text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

As an approach to explain the mass hierarchy problem, the Randall-Sundrum (RS) model have been taking people’s attention both from the
phenomenology and from the theory. The model has, in fact, some advantages compared with other approaches such as the Kaluza-Klein compactification  and the (standard) renormalization group approach . The most characteristic point is its exponential damping factor (warp factor) which could have the possibility of naturally explaining the broadly-spreading mass hierarchy ranging from the cosmological constant ($`10^{41}`$GeV), through the weak physics ($`10^2`$GeV), to the Planck mass ($`10^{19}`$GeV). Furthermore the recent progress in the AdS/CFT correspondence indicates the RS-model solution, which is a classical solution in the 5 dim AdS space-time, could be regarded as the renormalization trajectory in the 4 dim quantum solution.

We point out, however, an incomplete aspect in most approaches so far. They assume the $`\delta `$-function or $`\theta `$-function distribution from the outset as a form of the classical solution in order to make a (”infinitely-thin”) wall configuration. Indeed it gives an easy ”tool” to analyse the model in some limitted situation. It is, however, obscure from the standpoint of the soliton (kink) physics and does miss the important role of the ”thickness” in the regularization standpoint. The configuration, considered in the RS-model, generally has a domain wall structure with some finite thickness which is determined by the vacua in the asymptotic regions (or the boundary conditions) and some parameters in the system. In some limitted configuration, the thickness approaches zero and the $`\delta `$-function (or $`\theta `$-function) appears as a well-regularized object.In such a way, we can understand the real meaning of the limit from the vacuum structure or the system parameters. This looks very important especially to understand the problem of the cosmological constant, which is the vacuum energy of the space-time. Needless to say, the system configuration should be derived by solving the field equation in a proper way. In some reference, the thickness was introduced just by smearing the assumed $`\delta `$-function. Such approach loses the real role of the thickness.

Motivated by the above things, a solution of the RS-model, for the one-wall case, has been presented .

The points are 1) the wall configuration is obtained as a kink solution of the classical field equation of the 5 dim AdS gravity; 2) the $`\delta `$-function limit is specified by some parameters; 3) the vacua (asymptotic states), which are necessary to specify the kink, are introduced by the 5 dim bulk Higgs potential; 4) the stability of the solution is guaranteed by the boundary condition. The obtained solution correctly gives the basic physical outputs such as the 4D Planck mass ($`M_{pl}\sqrt{M^3/k}`$) and the 4D cosmological constant ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{4d}M^3k`$) in terms of the 5D Planck mass ($`M`$) and the thickness parameter ($`k`$). These properties remain valid in the present case because we modify (with much care) only the infrared boundary condition. The configuration of a wall and an anti-wall is taken in the original work, but it is now considered unstable. To cure it, one approach is to take into account the radion field. Here we point out another possibility of creating the wall-anti-wall configuration by taking a new infrared treatment which mimics the lattice situation.

It is well-known that the massless chiral fermion appears as a zero mode bound to the domain wall. Now we recall the similar situation takes place in the lattice field theory using the 5D lattice. In that case, besides the fact that the formulation is discrete, some essential differences are there. That is, the extra axis $`y`$ is regularized to be finite $`Ly+L`$ and the boundary condtion for the extra axis is taken to be periodic: $`yy+2L`$. In this case a wall appears at $`y=0`$ and an anti-wall appears at $`y=L`$. For every zero mode at $`y=0`$, there is a zero mode of the opposite chirality at $`y=L`$. Every mode is chirally paired, which shows the vector-like nature of the 5D theory. The chiral anomaly in the 4D theory is now understood as the flow of the current through the fifth space. In the lattice numerical simulation, this configuration is basically taken, with some improvements , and several physical quantities of QCD such as the pion mass are numerically calculated. In order to realize the similar situation in the Randall-Sundrum model, we need the wall-anti-wall configuration. We present a way to make the configuration from the one-wall solution of Ref..

A focus here is to clarify some controversial point, that is, whether $`S^1/Z_2`$ compactification of the kink configuration(Fig.1) is compatible with the wall-anti-wall configuration. On the one hand, $`S^1`$ property requires the solution to be periodic with some finite periodicity in an extra axis. On the other, naive expectation implies its behavior, in an asymptotic region (A), does not continuously connect with that in (B) of their adjacent period, as far as (A) and (B) are different vacua which is required for the soliton (kink) configuration. Clearly this is related to the boundary and stability problems. The stability is guaranteed by the kink property: the two vacua (A) and (B) are related by the discrete (discontinuous) symmetry, $`\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }`$. To solve these problems, some close infrared treatment is necessary. Note that physical behaviors in both regions (A) and (B) are the same. (Both have the same 5D scalar Riemann curvature.) Further note that we do not consider a new solution of the kink-anti-kink type. We will first choose a correct coordinate where the wall-anti-wall configuration should appear and then change the infrared boundary condition for the one-wall solution previously obtained. We will show the new boundary condition gives us the other (anti-) wall. The present claim is that the (stable) wall-anti-wall solution exists by taking the correct coordinate and the new infrared regularization proposed here.

The present model of 5D gravity-scalar system is introduced in Sec.2. In Sec.3 we change the extra coordinate from the infinite one $`y𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ to a compact one $`z(\frac{1}{2}r_c,+\frac{1}{2}r_c)`$ in order to obtain the ”size” of the extra space $`r_c`$. In Sec.4, by imposing the periodic boundary condition, we extend the coordinate region of $`z`$ to $`𝐑`$. The new infrared regularization is explained in Sec.5, where the Fourier expansion of (continuous and discontinuous) periodic functions is exploited. Truncation of the infinitely expanded terms to the finite ones is the key of the present regularization. In Sec.6, we present the numerical solutions of the present model, and using this result, we fix all Fourier expansion coefficients numerically. We conclude and discuss in Sec.7. Some appendices are in order to supplement the text. In App.A, a compact coordinate, which is different from the one taken in the text, is examined. Some advantageous points are noticed. Numerical results of Sec.6 are explained in App.B. They consist of two standard method of the numerical calculus: the Runge-Kutta method and the Least Square method. In App.C, some simple function, which imitates the solution of the present model, is examined in order to clarify the characteristic properties of the Fourier expansion coefficients.

## 2 Model Set-Up

We take the following 5D gravitational theory with 5D Higgs potential.

$`S[G_{AB},\mathrm{\Phi }]={\displaystyle d^5X\sqrt{G}(\frac{1}{2}M^3\widehat{R}\frac{1}{2}G^{AB}_A\mathrm{\Phi }_B\mathrm{\Phi }V(\mathrm{\Phi }))},`$
$`V(\mathrm{\Phi })={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+\mathrm{\Lambda },`$ (1)
where $`X^A(A=0,1,2,3,4)`$ is the 5D coordinates and we also use the notation $`(X^A)(x^\mu ,y),\mu =0,1,2,3`$. The coordinate $`X^4=y`$ is the extra axis which is taken to be a space coordinate. $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a 5D scalar field, $`G=detG_{AB}`$, $`\widehat{R}`$ is the 5D Riemannian scalar curvature. $`M(>0)`$ is the 5D Planck mass and is regarded as the fundamental scale of this dimensional reduction scenario. $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is the Higgs potential and serves for preparing the (classical) vacuum in 5D world. The three parameters $`\lambda ,v_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ are called here vacuum parameters. $`\lambda (>0)`$ is a coupling, $`v_0(>0)`$ is the Higgs field vacuum expectation value, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the 5D cosmological constant. See Fig.2.

It is later shown that the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must be negative for the present domain wall configuration. The Einstein equation is given by

$`M^3(\widehat{R}_{MN}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{MN}\widehat{R})=_M\mathrm{\Phi }_N\mathrm{\Phi }+G_{MN}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G^{KL}_K\mathrm{\Phi }_L\mathrm{\Phi }+V(\mathrm{\Phi })),`$
$`^2\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\delta V}{\delta \mathrm{\Phi }}}.`$ (2)
Following Callan and Harvey, we consider the case that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ depends only on the extra coordinate $`y`$$`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$. Because $`M`$-dependence can be absorbed by a simple scaling ($`\mathrm{\Phi }=M^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }},v_0=M^{3/2}\stackrel{~}{v}_0,\lambda =M^1\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }=M^5\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},X^A=M^1\stackrel{~}{X}^A,`$) we may, for simplicity, take

$`M=1.`$ (3)
We explicitly write $`M`$ only when it is necessary.

## 3 Infinite Extra Axis and Its Compactification

We start with the following 5D metric.

$`ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma (y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,y𝐑=(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ (4)
where $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}(1,1,1,1)`$. In this choice, the 4D Poincaré invariance is preserved. The Weyl factor $`\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma (y)}`$ is called ”warp factor” and is determined by the 5D Einstein equation. The extra axis taken here is an infinite real line $`𝐑=(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$. The coordinates $`(X^A)=(x^\mu ,y)`$ give one wall configuration by taking the boundary condition: $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)\pm v_0,y\pm \mathrm{}`$ and there exists a family of exact solution . Now let us move from the $`y`$-coordinate to another one $`z`$(See Fig.3).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{Mz}{Mr_c}}={\displaystyle \frac{z}{r_c}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tanh}(My),{\displaystyle \frac{z}{r_c}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}),`$ (5)
where a free parameter $`r_c`$ is introduced as the compactification size. (Another compactification is examined in Appendix A.)

In the ”wall region” $`|y|1/M`$ (or $`|z|r_c`$), $`z`$-coordinate and $`y`$-coordinate are almost same except a simple factor : $`zy\times \frac{Mr_c}{2}`$. In the asymptotic (infrared) regions $`|y|1/M`$ (or $`|z|r_c/2`$), they differ significantly : $`z/r_c\pm (\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{e}^{2M|y|})`$ as $`My\pm \mathrm{}`$. Without confusion, we may take

$`r_c=1.`$ (6)
(When $`r_c`$-dependence is required, it is easily obtained by the substitution $`zz/r_c`$. ) In terms of the new coordinate $`z`$, the line element (4) reduces to

$`ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma (z)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(14z^2)^2}}dz^2,`$
$`dz={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(14z^2)dy,z({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}).`$ (7)
$`z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are the points of the coordinate singularity . The 5D Riemann scalar curvature is given by

$`\widehat{R}=F(2F\sigma ^{\prime \prime }+5F\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}2F^{}\sigma ^{}),F14z^2,\sigma ^{}={\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dz}},`$ (8)
and it turns out that there are no curvature singularities anywhere, for the solution we will consider. Let us consider the case the 5D Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ has the following boundary condition(Fig.4).

$`\underset{z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\pm v_0,v_0>0.`$ (9)
$`\pm v_0`$ is the vacuum expectation value in the asymptotic region $`z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)`$.

## 4 $`S^1`$ Extra Axis

In this section we move to the case where the extra axis is $`S^1`$ through the following procedure. If we can properly regularize the coordinate singularity at $`z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ in (7) (see the next section), the coordinate region $`\frac{1}{2}z\frac{1}{2}`$ can be extended to $`𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ as follows.

1. We require the periodic boundary condition :

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(z+1),\sigma (z)=\sigma (z+1)(\text{or}\sigma ^{}(z)=\sigma ^{}(z+1));`$ (10)
2. Values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ at $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$ are defined as,

$`\mathrm{\Phi }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+𝐙)0;`$ (11)
3. The universal covering space is taken to be the real number space :

$`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}]\times 𝐙=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})=𝐑;`$ (12)

where $`𝐙=\{0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}\}`$. See Fig.5 for the schematic behavior of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$.

Note that we have here newly defined the values of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ at the singular points $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$ (coordinate singularity, not the curvature singularity). The points correspond to $`y=\pm \mathrm{}`$ of the original coordinate, $`y`$. $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y=\pm \mathrm{})`$ are not defined in Sec.3. In (11) we have specified the present treatment of $`y=\pm \mathrm{}`$, and which should be regarded as a part of the present infrared regularization. 222 This procedure reminds us of the similar one in the case of making the sphere topology (compact) from the $`𝐄^2`$ space (non-compact) by introducing the point of infinity.  This specification turns out to be important in Sec.5.

