text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Flavour-changing neutral-current (FCNC) processes are one of the most powerful tools in probing the structure of flavour beyond the Standard Model (SM): the strong suppression of these transitions occurring within the SM, which is due to the Glashow–Iliopoulos–Maiani (GIM) mechanism  and to the hierarchy of the Cabibbo–Kobayashi–Maskawa (CKM) matrix , ensures a large sensitivity to possible non-standard effects, even if these occur at very high energy scales.

In the present talk we focus on a specific class of $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=1`$ FCNC transitions:

$$sd\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })\mathrm{and}bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu }).$$
(1)
As we shall discuss, these are particularly interesting for the following reasons:

* These transitions have a strong sensitivity to supersymmetric extensions of the SM with flavour non-universal soft-breaking terms. Taking into account all the existing phenomenological constraints, within this type of models it is possible to generate sizeable non-standard effects to the partonic processes in (1).
* The existing experimental constraints on these transitions are rather weak, but in the near future it will be possible to perform stringent tests by means of exclusive rare $`K`$ and $`B`$ meson decays.

In the rest of the talk we shall illustrate these two points in more detail. Section 2 is devoted to the analysis of the supersymmetric contributions to $`d_jd_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ transitions, including a discussion about the indirect bounds obtained by other processes. In Sections 3–5 we analyse how to extract information on these partonic transitions by means of experimental data on $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ and exclusive $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ decays, respectively.

## 2 SUSY contributions to $`d_jd_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ transitions in models with non-universal soft-breaking terms

The class of supersymmetric extensions of the SM that we shall consider is the so-called unconstrained MSSM (see e.g. ). This model has the minimal number of new fields necessary to build a consistent SUSY version of the SM, namely all the superpartners of the SM fields plus an extra SUSY Higgs doublet. On the contrary, the assumptions made on the soft-breaking terms are very general. The only condition we shall impose on the flavour structure of the soft-breaking terms is a non-universal linear relation between the trilinear terms ($`Y_{ij}^A`$) and the Yukawa couplings ($`y_k`$), leading to

$$Y_{ij}^A=𝒪(y_kM_S),k=\mathrm{max}(i,j),$$
(2)
where $`M_S`$ denotes a common soft-breaking scale \[$`M_{ij}=𝒪(M_S^2)`$ for the bilinear terms\]. This condition let us to avoid charge- and colour-breaking minima or unbounded directions in the SUSY potential . The proportionality coefficients will be assumed to be $`𝒪(1)`$, unless more stringent constraints are imposed by experimental data.

Similarly to the SM, also within this context FCNC amplitudes involving external quark fields turn out to be generated only at the quantum level. Given the large number of new off-diagonal flavour couplings, the simplest way to parametrize the new effect is provided by the so-called mass-insertion approximation . This consists of choosing a simple basis for the gauge interactions and, in that basis, to perform a perturbative expansion of the squark mass matrices around their diagonal. Being interested in processes with external down-type quarks, we will employ in the following a squark basis where all quark–squark–gaugino vertices involving down-type quarks are flavour-diagonal. In this basis we then define the following adimensional couplings:

$$\left(\delta _{AB}^{[U,D]}\right)_{ij}=\left(M_{[U,D]}^2\right)_{i_Aj_B}/M_{[U,D]}^2,$$
(3)
where $`A,B`$ denote the helicity ($`L,R`$) and $`i,j`$ the family. These couplings constitute the basic tool to parametrize and classify the new contributions to FCNC amplitudes arising within the unconstrained MSSM.

SUSY contributions to $`d_jd_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ transitions can also be divided into three groups according to the diagrams (or the effective operators) that generate it: box and helicity-conserving photon-penguins (generic dimension-6 operators), magnetic penguins (dimension-5 operators) and $`Z`$ penguins. In each of these classes a different type of delta plays a dominant role.

Box diagrams with internal chargino or neutralino fields and, in the case of charged leptons, also photon-penguin diagrams with internal gluino, chargino or neutralino fields, can lead to effective FCNC operators of the type

$$\left(\overline{d}_A^i\gamma ^\mu d_A^j\right)\left(\overline{l}_B\gamma _\mu l_B\right).$$
(4)
Since the external quarks have the same helicity, the potentially leading SUSY contributions to the Wilson coefficients of these operators are generated by helicity-conserving couplings:

$$\frac{\left(\delta _{AA}^{[U,D]}\right)_{ij}}{M_S^2}.$$
(5)
The dimensional factor in Eq. (5), due to the integration of heavy SUSY degrees of freedom, indicates explicitly that these contributions vanish as $`1/M_S^2`$ in the limit of a large SUSY-breaking scale.

The helicity-violating couplings $`\delta _{LR}^Q`$ appear in the Wilson coefficients of dimension-6 operators only to second order in the mass expansion, with contributions of the type

$$\frac{(\delta _{LR}^U)_{i3}(\delta _{RL}^U)_{3j}}{M_S^2}.$$
(6)
Since the left–right mixing is generated by the trilinear terms, then $`\delta _{LR}^Q=𝒪(m_q/M_S)`$ and the contribution in (6) vanish as $`1/M_S^4`$ for large $`M_S`$. Thus the effect of helicity-violating couplings is not only disfavoured by the fact that it requires a double insertion, but it is also parametrically suppressed in the limit of a large SUSY-breaking scale. As we shall see below, this is not the case only in a specific type of dimension-6 operators: those generated by $`Z`$ penguins.

On the other hand, both helicity-conserving and helicity-violating contributions to generic dimension-6 operators turn out to be negligible with respect to the SM ones, once the bounds from $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ processes are taken into account . This fact can be understood by a naive dimensional argument in the limit of large $`M_S`$ . Indeed, considering for simplicity only the case of $`\delta _{AA}^Q`$, it is easy to show that the SUSY contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ amplitudes –appearing necessarily at the second order in the mass expansion– are of $`𝒪[(\delta _{AA}^Q/M_S)^2]`$. Thus the limits on $`\delta _{AA}^Q`$ arising from $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ amplitudes scale linearly with $`M_S`$ and not quadratically, as in the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=1`$ case. As a result, SUSY contributions to $`d_jd_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ transitions generated by box diagrams and helicity-conserving photon-penguins turn out to be extremely suppressed for $`M_S\stackrel{>}{_{}}1`$ TeV.111A similar argument holds for SUSY contributions to $`d_jd_i\overline{q}q`$ transitions , with the notable exception of $`\mathrm{\Delta }I=3/2`$ amplitudes .

