text:
# Possible Implications of Small or Large CP Violation in 𝐵⁰_𝑑 vs 𝐵̄⁰_𝑑→𝐽/𝜓𝐾_S Decays

## Abstract

We argue that a small or large CP-violating asymmetry $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ in $`B_d^0`$ vs $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays, which seems to be favored by the recent BaBar or Belle data, might hint at the existence of new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. We present a model-independent framework to show how new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing modifies the standard-model CP-violating asymmetry $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. We particularly emphasize that an experimental confirmation of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ must not imply the absence of new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing.

preprint:     hep-ph/0008018

Recently the BaBar and Belle Collaborations have reported their new measurements of the CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_d^0`$ vs $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays:

$$𝒜_{\psi K_S}=\{\begin{array}{c}0.59\pm 0.14(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.05(\mathrm{syst}),(\mathrm{BaBar}\text{[1]}),\\ \\ 0.99\pm 0.14(\mathrm{stat})\pm 0.06(\mathrm{syst}),(\mathrm{Belle}\text{[2]}).\end{array}$$
(1)
The central values of these two measurements are apparently different from that of the previous CDF measurement, $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}=0.79\pm 0.42`$ ; and they are also different from the result obtained from global analyses of the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) unitarity triangle in the standard model, $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.75\pm 0.06`$ . In view of the error bars associated with the BaBar and Belle measurements, it remains too early to claim any serious discrepancy between the experimental result and the standard-model prediction. Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the possibility of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}<𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ or $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}>𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. A small or large CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$ decays should be a clean signal of new physics beyond the standard model.

The purpose of this Brief Report is two-fold. First, we present a model-independent framework to show how new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing may modify the standard-model quantity $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. We find that the possible deviation of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ from $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ can fully be described in terms of three independent parameters, including the magnitude and phase of the new-physics contribution to $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Second, we point out that the equality $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}=𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ itself must not mean the absence of new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Indeed there may exist a specific parameter space for the new-physics contribution to $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing, in which the value of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ coincides with that of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Hence measuring the CP-violating asymmetry $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ alone is neither enough to test the standard model nor enough to constrain the possible new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing.

It is well known that the CP asymmetry $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ arises from the interplay of the direct decays of $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mesons, the $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing in the initial state, and the $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing in the final state :

$$𝒜_{\psi K_S}=\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{q}{p}\frac{V_{cb}V_{cs}^{}}{V_{cb}^{}V_{cs}}\frac{q_K^{}}{p_K^{}}\right),$$
(2)
where $`V_{cb}`$ and $`V_{cs}`$ are the CKM matrix elements, $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing parameters, $`p_K^{}`$ and $`q_K^{}`$ are the $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing parameters, and the minus sign on the right-hand side of Eq. (2) comes from the CP-odd eigenstate $`J/\psi K_S`$. In this expression the tiny penguin contributions to the direct transition amplitudes, which may slightly modify the ratio $`(V_{cb}V_{cs}^{})/(V_{cb}^{}V_{cs})`$ , have been neglected. Within the standard model $`q_K^{}/p_K^{}1`$, $`q/pV_{td}/V_{td}^{}`$ and $`(V_{cb}V_{cs}^{})/(V_{cb}^{}V_{cs})1`$ are excellent approximations in the Wolfenstein phase convention for the CKM matrix . Therefore one obtains

$$𝒜_{\psi K}^{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{Im}\left(\frac{V_{td}}{V_{td}^{}}\right)\mathrm{sin}2\beta ,$$
(3)
where $`\beta \mathrm{arg}[(V_{cb}^{}V_{cd})/(V_{tb}^{}V_{td})]\mathrm{arg}(V_{td}^{})`$ is one of the three inner angles of the CKM unitarity triangle . A recent global analysis of the quark flavor mixing data and the CP-violating observables in the kaon system yields $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta =0.75\pm 0.06`$ .

If the measured value of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ deviates significantly from the standard-model prediction in Eq. (3), it is most likely that the $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing phase $`q/p`$ consists of unknown new physics contributions. Of course there may also exist new physics in $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, contributing a non-trivial complex phase to $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ through $`q_K^{}/p_K^{}`$. It is quite unlikely that the tree-level $`W`$-mediated decays of $`B_d^0`$ and $`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mesons are contaminated by any kind of new physics in a significant way .

To be specific, we assume that a possible discrepancy between $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ and $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ mainly results from new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. We therefore write down the ratio $`q/p`$ in terms of the off-diagonal elements of the $`2\times 2`$ $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing Hamiltonian:

$$\frac{q}{p}=\sqrt{\frac{M_{12}^{}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{}/2}{M_{12}i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}/2}}$$
(4)
with

$$M_{12}=M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}+M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}$$
(5)
and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Note that $`|M_{12}||\mathrm{\Gamma }_{12}|`$ is expected to hold both within and beyond the standard model, thus we have $`q/p\sqrt{M_{12}^{}/M_{12}}`$ as a good approximation. The relative magnitude and the phase difference between the new-physics contribution $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}`$ and the standard-model contribution $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ are in general unknown. By definition, we may take $`|M_{12}|=\mathrm{\Delta }M/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }M=(0.487\pm 0.014)\mathrm{ps}^1`$ is the experimentally measured mass difference between two mass eigenstates of $`B_d`$ mesons . Then we parametrize $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}`$ and $`M_{12}`$ in the following way:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}\\ \\ M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}\\ \\ M_{12}\end{array}\right\}=\left\{\begin{array}{c}R_{\mathrm{SM}}e^{\mathrm{i2}\beta }\\ \\ R_{\mathrm{NP}}e^{\mathrm{i2}\theta }\\ \\ e^{\mathrm{i2}\varphi }\end{array}\right\}\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }M}{2},$$
(6)
where $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ are real and positive parameters, $`\theta `$ represents the new-physics phase, and $`\varphi `$ denotes the effective (overall) phase of $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. In this case, $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, $`M_{12}^{\mathrm{NP}}`$ and $`M_{12}`$ (or equivalently, $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}e^{\mathrm{i2}\beta }`$, $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}e^{\mathrm{i2}\theta }`$ and $`e^{\mathrm{i2}\varphi }`$) form a triangle in the complex plane, as illustrated by Fig. 1. The dual relation between $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ can be expressed as

$$R_{\mathrm{NP}}=R_{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \beta )\pm \sqrt{1R_{\mathrm{SM}}^2\mathrm{sin}^22(\theta \beta )},$$
$`(7\mathrm{a})`$
and

$$R_{\mathrm{SM}}=R_{\mathrm{NP}}\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \beta )\pm \sqrt{1R_{\mathrm{NP}}^2\mathrm{sin}^22(\theta \beta )},$$
$`(7\mathrm{b})`$
which depends only upon the phase difference $`(\theta \beta )`$. There exist two possible solutions for $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ or $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, corresponding to $`(\pm )`$ signs on the right-hand side of Eq. (7). Numerically, $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}>0`$ and $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}0`$ must hold for either solution.

The magnitude of $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ can be calculated in the box-diagram approximation :

$$R_{\mathrm{SM}}=\frac{G_\mathrm{F}^2B_Bf_B^2M_Bm_t^2}{6\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }M}\eta _B^{}F(z)|V_{tb}V_{td}|^2,$$
(8)
where $`G_\mathrm{F}`$ is the Fermi constant, $`B_B`$ is the “bag” parameter describing the uncertainty in evaluation of the hadronic matrix element $`B_d^0|\overline{b}\gamma _\mu (1\gamma _5)d|\overline{B}_d^0`$, $`M_B`$ is the $`B_d`$–meson mass, $`f_B`$ is the decay constant, $`m_t`$ is the top-quark mass, $`\eta _B`$ denotes the QCD correction factor, $`V_{tb}`$ and $`V_{td}`$ are the CKM matrix elements, and $`F(z)`$ stands for a slowly decreasing monotonic function of $`zm_t^2/M_W^2`$ with $`M_W`$ being the $`W`$-boson mass. At present it is difficult to obtain a reliable value for $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, because quite large uncertainties may arise from the input parameters $`B_B`$, $`f_B`$ and $`|V_{td}|`$. However, $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is in general expected to be close to unity, no matter what kind of new physics is hidden in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Note that $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}=1`$ must not lead to $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}=0`$. There is another solution, $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}=2\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \beta )`$ with $`\mathrm{cos}2(\theta \beta )0`$, corresponding to $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}=1`$. On the contrary, $`N_{\mathrm{NP}}=0`$ must result in $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}=1`$, as indicated by Eq. (7b).

With the help of Eqs. (5) and (6), we recalculate the CP-violating asymmetry $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ and arrive at the following result:

$$𝒜_{\psi K_S}=\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )=R_{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )+R_{\mathrm{NP}}\mathrm{sin}(2\theta ).$$
(9)
Note that $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}`$, $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$, $`\beta `$, and $`\theta `$ are dependent on one another through Eq. (7). Of course, $`|𝒜_{\psi K}|1`$ holds within the allowed parameter space of $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ and $`\theta `$. The ratio of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ to $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is given as

$$\xi _{\psi K_S}\frac{𝒜_{\psi K_S}}{𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )}{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )}=R_{\mathrm{SM}}+R_{\mathrm{NP}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\theta )}{\mathrm{sin}(2\beta )}.$$
(10)
In the literature (e.g., Ref. ), the value of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ is obtained from a global analysis of the experimental data on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$, $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing, $`B_s^0`$-$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing, and CP violation in $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. The key assumption in such analyses is that there is no new-physics contribution to the $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$, $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$, and $`B_s^0`$-$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing systems. If new physics does contribute significantly to the heavy meson-antimeson mixing instead of the light one, one has to discard the direct experimental data on $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing and $`B_s^0`$-$`\overline{B}_s^0`$ mixing in analyzing the CKM unitarity triangle. In this case, the resultant constraint on $`\mathrm{sin}2\beta `$ becomes somehow looser. One may observe, from the figures of the CKM unitarity triangle in Refs. , that $`0.6\mathrm{sin}2\beta 0.8`$ is a quite generous range constrained by current data on $`|V_{ub}/V_{cb}|`$ and CP violation in $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing. Given such a generously allowed region for $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$, we conclude that $`\xi _{\psi K_S}>0`$ is definitely assured. Using $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}=0.75\pm 0.06`$  for illustration, we obtain

$$\xi _{\psi K_S}=\{\begin{array}{c}0.79\pm 0.26,(\mathrm{BaBar}),\\ \\ 1.32\pm 0.30.(\mathrm{Belle}).\end{array}$$
(11)
We see that the BaBar measurement seems to indicate $`\xi _{\psi K_S}<1`$, while the Belle measurement seems to imply $`\xi _{\psi K_S}>1`$. If either possibility could finally be confirmed with more precise experimental data from $`B`$-meson factories, it would be a very clean signal of new physics . If the further data of both BaBar and Belle Collaborations turn to coincide with each other and lead to $`\xi _{\psi K_S}1`$, however, one cannot draw the conclusion that there is no new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing.

Now let us show why $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}=𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ must not imply the absence of new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Taking $`\xi _{\psi K_S}=1`$ and using Eq. (7), we obtain the following equation constraining the allowed values of $`\theta `$:

$$(1+R_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathrm{tan}^22\theta 2R_{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{tan}2\beta \mathrm{tan}2\theta (1R_{\mathrm{SM}})\mathrm{tan}^22\beta =\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.$$
(12)
Then it is straightforward to find out two solutions for $`\mathrm{tan}2\theta `$:

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\mathrm{tan}2\beta ,$$
$`(13\mathrm{a})`$
or

$$\mathrm{tan}2\theta =\mathrm{tan}2\beta \frac{R_{\mathrm{SM}}1}{R_{\mathrm{SM}}+1}.$$
$`(13\mathrm{b})`$
Note that solution (13a) corresponds to $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}+R_{\mathrm{NP}}=1`$. Solution (13b) implies that $`|\mathrm{tan}2\theta |\mathrm{tan}2\beta `$ may hold, if $`R_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is remarkably close to 1. Although the afore-obtained region of $`\theta `$ is quite specific, it does exist and give rise to $`\xi _{\psi K_S}=1`$. Therefore, an experimental confirmation of $`\xi _{\psi K_S}1`$ cannot fully rule out the possibility of new physics hidden in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing.

Theoretically, the information on $`R_{\mathrm{NP}}`$ and $`\theta `$ can only be obtained from specific models of new physics (e.g., the supersymmetric extensions of the standard model ). An interesting possibility is that the new-physics contribution conserves CP (i.e., $`\theta =0`$ ) and all observed CP-violating phenomena in weak interactions are attributed to the non-trivial phase in the CKM matrix. In this scenario, we obtain

$$𝒜_{\psi K_S}=\mathrm{sin}(2\varphi )=R_{\mathrm{SM}}\mathrm{sin}(2\beta ).$$
(14)
Obviously $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}/𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}=R_{\mathrm{SM}}1`$ is required, in order to understand the present BaBar and Belle measurements.

