text:
# 𝐶-axis Optical Sum Rule in Josephson Coupled Vortex State

## I introduction

The conductivity sum rule is one of the most useful methods to analyze optical properties of high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. The conventional sum rule states that the missing spectral weight $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$ under the real part of the optical conductivity between superconducting and normal state is equal to the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$. However, violations of the conventional sum rule along the $`c`$-axis have been observed in some high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, and are related to the change in kinetic energy  on entering the superconducting state. Since $`c`$-axis response reflects in-plane dynamics, the $`c`$-axis conductivity sum rule and the corresponding superfluid density are worthwhile investigating to understand characteristics of CuO2 planes as well as for their own importance and interest.

We have previously studied effects of an in-plane magnetic field on the $`c`$-axis sum rule and on the superfluid density under the assumption that the in-plane field freely penetrates between CuO2 planes, and found that such a field could not easily change the $`c`$-axis sum rule. The reason for this is that the in-plane field is not directly pair breaking and it is only the induced vortex due to Josephson tunneling that reduces the superfluid density. Usually the conductivity sum rule is not changed by a perturbation since the c-axis kinetic energy remains unchanged in many cases. In some notion of interlayer coupling theory, superconductivity is related to the kinetic energy; namely, it might be kinetic energy-driven. In this respect the changes in the kinetic energy and in the c-axis sum rule suggest fundamental information on superconductivity. Therefore, the $`c`$-axis magnetic field is more interesting because it gives rise to a shift in the quasiparticle energy spectrum, and serves as a direct pair breaker.

When a $`c`$-axis magnetic field $`(H)`$ is above $`H_{c1}`$ and below $`H_{c2}`$ in a magnitude, where $`H_{c1}(H_{c2})`$ is the lower (upper) critical field, and the anisotropy of the Dirac cone $`\alpha _D=v_F/v_G`$ is much larger than one, where $`v_F(v_G)`$ is the Fermi (gap) velocity, the semiclassical approach can be applied. Since $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$, vortices are still well separated and it is an extended quasiparticle state that dominately determines the properties of the in-plane dynamics for a $`d`$-wave superconductor. For $`\alpha _D1`$, quantum mechanical effect becomes important; however, this is not the case for the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, for which $`\alpha _D1`$.

In this paper we consider the effect of a magnetic field oriented perpendicular to the CuO2 planes on the $`c`$-axis sum rule and on the corresponding superfluid density. We apply a semiclassical approximation to a vortex state in a two dimensional $`d`$-wave superconductor for $`H_{c1}HH_{c2}`$ and $`\alpha _D1`$, and include in the calculation only the energy shift due to the circulating supercurrents around the vortex cores. We assume that the core occupies only a small part of the single vortex unit cell, and that it is the energy shift of the quasiparticles outside the cores that is most important. We study both the the case of correlated and uncorrelated pancake vortices, and find that the $`c`$-axis sum rule depends on the interlayer correlation of pancake vortices while details of the intralayer vortex distribution is less significant.

## II formalism

We begin with the Hamiltonian $`=_0+_c`$, where $`_0`$ describes a $`d`$-wave superconductivity, and $`_c=_{i\sigma }t_{}\left[c_{i1\sigma }^+c_{i2\sigma }+c_{i2\sigma }^+c_{i1\sigma }\right]`$ is interlayer coupling; therefore, an electron transfers from a site $`i`$ in plane 1 to the same site $`i`$ in plane 2. In the semiclassical approximation, a quasiparticle sitting on the supercurrent circulating around a votex has an energy shift, the so-called Doppler shift, and the magnitude of the supercurrent is inversely proportional to the distance from the center of the vortex. As illustrated in Fig1. (a), for the correlated vortex state a quasiparticle sitting on, say, the slow supercurrent transfers to the next plane without change in momentum and, therefore, still sits on the slow supercurrent loop as before. Consequently, we expect that the kinetic energy will not change during the interlayer hopping. Note that the $`c`$-axis physics is determined by the in-plane dynamics as we pointed out earlier \[See also Eq. (5)\]. On the other hand, for the uncorrelated vortex state, Fig1. (b), a quasiparticle on the slow supercurrent loop sits on the fast supercurrent after hopping; therefore, the kinetic energy changes. The detailed calculation requires the in-plane distribution of pancake vortices and it will be explained later.

The optical conductivity follows from the appropriate Kubo formula:

$$\sigma _c(\omega )=(i/\omega )\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{ret}(\omega )e^2d_c\right]$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ret}(\omega )`$ is the analytic continuation for the current-current correlation in Matsubara representation, and $`_c`$ represents the thermal average of the $`c`$-axis kinetic energy. Here $`e`$ and $`d`$ are the electron charge and the interlayer spacing, respectively. The superfluid density is detrermined by Kramers-Kronig relation: $`\rho _s=4\pi lim_{\omega 0}\left[\omega \text{Im}\sigma _c(\omega )\right]`$. In terms of the real part of the conductivity $`\sigma _{1c}(\omega )`$, the $`c`$-axis conductivity sum rule reads:

$$\rho _s=\mathrm{\Delta }N4\pi e^2d\left[_c^s_c^n\right],$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }N=8_{0^+}^{\omega _c}𝑑\omega \left[\sigma _{1c}^n(\omega )\sigma _{1c}^s(\omega )\right]`$, and the superscripts $`n`$ and $`s`$ denote the normal and superconducting state, respectively. In the integral defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }N`$, the upper limit is sufficiently large so as to include all optical transitions of importance to the problem but not interband effects. The kinetic energy change $`4\pi e^2d\left[_c^s_c^n\right]`$ will be denoted as $`\mathrm{\Delta }K`$. Therefore, in the presence of a magnetic field $`(H)`$, the sum rule becomes $`\rho _s(H)=\mathrm{\Delta }N(H)\mathrm{\Delta }K(H)`$, and it can be written as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }N(H)}{\rho _s(H)}1+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }K(0)}{\rho _s(0)}\left[1\frac{\delta \rho _s}{\rho _s(0)}\right]+\frac{\delta K_s}{\rho _s(0)}$$
(3)
where $`\rho _s(H)=\rho _s(0)+\delta \rho _s`$ and $`\delta K_s=\mathrm{\Delta }K(H)\mathrm{\Delta }K(0)`$. As can be easily seen, the sum rule change due to the field depends not only on $`\delta K_s`$ but also on $`\delta \rho _s`$.

## III magnetic field effects on the kinetic energy and the sum rule

It is easy to understand that the $`c`$-axis magnetic field has no effect on the interlayer hopping for a Fermi liquid in the overdoped regime while the absence of a well-established theory of the pseudogap state would seemingly cause ambiguity in the validity of our approachi for the pseudogap regime. However, recently it has been observed that the pseudogap is insensitive to the magnetic field. This implies that even for the underdoped cuprates, a semiclassical approach may be applicable to the sum rule calculation and the kinetic energy change is determined only by the field effect on the superconducting state; namely, the Doppler shift. Here, we would like to emphasize that we do not calculate the zero field kinetic energy difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }K(0)`$ for the pseudogap state because a model for the pseudogap would be required to do so; instead, we base our analysis on experimental observations for this case. We also point out that effects of the Doppler shift are considered only on the superconducting state not on the pseudogap state.

