text:
# The charge conjugation orbifold 𝑉_{ℤ𝛼}⁺ is rational when ⟨𝛼,𝛼⟩/2 is prime

## 1 Introduction

Let $`L=\alpha `$ be a rank one even lattice defined by $`\alpha ,\alpha =2k`$ for a positive integer $`k`$. Then it is known that the lattice vertex operator algebra $`V_L`$ is rational (see \[D1\]). The vertex operator algebra $`V_L`$ has an automorphism induced from the $`1`$-isometry of $`L`$, and the fixed point set $`V_L^+`$ is a simple vertex operator algebra (cf. \[DN\]), which is called the charge conjugation orbifold in the literature \[DVVV\] and \[KT\]. In this paper we show that the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$ is rational when $`k`$ is a prime integer.

The rationality of $`V_L^+`$ with $`k=3`$ may help to study the construction of moonshine module. The moonshine vertex operator algebra $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ has a vertex operator subalgebra isomorphic to the tensor product $`U=(V_L^+)^{24}`$ of $`V_L^+`$ with $`k=3`$ which has the same Virasoro element of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ (\[Sh\]). As proved in \[FHL\], the tensor product $`V=_{i=1}^nV^i`$ of rational vertex operator algebras $`V^i`$ is also rational and any irreducible $`V`$-modules are isomorphic to tensor products $`_{i=1}^nM^i`$ of some irreducible $`V^i`$-module $`W^i`$. Therefore by the rationality of $`V_L^+`$ with $`k=3`$, one knows that $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of irreducible $`U`$-modules which are tensor products of 24 irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules. The similar decompositions of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ as a direct sum of irreducible modules of the tensor product $`L(1/2,0)^{48}`$ of the Virasoro vertex operator algebra $`L(1/2,0)`$ are known (cf. \[DMZ\] and \[DGH\]), and these decompositions are used to compute the characters of elements of the Monster simple group (see \[M4\]). More precisely, Miyamoto \[M2\] constructed a vertex operator algebra $`M_D`$ associated to an even linear binary code $`D`$ in $`_2^n`$ for $`n`$, which is called a code vertex operator algebra. The vertex operator algebra $`M_D`$ contains $`L(1/2,0)^n`$ as a vertex operator subalgebra, and each irreducible components of $`M_D`$ as an $`L(1/2,0)^n`$-module corresponds to a codeword of $`D`$. In \[M4\], the moonshine vertex operator algebra is reconstructed as an induced module, which is introduced and studied in \[DLi\], of some code vertex operator algebra, and the characters of $`2A`$, $`2B`$ and $`3C`$ elements of the Monster are calculated explicitly. On the other hand, in \[Sh\] the Mckay-Thompson series for $`4A`$ elements of the Monster are calculated by using a decomposition of $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$ as a $`(V_L^+)^{24}`$-module. Thus this decomposition may shed light on another aspects of the actions of the Monster on the moonshine vertex operator algebra.

In \[M3\], the structures of modules for code vertex operator algebras are studied in detail, and there the rationality and fusion rules of $`L(1/2,0)`$ play an important role. The fusion rules for charge conjugation orbifolds $`V_L^+`$ are completely determined in \[A\]. Together with the rationality of $`V_L^+`$ with $`k=3`$, we hope that the analogue of the representation theory for code vertex operator algebra can be developed for the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$ with $`k=3`$. For example, as been studying by Lam and Shimakura (\[LS\]), the induced module construction from $`V_L^+`$ may be explained by means of the language of code.

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra. In \[Z\], an associative algebra $`A(V)`$ associated with $`V`$ is introduced. Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ has many information on modules for $`V`$, for example, there is a bijection between the set of equivalence classes of irreducible $`V`$-modules and that of irreducible $`A(V)`$-modules. Furthermore if $`V`$ is rational, then Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ is semisimple.

Suppose that Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ is semisimple. Then we can prove that any admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ has a generalized eigenspace decomposition for $`L(0)=\omega (1)`$, where $`\omega `$ is the Virasoro element of $`V`$ (see Theorem 3.3). This follows from the fact that if $`A(V)`$ is semisimple, then the lowest degree space of an admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is a direct sum of irreducible $`A(V)`$-modules and then $`L(0)`$ acts semisimply on the $`V`$-submodule generated by the lowest degree space. Let $`𝒫(V)`$ be the set of lowest weights of all irreducible admissible $`V`$-modules. Then we prove that for any admissible $`V`$-module and any complex number $`\lambda `$, the direct sum $`_nM^{(\lambda +n)}`$ of generalized eigenspace $`M^{(\lambda +n)}`$ of eigenvalue $`\lambda +n`$ $`(n)`$ is an admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$. We also show that if $`\mu 𝒫(V)+`$ then the generalized eigenspaces $`M^{(\mu )}`$ is zero. These imply that $`M`$ is a direct sum of admissible submodules of the form $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(\lambda +n)}`$ for some $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$. Thus in order to prove that $`V`$ is rational, it suffices to show that for any $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$ every admissible $`V`$-module of the form $`_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(\lambda +n)}`$ are completely reducible. If $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$ satisfies the condition $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V)=\mathrm{}`$, then it is not hard to see that any admissible modules $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(\lambda +n)}`$ are completely reducible. Hence if we show that for any $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$ not satisfying $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V)=\mathrm{}`$, every admissible $`V`$-module of the form $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(\lambda +n)}`$ is completely reducible, then we have the rationality of $`V`$.

Since Zhu’s algebra $`A(V_L^+)`$ is semisimple (see \[DN\]), we can use the results explained in the previous paragraph to prove the rationality of the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$. The classification of irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules in \[DN\] shows that the set of lowest weights for $`V_L^+`$ is $`𝒫(V_L^+)=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1,r^2/4k,1/16,9/16\}`$. Under the assumption that $`k`$ is prime, all numbers $`0,1,1/16,9/16`$ and $`r^2/4k`$ for $`1rk`$ are distinct and that lowest weights $`\lambda `$ except $`0`$ satisfy the condition $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V_L^+)=\mathrm{}`$ (see Lemma 4.3). Thus to show that $`V_L^+`$ with a prime integer $`k`$ is rational, it suffices to prove that every admissible $`V_L^+`$-module of the form $`M=_nM^{(n)}`$ is completely reducible. We will prove that the submodules of $`M`$ generated by $`M^{(0)}`$ and $`M^{(1)}`$ are completely reducible because we can easily see that $`M`$ is generated by $`M^{(0)}`$ and $`M^{(1)}`$.

The organization of this paper is as follows: In Section 2.1, we review definitions of modules for a vertex operator algebra, and recall some results related to Zhu’s algebra in Section 2.2. In Section 3, we prove that for a vertex operator algebra $`V`$ whose Zhu’s algebra is semisimple, every admissible module is a direct sum of generalized eigenspaces for $`L(0)`$. The constructions of the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$ and its irreducible modules are explained in Section 4.1, and in Section 4.2 we prove that the rationality of $`V_L^+`$ with a prime integer $`k=\alpha ,\alpha /2`$ by using results in Section 3.

Throughout the paper, $``$ is the set of nonnegative integers and $`_+`$ is the set of positive integers.

## 2 Preliminaries

In Section 2.1, we recall the definition of modules over a vertex operator algebra, following \[FLM\], \[FHL\]. We also review the definition of Zhu’s algebra and some related results in Section 2.2.

### 2.1 Modules for a Vertex Operator Algebra

Let $`(V,Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ be a vertex operator algebra (cf. \[FLM\] and \[FHL\]). We write $`Y(a,z)=_na(n)z^{n1}`$ for $`aV`$. Then $`V`$ has an eigenspace decomposition $`V=_nV(n)`$ for $`L(0)=\omega (1)`$, where $`V(n)`$ is the eigenspace of eigenvalue $`n`$ for $`n`$. A vector $`a`$ in $`V(n)`$ is called to be homogeneous of weight $`n`$. We denote the weight of $`aV(n)`$ by $`n=\mathrm{wt}(a)`$.

###### Definition 2.1.

A weak $`V`$-module is a pair $`(M,Y_M)`$ of a vector space $`M`$ and a linear map

$`Y_M:V`$ $``$ $`(\mathrm{End}M)[[z,z^1]],`$
$`a`$ $``$ $`Y_M(a,z)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}a(n)z^{n1},(a(n)\mathrm{End}M)`$
such that the following conditions are satisfied for $`a,bV`$ and $`uM`$:

$`(1)`$

$`Y_M(a,z)vM((z)),`$ (2.1)
$`(2)`$ (The Jacobi identity).

$`z_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_2}{z_0}}\right)Y_M(a,z_1)Y_M(b,z_2)z_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z_2z_1}{z_0}}\right)Y_M(b,z_2)Y_M(a,z_1)`$
$`=z_2^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{z_1z_0}{z_2}}\right)Y_M(Y(a,z_0)b,z_2),`$ (2.2)
$`(3)`$

$$Y_M(\mathrm{𝟏},z)=\mathrm{id}_M.$$

Set $`Y_M(\omega ,z)=_nL(n)z^{n2}`$. Then as proved in \[DLM2\], one have the commutation relations of the Virasoro algebra

$$[L(m),L(n)]=(mn)L(m+n)+\frac{m^3m}{12}\delta _{m,n}c_V\mathrm{id}_M,$$

for $`m,n`$, where $`c_V`$ is the central charge of $`V`$. We also have the $`L(1)`$-derivative property

$`Y_M(L(1)a,z)={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dz}}Y(a,z)\text{, for all }aV.`$ (2.3)
A weak $`V`$-module $`(M,Y_M)`$ is often denoted by $`M`$. A weak $`V`$-submodule of a weak module $`M`$ is a subspace $`N`$ of $`M`$ such that $`a(n)NN`$ hold for all $`aV`$ and $`n`$.

By the Jacobi identity (2.2), we have the following commutation relations for $`a,bV`$ and $`m,n`$:

$`[a(m),b(n)]={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(\begin{array}{c}m\\ k\end{array}\right)(a(k)b)(m+nk)`$ (2.6)
Now we set $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)=a(\mathrm{wt}(a)+n1)`$ for a homogeneous vector $`aV`$ and $`n`$, and extend it to every $`aV`$ by linearity. Set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(M)=\{uM|\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u=0\text{ for any }aV\text{ and }n_+\}.$$

By the commutation relation (2.6), we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ is preserved under the action of $`o(a)=\stackrel{~}{a}(0)`$ for $`aV`$.

For a weak $`V`$-module $`M`$ and $`uM`$, we denote by $`u`$ the weak submodule of $`M`$ generated by $`u`$. Then the following lemma holds:

###### Lemma 2.2.

(\[Li\]) Let $`M`$ be a weak $`V`$-module and $`uM`$. Then

$$u=\mathrm{span}_{}\{a(n)u|aV\text{ and }n\}.$$

###### Definition 2.3.

An admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is a weak $`V`$-module equipped with an $``$-grading $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M_n`$ such that the condition

$`a(n)M_mM_{\mathrm{wt}(a)+mn1}`$ (2.7)
holds for any homogeneous vector $`aV`$ and $`m,n`$, where $`M_m=0`$ for $`n<0`$.

For an admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$, we have the linear map $`d:MM`$ defined by $`d|_{M_n}=n\mathrm{id}_{M_n}`$ ($`n`$), which is called the degree operator of $`M`$. By (2.7), we have commutation relation

$`[d,\stackrel{~}{a}(n)]=n\stackrel{~}{a}(n)`$ (2.8)
for $`aV`$ and $`n`$.

A $`d`$-invariant weak $`V`$-submodule $`N`$ of an admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is called an admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$. Then $`N`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of eigenspaces for $`d`$ as $`N=_nN_n`$, where $`N_n=NM_n`$ for $`n`$. For an admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ and its admissible $`V`$-submodule $`N`$, the quotient space $`M/N`$ has a natural admissible $`V`$-module structure; the homogeneous space of degree $`n`$ is given by

$`(M/N)_n=(M_n+N)/N.`$ (2.9)
Now we recall the definition of the rationality of a vertex operator algebra. An irreducible admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is an admissible $`V`$-module which has no admissible $`V`$-submodule except $`0`$ and $`M`$. When $`M`$ is a direct sum of irreducible admissible submodules, $`M`$ is called to be completely reducible.

###### Definition 2.4.

A vertex operator algebra $`V`$ is said to be rational if any admissible $`V`$-module is completely reducible.

### 2.2  Zhu’s Algebra $`A(V)`$

In this subsection we review the definition of Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ associated to a vertex operator algebra $`V`$ and recall some related results in \[Z\] and \[DLM2\].

Let $`(V,Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ be a vertex operator algebra. For homogeneous vectors $`aV`$ and $`bV`$, we define

$`ab=\mathrm{Res}_z{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}}{z^2}}Y(a,z)b.`$ (2.10)
Let $`O(V)`$ be the subspace of $`V`$ spanned by all vectors $`ab`$ for homogeneous vectors $`a,bV`$, and set $`A(V)=V/O(V)`$. We denote the image of $`aV`$ in $`A(V)`$ by $`[a]`$. For any homogeneous vector $`aV`$ and $`bV`$, define

$`ab=\mathrm{Res}_z{\displaystyle \frac{(1+z)^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}}{z}}Y(a,z)b`$
and extend it on V for $`a`$ by linearity. The following theorem is due to \[Z\] and \[DLM2\]:

###### Theorem 2.5.

(1) The operation $``$ induces an associative algebra structure on $`A(V)`$, and the image $`[\omega ]`$ is contained in the center of $`A(V)`$.

