text:
# Braid structures in knot complements, handlebodies and 3–manifolds

## 1 Introductory notions and motivations

###### Definition 1

The set of all elements of the classical Artin group $`B_{m+n}`$ for which, if we remove the last $`n`$ strands we are left with the identity braid on $`m`$ strands, shall be denoted by $`B_{m,n}`$ (see figure 1(a) below for an example in $`B_{3,3}`$). The elements of $`B_{m,n}`$ are special cases of ‘mixed braids’ (cf. section 6).

Concatenation is a closed operation in $`B_{m,n}`$: the product $`\alpha \beta `$ of two elements $`\alpha ,\beta B_{m,n}`$ is also an element of $`B_{m,n}`$ (see figure 1(b)). Thus $`B_{m,n}B_{m+n}`$. Our purpose is to obtain a simple presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$.

The motivation for studying these braids comes from studying oriented knots and links in knot complements, in c.c.o. 3-manifolds and in handlebodies, since these spaces may be represented by a fixed braid or a fixed integer-framed braid in $`S^3`$. Then knots and links in these spaces may be represented by elements of the above braid groups $`B_{m,n}`$ or of appropriate cosets of these groups. More precisely, if $`M`$ denotes the complement of the $`m`$-unlink or a connected sum of $`m`$ lens spaces of type $`L(p,1)`$ or a handlebody of genus $`m`$, then knots and links in these spaces may be represented precisely by the mixed braids in $`B_{m,n}`$, for $`nIN`$. In the case $`m=1,`$ $`B_{1,n}`$ is the Artin group of type $``$ (cf. , , ). If $`M`$ is generic, concatenation is no more a closed operation of mixed braids, but as we show in section 6, knots and links in $`M`$ may be represented by mixed braids in $`B_{m,n}`$, for $`nIN`$, followed by a fixed part associated to $`M`$, i.e. by elements of a coset of $`B_{m,n}`$.

We recall now some facts about braids and pure braids. For more details and a complete study of the classical theory of braids the reader is referred to . The pure braid group, $`P_n`$, corresponding to the classical Artin group on $`n`$ strands, $`B_n`$, consists of all elements in $`B_n`$ that induce the identity permutation in $`S_n`$, thus $`P_nB_n`$ and $`P_n`$ is generated by the elements

$`\begin{array}{cc}a_{ij}\hfill & =\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{i+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j2}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i\hfill \\ & =\sigma _{j1}\sigma _{j2}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{i+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},1i<jn.\hfill \end{array}`$

The generators $`a_{ij}`$ may be pictured geometrically as an elementary loop between the $`i`$th and $`j`$th strand (cf. figure 2).

The most important property of pure braids is that they have a canonical form, the so-called ‘Artin’s canonical form’, which says that every element, $`A`$, of $`P_n`$ may be written uniquely in the form:

$$A=U_1U_2\mathrm{}U_{n1}$$

where each $`U_i`$ is a uniquely determined product of powers of the $`a_{ij}`$ using only those with $`i<j`$. Geometrically, this means that any pure braid can be ‘combed’ i.e. can be written canonically as the pure braiding of the first strand with the rest, then keep the first strand fixed and uncrossed and have the pure braiding of the second strand and so on (cf. figure 3).

The main idea for finding a presentation for $`P_n`$ is the following: The combing of a strand may be regarded as a loop in the complement space of the other strands, and as such is an element of a free group since the fundamental group of a punctured disc is free. Thus,

$$P_n=F_{n1}\times \text{ }\mathrm{}\times \text{ }F_2\times \text{ }F_1=F_{n1}\times \text{ }P_{n1},$$

where each $`F_i`$ is a free group on the generators $`a_{1,i+1},\mathrm{},a_{i,i+1}`$ (the elementary loops between the $`(i+1)`$st strand and all its previous ones), and where the action is induced by conjugation. It turns out that $`P_n`$ has $`\frac{n(n1)}{2}`$ generators and $`\frac{12^2+23^2+\mathrm{}+(n2)(n1)^2}{2}`$ relations, the following:

$$a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_{rs}\text{ if }i<j<r<s\text{ }\hfill & \text{ or }r<i<j<s,\hfill \\ a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }i<j<s,\hfill \\ a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }i<j<s,\hfill \\ a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }i<r<j<s.\hfill \end{array}$$

Based on these ideas, we introduce in section 2 the pure braid group $`P_{m,n}`$ and in section 3 we find a presentation for it. Then in section 4 we put together a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$, which we simplify in section 5. In section 5 we also give a Dynkin-diagram related to $`B_{m,n}`$. Finally, in section 6 we explain that elements of $`B_{m,n}`$ represent oriented knots and links in certain spaces and that appropriate cosets of $`B_{m,n}`$ represent knots and links in the generic cases of knot complements and c.c.o. 3-manifolds.

The results here have been preliminary studied by the author in  and have been presented in various mathematical meetings since 1995. A. Sossinsky, independently, motivated by the same topological considerations, studies these groups in  and he conjectures the irredundant presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$. Moreover, V. Vershinin in  studies the groups $`B_{m,n}`$ in connection to handlebodies of genus $`g`$, taking a configuration-spaces approach. Back in 1993 Alastair Leeves had found a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$, which was presented in , but a proof was never published. The author is thankfull to A. Leeves for inspiring discussions at the time. Also, her grateful thanks are due to Bernard Leclerc for his careful reading through this work and his very valuable comments.

This is the first paper in a sequel of three. The next one gives expressions for algebraic equivalence of braids reflecting knot isotopy in arbitrary knot complements and c.c.o. 3-manifolds. The case of handlebodies is joint work with Reinhard Häring-Oldenburg.

## 2  The pure braid group $`P_{m,n}`$

###### Definition 2

The corresponding pure braid group $`P_{m,n}`$ of $`B_{m,n}`$ is defined as $`P_{m,n}=B_{m,n}P_{m+n}`$, i.e. $`P_{m,n}P_{m+n}`$ and it does not contain pure braiding among the first $`m`$ strands.

By its definition, $`P_{m,n}`$ is generated by the pure braid generators $`a_{ij}`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ and $`j\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ of $`P_{m+n}`$ (see figure 2). Then, $`B_{m,n}`$ is clearly generated by the elementary mixed braids (drawn below) $`a_{ij}`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ and $`j\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ together with $`\sigma _{m+1},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}`$, the elementary crossings among the last $`n`$ strands. Note that the inverses of the $`a_{ij}`$’s and $`\sigma _k`$’s are represented by the same geometric pictures, but with the opposite crossings.

Also, by definition we have an exact sequence

$$1P_{m,n}B_{m,n}S_n1.$$

In particular, $`P_{m,n}B_{m,n}`$. More precisely, we have the following relations:

$$\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _k=\{\begin{array}{cc}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\text{ if }ki2\hfill & \text{ or }i+1kj2\text{ or }kj+1,\text{ }\hfill \\ a_{i1,j}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill & \text{ if }k=i1,\hfill \\ a_{ij}a_{i+1,j}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }k=i\text{,}\hfill \\ a_{i,j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill & \text{ if }k=j1\text{,}\hfill \\ a_{ij}a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }k=j\text{}\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$

We shall call these mixed relations and we shall denote them by $`M_1,M_2,M_3,M_4`$ and $`M_5`$ in the order they are written.

Thus $`B_{m,n}`$ is a group extension of $`P_{m,n}`$ by $`S_n`$. This will yield a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$, conditionally to knowing a presentation for $`P_{m,n}`$.

## 3 A presentation for $`P_{m,n}`$

###### Theorem 1

The pure braid group $`P_{m,n}`$ is generated by the elements $`a_{ij}`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$, $`j\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ and $`i<j`$, which are subject to the relations:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}(P_1)& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{ij}& =& a_{rs}\text{ if }i<j<r<s\hfill & \text{ or }\hfill & r<i<j<s,\hfill \\ (P_2)& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}a_{ij}& =& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & i<j<s,\hfill \\ (P_3)& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}a_{ij}& =& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & i<j<s,\hfill \\ (P_4)& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{ij}& =& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & i<r<j<s.\hfill \end{array}$$

Relations $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ and $`P_4`$ shall be called pure braid relations. Note that $`P_1`$ and $`P_4`$ involve the strands $`i,r,j,s`$, whilst $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ involve the strands $`i,j,s`$.

