format: text

text:
# A combinatorial study of multiplexes and ordinary polytopes

## 1 Introduction

A convex polytope is the convex hull of a finite set of points in $`𝐑^d`$. A $`d`$-dimensional convex polytope has faces of every dimension from 0 (the vertices) to $`d1`$ (the facets). The set of faces, ordered by inclusion, forms a lattice. The properties of the face lattice are known as the combinatorial properties of the polytope. Of particular interest are the number of faces of each dimension (the $`f`$-vector), the graph consisting of the vertices and edges, and the polyhedral and simplicial complexes that subdivide the polytope. (The latter are not strictly speaking combinatorial. Different polytopes with the same face lattice can have different geometric subdivisions.)

The greatest progress in understanding combinatorial properties of convex polytopes has been made for the special class of simplicial polytopes. A simplex is the convex hull of affinely independent points. A polytope is simplicial if all its (proper) faces are simplices. A milestone was the characterization of the $`f`$-vectors of simplicial polytopes, conjectured by McMullen (), and proved by Billera and Lee () and Stanley (). In this work as well as research on triangulations of simplicial polytopes, the cyclic polytopes play a special role. These are simplicial polytopes, with vertices chosen as points on the moment curve, $`\{(t,t^2,t^3,\mathrm{},t^d):t𝐑\}`$. The combinatorial structure of the cyclic polytope depends only on the number, not the placement, of the points on the moment curve.

The combinatorial study of general polytopes is hampered by the difficulty in generating random combinatorial structures. A polytope in general position, that is, one formed by choosing points at random and taking their convex hull, is generally simplicial. An alternative construction, of intersecting a randomly-chosen set of hyperplanes, produces simple polytopes, which have face lattices dual to simplicial polytopes. Various geometric operations (for example, pyramiding, and truncation) can be performed on polytopes to produce nonsimplex faces, but the effect of these on the face lattice is quite controlled.

Bisztriczky () defines a class of nonsimplicial polytopes called ordinary polytopes. The faces of ordinary polytopes are multiplexes, which generalize the simplex in a combinatorial way, but are generally not simplicial. A special case of the ordinary polytope is the cyclic polytope. Thus, ordinary polytopes hold out promise of playing an important role in the combinatorial study of nonsimplicial polytopes. In this paper we continue the study of multiplexes and ordinary polytopes begun by Bisztriczky () and Dinh ().

## 2 Multiplexes

Bisztriczky defines a multiplex as a generalization of a simplex.

###### Definition 1 ()

A multiplex is a polytope with an ordered list of vertices, $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, …, $`x_n`$, with facets $`F_0`$, $`F_1`$, …, $`F_n`$ given by

$$F_i=\text{conv}\{x_{id+1},x_{id+2},\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},x_{i+2},\mathrm{},x_{i+d1}\},$$

with the conventions that $`x_i=x_0`$ if $`i<0`$, and $`x_i=x_n`$ if $`i>n`$.

Note that if $`n=d`$, then the multiplex is a simplex. It is easy to check that for $`n=d+1`$, the multiplex is a $`(d2)`$-fold pyramid over a quadrilateral with vertex set $`\{x_0,x_1,x_d,x_{d+1}\}`$. Multiplexes are not all pyramids, however. Every polygon (two-dimensional polytope) is a multiplex with an appropriate ordering of vertices. Following are important results about multiplexes by Bisztriczky. For $`nd2`$, let $`M^{d,n}`$ be the $`d`$-dimensional multiplex with $`n+1`$ vertices.

###### Theorem 2.1 ()

1. $`M^{d,n}`$ exists for every $`d`$ and $`n`$ with $`nd2`$.
2. Every multiplex is self-dual.
3. Every face and every quotient of a multiplex is a multiplex.
4. The number of $`i`$-dimensional faces of $`M^{d,n}`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{i+1}\right)+(nd)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}\right)`$.

The $`f`$-vector of $`M^{d,n}`$ is the same as the $`f`$-vector of a certain pyramid over a polygon. This fact extends to the “flag vector” of the multiplex. A chain of faces, $`\mathrm{}F_1F_2\mathrm{}F_rP`$ is an $`S`$-flag if $`S=\{dimF_1,dimF_2,\mathrm{},dimf_r\}`$. The number of $`S`$-flags of a polytope $`P`$ is written $`f_S(P)`$, and the length $`2^d`$ vector $`(f_S(P))_{S\{0,1,\mathrm{},d1\}}`$ is the flag vector of $`P`$.

###### Theorem 2.2

The multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ has the same flag vector as the $`(d2)`$-fold pyramid over the $`(nd+3)`$-gon. The common flag vector is given by

$`f_S`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}\text{}ds_r}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{nd}{(d+1)d(d1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right],`$
where $`S=\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_r\}`$, and $`s_{r+1}=d`$.

Proof: We first prove that the flag vector of the pyramid is given by equation (2.2). For $`m0`$ let $`Q^{d,m}`$ be the $`(d2)`$-fold pyramid over the $`(m+3)`$-gon. Let $`T^d`$ be the $`d`$-simplex. We prove by induction on $`|S|`$ that

$`f_S(Q^{d,m})f_S(T^d)`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}\text{}ds_r}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{m}{(d+1)d(d1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1).`$
The formula is valid for $`S=\mathrm{}`$, since the sum is empty. We need the $`|S|=1`$ case as well. Write $`S=\{s_1\}`$.

$`f_{s_1}(Q^{d,m})f_{s_1}(T^d)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_1i}}\right)f_i((m+3)\text{-gon})\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1}}\right)`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_1+1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_1}}\right)(m+3)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_11}}\right)(m+3)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_12}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1}}\right)`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{s_1}}\right)m=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m}{(d+1)d(d1)}}(s_1+1)(ds_1)(d1).`$
For the induction step we write $`f_S`$ in terms of $`f_{S\{s_r\}}`$. We need two basic combinatorial facts. For a simplex $`T^q`$,

$$f_S(T^q)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}\text{,}qs_r}\right).$$

The $`s_r`$-faces of the pyramid $`Q^{d,m}`$ are all either $`(s_r2)`$-fold pyramids over the $`(m+3)`$-gon or simplices. Let $`𝒯_r`$ be the set of $`s_r`$-faces that are simplices. Let $`𝒫_r`$ be the set of $`s_r`$-faces that are pyramids (not simplices); the number of such faces is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_r2}\right)`$. Thus,

$`f_S(Q^{d,m})f_S(T^d)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{F𝒫_r}{}}f_{S\{s_r\}}(F)+{\displaystyle \underset{F𝒯_r}{}}f_{S\{s_r\}}(F)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}\text{,}ds_r}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_r2}}\right)f_{S\{s_r\}}(Q^{s_r,m})`$
$`+\left(f_{s_r}(Q^{d,m})\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_r2}}\right)\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}\text{,}ds_r}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_r2}}\right)(f_{S\{s_r\}}(Q^{s_r,m})f_{S\{s_r\}}(T^{s_r}))`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)(f_{s_r}(Q^{d,m})f_{s_r}(T^d))`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_r2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{m}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)`$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_r+1}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m}{(d+1)d(d1)}}(s_r+1)(ds_r)(d1)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}\text{}ds_r}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{m}{(d+1)d(d1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1).`$
So the formula for the flag vector of the $`(d2)`$-fold pyramid over the $`(nd+3)`$-gon is valid.

Now we show that the same formula holds for the multiplex. This is proved by a recursion different from the one used for the pyramid. Recall the formula for the $`f`$-vector of the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ in Theorem 2.1.

$$f_i(M^{n,d})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{i+1}\right)+(nd)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}\right).$$

This is easily seen to agree with equation (2.2) for $`S=\{i\}`$. Next is the proof for the special case where $`S=\{0,i\}`$. For $`x`$ a vertex of $`M^{d,n}`$, write $`[x,M^{d,n}]`$ for the quotient of the polytope $`M^{d,n}`$ by the vertex $`x`$. This is itself a multiplex of dimension $`d1`$.

$`f_{0,i}(M^{d,n})={\displaystyle \underset{x\text{ vertex of }M^{d,n}}{}}f_{i1}([x,M^{d,n}])`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x\text{ vertex of }M^{d,n}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)+(f_0([x,M^{d,n}])d)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)(n+1)d\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right){\displaystyle \underset{x\text{ vertex of }M^{d,n}}{}}f_0([x,M^{d,n}])`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)(n+1)d\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)f_{0,1}(M^{d,n})`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)(n+1)d\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)2f_1(M^{d,n})`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)(n+1)d\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right)(d(d+1)+2(nd)(d1)`$
$`=`$ $`(n+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)+(d2)(nd)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i1}}\right).`$
This can be shown to agree with equation (2.2). We now show that equation (2.2) holds by induction on $`|S|`$.

$`f_S(M^{d,n})={\displaystyle \underset{F\text{ }s_r\text{-face of }M^{d,n}}{}}f_{S\{s_r\}}(F)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{F\text{ }s_r\text{-face of }M^{d,n}}{}}f_{S\{s_r\}}(M^{s_r,f_0(F)1}))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{F\text{ }s_r\text{-face of }M^{d,n}}{}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{f_0(F)s_r1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{s_r+1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{F\text{ }s_r\text{-face of }M^{d,n}}{}}1`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right]{\displaystyle \underset{F\text{ }s_r\text{-face of }M^{d,n}}{}}f_0(F)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{s_r+1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right]f_{s_r}(M^{d,n})`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right]f_{0,s_r}(M^{d,n})`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \left[1{\displaystyle \frac{s_r+1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)\right]`$
$`\times \left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{s_r+1}}\right)+(nd)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{s_r}}\right)\right]`$
$`+`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{s_r+1}{s_1+1\text{}s_2s_1\text{, …, }s_rs_{r1}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{(s_r+1)s_r(s_r1)}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{r1}{}}}(s_j+1)(s_{j+1}s_j)(s_{j+1}1)[(n+1)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{s_r}}\right)+(d2)(nd)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{s_r1}}\right)].`$
Algebraic manipulation gives equation (2.2). $`\mathrm{}`$

The toric $`h`$-vector of a polytope is a length $`d+1`$ vector whose components are linear functions of the flag vector. When the polytope has rational vertices, the toric $`h`$-vector is the sequence of middle perversity intersection homology Betti numbers of the associated toric variety. (The multiplex has a rational realization.) The toric $`h`$-vector for Eulerian posets (including face lattices of polytopes) is defined by Stanley (); see  for formulas in terms of the flag vector. Since it depends only on the flag vector, the toric $`h`$-vector of the multiplex is the same as the toric $`h`$-vector of the pyramid over the appropriate polygon. The $`h`$-vector of $`M^{d,n}`$ is thus

$$h(M^{d,n})=(1,1,1,\mathrm{},1,1)+(nd)(0,1,1,\mathrm{},1,0).$$

A $`d`$-dimensional polytope $`P`$ is elementary if and only if the second and third entries in the toric $`h`$-vector are equal. In terms of the flag vector, this says $`f_{02}(P)3f_2(P)+f_1(P)df_0(P)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)=0`$. (See .)

