text:
# Symmetry and Specializability in Continued Fractions

## 1. Introduction

A number defined by a series does not in general have an interesting continued fraction expansion. There are, however, some exceptions, such as the series

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{2^{2^n}}=[0,1,4,2,4,4,6,4,2,4,6,2,4,6,4,4,2,\mathrm{}],$$

dealt with (independently) in  and . The continued fraction expansion for this series has a type of symmetry known as folding symmetry. In this paper, we generalize folding symmetry, and give examples such as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{4^n}(2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`[0,1,1,23,1,2,1,18815,3,1,23,3,1,23,1,2,1,106597754640383,`$
$`3,1,23,1,3,23,1,3,18815,1,2,1,23,3,1,23,1,2,1,18815,3,1,23,`$
$`3,1,23,1,2,1,\mathrm{}],`$
where $`T_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ is the $`\mathrm{}`$-th Chebyshev polynomial.

In addition, we prove a general characterization of this sort of series. These series are of the form

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(m)},$$

where $`m`$, $`f(x)[x]`$, and $`f^n(x)`$ denotes the $`n`$-th iterate of $`f(x)`$. (For example, in the first case $`f(x)=x^2`$, and in the second $`f(x)=T_4(x)`$.) In addition, they are specialized, in the terminology of . For example, the first is a special case of

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^{2^n}}=[0,x1,x+2,x,x,x2,x,x+2,x,x2,x+2,\mathrm{}],$$

with $`x=2`$. A continued fraction over $`(x)`$, such as this one, with the property that each partial quotient has integer coefficients, is called specializable, because when one specializes by choosing an integer value for $`x`$, one gets immediately a continued fraction whose partial quotients are integers. The continued fraction one obtains is then called specialized. We prove a theorem (Theorem 7.12) that determines all sums of the form

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}$$

(for $`f(x)[x]`$) that have specializable continued fractions.

Before proceeding any further, we quickly review the basics of continued fractions, and give a short account of folding symmetry. Consider the continued fraction

$$[a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n]=a_0+\frac{1}{a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_{n1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_n}}}}}}}}}.$$

We define $`p_0=a_0`$, $`q_0=1`$, $`p_1=a_0a_1+1`$, $`q_1=a_1`$, and for $`n2`$,

$$p_n=a_np_{n1}+p_{n2}\text{and}q_n=a_nq_{n1}+q_{n2}.$$

###### Proposition 1.1.

For each $`n`$,

$$\frac{p_n}{q_n}=[a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n],$$

and we have $`p_nq_{n1}q_np_{n1}=(1)^{n1}.`$

For a proof of this standard result, see Theorems 149 and 150 of . Now consider the function $`f_n(z)`$ of $`z`$ defined by

$$f_n(z)=a_0+\frac{1}{a_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}}}}}}}}.$$

This function will be useful shortly. By Proposition 1.1,

$$f_n(z)=\frac{p_nz+p_{n1}}{q_nz+q_{n1}}.$$

We now define the notation we will use to talk about symmetry in continued fractions. Let $`w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ denote the word $`a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_n`$. We use $`w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ to denote the word $`a_n,a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_1`$, and $`w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ to denote $`a_n,a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_1`$. This notation will be used mainly in continued fractions. (This is the notation of , where Proposition 1.2 was first stated in this form.)

We now give a proof of Proposition 1.2, known as the Folding Lemma, for completeness and in preparation for the proof in §4 of a generalization.

###### Proposition 1.2.

$$\frac{p_n}{q_n}+\frac{(1)^n}{xq_n^2}=[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]$$

###### Proof.

First, note that

$$f_n^1(z)=[0,a_n,a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_0+z].$$

In particular, $`f_n^1(\mathrm{})=[0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$. However, it is easy to see that

$$f_n^1(z)=\frac{q_{n1}z+p_{n1}}{q_nzp_n}.$$

Hence, $`[x,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=xq_{n1}/q_n`$, and

$$[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=\frac{p_n(xq_{n1}/q_n)+p_{n1}}{q_n(xq_{n1}/q_n)+q_{n1}}=\frac{p_nq_nx(p_nq_{n1}q_np_{n1})}{q_n^2x}.$$

The desired result follows immediately. ∎

A continued fraction $`[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$ is said to be folded. We generalize this notion as follows. A folded continued fraction has 2-fold symmetry. We say that $`[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_2,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$ has 3-fold symmetry, $`[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_2,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_3,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$ has 4-fold symmetry, etc. The Folding Lemma generalizes nicely to $`k`$-fold symmetry. We deal with the generalization in §4.

For a more involved discussion of the Folding Lemma, see . Folded continued fractions were discovered independently by Kmošek and Shallit. See . The folding lemma first appears in \[6, p. 209\], and more explicitly in \[1, p. 332\].

## 2. Applications of the Folding Lemma

As an example of the sort of series with which we will deal in §6, we discuss an example due to Shallit (see ). This will serve as preparation for applying similar techniques later. In addition, we will need the last result of this section.

Folded continued fractions were originally studied to explain the simple continued fractions of certain series. For example, the Liouville number $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{10^{n!}}`$ has an amazing continued fraction expansion:

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{10^{n!}}=[0,4,1,3,5,99,1,4,3,1,4,999999999999,1,3,1,3,4,1,99,5,3,1,4,\mathrm{}]$$

The Folding Lemma applies to the partial sums, giving a continued fraction expansion for each of them in terms of that of the one before. For example, we easily get that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{4}{}}\frac{1}{10^{n!}}=[0,5,4,5,100,5,4,5,1000000000000,5,4,5,100,5,4,5].$$

This gives the nearest integer continued fraction for the series, but it would be more interesting to get the simple continued fraction. (In a simple continued fraction, all of the partial quotients are integers, and all are positive, except perhaps the first.)

In fact, we can easily get the simple continued fraction expansion of any number with $`k`$-fold symmetry, assuming that $`[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$ is a simple continued fraction. First, note that since $`[\mathrm{},a,0,b,\mathrm{}]=[\mathrm{},a+b,\mathrm{}]`$, it is never a problem to have 0 occur in a continued fraction. We can apply $`[\mathrm{},a,\beta ]=[\mathrm{},a1,1,\beta 1]`$ to get rid of negatives. (This is the method of .) For example, $`[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=[a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,x_11,1,a_n1,a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_1].`$ Similarly, in the case of 3-fold symmetry we get $`[a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n,x_11,1,a_n1,a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_2,a_11,1,x_21,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n].`$ Note also that changing the sign of some $`x_i`$ is easily handled, since $`[\mathrm{},a,x1,1,a1,\mathrm{}]=[\mathrm{},a1,1,x1,a,\mathrm{}].`$ (Note that one can remove negatives from any continued fraction, not just one with $`k`$-fold symmetry.)

In this way, we get the simple continued fraction for the sum. This explains the amazing continued fraction noted above. Since the continued fraction expansion of each partial sum arises from that of the previous partial sum by an application of the Folding Lemma, we say that the continued fraction has iterated 2-fold symmetry. Iterated $`k`$-fold symmetry is defined analogously.

Note that the Folding Lemma applies not only to $``$, but also to $`(x)`$. If $`\mathrm{}`$ is an integer greater than 1, then the series

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^\mathrm{}^n}$$

converges to a formal Laurent series. The Folding Lemma shows that it has iterated 2-fold symmetry in its continued fraction.

In addition, the partial quotients are in $`[x]`$. In the terminology of , the continued fraction is specializable. We can specialize $`x`$ to any positive integer greater than 1, and get a simple continued fraction with iterated 2-fold symmetry. In a typical continued fraction with polynomial coefficients, the partial quotients will have non-integral coefficients, so we will not get integral partial quotients if we attempt to specialize. (This point of view was first taken in , although these series had been studied earlier.)

Now consider $`f(x)[x]`$ with degree greater than 1, such that $`f(x)0(modx^2)`$. If we define the iterates $`f^0(x)=x`$, and $`f^n(x)=f(f^{n1}(x))`$, then the Folding Lemma implies that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}$$

has a specializable continued fraction with iterated 2-fold symmetry. In §7, we will determine all polynomials $`f(x)[x]`$ for which this sum is specializable.

## 3. Modified Continuants

To state the Generalized Folding Lemma, we will need to use continuant polynomials. Ours will sometimes have to be modified, though, to have a sign alternation. Fix $`\epsilon =\pm 1`$. We define modified continuants $`K^{}`$ by

1. $`K^{}(x_1)=x_1.`$
2. $`K^{}(x_1,x_2)=x_1x_2+\epsilon .`$
3. For each $`k2`$,

$$K^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)=K^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{k1})x_k+\epsilon K^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{k2}).$$

It is sometimes convenient to define $`K^{}`$ without any variables as $`K^{}()=1`$. Note that when $`\epsilon =1`$, these polynomials are the usual continuants; when $`\epsilon =1`$, they are the same except for the sign alternation.

Because modified continuants are the same as ordinary continuants, except for the sign alternation when $`\epsilon =1`$, one would expect the theory of modified continuants to be nearly the same as that of continuants, and indeed it is. For the theory of continuants, see . All of our results for modified continuants are based directly on analogous results for continuants given in .

One fundamental fact about modified continuants is that $`K^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)`$ is the sum of the terms which can be obtained by replacing each of a collection of disjoint pairs of consecutive variables in $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_k`$ with $`\epsilon `$. This is easily seen from the definition. From this fact, it follows that the modified continuants also satisfy the recurrence relation

(3.1)
$$K^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_k)=x_1K^{}(x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_k)+\epsilon K^{}(x_3,x_4,\mathrm{},x_k).$$

###### Lemma 3.1.

We have the continued fraction expansion

$$\frac{K^{}(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_m)}{K^{}(x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_m)}=x_1+\frac{\epsilon }{x_2+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{x_3+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{x_{m1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon }{x_m}}}}}}}}}.$$

###### Proof.

The cases in which $`m3`$ are trivial. Now, we continue by induction on $`m`$. The continued fraction on the right is equal to

$$\frac{K^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1}+\epsilon /x_m)}{K^{}(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{m1}+\epsilon /x_m)}.$$

Applying the recurrence defining $`K^{}`$ twice gives

$$\frac{K^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m2})(x_{m1}+\epsilon /x_m)+\epsilon K^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m3})}{K^{}(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{m2})(x_{m1}+\epsilon /x_m)+\epsilon K^{}(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{m3})},$$

and then

$$\frac{K^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m1})+\epsilon K^{}(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{m2})/x_m}{K^{}(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{m1})+\epsilon K^{}(x_2,\mathrm{},x_{m2})/x_m}.$$

Multiplying the numerator and denominator by $`x_m`$ and applying the recurrence again proves the lemma. ∎

## 4. The Generalized Folding Lemma

Define $`S_2=[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$, $`S_3=[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x_2,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$, etc. Thus, $`S_k`$ is the general form of a continued fraction with $`k`$-fold symmetry. Also, from now on set $`\epsilon =(1)^n`$ (for use in modified continuants), and for convenience set $`p=p_n`$ and $`q=q_n`$. Our principal result about $`k`$-fold symmetry is the following theorem, the Generalized Folding Lemma:

###### Theorem 4.1.

For all $`k2`$,

$$S_k=\frac{p}{q}+\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_2q,x_3q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}{qK^{}(x_1q,x_2q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}.$$

###### Proof.

We prove this by induction. It is easy to check that the case $`k=2`$ is the Folding Lemma. Now suppose that it holds for $`k1`$.