Proof By its definition and by the fact that the $`a_{ij}`$’s (for all indices) generate $`P_{m+n}`$ follows that the above set of elements is indeed a set of generators for $`P_{m,n}`$. Since $`P_{m,n}P_{m+n}`$ we can apply on its elements Artin’s combing. As for $`P_n`$, the combing of a strand can be regarded as a loop in the complement space of the strands with smaller index (including the $`m`$ fixed ones) and as such it is an element of a free group. Therefore we have:

$`P_{m,1}=F_m=a_{1,m+1},a_{2,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+1},`$ the free group on $`m`$ generators.

Further is: $`P_{m,2}=F_{m+1}\times \text{ }P_{m,1}=a_{1,m+2},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+2},a_{m+1,m+2}\times \text{ }P_{m,1},`$ i.e. $`F_{m+1}`$ is the free group on $`m+1`$ generators, and $`P_{m,1}`$ acts on $`F_{m+1}`$ by conjugation, via the relations of the pure braid group $`P_{m+1}`$ for appropriate indices. We proceed inductively to obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill P_{m,n}& =& F_{m+n1}\times \text{ }\mathrm{}\times \text{ }F_{m+1}\times \text{ }F_m=F_{m+n1}\times \text{ }P_{m,n1}\hfill \\ & =& a_{1,m+n},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+n},\mathrm{},a_{m+n1,m+n}\times \text{ }P_{m,n1},\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`F_{m+n1}`$ is the free group on $`m+n1`$ generators, and where $`P_{m,n1}`$ acts on $`F_{m+n1}`$ by conjugation, via the relations of the pure braid group $`P_{m+n}`$ for appropriate indices, i.e. via the relations $`P_1,P_2,P_3`$ and $`P_4`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Some remarks are now due.

###### Remark 1

The groups $`P_{m,n}`$ and $`P_{m+n}`$ have seemingly the same presentation. For $`m1`$ is, though, $`P_{m,n}P_{m+n}`$. The difference lies in the restriction of the indices of the generators. In fact, $`P_{m,n}`$ has $`\frac{n(n+2m1)}{2}`$ generators, which is the number of generators of $`P_{m+n}`$ less the number of generators of $`P_m`$. Moreover, $`P_{m,n}`$ has $`\frac{(m1)m^2+m(m+1)^2+\mathrm{}+(m+n2)(m+n1)^2}{2}\frac{(m1)mn(n+2m1)}{4}`$ relations, which is the number of relations of $`P_{m+n}`$ less the number of relations of $`P_m`$. In the case $`m=1`$ holds $`P_{1,n}=P_{1+n},`$ which follows immediately from the definition of $`P_{m,n}`$ or can be observed from its presentation for $`m=1`$.

###### Remark 2

In  there is a discussion about the groups $`B_{m,n}`$ and a different line of proof is given for finding a presentation. There, by $`P_{m,n}`$ we denoted some smaller pure braid subgroups, for which it is rather complicated to find a presentation. But the case $`m=1`$ was extensively treated, also in the sequel papers . In all these previous results $`P_{1,n}`$ denoted the free group $`F_n=a_{12},a_{13},\mathrm{},a_{1,n+1}`$ and not the corresponding pure braid group of $`B_{1,n}`$. That’s why we had then $`B_{1,n}=F_n\times \text{ }B_n`$. We hope that the readers familiar with those results will not be in confusion.

## 4 A presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$

In section 2 we showed that $`1P_{m,n}B_{m,n}S_n1`$ and in section 3 we found a presentation for $`P_{m,n}`$. Recall that $`S_n`$ has the presentation:

$$s_1,\mathrm{},s_{n1}|s_is_j=s_js_i\text{ for }|ij|>1,s_is_{i+1}s_i=s_{i+1}s_is_{i+1},s_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1.$$

We are now ready to put together a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$. Namely, we can apply a result from the theory of group presentations (see , p.139), that gives a presentation for a group extension of two groups with known presentations. Indeed, the following is then a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}a_{1,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{1,m+n},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+n},\hfill \\ a_{m+1,m+2},\mathrm{},a_{m+1,m+n},\mathrm{},a_{m+n1,m+n},\hfill \\ \sigma _{m+1},\sigma _{m+2},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & |\begin{array}{c}P_1,P_2,P_3,P_4,\hfill \\ M_1,M_2,M_3,M_4,M_5,\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,\mathrm{\Sigma }_3.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array},$$

where the relations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ are satisfied by the $`\sigma _{m+1},\sigma _{m+2},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}`$ and they are the following:

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)\hfill & \hfill \sigma _i\sigma _j& =& \sigma _j\sigma _i\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & |ij|>1,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)\hfill & \hfill \sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i& =& \sigma _{i+1}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & m+1im+n2,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Sigma }_3)\hfill & \hfill \sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}& =& a_{i,i+1}\hfill & \text{ if }\hfill & m+1im+n2.\hfill \end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ are the ‘braid relations’.

Notice now that relations $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_3`$ for $`i\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ and $`j\{m+2,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ do not involve any mixed braiding and so they may be taken as defining relations, namely:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_{m+1,m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill & :=& \sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm 2},\hfill \\ a_{m+1,m+3}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill & :=& \sigma _{m+2}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm 2}\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\mathrm{}\hfill \\ a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill & :=& \sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{i+1}\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm 2}\sigma _{i+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ a_{m+n1,m+n}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill & :=& \sigma _{m+n1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm 2}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, we want to omit eventually these $`a_{ij}`$’s from the list of generators of $`B_{m,n}`$ and subsequently to eliminate or simplify all relations involving these elements, applying Tietze transformations. Indeed, we examine one by one the relations and we have:

$`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{:}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{ij}=a_{rs}`$ for the case $`r<i<j<s`$. If all $`r,i,j,s\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$, the relations follow from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ and so we only keep the ones where $`r\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`i\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ or $`r,i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

$`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{:}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}a_{ij}=a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ for $`i<j<s`$. Since $`j,s\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ the only case to be kept is when $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$, as the relations for $`i\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ follow from the braid relations.

$`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{:}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}a_{ij}=a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ for $`i<j<s.`$ As in the previous case, the only relations that do not follow from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ are the ones where $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

$`𝑷_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{:}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{ij}=a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ for $`i<r<j<s`$. Since $`j,s\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ the only relations to be kept are those where either $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`r\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ or $`i,r\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

$`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟏}\mathbf{:}\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _k=a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }`$ for $`ki2`$ or $`i+1kj2`$ or $`kj+1`$. Here also we have $`j\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n\}`$ and $`k\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$. Now, if $`i\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$, all these relations follow from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, whilst for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ it only makes sense to consider $`kj2`$ or $`kj+1`$.

$`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{:}\sigma _{i1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{i1}=a_{i1,j}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }`$. Since $`i1\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ it must be $`i>m+1`$ and so all these relations follow from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$.

$`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟑}\mathbf{:}\sigma _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _i=a_{ij}a_{i+1,j}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. This is analogous to the above case, since $`im+1`$.

$`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟒}\mathbf{:}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{j1}=a_{i,j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }`$. Here also the only cases that do not follow from the braid relations are the ones with $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

$`𝑴_\mathrm{𝟓}\mathbf{:}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _j=a_{ij}a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. As above, the only relations surviving are the ones where $`i\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

###### Remark 3

The remaining relations of $`P_1`$ for $`i\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ follow from the simpler relations: $`a_{ij}\sigma _k=\sigma _ka_{ij}`$ for $`kj2`$ or $`kj+1`$, which coincides with the remaining of $`M_1`$ above.

To summarize, we showed that the following is a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$.

$$B_{m,n}=\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}a_{1,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{1,m+n},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+n},\hfill \\ a_{m+1,m+2},\mathrm{},a_{m+1,m+n},\mathrm{},a_{m+n1,m+n},\hfill \\ \sigma _{m+1},\sigma _{m+2},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & |\begin{array}{c}P_1^{},P_2^{},P_3^{},P_4^{},\hfill \\ M_1^{},M_2^{},M_3^{},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array},$$

where we have:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(P_1^{})& \hfill a_{ij}a_{rs}& =& a_{rs}a_{ij}\text{ for }r<i<j<s,1i,rm,\hfill \\ (P_2^{})& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}a_{ij}& =& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\text{ for }i<j<s,1im,\hfill \\ (P_3^{})& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}a_{ij}& =& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\text{ for }i<j<s,1im,\hfill \\ (P_4^{})& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{ij}& =& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\text{ for }i<r<j<s,\hfill \\ & & & 1im,1rm+n1,\hfill \\ (M_1^{})& \hfill \sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _k& =& a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\text{ for }kj2\text{ or }kj+1\text{ and }1im,\hfill \\ (M_2^{})& \hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }& =& \sigma _{j1}a_{i,j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\text{ for }1im,\hfill \\ (M_3^{})& \hfill \sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _j& =& a_{ij}a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\text{ for }1im.\hfill \end{array}$$

Having now done the first, ‘obvious’ clearing in the original presentation of $`B_{m,n}`$, we observe that many of the above relations are redundant or they simplify further, and that we may omit the $`a_{ij}`$’s with $`im+1`$.

