop of odd order with nonnormal right nucleus?

###### Acknowledgment.

We thank Michael Aschbacher, James Beidleman, George Glauberman, and Derek Robinson for helpful comments.