###### Corollary 2.3

For every $`nd2`$, the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ is an elementary polytope.

Every face of a multiplex is a multiplex, but not all multiplexes are faces of higher dimensional multiplexes.

###### Proposition 2.4

The multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ is a proper face of some multiplex if and only if $`dn2d1`$.

Proof: Assume $`M`$ is a $`d`$-dimensional multiplex with $`n+1`$ vertices, and suppose $`M`$ is a proper face of some higher dimensional multiplex $`\widehat{M}`$. Then $`M`$ is a facet of a multiplex of dimension $`d+1`$, namely, any $`(d+1)`$-dimensional face of $`\widehat{M}`$ containing $`M`$. According to the description of the facets in the definition of multiplex, $`M`$ has at most $`2d`$ vertices. So $`d+1n+12d`$.

To prove the converse, let $`Q`$ be the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional multiplex with $`2d+1`$ vertices. The facets of $`Q`$ are

$$F_i=\text{conv}\{x_{id},x_{id+1},\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_{i+1},x_{i+2},\mathrm{},x_{i+d}\},$$

for $`0i2d`$. For $`1id`$, $`F_i`$ is a facet of $`Q`$ with $`i+d`$ vertices. Thus among the proper faces of $`Q`$ are the $`d`$-multiplexes with $`n+1`$ vertices for every $`n`$, $`dn2d1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that by Theorem 2.1, every polygon is a multiplex. However, Proposition 2.4 says that the two-dimensional faces of higher dimensional multiplexes can only be triangles and quadrilaterals.

We turn now to the graphs of multiplexes.

###### Theorem 2.5 (Bisztriczky )

Let $`M^{d,n}`$ be the multiplex with vertex set $`\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. The edges of $`M^{d,n}`$ are

* $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_j\}`$, where $`0i<jn`$ and $`jid2`$
* $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_{i+d}\}`$, where $`0ind`$
* $`\text{conv}\{x_0,x_{d1}\}`$
* $`\text{conv}\{x_{nd+1},x_n\}`$.

There is a significant literature on the subject of reconstructing a polytope from its graph. For simplicial polytopes, the reconstruction problem can be phrased as the problem of deciding when the vertices of a complete subgraph span a face of the polytope. The latter problem also arises when studying triangulations of polytopes.

###### Theorem 2.6

Every complete subgraph of the graph of a multiplex is the graph of a face of the multiplex.

Proof: Let $`G`$ be the graph of the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$. Let $`X=\{x_\mathrm{}_0,x_\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},x_\mathrm{}_t\}`$ $`\text{vert}(P)`$ with $`\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_t`$ such that for all $`i,j\{0,1,\mathrm{},t\}`$, $`\{x_\mathrm{}_i,x_\mathrm{}_j\}`$ is an edge of $`G`$.

Case 1. If $`\mathrm{}_0=0`$, then $`\mathrm{}_td`$. Note that $`\{x_1,x_d\}`$ is not an edge of $`G`$, so it is not a subset of $`X`$. Thus $`X`$ is contained in either the facet $`F_0`$ or the facet $`F_1`$ of the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$. Since both those facets are simplices, $`\text{conv}(X)`$ is a simplex that is a face of $`M^{d,n}`$.

If $`\mathrm{}_t=n`$, the argument is similar.

Case 2. Assume $`0<\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{}_t<n`$. Note that each vertex $`x_i`$ of $`M^{d,n}`$ is contained in exactly the facets $`F_{id+1}`$, $`F_{id+2}`$, …, $`F_{i1}`$, $`F_{i+1}`$, $`F_{i+2}`$, …, $`F_{i+d1}`$. Here we use the conventions that $`F_i=F_0`$ if $`i<0`$, and $`F_i=F_n`$ if $`i>n`$. (The self-duality of $`M^{d,n}`$ is expressed in the combinatorial description.) Thus the set $`X`$ is contained in the facet $`F_j`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{}_td+1j\mathrm{}_0+d1`$ and $`j\{\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_t\}`$. (This statement is not true if $`\mathrm{}_0=0`$ or $`\mathrm{}_t=n`$.) Let $`a=\mathrm{min}\{0,\mathrm{}_td+1\}`$ and $`b=\mathrm{max}\{n,\mathrm{}_0+d1\}`$. Then we can write the set $`J=\{j:XF_j\}`$ as $`J=[a,b]\{\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_t\}`$. The set of vertices in $`_{jJ}F_j`$ is exactly $`X`$, i.e., $`_{jJ}F_j=\text{conv}(X)`$. To check this, we need to know that $`\{a,b\}J`$. If $`a=0`$, then $`aJ`$. Otherwise note that since $`x_\mathrm{}_0`$ and $`x_\mathrm{}_t`$ are assumed to be adjacent, either $`\mathrm{}_td+1<\mathrm{}_0`$ (so $`aJ`$), or $`\mathrm{}_t=\mathrm{}_0+d`$. In the latter case, $`a=\mathrm{}_td+1=\mathrm{}_0+1`$. Since $`x_{\mathrm{}_0+1}`$ is not adjacent to $`x_\mathrm{}_t=x_{\mathrm{}_0+d}`$, $`a=\mathrm{}_0+1\{\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_t\}`$, so $`aJ`$. Similarly, $`bJ`$. Now suppose $`i\{\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_t\}`$; we wish to show that $`x_i_{jJ}F_j`$. If $`i<a`$, then $`x_iF_b`$. If $`i>b`$, then $`x_iF_a`$. If $`aib`$, then $`x_i_{jJ}F_j`$ if and only if $`i\{\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_t\}`$. Thus if $`i\{\mathrm{}_0,\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_t\}`$, then $`x_i_{jJ}F_j`$, i.e., $`_{jJ}F_j=\text{conv}(X)`$.

Now observe that this argument is also valid for every subsequence of $`\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_t`$. Thus, for every $`YX`$, $`\text{conv}(Y)`$ is a face of $`M^{d,n}`$, and so also a face of $`\text{conv}(X)`$. Therefore $`\text{conv}(X)`$ is a simplex. $`\mathrm{}`$

This last theorem enables us to count the number of faces that are simplices.

###### Proposition 2.7

For $`n>d`$, the number of $`i`$-dimensional simplex faces of the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ is

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{i+1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i3}\right)+(nd)\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}\right)\right].$$

Proof: Count the number of complete subgraphs with vertex set $`X=\{x_\mathrm{}_0,x_\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},x_\mathrm{}_i\}`$, with $`\mathrm{}_0<\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}_i`$.

$``$ For $`\mathrm{}_0=0`$, the complete subgraphs are obtained by choosing $`i`$-element sets from $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},d\}`$ not containing the pair $`\{1,d\}`$, since $`\{x_1,x_d\}`$ is the only nonedge using these indices. There are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i2}\right)`$ such complete subgraphs.

$``$ For $`1\mathrm{}_0nd1`$, the complete subgraphs are obtained by choosing $`i`$-elements sets from $`\{\mathrm{}_0+1,\mathrm{}_0+2,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_0+d2,\mathrm{}_0+d\}`$ not containing the pair $`\{\mathrm{}_0+1,\mathrm{}_0+d\}`$. There are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}\right)`$ such complete subgraphs for each $`\mathrm{}_0`$, or $`(nd1)[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}\right)]`$ altogether.

$``$ For $`\mathrm{}_0=nd`$, the complete subgraphs are obtained by choosing $`i`$-element sets from $`\{nd+1,nd+2,\mathrm{},n2,n\}`$. There are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}\right)`$ such complete subgraphs.

$``$ For $`nd+1\mathrm{}_0ni`$, the complete subgraphs are obtained by choosing $`i`$-element sets from $`\{\mathrm{}_0+1,\mathrm{}_0+2,\mathrm{},n1,n\}`$. There are $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n\mathrm{}_0}{i}\right)`$ such complete subgraphs.

Altogether the number of $`i`$-faces that are simplices is thus

$`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i2}}\right)+(nd1)\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}}\right)\right]+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}}\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{j=i}{\overset{d1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{i}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d2}{i2}}\right)+(nd)\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}}\right)\right]+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d}{i+1}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{i+1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i3}}\right)+(nd)\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d1}{i}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}}\right)\right].`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

Thus, the number of nonsimplex $`i`$-faces of $`M^{d,n}`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i3}\right)+(nd)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d3}{i2}\right)`$.

Bisztriczky describes certain quadrilateral two-faces of the multiplex.

###### Proposition 2.8 ()

For $`n>d3`$, let $`M^{d,n}`$ be the multiplex with ordered list of vertices $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, …, $`x_n`$. Then for each $`i`$, $`0ind1`$, $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_{i+1},x_{i+d},x_{i+d+1}\}`$ is a quadrilateral two face with diagonals $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_{i+d+1}\}`$ and $`\text{conv}\{x_{i+1},x_{i+d}\}`$.

From the comment above, we know that $`M^{d,n}`$ has exactly $`nd`$ nonsimplex two-faces. Bisztriczky’s proposition accounts for all of them.

The following propositions have analogues for ordinary polytopes, and those are proved in section 3. The odd-dimensional multiplexes are also ordinary polytopes. The proofs of Propositions 3.103.12 carry through for the even-dimensional multiplexes as well. The first is of special interest because Kalai () conjectures that all elementary $`d`$-polytopes are $`(d+1)`$-colorable.

###### Proposition 2.9

The chromatic number of the graph of the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ is $`d`$, if $`n>d`$, and $`d+1`$, if $`n=d`$ (in which case $`M^{d,n}`$ is the $`d`$-simplex).

###### Proposition 2.10

For every $`nd2`$, the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.

###### Proposition 2.11

For every $`nd2`$, the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ has diameter $`n/d`$.

## 3 Ordinary polytopes

Given an ordered set $`V=\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$, a subset $`YV`$ is called a Gale subset if between any two elements of $`VY`$ there is an even number of elements of $`Y`$. A polytope $`P`$ with ordered vertex set $`V`$ as above is a Gale polytope if the set of vertices of each facet is a Gale subset.