###### Theorem 2

The following is a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$:

$$B_{m,n}=\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}a_{1,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{1,m+n},\mathrm{},\hfill \\ a_{m,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+n},\hfill \\ \sigma _{m+1},\sigma _{m+2},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & |\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,(1),(2),(3),(4),\hfill \\ \text{for all appropriate indices}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array},$$

where we have:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}(1)\hfill & \sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _k& =& a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }& \text{ for }kj2\text{ or }kj+1,\hfill \\ (2)\hfill & a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }& =& \sigma _{j1}a_{i,j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},& \\ (3)\hfill & \sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _j& =& a_{ij}a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}& \\ (4)\hfill & a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{r,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }& =& a_{r,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }& \text{ for }r<i.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof Relations $`(1),(2)`$ and $`(3)`$ are precisely $`M_1^{},M_2^{}`$ and $`M_3^{}`$, whilst relations $`(4)`$ are a special case of relations $`P_1^{}`$. So we have to show that $`P_2^{},P_3^{},P_4^{}`$ and $`P_5^{}`$ as well as the rest cases of $`P_1^{}`$ follow from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,(1),(2),(3)`$ and $`(4)`$. Before continuing we note that, using $`(2)`$, relation $`(3)`$ is equivalent to

$$\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _ja_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }=a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _j$$

and relation $`(4)`$ is equivalent to

$$a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }(\sigma _ja_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})=(\sigma _ja_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }.$$

We shall also use these forms in the proof. We proceed now case by case. The underlining indicates the expressions involved in each step of the proof.

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{ij}\underset{¯}{a_{rs}}& \stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}& \underset{¯}{a_{ij}\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}}\underset{¯}{a_{r,j+1}}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_1^{}}{=}& \sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}(\sigma _ja_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(4)}{=}& \sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}(\sigma _ja_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})a_{ij}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_1^{}}{=}& \underset{¯}{\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}a_{ij}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}& a_{rs}a_{ij}.\hfill \end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}& a_{js}& a_{ij}\stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\underset{¯}{\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}})a_{ij}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_1^{}}{=}& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1})\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}a_{ij}(\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1})\sigma _ja_{ij}a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _j}a_{ij}(\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1})\sigma _ja_{ij}\underset{¯}{a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _j}a_{ij}a_{i,j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}(\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1})\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & =& \underset{¯}{(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _j)a_{ij}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}}^1\underset{¯}{\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _j)\sigma _j^2(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _j)a_{ij}^1(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}& a_{is}a_{js}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}.\hfill \end{array}`$

For $`P_3^{}`$ we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{is}& \underset{¯}{a_{js}}& a_{is}\underset{¯}{a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}\underset{¯}{a_{is}}(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\underset{¯}{a_{is}}\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\underset{¯}{a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & =& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _j)a_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}).\hfill \end{array}`$

On the other hand:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}& \underset{¯}{a_{is}}& a_{ij}\stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_1^{}}{=}& \sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}a_{ij}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& \sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _j(\sigma _j\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}(\sigma _j\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & =& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _j)a_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}\sigma _j}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}).\hfill \end{array}`$

Therefore, it suffices to show that the underlined expressions in the last equation of either side are equal. Indeed we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{ij}& \sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}& \underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}\sigma _j)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& a_{ij}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}\sigma _j\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& a_{ij}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _j\hfill \\ & =& 1.\hfill \end{array}`$

Finally, for $`P_4^{}`$ and $`r\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{is}& a_{js}& a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rs}a_{js}a_{is}a_{js}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{is}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}& (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})(\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _ja_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & =& \sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}.\hfill \end{array}`$

On the other hand:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}& \underset{¯}{a_{rs}}& a_{ij}\stackrel{M_2^{}}{=}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}}\sigma _ja_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_1^{}}{=}& \sigma _{s1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j+1}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _ja_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}}\sigma _{j+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{s1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}.\hfill \end{array}`$

Again, it suffices to show that the underlined expressions in the last equation of either side are equal. Indeed we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \sigma _j& a_{ij}& \sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _ja_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& \sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{rj}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _ja_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}\hfill \\ & =& \sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{rj}\underset{¯}{\sigma _ja_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(4)}{=}& \sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}a_{ij}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{M_3^{}}{=}& \sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}\hfill \\ & =& 1.\hfill \end{array}`$

The case where $`r\{m+1,\mathrm{},m+n1\}`$ is completely analogous. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Irredundant presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$

Looking now at the last presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$ we observe that relations $`(2)`$ may be seen as defining relations for $`1im`$ and $`jm+2`$, namely:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}a_{i,m+2}^\pm \hfill & :=& \sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^\pm \sigma _{m+1}^1,\hfill \\ a_{i,m+3}^\pm \hfill & :=& \sigma _{m+2}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^\pm \sigma _{m+1}^1\sigma _{m+2}^1,\hfill \\ & \mathrm{}& \\ a_{i,m+n}^\pm \hfill & :=& \sigma _{m+n1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^\pm \sigma _{m+1}^1\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+n1}^1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Therefore, we want to omit further these $`a_{ij}`$’s from the list of generators, and subsequently to eliminate or simplify all relations involving these elements. Indeed, we have:

###### Theorem 3

The following is a presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$:

$$B_{m,n}=\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}a_{1,m+1},a_{2,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+1},\hfill \\ \sigma _{m+1},\sigma _{m+2},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & |\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,\mathrm{\Sigma }_2,(1^{}),(2^{}),(3^{}),\hfill \\ \text{for all appropriate indices}\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array},$$

where:

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(1^{})\hfill & \hfill \sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _k& =& a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm },km+2,\hfill \\ (2^{})\hfill & \hfill a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\sigma _{m+1}& =& \sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm },\hfill \\ (3^{})\hfill & \hfill a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }(\sigma _{m+1}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})& =& (\sigma _{m+1}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm },r<i.\hfill \end{array}$$

Proof Relations $`(1^{})`$ are a special case of relations $`(1)`$, relations $`(2^{})`$ are a special case of relations $`(3)`$ and relations $`(3^{})`$ are a special case of relations $`(4)`$. Note that relations $`(3^{})`$ are equivalent to

$$a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{r,m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }=a_{r,m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm },r<i.$$

We show the sufficiency of the new relations by examining each case.

For relations $`(1)`$ and for $`m+1kj2`$ we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}\sigma _k& \stackrel{(2)}{=}& \underset{¯}{\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2}}\sigma _{k+1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times \sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{k+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _k}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2})\underset{¯}{\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times \sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{k+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _k}(\sigma _{k+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k+2})\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k\underset{¯}{\sigma _{k+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{k1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{k+1}}\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{k+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\sigma _{k+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1})\underset{¯}{\sigma _{k+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{k+1}}(\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(1^{})}{=}& \sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},(k+1m+2)\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(2)}{=}& a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }.\hfill \end{array}`$

Further, for relations $`(1)`$ and for $`kj+1`$ we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}\sigma _k& \stackrel{(2)}{=}& \underset{¯}{\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _k}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1})\underset{¯}{\sigma _{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _k}(\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(1^{})}{=}& \sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(2)}{=}& a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }.\hfill \end{array}`$

In the last two equations we used that $`km+2`$. For relations $`(3)`$ we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \sigma _j\underset{¯}{a_{ij}}\sigma _j\underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}& \stackrel{(2)}{=}& \sigma _j(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _j}\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& \sigma _j\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _j}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}}\sigma _{m+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & & \times a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,(1^{})}{=}& \underset{¯}{\sigma _j(\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j)\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2})}a_{i,m+1}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j)\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2})\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(2^{})}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j)\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2})a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+1}(\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _j})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}})a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}\hfill \\ & & \times (\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _j\hfill \end{array}`$

