text:
# The ring of arithmetical functions with unitary convolution: the [𝑛]-truncation

## 1. Introduction

The set $`𝒜`$ of all complex sequences $`(c_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is in a natural way a complex vector space. There are several ways an algebra structure can be introduced on this vector space: the most intuitive way are through the so-called *regular convolutions* of Narkiewicz . Among those, the *Dirichlet convolution* and the *unitary convolution* are the best known specimen. They are in a way the two extremes, in that they form the maximal and minimal elements in a certain natural partial order on the the set of all regular convolutions.

The ring given by Dirichlet convolution is isomorphic to the formal power series ring on countably many indeterminates, hence a domain; in fact, it is a UFD, as proved by Cashwell and Everett . As a contrast, the ring given by Dirichlet convolution is an epimorphic image of the formal power series ring on countably many indeterminates: it has zero-divisors and nilpotent element. In  we gave a conjectural characterization of the zero-divisors. We also established some divisorial properties: a given element can have factorizations (into irreducibles) of different length, but there is always a bound for those lengths.

Let us denote by $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ the subset of $`𝒜`$ consisting of those sequences $`(c_i)_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ for which $`c_i=0`$ when $`i>n`$. Restricting any convolution product on $`𝒜`$, and modifying it so that the product of two elements in $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ stays in $`𝒜_{[n]}`$, we get a new algebra, which is an artinian monomial quotient of the original one. These quotients, for the case of the Dirichlet convolution, were studied in . It turned out that in this case the defining ideals are *strongly stable*, hence we can apply the Eliahou-Kervaire resolution  to get information about various homological invariants.

In this article, we study the algebra $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ equipped with the multiplication given by the unitary convolution. It turns out that the defining ideals, apart from beeing monomial ideals, are *almost square-free*, i.e. they are the sum of a square-free ideal and the ideal generated by the squares of the indeterminates. The ring is therefore the quotient of $`\frac{[x_1,\mathrm{},x_r]}{(x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_r^2)}`$ by a square-free monomial ideal, hence it is the *artinified Stanley-Reisner ring* $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}]`$, in the sense of Sköldberg , of a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In short, the artinifed Stanley-Reisner ring is like the indicator algebra $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ (see for instance  for a definition) but it is a quotient of $`\frac{[x_1,\mathrm{},x_r]}{(x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_r^2)}`$ rather than a quotient of the exterior algebra, so it is commutative rather than skew-commutative.

The simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is easy to describe: the underlying vertex set consists of all prime powers $`p^an`$, and a set $`\{q_1,\mathrm{},q_s\}`$ of such prime powers is a simplex in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if and only if the $`q_i`$’s are relatively prime, and their product is $`n`$. A figure is supposedly worth a thousand words, so the reader may want to look at Figure 3 on page 3, where the complex for $`n=10`$ is displayed. Understanding this complex, particularly for large $`n`$, is the purpose of this article. In particular, we determine the dimension and the largest non-vanishing homology of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and show that all homology groups are torsion-free, by exhibiting a (non-pure) shelling. We also give an asymptotic estimate of the socle dimension of $`𝒜_{[n]}`$.

In  a study was made of the truncation of $`𝒜`$ to some subset $`V^+`$ which is closed under taking unitary divisors. The results obtained for the corresponding algebras $`𝒜_V`$, in particular for finite $`V`$, will be of use for us in our study of the special case $`V=[n]=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, so this article starts with a review of the pertinent definitions and results from .

### 1.1. Acknowledgement

I used the GAP-package *Simplicial Homology*  by Frank Heckenbach, Jean-Guilleaume Dumas, Dave Saunders, and Volkmar Welker to calculate the homology of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Having noted that the homology was torsion-free, I wrote a small GAP  programme to check if it was lex-shellable:it was, and it was then easy to prove that. I also benefitted from the programme Macaulay 2  to calculate Poincaré-Betti series of $`𝒜_{[n]}`$.

## 2. Preliminaries

This article is a direct continuation of , from which we recall some definitions and basic results.

### 2.1. The ring of arithmetical functions with unitary convolution

Let $``$ denote the non-negative integers and $`^+`$ the positive integers. Let $``$ denote the set of primes, with $`p_i`$ the $`i`$’th prime. Let $``$ denote the set of prime powers. $`𝒜`$ denotes the set of *arithmetical functions*, i.e. functions $`^+`$. It is a $``$-vector space under point-wise addition and multiplication by scalars, and it has a natural topology given by the norm

$$\left|f\right|=\frac{1}{\mathrm{min}\mathrm{supp}(f)},$$

where

$$\mathrm{supp}(f)=\left\{k^+\text{ }f(k)0\right\}.$$

$`𝒜`$ becomes an associative, commutative $``$-algebra under *unitary convolution*

$$(fg)(n)=\underset{d||n}{}f(d)g(n/d)=\underset{dm=n}{}f(d)g(m),$$
(1)
where the unitary multiplication for positive integers is defined by

$$dm=\{\begin{array}{cc}dm\hfill & \text{ if }\mathrm{gcd}(d,m)=1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
and where we write $`d||n`$ (or sometimes $`d_{}n`$) when $`d`$ is a unitary divisor of $`n`$, i.e. when $`n=dm`$ for some $`m`$. For any $`k^+`$, $`e_k`$ denotes the characteristic function on $`\{k\}`$. Then $`e_1`$ is the multiplicative identity, the set of all $`e_k`$ is a Schauder basis for $`𝒜`$, and

$$e_ae_b=e_{ab}=\{\begin{array}{cc}e_{ab}\hfill & \text{ if }\mathrm{gcd}(a,b)=1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise }\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`\left\{e_k\text{ }k\right\}`$ generates a dense subalgebra of $`𝒜`$.

Let $`Y=\left\{y_{i,j}\text{ }i,j^+\right\}`$ be a doubly infinite set of indeterminates, and let $`[Y]`$ be the free abelian monoid on $`Y`$. Let $`[Y]`$ consist of those monomials in the $`y_{i,j}`$’s that are *separated*, i.e. can be written $`y_{i_1,j_1}\mathrm{}y_{i_r,j_r}`$ with $`i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_r`$. Then $``$ can be regarded as a monoid-with-zero, with the multiplication

$$m_1m_2=\{\begin{array}{cc}m_1m_2\hfill & \text{ if }m_1m_2\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }m_1m_2\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Phi }:& ^+\hfill \\ \hfill y_{i_1,j_1}\mathrm{}y_{i_r,j_r}& p_{i_1}^{j_1}\mathrm{}p_{i_r}^{j_r}\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
is a bijection which is a monoid-with-zero isomorphism, if $`^+`$ is regarded as a monoid-with-zero with unitary multiplication. From this follows that

$$𝒜[[]]\frac{[[Y]]}{J}$$
(4)
where $`[[]]`$ and $`[[Y]]`$ are the generalized power series rings on $``$ and $`[Y]`$, respectively (so $`[[Y]]`$ is the power series ring on bi-infinitely many variables) and $`J`$ is the smallest closed ideal of $`[[Y]]`$ which contains all $`y_{i,j}y_{i,k}`$.

### 2.2. General truncations

For any $`V^+`$, $`𝒜_V𝒜`$ is the $``$-sub vector space of functions supported on $`V`$. With the modified multiplication

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (fg)(n)& =\underset{d_Vm=n}{}f(d)g(m)\hfill \\ \hfill d_Vm& =\{\begin{array}{cc}dm\hfill & \text{ if }\mathrm{gcd}(d,m)=1\text{ and if }dmV\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
it becomes a $``$-algebra, but in general not a sub-algebra of $`𝒜`$; it is a sub-algebra if and only if

$$a,bVabV\{0\}.$$

If $`V`$ contains all unitary divisors of its elements, then the restriction map $`𝒜𝒜_V`$, which is always a vector space epimorphism, is an algebra epimorphism. In particular, if $`n`$ is a positive integer, then the set $`[n]=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}^+`$ has this property. If we denote the kernel of the restriction map by $`𝔖_V`$, then

###### Theorem 2.1.

The set

$$M_V=\left\{e_k\text{ }kV,\text{ but }dV\text{ for all proper unitary divisors }d\text{ of }k\right\}$$
(6)
form a minimal generating set of an ideal $`I_V`$ whose closure is $`𝔖_V`$.

### 2.3. Finite truncations

Now suppose that $`V`$ has this property, and is finite. Put

$$Y(V)=\left\{y_{i,j}\text{ }p_i^jV\right\}$$
(7)
From  we have that

$$𝒜_V\frac{[Y(V)]}{A_V+B_V+C_V}$$
(8)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill A_V& =y_{i,j}^2|y_{i,j}Y(V)\hfill \\ \hfill B_V& =y_{i,j}y_{i,k}|y_{i,j},y_{i,k}Y(V)\hfill \\ \hfill C_V& =y_{i_1,j_i}\mathrm{}y_{i_r,j_r}|y_{i_{\mathrm{}},j_{\mathrm{}}}Y(V),i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}i_r,p_{i_1}^{j_i}\mathrm{}p_{i_r}^{j_r}V\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
We also have that

$$𝒜_V[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }(V)}]$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }(V)`$ is the simplicial complex on the vertex set $`V`$ given by

$$\sigma =\{p_{i_1}^{j_1},\mathrm{},p_{i_r}^{j_r}\}\mathrm{\Delta }(V)p_{i_1}^{j_1}\mathrm{}p_{i_r}^{j_r}V$$
(11)
and where $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }(V)}]`$ is the “Artinified Stanley-Reisner ring”  on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(V)`$: it is the artinian commutative $``$-algebra with a $``$-basis

$$\left\{e_\sigma \text{ }\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }(V)\right\},$$

and multiplication

$$e_\sigma e_\tau =\{\begin{array}{cc}e_{\sigma \tau }\hfill & \text{ if }\sigma \tau =\mathrm{}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }\sigma \tau \mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Thus, as a graded $``$-vector space $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }(V)}]`$ is isomorphic to $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }(V)\}`$, the indicator algebra on $`\mathrm{\Delta }(V)`$ , and as a cyclic $`[Y(V)]`$-module it is isomorphic to the quotient of the ordinary Stanley-Reisner ring $`[\mathrm{\Delta }(V)]`$ by the ideal generated by the squares of all variables.