###### Definition 2 ()

An ordinary polytope is a Gale polytope such that each facet is a multiplex with the induced order on the vertices.

The definition of ordinary polytope is due to Bisztriczky. His choice of the term “ordinary” stemmed from a belief that they arise by choosing vertices on a convex ordinary space curve, but this is not understood in dimensions higher than three. See .

The combinatorics of three-dimensional ordinary polytopes differs considerably from that of higher dimensional ordinary polytopes. In this paper we consider only ordinary polytopes of dimension at least four. Bisztriczky () defines these as above, and proves a number of results on their combinatorics. However, it is Dinh () who proves their existence in Euclidean space. We use the following theorems of Bisztriczky and Dinh.

###### Theorem 3.1 ()

Let $`P`$ be an ordinary $`d`$-polytope with ordered vertices $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, …, $`x_n`$. Assume $`nd4`$. Then

1. If $`d`$ is even, then $`P`$ is cyclic.
2. If $`d`$ is odd, then there exists an integer $`k`$ ($`dkn`$) such that the vertices sharing an edge with $`x_0`$ are exactly $`x_1`$, $`x_2`$, …, $`x_d`$, and the vertices sharing an edge with $`x_n`$ are exactly $`x_{n1}`$, $`x_{n2}`$, …, $`x_{nk}`$.

The integer $`k`$ guaranteed by this theorem is called the characteristic of the ordinary polytope.

###### Theorem 3.2 ()

For every $`nkd=2m+15`$, there exists an ordinary $`d`$-polytope with $`n+1`$ vertices and characteristic $`k`$.

###### Theorem 3.3 ()

Given a triple of integers $`(n,k,d)`$ with $`d`$ odd and $`nkd5`$, all ordinary $`d`$-polytopes with $`n+1`$ vertices and characteristic $`k`$ are combinatorially isomorphic.

If $`P`$ is an ordinary $`d`$-polytope with $`n+1`$ vertices and characteristic $`k=n`$, then $`P`$ is a cyclic polytope.

If $`P`$ is an ordinary $`d`$-polytope with characteristic $`k=d`$, then $`P`$ is a multiplex.

Write $`P^{d,k,n}`$ for the $`d`$-dimensional ordinary polytope with $`n+1`$ vertices and characteristic $`k`$. The appendix gives the face lattice of $`P^{5,7,9}`$; it was computed using the software package Polymake ().

We do not have a formula for the complete flag vector of $`P^{d,k,n}`$. However, Dinh () computes the $`f`$-vector of $`P^{d,k,n}`$, and here we compute $`f_{02}`$, and show that ordinary polytopes, other than multiplexes, are not elementary.

We use the following description of the facets of $`P^{d,k,n}`$, due to Dinh.

###### Theorem 3.4 ()

Let $`n`$, $`k`$, $`d`$ and $`m`$ be integers such that $`nkd=2m+15`$. Let $`P^{d,k,n}`$ be an ordinary $`d`$-polytope with characteristic $`k`$ and ordered vertices $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, …, $`x_n`$. Then the facets of $`P^{d,k,n}`$ are $`\text{conv}(X)`$, where

$$X=\{x_i,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{i+2r1}\}Y\{x_{i+k},x_{i+k+1},\mathrm{},x_{i+k+2r1}\},$$

where $`i𝐙`$, $`1rm`$, $`Y`$ is a paired $`(d2r1)`$-element subset of $`\{x_{i+2r+1},x_{i+2r+2},\mathrm{},x_{i+k2}\}`$, and $`|X|d`$. Here a paired subset is one whose index set can be written as a disjoint union of pairs of consecutive integers.

By definition each of these facets is a multiplex with the induced vertex ordering. Note that each facet (a $`(d1)`$-dimensional multiplex) has at most $`d+2m1=2d2`$ vertices. Thus, Proposition 2.4 generalizes to

> The multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$ is a proper face of some ordinary polytope if and only if $`dn2d1`$.

The facets of ordinary polytopes are small, simplex-like polytopes. The duals of ordinary polytopes have facets with many vertices, however. It can be shown that each facet of the dual of an ordinary $`(2m+1)`$-polytope of characteristic $`k`$ has at least $`3\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{km3}{m1}\right)`$ vertices. This is the number of those facets of $`P^{d,k,n}`$ that contain the vertex $`x_1`$ and fit the description of Theorem 3.4 with $`r=1`$.

The two-dimensional faces of $`P^{d,k,n}`$ are exactly the two-dimensional faces of its facets. From Proposition 2.8 and the comment following it, we know all the nontriangular two-faces.

###### Proposition 3.5

Let $`n`$, $`k`$, $`d`$ and $`m`$ be integers such that $`nkd=2m+15`$. Let $`P^{d,k,n}`$ be an ordinary $`d`$-polytope with characteristic $`k`$ and ordered vertices $`x_0`$, $`x_1`$, …, $`x_n`$. The two-dimensional faces of $`P^{d,k,n}`$ that are not triangles are exactly the sets $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_{i+1},x_{i+k},x_{i+k+1}\}`$, for $`0ink1`$.

Proof: Dinh () proves that these are indeed two-faces of $`P^{d,k,n}`$, but does not show that they are the only nontriangular two-faces. Consider a facet $`F`$ as given in Theorem 3.4, and apply Proposition 2.8 (and the subsequent comment) to give all its nontriangular two-faces. Renumber the vertices of the facet $`F`$ as $`z_0`$, $`z_1`$, …. Thus the $`d2r1`$ elements of $`Y`$ are numbered $`z_{2r}`$ through $`z_{d2}`$, and $`\{x_{i+k},x_{i+k+1},\mathrm{},x_{i+k+2r1}\}=\{z_{d1},z_d,\mathrm{},z_{d+2r2}\}`$. The quadrilateral faces in $`F`$ are of the form $`\text{conv}\{z_j,z_{j+1},z_{j+d1},z_{j+d}\}`$. Such a quadrilateral contains no element of $`Y`$, and is of the form $`\text{conv}\{x_{\mathrm{}},x_{\mathrm{}+1},x_{\mathrm{}+k},x_{\mathrm{}+k+1}\}`$, with $`i\mathrm{}i+2r2`$. Considering all the facets of $`P^{d,k,n}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ can range from 0 to $`nk1`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Dinh also computes the $`f`$-vectors of ordinary polytopes. At the moment we need only $`f_1`$.

###### Proposition 3.6 ()

Let $`n`$, $`k`$, $`d`$ and $`m`$ be integers such that $`nkd=2m+15`$. Then $`f_1(P^{d,k,n})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{2}\right)+(nk)(k1)`$.

###### Proposition 3.7

For every $`nkd=2m+15`$, the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$ is elementary if and only if $`k=d`$, in which case the ordinary polytope is itself a multiplex.

Proof: Proposition 3.5 implies that for the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$, $`f_{02}(P^{d,k,n})=3f_2(P^{d,k,n})+(nk)`$. Write

$$\beta =f_{02}(P^{d,k,n})3f_2(P^{d,k,n})+f_1(P^{d,k,n})df_0(P^{d,k,n})+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right).$$

Then $`\beta =(nk)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{2}\right)+(nk)(k1)d(n+1)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+1}{2}\right)`$. The ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$ is elementary if and only if $`\beta =0`$. If $`kd`$, then solving $`\beta =0`$ for $`n`$ gives $`n=(k+d1)/2`$. But $`(k+d1)/2(2k1)/2<kn`$, so this is not possible. Thus $`\beta =0`$ implies $`k=d`$, i.e., the ordinary polytope is a multiplex. We have already seen that every multiplex is elementary. $`\mathrm{}`$

By Dinh’s construction () of ordinary polytopes, they can be realized as rational polytopes. It would be interesting to compute the toric $`h`$-vector of ordinary polytopes. The quantities above are enough for the case of dimension five.

###### Theorem 3.8

Let $`nk5`$. The toric $`h`$-vector of $`P^{5,k,n}`$ is

$$(1,n4,\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{2}\right),\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{2}\right),n4,1).$$

Among all 5-polytopes with $`h_1=n4`$ (that is, $`f_0=n+1`$), the smallest possible $`h_2`$ is $`n4`$, and this is achieved by the multiplex $`M^{5,n}=P^{5,5,n}`$. Among all 5-polytopes with $`h_1=n4`$, the largest possible $`h_2`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n3}{2}\right)`$, and this is achieved by the cyclic polytope $`P^{5,n,n}`$. Thus, the toric $`h`$-vectors of $`P^{5,k,n}`$ are nicely distributed between the extreme toric $`h`$-vectors having $`h_1=n4`$. The formula for $`h_2`$ generalizes for ordinary polytopes of higher (odd) dimension: $`h_2(P^{d,k,n})=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nd+2}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{2}\right)`$; note that $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nd+2}{2}\right)`$ is $`h_2`$ for the cyclic $`d`$-polytope with $`n+1`$ vertices.

The description of the graph of a multiplex extends naturally to ordinary polytopes.

###### Theorem 3.9

For $`nkd=2m+15`$, let $`P^{d,k,n}`$ be the ordinary polytope with vertex set $`\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. The edges of $`P^{d,k,n}`$ are

* $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_j\}`$, where $`0i<jn`$ and $`jik2`$
* $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_{i+k}\}`$, where $`0ink`$
* $`\text{conv}\{x_0,x_{k1}\}`$
* $`\text{conv}\{x_{nk+1},x_n\}`$.

Proof: We consider the pairs not listed in the statement of the theorem. These fall into two categories. First are those pairs $`\{x_i,x_j\}`$ with $`jik+1`$. From Theorem 3.4 every facet containing $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$, with $`jik+1`$, also contains the nonempty set of vertices $`\{x_{i+k},x_{i+k+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1}\}`$. Thus, $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_j\}`$ is not a face (edge) of $`P^{d,k,n}`$. The number of these pairs is $`_{i=0}^{nk1}(nki)=_{\mathrm{}=1}^{nk}\mathrm{}=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{2}\right)`$. The other pairs not listed are $`\{x_i,x_j\}`$ with $`ji=k1`$, $`i0`$, and $`jn`$. For such pairs $`\text{conv}\{x_i,x_j\}`$ is not an edge of $`P^{d,k,n}`$, because it is a diagonal of a two-dimensional face as described in Proposition 3.5. The number of these pairs is $`nk`$. The number of pairs listed in the statement of the theorem is thus $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{nk+1}{2}\right)(nk)`$ $`=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{2}\right)+(nk)(k1)`$, which is the number of edges of $`P^{d,k,n}`$, as computed by Dinh (Proposition 3.6). So all the listed pairs are edges of $`P^{d,k,n}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that the graphs of ordinary polytopes are dimensionally ambiguous. For every odd $`d`$ and $`d^{}`$ between 5 and $`k`$, the graphs of $`P^{d,k,n}`$ and $`P^{d^{},k,n}`$ are isomorphic.