The integration of the heavy SUSY degrees of freedom in penguin-like diagrams can also lead to operators with dimension lower than 6, creating an effective FCNC coupling between quarks and SM gauge fields. In the case of the photon field, the unbroken electromagnetic gauge invariance implies that the lowest-dimensional coupling is provided by the so-called magnetic operator

$$\overline{d}_{L(R)}^i\sigma ^{\mu \nu }d_{R(L)}^jF_{\mu \nu }.$$
(7)
Here the potentially leading SUSY contribution is induced by helicity-violating couplings, and in particular by the left–right mixing of down-type squarks, which can appear in gluino-exchange diagrams:

$$\frac{(\delta _{LR}^D)_{ij}}{M_S}.$$
(8)
Since the operator (7) has dimension 5, the explicit dimensional suppression of the left–right mixing contribution is only $`1/M_S`$. Nonetheless, also in this case the overall SUSY effect decouples as $`1/M_S^2`$ since $`\delta _{LR}^Q=𝒪(m_q/M_S)`$.

The appearance of a single inverse power of $`M_S`$ in Eq. (8) has the important consequence that this contribution can naturally evade the $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ constraints and compete with the SM term . This is not the case for contributions generated by helicity-conserving couplings or left–right mixing in the up sector, which appear only beyond the first order in the mass insertion.

In the $`bs`$ case the most significant constraint on possible non-standard effects in the magnetic operator is provided by the inclusive process $`BX_s\gamma `$ (see e.g.  for an updated discussion). The recent measurements  exclude SUSY contributions substantially larger that the SM one, or imply bounds of $`𝒪(10^2)`$ on $`|(\delta _{LR}^D)_{23}|`$. Note, however, that the assumption made on the trilinear terms implies

$$\left|(\delta _{LR}^D)_{23}\right|\stackrel{<}{_{}}\frac{m_b}{M_S}10^2\left(\frac{500\mathrm{GeV}}{M_S}\right),$$
(9)
then the $`BX_s\gamma `$ measurement does not pose a serious fine-tuning constraint about the non-universality of $`A`$ terms.

Concerning the $`sd`$ case, there are no significant constraints on $`|(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}|`$, whereas a stringent bound on $`|\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}|`$ can be derived from $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ . The latter is obtained by constraining the SUSY contribution to the chromo-magnetic operator (closely related to the magnetic one) and implies :

$$\left|\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}\right|4\times 10^5\left(\frac{M_S}{500\mathrm{GeV}}\right).$$
(10)
This limit is more stringent than the upper bound on $`|(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}|`$ imposed by (2), namely

$$\left|(\delta _{LR}^D)_{23}\right|\stackrel{<}{_{}}\frac{m_s}{M_S}2\times 10^4\left(\frac{500\mathrm{GeV}}{M_S}\right),$$
(11)
but it is much higher than the value assumed by $`|\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}|`$ within the flavour-constrained MSSM . Interestingly, if $`\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}=𝒪(10^5)`$ it is possible to conceive a scenario where all CP-violating effects observed so far in the kaon sector ($`\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon ^{}`$) are of SUSY origin . As we shall discuss in the next sections, this scenario would produce very clear signatures in rare $`K`$ decays.

Thanks to the spontaneous breaking of $`SU(2)_L`$, in the case of $`Z`$ penguins the integration of the SUSY degrees of freedom can lead to an effective FCNC operator of dimension 4:

$$\overline{q}_L^i\gamma ^\mu d_L^jZ_\mu .$$
(12)
This operator generates a dimension-6 structure like the one in Eq. (4) when the heavy $`Z`$ field is integrated out. In this case, however, the dimensional suppression is provided by $`1/M_Z^2`$ and there is no explicit trace of $`M_S`$. The latter is hidden in the dimensionless coupling of the operator (12), denoted by $`Z_{ji}^L`$, that requires a double mixing between $`SU(2)_L`$-singlet and $`SU(2)_L`$-doublet fields,222Here and in the following we employ the normalization of $`Z_{ji}^L`$ in :
$$_{\mathrm{FC}}^Z=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}\frac{e}{\pi ^2}M_Z^2\frac{\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}{\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Theta }_W}Z^\mu Z_{ji}^L\overline{q}_L^i\gamma _\mu q_L^j+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
With this normalization the SM contribution to $`Z_{ji}^L`$, evaluated in the ’t Hooft–Feynman gauge, is given by $`Z_{ji}^L|_{\mathrm{SM}}C_0(x_t)V_{3i}^{}V_{3j}`$, where $`V_{ij}`$ denote CKM matrix elements, $`x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2`$ and the function $`C_0(x)`$ can be found in . We further stress that the leading $`𝒪(x_t)`$ contributions to FCNC $`Z`$ penguins are gauge-invariant within both SM and MSSM. and thus vanishes as $`1/M_S^2`$ for large $`M_S`$. The potentially dominant contributions to $`Z_{ji}^L`$ arise from chargino loops, either by a double left-right insertion in the up-squark propagators  or by a single insertion together with wino-higgsino mixing :

$$Z_{ji}^L\{\begin{array}{c}(\delta _{LR}^U)_{j3}(\delta _{RL}^U)_{3i}\hfill \\ (m_t/M_S)V_{j3}(\delta _{RL}^U)_{3i}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
As can be noted, in both cases $`Z_{ji}^L=𝒪(m_t^2/M_S^2)`$, where the $`m_t`$ factor arises from the Yukawa coupling of the third generation. Since the left–right mixing in the up sector provides a subleading contribution to generic dimension-6 operators and, in particular, to $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=2`$ transitions, the indirect constraints on these effects are rather weak. If $`(\delta _{RL}^U)_{3i}`$ lies in the window

$$\frac{m_t}{M_W}|V_{3i}|\stackrel{<}{_{}}\left|(\delta _{LR}^U)_{3i}\right|\stackrel{<}{_{}}\frac{m_t}{M_S},$$
(14)
then SUSY contributions to $`Z_{ji}^L`$ turn out to be comparable or even larger than the SM one. On the contrary, contributions to $`Z_{ji}^L`$ from helicity-conserving couplings or left–right mixing in the down sector are always negligible.

In the $`bs`$ case some phenomenological constraints on $`|Z_{sb}^L|`$ can be obtained directly from exclusive and inclusive $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ transitions . The latter are certainly cleaner from the theoretical point of view; however, their experimental determination is quite difficult. Indeed the most stringent constraint, at present, is the one extracted from $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ , where the experimental upper bound on the non-resonant branching ratio lies only about a factor of 2 above the SM expectation. This constraint implies a bound of $`𝒪(1)`$ on $`|(\delta _{LR}^U)_{3i}|`$, which is still outside the window (14).

Owing to the smallness of $`V_{td}`$, the window (14) is much larger in the case of $`sd`$ transitions. Here the most stringent constraints on $`Z_{ds}^L`$ arise from $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ (on the real part) and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ (on the imaginary part) . Without entering into a detailed discussion about these bounds, which can be found elsewhere , we simply note that: i) the sizeable uncertainties due to non-perturbative effects in both $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{}/\epsilon `$ do not allow us to extract precise constraints; ii) taking into account these uncertainties, the present bounds on $`Z_{ds}^L`$ are within the window (14) and allow for $`𝒪(1)`$ deviations from the SM at the amplitude level.

