text:
# HOMOTOPIES AND AUTOMORPHISMS OF CROSSED MODULES OF GROUPOIDS MSC2000 Classification: 20L05,18D15,18D35,55D15,55U99 Keywords: crossed modules, groupoids, automorphisms, actors, 2-crossed modules

## Introduction

This is the first of several planned papers whose aim is to develop contexts for 2-dimensional versions of holonomy .

The notion of holonomy that we will use is that in Aof-Brown , which exposes ideas of Pradines justifying \[24, Théorème 1\]. This starts with a locally Lie groupoid $`(G,W)`$ where $`G`$ is a groupoid and $`W`$ is a topological space such that as a set $`Ob\left(G\right)WG`$ and certain other conditions hold so that the groupoid operations on $`G`$ are ‘as smooth as possible’ on $`W`$. The locally Lie groupoid is extendible if there is a topology on $`G`$ making $`G`$ a Lie groupoid in which $`W`$ is an open subspace. In general $`(G,W)`$ is not extendible but under extra conditions on the existence of certain local continuous coadmissible sections, there is a Lie groupoid $`Hol(G,W)`$ again containing $`W`$ as an open subspace and with a morphism $`Hol(G,W)G`$ which is the identity on $`W`$. Then $`Hol(G,W)`$ is the ‘smallest’ overgroupoid of $`G`$ with this property.

Here a coadmissible section is a section $`s:XG`$ of the target map $`\beta `$ such that $`\alpha s`$ is a bijection on $`X`$. We are investigating 2-dimensional versions of these ideas, and so we need 2-dimensional versions of groupoids and of coadmissible sections.

There are various useful 2-dimensional notions of groupoid: double groupoid, 2-groupoid, crossed module of groupoids. In this paper we will consider homotopies in the context of crossed modules of groupoids, which are equivalent to 2-groupoids, and to edge symmetric double groupoids with the extra structure of connection. In §5 we briefly summarise the application to 2-groupoids. It is not clear at this stage whether a direct proof in that context would or would not be simpler than that given here. In any case, theory has been developed and applied for crossed modules of groupoids and crossed complexes which has not been developed for the corresponding 2-groupoids and globular $`\mathrm{}`$-groupoids, particularly the theory and applications of free objects (see for example ).

The aim is to replace the notion of coadmissible section by coadmissible homotopy. Our main results develop this relation between coadmissible homotopies and automorphisms of crossed modules of groupoids, and start by showing that a coadmissible homotopy is of the form $`f1`$ where $`f`$ is an automorphism.

The study of automorphisms of a crossed module $`=(\mu :MP)`$ of a group $`P`$ was initiated by J.H.C. Whitehead in , where he showed the relation with derivations $`s:PM`$. These derivations occurred in his work on homotopies of his ‘homotopy systems’ in . Work was continued by Lue  and Norrie , leading to the notion of the actor crossed square

(1)
which should be thought of as the direct generalisation of the actor crossed module of a group $`M\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(M\right)`$. See also Breen  for further uses of crossed squares. Related to this crossed square is a 2-crossed module

$$MPDer^{}(P,M)\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(\right).$$
(2)
We shall later identify the group $`PDer^{}(P,M)`$ with the group of invertible free derivations $`PM`$.

A different context for these results was given in Brown and Gilbert  in terms of the monoidal closed category of crossed modules of groupoids. The technique of relating the structure of braided regular crossed modules which arose in this situation to simplicial groups allowed a construction of a set of equivalent algebraic models of homotopy 3-types. The extension from groups to groupoids is necessary for both these contexts since the object set of the internal hom is just the set of morphisms of crossed modules, and the object set of the automorphism structure has a group structure related to the fundamental group of the 3-type.

However for geometric applications it is natural to seek a similar family of results, in particular the 2-crossed module (2), for a crossed module of groupoids $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$, leading to the 2-crossed module

$$M_2\left(𝒞\right)\stackrel{\zeta }{}FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)$$
(3)
with action of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)`$ on the other groups and Peiffer lifting

$$,:FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\times FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)M_2\left(𝒞\right).$$

The part involving $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will be the main focus of our work on 2-dimensional holonomy.

This has interesting special cases. If $`𝒞`$ is essentially a groupoid $`G`$, then $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ can be identified with the group $`M\left(G\right)`$ of coadmissible sections of $`G`$ and we have the crossed module

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:M\left(G\right)\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(G\right)$$

which has occurred sporadically in the literature (see for example \[3, §9.4, Ex.5,6\], which are attributed to ). Extensions by a group $`K`$ of the type of this crossed module (c.f. ) are relevant to lax actions of the group $`K`$ on the groupoid $`G`$ applied by Brylinski in .

From the point of view of the possibilities of ‘higher order symmetry’, it is interesting to note that a set corresponds to a homotopy 0-type; the automorphisms of a set yield a group, which corresponds to a homotopy 1-type; the automorphisms of a group yield a crossed module, which corresponds to a homotopy 2-type; and the automorphisms of a crossed module yield a 2-crossed module, which corresponds to a homotopy 3-type.

One of our expository problems is that although the theory of  deals with this general case of crossed modules of groupoids, the interpretation for the groupoid case is not given.

We give below the full definitions and proofs of the algebraic structure except for the verification of the laws for the Peiffer lifting of the 2-crossed module, because we believe it will help the reader to see explicitly the algebra that is involved, and this will also make this work largely independent of the papers Brown and Higgins  and Brown and Gilbert . In particular, this makes our work independent of the equivalence between crossed complexes and $`\omega `$-groupoids which is used by Brown and Higgins in . We quote from p.2 of this paper on the formulae for the tensor product: “Given formulae (3.1), (3.11) and (3.14), it is possible, in principle, to verify all the above facts within the category of crossed complexes, although the computations, with their numerous special cases, would be long. We prefer to prove these facts using the equivalent category $`\omega `$-Grd of $`\omega `$-groupoids where the formulae are simpler and have clearer geometric content”.

Thus we have in the above carried out a portion of this verification. For the verification of the laws for the braided part of the structure, we are however using facts from Brown and Gilbert .

In section 5 we mention briefly analogous results for the category of 2-groupoids, whose equivalence with the category of crossed modules of groupoids is the 2-truncated case of the main result of . A later paper will develop this theory in its own terms.

## 1 Crossed modules of groupoids

We recall the definition of crossed modules of groupoids. The basic reference is Brown-Higgins .

The source and target maps of a groupoid $`G`$ are written $`\alpha ,\beta `$ respectively. If $`G`$ is totally intransitive, i.e. if $`\alpha =\beta `$, then we usually use the notation $`\beta `$. The composition in a groupoid $`G`$ of elements $`a,b`$ with $`\beta a=\alpha b`$ will be written additively, as $`a+b`$. The main reason for this is the convenience for dealing with combinations of inverses and actions.

###### Definition 1.1

Let $`G,C`$ be groupoids over the same object set and let $`C`$ be totally intransitive. Then an action of $`G`$ on $`C`$ is given by a partially defined function

written $`(c,a)c^a`$, which satisfies

1. $`c^a`$ is defined if and only if $`\beta \left(c\right)=\alpha \left(a\right)`$, and then $`\beta \left(c^a\right)=\beta \left(a\right)`$,
2. $`\left(c_1+c_2\right)^a=c_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}+c_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}`$,
3. $`c_1^{a+b}=\left(c_1^a\right)^b`$ and $`c_1^{e_x}=c_1`$

for all $`c_1,c_2C(x,x)`$, $`aG(x,y)`$, $`bG(y,z)`$.

###### Definition 1.2

A crossed module of groupoids  consists of a morphism $`\delta :CG`$ of groupoids $`C`$ and $`G`$ which is the identity on the object sets such that $`C`$ is totally intransitive, together with an action of $`G`$ on $`C`$ which satisfies

1. $`\delta \left(c^a\right)=a+\delta c+a`$
2. $`c^{\delta c_1}=c_1+c+c_1`$

for $`c,c_1C(x,x)`$, $`aG(x,y)`$.

It is a pre-crossed module if (ii) is not necessarily satisfied. A (pre-)crossed module will be denoted by $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$. A crossed module of groups is a crossed module of groupoids as above in which $`C`$, $`G`$ are groups .

The followings are standard examples of crossed modules of groups and of groupoids:

1. Let $`H`$ be a normal subgroup of a group $`G`$ with $`i:HG`$ the inclusion. The action of $`G`$ on the right of $`H`$ by conjugation makes $`(H,G,i)`$ into a crossed module. This generalises to the case $`H`$ is a totally intransitive normal subgroupoid of the groupoid $`G`$.
2. Suppose $`G`$ is a group and $`M`$ is a right $`G`$-module; let $`0:MG`$ be the constant map sending $`M`$ to the identity element of $`G`$. Then $`(M,G,0)`$ is a crossed module.
3. Suppose given a morphism

$$\eta :MN$$

of left $`G`$-modules and form the semi-direct product $`GN`$. This is a group which acts on $`M`$ via the projection from $`GN`$ to $`G`$. We define a morphism

$$\delta :MGN$$

by $`\delta \left(m\right)=(1,\eta \left(m\right))`$ where $`1`$ denotes the identity in $`G`$. Then $`(M,GN,\delta )`$ is a crossed module.
4. Labesse in  defines a crossed group. It has been pointed out to us by Larry Breen at Coimbra in 1999 that a crossed group is exactly a crossed module $`(C,XG,\delta )`$ where $`G`$ is a group acting on the set $`X`$, and $`XG`$ is the associated actor groupoid; thus the simplicial construction from a crossed group described by Breen in  is exactly the nerve of the crossed module (see  for an exposition).
5. Let $`(Y,Z)`$ be a pair of topological spaces and let $`X`$ be a subset of $`Z`$. Then there is a crossed module of groupoids $`(C,G,\delta )`$ in which $`G`$ is the fundamental groupoid $`\pi _1(Z,X)`$ on the set $`X`$ of base points and for $`xX`$, $`C\left(x\right)`$ is the relative homotopy group $`\pi _2(Y,X,x)`$.

Let $`𝒞`$, $`𝒞^{}`$ be crossed modules. A morphism $`f:𝒞𝒞^{}`$ of crossed modules is a triple $`f=(f_0,f_1,f_2)`$ such that $`(f_0,f_1)`$ form a morphism of groupoids $`GG^{}`$ and $`f_2`$ is a family of morphisms $`CC^{}`$ such that the following diagrams commute:

So we can define a category $`\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}`$ of crossed modules of groupoids.

## 2 Homotopies and derivations

In this section, we combine the notion of coadmissible section, which is fundamental to the work of Ehresmann , with the derivations which occur in Whitehead’s account  of automorphism of crossed modules and which are later developed by Lue, Norrie, Brown-Gilbert .