###### Proposition 3.10

For every $`nkd=2m+15`$, the chromatic number of the graph of the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$ is $`k`$, if $`n>k`$, and $`k+1`$, if $`n=k`$ (in which case $`P^{d,k,n}`$ is a cyclic polytope).

Proof: If $`n=k`$, then $`P=P^{d,k,n}`$ is a cyclic polytope, and the graph of $`P`$ is the complete graph on $`k+1`$ vertices, so its chromatic number is $`k+1`$. So assume $`n>k`$. Let $`G`$ be the graph of $`P`$, with vertex set $`\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$. Assign colors from the set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},k1\}`$ to the vertices of $`G`$ as follows:

$$\lambda (x_i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}k1& \text{if }i=0\text{ or }i=n\hfill \\ imodk1& \text{if }1in1\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`x_0`$ and $`x_n`$ are not adjacent in $`G`$, every edge containing $`x_0`$ or $`x_n`$ is assigned two different colors. If $`i<j`$ and $`jik2`$, or $`ji=k`$, then $`ji(modk1)`$, so $`\lambda (x_j)\lambda (x_i)`$. Thus adjacent vertices have different colors, so $`\lambda `$ gives a proper $`k`$-coloring of $`G`$. Now $`G`$ contains a complete subgraph on the vertex set $`\{x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{k1}\}`$, so the chromatic number of $`G`$ is $`k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.11

For every $`nkd=2m+15`$, the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$ has a Hamiltonian cycle.

Proof: If $`n`$ is odd, the vertex sequence, $`x_0`$, $`x_2`$, $`x_4`$, …, $`x_{n1}`$, $`x_n`$, $`x_{n2}`$, $`x_{n4}`$, …, $`x_3`$, $`x_1`$, $`x_0`$, gives a Hamiltonian cycle. If $`n`$ is even, the vertex sequence, $`x_0`$, $`x_2`$, $`x_4`$, …, $`x_{n2}`$, $`x_n`$, $`x_{n1}`$, $`x_{n3}`$, …, $`x_3`$, $`x_1`$, $`x_0`$, gives a Hamiltonian cycle. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.12

For every $`nkd=2m+15`$, the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$ has diameter $`n/k`$.

Proof: For $`i<j`$, the vertices $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$ are adjacent if $`jik2`$ or if $`ji=k`$. In addition $`x_0`$ and $`x_{k1}`$ are adjacent, and $`x_n`$ and $`x_{nk+1}`$ are adjacent. So usually $`x_i`$, $`x_{i+k}`$, $`x_{i+2k}`$, …, $`x_{i+tk}`$, $`x_j`$, with $`t=ji1/k`$, gives an $`x_i`$$`x_j`$ path of length $`t+1n/k`$. This is valid as long as $`ji1(modk)`$. If $`ji1(modk)`$, then $`x_i`$, $`x_{i+k}`$, $`x_{i+2k}`$, …, $`x_{i+tk}`$, $`x_{i+tk+1}`$, $`x_j`$, with $`t=(ji)/k=(jik+1)/k`$, gives a path of length $`t+2`$. If $`ji<n1`$, then $`t+2=(ji+k+1)/kn/k`$. The remaining cases are the paths $`x_0`$, $`x_{k1}`$, $`x_{2k1}`$, …, $`x_{n1}`$ and $`x_1`$, $`x_{k+1}`$, $`x_{2k+1}`$, …, $`x_{n+1k}`$, $`x_n`$, if $`n0(modk)`$, and $`x_0`$, $`x_k`$, $`x_{2k}`$, …, $`x_{tk}`$, $`x_n`$, with $`t=n/k`$, if $`n1(modk)`$. These are all of length $`n/k`$. Clearly, the $`x_0`$$`x_n`$ path given is the shortest $`x_0`$$`x_n`$ path. So the diameter is exactly $`n/k`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

By Theorem 3.3 the class of ordinary polytopes includes the cyclic polytopes of odd dimension. Cyclic polytopes have played an important role in the combinatorial study of simplicial polytopes (e.g., in ), and more recently, in the study of triangulations of polytopes (e.g., in ). Cyclic polytopes are neighborly, that is, every $`d/2`$-element set of vertices is the vertex set of a face of the polytope. In particular, the graph of a neighborly $`d`$-polytope for $`d4`$ is the complete graph. Thus no ordinary polytopes other than the cyclic polytopes are neighborly. A generalization of neighborliness is studied in . A polytope is weakly neighborly if every set of $`k+1`$ vertices is contained in a face of dimension at most $`2k`$, for all $`k`$. It is natural to ask, then, if ordinary polytopes are weakly neighborly. The answer is no, almost always. If $`nk+2`$, then $`x_0`$ and $`x_n`$ are not on a common two-face of the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$. For $`n=k+1`$, $`k>d5`$ ($`d`$ odd), $`P^{d,k,n}`$ is not weakly neighborly; for example, $`\{x_1,x_3,x_5\}`$ is not contained in a facet of $`P^{5,6,7}`$. If $`n=d+2`$, then $`x_0`$ and $`x_n`$ are not on a common two-face of the multiplex $`M^{d,n}`$. The only weakly neighborly ordinary polytopes are the cyclic polytopes and the multiplexes $`M^{d,d+1}`$, which are $`(d2)`$-fold pyramids over quadrilaterals. Theorem 2.6 says that every complete subgraph of the graph of a multiplex is the graph of a face of the multiplex. This fails in general for ordinary polytopes.

We turn now to the $`f`$-vectors of ordinary polytopes. These are computed by Dinh.

###### Theorem 3.13 ()

Let $`nkd=2m+15`$. The number of $`i`$-dimensional faces of the ordinary polytope $`P^{d,k,n}`$ is

$$f_i(P^{d,k,n})=\varphi _i(d,k)+(nk)c_i(d,k),$$

where $`\varphi _i(d,k)`$ is the number of $`i`$-faces of the cyclic $`d`$-polytope with $`k+1`$ vertices,

$$\varphi _i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k+1}{i+1}\right)& \text{for }0im1\hfill \\ _{j=0}^m\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j}{d1i}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{dj}{d1i}\right)\right]\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{kd+j}{j}\right)& \text{for }mid1\hfill \end{array},$$

and $`c_i(d,k)=f_i(P^{d,k,n+1})f_i(P^{d,k,n})`$ is given by

1. $`c_i=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{i}}\right)`$, for $`1i<m`$,
2. $`c_m=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k1}{m}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k2m}{m}}\right)`$,
3. $`c_i={\displaystyle \underset{j=im}{\overset{i/2}{}}}(2N(k1,j,i)N(k2,j,i)){\displaystyle \underset{j=im}{\overset{(i1)/2}{}}}N(k3,j,i1)`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=im1}{\overset{(i2)/2}{}}}N(k3,j,i2){\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{im}{}}}N(k32r,imr,i2r)`$,
for $`m<i<2m=d1`$, and
4. $`c_{d1}=c_{2m}=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k2m}{m1}}\right)`$.

Here

$$N(s,t,u)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{ut}{t}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{su+t}{ut}\right)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{u1t}{t}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{su+t}{u1t}\right).$$

Thus, for fixed $`d`$ and $`k`$, the $`f`$-vectors of the ordinary polytopes $`P^{d,k,n}`$ lie on a line.

###### Conjecture 3.14

Let $`d`$ be an odd integer, $`d5`$. The set of $`f`$-vectors of all ordinary $`d`$-polytopes spans the Euler hyperplane (given by $`_{i=0}^{d1}f_i=2`$). A spanning set consists of the ordinary polytopes $`P^{d,d+i/2,d+i}`$, for $`1id`$.

The conjecture has been verified on computer for odd $`d`$, $`5d37`$.

The flag vectors of ordinary polytopes satisfy many linear relations that do not hold for all polytopes, however. In particular, the self-duality of multiplexes gives the following equalities. Let $`S=\{s_1,s_2,\mathrm{},s_{r1},s_r\}`$, and $`S^{}=\{s_r1s_1,s_r1s_2,\mathrm{},s_r1s_{r1},s_r\}`$. Then for every ordinary polytope $`P`$ of odd dimension greater than $`s_r`$, $`f_S(P)=f_S^{}(P)`$. For example, for ordinary 5-dimensional polytopes, $`f_{03}=f_{23}`$, a relation that fails for arbitrary 5-polytopes. In fact, in dimension five, the flag vectors of ordinary polytopes depend linearly on the $`f`$-vectors.

## Appendix

Here is the face lattice of the ordinary polytope $`P^{5,7,9}`$. Faces are listed by their sets of vertices, from the vertex set $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},9\}`$. The $`f`$-vector of this polytope is $`f(P^{5,7,9})=(10,40,76,70,26)`$.

Facets:

01234, 01245, 01256, 02345, 02356, 02367, 03456, 03467, 04567, 23459,

23569, 23679, 34569, 34679, 34789, 45679, 45789, 56789, 013478,

014578, 015678, 123489, 124589, 125689, 0123789, 0126789

3-dimensional faces:

0123, 0124, 0125, 0126, 0134, 0145, 0156, 0234, 0235, 0236, 0237, 0245,

0256, 0267, 0345, 0346, 0347, 0356, 0367, 0456, 0457, 0467, 0567, 1234,

1245, 1256, 1348, 1458, 1568, 2345, 2349, 2356, 2359, 2367, 2369, 2379,

2459, 2569, 2679, 3456, 3459, 3467, 3469, 3478, 3479, 3489, 3569, 3679,

3789, 4567, 4569, 4578, 4579, 4589, 4679, 4789, 5678, 5679, 5689, 5789,

6789, 01378, 01478, 01578, 01678, 12389, 12489, 12589, 12689, 012789

2-dimensional faces:

012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 023, 024, 025, 026, 027, 034, 035, 036, 037,

045, 046, 047, 056, 057, 067, 123, 124, 125, 126, 134, 138, 145, 148,

156, 158, 168, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239, 245, 249, 256, 259, 267, 269,

279, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 356, 359, 367, 369, 378, 379, 389, 456,

457, 458, 459, 467, 469, 478, 479, 489, 567, 568, 569, 578, 579, 589,

678, 679, 689, 789, 0178, 1289

Edges:

01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27,

29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 56, 57, 58, 59, 67, 68,

69, 78, 79, 89


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In this paper, we study amplitudes for string world sheets with fixed boundaries. Our motivation is to better understand off-shell amplitudes for string theory. Knowledge of these amplitudes yields the effective action of string theory at lowest nontrivial order. This in turn may lead to a simpler covariant formalism of string field theory and perhaps yield insight into QCD as well.