Let us first calculate the kinetic energy change $`\delta K_s`$. In the semicalssical approximation, the fermionic Matsubara frequencies $`i\omega _n`$ in the superconducting $`(2\times 2)`$ Green function $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ are shifted by $`𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤`$, where $`𝐯_s(𝐫)`$ is the superfluid velocity at $`𝐫`$ in a plane and $`𝐤`$ the quasiparticle momentum, that is, the $`(2\times 2)`$ Green function in Nambu space is $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,i\omega _n𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤)`$, and an average over the vortex unit cell is to be carried out. Denoting $`\overline{ϵ}=𝐯_s(𝐫)𝐤`$, the $`(2\times 2)`$ Green function is given by

$$\widehat{G}(𝐤,i\omega _n\overline{ϵ})=\frac{(i\omega _n\overline{ϵ})\widehat{\tau }_0+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤\widehat{\tau }_1+\xi _𝐤\widehat{\tau }_3}{(i\omega _n\overline{ϵ})^2\xi _𝐤^2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}.$$
(4)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤`$ is a $`d`$-wave superconducting gap such that the quasiparticle energy $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{\xi _𝐤^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}`$ in zero field, and $`\widehat{\tau }_i`$’s the Pauli matrices in spin space. In terms of $`\widehat{G}(𝐤,i\omega _n\overline{ϵ})`$, the $`c`$-axis kinetic energy in the vortex state is given at position $`𝐫_i`$ by $`K_s(𝐫_1,𝐫_2)=_𝐤K_s(𝐤;\overline{ϵ}_1,\overline{ϵ}_2)`$, where $`\overline{ϵ}_i=𝐯_{si}(𝐫_i)𝐤`$, with

$$K_s(𝐤;\overline{ϵ}_1,\overline{ϵ}_2)=\frac{𝒞T}{4}\underset{\omega _n}{}\text{Tr}\left[\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐤,i\omega \overline{ϵ}_1)\widehat{\tau }_3\widehat{G}(𝐤,i\omega \overline{ϵ}_2)\right],$$
(5)
where $`𝒞=32\pi e^2dt_{}^2`$. The total kinetic energy is obtained after $`K_s(𝐫)`$ is appropriately averaged over a vortex unit cell of radius $`R`$ i.e. $`K_s(H)=(1/A)_{rR}𝑑𝐫K^s(𝐫)`$ with $`A=\pi R^2`$ the area of the unit cell. Actually, the correct averaging procedure depends on whether or not the pancake vortices from one plane to the next are correlated or are completely uncorrelated. For the correlated case $`𝐯_{s1}(𝐫_1)=𝐯_{s2}(𝐫_2)`$ and there is a simple space average over $`𝐫`$ while in the uncorrelated case we need to introduce two separate uncorrelated space variable $`𝐯_{s1}(𝐫_1)`$ and $`𝐯_{s2}(𝐫_2)`$ and take independent averages over $`𝐫_1`$ and $`𝐫_2`$ i.e. $`(1/A^2)_{r_1R}𝑑𝐫_1_{r_2R}𝑑𝐫_2`$.

We consider the case of uncorrelated pancakes distributed randomly in each plane so that $`𝐯_{s1}(𝐫_1)𝐤`$ and $`𝐯_{s2}(𝐫_2)𝐤`$ are to be averaged independently and separately. In a $`d`$-wave superconductor it is the nodal quasiparticles that dominate the low $`T`$ or the small $`H`$ response. We take $`T0`$ and work with the difference in kinetic energy with field on and off i.e. $`K^s(H)K^s(0)`$. Note that this quantity is determined only by the field effect on the superconducting state in our consideration. We then apply a nodal approximation. In carrying out the sum over $`𝐤`$ we make a coordinate transformation to $`𝐩`$ with the nodal point $`𝐤_n`$ on the Fermi surface playing the role of the origin for $`𝐩`$. We then integrate over a nodal region and the integration over $`𝐩`$ should not be sensitive to the region of integration provided $`|𝐩|`$ is taken to be of order $`p_0𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$. With these simplification we can introduce a $`\delta `$-function $`\delta \left(ϵ_1𝐯_{s1}(𝐫_1)𝐤_n\right)`$ into the expression for $`K_s(H)K_s(0)`$ and define

$$𝒫(ϵ_1)=\frac{1}{A}𝑑𝐫_1\delta \left(ϵ_1𝐯_{s1}(𝐫_1)𝐤_n\right),$$
(6)
to obtain

$`K_s(H)K_s(0)=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝒫(ϵ_1)𝒫(ϵ_2)`$ (8)
$`\times \left[\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)\right],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=_𝐤K_s(𝐤;ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$. The matrix sum in $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$ can be done to get

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{2}}T{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\omega _n}{}}[G(𝐤,i\omega _nϵ_1)G(𝐤,i\omega _nϵ_2)`$ (10)
$`F(𝐤,i\omega _nϵ_1)F(𝐤,i\omega _nϵ_2)],`$
with $`G(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ and $`F(𝐤,i\omega _n)`$ the superconducting state ordinary and anomalous amplitude, respectively. For simplicity we will only treat the pure case, and after some algebra we derive $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$ as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{f_{1+}f_{2+}}{ϵ_{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_2}{ϵ_{12}}}]`$ (12)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{f_{1+}f_2}{ϵ_{12}+2E_𝐤}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_{2+}}{ϵ_{12}2E_𝐤}}]\},`$
where $`f_{i\pm }=f(ϵ_i\pm E_𝐤)`$ is the Fermi function, and $`ϵ_{12}=ϵ_1ϵ_2`$. Note the symmetry properties: $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_2,ϵ_1)=\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$.

The limit $`ϵ_1ϵ_2`$ is of interest because it enters the correlated pancake case for which $`𝐯_{s1}(𝐫_1)𝐤=𝐯_{s2}(𝐫_2)𝐤`$. In this case the average for the kinetic energy over a single $`𝒫(ϵ)`$ is

$$K_s(H)K_s(0)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ𝒫(ϵ)\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ,ϵ)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)\right],$$
(13)
where

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ,ϵ)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)}{z}}|_{ϵ+E_𝐤}+{\displaystyle \frac{f(z)}{z}}|_{ϵE_𝐤}]`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{f(ϵ+E_𝐤)f(ϵE_𝐤)}{E_𝐤}}\right]\}.`$
In the nodal coordinate system $`E_𝐤=\sqrt{p_1^2+p_2^2}=p`$ and $`_𝐤=_{\text{node}}𝒥p𝑑p𝑑\vartheta `$, where $`\vartheta `$ is a polar angle and $`𝒥=\left[(2\pi )^2v_Fv_G\right]^1`$. At zero temperature the Fermi function become $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function i.e. $`f(z)\mathrm{\Theta }(z)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=0`$ for $`z>0`$ and otherwise $`\mathrm{\Theta }(z)=1`$. Substututing $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ,ϵ)`$ into Eq. (13), we obtain

$`K^s(H)`$ $`K^s(0)=2𝒞{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ𝒫(ϵ)𝒥{\displaystyle p𝑑p𝑑\vartheta }`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{p^2}}[\delta (ϵ+p)\delta (ϵp)]`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`[\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵp)\mathrm{\Theta }(ϵ+p)+1]{\displaystyle \frac{p_2^2}{p^3}}\}.`$ (18)
The first $`\delta `$-function and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function in Eq. (18) do not survive as they give zero contribution. The first integral in Eq. (18) over $`p`$ gives a contribution proportional to $`ϵ`$. The second integral is limited to the range $`p(ϵ,p_0)`$, but its range can be extended to $`(0,p_0)`$ by including the contribution of the first integral. This combined contribution cancels the last integral in Eq. (18) to give zero. As pictorially illustrated in Fig1. (a), we analytically showed that $`K_s(H)=K_s(0)`$ i.e. the out-of-plane magnetic field has no effect on the $`c`$-axis kinetic energy regardless of the form of $`𝒫(ϵ)`$ in the correlated vortex state. This does not mean, however, that there is no change in the sum rule given by Eq. (3). Instead it means that the sum rule is modified only by a possible change in superfluid density. The calculation of $`\delta \rho _s`$ is similar to the above \[See later explanation\]. It turns out that $`\rho _s(H)\rho _s(0)=4\pi 𝒞𝒥_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵϵ𝒫(ϵ)`$, where $`\rho _s(0)=𝒞N(0)/2`$ with the density of states at the Fermi level $`N(0)`$, and we obtain $`\delta \rho _s/\rho _s(0)=(2/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵϵ𝒫(ϵ)`$.

Recently, Vekhter et.al.  have given analytic expressions for different models of the vortex distribution function $`𝒫(ϵ)`$. They consider a Gaussian $`𝒫_G(ϵ)`$ and two possible vortex liquid model $`𝒫_{L1}(ϵ)`$ and $`𝒫_{L2}(ϵ)`$:

$`𝒫_G(ϵ)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }E_H}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ϵ^2}{E_H^2}}\right)`$ (19)
$`𝒫_{L1}(ϵ)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{E_H^2}{(E_H^2+ϵ^2)^{(3/2)}}}`$ (20)
$`𝒫_{L2}(ϵ)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi E_H}}[\mathrm{arccos}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(2ϵ/E_H)^2+1}}}\right)`$ (22)
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{E_H^3}{ϵ^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3E_H^5}{4ϵ^5}}){\displaystyle \frac{3E_H^4}{2ϵ^4}}].`$
The magnetic energy $`E_H`$ is given by $`v_F/(2R)`$, where the radius of the vortex unit cell $`R=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Phi }_0/\pi H}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ the flux quantum. Using the model $`𝒫(ϵ)`$, we obtain $`\delta \rho _s/\rho _s(0)=\alpha _1E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. where $`\alpha _1`$ is $`1/\sqrt{\pi }`$ for $`G`$, $`1`$ for $`L1`$, and $`0.84`$ for $`L2`$. Note that all distributions give the same linear dependence on $`E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ with slightly different coefficients, and $`H`$ reduces the superfluid density as we expect.