Whitehead in  explored homotopies of morphisms of his ‘homotopy systems’ and this was put in the general context of crossed complexes of groupoids by Brown and Higgins in . So we are exploring the implications of the idea that a natural generalisation of the notion of coadmissible section for groupoids is that of coadmissible homotopy for crossed modules.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`g:𝒞𝒟`$ be a morphism of crossed modules $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta ),𝒟=(D,H,\delta ^{})`$ with object sets $`X,Y`$. A homotopy on $`g`$ is a pair $`(s,g)`$ where $`s=(s_0,s_1)`$ and such that $`s_0:XH,`$ $`s_1:GD`$ and

$`\beta \left(s_0x\right)`$ $`=g_0x,`$
$`\beta \left(s_1a\right)`$ $`=\beta g_1\left(a\right),`$
$`s_1\left(a+b\right)`$ $`=s_1\left(a\right)^{g_1b}+s_1\left(b\right),`$
whenever $`xX,a,bG`$ and $`a+b`$ is defined. Such a function $`s_1`$ is called a $`g`$-derivation.

###### Proposition 2.2

Given a homotopy as above, the formulae

$`f_0\left(x\right)`$ $`=\alpha s_0\left(x\right),`$
$`f_1\left(a\right)`$ $`=s_0\left(\alpha a\right)+g_1a+\delta s_1\left(a\right)s_0\left(\beta a\right),`$
$`f_2\left(c\right)`$ $`=\left(g_2c+s_1\delta c\right)^{s_0\beta \left(c\right)}`$
for all $`xX,aG,cC`$ define a morphism $`f:𝒞𝒟`$ of crossed modules.

The proof is given in the Appendix.

We therefore call $`(s,g)`$ a homotopy $`fg`$. This situation can be displayed as:

###### Definition 2.3

For a homotopy $`(s,1):f1:𝒞𝒞`$, we also call $`s`$ a free derivation on $`𝒞`$, and write $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s\right)`$ for $`f`$.

Let $`FDer\left(𝒞\right)`$ be the set of free derivations of $`𝒞`$.

###### Proposition 2.4

Let $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$ be a crossed module over groupoids. Then a monoid structure on $`FDer(𝒞)`$ is defined by the multiplication

$`\left(st\right)_\epsilon \left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(s_0g_0\left(z\right)\right)+t_0\left(z\right)\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon =0,zX,\hfill \\ t_1\left(z\right)+\left(s_1g_1\left(z\right)\right)^{t_0\left(\beta z\right)}\hfill & \text{if }\epsilon =1,zG(x,y)\hfill \end{array}`$
for $`s,tFDer(𝒞)`$ and $`g=\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$. Further $`\mathrm{\Delta }(st)=\mathrm{\Delta }(s)\mathrm{\Delta }(t)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=1`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a monoid morphism

$$FDer\left(𝒞\right)\mathrm{𝖤𝗇𝖽}\left(𝒞\right).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

The proof is given in the Appendix.

Let $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ denote the group of invertible elements of this monoid $`FDer\left(𝒞\right)`$. An invertible free derivation is also called a coadmissible homotopy.

###### Theorem 2.5

Let $`sFDer(𝒞)`$ and let $`f=\mathrm{\Delta }(s)`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`sFDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$,
2. $`f_1\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(G\right)`$,
3. $`f_2\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(C\right)`$.

$`\mathrm{}`$

The proof is given in the Appendix.

###### Theorem 2.6

There is an action of $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}(𝒞)`$ on $`sFDer^{}(𝒞)`$ given by

$`s^f\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_0f_0\left(z\right),zX\hfill & \\ f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1f_1\left(z\right),zG.\hfill & \end{array}`$
which makes

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)$$

a pre-crossed module. $`\mathrm{}`$

The proof is given in the Appendix.

The fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }:FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)`$ is a pre-crossed module is a special case of results of Brown-Gilbert , which applies the monoidal closed structure of the category of crossed complexes introduced by Brown-Higgins in  (see our section 4). The detailed description of $`\mathrm{\Delta }:FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)`$ is carried out in Brown-Gilbert \[5, Proposition 3.3\] only for the case $`𝒞`$ is a crossed module of groups.

We can also relate $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ and $`Der^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$, the group of all invertible derivations of $`𝒞`$, where a derivation is simply a pair $`(s_0,s_1)`$ in which $`s_0`$ is $`x1_x`$. The multiplication of $`Der^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ is

$$\left(s_1t_1\right)\left(a\right)=t_1a+s_1\left(a+\delta t_1a\right).$$

For a groupoid $`G`$ over $`X`$ let $`M\left(G\right)`$ denote the group of coadmissible sections of $`G`$ with the usual multiplication $`\left(s_0t_0\right)\left(x\right)=s_0\left(\alpha \left(t_0x\right)\right)+t_0\left(x\right)`$. Define an action of $`t_0M\left(G\right)`$ on $`s_1Der^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ by

$$\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right)\left(a\right)=s_1\left(t_0\left(\alpha a\right)+at_0\left(\beta a\right)\right)^{t_0\beta a}.$$

In view of the definition of the multiplication on $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ we have

###### Theorem 2.7

There is a natural isomorphism

$$FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)M\left(G\right)Der^{}\left(𝒞\right).$$

The next theorem begins the analysis of the next level of the actor structure.

###### Theorem 2.8

Let $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$ be a crossed module over groupoids with object set $`X`$. Let $`M_2(𝒞)`$ be the group of sections $`s_2:XC`$ of $`\beta `$ under pointwise addition. Then there is a crossed module

$$M_2\left(𝒞\right)\stackrel{\zeta }{}FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right).$$

where $`\zeta :M_2(𝒞)FDer^{}(𝒞)`$ is defined by $`s_2(\delta s_2,s_1)`$ where $`s_1:as_2(\alpha a)^a+s_2(\beta a)`$, and the action of $`FDer^{}(𝒞)`$ on $`M_2(𝒞)`$ is given by

$$\left(s_2\right)^{(t_0,t_1)}:xs_2\left(x\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)}.$$

The proof is given in the Appendix.

## 3 Braided regular crossed modules <br>and 2-crossed modules

In this section our object is to give the explicit relationship between braided regular crossed modules and $`2`$-crossed modules. This indicates a possible further context for development of work on holonomy .

The following material can be found in Brown and Gilbert .

Here we find it convenient to write a crossed module $`𝒜`$ as $`(A_2,A_1,\delta )`$ instead of $`(C,G)`$ – that is, we write $`A_2,A_1`$ for $`C,G`$ respectively and we also write $`A_0`$ for $`Ob\left(G\right)`$. A monoid bimorphism

$$b:𝒜,𝒜𝒜$$

consists of a family of maps

$$b_{ij}:A_i\times A_jA_{i+j}$$

for $`i,j=0,1,2;i+j2`$ satisfying the following axioms, in which $`b_{11}(a,b)`$ is written $`\{a,b\}`$.

1. $`b_{00}`$ gives $`A_0`$ the structure of monoid with identity element written $`e`$ and multiplication written $`(x,y)xy`$.
2. For $`i=1,2`$, $`b_{0i}`$ and $`b_{i0}`$ give actions of this monoid on the left and right of the groupoid $`A_i`$ written $`(x,c)x.c`$ and $`(c,y)c.y`$ and which commute $`x.(c.y)=(x.c).y`$. Further each action of an element of $`A_0`$ preserves the groupoid structure, so that $`x.\left(a+b\right)=x.a+x.b,\left(a+b\right).y=a.y+b.y`$ and $`\alpha ,\beta `$ are equivariant with respect to these actions.
3. The actions are compatible with the actions of $`A_1`$ on $`A_2`$ in the sense that if $`cA_2\left(x\right)`$, $`aA_1(x,y),`$ and $`zA_0`$ then

$$z.\left(c^a\right)=(z.c)^{z.a}A_2(z.x),$$

$$\left(c^a\right).z=(c.z)^{a.z}A_2(x.z);$$
4. The boundary morphism $`\delta :A_2A_1`$ is equivariant with respect to these actions of $`A_0`$.
5. $`\{a,b\}A_2\left(\left(\beta a\right)\left(\beta b\right)\right),\{O_e,b\}=O_{\beta b},\{a,O_e\}=O_{\beta a};`$
6. $`\{a,b+b^{}\}=\{a,b\}^{\beta a.b^{}}+\{a,b^{}\};`$
7. $`\{a+a^{},b\}=\{a^{},b\}+\{a,b\}^{a^{}.\beta b};`$
8. $`\delta \{a,b\}=(\beta a.b)a.\alpha b+\alpha a.b+a.\beta b;`$
9. $`\{a,\delta c^{}\}=(\beta a.c^{})+(\alpha a.c^{})^{a.y}`$ if $`c^{}A_2\left(y\right);`$
10. $`\{\delta c,b\}=(c.\alpha b)^{x.b}+c.\beta b`$ if $`cA_2\left(p\right);`$
11. $`x.\{a,b\}=\{x.a,b\},`$ $`\{a,b\}.x=\{a,b.x\},`$ $`\{a.x,b\}=\{a,x.b\},`$

for all $`a,a^{},b,b^{}A_1,c,c^{}A_2`$ and $`x,yA_0`$.

The crossed module $`𝒜`$ with this structure is called a semiregular braided crossed module, and it is called regular if the monoid $`A_0`$ is a group.

This structure is closely related to one given by Conduché in . Recall from  that a 2-crossed module consists, in the first instance, of a complex of $`P`$-groups

$$L\stackrel{}{}M\stackrel{}{}P$$

(so that $`=0`$) and $`P`$-equivariant homomorphisms, where the group $`P`$ acts on itself by conjugation, such that

$$L\stackrel{}{}M$$

is a crossed module, where $`M`$ acts on $`L`$ via $`P`$. We require that $`\left(l^m\right)^p=\left(l^p\right)^{m^p}`$ for all $`lL,mM`$, and $`pP`$. Further, there is a function $`,:M\times ML,`$ called a Peiffer lifting, which satisfies the following axioms:

$`P_1:`$ $`m_0,m_1=m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}m_0m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_0},`$

$`P_2:`$ $`l,m=l^1l^m,`$

$`P_3:`$ $`m,l=l^ml^m,`$

$`P_4:`$ $`m_0,m_1m_2=m_0,m_2m_0,m_1^{m_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{m_0}}`$,

$`P_5:`$ $`m_0m_1,m_2=m_0,m_2^{m_1}m_1,m_2^{m_0},`$

$`P_6:`$ $`m_0,m_1^p=m_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{p},m_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{p},`$

for all $`pP,m_0,m_1,m_2M,lL`$.

###### Theorem 3.12

(Brown and Gilbert ) The categories of braided regular crossed modules and of $`2`$-crossed modules are equivalent.