In the continued fraction by which $`S_k`$ is defined, if one omits the initial $`a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$, then one is left with a continued fraction with $`(k1)`$-fold symmetry. Call it $`S_k^{}`$. As in the proof of the Folding Lemma, we know that $`[x_1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=x_1q_{n1}/q_n`$. It follows by induction that

$$S_k^{}=x_1\frac{q_{n1}}{q_n}+\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_3q_n,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q_n)}{q_nK^{}(x_2q_n,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q_n)}.$$

Now, since $`S_k=[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},S_k^{}]`$, we see that

$$S_k=\frac{p_n\left(x_1\frac{q_{n1}}{q_n}+\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_3q_n,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q_n)}{q_nK^{}(x_2q_n,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q_n)}\right)+p_{n1}}{q_n\left(x_1\frac{q_{n1}}{q_n}+\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_3q_n,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q_n)}{q_nK^{}(x_2q_n,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q_n)}\right)+q_{n1}}.$$

This is equal to (after applying $`p_nq_{n1}q_np_{n1}=(1)^{n1}`$)

$$\frac{pqx_1K^{}(x_2q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)+(1)^npK^{}(x_3q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)+(1)^nK^{}(x_2q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}{q^2x_1K^{}(x_2q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)+(1)^nqK^{}(x_3q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)},$$

which simplifies to

$$\frac{p}{q}+\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_2q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}{q^2x_1K^{}(x_2q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)+(1)^nqK^{}(x_3q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}.$$

Now applying (3.1) to the denominator yields the final result. ∎

If we apply Lemma 3.1 to $`S_k`$, we arrive at the following corollary to Theorem 4.1:

###### Corollary 4.2.

We have the continued fraction expansion

$$S_k=\frac{p}{q}+\frac{1}{q}\frac{(1)^n}{x_1q+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_2q+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_{k2}q+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_{k1}q}}}}}}}}}.$$

## 5. Further Results on $`k`$-fold Symmetry

A few simple algebraic manipulations give the following equivalent formula for $`S_k`$:

$$S_k=\frac{p}{q}+\frac{(1)^n}{x_1q^2}\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_1x_2q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_2x_3q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_{k2}x_{k1}q^2}}}}}}}.$$

This expansion seems messier and less natural than that given by Corollary 4.2, but it has one advantage. Set

$$X_k=\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_3q,x_4q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}{qK^{}(x_2q,x_3q,\mathrm{},x_{k1}q)}.$$

The expansion above makes it clear that

$$S_k=\frac{p}{q}+\frac{(1)^n}{x_1q^2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{X_k}{x_1}\right)^i.$$

One might hope that the partial sums would have interesting continued fraction expansions. In the case of 3-fold symmetry, there is a simple and useful description of the continued fractions for the partial sums. We have

$$X_3=\frac{(1)^nK^{}()}{qK^{}(x_2q)}=\frac{(1)^n}{x_2q^2}.$$

Note that $`1/X_3`$ is an integer (assuming that $`x_2`$ is an integer). The partial sums have 4-fold symmetry, as we see from the following proposition:

###### Proposition 5.1.

For all $`j1`$, if

$$x_3=x_1\left(\frac{1(x_1/X_3)^j}{1(x_1/X_3)}\right),$$

then

$$\frac{p}{q}+\frac{(1)^n}{x_1q^2}\underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^i=\frac{(1)^nK^{}(x_2q,x_3q)}{qK^{}(x_1q,x_2q,x_3q)}.$$

###### Proof.

We can and shall solve the equation for the value of $`x_3`$ that makes it true. The important point is that $`x_3`$ turns out to be an integer, so 4-fold symmetry occurs.

We now solve the equation. It is equivalent to

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{j}{}}\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^i=\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_1x_2q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_2x_3q^2}}}}}.$$

Equivalently,

$$\frac{\frac{X_3}{x_1}\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^{j+1}}{\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^{j+1}1}=\frac{(1)^n}{x_1x_2q^2}\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_2x_3q^2}}}.$$

This is the same as

$$\frac{1+\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^j}{\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^{j+1}1}=\frac{1}{1+{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^n}{x_2x_3q^2}}}.$$

Finally, this is equivalent to

$$\frac{\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^j1}{\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^{j+1}\left(\frac{X_3}{x_1}\right)^j}=\frac{x_2x_3q^2}{(1)^n}.$$

The formula for $`x_3`$ follows immediately. ∎

This proposition may seem complicated and perhaps uninteresting. However, in §6 we will use it to explain an interesting continued fraction expansion.

## 6. Applications of the Generalized Folding Lemma

We now use our results to determine some explicit continued fractions. Note that setting $`k=3`$ in Theorem 4.1, and possibly changing signs, shows that

$$\frac{p}{q}\pm \frac{a}{abq^2\pm 1}$$

has 3-fold symmetry for all $`a`$ and $`b`$, and all combinations of signs. Of course, this holds true not only in the rationals, but also in fields of rational functions, for example. As before, we will work in $`(x)`$ (and also its completion $`((x))`$, the field of formal Laurent series).

Now suppose that $`f(x)`$ is polynomial over $``$ of degree greater than 1 such that $`f(x)1(modx^2(x1))`$ in $`[x]`$. As before, define the iterates $`f^0(x)=x`$, $`f^n(x)=f(f^{n1}(x))`$. Then a trivial induction implies that

$$f^n(x)1(mod(f^0(x)f^1(x)\mathrm{}f^{n1}(x))^2).$$

Using this, we see that the series

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}$$

(which converges to a formal Laurent series in $`x`$) has iterated 3-fold symmetry in its continued fraction expansion, with partial quotients in $`[x]`$. (Similarly, there is also 3-fold symmetry when $`f(x)1(modx^2(x+1))`$.)

In particular, if $`\mathrm{}`$ is a non-zero multiple of 4, then the Chebyshev polynomial $`T_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (defined by $`T_{\mathrm{}}(x)=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{}\mathrm{cos}^1(x))`$) satisfies the congruence condition (and is of degree greater than 1). Since for all $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`T_{ab}(x)=T_a(T_b(x)),`$ it follows that

(6.1)
$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{}^n(x)}$$

has iterated 3-fold symmetry. Also, the partial quotients have integer coefficients, so the continued fraction is specializable. When we specialize $`x`$ to any positive integer greater than 1, we get a simple continued fraction with iterated 3-fold symmetry. For example,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{4^n}(2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`[0,1,1,23,1,2,1,18815,3,1,23,3,1,23,1,2,1,106597754640383,`$
$`3,1,23,1,3,23,1,3,18815,1,2,1,23,3,1,23,1,2,1,18815,3,1,23,`$
$`3,1,23,1,2,1,\mathrm{}].`$
When $`\mathrm{}`$ is not divisible by 4, the series (6.1) displays more complicated behavior. Here is an apparently typical example of the case when $`\mathrm{}`$ is odd:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{3^n}(2)}}`$ $`=`$ $`[0,1,1,5,1,414,1,2,4,280903,1,3,3,207,2,5,1,`$
$`22165307996832415,6,2,207,3,4,140451,1,3,3,`$
$`118,2,2,1,1,7,\mathrm{}]`$
There is partial symmetry, but it breaks down. It would be interesting to have an explanation of this behavior, and of that for $`\mathrm{}2(mod4).`$ (By Theorem 7.12, these series never have specializable continued fractions.)

We can also use Proposition 5.1 to prove that certain series have 4-fold symmetry in their continued fractions. For example, Proposition 5.1 implies that for each $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{3\mathrm{}+2}{}}\frac{1}{x^{2^n}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^{38^n}}$$

has iterated 4-fold symmetry. To see this, write the sum as

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{1}{x^{8^n}}+\frac{1}{x^{28^n}}+\frac{1}{x^{38^n}}+\frac{1}{x^{48^n}}\right)$$

and apply Proposition 5.1 with $`q=x^{48^\mathrm{}1}`$, $`j=3`$, $`x_1=(1)^n`$, and $`x_2=1`$. This explains the symmetry observed in

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2^{2^n}}}+{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8^{8^n}}}`$ $`=`$ $`[0,1,16,14,16,1,65792,15,17,65792,1,16,14,16,18,14,16`$
$`1,65792,16,340282366920938463481821351505477763072,`$
$`1,15,65792,1,16,14,16,\mathrm{}].`$
Also, one checks easily that the extremely large partial quotients are exactly the numbers $`2^{2^{3n+1}}+2^{2^{3n}}.`$

One can generate other examples of this phenomenon. For example, Proposition 5.1 implies that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^{6^n}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^{26^n}}+\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{x^{36^n}}$$

has iterated 4-fold symmetry. It is unclear whether it is essentially a coincidence that these sums have iterated 4-fold symmetry, or whether these is some more general result along these lines.

## 7. Specializability

These results bring up some interesting related questions. Suppose that $`f(x)`$ is a polynomial over $``$, of degree greater than 1. Under what conditions does

(7.1)
$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}$$

have a specializable continued fraction? Several of the sums dealt with earlier in this paper were of this form, with the allowable functions characterized by congruence conditions. In this section, we will show that in general, such a series is specializable if and only if $`f(x)`$ satisfies one of fourteen congruence conditions.

All of our examples so far have had symmetry. However, this is not the case in general. We will prove shortly that if $`f(x)x(modx^2)`$, then the sum has a specializable continued fraction, although $`k`$-fold symmetry does not occur. The proof is fairly typical of our methods in this section. We first guess what the continued fraction expansion is, and then prove it by induction. Surprisingly, this works in every case in which the continued fraction expansion is specializable, although several cases are tricky. More surprisingly, we can actually rule out every other case, and thereby arrive at a complete classification of the polynomials for which the series (7.1) has a specializable continued fraction.