### 2.4. The $`[n]`$-truncation

This article is devoted to the case $`V=[n]=\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$, for which the ring $`𝒜_V`$ and the simplical complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }(V)`$ have some interesting properties.

## 3. Some special arithmetical functions

We’ll make use of the following special arithmetical functions: For a positive integer $`n`$, $`\pi (n)`$ is the number of primes $`n`$, and $`\pi ^{}(n)`$ the number of prime powers $`n`$. Let $`\omega (n)`$ denotes the number of disctinct prime factors of $`n`$, and let (for $`k0`$) $`\pi _k(n)`$ be the number of positive integers $`n`$ with $`k`$ distinct prime factors, i.e.

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\pi _k(n)t^k=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}t^{\omega (j)}.$$

By $`\mathrm{}(n)`$ we mean the unique integer such that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}(n)}{}}p_in<\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}(n)+1}{}}p_i,$$
(13)
We define $`v(1)=v(2)=1`$, and for $`n3`$, $`v(n)`$ as the unique integer such that

$$\underset{j=2}{\overset{v(n)+1}{}}p_jn<\underset{j=2}{\overset{v(n)+2}{}}p_j$$
(14)
It follows that $`v(n)=\mathrm{}(2n)2`$. The values of $`\mathrm{}(n)`$ and $`v(n)`$ for small $`n`$ are tabulated below.

| n | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 15 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 30 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 105 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 210 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\mathrm{}(n)`$ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 2 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 3 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 3 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 4 |
| $`v(n)`$ | -1 | -1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 1 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 1 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 2 | $`\mathrm{}`$ | 2 |

## 4. The structure of $`Y([n])`$

We now determine the structure of $`Y(V)`$ for $`V=[n]`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

For all positive integers $`n,i`$, let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda _i^{[n]}& =\mathrm{max}\left\{jp_i^jn\right\}\hfill \\ \hfill 𝝀^{[n]}& =(\lambda _1^{[n]},\lambda _2^{[n]},\mathrm{})\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
We may regard $`𝝀^{[n]}`$ as a partition, since $`\lambda _1^{[n]}\lambda _2^{[n]}\mathrm{}`$. We have that

$$Y([n])=\left\{y_{i,j}Y\text{ }j\lambda _i^{[n]}\right\}$$
(16)
Note that $`\mathrm{max}(\left\{i\text{ }y_{i,1}>0\right\})=\pi ^{}(n)`$.

###### Example 4.2.

If $`n=30`$, then

$$𝝀^{[30]}=(4,3,2,1,1,1,1,1,1,1),$$

and the variables $`Y(V_{[30]})`$ can be visualised as in figure 1.

###### Remark 4.3.

For a fixed $`i`$, as $`n\mathrm{}`$ we have that asymptotically $`\lambda _i^{[n]}\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{\mathrm{log}(p_i)}`$. Thus, for both $`n`$ and $`i`$ large we get that $`\lambda _i^{[n]}\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{\mathrm{log}(i\mathrm{log}(i))}`$. This relation is illustraded in the graph figure 2, which shows (the start of) $`𝝀^{(10^{50})}`$.

## 5. The presentation of $`𝒜_{[n]}`$

Having determined the indeterminates occuring in $`Y((n])`$, we’ll consider the defining ideal $`A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}`$ of $`𝒜_{[n]}\frac{[Y([n])]}{(A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}}`$. Recall that (3) defines a bijection $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ between $``$ and $`^+`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`V=[n]`$. Then

1. The minimal generators of $`C_{[n]}`$ correspond under $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with those $`e_k`$ for which

* $`k>n`$,
    * all proper unitary divisors of $`k`$ are $`n`$,
    * $`k=_{i=1}^rp_i^{a_i}`$ with $`r\pi ^{}(n)`$ and $`0a_i\lambda _i^{[n]}`$ for $`1ir`$.
2. $`A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}`$ is a strongly $`N+1`$-multi-stable monomial ideal in $`[Y([n])]`$. By this, we mean the following: first, let $`N`$ denote the number of components $`>1`$ in $`𝝀^{[n]}`$. Group the variables $`y_{i,j}`$ in column $`i`$ into one group, for $`1iN`$, and the remaining variables into one last group. Order the variables in each group using $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Then for any monomial $`mA_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}`$, if $`y,y^{}`$ belong to the same group, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)<\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{})`$, and $`y|m`$, then $`m^{}=\frac{y^{}}{y}mA_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}`$.

###### Proof.

1. Follows from Theorem 2.1 and (8) and (9).
2. If $`mA_{[n]}+B_{[n]}`$ then it contains two variables “from the same column”. Since $`y,y^{}`$ belong to the same group, $`m^{}`$ must also contains two variables “from the same column”; thus $`m^{}A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}`$.

If $`m`$ is separated, then so is $`m^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(m)<\mathrm{\Phi }(m^{})`$ so if in addition $`mC_{[n]}`$ then $`m^{}C_{[n]}`$.

The following lemma gives a reasonably efficient way of calculating $`C_{[n]}`$.

###### Lemma 5.2.

The minimal generators of $`C_{[n]}`$ are contained in the set

$$\left\{y_{i,j}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(k)\text{ }p_i^jn,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}kn\right\}\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\})$$
(17)
###### Proof.

Take $`m=m_0Y([n])`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(m)>n`$. Thus $`m`$ is a separated monomial in variables $`y_{i,j}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y_{i,j})n`$. Hence there is some $`y_{i_1,j_1}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y_{i,j})n`$ which divides $`m`$, say $`m=y_{i_1,j_1}m_1`$, $`m_1Y([n])`$. If $`\mathrm{\Phi }(m_1)n`$ we are done, otherwise $`m_1`$, beeing a separated monomials in variables $`y_{i,j}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y_{i,j})n`$, can be written $`m_1=y_{i_1,j_2}m_2`$, et cetera. ∎

###### Example 5.3.

For $`n=10`$, $`𝝀^{(10)}=(3,2,1,1)`$, and

$`Y(V_{[10]}))`$ $`=\{y_{1,1},y_{1,2},y_{1,3},y_{2,1},y_{2,2},y_{3,1},y_{4,1}\}`$
$`A_{10}`$ $`=(y_{1,1}y_{1,1},y_{1,2}y_{1,2},y_{1,3}y_{1,3},y_{2,1}y_{2,1},y_{2,2}y_{2,2},y_{3,1}y_{3,1},y_{4,1}y_{4,1})`$
$`B_{10}`$ $`=(y_{1,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},y_{1,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},y_{1,2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},y_{2,1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})`$
$`C_{10}`$ $`=(y_{1,1}y_{2,2},y_{1,1}y_{4,1},y_{2,2}y_{3,1},y_{1,2}y_{2,1},y_{1,3}y_{2,1},y_{2,1}y_{3,1},y_{2,1}y_{4,1},`$
$`y_{1,2}y_{2,2},y_{1,2}y_{3,1},y_{1,2}y_{4,1},y_{1,3}y_{3,1},y_{1,3}y_{4,1},y_{2,2}y_{4,1},y_{1,3}y_{2,2},y_{3,1}y_{4,1},`$
$`y_{1,1}y_{2,1}y_{3,1},y_{1,1}y_{2,1}y_{4,1},y_{1,1}y_{2,2}y_{3,1},y_{1,1}y_{3,1}y_{4,1})`$
where the last four generators are superfluous.

In Corollary 8.3, we show that the maximal degree of a minimal generator of $`C_{[n]}`$ is $`v(n)`$.

## 6. Properties of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$

As an example of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }([10])`$ is shown in Figure 3.

### 6.1. Simple properties

Let $`r=\pi ^{}(n)`$. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n]`$ has $`r`$ vertices.

###### Lemma 6.1.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ consists of some isolated vertices, and of one large component containing everything else.

###### Proof.

If the vertex $`p^a`$ is not isolated, but connected to $`q^b`$, we can assume that $`p>q`$. Furthermore, since $`\{p^a,q^b\}\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$, it follows that $`p^aq^bn`$, so $`p^aqn`$, hence $`p^a`$ is connected to $`q`$. If $`q>2`$ then $`p>q>2`$ so $`\{p^a,2\}\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$. Thus $`p^a`$ is connected to 2. ∎

###### Lemma 6.2.

$`dim\mathrm{\Delta }([n])=\mathrm{}(n)1`$.

###### Proof.

The maximal cardinality $`s`$ of $`(q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ is the maximal $`s`$ such that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}q_in,$$

with $`q_i`$ pair-wise relatively prime. Clearly, the best we can do is to take the first $`s`$ prime numbers, so $`s=\mathrm{}(n)`$. Hence $`dim\mathrm{\Delta }([n])=s1=\mathrm{}(n)1`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

The $`f`$-vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ is

$$(f_1,f_0,f_1,\mathrm{},f_{\mathrm{}(n)1})=(\pi _0(n),\pi _1(n),\pi _2(n),\mathrm{},\pi _{\mathrm{}(n)}(n))$$
(18)
###### Proof.

We have that $`f_i`$ is the number of simplicies $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ of dimension $`i`$, i.e. of cardinality $`i+1`$. Such a $`\sigma =\{p_{j_1}^{a_1},\mathrm{},p_{j_{i+1}}^{a_{i+1}}\}`$ correspond to $`k=p_{j_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}p_{j_{i+1}}^{a_{i+1}}`$ with $`\omega (k)=i+1`$. There are $`\pi _{i+1}(n)`$ such simplices, so $`f_i=\pi _{i+1}(n)`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.4.