Direct computation of off-shell amplitudes with Polyakov’s path integral is difficult, since the ghost degrees of freedom are more complicated with Dirichlet rather than with Neumann boundary conditions. The boundary conditions on the ghost fields themselves was discussed long ago . Instead of working directly with the Polyakov path integral as has been done earlier ,  we will study the energy operator for a string with fixed endpoints in a covariant gauge, evolving over a finite time interval. Unfortunately, this places some restrictions on the boundary data. On the other hand, the method does yield a definite expression.

Our first result is that the world-sheet-regularized form of these amplitudes is ill-defined. In general, the expression contains a divergent piece which cannot be removed by a covariant subtraction. We believe that this divergence is related to the inability of lattice and dynamically triangulated strings to have a proper continuum limit for $`d>1`$ . The form of this divergent piece is not universal, however. Therefore, it seems that it may be sensibly set to zero. When this is done, the amplitude decays exponentially with area, with the standard semiclassical corrections of Lüscher, Symanzik and Weisz  (who used a loop-wave equation. See reference  for a discussion of the Polyakov action). In fact, the well-known static potential of Alvarez  and Arvis  is easily recovered for $`R`$ greater than the so called critical radius. Instead of becoming imaginary below this radius, the potential becomes negative infinite. This does not mean that the usual conclusion is wrong, for our method of continuing below the critical radius is different mathematically from that in references , . This phenomenon can be understood as as a divergence of the string amplitude.

The expression obtained for the amplitude is not rotation invariant. If the world-sheet boundaries lie on a rectangle of size $`R\times T`$, this expression changes upon interchange of $`R`$ and $`T`$. This is not surprising; in the appendix, we show that a similar expression constructed for relativistic particles is not Lorentz invariant. We suggest the corrected expression for the disk amplitude, by analogy with the particle case.

The Liouville field does not decouple in off-shell amplitudes even in the critical dimension. The correct interpretation of this fact is most likely that if the string degrees of freedom $`X^\mu `$ obey Dirichlet boundary conditions, the central charge of the world-sheet Fadeev-Popov ghosts is $`2`$ instead of $`26`$.

The particular geometries studied here are fairly special. They are such that Cartesian coordinates $`X^\mu `$ have the property that the boundary values of $`X^0`$ and $`X^1`$ describe a rectangle. The remaining coordinates, $`X^{}=X^2,\mathrm{},X^{d1}`$ are left arbitrary on the boundary. For such boundaries, an exact expression for the amplitude is found. Setting $`X^{}=0`$ and letting one dimension of the rectangle go to infinity may be used to obtain the Bosonic-string static potential . We discuss in Section 7 how the amplitude for slightly more general boundary geometries may be determined.

## 2 Off-shell amplitudes

The action of the Bosonic string is

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle d^2\xi \sqrt{g}g^{ab}_aX^\mu _bX^\mu },`$ (2.1)
where $`\xi ^a`$ are the coordinates of the world-sheet, $`a,b=0,1`$, $`_a=/\xi ^a`$ and $`\mu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{}d`$. The functional integral of the disk with fixed boundary data $`X(\phi )`$ with boundary coordinate $`\phi [0,2\pi )`$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[X]={\displaystyle _{X(\phi )}}𝒟Xe^S.`$ (2.2)
If this expression exists, it has the expansion:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[X]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{det}\delta ^2S}}}e^{S_0},`$
where $`S_0`$ is the classical action of a solution to the equations of motion and the prefactor is the reciprocal of the square root of the determinant of the fluctuation operator. We shall argue that (2.2) is not well-defined as it stands, but that it is possible to formally define a string Green’s function $`\mathrm{\Phi }[X]`$ anyway. Nonetheless, it is interesting to determine $`S_0`$ from the boundary data, as was done in reference . Though the on-shell tree amplitudes for string theory obtained from $`S_0`$ are correct , we will show that the off-shell amplitudes are not.

## 3 Determination of the classical action

It is possible to obtain $`S_0`$ for Dirichlet data $`X^\mu (\phi )`$ on the boundary by solving the equations of motion . We review this procedure here (which is not generally known) because the result will be important in our discussion of the complete solution for the off-shell disk amplitude.

Let us suppose we know the solution in the interior of the disk $`X^\mu (r,\phi )`$, $`g_{ab}(r,\phi )`$. These quantities satisfy the equations of motion

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}_a\sqrt{g}g^{ab}_bX^\mu =0,`$ (3.1)
and

$`_aX^\mu _bX^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ab}g^{cd}_cX^\mu _dX^\mu =0.`$ (3.2)
Once any solution is obtained, by making a conformal transformation on the metric, it is possible to chose $`r[0,a)`$, $`g_{rr}=e^\varphi `$, $`g_{\phi ^{}\phi ^{}}=r^2e^\varphi `$ and $`g_{r\phi ^{}}=0`$. The prime in $`\phi ^{}`$ is present because $`\phi `$ is mapped to $`\phi ^{}`$ by the conformal transformation. Then the equation of motion is Laplace’s equation (3.1) which has the solution:

$`X^\mu =B^\mu (re^{i\phi ^{}})+\overline{B}^\mu (re^{i\phi ^{}}),`$
where $`B^\mu (z)`$ is an analytic function

$$B^\mu (z)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n^\mu z^n$$

satisfying $`B^\mu (ae^{i\phi ^{}})+\overline{B}^\mu (ae^{i\phi ^{}})=X^\mu (\phi ^{})`$. The values of $`b_n^\mu `$ are determined by the boundary data $`X^\mu (\phi ^{})=X^\mu (a,\phi ^{})`$:

$`b_n^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi a^n}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi ^{}e^{\mathrm{i}n\phi ^{}}X^\mu (\phi ^{}).`$ (3.3)
In terms of the coefficients $`b_n^\mu `$, the action (2.1) is, after integration by parts and using the equation of motion, a pure surface term:

$`S=S_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^a}𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi ^{}\left[r(_rX)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}(_\phi ^{}X)^2\right]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^a}𝑑r{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi ^{}\left[_r(rX^\mu _rX^\mu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}_\phi ^{}(X^\mu _\phi ^{}X^\mu )\right],`$ (3.4)
where $`a`$ is the disk diameter (the actual value of which is irrelevant). Only the first term in (3.4) is not zero. The general solution for $`X`$ into (3.4) yields

$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n\overline{b}_n^\mu b_n^\mu ,`$
and substituting (3.3) gives

$`S_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi _1^{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi _2^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}ne^{\mathrm{i}n(\phi _1^{}\phi _2^{})}\{[X(\phi _1^{})X(\phi _2^{})]^2`$
$`X(\phi _1^{})^2X(\phi _2^{})^2\}.`$
The last two terms are zero. Summation over $`n`$ is straightforward, giving the result:

$`e^{S_0}=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _1^{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2^{}{\displaystyle \frac{[X(\phi _1^{})X(\phi _2^{})]^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{1}{2}(\phi _1^{}\phi _2^{})}}.`$
This expression is invariant under diffeomorphisms of $`\phi ^{}`$, mapping the interval $`[0,2\pi )`$ to itself. We are therefore free to map $`\phi ^{}`$ back to $`\phi `$, obtaining

$`e^{S_0}=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2{\displaystyle \frac{[X(\phi _1)X(\phi _2)]^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{1}{2}(\phi _1\phi _2)}}.`$
$`=\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _1{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}𝑑\phi _2{\displaystyle \underset{j=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{[X(\phi _1)X(\phi _2)]^2}{(\phi _1\phi _22\pi j)^2}}`$ (3.5)
Since $`S_0`$ is the value of an extremum of the Polyakov action, it is the value of an extremum of the Nambu action as well. Therefore $`S_0`$ is the minimal area of a surface whose boundary is $`X^\mu (\phi )`$.

The expression (3.5) is invariant under diffeomorphisms of the boundary, $`\phi F(\phi )`$. In the form of this result presented by Polyakov, the range of $`\phi `$ is extended to the entire real axis, so that diffeomorphisms become SL(2,$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{R}`$) transformations . One finds that the off-shell expression (3.5) becomes

$$e^{S_0}=\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\phi _1_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\phi _2\frac{[X(\phi _1)X(\phi _2)]^2}{(\phi _1\phi _2)^2}$$

This expression yields the open-string Koba-Nielsen amplitudes when extended to the mass shell . Naively, one expects the Liouville field to decouple when $`d=26`$ and that (3.5) should be the final expression for $`Z[X]`$. We will see that this is not the case.

## 4 The string energy operator and subtractions

In this section, the string energy operator, which governs time development in target space, is critically reexamined. Certain conventions are different from Arvis’ . We will quantize in the Schrödinger representation.

We change the notation for the coordinates, specifically $`\xi ^0=\tau `$ and $`\xi ^1=\sigma `$, and write the string degrees of freedom as $`X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )`$. The coordinate $`\sigma `$ lies in the interval $`[0,\pi ]`$, while we treat the coordinate $`\tau `$ as the world-sheet time on world sheets of Minkowski signature. Target space will also be assumed to have Minkowski signature (in the next section, we Wick-rotate to Euclidean signature). Unlike the case of the on-shell string, the world-sheet time $`\tau `$ is not identified with target-space time.

The boundary conditions taken in most of this paper are $`X^{}(0,\tau )=0`$, $`X^{}(\pi ,\tau )=0`$, $`X^1(0,\tau )=0`$, $`X^1(\pi ,\tau )=R`$, $`_\sigma X^0(0,\tau )=0`$ and $`_\sigma X^0(\pi ,\tau )=0`$. We will discuss slightly more general boundary conditions in Section 7.