$`\begin{array}{ccc}& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,(1^{})}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1})a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\underset{¯}{\sigma _j\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+2}\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & & \times a_{i,m+1}(\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _j\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& \underset{¯}{(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1})a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _j\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}}\underset{¯}{(\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}\sigma _j\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(2)}{=}& a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _ja_{ij}\sigma _j.\hfill \end{array}`$

Finally, for relations $`(4)`$ we have:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \underset{¯}{a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}& (\sigma _j& \underset{¯}{a_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\stackrel{(2)}{=}(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _j}\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{(\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _j^1\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& \sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\underset{¯}{\sigma _j}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}}\sigma _{m+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times \sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,(1^{})}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j)\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2})a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{(\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& (\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j)\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2})\underset{¯}{a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }(\sigma _{m+1}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})}\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(3^{})}{=}& \underset{¯}{(\sigma _{j1}\sigma _j)\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\sigma _{m+2})\sigma _{m+1}}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times (\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& \sigma _j(\sigma _{j1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _j})\mathrm{}(\sigma _{m+1}\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}})a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\hfill \\ & & \times (\underset{¯}{\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\mathrm{}(\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1,(1^{})}{=}& \sigma _j\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\underset{¯}{\sigma _j\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+2}\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _{m+2}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & & \times a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}{=}& \sigma _j\underset{¯}{\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{r,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\hfill \\ & & \times \underset{¯}{\sigma _{j1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{m+1}a_{i,m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{m+1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\mathrm{}\sigma _{j1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}\hfill \\ & \stackrel{(2)}{=}& \sigma _j(a_{rj}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }\sigma _{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}a_{ij}^{}{}_{}{}^{\pm }).\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}`$

The system of generators in the last presentation of $`B_{m,n}`$ is irredundant, in the sense that no proper subset of it can generate $`B_{m,n}`$. In order now to simplify the notation we will relabel the generators $`a_{1,m+1},\mathrm{},a_{m,m+1},\sigma _{m+1},\mathrm{},\sigma _{m+n1}`$ to $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_m,\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}`$ accordingly, to obtain the following, final presentation for $`B_{m,n}`$:

$$B_{m,n}=\begin{array}{cc}\begin{array}{c}a_1,\mathrm{},a_m,\hfill \\ \sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{n1}\hfill \end{array}\hfill & |\begin{array}{c}\sigma _k\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _k,|kj|>1\hfill \\ \sigma _k\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k=\sigma _{k+1}\sigma _k\sigma _{k+1},1kn1\hfill \\ a_i\sigma _k=\sigma _ka_i,k2,1im,\hfill \\ a_i\sigma _1a_i\sigma _1=\sigma _1a_i\sigma _1a_i,1im\hfill \\ a_i(\sigma _1a_r\sigma _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})=(\sigma _1a_r\sigma _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})a_i,r<i.\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}.$$

###### Remark 4

It is worth mentioning that the above presentation of $`B_{m,n}`$ is very similar to that of the Artin braid group associated to the Dynkin diagram below.

In the diagram the single bonds mean relations of degree $`3`$, the double bonds relations of degree $`4`$, and if two generators are not connected by a bond they commute. The two presentations differ only in the last relation, which in the case of the Artin group (cf. ) is a mere commutation relation between $`a_i`$ and $`a_r`$. Nevertheless, in the case $`m=1`$, $`B_{1,n}`$ is the Artin group of type $``$.

## 6 The cosets $`C_{m,n}`$

In this section the word knot will be used to mean knots and links.

Let now $`S^3\backslash K`$ be the complement of the oriented knot $`K`$ in $`S^3`$. Obviously, $`S^3\backslash K`$ can be represented in $`S^3`$ by the knot $`K`$. By classical results of Lickorish and Wallace a closed, connected, orientable 3-manifold can be obtained (not uniquely) by surgery along an integer-framed knot in $`S^3`$, so it can be represented in $`S^3`$ by this knot. We shall denote by $`M`$ either a knot complement or a c.c.o. 3-manifold. Then, by fixing $`M`$ we may also fix a knot in $`S^3`$ representing $`M`$, and this knot may be assumed to be a closed braid, say $`\widehat{B}`$. It is shown in  that knots in these spaces can be represented by ‘mixed braids’, which contain the braid $`B`$ as a fixed subbraid. More precisely, we have the following:

###### Definition 3

A mixed braid is a special element of $`B_{m+n}`$ consisting of two disjoint orbits of strands, such that the subbraid forming the one orbit consists of the first $`m`$ strands and it is a fixed element of $`B_m`$.

If now the manifold $`M`$ is a handlebody of genus $`m`$, knots in $`M`$ can clearly be represented by elements of $`B_{m,n}`$. Further, if $`M`$ is the complement of the $`m`$-unlink or a connected sum of $`m`$ lens spaces of type $`L(p,1)`$, then knots in $`M`$ are represented by elements of $`B_{m,n}`$, for $`nIN`$. In the special case where $`M`$ is the complement of the trivial knot or $`L(p,1)`$, knots in $`M`$ are represented by elements of $`B_{1,n}`$, the Artin group of type $``$ (cf. ). These are rather special cases of knot complements or c.c.o. 3-manifolds.

In the generic case the subbraid representing $`M`$ will not be the identity braid (for an example see figure 3(a)). In the generic case the multiplication of two mixed braids in $`B_{m+n}`$ related to $`M`$ is not a closed operation, since concatenation does not preserve the structure of the manifold.

The following proposition shows that, nevertheless, we still have braid structures in $`M`$. Indeed, let $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}C_{m,n}`$ denote the disjoint union of the cosets of all mixed braids associated to a generic $`M`$. Then we have the following:

###### Proposition 1

For a fixed $`M`$, $`C_{m,n}`$ is a coset of $`B_{m,n}`$ in $`B_{m+n}`$.

Proof Let $`AC_{m,n}`$. We shall show that $`A`$ can be written as a product $`\alpha B`$, where $`\alpha B_{m,n}`$ and $`B`$ is the fixed braid representing $`M`$ in $`S^3`$. Indeed, we notice first that by symmetry, Artin’s combing for pure braids can be also applied starting from the last strand of a pure braid. So, we multiply $`A`$ from the top with a braid $`p`$ on the last $`n`$ strands and with a braid $`\sigma `$ on the first $`m`$ strands, such that $`pA\sigma `$ is a pure braid in $`B_{m+n}`$. Then we apply to it Artin’s canonical form from the end. This will separate $`A`$ into two parts, one being an element of $`B_{m,n}`$ and the other being the fixed braid $`B`$ embedded in $`B_{m+n}`$ (see figure 3(b)). $`\mathrm{}`$

A final comment is now due.

###### Remark 5

The groups $`B_{m,n}`$ and their cosets $`C_{m,n}`$ will be used for yielding an algebraic version of Markov’s theorem for isotopy of knots in knot complements and 3-manifolds. For the purpose of constructing knot invariants following the line of Jones-Ocneanu one can use the irredundant presentation of $`B_{m,n}`$ for considering appropriate quotient algebras that satisfy a quadratic skein relation for the $`\sigma _i`$’s.

S.L.: Bunsenstrasse 3-5, Mathematisches Institut, Göttingen Universität, 37073 Göttingen, Germany. E-mail: sofia@cfgauss.uni-math.gwdg.de


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Our world is a brane333“brane” here is some space which has an almost definite the spacetime dimension, and in particular, means fundamental string or Dirichlet brane in string theory.; this picture gives us a direct understanding of nature from string theory. This idea is so attractive and a lot of people are trying to derive our spacetime from some consistent theory - string theory444“string theory” in this paper means the theory of string described by world sheet. “string” is, however, used with the matrix model as well as “string theory”.  or its matrix description . Unfortunately, we have not succeeded to get neither the spacetime dimension 4, gauge group, the variety of quark masses etc. Deriving the number 4 may be the easiest. Although these tasks are not done in this paper, the motivation is along the line.

The electric-magnetic duality is originally a duality of exchanging electronic ($``$) and magnetic ($``$) field in Maxwell equations in 4 dimension555Euclid version are considered in this paper :

$`\text{div}=\rho _e,`$ $`\text{rot}\dot{}=j_e,`$
$`\text{div}=\rho _b,`$ $`\text{rot}\dot{}=j_b.`$ (1.1)
It has been extended to that of supersymmetric YM and superstring theory as S-duality . 4 dimensional spacetime as D3-brane naturally appears in type IIB superstring theory. Since this whole system is the selfdual, the duality symmetry gives us some information. Now we should think of the duality on noncommutative 4 dimensional spacetime. We will concentrate, however, only to electric-magnetic duality of noncommutative U(1). In the case of noncommutative U(1), the dual transformation exchanges the spacespace non commutativity $`\theta ^{01}`$ and the spacetime noncommutativity $`\theta ^{23}`$. This is because the action includes terms contracted over Lorentzian indices among $``$, $``$ and $`\theta ^{01}`$, $`\theta ^{23}`$.