Our main results so far are that in the correlated vortex case there is no change in kinetic energy on application of a magnetic field $`H`$ perpendicular to the layers, independent of the vortex distribution function $`𝒫(ϵ)`$. In all cases considered, the superfluid density is reduced by the magnetic field, and $`\delta \rho _s/\rho _s(0)`$ is linearly proportional to $`E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ with a coefficient of order $`1`$. The form of $`𝒫(ϵ)`$ determines the exact value of the coefficient. We consider two interesting regimes of doping for the correlated vortex case $`(\delta K_s=0)`$. For the overdoped case we assumed that the in-plane motion can be described by a Fermi liquid. In this case, it has been found previously that in zero field $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(0)/\rho _s(0)=1`$ i.e. the $`c`$-axis sum rule is conventional, which is consistent with experimental observations. It arises because $`\mathrm{\Delta }K(0)=0`$ in this instance. Therefore, it follows from Eq. (3) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(H)/\rho _s(H)=1`$ also i.e. there is no change in the sum rule induced by the external field.

As we mentioned earlier, we do not rely on a specific theory to calculate the sum rule for the underdope regime. Instead we use experimental observations on the underdoped cuprates. In this case the zero field sum rule is observed to be about a half; namely, $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(0)/\rho _s(0)1/2`$, which also follows directly in the preformed pair model for the pseudogap. This means that $`\mathrm{\Delta }K(0)/\rho _s(0)=1/2`$ in Eq. (3). When we calculate $`\delta K_s`$, we take into account only effects of the Doppler shift due to the magnetic field, again, based on experimental results. Consequently, we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(H)/\rho _s(H)=1/2+\delta \rho _s/2\rho _s(0)=1/2\alpha _1E_H/2\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\alpha _1=1/\sqrt{\pi }`$ for $`G`$, $`1`$ for $`L1`$, and $`0.84`$ for $`L2`$. The sum rule originally equal to $`1/2`$ is further reduced by the magnetic field.

Now, we return to Eq. (8) for the uncorrelated vortex state with Eq. (12) defining $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$. In this case $`K^s(H)K^s(0)`$ becomes

$`K^s(H)K^s(0)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝒫(ϵ_1)𝒫(ϵ_2)\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)\right]`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝒫(ϵ_1)𝒫(ϵ_2)\left[\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)\right].`$ (25)
On application of the nodal approximation to the difference $`\mathrm{\Psi }(ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\mathrm{\Psi }(0,0)`$ in the limit $`T0`$, we obtain

$`\delta K_s=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N(0)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝒫(ϵ_1)𝒫(ϵ_2)`$ (27)
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}\right|\right\},`$
which is of order $`E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, and numerical calculations give $`\delta K^s/\rho _s(0)=\alpha _2E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\alpha _2`$ is $`0.123`$ for $`G`$, $`0.135`$ for $`L1`$, and $`0.102`$ for $`L2`$. We also derive the change in superfluid density which follows in a similar fashion; namely, $`\delta \rho _s=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝒫(ϵ_1)𝒫(ϵ_2)\left[\chi (ϵ_1,ϵ_2)\chi (0,0)\right]`$, where

$`\chi (ϵ_1,ϵ_2)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐤^2}{E_𝐤^2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{f_{1+}f_{2+}}{ϵ_{12}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_2}{ϵ_{12}}}`$ (29)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{1+}f_2}{ϵ_{12}+2E_𝐤}}{\displaystyle \frac{f_1f_{2+}}{ϵ_{12}2E_𝐤}}].`$
It can be shown that the superfluid density reduction becomes

$`\delta \rho _s=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{𝒞}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N(0)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_0}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ϵ_1𝑑ϵ_2𝒫(ϵ_1)𝒫(ϵ_2)`$ (31)
$`\times \left\{{\displaystyle \frac{3(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)^2+ϵ_1^2+ϵ_2^2}{2(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(ϵ_1+ϵ_2)}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_1ϵ_2}{ϵ_1+ϵ_2}}\right|\right\},`$
and $`\delta \rho _s/\rho _s(0)=\alpha _3E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, where $`\alpha _3`$ is $`0.34`$ for $`G`$, $`0.72`$ for $`L1`$, and $`0.63`$ for $`L2`$. For correlated vortex, we used $`\chi (ϵ,ϵ)`$ with $`\chi (0,0)=\rho _s(0)`$.

The sum rule of the uncorrelated vortex state reads $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(H)/\rho _s(H)1\alpha _2(E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ for the overdoped, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }N(H)/\rho _s(H)1/2(\alpha _2+\alpha _3/2)(E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0)`$ for the underdoped regime. In both cases the sum rule is reduced by the presence of a magnetic field. In the overdoped case the reference is, however, $`1`$ while for the underdoped case it is $`1/2`$, and the coefficient of the reduction, which goes like $`E_H/\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, is larger for the underdoped case as compared with the overdoped case. Note that the magnetic energy $`E_H`$ goes like $`\sqrt{H}`$ in all cases.

## IV conclusions

For correlated pancake vortices with an in-plane Fermi liquid and coherent $`c`$-axis coupling, there is no change in the $`c`$-axis optical sum rule when a magnetic field is applied perpendicular to the layers of a $`d`$-wave superconductor. The sum rule keeps its conventional value of one. At the same time the superfluid density in the $`c`$-direction decreases by an amount proportional to the square root of the magnitude of the external magnetic field $`(\sqrt{H})`$. If, however, the in-plane dynamics is unconventional, for example, it can be described by a pseudogap above $`T_c`$, the sum rule, which is equal to $`1/2`$ when $`H=0`$, gets reduced linearly in $`\sqrt{H}`$ as does the $`c`$-axis superfluid density. For uncorrelated vortices, there is always a reduction in the sum rule which is also proportional to $`\sqrt{H}`$. For the in-plane Fermi liquid case the sum rule is reduced below one, while for the unconventional case with a pseudogap it is reduced below $`1/2`$. In both cases a reduction in the $`c`$-axis superfluid density accompanies the sum rule reduction.

AKNOWLEDGMENTS

Research was supported in part by the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR).


format: text

text:
# Little 𝑞-Legendre polynomials and irrationality of certain Lambert series

## 1 Introduction

Most important special functions, in particular hypergeometric functions, have $`q`$-extensions, usually obtained by replacing Pochhammer symbols $`(a)_n=a(a+1)\mathrm{}(a+n1)`$ by their $`q`$-analog $`(a;q)_n=(1a)(1aq)(1aq^2)\mathrm{}(1aq^{n1})`$. Since

$$\underset{q1}{lim}\frac{(q^a;q)_n}{(1q)^n}=(a)_n,$$

one usually retrieves the original special function from its $`q`$-extension by letting $`q1`$. A good source for $`q`$-extensions of hypergeometric series (basic hypergeometric series) is the book  by Gasper and Rahman. Our interest in this paper is the following $`q`$-extension of the harmonic series

$$h_p(1)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{p^k1}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^k}{1q^k},0<q=\frac{1}{p}<1,$$
(1)
and of the natural logarithm of 2

$$\mathrm{ln}_p(2)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{p^k1}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(q)^k}{1q^k},0<q=\frac{1}{p}<1.$$
(2)
In 1948, Paul Erdős  proved that $`h_2(1)`$ is irrational. Peter Borwein   showed that $`h_p(1)`$ (and other similar numbers) are irrational for every integer $`p>1`$ and also proved the irrationality of $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ for every integer $`p>1`$. If we denote $`E_p(z)=(qz;q)_{\mathrm{}}`$, with $`q=1/p`$, then Bézivin  had earlier shown that $`E_p(\alpha ),E_p^{}(\alpha ),\mathrm{},E_p^{(k)}(\alpha )`$ are linearly independent over $``$ for every $`k`$ and $`\alpha `$ with $`\alpha p^j1`$ for every integer $`j`$. The case $`k=1`$ corresponds to irrationality of

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{\alpha +p^j}.$$

Borwein used Padé approximation techniques and complex analysis to obtain good rational approximants to $`h_p(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$. Indeed, one can use the following lemma to prove irrationality \[16, Lemma 5.1\]:

###### Lemma 1

Let $`x`$ be a real number, and suppose there exist integers $`a_n,b_n`$ $`(n)`$ such that

1. $`xa_n/b_n`$ for every $`n`$,
2. $`lim_n\mathrm{}(b_nxa_n)=0`$,

then $`x`$ will be irrational.

