text:
# Supersymmetric objects in the M-theory on a pp-wave

## 1 Introduction

At the present time, the most promising formalism for the description of the eleven dimensional M-theory prescribes the comactification on a light-like circle or on a small spatial circle boosted by a large amount, $`x^{}x^{}+2\pi R`$, as proposed by Banks, Fischler, Shenker and Susskind (BFSS) . The sector of the theory with the discrete light cone momentum, $`p_{}=N/R`$, is then exactly described in terms of D0-brane dynamics by the BFSS matrix model or the quantum mechanics obtained by dimensionally reducing the ten dimensional $`\text{U}(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory. The BFSS matrix model is also in a good agreement with the matrix regularization of the supermembrane action in the light cone gauge . However, due to the flat directions in the potential the matrix model is of continuous spectrum and has proved very difficult to approach.

Recently , Berenstein, Maldacena and Nastase (BMN) showed that in the maximally supersymmetric pp-wave background of the eleven dimensional supergravity ,

$$\begin{array}{c}ds^2=2dx^+dx^{}\left[(\frac{\mu }{3})^2(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)+(\frac{\mu }{6})^2(x_4^2+\mathrm{}+x_9^2)\right]dx^+dx^++\underset{A=1}{\overset{9}{}}dx^Adx^A,\hfill \\ \\ F_{123+}=\mu ,\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
the discrete light cone quantization (DLCQ) of the M-theory still works. With the characteristic mass parameter, $`\mu `$, the resulting new matrix model corresponds to a mass deformation of the BFSS matrix model without breaking any supersymmetry. Soon after, the action was rederived as a description of the supermembrane on a pp-wave by Dasgupta, Sheikh-Jabbari and Van Raamsdonk .

Thanks to the mass parameter, the BMN matrix model captures many interesting novel properties. The supersymmetry transformations have explicit time dependence so that the supercharges do not commute with the Hamiltonian. As a result, the bosons and fermions have different masses. The mass terms lift up the flat directions completely and the perturbative expansion is possible by powers of $`\mu ^1`$ . Classical vacua are given by fuzzy spheres sitting at the origin stretching over the $`1,2,3`$ directions.

In our previous work , we studied the superalgebra of this pp-wave matrix model. We identified the superalgebra as the special unitary Lie superalgebra, $`\text{su}(2|4;2,0)`$ for $`\mu >0`$ or $`\text{su}(2|4;2,4)`$ for $`\mu <0`$ of which the complexification corresponds to $`\text{A}(1|3)`$. After analyzing its root structure, we discussed the typical and atypical representations deriving the ‘typicality’ condition explicitly in terms of the energy and other four quantum numbers. In particular, we obtained the complete classification of the BPS multiplets which in general belong to a special class of the atypical unitary representations. They are classified as $`4/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8}/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}12}/16`$ $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet BPS multiplets and $`8/16`$ $`\text{su}(4)`$ singlet BPS multiplets, in addition to the $`16/16`$ vacua.

Generically, the BPS state is defined as a state in a supermultiplet which is annihilated by at least one Noether charge of the supersymmetry or one hermitian supercharge, while the BPS multiplet is defined as a unitary irreducible representation of which either the lowest weight or the highest weight is a BPS state. This definition naturally leads to a superspace with lower number of “odd” coordinates .

In , Dasgupta et al. investigated supermultiplets which contain at least one BPS state. These supermultiplets are not necessarily BPS multiplets. They concluded that there can appear $`2/16,4/16,6/16,8/16,12/16,16/16`$ BPS states only in the supermultiplets.

Both of the analysis above were based on the pp-wave superalgebra which is free from the central charge. As the central charges in the matrix models appear as ‘the trace of the commutator’, their absence is justified in the finite matrix models but not in the large $`N`$ limit.

In the present paper, we study the classical counterparts of the quantum BPS states. Namely we obtain all the classical BPS equations which correspond to the quantum BPS states in the BMN matrix model. Some simple analysis of the superalgebra which may now contain nontrivial central charges show that the BPS states always preserve pairs of supersymmetry, implying the possible fractions of the unbroken supersymmetry as $`\nu =2/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}/16,\mathrm{}`$. Our main results are that there are essentially one unique set of $`2/16`$ BPS equations, three inequivalent types of $`4/16`$ BPS equations, and three inequivalent types of $`8/16`$ BPS equations only, in addition to the $`16/16`$ static fuzzy sphere. We discuss various supersymmetric objects as solutions. In particular, when the fuzzy sphere rotates on the transverse planes, the supersymmetry is further broken as $`16/168/164/16`$.

The key tool we employ here, following , is ‘the projection matrix’ to the kernel space all the Killing spinors form. Once we are able to write down the projection matrix in terms of the anti-symmetric products of the gamma matrices, it is straightforward to obtain the corresponding BPS equations. In this way, the complete classification of the BPS equations in six and eight dimensions have been achieved in .

The organization of the present paper is as follows. In section 2, after setting up the gamma matrices and other conventions, we review the BMN matrix model. In particular, we write the action and the superalgebra in a $`\text{so}(3)\times \text{so}(6)`$ manifest fashion. All the possible central charges are included in this setup. Section 3 contains our main results. Firstly we discuss the general prescription to derive the classical BPS equations using the concept of the projection matrix. We then look at the quantum BPS states to identify the corresponding Killing spinors. Sequentially all the projection matrices relevant to the quantum BPS states are constructed and written in terms of the gamma matrix products. This enables us to obtain all the classical BPS equations corresponding to the quantum BPS states, the $`2/16`$ BPS equations, the three types of $`4/16`$ BPS equations, and the three types of $`8/16`$ BPS equations. We discuss at least one class of solutions for each case. In section 4 we conclude with the summary. The appendix contains the BPS equations of the ten dimensional super Yang-Mills theory as well as some useful formulae.

## 2 M-theory matrix model on a pp-wave

The action of the M-theory matrix model on a fully supersymmetric pp-wave background spells with a mass parameter, $`\mu `$,

$$𝒮=\frac{l_p^6}{R^3}dt_0+\mu _1+\mu ^2_2,$$
(2)
where with $`i=1,2,3`$, $`a=4,5,\mathrm{},9`$, $`A=1,2,\mathrm{},9`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}_0=\mathrm{tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}D_tX^AD_tX_A+\frac{1}{4}[X^A,X^B]^2+i\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}D_t\mathrm{\Psi }\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^A[X_A,\mathrm{\Psi }]\right),\hfill \\ \\ _1=i\mathrm{tr}\left(\frac{1}{3}ϵ_{ijk}X^iX^jX^k+\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\mathrm{\Psi }\right),\hfill \\ \\ _2=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{tr}\left((\frac{1}{3})^2X^iX_i+(\frac{1}{6})^2X^aX_a\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
We make a few remarks especially compared to the original one given by BMN . Here the Euclidean nine dimensional gamma matrices, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^A=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^A)^{}`$, are generic ones. Namely we do not adopt the usual real and symmetric Majorana representation. Accordingly there exits a nontrivial $`16\times 16`$ charge conjugation matrix, $`C`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^A){}_{}{}^{T}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^A){}_{}{}^{}=C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^AC,\hfill & C=C^T=(C^{})^1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The spinor, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, satisfies the Majorana condition leaving eight independent complex components

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=C\mathrm{\Psi }^{}.$$
(5)
The covariant derivatives are in our convention, $`D_t𝒪=\frac{d}{dt}𝒪i[A_0,𝒪]`$ so that $`X`$ and $`A_0`$ are of the mass dimension one, while $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ has the mass dimension $`3/2`$. The overall constant, $`l_p^6/R^3`$, is set to be one henceforth.

The supersymmetry transformations are

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta A_0=i\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t),\delta X^A=i\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^A(t),\hfill \\ \\ \delta \mathrm{\Psi }=\left(D_tX^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ai\frac{1}{2}[X^A,X^B]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}+\mu (\frac{1}{3}X^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\frac{1}{6}X^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\right)(t),\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}(t)=e^{\frac{\mu }{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}t},& =C^{}.\end{array}$$
(7)
In addition there is kinetic supersymmetry,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta A_0=\delta X^A=0,& \delta \mathrm{\Psi }=e^{\frac{\mu }{4}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}t}^{},& ^{}=C^{}{}_{}{}^{}.\end{array}$$
(8)
### 2.1 Manifestation of the $`\text{so}(3)\times \text{so}(6)`$ structure

To make the $`\text{so}(3)\times \text{so}(6)\text{su}(2)\times \text{su}(4)`$ structure of the M-theory on a pp-wave manifest, we write the nine dimensional gamma matrices in terms of the three and six dimensional ones, $`\sigma ^i,\gamma ^a`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }^i=\sigma ^i\gamma ^{(7)}\hfill & \text{for }i=1,2,3,\hfill \\ & \\ \mathrm{\Gamma }^a=1\gamma ^a\hfill & \text{for }a=4,5,6,7,8,9.\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
With the choice,

$$\gamma ^{(7)}=i\gamma ^4\gamma ^5\mathrm{}\gamma ^9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
the six dimensional gamma matrices are in the block diagonal form

$$\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \rho ^a\\ \overline{\rho }^a& 0\end{array}\right),& \rho ^a\overline{\rho }^b+\rho ^b\overline{\rho }^a=2\delta ^{ab}.\end{array}$$
(11)
The fact, $`\overline{\rho }^a=(\rho ^a)^{}`$, ensures $`\gamma ^a`$ to be hermitian. Furthermore, it is possible to set the $`4\times 4`$ matrices, $`\rho ^a`$, to be anti-symmetric

$$\begin{array}{cc}(\rho ^a)_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=(\rho ^a)_{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }},& (\overline{\rho }^a)^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=(\overline{\rho }^a)^{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }}.\end{array}$$
(12)
Namely six of $`\rho _a`$ form a basis of the $`4\times 4`$ anti-symmetric matrices. It follows that fifteen of $`\rho _{ab}=\rho _{[a}\overline{\rho }_{b]}`$ and ten of $`\rho _{abc}=\rho _{[a}\overline{\rho }_b\rho _{c]}`$ form basis of the traceless and symmetric matrices respectively. The latter is subject to the self-duality,

$$\rho _{abc}=\frac{i}{6}ϵ_{abcdef}\rho ^{def}.$$
(13)
Henceforth $`\alpha ,\beta =1,2`$ are the $`\text{su}(2)`$ indices, and $`\dot{\alpha },\dot{\beta }`$ denote the $`\text{su}(4)`$ indices, $`1,2,3,4`$.

The nine dimensional charge conjugation matrix, $`C`$, is now explicitly

$$\begin{array}{cc}C=ϵ\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),& (\sigma ^i)^T=ϵ^1\sigma ^iϵ,\end{array}$$
(14)
so that Majorana spinors contain eight independent complex components,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Psi }=\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\\ \\ \stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha ^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right),& \stackrel{~}{\psi }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }}=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(\psi ^{})^{\beta \dot{\alpha }},\\ & \\ (t)=\left(\begin{array}{c}e^{i\frac{\mu }{12}t}\epsilon _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\\ \\ e^{i\frac{\mu }{12}t}\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_\alpha ^{\dot{\alpha }}\end{array}\right),& \stackrel{~}{\epsilon }_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }}=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(\epsilon ^{})^{\beta \dot{\alpha }}.\end{array}$$
(15)
We rewrite the Lagrangian, $`_0`$, $`_1`$, in a more $`\text{so}(3)\times \text{so}(6)`$ manifest fashion,

$$\begin{array}{c}_0=\mathrm{tr}(\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}D_tX^AD_tX_A+\frac{1}{4}[X^A,X^B]^2+i\overline{\psi }D_t\psi \overline{\psi }\sigma ^i[X_i,\psi ]\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\rho ^a[X_a,\stackrel{~}{\psi }]\frac{1}{2}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\overline{\rho }^a[X_a,\psi ]\hfill \end{array}),\hfill \\ \\ _1=\mathrm{tr}\left(i\frac{1}{3}ϵ_{ijk}X^iX^jX^k+\frac{1}{4}\overline{\psi }\psi \right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
The supersymmetry transformation (6) becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\delta A_0=i\left(\overline{\psi }\epsilon (t)\overline{\epsilon }(t)\psi \right),& \delta X^i=i\left(\overline{\psi }\sigma ^i\epsilon (t)\overline{\epsilon }(t)\sigma ^i\psi \right),& \delta X^a=i\left(\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\overline{\rho }^a\epsilon (t)\overline{\epsilon }(t)\rho ^a\stackrel{~}{\psi }\right),\\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{\begin{array}{cc}\delta \psi =\hfill & \left(D_tX^i\sigma _ii\frac{1}{2}[X^i,X^j]\sigma _{ij}i\frac{1}{2}[X^a,X^b]\rho _{ab}i\frac{\mu }{3}X^i\sigma _i\right)\epsilon (t)\hfill \\ & \\ & +\left(D_tX^a\rho _ai[X^i,X^a]\sigma _i\rho _ai\frac{\mu }{6}X^a\rho _a\right)\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }(t),\hfill \end{array}}\end{array}$$
(17)
where $`\epsilon (t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{12}t}\epsilon `$ and $`\overline{\psi }=\psi ^{}`$, etc.

The Gauss constraint reads with $`P^A=D_tX^A`$,

$$i[X^A,P_A]+\{\overline{\psi }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\psi _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\}=0,$$
(18)
while the equations of motion are given in the appendix (90).

