text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In 1995, LEP finished taking large samples of data on the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ resonance and began a program of increasing the beam energy in order to study in detail known phenomena at higher energies and to search for new particles and interactions. The very highest beam energies were reached in 2000, and in that year each experiment collected $`150`$ pb-1 of $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ annihilation data at an average $`\sqrt{s}`$ of approximately 205.9 GeV for inclusion in the results presented at the September 5, 2000 meeting of the LEP Experiments Committee (LEPC). In addition, the searches for the SM and MSSM Higgs bosons were combined by the LEP Higgs Working Group and shown at the LEPC meeting and are summarized here. The search for a neutral Higgs boson produced in association with a $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ boson is emphasized here because of recent interest generated by excess events observed by the ALEPH collaboration in the summer of 2000. In addition, a brief selection of searches for supersymmetric particles is given, and a summary of the running strategy for the rest of 2000 is presented.

The main Standard Model backgrounds for the searches described here are

* Two-photon processes, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$`\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$, where the $`\mathrm{f}\overline{\mathrm{f}}`$ pair has a very low invariant mass and is produced in $`t`$-channel exchange of two photons.
* Radiative returns to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$. Initial state radiation (ISR) reduces the effective $`\sqrt{s}`$ to the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ pole energy and produces boosted $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ events. The photon usually escapes down the beampipe, but may be observed, and the probability of two hard photons increases with increasing $`\sqrt{s}`$. These events are backgrounds to analyses requiring missing energy, and electromagnetic coverage is needed very close to the beam axis in order to suppress this background to searches requiring missing transverse momentum.
* W-pair production $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$. These produce four-jet final states, or jets+a lepton+missing energy, or two leptons and missing energy. The last is classified as an “acoplanar dilepton” because the plane containing the two leptons does not in general contain the beam axis. Very few b quarks are produced in W decay and so this background can be suppressed in Higgs searches with b-tags with good background rejection. Searches for acoplanar dileptons have $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ production as an irreducible background in some kinematic regions, while the two-photon background dominates in other regions.
* Z-pair production, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$. These events may have four jets, two jets and missing energy, two jets and two like-flavor but opposite-sign leptons, four leptons, or two leptons and missing energy. They have a high b quark content and constitute a primary irreducible background to Higgs boson searches.
* Single W production, $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{e}^{}\overline{\nu }_e`$. This can produce jets+missing energy (“acoplanar dijets”), jets+a forward electron, or a lepton+missing energy or a lepton+a forward electron+missing energy.
* Single Z production $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$. This process can produce acoplanar dijets or acoplanar dileptons if the electrons are not detected. One or both of the electrons may be detected however.

## 2 Statistical Procedure

A single procedure is used by the four experiments and by the LEP Higgs and SUSY working groups to determine whether a model of new physics is excluded by LEP search data or if the background hypothesis is disfavored relative to a particular signal hypothesis. The procedure begins with a full specification of the model to test, with the masses, production cross-sections, and decay branching ratios specified. If the model under test allows many possibilities for the parameters, then in general the parameters are scanned and excluded regions are given in the parameter space that is allowed. For a specific model with a specific choice of its free parameters, histograms of the expected signal, background, and data events are formed in variables that separate the expected signal from the expected background. Then all possible experimental outcomes are considered, and they are ordered according to those that are more signal-like (more candidate events in bins where a signal is expected), and those that are more background-like (fewer such candidates). The variable used for ordering the outcomes is the “likelihood ratio,” the ratio of the probability of observing the particular outcome in the signal+background hypothesis to the probability of observing the same outcome in the background-only hypothesis:

$$Q=\frac{P_{poiss}(data|signal+background)}{P_{poiss}(data|background)}.$$
(1)
Each bin of each histogram may be considered as an independent counting experiment, and the Poisson probabilities multiply. The expression for $`\mathrm{log}Q`$ is convenient for combinations of many bins in many experiments:

$$\mathrm{log}Q=\underset{i}{}\left(n_i^{data}\mathrm{log}\left(1+\frac{s_i}{b_i}\right)s_i\right),$$
(2)
where $`s_i`$ is the signal estimation for a bin of a search channel, $`b_i`$ is the background estimation, $`n_i^{data}`$ is the number of observed data events, and the sum runs over all bins in all search channels. Some searches may have just one bin in them, while others may have some regions of histograms of measured variables with good separation of the signal from the background and other regions with poorer separation. Because $`\mathrm{log}Q`$ reduces to a sum of event weights, events may be classified by the $`s/b`$ in the bins in which they appear.

A particular value of $`\mathrm{log}Q`$ will be obtained for each model hypothesis and the available data and background estimates. In order to determine whether an outcome is sufficient to exclude that model, the probability of obtaining that outcome in the signal+background hypothesis is computed:

$$\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}=P(QQ_{obs}|signal+background).$$
(3)
If $`\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}<0.05`$ then the signal+background hypothesis is ruled out at the 95% confidence level. Another important confidence level to compute is the consistency of the observation with the background hypothesis:

$$\mathrm{CL}_b=P(QQ_{obs}|background),$$
(4)
which is the probability of having observed no more than was observed, if only background processes contribute. This variable is used as the “discovery” variable, requiring $`1\mathrm{CL}_b<5.7\times 10^7`$ in order to claim a $`5\sigma `$ discovery. These confidence levels may be computed using Monte Carlo techniques , or by various convolution methods , .

One defect of the $`\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}`$ variable is that it is a test of the signal+background hypothesis and not of just the signal hypothesis. A consequence of this is that a deficit of selected events relative to the background estimation can rule out the background hypothesis alone, and therefore also any signal+background hypothesis, even if the signal is vanishingly small. In fact, this is expected to happen 5% of the time at the 95% confidence level. In order not to produce misleading limits or exclusions of parts of parameter space to which the experiments are not sensitive, the following quantity is used :

$$\mathrm{CL}_s=\mathrm{CL}_{s+b}/\mathrm{CL}_b,$$
(5)
which is expected to approach unity in the absence of sensitivity to a particular signal.

## 3 Standard Model Higgs Boson Searches

The Standard Model Higgs boson is expected to be produced in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions mainly by the Higgs-strahlung process when it is kinematically allowed, and to a lesser extent by the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$-fusion process. The main attraction of the latter process is that its cross-section does not drop rapidly near $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$, although its total rate is very small. The total production cross-section near the kinematic edge is of the order of 50 to 500 fb, depending on how close $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is to $`\sqrt{s}m_\mathrm{Z}`$. The Standard Model Higgs boson is expected to decay predominantly into $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ pairs in the mass range of interest, with a branching ratio of 78% at $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=110 GeV and a branching ratio of 74% at $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=115 GeV. The second most important decay mode is to tau pairs, with a branching ratio of approximately 7%, and the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ decays take 8%, which rises quickly with $`m_\mathrm{H}`$. Decays to charm and gluons account for the remainder. Efficient and pure b-tagging is therefore important for search for Higgs bosons at LEP2. The Standard Model Higgs search channels are differentiated by the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decay mode that they select. There is the four-jet channel ($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$), the missing-energy channel ($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\nu \overline{\nu }`$), the tau channels ($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$,$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$,$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$), and the lepoton channels ($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ or $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$).

Precision electroweak measurements may be used to estimate the value of the Higgs boson mass, assuming the Standard Model framework for radiative corrections. The combined prediction of $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is $`62_{39}^{+53}`$ GeV, where the errors are symmetric and Gaussian in the variable $`\mathrm{log}m_\mathrm{H}`$, as reported at ICHEP 2000 . This prediction changes, however, when $`\alpha _{EM}(m_\mathrm{Z})`$ is computed differently or computed using additional low-energy $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$ cross-section data from BES.

In the absence of new particles and interactions, the mass of the Standard Model Higgs boson can be from approximately 140 GeV to 180 GeV, where the lower bound arises from a vacuum stability argument, and the upper bound from the requirement that the Higgs self- coupling remains finite at all energies. For new physics interactions with a scale of the order of a TeV, the Higgs boson mass is much less constrained by these arguments, lying between 50 to 800 GeV . Fine tuning arguments , requiring that the magnitude of the radiative corrections to $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ are not too many orders of magnitude larger than $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ itself, further restrict the possible ranges of $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ although these restrictions are relaxed if new physics appears on the 1–10 TeV scale.

The combined distribution of the reconstructed masses in the four experiments’ Standard Model Higgs boson searches is shown in Figure 1 for a fairly tight set of selection requirements . Along with the background expectation and the observed data counts is shown the expected signal from a Higgs boson of mass 114 GeV. The contributions to the histogram are given by experiment in Table 1.

The distribution of the reconstructed mass and the the total number of selected events may be uninformative or misleading in several ways. The distribution of the reconstructed mass is summed over different experiments, and over different search channels at different center-of-mass energies. The reconstructed mass resolutions are different and depend on how close $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ is to the kinematic limit which changes with $`\sqrt{s}`$, and the relative amounts of the signal and background are different from channel to channel, depending on the background rates and signal branching ratios. In a summed histogram of the reconstructed mass, candidates in relatively clean channels are included in the same bins as signal and background estimates from other channels with poorer performance. Additional cuts have been applied after the standard analysis cuts in order that the contributions from the different experiments are roughly equal in their total size. If an experiment has a large amount of the expected signal just failing the cut needed to make the reconstructed mass distribution plot, it may be more sensitive than another experiment with more expected signal on its side of its cut. Because all bins of all histograms in all variables (each search channel from each experiment at each center of mass energy has its own histogram, and the variables can be the reconstructed mass, the b-tags, or combinations of these and other information) can be combined using the uniform procedure outlined above, there is no loss of sensitivity in the confidence level calculations, but an amount of information is necessarily lost when producing a histogram of the reconstructed mass and tables listing its contents.