This lemma expresses the fact that the order of approximation of a rational number by rational numbers is one and not higher \[12, Theorem 186\]. Furthermore, if $`|xa_n/b_n|=𝒪(1/b_n^{1+s})`$ with $`0<s<1`$ and $`b_n<b_{n+1}<b_n^{1+o(1)}`$, then the measure of irrationality $`r(x)`$ (Liouville-Roth number, order of approximation)

$$r(x)=inf\{r:|xa/b|<1/b^r\text{ has at most finitely many integer solutions }(a,b)\}$$

satisfies $`2r(x)1+1/s`$ (see, e.g., \[6, exercise 3 on p. 376\] for the upper bound; the lower bound follows since every irrational number is approximable to order 2 \[12, Theorem 187\]). Recently Amdeberhan and Zeilberger  found $`q`$-WZ pairs to obtain rational approximants for $`h_p(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$, improving the upper bound for the measure of irrationality to $`4.8=24/5`$. However, four years earlier Bundschuh and Väänänen \[8, p. 178\] had established better upper bounds: $`r(h_p(1))1+(\pi ^2+2)/(\pi ^22)=2.50828\mathrm{}`$ and $`r(\mathrm{ln}_p(2))1+(2\pi ^2+3)/(\pi ^23)=4.310119\mathrm{}`$. The upper bound for $`r(\mathrm{ln}_p(2))`$ was improved by Matala-aho and Väänänen  to $`3.9461`$.

In this paper we show that one can find rational approximants which are related to little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials and hence return to Padé approximation. We can then use some results for little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials to prove the irrationality once more, and with the aid of some elementary number theory we obtain the same bound for the measure of irrationality as the one obtained by Bundschuh and Väänänen for $`h_p(1)`$ and a better upper bound as the one given by Matala-aho and Väänänen for $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$. The connection with little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials opens the way for proving the irrationality of $`q`$-extensions of $`\zeta (2)`$ and $`\zeta (3)`$ in Apéry’s spirit , using multiple orthogonal $`q`$-polynomials .

## 2 Little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials

The little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials are defined by

$`P_n(x|q)`$ $`=`$ $`{}_{2}{}^{}\varphi _{1}^{}\left(\begin{array}{c}q^n,q^{n+1}\\ q\end{array}|q;qx\right)`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(q^n;q)_k(q^{n+1};q)_k}{(q;q)_k}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^kx^k}{(q;q)_k}},0<q<1,`$ (6)
and they are orthogonal polynomials on the exponential lattice $`\{q^k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$:

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^kP_m(q^k|q)P_n(q^k|q)=\frac{q^n}{1q^{2n+1}}\delta _{n,m}.$$
(7)
If we use the $`q`$-binomial coefficients

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q=\frac{(q;q)_n}{(q;q)_k(q;q)_{nk}},$$
(8)
and the formulas

$$(q^n;q)_k=(1)^kq^{nk+k(k1)/2}\frac{(q;q)_n}{(q;q)_{nk}},(q^{n+1};q)_k=\frac{(q;q)_{n+k}}{(q;q)_n},$$
(9)
then (5) reduces to

$$P_n(x|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_qq^{nk+k(k+1)/2}(x)^k,$$
(10)
and since

$$\underset{q1}{lim}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right),$$

we see that we indeed find the Legendre polynomials on $`[0,1]`$ by letting $`q`$ tend to 1

$$\underset{q1}{lim}P_n(x|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{k}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right)(x)^k=P_n(x).$$

Let $`p=1/q`$ so that $`p>1`$ whenever $`0<q<1`$, then

$$(q;q)_k=(1)^kp^{k(k+1)/2}(p;p)_k,\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q=p^{k(nk)}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p,$$
(11)
and we can rewrite the little $`q`$-Legendre polynomial as

$$P_n(x|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_pp^{kn+k(k1)/2}(x)^k.$$
(12)
There is a Rodrigues formula for these little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials in terms of the $`q`$-difference operator $`D_q`$ for which

$$D_qf(z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{f(z)f(qz)}{(1q)z}\hfill & \text{if }z0,\hfill \\ f^{}(0)\hfill & \text{if }z=0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
namely

$$P_n(x|q)=\frac{q^{n(n1)/2}(1q)^n}{(q;q)_n}D_p^n[(qx;q)_nx^n],$$
(14)
which will be useful later. We refer to  for more information and references for little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials.

Equation (12) expresses the little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials in the basis $`\{1,x,x^2,\mathrm{},x^n\}`$ of monomials. Sometimes it is more convenient to use another basis of polynomials, and for orthogonal polynomials on $`\{q^k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ a convenient set of basis functions is $`\{(qx;q)_k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. We will need to use some $`q`$-series for this purpose. Recall the $`q`$-analog of Newton’s binomium formula

$$(x;q)_n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_qq^{k(k1)/2}(x)^k,$$
(15)
and its dual

$$x^n=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q(1)^kq^{nk+k(k+1)/2}(x;q)_k.$$
(16)
A more general result is the $`q`$-binomial series

$$\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(a;q)_n}{(q;q)_n}x^n=\frac{(ax;q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(x;q)_{\mathrm{}}},|q|<1,|x|<1.$$
(17)
Use (16) with argument $`q^{n+1}x`$ in the Rodrigues formula (14), then we have

$$P_n(x|q)=\frac{p^{n(n+1)}(1p)^n}{(p;p)_n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_q(1)^kq^{nk+k(k+1)/2}D_p^n(qx;q)_{n+k}.$$

One finds easily that

$$D_p^k(qx;q)_n=\frac{(q;q)_n}{(q;q)_{nk}(1p)^k}(qx;q)_{nk},$$
(18)
so that, using (11) we find the required expansion

$$P_n(x|q)=(1)^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}(qx;q)_k.$$
(19)
## 3 The $`q`$-harmonic series

Orthogonal polynomials naturally arise in Padé approximation of a Stieltjes function

$$f(z)=\frac{d\mu (x)}{zx},z\text{supp}(\mu ).$$
(20)
Suppose $`\mu `$ is a positive measure on the real line with infinite support and for which all the moments exist. If $`P_n(x)`$ $`(n=0,1,2,\mathrm{})`$ are orthogonal polynomials for $`\mu `$, i.e., $`P_n`$ is of degree $`n`$ and

$$P_n(x)P_m(x)𝑑\mu (x)=0,mn,$$

and if $`Q_n`$ are the polynomials of degree $`n1`$ given by

$$Q_n(z)=\frac{P_n(z)P_n(x)}{zx}𝑑\mu (x),$$
(21)
then it is easy to see that

$$P_n(z)f(z)Q_n(z)=\frac{P_n(x)}{zx}𝑑\mu (x),z\text{supp}(\mu ).$$
(22)
If we expand $`1/(zx)`$ around $`z=\mathrm{}`$ as

$$\frac{1}{zx}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{x^k}{z^{k+1}}+\frac{x^n}{z^n}\frac{1}{zx},$$

then by orthogonality we have

$$P_n(z)f(z)Q_n(z)=\frac{1}{z^n}\frac{P_n(x)x^n}{zx}𝑑\mu (x)=𝒪(1/z^{n+1}).$$

This is precisely the (linearized) form of the interpolation conditions near $`z=\mathrm{}`$ for Padé approximation so that $`Q_n(z)/P_n(z)`$ is the $`[\frac{n1}{n}]`$ Padé approximant for $`f(z)`$ near $`z=\mathrm{}`$.