(2) For any admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$, the linear map $`V\mathrm{End}\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ defined by $`ao(a)|_{\mathrm{\Omega }(M)}`$ for $`aV`$ induces an $`A(V)`$-module structure on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$.

(3) The map $`M\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ induces a bijection from the set of all equivalence classes of irreducible admissible $`V`$-modules to the set of all equivalence classes of irreducible $`A(V)`$-modules.

(4) If $`A(V)`$ is semisimple, then there are only finitely many inequivalent irreducible admissible $`V`$-modules.

It is known that for any irreducible admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$, there exists a complex number $`\lambda `$ such that $`M`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of $`L(0)`$-eigenspaces as $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M(\lambda +n)`$, where $`M(\lambda +n)`$ is the $`L(0)`$-eigenspace of eigenvalue $`\lambda +n`$ (see \[Z, Lemma 1.2.1\]). We call the complex number $`\lambda `$ a lowest weight of $`M`$. We denote by $`𝒫(V)`$ the set of lowest weights of all irreducible admissible $`V`$-modules.

###### Proposition 2.6.

(1) For an admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$, if a subspace $`W`$ of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ is invariant under the action of $`o(a)`$ for any $`aV`$, then $`W`$ is $`A(V)`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$.

(2) Let $`W`$ be a completely reducible $`A(V)`$-module. Then every eigenvalues for $`[\omega ]`$ on $`W`$ are in $`𝒫(V)`$.

Proof. The assertion (1) follows from Theorem 2.5 (2). We shall prove (2). Since W is completely reducible as an $`A(V)`$-module, it is decomposed into a direct sum of irreducible $`A(V)`$-submodules. Since $`[\omega ]`$ is in the center of $`A(V)`$, $`[\omega ]`$ acts on each irreducible component by a scalar. By Theorem 2.5 (3), any irreducible $`A(V)`$-module is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ for some irreducible admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$. Since $`[\omega ]`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ as $`L(0)`$, we see that the eigenvalues for $`[w]`$ on irreducible components of $`W`$ are lowest weights. This proves (2).  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Generalized Eigenspaces Decompositions <br>of Admissible $`V`$-Modules

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra. For a weak $`V`$-module $`M`$, we denote the generalized eigenspace for $`L(0)`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ by $`M^{(\lambda )}`$, i.e.,

$$M^{(\lambda )}=\{uM|(L(0)\lambda )^ku=0\text{ for some }k\}.$$

The purpose of this section is to show the following theorem:

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra. Suppose that Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ is semisimple. Then any admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of generalized eigenspaces for $`L(0)`$ as follows:

$$M=_{i=1}^s(_nM^{(\lambda _i+n)})$$

for some $`\lambda _i𝒫(V)`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},s)`$. Moreover, for each $`\lambda _i`$, the subspace $`_nM^{(\lambda _i+n)}`$ is an admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$.

Till end of this section, we assume that Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ is semisimple.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`M`$ be an admissible $`V`$-module. For $`\lambda `$, the subspace $`_nM^{(\lambda +n)}`$ is an admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$. Therefore, $`N=_\lambda M^{(\lambda )}`$ is also an admissible $`V`$-submodule of M.

Proof. Set $`W=_nM^{(\lambda +n)}`$. We have to prove that

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)WW\text{ for all }aV\text{ and }n`$ (3.1)
and that

$`d(W)W,`$ (3.2)
where $`d`$ is the degree operator of $`M`$. First we prove (3.1). For $`aV`$ and $`n`$, we have a commutation relation

$`[L(0),\stackrel{~}{a}(n)]=n\stackrel{~}{a}(n).`$ (3.3)
Hence for any $`uM`$,

$`(L(0)\lambda +n)\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u`$ $`=`$ $`L(0)\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u(\lambda n)\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)L(0)un\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u(\lambda n)\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u`$
$`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)(L(0)\lambda )u.`$
This implies that if $`uM^{(\lambda )}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)uM^{(\lambda n)}`$. Thus we see that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)uW`$ for any $`uW`$. Next we show (3.2). Let $`uM^{(\lambda )}`$, and choose $`k_+`$ so that $`(L(0)\lambda )^ku=0`$. Since $`[d,L(0)]=0`$ by (2.8), we have

$$(L(0)\lambda )^kdu=d(L(0)\lambda )^ku=0.$$

Hence $`duM^{(\lambda )}`$. This shows that $`W`$ is invariant under the action of $`d`$. Thus we have (3.2).  $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we can prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.3.

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra, and suppose that Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ is semisimple. Then any admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of generalized eigenspaces for $`L(0)`$, i.e., $`M=_\lambda M^{(\lambda )}.`$

Proof.  Set $`N=_\lambda M^{(\lambda )}`$. By Lemma 3.2, $`N`$ is an admissible submodule of $`M`$. We need to prove that $`M/N=0`$. Thus we show that $`(M/N)_n=0`$ for any $`n`$ by induction on $`n`$. First we prove $`(M/N)_0=0`$. By Proposition 2.6 (1), $`M_0`$ is an $`A(V)`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$. Since $`A(V)`$ is semisimple, $`L(0)`$ acts on $`M_0`$ diagonally. Hence $`M_0`$ is contained in $`N`$. This implies that $`(M/N)_0=0`$. Let $`n`$ be a positive integer, and assume that $`(M/N)_m=0`$ for any $`m<n`$. We prove $`(M/N)_n=0`$. By the induction hypothesis, we see that the subspace $`(M/N)_n`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M/N)`$ and is invariant under the action of $`o(a)`$ for any $`aV`$. Hence by Proposition 2.6 (2), $`(M/N)_n`$ is an $`A(V)`$-module, and $`L(0)`$ acts on $`(M/N)_n`$ diagonally. Therefore, it suffices to show that $`uN`$ for any $`L(0)`$-eigenvector $`u+NM_n(M/N)_n`$.

Let $`u+NM_n`$ be an $`L(0)`$-eigenvector with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$. Then there exists $`vN`$ such that $`L(0)u=\lambda u+v`$. Since $`vN`$, we can write $`v=_{i=1}^dv_i`$ for some $`v_iM^{(\lambda _i)}`$. For $`1id`$, choose $`k_i`$ so that $`(L(0)\lambda _i)^{k_i}v_i=0`$, and set $`f(x)=_{i=1,\lambda _i\lambda }^d(x\lambda _i)^{k_i}[x].`$ Then it is obvious that

$`(L(0)\lambda )^kf(L(0))v=0`$ (3.4)
for some $`k`$. Thus it follows from (3.4) that

$`(L(0)\lambda )^{k+1}f(L(0))u`$ $`=`$ $`f(L(0))(L(0)\lambda )^{k+1}u`$
$`=`$ $`f(L(0))(L(0)\lambda )^kv`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
This implies that $`f(L(0))uM^{(\lambda )}N`$. On the other hand, we have $`f(L(0))uf(\lambda )uN`$ because $`L(0)u\lambda u=vN`$ and $`N`$ is $`L(0)`$-invariant. Since $`f(\lambda )`$ is nonzero, we see that $`uN`$. This implies $`(M/N)_n=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`M`$ be an admissible $`V`$-module. Then by Lemma 3.2, for $`\lambda `$, the subspace $`_nM^{(\lambda +n)}`$ is an admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$. We next prove that there is an integer $`m`$ such that $`M^{(\lambda +n)}=0`$ for all integer $`n<m`$, more precisely we have:

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`M`$ be an admissible $`V`$-module. If $`\lambda (𝒫(V)+)`$, then $`M^{(\lambda )}=0`$.

Proof. Set $`P^{}=𝒫(V)+`$. For $`\lambda `$, we have a direct sum decomposition $`M^{(\lambda )}=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(\lambda )}M_n`$, since $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is $`d`$-invariant. Set $`M_n^{(\lambda )}=M^{(\lambda )}M_n`$. By using induction on $`n`$, we prove that $`M_n^{(\lambda )}=0`$ for any $`\lambda P^{}`$ and $`n`$. First we show that $`M_0^{(\lambda )}=0`$ for any $`\lambda P^{}`$. By Proposition 2.6 (1), $`M_0^{(\lambda )}`$ is an $`A(V)`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ for any $`\lambda `$. The semisimplicity of $`A(V)`$ implies that $`L(0)`$ acts on $`M_0^{(\lambda )}`$ by the scalar $`\lambda `$. Thus by Proposition 2.6 (2), we see that $`M_0^{(\lambda )}`$ is zero if $`\lambda P^{}`$. Let $`n_0_+`$, and assume that $`M_n^{(\lambda )}=0`$ for all $`\lambda P^{}`$ and $`n<n_0`$. Then we show that $`M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}=0`$ for any $`\lambda P^{}`$. By (2.8) and (3.3), we have

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(m)M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}M_{n_0m}^{(\lambda m)}`$ (3.5)
for $`aV`$, $`m`$ and $`\lambda `$. If $`\lambda P^{}`$ then $`\lambda mP^{}`$ for any $`m1`$. Hence by induction hypothesis, we see that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(m)M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}=0`$ for $`m1`$ and $`\lambda P^{}`$. This implies that $`M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$. By (3.5), the space $`M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}`$ is invariant under the action of $`o(a)`$ for all $`aV`$. Thus by Proposition 2.6 (1), $`M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}`$ is an $`A(V)`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$. By the same reason as in the case $`n=0`$, we have $`M_{n_0}^{(\lambda )}=0`$ for any $`\lambda P^{}`$. This completes the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us prove Theorem 3.1.

proof of Theorem 3.1. By Proposition 3.3 and Proposition 3.4, we see that any admissible $`V`$-module $`M`$ is decomposed as follows:

$$M=_{\lambda I}(_nM^{(\lambda +n)}),$$

where $`I`$ is an subset of $`𝒫(V)`$. Since $`𝒫(V)`$ is a finite set by Theorem 2.5, the subset $`I`$ is also finite. If we set $`I=\{\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _s\}`$, then we have the decomposition

$$M=_{i=1}^s(_nM^{(\lambda _i+n)}).$$

By Lemma 3.2 and Proposition 3.4, we see that $`_nM^{(\lambda _i+n)}`$ is admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$ for each $`\lambda _i`$. This completes the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra $`V`$ whose Zhu’s algebra is semisimple. By Theorem 3.1, we see that if any admissible $`V`$-module of the form $`M=_nM^{(\lambda +n)}`$ is completely reducible for any $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$, then $`V`$ is rational. Now we prove the following proposition.

###### Proposition 3.5.

If $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$ satisfies a condition $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V)=\mathrm{}`$, then any admissible $`V`$-module of the form $`M=_nM^{(\lambda +n)}`$ is completely reducible.

To show this proposition, we first prove the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`M`$ be as in Proposition 3.5. If $`M^{(\lambda )}=0`$, then $`M=0`$.

Proof. Assume that $`M0`$. Then we can easily see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$ is nonzero. By Proposition 2.6 (2) and the assumption that $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V)=\mathrm{}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)=M^{(\lambda )}`$. Therefore, $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is nonzero.  $`\mathrm{}`$

As a corollary of Lemma 3.6, we have:

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`M`$ be as in Proposition 3.5. Then the following hold:

(1) Let $`N`$ be an admissible submodule of $`M`$. If $`N`$ contains $`M^{(\lambda )}`$, then $`N=M`$.

(2) $`M`$ is irreducible as an admissible $`V`$-module if and only if $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is irreducible as an $`A(V)`$-module.

Proof. It is clear that if $`M^{(\lambda )}N`$, then $`N^{(\lambda )}=M^{(\lambda )}`$. Thus the quotient module $`M/N`$ is zero by Lemma 3.6. This proves (1). Next we prove (2). As in the proof of Lemma 3.6, we see that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)=M^{(\lambda )}`$. Thus by Theorem 2.5 (3) if $`M`$ is an irreducible $`V`$-module, then $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is irreducible as an $`A(V)`$-module. Conversely, assume that $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is irreducible as an $`A(V)`$-module. Let $`N`$ be a nonzero admissible submodule of $`M`$. By Lemma 3.6, $`N^{(\lambda )}`$ is nonzero. Hence $`N^{(\lambda )}`$ is a nonzero $`A(V)`$-submodule of $`M^{(\lambda )}`$. Therefore, by the irreducibility of $`M^{(\lambda )}`$, $`N^{(\lambda )}=M^{(\lambda )}`$. Then (1) implies that $`N=M`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

By using Corollary 3.7, we prove Proposition 3.5.

Proof of Proposition 3.5 Since $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is an $`A(V)`$-module, it is a direct sum of irreducible $`A(V)`$-modules as

$$M^{(\lambda )}=_{iI}W_i,$$

where $`I`$ is an index set and $`W_i`$ is an irreducible component of $`M^{(\lambda )}`$. Let $`u_iW^i`$ be a nonzero element, and set $`N^i=u_i`$. By Lemma 2.2, it is clear that

$$(N^i)^{(\lambda +n)}=\mathrm{span}_{}\{\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u_i|aV\}$$

for all $`n`$. In particular, we see that $`(N^i)^{(\lambda )}`$ is a nonzero $`A(V)`$-submodule of $`W^i`$. Hence $`(N^i)^{(\lambda )}=W^i`$. Thus it follows from Corollary 3.7 (2) that $`N^i`$ is irreducible. Put $`N=_{iI}N^i`$. Then $`N`$ is completely reducible as an admissible $`V`$-module. Since $`N`$ contains $`M^{(\lambda )}`$, Corollary 3.7 (1) shows that $`N=M`$. Thus $`M`$ is completely reducible.  $`\mathrm{}`$

By Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.5, we have:

###### Corollary 3.8.

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra. Suppose that Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$ is semisimple. If $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V)=\mathrm{}`$ for any $`\lambda 𝒫(V)`$, then $`V`$ is rational.