In these coordinates the action (2.1) is that of a free field theory

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau _0^\pi 𝑑\sigma \eta _{\mu \nu }[(_\tau X^\mu )^2(_\sigma X^\mu )^2]},`$
where $`\eta `$ has signature $`(+,,\mathrm{},)`$. This action leads to the momentum density, conjugate to $`X^\mu `$

$`\mathrm{P}_\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=\eta _{\mu \nu }_\tau X^\nu (\sigma ,\tau ).`$
The energy of the string is not the canonical Hamiltonian, but rather the integral of $`\mathrm{P}_0`$:

$`E={\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \mathrm{P}_0(\sigma ,\tau )={\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _\tau X^0(\sigma ,\tau ).`$ (4.1)
The boundary conditions are consistent with the normal-mode expansions:

$`X^{}(\sigma ,\tau )=2\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma X_n^{}(\tau ),`$
$`X^1(\sigma ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\pi }}\sigma +2\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n}\mathrm{sin}n\sigma X_n^1(\tau ),`$
$`X^0(\sigma ,\tau )=X_0^0(\tau )+2\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n}\mathrm{cos}n\sigma X_n^0(\tau ).`$
The action (2.1) in conformal coordinates $`\sigma ,\tau `$, after Wick rotating to Minkowski signatures and written in term of normal modes is

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle }d\tau \{\pi (_\tau X_0^0)^2+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[(_\tau X_n^0)^2(_\tau X_n^1)^2(_\tau X_n^{})^2`$
$`n^2(X_n^0)^2+n^2(X_n^1)^2+n^2(X_n^{})^2]\}.`$
The canonical momenta of $`X_0^0`$, $`X_n^0`$, $`X_n^1`$ and $`X_n^{}`$ ($`n>0`$) are

$`P_0^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{}}}_\tau X_0^0,P_n^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}_\tau X_n^0,P_n^1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}_\tau X_n^1,P_n^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}_\tau X_n^{},`$
respectively. It is clear that $`P_0^0`$ is equal to the total energy $`E`$, defined in (4.1). The canonical Hamiltonian is

$`H=\alpha ^{}E^2\pi \alpha ^{}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}[(P_n^0)^2(P_n^1)^2(P_n^{})^2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n^2[(X_n^0)^2(X_n^1)^2(X_n^{})^2].`$ (4.2)
It is not hard to show that the Poisson bracket of $`E(\tau )`$ with the Hamiltonian (4.2) vanishes. Therefore $`E`$ is independent of $`\tau `$.

The energy-momentum conditions (3.2), after rotating to Minkowski signature are

$`(_\tau X^0\pm _\sigma X^0)^2(_\tau X^1\pm _\sigma X^1)^2(_\tau X^{}\pm _\sigma X^{})^2=0.`$
In terms of normal modes and their conjugate momenta, these conditions are

$`L_n{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=n}{}}\eta ^{\mu \nu }\alpha _j^\mu \alpha _k^\nu =0`$ (4.3)
where $`j,k,n`$ are (positive, zero or negative) integers and

$`\alpha _0^0=\sqrt{2}\alpha ^{}E,\alpha _0^1={\displaystyle \frac{R}{\sqrt{2}\pi }},\alpha _0^{}=0,`$
$`\alpha _n^0=\sqrt{\pi }\alpha ^{}P_n^0{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}n}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}X_n^0,\alpha _n^0=\sqrt{\pi }\alpha ^{}P_n^0+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}n}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}X_n^0,(n1)`$
$`\alpha _n^1=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }\alpha ^{}P_n^1+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}X_n^1,\alpha _n^1=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }\alpha ^{}P_n^1{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}X_n^1,(n1)`$
$`\alpha _n^{}=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }\alpha ^{}P_n^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}X_n^{},\alpha _n^{}=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{\pi }\alpha ^{}P_n^{}{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}X_n^{},(n1).`$
These conditions imply that the canonical Hamiltonian (4.2) vanishes. It is possible to write $`X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )`$ directly in terms of the variables $`\alpha _n^\mu `$:

$`X^0(\sigma ,\tau )=X_0^0(\tau )+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{n=\mathrm{}}{n0}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}n\sigma }{n}}\alpha _n^0(\tau ),`$
$`X^1(\sigma ,\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{R\sigma }{\pi }}+\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{n=\mathrm{}}{n0}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}n\sigma }{n}}\alpha _n^1(\tau ),`$
$`X^{}(\sigma ,\tau )=\mathrm{i}\sqrt{2}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{n=\mathrm{}}{n0}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}n\sigma }{n}}\alpha _n^{}(\tau ).`$ (4.4)
Invariance under pseudo-conformal transformations $`\sigma \sigma +f(\tau +\sigma )f(\tau \sigma )`$, $`\tau \tau +f(\tau +\sigma )+f(\tau \sigma )`$, allows for further gauge fixing:

$`_\tau X^1+_\sigma X^0=0,_\tau X^0+_\sigma X^1=2\alpha ^{}E+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{\pi }},X_0^0=0.`$ (4.5)
Substituting the expansions (4.4) into (4.5) gives

$`_\tau \alpha _n^0\mathrm{i}n\alpha _n^0=0,\alpha _n^0+\alpha _n^1=0(n1).`$ (4.6)
Substituting (4.6) into (4.3) for $`n0`$ yields

$`2\sqrt{2}\alpha ^{}\left(E+{\displaystyle \frac{R}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)\alpha _n^0{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=n}{}}\alpha _j^{}\alpha _k^{}=0,n0,`$
or

$`\alpha _n^0=\alpha _n^1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}}{2\alpha ^{}E+\frac{R}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{j+k=n}{}}\alpha _j^{}\alpha _k^{},n0.`$ (4.7)
The conditions (4.7) reduce the total number of degrees of freedom, but do not affect the spectrum of the energy operator and will not be discussed further. Substituting the algebraic conditions (4.6) into (4.3) for $`n=0`$ gives

$`2\alpha ^{}E^2{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{2\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{j=\mathrm{}}{j0}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _j^{}\alpha _j^{}=0,`$ (4.8)
or

$`E=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{j=\mathrm{}}{j0}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _j^{}\alpha _j^{}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Instead of quantizing yet, as was done in reference , we will first write the energy $`E`$ in terms of variables which are functions of $`\sigma `$. Reintroducing the field $`X^{}(\sigma ,\tau )`$ and its conjugate momentum $`\mathrm{P}^{}(\sigma )`$, the energy operator is

$`E=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}+{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[\pi (\mathrm{P}_{})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}(_\sigma X^{})^2\right]\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
We see that $`E^2`$ contains a piece resembling the Hamiltonian of a free massless field theory. Upon quantization, we therefore regard the energy operator as

$`E=\left\{{\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}+{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma \left[\pi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2}{\delta X^{}(\sigma )\delta X^{}(\sigma )}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}(_\sigma X^{})^2\right]\right\}^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (4.9)
Notice that this operator, defined with any sensible regularization is positive definite.

Rewriting (4.9) in terms of annihilation operators $`a_n^{}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{n}\alpha ^{}}\alpha _n^{}`$ and creation operators $`a_n^{}=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{\sqrt{n}\alpha ^{}}\alpha _n^{}`$, where $`n1`$:

$`E=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}na_j^{}a_j^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}j\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (4.10)
Unfortunately, this expression presents us with a problem, because $`E^2`$ is positive definite. We would like to make a subtraction $`C_0`$ from $`E^2`$:

$`E=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}na_j^{}a_j^{}C_0+{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{2\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}j\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$ (4.11)
so that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha ^{}}{2d}}C_0+{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}j=\zeta (1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},`$ (4.12)
where $`\zeta (s)`$ is the Riemann zeta function. Equivalently, the zeta function is analytically continued to $`s=1`$. This would be in accord with Lorentz invariance in the critical dimension $`D=26`$. The same choice follows from requiring the smallest eigenvalue of $`E^2`$ to be the “Casimir energy”; the expression is in quotes, because $`E^2`$ is not actually an energy. The smallest eigenvalue of $`E`$ could then be read off from (4.11) to give the static potential , :

$`V(R)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{12\alpha ^{}}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\sqrt{R^2R_c^2}.`$ (4.13)
For large values of $`R`$, this has the form

$`V(R)={\displaystyle \frac{R}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi (d2)}{24R}}+\mathrm{},`$
where the leading correction to the linear potential is universal . Clearly $`C_0`$ is an infinite constant. The subtraction procedure can only be physically meaningful if (once the world-sheet is suitably regularized) it can be made by introducing a local counterterm in (2.1)111We are not disputing that it is mathematically sensible to define the zeta function for negative arguments by analytic continuation. The point is that there is no physical justification for such a procedure without introducing an explicit dimensionful cut-off, and a sensible procedure for making the subtraction. Such a subtraction is impossible for the problem we are considering, though it is possible in other situations, e.g. the light-cone gauge string .. According to our analysis in the next section, there is no such procedure. This does not mean that amplitudes with the constant $`C_0`$ satisfying (4.12) introduced are meaningless; only that these amplitudes are not directly obtainable from a quantum action principle, such as (2.2).

## 5 String evolution and the divergence of string amplitudes

In this section we begin by calculating the amplitude for a string to begin in one eigenstate of $`X^{}`$ at time $`X^0=0`$ and evolve to another eigenstate of $`X^{}`$ after a time $`X^0=T`$. This is not quite the same thing as the disk amplitude with the same boundary conditions; we propose what the correct form of the latter should be on the basis of symmetry considerations in Section 7. To illustrate the distinction between the two quantities, we consider an analogous situation, namely the difference between the relativistic particle amplitude and the propagator using similar technology in the appendix.

For any positive operator $`D`$, the following integral transform will be useful:

$`e^{T\sqrt{D}}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}u^2D}.`$ (5.1)
Hence we expect the amplitude for a string to begin in an eigenstate of the operators $`X^{}(\sigma )`$ with eigenvalues $`X_i^{}(\sigma )`$ and finish in an eigenstate with eigenvalues $`X_f^{}(\sigma )`$ over a time duration $`T`$ is

$`X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}}X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{u^2E^2}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma ),`$ (5.2)
where $`E`$ is the operator (4.9) or (4.10). If $`E^2`$ is not positive, the integral fails to converge and this formula breaks down.