Outline proof

Let $`𝒜=(A_2,A_1,\delta )`$ be a regular crossed module. Denote by $`K`$ the costar in $`A_1`$ at the vertex $`eA_0,`$ that is, $`K=\{aA_1:\beta a=e\}.`$ Then $`K`$ has a group operation given for any $`a,bK`$ by

$$ab=b+(a.\alpha b).$$

The source map $`\alpha :KA_0`$ is a homomorphism of groups and is $`A_0`$-equivariant relative to the biaction of $`A_0`$ on $`A_1`$. Note that the new composition extends the group structure on the vertex group $`A_1\left(e\right)`$ so that $`A_1\left(e\right)`$ is a subgroup of $`K`$: it is plainly the kernel of $`\alpha `$. Further, $`A_0`$ acts diagonally on $`K`$: for all $`aK`$ and $`pA_0`$ we set $`a^p=p^1.a.p`$. (There should be no confusion with the given action of $`A_0`$ on $`A_2`$ which we denote in a similar way.) Then the homomorphism $`\alpha :KA_0`$ is $`A_0`$-equivariant relative to the diagonal action on $`K`$ and the conjugation action of the group $`A_0`$ on itself. Now $`A_0`$ also acts diagonally on the vertex group $`A_2\left(e\right)`$ and so we have a complex of groups

$$A_2\left(e\right)\stackrel{\delta }{}K\stackrel{\alpha }{}A_0$$

in which $`\delta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are $`A_0`$-equivariant. We know that $`\delta :A_2\left(e\right)A_1\left(e\right)`$ is a crossed module: we claim that $`K`$ acts on $`A_2\left(e\right)`$, extending the action of $`A_1\left(e\right)K,`$ so that $`\delta :A_2K`$ is a crossed module.

We define an action $`(c,a)c!a`$ by $`c!a=(c.\alpha a)^a`$ where $`cA_2\left(e\right)`$ and $`aK.`$ This is indeed a group action and $`\delta `$ is $`K`$-equivariant. Moreover, the actions of $`A_2\left(e\right)`$ on itself via $`K`$ and by conjugation coincide, for $`\delta :A_2\left(e\right)A_1\left(e\right)`$ is a crossed module and so for all $`c,c^{}A_2\left(e\right),`$

$$c!\delta c^{}=(c.\alpha \left(\delta c^{}\right))^{\delta c^{}}=(c.e)^{\delta c^{}}=c^{}+c+c^{}.$$

Therefore the map $`\delta :A_2\left(e\right)K`$ is a crossed module. Further the action of $`A_0`$ on $`A_2\left(e\right)`$ is compatible with that of $`K`$.

The final structural component of a $`2`$-crossed module that we need is the Peiffer lifting, which is provided by the braiding. For suppose that $`𝒜`$ has a braiding $`\{,\}:A_1\times A_1A_2`$. Then the map $`K\times KA_2\left(e\right)`$ given by $`(a,b)\{a^1,b\}!a=a,b`$ is a Peiffer lifting. Therefore we have the $`2`$-crossed module

$$A_2\left(e\right)KA_0.$$

The verification of the axioms is obtained in  by showing that this is the Moore complex of a simplicial group $`S\left(𝒜\right)`$ whose Moore complex is of length 2 and applying the results of .

Now we show how a $`2`$-crossed module give rises to a braided regular crossed module. So we begin with a $`2`$-crossed module

$$L\stackrel{}{}G\stackrel{}{}P$$

and construct from it, in a functorial way, a regular, braided crossed module $`𝒜=(A_2,A_1,\delta )`$.

The group of object of $`A_0`$ is just the group $`P`$. The underlying set of elements of $`A_1`$ is $`G\times P`$ with source and target maps $`\alpha (g,p)=\left(g\right)p`$ and $`\beta (g,p)=p.`$ The groupoid composition in $`A_1`$ is given by $`(g_1,p_1)+(g_2,p_2)=(g_1g_2,p_2)`$ if $`p_1=\left(g_2\right)p_2.`$ The underlying set of elements of $`A_2`$ is $`L\times P`$ with composition $`(l_1,p)+(l_2,p)=(l_1l_2,p).`$ The boundary map $`\delta :A_2A_1`$ is given by $`\delta (l,p)=(l,p)`$ and the action of $`A_1`$ on $`A_2`$ is given by $`(l,p)^{(g,q)}=(l^g,q)`$ if $`p=\left(g\right)q.`$ This does define a crossed module over $`(A_1,A_0)`$ and a biaction of $`A_0`$ on $`𝒜`$ is obtained if we define

$`p.(g,q)`$ $`=(g^{p^1},pq),(g,q).p=(g,qp),`$
$`p.(l,q)`$ $`=(l^{p^1},pq),(l,q).p=(l,qp),`$
where $`(g,q),(l,q)A_2`$ and $`pA_0=P`$ and therefore $`𝒜`$ with this biaction is regular. The braiding on $`𝒜`$ is given by

$$\{(g_1,p_1),(g_2,p_2)\}=(g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},g_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{p_1}^{g_1},p_1p_2)$$

where $`,:G\times GL`$ is the Peiffer lifting. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the next section we apply this result to automorphisms of crossed modules of groupoids.

## 4  AUT(C) and 2-crossed modules

In  the category of crossed complexes is given the structure of a monoidal closed category and this induces such a structure on the category $`\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}`$ of crossed modules of groupoids. So there is a tensor product $``$ and internal hom $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,)`$ and for all crossed modules $`𝒜,,𝒞`$ a natural isomorphism

$$\theta :\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}(𝒜,𝒞)\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}(𝒜,\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,𝒞)),$$

which, together with the associativity of the tensor product, implies the existence in $`\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}`$ of a natural isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Theta }:\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,𝒞)\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,𝒞)).$$

Further, the bijection

$$\theta :\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}(\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,)𝒜,)\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}(\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,),\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,))$$

shows that there is a unique morphism

$$\epsilon _𝒜:\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,)𝒜$$

such that $`\theta \left(\epsilon _𝒜\right)`$ is the identity on $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,)`$; $`\epsilon _𝒜`$ is called the evaluation morphism. Then for all crossed modules $`𝒜,,𝒞`$ there is a morphism

$`\left(\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,𝒞)\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,)\right)𝒜`$ $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,𝒞)\left(\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,)𝒜\right)`$
$`\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,𝒞)𝒞.`$
This corresponds under $`\theta `$ to a morphism

$$\gamma _{𝒜𝒞}:\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(,𝒞)\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,)\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒜,𝒞)$$

which is called composition.

We write $`\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}\left(𝒞\right)`$ for $`\mathrm{𝖢𝖬𝖮𝖣}(𝒞,𝒞).`$ The terminal object in $`\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}`$ is written $``$. There is a morphism $`\eta _𝒞:\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}\left(𝒞\right)`$ corresponding to the isomorphism $`\lambda :𝒞𝒞.`$ The main result we need is the following .

###### Proposition 4.1

The morphism $`\eta _𝒞`$ and the composition

$$\mu =\gamma _{𝒞𝒞𝒞}:\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}\left(𝒞\right)\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}\left(𝒞\right)\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}\left(𝒞\right)$$

make $`\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}(𝒞)`$ a monoid in $`\mathrm{𝖢𝗆𝗈𝖽}`$ with respect to $``$.

###### Corollary 4.2

The crossed module $`\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}(𝒞)`$ may be given the structure of braided semiregular crossed module.

Proof: As shown in , for any crossed module $`𝒜`$, a morphism $`𝒜𝒜𝒜`$ corresponds exactly to a bimorphism $`𝒜,𝒜𝒜`$, and a monoid structure is equivalent to a monoid bimorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

### 4.1 $`\mathrm{𝖠𝖴𝖳}(𝒞)`$ and 2-Crossed Modules

Let $`𝒜=\mathrm{𝖠𝖴𝖳}\left(𝒞\right)`$ be the full subcrossed module of $`=\mathrm{𝖤𝖭𝖣}\left(𝒞\right)`$ on the object set $`A_0=\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)`$ of automorphisms of the crossed module $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$. Thus $`A_0`$ is the group of units of $`E_0`$. Now an element of $`A_2`$ is a section over an automorphism of $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$ and consists of a pair $`(s_2,f)`$ where $`s_2`$ is a section and $`fA_0`$. An element of $`A_1`$ is a homotopy over an automorphism of $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$ and consists of a triple $`(s_0,s_1,f)`$ where $`s_0`$ is a section, $`fA_0`$, and $`s_1`$ is an $`f`$-derivation $`GC`$ such that the endomorphism $`f^0`$ of $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$ which gives the source object of $`(s_0,s_1,f)`$ is actually an automorphism. Clearly $`f^0`$ is an automorphism of $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$ if and only if

$$g\left(a\right)=s_0\left(x\right)+f\left(a\right)+\delta s_1\left(a\right)s_0\left(y\right)$$

$$g\left(c\right)=\left(f\left(c\right)+s_1\delta \left(c\right)\right)^{s_0(\beta \left(c\right)}$$

$$g\left(x\right)=\alpha s_0\left(x\right)$$

for all $`aG(x,y)`$, $`cC\left(x\right),`$ $`xX`$ defines an automorphism of $`𝒞=(C,G,\delta )`$.

Clearly $`𝒜`$ inherits from $``$ the structure of a regular, braided, crossed module. To determine the biaction of $`A_0`$ and the braiding we have to understand the composition map $`\gamma `$ explicitly. A direct calculation leads to the following non-trivial components for the bimorphism determining $`\gamma :`$

$`A_0\times A_0A_0`$ $`:(f_1,f_2)f_1f_2,`$
$`A_0\times A_1A_1`$ $`:(f_1,(s_0,s_1,f))(f_1s_0,f_1s_1,f_1f),`$
$`A_1\times A_0A_1`$ $`:((s_0,s_1,f),f_2)(s_0f_2,s_1f_2,ff_2),`$
$`A_0\times A_2A_2`$ $`:(f_1,(s_2,f))(f_1\left(s_2\right),f_1f),`$
$`A_2\times A_0A_2`$ $`:((s_2,f),f_2)(s_2,ff_2),`$
$`A_1\times A_1A_2`$ $`:((s_0,s_1,f),(t_0,t_1,f^{}))(s_1t_0,ff^{}).`$
These maps give biactions of $`A_0`$ on $`A_1,A_2`$ and a braiding $`\{,\}:A_1\times A_1A_2.`$ The monoid structure on $`A_0`$ is the usual composition of maps.