We shall give a remark on similar results for admissible twisted modules.

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra, and let $`g`$ be an automorphism of $`V`$. In \[DLM2\], Dong, Li and Mason introduced an associative algebra $`A_g(V)`$,which is a generalization of Zhu’s algebra $`A(V)`$. It is known that all statements in Theorem 2.5 hold for $`A_g(V)`$ and admissible $`g`$-twisted $`V`$-modules, instead of $`A(V)`$ and admissible $`V`$-modules. Since in the proofs of Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.5 we use only Theorem 2.5 and results which follow from Theorem 2.5, we see that the similar statements in Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.5 hold for any $`g`$-twisted $`V`$-modules:

###### Theorem 3.9.

Let $`V`$ be a vertex operator algebra, and let $`g`$ be an automorphism of order $`T`$. Suppose that the associative algebra $`A_g(V)`$ is semisimple. Then any admissible $`g`$-twisted $`V`$-module $`M`$ is decomposed into a direct sum of generalized eigenspaces for $`L(0)`$ as follows:

$$M=_{i=1}^s(_nM^{(\lambda _i+n/T)})$$

for some $`\lambda _i𝒫_g(V)`$ $`(i=1,2,\mathrm{},s)`$, where $`𝒫_g(V)`$ is the set of the lowest weights of all irreducible admissible $`g`$-twisted $`V`$-modules. Moreover, for each $`\lambda _i`$ the subspace $`_nM^{(\lambda _i+n/T)}`$ is an admissible $`g`$-twisted submodule of $`M`$.

###### Proposition 3.10.

Let $`V`$, $`g`$ and $`T`$ be as in Theorem 3.9. If $`\lambda 𝒫_g(V)`$ satisfies a condition $`(\lambda +(1/T)_+)𝒫_g(V)=\mathrm{}`$, then any admissible $`g`$-twisted $`V`$-module of the form $`M=_nM^{(\lambda +n/T)}`$ is completely reducible.

Therefore, as a corollary of Proposition 3.10 we have:

###### Corollary 3.11.

Let $`V`$, $`g`$ and $`T`$ be as in Theorem 3.9. If the condition $`(\lambda +(1/T)_+)𝒫_g(V)=\mathrm{}`$ holds for any $`\lambda 𝒫_g(V)`$, then $`V`$ is $`g`$-rational.

## 4 Main Results

In this section we prove that the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$ for a rank one even lattice $`L=\alpha `$ is rational if $`k=\alpha ,\alpha /2`$ is a prime integer. In Section 4.1, we recall the construction of the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$ and its irreducible modules. In Section 4.2, we show the rationality of $`V_L^+`$ for a prime integer $`k`$ by using the results in the previous section.

### 4.1 The Vertex Operator Algebra $`V_L^+`$

Let $`L=\alpha `$ be a rank one even lattice with a $``$-bilinear form $`,`$ defined by $`\alpha ,\alpha =2k`$ for a positive integer $`k`$. Set $`𝔥=_{}L`$ and extend the form $`,`$ to a $``$-bilinear form on $`𝔥`$. Let $`L^{}`$ be the dual lattice of $`L`$, and let $`[L^{}]=_{\lambda L^{}}e_\lambda `$ be the group algebra of $`L^{}`$. For a subset $`M`$ of $`L^{}`$, we set $`[M]=_{\lambda M}e_\lambda `$.

Let $`\widehat{𝔥}=𝔥[t,t^1]K`$ be a Lie algebra with the commutation relations given by

$$[Xt^m,X^{}t^n]=m\delta _{m+n,0}X,X^{}K\text{ and }[K,\widehat{𝔥}]=0,(X,X^{}𝔥,m,n).$$

Then $`\widehat{𝔥}^+=𝔥[t]K`$ is a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔥}`$, and the group algebra $`[L^{}]`$ becomes a $`\widehat{𝔥}^+`$-module by the actions

$$(Xt^n).e_\lambda =\delta _{n,0}X,\lambda e_\lambda \text{ and }K.e_\lambda =e_\lambda (\lambda L^{},X𝔥,n).$$

For a subset $`M`$ of $`L^{}`$ and $`\mu L^{}`$, we set

$$V_M=U(\widehat{𝔥})_{U(\widehat{𝔥}^+)}[M]\text{ and }M(1,\beta )=U(\widehat{𝔥})_{U(\widehat{𝔥}^+)}e_\beta ,$$

where $`U(𝔤)`$ denotes the universal enveloping algebra of a Lie algebra $`𝔤`$. Let $`\pi `$ be the representation of $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ on $`V_L^{}`$, and $`X(n)=\pi (Xt^n)`$ ($`X𝔥,n`$). We set $`\mathrm{𝟏}=1e_0`$ and $`\omega =(1/2)h(1)^2e_0`$, where $`h`$ is a vector of $`𝔥`$ with $`h,h=1`$. Then it is known that there exists a linear map $`Y:V_LV_L^{}[[z,z^1]]`$ such that $`(V_L,Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ has a simple vertex operator algebra structure, and $`(V_{\lambda +L},Y)`$ becomes an irreducible $`V_L`$-module for $`\lambda L^{}`$ (see \[FLM\]). We remark that $`(M(1,0),Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ is an vertex operator subalgebra of $`V_L`$. We write $`M(1)=M(1,0)`$ for simplicity. The vertex operator $`Y(e_\beta ,z)`$ for $`\beta L`$ on $`V_L^{}`$ is given by

$`Y(e_\beta ,z)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (n)}{n}}z^n\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (n)}{n}}z^n\right)e_\beta z^{\beta (0)},`$ (4.1)
where $`e_\beta `$ in the right-hand side means the left multiplication of $`e_\beta `$ on the group algebra $`[L^{}]`$, and $`z^{\beta (0)}`$ is an operator on $`V_L^{}`$ defined by $`z^{\lambda (0)}u=z^{\lambda ,\mu }u`$ for $`\mu L^{}`$ and $`uM(1,\mu )`$. The operator $`L(0)=\omega _1`$ is given by

$$L(0)=\frac{1}{2}h(0)^2+\underset{n_+}{}h(n)h(n).$$

It is known that $`V_L`$ is a rational vertex operator algebra and every irreducible $`V_L`$-module is isomorphic to $`V_{\lambda +L}`$ for some $`\lambda L^{}`$ (see \[D2\]).

Let $`\theta `$ be a linear isomorphism of $`V_L^{}`$ defined by

$`\theta (X_1(n_1)X_2(n_2)\mathrm{}X_{\mathrm{}}(n_{\mathrm{}})e_\lambda )=(1)^{\mathrm{}}X_1(n_1)X_2(n_2)\mathrm{}X_{\mathrm{}}(n_{\mathrm{}})e_\lambda `$
for $`X_i𝔥,n_+`$ and $`\lambda L^{}`$. Then $`\theta `$ induces an automorphism of $`V_L`$ of order $`2`$. For a $`\theta `$-invariant subspace $`W`$ of $`V_L^{}`$, we denote by $`W^\pm `$ the $`(\pm 1)`$-eigenspaces of $`W`$ for $`\theta `$. Then $`(V_L^+,Y,\mathrm{𝟏},\omega )`$ is a simple vertex operator algebra, and $`V_L^\pm `$, $`V_{\alpha /2+L}^\pm `$ and $`V_{r\alpha /2k+L}`$ for $`1rk1`$ become irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules (see \[DN\]).

Another irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules come from $`\theta `$-twisted $`V_L`$-modules. We briefly review the constructions of $`\theta `$-twisted $`V_L`$-modules (see \[FLM\] and \[D2\] for more detailed construction). Let $`\widehat{𝔥}[1]=𝔥t^{1/2}[t,t^1]K`$ be a Lie algebra with the commutation relation given by

$$[Xt^m,X^{}t^n]=m\delta _{m+n,0}X,X^{}K\text{ and }[K,\widehat{𝔥}[1]]=0(X,X^{}𝔥,m,n\frac{1}{2}+).$$

Then $`\widehat{𝔥}[1]^+=𝔥t^{1/2}[t]K`$ is a subalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔥}[1]`$. Let $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ be irreducible $`[L]`$-modules on which $`e_\alpha `$ acts as $`1`$ and $`1`$ respectively. We define the action of $`\widehat{𝔥}[1]^+`$ on $`T_i`$ by the actions

$$(Xt^{1/2+n}).u=0\text{ and }K.u=u(X𝔥,n,uT_i).$$

Set

$$V_L^{T_i}=U(\widehat{𝔥}[1])_{U(\widehat{𝔥}[1]^+)}T_i(i=1,2),$$

then $`V_L^{T_i}`$ has the irreducible $`\theta `$-twisted $`V_L`$-module structure.

Now we define the action of the automorphism $`\theta `$ on $`V_L^{T_i}`$ $`(i=1,2)`$ by

$`\theta (X_1(n_1)\mathrm{}X_{\mathrm{}}(n_{\mathrm{}})u)=(1)^{\mathrm{}}X_1(n_1)\mathrm{}X_{\mathrm{}}(n_{\mathrm{}})u,`$
for $`X_i𝔥,n_i1/2+`$ and $`uT_i`$, and set $`V_L^{T_i,\pm }`$ the $`\pm 1`$-eigenspaces of $`V_L^{T_i}`$ for $`\theta `$. Then $`V_L^{T_i,\pm }`$ ($`i=1,2`$) become irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules (see \[DN\]).

All irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules are completely classified in \[DN\]. Their result is as follows:

###### Theorem 4.1.

The set

$`\{V_L^\pm ,V_{\alpha /2+L}^\pm ,V_L^{T_i,\pm },V_{r\alpha /2k+L}|i=1,2,1rk1\}`$ (4.2)
is the complete list of all inequivalent irreducible admissible $`V_L^+`$-modules.

The following result is also found in \[DN\];

###### Proposition 4.2.

Zhu’s algebra $`A(V_L^+)`$ is semisimple.

It is known that $`V_L^+`$ is rational when $`k=1,2`$. In fact, if $`k=1`$, then $`V_L^+`$ is isomorphic to the lattice vertex operator algebra $`V_L^{}`$, where $`L^{}=\beta `$ is an even lattice with $`\beta ,\beta =8`$ (see \[DG\]). If $`k=2`$, then $`V_L^+`$ is isomorphic to the vertex operator algebra $`L(1/2,0)L(1/2,0)`$, where $`L(1/2,0)`$ is the minimal vertex operator algebra of central charge $`1/2`$ (see \[DGH\]).

### 4.2 Proof of the rationality of $`V_L^+`$ for a prime integer $`k`$

First we consider the set of lowest weights of $`V_L^+`$. By the construction of irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules, we have the following table.

| $`V_L^+`$ | $`V_L^{}`$ | $`V_{\lambda _r+L}`$ $`(1rk1)`$ | $`V_{\alpha /2+L}^\pm `$ | $`V_L^{T_1,+},V_L^{T_2,+}`$ | $`V_L^{T_1,},V_L^{T_2,}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0`$ | $`1`$ | $`r^2/4k`$ | $`k/4`$ | $`1/16`$ | $`9/16`$ |

Table 1. The lowest weights of irreducible $`V_L^+`$-modules.

Hence we have

$`𝒫(V_L^+)=\{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1,r^2/4k,1/16,9/16|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}rk\}.`$ (4.3)
Now we shall apply the results in Section 3 to the case that $`V=V_L^+`$. Since $`0,1𝒫(V_L^+)`$, we can not use Theorem 3.8 to prove the rationality of $`V_L^+`$. But in the case $`k=\alpha ,\alpha /2`$ is a prime integer, we have the following lemma:

###### Lemma 4.3.

Suppose that $`k`$ is a prime integer. Then the lowest weights $`0,1,1/16,9/16`$ and $`r^2/4k`$ for $`1rk`$ are all distinct. Furthermore, for any $`\lambda 𝒫(V_L^+)\{0\}`$, we have $`(\lambda +_+)𝒫(V_L^+)=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof. We have to prove that $`r^2/4k,r^2/4k1/16,r^2/4k9/16`$ for $`1rk`$ and that $`(r^2s^2)/4k`$ for any $`1rsk`$. We first show that $`r^2/4k`$ is not integer for $`1rk`$. If $`r^2/4k`$ is an integer, then $`k|r`$ because $`k`$ is prime. So $`r=k`$ and then $`r^2/4k=k/4`$ is an integer. This is contradiction. Next we assume that $`r^2/4k1/16`$ is an integer. Then $`4r^2k0(mod16)`$. Hence $`k0(mod4)`$. This is contradiction. We can also prove that $`r^2/4k9/16`$ is not integer in the same way. Finally we show that $`(r^2s^2)/4k`$ is not in $``$ if $`rs`$. Assume that $`(r^2s^2)/4k`$ is an integer for some $`1r<sk`$. Then $`k|(r+s)`$ since $`k`$ is prime and $`1srk1`$. Furthermore since $`3r+s2k1`$, we have $`r+s=k`$ and $`k3`$. Hence $`(r^2s^2)/4k=(2sk)/4`$. It contradicts with the fact that $`k`$ is an odd prime integer.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Thus we see that if $`k`$ is prime then any nonzero lowest weights for $`V_L^+`$ satisfies the condition in Proposition 3.5. Therefore, we have:

###### Proposition 4.4.

If $`k`$ is prime and $`\lambda 𝒫(V_L^+)`$ is nonzero, then any admissible $`V_L^+`$-module of the form $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(\lambda +n)}`$ is completely reducible. In particular, if $`M^{(\lambda )}`$ is irreducible as an $`A(V_L^+)`$-module, then $`M`$ is irreducible as an admissible $`V_L^+`$-module.