The Hamiltonian and the $`\text{so}(3)\times \text{so}(6)`$ angular momenta are explicitly

$$\begin{array}{cc}H=\mathrm{tr}(\hfill & \frac{1}{2}P^AP_A\frac{1}{4}[X^A,X^B]^2+\overline{\psi }\sigma ^i[X_i,\psi ]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\rho ^a[X_a,\stackrel{~}{\psi }]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}\overline{\rho }^a[X_a,\psi ]\hfill \\ & \\ & +i\frac{\mu }{3}ϵ_{ijk}X^iX^jX^k+\frac{\mu }{4}\overline{\psi }\psi +\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mu }{3})^2X^iX_i+\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\mu }{6})^2X^aX_a),\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
$$\begin{array}{cc}M^{ij}=\mathrm{tr}\left(X^iP^jP^iX^j\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{ij}\psi \right),& M^{ab}=\mathrm{tr}\left(X^aP^bP^aX^b\frac{i}{2}\overline{\psi }\rho ^{ab}\psi \right).\end{array}$$
(20)
### 2.2 Supersymmetry algebra

The Noether charge of the supersymmetry is, from (85), of the form

$$i\mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\delta \mathrm{\Psi }\right)=\overline{\epsilon }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\epsilon _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},$$
(21)
where the eight component supercharges are with $`\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=(Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^{}`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q=ie^{i\frac{\mu }{12}t}\mathrm{tr}\left[\right(\hfill & (P^i+i\frac{\mu }{3}X^i)\sigma _i+i\frac{1}{2}[X^i,X^j]\sigma _{ij}+i\frac{1}{2}[X^a,X^b]\rho _{ab})\psi \hfill \\ & \\ & +((P^ai\frac{\mu }{6}X^a)\rho _a+i[X^i,X^a]\sigma _i\rho _a)\stackrel{~}{\psi }].\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
After the standard quantization,

$$\begin{array}{cc}[X^A{}_{}{}^{l}{}_{m}{}^{},P^B{}_{}{}^{n}{}_{r}{}^{}]=i\delta ^{AB}\delta ^l{}_{r}{}^{}\delta _{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{n},& \{\psi _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{l}{}_{m}{}^{},\overline{\psi }^{\beta \dot{\beta }}{}_{}{}^{n}{}_{r}{}^{}\}=\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta _{\dot{\alpha }}^{}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}\delta _{}^{l}{}_{r}{}^{}\delta _{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{n},\end{array}$$
(23)
using (95), one can identify the supersymmetry algebra of the M-theory on a fully supersymmetric pp-wave as follows up to the Gauss constraint (cf. )

$$\begin{array}{cc}[H,Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=\frac{\mu }{12}Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},& [H,\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=\frac{\mu }{12}\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\end{array}$$
(24)
$$\begin{array}{cc}[M_{ij},Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=i\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{ij})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }Q_{\beta \dot{\alpha }}^{},\hfill & [M_{ab},Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=i\frac{1}{2}(\rho _{ab})_{\dot{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}Q_{\alpha \dot{\beta }}^{},\hfill \\ & \\ [M_{ij},\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=i\frac{1}{2}\overline{Q}^{\beta \dot{\alpha }}(\sigma _{ij})_\beta {}_{}{}^{\alpha },\hfill & [M_{ab},\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}]=i\frac{1}{2}\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\beta }}(\rho _{ab})_{\dot{\beta }}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }},\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
$$\begin{array}{cc}[M_i,M_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M^k,& M_i=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}M^{jk},\\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{[M_{ab},M_{cd}]=i(\delta _{ac}M_{bd}\delta _{ad}M_{bc}\delta _{bc}M_{ad}+\delta _{bd}M_{ac}),}\end{array}$$
(26)
$$\begin{array}{c}\{Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},\overline{Q}^{\beta \dot{\beta }}\}=2\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta _{\dot{\alpha }}^{}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}H+i\frac{\mu }{3}(\sigma ^{ij})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\delta _{\dot{\alpha }}^{}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}M_{ij}^{}i\frac{\mu }{6}\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(\rho ^{ab})_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}M_{ab}^{}+\frac{1}{4}(\sigma ^{ij})_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(\rho ^{ab})_{\dot{\alpha }}^{}{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}R_{ijab}^{},\\ \\ \{Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},Q_{\beta \dot{\beta }}\}=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }(\rho ^a)_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}Z_a+\frac{1}{6}(\sigma ^iϵ)_{\alpha \beta }(\rho ^{abc})_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}Z_{iabc},\end{array}$$
(27)
where $`R_{ijab}`$, $`Z_a`$, $`Z_{iabc}`$ are central charges given by the ‘boundary terms’ or the trace of the commutator. Surely they vanish for the finite matrix models. $`R_{ijab}`$ and $`Z_{iabc}`$ satisfy the reality and the anti-self-duality conditions respectively

$$\begin{array}{cc}R_{ijab}=R_{jiab}=R_{ijba}=(R_{ijab})^{},& Z_{iabc}=\frac{i}{6}ϵ_{abcdef}Z_i{}_{}{}^{def}.\end{array}$$
(28)
Note that the numbers of degrees of the left and right sides in (27) match as

$$\begin{array}{c}8\times 8=1+3+15+3\times 15,\\ \\ 36=6+3\times 10.\end{array}$$
(29)
Basically they are the decompositions of $`8\times 8`$ hermitian and symmetric matrices in terms of $`\sigma ^i`$ and $`\rho ^a,\overline{\rho }^b`$.

As shown in our previous work , in the absence of the central charges, the above superalgebra of the M-theory on a fully supersymmetric pp-wave is identified as the special unitary Lie superalgebra, $`\text{su}(2|4;2,0)`$ for $`\mu >0`$ or $`\text{su}(2|4;2,4)`$ for $`\mu <0`$, the complexification of which corresponds to $`\text{A}(1|3)`$.

A natural choice of the Cartan subalgebra, $`\text{u}(1)\text{su}(2)\text{su}(4)`$, is

$$\{H,M_{12},M_{45},M_{67},M_{89}\}.$$
(30)
Any state in a supermultiplet or an irreducible representation of the superalgebra is specified by the quantum numbers of the Cartan subalgebra, while all the states in a supermultiplet carry the same central charges. Ref.  contains the complete classification of the irreducible representations of $`\text{A}(1|3)`$.

## 3 Supersymmetric objects

Classically a bosonic configuration is supersymmetric or BPS if there exits a nonzero constant Killing spinor, $``$, such that the infinitesimal supersymmetric transformation of the gaugino vanishes,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=\left(D_tX^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ai\frac{1}{2}[X^A,X^B]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}+\mu (\frac{1}{3}X^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\frac{1}{6}X^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\right)e^{\frac{\mu }{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}t}=0.$$
(31)
In general, a BPS configuration can have more than one Killing spinors. The key tool we employ here, following , is the projection matrix to the kernel space, $`V`$, all the Killing spinors form. With an orthonormal basis for the kernel, $`V=\{_n|1n𝒩\}`$, $`𝒩=\text{dim}V16`$, the projection operator is formally

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{n=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}_n_n^{},$$
(32)
and satisfies111For simplicity we do not turn on the kinetic supersymmetry transformations which may cancel the dynamic supersymmetry transformations in the large $`N`$ limit.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega },& C\mathrm{\Omega }^{}C^1=\mathrm{\Omega },\end{array}$$
(33)
$$\mathrm{\Omega }^2=\mathrm{\Omega },$$
(34)
$$\left(D_tX^A\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ai\frac{1}{2}[X^A,X^B]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}+\mu (\frac{1}{3}X^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i+\frac{1}{6}X^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}\right)e^{\frac{\mu }{12}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}t}\mathrm{\Omega }=0.$$
(35)
It is worth to note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is basis independent or unique for a given BPS configuration.

As the anti-symmetric products of the gamma matrices form a basis of the $`16\times 16`$ matrices, one can expand $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in terms of them. Up to the relation, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12\mathrm{}9}=1`$, Eq.(33) restricts the projection matrix to be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\nu \left(1+r_A\mathrm{\Gamma }^A+\frac{1}{4!}r_{ABCD}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABCD}\right),$$
(36)
where $`r_A`$ and $`r_{ABCD}`$ are real one and four form coefficients, while $`\nu `$ denotes the fraction of the unbroken supersymmetry. As the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are either $`0`$ or $`1`$ and the non-trivial products of the gamma matrices are traceless,

$$16\times \nu =\mathrm{tr}\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒩.$$
(37)
The only equation left to solve is (34) in order to get the final form of the projection operator. Once it is done, the BPS equations follow straightforwardly from expanding (35) by the anti-symmetric products of the gamma matrices and requiring each coefficient to vanish. However, we do not know the most general solution of (34). Unlike the cases in four, six and eight dimensions , the present isometry group, $`\text{SO}(3)\times \text{SO}(6)`$, is not big enough to reduce the number of free parameters significantly to give the essentially unique solution. It appears there are infinitely many classical BPS equations which are not equivalent, even up to the isometry group.

However, this is a genuinely classical problem. Once we consider the quantum aspects or the BPS states, the classical complexity gets cleaned up and one can identify all the projection matrices or all the classical BPS equations relevant to the quantum BPS states.

### 3.1 Quantum aspects

The BPS state, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BPS}}`$, is defined as a state in a supermultiplet which is annihilated by at least one Noether charge of the supersymmetry or one hermitian supercharge,

$$\left(\overline{\epsilon }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\epsilon _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\right)|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BPS}}=0.$$
(38)
The corresponding sixteen component Killing spinor is

$$=\left(\begin{array}{c}\epsilon \\ \\ ϵ\epsilon ^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(39)
One crucial step we take here is to diagonalize $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{89}`$ which are for the Cartan subalgebra we chose (30). This is done by using the $`\text{U}(4)`$ symmetry, $`\rho ^aU\rho ^aU^T`$, $`UU^{}=1`$, which preserves the anti-symmetric property of $`\rho ^a`$. The appendix contains explicitly an example of such gamma matrices (94).

Now, as seen in (25), each of the sixteen supercharges carries definite quantum numbers of the Cartan subalgebra. In fact,222This justifies the generality of the BPS equations of the ordinary ten dimensional super Yang-Mills theory we obtain in (96).  any four generators including $`M_{12}`$ in the Cartan subalgebra can uniquely specify all the sixteen supercharges by their quantum numbers, essentially as $`16=2^4`$. Accordingly we have for all the $`(\alpha ,\dot{\alpha })`$ pairs satisfying $`\epsilon _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}0`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BPS}}=0,& \overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BPS}}=0,\end{array}$$
(40)
or equivalently333One can also easily check from (24) that one annihilation in (41) implies the other.

$$\begin{array}{cc}(Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BPS}}=0,& i(Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{BPS}}=0.\end{array}$$
(41)
Namely, in the M-theory matrix model on a pp-wave, the BPS state always preserves pairs of supersymmetry, implying the possible fractions of the unbroken supersymmetry as $`\nu =2/16`$, $`4/16`$, $`6/16,\mathrm{},16/16`$.

If we introduce a basis for eight component spinors, $`\{\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\}`$, such that their $`(\beta ,\dot{\beta })`$ components are

$$(\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})_{\beta \dot{\beta }}=\delta _\beta ^\alpha \delta _{\dot{\beta }}^{\dot{\alpha }},$$
(42)
we can write the pair of Killing spinors for (41),

$$\begin{array}{cc}_+^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\\ \\ ϵ(\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^{}\end{array}\right),& _{}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{c}i\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\\ \\ iϵ(\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^{}\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{123}_+^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}.\end{array}$$
(43)
The corresponding $`\nu =2/16`$ projection matrix is then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=_+^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(_+^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^{}+_{}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(_{}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^T& 0\\ 0& ϵ\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}(\zeta ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})^Tϵ^1\end{array}\right).$$
(44)
From (94) it is straightforward to expand this projection matrix in terms of the gamma matrices

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{8}\left(1+\lambda _0\mathrm{\Gamma }^3\lambda _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{6789}\lambda _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{8945}\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{4567}\lambda _0\lambda _1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1245}\lambda _0\lambda _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1267}\lambda _0\lambda _1\lambda _2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1289}\right).$$
(45)
Here $`\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ are three independent signs,

$$\lambda _0^2=\lambda _1^2=\lambda _2^2=1,$$
(46)
which are related to $`(\alpha ,\dot{\alpha })`$ or the unbroken supersymmetry, $`Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}+\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$, $`i(Q_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{Q}^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }})`$, as

| $`\lambda _0`$ | $`\lambda _1`$ | $`\lambda _2`$ | $`(\alpha ,\dot{\alpha })`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $`(1,1)`$ |
| $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $`(1,2)`$ |
| $`+`$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $`(1,3)`$ |
| $`+`$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`(1,4)`$ |
| $``$ | $`+`$ | $`+`$ | $`(2,1)`$ |
| $``$ | $`+`$ | $``$ | $`(2,2)`$ |
| $``$ | $``$ | $`+`$ | $`(2,3)`$ |
| $``$ | $``$ | $``$ | $`(2,4)`$ |

This relation enables us to define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}`$, $`\lambda =(\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$. It is worth to note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda `$’s are orthogonal to each other

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda \mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ^{}=\delta _{\lambda \lambda ^{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda ,$$
(47)
and also complete

$$\underset{\lambda }{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\lambda =1_{16\times 16}.$$
(48)
Other generic projection matrices of the fractions, $`\nu =𝒩/16`$, $`𝒩=4,6,\mathrm{},16`$, are then constructed by summing $`𝒩/2`$ different $`2/16`$ projection operators above.