Noncommutative Yang-Mills theory(NCYM) appears in string theory with D-brane. The coordinates parameterizing D-brane world volume are, in generic, non commutative. Then it is natural to replace the coordinates by matrix valued ones. The traditional string theory have only 1-branes within a 9-brane, then the dynamical variables are written like this:

$$X(\tau ,\sigma ),$$
(1.2)
where both $`X`$ and $`\tau ,\sigma `$ are just $`1\times 1`$ matrices. Now there are various dimensions of brane in string theory, and lower dimensional branes live there in general. So we may write roughly,

$$\mathrm{}\left(X_p\left(X_p^{}\left(X_{p^{\prime \prime }}\left(\mathrm{}\right)\right)\right)\right)\mathrm{},\left(\mathrm{}pp^{}p^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{}\right),$$
(1.3)
where $`X_p`$ means a collection of coordinates of branes having lower dimension than $`p+1`$, and all $`X_p`$’s are matrix valued. It is too complicated. While there is some consistency condition simplifying it, IIB matrix model is assumed to describe this brane complex. The dynamical variables are 10 matrices(and their superpartners), whose each entry is , surprisingly, just a number independent of any parameters.

This simplification was first found as Eguchi-Kawai reduction in the gauge theory framework, and found for branes. In order to compensate of the reduction of the degrees of freedom, the size of those matrices n is assumed to be large enough666In this paper we do not answer how large n and do not care about finite n corrections. These equivalences have been understood as Morita equivalence recently. In fact NCYM4 can be derived from the matrix model as an example. This is further studied in. Our future plan is to understand where informations of NCYM and string theory are embedded in the matrix model.

In IIB matrix model, diagonal components of matrices describe the relative coordinates of spacetime points and off-diagonal ones correspond interactions among them. So if these coordinates have non zero value only for 4 direction, it means our 4 dimensional universe. Actually, we can find 3-brane classical solution of the action. This 3-brane has a NCYM4 on it, where gauge fields are from the quantum fluctuation while spacetime is from the classical background. Since the 3-brane solution forms Heisenberg algebra, 4 dimensional space is constructed as Hilbert space. Although spacetime coordinate has uncertainty relation, the coherent states make a intuitive 4 dimensional spacetime as von Neumann lattice. In the paper, they showed open strings on the lattice and relates the noncommutativity to the string scale.

In approach to NCYM from the open string in the presence of the NS B field, there is a decoupling limit of open strings on the brane from the bulk( NCOS limit). The electric field cannot be larger than a critical value. It is because of the Lorentzian metric. In the critical value, open strings in the world volume become tensionless and are decoupled from closed strings in bulk. This feature suggests the existence of a non-critical string theory only with open strings. Rather, it means a possibility of constructing some lower dimensional spacetime from 10 dimensional one.

In the matrix model framework, one can understand this simply. In the paper, we have found the correspondence between the electromagnetic field ($`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$) on the open strings and the spacetime noncommutativity($`\theta ^{01}`$, $`\theta ^{23}`$) in the matrix model. Namely777In the paper, we compared in Lorentzian. ,

$`(1\stackrel{~}{E}^2)\theta _{}^{01}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2,`$
$`(1+\stackrel{~}{B}^2)\theta _{}^{23}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2.`$ (1.4)
This relation tells us what is the decouple limits in the matrix model as we will see. We will get the intuitive explanation by using open strings bits on the von Neumann lattice. It is also consistent to the feature in string theory., This is directly understood when we rewrite the eq.(1.4) to eq.(4.6), which is a relation between the noncommutativity $`\theta ^{01}`$ in the matrix model and $`\theta _s^{01}`$ in string theory derived in Ref..

In this paper, we propose a electromagnetic duality of a 3-brane spacetime-time constructed from the matrix model. And the NCOS decoupling limit is found there.

In section 2, NCU(1)4 from the matrix model are derived. Where, non-self dual a 3-brane solution are treated, namely, $`\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}`$. Since we are interested in the relation to the case of commutative and the case of decoupled spacetime, we treat non selfdual solution of background matrices in the matrix model. We also see open strings in it in terms of bi-local fields. Each direction of momenta of open strings depends on the corresponding noncommutativity. The gauge coupling $`g_{YM}`$ and noncommutativity $`\theta ^{01}`$, $`\theta ^{23}`$ of the spacetime are related as eq.(2.11):

$$g_{YM}^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}.$$
(1.5)
In section 3, the electric-magnetic duality are considered. The standard prescription of dual transformation is formulated as Legendre transformation in partition function. We use the relation of for our NCU(1) case. Then the dual representation of the field strength, the YM coupling and the noncommutativity of NCU(1)4 are gotten; eq.(3.3) and eq.(3.4). The U(1) coupling $`g_{YM}`$ cannot to be 1 by rescaling of the gauge field $`𝒜`$ in noncommutative case. In the matrix model framework, however, it is possible by rescaling of matrices. Thus we get the duality of Maxwell equation in a 4 dimensional commutative spacetime.

In section 4, NCOS decoupling limit is defined in the matrix model( large $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ limit). The correspondence of different approaches, that is, from open string with the B field and from IIB matrix model are gotten in Ref. and eq(1.4) . The momenta of open strings bits on the von Neumann lattice are small near the limit; see eq.(2.7). This means the open strings cannot form loops and decouple from closed strings. Rather, 4 dimensional spacetime are decoupled from other transverse directions. On the other hand, commutative limits( small $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ limit) can also be taken. It is opposite limit to the decoupling limit. Different limits are chosen for different directions, since $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }`$ now. Thus, we will propose how our 4 dimensional spacetime happens from higher.

Section 5 includes discussions of dynamical generation of 4 dimensional spacetime.

## 2 Noncommutative U(1) theory in four dimension

In this section NCU(1)4 is derived from the matrix model. In order to see the duality of the matrix model, we first look into a theory around it, that is, NCU(1).

We start by following IIB matrix model action:

$$S=\frac{1}{g^2}Tr(\frac{1}{4}[A_\mu ,A_\nu ][A_\mu ,A_\nu ]+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mu [A_\mu ,\psi ]).$$
(2.1)
Now $`A_\mu `$ and $`\psi `$ are $`n\times n`$ Hermitian matrices and each component of $`\psi `$ is 10 dimensional Majorana-spinor. We expand $`A_\alpha =\widehat{p}_\alpha +\widehat{𝒜}_\alpha `$, (for $`\alpha =0,1,2,3`$)around the following classical solution

$$[\widehat{p}_\alpha ,\widehat{p}_\beta ]=iF_{\alpha \beta }$$
(2.2)
$$F_{\alpha \beta }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1/\theta ^{01}& 0& 0\\ 1/\theta ^{01}& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1/\theta ^{23}\\ 0& 0& 1/\theta ^{23}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(2.3)
where $`\theta ^{01}`$, $`\theta ^{23}`$ are c-numbers. $`\theta `$ is defined as inverse of $`F`$. The noncommutative coordinates are introduced as:

$$\widehat{x}^\alpha :=\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\widehat{p}_\beta ,$$
(2.4)
and satisfy the relation:

$$[\widehat{x}^\alpha ,\widehat{x}^\beta ]=i\theta ^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(2.5)
Since we are going to see the duality and the decoupling limit, $`\theta `$ may not be self dual, namely, $`\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}`$.