Remark. If $`k`$ is not prime, then there exist integers $`r,s`$ with $`0r<sk`$ such that $`r^2/4ks^2/4k`$. In fact, when $`k`$ is not prime, $`k`$ can be written as $`k=pqn`$ for two positive prime integers $`p,q`$ ($`qp`$) and $`n_+`$. Then we see that $`0npnq<np+nqnpq=k`$, and that $`(np+nq)^2/4k(npnq)^2/4k=n`$.

Here and further we suppose that $`k`$ is prime. By Proposition 4.4 and Theorem 3.1, to show that $`V_L^+`$ is rational, it suffices to prove that every admissible $`V_L^+`$-module $`M`$ of the form $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(n)}`$ is completely reducible.

Let $`W`$ be the admissible $`V`$-submodule generated by $`M^{(0)}`$ and $`U`$ the admissible $`V`$-submodule generated by $`M^{(1)}`$. Since the sum $`W+U`$ contains $`M^{(0)}M^{(1)}`$, the quotient module $`M/(W+U)`$ is decomposed as $`M/(W+U)=_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}(M/(W+U))^{(n)}`$. Thus by Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 4.3, we see that $`M/(W+U)=0`$, that is, $`M=W+U`$. Therefore, to prove that $`M`$ is completely reducible, it is enough to show that $`U`$ and $`W`$ are completely reducible.

We first show that the admissible $`V_L^+`$-submodule $`W`$ is a direct sum of copies of $`V_L^+`$. To prove this we need the following proposition:

###### Proposition 4.5.

For any admissible $`V_L^+`$-module of the form $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(n)}`$, we have $`L(1)M^{(0)}=0`$.

Proof. Let $`uM^{(0)}`$, and suppose that $`L(1)u0`$. We see that for any homogeneous vector $`aV_L^+`$ with positive weight, $`o(a)u=0`$ since $`M^{(0)}`$ is a direct sum of copies of the irreducible $`A(V_L^+)`$-module $`\mathrm{\Omega }(V_L^+)=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Hence we have $`\stackrel{~}{(L(1)a)}(n)u=0`$ for any $`aV_L^+`$ and $`n0`$. This shows that for $`aV_L^+`$ and $`n0`$,

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(n+1)L(1)u`$ $`=`$ $`L(1)\stackrel{~}{a}(n+1)u\stackrel{~}{(L(1)a)}(n)u`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
Thus $`L(1)u\mathrm{\Omega }(M)M^{(1)}`$. We note that the subspace $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)M^{(1)}`$ is an $`A(V_L^+)`$-module on which $`L(0)`$ acts by the scalar $`1`$. By Table 1 and Lemma 4.3, the subspace $`\mathrm{\Omega }(M)M^{(1)}`$ is a direct sum of copies of the irreducible $`A(V_L^+)`$-module $`\mathrm{\Omega }(V_L^{})=\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$. This implies that $`L(1)u\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as $`A(V_L^+)`$-modules. Set $`N=L(1)u`$. Then we see that $`N`$ is an admissible $`V`$-submodule of $`M`$ such that $`N^{(0)}=0`$ and $`N^{(1)}=L(1)u`$. Hence by Proposition 4.4, $`N`$ is an irreducible $`V_L^+`$-module isomorphic to $`V_L^{}`$. Put

$`E=e_\alpha +e_\alpha V_L^+\text{ and }F=e_\alpha e_\alpha V_L^{}.`$ (4.4)
By direct calculations, we have $`E(0)\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}=2kF`$ and $`E(n)\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$ for all $`n1`$. Hence we see that

$`E(0)L(1)u0\text{ and }E(n)L(1)u=0\text{ for all }n1.`$ (4.5)
Since $`[L(1),E(n)]u=nE(n1)u`$ for any $`n`$, $`L(1)E(n)u=nE(n1)u`$ for $`n1`$. Thus $`E(k1)u=0`$ implies that $`E(0)u=0`$. Then $`E(0)L(1)u=L(1)E(0)u=0`$. This contradicts with (4.5). Therefore we conclude that $`L(1)u=0`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`u`$ be a nonzero vector in $`M^{(0)}`$. Then $`u`$ is an admissible $`V_L^+`$-submodule of $`M`$ such that $`u^{(0)}=u`$. Now we show that $`u^{(1)}=0`$. Since $`u^{(1)}`$ is spanned by vectors of the form $`a(\mathrm{wt}(a)2)u`$ for homogeneous vectors $`aV_L^+`$, it is enough to prove that $`a(\mathrm{wt}(a)2)u=0`$ for any homogeneous vector $`aV_L^+`$. We may assume that $`\mathrm{wt}(a)1`$ because $`(V_L^+)_1=0`$ unless $`k=1`$. Then by Proposition 4.5 we have $`a(\mathrm{wt}(a)2)u=(\mathrm{wt}(a)1)^1[L(1),o(a)]u=0`$. Thus $`u^{(1)}=0`$. Therefore we have $`u=u(_{n=2}^{\mathrm{}}u^{(n)})`$. Let $`N`$ be a nonzero admissible $`V_L^+`$-submodule of $`u`$. By Proposition 2.6 (2) and Lemma 4.3, we see that $`N^{(0)}0`$. This implies that $`N=u`$. Hence $`u`$ is an irreducible $`V_L^+`$-module, and is isomorphic to $`V_L^+`$ by Table 1. Hence we have the following proposition:

###### Proposition 4.6.

The admissible $`V_L^+`$-submodule $`W`$ is a sum of irreducible submodules isomorphic to $`V_L^+`$. Thus $`W`$ is completely reducible. In particular, $`W^{(1)}`$ is zero.

Next we show that the admissible $`V`$-submodule $`U`$, which is the admissible $`V_L^+`$-submodule of $`M`$ generated by $`M^{(1)}`$, is a sum of copies of the irreducible $`V_L^+`$-module $`V_L^{}`$. To prove this we have to show the following proposition.

###### Proposition 4.7.

For any admissible $`V_L^+`$-module of the form $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(n)}`$, we have $`L(1)M^{(1)}=0`$.

Before giving the proof of Proposition 4.7, we prove some lemmas.

###### Lemma 4.8.

(1) If $`aM(1,0)^+`$ is homogeneous, then

$$Y(E,z)az^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}(V_L^+)[[z]].$$

(2) For any homogeneous vector $`aV_L^+`$ with $`\mathrm{wt}(a)<k`$, we have $`E(2k2)a=0`$.

Proof. First we show the assertion (1). Let $`a`$ be a homogeneous vector in $`M(1)`$. Then we have

$`Y(e_\alpha ,z)a=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (n)}{n}}z^n\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (n)}{n}}z^n\right)ae_\alpha .`$ (4.6)
Now set

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha (n)}{n}z^n\right)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}p_n(\alpha )z^n.$$

Then $`p_n(\alpha )ae_\alpha M(1,\alpha )`$ for $`n0`$. Since the weight of $`p_n(\alpha )ae_\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{wt}(a)n+\mathrm{wt}(e_\alpha )`$, we see that if $`n>\mathrm{wt}(a)`$, then $`p_n(\alpha )ae_\alpha =0`$. Thus we have

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha (n)}{n}z^n\right)ae_\alpha z^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}(V_L)[z],$$

hence $`Y(e_\alpha ,z)az^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}(V_L)[[z]]`$. By the same way, we have $`Y(e_\alpha ,z)az^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}(V_L)[[z]]`$. Therefore if $`aM(1)^+`$ is homogeneous, then $`Y(E,z)az^{\mathrm{wt}(a)}(V_L^+)[[z]]`$. This proves (1). Next we show the assertion (2). It is clear that for a homogeneous vector $`aV_L^+`$, if $`\mathrm{wt}(a)<k`$, then $`aM(1)^+`$. Hence by (1), $`E(n)a=0`$ for $`n\mathrm{wt}(a)`$. In particular, we see that $`E(k1)a=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.9.

For any $`vW^{(k1)}`$, $`E(2k2)v=0`$.

Proof. By Proposition 4.6, $`W`$ is a direct sum of copies of the irreducible $`V_L^+`$-module $`V_L^+`$. Thus $`W^{(k1)}`$ is a direct sum of $`(V_L^+)_{k1}`$. Hence by Lemma 4.8 (2), $`E(2k2)u=0`$ for any $`uW^{(k1)}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 4.7. Consider the quotient module $`M/W`$. Since $`M^{(0)}=W^{(0)}`$, we have $`M/W=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(M/W)^{(n)}`$. Hence by Proposition 4.4, $`M/W`$ is completely reducible and is a direct sum of copies of the irreducible $`V_L^+`$-module $`V_L^{}`$. Since $`W^{(1)}`$ vanishes, $`M^{(1)}`$ is embedded in $`M/W`$. So a nonzero $`uM^{(1)}`$ generates an irreducible $`V_L^+`$-submodule of $`M/W`$ isomorphic to $`V_L^{}`$ such that $`u\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ as $`A(V_L^+)`$-modules. Since $`E(0)\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}=2kF`$ and $`E(2k2)F=2\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$, we have $`E(2k2)E(0)\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}=4k\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$. We have also $`E(1)\alpha (1)\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$. These imply that $`E(2k2)E(0)u=4ku`$ and $`E(1)uW`$. Therefore we have

$`4kL(1)u`$ $`=`$ $`L(1)E(2k2)E(0)u`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`E(2k2)L(1)E(0)u`$
$`=`$ $`E(2k2)(E(0)L(1)u+2(k1)E(1)u).`$
Then the fact that $`E(0)L(1)u,E(1)uW^{(k1)}`$ and Lemma 4.9 prove that the right hand side in (4.7) is zero. Hence $`L(1)u=0`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Now suppose that $`uM^{(1)}`$. Let $`aV_L^+`$ be a quasi-primary vector, i.e., a homogeneous vector which satisfies $`L(1)a=0`$. It is clear that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u=0`$ for $`n2`$. By the commutation relation (2.6) and (2.3) we have $`[L(1),o(a)]u=(\mathrm{wt}(a)1)\stackrel{~}{a}(1)u`$. Thus Proposition 4.6 shows that $`(\mathrm{wt}(a)1)\stackrel{~}{a}(1)u=0`$. Since $`(V_L^+)_1=0`$, we see that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(1)u=0`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u=0`$ for any quasi-primary vector $`aV_L^+`$ and $`n_+`$. By $`L(1)`$-derivative property (2.3), we have

$$\stackrel{~}{(L(1)^ma)}(n+1)u=(1)^mm!\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{wt}(a)+m+n\\ m\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{a}(n+1)u=0$$

for $`m,n`$. On the other hand, since $`(V_L^+)_1=0`$, we see that $`V_L^+`$ is spanned by vectors of the form $`L(1)^ma`$ for $`m`$ and quasi-primary vectors $`aV_L^+`$. Thus we see that $`\stackrel{~}{a}(n)u=0`$ for any $`aV_L^+`$ and $`n_+`$. This implies that $`u\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$. Therefore, we have $`M^{(1)}\mathrm{\Omega }(M)`$. By Lemma 2.2, we have $`U^{(0)}=0`$. Therefore it follows from Proposition 4.4 that $`U`$ is completely reducible. Furthermore by Lemma 4.3 and Table 1, we have:

###### Proposition 4.10.

The admissible $`V`$-submodule $`U`$ is a direct sum of copies of the irreducible $`V_L^+`$-module $`V_L^{}`$.

Consequently, by Proposition 4.6 and Proposition 4.10, we see that $`M=W+U`$ is completely reducible. Thus we have:

###### Proposition 4.11.

Any admissible $`V_L^+`$-module $`M=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}M^{(n)}`$ is completely reducible.

The following theorem follows from Proposition 4.4, Proposition 4.11 and Theorem 3.1:

###### Theorem 4.12.

If $`k=\alpha ,\alpha /2`$ is a prime integer, then the vertex operator algebra $`V_L^+`$ is rational.

Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Professor Kiyokazu Nagatomo and Dr. Yoshiyuki Koga for useful suggestions, and I also thank Professor Ching Hung Lam for reading this manuscript and giving significant comments.


format: text

text:
# Cycles of Bott-Samelson type for taut representations

## 1 Introduction

Ehresmann () introduced the Schubert varieties of the complex Grassmannians and showed that they give rise to a cell decomposition. Of the many generalizations of his result, the most relevant for our work is the decomposition of the generalized real flag manifolds $`G/P`$ into Bruhat cells (see ). Here $`G`$ is a noncompact real semisimple Lie group with finite center and $`P`$ is a parabolic subgroup.