Before we deal with the case of $`f(x)x(modx^2)`$, we need to set up some notation. Let $`f(x)=g(x)x^2x`$, and then set $`A_1(x)=g(x)`$, $`A_2(x)=g(f(x))x^2`$, $`A_3(x)=g(f^2(x))(f(x)/x)^2`$, $`A_4(x)=g(f^3(x))x^2(f^2(x)/f(x))^2`$, etc. In general,

$$A_2\mathrm{}(x)=g(f^{2\mathrm{}1}(x))x^2(f^2(x)/f(x))^2(f^4(x)/f^3(x))^2\mathrm{}(f^{2\mathrm{}2}(x)/f^{2\mathrm{}3}(x))^2,$$

and

$$A_{2\mathrm{}+1}(x)=g(f^2\mathrm{}(x))(f(x)/x)^2(f^3(x)/f^2(x))^2\mathrm{}(f^{2\mathrm{}1}(x)/f^{2\mathrm{}2}(x))^2.$$

(The condition on $`f(x)`$ implies that these are polynomials.) Then we have the following result:

###### Proposition 7.1.

Let $`f(x)=g(x)x^2x`$, and $`A_i(x)`$ be as defined above. Then for each $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}=[0,x,A_1(x),A_2(x),\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}}(x)].$$

###### Proof.

We prove this by induction. The base case is trivial. Now note that

$$x^2[A_1(f(x)),A_2(f(x)),\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}}(f(x))]=[A_2(x),A_3(x),\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}+1}(x)].$$

This, combined with the identity

$$[0,x,g(x),x^2X]=1/x+[0,f(x),X],$$

proves the result. ∎

We get a similar result when $`f(x)x^2x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$. Let $`f(x)=x^2x+1+x^2(x1)^2g(x)`$, and set $`A_1(x)=g(x)(x1)^2`$, $`B_1(x)=x^2`$, and in general

$$A_{\mathrm{}}(x)=g(f^\mathrm{}1(x))\left(\frac{f^\mathrm{}1(x)1}{xf(x)\mathrm{}f^\mathrm{}2(x)}\right)^2,$$

and

$$B_{\mathrm{}}(x)=x^2f(x)^2f^2(x)^2\mathrm{}f^\mathrm{}1(x)^2.$$

(As in the previous example, the condition on $`f(x)`$ implies that these are polynomials.) Then we have the following result:

###### Proposition 7.2.

Let $`f(x)=x^2x+1+x^2(x1)^2g(x)`$, and $`A_i(x)`$ and $`B_i(x)`$ be as defined above. Then for each $`\mathrm{}`$,

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}=[0,x,A_1(x)1,B_1(x),A_2(x),B_2(x),\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}}(x),B_{\mathrm{}}(x)].$$

###### Proof.

We prove this by induction. The base case is trivial. Now note that

$$[A_1(f(x)),B_1(f(x)),\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}}(f(x)),B_{\mathrm{}}(f(x))]=x^2[A_2(x),B_2(x),\mathrm{},A_{\mathrm{}+1}(x),B_{\mathrm{}+1}(x)].$$

This, combined with the identity

$$[0,x,A_1(x)1,B_1(x),X]=1/x+[0,f(x),1+x^2X],$$

proves the result. ∎

Note that in the special case where $`f(x)=x^2x+1`$, we have

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}=\frac{1}{x1}.$$

Of course, this example is rather special.

We now determine exactly which polynomials $`f(x)`$ are such that all of the partial sums of $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}`$ have specializable continued fractions. Before doing this, however, we need to discuss a few points about proving non-specializability.

Suppose that one has a continued fraction expansion for a formal Laurent series. If one of the partial quotients does not have integral coefficients, it is not necessarily the case that the Laurent series does not have a specializable continued fraction. To see this, note that the identity $`[a+1/b,c]=[a,b,(c+b)/b^2]`$ shows that when the constant term of a partial quotient is not an integer, one can on occasion adjust the continued fraction to make it specializable. For example, $`[x1/3,9x^2+3]=[x,3,x^2]`$. However, it is not hard to see that if the first partial quotient without integer coefficients has a non-integral coefficient other than the constant term, then the Laurent series has no specializable continued fraction. This observation will suffice for all of the examples we will consider.

Also, we will look at continued fractions involving several variables. When one wants to prove that such a continued fraction is not specializable, one must be careful about 0 as a partial quotient. If one of the partial quotients becomes 0 for certain values of some of the variables, then its two neighboring partial quotients add when the variables assume those values. This could make the continued fraction specializable. In general, it will be clear that this doesn’t happen, however.

We begin with the following easy lemma.

###### Lemma 7.3.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a (non-zero) polynomial over $``$. Then $`1/x+1/f(x)`$ has a specializable continued fraction iff $`f(x)`$ is congruent modulo $`x^2`$ to one of

$$0,1,1,x,x1,x+1,2x,2x1,2x+1.$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`f(x)=g(x)x^2+bx+a`$. Then

$$\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{f(x)}=[0,x,g(x),\frac{x}{b+1}+\frac{a}{(b+1)^2},\frac{(b+1)^3x}{a^2}\frac{(b+1)^2}{a}].$$

From this, we see that unless $`b=0`$, $`b=1`$, or $`b=2`$, there is no specializable continued fraction for $`1/x+1/f(x)`$. Now, we just check each case.

When $`b=0,`$ $`1/x+1/f(x)=[0,x,g(x),x+a,x/a^21/a].`$ When $`b=1`$, $`1/x+1/f(x)=[0,x,g(x),x^2/a].`$ When $`b=2`$, $`1/x+1/f(x)=[0,x,g(x),x+a,x/a^21/a].`$ From these, we see that in each case, we must have $`a=1`$, $`a=0`$, or $`a=1`$ to have specializability, and that in each of those cases, $`1/x+1/f(x)`$ does have a specializable continued fraction. ∎

###### Lemma 7.4.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a (non-zero) polynomial over $``$, and suppose that $`f(x)=1+kx^2+x^2(x1)g(x)`$ with $`g(x)[x].`$ Then $`1/x+1/f(x)+1/f^2(x)`$ has a specializable continued fraction iff $`k=0.`$

###### Proof.

We look at the more general sum

$$\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{f(x)}+\frac{1}{1+kf(x)^2+f(x)^2(f(x)1)G(x)}.$$

(Note that we do not require that $`G(x)=g(f(x)).`$)

If $`k=0`$, this has the continued fraction expansion $`[0,x,g(x)(x1),x+1,x1,G(x)g(x)(x1),x+1,x1,g(x)(x1),x+1,x1,g(x)(x1),x1,x+1].`$ If $`k=1`$, then it has the expansion $`[0,x,g(x)(x1)1,x+1,x1,G(x)g(x)(x1)+G(x),x,g(x)x^3+(g(x)1)x^2,x,g(x)(x1)+1,x2,x/4+1/2],`$ which cannot be made specializable. Finally, for all other values of $`k`$, it has the expansion $`[0,x,g(x)(x1)k,x+1,x1,G(x)g(x)(x1)+G(x)k,x+1k,\frac{x}{k^22k+1}+\frac{1}{k1},g(x)\left(k^22k+1\right)^2x+\left(k^22k+1\right)(kg(x)+k^3+2kg(x)2k^2k^2g(x)),\frac{x}{k^22k+1}\frac{1}{k1},x1+k,g(x)(x1)+k,x1k,\frac{x}{1+2k+k^2}+\frac{1}{k+1}],`$ which also cannot be made specializable. ∎

Now note that changing $`f(x)`$ to $`f(x)`$ has no effect on the specializability of the continued fractions for the partial sums we are studying. Thus, we immediately get the following lemma:

###### Lemma 7.5.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a (non-zero) polynomial over $``$, and suppose that $`f(x)=1+kx^2+x^2(x+1)g(x)`$ with $`g(x)[x].`$ Then $`1/x+1/f(x)+1/f^2(x)`$ has a specializable continued fraction iff $`k=0.`$

###### Lemma 7.6.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a (non-zero) polynomial over $``$, and suppose that $`f(x)=2x+x^2g(x)`$ with $`g(x)[x].`$ Then $`1/x+1/f(x)+1/f^2(x)`$ never has a specializable continued fraction.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Lemma 7.4, we generalize slightly, and look at

$$\frac{1}{x}+\frac{1}{f(x)}+\frac{1}{2f(x)+f(x)^2G(x)},$$

where $`G(x)`$ need not be equal to $`g(f(x)).`$ This has the continued fraction expansion $`[0,x,g(x),x,G(x),x,g(x),x/3]`$, which cannot be made specializable. ∎

Similar arguments, best carried out using computer algebra software, prove the following two lemmas:

###### Lemma 7.7.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a (non-zero) polynomial over $``$, and suppose that $`f(x)2x+1(modx^2).`$ Then $`1/x+1/f(x)+1/f^2(x)`$ has a specializable continued fraction iff $`f(x)x^3+3x^22x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$ or $`f(x)x^22x+1(modx^2(x1)^2).`$

###### Lemma 7.8.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a (non-zero) polynomial over $``$, and suppose that $`f(x)x+1(modx^2).`$ Then $`1/x+1/f(x)+1/f^2(x)`$ has a specializable continued fraction iff $`f(x)x^2x+1,x^3x+1,x^3x^2x+1,\text{or}x^3+2x^2x+1(modx^2(x1)^2).`$

(Of course, changing $`f(x)`$ to $`f(x)`$ gives analogous results for the cases in which $`f(x)2x1(modx^2)`$ or $`f(x)x1(modx^2).`$)

In fact, when $`f(x)x^3x+1(modx^2(x1)^2),`$ one can check that $`1/x+1/f(x)+1/f^2(x)+1/f^3(x)`$ does not have a specializable continued fraction. This, combined with the preceding lemmas, proves the necessity of the conditions of the following theorem:

###### Theorem 7.9.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a polynomial over $``$, of degree greater than 1. All of the partial sums of $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}`$ have specializable continued fractions if and only if $`f(x)`$ satisfies one of the following congruences:

1. $`f(x)0(modx^2)`$.
2. $`f(x)x(modx^2)`$.
3. $`f(x)1(modx^2(x1))`$.
4. $`f(x)1(modx^2(x+1))`$.
5. $`f(x)x^3x^2x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$.
6. $`f(x)x^3+2x^2x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$.
7. $`f(x)x^3+3x^22x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$.
8. $`f(x)x^3+x^2x1(modx^2(x+1)^2)`$.
9. $`f(x)x^32x^2x1(modx^2(x+1)^2)`$.
10. $`f(x)x^33x^22x1(modx^2(x+1)^2)`$.
11. $`f(x)x^2x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$.
12. $`f(x)x^22x+1(modx^2(x1)^2)`$.
13. $`f(x)x^2x1(modx^2(x+1)^2)`$.
14. $`f(x)x^22x1(modx^2(x+1)^2)`$.