Let $`v(n)`$ be defined by (14). Then

1. The homological degree111The maximal $`i`$ such that the $`i`$’th reduced homology group (with coefficients in $``$) of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ is non-zero. of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ is $`v(n)`$.
2. The maximal homological degree of all $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U`$, as $`U`$ ranges among the non-empty subsets of $`[n]`$, is $`v(n)`$.

###### Sketch of proof.

When $`n=N=_{j=2}^sp_j`$, we have that

$$\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_s\}\mathrm{\Delta }([n]),\text{ but }i:\{p_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{p_i},\mathrm{},p_s\}\mathrm{\Delta }([n])$$

so we get $`(s1)`$-homology. As $`n`$ increases and reaches

$$2N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}p_j,$$

this homology is killed off, but already when

$$n=N\frac{p_{s+1}}{p_s}=p_{s+1}\underset{j=2}{\overset{s1}{}}p_j$$

new $`s1`$ homology appears, since all $`(s1)`$-subsets of $`\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_{s1},p_{s+1}\}`$ belong to $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$, whereas the whole set doesn’t. Filling in this homology, i.e. increasing $`n`$ to $`p_1\mathrm{}p_{s1}p_{s+1}`$, we have introduced new homology already at

$$n=p_2\mathrm{}p_{s1}p_{s+2}$$

(use the fact that there is a prime number between $`q`$ and $`2q`$ for all $`q`$), and so on, until we reach

$$n=\underset{j=2}{\overset{s+1}{}}p_j,$$

where $`s`$-homology occurs. ∎

The asymptotic growth of $`\mathrm{}(n)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ is very slow, as the following lemma shows. Thus $`dim\mathrm{\Delta }([n])=\mathrm{}(n)`$ and $`v(n)=\mathrm{}(2n)2`$, the homological degree, grows very slowly with $`n`$.

###### Lemma 6.5.

There are positive real constants $`A,B,C,D`$ such that for all $`n`$,

$$A\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{W(A\mathrm{log}(n))}<\mathrm{}(n)<B\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{W(B\mathrm{log}(n))}$$
(19)
where $`W(z)`$ denotes the real-valued principal branch of the Lambert W-function, defined as the root of $`W(z)\mathrm{exp}(W(z))=z`$.

###### Proof.

There are positive real constants222See  $`A_1,A_2`$ such that

$$A_1x<\underset{px}{}\mathrm{log}(p)<A_2x,$$

hence

$$A_1p_n<\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{log}(p_i)<\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}\mathrm{log}(p_i)<A_2p_{n+1}.$$

There are constants333See  $`B_1,B_2`$ such that

$$B_1n\mathrm{log}(n)<p_n<p_{n+1}<B_2(n+1)\mathrm{log}(n+1).$$

Put $`m=\mathrm{}(n)`$. Then

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{log}(p_i)\mathrm{log}(n)<\underset{i=1}{\overset{m+1}{}}\mathrm{log}(p_i),$$

so

$$A_1B_1m\mathrm{log}(m)<\mathrm{log}(n)<A_2B_2(m+1)\mathrm{log}(m+1).$$

We claim that

$$Cm\mathrm{log}(m)=\mathrm{log}(n)$$
(20)
has the solution

$$m=\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{CW(\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{C})}.$$

From this claim, the assertion follows by monotonicity.

Putting $`\mathrm{log}(n)=z`$, $`\mathrm{log}(m)=a(z)`$, (20) becomes

$$Ce^{a(z)}a(z)=z,$$

which has a solution $`a(z)=W(z/C)`$. Hence

$$m=\mathrm{exp}(a(z))=\mathrm{exp}(W(z/C))=\frac{z/C}{W(z/C)}=\frac{\mathrm{log}n}{CW(\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{C})}.$$

### 6.2. The $`h`$-vector

Using a result by Fröberg, we have that

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])](t)=[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}](\frac{t}{1t})=\frac{h_0+h_1t+h_2t^2+\mathrm{}+h_{\mathrm{}(n)}t^{\mathrm{}(n)}}{(1t)^{\mathrm{}(n)}}$$
(21)
where $`h_0+h_1+\mathrm{}+h_{\mathrm{}(n)}1`$. The vector $`(h_0,\mathrm{},h_{\mathrm{}(n)})`$ is called the *$`h`$-vector* of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$. It can be expressed in terms of the $`f`$-vector as follows (see ).

###### Lemma 6.6.

The $`h`$-vector of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ is

$$(h_0,h_1,\mathrm{},h_{\mathrm{}(n)})$$
(22)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_k& =\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{ki}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(n)i}{ki}\right)f_{i1}\hfill \\ & =\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}(1)^{ki}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(n)i}{ki}\right)c_{n,i}\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
with the convention that $`f_1=c_{n,0}=1`$.

In particular,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_0& =1\hfill \\ \hfill h_1& =\mathrm{}(n)+\pi ^{}(n)\hfill \\ \hfill h_2& =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(n)}{2}\right)(\mathrm{}(n)1)\pi ^{}(n)+c_{n,2}\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
###### Example 6.7.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }([10])`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is 2-dimensional, looks like Figure 3, and has $`f`$-vector $`(f_1,f_0,f_2)=(1,7,2)`$ and $`h`$-vector $`(h_0,h_1,h_2)=(1,5,4)`$. Furthermore

$$[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}](t)=1+7t+2t^2,$$

and

$$[\mathrm{\Delta }](t)=1+t\frac{t}{1t}+2\frac{t^2}{(1t)^2}=\frac{1+5t4t^2}{(1t)^2}.$$

#### 6.2.1. The $`h_2`$ coefficient

Clearly, $`h_1>0`$ for $`n>2`$. Furthermore, we have (see )

$$\pi _k(x)\frac{x}{\mathrm{log}x}\frac{(\mathrm{log}_2x)^{k1}}{(k1)!}x\mathrm{}$$
(25)
Thus we can write (somewhat sloppily)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h_2& =\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}(n)}{2}\right)(\mathrm{}(n)1)\pi ^{}(n)+c_{n,2}\hfill \\ & \left(C\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{W(C\mathrm{log}(n))}\right)^2\left(C\frac{\mathrm{log}(n)}{W(C\mathrm{log}(n))}\right)\frac{n}{\mathrm{log}n}+\frac{n}{\mathrm{log}n}\mathrm{log}_2n\hfill \\ & =\frac{Cn}{W(C\mathrm{log}n)}+\frac{C^2(\mathrm{log}n)^2}{W(C\mathrm{log}n)^2}+\frac{n\mathrm{log}2}{(\mathrm{log}n)^2}\hfill \end{array}$$

We claim that $`h_2<0`$ for large $`n`$, i.e. that

$$n>\frac{C(\mathrm{log}n)^2}{W(C\mathrm{log}n)}+n\frac{\mathrm{log}2}{C}\frac{W(C\mathrm{log}n)}{(\mathrm{log}n)^2}$$

for large $`n`$. Since $`nC^2(\mathrm{log}n)^2`$, we need only show that

$$\frac{W(C\mathrm{log}n)}{(\mathrm{log}n)^2}0\text{ as }n\mathrm{}$$
(26)
However, since $`\mathrm{}(n)\mathrm{}`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$, (19) shows that

$$\frac{W(C\mathrm{log}n)}{C\mathrm{log}n}0\text{ as }n\mathrm{},$$

hence (26) follows.

### 6.3. Related questions

We display below how $`h_2`$ varies with $`n`$. Note that $`h_2`$ has local maxima when $`\mathrm{}(n)<\mathrm{}(n+1)`$, i.e. when $`n`$ is of the form $`n=1+_{k=1}^jp_k`$. Is the $`h_2`$ coefficient negative for all $`n`$?

One can also ask: what is the sign (and magnitude) of the $`h_k`$ coefficient, for very large $`n`$?

### 6.4. Shellability

Recall that the maximal (with respect to inclusion) faces of a simplicial complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are called *facets*, and that a simplicial complex is *pure* if all its facets have the same dimension (which is then also the dimension of the simplicial complex itself). For a face $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }`$, we let $`\overline{\sigma }=2^\sigma `$, the set of all subsets of $`\sigma `$, including $`\sigma `$ itself, and the empty set.

Björner and Wachs  defines $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to be *shellable* if its facets can be arranged in linear order $`F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_t`$ in such a way that the subcomplex $`_{i=1}^{k1}\overline{F_i}\overline{F_k}`$ is pure and of dimension $`dimF_k1`$ for all $`k=2,\mathrm{},t`$. They proved the following \[2, Lemma 2.3\]:

###### Lemma 6.8 (Björner-Wachs).

An order $`F_1,F_2,\mathrm{},F_t`$ of the facets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a shelling if and only if for every $`i`$ and $`k`$ with $`1ik`$ there is a $`j`$ with $`1j<k`$ and an $`xF_k`$ such that $`F_iF_kF_jF_k=F_k\{x\}.`$

We define the *lexicographic order* on finite subsets of $``$ in the following way: if

$$\sigma =a_1,\mathrm{},a_r\text{ with }1a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_r,$$

$$\tau =\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_s\}\mathrm{\Delta }([n]),\text{ with }1b_1<b_2<\mathrm{}<b_s,$$

then $`\sigma _{lex}\tau `$ if either $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ or $`a_1>b_1`$ or $`\sigma \{a_1\}_{lex}\tau \{b_1\}`$. Note that $`_{lex}`$ is a *Boolean term-order* in the sense of Maclagan , so

$$\sigma _{lex}\tau \sigma \{w\}_{lex}\tau \{w\}_{lex}\tau .$$
(27)
###### Theorem 6.9.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ is shellable; the lexicographic order on the facets is a shelling order.