### 3.2 $`2/16`$ BPS configurations

Substituting (45) into (35) and expanding it by the anti-symmetric products of the gamma matrices, it is straightforward to obtain the $`2/16`$ BPS equations,

$$\begin{array}{cc}D_tX^1+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^1]+\lambda _0\frac{\mu }{3}X^2=0,\hfill & D_tX^2+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^2]\lambda _0\frac{\mu }{3}X^1=0,\hfill \\ & \\ D_tX^3=0,\hfill & \\ & \\ D_tX^4+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^4]\lambda _1\frac{\mu }{6}X^5=0,\hfill & D_tX^5+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^5]+\lambda _1\frac{\mu }{6}X^4=0,\hfill \\ & \\ D_tX^6+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^6]\lambda _2\frac{\mu }{6}X^7=0,\hfill & D_tX^7+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^7]+\lambda _2\frac{\mu }{6}X^6=0,\hfill \\ & \\ D_tX^8+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^8]\lambda _1\lambda _2\frac{\mu }{6}X^9=0,\hfill & D_tX^9+i\lambda _0[X^3,X^9]+\lambda _1\lambda _2\frac{\mu }{6}X^8=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [X^1,X^4]\lambda _0\lambda _1[X^2,X^5]=0,\hfill & [X^1,X^5]+\lambda _0\lambda _1[X^2,X^4]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [X^1,X^6]\lambda _0\lambda _2[X^2,X^7]=0,\hfill & [X^1,X^7]+\lambda _0\lambda _2[X^2,X^6]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [X^1,X^8]\lambda _0\lambda _1\lambda _2[X^2,X^9]=0,\hfill & [X^1,X^9]+\lambda _0\lambda _1\lambda _2[X^2,X^8]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [X^4,X^6]\lambda _1\lambda _2[X^5,X^7]=0,\hfill & [X^4,X^7]+\lambda _1\lambda _2[X^5,X^6]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [X^4,X^8]\lambda _2[X^5,X^9]=0,\hfill & [X^4,X^9]+\lambda _2[X^5,X^8]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [X^6,X^8]\lambda _1[X^7,X^9]=0,\hfill & [X^6,X^9]+\lambda _1[X^7,X^8]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{\lambda _0[X^1,X^2]+\lambda _1[X^4,X^5]+\lambda _2[X^6,X^7]+\lambda _1\lambda _2[X^8,X^9]i\lambda _0\frac{\mu }{3}X^3=0.}\end{array}$$
(49)
In addition there exists the Gauss constraint

$$\underset{A}{}[D_tX^A,X_A]=0.$$
(50)
Surely any solution of the BPS equations subject to the Gauss constraint satisfies the full equations of motion (90), as discussed in the appendix.

All the different choices for $`\lambda =(\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\lambda _2)`$ are $`\text{SO}(3)\times \text{SO}(6)`$ equivalent. In particular, for $`\lambda =(+,+,+)`$, if we complexify the coordinates as

$$\begin{array}{cccc}Z_0=X_1+iX_2,& Z_1=X_4+iX_5,& Z_2=X_6+iX_7,& Z_3=X_8+iX_9,\end{array}$$
(51)
and set $`\overline{Z}_\mu =(Z_\mu )^{}`$, $`\mu =0,1,2,3`$, the $`2/16`$ BPS equations get simplified as

$$\begin{array}{cc}D_tZ_0+i[X^3,Z_0]i\frac{\mu }{3}Z_0=0,\hfill & D_tZ_1+i[X^3,Z_1]+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_1=0,\hfill \\ & \\ D_tZ_2+i[X^3,Z_2]+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_2=0,\hfill & D_tZ_3+i[X^3,Z_3]+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_3=0,\hfill \\ & \\ D_tX^3=0,\hfill & [Z_\mu ,Z_\nu ]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{[Z_0,\overline{Z}_0]+[Z_1,\overline{Z}_1]+[Z_2,\overline{Z}_2]+[Z_3,\overline{Z}_3]\frac{2}{3}\mu X^3=0.}\end{array}$$
(52)
The Gauss constraint reads

$$\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{3}{}}[D_tZ_\mu ,\overline{Z}_\mu ]+[D_t\overline{Z}_\mu ,Z_\mu ]=0.$$
(53)
The energy is saturated, from (2793), by the angular momenta and the central charges,

$$H=\frac{\mu }{3}M_{12}\frac{\mu }{6}(M_{45}+M_{67}+M_{89})+\frac{1}{2}(R_{1245}+R_{1267}+R_{1289}).$$
(54)
Solutions of the finite size surely do not carry any central charge so that they describe rotating supersymmetric objects. On the other hand, from the Hodge duality, $`R_{iab}\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}R_{jkab}`$, the nontrivial static solutions correspond either to the longitudinal large M5 branes stretching in the $`1,2`$ and at least two of $`4,5,6,7,8,9`$ directions or to the large membranes stretching in the third and at least two of $`4,5,6,7,8,9`$ directions.

Though we do not know the most general solutions, it is easy to find solutions for the D0 branes rotating in the whole space except the third direction,

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z_0(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{3}t}𝒵_0,\hfill & Z_1(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}𝒵_1,\hfill \\ & \\ Z_2(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}𝒵_2,\hfill & Z_3(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}𝒵_3,\hfill \\ & \\ A_0=X^3=0,\hfill & 𝒵_\mu :\text{diagonal matrices}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(55)
### 3.3 $`4/16`$ BPS configurations - type I

The $`\nu =4/16`$ projection matrices are sum of any two different $`2/16`$ projection operators. It is easy to see that there are three inequivalent ways of summing. The first type we consider corresponds to the choice, $`\lambda =(+++)`$ and $`(++)`$. The relevant $`4/16`$ BPS equations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}D_tZ_0+i[X^3,Z_0]i\frac{\mu }{3}Z_0=0,\hfill & D_tZ_1+i[X^3,Z_1]+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_1=0,\hfill \\ & \\ D_tX^3=0,\hfill & [Z_0,Z_1]=0,\hfill \\ & \\ X^6=X^7=X^8=X^9=0,\hfill & [Z_0,\overline{Z}_0]+[Z_1,\overline{Z}_1]\frac{2}{3}\mu X^3=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(56)
The Gauss constraint reads

$$[D_tZ_0,\overline{Z}_0]+[D_t\overline{Z}_0,Z_0]+[D_tZ_1,\overline{Z}_1]+[D_t\overline{Z}_1,Z_1]=0.$$
(57)
The energy is saturated by the angular momenta as well as the central charges,

$$H=\frac{\mu }{3}M_{12}\frac{\mu }{6}M_{45}+\frac{1}{2}R_{1245},$$
(58)
and $`M_{67}=M_{89}=R_{1267}=R_{1289}=0`$.

Again, without knowing the most general solutions, we write the D0 brane solutions rotating on the $`(1,2)`$ and $`(4,5)`$ planes,

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z_0(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{3}t}𝒵_0,\hfill & Z_1(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}𝒵_1,\hfill \\ & \\ A_0=X^3=X^6=X^7=X^8=X^9=0,\hfill & 𝒵_0,𝒵_1:\text{diagonal matrices}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
### 3.4 $`4/16`$ BPS configurations - type II : $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet, rotating fuzzy sphere

The choice, $`\lambda =(+++)`$ and $`(++)`$, corresponds quantum mechanically to the $`4/16`$ $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet BPS multiplet . The energy is saturated by the angular momenta only,

$$H=\frac{\mu }{6}(M_{45}+M_{67}+M_{89}),$$
(60)
since $`M_{12}=R_{1245}=R_{1267}=R_{1289}=0`$. The relevant $`4/16`$ BPS equations are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[X_i,X_j]i\frac{\mu }{3}ϵ_{ijk}X^k=0,\hfill & D_tX^i=0,\hfill & [X^i,X^a]=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ D_tZ_1+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_1=0,\hfill & D_tZ_2+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_2=0,\hfill & D_tZ_3+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_3=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ [Z_1,Z_2]=0,\hfill & [Z_2,Z_3]=0,\hfill & [Z_3,Z_1]=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{[Z_1,\overline{Z}_1]+[Z_2,\overline{Z}_2]+[Z_3,\overline{Z}_3]=0:\text{Gauss constraint\hspace{0.17em}.}}\end{array}$$
(61)
Note that the BPS equations themselves contain the Gauss constraint in this case.

For the finite matrices, the BPS equations imply that $`Z_1`$, $`Z_2`$, $`Z_3`$ can be simultaneously triangulized. Then the Gauss constraint tells us that they are actually diagonal. Therefore, the above BPS equations describe the fuzzy sphere or the giant graviton rotating on the $`(4,5)`$, $`(6,7)`$, $`(8,9)`$ planes,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X_i=\frac{\mu }{3}J_i,\hfill & [J_i,J_j]=iϵ_{ijk}J_k,\hfill & A_0=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ Z_1(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}z_11,\hfill & Z_2(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}z_21,\hfill & Z_3(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}z_31,\hfill \end{array}$$
(62)
where $`z_1,z_2,z_3`$ are arbitrary complex numbers indicating the position of the fuzzy sphere at $`t=0`$. This gives the most general irreducible finite matrix solutions.

On the other hand, in the large $`N`$ limit, by setting $`X^i=Z_3=A_0=0`$ one can obtain the rotating longitudinal flat M5 branes as found by Hyun and Shin

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{Z_1(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}(x_4+ix_5),Z_2(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}(x_6+ix_7),}\\ & & \\ [x_4,x_5]+[x_6,x_7]=0,& [x_4,x_6]+[x_7,x_5]=0,& [x_4,x_7]+[x_5,x_6]=0,\end{array}$$
(63)
where $`x_4,x_5,x_6,x_7`$ are time independent. The energy is given by $`H=\frac{\mu }{6}(M_{45}+M_{67})`$, and hence, contrary to the conventional wisdom , the presence of the large longitudinal M5 branes do not always require the nonvanishing central charges when they rotate.

In any case, we do not know the most general infinite matrix solutions.

### 3.5 $`4/16`$ BPS configurations - type III

With the choice, $`\lambda =(+++)`$ and $`(+)`$, the corresponding $`4/16`$ BPS equations are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[Z_0,X^3]+\frac{\mu }{3}Z_0=0,\hfill & [Z_2,X^3]\frac{\mu }{6}Z_2=0,\hfill & [Z_3,X^3]\frac{\mu }{6}Z_3=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ D_tZ_1+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_1=0,\hfill & D_tX^i=0,\hfill & D_tX^6=D_tX^7=D_tX^8=D_tX^9=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ [Z_0,Z_2]=0,\hfill & [Z_0,Z_3]=0,\hfill & [Z_2,Z_3]=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ [X^4,X^A]=0,\hfill & [X^5,X^A]=0,\hfill & [Z_0,\overline{Z}_0]+[Z_2,\overline{Z}_2]+[Z_3,\overline{Z}_3]\frac{2}{3}\mu X^3=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(64)
Note that the BPS equations themselves satisfy the Gauss constraint, $`[X^4,X^5]=0`$, in this case too. The energy is saturated by the angular momenta and the central charges,

$$H=\frac{\mu }{6}M_{45}+\frac{1}{2}(R_{1267}+R_{1289}),$$
(65)
with $`M_{12}=M_{67}=M_{89}=R_{1245}=0`$.

Again we do not know the most general solutions. A particular solution we found involves a fuzzy sphere at the origin and a pair of hyperboloids. They are rotating on the $`(4,5)`$ plane. With the defining relation for a $`\text{so}(3)`$ fuzzy sphere and a $`\text{so}(2,1)`$ hyperboloid,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[J_1,J_2]=iJ_3,\hfill & [J_2,J_3]=iJ_1,\hfill & [J_3,J_1]=iJ_2,\hfill \\ & & \\ [K_1,K_2]=iK_3,\hfill & [K_2,K_3]=iK_1,\hfill & [K_3,K_1]=iK_2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(66)
our solution reads

$$\begin{array}{cccc}Z_1(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}z_11,\hfill & A_0=0,\hfill & X_1=\frac{\mu }{3}P_0J_1P_0^{},\hfill & X_2=\frac{\mu }{3}P_0J_2P_0^{},\hfill \\ & & & \\ X_6=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\mu P_1K_2P_1^{},\hfill & X_7=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\mu P_1K_1P_1^{},\hfill & X_8=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\mu P_2K_2^{}P_2^{},\hfill & X_9=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\mu P_2K_1^{}P_2^{},\hfill \\ & & & \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{X_3=\frac{\mu }{3}P_0J_3P_0^{}+\frac{\mu }{6}P_1K_3P_1^{}+\frac{\mu }{6}P_2K_3^{}P_2^{},}\end{array}$$
(67)
where $`P_0`$, $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ are projection operators to the orthogonal spaces,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P_0=_n|3nn|,& P_1=_n|3n+1n|,& P_0=_n|3n+2n|,\end{array}$$
(68)
and $`K_1^{}`$, $`K_2^{}`$, $`K_3^{}`$ form another $`\text{so}(2,1)`$ representation which can be different from the unprimed ones (66). We refer  for the details of the various $`\text{so}(2,1)`$ representations. The solution admits a Casimir operator,

$$2X_1^2+2X_2^2+2X_3^2X_6^2X_7^2X_8^2X_9^2=\text{constant}\times 1.$$
(69)
### 3.6 $`8/16`$ BPS configurations - type I : $`\text{su}(4)`$ singlet, various rotating objects

Three distinct sets of the $`2/16`$ BPS equations are equivalent to the four distinct sets. Consequently there exits no genuine $`\nu =6/16`$ classical BPS configuration. There are three inequivalent ways of summing $`2/16`$ projection matrices, and hence three inequivalent sets of the $`8/16`$ BPS equations.