The full amount of information in the searches is retained and displayed in a compact form if the histograms are rebinned in the variable $`s/b`$. For each bin of each histogram to be combined, the $`s/b`$ is uniquely determined. Because the test-statistic $`\mathrm{log}Q`$ is additive and depends only on the $`s/b`$ in the bins where the candidates are found and also on the total signal sum, the contents of bins with the same $`s/b`$ may be simply added. The result is shown in Figure 2 along with its integral from the high $`s/b`$ side . The integral of this distribution at a particular cut in $`s/b`$ is the optimal answer to “How many events are observed” and “How many are expected in the signal+background and the background-only hypotheses,” for each possible setting of the cuts.

One observes in this distribution three events with rather high values of the local $`s/b`$. These three are all four-jet candidates from ALEPH, with strong b-tags and high reconstructed masses . The selection of these events and the stability of their assigned significance has been checked in several ways. A cut-based analysis is used to cross-check the primary neural-net-based analysis and similar results are obtained. All lower-energy data have been analyzed to look for biases in the reconstructed mass distribution towards a peak at the maximum kinematically allowed value, and no such bias is seen. The b-tag and neural net distributions also are modeled well . One feature however, is that if all possible jet pairings are considered and events are removed if even one of these pairings yields jet-pair masses within 10 GeV of either $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ or $`m_\mathrm{Z}`$, then the excess vanishes. It was found in a Monte Carlo study, however, that the signal efficiency drops by 50% by removing such events, and that this procedure does not enhance the separation of signal from background.

There is a small excess observed in the DELPHI four-jet channel, but not in the L3 or OPAL four-jet channels. Also, no excesses are observed in the combined missing-energy ($`\mathrm{Z}^0`$$``$$`\nu \overline{\nu }`$) channels, the lepton channels, or the tau channels. Combining all missing-energy, lepton, and tau channels together has about the same statistical power of all four-jet channels combined together.

The combined test-statistic is shown in Figure 3. It has a minimum at $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=114–115 GeV, and is the most compatible with the median expected signal at $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=114 GeV. The confidence levels are used to quantify how significant this observation is.

The exclusion limit is computed by finding the lowest $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ for which $`\mathrm{CL}_s=0.05`$. It is computed for each experiment separately, and for each search channel separately, combining the results of the experiments. The expected limit is the median in a large ensemble of possible experiments in which only Standard Model background processes contribute. The value of $`\mathrm{CL}_s`$ and its expectation for the all channels combined from all experiments is shown in Figure 4. The exclusion limits are listed in Table 2. The branching ratios of the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ are well known and hence the separation by channel is not that interesting, except for the tau channel, which covers also Higgs boson decays to tau leptons.

In order to test for the compatibility of the observation with the expected background, $`1\mathrm{CL}_b`$ is shown as a function of the tested $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ in Figure 5. $`1\mathrm{CL}_b`$ reaches its minimum at $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=115 GeV, with a probability of consistency of the data with the background of $`7\times 10^3`$, for a significance of approximately 2.6$`\sigma `$, due mainly to the excess four-jet events in ALEPH, but also to events with lower values of $`s/b`$ which also contribute.

In the case that there is no signal truly present, the excess would take approximately 60 pb-1 per experiment at $`\sqrt{s}=206.6`$ GeV to fade away to a 2$`\sigma `$ excess for test mass hypotheses near 115 GeV. On the other hand, if the Higgs boson does have Standard Model couplings and branching fractions, then one would expect the significance of the excess to increase as more data are collected. As can be seen in Figure 6, it would take approximately 100 pb-1 of data at $`\sqrt{s}=206.6`$ GeV to obtain a 4$`\sigma `$ effect for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=113 GeV, and around 140 pb-1 for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=114 GeV. On the other hand, significances of 3$`\sigma `$ can be obtained within 60 pb-1 for $`m_\mathrm{H}`$ all the way up to 115 GeV, and that amount can be collected in approximately 60 days of running.

## 4 Searches for Non-Standard Higgs Bosons

### 4.1 Neutral Higgs Bosons in the MSSM

One of the simplest extensions to the Higgs sector of the Standard Model is to add a second Higgs field doublet. The Minimal Supersymmetric Extension of the SM (MSSM) requires this structure. One field couples to up-type quarks and the other to down-type quarks, and there is a mixing angle $`\alpha `$ between these two fields in order to produce the physical Higgs states, which number five: the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$, the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$, the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$, and two charged Higgs bosons H+ and H-. The ratio of the vacuum expectation values of the two fields is denoted $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. In the CP-conserving, low-energy effective MSSM studied here , the remaining parameters are the mass of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$, the CP-odd Higgs boson (the other two neutral bosons are CP even), the mass scale of the sfermions $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ (here set to 1 TeV), the Higgs mass matrix parameter $`\mu `$ (here set to -200 GeV), the gaugino mass parameter $`M_2`$ (here set to 200 GeV), and the amount of stop mixing, chosen here to be zero or maximal. Recent calculations of $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ including the dominant 2-loop terms are used . The gluino mass is also a free parameter; it affects the Higgs masses and branching ratios through radiative corrections.

For the case of maximal stop mixing, and the choices of the other parameters given above, the value of $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ assumes its maximal value111Another calculation  using a renormalization-group improved one- loop calculation, does in fact give slightly higher values of $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta <1`$, but also smaller values of $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >1`$ – we choose the calculation which gives the lowest upper end of the excluded $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ region. as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and is used to set conservative limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. This scenario is called the $`m_\mathrm{h}`$-max scenario.

The searches used to set limits in this space are the same searches for the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ final state used in the Standard Model section, but in addition, searches for $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ are performed in the $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ and $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ final states. The production cross-section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$, which is largest for $`m_\mathrm{h}m_\mathrm{A}`$ while the cross-section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$. The cross-section for $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$ production grows more slowly along the diagonal $`m_\mathrm{h}=m_\mathrm{A}`$ than the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ cross-section does for large $`m_\mathrm{A}`$. Therefore, the absolute lower limits on $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ will come from the case in which $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ production is suppressed, and the limits for $`m_\mathrm{A}`$$``$$`\mathrm{}`$ are those obtained in the Standard Model, as can be seen from Figure 7.

For the case of no stop mixing, the maximal value of $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ as a function of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is much less, although a second problem opens up at low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$: the branching ratio for $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ can be suppressed by a larger decay width for $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$$`\mathrm{A}^0`$, and for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or low $`m_\mathrm{A}`$, the decay rate of the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ to $`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$ pairs is suppressed either by the coupling strength or the kinematics if $`m_\mathrm{A}<10`$ GeV. In this case, an ”L”-shaped unexcluded region opens up for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and low $`m_\mathrm{A}`$, shown in Figure 8. Additional flavor-independent searches, and searches specifically targeted at this region are being developed and will soon be included in the combination. The limits on $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ and $`m_\mathrm{A}`$ presented in Table 3 ignore this unexcluded region, although the limits on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ in the no-stop-mixing scenario include its effects. In both the $`m_\mathrm{h}`$-max scenario and the no stop mixing scenario, $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is considered only up to 30, because for larger values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ decay width can exceed the experimental mass resolution, and additional Monte Carlo signal samples are needed to assess the effect of lower $`s/b`$ in these channels.

A third scenario has been proposed, called the “large-$`\mu `$” scenario , in which $`M_{\mathrm{SUSY}}`$ is taken to be 400 GeV, $`M_2=400`$ GeV, $`\mu =1`$ TeV, and the gluino mass is 200 GeV. This setting of parameters is designed to highlight loop effects which can suppress the decay $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\mathrm{b}\overline{\mathrm{b}}`$, without a corresponding enhancement of $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$$`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$. In this case, the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ decays rather into gluons, charmed quarks, or W pairs, but only for high $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. The decay widths of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ and the $`\mathrm{A}^0`$ remain much smaller than the experimental mass resolution up to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =50`$. The maximum value of $`m_\mathrm{h}`$ in this scenario is approximately 108 GeV, and for the region where $`\mathrm{sin}^2(\beta \alpha )`$ is low and $`m_\mathrm{h}+m_\mathrm{A}`$ is kinematically out of reach at LEP2, the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ is accessible with a cross-section proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}^2(\beta \alpha )`$. Nearly all model points except those with difficult decay branching fractions can therefore be excluded. These difficult regions are at $`\mathrm{tan}\beta >10`$ and $`80<m_\mathrm{A}<180`$, as seen in Figure 9.