###### Theorem 4.3

The regular crossed module $`𝒜=\mathrm{𝖠𝖴𝖳}(𝒞)`$ corresponds via the equivalence of Theorem 3.12 to the 2-crossed module

$$M_2\left(𝒞\right)\stackrel{\zeta }{}FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}Aut\left(𝒞\right).$$

Proof: The costar in the groupoid $`A_1`$ at the identity automorphism $`I`$ of $`𝒞`$ may be identified as a set with $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ and the group structure is given by $`(s_0,s_1)(t_0,t_1)=(s_0t_0,s_1t_1)`$ as in Proposition 2.4 and Theorem 2.5. The vertex group $`A_2\left(I\right)`$ is identified with the group $`M_2\left(𝒞\right)`$ with $`\zeta \left(s_2\right)=(\delta s_2,s_1)`$ as required in Theorem 2.8. Note that $`\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒞\right)`$ acts on $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ by

$$(s_0,s_1)^f=(f^1s_0f,f^1s_1f)$$

proved in Theorem 2.6 and on $`M_2\left(𝒞\right)`$ by $`s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}=f^1s_2f`$. The action of $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ on $`M_2\left(𝒞\right)`$ is simply $`s_2^{(t_0,t_1)}=s_2^{t_0}`$ and the Peiffer lifting is given by

$`(s_0,s_1),(t_0,t_1)`$ $`=\{(s_0,s_1)^1,(t_0,t_1)\}!(s_0,s_1)`$
$`=(\{(s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}),(t_0,t_1)\}.\mathrm{\Delta }(s_0,s_1))^{(s_0,s_1)}`$
$`=\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\left(t_0\right)^{s_0}`$
$`=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}t_0s_0\right).`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 2-groupoids

A commonly used 2-dimensional version of a groupoid is a 2-groupoid (see for example ). This is in fact a 2-truncated case of the $`\mathrm{}`$-groupoids defined in 1981 in , where it is shown that the categories of $`\mathrm{}`$-groupoids and of crossed complexes are equivalent. In particular, the categories of 2-groupoids and of crossed modules of groupoids are equivalent. Hence the results of the previous sections may be transferred to the category of 2-groupoids. This gives the analogue of theorem 4.3:

###### Theorem 5.1

A 2-groupoid $`𝒢`$ determines a 2-crossed module of the form

$$M_2\left(𝒢\right)\stackrel{\zeta }{}FDer^{}\left(𝒢\right)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\mathrm{𝖠𝗎𝗍}\left(𝒢\right).$$

The precise description of these objects in 2-groupoid terms will be left to another paper.

## 6 Appendix

Proof of Proposition 2.2:

We have to show that $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ are groupoid homomorphisms and $`f_2\left(c^a\right)=f_2\left(c\right)^{f_1\left(a\right)}`$, for $`cC\left(x\right),aG(x,y)`$.

$`f_1\left(a+b\right)`$ $`=s_0\left(x\right)+g_1\left(a+b\right)+\delta s_1\left(a+b\right)s_0\left(z\right)`$
$`=s_0\left(x\right)+g_1a+g_1b+\delta \left(s_1\left(a\right)^{g_1\left(b\right)}+s_1\left(b\right)\right)s_0\left(z\right)`$
$`=s_0\left(x\right)+g_1a+g_1bg_1b+\delta s_1\left(a\right)+g_1b+\delta s_1\left(b\right)s_0\left(z\right),\text{by definition of}\delta `$
$`=s_0\left(x\right)+g_1a+\delta s_1\left(a\right)s_0\left(y\right)+s_0\left(y\right)+g_1b+\delta s_1\left(b\right)s_0\left(z\right)`$
$`=f_1\left(a\right)+f_1\left(b\right)`$
$`f_2\left(c+c^{}\right)`$ $`=\left(g_2\left(c+c^{}\right)+s_1\delta \left(c+c^{}\right)\right)^{s_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c+g_2c^{}+s_1\left(\delta c+\delta c^{}\right)\right)^{s_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c+g_2c^{}+s_1\left(\delta c\right)^{g_1\delta c^{}}+s_1\left(\delta c^{}\right)\right)^{s_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c+g_2c^{}g_2c^{}+s_1\delta c+g_2c^{}+s_1\delta c^{}\right)^{s_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c+s_1\delta c+g_2c^{}+s_1\delta c^{}\right)^{s_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=f_2\left(c\right)+f_2\left(c^{}\right).`$
Let $`cC\left(x\right),aG(x,y)`$. Then $`\beta \left(c^a\right)=\beta a`$, $`\beta c^a=y`$. So
$`f_2\left(c^a\right)`$ $`=\left(g_2c^a+s_1\delta \left(c^a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(\beta c^a\right)=s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c^a+s_1\left(a+\delta c+a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c^a+s_1\left(a\right)^{g_1\left(\delta c+a\right)}+s_1\left(\delta c\right)^{g_1a}+s_1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
(since $`(s_1(a))^{g_1a+g_1\delta c+g_1a}=(s_1(a))^{g_1(\delta c+a)}`$),
$`=\left(g_2c^a\left(s_1a\right)^{g_1a+g_1\delta c+g_1a}+\left(s_1\delta c\right)^{g_1a}+s_1a\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(g_2c^as_1a^{\left(\delta g_2\left(c^a\right)\right)}+\left(s_1\delta c\right)^{g_1a}+s_1a\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(a\right)+g_2\left(c\right)^{g_1a}+\left(s_1\delta c\right)^{g_1a}+s_1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(a\right)+\left(g_2c+s_1\delta c\right)^{g_1a}+s_1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(a\right)+\left(f_2\left(c\right)^{s_0\left(x\right)}\right)^{g_1a}+s_1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(f_2\left(c\right)\right)^{s_0x+g_1a+\delta s_1as_0y}`$
$`=f_2\left(c\right)^{f_1\left(a\right)}.`$
So $`f`$ is an endomorphism of $`𝒞`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 2.4: It is clear that $`\beta \left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)=x`$ and $`\beta \left(st\right)_1\left(a\right)=\beta \left(a\right)`$.

We have to show that $`\left(st\right)_1`$ is a derivation map. Let $`aG(x,y)`$, $`bG(y,z)`$. Then

$`\left(st\right)_1\left(a+b\right)`$ $`=t_1\left(a+b\right)+\left(s_1g_1\left(a+b\right)\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)+(s_1(g_1\left(a\right)+g_1\left(b\right))^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)+(s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)\right)^{g_1\left(b\right)}+s_1\left(g_1\left(b\right)\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)+(s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)+b+\delta t_1\left(b\right)t_0\left(z\right)}+s_1\left(g_1\left(b\right)\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)+s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)+b+\delta t_1\left(b\right)}+s_1\left(g_1\left(b\right)\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)+(s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)+b}\right)^{\delta t_1\left(b\right)}+s_1\left(g_1\left(b\right)\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)t_1\left(b\right)+(s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)+b}+t_1\left(b\right)+s_1(g_1\left(b\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)^b+(s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)+b}+t_1\left(b\right)+s_1\left(g_1\left(b\right)\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=(t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(g_1\left(a\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}\right)^b+t_1\left(b\right)+s_1(g_1\left(b\right)^{t_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(st\right)_1\left(a\right)^b+\left(st\right)_1\left(b\right).`$
For the associativity property, let $`u,s,tFDer\left(𝒞\right)`$ and let $`f=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s\right),g=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(t\right),h=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(u\right)`$. Then
$`\left(u_0\left(st\right)_0\right)\left(x\right)`$ $`=(u_0\left(f_0g_0\left(x\right)\right)+(ts)_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=u_0\left(f_0g_0\right)\left(x\right)+\left(s_0g_0\right)\left(x\right)+t_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=u_0(f_0\left(g_0\left(x\right)\right)+s_0g_0\left(x\right)+t_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=\left(us\right)_0\left(g_0\left(x\right)\right)+t_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=\left(\left(us\right)_0t_0\right)\left(x\right)`$
and
$`\left(u_1\left(st\right)_1\right)\left(a\right)`$ $`=\left(st\right)_1\left(a\right)+u_1\left(fg\left(a\right)\right)^{\left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=t_1a+\left(s_1ga\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}+\left(u_1fga\right)^{\left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=t_1a+\left(su\right)_1\left(ga\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(\left(us\right)_1t_1\right)\left(a\right).`$
Let $`s,tFDer\left(𝒞\right)`$ be as above and let $`aG(x,y)`$. Then
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(st\right)_1\left(a\right)`$ $`=\left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)+a+\delta \left(st\right)_1\left(a\right)\left(st\right)_0\left(y\right)`$
$`=s_0g_0\left(x\right)+t_0\left(x\right)+a+\delta \left(t_1\left(a\right)+s_1g_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}\left(s_0g_0\left(y\right)+t_0\left(y\right)\right)`$
$`=s_0g_0\left(x\right)+t_0\left(x\right)+a+\delta (t_1\left(a\right)+\delta \left(s_1g_1\left(a\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}\right)(s_0g_0\left(y\right)+t_0\left(y\right))`$
$`=s_0g_0\left(x\right)+t_0\left(x\right)+a+\delta t_1\left(a\right)t_0\left(y\right)+\delta s_1g_1\left(a\right)+t_0\left(y\right)t_0\left(y\right)s_0g_0\left(y\right)`$
$`=s_0g_0\left(x\right)+\delta _t\left(a\right)+\delta s_1g_1\left(a\right)s_0g_0\left(y\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }_s\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_t\right)\left(a\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }_s\mathrm{\Delta }_t\left(a\right).`$
Let $`cC\left(x\right),aG(x,y)`$.
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(st\right)\left(c\right)`$ $`=(c+(st)_1\left(\delta \left(c\right)\right)^{\left(st\right)_0\left(\beta c\right)}`$
$`=\left(c+t_1\left(\delta \left(c\right)\right)+s_1g_1\left(\delta \left(c\right)\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)}\right)^{\left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(c+t_1\left(\delta \left(c\right)\right)^{\left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)}+s_1\delta g_2\left(c\right)\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)\left(st\right)_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(c+t_1\left(\delta \left(c\right)\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)s_0g_0\left(x\right)}+s_1\delta g_2\left(c\right)\right)^{s_0g_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=((c+t_1\left(\delta \left(c\right)\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)}+s_1\delta g_2\left(c\right))^{s_0g_0\left(x\right)}`$
$`=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_t\left(c\right)\right)+\left(s_1\delta g_2\left(c\right)\right)^{s_0g_0\left(x\right)},\text{since}\mathrm{\Delta }_t\left(c\right)=g_2\left(c\right),`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }_s\mathrm{\Delta }_t\left(c\right)`$
So $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(st\right)=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s\right)\mathrm{\Delta }\left(t\right)`$.