The first type we consider deals with the choice, $`\lambda =(+++),(++),(++),(+)`$ so that quantum mechanically it corresponds to the $`\text{su}(4)`$ singlet BPS multiplet . The energy is saturated by a single angular momentum only,

$$H=\frac{\mu }{3}M_{12},$$
(70)
and $`M_{45}=M_{67}=M_{89}=R_{1245}=R_{1267}=R_{1289}=0`$.

The relevant $`8/16`$ BPS equations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}D_tZ_0+i[X^3,Z_0]i\frac{\mu }{3}Z_0=0,\hfill & D_tX^3=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [Z_0,\overline{Z}_0]\frac{2}{3}\mu X^3=0,\hfill & X^4=X^5=X^6=X^7=X^8=X^9=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(71)
while the Gauss constraint becomes

$$[Z_0,[\overline{Z}_0,X^3]]+[\overline{Z}_0,[Z_0,X^3]]=(\frac{2}{3}\mu )^2X^3.$$
(72)
Some solutions of these BPS equations have been found by Bak  and also recently by Mikhailov  using different ansatz, but the general solutions are not known. The solutions include rotating D0 branes,

$$\begin{array}{cc}X^3=A_0=0,\hfill & Z_0(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{3}t}𝒵_0:\text{diagonal matrix},\hfill \end{array}$$
(73)
rotating ellipsoidal branes with a real parameter, $`\theta `$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z_0(t)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\mu e^{i\frac{\mu }{3}t}(\mathrm{cos}\theta J_1+i\mathrm{sin}\theta J_2),\hfill & X^3=A_0=\frac{\mu }{3}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )J_3,\hfill \end{array}$$
(74)
rotating hyperboloids,

$$\begin{array}{cc}Z_0(t)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\mu e^{i\frac{\mu }{3}t}(\mathrm{cosh}\theta K_3+i\mathrm{sinh}\theta K_1),\hfill & X^3=A_0=\frac{\mu }{3}\mathrm{sinh}(2\theta )K_2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(75)
and rotating non-spherical giant gravitons like the fuzzy torus,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z_0(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{3}t}𝒵_0,\hfill & X_3=A_0=(\frac{2}{3}\mu )^1[𝒵_0,\overline{𝒵}_0],\hfill & [X^3,𝒵_0]=\frac{\mu }{3}(𝒵_0\theta (\overline{𝒵}_0)^1),\hfill \\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{𝒵_0=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}q_n|nn+1|+q_N|N1|,}\\ & & \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{2|q_n|^2|q_{n+1}|^2|q_{n1}|^2=2(\frac{\mu }{3})^2(1\theta |q_n|^2),q_0q_N,q_{N+1}q_1.}\end{array}$$
(76)
### 3.7 $`8/16`$ BPS configurations - type II : $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet, rotating fuzzy sphere

With the choice, $`\lambda =(+++),(++),(++),(+)`$, we deal with the $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet BPS multiplet . The energy is saturated by a single angular momentum only,

$$H=\frac{\mu }{6}M_{45},$$
(77)
and $`M_{12}=M_{67}=M_{89}=R_{1245}=R_{1267}=R_{1289}=0`$.

The corresponding BPS equations are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[X_i,X_j]i\frac{\mu }{3}ϵ_{ijk}X^k=0,\hfill & D_tX^i=0,\hfill & D_tZ_1+i\frac{\mu }{6}Z_1=0,\hfill \\ & & \\ X^6=X^7=X^8=X^9=0,\hfill & [X^i,Z_1]=0,\hfill & [Z_1,\overline{Z}_1]=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(78)
where the last equation agrees with the Gauss constraint in this case.

The solutions generically describe fuzzy spheres rotating on the $`(4,5)`$ plane,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X_i=\frac{\mu }{3}J_i,\hfill & A_0=0,\hfill & Z_1(t)=e^{i\frac{\mu }{6}t}z_11.\hfill \end{array}$$
(79)
Of course, when the representation of the fuzzy sphere is trivial, the solutions describe the D0 branes rotating on the $`(4,5)`$ plane .

### 3.8 $`8/16`$ BPS configurations - type III : static, large M2 or longitudinal M5

With the choice, $`\lambda =(+++),(++),(+),()`$, we obtain the ‘static’ $`4/16`$ BPS equations,

$$\begin{array}{cc}D_tX^i=D_tZ_1=0,\hfill & X^6=X^7=X^8=X^9=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [Z_0,X^3]+\frac{\mu }{3}Z_0=0,\hfill & [Z_1,X^3]\frac{\mu }{6}Z_1=0,\hfill \\ & \\ [Z_0,Z_1]=0,\hfill & [Z_0,\overline{Z}_0]+[Z_1,\overline{Z}_1]\frac{2}{3}\mu X^3=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(80)
The Gauss constraint is trivial surely. The energy is saturated by a central charge only,

$$H=\frac{1}{2}R_{1245},$$
(81)
and $`M_{12}=M_{45}=M_{67}=M_{89}=R_{1267}=R_{1289}=0`$. Thus, it describes static longitudinal large M5 branes stretching in the $`1,2,4,5`$ directions or static large membranes stretching in the $`3,4,5`$ directions.

A class of solutions we found involves a fuzzy sphere and a hyperboloid. The hyperboloid is stretched in the $`3,4,5`$ directions. With the projection operators,

$$\begin{array}{cc}P_+=_n|2nn|,& P_{}=_n|2n+1n|,\end{array}$$
(82)
and the gauge choice, $`A_0=0`$, our solution reads

$$\begin{array}{cccc}X_1=\frac{\mu }{3}P_+J_1P_+^{},\hfill & X_2=\frac{\mu }{3}P_+J_2P_+^{},\hfill & X_4=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\mu P_{}K_2P_{}^{},\hfill & X_5=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6}\mu P_{}K_1P_{}^{},\hfill \\ & & & \\ \multicolumn{4}{c}{X_3=\frac{\mu }{3}P_+J_3P_+^{}+\frac{\mu }{6}P_{}K_3P_{}^{}.}\end{array}$$
(83)
Again we do not know the most general solutions.

### 3.9 $`16/16`$ BPS configurations : static fuzzy sphere

More than four sets of the $`2/16`$ BPS equations have only the static fuzzy sphere as the common solution. Thus, there exits no genuine $`\nu =10/16`$, $`12/16`$, $`14/16`$ classical BPS configuration. For the completeness we write the $`16/16`$ BPS equations describing the static fuzzy spheres,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}[X_i,X_j]i\frac{\mu }{3}ϵ_{ijk}X^k=0,& D_tX^i=0,& X^4=X^5=X^6=X^7=X^8=X^9=0.\end{array}$$
(84)
## 4 Conclusion

We have obtained, in a systematic way, all the classical BPS equations which correspond to the quantum BPS states in the M-theory on a fully supersymmetric pp-wave.

The superalgebra of the M-theory matrix model shows that the BPS states always preserve pairs of supersymmetry, implying the possible fractions of the unbroken supersymmetry as $`\nu =2/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}/16,\mathrm{}`$. Diagonalizing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{12},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{45},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{67},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{89}`$ for the Cartan subalgebra, we were able to identify all the pairs of Killing spinors explicitly. There are eight of them and they are orthogonal and complete.

The key tool we employed was the projection matrix to the kernel space the Killing spinors form. The minimal, $`\nu =2/16`$, projection matrices were constructed and written in terms of the anti-symmetric gamma matrix products. Three independent signs appearing in the expression make eight of them orthogonal and complete. The corresponding $`2/16`$ BPS equations were then obtained from replacing the Killing spinor in the supersymmetry transformation formula by the projection operator. Expanding this formula by the gamma matrix products, we obtained eight sets of the $`2/16`$ BPS equations of different sign choices. Up to the isometry group, $`\text{SO}(3)\times \text{SO}(6)`$, they are all equivalent. Similarly, the BPS equations of the higher fractions, $`\nu =𝒩/16`$, $`𝒩=4,6,8,\mathrm{}`$, can be obtained from the projection operator which is any $`𝒩/2`$ sum of the minimal ones. Effectively, the $`𝒩/16`$ BPS equations are equivalent to the $`𝒩/2`$ sets of the $`2/16`$ BPS equations.

We found there are essentially one unique set of $`2/16`$ BPS equations, three inequivalent types of $`4/16`$ BPS equations, and three inequivalent types of $`8/16`$ BPS equations, in addition to the $`16/16`$ static fuzzy sphere. In particular, three of them correspond to the $`4/16`$ $`\text{su}(2)`$, $`8/16`$ $`\text{su}(2)`$ and $`8/16`$ $`\text{su}(4)`$ singlet BPS multiplets found in our previous work . However, the $`12/16`$ $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet BPS multiplets do not appear as classical configurations.

For each BPS configuration, we obtained the energy saturation formula in terms of the angular momenta and the central charges. The formula contains some useful informations such as the static properties, the rotational directions, and the stretched directions of the large objects, M2, M5. Our results show that all the classical $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet and $`\text{su}(4)`$ singlet BPS configurations have vanishing central charges.

According to the superalgebra representation theory results , there can appear $`2/16,4/16,6/16,8/16,12/16,16/16`$ BPS states only in the supermultiplets. Our results show that at the classical level, $`6/16`$ and $`12/16`$ BPS configurations are missing.

In most of the cases we were not able to obtain the most general solutions, but we discussed at least one class of solutions in each case. For the $`\text{su}(2)`$ singlet $`4/16`$, $`8/16`$ BPS equations we obtained the most general finite matrix solutions. They describe the rotating fuzzy spheres. Namely the fuzzy sphere is fully supersymmetric when it is static, half supersymmetric when it is rotating on a single plane, $`(4,5)`$, quarter supersymmetric when it is rotating on the three planes, $`(4,5),(6,7),(8,9)`$, demonstrating the supersymmetry breaking pattern as $`16/168/164/16`$. Some non-supersymmetric fuzzy sphere configurations have been studied in .

As for the D0 branes, when they rotate on the $`(1,2)`$ plane with the frequency, $`\mu /3`$, or $`(4,5)`$, $`(6,7)`$, $`(8,9)`$ planes with the frequency, $`\mu /6`$, we have the unbroken supersymmetry as

| $`\nu `$ | rotating planes for D0 | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`2/16`$ | $`(1,2)`$ | $`(4,5)`$ | $`(6,7)`$ | $`(8,9)`$ |
| $`4/16_{\mathrm{type}\mathrm{I}}`$ | $`(1,2)`$ | $`(4,5)`$ |  |  |
| $`4/16_{\mathrm{type}\mathrm{II}}`$ |  | $`(4,5)`$ | $`(6,7)`$ | $`(8,9)`$ |
| $`8/16_{\mathrm{type}\mathrm{I}}`$ | $`(1,2)`$ |  |  |  |
| $`8/16_{\mathrm{type}\mathrm{II}}`$ |  | $`(4,5)`$ |  |  |

We found a class of solutions for the $`4/16_{\mathrm{type}\mathrm{III}}`$ BPS equations which consists of a fuzzy sphere and a pair of hyperboloids rotating on the $`(4,5)`$ planes. It would be interesting to find more mingled configurations which realize the curved longitudinal M5 branes.

The $`\text{su}(4)`$ singlet $`8/16`$ BPS equations have various known solutions in the literature as rotating D0 branes, ellipsoidal branes, hyperboloids and fuzzy torus. All of them rotate on the $`(1,2)`$ plane with the frequency, $`\mu /3`$, having the energy, $`H=\frac{\mu }{3}M_{12}`$.

The $`8/16_{\mathrm{type}\mathrm{III}}`$ BPS equations are of unique interest since they are genuinely static equations. They describe static large longitudinal M5 branes stretching in the $`1,2,4,5`$ directions or static large membranes stretching in the $`3,4,5`$ directions. The energy is saturated by a single central charge, $`H=\frac{1}{2}R_{1245}`$.

Contrary to the conventional wisdom , the presence of the large longitudinal M5 branes do not always imply the nonvanishing central charges when they rotate.

In principle, one could obtain “$`1/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}/16,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}5}/16,\mathrm{}`$ BPS equations” using the projection matrix method. The generic solution of these equations, if any, will correspond not to a single state in the supermultiplets, but to a linear combination of the states, for any choice of the Cartan subalgebra. Further investigation is required.

Our BPS equations are directly applicable to the BFSS matrix model or to the ten dimensional super Yang-Mills theory. One simply needs to set $`\mu =0`$ and replace $`D_tX_A`$, $`i[X_A,X_B]`$ by $`F_{0A}`$, $`F_{AB}`$. We present the BPS equations in ten dimensional super Yang-Mills theory in the appendix (96).

It would be interesting to see how the BPS configurations we obtained will appear in the IIA string theory on a pp-wave  or in the DLCQ description of the longitudinal M5 branes on a pp-wave .