It becomes clear that the measurement of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}`$ itself is not enough to test the self-consistency of the standard model or to pin down possible new physics hidden in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. For either purpose one needs to study the CP-violating asymmetries in some other nonleptonic $`B`$-meson decays, although most of them are not so clean as $`B_d^0`$ vs $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays in establishing the relations between the CP-violating observables and the fundamental CP-violating parameters .

In summary, we have discussed possible implications of a small or large CP-violating asymmetry in $`B_d^0`$ vs $`\overline{B}_d^0J/\psi K_S`$ decays. While such an effect could be attributed to new physics in $`K^0`$-$`\overline{K}^0`$ mixing, it is most likely to result from new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. Model-independently, we have formulated the basic features of new-physics effects on CP violation in $`B_dJ/\psi K_S`$. We have also pointed out that an experimental confirmation of $`𝒜_{\psi K_S}𝒜_{\psi K_S}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ must not imply the absence of new physics in $`B_d^0`$-$`\overline{B}_d^0`$ mixing. An extensive study of all hadronic $`B`$-meson decays and CP asymmetries is desirable, in order to test the standard model and probe possible new physics at some higher energy scales.

The author would like to thank L. Wolfenstein for numerous useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Bell’s theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers

## Abstract

A proof of Bell’s theorem using two maximally entangled states of two qubits is presented. It exhibits a similar logical structure to Hardy’s argument of “nonlocality without inequalities”. However, it works for 100% of the runs of a certain experiment. Therefore, it can also be viewed as a Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger-like proof involving only two spacelike separated regions.

Bell’s theorem  states that one cannot in general reproduce the results of quantum theory with a classical, deterministic local model. Hardy’s argument of “nonlocality without inequalities”  is considered “the best version of Bell’s theorem” . Curiously enough, while in the original proof of Bell’s theorem using inequalities the maximum discrepancy with local models occurs for maximally entangled states  (also known as “Bell states” ), Hardy’s proof is not valid for maximally entangled states. It works only for entangled but non-maximally entangled states (also known as “Hardy states” ). This curious feature has led to several attempts and suggestions to develop a Hardy-like argument for maximally entangled states of two qubits. However, so far none of these proposals has worked . In addition, Hardy’s argument works only for 9% of the runs of a certain experiment. On the other hand, the proof of Bell’s theorem by Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger (GHZ)  works for 100% of the runs, but requires three observers (instead of two, as in Hardy’s proof).

In this paper, I introduce a Hardy-like proof which works for 100% of the runs of an experiment. It requires only two observers and is based on maximally entangled states of two qubits. This proof is more complicated than the original by Hardy, since it involves two copies of the maximally entangled state (instead of just one), but it preserves the logical structure of the original argument. The proof is inspired in Hardy’s argument  (see also ) and in a proof of the Kochen-Specker theorem  by Peres  and Mermin  (see also ).

A qubit is a quantum two-level system like, for instance, the spin state of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle. Consider a source of two qubits in the singlet state

$$|\psi ^{}_{ij}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|01_{ij}|10_{ij}\right),$$
(1)
where $`|01_{ij}=|0_i|1_j`$, and where $`\sigma _z|0=|0`$ and $`\sigma _z|1=|1`$, $`\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _x`$ being the Pauli spin matrices. Suppose the source emits two singlets so that the initial state is

$$|\psi _{1234}=|\psi ^{}_{12}|\psi ^{}_{34}.$$
(2)
The scenario for the proof is the following: particle 1 moves away from particle 2, and particle 3 moves away from particle 4. At a given time, an observer, Alice, has access to particles 1 and 3, while in a spacelike separated region a second observer, Bob, has access to particles 2 and 4.

I will use the following notation: For particles 1 and 3 (Alice’s particles) $`A_i=\sigma _{zi}`$ and $`a_i=\sigma _{xi}`$; for particles 2 and 4 (Bob’s particles) $`B_j=\sigma _{zj}`$ and $`b_j=\sigma _{xj}`$. On the other hand, the product of two letters represents the product of the corresponding operators; for instance, $`A_1A_3=\sigma _{z1}\sigma _{z3}`$. The results of the measurements of all these operators can be either $`1`$ or $`+1`$.

Using this notation, the state (2) has the following properties:

$`P_\psi \left(A_1=B_2\right)=0,`$ (3)
$`P_\psi \left(a_1=b_2\right)=0,`$ (4)
$`P_\psi \left(A_3=B_4\right)=0,`$ (5)
$`P_\psi \left(a_3=b_4\right)=0,`$ (6)
and

$`P_\psi \left(B_2=B_4|A_1A_3=+1\right)=1,`$ (7)
$`P_\psi \left(b_2=b_4|a_1a_3=+1\right)=1,`$ (8)
$`P_\psi \left(A_1=a_3|B_2b_4=+1\right)=1,`$ (9)
$`P_\psi \left(a_1=A_3|b_2B_4=1\right)=1,`$ (10)
and

$`P_\psi (`$ $`A_1A_3=+1,`$ $`a_1a_3=+1,`$ (11)
$`B_2b_4=+1,`$ $`b_2B_4=1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},`$ (12)
where, $`P_\psi \left(A_1=B_2\right)`$ is the probability of $`A_1`$ and $`B_2`$ giving the same result, and $`P_\psi \left(B_2=B_4|A_1A_3=+1\right)`$ is the conditional probability of $`B_2`$ and $`B_4`$ having the same result given that the result of $`A_1A_3`$ is $`+1`$. Properties (3)-(12) will be proved later. Now let us focus our attention on the logical argument of proving Bell’s theorem that can be deduced from them.

Properties (3)-(6) allow us to establish that there exist “elements of reality”, as defined by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) , corresponding to $`A_1`$, $`B_2`$, $`a_1`$, $`b_2`$, $`A_3`$, $`B_4`$, $`a_3`$, and $`b_4`$. According to EPR, “If, without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty (i.e., with probability equal to unity) the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity” . Property (3) tells us that if Alice (Bob) measures $`A_1`$ on particle 1 ($`B_2`$ on particle 2), then she (he), without in any way disturbing particle 2 (particle 1), which is assumed to be in a distant spacelike separated region, can predict with certainty the result of $`B_2`$ ($`A_1`$). Therefore, there exists an element of reality corresponding to $`B_2`$ ($`A_1`$). This implies that its value was present before Alice’s (Bob’s) measurement, and thus does not depend on Alice’s (Bob’s) choice of experiment. Identical arguments based on properties (4)-(6) lead us to establish that there exist elements of reality corresponding to $`a_1`$, $`b_2`$, $`A_3`$, $`B_4`$, $`a_3`$, and $`b_4`$.

On the other hand, property (7) tells us that, when Alice measures $`A_1A_3`$ on particles $`1`$ and $`3`$, and finds the result $`+1`$, then she, without in any way disturbing particles 2 and 4, which are assumed to be in a distant spacelike separated region, can predict with certainty that if Bob measures $`B_2`$ and $`B_4`$, he will find the same result for both. Since $`B_2`$ and $`B_4`$ are elements of reality, they were determined before Alice’s measurement and thus cannot depend on Alice’s choice of experiment. Properties (8)-(10) lead to similar arguments.

The four physical magnitudes $`A_1A_3`$, $`a_1a_3`$, $`B_2b_4`$, and $`b_2B_4`$ are represented by commutative operators and thus they can be jointly measured on the same system. Indeed, according to property (12), the four conditions appearing in (7)-(10) (i.e., $`A_1A_3=+1`$, $`a_1a_3=+1`$, $`B_2b_4=+1`$, $`b_2B_4=1`$) can occur simultaneously (they occur in average in $`\frac{1}{8}`$ of the runs of the experiment in which Alice measures $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$, while Bob measures $`B_2b_4`$ and $`b_2B_4`$). Therefore, for those events in which Alice finds $`A_1A_3=+1`$ and $`a_1a_3=+1`$, and Bob finds $`B_2b_4=+1`$ and $`b_2B_4=1`$, the values of the elements of reality must satisfy the following relations:

$`v(B_2)`$ $`=`$ $`v(B_4),`$ (13)
$`v(b_2)`$ $`=`$ $`v(b_4),`$ (14)
$`v(A_1)`$ $`=`$ $`v(a_3),`$ (15)
$`v(a_1)`$ $`=`$ $`v(A_3).`$ (16)
However, any assignment of values, either $`1`$ or $`+1`$, that satisfies (13)-(16), would be in contradiction with one of the properties (3)-(6). To prove this, let us suppose that the four properties (3)-(6) were satisfied. Then, the values of the elements of reality would satisfy the following relations:

$`v(A_1)`$ $`=`$ $`v(B_2),`$ (17)
$`v(a_1)`$ $`=`$ $`v(b_2),`$ (18)
$`v(A_3)`$ $`=`$ $`v(B_4),`$ (19)
$`v(a_3)`$ $`=`$ $`v(b_4).`$ (20)
However, the eight Eqs. (13)-(20) cannot be satisfied simultaneously because when we take the product of all of them, the result is

$$v(B_2)v(b_2)v(A_3)v(a_3)=v(B_2)v(b_2)v(A_3)v(a_3).$$
(21)
Eq. (21) has no solution because $`B_2`$, $`b_2`$, $`A_3`$, and $`a_3`$ can take only the values $`1`$ and $`+1`$. We therefore conclude that the predictions of quantum theory for these events cannot be reproduced with any classical local model based on EPR criterion of elements of reality.

As a close examination will reveal, a similar contradiction can be found every time the product of the results of (Alice’s measurements) $`A_1A_3`$, $`a_1a_3`$ (and of Bob’s measurements), $`B_2b_4`$, and $`b_2B_4`$ is $`1`$, and there is no contradiction if the product is $`+1`$. In principle, there are 16 possible outcomes; in eight of them, the product is $`+1`$, and in the other eight, the product is $`1`$. It would therefore be interesting to calculate the probability of occurrence of each of the 16 possible outcomes. The results of these calculations (which will be explained in more detail later) are in Table I. Surprisingly, as a scrutiny of Table I shows, only those events in which the product of the results of $`A_1A_3`$, $`a_1a_3`$, $`B_2b_4`$, and $`b_2B_4`$ is $`1`$ have a nonzero probability to occur. That is, only those results that cannot be described with local models occur. Therefore, according to the predictions of quantum mechanics, all the events of the experiment in which Alice measures $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$, while Bob measures $`B_2b_4`$ and $`b_2B_4`$, cannot be reproduced with any local model.

This argument exhibits a similar logical structure to Hardy’s. Both require a series of experiments to establish that all the outcomes that never happen (or always happen) are indeed never (or always) found. In our case, these experiments are those to test quantum predictions (3)-(10). Having done that, and having drawn inferences based on EPR criterion, both arguments come to a crucial experiment. In Hardy’s crucial experiment a maximum of 9% of the runs  (or almost 50% in its “ladder” version ) yield results that are in contradiction with the EPR inferences. In the proof presented here the crucial experiment is the one whose results are in Table I. According to quantum mechanics, all the runs of this experiment yield results that are in contradiction with the EPR inferences.

The fact that the contradiction occurs in all the runs resembles the four-particle version of the proof of Bell’s theorem by GHZ . However, GHZ’s proof is not based on the state (2) but in a “GHZ state” of four qubits. The main difference is that while in the GHZ argument, any EPR inference on one qubit requires a measurement on the other three qubits; in our argument, the EPR inferences on Alice’s qubits require only measurements on Bob’s qubits, that is, while GHZ need to consider four (or three, in the three-particle version ) different combinations of two spacelike separated regions, the argument presented here needs only two spacelike separated regions.

Let us now prove properties (7)-(12). For instance, property (7) is true if and only if

$$P_\psi \left(A_1A_3=+1\right)>0,$$
(22)
and

$$P_\psi \left(A_1A_3=+1,B_2=B_4\right)=0.$$
(23)
Condition (22) is fulfilled because $`P_\psi \left(A_1A_3=+1\right)=\frac{1}{2}`$. Condition (23) is also fulfilled because the left hand side of Eq. (23) can be written as

$`P_\psi `$ $`\left(A_1A_3=+1,B_2=+1,B_4=1\right)+`$ (24)
$`P_\psi `$ $`\left(A_1A_3=+1,B_2=1,B_4=+1\right)=`$ (29)
$`P_\psi \left(A_1=+1,A_3=+1,B_2=+1,B_4=1\right)+`$
$`P_\psi \left(A_1=1,A_3=1,B_2=+1,B_4=1\right)+`$
$`P_\psi \left(A_1=+1,A_3=+1,B_2=1,B_4=+1\right)+`$
$`P_\psi \left(A_1=1,A_3=1,B_2=1,B_4=+1\right),`$
where the four probabilities appearing at the right hand side of Eq. (29) are zero, due to the properties (3) and (5). Similar arguments allow us to prove properties (8)-(10).