For little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials the measure $`\mu `$ is supported on $`\{q^k,k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, which is a bounded set in $`[0,1]`$ with one accumulation point at $`0`$. The measure is given by

$$g(x)𝑑\mu (x)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g(q^k)q^k.$$

The Stieltjes function for this measure is

$$f(z)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{q^k}{zq^k}=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{zp^k1}.$$
(23)
We will need this function at $`p^n`$, where it gives

$$f(p^n)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{p^{n+k}1}=h_p(1)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{p^k1}.$$
(24)
Hence if $`p>1`$ is an integer, then $`f(p^n)`$ gives $`h_p(1)`$ up to $`_{k=1}^{n1}1/(p^k1)`$, which is a rational number. Now use (22) for little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials at $`z=p^n`$ to find

$$P_n(p^n|q)\left(h_p(1)\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{p^k1}\right)Q_n(p^n|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k.$$
(25)
Observe that (12) gives

$$P_n(p^n|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{n}\right]_p(1)^kp^{k(k1)/2},$$
(26)
which is nearly the $`b_n`$ found in \[1, p. 277\] (their $`b_n`$ corresponds to $`P_n(p^{n+1}|q)`$). Observe also that Borwein’s construction \[5, Lemma 2\] uses $`P_{n1}(cp^{n+1}|q)`$. The $`p`$-binomial numbers $`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p`$ are polynomials in $`p`$ with integer coefficients, which follows easily from the $`q`$-version of Pascal’s triangle identities

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n1}{k1}\right]_p+p^k\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n1}{k}\right]_p=\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n1}{k}\right]_p+p^{nk}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n1}{k1}\right]_p,$$

hence if $`p>1`$ is an integer then $`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p`$ and $`\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p`$ are integers. This means that (26) implies $`P_n(p^n|q)`$ to be an integer. Furthermore, since $`p^n>1`$ and all the zeros of $`P_n(x|q)`$ are in $`[0,1]`$, we also may conclude that $`(1)^nP_n(p^n|q)`$ is positive for all $`n`$.

The second important quantity in (25) is $`Q_n(p^n|q)`$. This associated little $`q`$-Legendre polynomial can be computed explicitly using (21) and is given by

$$Q_n(x|q)=\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(x|q)P_n(q^j|q)}{xq^j}q^j.$$

Use (19) to write this as

$$Q_n(x|q)=(1)^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(qx;q)_k(q^{j+1};q)_k}{xq^j}q^j.$$

Now use

$$\frac{(qx;q)_k(qy;q)_k}{xy}=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}q^{\mathrm{}}(qy;q)_\mathrm{}1(q^{\mathrm{}+1}x;q)_k\mathrm{},$$

which one can easily prove by induction, then this gives

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_n(x|q)=(1)^{n+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}\hfill \\ \hfill \times \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}q^{\mathrm{}}(q^{\mathrm{}+1}x;q)_k\mathrm{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^j(q^{j+1};q)_\mathrm{}1.\end{array}$$

Using the $`q`$-binomial series (17) we can calculate the modified moments

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^j(q^{j+1};q)_\mathrm{}1`$ $`=`$ $`(q;q)_\mathrm{}1{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}q^j{\displaystyle \frac{(q^{\mathrm{}};q)_j}{(q;q)_j}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(q;q)_\mathrm{}1(q^{\mathrm{}+1};q)_{\mathrm{}}}{(q;q)_{\mathrm{}}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1q^{\mathrm{}}}},`$
so that

$$Q_n(x|q)=(1)^{n+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(q^{\mathrm{}+1}x;q)_k\mathrm{}}{p^{\mathrm{}}1}.$$
(27)
Evaluating at $`x=p^n`$, and using

$$(q^{\mathrm{}+1}p^n;q)_k\mathrm{}=(p^{nk};p)_k\mathrm{},$$

then gives

$$Q_n(p^n|q)=(1)^{n+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(p^{nk};p)_k\mathrm{}}{p^{\mathrm{}}1}.$$
(28)
All the terms in the sum for $`Q_n(p^n|q)`$ are now integers, except for the $`p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ in the denominators. In order to obtain an integer we therefore need to multiply everything by a multiple of all $`p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. We will choose

$$d_n(p)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_k(p),$$
(29)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)=\underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{k=1}{\mathrm{gcd}(k,n)=1}}}{\overset{n}{}}(x\omega _n^k),\omega _n=e^{2\pi i/n},$$
(30)
are the cyclotomic polynomials \[15, §4.8\]. Each cyclotomic polynomial is monic, has integer coefficients, and the degree of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_n`$ is $`\varphi (n)`$ (Euler’s totient function). It is known that

$$x^n1=\underset{d|n}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_d(x),$$
(31)
and that every cyclotomic polynomial is irreducible over $`[x]`$. Hence $`d_n(p)`$ is a multiple of all $`p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ for $`\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$. The growth of this sequence is given by the following lemma, which was essentially given by A. O. Gel’fond, who obtained the upper bound in \[11, Equation (7)\]. We give a proof to make this paper self-contained.

###### Lemma 2

Suppose $`p`$ is an integer greater than one and let $`d_n(p)`$ be given by (29). Then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}d_n(p)^{1/n^2}=p^{3/\pi ^2}.$$
(32)
Proof: The degree of $`d_n(p)`$ as a monic polynomial in $`p`$ is $`_{k=1}^n\phi (k)`$ and an old result of Mertens (1874) shows that for $`n\mathrm{}`$ this grows like \[12, Theorem 330\]

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\phi (k)=\frac{3}{\pi ^2}n^2+𝒪(n\mathrm{log}n).$$
(33)
We will adapt the classical proof of (33) to prove our lemma. For this we use Möbius inversion of (31) to find the representation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x)=\underset{d|n}{}(x^d1)^{\mu (n/d)},$$

where $`\mu `$ is the Möbius function. Taking logarithms in (29) gives

$$\mathrm{log}d_n(p)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{d|k}{}\mu (k/d)\mathrm{log}(p^d1).$$

Changing the order of summation gives

$$\mathrm{log}d_n(p)=\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mu (\mathrm{})\underset{d=1}{\overset{n/\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{log}(p^d1).$$

Now

$$\underset{d=1}{\overset{m}{}}\mathrm{log}(p^d1)=\mathrm{log}p^{m(m+1)/2}(q;q)_m=\frac{m(m+1)}{2}\mathrm{log}p+\mathrm{log}(q;q)_m,$$

so that

$`\mathrm{log}d_n(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{2}}\mathrm{log}p{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\mathrm{})}{\mathrm{}^2}}+𝒪\left(n{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n^2\mathrm{log}p}{2\zeta (2)}}+𝒪(n\mathrm{log}n).`$
The lemma now follows by using $`\zeta (2)=\pi ^2/6`$.

So far we have found that the numbers

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`d_n(p)P_n(p^n|q),`$ (34)
$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`d_n(p)Q_n(p^n|q)+b_n{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^k1}}.`$ (35)
are integers and

$$b_nh_p(1)a_n=d_n(p)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k.$$
(36)
We now want to show that $`b_nh_p(1)a_n0`$ for all $`n`$ and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}(b_nh_p(1)a_n)=0,$$

so that Lemma 1 implies the irrationality of $`h_p(1)`$. First observe that

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k=\frac{1}{P_n(p^n|q)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)P_n(p^n|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k.$$

If we add and subtract $`P_n(q^k|q)`$ in the sum, then we have

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k=\frac{1}{P_n(p^n|q)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n(q^k|q)\frac{P_n(p^n|q)P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k+\frac{1}{P_n(p^n|q)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n^2(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k.$$

The first sum on the right hand side vanishes because of the orthogonality, so that

$$b_nh_p(1)a_n=\frac{d_n(p)}{P_n(p^n|q)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n^2(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k.$$
(37)
All the terms in the sum are now positive, and $`(1)^nP_n(p^n|q)`$ is positive for all $`n`$, hence we may conclude that

$$(1)^n(b_nh_p(1)a_n)>0,n=1,2,\mathrm{}$$

Next we show that this quantity converges to zero. Clearly $`p^n1p^nq^kp^n`$ so that

$$\frac{1}{p^n}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n^2(q^k|q)q^k\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n^2(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k\frac{1}{p^n1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P_n^2(q^k|q)q^k.$$

Now we can use the norm of the little $`q`$-Legendre polynomial (7) to find

$$\frac{p}{p^{2n+1}1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n^2(q^k|q)}{p^nq^k}q^k\frac{p^{n+1}}{(p^n1)(p^{2n+1}1)}.$$
(38)
What remains is to find the asymptotic behavior of $`P_n(p^n|q)`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$. For this we can use a very general theorem for sequences of polynomials with uniformly bounded zeros.