###### Proof.

Let $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_t`$ be the facets in $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n]`$ ordered lexicographically. Using the previous lemma, we’ll show that this is a shelling. So pick $`1i<kt`$, and let

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill F_iF_k& =\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_r\},1a_1<a_2<\mathrm{}<a_rn\hfill \\ \hfill F_i& =\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_r\}\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_t\},1b_1<a_b<\mathrm{}<b_tn\hfill \\ \hfill F_k& =\{a_1,\mathrm{},a_r\}\{c_1,\mathrm{},c_s\},1c_1<c_2<\mathrm{}<c_sn\hfill \end{array}$$

We always have that

$$r=\left|F_iF_k\right|<\left|F_k\right|=r+s,$$

since by definition, no facet is contain in another facet. If

$$\left|F_k\right|\left|F_iF_k\right|=1,$$

then we are done, by taking $`j=i`$.

So suppose that

$$\left|F_k\right|\left|F_iF_k\right|2.$$

This means that $`s2`$. Since $`i<k`$, $`F_i>_{lex}F_k`$. We distinguish two cases: some $`c_v`$ is a prime power which is not a prime (case 1), or all $`c_v`$’s are prime (case 2).

Case 1: There is some $`c_v`$ which is not a prime, thus $`c_v=p^\delta `$ with $`\delta >1`$, $`p`$ a prime. Put

$$G=\left(F_k\{p\}\right)\{c_v\}.$$

Then $`G>_{lex}F_k`$, and since $`p<c_v`$, $`_{uG}un`$, so $`G\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$. Clearly,

$$GF_k=F_k\{c_v\}.$$

Now $`G`$ need not be a facet, but it is contained in one, say $`GF_j`$, and by (27) it follows that $`F_j_{lex}F_k`$, whence $`j<k`$. Since

$$F_jF_kGF_k=F_k\{c_v\},$$

and since, as noted, $`F_k`$ can not be contained in another facet, we must have that

$$F_jF_k=F_k\{c_v\},$$

as desired.

Case 2: Since $`F_i>_{lex}F_k`$ then $`b_1<c_1<c_2<\mathrm{}<c_s`$. If all $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_s`$ are prime, then $`\mathrm{gcd}(b_1,c_v)=1`$ for $`1vs`$. Hence

$$G=(F_k\{b_1\})\{c_1\}\mathrm{\Delta }([n].$$

As before, it sufficies to note that $`G>_{lex}F_k`$ and that $`GF_k=F_k\{c_1\}`$ to be able to conclude that there is some $`j<k`$ such that $`GF_j`$,

$$F_jF_k=GF_k=F_k\{c_1\}.$$

It follows that all the homology groups of $`\mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$ are torsion-free.

## 7. Socle degree, the Gorenstein property, and symmetric Hilbert function for $`𝒜_{[n]}`$

### 7.1. The socle of $`𝒜_{[n]}`$

The following easy Lemma was proved in .

###### Lemma 7.1.

$`\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})`$ is spanned as a $`C`$-vector space by the set

$$\begin{array}{c}\{e_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}<kn,e_kf=\mathrm{𝟎}\text{ for all }f\text{ with }f(0)0\}=\hfill \\ \hfill \left\{e_k\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}1}<kn,kp>n\text{ for all }p\text{ such that }\mathrm{gcd}(k,p)=1\right\}\end{array}$$
(28)
Furthermore, the $`e_k`$’s which span the socle correspond precisely to the facets (maximal faces) $`\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }([n])`$, $`\sigma =\{p_{i_1}^{a_1},\mathrm{},p_{i_r}^{a_r}\}`$, $`k=p_{i_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}p_{i_r}^{a_r}`$.

###### Theorem 7.2.

Let $`dim_{}\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})`$ denote the vector space dimension of the socle of $`𝒜_{[n]}`$. Then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{dim_{}\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})}{n}=1\frac{1}{2}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\frac{1}{p_i}\frac{1}{p_{i+1}}}{_{j=1}^ip_j}0.60771435951661818$$
(29)
###### Proof.

Let $`^{++}=\left\{k\text{ }k>1\right\}`$. For all $`n,k^+`$, put

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_{n,0}& =^{++}[\frac{n}{2},n]\hfill \\ \hfill I_{n,k}& =^{++}[\frac{n}{p_{k+1}},\frac{n}{p_k})\hfill \end{array}$$

By (28), the integers $`vI_{n,k}`$ correspond to $`e_v\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})`$ whenever $`pv>n`$ for all prime numbers relatively prime to $`v`$. When $`2p_k>n`$, $`I_{n,k}=\mathrm{}`$. For the remaining $`k`$’s, we have that $`I_{n,k}`$ contains approximatively

$$\frac{n}{p_k}\frac{n}{p_{k+1}}$$

integers. Of those integers, only those that are divisible by $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_k`$ correspond to $`e_k\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})`$. Thus, the contribution to the socle from $`I_{n,k}`$ is approximatively

$$\frac{\frac{n}{p_i}\frac{n}{p_{i+1}}}{_{j=1}^ip_j}.$$

Clearly, all integers in $`I_{n,0}`$ are in the socle, which gives a contribution of approximatively $`\frac{n}{2}`$. Furthermore, for the intervall $`I_{n,k}`$ to contain any integers, it must have length $`1`$, i.e. $`\frac{n}{p_i}\frac{n}{p_{i+1}}1`$. In particular, we must have that $`\frac{n}{p_i}>1`$, that is $`p_i<n`$. Hence, we need only consider $`\pi (n)`$ such intervals. For each interval $`I_{n,k}`$ that does contain integers, the error

$$1<\left(\underset{\begin{array}{c}xI_{n,k}\\ p_1\mathrm{}p_k|x\end{array}}{}1\right)\frac{\frac{n}{p_k}\frac{n}{p_{k+1}}}{p_1\mathrm{}p_k}<1.$$

Thus, we get that

$$dim_{}\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})\frac{n}{2}+\underset{\begin{array}{c}k1\\ p_kn\end{array}}{}\frac{\frac{n}{p_k}\frac{n}{p_{k+1}}}{_{j=1}^kp_j}$$
(30)
with an error $`<\pi (n)n/\mathrm{log}(n)`$, from which (29) follows. ∎

In  we defined the *multiplicative syzygies* of $`𝒜_V`$ as the kernel $`K_2(V)`$ of the $``$-linear map

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒜_V^+𝒜_V^+& 𝒜_V^+\hfill \\ \hfill fg& fg\hfill \end{array}$$
(31)
We call elements in $`K_2(V)`$ of the form $`e_ae_b`$ *monomial multiplicative syzygies*.

###### Lemma 7.3.

The monomial multiplicative syzygies of $`𝒜_{[n]}^+`$ correspond to the lattice points

$$M([n])=\left\{(i,j)\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}n\right\}\left\{(i,j)\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}1\right\}$$
(32)
Socle elements correspond to an integer on the $`x`$-axis such that the column supported on it is contained in $`M([n])`$.

Almost all syzygies are monomial, in the sense that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\left|M([n])\right|}{dim_{}K_2([n])}=1$$
(33)
where $`K_2([n])`$ is defined as in (31).

###### Proof.

The first two assertions are obvious. By elementary linear algebra we have that

$$dim_{}K_2([n])=(n1)^2(n1).$$

On the other hand,

$$\left|M([n])\right|(n1)^2_2^n\frac{ndt}{t}(n1)^2n\mathrm{log}n,$$

so (33) follows. ∎

Below we have plotted the monomial syzygies of $`𝒜_{[30]}`$. One can see that 12 is in the socle.

### 7.2. The Gorenstein property for $`𝒜_{[n]}`$

A graded Artinian algebra is Gorenstein if and only if the socle is 1-dimensional. A direct computation shows that $`𝒜_{[2]}[t]/(t^2)`$ is Gorenstein. We note that for $`n>2`$, $`e_{n1}`$ and $`e_n`$ must both belong to the socle, which is then at least 2-dimensional, so then $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ is not Gorenstein.

### 7.3. Symmetric Hilbert function

A Gorenstein Artinian algebra has a symmetric Hilbert function, hence $`𝒜_2(t)=1+t`$ is symmetric. Can $`𝒜_{[n]}(t)`$ be symmetric for other values of $`n`$? If $`𝒜_{[n]}(t)`$ symmetric, then $`c_{n,\mathrm{}(n)}=c_{n,0}=1`$, which can only occur when

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}p_in<p_{r+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r1}{}}p_i$$
(34)
for some $`r`$: in this case, $`\mathrm{}(n)=r`$ and the only integer in the interval $`[1,n]`$ which is the product of $`r`$ primes is $`_{i=1}^rp_i`$. Checking these intervals for $`1r10`$, we get the matches displayed below.

| r | n | $`𝒜_{[n]}(t)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | 2 | $`1+t`$ |
| 2 | 6 | $`1+4t+t^2`$ |
| 2 | 7 | $`1+5t+t^2`$ |
| 2 | 8 | $`1+6t+t^2`$ |
| 2 | 9 | $`1+7t+t^2`$ |
| 3 | 40 | $`1+19t+19t^2+t^3`$ |

Furthermore, we have \[11, §§ 22.11\] that the average order and the normal order of $`\omega (n)`$ is $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$. For (34) we have that

$`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}n`$ $`<\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}(p_{r+1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}p_i)`$
$`<\mathrm{log}r\mathrm{log}(p_{r+1})`$
$`=\mathrm{log}r+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}p_{r+1}`$
$`<\mathrm{log}r+\mathrm{log}((r+1)\mathrm{log}2)`$
$`=\mathrm{log}r+\mathrm{log}(r+1)+\mathrm{log}\mathrm{log}2r/2`$
whenever $`r`$ is sufficiently large. If $`𝒜_{[n]}(t)`$ were symmetric, it should be centred around $`r/2`$. Hence, for sufficiently large $`r`$, $`𝒜_{[n]}(t)`$ is not symmetric. There can therefore be only a finite number of $`n`$ such that $`𝒜_{[n]}(t)`$ is symmetric. We conjecture that the examples tabulated above are in fact all such examples.