To demonstrate property (12), it will be useful to calculate the set of common vectors of $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$, and the set of common vectors of $`B_2b_4`$ and $`b_2B_4`$. The common eigenvectors of $`\sigma _z\sigma _z`$ and $`\sigma _x\sigma _x`$ are the Bell states

$`|\varphi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|00\pm |11\right),`$ (30)
$`|\psi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|01\pm |10\right).`$ (31)
These Bell states satisfy the following equations:

$`\sigma _z\sigma _z|\varphi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|\varphi ^\pm ,`$ (32)
$`\sigma _x\sigma _x|\varphi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm |\varphi ^\pm ,`$ (33)
$`\sigma _z\sigma _z|\psi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|\psi ^\pm ,`$ (34)
$`\sigma _x\sigma _x|\psi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm |\psi ^\pm .`$ (35)
The common eigenvectors of $`\sigma _z\sigma _x`$ and $`\sigma _x\sigma _z`$ are the Bell states

$`|\chi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|0\overline{0}\pm |1\overline{1}\right),`$ (36)
$`|\omega ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(|1\overline{0}\pm |0\overline{1}\right),`$ (37)
where $`\sigma _x|\overline{0}=|\overline{0}`$ and $`\sigma _x|\overline{1}=|\overline{1}`$. These Bell states satisfy the following equations:

$`\sigma _z\sigma _x|\chi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|\chi ^\pm ,`$ (38)
$`\sigma _x\sigma _z|\chi ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm |\chi ^\pm ,`$ (39)
$`\sigma _z\sigma _x|\omega ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`|\omega ^\pm ,`$ (40)
$`\sigma _x\sigma _z|\omega ^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\pm |\omega ^\pm .`$ (41)
Therefore, the probability appearing in Eq. (12) can be calculated as the probability of finding the common eigenvector of $`\sigma _{z1}\sigma _{z3}`$, $`\sigma _{x1}\sigma _{x3}`$, $`\sigma _{z2}\sigma _{x4}`$, and $`\sigma _{x2}\sigma _{z4}`$, with eigenvalues $`+1`$, $`+1`$, $`+1`$, and $`1`$, respectively; that is

$$P=\left|\varphi ^+\chi ^{}|\psi _{1324}\right|^2,$$
(42)
where $`\varphi ^+\chi ^{}|=\varphi ^+|_{13}\chi ^{}|_{24}`$, and $`|\psi _{1324}`$ is the state defined in (2), after permuting qubits 2 and 3. To calculate $`P`$ it is useful to express the state (2) as

$`|\psi _{1324}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{2}}}\left(\right|\varphi ^+\chi ^{}+|\varphi ^+\omega ^+|\varphi ^{}\chi ^+`$ (45)
$`+|\varphi ^{}\omega ^{}|\psi ^+\chi ^+|\psi ^+\omega ^{}`$
$`+|\psi ^{}\chi ^{}|\psi ^{}\omega ^+).`$
Then is easy to obtain that $`P=\frac{1}{8}`$. A similar reasoning leads to each of the probabilities appearing in Table I.

These probabilities can also be obtained by realizing that a measurement of $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$ is equivalent to a measurement of the Bell operator whose eigenvectors are the Bell states $`\{|\varphi ^\pm ,|\psi ^\pm \}`$ on particles 1 and 3. Such measurement induces, via “entanglement swapping” , that particles 2 and 4 collapse to the same Bell state as particles 1 and 3. For instance, Alice cannot obtain $`A_1A_3=+1`$ and $`a_1a_3=+1`$ (which is equivalent to obtaining $`|\varphi ^+_{13}`$) while Bob obtains $`B_2b_4=+1`$ and $`b_2B_4=+1`$ (which is equivalent to obtaining $`|\chi ^+_{24}`$), because $`|\varphi ^+_{24}`$ (the state induced by entanglement swapping) is orthogonal to $`|\chi ^+_{24}`$ .

The proof of Bell’s theorem presented here can be translated into real experiments in the same way as Hardy’s proof can. An experiment to test Hardy’s proof consists in preparing a source of the required states and performing several tests of the required properties . The same strategy applies here. The source must prepare four qubits in the state (2), and we must then test properties (3)-(12) separately. From a theoretical point of view, the only difficulty lies on testing property (12), since it involves a joint measurement of $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$, and a joint measurement of $`B_2b_4`$ and $`b_2B_4`$. However, as seen above, a joint measurement of $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$ ($`B_2b_4`$ and $`b_2B_4`$) is equivalent to measuring a Bell operator whose eigenvectors are the Bell states $`\{|\varphi ^\pm ,|\psi ^\pm \}`$ ($`\{|\chi ^\pm ,|\omega ^\pm \}`$). Indeed, since no complete discrimination between the four Bell states is needed to obtain an event which cannot be explained with local models (it is enough to detect, for instance, $`|\varphi ^+_{13}`$ and $`|\chi ^{}_{24}`$), then previous set-ups to distinguish between two of the four Bell states in the case of photons entangled in polarization , can be used for this purpose.

If a complete discrimination between the four Bell states $`\{|\varphi ^\pm ,|\psi ^\pm \}`$ ($`\{|\chi ^\pm ,|\omega ^\pm \}`$) were possible (for some proposals, see ), it would be interesting to experimentally verify the predictions of quantum mechanics contained in Table I. That is, to verify whether, out of the 16 possible results of the experiment in which Alice measures $`A_1A_3`$ and $`a_1a_3`$, and Bob measures $`B_2b_4`$ and $`b_2B_4`$ on the state given by Eq. (2), only those eight that are unexplainable with local models have a nonzero probability to occur.

I thank David Mermin and Asher Peres for their stimulating comments on an earlier version and their valuable suggestions for its improvement.


text:
# The Witten genus and equivariant elliptic cohomology

## 1. Introduction

Let $`𝕋`$ denote the circle group. If $`X`$ is a $`𝕋`$-space, let $`X_𝕋`$ denote the Borel construction $`E𝕋\times _𝕋X`$. Let $`H_𝕋`$ denote Borel $`𝕋`$-equivariant ordinary cohomology with complex coefficients. Choose a generator of the complex character group of $`𝕋`$ and so an isomorphism

$$H_𝕋(pt)[z].$$

Suppose that $`\tau `$ is a complex number with positive imaginary part. Consider the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\pi i+2\pi i\tau `$, and let $`C=/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the associated elliptic curve. Grojnowski (\[Gro94\]; see also \[Ros99, GKV95\]) has defined a $`𝕋`$-equivariant elliptic cohomology functor $`E`$ from compact $`𝕋`$-spaces to sheaves of algebras over $`𝒪_C`$, equipped with a canonical isomorphism

$$E(X)_0H_𝕋(X)_{[z]}𝒪_{C}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}$$

of stalks at the identity of $`C`$. (For similar constructions for $`K`$-theory see \[BBM85, DV93, BG94, RK99\].)

The parameter $`\tau `$ determines a sigma function $`\sigma =\sigma (z,\tau )`$; it is an odd holomorphic function of $`z`$ which vanishes to first order at the points of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; see §5.1. Its Taylor expansion at the origin determines a Thom class $`\varphi (V)_𝕋H_𝕋(V,V_0)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{C}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}`$ for any oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundle $`V`$, which we call the “equivariant $`\sigma `$-orientation”. The associated genus is the Witten genus (\[AHS98\]; see also §5.1).

If $`V`$ is a vector bundle over a compact space $`X`$, then we define $`E(V)`$ to be the reduced $`E`$-cohomology of the Thom space $`X^V`$; it is a sheaf of $`E(X)`$-modules, called the Thom sheaf of $`V`$. If $`V`$ is a spin $`𝕋`$-vector bundle, then (see Proposition 3.10) $`E(V)`$ is an invertible sheaf of $`E(X)`$-modules. More generally, if $`W`$ is a virtual spin $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over $`X`$, then there are genuine spin $`𝕋`$-vector bundles $`T`$ and $`V`$ such that $`W=VT`$, and we may define $`E(VT)`$ to be the invertible sheaf

$$E(W)=E(T)^1_{E(X)}E(V),$$

as the right-hand-side is independent of $`V`$ and $`T`$ up to canonical isomorphism (see §3).

We recall that if $`W`$ is a virtual spin vector bundle over $`X`$, then there is a characteristic class $`\frac{p_1}{2}(W)H^4(X;)`$, twice which is the first Pontrjagin class. Our main result is the construction of a Thom class in $`E`$-theory.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Suppose that $`𝕋`$ acts non-trivially on a compact smooth manifold $`M`$. Suppose that $`W`$ is an virtual spin $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over $`M`$ such that

$`w_2(W_𝕋)`$ $`=0`$ (1.2a)
$`\frac{p_1}{2}(W_𝕋)`$ $`=0.`$ (1.2b)
Then the invertible sheaf of $`E(X)`$-modules $`E(W)`$ has a global section $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, whose stalk at the origin is the equivariant $`\sigma `$-orientation.

In the Theorem we have used the fact that the map $`VV_𝕋`$, which sends a $`𝕋`$-vector bundle to its Borel construction, defines a homomorphism $`KO_T(X)KO(X_𝕋)`$. We have also used the fact that the Whitney sum formula implies that the second Stiefel-Whitney class is well-defined for oriented virtual vector bundles, and the class $`\frac{p_1}{2}`$ is well-defined for virtual bundles with $`w_2=0`$. More precisely, we have maps of infinite loop spaces

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}BSpin& & BSO& \stackrel{w_2}{}& K(/2,2)\\ \frac{p_1}{2}& & \\ K(,4),\end{array}$$

in which the row is a fibration.

Now consider the case that $`W=VT`$, where $`T`$ is the tangent space of $`M`$. If $`T`$ is spin so that Proposition 3.10 defines $`E(T)`$, then the Pontrjagin-Thom construction provides a map of sheaves

$$E(VT)\stackrel{\zeta ^{}}{}E(T)\stackrel{PT}{}E()𝒪_C,$$

where $`\zeta `$ is the relative zero section. The class $`PT\zeta ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })_0`$ is the equivariant Witten genus of $`M`$ twisted by $`V`$ (see §5.1). Since $`PT\zeta ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is a global section of $`𝒪_C`$, the twisted Witten genus is “rigid”:

###### Corollary 1.3.

If $`T`$ is the tangent bundle of $`M`$, the characteristic classes of $`VT`$ satisfy (1.2), and $`T`$ (and so also $`V`$) is spin, then the equivariant Witten genus of $`M`$ twisted by $`V`$ is constant.

This result was discovered by Witten, who gave a physical proof in \[Wit87\]. The first mathematical proofs were given by Taubes and Bott-Taubes \[Tau89, BT89\]. Subsequently Kefeng Liu gave a shorter proof and found many new cases \[Liu94, Liu95b, Liu95a, GL96, Liu96a, Liu96b\].

Besides giving an appealing relationship with equivariant elliptic cohomology, our construction has the virtue of axiomatizing the properties of the $`\sigma `$-function on which it depends. We construct global sections of $`E(W)`$ for a class of theta functions described in §4; Theorem 1.1 is a special case of Theorem 6.1.

We were led to the theta functions of §4 by the work of Hopkins, Strickland, and the first author. A theta function such as we consider descends to a “$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ structure” on the elliptic curve $`C`$, in the sense of \[Bre83\]. Ando-Hopkins-Strickland have shown that, if $`E`$ is a (non-equivariant) elliptic cohomology theory with elliptic curve $`C`$, then maps of ring spectra $`MO8E`$ are given by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ structures on the ideal sheaf $`_{\widehat{C}}(0)`$ of the origin in the formal group $`\widehat{C}`$ of $`C`$.

The Weierstrass $`\sigma `$-function given in §5.1 descends to the unique $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ structure on the ideal sheaf $`_C(0)`$, and so gives a $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ structure on $`_{\widehat{C}}(0)`$ by restriction. It follows that the $`\sigma `$-orientation is the *unique natural* orientation from $`MO8`$ to elliptic spectra. Theorem 1.1 establishes a fundamental relationship between these results and the rigidity theorems for equivariant elliptic genera. It seems reasonable to hope that a (rational) equivariant analogue of the methods of \[AHS98\] will produce a functorial equivariant $`MO8`$ orientation to the rational equivariant elliptic spectra of Greenlees, Hopkins, and Rosu \[GHR99\], without the elaborate calculations given below. We will return to that problem in another paper.