The identity of $`Fder^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ is $`c=(c_0,c_1)`$ defined by $`c_0\left(x\right)=1_x\text{and}c_1\left(a\right)=1`$ for $`xX`$ and $`aG`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(c\right)=I`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 2.5:

That (i)$``$(ii), (i)$``$(iii) follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a morphism to $`End\left(𝒞\right)`$. We next prove (ii)$``$(i). Suppose then $`f_1Aut\left(G\right)`$. We define $`s^1=(s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}).`$

Let $`s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}:XG,s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}:GC`$ by

$$s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)=s_0\left(f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)\text{and}s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)=s_1\left(f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}.$$

Since $`\beta s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)=x`$ and $`\alpha s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)=f_0\left(x\right)`$, $`s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is an inverse element of $`s_0`$. In fact,

$`\left(s^1s\right)_0\left(x\right)`$ $`=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)\left(x\right)+s_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=s_0\left(f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(f_0\right)\left(x\right)\right)+s_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=s_0\left(x\right)+s_0\left(x\right)`$
$`=c_0\left(x\right)=1_x`$
and also

$`\left(ss^1\right)_0\left(x\right)`$ $`=s_0\left(f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)\left(x\right)+s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)`$
$`=s_0\left(f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)\left(x\right)s_0(f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)`$
$`=c_0\left(y\right)=1_y.`$
We have to show that $`s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is a derivation map. Let $`a,b,a+bG`$ and let $`a^{}=f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right),b^{}=f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(b\right)`$, $`\beta b=z`$. Note that $`s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\beta \left(a+b\right)=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)`$ and $`s_0\left(z\right)=s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right).`$

$`s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a+b\right)`$ $`=\left(s_1f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a+b\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\beta \left(a+b\right)},\text{by definition of}s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a+f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}b\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(a^{}+b^{}\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(\left(s_1a^{}\right)^b^{}+s_1\left(b^{}\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)},\text{since}s_1\text{is a derivation},`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(b^{}\right)\left(s_1\left(a^{}\right)\right)^b^{}\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(b^{}\right)+\left(s_1\left(a^{}\right)\right)^{b^{}+\delta s_1\left(b^{}\right)}\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=(s_1\left(b^{}\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}+\left(s_1\left(a^{}\right)\right)^{b^{}+\delta s_1\left(b^{}\right)s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)}`$
Since $`f\left(b^{}\right)=s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)+b^{}+\delta s_1\left(b^{}\right)s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)=b`$ and $`b^{}+\delta s_1\left(b^{}\right)s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)=bs_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right),`$
$`=(s_1\left(b^{}\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}+\left(s_1\left(a^{}\right)\right)^{bs_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}`$
$`=(s_1\left(b^{}\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}+\left(s_1\left(a^{}\right)\right)^{bs_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(a^{}\right)\right)^b)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}s_1(b^{})^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^b\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}s_1f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(b^{}\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}`$
$`=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)^b+s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(b\right).`$
One can easily show that $`ss^1=c`$ and $`s^1s=c`$.
$`\left(ss^1\right)_1\left(a\right)`$ $`=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)+s_1\left(f^1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}`$
$`=s_1f^1\left(a\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}+s_1\left(f^1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}`$
$`=c_1\left(a\right).`$
and

$`\left(s^1s\right)_1\left(a\right)`$ $`=s_1\left(a\right)+s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(f\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=s_1\left(a\right)s_1\left(f^1\left(f\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}\right)^{s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)}`$
$`=s_1\left(a\right)s_1\left(a\right)`$
$`=c_1\left(a\right).`$
Now we will prove (iii)$``$(i). We first recalculate $`\left(st\right)_1`$ in terms of $`f_2`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(t\right)=g`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s\right)=f`$, $`aG(x,y)`$ as above.

$`\left(st\right)_1\left(a\right)`$ $`=t_1\left(a\right)+s_1g_1\left(a\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(t_0\left(x\right)+a+\delta t_1\left(a\right)t_0\left(y\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(t_0\left(x\right)\right)^{a+\delta t_1\left(a\right)t_0\left(y\right)}+s_1\left(a\right)^{\delta t_1\left(a\right)t_0\left(y\right)}+s_1\left(\delta t_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)})+s_1(t_0\left(y\right))^{t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(t_0\left(x\right)\right)^{a+\delta t_1\left(a\right)}+s_1\left(a\right)^{\delta t_1\left(a\right)}+s_1\left(\delta t_1\left(a\right)\right)+s_1\left(t_0\left(y\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(t_0\left(x\right)^a\right)^{\delta t_1\left(a\right)}t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(a\right)+t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(\delta t_1\left(a\right)\right)s_1\left(t_0\left(y\right)\right),`$
since $`s_1\left(t_0\left(y\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}=s_1t_0\left(y\right)`$,

$`=t_1\left(a\right)t_1\left(a\right)+s_1(t_0\left(x\right)^a+t_1\left(a\right)t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(a\right)+t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(\delta t_1\left(a\right)\right)s_1\left(t_0\left(y\right)\right)`$
$`=s_1\left(t_0\left(x\right)\right)^a+s_1\left(a\right)+t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(\delta t_1\left(a\right)\right)s_1\left(t_0\left(y\right)\right)`$
$`=s_1\left(t_0\left(x\right)\right)^a+s_1\left(a\right)+f_2\left(t_1\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}s_1\left(t_0\left(y\right)\right)`$
Now, suppose that $`f_2`$ has inverse $`f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. Let $`s^1=(s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})`$ be defined by

$$s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)=s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right),xX$$

$$s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)=f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(s_1\left(a\right)\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a+\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)},aG(x,y)$$

We prove that $`s^1`$ is an inverse element of $`s`$ and is a derivation map. Clearly

$$ss^1\left(x\right)=c_0\left(x\right)\text{and}s^1s\left(x\right)=c_0\left(x\right)$$

by the argument as above.

Next we prove $`\left(ss^1\right)_1\left(a\right)=c_1\left(a\right)`$, for $`aG(x,y)`$.

$`\left(ss^1\right)_1\left(a\right)`$ $`=(s_1\left(s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a+s_1\left(a\right)+f_2(f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}((s_1\left(a\right)+\left(s_1s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a`$
$`\left(s_1s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)})^{s_0\left(y\right)})s_1s_0^1(y)`$
$`=(s_1\left(s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a+s_1\left(a\right)s_1\left(a\right)+\left(s_1s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a`$
$`+\left(s_1s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)\right)s_1s_0f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)`$
$`=c_1\left(a\right).`$
Since $`\left(ss^1\right)=1`$ and also $`s^1s^{}=1`$. It follows that $`s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\left(s_1s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\right)s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=1`$ and so $`s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, i.e.,

$$\left(s^1s\right)_1\left(a\right)=c_1\left(a\right),\text{for all}aG.$$

We have to prove that $`s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is a derivation map. Let $`aG(x,y),bG(y,z)`$. We write $`f_2s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)=(s_1\left(a\right)\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a+\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$, and then

$`f_2\left(\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^b+s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(b\right)\right)`$ $`=f_2\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^b+f_2\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(b\right)\right)`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(b\right)+\left(f_2\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}\right)^b+s_1\left(b\right)\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}+f_2\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(b\right)\right),`$
$`=(s_1\left(b\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}+(s_1\left(a\right)\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^a+s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right))^{bs_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`+s_1\left(b\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}(s_1b)^{s_0z}\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(y\right)\right))^{bs_0\left(z\right)}+s_1s_0^1(z)^{s_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(b\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}s_1\left(a\right)^{bs_0\left(z\right)}\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^{a+bs_0\left(z\right)}+s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(b\right)s_1\left(a\right)^b\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^{a+b}+s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=\left(\left(s_1\left(a\right)^b+s_1\left(b\right)\right)\left(s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(x\right)\right)^{a+b}+s_1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(z\right)\right)^{s_0\left(z\right)}`$
$`=f_2\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a+b\right)\right)`$
Hence $`s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is a free derivation. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 2.6:

Now, we will show that

$$FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)\times Aut\left(𝒞\right)FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)$$

$$(s,f)s^f$$

is an action of $`Aut\left(𝒞\right)`$ on $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$.

$`s^f\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_0f_0\left(z\right),zX\hfill & \\ f_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1f_1\left(z\right),zG.\hfill & \end{array}`$
In fact this give rise to an action over a groupoid:

$`s^{fg}\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(fg\right)_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_0\left(fg\right)_0\left(z\right)=g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}f_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_0f_0g_0\left(z\right)=g_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_0}g_0\left(z\right)=\left(s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_0}\right)^{g_0}\left(z\right),zX\hfill & \\ \left(fg\right)_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1\left(fg\right)_1\left(z\right)=g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}f_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1f_1g_1\left(z\right)=g_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_1}g_1\left(z\right)=\left(s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_1}\right)^{g_1}\left(z\right),zG\hfill & \end{array}`$
and

$`s^I\left(z\right)=\{\begin{array}{cc}I^1s_0I\left(z\right)=s_0\left(z\right),zX\hfill & \\ I^1s_1I\left(z\right)=s_1\left(z\right),zG.\hfill & \end{array}`$
Let $`s:fI`$. Then $`s^f:\overline{f}I`$. We can show $`s^f`$ as the following diagram:

Is $`s^fFDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ ? Clearly one can see $`\beta s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_0}x=x`$ and $`\beta s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_1}\left(a\right)=\beta \left(a\right).`$ Also we should have to show that $`s^f\left(a+b\right)=s^f\left(a\right)^b+s^f\left(b\right)`$. We have

$$\overline{f}\left(a+b\right)=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{g_0}\left(x\right)+\left(a+b\right)+\delta s^f\left(a+b\right)s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f_0}\left(z\right)$$

by definition of $`\overline{f}`$ and

$`\overline{f}\left(a\right)+\overline{f}\left(b\right)`$ $`=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(x\right)+a+\delta s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(a\right)+b+\delta s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(b\right)s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(z\right)`$
$`=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(x\right)+a+bb+\delta s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(a\right)+b+\delta s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(b\right)s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(z\right)`$
$`=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(x\right)+a+b+\delta (s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(a\right)^b+s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(b\right)s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(z\right)`$
$`=\overline{f}\left(a+b\right)`$
So $`s^f\left(a\right)^b+s^f\left(b\right)=s^f\left(a+b\right)`$ and also we can obtain

$$I\left(a\right)=s_0\left(x\right)+\overline{f}\left(a\right)+s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(y\right)\delta s^f\left(a\right).$$

$`f^1\mathrm{\Delta }sf\left(a\right)`$ $`=f^1\left(s_0f\left(x\right)+f\left(a\right)+\delta _s\left(fa\right)s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(y\right)\right)`$
$`=f^1s_0f\left(x\right)+f^1f\left(a\right)+f^1\delta _s\left(fa\right)f^1s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(y\right))`$
$`=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(x\right)+a+\delta f^1s_1f\left(a\right)s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(y\right)`$
$`=s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(x\right)+a+\delta s_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(a\right)s_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{f}\left(y\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s^f\right)\left(a\right).`$
Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }\left(s^f\right)\left(a\right)=f^1\mathrm{\Delta }sf\left(a\right)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 2.8: The group structure on $`M_2\left(𝒞\right)`$ is pointwise multiplication. If $`\zeta \left(s_2\right)=(s_0,s_1)`$ then $`s_1`$ is a derivation since