###### Proof.

We have already proved the necessity that one of these congruences hold. We now prove its sufficiency.

Because of our results so far, and the symmetry between $`f(x)`$ and $`f(x)`$, we see that we need only deal with (5), (6), (7), and (12). Set $`S_n(x)=1/x+1/f(x)+\mathrm{}+1/f^n(x),`$ and $`Q_n(x)=xf(x)\mathrm{}f^n(x).`$

We begin with (6). Suppose that $`f(x)=x^3+2x^2x+1+x^2(x1)^2g(x).`$ First, define the polynomials $`A_0(x)=1`$, $`A_1(x)=(1f(x))/x`$, and for $`n2`$

$$A_n(x)=\frac{1f^n(x)}{xf(x)\mathrm{}f^{n1}(x)}+f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)A_{n2}(x).$$

(Because $`f(x)1=x(x1)^2(xg(x)1),`$ these are indeed polynomials. In fact, we see from this that for $`n>1,`$ $`f^n(x)1`$ is divisible by $`Q_{n1}(x)Q_{n2}(x)`$.)

In fact, $`A_n(x)`$ is the denominator of the penultimate convergent of $`S_n(x)`$. We will see later that the continued fraction expansion of $`S_n(x)`$ has even length. If $`S_n(x)=p/q`$ with $`p`$ and $`q`$ coprime, then $`p^{}/q^{}`$ is the penultimate convergent iff $`pq^{}qp^{}=1,`$ and also $`\mathrm{deg}q^{}<\mathrm{deg}q`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}p^{}<\mathrm{deg}p`$. In this case, it is easiest to check simply that $`q^{}(p/q)1/q`$ is a polynomial of degree less than $`\mathrm{deg}p=\mathrm{deg}q1.`$ Of course, the denominator of $`S_n(x)`$ is easily seen to be $`Q_n(x)`$. (This is the method used in .)

Our proof that $`A_n(x)`$ is the denominator of the penultimate convergent will be by induction. The first two cases are easy to check. Also, note that if $`S_n(x)A_n(x)1/Q_n(x)`$ is a polynomial, then it automatically has the right degree. Now, we express it as

$$\left(S_{n2}(x)+\frac{1}{f^{n1}(x)}+\frac{1}{f^n(x)}\right)\left(\frac{1f^n(x)}{Q_{n1}(x)}+f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)A_{n2}(x)\right)\frac{1}{Q_n(x)}.$$

The product $`(1/f^{n1}(x)+1/f^n(x))f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)A_{n2}(x)`$ is a polynomial, as is $`S_{n2}(x)(1f^n(x))/Q_{n1}(x)`$. (The latter one is a polynomial since $`f^n(x)1`$ is divisible by $`Q_{n1}(x)Q_{n2}(x)`$.) Also, by induction, $`S_{n2}(x)A_{n2}(x)f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)`$ is a polynomial plus $`f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)/Q_{n2}(x)`$.

Thus, we need only show that

(7.2)
$$\frac{f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)}{Q_{n2}(x)}+\left(\frac{1}{f^{n1}(x)}+\frac{1}{f^n(x)}\right)\left(\frac{1f^n(x)}{Q_{n1}(x)}\right)\frac{1}{Q_n(x)}$$

is a polynomial, or equivalently that

$$f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)+\left(\frac{1}{f^{n1}(x)}+\frac{1}{f^n(x)}\right)\left(\frac{1f^n(x)}{f^{n1}(x)}\right)\frac{1}{f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)}$$

is a polynomial which is divisible by $`Q_{n2}(x)`$. This follows immediately from that fact that when $`n=2`$, it is a polynomial which is divisible by $`f(x)1`$, because one sees then that it is always a polynomial divisible by $`f^{n1}(x)1`$, which is divisible by $`Q_{n2}(x)Q_{n3}(x)`$.

Now let $`X_1(x)=g(x)(x1)^2+x2`$, and for $`n2`$,

$$X_n(x)=\frac{A_{n2}(x)}{Q_{n2}(x)}\frac{A_{n1}(x)}{Q_{n1}(x)}+\frac{1f^n(x)}{Q_{n1}(x)^2}.$$

(One can prove by induction that this is a polynomial, by looking at the differences $`X_n(x)X_{n2}(x)`$ and showing that they are polynomials in a way like that used to prove that (7.2) is a polynomial.)

Note that $`S_1(x)=[0,x,X_1(x),x^2].`$ Now suppose that $`s_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ is such that for each $`n`$, $`S_n(x)=[0,s_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}].`$ Then for $`n2`$ we have $`S_n(x)=[0,s_{n1}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},X_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},f^{n1}(x)^2,s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}].`$ (Strictly speaking, one should probably define $`s_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ inductively as $`s_{n1}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},X_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},f^{n1}(x)^2`$, $`s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$, and then note that $`S_n(x)=[0,s_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}].`$)

This is not hard to prove. Of course,

$$[X_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=X_n(x)A_{n2}(x)/Q_{n2}(x).$$

It follows from the Folding Lemma that

$$[X_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},f^{n1}(x)^2,s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=X_n(x)\frac{A_{n2}(x)}{Q_{n2}(x)}\frac{1}{f^{n1}(x)^2Q_{n2}(x)^2}.$$

From this, one sees that if one subtracts $`S_{n1}(x)`$ from the whole continued fraction, one gets

$$\frac{1}{Q_{n1}(x)\left(Q_{n1}(x)\left(X_n(x)\frac{A_{n2}\left(x\right)}{Q_{n2}\left(x\right)}\frac{1}{f^{n1}\left(x\right)^2Q_{n2}\left(x\right)^2}\right)A_{n1}(x)\right)}.$$

If one applies the definitions of $`X_n(x)`$ and of $`Q_n(x)`$, this simplifies to $`1/f^n(x)`$. (There is no need to use the recurrence defining $`A_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ in these manipulations, because all of the occurrences of $`A_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ (for various $`\mathrm{}`$) cancel.) We omit the details. This proves the sufficiency of case (6).

We now deal with case (12). Suppose that $`f(x)=(x1)^2(1+g(x)x^2).`$ First, define the polynomials (for $`n1`$)

$$A_n(x)=\frac{f^n(x)1}{f^{n1}(x)}+f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)S_{n1}(x).$$

(One can check easily that these are polynomials.)

As before, $`A_n(x)`$ is the denominator of the penultimate convergent of $`S_n(x)`$. We will prove that the continued fraction expansion of $`S_n(x)`$ has odd length. Assuming this, it is easy to prove that $`A_n(x)`$ is indeed this denominator. Note that the denominator of $`S_n(x)`$ is $`f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)`$. Let $`B_n(x)=A_n(x)S_n(x)+1/(f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)).`$ We need to show that $`B_n(x)`$ is a polynomial. To do this by induction, we look at the difference

$$B_n(x)B_{n1}(f(x))=\left(A_{n1}(f(x))+\frac{f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)}{x}\right)\left(S_{n1}(f(x))+\frac{1}{x}\right)A_{n1}(f(x))S_{n1}(f(x)),$$

and show that it is a polynomial. It is easy to check that $`f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)/x^2`$ is a polynomial. Thus, this reduces to checking that $`A_{n1}(f(x))+S_{n1}(f(x))f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)`$ is a polynomial divisible by $`x`$. Call this $`C_n(x)`$. Then $`C_{n+1}(x)=C_n(f(x))+f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)/x+f^{n+1}(x)f^n(x)/f(x),`$ and one sees by induction that these are polynomials divisible by $`x`$.

Now, for $`n2`$, define

$$X_n(x)=g(f^{n1}(x))\left(\frac{f^{n1}(x)1}{f^{n2}(x)}\right)^2$$

and for $`n3`$,

$$Y_n(x)=\frac{f^{n1}(x)}{f^{n3}(x)^2}.$$

Also define $`Y_2(x)=f(x)`$.

Now note that $`S_1(x)=[0,x,g(x)(x1)^21,x+1,x1]`$ and $`S_2(x)=[0,x,g(x)(x1)^21,x+1,x1,X_2(x),x,f(x)+1,x,g(x)(x1)^21,x]`$. Suppose that for each $`n`$, $`S_n(x)=[0,s_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$. Then for $`n3`$, we have

(7.3)
$$S_n(x)=[0,s_{n1}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},X_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},Y_n(x),s_{n3}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},Y_{n1}(x),s_{n3}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},X_{n1}(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}].$$

This can be proved completely straightforwardly. The case $`n=3`$ seems to need to be treated differently, since it involves $`Y_2(x)`$, which does not quite fit the pattern defining $`Y_n(x)`$ in general, but the same methods suffice to prove it.

In the general case, the techniques we have been using show that the continued fraction in (7.3) is equal to a certain rational function of iterates of $`f(x)`$, $`g(x)`$ applied to iterates of $`f(x)`$, and partial sums of the series. (Note that the numerators and denominators of the last two convergents of $`S_n(x)`$ can be expressed in terms of these.)

When one expresses each of the partial sums in terms of $`S_n(x)`$ (and the iterates of $`f(x)`$) and subtracts off $`S_n(x)`$, one is left with a rational function of the iterates of $`f(x)`$, and $`g(x)`$ applied to them. (The partial sums all disappear by cancellation.) One can than express each of the iterates of $`f(x)`$ in terms of the first one to appear. This gives a rational function of one iterate of $`f(x)`$, as well as $`g(x)`$ applied to several iterates. This rational function vanishes identically. (This would be tedious to check by hand, but is not very difficult to check using computer algebra software.)