This paper was also inspired by the work of Haynes Miller and Ioanid Rosu \[Mil89, Ros99\] . Miller proposed, before even Grojnowski’s functor was available, that an uncompleted equivariant elliptic cohomology should offer a proof of the rigidity theorems. Rosu and the first author observed that the rigidity theorems follow from the existence of a global section of the Thom sheaf in Grojnowski’s theory. Rosu constructed a Thom class whose value at the origin gives the Ochanine genus. In fact, he showed that the “transfer” argument of Bott and Taubes is the essential ingredient in the construction of the Thom section. The rigidity of the Ochanine genus and Rosu’s analysis require only that the bundles in question be spin bundles of even rank. This paper represents a first attempt to understand the Thom classes whose rigidity require the restrictions (1.2).

In fact Theorems 1.1 and 6.1 really only require

$`w_2(W_𝕋)`$ $`=0`$
$`p_1(W_𝕋)`$ $`=0,`$
as one can see by investigating the use of these conditions in §8: the vanishing of $`\frac{p_1}{2}(W_𝕋)`$ is used only in rational expressions. Indeed Liu \[Liu96b\] has shown that Corollary 1.3 holds without any condition on $`w_2(W_𝕋)`$. The vanishing of $`w_2(W_𝕋)`$ seems to be necessary for Theorem 1.1, and the full conditions (1.2) will certainly be required for any natural equivariant $`MO8`$ orientation to the category of equivariant elliptic spectra.

This can already be seen in §7, where we investigate the situation in the case that $`W`$ is a virtual complex representation of $`𝕋`$ (so $`M`$ is a point). In that case too only the condition $`p_1(W_𝕋)=0`$ is required to construct a global section of $`E(W)`$. However, we do choose a generator $`z`$ of the character group of $`𝕋`$. The section of $`E(W)`$ we construct is independent of this choice only when $`w_2(W_𝕋)=0`$.

Our formulation leads to proofs of many of the rigidity theorems in the literature, including the other genera considered in \[Wit87, BT89\] and the twisted loop group genera of \[Liu94\]. In the interest of brevity, we shall return to these issues at another time.

## 2. Equivariant elliptic cohomology

In this section, we briefly review Grojnowski’s equivariant elliptic cohomology, following \[Gro94\] and \[Ros99\]. Given a complex elliptic curve $`C/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we shall describe a functor $`E`$ from compact $`𝕋`$-spaces to sheaves of $`/2`$-graded analytic $`𝒪_C`$-algebras. The construction uses the analytic covering

$$C$$

to assemble $`E(X)`$ from the complex $`𝕋`$-equivariant cohomology of $`X`$.

### 2.1. The elliptic curve

We fix a complex elliptic curve $`C`$ over $``$, with an analytic isomorphism

$$C/\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

We write $`\pi `$ for the covering map

$$\stackrel{𝜋}{}C.$$

If $`V`$ is an open set in a complex analytic variety, then we write $`𝒪_V`$ for the sheaf of holomorphic functions on $`V`$, and $`_V`$ for the sheaf of meromorphic functions.

Both $``$ and $`C`$ are abelian topological groups. If $`G`$ is an abelian topological group and $`gG`$, then we write $`\tau _g`$ for the translation map; and if $`VG`$ is an open set, then we write

$$Vg\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}\tau _g(V).$$

###### Definition 2.1.

An open set $`U`$ of $`C`$ is *small* if $`\pi ^1U`$ is a disjoint union of connected components $`V`$ such that $`\pi |_V:VU`$ is an isomorphism.

If $`U`$ is small and $`V`$ is a component of $`\pi ^1U`$, then the covering map induces an isomorphism

$$(\pi |_V)_{}𝒪_V𝒪_U.$$

In particular, if $`U`$ contains the origin of $`C`$, then there is a unique component $`V`$ of $`\pi ^1U`$ containing $`0`$. This determines a $`[z]`$-algebra structure on $`𝒪_U`$, and a $`[z,z^1]`$-algebra structure on $`𝒪_U|_{U\backslash 0}.`$

### 2.2. Adapted open cover of an elliptic curve

Now suppose that $`X`$ is a compact $`𝕋`$-manifold. If $`a`$ is a point of $`C`$, then we define

$$X^a=\{\begin{array}{cc}X^{𝕋[k]}\hfill & a\text{ is of order exactly }k\text{ in }C\hfill \\ X^𝕋\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`N1`$ be an integer.

###### Definition 2.2.

A point $`aC`$ is *special to level* $`N`$ for $`X`$ if $`X^{Na}X^𝕋`$.

If $`V`$ is a $`𝕋`$-bundle over a compact $`𝕋`$-space $`X`$, then it is convenient to consider a few additional points to be special. For each component $`F`$ of $`X^𝕋`$, there are integers $`m_j`$ and an isomorphism of real $`𝕋`$-vector bundles

$$V|_FV(0)+V(m_j)^{}.$$

Here $`V(0)`$ is the summand of $`V|_F`$ on which $`𝕋`$ acts trivially, $`V(m_j)`$ is a complex vector bundle on which $`z𝕋`$ acts by fiberwise by multiplication by the complex number $`z^{m_j}`$, and if $`W`$ is a complex vector bundle we write $`W^{}`$ for the underlying real vector bundle. The $`m_j`$ are called *exponents* or *rotation numbers* of $`V`$ at $`F`$. Let $`V^+`$ denote the one-point compactification of $`V`$.

###### Definition 2.3.

A point $`a`$ in $`C`$ is *special to level* $`N`$ for $`V`$ if it is special for $`V^+`$ or if for some component $`F`$ of $`X^T`$ there is a rotation number $`m_j`$ of $`V`$ such that $`m_jNa=0`$.

In any case, for fixed $`N`$ the set of points which are special to level $`N`$ is a finite subset of the torsion subgroup of $`C`$. Mostly we shall fix an $`N`$, and say simply that $`a`$ is special.

###### Definition 2.4.

An indexed open cover $`\{U_a\}_{aC}`$ of $`C`$ is *adapted to* $`X`$ or $`V`$ (*to level $`N`$*) if it satisfies the following.

1. $`a`$ is contained in $`U_a`$ for all $`aC`$.
2. If $`a`$ is special and $`ab`$, then $`aU_aU_b`$.
3. If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are both special and $`ab`$, then the intersection $`U_aU_b`$ is empty.
4. If $`b`$ is ordinary, then $`U_aU_b`$ is non-empty for at most one special $`a`$.
5. Each $`U_a`$ is small.

###### Lemma 2.5.

$`C`$ has an adapted open cover, and any two adapted open covers have a common refinement. ∎

### 2.3. Equivariant cohomology

We write $`H_𝕋`$ for Borel $`𝕋`$-equivariant ordinary cohomology with complex coefficients: so if $`X`$ is a $`𝕋`$-space then

$$H_𝕋^{}(X)=H^{}(X_𝕋;).$$

We choose a generator of the character group of $`𝕋`$, and write $`z`$ for the resulting generator of $`H^2(B𝕋;)`$; this gives a generator of $`H_𝕋^2()`$ which we also call $`z`$. We shall often write $`H_𝕋`$ for the ring $`H_𝕋^{}()[z]`$. Moreover we shall consider $`H_𝕋`$ to be a subring of the ring $`𝒪_{}()`$ of global analytic functions on $``$, by considering $`z:`$ to be the identity map.

We recall \[Qui71\] that $`H_𝕋`$ satisfies a localization theorem.

###### Theorem 2.6.

If $`X`$ has the homotopy type of a finite $`𝕋`$-CW complex (e.g. if $`X`$ is a compact $`𝕋`$-manifold), then the natural map

$$H_𝕋(X)\stackrel{}{}H_𝕋(X^𝕋)$$

induces an isomorphism

$$H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}[z,z^1]H_𝕋(X^𝕋)\underset{[z]}{}[z,z^1].$$

### 2.4. Elliptic cohomology of a space

The equivariant elliptic cohomology of $`X`$ is a sheaf of $`𝒪_C`$-algebras over $`C`$. We shall describe it as follows. Let $`\{U_a\}_{aC}`$ be an adapted open cover of $`C`$. We first describe sheaves $`E(X)_a`$ over $`U_a`$ for each $`a`$, and then we assemble these into a sheaf $`E(X)`$ over all of $`C`$.

For each $`aC`$, we define an sheaf of $`𝒪_C|_{U_a}`$-algebras by the formula

$$E(X)_a(U)=H_𝕋(X^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)$$
(2.7)
for $`UU_a`$. Here $`𝒪_C(Ua)`$ is a $`[z]`$-algebra via the $`[z]`$-structure on $`𝒪_C|_{U_aa}`$. The ring $`𝒪_C(U)`$ acts by the formula

$$g(xy)=xy\tau _a^{}g.$$

If $`ab`$ and $`U_aU_b`$ is not empty, then by the definition (2.4) of an adapted cover, at least one of $`U_a`$ and $`U_b`$, suppose $`U_b`$, contains no special point. In particular we have $`X^b=X^𝕋`$ and so an isomorphism of $`[z]`$-algebras

$$H_𝕋(X^b)H^{}(X^b)\underset{}{}[z].$$
(2.8)
###### Lemma 2.9.

If $`UU_aU_b`$, and $`b`$ is not special, then the inclusion

$$i:X^b\stackrel{}{}X^a$$

induces an isomorphism

$$H_𝕋(X^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\stackrel{i^{}1}{}H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua).$$

###### Proof.

If $`a`$ is not special, then $`X^a=X^b`$ and the result is obvious. If $`a`$ is special, then it is not contained in $`U`$ (by the definition of an adapted cover), and so $`0`$ is not contained in $`Ua`$. In particular, $`z`$ is a unit in $`𝒪_C(Ua)`$. The localization theorem (2.6) gives the result. ∎

We then define an isomorphism

$$\varphi _{ab}:E(X)_a|_{U_aU_b}\stackrel{}{}E(X)_b|_{U_aU_b}$$

of sheaves over $`U_aU_b`$ as the composition (for $`UU_aU_b`$)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill H_𝕋(X^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)& \stackrel{i^{}1}{}H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{}{}H^{}(X^b)\underset{}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{1\tau _{ba}}{}H^{}(X^b)\underset{}{}𝒪_C(Ub)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{}{}H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ub).\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.10)
The first map is an isomorphism by Lemma 2.9. The rest of the isomorphisms are tautologies, although some use the isomorphism (2.8).

The cocycle condition

$$\varphi _{bc}\varphi _{ab}=\varphi _{ac}$$

needs to be checked only when two of $`a,b,c`$ are not special; and in that case it follows easily from the equation

$$\tau _{cb}\tau _{ba}=\tau _{ca}.$$

We shall write $`E(X)`$ for the resulting sheaf over $`C`$. One then has the following. It was certainly known to Grojnowski \[Gro94\], but for a detailed account the reader may wish to consult \[Ros99\].

###### Proposition 2.11.

The sheaf $`E(X)`$ is a sheaf of analytic $`𝒪_C`$-algebras, which is independent up to canonical isomorphism of the choice of adapted open cover. ∎

Note that the construction (2.7) implies that there is a canonical isomorphism

$$E(X)_aH_𝕋(X^a)_{[z]}𝒪_{C}^{}{}_{a}{}^{}$$
(2.12)
of stalks at $`a`$, as promised in the introduction.

## 3. Elliptic cohomology of vector bundles

### 3.1. Orientations

Let $`HP`$ denote *even periodic* cohomology, that is

$$HP^{}(X)=H^{}(X;[u,u^1]),$$

where $`|u|=2`$. A power series

$$f(z)=z+\text{ higher terms}HP^2(B𝕋)[[z]]$$

satisfying

$$f(z)=f(z)$$

determines an orientation

$$\varphi :MSOHP,$$

characterized by the property that if $`L`$ is a complex line bundle, then its Euler class is $`f(c_1L)`$.

If $`V`$ is a vector bundle, we write $`\varphi (V)HP(V)=HP(X^V)`$ for the resulting Thom class. It is *multiplicative*, in the sense that

$$\varphi (V\widehat{}W)=\varphi (V)\varphi (W)$$
(3.1)
under the isomorphism

$$(X\times Y)^{VW}X^VY^W.$$

### 3.2. Equivariant characteristic classes

If $`c`$ is a characteristic class of vector bundles and $`V`$ is a $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over a space $`𝕋`$-space $`X`$, then we write

$$c(V)_𝕋\stackrel{\text{def}}{=}c(V_𝕋),$$

provided that makes sense. We refer to $`c()_𝕋`$ as the “equivariant characteristic class” associated to $`c`$. For example, if $`V`$ is oriented, then so is $`V_𝕋`$, and so

$$Vw_2(V)_𝕋$$

is a characteristic class of oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundles.