To evaluate the matrix element on the right-hand side of (5.2), we use the familiar expression for the simple-harmonic-oscillator kernel:

$`q_f\left|e^{\frac{\beta }{2}\left(\frac{d^2}{dq^2}+q^2\right)}\right|q_i=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{sinh}T}}}e^{A(q_f,q_i;\beta )},`$
where

$`A(q_f,q_i;\beta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q_f^2+q_i^2)\mathrm{coth}\beta {\displaystyle \frac{q_fq_i}{\mathrm{sinh}\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑t(\dot{q}_{\mathrm{class}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+q_{\mathrm{class}}^2)`$
is the Wick-rotated action of the harmonic oscillator for the classical solution $`q_{\mathrm{class}}(t)`$ for which $`q_{\mathrm{class}}(0)=q_i`$ and $`q_{\mathrm{class}}(\beta )=q_f`$. We thereby obtain

$`X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}\frac{R^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}`$
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\pi e^{\frac{nu^2}{\alpha ^{}}}(1e^{\frac{2nu^2}{\alpha ^{}}})\right]^{\frac{d2}{2}}e^{S_0[u;X_f^{},X_i^{}]},`$ (5.3)
where

$`S_0[u;X_f^{},X_i^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _1{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _2n\mathrm{sin}n\sigma _1\mathrm{sin}n\sigma _2`$
$`\times \left\{[X_f^{}(\sigma _1)^2+X_i^{}(\sigma _2)^2]\mathrm{coth}{\displaystyle \frac{nu^2}{\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2X_f^{}(\sigma _1)X_i^{}(\sigma _2)}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{nu^2}{\alpha ^{}}}}\right\}.`$ (5.4)
Recall that the Dedekind eta function of the complex number $`\tau `$ is

$`\eta (\tau )=e^{\frac{\pi \mathrm{i}\tau }{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1e^{2\pi \mathrm{i}n\tau }).`$ (5.5)
and under an inversion of $`\tau `$ through the unit circle, followed by a reflection through the imaginary axis, transforms as follows:

$`\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}\right)=\sqrt{\mathrm{i}\tau }\eta (\tau ).`$ (5.6)
Notice that this function resembles the infinite product in (5.3). We write this product as

$`\left[{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\pi e^{\frac{nu^2}{\alpha ^{}}}(1e^{\frac{2nu^2}{\alpha ^{}}})\right]^{\frac{d2}{2}}=\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}u^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^{\frac{d2}{2}}e^{\frac{d2}{2}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ln}\pi }e^{\frac{(d2)u^2}{2\alpha ^{}}(_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}n+\frac{1}{12})}.`$
With these manipulations

$`X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )=𝒵_0T{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}u^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^{\frac{d2}{2}}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}\frac{R^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}e^{S_0[u;X_f^{},X_i^{}]}`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}\left[u^2{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\right)\right],`$ (5.7)
where $`𝒵_0`$ is an infinitesimal constant (which can be interpreted as a string-wave-function renormalization).

The last factor of (5.7):

$`\mathrm{exp}u^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d2}{2\alpha ^{}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\right)\right],`$ (5.8)
gives a nonsensical result for the amplitude, presenting us with a problem. We would like to introduce a subtraction inside the integral on the right-hand side so that (5.8) can be set equal to unity. Such a procedure mutilates the theory we began with. If we multiply this integral by a factor $`e^{C_0T}`$ we can only make a subtraction from the energy operator. This is obviously useless for removing the unwanted factor, even if the limits of integration in $`u`$ are cut off. We therefore seem to be in a bind; there is no counterterm which removes this factor. The integral vanishes at large $`u`$, even if the world-sheet is regularized. The reason is that any physical regularization of the sum $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}n+\frac{1}{12}`$ is greater than $`R^2/4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$ for sufficiently large cut-off (though there are formal techniques which obscure the situation). We believe that this divergence is a fact, and the amplitude

$$X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )$$

is simply meaningless from a mathematically careful standpoint.

What we are saying should not be surprising in the light of analytic and numerical studies of random surface models . No attempt to define strings with dimension greater than one has been successful in such studies. As far as we can determine, the difficulty is not related to the tachyon in standard quantization, but simply the impossibility of making a subtraction.

## 6 Formally defined string evolution and the static potential

At the end of the last section, we showed that removing the factor (5.8) leads to an expression which does not come from the theory of Bosonic random surfaces. But let’s remove this factor anyway! The answer is an amplitude consistent with the usual results for the static potential, at least for $`R>R_c`$. If, as we expect, but do not prove here, the on-shell extrapolation of such amplitudes are Veneziano amplitudes, they are still worth investigating. With the unwanted factor removed from the integrand, the amplitude (5.7) becomes

$`\text{}X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )\text{}=𝒵_0T{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}u^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^{\frac{d2}{2}}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}\frac{R^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}e^{S_0[u,X_i^{},X_f^{}]}.`$ (6.1)
The quotation marks mean that this quantity is not really the transition amplitude for a theory of random surfaces, but instead the expression for the amplitude with (5.8) removed.

At this point, we shall show that the mode series (5.4) for $`S_0`$ may be evaluated. The quantity $`S_0`$ is the Wick-rotated classical action

$`S_0[u;X_f^{},X_i^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}}}}𝑑s{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma [(_sX^{})^2+(_\sigma X^{})^2].`$ (6.2)
of the field $`X^{}(\sigma ,s)`$ with “time” $`s`$ the time and initial and final conditions

$$X^{}(\sigma ,0)=X_i^{}(\sigma ),X^{}(\sigma ,u^2/\alpha ^{})=X_f^{}(\sigma ),$$

respectively and the further boundary conditions

$$X^{}(0,s)=X^{}(\pi ,s)=0.$$

In Section 3 we found the solution (3.5) for the classical action with arbitrary Dirichlet boundary data. It follows from this result that

$`S_0[u;X_f^{},X_i^{}]=A[u,X_i^{},X_i^{}]+A[u,X_f^{},X_i^{}]B[u,X_i^{},X_f^{}],`$ (6.3)
where $`A[u,X^{},Y^{}]`$ and $`B[u,X^{},Y^{}]`$ are the quadratic forms

$`A[u,X^{},Y^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{16(\pi \alpha ^{}+u^2)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _1{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _2{\displaystyle \frac{[X^{}(\sigma _1)Y^{}(\sigma _2)]^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha ^{}(\sigma _1\sigma _2)}{2(\pi \alpha ^{}+u^2)}}},`$ (6.4)
$`B[u,X^{},Y^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{8(\pi \alpha ^{}+u^2)^2}}{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _1{\displaystyle _0^\pi }𝑑\sigma _2{\displaystyle \frac{[X^{}(\sigma _1)Y^{}(\sigma _2)]^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{u^2\alpha ^{}(\sigma _1+\sigma _2)}{2(\pi \alpha ^{}+u^2)}}}.`$ (6.5)
It is simple to recover the static potential $`V(R)`$ in (4.13) from (6.1) for $`R>R_c`$. If we take $`T`$ very large, then the integral is dominated by large $`u`$. For very large $`u`$, the quadratic forms (6.4), (6.5) may be neglected. The infinite product formula for the eta function (5.5) implies that

$`\text{}X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )\text{}𝒵_0T{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}e^{\frac{(d2)u^2}{12\alpha ^{}}}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}\frac{R^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}=\sqrt{\pi }𝒵_0e^{TV(R)}.`$ (6.6)
This implies that the bulk contribution to the free energy of the world sheet is $`TV(R)`$, so that the energy of the string in its ground state is $`V(R)`$. If $`R<R_c`$ we do not find the usual imaginary result for $`V(R)`$. In this case the energy operator has a negative eigenvalue. The integral over $`u`$ simply fails to converge. This means that

$`V(R)=\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\sqrt{R^2R_c^2},R>R_c\\ \mathrm{},R<R_c\end{array}.`$ (6.9)
We can regularize the integral by cutting off the integration variable $`u`$. As the cut-off is removed, a negative infinite value for $`V(R)`$ is unavoidable. We are not claiming that references ,  are incorrect. Our result is a consequence of defining amplitudes with (5.1). Under circumstances when the square of the energy is not positive, the logarithm of this transform does not become imaginary but infinite.

The amplitude (6.1) is not rotation invariant. For simplicity, assume $`X^{}`$ on the boundary is zero. Then $`S_0=0`$. If we take a new integration variable $`\pi \alpha ^{}/u`$ and use (5.6), (6.1) becomes

$`\text{}X_f^{}(\sigma )\left|e^{TE}\right|X_i^{}(\sigma )\text{}=𝒵_0T{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}(\pi \alpha ^{})^{\frac{d6}{4}}u^{\frac{d+2}{2}}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}u^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^{\frac{d2}{2}}e^{\frac{R^2}{4u^2}\frac{T^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}.`$
Rotating by $`90^o`$ would yield the same expression, except for the quantity $`(\pi \alpha ^{})^{\frac{d6}{4}}u^{\frac{d+2}{2}}`$ appearing in the integrand. The lack of rotation invariance is not really so strange. We are calculating the amplitude for a string of a specified shape at one time to become a string with another specified shape at another time. This is analogous to the amplitude for a relativistic particle to travel from one space-time point to another space-time point; such an amplitude is not Lorentz invariant, as shown in the appendix. This particle amplitude and the (Lorentz-invariant) propagator have similar integral transforms of type (5.1), but with different powers of the integration variable in the integrand. The kernel also has a prefactor proportional to the time separation, but the propagator does not.

## 7 The off-shell disk amplitude

In the light of the above considerations, the only sensible form of the off-shell disk amplitude in $`26`$ dimensions contains an extra factor of $`u^5`$ and no overall factor of $`T`$:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[T,R;X_f^{},X_i^{}]=𝒵{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^7}}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}u^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^{12}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}\frac{R^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}e^{S_0[u,X_i^{},X_f^{}]},`$ (7.1)
where $`𝒵`$ is presumably not the same as $`𝒵_0`$ and $`S_0`$ is given as before by (6.3), (6.4), (6.5). It is easily checked that when $`X^{}`$ vanishes on the boundary the right-hand side of (7.1) is invariant under rotations by $`90^o`$. Furthermore, the large $`T`$ behavior (6.6) is not affected.