###### Lemma 3

Suppose $`P_n`$ $`(n)`$ is a sequence of monic polynomials of degree $`n`$ and that the zeros $`x_{j,n}`$ $`(1jn)`$ of $`P_n`$ are such that $`|x_{j,n}|M`$, with $`M`$ independent of $`n`$. Then we have for $`|x|>1`$ and every $`c`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|P_n(cx^n)|^{1/n^2}=|x|.$$
(39)
Proof: Factoring the polynomial $`P_n`$ gives

$$|P_n(x)|=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}|xx_{j,n}|.$$

We have the obvious bounds

$$|x|M|xx_{j,n}||x|+M,$$

hence when $`|cx^n|>M`$

$$(|cx^n|M)^n|P_n(cx^n)|(|cx^n|+M)^n.$$

For $`n`$ large enough this easily gives

$$|x|\left(|c|\frac{M}{|x|^n}\right)^{1/n}|P_n(cx^n)|^{1/n^2}|x|\left(|c|+\frac{M}{|x|^n}\right)^{1/n},$$

which gives the desired result.

Observe that we may allow $`M`$ to grow with $`n`$ subexponentially. For little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials the zeros are all in $`[0,1]`$ so that we can use the Lemma with $`M=1`$. The leading coefficient $`\kappa _n`$ of $`P_n(x|q)`$ is, by (12), equal to $`\kappa _n=(1)^n\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{2n}{n}\right]_pp^{n(n+1)/2}`$, giving

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|\kappa _n|^{1/n^2}=\sqrt{p},$$

and hence Lemma 3 gives for $`|x|>1`$ and $`c`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|P_n(cx^n|q)|^{1/n^2}=\sqrt{p}|x|.$$
(40)
###### Theorem 1

Suppose $`p>1`$ is an integer. Let $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ be given by (34)–(35), then $`a_n`$, $`(1)^nb_n`$, and $`(1)^n(b_nh_p(1)a_n)>0`$ for $`n>1`$. Furthermore

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|b_nh_p(1)a_n|^{1/n^2}=p^{\frac{3(\pi ^22)}{2\pi ^2}}<1,$$

which implies that $`h_p(1)`$ is irrational with measure of irrationality $`r\frac{2\pi ^2}{\pi ^22}=2.50828\mathrm{}`$

Proof: If we take $`x=p`$ and $`c=1`$ in (40) then we have

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|P_n(p^n|q)|^{1/n^2}=p^{3/2},$$

and combining with (32) we have for the integer $`b_n`$ in (34)

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|b_n|^{1/n^2}=p^{\frac{3(\pi ^2+2)}{2\pi ^2}}.$$

Observe that $`b_n`$ has the same sign as $`P_n(p^n|q)`$ which is $`(1)^n`$. Furthermore (37) and (38) show that

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|b_nh_p(1)a_n|^{1/n^2}=\frac{lim_n\mathrm{}d_n(p)^{1/n^2}}{lim_n\mathrm{}|P_n(p^n|q)|^{1/n^2}}=p^{\frac{3(\pi ^22)}{2\pi ^2}}<1.$$

The irrationality now follows from Lemma 1. Observe that this gives rational approximants $`a_n/b_n`$ for $`h_p(1)`$ satisfying

$$|h_p(1)\frac{a_n}{b_n}|=𝒪\left(\frac{p^{(\frac{3(\pi ^22)}{2\pi ^2}+ϵ)n^2}}{b_n}\right)$$

for every $`ϵ>0`$. Now $`b_n=p^{3n^2(\pi ^2+2)/(2\pi ^2)+o(n^2)}`$, hence

$$|h_p(1)\frac{a_n}{b_n}|=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{b_n^{1+\frac{\pi ^22}{\pi ^2+2}ϵ}}\right)$$

for every $`ϵ>0`$, which gives for the measure of irrationality the bound $`r1+\frac{\pi ^2+2}{\pi ^22}=\frac{2\pi ^2}{\pi ^22}`$.

The upper bound for the measure of irrationality is better than the upper bound $`4.8`$ obtained in , but the same as the (earlier) upper bound of Bundschuh and Väänänen .

## 4 The $`q`$-analog of the logarithm of 2

Next we show that a very similar analysis also proves the irrationality of $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ for every integer $`p>1`$. First of all we rewrite $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ using the geometric series

$$\mathrm{ln}_p(2)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^k\frac{q^k}{1q^k}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(1)^kq^k\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}q^{jk}.$$

Fubini’s theorem allows us to change the order of the sums whenever $`0<q<1`$ and this gives

$`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(1)^kq^{k(j+1)}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^{j+1}}{1+q^{j+1}}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^k+1}}.`$
Hence if we evaluate the Stieltjes function (23) at $`z=p^n`$ then we find

$$f(p^n)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{p^{n+k}+1}=\mathrm{ln}_p(2)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{p^k+1},$$

so that $`f(p^n)`$ gives the required $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ up to $`_{k=1}^{n1}1/(p^k+1)`$, which is a rational number. We can now proceed as in the previous section and evaluate (22) for little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials at $`z=p^n`$ to find

$$P_n(p^n|q)\left(\mathrm{ln}_p(2)+\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{p^k+1}\right)Q_n(p^n|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^n+q^k}q^k.$$

Here we can use (12) to see that

$$P_n(p^n|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_pp^{k(k1)/2},$$

is a positive integer, and if we use (27) and $`(p^nq^{\mathrm{}+1};q)_k\mathrm{}=(p^{nk};p)_k\mathrm{}`$ then

$$Q_n(p^n|q)=(1)^{n+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(p^{nk};p)_k\mathrm{}}{p^{\mathrm{}}1}.$$

This quantity has the numbers $`p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ $`(\mathrm{}=1,2,\mathrm{},n)`$ in the denominator, so that we need to multiply it by a multiple of all $`p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ with $`1\mathrm{}n`$. Now we have an additional quantity

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{p^k+1}$$

and in order to make this an integer we need to multiply it by a multiple of all $`p^k+1`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n1`$. If we choose

$$\widehat{d}_n(p)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_k(p^2),$$

then because of $`p^{2k}1=(p^k1)(p^k+1)`$ we see that $`\widehat{d}_n(p)`$ is a multiple of all $`p^k+1`$ and all $`p^k1`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Note that $`\widehat{d}_n(p)=d_n(p^2)`$, where $`d_n`$ is given by (29), so that Lemma 2 gives the growth

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}d_n(p^2)^{1/n^2}=p^{6/\pi ^2}.$$
(41)
So if we choose

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`d_n(p^2)P_n(p^n|q),`$ (42)
$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`d_n(p^2)Q_n(p^n|q)b_n{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^k+1}},`$ (43)
then $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ are integers and

$$b_n\mathrm{ln}_p(2)a_n=d_n(p^2)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^j}q^k.$$
(44)
###### Theorem 2

Suppose $`p>1`$ is an integer. Let $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ be given by (42)–(43), then $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$, and $`b_n\mathrm{ln}_p(2)a_n<0`$. Furthermore

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|b_n\mathrm{ln}_p(2)a_n|^{1/n^2}=p^{\frac{3(\pi ^24)}{2\pi ^2}}<1,$$

which implies that $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ is irrational. Its measure of irrationality satisfies $`r\frac{2\pi ^2}{\pi ^24}=3.36295\mathrm{}`$.

Proof: Use $`c=1`$ and $`x=p`$ in (40), then together with (41) we find

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}b_n^{1/n^2}=p^{\frac{3(\pi ^2+4)}{2\pi ^2}n^2}.$$

Furthermore, we have

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{p^nq^j}q^k=\frac{1}{P_n(p^n|q)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n^2(q^k|q)}{p^nq^j}q^k$$

and $`p^np^n+q^jp^n+1`$ for every $`j`$, combined with (44) implies

$$\frac{d_n(p^2)}{P_n(p^n|q)}\frac{p^{n+1}}{(p^n+1)(p^{2n+1}1)}(b_n\mathrm{ln}_p(2)a_n)\frac{d_n(p^2)}{P_n(p^n|q)}\frac{p}{p^{2n+1}1}.$$

From this one easily finds the required asymptotics and the irrationality then follows from Lemma 1. Observe that $`b_n=p^{3n^2(\pi ^2+4)/(2\pi ^2)+o(n^2)}`$ and

$$|\mathrm{ln}_p(2)\frac{a_n}{b_n}|=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{b_n^{1+\frac{\pi ^24}{\pi ^2+4}ϵ}}\right)$$

for every $`ϵ>0`$, which gives for the measure of irrationality the bound $`r1+\frac{\pi ^2+4}{\pi ^24}=\frac{2\pi ^2}{\pi ^24}`$.