###### Acknowledgments.

The author wishes to thank Kimyeong Lee, Sang-Heon Yi for the useful discussions, Mahn-Soo Choi, Mark Van Raamsdonk for the helpful comments, and Nakwoo Kim, Richard Szabo for the nice hospitality.

## Appendix A Appendix

Here we show that any solution of the BPS equations subject to the Gauss constraint satisfies the full equations of motion.

First it is useful to note that under the supersymmetry transformations (17) the Lagrangian transforms as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\delta \hfill & =\mathrm{tr}\left(\delta X^A\frac{}{X^A}+\delta \dot{X}^A\frac{}{\dot{X}^A}+\delta A_0\frac{}{A_0}+\delta \psi _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{}{\psi _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}+\delta \dot{\psi }_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{}{\dot{\psi }_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}+\delta \overline{\psi }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{}{\overline{\psi }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}}\right)\hfill \\ & \\ & =\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{tr}\left(\delta X^A\frac{}{\dot{X}^A}+i\delta \overline{\psi }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\psi _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(85)
from which we obtain the Noether charge of the supersymmetry (21).

For the BPS solutions satisfying $`\delta \psi =\delta \overline{\psi }=0`$, the above relation reduces to

$$\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^A(t)\left(\frac{}{X^A}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{}{\dot{X}^A}\right)\right)+\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(t)\frac{}{A_0}\right]=0.$$
(86)
This equation holds for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, and hence

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^A(t)\left(\frac{}{X^A}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{}{\dot{X}^A}\right)\right)|_{\mathrm{\Psi }=0}+(t)\frac{}{A_0}|_{\mathrm{\Psi }=0}=0.$$
(87)
At this point one can safely assume $`(t)`$ is bosonic. Then contracting with $`(t)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^B`$ and using

$$(t)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^B\mathrm{\Gamma }^A(t)=(t)^TC^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^B\mathrm{\Gamma }^A(t)=(t)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^B(t)=\delta ^{AB}(t)^{}(t),$$
(88)
we obtain

$$(t)^{}(t)\left(\frac{}{X^B}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{}{\dot{X}^B}\right)\right)|_{\mathrm{\Psi }=0}+(t)^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^B(t)\frac{}{A_0}|_{\mathrm{\Psi }=0}=0.$$
(89)
This completes our proof.

The full equations of motion of the M-theory matrix model are

$$\begin{array}{c}D_tD_tX_i+[X^A,[X_A,X_i]]+i\mu ϵ_{ijk}X^jX^k+(\frac{\mu }{3})^2X_i\{\overline{\psi }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},(\sigma _i\psi )_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\}=0,\hfill \\ \\ D_tD_tX_a+[X^A,[X_A,X_a]]+(\frac{\mu }{6})^2X_a\frac{1}{2}\{\overline{\psi }^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }},(\rho _a\stackrel{~}{\psi })_{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}\}\frac{1}{2}\{\overline{\stackrel{~}{\psi }}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{\dot{\alpha }}{}^{},(\overline{\rho }_a\psi )_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\dot{\alpha }}\}=0,\hfill \\ \\ iD_t\psi \frac{\mu }{4}\psi [X^i,\sigma _i\psi ][X^a,\rho _a\stackrel{~}{\psi }]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(90)
Our choice of the Euclidean six dimensional gamma matrices (11) are off-block diagonal

$$\begin{array}{cc}\gamma ^a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \rho ^a\\ \overline{\rho }^a& 0\end{array}\right),& \rho ^a\overline{\rho }^b+\rho ^b\overline{\rho }^a=2\delta ^{ab},\end{array}$$
(91)
where the $`4\times 4`$ matrices, $`\rho ^a,\overline{\rho }^b`$ satisfy

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{\rho }^a=(\rho ^a)^{},& (\rho ^a)_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=(\rho ^a)_{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }},& (\overline{\rho }^a)^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}=(\overline{\rho }^a)^{\dot{\beta }\dot{\alpha }}.\end{array}$$
(92)
Using the $`\text{U}(4)`$ symmetry, $`\rho _aU\rho _aU^T`$, $`UU^{}=1`$, which preserves the anti-symmetric property of $`\rho _a`$, we can diagonalize $`\gamma ^{45},\gamma ^{67},\gamma ^{89}`$ simultaneously

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\rho ^{45}=i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),& \rho ^{67}=i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),& \rho ^{89}=i\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right).\end{array}$$
(93)
Explicitly we have (cf. )

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\rho ^4=\left(\begin{array}{cc}iϵ& 0\\ 0& iϵ^1\end{array}\right),\hfill & \rho ^5=\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ& 0\\ 0& ϵ^1\end{array}\right),\hfill & \rho ^6=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\sigma ^3\\ i(\sigma ^3)^T& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill \\ & & \\ \rho ^7=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right),\hfill & \rho ^8=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\sigma ^1\\ i(\sigma ^1)^T& 0\end{array}\right),\hfill & \rho ^9=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\sigma ^2\\ i(\sigma ^2)^T& 0\end{array}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(94)
Evaluating the anti-commutator of the supercharges to derive the supersymmetry algebra (27), one needs the following Fierz identities for the nine dimensional gamma matrices, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^A)_{\overline{\alpha }}^{\overline{\beta }}`$, $`\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }=1,2,\mathrm{},16`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta ^{\overline{\alpha }}{}_{\overline{\gamma }}{}^{}\delta _{}^{\overline{\beta }}{}_{\overline{\delta }}{}^{}\delta ^{\overline{\alpha }}{}_{\overline{\delta }}{}^{}\delta _{}^{\overline{\beta }}{}_{\overline{\gamma }}{}^{}=\frac{1}{16}(C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB})^{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AB}C)_{\overline{\gamma }\overline{\delta }}+\frac{1}{48}(C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ABC})^{\overline{\alpha }\overline{\beta }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ABC}C)_{\overline{\gamma }\overline{\delta }},\hfill \\ \\ (\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB})_{\overline{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\gamma }}(C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }_B)_{}^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\delta }}+(C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^{AB})^{\overline{\beta }\overline{\delta }}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_B)_{\overline{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\gamma }}+(\overline{\gamma }\overline{\delta })=2(\mathrm{\Gamma }^A)_{\overline{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\beta }}C_{}^{1}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\gamma }\overline{\delta }}2\delta _{\overline{\alpha }}{}_{}{}^{\overline{\beta }}(C^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^A)_{}^{\overline{\gamma }\overline{\delta }}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(95)
The $`2/16`$ BPS equations in ten dimensional super Yang-Mills theory read with three independent signs, $`\lambda _0^2=\lambda _1^2=\lambda _2^2=1`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}F_{0A}+\lambda _0F_{A3}=0,\hfill & \lambda _0F_{12}+\lambda _1F_{45}+\lambda _2F_{67}+\lambda _1\lambda _2F_{89}=0,\hfill \\ & \\ F_{14}+\lambda _0\lambda _1F_{52}=0,\hfill & F_{15}+\lambda _0\lambda _1F_{24}=0,\hfill \\ & \\ F_{16}+\lambda _0\lambda _2F_{72}=0,\hfill & F_{17}+\lambda _0\lambda _2F_{26}=0,\hfill \\ & \\ F_{18}+\lambda _0\lambda _1\lambda _2F_{92}=0,\hfill & F_{19}+\lambda _0\lambda _1\lambda _2F_{28}=0,\hfill \\ & \\ F_{46}+\lambda _1\lambda _2F_{75}=0,\hfill & F_{47}+\lambda _1\lambda _2F_{56}=0,\hfill \\ & \\ F_{48}+\lambda _2F_{95}=0,\hfill & F_{49}+\lambda _2F_{58}=0,\hfill \\ & \\ F_{68}+\lambda _1F_{97}=0,\hfill & F_{69}+\lambda _1F_{78}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(96)
In addition there exists the Gauss constraint, $`D^AF_{0A}=0`$. The generic BPS equations of the higher fractions, $`\nu =2/16,4/16,8/16,\mathrm{}`$, are ready to be obtained from this.


format: text

text:
# Large Intervals in the Clone Lattice

## 0. Introduction

###### Definition 0.1.

Let $`X`$ be a nonempty set. The full clone on $`X`$, called $`𝒪`$ or $`𝒪(X)`$ is the set of all finitary functions or (“operations”) on $`X`$: $`𝒪=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒪^{(n)}`$, where $`𝒪^{(n)}`$ is the set of all functions from $`X^n`$ into $`X`$.
A clone (on $`X`$) is a set $`𝒞𝒪`$ which contains all projections and is closed under composition.

Alternatively, $`𝒞`$ is a clone if $`𝒞`$ is the set of term functions of some universal algebra over $`X`$.

For any set $`𝒞𝒪`$, we write $`cl(𝒞)`$ for the smallest clone containing $`𝒞`$.

The set of clones over $`X`$ forms a complete algebraic lattice with largest element $`𝒪`$. The coatoms of this lattice are called “precomplete clones” or “maximal clones”. (See also \[Szendrei 1986\], \[Pöschel+Kalužnin 1979\]).

###### Definition 0.2.

A clone $`𝒞`$ is called a local clone, iff each set $`𝒞𝒪^{(k)}`$ is closed in the product topology (Tychonoff topology) on $`X^{X^k}`$, where $`X`$ is taken to be discrete. In other words, $`𝒞`$ is local iff:

> Whenever $`f𝒪^{(k)}`$, and for all finite sets $`AX^k`$ there is $`g𝒞`$ with $`gA=fA`$, then $`f𝒞`$

For any $`𝒞𝒪`$, we write $`loc(𝒞)`$ for the smallest local clone containing $`𝒞`$. (So $`cl(𝒞)loc(𝒞)`$.)

The set of local clones over $`X`$ forms again a complete lattice with largest element $`𝒪`$ (a sublattice of the lattice of all clone). The coatoms of this lattice are called “precomplete local clones” or “maximal local clones”. Note that not every precomplete local clone is also a precomplete clone.

If $`X`$ is finite (so the notions of “clone” and “local clone” coincide), the precomplete clones are useful as a completeness criterion. By a theorem of Rosenberg,

* there are only finitely many (how many depends on the size of $`X`$) precomplete clones, and in fact there is an explicit list $`_1^X,\mathrm{},_m^X`$ of them, together with effective procedures for checking $`f_i`$
* every clone $`𝒞𝒪`$ is contained in a precomplete clone.

Hence, there is an effective procedure to check if a given set of functions generates all of $`𝒪`$, i.e., $`cl(\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\})=𝒪`$: Just check if $`\{f_1,\mathrm{},f_n\}`$ is contained in one of the maximal clones.

For an infinite set $`X`$, it is known that there are infinitely many precomplete clones (in fact: $`2^{|X|}`$ many precomplete local clones, and $`2^{2^{|X|}}`$ many precomplete clones). The question whether every clone $`𝒪`$ on an infinite set $`X`$ is below a precomplete clone \[“Is the lattice of clones dually atomic?”\] is still not fully resolved (the answer is “no”, if $`X`$ is countable and the continuum hypothesis holds, see \[Goldstern+Shelah 2005\]).

We will show here that the corresponding question for local clones has a negative answer in ZFC.

\[Rosenberg+Szabó 1984\] showed that there are unbounded chains in the lattice of local clones (i.e., chains whose only upper bound is the trivial bound $`𝒪`$).

However, note that for a partial order $`(P,)`$ the properties

* Every element of $`P`$ is below a maximal element
* Every chain of $`P`$ is bounded

are in general not equivalent, not even if we restrict our attention to those partial orders which are of the form $`L\{\mathrm{max}L\}`$, for a complete algebraic lattice $`L`$.

The property $`()`$ always implies $`()`$ (by Zorn’s lemma), and the property $`()`$ trivially implies $`()`$ if $`P`$ has only finitely many maximal elements.

## 1. The lattice of local clones is not dually atomic

On any infinite set $`X`$ we will define a local clone $`𝒞_1`$ such that the interval $`[𝒞_1,𝒪]`$ in the local clone lattice is isomorphic to the natural numbers ordered by the divisibility relation.

###### Setup 1.1.

Fix an infinite set $`X`$, and let $`s:XX`$ be a 1-1 onto map without cycles. In other words, $`X=Y\times `$, and $`s(y,n)=(y,n+1)`$ for all $`yY`$, $`n`$. The orbits of $`s`$ (or: the sets $`\{y\}\times `$ are called “components”.

###### Notation 1.2.

We will write $`\overline{a}`$ or $`\overline{b}`$ to denote tuples $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ or $`(b_1,\mathrm{}b_k)`$ (the values of $`n`$ or $`k`$ will be either irrelevant, or clear from the context).

If $`\overline{a}`$, $`\overline{b}`$ are as above, then $`(\overline{a},\overline{b})`$ or $`(\overline{a},b_i:1ik)`$ denotes the $`n+k`$-tuple $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,b_1,\mathrm{},b_k)`$.

For $`n>0`$, $`s^n`$ is the $`n`$-th iterate of $`s`$, $`s^n`$ is the inverse of $`s^n`$. $`s^0`$ is the identity function. For $`nZ`$, $`aX`$ we may write $`a+n`$ instead of $`s^n(a)`$.

More generally, if $`\overline{a}=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)`$, $`n`$, then we write $`\overline{a}+n`$ for $`(s^n(a_1),\mathrm{},s^n(a_k))`$. Similarly, we may write $`\overline{a}n`$ for $`\overline{a}+(n)`$.