### 4.2 Charged Higgs Bosons

At LEP, charged Higgs bosons are expected to be pair-produced via the $`s`$-channel exchange of a $`\gamma `$ or a $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, and the production cross-section depends only on the mass of the H± and on well-measured electroweak parameters. The decay modes of the H± are considered for the purpose of these searches to be limited to $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}^{}`$ and $`\tau \nu _\tau `$. The mass limits are produced therefore as a function of Br(H$`{}_{}{}^{+}\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$). The search channels include a four-jet search without b-tagging, a semileptonic search, and a fully leptonic search, in which the final state consists of an acoplanar pair of taus. The predominant background is $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$, which can produce all of the available final states, although the acoplanar tau pair rate is significantly lower than the four-jet rate due to the branching ratios of the W. The large $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ background sets the scale for the limits in the hadronic and semileptonic searches. The limits are shown in Figure 10. For Br(H$`{}_{}{}^{+}\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$)=0, the observed mass limit is 80.5 GeV and the median expected limit is 79.8 GeV. For Br(H$`{}_{}{}^{+}\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$)=1, the observed mass limit is 89.2 GeV and the median expected limit is 90.9 GeV. The lowest limit obtained at any branching ratio is 78.7 GeV, with a median expectation of 78.5 GeV. A small excluded “island” appears in Figure 10 for Br(H$`{}_{}{}^{+}\tau ^+\nu _\tau `$)=0, where the search sensitivity above the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ background peak is beginning to become sufficient to exclude a small region. More data would allow this island to grow and eventually connect with the main excluded region, leaving a hole near $`m_\mathrm{W}`$ which can be excluded only with a larger amount of integrated luminosity.

### 4.3 Searches for $`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\gamma \gamma `$

The final states $`\mathrm{q}\overline{\mathrm{q}}`$$`\gamma \gamma `$, $`\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$$`\gamma \gamma `$, and $`\gamma \gamma `$+missing energy are sought by the four LEP experiments and combined. Because the branching ratio Br($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\gamma \gamma `$) is small in the Standard Model (of the order 10-3), mass limits cannot be set on the SM Higgs from this search only. This search is more interesting when considering models in which the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ decays are non-standard. In particular, if the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ fails to couple to fermions entirely, then the available decay modes are into $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$, the first of which proceeds only at the one-loop level mediated by a W boson. As the mass of the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ increases, the $`\mathrm{W}^+\mathrm{W}^{}`$ branching fraction gradually becomes more important and the mass limits obtained at LEP2 are mainly determined by this behavior than by the power of the searches. The limits are expressed in Figure 11 by assuming the SM production cross-section for $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{H}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, and by ignoring the results of searches for other decays of the $`\mathrm{H}^0`$ to set limits on the branching ratio Br($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\gamma \gamma `$). Alternatively, this can be interpreted as a limit on the production cross-section as a fraction of the SM cross-section, with Br($`\mathrm{H}^0`$$``$$`\gamma \gamma `$)=1. In the fermiophobic model, the observed mass limit is 107.7 GeV, with a median expected limit of 105.8 GeV.

### 4.4 $`\mathrm{h}^0`$$``$ Invisible Particles

The Higgs boson may decay invisibly in the MSSM if the lightest neutralino has a mass of less than half the mass of the Higgs. Two important advantages of an $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collider are that the center-of-mass energy of each interaction is known with a high degree of precision, and that the total momentum is zero. These features can be used to search for the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\mathrm{h}^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, where the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$ decays invisibly, because the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decay products can be measured and the missing mass can be inferred. In this case, $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decays to quarks are exploited for the search. Neutrino decays are not useful, and the leptonic decays have a low relative branching ratio. Tau decays in particular pollute the leptonic sample because the neutrinos in such events carry a large amount of missing energy.

The limits are shown in Figure 12 assuming the Standard Model production cross-section and are limits on the invisible branching ratio of the Higgs, ignoring the results of searches for visible Higgs decays. Alternatively, these limits can be interpreted as limits on the production cross-section divided by the Standard Model production cross-section, assuming 100% invisible decays of the $`\mathrm{h}^0`$. For the SM cross-section and 100% invisible decays, the mass limits obtained are 113.7 GeV (observed) and 112.8 GeV (median expectation).

## 5 Gaugino, Squark, Slepton Searches

Charginos may be produced either in the $`s`$-channel via photon or $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ exchange, or in the $`t`$-channel via exchange of an electron sneutrino. These diagrams interfere destructively, although the $`t`$-channel diagram is important only for light electron sneutrinos. The chargino may decay into a W and a neutralino, or into a slepton and a neutrino, where the slepton decays into a neutralino and a lepton, or directly into a lepton and a sneutrino. All of these decay modes produce similar final states – two leptons (or jets) and missing energy. The branching ratios for these processes depend on the slepton and sneutrino masses, and the mass difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ between the chargino and the LSP (either the neutralino or sneutrino) strongly affects the final state kinematic distributions. For a small mass difference, the visible decay products of the chargino have low visible energies. These final states are similar to the two-photon background processes which have large cross-sections in $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$ collisions at high energies. For very large $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$, the final states resemble W+W- production. The search analyses are therefore optimized in separate regions of $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ due to the different makeup of the signal and background estimations.

An important feature of the chargino searches is that the limits obtained approach the maximum possible kinematic limits rapidly due to the high expected production cross-sections, and so the extra data taken at $`\sqrt{s}208`$ GeV is very useful in these searches. OPAL presents limits on the chargino production cross section in Figure 13. No evidence for a signal is observed, although for the search with $`\mathrm{\Delta }M10`$ GeV, there is an excess observed  in the OPAL experiment: five events are counted in the data, while 0.74 events are expected from the sum of all Standard Model backgrounds. None of the other experiments sees a similar excess, and the significance is diluted by the fact that many different search regions in four experiments were independently investigated and that a fluctuation can happen in any of them.

Neutralinos may also be produced via $`s`$-channel $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ exchange, or via $`t`$-channel selectron exchange, and the lightest neutralino $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is assumed to be the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP). Pair production of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is impossible to detect aside from the signature of the residual initial state radiation. Instead, associated production of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is sought, where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$$``$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\mathrm{Z}^0`$, and the $`\mathrm{Z}^0`$ decay products are observed. The observable final states are then two jets and missing energy, or two leptons and missing energy, with similar backgrounds to the chargino searches. OPAL’s limits on the neutralino production cross-section are shown in Figure 13.

Searches for sleptons similarly focus on the final state of two like-flavored, opposite-signed leptons with missing energy, produced by the process $`\mathrm{e}^+\mathrm{e}^{}`$$``$$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^{}`$ followed by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}^+`$$``$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\mathrm{}^+`$. In the 1999 data, there was an excess of events passing the requirements of the stau searches in all four detectors – no single experiment had a significant effect, but in combination the signinficance was greater: $`1\mathrm{CL}_b=0.001`$ when 1998 and 1999 data were combined , with a stau mass hypothesis of 85 GeV and a neutralino mass hypothesis of 22 GeV. However, the excess did not persist in the 2000 data collected by the four experiments, and the particular hypothesis mentioned above is now excluded at the 95% CL .

After the July 20 LEPC presentation by ALEPH reporting an excess in a preliminary search  for a very light sbottom (of mass between 3 and 4 GeV), the DELPHI and OPAL collaborations performed similar searches. OPAL sees a deficit of events, with 15 events observed and 20.5 events expected from Standard Model background processes . DELPHI similarly does not see an excess . The ALEPH experiment updated the search with an improved Monte Carlo and a lepton identification algorithm which is more appropriate for identifying leptons inside dense jets and does not report a significant excess, with 24 events observed and 20 events expected from Standard Model backgrounds .

## 6 The Photon Recoil Spectrum

Events containing a single high-energy photon are valuable for searching for non-interacting new particles, such as LSP neutralinos (already mentioned), or $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$$``$$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$`\gamma `$. In Gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking models, the gravitino can be the LSP, and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$$``$$`\stackrel{~}{G}\gamma `$ is possible. An excited neutrino may decay radiatively. In general, any invisible process may also be accompanied by initial state radiation which may be detected, giving a sign for new physics. Unfortunately, no excess is observed in the recoil mass spectrum to single and multiple photons, as shown in Figure 14, which combines  the four LEP experiments’ results for all data taken with $`\sqrt{s}130`$ GeV.

## 7 Prospects for Further LEP Running

The hint of an excess in the Standard Model Higgs searches near with $`m_\mathrm{H}`$=115 GeV has generated a good deal of interest in extending the LEP run through 2001 with an energy upgrade.

Since the RADCOR2K conference, there have been two additional updates of the significance of the SM Higgs search results, at the LEPC presentations of October 10, 2000  and on November 3, 2000 , with significances reported of 2.5$`\sigma `$ and 2.9$`\sigma `$, respectively. Some variation is expected in both the signal and background cases due to statistical fluctuations – large jumps in the significance occur with the discrete arrival of candidates with large local values of $`s/b`$.

At the November 3 LEPC open session, the ALEPH, DELPHI, L3 and OPAL collaborations and the LEP Higgs Working Group jointly recommended running LEP in 2001. On the same day, the LEP Experiments Committee met in a closed session and was undecided on the recommendation, balancing the construction schedule, the cost, and the staffing of the LHC against the LEP run request. The research board also failed to make a recommendation, and on November 8, 2000, a press release was issued that LEP was closed, and on November 15, 2000 a committee of the CERN council was convened, which also failed to endorse the run extension request. Dismantling LEP began in early December, 2000.