## 8. Basic homological properties

### 8.1. $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ as a cyclic $`[Y([n])]`$-module

$`𝒜_{[n]}`$ is an Artinian ring and a zero-dimensional module over $`[Y([n])]`$, with embedding dimension $`r=\pi ^{}(n)`$, and homological dimension $`r`$. Recall  that $`r=\pi ^{}(n)\frac{n}{\mathrm{log}(n)}`$. Furthermore, for the last Betti number we have that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta _r([Y([n])],𝒜_{[n]})& =dim_{}\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})\hfill \\ & \frac{n}{2}+\underset{\begin{array}{c}k1\\ 2p_kn\end{array}}{}\frac{\frac{n}{p_i}\frac{n}{p_{i+1}}}{_{j=1}^ip_j}\hfill \\ & 0.60771435951661818n,\hfill \end{array}$$

by \[19, Theorem 12.4\] and Theorem 7.2. In fact, the bijection

$$\mathrm{Tor}_r^{[Y([n])]}(𝒜_{[n]},)\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})$$

is degree-preserving, so

$$\beta _{r,j}([Y([n])],𝒜_{[n]})=dim_{}\mathrm{Socle}(𝒜_{[n]})_j.$$

For the first betti number we have

$$\beta _1([Y([n])],𝒜_{[n]})=\mu (A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]})=\mu (A_{[n]})+\mu (B_{[n]})+\mu (C_{[n]}),$$
(35)
the minimal number of generators of the defining ideal. Clearly

$$\mu (A_{[n]})=r,\mu (B_{[n]})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _i^{[n]}}{2}\right)$$
(36)
### 8.2. $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ as a cyclic $`[\overline{Y([n])}]`$-module

We can also consider $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ as a zero dimensional module over $`[\overline{Y([n])}]`$, with embedding dimension $`r`$, and infinite homologial dimension. We have that

$$\beta _1([\overline{Y([n])}],𝒜_{[n]})=\mu (B_{[n]}+C_{[n]})=\mu (B_{[n]})+\mu (C_{[n]}).$$

###### Lemma 8.1.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{[Y([n])]}^{[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])]}(t,𝒖)& =\text{ the square-free part of }P_{[Y([n])]}^{[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }([n])}]}(t,𝒖)\hfill \\ & =t^1\underset{UV}{}𝒖_Ut^{\left|U\right|}𝔓_U\hfill \\ \hfill P_{[\overline{Y([n])}]}^{𝒜_{[n]}}(t,𝒖)& =t^1\underset{UV}{}𝒗_Ut^{\left|U\right|}𝔓_U\hfill \end{array}$$
(37)
where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝔓_U& =\underset{i=0}{\overset{\left|U\right|}{}}t^i\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U,)\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒖_U& =𝒖_U(u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)=\underset{jU}{}u_j,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒗_U& =𝒗_U(u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)=\underset{jU}{}\frac{u_j}{1tu_j}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

It follows from the work of Gasharov, Peeva, and Welker  that

$$\beta _{i,𝒂}([Y([n])],C[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }([n])}])=dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{i2}(1,𝒚^𝒂)_L$$

where $`(1,𝒚^𝒂)_L`$ is the order complex of the interval $`(1,𝒚^𝒂)`$ in the sublattice $`L`$ of $`Y^{}`$ generated by the minimal generators of $`A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}`$. Similarly,

$$\beta _{i,𝒂}([Y([n])],C[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])])=dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{i2}(1,𝒚^𝒂)_L^{}$$

where $`(1,𝒚^𝒂)_L^{}`$ is the order complex of the interval $`(1,𝒚^𝒂)`$ in the sublattice $`L^{}`$ of $`Y^{}`$ generated by the minimal generators of $`A_{[n]}+B_{[n]}+C_{[n]}`$. Since the square-free monomials form a sublattice $`S`$ of $`Y^{}`$, it follows that $`L^{}=LS`$, hence

$$\beta _{i,𝒂}([Y([n])],C[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])])=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & 𝒂\text{ not square-free}\hfill \\ \beta _{i,𝒂}([Y([n])],[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }([n])}])\hfill & 𝒂\text{ square-free}\hfill \end{array}$$

The remaining results are immediate from the formulaes in the appendix. ∎

###### Theorem 8.2.

The Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of the $`[\overline{Y([n])}]`$-module $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ (or, equivalently, the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity of the $`[Y([n])]`$-module $`[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])]`$) is $`1+v(n)`$, where $`v(n)`$ is as defined in (14).

###### Proof.

It follows from (37) and (14) that the Castelnuovo-Mumford regularity is equal to

$$1+\mathrm{max}\left\{i\text{ }U:\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U,)0\right\}=1+v(n).$$

### 8.3. The Stanley-Reisner ring $`[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])]`$

The Stanley-Reisner $`[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])]`$ is a ring of dimension $`dim\mathrm{\Delta }([n])+1=\mathrm{}(n)`$ and a $`[Y([n])]`$-module of homological dimension $`r1`$. From the formulaes in the appendix we get that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mu (B_{[n]})+\mu (C_{[n]})& =\beta _1([\overline{Y([n])}],𝒜_{[n]})\hfill \\ & =\beta _1([Y([n])],[\mathrm{\Delta }([n])])\hfill \\ & =\underset{UV}{}dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|U\right|2}(\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U,)\hfill \\ & =\underset{i=0}{\overset{r2}{}}\underset{\left|U\right|=i+2}{}dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U,)\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
### 8.4. The Koszul property

Since $`A_{[n]}`$ and $`B_{[n]}`$ are quadratic, and we know for which $`i`$ the reduced simplicial homology $`\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U,)`$ can be non-zero, we get

###### Corollary 8.3.

The maximal degree of a minimal generator of $`C_{[n]}`$, for $`n>2`$, is $`\mathrm{max}\{2,v(n)\}`$. In particular, $`C_{[n]}`$ is quadratic for $`n<15`$. Furthermore,

$$\mu (C_{[n]})=\underset{i=0}{\overset{r2}{}}\underset{\left|U\right|=i+2}{}dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }([n])_U,)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\lambda _i^{[n]}}{2}\right)$$
(39)
###### Proposition 8.4.

$`𝒜_{[n]}`$ is Koszul if and only if $`n<15`$.

###### Proof.

$`𝒜_{[n]}`$ is a monomial algebra, and is quadratic iff $`n<15`$. Thus by a result of Fröberg , $`𝒜_{[n]}`$ is Koszul iff $`n<15`$. ∎

## Appendix A Homological formulaes for Stanley-Reisner rings and indicator algebras

In this appendix, we assume that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a simplicial complex on the finite set $`W=\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. For $`UW`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_U=\left\{\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\text{ }\sigma U\right\}`$; it is a simplicial complex on $`U`$. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)`$ the reduced simplicial homology. Note that when $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{H}^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{}};)`$.

We write $`S=[x_1,\mathrm{},x_r]`$, $`\overline{S}=\frac{[x_1,\mathrm{},x_r]}{(x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_r^2)}`$, and $`E`$ for the exterior algebra on the vector space of linear forms in $`S`$. Then $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ is a cyclic $`S`$-module, $`[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}]`$ a cyclic $`\overline{S}`$-module, and $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ a cyclic $`E`$-module. $`C`$ is a module over all these rings.

###### Theorem A.1 (Hochster, ).

Let $`\beta _i`$ denote the $`i`$’th Betti number of $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ (in a minimal free resolution of $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]`$ as an $`S`$-module), and let $`\beta _{i,𝛂}`$ denote the corresponding multi-graded Betti number. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \beta _{i,𝜶}& =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }𝜶\text{ is not square-free},\hfill \\ dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|U\right|i1}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)\hfill & \text{ if }𝜶\text{ is square-free with }\mathrm{supp}(𝜶)=U\hfill \end{array}\hfill \\ \hfill \beta _i& =\underset{UW}{}dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|U\right|i1}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
Thus the Poincaré-Betti series is

$$P_S^{[\mathrm{\Delta }]}(t,𝒖)=\underset{UW}{}\underset{jU}{}u_j\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^idim_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|U\right|i1}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)\right)$$
(41)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{H}^j(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)=0`$ for $`j<1`$, $`jn1`$, so the above sum is finite.

###### Theorem A.2 (Aramova-Herzog-Hibi ).

Let $`\beta _i`$ denote the $`i`$’th Betti number of $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ (in a minimal free resolution of $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ as an $`E`$-module), and let $`\beta _{i,𝛂}`$ denote the corresponding multi-graded Betti number. Then

$$\beta _{i,𝜶}=dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|𝜶\right|i1}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;),\text{ where }U=\mathrm{supp}(𝜶)$$
(42)
###### Corollary A.3.

In the above situation,

$$\beta _i=\underset{UW}{}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{\left|U\right|1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{}+i}{\mathrm{}+1+i\left|U\right|}\right)dim_{}\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|U\right|i1}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)$$
(43)
###### Lemma A.4 (Sköldberg ).

$$P_E^{\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}}(t,u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)=P_S^{[\mathrm{\Delta }]}(t,\frac{u_i}{1tu_1},\mathrm{},\frac{u_r}{1tu_r})$$
(44)
###### Corollary A.5.

$$P_E^{\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}}(t,𝒖)=\underset{UW}{}\underset{jU}{}\frac{u_j}{1tu_j}\underset{i=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^idim_{}\left(\stackrel{~}{H}^{\left|U\right|i1}(\mathrm{\Delta }_U;)\right)$$
(45)
###### Definition A.6.

For $`UW`$, we introduce the notation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 𝒖_U& =𝒖_U(u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)=\underset{jU}{}u_j,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒗_U& =𝒗_U(u_1,\mathrm{},u_r)=\underset{jU}{}\frac{u_j}{1tu_j},\hfill \\ \hfill 𝔓_U& =\underset{i=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^i\stackrel{~}{H}^i(\mathrm{\Delta }_U,)\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
###### Corollary A.7.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_S^{[\mathrm{\Delta }]}(t,𝒖)& =t^1\underset{UW}{}𝒖_Ut^{\left|U\right|}𝔓_U\hfill \\ \hfill P_E^{\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}}(t,𝒖)& =t^1\underset{UW}{}𝒗_Ut^{\left|U\right|}𝔓_U\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
###### Lemma A.8 (Sköldberg, ).