Summarizing, we can say that only the flavour-violating left–right mixing among the squarks can naturally lead to large effects in the transitions (1). In the $`sd`$ case this can happen either via magnetic penguins \[ruled by $`(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}`$\] or via $`Z`$ penguins \[ruled by $`(\delta _{LR}^U)_{13}`$ and $`(\delta _{LR}^U)_{23}`$\], whereas $`bs`$ magnetic penguins are strongly constrained by $`BX_s\gamma `$. Moreover, we have seen that under the assumption (2) the present constraints about the non-universality of the trilinear terms are all rather weak, both for up- and down-type squarks. We believe that this observation strengthens the interest in searching for sizeable non-standard effects in the transitions (1).

## 3 $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$

These decays are considered the golden modes for a precise measurement of the $`sd\nu \overline{\nu }`$ transition. Within the SM, separating the contributions to the $`sd\nu \overline{\nu }`$ amplitude according to the intermediate up-type quark running inside the loop, one can write

$$𝒜(sd\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}=\underset{q=u,c,t}{}V_{qs}^{}V_{qd}𝒜_q\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪(\lambda ^5m_t^2)+i𝒪(\lambda ^5m_t^2)\hfill & (q=t)\hfill \\ 𝒪(\lambda m_c^2)+i𝒪(\lambda ^5m_c^2)\hfill & (q=c)\hfill \\ 𝒪(\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}^2)\hfill & (q=u)\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
The hierarchy of the CKM matrix elements would favour up- and charm-quark contributions; however, the hard GIM mechanism of the parton-level calculation implies $`𝒜_qm_q^2/M_W^2`$, leading to a completely different scenario. As shown on the r.h.s. of Eq. (15), where we have employed the standard phase convention ($`\mathrm{Im}V_{us}=\mathrm{Im}V_{ud}=0`$) and expanded the CKM matrix in powers of the Cabibbo angle ($`\lambda =0.22`$) , the top-quark contribution dominates both real and imaginary parts. This structure implies that $`𝒜(sd\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is dominated by short-distance dynamics and therefore calculable with high precision in perturbation theory.

The leading short-distance contributions to $`𝒜(sd\nu \overline{\nu })`$, both within the SM and within its SUSY extension discussed before, can be described by means of a single effective dimension-6 operator:

$$Q_L^\nu =(\overline{s}_L\gamma ^\mu d_L)(\overline{\nu }_L\gamma _\mu \nu _L),$$
(16)
whose Wilson coefficient has been calculated at the next-to-leading order within the SM  (see also ). The simple structure of $`Q_L^\nu `$ has two major advantages:

* the relation between partonic and hadronic amplitudes is very accurate, since the hadronic matrix elements of the $`\overline{s}\gamma ^\mu d`$ current between a kaon and a pion are related by isospin symmetry to those entering $`K_{l3}`$ decays, which are experimentally well known;
* the lepton pair is produced in a state of definite CP and angular momentum, implying that the leading contribution to $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is CP-violating.

The dominant theoretical error in estimating $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is due to the uncertainty of the QCD corrections to the charm contribution (see  for an updated discussion), which can be translated into a $`5\%`$ error in the determination of $`|V_{td}|`$ from $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$ 333Very recently also the subleading effect of $`𝒪(m_K^2/m_c^2)`$ induced by dimension-8 operators has been estimated . This effect is not calculable precisely, but it is likely to be smaller than (or at most as large as) the uncertainty in the QCD corrections to the leading term .. Genuine long-distance effects associated to the up quark have been shown to be substantially smaller .

The case of $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ is even cleaner from the theoretical point of view . Indeed, because of the CP structure, only the imaginary parts in (15) –where the charm contribution is absolutely negligible– contribute to $`𝒜(K_2\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}`$. Thus the dominant direct-CP-violating component of $`𝒜(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ is completely saturated by the top contribution, where the QCD uncertainties are very small (around 1%). Intermediate and long-distance effects in this process are confined to the indirect-CP-violating contribution  and to the CP-conserving one  which are both extremely small. Taking into account also the isospin-breaking corrections to the hadronic matrix element , one can write an expression for $`(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ in terms of short-distance parameters with a theoretical error below $`3\%`$ :

$$(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })_{\mathrm{SM}}=4.16\times 10^{10}\left[\frac{\overline{m}_t(m_t)}{167\mathrm{GeV}}\right]^{2.3}\left[\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t}{\lambda ^5}\right]^2,$$
(17)
where $`\lambda _t=V_{ts}^{}V_{td}`$.

Taking into account all the indirect constraints on $`\mathrm{Im}(V_{ts}^{}V_{td})`$ , the present range of SM predictions for the two $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ branching ratios is reported in the second column of Table 1. In the following three columns, we show the upper bounds obtained within three SUSY scenarios with non-trivial $`(\delta _{LR}^U)_{i3}`$ and $`(\delta _{LR}^U)_{12}`$. In all cases the SUSY flavour-mixing terms, as well as CKM matrix elements, have been constrained taking into account the measurement of $`\epsilon `$, $`\epsilon ^{}`$, $`K_L\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ and the respective theoretical uncertainties . As can be noticed, the two neutrino modes could provide sizeable unambiguous signatures of SUSY, but only in the presence of a large left–right mixing in the up sector. Interestingly, the present measurement of $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$  is very close to putting serious constraints (or to providing some evidence…) on this scenario.

## 4 $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$

Similarly to $`K\pi \nu \overline{\nu }`$ decays, also the short-distance contributions to $`K\pi \mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ transitions are calculable with high accuracy. Long-distance contributions to the latter, however, are much larger owing to the presence of electromagnetic interactions. Only in few cases (mainly in CP-violating observables) are long-distance contributions suppressed and is it possible to extract the interesting short-distance information.

The single-photon exchange amplitude, dominated by long-distance dynamics, provides the largest contribution to the CP-allowed transitions $`K^+\pi ^+\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`K_S\pi ^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$. The former has been observed, both in the electron and in the muon mode, whereas only an upper bound of $`1.6\times 10^7`$ exists on $`(K_S\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ . On the contrary, the long-distance part of the single-photon exchange amplitude is forbidden by CP invariance in the $`K_L\pi ^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ channels, which are much more interesting from the short-distance point of view (especially the electron mode).

In $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ we can distinguish three independent (and comparable) contributions: direct-CP-violating, indirect-CP-violating and CP-conserving.