$`s_1\left(a+b\right)`$ $`=\left(s_2\left(x\right)\right)^{\left(a+b\right)}+s_2\left(z\right)`$
$`=\left(s_2\left(x\right)\right)^{\left(a+b\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)^{\left(b\right)}s_2\left(y\right)^{\left(b\right)}+s_2\left(z\right)`$
$`=\left(\left(s_2\left(x\right)\right)^{\left(a\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)\right)^{\left(b\right)}s_2\left(y\right)^{\left(b\right)}+s_2\left(z\right)`$
$`=\left(s_1\left(a\right)\right)^{\left(b\right)}+s_1\left(b\right).`$
The action of $`FDer^{}\left(𝒞\right)`$ on $`M_2\left(𝒞\right)`$ is

$$\left(s_2\right)^{(t_0,t_1)}=s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}:x\left(s_2x\right)^{t_0x}$$

and we have to prove

1. $`\zeta \left(\left(s_2\right)^{(t_0,t_1)}\right)=(t_0,t_1)^1\zeta \left(s_2\right)(t_0,t_1),`$
2. $`\left(s_2\right)^{\zeta \left(t_2\right)}=\left(t_2\right)^1\left(s_2\right)\left(t_2\right).`$

Then $`\zeta (\left(s_2\right)^{(t_0,t_1)}=\zeta \left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right)=(\delta \left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right),t^{})`$ say where if $`a:xy`$

$`t^{}\left(a\right)`$ $`=\left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\left(x\right)\right)^a+s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\left(y\right),aG(x,y)`$
$`=\left(s_2\left(x\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)}\right)^a+s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)},`$
$`=s_2\left(x\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)+a}+\left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right)\left(y\right).`$
On the other hand,

$`(t_0,t_1)^1\zeta \left(s_2\right)(t_0,t_1)`$ $`=(t_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\delta \left(s_2\right),s_1)(t_0,t_1),`$
$`=(t_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\delta \left(s_2\right)t_0,t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1t_1),`$
$`=(\delta \left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right),t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1t_1).`$
So we have to show that $`\left(t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1t_1\right)\left(a\right)=s_2\left(x\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)+a}+\left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right)\left(y\right).`$ Clearly $`\zeta \left(s_2\right)(t_0,t_1)=(\delta \left(s_2\right),s_1)(t_0,t_1)=(\delta \left(s_2\right)t_0,s_1t_1).`$ and $`\left(s_1t_1\right)\left(a\right)=t_1\left(a\right)+s_1\left(a\right)=t_1\left(a\right)+\left(s_2\left(x\right)^a+s_2\left(y\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}.`$ Then

$`\left(t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_1t_1\right)\left(a\right)`$ $`=\left(s_1t_1\right)\left(a\right)+\left(t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^{\left(\delta \left(s_2\right)t_0\right)\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)+\left(s_2\left(x\right)^a+s_2\left(y\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}+\left(t_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\left(a\right)\right)^{\left(\delta \left(s_2\right)t_0\right)\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)s_2\left(x\right)^{a+t_0\left(y\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}+\left(t_1\left(a\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}\right)^{\left(\delta \left(s_2\right)t_0\right)\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)s_2\left(x\right)^{a+t_0\left(y\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}+\left(t_1\left(a\right)\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)+\left(\delta \left(s_2\right)\right)t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)s_2\left(x\right)^{a+t_0\left(y\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}+\left(t_1\left(a\right)\right)^{(\delta \left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\right)\left(y\right)}`$
$`=t_1\left(a\right)s_2\left(x\right)^{a+t_0\left(y\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}t_1\left(a\right)+s_2\left(y\right)^{s_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=s_2\left(x\right)^{a+t_0\left(y\right)\delta \left(t_1\left(a\right)\right)}+s_2\left(y\right)^{t_0\left(y\right)}`$
$`=s_2\left(x\right)^{t_0\left(x\right)+a}+s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{t_0}\left(y\right)`$
$`=t^{}\left(a\right).`$
This proves (i).

To prove (ii) we note that

$`\left(s_2\right)^{\zeta \left(t_2\right)}`$ $`=\left(s_2\right)^{(\delta \left(t_2\right),t_1)}`$
$`=\left(s_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\delta \left(t_2\right)}\right)`$
$`=\left(t_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}s_2t_2\right)`$
as is required.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Recent atmospheric neutrino experiments  strongly suggest $`\nu _\mu `$-$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations with large mixing. On the other hand, solar neutrino experiments  also suggest $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\mu `$ or $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\tau `$ oscillations. These results imply the participation of at least three generations in the lepton sector.

In the framework of three generations, it is natural to consider CP violation in neutrino oscillations. The estimation of CP phase in the lepton sector, if it exists, is very important to construct the physics beyond the Standard Model. As $`1`$-$`3`$ mixing and $`1`$-$`2`$ mass difference are small, it is difficult to observe CP violation effects at present experiments. However, there are following favorable points to observe CP violation in neutrino oscillations. First, various long baseline experiments with high intensity neutrino beams are planned in near future. There are mainly two kinds of experiments with high energy neutrino like neutrino factory experiments , and with low energy neutrino like PRISM . Second, the appearence of large $`2`$-$`3`$ mixing discovered by Super-Kamiokande Collaboration provides the possibilities of large CP violation in the lepton sector. This is contrast to CP violation in the quark sector with small $`2`$-$`3`$ mixing. Considering of this point, CP violation in neutrino oscillations have been investigated by many authors .

In this work, we propose the schematical approach to estimate CP asymmetry in neutrino oscillation defined by

$`A_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }P_{CP}}}={\displaystyle \frac{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )+P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}},`$ (1)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{CP}`$ is CP-conserving part and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}`$ is CP-violating part. We introduce a unitarity triangle in the lepton sector and another new triangle to estimate $`A_{CP}`$. We explore the condition in which $`A_{CP}`$ takes the value as large as possible using the geometry of the two triangles. From the condition, $`L/E`$ which leads the almost $`100\%`$ asymmetry can be estimated easily, where $`L`$ is the baseline length and $`E`$ is the neutrino energy. In the case of LMA and SMA MSW scenarios, we derive such $`L/E`$ and estimate whether large $`A_{CP}`$ is realized in near future experiments.

## 2 Neutrino Oscillations in Three Generation

In this section we consider the neutrino oscillation in three generation and represent transition probability from one flavor to another flavor using the components of the Maki-Nakagawa-Sakata matrix (MNS matrix) .

In vacuum, flavor eigenstates $`\nu _\alpha (\alpha =e,\mu ,\tau )`$ are related to mass eigenstates $`\nu _i(i=1,2,3)`$, which have the mass eigenvalues $`m_i`$, by unitary transformation,

$$\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha i}\nu _i,$$
(2)
where $`U_{\alpha i}`$ is the MNS matrix.

Transition probability from $`\nu _\alpha `$ to $`\nu _\beta (\alpha \beta )`$ after having traveled a distance $`L`$ is given by

$`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )=4{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{Re}(J_{\alpha \beta }^{ij})\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{ij}2JK,`$ (3)
where

$`J_{\alpha \beta }^{ij}U_{\alpha i}U_{\beta i}^{}U_{\alpha j}^{}U_{\beta j},\varphi _{ij}\kappa \mathrm{\Delta }m_{ij}^2L/E=\kappa (m_i^2m_j^2)L/E,`$ (4)
with $`\kappa =1/4`$ in natural units or $`\kappa =1.27`$ in GeV per km and $`\mathrm{eV}^2`$ and

$`K4\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{12}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{23}\mathrm{sin}\varphi _{31},J\mathrm{Im}(J_{e\mu }^{12}).`$ (5)
$`J`$ is so called, Jarlscog factor , $`\mathrm{Im}(J_{\alpha \beta }^{ij})`$ obtained by the (anti-) cyclic permutation of ($`e`$, $`\mu `$) and ($`1`$,$`2`$) are all equal to ($``$)$`J`$.

## 3 CP Asymmetry and Two Kinds of Triangles

In this section, we would like to investigate CP asymmetry obtained from (3) schematically. We introduce two kinds of triangles. One is a unitarity triangle defined by $`J_{\alpha \beta }^{ij}`$ in (3), which we call MNS triangle. The other is another new triangle defined by $`\varphi _{ij}`$ also in (3), which we call oscillation triangle. We describe the definitions of the two kinds of triangles after we present our main results. CP asymmetry is presented by using the sides of the two kinds of triangles as

$`A_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )+P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+D}}}`$ (6)
where $`D`$ is defined by

$`4J^2K^2D`$ $``$ $`(|b|^2|n|^2|c|^2|m|^2)(|a|^2|n|^2|c|^2|l|^2)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`(|c|^2|l|^2|a|^2|n|^2)(|b|^2|l|^2|a|^2|m|^2)`$
$`+`$ $`(|a|^2|m|^2|b|^2|l|^2)(|c|^2|m|^2|b|^2|n|^2),`$
and $`|a|`$, $`|b|`$ and $`|c|`$ are the sides of an MNS triangle and $`|l|`$, $`|m|`$ and $`|n|`$ are an oscillation triangle as in Fig.1.

Fig. 1(a) an MNS triangle

Fig. 1(b) an oscillation triangle

The definition of the two kinds of triangles are as follows. At first, we define MNS triangle by introducing complex numbers, $`a`$, $`b`$ and $`c`$ as

$`aU_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\beta 1},bU_{\alpha 2}^{}U_{\beta 2},cU_{\alpha 3}^{}U_{\beta 3},`$ (8)
whose absolute values mean the length of the three sides of an MNS triangle because of unitarity condition,

$`U_{\alpha 1}^{}U_{\beta 1}+U_{\alpha 2}^{}U_{\beta 2}+U_{\alpha 3}^{}U_{\beta 3}=0.`$ (9)
$`J_{\alpha \beta }^{ij}`$ of (3) are rewritten with the three sides of an MNS triangle from the relations such as

$`J_{\alpha \beta }^{12}=a^{}b,J_{\alpha \beta }^{23}=b^{}c,J_{\alpha \beta }^{31}=c^{}a.`$ (10)
Next, we define oscillation triangle. We choose one side (the base of the triangle whose length has no physical meaning and is chosen arbitrary) and two base angles, $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`\varphi _{32}`$, as shown in Fig.2 to define the oscillation triangle. Note that while the base is constant in baseline length, $`L`$, both $`\varphi _{21}`$ and $`\varphi _{32}`$ are dependent on $`L`$ from the definition. It should be emphasized that the position of point A depends on $`L`$ and point A is located above or below the base line of the triangle. Oscillation triangles belong to either two classes like in Fig.2. In Case I point A is located above the base like in Fig.2(a) and in Case II point A is located below the base like in Fig.2(b).

Fig. 2(a) Case I

Fig. 2(b) Case II

The interior angles of the oscillation triangles, $`\eta _1`$, $`\eta _2`$ and $`\eta _3`$, are determined as follows in each cases.