## Acknowledgements

The LEP accelerator has performed outstandingly well due to the hard work of the members of the accelerator divisions at CERN. In particular, the RF performance has improved throughout the year, miniramps and the the bending-field spreading technique were commissioned, and the accelerator had a high reliability and short turnaround times, all due to hard work and good organization. The author would like to thank the members of the four LEP collaborations, and the members of the LEP Higgs working group for the exemplary cooperation and openness in supplying search results for combination.


format: text

text:
# Profinite and Finite Groups Associated with Loop and Diffeomorphism Groups of Non-Archimedean Manifolds. Mathematics Subject Classification (2000): 11F85, 22A05, 46S10

## 1 Introduction.

The importance of such groups in the non-Archimedean functional analysis, representation theory and mathematical physics is clear and also can be found in the references given below . This article is devoted to one aspect of such groups: their structure from the point of view of the $`p`$-adic compactficiation (see also about Banaschewski compactification in ). This also opens new possibilites for studying their representations as restrictions of representations of $`p`$-adic compactifications, which are constructed below such that they also are groups.

At first we remind basic facts and notations, which are given in detail in references . For a diffeomorphism group $`Diff(M)`$ of a Banach manifold over a local field $`𝐊`$ there are clopen subgroups $`W`$ such that they contain a sequence of profinite subgroups $`G_n`$ with $`G_nG_{n+1}`$ for each $`n𝐍`$ and $`_nG_n`$ is dense in $`W`$. A loop group $`L_t(M,N)`$ is defined as a quotient space of a family of mappings $`f:MN`$ of class $`C^t`$ of one Banach manifold $`M`$ into another $`N`$ over the same local field $`𝐊`$ such that $`lim_{zs}(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^vf)(z;h_1,\mathrm{},h_n;\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)=0`$ for each $`0vt`$, where $`M`$ and $`N`$ are embedded into the corresponding Banach spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$, $`cl(M)=M\{s\}`$, $`cl(M)`$ and $`N`$ are clopen in $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively, $`0N`$, $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^vf)(z;h_1,\mathrm{},h_n;\zeta _1,..,\zeta _n)`$ are continuous extensions of difference quotients, $`zM`$, $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_n`$ are nonzero vectors in $`X`$, $`\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n𝐊`$ such that $`z+\zeta _1h_1+\mathrm{}+\zeta _nh_nM`$, $`n=[v]+sign\{v\}.`$ $`p`$-adic completions of clopen subgroups $`W`$ of loop groups $`G`$ and diffeomorphism groups $`G`$ are considered. In the case of the diffeomorphism group the $`p`$-adic completion produces weakened topology on $`W`$ relative to which it remains a topological group. In the case of the loop group the $`p`$-adic completion produces a new topological group $`V`$ in which the initial group $`W`$ is embedded as a dense subgroup such that $`VW`$. The topology on $`W`$ inherited from $`V`$ is weaker than the initial one. For the compact manifold $`M`$ in the case of the diffeomorphism group the $`p`$-adic completion of $`W`$ produces profinite group. For the locally compact manifolds $`M`$ and $`N`$ in the case of the loop group $`L^t(M,N)`$ the $`p`$-adic completion of $`W`$ produces its embedding into $`𝐐_{𝐩}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝐍}`$. When $`W`$ is bounded relative to the corresponding metric in $`L^t(M,N)`$, then $`W`$ is embedded into $`𝐙_{𝐩}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝐍}`$. The group $`Diff(M)`$ is perfect and simple, on the other hand, the group $`L^t(M,N)`$ is commutative. The notation given below and the corresponding definitions are given in detail in .

## 2 $`p`$-Adic Completion of Diffeomorphism Groups.

2.1. Notations and Remarks. Let $`N`$ be a compact manifold over a local field $`𝐊`$, that is, $`𝐊`$ is a finite algebraic extension of the field of $`p`$-adic numbers $`𝐐_𝐩`$ . Let also $`N`$ be embedded into $`B(𝐊^𝗇,0,1)`$ as a clopen (closed and open at the same time) subset , where $`𝗇𝐍`$, $`B(X,y,r):=\{z:zX;d_X(y,z)r\}`$ denotes a clopen ball in a space $`X`$ with an ultramentric $`d_X`$. The ball $`B(𝐊^𝗇,0,1)`$ has the ring structure with coordinatewise addition and multiplication, in particular $`B(𝐐_𝐩,0,1)=𝐙_𝐩`$ is the ring of entire $`p`$-adic numbers. The ring $`B(𝐊^𝗇,0,1)`$ is homeomorphic with the projective limit $`B(𝐊^𝗇,0,1)=prlim_k𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝗇}`$, $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$ is a finite ring consisting of $`p^{kc}`$ elements such that $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$ is equal to the quotient ring $`B(𝐊,0,1)/B(𝐊,0,p^k)`$, $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^{}{}_{}{}^{𝗇}`$ is a product of $`𝗇`$ copies of $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$, $`c`$ is a dimension $`dim_{𝐐_𝐩}𝐊`$ of $`𝐊`$ over $`𝐐_𝐩`$ as a $`𝐐_𝐩`$-linear space. In particular $`B(𝐐_𝐩,0,1)/B(𝐐_𝐩,0,p^k)=𝐙_𝐩/p^k𝐙_𝐩=𝐅_{𝐩^𝐤}`$ is a finite ring consisting of $`p^k`$ elements, $`𝐙_𝐩`$ is the ring of $`p`$-adic integer numbers, $`aB:=\{x:x=ab,bB\}`$ for a multiplicative group $`B`$ and its element $`aB`$, $`k𝐍`$ . For each $`mk`$ there are the following quotient mappings (ring homomorphisms): $`\pi _m:B(𝐊,0,1)𝐒_{𝐩^𝐦}`$ and $`\pi _k^m:𝐒_{𝐩^𝐦}𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$. This induces the quotient mappings $`\pi _m:NN_m`$ and $`\pi _k^m:N_mN_k`$, where $`N_m𝐒_{𝐩^𝐦}`$, $`\pi _k^m\pi _m=\pi _k`$.

Let now $`M`$ and $`N`$ be two analytic compact manifolds embedded into $`B(𝐊^𝗆,0,1)`$ and $`B(𝐊^𝗇,0,1)`$ respectively as clopen subsets and $`fC^t(M,N)`$, where $`C^t(M,N)`$ denotes the space of functions $`f:MN`$ of class $`C^t`$, $`t0`$. For an integer $`t`$ it is a space of $`t`$-times continuously differetiable functions in the sence of partial difference quotients (see in detail: ). Then $`f=prlim_kf_k`$, where $`f_k:=\pi _kf`$. We inroduce the following notation: $`C^t(M,N_k):=\pi _kC^t(M,N)=\{f_k:fC^t(M,N)\}`$, hence $`C^t(M,N)=prlim_kC^t(M,N_k)`$ algebraically without taking into account topologies (or the limit of the inverse sequence, see §2.5  and §§3.3, 12.202 ). Each function $`fC^t(M,N)`$ has a $`C^t(B(𝐊^𝗆,0,1),𝐊^𝗇)`$-extension by zero on $`B(𝐊^𝗆,0,1)`$, hence it has the following decomposition $`f=_{l,m}f_m^l\overline{Q}_me_l`$ in the Amice’s basis $`\overline{Q}_m`$, where $`e_l`$ is the standard orthonormal basis in $`𝐊^𝗇`$ such that $`e_l=(0,\mathrm{},0,1,0,\mathrm{})`$ with $`1`$ in the $`l`$-th place, $`m𝐙^𝗇`$, $`m_l0`$, $`m=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_𝗇)`$, $`f_m^l𝐊`$ are expansion coefficients such that $`lim_{l+|m|\mathrm{}}|f_m^l|_𝐊J(t,m)=0`$, $`\overline{Q}_m`$ are polynomials on $`B(𝐊^𝗆,0,1)`$ with values in $`𝐊`$. The space $`C^t(M,N)`$ is supplied with the uniformity inherited from the Banach space $`C^t(𝐊^𝗆,𝐊^𝗇)`$, $`J(t,m):=\overline{Q}_m_{C^t(𝐊^𝗆,𝐊)}`$.

2.2. Lemma. Each $`fC^t(M,N)`$ is a projective limit $`f=prlim_kf_k`$ of polynomials $`f_k=_{l,m}f_{m,k}^l\overline{Q}_{m,k}e_l`$ on rings $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗆`$ with values in $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗇`$, where $`f_{m,k}^l𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$ and $`\overline{Q}_{m,k}`$ are polynomials on $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗆`$ with values in $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$.

Proof. In view of §2.1 $`f_k=\pi _kf`$ and $`\pi _kf(x)=_{l,m}(\pi _k(f_m^l)(\pi _k\overline{Q}_m(x))e_l`$, since $`\pi _k`$ is a ring homomorphism and $`\pi _k(e_l)=e_l`$. Then $`\pi _k(ax^m)=a_kx^m(k)`$ for each $`a𝐊`$ and $`xB(𝐊^𝗆,0,1)`$, where $`x^m=x_1^{m_1}\mathrm{}x_𝗆^{m_𝗆},`$ $`a_k=\pi _k(a)`$ with $`a_k𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$ and $`x^m(k)=\pi _k(x^m)`$ with $`x(k)𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗆,`$ consequently, $`\pi _k(\overline{Q}_m(x))=\overline{Q}_{m,k}(x(k)).`$ The series for $`f_k`$ is finite, since $`\pi _k(a)=0`$ for each $`a𝐊`$ with $`|a|<p^k`$ and $`lim_{l+|m|\mathrm{}}|f_m^l|_𝐊J(t,m)=0`$.