The direct-CP-violating part of the $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ amplitude is very similar to the $`K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu }`$ one, but for the fact that it receives an additional short-distance contribution from the photon penguin. Within the SM, this theoretically clean part of the amplitude leads to

$$(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})_{\mathrm{dir}}^{\mathrm{SM}}=6.5\times 10^{11}\left[\frac{\overline{m}_t(m_t)}{167\mathrm{GeV}}\right]^2\left[\frac{\mathrm{Im}\lambda _t}{\lambda ^5}\right]^2.$$
(18)
The present range of variation, together with SUSY upper bounds, is reported in the last line of Table 1. Being sensitive also to the photon penguin, the $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ amplitude could be substantially modified also in the presence of non-trivial SUSY phases in the down sector. In particular, within the interesting scenario where all CP-violating effects observed in the kaon sector were due to $`\mathrm{Im}(\delta _{LR}^D)_{12}=𝒪(10^5)`$, $`(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})_{\mathrm{dir}}^{\mathrm{SM}}`$ would be close to its SM value, whereas $`(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })`$ would be vanishingly small.

In principle the direct-CP-violating part of the $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ amplitude could be experimentally isolated from the other two contributions, especially if it were large. In order to achieve this goal it would be necessary to measure $`(K_S\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ or to put a stringent bound on it. The two CP-violating components of the $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$ amplitude will in general interfere, and the indirect-CP-violating one alone would lead to

$$(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})_{\mathrm{CPV}\mathrm{ind}}=3\times 10^3(K_S\pi ^0e^+e^{}).$$
(19)
Since the relative phase of the two CP-violating amplitudes is known, once $`(K_S\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ will be measured, it will be possible to determine the interference between direct and indirect CP-violating components of $`(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})_{\mathrm{CP}}`$ up to a sign ambiguity.

The CP-conserving contribution to $`K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{}`$, generated by a two-photon intermediate state, does not interfere with the CP-violating ones and is expected to be in the $`10^{12}`$ range. The relative weight of this contribution can be further constrained by appropriate kinematical cuts; it should therefore not represent a problem if $`(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ will be found in the $`10^{11}`$ range.

## 5 Exclusive $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ decays

The starting point for the analysis of $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ transitions, both within the SM and the SUSY scenario discussed in Section 2, is the following effective Hamiltonian:

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{G_F}{\sqrt{2}}V_{ts}^{}V_{tb}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{10}{}}\left[C_iQ_i+C_i^{}Q_i^{}\right]+C_L^\nu Q_L^\nu +C_R^\nu Q_R^\nu \right)+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}..$$
(20)
Here $`Q_i`$ denotes the Standard Model basis of operators relevant to $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$  and $`Q_i^{}`$ their helicity flipped counterparts. In particular, we recall that $`Q_i(\overline{s}\gamma _\mu b)(\overline{c}\gamma ^\mu c)`$, for $`i=1\mathrm{}6`$, $`Q_7m_b\overline{s}_L(\sigma F)b_R`$, $`Q_8m_b\overline{s}_L(\sigma G)b_R`$, $`Q_9(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \mathrm{})`$, $`Q_{10}(\overline{s}_L\gamma _\mu b_L)(\overline{\mathrm{}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma _5\mathrm{})`$ and $`Q_{L(R)}^\nu (\overline{s}_{L(R)}\gamma _\mu b_{L(R)})(\overline{\nu }_L\gamma ^\mu \nu _L)`$. The operators that have a non-vanishing matrix element already at the tree level and thus play the dominant role in $`bs\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ are $`Q_7`$, $`Q_9`$, $`Q_{10}`$ and their helicity flipped counterparts. On the other hand, only $`Q_{L(R)}^\nu `$ have a non-vanishing matrix element in $`bs\nu \overline{\nu }`$.

Rate and CP asymmetry in $`BX_s\gamma `$ already provide serious constraints on possible deviations from the SM in $`C_7`$ and $`C_7^{}`$ , and these bounds will soon improve with new data on $`BX_s\gamma `$. However, as we have discussed in Section 2, even if no new-physics effects are found in the magnetic operator, one could still expect sizeable SUSY contributions mediated by the $`Z`$ penguin. In the following we shall concentrate only on the latter type of effects. Under this assumption, a rather simplified scenario emerges, where $`C_R^\nu =C_i^{}=0`$ and only $`C_{10}`$ and $`C_L^\nu `$ are substantially modified from their SM value .

Moreover, even though inclusive measurements are certainly more suitable for precise determinations of short-distance parameters, here we shall discuss only exclusive decays, which have a clear advantage from the experimental point of view. Within the SM the following exclusive branching ratios are expected, compared here with the current experimental limits:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill (BK\nu \overline{\nu })& & 4\times 10^6\hfill & (<7.7\times 10^4\hfill & \text{[37]})\hfill \\ \hfill (BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu })& & 1.3\times 10^5\hfill & (<7.7\times 10^4\hfill & \text{[37]})\hfill \\ \hfill (BK\mu ^+\mu ^{})^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{r}.}& & 6\times 10^7\hfill & (<5.2\times 10^6\hfill & \text{[38]})\hfill \\ \hfill (BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})^{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{r}.}& & 2\times 10^6\hfill & (<4\times 10^6\hfill & \text{[38]})\hfill \\ \hfill (B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{})& & 3\times 10^9\hfill & (<2.6\times 10^6\hfill & \text{[39]})\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
The corresponding hadronic uncertainties are typically around $`\pm 30\%`$ (see e.g.  for an updated discussion). As already mentioned, the channel that sets the strongest constraint on the FCNC $`Z`$ penguin is $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$. In the optimistic case where $`Z_{bs}^L`$ is close to saturating this bound, we would be able to detect the presence of non-standard dynamics already by observing sizeable rate enhancements in the above listed branching ratios. In processes such as $`BK^{}\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$ and $`BK\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}`$, where the standard photon-penguin diagrams provide a large contribution, the enhancement could be at most a factor of 2. On the other hand, in processes such as $`BK^{}\nu \overline{\nu }`$, $`BK\nu \overline{\nu }`$ and $`B_s\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$, where the photon-exchange amplitude is forbidden, the maximal enhancement could reach a factor of 10 .