In their study of the Morse theory of symmetric spaces, Bott and Samelson () came up with concrete cycles in the orbits of their isotropy representations which represent a basis in $`𝐙_2`$-homology. It turns out that those orbits coincide with the generalized real flag manifolds and the images of the cycles of Bott and Samelson equal the closures of the Bruhat cells (see  and the appendix to this paper). As an application of the cycles of Bott and Samelson, distance functions to orbits of isotropy representations of symmetric spaces are perfect in the sense that the Morse equalities are in fact equalities. We say that submanifolds with this property are taut and call representations taut if all of their orbits are taut. Because of their tautness, one sees that the Bruhat decomposition of the spaces $`G/P`$ is minimal in the sense that the number of cells in dimension $`k`$ is equal to the $`k`$th $`𝐙_2`$-Betti number of $`G/P`$. Notice that in the case $`G`$ is a complex group, the cells are all even dimensional which makes the minimality of the Bruhat decomposition trivial, but such easy arguments do not apply otherwise. Another Morse theoretic interpretation of the Bruhat cells is their appearance as the unstable manifolds of suitable height functions on $`G/P`$ seen as orbits of isotropy representations of symmetric spaces, see  and .

A construction similar to Bott and Samelson’s was used by the second author in  to prove the tautness of complete proper Dupin hypersurfaces. Hsiang, Palais and Terng were later able to construct such cycles in isoparametric submanifolds (), and Terng generalized that to weakly isoparametric submanifolds in  and to isoparametric submanifolds in Hilbert spaces in . A further application of such constructions can be found in  where a necessary topological condition is derived in order for a manifold to admit a taut embedding. In  as well as in the other papers, the cycles representing the homology of the submanifold (or orbit) are maps of iterated bundles of curvature surfaces (in general spheres) associated to the focal points along geodesics normal to that submanifold. Roughly speaking, as one moves along the normal geodesic towards the submanifold, each focal point accounts for an iteration of the bundle, see Section 2.

We were able to show in  that a taut irreducible representation of a compact connected Lie group is either the isotropy representation of a symmetric space or it is one of the following orthogonal representations ($`n2`$): the $`\text{(standard)}_𝐑\text{(spin)}`$ representation of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(9)`$; or the $`\text{(standard)}_𝐂\text{(standard)}`$ representation of $`𝐔(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(n)`$; or the $`\text{(standard)}^3_𝐇\text{(standard)}`$ representation of $`\mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(n)`$. In this paper we will show how to adapt the construction of the cycles of Bott and Samelson to the orbits of these three representations. As a result, they also admit explicit cycles representing a basis of their $`𝐙_2`$-homology and, in particular, this provides another proof of their tautness.

The main new technical difficulty that we encounter in our work is that focal points in the direction of normal vector fields parallel along some curvature circles do not have constant multiplicity, which makes a modification in the construction of the cycles necessary to prevent the bundles from having some degenerate fibers. The modifications required by this “collapsing of focal points” are only needed in finitely many points in one step of the construction and are achieved by a “cut and paste” procedure, see Section 4. This strongly relies on a detailed knowledge of the geometry of the orbits of our representations, which is assembled in Section 3.

The first author wishes to thank the *Alexander von Humboldt Foundation* for its generous support and constant assistance during the completion of this work.

## 2 The method of Bott and Samelson

Recall that a compact submanifold $`M`$ of an Euclidean space $`V`$ is called *taut* with respect to the field of coefficients $`F`$ if every (squared) distance function of a point $`qV`$, namely $`L_q:M𝐑`$ given by $`L_q(x)=qx^2`$, which is a Morse function, has the minimum number of critical points allowed by the Morse inequalities with respect to $`F`$. Throughout this paper we shall be assuming $`F=𝐙_2`$ and dropping the reference to the field.

Now assume that $`M`$ is a $`G`$-orbit of an orthogonal representation $`\rho :G𝐎(V)`$ of the compact connected Lie group $`G`$ and fix a $`G`$-regular point $`qV`$ such that $`L_q`$ is a Morse function and therefore has only finitely many critical points on $`M`$ with pairwise distinct critical values. For each critical point $`pM`$, Bott and Samelson constructed in  a compact manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ of dimension less than or equal to the index of $`L_q`$ at $`p`$ and a smooth map $`h_p:\mathrm{\Gamma }_pM`$. Under the assumption of variational completeness (see  or  for the definition of this concept) they showed that the dimension of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is equal to the index of $`L_q`$ at $`p`$ and that

$$_ph_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:\underset{p}{}H_\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)H_\lambda (M)$$

is an isomorphism, where $`p`$ runs through all the critical points of $`L_q`$ on $`M`$ such that the index of $`L_q`$ at $`p`$ equals $`\lambda `$. This implies that the Morse inequalities for $`L_q`$ are equalities, i. e. $`M`$ is taut.

In fact, for a real number $`c`$ set

$$M^c=\{xM:L_q(x)<c\}\text{and}M^c=\{xM:L_q(x)c\}.$$

We know that $`M^c`$ has the same homotopy type as $`M^c`$ unless $`c`$ is a critical value of $`L_q`$. Assume this is the case and let $`p`$ be the corresponding critical point, $`L_q(p)=c`$. Then $`M^c`$ has the homotopy type of $`M^c`$ with a $`\lambda `$-cell $`e_\lambda `$ attached, where $`\lambda `$ is the index of $`L_q`$ at $`p`$. Consider the homology sequence of the pair $`(M^c,M^c)`$:

$`\mathrm{}\underset{=0}{\underset{}{H_{\lambda +1}(M^c,M^c)}}H_\lambda (M^c)H_\lambda (M^c)`$
$``$ $`\underset{=𝐙_2}{\underset{}{H_\lambda (M^c,M^c)}}\stackrel{_{}}{}H_{\lambda 1}(M^c)H_{\lambda 1}(M^c)\underset{=0}{\underset{}{H_{\lambda 1}(M^c,M^c)}}\mathrm{}`$
By passing from $`M^c`$ to $`M^c`$ the only possible changes in homology occur in dimensions $`\lambda 1`$ and $`\lambda `$. In the first case, the boundary $`e_\lambda `$ of the attaching cell is a $`(\lambda 1)`$-sphere in $`M^c`$ that does not bound a chain in $`M^c`$, so $`e_\lambda `$ has as boundary the nontrivial cycle $`e_\lambda `$ in $`M^c`$ and the map $`_{}`$ is not zero. In the second case, $`e_\lambda `$ does bound a chain in $`M^c`$, which we cap with $`e_\lambda `$ to create a new nontrivial homology class in $`M^c`$, so $`_{}`$ is zero and $`H_\lambda (M^c)H_\lambda (M^c)𝐙_2`$. Thus the Morse inequalities are equalities when

$$H_\lambda (M^c)H_\lambda (M^c,M^{c1})$$
(2.1)
is surjective, where $`c`$ is an arbitrary critical value of $`L_q`$ and $`\lambda `$ is the index of $`L_q`$ at the corresponding critical point.

We proceed to describe the construction of Bott and Samelson that yields the surjectivity of (2.1) under the assumption of variational completeness. So fix $`c`$, $`p`$, $`\lambda `$ as above, let $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_r`$ be the focal points of $`M`$ on the segment $`\overline{qp}`$ in focal distance decreasing order and let $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_r`$ be their respective multiplicities. Note that $`H=G_q`$ is a principal isotropy group. We have that $`\overline{qp}`$ is perpendicular to $`M`$ at $`p`$, therefore it is also perpendicular to $`Gq`$ at $`q`$, so that $`H`$ fixes the segment $`\overline{qp}`$ pointwise. Next let the $`r`$-fold product $`H^r`$ act on the product manifold $`G_{f_1}\times \mathrm{}\times G_{f_r}`$ by the rule

$$𝐠𝐡=(g_1h_1,h_1^1g_2h_2,h_2^1g_3h_3,\mathrm{},h_{r1}^1g_rh_r),$$

where $`𝐠=(g_1,\mathrm{},g_r)G_{f_1}\times \mathrm{}\times G_{f_r}`$ and $`𝐡=(h_1,\mathrm{},h_r)H^r`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ be the quotient manifold under this action, namely, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=G_{f_1}\times _HG_{f_2}\times _H\mathrm{}\times _HG_{f_r}/H`$, and define $`h_p:\mathrm{\Gamma }_pM`$ by $`h[(g_1,\mathrm{},g_r)]=g_1\mathrm{}g_rp`$. It is immediate that $`h_p`$ is well-defined. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is the total space of an iterated fiber bundle that can be identified with the space of polygonal paths from $`p`$ to $`g_1\mathrm{}g_rp`$ with vertices $`g_rp`$, $`g_{r1}g_rp,\mathrm{},g_2\mathrm{}g_{r1}g_rp`$ for $`(g_1,\mathrm{},g_r)G_{f_1}\times \mathrm{}\times G_{f_r}`$. We compute:

$`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ $`=`$ $`(dimG_{f_1}dimH)+\mathrm{}+(dimG_{f_r}dimH)`$
$`=`$ $`m_1+\mathrm{}+m_r\text{(by variational completeness, see Lemma 3.2 in }\text{[6]}\text{)}`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda \text{(by the index theorem of Morse).}`$
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ is a compact manifold of dimension $`\lambda `$, it follows that $`H_\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)=𝐙_2`$. Moreover, it is easy to see that $`ph_p(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)M^c\{p\}`$ and that $`h_p`$ is an immersion near $`(1,\mathrm{},1)G_{f_1}\times \mathrm{}\times G_{f_r}`$. Now, locally in a Morse chart centered at $`p`$, the image $`h_p(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)`$ is transversal to the ascending cell so that we can deform it into the descending cell $`e_\lambda `$. Therefore $`h_{p}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:H_\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)H_\lambda (M^c,M^c)`$ is surjective. Finally, factorize

$$H_\lambda (\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)H_\lambda (M^c)H_\lambda (M^c,M^c)$$

to get the surjectivity of (2.1).

Let now $`M`$ be an arbitrary submanifold of an Euclidean space. A *curvature surface* of $`M`$ is a submanifold $`N`$ such that there exists a parallel normal vector field $`\xi `$ of $`M`$ along $`N`$ such that the tangent space $`T_rN`$ is a full eigenspace of the Weingarten operator $`A_{\xi (r)}`$ for all $`rN`$.

Turning back to the case of the $`G`$-orbit $`M`$, it follows easily from variational completeness that for each focal point $`f_i`$ we have that $`G_{f_i}pM`$ is a curvature surface of $`M`$, so $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ can be thought of as an iterated bundle of curvature surfaces. Those curvature surfaces will be spheres if $`q`$ belongs to an open and dense subset of $`V`$.

The cycle constructions in  are all based on the observation that one does not need the action of the group $`G`$ to define the iterated fiber bundle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ but only the curvature surfaces themselves, which then must be assumed to be mutually diffeomorphic in each step to guarantee that one indeed gets a fiber bundle. This follows in all those papers since the multiplicities of the eigenvalues of the Weingarten operator $`A_\xi `$ are constant for parallel normal vector fields $`\xi `$ of $`M`$ along curvature surfaces. However, that assumption is false for the three exceptional taut irreducible representations as we will see at the end of the next section.

## 3 The reduction principle

Let $`\rho :G𝐎(V)`$ be an orthogonal representation of a compact Lie group $`G`$ which is not assumed to be connected. Denote by $`H`$ a fixed principal isotropy subgroup of the $`G`$-action on $`V`$ and let $`V^H`$ be the subspace of $`V`$ that is left pointwise fixed by the action of $`H`$. Let $`N`$ be the normalizer of $`H`$ in $`G`$. Then the group $`N/H`$ acts on $`V^H`$ with trivial principal isotropy subgroup. Moreover, the following result is known ():

###### 3.1 Theorem (Luna-Richardson)

The inclusion $`V^HV`$ induces a stratification preserving homeomorphism between orbit spaces

$$V^H/NV/G.$$
(3.2)
The injectivity of the map (3.2) means that $`Np=GpV^H`$ for $`pV^H`$. In particular, the $`H`$-fixed point set of a $`G`$-orbit is a smooth manifold.

Observe also that for a regular point $`pV^H`$ the normal space to the principal orbit $`M=Gp`$ at $`p`$ is contained in $`V^H`$, because the slice representation at $`p`$ is trivial. More generally, we have:

###### 3.3 Lemma (, Lemma 3.17)

Let $`p,qV^H`$ and suppose that $`q`$ is a regular point for $`G`$. Consider $`M=Gp`$ and let $`L_q:M𝐑`$ be the distance function. Then the critical set of $`L_q`$ is contained in $`M^H=MV^H`$, namely, $`\text{Crit(}L_q\text{)}=\text{Crit(}L_q|_{M^H}\text{)}`$.

For $`pV`$ define $`\nu _p=T_p(Gp)^{}`$ and for $`pV^H`$ define $`\sigma _p=T_p(Np)^{}V^H`$. As a consequence of Lemma 3.3 we immediately get:

###### 3.4 Lemma

For $`pV^H`$, we have that $`\sigma _p=\nu _pV^H`$.

We also have:

###### 3.5 Lemma (, Lemma 3.16)

For $`pV^H`$, $`n\sigma _p`$ and $`M=Gp`$ we have that the Weingarten operators satisfy $`A_n^M|_{T_pM^H}=A_n^{M^H}`$.