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill P_{\overline{S}}^{[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}]}(t,𝒖)& =P_E^{\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}}(t,𝒖)\hfill \\ \hfill P_{[\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}]}^{}(t,𝒖)& =P_{\{\mathrm{\Delta }\}}^{}(t,𝒖)\hfill \end{array}$$
(48)


format: text

text:
# How well can we determine cluster mass profiles from weak lensing?

## 1 Introduction

Dark matter plays an important role in the formation of structure in the universe. However, little is known about the nature of dark matter, but it has become clear that the simplest paradigm, that of collisionless cold dark matter (CDM), can explain the observed structure in the universe quite well. Numerical simulations, which provide a powerful way to study the formation of structure in the universe, indicate that CDM gives rise to a particular density profile (e.g., Dubinski & Carlberg 1991; Navarro, Frenk, & White 1995; Navarro, Frenk, & White 1997, hereafter NFW; Moore et al. 1999). In these simulations, the NFW profile appears to be an excellent description of the radial mass distribution for halos with a wide range in mass.

The density profile on small scales, however, remains controversial as other groups find different results (e.g., Ghigna et al. 2000). In addition, realistic simulations should include the effect of baryons, which complicate matters even further. On the other hand, there is good agreement for the density profile on large scales, and a comparison of the profiles of real objects with the predictions provides an important test of the assumption that structures form through dissipationless collapse.

Clusters of galaxies are particularly well suited for such a comparison, because their formation can be simulated fairly well. Unfortunately, because clusters are dark matter dominated, it is difficult to measure the mass distribution at large radii from the cluster centre. Dynamical estimators can be used, but assumptions have to be made about the shape of the cluster, its dynamical state, and the velocity anisotropies (e.g., van der Marel et al. 2000).

A promising approach is that of weak gravitational lensing. The tidal gravitational field of the cluster distorts the images of distant background galaxies. This distortion can be measured and can be used to reconstruct the projected mass density of the cluster (e.g., Kaiser & Squires 1993). The advantage of weak lensing over dynamical methods is that the results do not rely on the dynamical state or the nature of the deflecting matter. More importantly, it does not require a tracer of the gravitational potential (which limits many dynamical methods), and as a result the lensing signal can be measured out to large radii from the cluster centre.

The weak lensing signal induced by galaxy clusters has been measured for a large number of systems (e.g., Bonnet, Mellier & Fort 1994; Fahlman et al. 1994; Clowe et al. 2000; Hoekstra et al. 2002a; Squires et al. 1996). These early studies were limited by the field of view of the CCD cameras used in the observations. With the recent introduction of wide field imagers it is now possible to measure the lensing signal out to large radii (Clowe & Schneider 2001, 2002) or study the mass distribution in superclusters (e.g., Kaiser et al. 1998; Gray et al. 2002). Many other weak lensing applications are discussed in Hoekstra, Yee & Gladders (2002b).

The lensing signal at large radii is low, and special care has to be taken to correct for observational distortions, such as PSF anisotropy, seeing and camera shear. These systematic signals typically have amplitudes comparable to the lensing signal one is interested in. Fortunately, detailed studies have shown that the lensing signal can be recovered with great accuracy (e.g., Hoekstra et al. 1998; Erben et al. 2001; Bacon et al. 2001).

However, another source of error is usually ignored: the contribution of large scale structure. The weak lensing signal is sensitive to all matter along the line of sight. In general, cluster studies assume that the signal introduced by the cluster is so dominant that the contributions from other structures can be neglected.

The effect of local large scale structure (such as the filaments connecting clusters and groups) on cluster mass estimates has been studied through numerical simulations (Cen 1997; Metzler et al. 1999; White et al. 2002). These studies show that local structures introduce both a bias and additional noise in the mass measurement. Estimates of cluster mass-to-light ratios are affected less by these structures, as both the mass and the light are expected to probe the same structure.

The study of the contribution from distant large scale structure (not correlated with the cluster) requires large cosmological simulations, as one needs to account for all matter along the line of sight. Hoekstra (2001) demonstrated how the contribution of distant large scale structure can be computed analytically. Hoekstra (2001) showed that the large scale structure introduces noise in the cluster mass measurement, but does not bias the result. The results presented by White et al. (2002), based on detailed numerical simulations, are in good agreement with the findings from Hoekstra (2001).

It is important to note that the distant large scale structure does affect the determination of the cluster mass-to-light ratio. Furthermore, the distant large scale structure provides a fundamental limit to the accuracy of weak lensing mass estimates: deeper observations reduce the statistical uncertainty (because of the intrinsic shapes of the sources), but increase the noise from large scale structure (Hoekstra 2001).

These studies have demonstrated that the large scale structure can be an important source of noise for the mass determination of individual objects. The cluster mass is an integral over the cluster profile, and therefore large scale structure will have an impact on the determination of cluster mass profiles.

Local large scale structure and substructure in the cluster will change the profile. This was studied by King, Schneider & Springel (2001) using a numerical simulation of a cluster. They found that substructure increases the error on the parameters by only $`3\%`$. Doubling the amount of substructure resulting in $`10\%`$ larger errors. Based on these results, King et al. (2001) concluded that weak lensing studies of clusters can be of great use to study mass profiles.

However, King et al. (2001) did not consider the contribution of distant large scale structure to the error budget. In this paper, we use the approach introduced by Hoekstra (2001) to quantify the contribution of distant large scale structure on measurements of cluster density profiles.

The structure of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we calculate the contribution of distant large scale structure to the lensing signal. The lensing properties of the NFW profile are discussed in Section 3. The effects of distant large scale structure are studied in Section 4, where we consider clusters with different masses and redshifts.

## 2 Noise from large scale structure

In the weak lensing regime, the coherent distortion of the images of the background galaxies provides a direct measure of the lensing shear $`\gamma `$ as a function of position. The projected mass distribution of a cluster can be reconstructed in a parameter-free way from the observed shear field (e.g., Kaiser & Squires 1993). The resulting mass map can be used to derive the cluster mass profile. However, the mass reconstruction is a non-local operation, and as a result the noise in the map varies as a function of position.

Although one can estimate the noise in non-parametric reconstructions from bootstrap simulations, it is more convenient to use parameterised models which are fitted to the observations. In the latter case the error properties are well understood. To study the distribution of matter in the cluster, 2-dimensional models can be fitted. Another approach is to consider the azimuthally averaged tangential shear as a function of radius from the centre. The latter is particularly useful to estimate the mass of the cluster (e.g., Hoekstra et al. 1998) or study the mass profile (e.g., Clowe et al. 2000; Clowe & Schneider 2001; Clowe & Schneider 2002; Hoekstra et al. 2002a).

Hoekstra (2001) showed how distant large scale structure affects the mass estimate when a singular isothermal sphere (SIS) model is fitted to the tangential shear profile. In this paper we apply the approach presented in Hoekstra (2001) to estimate how large scale structure affects the measured tangential shear profile. This allows us to efficiently simulate observations, and quantify the effect of distant large scale structure on the derived cluster profile. We focus on the NFW profile, which is discussed in Section 3, although the procedure can be readily applied to any model.

The quantity of interest is the tangential shear averaged in an annulus ranging from $`\theta _1`$ to $`\theta _2`$: $`\gamma _T(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$. We will show that the tangential shear in an annulus is a filtered measurement of the surface mass density, i.e., it is a particular choice of the aperture mass statistic $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ (e.g., Schneider et al. 1998). The aperture mass is defined as

$$M_{\mathrm{ap}}(\theta )=_0^\theta d^2\vartheta U(|\vartheta |)\kappa (\vartheta ),$$
(1)
where $`U(\theta )`$ is the weight or filter function. Provided that $`U(\theta )`$ is compensated, i.e.

$$_0^\theta 𝑑\vartheta \vartheta U(\vartheta )=0,$$
(2)
the aperture statistic can be related to the tangential shear $`\gamma _T`$. Unfortunately $`\gamma _T`$ cannot be observed directly, but one can measure the distortion $`g_T=\gamma _T/(1\kappa )`$. In the weak lensing regime, where $`\kappa 1`$, one can use $`\gamma _Tg_T`$, which is what we do throughout this paper. Hence,

$$M_{\mathrm{ap}}(\theta )=_0^\theta d^2\vartheta Q(|\vartheta |)\gamma _T(\vartheta ).$$
(3)
$`Q(\theta )`$ is related to $`U(\theta )`$ through

$$Q(\theta )=\frac{2}{\theta ^2}_0^\theta 𝑑\vartheta \vartheta U(\vartheta )U(\theta ).$$
(4)
Hence, similar to the mass estimate of the cluster (Hoekstra 2001), the tangential shear in an annulus can be written as an aperture mass, with the filter function $`Q(\theta )`$

$$Q(|\theta |)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\pi (\theta _2^2\theta _1^2)}\hfill & (\theta _1|\theta |\theta _2)\hfill \\ & \\ 0\hfill & (\mathrm{elsewhere})\hfill \end{array}.$$
(5)
and the corresponding $`U(|\theta |)`$ is

$$U(|\theta |)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _1\hfill & (\theta <\theta _1)\hfill \\ \alpha _2\mathrm{ln}(\theta )+\alpha _3\hfill & (\theta _1|\theta |\theta _2)\hfill \\ 0\hfill & (\theta >\theta _2)\hfill \end{array}.$$
(6)
The coefficients $`\alpha _i`$ are defined as

$$\alpha _1=\frac{2[\mathrm{ln}(\theta _2)\mathrm{ln}(\theta _1)]}{\pi (\theta _2^2\theta _1^2)},$$
(7)
$$\alpha _2=\frac{2}{\pi (\theta _2^2\theta _1^2)},$$
(8)
and

$$\alpha _3=\frac{2\mathrm{ln}(\theta _2)1}{\pi (\theta _2^2\theta _1^2)}.$$
(9)
Under the assumption that the cluster is the only lensing structure in the field, the measured $`\gamma _T(\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ as a function of the distance to the cluster centre can be readily used to study the cluster mass profile: the parameters describing the cluster can be inferred from a least squares fit of the model to the data. However, the observed weak lensing signal is sensitive to all matter along the line of sight, and other structures (the distant large scale structure) will introduce an additional signal, and the observed signal is the sum of the contribution from the cluster and large scale structure

$$\gamma _T_{\mathrm{obs}}=\gamma _T_{\mathrm{cluster}}+\gamma _T_{\mathrm{LSS}}.$$
(10)
The aperture mass measures a density contrast, and therefore the expectation value for the contribution by uncorrelated large scale structure vanishes (i.e., $`M_{\mathrm{LSS}}=0`$). Thus on average, distant structures do not bias the measurements, but they introduce and additional statistical uncertainty in the measurement of size $`\sigma _{\mathrm{LSS}}^2\gamma _T_{\mathrm{LSS}}^2^{1/2}`$. However, because of non-linear gravitational evolution, the distribution of $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ will be skewed (e.g., Bernardeau et al. 1997; Schneider 1998). In the analysis we will ignore the skewness, and assume that $`M_{\mathrm{ap}}`$ follows a normal distribution.