We furthermore note that the translation invariance $`yy+c`$ in (4) reduces to the periodicity invariance (discrete version of the translation) $`zz+1`$. (The situation is the same as the lattice regularization of the continuum space.) The lost of the translation freedom $`c`$ is traded with the freedom of the coordinate choice $`r_c`$.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ defined above has the properties:

Piecewise continuous. (Discontinuous at $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$.)

Piecewise smooth. ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(z)`$ is piecewise continuous.)

Periodic ($`S^1`$-symmetry ) : $`zz+1`$.

Odd function of $`z`$ ($`Z_2`$-symmetry) : $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$.

We call these ”$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-properties”.

At present, except for the coordinate-singularity points $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$, the metric (7) is defined for $`z𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$:

$`(G_{MN})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma (z)}\eta _{\mu \nu }& 0\\ 0& \frac{4}{F(z)^2}\end{array}\right),`$ (15)
where $`F(z)=14z^2`$ at this stage (soon redefined) and $`M=(\mu ,z)`$. The Einstein equation (2) reduces to the following two coupled differential equations for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\sigma (z)`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}F(z)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F(z)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+V,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(z)}}(\sigma ^{}F(z))^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},`$ (16)
where $`\sigma ^{}=\frac{d\sigma }{dz},\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=\frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dz}`$. In order to make the above equations periodic in z : $`zz+1`$, we must replace $`F(z)=14z^2`$ by its ”periodic generalization” 333 When we take another compact coordinate $`w`$, defined in (67), this ”periodic generalization” is not necessary.  :

$`F(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{c}14z^2\text{for}\frac{1}{2}z\frac{1}{2}\\ \\ 14z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\text{for}|z|>\frac{1}{2}\\ (z=z^{}+n,\frac{1}{2}z^{}\frac{1}{2},n=\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{})\end{array}`$ (21)
$``$ $`[14z^2],`$ (22)
See . We denote the periodically generalization of a function $`f(x)`$ as $`[f(x)]`$.

From the definition, $`F(z)=[14z^2]`$ has the following properties.

Continuous function of $`z`$.

Piecewise smooth ($`F^{}(z)`$ is singular at $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$).

Periodic ($`S^1`$-symmetry) : $`F(z)=F(z+1)`$.

Even function of $`z`$ ($`Z_2`$-symmetry) : $`F(z)=F(z)`$.

Positive semi-definiteness : $`F(z)0`$.

We call these properties ”F-properties”. This process of replacing $`(14z^2)`$ by $`[14z^2]`$ of (22) should be regarded as a part of the present (infrared) regularization.

For some later use, we present here the Fourier expansion of $`F(z)`$.

$`F(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ł=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^{ł+1}}{ł^2}}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi łz).`$ (23)
This expression can be taken as the definition of $`F(z)`$ instead of (22).

We can fix the asymptotic form of $`\sigma ^{}(z)`$ using (16) as follows. In this process of ”periodic generalization”, the boundary condition (9) is also generalized to be

$`\underset{z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)+𝐙}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\pm v_0,v_0>0.`$ (24)
(Note $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\pm \frac{1}{2}+𝐙)=0`$ as introduced in (11).) We call the asymptotic regions $`\{z|z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)+𝐙\}`$ IR-regions and another regions $`\{z|z\pm 0+𝐙\}`$ UV-regions. In the IR-regions, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}0`$ from the above equation, therefore $`\sigma ^{}F(z)`$ constant from the second eq. of (16). Furthermore, using the first equation, we obtain

$`\underset{z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)+𝐙}{lim}\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=\pm \omega ,\omega =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}}.`$ (25)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)F(z)\sigma ^{}(z)`$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=2\frac{d\sigma }{dy}`$ for $`\frac{1}{2}z\frac{1}{2}`$. The behavior of the ”warp” factor field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ will be shown to be similar to the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$. ($`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ will be parallelly discussed in Sec.5 and 6.) In eq.(25), we notice $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be negative : $`\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. From the first eq. of (16), we know

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F(z)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)^2+V0.`$ (26)
From the field equations (16) and the boundary conditions (24,25), we conclude $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ are odd functions of $`z`$. Hence we have

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=0\text{and}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=0\text{at}z=0.`$ (27)
(This condition will be used to solve the field equations (16) numerically. The boundary conditions (24,25) cannot be taken due to the singularity. See Appendix B.) Applying this result to (26), we know $`\frac{\lambda }{4}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}+\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$. Combining the previous result, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{4}}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}\mathrm{\Lambda }0.`$ (28)
It says the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ should be negative (anti de Sitter) and the absolute value has the upper bound: $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|\frac{\lambda }{4}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{4}`$ . Near the singular points, $`z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)`$, the asymptotic behavior of the line element is given by, from (25),

$`ds^2=|{\displaystyle \frac{1+2z}{12z}}|^{\omega /2}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(14z^2)^2}}dz^2,\omega =\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}},`$ (29)
which shows the singular points are horizons . The power-law of the Weyl factor (”warp factor”) indicates the scaling behavior of the system when $`z\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)`$. See Sec.7.

## 5 Infrared Regularization at $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$

We come to the most important part of the present regularization. Before the presentation, we give here a mathematically well-known fact. The periodic step function $`\theta (x)`$ defined by

$`\theta (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1& 2nϵ<x<(2n+1)ϵ\\ 0& x=nϵ\\ 1& (2n+1)ϵ<x<(2n+2)ϵ\end{array},`$ (33)
where $`n𝐙`$ (see Fig.7). It has the following properties:

Piecewise continuous. (Discontinuous at $`xϵ\times 𝐙`$.)

Piecewise smooth.

Periodic ($`S^1`$-symmetry) : $`\theta (x+2ϵ)=\theta (x)`$.

Odd function of $`x`$ ($`Z_2`$-symmetry) : $`\theta (x)=\theta (x)`$.

Symmetric with respect to the axes $`x=(\pm \frac{1}{2}+2𝐙)ϵ`$ (UV-IR symmetry).

These are similar to $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-properties (for $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}`$) except for Property T1 (the number of discontinuous points doubles) and Property T5 (UV-IR relation). We call these properties ”$`\theta `$-properties”. The periodic step function $`\theta (x)`$, which is discontinuous, has the following Fourier expansion.

$`\theta (x)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ł=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ł+1}}\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)\pi {\displaystyle \frac{x}{ϵ}}\}.`$ (34)
(Compare the Fourier expansion of the continuous function $`F(z)`$, (23). Main changes are, $`2ł`$ in $`F(z)`$ is replaced by $`(2ł+1)/ϵ=2(2ł+1)`$ for $`ϵ=1/2`$, and the coefficient $`(1)^{ł+1}/ł^2`$ is by $`1/(2ł+1)`$. The discontinuous case is less convergent series than the continuous case. ) When we regularize (34) by the finite ($`L`$) sum,

$`\theta _L(x)={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ł=0}{\overset{L}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2ł+1}}\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)\pi {\displaystyle \frac{x}{ϵ}}\},`$ (35)
then $`\theta _L(x)`$ has the following new properties compared with $`\theta (x)`$:

Continuous everywhere $`x𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ (see Fig.5). Especially $`\theta _L(xϵ𝐙)=0`$.

Smooth everywhere.

Other items 3,4 and 5 are the same as $`\theta (x)`$TL3=T3, TL4=T4, TL5=T5. We call these properties ”$`\theta _L`$-properties”. This simple example characteristically shows that a discontinuous function can be naturally regularized by a continuous function by truncating the infinite Fourier series by a finite $`L`$ sum. $`L`$ is here regarded as an infrared regularization parameter. The continuousness is indispensable for a wall-configuration with finite thickness or for a well-defined regularization. The meaning of $`1/L`$ is the ”thickness” of the walls or anti-walls of $`\theta _{L}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(x)`$ at $`x=ϵ𝐙`$. 444 In the ”wall region” around the origin $`|\frac{x}{ϵ}|1`$, all L+1 terms equally dominate in the RHS of (35) : $`\theta _L(x)\frac{4}{\pi }_{ł=0}^L\frac{1}{2ł+1}\{(2ł+1)\pi \frac{x}{ϵ}\}=\frac{4}{ϵ}(L+1)x`$. Therefore the thickness $`w`$ can be defined as : $`\frac{4}{ϵ}(L+1)\frac{w}{2}=\frac{1}{2}`$,hence we have $`w=\frac{ϵ}{4(L+1)}`$. The same thing can be said about all ”wall-regions” around $`x2ϵ𝐙`$ and about all ”anti-wall regions” around $`xϵ(2𝐙+1)`$. It is well-known that, in these ”wall and anti-wall regions” the truncated function $`\theta _L(x)`$ most deviate from $`\theta (x)`$ because the neglected terms(high-frequency modes) begin to equally contribute with low-frequency ones (Gibbs’s phenomenon).  The thickness here is purely a regularization effect. See Fig.7.

With the above fact in mind, we propose here a new regularization in order to treat the singularity at $`z=\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$ of the solutions in the previous section. First we know $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=F(z)\sigma ^{}`$ behave like a periodic $`\theta `$-function at some parameters limit ( the infinitely-thin wall limit). 555 The infinitely thin wall limit is given by $`\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\mathrm{}`$ (for a given $`v_0`$ and an appropriately chosen $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).  Both satisfy the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-properties in Sec.4. Imitating (35) with $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}`$, we take, as the regularized solution of (16), the following forms for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_L(z)=v_0{\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ł=0}{\overset{L}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d_ł}{2ł+1}}\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)2\pi z\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L(z)=\omega {\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{ł=0}{\overset{L}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_ł}{2ł+1}}\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)2\pi z\},`$ (36)
where $`c^{}s`$ and $`d^{}s`$ are some numbers to be determined appropriately and $`L`$ is the new regularization parameter which should be taken sufficiently large. At present, the way to fix the coefficients, $`c^{}s`$ and $`d^{}s`$, relies on a numerical method. (See App.B.1 for solving (16) numerically, and see App.B.2 for fixing the coefficients by the least square method.) As explained in App.C, the behavior of $`\{d_ł\}`$ and $`\{c_ł\}`$ has three ”phases”: i) $`2ł+11/(4\pi w_{UV})`$, ii) $`2ł+11/(4\pi w_{UV})`$, and iii) $`2ł+11/(4\pi w_{UV})`$, where $`w_{UV}`$ is the thickness around the UV regions ($`z𝐙`$). The critical value $`ł=L^{}`$ is given by the vacuum parameters:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{r_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi w_{UV}}}\sqrt{\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}=m_H,`$ (37)
where $`\sqrt{\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$ is identified as the (5 dim) Higgs mass $`m_H`$ defined by $`m_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{1}{2}V^{\prime \prime }(v_0)`$. The (length) scale $`w_{UV}`$ is an important quantity in the mass hierarchy problem. 666 This new mass scale $`L^{}/r_c`$ corresponds to the parameter $`k`$ in the original RS model.  These values $`L^{}`$ and $`w_{UV}`$ are independent of the regularization parameter $`L`$. This point should be compared with the thickness appeared in $`\theta _L(x)`$. The condition for the dimensional reduction, from 5 dim to 4 dim, is given by

$`L^{}{\displaystyle \frac{r_c}{8\pi w_{UV}}}1.`$ (38)
In the present regularized solution (36), the UV-IR symmetry (i.e., symmetry w.r.t the axes $`z=\pm \frac{1}{4}+𝐙`$) holds. Therefore another width $`w_{IR}`$ around the IR-regions ($`z\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$) is the same as $`w_{UV}`$.

$`w_{IR}=w_{UV}.`$ (39)
$`w_{IR}`$ is protected against $`L`$(regulator) dependence, at least, taking the regularized form of (36). (This should be compared with the $`\theta _L(x)`$ case, where $`w_{IR}=w_{UV}L^1`$.)