Next fix $`pV^H`$ and consider the isotropy subgroup $`N_p`$. Then $`N_p`$ acts linearly on $`\sigma _p`$. It is easy to apply the reduction principle as in Theorem 3.1 to see that:

###### 3.6 Lemma

The inclusion $`\sigma _p\nu _p`$ induces a stratification preserving homeomorphism between orbit spaces

$$\sigma _p/N_p\nu _p/G_p.$$

In the following we specialize to the case where $`\rho :G𝐎(V)`$ is one of the three nonpolar taut irreducible representations, namely given by the following table ($`n2`$; the last column will be explained later in this section):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & & & \\ case& G& \rho & dimV=m& D\text{-}type\\ & & & & \\ 1& \mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩𝐢𝐧}(9)& \text{(standard)}_𝐑\text{(spin)}& 32& \text{}\text{}\text{}\\ 2& 𝐔(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(n)& \text{(standard)}_𝐂\text{(standard)}& 8n& \text{}\text{}\text{}\\ 3& \mathrm{𝐒𝐔}(2)\times \mathrm{𝐒𝐩}(n)& \text{(standard)}^3_𝐇\text{(standard)}& 8n& \text{}\text{}\end{array}$$

Then the cohomogeneity of $`\rho `$ is $`3`$, the dimension of $`V^H`$ is $`4`$ and $`N/H`$ consists of finitely many connected components each of which is a circle. In particular the identity component $`(N/H)^0`$ is a circle group. Set $`T=(N/H)^0`$. Then $`N/H`$ is a semidirect product $`DT`$, where $`D`$ is a discrete group.

Since $`G`$ acts linearly on $`V`$, it is enough to consider its action on the unit sphere $`S^{m1}V`$. Henceforth we view the orbits as submanifolds of $`S^{m1}`$. The unit sphere $`S^3V^H`$ is totally geodesically embedded in $`S^{m1}`$ as the the fixed point set $`(S^{m1})^H`$.

The reduced representation of $`T\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)`$ on $`V^H𝐑^4`$ restricts to the Hopf action of $`T`$ on the unit sphere $`S^3V^H`$. For each $`pS^3`$, we shall call the great circle $`TpGp`$ a *special circle*. More generally, we shall call any $`G`$-translate of a special circle also a special circle. Notice that through each point $`pS^{m1}`$ there exists a unique special circle, and that $`S^3`$ intersects every $`G`$-orbit in a finite number of circles, each of which is a special circle.

An important consequence of the reduction principle for us is the technique which we call “reduction of focal data”, namely all the focal information about the $`G`$-orbits can be read off the geometry of $`S^3`$. In fact, let $`qS^{m1}`$ be a focal point of an orbit $`Gp`$. We can conjugate by an element of $`G`$ and then assume that $`q`$ is a focal point of $`Gp`$ relative to $`p`$ and that $`pS^3`$. Moreover, it follows from Lemma 3.6 that

###### 3.7 Lemma

Let $`qS^{m1}`$ be a focal point of $`Gp`$ relative to $`pS^3`$. Then $`q`$ is $`G_p`$-conjugate to an element in $`S^3`$. In particular, if $`p`$ is a regular point then $`qS^3`$.

Next we discuss the multiplicities of the focal points of the orbits and distinguish between three different types of focal points. It is useful to introduce the circle bundle

$$\begin{array}{ccc}TS^1& & S^3V^H\\ & & \eta \\ & & S^2𝐂P^1\end{array}$$
(3.8)
We equip the base space $`S^2`$ with the quotient metric. Then $`S^2`$ is a metric sphere of radius $`1/2`$ and the discrete group $`D`$ acts there by isometries. The $`D`$-singular set is a union of great circles, and each $`D`$-singular great circle $`C`$ comes with a multiplicity, namely the difference between the dimension of a principal $`G`$-orbit and the dimension of the orbit $`Gq`$ where $`q`$ is a point in $`\eta ^1(C)`$ not contained in the preimage of any other $`D`$-singular great circle. We write the multiplicity of $`C`$ next to the vertex of the diagram of $`D`$ which corresponds to $`C`$ (or to a $`D`$-conjugate of $`C`$), see the last column in the table.

For fixed $`pS^3`$ and $`n\sigma _pT_pS^3`$ a unit vector, let $`\gamma _t(s)=(\mathrm{cos}s)tp+(\mathrm{sin}s)n`$, where $`s𝐑`$, $`tT`$, be the normal geodesic to $`Gp`$ in the direction of $`n\sigma _{tp}`$. Notice that $`\gamma _t`$ is an horizontal curve with respect to the Riemannian submersion $`\eta `$ and that $`n`$ as a point in $`S^3`$ satisfies $`nGp`$ (because $`\eta (n)=\eta (p)`$ is $`D`$-conjugate to $`\eta (p)`$).

If $`pS^{m1}`$ and $`q`$ is a focal point of $`Gp`$ relative to $`p`$ of multiplicity $`k>0`$, we shall call $`q`$ a focal point of *standard type* (resp. *mixed type*, *special type*) if $`k=dimG_qp`$ (resp. $`k>dimG_qp>0`$, $`dimG_qp=0`$). Any focal point falls into one of these three cases. Notice that the first case occurs precisely when the focal point satisfies the condition in the definition of variational completeness.

###### 3.9 Proposition

With the above notation:

1. The orbit spaces $`S^{m1}/GS^2/D`$.
2. If $`pS^3`$ is a regular point, then the focal points of standard type of $`Gp`$ along the normal geodesic segment $`\gamma _1|_{[0,\pi )}`$ are precisely the points $`\gamma _1(s)`$, $`0<s<\pi `$, such that $`\eta (\gamma _1(s))`$ belongs to a $`D`$-singular great circle $`C`$ in $`S^2`$. The multiplicity of a standard focal point $`\gamma _1(s)`$ is the sum of the multiplicities of the $`D`$-singular great circles which pass through $`\eta (\gamma _1(s))`$. There is precisely one focal point of special type along $`\gamma _1|_{[0,\pi )}`$, namely $`nS^3`$, its multiplicity is one, its focal distance is $`\pi /2`$ and the associated line of curvature is $`Tp`$. There are no focal points of mixed type.
3. If $`pS^3`$ is a singular point and $`d\eta _p(n)`$ is not tangent to a $`D`$-singular great circle in $`S^2`$, then the focal points of standard type of $`Gp`$ along the normal geodesic segment $`\gamma _1|_{[0,\pi )}`$ are precisely the points $`\gamma _1(s)`$, $`0<s<\pi `$ and $`s\pi /2`$, such that $`\eta (\gamma _1(s))`$ belongs to a $`D`$-singular great circle $`C`$ in $`S^2`$. The multiplicity of a standard focal point $`\gamma _1(s)`$ is the sum of the multiplicities of the $`D`$-singular great circles which pass through $`\eta (\gamma _1(s))`$. There is precisely one focal point of mixed type along along $`\gamma _1|_{[0,\pi )}`$, namely $`nS^3`$, its multiplicity is $`dimG_np+1`$ and its focal distance is $`\pi /2`$. There are no focal points of special type.

Proof. Theorem 3.1 and (3.8) imply that $`S^{m1}/GS^3/NS^2/D`$. This gives (a). If $`p`$ is a regular point, then each point $`\gamma _1(s)`$, $`0<s<\pi `$, such that $`\eta (\gamma _1(s))`$ belongs to a $`D`$-singular great circle $`C`$ in $`S^2`$ is a focal point of $`Gp`$ of multiplicity greater than or equal to the sum of multiplicities of the $`D`$-singular great circles which pass through $`\eta (\gamma _1(s))`$. It follows from a counting argument based on data from the table that the sum of the multiplicities of the focal points of $`Gp`$ along the normal geodesic segment $`\gamma _1|_{[0,\pi )}`$ obtained in this way is greater than or equal to $`dimGp1`$, none of which has a focal distance equal to $`\pi /2`$. Now $`n\sigma _{tp}`$ for all $`tT`$, so $`nS^3`$ is a focal point of $`Gp`$ with focal distance $`\pi /2`$. Since the sum of the multiplicities of the focal points to $`Gp`$ along the geodesic segment $`\gamma _1|_{[0,\pi )}`$ must be equal to $`dimGp`$, we have that there are no other focal points and (b) follows. If $`p`$ is a singular point, we observe: $`n`$ is also a singular point; an element in $`G_n`$ that fixes $`p`$ must also fix the geodesic segment between $`n`$ and $`p`$. Now the proof of (c) is similar to the above. $`\mathrm{}`$

In the cycle constructions in  and implicitly in , it is essential that the multiplicities of the eigenvalues of $`A_\xi `$ be constant for $`\xi `$ a parallel normal vector field along a curvature surface; see the end of Section 2. We will now see that we do not have such constancy for certain parallel normal vectors along the special circles. Notice that the nonconstancy of multiplicities of eigenvalues of $`A_\xi `$ is equivalent to the nonconstancy of multiplicities of focal points in the direction of $`\xi `$, which in turn is equivalent to saying that there is collapsing of focal points in the direction of $`\xi `$.

In fact, the differential $`d\eta _p:\sigma _pT_pS^3T_{\eta (p)}S^2`$ is an isometry and $`\tau (t)=d\eta _{tp}P_td\eta _p^1`$ for $`tT`$ defines the standard representation $`\tau :T\mathrm{𝐒𝐎}(2)T_{\eta (p)}S^2𝐑^2`$, where $`P_t`$ denotes parallel transport along the special circle from $`p`$ to $`tp`$. Moreover,

$$\eta (\gamma _t(s))=(\mathrm{cos}s)\eta (p)+(\mathrm{sin}s)\tau (t)d\eta _p(n),$$

so the distribution of focal points of standard type on the geodesic segment $`\gamma _t|_{[0,\pi /2]}`$ from $`tp`$ to $`n`$ depends on $`tT`$, but is well controlled by the intersections of $`\eta \gamma _t|_{[0,\pi /2]}`$ with the $`D`$-singular set in $`S^2`$. In particular, for a finite number of values $`tT`$ there is collapsing of focal points in the direction of $`n`$ viewed as a parallel normal vector field along the special circle $`Tp`$.

The existence of focal points other than of standard type precludes variational completeness (see Lemma 3.1 in ). Therefore:

###### 3.10 Theorem ()

The representations listed in the table are not variationally complete.

## 4 The construction of the cycles

According to the discussion in the previous section, the representations listed in the table there fail to be variationally complete just because the Jacobi field $`J`$ along $`\gamma _1`$ defined by $`J(s)=(\mathrm{cos}s)v`$, where $`v`$ is a vector tangent to the special circle $`Tp`$ at $`p`$, is not the restriction of a Killing vector field induced by the representation. The “variational cocompleteness” of the principal orbits of these representations in the sense of  is one, and in this regard they are very close to being variationally complete. In this section we want to adapt the construction described in Section 2 to obtain cycles of Bott-Samelson type for the orbits of these nonvariationally complete representations.

So let $`M`$ be a $`G`$-orbit of one of the representations listed in the table, fix a $`G`$-regular point $`qV`$ such that the distance function $`L_q:M𝐑`$ is a Morse function and let $`pM`$ be a critical point of $`L_q`$ such that $`L_q(p)=c`$ and the index of $`L_q`$ at $`p`$ is $`\lambda `$. We want to construct a compact $`\lambda `$-dimensional manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ and a smooth map $`h_p:\mathrm{\Gamma }_pM`$ such that $`ph_p(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p)M^c\{p\}`$ and $`h_p`$ is an immersion near $`h_p^1(p)`$. As in Section 2, this will imply the surjectivity of (2.1) and therefore the tautness of $`M`$.

Before we begin, we introduce the following notation for future reference. If $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_uS^3`$, we denote by $`W_{q_1,\mathrm{},q_u}`$ the quotient manifold $`G_{q_1}\times _HG_{q_2}\times _H\mathrm{}\times _HG_{q_u}/H`$, see Section 2.

We start the construction with the case where $`M`$ is a principal orbit. If all the focal points to $`M`$ along the normal geodesic segment $`\overline{qp}`$ are of standard type, we follow the same procedure as in Section 2 in order to define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ and $`h_p`$.