### 5.1 Forward-backward asymmetry in $`BK^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$

If SUSY effects were not large enough to produce sizeable deviations in the magnitude of the $`bZ^{}s`$ transition, as expected unless $`|(\delta _{LR}^U)_{32}|`$ were very close to the upper bound in Eq. (14), it would be hard to detect them from exclusive rate measurements. A more interesting observable in this respect is provided by the forward–backward (FB) asymmetry of the emitted leptons. In the $`\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ case this is defined as

$`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})/ds}}{\displaystyle _1^1}d\mathrm{cos}\theta `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{})}{dsd\mathrm{cos}\theta }}\text{sgn}(\mathrm{cos}\theta ),`$ (22)
where $`s=m_{\mu ^+\mu ^{}}^2/m_B^2`$ and $`\theta `$ is the angle between the momenta of $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\overline{B}`$ in the dilepton centre-of-mass frame. Assuming that the leptonic current has only a vector ($`V`$) or axial-vector ($`A`$) structure, then the FB asymmetry provides a direct measure of the $`A`$-$`V`$ interference. Since the vector current is largely dominated by the photon-exchange amplitude and the axial one is very sensitive to the $`Z`$ exchange, $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(B)}`$ provide an excellent tool to probe the $`Z\overline{b}s`$ vertex. Indeed $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)`$ turns out to be proportional to444To simplify the notation we have introduced the parameter $`C_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$, which is not a Wilson coefficient but can be identified with $`C_9`$ at the leading-log level .

$$\mathrm{Re}\left\{C_{10}^{}\left[sC_9^{\mathrm{eff}}(s)+\alpha _+(s)\frac{m_bC_7}{m_B}\right]\right\},$$
(23)
where $`\alpha _+(s)`$ is an appropriate ratio of hadronic form factors . The overall factor ruling the magnitude of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)`$ is affected by sizeable theoretical uncertainties. Nonetheless there are at least three features of this observable that provide a clear short-distance information:

i) Within the SM $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)`$ has a zero in the low-$`s`$ region ($`s_0|_{\mathrm{SM}}0.1`$) . The exact position of $`s_0`$ is not free from hadronic uncertainties at the $`10\%`$ level; nonetheless, the existence of the zero itself is a clear test of the relative sign between $`C_7`$ and $`C_9`$. The position of $`s_0`$ is essentially unaffected by possible new-physics effects in the $`Z\overline{b}s`$ vertex.

ii) The sign of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)`$ around the zero is fixed unambiguously in terms of the relative sign of $`C_{10}`$ and $`C_9`$ : within the SM one expects $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)>0`$ for $`s>s_0`$, as in Fig. 1. This prediction is based on a model-independent relation between the form factors . Interestingly, the sign of $`C_{10}`$ could change in the presence of a non-standard $`Z\overline{b}s`$ vertex, leading to a striking signal of new physics in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)`$, even if the rate of $`\overline{B}\overline{K}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ were close to its SM value.

iii) In the limit of CP conservation, one expects $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)=𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(B)}(s)`$. This holds at the per-mille level within the SM, where $`C_{10}`$ has a negligible CP-violating phase, but again it could be different in the presence of new physics in the $`Z\overline{b}s`$ vertex. In this case the ratio $`[𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)+𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(B)}(s)]/[𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(\overline{B})}(s)𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}^{(B)}(s)]`$ could be different from zero, for $`s`$ above the charm threshold, even reaching the $`10\%`$ level in the SUSY scenario of Section 2 .

## 6 Conclusions

Rare FCNC transitions of the type $`d_jd_i\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{}(\nu \overline{\nu })`$ are very sensitive to simultaneous violations of $`SU(2)_L`$ and flavour symmetries. Within generic supersymmetric extensions of the SM, these processes could be substantially modified in the presence of non-diagonal trilinear soft-breaking terms. At present this possibility is still open for both $`bs`$ and $`sd`$ transitions, but it has more chances to be realized in the $`sd`$ case . The future measurements of $`(K^+\pi ^+\nu \overline{\nu })`$, $`(K_L\pi ^0\nu \overline{\nu })`$, $`(K_L\pi ^0e^+e^{})`$ and $`𝒜_{\mathrm{FB}}[B(\overline{B})\overline{K}^{}\mu ^+\mu ^{}]`$ will provide very useful insights in this scenario.

## Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank the organisers of RADCOR 2000 for their invitation to this interesting symposium and their financial support.


format: text

text:
# Isometric shifts and metric spaces

## 1. Introduction

Shift operators play an important role in many disciplines such as Perturbation Theory, Engineering Mathematics, Scattering Theory, Stochastic Processes, …(see ). R.M. Crownover () was the first to extend the definition of shift operator from separable Hilbert spaces to arbitrary Banach spaces without using basis. Namely, if $`𝒦`$ is a Banach space, then $`T:𝒦𝒦`$ is said to be an (isometric) shift operator if

1. $`T`$ is a linear isometry,
2. The codimension of $`T(𝒦)`$ in $`𝒦`$ is $`1`$,
3. $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}T^n(𝒦)=\{0\}.`$

If Condition $`3`$ is removed, then we have a codimension 1 linear isometry.

In , Gutek, Hart, Jamison and Rajagopalan extended many of the results obtained by J.R. Holub in  concerning isometric shift operators on the Banach space $`C(X)`$ ($`X`$ compact Hausdorff). First, they classified codimension 1 linear isometries on $`C(X)`$ using the following result: let $`T:C(X)C(X)`$ be a codimension 1 linear isometry. Then there exists a closed subset $`X_0`$ of $`X`$ such that either

(i) $`X_0=X\{p\}`$

where $`p`$ is an isolated point of $`X`$, or

(ii) $`X_0=X`$

and such that there exists a continuous map $`h`$ of $`X_0`$ onto $`X`$ and a function $`aC(X_0)`$, $`\left|a\right|1`$, such that

$$(Tf)(x)=a(x)f(h(x))$$

for all $`xX_0`$.

The proof of this result is based on a well known theorem of Holsztyński (). Those isometries that satisfy Condition (i) are said to be of type I. Those satisfying Condition (ii) are said to be of type II. These two classes are not disjoint. Farid and Varadarajan () devoted part of their paper to clarify the above classification. Finally, in  the author proposes an alternative (disjoint) classification based on the separation properties of the range of $`T`$. Thus, $`T`$ is of type II if and only if $`T(C(X))`$ separates all the points of $`X`$ except two and is of type I which is not of type II if and only if $`T(C(X))`$ separates all the points of $`X`$.

Codimension 1 linear isometries on arbitrary function algebras have also been studied and classified in  by using the results in . Recently, K. Izuchi  has characterized Douglas algebras which admit codimension 1 linear isometries, thus solving the conjecture settled in .

Another question which has also been addressed in the context of isometric shifts is the characterization of those compact Hausdorff spaces $`X`$ which admit such operators, that is, the existence of isometric shifts on $`C(X)`$. In , the authors proved that nonseparable spaces without isolated points do not admit isometric shifts and even that there is no nonseparable space which admits isometric shifts of type II. They left open the question of the existence of spaces without isolated points which admit isometric shifts. This question was answered in the positive by R. Haydon (). He proved the existence of isometric shifts of type II when $`X`$ is either connected or the Cantor set. However it is still an open question whether there exists a nonseparable compact space $`X`$ which admits an isometric shift. In this paper we show that no nonseparable metric (noncompact) space admits isometric shifts. We also provide an example of an isometric shift (of type I) with several interesting features.