Both $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L`$ have the $`\theta _L`$-properties with $`ϵ=\frac{1}{2}`$. We consider the case that $`L^{}`$ is large($`LL^{}1`$), that is, the solutions $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ are near the $`\theta `$-function. The infinitely-thin wall limit ($`\theta `$ or $`\delta `$-function distribution) corresponds to, in (36), the following case.

$`LL^{}\mathrm{},d_ł1,c_ł1\text{for all }ł\text{’s}.`$ (40)
Taken into account the condition that the 5D classical Einstein equation works, that is, the new mass scale $`L^{}/r_c`$ should be much less than 5D Planck scale $`M`$, we should have the following relations between parameters. 777 In (41) the $`r_c`$-dependence is explicitly written. The eq.(6), which was introduced purely for the notational simplicity, should be taken off and, instead, $`Mr_c1`$ should be considered.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{r_c}}M.`$ (41)
We regard the above three parameters, $`M`$(fundamental scale),$`r_c`$(compactification size) and $`L^{}`$(wall-thickness parameter), as the fundamental parameters of the theory.

The numerical results of (36) are given in the next section. (See App.B for further detail of the calculation.) The solution (36) is the regularized solution of (16), not a true one . (How to improve (36) perturbatively, in order to approach a true solution, is proposed in Sec.8. In the practical and numerical point of view, the solution (36) is sufficiently close to the true solution.) It is, however, sufficient to claim the existence of the solution of (16) that has the wall-anti-wall (kink-anti-kink) configuration.

## 6 Final Numerical Result of $`S^1/Z_2`$ Compactification

In Fig.8,9 and 10, we plot three sample solutions of (36) corresponding to the following three vacua respectively. The configurations approach to the $`\theta `$-function in the order of Vac.1, 2 and 3.

$`\text{Vacuum 1}\lambda =20.0\text{(input)},v_0=1.0\text{(input)},\mathrm{\Lambda }=1.88855`$
$`(\omega =1.12207),L=19\text{(input)};w_{UV}8.9\times 10^3(L^{}4.5).`$ (42)
$`\text{Vacuum 2}\lambda =40.0\text{(input)},v_0=1.0\text{(input)},\mathrm{\Lambda }=3.77762`$
$`(\omega =1.58695),L=19\text{(input)};w_{UV}6.3\times 10^3(L^{}6.3).`$ (43)
$`\text{Vacuum 3}\lambda =100.0\text{(input)},v_0=1.0\text{(input)},\mathrm{\Lambda }=9.4440537`$
$`(\omega =2.5091903),L=19\text{(input)};w_{UV}4.0\times 10^3(L^{}10.).`$ (44)
Note that the values of the (5D) cosmological term, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, are very finely chosen so that the boundary conditions (24) and (25) are satisfied. All digits appearing are ”significant figures”. As the configuration approaches the $`\theta `$-function limit ($`m_{H}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{}`$), the necessary number of digits increases. (See also Vac.1w in App.A.) This shows the cosmological constant is, for a given $`\lambda `$ and $`v_0`$, dynamically derived in the present framework. Note that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is directly related with the 4 dim cosmological constant. 888 The cosmological constant problem was reviewed in . One standard approach to the dynamical cosmological constant is the radiative correction. Such scenario was explicitly done, using the Coleman-Weinberg mechanism, in .  In App.A, we give another result for Vac.1 with a different compactification coordinate.

The solutions of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L(z)`$ are similar to $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L(z)`$. In Fig.11, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_L(z)`$ are plotted for the case of Vacuum 3. For each vacuum, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ is always closer to the $`\theta `$-function limit than $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$.

The following items can be read from the above output data.

1. As the Higgs potential has deeper valleies, which corresponds to the case that the 5D Higgs mass ($`m_H=\sqrt{\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}`$) becomes larger, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ approach the $`\theta `$-function. All coefficients $`d_ł`$’s and $`c_ł`$’s are expected to approach 1 (the limit of (40)).
2. The wavy region, explained in (81), is not so clear in Vacuum 1-3, but can be seen in Vacuum 1w of App.A.

## 7 Properties of the Solution

### 7.1 Wall-Anti-Wall Configuration

In the previous section, the regularized (numerical) solutions for the wall-anti-wall configuration are given. $`S^1/Z_2`$ compactification is just taking the segment $`[0,\frac{1}{2}]`$ for the periodic coordinate $`z`$ with periodicity $`1`$. The derivative of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L(z)`$ of Vacuum 3 (Fig.10) is plotted in Fig.12. Here we see the present approach surely gives the wall-anti-wall configuration. The walls appear at both ends of the extra axis, not at some middle points in the axis. The situation is the same as that in the lattice domain wall. We stress the points: 1) the anti-wall is realized by the present IR regularization where the discontinuity of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ at the singular points ($`\frac{1}{2}+𝐙`$) is avoided by truncating the infinite Fourier series; 2) the stability of the solution is guaranteed by the boundary conditions; 3) UV-IR symmetry is realized in the present form of the regularized solution. 999 In ref., the wall-anti-wall configuration is considered in a modified RS-model and UV-IR symmetry is suggested.  We need not the radion field which was considered , for the stability, in  and was developed in . (In the place of the radion field $`T^2(x)`$(eq.(13) of ), from eq.(7), the fixed function of $`z`$, $`4/(14z^2)^2`$, appears in the present scenario. )

### 7.2 Brane Tensions at the Wall and the Anti-Wall

We make a remark on a comparative aspect between the wall and the anti-wall. Let us consider the ”$`\theta `$-function limit” (thin wall limit) $`m_Hr_c=\sqrt{\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}r_cL^{}1`$. The behaviors of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=\sigma ^{}F(z)`$ are considered to be the periodic step functions shown in Fig.13b and d. Correspondingly those of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=v_0{\displaystyle \underset{n𝐙}{}}\{\delta (zn)\delta (zn{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\omega {\displaystyle \underset{n𝐙}{}}\{\delta (zn)\delta (zn{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\}.`$ (45)
See Fig.13a and c.

The ”warp” factor $`\sigma (z)`$ behaves as in Fig.13e. These behaviors should be compared with (8)-(10) of Ref.. The parts of minus-delta-function in eq.(45) correspond to the anti-walls. Now we evaluate the integrand of the 5D action (1) near $`z0`$(Wall) and $`z\pm \frac{1}{2}`$(Anti-Wall). Noting $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, we obtain

$`S={\displaystyle d^4x𝑑z\frac{2\mathrm{e}^{4\sigma (z)}}{F(z)}\sqrt{g}\{\frac{1}{2}(2F\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+5\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)\frac{1}{8}F(z)^2\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{\lambda }{4}(\mathrm{\Phi }^2v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2\mathrm{\Lambda }\}}`$
$`{\displaystyle d^4x𝑑zL},`$ (46)
where we consider the general curved space $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ for the 4D world.
i) $`z0`$

$`F1,|\mathrm{\Sigma }|\omega ,\mathrm{e}^{4\sigma }1,|\mathrm{\Phi }|v_0,`$
$`L\sqrt{g}\{(2\omega M^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{r_c}})\delta (z)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\}.`$ (47)
The presence of $`\delta (z)`$ term 101010 In (47), we have used relations: $`\delta (z)=lim_{a+0}(1/\sqrt{2\pi }a)\mathrm{exp}\{z^2/2a^2\},\delta (z)\delta (z)\delta (z)/\sqrt{2\pi }a`$, where $`\sqrt{2\pi }a`$ is regarded as the thickness of the wall, $`r_c/L^{}`$.  shows the 3-brane is located at $`z=0`$. The brane tension is given by

$`T_{UV}=2\omega M^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{r_c}},`$ (48)
which is given by the value of $`\omega =\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3M^3}`$ and $`v_0`$. $`T_{UV}`$ is positive for the large value of $`\omega `$$`2\omega M^3>\frac{1}{4}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\frac{L^{}}{r_c}`$.
ii) $`z\frac{1}{2}0`$

$`F2(12z),\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega ,\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }({\displaystyle \frac{2}{12z}})^{\omega /2},\mathrm{\Phi }v_0,`$
$`L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^\omega }}\sqrt{g}\{(2\omega (12z)^\omega {\displaystyle \frac{v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}(12z)^{\omega +1})\delta (z{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(12z)^{\omega 1}\}`$
$`0,`$ (49)
as far as $`\omega >1/r_c`$.
iii) $`z\frac{1}{2}+0`$(or $`+\frac{1}{2}+0`$)

$`F2(1+2z),\mathrm{\Sigma }\omega ,\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma }({\displaystyle \frac{1+2z}{2}})^{+\omega /2},\mathrm{\Phi }v_0,`$
$`L{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^\omega }}\sqrt{g}\{(2\omega (1+2z)^\omega {\displaystyle \frac{v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}}(1+2z)^{\omega +1})\delta (z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+2z)^{\omega 1}\}`$
$`0,`$ (50)
as far as $`\omega >1/r_c`$. We see ii) and iii) are continuosly connected at the Lagrangian density level. Note that singularities at $`z=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are avoided by the warp factors. The above result shows the anti-wall, in the thin wall limit, does not remain at the lagrangian density level. We may say the tension for the anti-wall is zero.

$`T_{IR}=0.`$ (51)
This view is also confirmed, as far as the value of $`\omega `$ is large, by the energy momentum tensor $`\sqrt{G}T_{MN}`$ where $`T_{MN}`$ is given by the RHS of eq.(2).

$`\sqrt{G}T_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{e}^{6\sigma }\sqrt{g}g_{\mu \nu }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{F}}V)`$
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{g}g_{\mu \nu }(\frac{1}{4}v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\delta (z)+2\mathrm{\Lambda })\hfill & z0.\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2^{1.5\omega }}\sqrt{g}g_{\mu \nu }\{\frac{v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}(12z)^{1.5\omega +1}\delta (z\frac{1}{2})+\mathrm{\Lambda }(12z)^{1.5\omega 1}\}0\hfill & z\frac{1}{2}0.\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2^{1.5\omega }}\sqrt{g}g_{\mu \nu }\{\frac{v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}(1+2z)^{1.5\omega +1}\delta (z+\frac{1}{2})+\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+2z)^{1.5\omega 1}\}0\hfill & z\frac{1}{2}+0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (55)
$`\sqrt{G}T_{zz}=\mathrm{e}^{4\sigma }\sqrt{g}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{F}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{F^3}}V)`$
$`\{\begin{array}{cc}\sqrt{g}(v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\delta (z)+8\mathrm{\Lambda })\hfill & z0.\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2^\omega }\sqrt{g}\{\frac{v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}(12z)^{\omega 1}\delta (z\frac{1}{2})+\mathrm{\Lambda }(12z)^{\omega 3}\}0\hfill & z\frac{1}{2}0.\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2^\omega }\sqrt{g}\{\frac{v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2}(1+2z)^{\omega 1}\delta (z+\frac{1}{2})+\mathrm{\Lambda }(1+2z)^{\omega 3}\}0\hfill & z\frac{1}{2}+0.\hfill \end{array}`$ (59)
(60)
(We have assumed $`\omega >3/r_c`$ in the vanishing of $`\sqrt{G}T_{zz}`$ for the infrared cases. )

These results are accepted because we have changed only the infrared boundary condition of the one wall solution. The appreciable appearance of the anti-wall occurs only at the level of the equation of motion, not at the effective action level. On the wall the dynamics of the 4D world are operating, whereas it is suppressed (by the warp factor) on the anti-wall. From the situation in the 5D lattice simulation, it is quite interesting to see how the anti-wall works to provide the other chirality partner for the zero mode fermions bound on the wall.