The integral expression on the right-hand side of (7.1) suggests a guess for the amplitude with $`X^{}`$ arbitrary on the boundary (but with $`X^0`$ and $`X^1`$ in the shape of a rectangle of dimensions $`T`$ and $`R`$). We use the classical action $`S_0`$ given in (6.2), but without specifying $`X^{}=0`$ at $`\sigma =0,\pi `$. The boundary data on the rectangle of dimensions $`T\times R`$ must be mapped to boundary data on a rectangle of dimensions $`u^2/\alpha ^{}\times \pi `$, whose perimeter is $`2\pi +2\frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}}`$. We convert boundary data

$$X_i^{}(\sigma ),X_{\mathrm{left}}^{}(X^0)=X^{}(\sigma =\pi ,X^0),X_f^{}(\sigma ),X_{\mathrm{right}}^{}(X^0)=X^{}(\sigma =0,X^0),$$

into $`X^{}(s)`$ with $`s[0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi +2\frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}})`$ by

$`X^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`X_i^{}(\sigma ),s=\sigma ,s[0,\pi ],`$
$`X^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\mathrm{left}}^{}(X^0),s=\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{u^2X^0}{\alpha ^{}T}},s[\pi ,\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}}}],`$
$`X^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`X_f^{}(\sigma ),s=2\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}}}\sigma ,s[\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}}},\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi ],`$
$`X^{}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`X_{\mathrm{right}}^{}(X^0),s=2\pi +{\displaystyle \frac{2u^2}{\alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{u^2X^0}{\alpha ^{}T}},s[2\pi ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\pi +2{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{\alpha ^{}}}].`$ (7.2)
This boundary function $`X^{}(s)`$ can then be used to determine $`S_0`$:

$`S_0[u,X^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{16(\pi \alpha ^{}+u^2)^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_1𝑑s_2\frac{[X^{}(s_1)X^{}(s_2)]^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{\alpha ^{}(s_1s_2)}{2(\pi \alpha ^{}+u^2)}}},`$ (7.3)
Since (7.1) is clearly not the same as (3.5). The static potential obtained by taking $`T`$ large as in (6.6) is (4.13). The classical result (3.5), however, is a simple area law and therefore leads to a purely linear potential $`V(R)=R/(2\pi \alpha ^{})`$. The implication of the failure of the classical result is clear; the quantum fluctuations around the classical solution are important. This undoubtably means that the Liouville field does not decouple in twenty-six dimensions unless Neumann boundary conditions are taken.

## 8 Discussion

There are several issues raised in this paper which need to be studied further. The first concerns the question of what the term “off-shell Bosonic string amplitude” actually means. We have argued that such amplitudes are not mathematically equivalent to those of quantized strings with a Nambu or Polyakov action principle. The question is not simply a formal one; we would like to know how strings arise effectively in gauge theories. Somehow, these effective strings are free of the bulk contribution to the square of the energy operator. World-sheet supersymmetry may cure this contribution.

Another issue is the determination of off-shell amplitudes for more general boundary conditions. At present it is not clear how to obtain these directly. It may be possible to determine string amplitudes of quasi-static strings using our methods. These amplitudes differ from the static string amplitudes in that the length $`R`$, of the string is dependent on the time $`X^0`$. This may not solve the problem, since the resulting amplitudes will not be rotation invariant; but perhaps it is possible to guess the answer which generalizes (7.1).

We remark that it is possible to formally remove the divergence of (7.1) when one dimension $`R`$ or $`T`$ is made sufficiently small. This can be done by simply cutting off the integration on $`u`$:

$`\mathrm{\Phi }[T,R;X_f^{},X_i^{}]=𝒵{\displaystyle _{\frac{\pi \alpha ^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^7}}\eta \left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}u^2}{\pi \alpha ^{}}}\right)^{12}e^{\frac{T^2}{4u^2}\frac{R^2u^2}{4\pi ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}}}e^{S_0[u,X_i^{},X_f^{}]},`$ (8.1)
where $`S_0`$ is given by (7.2), (7.3). This expression is invariant upon interchange of $`R`$ and $`T`$. The static potential $`V(R)`$ is no longer negative-infinite below the critical distance $`R<R_c=\pi \sqrt{\frac{(d2)\alpha ^{}}{3}}`$, but is instead a finitely-deep potential well. An interesting question is whether the static potential obtained from (8.1) has conceptual or phenomenological usefulness for QCD.

In both (6.1) and (7.1) there is a phase transition at sufficiently small $`T`$, analogous to the Hagedorn transition with periodic time. This transition differs from the usual Hagedorn transition in that it is not associated with windings of the string around a cylinder. The Hagedorn transition is associated with vortex condensation in the two-dimensional $`XY`$-model . The transition of the world-sheet with rectangular boundary conditions is instead associated with that of the two-dimensional restricted gaussian model, with partition function

$`Z=\left[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle _{\beta /2}^{\beta /2}}𝑑x_j\right]\mathrm{exp}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{<j,k>}{}}(x_jx_k)^2,`$
where $`j`$ and $`k`$ denote sites on a two-dimensional flat lattice and $`<j,k>`$ means that $`j`$ and $`k`$ are nearest neighbors. This lattice model behaves like a massless field theory for sufficiently large $`\beta `$. It also has a well-defined high-temperature expansion around $`\beta =0`$ however, and therefore has a strongly-coupled phase with exponentially-decaying correlations for small $`\beta `$. The transition is driven by the condensation of loops on the lattice where $`x=\pm \beta /2`$, rather than by vortices.

## Acknowledgement

I thank Yuri Makeenko for some insightful remarks on off-shell amplitudes in the critical dimension which sparked my interest in this topic.

## Appendix: Integral transforms for particle evolution operators and propagators

As an application of the formula (5.1), we will calculate the wave function of position $`𝐱`$ and time $`t`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(𝐱,t)=K(𝐱,t;𝐱_i,t_i)`$ for a relativistic particle which has been restricted to be at initial position $`𝐱_i`$ at initial time $`t_i`$ (we assume $`t>t_i`$). This wave function, the relativistic Schrödinger kernel, is closely related to the propagator, but they are not the same, and we discuss the connection between them. Though such matters are elementary, they are neither trivial nor discussed in textbooks (at least to our knowledge), and clarifying them will facilitate our discussion of the disk amplitude. The particle amplitude to start from some fixed configuration at one time and finish in a fixed configuration at a later time is not the two-point Green’s function.

Imagine a relativistic particle scatters isotropically from a small target of size $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{\mathrm{target}}`$ at $`𝐱_i`$ at time $`t_i`$. We measure the probability for the particle to be at $`x_f`$ at time $`t_f>t_i`$ with a small detector of size $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{\mathrm{detect}}`$ located at $`x_f`$. This probability is

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{\mathrm{target}}^3(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{\mathrm{detect}}^3|K(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)|^2.$$

The wave function is the kernel

$`K(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)=𝐱_f\left|\mathrm{exp}\left[\mathrm{i}(t_ft_i+\mathrm{i}\epsilon )\sqrt{^2+m^2}\right]\right|𝐱_i,`$ (A.1)
where we have set the speed of light and Planck’s constant equal to one and $`m`$ is the particle mass.

To evaluate (A.1) explicitly, we use (5.1) to obtain

$`K(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{t_ft_i}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}e^{\frac{(t_ft_i)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }{4u^2}}𝐱_f\left|e^{u^2\sqrt{^2+m^2}}\right|𝐱_i`$
$`=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{t_ft_i}{8\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^5}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_f𝐱_i)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }{4u^2}}m^2u^2\right].`$ (A.2)
This integral may be evaluated for $`|(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_f𝐱_i)^2|m^2`$, with the result

$`K(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)i{\displaystyle \frac{t_ft_i}{8\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{du}{u^5}\mathrm{exp}\frac{(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_i𝐱_f)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }{4u^2}}{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{du}{u^2}\mathrm{exp}\frac{(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_i𝐱_f)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }{4u^2}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^2}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_i𝐱_f)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }{4u^2}}m^2u^2]`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}(t_ft_i)}{8\pi [(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_i𝐱_f)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon ]^{\frac{3}{2}}}}\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{i}m\sqrt{(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_i𝐱_f)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }.`$ (A.3)
If the proper-time interval is space-like, i.e. $`t_ft_i<|𝐱_f𝐱_i|`$, the result (A.3) shows that the wave function $`K(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)`$ is not zero, but exponentially decaying. This establishes that in relativistic quantum mechanics the amplitude for a particle to travel outside the light cone does not vanish. This fact is almost obvious from the uncertainty principle, but it is satisfying to understand its origins clearly. Feynman showed this result as well, not by an explicit calculation, but using a theorem from harmonic analysis . Since the interval between events is space-like, there exists a Lorentz transformation reversing the temporal order of the the scattering and detection of a particle, which implies the existence of antiparticles (and explains the PCT theorem). One can even add spin to describe electrons (rather than scalar particles). To eliminate superluminal communication, it is necessary to second quantize (for details see Feynman’s article).

As interesting as (A.3) may be, this wave function is not the same as the propagator. The reason the two are different is that the the function $`K`$ is not invariant under a Lorentz transformation. This can be seen by inspecting our result (A.3). Yet a source for a scalar field $`j(𝐱)`$ is itself a scalar, i.e. is Lorentz invariant; therefore the propagator must be Lorentz invariant.

The retarded Green’s function is

$`S_{\mathrm{ret}}(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)=𝐱_f\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (t_ft_i)}{2\sqrt{^2+m^2}}}e^{\mathrm{i}(t_ft_i)\sqrt{^2+m^2}}\right|𝐱_i,`$
and the advanced Green’s function is

$`S_{\mathrm{adv}}(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)=𝐱_f\left|{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (t_f+t_i)}{2\sqrt{^2+m^2}}}e^{\mathrm{i}(t_ft_i)\sqrt{^2+m^2}}\right|𝐱_i,`$
where $`\theta (t)=0`$ for $`t<0`$ and $`\theta (t)=1`$ for $`t0`$. The average of the retarded and advanced Green’s functions is the scalar-field propagator:

$`S(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_{\mathrm{ret}}(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}S_{\mathrm{adv}}(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i),`$
or

$`S(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)=𝐱_f\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\sqrt{^2+m^2}}}e^{\mathrm{i}|t_ft_i|\sqrt{^2+m^2}}\right|𝐱_i.`$
The integral transform for the propagator is not (A.2), but

$`S(𝐱_f,t_f;𝐱_i,t_i)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{u^3}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(t_ft_i)^2(𝐱_f𝐱_i)^2+\mathrm{i}\epsilon }{4u^2}}m^2u^2\right],`$ (A.4)
which can be checked by differentiating (A.2) with respect to $`t_f`$. The right-hand side of equation (A.4) is Lorentz invariant. Notice that the power of $`u`$ in the integral in (A.4) is different from that in (A.2). It is argued in Section 6 that the integral expression for the one-closed-string vacuum expectation value is similar to that for the open-string evolution operator, but has a different power of $`u`$ in the integrand.

All of the discussion of this appendix has been in Minkowski space. We could have just as easily done the analysis in Euclidean space, as we do for strings in the main text of this article.