Followed Ref., $`\widehat{\varphi }:=\{\widehat{𝒜}_\alpha ,\widehat{\phi }_i:=A_i,\widehat{\psi }\}`$, ($`\alpha ,\beta =03,i,j=49`$) are mapped to usual functions on phase space formed by noncommutative coordinates explicitly:

$$\widehat{\varphi }\varphi (x)=\underset{k}{}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_ke^{ik_\alpha x^\alpha }.$$
(2.6)
The summation over $`k_\alpha `$ is performed as follows:

$`k_{\alpha =0,1}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{01}|}}},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{01}|}}},\mathrm{},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{01}|}}},`$
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}+1}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{01}|}}},\mathrm{},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{01}|}}},`$
$`k_{\alpha =2,3}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{23}|}}},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{2}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{23}|}}},\mathrm{},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{23}|}}},`$
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}+1}{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{23}|}}},\mathrm{},\pm {\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{4}}}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{23}|}}}.`$ (2.7)
Then we get the action of NCU(1) from eq.(2.1):

$`S_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐂𝐔}(\mathrm{𝟏})}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}}}{\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_{\alpha \beta }_{\alpha \beta }`$ (2.8)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[D_\alpha ,\phi _i][D_\alpha ,\phi _i]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[\phi _i,\phi _j][\phi _i,\phi _j]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha [D_\alpha ,\psi ]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }_i[\phi _i,\psi ])_{}.`$
Inside $`(\text{ })_{}`$, the products should be understood as:

$`(\varphi _1\varphi _2)_{}(x)`$ $`:=`$ $`\varphi _1(x)\varphi _2(x)`$ (2.9)
$`:=`$ $`exp({\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^{\alpha \beta }}{2i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\xi ^\alpha \eta ^\beta }})(\varphi _1(x+\xi )\varphi _2(x+\eta )|_{\xi =\eta =0}`$
The covariant derivative and the field strength are defined as:

$$D_\alpha :=_\alpha i𝒜_\alpha ,_{\alpha \beta }:=i[D_\alpha ,D_\beta ]_{}$$
(2.10)
The Yang-Mills coupling is related to the noncommutativity as:

$$g_{YM}^2=(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}.$$
(2.11)
Now eq.(1.1) is the non commutative Maxwell equations, where ($`l,m,n=13`$)

$`\rho _e`$ $`:=`$ $`[\phi _i,\dot{\phi }_i]_{}+\{\overline{\psi }_a,\psi _b\}_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)_{ab},\rho _b=0,`$
$`j_e`$ $`:=`$ $`[\phi _i,\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}\phi _𝐢]_{}+\{\overline{\psi }_a,\psi _b\}_{}(𝚪)_{ab},j_b=0,`$
$`\mathrm{𝐝𝐢𝐯}`$ $`:=`$ $`[D_l,^l]_{},(\mathrm{𝐫𝐨𝐭})_l:=ϵ_{lmn}[D_m,^n]_{},`$
$`(\mathrm{𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐝}\phi )_l`$ $`:=`$ $`[D_l,\phi ]_{},\dot{}:=[D_0,]_{},`$
$`(^l,^l)`$ $`:=`$ $`(_{0l},1/2ϵ^{lmn}_{mn})\mathrm{}\text{written as }^l`$ (2.12)
## 3 Electric-Magnetic Duality in the Matrix Model

In this section we consider the electric-magnetic duality of NCU(1) on a D3-brane in the matrix model.

First we summarize the duality. When a theory can be written in two different ways and just Legendre transformation exchanges the two, they are dual to each other. Namely in NCU(1):

$`Z={\displaystyle 𝒟𝒜e^{S_{NCU(1)}[𝒜,g_{YM},\theta ]}}={\displaystyle 𝒟𝒜_De^{S_{NCU(1)}[𝒜_D,g_{YMD},\theta _D]}}`$ (3.1)
where suffices $`D`$ means the dual. The relation between them are:

$`g_{YMD}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}}},`$
$`\theta _D^{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{YM}^2}{2}}ϵ_{}^{\alpha \beta }{}_{\gamma \delta }{}^{}\theta ^{\rho \delta },`$
$`_{\alpha \beta D}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g_{YM}^2}}ϵ_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\gamma \delta }_{\rho \delta }+O(\theta ).`$
This is a spacetime-spacespace duality as well as electric-magnetic and strong-weak.

Next we will see this in our case. By using eq.(2.11), the dual Yang-Mills coupling and noncommutativity of eq.(LABEL:dual0) are written as:

$`g_{YMD}^2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}}},`$
$`\theta ^{01}`$ $`:=`$ $`(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}(\theta ^{23})^2,`$
$`\theta ^{23}`$ $`:=`$ $`(2\pi g)^2(\theta ^{01})^2\theta ^{23}.`$ (3.3)
Since there is a relation eq.(2.11) in original theory, we would like the dual theory also to have the same one: $`g_{YMD}^2=(2\pi g_D)^2\theta _D^{01}\theta _D^{23}`$. This requirement determine how the coupling $`g`$ changes to $`g_D`$:

$$g_D:=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^4g^3(\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23})^2}$$
(3.4)
We try to explain this by imaging a duality web. The partition function of the matrix model is not changed under suitable rescaling of matrices. That is, rescaling of coupling $`g`$ dose not change the model. We have started with a $`g`$ and chosen an arbitrary back ground $`\theta `$. On the other hand we can start by another $`g_D`$ and $`\theta _D`$, and if those satisfy the condition:

$$(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}(2\pi g_D)^2\theta _D^{01}\theta _D^{23}=1,$$
(3.5)
then two NCU(1)’s are the dual to each other. This duality transformation is just rescaling: $`gg_D`$, which is a symmetry. It is natural to understand this if we remind type IIB superstring is self S-dual and its matrix model too. Since the matrix model is Morita equivalent(T-dual) to NCYM, understanding of U-duality may clarify this duality web.

Finally let us see, in particular, more simple and familiar case. We can find the dual pair of NCU(1) from the matrix model with the same $`g`$, and find the electric-magnetic duality for usual commutative Maxwell equations. The U(1) coupling $`g_{YM}`$ cannot to be identity by rescaling of the gauge field $`𝒜`$ in noncommutative case. But, in the matrix model framework, it is possible. For given $`g`$, we choose the back ground solution with $`\theta ^{01}`$ and $`\theta ^{23}`$ which satisfy $`(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}=1`$, namely, $`g_{YM}=1`$. Then the dual noncommutativities also satisfy the same condition. Now the dual transformation is:

$`(\theta _D^{01},\theta _D^{23})`$ $`=`$ $`(\theta ^{23},\theta ^{01}),`$
$`(_D,_D)`$ $`=`$ $`(,)+O(\theta ).`$ (3.6)
Thus, Maxwell equations without the sources have a duality in the following commutative limit:

$$\theta ,\theta _D0,(2\pi g)^2\theta ^{01}\theta ^{23}=1.$$
(3.7)
## 4  Decoupling and Commutative Limit

In this section we are going to define a decoupling limit( dimensional reduction limit) and a commutative limit in the matrix model to push the brane world scenario. We assume the spacetime dimension is almost equal to 4 and coordinates are almost commutative. It dose not have to be exact 4 dimensional commutative spacetime. The stand point of this paper is in 10 dimensional noncommutative one. Our strategy is getting the above brane world from the matrix model in 10 dimension, by fine tuning the parameters $`\theta ^{\mu \nu },(\mu ,\nu =09)`$.

We define the decoupling limit as:

$$\theta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{}.$$
(4.1)
In this limit,

$$[\widehat{p}_\mu ,\widehat{p}_\nu ]0.$$
(4.2)
This means the dimension of brane get down by two in $`\mu \nu `$ directions, so it is natural definition.

To explain this by string terminology, we need identify strings in the matrix model. It is possible. We will summarize it in the non selfdual case. The von Neumann lattice is the best representing the intuitive spacetime . It is constructed by using coherent state of operators of the noncommutative coordinates which forms Heisenberg algebra: eq(2.5). The lattice spacing is $`\sqrt{2\pi \theta ^{01}}`$ for $`0,1`$ directions and $`\sqrt{2\pi \theta ^{23}}`$ for $`2,3`$, which are written as $`l_{NC}^\mu `$. Because of the noncommutativity, states cannot be localized. So, fields are naturally represented as bi-local ones, which are functions of two points. Small momentum modes, namely, the first and third line of eq.(2.7) correspond ordinary (commutative) field. Large momentum modes, the second and forth line of eq.(2.7) correspond open strings. Define $`d^\mu :=\theta ^{\mu \nu }k_\nu `$ and decompose $`d`$ as $`d=d_0+\delta d`$, where $`d_0`$ is a vector which connects two points on the lattice and $`|\delta d^\mu |<l_{NC}^\mu `$. The length of open string is $`d_0^\mu `$ and the momentum which can be associated with the center of mass motion of open string is $`k_{c}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}:=(1/\theta )_{\mu \nu }\delta ^\nu d`$. There is an inequality:

$$|k_{c}^{}{}_{\mu }{}^{}|<\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{|\theta ^{\mu 1,\mu }|}}.$$
(4.3)
In the decoupling limit eq.(4.1), only open strings survive (see eq.(2.7) where n assumed to be large enough). The momenta of the open strings $`k_c`$ goes to zero. If one considers the higher order correction to propergator of bi-local field, then the oscillation of open string are seen by collecting open strings bits( see fig.). In the limit, however, the momentum of the bits are goes to zero and the open string cannot make loop and is decoupled from closed strings in bulk. So we call this limits as noncommutative open string( NCOS) limit. In the paper they identified the effective tension of the open string in the matrix model to the noncommutativity:

$$T_{eff}=1/\theta ,$$
(4.4)
Our decoupling limits means the tension of the open strings goes to zero.