### 7.3 Renormalizarion Group Flow

We make a comment from the viewpoint of the renormalization group in the spirit of AdS/CFT. The basic standpoint is to regard the 5 dim classical solution as a scaling trajectory  in the 4 dim quantum field theory. In the present case, it occurs near the horizons. As $`z(r_c/2)0`$, the asymptotic metric (29) says the scalar density ”operator” of the 5 dim cosmological term is approximated by

$`V(\mathrm{\Phi }=v_0)\sqrt{G}\mathrm{\Lambda }(1{\displaystyle \frac{2z}{r_c}})^{\omega r_c1}\sqrt{g(x)}\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(z)\sqrt{g(x)},`$ (61)
where the general curved space $`g_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ is considered for the 4D world and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(z)`$ is a 4D scalar. We can interpret the meaning of $`w_{IR}`$ of (39) as the (infrared) scaling parameter when the ”scale” $`z`$ approaches the singular point $`r_c/2`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{r_c}{2}}zw_{IR}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{r_c}{L^{}}}.`$ (62)
From above results, we obtain

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(L^{})\mathrm{\Lambda }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi L}})^{\omega r_c1},`$
$`\beta _{|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|}{\displaystyle \frac{}{(\mathrm{ln}L^{})}}\mathrm{ln}|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(L^{})|\omega r_c+1=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3M^3}}}r_c+1.`$ (63)
The last quantity corresponds to the (infrared) renormalization group ($`\beta `$-) function for $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|`$. We know, from the result of Sec.6, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive and is sufficiently large, hence we conclude $`\beta _{|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|}<0`$. The quantity $`|\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|`$ is infrared asymptotic free, that is, it decreases as $`L^{}\mathrm{}`$. 111111 In the renormalizable model of 2 dim $`R^2`$-gravity, the same property of the cosmological constant is known. In the brane world context, a similar result is obtained and analysed in a different treatment.

## 8 Discussion and Conclusion

The regularized solution (36) cannot become a true one even when we take $`L=\mathrm{}`$, because one of its properties TL5=T5: symmetric with respect to $`z=\frac{1}{4}`$, does not match with the solution except the $`\theta `$-function limit. In order to approach a true solution, as done for the one-wall case , we must generalize the form of solution (36) by replacing the constants $`d_ł`$ and $`c_ł`$ by $`z`$-dependent functions $`d_ł(z)`$ and $`c_ł(z)`$ in the following forms.

$`d_ł(z)=\alpha _{ł,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{ł,2}}{2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[z^2]}{(L^{}r_c)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{ł,4}}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[z^4]}{(L^{}r_c)^4}}+\mathrm{}`$
$`c_ł(z)=\beta _{ł,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{ł,2}}{2!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[z^2]}{(L^{}r_c)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _{ł,4}}{4!}}{\displaystyle \frac{[z^4]}{(L^{}r_c)^4}}+\mathrm{},`$ (64)
where $`[z^n]`$ is the ”periodic generalization” of $`z^n`$ ( in the same way as $`F(z)`$ in Sec.4). (Compare with eq.(30) of .) In the above we take only even powers of $`z`$ in order to keep the odd function property ( P4 or TL4=T4). Note that the above generalization breaks the UV-IR symmetry (T5=TL5). Therefore the present solution, (36) with above generalization (64), can be regarded as the perturbation around the UV-IR symmetry limit.

As for the key equations (36) and their generalization (64), we can understand them by a set of general properties. Let $`f(x)`$ be a real function defined on $`x𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$. If $`f(x)`$ satisfy the following properties:

Piecewise continuous everywhere.

Piecewise smooth everywhere.

Periodic with the periodicity of $`1`$ ($`S^1`$-symmetry) : $`f(x)=f(x+1)`$.

Odd function ($`Z_2`$-symmetry) : $`f(x)=f(x)`$. (Using the item G3, an important property : $`f(𝐙)=0`$ is deduced.)

Symmetric with respect to $`x=\frac{1}{4}`$ (UV-IR symmetry).

then, the general form can be written as

$`f(x)={\displaystyle \underset{ł=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}a_ł\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)2\pi x\},`$ (65)
where $`\{a_ł\}`$ are constants. If we replace the infinite sum by the finite sum $`_{ł=0}^L`$ for the regularization, the word ”piecewise” in the items G1 and G2 can always be removed. As a ”deformation” of (65), at the cost of the item G5 (UV-IR symmetry), we can generalize the constants $`\{a_ł\}`$ to

$`a_ł(x)=\alpha _{ł,0}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{ł,2}}{2!}}[x^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _{ł,4}}{4!}}[x^4]+\mathrm{}.`$ (66)
This generalization produces UV$``$IR (Planck$``$TeV) asymmetry.

Since Hořava-Witten’s paper, $`S^1/Z_2`$ compactification ($`Z_2`$ orbifold) becomes popular as a dimensional reduction procedure in the string inspired unified models. It gives essentially an wall at one end of the extra axis and the anti-wall at the other. The present infrared regularization serves as realizing this configuration.

Acknowledgment

The author thanks G.W.Gibbons for stimulating discussions at the initial stage and for comments at some stages. He also thanks T.Tamaribuchi for the help in the numerical calculation and N.Ikeda for some discussions.

Appendix A : Stereographic Compactification

Instead of the compact coordinate $`z`$ defined by (5), we can take another one $`w`$ defined as

$`My=\mathrm{tan}\pi {\displaystyle \frac{w}{r_c}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}<{\displaystyle \frac{w}{r_c}}<{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},\mathrm{}<My<\mathrm{}.`$ (67)
See Fig.14.

We take $`M=r_c=1`$. The line element (4) is rewritten as

$`ds^2=\mathrm{e}^{2\sigma (w)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{\{\mathrm{cos}(\pi w)\}^4}}dw^2,`$
$`dy={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\{\mathrm{cos}(\pi w)\}^2}}dw.`$ (68)
$`w=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$ are the points of the coordinate singularity. The boundary condition is

$`\underset{w\pm (\frac{1}{2}0)}{lim}\mathrm{\Phi }(w)\pm v_0,v_0>0.`$ (69)
The Einstein equation (2) reduces to the same form as (16) but with a different $`F`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dw}})^2F_1(w)^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F_1(w)^2({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dw}})^2+V,`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F_1(w)}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dw}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dw}}F_1(w)\}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}({\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dw}})^2,`$
$`F_1(w)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}\{\mathrm{cos}(\pi w)\}^2.`$ (70)
Compared with the case using the coordinate $`z`$, the above equations are straightforward to the generalization from $`w(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ to $`w𝐑=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{})`$ because $`F_1(w)`$ is periodic w.r.t. $`ww+1`$. The properties of $`F_1(w)`$ is the same as those of $`F(z)`$ except a slightly better situation in the point F2: smooth everywhere. All procedures in the text are valid for the coordinate $`w`$ just by replacing $`F(z)`$ by $`F_1(w)`$.

In Fig.15, we give a sample result for Vacuum 1w ($`\lambda `$=20.0(input), $`v_0=1.0`$(input), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$=-1.888810641, $`\omega `$=1.122143972). It should be compared with Vacuum 1 in the text. The shape of the Higgs potential $`V(\mathrm{\Phi })`$ is almost same as that of Vacuum 1(Fig.8), but that of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ is much closer to the $`\theta `$-function. ( In accordance with this, more digits are required for the appropriate value of the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. ) The ”wavy” behavior (App.C) is recognized in the plot of $`\{d_ł\}`$. The different choice of coordinate gives the different behaviors such as the sharpness of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (or the value of $`w_{UV}`$).

Appendix B : Numerical Results in Sec.6

The numerical results of Sec.6, where the regularized solution (36) of the field equation (16) is given, are obtained as follow.

Appendix B.1 : Numerical Solution by Runge-Kutta Method

First we can directly solve the coupled field equation (16) using the numerical method. In terms of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)F(z)\sigma ^{}(z)`$, the field equation (16) can be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dz}}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{F(z)}}\{6\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^2v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+4\mathrm{\Lambda }\}^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}{dz}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3F(z)}}\{6\mathrm{\Sigma }^2+\lambda (\mathrm{\Phi }^2v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})^2+4\mathrm{\Lambda }\},`$ (71)
where $`\lambda ,v_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are the vacuum parameters. $`F(z)`$ is $`(14z^2)`$ in the text (Sec.4), and $`(2/\pi )(\mathrm{cos}\pi z)^2`$ in App.A. Due to the periodicity and the odd function property, we may focus on an region $`[0,\frac{1}{2})`$ of $`z`$ and may take only the + sign in the first equation above. The above coupled differential equation about $`(\mathrm{\Phi }(z),\mathrm{\Sigma }(z))`$ can be numerically solved, for a given vacuum parameters $`(\lambda ,v_0,\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, by the Runge-Kutta method. As for the boundary condition we cannot take (24) and (25): $`lim_{z\frac{1}{2}0}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)v_0`$ and $`lim_{z\frac{1}{2}0}\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)=\omega =\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{3}}`$, because of the singularity at $`z=\frac{1}{2}`$. Instead of this condition in the IR (or asymptotic) region, we take

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z=0)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(z=0)=0.`$ (72)
This is the condition in the UV (or non-asymptotic) region . Note that the above one is the necessary condition when we take the boundary condition (9) or the odd function property of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ (see sentences around (27)). We take the following procedure to have a reliable result.

1. Taking the above boundary condition, we numerically compute (71) for the region \[0,0.4\]. Here we stop the calculation a little before the singularity point $`z=0.5`$.
2. There appear three patterns in the calculational results: a) They diverge before $`z`$ reaches $`0.4`$; b) They become imaginary before $`z`$ reaches $`0.4`$; c) Calculation lasts to $`z=0.4`$ and all values converge to finite ones. Which pattern appears depends on the choice of the vacuum parameters ($`\lambda ,v_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$).
3. Among the results of pattern c), we pick up the best one near to the ”practical” boundary condition: $`lim_{z0.4}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)v_0`$ and $`lim_{z0.4}\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)\omega =\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}`$. Generally, for a given ($`\lambda ,v_0`$)(input), the calculational value $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ tends to be suppressed (or get imaginary ) when $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ increases, while it tends to increase ( or diverge) when $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|`$ decreases The width of the wall ( or the initial slope ) can be controlled by $`\lambda v_0^2`$. After trying the calculation, with 20-50 values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, for one input ($`\lambda ,v_0`$), we can always obtain a satisfactory solution. This says that the boundary condition (72) and the suitable choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ realize the original boundary condition (9).
4. For the numerically unaccessible region (0.4,0.5), we put the asymptotic values $`v_0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Lambda }/3}`$ for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by hand. Note that this region is the asymptotic region, therefore it should be dynamically simple although numerically difficult due to the infrared singularity.

Some sample output data are given in the text ($`F(z)=14z^2`$) for several cases: ($`\lambda ,v_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$)
=(20.0,1.0,-1.88855)\[Fig.8\],(40.0,1.0,-3.77762)\[Fig.9\],(100.0,1.0,-9.4440537) \[Fig.10,11\]. Another one is given in App.A($`F(z)=(2/\pi )(\mathrm{cos}\pi z)^2`$) for ($`\lambda ,v_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$)=(20.0,1.0,-1.888810641)\[Fig.15\].

In ref., using the y-coordinate (4), some quantities ($`\sigma ^{}(y),\mathrm{\Phi }(y),\widehat{R},\text{etc}`$) are obtained both analytically and numerically.

Appendix B.2 : Least Square Fitting

We fit the solution obtained in the previous subsection by the proposed 0-th order formula (36). $`L`$ should be taken appropriately large. The critical value $`L^{}`$, explained in App.C, can be roughly obtained by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L^{}}{r_c}}\sqrt{\lambda v_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}.`$ (73)
Next we fix the coefficients $`d^{}s`$ and $`c^{}s`$ of (36). A standard way is to minimize the following quantity (Least square method).