Consider next the case where the furthermost focal point, say $`f_1`$, is of special type. Then all the other focal points on the normal geodesic segment are of standard type. It follows from Proposition 3.9 and the discussion in Section 3 that there is a finite subset $`\{t_0,\mathrm{},t_{l1}\}T`$ such that the multiplicities of the focal points to $`M`$ along the geodesic segment $`\overline{q(tp)}`$ are locally constant for $`tT\{t_0,\mathrm{},t_{l1}\}`$. Moreover, we may perturb $`q`$ if necessary in order to have $`t_i1`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},l1`$. Note that for all $`tT\{t_0,\mathrm{},t_{l1}\}`$ we can specify the focal points along $`\overline{q(tp)}`$ as $`f_1,f_2(t),\mathrm{},f_r(t)`$ in focal distance decreasing order. Next we assume the $`t_i`$’s are ordered so that they partition the circle $`T`$ in closed arcs $`[t_0,t_1],[t_1,t_2],\mathrm{},[t_{l2},t_{l1}],[t_{l1},t_0]`$. Fix $`[t_{i1},t_i]`$ (indices $`i`$ modulo $`l`$) and define a fiber bundle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i[t_{i1},t_i]`$ as follows. For $`t(t_{i1},t_i)`$, the isotropy subgroups $`G_{f_j(t)}`$ for $`j=2,\mathrm{},r`$ are well-defined and we can take the fiber $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_t`$ of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i`$ over $`t(t_{i1},t_i)`$ to be $`W_{f_2(t),\mathrm{},f_r(t)}`$. We want to define $`G_{f_j(t_{i1}^+)}`$ and $`G_{f_j(t_i^{})}`$ for $`j=2,\mathrm{},r`$. Note that as $`tt_{i1}^+`$ (resp. $`tt_i^{}`$) two or more of the focal points of $`M`$ relative to $`tp`$ collapse into a focal point relative to $`t_{i1}p`$ (resp. $`t_ip`$) whose multiplicity is equal to the sum of the multiplicities of the collapsing focal points. If $`j`$ is an index for which the focal point $`f_j(t)`$ is not collapsing as $`tt_{i1}^+`$ (resp. $`tt_i^{}`$) we simply take $`G_{f_j(t_{i1}^+)}`$ (resp. $`G_{f_j(t_i^{})}`$) to be the isotropy subgroup $`G_{f_j(t_{i1})}`$ (resp. $`G_{f_j(t_i)}`$). Otherwise, suppose that $`j`$ is an index for which $`f_j(t)`$ collapses as $`tt_{i1}^+`$ (resp. $`tt_i^{}`$) into a focal point $`\overline{f}`$. Then $`\eta (f_j(t))`$ belongs to a $`D`$-singular great circle $`C`$ which also contains $`\eta (\overline{f})`$ (here $`t(t_{i1},t_i)`$). Define the subgroup $`G_{\stackrel{~}{C}}G_{\overline{f}}`$ to be the stabilizer of the $`\eta `$-horizontal lift of $`C`$ through $`\overline{f}`$, which we call $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Alternatively, $`G_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ could be defined as a certain isotropy subgroup relative to the slice representation at $`\overline{f}`$. Since $`tf_j(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ are both smooth lifts of $`C`$ for $`t(t_{i1},t_i)`$, it follows that there exists a smooth curve $`n_j(t)T`$ such that $`G_{f_j(t)}=n_j(t)G_{\stackrel{~}{C}}n_j^1(t)`$ for $`t(t_{i1},t_i)`$. Moreover, as $`tt_i^+`$ (resp. $`tt_{i+1}^{}`$) we have that $`f_j(t)\overline{f}`$, so $`lim_{tt_{i1}^+}n_j(t)=1`$ (resp. $`lim_{tt_i^{}}n_j(t)=1`$) and $`n_j`$ can be smoothly extended to $`[t_{i1},t_i)`$ (resp. $`(t_{i1},t_i]`$). Let $`G_{f_j(t_{i1}^+)}=G_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ (resp. $`G_{f_j(t_i^{})}=G_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$). Now we can define the fiber $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_{t_{i1}}`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_{t_i}`$) of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i`$ over $`t_{i1}`$ (resp. $`t_i`$) to be $`W_{f_2(t_{i1}^+),\mathrm{},f_r(t_{i1}^+)}`$, (resp. $`W_{f_2(t_i^{}),\mathrm{},f_r(t_i^{})}`$). The previous discussion shows that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i`$ is a smooth fiber bundle over $`[t_{i1},t_i]`$. We also define a smooth map $`h_p^i:\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^iM`$ by $`h_p^i[(g_2,\mathrm{},g_r)]=g_2\mathrm{}g_rp`$, where $`(g_2,\mathrm{},g_r)\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_t`$.

For each $`i:1,\mathrm{},l`$, note that $`h_p^i(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_{t_i})=h_p^{i+1}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{i+1}|_{t_i})`$ and denote this subset of $`M`$ by $`A_i`$. The last step in the construction is the definition of a ‘glueing’ diffeomorphism $`\psi _i:\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_{t_i}\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^{i+1}|_{t_i}`$ and a ‘correcting’ diffeomorphism $`\varphi _i:MM`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$ such that $`\varphi _{i+1}(A_i)=A_i`$ and

$$h_p^i|_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i|_{t_i}}=\varphi _{i+1}h_p^{i+1}\psi _i$$
(4.1)
for $`i=1,\mathrm{},l`$ (indices $`i`$ modulo $`l`$). We also require the ‘cycle condition’

$$\varphi _1\varphi _2\mathrm{}\varphi _l=1.$$
(4.2)
Then we will be able to define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ as the resulting fiber bundle over $`S^1`$ and $`h_p:\mathrm{\Gamma }_pM`$ as the map that restricts to $`\varphi _2\varphi _3\mathrm{}\varphi _ih_p^i`$ on each closed subset $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^i`$.

According to the discussion in Section 3, for each $`t_i`$ we have either one collapsing of two focal points (*double collapse*; occurs six times for each representation listed in the table) or one collapsing of three focal points (*triple collapse*; occurs twice for the representation listed in the table under number 3). We discuss these two possibilities separately.

Double collapse

Suppose that for some $`j=2,\mathrm{},r1`$ we have that $`f_j(t)`$ and $`f_{j+1}(t)`$ collapse together into a focal point $`\overline{f}`$ as $`tt_i`$. In this case we have that $`G_{f_j(t_i^+)}=G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^{})}`$ and $`G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}=G_{f_j(t_i^{})}`$. It is not difficult to see that $`G_{f_j(t_i^+)}G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}=H`$ and that $`(G_{f_j(t_i^+)},G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)})`$ is a factorization of the isotropy subgroup $`G_{\overline{f}}`$, that is $`G_{\overline{f}}=G_{f_j(t_i^+)}G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}`$. It follows that the multiplication map $`G_{f_j(t_i^+)}\times G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}G_{\overline{f}}`$ induces a diffeomorphism

$$G_{f_j(t_i^+)}\times _HG_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}G_{\overline{f}}.$$

Clearly there is a similar diffeomorphism $`G_{f_j(t_i^{})}\times _HG_{f_{j+1}(t_i^{})}G_{\overline{f}}`$. Now the composed diffeomorphism $`G_{f_j(t_i^{})}\times _HG_{f_{j+1}(t_i^{})}G_{f_j(t_i^+)}\times _HG_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}`$ extends trivially to a diffeomorphism

$$\psi _i:W_{f_2(t_i),\mathrm{},f_j(t_i^{}),f_{j+1}(t_i^{}),\mathrm{},f_r(t_i)}W_{f_2(t_i),\mathrm{},f_j(t_i^+),f_{j+1}(t_i^+),\mathrm{},f_r(t_i)}$$

which satisfies (4.1) if we take $`\varphi _{i+1}=1`$. Observe that this choice of $`\varphi _{i+1}`$ leaves unaffected the cycle condition (4.2).

Triple collapse

Suppose that for some $`j=2,\mathrm{},r2`$ we have that $`f_j(t)`$, $`f_{j+1}(t)`$ and $`f_{j+2}(t)`$ collapse together into a focal point $`\overline{f}`$ as $`tt_i`$. In this case we have that $`G_{f_j(t_i^+)}=G_{f_{j+2}(t_i^{})}`$, $`G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}=G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^{})}`$ and $`G_{f_{j+2}(t_i^+)}=G_{f_j(t_i^{})}`$. This is the case of representation number 3 in the table, so the group $`D`$ is of $`A_1\times A_2`$-type, namely $`D`$ is isomorphic to $`𝐙_2𝐃_3`$ where $`𝐃_3`$ is the dihedral group of degree $`3`$. Note that the $`N`$-isotropy subgroup at $`\overline{f}`$ equals $`𝐃_3`$, and let $`w^{}𝐃_3`$ be the unique element of order $`2`$ which conjugates $`G_{f_j(t_i^+)}`$ into $`G_{f_{j+2}(t_i^+)}`$. Then $`w^{}`$ normalizes $`G_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}`$ and $`H`$, so the diffeomorphism

$$G_{f_j(t_i^{})}\times _HG_{f_{j+1}(t_i^{})}\times _HG_{f_{j+2}(t_i^{})}G_{f_j(t_i^+)}\times _HG_{f_{j+1}(t_i^+)}\times _HG_{f_{j+2}(t_i^+)}$$

given by

$$(g_1,g_2,g_3)(w^{}g_1w^{},w^{}g_2w^{},w^{}g_3w^{})$$

is well-defined and extends trivially to a diffeomorphism

$$\psi _i:W_{f_2(t_i),\mathrm{},f_j(t_i^{}),f_{j+1}(t_i^{}),f_{j+2}(t_i^{}),\mathrm{},f_r(t_i)}W_{f_2(t_i),\mathrm{},f_j(t_i^+),f_{j+1}(t_i^+),f_{j+2}(t_i^+),\mathrm{},f_r(t_i)}$$

which satisfies (4.1) if we take $`\varphi _{i+1}`$ to be conjugation by $`w^{}`$. Observe that the triple collapse occurs precisely twice for this representation, and it is easy to see that in both instances the element $`w^{}`$ is the same. Since $`w^{}`$ has order two, condition (4.2) is also satisfied.

The above discussion finishes the construction for the case where the furthermost focal point on the normal geodesic segment $`\overline{qp}`$ is of special type. We now consider the case where there is a focal point of special type on that segment which is not the furthermost focal point, say it is $`f_r`$, the $`r`$-th focal point in focal distance decreasing order for $`r2`$. Let $`f_{r1}`$ be the previous focal point and choose an interior point in the segment $`\overline{f_{r1}f_r}`$ to be denoted $`q^{}`$. We have that the furthermost focal point to $`M`$ along the normal geodesic segment $`\overline{q^{}p}`$ is $`f_r`$, hence of special type, so we may apply the previous case and obtain a cycle $`h_p^0:\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^0M`$ for this situation. Note that $`H`$ acts naturally on the left on the manifold $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^0`$ (this is just left multiplication for representations number 1 and 2; for representation number 3, note that the two triple collapses correspond to points in the special circle which cut it into two halves, and that the element $`hH`$ acts by left multiplication by $`h`$ on the fibers lying over one half of the special circle and acts by left multiplication by $`w^{}hw^{}`$ on the fibers lying over the other half). The $`r1`$ first focal points $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_{r1}`$ along $`\overline{qp}`$ are all of standard type. We define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p=G_{f_1}\times _H\mathrm{}\times G_{f_{r1}}\times _H\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^0`$ and $`h_p:\mathrm{\Gamma }_pM`$ by $`h_p[(g_1,\mathrm{},g_{r1},𝐠_0)]=g_1\mathrm{}g_{r1}h_p^0(𝐠_0)`$, where $`(g_1,\mathrm{},g_{r1})G_{f_1}\times \mathrm{}\times G_{f_{r1}}`$, $`𝐠_0\mathrm{\Gamma }_p^0`$. This concludes the discussion for the case of a principal orbit $`M`$.

In the case where $`M`$ is not a principal orbit, the procedure is similar. We just remark that when the furthermost focal point along the normal geodesic segment $`\overline{qp}`$, say $`f_1`$, is of mixed type, then $`f_1=n`$ and one does “cut and paste” to construct $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_p`$ as a fiber bundle over $`S^1`$ using typical fibers of the form $`W_{f_1(t),f_2(t),\mathrm{},f_s(t)}`$. This completes the construction of the cycles of Bott-Samelson type for the exceptional taut irreducible representations.

Questions  1. Are there orthogonal representations which have principal orbits with “variational cocompleteness” one (see ) without being taut?

2. Is it possible to generalize the construction given in this paper and find explicit cycles for the $`𝐙_2`$-homology of an arbitrary taut submanifold $`M`$ of an Euclidean space?

3. Assume the answer to the question in (2) to be positive, say for some subclass of taut submanifolds at least. Is it then possible to give an upper bound for the number of cycles and hence estimate the $`𝐙_2`$-Betti numbers of $`M`$? One might conjecture the upper bound for the $`k`$th Betti number to be $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k}{n}\right)`$ where $`n`$ is the dimension of $`M`$.

## Appendix: The Bruhat cells versus the Bott-Samelson cycles

In this appendix we prove that the closures of the Bruhat cells coincide with the images of the Bott-Samelson cycles in a real generalized flag manifold $`G/P`$. We are not aware of any such proof in the literature, but the special case where $`G`$ is a complex group and $`P`$ is a Borel subgroup is treated by Hansen in . Our proof is analogous to his.

We follow closely (but not strictly) the setting and notation from Sections 1.1 and 1.2 in . Let $`G`$ be a noncompact real connected semisimple Lie group with finite center and denote by $`𝔤`$ its Lie algebra. Consider a fixed Cartan decomposition $`𝔤=𝔨+𝔭`$ with corresponding Cartan involution $`\theta `$ and equip $`𝔤`$ with the real inner product $`(X,Y)_\theta =B(X,\theta Y)`$ where $`X,Y𝔤`$ and $`B`$ is the Killing form of $`𝔤`$. Let $`𝔞`$ be a maximal Abelian subspace in $`𝔭`$. Then we have the real orthogonal restricted root decomposition $`𝔤=𝔪+𝔞+_{\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }}𝔤_\lambda `$ where $`𝔪`$ is the centralizer of $`𝔞`$ in $`𝔨`$. Introduce an order in the dual $`𝔞^{}`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) denote the set of positive (resp. negative) restricted roots. Then $`𝔫^+=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }^+}𝔤_\lambda `$ and $`𝔫^{}=\theta (𝔫^+)=_{\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}𝔤_\lambda `$ are nilpotent subalgebras of $`𝔤`$. Let $`K`$, $`A`$, $`N^+`$, $`N^{}`$ be respectively the analytic subgroups of $`G`$ with Lie algebras $`𝔨`$, $`𝔞`$, $`𝔫^+`$ and $`𝔫^{}`$. Then $`K`$, $`A`$, $`N^+`$ and $`N^{}`$ are closed subgroups of $`G`$ and we have the Iwasawa decomposition $`G=KAN^+`$. Let $`M`$ be the centralizer of $`A`$ in $`K`$ and let $`M^{}`$ be the normalizer of $`A`$ in $`K`$. Then the Weyl group of $`(𝔤,𝔞)`$ generated by reflections on the singular hyperplanes in $`𝔞`$ (which are the kernels of the reduced restricted roots) is identified with $`M^{}/M`$ and $`B=MAN^+`$ is a Borel subgroup of $`G`$. Define also $`U_w^+=N^+wN^{}w^1`$ where $`wW`$ (we abuse the notation in the evident manner). Then we have (see ):

###### A.1 Theorem

The quotient manifold $`G/B`$ is the disjoint union of the $`N^+`$-orbits $`N^+w^1B`$ for $`wW`$. Moreover, for each $`wW`$, the map $`U_{w^1}^+N^+w^1B`$, $`vvw^1B`$ is a diffeomorphism.