2.3. Corolary. The space $`C^t(M,N_k)`$ is isomorphic with the space $`N_k^{M_k}`$ of all mappings from $`M_k`$ into $`N_k`$. Moreover, $`(𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗇)^{(𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗆)}`$ is a finite-dimensional space over the ring $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$.

Proof. From §2.2 it follows that there is only a finite number of $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$-linearly independent polynomilas $`\overline{Q}_{m,k}(x(k))`$ (that is, in the module of the ring $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$), since the rings $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}^𝗆`$ and $`𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$ are finite, also $`z^a=z^b`$ for each natural numbers $`a`$ and $`b`$ such that $`a=b\text{ }(mod\text{ }(p^k))`$ and each $`z𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤}`$. The space $`C^t(M,N_k)`$ is isomorphic with $`N_k^{M_k}`$, since $`M_k`$ and $`N_k`$ are discrete.

2.4. Corollary. $`\pi _kDiff^t(M)`$ is isomorphic with the symmetric group $`S_{𝗇_𝗄}`$, where $`𝗇_𝗄`$ is the cardinality of $`M_k`$.

Proof. If $`hDiff^t(M)`$, then $`h_k(M_k)=M_k`$, since $`h(M)=M`$. In view of §2.3 $`\pi _kDiff^t(M)`$ is isomorphic with the following group $`Hom(M_k)`$ of all homeomorphisms $`h_k`$ of $`M_k`$, that is, bijective surjective mappings $`h_k:M_kM_k`$. Using an enumeration of elements of $`M_k`$ we get an isomorphism of $`Hom(M_k)`$ with $`S_{𝗇_𝗄}`$.

2.5. Let $`C_w(M,N):=prlim_kN_k^{M_k}`$ be a uniform space of continuous mappings $`f:MN`$ supplied with a uniformity inherited from products of uniform spaces $`_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}N_k^{M_k}`$ (see also §8.2 ). The spaces $`C^t(M,N)`$ and $`C_w(M,N)`$ are subsets of $`𝐊`$-linear spaces $`C^t(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$ and $`C^0(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$ respectively. We consider algebraic structures of subsets of the latter $`𝐊`$-linear spaces as inherited from them.

Corollary. The space $`C^t(M,N)`$ is not algebraically isomorphic with $`C_w(M,N)`$, when $`t>0`$. The uniform space $`C_w(M,N)`$ is uniformly isomorphic with $`C^0(M,N)`$, when the latter space is supplied with a weak uniformity inherited from $`C^0(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$. The space $`C_w(M,N)`$ is compact.

Proof. In view of §2.5  we have that $`C^0(M,N)`$ and $`C_w(M,N)`$ coincide algebraically, since the connecting mappings $`\pi _n^m`$ are uniformly continuous for each $`mn`$. The space $`C^0(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$ is $`𝐊`$-linear and its uniformity is completely defined by a neighbourhood base of zero. The set of all evaluation mappings in points of $`M`$ produces the base of the topology of $`C^0(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$. In its weak topology the latter space is isomorphic with the product $`_{xM}𝐊^𝗇=𝐊^{card(M)}`$, since $`card(M)=card(𝐑)=𝖼`$. Then $`C^0(M,N)`$ and $`C_w(M,N)`$ have embeddings into $`B(𝐊,0,1)^{card(M)}`$ as closed bounded subspaces. The latter space is uniformly homeomorphic with $`prlim_k(𝐒_{𝐩^𝐤})^{M_k}`$, which is compact by the Tychonoff theorem 3.2.4 . Since $`C^0(M,N)C^t(M,N)`$ for $`t>0`$, then $`C_w(M,N)`$ and $`C^t(M,N)`$ are different algebraically.

2.6. Let $`Diff_w(M):=prlim_kHom(M_k)`$ be supplied with the uniformity inherited from $`C_w(M,M)`$. The group $`Diff_w(M)`$ is called the $`p`$-adic compactification of $`Diff^t(M)`$. The following theorem shows that this terminology is justified.

Theorem. $`Diff_w(M)`$ is the compact topological group and it is the compactification of $`Diff^t(M)`$ in the weak topology. If $`t>0`$, then $`Diff^t(M)`$ does not coincide with $`Diff_w(M)`$.

Proof. Since $`Diff^t(M)C^t(M,M)`$, then $`Diff^t(M)`$ has the corresponding embedding into $`C_w(M,M)`$. Since $`C_w(M,M)`$ is compact and $`Hom(M)`$ is a closed subset in $`C_w(M,M)`$, then due to Corollary 2.5 $`Hom(M)C_w(M,M)=Diff_w(M)`$ is compact. The space $`C^t(M,M)`$ is dense in $`C^0(M,M)`$, consequently, $`Diff^t(M)`$ is dense in $`Diff_w(M)`$. If $`t>0`$, then $`Diff^t(M)Hom(M)`$, hence $`Diff^t(M)`$ and $`Diff_w(M)`$ do not coincide algebraically. It remains to verify, that $`Diff_w(M)`$ is the topological group in its weak topology. If $`f,gC^t(M,N)`$, then $`\pi _k(\overline{Q}_m(g(x)))=\overline{Q}_{m,k}(g_k(x(k))`$, consequently, $`\pi _k(fg)=_{l,m}\pi _k(f_m^l)\overline{Q}_{m,k}(g_k(x(k))e_l`$ and inevitably $`(fg)_k=f_kg_k.`$ On the other hand $`\pi _k(x)=x(k)`$, hence $`\pi _k(id(x))=id_k(x(k)),`$ where $`id(x)=x`$ for each $`xM`$. Therefore, for $`f=g^1`$ we have $`(fg)_k=f_kg_k=id_k`$, hence $`\pi _k(g^1)=g_k^1`$. The associativity of the composition $`(f_kg_k)h_k=f_k(g_kh_k)`$ of all functions $`f_k,g_k,h_kHom(M_k)`$ together with others properties given above means, that $`Diff_w(M)`$ is the algebraic group, since $`f=prlim_kf_k`$, $`g=prlim_kg_k`$ and $`h=prlim_kh_k`$ also satisfy the associativity axiom, each $`f`$ has the inverse element $`f^1(f(x))=id`$ and $`e=id`$ is the unit element. By the definition of the weak topology in $`Diff_w(M)`$ for each neighbourhood of $`e=id`$ in $`Diff_w(M)`$ there exists $`k𝐍`$ and a subset $`W_kHom(M_k)`$ such that $`e_k\pi _k^1(W_k)W`$. But $`Hom(M_k)`$ is discrete, hence there are $`e_kV_kHom(M_k)`$ and $`e_kU_kHom(M_k)`$ such that $`V_kU_kW_k`$, hence there are neighbourhoods $`eVDiff_w(M)`$ and $`eUDiff_w(M)`$ such that $`VUW`$, where $`V=\pi _k^1(V)`$, $`U=\pi _k^1(U)`$ and $`VU=\{h:h=fg,fV,gU\}`$. If $`W^{}`$ is a neighbourhood of $`f^1`$, then $`V:=W^{}f^1`$ is the neighbourhood of $`e`$ and there exists $`k𝐍`$ such that $`\pi _k^1(e_k)=:UV^1`$, since $`e_k^1=e_k`$ and $`\pi _k`$ is the homomorphism. Therefore, $`fU:=W`$ is the neighbourhood of $`f`$ such that $`W^1W^{}`$, that demonstrates the continuity of the inversion operation $`ff^1`$.

2.7. Notes. Each projection $`\pi _k:C^t(M,𝐊^𝗇)(𝐊_𝐤^𝗇)^{M_k}`$ produces the quotient metric $`\rho _k`$ in the $`𝐊_𝐤`$-module $`(𝐊_𝐤^𝗇)^{M_k}`$ such that $`\rho _k(f_k,g_k):=inf_{z,\pi _k(z)=0}fg+z_{C^t(M,𝐊^𝗇)},`$ where $`𝐊_𝐤:=𝐊/B(𝐊,0,p^k)`$ is the quotient ring and $`\pi _k`$ is induced by such quotient mapping from $`𝐊`$ onto $`𝐊_𝐤`$. If $`C^t(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$ embed into $`_k\pi _k(C^t(M,𝐊^𝗇))`$ and supply the latter space with the box topology given by the following norm $`fg^{}:=sup_k\rho _k(f_k,g_k)`$, then it produces the uniformity in $`C^t(M,𝐊^𝗇)`$ equivalent with the initial one.