If the class $`c`$ is additive, then we may similarly define $`c(W)_𝕋`$ when $`W`$ is a *virtual* vector bundle. For example, if $`W`$ is an oriented virtual $`𝕋`$-bundle then we may write

$$W=VV^{}$$

where $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundles; the quantity

$$w_2(W)_𝕋=w_2(V)_𝕋w_2(V^{})_𝕋;$$

is easily seen to be independent of the choice of oriented $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$. Similarly, if $`W`$ is any virtual complex vector bundle, then

$$c_1(W)_𝕋=c_1(V)_𝕋c_1(V^{})_𝕋$$

if

$$W=VV^{}$$

in $`K_𝕋(X)`$.

The equivariant Thom isomorphism provides another example. If

$$MSO\stackrel{\mathit{\varphi }}{}HP$$

is an orientation and

$$W=VV^{}$$

where $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundles, then we write

$$\varphi (W)_𝕋HP_𝕋(X^W)HP_𝕋(X^V)\underset{HP_𝕋(X)}{}HP_𝕋(X^V^{})^1$$

for the resulting Thom class; and this is independent of the choice of oriented $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$.

We will use the notation $`e_\varphi `$ for the *equivariant* Euler class associated to $`\varphi `$: so if $`V`$ is an oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over $`X`$ then

$$e_\varphi (V)=\zeta ^{}(\varphi (V)_𝕋)HP_𝕋(X),$$

where

$$\zeta :XX^V$$

is the zero section.

### 3.3. Analytic orientations

Let

$$\varphi :MSOHP$$

be an orientation determined by a power series $`f`$ as in § 3.1.

###### Definition 3.2.

The orientation $`\varphi `$ is *analytic* if $`f`$ is contained in the subring $`𝒪_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}[[z]]`$ of germs of holomorphic functions at $`0`$; equivalently, if there is a neighborhood $`U`$ of $`0`$ in $``$ on which the power series $`f`$ converges to a holomorphic function.

The basic fact about analytic orientations is the following.

###### Proposition 3.3 (\[Ros99\]).

If $`\varphi `$ is analytic and $`V`$ is an oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over a compact $`𝕋`$-space $`X`$, then the equivariant Euler class $`e_\varphi `$ associated to $`\varphi `$ satisfies

$$e_\varphi (V)H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denotes the standard Thom isomorphism, then

$$\varphi (V)_𝕋=\frac{e_\varphi (V)}{e_\mathrm{\Phi }(V)}\mathrm{\Phi }(V)_𝕋,$$

and the ratio of Euler classes is a unit in $`H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}.`$ Of course multiplication by $`\mathrm{\Phi }(V)_𝕋`$ induces an isomorphism

$$H_𝕋(X)H_𝕋(V),$$

and so we have the following

###### Corollary 3.4.

There is a neighborhood $`U`$ of the origin in $``$ such that

$$\varphi (V)_𝕋H_𝕋(V)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{}(U),$$

and such that multiplication by this class induces an isomorphism of sheaves

$$H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_U\underset{}{\overset{\mathit{\varphi }}{}}H_𝕋(V)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_U.$$

In other words, for every open set $`U^{}U`$, multiplication by $`\varphi (V)_𝕋`$ induces an isomorphism

$$H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{}(U^{})\underset{}{\overset{\mathit{\varphi }}{}}H_𝕋(V)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{}(U^{}).$$

###### Definition 3.5.

Let $`V`$ be a $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over a compact $`𝕋`$-manifold $`X`$, and let $`\varphi `$ be a multiplicative analytic orientation. An indexed open cover $`\{U_a\}_{aC}`$ of $`C`$ is *adapted to the pair* $`(V,\varphi )`$ to level $`N`$ if it is adapted to $`V`$ to level $`N`$ (see Definition 2.4), and if for every point $`aC`$, the equivariant Thom class $`\varphi (V^a)`$ induces an isomorphism

$$H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{U_aa}\underset{}{\overset{\mathit{\varphi }}{}}H_𝕋(V^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{U_aa}.$$

### 3.4. Cohomology of the Thom space

Now suppose that $`V`$ is a $`𝕋`$ vector bundle over $`X`$. Let $`E(V)`$ denote the reduced equivariant elliptic cohomology of the one-point compactification of $`V`$. In the case that $`V`$ is spin, we give an explicit cocycle which exhibits $`E(V)`$ as an invertible sheaf of $`E(X)`$-modules. The main tool which makes this possible is the following.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`V`$ be a $`\mathrm{Spin}`$ $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over $`X`$. For all $`n`$, the fixed bundle $`V^{𝕋[n]}`$ over $`X^{𝕋[n]}`$ is orientable (that is, it has a Thom isomorphism in ordinary cohomology with integer coefficients).

###### Proof.

If the rank $`V`$ is even, this is Lemma 10.1 in \[BT89\]. If the rank of $`V`$ is odd, then we may apply that lemma to $`V^{}=V`$. ∎

Suppose then that $`V`$ is a Spin $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over $`X`$. Let $`\varphi `$ be a multiplicative analytic orientation. Let $`e`$ be the associated (equivariant) Euler class. We define a class $`[\varphi ,V]H^1(C;E(X)^\times )`$ as follows. Choose an open cover adapted to the pair $`(V,\varphi )`$. Suppose that $`a,b`$ are two points of $`C`$, such that $`U_aU_b`$ is non-empty: we may suppose that $`b`$ is not special. Suppose that $`UU_aU_b`$. Recall that there is an isomorphism (2.10)

$$E(X)(U)H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua).$$

For each special point $`a`$ of $`C`$, choose an orientation on $`V^a`$ and on $`V^𝕋`$; we may do so by Lemma 3.6. This gives equivariant euler classes $`e(V^a)`$ for $`aC`$.

###### Lemma 3.7.

There is a unit $`e(a,b)E(X)(U)`$ such that $`e(V^b)e(a,b)=e(V^a|_{X^b})`$. Moreover we have

$$e(a,a)=1$$

for all $`a`$, and

$$e(a,b)e(b,c)=e(a,c)$$
(3.8)
whenever that makes sense.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality we may suppose that $`V^b=V^𝕋`$. If in addition $`V^a=V^𝕋`$, then $`e(a,b)=1`$. Otherwise, we have $`aU`$ so $`0Ua`$, and so $`z`$ is a unit in $`𝒪_C(Ua)`$. On each component $`F`$ of $`X^b`$, there are integers $`m_j0`$ and complex vector bundles $`V(m_j)`$ over $`F`$ such that

$$V^a|_F=V^b|_F_{m_j}V(m_j)^{}.$$

Here $`𝕋`$ acts on $`V(m_j)`$ fiberwise by the character $`uu^{m_j}`$.

Let $`f(z)=z+\text{higher terms}`$ be the characteristic series of the orientation $`\varphi `$, so that

$$e(L)=f(c_1L)$$

for $`L`$ a complex line bundle. Let $`x_{j,1},\mathrm{},x_{j,d_j}`$ be the roots of the total Chern class of $`V(m_j)`$. Since $`F`$ is compact, the $`x_{i,j}`$ are nilpotent. It suffices to check that $`e(a,b)|_F`$ is a unit modulo nilpotents in $`H(F)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)`$. We have

$`e(a,b)|_F`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f(m_jz+x_{j,i})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}f(m_jx)`$
$`({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}m_j^{d_j})z^{{\scriptscriptstyle d_j}}(1+\text{higher terms in }z),`$
where the equivalences are modulo nilpotents. The result follows, since the $`m_j`$ are non-zero and $`z`$ is a unit in $`𝒪_C(Ua)`$.

The cocycle condition (3.8) is easy, because as usual the equation needs only to be verified when at most one of $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ is special. ∎

Let $`[\varphi ,V]H^1(C;E(X)^\times )`$ be the cohomology class defined by the $`e(a,b)`$. Let $`E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}`$ denote the resulting invertible sheaf of $`E(X)`$-modules over $`C.`$ Explicitly, the sheaf $`E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}`$ is assembled from the sheaves

$$E(X)_a(U)=H_𝕋(X^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)$$

over $`U_a`$, using the sequence of isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill E_a(X)(U)& H_𝕋(X^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{i^{}1}{}H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{e(a,b)}{}H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\hfill \\ & H^{}(X^b)\underset{}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{1\tau _{ba}^{}}{}H^{}(X^b)\underset{}{}𝒪_C(Ub)\hfill \\ & H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ub)\hfill \\ & E_b(X)(U)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.9)
as transition functions to assemble a sheaf over $`C`$.

It will be important in §6 that we allowed the orientation of $`V^𝕋`$ to vary with the special point $`a`$. In fact, the resulting sheaf $`E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}`$ is independent of the choices, up to canonical isomorphism.

###### Proposition 3.10.

If $`V`$ is a $`spin`$ $`𝕋`$-bundle, then the Thom isomorphism $`\varphi `$ induces an isomorphism

$$E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}E(V)$$

of sheaves of $`E(X)`$-modules.

###### Proof.

Choose a cover adapted to $`X`$ and the pair $`(V,\varphi )`$. Suppose that $`UU_aU_b`$, $`a`$ is special, and $`b`$ is not. Then the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_𝕋(X^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& H_𝕋(V^a)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\\ e(a,b)i^{}& & i^{}& & \\ H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& H_𝕋(V^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ua)\\ 1\tau _{ba}^{}& & 1\tau _{ba}^{}& & \\ H_𝕋(X^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ub)& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& H_𝕋(V^b)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(Ub)\end{array}$$

commutes (all the arrows are isomorphisms). The left column describes the sheaf $`E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}`$, while the right column describes $`E(V)`$. ∎

Now suppose that $`W`$ is a *virtual* $`𝕋`$-bundle. We may write

$$W=VT$$
(3.11)
with $`V`$ and $`T`$ genuine $`𝕋`$-bundles of even rank. We also clearly have

$$W=(V+3T)4T,$$

and it is easy to check that

$`w_1(4T)_𝕋`$ $`=0`$
$`w_2(4T)_𝕋`$ $`=0`$
$`w_1(V+3T)_𝕋`$ $`=w_1(W)_𝕋`$
$`w_2(V+3T)_𝕋`$ $`=w_2(W)_𝕋.`$
Thus if $`W`$ is a virtual spin bundle, then we may require that $`V`$ and $`T`$ are spin bundles of even rank. If

$$W=VT=V^{}T^{}$$

with $`V`$, $`V^{}`$, $`T`$, and $`T^{}`$ spin bundles of even rank, then

$$V=V^{}\pm D$$

where $`D`$ is a spin bundle. It follows that we may define $`E(W)`$ to be the invertible sheaf

$$E(W)=E(T)^1\underset{E(X)}{}E(V).$$

As above, we can as construct a class $`[\varphi ,VT]H^1(C,E(X)^\times )`$, equipped with a canonical isomorphism

$$E(W)E(X)^{[\varphi ,VT]}.$$

## 4. Theta functions

The orientations in this paper will arise as the Taylor expansions of certain meromorphic $`\theta `$ functions. The $`\theta `$ functions we consider are a special case of those considered in \[Mum70, Ch. I\], except that Mumford considers only holomorphic functions.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be a lattice. By a *theta function* for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ we mean a meromorphic function $`\theta :`$ with the following properties. First, there is an integer $`N`$ such that the zeroes and poles of $`\theta `$ are contained in $`N^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Second, there are functions

$`\gamma :\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $``$
$`c:\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`\{\pm 1\}`$
such that, for all $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`z`$, we have

$`\theta (z)`$ $`=\theta (z)`$ (4.1a)
$`\theta (0)`$ $`=0`$ (4.1b)
$`\theta ^{}(0)`$ $`0`$ (4.1c)
$`\theta (z+\lambda )`$ $`=c(\lambda )e^{\gamma (\lambda )(z+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\lambda }{2}})}\theta (z).`$ (4.1d)
Using (4.1d) in various ways to compare $`\theta (z+\lambda +\lambda ^{})`$ with $`\theta (z)`$, one finds that $`\gamma `$ is necessarily linear, and that

$$\frac{c(\lambda +\lambda ^{})}{c(\lambda )c(\lambda ^{})}=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}(\gamma (\lambda )\lambda ^{}\lambda \gamma (\lambda ^{}))}$$

for $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. It follows that $`\gamma `$ must satisfy the “period relation”

$$\gamma (\lambda )\lambda ^{}\lambda \gamma (\lambda ^{})2\pi i.$$

The linearity of $`\gamma `$ gives the useful formula

$$\theta (z+\mathrm{}\lambda )=c(\mathrm{}\lambda )e^{\gamma (\lambda )(\mathrm{}z+\mathrm{}^2{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\lambda }{2}})}\theta (z).$$
(4.2)
###### Remark 4.3.