$`I(d_0,d_1,\mathrm{},d_L)={\displaystyle _0^{1/2}}(\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\mathrm{\Phi }_L(z))^2dz,\delta I=0,`$
$`J(c_0,c_1,\mathrm{},c_L)={\displaystyle _0^{1/2}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)\mathrm{\Sigma }_L(z))^2dz,\delta J=0,`$ (74)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ are regarded as the exact solution. Solving this equation, we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{v_0}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{d_ł}{2ł+1}}={\displaystyle _0^{1/2}}\mathrm{\Phi }(z)\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)2\pi z\}𝑑z,`$ (75)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{c_ł}{2ł+1}}={\displaystyle _0^{1/2}}\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)2\pi z\}𝑑z,.`$ (76)
The right hand side of the above equations can be numerically evaluated using the numerical results of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(z)`$ in the previous subsection. The samples of $`\{d_ł\}`$ are given in Fig.8-10 and Fig.15, and $`\{c_ł\}`$ are in Fig.11.

Appendix C : Trapezium Model Solution

As a simplified model of the solution of (16) or (71), we can take the following simplified model. See Fig.16.

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{v_0}{2w}z\hfill & \text{when}0z2w\hfill \\ v_0\hfill & \text{when}2w<z\frac{1}{2}\hfill \end{array}`$ (79)
We can qualitatively understand the behavior of the coefficients { $`d_ł`$ } appearing in the output data in Sec.6 and App.A. Using the formula (76), $`d_ł`$ is obtained as

$`d_ł={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\{(2ł+1)4\pi w\}}{(2ł+1)4\pi w}}+1\},ł=0,1,\mathrm{},L.`$ (80)
Generally three ”phases” appear depending upon some regions of $`ł`$.

$`i)0<(2ł+1)4\pi w1:`$ $`d_ł1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\pi ^2w^2(2ł+1)^2\text{(parabolic)}`$
$`ii)(2ł+1)4\pi w1:`$ wavy region
$`iii)(2ł+1)4\pi w1:`$ $`d_ł{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\text{(constant)}`$ (81)
The critical value of $`łL^{}`$ is given by

$`L^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi w}},`$ (82)
which is independent of the regularization parameter $`L`$. In Fig.17 and 18, we plot the above result for ($`L,w`$)=(19,0.15) and ($`L,w`$)=(19,0.05) respectively.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quasidiagonal (QD) $`C^{}`$-algebras are those which enjoy a certain finite dimensional approximation property. (See \[Vo2\], \[Br3\] for surveys of the theory of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras.) While these finite dimensional approximations have certainly lead to a better understanding of the structure of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras, there are a number of very basic open questions. For example, assume that $`0IE\stackrel{\pi }{}B0`$ is a split exact sequence (i.e. there exists a \*-homomorphism $`\phi :BE`$ such that $`\pi \phi =id_B`$) where both $`I`$ and $`B`$ are QD. It is not known whether $`E`$ must be QD (and, in fact, it is not even clear what to expect).

In this paper we study the extension problem for QD $`C^{}`$-algebras and it’s relation to some natural questions concerning K-theory of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras. Our techniques rely heavily on Kasparov’s theory of extensions and thus we will always need some nuclearity assumptions.

For example, adapting techniques found in \[Sp\] we will show (Theorem 3.4) that if $`0IEB0`$ is short exact where $`E`$ is separable, $`I`$ is QD, $`B`$ is nuclear, QD and satisfies the Universal Coefficient Theorem (UCT) and the boundary map $`:K_1(B)K_0(I)`$ vanishes then $`E`$ must be QD also. It follows that if $`K_1(B)=0`$ then $`E`$ is always QD, which generalizes work of Eilers, Loring and Pedersen (\[ELP\]). As another application we observe that in the case that $`I`$ is the compact operators our result implies that $`E`$ is QD if and only if the (class of the) extension is in the kernel of the natural map $`Ext(B)Hom(K_1(B),)`$, where $`Ext(B)`$ denotes the classical BDF group (recall that we are assuming $`B`$ is nuclear and hence $`Ext(B)`$ is a group). Also, we verify a conjecture of \[BK\], stating that an asymptotically split extension of NF algebras is NF, under the additional assumption that the quotient algebra satisfies the UCT of \[RS\].

We then study the general extension problem. Now let $`0IEB0`$ be exact where $`E`$ is separable and nuclear, $`I`$ is QD and $`B`$ is QD and satisfies the UCT. Based on previous work of Spielberg (\[Sp\]) it is reasonable to expect that in this case $`E`$ will be QD if and only if $`(K_1(B))K_0^+(I)=\{0\}`$, where $`K_0^+(I)=\{0\}`$ denotes the positive cone of $`K_0(I)`$. Though we are unable to resolve this question we do show that it is equivalent to some other natural questions concerning the K-theory of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras and that in order to solve the general extension problem it suffices to prove the special case that $`B=C(𝕋)`$ (see Theorem 4.11).

The first equivalent K-theory question is: If $`A`$ is nuclear, separable and QD and $`GK_0(A)`$ is a subgroup such that $`GK_0^+(A)=0`$ then can one always find an embedding $`\rho :AC`$ where $`C`$ is QD and $`\rho _{}(G)=0`$? The condition $`GK_0^+(A)=0`$ is easily seen to be necessary and hence the question is whether or not it is sufficient. The second K-theory question asks whether every nuclear QD $`C^{}`$-algebra satisfies what we call the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property (see Definition 4.7). Roughly speaking this $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property states that if $`xK_0(A)`$ and $`\pm xK_0^+(A)`$ then one can always find finite dimensional approximate morphisms (i.e. ”functionals”) which separate $`x`$ from $`K_0^+(A)`$. (Due to possible perforation in $`K_0(A)`$ this statement is not quite correct, but it conveys the main idea.) Determining whether every nuclear QD algebra satisfies the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property is of independent interest as our inability to understand how well finite dimensional approximate morphisms read K-theory has been a major obstacle in the classification program.

In section 2 we review the necessary theory of extensions and prove a few simple results needed later. In section 3 we handle the case when $`:K_1(B)K_0(I)`$ vanishes. In section 4 we turn to the general extension problem and show equivalence with the K-theory questions described above.

The present work is related to work of Salinas \[Sa1\], \[Sa2\] and Schochet \[Sch\]. Those authors study the quasidiagonality of extensions $`0IEB0`$ (i.e. the question of whether or not $`I`$ contains an approximate unit of projections which is quasicentral in $`E`$) whereas we study the QD of the C\*-algebra $`E`$. The two questions are different even if $`I`$ is the compact operators. Indeed, while the quasidiagonality of $`0𝒦EB0`$ does imply the QD of $`E`$, the converse implication is false (see Section 3).

## 2 Preliminaries and Trivial Extensions.

Most of this section is devoted to reviewing definitions, introducing notation and recalling some standard facts about extensions of $`C^{}`$-algebras. However, at the end we prove a few simple facts which will be needed later. The main result states that quasidiagonality is preserved in split extensions provided that either the ideal or the quotient is a nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebra (see Proposition 2.5).

For a comprehensive introduction to the aspects of extension theory which we will need we recommend looking at \[Bl, Section 15\]. For any $`C^{}`$-algebra $`I`$ we will let $`M(I)`$ be it’s multiplier algebra and $`Q(I)=M(I)/I`$ be it’s corona algebra. Let $`\pi :M(I)Q(I)`$ be the quotient map.

If $`E`$ is any $`C^{}`$-algebra containing $`I`$ as an ideal and $`B=E/I`$ then there exists a unique \*-homomorphism $`\rho :EM(I)`$ such that $`\rho (I)=I`$ and hence an induced \*-homomorphism $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$. The map $`\gamma `$ is injective if and only if $`\rho `$ is in injective if and only if $`I`$ sits as an essential ideal in $`E`$. Conversely, given a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$ and a \*-homomorphism $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$ we can construct the pullback which, by definition, is the $`C^{}`$-algebra

$$E(\gamma )=\{xbM(I)B:\pi (x)=\gamma (b)\}.$$

This gives a short exact sequence $`0IE(\gamma )B0`$. Moreover, if $`B=E/I`$ with induced map $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$ then there is an induced \*-isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:EE(\gamma )`$ with commutativity in the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & I& & E& & B& & 0\\ & & & & \mathrm{\Phi }& & & & & & \\ 0& & I& & E(\gamma )& & B& & 0.\end{array}$$

Hence there is a one to one correspondence between extensions of $`I`$ by $`B`$ and \*-homomorphisms $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$. As is standard, we will refer to a \*-homomorphism $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$ as a Busby invariant and freely use the above correspondence between Busby invariants and extensions.

When $`I`$ is stable (i.e. $`I𝒦I`$, where $`𝒦`$ denotes the compact operators on a separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space) there is a natural way of adding two extensions which we now describe. Any isomorphism $`M_2()𝒦𝒦`$ induces an isomorphism $`M_2()𝒦I𝒦I`$ which then gives isomorphisms $`M_2()M(𝒦I)M(𝒦I)`$ and $`M_2()Q(𝒦I)Q(𝒦I)`$. Thus if we are given two Busby invariants $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2:BQ(𝒦I)`$ we can define a new Busby invariant $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ by

$$(\gamma _1\gamma _2)(b)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\gamma _1(b)& 0\\ 0& \gamma _2(b)\end{array}\right)M_2()Q(𝒦I)Q(𝒦I).$$

Of course the Busby invariant $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ constructed in this way will depend on the particular isomorphism $`M_2()𝒦𝒦`$. To remedy this we say that two Busby invariants $`\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$ are strongly equivalent if there exists a unitary $`uM(I)`$ such that $`\mathrm{Ad}\pi (u)\left(\gamma _1(b)\right)=\pi (u)\gamma _1(b)\pi (u^{})=\gamma _2(b)`$, for all $`bB`$, where $`\pi :M(I)Q(I)`$ is the quotient map. Note that if $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ are strongly equivalent then $`E(\gamma _1)`$ and $`E(\gamma _2)`$ are isomorphic $`C^{}`$-algebras. Indeed, the map $`E(\gamma _1)E(\gamma _2)`$, $`xbuxu^{}b`$ is easily seen to be an isomorphism. Since any isomorphism $`M_2()𝒦𝒦`$ is implemented by a unitary we see that $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ is unique up to strong equivalence. In particular, the isomorphism class of the $`C^{}`$-algebra $`E(\gamma _1\gamma _2)`$ does not depend on the choice of isomorphism $`M_2()𝒦𝒦`$.

A Busby invariant $`\tau `$ is called trivial if it lifts to a \*-homomorphism $`\phi :BM(I)`$ (i.e. $`\pi \phi =\gamma `$). A Busby invariant $`\gamma :BQ(𝒦I)`$ is called absorbing if $`\gamma \tau `$ is strongly equivalent to $`\gamma `$ for every trivial $`\tau `$. Note that if $`\gamma `$ is absorbing then so is $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\gamma `$ for any $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$. In particular if $`\gamma `$ is absorbing then $`\gamma `$ is injective. Note also that if $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$ are both trivial and absorbing then $`\tau _1`$, $`\tau _1\tau _2`$ and $`\tau _2`$ are all strongly equivalent. Thus we get the following fact.

###### Lemma 2.1

If $`\tau _1,\tau _2:BQ(𝒦I)`$ are both trivial and absorbing then $`E(\tau _1)E(\tau _2)`$.

Another simple fact we will need is the following.

###### Lemma 2.2

If $`\gamma ,\tau :BQ(𝒦I)`$ are Busby invariants with $`\tau `$ trivial then there is a natural embedding $`E(\gamma )E(\gamma \tau )`$.

Proof. Let $`\phi :BM(I)`$ be a lifting of $`\tau `$. Define a map $`E(\gamma )E(\gamma \tau )`$ by

$$xb\left(\begin{array}{cc}x& 0\\ 0& \phi (b)\end{array}\right)b.$$

Evidently this map is an injective $``$-homomorphism. $`\mathrm{}`$

The following generalization of Voiculescu’s Theorem, which is due to Kasparov, will be crucial in what follows.