## 2. Preliminaries

Let $`𝕂`$ denote the field of real or complex numbers. If $`X`$ is a compact (respectively locally compact) Hausdorff space, then $`C(X)`$ (respectively $`C_0(X)`$) stands for the Banach space of all $`𝕂`$-valued continuous functions defined on $`X`$ (respectively which vanish at infinity), equipped with its usual supremum norm. If $`M`$ is a metric space, then we shall write $`C^{}(M)`$ to denote the normed space of all bounded $`𝕂`$-valued continuous functions defined on $`M`$. As usual, $`\beta M`$ stands for the Stone-Čech compactification of $`M`$. Given $`fC(X)`$, we shall consider that $`c(f)`$ is its cozero set.

If $`U`$ is a subset of $`X`$, then $`\mathrm{cl}_X(U)`$ and $`\mathrm{int}_X(U)`$ denote its closure and its interior in $`X`$, respectively.

## 3. Isometric shifts on $`C^{}(M)`$ and separability

Let $`M`$ be a complete metric space and let $`T:C^{}(M)C^{}(M)`$ be an isometric shift. Then $`T`$ induces an isometric shift (which we continue to denote by $`T`$) on $`C(\beta M)`$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`M`$ be a complete metric space. If $`C^{}(M)`$ admits an isometric shift $`T`$, then $`M`$ is separable.

Proof. Let us first assume $`T`$ to be of type II which is not of type I. According to \[6, Lemma 2.2\], the map $`h:\beta M\beta M`$ is a surjective continuous map such that there exists $`x_0\beta M`$ in such a way that $`h^1(\{x\})`$ consists of just one point for every $`x\beta M\{x_0\}`$ and $`h^1(\{x_0\})`$ consists of two points of $`\beta M`$, say $`x_1,x_2`$. Also, since $`T`$ is not of type I, then the points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are not isolated. Furthermore, in \[6, Theorem 2.5\], it is proven that the set

$$𝒟:=\underset{k=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}h^k(\{x_0\})$$

is a countable dense subset in $`\beta M`$. We are going to see that this set is contained in $`M`$ and in this way we give an explicit countable dense subset in $`M`$.

First we have, by \[6, Theorem 2.6\], that if $`\beta M/R`$ is the quotient space for the equivalence relation defined as $`xRy`$ whenever $`h(x)=h(y)`$, then the map $`h^R:\beta M/R\beta M`$ sending each class $`x^R`$ into the image $`h(x)`$ of any $`xx^R`$ is a surjective homeomorphism. This implies in particular that the image of a $`G_\delta `$-point in $`\beta M/R`$ is a $`G_\delta `$-point in $`\beta M`$ and vice versa. Let us recall that the only points in $`\beta M`$ which are $`G_\delta `$ are those in $`M`$.

Let us check which the $`G_\delta `$-points in $`\beta M/R`$ are. Suppose that $`x^R\beta M/R`$ satisfies that there exists $`xM`$ with $`xx^R`$. Clearly, if $`x^R`$ is the singleton $`\{x\}`$, then $`x^R`$ is $`G_\delta `$. Otherwise, as we remark above, $`x^R`$ consists of two points, $`x_1,x_2`$, and is the only point in $`\beta M/R`$ which is not a singleton. Then it is apparent that $`x^R`$ is $`G_\delta `$ if and only if both $`x_1,x_2M`$.

Suppose next that $`x^R=\{x_1,x_2\}`$, and that $`x_1M`$. Since $`T`$ is not of type I, then the points $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are clearly not isolated. Thus, there exists a sequence $`(y_n)`$ in $`M\{x_1,x_2\}`$ converging to $`x_1`$. Also each $`y_n`$ is a $`G_\delta `$-point, and consequently so is $`h^R(y_n)=h(y_n)`$, that is, the sequence $`(h(y_n))`$ is contained in $`M`$, and converges to $`x_0`$. But this implies in particular that $`x_0M`$ (\[14, Theorem 8.3.2\]). Conversely, if we assume that $`x_0M`$, then $`x_0`$ is a $`G_\delta `$-point of $`\beta M`$ and, consequently, so is $`h^1(\{x_0\})=\{x_1,x_2\}`$. This implies, as stated above, that both $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ belong to $`M`$. Summing up, we have proven that $`x_0M`$ if and only if $`x_1M`$ or $`x_2M`$, and that this fact yields $`x_1,x_2M`$.

Let us now assume that $`x_0M`$, which is to say that $`x_1,x_2M`$. Then it is easy to check that the restriction of the map $`h`$ to $`M`$, $`h:MM`$, is bijective and continuous, and its inverse $`h^1:MM`$ is also continuous. Consequently, the map $`T:C^{}(M)C^{}(M)`$ sending each $`f`$ into $`afh`$, $`\left|a\right|1`$, is clearly a surjective linear isometry, that is, it is not a codimension $`1`$ isometry, against our hypothesis. We deduce that $`x_0`$ must belong to $`M`$, and consequently $`x_1,x_2`$ belong to $`M`$. Hence, $`h^1(\{x_0\})M`$.

A similar reasoning leads to the fact that $`h^k(\{x_0\})M`$ for every integer $`k`$. That is, $`𝒟M`$, as was to be proved.

Let us now assume that $`T:C(\beta M)C(\beta M)`$ is of type I. Thus, there exist an isolated point $`p\beta M`$ and a homeomorphism (\[6, Lemma 2.2\]) $`h`$ of $`\beta M\{p\}`$ onto $`\beta M`$ and a function $`aC(\beta M\{p\})`$, $`\left|a\right|1`$, such that

$$(Tf)(x)=a(x)f(h(x))$$

for all $`x\beta M\{p\}`$. Consider the set $`A=\{p,h^1(p),h^2(p),\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`Y:=\beta M\mathrm{cl}_{\beta M}(A)`$ is a locally compact space and $`h:YY`$ is a surjective homeomorphism. Hence we have a surjective isometry $`S:C_0(Y)C_0(Y)`$ defined to be

$$(Sf)(x)=\widehat{a}(x)f(h(x)),$$

where $`\widehat{a}`$ is the restriction to $`Y`$ of $`a`$.

For any $`fC_0(Y)`$, we can define a function $`\widehat{f}C(\beta M)`$ such that $`\widehat{f}=f`$ on $`Y`$ and $`0`$ on $`\beta MY`$. As a consequence, a linear continuous functional $`\mu `$ (indeed a regular complex measure) can be defined on $`C_0(Y)`$ to be $`\mu (f):=(T\widehat{f})(p)`$.

Claim 1. Assume that there is $`fC_0(Y)`$ such that $`\mu (f)=0`$ and $`(\mu S^n)(f)=0`$ for all $`n`$. Then $`f0`$.