Theorem 2.6 means that the $`p`$-adic completion $`Diff_w(M)`$ is the profinite group, that is, it is projective limit of finite groups $`Hom(M_k)`$. If the compact manifold $`M`$ is decomposed into the disjoint union $`M=_iB(𝐊^𝗆,x_i,r_i)`$ of clopen balls, then orders of the latter groups are divisible by $`(p^a)!`$, where $`a=_il_i`$, $`l_i=k\mathrm{max}_l\{l:p^lr_i\}`$, $`x_iB(𝐊^𝗆,0,1)`$, $`0<r_i1`$, since $`card(M_k)`$ is divisible by $`p^a`$. Then the representations of symmetric groups known from the classical works of A. Young and H. Weyl  with the help of the projective limit decompositions produce finite-dimensional representations of the diffeomorphism groups.

## 3 $`p`$-Adic Completion of Loop Groups.

3.1. Let as in §2.1 $`\overline{M}`$ and $`N`$ be two compact manifolds and $`Diff_0^t(\overline{M})`$ be a subgroup in $`Diff^t(\overline{M})`$ of all elements $`\psi Diff^t(\overline{M})`$ such that $`\psi (s_0)=s_0`$, where $`s_0`$ is a marked point in $`\overline{M}`$. We denote shortly by $`C_0^t(M,N)`$ a subspace in $`C^t(\overline{M},N)`$ of all elements $`fC^t(\overline{M},N)`$ such that $`lim_{|\zeta _1|+\mathrm{}+|\zeta _n|0}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^v(fw_0)(s_0;h_1,\mathrm{},h_n;\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)=0`$ for each $`v\{0,1,\mathrm{},[t],t\}`$, $`n=[v]+sign\{v\}`$, where $`M=\overline{M}s_0`$ and $`w_0(\overline{M})=\{y_0\}`$ (see §2.6 ).

Theorem. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)`$ be commutative loop monoids, then the quotient mappings $`\pi _k`$ induce the corresponding inverse sequence $`\{\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k):k𝐍\}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N):=prlim_k\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$ is the commutative compact topological monoid, where $`\pi _k:\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$, $`\pi _k^l:\mathrm{\Omega }(M_l,N_l)\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$ are surjective mappings for each $`lk`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)=\{f_k:f_kN_k^{M_k},f_k(s_{0,k})=y_{0,k}\}/K_{\xi ,k}`$, $`K_{\xi ,k}`$ is an equivalence relation induced by an equivalence relation $`K_\xi `$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$ is a compactification of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)`$.

Proof. In view of Corollary 2.3 $`\pi _k(C_0^\xi (M,N))`$ is isomorphic with $`\{f_k:f_kN_k^{M_k},f_k(s_{0,k})=y_{0,k}\}`$, where the quotient mapping is denoted by $`\pi _k`$ both for $`M`$ and $`N`$, since it is induced by the same ring homomorphism $`\pi _k:𝐊𝐊/B(𝐊,0,1)`$, $`s_{0,k}:=\pi _k(s_0)`$ and $`y_{0,k}:=\pi _k(y_0)`$. Then $`\pi _k(Diff_0^t(M))`$ is isomorphic with $`Hom_0(M_k):=\{\psi _k:\psi _kHom(M_k),\psi _k(s_{0,k})=s_{0,k}\}`$. All of this is also applicable with the corresponding changes to classes of smoothness $`C^\xi `$ (or $`C(\xi )`$ in the notation of ), where $`\xi =(t,s)`$. If $`f`$ and $`g`$ are two $`K_\xi `$-equivalent elements in $`C_0^\xi (M,N)`$, that is, there are sequences $`f_n`$ and $`g_n`$ in $`C_0^\xi (M,N)`$ converging to $`f`$ and $`g`$ respectively and also a sequence $`\psi _nDiff_0^\xi (M)`$ such that $`f_n(x)=g_n(\psi _n(x))`$ for each $`xM`$, then $`\pi _k(f_n)=:f_{n,k}`$ and $`g_{n,k}:=\pi _k(g_n)`$ converge to $`\pi _k(f)`$ and $`\pi _k(g)`$ respectively and also $`\psi _{n,k}:=\pi _k(\psi _n)Hom_0(M_k)`$. From the equality $`f_{n,k}(x(k))=g_{n,k}(\psi _{n,k}(x(k)))`$ for each $`n𝐍`$ and $`x(k)M_k`$ it follows, that the equivalence relation $`K_\xi `$ induces the corresponding equivalence relation $`K_{\xi ,k}`$ in $`\pi _k(C_0^t(M,N))`$ such that classes $`<\pi _k(f)>_{K,\xi ,k}`$ of $`K_{\xi ,k}`$-equivalent elements are closed. Each element $`f_k\pi _k(C_0^\xi (M,N))`$ is characterized by the equality $`f_k(s_{0,k})=y_{0,k}`$. Each $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$ is the finite discrete set, since each $`N_k^{M_k}`$ is the finite discrete set. This induces the quotient mapping $`\pi _k:\mathrm{\Omega }_t(M,N)\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$ and surjective mappings $`\pi _k^l:\mathrm{\Omega }(M_l,N_l)\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$ for each $`lk`$ that produces the inverse sequence of finite discerete spaces, hence the limit of the inverse sequence is compact and totally disconnected. It remains to verify that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$ is the commutative topoogical monoid with the unit element and the cancellation property.

From the equality $`M=\overline{M}\{s_0\}`$, it follows that $`M_k=\overline{M}_k,`$ since for each $`k𝐍`$ there exists $`xM`$ such that $`x+B(𝐊^𝗆,0,p^k)s_0`$. Moreover, $`M_k`$ and $`N_k`$ are finite dicrete spaces. Then $`\pi _k(MM)=M_kM_k`$, where $`AB:=A\times \{b_0\}\{a_0\}\times BA\times B`$ is the wedge product of pointed spaces $`(A,a_0)`$ and $`(B,b_0)`$, $`A`$ and $`B`$ are sets with marked points $`a_0A`$ and $`b_0B`$. The composition operation is defined on threads $`\{<f_k>_{K,\xi ,k}:k𝐍\}`$ of the inverse sequence in the following way. There was fixed a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-diffeomorphism $`\chi :MMM`$. Let $`xM`$, then $`\pi _k(x)M_k`$ and $`\chi ^1(U)MM`$, where $`U:=\pi _k^1(x+B(𝐊,0,p^k)M.`$ On the other hand $`\chi ^1(U)`$ is a disjoint union of balls of radius $`p^{2k}`$ in $`B(𝐊^{\mathrm{𝟐}𝐦},0,1)`$, hence there is defined a surjective mapping $`\chi _k:M_{2k}M_{2k}M_k`$ induced by $`\chi `$, $`\pi _k`$ and $`\pi _{2k}`$ such that $`\chi _k(\chi ^1(U))=\pi _k(x)`$. If $`f`$ and $`gC^\xi (M,N)`$, then $`fgC^\xi ((MM),N)`$ and $`\chi (fg)C^\xi (M,N)`$ as in §2.6 . Hence $`\chi _k(f_{2k}g_{2k})C^\xi (M_k,N_k)`$ and inevitably $`\chi _k(<f_{2k}g_{2k}>_{K,\xi ,2k})=\chi _k(<f_{2k}>_{K,\xi ,2k}<g_{2k}>_{K,\xi ,2k})\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$.

There exists a one to one correspondence between elements $`fC_w(\overline{M},N)`$ and $`\{f_k:k\}\{N_k^{M_k}:k\}`$. Therefore, $`prlim_k\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$ algebraically is the commutative monoid with the cancellation property. Let $`U`$ be a neighbourhood of $`e`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$, then there exists $`U_k=\pi _k^1(V_k)`$ such that $`V_k`$ is open in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M_k,N_k)`$, $`eU_k`$ and $`U_kU`$. On the other hand there exists $`U_{2k}=\pi _{2k}^1(V_{2k})`$ such that $`V_{2k}`$ is open in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M_{2k},N_{2k})`$, $`eU_{2k}`$ and $`U_{2k}+U_{2k}U_k`$. Therefore, $`(f+U_{2k})+(g+U_{2k})f+g+U_kf+g+U`$ for each $`f,g\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$, consequently, the composition in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$ is continuous. Since $`C_0^\xi (M,N)`$ is dense in $`C_{0,w}(\overline{M},N)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$.

3.2. Note. The compactificiation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)`$ given above is not unique. Another compactification is given below. The second is larger than the first one. Using the Grothendieck construction we get a compactification $`L^w(M,N)=\overline{F}/\overline{B}`$ of a loop group $`L_\xi (M,N)`$, where $`\overline{F}`$ is a closure in $`(\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N))^𝐙`$ of a free commutative group $`F`$ generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }^w(M,N)`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ is a closure of a subgroup $`B`$ generated by all elements $`[a+b][a][b]`$, since the product of compact spaces is compact by the Tychonoff theorem.