###### Theorem 2.3

(\[Bl, Thm. 15.12.4\]) Assume that $`B`$ is separable, $`I`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital and either $`B`$ or $`I`$ is nuclear. Let $`\rho :BB(H)`$ be a faithful representation such that $`H`$ is separable, $`\rho (B)𝒦(H)=\{0\}`$ and the orthogonal complement of the nondegeneracy subspace of $`\rho (B)`$ (i.e. $`H\overline{\rho (B)H}`$) is infinite dimensional. Regarding $`B(H)B(H)1M(𝒦I)`$ as scalar operators we get a short exact sequence

$$0𝒦I\rho (B)1+𝒦IB0.$$

If $`\tau `$ denotes the induced Busby invariant then $`\tau `$ is both trivial and absorbing.

We define an equivalence relation on the set of Bubsy invariants $`BQ(𝒦I)`$ by saying $`\gamma `$ is related to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ if there exist trivial Busby invariants $`\tau ,\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ such that $`\gamma \tau `$ is strongly equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. Taking the quotient by this relation yields the semigroup $`Ext(B,𝒦I)`$. The image of a map $`\gamma :BQ(𝒦I)`$ in $`Ext(B,𝒦I)`$ is denoted $`[\gamma ]`$. Note that all trivial Busby invariants give rise to the same class denoted by $`0Ext(B,𝒦I)`$ and this class is a neutral element (i.e. identity) for the semigroup. Note also that if $`[\gamma ]=0Ext(B,𝒦I)`$ then it does not follow that $`\gamma `$ is trivial. However, it does follow that if $`\tau `$ is a trivial absorbing Busby invariant then so is $`\gamma \tau `$.

We are almost ready to prove the main result of this section. We just need one more definition.

###### Definition 2.4

If $`0IEB0`$ is an exact sequence with Busby invariant $`\gamma `$ then we let $`\gamma ^s:𝒦BQ(𝒦I)`$ denote the stabilization of $`\gamma `$. That is, $`\gamma ^s`$ is the Busby invariant of the exact sequence $`0𝒦I𝒦E𝒦B0`$.

Note that there is always an embedding $`EE(\gamma )E(\gamma ^s)`$.

###### Proposition 2.5

Let $`0IEB0`$ be exact with Busby invariant $`\gamma `$. If both $`I`$ and $`B`$ are QD, $`B`$ is separable, $`I`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital, either $`I`$ or $`B`$ is nuclear and $`[\gamma ^s]=0Ext(𝒦B,𝒦I)`$ then $`E`$ is also QD.

Proof. Since quasidiagonality passes to subalgebras, it suffices to show that if $`\tau :𝒦BQ(𝒦I)`$ is a trivial absorbing Busby invariant (which exists by Theorem 2.3) then $`E(\tau )`$ is QD. Indeed, by Lemmas 2.1, 2.2 and the definition of $`Ext(𝒦B,𝒦I)`$ we have the inclusions

$$EE(\gamma ^s)E(\gamma ^s\tau )E(\tau ).$$

To prove that $`E(\tau )`$ is QD we may assume (again by Lemma 2.1) that $`\tau `$ arises from the particular extension described in Theorem 2.3. However for that extension it is easy to see that $`E(\tau )(\rho (B)+𝒦)\stackrel{~}{I}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{I}`$ is the unitization of $`I`$. But since $`\rho (B)𝒦=\{0\}`$ it follows that $`\rho (B)+𝒦`$ is QD (\[Br3, Thm. 3.11\]). Hence $`(\rho (B)+𝒦)\stackrel{~}{I}`$ is also QD as a minimal tensor product QD C\*-algebras (\[Br3, Prop. 7.5\] ). $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the above proposition covers the case of split extensions (i.e. when $`\gamma `$ is trivial).

## 3 When $`:K_1(B)K_0(I)`$ is zero.

The main result of this section (Theorem 3.4) states that if the boundary map $`:K_1(B)K_0(I)`$ coming from an exact sequence $`0IEB0`$ is zero then $`E`$ will be QD whenever $`I`$ is QD and $`B`$ is nuclear, QD and satisfies the Universal Coefficient Theorem (UCT) of Rosenberg and Schochet (\[RS\]). The main ideas in the proof are inspired by work of Spielberg (\[Sp\]). We also discuss a few consequences of our result, including generalization of work of Eilers-Loring-Pedersen (\[ELP\]) and a partial solution to a conjecture of Blackadar and Kirchberg \[BK\].

###### Definition 3.1

An embedding $`IJ`$ is called approximately unital if it takes an approximate unit of $`I`$ to an approximate unit of $`J`$.

In this case there is a natural inclusion $`M(I)M(J)`$ which induces an inclusion $`Q(I)Q(J)`$ \[Pe, 3.12.12\]. Hence for any Busby invariant $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$ there is an induced Busby invariant $`\eta :BQ(J)`$ with commutativity in the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & I& & E(\gamma )& & B& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & J& & E(\eta )& & B& & 0.\end{array}$$

Moreover, the two vertical maps on the left are injective.

There are two ways of producing approximately unital embeddings which we will need. The first is $`IIA`$, for some unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$. If $`\{e_\lambda \}`$ is an approximate unit of $`I`$ then, of course, $`e_\lambda 1_A`$ will be an approximate unit of $`IA`$. The other is to start with an arbitrary embedding $`IJ^{}`$ and define $`J`$ to be the hereditary subalgebra in $`J^{}`$ generated by $`I`$. That is, define $`J`$ to be the closure of $`_\lambda e_\lambda J^{}e_\lambda `$. One easily checks that $`J`$ is then a hereditary subalgebra of $`J^{}`$ and the embedding $`IJ`$ is approximately unital.

In the theory of separable QD $`C^{}`$-algebras there are some nonseparable algebras which play a key role. The first is the direct product $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()`$ for some sequence of integers $`\{n_i\}`$. This algebra is the multiplier algebra of the direct sum $`_iM_{n_i}()`$. If $`H`$ is any separable Hilbert space then we can always find a decomposition $`H=_i^{n_i}`$ and then we have natural inclusions $`_iM_{n_i}()𝒦(H)`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()B(H)`$ and $`Q(_iM_{n_i}())Q(𝒦(H))`$. Another algebra which we will need is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`J\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ be a hereditary subalgebra containing $`𝒦(H)`$. Then $`K_1(J)=0`$.

Proof. Letting $`\pi :B(H)Q(H)`$ be the quotient map we have that $`\pi (J)`$ is a hereditary subalgebra of $`Q(_iM_{n_i}())`$ (use the fact that if $`0aJ,bQ(_iM_{n_i}())`$ and $`0b\pi (a)`$ then there exists $`0c\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ such that $`ca`$ and $`\pi (c)=b`$; \[Da, Cor. IX.4.5\]. Also, the exact sequence $`0𝒦(H)J\pi (J)0`$ is a quasidiagonal extension (i.e. $`𝒦(H)`$ contains an approximate unit of projections which is quasicentral in $`J`$). Hence \[BD, Thm. 8\], states that we have a short exact sequence

$$0K_1(𝒦(H))K_1(J)K_1(\pi (J))0.$$

Thus it suffices to show that $`K_1(X)=0`$ for any hereditary subalgebra $`X`$ of $`Q(_iM_{n_i}())`$.

But if $`XQ(_iM_{n_i}())`$ is a hereditary subalgebra then we can find a quasidiagonal extension

$$0_iM_{n_i}()YX0,$$

where $`Y\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()`$ is a hereditary subalgebra. Applying \[BD, Thm. 8\] again it suffices to show that every hereditary subalgebra of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()`$ has trivial $`K_1`$-group.

But, if $`Y\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()`$ is a hereditary $`\sigma `$-unital subalgebra then $`Y`$ has an increasing approximate unit consisting of projections, say $`\{e_n\}`$ (\[BP\]). Hence

$$K_1(Y)=limK_1(e_n\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()e_n),$$

since $`Y=lime_n\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()e_n`$ (by heredity). But for each $`n`$ it is clear that $`e_n\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()e_n`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{k_i}()`$ for some integers $`\{k_i\}`$ and hence $`K_1(e_n\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()e_n)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`I`$ be a separable QD $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then there exists an approximately unital embedding $`IJ`$, where $`J`$ is a $`\sigma `$-unital QD $`C^{}`$-algebra with $`K_1(J)=0`$.

Proof. Let $`\rho :IB(H)`$ be a nondegenerate faithful representation such that $`\rho (I)𝒦(H)=\{0\}`$. By \[Br3, Prop. 5.2\], there exists a decomposition $`H=_i^{n_i}`$ such that $`\rho (I)\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$. Let $`J`$ be the hereditary subalgebra of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ generated by $`\rho (I)`$. The conclusion follows from the previous lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

For the remainder of this section we will let $`𝒰=_nM_n()`$ be the Universal UHF algebra (i.e. the UHF algebra with $`K_0(𝒰)=`$). For any Busby invariant $`\gamma :BQ(J)`$ we let $`\gamma ^{}`$ denote the Busby invariant coming from the short exact sequence

$$0J𝒰E(\gamma )𝒰B𝒰0.$$

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`0IEB0`$ be a short exact sequence where $`E`$ is separable, $`I`$ is QD and $`B`$ is nuclear, QD and satisfies the UCT. If the induced map $`:K_1(B)K_0(I)`$ is zero then $`E`$ is QD.

Proof. Let $`\gamma `$ be the Busby invariant of the exact sequence in question. By the previous proposition we can find an approximately unital embedding $`IJ`$, where $`J`$ is QD with $`K_1(J)=0`$. By the remarks following Definition 3.1 we have an inclusion $`EE(\eta )`$ where $`\eta :BQ(J)`$ is the induced Busby invariant. By naturality we then have that both index maps $`:K_1(B)K_0(J)`$ and $`:K_0(B)K_1(J)`$ are zero. Hence the index maps arising from the stabilization $`\eta ^s:B𝒦Q(J𝒦)`$ are also zero.

Now, if it happens that $`K_0(J)`$ is a divisible group then the Universal Coefficient Theorem would imply that $`[\eta ^s]=0Ext(B𝒦,J𝒦)`$ and so by Proposition 2.5 we would be done. Of course this will not be true in general and so may have to replace $`\eta ^s`$ with $`(\eta ^s)^{}`$. But applying naturality one more time, both boundary maps on K-theory arising from $`(\eta ^s)^{}`$ will also vanish. Hence the theorem follows from the inclusions $`EE(\eta )E(\eta ^s)E((\eta ^s)^{})`$ together with Proposition 2.5 applied to $`(\eta ^s)^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the case that the ideal is nuclear and the quotient is an AF algebra, the next result was obtained by Eilers, Loring and Pedersen (\[ELP, Cor. 4.6\]).

###### Corollary 3.5

Assume that $`B`$ is a separable nuclear QD $`C^{}`$-algebra satisfying the UCT and with $`K_1(B)=0`$. For any separable QD $`C^{}`$-algebra $`I`$ and Busby invariant $`\gamma :BQ(I)`$ we have that $`E(\gamma )`$ is QD.

This corollary actually extends to the case where $`K_1(B)`$ is a torsion group since we can tensor any short exact sequence with $`𝒰`$ and $`K_1(B𝒰)=0`$ in this case. For example, this would cover the case that $`B=C_0()𝒪_n,(2n\mathrm{}),`$ where $`𝒪_n`$ denotes the Cuntz algebra on $`n`$ generators. Similarly, it is clear that Theorem 3.4 is valid under the weaker hypothesis that $`(K_1(B))`$ is contained in the torsion subgroup of $`K_0(I)`$.

###### Definition 3.6

For any two QD $`C^{}`$-algebras $`I,B`$ let $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)Ext(B,𝒦I)`$ denote the set of classes of Busby invariants $`\gamma `$ such that $`E(\gamma )`$ is QD.