The uncertainty in the measurement of the average tangential shear $`\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}`$ in a bin ranging from $`\theta _1`$ to $`\theta _2`$ is

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{obs}}^2=\sigma _{\mathrm{gal}}^2+\sigma _{\mathrm{LSS}}^2,$$
(11)
where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{gal}}^2`$ corresponds to the uncertainty introduced by the intrinsic shapes of the galaxies and the noise in the shape measurement. It depends on the number density of sources $`\overline{n}`$ and the scatter in the ellipticities $`\sigma _ϵ`$

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{gal}}^2=\frac{\sigma _ϵ^2}{\pi (\theta _2^2\theta _1^2)\overline{n}}.$$
(12)
For the dispersion in the shapes of the sources we adopt a value $`\sigma _ϵ=0.25`$, similar to what is observed in deep HST images (e.g., Hoekstra et al. 2000). Depending on the image quality and depth of the observations, the dispersion is likely to be larger for faint galaxies in ground based data, because of the correction for the circularization by the PSF. The number density of galaxies with $`20<R<26`$ is $`60`$ galaxies arcmin-2 in space based observations. In ground based data, however, the effective number density of galaxies is lower, because many of the faint galaxies have sizes comparable to the PSF, and are not useable in the weak lensing analysis (i.e., these galaxies have $`\sigma _ϵ0.25`$). We therefore adopt a typical value of $`30`$ galaxies arcmin-2 (e.g., Bacon et al. (2002)).

The variance in the aperture mass caused by large scale structure is given by (Schneider et al. 1998)

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{LSS}}^2(\theta _1,\theta _2)=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑llP_\kappa (l)g^2(l,\theta _1,\theta _2),$$
(13)
where the effective projected power spectrum $`P_\kappa (l)`$ is given by:

$$P_\kappa (l)=\frac{9H_0^4\mathrm{\Omega }_m^2}{4c^4}_0^{w_H}𝑑w\left(\frac{\overline{W}(w)}{a(w)}\right)^2P_\delta (\frac{l}{f_K(w)};w)$$
(14)
Here $`w`$ is the radial coordinate, $`a(w)`$ the cosmic scale factor, and $`f_K(w)`$ the comoving angular diameter distance. $`\overline{W}(w)`$ is the source averaged ratio of angular diameter distances $`D_{ls}/D_s`$ for a redshift distribution of sources $`p_w(w)`$:

$$\overline{W}(w)=_w^{w_H}𝑑w^{}p_w(w^{})\frac{f_K(w^{}w)}{f_K(w^{})}.$$
(15)
The function $`g(l,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ in equation 13 depends on the filter function $`U(|\theta |)`$ as

$$g(l,\theta _1,\theta _2)=_0^{\theta _2}𝑑\varphi \varphi U(\varphi )J_0(l\varphi ).$$
(16)
As has been demonstrated in Jain & Seljak (1997) and Schneider et al. (1998) it is necessary to use the non-linear power spectrum in equation 14. This power spectrum can be derived from the linearly evolved cosmological power spectrum following the prescriptions of Hamilton et al. (1991), and Peacock & Dodds (1996).

For our choice of filter function $`U(|\theta |)`$ we obtain

$`g(l,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{12\mathrm{ln}(\theta _1)}{\pi (\theta _2^2\theta _1^2)}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\theta _1J_1(l\theta _1)}{l}}`$ (17)
$`+\alpha _3{\displaystyle \frac{\theta _2J_1(l\theta _2)}{l}}+\alpha _2{\displaystyle _{\theta _1}^{\theta _2}}𝑑\varphi \varphi \mathrm{ln}(\varphi )J_0(l\varphi ).`$
Figure 1 shows $`g^2(l,\theta _1,\theta _2)`$ as a function of $`l`$ for $`\theta _1=15^{}`$ and $`\theta _2=15.^{}5`$. These results show that $`g^2`$ declines rather slowly ($`1/l`$) with increasing $`l`$, and therefore probes a large range in $`l`$.

For the analysis in this paper it is convenient to consider the aperture mass statistic $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta )`$, which corresponds to the the average tangential shear measured in an annulus $`[\theta \delta \theta /2,\theta +\delta \theta /2]`$. Provided that $`\delta \theta /\theta 1`$, one obtains a simple form

$$g(l,\theta ,d\theta )g(l\theta )=\frac{J_2(l\theta )}{2\pi },$$
(18)
which is independent of $`\delta \theta `$, and is an excellent approximation to the exact calculations. In the remainder of the paper we will adopt a value of $`\delta \theta =0.^{}5`$.

Figure 2 shows the dispersion $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta )`$ in the averaged tangential shear introduced by distant large scale structure. To derive these results, we have used the redshift distribution presented in Hoekstra (2001), which are based on photometric redshift studies of the Hubble deep fields. The solid lines shows the results for sources with $`20<R<26`$ and the dashed line corresponds to sources with $`20<R<24`$.

The number density and mean source redshifts are higher in deeper observations. Consequently, the lensing signal is higher, and the statistical noise is lower. However, as Figure 2 shows, the effect of large scale structure is also increased, and the actual accuracy of the measurements improves only marginally (also see Hoekstra 2001).

To study the effect of distant large scale structure on the measurement of the cluster mass profile, we create simulated tangential shear profiles. We include the noise caused by the intrinsic shapes of the background galaxies, and the noise introduced by intervening large scale structure.

The statistical error $`\sigma _{\mathrm{gal}}`$ in each bin, caused by the intrinsic shapes of the sources, is uncorrelated with the other bins. The noise from large scale structure at various scales is correlated. To properly account for this, we need to compute not only $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}`$ but also the cross correlation coefficient between bins. The cross-correlation between bins $`\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta \vartheta )`$ is calculated using

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta _j)=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑llP_\kappa (l)g(l,\theta )g(l,\theta \vartheta ).$$
(19)
and the cross-correlation coefficient $`r(\theta ;\theta \vartheta )`$ is

$$r(\theta ;\theta \vartheta )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta )\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}(\theta \vartheta )}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}^2(\theta )\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}^2(\theta \vartheta )}}.$$
(20)
The cross-correlation coefficients $`r`$ for three different values of $`\theta `$ are shown in Figure 3. The measurements on small scales have small range correlations, whereas at large radii the contribution of large scale structure introduces large scale correlations.

Correlated random noise $`c(\theta )`$ can be obtained by smoothing of the white noise $`n(\theta )`$ with a an appropriate smoothing kernel $`K(\theta \vartheta )`$

$$c(\theta )=K(\theta \vartheta )n(\vartheta )𝑑\vartheta ,$$
(21)
where $`n(\theta )`$, $`c(\theta )`$ are random functions with correlators

$$n(\theta )n(\theta ^{})=\delta (\theta \theta ^{}),$$
(22)
and

$$c(\theta )c(\theta ^{})=K(\theta \vartheta )K(\theta ^{}\vartheta )𝑑\vartheta .$$
(23)
For $`n(\theta )`$ we take a random number with a Gaussian distribution with a dispersion of unity. The smoothing kernel is readily obtained from the cross correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient is the convolution of the smoothing kernel with itself. The smoothing kernel is normalized such that $`c^2(\theta )=\stackrel{~}{\sigma }_{\mathrm{LSS}}^2(\theta )`$.

## 3 NFW profile

Numerical simulations have indicated that dark matter halos originating from dissipationless collapse of density fluctuations can be described by a universal density profile (e.g., Dubinski & Carlberg; Navarro, Frenk, & White 1995; Navarro, Frenk, & White 1997). The NFW density profile is given by

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\delta _c\rho _c}{(r/r_s)(1+r/r_s)^2},$$
(24)
where $`\rho _c`$ is the critical density of the universe at the redshift of the halo. The overdensity of the halo is parameterized by $`\delta _c`$, which is related to the concentration parameter $`c`$ through

$$\delta _c=\frac{200}{3}\frac{c^3}{\mathrm{ln}(1+c)c/(1+c)}.$$
(25)
The scale radius $`r_s`$ is the characteric radius of the halo, which depends on the virial radius $`r_{200}`$ and the concentration parameter $`c`$ as $`r_s=r_{200}/c`$. The virial radius is defined as the radius where the mass density of the halo is equal to $`200\rho _c`$, and the corresponding mass $`M_{200}`$ inside this radius is given by

$$M_{200}=\frac{800\pi }{3}\rho _cr_{200}^3.$$
(26)
Given the cosmology, redshift, and mass of the halo, $`r_{200}`$ follows immediately. The simulations have also shown that $`c`$ and $`M_{200}`$ are correlated, albeit with some scatter. Hence, given $`M_{200}`$, the values of $`\delta _c`$, and $`c`$ can be computed using the routine CHARDEN made available by Julio Navarro111The routine CHARDEN can be obtained from http://pinot.phys.uvic.ca/$`\stackrel{~}{}`$jfn/charden. In this case the halo profile is described by a single parameter, e.g., the mass. However, one can also consider $`c`$ as a free parameter in the model. Consequently comparison of the inferred value with the predictions of the numerical simulations provides a direct observational test of our current understanding of structure formation.