Clearly, $`(\overline{a}+n_1)+n_2=\overline{a}+(n_1+n_2)`$, and $`(\overline{a}+n_1)n_2=\overline{a}+(n_1n_2)`$, so we will often omit parentheses.

###### Definition and Fact 1.3.

For every $`n`$, the set

$$\mathrm{Pol}(s^n):=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{f𝒪^{(k)}:\overline{a}[f(\overline{a}+n)=f(\overline{a})+n]\}$$

is a local clone.

For $`n=0`$, $`\mathrm{Pol}(s^0)=𝒪`$.

These clones, and also the unbounded chain $`\mathrm{Pol}(s^{2^n})`$ were already considered in \[Rosenberg+Szabó 1984\].

###### Theorem 1.4.

Let $`s`$ be as above. $`𝒞_1:=\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$. Then the map $`nPol(s^n)`$ is a lattice isomorphism between the following two lattices:

* $`(,|)`$, the natural numbers with the divisibility relation, where $`1`$ is the smallest and $`0`$ the greatest element
* $`([𝒞_1,𝒪],)`$, the set of all local clones extending $`𝒞_1`$; this set is an interval in the lattice of local clones on $`X`$.

In particular, there is no precomplete local clone above $`𝒞_1`$. Also, if $`s`$ has infinitely many components, then $`(X,s)(X,s^n)`$ for all $`n0`$, so all clones in $`[𝒞_1,𝒪)`$ are isomorphic (i.e., conjugate to each other via permutations of $`X`$).

###### Definition 1.5.

We say that $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ are parallel (or $`s`$-parallel),

$$\overline{a}\overline{b}(\overline{a}_s\overline{b})$$

iff there is some $`n`$, $`\overline{a}+n=\overline{b}`$.

###### Fact 1.6.

1. For each $`k`$, $``$ is an equivalence relation on $`X^k`$.
2. If $`AX^k`$ meets each $``$-equivalence class in at most one element \[exactly one element\], and $`g:AX`$, then there is a function \[there is a unique function\] $`f\mathrm{Pol}(s)^{(k)}`$ with $`fA=g`$.

###### Definition 1.7.

For any local clone $`𝒟\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ define $`G_𝒟`$ and $`n_𝒟`$ as follows:

$`G_𝒟`$ $`:=\{n:𝒟^{(1)}\mathrm{Pol}(s^n)\}`$
$`n_𝒟`$ $`:=\mathrm{min}\{nG_𝒟,n>0\},n_𝒟:=0\text{ if }G_𝒟=\{0\}`$
###### Fact 1.8.

$`G_𝒟`$ is a subgroup of $``$, hence $`G_𝒟=\{n_𝒟k:k\}`$

###### Proof.

Let $`n,mG_𝒟`$, $`f𝒟^{(1)}`$. We have to check $`f(x+nm)=f(x)+nm`$ for all $`xX`$:

$$f(x+(nm))=f((x+n)m)=f(x+n)m=f(x)+nm$$

###### Lemma 1.9.

If $`𝒟\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ is a clone, and $`𝒟\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$, then already $`𝒟^{(1)}\mathrm{Pol}(s)^{(1)}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`g𝒟𝒪^{(k)}\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$, say $`g(\overline{a}+1)g(\overline{a})+1`$. Fix any $`bX`$. We can find unary functions $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_k\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ such that $`f_i(b)=a_i`$.
Now consider the function $`h:XX`$, defined by

$$h(x)=g(f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_k(x))$$

Clearly $`h𝒟^{(1)}`$, and $`h(b+1)=g(\overline{a}+1)g(\overline{a})+1=h(b)+1`$, so $`h\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 1.10.

Let $`𝒪^{(1)}`$, and let $`𝒟`$ be the local clone generated by $`\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$, $`n^{}:=n_𝒟`$.

If $`\overline{a}=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)`$ and $`\overline{b}=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_k)`$ are not $`s^n^{}`$-parallel, then there is a function $`f𝒟`$ such that $`(\overline{a},f(\overline{a}))`$ and $`(\overline{b},f(\overline{b}))`$ are not $`s`$-parallel.

###### Proof.

First, note that $`\mathrm{Pol}(s)𝒟^{(1)}\mathrm{Pol}(s^n^{})`$, so also $`𝒟\mathrm{Pol}(s^n^{})`$.

If $`\overline{a}`$ and $`\overline{b}`$ are not $`s`$-parallel, then there is nothing to do, so assume $`\overline{b}=\overline{a}+\mathrm{}`$. By our assumption, $`\mathrm{}`$ is not divisible by $`n^{}`$, so $`\mathrm{}G_𝒟`$.

We can find a function $`d𝒟^{(1)}`$ and some $`cX`$ with $`d(c+\mathrm{})d(c)+\mathrm{}`$.
By fact 1.6 there is a function $`g\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ with $`g(a_1)=c`$ (and $`g(a_1+\mathrm{})=c+\mathrm{}`$).

Now let $`f:=dg\pi _1^n`$, then $`f(\overline{a})=d(c)`$, $`f(\overline{a}+\mathrm{})=d(c+\mathrm{})d(c)+\mathrm{}=f(\overline{a})+\mathrm{}`$. ∎

###### Proof of theorem 1.4.

It is clear that the map $`n\mathrm{Pol}(s^n)`$ maps natural numbers to local clones above $`\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$, and that this map is 1-1. It remains to show that this map is onto.

So let $`\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ be a local clone. We will first consider the clone $`𝒟=loc(^{(1)}\mathrm{Pol}(s))`$ and prove that $`𝒟=\mathrm{Pol}(s^n)`$ for some $`n`$. If $`n=0`$, then $`𝒟==𝒪`$, and if $`n>0`$ then we invoke lemma 1.9 to show $`=𝒟`$.

So we are now looking at a clone $`𝒟\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$, where $`𝒟=loc(𝒟^{(1)}\mathrm{Pol}(s))`$.

Define $`G_𝒟`$ and $`n^{}:=n_𝒟`$ as in definition 1.7.

We will prove $`\mathrm{Pol}(s^n^{})𝒟`$. Since $`𝒟`$ is a local clone, it is enough to show that every function in $`\mathrm{Pol}(s^n^{})`$ can be interpolated by a function in $`𝒟`$ on any finite set.

So let $`g\mathrm{Pol}(s^n^{})`$ be $`k`$-ary.

Let $`\overline{a}_1`$, …, $`\overline{a}_n`$ be in $`X^k`$, $`b_{\mathrm{}}:=g(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}})`$. We claim that there is a function $`f𝒟`$ satisfying also $`b_{\mathrm{}}:=f(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}})`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Wlog we may assume that no two of the $`k`$-tuples $`\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}`$ are $`s^n^{}`$-parallel. \[This assumption is allowed, since $`g\mathrm{Pol}(s^n^{})`$.\]

Let $`I`$ be the set of all pairs $`i=(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)`$ of distinct numbers in $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. For each $`i=(\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2)I`$ we can find a function $`f_i𝒟`$ such that $`(\overline{a}_\mathrm{}_1,f_i(\overline{a}_\mathrm{}_1))`$ and $`(\overline{a}_\mathrm{}_2,f_i(\overline{a}_\mathrm{}_2))`$ are not $`s`$-parallel.

Let $`\overline{c}_{\mathrm{}}:=(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}},f_i(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}}):iI)`$. Clearly, for all $`\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}_2`$ we have:
$`\overline{c}_\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`\overline{c}_\mathrm{}_2`$ are not $`s`$-parallel.

So by fact 1.6 there is a function $`h\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ such that

$$\mathrm{}:h(\overline{c}_{\mathrm{}})=b_{\mathrm{}}$$

So the function $`f`$ defined by

$$f(\overline{x})=h(\overline{x},f_i(\overline{x}):iI)$$

is in $`𝒟`$, and it satisfies $`f(\overline{a}_{\mathrm{}})=b_{\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Remark 1.11.

Let $`H`$ be any constant function. Then $`cl(\mathrm{Pol}(s)\{H\})=𝒪`$. It is well known (and easy to show, using Zorn’s lemma) that this implies that every clone above $`\mathrm{Pol}(s)`$ is below some precomplete clone.

(In particular, also the (nonlocal) clone $`𝒞_{\mathrm{}}:=_{n>0}\mathrm{Pol}(s^n)`$ is below a precomplete clone.)

## 2. A large interval of local clones

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,)`$ be a downward directed semilattice, and let $`Con(\mathrm{SS})`$ be the lattice of congruences on $`\mathrm{SS}`$. Then there is a local clone $`𝒞_2`$ (on the set $`S`$) such that

$$[𝒞_2,𝒪_S]Con(\mathrm{SS})$$

That is, there is a lattice isomorphism between the set of local clones above $`𝒞`$ and the set of congruences of $`\mathrm{SS}`$.

Remark: If $`\mathrm{}IS`$ is an ideal, then the partition $`\{I,SI\}`$ corresponds to a congruence relation which is a coatom in $`Con(\mathrm{SS})`$. In fact, all coatoms are obtained in this form. It is clear that $`Con(\mathrm{SS})`$ is dually atomic.

###### Definition 2.2.

Let $`S`$ be a set $`AS`$. We let $`\mathrm{Pol}(A)`$ be the set of all functions on $`S`$ which “preserve” $`A`$:

$$\mathrm{Pol}(A):=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{f𝒪^{(n)}:f[A^n]A\}$$

###### Fact 2.3.

$`\mathrm{Pol}(A)`$ is always a local clone.

If $`\mathrm{}AS`$, then $`\mathrm{Pol}(A)`$ is a maximal clone.

###### Definition and Fact 2.4.

Let $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,)`$ be a semilattice. We call $`RS\times S`$ a congruence order on $`\mathrm{SS}`$ iff one (or both) of the following two equivalent conditions are satisfied:

1. $`\theta _R:=\{(x,y):xRy\text{ and }yRx\}`$ is a (semilattice) congruence relation, and: $`xRy`$ iff $`x/\theta _Ry/\theta _R`$.
2. $`R`$ is reflexive and transitive, $`xyxRy`$, and

$$()x,y,z:xRz\&yRz(xy)Rz$$

The following fact is trivial:

###### Fact 2.5.

The maps $`R\theta _R`$ and $`\theta \{(x,y):x/\theta y/\theta \}`$ are monotone bijections between congruence relations and congruence orders, and they are inverses of each other.

###### Notation 2.6.

For $`a,bS`$ let $`\chi _{a,b}`$ be the function satisfying $`\chi _{a,b}(b)=a`$, $`\chi _{a,b}(x)=x`$ for $`xb`$.

###### Notation 2.7.

For $`\overline{a}=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_k)`$, write $`\overline{a}`$ for $`a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$.

###### Definition and Fact 2.8.

Let $`\mathrm{SS}=(S,)`$ be a semilattice, and let $``$ be a congruence order on $`\mathrm{SS}`$. Then

$$():=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\{f𝒪^{(k)}:\overline{x}S^k\left[f(\overline{x})\overline{x}\right]\}$$

is a local clone. Furthermore,

1. $`()=_{aS}\mathrm{Pol}\{xS:xa\}`$
2. $`_1_2`$ implies $`(_1)(_2)`$.
3. $`f()𝒪^{(1)}`$ implies $`x:f(x)x`$.
4. $`\chi _{a,b}()`$ iff $`ab`$.

We will now consider local clones above the clone $`𝒞_2:=()`$ and we will show that they all are induced by congruence orders/congruence relations, and that also conversely every congruence relation is induced by a clone.

###### Definition and Fact 2.9.

Let $`𝒞𝒞_2`$ be a local clone. Then

$$_𝒞:=\{(x,y):f𝒞^{(1)}f(y)=x\}$$

is a congruence order.
Also, $`𝒞_2𝒞_1𝒞_2`$ implies $`_{𝒞_1}_{𝒞_2}`$.

###### Proof.

We will check condition (2) from definition 2.4. Clearly $``$ is reflexive and transitive. If $`ab`$, then the function $`\chi _{a,b}𝒞_2𝒞`$ will witness that $`a_𝒞b`$.

It remains to check $`()`$. So let $`ac`$, $`bc`$. There are functions $`f,g𝒞`$ with $`f(c)=a`$, $`g(c)=b`$. Since the function $`:(x,y)xy`$ is in $`𝒞_2𝒞`$, we also have $`(fg)𝒞`$, and $`fg`$ witnesses $`ab_𝒞c`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.10.

Let $`R`$ be a congruence order. Then $`R=_{(R)}`$.

###### Proof.

The inclusion $`_{(R)}R`$ is trivial: Let $`a_{(R)}b`$. So there is $`f(R)`$, $`f(b)=a`$. Now by fact 2.8(3), $`bRa`$.

For the proof of the reverse inclusion, $`R_{(R)}`$, consider any $`aRb`$. The function $`\chi _{a,b}(R)`$ witnesses $`a_{(R)}b`$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.11.

Let $`𝒞𝒞_2`$ be a local clone. Then $`𝒞=(_𝒞)`$.

###### Proof.

The inclusion $`𝒞(_𝒞)`$ is trivial: For $`f𝒞`$ we need to show that for all $`aS`$, $`f`$ preserves the set $`\{x:x_𝒞a\}`$. Let $`\overline{x}=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$. If $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k_𝒞a`$ then for each $`i`$ there is some $`g_i𝒞`$ with $`g_i(a)=x_i`$. Now $`f(g_1,\mathrm{},g_k)`$ witnesses that also $`f(\overline{x})_𝒞a`$.