It is easy to check that if $`[\gamma ]=[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }]Ext(B,𝒦I)`$ then $`E(\gamma )`$ is QD if and only if $`E(\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$ is QD and hence $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)`$ is well defined. It is also easy to see that $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)`$ is a sub-semigroup of $`Ext(B,𝒦I)`$. Finally, we remark that in the case $`I=`$ we do not get the semigroup $`Ext_{qd}(B,𝒦)`$ defined by Salinas; it follows from Corollary 3.7 below, however, that we do get what he called $`Ext_{bqt}(B,𝒦)`$ in this case (see \[Sa1, Definitions 2.7, 2.12 and Thm. 2.14\]). One has $`Ext_{qd}(B,𝒦)Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦)`$. The elements of $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦)`$ corresponds to C\*-algebras $`E(\gamma )`$ that are QD whereas $`[\gamma ]Ext_{qd}(B,𝒦)`$ if the only if the extension $`0𝒦E(\gamma )B0`$ is QD i.e. the concrete set $`E(\gamma )M(𝒦)`$ is QD.

Recall that there is a natural group homomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:Ext(B,𝒦I)Hom(K_1(B),K_0(I))`$ taking a Busby invariant to the corresponding boundary map on K-theory. From Theorem 3.4 it follows that we always have an inclusion $`Ker(\mathrm{\Phi })Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)`$, when $`B`$ is nuclear, QD and satisfies the UCT. In general this inclusion will be proper, but we now describe a class of algebras for which we have equality.

There is a natural semigroup $`K_0^+(I)K_0(I)`$, called the positive cone, given by

$$K_0^+(I)=\underset{n}{}\{xK_0(I):x=[p],\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}\mathrm{projection}pM_n(I)\}.$$

When $`I`$ is unital this semigroup generates $`K_0(I)`$ but can also be trivial in general (e.g. if $`I`$ is stably projectionless). The natural isomorphism $`K_0(I)K_0(𝒦I)`$ induced by an embedding $`I=e_{11}I𝒦I`$, where $`e_{11}`$ is a minimal projection in $`𝒦`$, preserves the positive cones. We say that $`K_0(I)`$ is totally ordered if for every $`xK_0(I)`$ either $`x`$ or $`x`$ is an element of $`K_0^+(I)`$.

###### Corollary 3.7

Assume $`I`$ is separable, QD and $`K_0(I)`$ is totally ordered. For any separable, nuclear, QD algebra $`B`$ which satisfies the UCT we have that $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)=Ker(\mathrm{\Phi })`$.

Proof. We only have to show $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)Ker(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. So let $`[\gamma ]Ext(B,𝒦I)`$. If $`E(\gamma )`$ is a stably finite $`C^{}`$-algebra then a result of Spielberg (see Proposition 4.1 of the next section), together with the assumption that $`K_0(I)`$ is totally ordered, implies that $`[\gamma ]Ker(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. But since QD implies stably finite (\[Br3, Prop. 3.19\]) we have that if $`[\gamma ]Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦I)`$ then $`[\gamma ]Ker(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The classic example for which $`K_0(I)`$ is totally ordered is the case when $`I=𝒦`$. In this setting the corollary above is very similar to a result of Salinas’ which describes the closure of $`0Ext(B,𝒦)`$ in terms of quasidiagonality (\[Sa1, Thm. 2.9\]). See also \[Sa1, Thm. 2.14\] for another characterization of $`Ext_{QD}(B,𝒦)`$ in terms of bi-quasitriangular operators. For a K-theoretical characterization of $`Ext_{qd}(B,𝒦)`$ see \[Sch, Theorem 8.3\].

The class of NF algebras introduced in \[BK\] coincides with the class of separable QD nuclear C\*-algebras. It was conjectured in \[BK, Conj. 7.1.6\] that an asymptotically split extension of NF algebras is NF. We can verify the conjecture under an additional asumption.

###### Corollary 3.8

Let $`0IEB0`$ be an asymptotically split extension with $`I`$ and $`B`$ NF algebras. If $`B`$ satisfies the UCT, then $`E`$ is NF.

Proof. Both index maps are vanishing since the extension is asymptotically split. The conclusion follows from Theorem 3.4. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Extensions and K-theory

In this section we show that the general extension problem for nuclear QD $`C^{}`$-algebras is equivalent to some natural K-theoretic questions.

We begin by recalling a result of Spielberg which solves the extension problem for stably finite $`C^{}`$-algebras and shows that it is completely governed by K-theory.

###### Proposition 4.1

\[Sp, Lemma 1.5\] Let $`0IEB0`$ be short exact where both $`I`$ and $`B`$ are stably finite. Then $`E`$ is stably finite if and only if $`(K_1(B))K_0^+(I)=\{0\},`$ where $`:K_1(B)K_0(I)`$ is the boundary map of the sequence.

In \[BK, Question 7.3.1\], it is asked whether every nuclear stably finite $`C^{}`$-algebra is QD. Support for an affirmative answer to this question is provided by a number of nontrivial examples (\[Pi\], \[Sp\], \[Br1\], \[Br2\]). In fact, Corollary 3.7 above also provides examples since the proof shows the equivalence of quasidiagonality and stable finiteness (in fact we did not even assume nuclearity of $`E`$ in that corollary). Hence it is natural to wonder if Spielberg’s criterion completely determines quasidiagonality in extensions as well. The following result gives some more evidence for an affirmative answer. If $`I`$ is a C\*-algebra, let $`SI=C_0()I`$ denote the suspension of $`I`$. Note that $`K_0(SI)^+=\{0\}`$ since $`SI𝒦`$ contains no nonzero projections.

###### Proposition 4.2

Let $`0SIEB0`$ be exact, where $`I`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital and $`B`$ is separable, QD, nuclear. Then $`E`$ is QD.

Proof. The suspension $`SI`$ of $`I`$ is QD by \[Vo1\]. We may assume that $`I`$ is stable. Let $`\alpha :SISI`$ be a null-homotopic approximately unital embedding and let $`\widehat{\alpha }:Q(SI)Q(SI)`$ be the corresponding $``$-monomorphism. Then for any Busby invariant $`\gamma :BM(SI)`$, $`[\widehat{\alpha }\gamma ]=0Ext(B,SI)`$ by the homotopy invariance of $`Ext(B,SI)`$ in the second variable \[Kas\]. It follows that $`E(\gamma )E(\widehat{\alpha }\gamma )`$ is QD by Proposition 2.5. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 4.3

Say that a QD $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ has the QD extension property if for every separable, nuclear, QD algebra $`B`$ which satisfies the UCT and Busby invariant $`\gamma :BQ(𝒦A)`$ we have that $`E(\gamma )`$ is QD if and only if $`E(\gamma )`$ is stably finite (which is if and only if $`(K_1(B))K_0^+(𝒦A)=\{0\}`$, by Proposition 4.1).

The QD extension property is closely related to a certain embedding property for the K-theory of $`A`$ which we now describe. The interest in controlling the K-theory of embeddings of $`C^{}`$-algebras goes back to the seminal work of Pimsner and Voiculescu on AF embeddings of irrational rotation algebras (\[PV\]). Since then other authors have studied the K-theory of (AF) embeddings (\[Lo\], \[EL\], \[DL\], \[Br1\], \[Br1\]).

###### Definition 4.4

Say that a QD $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-embedding property if for every subgroup $`GK_0(A)`$ such that $`GK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ there exists an embedding $`\rho :AC`$, where $`C`$ is also QD, such that $`\rho _{}(G)=0`$.

It is not hard to see that if $`C`$ is a stably finite $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`pC`$ is a nonzero projection then $`[p]`$ must be a nonzero element of $`K_0(C)`$. From this remark it follows that the condition $`GK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ is necessary. Hence the $`K_0`$-embedding property states that this condition is also sufficient.

A number of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras have the $`K_0`$-embedding property. For example, commutative C\*-algebras, AF algebras (\[Sp, Lem. 1.14\]), crossed products of AF algebras by $``$ (\[Br1, Thm. 5.5\]) and simple nuclear unital C\*-algebras with unique trace.

Our next goal is to connect the QD extension and $`K_0`$-embedding properties. But we first need a simple lemma.

###### Lemma 4.5

Let $`C`$ be a hereditary subalgebra of a unital C\*-algebra $`D`$. If $`C`$ has an approximate unit consisting of projections and $`K_0(D)`$ has cancellation then the inclusion $`CD`$ induces an injective map $`K_0(C)K_0(D)`$.

Proof. By *cancellation* we mean that if $`p,qM_n(D)`$ are projections with $`[p]=[q]`$ in $`K_0(D)`$ then there exists a partial isometry $`vM_n(D)`$ such that $`vv^{}=p`$ and $`v^{}v=q`$.

Let $`x=[p][q]K_0(C)`$ be an element such that $`x=0K_0(D)`$. Since $`C`$ has an approximate unit of projections, say $`\{e_\lambda \}`$, we may assume that $`p`$ and $`q`$ are projections in $`(e_\lambda 1)CM_n()(e_\lambda 1)`$ for sufficiently large $`n`$ and $`\lambda `$. Since $`[p]=[q]`$ in $`K_0(D)`$ and this group has cancellation we can find a partial isometry $`vM_n(D)`$ such that $`vv^{}=p`$ and $`v^{}v=q`$.

We claim that actually $`vM_n(C)`$ (which will evidently prove the lemma). To see this we first note that $`v=vv^{}(v)v^{}v=pvq`$ and hence

$$v=pvq=(e_\lambda 1)pvq(e_\lambda 1)=(e_\lambda 1)v(e_\lambda 1).$$

Hence $`v(e_\lambda 1)DM_n()(e_\lambda 1)`$. But since $`C`$ is hereditary in $`D`$, $`CM_n()`$ is hereditary in $`DM_n()`$ and thus

$$v(e_\lambda 1)DM_n()(e_\lambda 1)CM_n().\mathrm{}$$

###### Proposition 4.6

Let $`A`$ be a separable QD $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then $`A`$ satisfies the QD extension property if and only if $`A`$ satisfies the $`K_0`$-embedding property.

Proof. We begin with the easy direction. Assume that $`A`$ has the QD extension property and let $`GK_0(A)`$ be a subgroup such that $`GK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$. Since abelian $`C^{}`$-algebras satisfy the UCT we can construct an extension

$$0𝒦AE_{}C(𝕋)0,$$

such that $`(K_1(_{}C(𝕋)))=(_{})=G`$. But since $`A`$ has the QD extension property $`E`$ must be a QD $`C^{}`$-algebra. Thus the six-term K-theory exact sequence implies that $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-embedding property (i.e. the embedding into $`E`$ will work).

Conversely, assume that $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-embedding property and let

$$0𝒦AEB0$$

be a short exact sequence where $`B`$ is separable, nuclear, QD, satisfies the UCT and $`E`$ is stably finite.

Let $`G=(K_1(B))K(𝒦A)K_0(A)`$. Since $`E`$ is stably finite, $`GK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$. By the $`K_0`$-embedding property we can find a QD $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C`$ and an embedding $`\rho :AC`$ such that $`\rho _{}(G)=0`$. Since $`A`$ is separable we may assume that $`C`$ is also separable. Indeed $`K_0(A)`$ (and hence $`G`$) is countable. Thus it only takes a countable number of projections and partial isometries in matrices over $`C`$ to kill off $`\rho _{}(G)`$. From this observation it is easy to see that we may assume that $`C`$ is also separable.

Let $`\pi :C\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ be an embedding (the existence of which is ensured by the separability of $`C`$) as in the proof of Proposition 3.3. Let $`J\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ be the hereditary subalgebra generated by $`\pi \rho (A)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ has real rank zero and stable rank one it follows from Lemma 4.5 that the inclusion $`J\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ induces an injective map $`K_0(J)K_0(\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H))`$. Since $`G`$ is in the kernel of the K-theory map induced by the embedding $`\pi \rho :A\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()+𝒦(H)`$ it follows that $`G`$ is also in the kernel of the K-theory map induced by the embedding $`\pi \rho :AJ`$. But the embedding into $`J`$ is approximately unital by construction and so we get a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & 𝒦A& & E& & B& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & 𝒦J& & E(\eta )& & B& & 0,\end{array}$$

where $`\eta `$ is the induced Busby invariant and the two vertical maps on the left are injective.