These features are completely parallel to string theory approach by the world sheet with NS-NS B filed. In order to see this clearly we can use the relation between string theory and the matrix model. In the paper we have gotten the relation between IIB open string with a D-brane having both electric and magnetic field on the D-brane and the matrix model solution having both spacetime and spacespace noncommutativity. In fact, we compared the interactions of two Dp-branes with various charges of lower dimensional branes in different two approaches. Since the matrix model is defined in Euclid signature the result should be wick rotated after the calculation. Electromagnetic field $`\stackrel{~}{E}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ on the D-brane in string theory and noncommutativity in matrix model are related as888In the paper, we used flat metric. To see the dependence of diagonal metric diag$`(g_e,g_e,g_b,g_b)`$ we regard $`\stackrel{~}{E}=\stackrel{~}{E}_{flat}/g_e`$ etc. :

$`(1\stackrel{~}{E}^2)\theta _{}^{01}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}\right)^2,`$
$`(1+\stackrel{~}{B}^2)\theta _{}^{23}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\pi \alpha ^{}\right)^2.`$ (4.5)
Noncommutativities in the matrix model and in string theory are different from each other, and above equations(4.5) tells us the relation to $`\theta _s^{01,23}`$ in string theory999We use notations in Ref., where $`\theta =\theta _s^{01},g=g_e`$ here.:

$`(\theta ^{01})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2g_e\theta _s^{01}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^2}+1\right],`$
$`(\theta ^{23})^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}{2}}\left[\sqrt{1+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2g_b\theta _s^{23}}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^2}1\right],`$ (4.6)
where the closed string metric is written as diag$`(g_e,g_e,g_b,g_b)`$. The critical electric field limit(NCOS limit in string theory) is

$`|\stackrel{~}{E}|`$ $``$ $`1,`$
$`\alpha ^{}`$ $`:`$ $`\text{fixed},`$
$`g_e`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\stackrel{~}{E}^2}}.`$ (4.7)
Then noncommutativities tend to:

$$\theta ^{01}\mathrm{},\text{while}\theta _s^{01}:\text{finite},$$
(4.8)
and consistent with string theory approach.

Now, to see the connection to decoupled case, we may represent the solution $`\widehat{p}_\alpha `$ in eq.(2.3) as commutative $`\widehat{p}_{}^{comm}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$’s and $`\widehat{q}_{comm}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$’s:

$`\widehat{p}_\alpha =\widehat{p}_{}^{comm}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}F_{\alpha \beta }\widehat{q}_{comm}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta },`$
$`[\widehat{p}_{}^{comm}{}_{\alpha }{}^{},\widehat{q}_{comm}^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }]=i\delta _\alpha ^\beta .`$ (4.9)
Other commutators are equal to zero101010This relation is, in fact, satisfied when we represent $`\widehat{p}^{comm}`$, $`\widehat{q}_{comm}`$ as:    $`\widehat{p}_{}^{comm}{}_{\alpha }{}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`11\mathrm{}\widehat{p}\mathrm{},`$    $`\widehat{q}_{comm}^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`11\mathrm{}\widehat{q}\mathrm{},`$  (4.10) where $`\widehat{p}`$ and $`\widehat{q}`$ are in $`\alpha `$’s place, and are satisfy $`[\widehat{p},\widehat{q}]=i`$.. So these $`\widehat{p}^{comm}`$ are regarded as commutative background solution of the matrix model. This representation clarify the relation to the lower dimensional brane solution in the decoupling limit. Since $`F=1/\theta `$ the decoupling limit $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{}`$ means $`F_{\alpha \beta }0`$. When $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is zero, $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ direction cannot form the brane.

Let us think about the opposite limit:

$$\theta ^{\mu \nu }0.$$
(4.11)
Since

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]_{}=i\theta ^{\mu \nu },$$
(4.12)
coordinates commute to each other in this limit. The momentum $`k_\mu `$ is eigenvalue of $`\widehat{P}_\mu :=[\widehat{p},\text{ }]`$ (not of $`\widehat{p}`$). Momenta commute to themselves without any limits because $`[\widehat{P}_\mu ,\widehat{P}_\nu ]=0`$. So the limit eq.(4.11) can be called the commutative limit.

Next we try to draw a scenario of getting an almost commutative near 4 dimensional spacetime. We start from, for instance, 6 dimensional solution of the matrix model. There are three noncommutativity parameters $`\theta ^{01},\theta ^{23},\theta ^{45}`$. We think of regions near following limits:

$`\theta ^{01}`$ $``$ $`0,`$
$`\theta ^{23}`$ $``$ $`0,`$
$`\theta ^{45}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}.`$ (4.13)
Then we have a 4 dimensional commutative spacetime. Of cause this is not dynamical determination, but just a fine tuning. That is beyond the scope of this paper. We will discuss this possibility, however, in the final section.

## 5 Conclusions and Discussions

We have considered the electric-magnetic duality and the decoupling-commutative limit in the matrix model. 4 dimensional spacetime can be constructed as D3-brane solution of the model. It has non-selfdual solutions which we have treated in this paper. Then there are two non commutativity parameters: $`\theta ^{01}`$, $`\theta ^{23}`$.

Electric-magnetic duality transformation changes those parameters as eq.(3.3), as well as Yang-Mills coupling and electromagnetic fields. In addition, it corresponds to the rescaling of matrices in the original matrix model, which has S-duality symmetry. In particular solution related to a $`g`$, its duality is just the duality of U(1) Maxwell theory: eq.(3.6).

Decoupling limits have been defined as eq.(4.1). Open strings are decoupled from closed strings by looking into their momenta, and the tension goes to zero. This has been also seen from the relation $`\theta ^{01}`$ and $`\theta _s^{01}`$ clearly in eq.(4.6)

Noncommutativity parameters manage making our 4 dimensional commutative spacetime. When $`\theta ^{ij}\mathrm{}`$ corresponding $`i,j`$ directions decouple while $`\alpha \beta `$ direction commutes as $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }0`$. Staring from higher dimensional brane, we can get an almost commutative and near 4 dimension spacetime, by fine tuning of those parameters. Changing parameters may be understood from the NCYM around the classical brane solution. That is, bi-local fields on the brane may condense and change the back ground spacetime. We write:

$$𝒜_\alpha (x)=𝒜_\alpha ^0(x)+𝒜_\alpha ^1(x),$$
(5.1)
where $`𝒜^0(x)`$ is a solution of NCU(1). In the matrix model, we can regard $`𝒜^0(x)`$ as a part of back ground. Namely, new background happens:

$$\widehat{p}_\alpha \widehat{p}_\alpha ^{}=\widehat{p}_\alpha +\widehat{𝒜}_\alpha ^0.$$
(5.2)
From this expression we find the spacetime and the field on it are treated unified way. For example, if we choose a solution of eq.(1.1): $`𝒜_\alpha ^0(x)=\frac{1}{2}_{\alpha \beta }^{}x^\beta `$, ($`^{}`$: constant), then $`\widehat{p}^{}`$ satisfies:

$$[\widehat{p}_\alpha ^{},\widehat{p}_\beta ^{}]=i(F+)_{\alpha \beta },$$
(5.3)
where $``$ is field strength of $`𝒜^0`$ and relates to $`^{}`$ as $`=^{}+\frac{1}{4}^{}F^1^{}`$. Thus the background spacetime can change dynamically. So, considering solutions of NCYM may give understanding of the relation to the commutative (different dimensional) background, S-dual back ground, and so on.