In Fig.2(a) the interior angles are

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\eta _1=\varphi _{32}N\pi \hfill \\ \eta _2=\varphi _{31}+(N+N^{}+1)\pi \hfill \\ \eta _3=\varphi _{21}N^{}\pi \hfill \end{array},`$ (14)
where $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are integers which can be chosen to make $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _3`$ between $`0`$ and $`\pi `$.

In Fig.2(b) the interior angles are

$`\{\begin{array}{c}\eta _1=\varphi _{32}+N\pi \hfill \\ \eta _2=\varphi _{31}+(1NN^{})\pi \hfill \\ \eta _3=\varphi _{21}+N^{}\pi \hfill \end{array},`$ (18)
where $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are also integers which can be chosen to make $`\eta _1`$ and $`\eta _3`$ between $`0`$ and $`\pi `$.

As the transition probability of (3) depends only on angles of the oscilletion triangle, the shape is important, on the other hand, the scale and the position in complex plane have nothing to do with the magnitude of transition probability. We choose the radius of the circumcircle as $`1`$ and fix the oscillation triangles in complex plane as in Fig. 3 making use of the arbitrariness of the scale and the position. The three sides, $`l`$, $`m`$ and $`n`$, are defined using complex numbers like

$`l=2\mathrm{sin}\eta _1(\mathrm{cos}\eta _3i\mathrm{sin}\eta _3),m=2\mathrm{sin}\eta _2,n=2\mathrm{sin}\eta _3(\mathrm{cos}\eta _1\pm i\mathrm{sin}\eta _1)`$ (19)
as the opposite side of the three angles, where the sign correspond to case I and case II.

Fig. 3(a) Case I

Fig. 3(b) Case II

We replace $`\varphi _{ij}`$ of (3) with the sides as

$`\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{23}=|l|^2/4,\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{31}=|m|^2/4,\mathrm{sin}^2\varphi _{12}=|n|^2/4.`$ (20)
Furthermore, the introduction of complex numbers as the three sides makes possible to represent $`K`$ as the same form in both cases like

$$K=\pm 4\mathrm{sin}\eta _1\mathrm{sin}\eta _2\mathrm{sin}\eta _3=\mathrm{Im}(l^{}m)=\mathrm{Im}(m^{}n)=\mathrm{Im}(n^{}l),$$
(21)
where plus and minus sign correspond to the Case I and Case II respectively and the absolute value of $`K`$ means the twice of the area of the oscillation triangle.

After the definition of the two kinds of triangles described above, we rewrite CP asymmetry,

$`A_{CP}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}}{\mathrm{\Delta }P_{CP}}}={\displaystyle \frac{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}{P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )+P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )}},`$ (22)
using the sides of two kinds of triangles. As $`P(\overline{\nu }_\alpha \overline{\nu }_\beta )`$ are obtained by the replacement $`UU^{}`$ in $`P(\nu _\alpha \nu _\beta )`$, CP-violating part and CP-conserving part are

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}`$ $`=`$ $`4JK,`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }P_{CP}`$ $`=`$ $`2\{\mathrm{Re}(a^{}b)|n|^2+\mathrm{Re}(b^{}c)|l|^2+\mathrm{Re}(c^{}a)|m|^2\},`$ (24)
where (10) and (20) are used. Furthermore, CP-conserving part is rewritten as

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }P_{CP}/2)^2`$ $`=`$ $`4J^2K^2+(|b|^2|n|^2|c|^2|m|^2)(|a|^2|n|^2|c|^2|l|^2)`$ (25)
$`+(|c|^2|l|^2|a|^2|n|^2)(|b|^2|l|^2|a|^2|m|^2)`$
$`+(|a|^2|m|^2|b|^2|l|^2)(|c|^2|m|^2|b|^2|n|^2)`$
using the theorems about the sides and angles of triangles. The important relations of (6) and (7) are obtained from (23) and (25), where $`J0`$ and $`K0`$ are used. At the end of this section, we show the condition which gives the maximal CP asymmetry. For the purpose, we consider another representation of $`D`$ like

$`4J^2K^2D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|l|^2|m|^2}}\left(|c|^2|l|^2|m|^2\mathrm{Re}(m^{}n)|b|^2|l|^2\mathrm{Re}(n^{}l)|a|^2|m|^2\right)^2`$ (26)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{K^2}{4|l|^2|m|^2}}(|a|^2|m|^2|b|^2|l|^2)^20,`$
and from the equality condition of (26) we have $`100\%`$ asymmetry,

$$A_{CP}=\pm 1,$$
(27)
in the case that the ratio of the sides of an MNS triangle and an oscillation triangle is

$$|a|:|b|:|c|=|l|:|m|:|n|,$$
(28)
namely the shapes of the two triangles are the same. Conversly, CP asymmetry is not $`100\%`$ if the two triangles are not the same shape, then the differences of the shapes determine the magnitude of CP asymmetry.

## 4 Estimation of CP Asymmetry

In this section, let us apply the schematic method obtained in the previous section for $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation and estimate the magnitude of CP asymmetry. In the following discussions, the representative set of parameters as in Table.1  are used in LMA MSW and SMA MSW scenarios as examples. Only upper bound, $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}<0.2`$, is given by CHOOZ experiment  about $`1`$-$`3`$ mixing. Later we consider how $`A_{CP}`$ changes when $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ changes.

There are two distinct mass differences in three generations and they are set to explain the atmospheric and the solar neutrino deficit. The form of the MNS matrices in these two scenarios are

$$U(\mathrm{LMA})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.846& 0.523& 0.101i\\ 0.3720.060i& 0.6020.037i& 0.704\\ 0.3720.060i& 0.6020.037i& 0.704\end{array}\right)$$
(29)
for LMA MSW scenario and

$$U(\mathrm{SMA})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.994& 0.050& 0.101i\\ 0.0350.071i& 0.7060.004i& 0.704\\ 0.0350.071i& 0.7060.004i& 0.704\end{array}\right)$$
(30)
for SMA MSW scenario. In each cases, the MNS triangle corresponding to $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation is shown in Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b). The three sides of the MNS triangle are

$`(|a|,|b|,|c|)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(0.32,0.32,0.071)& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ (0.079,0.035,0.071)& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}\end{array}`$ (33)
and three angles are

$`(\psi _1,\psi _2,\psi _3)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1.46,1.46,0.22)& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ (1.56,0.46,1.12)& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}\end{array}.`$ (36)
Fig. 4(a) MNS triangle for LMA MSW scenario

Fig. 4(b) MNS triangle for SMA MSW scenario

At first, let us show that the smallest $`L/E`$ which gives the almost $`100\%`$ asymmetry is estimated as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L(\mathrm{km})}{E(\mathrm{GeV})}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}3200& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ 88000& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}\end{array},`$ (39)
with the schematic method. These values are derived as following two steps. At first, choose $`L/E`$ such that $`\eta _3=\varphi _{21}=\psi _3`$, that is

$`\varphi _{21}={\displaystyle \frac{1.27\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2L}{E}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}0.22& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ 1.12& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}\end{array}.`$ (42)
Second, change the value of $`L/E`$ obtained from (42) a little so that $`\eta _1=\varphi _{32}N\pi =\psi _1`$, that is

$`\varphi _{32}={\displaystyle \frac{1.27\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2L}{E}}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1.46+N_L\pi & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ 1.56+N_S\pi & \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}\end{array},`$ (45)
where $`N_L=4`$ and $`N_S=124`$ for the $`L/E`$ determined by (42). There is little change for the angle $`\eta _3`$ set at first by the second operation because $`\varphi _{32}`$ and $`\varphi _{31}`$ change rapidly compared to $`\varphi _{21}`$. Thus, we can easily estimate $`L/E`$ which gives almost $`100\%`$ asymmetry as (39) by choosing the oscillation triangle to be the almost same shape as the MNS triangle in Fig. 4.

Next, let us roughly estimate whether $`L/E`$ of (39) can be realized in future experiments taking the two kinds of experiments as examples. First, in the experiments of neutrino factory , suppose that the energy of neutrino beam is $`5\mathrm{GeV}`$ and the baseline length is about $`7400`$ km from Fermilab to Gran Sasso. Second, in the experiments of PRISM , suppose that the energy of the neutrino beam is $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ and the baseline length is $`L250\mathrm{km}`$ from KEK to Super-Kamiokande. The value of $`L(\mathrm{km})/E(\mathrm{GeV})`$ realized in the two kinds of future experiments are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L(\mathrm{km})}{E(\mathrm{GeV})}}\{\begin{array}{cc}1500& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{neutrino}\mathrm{factory}\\ 2500& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{PRISM}\end{array}.`$ (48)
These values of $`L(\mathrm{km})/E(\mathrm{GeV})`$ are close to the value of (39) for LMA MSW scenario. Therefore, it is expected to obtain rather large CP asymmetry. Actually at the value of $`L(\mathrm{km})/E(\mathrm{GeV})2500`$ we obtain

$`A_{CP}\{\begin{array}{cc}90\%& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ 3\%& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}\end{array},`$ (51)
where

$`(|l|,|m|,|n|)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1.99,1.92,0.32)& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{LMA}\mathrm{MSW}\\ (1.99,1.98,0.063)& \mathrm{for}\mathrm{SMA}\mathrm{MSW}.\end{array},`$ (54)
derived from the definition of $`\varphi _{ij}`$ and (20) are used.

Finally, let us consider how the magnitude of $`A_{CP}`$ is changed by $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$. If $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ is smaller than the value we choose, $`|c|`$ and the angle $`\gamma `$ corresponding to $`|c|`$ of the MNS triangle is also small. Eq.(42) leads to small $`L/E`$ which gives almost $`100\%`$ asymmetry according to the smallness of $`\gamma `$. Therefore, rather large $`A_{CP}`$ may be realized not only in LMA MSW scenario but also in SMA MSW scenario if $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{13}`$ is small. However, as small $`\gamma `$ means the squashed MNS triangle, $`J`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}`$ become also small. We need the beam which has high intensity enough to compensate the smallness of $`\mathrm{\Delta }\text{}`$ to observe $`A_{CP}`$.

## 5 Summary and Discussions

In the framework of three generations we have mainly investigated CP asymmetry in neutrino oscillations. The main results of this paper are following;

1. We propose the scematical method to estimate the magnitude of $`A_{CP}`$. $`A_{CP}`$ is calculated from the length of three sides of an MNS triangle and an oscillation triangle. $`A_{CP}`$ takes the maximal value in the case that the shapes of the two triangles are the same.
2. In vacuum $`\nu _e`$-$`\nu _\mu `$ oscillation, we obtain almost $`100\%`$ asymmetry in $`L(\mathrm{km})/E(\mathrm{GeV})3200`$ for LMA MSW scenario and in $`L(\mathrm{km})/E(\mathrm{GeV})88000`$ for SMA MSW scenario.
3. In PRISM experiment to be expected to realize near future, we obtain about $`A_{CP}90\%`$ for LMA MSW scenario and $`A_{CP}3\%`$ for SMA MSW scenario with $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}0.04`$.