3.3. Let now $`s_0=0`$ and $`y_0=0`$ be two marked points in the compact manifolds $`\overline{M}`$ and $`N`$ embedded into $`𝐊^𝗆`$ and $`𝐊^𝗇`$ respectively. There is defined the following $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-diffeomorphism $`inv:(𝐊^𝗆)^{}(𝐊^𝗆)^{}`$ for $`(𝐊^𝗆)^{}:=𝐊^𝗆\{x:`$  there exists  $`j\text{ with }`$ $`x_j=0\}`$ such that $`inv(x_1,\mathrm{},x_𝗆)=(x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_𝗆^1)`$. Let $`M^{}=M(𝐊^𝗆)^{}`$, then $`inv(M^{})`$ is locally compact and unbounded in $`𝐊^𝗆`$, consequently, $`\pi _k(inv(M^{}))=(inv(M^{}))_k`$ is a discrete infinite subset in $`𝐊_𝐤^𝗆`$ for each $`k𝐍`$. Analogously $`\pi _k(inv(M^{}M^{}))=(inv(M^{}M^{}))_k𝐊_𝐤^{\mathrm{𝟤}𝗆}`$. There exists a $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-diffeomorphism $`\chi :MMM`$ such that $`inv\chi inv`$ is the $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$-diffeomorphism of $`inv(M^{}M^{})`$ with $`inv(M^{})`$ and it induces bijective mappings $`\chi _k`$ of $`inv((inv(M^{}M^{}))_k)`$ with $`inv((inv(M^{}))_k)`$ for each $`k𝐍`$ such that $`\widehat{\pi }_k^l\chi _l=\chi _k`$ for each $`lk`$, where $`\widehat{\pi }_k^l:=inv\pi _k^linv`$. This produces inverse sequences of discrete spaces $`inv((inv(M^{}))_k)=:\widehat{M}_k`$, $`inv((inv(M^{}M^{}))_k)=\widehat{M}_k\widehat{M}_k`$ and their bijections $`\chi _k`$ such that $`prlim_k\widehat{M}_k`$ is homeomorphic with $`M^{}`$ and $`prlim_k\chi _k`$ is equal to $`\chi `$ up to the homeomorphism, since $`prlim_k𝐊_𝐤^𝗆=𝐊^𝗆`$ (see also about admissible modifications and polyhedral expansions in ). If $`\psi Diff_0^\xi (\overline{M})`$, then $`\widehat{\psi }Diff^\xi (\widehat{M})`$. Let $`J_{f,k}:=\{h_k:h_k=f_k\psi _k,\psi _kHom(\widehat{M}_k),\psi _k(s_{0,k})=s_{0,k}\}`$ for $`f_kN_k^{\widehat{M}_k}`$ with $`lim_{x0}f_k(x)=0`$, then $`J_{f,k}`$ is closed and $`\widehat{\pi }_k(<f>_{K,\xi })J_{f,k}`$. Therefore, $`g_k`$ and $`f_k`$ are $`\widehat{K}_{\xi ,k}`$-equivalent if and only if there exists $`\psi _kHom(\widehat{M}_k)`$ such that $`\psi _k(s_{0,k})=s_{0,k}`$ and $`g_k(x)=f_k(\psi _k(x))`$ for each $`x\widehat{M}_k`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k):=\widehat{\pi }_k(\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N))`$.

Theorem. The set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ forms an inverse sequence $`S=\{\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k);\widehat{\pi }_k^l;k𝐍\}`$ such that $`prlimS=:\mathrm{\Omega }^{i,w}(M,N)`$ is an associative topological loop monoid with the cancellation property and the unit element $`e`$. There exists an embedding of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)`$ into $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{i,w}(M,N)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\xi (M,N)`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{i,w}(M,N)`$.

Proof. Let $`U_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$ be an analytic disjoint atlas of $`inv(M^{})`$, $`fC^\xi (inv(M^{}),𝐊)`$, $`\psi Diff^\xi (inv(M^{}))`$, then each restriction $`f|_{U_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}}`$ has the form $`f|_{U_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}}(x)=_mf_{i,m}\overline{Q}_{i,m}(x)`$ for each $`xU_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$, where $`\overline{Q}_{i,m}`$ are basic Amice polynomials for $`U_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}`$, $`f_{i,m}𝐊`$. Therefore $`f`$ is a combination $`f=_if|_{U_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{}}`$, hence $`\widehat{\pi }_k(f\psi (x))=_m[\widehat{\pi }_k(f_{i,m})_{(i,\psi _k(x(k))\widehat{\pi }_k(U_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{})}\overline{Q}_{i,m,k}(\psi _k(x(k)))]`$ and inevitably $`\widehat{\pi }_k((f\psi )(x))=f_k\psi _k(x(k))`$, where $`\overline{Q}_{i,m,k}:=\widehat{\pi }_k(\overline{Q}_{i,m})`$, $`xinv(M^{})`$ and $`x(k)=\widehat{\pi }_k(x)`$.

As in §2.6.2  we choose an infinite atlas $`At^{}(M):=\{(U_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{},\varphi _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}):j𝐍\}`$ such that $`\varphi _{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}:U_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{}B(X,y_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{},r_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{})`$ are homeomorphisms, $`lim_k\mathrm{}r_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}=0`$, $`lim_k\mathrm{}y_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}=0`$ for an infinite sequence $`\{j(k)𝐍:k𝐍\}`$ such that $`cl_{\overline{M}}[_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}U_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}]`$ is a clopen neighbourhood of zero in $`\overline{M}`$, where $`cl_{\overline{M}}A`$ denotes the closure of a subset $`A`$ in $`\overline{M}`$. We take $`|y_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}|>r_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}`$ for each $`k`$, hence $`inv(B(X,y_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{},r_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{})X^{})=B(X,y_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{1},r_{}^{}{}_{j}{}^{1})X^{}`$ and $`_kinv(U_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}X^{})`$ is open in $`X^{}`$, where $`X=𝐊^𝗆`$. For an atlas $`At^{}(MM):=\{(W_l,\xi _l):l𝐍\}`$ with homeomorphisms $`\xi _l:W_lB(X,z_l,a_l)`$, $`lim_k\mathrm{}a_{l(k)}=0`$, $`lim_k\mathrm{}z_{l(k)}=0`$ for an infinite sequence $`\{l(k)𝐍:k𝐍\}`$ such that $`cl_{\overline{M}\overline{M}}[_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}W_{l(k)}]`$ is a clopen neighbourhood of $`0\times 0`$ in $`\overline{M}\overline{M}`$ we also choose $`|z_l|>a_l`$ for each $`l`$, where $`card(𝐍\{l(k):k𝐍\})=card(𝐍\{j(k):k𝐍\})`$. Then we take $`\chi (W_{l(k)})=U_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}`$ for each $`k𝐍`$ and $`\chi (W_l)=U_{}^{}{}_{\kappa (l)}{}^{}`$ for each $`l(𝐍\{l(k):k𝐍\})`$, where $`\kappa :(𝐍\{l(k):k𝐍\})(𝐍\{j(k):k𝐍\})`$ is a bijective mapping such that $`p^1r_{}^{}{}_{j(k)}{}^{}/a_{l(k)}p`$ for each $`k`$ and $`p^1r_{}^{}{}_{\kappa (l)}{}^{}/a_lp`$ for each $`l(𝐍\{l(k):k𝐍\})`$. We can choose the locally affine mapping $`\chi `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^n\chi =0`$ for each $`n2`$ and $`B(X^{},y_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{1},r_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{1})`$ are diffeomorphic with $`inv(U_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}X^{})`$ and $`B(X^{}X^{},z_l^1,a_l^1)`$ are diffeomorphic with $`inv(W_l(X^{}X^{}))`$.