Now, we deal with case (5). Suppose that $`f(x)=(x1)^2(1+x+x^2g(x)).`$ Now define $`A_1(x)=(f(x)1)/x`$, and for $`n2,`$

$$A_n(x)=\frac{f^n(x)1}{f^{n1}(x)}+f^n(x)f^{n1}(x)S_{n2}(x).$$

One can check, as before, that this is the denominator of the penultimate convergent of $`S_n(x)`$. We will prove shortly that the continued fraction has odd length for $`n2`$. Note that the denominator of $`S_n(x)`$ is $`f^n(x)f^{n1}(x).`$

Now define $`X_n(x)`$ for $`n3`$ to be

$$g(f^{n1}(x))\left(\frac{f^{n1}(x)1}{f^{n2}(x)}\right)^2+g(f^{n2}(x))(f^{n2}(x)1)^2+f^{n2}(x)1,$$

$`Y_n(x)`$ for $`n4`$ to be

$$\left(\frac{f^{n2}(x)1}{f^{n3}(x)}\right)^2(g(f^{n2}(x))(f^{n1}(x)+(f^{n2}(x)+1)(f^{n2}(x)1)^2)+f^{n2}(x)^22),$$

and $`Z_n(x)`$ for $`n6`$ to be

$$Y_{n2}(x)\frac{f^{n2}(x)f^{n3}(x)^2}{f^{n4}(x)^2f^{n5}(x)^2}.$$

(These are easily seen to be polynomials.)

Also define $`X_1(x)=g(x)(x1)^2x+1`$, and $`X_2(x)`$ following the definition above, except multiplied by $`1`$. Define $`Y_1(x)=x^2`$, $`Y_2(x)=g(x)(x1)^4(g(x)x^2+2x+2)x^4+2x^3+x^24x+1`$, and $`Y_3(x)`$ following the definition above, except multiplied by $`1`$. Finally, define $`Z_3(x)=x^2(f(x)+1)`$, $`Z_4(x)=(f(x)^2(f(f(x))+1)+2x1)/x^2`$, and $`Z_5(x)`$ following the definition above, except with the second term multiplied by $`1`$.

Now note that $`S_1(x)=[0,x,X_1(x),Y_1(x)]`$ and $`S_2(x)=[0,x,X_1(x),Y_1(x),X_2(x),x1,x+1,Y_2(x),x]`$. Suppose that for each $`n`$, $`S_n(x)=[0,s_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}].`$ Then for $`n3`$ we have

$$S_n(x)=[0,s_{n1}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},X_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},0,s_{n4}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},Y_{n2}(x),0,Z_n(x),s_{n4}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},Y_n(x),s_{n2}^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}].$$

(When $`n=3`$, $`s_1^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ and $`s_1^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ appear here. They should be interpreted to be empty words. Also, note that because $`0`$ appears in this expansion, the continued fraction collapses somewhat. However, it remains specializable.)

As before, this is straightforward to prove. The methods used for the proof of the previous cases also work in this case. (It is best to use computer algebra software for the calculations.)

Finally, we deal with case (7). First note that given any continued fraction $`[a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n]`$ with convergents $`p_i/q_i`$, and given any $`X`$, we have

(7.4)
$$[a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},X,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},1,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=\frac{p_n}{q_n}+\frac{1}{q_n(Xq_n+2q_{n1})(1)^n+1}.$$

(This is easy to prove using the techniques used to prove the Generalized Folding Lemma.)

Now, suppose that $`f(x)=x^3+3x^22x+1+g(x)x^2(x1)^2`$. Note that $`f(x)1=x(x1)(g(x)(x^2x)x+2),`$ and that the denominator of $`S_n(x)`$ is $`Q_n(x)`$. We will show that that continued fraction of $`S_{n+1}(x)`$ arises from that of $`S_n(x)`$ through application of (7.4), for a suitable choice of $`X`$.

To prove this, we use the fact that for any continued fraction, $`p_kq_{k1}(1)^{k1}(modq_k).`$ (This follows from the equation $`p_kq_{k1}q_kp_{k1}=(1)^{k1}`$.) From this, one sees immediately that (7.4) is applicable (with $`X`$ a polynomial) if and only if

$$S_n(x)(f^{n+1}(x)1)2(modQ_n(x)).$$

(It is easy to check that $`Q_n(x)`$ divides $`f^{n+1}(x)1`$, so $`S_n(x)(f^{n+1}(x)1)`$ is a polynomial.)

However, this is easy to prove by induction. The base case is trivial. Now, assume that it holds for $`n1`$. Using induction and the fact that $`f^n(x)1`$ divides $`f^{n+1}(x)1`$, we have

$$S_{n1}(x)(f^{n+1}(x)1)2\left(\frac{f^{n+1}(x)1}{f^n(x)1}\right)(modQ_n(x)).$$

Hence,

$$S_n(x)(f^{n+1}(x)1)2\left(\frac{f^{n+1}(x)1}{f^n(x)1}\right)+\frac{f^{n+1}(x)1}{f^n(x)}(modQ_n(x)).$$

This simplifies to $`f^n(x)(f^n(x)1)((f^n(x)+1)g(f^n(x))1)2`$. Because $`Q_{n1}(x)`$ divides $`f^n(x)1`$, this is $`2`$ modulo $`Q_n(x)`$, as desired. Hence, the continued fraction of $`S_{n+1}(x)`$ is determined by that of $`S_n(x)`$ by (7.4). Since the continued fraction of $`S_1(x)`$ is $`[0,x,g(x)x^2+(2g(x)+1)xg(x)3,x+1,x1]`$, all of these continued fractions are specializable.

This completes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 7.10.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a quadratic polynomial over $``$. Then $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}`$ has a specializable continued fraction iff $`f(x)=kx^2`$ for some $`k`$, $`f(x)=kx^2x`$ for some $`k`$, or $`f(x)`$ is one of $`x^2x+1`$, $`x^22x+1`$, $`x^2x1`$, or $`x^22x1`$.

(This lemma is proved the same way as the necessity of the conditions in Theorem 7.9. We omit the details. Essentially, one looks at partial sums and shows that they do not have specializable continued fractions, unless $`f(x)`$ belongs to one of the six cases of the lemma. Arguments like those used to prove the next lemma show that the beginnings of the continued fractions for these partial sums coincide with the beginning of the continued fraction for the entire series. In each case, the non-specializability of the continued fraction for the partial sum occurs near enough to its beginning to imply that the entire series cannot have a specializable continued fraction expansion.)

###### Lemma 7.11.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a polynomial over $``$, of degree greater than 2. Then the partial sums of $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}`$ are convergents to its continued fraction.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\mathrm{deg}f(x)=\mathrm{}`$. Since denominator of the partial sum $`_{n=0}^k1/f^n(x)`$ clearly divides $`f^0(x)f^1(x)\mathrm{}f^k(x)`$, it has degree at most $`(\mathrm{}^{k+1}1)/(\mathrm{}1)`$. Since $`\mathrm{}3`$, this is strictly less than $`\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{deg}f^{k+1}(x)`$.

Now note that if we define a valuation on $`(x)`$ by $`|a(x)/b(x)|=2^{\mathrm{deg}a(x)\mathrm{deg}b(x)},`$ then it is easy to see that for $`a,\epsilon (x)`$, $`|a\epsilon |<1`$ implies $`\epsilon +1/a`$ = $`1/(a+\epsilon ^{})`$ with $`|\epsilon ^{}|=|\epsilon a^2|`$. From this, it follows immediately that $`_{n=0}^k1/f^n(x)`$ is a convergent of $`_{n=0}^{k+1}1/f^n(x)`$. This proves our lemma. ∎

Combining the last three results yields the following theorem:

###### Theorem 7.12.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a polynomial over $``$, of degree greater than 1. Then $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{f^n(x)}`$ has a specializable continued fraction if and only if $`f(x)`$ satisfies one of the fourteen congruences listed in the statement of Theorem 7.9.

Another interesting example is $`f(x)=x^2+x1`$. The continued fraction in this case is not specializable, but no denominators greater than 2 occur. Doubling the continued fraction eliminates all but one of them. If a continued fraction is not specializable, but the coefficients of its partial quotients have denominators at most 2, then we call it semi-specializable. Semi-specializable continued fractions are almost as interesting as specializable ones, because it is fairly straightforward to transform a continued fraction whose partial quotients are halves of integers to a simple continued fraction. It might be interesting to find an analogue of Theorem 7.12 for semi-specializability, because it is conceivable that there would be a simpler or more interesting characterization.

## 8. Other Forms of Folding Symmetry

In addition to folding symmetry, at least one other similar form of symmetry occurs in some continued fractions, this time in products rather than sums. Define $`a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ to be the word $`a_0,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$, and define $`a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ to be $`a_n,a_{n1},\mathrm{},a_0`$. Thus, $`a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}=a_0,w_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$. This notation will be more convenient than the earlier notation.

Note that since $`[a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=p_n/p_{n1}`$, $`a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}=a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ if and only if $`p_{n1}=q_n`$. (To compute $`[a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]`$, note that $`[a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=1/f_n^1(0)=p_n/p_{n1}.`$) We now use this to prove the following proposition:

###### Proposition 8.1.

If $`a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}=a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}`$ then

$$[a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x,a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=\frac{p_n}{q_n}\left(1+\frac{(1)^n}{q_n(xp_n+2q_n)+(1)^{n1}}\right).$$

###### Proof.

We have

$$[a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}},x,a_n^{^{_{_{^{_{}}}}}}]=\frac{p_n(x+p_{n1}/p_n)+p_{n1}}{q_n(x+p_{n1}/p_n)+q_{n1}}.$$

Now if we apply the relation $`p_nq_{n1}=(1)^{n1}+q_np_{n1}`$, we get

$$\frac{p_n^2x+2p_np_{n1}}{p_nq_nx+2q_np_{n1}+(1)^{n1}},$$

and substituting $`p_{n1}=q_n`$ gives

$$\frac{p_n^2x+2p_nq_n}{p_nq_nx+2q_n^2+(1)^{n1}},$$

which is equal to

$$\frac{p_n}{q_n}\left(1+\frac{(1)^n}{q_n(xp_n+2q_n)+(1)^{n1}}\right),$$

as desired. ∎

The symmetry appearing in Proposition 8.1 looks very much like 2-fold symmetry, but of course is not exactly the same. For lack of a better name, we call it duplicating symmetry.

Given the more restrictive hypotheses of Proposition 8.1 (compared to those of the Folding Lemma), one might not expect there to be any interesting applications. However, there are some.

Products such as

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{x^\mathrm{}^n}\right)$$

do not have $`k`$-fold or duplicating symmetry. (They do have interesting continued fraction expansions, which can be determined explicitly for $`\mathrm{}`$ even. For the details, see .) Surprisingly, the Chebyshev analogues

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{}^n(x)}\right)$$

(where $`T_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ is the $`\mathrm{}`$-th Chebyshev polynomial) have iterated duplicating symmetry, provided that $`\mathrm{}2(mod4)`$. We prove this in slightly greater generality.