Equation (4.1d) means that $`\theta `$ is a meromorphic section of the line bundle

$$(\gamma ,c)=\frac{\times }{(z,v)(z+\lambda ,vc(\lambda )e^{\gamma (\lambda )(z+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{\lambda }{2}})}),\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}$$

over $`/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so the theta functions considered here are a special case of \[Mum70, Ch. I\].

The equations (4.1a4.1c) imply that the Taylor expansion $`\widehat{\theta }`$ of $`\theta `$ at the origin determines a multiplicative analytic orientation (see Definition 3.2)

$$\varphi :MSOHP.$$
(4.4)
The genus associated to this orientation is

$$M_M\underset{j=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{x_j}{\widehat{\theta }(x_j)},$$
(4.5)
where $`M`$ is an oriented manifold of dimension $`2d`$, and the $`x_j^2`$ are the roots of the total Pontrjagin class of $`M`$.

## 5. Examples

### 5.1. The Witten genus

One example of a theta function satisfying (4.1) is the Weierstrass $`\sigma `$-function. We describe a variant associated to the Witten genus.

Let $`\sigma `$ denote the expression

$$\sigma =(u^{\frac{1}{2}}u^{\frac{1}{2}})\underset{n1}{}\frac{(1q^nu)(1q^nu^1)}{(1q^n)^2}.$$
(5.1)
This may be considered as an element of $`[[q]][u^{\pm \frac{1}{2}}]`$ which is a holomorphic function of $`(u^{\frac{1}{2}},q)^\times \times D`$, where $`D=\{q|0<|q|<1\}`$. Let $`𝔥=\{\tau |\mathrm{Im}\tau >0\}`$ be the open upper half plane. We may consider $`\sigma `$ as a holomorphic function of $`(z,\tau )\times 𝔥`$ by setting

$`u^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ $`=e^{\frac{z}{2}}`$
$`q`$ $`=e^{2\pi i\tau }.`$
For our purposes, it is sufficient to fix $`\tau `$, and consider $`\sigma `$ as a function of $`z`$ alone. From the formula (5.1) it follows that $`\sigma (z)`$ is a theta function of the form (4.1) for the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\pi i+2\pi i\tau `$, with

$`\gamma (2\pi ia+2\pi ib\tau )`$ $`=b`$
$`c(\lambda )`$ $`=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \lambda 2\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}`$
If $`V`$ is a complex vector bundle, let $`rV=\mathrm{rank}VV`$ denote the associated virtual bundle of rank $`0`$. Let $`S^kV`$ denote the $`k`$ symmetric power of $`V`$, and let

$$\mathrm{Sym}_t(V)=\underset{k0}{}t^kS^kV.$$

This extends to an operation

$$K(X)(1+tK(X)[[t]])^\times $$

because of the formula

$$\mathrm{Sym}_t(VW)=\mathrm{Sym}_tV\mathrm{Sym}_tW.$$

The genus associated to the (Taylor series expansion of)

$$a(x)=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{x}{2}}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{x}{2}}}$$

is called the $`\widehat{A}`$-genus. Formulae (4.5) and (5.1) show that the genus associated to $`\sigma `$ is

$$M\widehat{A}(M;\underset{n1}{}\mathrm{Sym}_{q^n}(rTM^{}))$$

(this is explained in \[AHS98\]), which is equivalent to formula (27) in \[Wit87\].

###### Remark 5.2.

Let $`C`$ be the complex elliptic curve $`/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. The equations (4.1) in this case are descent data for the “$`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$-structure” on the ideal sheaf $`_C(0)`$ of the origin in $`C`$, in the sense of Breen \[Bre83\]; see particularly §3.12.

###### Remark 5.3.

The sigma function (5.1) is related to the classical Weierstrass sigma function $`\sigma _{\mathrm{Weierstrass}}`$ in for example \[Sil86\] by the formula

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{Weierstrass}}(z)=e^{az^2}\sigma (z),$$

where $`a`$ is a constant. It is not hard to check that these define the same invariants of $`MO8`$-manifolds. The $`\sigma `$-function (5.1) also arises as the $`p`$-adic $`\sigma `$-function of the Tate curve \[MT91\].

### 5.2. The Ochanine genus

Let $`C/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be an elliptic curve, and let $`p`$ be a point of exact order $`2`$ of $`C`$. Let $`r_1`$ and $`r_2`$ be the other two non-zero points of order two, and let $`P,R_1,R_2`$ be representatives of these points, such that $`R_1+R_2=P`$. There is a meromorphic function $`f`$ on $`C`$ with divisor

$$\mathrm{div}f=(0)+(p)(r_1)(r_2);$$

$`f`$ is uniquely determined by requiring that its pull-back $`s`$ to $``$ have a Taylor series expansion of the form

$$s(z)=z+o(z^2).$$

In fact in this case $`s`$ is given by the formula

$$s(z)=\frac{\sigma (z)\sigma (R_1)\sigma (R_2)\sigma (zP)}{\sigma (zR_1)\sigma (zR_2)\sigma (P)}.$$
(5.4)
It is odd, and the resulting genus is the elliptic genus of Ochanine \[Och87\] for the pair consisting of the lattice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the point $`p`$. It is customary to consider $`s`$ as a theta function for the lattice

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\{\lambda +nP|\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda },n\}.$$

The function $`s`$ is not quite periodic with respect to this lattice, but satisfies

$$s(z+\lambda +nP)=(1)^ns(z)$$

for $`\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus

$`\gamma (\lambda +nP)`$ $`=0`$
$`c(\lambda +nP)`$ $`=(1)^n.`$
Explicitly, if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=2\pi i+4\pi i\tau `$ and $`P=2\pi i\tau `$, then using (5.1) in (5.4) gives the formula

$$s(z)=2\frac{1u}{1+u}\underset{n1}{}\frac{(1q^nu)(1q^nu^1)(1+q^n)^2}{(1+q^nu)(1+q^nu^1)(1q^n)^2}.$$

Theorem 6.1 for this function is due to Rosu \[Ros99\].

## 6. The equivariant Thom class

We fix a meromorphic function $`\theta `$ satisfying the conditions of §4. We recall (4.4) that the Taylor expansion $`\widehat{\theta }`$ of $`\theta `$ at $`0`$ determines a multiplicative analytic orientation

$$MSOHP,$$

and we write $`\varphi `$ for the resulting Thom isomorphism.

Suppose that $`X`$ is a compact smooth $`𝕋`$-manifold, and that $`W`$ is a virtual oriented $`𝕋`$-bundle over $`X`$. The Thom isomorphism $`\varphi `$ gives a generator $`\varphi (W)_𝕋`$ of $`H_𝕋(W)`$, and so a generator of

$$H_𝕋(W)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{C}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}$$

which we shall also denote $`\varphi (W)_𝕋`$.

###### Theorem 6.1.

If $`W`$ is an oriented $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over $`X`$, and either

1. $`w_2(W)=0`$ and the function $`\gamma `$ of (4.1d) is identically zero; or
2. the equations (1.2) hold,

then the invertible sheaf of $`E(X)`$-modules $`E(W)`$ has a global section $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, such that

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_0=\varphi (W)_𝕋$$

under the isomorphism (2.12)

$$H_𝕋(W)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_{C}^{}{}_{0}{}^{}E(W)_0.$$

The proof will occupy the rest of this section. To give it we fix a cover of $`C`$ adapted to level $`N`$ to $`(V,\varphi )`$ and $`(T,\varphi )`$, where $`N`$ is large enough that the zeroes and poles of $`\theta `$ are contained in $`N^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. We also write

$$W=VT,$$

where $`V`$ and $`T`$ are spin $`𝕋`$-vector bundles of even rank, as in §3.

Let us indicate precisely what it is we must construct. Since $`\varphi `$ is multiplicative, we have

$$\varphi (W)_𝕋=\varphi (T)_𝕋^1\varphi (V)_𝕋.$$

Proposition 3.10 shows that it is equivalent to construct a global section of the sheaf $`E(X)^{[\varphi ,VT]}`$, whose value in

$$E(X)_0^{[\varphi ,VT]}H_𝕋(X)\underset{[z]}{}𝒪_C(U_0)$$

is $`1`$. The formula (3.9) for this sheaf shows that such a global section is assembled from sections $`\mathrm{\Theta }_aE(X)_a(U_a)`$ which satisfy the formula

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_b=\tau _{ba}^{}(e(a,b)i^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_a).$$
(6.2)
on $`UU_aU_b`$. Because we are using an adapted open cover, it will suffice in (6.2) to suppose that $`b`$ is not special.

In order to give the formula for $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, we introduce some notation and results in section § 6.1. The construction of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ using these results begins in § 6.2.

### 6.1. Notations and lemmas

Suppose that $`a`$ is a special point of order $`n`$. The structure of the formula for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_a`$ depends on the parity of $`n`$, but the two cases share many components. Let $`h=n/2`$. In the following, terms which involve $`h`$ are simply absent in the case that $`n`$ is odd.

Let $`P`$ be a component of the submanifold $`X^{𝕋[n]}`$ of points fixed by $`𝕋[n]`$. Let $`FP`$ be a component of $`X^𝕋`$. We have decompositions of real $`𝕋`$-vector bundles

$`T|_P`$ $`=T_0T_h{\displaystyle \underset{0<r<h}{}}T_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (6.3)
$`V|_P`$ $`=V_0V_h{\displaystyle \underset{0<r<h}{}}V_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.`$
For $`0<r<h`$, $`T_r`$ and $`V_r`$ are complex vector bundles over $`P`$ on which $`\zeta 𝕋[n]`$ acts by multiplication by $`\zeta ^r`$. The bundles $`T_0`$ and $`V_0`$ are the summands of $`T`$ and $`V`$ on which $`𝕋[n]`$ acts trivially; and if $`n`$ is even then $`T_h`$ and $`V_h`$ are the summands on which $`𝕋[n]`$ acts by the sign representation.

Over the submanifold $`F`$ there are decompositions

$`T_0|_F`$ $`=T(0){\displaystyle \underset{0m_j0}{}}T(m_j)^{}`$ (6.4)
$`T_h|_F`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_jh}{}}T(m_j)^{}`$ $`n\text{ even}`$ (6.5)
$`T_r|_F`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_jr}{}}T(m_j)^{}`$ $`0<r<h`$
$`V_0|_F`$ $`=V(0){\displaystyle \underset{0m_j^{}0}{}}V(m_j^{})^{}`$
$`V_h|_F`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_jh}{}}V(m_j)^{}`$ $`n\text{ even}`$
$`V_r|_F`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m_j^{}r}{}}T(m_j^{})^{}`$ $`0<r<h;`$
the equivalences are modulo $`n`$. For $`m0`$, $`T(m)`$ and $`V(m)`$ are complex vector bundles on which $`z𝕋`$ acts by fiberwise by multiplication by $`z^m`$. Since the real representations $`(m)^{}`$ and $`(m)^{}`$ of $`𝕋`$ are isomorphic, we are free to choose the signs of the $`m_j`$ and $`m_j^{}`$ which are not congruent to $`0`$ or $`h`$ modulo $`n`$ so that there are integers $`\mathrm{}_j,r_j,\mathrm{}_j^{},`$ and $`r_j^{}`$ satisfying

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill m_j& =n\mathrm{}_j+r_j\hfill \\ \hfill m_j^{}& =n\mathrm{}_j^{}+r_j^{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(6.6)
with $`0<r_j,r_j^{}<h`$.

We must choose orientations for $`T(0)`$, $`T_0`$, and $`T_h`$; our choice will depend on the parity of $`n`$.

If $`n`$ is odd, then the complex structures on $`T_{0<r<h}`$ and the orientation of $`T`$ itself determine an orientation for $`T_0`$. We choose the orientation of $`T(0)`$ and the signs of the $`m_j0`$ so that (6.4) respects the orientations on both sides. In this case let $`\delta =0.`$

If $`n`$ is even, then we simply choose an orientation for $`T_0`$; this induces one on $`T_h`$ so that (6.3) respects the orientations. We choose the orientation of $`T(0)`$ and the signs of the $`m_j0,h`$ so that

$$(T_0+T_h)|_FT(0)_{m_j0,h}T(m_j)^{}.$$

is compatible with the orientations on both sides. For those $`j`$ such that $`m_jh`$, we define $`\mathrm{}_j`$ so that

$$m_j=n\mathrm{}_j+h.$$

We have two possibly distinct orientations on $`T_0|_F`$: one is obtained by restricting our chosen orientation; the other is induced by the the decomposition (6.4). We define

$$\delta :\pi _0(X^𝕋P)\stackrel{}{}\{0,1\}$$

to be zero if these orientations agree, and one if they do not. Note that the decomposition (6.5) of $`T_h|_F`$ respects the orientations on both sides if and only if $`\delta (F)=0`$.