Now we will show $`(_𝒞)𝒞`$:
Let $`f(_𝒞)`$ be $`k`$-ary, where $`𝒞𝒞_2`$. To show that $`f𝒞`$ it is enough \[since $`𝒞`$ is local\] to show that $`f`$ can be interpolated by an element of $`𝒞`$ on any finite number of places .

So let $`\overline{a}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{a}_nS^k`$, and let $`b_i:=f(\overline{a}_i)`$. Let $`d_i:=\overline{a}_i`$.

Since $`f(_𝒞)`$, we have $`b_i_𝒞d_i`$, so there is (for every $`i`$) a unary function $`g_i𝒞`$ with $`g_i(d_i)=b_i`$.

Define a $`k+1`$-ary function $`h_i`$ by letting $`h_i(y,\overline{x})=y`$ if $`\overline{x}=\overline{a}_i`$, and

> if $`\overline{x}\overline{a}_i`$, then:
> $`h(y,\overline{x}):=`$ some value which is $`x_j`$ and $`b_j`$ for all $`j`$, and also $`y`$.

(It is possible to find such a value, since $`\mathrm{SS}`$ is downward directed.)
Clearly $`h_i𝒞𝒞`$. So the function

$$f_i:\overline{x}h_i(g_i(\overline{x}),\overline{x})$$

is in $`𝒞`$. Now check that the function $`f^{}:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}f_i`$ maps $`\overline{a}_i`$ to $`b_i`$. Clearly $`f^{}𝒞`$. ∎

###### Example 2.12.

Let $`(S,<)`$ be a linearly ordered set. Then the congruence relations on $`(S,\mathrm{max})`$ are exactly the equivalnce relations with convex classes.

###### Example 2.13.

As a special case, consider the semilattice $`(,\mathrm{max})`$. A congruence relation is just a partition of $``$ into disjoint intervals.

The map

$$\theta A_\theta :=\{\mathrm{max}E:E\text{ is a finite congruence class}\}$$

is an antitone 1-1 map from the congruence relations into $`𝒫()`$, the power set of $``$.

It is also easy to see that this map is onto: Each $`A`$ is equal to $`A_{\theta (A)}`$, where for $`k<n`$ we have:

> $`(k,n)\theta (A)`$ iff there is no $`aA`$, $`ka<n`$

The map $`A_{aA}\mathrm{Pol}\{0,\mathrm{},a\}`$ is an isomorphism between $`(𝒫(),)`$ and $`[𝒞_2,𝒪]`$. The empty set corresponds to $`𝒪`$, or to the equivalence relation with a single class; the set $``$ itself corresponds to $`𝒞_2`$, or to the equivalence with singleton classes.

## 3. A large interval of clones

On any infinite set $`X`$ we will define a clone $`𝒞_3`$ such that the interval $`[𝒞_3,𝒪]`$ in the full clone lattice is very large (with $`2^{2^{|X|}}`$ precomplete elements), but still reasonably well understood.

###### Definition 3.1.

For any function $`f𝒪^{(n)}`$, let $`f^{(1)}𝒪^{(1)}`$ be defined by $`f^{(1)}(x)=f(x,\mathrm{},x)`$.

###### Definition 3.2.

For any function $`f𝒪^{(n)}`$, we let

$$\mathrm{fix}(f)=\{x:f^{(1)}(x)=x\}\mathrm{nix}(f)=\{x:f^{(1)}(x)x\}$$

###### Definition 3.3.

Let $`𝒫(X)`$ be a family of sets. We define

$$𝒞_{}:=\{f𝒪:\mathrm{fix}(f)\}$$

###### Fact 3.4.

1. If $``$ is a filter, then $`𝒞_{}`$ is a clone.
2. If $`^{}`$, then $`𝒞_{}𝒞_{^{}}`$.

###### Definition 3.5.

Let $`𝒞_3:=𝒞_{\{X\}}`$ be the clone of “idempotent” functions, i.e., of all functions satisfying $`f(x,\mathrm{},x)=x`$ for all $`x`$.

###### Theorem 3.6.

The map $`𝒞_{}`$ is an order isomorphism between the set of all filters (including the improper filter $`𝒫(X)`$) and the set of all clones above $`𝒞_3`$.

In particular, the precomplete clones above $`𝒞_3`$ are exactly the clones of the form $`𝒞_U`$, where $`U`$ is an ultrafilter on $`X`$.

We will prove this theorem in several steps, concluding with lemma 3.9 below.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $``$ be a filter, $`𝒟𝒞_{}`$. Then $`𝒟^{(1)}𝒞_{}^{(1)}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`f𝒟𝒞_{}`$. Then $`\mathrm{fix}(f)=\mathrm{fix}(f^{(1)})`$, so $`f^{(1)}𝒟^{(1)}𝒞_{}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.8.

Assume $`f𝒟𝒞_3`$, and $`\mathrm{fix}(f)\mathrm{fix}(g)`$, $`f,g𝒪^{(1)}`$. Then $`g𝒟`$.

###### Proof.

Let

$$H(x,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}g(x)\hfill & \text{if }xy\hfill \\ x\hfill & \text{if }x=y\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly $`H𝒞_3`$. For $`x\mathrm{fix}(f)\mathrm{fix}(g)`$ we have $`H(x,f(x))=H(x,x)=x=g(x)`$, and for $`x\mathrm{nix}(f)`$ we have $`f(x)x`$, so $`H(x,f(x))=g(x)`$.

So in either case, $`H(x,f(x))=g(x)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.9.

Let $`𝒟`$ be a clone with $`𝒞_3𝒟`$, $`𝒟𝒪`$. Then there is a (proper) filter $``$ such that $`𝒟=𝒞_{}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`I:=\{\mathrm{nix}(f):f𝒟\}=\{\mathrm{nix}(f):f𝒟^{(1)}\}`$. We first check that $`I`$ is an ideal.

If $`A=\mathrm{nix}(f)`$, $`f𝒟`$, and $`BA`$, then by lemma 3.8 there is a function $`g𝒟`$ with $`B=\mathrm{nix}(g)`$. So $`I`$ is downward closed.

Now let $`A_{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{nix}(f_{\mathrm{}})`$, $`f_{\mathrm{}}𝒟`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2`$, and assume that $`A_1A_2=\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`B=X(A_1A_2)`$. We may assume that either $`|A_1|2`$, or $`B\mathrm{}`$ (or both).

In either case there is a unary function $`f_1^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{nix}(f_1^{})=A_1`$, and $`f_1^{}`$ maps $`A_1`$ into $`A_1B`$. By lemma 3.8, $`f_1^{}𝒟`$. So $`f_2f_1^{}𝒟`$. Also, $`\mathrm{nix}(f_2f_1^{})=A_1A_2`$; this shows that $`I`$ is an ideal.

Let $``$ be the filter dual to $`I`$. Clearly,

$$f𝒟\mathrm{fix}ff𝒞_{}.$$

For the converse, we first check $`𝒞_{}𝒪^{(1)}𝒟`$:
Let $`f𝒞_{}`$ be unary. So $`\mathrm{fix}(f)`$, i.e., there is a function $`g𝒟`$ with $`\mathrm{fix}f=\mathrm{fix}g`$. By lemma 3.8, $`f𝒟`$.

Now take an arbitrary $`n`$-ary function $`f𝒞_{}`$. We need to show that $`f𝒟`$. Let $`A=\mathrm{nix}fI`$. Define an $`n+1`$-ary function $`H`$ as follows:

$$H(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}x_1\hfill & \text{if }x_1=\mathrm{}=x_n=y\hfill \\ f(x_1,\mathrm{}x_n)\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$

Clearly $`H𝒞_3`$. Note that $`f^{(1)}𝒟`$, so also the function $`\overline{x}H(\overline{x},f^{(1)}(x_1))`$ is in $`𝒟`$.

We now check that $`H(\overline{x},f^{(1)}(x_1))=f(\overline{x})`$ for all $`\overline{x}`$. We distinguish three cases:

* $`x_1=\mathrm{}=x_nA=\mathrm{nix}(f)`$. So $`f^{(1)}(x_1)x_1`$, hence (by definition of $`H`$) we have $`H(\overline{x},f^{(1)}(x_1))=f(\overline{x})`$.
* $`x_1=\mathrm{}=x_n\mathrm{fix}(f)`$. So $`f(\overline{x})=f^{(1)}(x_1)=x_1`$, and also $`H(\overline{x},f^{(1)}(x_1))=x_1`$.
* Not all $`x_i`$ are equal. Again, by definition of $`H`$, we have $`H(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n,f^{(1)}(x_1))=f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$.

This shows that $`f𝒟`$.

###### Remark 3.10.

If we regard the set $`X`$ as a discrete topological space, then the Stone-Cech compactification of $`X`$ is

$$\beta X=\{U:U\text{ is an ultrafilter on }X\}$$

There is a canonical 1-1 order-preserving correspondence between the filters on $`X`$ (ordered by $``$) and the closed subsets of $`\beta X`$ (ordered by $``$).

So the interval $`[𝒞_3,𝒪]`$ in the full clone lattice is isomorphic (as a complete lattice) to the family of closed subsets of $`\beta X`$, ordered by reverse inclusion: $`𝒪`$ corresponds to the empty set, each precomplete clone in $`[𝒞_3,𝒪]`$ corresponds to a singleton set.

Note that for any closed subset $`F\beta X`$ and any $`p\beta XF`$, also $`F\{p\}`$ is closed, and moreover:

> $`F`$ covers $`G`$ (i.e., $`FG`$, and the interval $`(G,F)`$ is empty) iff $`G=F\{p\}`$ for some $`p\beta XF`$

In particular, let $`𝒞_{\mathrm{bd}}𝒞_3`$ be the clone corresponding to the ideal of small sets, i.e.,

$$𝒞_{\mathrm{bd}}:=\{f𝒪^{(:)}BX,|B|<|X|,xXB:f(x,\mathrm{},x)=x\}$$

Then every clone $`𝒞𝒞_{\mathrm{bd}}`$ has exactly $`2^{2^{|X|}}`$ lower neighbors in the clone lattice; the clone corresponds to a closed set $`F`$, and the lower neighbors correspond to closed sets $`F\{p\}`$.

This is a special case of a theorem of \[Marchenkov 1981\].


text:
# First Principles Studies of KNbO3, KTaO3 and LiTaO3 Solid Solutions

## Introduction

KTaO3 (KT) is one of the rare perovskite-type materials that remains cubic down to zero Kelvin. It is also interesting because it is a quantum paraelectric and, therefore, its ferroelectric phase transition at low temperatures is suppressed by zero-point quantum vibrations. KNbO3 (KN) is ferroelectric even at room temperature and exhibits a series of ferroelectric phase transitions with decreasing temperature. A variety of interesting phenomena occur when KT or/and KN form solid solutions via isovalent substitution of A or B cations; \[K$`_{1x},`$Lix\]TaO3 (KLT) and K\[Ta1-x,Nbx\]O3 (KTN) are solid solutions which exhibit both order-disorder and soft-mode characteristics. In this work, we use first-principles supercell calculations to investigate lattice dynamics, ground-state structures, and dynamical effective charges in KLT and KTN.

Recent developments in quantum theory of polarization (see the review in Resta ) allow one to make first-principle (FP) computations of polarization and its derivative, dynamical charge. Such computations show that dynamical charges are anomalously large in ferroelectric perovskite-type crystals (see e.g. Ref. Ghosez ), and this has a significant effect on the soft-mode behaviors of these materials. Variations of dynamical charges as functions of local chemical coordination, as occurs in solid solutions, have not been extensively studied. We present systematic results on the dynamical charges as functions of chemical configurations in KTN. The same tendencies were found for PMN supercells.

## Methods

We use the Vienna ab initio simulation package (VASP) Kresse1 ; Kresse2 , which treats electronic structure within the framework of density function theory. Detailed computations were performed for 40 ion supercells and a limited number of computations were done for an 80 ion supercell. The basis vectors were ,  and  for the 40 atom cell (KLT40), and ,  and  for the 80 atom cell. The k-vector mesh was constructed from 4x4x4 Monkhorst-Pack grid. Verification of this computational scheme was performed for pure KTaO3; the self-consistent lattice constant $`a`$ = 3.96 Å agrees with previous LDA and GGA computations Singh . The calculated lattice constant is smaller than the experimental value $`a`$ = 3.983 Å exp\_KTO\_a .

VASP computes interatomic forces and total energies for crystals, and allows global relaxation as well as constrained relaxation of chosen internal coordinates and/or lattice parameters. We used frozen-phonon methods to obtain force constants for computing lattice dynamics. To compute dynamical charges, we used Berry phase analyses as implemented in the VASP code by Martijn Marsman.

## KLT results

We calculated the force constants matrix in KLT40 containing one Li per cell. The reference structure for the force constant calculations was obtained by first placing all ions on ideal perovskite positions and then optimizing lattice parameters and internal coordinates while maintaining full cubic symmetry. The resultant cell had $`a=2\times 3.956`$ Å.