This induces the diffeomorphisms $`\widehat{\chi }:=inv\chi inv:\widehat{M}\widehat{M}\widehat{M}`$ and $`\widehat{\chi }^{}:C_0^\xi ((\widehat{M}\widehat{M},\mathrm{}\times \mathrm{}),(N,y_0))C_0^\xi ((\widehat{M},\mathrm{}),(N,y_0))`$, since each $`\mathrm{\Phi }^n(fg)(\widehat{\chi }^1)`$ has an expression through $`\mathrm{\Phi }^l(fg)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^j(\widehat{\chi }^1)`$ with $`l,jn`$ and $`n`$ subordinated to $`\xi `$, where $`\widehat{M}:=inv(M^{})`$ and conditions defining the subspace $`C_0^\xi ((\widehat{M},\mathrm{}),(N,y_0))`$ differ from that of $`C_0^\xi ((M,s_0),(N,y_0))`$ by substitution of $`lim_{xs_0}`$ on $`lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}`$. Then $`lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}|\widehat{\chi }(x)|=\mathrm{}`$, consequenlty, there exists $`k_0𝐍`$ such that $`\widehat{\chi }_k:\widehat{M}_k\widehat{M}_k\widehat{M}_k`$ are bijections for each $`kk_0`$, where $`\widehat{\chi }_k:=\widehat{\pi }_k\widehat{\chi }`$. If $`\psi Diff^\xi (\overline{M})`$ and $`\psi (0)=0`$, then $`lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}\widehat{\psi }(x)=\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}\widehat{\psi }^1(x)=\mathrm{}.`$ Then considering $`\widehat{\psi }_k`$ we get an equivalence relation $`K_{\xi ,k}`$ in $`\{f_k:f_kN_k^{\widehat{M}_k},lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}f_k(x)=0\}`$ induced by $`K_\xi `$, where $`\widehat{M}_k`$ is supplied with the quotient norm induced from the space $`X`$, since $`X^{}X`$, $`x\widehat{M}_k`$. Let $`J_k`$ denotes the quotient mapping corresponding to $`K_{\xi ,k}.`$ Therefore analogously to §2.6  we get, that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ are commuative monoids with the cancellation property and the unit elements $`e_k`$, since $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)=\{f_k:f_kC^0(\widehat{M}_k,N_k),lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}f_k(x)=0\}/\widehat{K}_{\xi ,k}`$ and mappings $`\widehat{\pi }_k^l:(𝐊^𝗆)_{}^{}{}_{l}{}^{}(𝐊^𝗆)_{}^{}{}_{k}{}^{}`$ and mappings $`\pi _k^l:𝐊_{}^{𝗇}{}_{l}{}^{}𝐊_{}^{𝗇}{}_{k}{}^{}`$ induce mappings $`\widehat{\pi }_k^l:\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_l,N_l)\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ for each $`lk`$. Let the topology in $`\{f_k:f_kC^0(\widehat{M}_k,N_k),lim_{|x|\mathrm{}}f_k(x)=0\}`$ be induced from the Tychonoff product topology in $`N_k^{\widehat{M}_k}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ be in the quotient topology. The space $`N_k^{\widehat{M}_k}`$ is metrizable by the Baire metric $`\rho (x,y):=p^j`$, where $`j=\mathrm{min}\{i:x_iy_i,x_1=y_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1}=y_{i1}\}`$, $`x=(x_l:x_lN_k,l𝐍)`$, $`\widehat{M}_k`$ as enumerated as $`𝐍`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is metrizable and the mapping $`(f_k,g_k)f_kg_k`$ is continuous, hence the mapping $`(J_k(f_k),J_k(g_k))J_k(f_k)J_k(g_k)`$ is also continuous. Then $`J_k(w_{0,k})`$ is the unit element, where $`w_{0,k}(\widehat{M}_k)=0`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{i,w}(M,N)`$ is the commutative monoid with the cancellation property and the unit element. Certainly $`_k\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is the topological monoid and $`prlimS`$ is a closed in it topological totally disconnected monoid. For each $`fC_0^\xi (M,N)`$ there exists an inverse sequence $`\{f_k:f_k=\widehat{\pi }_k(f),k𝐍\}`$ such that $`f(x)=prlim_kf_k(x(k))`$ for each $`xM^{}`$, but $`M^{}`$ is dense in $`M`$. Therefore there exists an embedding $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\xi (M,N)\mathrm{\Omega }^{i,w}(M,N)`$. Since $`C^\xi (M,N)`$ is dense in $`C_0^0(M,N)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }^\xi (M,N)`$ is dense in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{i,w}(M,N)`$.

3.4. Corollary. The inverse sequence of loop monoids induces the inverse sequence of loop groups $`S_L:=\{L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k);\widehat{\pi }_k^l;𝐍\}`$. Its projective limit $`L^{i,w}(M,N):=prlimS_L`$ is a commutative topological totally disconnected group and $`L_\xi (M,N)`$ has an embedding in it as a dense subgroup.

Proof. Due to Grothendieck construction the inversion operation $`f_kf_k^1`$ is continous in $`L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ and homomorphisms $`\widehat{\pi }_k^l`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }_k`$ have continous extensions from loop submonoids onto loop groups $`L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$. Each monoid $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is totally disconnected, since $`N_k^{\widehat{M}_k}`$ is totally disconnected and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is supplied with the quotient ultrametric, hence the free Abelian group $`F_k`$ generated by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is also totally disconnected and ultramertizable, consequenlty, $`L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is ultrametrizable. Evidently their inverse limit is also ultrametrizable and the equivalent ultrametric can be chosen with values in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_𝐊:=\{|z|:z𝐊\}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_𝐊(0,\mathrm{})`$ is discrete in $`(0,\mathrm{}):=\{x:0<x<\mathrm{},x𝐑\}`$. Then the projective limit (that is, weak) topology of $`L^{i,w}(M,N)`$ is induced by the weak topology of $`C^0(M,𝐊)`$. When $`M`$ and $`N`$ are non-trivial, then certainly this weak topology is strictly weaker, than that of $`L_0(M,N)`$.

3.5 Theorem. For each prime number $`p`$ the loop group $`L_\xi (M,N)`$ in its weak topology inherited from $`L^{i,w}(M,N)`$ has the $`p`$-adic completion isomorphic with $`𝐙_{𝐩}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}_0}.`$

Proof. If $`𝐏`$ is an extension of the field $`𝐊`$, then the projective ring homomorphism $`\pi _k:𝐊𝐊_𝐤`$ induces the ring homomorphism $`\pi _k:𝐏𝐏_𝐤`$, then $`\widehat{\pi }_k(\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^v(f(x;h_1,\mathrm{},h_n;\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n))=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^vf_k(x(k);h_1(k),\mathrm{},h_n(k);\zeta _1(k),\mathrm{},\zeta _n(k))`$, where $`n=[v]+sign\{v\}`$, $`j_b:𝐊𝐏`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^vf_k`$ is defined for the field of fractions generated by $`𝐏_𝐤`$ (see also §§2.1-2.6 ). Then the condition

$$\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^vf(x;h_1,\mathrm{},h_n;\zeta _1,\mathrm{},\zeta _n)=0$$

implies the condition

$$\underset{|x(k)|\mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}^vf_k(x(k);h_1(k),\mathrm{},h_n(k);\zeta _1(k),\mathrm{},\zeta _n(k))=0.$$

Therefore, $`supp(f_k):=\widehat{M}_k^f:=\{x(k):f_k(x(k))0\}`$ is a finite subset of the discrete space $`\widehat{M}_k`$ for each $`k𝐍`$. Then evidently, $`\widehat{\pi }_k(<g>_{K,\xi })`$ is a closed subset in $`N_k^{\widehat{M}_k}`$ for each $`gC_0^\xi ((\widehat{M},\mathrm{}),(N,0))`$, since for each limit point $`f_k`$ of $`\widehat{\pi }_k(<g>_{K,\xi })`$ its support is the finite subset in $`\widehat{M}_k`$. Let $`k_0`$ be such that $`N_{k_0}\{0\}`$, then this is also true for each $`kk_0`$. If $`f_k\widehat{\pi }_k(<w_0>_{K,\xi })`$ and $`kk_0`$, then $`f_k^n\widehat{\pi }_k(<w_0>_{K,\xi })`$ for each $`n𝐍`$, where $`f_k^n:=f_k\mathrm{}f_k`$ denotes the $`n`$-times wedge product, since $`f^n_{C^\xi }f_{C^\xi }>0`$ and $`f_k^n_{C(𝐊_𝐤^𝗆,𝐊^𝗇)}f_{C(𝐊_𝐤^𝗆,𝐊^𝗇)}>0,`$ where $`C(𝐊_𝐤^𝗆,𝐊^𝗇)=\pi _k(C^\xi (𝐊^𝗆,𝐊^𝗇))`$ is the quotient module over the ring $`𝐊_𝐤`$. Each $`\widehat{\pi }_k(<f>_{K,\xi })`$ can be presented as the following composition $`v_1b_1+\mathrm{}+v_lb_l`$ in the additive group $`L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$, where each $`b_i`$ corresponds to $`\widehat{\pi }_k(<g_i>_{K,\xi })`$ and the embedding of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ into $`L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$, $`v_i\{1,0,1\}`$, $`l=card(\widehat{M}_k^f)`$, $`\widehat{M}_k^{g_i}`$ are singletons for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$. Using the group $`Hom_0(N_k)`$ we get that $`L(\widehat{M}_k,N_k)`$ is isomorphic with $`𝐙^{n_k}`$, where $`n_k=card(N_k)>1`$. In view of Corollary 3.4 $`L_\xi (M,N)`$ has the $`p`$-adic completion isomorphic with $`𝐙_p^\mathrm{}_0`$, since $`𝐙`$ is dense in $`𝐙_𝐩`$ and $`prlim_k𝐙^{n_k}=𝐙^\mathrm{}_0.`$

3.6. Note. Using quotient mappings $`\eta _{p,s}:𝐙𝐙/p^s𝐙`$ we get that $`L_\xi (M,N)^\mathrm{}_0`$ has the compactification equal to $`_{p𝖯}𝐙_{𝐩}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}_0},`$ where $`𝖯`$ denotes the set of all prime numbers $`p>1`$, $`s𝐍`$. These compactifications produce characters of $`L_\xi (M,N)`$, since each compact Abelian group has only one-dimensional irreducible unitary representations . On the other hand, there are irreducible continuous representations of compact groups in non-Archimedean Banach spaces . Among them there are infinite-dimensional . Moreover, in their initial topologies diffeomorphism and loop groups also have infinite-dimensional irreducible unitary representations .

The problem about $`p`$-adic completions of diffeomorphism and loop groups of manifolds on non-Archimedean Banach spaces over local fields was formulated by B. Diarra after reading articles of S.V. Ludkovsky on such groups. Then S.V. Ludkovsky investigated this problem and all his results and proofs were thoroughly and helpfully discussed and were corrected with B. Diarra.

Addresses: S.V. Ludkovsky, Theoretical Department,

Institute of General Physics,

Russian Academy of Sciences,

Str. Vavilov 38, Moscow, 117607, Russia;

B. Diarra, Département de Mathématiques,

Complexe Scientifique des Cézeaux,

63177 Aubière CEDEX, France.