We choose the orientations and rotation numbers for $`V`$ in the same way, and so define a function $`\delta ^{}`$.

Let us write

$`e_r`$ $`=\mathrm{rank}_{}T_r`$ $`0<r<h`$
$`e_r^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{rank}_{}V_r`$ $`0<r<h`$
$`e_r`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{rank}_{}T_r`$ $`r=0,h`$
$`e_r^{}`$ $`=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{rank}_{}V_r`$ $`r=0,h`$
$`d_j`$ $`=\mathrm{rank}_{}T(m_j)`$
$`d_j^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{rank}_{}V(m_j^{}).`$
Note that $`e_r`$ is an integer if $`P`$ contains an $`F`$ which is non-empty. For $`m_j0`$ let $`x_{j,1},\mathrm{},x_{j,d_j}`$ be the roots of the total Chern class of $`T(m_j)`$, and define $`x_{j,1}^{},\mathrm{},x_{j,d_j^{}}^{}`$ to be the roots of the total Chern class of $`V(m_j^{})`$.

In terms of these we define several quantities which appear repeatedly in our analysis.

$`ϵ`$ $`=c(\lambda (\delta ^{}+{\displaystyle d_j^{}\mathrm{}_j^{}}\delta {\displaystyle d_j\mathrm{}_j}))`$
$`\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2n}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{h}{}}}(e_r^{}e_r)r^2`$
$`G`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}(d_j^{}\mathrm{}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}d_j\mathrm{}_j^2)+d_j^{}\mathrm{}_j^{}r_j^{}d_j\mathrm{}_jr_j`$
$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}_j^{}c_1V(m_j^{})_𝕋{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}_jc_1T(m_j)_𝕋`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_{j,i}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}_j(d_jm_jz+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_{j,i}).`$
Let $`𝒱`$ be the complex $`𝕋`$-line bundle

$$𝒱=_{0<r<h}det(V_r)^rdet(T_r)^r$$

over $`X^{𝕋[n]}`$.

We recall that $`a`$ is a special point of exact order $`n`$. Let $`\lambda `$ be the lattice point $`na`$. Let $`\gamma =\gamma (\lambda )`$ be the constant in the translation formula (4.1d) for $`\theta `$, and let $`S(x)=e^{\gamma x}`$.

Our hypotheses imply the following results. They are essentially contained in \[BT89\], to which we refer for the proof of the first lemma. The next three lemmas are trivial in the case $`\gamma =0`$; proofs in the case that (1.2) holds will be given in §8, below.

###### Lemma 6.7.

The quantity $`ϵ`$ is independent of the component $`F`$ of $`X^𝕋`$, provided that $`F`$ is contained in $`P`$. In other words, $`ϵ`$ is a locally constant function on $`X^{𝕋[n]}.`$

###### Proof.

This is Lemma 9.3 in \[BT89\]. ∎

###### Lemma 6.8.

We have an equality

$$S(\alpha )=S(G);$$

in particular, this quantity is constant on $`P`$.

###### Lemma 6.9.

If $`n`$ is odd, then the complex $`𝕋`$-line bundle $`𝒱`$ has an $`n`$<sup>th</sup>root $`𝒱^{1/n}`$ over $`P`$, with the property that

$$S(i^{}c_1(𝒱^{1/n})_𝕋)=S(H).$$

###### Lemma 6.10.

If $`n`$ is even, then the complex $`𝕋`$-line bundle $`𝒱`$ has an $`h`$<sup>th</sup>root $`𝒱^{1/h}`$ over $`P`$, with the property that

$$S(\frac{1}{2}i^{}c_1(𝒱^{1/h})_𝕋)=S(H+\frac{1}{2}c_1(i^{}(V_hT_h))_𝕋).$$

### 6.2. Construction of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$: ordinary points

First we give a formula for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b`$ when $`b`$ is ordinary. Taking $`a=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0=1`$ in (6.2) gives the formula

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_b=\tau _b^{}(e(0,b)i^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_0)=\tau _b^{}e(0,b).$$
(6.11)
A priori, this formula determines $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b`$ only on open subsets $`U`$ of $`U_b\backslash \{b\}`$ and only on those $`U_b`$ such that $`U_bU_0`$ is non-empty, but in fact it determines $`\mathrm{\Theta }_b`$ on all of $`U_b`$ for any $`b`$. With our notations, we have

$$e(0,b)=\frac{_j_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}\theta (x_{j,i}^{}+m_j^{}z)}{_j_{i=1}^{d_j}\theta (x_{j,i}+m_jz)}.$$
(6.12)
If $`U_bU_0`$ is non-empty, or if $`U_bU_a`$ is empty for all special points $`a`$, then we orient $`T(0)`$ and $`V(0)`$ by choosing the $`m_j`$ and $`m_j^{}`$ to be positive. Otherwise, there is a unique $`a`$ such that $`U_aU_b`$ is non-empty, and we follow the procedure described above to orient $`T(0)`$ and choose signs for the $`m_j`$.

###### Lemma 6.13.

As a function of $`z`$ we have

$$e(0,b)(z+\lambda )=e(0,b)(z).$$

In other words, the formula (6.12) defines a global section of $`H_𝕋(X^b)_C`$.

The proof is given in §8.

###### Lemma 6.14.

The formula (6.11) defines an element of $`E(X)_b(U_b)`$.

###### Proof.

What must be shown is that $`\tau _b^{}e(0,b)`$ has no pole at the origin. Suppose it does; we shall show that $`b`$ is a special point. Choose a lift of $`b`$ to $``$; we may call it $`b`$ in view of Lemma 6.13. We have

$$\tau _b^{}e(0,b)=\frac{_j_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}\theta (x_{j,i}^{}+m_j^{}z+m_j^{}b)}{_j_{i=1}^{d_j}\theta (x_{j,i}+m_jz+m_jb)}.$$

If this has a pole at the origin then $`\theta `$ has a zero at $`m_jb`$ for some $`m_j`$ or a pole at $`m_j^{}b`$ for some $`m_j^{}`$. Let us take the first case for definiteness. By assumption, the zeros and poles of $`\theta `$ are contained in $`N^1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so

$$m_jbN^1\mathrm{\Lambda }$$

and

$$Nm_jb\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

By Definition 2.3, $`b`$ is a special point. ∎

### 6.3. Construction of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$: special points

If $`a`$ is special, then as usual $`UU_aU_b`$ is nonempty only if $`b`$ is ordinary. Combining the two equations (6.2) and (6.11) gives

$$\tau _b^{}e(0,b)=\tau _{ba}^{}(e(a,b)i^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_a)$$
(6.15)
or equivalently

$$e(a,b)^1\tau _a^{}e(0,b)=i^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_a.$$
(6.16)
#### Special points of odd order

In this section we give the formula for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_a`$, supposing that $`n`$ is odd.

For $`0<r<h`$, let $`Q_r`$ be the exponential characteristic class for complex vector bundles defined by the formula

$$Q_r(L)=\theta (c_1L+ra).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_aE(X)(U_a)`$ be given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_a=ϵS(a\alpha )S(c_1(𝒱^{1/n})_𝕋)\underset{0<r<h}{}\frac{Q_r(V_r)}{Q_r(T_r)}.$$
(6.17)
###### Proposition 6.18.

If $`n`$ is odd, then the class $`\mathrm{\Theta }_a`$ in (6.17) satisfies the equation (6.16).

###### Proof.

We have

$$e(0,b)=\frac{_j_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}\theta (x_{j,i}^{}+m_j^{}z)}{_j_{i=1}^{d_j}\theta (x_{j,i}+m_jz)}.$$

The iterated transformation formula (4.2) gives

$`\tau _a^{}e(0,b)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_j_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}\theta (x_{j,i}^{}+m_j^{}z+m_j^{}a)}{_j_{i=1}^{d_j}\theta (x_{j,i}+m_jz+m_ja)}}`$
$`=`$ $`ϵS(aG+H){\displaystyle \underset{0r<h}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_r,`$ (6.19)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r=\frac{_{m_j^{}r(n)}_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}\theta (x_{j,i}^{}+m_j^{}z+ra)}{_{m_jr(n)}_{i=1}^{d_j}\theta (x_{j,i}+m_jz+ra)}$$

for $`0r<h`$.

In view of Lemmas 6.8 and 6.9, it remains to observe that

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_0=e(a,b),$$
(6.20)
while for $`0<r<h`$ we have

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_r=i^{}\left(\frac{Q_r(V_r)_𝕋}{Q_r(T_r)_𝕋}\right).$$
(6.21)
#### Special points of even order

In this section we give the formula for $`\mathrm{\Theta }_a`$, supposing that $`n`$ is even.

Once again, for $`0<r<h`$, let $`Q_r`$ be the power series

$$Q_r(x)=\theta (x+ra).$$

For all $`r`$ these give characteristic classes for complex vector bundles.

Now, however, for $`r=h`$, set

$$Q_h(x)=S(\frac{1}{2}x)\theta (x+\frac{\lambda }{2}).$$

The formulae

$`\theta (x)`$ $`=\theta (x)`$
$`\theta (x+\lambda )`$ $`=c(\lambda )S(x+\frac{\lambda }{2})\theta (x)`$
imply the following.

###### Lemma 6.22.

The power series $`Q_h`$ satisfies

$$Q_h(x)=c(\lambda )Q_h(x),$$

and so defines a characteristic class of oriented even real vector bundles. ∎

Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }_aE(X)_a(U_a)`$ be given by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_a=ϵS(a\alpha )S(\frac{1}{2}c_1(𝒱^{1/h})_𝕋)\underset{0<rh}{}\frac{Q_r(V_r)}{Q_r(T_r)}.$$
(6.23)
We have used Lemma 6.22 to ensure that the class $`Q_h(V_h)/Q_h(T_h)`$ is well-defined. The proof of Theorem 6.1 is completed by the following.

###### Proposition 6.24.

If $`n`$ is even, then the class $`\mathrm{\Theta }_a`$ in (6.23) satisfies the equation (6.16).

###### Proof.

The argument is similar to the proof in the odd case, Proposition 6.18. Once again we have

$$\tau _a^{}e(0,b)=c(\lambda (d_j^{}\mathrm{}_j^{}d_j\mathrm{}_j))S(aG+H)\underset{0rh}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_r.$$

The result follows from Lemmas 6.8, 6.10, and the equations

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_0`$ $`=(1)^{\delta ^{}\delta }e(a,b)`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_r`$ $`=i^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_r(V_r)_𝕋}{Q_r(T_r)_𝕋}}\right)`$ $`0<r<h`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_h`$ $`=(c(\lambda ))^{\delta ^{}\delta }S(\frac{1}{2}c_1(i^{}(V_hT_h))_𝕋)i^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_h(V_h)_𝕋}{Q_h(T_h)_𝕋}}\right).`$
## 7. Equivariant elliptic cohomology of Thom spaces of virtual representations

Let $`V`$ be a complex representation of $`𝕋`$, considered as a $`𝕋`$-vector bundle over a point. The fixed sub-bundles $`V^{𝕋[n]}`$ are automatically orientable, so Lemma 3.7 and Proposition 3.10 apply even without the spin hypothesis. In particular, the elliptic cohomology $`E(V)`$ of the Thom space of $`V`$, and more generally of a virtual complex representation of $`𝕋`$, is an invertible sheaf of $`E()=𝒪_C`$-modules, i.e. a holomorphic line bundle over $`C`$. It is illuminating to understand the statement of Theorem 6.1 in this case.

Recall that we have chosen a generator $`z`$ of the character group of $`𝕋`$, and so identified the representation ring of $`𝕋`$ with a ring of Laurent polynomials

$$R[𝕋][z,z^1].$$

If $`f`$ is a Laurent polynomial in $`z`$, we shall write $`V(f)`$ for the associated virtual complex representation of $`𝕋`$.

If $`n`$ is a natural number, let $`C[n]`$ be the subgroup of $`C`$ consisting of points of order $`n`$. Let $`(C[n])𝒪_C`$ be the sheaf of ideals consisting of germs of holomorphic functions which vanish at $`C[n]`$; it is a holomorphic line bundle over $`C`$. If $`C[n]`$ is regarded as a divisor on $`C`$, then $`(C[n])`$ coincides with the line bundle which is usually denoted $`𝒪_C(C[n])`$.

###### Proposition 7.1.

The line bundles $`E(V)`$ for $`VR[𝕋]`$ are determined up to isomorphism by the following.

$`E(V(0))`$ $`=𝒪_C`$
$`E(V(z^n))`$ $`(C[n])`$ (7.2)
and
$`E(V+W)`$ $`E(V)\underset{𝒪_C}{}E(W).`$
for $`V,WR[𝕋]`$.