Recently there are also various studies for nonperturbative solution of NCYM:  . It is interesting to map them to the matrix in the sense of: $`𝒜^0\widehat{𝒜}^0`$. In this paper we have concentrated to the electric-magnetic duality, only because of avoiding complexity in the first step. We have seen, however, full S-duality with supersymmetry may have more interesting feature, combining T duality. NCYM from IIB string theory are studying now by a lot of group and F-string and D-string are considered there. It is also possible to consider them in the matrix model, which is going to be our next theme. With the help of above related approaches, we probably understand, in near future, how our 4 dimensional universe happens.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for stimulative situations in IMSc.


text:
# CLUSTER GALAXIES: CONTRIBUTION TO THE ARC STATISTICS

## 1 Introduction

The statistics of arcs is a potentially very sensitive probe for the cosmological matter density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Theoretical studies showed that more arcs can be expected in a universe with low density and small cosmological constant. In fact, low density makes clusters form earlier, and a low cosmological constant makes them more compact individually. Previous analyses (e.g. Bartelmann et al. 1998) neglected the granularity of the gravitational cluster potentials due to the presence of galaxies which can be considered using numerical simulations.

## 2 The cluster sample

The simulated clusters used as lenses in the present analysis are presented in Tormen et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. The sample is formed by the nine most massive clusters obtained in a cosmological simulation of an Einstein-de Sitter universe, evolved using a P3M code. The original box-size is $`L=150`$ Mpc (a Hubble constant of 50 km s-1 Mpc-1 is used). The initial conditions have a scale-free power spectrum $`P(k)k^1`$, very close to the behaviour of the standard CDM model on the scales relevant for cluster formation. The normalization is chosen to roughly match the observed local abundance of clusters $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and corresponds to $`\sigma _8=0.63`$, where $`\sigma _8`$ is the r.m.s. matter density fluctuation in spheres of radius $`r=8h^1`$ Mpc. Each cluster was obtained using a tree/SPH code adopting a re-simulation technique $`^\mathrm{?}`$, which allows a much higher spatial and mass resolution. The masses of these clusters are in the range $`5\times 10^{14}÷3\times 10^{15}M_{}`$.

## 3 Lensing properties of the clusters

We centred each cluster in a cube of side $`6`$ Mpc, where we placed a regular grid of $`N_g=128^3`$ cells. For each of them we extracted three different surface-density fields $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, by projecting the 3-D density field $`\rho `$ (obtained by Triangular Shape Cloud method) along the three cartesian axes. This produces three lens planes, which we consider as independent cluster models for the purpose of this study. This made possible to perform 27 different lensing simulations starting from our sample of 9 clusters. We fix the redshifts of the lens and of the source planes equal to $`z_L=0.4`$ and $`z_S=2`$ respectively, leading to a value of the critical density for our clusters of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cr}1.975\times 10^{15}M_{}/`$Mpc2. We shot a bundle of $`1024\times 1024`$ rays across the central fourth of the lens plane, where most of the cluster mass is projected. In fact, our goal is to study the strong lensing properties of the clusters. The deflection angle $`\alpha `$ of each ray is computed by summing the contribution from all the cells of the grid on which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is defined. Finally, solving the lens equation, the arrival positions of the rays on the source plane are calculated. Once the deflection angles are known, all the lensing properties of the cluster can be easily evaluated.

## 4 Simulating the galaxy distribution inside the cluster

To simulate a population of galaxy lenses inside the cluster, in such a way that their observational properties are well reproduced, we start from the luminosity function of the Coma cluster, whose mass is similar to that or our simulated clusters. This luminosity function has been recently derived in the V-band by Lobo et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$. In the magnitude range $`13.5<V21.0`$ (corresponding to the absolute magnitude range $`22.24<M_V14.74`$) it is well described by the combination of a steep Schechter function and of a Gaussian function.

Using Monte Carlo methods, we generate a sample of galaxies with luminosities distributed in a way close to the Coma cluster galaxies. To convert the luminosity to masses, we take the average relation $`M/L=3.2(M_{}/L_{})`$ (see $`^{\mathrm{?},\mathrm{?}}`$). In this procedure the total number of galaxies to place into each simulated cluster is determined by imposing a baryonic fraction equal to that estimated by White et al. $`^\mathrm{?}`$ for the Coma cluster ($`M_b/M_{tot}0.009`$, where $`M_b`$ is the baryonic mass in galaxies and $`M_{tot}`$ the total mass within the Abell radius). Moreover, to consider the presence of a dark matter halo around each galaxy, we obtain the total (virial) masses $`M_{vir}`$ by multiplying the baryonic masses previously obtained by the factor $`f_b^1`$, where $`f_b`$ represents the average baryonic fraction inside single galaxies. As this quantity is not well known observationally, we take a fiducial value $`f_b`$ ($`5\%`$), close to the value predicted by the standard model of primordial nucleosynthesis. To place galaxies inside the cluster in a realistic way, we made the assumptions that the galaxy number density should follow the total density field and that the most massive galaxies should be placed at the centre of the cluster or in other large subclumps.

The galaxies are modelled as spheres with a NFW density profile $`^\mathrm{?}`$, truncated at a cut-off radius, where the galaxy density falls below the local cluster density. In fact, for lensing analysis we are interested only to the galaxy mass which emerges from the mean local density of the cluster. Galaxies placed close to the cluster centre have a smaller radius because the cluster density is higher there, so only a small part of the galaxy profile can emerge. The galaxy contribution to the deflection angles can be analytically computed and summed to the contribution from the remaining dark matter in the cluster.

## 5 Properties of arcs and results

We use our clusters to lens a large number of elliptical sources (with axial ratios randomly drawn in the interval \[0.5,1\] and area equal to that of a circle of diameter $`2^{\prime \prime }`$) on the source plane. Following the method introduced by Miralda-Escudé $`^\mathrm{?}`$ and developed by Bartelmann & Weiss $`^\mathrm{?}`$, we find and classify the images of all these sources, measuring their lengths $`l`$, widths $`w`$, curvature radii $`r`$ and length to width ratios $`l/w`$. We then perform a statistical analysis of the distributions of the arc properties (more details are presented in $`^\mathrm{?}`$).

The results obtained from the first set of 27 simulations using the original simulated clusters (i.e. without galaxies inside, hereafter “DM” simulations) are compared to those obtained after the introduction of the galaxies in the lens clusters (hereafter “GAL” simulations).

The total number of arcs in the DM and GAL simulations is quite similar: 447112 and 448927 respectively. The majority of these arcs are quite short. Considering only giant arcs with $`l>16^{\prime \prime }`$ the sample reduces to 1823 and 1721 arcs for DM and GAL simulations. In Figure 1 we show the cumulative distributions of lengths and widths for arcs longer than $`16^{\prime \prime }`$. The distributions of arc length do not seem to be sensitive to the inclusion of the galaxies in the clusters. We found a similar result also for the distributions of arc curvature radii. On the other hand, the distributions of arc widths show some differences between simulations DM and GAL. Such differences are partially found also between the distributions of arc length to width ratios.

Considering arcs with a given length $`l\pm 2^{\prime \prime }`$, we perform the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to evaluate the significance of the differences between the distributions of the arc properties. The significance level obtained from the test as a function of $`l_{min}`$ is also shown in Figure 1 for all the considered arc properties. Concerning arc widths, the probability that the data sets obtained from simulations DM and GAL are drawn from the same distribution becomes slightly lower for arcs with $`l<22^{\prime \prime }`$. On the other hand, the differences between the other property distributions become significant only when very short arcs are included in the sample.

## 6 Conclusions

We expected these effects by cluster galaxies: a) they tend to increase the cluster cross section for strong lensing by wiggling the cluster critical curves, increasing their length; b) because of the larger curvature of the critical lines, they can perturb arcs, splitting them; c) the local steepening of the density profile near cluster galaxies tends to make arcs thinner.

The results of the KS test indicate that, concerning the arc lengths, curvature radii and length to width ratios, the effect of cluster galaxies on arc statistics is negligible if very short arcs are excluded. This means that the first two effects previously mentioned are almost exactly counter-acting and that the splitting of some arcs is partially compensated for the increased strong lensing ability of the clusters (Figure 2). The results show also that, as expected, the galaxies tend to make arcs thinner. This effect becomes evident for arcs shorter than $`22^{\prime \prime }`$.

The longest arcs, which form in the central regions of the clusters, where most of the mass is concentrated, are not sensitive to cluster galaxies. We think that this is due to the fact that in these dense regions only a small fraction of the total galaxy mass emerges from the underlying dark matter distribution.

## References