Let $`f(x)`$ be a polynomial over $``$ of degree greater than 1 such that

$$f(x)2x^21(modx(x^21))$$

in $`[x]`$. It is easy to prove by induction that $`f^i(x)^21`$ is divisible by $`(f^0(x)+1)(f^1(x)+1)\mathrm{}(f^i(x)+1)`$. Also, note that $`f^i(x)`$ divides $`f^{i+1}(x)+1`$.

Now consider the product

$$P_n=\underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{f^i(x)}\right).$$

The remarks above show that its denominator is $`f^n(x)`$. We now show that it has duplicating symmetry. We can assume (by induction) that $`P_{n1}`$ has a symmetric continued fraction, of odd length. (Note that $`P_0=[1,x1,1]`$.) Now, in order to apply Proposition 8.1, we need only show that

$$\frac{f(f^{n1}(x))2f^{n1}(x)^2+1}{f^{n1}(x)}$$

is divisible by the numerator of $`P_{n1}`$. Note that this is divisible by $`f^{n1}(x)^21`$, and hence by $`(f^0(x)+1)(f^1(x)+1)\mathrm{}(f^{n1}(x)+1)`$. This implies that it is divisible by the numerator of $`P_{n1}`$, and thus that $`P_n`$ has iterated duplicating symmetry. (Note that in the special case $`f(x)=2x^21`$, we have $`P_{\mathrm{}}=\sqrt{x^21}/(x1).`$ See .)

When $`\mathrm{}2(mod4)`$, the Chebyshev polynomial $`T_{\mathrm{}}(x)`$ satisfies the appropriate congruence. Since for all $`a`$ and $`b`$, $`T_{ab}(x)=T_a(T_b(x)),`$ it follows that

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{}^n(x)}\right)$$

has iterated duplicating symmetry. Also, the partial quotients have integer coefficients, so the continued fraction is specializable. For $`\mathrm{}0(mod4)`$, there appears to be a semi-specializable continued fraction, which is somewhat, but not entirely, symmetric. For $`\mathrm{}`$ odd, things are more complicated. (In these cases, the continued fractions are almost certainly never specializable.)

## 9. Open Questions and Conjectures

Unfortunately, this paper fails to answer the following natural questions (among others):

1. How do Theorem 7.9 and Theorem 7.12 generalize to products?
2. Which of the sums studied in this paper have semi-specializable continued fractions? What about the products?
3. There are a number of continued fraction expansions derived in this paper that are reminiscent of 2-fold or 3-fold symmetry. Are any of them special cases of more general phenomena (as 2-fold symmetry is a special case of $`k`$-fold symmetry)?
4. Under what conditions is the sum of two specializable continued fractions still specializable? (At the end of §6, a number of cases in which this occurs are derived. However, the derivation doesn’t seem to generalize in this direction.)
5. Does Proposition 5.1 have any interesting or useful generalizations?

We can, however, conjecture some partial answers to these questions:

###### Conjecture 9.1.

There exists a finite collection $`\{(a_i(x),b_i(x))\}[x]\times [x]`$ such that each $`b_i(x)`$ divides $`x^2(x^21)^2`$, with the property that if $`f(x)[x]`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}f(x)>1`$, then all of the partial products of $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\left(1+1/f^n(x)\right)`$ have specializable continued fractions if and only if for some $`i`$, $`f(x)a_i(x)(modb_i(x)).`$

It may be the case that $`x^2(x^21)^2`$ needs to be replaced by another polynomial, but even in that case, the (appropriately modified) conjecture is presumably true. Techniques similar to those used in the proof of Theorem 7.9 will probably work. One will presumably also arrive at a result analogous to Theorem 7.12.

It seems plausible that one can prove similar results for semi-specializability (in the case of products or that of sums).

###### Conjecture 9.2.

Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be a non-zero multiple of 4. Then

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1+\frac{1}{T_\mathrm{}^n(x)}\right)$$

has a semi-specializable continued fraction expansion.

If true, this result probably arises from congruence conditions satisfied by the Chebyshev polynomials. The result about $`x^2+x1`$ mentioned at the end of §7 may very well also generalize similarly.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jeffrey Shallit for reading a draft of this paper and providing helpful comments and suggestions.


format: text

text:
# Molecular Gas Concentrations Outside the Merging Disks

## 1. Heavily Obscured Extra-disk Star-Forming Regions

Starburst galaxy mergers involve highly dissipative collapse of tremendous amounts of molecular gas from their location in two separate galaxies, into the inner few 100 pc of the merged system. The high gas densities in the core of the merger prompt powerful star formation; the dust associated with the gas absorbs the UV/optical light and re-radiates in the far-IR, resulting in an ultraluminous infrared galaxy (ULIG).

In most ULIGs, merging is sufficiently advanced that the gas has mostly collapsed into the central a few 100 pc. Notable examples are the nearest ULIGs like Arp 220 (Downes & Solomon 1998 (DS98); Sakamoto et al. 1999). There are, however, a few very highly luminous galaxies with extranuclear star forming regions (just below the $`10^{12}L_{}`$ ULIG cutoff) where the gas has apparently not yet collapsed into the nuclei (e.g., Arp 299 Aalto et al. 1997; Casoli et al. 1999; VV 114 Yun et al. 1994). These systems are of crucial importantance as they give us a glimpse into the (apparently brief) intermediate stage between well-separated gas-rich pairs and the merged late-stage ULIGs.

II Zw 96 ($`L_{\mathrm{IR}}=7.6\times 10^{11}L_{}`$, nuclear separation $`7.5`$ kpc), shows four distinct star-forming regions, as revealed by optical and near-IR observations (Goldader et al. 1997 (G97)). Two of those are apparently associated with galaxy nuclei. The other two sources lie well away from the two nuclei, extremely weak in optical, but prominent in near-IR, implying heavy dust obscuration in these extra-disk star forming regions.

## 2. Huge Extra-Disk Molecular Gas Concentrations

In order to explore the extra-disk star forming regions heavily obscured by dust, we have observed II Zw 96 at CO(1-0) using the 10-element BIMA array at Hat Creek, California. The data presented here are mainly compact C and D array observations plus some limited long baseline B array observations. The combined data give a synthesized beam of $`5.3^{\prime \prime }\times 4.2^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`3.5\times 2.8`$ kpc). Additional B array observations at $`2^{\prime \prime }`$ resolution are being conducted currently to further improve the resolution.

A total H2 mass of $`2.8\times 10^{10}M_{}`$ (standard conversion) was estimated from a single-dish CO survey (Gao & Solomon 1999). Our BIMA observations have recovered most of the single-dish flux and revealed that II Zw 96 is a morphologically complex and extraordinary system with most of CO emission located outside the two merging stellar disks (Fig. 1). The dominant CO concentrations correspond to the two extra-disk star-forming regions hidden by heavy dust, whereas the others are associated with the two galaxy disks and the region between them. The huge CO concentrations far away from the galaxy disks account for more than $`50\%`$ of the total CO emission with a H2 mass of $`1.4\times 10^{10}M_{}`$.

Huge concentrations of molecular gas in the overlap regions have been observed already in merger systems like Arp 299 and the “Antennae” galaxies Arp 244. The enormous amount of molecular gas located far away from merging disks makes II Zw 96 quite unique. Moreover, the gas density of $`\stackrel{>}{}5.3\times 10^2\text{M}\text{}/pc^2`$ (as seen by a beam resolution of $`3.5\times 2.8`$ kpc) at the peak of the concentrations, although at least $`50\%`$ higher than either nuclear regions of the merging galaxies, is orders of magnitude less than that of ULIGs and even Arp 299. The peak gas surface density would still be several times less than that of ULIGs even if the entire CO emission covered by current larger synthesized beam is from the central $`\stackrel{<}{}1`$ kpc region. In addition, the extra-disk gas concentrations appear to be peaked with a small offset from the star forming knots identified in near-IR (Fig. 1) and are mostly at higher velocities (Fig. 2). Only a small amount of molecular gas has been observed in SE galaxy which appears to have little association with the extra-disk gas concentrations (Fig. 2).

NW galaxy has a rather extended gas distribution, gas rotation motion and connection of the disk gas with the extra-disk CO concentration, whereas much less gas is observed in the SE disk. It is difficult to speculate that most of the gas in the extra-disk concentrations could have come from the NW galaxy. Could the SE galaxy have been originally very gas-rich with extended gas disk and left most of the gas behind after colliding with the NW galaxy ?

## 3. Evolution of the “Interaction Zones”

The star forming knots seen in near-IR in the extra-disk gas concentrations show properties of the Hii regions as that of the SE nuclear region indicating powerful young starbursts (G97). These same spectral features are also found in Arp 299 and VV 114. In all these systems, the apparent ages of the starbursts are $``$8–30 Myr, much younger than the allowed range of ULIGs. In fact, Goldader et al. (G97) suggested that these three systems might be examples of a short-lived phase through which many—perhaps all— pass on their way to becoming more advanced, centrally concentrated ULIG mergers.

Because the HI disks are more extended than the stellar disks, they may merge first prior to the merging of the stellar and molecular gas disks when a pair of gas-rich spirals approach each other. Indeed, we may have seen such early merging and formation of the HI disks overlap region in NGC 6670 where huge concentration of HI has been observed between the two galaxies whose HI disks have been highly disrupted, whereas little distortion is observed in the stellar disks (Wang et al. 2000). One plausible idea is that the HI gas disk overlap regions formed much earlier in early mergers (NGC 6670) may be the progenitors of the apparent overlap regions in intermediate mergers (Arp 244), which may evolve into the extended gas disks around the much more concentrated double nuclear gas disks in ULIGs (Arp 220, DS98). II Zw 96 fits in between early mergers like NGC 6670 and intermediate mergers like Arp 244.

As merging progresses and the gas overlap region further concentrates, these huge CO concentrations will eventually merge with the double nuclear gas disks. They could thus, be the progenitors of the so called extreme starburst regions, which dominate the overall starburst power output of the entire system, yet be confined within sub-kpc scale (DS98). They may also appear to be the multiple “nuclei” claimed in some ULIGs (cf. Borne et al. 2000).

## 4. ALMA Implications

Although there are now several galaxy mergers where huge gas concentrations in the overlap regions – the “interaction zones” have been observed, II Zw 96 appears to be the only one with most of the gas concentrations (presumably the overlap regions) located outside the stellar merging disks. Is this unique ? Are there more such systems to be found, especially in the distant universe where galaxy collisions are expected to be much more frequent ? Perhaps, one should not be totally surprised when ALMA has mapped some huge molecular gas concentrations with little or no optical correspondences, or the peaks of the molecular gas concentrations offset from the optical peaks by several kpc, in merging/star-forming galaxies at high redshift.