Finally we note the prospect in future. In order to determine the magnitude of CP asymmetry we need to estimate other parameters of the MNS matrix as precise as possible. Furthermore, the mass differences and mixing angles are changed by the earth matter effect in practical long baseline neutrino experiments. We would like to investigate how large the earth matter effect is in CP violation and in what region our results are ineffective in the paper to be prepared. We will also study $`A_{CP}`$ averaging in the neutrino energy and the baseline length in order to estimate CP violating effects in practical experiments. If the limitation of the energy resolution is improved, the CP violating signals become more sharp. We should consider the better method to obtain the CP violating signal as sharp as possible. In addition, we investigate other MNS triangles in the next paper.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Prof. A. I. Sanda for useful discussions and fruitful comments. We would like to thank Prof. Y. Sugiyama for careful reading of manuscript.


text:
# THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND THE FINE STRUCTURE CONSTANT

## I INTRODUCTION

The correct expression for the permittivity of free space $`\epsilon _0`$, and consequently for the permeability of free space $`\mu _0`$, is of fundamental importance when dealing with laboratory and cosmological work. By correct we mean the forms that preserve both Local Lorentz Invariance (LLI) and Local Position Invariance (LPI). We define both following Will (see ).

By LLI we mean the aspect of the Einstein’s Equivalence Principle that postulates the same predictions for identical local non-gravitational test experiments, performed in two freely falling frames located at the same event in space-time, but moving relative to each other.

By LPI we mean the independence from the space-time location of the frame, when observing the results of local non-gravitational test experiments.

The $`TH\epsilon \mu `$ formalism, devised by Lightman and Lee (), can be used to implement the Einstein’s Equivalence Principle, as presented by Will (). This author proves that a necessary and sufficient condition for both Local Lorentz and Position Invariance to be valid is given by

$$\epsilon _0=\mu _0=\left(H_0/T_0\right)^{1/2}$$
(1)
for all events.

In our work here we use this relation to obtain Local Lorentz and Position Invariance. Since the product $`\epsilon _0\mu _0`$ is equal to $`c^2`$, then the relation (1) implies

$$\epsilon _0=\mu _0=\frac{1}{c}$$
(2)
It is extremely important that we retain $`c`$ different from unity in all equations. By doing so we keep open to a possible variation of $`c`$ with cosmological time as a result of the expansion of the Universe, e.g. Alfonso-Faus (), or any other cause. We are not dealing here with the constancy or time variation of $`c`$. But to be able to find the correct basic physical relations, in particular as related to the fine structure constant, we must keep $`c`$ in the expressions.

We know that in the electrostatic system of units (e.g. Jackson ()) one takes $`\epsilon _0=1`$, and $`\mu _0`$ $`=c^2`$ . In the electromagnetic system of units $`ϵ_0`$ $`=c^2`$ and $`\mu _0=1`$. Both are wrong from an invariance point of view, and the same happens with the rationalized mks system. In the gaussian and Heaviside-Lorentz systems one takes $`\epsilon _0=`$ $`\mu _0`$ $`=1`$ which corresponds to take $`c=1`$. Here we are presenting a system of electromagnetic units consistent with local and position invariance even in the case of a time varying $`c`$. By doing so we keep the physical insight of the presence of $`c`$ in electromagnetic properties.

One of the results is that the speed of light does not enter explicitly in the intrinsic constitution of the fine structure constant.

On the other hand, we know that the constancy of the ratio of magnetic to electric forces, as evidenced in the spectra from different distant galaxies, implies that the fine structure constant must be a universal constant. Once we prove that the speed of light does not enter in its constitution, we get as a universal constant the ratio $`e^2/\mathrm{}`$.

## II THE INVARIANCE OF THE MAXWELL EQUATIONS.

We follow Jackson () for discussing units and dimensions of electromagnetism. We choose length, mass, and time as independent, basic units. The dimension of the ratio of charge and current will be that of time. Then, the continuity equation for charge and current densities is

$$\stackrel{}{J}+\frac{\rho }{t}=0$$
(3)
We consider electromagnetic phenomena in free space, apart from the presence of charges and currents. We have Coulomb’s law

$$F_1=k_1\frac{qq^{}}{r^2}$$
(4)
and define the electric field as

$$E=k_1\frac{q}{r^2}$$
(5)
where $`k_1`$ is a proportionality constant except for possible cosmological time variations. We will call these “constants” by the name of factors. Ampere’s law giving the force per unit length between two infinitely long parallel wires, separated by a distance $`d`$ and with currents $`I`$ and $`I^{}`$ is

$$\frac{dF_2}{dl}=2k_2\frac{II^{}}{d}$$
(6)
where $`k_2`$ is a factor as in (5).

By comparison of the magnitudes of the two mechanical forces (4) and (6) one has in free space

$$\frac{k_1}{k_2}=c^2$$
(7)
We define the magnetic induction $`B`$ from Ampere’s law for a long straight wire carrying a current $`I`$,

$$B=2k_2\frac{\beta I}{d}$$
(8)
where $`\beta `$ is a proportionality factor, which has dimensions. Combining (3), (5), (7) and (8) one has the dimensions of $`E/B`$ to be $`l/(t\beta )`$. As we will see $`E`$ and $`B`$ will have the same dimensions, so that $`\beta `$ has the dimensions of velocity.

Finally, Faraday’s law of induction gives

$$\times \stackrel{}{E}+k_3\frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}=0$$
(9)
On the basis of Galilean invariance one has $`k_3=1/\beta `$. But it can also be proved from the Maxwell ’s equations using the fields already defined and taking into account that in the wave equation the velocity of propagation is the speed of light. Maxwell’s equations are then

$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi k_1\rho `$ (10)
$`\times \stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`k_3{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi k_1\beta \stackrel{}{J}+(k_2/k_1)\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}`$
$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
where we have the relations between the proportionality factors:

$`k_1/k_2`$ $`=`$ $`c^2`$ (11)
$`k_3\beta `$ $`=`$ $`1`$
We only have two factors that must be chosen to completely define the system. We will do it keeping the LLI and the LPT. Also, from the Lorentz force expressed in the gaussian or Heaviside-Lorentz Systems that have $`\epsilon _0`$ and $`\mu _0`$ equal,

$$\stackrel{}{F}=q(\stackrel{}{E}+\frac{\stackrel{}{v}}{c}\times \stackrel{}{B})$$
(12)
hence $`E`$ and $`B`$ have the same dimensions. For electromagnetic waves in free space $`E=B`$ and we keep this result, so that from (9) one has

$$k_3=c^1$$
(13)
So far we have kept the same classical discussion as in Jackson (). We are left with only one factor to be defined and this is the characteristic step of this work. From the LLI and the LPI one has the factor in Coulomb’s law:

$$k_1=c$$
(14)
and therefore

$$k_2=c^1$$
(15)
The laws of electromagnetism are then given in LLI and LPT form as follows:

Coulomb’s law:

$$F_1=c\frac{qq^{}}{r^2}$$
(16)
Electric field

$$E=c\frac{q}{r^2}$$
(17)
Ampere’s law

$$\frac{dF_2}{dl}=\frac{2}{c}\frac{II^{}}{d}$$
(18)
Magnetic induction

$$B=\frac{2I}{d}$$
(19)
and finally Maxwell ’s equations are in this form:

$`\stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi c\rho `$ (20)
$`\times \stackrel{}{E}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{B}}{t}}`$
$`\times \stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi \stackrel{}{J}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{E}}{t}}`$
$`\stackrel{}{B}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
## III COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS

The fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ must be a real constant as inferred from the observations of spectra from different distant sources through the ratio of magnetic spin-orbit interaction to the electric interaction. The possible variation reported by Webb et al. () is very small for a cosmological time variation at a distance of about red shift one. They report a change of about one part in $`10^5`$, while here we are considering variations of the same order as the value of the constant. The same consideration applies to the reported result of the electroweak measurement of the strengthening of the electromagnetic coupling (Levine et al. ()): a value of $`128.5`$ as compared with $`137.0`$ represents a small variation in cosmological terms.

Let us assume that $`\alpha `$ is a constant. We have proved that it only depends on $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e`$. Let us assume that $`\mathrm{}`$ and therefore $`e`$ are also constants. In terms of the Rydberg constant $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the Bohr radius $`a_0`$ one has the following relation (see ) :

$`R_{\mathrm{}}hc`$ $`=`$ $`13.6056981eV=m_ec^2\alpha ^2`$ (21)
$`2R_{\mathrm{}}hc`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon _0a_0}}=27.2113961eV`$
Here $`h`$ is $`2\pi \mathrm{}`$. If we take this energy as constant then a time variation in $`c`$ implies a time variation in the mass of the electron. Also, taking $`h`$ and $`e`$ constant one has from (21)

$`R_{\mathrm{}}c`$ $`=`$ $`const.`$ (22)
$`\epsilon _0a_0`$ $`=`$ $`const.`$
Since $`\epsilon _0=c^1`$ one has the result

$$a_0c$$
(23)
The conclusion is that a time variation in the speed of light, keeping $`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`e`$ constants imply that the masses and sizes of the quantum world vary also with time. In particular, if the speed of light decreases with time due to the expansion of the Universe (Alfonso-Faus ()), the sizes of the quantum particles also decrease. Both effects would go together: the expansion of the Universe and the contraction of the quantum world at the same time.

## IV CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all basic electromagnetic relations with the choice $`\epsilon _0=\mu _0=1/c`$ that preserves local Lorentz invariance and local position invariance. One immediate consequence is that there is a factor of $`c`$ in Coulomb’s law multiplying the product of the two charges. In this new system of units the speed of light is explicit in the places required by the invariance condition imposed, which gives an insight in the intrinsic relations of physical properties. In particular, the fine structure constant given as $`\frac{e^2}{4\pi \epsilon _0c\mathrm{}}`$ is now, in the new system, $`\frac{e^2}{4\pi \mathrm{}}`$ . Hence, the constancy of the fine structure constant, deduced by means of observations of spectra from different distant sources through the ratio of magnetic spin-orbit interaction to the electric interaction, is in fact the constancy of $`\frac{e^2}{\mathrm{}}`$ . This is very important for theories that contemplate time-varying physical ”constants” (e.g. Alfonso-Faus ()). In particular, the exact constancy of the electric charge of the electron would imply the exact constancy of Planck’s constant. If there is no cosmological effect on $`e`$, then there is no cosmological effect on $`\mathrm{}`$, regardless of any possible cosmological effect on $`c`$. If there is a cosmological effect on $`c`$ then there is a cosmological effect on the masses and sizes of quantum particles, keeping constant $`\mathrm{},e`$ and the atomic energy levels.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to Prof. A. Estevez and Prof. A. Alcazar de Velasco for reviewing the manuscript. I am also grateful to Dr. T. LeCompte and Mr. F. E. Reed for usefull discussions.