The upper bound is better than the upper bounds 4.8 (obtained in ), 4.311 (obtained in ), and 3.9461 (obtained in ).

## 5 Extensions

The construction of rational approximants for $`h_p(1)`$ and $`\mathrm{ln}_p(2)`$ can be extended with little effort to series of the form

$$L=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{cp^k1},$$

where $`c=a/b`$ is a rational number and $`cp^k1`$ for every $`k1`$. Indeed, these series can be obtained by evaluating the Stieltjes function $`f`$ in (23) at $`cp^n`$, giving

$$f(cp^n)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{cp^k1}\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{cp^k1}.$$

We then get

$$P_n(cp^n|q)\left(L\underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{1}{cp^k1}\right)Q_n(cp^n|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{P_n(q^k|q)}{cp^nq^k}q^k,$$

where

$$P_n(cp^n|q)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_pp^{k(k1)/2}(c)^k,$$

and

$$Q_n(cp^n|q)=(1)^{n+1}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n}{k}\right]_p\left[\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{n+k}{k}\right]_p(1)^kp^{(nk)(nk+1)/2}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{(cp^{nk};p)_k\mathrm{}}{p^{\mathrm{}}1}.$$

In order to have integers, the quantities $`P_n(cp^n|q)`$ and $`Q(cp^n|q)`$ now need to be multiplied by $`b^n`$ and by a multiple of all $`p^{\mathrm{}}1`$ for $`1\mathrm{}n`$ and of all $`ap^kb`$ for $`1kn1`$. A possible factor is $`b^{2n}d_n(p)(c;p)_n`$. This factor grows like

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|b^{2n}d_n(p)(c;p)_n|^{1/n^2}=p^{\frac{3}{\pi ^2}+\frac{1}{2}}.$$

In a way similar to the proof of Theorems 1 and 2 we can then prove:

###### Theorem 3

Suppose $`p>1`$ is an integer and $`c=a/b`$ is rational but $`cp^k1`$ for every $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ Let $`a_n`$ and $`b_n`$ be given by

$`b_n`$ $`=`$ $`b^{2n}d_n(p)(c;p)_nP_n(cp^n|q),`$ (45)
$`a_n`$ $`=`$ $`b^{2n}d_n(p)(c;p)_nQ_n(cp^n|q)+b_n{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{cp^k1}}.`$ (46)
Then $`a_n,b_n`$, and

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|b_nLa_n|^{1/n^2}=p^{\frac{\pi ^23}{\pi ^2}}<1,$$

which implies that the infinite sum $`L`$ is irrational. Its measure of irrationality satisfies $`r\frac{3\pi ^2}{\pi ^23}=4.310119\mathrm{}`$.

The upper bound for the measure of irrationality corresponds to the upper bound given by Bundschuh and Väänänen \[8, p. 178\]. For the cases $`c=1`$ and $`c=1`$, which we handled in Theorems 1 and 2, one can find better upper bounds. Note that the results in  and  are also valid for $`p`$ and $`c`$ in other number fields. Our main purpose in this paper, however, was to emphasise the use of little $`q`$-Legendre polynomials in the construction of rational approximants for certain important Lambert series.

## Acknowledgments

This research was carried out while visiting Georgia Institute of Technology. The author wishes to thank the School of Mathematics for its hospitality. Also thanks to a referee for pointing out references , , , and , and to Roberto Costas for a useful conversation that led to Lemma 2. This research is partially funded by FWO research project G.0278.97 and INTAS 2000-272.

Department of Mathematics
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Celestijnenlaan 200 B
B-3001 Leuven
BELGIUM
walter@wis.kuleuven.ac.be


text:
# Symmetries of the Gowdy Equations and Spatial Topologies

## 1 Introduction

It seems like there are some connections between dynamical properties of a spacetime and its spatial topology. For example, we know the recollapsing conjecture ; As is well known, in a positive curvature (topologically $`S^3`$) homogeneous and isotropic cosmological model, the universe contracts and recollapses after an expanding era. The conjecture claims that this recollapsing property does not depend on the symmetry imposed on the model, that is, any spacetime recollapses if the space is topologically $`S^3`$ (and if only appropriate energy and pressure conditions are fulfilled). Thus we may think of the recollapsing property as a result of the spatial topology. (For another interesting examples related to asymptotic dynamics, see .)

In this article we compare some dynamical properties of the (generalized) Gowdy models of the first kind. The spatial manifold of this kind is a $`T^2`$-bundle over $`S^1`$, and each $`T^2`$-fiber is generated by two commuting local Killing vectors. (Such a model was first considered by Rendall , and discussed extensively by the author . These models are generalizations of Gowdy’s $`T^3`$ model .) There are infinite number of such bundles which are topologically distinct from each other. However, since each fiber is generated by (local) Killing vectors in our models the natural reduced (spatial) manifold is $`S^1`$ in all cases. Because of this reason we can compare the dynamical properties of each model in rather detail.

What we investigate concerns symmetries or sets of symmetric data which are preserved temporarily. More specifically, we consider reflection symmetries (in a generalized sense). For example, for the usual $`T^3`$ Gowdy model any set of initial data which are described by even (spatial) functions evolves in such a way that the data remain even functions at any time. Also, the same statement is true even if we replace “even” by “odd”, and in general we will see there is much larger set of such “reflection” symmetries which are preserved. We can consider corresponding symmetric data for any other models, but the symmetries are not necessarily preserved. We may interpret this is a manifestation of the influence of spatial topology.

This article basically treats the same topic as Ref., but the presentation is made in a somewhat different way.

## 2 The Gowdy Models of the 1st Kind

The metric of the Gowdy models can be written in the form

$$ds^2=e^A(d\tau ^2dx^2)+R[e^P(dy+Qdz)^2+e^Pdz^2],$$
(1)
where $`A`$, $`R`$, $`P`$, and $`Q`$ are functions of $`\tau `$ and $`x`$. There are two commuting Killing vectors for this metric, $`/y`$ and $`/z`$. We may think of this metric as that on $`𝐑^4`$, but we can also compactify the spatial part $`𝐑^3`$ to a $`T^2`$-bundle over $`S^1`$ if imposing appropriate boundary conditions on the metric functions. In such a case, the model is called a (generalized) Gowdy model of the 1st kind, which we will consider. After the compactification the two Killing vectors, in general, descend to local Killing vectors, generating the $`T^2`$-fibers.

Note that each $`T^2`$-fiber is characterized by its volume and two moduli parameters $`(X,Y)(Q,e^P)`$.

## 3 Symmetries

As well known , the vacuum Einstein equation for metric function $`R`$ is given by the simple wave equation $`(_{\tau \tau }_{xx})R=0`$, and we can set without loss of generality, $`R=\tau `$. With this choice, the equations for functions $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are found to form a closed set of equations, and the remaining function $`A`$ is integrable once $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are solved. So, we are led to concentrate on the moduli parameters $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and the equations for them are derivable from the following (reduced) Hamiltonian $`H`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑x},`$ (2)
$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{g}^{AB}\mathrm{\Pi }_A\mathrm{\Pi }_B+e^{2\tau }\mathrm{g}_{AB}X^A{}_{}{}^{}X_{}^{B}{}_{}{}^{}),`$ (3)
where scripts $`A,B,\mathrm{}`$ run 1 to 2. We have set $`(X^1,X^2)(X,Y)`$, and $`(\mathrm{\Pi }_1,\mathrm{\Pi }_2)`$ is the set of the conjugate momenta. The “metric” $`\mathrm{g}_{AB}`$ on the moduli space $``$ (spanned by $`X`$ and $`Y`$) is given by the following hyperbolic metric

$$dS^2=\frac{dX^2+dY^2}{Y^2}.$$
(4)
So, the moduli space is also a hyperbolic plane $`H^2`$ with three dimensional isometry group Isom$`H^2`$, of which connected component is $`SL_2𝐑`$. (Exactly speaking, $``$ is not $`H^2`$ itself, but a quotient space of it. This point is explained in §.5.)

Note that the data for a moment ($`\tau =`$ constant), i.e., the configuration of the spatial manifold, is given by a loop $`l(x)`$ in the moduli space:

$$l:[0,1],l(0)=l(1),$$
(5)
and the whole spacetime is described by a one-parameter ($`\tau `$) family of such loops: $`l(x,\tau )`$.