For the NFW profile, the tangential shear $`\gamma _T`$ as a function of radius $`\theta `$ is given by (Bartelmann 1996; Wright & Brainerd 2000)

$$\gamma _T(\theta )=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{r_s\delta _c\rho _c}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}g_<(x)\hfill & ,x<1\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{r_s\delta _c\rho _c}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}\left[\frac{10}{3}+4\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right]\hfill & ,x=1\hfill \\ & \\ \frac{r_s\delta _c\rho _c}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_c}g_>(x)\hfill & ,x>1\hfill \end{array},$$
(27)
where $`x=\theta /r_s`$. The critical surface density $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_c`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_c=\frac{c^2}{4\pi G}\frac{D_s}{D_lD_{ls}},$$
(28)
where $`D_l`$, $`D_s`$, and $`D_{ls}`$ are, respectively, the angular diameter distances between the observer and the lens, the observer and the source, and the lens and the source. The functions $`g_<(x)`$ and $`g_>(x)`$ are defined as

$`g_<(x)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{h}\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+x}}}{x^2\sqrt{1x^2}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left(x^21\right)}}`$ (29)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{h}\sqrt{\frac{1x}{1+x}}}{\left(x^21\right)\left(1x^2\right)^{1/2}}},`$
and

$`g_>(x)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{x1}{1+x}}}{x^2\sqrt{x^21}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{x^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left(x^21\right)}}`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{\frac{x1}{1+x}}}{\left(x^21\right)^{3/2}}}.`$
Figure 4 shows the tangential shear for a cluster with an NFW profile. The cluster has a mass $`M_{200}=10^{15}h^1M_{}`$, and is at a redshift $`z=0.3`$. The amplitude of the lensing signal corresponds to that for source galaxies with apparent magnitudes $`20<R<26`$. The dashed line in Figure 4 corresponds to a Singular Isothermal Sphere (SIS) model, which was matched to the NFW model at intermediate radii.

In principle one can distinguish between the SIS model and the NFW profile by examining the lensing signal on either small or large scales. In practice, however, substructure in the cluster core, and contamination of the sample of background galaxies by cluster members, complicates the small scale comparison. Furthermore, the profile on small scales is still debated (e.g., Ghigna et al. 2000). The lensing signal at large radii can be measured accurately, provided that the shapes have been accurately corrected for observational distortions.

## 4 Constraining mass profiles

To study cluster mass profiles, it is common to compare a parametrized mass model to the data. Ideally one would like to minimize the number of parameters describing the model. In this section we consider the NFW profile (Eqn. 24), with $`M_{200}`$ and $`c`$ as the only two free parameters. In addition to these two parameters, one could introduce the slopes of the profile on small and large scales.

To examine how well we can constrain the values of $`M_{200}`$ and $`c`$, we create simulated tangential shear profiles as described in Section 2. The profiles include the statistical noise due to the intrinsic shapes of galaxies and the contribution from distant large scale structure. A typical realisation is presented in Figure 5a. The points indicate the simulated measurements, and the error bars reflect only the statistical error (the intrinsic shapes of the sources). The input NFW signal is indicated by the dashed line. The actual lensing signal, which is modified because of the large scale structure, is given by the solid line

Figure 5b shows the difference between the “observed” signal and the input NFW profile. The large scale structure introduces significant deviations, which, in this particular case, systematically lower the signal on scales larger than 10 arcminutes. The input profile has $`M_{200}=10^{15}h^1M_{}`$ and $`c=4.6`$. The best fit NFW profile to the profile with the contribution from large scale structure only (i.e., no statistical noise from the shapes of the sources) yields $`M_{200}=8.7\times 10^{14}M_{}`$ and $`c=5.1`$ when fitted out to 15 arcminutes. When the profile is fitted out to 30 arcminutes, we obtain $`M_{200}=7.4\times 10^{14}M_{}`$ and $`c=5.5`$. Hence, the large scale structure alters the inferred profile of an individual cluster, and the inferred values depend on the range in radius included in the fit. Note, however, that the ensemble average value is not changed when a large sample of clusters is used.

We now quantify the contribution of distant large scale structure to the total error budget. We start by considering clusters at a redshift $`z=0.3`$, and masses $`M_{200}=0.5,1\mathrm{and}2\times 10^{15}h^1M_{}`$. We assume that, because of substructure in the cluster core and contamination by cluster members, the NFW profile is fitted at radii larger than 30 arcseconds. The inclusion of measurements at smaller radii does not change the results significantly, because of the large statistical error on small scales.

Figure 6 shows how the $`1\sigma `$ uncertainty in the determination of $`M_{200}`$ (upper panels) and $`c`$ (lower panels) varies with increasing $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}`$, the outermost point included in the fit. The uncertainties are determined from 1000 realisations. The dotted lines corresponds to the contribution from the intrinsic ellipticities of the background galaxies. The statistical uncertainty decreases when the lensing signal is measured out to larger distances from the cluster centre. The dashed lines denotes the contribution from the large scale structure. The combined uncertainty is indicated by the solid lines.

The results presented in Figure 6 demonstrate that contribution of distant large scale strucure to the total error budget cannot be neglected. This is true, even for clusters as massive as $`M_{200}=2\times 10^{15}h^1M_{}`$. The accuracy in the measurement of $`c`$ improves with increasing mass of the cluster, whereas the uncertainty in $`M_{200}`$ increases (although the relative accuracy does improve).

The real uncertainties in $`M_{200}`$ and $`c`$ are typically a factor $`2`$ larger than expected from the statistical noise caused by the intrinsic shapes of the sources alone. Furthermore, the accuracy of the parameter estimation does not improve by fitting the model to radii larger than $`15`$ arcminutes.

It is also interesting to examine how well we constrain $`M_{200}`$ and $`c`$ for clusters at various redshifts. For instance, Hoekstra (2001) showed that large scale structure seriously limits the accuracy of mass determinations for low redshift clusters. At higher redshifts, the accuracy is limited by the intrinsic shapes of the sources.

We consider a cluster with $`M_{200}=10^{15}h^1M_{}`$ at redshifts ranging from 0.05 to 0.7. Figure 6 shows that the most accurate results are obtained for $`\theta _{\mathrm{max}}=15^{}`$, and we use this value to fit the profiles. The $`1\sigma `$ uncertainties in the measurements of $`M_{200}`$ and $`c`$ as a function of redshift are presented in Figure 7.

The results show that the optimal redshift for the determination of $`M_{200}`$ is $`z0.3`$, although for the adopted limiting magnitude of $`R=26`$, the uncertainty does not increase dramatically for higher redshift clusters. This is because for a fixed angular scale, one probes larger physical scales at high redshift, which explains why the contribution from the intrinsic shapes is almost constant, and the noise from large scale structure increases. The noise, however, increases rapidly for low redshift clusters.

The situation is different for the measurement of the concentration parameter $`c`$, which is presented in Figure 7b. The error increases significantly for high redshift clusters, and the most accurate measurements are obtained for clusters with redshifts $`z=0.10.3`$.

Therefore studies of intermediate redshift clusters are best suited to test the predictions of dissipationless collapse. In addition these systems can be studied efficiently using X-ray telescopes and new multi-object spectrographs (such as IMACS). Comparison of the results obtained through these various techniques can provide also new insights in the dynamics of structure formations

## 5 Conclusions

The comparison of measured mass profiles of cluster of galaxies with the outcome of numerical simulations provides an important test of our current understanding of structure formation. Although mass profiles can be inferred through various techniques, weak lensing is of particular interest, because it probes the (dark) matter distribution directly. It does not rely on assumptions about the dynamical state of the cluster or the nature of dark matter. In addition it does not require a visible tracer, which is important to study the mass profile at large distances from the cluster centre.

Unfortunately, a simple interpretation of the lensing signal is complicated because of the contribution of large scale structure along the line of sight. To date, weak lensing studies of clusters of galaxies have ignored the effect of distant large scale structure. The effect on mass estimates was studied previously by Hoekstra (2001). In this paper we followed the approach of Hoekstra (2001) to quantify the effect of distant large scale structure on the mass profile inferred from weak lensing.

We considered NFW profiles, which provide a good description of the outcome of simulations with collisionless dark matter. We have created shear profiles, which include the noise from the intrinsic shapes of the galaxies and the contribution from large scale structure. These profiles were fit with NFW profiles, with the mass $`M_{200}`$ and the concentration parameter $`c`$ as free parameters.

We found that $`M_{200}`$ and $`c`$ are constrained best for clusters at intermediate redshifts ($`z0.3`$). For a cluster at $`z=0.3`$, optimal results are obtained when the lensing signal is measured out to $`1015`$ arcminutes. Measurements at larger radii do not improve the accuracy. This is different from the situation where the contribution from large scale structure is ignored: the measurement error decreases when the signal is measured out to larger radii.

King et al. (2001) studied the effect of substructure on the determination of cluster mass profiles, and found that the errors in the fitted parameters increase by a few percent. We found, however, that distant large scale structure is a major source of uncertainty in the determination of cluster mass profiles from weak lensing. The true uncertainties in $`M_{200}`$ and the concentration parameter $`c`$ are $`2`$ times larger than when large scale structure is not included in the error budget. It is also important to note that deeper observations do not significantly improve the accuracy of the measurements, because the smaller statistical error is counteracted by an increase in noise due to large scale structure.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Kris Blindert, Ludo van Waerbeke and Howard Yee for a careful reading of the manuscript.