Theorem A.1 admits the following generalization. Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ be the system of simple roots. The cardinality $`l`$ of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is equal to the dimension of $`𝔞`$ and $`l`$ is the split-rank of $`𝔤`$. Fix a subset $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and denote by $`<\mathrm{\Theta }>`$ the set comprised of those $`\lambda `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which are linear combinations of the elements of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$; we also agree to write $`<\mathrm{\Theta }>^\pm `$ for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm <\mathrm{\Theta }>`$. Put $`𝔫^\pm (\mathrm{\Theta })=_\lambda 𝔤_\lambda `$, $`\lambda <\mathrm{\Theta }>^\pm `$ and $`𝔫_\mathrm{\Theta }^+=_\lambda 𝔤_\lambda `$, $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }^+<\mathrm{\Theta }>^+`$; $`𝔫_\mathrm{\Theta }^{}=\theta (𝔫_\mathrm{\Theta }^+)`$. Put also $`𝔞(\mathrm{\Theta })=_\lambda 𝐑H_\lambda `$, $`\lambda <\mathrm{\Theta }>^+`$, where $`H_\lambda 𝔞`$ is the coroot associated to $`\lambda `$, and let $`𝔞_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be the orthogonal complement of $`𝔞(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ in $`𝔞`$. Set $`𝔭_\mathrm{\Theta }=𝔟+𝔫^{}(\mathrm{\Theta })`$ where $`𝔟=𝔪+𝔞+𝔫^+`$ is the Lie algebra of $`B`$. Then the space $`𝔭_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the normalizer of $`𝔫_\mathrm{\Theta }^+`$ in $`𝔤`$. Hence $`𝔭_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a Lie subalgebra of $`𝔤`$ and the corresponding analytic subgroup $`P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ of $`G`$ is closed. We have that $`P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a parabolic subgroup of $`G`$, and the $`2^l`$ subgroups constructed in this way for each possible choice of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are the so-called standard parabolic subgroups of $`G`$ (with respect to our choice of Iwasawa decomposition). It can be shown that $`P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ admits the Langlands decomposition $`P_\mathrm{\Theta }=M_\mathrm{\Theta }(K)AN^+`$ where $`M_\mathrm{\Theta }(K)`$ is the $`K`$-centralizer of $`𝔞_\mathrm{\Theta }`$. For each $`wW`$ write $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w^+=w\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^+`$ and denote by $`W_u`$ the set of those $`wW`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_w^+<\mathrm{\Theta }>^+=\mathrm{}`$. Now we have:

###### A.2 Theorem

The quotient manifold $`G/P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the disjoint union of the $`N^+`$-orbits $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ for $`w_uW_u`$. Moreover, for each $`w_uW_u`$, the map $`U_{w_u^1}^+N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$, $`vvw_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a diffeomorphism.

In  Theorems A.1 and A.2 are respectively accredited to Bruhat – Harish-Chandra and Borel – Kostant. Note that Theorem A.1 is the particular instance of Theorem A.2 corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{}`$. Note also that Theorem A.2 gives a cell decompositions for $`G/P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ which turns it into a finite CW-complex.

Next let $`X`$ be a Riemannian symmetric space with no Euclidean factors which is also assumed to be noncompact, since the isotropy representation of a compact symmetric space coincides with that of its noncompact dual. Then we can find $`G,K`$ as above such that $`X=G/K`$, namely $`G`$ is the connected component of the isometry group of $`X`$ and $`K`$ is the isotropy subgroup at some point. Now the isotropy representation of $`X`$ at $`1K`$ is equivalent to the adjoint representation of $`K`$ on $`𝔭`$. Fix once and for all $`p𝔞`$. The isotropy subgroup $`K_p=M_\mathrm{\Theta }(K)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ consists of those simple restricted roots which vanish at $`p`$. Thus we can identify the $`K`$-orbit through $`p`$ with $`K/M_\mathrm{\Theta }(K)=G/P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Let $`q𝔞`$ be a regular element and consider the distance function $`L_q:Kp𝐑`$. Then $`L_q`$ is a Morse function whose critical points are precisely the Weyl translates $`wp`$ for $`wW`$. Therefore the Bott-Samelson cycles associated to $`L_q`$ can be parametrized by $`W/W_p`$. For a given $`wW`$, consider the segment joining $`q`$ and $`wp`$ and suppose that this segment cuts across the singular hyperplanes corresponding to the reduced restricted roots $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$ in this order. Then it is clear that $`w`$ and $`s_k\mathrm{}s_1`$ are $`W_p`$-conjugate where $`s_i`$ is the reflection in the singular hyperplane $`\{H𝔞:\lambda _i(H)=0\}`$; let $`K_i`$ denote the closed subgroup of $`K`$ which is the stabilizer of that singular hyperplane. Denote the coset $`wW_p`$ by $`\overline{w}`$. The Bott-Samelson cycle associated to $`\overline{w}`$ may be assumed to be $`h_{\overline{w}}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}K/K_p`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}=K_1\times _MK_2\times _M\mathrm{}\times K_k/M`$ and $`h_{\overline{w}}[(k_1,\mathrm{},k_k)]=k_1\mathrm{}k_ks_k\mathrm{}s_1K_p`$. Let $`\gamma _{\overline{w}}`$ be a fundamental $`𝐙_2`$-cycle in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}`$.

###### A.3 Theorem (Bott – Samelson)

$`\{(h_{\overline{w}})_{}[\gamma _{\overline{w}}]:\overline{w}W/W_p\}`$ is a basis for the homology $`H_{}(K/K_p)`$.

The relation between Theorems A.2 and A.3 is given in the following theorem. The particular case when $`G`$ is a complex Lie group and the $`K`$-orbit is a principal orbit was already treated by Hansen in .

###### A.4 Theorem

The subset $`W_u^1W`$ contains precisely one representative from each $`W_p`$-coset in $`W`$. For each $`wW`$, let $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_k`$ be as above and define $`w_u=s_1\mathrm{}s_k`$ so that $`w`$ and $`w_u^1`$ are $`W_p`$-conjugate. Then $`w_uW_u`$ and the image $`h_{\overline{w}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}})=K_1\mathrm{}K_ks_k\mathrm{}s_1K_p`$ of the Bott-Samelson cycle $`h_{\overline{w}}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}K/K_p`$ is the closure of the Bruhat cell $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

Proof. A word about notation: if $`\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_r`$ is a reduced restricted root, we write $`\overline{𝔤}_\lambda =𝔤_\lambda +𝔤_{2\lambda }`$. (Of course it could happen that $`2\lambda `$ is not a restricted root in which case $`𝔤_{2\lambda }`$ would not be present.)

To see that $`w_uW_u`$ we need to verify that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{w_u}^+<\mathrm{\Theta }>=\mathrm{}`$. Since the reduced restricted roots in $`w_u^1\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are precisely $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$, that statement is equivalent to having $`\{\lambda _1^{w_u},\mathrm{},\lambda _k^{w_u}\}<\mathrm{\Theta }>=\mathrm{}`$, which follows from the fact that $`wp`$ does not belong to $`\mathrm{ker}\lambda _i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$. Thus each $`W_p`$-coset in $`W`$ contains at least one element of $`W_u^1`$. We invoke Proposition 1.1.2.13 in  to see that the number of $`W_p`$-cosets in $`W`$ is equal to the cardinality of $`W_u^1`$. This implies that each $`W_p`$-coset contains precisely one element of $`W_u^1`$.

Note that $`U_{w_u^1}^+`$ is a nilpotent Lie group with Lie algebra $`𝔲_{w_u^1}^+=_{i=1}^k\overline{𝔤}_{\lambda _i}`$ since the restricted roots in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{w_u^1}^+`$ are $`\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _k`$. Let $`U_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$, denote the analytic subgroup of $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`\overline{𝔤}_{\lambda _i}`$. Then $`U_i`$ is closed (because it is the connected component of the $`N^+`$-centralizer of the Lie subalgebra $`\mathrm{ker}\lambda _i`$ of $`𝔞`$) and $`U_{w_u^1}^+=U_1\mathrm{}U_k`$ (because $`U_{w_u^1}^+`$ is nilpotent), so Theorem A.2 implies that $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }=U_1\mathrm{}U_kw_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ and that the dimension of $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is equal to $`_{i=1}^kdim(\overline{𝔤}_{\lambda _i})`$.

For each $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$ define $`w_j=s_j\mathrm{}s_2s_1W`$. Set $`B_j=w_jBw_j^1`$. Then $`B_j`$ is a Borel subgroup of $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔟_j=𝔪+𝔞+_{i=1}^j\overline{𝔤}_{\lambda _i}+_{i=j+1}^k\overline{𝔤}_{\lambda _i}`$. Let also $`P_j`$ be the parabolic subgroup of $`G`$ with Lie algebra $`𝔟_j+\overline{𝔤}_{\lambda _j}`$. Then we have the inclusions between groups

$$P_1B_1P_2B_2P_3\mathrm{}P_kB_k,$$

and we can form the quotient manifold $`_{w_u}=P_1\times _{B_1}\times P_2\times _{B_2}\mathrm{}\times P_k/B_k`$.

Since $`K_jP_j`$ (because $`P_j=K_jAw_jN^+w_j^1`$) and $`MB_j`$ (because $`B_j=MAw_jN^+w_j^1`$), there is a map induced by inclusion $`i:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}_{w_u}`$ which is immediately seen to be injective and regular at $`[(1,\mathrm{},1)]`$ (since $`K_jB_j=M`$). By equivariance $`i`$ is regular everywhere and it follows from the compactness of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}`$ and the fact that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}`$ and $`_{w_u}`$ have the same dimension that $`i`$ is a diffeomorphism. Hence we have the following commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}}& \stackrel{}{}& _{w_u}\\ h_{\overline{w}}& & f_{w_u}\\ K/K_p& \stackrel{}{}& G/P_\mathrm{\Theta }\end{array}$$

where $`f_{w_u}[(p_1,\mathrm{},p_k)]=p_1\mathrm{}p_ks_k\mathrm{}s_1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$. Now $`h_{\overline{w}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}})=f_{w_u}(_{w_u})=P_1\mathrm{}P_ks_k\mathrm{}s_1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is compact and, as $`P_jU_j`$, contains $`U_1\mathrm{}U_ks_k\mathrm{}s_1P_\mathrm{\Theta }=N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$. It follows that $`h_{\overline{w}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}})`$ contains also the closure of $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

We shall show next that we can write $`P_j=U_jB_js_jB_j`$ (disjoint union) where $`U_jB_j`$ is an open dense submanifold and $`s_jB_j`$ is a closed lower dimensional submanifold. For this purpose set $`U_j=\theta (U_j)`$ and note that the $`G`$-centralizer $`G_j`$ of $`\mathrm{ker}\lambda _j`$ is a reductive Lie group, $`\mathrm{ker}\lambda _j`$ being a $`\theta `$-stable Abelian subalgebra of $`𝔤`$. By the version of Theorem A.1 for reductive groups we can write $`G_j=U_js_jMAU_jU_jMAU_j=U_js_jMAU_jMAU_j`$, since $`M`$ and $`A`$ normalize $`U_j`$. Now multiply through by $`s_j`$; we have $`s_jU_js_j=U_j`$ and so it follows that $`G_j=U_jMAU_js_jMAU_j`$. As we know, $`K_jG_j`$ and $`K_j`$ acts transitively on $`P_j/B_j`$ (with isotropy $`M`$). A fortiori, $`G_j`$ acts transitively on $`P_j/B_j`$. Hence, $`P_j=G_jB_j=U_jB_js_jB_j`$ as claimed.

Owing to the above decomposition of $`P_j`$, by means of a straightforward induction argument one can easily establish that:

* Any element in $`_{w_u}`$ can be represented by an element $`(v_1,\mathrm{},v_k)P_1\times \mathrm{}\times P_k`$ where $`v_iU_i\{s_i\}`$.
* The image of $`U_1\times \mathrm{}\times U_k`$ in $`_{w_u}`$ is open and dense.

Since $`f_{w_u}`$ is a diffeomorphism from $`[U_1\times \mathrm{}\times U_k]`$ onto the Bruhat cell $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$, it finally follows from (i) and (ii) that $`h_{\overline{w}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\overline{w}})`$ equals the closure of $`N^+w_u^1P_\mathrm{\Theta }`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Instituto de Matemática e Estatística
Universidade de São Paulo
Rua do Matão, 1010
São Paulo, SP 05508-900
Brazil
E-mail: gorodski@ime.usp.br

Mathematisches Institut
Universität zu Köln
Weyertal 86-90
50931 Köln
Germany
E-mail: gthorber@mi.uni-koeln.de