Now we are done since naturality of the boundary map implies that the homomorphism $`:K_1(B)K_0(𝒦J)`$ is zero and hence $`E(\eta )`$ is QD by Theorem 3.4. $`\mathrm{}`$

We now wish to point out a connection between extensions of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras and another very natural K-theoretic question. For brevity, we say a linear map $`\phi :AB`$ is ccp if it is contractive and completely positive (\[Pa\]). We recall a theorem of Voiculescu.

###### Theorem 4.7

\[Vo1, Thm. 1\] Let $`A`$ be a separable $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then $`A`$ is QD if and only if there exists an asymptotically multiplicative, asymptotically isometric sequence of ccp maps $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ for some sequence of natural numbers $`k_n`$ (i.e. $`\phi _n(ab)\phi _n(a)\phi _n(b)0`$ and $`\phi _n(a)a`$ for all $`a,bA`$).

Given this abstract characterization of QD $`C^{}`$-algebras it is natural to ask how well these approximating maps capture the relevant K-theoretic data.

###### Definition 4.8

Say that a QD $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property if for each $`xK_0(A)`$ such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$, where $`x=\{kx:k\}`$, there exists a sequence of asymptotically multiplicative, asymptotically isometric ccp maps $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ such that $`(\phi _n)_{}(x)=0`$ for all $`n`$ large enough.

It is easy to see that if $`yK_0(A)`$ and there exists a nonzero integer $`k`$ such that $`kyK_0^+(A)`$ then for every asymptotically multiplicative, asymptotically isometric sequence of ccp maps $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ we have $`(\phi _n)_{}(y)>0`$ (if $`k>0`$) or $`(\phi _n)_{}(y)<0`$ (if $`k<0`$), for all sufficiently large $`n`$. Hence this $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property states that one can separate elements $`xK_0(A)`$ such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ from (finite subsets of) the positive cone using finite dimensional approximate morphisms.

Another way of thinking about this property is that $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property if and only if finite dimensional approximate morphisms determine the order on $`K_0(A)`$ to a large extent. A more precise formulation is contained in the next proposition (not needed for the rest of the paper).

###### Proposition 4.9

The $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property is equivalent to the following property: If $`xK_0(A)`$ and for every sequence of asymptotically multiplicative, asymptotically isometric ccp maps $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ we have that $`(\phi _n)_{}(x)>0`$ for all large $`n`$ then there exists a positive integer $`k`$ such that $`kxK_0^+(A)`$.

Proof. We first show that the (contrapositive of the) second property above follows from the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property. So assume we are given an element $`xK_0(A)`$ and assume that there is no positive integer $`k`$ such that $`kxK_0^+(A)`$. We must exhibit a sequence of asymptotically multiplicative, asymptotically isometric ccp maps $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ such that $`(\phi _n)_{}(x)0`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$. There are two cases.

If there exists a negative integer $`k`$ such that $`kxK_0^+(A)`$ then for every sequence $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ we have $`(\phi _n)_{}(x)<0`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$ (see the discussion following definition 4.7). The second case is if $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$. This case is obviously handled by the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property.

Now we show how the second property above implies the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property. So let $`xK_0(A)`$ be such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$. Since no positive multiple of $`x`$ is in $`K_0^+(A)`$ the second property implies that we can find some sequence $`\phi _n:AM_{k_n}()`$ such that $`(\phi _n)_{}(x)0`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$. Similarly, since no positive multiple of $`x`$ is in $`K_0^+(A)`$ we can find a sequence $`\psi _n:AM_{j_n}()`$ such that $`(\psi _n)_{}(x)0`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$. If either of $`\{\phi _n\}`$ or $`\{\psi _n\}`$ contains a subsequence with equality at $`0`$ then we are done so we assume that $`(\phi _n)_{}(x)=s_n<0`$ and $`(\psi _n)_{}(x)=t_n>0`$ for all (sufficiently large) $`n`$. It is now clear what to do: we simply add up appropriate numbers of copies of $`\phi _n`$ and $`\psi _n`$ so that these positive and negative ranks cancel. More precisely we define maps

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n=(\underset{1}{\overset{t_n}{}}\phi _n)(\underset{1}{\overset{s_n}{}}\psi _n)$$

and regard these maps as taking values in the $`(t_nk_n+s_nj_n)\times (t_nk_n+s_nj_n)`$ matrices. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 4.10

If a separable QD $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ has the QD extension property or, equivalently, the $`K_0`$-embedding property then $`A`$ also has the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property.

Proof. Assume that $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-embedding property and we are given $`xK_0(A)`$ such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$, where $`x=\{kx:k\}`$. By the $`K_0`$-embedding property we can find an embedding $`\rho :AC`$, where $`C`$ is QD and $`\rho _{}(x)=0`$. As in the proof of Proposition 4.6 we may assume that $`C`$ is also separable. But then take any asymptotically multiplicative, asymptotically isometric sequence of contractive completely positive maps $`\phi _n:CM_{k_n}()`$ and we get that $`(\phi _n\rho )_{}(x)=0`$ for all sufficiently large $`n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We do not know if the converse of the previous proposition holds. However our final result will complete the circle for the class of nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebras. Moreover, the next theorem also states that in order to prove that every separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra has any of the properties we have been studying, it actually suffices to consider very special cases of either the QD extension problem or $`K_0`$-embedding problem.

###### Theorem 4.11

The following statements are equivalent.

1. Every separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra has the QD extension property.
2. Every separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra has the $`K_0`$-embedding property.
3. Every separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra has the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property.
4. If $`A`$ is any separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`xK_0(A)`$ is such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ then there exists an embedding $`\rho :AC`$, where $`C`$ is QD (but not necessarily separable or nuclear), such that $`\rho _{}(x)=0`$.
5. If $`A`$ is any separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`xK_0(A)`$ is such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ then there exists a short exact sequence $`0𝒦AEC(𝕋)0`$ where $`E`$ is QD and $`x(K_1(C(𝕋)))=()`$.

Proof. The proof of Proposition 4.6 carries over verbatim to show the equivalence of 1 and 2. That proof also shows the equivalence of 4 and 5. The previous proposition shows that 2 implies 3 and hence we are left to show that 3 implies 5 and 4 implies 2.

We begin with the easier implication 4 $``$ 2. So, let $`A`$ be any separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`GK_0(A)`$ be a subgroup such that $`GK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$. As in the proof of Proposition 4.6 we can construct a short exact sequence

$$0𝒦AE\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}C(𝕋)0,$$

such that $`(K_1(_{}C(𝕋)))=(_{})=G`$. We will prove that $`E`$ is QD and, by exactness of $`_{}\stackrel{}{}K_0(A)K_1(E)`$, this will show 2.

For each $`n`$ there is a short exact sequence

$$0𝒦AE_n\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}C(𝕋)0,$$

where each $`E_nE`$ is an ideal and $`E=\overline{_nE_n}`$. Note also that each $`E_n`$ is nuclear since extensions of nuclear algebras are again nuclear. Since a locally QD algebra is actually QD it suffices to show that each $`E_n`$ is QD. Since $`E_1`$ is stably finite (being a subalgebra of $`E`$) we have that the boundary map $`:K_1(C(𝕋))K_0(E_1)`$ takes no positive values. But then the proof of Proposition 4.6 shows that if we assume 4 then $`E_1`$ will be QD. Proceeding by induction we may assume that $`E_{n1}`$ is QD. Since $`E_n`$ is also stably finite, $`E_{n1}`$ is an ideal in $`E_n`$ and $`E_n/E_{n1}=C(𝕋)`$, applying the same argument to the exact sequence $`0E_{n1}E_nC(𝕋)0`$ we see that $`E_n`$ is also QD.

We now show that 3 $``$ 5, which will complete the proof. So let $`A`$ be any separable, nuclear, QD $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`xK_0(A)`$ be such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$. Construct a short exact sequence $`0𝒦AEC(𝕋)0`$ such that $`(1)=x`$. We will show that $`E`$ must be QD.

We can use the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property to construct an embedding $`\rho :𝒦AQ(_iM_{n_i}())`$ such that $`\rho _{}(x)=0`$. Let $`DQ(_iM_{n_i}())`$ be the hereditary subalgebra generated by $`\rho (𝒦A)`$. Let $`\pi :C(𝕋)B(H)`$ be any faithful unital representation such that $`\pi (C(𝕋))𝒦(H)=\{0\}`$. We first claim that there is an embedding of $`E`$ into $`(\pi (C(𝕋))+𝒦(H))\stackrel{~}{D}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is the unitization of $`D`$. Indeed, since the embedding $`\rho :𝒦AD`$ is approximately unital we get a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & 𝒦A& & E& & C(𝕋)& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & D& & F& & C(𝕋)& & 0,\end{array}$$

for some algebra $`F`$ and the map $`EF`$ is injective. Since $`\rho _{}(x)=0K_0(D)`$ (by Lemma 4.5) and $`K_1(D)=0`$ (by the proof of Lemma 3.2) it follows that both boundary maps arising from the sequence $`0DFC(𝕋)0`$ are zero. Hence we may appeal to the UCT, add on a trivial absorbing extension and eventually find an embedding of $`F`$ into $`\pi (C(𝕋))1+𝒦(H)D(\pi (C(𝕋))+𝒦(H))\stackrel{~}{D}`$.

Since $`E`$ is nuclear it now suffices to show that every nuclear subalgebra of $`(\pi (C(𝕋))+𝒦(H))\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is QD. Hence, by \[Br3, Prop. 8.3\] and the Choi-Effros lifting theorem (\[CE\]) it suffices to show that there exists a short exact sequence

$$0JC(\pi (C(𝕋))+𝒦(H))\stackrel{~}{D}0,$$

where $`C`$ is QD and $`J`$ contains an approximate unit consisting of projections which is quasicentral in $`C`$ (i.e. the extension is quasidiagonal). However, this is now trivial since $`DQ(_iM_{n_i}())`$ implies that there is a quasidiagonal extension

$$0_iM_{n_i}()R\stackrel{~}{D}0,$$

where $`R\mathrm{\Pi }_iM_{n_i}()`$. But since $`X=\pi (C(𝕋))+𝒦(H)`$ is nuclear the sequence

$$0(_iM_{n_i}())XRX\stackrel{~}{D}X0$$

is exact and since $`X`$ is unital the extension is also quasidiagonal. $`\mathrm{}`$

Though Theorem 4.11 is stated for the class of nuclear QD $`C^{}`$-algebras a close inspection of the proof shows that this assumption was only used in the proof of 4 $``$ 2. Hence we also have the following result which applies to individual nuclear C\*-algebras.

###### Theorem 4.12

Let $`A`$ be a separable nuclear QD $`C^{}`$-algebra and consider the following statements.

1. $`A`$ has the QD extension property.
2. $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-embedding property.
3. $`A`$ has the $`K_0`$-Hahn-Banach property.
4. If $`xK_0(A)`$ is such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ then there exists an embedding $`\rho :AC`$, where $`C`$ is QD (but not necessarily separable or nuclear), such that $`\rho _{}(x)=0`$.
5. If $`xK_0(A)`$ is such that $`xK_0^+(A)=\{0\}`$ then there exists a short exact sequence $`0𝒦AEC(𝕋)0`$ where $`E`$ is QD and $`x(K_1(C(𝕋)))=()`$.

Then 1 $``$ 2 $``$ 3 $``$ 4 $``$ 5.

Remark. There is another version of Theorem 4.11 where the class of nuclear C\*-algebras is replaced by a class $`𝒜`$ of separable C\*-algebras with the following closure property. If $`0A𝒦EB0`$ is exact with $`A𝒜`$ and $`B`$ separable abelian, then $`E𝒜`$. For instance $`𝒜`$ can be the class of all separable C\*-algebras or the class of all separable exact C\*-algebras. Then the statements 1-5 of Theorem 4.11 formulated for the class $`𝒜`$ (rather then for the class of nuclear C\*-algebras) are related as follows: 1 $``$ 2 $``$ 4 $``$ 5 $``$ 3.