###### Proof.

The first part is clear, since $`E(V(0))=E()`$. The third part follows from the multiplicative property of the Thom isomorphism (3.1) (and so of its associated euler class), together with the construction (3.9) of $`E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}E(V)`$.

For (7.2), let $`V=V(z^n)`$, and consider the multiplicative orientation $`\varphi `$ given by the $`\sigma `$ function. A point $`aC`$ is special if and only if $`na=0`$, and for such $`a`$ we have $`V^a=V`$. For ordinary $`b`$ we have $`V^b=0`$. It follows that

$$e(a,b)=\sigma (nz),$$

a function which vanishes at precisely the points $`w`$ such that $`nw\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Thus in the gluing (3.9), a trivialization of $`E(V)_a`$ corresponds to a section of $`E(V)_b`$ which vanishes at $`a`$; this is a description in terms of cocycles of the ideal sheaf $`(C[n])`$. The isomorphism

$$E(X)^{[\varphi ,V]}E(V)$$

of Proposition 3.10 gives the result. ∎

If $`f=d_jz^{m_j}`$, let $`D(f)`$ be the divisor

$$D(f)=d_jC[m_j]$$

(The subgroup $`C[m_j]`$ is considered as a divisor and the sum is as divisors). Proposition 7.1 says that there is an isomorphism

$$E(V(f))𝒪_C(D(f)).$$

The degree of this line bundle is

$$\mathrm{deg}E(V(f))=d_jm_j^2.$$
(7.3)
###### Corollary 7.4.

If $`VR[𝕋]`$ is a complex virtual representation of $`𝕋`$, then

$$p_1(V)_𝕋=z^2\mathrm{deg}E(V)H^4(B𝕋;).$$

The application of Theorem 1.1 to complex representations of $`𝕋`$ is as follows.

###### Proposition 7.5.

The line bundle $`E(V)`$ associated to a virtual representation $`V`$ of $`𝕋`$ is trivial precisely when $`p_1(V)_𝕋=0.`$ If

$$f=d_jz^{m_j}$$

and $`p_1(V(f))_𝕋=0`$, then the meromorphic function

$$\underset{j}{}\sigma (m_jz)^{d_j}$$
(7.6)
defines a holomorphic trivialization of $`𝒪_C(D(f))E(V(f))`$. If in addition $`w_2(V)_𝕋=0,`$ it is precisely the trivialization given by Theorem 1.1.

###### Proof.

Let

$$D=n_P(P)$$

be a divisor on $`C`$. Recall that the line bundle $`𝒪_C(D)`$ associated to $`D`$ is trivial precisely when

$$\mathrm{deg}D=n_P=0$$
(7.7a)
$$^Cn_P(P)=0;$$
(7.7b)
the second sum is taken in the group structure of the elliptic curve $`C`$. For the divisors we are considering, the condition (7.7b) is always satisfied, since as a group

$$C[n](Z/n)^2,$$

and

$$\underset{g(Z/n)^2}{}g=0.$$

It follows that $`E(V)`$ is trivial precisely when $`\mathrm{deg}E(V)=0`$, that is when $`p_1(V)_𝕋=0`$.

It is well-known and easy to check that the product of sigma functions (7.6) descends to a trivialization of $`𝒪_C(D(f))`$, and it is also easy to check that it coincides with the trivialization of Theorem 1.1. ∎

Proposition 7.5 raises the question of the role of the condition (1.2a) on the equivariant second Stiefel-Whitney class. One way to say this is as follows. Let

$$f=d_jz^{m_j}$$

as in the Proposition, and let $`g`$ be the associated trivialization of $`𝒪_C(D(f))`$: as a function on $``$,

$$g(z)=\underset{j}{}\sigma (m_jz)^{d_j}.$$

Let $`\iota :CC`$ be the involution

$$\iota (P)=P.$$

The equality of divisors

$$\iota ^{}D(f)=D(f)$$

gives a canonical isomorphism

$$\iota ^{}𝒪_C(D(f))𝒪_C(D(f)),$$

of line bundles over $`C`$, and it is natural to ask whether

$$\iota ^{}g=g$$
(7.8)
under this isomorphism. As a function on $``$, this amounts to asking whether

$$g(z)=g(z).$$

The function $`g`$ is uniquely determined among trivializations of $`𝒪_C(D(f))`$ by the equation

$$g^{}(0)=d_jm_j,$$

and the parity of this quantity is the second Stiefel-Whitney class

$$w_2(V)_𝕋=g^{}(0)zH^2(B𝕋;/2).$$

Thus

$$\iota ^{}g=g$$

precisely when $`w_2(V)_𝕋=0`$. This means, for example, that the trivialization $`g`$ is independent of the choice of generator $`z`$ of the character group of $`𝕋`$.

## 8. Consequences of the characteristic class restrictions

In this section we prove Lemmas 6.8, 6.9, and 6.10. We retain the set-up and notations of the previous section.

First let us work out explicitly some consequences of the characteristic class restrictions (1.2).

###### Lemma 8.1.

If equations (1.2) hold, then we have

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_jm_j`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_j^{}m_j^{}mod2`$ (8.2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_jm_j^2`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_j^{}m_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (8.3)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}m_j{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}}x_{j,i}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}m_j^{}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}}x_{j,i}^{}.`$ (8.4)
###### Proof.

Introduce formal roots $`y_{0,j}`$ and $`y_{0,j}^{}`$ so that

$`1+p_1T(0)+\mathrm{}`$ $`={\displaystyle (1y_{0,i}^2)}`$
$`1+p_1V(0)+\mathrm{}`$ $`={\displaystyle (1y_{0,i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}.`$
The equation (1.2b)

$$\frac{p_1}{2}(VT)_𝕋=0$$

implies that

$$\frac{p_1}{2}(V|_{M^𝕋}T|_{M^𝕋})_𝕋=0.$$

On the other hand, this class is given by half the degree-four component of

$$\frac{(1y_{0,i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})_j_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}(1(x_{j,i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2m_j^{}x_{j,i}^{}z+m_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}z^2))}{(1y_{0,i}^2)_j_{i=1}^{d_j}(1(x_{j,i}^2+2m_jx_{j,i}z+m_j^2z^2))}$$

Examining the coefficient of $`z`$ gives (8.4), and examining the coefficient of $`z^2`$ gives (8.3). Equation (8.2) follows from the equation $`w_2(TV)_𝕋=0`$ by a similar argument. ∎

###### Lemma 8.5.

If equations (1.2) hold, and $`n`$ is odd, then

$$\underset{0<r<h}{}r(c_1T_rc_1V_r)0(n).$$
(8.6)
If $`n`$ is even, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{0<r<h}{}r(c_1T_rc_1V_r)& 0(h)\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{h}\left(\underset{0<r<h}{}r(c_1T_rc_1V_r)\right)_{mod2}& =w_2(V_hT_h).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8.7)
###### Proof.

We treat the case that $`n`$ is even; the case that $`n`$ is odd is similar. Let $`z_n=z|_{B𝕋[n]}`$. Introduce formal roots $`y_{r,j}`$ and $`y_{r,j}^{}`$ so that

$`1+c_1T_r+\mathrm{}`$ $`={\displaystyle (1+y_{r,j})}`$ $`0<r<h`$
$`1+c_1V_r+\mathrm{}`$ $`={\displaystyle (1+y_{r,j}^{})}`$ $`0<r<h`$
$`1+p_1T_r+\mathrm{}`$ $`={\displaystyle (1y_{r,j}^2)}`$ $`r=0,h`$
$`1+p_1V_r+\mathrm{}`$ $`={\displaystyle (1y_{r,j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})}`$ $`r=0,h.`$
Then $`\frac{p_1}{2}(T_𝕋V_𝕋)|_{B𝕋[n]\times M^{𝕋[n]}}`$ is given by minus half the degree-four component of

$$\frac{_{0rh}_{i=1}^{e_r}(1(y_{r,i}^2+2ry_{r,i}z_n+r^2z_n^2))}{_{0rh}_{i=1}^{e_r^{}}(1(y_{r,i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2ry_{r,i}^{}z_n+r^2z_n^2))}.$$

The coefficient of $`z_n`$ is

$$\underset{0<r<h}{}r(c_1T_rc_1V_r)+h\underset{j}{}y_{h,j}y_{h,j}^{}.$$

The characteristic class restriction (1.2) implies that this quantity is zero; the claims of the lemma follow. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 6.13.

We have

$`e(0,b)(z+\lambda )`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{_j_{i=1}^{d_j^{}}\theta (x_{j,i}^{}+m_j^{}z+m_j^{}\lambda )}{_j_{i=1}^{d_j}\theta (x_{j,i}+m_jz+m_j\lambda )}}`$
$`=c(\lambda ({\displaystyle d_j^{}m_j^{}}d_jm_j))`$
$`S({\displaystyle m_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+x_{j,i}^{})}{\displaystyle m_j(d_jm_jz+x_{j,i})})`$
$`S(\frac{\lambda }{2}({\displaystyle d_j^{}m_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{\displaystyle d_jm_j^2}))`$
$`e(0,b)(z)`$
$`=e(0,b)(z).`$
The third equation uses Lemma 8.1. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 6.8.

Recall that

$$G=\underset{j}{}\frac{n}{2}(d_j^{}\mathrm{}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}d_j\mathrm{}_j^2)+d_j^{}\mathrm{}_j^{}r_j^{}d_j\mathrm{}_jr_j.$$

Substituting the equation

$$m_j=n\mathrm{}_j+r_j$$

(and similarly for $`m_j^{}`$) into equation (8.3) gives

$`0`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_j^{}m_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}d_jm_j^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_j^{}(n^2\mathrm{}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2n\mathrm{}_j^{}r_j^{}+r_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}d_j(n^2\mathrm{}_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+2n\mathrm{}_jr_j+r_j^2).`$
It follows that

$$2nG=\underset{r}{}(e_r^{}e_r)r^2,$$

and that this quantity is divisible by $`n`$. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 6.9.

The first Chern class of the bundle

$$𝒱=\underset{0<r<h}{}det(V_r)^rdet(T_r)^r$$

is

$$c_1𝒱=\underset{r}{}r(c_1V_rc_1T_r).$$

The restriction of $`𝒱`$ to $`M^𝕋`$ has Chern class

$$c_1(𝒱|_{M^𝕋})_𝕋=_jr_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}x_{j,i}^{})+_jr_j(d_jm_jz+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}x_{j,i}).$$

Adding to this zero in the form (from (8.4) and (8.3))

$$\underset{j}{}m_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}x_{j,i}^{})\underset{j}{}m_j(d_jm_j+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}x_{j,i})$$

gives

$`c_1(𝒱|_{M^𝕋})_𝕋`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(m_j^{}r_j^{})(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}}x_{j,i}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}(m_jr_j)(d_jm_jz+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}}x_{j,i})`$
$`=n{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}}x_{j,i}^{})n{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\mathrm{}_j(d_j^{}m_jz+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}}x_{j,i})`$
$`=nH.`$
###### Proof of Lemma 6.10.

First observe that if

$$𝒱=\underset{0<r<h}{}det(V_r)^rdet(T_r)^r,$$

then Lemma 8.5 shows that $`𝒱`$ has an $`h`$<sup>th</sup>root, with the property that

$$c_1𝒱_{mod2}^{1/h}=w_2(V_hT_h).$$

The restriction of $`𝒱`$ to $`M^𝕋`$ has Chern class

$$c_1(𝒱|_{M^𝕋})_𝕋=_{0<r_j^{}<h}r_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}x_{j,i}^{})+_{0<r_j<h}r_j(d_jm_jz+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}x_{j,i}).$$

Adding to this zero in the form (from (8.4) and (8.3))

$$\underset{j}{}m_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}x_{j,i}^{})\underset{j}{}m_j(d_jm_jz+\underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}x_{j,i})$$

gives

$`c_1(𝒱|_{M^𝕋})_𝕋=`$ $`nH`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{m_j^{}h}{}}m_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}}x_{j,i}^{}){\displaystyle \underset{m_j^{}h}{}}n\mathrm{}_j^{}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_{j,i}^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m_jh}{}}m_j(d_jm_jz+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}}x_{j,i})+{\displaystyle \underset{m_jh}{}}n\mathrm{}_j(d_jm_jz+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}x_{j,i})`$
$`=`$ $`nH`$
$`+h{\displaystyle \underset{m_j^{}h}{}}(d_j^{}m_j^{}z+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j^{}}{}}}x_{j,i}^{})h{\displaystyle \underset{m_jh}{}}(d_jm_jz+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{d_j}{}}}x_{j,i}).`$