The isometry group Isom$`H^2`$ provides symmetries of motion, i.e., if the “spacetime” $`l(x,\tau )`$ is a solution for the vacuum Einstein equation, then the action $`gl(x,\tau )`$ is also another solution for $`g\mathrm{Isom}H^2`$. This is one of well-known properties of the Gowdy equations.

We also should point out a rather trivial but important symmetry, which is given by the following reparametrization:

$$Rl(x,\tau )=l(x,\tau ).$$
(6)
As is easily seen, $`R`$ inverts (or reflects) each spatial configuration about the origin $`x=0`$. This also define a symmetry of motion.

## 4 The Reflection Operators

While we may think of the operator $`R`$ itself as a reflection operator, it is also possible to generalize reflections using the isometries Isom$`H^2`$, i.e., we consider the composition

$$=Rg,g\mathrm{Isom}H^2.$$
(7)
Any such an operator defines a symmetry of motion. We should furthermore impose the condition for $``$ to form a $`𝐙_2`$ group (together with the identity). For convenience, defining $``$ as a complex function

$$:z=X+iY(z),$$
(8)
this condition is expressed by

$$^2(z)=z,\text{for all }z𝐂.$$
(9)
From this we find two classes of operators; one is given by $`R`$ itself

$$_IR,$$
(10)
and the other is given by a one-parameter family

$$_\theta R\gamma f_\theta ,\theta [0,\pi ),$$
(11)
where

$`\gamma (z)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{z},`$ (12)
$`f_\theta (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{z\mathrm{cos}2\theta \mathrm{sin}2\theta }{z\mathrm{sin}2\theta +\mathrm{cos}2\theta }}.`$ (13)
However, these operators do not necessarily preserve the boundary condition imposed on the solution $`X(x,\tau )`$ and $`Y(x,\tau )`$, so not all these operators are appropriate for a given spatial topology. To account for this point for more detail, we should explain the four representative models, called the $`T^3`$, $`E^3`$, Nil, and Sol models.

## 5 The Four Representative Models

We have noticed any spatial configuration is represented by a loop $`l`$ on the moduli space $``$, but this does not mean the metric functions $`X(x)`$ and $`Y(x)`$ are periodic with respect to the spatial coordinate $`x`$. This is because $``$ is a quotient space. It is a classical fact that $``$ is represented by $`H^2`$ modulo $`SL_2𝐙`$, $`H^2/SL_2𝐙`$, where $`SL_2𝐙`$ is the mapping class group for $`T^2`$. (This discrete group, $`SL_2𝐙`$, is generated by the shift $`T:zz+1`$ and the inversion $`S:z1/z`$.) $`H^2`$ is naturally represented by the upper half plane $`𝐂^+\{z𝐂|\mathrm{Im}(z)>0\}`$, and a fundamental domain $``$ for $``$ is given by $`=\{z𝐂^+|\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{Re}(z)\frac{1}{2},|z|1\}`$. See Fig.1. For the boundary, the two vertical lines (at $`\mathrm{Re}(z)=\pm \frac{1}{2}`$) should be identified, and the arc (at $`|z|1`$) is folded about $`z=i`$ and the opposite sides are identified, as well. So, the point $`z=i`$ becomes singular. (These are a standard fact about the geometric structure on $`T^2`$. See a standard text for a detail.) Let us denote a curve on $`𝐂^+`$ which descends to a loop $`l`$ on $``$, as $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$. It is $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ that has a direct correspondence to the boundary condition imposed on $`X(x)`$ and $`Y(x)`$. Apparently, $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ is not necessarily a loop, so what is said above comes. Note that since two (topologically) distinct $`T^2`$-bundle over $`S^1`$ can have the same configuration of moduli parameters, correspondences of a loop $`l`$ (or curve $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$) to a topology are not unique, but there are not ambiguities between the four models.

Now, we are in a position to describe the four models. (However, the following descriptions are not complete enough. See Ref. for more complete ones, though they are less pictorial.)

(i) $`T^3`$ model: This model is the conventional one, for which the spatial manifold is topologically $`T^3`$. The boundary condition for the metric functions (moduli parameters) is simply given by the periodic boundary condition. A loop $`l`$ for this model is also represented by a loop $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ on $`𝐂^+`$. See Fig.2 (i). $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ does not encircle the singular point $`z=i`$, so can smoothly contract to a point, which corresponds to a flat homogeneous space (Bianchi I space).

(ii) $`E^3`$ model: This model is the representative model for the models whose spatial part is $`T^3`$, $`T^3/𝐙_2`$, $`T^3/𝐙_3`$, $`T^3/𝐙_4`$, or $`T^3/𝐙_6`$. The boundary condition is periodic, but the loop $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ on $`𝐂^+`$ must encircle the singular point $`z=i`$, so cannot smoothly contract to a point. See Fig.2 (ii). The locally homogeneous limit corresponds to a Bianchi VII0 space.

(iii) Nil model: $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ is an open curve which is invariant under the shifting $`T`$. One end approaches to $`\mathrm{Re}(z)=+\mathrm{}`$, and the other to $`\mathrm{Re}(z)=\mathrm{}`$. See Fig.2 (iii). $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ descends to a loop on $``$ which winds around the singular point $`z=i`$ only once. At a locally homogeneous limit, $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ becomes a horizontal straight line, which corresponds to a Bianchi II space.

(iv) Sol model: $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ is an open (arc-like) curve for which both ends approach to $`\mathrm{Im}(z)=0`$; one end to $`|z|<1`$ and the other end to $`|z|>1`$. See Fig.2 (iv). $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ descends to a loop on $``$ which winds around the singular point $`z=i`$ twice or more. The locally homogeneous limit corresponds to a Bianchi VI0 space.

## 6 The Invariant Sets

Table 1 shows the appropriate reflection operators for each model . These operators are extracted by requiring they preserve the appropriate boundary condition for each model, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ belonging to a model be mapped by one of these operators to another $`\stackrel{~}{l}^{}`$ belonging to the same model. (More precisely, to get these reflection operators, we also require a compatibility with a translation operator .)

Note that once a reflection operator $``$ is given, we can accordingly define a set of reflection symmetric solutions $`𝒮()`$:

$$𝒮()\{l(x,\tau )|(l(x,\tau ))=l(x,\tau )\}.$$
(14)
These solutions are invariant under the action of the reflection operator. We call such a set of solutions an invariant (sub)set.

Apparently, we have the largest union of such sets for the $`T^3`$ model, while that of the Nil or Sol model is the smallest. This is a character coming from topological distinctions.

## 7 Dynamical Interpretation

We interpret the above fact as follows.

Note first that the phase space $`𝒫`$ for the $`T^3`$ model is given by the space of the sets of four (smooth) periodic functions $`(X,Y,\mathrm{\Pi }_X,\mathrm{\Pi }_Y)`$. The phase space for Nil or Sol model would of course be given by another space, since the metric functions for them are not periodic functions. However, we know it must still be possible to identify it with $`𝒫`$, since the base spaces of the bundles are all $`S^1`$. All we have to do to do this is to re-represent the metric functions in such a way that they represent deviations from the configuration of a locally homogeneous limit. Practically, this can be easily done by replacing the coordinate basis of the metric (1) by an invariant basis for the appropriate Bianchi type, which was given in §.5.

Next consider the reflection operators $`_I`$ and $`_\theta `$. Although they have been defined so they act on a configuration space, we can naturally extend them to act on the phase space using “Hamiltonian equations” $`\mathrm{\Pi }_X=Y^2\dot{X}`$, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_Y=Y^2\dot{Y}`$. Then those operators define a set of reflection symmetric data in $`𝒫`$ by requiring these data be invariant under the action of one of the operators. These sets are common for all the models, since the above two (Hamiltonian) equations are common even if the variables are re-represented in the way described above.

So, we have the same (underlying) phase space and the same reflection symmetric data sets for all the four models. The Hamiltonians are, however, different in this setting, and we can compare dynamical properties of the four models from this point of view. In fact we can interpret  the result of the previous section as telling that only the reflection symmetries shown in Table.1 are preserved by the Hamiltonian flow. This is a manifestation of the influence of topology to dynamics.

Remark: One might think that there were much more possibilities for another set of reflection symmetric data. However, since we are interested only in those preserved dynamically, it is sufficient to consider the operators $`_I`$ and $`_\theta `$.