Let us suppose, contrary to what we claim, that there is $`fC_0(Y)`$, $`f0`$, such that $`\mu (f)=0`$ and $`(\mu S^n)(f)=0`$ for all $`n`$. Let us check that $`\widehat{f}R(T^n)`$ for all $`n`$.

Since $`S:C_0(Y)C_0(Y)`$ is a surjective isometry, there is $`gC_0(Y)`$ such that $`S(g)=f`$. If $`xY`$, then

$$(T\widehat{g})(x)=a(x)\widehat{g}(h(x))=\widehat{a}(x)g(h(x))=(Sg)(x)=f(x)=\widehat{f}(x).$$

That is, $`T\widehat{g}=\widehat{f}`$ on $`Y`$.

On the other hand, $`(T\widehat{g})(p):=\mu (g)=\mu (S^1f)=(\mu S^1)(f)`$. By assumption, $`(\mu S^1)(f)=0`$. Hence, $`(T\widehat{g})(p)=0=\widehat{f}(p)`$.

Next, from the representation of the isometric shift $`T`$, we know that $`(T\widehat{g})(h^n(p))=a(h^n(p))\widehat{g}(h^{n+1}(p))`$, but $`h^{n+1}(p)\beta MY`$, which is to say that $`\widehat{g}(h^{n+1}(p))=0`$.

Finally, it is apparent, from the above two paragraphs and from density, that $`T\widehat{g}0`$ on $`\beta MY`$. Hence, gathering the information above, we infer that $`T\widehat{g}=\widehat{f}`$, i.e., $`\widehat{f}R(T)`$.

Let us next check that $`\widehat{f}R(T^2)`$. To see this, it suffices to prove that $`\widehat{g}R(T)`$. Since $`S`$ is surjective, there is $`g_1C_0(Y)`$ such that $`S(g_1)=g`$. Furthermore $`(T\widehat{g_1})(p):=\mu (g_1)=\mu (S^2f)=(\mu S^2)(f)=0=\widehat{g}(p)`$. Hence, as above, we deduce that $`T\widehat{g_1}=\widehat{g}`$. In like manner, we can obtain $`g_2,g_3,\mathrm{},g_n,\mathrm{}`$ to show that $`\widehat{f}R(T^n)`$ for all $`n`$. This fact contradicts the definition of isometric shift and the proof of Claim 1 is complete.

It is well-known that every regular complex measure $`\theta `$ can be written as $`\theta =(\theta _1\theta _2)+i(\theta _3\theta _4)`$, where $`\theta _i`$, $`i=1,2,3,4`$, are regular positive measures. Hence each of the regular complex measures $`\mu ,\mu S^1,\mu S^2,\mathrm{},\mu S^n,\mathrm{}`$ can be divided into four regular positive measures. As a consequence, we get a new sequence of regular positive measures, which we shall denote by $`\{\mu _n\}_n`$. With no loss of generality, we can assume that all these measures are normalized.

Since the space of regular measures on a locally compact space is a Banach space, we can define a regular positive measure as follows:

$$\eta :=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mu _n}{2^n}.$$

Claim 2. For every nonempty open subset $`U`$ of $`Y`$, $`\eta (U)>0`$.

Let us suppose that there exists a nonempty open subset $`U`$ of $`Y`$ such that $`\eta (U)=0`$. Hence we can find $`fC_0(Y)`$, $`f0`$, such that $`c(f)U`$. Consequently,

$$\mu _n(f)=_Yf𝑑\mu _n=0$$

for all $`n`$. Finally, Claim 1 yields $`f0`$, a contradiction.

Let us now define a (open) subset $`N:=M\mathrm{cl}_{\beta M}(\{p,h^1(p),h^2(p),\mathrm{}\})`$ of $`M`$. Next we consider the family, say $`_1`$, of all subsets $`B`$ of $`N`$ which satisfy the following property: if $`x,yB`$, then $`d(x,y)1`$ or $`d(x,y)=0`$, where $`d`$ denotes the metric in $`N`$ induced from $`M`$. Let us choose a chain $`(A_\alpha )_\alpha `$ of elements of $`_1`$ ordered by inclusion. Since

$$\underset{\alpha }{}A_\alpha _1,$$

Zorn’s lemma yields a maximal element, say $`M_1`$.

Claim 3. $`M_1`$ is a countable set.

Assume the contrary. Then there exists an uncountable family $`\mathrm{}`$ of indexes such that

$$M_1=\{x_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{}\}.$$

Since $`N`$ is an open subset of $`M`$, there is, for each $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, a constant $`M_\alpha >0`$ such that the open ball $`B(x_\alpha ,M_\alpha )N`$.

Next, for each $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, take

$$m_\alpha :=inf\{\frac{1}{3},M_\alpha \}$$

and consider the open ball $`B(x_\alpha ,m_\alpha )`$. It is clear, from the definition of $`_1`$, that if $`\alpha ,\beta \mathrm{}`$, $`\alpha \beta `$, then

$$B(x_\alpha ,m_\alpha )B(x_\beta ,m_\beta )=\mathrm{}.$$

Now, for every $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$, we can define the set

$$V_\alpha :=\mathrm{int}_{\beta M}(\mathrm{cl}_{\beta M}(B(x_\alpha ,m_\alpha )).$$

It is apparent that $`V_\alpha M=B(x_\alpha ,m_\alpha )`$ for each $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ and that $`V_\alpha V_\beta =\mathrm{}`$ if $`\alpha \beta `$. Furthermore, each $`V_\alpha `$ is contained in $`Y`$ since $`Y`$ is open.

Summarizing, we have found an uncountable pairwise disjoint family of open subsets $`\{V_\alpha :\alpha \mathrm{}\}`$ in $`Y`$.

We know, by Claim 2, that $`\eta (V_\alpha )>0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$. Hence, there is $`n_0`$ such that the set

$$\gamma :=\{\alpha \mathrm{}:\eta (V_\alpha )>\frac{1}{n_0}\}$$

is not countable since neither is $`\mathrm{}`$. Let us choose a countable subset $`\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,\mathrm{}\}`$ of indexes in $`\gamma `$. Then,

$$\eta (\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_{\alpha _n})=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\eta (V_{\alpha _n})=+\mathrm{}.$$

This contradiction completes the proof of Claim 3.

As in the paragraph before Claim 3, we can define, for every $`n`$, the family $`_n`$ of all subsets $`B`$ of $`N`$ which satisfy the following property: if $`x,yB`$, then $`d(x,y)1/n`$ or $`d(x,y)=0`$. In like manner, we obtain, for every $`n`$, a maximal element $`M_n`$ of $`_n`$ which turns out to be countable.