From the force constants, we obtained the dynamical matrix, and the normal mode frequencies and eigenvectors. Symmetry analysis of KLT40 shows 14 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{15}`$ triplets, one which is acoustic and 13 which represent polar transverse optical (TO) modes. In Table 1, we give the TO normal mode frequencies.

For comparison, we also calculated the force constants of a 40-atom cell of pure KT at the same lattice parameter. The TO normal mode results are shown in Table 2. The force constants in the two cases are nearly identical. The only interatomic force constants which change by more than 0.41 eV/Å2 are those involving the 12 O ions nearest the Li site, and which favor Li moving against its nearest neighor O sites. In fact, the one lattice instability found in KLT is essentially Li motion (85% of the dynamical matrix eigenvector) opposite its nearest neighbor O (12% of the dynamical matrix eigenvector). Because KLT40 and KT have such similar force constant matrices, it is not surprising that the normal mode spectra are very similar: note that each LO mode in KT has a corresponding KLT40 mode with very similar frequency. Thus, the FP results confirm a picture of KLT in which Li are displaced off-center. We emphasize, however, that a quantitative description of the energetics and dynamics of KLT requires that one also take into account the coordinated motion of the ions surrounding the Li.

The largest reduction in energy in KLT40 occurs when Li is displaced along a  vector. Our results thus support a picture of KLT in which each Li is displaced in one of the 6 -type directions. We performed a full ionic relaxation of KLT, polarized along $`\widehat{z}`$. A breakdown of the displacement pattern into normal mode coordinates is shown in Table 1. Although there is some mixture of higher frequency modes due to anharmonic coupling, the displacement pattern is dominated by the eigenvector of the lattice instability. A more interesting picture emerges when we investigate the contribution of each mode to the polarization of the relaxed structure. Because the 121 cm-1 mode corresponding to the soft mode of pure KT has such a large mode effective charge, it contributes 23% of the total polarization of KLT40.

We investigated Li energy as a function of displacement direction and found that the smallest barrier between  wells are saddle points in the  directions. Fig. 1 shows the energy as a function of Li displacement $`d`$ in the  and  directions (see also Postnikov ). Since the barrier energy is comparable with the thermal energy, Li can jump between neighboring \[0,0,$`\overline{d}`$\] wells via  saddle points.

If all ions except for the Li are fixed, the Li displacements and potential barriers are very small relative those deduced experimentally (by fitting a mean field expansion to experimental data Huchli ) (upper curves in Fig. 1, see also Postnikov ). However, fully relaxed calculations (lower curves in Fig. 1) yield good agreement: the equilibrium Li displacement is \[0,0,0.99 Å\] with $`a`$ = 3.96 Å and \[0,0,1.07 Å\] with $`a`$ = 4.0 Å; the corresponding adiabatic potential barriers are $``$103 meV (1190 K) and $``$117 meV (1360 K), respectively. The calculated values are somewhat larger than the experimentally estimated barrier of 86 meV (998 K) Huchli , but they agree rather well with the 1200 K barrier reported by Toulouse . Computed barrier heights may be systematically larger than fitted values if the latter are reduced by Li-tunneling between neighboring wells over excited states. For the 80 atom supercell we obtained the Li displacement 1.01 Å and the energy barrier $`U=`$118 meV (1369 K), which is also somewhat larger than the experimental value of 86 meV (998 K) Huchli .

Fig. 1(b) represents our computations of Li potential relief along a vector connecting neighboring Li-wells, e.g. \[0,0,d\] and \[0,d,0\] via a minimum energy  saddle. We computed the “frozen coordinate” (i.e all ions frozen except for Li) energies, as well as the adiabatic energies (i.e with relaxed coordinates of the non-Li ions). Clearly, ionic relaxation promotes Li-hopping by reducing potential barriers.

In a relaxed supercell, cations displace in the same direction as Li, and anions displace in the opposite direction. This result supports the idea of coupling between Li displacements and ferroelectrically active optical host ion modes Vugmeister . The largest local deformation is exhibited by the four oxygens that are closest to Li. For example, in the 80 atom cell where the Li-displacement is \[0,0,1.01 Å\], their displacements are \[0,-0.074 Å,-0.074 Å\]. In the 40 ion supercell these displacements are similar, \[0,-0.093 Å,-0.093 Å\]. Such distortion was proposed Glinchuk  to explain experimental data on the temperature dependence of photocurrent in \[K1-x,Lix\]TaO3 solid solutions.

These results are in excellent agreement with computations for LiTaO3 and LiNbO3 Cohen , which also indicated a large oxygen displacements similar to those in our calculations. These oxygen displacments were explained in terms of a reduction in elastic energy that occurs because oxygens prefer to rotate about B site cations rather than directly approaching them Cohen .

Based on the fact that Li hop over a saddle point, we derived the following expression describing the temperature dependence of the relaxation time:

$$\tau =A\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\left(U+ay^2\right)/k_BT}𝑑y=A\sqrt{\frac{\pi k_BT}{a}}e^{U\left(T\right)/k_BT}=\tau _0\left(T\right)e^{U\left(T\right)/k_BT}$$
(1)
where: $`\tau `$ is the relaxation time; $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant; $`a`$ is a constant. The temperature dependence of the prefactor is a consequence of the existense of different paths when Li overcomes the potential barrier. The temperature dependence of the average barrier, $`U(T)`$, is governed by the dynamics of the ions surrounding a Li. This dependence can be understood if one introduces spatial and thermal potential barrier fluctuations

$$\begin{array}{c}e^{U(T)/k_BT}=\frac{\alpha \beta }{\pi k_BT}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑ye^{\left(U_0+x+y\right)/k_BT}e^{\alpha ^2x^2\beta ^2\left(y/k_BT\right)^2}\\ =e^{U_0/k_BT+1/4\beta ^2+1/4\alpha ^2k_B^2T^2}\end{array}$$
(2)
From comparison of the left and right sides of this equality one finds $`U\left(T\right)=U_0k_BT/4\beta ^21/4\alpha ^2k_BT`$. At high temperature the potential barrier decreases linearly with temperature because of thermal fluctuations (in excellent agreement with experiments performed for \[K0.957,Li0.043\]TaO3 Trepakov ). At low temperatures the barrier height decreases because of spatial fluctuations. Also, critical slowing down of relaxation is common, at low temperature, but in KLT, Li-tunneling is a competitive process Kleemann .

We also performed computations for 80 atom supercells with Li-Li pairs (Fig. 2). A Li-Li pair was introduced into an 80-ion supercell such that nn A-sites (separation vector $`a\widehat{z}`$) were occupied by Li. We considered the following Li-displacement configurations for this pair: $`(zz)`$, $`(xx)`$ and $`(x\overline{x})`$. The energy required to convert a $`(zz)`$ to $`(x\overline{x})`$ configuration is 0.27 eV (2990 K) in excellent agreement with the reported barrier height of 2800 K Toulouse ; Trepakov , attributed to the rearrangement of Li pairs Dousenau . Significantly, the excitation energy required to move Li pairs into the $`(xx)`$ configuration, 0.26 eV, is close to the energy required to excite the $`(x\overline{x})`$ configuration. This occurs because of the indirect dipole-dipole interaction between Li ions in Li-Li pairs over the KT-like soft mode.

The computed dynamical charge of Li in KTaO3:Li is 1.2 e at the equilibrium position but it becomes lower than 1.0 at small Li displacements.

## KT and KN results

The dynamical charges of Ta ($`Z_{Ta}^{}`$) and Nb ($`Z_{Nb}^{}`$), in pure KT and KN, respectively, were calculated as functions of  displacement in cubic structures with $`a`$ = 4.015 Å, using a 6x6x6 Monkhorst-Pack k-point grid. The results are shown in Fig. 3.

We also computed electrostatic potentials on the ions and their derivatives. Displacement induced reductions in the second derivative of the potential were consistent with changes in $`Z_{Ta}^{}`$ and $`Z_{Nb}^{}`$. Indeed one can write a general relation: $`E_i(u)=\xi _i(u)Z_i^{}u_i`$ where $`\xi _i(0)1/\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$ is a high frequency dielectric constant. Hence the reduction in local field (and charge-transfer Resta ) that is caused by ionic displacement is responsible for the calculated decrease in dynamical charge. Note that this decrease is rather large: e.g. for Nb in KN $`Z_{Nb}^{}`$ = 9.8 at u=0; 8.5 at u=0.1 Å; and 6.8 at u=0.2 Å.

## KTN results

Results of $`Z^{}`$ computations for KTN supercells are listed in Table 3 and some results for  ordered supercells are shown in Fig. 4. Calculations for different \[hkl\] ordered superstructures, (where \[hkl\] indicates an ordered sequence of layers perpendicular to the \[hkl\] vector) were all done with an 8x8x8 Monkhorst-Pack grid. All computations were performed for the cubic structure with the fixed lattice parameter $`a=3.96`$ Å. This was done in order to show the pure effect of the neighbors on the dynamical charge. The effect of the ionic displacements were discussed in the previous section.

In the cubic KN, $`Z_{Nb,zz}^{}=9.9`$, which is larger than $`Z_{Ta,zz}^{}=8.8`$ in KT. Our results are consistent with the studies of Singh Singh\_PRB  which compared covalencies in KT and KN. In layered Nb/Ta superstructures $`Z_{Nb,zz}^{}`$ decreases with the number of nn Ta-planes, and $`Z_{Ta,zz}^{}`$ increases with the number of nn Nb-planes. Both $`Z_{B,zz}^{}`$’s approach saturation values; $`Z_{B,xx}^{}`$’s, however, exhibit no significant changes. These results are similar to those of previous computations for Nb/Al supercells in CaTiO3-Ca(Al1/2Nb1/2)O3 where it was found that the presense of Al decreases the Nb dynamical charge Cockayne .

The effects of cation ordering on $`Z^{}`$ can be well explained via a model in which a layered superstructure is treated as a stacking of slabs with different local electronic dielectric permittivities $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}}`$. We fit calculated values to the expressions Ghosez :

$$Z_{izz}^{}\left(N_j\right)=\frac{\epsilon _{\mathrm{}ij}+2}{3}g_{ij}$$
(3)
where $`g_{ij}`$ does not depend on the dielectric permittivity. In order to compute the dielectric permittivity in the layered structure considered we used a slightly modified expression for the permittivity of two sequential capacitors

$$\epsilon _{\mathrm{}ij}=\frac{N_{Ta}+N_{Nb}}{N_{Ta}/\epsilon _{\mathrm{}Ta}+\lambda _{ij}N_{Nb}/\epsilon _{\mathrm{}Nb}}$$
(4)
Here $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}Nb}`$ and $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}Ta}`$ are the electronic dielectric permittivities of pure KNbO3 and KTaO3 respectively, $`N_i`$ ($`i=Ta,Nb`$) is the number of Ta- or Nb-planes. This expression at $`\lambda =1`$ is explicit for the simple cubic structure. We fixed $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}Ta}`$ at the experimental value 5.15 and, correspondingly, $`\lambda _{Ta,Ta}=1`$. Fitting the data in Table 1 yields $`\epsilon _{\mathrm{}Nb}=6.4`$, $`g_{Ta,Ta}=g_{Ta,Nb}=3.7`$, $`g_{Nb,Nb}=g_{Nb,Ta}=3.5`$, $`\lambda _{Nb,Nb}=1`$, and $`\lambda _{Nb,Ta}=\lambda _{Ta,Nb}=0.97`$. Deviation of the nondiagonal element of $`\lambda `$ from 1, and the large values of $`g`$, are connected with the difference between the Lorentz field in the simple cubic lattice and that in the perovskite structure. The value of the electronic dielectric permittivity in KNbO3 (6.4) is consistent with that obtained from first principles computation for a cubic structure Krakauer  (6.6).

## PMN results

To further investigate the effects of cation ordering on dynamical charges in complex perovskites, Berry phase analyses were performed for various supercells in the perovskite based system PbMg1/3Nb2/3O3 (PMN); Results are listed in Table 4.

As in KTN, the dynamical charges of ions in PMN depend on nn coordination. In particular, $`Z_{Pb}^{}`$ is sensitive to chemical ordering. These results are consistent with $`Z_{Pb}^{}`$-computations for some other lead relaxors Belianche . It is interesting to notice that the largest dynamical charge components for Pb occur in the  ordered structure. The nondiagonal elements are generally small compared with the differences between the diagonal elements, which shows that the basis vectors are close to the eigenvectors of the dynamical charge tensor.

## Conclusions

We have computed the minimum energy  barrier between adjoining \[0,0,d\] Li wells in fully relaxed KLT supercells. Our results are in good agreement with values obtained by fitting a mean field expansion to experimental data.

We find that all ions in the supercell are displaced from their ideal positions but among the nn ions, the oxygens closest to Li exhibit the largest sympathetic displacements; they are displaced in the opposite direction as Li, and move closer to one another. These results support earlier work Glinchuk  and computations Cohen ; Tupitsin .

First-principles computation of Li-Li pair excitations in a \[K14/16Li2/16\]TaO3 supercell strongly supports a previous assumption Dousenau  about the nature of $`\pi `$-relaxation in KLT. Our low-energy values for excitations of this point defect are in excellent agreement with fits to experimental data.

Computations of the Born charges in KTN and PMN indicate that dynamical charges are sensitive functions of nearest neighbor coordination, which can be explained by heterogeneity in the local electronic dielectric permittivity.

## Acknowledgment

We thank G. Kresse for providing an LDA pseudopotential for Ta.