## References

Aalto, S., Radford, S.J.E., Scoville, N.Z., & Sargent, A.I. 1997 ApJ, 475, L107

Borne, K.D., Bushouse, H., Lucas, R.A., & Colina, L. 2000 ApJ, in press

Casoli, F., Willaime, M.-C., Viallefond, F., & Gerin, M. 1999 A&A, 346, 663

Downes, D., & Solomon, P.M. 1998 ApJ, 507, 615 (DS98)

Gao, Y., & Solomon, P.M. 1999 ApJ, 512, L99

Goldader, J.D. et al. 1997 AJ, 113, 1569 (G97)

Sakamoto, K. et al. 1999 ApJ, 514, 68

Wang, W.-H. et al. 2000 ApJ, in revision

Yun, M.S., Scoville, N.Z., & Knop, R.A. 1994 ApJ, 430, L109


text:
# Classical fluctuations and semiclassical matrix elements

## 1 Introduction

A central tool in the semiclassical analysis of chaotic systems is the Gutzwiller trace formula which relates quantal properties to classical periodic orbits . The extensions of Gutzwiller’s trace formula that include matrix elements in the density of states allow to relate distributions of quantum matrix elements and distributions of classical trajectory segments . Specifically, quantum fluctuations are related to fluctuations in ensembles of classical trajectory segments of length Heisenberg time. As the classical limit is approached, the Heisenberg time diverges, and the fluctuations vanish. This approach can therefore be used  to study the approach to ergodicity in quantum wave functions in chaotic systems. Integrable systems are not ergodic on the energy shell and therefore the fluctuations do not vanish in the semiclassical limit, as shown by Mehlig . The form factors for the matrix element weighted densities of states have an additional constant contribution  and different behaviour in their rigidity . Moreover, these relations can be used to analyse the effects near bifurcations  and to study localisation effects in wave functions. Beyond the static properties these can also be used to analyse the behaviour of cross sections .

The aim here is to analyse further an observation first made in the calculation of cross sections. By Fermi’s golden rule photodissociation cross sections contain matrix elements for observables that are projections onto initial states. In this limit semiclassical arguments become suspect since the smoothness of the observable that was assumed in the derivation of the trace formulas is no longer guaranteed. However, numerical experiments indicate that even in this limit at least the widths of the distributions can be obtained from classical considerations. This behaviour of matrix elements of projection operators will be investigated further.

The behaviour of matrix elements was studied in a variety of systems, including hydrogen in magnetic fields , the bakers map, a perturbed cat map, and various billiards. We here use the kicked standard map as the main example. The main advantage of maps is that they allow to study the semiclassical regime more easily and more deeply than continuous systems.

The outline of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we summarise information on the quantised standard map, on the semiclassical arguments that relate classical and quantal matrix elements and on the behaviour expected from random matrix theory. The numerical and analytical results on projectors are presented in section 3. We conclude with a summary and an outlook in section 4.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 The matrix element weighted density of states

In  we derived formulae for the width of the quantum matrix element distribution in smooth systems and proposed a formula for maps by analogy to the smooth results. To set the stage for the present investigation and to explain the origin of this formula, we here sketch the equivalent derivation for quantised maps on a finite phase space (similar to Carvalho et al).

Let $`U`$ be the unitary operator for the time evolution, $`A`$ the observable and $`N_D`$ the dimension of the Hilbert space. Then there are $`N_D`$ eigenphases $`\varphi _\mu `$ and eigenstates $`|\mu `$, so that

$$U=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N_D}{}}|\mu e^{i\varphi _\mu }\mu |.$$
(2.1)
The matrix elements $`A_\mu =\mu |A|\mu `$ are conveniently contained in the weighted density

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_A(\varphi )=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N_D}{}}A_\mu \delta (\varphi \varphi _\mu ).$$
(2.2)
It will be useful to work not with pure delta functions but with smeared out objects so that products are well defined. Rather than the Lorentzians or Gaussians used in previous works, the relation to finite trigonometric sums suggests to work with sinc-functions, i.e.

$$\delta _ϵ(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{\mathrm{sin}[(2N+1)x/2]}{\mathrm{sin}(x/2)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n=N}{\overset{N}{}}e^{inx}$$
(2.3)
of width $`ϵ2\pi /(2N+1)`$. The advantage of this function is that the smoothed density can be expressed as a finite sum of traces of powers of the propagator, viz.

$$\rho _A(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n=N}{\overset{N}{}}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N_D}{}}A_\mu e^{in(\varphi _\mu \varphi )}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n=N}{\overset{N}{}}\text{tr }(AU^n)e^{in\varphi }.$$
(2.4)
If $`N`$ is significantly smaller than $`N_D`$ some of the sinc-functions will overlap and not all individual eigenphases can be identified. Very large $`N`$ are impracticable from the point of view of a semiclassical approximation to be made below. Thus a natural choice is $`N`$ of the order of $`N_D`$ so that all eigenstates can be resolved in the mean, yet the semiclassical approximations are still reasonable.

The autocorrelation function of the smoothed density of states becomes

$`C_A(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\varphi \rho _A(\varphi \theta /2)\rho _A(\varphi +\theta /2)`$ (2.5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=N}{\overset{N}{}}}\left|\text{tr }(AU^n)\right|^2e^{in\theta }`$ (2.6)
Up to some factors, the Fourier transform of this correlation function is the form factor. Here, since the spectrum is confined to the unit circle and a periodically continued interval in $`\varphi `$, the form factor depends on a discrete argument only. We split off the density of states and define the form factor $`K_n^{(A)}`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_A(\theta )=\frac{N_D}{2\pi }\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_n^{(A)}e^{in\theta }.$$
(2.7)
When calculated with the smoothed density of states only the first few elements up to $`N_D`$ are included, but they do not differ from the exact ones,

$$K_n^{(A)}=\frac{1}{N_D}\left|\text{tr }(AU^n)\right|^2.$$
(2.8)
As in , all the information needed on matrix elements is contained in the semiclassical evaluation of $`K_n`$.

Within the semiclassical approximation the trace is calculated from a stationary phase approximation to the propagator, which leads to an expression involving classical periodic orbits. Specifically,

$$\text{tr }(AU^n)|_{sc}=\underset{\gamma (n)}{}A_\gamma w_\gamma e^{iS_\gamma /\mathrm{}}$$
(2.9)
where the sum extends over all distinct orbits $`\gamma `$ which close after $`n`$ iterations. $`S_\gamma `$ is the action associated with the trajectory, $`w_\gamma `$ the amplitude including phases and $`A_\gamma `$ the sum of the observable $`A`$ over all points of the trajectory. Of the amplitudes we need that their modulus squared equals the classical periodic orbit weight, $`|w_\gamma |^2=1/|det(1M_\gamma )|`$, where $`M_\gamma `$ is the linearisation perpendicular to the orbit. Thus the semiclassical form factor becomes

$$|\text{tr }(AU^n)|_{sc}|^2=\underset{\gamma ,\gamma ^{}(n)}{}A_\gamma A_\gamma ^{}^{}w_\gamma w_\gamma ^{}^{}e^{i(S_\gamma S_\gamma ^{}/\mathrm{}}g\underset{\gamma (n)}{}|A_\gamma |^2|w_\gamma |^2.$$
(2.10)
The neglect of the contributions from orbit pairs $`(\gamma ,\gamma ^{})`$ with $`\gamma \gamma ^{}`$ constitutes the diagonal approximation. The factor $`g`$ arises from the possibility of a quantum interference of classically distinct orbits with the same action, e.g. in the case of time reversal invariant systems, where a path and its time reversed image correspond to different objects in phase space, but with the same action. Because of the quantum interference between amplitudes, it contributes with twice the classical weight, hence $`g=2`$. In systems without such symmetries, like the unitary ensemble, $`g=1`$.

The extraction of the variance of the matrix elements from the form factors proceeds as in Ref. . The contributions $`A_\gamma `$ from orbits with similar period consist of two parts, one proportional to the mean of the observable and to the length of the orbit and one capturing the fluctuations, i.e. $`A_\gamma ^2=A_\gamma ^2n^2+\alpha n`$. Taking the square, averaging over orbits of similar length and exploiting the periodic orbit sum rule (which absorbs one factor of $`n`$) gives

$$K_n^{(A)}gA^2\frac{n}{N_D}+g\alpha \frac{1}{N_D}$$
(2.11)
The linear increase of the first term is the small $`n`$ expansion of the form factor, correct up to $`n=N_D`$ for the unitary ensemble but approximate only for the orthogonal ensemble. If the mean of the observable vanishes $`K_n^{(A)}`$ is already the variance of the matrix elements and thus contained in the second term of (2.11). Since the periodic orbit sum rule is an asymptotic statement, we take $`n`$ as large as possible, but limited by the requirement that the diagonal approximation be reasonable and a semiclassical approximation possible. We therefore take $`n=N_D`$, the Heisenberg time.

This calculation relates only the first and second moments of classical and quantal distributions. The main aim here will be to compare the full distributions, especially in the limit of singular observables.

### 2.2 Connection to random matrix theory

As demonstrated in a number of studies, the short range statistical properties of quantised chaotic maps are in good agreement with those of ensembles of random matrices. So in the present context one can ask for the prediction of random matrix theory for the diagonal matrix elements. In particular, for the kind of maps and observables studied here, the relevant input is the statistics of eigenvector components. For the unitary ensembles, the distribution of real and imaginary parts can be calculated from the assumption of independent elements and the normalisation condition. For sufficiently large dimensions, this results in essentially Gaussian distributions,

$$P(x,y)=\sqrt{\frac{N_D}{\pi }}e^{N_Dx^2}\sqrt{\frac{N_D}{\pi }}e^{N_Dy^2}.$$
(2.12)
If $`A_\mu =\mu |A|\mu `$ denotes the matrix element of $`A`$ with respect to the basis set, the matrix element with respect to an eigenstate $`\mu `$ described by the amplitudes $`x_\mu +iy_\mu `$ becomes

$$A=\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu (x_\mu ^2+y_\mu ^2).$$
(2.13)
The probability density for the distribution of the matrix elements then becomes

$$P(A)=\delta (A\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu (x_\mu ^2+y_\mu ^2))\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{N_D}{}}P(x_\mu ,y_\mu )dx_\mu dy_\mu .$$
(2.14)
By the usual manipulations this becomes a Gaussian in the limit of large $`N_D`$,

$$P(A)=\sqrt{\frac{N_D}{2\pi \sigma _A^2}}e^{N_D(AA)^2/2\sigma _A^2}$$
(2.15)
where

$$A=\frac{1}{N_D}\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu \sigma _A^2=\frac{1}{N_D}\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu ^2A^2$$
(2.16)
are the average and variance of the matrix elements of $`A`$ in the original basis.