Let us now see that the countable set

$$𝒟:=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}M_n$$

is dense in $`N`$. To this end, choose $`xN𝒟`$ and $`ϵ>0`$. Then there exists $`m_0`$ such that $`\frac{1}{m_0}<ϵ`$. Since $`x𝒟`$, then $`xM_{m_0}`$. This facts implies the existence of $`yM_{m_0}`$ such that $`d(x,y)<1/m_0`$. That is, there is an element $`y`$ of $`𝒟`$ in the open ball $`B(x,ϵ)`$ and the density of $`𝒟`$ in $`N`$ follows.

Finally, it is clear that the countable set

$$𝒟\{p,h^1(p),h^2(p),\mathrm{}\}$$

is dense in $`M`$ and we are done.

## 4. Example

In , Haydon showed a method to provide isometric shifts of type II. However, it is remarkable the scarcity of examples of isometric shifts of type I. In this final section we provide an example of an isometric shift of type I, which is not of type II, with several additional features. Indeed, in , the authors raised the question whether, for an isometric shift of type I, the set $`D:=\{p,h^1(p),h^2(p),\mathrm{}\}`$ was always dense in $`X`$. The question was answered in the negative by Farid and Varadarajan () by providing an example of an isometric shift of type I such that $`X\mathrm{cl}_X(D)`$ was a (finite) nonempty subset. Our example shows somehow that $`D`$ can be far from being dense in $`X`$ in the sense that $`X\mathrm{cl}_X(D)`$ is uncountable. Our $`X`$ also has, contrary to what Holub conjectured in , an infinite connected component (see also \[6, Corollary 2.1\]).

Example. Let $`D`$ denote the unit circle in $``$, and let

$$X=D\{\frac{1}{n}:n,n2\}\left\{0\right\}.$$

It is clear that $`X`$ is a compact metric space. Let us show that $`X`$ admits an isometric shift of type I by constructing it explicitely.

Let $`T:C(X)C(X)`$ be the following operator. Take any $`fC(X)`$ and define, for each $`e^{i\theta }D`$,

$$(Tf)(e^{i\theta }):=f(e^{i(\theta +\sqrt{2})}).$$

It is clear that, given any $`e^{i\theta }D`$, the sequences $`(e^{i(\theta +2n\sqrt{2})})`$ and $`(e^{i(\theta +(2n1)\sqrt{2})})`$ are dense in $`D`$. Then we take in $`D`$ the point $`1=e^{i0}`$.

Clearly the evaluation map $`\delta _1`$ is continuous in $`C(X)`$ and its norm is equal to $`1`$. So, for $`fC(X)`$, we define

$$(Tf)(1/2):=(\delta _1+\delta _{e^{i\sqrt{2}}})(f)/2=f(1)/2f(e^{i\sqrt{2}})/2.$$

Next, for $`n3`$, we define

$$(Tf)(1/n):=f(1/n1),$$

and

$$(Tf)(0):=f(0).$$

It is clear that $`TfC(X)`$ and that $`T`$ is an isometry. In fact $`T`$ is a codimension 1 linear isometry of type $`I`$ (being $`p=1/2`$), which is not of type II since the range of $`T`$ separates all the points of $`X`$ (see ). Let us see that it is also a shift operator.

Suppose that $`gC(X)`$ satisfies $`g_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}R(T^n)`$. We have to prove that $`g=0`$. First we have that $`(g(1/n))`$ must be a convergent sequence, and it converges to the value $`g(0)`$. Also, we have that $`g(1/2)=(T^1g)(1)/2(T^1g)(e^{i\sqrt{2}})/2`$, by construction. In the same way $`g(1/3)=(T^1g)(1/2)=(T^2g)(1)/2+(T^2g)(e^{i\sqrt{2}})/2=(T^1g)(e^{i\sqrt{2}})/2+(T^1g)(e^{i2\sqrt{2}})/2`$ and, in general, for $`n2`$, $`n`$,

$$g(1/n)=(1)^{n+1}((T^1g)(e^{(n1)i\sqrt{2}})/2+(T^1g)(e^{(n2)i\sqrt{2}})/2).$$

In particular, we have that the sequence

$$\left((1)^{n+1}\frac{(T^1g)(e^{(n1)i\sqrt{2}})+(T^1g)(e^{(n2)i\sqrt{2}})}{2}\right)$$

must converge to $`g(0)`$, because $`g`$ is continuous.

On the other hand, by the density of points of the form $`e^{i2n\sqrt{2}}`$, $`n`$, we have that given any point $`z_0D`$, there exists a sequence $`(n_k)`$ of even numbers such that $`(e^{in_k\sqrt{2}})`$ converges to $`z_0`$ as $`k`$ tends to infinity. Also $`(e^{i(n_k1)\sqrt{2}})`$ converges to $`z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}}`$. Since $`T^1g`$ is continuous, this implies that $`((T^1g)(e^{in_k\sqrt{2}}))`$ goes to $`(T^1g)(z_0)`$, and that $`((T^1g)(e^{i(n_k1)\sqrt{2}}))`$ goes to $`(T^1g)(z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}})`$. We deduce that

$$\left(\frac{(T^1g)(e^{i(n_k1)\sqrt{2}})+(T^1g)(e^{in_k\sqrt{2}})}{2}\right)$$

converges to

$$\frac{(T^1g)(z_0)+(T^1g)(z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}})}{2}.$$

On the other hand, we know that the above sequence converges to $`g(0)`$. But a similar approach can be taken for a sequence of odd natural numbers $`(m_k)`$ instead of $`(n_k)`$. In this case we will obtain that

$$\left(\frac{(T^1g)(e^{i(m_k1)\sqrt{2}})+(T^1g)(e^{im_k\sqrt{2}})}{2}\right)$$

converges to

$$\frac{(T^1g)(z_0)+(T^1g)(z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}})}{2},$$

and on the other hand, it must converge to $`g(0)`$. As a consequence, we deduce that $`g(0)=g(0)=0`$, and that, for every $`z_0D`$,

$$(T^1g)(z_0)+(T^1g)(z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}})=0.$$

In particular, this implies that for every $`z_0D`$, $`(T^1g)(z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}})=(T^1g)(z_0e^{i\sqrt{2}})`$. Consequently, the sequence

$$\left((T^1g)(e^{i2n\sqrt{2}})\right)$$

is constant. By the density of points $`e^{i2n\sqrt{2}}`$, $`n`$, we conclude that $`T^1g`$ is constant on $`D`$. In particular, this implies that the sequence $`(\left|g(1/n)\right|)`$ is constant. Since it converges to $`\left|g(0)\right|=0`$, we conclude that $`g(1/n)=0`$ for every $`n`$. As a consequence it is easy to see that $`T^1g0`$ on $`D`$. But this clearly implies that $`g=0`$, as we wanted to prove.