### 2.3 The map

We close this section with a description of the quantum version of the kicked rotator used here. The kicking potential

$$V(\varphi )=k(\mathrm{cos}\varphi \gamma \mathrm{sin}(2\varphi ))$$
(2.17)
gives rise to the classical map

$`p_{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`p_n+k(\mathrm{sin}\varphi +2\gamma \mathrm{cos}(2\varphi ))`$
$`\varphi _{n+1}`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _n+p_{n+1}.`$ (2.18)
The parameter $`k`$ is the kick strength and $`\gamma `$ is used to break a reflection symmetry of the map. It is obviously periodic of period $`2\pi `$ in $`\varphi `$. As we will study the quantum map at the case of resonance, the momentum $`p`$ is not unbounded but also restricted to be periodic with period $`2\pi r`$, where $`r`$ is the number of classical resonances. The parameter $`\gamma `$ can be used to change continuously between the cases with time reversal symmetry ($`\gamma =0`$) and without (we take $`\gamma =1`$, for intermediate behaviour see ).

In the earlier quantum models of this map, phase space was taken to be an infinitely extended cylinder where arbitrarily large momenta were allowed, the quantum map was infinite. However, it was noted that for rational values of $`\mathrm{}`$, a consistent quantisation with a finite map can be achieved. If the classical phase space extends from $`\pi r`$ to $`+\pi r`$ in momentum and if the quantum map contains $`N_D`$ states, the effective value of Planck’s constant has a width of $`2\pi `$ in angle, the total phase space area is $`4\pi ^2r`$. This has to be divided into $`N_D`$ quantum cells, hence $`h=4\pi ^2r/N`$ or $`\mathrm{}=2\pi r/N_D`$. We work in a momentum basis with wave functions $`\varphi |n=e^{in\varphi }/\sqrt{2\pi }`$ and momentum eigenvalues $`p_n=\mathrm{}n=2\pi rn/N_D`$. To avoid common factors between $`r`$ and $`N_D`$, we take the dimension odd, $`N_D=2N_1+1`$. The quantum unitary operator then has the form

$$U_{n,m}=\frac{1}{N}e^{\frac{i\mathrm{}}{4}(n^2+m^2)}\underset{j=N_1}{\overset{N_1}{}}e^{iV(\varphi _j)/\mathrm{}i(nm)\varphi _j}$$
(2.19)
where the sum extends over the points $`\varphi _j=2\pi j/N_D`$. In order to have full symmetry over the finite momentum interval,

$$U_{n+N_D,m}=U_{n,m+N_D}=U_{n,m},$$
(2.20)
one should take the number of resonances to be a multiple of $`4`$ (if $`r`$ is just even translation by $`N_D`$ produces a sign change).

## 3 Quantum and classical matrix element distributions

In this section we compare the distributions of matrix elements in several cases. We consider the quantum kicked rotator (2.17, 2.19) and its classical counterpart (2.18). The classical kicking strength is taken to be $`K=k\mathrm{}=7`$ in order to ensure complete ergodicity over the whole phase space. The matrix dimension $`N_D=201`$ turns out to be sufficient to provide appropriate statistics.

### 3.1 Chaotic delocalised states

The observable we consider is a projection onto a subset, $`I(m)`$, of the unperturbed momentum basis states of length $`m`$,

$$A=\underset{nI(m)}{}|nn|.$$
(3.1)
Its matrix elements in the basis of the eigenstates, $`\mu `$, of the evolution operator (2.19) are

$$A_\mu =\mu |A|\mu =\underset{nI(m)}{}|\mu |n|^2.$$
(3.2)
The projection covers a fraction $`p=m/N_D`$ of the phase space both quantum mechanically and classically.

Due to normalisation of the eigenstates the mean value of $`A_\mu `$ is $`A=p=m/N_D`$. The second moment, $`A^2`$, is defined as

$$A^2=\frac{1}{N_D}\underset{\mu }{}\underset{k,lI(m)}{}|\mu |k|^2|\mu |l|^2.$$
(3.3)
which for $`mN_D`$ can be calculated using the assumptions of random matrix theory to give

$$A^2=p^2+g\frac{1}{N}p,$$
(3.4)
where $`g=1`$ ($`g=2`$) for the case of unitary (orthogonal) symmetry. Hence the variance is simply $`\sigma _A^2=gp/N`$.

If $`m`$ is sufficiently broad, $`m1`$, we may easily compare the distribution of these quantum matrix elements to that of the classical distribution which, in the limit $`N>m1`$ is essentially a Gaussian (2.15, 2.16). For the classical observable the mean and the fluctuating part can be calculated using a random–walk analogue due to the rapid decay of correlations between steps,

$$A=p=m/N_D,\alpha =p(1p).$$
(3.5)
The classical fluctuations in the limit of $`p1`$ are related to the quantum variance

$$\sigma _A^2=g\frac{1}{N}\alpha .$$
(3.6)
Fig. 1 clearly demonstrates that the classical and the quantum distributions are indeed very similar when the quantum kicked rotator is used in the unitary symmetry ($`\gamma =1`$). In the figure we also plotted the distribution of matrix elements for $`\gamma =0`$, i.e. for the orthogonal case. In the latter case we adopted a rescaling according to the symmetry factor (3.6)

$$\sigma _A^2(\gamma =0)=g\sigma _A^2(\gamma =1).$$
(3.7)
where the $`g`$–factor ($`g=2`$), as in (2.10, 2.11, 3.4, 3.6) accounts for the fact that in the orthogonal symmetry the orbitals and their time reversed counterparts are indistinguishable. Results on the transition between the two ensembles can be found in Blümel and Smilansky  and in Carvalho et al.

In fact one can look at the variance of the observable and compare it to the mean value for different values of $`m/N`$ and compare with the classical predictions. In Fig. 2 it is demonstrated that indeed for a wide range of $`m`$ for a fixed value of $`N_D=201`$ the behaviour of the variance is the same as presented also in Fig. 1.

### 3.2 Singular observables

As the width of the projector, $`m`$, becomes smaller the assumption of an observable that is smooth on the scale of Planck’s constant is not satisfied anymore. Nevertheless, the data of Fig. 2 show that the variances are still in agreement with the semiclassical predictions. The full distribution, however, cannot remain Gaussian for $`m`$ approaching one, neither classical nor quantal. On the quantum side, the distribution becomes exponential for the unitary ensemble and a Porter Thomas distribution $`P(t)=e^{t/2}/\sqrt{2t}`$ for the orthogonal ensemble. The classical distribution, in the case of strong chaos, is a binomial distribution, i.e. the probability to hit the support of the observable $`k`$-times in $`N_D`$ trials is

$$W_k(N_D)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N_D}{k}\right)p^k(1p)^{N_Dk},$$
(3.8)
where $`p=m/N_D`$. From (3.8) $`A=Np=m`$ and $`\sigma _A^2=N\alpha =Np(1p)`$. The limit of $`m`$ approaching $`1`$ and diverging $`N_D`$ is the Poisson limit of the binomial distribution: for $`p0`$ while $`N_D\mathrm{}`$ so that $`pN=m`$ is fixed the above distribution reduces to

$$P_k=\frac{m^k}{k!}e^m,$$
(3.9)
with a clearly non-exponential dependence on $`k`$.

Fig. 3 shows the change of the distribution of matrix elements, $`A_\mu `$, for different values of $`m`$ and fixed $`N_D=201`$. The histograms nicely follow the classical distribution for large $`m`$. To highlight the differences for smaller values we show in Fig. 4 the cases $`m=1`$ and $`m=5`$ on a semi-logarithmic plot. The exponential distribution of the quantum matrix elements is clearly visible as is the strongly non-Gaussian behaviour of the classical distribution. The enhanced return probability in the orthogonal case and the singular behaviour of the Porter Thomas distribution give result in more pronounced differences between classical and quantal distributions than in the unitary ensemble. For instance, the distributions for $`m=5`$ in Fig. 5 for orthogonal symmetry show larger differences than the corresponding ones in Fig. 3 for the unitary ensemble.

### 3.3 Matrix element distributions near bifurcations

The previous sections have shown that while it is not always possible to obtain the full distribution of matrix elements from the classical distributions, at least the mean and the variance come out reliably. This opens the possibility to study also the distributions in situations where the assumptions of random matrix theory are not satisfied anymore, specifically in systems with mixed phase space or near bifurcations of classical orbits. To illustrate the kind of behaviour that has to be expected near a bifurcation we consider an observable that is localised in a strip of width $`2\pi /N`$ around the the position of the bifurcation, $`p=2\pi `$. Near the bifurcation the probability to stay in this box is enhanced and so will be the contribution of this state to the matrix elements. It is thus useful to compare directly the classical and quantal probabilities to return to this box. Therefore, we compare $`P_{cl}`$, the classical probability for trajectories that start in the strip and return after $`N`$ steps and $`P_{qm}=\text{tr }(AU^N)`$ (Ref. ). As can be seen from Fig. 6 both quantities show a qualitatively similar behaviour, with a rapid increase near to and a slower decline further above the bifurcation point. However, the maxima are shifted in a characteristic fashion and the scaling with $`N`$ is different.

## 4 Conclusions

The semiclassical theory used in Ref.  to relate matrix elements and classical trajectory segments requires the observable to be smooth on scales of Planck’s constant. Nevertheless, the examples discussed here show that this relation seems to hold all the way down to singular observables like projection operators onto single states. Quantum effects are always present through the symmetry factor $`g`$, but they are enhanced for singular observables where the form of the distribution and thus in particular the higher moments are different from what could be expected classically. Nevertheless, the possibility to analyse the second moment semiclassically should be helpful in analysing quantum chaos in systems with mixed phase spaces or near bifurcations.

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful for financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, from DAAD-MÖB within their Scientific Exchange Program and from the Hungarian Committee for Technical Development (OMFB) through the Grants Nos. OTKA T029813, T024136 and F024135. We would like to thank M. Robnik for organising the stimulating meeting where parts of these results were presented.